1: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{latexsym}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: \usepackage{rotating}
6: \usepackage{xspace}
7:
8: %symbols
9: \input{symbols.tex}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: %
13: \title{Searches for New Physics in Photon Final States}
14: \author{Andrey Loginov\inst{}% etc
15: % \thanks is optional - remove next line if not needed
16: \thanks{\emph{For the CDF Collaboration}}%
17: } % Do not remove
18: %
19: \offprints{loginov@fnal.gov} % Insert a name or remove this line
20: %
21: \institute{ITEP, Moscow}
22: %
23: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
24: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer
25: %
26: \abstract{
27: The Run I results on the searches for new physics in photon final
28: states were intriguing. The rare $\eeggmet$ candidate event and the
29: measured event rate for the signature $\ell+\gamma+\met$, which was
30: 2.7 sigma above the Standard Model predictions, sparked
31: signature-based searches in the $\gamma\gamma+X$ and $\ell\gamma+X$
32: channels. With more data in Run II we should be able to answer a
33: simple question: was it an anomaly or were the Run I results the first
34: evidence for new physics? We present searches for New Physics in
35: Photon Final States at CDF Run II, Fermilab, with substantially more
36: data and a higher $\pbarp$ collision energy, 1.96~TeV, and the
37: upgraded CDF-II detector.
38: %
39: \PACS{
40: %\pacs{13.85.Rm, 12.60.Jv, 13.85.Qk, 14.80.Ly} % gg+met
41: %PACS numbers 13.85Rm, 13.85Qk, 14.80.-j,14.80.Ly % lgx
42: {13.85.Rm} {Limits on production of particles} \and
43: {12.60.Jv} {Supersymmetric models} \and
44: {13.85.Qk} {Inclusive production with identified leptons, photons, or other nonhadronic particles} \and
45: {14.80.Ly} {Supersymmetric partners of known particles} \and
46: {14.80.-j} {Other particles (including hypothetical)}
47: % {PACS-key}{describing text of that key} \and
48: % {PACS-key}{describing text of that key}
49: } % end of PACS codes
50: } %end of abstract
51: %
52: \maketitle
53: %
54: \section{Introduction}
55: \label{introduction.section}
56: The Standard Model (SM)~\cite{SM} is an effective field theory that has so far
57: described the fundamental interactions of elementary
58: particles remarkably well. However the model breaks
59: down at energies of a few TeV, in that the cross-section for
60: scattering of longitudinal W bosons would otherwise violate unitarity.
61: The Fermilab Tevatron has the highest center-of-mass energy collisions
62: of any present accelerator, with $\roots =1.96$ TeV, and thus has the
63: potential to discover new physics.
64: As of September, 2005, the CDF experiment at Fermilab has recorded 1
65: $\invfb$ of data. Physics results using 202 $\invpb$ to 345 $\invpb$
66: are presented in this paper.
67:
68: \subsection{Motivation}
69: \label{motivation.section}
70: Why do we consider the photon final states a good signature for
71: observing new physics?
72:
73: \begin{itemize}
74: \item Well Motivated Theories
75: \begin{itemize}
76: \item Most importantly Supersymmetry
77: \end{itemize}
78: \item History
79: \begin{itemize}
80: \item Follow up on some of the anomalies from CDF in Run I~\cite{Toback_PRD,Toback_PRL,Ray_PRD,Jeff_PRD,Jeff_PRL}
81: \end{itemize}
82: \item From the experimentalists' point of view, just because...
83: \begin{itemize}
84: \item The photon is coupled to electric charge, and thus is radiated by all charged particles, including the incoming states (important for searching for invisible final states)
85: \item The photon is massless and thus kinematically easier to produce than the W or Z
86: \item The photon is stable, which implies a high acceptance, as there are no branching ratios to `pay'
87: \item The photon is a boson and could be produced by a fermiphobic parent
88: \item And if we then require
89: \begin{itemize}
90: \item Additional Lepton(s) $\Rightarrow$ high-$\Et$~\footnote{Transverse momentum and energy are defined as $\Pt =
91: p\sin\theta$ and $\Et = E\sin\theta$, respectively. The CDF coordinate system of $r$, $\varphi$, and $z$ is cylindrical,
92: with the $z$-axis along the proton beam. The pseudorapidity is $\eta
93: = -\ln(\tan(\theta/2))$.} photon + high-$\Pt$ lepton + X signature is rare in SM, backgrounds are low for searches
94: \item Additional Photon(s) $\Rightarrow$ the photons have moderate signal-to-noise but good efficiency and mass peak resolution
95: \end{itemize}
96: \end{itemize}
97: \end{itemize}
98:
99: \subsection{Run I Results}
100: \label{runi.section}
101: \subsubsection{$\eeggmet$ Candidate Event}
102: \label{eeggmet.section}
103:
104: In 1995 the CDF experiment, measuring $\pbarp$ collisions at a
105: center-of-mass energy of 1.8 TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron, observed an
106: event~\cite{Toback_PRD,Toback_PRL,Toback_thesis} consistent with the
107: production of two energetic photons, two energetic electrons, and
108: large missing transverse energy~\footnote{Missing $\rm E_T$ ($\metvec$) is defined by $\metvec = -\sum_{i} E_T^i
109: \hat{n}_i$, where i is the calorimeter tower number for $|\eta| <$
110: 3.6, and $\hat{n}_i$ is a unit vector perpendicular to the beam axis
111: and pointing at the i$^{th}$ calorimeter tower. We define the
112: magnitude $\met=|\metvec|$.}, $\met$
113: (Figure~\ref{eeggmet.figure}).
114:
115: \begin{figure}[!h]
116: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
117: \includegraphics*{figures/eeggmet.eps}
118: }
119: \caption{The Run I $\eeggmet$ Candidate Event.}
120: \label{eeggmet.figure} % Give a unique label
121: \end{figure}
122:
123: This signature is predicted to be very rare in the Standard Model of
124: particle physics, with the dominant contribution coming from the
125: WW$\gg$ production:
126:
127: $WW\gamma\gamma\goes (e\nu)(e\nu)\gamma\gamma\goes
128: ee\gamma\gamma\met$,\\
129: from which we expect 8 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$
130: events. All other sources (mostly detector misidentification) lead to
131: 5 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ events. Therefore, we expect
132: (1 $\pm$ 1)$\times$ 10$^{-6}$ events, which would give us one
133: $\eeggmet$ candidate event if we had taken million times more data
134: than we actually had in Run I.
135:
136: The event raised theoretical interest, however, as the two-lepton
137: two-photon signature is expected in some models of physics `beyond the
138: Standard Model' such as gauge-mediated models of
139: supersymmetry~\cite{susy}. For example, possible interpretation will
140: be:
141:
142: $p\overline{p} \rightarrow {\tilde e}^+{\tilde e}^- (+ X)$,
143: ${\tilde e} \rightarrow \ntwo + e$, $\ntwo \rightarrow \none\gamma$,\\
144: where ${\tilde e}$ is the selectron (the bosonic partner of the
145: electron), and $\none$ and $\ntwo$ are the lightest and
146: next-to-lightest neutralinos.
147:
148: \subsubsection{$\gg$+X Search}
149: \label{ggx.section}
150: The detection of this single event led to the development of
151: `signature-based' inclusive searches to cast a wider net: in this case
152: one searches for two photons + X
153: ~\cite{Toback_PRD,Toback_PRL,Toback_thesis}, where X stands for
154: anything, with the idea that if pairs of new particles were being
155: created these inclusive signatures would be sensitive to a range of
156: decay modes or to the creation and decay of different particle types.
157:
158: In Run I Searches for {\bf$\gg$+X} all results were consistent with
159: the SM background expectations with no other exceptions
160: other than the observation of the $\eeggmet$ candidate
161: event(Table~\ref{ggx_runi.table})~\cite{Toback_PRL}.
162:
163: \begin{table}[!t]
164: \begin{center}
165: \caption{Number of observed and expected $\gamma\gamma$ events with additional
166: objects in 86 pb$^{-1}${\protect \cite{Toback_PRL}}.}
167: \label{ggx_runi.table}
168: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
169: \hline
170: Signature (Object) & Obs. & Expected \\
171: \hline
172: \mettgmh, $|\Delta\phi_{\mettsm-{\rm jet}}|>10^\circ$ & 1 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
173: N$_{\rm jet}\ge 4$, ${\rm E}_{\rm T}^{\rm jet}>10$~GeV,
174: $|\eta^{\rm jet}|<2.0$ & 2 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.4 \\
175: $b$-tag, ${\rm E}_{\rm T}^{b}>25$~GeV & 2 & 1.3 $\pm$ 0.7 \\
176: Central $\gamma$, ${\rm E}_{\rm T}^{\gamma_3}>25$~GeV & 0 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
177: Central $e$ or $\mu$, ${\rm E}_{\rm T}^{e~{\rm or}~\mu}>25$~GeV & 3 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
178: Central $\tau$, ${\rm E}_{\rm T}^{\tau}>25$~GeV & 1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
179: \hline
180: \end{tabular}
181: \end{center}
182: \end{table}
183:
184: \subsubsection{From $\gg$ to $\lg$: $\lgX$ Search}
185: \label{lgx.section}
186: Another `signature-based' inclusive search, motivated by $\eeggmet$
187: event was for $\lgX$~\cite{Jeff_PRD,Jeff_PRL,Jeff_thesis}.
188:
189: \begin{table}[!b]
190: \begin{center}
191: \caption{Run I Photon-Lepton Results: Number of observed and expected $\ell\gamma$ events with additional
192: objects in 86 pb$^{-1}${\protect \cite{Jeff_PRL}}.}
193: \label{lgx_runi.table}
194: \begin{tabular}{l@{\extracolsep{0.0cm}}ccc}
195: \hline
196: Category & $\mu_{SM}$ & $N_0$ & P($N\ge N_0|\mu_{SM}$),\% \\
197: \hline%------------------------------------------------------------------------
198: All $\lgX$ & -- & {\bf 77} & -- \\
199: \hline%------------------------------------------------------------------------
200: Z-like $e\gamma$ & -- & 17 & -- \\
201: Two-Body $\lg X$ & 24.9$\pm$2.4 & 33 & 9.3 \\
202: Multi-Body $\lg X$ & 20.2$\pm$1.7 & 27 & 10.0 \\
203: \hline%------------------------------------------------------------------------
204: Multi-Body $\llg X$ & 5.8 $\pm$ 0.6 & 5 & 68.0 \\
205: Multi-Body $\lgg X$ & 0.02$\pm$0.02 & 1 & 1.5 \\
206: Multi-Body $\lgmet X$ &
207: {\bf7.6 $\pm$ 0.7} &
208: {\bf16 } &
209: {\bf0.7} \\
210: \hline%------------------------------------------------------------------------
211: \end{tabular}
212: \end{center}
213: \end{table}
214:
215: In general data agrees with expectations, with the exception for the
216: $\lgmet$ category. We have observed 16 $\lgmet$ events on a background
217: of 7.6 $\pm$ 0.7 expected. The 16 $\lgmet$ events consist of 11
218: $\mugmet$ events and 5 $\egmet$ events, versus expectations of
219: 4.2$\pm$0.5 and 3.4$\pm$0.3 events, respectively. The SM prediction
220: yields the observed rate of $\ell\gamma\met$ with {\bf 0.7\%}
221: probability (which is equivalent to {\bf 2.7} standard deviations for
222: a Gaussian distribution).
223:
224: One of the first SUSY interpretation of the CDF { $\mgmet$}
225: events~\cite{smuon_PRL} was resonant smuon $\tilde{\mu}$ production
226: with a single dominant R-parity violating
227: coupling (Figure~\ref{smuon_production.figure}).
228:
229: \begin{figure}[!h]
230: \centering
231: \resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{%
232: \includegraphics*{figures/smuon_production.ps}
233: }
234: \caption{Resonant smuon production and subsequent decay, producing the $\mu\gamma\met$ signature.}
235: \label{smuon_production.figure}
236: \end{figure}
237:
238: The Run I search was initiated by an anomaly in the data itself, and
239: as such the 2.7 sigma excess above the SM expectations must be viewed
240: taking into account the number of such channels a fluctuation could
241: have occurred in.
242:
243: \section{From Run I to Run II}
244: \label{runi_runii.section}
245:
246: Having many different hints from the signature-based sear\-ches for new
247: physics in photon final states in Run I, the strategy for Run II was
248: straightforward: take more data. The main points were:
249:
250: \begin{itemize}
251: \item Increase the Collision Energy: 1.80 $\rightarrow$ 1.96 TeV
252: \item Increase the rate at which we take data: 3500 $\rightarrow$ 396 ns (timing between bunches)
253: \item Upgrade the Detectors
254: \end{itemize}
255:
256: \subsection{CDF Run II Detector}
257: \label{cdf_detector.section}
258:
259: The CDF-II detector~\cite{CDFII} is a cylindrically symmetric
260: spectrometer designed to study $\pbarp$ collisions at the Fermilab
261: Tevatron, that uses the same solenoidal magnet and central
262: calorimeters as the CDF-I detector~\cite{CDFI} from which it was
263: upgraded. Because the analyses described here have been motivated by
264: the Run I searches, we note especially the differences from the Run I
265: detector relevant to the detection of photons, leptons, and $\met$.
266:
267: The central calorimeters are physically unchanged; however, the readout
268: electronics has been replaced to accommodate the smaller proton and
269: anti-proton bunch spacing of the Tevatron in Run II. The end-cap
270: (plug) and forward calorimeters have been replaced with a more compact
271: scintillator-based design, retaining the projective
272: geometry~\cite{cal_upgrade}.
273:
274: The tracking system used to measure the momenta of charged particles
275: has been replaced, with the central outer tracker upgraded to have
276: smaller drift cells~\cite{COT}, and the inner tracking chamber and
277: silicon system replaced by a system of silicon strip chambers with
278: more layers, now in 2-dimensions~\cite{SVX}. The new inner tracking
279: system has substantially more material, resulting in more
280: bremsstrahlung (photons) produced by high-$\Pt$ electrons.
281:
282: The central CMU, CMP, and CMX muon systems\footnote{The CMU (Central
283: Muon Chambers) system consists of gas proportional chambers in the
284: region $|\eta|<0.6$; the CMP (Central Muon Upgrade) system consists of
285: chambers after an additional meter of steel, also for
286: $|\eta|<0.6$. The CMX (Central Muon Extension) chambers cover
287: $0.6<|\eta|<1.0$.} are also physically unchanged in design, but the
288: coverage of the CMP and CMX muon systems~\cite{muon_systems} has been
289: extended by filling in gaps in $\varphi$~\cite{CDFII}.
290:
291: \section{Run II: Searches for New Physics in Photon Final States}
292: \label{runii_searches.section}
293:
294: The Run I results on the searches for new physics in photon final
295: states were
296: intriguing~\cite{Toback_PRD,Toback_PRL,Jeff_PRD,Jeff_PRL}. The rare
297: $\eeggmet$ candidate event and the measured event rate for the
298: signature $\ell+\gamma+\met$, which was 2.7 sigma above the SM
299: predictions, sparked signature-based searches in the $\gamma\gamma+X$
300: and $\ell\gamma+X$ channels.
301:
302: With more data in Run II we should be able to answer a simple
303: question: was it an anomaly or were the Run I results the first
304: evidence for the new physics?
305:
306: There are lots of searches involving photon final states at CDF in Run
307: II. Some of the analyses are presented in this paper:
308:
309: \begin{itemize}
310: \item Search for High-Mass Diphoton State and Limits on Randall-Sundrum Gravitons (Section~\ref{gg_runii.section})
311: \item Search for Anomalous Production of Diphoton Events with $\met$ and Limits on GMSB Models (Section~\ref{ggmet_runii.section})
312: \item Search for Lepton-Photon-X Events (Section~\ref{lgx_runii.section})
313: \end{itemize}
314:
315: \subsection{Search for High-Mass Diphoton State and Limits on Randall-Sundrum Gravitons }
316: \label{gg_runii.section}
317:
318: Searches for new particles decaying into two identical particles are
319: broad, inclusive and sensitive. The production of the new particle may
320: be direct or in association with other particles, or in a decay
321: chain. The discovery of a sharp mass peak over background would be a
322: compelling evidence for the production of a new particle. The diphoton
323: final state is important because the photons are bosons and the parent
324: may be fermiphobic. The photons have moderate signal-to-noise but good
325: efficiency and mass peak resolution.
326:
327: One model producing a diphoton mass peak is Randall-Sundrum
328: gravitons~\cite{randall_sundrum}. Current string theory proposes that
329: as many as seven new dimensions may exist and the geometry of these
330: extra dimensions is responsible for gravity being so weak. The
331: Randall-Sundrum model has the property that a parameter, the warp
332: factor, determines the curvature of the extra dimensions and therefore
333: the mass of the Kaluza-Klein graviton resonances, which decay to two
334: bodies including photons.
335:
336: Details on this analysis are reported in~\cite{www_cdf_gg}.
337:
338: \subsubsection{Data Sample}
339: \label{gg_runii_data.section}
340:
341: The sample corresponds to 345 $\invpb$ of data taken between February
342: 2002 and July, 2004. We require that the data were taken under good
343: detector conditions for a reliable photon identification. We apply
344: selection cuts as follows:
345:
346: \begin{itemize}
347: \item Photons in Central Calorimeter
348: \item $\Et^{\gamma}\gt$ 15 GeV
349: \item M ($\gamma, \gamma$) $\gt$ 30 GeV
350: \end{itemize}
351:
352: To select a photon in a central calorimeter (approximately
353: $0.05<|\eta|<1.0$), we require a central electromagnetic cluster that:
354: a)~is not near the boundary in $\phi$ of a calorimeter tower~\footnote{
355: The fiducial region has $\sim$87\% coverage in the central region.}
356: b)~have the ratio of hadronic to electromagnetic energy,
357: Had/EM, $< 0.055+0.00045\times E^{\gamma}(\GeV)$;
358: c)~have no tracks, or only one track with \mbox{$\ptt <1$~GeV/$c$},
359: extrapolating to the towers of the cluster;
360: d)~is isolated in the calorimeter and tracking chamber~\footnote{
361: To reject hadronic backgrounds that fake prompt photons, candidates
362: are required to be isolated in the calorimeter and tracking
363: chamber. In the calorimeter the isolation is defined as the energy in
364: a cone of 0.4 in $\eta-\phi$ space, minus the photon cluster energy,
365: and corrected for energy loss into cracks as well as the number of
366: reconstructed $\ppbar$ interactions in the event. We require
367: isolation $<0.1\times\Et^{\gamma}$ for $\Et^{gamma}<$~20~GeV, and
368: $<2.0$~GeV$+0.02\times(\Et^{\gamma} -20$~GeV) for $\Et^{\gamma}>$~20~GeV.
369: In the
370: tracking chamber we require the scalar sum of the \ptt\ of all tracks
371: in a cone of 0.4 to be $<2.0$~GeV$+0.005\times\Et^{\gamma}$, where all values
372: of $\Et^{\gamma}$ are in GeV.}
373: e)~have a shower shape in the CES~\footnote{CES: Central EM Strip Chambers.} consistent with a single photon;
374: f)~have no other significant energy deposited nearby in the CES.
375:
376: The final dataset consists of 3339 events, for which the data
377: histogrammed with bins equivalent to one $\sigma$ of invariant mass
378: resolution are shown in Figure~\ref{mass_gg_varbin.figure}. The
379: highest mass events occur at masses of 207, 247, 304, 329, and 405
380: GeV/$\rm{c^2}$ (Figure~\ref{highest_mass.figure}).
381:
382: \begin{figure}[!h]
383: \centering
384: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
385: \includegraphics*{figures/mass_gg_varbin.ps}
386: }
387: \caption{The diphoton invariant mass distribution histogrammed in bins of
388: approximately one $\sigma$ of mass resolution.}
389: \label{mass_gg_varbin.figure}
390: \end{figure}
391:
392: \begin{figure}[!h]
393: \centering
394: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
395: \includegraphics*{figures/cot_1_r165271_e2045232.eps}
396: }
397: \caption{
398: $\gg$ Highest Mass Event.
399: M ($\gg$) = 405 GeV/$\rm{c^2}$,
400: $\Et^{\gamma1}$ = 172 GeV,
401: $\Et^{\gamma2}$ = 175 GeV.
402: }
403: \label{highest_mass.figure}
404: \end{figure}
405:
406: \subsubsection{Backgrounds}
407:
408: There are two significant backgrounds to the $\gg$ sample. The first
409: is SM diphoton production which accounts for 30\% of the events
410: (Figure~\ref{gg_diagrams_sm.figure}). This background is estimated
411: using a NLO Monte Carlo, diphox~\cite{diphox}, which we normalize to
412: $\lum$=345 $\invpb$.
413:
414: \begin{figure}[!h]
415: \centering
416: \resizebox{0.4\textwidth}{!}{%
417: \includegraphics*{figures/gg_diagrams_sm.ps}
418: }
419: \caption{Standard Model diphoton production diagrams.}
420: \label{gg_diagrams_sm.figure}
421: \end{figure}
422:
423: The second background comes from high-$\Et$ $\pi^{0}$'s from jets. To
424: create a control sample, we loosen several cuts (including relaxing
425: the isolation cuts by 50\%), and we get 9891 events, from which we
426: then reject events in the signal sample and are left with 6552 events
427: in the ``photon sideband'' sample. We then derive the shape of the
428: mass distribution by fitting this sample to a sum of several
429: exponentials. We then subtract the estimate from the SM contribution
430: and normalize the fakes background to the low mass ($m_{\gamma\gamma}$
431: between 30 and 100 GeV).
432:
433: Figure~\ref{mass_gg_bckgnd_log.figure} shows the data mass spectrum
434: compared to the prediction.
435:
436: \begin{figure}[!h]
437: \centering
438: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
439: \includegraphics*{figures/mass_gg_bckgnd_log.ps}
440: }
441: \caption{
442: Comparison of the SM di-photon contribution plus misidentified jets
443: with the observed diphoton mass spectrum. Variable bins are used for
444: statistical comparison to the background prediction. }
445: \label{mass_gg_bckgnd_log.figure}
446: \end{figure}
447:
448: \subsubsection{Limits on Randall-Sundrum Gravitons}
449:
450: Since the data are consistent with the SM prediction, we place upper
451: limits on the cross sections times branching ratio of Randall-Sundrum
452: graviton production and decay to diphotons
453: (Figure~\ref{gg_diagrams_rs.figure}).
454:
455: \begin{figure}[!h]
456: \centering
457: \resizebox{0.25\textwidth}{!}{%
458: \includegraphics*{figures/gg_diagrams_rs.ps}
459: }
460: \caption{Randall-Sundrum graviton production and decay to diphotons.}
461: \label{gg_diagrams_rs.figure}
462: \end{figure}
463:
464: Figure~\ref{comb_rs.figure} shows the combined 95\% confidence level
465: RS graviton mass limits of the di-photon ($\lum$=345 $\invpb$) and
466: di-lepton ($\lum$=200 $\invpb$) searches~\cite{high_mass_dilepton} in
467: the graviton mass versus coupling, k/$M_{Planck}$, plane. Note, that
468: $\gg$ has a larger Branching Ratio (Br(G$\rightarrow\gg$) =
469: 2$\times$Br(G$\rightarrow$ee)) and the $\gg$ spin factors improve
470: the acceptance.
471:
472: \begin{figure}[!h]
473: \centering
474: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
475: \includegraphics*{figures/comb_rs.ps}
476: }
477: \caption{Combined 95\% confidence level Randall-Sundrum graviton mass limits of the
478: di-photon and di-lepton searches.}
479: \label{comb_rs.figure}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482: \subsection{Search for Anomalous Production of Diphoton Events with $\met$ and Limits on GMSB Models}
483: \label{ggmet_runii.section}
484:
485: For theoretical reasons~\cite{OurGMSB,SUSY_Workshop}, and because of
486: the $ee\gamma\gamma\met$ candidate event (Figure~\ref{eeggmet.figure})
487: recorded by the CDF detector in Run~I~\cite{Toback_PRD,Toback_PRL},
488: we want to search
489: for the production of heavy new particles that decay producing the
490: signature $\gamma\gamma+\met$. Of particular theoretical interest
491: are supersymmetric (SUSY) models with gauge--mediated SUSY--breaking
492: (GMSB). Characteristically, the effective SUSY--breaking scale
493: ($\Lambda$) can be as low as 100 TeV, the lightest SUSY particle is a
494: light gravitino ($\Gravitino$) that is assumed to be stable, and the
495: SUSY particles have masses in a range that may make them accessible at Tevatron
496: energies~\cite{OurGMSB}. In these models the visible signatures are
497: determined by the properties of the next--to--lightest SUSY particle
498: (NLSP) that may be, for example, a slepton or the lightest neutralino
499: ($\none$). In the GMSB model investigated here, the NLSP is a $\none$
500: decaying almost exclusively to a photon and a $\Gravitino$ that
501: penetrates the detector without interacting, producing $\met$. SUSY
502: particle production at the Tevatron is predicted to be dominated by
503: pairs of the lightest chargino ($\cone$) and by associated production
504: of a $\cone$ and the next--to--lightest neutralino ($\ntwo$). Each
505: gaugino pair cascades down to two $\NONE$'s, leading to a final state
506: of $\gamma\gamma+\met+X$, where $X$ represents any other final state
507: particles.
508:
509: Details on this analysis can be found
510: in~\cite{cdf_ggmet,cdf_and_d0_ggmet_combined}.
511:
512: \subsubsection{Data Sample}
513:
514: The analysis selection criteria have been optimized to maximize, {\it
515: a priori}, the expected sensitivity to GMSB SUSY based only on the
516: background expectations and the predictions of the model. Event
517: selection requirements for the diphoton candidate sample are designed
518: to reduce electron and jet/$\pi^0$ backgrounds while accepting
519: well-measured di\-photon candidates.
520:
521: We require two central (approximately $0.05<|\eta|<1.0$)
522: electromagnetic clusters that should pass standard photon selection
523: cuts (Section~\ref{gg_runii_data.section}). For this analysis we
524: require $\Et^{\gamma}\gt$ 13 GeV.
525:
526: \subsubsection{Backgrounds}
527: Backgrounds for the $\ggX$ analysis are:
528: \begin{itemize}
529: \item QCD background: fake photon (jj, j$\gamma$)
530: \item QCD background: $\gamma\gamma$
531: \item $e\gamma$
532: \item Non-Collision: beam-related, cosmic rays
533: \end{itemize}
534:
535: Before the $\met$ requirement, the diphoton candidate sample is
536: dominated by QCD interactions producing combinations of photons and
537: jets faking photons. In each case only small measured $\met$ is
538: expected, due mostly to energy measurement resolution effects.
539:
540: Events with an electron and a photon candidate ($W\gamma\rightarrow
541: e\nu\gamma$, $Wj\rightarrow e\nu\gamma_{fake}$, $Z\gamma\rightarrow
542: ee\gamma$, etc.) can contribute to the diphoton candidate sample when
543: the electron track is lost (by tracking inefficiency or
544: bremsstrahlung) to create a fake photon. For $W$ decays large $\met$
545: can come from the neutrinos. This background is estimated using
546: $e\gamma$ events from the data.
547:
548: Beam--related sources and cosmic rays overlapped with a SM event can
549: contribute to the background by producing spurious energy deposits
550: that in turn affect the measured $\met$. While the rate at which these
551: events contribute to the diphoton candidate sample is low, most
552: contain large $\met$. The spurious clusters can pass photon cuts.
553:
554: Backgrounds and observed number of events are summarized in
555: Table~\ref{ggmet.table}.
556:
557: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
558: \input{ggmet_runii_table} %read table for ggmet from the file
559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
560:
561: \subsubsection{Limits on GMSB Models}
562:
563: The $\met$ spectrum for events with two isolated central photons with
564: $\Et^{\gamma}>13$~GeV is shown in Figure~\ref{ggmet.figure}, along
565: with the predictions from the GMSB model. No excess is observed in two
566: photons + energy imbalance events.
567:
568: \begin{figure}[!h]
569: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
570: \includegraphics*{figures/gmsb_figure1_color.ps}
571: %\includegraphics*{figures/gmsb_figure1.ps}
572: }
573: \caption{
574: The $\met$ spectrum for events with two isolated central
575: photons with $\Et^{\gamma}>13$~GeV
576: and \protect{\mbox{$|\eta|\lsim
577: 1.0$}} along with the
578: predictions from the GMSB model with a $\CONE$ mass of 175~GeV/$c^2$, normalized to
579: 202~$\invpb$.
580: The diphoton candidate sample data are in good agreement
581: with the background predictions. There are no events above the
582: $\met$ $>$~45~GeV threshold. The properties of the two candidates above 40 GeV appear consistent with the
583: expected backgrounds.
584: }
585: \label{ggmet.figure}
586: \end{figure}
587:
588: Since there is no evidence for events with anomalous $\met$ in the
589: diphoton candidate sample, we set limits on new particle production
590: from GMSB using the parameters suggested in Ref.~\cite{snowmass}.
591: Using the NLO predictions we set a limit of M$_{\cone}$, and then from
592: mass relations in the model, we equivalently set limits on
593: M{$_{\none}$} and $\Lambda$:
594:
595: M$_{\cone}\gt$167 GeV/$c^2$, M$_{\none}\gt$93 GeV/$c^2$, $\Lambda\gt$69 GeV/$c^2$.
596:
597: The combined CDF+D\O\ limit~\cite{cdf_and_d0_ggmet_combined} is
598: significantly larger (i.e. more stringent) than either experiment
599: alone~\cite{cdf_ggmet,d0_ggmet}. The details on the combination of the
600: results on the CDF and D\O\ searches for chargino and neutralino
601: production in GMSB SUSY using the two-photon and missing $\Et$ channel
602: are explained in~\cite{cdf_and_d0_ggmet_combined}.
603:
604: Figure~\ref{cdf_and_d0_limits.figure} shows the combined CDF and D\O\
605: result for the observed cross section~\cite{cdf_and_d0_ggmet_combined}
606: as a function of M$_{\CONE}$ and M$_{\none}$ along with the
607: theoretical LO and NLO production cross sections.
608:
609: The combined CDF+D\O\ limits are:\\
610: M$_{\cone}\gt$209$\GeVcsq$, M$_{\none}\gt$114$\GeVcsq$, $\Lambda\gt$84.6$\GeVcsq$ \\
611: at 95\% C.L. in GMSB Model. This is a first combined Run II result and
612: it sets the world's most stringent limits on the GMSB SUSY.
613:
614:
615: \begin{figure}[!h]
616: \centering
617: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
618: \includegraphics*{figures/ggMetCombo_v6.eps}
619: }
620: \caption{The 95\% C.L. upper limits on the total production cross section
621: times branching ratio versus M$_{\CONE}$ and M$_{\none}$ for the light
622: gravitino scenario using the parameters proposed
623: in~\protect\cite{snowmass}. The lines show the experimental combined
624: CDF+D\O\ limit and the LO and NLO theoretically predicted cross
625: sections. We set limits of M$_{\cone}\gt$209 GeV/$c^2$,
626: M$_{\none}\gt$114 GeV/$c^2$, $\Lambda \gt$84.6 GeV/$c^2$ at 95\%
627: C.L. in GMSB Model.}
628: \label{cdf_and_d0_limits.figure}
629: \end{figure}
630:
631: \subsection{Search for Lepton-Photon-X Events}
632: \label{lgx_runii.section}
633:
634: In Run I lepton+photon+X search the results were consistent with
635: SM expectations in a number of channels with ``the
636: possible exception of photon-lepton events with large $\met$, for
637: which the observed total was 16 events and the SM
638: expectation was $7.6\pm0.7$ events, corresponding in likelihood to a
639: 2.7 sigma effect.''~\cite{Jeff_PRL}). We concluded ``However, an
640: excess of events with 0.7\% likelihood (equivalent to 2.7 standard
641: deviations for a Gaussian distribution) in one subsample among the
642: five studied is an interesting result, but it is not a compelling
643: observation of new physics. We look forward to more data in the
644: upcoming run of the Fermilab Tevatron.''~\cite{Jeff_PRL}. In this
645: section we report the results~\cite{lgx_runii} of
646: repeating the $\lgX$ search with the same kinematic selection
647: criteria in a substantially larger data set, $\lum$=305 $\invpb$,
648: a higher $\pbarp$ collision energy, 1.96 TeV, and the CDF II detector.
649:
650: \subsubsection{Data Sample}
651: \label{lgx_data.section}
652:
653: The data presented here were taken between March 21, 2002, and August
654: 22, 2004 and represent 305$\invpb$ for which the silicon detector and
655: all three central muon systems (CMP, CMU and CMX) were operational.
656:
657: A 3-level trigger~\cite{CDFII} system selects events with a high
658: transverse momentum~\footnote{We use the convention that ``momentum''
659: refers to $pc$ and ``mass'' to $mc^2$.} lepton ($\Pt > 18~\GeV$) or
660: photon ($\Et > 25~\GeV$) in the central region, $|\eta|
661: \lesssim 1.0$. Photon and electron candidates are chosen from clusters of
662: energy in adjacent CEM~\footnote{CEM: Central EM Calorimeter.} towers;
663: electrons are then further separated from photons by requiring the
664: presence of a COT~\footnote{COT: Central Outer Tracker.} track
665: pointing at the cluster. Muons are identified by requiring COT tracks
666: to extrapolate to a reconstructed track segment in the muon drift
667: chambers.
668:
669: We have reused the Run I selection kinematic cuts for Run II analysis,
670: so that they are {\it a priori}:
671: \begin{itemize}
672: \item {\it Tight} Muons: $\Pt>$ 25 GeV
673: \item {\it Tight} Central Electrons, Photons: $\Et>$ 25 GeV
674: \item {\it Loose} Muons: $\Pt>$ 20 GeV
675: \item {\it Loose} Central Electrons: $\Et>$ 20 GeV
676: \item {\it Loose} Plug Electrons: $\Et>$ 15 GeV
677: \item $\met>$ 25 GeV
678: \end{itemize}
679:
680: The identification of photons (see
681: Section~\ref{gg_runii_data.section}) and leptons is essentially the
682: same as in the Run I search~\cite{Jeff_PRD}, with only minor technical
683: differences, mostly due to the changes in the construction of the
684: tracking system and end-plug calorimeters.
685:
686: A muon passing the `tight' cuts is required to: a) have a track in the
687: COT that passes quality cuts on the minimum number of hits on the
688: track; b) deposit energy in the electromagnetic and hadronic
689: compartments of the calorimeter consistent with that expected from a
690: muon, c) match a muon `stub' track in the CMX detector or in both the
691: CMU and CMP detectors; d) not be a cosmic ray (determined from
692: measuring timing with the COT).
693:
694: `Tight' central electrons are required to have a high-quality track
695: with $\Pt$ of at least half the shower energy~\footnote{The $\Pt$
696: threshold is set to 25~$\GeV$ for $\Et > 100$ GeV.}, minimal leakage
697: into the hadronic calorimeter
698: \footnote{The fraction of electromagnetic energy $E_{em}$ allowed to leak into
699: the hadronic compartment is $0.055+0.00045E_{em}$ for tight and loose
700: central electrons; for loose plug electrons and for photons the
701: fraction must be less than 0.125.}, a good profile in the $z$
702: dimension (the dimension in which the electron track is not bent by
703: the magnetic field) at shower maximum that matches the extrapolated
704: track position, and a lateral sharing of energy in the two calorimeter
705: towers containing the electron shower consistent with that expected.
706:
707: The additional muons are required to have $\Pt>20$ $\GeV$ and to
708: satisfy the same criteria as for ``tight'' muons but with fewer hits
709: required on the track, or, alternatively, a more stringent cut on
710: track quality but no requirement that there be a matching ``stub'' in
711: the muon systems. Additional central electrons are required to have
712: $\Et > 20~\GeV$ and to satisfy the tight central electron criteria but
713: with a track requirement of only $\Pt>10$ $\GeV$ (rather than
714: 0.5$\times\Et$), and no requirement on a shower maximum measurement or
715: lateral energy sharing between calorimeter towers. `Loose' electrons
716: in the end-plug calori\-meters are required to have $\Et> 15$ GeV,
717: minimal leakage into the hadron calorimeters, a `track' containing at
718: least 3 hits in the silicon tracking system, and a shower transverse
719: shape consistent with that expected, with a centroid close to the
720: extrapolated position of the track.
721:
722: %`Loose' central electrons and muons satisfy somewhat looser
723: %cuts~\footnote{Relaxed track quality cuts and no requirement on a
724: %shower maximum measurement or lateral energy sharing for electrons, or
725: %no matching 'stub' in the muon systems for muons; concerning tracking
726: %requirement, while for tight muons and tight electrons we require at
727: %least 5 hits in each of 3 axial and 3 stereo layers of the COT, for
728: %loose muons with a matching muon stub this is relaxed to 3 axial and 2
729: %stereo. Loose muons without a matching stub have an additional cut on
730: %the $\chi ^2$ of the fit to the track.}. `Loose' electrons in the
731: %end-plug calori\-meters are required to have $\Et> 15$ GeV, minimal
732: %leakage into the hadron calorimeters, a `track' containing at least 3
733: %hits in the silicon tracking system, and a shower transverse shape
734: %consistent with that expected, with a centroid close to the
735: %extrapolated position of the track.
736:
737: Missing transverse energy $\met$ is calculated from the calorimeter
738: tower energies in the region $|\eta| < 3.6$. Corrections are then made
739: to the $\met$ for non-uniform calorimeter response~\cite{jet_corr} for
740: jets with uncorrected $\Et > 15$ $\GeV$ and $\eta < 2.0$, and for
741: muons with $\Pt > 20$ $\GeV$.
742:
743: \subsubsection{Control Samples and Backgrounds}
744: We use $W$ and $Z^0$ production as control samples to ensure that the
745: efficiencies for high-$\Pt$ electrons and muons, as well as for
746: $\met$, are well understood. The photon control sample is constructed
747: from events in which one of the electrons radiates a high-$\Et$
748: $\gamma$ such that the $\eg$ invariant mass is within 10 $\GeV$ of the
749: $Z^0$ mass.
750:
751: The dominant source of photon-lepton events at the Tevatron is
752: electroweak diboson production (Figure~\ref{wg_zg_diagrams.figure}),
753: in which a $W$ or $Z^0$ boson decays leptonically ($\ell \nu$ or
754: $\ell\ell$) and a photon is radiated from either an initial-state
755: quark, the $W$ or $Z^0$, or from a charged final-state lepton. The
756: number of such events is estimated using leading-order (LO) matrix
757: element event generators~\cite{MadGraph,Baur,CompHep}. A correction
758: for higher-order processes (K-factor) has been
759: applied~\cite{Baur_NLO}.
760:
761: \begin{figure}[!t]
762: \centering
763: \resizebox{0.3\textwidth}{!}{%
764: \includegraphics*{figures/diagrams_wg_zg.ps}
765: }
766: \caption{Standard Model $\Wg$ and $\Zg$ production diagrams.}
767: \label{wg_zg_diagrams.figure}
768: \end{figure}
769:
770: To simulate the triboson channels $\Wgg$ and $\Zgg$ we have used
771: MadGraph~\cite{MadGraph} and CompHep\cite{CompHep}.
772:
773: \subsubsection{Lepton-Photon-X Results}
774: \label{lgx_runii_results.section}
775:
776: Following the Run I analysis strategy, we define the $\lgmet$
777: subsample by requiring that an event contains, in addition to the
778: central lepton and central photon, $\met> 25$ GeV. A second signal
779: subsample, the $\llg$ sample, is constructed by requiring, in addition
780: to the central lepton and central photon, a second `loose' lepton with
781: $\Et>25$ GeV. These two subsamples were selected as the search regions
782: of interest from the Run I results with the same kinematic selections;
783: these two searches in the Run II data are thus {\it a priori}. Both
784: sample selections are `inclusive', in that there are no requirements
785: on the presence or absence of other objects.
786:
787: In addition to the expectations from real SM processes that produce
788: real lepton-photon events, there are backgrounds due to misidentified
789: leptons and photons, and also incorrectly calculated $\met$.
790:
791: We consider two sources of fake photons: QCD jets in which a $\pizero$
792: or a photon from hadron decay mimics a direct photon, and electron
793: bremsstrahlung, in which an energetic photon is radiated off of an
794: electron which then has much lower energy and curls away from the
795: photon.
796:
797: Backgrounds from fake leptons and/or fake missing $\Et$ ('QCD') we
798: estimate from a sample, in which we expect to have very little real
799: lepton content~\cite{Sacha_Kopp_thesis} by selecting on loose leptons
800: and rejecting events from the W or Z.
801:
802: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
803: \input{lgx_runii_table} %read table for lgx from the file
804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
805:
806: The predicted and observed totals for both the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$
807: searches are shown in Table~\ref{summary_table}. We observe 42
808: $\lgmet$ events, versus the expectation of 37.3 $\pm$ 5.4 events. If
809: the Run I ratio of observed to expected, which was 16/7.6, had held
810: up, the 2.7 $\sigma$ excess observed in Run I would have resulted in
811: an observation of 79 $\pm$ 11 events when applying the same analysis
812: to the Run II data, versus the 42 events observed. In the $\llg$
813: channel, we observe 31 events, versus an expectation of 23.0 $\pm$ 2.7
814: events. No $e\mu\gamma$ events are observed.
815:
816: \begin{figure}[!b]
817: \centering
818: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
819: \includegraphics[angle=90]{figures/epj_figure_egmet.ps}
820: }
821: \caption{
822: The distributions for events in the $\egmet$ sample in a) the $\Et$
823: of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the electron, c) the missing
824: transverse energy, $\met$, and d) the transverse mass of the
825: electron-photon-$\met$ system. The histograms show the expected SM
826: contributions, including estimated backgrounds from misidentified
827: photons and leptons.}
828: \label{epj_figure_egmet.figure}
829: \end{figure}
830:
831: While the number of events observed is somewhat larger than
832: expectations(Table~\ref{summary_table}), there is not a significant
833: excess in either signature, and the kinematic distributions are in
834: reasonable agreement with the SM predicted shapes.
835:
836: The distributions for events in the $\lgmet$ sample are shown in
837: Figure~\ref{epj_figure_egmet.figure} for the electron channel and
838: in Figure~\ref{epj_figure_mugmet.figure} for the muon channel. The
839: dominant contribution for $\lgmet$ is SM $\Zg$ and $\Wg$
840: production.
841:
842: \begin{figure}[!t]
843: \centering
844: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
845: \includegraphics[angle=90]{figures/epj_figure_mugmet.ps}
846: }
847: \caption{
848: The distributions for events in the $\mugmet$ sample in a) the $\Et$
849: of the photon; b) the $\Pt$ of the muon, c) the missing transverse
850: energy, $\met$, and d) the transverse mass of the muon-photon-$\met$
851: system. The histograms show the expected SM contributions, including
852: estimated backgrounds from misidentified photons and leptons.}
853: \label{epj_figure_mugmet.figure}
854: \end{figure}
855:
856: The distributions for events in the $\llg$ sample are shown at
857: Figure~\ref{epj_figure_eeg.figure} for electron channel and
858: Figure~\ref{epj_figure_mumug.figure} for muon channel. The dominant
859: contribution for $\llg$ is SM $\Zg$ production.
860:
861: \begin{figure}[!b]
862: \centering
863: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
864: \includegraphics[angle=90]{figures/epj_figure_eeg.ps}
865: }
866: \caption{
867: The distributions in a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the
868: electron, c) the 2-body mass of the dielectron system, and d) the
869: 3-body invariant mass $m_{\eeg}$.}
870: \label{epj_figure_eeg.figure}
871: \end{figure}
872:
873: For the $\Zg$ process occurring via initial state radiation, the
874: dilepton invariant mass distribution will be peaked around the
875: $\Z$-pole. For the final state radiation, the three body invariant
876: mass (m(l, l, $\gamma$)) distribution will be peaked around the
877: $\Z$-pole (Figures~\ref{epj_figure_eeg.figure},~\ref{epj_figure_mumug.figure},
878: (c) and (d)).
879:
880: \begin{figure}[!t]
881: \centering
882: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
883: \includegraphics[angle=90]{figures/epj_figure_mumug.ps}
884: }
885: \caption{
886: The distributions in a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Pt$ of the
887: muon, c) the 2-body mass of the dimuon system, and d) the
888: 3-body invariant mass $m_{\mumug}$.}
889: \label{epj_figure_mumug.figure}
890: \end{figure}
891:
892: We do not expect missing $\Et$ in the events in the $\llg$ sample
893: based on the SM backgrounds; the $\eeggmet$ event was of special
894: interest due to the large value of
895: $\met$. Figure~\ref{epj_figure_llg_met.figure} shows the distributions
896: in $\met$ for the $\eeg$ and $\mumug$ subsamples of the $\llg$
897: sample. No events are observed with $\met> 25$ GeV.
898:
899: \begin{figure}[!b]
900: \centering
901: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
902: \includegraphics[angle=90]{figures/epj_figure_llg_met.ps}
903: }
904: \caption{The distributions in missing transverse energy $\met$
905: observed in the inclusive search for a) $\mumug$ events and
906: b) $\eeg$ events. The histograms show the expected SM
907: contributions.}
908: \label{epj_figure_llg_met.figure}
909: \end{figure}
910:
911: In conclusion, we have repeated the search for inclusive lepton +
912: photon production with the same kinematic requirements as the Run I
913: search, but with a significantly larger data sample and a higher
914: collision energy. We find that the numbers of events in the $\lgmet$
915: and $\llg$ subsamples of the $\lgX$ sample agree with SM
916: predictions. We observe no $\llg$ events with anomalous large $\met$
917: or with multiple photons and so find no events like the $\eeggmet$
918: event of Run I.
919:
920: In summary, while we are disappointed that we found no more $\eeggmet$
921: events in a much larger sample than in Run I, and the Run I excess in
922: $\lgmet$ became less significant rather than more, we have
923: conclusively settled a question that generated much interest in the
924: theoretical community. The channels we have investigated will remain
925: interesting, and the techniques we have developed and the knowledge
926: gained will be useful for similar searches at the Tevatron and at the
927: LHC.
928:
929: \section{Summary and Outlook}
930: \label{summary_and_outlook.section}
931:
932: To summarize, we will list the main points for the Run II results
933: presented in this paper:
934:
935: \begin{itemize}
936: \item Search for $\lgX$: the Run I 2.7 sigma excess in $\lgmet$ is not
937: confirmed when repeating the analysis with much more data. We observe
938: no $\llg$ events with anomalous large $\met$ or with multiple photons.
939: \item Search for $\gg\met+X$: no excess is observed in the
940: two photons + energy imbalance channel. The combined CDF and D\O\ Result provides world's most stringent limits on GMSB SUSY. No new $\eeggmet$ (or similar) candidate events have been found.
941: \item Search for high-mass diphotons: the data agree with predictions.
942: \end{itemize}
943:
944: The Fermilab plan is to have a factor of 10-20 more data than
945: presented here by the end of Run II of the Tevatron. A recent upgrade,
946: the EM Timing system~\cite{em_timing_nim}, provides a vitally
947: important handle that could confirm (or disprove) that all the photons
948: in unusual events are from the primary collision.
949:
950: Currently, the CDF is actively pursuing topics and analyzing up to 1
951: $\invfb$ of delivered luminosity. New and exciting results are coming
952: out quickly. Further information regarding the analyses presented in
953: this paper and new results can be found in~\cite{www_cdf_exotics}.
954:
955: \begin{thebibliography}{}
956: %----------- SM References
957: \bibitem{SM}%sm reference
958: S.~L. ~Glashow, Nucl. Phys. {\bf 22} 588, (1961);
959: S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 19} 1264, (1967);
960: A. Salam, Proc. 8th Nobel Symposium, Stockholm, (1979).
961:
962: %----------- Run I analyses references
963: \bibitem{Toback_PRD}%run i analysis
964: F.~Abe \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. D 59, 092002 (1999);
965: hep-ex/9806034.
966:
967: \bibitem{Toback_PRL}%run i analysis
968: F.~Abe \textit{et al.}, Phys.Rev.Lett 81, 1791 (1998); hep-ex/9801019.
969:
970: \bibitem{Ray_PRD}%run i analysis
971: D. Affolder \textit{et al.}, Phys.Rev.D 65, 052006 (2002); hep-ex/0106012.
972:
973: \bibitem{Jeff_PRD}%run i analysis
974: D. Acosta \textit{et al.}, Phys.Rev.D 66, 012004 (2002); hep-ex/0110015.
975:
976: \bibitem{Jeff_PRL}%run i analysis
977: D. Acosta \textit{et al.}, Phys.Rev.Lett 89, 041802 (2002); hep-ex/0202004.
978:
979: \bibitem{Toback_thesis}%run i analysis
980: D.~Toback, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1997.
981:
982: %----------- SUSY References
983: \bibitem{susy}%susy reference
984: S.~Ambrosanio, G.~L.~Kane, G.~D.~Kribs, S.~P.~Martin, and S.~Mrenna, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{55}, 1372 (1997);
985: B.C. Allanach, S. Lola, K. Sridhar, Phys.Rev.Lett.89:011801, 2002, hep-ph/0111014.
986:
987: \bibitem{Jeff_thesis}%run i analysis
988: J.~Berryhill, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 2000.
989:
990: \bibitem{smuon_PRL}%susy reference
991: B.C.Allanach, S.Lola, K.Sridhar, Phys.Rev.Lett. 89, 011801 (2002), hep-ph/0111014.
992:
993: %----------- CDF Detector
994:
995: \bibitem{CDFII}
996: D. Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D \textbf{71}, 032001
997: (2005).
998:
999: \bibitem{CDFI}
1000: F. Abe \textit{et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect.~A \textbf{271}, 387 (1988).
1001:
1002: \bibitem{cal_upgrade}
1003: S. Kuhlmann et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A518:39-41, 2004.
1004:
1005: \bibitem{COT}
1006: T. Affolder et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth A526,249 (2004).
1007:
1008: \bibitem{SVX}
1009: A. Sill et al. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A447, 1 (2000);
1010: T. Affolder et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A453, 84 (2000);
1011: C.S. Hill, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A530, 1 (2000).
1012:
1013: \bibitem{muon_systems}
1014: The CDF II Collaboration, FERMILAB-PUB-96/390-E (1996), Chapter 10.
1015:
1016: \bibitem{randall_sundrum}%susy reference
1017: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999),
1018: hep-ph/9905221.
1019:
1020: \bibitem{www_cdf_gg}%run ii analysis
1021: CDF Collaboration, D.~Acosta \etal,\\
1022: http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/internal/physics/exotic/physics/\\r2a/20040805.diphoton\_rsgrav/public/index.html.
1023:
1024: %----------- Remarks, comments etc.
1025: %----------- Run II analyses references
1026:
1027: \bibitem{diphox}
1028: See wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/lapth/PHOX\_FAMILY/\\readme\_diphox.html.
1029:
1030: \bibitem{high_mass_dilepton}
1031: High Mass Dielectrons:\\
1032: http://fcdfhome.fnal.gov/usr/ikado/Bless\_Fall\_2003/\ Bless\_fall2003.html \\
1033: High Mass Dimuons:\\
1034: http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic/run2/\\highmass-mumu-2004/blessed\_plots\_win04.html.
1035:
1036: \bibitem{OurGMSB}%susy reference
1037: S.~Dimopoulos, S.~Thomas, J.~D.~Wells,
1038: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 488}, 39 (1997);
1039: S.~Ambrosanio, G.D.~Kribs and S.P.~Martin,
1040: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}, 1761 (1997);
1041: G.~F.~Giudice and R.~Rattazzi,
1042: Phys. Rept. {\bf 322}, 419 (1999); and
1043: S.~Ambrosanio, G.~L.~Kane, G.~D.~Kribs, S.~P.~Martin, and S.~Mrenna,
1044: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{55}, 1372 (1997).
1045:
1046: \bibitem{SUSY_Workshop}%susy reference
1047: R.~Culbertson \etal, hep-ph/0008070.
1048: \bibitem{cdf_ggmet}%run ii analysis
1049: CDF Collaboration, D.~Acosta \etal, Phys.Rev.D. 71, 031104(R)(2005);
1050: hep-ex/0410053.
1051:
1052: \bibitem{cdf_and_d0_ggmet_combined}%run ii analysis
1053: V.~Buescher, R.Culbertson \etal, for the CDF and D\O\ collaborations
1054: hep/ex 0504004.
1055:
1056: \bibitem{snowmass}%susy reference
1057: B.~C.~Allanach \etal, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C25} 113 (2002).
1058: We take the messenger mass scale M$_{\mathrm{M}}$~=~2$\Lambda$,
1059: tan($\beta$)~=~15, sign($\mu$)~=~1, the number of
1060: messenger fields $N_{\mathrm{M}}$~=~1, and negligibly short $\NONE$ lifetimes.
1061:
1062: \bibitem{d0_ggmet}%run ii analysis
1063: D\O\ Collaboration, V.M.~Abazov \etal, Phys.Rev.Lett. 94, 041801(2005);
1064: hep-ex/0408146.
1065:
1066: \bibitem{lgx_runii}
1067: CDF Collaboration, A.~Abulencia \etal, accepted to Phys.Rev.Lett; hep-ex/0605097.
1068:
1069: \bibitem{jet_corr}
1070: A. Bhatti \textit{et al.}, submitted to
1071: Nucl. Instrum. Methods,
1072: Oct. 2005; hep-ex/0510047.
1073:
1074: \bibitem{Baur_NLO} U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus,
1075: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 5140 (1993);
1076: U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus,
1077: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2823 (1998); hep-ph/9710416.
1078: Both the $\Wg$ and $Z\gamma$ K-factors are fixed at 1.36 for generated
1079: $\ell\nu$ masses below 76 $\GeV$ and for generated $\lplm$ masses below
1080: 86 $\GeV$. Above the poles the K-factors grow with $\Et^{\gamma}$ to
1081: be 1.62 and 1.53 at $\Et^{\gamma}=100$ $\GeV$ for $\Wg$ and $Z\gamma$,
1082: respectively.
1083:
1084: %----------- MC
1085: \bibitem{MadGraph}
1086: T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Comput.Phys.Commun. 81 (1994) 357-371;
1087: F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, JHEP 0302:027 (2003), hep-ph/0208156.
1088:
1089: \bibitem{Baur}
1090: U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus,
1091: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 2823 (1998); hep-ph/9710416;
1092: U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus,
1093: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 5140 (1993); hep-ph/9305314.
1094:
1095: \bibitem{CompHep}
1096: E.~Boos \etal, INP-MSU-98-41-542. hep-ph/9908288;
1097: E.~Boos \etal, INP MSU 94-36/358 and SNUTP-94-116.hep-ph/9503280.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{Sacha_Kopp_thesis}%run i analysis
1100: S.~Kopp, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1994.
1101:
1102: \bibitem{em_timing_nim}
1103: ``The Timing System for the CDF Electromagnetic Calorimeters'',
1104: M. Goncharov \etal, to be submitted to NIM.
1105:
1106: \bibitem{www_cdf_exotics}
1107: See http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic/exotic.html
1108:
1109: \end{thebibliography}
1110:
1111: \end{document}
1112: