1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: % relevant portions of a4.sty:
3: \topmargin 0 pt
4: \baselineskip .7truecm
5: \textheight 33\baselineskip
6: \advance\textheight by \topskip
7: \oddsidemargin .05 truein % Left margin on odd-numbered pages.
8: \evensidemargin .05 truein % Left margin on even-numbered pages.
9: \marginparwidth 1 in % Width of marginal notes.
10: \marginparwidth 0.75 in
11: \textwidth 6.125 truein % Width of text line.
12:
13: \begin{document}
14: %\baselineskip 1.1truecm
15: \tolerance=100000
16: %\input feynman
17: \thispagestyle{empty}
18: \setcounter{page}{0}
19:
20: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\br}{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \newcommand{\er}{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
25: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
26: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
27: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}
28: \newcommand{\bn}{\begin{enumerate}}
29: \newcommand{\en}{\end{enumerate}}
30: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}
31: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}
32: \newcommand{\ul}{\underline}
33: \newcommand{\ol}{\overline}
34: \newcommand{\ar}{\rightarrow}
35: \newcommand{\sm}{${\cal {SM}}$}
36: \newcommand{\susy}{{{SUSY}}}
37: \newcommand{\Dir}{\kern -6.4pt\Big{/}}
38: \newcommand{\Dirin}{\kern -12.4pt\Big{/}\kern 4.4pt}
39: \newcommand{\DGir}{\kern -6.0pt\Big{/}}
40: %
41: \def\pp{\ifmmode{pp} \else{$pp$} \fi}
42: \def\CC{\ifmmode{{\it C.C.}} \else{$\mbox{\it C.C.}$} \fi}
43: \newcommand{\jet}{\ifmmode{{\mathrm{j}}}
44: \else{${\mathrm{j}}$}\fi}
45: \newcommand{\jj}{\ifmmode{{\mathrm{2~jets}}}
46: \else{${\mathrm{2~jets}}$}\fi}
47: \newcommand{\bqbqH}{\ifmmode{bU\ar bDH^+}
48: \else{$bU\ar bDH^+$}\fi}
49: \newcommand{\bqbqW}{\ifmmode{bU\ar bDW^+}
50: \else{$bU\ar bDW^+$}\fi}
51: \newcommand{\qqbbW}{\ifmmode{U\bar D\ar b\bar bW^+}
52: \else{$U\bar D\ar b\bar bW^+$}\fi}
53: \newcommand{\bqbqtn}{\ifmmode{bU\ar bD\tau^+\nu_\tau}
54: \else{$bU\ar bD\tau^+\nu_\tau$}\fi}
55: \newcommand{\qqbbtn}{\ifmmode{U\bar D\ar b\bar b\tau^+\nu_\tau}
56: \else{$U\bar D\ar b\bar b\tau^+\nu_\tau$}\fi}
57: \newcommand{\Htn}{\ifmmode{H^\pm\ar \tau\nu_\tau}
58: \else{$H^\pm\ar \tau\nu_\tau$}\fi}
59: \newcommand{\Wtn}{\ifmmode{W^\pm\ar \tau\nu_\tau}
60: \else{$W^\pm\ar \tau\nu_\tau$}\fi}
61: %
62: \def\mssm{\ifmmode{{\cal {MSSM}}}\else{${\cal {MSSM}}$}\fi}
63: \def\bbtowh{\ifmmode{b\bar b\ar W^\pm H^\mp}\else{${b\bar b\ar W^\pm H^\mp}$}\fi}
64: \def\ggtowh{\ifmmode{gg\ar W^\pm H^\mp}\else{${gg\ar W^\pm H^\mp}$}\fi}
65: \def\wpmhmp{\ifmmode{W^\pm H^\mp}\else{${W^\pm H^\mp}$}\fi}
66: \def\MH{\ifmmode{{M_{H}}}\else{${M_{H}}$}\fi}
67: \def\Mh{\ifmmode{{M_{h}}}\else{${M_{h}}$}\fi}
68: \def\MA{\ifmmode{{M_{A}}}\else{${M_{A}}$}\fi}
69: \def\MHpm{\ifmmode{{M_{H^\pm}}}\else{${M_{H^\pm}}$}\fi}
70: \def\Hpm{\ifmmode{{{H^\pm}}}\else{${{H^\pm}}$}\fi}
71: \def\tb{\ifmmode{\tan\beta}\else{$\tan\beta$}\fi}
72: \def\ctb{\ifmmode{\cot\beta}\else{$\cot\beta$}\fi}
73: \def\ta{\ifmmode{\tan\alpha}\else{$\tan\alpha$}\fi}
74: \def\cta{\ifmmode{\cot\alpha}\else{$\cot\alpha$}\fi}
75: \def\tba{\ifmmode{\tan\beta=1.5}\else{$\tan\beta=1.5$}\fi}
76: \def\tbb{\ifmmode{\tan\beta=30}\else{$\tan\beta=30.$}\fi}
77: \def\cab{\ifmmode{c_{\alpha\beta}}\else{$c_{\alpha\beta}$}\fi}
78: \def\sab{\ifmmode{s_{\alpha\beta}}\else{$s_{\alpha\beta}$}\fi}
79: \def\cba{\ifmmode{c_{\beta\alpha}}\else{$c_{\beta\alpha}$}\fi}
80: \def\sba{\ifmmode{s_{\beta\alpha}}\else{$s_{\beta\alpha}$}\fi}
81: \def\ca{\ifmmode{c_{\alpha}}\else{$c_{\alpha}$}\fi}
82: \def\sa{\ifmmode{s_{\alpha}}\else{$s_{\alpha}$}\fi}
83: \def\cb{\ifmmode{c_{\beta}}\else{$c_{\beta}$}\fi}
84: \def\sb{\ifmmode{s_{\beta}}\else{$s_{\beta}$}\fi}
85: %
86:
87: \def\Ord{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}
88: \def\OOrd{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}
89: \def\pl #1 #2 #3 {{\it Phys.~Lett.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
90: \def\np #1 #2 #3 {{\it Nucl.~Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
91: \def\zp #1 #2 #3 {{\it Z.~Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
92: \def\pr #1 #2 #3 {{\it Phys.~Rev.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
93: \def\prep #1 #2 #3 {{\it Phys.~Rep.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
94: \def\prl #1 #2 #3 {{\it Phys.~Rev.~Lett.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
95: \def\mpl #1 #2 #3 {{\it Mod.~Phys.~Lett.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
96: \def\rmp #1 #2 #3 {{\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
97: \def\sjnp #1 #2 #3 {{\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
98: \def\cpc #1 #2 #3 {{\it Comp. Phys. Comm.} {\bf#1} (#2) #3}
99: \def\xx #1 #2 #3 {{\bf#1}, (#2) #3}
100: \def\preprint{{\it preprint}}
101:
102: \begin{flushright}
103: {RAL-TR-2000-005}\\
104: {March 2000\hspace*{.5 truecm}}\\
105: \end{flushright}
106:
107: \vspace*{\fill}
108:
109: \begin{center}
110: {\Large \bf
111: The $W^\pm h$ decay channel\\[0.25cm]
112: as a probe of charged Higgs boson production\\[0.45cm]
113: at the Large Hadron Collider}\\[1.5cm]
114: {\large Stefano
115: Moretti\footnote{Electronic mail: moretti@v2.rl.ac.uk}}\\[0.4 cm]
116: {\it Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,}\\
117: {\it Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, UK.}\\[0.75cm]
118: \end{center}
119: \vspace*{\fill}
120:
121: \begin{abstract}
122: {\noindent
123: We analyse the chances of detecting charged Higgs bosons of the
124: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) at the Large Hadron Collider
125: (LHC) in the $W^\pm h$ mode, followed by the dominant decay of
126: the lightest Higgs scalar, $h\to b\bar b$.
127: If the actual value of $M_h$ is
128: already known, this channel offers possibly the optimal final
129: state kinematics for charged Higgs discovery, thanks to the narrow
130: resonances appearing around the $W^\pm$ and $h$ masses.
131: Besides, within the MSSM, the
132: $H^\pm\to W^\pm h$ decay rate is significant for not too
133: large $\tan\beta$ values, thus offering the possibility of accessing
134: a region of MSSM parameter space left uncovered by other search channels.
135: %:
136: %not only when $M_{H^\pm}\approx m_t$ (where the decay rate is maximal), but
137: %also for larger Higgs masses, owning to a slow decrease of the $W^\pm h$
138: %branching ratio for increasing $M_{H^\pm}$.
139: We consider both strong (QCD)
140: and electroweak (EW) `irreducible' backgrounds
141: in the $3b$-tagged channel to the $gg\to t\bar
142: bH^-$ production process that had
143: not been taken into account in previous analyses.
144: After a series of kinematic cuts, the largest of these processes is $t\bar
145: bW^\pm h$ production in the
146: continuum. However, for optimum $\tan\beta$, i.e., between 2 and 3, the
147: charged Higgs boson signal overcomes this background and a narrow
148: discovery region survives around $M_{H^\pm}\approx200$ GeV.
149: }
150: \end{abstract}
151:
152: \vspace*{\fill}
153: \newpage
154:
155: \section*{1. Introduction}
156:
157: The discovery of charged Higgs bosons \cite{HHG} will
158: provide a concrete evidence of the multi-doublet structure of the Higgs
159: sector. Recent efforts have focused on their relevance to Supersymmetry (SUSY),
160: in particular in the MSSM, which incorporates
161: exactly two Higgs doublets, yielding -- after spontaneous EW
162: symmetry breaking -- five physical Higgs states:
163: the neutral pseudoscalar ($A$), the lightest ($h$)
164: and heaviest ($H$) neutral scalars and two charged ones ($H^\pm$).
165:
166: In much of the parameter space preferred by SUSY, namely
167: $M_{H^\pm}\ge {M_{W^\pm}}$ and $1<\tan\beta<m_t/m_b$
168: \cite{CMS,ATLAS}, the LHC
169: will provide the greatest opportunity for the
170: discovery of $H^\pm$ particles.
171: In fact, over the above $\tan\beta$ region, the Tevatron
172: (Run 2) discovery potential is limited to charged Higgs masses smaller than
173: $m_t$ \cite{FNAL}.
174:
175: However, at the LHC, whereas the detection of light charged Higgs
176: bosons (with $M_{H^\pm}<m_t$) is rather straightforward in the decay channel
177: $t\to bH^+$ for most $\tan\beta$ values,
178: thanks to the huge top-antitop production rate,
179: the search is notoriously difficult for
180: heavy masses (when $M_{H^\pm}>m_t$), because of the large reducible and
181: irreducible backgrounds associated with the main decay mode $H^-\to b\bar t$,
182: following the dominant production channel $bg\to t H^-$ \cite{bg}.
183: (Notice that the rate of the latter exceeds by far other possible
184: production modes \cite{bq}--\cite{ioekosuke}, this rendering it the
185: only viable channel at the CERN machine in the heavy mass region.)
186:
187: The analysis of the $H^-\to b\bar t$ signature
188: has been the subject of many debates
189: \cite{roger}--\cite{roy1}, whose conclusion is that the LHC discovery
190: potential is satisfactory,
191: but only provided that $\tan\beta$ is small ($\Ord1.5$) or large
192: ($\OOrd30$)
193: enough and the charged Higgs boson mass is below 600 GeV or so.
194:
195: A recent analysis \cite{kosuke} has shown that the $\tau\nu$ decay mode,
196: indeed dominant for light charged Higgs states and exploitable below
197: the top threshold for any accessible $\tan\beta$ \cite{ray},
198: can be used at the LHC
199: even in the large $M_{H^\pm}$ case, in order to discover $H^\pm$ scalars in the
200: parameter range $\tan\beta\OOrd3$ and 200 GeV $<M_{H^\pm}<1$ TeV. Besides,
201: if the distinctive $\tau$ polarisation \cite{Ben} is used
202: in this channel, the latter can provide at least as good a heavy
203: $H^\pm$ signature as the $H^-\to b\bar t$ decay mode (for the large
204: $\tan\beta$ regime \cite{newroy,work}).
205:
206: At present then, it is the $\tan\beta\Ord3$ region of the MSSM
207: which ought to be explored through other decay modes,
208: especially those where direct mass
209: reconstruction is possible. The most obvious of these is the
210: $H^\pm\to W^{\pm(*)} h$ channel \cite{BR1} (see also \cite{BR2}),
211: proceeding via the
212: production of a charged gauge boson and the lightest Higgs scalar
213: of the MSSM, with the former on- or off-shell depending on the
214: relative values of $M_{H^\pm}$ and $M_{h}$. In fact, its branching ratio
215: (BR) can be rather large,
216: competing with the bottom-top decay mode and overwhelming
217: the tau-neutrino one for $M_{H^\pm}\OOrd m_t$
218: at low $\tan\beta$: see Figs.~\ref{fig:BRs}--\ref{fig:BRh}.
219: Besides, under the assumption that the $h$ scalar has previously
220: been discovered (which we embrace here), its kinematics is
221: rather constrained, around two resonant decay modes, $W^\pm\to$ 2 jets
222: (or lepton-neutrino) and $h\to b\bar b$, an aspect which allows for
223: a significant reduction of the QCD background.
224: As demonstrated in Ref.~\cite{whroy}, signals of charged Higgs bosons
225: in the $2\Ord\tan\beta\Ord3$ range can be seen in this channel, provided
226: that 200 GeV $\Ord M_{H^\pm}\Ord220$ GeV
227: (see also \cite{whketevi} for an experimental
228: simulation). The above lower limit on $\tan\beta$ corresponds
229: to the border of the exclusion region drawn from LEP2 direct searches
230: for the MSSM $h$ scalar, whose mass bound is now set at $M_h\OOrd100$ GeV or so
231: \cite{mh}.
232:
233: It is the purpose of this letter
234: that of resuming the studies of Ref.~\cite{whroy},
235: by analysing the contribution to
236: the background due to several irreducible processes, not considered
237: there, whose presence could spoil the feasibility
238: of charged Higgs searches in the $W^{\pm(*)} h$ mode of the MSSM.
239:
240: The plan of this paper is as follows. In the next Section we
241: discuss possible signals and backgrounds, their implementation
242: and list the values adopted for the various parameters needed
243: for their computation.
244: Section 3 is devoted to the presentation and discussion of the results.
245: Conclusions are in Section 4.
246:
247: \section*{2. Signals and backgrounds}
248:
249: We generate the signal cross sections by using the formulae of
250: Ref.~\cite{roy}. That is, we implement the $2\to3$ matrix element (ME)
251: for the process
252: \begin{equation}\label{signalME}
253: gg\to t\bar b H^- +~{\mathrm{charge~conjugate~(c.c.)}}.
254: \end{equation}
255: This nicely embeds both the $gg\to t\bar t\to t\bar b H^- +~{\mathrm{c.c.}}$
256: subprocess of top-antitop production and decay, which is dominant
257: for $m_t\OOrd M_{H^\pm}$, as well as the $bg\to tH^-$ + c.c. one of
258: $b\bar t$-fusion and $H^\pm$-bremsstrahlung,
259: which is responsible for charged Higgs production
260: in the case $m_t\Ord M_{H^\pm}$ \cite{gg}.
261: The ME of process (\ref{signalME})
262: has been computed by means of the spinor
263: techniques of
264: Refs.~\cite{KS}--\cite{ioPRD}.
265:
266: In the $H^-\to W^{-(*)}h\to W^{-(*)} b\bar b$ channel, assuming high efficiency
267: and purity in selecting/rejecting $b$-/non-$b$-jets, possible
268: irreducible background
269: processes are the following (we consider only the $gg$-initiated channels):
270: \begin{enumerate}
271: \item the $t\bar b W^- h$ continuum;
272: \item $t\bar b W^- Z$ production, especially when $M_Z\approx M_{h}$;
273: \item the QCD induced case $t\bar b W^- g$;
274: \item and, finally, $t\bar b W^- H$ and $t\bar b W^- A$ intermediate states;
275: \end{enumerate}
276: in which $H,h,A,Z,g\to b\bar b$, plus their c.c. channels.
277: Once the top quark appearing in the above reactions decays, two
278: $W^\pm$ bosons are present in each event. We will eventually assume the
279: $W^+W^-$ pair to
280: decay semi-leptonically to light-quark jets, electrons/muons and
281: corresponding neutrinos. Furthermore, we will require to tag exactly
282: three $b$-jets in the final state (e.g., by using $\mu$-vertex or
283: high $p_T$ lepton techniques). The same `signature' was considered
284: in Ref.~\cite{whroy}, where only the `intrinsic'
285: $t\bar b H^-\to t\bar t b\bar b$ background and the QCD
286: noise due to `$t\bar t$ + jet' events
287: were studied (with jet signifying here either a $b$-,
288: light-quark or gluon jet, the latter two mistagged for the former).
289:
290:
291: Both signal and background MEs have been integrated numerically by means of
292: {\tt VEGAS} \cite{VEGAS} and, for test purposes, of {\tt RAMBO}
293: \cite{RAMBO} and Metropolis \cite{hamid} as well.
294: While proceeding to the phase space integration, one also has to fold in the
295: $(x,Q^2)$-dependent Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs)
296: for the two incoming gluons. These have
297: been evaluated at leading-order, by means of the package
298: MRS-LO(05A) \cite{MRS98LO}.
299: %The default
300: %$Q^2$ used for the latter was the centre-of-mass (CM)
301: %energy (squared) at parton level, i.e., $\hat s=x_1x_2s$,
302: %with $\sqrt s=14$ TeV
303: %as collider energy.
304: %The same choice of $Q^2$ has been adopted for
305: %the scale of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s$, evaluated again
306: %at lowest order,
307: %with a $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}^{N_f=4}$ chosen in accordance
308: %with that of the set of PDFs used.
309:
310: The numerical values of the SM parameters are ($\ell=e,\mu$):
311: $$m_\ell=m_{\nu_\ell}=m_u=m_d=m_s=m_c=0,
312: $$
313: $$\qquad m_b=4.25~{\mathrm{GeV}},
314: \qquad m_t=175~{\mathrm{GeV}},$$
315: $$M_Z=91.2~{\mathrm {GeV}},\quad\quad \Gamma_Z=2.5~{\mathrm {GeV}},$$
316: \begin{equation}\label{param}
317: M_{W^\pm}=80.2~{\mathrm {GeV}},\quad\quad \Gamma_W=2.2~{\mathrm {GeV}}.
318: \end{equation}
319: As for the top width $\Gamma_t$, we have used the LO value calculated
320: within the MSSM (i.e., $\Gamma_t=1.55$ GeV if $M_{H^\pm} \gg m_t$).
321:
322: Concerning the MSSM parameters, we proceed as follows. For a start,
323: we assume that the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs particle (but not
324: $\tan\beta$)
325: is already known, thanks to its discovery at either LEP2, Tevatron
326: (Run 2) or from early analyses at the LHC itself. Thus, for us,
327: $\Mh$ is a fixed parameter, assuming for reference the following discrete
328: values: e.g., 90, 100, 110, 120 and 130 GeV. Then we express
329: all other Higgs masses as a function of $M_{H^\pm}$ and $\tan\beta$.
330: For the pseudoscalar Higgs boson mass, the tree-level relation
331: $M_{H^\pm}^2=M_{W^\pm}^2+M_A^2$ is assumed. Radiative corrections then, of
332: arbitrary perturbative order, are in practice embedded in the $H$ mass and the
333: mixing angle $\alpha$.
334: In general, notice that, at the `Renormalisation
335: Group improved' one-loop level \cite{carena}, it is
336: only for very large values of the lightest stop mass and of the squark
337: mixing parameters that $M_h$ can escape the LEP2 bound in the low $\tan\beta$
338: region, on which we will focus most of our attention.
339: %In the same way, we also have
340: %computed the Higgs widths and BRs relevant to our analysis.
341:
342: Finally, notice that we develop our discussion at the parton level, without
343: considering fragmentation and
344: hadronisation effects. Thus, jets are identified with the
345: partons from which they originate and all cuts are applied directly to the
346: latter. In particular, when selecting $b$-jets, a vertex tagging is implied,
347: with a finite efficiency, $\epsilon_b$, per each tag.
348: Moreover, we assume no correlations among multiple tags, nor do we
349: include misidentification of light-quark (including $c$-quark-)jets
350: produced in $W^\pm$ decays as $b$-jets.
351:
352: \section*{3. Results and discussion}
353:
354: As a preliminary exercise, we study the total production and decay
355: cross sections before any cuts, as all our reactions
356: are finite over their entire phase spaces (recall that $m_b\ne0$). This
357: is done in Figs.~\ref{fig:cross90}--\ref{fig:cross100} for the
358: signal and the five background processes discussed in the
359: previous Section, for five values of $\tan\beta$, over the
360: range 140 GeV $\Ord \MHpm\Ord$ 500 GeV, for $M_h=90$ and 100 GeV,
361: in the channel $X\to b\bar b$,
362: %\begin{equation}\label{signature}
363: %W^\pm X\to \jj b\bar b,
364: %\end{equation}
365: where $X=h,Z,g,H$ or $A$. (Of course, the
366: $W^\pm Z$ and $W^\pm g$ backgrounds have no dependence on any
367: of the three parameters above\footnote{Note that the rates in
368: Figs.~\ref{fig:cross90}--\ref{fig:cross100}
369: account for the c.c. production modes as well.}.)
370: As for the decay rates of the top (anti)quark and the $W^\pm$ boson,
371: for sake of simplicity, we take them equal to $1$ for the time being.
372: The signal is always dominated by the QCD background and -- at large
373: $\tan\beta$ -- also by the EW ones. Notice the local maxima of the
374: signal rates at $M_{H^\pm}\approx M_{W^\pm}+M_h$, as induced by
375: the opening of the $H^-\to W^-h$ decay (compare to
376: Figs.~\ref{fig:BRs}--\ref{fig:BRh}), and the minima as well,
377: due to the onset of the $H^-\to b\bar t$ channel instead.
378:
379: In the reminder of our analysis, we assume semi-leptonic
380: decays of $W^+W^-$ pairs, as in Ref.~\cite{whroy}: i.e.,
381: $W^+W^-\to \jj~\ell^\pm\nu_\ell$
382: (hereafter, jet refers to a non-$b$-jet and $\ell=e,\mu$). However, as compared
383: to that analysis, we make one simplification.
384: Namely, we assume that {\sl one}
385: top (anti)quark and the $W^\pm$ boson generated in its decay have already been
386: reconstructed, e.g., by using the mass selection procedure
387: advocated in Ref.~\cite{whroy},
388: either leptonically or hadronically. This allows us to greatly reduce the
389: complexity of our numerical calculation while -- we believe --
390: substantially un-affecting the relative rates of signal and backgrounds
391: (in fact, all processes described produce the same final state and
392: all involve at least one top quark). Then we apply the following
393: cuts on the remaining particles (here, the label $\jet$ refers to the
394: decay products of the second $W^\pm$ boson present in the event,
395: which can be either light-quarks or leptons):
396: \begin{equation}\label{pT}
397: p_T(b,\jet,{\mathrm{missing}})>20~{\mathrm{GeV}}
398: \end{equation}
399: on the transverse momentum (including the missing one),
400: \begin{equation}\label{eta}
401: |\eta(b,\jet)|<2.5
402: \end{equation}
403: on the pseudorapidity, and
404: \begin{equation}\label{R}
405: \Delta R(bb,b\jet,\jet\jet)>0.4
406: \end{equation}
407: on the relative separation of $b$- and light-quark jets/leptons j, where
408: \begin{equation}\label{Rdef}
409: \Delta R({ij})=\sqrt{\Delta\eta({ij})^2+\Delta\phi({ij})^2},
410: \end{equation}
411: is defined in terms of relative differences in
412: pseudorapidity $\eta({ij})$ and azimuth $\phi({ij})$,
413: with $i\ne j=b$, j$/\ell$.
414: %
415: Furthermore, we impose (see also Ref.~\cite{whroy})
416: \begin{equation}\label{Mhcut}
417: |M_{bb}-M_h|<10~{\mathrm{GeV}}
418: \end{equation}
419: on exactly one pair of $b$-jets,
420: \begin{equation}\label{MWcut}
421: M_{\jet\jet}>50~{\mathrm{GeV}}
422: \end{equation}
423: on the light-jet (or lepton-neutrino) pair (recall that the $W^\pm$
424: can be off-shell),
425: and, finally,
426: \begin{equation}\label{Mtcut}
427: |M_{bbb\jet\jet}-M_t|<20~{\mathrm{GeV}}
428: \end{equation}
429: around the top mass if three $b$'s are present
430: in the event (in addition to the one already used to reconstruct
431: the top (anti)quark). In such a case,
432: one may assume that the charged Higgs boson has predominantly been
433: produced in the
434: decay of a top (anti)quark
435: (when $M_{H^\pm}\Ord m_t$). If instead only two appear, then one should
436: conclude that the Higgs has mainly been generated in a bremsstrahlung/fusion
437: process (because
438: $M_{H^\pm}\OOrd m_t$) with a $b$-(anti)quark lost along the beam pipe.
439: Our $2\to3$ production mechanism naturally
440: allows one to emulate both
441: dynamics in a gauge invariant fashion,
442: including all interference effects. As already mentioned, however,
443: we will assume
444: a triple $b$-tagging, this implying an overall efficiency factor
445: of $\epsilon_b^3$ multiplying our signal and background rates.
446: (Thus, the third $b$-jet in eq.~(\ref{Mtcut}) is actually
447: non-$b$-tagged: it can be interpreted as the jet system
448: satisfying neither eq.~(\ref{Mhcut}) nor eq.(\ref{MWcut}).)
449: We take $\epsilon_b=0.5$, like in \cite{whroy,whketevi} (and assume
450: 100\% lepton identification efficiency).
451:
452: Given the signal production rates before acceptance and selection cuts,
453: it is clear that -- for such an $\epsilon_b$ --
454: even at high collider luminosity (i.e., $\int
455: {\cal L}dt=100$ fb$^{-1}$ per annum), hopes of disentangling the charged
456: Higgs boson of the MSSM in the $W^{\pm(*)} h$ decay channel are only confined
457: to the very low $\tan\beta$ region. We will thus restrict ourselves to
458: study in the reminder of the paper $\tan\beta$ values which are, e.g.,
459: below seven.
460: The total signal rates after the cuts (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut})
461: have been applied can be found in Fig.~\ref{fig:final},
462: for the choices $\tan\beta=1,2,3$ and $7$, as a function of
463: $M_{H^\pm}$. For reference, we illustrate the `borderline' case $M_h=100$ GeV.
464: (Indeed, a lower $M_h$ value at $\tan\beta=2$ is in contradiction
465: with LEP2 data, whereas higher masses induce a far too large suppression
466: on BR($H^\pm\to W^{\pm*}h$): see Fig.~\ref{fig:BRh}.)
467: The trends in the figure are the consequence of two effects. On the
468: one hand, the production cross section of $gg\to t\bar b H^-$ + c.c.
469: is roughly proportional to
470: $(m_t^2\cot\beta^2+m_b^2\tan\beta^2)$, so that its maxima
471: occur at very low or very high $\tan\beta$. On the other hand, we have
472: seen how the largest $H^-\to W^{-(*)}h$ decay fraction
473: is attained for $\tan\beta\approx2$.
474: In the end, the largest values for $\sigma(gg\to t\bar b H^-)\times
475: {\mathrm{BR}}(H^-\to W^{-(*)}h)$ + c.c. are obtained for $\tan\beta=1$:
476: see Fig.~\ref{fig:final}. Unfortunately, such a
477: $\tan\beta$ value is already excluded
478: in the MSSM from LEP2 data \cite{whroy}. For the optimal remaining
479: choice, i.e., $\tan\beta=2$, the annual rate never exceeds 140
480: events (before any $b$-tagging efficiency but after
481: acceptance and selection cuts). The
482: maximum occurs at $M_{H^\pm}\approx200$ GeV, significantly above the real
483: threshold at $M_h+M_{W^{\pm}}\approx 180$ GeV.
484:
485: We now compare such a signal with the irreducible backgrounds 1.--4., for the
486: same choice of $\tan\beta$ and $M_h$ (where relevant).
487: This is done in the upper half of Fig.~\ref{fig:last},
488: at the level of total production rates. After the cuts
489: (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut}) are enforced, all background components
490: in 2.--4. are overwhelmed by the signal in the vicinity
491: of $M_{H^\pm}=200$ GeV, whereas the $W^\pm h$
492: continuum production is always larger than the
493: $H^\pm\to W^\pm h$ resonant channel. Thus, it is relevant to compare
494: the last two processes in the `reconstructed'
495: invariant mass $M_{W^\pm h}$, i.e., that obtained
496: from pairing the two $b$-jets fulfilling condition (\ref{Mhcut})
497: %with invariant mass $M_{b\bar b}$ closest to $M_h$
498: and the two
499: light-quark jets (or, alternatively, the lepton-neutrino pair)
500: satisfying eq. (\ref{MWcut}) and not already reconstructing $M_{W^\pm}$
501: on their own and $m_t$ in association with any of the $b$'s (see
502: Ref.~\cite{whroy}). The spectrum in this variable is presented
503: in the lower half of Fig.~\ref{fig:last}, for our ideal case
504: $M_{H^\pm}=200$ GeV (and, again, $\tan\beta=2$ and $M_h=100$ GeV).
505: For such MSSM parameter combination, the charged Higgs signal is
506: well above the continuum for values of $M_{W^\pm h}$ which are
507: $\pm20$ GeV from $M_{H^\pm}$.
508: (To vary $M_{H^\pm}$ and/or $\tan\beta$
509: basically corresponds to rescale the solid line in the last plot
510: by a constant factor, according to the rates in Fig.~\ref{fig:final}.)
511:
512: For reference,
513: Tab.~\ref{tab:cuts} presents the number of events of resonant and
514: continuum $W^\pm h$ production at the LHC, after 300 inverse
515: femtobarns of collected luminosity, for $\epsilon_b^3=0.125$, in the window
516: $|M_{H^\pm}-M_{W^\pm h}|<$ 40 GeV, for the three values
517: $M_{H^\pm}=180,200$ and 220 GeV. Although very small, a $H^-\to W^- h$
518: signal is generally observable above the $W^- h$ continuum for
519: $M_{H^\pm}$ around $200$ GeV. Our numbers are roughly consistent with
520: those in Ref.~\cite{whroy}, if one considers that we neglect
521: the finite efficiency of reconstructing one $W^\pm$ boson and the associated
522: top (anti)quark and since we have chosen somewhat different cuts.
523: Therefore, in the end, the dominant backgrounds remain (in the $3b$-tagged
524: channel) the $H^- b\bar t$ + c.c. decay and the QCD noise involving
525: misidentified gluons, i.e., those already identified in Ref.~\cite{whroy}.
526:
527:
528: \section*{4. Conclusions}
529:
530: In summary, in this paper, we have complemented a
531: previous analysis \cite{whroy} of the production
532: and decay of charged Higgs bosons of the MSSM at the LHC, in the channels
533: $gg\to t\bar b H^-$ and $H^-\to W^{-(*)}h$ (and charged conjugated modes),
534: respectively, by considering several irreducible backgrounds in the
535: $3b$-tagged channel,
536: i.e., $t\bar b H^-$ + c.c. $\to 3b~{\mathrm{2~jets}}~\ell$ + `missing energy'
537: (where the initial $b$-(anti)quark is usually
538: lost along the beam pipe), which had not yet been considered.
539:
540: We have found that, after standard acceptance cuts and a kinematic
541: selection along the lines of the one outlined in Ref.~\cite{whroy},
542: the dominant background among those considered here is the continuum production
543: $gg\to t\bar b W^{-(*)}h$ + c.c. However, the latter has been found to
544: lie significantly below the signal in the only region where this
545: is detectable: when $\tan\beta\approx2-3$ and
546: $M_{H^\pm}\approx 200$ GeV (with $M_h$ around 100 GeV, close to the
547: latest LEP2 constraints). Thus, the chances of detecting the
548: $H^-\to W^{-}h\to W^-b\bar b$ decay in such a (narrow)
549: region of the MSSM parameter space depend mainly on the
550: interplay between this mode, the competing one $H^-\to b\bar t\to
551: W^-b\bar b$ and the QCD background with mistagged gluons, as are the latter
552: two that clearly
553: overwhelm the former (recall the last figure in \cite{whroy}).
554:
555: We have carried out our analysis at parton level, without showering
556: and hadronisation effects but emulating typical detector smearing.
557: We are confident that its salient features should survive a more
558: sophisticated simulation,
559: such as the one presented in Ref.~\cite{whketevi}. Besides,
560: our results concerning the backgrounds can be transposed to the case
561: of non-minimal SUSY models (where
562: the $H^\pm$ discovery potential can extend to a much larger
563: portion of parameter space), such as those considered in
564: Ref.~\cite{whroy},
565: so that also in these scenarios the irreducible backgrounds analysed
566: here can be brought under control.
567:
568: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
569:
570: The author is grateful to the UK-PPARC for financial support. Furthermore,
571: he thanks D.P. Roy for his remarks, which induced him to eventually
572: considering the subject of this research. He also thanks
573: K.A. Assamagan for several useful discussions.
574: Finally,
575: many conversations with K. Odagiri are acknowledged, as well
576: as many numerical comparisons against and the use of some of his programs.
577:
578: \goodbreak
579:
580: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
581:
582:
583: \bibitem{HHG} J.F.~Gunion, H.E.~Haber, G.L.~Kane and S.~Dawson,
584: ``The Higgs Hunter Guide''
585: (Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1990).
586:
587: \bibitem{CMS} CMS Technical Proposal, CERN/LHC/94-43 LHCC/P1, December 1994.
588:
589: \bibitem{ATLAS} ATLAS Technical Proposal,
590: CERN/LHC/94-43 LHCC/P2, December 1994.
591:
592: \bibitem{FNAL}
593: CDF Collaboration, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 79} (1997) 357;
594: D0 Collaboration, \prl 82 1999 4975.
595:
596: \bibitem{bg} J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, F.E. Paige, W.-K. Tung and
597: S.S.D. Willenbrock, \np B294 1987 621.
598:
599: \bibitem{bq} S. Moretti and K. Odagiri, \pr D55 1997 5627.
600:
601: \bibitem{BBK} A.A. Barrientos Bendez\'u and B.A. Kniehl,
602: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 015009.
603:
604: \bibitem{ioekosuke} S. Moretti and K. Odagiri,
605: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59} (1999) 055008.
606:
607: \bibitem{roger} V. Barger, R.J.N. Phillips and D.P. Roy,
608: \pl B324 1994 236.
609:
610: \bibitem{gunion} J.F. Gunion and S. Geer, preprint UCD-93-32,
611: September 1993, {\tt hep-ph/9310333};
612: J.F. Gunion, \pl B322 1994 125.
613:
614: \bibitem{roy} D.J. Miller, S. Moretti, D.P. Roy and W.J. Stirling,
615: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D61} (2000) 055011.
616:
617: \bibitem{roy1} S. Moretti and D.P. Roy,
618: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B470} (1999) 209.
619:
620: %\bibitem{newkosuke} K. Odagiri, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B452} (1999) 327.
621:
622: \bibitem{kosuke} K. Odagiri, preprint RAL-TR-1999-012, February 1999,
623: {\tt hep-ph/9901432}.
624:
625: \bibitem{ray} S. Raychaudhuri and D.P. Roy,
626: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D53} (1996) 4902.
627:
628: \bibitem{Ben} B.K. Bullock, K. Hagiwara and A.D. Martin,
629: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 67} (1991) 3055; {\it Nucl. Phys.}
630: {\bf B395} (1993) 499.
631:
632: \bibitem{newroy} D.P. Roy {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B459} (1999) 607.
633:
634: \bibitem{work} K.A. Assamagan, ATLAS Internal Note ATL-PHYS-99-013 (1999);
635: K.A. Assamagan, A. Djouadi,
636: M. Drees, M. Guchait, R. Kinnunen,
637: J.L. Kneur, D.J. Miller, S. Moretti,
638: K. Odagiri and D.P. Roy,
639: contribution to the Workshop `Physics at TeV Colliders',
640: Les Houches, France, 8-18 June 1999,
641: {\tt hep-ph/0002258} (to appear in the proceedings).
642:
643: \bibitem{BR1} S. Moretti and W.J. Stirling, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf
644: B347} (1995)
645: 291; Erratum, {\it ibidem} {\bf B366} (1996) 451.
646:
647: \bibitem{BR2} E. Barradas, J.L. Diaz-Cruz, A. Gutierrez and A. Rosado,
648: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D53} (1996) 1678;
649: A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and P.M. Zerwas, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C70} (1996)
650: 435;
651: E. Ma, D.P. Roy and J. Wudka,
652: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 80} (1998) 1162.
653:
654: \bibitem{whroy} M. Drees, M. Guchait and D.P. Roy,
655: \pl B471 1999 39.
656:
657: \bibitem{whketevi} K.A. Assamagan, ATLAS Communication ATL-PHYS-99-025
658: (1999); K.A. Assamagan, A. Djouadi,
659: M. Drees, M. Guchait, R. Kinnunen,
660: J.L. Kneur, D.J. Miller, S. Moretti,
661: K. Odagiri and D.P. Roy, in Ref.~\cite{work}.
662:
663:
664: \bibitem{mh} See, e.g.:
665: LEP Higgs Working Group, http://www.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/.
666:
667: \bibitem{gg} J.L. Diaz-Cruz and O.A. Sampayo, {\it Phys. Rev.}
668: {\bf D50} (1994) 6820;
669: F. Borzumati, J.L. Kneur and N. Polonsky,
670: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60} (1999) 115011.
671:
672: \bibitem{KS} R.~Kleiss and W.J.~Stirling, \np {B262} {1985} {235}.
673:
674: \bibitem{berends} F.A. Berends, P.H. Daverveldt and R. Kleiss,
675: \np {B253} {1985} {441}.
676:
677: \bibitem{mana} C.~Mana and M.~Martinez,
678: \np {B287} {1987} {601}.
679:
680: \bibitem{ioPRD} S. Moretti, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D50} (1994) 2016.
681:
682: \bibitem{VEGAS} G.P.~Lepage, {\it Jour. Comp. Phys.} {\bf 27} (1978) 192.
683:
684: \bibitem{RAMBO} R. Kleiss, W.J. Stirling and S.D. Ellis,
685: {\it Comput. Phys. Commun.} {\bf 40} (1986) 359.
686:
687: \bibitem{hamid}
688: H. Kharraziha and S. Moretti, preprint
689: DESY 99-133, RAL-TR-1999-061, TSL/ISV-99-0216,
690: September 1999, {\tt hep-ph/9909313}.
691:
692: \bibitem{MRS98LO} A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne,
693: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B443} (1998) 301.
694:
695: \bibitem{carena}
696: H.E. Haber, R. Hempfling and A.H. Hoang, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf C75}
697: (1997) 539; M. Carena, J. Espinosa, M. Quiros and C. Wagner,
698: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B355} (1995) 209.
699:
700: \end{thebibliography}
701: %\vfill\newpage
702:
703: %\centerline{\bf Recall to multiply by 3 all decay rates !!!}
704: \vskip6.0cm
705:
706: %\begin{table}[h!]
707: %\begin{center}
708: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
709: %\hline
710: %\multicolumn{7}{|c|}
711: %{MSSM cross sections in femtobarns (including c.c. channels)}\\
712: %\hline
713: %\hline
714: %\multicolumn{7}{|c|}
715: %{$\tan\beta=2$}\\
716: %\hline
717: %$M_{H^\pm}$ (GeV) &
718: %$t\bar b H^-$ &
719: %$t\bar b W^-h$ &
720: %$t\bar b W^-Z$ &
721: %$t\bar b W^-g$ &
722: %$t\bar b W^-H$ &
723: %$t\bar b W^-A$ \\
724: %\hline
725: %%\hline
726: %%\multicolumn{7}{|c|}
727: %%{$M_h=90$ GeV}\\
728: %%\hline
729: %%%
730: %%$140$ &
731: %%$$ &
732: %%$$ &
733: %%$$ &
734: %%$$ &
735: %%$$ &
736: %%$$ \\
737: %%%
738: %%$160$ &
739: %%$$ &
740: %%$$ &
741: %%$$ &
742: %%$$ &
743: %%$$ &
744: %%%$$ \\
745: %%%
746: %%$180$ &
747: %%$$ &
748: %%$$ &
749: %%$$ &
750: %%$$ &
751: %%$$ &
752: %%$$ \\
753: %%%
754: %%$200$ &
755: %%$$ &
756: %%$$ &
757: %%$$ &
758: %%$$ &
759: %%$$ &
760: %%$$ \\
761: %%%
762: %%$300$ &
763: %%$$ &
764: %%$$ &
765: %%$$ &
766: %%$$ &
767: %%$$ &
768: %%$$ \\
769: %%%
770: %%%
771: %%$400$ &
772: %%$$ &
773: %%$$ &
774: %%$$ &
775: %%$$ &
776: %%$$ &
777: %%$$ \\
778: %%%
779: %%$500$ &
780: %%$$ &
781: %%$$ &
782: %%$$ &
783: %%$$ &
784: %%$$ &
785: %%$$ \\
786: %%%
787: %\hline
788: %\multicolumn{7}{|c|}
789: %{$M_h=100$ GeV}\\
790: %\hline
791: %%
792: %$140$ &
793: %$$ &
794: %$$ &
795: %$$ &
796: %$$ &
797: %$$ &
798: %$$ \\
799: %%
800: %$160$ &
801: %$$ &
802: %$$ &
803: %$$ &
804: %$$ &
805: %$$ &
806: %$$ \\
807: %%
808: %$180$ &
809: %$$ &
810: %$$ &
811: %$$ &
812: %$$ &
813: %$$ &
814: %$$ \\
815: %%
816: %$200$ &
817: %$$ &
818: %$$ &
819: %$$ &
820: %$$ &
821: %$$ &
822: %$$ \\
823: %%
824: %$300$ &
825: %$$ &
826: %$$ &
827: %$$ &
828: %$$ &
829: %$$ &
830: %$$ \\
831: %%
832: %$400$ &
833: %$$ &
834: %$$ &
835: %$$ &
836: %$$ &
837: %$$ &
838: %$$ \\
839: %%
840: %$500$ &
841: %$$ &
842: %$$ &
843: %$$ &
844: %$$ &
845: %$$ &
846: %$$ \\
847: %\hline\hline
848: %\multicolumn{7}{|c|}
849: %{MRS-LO(05A)} \\
850: %\hline\hline
851: %\multicolumn{7}{|c|}
852: %{$W^+W^- X\to \jj \ell^\pm\nu_\ell b\bar b$,
853: %$X=h,Z,g,H$ or $A$
854: %\qquad\qquad
855: %\qquad\qquad
856: %\qquad\qquad
857: %\qquad\qquad
858: %All cuts}
859: %\\ \hline
860: %\end{tabular}
861: %\end{center}
862: %\caption{Total cross sections for the charged Higgs
863: %signal (\ref{signalME}) after the implementation of the
864: %cuts (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut}) in the decay channel
865: %$W^+W^- h\to \jj \ell^\pm\nu_\ell b\bar b$,
866: %along with the yields of the irreducible backgrounds 1.--4.
867: %Results are given for $\tan\beta=2$, $M_h=100$ GeV and seven
868: %choices of $M_{H^\pm}$,
869: %as obtained by using the MRS-LO(05A) set of PDFs.
870: %%The renormalisation and factorisation scales
871: %%are set equal to the partonic CM energy.
872: %Errors are as given by {\tt VEGAS}.}
873: %\label{tab:cuts}
874: %\end{table}
875:
876:
877: \begin{table}[h!]
878: \begin{center}
879: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
880: \hline
881: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}
882: {Number of events after 300 fb$^{-1}$ (including c.c. channels)}\\
883: \hline
884: \hline
885: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}
886: {$\tan\beta=2$
887: \qquad\qquad
888: \qquad\qquad
889: \qquad\qquad
890: $M_h=100$ GeV}\\
891: \hline\hline
892: $M_{H^\pm}$ (GeV) &
893: $t\bar b H^-$ &
894: $t\bar b W^-h$ &
895: $S/\sqrt{B}$ \\
896: \hline
897: %
898: $180$ &
899: $34$ &
900: $6$ &
901: $13$ \\
902: %
903: $200$ &
904: $52$ &
905: $11$ &
906: $16$ \\
907: %
908: $220$ &
909: $27$ &
910: $17$ &
911: $7$ \\
912: \hline\hline
913: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}
914: {MRS-LO(05A)} \\
915: \hline\hline
916: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}
917: {$3b$-tag
918: \qquad\qquad
919: \qquad\qquad
920: \qquad\qquad
921: \qquad\qquad
922: All cuts}
923: \\ \hline
924: \end{tabular}
925: \end{center}
926: \caption{Number of signal ($S$, $t\bar b H^-$) and
927: dominant background ($B$, $t\bar b W^-h$) events,
928: along with the statistical significance $S/\sqrt B$,
929: after the implementation of the
930: cuts (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut}) in the decay channel
931: $W^+W^- h\to \jj~\ell^\pm\nu_\ell~b\bar b$. Rates
932: are given for $\tan\beta=2$, $M_h=100$ GeV, three
933: choices of $M_{H^\pm}$,
934: as obtained by using the MRS-LO(05A) set of PDFs, after
935: 300 fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity and for $\epsilon_b=0.5$.
936: }
937: \label{tab:cuts}
938: \end{table}
939:
940:
941: \clearpage\thispagestyle{empty}
942: \begin{figure}[p]
943: ~\epsfig{file=BRs.ps,height=16cm,angle=0}
944: \vspace*{0.25cm}
945: \caption{Dominant branching ratios of the charged Higgs
946: boson of the MSSM for selected values of $\tan\beta$ over the
947: mass range 140 GeV $\Ord M_{H^\pm}\Ord$ 500 GeV.
948: The mass of the lightest Higgs boson has been fixed at $M_h=90$ GeV.}
949: \label{fig:BRs}
950: \end{figure}
951:
952:
953: \clearpage\thispagestyle{empty}
954: \begin{figure}[p]
955: ~\epsfig{file=BRh.ps,height=16cm,angle=0}
956: \vspace*{0.25cm}
957: \caption{Branching ratios into $W^\pm h$ pairs of the charged Higgs
958: boson of the MSSM for selected values of $\tan\beta$ over the
959: mass range 140 GeV $\Ord M_{H^\pm}\Ord$ 500 GeV.
960: The mass of the lightest Higgs boson has been fixed at $M_h=90,100,110,120$
961: and 130 GeV.}
962: \label{fig:BRh}
963: \end{figure}
964:
965: \clearpage\thispagestyle{empty}
966: \begin{figure}[p]
967: ~\epsfig{file=cross90.ps,height=16cm,angle=0}
968: \vspace*{0.25cm}
969: \caption{Cross sections of signal and backgrounds
970: for selected values of $\tan\beta$ over the
971: mass range 140 GeV $\Ord M_{H^\pm}\Ord$ 500 GeV.
972: The mass of the lightest Higgs boson has been fixed at $M_h=90$ GeV.
973: Here, both the top quark and the $W^\pm$ boson are kept on-shell and
974: no decay rates and cuts are applied.}
975: \label{fig:cross90}
976: \end{figure}
977:
978: \clearpage\thispagestyle{empty}
979: \begin{figure}[p]
980: ~\epsfig{file=cross100.ps,height=16cm,angle=0}
981: \vspace*{0.25cm}
982: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:cross90} for $M_h=100$ GeV.}
983: \label{fig:cross100}
984: \end{figure}
985:
986: \clearpage\thispagestyle{empty}
987: \begin{figure}[p]
988: ~\epsfig{file=final.ps,height=15cm,angle=90}
989: \vspace*{0.25cm}
990: \caption{Cross sections of signal and backgrounds
991: for selected values of $\tan\beta$ over the
992: mass range 160 GeV $\Ord M_{H^\pm}\Ord$ 500 GeV,
993: after the cuts (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut}) and including decay rates.
994: The mass of the lightest Higgs boson has been fixed at $M_h=100$ GeV.}
995: \label{fig:final}
996: \end{figure}
997:
998: \clearpage\thispagestyle{empty}
999: \begin{figure}[t]
1000: \vskip0.5cm
1001: ~\hskip1.5cm{\epsfig{file=compare.ps,height=12cm,angle=90}}
1002: \vskip0.5cm
1003: ~\hskip1.5cm{\epsfig{file=Whmass.ps,height=12cm,angle=90}}
1004: \vspace*{0.25cm}
1005: \caption{(Top) Total cross sections of signal and backgrounds for
1006: $\tan\beta=2$ and $M_h=100$ GeV
1007: after the cuts (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut}) and including decay rates,
1008: as a function of the charged Higgs boson mass
1009: over the range 160 GeV $\Ord M_{H^\pm}\Ord$ 500 GeV. (Bottom)
1010: Differential cross sections in
1011: the reconstructed $W^\pm h$ invariant mass, for a $M_{H^\pm}=200$ GeV signal
1012: and for the dominant background
1013: after the cuts (\ref{pT})--(\ref{Mtcut}) and including decay rates.
1014: Gaussian smearing of all transverse momenta is included:
1015: with $(\sigma(p_T)/p_T)^2=(0.60/\sqrt{p_T})^2 + (0.04)^2$ for jets
1016: and $(\sigma(p_T)/p_T)^2=(0.12/\sqrt{p_T})^2 + (0.01)^2$ for leptons/missing
1017: particles.}
1018: \label{fig:last}
1019: \end{figure}
1020:
1021: \end{document}
1022:
1023: