1: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.
2: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstad0tce_hp8150_db, or rmp for journal
3: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
4: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
5: \documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn,lineno,groupedaddress]{revtex4} % for review
6: % ... \documentclass[aps,preprint,showpacs,groupedaddress]{revtex4} % for double-spaced preprint
7: %\documentclass[aps,prl,showpacs,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4} % for submission
8: \usepackage{graphicx} % needed for figures
9: \usepackage{dcolumn} % needed for some tables
10: \usepackage{bm} % for math
11: \usepackage{amssymb} % for math
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: \input{definitions}
15:
16: % The following information is for internal review, please remove them for submission
17: %\leftline{Version 2.35 as of \today} \leftline{Primary authors: A.
18: %Haas, A. Kharchilava, J. Rani} \rightline{Comment to {\tt
19: %d0-run2eb-018@fnal.gov}} \rightline{by March 26, 2005}
20:
21: \hspace{5.2in}\mbox{FERMILAB-PUB-05/058-E}
22:
23: %\title{A Search for Neutral Higgs Bosons at High \tanb\ in multijet Events at $\sqrt{s}=$1.96~TeV}
24: \title{Search for neutral supersymmetric Higgs bosons in multijet events at $\sqrt{s}=$1.96~TeV}
25: \input{list_of_authors_r2.tex} % input Dzero author list
26:
27: \date{April 9, 2005}
28: %\date{\today}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We have performed a search for neutral Higgs bosons produced in association
32: with bottom quarks in $p\bar{p}$ collisions,
33: % at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$~GeV
34: %. A search for the production of neutral Higgs bosons in association
35: %. with bottom quarks
36: using 260~\ipb\ of data collected with the \dzero\ detector in Run
37: II of the Fermilab Tevatron Collider. The cross sections for these
38: processes are enhanced in many extensions of the standard model
39: (SM), such as in its minimal supersymmetric extension at large
40: \tanb. The results of our analysis agree with expectations from the
41: SM, and we use our measurements to set upper limits on the
42: production of neutral Higgs bosons in the mass range of 90 to
43: 150~\gev.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: %Here are the relevant PACS numbers that we can quote in PRL
47: %(taken from http://www.aip.org/pacs/pacs03/pacs0310.html):
48: %PACS: 12.38.Qk, 12.60.Fr, 13.85.Rm, 14.80.Cp
49:
50: \pacs{12.38.Qk, 12.60.Fr, 13.85.Rm, 14.80.Cp} \maketitle
51:
52: In two-Higgs-doublet models of electroweak symmetry breaking, such
53: as the minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model
54: (MSSM)~\cite{2HDM}, there are five physical Higgs bosons:
55: %resulting from symmetry breaking
56: two neutral $CP$-even scalars, \hboson\ and
57: \Hboson, with \Hboson\ being the heavier state; a neutral $CP$-odd state,
58: \Aboson; and two charged states, \Hboson$^\pm$. The ratio of the vacuum
59: expectation values of the two Higgs fields is defined as \tanb\ =
60: $v_2/v_1$, where $v_2$ and $v_1$ refer to the fields that couple to
61: the up-type and down-type fermions, respectively.
62: %. At tree level, the
63: %. coupling of the neutral Higgs bosons to down-type quarks, such
64: %. as the \btag\ quark, is enhanced by a factor of \tanb\ relative to
65: %. the standard model (SM), and production cross sections
66: %. are therefore enhanced by $\tan^{2}\beta$~\cite{MSSM_Higgs}.
67: %and branching fractions to \bbbar\ by approximately \tanb.
68: %fractions to \bbbar\ are large.
69: At tree level, the coupling of the $A$ boson to down-type quarks,
70: such as the \btag\ quark,
71: is enhanced by a factor of \tanb\ relative to the standard model (SM),
72: and the production
73: cross section is therefore enhanced by $\tan^{2}\beta$~\cite{MSSM_Higgs}.
74: At large \tanb, this is
75: also true either for the $h$ or $H$ boson depending on their mass.
76:
77: For several representative scenarios of the MSSM, LEP experiments
78: have excluded at the 95\% C.L. a light Higgs boson with mass
79: %. a lightest neutral Higgs boson mass
80: $m_h$ \lt\ 92.9~\gev~\cite{leplimit}. At hadron colliders, neutral
81: Higgs bosons can be produced in association with \btag\ quarks,
82: leading to final states containing three or four \btag\ jets. The CDF
83: experiment at the Tevatron Collider performed a search
84: for these events in data from Run~I~\cite{cdfrunIlimit}.
85: %CDF has performed search using 91\ipb\ of data from Run~I of the Fermilab Tevatron
86: %CDF has excluded at 95\% C.L. values of \tanb\gt 60-100 in the MSSM for
87: %$m_A$ ranging from the LEP lower limit up to 200~\gev, using 91
88: %\ipb\ of data from Run~I of the Fermilab Tevatron
89: %\cite{cdfrunIlimit}. However, CDF has recently acknowledged that the
90: %use of older PDF's (CTEQ3L) had increased their signal acceptance by
91: %at least a factor of 2 [???].
92:
93: Higgs boson production in association with \btag\ quarks in \ppbar\
94: collisions can be calculated in two ways: in the five-flavor
95: scheme~\cite{5fns}, only one \btag\ quark has to be present, while
96: in the four-flavor scheme~\cite{4fns}, two \btag\ quarks are
97: explicitly required in the final state. Both calculations are now
98: available at next-to-leading order (NLO), and agree within their
99: respective theoretical uncertainties~\cite{bh_NLO,top_NLO}.
100: Figure~\ref{fig:Feynman} illustrates these processes for \hboson\
101: production at leading order (LO), and analogous diagrams can be
102: drawn for the \Hboson\ and \Aboson\ bosons.
103: %Associated production of neutral Higgs bosons at the Fermilab
104: %Tevatron \ppbar\ collider with either one or two high-$p_T$ (\gt 15
105: %~\gev) bottom quarks takes place through the leading-order (LO)
106: %processes: gg,\qqbar\rarrow\bbbar h~\cite{4fns}, as shown in the top half
107: %of Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman}. Similar diagrams exist for H and A as well.
108: %Large logarithms of $(m_h/m_b)$ can be re-summed by considering the %LO
109: %process: gb\rarrow bh~\cite{5fns}, as shown in the bottom half of
110: %Fig.\ref{fig:Feynman}.
111:
112: \begin{figure}\centering
113: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{bghb_feyn.eps}
114: % \vspace*{5mm}
115: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{ggbbh_feyn.eps}
116: \caption{Leading-order Feynman diagrams for %bbh (top) and bh (bottom) production.
117: neutral Higgs boson production in the five-flavor scheme (top) and
118: four-flavor scheme (bottom). } \label{fig:Feynman}
119: \end{figure}
120:
121: In this Letter, we assume $CP$-conservation in the Higgs sector. The
122: masses, widths, and branching fractions for the neutral Higgs bosons
123: into \bbbar\ pairs are calculated using the {\sc CPsuperH}
124: program~\cite{cpsuperh,carena}.
125: %They are predicted to decay to \bbbar\ about 90\% of the time.
126: %at high \tanb\, whenever their production in association with \btag\ quarks is enhanced.
127: The current analysis is sensitive to \tanb\ in the range 50 -- 100,
128: and depends on the Higgs boson mass.
129: %At \tanb\ $\gsim$ 50
130: %. For the range of \tanb\ this analysis is currently sensitive to (50
131: %. -- 100), the \Aboson\ boson is nearly degenerate in mass with either
132: %. the \hboson\ or the \Hboson\ boson, and their widths are small
133: %. compared to the di-jet mass resolution of the detector.
134: %Since for \tanb\ $\lsim$ 100 the Higgs bosons widths
135: %are small compared to the di-jet
136: %mass resolution of the detector,
137: In this region of \tanb, the \Aboson\ boson is nearly degenerate in
138: mass with either the \hboson\ or the \Hboson\ boson, and their
139: widths are small compared to the di-jet mass resolution.
140: %. of the detector.
141: Consequently, we cannot distinguish between the \hboson/\Hboson\
142: and the \Aboson, and the total cross section for signal is
143: assumed to be twice that of the
144: \Aboson\ boson.
145: %As a result this analysis is unable to distinguish
146: %between the , we assume that production of the \hboson/\Hboson\ doubles the total cross section.
147: In the region of $m_A$ from 100 to 130~\gev, all three neutral Higgs
148: bosons can be degenerate in mass and produced
149: simultaneously~\cite{boos}. Nevertheless, the total cross section
150: still remains twice that of the \Aboson\ boson.
151: %This effectively doubles the production cross section as in the previous case.
152: %In both cases, the sum of the \hboson\ and the \Hboson\ production cross sections is equal to that of
153: %the \Aboson.
154: % thus total neutral Higgs production cross section is twice that of
155: %{\it [This introduction will be updated after we get input from theoreticians.]}
156: Using data collected by the \dzero\ detector from November 2002 to
157: June 2004, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of about
158: 260~\ipb, we search for an excess in the invariant
159: mass distribution of the two leading transverse momentum (\pt) jets
160: in events containing three or more \btag\ quark candidates.
161: % \btag-jets.
162: %The background shape is determined
163: %by applying the kinematic \btag-tagging bias, measured in data,
164: %from an extrapolation of the data sample with two \btag-jets. This
165: %from the multijet data sample with two \btag-jets. This
166: %expected background is normalized to data with three \btag-jets
167: %outside the expected signal region.
168: %The double and triply \btag-tagged data are also compared to Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.
169:
170: The D\O\ detector has a magnetic central tracking system surrounded
171: by a uranium/liquid-argon calorimeter, contained within a muon
172: spectrometer. The tracking system consists of a silicon microstrip
173: tracker (SMT) and a central fiber tracker (CFT), both located within
174: a 2~T solenoidal magnet~\cite{run2det}. The SMT and CFT have designs
175: optimized for tracking and vertexing at pseudorapidities
176: $|\eta|<2.5$, where $\eta = -\ln(\tan(\theta/2))$ and $\theta$ is
177: the polar angle with respect to the proton beam direction ($z$). The
178: calorimeter has a central section (CC) covering up to $|\eta|
179: \approx 1.1$, and two end calorimeters (EC) extending coverage to
180: $|\eta|\approx 4.2$, all housed in separate
181: cryostats~\cite{run1det}. The calorimeter is divided into an
182: electromagnetic part followed by fine and coarse hadronic sections.
183: Scintillators between the CC and EC cryostats provide additional
184: sampling of developing showers for $1.1<|\eta|<1.4$. The muon system
185: consists of a layer of tracking detectors and scintillation trigger
186: counters in front of 1.8~T toroidal magnets, followed by two similar
187: layers behind the toroids, which provide muon tracking for
188: $|\eta|<2$. The luminosity is measured using scintillator arrays
189: located in front of the EC cryostats, covering $2.7<|\eta|<4.4$. The
190: trigger system comprises three levels (L1, L2, and L3),
191: %the first
192: %consisting solely of custom hardware elements, whereas the second
193: %and third levels perform partial and nearly full event
194: %reconstructions, respectively.
195: each performing an increasingly detailed event reconstruction in
196: order to select the events of interest.
197:
198: The large cross section for multijet production necessitates a
199: specialized trigger to maximize signal acceptance while providing
200: reasonable rates. This trigger at L1 requires signals in at least
201: three calorimeter towers of size
202: $\Delta\eta\times\Delta\varphi=0.2\times0.2$ (where $\varphi$ is the
203: azimuthal angle), each with transverse energy $E_T > 5$~GeV; three
204: clusters and $H_T^{L2}>50$~\gev\ at L2 ($H_T^{L2} \equiv$ scalar sum
205: of the L2 clusters \et\ with \et\gt 5 \gev), and three jets with
206: $\pt>15$~\gev\ at L3. A total of 87 million events were selected
207: off-line with one jet of $\pt>20$~\gev\ and at least two more jets
208: with $\pt>15$~\gev.
209: %, all with $|\eta| < 2.6$.
210: %(\lt 4 Hz), as well as constraints at earlier trigger %levels, up to high
211: %luminosity ($6\times 10^{31} cm^{-2}s^{-1}$).
212: %The trigger demanded three calorimeter towers with \et\gt 5 at L1,
213: %three L2 ``jets'' with \et\gt 8~\gev\ and total L2 $H_T$ (scalar sum
214: %of L2 jets with \et\gt 5~\gev) above 50~\gev\ and three L3 jets with
215: %\et\gt 15~\gev. The detector \aeta\ coverage was up to 2.4 at L1/L2
216: %and 3.0 at L3. A total of about 87 million events were
217: %selected with one reconstructed 0.5 simple-cone jet \cite{RunIIcone}
218: %with \pt\gt 20~\gev\ and another two with \pt\gt 15~\gev\ and
219: %\aeta\lt 2.6 (uncorrected, before any jet quality cuts).
220: %Later trigger versions also demanded that either two
221: %of the L3 jets have \et\gt 25~\gev\ or that a loose muon was found at L2.
222: Jets are reconstructed using a Run~II cone
223: algorithm~\cite{RunIIcone} with radius
224: $\Delta{\cal{R}}=\sqrt{(\Delta \eta)^2+(\Delta \varphi)^2}<0.5$, and are
225: then required to pass a set of quality criteria.
226: To be accepted for further analysis, jets with
227: $\pt>15$~\gev\ must have $|\eta|<2.5$. The jet energies are
228: corrected to the particle level
229: %for detector and physics effects
230: using $\eta$-dependent scale factors. Events with up to five jets
231: are selected if they have a primary vertex position
232: $|z|<35~\mathrm{cm}$ and at least three jets with corrected
233: $\pt>35$, 20, and 15~\gev. Depending on the hypothesized Higgs boson
234: mass, the final selections are chosen to optimize the expected
235: signal significance, defined as $S/\sqrt{B}$, where $S$ ($B$) refers
236: to the number of signal (background) events.
237: %Events are required to have at least three jets with corrected $\pt>35$, 20,
238: %and 15~\gev, but not more than five jets, based on studies which
239: %optimize the signal significance in simulations.
240: %Their energies were corrected back to the particle
241: %level for detector and physics effects using jet energy scale factors.
242: %Jets were also required to have $|\eta| < 2.5$ and $\pt > 15$~\gev\ in
243: %order to have the jet energy scale applied to them.
244: %Events were selected which have at least
245: %three jets with $\pt > 35$, 20, and 15~\gev, but not more than five jets.
246: %Harder jet thresholds had small effects on the expected signal
247: %significance in simulations.
248: Jets containing \btag\ quarks are identified using a secondary
249: vertex (SV) tagging algorithm. A jet is tagged as a \btag-jet if it
250: has at least one SV within $\Delta{\cal{R}}<0.5$ of the jet axis
251: and a transverse displacement from the primary vertex that
252: exceeds five times the displacement uncertainty. Jets are \btag\ tagged up to
253: $|\eta|<2.5$, although the \btag\ tagging is about twice as
254: efficient in the central region ($|\eta|<1.1$) because of the CFT
255: coverage.
256: %improved tracking resolution provided by the CFT.
257: The \btag\ tagging efficiency is $\approx$~55\% for central
258: \btag-jets of $\pt>35$~\gev, with a light quark (or gluon) tag rate
259: of about 1\%.
260:
261: Signal events were simulated using the
262: % {\footnotesize PYTHIA}
263: {\sc pythia}~\cite{pythia} event generator followed by the full
264: \dzero\ detector simulation and reconstruction chain. {\sc pythia}
265: minimum-bias events were added to all generated events, using a
266: Poisson probability with a mean of 0.4 events to match the
267: instantaneous luminosities at which the data were taken ($1-6\times
268: 10^{31} {\mathrm{cm}}^{-2}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$). The \bh\ events, with
269: \hboson\rarrow\bbbar, were generated for Higgs boson masses from 90
270: to 150 \gev. Reconstructed jets in simulated events were corrected
271: to match the jet reconstruction and identification efficiencies in
272: data. The energy of simulated jets was smeared to match the measured
273: jet energy resolution. The \pt\ and rapidity spectra of the Higgs
274: bosons from {\sc pythia} were compared to those from the NLO
275: calculation~\cite{5fns}. The shapes were similar, indicating that
276: the {\sc pythia} kinematics are approximately correct.
277: %To further improve the accuracy of the expectation,
278: The simulated events were weighted to match the \pt\
279: spectrum of the Higgs boson given by NLO, resulting in
280: a 10\% reduction of the overall
281: signal efficiency.
282: % Need to cross check with new -- 13%
283: %We also verified with the {\footnotesize PYTHIA} event generator that the
284: %kinematic distributions of bh and bbh events after radiation and
285: %showering agreed well, and present a small systematic error.
286:
287: Of all SM processes, multijet production is the major source of
288: background. This background is determined from data by normalizing
289: distributions outside of the signal region. As a cross-check, we
290: also compare data with simulations. {\sc alpgen}~\cite{alpgen} is
291: used to generate three samples of events for \bbj\ and \bbjj\ with
292: $j$ corresponding to up, down, strange or charm quarks, or gluons,
293: and \bbbar\bbbar\ final states with generator-level requirements:
294: $p_T^b>25$~\gev, $p_T^j>15$~\gev, $\aeta<3.0$, and
295: $\Delta{\cal{R}}>0.4$ between any two final-state partons. These
296: selections do not introduce significant bias because the final
297: sample contains much harder jets, after the application of trigger
298: and \btag-tagging requirements. Samples of \bbj\ and \bbjj\ are
299: added together, but the \bbjj\ sample is weighted by 0.85 to match
300: the jet multiplicity observed in doubly \btag-tagged data. The cross
301: sections obtained from {\sc alpgen} are 8.9~nb, 3.9~nb, and 60~pb,
302: for the respective three states. All other backgrounds are expected
303: to be small and are simulated with {\sc pythia}:
304: \ppbar\rarrow\zboson(\rarrow\bbbar)+jets, \ppbar\rarrow\zb, and
305: \ppbar\rarrow\ttbar. Cross sections of
306: %. 1.18~nb
307: 1.2~nb, 40~pb~\cite{Zb_NLO},
308: and 7~pb are assumed, respectively.
309:
310: %There are three categories of of multijet background events considered:
311: %multijet fakes, heavy-flavor (HF), and other contributions. multijet
312: %fakes is multijet production, where light-quark or gluon jets have been
313: %falsely identified as \btag-jets, or possibly gluon-jets where the gluon has
314: %split into b or c-quarks. The multijet fakes are estimated from data.
315: %The contribution to the mis-tag functions from isolated bottom and/or charm
316: %jets is removed by estimating the fraction of \bbj(j) events in the
317: %full multijet data sample (1.2\%) from an initial fit to the double
318: %\btag-tagged data, and removing the contribution to the fake-tag functions
319: %from these events.The corrected mis-tag functions are then used to
320: %estimate the contribution from the second background category by applying them
321: %to every jet in the full data sample.
322:
323: %%%%% Figs were here %%%%%%%%%%%
324:
325: There are two main categories of multijet background. One contains
326: genuine heavy-flavor (HF) jets, while the other has only light-quark
327: or gluon jets that are mistakenly tagged as \btag-quark jets, or
328: correspond to gluons that branch into nearly collinear \bbbar\
329: pairs. Using the selected data sample, before the application of
330: \btag-tagging requirements, the probability to \btag-tag a jet is
331: measured as a function of its \pt\ in three \aeta\ regions. These
332: functions are called ``mis-tag'' functions. They are corrected for
333: the contamination from true HF events
334: %. in the data sample from which they were derived
335: by subtracting the estimated fraction of \bb\ events in the
336: multijet data sample (1.2\%), obtained from an initial fit to the doubly
337: \btag-tagged data.
338: %. and subtracting the contribution from these events.
339: These corrected mis-tag functions are then used to estimate
340: the mis-tagged background, by applying them to every jet
341: reconstructed in the full data sample.
342:
343: %The double \btag-tagged multijet background is compared to
344: %simulations first, due to its high statistics.
345: In order to test the modeling of the mis-tag background, the high
346: statistics doubly \btag-tagged data is compared to simulations
347: first, before extrapolating to the triply \btag-tagged background.
348: The expected signal contribution to the doubly \btag-tagged data is
349: negligible. The comparison in invariant mass spectrum of the two
350: jets of highest \pt\ (not necessarily the two \btag-tagged jets) in
351: the doubly \btag-tagged data with the expected background is shown
352: in Fig.~\ref{fig:Final_QCD_fit}. The \btag-tagging in this analysis
353: does not distinguish between contributions from bottom and charm
354: events. However, the efficiency for tagging a $c$-jet is known from
355: simulations to be about $1/4$ of that for tagging a \btag-jet.
356: Therefore, when two \btag-tags are required, the fraction of \cc\
357: events relative to \bb\ events will be a factor of
358: %. approximately $4^2$=
359: $\approx$~16 lower after tagging.
360: %than it was before
361: We have estimated the fractions of \ccjj\ to \bbjj\ prior to
362: \btag-tagging using the {\sc madgraph} Monte Carlo
363: generator~\cite{madgraph}. The \ccjj\ cross section is 22\% higher
364: than \bbjj\ for the same generator-level selections. Therefore,
365: the contribution of \cc\ in the doubly \btag-tagged data sample is
366: expected to represent about
367: %$1.22/16=8$\%
368: 8\% of the events. Thus, when we refer to the \bb\ normalization, it
369: should be understood that approximately 8\% of the events are from
370: the \cc\ process. After these corrections for \cc\ events, the HF
371: multijet processes are only a factor of 1.08 higher in data than
372: predicted by {\sc alpgen}.
373: %. The data agree well with the shape of the
374: %. estimated background over the entire invariant mass region.
375: The shape of the estimated background agrees well with the data over
376: the entire invariant mass region.
377:
378: %1.08 $\pm$ 0.01 (stat)
379: %much better agreement than seen in comparisons to older MC simulations
380: %\cite{mctuning}.
381:
382: %The probability for each of the events to have three or more \btag-tags
383: %is used to weight each event. We will refer to this estimation of the
384: %background as the ``triply \btag-tag estimation''.
385:
386: \begin{figure}\centering
387: \includegraphics[width=3in]{FitDoubleTag_260_svloose_jetonly.eps}
388: \caption{Fit of the invariant mass spectrum of the two leading \pt\
389: jets in the doubly \btag-tagged data to a sum of backgrounds:
390: mis-tags derived from data (dotted), \bb\ (dashed), and other
391: backgrounds (\zboson(\rarrow\bbbar)+jets, \zb, \ttbar\ and
392: \bbbar\bbbar) (dashed-dotted).} \label{fig:Final_QCD_fit}
393: \end{figure}
394:
395: \begin{figure}\centering
396: \includegraphics[width=3in]{limit_mh120.eps}
397: % \caption{The di-jet invariant mass spectrum of the triply
398: % \btag-tagged data, estimated background, and 120~\gev\ Higgs boson
399: % signal at the 95\% C.L. exclusion limit.} \label{fig:mh_limit}
400: % \caption{The di-jet invariant mass spectrum of the triply
401: \caption{Invariant mass spectrum of two leading jets in events with
402: at least three \btag-tagged jets, estimated background, and the
403: signal for a 120~\gev\ Higgs boson that can be excluded at the 95\%
404: C.L.} \label{fig:mh_limit}
405: \end{figure}
406:
407: To estimate the background for triply \btag-tagged events, the
408: mis-tag function is applied to the non-\btag-tagged jets in the
409: doubly \btag-tagged events. This provides the shape of the multijet
410: background distribution with at least three \btag-tagged jets. This
411: neglects any contributions from processes with more than two true
412: \btag-jets, such as from \bbbar\bbbar\ and
413: \zboson(\rarrow\bbbar)\bbbar\ production. However, the shapes of
414: these backgrounds from simulations are similar to those of the
415: doubly \btag-tagged spectra, and their rates are small. The overall
416: background normalization is therefore determined by fitting the
417: leading two jets invariant mass spectrum in triply \btag-tagged
418: events outside of the hypothesized signal region
419: %. ($\pm 1\sigma$ of the Gaussian fit to the expected signal) with
420: to the estimated shape for triply
421: \btag-tagged background. The systematic effect on the
422: normalization of the background from any signal contributing
423: outside the search window was studied and found to be small relative
424: to other uncertainties, as described below.
425:
426: %The overall trigger efficiency is subject to uncertainties coming from the
427: %limited statistics of the data samples used to measure the trigger
428: %efficiencies, the inaccuracy with which the parameterized turn-on
429: %curves represent the true efficiencies, and the limitations of the
430: %assumptions made about the independence of jets at the trigger level.
431:
432: The selections in this analysis can be grouped into trigger level,
433: kinematic (\pt, \peta, \nj), where \nj\ is the number of untagged
434: jets, and \btag-tagging. Table~\ref{table:Acceptance_Cutflow} shows
435: the acceptances for each set of criteria made in the analysis, for
436: six values of Higgs boson mass. The systematic uncertainty on signal
437: acceptance is nearly independent of assumed $m_A$, and is dominated
438: by the uncertainty on \btag-tagging efficiency ($\pm$15\%), followed
439: by uncertainties on jet energy scale, resolution and identification
440: efficiency ($\pm$9\% in sum). These uncertainties are calculated by
441: repeating the analysis with each value changed by $\pm$ one standard
442: deviation (sd). The systematic uncertainties corresponding to
443: uncertainties in \pt\ distributions for simulated signal at NLO, the
444: integrated luminosity, and the trigger efficiency are
445: %. independent of the assumed $m_A$, and
446: found to be $\pm$5\%, $\pm$6.5\%, and $\pm$9\%, respectively. These
447: uncertainties, added in quadrature, result in a total systematic
448: uncertainty of $\pm$21\%.
449:
450: %.Signal acceptance uncertainties are evaluated for
451: %.various masses and are listed in
452: %.Table~\ref{table:Acceptance_Errors}. Systematic uncertainties resulting
453: %.from the \btag-tagging efficiency, jet energy scale, jet energy
454: %.resolution, and jet reconstruction/identification uncertainties are
455: %.calculated by repeating the analysis with each value varied by $\pm
456: %.1 \sigma$. The systematic uncertainties corresponding to the \pt\
457: %.distributions of the simulated signal events at NLO, the integrated
458: %.luminosity, and the trigger efficiency are independent of the
459: %.assumed $m_A$, and found to be 5\%, 6.5\%, and 9\%, respectively.
460:
461: %The systematic uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty on
462: %\btag-tagging efficiency, followed by uncertainties on jet reconstruction/identification efficiency,
463: %jet energy scale and jet energy resolution. These are calculated by repeating the analysis,
464: %varying their central values up and down by $\pm 1 \sigma$.
465:
466: %The uncertainties which affect the signal acceptance are added in
467: %quadrature, and those which depend on the assumed $m_A$ are shown in
468: %Table~\ref{table:Acceptance_Errors}. The total trigger uncertainty
469: %is estimated to be $\pm$9\%, independent of assumed $m_A$. The systematic
470: %uncertainties resulting from the \btag-tagging efficiency, jet energy scale, jet
471: %energy resolution, and jet reconstruction/identification uncertainties
472: %were calculated by repeating the analysis, changing their values
473: %up and down by $\pm 1 \sigma$. The procedure used to normalize the simulated
474: %signal events to the NLO cross sections and \pt\ spectra is only an
475: %approximation to reproducing the full NLO kinematics, thus an uncertainty
476: %of half the re-weighting correction is assigned, 5\%. The absolute
477: %value of the integrated luminosity that the data sample corresponds
478: %to has an uncertainty of 6.5\%.
479:
480: The accuracy in modeling the shape of the background distribution can be
481: estimated from the $\chi^{2}/dof$ between the estimated
482: background and the data. The statistical error associated with
483: the uncertainty in the normalization of the background (from the fit
484: outside the signal region) is multiplied by
485: $\sqrt{\chi^{2}/dof}$. The background uncertainty is estimated to
486: be $\lsim$ 3\%. The systematic uncertainty arising from the width chosen
487: for the search window
488: % chosen during background normalization
489: is evaluated by varying
490: %the width of the search window
491: it from less than the resolution to $\pm 1.8$ sd, centered on the peak value.
492: The resulting change in background normalization is much smaller
493: than from other sources of background uncertainties.
494:
495: %The uncertainty related to the background normalization
496: %is calculated by varying the signal search window size from $\pm 1 \sigma$ (default value)
497: %to $\pm 1.8\sigma$. This yields to 4\% uncertainty.
498:
499: %There is a statistical error associated with the uncertainty in the
500: %normalization of the background, as fit outside the signal region and
501: %is estimated to be 3\%, independent of the considered Higgs boson mass.
502: %The uncertainty related to the choice of the signal search region is evaluated by
503: %examining two more search windows, $\pm 1.5\sigma$ and $\pm 1.8\sigma$,
504: %and the change is within the background uncertainty of $\lsim$ 3\%.
505:
506:
507: \begin{table} \centering
508: \caption{Signal acceptances for each set of criteria (in
509: \%).}
510: %for each $m_h$.}
511: \begin{ruledtabular}
512: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
513: $m_A$ (\gev) & Trigger & Kinematic & \btag-tag & Total \\ \hline
514: 90 & 44 & 18 & 3.5 & 0.3 \\
515: 100 & 45 & 24 & 3.5 & 0.4 \\
516: 110 & 56 & 24 & 3.9 & 0.5 \\
517: 120 & 60 & 27 & 4.2 & 0.7 \\
518: 130 & 65 & 29 & 4.3 & 0.8 \\
519: 150 & 76 & 31 & 4.4 & 1.0 \\
520: \end{tabular}
521: \end{ruledtabular}
522: \label{table:Acceptance_Cutflow}
523: \end{table}
524:
525: %.\begin{table} \centering
526: %.\caption{The uncertainties from each source (in \%). Other small
527: %.uncertainties which do not depend on mass are also added in
528: %.quadrature to the total (see text).}
529: %.%which are added in quadrature to give the total uncertainties on acceptance.}
530: %.\begin{ruledtabular}
531: %.\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
532: %.$m_A$ (\gev) & \btag-tag & Jet Energy & Jet Energy & Jet-ID & Total \\
533: %. & & Scale & Resolution & & \\ \hline
534: %. 90 & 14 & 7.5 & 1.4 & 3.8 & 20.4 \\
535: %.100 & 15 & 7.1 & 0.7 & 3.8 & 21.0 \\
536: %.110 & 14 & 8.1 & 0.7 & 3.7 & 20.6 \\
537: %.120 & 14 & 8.5 & 0.8 & 3.6 & 21.0 \\
538: %.130 & 14 & 7.8 & 0.4 & 3.3 & 20.4 \\
539: %.150 & 15 & 7.7 & 0.8 & 3.4 & 21.1 \\
540: %.\end{tabular}
541: %.\end{ruledtabular}
542: %.\label{table:Acceptance_Errors}
543: %.\end{table}
544:
545:
546: \begin{figure}\centering
547: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{eps_p14/cs_limit_260.eps}
548: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{eps_p14/cs_limit_tanb80.eps}
549: \includegraphics[width=3in]{cs_limit_tanb.eps}
550: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{eps_p14/cs_limit_new.eps}
551: \caption{The expected and measured 95\% C.L. upper limits on the signal
552: cross section as a function of $m_A$. The band
553: indicates the $\pm 1$ sd range on the expected limit. Also shown
554: is the cross section for the signal at \tanb\ = 80 in the ``no
555: mixing'' scenario of the MSSM, with the theoretical uncertainty
556: indicated by the overlaid band.} \label{fig:mA_cs}
557: \end{figure}
558:
559: %The $CL_S$ method, with $CL_S = CL_{S+B}/CL_B$,
560: A modified frequentist method is used to set limits on the
561: production of signal~\cite{mclimit}. The di-jet invariant mass
562: distributions in triply \btag-tagged events of data, simulated
563: signal, and the normalized background were used as inputs. The value
564: of \tanb\ was varied
565: %, starting at 50, either up or down
566: until the confidence level for signal ($CL_S$) was $<5$\%.
567: Figure~\ref{fig:mh_limit} shows the data, background, and simulated
568: signal at the exclusion limit, for $m_A$ = 120~\gev. This is
569: converted to a cross section limit for signal production in
570: Fig.~\ref{fig:mA_cs}, which also shows the expected MSSM Higgs boson
571: production cross section as a function of $m_A$ for \tanb\ = 80, and
572: the median expected limit with the background-only hypothesis along
573: with its $\pm$ 1 sd range. The NLO cross sections and their
574: uncertainties from parton distribution functions (PDF) and scale
575: dependence are taken from Refs.~\cite{5fns,top_NLO}. The MSSM cross
576: section shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mA_cs} corresponds to no mixing in
577: the scalar top quark sector~\cite{tev}, or $X_{t}$ = 0, where
578: ${X_{t} = A_{t} - \mu\cot\beta}$, $A_{t}$ is the tri-linear
579: coupling, and the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu = -0.2$~TeV. We also
580: interpret our results in the ``maximal mixing'' scenario with $X_{t}
581: = \sqrt6 \times M_{\text{SUSY}}$, where $M_{\text{SUSY}}$ is the
582: mass scale of supersymmetric particles, taken to be 1~TeV.
583:
584: Results for both scenarios of the MSSM are shown in
585: Fig.~\ref{fig:mA_tanb} as limits in the \tanb\ versus $m_A$ plane.
586: The present D\O\ analysis, based on 260~\ipb\ of data, excludes a
587: significant portion of the parameter space, down to \tanb = 50,
588: depending on $m_A$ and the MSSM scenario assumed.
589:
590: %Assuming that no
591: %deviation is observed between the data and the expected background
592: %in the future, the 95\% C.L. limits on MSSM parameters which couldw
593: %be set given additional luminosity can be predicted, as shown in
594: %Fig.~\ref{fig:mh_tanb_future}.
595:
596: \begin{figure}\centering
597: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{eps_p14/mA_tanb_svloose_260_jetonly.eps}
598: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{eps_p14/mA_tanb_combined.eps}
599: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mA_tanB_no_max.eps}
600: \caption{The 95\% C.L. upper limit on \tanb\ as a function of $m_A$
601: for two scenarios of the MSSM, ``no mixing'' and ``maximal mixing.''
602: Also shown are the limits obtained by the LEP
603: experiments for the same two scenarios of the MSSM~\cite{leplimit}.}
604: \label{fig:mA_tanb}
605: %assuming $\tan^{2}\beta$ cross section enhancement.
606: %LEP lower limits are indicated for maximal and no
607: %mixing scenarios.} \label{fig:mA_tanb}
608: %The top hatched area indicates the excluded side
609: %of the line, and the shared area indicates the LEP limits.
610: \end{figure}
611:
612: %\begin{figure}\centering
613: %\includegraphics[width=3in]{eps_p14/mh_tanb_future.eps}
614: %\caption{Extrapolation of the expected 95\% C.L. upper limits on
615: %\tanb\ in MSSM parameter space, with various integrated luminosities
616: %collected (in \ipb).} \label{fig:mh_tanb_future}
617: %\end{figure}
618:
619: We thank the authors of Refs.~\cite{5fns,top_NLO,tev} for valuable
620: discussions. \input acknowledgement_paragraph_r2.tex % input acknowledgement
621:
622: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
623:
624: \input list_of_visitor_addresses_r2.tex % input visitors address
625:
626: \bibitem{2HDM}
627: H.~P.~Nilles,
628: %``Supersymmetry, Supergravity And Particle Physics,''
629: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 110}, 1 (1984);
630: H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane,
631: %``The Search For Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond The Standard Model,''
632: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 117}, 75 (1985).
633:
634: \bibitem{MSSM_Higgs}
635: %The Higgs Working Group: Summary Report (2001), hep-ph/0203056,
636: %D.Cavalli {\sl et al.}, Published in proceedings of ``Workshop on Physics at TeV Colliders'', pages 10-28.
637: %``Les Houches 2001, Physics at TeV colliders''
638: J.~F.~Gunion, H.~E.~Haber, G.~L.~Kane, and S.~Dawson, ``The Higgs
639: Hunter's Guide,'' Addison-Wesley, 1990.
640: % Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1990.
641: % SCIPP-89/13, 1989.
642: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=scipp-89\%2F13}{SPIRES entry}
643:
644: \bibitem{leplimit}
645: The LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches, LHWG-Note 2004-01.
646: %LEP Higgs Working Group (August 2004), LHWG-Note 2004-01.
647:
648: \bibitem{cdfrunIlimit}
649: %CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder {\sl et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4472-4478 (2001).
650:
651: %Recent theoretical calculations do not reproduce the cross sections
652: %and kinematics used by CDF Collaboration in Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
653: %86}, 4472 (2001).
654:
655: Results in Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4472 (2001) by the CDF
656: Collaboration cannot be confirmed with our data. In addition, their
657: analysis used PDFs that have been superseded, resulting in more
658: stringent limits than would have been obtained with the more recent
659: PDFs used in this analysis.
660:
661: \bibitem{5fns}
662: J.~Campbell, R.~K.~Ellis, F.~Maltoni, and S.~Willenbrock,
663: %``Higgs boson production in association with a single bottom quark,''
664: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 67}, 095002 (2003).
665:
666: \bibitem{4fns}
667: S.~Dawson, C.~B.~Jackson, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth,
668: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 69}, 074027 (2004);
669: S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kr{\"a}mer, and M.~Spira,
670: %``Higgs radiation off bottom quarks at the Tevatron and the LHC,''
671: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 70}, 074010 (2004).
672: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0309204].
673:
674: \bibitem{bh_NLO}
675: %K.A. Assamagan {\sl et al.}, Published in ``Les Houches 2003, Physics at TeV colliders'',
676: %hep-ph/0406152 ;
677: J.~Campbell {\sl et al.}, hep-ph/0405302.
678:
679: \bibitem{top_NLO}
680: S.~Dawson, C.~B.~Jackson, L.~Reina, and D.~Wackeroth, Phys.\ Rev.\
681: Lett. {\bf 94}, 031802 (2005).
682: %``Higgs boson production in association with bottom quarks,''
683:
684: %\bibitem{hdecay}
685: %A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Computer Phys. Commun. {\bf 108} (1998) 56-74.
686: %M. Spira, ``HDECAY'', hep-ph/9704448,
687: %http://people.web.psi.ch/spira/hdecay/.
688:
689: \bibitem{cpsuperh}
690: J.~S.~Lee {\sl et al.},
691: Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.\ {\bf 156}, 283 (2004).
692: %Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 156}, 283 (2004).
693: %J.~S.~Lee, A.~Pilaftsis, M.~Carena, S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Drees, J.~R.~Ellis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
694: %``CPsuperH: A computational tool for Higgs phenomenology in the minimal
695: %supersymmetric standard model with explicit CP violation,''
696: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0307377].
697:
698: \bibitem{carena}
699: M.~Carena and H.~E.~Haber,
700: %``Higgs boson theory and phenomenology. ((V)),''
701: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 50}, 63 (2003).
702: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208209].
703:
704: \bibitem{boos}
705: E.~Boos, A.~Djouadi, M.~M{\"u}hlleitner, and A.~Vologdin,
706: %``The MSSM Higgs bosons in the intense-coupling regime,''
707: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 66}, 055004 (2002).
708: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205160].
709:
710: \bibitem{run2det} D\O\ Collaboration, V.~Abazov {\sl et al.}, in preparation for submission to
711: Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A.
712:
713: \bibitem{run1det} D\O\ Collaboration, S.~Abachi {\sl et al.}, Nucl.
714: Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A~{\bf 338}, 185 (1994).
715:
716: \bibitem{RunIIcone}
717: G.~C.~Blazey {\sl et al.}, in
718: {\sl Proceedings of the Workshop:
719: ``QCD and Weak Boson Physics in Run II,''}
720: edited by U.~Baur, R.~K.~Ellis, and D.~Zeppenfeld,
721: (Fermilab, Batavia, IL, 2000) p.~47;
722: see Sec. 3.5 for details.
723: %G. Blazey {\sl et al.}, ``Run~II Jet Physics: Proceedings of the Run~II
724: %QCD and Weak Boson Physics Workshop'', hep-ex/0005012.
725:
726: \bibitem{pythia}
727: T.~Sj{\"o}strand {\sl et al.},
728: Comp.\ Phys.\ Comm.\ {\bf 135}, 238 (2001).
729: %T.~Sjostrand, P.~Eden, C.~Friberg, L.~Lonnblad, G.~Miu, S.~Mrenna and E.~Norrbin,
730: %``High-energy-physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1,''
731: %Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 135}, 238 (2001).
732: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0010017].
733: %Computer Phys. Commun. 135 (2001) 238. (LU TP 00-30,hep-ph/0010017).
734:
735: \bibitem{alpgen}
736: M.~L.~Mangano {\sl et al.},
737: %M.~Moretti, F.~Piccinini, R.~Pittau and A.~D.~Polosa,
738: %``ALPGEN, a generator for hard multiparton processes in hadronic
739: %collisions,''
740: JHEP {\bf 0307}, 001 (2003).
741: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0206293].
742:
743: \bibitem{Zb_NLO}
744: J.~Campbell, R.~K.~Ellis, F.~Maltoni, and S.~Willenbrock,
745: %``Associated production of a Z boson and a single heavy-quark jet,''
746: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 69}, 074021 (2004).
747: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0312024].
748:
749: \bibitem{madgraph}
750: F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer,
751: %``MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,''
752: JHEP {\bf 0302}, 027 (2003).
753: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208156].
754:
755: %\bibitem{mctuning}
756: %A. Annovi, P. Giannetti, ``B Production in Multijet Events'', Matrix
757: %Element/MC Tuning Workshop, Fermilab, Oct. 4, 2002,
758: %http://cepa.fnal.gov/CPD/MCTuning/event\_gen\_2002.pdf.
759:
760: \bibitem{mclimit}
761: T.~Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A~{\bf 434}, 435 (1999).
762: %T. Junk, ``Confidence Level Computation for Combining Searches with
763: %Small Statistics'', Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A434 (1999) 435-443, hep-ex/9902006.
764:
765: \bibitem{tev}
766: M.~Carena, S.~Mrenna, and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
767: %``MSSM Higgs boson phenomenology at the Tevatron collider,''
768: Phys.\ Rev.\ D~{\bf 60}, 075010 (1999);
769: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9808312].
770: %``The complementarity of LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC in the search for a
771: %light MSSM Higgs boson,''
772: ibid, D~{\bf 62}, 055008 (2000).
773: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9907422].
774:
775: %\bibitem{root}
776: %ROOT, TLimit classes from v4\_00\_03a were used.
777:
778: \end{thebibliography}
779:
780: \end{document}
781: % LocalWords: Kharchilava multijet TeV Fermilab Tevatron Collider MSSM CP LEP
782: % LocalWords: colliders CDF NLO CPsuperH di microstrip SMT CFT vertexing GeV
783: % LocalWords: pseudorapidities cryostats hadronic SV mis pythia parton alpgen
784: % LocalWords: partons pb madgraph ccccc PDF tri Higgsino supersymmetric Higgs
785: % LocalWords: gluons nb sd dof
786: