1:
2: \section{Descriptions of the analyses}
3: \label{sec:analysis}
4:
5: The analyses described below can be divided into two stages. The first stage
6: was very similar for all searches and consisted of the selection of charged
7: and neutral particles followed by an event preselection. These
8: are described in sections \ref{sec:trksel} and \ref{sec:presel}.
9: In the subsequent stage, the analyses differed according to the
10: characteristics of the various signals. This is described in sections
11: \ref{sec:slepana} to \ref{sec:ananeu}.
12: In most searches several different topologies were considered, accounting
13: for the different possible final states. Particle identification and
14: reconstruction algorithms common to several searches are described
15: in section \ref{sec:id&jet}.
16: Different analysis techniques were chosen for the various searches:
17: some analyses were based on successive requirements on individual
18: event variables (``sequential cut analyses''), others used multidimensional
19: techniques based on likelihood ratios or neural networks. These techniques
20: are briefly discussed in section \ref{subsubsec:analysistech}.
21:
22:
23:
24: As discussed above, the sensitivity of the searches depends on
25: the mass difference between the produced sparticles and the LSP,
26: % (or other sparticles playing an
27: %important role in the decay chain)
28: which determines the visible energy released in the process.
29: Typically, for small \DM\ the signatures of sparticle
30: production are similar to those of two-photon interactions (\gamgam\ events).
31: For high \DM\ sparticle production events resemble four-fermion final
32: states such as \WW\ and \ZZ. For intermediate \DM\ values,
33: the background is composed of several SM processes (in particular
34: two-fermion ones).
35: The coverage of all the relevant \DM\ regions often requires the combination of different
36: searches or the optimisation of the selection criteria separately in
37: each \DM\ interval.
38: Sparticle searches for very low values of \DM\ are particularly challenging and
39: required different preselections.
40:
41:
42:
43:
44:
45:
46:
47: \subsection{Basic selections and techniques}
48: \label{sec:basic}
49:
50: \subsubsection{Particle selection}
51: \label{sec:trksel}
52:
53: The following quality requirements were applied to the charged and neutral particles
54: observed in the detector.
55:
56: Charged particles were required to have momentum $p$ above 100~MeV/$c$
57: and below $0.75\sqrt{s}$, a relative momentum error less than 100\%,
58: and to extrapolate
59: back to within 5 cm of the main vertex in the transverse ($r\phi$) plane and
60: 10 cm/$\sin \theta$ in the longitudinal ($z$) direction.
61: Similar but more stringent criteria were applied to particles
62: whose tracks extrapolated to the TPC, but which gave no signal in the TPC.
63: Whenever tracks reconstructed with TPC information were required in the
64: subsequent analyses,
65: at least five of the 16 pad rows had to contribute hits.
66:
67: In the stau analysis (see section \ref{sec:stauana}) charged particle
68: tracks were required to have TPC information, or all three of the
69: detectors
70: VD, ID and OD used in the reconstruction of the track.
71: In addition, only tracks with polar angle $\theta >$ 15\dgree\
72: were kept.
73:
74: In the nearly mass-degenerate chargino search (see section \ref{sec:chadegsel})
75: there was no lower bound on the momentum
76: for tracks at polar angle above $25^\circ$, while $p>150$~MeV/$c$ was required otherwise.
77: In addition, different impact parameter requirements were
78: applied (6 cm and 12 cm in the transverse and logitudinal directions,
79: respectively).
80:
81: Energy clusters in the calorimeters were taken as neutral particles
82: if not associated to a charged particle and if above an energy threshold
83: which was 900 MeV for deposits in the hadron calorimeter
84: and ranged from 300 to
85: 500 MeV for deposits in the electromagnetic calorimeters (depending on the
86: region of the detector).
87: Cuts removing clusters created by radioactivity in the lead of the HPC
88: or by particles from cosmic ray showers were also applied.
89: \subsubsection{General event preselection}
90: \label{sec:presel}
91:
92: In the general preselection, events were kept if there were
93: at least two charged particles, at least one of them had a
94: transverse momentum
95: above 1.5~\GeVc, and the transverse energy of the
96: event~\footnote{The transverse energy is defined as the sum of the absolute values of the
97: transverse momenta of all particles in the event: $c \sum_i \pT_i$.} exceeded 4~GeV.
98: This rejected mostly
99: two-photon interactions (for which most of the energy is deposited
100: in the forward regions of the detector),
101: zero- or one-prong final states (like \eeto~\gamgam,
102: e$\gamma \to$ e$\gamma$) and beam-related backgrounds (such as
103: beam-gas interactions).
104:
105: For chargino searches in nearly mass-degenerate scenarios a
106: %looser version of the final selection was used instead of this general preselection:
107: different preselection was used:
108: at least two charged particles were required, as well as one isolated electromagnetic
109: cluster with transverse energy above
110: a \rs-dependent threshold close to 5~GeV
111: %approximately 5~GeV (\rs\ dependent threshold)
112: and a mass recoiling against it above 90~\GeVcc.
113: Two-photon and beam-gas backgrounds were reduced by rejecting events with a large
114: fraction of the detected energy in the forward region of the
115: detector.
116:
117: \subsubsection{Particle identification and reconstruction algorithms}
118: \label{sec:id&jet}
119:
120: The following criteria for particle and event classification were common to the
121: different searches.
122:
123: Particle jets were reconstructed using three different approaches:
124:
125: \begin{itemize}
126: \item
127: The {\tt DURHAM}~\cite{durham} algorithm was used to cluster the particles into a fixed
128: number of jets: two or four.
129: \item
130: The {\tt LUCLUS}~\cite{pytjet} algorithm was applied with the critical distance set to
131: $d_{\mathrm join}=10$~\GeVc\ or $d_{\mathrm join}=2.5$~\GeVc. The final number of jets is, thus, variable
132: (and lower in the first case).
133:
134: %%% \item
135: %%% A specific algorithm optimised for the low multiplicity jets resulting from $\tau$
136: %%% decays was used for $\tilde{\tau}$ pair production searches.
137: %%% %\input{stau_jets.tex}
138: %%% This clustering method considered all possible ways to
139: %%% group the charged particles in the event into
140: %%% two groups.
141: %%% Tightly identified leptons were
142: %%% forced to form a single-particle group,
143: %%% as leptonic $\tau$-decays are always in
144: %%% the 1-prong topology.
145: %%% However, pairs of oppositely charged, well identified electrons
146: %%% close together were allowed to be grouped with other tracks,
147: %%% since they would be likely to originate from a photon
148: %%% from a $\pi^0$-decay, converted in the beam-pipe or the
149: %%% VD.
150: %%% When more than one way of obtaining two groups
151: %%% both with invariant mass below 2.0~\GeVcc\ was found,
152: %%% the grouping yielding the lowest sum of masses was retained.
153:
154: %%% Once the best grouping of the charged tracks was found,
155: %%% it was attempted to associate the neutrals in the event
156: %%% to the particle groups. Also in this step, the grouping yielding the lowest
157: %%% sum of masses was chosen,
158: %%% if more than one possibility was at hand.
159: %%% If a neutral particle could not be merged into any of
160: %%% the groups, without the invariant mass exceeding 2.0~\GeVcc,
161: %%% it was treated as an {\it isolated neutral} in the subsequent
162: %%% analysis.
163: %%% As very few hadrons are expected in
164: %%% $\tau$-decays, neutral hadronic clusters were
165: %%% never included in the clusters.
166: %%% A special procedure was performed in order to identify
167: %%% neutral clusters that were likely to be either
168: %%% bremsstrahlung photons off an electron, or
169: %%% a shower induced by an electron that was not correctly
170: %%% assigned to the track by the reconstruction program.
171: %%% This procedure uses the fact that bremsstrahlung
172: %%% photons are collinear to the track at the point
173: %%% of production. Most of the material in the
174: %%% central part of DELPHI was at a radius of around 135 cm.
175: %%% Assuming that the radiation originated at this
176: %%% radius, the impact-point on the HPC was predicted.
177: %%% Any neutral found close to this position was
178: %%% rejected. Its energy was then
179: %%% was subtracted from the momentum of the
180: %%% track, and the subsequent curvature of the track re-evaluated.
181: %%% The track-helix was extrapolated to its intersection
182: %%% with the HPC, and any neutral cluster found near to this
183: %%% point was also rejected.
184:
185: \item
186: A specific algorithm optimised for the low multiplicity jets resulting from $\tau$
187: decays was used for $\tilde{\tau}$ pair-production searches.
188: This method considered all possible ways of
189: clustering the charged particles in the event into groups,
190: always requiring the invariant mass to be below 2~\GeVcc.
191: Clearly identified leptons were considered as a single group,
192: except for pairs of oppositely charged, well identified electrons
193: close together which were allowed to be grouped with other particles,
194: since they could come from a converted photon.
195:
196: If possible, the event was clustered into two groups with invariant mass
197: below 2~\GeVcc. If no such combination existed, the one with the smallest
198: number of groups was kept. When more than one way of obtaining two groups
199: both with invariant mass below 2~\GeVcc\ was found,
200: the grouping yielding the lowest sum of masses was retained.
201: Once the best grouping of the charged tracks was found,
202: it was attempted to associate the neutrals in the event
203: to the particle groups. Also in this step, the grouping yielding the lowest
204: sum of masses was chosen. However, as very few long-lived neutral hadrons are expected in
205: $\tau$-decays, neutral hadronic clusters were
206: not included in the groups, but treated as isolated neutrals.
207: Also electromagnetic clusters which
208: could not be merged into any of
209: the groups without the invariant mass exceeding 2~\GeVcc,
210: were left as isolated neutrals.
211: In addition, a special procedure was applied to
212: identify and correct for
213: neutral clusters that were likely to be either
214: bremsstrahlung photons or
215: a shower induced by an electron that was not correctly
216: assigned to the track by the reconstruction program.
217:
218: The charge of each cluster was taken as the sum of the charges of all its particles.
219:
220: \end{itemize}
221:
222:
223: The thrust variable used in several
224: analyses throughout this paper was computed
225: using all the particles meeting the particle selection requirements.
226:
227:
228: %KHMCES The tagging of any isolated leptons or photons can be an important tool
229: %KHMCES for signal/background separation.
230:
231: Isolated leptons or photons in the event are often very important
232: in distinguishing signal and background.
233: In the present searches,
234: the isolation criteria depended
235: on the multiplicity of the event:
236: \begin{itemize}
237: \item
238: In low multiplicity searches, charged particles were classified as
239: isolated if the
240: total charged energy, excluding the energy of the particle itself, within
241: $10^\circ$ of the track
242: direction was below 2 \GeV . Slightly tighter cuts in the impact parameters (1~cm and 5~cm in $r\phi$ and $z$, respectively) and
243: in the momentum error were also applied.
244: \item
245: In high multiplicity searches, a photon was considered isolated if its angular separation from
246: any neutral or charged particle was greater than 15\dgree. A lepton was tagged
247: as isolated if its angular separation from all the jets (computed without the lepton
248: using the LUCLUS algorithm with $d_{join}=40$~\GeVc) was greater than 20\dgree.
249: \end{itemize}
250:
251: The identification of a track as a muon, electron, or hadron
252: was ``tight'',``loose'', or ``veto'' (or none at all).
253: Tight identification was unambiguous.
254: A particle could simultaneously be loosely identified as several
255: different species. Excluded particle species were vetoed.
256:
257: The identification of muons was provided primarily by the DELPHI standard
258: algorithm described in ~\cite{delphi}, which relies on the association of charged
259: particles to signals in the muon chambers and the HCAL.
260:
261: Electron and photon identification was performed by the algorithm described in
262: ~\cite{remclu} which combines deposits in the EM calorimeters with
263: tracking information and takes possible radiation and interaction effects into account
264: by a clustering procedure in an angular region around the main shower.
265: %%MBADD:begin
266: In the $\tilde{\tau}$ analysis (see section \ref{sec:stauana}),
267: the clustering procedure was not used for
268: tracks in the barrel region of the detector, since it tended to
269: treat charged pions from $\tau$ decays wrongly,
270: if they were accompanied closely by neutral pions.
271: %%MBADD:end
272: In low multiplicity topologies a very loose electron identification
273: based on the ratio $E/p$ between the energy deposited in the EM calorimeter
274: and the momentum of the associated charged track was also used.
275:
276:
277:
278: Below, whenever the identification level is not specified,
279: it is implied to be ``tight'' for electrons and ``loose'' for muons.
280: In the case of electrons, ``tight'' identification basically
281: adds some isolation requirements to the identification ones.
282:
283: e/$\gamma$ separation inside the acceptance of the STIC luminometer
284: was performed on a statistical basis, using the veto information of the two
285: planes of the scintillator counters placed in front of it.
286:
287: In the stau analysis
288: a particle was considered as a tight hadron if it was not classified
289: as a muon or electron and had an associated
290: energy in the hadron calorimeter exceeding 50\% of its momentum,
291: or else was considered as
292: a loose hadron if it had hadronic energy associated and
293: it was not tightly identified as a muon or electron.
294: If both the electromagnetic and hadronic
295: energies were small (less than 1 and 6 \GeV, respectively),
296: and the difference between the hadronic energy and the
297: track momentum was above 10 \GeV, the particle was
298: assigned both the loose muon and loose hadron
299: code.
300:
301: Decays of b-quarks were tagged using a probabilistic method based on
302: the impact parameter of tracks with respect to the main vertex~\cite{btag}.
303: ${\mathcal P}^+_E$ stands for the
304: corresponding probability estimator for tracks with positive impact parameter,
305: the sign of the impact parameter being defined by the jet direction.
306: The combined probability ${\mathcal P}_{com b}$ included additional
307: contributions from properties of reconstructed secondary
308: vertices.
309:
310:
311: All searches made use of the information from the hermeticity
312: taggers~\cite{tag} to
313: reject events with photons in the
314: otherwise insensitive region at polar angles around 40\dgree.
315: %%MBDEL:begin
316: %%Events were rejected if there were active taggers in the direction of the
317: %%missing momentum and not associated to reconstructed jets.
318: %%MBDEL:begin
319: %%MBADD:begin
320: If there were active taggers
321: not associated to reconstructed jets,
322: the event was rejected if the tagger was located
323: in the direction of the missing momentum.
324: In the stau analysis, where neutrinos from tau decays made the
325: estimation of the direction of the missing momentum
326: unreliable, events containing active and isolated
327: taggers were rejected irrespective of the
328: direction of the missing momentum.
329: %%MBADD:end
330:
331:
332:
333: \subsubsection{Analysis techniques}
334: \label{subsubsec:analysistech}
335: \vspace{0.35cm}
336: \noindent
337: \underline{Likelihood ratio method}
338: \vspace{0.35cm}
339:
340: In the likelihood ratio method used, several discriminating variables
341: are combined into one on the basis of their one-dimensional probability
342: density functions (pdf's).
343: If the variables used are independent, this gives
344: the best possible background suppression for a given signal
345: efficiency~\cite{ander}.
346: For a set of variables $\left\{ x_{i}\right\} $, the pdf's
347: of these variables are estimated by normalised
348: frequency distributions for the signal and the background samples.
349: We denote the pdf's of these variables $f_{i}^{S}(x_{i})$ for
350: the signal events and $f_{i}^{B}(x_{i})$ for the background events submitted
351: to the same selection criteria.
352: The likelihood ratio function is defined as $\mathcal{L}_{R}$ $ = \prod\limits_{i=1}^{n}\frac{%
353: f_{i}^{S}(x_{i})}{f_{i}^{B}(x_{i})}$. Events with $\mathcal{L}_{R}>\mathcal{L}_{R_{CUT}}$\ are selected
354: as candidate signal events.
355: The choice of variables and the value of $\mathcal{L}_{R_{CUT}}$ were optimised
356: using simulated event samples
357: by minimising the signal cross-section that was expected to be excluded
358: at 95\%\ confidence level in the absence of a signal.
359:
360: \vspace{0.35cm}
361: \noindent
362: \underline{Neural networks}
363: \vspace{0.35cm}
364:
365: A neural network provides a different way of defining
366: one discriminating variable from multidimensional distributions of
367: event variables given as inputs.
368: The neural network used below (see section~\ref{sec:squarkana}) contains
369: three layers of nodes: the input layer where each neuron corresponds to a
370: discriminating variable, the hidden layer, and the output layer which is the
371: response of the neural network. The program used in the squark analysis was
372: {\tt SNNS}~\cite{snns}. A ``feed-forward'' architecture is implemented and
373: the ``back-propagation'' algorithm is used to train
374: the network with simulated events.
375: %KHMCES At this stage, a $\chi^2$ is
376: %KHMCES minimised to adjust the neurons weights and connexions.
377: An independent validation sample was also used not to overtrain the network.
378: %KHWV It has been proven
379: %KHWV that with several hidden layers a neural network defines disconnected regions in
380: %KHWV the hyper-space of the input variables, which potentially would give a very
381: %KHWV efficient separation.
382: %KHWV The large number of parameters required makes this unfeasible.
383: A way of enhancing the efficiency of the network without increasing too much the
384: number of its parameters is to define a separate output node for
385: each type of event that the neural network should separate.
386: More details are given in section~\ref{sec:squarkana}.
387:
388: \input{analysis_slepton}
389: \input{analysis_squark}
390: \input{analysis_chargino}
391: \input{analysis_neutralino}
392:
393:
394:
395:
396:
397:
398:
399:
400:
401:
402:
403:
404:
405:
406:
407:
408:
409:
410:
411:
412:
413:
414:
415:
416:
417:
418:
419:
420:
421:
422:
423:
424:
425: