1: \documentstyle[aps,floats,preprint,epsfig]{revtex}

2: 

3: 

4: \voffset 0.0cm

5: \begin{document}

6: \draft

7: \preprint{\vbox{%\hbox{OCIP/C 00-01}

8: \hbox{LMU 14/99}

9: \hbox{hep-ph/0001074}

10: \hbox{Jan 2000}}}

11: \title{Discovery and Identification of 

12: Extra Gauge Bosons in $e^+e^- \to \nu \bar{\nu} \gamma$}

13: \author{Stephen Godfrey, Pat Kalyniak and Basim Kamal}

14: \address{

15: Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics \\

16: Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa CANADA, K1S 5B6}

17:  \author{Arnd Leike}

18: \address{Ludwigs--Maximilians-Universit\"at, Sektion Physik, 

19: Theresienstr. 37,\\

20: D-80333 M\"unchen, Germany}

21: 

22: \maketitle

23: 

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: We examine the sensitivity of the process 

27: $e^+e^- \rightarrow \nu\bar{\nu} \gamma$ 

28: to extra gauge bosons, $Z'$ and $W'$, 

29: which arise in various extensions of the standard model.  

30: The process is found to be sensitive to $W'$ masses up to several TeV, 

31: depending on the model, the center of mass energy, and the assumed 

32: integrated luminosity.  If extra gauge bosons were discovered 

33: first in other experiments,

34: the process could also be used to measure 

35: $Z'\nu \bar{\nu}$ and $W'$ couplings. This measurement would provide

36: information that 

37: could be used to unravel the underlying theory,

38: complementary to measurements at the Large Hadron Collider.

39: \end{abstract}

40: \pacs{PACS numbers: 13.10.+q, 13.15.+g, 14.70.-e, 14.80.-j}

41: 

42: \section{Introduction}

43: 

44: Extra  gauge bosons, both charged ($W'$) and/or neutral ($Z'$),

45: arise in many models of physics beyond the Standard 

46: Model (SM) \cite{c-g,sg}. 

47: Examples include extended gauge theories such as grand unified 

48: theories \cite{guts} and Left-Right symmetric models \cite{lrmodels} 

49: along with the corresponding supersymmetric models, 

50: and other models such as those with finite size extra dimensions

51: \cite{led}.

52: To elucidate what physics lies beyond the Standard Model it is necessary 

53: to search for manifestations of that new physics

54: with respect to the predicted particle 

55: content, both fermions and extra gauge bosons.  Such searches are

56: a feature of ongoing collider experiments and the 

57: focus of future experiments.  The discovery of  new particles  would 

58: provide definitive evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model and, 

59: in particular, the discovery of new gauge bosons would indicate that 

60: the standard model gauge group was in need of extension.

61: There is a considerable literature on $Z'$ searches.  In 

62: this paper we concentrate on $W'$ searches, for which much less work has 

63: been done.

64: 

65: Limits have been placed on the existence of new gauge bosons through 

66: indirect searches based on the

67: deviations from the SM they would produce in precision electroweak 

68: measurements. 

69: For instance, indirect limits from $\mu$-decay constrain the LRM $W'$ 

70: to $M_{W_{LR}'} \gtrsim 550$ GeV \cite{Barenboim}.  A more severe

71: constraint 

72: arises from $K_L - K_S$ mass-splitting which gives $M_{W_{LR}'} \gtrsim 

73: 1.6$~TeV \cite{pdb}. In obtaining

74: the above limits, it was assumed that the

75: coupling constants of the two $SU(2)$ gauge groups are equal.

76: 

77: New gauge boson searches at hadron colliders consider their 

78: direct production via the Drell-Yan process and their subsequent decay 

79: to lepton pairs. For $W'$ bosons, decays to hadronic jets are 

80: sometimes also considered.  The 

81: present bounds on neutral gauge bosons, $Z'$'s, from the CDF and D0 

82: collaborations at the Tevatron $p\bar{p}$ collider at Fermilab are 

83: $M_{Z'} > 590 - 690$~GeV with the exact value depending on the 

84: specific model \cite{pdb}.  For $W'$'s the limits are $M_{W'}> 

85: 300-720$~GeV; again the limits depend on the details of the model 

86: \cite{pdb}.  The search reach is expected to increase by $\sim 

87: 300$~GeV with 1~fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity \cite{sg,tev-lhc}.  

88: The Large Hadron Collider is 

89: expected to be able to discover $Z'$'s up to masses of 

90: 4-5~TeV \cite{sg,tev-lhc}

91: and $W'$'s up to masses of $\sim 5.9$~TeV \cite{tev-lhc}.  

92: The $W'$ limits assume SM 

93: strength couplings and decay into a light stable neutrino 

94: which is registered in the detector as missing $E_T$.  They can 

95: be seriously degraded by loosening the assumptions in the model.

96: 

97: In addition, one can place limits on new gauge bosons by 

98: looking for deviations from SM expectations for observables measured 

99: at $ep$ and $e^+e^-$ colliders. 

100: 

101: Searches for new gauge bosons at $e^+e^-$ colliders are kinematically 

102: limited by the available center-of-mass energy so that one searches 

103: for indirect effects of extra gauge bosons in cross sections

104: and asymmetries for $\sqrt{s}<M_{V'}$. There is a considerable body of 

105: work on $Z'$ searches at $e^+ e^-$ colliders and, although the 

106: discovery limits are very model dependent, they lie in the general 

107: range of 2-5~TeV for $\sqrt{s}=500$~GeV with 50~fb$^{-1}$

108: luminosity \cite{sg}. 

109: 

110: In contrast to the $Z'$ case, there are 

111: virtually no studies of indirect searches for $W'$ bosons at $e^+e^-$

112: colliders. Recently, 

113: Hewett suggested that the reaction $e^+e^- \to \nu \bar{\nu} \gamma$ 

114: would be sensitive to $W'$'s with masses greater than $\sqrt{s}$ 

115: \cite{hewett}.  In the Standard Model, this process proceeds through 

116: $s$-channel $Z$ and $t$-channel $W$ exchange with the photon being 

117: radiated from every possible charged particle.  In extended gauge 

118: models the process is modified by both $s$-channel $Z'$ and $t$-channel 

119: $W'$ exchange.  In this paper, we examine this process for various extended 

120: electroweak models.  The first model we consider is the 

121: Left-Right symmetric model \cite{lrmodels}

122: based on the gauge group 

123: $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ which has 

124: right-handed charged currents. 

125: The second model we consider is the Un-Unified model 

126: \cite{uum,br} which is based on the gauge group $SU(2)_q \times SU(2)_l 

127: \times U(1)_Y$ where the quarks and leptons each transform under their own 

128: $SU(2)$.  The final type of model, which has received considerable

129: interest 

130: lately, contains the Kaluza-Klein excitations of the SM gauge bosons which 

131: are a possible consequence of theories with large extra dimensions

132: \cite{led}.  

133: The models under consideration are described in more detail in

134: Section II.

135: Additionally, we study discovery limits for various combinations of $W'$

136: and

137: $Z'$ bosons with SM 

138: couplings.  Although these are not realistic models, they have been

139: adopted as 

140: benchmarks to compare the discovery reach of different processes.

141: 

142: We will find that, while the process $e^+e^- \to \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ can 

143: indeed extend the discovery reach for $W'$'s significantly beyond 

144: $\sqrt{s}$, with the exact limit depending on the specific model, it 

145: is not in general competitive with limits obtainable at the LHC.  

146: However, if extra gauge bosons are discovered which are not overly 

147: massive, the process considered here could be used to

148: measure their couplings. This 

149: would be crucial for determining the origins of the $Z'$ or $W'$.  As 

150: such, it would play an important complementary role to the LHC studies.

151: 

152: In the next section we review the relevant details of the various models  

153: that we use in our 

154: calculations.  In Section III, we describe the details of our

155: calculations. The resulting $W'$ discovery limits and projected

156: sensitivities for 

157: $W'$ couplings and $Z'\nu\bar{\nu}$ couplings are given in Section IV.  We

158: conclude with some 

159: final comments.

160: 

161: 

162: \section{Models}

163: 

164:         In this section, we describe the models considered in our

165: investigation. The so-called Sequential Standard Model (SSM) includes

166: additional weak gauge bosons of higher mass, with SM couplings. This is a

167: rather arbitrary scenario which we include only as a benchmark. Since our

168: emphasis here is on extra $W$'s, we consider a SSM with a $W'$ only, which

169: we refer to as SSM($W'$), and a

170: SSM

171: with both $W'$ and $Z'$, denoted by SSM($W' + Z'$). In the latter, we

172: will take $M_{Z'}=M_{W'}$

173: for simplicity.

174: 

175: The general Left-Right symmetric model (LRM) \cite{lrmodels} is based on

176: the extended

177: electroweak gauge group $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$.

178: Left-handed

179: fermion fields transform as doublets under $SU(2)_L$ and as singlets under

180: $SU(2)_R$. The reverse is true for right-handed fermions. A right-handed

181: neutrino is included in the fermion content. The model is parametrized by

182: the ratio of the coupling constants of the two $SU(2)$ gauge groups, which

183: we denote as $\kappa = g_R/g_L$. This parameter is allowed to vary here in

184: the

185: approximate range $0.55 \lesssim \kappa \lesssim 2.0$

186: \cite{hewett,pr,cmp}. The lower bound on

187: $\kappa$

188: arises from the condition $\sin^{2}\theta_{W} \leq \frac{\kappa^2}{1 +

189: \kappa^2}$ (or, equivalently,  $\kappa^2 \geq \tan^{2} \theta_{W}$), which

190: expresses the positivity of a ratio of squared couplings. In principle, 

191: $\kappa$ is restricted to be less than 1 based on symmetry breaking

192: scenarios and coupling constant evolution arguments. However, it is

193: conceivable that this bound may be violated in some Grand Unified

194: Theory so we take a phenomenological approach and loosen this upper

195: bound \cite{hewett,cmp}. 

196: 

197: Additionally, a parameter, $\rho$, describes the Higgs content of the

198: model. If only Higgs doublets are used to break the gauge symmetry to

199: $U(1)_{em}$, $\rho$ is 1. For Higgs triplets, $\rho$ is 2. A combination

200: of doublets and triplets leads to an intermediate value of $\rho$ between

201: 1

202: and 2 \cite{hr}. We will use $\rho = 1$, corresponding to

203: Higgs doublets.

204: 

205: In the LRM, there is a relationship between the $Z'$ and $W'$ masses, as

206: follows:

207: 

208: \begin{equation}

209: \label{massrel}

210: \frac{M^2_{Z'}}{M^2_{W'}} = \frac{\rho \kappa^2}{\kappa^2 - \tan^2

211: \theta_W}.

212: \end{equation}

213: 

214: \noindent The couplings of the extra gauge bosons relevant to our

215: calculation can be

216: read from the following

217: parts of the Lagrangian.

218: 

219: \begin{eqnarray}

220: \label{LRMLagr}

221: {\cal L}_{LR} & = & \frac{e \kappa}{\sqrt{2} s_W}

222:  W'^+_{\mu} \bar{\nu}_R \gamma^{\mu} e_R 

223:   + \frac{e}{2 s_W c^2_W \sqrt{\kappa^2 - t^2_W}} Z'_{\mu}

224: \left[ \bar{l} \gamma^{\mu} (1 - \gamma_5) s^2_W (T_{3L} - Q_{em}) l

225: \right.

226: \nonumber \\

227:  & & \left.

228: + \bar{l} \gamma^{\mu} (1 + \gamma_5) (\kappa^2 c^2_W T_{3R} -

229: s^2_W Q_{em}) l \right] + h.c.

230: \end{eqnarray}

231: where $e_R = \frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_5) e$ denotes a right-handed 

232: electron field.

233: \noindent Note that we neglect two angles, usually denoted as $\xi$ and

234: $\zeta$,

235: which parametrize the $Z-Z'$ and $W-W'$ mixings, respectively. Limits on

236: these angles are rather severe so this is justified \cite{ls,cln}.

237: Neglect of these angles implies SM

238: couplings for the $Z$ and $W$. Additionally, we assume light Dirac-type

239: neutrinos. 

240: 

241: The Un-Unified model (UUM) \cite{uum,br} employs the alternative

242: electroweak

243: gauge

244: symmetry $SU(2)_q \times SU(2)_l \times U(1)_Y$ with left-handed quarks

245: and leptons transforming as doublets under their respective $SU(2)$

246: groups. All the right-handed fields transform as singlets under both

247: $SU(2)$

248: groups. The UUM may be parametrized by an angle $\phi$, which represents

249: the

250: mixing of the charged gauge bosons of the two $SU(2)$ groups, and by a

251: ratio $x = (u/v)^2$, where $u$ and $v$ are the vacuum expectation values

252: of the scalar multiplets which break the symmetry to $U(1)_{em}$.

253:  The existing constraint on $\phi$ is $0.24 \lesssim

254: \sin \phi \lesssim 0.99$, based on the validity of perturbation theory.

255: For $x/\sin^2 \phi \gg 1$, the

256: $Z'$ mass is approximately equal

257: to that of the $W'$ and the parameter $x$ may be replaced by $M_{W'}$. The

258: lepton

259: couplings of interest to us here arise from the following part of the

260: Lagrangian.

261: 

262: \begin{eqnarray}

263: \label{UUMLagr}

264: {\cal L}_{UU} & = & -\frac{e}{2 s_W} \frac{s_{\phi}}{c_{\phi}}

265: \left[

266: \sqrt{2} W'^+_{\mu} \bar{\nu} \gamma^{\mu} l_L + Z'_{\mu} (\bar{\nu}

267: \gamma^{\mu} \nu_L - \bar{l} \gamma^{\mu} l_L)

268: \right] + h.c.

269: \end{eqnarray}

270: 

271: \noindent As expected, the fermion couplings to the additional gauge

272: bosons are all

273: left-handed in the UUM. Additional fermions must also be included in order

274: to cancel anomalies. This is rather difficult to do without generating

275: flavour changing neutral currents and some considerations of this problem

276: lead to rather high lower bounds on the $Z'$ mass of about 1.4 TeV

277: \cite{br}. However, lower $Z'$ and $W'$ masses may be allowed in other

278: scenarios; hence we take a phenomenological approach in this

279: investigation.

280: 

281: Finally, we consider the consequences of models which have been of

282: considerable interest

283: lately, those containing large extra dimensions \cite{led}. In particular,

284: we

285: consider an extension of the SM to 5-dimensions (5DSM) \cite{led2}. The

286: presence of an

287: extra dimension of size $R \sim$ TeV$^{-1}$ may imply an infinite tower of

288: Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the SM gauge bosons. The mass of the

289: excitations is associated with the compactification scale of the extra

290: dimension as $n

291: M_c$ ($n = 1,..., \infty$), where $M_c = 1/R$. The properties of and

292: relationships among electroweak observables are modified by the presence

293: of these KK towers. We treat this possibility in a manner similar to the

294: other models described above; that is, we include in our process the

295: exchange of a $W'$ and $Z'$ corresponding to the first KK excitations. The

296: model can be parametrized by an angle $\beta$ which is correlated with the

297: properties of its Higgs sector, which includes two doublets; for $\sin

298: \beta \equiv s_{\beta} = 0$, the

299: SM Higgs may propagate in all 5-dimensions (the bulk) while for $s_{\beta}

300: = 1$, it is confined to the 4-dimensional boundary. In terms of this

301: parameter, the physical masses of the lightest electroweak gauge

302: bosons (corresponding to the experimentally measured masses)

303: are given, to first order in $M^2_W/M^2_c$, as

304: 

305: \begin{eqnarray}

306: M^{(ph)2}_W & = & M^2_W \left[1 -  s^4_{\beta} \frac{\pi^2}{3}

307: \frac{M^2_W}{M^2_c} \right] \\

308: M^{(ph)2}_Z & = & M^2_Z \left[1 -  s^4_{\beta} \frac{\pi^2}{3}

309: \frac{M^2_Z}{M^2_c} \right]

310: \end{eqnarray}

311: 

312: \noindent where $M^2_W = g^2 v^2/2$, as usual.The gauge couplings of the

313: physical $W$ and $Z$ are also modified by a term of order $M^2_V/M^2_c$.

314: Global analyses of electroweak parameters put a lower limit on $M_c$ of

315: about 2.5 TeV so

316: this is a very small effect. We will therefore neglect it and thus

317: eliminate

318: $s_{\beta}$ as a parameter. On the other hand, the fermion coupling of the first

319: KK excitations, $W'$ and $Z'$, each of mass $M_{V'} = M_c$, is enhanced by

320: a factor of $\sqrt{2}$. Hence our consideration of the 5DSM amounts to

321: including a $W'$ and a $Z'$, of equal mass, each coupling as in the SM

322: apart from an extra factor of $\sqrt{2}$.

323: 

324: 

325: \section{Calculation}

326: 

327: The process under consideration is

328: \begin{equation}

329: e^-(p_-)+e^+(p_+) \rightarrow \gamma(k) + \nu(q_-) + \bar{\nu}(q_+)\,\, .

330: \end{equation}

331: The relevant Feynman diagrams are given in Fig.\ 1. The kinematic 

332: observables of interest are the photon's energy, $E_\gamma$, and its

333: angle relative to the incident electron, $\theta_\gamma$, both defined

334: in the $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass frame. The invariant mass of the

335: $\nu\bar{\nu}$ pair, $M_{\nu\bar{\nu}}$, and $E_\gamma$ are related via

336: 

337: \begin{equation}

338: \label{egamma}

339: E_\gamma = \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\left(1-\frac{M_{\nu\bar{\nu}}^2}{s}\right),

340: \end{equation}

341: where $s=(p_+ + p_-)^2$.

342: 

343: Let ${\cal M}$ denote the sum of the amplitudes shown in Fig. 1, over

344: a given number of $Z'$'s and $W'$'s. The doubly differential cross section

345: is related to $|{\cal M}|^2$ via

346: \begin{equation}

347: \label{phasesp}

348: \frac{d\sigma}{dE_\gamma d\cos\theta_\gamma} = 

349: \frac{E_\gamma}{2s} \frac{1}{(4\pi)^4} \int_0^\pi

350: d\theta \sin\theta \int_0^{2\pi} d\varphi |{\cal M}|^2,

351: \end{equation}

352: where $\theta$ and $\varphi$ are the polar and azimuthal

353: angles, respectively, of $q_+$ in a frame where $q_+$ and $q_-$ are

354: back-to-back. The explicit 

355: momentum parametrizations are given in the Appendix.

356: 

357: Two approaches to determining $|{\cal M}|^2$ are possible. One can

358: determine ${\cal M}$ analytically, using spinor techniques 

359: \cite{CALCUL,BerGiele}

360: for instance, then square it numerically or one can find $|{\cal M}|^2$

361: analytically. We have followed both approaches, which provides an

362: independent

363: check. Obtaining $|{\cal M}|^2$ analytically has been done both via the

364: trace method, using the symbolic manipulation program FORM \cite{FORM}, 

365: and by squaring the helicity amplitudes and summing over

366: the final state helicities. The latter approach leads to a rather compact

367: result which we present below.

368: 

369: In order to present $|{\cal M}|^2$, we define the following kinematic

370: variables. We follow the notation of \cite{BerBurg}, where the SM

371: contribution for this process was calculated:

372: \begin{equation}

373: \begin{array}{rrlrl}

374: \nonumber

375: & s =& (p_+ + p_-)^2, & s' =& (q_+ + q_-)^2, \\

376: \nonumber  & t =& (p_+-q_+)^2, & t' = & (p_- - q_-)^2, \\

377: \nonumber &  u = & (p_+-q_-)^2, & u' = & (p_- - q_+)^2, \\

378: \nonumber & k_\pm = & 2 p_\pm \cdot k, & k'_\pm = & 2 q_\pm \cdot k, \\

379: Z_i = s' - M_{Z_i^2} + i M_{Z_i} \Gamma_{Z_i}, & 

380: W_i = & t-M_{W_i^2}, & W_i' = & t'-M_{W_i^2}.

381: \end{array}

382: \end{equation}

383: The decay width of the extra neutral gauge boson, $\Gamma_{Z_i}$, into

384: fermion- antifermion pairs is calculated

385: in each of the models we consider. We include the one-loop QED, three-loop

386: QCD and $O(M_t^2/M_{Z'}^2)$ corrections, although their effect on the

387: cross section

388: is negligible.

389: In the following, we denote generalized couplings as may be inferred from

390: the vertices

391: \begin{eqnarray}

392: \label{Zcoup}

393: Z_i f\bar{f} &=& \frac{ig}{2c_W} \gamma^\mu \left( \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}

394: \,\,a_{Z_i}^f + \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\,\, b_{Z_i}^f \right) \\

395: \label{Wcoup}

396: W_i l\nu &=& \frac{ig}{\sqrt{2}} \gamma^\mu \left( \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}

397: \,\,a_{W_i} + \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2} \,\,b_{W_i} \right) .

398: \end{eqnarray}

399: Thus, in the SM, $a^e_{Z_1} = 2s_W^2-1$, $b^e_{Z_1}=2s_W^2$, $a^\nu_{Z_1}

400: = 1$, $b^\nu_{Z_1} = 0$, $a_{W_1}=1$, and

401: $b_{W_1}=0$.

402: 

403: It is only necessary to present the unpolarized squared amplitude as the

404: individual polarized contributions may be inferred from the coupling

405: structure. The spin-averaged unpolarized $|{\cal M}|^2$ is given by:

406: \begin{eqnarray}

407: \label{m2}

408: \nonumber

409: |{\cal M}|^2_{\rm unp} &=& \frac{(4\pi)^3\alpha^3}{8 s_W^4 k_+k_-}

410:  \left\{ \mbox{\raisebox{4ex}{}} \right. 

411: \frac{3s'}{c_W^4} \sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle i=1,nz}{j=i,nz}} Z_{ij} 

412:   [(a^e_{Z_i}a^e_{Z_j}a^\nu_{Z_i}a^\nu_{Z_j} 

413: + b^e_{Z_i}b^e_{Z_j}b^\nu_{Z_i}b^\nu_{Z_j})(u^2+u'^2)  \\

414: \nonumber && \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 

415: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 

416: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 

417: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,

418: + (a^e_{Z_i}a^e_{Z_j}b^\nu_{Z_i}b^\nu_{Z_j} 

419: + b^e_{Z_i}b^e_{Z_j}a^\nu_{Z_i}a^\nu_{Z_j})(t^2+t'^2)] \\

420: \nonumber &&

421: + \frac{4}{s'} \sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle i=1,nw}{j=i,nw}} W_{ij}

422: [(a^2_{W_i}a^2_{W_j}+b^2_{W_i}b^2_{W_j})

423: (u^2+u'^2) + 2 a_{W_i}a_{W_j}b_{W_i}b_{W_j}(s^2+s'^2)] \\

424: \nonumber &&

425: + \frac{4}{c^2_W} \sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle i=1,nw}{j=1,nz}}

426: [\left( WZ \right)_{ij} (u^2 a^2_{W_i} a^e_{Z_j} a^\nu_{Z_j}

427: + u'^2 b^2_{W_i} b^e_{Z_j} b^\nu_{Z_j})  \\

428:  && 

429: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 

430: \,\,\,\,\,\,\, 

431: + \left( WZ \right)'_{ij} (u'^2 a^2_{W_i} a^e_{Z_j} a^\nu_{Z_j}

432: + u^2 b^2_{W_i} b^e_{Z_j} b^\nu_{Z_j})] 

433:  \left. \mbox{\raisebox{4ex}{}} \right\},  

434: \end{eqnarray}

435: where

436: \begin{equation}

437: \begin{array}{rclrcl}

438: Z_{ij} &=& {\displaystyle {\rm Re} 

439: \left(\frac{2-\delta_{ij}}{Z_iZ^*_j}\right)}, &

440: W_{ij} &=& (2-\delta_{ij}) {\rm Re} (F_{W_i} F^*_{W_j}), 

441: %&&&&& \vspace{-0.5cm}\\

442: \,\,\,\,\,\, \left( WZ \right)_{ij} = 

443: {\displaystyle {\rm Re} 

444: \left(\frac{F_{W_i}}{Z_j}\right)},  \\

445: &&&&& \\

446: \left( WZ \right)'_{ij} &=& 

447: {\displaystyle {\rm Re} 

448: \left(\frac{F_{W_i}}{Z^*_j}\right)},  &

449: %&&&&& \vspace{-0.5cm}\\

450: F_{W_i} &=& {\displaystyle \frac{s'}{W'_i} - \frac{s'k_+ - tk'_- +

451: uk'_+ 

452: - 4i\varepsilon(q_+q_-p_+k)}{2 W_i W'_i}}, 

453: \end{array}

454: \end{equation}

455: using the notation $\varepsilon(p_1p_2p_3p_4) = 

456: \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} p_1^\mu p_2^\nu p_3^\rho p_4^\sigma$,

457: where $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ is the completely antisymmetric

458: Levi-Civita tensor and $\varepsilon_{0123}=1$.

459: In Eq.~(\ref{m2}) we have assumed lepton universality with regards to

460: the $Z'\nu\bar{\nu}$ couplings.

461: Although it may not be immediately apparent, the contribution to the 

462: cross section from the state where the $e^-$ and $e^+$ are both 

463: left-handed is equal to the contribution from the state where they are

464: both right-handed and the sum is given by the term in Eq.~(\ref{m2}) 

465: proportional to $a_{W_i}a_{W_j}b_{W_i}b_{W_j}$.  

466: 

467: A relation which was quite useful in simplifying $|{\cal M}|^2$ is

468: \begin{equation}

469: \frac{s'}{W'_i} - \frac{s'k_+ - tk'_- + uk'_+ 

470: - 4i\varepsilon(q_+q_-p_+k)}{2 W_i W'_i} = 

471: \frac{s'}{W_i} - \frac{s'k_- - t'k'_+ + u'k'_- 

472: - 4i\varepsilon(q_-q_+p_-k)}{2 W_i W'_i}.

473: \end{equation}

474: In the SM limit, Eq.~(\ref{m2}) agrees with the expression given in

475: \cite{BerBurg} after correcting for the known missing factors of

476: $1/s'$ in \cite{BerBurg} required on dimensional grounds.

477: 

478: The calculation of $d\sigma/dE_\gamma d\cos\theta_\gamma$ may be performed

479: analytically or numerically. We have followed both approaches and verified

480: numerical agreement. Further checks were performed using the program

481: CompHEP \cite{CompHEP}.

482: %FORTRAN code for the analytical expression is 

483: %available \cite{ArndEmail}.

484: 

485: \section{Results}

486: 

487: 

488: Before discussing the discovery limits obtained in the various models,

489: we  present the total cross sections and the differential cross

490: sections $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ and $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\gamma$. In doing so,

491: all the essential features are illustrated. We take the SM inputs

492: $M_W = 80.33$ GeV, $M_Z = 91.187$ GeV, 

493: $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.23124$, $\alpha=1/128$, $\Gamma_Z=2.49$ GeV

494: \cite{pdb}.

495:  Since we work only to leading order in $|{\cal M}|^2$,

496: there is some arbitrariness in what to use for the above input,

497: in particular $\sin^2\theta_W$.

498: 

499: Kinematically, the maximum allowed value for $E_\gamma$ is $\sqrt{s}/2$.

500: In addition, to take into account detector acceptance,

501: $E_\gamma$ and $\theta_\gamma$ have been restricted to the ranges

502: \begin{equation}

503: \label{accept}

504: E_\gamma \geq 10 \,\,{\rm GeV}, \hspace{1cm} 

505: 10^0 \leq \theta_\gamma \leq 170^0.

506: \end{equation}

507: The cuts also serve to remove 

508: the singularities which arise when the emitted photon is soft or collinear

509: with the beam. Further, we restrict the photon's transverse momentum

510: to 

511: \begin{equation}

512: \label{ptcut}

513: p_T^\gamma > \frac{\sqrt{s} \sin\theta_\gamma \sin\theta_v }

514: {\sin\theta_\gamma + \sin\theta_v},

515: \end{equation}

516: where $\theta_v$ is the minimum angle down to which the veto detectors

517: may observe electrons or positrons. We take $\theta_v = 25$ mrad. This

518: cut has the effect of removing the largest background to our process,

519: namely radiative Bhabha-scattering where the scattered $e^+$ and $e^-$

520: go undetected down the beam pipe.

521: 

522: This study was performed in leading order, but

523: QED corrections to $e^+e^-\rightarrow \nu\bar\nu\gamma$ must be taken

524: into account in a precision analysis of real data.

525: They have been known  to $O(\alpha)$ for some time \cite{BerBurg}.

526: See \cite{qedrev} for a short review {\it of} and further references

527: {\it to} higher order QED corrections, and \cite{nicrosini} for a

528: description of a related MC generator. Since our aim is to determine

529: the statistical power of the process in discovering $W'$'s, there is

530: no need to include in this study the radiative corrections which will

531: only marginally influence the number of events.  Complete consistency

532: at NLO, however, would require determination of the bremsstrahlung corrections

533: to the {\em generalized} expression (\ref{m2}) and corresponding loop

534: graphs.

535: 

536: As well, we do not explicitly take into account any higher order

537: backgrounds. 

538: A background, which cannot be suppressed, comes from the reaction 

539: $e^+e^-\rightarrow \nu\bar\nu\nu'\bar\nu'\gamma$. The authors of

540: \cite{dittmaier} have provided the following cross sections of relevance

541: here:

542: $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu_e\bar\nu_e\nu_e\bar\nu_e\gamma)\equiv\sigma_{eeee}

543: =6.65(2)\,{\rm fb},\ \ 

544: \sigma_{ee\mu\mu}=7.79(2)\,{\rm fb},\ \ 

545: \sigma_{\mu\mu\mu\mu}=0.690(2)\,{\rm fb}\ \ $ and\ \ 

546: $\sigma_{\mu\mu\tau\tau}=1.383(3)\,{\rm fb}$. These results are

547: for the same conditions as in Table~1 of \cite{dittmaier} but for

548: $\sqrt{s}=500\,{\rm GeV}$.

549: The cuts used in obtaining the above numbers differ from ours.

550: Nonetheless, these cross sections give an idea of the magnitude of the

551: background.

552: Assuming lepton universality, the total cross section is $25\,{\rm fb}$

553: for the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow \nu\bar\nu\nu'\bar\nu'\gamma$.

554: Imposing our $p_T^\gamma$ cut will suppress it even further.

555: This background must be included in an 

556: ``$e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma$ + nothing'' analysis of real data.

557: We expect that the cross sections of 

558: $e^+e^-\rightarrow \nu\bar\nu\nu'\bar\nu'\gamma\gamma$ 

559: and of 

560: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\nu'\bar\nu'\nu''\bar\nu''\gamma$ 

561: are so small that they need not be taken into account in the analysis. 

562: 

563: The errors generated from the subtraction of the above backgrounds form

564: part of the systematic error. As the backgrounds themselves are much smaller

565: than the signal, though comparable to the new physics effect,

566: we expect that the error in the SM prediction of the 

567: backgrounds would be much smaller than the systematic errors arising from

568: detector and beam uncertainties. We shall return to the issue of systematics

569: in connection with their influence on the discovery limits presented in 

570: the next section.

571: 

572: 

573: We have calculated three distinct total cross

574: sections: unpolarized: $\sigma$, for left-handed $e^-$: $\sigma_L$, and

575: for

576: right-handed $e^-$:

577: $\sigma_R$. Fig.\ 2 shows all three plotted versus

578: $\sqrt{s}$, with $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_R$

579: calculated using 100\% beam polarization.

580: Results are shown for the SM, LRM ($\rho=\kappa=1$), UUM ($\sin\phi=0.6$),

581: SSM($W'$), SSM($W'+Z'$) and KK model, with $M_{W'}=750$ GeV in each case.

582: These mass and coupling parameter choices are rather arbitrary, made to

583: illustrate general behaviour.

584: It is worth noting at this point that in the UUM and SSM($W'+Z'$),

585: the correction to the SM cross section changes sign as $\sqrt{s}$ is

586: varied. This arises, for certain $\sqrt{s}$ and $M_{W'}$, due to a

587: negative

588: interference term between the SM and $Z'/W'$ diagrams in these models.

589: 

590: 

591: It is clear from the presence of the peaks in Fig.\ 2 that we are

592: also probing $Z'$'s, in those models which include them. (There is

593: also a very sharp peak at lower $\sqrt{s}$,

594: off the plot, due to the SM $Z$.) The $Z'$

595: peaks generally occur for $\sqrt{s}$

596: slightly above the $Z'$ mass since the photon carries away some of the

597: energy. At very high energies, the SM $Z$

598: contribution is negligible. Further, by using a right-handed $e^-$ beam,

599: we can reduce

600: the SM $W$ contribution (depending on the degree of polarization).

601: Then we directly probe the $W'$ (and $Z'$) in the LRM, while in the 

602: SSM($W'+Z'$) and KK model, we probe only the $Z'$. The latter two models

603: as well as the two remaining models all require some component of 

604: left-handed polarization to probe the $W'$. The above features are borne

605: out in Fig.\ 2.

606: 

607: In order to see which  regions of $E_\gamma$ are most sensitive to the new

608: physics, we plot for left- and right-handed electron beams respectively,

609: in Figs. 3(a) and 4(a) $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ versus $E_\gamma$

610: and in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)

611: the deviation from the SM result divided by

612: the square root of the predicted cross section versus $E_\gamma$. 

613: We show results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV with 100\%  $e^-$ beam

614: polarization in these figures.

615: 

616: First, we note the shape of $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ in Figs 3(a) and 4(a).

617: For left-handed electrons, the bulk of the cross section comes from

618: the low $E_\gamma$ region; the reduction at very low $E_\gamma$ is

619: due to the $p_T^\gamma$ cut and the sharp peak at $E_\gamma \simeq 240$

620: GeV is due to the radiative return to the $Z$ pole. For 100\% right

621: polarized electrons,

622: the cross section is rather flat in the low to moderate $E_\gamma$ region,

623: then increases as a result of 

624: the $Z$ peak at high $E_\gamma$. On the other hand, since the 

625: right-handed cross section is two orders of magnitude smaller than

626: the left-handed cross section away from the $Z$ peak, any realistic degree

627: of polarization (i.e.\ 90\%) will lead to a large contribution from

628: $\sigma_L$ to the

629: low $E_\gamma$ region. In general, there can also be a peak due to a

630: $Z'$ for $M_{Z'}<\sqrt{s}$ which occurs at

631: \begin{equation}

632: \label{peak}

633: E_\gamma^{\rm peak} = \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\left(1-\frac{M_{Z'}^2}{s}\right)

634: \end{equation}

635: in analogy with the SM $Z$.

636: 

637: Most important, however, is the relative statistical significance, shown

638: in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b). In both the left- and right-handed cases, the 

639: low $E_\gamma$ region is the most sensitive to the new physics. There are

640: two reasons for this. First, for left-handed electrons, the cross section

641: is largest at low $E_\gamma$, as mentioned above. Second, the lower

642: $E_\gamma$, the higher the mass probed in the $Z'$ propagator via 

643: Eq.\ (\ref{egamma}).

644: The relative effect is even larger when

645: combining the $\chi^2$'s from the different bins, since it is the squares

646: of the plotted quantities which will enter.

647: Overall, the KK model leads to the most statistically significant deviations,

648: except for the 100\% left polarized case where the SSM($W'$) exhibits the

649: largest deviation. We can also see clearly how the sign of the deviation

650: from the SM

651: depends on the beam polarization. For the KK model and SSM($W'+Z'$),

652: we observe a negative deviation with right-handed polarization, 

653: implying a negative $Z'$ contribution, versus a positive 

654: overall contribution coming from the left-handed channel.

655: Clearly, interference effects will make probing $W'$'s nontrivial.

656: We shall return to this point in the next section.

657: 

658: In Figs. 5 and 6 we plot the analogous quantities relevant to

659: $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\gamma$, versus $\cos\theta_\gamma$. We note that

660: both $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\gamma$ and the relative statistical significance

661: are peaked in the forward and backward directions and both are very

662: nearly symmetric in $\cos\theta_\gamma$. The latter implies that the  

663: forward-backward asymmetry will be small and, therefore, the

664: deviation from the SM 

665: forward-backward asymmetry will also be small, at least in absolute

666: magnitude. We therefore do

667: not expect the forward-backward asymmetry to serve as a useful probe

668: of the new physics, which is confirmed by explicit calculation. An

669: important observation is that our $p_T^\gamma$

670: cut, while eliminating a large background, has also eliminated much

671: of our signal (both from the small angle and soft events) which

672: was appreciably stronger prior to the cut. A more detailed study,

673: including a detector simulation, would

674: be required to determine whether the background could be accurately

675: subtracted with a looser $p_T^\gamma$ cut.

676: 

677: 

678: \subsection{Discovery Limits for $W'$'s}

679: 

680: 

681: The best discovery limits were in general obtained using the observable

682: $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$, combined with beam polarization, while 

683: $d\sigma/d\cos\theta_\gamma$ was less sensitive.

684: Comparable or equal limits were obtained using the total cross section,

685: with an additional cut on the energy to eliminate

686: the $Z$ pole radiative return events:

687: \begin{equation}

688: \label{emax}

689: E_\gamma^{\rm max} = \frac{\sqrt{s}}{2}\left(1-\frac{M^2_{Z}}{s}

690: \right)-6\Gamma_{Z}.

691: \end{equation}

692: As can be seen from Figs.\ 3(b) and 4(b), the $Z$ pole region is quite 

693: insensitive to new physics. In the cases that $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ provided

694: a better limit than the total cross section, the improvement was of order

695: 50 GeV. However, the $\chi^2$

696: obtained using the total cross section is a somewhat less stable

697: function

698: of $M_{W'}$ as the sign of the deviation from the SM cross

699: section may change with $M_{W'}$

700: leading to isolated regions of insensitivity at low

701: $M_{W'}$. Also, when systematic errors are included, the limits obtained

702: using $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ are affected much less than those obtained

703: using the total cross section.

704: 

705: Substantially weaker limits were obtained using the left-right 

706: asymmetry,

707: \begin{equation}

708: \label{alr}

709: A_{LR} = \frac{\sigma_L-\sigma_R}{\sigma_L+\sigma_R},

710: \end{equation}

711: even when including systematic errors only one 

712: half those used in the $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ calculation (since one expects 

713: some cancellation of errors between the numerator and denominator in 

714: $A_{LR}$). 

715: As expected from the discussion of the previous section, the 

716: forward-backward asymmetry, $A_{FB}$, was quite insensitive to the new 

717: physics. In light of the above, we restrict the remaining discussion 

718: to limits obtained using $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ as an observable.

719: 

720: In obtaining the $\chi^2$ for $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$, we used 10 equal

721: sized energy bins in the range $E_\gamma^{\rm min} < E_\gamma <

722: E_\gamma^{\rm max}$, where $E_\gamma^{\rm min}$ follows from the 

723: $p_T^\gamma$ cut Eq.~(\ref{ptcut}):

724: \begin{equation}

725: E_\gamma^{\rm min} = \frac{\sqrt{s} \sin\theta_v}{1 + \sin\theta_v},

726: \end{equation}

727: which supersedes the acceptance cut of Eq.~(\ref{accept}). We have

728: \begin{equation}

729: \chi^2 = \sum_{\rm bins} \left(\frac{d\sigma/dE_\gamma - d\sigma/dE_{\gamma, 

730: {\rm SM}}}{\delta d\sigma/dE_\gamma}\right)^2,

731: \end{equation}

732: where $\delta d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ is the error on the measurement and

733: analogous formulae hold for other observables. One sided 95\% confidence

734: level discovery limits are obtained by requiring $\chi^2\geq 2.69$

735: for discovery. Systematic errors, when included,

736: were added in quadrature with the statistical errors.

737: 

738: In determining the limits for the case of polarized electron beams, we

739: show results for the polarization state which in general

740: has the largest sensitivity (deviation from the SM) for a given model; a

741: right-handed $e^-$ beam for the LRM and a left-handed

742: beam for all other models.

743: We used one half the unpolarized luminosity

744: for the polarized case, assuming equal running time in each

745: polarization state.

746: 

747: The discovery limits for all five models are listed in Table I,

748: for $\sqrt{s}=0.5$, 1.0 and 1.5 TeV, using the same input parameters

749: as for the cross sections presented in the previous section. We show

750: limits for both an unpolarized $e^-$ beam and for a 90\% polarized one.

751: For each center-of-mass energy, two luminosity scenarios are considered

752: and we present

753: limits obtained with and without systematic errors. Our prescription is

754: to include a 2\% systematic error per bin. This number is quite

755: arbitrary but seems reasonable, if not conservative, considering the 

756: clean final state. In addition to detector systematics, which we

757: expect will dominate, there are uncertainties associated with the

758: beam luminosity and energy, which will be spread over a range. The 

759: systematic errors associated with the background subtraction should be 

760: much smaller than 2\% as should be the errors in the calculation of the

761: QED corrections. The 2\% number should not be taken too seriously 

762: therefore, except to highlight the fact that a precision measurement is

763: required to take full advantage of the large event rate.

764: 

765: Certain features are common to all models. With no systematic error 

766: included, we observe quite an improvement in the limits with increased

767: luminosity. The only exception is the UUM at $\sqrt{s}$ of 1.5 TeV,

768: where the improvement is minimal. The reason is that the $\chi^2$ 

769: decreases very rapidly as $M_{W'}$ is increased in the vicinity of

770: the limit, hence increasing the luminosity by a factor of 2.5 does little.

771: The unusual $\sqrt{s}$ dependence can be attributed to the 

772: interference effect noted in the previous section,

773: which results in, for example, for the UUM 

774: with $\sin\phi=0.6$ and an integrated luminosity of 500 fb$^{-1}$, 

775: a lower discovery limit at $\sqrt{s}=1.5$ TeV than at 0.5 and 1 TeV.

776: We will return to this peculiar behaviour later in the section.

777: %will be explained in connection with the 

778: %$\sin\phi$ dependence of the limits later in this section. 

779: When 2\%

780: systematic errors are included, the high luminosity scenario yields

781: little improvement in the limits in any of the models, since the

782: systematic error now dominates

783: the statistical.

784: 

785: Perhaps surprising at first is the observation that 90\% beam polarization

786: does not improve the limits very much. This follows from taking

787: into account the reduced luminosity and the fact that the left-handed

788: component tends to dominate the unpolarized cross section by a

789: considerable amount. On the other

790: hand, we observed that if the polarization is pushed beyond 90\%, then

791: the right-polarized limits can increase significantly in those models

792: in which the beyond-SM bosons have a non-zero right-handed coupling: the

793: LRM, KK model and SSM($W'+Z'$).

794: In the latter two models, it is however, the $Z'$ which is being probed.

795: The higher degree of polarization is required to eliminate the

796: contamination from the much larger left-handed component. Thus, the

797: primary

798: advantage of beam polarization is to distinguish between models

799: and measure the new couplings, as will be investigated in the next

800: section.

801: 

802: 

803: Fig.\ 7 presents the $W'$ mass

804: discovery limits obtainable in the LRM with an unpolarized beam,

805: plotted versus $\kappa$ for $\rho=1$ and $\sqrt{s}=$ $0.5$, 1.0, 1.5

806: and 2 TeV using a luminosity of 50 fb$^{-1}$ for $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV and 

807: 200  fb$^{-1}$ for the higher energies.

808: Only statistical errors are included.

809: Depending on 

810: $\sqrt{s}$ and  $\kappa$, the limits range from 0.8 to 2.8 TeV.

811: We expect greater deviations from the SM, and hence larger limits, as

812: $\kappa$ is increased since this increases the $W'$ coupling strength,

813: as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{LRMLagr}).

814: The predicted dependence on $\kappa$  is generally observed,

815: except at low $\kappa$ where we notice a moderate {\em increase} in the

816: limits, even though the $W'$ couplings have weakened. We attribute this

817: effect to the $Z'$, whose couplings are enhanced (but its mass increased)

818: in the low $\kappa$ region. This was indicated by an appreciable 

819: improvement in the limits for low $\kappa$ and $\rho=1$

820: versus those obtained using $\rho=2$ and consequently a heavier 

821: $Z'$, via Eq.~(\ref{massrel}). 

822: Fig.\ 8 demonstrates

823: the improvement in bounds in the moderate to large $\kappa$ region

824: obtained when a 90\% or 100\%

825: polarized right-handed $e^-$ beam is used. The

826: beam polarization picks out the LRM $W'$ and suppresses the SM $W$.

827: Fig.\ 8(a) shows that for $\kappa>1$, 90\% beam polarization improves

828: the limits. Further increasing the polarization leads to substantial

829: improvements, even at lower $\kappa$, as demonstrated in Fig.\ 8(b).

830: 

831: 

832: The dependence of the limits in the UUM on $\sin\phi$ is shown in

833: Fig.\ 9, for $\sqrt{s}=$ $0.5$, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 TeV,

834: under the same running conditions as Fig.\ 7.

835: Only the unpolarized case is considered as beam polarization was not

836: beneficial. Again, only statistical errors are included.

837: At each $\sqrt{s}$, we note that the contour defining the exclusion 

838: region as a function of $\sin\phi$ is a complicated curve.

839: %ice two steps in the sensitivity as

840: %$\sin\phi$ is increased; one at low $\sin\phi$ and a more pronounced

841: %one at larger $\sin\phi$ in the form of a contour. 

842: The consequence is that for $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV,

843: we obtain better limits over a range of $\sin\phi$ than we do for

844: $\sqrt{s}=1.5$ and even  $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV. 

845: Essentially, this is due to the complicated interference with the SM

846: diagrams.

847: In general, as $\sin\phi$ increases, the UUM couplings also

848: increase, as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{UUMLagr}), so that higher

849: mass scales are probed. So, referring to Fig. 2, 

850: the peak in the cross section (due to

851: the $Z'$) at the scale being probed shifts to the right. 

852: But 

853: the sign of the deviation from the SM changes with  $\sqrt{s}$ for 

854: fixed $M_{W'}$ (or vice-versa) such that the UUM cross section

855: dips below the SM over some region to the left of the peak, then goes

856: back above it for small $\sqrt{s}$ (or large $M_{W'}=M_{Z'}$ for fixed

857: $\sqrt{s}$). Hence, there is a small step in the limits near

858: $M_{W'}=\sqrt{s}$, corresponding to passing the rightmost crossing with the

859: SM and another structure in the contour

860: at some higher $M_{W'}$ such that the leftmost crossing

861: is situated near $\sqrt{s}$. One sees this explicitly by plotting $\chi^2$

862: versus $M_{W'}$ for fixed $\sqrt{s}$ and $\sin\phi$ and observing a 

863: dip in the $\chi^2$ at relatively low $M_{W'}$. Had we used $\sigma$ as

864: an observable, the dip would be much more pronounced since 

865: $\sigma-\sigma_{\rm SM}$ passes through zero, but 

866: $d\sigma/dE_\gamma - d\sigma/dE_{\gamma, {\rm SM}}$ may differ in sign

867: between bins, leading to a nonzero $\chi^2$ at the crossing points.

868: Once $\sin\phi$ is large enough that we

869: are probing the region

870: to the left of the leftmost crossing, the limits shoot up in 

871: an impressive fashion as the dip in  $\chi^2$ never goes back down

872: to 2.69.

873: The shape of the plot is

874: luminosity dependent since, as pointed out earlier in this section, the degree

875: to which increased luminosity improves the limits depends on the rate

876: at which the $\chi^2$ decreases with increasing $M_{W'}$ in the 

877: vicinity of the limit. That,

878: in turn, varies with $\sqrt{s}$ for fixed $\sin\phi$ and with

879: $\sin\phi$ for fixed $\sqrt{s}$.

880: 

881: 

882: 

883: \subsection{Constraints on Couplings}

884: 

885: 

886: In this section, we consider constraints

887: which can be put on the couplings of extra gauge bosons by the process 

888: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$.

889: These constraints are significant only in the case where 

890: the mass of the corresponding extra gauge boson is 

891: considerably lower than its search limit in this process.

892: In most models, the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar f$ and/or searches

893: at the LHC are

894: more sensitive to a $Z'$ or $W'$ (LHC) than the process 

895: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$.

896: We assume here that a signal for an extra gauge boson has been detected 

897: by another experiment.

898: 

899: Given such a signal, we derive constraints (at 95\% C.L.) on the

900: couplings of 

901: extra gauge bosons. We present the constraints in terms of couplings

902: normalized as follows relative to Eqs.~(\ref{Zcoup}) and (\ref{Wcoup}).

903: \begin{equation}

904: \begin{array}{rlrl}

905: L_f(Z)  = & \frac{g}{4c_W}a^f_{Z_i} & \;\;\; R_f(Z)  = &

906: \frac{g}{4c_W}b^f_{Z_i} \\

907: L_f(W)  = & \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}a_{W_i} & \;\;\; R_f(W)  = &

908: \frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}b_{W_i}.

909: \end{array}

910: \end{equation}

911: 

912: The constraints correspond to 

913: \begin{equation}

914: \label{chi2}

915: \chi^2=\sum_i\left(\frac{O_i(SM)-O_i(SM+Z'+W')}{\delta O_i}\right)^2=5.99,

916: \end{equation}

917: where $O_i(SM)$ is the prediction for the observable 

918: $O_i$ in

919: the SM, $O_i(SM+Z'+W')$ is the prediction of the

920: extension of 

921: the SM and $\delta O_i$ is the expected experimental error.

922: The index $i$ corresponds to different observables such as

923: $\sigma$ and

924: $A_{LR}$.

925: 

926: 

927: Our assumptions concerning beam polarization are as follows. For single

928: beam ($e^-$) polarization, we assume, as in the previous section,

929: equal running in left and right polarization states. For double beam

930: polarization, we assume equal running in the $LR$ and $RL$ states, but 

931: no running in the $LL$ and $RR$ states. Thus,

932: \begin{equation}

933: A_{LR} = \frac{\sigma_{LR}-\sigma_{RL}}{\sigma_{LR}+\sigma_{RL}},

934: \,\,\,\,\,\, \mbox{$e^-$ and $e^+$ polarized},

935: \end{equation}

936: where the first subscript of $\sigma$ refers to the $e^-$ helicity.

937: Note that for 100\% polarized $e^-$ and $e^+$, 

938: $\sigma_{LL}=\sigma_{RR}=0$ in all the models we consider. This remains

939: approximately valid as the couplings deviate from their model-defined

940: values.

941: 

942: 

943: In Figs.~\ref{nnng1} and \ref{nnng2}, 

944: we present $Z'\nu\bar{\nu}$ coupling constraints

945: assuming there is no signal for a $W'$. This is the

946: case when the SM is extended by $U(1)$ factors only.

947: It can also happen in models where the $W'$ has purely right-handed

948: couplings and the right-handed neutrino is heavy.

949: Then, the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$ would be

950: one of the best

951: for constraining the couplings of the $Z'$ to SM neutrinos {\it below} the 

952: $Z'$ resonance.

953: If there is also a signal for a $W'$, a similar analysis could be 

954: performed including

955: the $W'$ parameters, as measured in other experiments. The resulting

956: bounds would 

957: be larger than those shown in the two figures.

958: However, the main points of the discussion would remain unchanged.

959: 

960: Fig.~\ref{nnng1} illustrates the resulting constraints on a 1.5 TeV

961: $Z'$ at a 500 GeV

962: collider for different

963: observables and experimental parameters, including luminosity and 

964: beam polarization. 

965: We see that we can get some interesting constraints

966: even though

967: the $Z'$ is considerably heavier than the centre-of-mass energy.

968: The region which cannot be resolved by the observables is between the 

969: two corresponding lines and contains the couplings of the SM. Hence the

970: star in this figure corresponds to the SSM($Z'$).

971: For the cases where only one bounding line is shown, the second line

972: is outside the figure.

973: $R_\nu(Z')$ and $L_\nu(Z')$ are mainly constrained by the interference of the 

974: $Z'$ exchange with the SM. The strongest constraint is on 

975: the $Z'$ coupling to left-handed neutrinos.

976: This makes the constraints especially simple.

977: 

978: First we consider an integrated luminosity of 500 fb$^{-1}$. The total

979: unpolarized cross

980: section gives the strongest constraint.

981: The constraints from energy and angular distributions (with 

982: 10 equal size bins) were also considered but

983: they give no improvement.

984: The constraint from $A_{LR}$ is shown for two polarization cases: 90\%

985: electron 

986: beam polarization and the case of a

987: collider with

988: a $P^-=90\%$ polarized electron beam and a $P^+=60\%$ polarized positron 

989: beam.

990: Even for the latter case, the constraint from $A_{LR}$ is worse

991: than that from the total cross section.

992: We mention here for completeness that two polarized beams give not only

993: a high effective polarization but also

994: a small effective polarization error \cite{marciano}.

995: 

996: The constraint obtained with an 

997: integrated luminosity of $L_{\rm int}=50$ fb$^{-1}$ is also

998: shown in Fig.~\ref{nnng1}, to contrast with the high luminosity case. We

999: see that for $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$

1000: a systematic error of 1\% relaxes the constraints considerably and 

1001: dilutes the advantage of high luminosity.

1002: Thus, both small systematic errors and a high luminosity collider 

1003: are highly desired for the proposed measurement.

1004: 

1005: Fig.~\ref{nnng2} shows the possible constraints on  $R_\nu(Z')$ and 

1006: $L_\nu(Z')$ from $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$,

1007: including systematic errors, for two representative 

1008: $Z'$ masses, 0.75 TeV and 1 TeV.

1009: The constraints become much stronger as the $Z'$ mass is decreased.

1010: So far, we assumed that the $Z'e^+e^-$ couplings,  $R_e(Z')$ and $L_e(Z')$, 

1011: are precisely known.

1012: However, they must be measured (with errors) by another experiment.

1013: Fig.~4(b) of \cite{lmu0296} illustrates such a measurement 

1014: for a collider with a luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$.

1015: To estimate their influence on the  $R_\nu(Z')$, $L_\nu(Z')$ constraint,

1016: we make use of the errors on $R_e(Z')$ and $L_e(Z')$ given in 

1017: \cite{lmu0296}. 

1018: Our input for the errors of the $Z'e^+e^-$ couplings for

1019: $M_{Z'}=1.0$ TeV and

1020: $0.75$ TeV are obtained from those for $1.5$ TeV by the scaling relation

1021: (2.63) in \cite{physrep}.

1022: We see that 

1023: the uncertain knowledge of the $Z'e^+e^-$ couplings leads to

1024: only 

1025: slightly weaker constraints on $R_\nu(Z')$ and $L_\nu(Z')$. 

1026: However, Fig.~\ref{nnng2} shows that this effect is only important 

1027: for a relatively heavy

1028: $Z'$ and for $R_\nu(Z')$ (even at lower $Z'$ masses) for

1029: which the constraints are already weak.

1030: %The influence of the errors of the $Z'e^+e^-$ coupling measurement

1031: %is negligible for a relatively light $Z'$.

1032: 

1033: Finally, we mention that there is no sign ambiguity in the measurement 

1034: of  $R_\nu(Z')$ and $L_\nu(Z')$ if the signs of the  $Z'e^+e^-$ couplings 

1035: are known.

1036: It was noted \cite{lmu0296} that the $Z'e^+e^-$ couplings have a two-fold sign

1037: ambiguity if measured in the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow e^+e^-$ alone.

1038: If this ambiguity exists, it induces a related sign ambiguity for 

1039: $R_\nu(Z')$ and $L_\nu(Z')$.

1040: If the sign ambiguity in the $Z'e^+e^-$ couplings is resolved

1041: \cite{physrep}  

1042: (i.e. by measurements obtained from the 

1043: process $e^+e^-\rightarrow W^+W^-$ below the

1044: $Z'$ resonance or by measurements at the $Z'$ resonance) it also disappears 

1045: in our constraints on $R_\nu(Z')$ and $L_\nu(Z')$.

1046: 

1047: In Figs.~\ref{nnng3} to \ref{nnng6}, we shall 

1048: assume that there is no signal from a 

1049: $Z'$ but that a 

1050: signal from a $W'$ has been observed.

1051: This could happen in models where the $W'$ is considerably 

1052: lighter than the $Z'$. We recognize that this

1053: particular scenario is unlikely in the context of the models we consider.

1054: For

1055: instance, in the UUM, the $W'$ and $Z'$ masses are approximately

1056: equal and

1057: there would most likely be a signal observed for the $Z'$ in addition to

1058: the

1059: $W'$. The situation is similar in the LRM, where the relationship

1060: between the $W'$ and $Z'$ masses is given in Eq.~(\ref{massrel}). Thus, it

1061: should be

1062: understood that our results for the case of a

1063: $W'$ only

1064: represent an estimate of the reach of this process in constraining $W'$

1065: couplings, rather than precision limits in the context of a full

1066: understanding of the physics realized in nature. We use this simple

1067: scenario

1068: in order to indicate sensitivity to various parameters, such as the

1069: observables used and the luminosity.

1070: Alternatively, a known $Z'$ could be included in the following analysis.

1071: Again, the experimental errors on the measured $Z'$ parameters

1072: would enlarge the errors of the $W'$ measurements but not change the

1073: main conclusions.

1074: We will see that the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$ 

1075: can give model independent 

1076: constraints on the quantities $L_l(W')$ and $R_l(W')$ 

1077: for $W'$ masses considerably larger than the center-of-mass energy.

1078: We only probe $l=e$ directly, but we are assuming lepton universality

1079: throughout.

1080: 

1081: Fig.~\ref{nnng3} is similar to Fig.~\ref{nnng1}, but 

1082: it shows the constraints on the $W'$

1083: couplings. In this figure,

1084: for illustration, we assume there exists a $W'$ with 

1085: SM couplings but with a mass of 1.5 TeV and that the right-handed

1086: neutrino is light enough to be produced.

1087: We find that the left- and, to some extent, the right-handed $W'$ coupling 

1088: can be constrained. The figure illustrates the use of different

1089: combinations of 

1090: $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$, and of different beam polarizations.

1091: The unpolarized cross section  mainly constrains  the left-handed

1092: $W'$ coupling because left-handed electrons give its dominant contribution.

1093: The constraints from energy and angular distributions give 

1094: almost no improvement for the model considered here.

1095: The constraint from $A_{LR}$ is complementary to that from $\sigma$.

1096: It is shown for the two cases of 90\% electron beam polarization and for

1097: 90\% electron beam polarization with 60\% positron polarization.

1098: We see that $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ together give the 

1099: best constraints on the couplings.

1100: 

1101: The constraints on the $W'$ couplings have a two-fold sign ambiguity;

1102:  nothing is changed by a simultaneous change of the sign of 

1103: $L_l(W')$ and $R_l(W')$.

1104: The reason for this ambiguity lies in the squared amplitude, Eq.\

1105: (\ref{m2}), where these couplings

1106: always enter as squares or as a product of left and right $W'$ couplings.

1107: In the case where we have only a weak $W'$ signal, the two regions allowed

1108: by this ambiguity 

1109: overlap into one large region.

1110: 

1111: In Fig.~\ref{nnng4}, we show constraints on the $W'$ couplings from

1112: $\sigma$

1113:  and 

1114: $A_{LR}$ combined. In this figure, we illustrate the use of

1115: different luminosities and the inclusion of a systematic error.

1116: We have the same two well separated 

1117: regions for the case of high luminosity and no systematic error

1118: as in Fig.~\ref{nnng3}. 

1119: These two regions become larger for low luminosity and 

1120: no systematic error.

1121: We are left with one large region after the inclusion of a systematic error 

1122: of 2\% for $\sigma$ and 1\% for $A_{LR}$.

1123: As in the case of extra neutral gauge bosons, 

1124: small systematic errors

1125: {\it and} high luminosity are necessary for a coupling measurement.

1126: 

1127: 

1128: In Fig.~\ref{nnng5}, we show how the constraints on the $W'$ couplings vary 

1129: for different $W'$ masses.

1130: The constraint for $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV is identical to that from 

1131: Fig.~\ref{nnng4}.

1132: We see that the constraint on the $W'$ couplings improves dramatically 

1133: for lower $W'$ masses.

1134: 

1135: Fig.~\ref{nnng6} illustrates the possibility of

1136: discrimination between different models.

1137: We see that a $W'$ with SM couplings ($W'_L$) can be separated from the SM.

1138: A $W'$ with pure right-handed couplings ($W'_R$) with a strength of the 

1139: left-handed coupling of the SM $W$ cannot be distinguished from the SM case. 

1140: 

1141: Looking at the squared amplitude, Eq.\ (\ref{m2}), 

1142: we see that the constraints shown in Figs.~\ref{nnng3} to \ref{nnng6} are, 

1143: to a good approximation,

1144: valid for the combinations $L_l(W')/M_{W'}$ and  $R_l(W')/M_{W'}$, and not

1145: for the couplings and the mass separately.

1146: We have fixed the $W'$ mass here for illustrational purposes.

1147: If a $W'$ is found with a mass different from our assumptions, the constraint

1148: on its couplings can be found by the appropriate scaling of our 

1149: results.

1150: 

1151: 

1152: So far, we considered model independent bounds on the couplings of a

1153: single extra

1154: gauge boson while neglecting the existence of other extra gauge bosons.

1155: However, typically, extra neutral and charged gauge bosons 

1156: simultaneously influence the observables. We consider this situation for

1157: the LRM and the UUM.

1158: 

1159: In Fig.~\ref{nnng7}, we consider the Left-Right symmetric model.

1160: For $M_{W'}=0.75$ TeV,  Eq.~(\ref{massrel})

1161: gives $M_{Z'}=0.90(1.27)$ TeV for $\kappa=1$ and $\rho=1(2)$.

1162: We show the constraints on the couplings of the $W'$ for $\rho=1$ 

1163: obtained by two different fitting strategies.

1164: First, we ignore the $Z'$ completely, and second, we take the $Z'$ into

1165: account

1166: assuming exact knowledge of its couplings.

1167: We see that the two curves are quite close.

1168: The reason is that our process is not very sensitive to such a $Z'$.

1169: These two curves  are very similar to those for the

1170: $W_R$ 

1171: and the SM in Fig.~\ref{nnng6} because we are not very sensitive to

1172: a right-handed $W'$.

1173: The case of $\rho=2$ predicts a heavier $Z'$, which

1174: produces constraints differing even less from each other than those 

1175: for $\rho=1$,

1176: so we do not show them.

1177: To demonstrate how the constraints change for a larger signal,

1178: we repeated the same procedure 

1179: with $M_{W'}=550$ GeV. This number (and the mass of the associated $Z'$)

1180: are at the edge of the present exclusion limit \cite{pdb}.

1181: Although the constraints improve a bit, they are still not very impressive.

1182: 

1183: Fig.~\ref{nnng8} is similar to Fig.~\ref{nnng7} 

1184: but here we consider the Un-Unified model.

1185: We examine the cases $M_{W'}=M_{Z'}=0.75$ TeV 

1186: and 

1187: $M_{W'}=M_{Z'}=0.55$ TeV. 

1188: We show the constraints on the couplings of the $W'$ 

1189: obtained using the same 

1190: two fitting strategies described for Fig.~\ref{nnng7}.

1191: Even for masses of $0.75$ TeV, the two curves are better

1192: separated than in LRM.

1193: For masses of 0.55 TeV, the wrong fitting strategy gives a region which

1194: is outside the true $W'$ coupling.

1195: This shows that such a light $Z'$ cannot be 

1196: ignored in the fitting procedure.

1197: 

1198: The process $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar f$ and searches in hadron collisions

1199: are

1200: more sensitive to $Z'$ discovery than $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$.

1201: A $Z'$ signal will always be detected in the cases where the

1202: $Z'$ contribution

1203: is relevant for a $W'$ constraint from $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$.

1204: This information

1205: from other experiments will be required for a reliable $W'$ constraint

1206: from $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$.

1207: 

1208: 

1209: 

1210: 

1211: \section{Conclusions}

1212: 

1213: In this paper, we studied the sensitivity of the process $e^+e^-\to 

1214: \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ to extra gauge bosons.  We used this process to 

1215: find discovery limits and to see how well one could measure 

1216: the couplings of extra gauge bosons that are expected in 

1217: extensions of the standard model.  

1218: 

1219: For the discovery limits we 

1220: focused on $W'$'s since one can put better limits on $Z'$'s from 

1221: other processes, such as $e^+e^-\to f\bar{f}$, while, on the other 

1222: hand,  no similar limits exist on $W'$'s. The highest reach was 

1223: obtained by binning the $d\sigma/dE_\gamma $ distribution although 

1224: comparable results were obtained using the total cross section after 

1225: the $Z$ radiative return was eliminated. The discovery reach is 

1226: typically in the 1-6~TeV range depending on the specific model, the 

1227: center of mass energy,  and the 

1228: assumed integrated luminosity.  These results are substantially 

1229: degraded if one includes systematic errors.  For the $W_R$ boson, for 

1230: which LHC discovery limits are available, the discovery limits are,

1231: for $g_R=g_L$, 

1232: $M_{W'}$= 1.2, 1.6, and 1.9 TeV for $\sqrt{s}=$ 500, 1000, and 1500 

1233: GeV respectively assuming $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$ relative to a reach of 

1234: $~5.9$~TeV at the LHC.

1235: 

1236: Although the discovery reach for $W'$'s 

1237: of this process is not competitive with the reach of the LHC, precision 

1238: measurements can give information on extra gauge boson couplings 

1239: which complements the LHC.  In particular, if the LHC were to discover 

1240: a $Z'$ or $W'$ the process $e^+e^- \to \nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ could 

1241: constrain $Z'$ and $W'$ couplings. For a $Z'$, this would be the best 

1242: measurement of the $Z' \nu \bar{\nu}$ couplings.  

1243: For $W'$ couplings, reliable measurements would require information 

1244: from, for example, 

1245: $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar f$ and searches in hadron collisions which 

1246: would always detect a $Z'$ signal in the cases where its contribution

1247: is relevant for a $W'$ constraint by $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar\nu\gamma$.

1248: Finally, we emphasize that 

1249: to make measurements of the extra gauge boson couplings, high 

1250: luminosity will be needed and it will be very

1251: important to reduce the systematic uncertainties as much as possible.

1252: 

1253: \acknowledgments

1254: 

1255: This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering 

1256: Research Council of Canada.

1257: S.G., P.K., and B.K.\ thank Dean Karlen and A.L. thanks Graham Wilson 

1258: for useful discussions.

1259: 

1260: \section*{appendix}

1261: Here we give explicit parametrizations of the momenta defined in the

1262: frame where $q_-, q_+$ are back-to-back and

1263: $p_+$ defines the $\hat{z}$ axis, suitable for use with 

1264: the phase-space (\ref{phasesp}):

1265: \begin{eqnarray}

1266: \nonumber

1267: p_+ &=& (\omega_+;0,0,\omega_+) \\

1268: \nonumber

1269: p_- &=& (\omega_-; \omega_k\sin\psi, 0, \omega_k\cos\psi - \omega_+) \\

1270: \nonumber

1271: k &=& (\omega_k; \omega_k\sin\psi,0,\omega_k\cos\psi) \\

1272: \nonumber

1273: q_+ &=& (\omega'_+; \omega'_+\sin\theta\cos\varphi, 

1274: \omega'_+\sin\theta\sin\varphi,\omega'_+\cos\theta) \\

1275: q_- &=& (\omega'_+; -\omega'_+\sin\theta\cos\varphi, 

1276: -\omega'_+\sin\theta\sin\varphi,-\omega'_+\cos\theta),

1277: \end{eqnarray}

1278: where

1279: \begin{eqnarray}

1280: \nonumber

1281: \omega_- &=& \frac{s-k_-}{2\sqrt{s'}}, \,\,\,\,

1282: \omega_+ = \frac{s-k_+}{2\sqrt{s'}}, \,\,\,\,

1283: \omega'_+ = \frac{\sqrt{s'}}{2}, \\

1284: \omega_k &=& \frac{s-s'}{2\sqrt{s'}}, \,\,\,\,

1285: \cos\psi = \frac{sk_- - s'k_+}{(s-k_+)(s-s')}.

1286: \end{eqnarray}

1287: It is arbitrary whether $\sin\psi$ is taken as positive or negative

1288: as long as one is consistent.

1289: 

1290: \begin{references}

1291: 

1292: \bibitem{c-g}

1293: For a recent review see

1294: M.\ Cveti\u{c} and S.\ Godfrey; in {\it Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Beyond the 

1295: Standard Model}, eds.\ T.\ Barklow {\it et al.} (World Scientific, 

1296: 1995), p. 383, hep-ph/9504216. See also Ref.\ \cite{physrep}.

1297: 

1298: 

1299: \bibitem{sg} S.\ Godfrey, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 1402 (1995).

1300: 

1301: \bibitem{guts}

1302: R.W. Robinett, Phys. Rev. D {\bf{26}}, 2388 (1982);

1303: R.W. Robinett and J.L. Rosner, {\it{ibid.}} D {\bf{25}} 3036 (1982); 

1304: {\it{ibid.}}

1305: D {\bf{26}}, 2396 (1982); {\em ibid.} D {\bf 27}, 679(E) 1983;

1306: P.\ Langacker, R.W.\ Robinett, and J.L.\ Rosner, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 1470 

1307: (1984).

1308: 

1309: \bibitem{lrmodels}

1310: For a review and original references see R.N.\ Mohapatra, {\it 

1311: Unification and Supersymmetry} (Springer, New York, 1986).

1312: 

1313: 

1314: \bibitem{led}

1315: I.\ Antoniadis, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990); J.\ Lykken, Phys.\ 

1316: Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3693 (1996); E.\ Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B471}, 

1317: 135 (1996); N.\ Arkani-Hamed,

1318: S.\ Dimopoulos, and G.\ Dvali, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998); I.\

1319: Antoniadis, N.\ Arkani-Hamed, S.\ Dimopoulos, and G.\ Dvali, Phys.\ 

1320: Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998); N.\ Arkani-Hamed, S.\ Dimopoulos, and G.\

1321: Dvali, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999).

1322: 

1323: \bibitem{Barenboim}

1324: G.\ Barenboim, J.\ Bernab\'{e}u, J.\ Prades,

1325: and M.\ Raidal, Phys.\ Rev. D {\bf 55}, 4213 (1997).

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{pdb} 

1328: C.\ Caso {\it et al.}, Particle Data Group, 

1329: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C3}, 1 (1998).

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{tev-lhc}

1332: T. Rizzo; in {\it New Directions for High-Energy Physics: 

1333: Proceedings of the 1996 DPF/DPB Summer Study on High-Energy 

1334: Physics}, Snowmass, Colorado, 1996, edited by D.G.\ Cassel, L.\ 

1335: Trindle Gennari, and R.H.\ Siemann 

1336: (Stanford Linear Accelerator 

1337: Center, 1997), p.\ 900, hep-ph/9609248;  p.\ 864, hep-ph/9612440.

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{hewett}

1340: J. Hewett; in {\it New Directions for High-Energy Physics: 

1341: Proceedings of the 1996 DPF/DPB Summer Study on High-Energy 

1342: Physics}, Snowmass, Colorado, 1996, edited by D.G.\ Cassel, L.\ Trindle 

1343: Gennari, and R.H.\ Siemann 

1344: (Stanford Linear Accelerator 

1345: Center, 1997), p.\ 887, hep-ph/9704292.

1346: 

1347: \bibitem{uum}

1348: H.\ Georgi, E.E.\ Jenkins, and E.H.\ Simmons, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 62},

1349: 2789 (1989); {\em ibid.} {\bf 63}, 1540(E) (1989);

1350: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B331}, 541 (1990).

1351: 

1352: \bibitem{br}

1353: V.\ Barger and T.G.\ Rizzo, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41}, 946 (1990).

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{led2}

1356: M.\ Masip and A.\ Pomeral, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 096005 (1999); T.G.\ Rizzo 

1357: and J.D.\ Wells, Report Nos.\ SLAC-PUB-8119, CERN-TH/99-139, 

1358: hep-ph/9906234; G.F.\ Giudice,

1359: R.\ Rattazzi, and J.D.\ Wells, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B544}, 3 (1999); T.\ Han, J.\

1360: Lykken, and R.-J.\ Zhang, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 105006 (1999).

1361: 

1362: \bibitem{pr}

1363: M.\ Parida and A.\ Raychaudhuri, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26}, 2364 (1982).

1364: 

1365: \bibitem{cmp}

1366: D.\ Chang, R.\ Mohapatra, and M.\ Parida, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 1052 (1984).

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{hr}

1369: J.L.\ Hewett and T.G.\ Rizzo, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 4981 (1993).

1370: 

1371: \bibitem{ls}

1372: P.\ Langacker and S.\ Uma Sankar, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40}, 1569 (1989).

1373: 

1374: \bibitem{cln}

1375: J.\ Chay, K.Y.\ Lee, and S.-H.\ Nam, Report No.\ SNUTP-98-101, hep-ph/9809298.

1376: 

1377: 

1378: \bibitem{CALCUL} 

1379: R.\ Kleiss and W.J.\ Stirling, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B262}, 235 (1985).

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{BerGiele} 

1382: F.A.\ Berends and W.\ Giele,  Nucl.\ Phys. {\bf B294}, 700 (1987).

1383: 

1384: \bibitem{FORM}

1385: J.A.M.\ Vermaseren, {\it Symbolic Manipulation with FORM}

1386: %version 2, Tutorial and Reference Manual

1387: (CAN, Amsterdam, 1991).

1388: %------------------

1389: % -----------------------------------

1390: \bibitem{BerBurg} 

1391: F.A.\ Berends, G.J.H.\ Burgers, C.\ Mana, M.\ Martinez,

1392: and W.L.\ van Neerven, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B301}, 583 (1988).

1393: 

1394: \bibitem{CompHEP}

1395: P.A.\ Baikov et al., Physical Results by means of CompHEP;

1396: in {\it Proc.\ of X Workshop on High Energy Physics and Quantum

1397: Field Theory (QFTHEP-95)}, Moscow, 1996, edited by  B.\ Levtchenko and

1398: V.\ Savrin,  p.\ 101, hep-ph/9701412;

1399: E.E.\ Boos, M.N.\ Dubinin, V.A.\ Ilyin, A.E.\ Pukhov, and V.I.\ Savrin, 

1400: hep-ph/9503280.

1401: 

1402: 

1403: % ------------------------------------

1404: \bibitem{qedrev}

1405: G.\ Montagna, M.\ Moretti, O.\ Nicrosini, and F.\ Piccinini, 

1406: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B541}, 31 (1999).

1407: % ------------------------------------

1408: \bibitem{nicrosini} 

1409: G.\ Montagna, O.\ Nicrosini, and F.\ Piccinini,

1410: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 98}, 206 (1996).

1411: % ------------------------------------

1412: \bibitem{dittmaier} 

1413: A.\ Denner, S.\ Dittmaier, M.\ Roth, and D.\ Wackeroth, 

1414: Report No.\ BI-TP-99-10,

1415: hep-ph/9904472.

1416: 

1417: 

1418: \bibitem{Photon} 

1419: I.F.\ Ginzburg {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Methods, {\bf 205}, 47

1420: (1983); {\it ibid} {\bf 219}, 5 (1984);

1421: C.\ Akerlof, Report No.\ UM-HE-81-59 (1981; unpublished).

1422: \bibitem{marciano} A.\ Czarnecki and W.J.\ Marciano, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ 

1423: {\bf A13}, 2235 (1998).

1424: \bibitem{lmu0296} A.\ Leike and S.\ Riemann, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 75}, 341 (1997).

1425: \bibitem{physrep} A.\ Leike, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 317}, 143 (1999).

1426: \bibitem{ourprocs} 

1427: S.\ Godfrey, P.\ Kalyniak, B.\ Kamal, and A.\ Leike; in {\it Proceedings

1428: of  MRST'99: High Energy Physics at the Millennium}, Ottawa, Canada,

1429: 1999, edited by  P.\ Kalyniak, S.\ Godfrey,  

1430: and B.\ Kamal (AIP, 1999), p.\ 1, hep-ph/9907571;

1431: S.\ Godfrey, P.\ Kalyniak, B.\ Kamal, and A.\ Leike; presented at 

1432: {\it The International Workshop on Physics and 

1433: Detectors at the Linear Collider}, Sitges, Spain, 1999,

1434: hep-ph/9909422. To appear in proceedings.

1435: \end{references}

1436: 

1437: \newpage

1438: \begin{figure}

1439: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=6.5in}}

1440: \vspace{20pt}

1441: \caption{The Feynman diagrams contributing to the process

1442: $e^+e^-\rightarrow\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ in leading order.}

1443: \label{Fig1}

1444: \end{figure}

1445: %

1446: \newpage

1447: \begin{figure}

1448: \vspace{-1.3in}

1449: \centerline{\epsfig{file=sgallvs.eps,width=5in}}

1450: \vspace{-0.5in}

1451: \caption{The total cross sections $\sigma$, $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_R$

1452: versus $\sqrt{s}$ for $M_{W'}=750$ GeV. For $\sigma_L$ and $\sigma_R$,

1453: 100\% $e^-$ polarization is used. Results are given for the SM 

1454: (solid line), LRM (dashed line), KK model (dotted line), UUM

1455: (dash-dotted line), SSM($W'$) (thick dashed line) and SSM($W'+Z'$)

1456: (thick dash-dotted line).

1457: }

1458: \label{Fig2}

1459: \end{figure}

1460: %

1461: \newpage

1462: \begin{figure}

1463: \vspace{-1in}

1464: \centerline{\epsfig{file=sglve5.eps,width=6.5in}}

1465: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1466: \caption{(a) Left-handed differential cross section versus energy;

1467: (b) relative statistical significance of the deviation from the SM,

1468: for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and $M_{W'}=750$ GeV. 100\% $e^-$ polarization

1469: is used. Lines as in Fig.\ 2.

1470: }

1471: \label{Fig3}

1472: \end{figure}

1473: %

1474: \newpage

1475: \begin{figure}

1476: \vspace{-1in}

1477: \centerline{\epsfig{file=sgrve5.eps,width=6.5in}}

1478: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1479: \caption{(a) Right-handed differential cross section versus energy;

1480: (b) relative statistical significance of the deviation from the SM,

1481: for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and $M_{W'}=750$ GeV. 100\% $e^-$ polarization

1482: is used. Lines as in Fig.\ 2.

1483: }

1484: \label{Fig4}

1485: \end{figure}

1486: %

1487: %

1488: \newpage

1489: \begin{figure}

1490: \vspace{-1in}

1491: \centerline{\epsfig{file=sglvz5.eps,width=6.5in}}

1492: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1493: \caption{(a) Left-handed differential cross section versus $\cos\theta_\gamma$;

1494: (b) relative statistical significance of the deviation from the SM,

1495: for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and $M_{W'}=750$ GeV. 100\% $e^-$ polarization

1496: is used. Lines as in Fig.\ 2.

1497: }

1498: \label{Fig5}

1499: \end{figure}

1500: %

1501: \newpage

1502: \begin{figure}

1503: \vspace{-1in}

1504: \centerline{\epsfig{file=sgrvz5.eps,width=6.5in}}

1505: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1506: \caption{(a) Right-handed differential cross section versus $\cos\theta_\gamma$;

1507: (b) relative statistical significance of the deviation from the SM,

1508: for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and $M_{W'}=750$ GeV. 100\% $e^-$ polarization

1509: is used. Lines as in Fig.\ 2.

1510: }

1511: \label{Fig6}

1512: \end{figure}

1513: %

1514: \newpage

1515: \begin{figure}

1516: \vspace{-1in}

1517: \centerline{\epsfig{file=limuvkap.eps,width=6.5in}}

1518: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1519: \caption{LRM ($\rho=1$) unpolarized 95\% C.L. $W'$ mass limits versus 

1520: $\kappa$, obtained

1521: for $\sqrt{s}=500$, 1000, 1500 and 2000 GeV using 

1522: $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ as the observable and an integrated luminosity

1523: of 50 fb$^{-1}$ for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and  200 fb$^{-1}$ for

1524: the higher energies.

1525: Only statistical errors are used.

1526: }

1527: \label{Fig7}

1528: \end{figure}

1529: %

1530: \newpage

1531: \begin{figure}

1532: \vspace{-1in}

1533: \centerline{\epsfig{file=limrvkap.eps,width=6.5in}}

1534: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1535: \caption{As Fig.\ 7, except (a) for 90\% right-polarized electrons,

1536: (b) for  100\% right-polarized electrons.

1537: }

1538: \label{Fig8}

1539: \end{figure}

1540: %

1541: \newpage

1542: \begin{figure}

1543: \vspace{-1in}

1544: \centerline{\epsfig{file=limvphi.eps,width=6.5in}}

1545: %\vspace{-0.5in}

1546: \caption{UUM unpolarized 95\% C.L. $W'$ mass limits versus $\sin\phi$,

1547: obtained for $\sqrt{s}=500$, 1000, 1500 and 2000 GeV using 

1548: $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ as the observable and an integrated luminosity

1549: of 50 fb$^{-1}$ for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and  200 fb$^{-1}$ for

1550: the higher energies. Only statistical errors are used. The region to the

1551: right of the various curves is the region which may be excluded by

1552: experiment.

1553: }

1554: \label{Fig9}

1555: \end{figure}

1556: %

1557: 

1558: %-----------nnng1-----------------------------

1559: \newpage

1560: \begin{figure}

1561: \vspace{-0.5in}

1562: \mbox{

1563: \epsfysize=5in

1564: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng1.ps}

1565: }

1566: \vspace{0.5in}

1567: \caption{Constraints on the $Z'\nu\bar\nu$ couplings $R_\nu(Z')$ 

1568: and $L_\nu(Z')$ 

1569: below the $Z'$ peak using different observables. We take

1570: $\sqrt{s} =0.5$ TeV, $\ M_{Z'}=1.5$ TeV and

1571: $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$, except in the indicated case 

1572: where it is $50$ fb$^{-1}$.

1573: The polarization of the electron beam is 90\% and

1574: the positron beam is unpolarized, except in the indicated case where it is 

1575: 60\% polarized.

1576: Only statistical errors are included in this figure, except in the indicated 

1577: case where a systematic error of 1\% is included for $\sigma$.

1578: The assumed model is a $Z'$ in the Sequential Standard Model [SSM ($Z'$)],

1579: indicated by a star.

1580: }

1581: \label{nnng1}

1582: \end{figure}

1583: %-----------nnng2-----------------------------

1584: \newpage

1585: \begin{figure}

1586: \vspace{-0.5in}

1587: \mbox{

1588: \epsfysize=5in

1589: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng2.ps}

1590: }

1591: \vspace{0.5in}

1592: \caption{Constraints on  $R_\nu(Z')$ and $L_\nu(Z')$ below the $Z'$ peak using

1593: $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined as observables.

1594: The lines show the results for two different $Z'$ masses.

1595: The dots indicate how the constraints relax if the error on the $Z'e^+e^-$ 

1596: coupling measurement is included as described in the text. 

1597: We take

1598: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV, $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$ and a 

1599: systematic error of 2\% (1\%) for $\sigma$ ($A_{LR}$).

1600: The assumed model [SSM ($Z'$)] is indicated by a star.

1601: }

1602: \label{nnng2}

1603: \end{figure}

1604: %-----------nnng3-----------------------------

1605: \newpage

1606: \begin{figure}

1607: \vspace{-0.5in}

1608: \mbox{

1609: \epsfysize=5in

1610: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng3.ps}

1611: }

1612: \vspace{0.5in}

1613: \caption{Constraints on the $W'$ couplings using $\sigma$, $A_{LR}$ and 

1614: using $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined as observables. We take

1615: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV, $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$ and $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV.

1616: Only statistical errors are included in this figure.

1617: 90\% electron and, where indicated, 60\% positron polarization are used.

1618: The assumed model [SSM ($W'$)] is indicated by a star.

1619: }

1620: \label{nnng3}

1621: \end{figure}

1622: %-----------nnng4-----------------------------

1623: \newpage

1624: \begin{figure}

1625: \vspace{-0.5in}

1626: \mbox{

1627: \epsfysize=5in

1628: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng4.ps}

1629: }

1630: \vspace{0.5in}

1631: \caption{Constraints on the $W'$ couplings using $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined.

1632: 90\% electron and 60\% positron polarization are used. We take

1633: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV,  $M_{W'}=1.5$ TeV and 

1634: $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$, except in the 

1635: indicated case where it is $50$ fb$^{-1}$.

1636: Only statistical errors are used, except in the indicated case where a 

1637: systematic error of 2\% (1\%) is included for $\sigma$ ($A_{LR}$).

1638: The assumed model [SSM ($W'$)] is indicated by a star.

1639: }

1640: \label{nnng4}

1641: \end{figure}

1642: 

1643: 

1644: %-----------nnng5-----------------------------

1645: \newpage

1646: \begin{figure}

1647: \vspace{-0.5in}

1648: \mbox{

1649: \epsfysize=5in

1650: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng5.ps}

1651: }

1652: \vspace{0.5in}

1653: \caption{Constraints on the $W'$ couplings using $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined

1654: for different $W'$ masses. We take

1655: 90\% electron and 60\% positron polarization,

1656: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV and $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$.

1657: A systematic error of 2\% (1\%) is included for $\sigma$ ($A_{LR}$).

1658: The assumed model [SSM ($W'$)] is indicated by a star.

1659: }

1660: \label{nnng5}

1661: \end{figure}

1662: %-----------nnng6-----------------------------

1663: \newpage

1664: \begin{figure}

1665: \vspace{-0.5in}

1666: \mbox{

1667: \epsfysize=5in

1668: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng6.ps}

1669: }

1670: \vspace{0.5in}

1671: \caption{Constraints on the $W'$ couplings using $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined

1672: for different $W'$ scenarios. We take

1673: 90\% electron and 60\% positron polarization,

1674: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV, $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$ and $M_{W'}=0.75$ TeV. 

1675: A systematic error of 2\% (1\%) is included for $\sigma$ ($A_{LR}$).

1676: The assumed models are indicated by stars.

1677: }

1678: \label{nnng6}

1679: \end{figure}

1680: 

1681: 

1682: 

1683: %-----------nnng7-----------------------------

1684: \newpage

1685: \begin{figure}

1686: \vspace{-0.5in}

1687: \mbox{

1688: \epsfysize=5in

1689: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng7.ps}

1690: }

1691: \vspace{0.5in}

1692: \caption{Constraints on the $W'$ couplings using $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined

1693: in the LRM with $\rho=1$ and $\kappa=1$

1694: for different $W'$ masses and different fitting strategies; see text.

1695: We take 90\% electron and 60\% positron polarization,

1696: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV and $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$.

1697: A systematic error of 2\% (1\%) is included for $\sigma$ ($A_{LR}$).

1698: The assumed model (LRM) is indicated by a star.

1699: }

1700: \label{nnng7}

1701: \end{figure}

1702: %-----------nnng8-----------------------------

1703: \newpage

1704: \begin{figure}

1705: \vspace{-0.5in}

1706: \mbox{

1707: \epsfysize=5in

1708: \epsffile[0 0 500 500]{nnng8.ps}

1709: }

1710: \vspace{0.5in}

1711: \caption{Constraints on the $W'$ couplings using $\sigma$ and $A_{LR}$ combined

1712: in the UUM with $\sin\phi=0.6$

1713: for different $W'$ masses and different fitting strategies; see text.

1714: We take 90\% electron and 60\% positron polarization,

1715: $\sqrt{s}=0.5$ TeV and $L_{\rm int}=500$ fb$^{-1}$.

1716: Unless otherwise indicated,

1717: a systematic error of 2\% (1\%) is included for 

1718: $\sigma$ ($A_{LR}$).

1719: The coupling of the assumed model (UUM) is indicated by a star.

1720: }

1721: \label{nnng8}

1722: \end{figure}

1723: 

1724: 

1725: 

1726: \newpage

1727: \begin{table}[t]

1728: \caption{$W'$ 95\% C.L.\ discovery 

1729: limits obtained in the SSM ($W'$), SSM ($W'+Z'$), LRM

1730: ($\kappa=\rho=1$),

1731: UUM ($\sin\phi=0.6$), and the KK model using 

1732: $d\sigma/dE_\gamma$ as the observable. Results are presented 

1733: for $\sqrt{s}=500$, 1000,  and 1500 GeV and for various luminosity and

1734: polarization scenarios, with and without a 2\% systematic error included.

1735: For the LRM, the polarized scenario corresponds to a right-handed 

1736: $e^-$ beam, while for all other models the beam is left-handed. 

1737: }

1738: \label{limitstab}

1739: \vspace{0.4cm}

1740: \begin{center}

1741: \begin{tabular}{llllllllll}

1742: %\hline

1743:            &Lum.\ (fb$^{-1}$):& 50   & 500  & 25        & 250  

1744:                             & 50   & 500  & 25        & 250  \\

1745: $\sqrt{s}$ &Sys. Err.:      & 0\%  & 0\%  & 0\%       & 0\% 

1746:                             & 2\%  & 2\%  & 2\%       & 2\%  \\

1747: (GeV)      &Model/\% pol:   & unp. & unp. & 90\%      & 90\% 

1748:                             & unp. & unp. & 90\%      & 90\% \\

1749: \hline

1750: 500  & SSM($W'$)    &2.4  &4.3  &2.4  &4.3  &1.55 &1.7  &1.55 &1.7  \\

1751:      & SSM($W'+Z'$) &1.75 &3.25 &1.8  &3.25 &1.1  &1.2  &1.15 &1.25 \\

1752:      & LRM          &0.75 &1.15 &0.85 &1.25 &0.6  &0.6  &0.75 &1.0  \\

1753:      & UUM          &0.65 &2.1  &0.65 &2.05 &0.6  &0.6  &0.6  &0.6  \\

1754:      & KK           &2.55 &4.55 &2.6  &4.65 &1.6  &1.75 &1.7  &1.85 \\

1755: \hline

1756: 1000       &Lum.\ (fb$^{-1}$):& 200   & 500  & 100      & 250  

1757:                             & 200   & 500  & 100      & 250  \\

1758: \hline

1759:      & SSM($W'$)    &4.2  &5.3  &4.2  &5.25 &2.15 &2.2  &2.1  &2.2  \\

1760:      & SSM($W'+Z'$) &3.15 &4.0  &3.2  &4.1  &1.1  &1.1  &1.15 &1.45 \\

1761:      & LRM          &1.35 &1.55 &1.35 &1.6  &0.95 &0.95 &1.25 &1.35 \\

1762:      & UUM          &1.25 &2.45 &1.25 &2.35 &1.1  &1.1  &1.1  &1.1  \\

1763:      & KK           &4.55 &5.75 &4.6  &5.85 &2.15 &2.2  &2.25 &2.3  \\

1764: \hline

1765: 1500       &Lum.\ (fb$^{-1}$):& 200   & 500  & 100      & 250  

1766:                             & 200   & 500  & 100      & 250  \\

1767: \hline

1768:      & SSM($W'$)    &4.7  &5.95 &4.65 &5.85 &2.45 &2.55 &2.45 &2.55 \\

1769:      & SSM($W'+Z'$) &3.4  &4.45 &3.45 &4.5  &1.45 &1.45 &1.55 &1.55 \\

1770:      & LRM          &1.65 &1.9  &1.7  &1.9  &1.3  &1.3  &1.55 &1.65 \\

1771:      & UUM          &1.8  &1.85 &1.8  &1.85 &1.55 &1.55 &1.55 &1.55 \\

1772:      & KK           &5.05 &6.45 &5.1  &6.45 &2.35 &2.45 &2.45 &2.55 \\

1773: \end{tabular}

1774: \end{center}

1775: \end{table}

1776: 

1777: 

1778: 

1779: 

1780: \end{document}

1781: