1: %\RequirePackage{lineno}
2: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: %
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}
7: \usepackage{amsmath}
8: \usepackage{subfigure}
9: \usepackage{xspace}
10: %
11: \usepackage[usenames,dvips]{pstcol}
12: \usepackage{color}
13: \usepackage{amssymb}
14: \usepackage{epsfig}
15: \usepackage{footnote}
16: \usepackage{longtable}
17: \usepackage{fancyhdr}
18: \usepackage{subfigure}
19: \usepackage{xspace}
20: %
21: \newcommand{\linespace}[1]{\protect\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{#1}\footnotesize\normalsize}
22: %
23: \newcommand{\pbarp}{{\bar p}p}
24: \newcommand{\ppbar}{p{\bar p}}
25: \newcommand{\invpb}{\rm pb^{-1}} % Should be roman in PRL
26: \newcommand{\bfinvpb}{\bf pb^{-1}} % Should be roman in PRL
27: \newcommand{\roots}{{\sqrt s}}
28: \newcommand{\pml} {\ \,\pm}
29: \newcommand{\Et}{E_T}
30: \newcommand{\Pt}{p_T}
31: \newcommand{\Ht}{H_T}
32: \newcommand{\egg}{e\gamma\gamma}
33: \newcommand{\mugg}{\mu\gamma\gamma}
34: \newcommand{\eeggmet}{ee\gamma\gamma\met}
35: \newcommand{\llggmet}{\ell\ell\gamma\gamma\met}
36: \newcommand{\lgal}{\ell\gamma}
37: %\newcommand{\lgX}{\ell\gamma+X}
38: \newcommand{\lgX}{\ell\gamma\plus X}
39: \newcommand{\egX}{e\gamma\plus X}
40: \newcommand{\mugX}{\mu\gamma\plus X}
41: \newcommand{\ggX}{\gamma\gamma+X}
42: \newcommand{\emugX}{e\mu\gamma+X}
43: \newcommand{ \intlum }{\int {\mathcal L} dt}
44: \def\lum{{\cal L}}
45: \newcommand{\pmasym}[2]{^{+#1}_{-#2}}
46: \newcommand{\gt}{>}
47: \newcommand{\lt}{<}
48: \newcommand{\intL}{\int {\mathit L}dt}
49: %\newcommand{\met}{{\rm\not\!\!E}_{T}}
50: \newcommand{\met}{{\not\!\!E}_{T}}
51: \newcommand{\metvec}{{\not\!\! \vec{E}_T}}
52: \newcommand{\lepvec}{{\vec{E}_T^\ell}}
53: \newcommand{\phovec}{{\vec{E}_T^\gamma}}
54: \newcommand{\boxiso}{E^{iso}_{3x3}}
55: \newcommand{\coriso}{{\rm E^{iso}_{cone}}}
56: \newcommand{\lplm}{\ell^+\ell^-}
57: \newcommand{\lgmet}{\ell\gamma\met}
58: \newcommand{\egmet}{e\gamma\met}
59: \newcommand{\eg}{e\gamma}
60: \newcommand{\mug}{\mu\gamma}
61: \newcommand{\mugmet}{\mu\gamma\met}
62: \newcommand{\llg}{\ell\ell\gamma}
63: \def\ttg{t\bar{t}\gamma}
64: \newcommand{\lgg}{\ell\gamma\gamma}
65: \newcommand{\llgg}{\ell\ell\gamma\gamma}
66: \newcommand{\eeg}{ee\gamma}
67: \newcommand{\mumug}{\mu\mu\gamma}
68: \newcommand{\Wenu}{W \rightarrow e\nu}
69: \newcommand{\Wmunu}{W \rightarrow \mu\nu}
70: \newcommand{\Wg}{W \gamma}
71: \newcommand{\Wgg}{W \gamma\gamma}
72: %
73: %\newcommand{\Zee}{Z^0 \rightarrow e^+e^-}
74: %\newcommand{\Zeg}{Z^0 \rightarrow e\gamma}
75: %\newcommand{\Zg}{Z^0 \gamma}
76: %\newcommand{\Zgg}{Z^0 \gamma\gamma}
77: %\newcommand{\Z}{Z^0}
78: %\newcommand{\Zgstar}{Z^0\kern -0.25em/\kern -0.15em\gamma^*}
79: %\newcommand{\Zmumu}{Z^0 \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-}
80: \newcommand{\Zee}{Z \rightarrow e^+e^-}
81: \newcommand{\Zeg}{Z \rightarrow e\gamma}
82: \newcommand{\Zg}{Z \gamma}
83: \newcommand{\Zgg}{Z \gamma\gamma}
84: \newcommand{\Z}{Z}
85: \newcommand{\Zgstar}{Z\kern -0.25em/\kern -0.15em\gamma^*}
86: \newcommand{\Zmumu}{Z \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-}
87: %
88: \newcommand{\epem}{e^+e^-}
89: %\newcommand{\lumi}{305}
90: %\newcommand{\dlumi}{18}
91: %\newcommand{\lumi}{929}
92: %\newcommand{\dlumi}{56}
93: \newcommand{\lumiprl}{305}
94: \newcommand{\runonelumi}{86}
95: \newcommand{\goes}{\kern -0.18em\rightarrow\kern -0.18em}
96: \newcommand{\plus}{\kern -0.18em +\kern -0.18em}
97: \newcommand{\degs}{\mbox{$^{\circ}$}}
98: %
99: % Define GeV so that the space between the "e" and "V" is correct.
100: % The xspace macro must be defined
101: %
102: \newcommand{\MeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\ Me\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace}
103: \newcommand{\MeVc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\ Me\kern -0.1em V\kern -0.1em
104: /\mathit{c}}}\xspace}
105: \newcommand{\MeVcsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\ Me\kern -0.1em V\kern -0.1em
106: /\mathit{c}^2}}\xspace}
107: \newcommand{\GeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace}
108: \newcommand{\GeVc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V\kern -0.1em
109: /\mathit{c}}}\xspace}
110: \newcommand{\GeVcsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V\kern -0.1em
111: /\mathit{c}^2}}\xspace}
112: \newcommand{\TeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Te\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace}
113: \newcommand{\bfTeV}{\ensuremath{\bf{Te\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace}
114: \newcommand{\nsGeV}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V}}\xspace}
115: \newcommand{\nsGeVc}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ge\kern -0.1em V\kern -0.1em
116: /\mathit{c}}}\xspace}
117: \newcommand{\Etgamma}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{E_T^{\gamma}}}}
118: \newcommand{\Etlepton}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{E_T^{\ell}}}}
119: \newcommand{\LPX}{Lepton + Photon + X~}
120: \newcommand{\lpX}{lepton + photon + X~}
121: %
122: % ----------- some settings from Henry: START
123: %
124: % Alter some LaTeX defaults for better treatment of figures:
125: % See p.105 of "TeX Unbound" for suggested values.
126: % See pp. 199-200 of Lamport's "LaTeX" book for details.
127: % General parameters, for ALL pages:
128: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.9} % max fraction of floats at top
129: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.8} % max fraction of floats at bottom
130: % Parameters for TEXT pages (not float pages):
131: \setcounter{topnumber}{2}
132: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{2}
133: \setcounter{totalnumber}{4} % 2 may work better
134: \setcounter{dbltopnumber}{2} % for 2-column pages
135: \renewcommand{\dbltopfraction}{0.9} % fit big float above 2-col. text
136: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.07} % allow minimal text w. figs
137: % Parameters for FLOAT pages (not text pages):
138: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.7} % require fuller float pages
139: % N.B.: floatpagefraction MUST be less than topfraction !!
140: \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{0.7} % require fuller float pages
141: % remember to use [htp] or [htpb] for placement
142: %
143: % ----------- some settings from Henry: END
144: %
145: \input{total.summary}
146:
147: \begin{document}
148: %\pagewiselinenumbers
149: \title{Search for New Physics in Lepton + Photon + X
150: Events with $\bf\lumi$ $\bfinvpb$ of $\bf\ppbar$ Collisions at $\bf\roots$= 1.96 $\bfTeV$}
151: \input{Oct_2006_Authors_alt.tex}
152: %
153: %\collaboration{CDF Collaboration}
154: %\preprint{FERMILAB-PUB-06/yyy-E}
155: %\preprint{EFI-06/yyy}
156: %\preprint{EFI-05-zzz}
157:
158:
159: %\input{cdf_auth.tex}
160: %\input{run1_revtex4_auth.tex}
161:
162: \date{\today}
163:
164: %(CDF Collaboration)
165:
166: \begin{abstract}
167: We present results of a search at CDF in $\lumi\pm\dlumi$ $\invpb$ of
168: $\ppbar$ collisions at 1.96 $\TeV$ for the anomalous production of
169: events containing a high-transverse momentum charged lepton ($\ell$,
170: either $e$ or $\mu$) and photon ($\gamma$), accompanied by missing
171: transverse energy ($\met$), and/or additional leptons and photons, and
172: jets (X). We use the same selection criteria as in a previous CDF Run
173: I search, but with an order-magnitude larger data set, a higher
174: $\ppbar$ collision energy, and the CDF II detector. We find
175: $\noflglgmet$ $\lgmet+X$ events, compared to an expectation of
176: $\smnoflglgmet \pm \totdsysnoflglgmet$ events. We observe
177: $\noflgmultil$ $\llg + X$ events, compared to an expectation of
178: $\smnoflgmultil \pm \totdsysnoflgmultil$ events. We find no events
179: similar to the Run I $\eeggmet$ event.
180: \end{abstract}
181:
182: \pacs{13.85.Rm, 12.60.Jv, 13.85.Qk, 14.80.Ly}
183: % PACS, the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme.
184:
185: \maketitle
186:
187: \section{Introduction}
188: \label{introduction}
189:
190: %In 1995 the CDF experiment, studying $\ppbar$ collisions in 86
191: %$\invpb$ of data at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 $\TeV$ at the
192: %%Fermilab Tevatron, observed~\cite{Toback_all} an event consistent with
193: %the production of two energetic photons, two energetic electrons, and
194: %large missing transverse energy $\met$~\cite{EtPt}. This signature is
195: %predicted to be very rare in the standard model (SM) of particle
196: %physics~\cite{SM}, with the dominant contribution being from the
197: %production of four gauge bosons: two W bosons and two photons. The
198: %event raised theoretical interest, however, as the $\llgg$ signature
199: %is expected in some extensions of the standard model
200: %such as gauge-mediated models of supersymmetry~\cite{susy} or the
201: %production of a pair of excited electrons~\cite{excited_electron}. The
202: %detection of this event led to the development of ``signature-based''
203: %inclusive searches to cast a wider net for new phenomena: in this case
204: %one search for two photons + X ($\ggX$) ~\cite{Toback_all}, and a
205: %second for one lepton + one photon + X
206: %($\lgX$)~\cite{Jeff_PRD,Jeff_PRL,Jeff_thesis}, where X can be $e$,
207: %$\mu$, $\gamma$, or $\met$, plus any number of jets.
208: %
209: %Neither Run I search revealed convincing evidence for new
210: %physics. However, in the $\lgX$ search, the results were consistent
211: %with SM expectations, with ``the possible exception of photon-lepton
212: %events with large $\met$, for which the observed total was 16 events
213: %and the SM expectation was 7.6 $\pm$ 0.7 events, corresponding in
214: %likelihood to a 2.7 sigma effect.''~\cite{Jeff_PRL}. The Run I paper
215: %concluded: ``However, an excess of events with 0.7\% likelihood
216: %(equivalent to 2.7 standard deviations for a Gaussian distribution) in
217: %one subsample among the five studied is an interesting result, but it
218: %is not a compelling observation of new physics. We look forward to
219: %more data in the upcoming run of the Fermilab
220: %Tevatron.''~\cite{Jeff_PRL}.
221: %
222: %We have now repeated the $\lgX$ search with the same kinematic
223: %selection criteria in a data set corresponding to an exposure more
224: %than 10 times larger, $\lumi\pm\dlumi$ $\invpb$, a higher $\ppbar$
225: %collision energy, 1.96 $\TeV$, and the CDF II
226: %detector~\cite{CDFII}. The results from analyzing the first third of
227: %this sample found that that the numbers of $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ events
228: %agree with SM predictions~\cite{Loginov_PRL, Loginov_EPJC}. However,
229: %the number of observed $\lgmet$ events was found to be slightly higher
230: %than predicted; the analysis also observed a small number of events on
231: %the `tails' of the kinematic distributions (regions in which we expect
232: %few SM events).
233: %
234: %In this paper we report the results of extending the Run II $\lgX$
235: %search to the full data set taken during the period March 2002 through
236: %February, 2006, an exposure of $\lumi\pm\dlumi$ $\invpb$. We give a
237: %detailed description of the selection criteria, background
238: %calculations, and kinematic distributions for the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$
239: %channels than was possible in References~\cite{Loginov_PRL} and
240: %\cite{Loginov_EPJC}. We also present results for the $\emugX$ and
241: %$\lgg$ signatures.
242:
243: An important test of the standard model (SM) of particle
244: physics~\cite{SM} is to measure and understand the properties of the
245: highest momentum-transfer particle collisions, which correspond to
246: measurements at the shortest distances. The chief predictions of the
247: SM for these collisions are the numbers and types of the fundamental
248: fermions and gauge bosons that are produced, and their associated
249: kinematic distributions. The predicted high energy behavior of the
250: SM, however, becomes unphysical at an interaction energy on the order
251: of several TeV. New physical phenomena are required to ameliorate
252: this high-energy behavior. These unknown phenomena may involve new
253: elementary particles, new fundamental forces, and/or a modification of
254: space-time geometry. These new phenomena are likely to show up as an
255: anomalous production rate of a combination of the known fundamental
256: particles, including those detector-based signatures such as missing
257: transverse energy ($\met$) or penetrating particle tracks that within
258: the confines of the SM are associated with neutrinos and muons,
259: respectively.
260:
261: The unknown nature of possible new phenomena in the energy range
262: accessible at the Tevatron is the motivation for a search strategy
263: that does not focus on a single model or class of models of new
264: physics, but presents a wide net for new phenomena. In this paper we
265: present the results of a comparison of standard model predictions with
266: the rates measured at the Tevatron with the CDF detector for final
267: states containing at least one high-$\Pt$ lepton (e or $\mu$) and photon,
268: plus other detected objects (leptons, photons, jets, $\met$).
269:
270: The initial motivation for such an inclusive search (``signature-based
271: search'') came from the observation in 1995 by the CDF
272: experiment~\cite{Toback_all} of an event consistent with the
273: production of two energetic photons, two energetic electrons, and
274: large missing transverse energy $\met$~\cite{EtPt}. This signature is
275: predicted to be very rare in the SM, with the dominant contribution
276: being from the production of four gauge bosons: two W bosons and two
277: photons. The event raised theoretical interest, however, as it had, in
278: addition to large missing transverse momentum, very high total
279: transverse energy, and a pattern of widely-separated leptons and
280: photons that was consistent with the decay of a pair of new heavy
281: particles.
282:
283: There are many models of new physics that could produce such a
284: signature~\cite{lhc_wkgp}. Gauge-mediated models of
285: supersymmetry~\cite{susy_gauge}, in which the lightest super-partner
286: (LSP) is a light gravitino, provide a model in which each partner of a
287: pair of supersymmetric particles produced in a $\ppbar$ interaction
288: decays in a chain that leads to a produced gravitino, visible as
289: $\met$. If the next-to-lightest neutralino (NLSP) has a photino
290: component, each chain also can result in a photon. Models of
291: supersymmetry in which the symmetry breaking is due to gravity also
292: can produce decay chains with photons~\cite{susy_gravity}. For
293: example, if the NLSP is largely photino-like, and the lightest is
294: largely higgsino, decays of the former to the latter will involve the
295: emission of a photon~\cite{kane_loop}. More generally, pair-production
296: of selectrons or gauginos can result in final-states with large
297: $\met$, two photons and two leptons. Models with additional space
298: dimensions~\cite{LED} predict excited states of the known standard
299: model particles. The production of a pair of excited
300: electrons~\cite{excited_electron} would provide a natural source for
301: two photons and two electrons (although not $\met$ unless the pair
302: were produced with some other, undetected, particle.). As in the case
303: of supersymmetry, there are many parameters in such models, with a
304: resulting broad range of possible signatures with multiple gauge
305: bosons~\cite{Geraldine}.
306:
307: Rather than search the huge parameter space of the models current at
308: that time, the CDF Run I analyses that followed up on the $\eeggmet$
309: event used a strategy of ``signature-based'' inclusive searches to
310: cast a wider net for new phenomena: in this case one search for two
311: photons + X ($\ggX$)~\cite{Toback_all}, and a second for one lepton +
312: one photon + X ($\lgX$)~\cite{Jeff_PRD,Jeff_PRL,Jeff_thesis}, where X
313: can be $e$, $\mu$, $\gamma$, or $\met$, plus any number of jets. In
314: particular the latter signature, the subject of this present paper,
315: would be sensitive to decay chains in which only one chain produces a
316: photon, a broader set of models.
317:
318: The Run I $\lgX$ search found good agreement with SM predictions in 86
319: $\invpb$ of data at a center-of-mass energy of 1.8 $\TeV$, except in
320: the $\lgmet$ channel, in which 16 events were observed with an
321: expectation of 7.6 $\pm$ 0.7, corresponding to a 2.7$\sigma$
322: excess. The Run I paper concluded: ``However, an excess of events with
323: 0.7\% likelihood (equivalent to 2.7 standard deviations for a Gaussian
324: distribution) in one subsample among the five studied is an
325: interesting result, but it is not a compelling observation of new
326: physics. We look forward to more data in the upcoming run of the
327: Fermilab Tevatron.''~\cite{Jeff_PRL}.
328:
329: Here we present the results from Run II with more than 10 times the
330: statistics of the Run I measurement. We have repeated the $\lgX$
331: search with the same kinematic selection criteria in a data set
332: corresponding to an exposure of $\lumi\pm\dlumi$ $\invpb$, a higher
333: $\ppbar$ collision energy, 1.96 $\TeV$, and the CDF II
334: detector~\cite{CDFII}. The results correspond to the full data set
335: taken during the period March, 2002 through February, 2006, and
336: include data from the first third of this sample which have already
337: been presented~\cite{Loginov_all}. We give a detailed description of
338: the selection criteria, background calculations, and kinematic
339: distributions for the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ channels. We also present
340: results for the first time for the $\emugX$ and $\lgg$ signatures.
341:
342: This paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{detector} gives a
343: brief description of the CDF II detector, emphasizing the changes from
344: Run I. Section~\ref{selection} presents the electron, muon, photon,
345: and $\met$ identification criteria, and the kinematic event selection
346: criteria. The data flow as additional selection criteria are added,
347: resulting in the measured number of events in each signature, is also
348: described. The standard model W and Z samples, used as control
349: samples, are described in Section~\ref{control}. Section~\ref{lgx}
350: gives an introduction to the selection of the Inclusive $\lgX$ event
351: sample. Section~\ref{lgmet} describes the selection of the $\lgmet$
352: signal sample, and presents the measured kinematic distributions.
353: Similarly, the $\llg$ signal sample selection and kinematic
354: distributions are presented in Section~\ref{llg}. A search for the
355: $\ell\gamma\gamma$ signature is briefly described in
356: Section~\ref{lgg}. Section~\ref{sm} summarizes the SM expectations
357: from $\Wg,\Wgg,\Zg,\Zgg$ production, and backgrounds from
358: misidentified photons, $\met$, and/or leptons. Sections~\ref{results}
359: and~\ref{conclusions} summarize the results and present the
360: conclusions, respectively.
361:
362: \section{The CDF II Detector}
363: \label{detector}
364:
365: The CDF II detector is a cylindrically symmetric spectrometer designed
366: to study $\ppbar$ collisions at the Fermilab Tevatron based on the
367: same solenoidal magnet and central calorimeters as the CDF I
368: detector~\cite{CDFI}. Because the analysis described here is intended
369: to repeat the Run I search as closely as possible, we note especially
370: the differences from the CDF I detector relevant to the detection of
371: leptons, photons, and $\met$. The tracking systems used to measure the
372: momenta of charged particles have been replaced with a central outer
373: tracker (COT) with smaller drift cells~\cite{COT}, and an enhanced
374: system of silicon strip detectors~\cite{SVX}. The calorimeters in the
375: regions~\cite{CDF_coo} with pseudorapidity $|\eta| \gt 1$ have been
376: replaced with a more compact scintillator-based design, retaining the
377: projective geometry~\cite{cal_upgrade}. The coverage in $\varphi$ of
378: the central upgrade muon detector (CMP) and central extension muon
379: detector (CMX) systems~\cite{muon_systems} has been extended; the
380: central muon detector (CMU) system is unchanged.
381:
382: \section{Selection of $\lgX$ Events}
383: \label{selection}
384:
385: In order to make the present search statistically {\it a priori},
386: the identification of leptons and photons is essentially the same as
387: in the Run I search~\cite{Jeff_PRD}, with only minor technical changes
388: due to the differences in detector details between the upgraded
389: CDF II detector and CDF I.
390:
391: The scope and strategy of the Run I analysis were designed to reflect
392: the motivating principles. Categories of photon-lepton events were
393: defined {\it a priori} in a way that characterized the different
394: possibilities for new physics. For each category, the inclusive event
395: total and basic kinematic distributions can be compared with standard
396: model expectations. The decay products of massive particles are
397: typically isolated from other particles, and possess large transverse
398: momentum and low rapidity. The search is therefore limited to those
399: events with at least one isolated, central ($|\eta| < 1.0$) photon
400: with $\Et > 25 ~\GeV$, and at least one isolated, central electron or
401: muon with $\Et > 25 ~\GeV$. These photon-lepton candidates are
402: further partitioned by angular separation. Events where exactly one
403: photon and one lepton are detected nearly opposite in azimuth
404: ($\Delta\varphi_{\ell\gamma} > 150^{\circ}$) are characteristic of a
405: two-particle final-state (two-body photon-lepton events), and the
406: remaining photon-lepton events are characteristic of three or more
407: particles in the final-state (multi-body photon-lepton events). The
408: multi-body photon-lepton events are then further studied for the
409: presence of additional particles: photons, leptons, or the missing
410: transverse energy associated with weakly interacting neutral
411: particles.
412:
413:
414: In the subsections below we describe the real-time (``online'') event
415: selection criteria by the trigger system, and the subsequent event
416: selection ``offline'', including the selection of electrons, muons,
417: and photons, the rejection of jet background for leptons and photons
418: by track and calorimeter ``isolation'' requirements, and the
419: construction of the missing transverse energy $\met$ and total
420: transverse energy $\Ht$.
421:
422:
423: \subsection{The Online Selection by the Trigger System}
424: \label{trigger}
425:
426: A 3-level trigger system~\cite{CDFII} selects events
427: with a high transverse momentum ($\Pt$)~\cite{EtPt} lepton ($\Pt >
428: 18~\GeV$) or
429: photon ($\Et > 25~\GeV$) in the central region, $|\eta|
430: \lesssim 1.0$. The trigger system selects photon and electron
431: candidates from clusters of energy in the central electromagnetic
432: calorimeter. Electrons are distinguished from photons by the presence
433: of a COT track pointing at the cluster. The muon trigger requires a
434: COT track that extrapolates to a track segment (``stub'') in the muon
435: chambers~\cite{stub}. At each trigger level all transverse momenta are
436: calculated using the nominal center of the interaction region along
437: the beam-line, $z=0$~\cite{CDF_coo}.
438: %xxx Andrei we need to describe the triggers and subsequent samples actually
439: %used (I think this is two paragraphs).
440:
441: %\subsection{Overview of Event Selection From Within the Recorded Data}
442: \subsection{Overview of Event Selection}
443: \label{offline}
444: Inclusive $\lgal$ events (Fig.~\ref{flowchart_lepton.figure}) are
445: selected by requiring a central $\gamma$ candidate with $\Etgamma>25$
446: $\GeV$ and a central $e$ or $\mu$ with $\Etlepton>25$ $\GeV$
447: originating less than 60 cm along the beam-line from the detector
448: center and passing the ``tight'' criteria listed below. All
449: transverse momenta, including that of the photon, are calculated using
450: the vertex within $\pm 5$ cm of the lepton origin that has the largest
451: scalar sum of transverse momentum from tracks associated to that
452: vertex. Both signal and control samples are drawn from this $\lgal$
453: sample (Fig.~\ref{flowchart_lepton.figure}).
454:
455: %The $\lgal$ sample (Fig.~\ref{flowchart_lepton.figure}) is the sample
456: %from which both the signal and control samples are drawn.
457:
458: Considering the control samples first, from the $\lgal$ sample we
459: select back-to-back events with exactly one photon and one lepton
460: (i.e. $\met<25~\GeV$); this is the dominant contribution to the
461: $\lgal$ sample, and has a large Drell-Yan component. A subset of this
462: sample is the `Z-like' sample, which provides the calibration for the
463: probability that an electron radiates and is detected as a photon, as
464: discussed in Section~\ref{fake_photons}. The remaining back-to-back
465: events are called the Two-Body Events and were not used in this
466: analysis.
467:
468: All events which either have more than one lepton or photon, or in
469: which the lepton and photon are not back-to-back (and hence the event
470: cannot be a Two-Body event), are classified as `Inclusive Multi-Body
471: $\lgX$'. These are further subdivided into three categories: $\lgmet$
472: (Section~\ref{lgx}) (`Multi-Body $\lgmet$ Events'), for which the
473: $\met$ (Section~\ref{met}) is greater than 25 GeV , $\llg$
474: (Section~\ref{llg}) and $\lgg$ (Section~\ref{lgg}) (`Multi-Photon and
475: Multi-Lepton Events'), and events with exactly one lepton and exactly
476: one photon, which are not back-to-back. The events with exactly one
477: lepton and exactly one photon, which are not back-to-back were not
478: used in the analysis.
479:
480: %Figure 1- the flow chart
481: \input{flow_chart_landscape_new.tex}
482: %\input{flow_chart_landscape.tex}
483:
484: \subsubsection{Electron Selection}
485: \label{electron}
486:
487: An electron candidate passing the ``tight'' selection must have: a) a
488: high-quality track in the COT with $\Pt>0.5~\Et$, unless $\Et > 100$ $\GeV$, in
489: which case the $\Pt$ threshold is set to 25 $\GeV$; b) a good
490: transverse shower profile at shower maximum~\cite{cem}
491: that matches the extrapolated track
492: position; c) a lateral sharing of energy in the two calorimeter towers
493: containing the electron shower consistent with that expected; and d)
494: minimal leakage into the hadron calorimeter~\cite{hadoem}.
495:
496: Additional central electrons are required to have $\Et > 20~\GeV$ and
497: to satisfy the tight central electron criteria but with a track
498: requirement of only $\Pt>10$ $\GeV$ (rather than 0.5$\times\Et$), and
499: no requirement on a shower maximum measurement or lateral energy
500: sharing between calorimeter towers. Electrons in the end-plug
501: calorimeters ($1.2 < |\eta| < 2.0$) are required to have $\Et>
502: 15~\GeV$, minimal leakage into the hadron calorimeter, a ``track''
503: containing at least 3 hits in the silicon tracking system, and a
504: shower transverse shape consistent with that expected, with a centroid
505: close to the extrapolated position of the
506: track~\cite{wenu_asymmetry_paper}.
507:
508: \subsubsection{Muon Selection}
509: \label{muon}
510:
511: A muon candidate passing the ``tight'' cuts must have: a) a
512: well-measured track in the COT with $\Pt > 25~\GeV$; b) energy
513: deposited in the calorimeter consistent with
514: expectations~\cite{muon_cal_cuts}; c) a muon ``stub''~\cite{stub} in
515: both the CMU and CMP, or in the CMX, consistent with the extrapolated
516: COT track~\cite{muon_stub_matching}; and d) COT timing consistent with
517: a track from a $\ppbar$ collision~\cite{muon_COT_timing}.
518:
519: Additional muons are required to have $\Pt > 20~\GeV$ and to satisfy
520: the same criteria as for ``tight'' muons but with fewer hits required
521: on the track, or, alternatively, for muons outside the muon system
522: fiducial volume, a more stringent cut on track quality
523: but no requirement that there be a matching ``stub'' in the muon
524: systems~\cite{muon_track_quality}.
525:
526: \subsubsection{Photon Selection}
527: \label{photon}
528:
529: Photon candidates are required to have: no associated
530: track with $\Pt>1$ $\GeV$;
531: at most one track with $\Pt<1$ $\GeV$, pointing at the calorimeter
532: cluster; good profiles in both transverse dimensions at shower
533: maximum; and minimal leakage into the hadron
534: calorimeter~\cite{hadoem}.
535:
536: \begin{figure*}[!t]
537: \begin{center}
538: \hspace*{-0.1in}
539: \includegraphics*[angle =90,width=0.50\textwidth]{wg_fig1_electrons.ps}
540: \hfil
541: \includegraphics*[angle =90,width=0.50\textwidth]{wg_fig1_muons.ps}
542: \end{center}
543: \caption{ The distributions for events in the $\egmet$ sample (points
544: in the left-hand four plots) and the $\mugmet$ sample (points in the
545: right-hand four plots)
546: for a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the lepton; c) the
547: missing transverse energy, $\met$; and d) the transverse mass of the
548: $\lgmet$ system. The histograms show the expected SM contributions,
549: including estimated backgrounds from misidentified photons and
550: leptons.}
551: \label{wg_fig1_electrons}
552: \end{figure*}
553:
554: \subsubsection{`Isolated' Leptons and Photons}
555: \label{iso}
556:
557: To reduce background from photons or leptons from the decays of
558: hadrons produced in jets, both the photon and the lepton in each event
559: are required to be ``isolated''~\cite{isolation_nitpick}. The $\Et$
560: deposited in the calorimeter towers in a cone in $\eta-\varphi$
561: space~\cite{CDF_coo} of radius $R=0.4$ around the photon or lepton
562: position is summed, and the $\Et$ due to the photon or lepton is
563: subtracted. The remaining $\Et$ is required to be less than
564: $2.0~\GeV+0.02\times(\Et-20~\GeV)$ for a photon, or less than 10\% of
565: the $\Et$ for electrons or $\Pt$ for muons. In addition, for photons
566: the scalar sum of the $\Pt$ of all tracks in the cone must be less than
567: $2.0~\GeV+0.005\times\Et$.
568:
569: % 2nd Figure for egmet and mugmet- double column- Ht et al
570: \begin{figure*}[!t]
571: \begin{center}
572: \hspace*{-0.1in}
573: \includegraphics*[angle =90,width=0.50\textwidth]{wg_fig2_electrons.ps}
574: \hfil
575: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{wg_fig2_muons.ps}
576: \end{center}
577: \caption{ %The distributions for events in the $\egmet$ sample (points)
578: The distributions for events in the $\egmet$ sample (points
579: in the left-hand four plots) and the $\mugmet$ sample (points in the
580: right-hand four plots)
581: in a) $\Ht$, the sum of the transverse energies of the lepton,
582: photon, jets and $\met$; b) the distance in $\eta$-$\phi$ space
583: between the photon and lepton; c) the angular separation in $\phi$
584: between the lepton and the missing transverse energy, $\met$; and
585: d) the invariant mass of the $\lgal$ system. The histograms show the
586: expected SM contributions, including estimated backgrounds from
587: misidentified photons and leptons.}
588: \label{wg_fig2_electrons}
589: \end{figure*}
590:
591: \subsubsection{Missing Transverse Energy and $\Ht$}
592: \label{met}
593:
594: Missing transverse energy $\met$ is calculated from the calorimeter
595: tower energies in the region $|\eta| < 3.6$. Corrections are then made
596: to the $\met$ for non-uniform calorimeter response~\cite{jet_corr} for
597: jets with uncorrected $\Et > 15$ $\GeV$ and $\eta < 2.0$, and for
598: muons with $\Pt > 20$ $\GeV$.
599:
600: The variable $\Ht$ is defined for each event as the sum of the
601: transverse energies of the leptons, photons, jets, and $\met$ that
602: pass the above selection criteria.
603:
604: \begin{figure}[!b]
605: \begin{center}
606: \hspace*{-0.1in}
607: \includegraphics*[angle =90,width=0.50\textwidth]{wg_fig1_leptons.ps}
608: \end{center}
609: \caption{ The distributions for events in the $\lgmet$ sample
610: (points) in a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the lepton
611: (e or $\mu$); c) the missing transverse energy, $\met$; and d) the
612: transverse mass of the $\lgmet$ system. The histograms show the
613: expected SM contributions, including estimated backgrounds from
614: misidentified photons and leptons.}
615: \label{wg_fig1_leptons}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618: % 2nd Figure for lgmet; single column- Ht et al
619: \begin{figure}[!b]
620: \begin{center}
621: \hspace*{-0.1in}
622: \includegraphics*[angle =90,width=0.50\textwidth]{wg_fig2_leptons.ps}
623: \end{center}
624: \caption{ The distributions for events in the $\lgmet$ sample (points)
625: in a) $\Ht$, the sum of the transverse energies of the lepton,
626: photon, jets and $\met$; b) the distance in $\eta$-$\phi$ space
627: between the photon and lepton; c) the angular separation in $\phi$
628: between the lepton and $\met$; and d)
629: the invariant mass of the $\lgal$ system. The histograms show the
630: expected SM contributions, including estimated backgrounds from
631: misidentified photons and leptons.}
632: \label{wg_fig2_leptons}
633: \end{figure}
634:
635: \section{Control Samples}
636: \label{control}
637: Because we are looking for processes with small cross sections, and
638: hence small numbers of measured events, we use larger control samples
639: to validate our understanding of the detector performance and to
640: measure efficiencies and backgrounds.
641:
642: We use $W^\pm$ and $Z$ events reconstructed from the same inclusive
643: lepton datasets as control samples to ensure that the efficiencies for
644: high-$\Pt$ electrons and muons are well understood. In addition, the
645: $W^\pm$ samples provide the control samples for the understanding of
646: $\met$. The selection criteria for the $W$ samples require a tight
647: lepton and $\met>25~\GeV$. We find $\nofwenu$ $\Wenu$ events and
648: $\nofwmunu$ $\Wmunu$ events. For the $Z$ samples we require two
649: leptons, at least one of which satisfies the tight criteria. We find
650: $\nofzee$ $\Zee$ events and $\nofzmumu$ $\Zmumu$ events. The photon
651: control sample is constructed from $\Zee$ events in which one of the
652: electrons radiates a high-$\Et$ $\gamma$ such that the $\eg$ invariant
653: mass is within 10 $\GeV$ of the $Z$ mass.
654:
655: \section{The Inclusive $\lgX$ Event Sample}
656: \label{lgx}
657:
658: A total of $\noflg$ events, $\nofeg$ inclusive $\eg$ and $\nofmug$
659: inclusive $\mug$ candidates, pass the $\lgal$ selection criteria. Of
660: the $\nofeg$ inclusive $\eg$ events, $\nofegdphi$ have the electron
661: and photon within 30$\degs$ of back-to-back in $\varphi$, $\met< 25$
662: $\GeV$, and no additional leptons or photons. These are dominated by
663: $\Zee$ decays in which one of the electrons radiates a high-$\Et$
664: photon while traversing material before entering the COT active
665: volume, leading to the observation of an electron and a photon
666: approximately back-to-back in $\varphi$, with an $\eg$ invariant mass
667: close to the $Z$ mass.
668:
669: %
670: % Figure 1 of llg- e and mu Et, etc. (way out of place, but that's Latex)
671: %
672: \begin{figure*}[!t]
673: \vspace*{-0.2in}
674: \begin{center}
675: \hspace*{-0.1in}
676: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{zg_fig1_electrons.ps}
677: \hfil
678: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{zg_fig1_muons.ps}
679: \end{center}
680: \caption{ %The distributions for events in the $\eeg$ sample (points)
681: The distributions for events in the $\eeg$ sample (points in the
682: left-hand four plots) and the $\mumug$ sample (points in the
683: right-hand four plots) in a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$
684: ($\Pt$) of the electrons (muons) (two entries per event); c) the
685: 2-body mass of the dilepton system; and d) the 3-body mass
686: $M_{\llg}$. The histograms show the expected SM contributions.}
687: \label{zg_fig1_electrons}
688: \end{figure*}
689: %
690: % 2nd Figure 1 of llg- leptons Et, etc. (way out of place, but that's Latex)
691: %
692: \begin{figure}[!b]
693: \vspace*{-0.2in}
694: \begin{center}
695: \hspace*{-0.1in}
696: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{zg_fig1_leptons.ps}
697: \end{center}
698: \caption{ The distributions for events in the $\llg$ sample (points)
699: in a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the leptons (two
700: entries per event); c) the 2-body mass of the dilepton system; and d)
701: the 3-body mass $M_{\llg}$. The histograms show the expected SM
702: contributions.}
703: \label{zg_fig1_leptons}
704: \end{figure}
705:
706:
707: \section{The Inclusive $\lgmet$ Event Sample}
708: \label{lgmet}
709: The first search we perform is in the $\lgmet+X$ subsample, defined by
710: requiring that an event contain $\met> 25~\GeV$ in addition to the
711: $\gamma$ and ``tight'' lepton. Of the $\noflg$ $\lgal$ events,
712: $\nofeglgmet$ $e\gamma\met$ events and $\nofmuglgmet$ $\mu\gamma\met$
713: events pass the $\met$ requirement.
714:
715: \subsection{Kinematic Distributions in the Electron and Muon Samples}
716: The muon and electron signatures have different
717: backgrounds and detector resolutions, among other differences. While
718: these are corrected for, it is useful to plot the observed
719: distributions separately before combining them. We show both the
720: individual sample distributions as well as the final combined
721: plot~\cite{no_overflows}.
722:
723: \subsubsection{Distributions in Photon $\Et$, Lepton $\Et$, $\met$, and 3-Body Transverse Mass}
724: Figure~\ref{wg_fig1_electrons} shows the observed distributions in a)
725: the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the lepton; c) $\met$; and d)
726: the transverse mass of the $\lgmet$ system, where $\rm{M_T} = [{(\rm
727: E_T^\ell+E_T^\gamma + \met)^2}$ - $(\lepvec + \phovec +
728: \metvec)^2]^{1/2}$. The left-hand set of four plots shows the
729: distributions for electrons; the right-hand set shows the
730: distributions for muons.
731:
732: % Ht, Met etc. figures
733:
734: \subsubsection{Distributions in $\Ht$, $\Delta\phi_{\ell\gamma}$,$\Delta\phi_{\ell\met}$, $M_e\gamma$}
735:
736: Figure~\ref{wg_fig2_electrons} shows the distributions for the
737: $\egmet$ sample (left) and $\mugmet$ sample (right) in a) $\Ht$, the
738: sum of the transverse energies of the lepton, photon, jets, and $\met$;
739: b) the distance in $\eta$-$\phi$ space between the photon and lepton;
740: c) the angular separation in $\phi$ between the lepton and the missing
741: transverse energy, $\met$; and d) the invariant mass of the $\lgal$
742: system. The histograms show the expected SM contributions, including
743: estimated backgrounds from misidentified photons and leptons.
744:
745: The electron and muon kinematic distributions are combined in
746: Fig.~\ref{wg_fig1_leptons} and Fig.~\ref{wg_fig2_leptons}. There
747: is very good agreement with the expected standard model shapes.
748:
749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
750: % 2nd set of figures for the llg search- dbl column Ht+Delta-R, single col
751: % lepton ditto, and e and mu met
752:
753: \begin{figure*}[!t]
754: \vspace*{-0.2in}
755: \begin{center}
756: \hspace*{-0.1in}
757: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{zg_fig2_electrons.ps}
758: \hfil
759: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{zg_fig2_muons.ps}
760: \end{center}
761: \caption{
762: The distributions for events in the $\eeg$ sample (points in the
763: left-hand two plots) and the $\mumug$ sample (points in the right-hand
764: two plots) in a) $\Ht$, the sum of the transverse energies of the
765: lepton, photon, jets and $\met$; b) the distance in $\eta$-$\phi$
766: space between the photon and each of the two leptons (two entries
767: per event). The histograms show the expected SM contributions,
768: including estimated backgrounds from misidentified photons and
769: leptons.}
770: \label{zg_fig2_electrons}
771: \end{figure*}
772:
773:
774: \begin{figure}[!b]
775: \vspace*{-0.2in}
776: \begin{center}
777: \hspace*{-0.1in}
778: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.50\textwidth]{zg_fig2_leptons.ps}
779: \end{center}
780: \caption{ The distributions for events in the $\llg$ sample (points)
781: in a) $\Ht$, the sum of the transverse energies of the lepton, photon,
782: jets and $\met$; b) the distance in $\eta$-$\phi$ space between the
783: photon and each of the two leptons (two entries per event). The
784: histograms show the expected SM contributions, including estimated
785: backgrounds from misidentified photons and leptons.}
786: \label{zg_fig2_leptons}
787: \end{figure}
788:
789:
790: \begin{figure}[!b]
791: \vspace*{-0.2in}
792: \begin{center}
793: %\hspace*{-0.1in}
794: \includegraphics*[width=0.18\textwidth, angle=90,clip=]{zg_fig3_leptons.ps}
795: \end{center}
796: \caption{The distributions in missing transverse energy $\met$
797: observed in the inclusive search for a) $\mumug$ events and
798: b) $\eeg$ events. The histograms show the expected SM
799: contributions.}
800: \label{zg_fig3_leptons}
801: \end{figure}
802:
803:
804: \section{The Inclusive $\llg$ Event Sample}
805: \label{llg}
806:
807: A second search, for the $\llg+X$ signature, is constructed by
808: requiring another $e$ or $\mu$ in addition to the ``tight'' lepton and
809: the $\gamma$.
810:
811: The $\llg$ search criteria select $\noflgmultil$ events
812: ($\nofegmultil$ $\eeg$ and $\nofmugmultil$ $\mumug$) of the $\noflg$
813: $\lgal$ events. No $e\mu\gamma$ events are observed.
814:
815:
816: \subsubsection{Distributions in Photon $\Et$, Lepton $\Et$, Dilepton
817: Invariant Mass, and $\llg$ Mass}
818:
819: Figure~\ref{zg_fig1_electrons} shows the observed distributions in the
820: signature $\eeg$ (left-hand plots) and $\mumug$ channels (right-hand
821: plots) for: a) the $\Et$ of the photon; b) the $\Et$ of the electrons;
822: c) the 2-body mass of the dilepton system; and d) the 3-body mass
823: $M_{\eeg}$ or $M_{\mumug}$. For the $\Zg$ process occurring via
824: initial state radiation, the dilepton invariant mass $M_{\ell\ell}$
825: distribution is peaked around the $Z^0$-pole. For the final state
826: radiation, the three body invariant mass $M_{\llg}$ distribution is
827: peaked about the $Z^0$-pole.
828:
829: The combined distributions for electrons and muons are shown in
830: Fig.~\ref{zg_fig1_leptons}.
831:
832: \subsubsection{Distributions in $\Ht$ and $\Delta R_{\ell\gamma}$}
833:
834: Figure~\ref{zg_fig2_electrons} shows the distributions for the $\eeg$
835: sample (left-hand plots) and $\mumug$ sample (right-hand plots) for:
836: a) $\Ht$, the sum of the transverse energies of the electron, photon,
837: jets and $\met$; b) and the distance in $\eta$-$\phi$ space between
838: the photon and each of the two leptons. The histograms show the
839: expected SM contributions, including estimated backgrounds from
840: misidentified photons and leptons. The distributions for electrons
841: and muons are combined in Fig.~\ref{zg_fig2_leptons}.
842:
843:
844: \subsubsection{The Distributions in $\met$}
845:
846: We do not expect SM events with large $\met$ in the $\llg$ sample; the
847: Run I $\eeggmet$ event was of special interest in the context of
848: supersymmetry~\cite{susy} due to the large value of $\met$ (55 $\pm$ 7
849: $\GeV$). Figure~\ref{zg_fig3_leptons} shows the distributions in
850: $\met$ for the $\mumug$ and $\eeg$ subsamples of the $\llg$ sample. We
851: observe 3 $\llg$ events with $\met > 25~\GeV$, compared to an
852: expectation of $0.6\pm0.1$ events.
853:
854: \section{Search for the $\lgg$ Signature}
855: \label{lgg}
856:
857: In some models of new phenomena the decay chain of each of a pair of
858: new heavy particles ends in a photon plus other
859: particles~\cite{susy}. One such signature that contains two photons
860: and is a subset of the $\lgX$ selection is $\lgg$.
861:
862: The selection for the $\lgg$ search starts with a tight lepton and a
863: photon, each with $\Et > 25~\GeV$, from the same $\lgX$ sample as the
864: $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ searches. An additional photon with $\Et>25~\GeV$,
865: passing the same selection criteria as the first, is then required. We
866: observe no $\lgg$ events, compared to the expectation of
867: $\smnoflgmultig \pm \totdsysnoflgmultig$.
868:
869:
870:
871: \section{Standard Model Expectations}
872: \label{sm}
873:
874: \subsection{$\Wg$, $\Zg$, $\Wgg$, $\Zgg$}
875: \label{wgzgwggzgg}
876:
877: The dominant SM source of $\lgal$ events is electroweak $W$ and
878: $\Zgstar$ production along with a $\gamma$ radiated from one of the
879: charged particles involved in the process~\cite{CDF_WZgamma}. The
880: number of such events is estimated using leading-order (LO) event
881: generators~\cite{MadGraph,Baur,CompHep}. Initial-state radiation is
882: simulated by the {\sc pythia} Monte Carlo (MC)
883: %simulated by the {\sc pythia} shower Monte Carlo (MC)
884: program~\cite{Pythia} tuned to reproduce the underlying event. The
885: generated particles are then passed through a full detector
886: simulation, and these events are then reconstructed with the same code
887: used for the data.
888:
889: The expected contributions from $\Wg$ and $\Zgstar\plus\gamma$
890: production to the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ searches are given in
891: Tables~\ref{lgmet.table} and~\ref{llg.table}, respectively. The
892: expected contributions to the $e\mug$ search are given in
893: Table~\ref{emug.table}. A correction for higher-order processes
894: (K-factor) that depends on both the dilepton mass and photon $\Et$ has
895: been applied~\cite{Baur_NLO}. In the $\lgmet$ signature we expect
896: $\wanoflglgmet \pm \totwadsysnoflglgmet$ events from $\Wg$ and
897: $\zanoflglgmet \pm \totzadsysnoflglgmet$ from $\Zgstar\plus\gamma$. In
898: the $\llg$ signature, we expect $\zanoflgmultil \pm
899: \totzadsysnoflgmultil$ events from $\Zgstar\plus\gamma$; the
900: contribution from $\Wg$ is negligible. The uncertainties on the SM
901: contributions include those from parton distribution functions (5\%),
902: factorization scale (2\%), K-factor (3\%), a comparison of
903: different MC generators ($\sim$ 5\%), and the luminosity (6\%).
904:
905: We have used both {\sc madgraph}~\cite{MadGraph} and {\sc
906: comphep}\cite{CompHep} to simulate the triboson channels $\Wgg$ and
907: $Z\gamma\gamma$. The expected contributions are small,
908: $\waazaanoflglgmet \pm \waazaadsysnoflglgmet$ and $\waazaanoflgmultil
909: \pm \waazaadsysnoflgmultil$ events in the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$
910: signatures, respectively. The expected contributions from $\Wgg$ and
911: $\Zgstar\plus\gamma\gamma$ production to the $\lgg$ search are given
912: in Tables~\ref{lgmet.table} and~\ref{lgg.table}.
913:
914: \subsection{Backgrounds from Misidentifications}
915: \label{fakes}
916:
917: \subsubsection{``Fake'' Photons}
918: \label{fake_photons}
919:
920: \begin{figure}[!t]
921: \centering
922: \includegraphics*[angle=90,width=0.48\textwidth]{wg_zg_jetfakes_cdfrunii_prelim.ps}
923: \caption{The method and data used to estimate the number of background
924: events from jets misidentified as photons. For each of the four
925: samples, $\egmet$ (left top), $\eeg$ (right top), $\mugmet$ (left
926: bottom), and $\mumug$ (right bottom), the number of events is plotted
927: versus the total (electromagnetic plus hadronic) calorimeter energy,
928: $\Et^{Iso}$, in a cone in $\eta$-$\phi$ space around the photon. This
929: distribution is then fitted to the shape measured for electrons from
930: $\Zee$ decays plus a linear background.}
931: \label{wg_zg_jetfakes}
932: \end{figure}
933:
934: \begin{figure}[!h]
935: \centering
936: \includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.35\textwidth]{pi0_isoet_cdfrunii_prelim.eps}
937: \caption{The distribution in the total calorimeter
938: energy, $\Et^{Iso}$, in a cone in $\eta$-$\phi$ space around the fake
939: photon candidate. This distribution is then fitted with a linear
940: function.}
941: \label{pi0_isoet.figure}
942: \end{figure}
943:
944: \begin{figure}[!t]
945: \centering
946: \includegraphics*[angle=0,width=0.35\textwidth]{transitions_cdfrunii_prelim.eps}
947: \caption{The method and data used to estimate the number of background
948: muons from low-momentum hadrons decaying in flight. The number of
949: transitions in muons in the $\Zmumu$ sample is shown as points. The
950: number of transitions in muons in the sample enriched in hadron decays
951: is shown in the histogram, the so called decay-in-flight (``DIF'')
952: sample. The selection criteria for the DIF sample require a tight muon
953: with large impact parameter $d_0>$0.2 cm, at least one jet and
954: $\met>25~\GeV$.}
955: \label{ztight_mu_transitions_good_mu_transitions}
956: \end{figure}
957:
958: High $\Pt$ photons are copiously created from hadron decays in jets
959: initiated by a scattered quark or gluon. In particular, mesons such as
960: the $\pi^0$ or $\eta$ decay to photons which may satisfy the photon
961: selection criteria. The numbers of lepton-plus-misidentified-jet
962: events expected in the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ samples are determined by
963: measuring energy in the calorimeter nearby the photon candidate.
964:
965: For each of the four samples, $\egmet$, $\mugmet$, $\eeg$, and
966: $\mumug$, Figure~\ref{wg_zg_jetfakes} shows the distribution in the
967: total (electromagnetic plus hadronic) calorimeter energy, $\Et^{Iso}$,
968: in a cone of radius $R=0.4$ in $\eta$-$\phi$ space around the photon
969: candidate. This distribution is then fitted to the shape measured for
970: electrons from $\Zee$ decays plus a linear background.
971:
972: To verify the linear behavior of the background we select a sample of
973: ``fake photons'' by requiring the photon candidate fail the cluster
974: profile criteria. In addition we do not apply the calorimeter and
975: track isolation requirements. The distribution in the total
976: calorimeter energy, $\Et^{Iso}$, in a cone of radius $R=0.4$ in
977: $\eta$-$\phi$ space around the fake photon candidate is shown in
978: Fig.~\ref{pi0_isoet.figure}.
979:
980: The predicted number of events with jets misidentified as photons is
981: $\nofljglgmet \pm \totdsysnofljglgmet$ for the $\lgmet$ signature and
982: $\nofljgmultil \pmasym{\totdsysnofljgmultil}{0.0}$ for $\llg$.
983: %$\nofljgmultil \pm \totdsysnofljgmultil$ for $\llg$.
984:
985: %\begin{table*}[p]
986: \begin{table*}[!t]
987: \begin{center}
988: \caption{A comparison of the numbers of events predicted by the
989: SM and the observations for the $\lgmet$ signature. The SM predictions
990: are dominated by $\Wg$ and $\Zg$
991: production~\cite{MadGraph,Baur,CompHep}. Other contributions come from
992: $\Wgg$ and $\Zgg$, leptonic $\tau$ decays, and misidentified leptons,
993: photons, or $\met$.}
994: \input{lgmet_tot.table}
995: \label{lgmet.table}
996: \end{center}
997: \end{table*}
998:
999: For the $\lgg$ and $e\mug$ samples, due to the low statistics, the
1000: above method cannot be used to find the numbers of background events
1001: with a jet mis-identified as a photon. We instead measure the jet
1002: $\Et$ spectrum in $\lgal+$jet, $\ell+$at~least two jets, and
1003: $e\mu+$jet samples\cite{inclusive}, respectively, and then multiply by
1004: the probability of a jet being misidentified as a photon,
1005: $P^{jet}_{\gamma}(\Et)$, which is measured in data samples triggered
1006: on jets. The uncertainty on the number of such events is calculated by
1007: using the measured jet spectrum and the upper and lower bounds on the
1008: $\Et$-dependent misidentification rate.
1009:
1010: The misidentification rate is
1011: $P^{jet}_{\gamma}=(6.5~\pm~3.3)\times10^{-4}$ for $\Et^{\gamma} = 25$
1012: $\GeV$, and $(4.0~\pm~4.0)\times10^{-4}$ for $\Et^{\gamma} = 50$
1013: $\GeV$ ~\cite{CDF_WZgamma}. The predicted number of events with jets
1014: misidentified as photons is $\nofljgmultig \pm \totdsysnofljgmultig$
1015: for the $\lgg$ signature and $\nofljgemp \pm \dnofljgemp$ for $e\mug$.
1016:
1017: The probability that an electron undergoes hard bremsstrahlung and is
1018: misidentified as a photon, $P^{e}_{\gamma}$, is measured from the
1019: photon control sample. The number of misidentified $\eg$ events
1020: divided by twice the number of $ee$ events gives $P^{e}_{\gamma}$=(1.67
1021: $\pm$ 0.07)\%. Applying this misidentification rate to electrons in
1022: the inclusive lepton samples, we predict that $\efpnofeglgmet \pm
1023: \totefpdsysnofeglgmet$ and $\efpnofegmultil \pm
1024: \totefpdsysnofegmultil$ events pass the selection criteria for the
1025: $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ searches, respectively. For the $\lgg$ search
1026: the estimated background is $\efpnofegmultig \pm
1027: \totefpdsysnofegmultig$ events.
1028:
1029: \subsubsection{QCD Backgrounds to the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ Signatures}
1030: \label{qcd}
1031:
1032: We have estimated the background due to events with jets misidentified
1033: as $\lgmet$ or $\llg$ signatures by studying the total $\Pt$ of tracks
1034: in a cone in $\eta-\varphi$ space of radius $R=0.4$ around the lepton
1035: track. We estimate there are $\jqcdnoflglgmet \pm
1036: \totjqcddsysnoflglgmet$ and $\jqcdnoflgmultil
1037: \pmasym{\totjqcddsysnoflgmultil}{0.0}$ events in the $\lgmet$ and
1038: $\llg$ signatures, respectively~\cite{QCD_background}.
1039: %\totjqcddsysnoflglgmet$ and $\jqcdnoflgmultil \pm
1040: %\totjqcddsysnoflgmultil$ events in the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ signatures,
1041: %respectively~\cite{QCD_background}.
1042:
1043: There is a muon background that we expect escapes the above method. A
1044: low-momentum hadron, not in an energetic jet, can decay to a muon
1045: forming a ``kink'' between the hadron and muon trajectories. In this
1046: case a high-momentum track may be reconstructed from the initial track
1047: segment due to the hadron and the secondary track segment from the
1048: muon~\cite{decay_in_flight}. The contribution from this background is
1049: estimated by identifying tracks consistent with a ``kink'' in the
1050: COT. We count the number of times that, proceeding radially along a
1051: COT track, a ``hit'' in the n+1 layer of sense-wires is on the other
1052: side of the fitted track from the hit in the nth layer. Real tracks
1053: will have hits distributed on both sides of the fit, and will
1054: therefore have many ``transitions''. A mis-measured track from a
1055: 5-$\GeV$ $K^+$ (for example), on the other hand, will consist of two
1056: intersecting low-momentum arcs fit by a high momentum track, and will
1057: have a small number of transitions~\cite{Sasha}.
1058:
1059: Figure~\ref{ztight_mu_transitions_good_mu_transitions} shows the
1060: number of transitions in muons in the $\Zmumu$ control sample, and in
1061: a sample enriched in hadron decays by selecting events with a large
1062: $\met > 25~\GeV$, at least one jet and muon that have large impact
1063: parameter $d_0>0.2~$cm. We estimate that there are $\difnofmuglgmet
1064: \pm \totdifdsysnofmuglgmet$ and $\difnofmugmultil
1065: \pmasym{\totdifdsysnofmugmultil}{0.0}$ events from decay-in-flight in
1066: the $\mugmet$ and $\mumug$ samples, respectively.
1067: %\totdifdsysnofmuglgmet$ and $\difnofmugmultil \pm
1068: %\totdifdsysnofmugmultil$ events from decay-in-flight in the $\mugmet$
1069: %and $\mumug$ samples, respectively.
1070:
1071:
1072: \section{Results}
1073: \label{results}
1074:
1075: %\begin{table*}[p]
1076: \begin{table*}[!t]
1077: \begin{center}
1078: \caption{A comparison of the numbers of events predicted by the
1079: SM and the observations for the $\llg$ signature. The SM predictions
1080: are dominated by $\Zg$ production~\cite{MadGraph,Baur,CompHep}. Other
1081: contributions come from $\Zgg$, and misidentified leptons, photons, or
1082: $\met$.}
1083: \input{llg_tot.table}
1084: \label{llg.table}
1085: \end{center}
1086: \end{table*}
1087:
1088: The predicted and observed totals for the $\lgmet$ and $\llg$ searches
1089: are shown in Tables~\ref{lgmet.table} and~\ref{llg.table},
1090: respectively. We observe $\noflglgmet$ $\lgmet$ events, compared to the
1091: expectation of $\smnoflglgmet \pm \totdsysnoflglgmet$ events. In the
1092: $\llg$ channel, we observe $\noflgmultil$ events, compared to an
1093: expectation of $\smnoflgmultil \pm \totdsysnoflgmultil$ events. There
1094: is no significant excess in either signature.
1095:
1096: The predicted and observed kinematic distributions for the $\egmet$
1097: and $\mugmet$ signatures are compared in
1098: Figs.~\ref{wg_fig1_electrons} and~\ref{wg_fig2_electrons}. The
1099: corresponding distributions for the $\lgmet$ signature (the sum of
1100: electrons and muons) are compared in Figs.~\ref{wg_fig1_leptons}
1101: and~\ref{wg_fig2_leptons}.
1102:
1103: \begin{table}[!b]
1104: \begin{center}
1105: \caption{A comparison of the numbers of events predicted by the
1106: SM and the observations for the $\lgg$ signature.}
1107: %The SM predictions are
1108: %dominated by $\Zgg$ production~\cite{MadGraph,CompHep}. Dominant
1109: %contribution comes from misidentified photons.}
1110: \input{lgg_tot.table}
1111: \label{lgg.table}
1112: \end{center}
1113: \end{table}
1114:
1115: The predicted and observed kinematic distributions for the $\eeg$ and
1116: $\mumug$ signatures are compared in Figs.~\ref{zg_fig1_electrons}
1117: and~\ref{zg_fig2_electrons}. The distributions for the $\llg$
1118: signature are compared in
1119: Figs.~\ref{zg_fig1_leptons},~\ref{zg_fig2_leptons}
1120: and~\ref{zg_fig3_leptons}. We do find 3 $\llg$ events with $\met>
1121: 25~\GeV$, compared to an expectation of $0.6\pm0.1$ events,
1122: corresponding to a likelihood of 2.4\%. We do not consider this
1123: significant, and there is nothing in these 3 events to indicate they
1124: are due to anything other than a fluctuation. We observe no $\llg$
1125: events with multiple photons and so find no events like the $\eeggmet$
1126: event of Run I.
1127:
1128: The predicted and observed totals for the $\lgg$ and $e\mug$ searches
1129: are shown in Tables~\ref{lgg.table} and~\ref{emug.table},
1130: respectively. We observe no $\lgg$ or $e\mug$ events, compared to the
1131: expectation of $\smnoflgmultig \pm \totdsysnoflgmultig$ and
1132: $\smnoflgemug \pm \totdsysnoflgemug$ events, respectively.
1133:
1134:
1135: \section{Conclusions}
1136: \label{conclusions}
1137:
1138: In Run I, in a sample of $\runonelumi$ $\invpb$ of $\ppbar$ collisions
1139: at an energy of 1.8$~\TeV$, the CDF experiment observed a single clean
1140: event consistent with having a pair of high-$\Et$ electrons, two
1141: high-$\Et$ photons, and large $\met$~\cite{Toback_all}. A subsequent
1142: search for ``cousins'' of the $\eeggmet$ signature in the inclusive
1143: signature $\lgX$ found 16 events with a SM expectation of 7.6 $\pm$
1144: 0.7 events, corresponding in likelihood to a 2.7 $\sigma$
1145: effect~\cite{Jeff_PRD,Jeff_PRL}.
1146:
1147: To test whether something new was really there in either the
1148: $\llggmet$ or $\lgmet$ signatures, we have repeated the $\lgX$ search
1149: for inclusive lepton + photon production with the same kinematic
1150: requirements as the Run I search, but with an exposure more than 10
1151: times larger, $\lumi\pm\dlumi$ $\invpb$, a higher $\ppbar$ collision
1152: energy, 1.96 $\TeV$, and the CDF II detector~\cite{CDFII}. Using the
1153: same selection criteria makes this measurement an {\it a priori} test,
1154: as opposed to the Run I measurement.
1155: %We observe $\noflglgmet$ $\lgmet$ events, versus an expectation of
1156: %$\smnoflglgmet \pm \totdsysnoflglgmet$ events from SM physics and
1157: %background sources. In the $\llg$ channel, we observe $\noflgmultil$
1158: %events, versus an expectation of $\smnoflgmultil \pm
1159: %\totdsysnoflgmultil$ events.
1160: We find no significant excess in either
1161: signature. We conclude that the 2.7 $\sigma$ effect observed in Run I
1162: %measured with the same selection criteria,
1163: was a statistical fluctuation.
1164:
1165: With respect to the Run I $\eeggmet$ event, we observe no $\lgg$
1166: events compared to an expectation of $\smnoflgmultig \pm
1167: \totdsysnoflgmultig$ events. The $\eeggmet$ event thus remains a
1168: single event selected {\it a posteriori} as interesting, but whether
1169: it was from SM $WW\gamma\gamma$ production, a rare background, or a
1170: new physics process, we cannot determine.
1171:
1172: \begin{table}[!t]
1173: \begin{center}
1174: \caption{A comparison of the numbers of events predicted by the
1175: SM and the observations for the $e\mu\gamma$ signature. The SM
1176: predictions are dominated by $\Zg$
1177: production~\cite{MadGraph,Baur,CompHep}. Other contributions come from
1178: $\Wg$, $\Zgg$, $\Wgg$, and misidentified leptons, photons, or $\met$.}
1179: \input{emug.table}
1180: \label{emug.table}
1181: \end{center}
1182: \end{table}
1183:
1184: %Lastly, we observe no $e\mug$ events, versus a SM expectation of
1185: %$\smnoflgemug \pm \totdsysnoflgemug$ events.
1186:
1187:
1188:
1189: %\clearpage
1190:
1191:
1192:
1193: %\input{lgx_runii_table_long}
1194:
1195: \section{Acknowledgments}
1196: \label{acknowledgments}
1197:
1198: %\begin{acknowledgments}
1199:
1200: We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the
1201: participating institutions for their vital contributions. Uli Baur,
1202: Alexander Belyaev, Edward Boos, Lev Dudko, Tim Stelzer, and Steve
1203: Mrenna were extraordinarily helpful with the SM predictions. This
1204: work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National
1205: Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare;
1206: the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of
1207: Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
1208: Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the
1209: Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the
1210: Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean
1211: Science and Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foundation;
1212: the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Royal
1213: Society, UK; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Comisi\'on
1214: Interministerial de Ciencia y Tecnolog\'{\i}a, Spain; in part by the
1215: European Community's Human Potential Programme under contract
1216: HPRN-CT-2002-00292; and the Academy of Finland.
1217: %\end{acknowledgments}
1218:
1219: %====YOUAREHERE===============================\\
1220: %\clearpage
1221: %\newpage
1222: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1223: \bibitem{SM} S.L.~Glashow,
1224: Nucl. Phys. {\bf 22}, 588 (1961); S. Weinberg,
1225: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 19}, 1264 (1967);
1226: A. Salam, Proc. 8th Nobel Symposium, Stockholm, (1979).
1227:
1228: \bibitem{Toback_all}
1229: F.~Abe \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D \textbf{59},
1230: 092002 (1999); F.~Abe \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
1231: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81}, 1791 (1998); D.~Toback, Ph.D. thesis,
1232: University of Chicago, 1997.
1233:
1234: \bibitem{EtPt} Transverse momentum and energy are defined as $\Pt =
1235: p\sin\theta$ and $\Et = E\sin\theta$, respectively.
1236: %
1237: Missing $\rm E_T$ ($\metvec$) is defined by $\metvec = -\sum_{i} E_T^i
1238: \hat{n}_i$, where i is the calorimeter tower number for $|\eta| <$ 3.6
1239: (see Ref.~\cite{CDF_coo}), and $\hat{n}_i$ is a unit vector
1240: perpendicular to the beam axis and pointing at the i$^{th}$
1241: tower. We correct $\metvec$ for jets and muons. We define
1242: the magnitude $\met=|\metvec|$.
1243: %
1244: We use the convention that ``momentum'' refers to $pc$ and ``mass'' to
1245: $mc^2$.
1246:
1247: %\cite{Allanach:2006fy}
1248: %\bibitem{Allanach:2006fy}
1249: \bibitem{lhc_wkgp} For a summary, see:
1250: B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.} (Les Houches working group),
1251: %``Les Houches 'Physics at TeV colliders 2005' Beyond the standard model
1252: %working group: Summary report,''
1253: arXiv:hep-ph/0602198.
1254: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602198;%%
1255:
1256:
1257: \bibitem{susy_gauge}
1258: D.~J.~H.~Chung, L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~F.~King, J.~D.~Lykken
1259: and L.~T.~Wang,
1260: %``The soft supersymmetry-breaking Lagrangian: Theory and applications,''
1261: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 407}, 1 (2005)
1262: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312378]. The gravitino is very light, typically a few MeV.
1263: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312378;%%
1264:
1265: \bibitem{susy_gravity}
1266: S.~P.~Martin,
1267: %``A supersymmetry primer,''
1268: arXiv:hep-ph/9709356.
1269: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709356;%%
1270:
1271: \bibitem{kane_loop}
1272: S.~Ambrosanio, G.~L.~Kane, G.~D.~Kribs, S.~P.~Martin, and S.~Mrenna,
1273: Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{76}, 3498 (1996);
1274: G.~L.~Kane and S.~Mrenna, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{77}, 3502 (1996);
1275: S.~Ambrosanio, G.~L.~Kane, G.~D.~Kribs, S.~P.~Martin, and S.~Mrenna,
1276: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{55}, 1372 (1997).
1277:
1278:
1279: %\bibitem{gaugino_pair}
1280:
1281: %\bibitem{Tevatron_searches}
1282: % D.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1283: %``Search for anomalous production of diphoton events with missing transverse
1284: %energy at {CDF} and limits on gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking models,''
1285: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 031104 (2005)
1286: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0410053];
1287: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410053;%%
1288:
1289: % F.~Abe {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1290: % %``Search for a technicolor omega(T) particle in events with a photon and a b
1291: % %quark jet at CDF,''
1292: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3124 (1999)
1293: % [arXiv:hep-ex/9810031].
1294: % %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9810031;%%
1295:
1296:
1297: %\bibitem{LEP_searches}
1298: % G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
1299: %``Searches for gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking topologies in e+ e-
1300: %collisions at LEP2,''
1301: % Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 46}, 307 (2006)
1302: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0507048].
1303: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507048;%%
1304:
1305: %\bibitem{HERA_searches}
1306: %\bibitem{Andreev:2003pm}
1307: % V.~Andreev {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
1308: % ``Isolated electrons and muons in events with missing transverse momentum at
1309: %HERA,''
1310: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 561}, 241 (2003)
1311: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0301030].
1312: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0301030;%%
1313: %\cite{Chekanov:2003yt}
1314: %\bibitem{Chekanov:2003yt}
1315: % S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
1316: %``Search for single-top production in e p collisions at HERA,''
1317: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 559}, 153 (2003)
1318: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0302010].
1319: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0302010;%%
1320:
1321: \bibitem{LED}
1322: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
1323: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)
1324: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315].
1325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
1326:
1327:
1328: \bibitem{excited_electron}
1329: D. Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{94},
1330: 101802 (2005). A similar search for an excited muon state is given in:
1331: A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
1332: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 97}, 191802 (2006)
1333: [arXiv:hep-ex/0606043].
1334:
1335: \bibitem{Geraldine} See, for example,
1336: K.~Agashe and G.~Servant, JCAP {\bf 0502}, 002 (2005)
1337: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411254].
1338:
1339: \bibitem{Jeff_PRD}
1340: D. Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
1341: \textbf{66}, 012004 (2002); hep-ex/0110015.
1342:
1343: \bibitem{Jeff_PRL}
1344: D. Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89},
1345: 041802 (2002); hep-ex/0202044.
1346:
1347: \bibitem{Jeff_thesis}
1348: J.~Berryhill, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 2000.
1349:
1350:
1351: \bibitem{CDFII}
1352: D. Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
1353: \textbf{71}, 032001 (2005).
1354:
1355: %\bibitem{CDFII}
1356: %R. Blair \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), CDF-II Technical Design
1357: %Report, FERMILAB-PUB-96/390-E (1996).
1358:
1359: \bibitem{Loginov_all}
1360: A.~Abulencia \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{97},
1361: 031801 (2006), hep-ex/0605097;
1362: A.~Loginov for the CDF Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{46},
1363: s2.21-s2.31 (2006), hep-ex/0604036;
1364: A. Loginov, Ph.D thesis, Institute for
1365: Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia, September,
1366: 2006, FERMILAB-THESIS-2006-48, hep-ex/0703011.
1367:
1368: %\bibitem{Loginov_PRL}
1369: %A.~Abulencia \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{97},
1370: %031801 (2006); hep-ex/0605097.
1371: %
1372: %\bibitem{Loginov_EPJC}
1373: %A.~Loginov for the CDF Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{46},
1374: %s2.21-s2.31 (2006); hep-ex/0604036.
1375:
1376: \bibitem{CDFI}
1377: F. Abe \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
1378: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{271}, 387 (1988).
1379:
1380: \bibitem{COT}
1381: A. Affolder \textit{et al.},
1382: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{526}, 249 (2004).
1383:
1384: \bibitem{SVX}
1385: A. Sill \textit{et al.},
1386: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{447}, 1 (2000);
1387: A. Affolder \textit{et al.},
1388: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{453}, 84 (2000);
1389: C.S. Hill,
1390: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{530}, 1 (2000).
1391:
1392: \bibitem{CDF_coo} The CDF coordinate system of
1393: $r$, $\varphi$, and $z$ is cylindrical, with the $z$-axis along the
1394: proton beam. The pseudorapidity is $\eta = -\ln(\tan(\theta/2))$.
1395:
1396: \bibitem{cal_upgrade} S. Kuhlmann \textit{et al.},
1397: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{518}, 39 (2004).
1398:
1399: \bibitem{muon_systems}
1400: The CMU system consists of gas proportional chambers in the region
1401: $|\eta|<0.6$; the CMP system consists of chambers after an additional
1402: meter of steel, also for $|\eta|<0.6$. The CMX chambers cover
1403: $0.6<|\eta|<1.0$.
1404:
1405: \bibitem{stub} A. V. Varganov, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 2004; AAT
1406: 3137951.
1407:
1408: \bibitem{cem}
1409: L.~Balka \textit{et al.}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A {\bf 267}, 272
1410: (1988).
1411:
1412: \bibitem{hadoem}
1413: The fraction of electromagnetic energy allowed to leak into the hadron
1414: compartment $\rm E_{had}/E_{em}$ must be less than $\rm
1415: 0.055\plus0.00045\times E_{em}(\GeV)$ for central electrons, less than
1416: 0.05 for electrons in the end-plug calorimeters, less than max[0.125,
1417: $\rm 0.055\plus0.00045\times E_{em}(\GeV)$] for photons.
1418:
1419: \bibitem{wenu_asymmetry_paper}
1420: D.~Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
1421: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{71}, 051104 (2005); hep-ex/0501023.
1422:
1423: \bibitem{muon_cal_cuts}
1424: The energy deposited in the calorimeter tower traversed by the muon
1425: must be less than $2+max(0,0.0115\times(p-100))~\GeV $ in the
1426: electromagnetic compartment and less than
1427: $6+max(0,0.028\times(p-100))~\GeV$ in the hadronic compartment.
1428:
1429: \bibitem{muon_stub_matching}
1430: The muon `stub' in the muon systems must be within 3, 5, and 6 cm of
1431: the extrapolated COT track position, in the CMU, CMP, and CMX muon
1432: systems, respectively.
1433:
1434: \bibitem{muon_COT_timing}
1435: A. Kotwal, H. Gerberich, and C. Hays, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A
1436: {\bf 480}, 110 (2003).
1437:
1438: \bibitem{muon_track_quality}
1439: For tight muons and tight electrons at least 5 hits in each of 3 axial
1440: and 3 stereo layers of the COT are required; for loose muons with a
1441: matching muon stub this is relaxed to 3 axial and 2 stereo. Loose
1442: muons without a matching stub have an additional cut on the $\chi ^2$
1443: for the fit to the track.
1444:
1445: \bibitem{isolation_nitpick}
1446: Note that this requirement is not a cut on the intrinsic properties of
1447: the lepton or photon, but is instead a topological discriminant
1448: between those physics processes producing leptons not close to jets
1449: (signal) and those with leptons inside jets (presumably background).
1450:
1451: %for photons: $0.055+0.00045E_{em}$ or 0.125
1452: %for plug: 0.05
1453: %for electrons: $0.055+0.00045E_{em}$
1454:
1455: \bibitem{jet_corr}
1456: A. Bhatti \textit{et al.},
1457: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{566}, 375 (2006);
1458: %submitted to Nucl. Instrum. Methods, %Oct. 2005;
1459: hep-ex/0510047.
1460:
1461: \bibitem{no_overflows}
1462: There are no overflows in any of the distributions shown in the
1463: figures in this paper.
1464:
1465: \bibitem{susy}
1466: S.~Ambrosanio, G.L.~Kane, G.D.~Kribs, S.P.~Martin, and S.~Mrenna,
1467: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{55}, 1372 (1997); B.C.~Allanach, S.~Lola,
1468: K.~Sridhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{89}, 011801 (2002).
1469:
1470: \bibitem{CDF_WZgamma} %CDF has measured $\Wg$ and $\Zg$ production
1471: D. Acosta \textit{et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{94},
1472: 041803 (2005).
1473:
1474: \bibitem{MadGraph}
1475: T. Stelzer and W. F. Long, Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{81}, 357
1476: (1994); F. Maltoni and T. Stelzer, J. High Energy Phys. \textbf{302},
1477: 27 (2003).
1478:
1479: \bibitem{Baur}
1480: U. Baur, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus,
1481: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{48}, 5140 (1993);
1482: J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{47}, 940 (1993).
1483:
1484: \bibitem{CompHep}
1485: E. Boos \textit{et al.} (The {\sc comphep} Collaboration),
1486: Nucl. Instrum. Methods A \textbf{534}, 250, (2004); hep-ph/0403113.
1487:
1488: \bibitem{Pythia}
1489: T.~Sjostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{82} (1994) 74;
1490: S.~Mrenna, Comput. Phys. Commun. \textbf{101} (1997) 232.
1491:
1492: \bibitem{Baur_NLO}
1493: U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus,
1494: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 5140 (1993);
1495: U.~Baur, T.~Han and J.~Ohnemus,
1496: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 2823 (1998); hep-ph/9710416; and U. Baur,
1497: private communication.
1498: The K-factor $K_W$ applied to $\Wg$ MadGraph MC samples is $K_W
1499: = 1.36$ for $M_W \le 76~\GeV$ and $K_W = 1.62 + 10^{-5}\times
1500: P_T^\gamma - 0.386\times e^{-0.1\times P_T^\gamma}$ for $M_W \gt
1501: 76~\GeV$. The K-factor $K_Z$ applied to $\Zg$ MadGraph MC samples is
1502: $K_Z = 1.36$ for $M_Z \le 86~\GeV$ and $K_Z = 1.46 - 0.000728\times
1503: P_T^\gamma- 0.125\times e^{-0.0615\times P_T^\gamma}$ for $M_Z \gt
1504: 86~\GeV$.
1505: %
1506: %See also Ref.~\cite{loginov_thesis}.
1507: %Both the $\Wg$ and $Z\gamma$ K-factors are fixed at 1.36 for generated
1508: %$\ell\nu$ masses below 76 $\GeV$ and for generated $\lplm$ masses
1509: %below 86 $\GeV$. Above the poles the K-factors grow with
1510: %$\Et^{\gamma}$ to be 1.62 and 1.53 at $\Et^{\gamma}=100$ $\GeV$ for
1511: %$\Wg$ and $Z\gamma$, respectively.
1512:
1513: \bibitem{inclusive} Following the convention used throughout this
1514: paper, these samples are inclusive and are defined by the minimum
1515: set of objects required. Any number of additional jets, leptons, or
1516: photons, and any value of $\met$, may also be present.
1517:
1518: \bibitem{QCD_background}
1519: In each signature the QCD background distribution is derived from the
1520: observed data distribution by using the background weight for each
1521: observed event; the background level can thus be seen to follow the
1522: data in the appropriate figures. The advantage of this procedure (as
1523: opposed to just cutting on the track isolation variable) for the low
1524: statistics on the tails of the distribution is that one can get some
1525: sense of the level of background on the tails of distributions from
1526: rare fragmentations of jets that may be topology dependent.
1527:
1528: \bibitem{decay_in_flight}
1529: A kaon that decays before the COT volume results in a muon whose
1530: momentum is correctly measured; a kaon that decays after the COT
1531: is itself correctly measured.
1532: These contributions are included in the total background estimate.
1533:
1534: %xxx Andrei- is this correct as written now?
1535:
1536: \bibitem{Sasha}
1537: We thank A. Paramonov for the method and the code.
1538:
1539: %\bibitem{loginov_thesis} A. Loginov, Ph.D thesis, Institute for
1540: %Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia, September,
1541: %2006. \\
1542: %The K-factor $K_W$ applied to $\Wg$ MadGraph MC samples is $K_W
1543: %= 1.36$ for $M_W \le 76~\GeV$ and $K_W = 1.62 + 10^{-5}\times
1544: %P_T^\gamma - 0.386\times e^{-0.1\times P_T^\gamma}$ for $M_W \gt
1545: %76~\GeV$. The K-factor $K_Z$ applied to $\Zg$ MadGraph MC samples is
1546: %$K_Z = 1.36$ for $M_Z \le 86~\GeV$ and $K_Z = 1.46 - 0.000728\times
1547: %P_T^\gamma- 0.125\times e^{-0.0615\times P_T^\gamma}$ for $M_Z \gt
1548: %86~\GeV$.
1549:
1550:
1551: \end{thebibliography}
1552:
1553: \end{document}
1554:
1555:
1556: