1: \documentclass{PoS}
2:
3: \PoS{PoS(HEP2005)320}
4:
5: \title{A Search for Charged Massive Stable Particles}
6:
7: \ShortTitle{A Search for Charged Massive Stable Particles}
8:
9: \author{\speaker{Thomas Nunnemann}\thanks{for the D\O{} Collaboration}\\
10: LMU Munich, Germany\\
11: E-mail: \email{Thomas.Nunnemann@physik.uni-muenchen.de}}
12:
13: %\author{Another Author\\
14: % Affiliation\\
15: % E-mail: \email{...}}
16:
17: \abstract{A search for charged massive (quasi-) stable particles with the D\O{}
18: detector at the Tevatron collider based on 390\,pb$^{-1}$
19: of data is presented.
20: The search is performed in the frameworks of gauge-mediated supersymmetry
21: breaking and the minimal supersymmetric extentension of the standard model.
22: The hypothetical particles are
23: assumed to be pair-produced in $p\bar{p}$ collisions giving a signature
24: of two reconstructed muon-like objects with high invariant mass and
25: time-of-flights indicative of heavy particles.
26: Since no excess over background
27: is observed, cross-section limits for the pair-production of stable staus
28: and
29: charginos are set. Mass limits of 140\,GeV for a higgsino-like chargino and
30: 174\,GeV for a gaugino-like chargino are set.}
31:
32:
33: \FullConference{International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics\\
34: July 21st - 27th 2005\\
35: Lisboa, Portugal}
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40: We report on the search for new charged massive stable particles (CMSP)
41: assumed to be pair-produced in $p\bar{p}$ collisions. Herein, stable refers to
42: a lifetime long enough to escape the entire detector without decaying.
43: Heavy particles can be identified with the D\O{} detector primarily using the
44: time-of-flight measurement of the muon detector's scintillators, which have
45: a time resolution of 2-3\,ns.
46:
47: Several supersymmetric (SUSY) models can include a long-lived, quasi-stable
48: particle
49: as next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) provided that it is nearly
50: mass-degenerate with the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) or that its
51: coupling to the LSP is small.
52:
53: The latter condition can be fulfilled in models with gauge-mediated
54: supersymmetry breaking (GMSB), where gauge interactions with messenger fields
55: at a scale much smaller than the Planck scale are responsible for the SUSY
56: breaking~\cite{Giudice}.
57: GMSB models have a very distinctive phenomenology. The gravitino $\tilde{G}$
58: is typically light
59: %($\stackrel{<}{\sim}1\,\mathrm{keV}$)
60: ($\lesssim 1\,\mathrm{keV}$)
61: and is the lightest SUSY particle
62: (LSP). The next-to-lightest SUSY particle (NLSP) is usually either the lightest
63: neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, decaying into $\gamma\tilde{G}$,
64: or the lightest charged slepton (mostly $\tilde{\tau}_1$), decaying into
65: $l\tilde{G}$. Due to the weak gravitational coupling the NLSP can be
66: quasi-stable.
67: In this analysis, the GMSB model referred to as ``Snowmass Model Line D''
68: which contains a stau
69: as NLSP is used~\cite{Snowmass}.
70: Its parameter set is shown in Table~\ref{table1}.
71:
72: In anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking models the lightest chargino
73: $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ (NLSP) is nearly mass-degenerate with the lightest
74: neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ (LSP)~\cite{Randall}.
75: Two general cases have been studied in this
76: analysis in the framework of the MSSM (see Table~\ref{table2})
77: \cite{Martin}: higgsino-like
78: $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ ({\em deep-higgsino region}) and
79: gaugino-like $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ (AMSB inspired).
80:
81: For both the GMSB and chargino analysis, signal events were generated with
82: Pythia 6.202~\cite{Pythia}
83: and passed through a parameterized Monte Carlo simulation, which
84: includes all efficiencies and detector resolution smearing. In particular
85: the muon system's time measurements are smeared according to resolutions and
86: offsets measured in data. Only the pair-production of the lightest
87: $\tilde{\tau}$ or the chargino, respectively, is considered. However, the
88: analysis has also some sensitivity to CMSPs produced in cascade-decays of
89: heavier supersymmetric particles.
90:
91: The data sample consists of 390\,pb$^{-1}$.
92: %from April 2002 to August 2004.
93: The trigger employed required two tracks in the muon system using an
94: asymmetric trigger gate to be efficient for particles travelling slower
95: than light.
96: Nevertheless the trigger efficiency drops to about 75\% for
97: $M_{\tilde{\tau}}=300$\,GeV.
98:
99: \begin{table}[h]
100: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
101: \hline\hline
102: Model & $\Lambda_m$ [GeV] & $M_m$ & $N_5$ & $\tan\beta$ & sgn $\mu$ &
103: $C_{grav}$\\
104: \hline
105: GMSB ``Model Line D'' & from 19 to 100\,TeV & $2\Lambda_m$ & 3 & 15 & +1 & 1\\
106: \hline\hline
107: \end{tabular}
108: \caption{GMSB ``Model Line D'' parameter}
109: \label{table1}
110: \end{table}
111:
112: \begin{table}[h]
113: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
114: \hline\hline
115: Model & $\mu$ [GeV] & $M_1$ [GeV] & $M_2$ [GeV] & $M_3$ [GeV]
116: & $\tan\beta$ & $M_{\tilde{q}}$ [GeV]\\
117: \hline
118: higgsino-like &from 60 to 300&100,000&100,000&500&15&800\\
119: gaugino-like &10,000 & $3 M_2$& from 60 to 300&500&15&800\\
120: \hline\hline
121: \end{tabular}
122: \caption{MSSM parameter sets for chargino analysis}
123: \label{table2}
124: \end{table}
125:
126:
127: \section{Selection and Background Estimation}
128: The analysis requires two reconstructed muons with transverse momentum
129: $p_T>15$\,GeV, both matched to a central track and with hits in at least two
130: of the three scintillator layers. Cosmic veto cuts are applied and at least
131: one muon is required to be isolated to suppress background from
132: heavy-flavor production. To ensure a good speed measurement for each particle
133: in the event, consistent time information in all scintillator layers are
134: required.
135: No separation with a $\mathrm{d}E/\mathrm{d}x$ measurement in the central
136: fiber tracker is attempted due to its small number of layers and small
137: photon statistics from scintillation. After this preselection the background
138: is largely dominated by $Z$ and Drell-Yan production.
139:
140: To quantify the deviation of a particle's speed $v$ from the speed of light
141: $c$, a speed significance is defined as $(c-v)/\sigma_v$ which is required to
142: be positive.
143: The final signal selection is based on a two-dimensional cut using the
144: invariant di-muon mass $M_{\mu\mu}$ and the product of the speed significance
145: of the two
146: reconstructed muons (CMSP candidates). This cut is optimized separately
147: for each CMSP mass hypothesis (see Fig.~\ref{fig1}, left). Since the kinematic
148: properties of the considered signal models are similar, the optimization
149: obtained with the GMSB model is used for the other models as well.
150:
151: The background estimation is entirely based on data using orthogonal data
152: sets to describe the two-dimensional probability density function (PDF)
153: depending on the
154: invariant di-muon mass and the significance product.
155: Since no correlation between these two variables is observed for the
156: background, which is predominantly $Z$ and Drell-Yan production, the PDF
157: can be factorized. Events with apparent muon speeds $v_{\mu_{1,2}}>c$
158: are used to estimate the background's invariant di-muon mass distribution
159: and events
160: with $M_{\mu\mu}\approx M_Z$ are taken to estimate the significance product.
161:
162: The systematic error on the signal acceptance is dominated by uncertainties in
163: the trigger, muon identification and timing cut efficiencies as implemented
164: in the simulation, and amounts to 2.7\%.
165: The systematic error on the background prediction has been evaluated to be
166: 3.7\% by varying the selection criteria.
167:
168: \begin{figure}
169: \begin{center}
170: \mbox{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_sigprod.eps}
171: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_accept.eps}}
172: \end{center}
173: \caption{{\it Left:} Invariant mass versus significance product for reconstructed
174: muon pairs in data (black circles) and stau pairs with
175: $M_{\tilde{\tau}}=60\,\mathrm{GeV}$ (red triangles).
176: The line represents the optimized two-dimensional cut.
177: {\it Right:} Acceptance versus lifetime for assumed $M_{\tilde{\tau}}=100\,GeV$.}
178: \label{fig1}
179: \end{figure}
180:
181: %% \begin{figure}
182: %% \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_accept.eps}
183: %% \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_gmsbexcl.eps}
184: %% \caption{Left: Acceptance versus lifetime for assumed
185: %% $M_{\tilde{\tau}}=100\,GeV$.
186: %% Right: 95\% cross-section limit (solid line) and NLO production cross-section
187: %% for pair-produced staus in GMSB ``Model Line D''.}
188: %% \label{fig2}
189: %% \end{figure}
190:
191: \section{Results and Conclusions}
192: For both the GMSB and the chargino analysis, six CMSP mass points from 60 to
193: 300\,GeV have been studied. The data are consistent with the background
194: estimation. For assumed CMSP masses larger than 100\,GeV, no events are
195: observed, with background predictions ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 events.
196: Signal acceptances are between 2.3\% and 12.3\% depending on CMSP mass and
197: model.
198: For finite CMSP life-times the acceptance decreases as shown in
199: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, right.
200:
201: 95\% confidence level limits on the cross-section for CMSP pair-production
202: are set
203: using the $CL_s$ method~\cite{Junk} for each model and CMSP mass point
204: and are subsequently compared to
205: the next-to-leading order cross-section predictions calculated with
206: Prospino~2~\cite{Beenakker}.
207: In the case of the GMSB analysis, these limits are not yet stringent enough to set
208: a limit on the stau mass, nevertheless they are the best limits to date from
209: the Tevatron (cf. Fig.\ref{fig2}, left).
210:
211: The cross-section limits for the chargino-analyses are shown in
212: Fig.\ref{fig2}, right.
213: Mass limits for the stable chargino could be set beyond the LEP exclusion
214: limit of 102.5\,GeV~\cite{lepsusy}:
215: For higgsino-like stable charginos masses below 140\,GeV, for
216: gaugino-like stable charginos masses below 174\,GeV are excluded.
217: These are currently the best mass limits
218: on stable charginos.
219:
220:
221: \begin{figure}
222: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_gmsbexcl.eps}
223: \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_gauginoexcl.eps}
224: %\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{cmsp_higgsinoexcl.eps}
225: %\caption{95\% cross-section limit (solid line) and NLO production cross-section
226: %for pair-produced gaugino-like (left) and higgsino-like (right)
227: %chargionos.}
228: \caption{95\% cross-section limit (solid line) and NLO production cross-section
229: for pair-produced staus in GMSB (left) and gaugino-like charginos (right).}
230: \label{fig2}
231: \end{figure}
232:
233:
234: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
235: \bibitem{Giudice}
236: For a review see: G.F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi,
237: Phys. Rept. \textbf{322}, (1999) 419.
238: \bibitem{Randall}
239: L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. \textbf{B557}, (1999) 79.
240: \bibitem{Snowmass}
241: S. Martin et. al, FERMILAB-CONF-01-371-T.
242: \bibitem{Martin}
243: For a review see: S. Martin, in Kane, G.(ed.):
244: \emph{Perspectives on supersymmetry} 1-98, 1997.
245: \bibitem{Pythia}
246: T. Sjosstrand et.al., Computer Physics Comun. 135, 238 (2001).
247: \bibitem{Junk}
248: T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{434}, 435 (1999).
249: \bibitem{Beenakker}
250: W. Beenakker et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{83}, 3780 (1999).
251: \bibitem{lepsusy}
252: LEP SUSY Work. Group, {\tt http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch}.
253: \end{thebibliography}
254:
255: \end{document}
256: