1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \input epsf

3: 

4: %\def\qqbar{\mbox{${\rm q\bar{q}}$}}

5: \def\Z{\mbox{$\hbox{Z}$}}

6: \def\W{\mbox{$\hbox{W}$}}

7: \def\R{\mbox{$\hbox{R}$}}

8: 

9: \newcommand{\gevc}{\ensuremath{{\rm GeV}\!/c}}

10: \newcommand{\gevcc}{\ensuremath{{\rm GeV}\!/c^2}}

11: \newcommand{\mevcc}{\ensuremath{{\rm MeV}\!/c^2}}

12: \newcommand{\epem}{\ensuremath{{{\rm e}^+{\rm e}^-}}}

13: \newcommand{\epemto}{\ensuremath{{{\rm e}^+{\rm e}^- \to}}}

14: \newcommand{\invpb}{\ensuremath{{\rm pb^{-1}}}}

15: \newcommand{\st}{\ensuremath{{\tilde{\rm t}}}}

16: \newcommand{\sbt}{\ensuremath{{\tilde{\rm b}}}}

17: \newcommand{\sq}{\ensuremath{{\tilde{\rm q}}}}

18: \newcommand{\glu}{\ensuremath{{\tilde{\rm g}}}}

19: \newcommand{\mst}{\ensuremath{m_\st}}

20: \newcommand{\msb}{\ensuremath{m_\sbt}}

21: \newcommand{\msq}{\ensuremath{m_\sq}}

22: \newcommand{\mglu}{\ensuremath{m_\glu}}

23: \newcommand{\mZ}{\ensuremath{m_{\rm Z}}}

24: \newcommand{\ststbar}{\ensuremath{\st\bar{\st}}}

25: \newcommand{\sbsbbar}{\ensuremath{\sbt\bar{\sbt}}}

26: \newcommand{\sqsqbar}{\ensuremath{\sq\bar{\sq}}}

27: \newcommand{\sqqbar}{\ensuremath{\sq\bar{\rm q}}}

28: \newcommand{\qqbar}{\ensuremath{{\rm q\bar{q}}}}

29: \newcommand{\bbbar}{\ensuremath{{\rm b\bar{b}}}}

30: \newcommand{\ccbar}{\ensuremath{{\rm c\bar{c}}}}

31: \newcommand{\uubar}{\ensuremath{{\rm u\bar{u}}}}

32: \newcommand{\udbar}{\ensuremath{{\rm u\bar{d}}}}

33: \newcommand{\nnbar}{\ensuremath{\nu\bar{\nu}}}

34: \newcommand{\ro}{\ensuremath{{\rm R}^0}}

35: \newcommand{\rp}{\ensuremath{{\rm R}^\pm}}

36: 

37: % Some useful journal names

38: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2} (#3) #4}

39: \def\etal{et al.}

40: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}

41: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. and Methods}

42: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. and Methods} {\bf A}}

43: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf  B}}

44: \def\NPPS{\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}

45: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf  B}}

46: \def\NP{{\em Nucl. Phys.}}

47: \def\PL{{\em Phys. Lett.}}

48: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}

49: \def\PR{\em Phys. Rev.}

50: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D}}

51: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} {\bf C}}

52: \def\EPJ{{\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C}}

53: \def\PREP{\em Phys. Rept.}

54: \def\CPC{\em Comput. Phys. Commun.}

55: \def\RNC{\em Riv. Nuovo Cim.}

56: 

57: \font\eightrm=cmr8

58: \font\ninerm=cmr9

59: 

60: \unitlength 1mm

61: \textwidth 160mm

62: \textheight=235mm

63: \topmargin=-10mm

64: \oddsidemargin=0mm

65: \evensidemargin=0mm

66: \addtolength{\parskip}{1mm}

67: \begin{document}

68: 

69: \pagenumbering{arabic}

70: \pagestyle{plain}

71: 

72: \date{}

73: \title{ \null\vspace{1cm}

74: Search for stable hadronizing squarks and gluinos\\

75: in \epem\ collisions up to $\sqrt{s} = 209$\,GeV

76: \vspace{1cm}}

77: \author{The ALEPH Collaboration$^*)$}

78: %\author{The ALEPH Collaboration\\

79: %{\footnotesize Corresponding authors: A.\,Kraan, P.\,Janot, G.\,Sguazzoni$^*)$}}

80: 

81: \maketitle

82: 

83: \begin{picture}(160,1)

84: \put(0,105){\rm ORGANISATION EUROP\'EENNE POUR LA RECHERCHE NUCL\'EAIRE (CERN)}

85: \put(30,100){\rm Laboratoire Europ\'een pour la Physique des Particules}

86: \put(125,84){\parbox[t]{45mm}{\tt CERN-EP/2003-024}}

87: \put(125,78){\parbox[t]{45mm}{\tt 12-May-2003}}

88: %\put(125,72){\parbox[t]{45mm}{\tt Final Draft}}

89: %\put(125,84){\parbox[t]{45mm}{\tt ALEPH/2003-004}}

90: %\put(125,78){\parbox[t]{45mm}{\tt CONF/2003-002}}

91: %\put(125,72){\parbox[t]{45mm}{\tt 7-Mar-2003}}

92: \end{picture}

93: 

94: \vspace{.2cm}

95: \begin{abstract}

96: \vspace{.2cm}

97: Searches for stable, hadronizing scalar quarks and gluinos are 

98: performed using the data collected with the ALEPH detector at LEP. Gluon

99: splitting into a gluino or a squark pair is searched for at 

100: centre-of-mass energies around the Z resonance, in the 

101: \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ and \qqbar\sqsqbar\ processes. Stable 

102: squark pair production, and stop pair production with 

103: subsequent decays into a stable gluino, $\st \to {\rm c} \glu$, are also 

104: directly searched for at centre-of-mass energies from 183 to 209\,GeV.

105: 

106: \ 

107: 

108: Altogether, stable hadronizing stop (sbottom) quarks are 

109: excluded up to masses of 95 (92)\,\gevcc, and stable hadronizing gluinos

110: are excluded up to 26.9\,\gevcc, at 95\% confidence level. In the framework 

111: of R-parity-conserving supersymmetric models in which the gluino and the 

112: stop quark are the two lightest supersymmetric 

113: particles, a 95\%\,C.L. lower limit of 80\,\gevcc\ is set on the stop 

114: quark mass. 

115: 

116: \end{abstract}

117: 

118: \vfill

119: \centerline{\it Submitted to The European Physical Journal C}

120: \vskip .5cm

121: \noindent

122: --------------------------------------------\hfil\break

123: {\ninerm $^*)$ See next pages for the list of authors}

124: 

125: \eject

126: 

127: 

128: %\vfill

129: %\centerline{\it Contribution to the Winter Conferences 2003}

130: %\vskip .5cm

131: %--------------------------------------------\hfil\break

132: %{\ninerm $^*)$ E-mail: Aafke.Kraan@cern.ch, Patrick.Janot@cern.ch,

133: %Giacomo.Sguazzoni@cern.ch}

134: %%

135: %\eject

136: 

137: \input authb.tex

138: 

139: \parskip 1.7mm

140: \section{Introduction}

141: 

142: A search for squark production in \epem\ collisions is relevant at 

143: LEP energies because the stop quark and, to a lesser extent, the 

144: sbottom quark, could well be the lightest supersymmetric partner of 

145: all standard model fermions~\cite{drees}. 

146: 

147: Searches for squarks have already been performed by 

148: ALEPH~\cite{squark,Barate:2000qf} 

149: in the framework of the MSSM, the minimal supersymmetric extension of the 

150: standard model~\cite{susy}, with R-parity conservation and the 

151: assumption that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is the lightest 

152: neutralino or the sneutrino. These searches yielded an absolute lower limit 

153: on the stop mass of 63\,\gevcc\ at the 95\% confidence level. 

154: 

155: This absolute lower limit does not apply if the LSP is either the gluino or 

156: the squark itself. Supersymmetric models in which the gluino is 

157: the LSP are reviewed in Ref.~\cite{gunion}. Squarks as LSP's are 

158: cosmologically disfavoured because of their nonzero electric 

159: charge~\cite{ellis}, but could be sufficiently stable to behave like the LSP 

160: in the LEP detectors. Scenarios in which the gluino is the next-to-lightest 

161: supersymmetric particle (NLSP)  and decays 

162: into a b quark and a long-lived sbottom (with mass 2 to 5\,\gevcc) have 

163: been proposed to explain excesses in \bbbar\ production at hadron 

164: colliders~\cite{berger}.

165: 

166: In this paper, it is assumed that the LSP is either the gluino or a squark, 

167: in the context of the MSSM with R-parity conservation. Under this

168: assumption, the NLSP would decay with a 100\% branching fraction into 

169: the LSP, {\it e.g.}, $\st\ \to {\rm c}\glu$, $\sbt\ \to {\rm b}\glu$ or

170: $\glu \to \sbt \bar{\rm b}$. (Stop decays into ${\rm t}\glu$ and gluino 

171: decays into $\st \bar{\rm t}$ can 

172: only happen for stop and gluino masses larger than the top quark mass, which 

173: is beyond the reach of LEP.) This coloured LSP is stable and hadronizes

174: into stable, colourless, charged and

175: neutral bound states. These bound states ({\it e.g.}, \glu g, \glu\qqbar,

176: \glu qqq, \sqqbar, \sq qq) are called R-hadrons, in which ``R''

177: refers to the fact that they carry one unit of R-parity~\cite{Farrar:1978xj}.

178: 

179: An important consequence is that the missing energy signature

180: might not automatically be present, in contrast to other searches for 

181: supersymmetric particles in which the LSP is a weakly-interacting particle,

182: {\it i.e.}, a neutralino or a sneutrino. However, when the LSP is 

183: sufficiently heavy, the maximum energy available 

184: for R-hadronic interactions turns out to be quite small. Indeed, the 

185: centre-of-mass energy $E_{\rm scat}$ of the R-hadronic interaction with 

186: ordinary matter, made of nucleons of mass $m_{\rm N}$, is very close 

187: to the mass $m_{\rm R}$ of the R-hadron, almost independently of the R-hadron 

188: energy $E_{\rm R}$: 

189: $E_{\rm scat}^2 = m_{\rm R}^2 + m_{\rm N}^2 + 2 m_{\rm N}E_{\rm R}$.

190: It leaves little energy ($E_{\rm scat}- m_{\rm R} -m_{\rm N}$) 

191: for each R-hadronic interaction in the calorimeters. For example, for 

192: $m_{\rm R} = 50\,\gevcc$ and $E_{\rm R}=90$\,GeV, this energy amounts 

193: to 800\,MeV, to be compared to $\sim 12$\,GeV for a pion of the same energy.  

194: 

195: 

196: Because of this reduced hadronic interaction, a large missing energy signal 

197: is expected from heavy neutral R-hadrons. Heavy charged R-hadrons are 

198: expected to interact mostly electromagnetically like heavy muons. Searches 

199: for missing energy and for stable heavy charged particles are therefore well 

200: suited to look for stable squarks and gluinos. 

201: 

202: In view of covering all possible configurations in the plane (\mglu, \msq) 

203: with a squark or a gluino LSP (or, equivalently, with a long-lived squark or 

204: gluino), the processes investigated in this paper are

205: \begin{enumerate}

206: \item the \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ process, with a gluon splitting into 

207: a pair of stable gluinos;

208: 

209: \item the \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ process, with a gluon splitting into 

210: a pair of stable squarks;

211: 

212: \item the pair production of stable squarks, \epemto\ \ststbar\ 

213: and \sbsbbar;

214: 

215: \item the stop pair production with decays into

216: stable gluinos, $\epemto \ \ststbar\ \to {\rm c}\glu \bar {\rm c}\glu$.

217: \end{enumerate}

218: The first two processes were searched for using the data collected by 

219: ALEPH at LEP\,1, at centre-of-mass energies around the Z resonance. 

220: These data correspond to about 4.5 million hadronic Z decays. The data 

221: collected at LEP\,2 were used to analyse the last 

222: two processes. The integrated luminosities and centre-of-mass energies 

223: of these data are indicated in Table~\ref{tab:lum}.

224: 

225: \begin{table}[htbp]

226: \caption{\footnotesize Integrated luminosities, centre-of-mass energy ranges 

227: and mean centre-of-mass energy values for the data collected during 

228: the years 1997-2000.

229: \label{tab:lum}}

230: \begin{center}

231: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

232: \hline

233: \hline

234: Year&Luminosity [\invpb]&Energy range [GeV]& 

235: $\langle\sqrt{s}\rangle$ [GeV]\\

236: \hline

237: 2000&9.4&207-209&208.0\\

238:  &122.6&206-207&206.6\\

239:  &75.3&204-206&205.2\\

240: \hline

241: 1999&42.0 & - & 201.6\\

242:  &86.2 & - & 199.5\\

243:  &79.8 & - & 195.5\\

244:  &28.9 & - & 191.6\\

245: \hline

246: 1998&173.6&-&188.6\\

247: \hline

248: 1997&56.8&-&182.7\\

249: \hline

250: \hline

251: \end{tabular}   

252: \end{center}

253: \end{table}

254: 

255: This paper is organized as follows. The detector is briefly described in 

256: Section~2. The simulation of the signal final states is discussed in 

257: detail in Section~3, and a brief account of the simulation of the 

258: standard model backgrounds is given. The 

259: \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ and 

260: \qqbar\sq\sq\ searches at LEP\,1 are presented in Sections~4 and~5, followed 

261: by the search for stable squark pair production at LEP\,2 in 

262: Section~6, and by the search for decaying stop quarks in Section~7. 

263: The result of the combination of all these analyses is given in 

264: Section~8. 

265: 

266: \section{The ALEPH detector}

267: 

268: A detailed description of the ALEPH detector and of its performance can 

269: be found in Refs.~\cite{aleph,perf}. Only a summary is given here.

270: 

271: Charged particles are detected in the central part, consisting of a 

272: precision silicon vertex detector, a cylindrical drift chamber and a 

273: large time projection chamber, which measure altogether up to 31 space 

274: points along the charged particle trajectories. The time projection 

275: chamber also provides 359 measurements (338 from wires and 21 from pads) of 

276: the specific energy loss by ionization ${\mathrm d}E/{\mathrm d}x$. 

277: A 1.5\,T axial magnetic 

278: field is provided by a superconducting solenoidal coil. Charged particle 

279: transverse momenta are reconstructed with a 1/$p_{T}$ resolution of 

280: $6\times 10^{-4}  \bigoplus 5 \times 10^{-3}/p_{T}$ ($p_T$ in \gevc).

281: In the following, {\it good tracks} are defined as charged particle

282: tracks reconstructed with at least four hits in the time projection

283: chamber, originating from within a cylinder of length 20\,cm

284: and radius 2\,cm coaxial with the beam and centred at the nominal

285: collision point, and with a polar angle with respect to the beam

286: such that $\vert \cos\theta \vert < 0.95$.

287: 

288: Electrons and photons are identified by the characteristic longitudinal

289: and transverse developments of the associated showers in the electromagnetic 

290: calorimeter, a 22 radiation length thick sandwich of lead planes and 

291: proportional wire chambers with fine read-out segmentation. The

292: relative energy resolution achieved is $0.18/\sqrt{E}$ ($E$ in GeV)

293: for isolated electrons and photons.

294: 

295: Muons are identified by their characteristic penetration pattern in the 

296: hadron calorimeter, a 1.5 m thick yoke interleaved with 23 layers of 

297: streamer tubes, together with two surrounding double-layers of muon chambers. 

298: In association with the electromagnetic calorimeter, the hadron calorimeter 

299: also provides a measurement of the hadronic energy with a relative resolution 

300: of $0.85/\sqrt{E}$ ($E$ in GeV).

301: 

302: The total visible energy, and therefore the missing energy, is measured with 

303: an energy-flow reconstruction algorithm which combines all the above 

304: measurements, supplemented by the energy detected down to 34\,mrad 

305: from the beam axis (24\,mrad at LEP\,1) by two additional 

306: electro\-magnetic calorimeters, used for the luminosity determination. 

307: The relative resolution on the total visible energy is $0.60/\sqrt{E}$ 

308: ($E$ in GeV) for high-multiplicity final states. This algorithm also provides 

309: a list of reconstructed objects, classified as charged particles, photons 

310: and neutral hadrons, called {\it energy-flow particles} in the 

311: following, and used to determine the event characteristics for the 

312: selections presented in this paper.

313: 

314: %Finally, jets originating from b quarks are identified with a lifetime 

315: %b-tagging algorithm~\cite{aleph_btag}, which takes advantage of the 

316: %three-dimensional impact parameter resolution of charged particle 

317: %tracks. For tracks with two space points in the silicon vertex 

318: %detector~\cite{aleph_vdet} {\it i.e.}, with $\vert \cos\theta \vert < 0.85$)

319: %in the second phase of LEP, this resolution can be parametrized as 

320: %$(34+70/p)(1+1.6\cos^4\theta)~\mu$m ($p$~in~\gevc). The measured track 

321: %impact parameters and their resolution are then used to determine the 

322: %probability for each charged particle track to originate from the 

323: %main interaction point. A combined probability that all tracks originate 

324: %from the primary vertex, $P_{\rm evt}$, is then determined to estimate 

325: %the b content of each event. Typically, a requirement that $P_{\rm evt}$ 

326: %be smaller than 0.10 rejects 90\% of the light quark flavours, and 

327: %retains 90\% of events with two energetic b quarks.

328: 

329: 

330: 

331: \section{Monte Carlo Simulation}

332: 

333: \subsection{Signal simulation}

334: 

335: \subsubsection{Production processes}

336: 

337: The simulation of squark pair production at LEP\,2 energies 

338: was performed with the {\tt PYTHIA} event generator~\cite{Sjostrand:2000wi}. 

339: For the simulation of gluon 

340: splitting into a gluino pair at the Z resonance, the program mentioned

341: in Ref.~\cite{gunion} was used, modified to include initial-state radiation

342: as described in Ref.~\cite{remt1} and to generate events as in 

343: Ref.~\cite{verdier}. The QCD leading-order production cross section 

344: for \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ was determined numerically with this program, 

345: and cross-checked with the analytical predictions of 

346: Refs.~\cite{jezabek,seymour}, after proper quark to gluino colour-factor 

347: modification. These analytical formulae also allowed the 

348: \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ cross

349: section to be determined, by appropriately modifying the quark to a squark 

350: phase space factor. The calculation of the resummed QCD next-to-leading-order 

351: cross section for gluon splitting into a gluino or a squark pair 

352: was performed following the prescriptions of Ref.~\cite{seymour}, with 

353: the running of the strong coupling constant corrected for the presence of 

354: a light gluino or a light squark~\cite{running}. The resulting Z partial 

355: widths are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:janot} as a function of the gluino 

356: and the squark mass.

357: 

358: \begin{figure}[htbp]

359: \begin{picture}(160,95)

360: \put(13,-5){\epsfxsize135mm\epsfbox{fig1.eps}}

361: \end{picture}

362: \caption[ ]

363: {\protect\footnotesize The $\Z \to \qqbar\glu\glu$ and 

364: $\Z \to \qqbar\sqsqbar$ partial widths as a function of the squark 

365: and the gluino mass, computed at the leading order (dashed curves) and 

366: resummed at the next-to-leading order (full curves). Also shown are 

367: the corresponding 95\%\,C.L. lower limits on the squark and gluino 

368: masses when the contribution to the Z width exceeds 3.9\,MeV (Ref.~\cite{janot}

369: and Section~4).

370: \label{fig:janot}}

371: \end{figure}

372: 

373: \subsubsection{R-hadron formation}

374: 

375: The hadronization of the (s)partons generated as described above 

376: was done with {\tt PYTHIA}. Because squark and gluino hadronization is 

377: not available by default, {\tt PYTHIA} had to be extended with a few 

378: dedicated routines~\cite{private}. The following issues are addressed 

379: therein.

380: 

381: \paragraph{Stable gluino and squark hadronization}

382: 

383: Stable gluinos and squarks are allowed to radiate gluons~\cite{Norrbin:2000uu} 

384: as any other coloured particles. The fragmentation is handled with a Peterson 

385: function~\cite{peter} with a parameter extrapolated~\cite{para}

386: from its value for b quarks: 

387: \begin{equation}

388: \frac{\epsilon_{\sq,\glu}}{\epsilon_b}=

389: \frac{m_{\rm b}^2}{m_{\sq,\glu}^2}.

390: \end{equation}

391: However, a  gluino is attached to two, rather than one, string pieces.

392: In this case, the fragmentation is applied to each of the two pieces, 

393: thereby giving a larger energy loss than for a (s)quark.

394: 

395: Both R-meson and R-baryon production are possible. All R-hadrons 

396: made of a given squark or gluino are assumed to be equal in mass, with 

397: an electric charge of $-1$,~0~or~1, determined 

398: by the quark and squark content. The relative fractions of charged and 

399: neutral R-hadrons are then obtained by simple statistics, and are typically 

400: half and half, except for gluino R-hadrons, for which the additional 

401: possibility to form a gluino-gluon bound state enhances the fraction of 

402: neutral R-hadrons by an unknown amount.

403: 

404: In the processes studied in this paper, R-hadrons are produced in 

405: pairs, so that double neutral ($\R^0\R^0$), mixed ($\R^{0}\R^{\pm}$) or 

406: double charged  ($\R^{\pm}\R^{\pm}, \R^{\pm}\R^{\mp}$) final states are 

407: possible. There is no significant correlation between the electric 

408: charges of the two gluino R-hadrons. Charge conservation is ensured by 

409: the presence of additional fragmentation particles in the final state.

410: 

411: \paragraph{Stop-hadron decay} 

412: 

413: The stop decay to c\glu\ proceeds through loop diagrams or through 

414: unlikely FCNC tree-level couplings~\cite{Hikasa:1987db}, 

415: which leads to a lifetime larger than the typical hadronization time. 

416: The stop quark therefore hadronizes into a stop R-hadron before decaying. 

417: The decay is described in the framework of the spectator 

418: model~\cite{Altarelli:1982kh}, in which the bound state quarks act as 

419: spectators to the decaying stop.

420: 

421: 

422: \subsubsection{R-hadronic interaction in the calorimeters}

423: 

424: A major issue of the simulation is the treatment of the interaction of

425: R-hadrons in the detector. Extensive studies have been done on this

426: subject~\cite{gunion,Mafi:1999dg}. The simple approach chosen here

427: to simulate R-hadronic interactions, in analogy with 

428: Ref.~\cite{Barate:2000qf}, is to treat R-hadrons as heavy pions in the 

429: {\tt GHEISHA} package (in which the hadron mass is properly

430: accounted for), with the modification that the low energy 

431: pion-nucleon resonances are removed.

432: 

433: \subsubsection{Free parameters}

434: 

435: Several unknown parameters, listed below, are needed to fully specify the 

436: R-hadron phenomenology, and may be the source of sizeable systematic 

437: uncertainties.

438: 

439: \begin{itemize}

440: 

441: \item The probability $P_{\glu{\rm g}}$ to form a gluon-gluino bound state. 

442: This quantity is essentially unknown and can vary between 0 and 1. 

443: For $P_{\glu{\rm g}} = 0$, the fractions of double neutral, mixed and

444: double charged final states are approximately 25$\%$, 50$\%$, and 25$\%$, 

445: respectively. In the %unlikely 

446: configuration in which $P_{\glu{\rm g}} = 1$ (unlikely for gluino 

447: masses in excess of 25\,\gevcc~\cite{gunion,Mafi:1999dg}), only purely 

448: neutral final states are produced. 

449: 

450: \item The effective spectator mass $M^{\rm eff}_{\rm spec}$ of squark and 

451: gluino R-hadrons. It roughly corresponds to the difference between the 

452: constituent mass and the current algebra mass. The value obtained from 

453: hadron mass spectroscopy is $M^{\rm eff}_{\rm spec}~=~0.5^{+0.5}_{-0.2}\,\gevcc$~\cite{spectator}.

454: 

455: \item The gluon constituent mass $M^{\rm c}_{\rm g}$. Its value is 

456: estimated from glueball searches~\cite{glueball} to be $M^{\rm c}_{\rm g} = 

457: 0.7_{-0.4}^{+0.3}\,\gevcc$, to be compared to the quark 

458: constituent mass, typically twice smaller.

459: 

460: \item The total cross section $\sigma_{\rm RN}$ of R-hadron-nucleon 

461: scattering. It is assumed to be equal to the cross section 

462: $\sigma_{\pi\rm N}$ of pion-nucleon scattering because

463: {\it (i)} at high momentum, the interaction cross section of any hadron 

464: on a nucleon is proportional to the sum of the individual valence parton 

465: cross sections, and {\it (ii)} heavy partons (with a mass above a couple 

466: of~\gevcc) do no interact significantly. The sum therefore runs only 

467: over the standard partons, in which each quark accounts for one unit 

468: of cross section, and each colour octet gluon for 9/4 units. For gluinos, 

469: the R-meson (\glu\qqbar) hadronic cross section is thus equal to that of 

470: a pion, the \glu{g} bound state cross section is $9/4/(1+1) = 9/8$ larger, 

471: and the R-baryon (\glu qqq) cross section is $(1+1+1)/(1+1) = 3/2$ larger. 

472: For squark-R-mesons (\sqqbar), the same argument yields a ratio of 1/2 while, 

473: for squark-R-baryons (\sq qq), the ratio is equal to unity. 

474: Altogether, it is therefore reasonable to use an average R-hadronic 

475: interaction cross section identical to that of pions, with an uncertainty 

476: of $\pm 50\%$.

477: 

478: \end{itemize}

479: 

480: \subsubsection{Simulated signal samples}

481: 

482: In order to design the signal selection criteria, hundreds of simulated 

483: signal samples of 1000 to 4000 events each were generated for each of the four

484: processes mentioned in Section~1. 

485: Gluon splitting to gluino or squark pairs was simulated for gluino/squark 

486: masses between 

487: 0 and 40\,\gevcc, with a typical step of 2\,\gevcc. For squark pair production,

488: samples with squark and gluino masses ranging from 0 to 90\,\gevcc\ 

489: with a typical 5\,\gevcc\ step were generated, with two values of the 

490: squark mixing angle: {\it (i)} $0^\circ$ and {\it (ii)} the value for which 

491: the squark coupling to the Z vanishes, {\it i.e.}, $56^\circ$ for stops and 

492: $68^\circ$ for sbottoms.

493: 

494: \subsection{Background simulation}

495: 

496: Simulated samples for all relevant standard model background processes were

497: generated both at LEP\,1 and LEP\,2 energies. Bhabha scattering was simulated 

498: with the {\tt BHWIDE} generator~\cite{Jadach:1997nk}. The {\tt KORALZ} 

499: package~\cite{Jadach:1994yv} was used for the other difermion processes. 

500: Two-photon interactions were simulated with 

501: {\tt PHOT02}~\cite{Vermaseren:1980xg}. The $\W^+\W^-$ production

502: was simulated with {\tt KORALW}~\cite{Jadach:1998gi}, the production of 

503: $\W {\rm e} \nu$ with {\tt GRC4F}~\cite{Fujimoto:1997wj} and the 

504: $\Z$ee, $\Z\Z$ and $\Z\nnbar$ final states with 

505: {\tt PYTHIA}~\cite{Sjostrand:1994yb}. 

506: 

507: %\noindent

508: %All background and signal samples 

509: %were processed through the full detector simulation.

510: 

511: 

512: 

513: \section{Search for 

514: {\mbox{\boldmath \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu}} with LEP\,1 data}

515: 

516: At LEP\,1, events resulting from gluon radiation off a \qqbar\ pair, with

517: subsequent gluon splitting into two stable gluinos, are expected to show as 

518: a pair of acoplanar jets, accompanied by two stable R-hadrons. 

519: 

520: When the gluino mass is small, the \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ production 

521: cross section is large enough to sizeably contribute to the Z hadronic 

522: width. The accurate electroweak measurements at LEP and SLC allow a 

523: model-independent upper limit of 3.9\,MeV to be set on the Z width 

524: for purely hadronic final states~\cite{janot}. All gluino masses below 

525: 6.3\,\gevcc\ are therefore excluded at the 95\% confidence level~\cite{janot},

526: as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:janot}, irrespective of the gluino decay 

527: and hadronization mechanisms. For larger masses, the final state topology, 

528: and therefore the search strategy, depends on the electric charges of 

529: the R-hadrons. 

530: 

531: \subsection{Search for two neutral R-hadrons}

532: 

533: When the two R-hadrons are neutral, the acoplanar jet pair is 

534: accompanied by missing energy arising from the specific interaction 

535: of massive neutral R-hadrons with the detector. The acoplanar jet 

536: selection developed for the H\nnbar\ search~\cite{lep1} may therefore 

537: be used. Its efficiency reaches $\sim 9\%$ for $\mglu\ = 25\,\gevcc$,

538: as is visible from the dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:efficgg}.

539: This analysis was optimized for the case of a heavy Higgs boson, leading to 

540: non-violently acoplanar hadronic jets and a moderate, but isolated, missing 

541: energy, which makes it inadequate for gluino masses above 30 and below 

542: 15\,\gevcc. 

543: \begin{figure}[htbp]

544: \begin{picture}(160,87)

545: \put(15,-5){\epsfxsize130mm\epsfbox{fig2.eps}}

546: \end{picture}

547: \caption[ ]

548: {\protect\footnotesize The \qqbar\glu\glu\ selection efficiency 

549: as a function of the gluino mass, for the H\nnbar\ selection (dashed

550: curve), the additional efficiency of the large-mass selection 

551: (dot-dashed curve), the additional efficiency of the small-mass

552: selection (dotted curve), and the sum of the three (full curve). The markers 

553: with error bars indicate the efficiencies obtained with each of the 

554: simulated samples, and the curves are obtained with a polynomial fit 

555: through these points.

556: \label{fig:efficgg}}

557: \end{figure}

558: 

559: \subsubsection{Large gluino masses}

560: 

561: For gluino masses above 30\,\gevcc, the missing energy and the 

562: jet acoplanarity become so large that simpler and, in this 

563: configuration, more efficient selection criteria can be designed with the 

564: same topological variables as in the H\nnbar\ search. Such selection criteria 

565: were optimized for a search for the stop quark~\cite{dudu}, and are 

566: summarized below.

567: 

568: Only events with at least four good tracks are considered. Most of the 

569: \qqbar\ background is rejected by the requirement that the visible mass

570: be smaller than 50\%$\sqrt{s}$. Events with a small angle $\theta_{\rm T}$

571: of the thrust axis with respect to the beam ($\cos\theta_{\rm T} > 0.9$)

572: are eliminated, and so are events with energy detected within $12^\circ$

573: from the beam axis, to avoid events in which energy escapes down the beam 

574: pipe. The bulk of two-photon interactions is rejected by requiring that

575: the total momentum transverse to the beam exceed 5\%$\sqrt{s}$. 

576: 

577: \parskip 1.2mm

578: For events with at least eight  good tracks (mostly \qqbar\ events), 

579: the acollinearity and the acoplanarity angles 

580: are required to be smaller than $135^\circ$ and $150^\circ$, respectively.

581: Three-jet events with one energetic neutrino from heavy-quark semi-leptonic 

582: decays are rejected by requiring that the total momentum transverse to 

583: the beam remain smaller than 30\,\gevc. To reject three-jet events with two 

584: such neutrinos, the aplanarity ({\it i.e.}, the sum of the three 

585: jet-jet angles when the event is forced to form three jets) has to be less 

586: than $350^\circ$. 

587: 

588: In events with less than eight good tracks, the thrust axis angle with 

589: respect to the beam axis has to be larger than $45^\circ$. For 

590: monojet events, {\it i.e.}, events in which one hemisphere (with respect

591: to a plane perpendicular to the thrust axis) is empty, it is 

592: further required that the visible mass be in excess of 5\,\gevcc\ and 

593: the thrust smaller than 0.95. These cuts eliminate the 

594: two-photon interactions and the $\epemto\ \tau^+\tau^-$ background.

595: For non-monojet events, each hemisphere must contain at least two good 

596: tracks and the acoplanarity angle has to be less than $150^\circ$, which 

597: rejects the remaining $\tau^+\tau^-$ background. 

598: 

599: The additional efficiency brought by this large-mass selection 

600: exceeds 10\% for \mglu\ above 30\,\gevcc, as can be seen from the 

601: dot-dashed curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:efficgg}.

602: 

603: \subsubsection{Small gluino masses}

604: 

605: For gluino masses below 15\,\gevcc, the R-hadrons tend to interact more

606: in the calorimeters, and a third jet, mostly formed with neutral hadronic

607: energy, develops around the still large missing energy. Requirements like

608: missing energy isolation or substantial aplanarity therefore become

609: inefficient, and must be replaced by more selective criteria aimed at 

610: this specific three-jet topology.

611: 

612: Only hadronic events (more than five good tracks carrying more than 10\% of 

613: the centre-of-mass energy) with a visible mass smaller than 65\,\gevcc\ are 

614: considered here. As in the H\nnbar\ selection, the acollinearity and the 

615: acoplanarity angles are required to be less than $165^\circ$ and $175^\circ$, 

616: respectively. Similarly, events with less than 75\% of the visible energy 

617: above $30^\circ$ from the beam axis are eliminated, and so are the events with 

618: any activity below $12^\circ$. Two-photon interactions are rejected 

619: by requiring that the missing transverse momentum exceed 

620: $5\%\sqrt{s}$ for events with a visible mass below 20\,\gevcc, and 

621: that the missing momentum point more than $35^\circ$ away from 

622: the beam axis. The latter

623: cut also rejects \qqbar\ events with an undetected, energetic, 

624: initial-state-radiation photon.

625: 

626: The remaining events are then forced to form three jets with 

627: the Durham algorithm. To ensure a three-jet topology, the 

628: values where the transitions from three to two jets ($y_{23}$) 

629: and to four jets ($y_{34}$) occur are required to exceed 0.01 and to be 

630: less than 0.04, respectively.

631: 

632: To select signal-like events, the ``R-hadron jet'' candidate, {\it i.e.},

633: the jet with the smallest amount of charged energy, is required to contain 

634: mostly neutral hadrons, by imposing that its charged energy be smaller than 

635: 20\% of its neutral hadronic energy. (The latter is computed as the energy

636: sum of all neutral energy-flow particles in the jet with a hadron calorimeter 

637: component.) Because the missing energy is also expected to point in the 

638: direction of the ``R-hadron jet'' candidate, it is finally required that the 

639: amount of charged energy in a cone of $35^\circ$ 

640: around the missing momentum direction be smaller than 3\,GeV. 

641: As can be inferred from Fig.~\ref{fig:threeg}, these last two criteria cut the 

642: expected background by a factor larger than a thousand, but only reduce 

643: the signal efficiency by a modest 30\%.

644: \null\vskip .1cm

645: \begin{figure}[htbp]

646: \begin{picture}(160,160)

647: \put(18,78){\epsfxsize125mm\epsfbox{fig3a1.eps}}

648: \put(67.55,113.75){\epsfxsize70mm\epsfbox{fig3a2.eps}}

649: \put(18,-5){\epsfxsize125mm\epsfbox{fig3b.eps}}

650: \put(85,153){Zoom between 0. and 4.}

651: \put(122,98){(a)}

652: \put(122,15){(b)}

653: \end{picture}

654: \caption[ ]

655: {\protect\footnotesize Distributions of (a) the ratio of the ``R-hadron jet'' 

656: charged energy to its neutral hadronic energy; and (b) the charged energy 

657: in a $35^\circ$ cone around the missing momentum, before the 

658: corresponding cuts are applied, for the data (triangles with error bars), 

659: the background simulation (light-shaded histogram) and the signal with 

660: $\mglu = 10\,\gevcc$ (dark-shaded histogram, arbitrary normalization).

661: \label{fig:threeg}} 

662: \end{figure}

663: %\eject

664: 

665: \parskip 2mm

666: The additional efficiency brought by this last selection is shown by the 

667: dotted curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:efficgg}. As anticipated, the

668: selection is well suited for masses around 15\,\gevcc\ and below. 

669: Although not specifically designed for large masses, the selection also 

670: contributes substantially all the way up to 40\,\gevcc. 

671: 

672: When the three searches are combined, the \qqbar\ro\ro\ selection efficiency 

673: exceeds 15\% for masses between 10 and 35\,\gevcc, and culminates at about 

674: 35\% for $\mglu\ = 27\,\gevcc$. It decreases fast for small gluino masses 

675: but it does not completely vanish, even for massless gluinos. Indeed, 

676: when two energetic light neutral R-hadrons are produced, they are 

677: expected to be detected as normal neutral hadrons in the hadron calorimeter. 

678: Due to calorimeter resolution effects, this large neutral hadronic 

679: energy occasionally causes sizeable missing energy and acoplanarity. 

680: 

681: No events were selected in the data in either of the three selections, with 

682: an expected background of less than two events at 95\% confidence level. 

683: 

684: 

685: \subsection{Search for charged R-hadrons}

686: 

687: If the probability $P_{\glu{\rm g}}$ to form a gluon-gluino bound state

688: is not 100\%, a relevant fraction of the final states contains one 

689: or two charged R-hadrons (up to 75\% for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}=0$). 

690: These heavy stable charged particles can 

691: be identified with their isolation from the rest of the event, as well

692: as their unusual energy loss by ionization in the time projection chamber.

693: 

694: Events with at least five good tracks are considered in this search.

695: Heavy stable charged particle track candidates must be reconstructed 

696: with at least half of the 338 wires and the 21 pads of the time projection

697: chamber, must have a momentum larger than 2.5\,\gevc, and must be isolated 

698: from the other good tracks of the event by more than $18.2^\circ$. To 

699: ensure a reliable momentum determination, the track-fit-$\chi^2$ probability 

700: is required to exceed 1\%. The energy loss by ionization is then required 

701: to be at least three standard deviations away from that expected for light 

702: stable charged particles (electrons, muons, pions, kaons or protons) of the 

703: same momentum. After this preselection, 

704: a total of 364 events with at least one heavy stable charged particle track 

705: candidate is selected from the data, in agreement with the $363 \pm 16$ events 

706: expected. The distribution of $N_\sigma$, the number of standard deviations 

707: with respect to the ionization expected in the most-likely light-particle 

708: hypothesis, is displayed in 

709: Fig.~\ref{fig:dedx}a, and that of the cosine of the isolation angle 

710: in Fig.~\ref{fig:dedx}b. 

711: A reasonable agreement is observed between the

712: data and the simulation in both variables. In particular, the dE/dx

713: distribution of very ionizing particles (mostly alpha particles) is well 

714: reproduced by the simulation.

715: 

716: The distributions of $N_\sigma$ as a function of the track candidate momentum

717: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dedx}c for the data, and in Fig.~\ref{fig:dedx}d

718: for signal events with different gluino masses. 

719: Events with two heavy stable charged particle track candidates are kept as 

720: $\qqbar\rp\rp$ candidates. Events with only one such track, {\it i.e.}, 

721: $\qqbar\rp\ro$ candidates, are required to have a visible mass smaller than 

722: 75\,\gevcc, to account for the presence of a neutral R-hadron. The track

723: candidate must also satisfy one of the two following tightened identification 

724: criteria in order to reject the remaining background: 

725: \begin{enumerate}

726: \item[{\it (i)}] either the track is isolated from the other good tracks of 

727: the event by more than $25.8^\circ$ and its fit-$\chi^2$ probability is in 

728: excess of 10\%, in which case its energy loss by ionization is required to 

729: be at least four standard deviations away from that expected for light 

730: stable charged particles of the same momentum; 

731: \item[{\it (ii)}] or its momentum is larger than 5\,\gevc, in which case the

732: energy loss by ionization is required to be {\it smaller} than expected 

733: for light charged particles.

734: \end{enumerate}

735: 

736: %\null\vskip .5cm

737: \eject

738: \null\vskip -0.5cm

739: \begin{figure}[htbp]

740: \begin{picture}(160,150)

741: \put(1,75){\epsfxsize82mm\epsfbox{fig4a.eps}}

742: \put(25,141){(a)}

743: \put(104.5,141){(b)}

744: \put(25,62){(c)}

745: \put(104.5,62){(d)}

746: \put(81,75){\epsfxsize82mm\epsfbox{fig4b.eps}}

747: \put(1,-3){\epsfxsize82mm\epsfbox{fig4c.eps}}

748: \put(81,-3){\epsfxsize82mm\epsfbox{fig4d.eps}}

749: \end{picture}

750: \caption[ ]

751: {\protect\footnotesize Distributions of (a) $\vert N_\sigma \vert$, the 

752: number of standard deviations with respect to the expected dE/dx for the 

753: most-likely light-particle hypothesis; and (b) the cosine of the isolation 

754: angle, for the heavy-stable-charged-particle track candidates after the 

755: preselection, in the data (triangles with error bars) and the background 

756: simulation (histogram).

757: Distributions of $N_\sigma$ as a function of the charged particle 

758: momentum (c) in the data and (d) in the signal simulation with 

759: $\mglu = 4$, 10 and 25\,\gevcc.

760: \label{fig:dedx}} 

761: \end{figure}

762: 

763: \parskip 1mm

764: \subsection{Combined selection efficiency}

765: 

766: The efficiencies of the combination of all (charged and neutral) R-hadron 

767: selections, weighted by the expected production fractions, are displayed in 

768: Fig.~\ref{fig:efficqq} as a function of the gluino mass for 

769: $P_{\glu{\rm g}} = 0\%$, in each of the three different final states, 

770: \qqbar\ro\ro, \qqbar\rp\ro\ and \qqbar\rp\rp. 

771: The total efficiency is maximal for gluino masses

772: in the vicinity of 27\,\gevcc, where it exceeds 50\% (to be compared

773: to 35\% when $P_{\glu{\rm g}} = 100\%$).

774: \begin{figure}[htbp]

775: \begin{picture}(160,90)

776: \put(15,-4){\epsfxsize130mm\epsfbox{fig5.eps}}

777: \end{picture}

778: \caption[ ]

779: {\protect\footnotesize The \qqbar\glu\glu\ selection efficiency 

780: as a function of the gluino mass, when $P_{\glu{\rm g}} = 0\%$, 

781: for the \qqbar\ro\ro\ final state (dashed curve), the \qqbar\rp\ro\ 

782: final state (dot-dashed curve), the \qqbar\rp\rp\ final state (dotted curve), 

783: and the sum of the three (full curve). The markers with error bars indicate 

784: the efficiencies obtained with each of the simulated samples, and the curves 

785: are obtained with a polynomial fit through these points.

786: \label{fig:efficqq}}

787: \end{figure}

788: No events were selected in the data by the charged hadron selection, with 

789: 0.7 events expected from standard model backgrounds, mostly from 

790: \epemto\ \qqbar.

791: 

792: \subsection{Systematic uncertainties}

793: 

794: Potentially large systematic uncertainties may arise from several 

795: sources and are listed below. Their relative effects on the number of signal 

796: events expected are given here for a gluino mass of 27\,\gevcc, but are 

797: similar for all masses.

798: \begin{itemize}

799: \item The hadronization is simulated with parton shower evolution, but the

800: parton shower parameters are mostly unknown in the presence of gluinos. 

801: A variation of these parameters by $\pm 100\%$ yields a $\pm 3\%$

802: variation of the selection efficiency.

803: \item The R-hadronic interaction cross section uncertainty of $\pm 50\%$

804: changes the selection efficiency by $\pm 9\%$ for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}=1$ and

805: by $\pm 3\%$ for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}=0$.

806: \item The gluon constituent mass uncertainty yields an efficiency 

807: variation of $\pm 2\%$ for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}=1$. The other gluino 

808: hadronization parameters of Section~3 have no sizeable effects.

809: \item The uncertainty on $\alpha_S(\mZ) = 0.1183 \pm 0.0020$ turns into 

810: a variation of $\pm 4\%$ of the production cross section.

811: \item The QCD next-to-leading-order corrections to the cross section 

812: are at the percent level for gluino masses around 25\,\gevcc, and are 

813: included in the present estimate. The next-order

814: corrections are not expected to have any visible effect.

815: \end{itemize}

816: The above uncertainties were taken into account according to 

817: Ref.~\cite{cousins}. 

818: 

819: \subsection{Gluino mass limit}

820: 

821: The number of 

822: \qqbar\glu\glu\ events expected in the LEP\,1 data is displayed in 

823: Fig.~\ref{fig:expect} as a function of the gluino mass, for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}$ 

824: varying between 0 and 1. 

825: \begin{figure}[htbp]

826: \begin{picture}(160,87)

827: \put(15,-5){\epsfxsize130mm\epsfbox{fig6.eps}}

828: \end{picture}

829: \caption[ ]

830: {\protect\footnotesize The number of \qqbar\glu\glu\ events expected

831: to be selected in the LEP\,1 data by the neutral and charged R-hadron 

832: searches,  as a function of the gluino mass, for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}$ 

833: varying between 0 and 1 (shaded area). The markers with error bars 

834: (triangles for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}=1$, stars for $P_{\glu{\rm g}}=0$) show the

835: individual values obtained from each of the simulated signal samples. 

836: Also shown is the region excluded by the 

837: Z lineshape measurement (hatched region), and the lower limit on the 

838: gluino-LSP mass (dot-dashed lines).

839: \label{fig:expect}} 

840: \end{figure}

841: Altogether, when combined to the analysis of Ref.~\cite{janot}, this search 

842: results in a 95\%\,C.L. absolute lower limit of 26.9\,\gevcc\ on the mass of 

843: a gluino LSP (Fig.~\ref{fig:expect}), which substantially improves the 

844: 2 to 18\,\gevcc\ exclusion of Ref.~\cite{delphi} and exceeds the expectation

845: from the study of Ref.~\cite{gunion}.

846: 

847: \section{Search for {\mbox{\boldmath \qqbar\sqsqbar}} with 

848: LEP\,1 data}

849: 

850: The same selections were applied with no modification to stable squark

851: production through the \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ process. 

852: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:janot}, the precise electroweak measurements allow 

853: all squark masses below 1.3\,\gevcc\ to be excluded with the method of 

854: Ref.~\cite{janot}, irrespective of the squark decay and hadronization. 

855: 

856: \begin{figure}[htbp]

857: \begin{picture}(160,90)

858: \put(15,-4){\epsfxsize130mm\epsfbox{fig7.eps}}

859: \end{picture}

860: \caption[ ]

861: {\protect\footnotesize The number of \qqbar\sqsqbar\ events expected

862: to be selected in the LEP\,1 data as a function of the squark mass 

863: (full curve). The triangles with error bars show the individual values 

864: obtained from each of the simulated

865: signal samples. Also shown is the region excluded by the Z lineshape 

866: measurement (hatched region), and the lower limit on the squark-LSP

867: mass (dot-dashed lines).

868: \label{fig:sq_exp}} 

869: \end{figure}

870: 

871: \begin{figure}[htbp]

872: \begin{picture}(160,90)

873: \put(15,-4){\epsfxsize130mm\epsfbox{fig8.eps}}

874: \end{picture}

875: \caption[ ]

876: {\protect\footnotesize The upper limit on the squark and gluino lifetimes

877: as a function of their mass (full curve). The hatched areas are excluded

878: at more than 95\% C.L. 

879: \label{fig:life}} 

880: \end{figure}

881: 

882: The number of events expected to be selected by the charged and neutral

883: R-hadron searches described above is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:sq_exp} 

884: for larger squark masses. 

885: This search results in a 95\%\,C.L. lower limit of 

886: 15.7\,\gevcc\ on the mass of a stable squark. The

887: result was translated into upper limits on lifetimes, as 

888: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:life} for squarks and gluinos.

889: Conservatively, the selection efficiency was assumed to vanish for 

890: neutral-R-hadron decays within the calorimeter volume, and for 

891: charged-R-hadron decays within the tracking volume.

892: The scenario of Ref.~\cite{berger} is excluded for sbottom lifetimes in 

893: excess of 1\,ns.

894: 

895: 

896: \parskip 1mm

897: \section{Search for stable squarks in 

898: {\mbox{\boldmath \epemto\ \sqsqbar}} at LEP\,2}

899: 

900: If the lightest supersymmetric particle is a squark or, more generally, if 

901: the lightest squark does not decay within the detector volume, its pair

902: production gives rise to a final state with two stable squark-R-hadrons, 

903: of which at least one is charged in at least 60\% of the 

904: cases~\cite{Barate:2000qf}. These charged R-hadrons can then be 

905: identified using the kinematic characteristics of squark-pair production 

906: and the large specific ionization ${\rm d}E/{\rm d}x$ measured with 

907: the time projection chamber, as described in the previous section.

908: 

909: The stable stop search of Ref.~\cite{Barate:2000qf} was extended to lower 

910: stop masses so as to provide an overlap with the search of Section~5, and 

911: to sbottom pair production. The production cross sections for stops and 

912: sbottoms, and the corresponding upper limits derived from the stable stop 

913: search, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sguazz} %as a function of the squark 

914: %mass, 

915: for a vanishing coupling to the Z.

916: 

917: \begin{figure}[htbp]

918: \begin{picture}(160,90)

919: \put(25,-30){\epsfxsize105mm\epsfbox{fig9.eps}}

920: \put(115,80){ALEPH}

921: \end{picture}

922: \caption[ ]

923: {\protect\footnotesize The production cross sections for \epemto\ \ststbar\ 

924: and \sbsbbar\ at $\sqrt{s} = 209$\,GeV, as a function of the squark mass. 

925: Also shown is the observed 95\%\,C.L. upper limit on the cross section, 

926: derived from the stable stop search of Ref.~\cite{Barate:2000qf}.

927: \label{fig:sguazz}} 

928: \end{figure}

929: 

930: This stable heavy charged particle search therefore allows stable stop 

931: masses between 5 and 95\,\gevcc\ and stable sbottom masses between 7 and 

932: 92\,\gevcc\ to be excluded at 95\%\,C.L. When combined with the result of 

933: the search for \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ with LEP\,1 data presented in the 

934: previous section, stable hadronizing squarks are excluded below 

935: 95\,\gevcc\ (up-squarks) and 92\,\gevcc\ (down-squarks).

936: 

937: \parskip 1mm

938: 

939: \section{Search for  

940: {\mbox{\boldmath $\epemto\ \ststbar \to {\rm c}\glu\bar{\rm c}\glu$}} 

941: at LEP\,2}

942: 

943: If the gluino is the LSP and the lighter stop quark the NLSP, the 

944: stop then decays into a gluino and a c or a u quark. The corresponding decay 

945: widths~\cite{Hikasa:1987db} are such that, for all practical purposes, 

946: the stop quark is essentially stable if the mass difference $\Delta M$

947: between the stop-R-hadron and the gluino-R-hadron masses is smaller than 

948: the D mass, while it decays promptly if $\Delta M > m_{\rm D}$, {\it i.e.}, 

949: when the $\st\ \to {\rm c}\glu$ decay channel is open.

950: In the former case, the stable stop search of Section~6 applies here too 

951: with no modification. In the latter case, the final state topology is a 

952: pair of acoplanar jets from the \ccbar\ hadronization accompanied by 

953: missing energy carried away by the mass of the two gluinos. 

954: The selection of this final state and its results are discussed in

955: Section~7.1. The $\Delta M \simeq m_{\rm D}$ case, in which the stop 

956: lifetime can take any value, is addressed in Section 7.2.

957: 

958: \subsection{The case of prompt stop decays}

959: 

960: \subsubsection{Event selection}

961: 

962: The discriminant 

963: variables listed below were designed for generic acoplanar jet topologies:

964: 

965: \begin{itemize}

966: 

967: \item the visible mass $M_{\rm vis}$ and energy $E_{\rm vis}$, 

968: computed with all energy-flow particles;

969: 

970: \item the energy  $E_{12}$ detected within $12^\circ$ from the beam axis;

971: 

972: \item the total energy carried by neutral hadrons, $E_{\rm NH}$;

973: 

974: \item the energy of the most energetic lepton, $E_{\ell}$; 

975: 

976: \item the energy in a $30^\circ$ half-angle cone around the most energetic 

977: lepton, $E_{\ell}^{30}$;

978: 

979: %\item the energy of the most energetic energy-flow particle, 

980: %$E_{\rm lead EF}$;

981: %

982: %\item the energy of the most energetic neutral hadron, $E_{\rm lead NH}$;

983: 

984: \item the energy computed without the identified leptons, $E_{\rm had}$;

985: 

986: \item the energy measured in a $30^\circ$ azimuthal wedge around the 

987: direction of the missing transverse momentum, $E_{\rm Wedge}$;

988: 

989: \item the energy measured beyond $30^\circ$ from the beam axis, $E_{30}$;

990: 

991: \item the momentum transverse to the beam axis, computed with all 

992: energy flow particles, $p_T$, without neutral hadrons, $p_T^{\rm exNH}$ and 

993: with good tracks only, $p_T^{\rm ch}$;

994: 

995: \item the number of good tracks, $N_{\rm ch}$;

996: 

997: \item the acoplanarity angle $\Phi_{\rm acop}$, between the directions of 

998: the momenta in the two event hemispheres, projected onto 

999: a plane perpendicular to the beam axis. Here, the hemispheres are defined 

1000: with respect to a plane perpendicular to the thrust axis;

1001: 

1002: \item the transverse acoplanarity angle, $\Phi_{\rm acopT}$, defined as above, 

1003: but the hemispheres are now defined with respect to the transverse thrust 

1004: axis, {\it i.e.}, the thrust axis of the event projected onto a plane 

1005: perpendicular to the beam axis;

1006: 

1007: \item the cosine of the polar angle of the missing momentum vector, 

1008: $\cos\theta_{\rm miss}$;

1009: 

1010: \item the cosine of the polar angle of the thrust axis, 

1011: $\cos\theta_{\rm T}$;

1012: 

1013: \item the event thrust $T$; 

1014: 

1015: \item the polar angle of the scattered electron, $\theta_{\rm scat}$, computed

1016: from the missing energy and momentum under the hypothesis that the 

1017: event originates from a $\gamma\gamma$ interaction.

1018: \end{itemize}

1019: 

1020: A preselection was used against two-photon events, characterized by their 

1021: small visible energy and their boost along the beam direction. To reject 

1022: these events, $M_{\rm vis}$ was required to exceed 15\,\gevcc, $p_T$ 

1023: to be larger than 2.5\%$\sqrt{s}$ and $N_{\rm ch}$ to be in excess of 7. 

1024: Moreover, the angles $\Phi_{\rm acop}$ and $\Phi_{\rm acopT}$ were both 

1025: required to be smaller than $178.5^\circ$,  $\cos\theta_{\rm miss}$ and 

1026: $\cos\theta_{\rm T}$ smaller than 0.85 and $E_{12}$ smaller than 

1027: 0.5\%$\sqrt{s}$. 

1028: 

1029: The distribution of the visible energy after this preselection is shown 

1030: in Fig.~\ref{fig:dist} for the data, the background expected from different 

1031: sources and the signal for two different values of $\Delta M$. 

1032: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1033: \begin{picture}(160,140)

1034: \put(3,-2){\epsfxsize155mm\epsfbox{fig10.eps}}

1035: \put(80,132){ALEPH}

1036: \end{picture}

1037: \caption[ ]

1038: {\protect\footnotesize 

1039: Distributions of the visible energy observed in the data at $\sqrt{s} = 

1040: 200$\,GeV (dots with error bars) and expected from various background sources 

1041: (shaded histograms), after the preselection cuts (a). The lower two plots 

1042: show the expected distributions for the signal, with $\Delta M = 5\,\gevcc$ 

1043: (b) and 40\,\gevcc~(c). For small $\Delta M$, the R-hadron composition is 

1044: clearly visible: double-charged-R-hadrons events have largest visible energy, 

1045: and double-neutral-R-hadrons events have smallest visible energy. For large

1046: $\Delta M$, the three peaks are merged because of the broader visible energy 

1047: distributions.

1048: \label{fig:dist}}

1049: \end{figure}

1050: For events with small $\Delta M$, only a small amount of energy is available 

1051: for the recoiling c-quark system, which results in a small particle 

1052: multiplicity and small visible energy. In addition, the R-hadrons tend to be 

1053: emitted back to back, which turns into large values for thrust, acoplanarity 

1054: and transverse acoplanarity. These characteristics are very similar to those 

1055: of two-photon events. In contrast, events with large $\Delta M$ are 

1056: characterized by large particle multiplicity and visible energy, and the 

1057: background arises mainly from  four-fermion production and \qqbar\ events. 

1058: 

1059: \parskip 2mm

1060: In fact, the distribution of most of the variables of the above list, and 

1061: thus the relevant background sources, are strongly correlated with the 

1062: value of $\Delta M$.~Three different selections were therefore developed 

1063: for small, intermediate and large $\Delta M$ values.

1064: 

1065: The selection criteria follow closely those used for the squark 

1066: searches in the case of a neutralino LSP, described in 

1067: Ref.~\cite{Barate:1997qi}. However, the values of the most relevant cuts 

1068: were re-optimized with the $\bar{N}_{95}$ method (that minimizes the 

1069: expected 95\%\,C.L upper limit on the signal cross 

1070: section~\cite{Grivaz:1992nt}) to account for the reduced missing energy, 

1071: the larger integrated luminosity and the centre-of-mass energy increase, 

1072: and to include the subtraction of the four-fermion and \qqbar\ backgrounds. 

1073: The optimized cut values for the three selections are given in 

1074: Table~\ref{tab:cuts}.

1075: 

1076: 

1077: \begin{table}[htpb]

1078: \caption{\footnotesize Selection criteria for the search for R-hadrons

1079: from stop pair production in the acoplanar jet topology, in the three

1080: $\Delta M$ regions.

1081: \label{tab:cuts}}

1082: \begin{center}

1083: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}

1084: \hline\hline

1085: Variable & Small $\Delta M$ &  Intermediate  $\Delta M$ & Large $\Delta M$ \\

1086: \hline\hline

1087: $M_{\rm vis}$             & $>15\,\gevcc$  & $>15\,\gevcc$   & $>15\,\gevcc$\\

1088: $p_T/\sqrt{s}$            & $>2.5\%$       & $>4\%$          & $>7.5\%$     \\

1089: $N_{\rm ch}$              & $>7$           & $>11$           & $>18$        \\

1090: $E_{\rm vis}/\sqrt{s}$    & $<50\%$        & $<70\%$         & $<80\%$      \\

1091: $E_{12}/\sqrt{s}$         & $<0.5\%$       & $<0.5\%$        & $<0.5\%$     \\

1092: $\cos\theta_{\rm miss}$   & $>0.8$         & $>0.8$          & $>0.8$       \\

1093: $\cos\theta_{\rm T}$      & $>0.8$         & $>0.8$          & $>0.85$      \\

1094: $\Phi_{\rm acop}$         & $<178.5^\circ$ & $<176^\circ$    & $<176^\circ$ \\

1095: $\Phi_{\rm acopT}$        & $>178.5^\circ$ & $<177^\circ$    & $<177^\circ$ \\

1096: $E_{\rm Wedge}/\sqrt{s}$  & $<12.5\%$      & $<12.5\%$       & $<12.5\%$    \\

1097: $T$                       & $<$0.96        & $<$0.94         & $<$0.92      \\

1098: $\theta_{\rm scat}$       & $>5^\circ$     & $[6^\circ,80^\circ]$ & $[15^\circ,80^\circ]$ \\

1099: $p_T/E_{\rm vis}$         & $-$            & $>12.5\%$       & $>12.5\%$    \\

1100: $p_T^{\rm ch}/\sqrt{s}$   & $>1.5\%$       & $-$             & $-$          \\

1101: $p_T^{\rm exNH}/\sqrt{s}$ & $>2\%$         & $-$             & $-$          \\

1102: $E_{\rm had}$             & $[10\,{\rm GeV},40\%\sqrt{s}]$   &  $<55\%\sqrt{s}$ & $<75\%\sqrt{s}$  \\

1103: $E_{\rm NH}/\sqrt{s}$     & $<10\%$         & $-$            & $-$       \\

1104: $E_{\rm NH}/E_{\rm vis}$  & $-$             & $<30\%$        & $-$       \\

1105: $E_{\ell}/\sqrt{s}$       & $>20\%$         & $-$            & $-$       \\

1106: $E^{30}_{\ell}/\sqrt{s}$  & $-$             & $>1\%$         & $>1\%$    \\

1107: $E_{30}/E_{\rm vis}$      & $-$             & $-$            & $>80\%$   \\

1108: \hline\hline

1109: \end{tabular}

1110: \end{center}

1111: \end{table}

1112: 

1113: \subsubsection{Selection efficiency}

1114: 

1115: The selection efficiencies were obtained from simulated samples 

1116: (Section~3.1.5) 

1117: for over 150 different values of (\mst, \mglu), and were then parametrized as 

1118: a function of \mst\ and \mglu\ with a polynomial function. For example, the 

1119: efficiency of the three selections is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:effpar} for 

1120: $\mst = 80\,\gevcc$ as a function of the gluino mass. The $\Delta M$ intervals 

1121: in which each of the three selections are to be used were again determined, as 

1122: a function of the stop mass, with the $\bar{N}_{95}$ prescription. For 

1123: example, for $\mst = 80\,\gevcc$, the switching $\Delta M$ values are 16 

1124: and 33\,\gevcc. These switching $\Delta M$ values tend to decrease with 

1125: the stop mass. 

1126: 

1127: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1128: \begin{picture}(160,90)

1129: \put(10,-4){\epsfxsize130mm\epsfbox{fig11.eps}}

1130: \end{picture}

1131: \caption[ ]

1132: {\protect\footnotesize 

1133: The three parametrized selection efficiencies for $\mst = 80\,\gevcc$ (full 

1134: curve, large $\Delta M$ selection; dashed curve, intermediate $\Delta M$ 

1135: selection; and dot-dashed curve, small $\Delta M$ selection) as a function 

1136: of $\mglu$. The dots with error bars show the actual efficiencies obtained

1137: from the individual simulated samples.

1138: \label{fig:effpar}}

1139: \end{figure}

1140: 

1141: 

1142: 

1143: \subsubsection{Systematic uncertainties}

1144: 

1145: The signal efficiencies may be affected by uncertainties in the simulation 

1146: of the stop and gluino R-hadronization physics, uncertainties related to 

1147: the detector response for R-hadrons and uncertainties due to the limited 

1148: size of the simulated samples. Systematic effects from the physics assumptions 

1149: were estimated by varying the free parameters of the simulation, as 

1150: described in Section~3. 

1151: 

1152: \begin{itemize}

1153: \item The gluino-gluon bound state probability was assumed to be 10\%. The 

1154: effects of a probability variation from 0\% to 100\% depend on the stop and 

1155: gluino masses. For light gluinos (around 30\,\gevcc), the efficiency 

1156: increases with $P_{\glu{\rm g}}$, {\it i.e.}, with the fraction of \ro\ro\ 

1157: final states, as is the case for the LEP\,1 neutral R-hadron selections

1158: (Section~4.1). Indeed, such light R-hadrons substantially interact

1159: in the calorimeters, and it is only when two neutral R-hadrons are 

1160: present in the final state that the missing energy becomes large enough 

1161: to make the present selection fully efficient. In contrast, for larger 

1162: gluino masses and small mass differences, the two gluinos are 

1163: produced approximately back to back with similar energies, and have almost 

1164: no interaction in the calorimeters. This configuration leads to a cancellation 

1165: in the measured missing transverse momentum in the \ro\ro\ final state. In 

1166: this case, the efficiency decreases when $P_{\glu{\rm g}}$ increases. A 

1167: map of the corresponding uncertainty (up to $\pm 20\%$ in extreme cases) was 

1168: built in the (\mst, \mglu) plane.

1169: 

1170: \item The R-hadronic interaction cross section uncertainty of $\pm 50\%$

1171: changes the selection efficiency by at most $\pm 5\%$ in the small 

1172: $\Delta M$ region, and by a negligible amount otherwise.

1173: 

1174: \item The effective spectator mass uncertainty yields relative efficiency 

1175: variations of $\pm 5\%$, $\pm 3\%$ and $\pm 3\%$ in the small, 

1176: intermediate and large $\Delta M$ regions, respectively. The gluon 

1177: constituent mass uncertainty has no visible effect.

1178: 

1179: \item The uncertainty on the Peterson fragmentation parameter 

1180: $\epsilon_{\rm b}$ (varied here between 0.003 and 0.010) gives rise to 

1181: an efficiency change of $\pm 8\%$, irrespective of the $\Delta M$ value.

1182: 

1183: \end{itemize}

1184: 

1185: %\begin{table}[htbp]

1186: %\caption{\footnotesize

1187: %Summary of the relative variations of the selection 

1188: %efficiencies resulting from the Physics parameter knowledge in stop 

1189: %and gluino production, fragmentation and hadronization.

1190: %\label{tab:sys}}

1191: %\begin{center}

1192: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1193: %\hline\hline

1194: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{Parameter}}} & 

1195: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{Default}}} & 

1196: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{Varied to}}} & 

1197: %\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{{\hbox{\lower 0.05cm \hbox{Relative variations}}}}

1198: %\\ \cline{4-6}

1199: %

1200: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} & &  & small $\Delta$M & mid $\Delta$M & large  $\Delta$M\\

1201: %\hline\hline

1202: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{$P_{\glu{\rm g}}$}}} 

1203: %& {\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{0.1}}}   

1204: %         & 0.  & $-6\%$ & $-7\%$ & $-8\%$   \\

1205: %&        & 1.  & $+2\%$ & $+1\%$ & $+2\%$   \\

1206: %\hline

1207: %

1208: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{$M_{\rm g}^{\rm const}$}}} & 

1209: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{0.7\,\gevcc}}} 

1210: %              & 0.3\,\gevcc   & $+2\%$   & $-1\%$  & $0\%$   \\

1211: %&             & 0.8\,\gevcc   & $+5\%$ & $-2\%$ & $+2\%$  \\

1212: %\hline%

1213: %

1214: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{$M_{\rm spec}^{\rm eff}$}}} & 

1215: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{0.5\,\gevcc}}} & 0.3\,\gevcc 

1216: %                           & $+1\%$  & $+1\%$ & $+3\%$ \\

1217: %&         &   1.0\,\gevcc    & $+12\%$ & $+6\%$ & $+5\%$ \\

1218: %\hline

1219: %

1220: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{$\epsilon_{\st}$}}} &  

1221: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{$-0.005$}}}  

1222: %          &  $-0.003$  & $0\%$  & $-7\%$ & $-10\%$   \\

1223: %&         &  $-0.010$  & $+6\%$   & $+9\%$ & $+5\%$    \\

1224: %\hline

1225: %

1226: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{$\sigma_{\rm RN}:\sigma_{\pi{\rm N}}$}}} & 

1227: %{\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{1}}} 

1228: %    & 0.5 & $-5\%$    & $+3\%$  & $+1\%$  \\

1229: %&   & 1.5  & $+5\%$ & $0\%$ & $-2\%$  \\

1230: %\hline

1231: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1232: %$\theta_{mix}$ & $56^\circ$  & $0^\circ$   &  $-2\%$  & $-6\%$ & $+5\%$    \\

1233: %\hline

1234: %\hline 

1235: %\end{tabular}

1236: %\end{center}

1237: %\end{table}

1238: 

1239: 

1240: The limited statistics of the 150 signal samples (1000 events each) and 

1241: the parametrization of the efficiencies with a polynomial are responsible

1242: for 3\% uncertainty. Beam-related backgrounds, 

1243: which affect the determination of $E_{12}$, were not simulated. 

1244: The effect on the 

1245: selection efficiency, determined from events collected at random beam 

1246: crossings, is a relative decrease of 5\%.   

1247: 

1248: Finally, uncertainties in the simulation of the background were assessed by

1249: comparing the effect of each cut separately on the data and on the simulated 

1250: backgrounds after the preselection. The relative differences, although 

1251: compatible with the uncertainty due to limited statistics, were 

1252: conservatively added in quadrature, for a total possible deviation of 9\%. 

1253: %This possible effect was accounted for by reducing the amount of subtracted 

1254: %background, {\it i.e.}, the four-fermion and the \qqbar\ background, by 9\%.

1255: 

1256: To derive the final result, all the above uncertainties were taken into

1257: account following the method of Ref.~\cite{cousins}.

1258: 

1259: \subsubsection{Results and interpretation}

1260: 

1261: The numbers of candidate events observed in the data between 1997 and 2000 

1262: are displayed in Table~\ref{tab:res}. These numbers are in agreement 

1263: with the numbers of events expected from standard model background sources.

1264: \begin{table}[htbp]

1265: \caption{\footnotesize

1266: The numbers of candidate events observed in the data between 1997 and

1267: 2000, and the numbers of events expected from standard model background 

1268: sources, for the small, intermediate and large $\Delta M$ selections.

1269: \label{tab:res}}

1270: \begin{center}

1271: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1272: \hline

1273: \hline

1274: {\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{Year}}} & 

1275: {\hbox{\lower 0.3cm \hbox{Luminosity [pb$^{-1}$]}}} &

1276: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\hbox{\lower 0.1cm \hbox{Small $\Delta M$}}}} &

1277: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\hbox{\lower 0.1cm \hbox{Int. $\Delta M$}}}} &

1278: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{{\hbox{\lower 0.1cm \hbox{Large $\Delta M$}}}} \\

1279: \cline{3-8}

1280: \rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1281:       &       & Obs. & Exp. & Obs. & Exp. & Obs & Exp. \\ \hline\hline

1282: \rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1283: 2000  & 207.3 &  6   &  8.1  & 11   & 14.7 & 17  & 17.0 \\ \hline

1284: \rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1285: 1999  & 236.9 &  9   &  8.7  & 15   & 16.7 & 19  & 19.5 \\ \hline

1286: \rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1287: 1998  & 173.6 &  7   &  6.9  & 11   & 13.4 & 17  & 15.2 \\ \hline

1288: \rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1289: 1997  &  56.8 &  1   &  2.2  &  5   &  4.4 &  4  &  5.0 \\ \hline\hline

1290: \rule{0pt}{14 pt} 

1291: Total & 674.6 & 23   & 25.9  & 42   & 49.2 & 57  & 56.7 \\ \hline\hline

1292: \end{tabular}   

1293: \end{center}

1294: \end{table}

1295: 

1296: %\begin{table}[htbp]

1297: %\caption{\footnotesize

1298: %The background composition of the small, intermediate and large $\Delta M$ 

1299: %selections. 

1300: %\label{tab:bgcomp}}

1301: %\begin{center}

1302: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1303: %\hline\hline

1304: % Source      & Small $\Delta M$ & Int. $\Delta M$ & Large $\Delta M$ \\

1305: %\hline

1306: %\hline

1307: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} Two-photon  & 23\%  &  7\%   &   4\%  \\ \hline

1308: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} \qqbar      &  9\%  &  3\%   &   1\%  \\ \hline

1309: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} We$\nu$     & 48\%  & 21\%   &  11\%  \\ \hline

1310: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} WW          & 10\%  & 49\%   &  68\%  \\ \hline

1311: %\rule{0pt}{14 pt} ZZ          & 10\%  & 20\%   &  16\%  \\ \hline

1312: %\hline

1313: %\end{tabular}   

1314: %\end{center}

1315: %\end{table}

1316: 

1317: 

1318: In the framework of the MSSM with R-parity conservation,  

1319: the outcome of this search can be translated into

1320: constraints in the (\mst,\mglu) plane when the stop quark 

1321: decays with a 100\% branching fraction into a stable hadronizing 

1322: gluino and a c quark. Regions excluded by this search at 

1323: 95\%\,C.L. are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:excl}, for $\theta_{\rm mix} = 

1324: 56^\circ$ and $0^\circ$, corresponding to vanishing and maximal 

1325: stop coupling to the Z, respectively.

1326: 

1327: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1328: \begin{picture}(160,125)

1329: \put(5,-4){\epsfxsize150mm\epsfbox{fig12.eps}}

1330: \end{picture}

1331: \caption[ ]

1332: {\protect\footnotesize The 95\%\,C.L. excluded regions in the plane 

1333: (\mst, \mglu) from the acoplanar jet search at LEP\,2, for maximal 

1334: (horizontal hatching) and minimal (cross hatching) stop 

1335: coupling to the Z. The shaded area corresponds to a stable stop and 

1336: is not accessible to this search.

1337: \label{fig:excl}}

1338: \end{figure}

1339: 

1340: \subsection{The {\mbox{\boldmath $\Delta M \simeq m_{\rm D}$}} case} 

1341: 

1342: The analyses of Sections~6 and~7.1 do not suffice to efficiently cover the 

1343: $\Delta M = m_{\rm D}$ line: along this line, the phase space 

1344: for the $\st \to {\rm c}\glu$ decay is so small that the stop lifetime may 

1345: take any intermediate value, for which none of the previous selections is 

1346: fully effective.

1347: 

1348: Stop pair production followed by decays into c\glu\ was simulated

1349: for $\Delta M = m_{\rm D}$ as explained in Section~3, with stop proper 

1350: decay lengths varying from 1\,mm to 1\,m. The acoplanar jet search 

1351: of Section~7.1, the search for heavy stable charged particles of Section~6 

1352: and the search for kinks and secondary vertices of Ref.~\cite{Barate:2000qf}

1353: were applied in turn to these simulated samples.

1354: Altogether, they allow all stop masses between 14 and 80\,\gevcc\ 

1355: to be excluded for this very small mass difference, irrespective

1356: of the stop lifetime, for a vanishing stop coupling to the Z.

1357: 

1358: \section{Combined results}

1359: 

1360: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:excl}, no absolute stop mass limit

1361: can be extracted from the results of the acoplanar jet plus missing

1362: energy search alone. An absolute mass limit is obtained by combining

1363: all searches presented in this paper in the following way.

1364: \begin{itemize}

1365: 

1366: \item Small gluino masses do not give rise to large enough missing energy 

1367: to be addressed by the $\st \to {\rm c}\glu$ search. However, 

1368: the searches for \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ at LEP\,1 presented in 

1369: Ref.~\cite{janot} and in Section~4 allow all gluino masses below 

1370: 26.9\,\gevcc\ to be excluded when the gluino is the LSP ($\mglu < \mst$).

1371: 

1372: \item Stable stops, {\it i.e.}, with $\Delta M < m_{\rm D}$, are excluded

1373: up to 15.7\,\gevcc\ with the search for \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ at LEP\,1 

1374: presented in Section~5, and up to 95\,\gevcc\ by the search for heavy 

1375: stable charged particles presented in Section~6.

1376: 

1377: \item Promptly decaying heavy stops, {\it i.e.}, with $\Delta M > 

1378: m_{\rm D}$, are excluded up to masses of 85\,\gevcc\ by the acoplanar jet 

1379: search of Section~7.1.

1380: 

1381: \item For $\Delta M \simeq m_{\rm D}$, masses up to 80\,\gevcc\ are excluded

1382: independently of the stop lifetime, as mentioned in Section~7.2.

1383: \end{itemize}

1384: 

1385: The result of the combination is displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:comb}.

1386: All stop masses below 80\,\gevcc\ are excluded at 95\%\,C.L. when 

1387: either the stop or the gluino is the lightest supersymmetric 

1388: particle. When combined with the result of Ref.~\cite{squark},

1389: all stop masses below 63\,\gevcc\ are excluded irrespective of the 

1390: nature of the LSP. 

1391: 

1392: Sbottom quarks were also searched for, but the acoplanar jet search 

1393: proved not to be efficient enough to cope with {\it (i)} the four times 

1394: smaller cross section of $\epemto \sbsbbar\ \to \bbbar\glu\glu$, even 

1395: when b-tagging is applied to reduce the background; and {\it (ii)} the 

1396: very small mass differences (down to $m_{\rm K}$) for which the sbottom may 

1397: decay promptly to s\glu. However, the Z lineshape limits and the excluded

1398: areas (1), (2) and (3) of Fig.~\ref{fig:comb} apply as well for all 

1399: squark species, and in particular for the sbottom.  All sbottom masses below 

1400: 27.4\,\gevcc\ are therefore excluded at 95\%\,C.L. when either the 

1401: sbottom or the gluino is the lightest supersymmetric particle.

1402: 

1403: \eject\null

1404: \begin{figure}[ht]

1405: \begin{picture}(160,145)

1406: \put(0,-4){\epsfxsize170mm\epsfbox{fig13.eps}}

1407: \end{picture}

1408: \caption[ ]

1409: {\protect\footnotesize The 95\%\,C.L. excluded regions in the plane 

1410: (\mst, \mglu) from the combination of all searches presented in this

1411: paper. The black area at very small gluino and squark masses is 

1412: excluded by the precise measurement of the Z lineshape; Regions (1), (2) and 

1413: (3) are excluded by the search for \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu\ at LEP\,1, for

1414: \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ at LEP\,1, and for heavy stable charged particles 

1415: from \sqsqbar\ production at LEP\,2, respectively. The hatched areas are 

1416: excluded by the acoplanar jet with missing energy search at LEP\,2. 

1417: \label{fig:comb}}

1418: \end{figure}

1419: 

1420: \section{Conclusions}

1421: 

1422: Searches for stable, hadronizing squarks and gluinos have been performed 

1423: with the data collected at centre-of-mass energies from 88 to 209\,GeV

1424: by the ALEPH detector at LEP. No evidence for such a signal was observed

1425: in any of the production processes studied: \epemto\ \qqbar\glu\glu, 

1426: \epemto\ \qqbar\sqsqbar\ and \epemto\ \sqsqbar.  The following absolute 

1427: mass limits were obtained at the 95\% confidence level in the framework 

1428: of the MSSM with R-parity conservation:

1429: %\eject

1430: \begin{itemize}

1431: \item a gluino LSP is excluded for $\mglu < 26.9\,\gevcc$;

1432: \item a down-type squark LSP is excluded for $\msq < 92\,\gevcc$;

1433: \item an up-type squark LSP is excluded for $\msq < 95\,\gevcc$;

1434: \item a sbottom quark NSLP is excluded up to masses of 27.4\,\gevcc\ 

1435: if the LSP is a gluino;

1436: \item a stop quark NSLP is excluded up to masses of 80\,\gevcc\ 

1437: if the LSP is a gluino, and up to masses of 63\,\gevcc\ irrespective

1438: of the nature of the LSP.

1439: \end{itemize}

1440: 

1441: 

1442: %\eject

1443: The above squark and gluino LSP limits also apply in any supersymmetric

1444: model in which squarks or gluinos are long-lived. In particular, the 

1445: scenario of Ref.~\cite{berger} with a gluino of 12~to~16\,\gevcc\ 

1446: decaying into a b quark and a long-lived sbottom with a mass of 

1447: 2 to 5\,\gevcc\ is no longer viable. 

1448: 

1449: The results presented in this paper improve on related existing 

1450: results~\cite{delphi,delphi2}. In particular, absolute lower limits on 

1451: the masses of stable squarks, stable gluinos, and stop quarks decaying 

1452: into stable gluinos, have been reported for the first time.

1453: 

1454: 

1455: \section{Acknowledgements}

1456: We thank our colleagues from the CERN accelerator divisions for the 

1457: successful running of LEP at high energy. We are indebted to the 

1458: engineers and technicians in all our institutions for their contribution 

1459: to the good performance of ALEPH. We would like to thank 

1460: T.\,Sj\"ostrand for his help with the signal simulation. Those 

1461: of us from non-member states thank CERN for its hospitality.

1462: 

1463: 

1464: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1465: %

1466: \bibitem{drees} 

1467: J.\,Ellis and S.\,Rudaz, \Journal{\PLB}{128}{1983}{248};\\

1468: M.\,Drees and K.I.\,Hikasa, \Journal{\PLB}{252}{1990}{127}.

1469: %

1470: \bibitem{squark} The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Search for scalar quarks in $e^+e^-$

1471: collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ up to 209\,GeV''}, \Journal{\PLB}{537}{2002}{5}.

1472: %

1473: \bibitem{Barate:2000qf}  The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Search for a scalar top 

1474: almost degenerate with the lightest neutralino in $e^+e^-$ collisions at 

1475: $\sqrt{s}$ up to 202\,GeV''}, \Journal{\PLB}{488}{2000}{234}.

1476: %

1477: \bibitem{susy} H.P.\,Nilles, \Journal{\PREP}{110}{1984}{1};\\

1478:                H.E.\,Haber and G.L.\,Kane, \Journal{\PREP}{117}{1985}{75};\\

1479:                R.\,Barbieri, \Journal{\RNC}{11N4}{1988}{1}.

1480: %

1481: \bibitem{gunion} H.\,Baer, K.\,Cheung and J.F.\,Gunion, 

1482: \Journal{\PRD}{59}{1999}{075002}, and references therein.

1483: %

1484: \bibitem{ellis} J.\,Ellis \etal, \Journal{\NPB}{238}{1984}{453}.

1485: %

1486: \bibitem{berger} E.L.\,Berger \etal, \Journal{\PRL}{86}{2001}{4231}.

1487: %

1488: \bibitem{Farrar:1978xj} G.R.\,Farrar and P.\,Fayet, 

1489: \Journal{\PLB}{76}{1978}{575}.

1490: %

1491: \bibitem{aleph} The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``ALEPH: a detector for 

1492: electron-positron annihilations at LEP''}, \Journal{\NIMA}{294}{1990}{121}.

1493: %

1494: \bibitem{perf} The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Performance of the ALEPH detector 

1495: at LEP''}, \Journal{\NIMA}{360}{1995}{481}.

1496: %

1497: %\bibitem{aleph_btag} 

1498: %The ALEPH Coll., 

1499: %{\em A precise measurement of $\Gamma(Z \to b\bar{b})/\Gamma(Z \to$

1500: %hadrons)},

1501: %\Journal{\PLB}{313}{1993}{535}.

1502: %

1503: %\bibitem{aleph_vdet} D.\,Creanza \etal, {\em ``Construction and performance 

1504: %of the new ALEPH vertex detector''}, \Journal{\NPPS}{61B}{1998}{201}.

1505: %

1506: \bibitem{Sjostrand:2000wi} T.\,Sj{\"o}strand et al, 

1507: {\em ``High-energy-physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1''},

1508: \Journal{\CPC}{135}{2001}{238}.

1509: %

1510: \bibitem{remt1}

1511: F.A.\,Berends and R.\,Kleiss, \Journal{\NPB}{260}{1985}{32}.

1512: %

1513: \bibitem{verdier}

1514: P.\,Verdier, {\em ``Recherche des squarks et des gluinos dans l'exp\'erience 

1515: DELPHI au LEP''}, PhD Thesis, unpublished.

1516: %

1517: \bibitem{jezabek} A.H.\,Hoang, M.\,Je{\.z}abek, J.H.\,K{\"u}hn and 

1518: T.\.Teubner, \Journal{\PLB}{338}{1994}{330}.

1519: %

1520: \bibitem{seymour} M.H.\,Seymour, \Journal{\NPB}{436}{1995}{163}.

1521: %

1522: \bibitem{running} See for instance:

1523: C.-W.\,Chiang, Z.\,Luo and J.L.\,Rosner, {\em ``Light

1524: gluino and the running of $\alpha_S$''}, hep-ph/0207235.

1525: %

1526: \bibitem{janot} P.\,Janot, {\em ``The light gluino mass window revisited''},

1527: CERN-EP/2003-004, to be published in {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B}.

1528: %

1529: \bibitem{private} T.\,Sj{\"o}strand, private communication;\\

1530:  See also {\tt http://www.thep.lu.se/\~{}torbjorn/Pythia.html}.

1531: %

1532: \bibitem{Norrbin:2000uu} E.\,Norrbin and T.\,Sj$\textrm{\"o}$strand, 

1533: \Journal{\NPB}{603}{2001}{297}.

1534: %

1535: \bibitem{peter}

1536: C.\,Peterson, D.\,Schlatter, I.\,Schmitt and P.M.\,Zerwas, 

1537: \Journal{\PRD}{27}{1983}{105}.

1538: 

1539: \bibitem{para} I.G.\,Knowles and T.\,Sj$\textrm{\"o}$strand, 

1540: {\em ``QCD event generators''}, in

1541: Workshop on Physics at LEP\,2, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2-3 Feb 1995.

1542: %

1543: \bibitem{Hikasa:1987db} K.\,Hikasa and M.\,Kobayashi, 

1544: \Journal{\PRD}{36}{1987}{724}.

1545: %

1546: \bibitem{Altarelli:1982kh} G.\,Altarelli \etal, \Journal{\NPB}{208}{1982}{365}.

1547: %

1548: \bibitem{Mafi:1999dg} A.\,Mafi and S.\,Raby, 

1549: \Journal{\PRD}{62}{2000}{035003}.

1550: %

1551: \bibitem{spectator} G.\,Altarelli, private communication.

1552: %

1553: \bibitem{glueball} M.R.\,Pennington, {\em ``Glueballs: The naked truth''},

1554: hep-ph/9811276.

1555: %

1556: \bibitem{Jadach:1997nk}  S.\,Jadach, W.\,Placzek and B.F.L.\,Ward,

1557: \Journal{\PLB}{390}{1997}{298}.

1558: %

1559: \bibitem{Jadach:1994yv}  S.\,Jadach, B.F.L.\,Ward and Z.\,Was,

1560: \Journal{\CPC}{79}{1994}{503}.

1561: %

1562: \bibitem{Vermaseren:1980xg}  J.A.M.\,Vermaseren,{\em``Two gamma physics 

1563: versus one gamma physics and whatever lies in between''}, Presented at 

1564: Gamma-Gamma Workshop, Amiens, France, Apr 8-12, 1980;\\

1565: The ALEPH Coll., {\em``An Experimental study of $\gamma\gamma\to$ hadrons 

1566: at LEP''}, \Journal{\PLB}{313}{1993}{509}.

1567: %

1568: \bibitem{Jadach:1998gi}  S.\,Jadach \etal, \Journal{\CPC}{119}{1999}{272}. 

1569: %

1570: \bibitem{Fujimoto:1997wj} J.\,Fujimoto, \Journal{\CPC}{100}{1997}{128}.

1571: %

1572: \bibitem{Sjostrand:1994yb}  T.\,Sj\"ostrand, \Journal{\CPC}{82}{1994}{74}.

1573: %

1574: \bibitem{lep1} The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Mass limit for the standard 

1575: model Higgs boson with the full LEP\,1 ALEPH data sample''}, 

1576: \Journal{\PLB}{384}{1996}{427}.

1577: %

1578: \bibitem{dudu} The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Search for scalar top quarks in 

1579: $e^+e^-$ collisions at LEP\,1 energies''}, Contribution EPS-0416 to the 

1580: international Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics, Brussels, 

1581: Belgium, July 27-August 2, 1995.

1582: %

1583: \bibitem{cousins} R.D.\,Cousins and W.L\,Highland, 

1584: \Journal{\NIMA}{320}{1992}{331.}

1585: %

1586: \bibitem{delphi} The DELPHI Coll., {\em ``Search for an LSP gluino at LEP

1587: with the DELPHI detector''}, \Journal{\EPJ}{26}{2003}{505}.

1588: %

1589: \bibitem{Barate:1997qi}  The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Searches for scalar top 

1590: and scalar bottom quarks at LEP\,2''}, \Journal{\PLB}{413}{1997}{431}.

1591: %

1592: \bibitem{Grivaz:1992nt} The ALEPH Coll., {\em ``Search for the standard 

1593: model Higgs boson''}, \Journal{\PLB}{313}{1993}{299};\\

1594: J.F.\,Grivaz and F.\,Le Diberder, {\em ``Complementary analyses and 

1595: acceptance optimization in new particle searches''}, LAL {\bf 92-37} (1992).

1596: %

1597: \bibitem{delphi2} The DELPHI Coll., {\em ``A search for heavy stable

1598: and longlived squarks and sleptons in $e^+e^-$ collisions at energies 

1599: from 130\,GeV to 183\,GeV''}, \Journal{\PLB}{444}{1998}{491}.

1600: \end{thebibliography}

1601: 

1602: \end{document}

1603: 

1604: 

1605: