1: \subsection{Squark searches}
2: \label{sec:squarkana}
3:
4: %Supersymmetric partners of top and bottom quarks were searched for.
5: %collected by DELPHI from 1998 to 2000 at centre-of-mass energies from 189 to 208~\GeV.
6: %The data samples correspond to a total integrated luminosity of 606~\pbi. The dominant
7: %decays of the stop and sbottom squarks are assumed to be
8: %$\stqone \to c\XN{1}$ and $\sbqone \to b\XN{1}$, respectively, and the final topology is two
9: %acoplanar jets and missing energy. In the non-degenerate scenario (\DM\ $>$ 10~\GeVcc),
10: %the neural network analysis has already been presented in~\cite{squa2}.
11: %In addition, a new analysis has been developed to search for stop almost degenerate in
12: %mass with the LSP. This analysis based on a sequential approach, focused in the region where
13: %$2 \leq \Delta M \leq 10~\GeVcc$.
14: %For cross-check purposes, an overlap region between the two studied scenarios
15: %has been defined. It corresponds to the extension of the non-degenerate
16: %analysis down to $\Delta M = 5~\GeVcc$ and of the degenerate analysis up to
17: %$\Delta M = 20~\GeVcc$.
18: %DELPHI 1998 and 1999 data were re-analysed in this new framework as compared
19: %to already published results~\cite{squa}.
20:
21: Supersymmetric partners of top and bottom quarks were searched for.
22: The data
23: collected at centre-of-mass energies from 189 to 208~\GeV\ were analysed.
24: The dominant
25: decays of the stop and sbottom squarks are assumed to be
26: $\stqone \to \mathrm{c}\XN{1}$ and $\sbqone \to \mathrm{b}\XN{1}$,
27: respectively, and the final topology is two
28: acoplanar jets and missing energy. In the non-degenerate scenario (\DM\ $>$ 10~\GeVcc),
29: the neural network analysis has already been presented in~\cite{squa}.
30: This analysis has been extended down to \DM\ = 5~\GeVcc.
31: In addition, a new analysis based on a sequential cut approach has been developed
32: to search for stops nearly degenerate in mass with the LSP, investigating \DM\ values between
33: 2 and 10 \GeVcc. Moreover, this analysis has been extended to \DM\ values up to 20 \GeVcc\
34: in order to cross-check the non-degenerate analysis.
35:
36: The track selection and the general event preselection described in
37: sections \ref{sec:trksel} and \ref{sec:presel}, respectively, were used.
38:
39: %DELPHI 1998 and 1999 data were re-analysed in this new framework.
40:
41: \subsubsection{Non-degenerate scenarios}
42: \label{sec:squarkana1}
43:
44: %First, simulated Monte-Carlo events were removed
45: %if they were not accepted by the DELANA event filter.
46: To select hadronic events,
47: the number of charged particles reconstructed with TPC information
48: was required to be
49: greater than three, and the energy in the STIC to be
50: less than 70\% of the detected
51: energy. The polar angle of the thrust axis had to be above
52: 20$^\circ$.
53: %KH to select central events
54: The following event quality cuts were then applied.
55: The percentage of good tracks, the ratio of
56: %is defined as the ratio between
57: the number of charged particle tracks after
58: the particle selection
59: to the number before,
60: %divided by this number before the track selection. It
61: had to be greater than 35\%. In addition, the scalar sum of
62: charged particle momenta reconstructed with TPC information
63: was required to be
64: greater than 55\% of the total energy in the event, and the total
65: number of charged particles to be greater than six.
66: %A veto algorithm based on the hermeticity taggers was applied to
67: %reject events with badly measured energetic photons.
68:
69: %KH moved herm. veto up since it's a quality cut
70: To remove radiative return events,
71: the energy of the most energetic neutral particle was required to be less
72: than 40~\GeV.
73: Additional cuts were then applied to restrict the selection to events with missing
74: energy. The transverse missing momentum had to be greater than 4~\GeVc, the polar
75: angle of the missing momentum had to
76: be above 20$^\circ$
77: and the energy in a $40^\circ$ cone around the z axis
78: was required to be less than 40\% of the total detected event energy.
79: Finally, the visible mass
80: of the events was required to be less than 95~\GeVcc.
81:
82: The number of
83: events selected by this preselection
84: was 2178 for 2143$\pm$8 expected (combined data from
85: $\sqrt{s}=$189 to 208~\GeV).
86: %and the simulation described well the data.
87: Figure~\ref{fi:mcsquark} shows a comparison between data and simulated events.
88: At this level, for \DM\ $>$ 10~\GeVcc, stop signal efficiencies
89: ranged from 20\% to
90: 70\% depending on the mass difference between the stop and the neutralino.
91: Sbottom efficiencies were quite similar except at low \DM\ where, for
92: example, the efficiency for \msbqone=90~\GeVcc\ and \MXN{1}=85~\GeVcc\
93: %in the point (90\GeVcc,85\GeVcc) in the
94: %($M_{{\tilde {\mathrm b}}_1}$,\MXN{1}) plane
95: was close to zero,
96: %KH rapidly dropping to zero in the preselection procedure,
97: because the $b$ quarks are produced almost
98: at rest.
99: %KPV and contrary to the case of \stq\ there is no hadronisation
100: %effect which could enhance the visible energy.
101:
102: %KH Made some changes below
103: The final selection of events was performed using neural network techniques
104: (see section \ref{subsubsec:analysistech}).
105: Separate searches were made for two different ranges of \DM: \DM\ $>$ 20~\GeVcc\
106: and 5 $<$ \DM\ $\leq$ 20~\GeVcc.
107: Events were forced into
108: two jets using the Durham algorithm.
109: The neural network structure was as follows.
110: There were ten input nodes (variables),
111: ten hidden nodes (in one layer) and three output nodes.
112: The ten input variables were:
113: %KH
114: the ratio between the transverse missing momentum and the visible energy, the transverse
115: energy, the visible mass, the softness defined as
116: $M_{\mathrm jet1}/E_{\mathrm jet1}+M_{\mathrm jet2}/E_{\mathrm jet2}$, the acollinearity, the quadratic sum of
117: the transverse momenta of the jets
118: $\sqrt{(P_{t}^{\mathrm jet1})^2+(P_t^{\mathrm jet2})^2}$, the acoplanarity,
119: the sum of the first and third Fox-Wolfram moments, the polar angle of the
120: missing momentum and finally the combined b-tagging event probability.
121: %KH more changes...
122: For each \DM\ window a neural network
123: with three ouput nodes was trained to discriminate
124: the signal from the combined two-fermion and four-fermion backgrounds, and
125: from the $\gamma\gamma$ interactions leading to hadronic final states.
126: %KH
127: %\begin{table}[h!]
128: %\begin{center}
129: %\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
130: %\hline
131: % & node 1 & node 2 & node 3 \\
132: %\hline\hline
133: %$\tilde{q}_1$ Signal & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
134: %$\left\{ \begin{array}{c}\mathrm{2-fermions} \\ \mathrm{4-fermions}\\ \end{array} \right.$
135: % & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
136: %$\gamma\gamma \to$ hadrons & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
137: %\hline
138: %\end{tabular}
139: %\caption{Values of the three output nodes used in the training of the neural
140: %networks of the non-degenerate squark analysis.}
141: %\label{tab:nntrain}
142: %\end{center}
143: %\end{table}
144:
145: %KH
146: Although the three output nodes proved useful in training the network,
147: the selection was made according to the output of the signal node only.
148: %KH
149: %KH As the sum of the three output nodes is equal to 1, the final cuts were
150: %KH performed on the signal output node.
151: Figure~\ref{fi:sqnneffi} shows the
152: number of events as a function of the signal efficiency for the two mass
153: analysis windows of the stop and the sbottom searches. The number of
154: events in the data is in agreement with the SM
155: background predictions over the full range of neural network outputs.
156: %KH
157: The optimisation of the final cuts was performed by
158: minimising the
159: confidence level of the signal hypothesis expected in the absence of a signal.
160: ~\cite{alexread}.
161: %expected confidence level of the signal hypothesis
162:
163: %KPV Combining all DELPHI data, this procedure does not
164: %have a significant effect on the final results, but it is a way of defining
165: %blindly the cuts with respect to the real data.
166:
167: \subsubsection{Nearly mass degenerate scenarios}
168: \label{sec:squarkana2}
169:
170: %%%%%%%%% tmp!!!!
171: %
172: %Nothing prevents the stop ($\tilde{t_1}$) or the sbottom ($\tilde{b_1}$)
173: %from being nearly degenerate in mass with the LSP.
174: %
175: %FINAL ! version:
176:
177: Due to the large Yukawa coupling (see section \ref{sec:phenomenology}),
178: the stop ($\tilde{t_1}$) and the sbottom ($\tilde{b_1}$) can be light
179: and nearly degenerate in mass with the LSP.
180: The effective coupling of the stop to charm and neutralino results
181: from loops and is thus small. In addition,
182: the width of the decay $\stq \to c\XN{1}$ is proportional to
183: %$m_{\tilde{t}} (1 - m_{\tilde{\chi}}^2/m_{\tilde{t}}^2)^2$,
184: $\mstq (1 - \MXN1 ^2/ \mstq ^2)^2$,
185: and therefore proportional to \DM. So
186: if \DM\ gets small enough,
187: the stop acquires a sizable lifetime
188: and may form a quasi-stable (decaying inside the tracking volume) or
189: even stable
190: stop hadron (see~\cite{stablest} for this case).
191: %CTOMThese two cases are still under study, as well as the analysis of the
192: %CTOMnearly-degenerate mass scenario
193: %CTOMfor the sbottom.
194: The current analysis focusses on a stop decaying promptly into a charm
195: particle and the LSP.
196:
197: %%%%%%%%%%% tmp!!!
198: %Wilbur proposes to delete this paragraph altogether:
199: %
200: %Luc would either drop it or reduce it strongly:
201: %
202: %Indeed this analysis requires
203: %special care in defining selection criteria,
204: %as it looks for events with very little visible energy.
205: %The sequential cut approach allows the effect of
206: %each cut and
207: %the agreement between data and MC to be checked at each step of the selection.
208: %The procedure used for nearly mass-degenerate charginos
209: %(see section~\ref{sec:chadegsel})
210: %cannot be applied here, as the very low detection efficiencies
211: %obtained ($\leq$ 2\%) are not compensated by the cross-section of the process.
212: %
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%
214:
215: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% tmp!!!!
216:
217: %Once more, Wilbur proposes to drop certain preselection details.
218: %Luc would either drop them or at least rephrase them:
219:
220: %Real and simulated events were
221: %first submitted to the standard preselection that
222: %requires a minimum charged track content of the event
223: %(see section~\ref{sec:presel}).
224: %The events with reconstruction problems are removed by the DELANA event filter.
225: %Then in order to reject the events with noise in the internal tracking system;
226: %the preselection
227: %required
228: %that the energy only measured in the microvertex and
229: %the internal Si tracker
230: %was
231: %at most 30\% of the total visible energy.
232:
233: The event preselection required, in addition to the criteria described in section~\ref{sec:presel},
234: that not more than 30\% of the total visible
235: energy was carried by particles with tracks seen in the VD and ID only.
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237: To eliminate Bhabhas and leptonic $\gamma\gamma$ backgrounds, the charged multiplicity
238: was required to be
239: %KH at least equal to 6.
240: greater than five.
241: The $\gamma\gamma$ background was further suppressed by requiring the
242: energy in a forward cone of $30^\circ$ around the beam direction
243: to be at most 40\% of the total visible energy and smaller than 2 GeV,
244: and that no energy was deposited in the STIC calorimeter.
245: To avoid the relatively low hadronic energy region, where the $\gamma\gamma$ background
246: is not well reproduced by the MC,
247: the total transverse charged energy
248: was required to be greater than 7 GeV, the total transverse energy of tracks
249: reconstructed with TPC information
250: and the total transverse momentum had to be greater than 4 GeV and
251: %KH 3.5 GeV,
252: 3.5~\GeVc,
253: respectively, and
254: the number of tracks with TPC information had to be at least four.
255:
256: %This series
257: %KH
258: %of
259: %cuts using tracks reconstructed by the main DELPHI tracking device
260: %were meant to avoid the relatively low energy region where the $\gamma\gamma$ background,
261: %in particular its hadronic final states component,
262: %are not well reproduced by the MC.
263:
264: %Finally an hermiticity cut was applied using the taggers.
265:
266: The agreement between data and MC after this preselection is shown in
267: %table~\ref{tab:mc-data-dg} and in
268: figure~\ref{fi:datamc-dg}(a)~to~\ref{fi:datamc-dg}(d).
269: %As a result of this preselection, a very good agreement between data and MC is
270: %obtained.
271: %This agreement is shown in Table~\ref{tab:mc-data-dg} where the
272: %number of selected data and of MC background events are compared, for each value of
273: %the centre-of-mass energy. The
274: %distribution of the total transverse energy,
275: %the angle between the total missing
276: %momentum and the beam axis,
277: %the maximum transverse momentum of the leading particle
278: %in the event and the total charged multiplicity shown in
279: %figure~\ref{fi:datamc-dg}
280: %also ilustrate this good agreement.
281: %KH Besides, these plots
282: %KH demonstrate that at this stage, the dominant backgrounds are 2-fermion and
283: %KH 4-fermions, while the small fraction of 2-photons hadronic final states
284: %KH is located at the low edge corner of the plots, thus easy to reject.
285: Figure~\ref{fi:datamc-dg} also demonstrates that the two-fermion and
286: four-fermion backgrounds dominate at this stage of the selection.
287: The smaller contribution from two-photon interactions
288: can be reduced at this level using for example the different
289: polar angle distribution with respect to the signal.
290: %KH Doesn't seem to follow that it can be rejected without large efficiency
291: %KH loss as the signal is not shown. IT IS SHOWN ! ( Anna & Catarina )
292:
293: A further selection was performed in order to reduce the remaining backgrounds.
294: Events having mainly barrel activity were selected. This was achieved
295: by requiring that the energy within a cone of $60^\circ$ around the beam direction
296: was less than 10 GeV and
297: that the polar angle of the missing momentum
298: was above 45\dgree.
299: %angle between the direction of the missing momentum and the beam axis
300: %was within [45~\dgree,135~\dgree].
301: Most of the remaining two- and four-fermion
302: background was rejected
303: by demanding that the transverse momentum of
304: the most energetic particle was less than 10 GeV/c and that the total
305: transverse energy was less than 40 GeV.
306: %KH 2- and 4-fermions
307: Finally, the total transverse momentum was required to be greater than 5 GeV/c and
308: the scaled acoplanarity~\footnote{The scaled acoplanarity is the acoplanarity of the two jets
309: multiplied by the sine of the minimum angle between a jet and the beam axis.}
310: greater than 20\dgree. This cut removed
311: most of the remaining background from two-photon processes.
312: The agreement between data and simulation after this selection is shown in
313: figure~\ref{fi:datamc-dg}(e,f).
314:
315:
316: %\begin{table}[h!]
317: %\begin{center}
318: %\begin{tabular}{|c||c|l|}
319: %\hline
320: %%KH \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Stop (degenerate scenario)} \\
321: %\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Stop (nearly-degenerate scenario)} \\
322: %\hline
323: %\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{${\bf \Delta M \leq\ 10~\GeVcc}$} \\
324: %\hline
325: %$\sqrt{s}$ & data & MC \\
326: %\hline
327: %189 & 3717 & 3717 \\
328: %192 & 527 & 599 \\
329: %196 & 1620 & 1623 \\
330: %200 & 1667 & 1679 \\
331: %202 & 867 & 793 \\
332: %205 & 1469 & 1492 \\
333: %207 & 1423 & 1468 \\
334: %208 & 138 & 133 \\
335: %206.5(*)& 1023 & 1133 \\
336: %\hline
337: %\end{tabular}
338: %\caption{Data MC comparison at the preselection level.
339: %(*) indicates 2000 data taken with the sector 6 of the TPC off.}
340: %\label{tab:mc-data-dg}
341: %\end{center}
342: %\end{table}
343:
344:
345:
346:
347:
348:
349:
350:
351:
352: