1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% ws-procs10x7.tex : 23 January 2003 %%
3: %% Text file to use with ws-procs10x7.cls written in Latex2e. %%
4: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the %%
5: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. %%
6: %% Copyright 1995, 2003 by World Scientific Publishing Co. %%
7: %% All rights are reserved. %%
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9:
10: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-procs10x7}
11: \documentclass{ws-procs10x7}
12: \usepackage{balance}
13: \usepackage{epsfig}
14: %new column type
15: \newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1}}
16:
17: % A useful Journal macro
18: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
19:
20: % Some useful journal names
21: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
22: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
23: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
24: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
25: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
26: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
27: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
28: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
29:
30: % Some other macros used in the sample text
31: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
32: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
33: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
34: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
35: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
36: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
37: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
38: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
39: \def\ko{K^0}
40: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
41: \def\al{\alpha}
42: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
43: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
44: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
45: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
46: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
47: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
48: \newcommand{\MET}{$\not\!\!E_T$}
49: \def\pt{$p_T$}
50: \def\Aboson{$A$}
51: \def\Hboson{$H$}
52: \def\hboson{$h$}
53: \def\bbbar{$b\bar{b}$}
54: \def\ppbar{$p\bar{p}$}
55: \def\tanb{$\tan{\beta}$}
56: \def\ipb{$\mbox{pb}^{-1}$}
57: \def\btag{$b$}
58: %temp replacement due to no font
59: %
60: \def\Missing#1#2{{\mbox{$#1\kern-0.57em\raise0.19ex\hbox{/}_{#2}$}}}
61:
62: \def\vMissing#1#2{\ifmmode
63: \vec{#1}\kern-0.57em\raise.19ex\hbox{/}_{#2}
64: \else
65: {{\mbox{$\vec{#1}\kern-0.57em\raise.19ex\hbox{/}_{#2}$}}}
66: \fi}
67: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
68: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}
69: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
70: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}
71: \def\et{\mbox{$E_{T}$}}
72: \def\met{\mbox{$\Missing{E}{T}$}}
73: \def\vmet{\mbox{$\vMissing{E}{T}$}}
74: \def\mht{\mbox{$\Missing{H}{T}$}}
75: \def\pt{\mbox{$p_{T}$}}
76: \def\mpt{\mbox{$\Missing{p}{T}$}}
77: \def\D0{D\O }
78: \def\etal{\it et al}
79: \def\PBARP{\mbox{$p\overline{p}$}}
80: \def\pp{\mbox{$pp$}}
81: \def\qqbar{\mbox{$q\overline{q}$}}
82: \def\pbar{\mbox{$\overline{p}$}}
83: \def\px{\mbox{$p_{x}$}}
84: \def\py{\mbox{$p_{y}$}}
85: \def\pz{\mbox{$p_{z}$}}
86: \newcommand{\Et}{\mbox{$E_{\rm T}$}}
87: \newcommand{\Etu}[1]{\mbox{$E^{\rm jet#1}_{T}$}}
88: \newcommand{\Etmax}{\mbox{$E_{T}^{\rm max}$}}
89: \newcommand{\Etjet}{\mbox{$E_{T}^{\rm jet}$}}
90: \newcommand{\Etxxx}{\mbox{$E_{T}^{\rm xxx}$}}
91: \newcommand{\Rc}{\mbox{${\mathcal R}$}}
92: \newcommand{\Rsep}{\mbox{${\mathcal{R}}_{\rm sep}$}}
93: \newcommand{\Exi}{E_{x}^{i}}
94: \newcommand{\Eyi}{E_{y}^{i}}
95: \newcommand{\Ezi}{E_{z}^{i}}
96: \newcommand{\Ex}{E_{x}}
97: \newcommand{\Ey}{E_{y}}
98: \newcommand{\Ez}{E_{z}}
99: \newcommand{\ETi}{E_{T}^{i}}
100: \newcommand{\rstev}{\mbox{$\rs = \T{1.8}$}}
101: \newcommand{\rssps}{\mbox{$\rs = \T{0.63}$}}
102: \newcommand{\XX}{\mbox{$\, \times \,$}}
103: \newcommand{\AP}{\mbox{${\rm \bar{p}}$}}
104: \newcommand{\SU}{\mbox{$<\! |S|^2 \!>$}}
105: \newcommand{\HT}{\mbox{${S}_{T}$}}
106: \newcommand{\PT}{\mbox{$P_{T}$}}
107: \newcommand{\DP}{\mbox{$\Delta\phi$}}
108: \newcommand{\DR}{\mbox{$\Delta \Rc$}}
109: \newcommand{\DE}{\mbox{$\Delta\eta$}}
110: \newcommand{\DEP}{\mbox{$\Delta\eta_{\rm c}$}}
111: \newcommand{\PH}{\mbox{$\phi$}}
112: \newcommand{\EA}{\mbox{$\eta$} }
113: \newcommand{\EAJ}{\mbox{\EA(jet)}}
114: \newcommand{\AEA}{\mbox{$|\eta|$}}
115: \newcommand{\Ge}[1]{\mbox{#1 GeV}}
116: \newcommand{\T}[1]{\mbox{#1 TeV}}
117: \newcommand{\mb}{\mbox{mb}}
118: \newcommand{\nb}{\mbox{nb}}
119: \newcommand{\inb}{\mbox{nb$^{-1}$}}
120: \newcommand{\rs}{\mbox{$\sqrt{\rm s}$}}
121: \newcommand{\fdel}{\mbox{$f(\DEP)$}}
122: \newcommand{\fdele}{\mbox{$f(\DEP)^{exp}$}}
123: \newcommand{\fgap}{\mbox{$f(\DEP\! \geq \!3)$}}
124: \newcommand{\fgape}{\mbox{$f(\DEP\! \geq \!3)^{exp}$}}
125: \newcommand{\fpyt}{\mbox{$f(\DEP\!>\!2)$}}
126: \newcommand{\delth}{\mbox{$\DEP\! \geq \!3$}}
127: \newcommand{\uplim}{\mbox{$1.1\!\times\!10^{-2}$}}
128: \newcommand{\rar}{\rightarrow}
129: \def\simge{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise 0.53ex \hbox{$>$}}%
130: {\lower 0.53ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
131: \def\simle{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise 0.53ex \hbox{$<$}}%
132: {\lower 0.53ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
133:
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
136: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
137: \makeindex
138: \begin{document}
139:
140: \title{SEARCHES and PROSPECTS for the STANDARD MODEL HIGGS BOSON at the TEVATRON}
141:
142:
143: \author{Gregorio BERNARDI \\ on behalf of the CDF and D\O\ Collaborations}
144:
145:
146: \address{LPNHE, Universit\'es Paris VI et VII, France\\$^*$E-mail: gregorio@in2p3.fr}
147:
148:
149: \twocolumn[\maketitle\abstract{
150: We summarize the status of SM Higgs boson searches at the upgraded Fermilab Tevatron
151: performed by the CDF and D\O\ collaborations, with an emphasis on measurements at
152: large Higgs mass, and derive sensitivity prospects
153: for the upcoming increase in integrated luminosity.
154: }
155: \keywords{Higgs; CDF; D\O\; Tevatron}
156: ]
157:
158:
159: \section{Introduction}
160:
161:
162:
163: %
164: The Higgs boson is the only elementary scalar particle expected in the
165: standard model (SM). Its discovery would be a major success for the SM and
166: would provide new experimental insights into the electroweak symmetry breaking
167: mechanism.
168: Direct measurements at LEP have excluded a SM Higgs boson with a mass
169: $m_H < 114.4$ GeV at 95\% C.L. but
170: constraints from precision measurements nevertheless favor a
171: Higgs boson sufficiently light to be accessible at the Fermilab Tevatron
172: Collider.
173: The current preferred $m_H$ value, as deduced from a fit to
174: electroweak measurements by the LEP, SLD,
175: CDF, and D\O\ experiments~\cite{ewwg}
176: % shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ewwgSMH}a,
177: is $85^{+39}_{-28}$ GeV.
178: Combining with the direct limit,
179: yields a 95\% C.L. upper limit of 199 GeV.
180: At the Tevatron, indirect searches for the Higgs boson involve
181: precision measurements of the masses of the top quark and $W$ boson, while
182: direct searches require high luminosity samples for discovery or exclusion in
183: the $115-185$ GeV mass range, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ewwgSMH}.
184: \begin{figure}[b]
185: \psfig{figure=hss33.eps,height=1.8in,width=2.8in,bbllx=83,bblly=235,bburx=550,bbury=510,clip=}
186: \caption{
187: Expected sensitivity to the Higgs boson at the Tevatron a function of $m_H$
188: and luminosity.
189: \label{fig:ewwgSMH}}
190: \end{figure}
191: At the Tevatron
192: $p\overline{p}$ collider ($\sqrt{s}$=1.96~TeV), the
193: two dominant mechanisms for Higgs production are
194: gluon fusion, $gg \rightarrow H$, and associated production with a $W$ or $Z$ boson,
195: $q\overline{q} \rightarrow W/Z + H$.
196: The $gg$ fusion process has the largest cross section, $\sim$~1~pb at
197: $m_{H}$=115~GeV,
198: but it is the most sensitive production mode only at relatively high mass,
199: $m_H >$135~GeV, where it has a dominant branching ratio in $WW^{*}$.
200: At lower masses, the dominant decay $H \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ is
201: swamped by multijet background, so
202: only the search for a Higgs produced in association
203: with a vector boson has sufficient sensitivity in this mass region.
204:
205: Two simulation studies have been performed before the
206: "real" start of Run II to determine
207: the sensitivity of the Tevatron experiments to SM Higgs physics.
208: The first study, in '98-99~\cite{susy-Higgs},
209: explored the whole mass range available with some approximation of the detector response,
210: while the second one (HSS, in '03) was restricted to the low mass region~\cite{Higgsens} and
211: used a more realistic simulation, since the first data of Tevatron Run II had become available.
212: The second study essentially confirmed the findings of the original study, and both
213: results are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:ewwgSMH}, after combination of all channels of both
214: experiments. The conclusions were that
215: the estimated integrated luminosity needed for a Higgs
216: discovery at $m_H =$ 115~GeV is approximately 8~fb$^{-1}$. Evidence at 3 $\sigma$ might
217: be found with $\> 3-4 $fb$^{-1}$, while most of the Higgs mass region below
218: $\sim$185~GeV could be excluded at 95\% CL with $\sim 8$~fb$^{-1}$.
219: The current results presented here below use about 10\% of the final luminosity which will
220: be delivered.
221: We are thus now able to determine experimentally in which region the Tevatron is competitive with
222: the foreseen luminosity as discussed at the end of this summary, after a brief
223: review of the machine performance, new Higgs search results and their combinations.
224:
225: \section{Tevatron Prospects}
226:
227: The Higgs searches are crucially dependent on performance of the Tevatron accelerator and detectors,
228: and the detectors are currently performing close to their optimal design values.
229: The machine also is performing very well since the end of 2003,
230: with close to designed delivered luminosities. As of today, about 2 fb$^{-1}$ have been delivered,
231: with weekly integrated luminosity routinely exceeding
232: 20 pb$^{-1}$. %
233: \begin{figure}[htbp]
234: \psfig{figure=lu1.eps,width=2.6in,height=1.8in
235: ,bbllx=-10,bblly=-10,bburx=350,bbury=250,clip=} \\%%BoundingBox: 0 0 350 242
236: \psfig{figure=lu2.eps,width=2.6in,height=1.8in
237: ,bbllx=-10,bblly=-10,bburx=350,bbury=250,clip=}%%BoundingBox: 0 0 350 242
238: \caption{Weekly and total expected integrated luminosity of the Tevatron as
239: a function of time.
240: \label{fig:tev} }
241: \end{figure}
242: %
243: Since this figure is the terminal value assumed in the minimal (so-called ``base'')
244: luminosity expectation (cf Fig.~\ref{fig:tev}a), the current performance ensure that
245: a minimal integrated luminosity of 4 fb$^{-1}$ will be achieved by
246: the end of 2009, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:tev}b. If the accelerator keeps following
247: the designed luminosity evolution, an integrated luminosity of about $8$ fb$^{-1}$ will be achieved,
248: rendering the potential for a Higgs discovery significant at the Tevatron.
249:
250: \section{Searches for SM Higgs}
251:
252: The searches at low mass in the $WH$ and $ZH$
253: production channels have been presented in detail at this conference
254: in Ref.~\cite{ben}, so we concentrate
255: here on new results obtained assuming a large Higgs Mass
256: ($> 135$ GeV). Two production channels have been exploited
257: so far: $p\bar{p}\rightarrow WH \rightarrow WWW^{\star}$, giving a final state
258: with 2 like-sign leptons,% $+$ missing transverse momentum are searched,
259: and $p\bar{p}\rightarrow H \rightarrow WW^{\star}$ which gives a final state
260: with 2 opposite-sign leptons.
261: In the $WWW^{\star}$ channel, D\O\ has presented its published results on
262: 0.4 fb$^{-1}$~\cite{d0-www}:
263: after preselection, 34 like-sign events ($ee, e\mu, \mu\mu$) are left,
264: compared to a background of 34.9 events, dominated by instrumental
265: background, in particular by events in which one of the lepton charge
266: is misreconstructed. A topological likelihood discriminant based on 3
267: kinematic variables is then used to achieve further data reduction,
268: with a final number of observed vs. background events of 6 vs. 4.4.
269: In the absence of signal, the 95\% C.L. upper limit on
270: $\sigma(WH) \times BR(H \rightarrow WW$) varies between 3.2 and 2.8 pb for $m_H$ between
271: 115 and 175 GeV. Although it is not the most sensitive channel in any
272: mass range, this channel
273: provides additional sensitivity in the 130--150 GeV $m_H$ range.
274: %, and was nos
275: %considered in the prospective study.
276: There was low sensitivity
277: expected in this mass region (Fig.~\ref{fig:ewwgSMH}), but with this search,
278: the prospects in this area have now improved.
279:
280: In the and $ H \rightarrow WW^{\star}$ channel, CDF and D\O\ have
281: already published results on samples of 0.35 fb$^{-1}$,
282: and obtained cross section limits of 3.5 pb$^{-1}$ at $m_H=160$~GeV\cite{d0-ww,cdf-ww},
283: where the SM expectation is 0.3 pb.
284: At this conference, D\O\ has presented updated results with $\sim$1~fb$^{-1}$
285: of data~\cite{d0-ww-em}. The search is similar to the published ones,
286: with a selection based on 2 isolated opposite-charge leptons $+$ missing transverse
287: momentum, and further kinematic cuts to reduce the background, which is dominated
288: by $WW$ production. The number of events observed is 37, to be compared to
289: 44.5 expected from SM background, and 1.7 for a SM Higgs with $m_H=$160 GeV.
290: The expected and observed limits are displayed in Fig.~\ref{wwd0}, and the limit
291: at 160 GeV has been reduced to 1.6 pb, i.e. only a factor
292: $\sim$5 away for the SM Higgs prediction.
293: \begin{figure}[htbp]
294: \psfig{figure=limit_hww_new.eps,height=1.9in,bbllx=-10,bblly=-10,bburx=580,bbury=390,clip=}
295: \caption{$WW^{\star}$ results at D\O\ with $\sim$1~fb$^{-1}$
296: of integrated luminosity, compared to the SM and to its extension with a 4$^{th}$
297: generation.
298: \label{wwd0}}
299: \end{figure}
300: This result also excludes a SM with 4
301: families, having a Higgs with mass between 150 and 185 GeV, as shown. Indeed, the
302: quarks of the putative 4$^{th}$ family would enhance by a factor $~\sim$8
303: the Higgs production via the standard triangle diagram $ggH$~\cite{arik} in the
304: region of the search, assuming the most unfavorable case (infinite mass of the
305: 4$^{th}$ generation quarks).
306:
307:
308: \section{Combined Limits on SM Higgs}
309:
310: Both experiments have done the measurements in all channels, so the limits
311: can be improved by combining all channels into a single limit.
312: To do that, CDF follows a Bayesian approach,
313: while D\O\ uses the $CL_s$ method developped for the Higgs search at LEP, see
314: Ref.~\cite{cdf-d0} for details and complete references.
315: The CDF (D\O ) results and their combinations are displayed in
316: Fig.~\ref{fig:wh-d0}a(b).
317: \begin{figure}[htbp]
318: \psfig{figure=ichep-cdf-limit.eps,width=2.9in,height=2.1in}
319: \psfig{figure=ichep-d0-limit.eps,width=2.6in,height=2.0in,bbllx=30,bblly=240,bburx=520,bbury=620,clip=}
320: \caption{ 95\% C.L. limits on Higgs production
321: cross section, divided by the SM expectation, as a function of $m_H$, for individual
322: channels and their combination of a) CDF and b) D\O .
323: A ratio of 1 is equivalent to a 95\% C.L. exclusion.
324: \label{fig:wh-d0}}
325: \end{figure}
326:
327:
328: Both combination methods have then been
329: applied to the combination of the results of both experiments and the resulting
330: limits were found equal within 10\%.
331: The result of the CDF--D\O\ combination is shown in
332: Fig.~\ref{combined}. Also shown are the ``expected'' limits for the CDF--D\O\
333: combination, and for the CDF and D\O\ separate combination, i.e. the limits
334: assuming that the observations would be exactly equal to the SM background
335: expectations. The expected limits of CDF and D\O\ have different shapes, since
336: presently CDF has analyzed the low Higgs mass channels
337: on a large dataset ($\sim$1 fb$^{-1}$)
338: and the high mass on a small dataset ($\sim$0.3 fb$^{-1}$, while D\O\ has done exactly
339: the reverse, so in fact the global curve corresponds to a good approximation
340: to the curve of a single experiment with 1.3 fb$^{-1}$ for all channels.
341: The expected limits, which allow to judge the current sensitivity, show that at
342: 115 (160) GeV, the limit is 7.6 (5.0) times higher than the SM expectation.
343: The increase to the expected design integrated luminosity will reduce these values
344: by approximately a factor 3.5, so a further gain in sensitivity of about 2.2 (1.4)
345: is needed in data analysis to reach exclusion at these mass points.
346: Separate studies already performed in the two
347: experiments show that this gain will definitely be greater than 2.5 at
348: low mass (use of Neural Net
349: techniques in selection and in $b$-identification, better dijet mass resolution,
350: increased acceptance, reduced systematic errors and inclusion of $\tau$ channels)
351: and 1.7 at high mass (where $b$-identification and dijet mass resolution do not
352: play a role). With further developments under test, or already used
353: in other analyses, the full mass range
354: between 115 and 185 GeV will be sensitive to an exclusion (or an evidence) at
355: the 95\% C.L. and at more than 3 $\sigma$ level in the most sensitive regions
356: ($\sim$ 115 or 160 GeV).
357: \begin{figure}[htbp]
358: \psfig{figure=tevComp_linNoGr.eps,
359: height=1.7in,width=2.9in,bbllx=-10,bblly=-10,bburx=570,bbury=360,clip=}
360: \caption{CDF and D\O\ 95\% C.L. expected and
361: observed combined limits on Higgs production
362: cross section, divided by the SM expectation, as a function of $m_H$.
363: %A ratio of 1 is equivalent to a 95\% C.L. exclusion.
364: The expected limits for CDF and D\O\ separately are also given
365: for comparison.
366: \label{combined}}
367: \end{figure}
368:
369: In conclusion, the SM Higgs searches
370: in all the channels are now being regularly updated
371: and combined. We expect that
372: after implementing the analysis improvements mentioned above,
373: the sensitivity prospects will be met.
374: Hence, the prospects for uncovering the first evidence of a light mass Higgs boson with
375: 4--8 pb$^{-1}$ of Tevatron integrated luminosity are real.
376:
377:
378:
379: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
380:
381:
382: \bibitem{ewwg} S.\ Eidelman {\it et al}, Phys.\ Lett. B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004);
383: LEP Electroweak Working Group,\\
384: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/
385:
386: \bibitem{susy-Higgs} M. Carena, J. Conway, H. Haber, J. Hobbs et al.,
387: FERMILAB-CONF-00/279-T (2000), hep-ph/0010338.
388:
389: \bibitem{Higgsens} CDF and D\O\ Collaborations, FERMILAB-PUB-03/320-E (2003).
390:
391: \bibitem{ben}B. Kilminster, XXXIII International Conference on High Energy Physics, Moscow,
392: 2006, {\tt
393: http://tevnphwg.fnal.gov/results/ }
394:
395: \bibitem{d0-www} D\O\ Collaboration,
396: V.M.~Abazov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 151804 (2006).
397: \bibitem{d0-ww} D\O\ Collaboration,
398: V.M.~Abazov {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 011801 (2006).
399: \bibitem{cdf-ww} CDF Collaboration,
400: A.~Abulencia {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 081802 (2006).
401:
402: \bibitem{d0-ww-em} D\O\ Collaboration,
403: V.M.~Abazov {\it et al.}, \\
404: {\tt
405: http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/ \\
406: results/prelim/HIGGS/H16/H16.pdf \\
407: http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/ \\
408: results/prelim/HIGGS/H21/H21.pdf}
409:
410: \bibitem{arik}E. Arik {\it et al.}, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0502050},\\
411: E. Arik {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 9 (2002).
412:
413: \bibitem{cdf-d0}TevNPH working group, for the CDF \ and D\O\ Collaborations,{\tt arXiv:hep-ex/0612044}.
414:
415:
416: \end{thebibliography}
417:
418: \end{document}
419: