1: %
2: %
3: %
4: %
5: \section{Introduction}
6: The reaction $\eeggga$ provides a clean test of QED at LEP energies
7: and is well suited to detect the presence of non-standard physics.
8: The differential QED cross-section at the Born level in the
9: relativistic limit is given by \cite{ref:QED,ref:radcor}:
10: \begin{equation}
11: \xb = \frac{\alpha^2}{s}
12: \frac{1+\cos^2\theta}{1 -\cos^2\theta} \; .
13: \end{equation}
14: Since the two final state particles are identical the polar angle
15: $\theta$ is defined such that $\ct > 0$. Various models with
16: deviations from this cross-section will be discussed in section \ref{gg:sec:fit}.
17: Results on the $\ge$2-photon final state using the high energy data
18: collected by the four LEP collaborations are reported by the individual
19: experiments \cite{gg:ref:LEPGG}.
20: Here the results of the LEP working group %
21: dedicated to the combination of the $\eeggga$ measurements
22: are reported. Results are given for the averaged total cross-section
23: and for global fits to the differential cross-sections.
24:
25:
26: \section{Event Selection}
27: This channel is very clean and the event selection, which is similar
28: for all experiments, is based on the presence of at least two
29: energetic clusters in the electromagnetic calorimeters. A minimum
30: energy is required, typically $(E_1+ E_2)/\sqrt{s}$ larger than 0.3 to
31: 0.6, where $E_1$ and $E_2$ are the energies of the two most energetic
32: photons. In order to remove $\ee$ events, charged tracks are in
33: general not allowed except when they can be associated to a photon
34: conversion in one hemisphere.
35:
36: The polar angle is defined in order to minimise effects due to
37: initial state radiation as
38: %
39: \[
40: \ct =\left.\left| \sin (\frac{\theta_1 - \theta_2}{2}) \right|
41: \right/ \sin (\frac{\theta_1 + \theta_2}{2}) \; , \]
42: %
43: where $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are the polar angles of the two most energetic photons.
44: The acceptance in polar angle is in the range of 0.90 to 0.96 on
45: $|\ct|$, depending on the experiment.
46:
47: With these criteria, the selection efficiencies are in the range of
48: 68\% to 98\% and the residual background (from $\ee$ events and
49: from $\eetautau$ with $\tau^{\pm} \rightarrow\rm e^{\pm}\nu
50: \bar{\nu}$) is very small, 0.1\% to 1\%. Detailed descriptions of
51: the event selections performed by the four collaborations can be found
52: in \cite{gg:ref:LEPGG}.
53:
54: \section{Total cross-section}
55:
56: The total cross-sections are combined using a $\chi^2$ minimisation.
57: For simplicity, given the different angular acceptances,
58: the ratios of the measured cross-sections relative to the QED
59: expectation, \mbox{$r = \sigma_{\rm meas} / \sigma_{\rm QED}$},
60: are averaged. Figure \ref{gg:fig:xsn} shows the measured ratios $r_{i,k}$
61: of the experiments $i$ at energies $k$ with their statistical
62: and systematic errors %
63: added in quadrature. There are no significant sources of experimental
64: systematic errors that are correlated between experiments. The theoretical error on
65: the QED prediction, which is fully correlated between energies and experiments
66: is taken into account after the combination.
67:
68: Denoting with $\Delta$ the vector of residuals between the measurements
69: and the expected ratios, three different averages are performed:
70: \begin{enumerate}
71: \item per energy $k=1,\ldots,7$: $\Delta_{i,k} = r_{i,k} - x_k$
72: \item per experiment $i=1,\ldots,4$: $\Delta_{i,k} = r_{i,k} - y_i$
73: \item global value: $\Delta_{i,k} = r_{i,k} - z$
74: \end{enumerate}
75: The seven fit parameters per energy $x_k$ are shown in Figure
76: \ref{gg:fig:xsn} as LEP combined cross-sections. They are correlated
77: with correlation coefficients ranging from 5\% to 20\%.
78: The four fit-parameters per experiment $y_i$ are uncorrelated
79: between each other, the results are given in Table \ref{gg:tab:xsn}
80: together with the single global fit parameter $z$.
81:
82: No significant deviations from the QED expectations are found.
83: The global ratio is below unity by 1.8 standard deviations not
84: accounting for the error on the radiative corrections.
85: This theory error can be assumed to be about 10\% of the applied
86: radiative correction and hence depends on the selection.
87: For this combination it is assumed to be 1\% which is of
88: same size as the experimental error (1.0\%).
89:
90: \begin{table}[hbt]
91: \begin{center}
92: \begin{tabular}{|l|r@{$\pm$}l|}\hline
93: Experiment & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{cross-section ratio} \\\hline\hline
94: ALEPH & 0.953 & 0.024 \\
95: DELPHI & 0.976 & 0.032 \\
96: L3 & 0.978 & 0.018 \\
97: OPAL & 0.999 & 0.016 \\ \hline
98: global & 0.982 & 0.010 \\ \hline
99: \end{tabular}
100: \caption[]{Cross-section ratios
101: $r = \sigma_{\rm meas} / \sigma_{\rm QED}$ for the four LEP experiments
102: averaged over all energies and the global average over all experiments
103: and energies. The error includes the statistical and experimental
104: systematic error but no error from theory.
105: }
106: \label{gg:tab:xsn}
107: \end{center}
108: \end{table}
109:
110: \begin{figure}[t]
111: \begin{center} \mbox{
112: \epsfxsize=16.0cm
113: \epsffile{gg_totx.eps}
114: } \end{center}
115: \vspace{-1cm}
116: \caption{Cross-section ratios
117: $r = \sigma_{\rm meas} / \sigma_{\rm QED}$ at different energies.
118: The measurements of the single experiments are displaced by
119: $\pm$ 200 or 400 \MeV\ from the actual energy for clarity. Filled symbols
120: indicate published results, open symbols stand for preliminary numbers.
121: The average over the experiments at each energy is shown as a star.
122: Measurements between 203 and 209 \GeV\ are averaged to one energy point.
123: The theoretical error is not included in the experimental errors
124: but is represented as the shaded band.
125: }
126: \label{gg:fig:xsn}
127: \end{figure}
128:
129:
130: \begin{figure}[btp]
131: \begin{center}
132: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8.0cm\epsffile{gg_aleph.eps}}
133: \raisebox{1.5cm}{\epsfxsize=8.0cm\epsffile{gg_delphi.eps}}\\
134: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8.0cm\epsffile{gg_l3.eps}}
135: \mbox{\epsfxsize=8.0cm\epsffile{gg_opal.eps}}
136: \end{center}
137: \caption{Examples for angular distributions of the four LEP experiments.
138: Points are the data and the curves are the QED prediction (solid) and
139: the individual fit results for $\Lpm$ (dashed). ALEPH shows the
140: uncorrected number of observed events, the expectation is presented as
141: histogram.
142: }
143: \label{gg:fig:ADLO}
144: \end{figure}
145:
146: \section{Global fit to the differential cross-sections}
147: \label{gg:sec:fit}
148:
149: \begin{table}[tb]
150: \begin{center}
151: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
152: & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{data used} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{sys. error $[ \% ]$}&$\left | \rm{cos} \theta \right |$ \\
153: & published & preliminary & experimental & theory & \\\hline
154: ALEPH & 189 -- 207 & -- & 2 & 1& 0.95 \\
155: DELPHI & 189 -- 202 & 206 & 2.5 & 1 & 0.90 \\
156: L3 & 183 -- 207 & -- & 2.1 & 1 & 0.96 \\
157: OPAL & 183 -- 207 & -- & 0.6 -- 2.9 & 1 & 0.93 \\\hline
158: \end{tabular}
159: \caption[]{ The data samples used for the global fit to the
160: differential cross-sections, the systematic errors, the assumed
161: error on the theory and the polar angle acceptance for the LEP
162: experiments.}
163: \label{gg:tab:stat}
164: \end{center}
165: \end{table}
166:
167: The global fit is based on angular distributions at energies between
168: 183 and 207 \GeV\ from the individual experiments. As an example,
169: angular distributions from each experiment are shown in
170: Figure~\ref{gg:fig:ADLO}. Combined differential cross-sections are not
171: available yet, since they need a common binning of the distributions.
172: All four experiments give results including the whole year 2000
173: data-taking. Apart from the 2000 DELPHI data all inputs are final,
174: as shown in Table~\ref{gg:tab:stat}.
175: The systematic errors arise from the luminosity
176: evaluation (including theory uncertainty on the small-angle Bhabha
177: cross-section computation), from the selection efficiency and the
178: background evaluations and from radiative corrections. The last
179: contribution, owing to the fact that the available $\eeggga$
180: cross-section calculation is based on $\cal O$$(\alpha^3)$ code,
181: is assumed to be 1\% and is considered correlated among energies and experiments.
182:
183: Various model predictions
184: are fitted to these angular distributions taking into account the
185: experimental systematic error correlated between energies for each
186: experiment and the error on the theory.
187: A binned log likelihood fit is performed
188: with one free parameter for the model and five fit parameters
189: used to keep the normalisation free within the systematic errors
190: of the theory and the four experiments. Additional fit parameters are
191: needed to accommodate the angular dependent systematic errors of OPAL.
192:
193:
194: The following models of new physics are considered.
195: The simplest ansatz is a short-range exponential deviation from the
196: Coulomb field parameterised by cut-off
197: parameters $\Lpm$~\cite{gg:ref:drell,gg:ref:low}.
198: This leads to a differential cross-section of the form
199: \begin{equation}
200: \xl = \xb \pm \frac{\alpha^2 \pi s}{\Lambda_\pm^4}(1+\cos^2{\theta}) \; .
201: \label{gg:lambda}
202: \end{equation}
203:
204: New effects can also be introduced in effective Lagrangian theory
205: \cite{gg:ref:eboli}. Here dimension-6 terms lead to anomalous
206: $\rm ee\gamma$ couplings. The resulting deviations in the differential
207: cross-section are similar in form to those given in
208: Equation~\ref{gg:lambda}, but with a slightly different definition of the
209: parameter: $\Lambda_6^4 = \frac{2}{\alpha}\Lambda_+^4$.
210: While for the ad hoc included cut-off parameters $\Lpm$ both signs are
211: allowed the physics motivated parameter $\Lambda_6$ occurs only with the
212: positive sign.
213: Dimension 7 and 8 Lagrangians introduce $\rm ee\gamma\gamma$ contact
214: interactions and result in an angle-independent term added to the Born
215: cross-section:
216: \begin{equation}
217: \xq = \xb + \frac{s^2}{16}\frac{1}{\Lambda'{}^6} \; .
218: \end{equation}
219: The associated parameters are given by
220: $\Lambda_7 = \Lambda'$ and $\Lambda_8^4 = m_{\rm e} {\Lambda'}^3$ for
221: dimension~7 and dimension~8 couplings, respectively.
222: The subscript refers to the dimension of the Lagrangian.
223:
224: Instead of an ordinary electron, an excited electron $\rm e^\ast$
225: with mass $\mestar$
226: could be exchanged in the $t$-channel \cite{gg:ref:low,gg:ref:estar}.
227: In the most general case $\rm \rm e^\ast e \gamma$ couplings would lead
228: to a large anomalous magnetic moment of the electron
229: \cite{gg:ref:g2_brodsky}.
230: This effect can be avoided by a chiral magnetic coupling of the form~\cite{gg:ref:boudjema:1993}:
231: \begin{equation}
232: {\cal L}_{\rm e^\ast e \gamma} =
233: \frac{1}{2\Lambda} \bar{e^\ast} \sigma^{\mu\nu}
234: \left[ g f \frac{\tau}{2}W_{\mu\nu} + g' f' \frac{Y}{2} B_{\mu\nu}
235: \right] e_L + \mbox{h.c.} \; ,
236: \end{equation}
237: where $\tau$ are the Pauli matrices and $Y$ is the hypercharge.
238: The parameters of the model are the compositeness scale $\Lambda$
239: and the weight factors $f$ and $f'$ associated to the gauge fields
240: $W$ and $B$ with Standard Model couplings $g$ and $g'$.
241: For the process $\eeggga$,
242: the following cross-section results~\cite{gg:ref:vachon}:
243: \begin{eqnarray}
244: \xe & = & \xb \\
245: & + & \frac{\alpha^2 \pi}{2}\frac{f_\gamma^4}{\Lambda^4}\mestar^2 \left[
246: \frac{p^4}{(p^2-\mestar^2)^2} + \frac{q^4}{(q^2-\mestar^2)^2} +
247: \frac{\frac{1}{2} s^2 \sin^2\theta}{(p^2-\mestar^2)(q^2-\mestar^2)} \right]
248: \; , \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
249: with $f_\gamma = -\frac{1}{2}(f+f')$, $p^2=-\frac{s}{2}(1-\ct)$ and
250: $q^2=-\frac{s}{2}(1+\ct)$.
251: Effects vanish in the case of $f = -f'$. The cross-section does not
252: depend on the sign of $f_\gamma$.
253:
254: Theories of quantum gravity in extra spatial dimensions could solve the
255: hierarchy problem because gravitons would be allowed to travel in
256: more than 3+1 space-time dimensions \cite{gg:ref:ad}.
257: While in these models the Planck mass $M_D$
258: in $D=n+4$ dimensions is chosen to be of electroweak scale the usual
259: Planck mass $M_{\rm Pl}$ in four dimensions would be
260: \begin{equation} M_{\rm Pl}^2 = R^n M_D^{n+2} \; ,\end{equation}
261: where $R$ is the compactification radius of the additional dimensions.
262: Since gravitons couple to the energy-momentum tensor, their
263: interaction with photons is as weak as with fermions. However, the huge
264: number of Kaluza-Klein excitation modes in the extra dimensions may
265: give rise to
266: observable effects. These effects depend on the scale $M_s (\sim M_D)$
267: which may be as low as ${\cal O}(\rm TeV)$. Model dependencies
268: are absorbed in the parameter $\lambda$ which cannot be explicitly
269: calculated without knowledge of the full theory, the sign is undetermined.
270: The parameter $\lambda$ is expected to be
271: of ${\cal O}(1)$ and for this analysis it is assumed that $\lambda = \pm 1$.
272: The expected differential cross-section is given by \cite{gg:ref:ad}:
273: \begin{equation}
274: \xg = \xb - {\alpha s} \; \frac{\lambda}{M_s^4}\;(1+\cos^2{\theta})
275: + \frac{s^3}{8 \pi} \; \frac{\lambda^2}{M_s^8} \;(1-\cos^4{\theta})
276: \; .
277: \end{equation}
278:
279:
280: \section{Fit Results}
281:
282: Where possible the fit parameters are chosen such that the likelihood
283: function is approximately Gaussian. The preliminary results of the
284: fits to the differential cross-sections are given in
285: Table~\ref{gg:tab:results}. No significant deviations with respect to
286: the QED expectations are found (all the parameters are compatible with
287: zero) and therefore 95\% confidence level limits are obtained by
288: renormalising the probability distribution of the fit parameter to the
289: physically allowed region.
290: The asymmetric limits $x_{95}^{\pm}$
291: on the fitting parameter are obtained by:
292: \begin{equation} \frac{\int^{x_{95}^+}_0 \Gamma(x,\mu ,\sigma ) dx}
293: {\int^{\infty }_0 \Gamma(x,\mu ,\sigma ) dx} = 0.95 \;
294: \hspace{7mm}\mbox{and}\hspace{7mm}
295: \frac{\int_{x_{95}^-}^0 \Gamma(x,\mu ,\sigma ) dx}
296: {\int_{-\infty }^0 \Gamma(x,\mu ,\sigma ) dx} = 0.95 \; ,
297: \label{limeq}\end{equation}
298: where $\Gamma$ is a Gaussian with the central value and error of the fit
299: result denoted by $\mu$ and $\sigma$, respectively. This is equivalent
300: to the integration of a Gaussian probability function as a
301: function of the fit parameter. The 95 \% CL limits on the model parameters
302: are derived from the limits on the
303: fit parameters, e.g. the limit on $\Lambda_+$ is obtained as
304: $[x_{95}^+(\Lambda^{-4}_{\pm})]^{-1/4}$.
305:
306: The only model with more than one free model parameter is the search
307: for excited electrons. In this case only one out of the two parameters
308: $f_\gamma$ and $\mestar$ is determined while the other is fixed.
309: It is assumed that $\Lambda=\mestar$. For limits on the coupling
310: $f_\gamma/\Lambda$
311: a scan over $\mestar$ is performed. The fit result at
312: $\mestar = 200 \mbox{GeV}$ is included in Table~\ref{gg:tab:results},
313: limits for all masses are presented in Figure~\ref{gg:fig:estar}.
314: For the determination of the excited electron mass
315: the fit cannot be expressed in terms of a linear fit parameter.
316: For $|f_\gamma| =1$ the curve of the negative log likelihood,
317: $\Delta\mbox{LogL}$, as a function of $\mestar$ is shown
318: in Figure \ref{gg:fig:ll}. The value corresponding to
319: $\Delta\mbox{LogL} = 1.92$ is \mbox{$\mestar$ = 248 \GeV}.
320:
321: %
322:
323: %
324: \begin{table}[htb]
325: \begin{center}
326: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
327: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|r@{ }l|}\hline
328: Fit parameter & Fit result &
329: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{95\%\ CL limit [\GeV]}\\ \hline
330: & & $\Lambda_+ >$ & 392 \\
331: \raisebox{2.2ex}[-2.2ex]{$\Lpm^{-4}$} &
332: \raisebox{2.2ex}[-2.2ex]{$
333: \left(-12.5{+25.1 \atop -24.7}\right)\cdot 10^{-12}$ \GeV$^{-4}$}
334: & $\Lambda_- > $& 364 \\\hline
335: $\Lambda_7^{-6}$ & $ \left(-0.91{+1.81 \atop -1.78}\right)\cdot
336: 10^{-18}$ \GeV$^{-6}$
337: & $\Lambda_7 > $& 831 \\ \hline
338: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{derived from $\Lambda_+$}& $\Lambda_6 > $& 1595 \\
339: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{derived from $\Lambda_7$}& $\Lambda_8 > $& 23.3 \\\hline
340: & & $\lambda = +1$: $M_s >$ & 933 \\
341: \raisebox{2.2ex}[-2.2ex]{$\lambda/M_s^4$} &
342: \raisebox{2.2ex}[-2.2ex]{ $ \left(0.29{+0.57 \atop -0.58}\right)\cdot
343: 10^{-12}$ \GeV$^{-4} $ }
344: & $\lambda = -1$: $M_s >$& 1010 \\ \hline
345: $f_\gamma^4 (\mestar=200 \rm \GeV)$ &
346: $0.037{+0.202 \atop -0.198 }$ &
347: \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$f_\gamma/\Lambda < 3.9 \mbox{ \TeV}^{-1}$} \\ \hline
348: \end{tabular}
349: \caption[]{ The preliminary combined fit parameters
350: and the 95$\%$ confidence level limits for the four LEP experiments.}
351: \label{gg:tab:results}
352: \end{center}
353: \end{table}
354:
355:
356: \section{Conclusion}
357: The LEP collaborations study the $\eeggga$ channel up to the highest
358: available centre-of-mass energies. The total cross-section results are
359: combined in terms of the ratios with respect to the QED expectations.
360: No deviations are found. The differential cross-sections are fit
361: following different parametrisations from models predicting deviations
362: from QED. No evidence for deviations is found and therefore combined
363: 95\% confidence level limits are given.
364:
365:
366: \begin{figure}[hbtp]
367: \vspace*{-1cm}
368: \begin{center}\mbox{
369: \epsfxsize=15.0cm
370: \epsffile{gg_flimit.eps}
371: } \end{center}
372: \vspace{-1cm}
373: \caption{95\% CL limits on the coupling $f_\gamma/\Lambda$ of an excited
374: electron as a function of $\mestar$.
375: In the case of $f=f'$ it follows that $|f_\gamma| = f$.
376: It is assumed that $\Lambda=\mestar$.}
377: \label{gg:fig:estar}
378: %
379: %
380: \vspace*{-2cm}
381: \begin{center}\mbox{
382: \epsfxsize=15.0cm
383: \epsffile{gg_ll.eps}
384: } \end{center}
385: \vspace{-1cm}
386: \caption{Log likelihood difference
387: $\Delta\mbox{LogL} = -\ln{\cal L}+\ln{\cal L}_{\rm max}$
388: as a function of $\mestar^{-4}$. The coupling is fixed at $f = f' = 1$.
389: The value corresponding to $\Delta\mbox{LogL} = 1.92$ is $\mestar$ = 248 \GeV.}
390: \label{gg:fig:ll}
391: \end{figure}
392:
393: