1: \section{Analysis of ATLAS \LV-SUSY Discovery Potential}
2: % The Detector And ATLFAST
3: % Points of Analysis
4: % Trigger Selection
5: % Discriminating Variables
6: %
7: \label{sec:analysis}
8: There is at present no experimental evidence either for
9: or against supersymmetry in nature,
10: although some significant exclusion limits have been acheived at LEP.
11: This picture is expected to change drastically over
12: the next few decades, hopefully already within the next ten years.
13: It has been argued above that supersymmetry can only
14: solve the hierarchy problem if the sparticle masses are not
15: significantly larger than the \TeV\ scale. This range is within reach of
16: second generation hadron machines such as the LHC,
17: and so we expect to see direct production and decay of
18: supersymmetric particles relatively soon if supersymmetry exists.
19: On the other hand, the
20: \emph{non-observation} of supersymmetric processes will disfavour
21: low-energy supersymmetry almost to the point of exclusion, giving us a
22: powerful clue that we must look to some alternate mechanism for solving the
23: hierarchy problem. Whatever the case, it is not unreasonable
24: to suppose that the
25: resolution of the hierarchy problem will give \emph{some} observable effects at
26: the \TeV\ scale, and so we find ourselves almost guaranteed that interesting
27: experimental results will be obtained in the not too distant future.
28: This section deals with the possible
29: observable consequences of lepton number violating supersymmetry at the ATLAS
30: detector, one of four detectors being built for the LHC and scheduled to go
31: online in 2006.
32:
33: The organization of the section is as follows: In \ref{sec:points}, we define
34: the points in mSUGRA space and the scenarios for the $L$-violating couplings
35: we will be using in the analysis. Next, in \ref{sec:trigger} we propose
36: trigger menus dedicated to searches for \LV-SUSY at
37: mid-luminosity running of the LHC ($L=3\times10\ttn{33}\scm$). At this
38: luminosity, pile-up is expected, meaning that several events are recorded
39: simultaneously by the detector, degrading the energy resolution. Since there
40: are no tools presently available to parametrize this for mid-luminosity
41: running, we account for this effect in a very crude manner by simply scaling the
42: simulated event rates by a common factor.
43:
44: In \ref{sec:cuts} and \ref{sec:net}, the main part of the analysis is
45: presented, concentrating on what can be achieved with an amount of data corresponding to an integrated
46: luminosity of 30\fb$^{-1}$. It is divided into
47: two parts, one based on cuts and one based on neural networks. The purpose of
48: the first part is to choose cuts on several kinematical and inclusive
49: variables which isolate a fairly broad event sample enriched in
50: supersymmetric events with no emphasis on any particular scenario, except of
51: course that lepton number is assumed violated. The purpose of the second part
52: is to process this event sample with neural networks trained to recognize
53: particular scenarios. Due to the large luminosity at the LHC, it has
54: not been possible to generate an event sample of comparable magnitude to
55: 30\fb$^{-1}$ of data taking for the highest cross section backgrounds.
56: For $Z/W$ production and moderate $p_T$ QCD processes, each
57: generated event thus corresponds to hundreds of events expected in
58: data. For these event samples,
59: the large rejection factors reached will eventually cause only a very
60: few or zero events to remain after cuts. At this point, we estimate the event
61: numbers by 95\% confidence upper limits, fitting to the event distribution
62: below the cut or by using Poisson statistics on the number remaining after
63: the cut (see \cite{europhys,feldman98}).
64: Rejection factors for these events are in principle unknown but can
65: be pessimistically estimated using the rejection
66: factors for the high $p_T$ QCD sample
67: and the double gauge events.
68: Lastly, in \ref{sec:results} the results of the cut-based analysis
69: combined with the nerual network classification are presented.
70: \subsection{Points of Analysis\label{sec:points}}
71: \begin{table}[t]
72: \begin{center}
73: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
74: {\small
75: \begin{tabular}{crrrrr}\toprule
76: & \hspace*{1cm}$\mathbf{P_2}$ & \hspace*{1cm}$\mathbf{P_7}$ & \hspace*{1cm}$\mathbf{P_9}$ & \hspace*{1cm}$\mathbf{P_{12}}$ & \hspace*{1cm}$\mathbf{F_2}$ \\ \cmidrule{1-6}
77: \multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{GUT Parameters}}\\
78: $\tan\beta$ & 5 & 10 & 20 & 35 & 10 \\
79: $m_0$ & 170 & 335 & 100 &1000 & 2100 \\
80: $m_\frac12$ & 780 &1300 & 300 & 700 & 600 \\
81: sign$(\mu)$ & + & + & + & $-$ & + \\
82: $A_0$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
83: \cmidrule{1-6}\multicolumn{6}{c}{\textbf{Mass Spectrum}}\\
84: $h^0$ & 118 & 123 & 115 & 120 & 119 \\
85: $A^0, H^\pm, H^0$&110 &1663 & 416 & 944 &2125 \\\cmidrule{1-6}
86: $\neut_1$ & 325 & 554 & 118 & 293 & 239 \\
87: $\neut_2,\charg_1$&604&1025 & 217 & 543 & 331 \\
88: $\neut_3$ & 947 &1416 & 399 & 754 & 348 \\
89: $\neut_4,\charg_2$&960&1425 & 416 & 767 & 502 \\\cmidrule{1-6}
90: $\ti{g}$ &1706 &2752 & 707 &1592 &1442 \\\cmidrule{1-6}
91: $\ti{e}_R,\ti{\mu}_R$&336&584&156 &1031 &2108 \\
92: $\ti{\tau}_1$ & 334 & 574 & 126 & 916 &2090 \\
93: $\ti{e}_L,\ti{\mu}_L$&546&917&231 &1098 &2126 \\
94: $\ti{\tau}_2$ & 546 & 915 & 240 &1051 &2118 \\
95: $\ti{\nu}$ & 541 & 913 & 217 &1095 &2125 \\\cmidrule{1-6}
96: $\ti{q}_R$ &1453 &2333 & 612 &1612 &2328 \\
97: $\ti{b}_1$ &1403 &2262 & 566 &1412 &2010 \\
98: $\ti{t}_1$ &1189 &1948 & 471 &1241 &1592 \\
99: $\ti{q}_L$ &1514 &2425 & 633 &1663 &2343 \\
100: $\ti{b}_2$ &1445 &2312 & 615 &1482 &2310 \\
101: $\ti{t}_2$ &1443 &2286 & 648 &1451 &2018 \\
102: \bottomrule
103: \end{tabular}}
104: \caption[\small Selected points in the mSUGRA space]{Selected points of
105: analysis in the mSUGRA parameter space.\label{tab:sugrapoints}}
106: \end{center}
107: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
108: \begin{table}[tb]
109: \center\small \begin{tabular}{cccc}\toprule
110: & $a$ & $b$ & $n$
111: \\ \cmidrule{1-4} \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{LLE : Purely Leptonic Lepton Number
112: Violation}}
113: \\
114: $\begin{array}{c}
115: \lambda_{ijk} \\
116: \lambda'_{ijk}
117: \end{array}$ &
118: $\begin{array}{c}
119: 10^{-2} \\ 0
120: \end{array}$ &
121: $\begin{array}{c}
122: 10^{-4} \\ 0
123: \end{array}$ &
124: $\begin{array}{c}
125: \sqrt{\hat{m}_{e_i}\hat{m}_{e_j}\hat{m}_{e_k}} \\
126: 0
127: \end{array}$
128: \\ \cmidrule{1-4} \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{LQD : Minimally Leptonic Lepton Number
129: Violation}}
130: \\
131: $\begin{array}{c}
132: \lambda_{ijk} \\
133: \lambda'_{ijk}
134: \end{array}$ &
135: $\begin{array}{c}
136: 0 \\ 10^{-2}
137: \end{array}$ &
138: $\begin{array}{c}
139: 0 \\ 10^{-4}
140: \end{array}$ &
141: $\begin{array}{c}
142: 0 \\
143: \sqrt{\hat{m}_{e_i}\hat{m}_{q_j}\hat{m}_{d_k}}
144: \end{array}$
145: \\ \cmidrule{1-4} \multicolumn{4}{c}{\textbf{LLE + LQD : Mixed Lepton Number
146: Violation}}
147: \\
148: $\begin{array}{c}
149: \lambda_{ijk} \\
150: \lambda'_{ijk}
151: \end{array}$ &
152: $\begin{array}{c}
153: 10^{-2} \\ 10^{-2}
154: \end{array}$ &
155: $\begin{array}{c}
156: 10^{-4} \\ 10^{-4}
157: \end{array}$ &
158: $\begin{array}{c}
159: \sqrt{\hat{m}_{e_i}\hat{m}_{e_j}\hat{m}_{e_k}} \\
160: \sqrt{\hat{m}_{e_i}\hat{m}_{q_j}\hat{m}_{d_k}}
161: \end{array}$
162: \\ \bottomrule
163: \end{tabular}
164: \caption[\small Selected points in the $\lambda-\lambda'$ space]{Selected
165: points of analysis in the $\lambda-\lambda'$ parameter space. The
166: models with natural couplings (coloumn $n$)
167: will be referred to as ``nLLE'', ``nLQD'', and ``nLLE + nLQD''
168: in following sections. If the
169: couplings get significantly smaller than $10^{-4}$, the LSP lifetime can
170: become so large that it decays outside the detector, mimicking the $R$-conserving
171: scenarios. For example, for the mSUGRA point $F_2$,
172: setting all $\lambda$ couplings to
173: $10^{-6}$ and all $\lambda'$ couplings to zero
174: results in a decay length for the LSP of $\tau c = 40\mbox{m}$. In the
175: intermediate range, one may see the effects of neutralino decay
176: either as a secondary vertex or as a decay inside the fiducial
177: volume of the detector.
178: Naturally, such spectacular signatures
179: would greatly lessen the effort required to discover
180: SUSY, yet we abstain from studying such scenarios here so as not to be overly
181: optimistic in our results.
182: \label{tab:lambdapoints}}
183: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
184: For reasons of simplicity, we concentrate on a few points in the mSUGRA
185: parameter space. These points have not been chosen among the ones
186: initially suggested in the ATLAS Physics TDR. This is partly due to the
187: exclusion of all these points by LEP (essentially from bounds on the Higgs
188: mass), and partly since it is interesting to enable a direct comparison
189: between the capabilities of the LHC and other, future experiments such as
190: CLIC (Compact LInear Collider), a 3\TeV\
191: electron-positron collider currently under study at CERN. On
192: these grounds, the analysis is performed on a selection of points defined by
193: the CLIC physics study group. A general drawback to any selection of points
194: defined within the MSSM framework is of course that they are constructed to
195: make the lightest neutralino the LSP. In an $R$-Violating scenario, this
196: condition does not apply, and so one should bear in mind that the full
197: parameter space can never be analyzed using just MSSM points, though an
198: attempt at defining new points for $R$-Violating scenarios would go beyond
199: the scope of this work. The 5 mSUGRA points shown in table \ref{tab:sugrapoints}
200: have been selected among 14 points defined by the CLIC
201: physics study group on the basis that they represent the broadest possible
202: range within those points. Let it be emphasized that I am not aiming to do
203: precision physics in this work, but rather to estimate the sensitivity for
204: \LV-SUSY for various mass hierarchies. It is therefore not interesting
205: whether we are sensitive to one or another particle or which exact numerical
206: values the masses have. What is interesting is how sensitive we are for
207: light/medium/heavy masses for the lightest neutralino in particular and for
208: various possibilities for the other masses. In this light, there is a great
209: redundancy in the 14 CLIC points, and thus the 5 points given in table
210: \ref{tab:sugrapoints} have been chosen for their mutual differences.
211:
212: In addition, values for the $R$-Violating couplings
213: must be specified. The experimental upper bounds lie around $10^{-1}-10^{-2}$
214: for most couplings \cite{rvbounds},
215: depending on the masses of the squarks and sleptons, with
216: heavier masses allowing larger couplings. For the cases of purely leptonic (LLE),
217: mixed (LLE+LQD), and minimally leptonic (LQD) Lepton number violation,
218: three models are
219: investigated beyond the MSSM without modification.
220: Firstly, two points
221: with common values for all couplings, and secondly a model with
222: generation-hierarchical couplings defined by \cite{hinchliffe93}:
223: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{4pt}
224: \begin{equation}
225: \begin{array}{rcl}
226: |\lambda_{ijk}|^2 & = & \hat{m}_{e_i}\hat{m}_{e_j}\hat{m}_{e_k}\\
227: |\lambda'_{ijk}|^2 & = & \hat{m}_{e_i} \hat{m}_{q_j} \hat{m}_{d_k}\end{array}
228: \hspace*{1cm} ; \hspace*{0.7cm} \hat{m}\equiv \frac{m}{v} = \frac{m}{126\GeV}
229: \label{eq:natval}
230: \end{equation}
231: where
232: $m_{q_j}$ represents the mass of ``a quark of generation $j$''. Due to the
233: mass splittings of the quarks, this definition is inherently ambiguous. A way
234: to resolve the ambiguity suggested by \cite{hinchliffe_private} is to set $m_j$
235: equal to the arithmetic mean of $m_{u_j}$ and $m_{d_j}$ where $u$ and $d$ stand
236: for up-type and down-type respectively:
237: \begin{equation}
238: m_{q_j} = {\textstyle\frac12}(m_{u_j}+m_{d_j})
239: \end{equation}
240: This procedure is the one implemented in \pythia.
241: The resulting coupling scenarios are given in table
242: \ref{tab:lambdapoints}.
243:
244: An additional noteworthy remark is that while small
245: \RV\ couplings have little or no impact on the masses and couplings at the
246: electroweak scale, large
247: \RV\ couplings (as compared to the other couplings in the theory) can have
248: significant effects
249: through loops when evolving the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE's)
250: from the input scale to the \TeV\ scale. This is currently not included in
251: \pythia. The \RV\
252: couplings are simply switched on at the low scale and the interplay between
253: the \RV\ couplings and other physics is neglected.
254: Order-of-magnitude-wise, this assumption breaks down
255: for $\lambda^{(')}>10^{-2}$, and so some effort should be devoted to
256: including the full RGE's in simulations of \RV-SUSY. Also,
257: the CLIC points assume a vanisgin trilinear coupling at the GUT scale, i.e.\
258: $A_0=0$.
259: In connection with this work, a small study of the direct consequences of
260: that assumption upon the results presented here was performed (see
261: section \ref{sec:assumptions}) with
262: the conclusion that the
263: semi-inclusive branching ratios (e.g.\ $BR(\neut_1\to qq\nu)$) depend only very weakly on this parameter
264: ($\mathcal{O}(5\%)$), and so the main signatures (number of leptons, number
265: of jets, etc.) should be only mildly affected by changes to this parameter.
266:
267: \input{ANALYSIS/trigger}
268: \subsection{Discriminating Variables \label{sec:cuts}}
269: We now come to the cut-based analysis. The purpose here
270: is to define a set of discriminating variables, i.e.\ variables
271: capable of distinguishing in a statistical sense
272: between the SM and the various SUSY scenarios. Once defined, the idea is to use
273: these variables and our knowledge of their distributions in SM and non-SM
274: scenarios to isolate a sample of events with maximal possible enrichment of SUSY
275: events and minimally contaminated by SM events. At this point, we do not seek
276: to distinguish between or aim the analysis towards any particular SUSY
277: scenarios, except that we assume the LSP to decay through violation of lepton
278: number.
279:
280: In the following pages, a number of kinematical and inclusive variables are
281: presented. The distributions of each variable in the SM and in
282: the mSUGRA models determine at which values of the variables
283: cuts should be placed. In a conventional analysis of
284: this type, one would seek to maximize the statistical significance with which
285: a signal can be extracted by adapting the analysis to
286: maximize quantities like $S/B$, $S/(S+B)$, or $S/\sqrt{S+B}$, where $S$ and
287: $B$ are the number of signal events and the number of background events,
288: respectively, remaining after the analysis. Obviously, this requires
289: knowledge about the shapes of both signal and background distributions
290: in each of the discriminating variables. In the present case, we wish to
291: study \emph{a class} of models rather than individual models, and so no
292: unique shape can be assigned to the signal we are looking for,
293: other than general qualities such as, for example,
294: an excess of leptons in the purely leptonic \LV-SUSY scenarios. We are
295: therefore not in a position to optimize the analysis with respect to exactly
296: quantifiable estimators. Of course, an analysis could be performed and
297: optimized point by point, yet such a strategy would have to be
298: carried out on a more general set of mSUGRA points, so as not to
299: over-tune the analysis to exactly the points considered, risking
300: to loose sensitivity to points not studied. Moreover,
301: more is perhaps learned by generalizing and looking for common discriminators
302: than spending a large effort studying closely hundreds of scenarios which
303: may have nothing to do with what the experiment finds.
304: This is the real motivation why the last part of the analysis is done using
305: neural networks. They serve to approximate dedicated search strategies for
306: specific scenarios.
307:
308: Let us begin by considering
309: which backgrounds are most important. Firstly, QCD $2\to2$ processes and $Z/W$
310: production have the highest cross sections. As before, we mean by $Z/W$ the
311: sum of $Z$ and $W$ production.
312: Secondly, one must expect that the more mass there is in an SM event, the
313: more dangerous it is when trying to look for heavy physics.
314: $t \bar{t}$ production, $ZZ/ZW/WW$ production, and Higgs
315: production are examples of heavy SM backgrounds. Again,
316: by $ZZ/ZW/WW$ production is
317: meant the sum of $ZZ$, $ZW$, and $WW$ production.
318: The Higgs is not expected to be extremely
319: dangerous, since its mass will presumably be known before LHC SUSY searches
320: begin, and since the cross sections are low (e.g.\
321: $\sigma(Z/W+h^0)=2.5\ttn{-9}\mb$ for $m_H=115\GeV$). With respect to the
322: large lepton and jet multiplicity as well as large \ET,
323: one could well ask how significant triple
324: gauge production could be as background. Unfortunately, these production
325: cross sections are not yet implemented in \pythia, and so we are forced to
326: give a rough estimate based on the $\alpha_{EW}^2$ suppression, i.e.\ a
327: factor $10^{-4}$ relative to $ZZ/ZW/WW$ production. This brings the cross
328: section down to about $10^{-11}$mb. Special cuts designed to catch pairs of
329: jets or leptons with $Z$ or $W$ invariant masses and requiring that the
330: $p_T$ of a jet or a lepton be larger than $\approx$50 \GeV\ (see below)
331: would most likely bring this contamination down by at least a factor ten
332: more. Furthermore, we shall see that even the double gauge events give a
333: neglegible contribution to the background at the end of the analysis,
334: %\begin{table}[b!]
335: %\vspace*{4mm}
336: %\begin{center}
337: %{\LARGE \textsf{CROSS SECTIONS}}\vspace*{1mm}\\
338: %\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}\hline\
339: %SM & QCD $2\to 2$ & $t\bar{t}$ & single gauge & double gauge\\
340: %$\sigma$ [mb]& $1.7\times\tn{-3}$& $6.2\times\tn{-7}$ & $1.2\times\tn{-3}$ &
341: %$1.2\times\tn{-7}$\\
342: %N(30fb$^{-1}$) & $5.1\times\tn{10}$ & $1.9\times\tn{7}$ & $3.6\times\tn{10}$
343: %& $3.6\times\tn{6}$
344: %\\\hline
345: %\end{tabular}\vspace*{1mm}
346: %\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\
347: %SUSY & $P_2$ & $P_7$ & $P_9$ & $P_{12}$ & $F_2$\\
348: %$\sigma$ [mb] & $1.3\times\tn{-10}$ & $3.8\times\tn{-12}$ &
349: %$2.4\times\tn{-8}$ & $1.1\times\tn{-10}$ & $1.1\times\tn{-10}$\\\hline
350: %N(30fb$^{-1}$) & 3900 & 114 & 720000 & 3300 & 3300 \\\hline
351: %\end{tabular}
352: %\caption[\small Cross sections for background and SUSY processes]{Cross
353: %sections for background and SUSY processes as given by \pythia\ for the
354: %LHC. Since the QCD $2\to 2$ cross section diverges for small $p_T$, only
355: %events with $p_T > 100\GeV$ are included in this number. Event numbers are
356: %sums over \emph{all} SUSY processes
357: %given for 30fb$^{-1}$ (3 years of low-luminosity running).
358: %\label{tab:crosssec}}
359: %\end{center}
360: %\vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
361: and so I conclude it safe to disregard this background when the SUSY cross
362: section is larger than $10^{-12}\mb$. For lower cross sections than
363: this, it would be advisable to conduct a dedicated study of how the triple
364: gauge background can be dealt with, but in such regions, the total number of
365: SUSY processes recorded by the ATLAS detector will also be so small that the
366: LHC is at the limit of its capabilities (see point 7 in the table below), and
367: so for such studies to be meaningful, full detector simulation as well as
368: much more dedicated (i.e.\ specialized) search strategies are necessary.
369: {\setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
370: \begin{table}[thb!]
371: \begin{center}
372: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrr}\toprule
373: \bf SM Process &\boldmath$\sigma$ \bf[mb]&\boldmath $N_{\mathrm{gen}}$&\boldmath
374: $N_{\mathrm{trig}}$ &
375: \boldmath$N(30\fb^{-1})$&\boldmath$N_{\mathrm{trig}}(30\fb^{-1})$
376: \\\cmidrule{1-6}
377: QCD $2\to 2$\\
378: \begin{tabular}{l}\scriptsize
379: $p_T<100\GeV$\end{tabular}
380: & 70 & --- & --- & 2\ttn{15} & $<\tn{5}$\\
381: \begin{tabular}{l}\scriptsize
382: $p_T=100-150\GeV$\end{tabular} &
383: 1.42\ttn{-3} & 1.0\ttn{8} & 320 & 4.26\ttn{10} & $(1.4\pm0.1)$\ttn{5}\\
384: \begin{tabular}{l}\scriptsize
385: $p_T>150\GeV$\end{tabular} &
386: 2.88\ttn{-4} & 3.1\ttn{7} & 5.6\ttn{3} & 8.64\ttn{9} & 1.7\ttn{6}\\
387: $Z/W$ &
388: 1.19\ttn{-3} & 1.8\ttn{8} & 4.1\ttn{4} & 3.57\ttn{10} & 8.1\ttn{6}\\
389: $t\bar{t}$ &
390: 6.08\ttn{-7} & 5.9\ttn{6} & 8.1\ttn{5} & 1.82\ttn{7} & 2.6\ttn{6} \\
391: $ZZ/ZW/WW$ &
392: 1.16\ttn{-7} & 5.9\ttn{6} & 1.5\ttn{5} & 3.48\ttn{6} & 8.9\ttn{4}
393: \\
394: \bottomrule
395: \end{tabular}
396: \caption[\small Numbers of generated SM events for the analysis]{Cross sections
397: and event numbers for SM processes. $N_{\mathrm{gen}}$ is the total number of
398: generated events, and $N_{\mathrm{trig}}$ is the number passing trigger
399: thresholds. The fourth column simply contains the cross section multiplied by
400: $30\fb^{-1}$ and the last is the number of generated events passing trigger
401: thresholds scaled to 30$\fb^{-1}$ of data taking:
402: $N_{\mathrm{trig}}(30\fb^{-1}) = N_{\mathrm{trig}}\times
403: N(30\fb^{-1})/N_{\mathrm{gen}}$. For the lowest $p_T$ QCD sample, none of the
404: generated events passed triggers. The estimate of less than $\tn{5}$ events is
405: discussed in the text.
406: For the intermediate $p_T$ QCD sample, the number of generated events passing
407: triggers was so low that the associated statistical
408: uncertainty is shown with the scaled number. No correction for
409: pile-up is included in these numbers.
410: \label{tab:ananum_sm}}
411: \end{center}
412: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}}
413: \begin{table}[h!]
414: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{-0.0pt}
415: \begin{center}{
416: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrr}\toprule
417: \bf mSUGRA Point&\boldmath$\sigma$ \bf[mb]&\boldmath $N_{\mathrm{gen}}$&\boldmath
418: $N_{\mathrm{trig}}$ &
419: \boldmath$N(30\fb^{-1})$&\boldmath$N_{\mathrm{trig}}(30\fb^{-1})$\\\cmidrule{1-6}
420: $P_2$ &
421: 1.3\ttn{-10} & & & 3900 &\\
422: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize MSSM
423: & & \tn{5} & 8.9\ttn{4} & & 3500\\
424: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LLE
425: & & \tn{5} & 9.9\ttn{4} & & 3900\\
426: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLLE
427: & & \tn{5} & 9.8\ttn{4} & & 3800\\
428: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LQD
429: & & \tn{5} & 9.4\ttn{4} & & 3700\\
430: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLQD
431: & & \tn{5} & 9.4\ttn{4} & & 3700\\
432: $P_7$ & 3.9\ttn{-12} & & & 114 \\
433: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize MSSM
434: & & \tn{5} & 8.2\ttn{4} & & 94 \\
435: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LLE
436: & & \tn{5} & 9.9\ttn{4} & & 113\\
437: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLLE
438: & & \tn{5} & 9.9\ttn{4} & & 113\\
439: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LQD
440: & & \tn{5} & 9.8\ttn{4} & & 111\\
441: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLQD
442: & & \tn{5} & 9.7\ttn{4} & & 111\\
443: $P_9$ & 2.4\ttn{-8} & & & 720000 \\
444: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize MSSM
445: & & 8.2\ttn{5} & 6.7\ttn{5} & & 590000\\
446: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LLE
447: & & 8.4\ttn{5} & 8.0\ttn{5} & & 690000\\
448: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLLE
449: & & 8.2\ttn{5} & 7.3\ttn{5} & & 640000\\
450: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LQD
451: & & 8.4\ttn{5} & 5.9\ttn{5} & & 510000\\
452: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLQD
453: & & 8.4\ttn{5} & 5.7\ttn{5} & & 490000\\
454: $P_{12}$ & 1.1\ttn{-10} & & & 3300\\
455: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize MSSM
456: & & \tn{5} & 8.8\ttn{4} & & 2900\\
457: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LLE
458: & & \tn{5} & 9.9\ttn{4} & & 3300\\
459: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLLE
460: & & \tn{5} & 9.7\ttn{4} & & 3200\\
461: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LQD
462: & & \tn{5} & 8.8\ttn{4} & & 2900\\
463: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLQD
464: & & \tn{5} & 8.6\ttn{4} & & 2800\\
465: $F_2$ & 1.1\ttn{-10} & & & 3300\\
466: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize MSSM
467: & & \tn{5} & 6.1\ttn{4} & & 2000\\
468: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LLE
469: & & \tn{5} & 9.7\ttn{4} & & 3200\\
470: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLLE
471: & & \tn{5} & 8.8\ttn{4} & & 2900\\
472: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize LQD
473: & & \tn{5} & 7.1\ttn{4} & & 2300\\
474: \hspace*{2mm}\scriptsize nLQD
475: & & \tn{5} & 6.0\ttn{4} & & 2000\\
476: \bottomrule
477: \end{tabular}}
478: \caption[\small Numbers of generated SUSY events for the analysis]{Cross sections
479: and event numbers for mSUGRA. Since single sparticle production is not
480: included, the choice of a scenario with or without \LV\
481: does not affect the production cross sections.
482: The LLE/LQD models
483: correspond to the models in column $a$ of table \ref{tab:lambdapoints} and
484: the nLLE/nLQD to column $c$. The models in column $b$ are
485: generally so similar to the ones in column $a$ that they have been left out
486: of this table. The same goes for the LLE+LQD models which simply interpolate
487: between the LLE and LQD scenarios. No correction for
488: pile-up is included in these numbers.
489: \label{tab:ananum_susy}}
490: \end{center}
491: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
492:
493: The numbers of events used in the
494: analysis are shown in tables \ref{tab:ananum_sm} and \ref{tab:ananum_susy}
495: together with cross sections,
496: the number of generated events passing trigger thresholds, and the number of
497: events expected after an integrated luminosity of 30\fb$^{-1}$ has been
498: collected. As can be seen, the number of events expected for $P_7$ is only
499: around 100. This is most likely too low for ATLAS to see anything, yet the
500: mass hierarchy in the model is interesting, and so we include it in the
501: analysis to give an exampel of the performance of this type of model under the
502: tested cuts.
503:
504: QCD processes with the $p_T$ of the hard interaction in its rest frame below
505: 100\GeV\ were not possible to include in the analysis, since none of the
506: events generated for the trigger studies passed the selected
507: trigger thresholds. Though the statistical uncertainty on 0 events
508: clearly does not make sense to define,
509: a conservative estimate on the maximal number of events passing triggers
510: can be obtained by noting that a Poisson distribution with mean $\mu=2.99$
511: has less than 5\% probability of resulting in 0 events, and so
512: we estimate the event numbers by scaling 3 events out of
513: each of the generated $p_T<100\GeV$
514: samples to $30\fb^{-1}$ of data taking.
515: This brings us to conclude that at most 1.9\ttn{7} events in the region
516: $1\GeV<p_T<10\GeV$, 5.0\ttn{6} events in the region $10\GeV<p_T<75\GeV$,
517: and at most 4.9\ttn{4} events in the region $75\GeV<p_T<100\GeV$ could pass
518: trigger thresholds with a 5\% chance that we would not have seen them in
519: the trigger analysis. Though these numbers are statistically sound, the
520: estimates for the two lowest $p_T$ samples are likely to be gross
521: overestimates. That particles
522: from the first class of events should be able to gain enough $p_T$ through
523: parton showering, hadronization, and detector resolution alone
524: to pass any of the triggers here used borders on the impossible.
525: With respect to events from the second class ($10-75\GeV$), we note
526: that the \ET\ triggers used \emph{begin}
527: at 75\GeV\ with the further requirement of hard, isolated leptons and that
528: the jet triggers require either 3
529: jets of each 50\GeV\ $p_T$ or 1 jet with $p_T=100\GeV$,
530: and so it is also here excessively unlikely to see events passing into the
531: active trigger range. Towards the high end of the $p_T$ region,
532: though, and for the third class of events, there are clearly some events in
533: the far extremes of the distributions
534: which will pass trigger thresholds. Estimating the upper bound on this
535: number to be ten times that estimated for the third class of events alone
536: seems the best guess possible at the moment, and so we arrive at an estimated
537: maximum of \tn{6} $p_T<100\GeV$ QCD events which
538: are not included in the analysis. Assuming, pessimistically, that these
539: events will have the same rejection factors under the cuts applied below as
540: the $p_T=100-150\GeV$ QCD sample, we will see that an additional
541: \tn{6} low-$p_T$ QCD events will not significantly
542: affect the conclusions of the analysis.
543:
544: No attempt at including the effects of pile-up has been
545: implemented in the analysis. Generally speaking,
546: pile-up results in smearing of the measured calorimeter
547: energies. Acknowledging that this would shift more events into the active
548: trigger range than out of it, we made a guess at an overall factor of 5/3 for
549: the trigger study, i.e.\ the rates obtained for $L=3\ttn{33}\scm$ without
550: smearing were multiplied by this number to obtain a more realistic
551: estimate. This was done noting that:
552: \begin{equation}
553: R(thres) \propto \int_{thres}^{\infty}\!\!\difd p_T\!\ \phi_{smeared}(p_T) = C(thres)
554: \int_{thres}^{\infty}\!\!\difd p_T\!\ \phi(p_T)
555: \end{equation}
556: i.e.\ the rate passing a certain threshold is proportional to
557: the integral from that
558: threshold to infinity of the smeared distribution of events,
559: which can be written as a
560: (threshold-dependent) constant times the integral of the unsmeared
561: distribution, or in simpler words: a number can always be written as a
562: constant times another number.
563: In the last section, we assumed $C(thres)=5/3$. In the
564: analysis, however, we are looking at the distributions themselves rather than
565: their integrals. Simply pre-weighting each background event by 5/3 rather
566: than 1, independent of $p_T$, does not give a reliable estimate, since most
567: of the events smeared into the trigger range will lie just above the $p_T$
568: thresholds. Also, smearing will cause some signal events to look like they
569: have lower $p_T$ and some to look like they have higher $p_T$. The net effect
570: of smearing on the signal ditributions is currently not clear. Therefore,
571: rather than attempting some best-guess strategy which would in any case end up
572: rather poor, we do not attempt to include smearing at all in the present
573: analysis. This will cause the number of background events to be
574: underestimated, most notably at low $p_T$. This is not deemed a serious
575: effect since the rejection factors from
576: the cuts placed are close to 100\% for low $p_T$ events. The cause for worry
577: lies at higher $p_T$ where smearing will cause
578: background and signal events to look more alike, making the purities of the
579: signals extracted in the analysis too optimistic. As we shall see, however,
580: we will not be close to the $5\sigma$ discovery border in any of the scenarios,
581: meaning that the effects of pile-up will not significantly alter the
582: conclusions reached.
583:
584: One further note: Due to limited space, it is of course impossible to show
585: detailed plots and
586: results for every variant of the $\lambda$ couplings for every point in
587: mSUGRA space here, but it helps to notice that we are trying to discriminate
588: between particles maximally as heavy as the top and particles which are
589: typically heavier. The greatest degree of confusion therefore must arise when
590: the sparticles are relatively light, and so we show detailed results
591: only for $P_9$ in the
592: following subsections. Since the $P_9$ production cross
593: section is relatively higher than the cross sections for the other points,
594: this means that the absolute number of events passing cuts is
595: something of a maximum, yet keep in mind that $P_9$ is typically
596: the point where any cut takes away the largest fraction of SUSY events. In
597: order to still
598: give an impression of the spread between the various other SUSY scenarios,
599: less detailed plots are shown with the full range of models included.
600:
601: \subsubsection{Missing Transverse Energy}
602: In $R$-conserving scenarios, LSP's escaping detection give rise to a powerful
603: signature in \ET. Even when $R$ is violated, escaping neutrinos can give an
604: enhancement relative to the SM processes. The total background
605: distribution after 30\fb$^{-1}$ and its composition
606: is illustrated for $\ET<400$ in figure
607: \ref{fig:ET}a. Note that the double gauge events are so few in number that
608: they are not even visible in the plot. This is a feature which carries
609: through to the end of the analysis.
610: The mSUGRA $P_9$ \ET-distributions for MSSM,
611: LLE, and LQD scenarios are shown in \ref{fig:ET}b.
612: As can clearly be seen, the background with the highest cross sections,
613: single gauge production, has an \ET\ distribution which
614: is sharply peaked at 0 while the $t\bar{t}$ and high $p_T$ QCD proceses
615: have more broad distributions. The sharp rises at $\ET=75\GeV$ and $\ET=175$
616: are due to the me75 and me175 triggers becoming active.
617:
618: In figure \ref{fig:ET}c, the full range
619: of supersymmetric models investigated are plotted for LLE, LQD, and the MSSM,
620: respectively. As mentioned above,
621: these plots are not intended to give detailed information, only
622: to illustrate the spread between the various scenarios. Smoothed curves
623: have been used rather than histograms since it would
624: otherwise be impossible to disentangle the various models.
625: In the LLE and LQD scenarios,
626: three curves are drawn for each mSUGRA scenario corresponding to the three
627: different \LV\ coupling strength scenarios. Due to the very different
628: cross sections of the mSUGRA points, the plots have been normalized to equal
629: areas so that it is the fractions of events per 10\GeV\ which are
630: plotted. In the LLE scenarios, the sharp rises at 75 and 175 GeV just
631: mentioned are absent, since these scenarios do not rely as heavily on the
632: \ET\ triggers as the two others.
633:
634: Cuts on $\ET>50\GeV$, $\ET>100\GeV$, $\ET>150$, and $\ET>200\GeV$ were
635: investigated with results shown in table \ref{tab:ET}. The models are: MSSM, LLE
636: (all $\lambda$ couplings at \tn{-2}), LQD (all $\lambda'$ couplings at
637: \tn{-2}), nLLE (natural $\lambda$ couplings, defined by
638: eq.~(\ref{eq:natval})), and nLQD (natural $\lambda'$ couplings). Note that
639: the number of trigged SM events given in table \ref{tab:ET},
640: 13 million, is not equal to
641: $10^7\mbox{s}\times 2.1\mbox{Hz}$ since we are not including the factor of
642: 5/3 from pile-up here. Note also that the estimated number of SM events
643: \emph{do not} include $p_T<100\GeV$ events.
644: As an explicatory note to what one sees in this table,
645: it is not surprising that the MSSM does best
646: under these cuts since escaping neutralinos give extra \ET.
647: \begin{figure}[t!]
648: \begin{center}
649: \begin{tabular}{cc}
650: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/sm_et1.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
651: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/susy_et.eps}\vspace*{-0.5cm}\\
652: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
653: \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{PLOTS/susy_et_all.eps}\vspace*{-.7cm}\\
654: c)\vspace*{-4mm}
655: \end{center}
656: \caption[\small Missing $E_T$ for SM and SUSY processes.]{a) and b): \ET\ signatures for
657: SM and SUSY processes normalized to
658: 30fb$^{-1}$ of data taking. ``QCD LOW $p_T$'' means events from the
659: $100\GeV<p_T<150\GeV$ sample and ``QCD HIGH $p_T$'' events from the
660: $p_T>150\GeV$ sample.
661: Note the large difference in vertical scale
662: between the two SM plots.
663: c): Event
664: distributions normalized to unit area for LLE, LQD, and the MSSM for all
665: mSUGRA and \LV\ coupling points studied (commented further in the text).
666: \label{fig:ET}}
667: \end{figure}
668: What really is
669: noteworthy is that the $R$-Violating models, in spite of neutralino decays,
670: do so well. With regard to what happens in the other mSUGRA models,
671: only $F_2$ has lower efficiencies. $F_2$ is a special
672: case in the sense that it represents a class of models where
673: one really has only a very few species of particle with
674: low mass available, the rest having very high masses so that the \ET\ spectrum
675: becomes peaked at low values despite the large GUT parameters.
676: \begin{table}[tb!]
677: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
678: \begin{center}
679: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON \ET.\vspace*{2mm}}\\
680: {\footnotesize
681: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
682: & SM & $P_9$ MSSM & $P_9$ LLE & $P_9$ nLLE & $P_9$ LQD & $P_9$ nLQD\\
683: \cmidrule{1-7}
684: $N_{trig}(30\fb^{-1})$&$(13\pm0.1)$ M&590 k&685 k&640 k&500 k&490 k\\\cmidrule{1-7}
685: $\ET>50\GeV$ & $(7.3\pm0.1)$ M &580 k&450 k&620 k&600 k&465 k\\ \boldmath
686: $\ET>100\GeV$ & $(3.4\pm0.1)$ M &560 k&350 k&480 k&510 k&380 k\\
687: $\ET>150\GeV$ & $(1.9\pm0.05)$ M&520 k&240 k&340 k&390 k&270 k\\
688: $\ET>200\GeV$ & $(910\pm30)$ k &450 k&280 k&220 k&280 k&175 k\\
689: \cmidrule{1-7} $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
690: & 0.26 & 0.95 & 0.70 & 0.70 & 0.80 & 0.79 \\
691: \cmidrule{1-7}
692: \end{tabular}}\\ % ***FIXED***
693: \end{center}
694: \vspace*{-5mm}
695: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on $\ET$.]{Event numbers
696: passing cuts on
697: $\ET$ for several cut values with associated statistical errors,
698: normalized to 30$\fb^{-1}$ of data taking. ``M'' and ``k'' are the standard
699: abbreviations for \ttn{6} and \ttn{3}, respectively.
700: Due to the
701: comparatively large event samples generated for SUSY, the statistical
702: uncertainties on the SUSY numbers are below the percent level,
703: and so no uncertainties are shown.
704: The selected cut of 100\GeV\ is marked in bold, and
705: the ratio of events surviving after this cut to events generated
706: is shown for each model.\label{tab:ET}}
707: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
708:
709: Taking a look at the first row of table \ref{tab:ET}, one notices that a
710: 5$\sigma$ discovery is immediately possible for all the $P_9$ points using just
711: the event numbers passing triggers, before any attempt at purifying the
712: sample is made. By ``a 5$\sigma$ discovery'', we mean exactly the following:
713: \begin{equation}
714: \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}} > 5
715: \label{eq:5sigma}
716: \end{equation}
717: where $S$ and $B$ are the number of signal and background events expected,
718: respectively. In section
719: \ref{sec:results} we discuss this estimate more closely and how
720: the uncertainties from the limited numbers of generated events can be taken
721: into account using 95\% confidence limits. Furthermore, we will
722: seek to include,
723: albeit in a very crude manner, the effects of QCD uncertainties and pile-up
724: on the discovery potential as well. Setting this aside for the moment and
725: doing the arithmetic
726: yields that with 500.000 signal events, we
727: could get a $5\sigma$ discovery even with background levels a few hundred
728: times higher. However, since we are not guaranteed to be in quite this
729: fortuitous situation in the real world, it is worthwhile to pursue the
730: analysis further.
731:
732: After the cut on \ET, no events remained in the intermediate-$p_T$ QCD
733: sample ($100\GeV<p_T<150\GeV)$. To estimate
734: the number of events in the tail beyond \ET=100\GeV, the last 6 bins which
735: contained events were fitted to a falling exponential, fig.~\ref{fig:ETfit}.
736: \begin{figure}[t!]
737: \begin{center}
738: \includegraphics*[scale=0.25]{PLOTS/sm_etfit.eps}
739: \vspace*{-5mm}
740: \caption[\small Fit to the \ET\ tail of low $p_T$ QCD events.]{Exponential
741: fit to the \ET\ tail of the low $p_T$ QCD event sample.
742: \label{fig:ETfit}}
743: \end{center}
744: \end{figure}
745: Assuming uncorrelated gaussian errors on the fit and dividing the integral by
746: the bin width gives an estimated $290
747: \pm 450$ in the tail above 100\GeV, meaning that less than \tn{3} events
748: pass the cut at 95\% confidence level, yielding a rejection factor for these
749: events of at least 130 by the \ET\ cut.
750: Applying this rejection factor to the estimated
751: $\tn{6}$ events in the $p_T<100\GeV$ QCD sample
752: and adding up yields a maximum of
753: $(1 + 7.5)\ttn{3} < \tn{4}$ QCD
754: events with $p_T<150\GeV$ remaining after the cut. Henceforth we refer to
755: these \tn{4} events, combined, as the low-$p_T$ (QCD) sample.
756:
757: \subsubsection{Hard Leptons and Jets \label{sec:lepjets}}
758: As mentioned, a typical signature for SUSY is the large
759: number of jets obtained. This, when combined with (possible)
760: violation of Lepton Number, may well be
761: accompanied by a large lepton multiplicity, and so it makes good sense to
762: combine the analysis here. The lepton multiplicities
763: (iso.\ muons + iso.\ electrons) in events
764: with $\ET >100\GeV$ are shown in figures \ref{fig:leptons}a (SM) and
765: \ref{fig:leptons}b (mSUGRA $P_9$ MSSM, LLE, and LQD), and an overwiev of the
766: distributions in the other scenarios investigated are shown
767: in \ref{fig:leptons}c.
768: Jet multiplicities are shown in figure \ref{fig:jets}. One sees the larger
769: relative lepton multiplicity in LLE scenarios and the larger relative jet
770: multiplicity in LQD scenarios.
771: Finally, the ``box'' plots in figure
772: \ref{fig:lj} show the correlations
773: between the number of leptons and the number of jets with large boxes meaning
774: that a large fraction of events have the corresponding combination of
775: $N_{lep}$ and $N_{jets}$ and small boxes meaning that a small fraction of
776: events have the corresponding combination.
777: \begin{figure}[t!]
778: \begin{center}
779: \begin{tabular}{cc}
780: \includegraphics*[scale=0.3]{PLOTS/sm_nl.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
781: \includegraphics*[scale=0.3]{PLOTS/susy_nl.eps}\vspace*{-7mm}\\
782: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-12mm}\\
783: \includegraphics*[scale=0.66]{PLOTS/susy_nl_all.eps}\vspace*{-1.2cm}\\
784: \hspace*{-1cm}c)\vspace*{-6mm}
785: \end{center}
786: \caption[\small Lepton multiplicities in the SM and SUSY.]{a) and b):
787: Lepton multiplicities in the SM and $P_9$ of events surviving the cut on
788: \ET. The numbering of the bins is such that the events with 0 leptons are in the
789: bin to the right of the number 0. c): Fractional distributions of events in
790: all scenarios investigated.
791: \label{fig:leptons}}
792: \begin{center}
793: \begin{tabular}{cc}
794: \includegraphics*[scale=0.3]{PLOTS/sm_nj.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
795: \includegraphics*[scale=0.3]{PLOTS/susy_nj.eps}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
796: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-12mm}\\
797: \includegraphics*[scale=0.66]{PLOTS/susy_nj_all.eps}\vspace*{-1.2cm}\\
798: \hspace*{-8mm}c)\vspace*{-6mm}
799: \end{center}
800: \caption[\small Jet multiplicities in the SM and SUSY.]{a) and b):
801: Jet multiplicities in the SM and $P_9$ of events surviving the cut on
802: \ET. c): Fractional distributions of events in
803: all scenarios investigated.
804: \label{fig:jets}}
805: \end{figure}
806: \begin{figure}[t!]
807: \begin{center}
808: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/sm_jl_3.eps}\hspace*{-3mm}
809: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/sm_jl_4.eps}\hspace*{-3mm}
810: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/sm_jl_9.eps}\hspace*{-3mm}
811: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/sm_jl_2.eps}\vspace*{0.5mm}\\
812: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/susy_jl_lle.eps}\hspace*{-3mm}
813: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/susy_jl_lqd.eps}\hspace*{-3mm}
814: \includegraphics*[scale=0.2]{PLOTS/susy_jl_mssm.eps}\vspace*{-8mm}
815: \end{center}
816: \caption[\small Lepton versus jet multiplicity in the SM and mSUGRA $P_9$.]{
817: Lepton versus jet multiplicity (see text)
818: in the SM and mSUGRA $P_9$
819: of events surviving the cut on \ET. The numbering of the bins is such that the events with 0 leptons are in the
820: bin to the right of the number 0. The cuts investigated
821: correspond to cutting out the lower left corner of each plot.
822: \label{fig:lj}}
823: \end{figure}
824:
825: Based on these distributions, it seems reasonable to require at least $N_J$
826: jets, at least $(N_J-1)$ jets and at least 1 lepton, at least $(N_J-2)$ jets and
827: at least 2 leptons, or at least 3 leptons. Values for $N_J=8-11$ have been
828: investigated. Results are presented in table \ref{tab:leptonjets}. For the
829: $p_T<100\GeV$ QCD sample, applying the rejection factor of 8.5 found for the
830: high $p_T$ sample gives an estimated $900$
831: events at most remaining after the cut.
832:
833: \begin{table}[t!]
834: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
835: \begin{center}
836: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON N$_{\mbox{\scriptsize jets}}$ AND
837: N$_{\mbox{\scriptsize leptons}}$.\vspace*{2mm}}
838: {\footnotesize
839: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
840: & SM & $P_9$ MSSM & $P_9$ LLE & $P_9$ nLLE & $P_9$ LQD & $P_9$ nLQD\\
841: \cmidrule{1-7}\boldmath
842: $N_J=8$ &($200\pm10$) k&220 k& 270 k&410 k&380 k&290 k\\
843: $N_J=9$ & ($105\pm4$) k&160 k& 230 k&380 k&340 k&240 k\\
844: $N_J=10$ & ($51\pm 3$) k&120 k& 190 k&360 k&290 k&190 k\\
845: $N_J=11$ & ($23\pm 2$) k& 80 k& 150 k&330 k&250 k&150 k\\
846: \cmidrule{1-7}
847: $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
848: & 0.06 & 0.39 & 0.85 & 0.78 & 0.76 & 0.75\\\bottomrule
849: \end{tabular}}\\ % ***FIXED*** 100
850: \vspace*{-5mm}
851: \end{center}
852: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize jets}}$
853: and $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize leptons}}$.]{Events passing cuts on
854: $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize jets}}$ and $N_{\mbox{\scriptsize leptons}}$ for
855: several choices of jet cutoff, $N_J$ (see text). In addition, the requirement
856: that each event pass the \ET\ cut was imposed. The selected cut is marked
857: in bold, and the ratio of events surviving
858: after this cut to events surviving before this cut is shown for each
859: model. A very good rejection factor for SM events is obtained. The reason for
860: this is plain to see in figure \ref{fig:lj}. Cutting out the lower left
861: corner in those plots takes away the majority of $Z/W$ events, and also a
862: significant reduction in QCD and $t\bar{t}$ events is obtained.
863: For the SM, the (gaussian) uncertainty due to the limited event sample is
864: also shown.
865: \label{tab:leptonjets}}
866: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
867: As for the \ET\ cuts, it is not at all surprising that the MSSM is here
868: the model which does the worst.
869: After all, the MSSM has a lot of \ET\ exactly because the LSP \emph{escapes}
870: and does \emph{not} give rise to extra jets and/or leptons.
871: Note also that we have power to discriminate between MSSM, $\RV$
872: with dominant LQD terms, or $\RV$ with dominant LLE terms in these
873: variables. This, however, is saved for the neural network analysis below.
874:
875: Additional variables which are obvious as discriminators when studying the
876: decays of heavy particles are (transverse) momenta
877: of the hardest jets and leptons in the event. The transverse momenta of the
878: four hardest jets and the two hardest leptons are therefore also used as
879: inputs in the neural net analysis.
880: For events with less than 4 jets and/or less than
881: 2 leptons, the value 0 is assigned to the ``missing'' jet and lepton
882: $p_T$'s. In the cut-based analysis,
883: we simply use the $p_T$ of the hardest object in the
884: event, $p_T^{hard}$. The SM and $P_9$ distributions for this variable
885: are shown in figure
886: \ref{fig:hardobj}. Cuts at $p_T^{hard}=100,150,200$, and $250$ were
887: investigated with results as shown in table \ref{tab:hardobj}.
888: \begin{figure}[t!]
889: \begin{center}
890: \begin{tabular}{cc}
891: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/sm_phard.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
892: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/susy_phard.eps}\vspace*{-7mm}\\
893: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
894: \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{PLOTS/susy_phard_all.eps}\vspace*{-.7cm}\\
895: c)\vspace*{-7mm}
896: \end{center}
897: \caption[\small $p_T$ distribution for hardest object in SM and SUSY.]{
898: $p_T$ distribution for hardest object in SM and SUSY, normalized to
899: 30\fb$^{-1}$ of data taking.
900: Events shown are the ones surviving previous cuts.
901: \label{fig:hardobj}}
902: \end{figure}
903: \begin{table}[htb!]
904: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
905: \begin{center}
906: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON $p_T^{\mbox{\scriptsize hard}}$.\vspace*{2mm}}
907: {\footnotesize
908: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
909: &SM&$P_9$ MSSM&$P_9$ LLE&$P_9$ nLLE&$P_9$ LQD&$P_9$ nLQD\\
910: \cmidrule{1-7}
911: $p_T^{hard}=100$&$(180\pm10)$ k&220 k& 410 k & 380 k & 270 k &290 k\\
912: $p_T^{hard}=150$&$(140\pm10)$ k&200 k& 390 k & 370 k & 270 k &280 k\\
913: \boldmath
914: $p_T^{hard}=200$&$(110\pm 5)$ k&180 k& 360 k & 330 k & 250 k &260 k\\
915: $p_T^{hard}=250$& $(85\pm 4)$ k&140 k& 300 k & 270 k & 210 k &220 k\\
916: \cmidrule{1-7}
917: $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
918: & 0.57 & 0.80 & 0.86 & 0.85 & 0.90 & 0.90\\\bottomrule
919: \end{tabular}} % ***FIXED*** 100, 8
920: \vspace*{-5mm}
921: \end{center}
922: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on $p_T^{\mbox{\scriptsize hard}}$.]
923: {Events passing cuts on
924: $p_T^{\mbox{\scriptsize hard}}$ for
925: several choices of cut value. The selected cut is marked
926: in bold, and the ratio of events surviving
927: after this cut to events surviving before this cut is shown for each
928: model.
929: \label{tab:hardobj}}
930: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
931: Due to the higher resonance masses, the $P_9$ scenarios escape these cuts almost
932: with impunity. The ratio of events surviving before and after the
933: cut is even better for the rest of the mSUGRA points.
934:
935: After the cut on hardest object, only 1 $Z/W$ event remained in the
936: sample (out of $5\ttn{7}$ generated). As is apparent from figure
937: \ref{fig:hardobj}a, it would clearly be nonsense to fit
938: the $P^{hard}_{T}$ distribution of $Z/W$ events to thereby obtain an
939: estimate. Rather, we use the procedure recommended by
940: \cite{europhys} that a conservative upper bound on the number, $N$,
941: passing the cut is given by the mean of that Poisson distribution
942: which yields a 5\% chance of giving only one event or less surviving the
943: cut. This gives an estimate for $N<4.75$ at 95\% confidence level,
944: translating to $3400$ events after 30\fb$^{-1}$ of data
945: taking. With respect to
946: the rejection factor expected for these events under subsequent cuts, we
947: adopt a slightly pessimistic assumption, reducing the number of events by the
948: same factor as the double gauge events ($ZZ/ZW/WW$).
949: Before leaving the $Z/W$
950: events, we take one more look at figure \ref{fig:hardobj}a. It is here
951: evident that there are 3 events \emph{just} below the cut, and one might
952: argue that our estimate of 3400 events is therefore likely to be too
953: optimistic. This argument is incorrect since by using that knowledge we would
954: invalidate the statistical approach just used. As long as the cut was not
955: tuned to lie exactly above these events (and 200 was chosen only for its
956: being a nice round number), the Poisson approach is statistically sound.
957:
958: For the low-$p_T$ QCD events, the low rejection factor, 1.07,
959: found for the high $p_T$ sample gives an estimated
960: negligible reduction of event numbers by the $p_T^{hard}$ cut. One must
961: recall, however, that the high $p_T$ QCD sample consists entirely
962: of events where the
963: hard scattering gave rise to $p_T>150\GeV$ in the CM of the scattering. It is
964: therefore quite natural that almost
965: no reduction is accomplished for these events by
966: demanding that the $p_T$ of the hardest object in the event be larger than
967: 200\GeV. For the low-$p_T$ QCD sample,
968: we expect the reduction from this cut to be
969: significantly greater, yet to be conservative, we use the same rejection
970: as for the high $p_T$ sample, yielding maximally 420 events remaining.
971:
972: \subsubsection{LSP Decay Signature\label{sec:lspdecsig}}
973: The \RV\ scenarios give us one extra possible signature for SUSY events which
974: is not present in the $R$-conserving cases, LSP decay. Out of necessity, we
975: shall here focus on the case of a neutralino LSP. This means that we are
976: looking for 3-body decays, a more difficult situation than for 2-body
977: decays. It is, of course,
978: impossible to say whether the lightest neutralino
979: decays into $qq\nu$, $qq\ell$, or
980: $\ell\ell\nu$ without making assumptions about the relative coupling strengths,
981: something which is obviously not acceptable when one is interested in
982: defining as general a search strategy as possible. Whatever coupling
983: is dominant, there are maximally two neutrinos in an event with
984: double neutralino decay (see section \ref{sec:lspdecays}). One would therefore expect to see at least 4 hard
985: jets/leptons with energies not greatly differing from each other. We
986: therefore introduce the following measure for this ``4-object energy
987: correlation'':
988: \begin{equation}
989: E_{4C} \equiv \frac13(\frac{E_4}{E_3}+\frac{E_3}{E_2} + \frac{E_2}{E_1})
990: \end{equation}
991: where $E_{1-4}$ are the energies of the 4 hardest objects (leptons or jets)
992: in the event ordered in energy, the hardest being $E_1$. Events with
993: $N_{lep}+N_{jet}< 4$ are assigned the value zero.
994: Following the above
995: line of reasoning we would expect the SUSY events to have 4-object correlations
996: close to 1. In contrast, there is no reason to expect this kind of
997: correlation in e.g.\ $Z/W$ or QCD events. Also, a large number of double
998: gauge events will have low or zero values since two gauge bosons decaying
999: leptonically \emph{at most} produce 4 hard objects in the detector.
1000: The $t\bar{t}$ events, however, are
1001: quite indistinguishable from many of the SUSY scenarios in this
1002: variable. Noting that the more massive a particle is, the larger
1003: the momentum kicks given to its decay products will be,
1004: one would expect that particles coming from the decays of objects
1005: heavier than the top would, on average, have larger $p_T$ than particles
1006: coming from top decays. We can use this to give the variable just defined
1007: some extra discriminating power against $t\bar{t}$ events. However, it comes
1008: at a cost. A look in table \ref{tab:sugrapoints} reveals that $P_9$, for
1009: instance, has the LSP and several other
1010: SUSY particles \emph{lighter} than the top. By giving the 4-object energy
1011: correlation some $p_T$
1012: dependence, we will not only get rid of top events, we will also be throwing
1013: away signal events for SUSY scenarios with low-mass particles.
1014: This is not a serious drawback,
1015: since we can afford to loose a certain amount of signal
1016: in the low-mass
1017: scenarios due to the relatively high production cross sections. In
1018: return, we get a more pure signal for the heavier scenarios where we don't have
1019: so many signal events and so require a better background rejection.
1020:
1021: This is the basis for using the 4-object energy
1022: correlation multiplied
1023: by the average $p_T$ of the four hardest objects rather than the 4-object
1024: energy correlation alone, and so we introduce the $p_T$-weighted 4-object
1025: energy correlation:
1026: \begin{equation}
1027: P_{4C} \equiv \frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{E_4}{E_3}+\frac{E_3}{E_2} + \frac{E_2}{E_1}\right)(
1028: p_{T1}+p_{T2}+p_{T3}+p_{T4})
1029: \end{equation}
1030: The suspicion that the low-mass scenarios will not do well in this variable is
1031: quickly verified by taking a look at figure \ref{fig:p4c}c where peaks around
1032: 100\GeV\ are seen for both $P_9$ and $F_2$ whereas the heavier scenarios show
1033: more flat distributions.
1034: \begin{figure}[t!]
1035: \begin{center}
1036: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1037: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/sm_p4c.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
1038: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/susy_p4c.eps}\vspace*{-7mm}\\
1039: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
1040: \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{PLOTS/susy_p4c_all.eps}\vspace*{-.6cm}\\
1041: c)\vspace*{-6mm}
1042: \end{center}
1043: \caption[\small LSP decay signature for SM and SUSY.]{Distributions of
1044: $P_{4C}$ in the SM (a and b) and for mSUGRA $P_9$.
1045: All events used survive previous cuts.
1046: \label{fig:p4c}}
1047: \end{figure}
1048: \begin{table}[htb!]
1049: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1050: \begin{center}
1051: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON P$_{4C}$.\vspace*{2mm}}
1052: {\footnotesize
1053: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
1054: & SM & $P_9$ MSSM & $P_9$ LLE & $P_9$ nLLE & $P_9$ LQD & $P_9$ nLQD\\
1055: \cmidrule{1-7}
1056: $P_{4C}>50$ &$(108\pm5)$ k&170 k&350 k&330 k&250 k&260 k\\
1057: $P_{4C}>75$ & $(97\pm5)$ k&160 k&330 k&310 k&240 k&250 k\\ \boldmath
1058: $P_{4C}>100$ &$(79\pm4)$ k&110 k&270 k&240 k&210 k&220 k\\
1059: $P_{4C}>125$ &$(57\pm4)$ k& 72 k&190 k&170 k&160 k&160 k\\
1060: \cmidrule{1-7}
1061: $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
1062: & 0.72 & 0.65 & 0.77 & 0.84 & 0.75 & 0.83 \\\bottomrule
1063: \end{tabular}} % ***FIXED*** 100, 8, 200
1064: \vspace*{-5mm}
1065: \end{center}
1066: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on $P_{4C}$.]
1067: {Events passing cuts on $P_{4C}$ for
1068: SM and $P_9$ events surviving previous cuts, scaled to correspond to
1069: 30\fb$^{-1}$ of data taking.
1070: The selected cut is marked
1071: in bold, and the ratio of events surviving
1072: after this cut to events surviving before this cut is shown for each
1073: model. One sees that the MSSM for
1074: does even worse than the SM for $P_9$, due to the absence of LSP
1075: decay. The rest of the
1076: mSUGRA points generally have acceptances close to 100\% even for the
1077: MSSM. The only exception is $F_2$ which nonetheless lies above 80\% in all cases.
1078: \label{tab:p4c}}
1079: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
1080:
1081: For SUSY events where double LSP decay
1082: does not occur, note that there must be either
1083: one or more heavier particles decaying directly to SM particles or
1084: $R$-parity is conserved. In the first case, the $E_i/E_j$ will generally be
1085: lower, since jet/lepton energies are presumably not equal to so great an
1086: extent, but since heavier particles are decaying,
1087: the average $p_T$ will be larger, evening out the score. The
1088: $R$-conserving scenarios will look more like the SM in this variable, since
1089: no LSP decay occurs.
1090:
1091: For the high-$p_T$ QCD and the double gauge events, rejection factors of 1.2
1092: and 2.7, respectively, were found, yielding an estimated maximum of 350
1093: low-$p_T$ QCD events and 1300 $Z/W$ remaining.
1094:
1095: \subsubsection{Thrust}
1096: One may intuitively understand that pair production involving less massive
1097: particles is liable to produce decay products which lie more ``on a line''
1098: than processes involving more massive particles (where the decay products get
1099: larger momentum kicks). It is based on this that thrust is expected to be of use
1100: as a discriminating variable. Its value is defined as:
1101: \begin{equation}
1102: T = \mathrm{max}\left\{\frac{\sum_i|p_i\cdot \vec{n}|}{\sum_i|p_i|}\right\}
1103: \end{equation}
1104: where $i$ runs over all particles in the event and $\vec{n}$ is a unit vector
1105: along an arbitrary axis. The axis which maximizes the expression is defined
1106: as the thrust axis. For
1107: a completely pencil-shaped event, the thrust value is 1, going down to 0.5
1108: for an event where the momenta are evenly distributed throughout the detector.
1109: The thrust distributions for events
1110: satisfying the previous cuts are shown in figure \ref{fig:thrust}.
1111: \begin{figure}[t!]
1112: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1113: \begin{center}
1114: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1115: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/sm_thrust.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
1116: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/susy_thrust.eps}\vspace*{-6mm}\\
1117: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
1118: \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{PLOTS/susy_thrust_all.eps}\vspace*{-.7cm}\\
1119: c)\vspace*{-6mm}
1120: \end{center}
1121: \caption[\small Thrust distributions for SM and SUSY.]{Thrust distributions for
1122: SM processes and mSUGRA $P_9$. Observe that the QCD processes peak around 0.9
1123: whereas $P_9$ peaks around 0.8. All events used survive previous cuts.
1124: \label{fig:thrust}}
1125: \end{figure}
1126: Cuts on $T<0.75$, $T<0.8$, $T<0.85$, and $T<0.90$
1127: were investigated. Results are shown
1128: in table \ref{tab:thrust}. The selected cut, $T<0.85$, is marked in bold.
1129: \begin{table}[b!]
1130: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1131: \begin{center}
1132: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON THRUST.\vspace*{2mm}}
1133: {\footnotesize
1134: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
1135: & SM & $P_9$ MSSM & $P_9$ LLE & $P_9$ nLLE & $P_9$ LQD & $P_9$ nLQD\\
1136: \cmidrule{1-7}
1137: $T<0.75$ &$(10\pm2)$ k& 35 k & 75 k & 77 k & 76 k &80 k\\
1138: $T<0.8$ &$(24\pm2)$ k& 59 k & 130 k & 130 k & 120 k &130 k\\
1139: \boldmath
1140: $T<0.85$ &$(40\pm3)$ k& 83 k & 190 k & 180 k & 160 k &170 k\\
1141: $T<0.90$ &$(62\pm4)$ k&100 k & 240 k & 220 k & 190 k &200 k\\
1142: \cmidrule{1-7}
1143: $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
1144: & 0.51 & 0.73& 0.69&0.74& \\
1145: \bottomrule
1146: \end{tabular}}
1147: \vspace*{-5mm}
1148: \end{center}
1149: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on thrust.]{Events passing cuts on
1150: thrust for three values of thrust cutoff. The selected cut is marked in bold,
1151: and the ratio of events surviving after this cut to events surviving before
1152: this cut is shown for each model.\label{tab:thrust}}
1153: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
1154: Rejection factors of 2.0 and 2.1 were obtained for the high $p_T$ QCD events
1155: and the double gauge sample, respectively, yielding 180 low-$p_T$ and 620
1156: $Z/W$ events maximally remaining. Note that the $Z/W$ events would most
1157: likely have higher rejections under this cut than their double gauge
1158: counterparts, yet finding it difficult to quantify it, we do not include any
1159: additional suppression in the estimated number.
1160:
1161: \subsubsection{Oblateness and Circularity}
1162: Having defined the thrust axis for each event, one can take one step further
1163: and define Major and Minor axes in the plane perpendicular to the thrust axis
1164: in exactly the same way as thrust was defined:
1165: \begin{equation}
1166: \mbox{Major} = \mbox{max}\left\{\frac{\sum_i|p_i\cdot
1167: \vec{n}|}{\sum_i|p_i|}\right\}
1168: \end{equation}
1169: where the maximum is now to be found perpendicular to the thrust axis. The
1170: Minor axis is then fixed as the axis perpendicular to both the thrust and
1171: Major axes, yet its value is computed exactly like thrust and Major
1172: values. These definitions of the Major and Minor axes,
1173: used at $e^+e^-$ colliders, get into trouble at a
1174: $pp$ machine like the LHC where variables sensitive
1175: to boosts along the $z$-axis are of very limited use. At $pp$ machines, one
1176: therefore defines the Major and Minor axes to lie orthogonal to the
1177: $z$-direction. This means that the Major axis will most often just be the
1178: projection of the thrust axis onto the $(x,y)$ plane.
1179: A measure for how
1180: ``spread out'' the event is in the $(x,y)$ plane is then given by
1181: subtracting the Minor from the Major, yielding the
1182: \emph{oblateness}, $O$.
1183:
1184: Essentially, the oblateness compares the fraction of $p_T$ in the direction
1185: where most $p_T$ is going and the fraction in the
1186: direction where least $p_T$ is going.
1187: An event with low oblateness is an event in which the $p_T$ is evenly
1188: distributed in the $(x,y)$ plane, and an event with high oblateness has its
1189: $p_T$ concentrated around the direction of the Major axis.
1190: Based on the same arguments that led us to introduce a $p_T$
1191: dependence on the 4-object energy correlation, we expect SUSY events to have
1192: lower oblateness values than SM events, again with a tradeoff involved
1193: between signal loss at low SUSY masses and background rejection for higher
1194: SUSY masses. Distributions are shown in figure \ref{fig:obl}.
1195: \begin{figure}[t!]
1196: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1197: \begin{center}
1198: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1199: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/sm_obl.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
1200: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/susy_obl.eps}\vspace*{-6mm}\\
1201: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
1202: \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{PLOTS/susy_obl_all.eps}\vspace*{-.7cm}\\
1203: c)\vspace*{-6mm}
1204: \end{center}
1205: \caption[\small Oblateness distributions for SM and SUSY.]{Oblateness distributions for
1206: SM processes and mSUGRA $P_9$. Observe that the QCD processes peak around 0.3
1207: whereas $P_9$ peaks around 0.2. All events used survive previous cuts.
1208: \label{fig:obl}}
1209: \vspace*{-5mm}
1210: \end{figure}
1211: The effect of
1212: requiring the oblateness to be lower than 0.25, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 were
1213: investigated with results as given in table \ref{tab:oblat}.
1214: \begin{table}[t!]
1215: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1216: \begin{center}
1217: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON OBLATENESS.\vspace*{2mm}}
1218: {\footnotesize
1219: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
1220: & SM & $P_9$ MSSM & $P_9$ LLE & $P_9$ nLLE & $P_9$ LQD & $P_9$ nLQD\\
1221: \cmidrule{1-7}
1222: $O<0.25$&$(17\pm2)$ k&49 k&100 k&100 k&110 k&110 k\\
1223: $O<0.3$ &$(24\pm2)$ k&61 k&130 k&130 k&130 k&140 k\\\boldmath
1224: $O<0.4$ &$(34\pm3)$ k&77 k&170 k&160 k&160 k&160 k\\
1225: $O<0.5$ &$(40\pm3)$ k&83 k&180 k&180 k&160 k&170 k\\
1226: \cmidrule{1-7}
1227: $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
1228: &0.84 &0.92&0.88&0.95&0.91&0.95\\
1229: \bottomrule
1230: \end{tabular}}
1231: \vspace*{-5mm}
1232: \end{center}
1233: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on oblateness.]{Events passing cuts on
1234: oblateness, normalized to 30\fb$^{-1}$ of data taking.
1235: The selected cut is marked in bold,
1236: and the ratio of events surviving after this cut to events surviving before
1237: this cut is shown for each model.\label{tab:oblat}}
1238: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
1239:
1240: A remarkable feature of the plots in figure \ref{fig:obl}c is that $P_7$,
1241: by far the heaviest mSUGRA point, has oblateness distributions which are
1242: \emph{broader} than the lower-mass points. To understand the reason for this,
1243: a closer look was taken at the event histories for high-oblateness events in
1244: an nLLE $P_7$ scenario.
1245: A plausible explanation is that the
1246: extremely massive resonances in $P_7$ are
1247: produced more often than not with $p_T$ less than their masses.
1248: When we argued above that we would expect
1249: low oblateness for events containing more massive resonances,
1250: we implicitly
1251: assumed that the original direction of flight of the resonances would
1252: define the Major axis around which a non-zero Minor value would be generated
1253: by the decay of the resonances in proportion to their masses.
1254: But for resonances with masses as heavy as those
1255: found in $P_7$ (around 2\TeV) this argument is turned upside down.
1256: At $P_7$, the (two-body)
1257: decays of the resonances produce momentum kicks of such large magnitudes that
1258: the original direction of flight can be completely erased, resulting in
1259: events looking roughly as depicted in figure \ref{fig:p7oblat} in the $(x,y)$
1260: plane.
1261: \begin{figure}[b!]
1262: \begin{center}
1263: \begin{fmffile}{p7dec}
1264: \begin{fmfgraph*}(160,60)
1265: \fmfset{arrow_len}{2.5mm}
1266: \fmfforce{0.w,0.h}{origo}
1267: \fmfforce{18.,0.}{xax}
1268: \fmfforce{0.,18.}{yax}
1269: \fmfforce{0.5w,0.5h}{c}
1270: \fmfforce{0.1w,0.9h}{l1}
1271: \fmfforce{0.3w,0.1h}{l3}
1272: \fmfforce{0.9w,0.9h}{r1}
1273: \fmfforce{0.7w,0.1h}{r3}
1274: \fmf{plain}{origo,xax}
1275: \fmf{plain}{origo,yax}
1276: \fmf{fermion}{v1,l1}
1277: \fmf{fermion}{v2,l3}
1278: \fmf{fermion}{v1,r1}
1279: \fmf{fermion}{v2,r3}
1280: \fmf{fermion}{c,v1}
1281: \fmf{fermion}{c,v2}
1282: \fmfv{label=$x$,label.dist=3,label.ang=-90,d.sh=tri,d.siz=5.,d.ang=-90}{xax}
1283: \fmfv{label=$y$,label.dist=3,label.ang=180,d.sh=tri,d.siz=5.}{yax}
1284: \fmfv{d.sh=hexagram,d.f=empty,d.siz=10.}{c}
1285: \fmfv{d.sh=hexagram,d.f=empty,d.siz=6.}{v1}
1286: \fmfv{d.sh=hexagram,d.f=empty,d.siz=6.}{v2}
1287: \end{fmfgraph*}
1288: \end{fmffile}
1289: \end{center}
1290: \caption[\small Decay of a very massive resonance]{Decay of a pair of
1291: extremely massive resonances, projected onto the $(x,y)$ momentum plane.
1292: Here, the decay products of the upper resonance have their
1293: momenta oriented predominantly along the $x$ axis, whereas the lower
1294: have larger fractions in the $z$ direction\label{fig:p7oblat}. In cases like
1295: this, the $x$
1296: axis is close to being the Major with only little $p_y$ to generate a sizeable
1297: Minor.}
1298: \end{figure}
1299:
1300: The last event shape variable used in this work is the circularity, again a
1301: transverse version of a variable commonly used in $e^+e^-$ colliders, the
1302: sphericity \cite{stirling96}. It is similar, but not identical, to
1303: 1 minus oblateness, in that events which have their $p_T$ evenly distributed
1304: in the transverse plane have high circularities and events with more uneven
1305: distributions low circularities.
1306: Having cut away the highest oblateness
1307: events, we try to catch a few more fish (background events) by cutting away
1308: the lowest circularity events as well. It is defined through the eigenvalues
1309: of the circularity matrix:
1310: \begin{equation}
1311: C = \frac{1}{\sum_i (p_T^i)^2}\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
1312: \displaystyle\sum_i (p_x^i)^2 & \displaystyle\sum_i p_x^ip_y^i\vspace*{2mm}\\
1313: \displaystyle\sum_i p_y^ip_x^i & \displaystyle\sum_i (p_y^i)^2
1314: \end{array}\right]
1315: \end{equation}
1316: where $i$ runs over the reconstructed particles/jets in the event. The
1317: Circularity value is defined as twice the smallest eigenvalue of this
1318: matrix, making it a measure of the momentum fraction along the smaller of the
1319: principal axes.
1320: The distributions of events in the SM and SUSY surviving all previous cuts
1321: can be seen in figure \ref{fig:circ}. Taking a look at the very first few
1322: bins of the plots, one sees that circularity does indeed have
1323: some discriminating power beyond what was contained in the oblateness though
1324: it has not been possible to identify the cause. Cuts requiring a circularity
1325: greater than 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, and 0.20 were investigated with results shown
1326: in table
1327: \ref{tab:circ}.
1328: \begin{figure}[t!]
1329: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1330: \begin{center}
1331: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1332: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/sm_circ.eps}&\hspace*{-.7cm}
1333: \includegraphics*[scale=0.36]{PLOTS/susy_circ.eps}\vspace*{-6mm}\\
1334: a) & b) \end{tabular}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
1335: \includegraphics*[scale=0.7]{PLOTS/susy_circ_all.eps}\vspace*{-.7cm}\\
1336: c)\vspace*{-6mm}
1337: \end{center}
1338: \caption[\small Circularity distributions for SM and SUSY.]{Circularity
1339: distributions for
1340: SM and mSUGRA scenarios. Observe that the number of QCD events rises almost
1341: linearly with $C$ as one goes to smaller $C$ wheras the
1342: mSUGRA distributions peak around $0.1-0.2$. All events used survive previous
1343: cuts.
1344: \label{fig:circ}}
1345: \end{figure}
1346: \begin{table}[t!]
1347: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0pt}
1348: \begin{center}
1349: \textsf{EVENTS PASSING CUTS ON CIRCULARITY.\vspace*{2mm}}
1350: {\footnotesize
1351: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}\toprule
1352: & SM & $P_9$ MSSM & $P_9$ LLE & $P_9$ nLLE & $P_9$ LQD & $P_9$ nLQD\\
1353: \cmidrule{1-7}
1354: $C>0.05$&$(29\pm3)$ k&72 k&160 k&160 k&150 k&150 k\\\boldmath
1355: $C>0.10$ &$(24\pm2)$ k&63 k&140 k&140 k&140 k&140 k\\
1356: $C>0.15$ &$(20\pm2)$ k&54 k&130 k&120 k&120 k&120 k\\
1357: $C>0.20$ &$(16\pm2)$ k&46 k&110 k&110 k&110 k&110 k\\
1358: \cmidrule{1-7}
1359: $\frac{N_{\mbox{\tiny post}}}{N_{\mbox{\tiny pre}}}$
1360: &0.68 & 0.81 & 0.86 & 0.84 & 0.87 & 0.86\\ %*** FIXED *** 100, 8, 200, 100,
1361: %0.85, 0.4
1362: \bottomrule
1363: \end{tabular}}
1364: \vspace*{-5mm}
1365: \end{center}
1366: \caption[\small Event numbers passing cuts on circularity.]{
1367: Events passing cuts on
1368: circularity, normalized to 30\fb$^{-1}$ of data taking.
1369: The selected cut is marked in bold,
1370: and the ratio of events surviving after this cut to events surviving before
1371: the cut is shown for each model. Note that only 70 high-$p_T$ QCD
1372: events remain after the cut, and so the
1373: gaussian errors used here will be replaced by Poisson statistics in what
1374: follows.
1375: \label{tab:circ}}
1376: \vspace*{-\tfcapsep}\end{table}
1377:
1378: A last thing worth noticing about the circularity is that whereas the thrust
1379: and the oblateness are \emph{linear} in the momenta, circularity is
1380: quadratic. This means that two events which are identical in every respect
1381: except that one parton in the first event is replaced by two collinear partons
1382: with some sharing of the momentum in the other
1383: will not have the same circularities, since
1384: $(p_a + p_b)^2\neq p_a^2 + p_b^2$. This, in turn, means that the circularity
1385: is sensitive to uncertainties in the fragmentation model (where such
1386: splittings occur), in contrast to thrust and oblateness.
1387:
1388: The combined rejection factors under the oblateness and circularity cuts were
1389: 1.7 and 1.6 for the high-$p_T$ QCD and double gauge events respectively. We
1390: thus estimate a maximum of 110 and 400
1391: %844 and 388
1392: low-$p_T$ and single gauge events
1393: remaining, respectively. These numbers
1394: should be compared to 4000 $t\bar{t}$ and 20000
1395: high-$p_T$ QCD events. Based on the 22 generated double gauge events
1396: remaining, an upper limit of 31.4 events can be set using the conservative
1397: Poisson estimate discussed in section \ref{sec:lepjets}, translating to a
1398: maximum of 20 events after $30\fb^{-1}$ of data taking. One thus sees that
1399: the double gauge events are completely negligible as background,
1400: giving some justification
1401: of the earlier made statement that triple gauge events should also be
1402: negligible.
1403: \input{ANALYSIS/network}
1404: \subsection{Results\label{sec:results}}
1405: As the last item on the agenda, results for signal extraction in all \LV-SUSY
1406: scenarios studied are now presented. For this purpose, three networks were
1407: constructed and trained to recognize MSSM, LLE, and LQD signals
1408: respectively. Approximately 8000 background events, scaled to represent
1409: approximately
1410: $\tn{7}$ events in
1411: the learning algorithm, and 6000 signal events were used in each
1412: training process, all events required only to have passed the triggers. The
1413: relative numbers of signal and background events, as seen by the learning
1414: algorithm, are thus fairly similar to the post-trigger event numbers expected
1415: for SUSY cross sections around \tn{-10}\mb. For the LQD network,
1416: the background numbers were scaled by twice
1417: as much to obtain a better rejection factor in view of the less clean
1418: signatures of the LQD couplings.
1419: For each sample, half of the events
1420: were set aside as an
1421: independent sample on which the performance of the network was tested for
1422: over-fitting cycle by cycle.
1423: A typical learning curve is shown in figure \ref{fig:learncurve},
1424: together with the gradually improving separation of the two distributions
1425: early on in the learning process (only discernible in colour).
1426: \begin{figure}[t!]
1427: \begin{center}
1428: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1429: \includegraphics*[scale=0.37]{PLOTS/net_learn.eps} &
1430: \includegraphics*[scale=0.54]{PLOTS/net_dist.eps}\vspace*{-8mm}\\
1431: a) & b)\end{tabular}
1432: \caption[\small Learning Curves for the LLE network]{a) Learning Curves for the
1433: LLE network, average squared error versus learning cycle.
1434: The blue curve represents the average squared error on the
1435: learning sample and the red (dashed)
1436: the performance on the independent sample. b)
1437: learning cycle versus network output. Each red point represents an SM event
1438: and each blue point a SUSY event. In the beginning, the network is not capable
1439: of distinguishing between them, yet it quickly learns to separate the two
1440: distributions.
1441: \label{fig:learncurve}}
1442: \end{center}
1443: \vspace*{-14pt}
1444: \end{figure}
1445:
1446: Selecting for each network events with network outputs above 0.9,
1447: we obtain a number of signal and background events for which we define
1448: the statistical significance of the signal (which we shall call the discovery
1449: potential) by:
1450: \begin{equation}
1451: P = \frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}}\label{eq:P}
1452: \end{equation}
1453: where $B$ should be understood as the number of background events, $N$,
1454: coming out of the analysis plus 1.64 standard deviations to account for the
1455: statistical uncertainty related to the limited number of generated events,
1456: 1.64 being chosen since 95\% of a gaussian distributed event sample will lie
1457: below the mean plus 1.64$\sigma$.
1458: For low numbers of generated events, we use the conservative Poisson estimate
1459: discussed in section \ref{sec:lepjets}
1460: to reach the same 95\% confidence on $B$.
1461: If $P$ is above 5 for any of the networks,
1462: we draw the preliminary conclusion that a 5$\sigma$ discovery is
1463: possible.
1464:
1465: In reality, $P$ should be corrected for QCD uncertainties and
1466: the effects of pile-up, and so we can only be confident that a $5\sigma$
1467: discovery is possible if $P$ is somewhat larger than 5.
1468: Therefore, aside from working with the definition, eq.~(\ref{eq:P}),
1469: we attempt to obtain a more
1470: believable estimate by including the effects of pile-up and QCD uncertainties
1471: in a very crude, \emph{ad hoc} manner. To accomplish this,
1472: we now take a look at why eq.~(\ref{eq:P}) is a
1473: reasonable quantity to use for the statistical significance. When we ask for
1474: a 5$\sigma$ discovery, we are really asking that the background hypothesis be
1475: more than 5 standard deviations away from the number of observed events.
1476: Assuming the event numbers to
1477: be gaussian distributed, we arrive at the requirement:
1478: \begin{equation}
1479: \begin{array}{lrcl}
1480: & N_{obs} - 5\sigma_{N_{obs}} & > & B \\
1481: \implies & S + B - 5\sqrt{S + B} & > & B \\
1482: \implies & P = \displaystyle\frac{S}{\sqrt{S+B}} & > & 5
1483: \end{array}\label{eq:stat1}
1484: \end{equation}
1485: Note that other definitions are also possible. One could equally well ask
1486: that the background plus 5$\sqrt{B}$ should be less than the observed
1487: number, resulting in more optimistic $P$ values
1488: for larger numbers of signal events.
1489:
1490: The problem with
1491: pile-up lies in that the ratio of signal to background events
1492: passing the analysis is too optimistic. To include an estimate of the
1493: reduction of this ratio, we rewrite eq.~(\ref{eq:stat1}) to:
1494: \begin{equation}
1495: P = \frac{\sqrt{S}}{\sqrt{1+B/S}} > 5
1496: \end{equation}
1497: where we include the effects of pile-up by multiplying $B/S$ by some
1498: factor. That twice as many background events per signal event could be
1499: passing the analysis if pile-up was included seems a reasonably pessimistic
1500: guess.
1501: Furthermore, assuming that the intrinsic uncertainty on both $S$ and
1502: $B$ coming from uncertainties on QCD parameters will,
1503: to a first approximation, work in the same direction and
1504: with a comparable magnitude for
1505: both $B$ and $S$, we expect that the denominator in the above formula is not
1506: affected by this uncertainty, and so we
1507: include the QCD-related uncertainties by reducing the number of
1508: signal events in the numerator by a factor of 1.5. This yields the following
1509: form for the ``corrected discovery potential'':
1510: \begin{equation}
1511: P_{corr} = \frac{S}{\sqrt{1.5S + 3B}}\label{eq:Pcorr}
1512: \end{equation}
1513: Both $P$ and $P_{corr}$ will be listed in the results below.
1514:
1515: As was indeed the purpose, the network classifications gave very few background
1516: events with outputs above 0.9. The response to background events surviving
1517: the cut-based analysis over the entire output range is shown in figure
1518: \ref{fig:net_bg_out}.
1519: \begin{figure}[ht]
1520: \begin{center}
1521: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1522: \includegraphics*[scale=0.23]{PLOTS/net_bg94_out.eps} &
1523: \includegraphics*[scale=0.23]{PLOTS/net_bg95_out.eps} &
1524: \includegraphics*[scale=0.23]{PLOTS/net_bg96_out.eps} \vspace*{-6mm}
1525: \end{tabular}
1526: \end{center}
1527: \caption[\small Network outputs for background events]{Network outputs for
1528: background events. As for the previous plots, the numbers of double gauge
1529: events are too small to be visible. We include them in the legend merely
1530: to signify that they have been taken into account. \label{fig:net_bg_out}}
1531: \end{figure}
1532: For all three networks, no QCD events survived the cut at 0.9.
1533: Knowing that the network is a highly non-trivial function, especially near 0
1534: and 1, we do not attempt to fit the distribution. Rather, we note that
1535: zero events has less than 5\% probability of coming from a distribution with
1536: mean larger than 2.99. Adopting and scaling
1537: this estimate yields the numbers given in
1538: table \ref{tab:netevents}.
1539: \begin{table}[t]
1540: \begin{center}
1541: \setlength{\extrarowheight}{0.2pt}
1542: \begin{tabular}{lrrr}\toprule
1543: \bf Process
1544: &\boldmath $B_{MSSM-net}$
1545: &\boldmath $B_{LLE-net}$
1546: &\boldmath $B_{LQD-net}$\\\cmidrule{1-4}
1547: %\bf\boldmath
1548: Low-$p_T$ QCD
1549: & 5 & 5 & 5 \vspace*{2mm}\\
1550: %\bf\boldmath
1551: High-$p_T$ QCD
1552: & 840 & 840 & 840
1553: \vspace*{2mm}\\
1554: Z/W
1555: & 150 & 150 & 150
1556: \vspace*{2mm}\\
1557: %\bf\boldmath
1558: $t\bar{t}$
1559: & 210 & 140 & 100
1560: \vspace*{2mm}\\
1561: %\bf\boldmath
1562: ZZ/ZW/WW
1563: & 5 & 5 & 5
1564: \\ \cmidrule{1-4}
1565: \bf Total SM
1566: & 1210 & 1140 & 1100
1567: \\
1568: \bottomrule
1569: \end{tabular}
1570: \caption[\small Event numbers remaining after network cuts]{Estimated maximal
1571: event numbers remaining after network cuts. Maximal here means that the
1572: Poisson estimate discussed in section \ref{sec:lepjets} has been used to
1573: estimate $B$ as the mean of the distribution that would
1574: result in 5\% probability of getting the number of generated events or less
1575: which remained in the event samples actually used. Since any distribution with a
1576: higher mean would have less than 5\% probability of resulting in the
1577: generated numbers, this is equivalent to saying that we have 95\% confidence
1578: in the numbers here being maximal.
1579: \label{tab:netevents}}
1580: \end{center}
1581: \vspace*{-14pt}\end{table}
1582: The same kind of Poisson
1583: estimate was used for the
1584: double gauge events, mainly to estimate the rejection factor
1585: which should be applied to the remaining single gauge events. Also
1586: for the $t\bar{t}$
1587: event sample, the Poisson estimate was used where the number of
1588: generated events remaining was less than 100,
1589: else the gaussian 95\% confidence estimate, $B < N + 1.64\sqrt{N}$.
1590:
1591: The total
1592: number of background events passing each network, as listed in table
1593: \ref{tab:netevents}, can now be used as upper limits on
1594: the quantity $B$ entering eqs.\
1595: (\ref{eq:P}) and (\ref{eq:Pcorr}) by which we have
1596: defined the discovery potential and the corrected discovery potential,
1597: respectively. Typically, around $500-1000$ signal events remain after cuts
1598: for $P_2$, $P_{12}$, and $F_2$. More remain for $P_9$ because of the larger
1599: cross section, but not nearly as large a fraction as for the other
1600: scenarios. $P_7$, of course, was impossible from the start, with only 114
1601: events expected after $30\fb^{-1}$, yet one should keep in mind that large
1602: values of the \RV\ couplings can lead to a significant increase in the
1603: production cross section for the heavy-mass points, $P_7$ and $F_2$, due to
1604: single sparticle production not included in the present analysis. For a
1605: hadron machine like the
1606: LHC, this effect will be largest in the LQD scenarios since single squark
1607: production will then be possible.
1608:
1609: The discovery potentials, corrected and uncrrected, for all scenarios
1610: are given in table \ref{tab:discoverypotential}. The labelling of the models
1611: in the table
1612: should be self-explanatory to a large extent. The subscripts $a$, $b$,
1613: and $n$ refer to the column labels in table \ref{tab:lambdapoints} where the
1614: \LV\ scenarios were defined, so that
1615: $a$ and $b$ are the constant coupling scenarios, and $n$ is the scenario with
1616: natural (hierarchical) couplings. This distinction, of course, does not exist
1617: for the MSSM where no lepton number violating couplings exist. The individual
1618: numbers in the table are
1619: not extremely interesting, except for the quite significant fact that,
1620: except for $P_7$, they are all above 5 for at least one of the network
1621: types. It is also of some interest to note
1622: that signals can be extracted reliably for the mixed (LLE+LQD)
1623: scenarios which neither entered in the cut optimization nor in the network
1624: training.
1625: Our estimate of the LHC discovery potential in the case of Lepton
1626: Number Violating SuperGravity scenarios is thus that a $5\sigma$ discovery is
1627: possible
1628: for cross sections down to at least $10^{-10}\!\ \mathrm{mb}$
1629: with 95\% certainty when the effects of pile-up and uncertainties on QCD
1630: parameters are neglected. Depending on whether our reduced estimate of the
1631: discovery potential does a reasonable job, these uncertainties should not
1632: be able to affect this general conclusion, yet one sees that
1633: there could be cause for concern
1634: for models with non-zero LQD couplings in SUSY scenarios of the $F_2$
1635: type. As mentioned above, however, one would expect single sparticle
1636: production to be enhancing the cross section for this model for large values
1637: of the $\lambda'$ couplings whereas low values would mean longer LSP
1638: lifetimes and hence either secondary vertices or an MSSM-like signature if
1639: the LSP escapes detection altogether. In the first case, we would
1640: have an extra discriminating variable, and in the second we note that even in
1641: the present analysis (in which the
1642: cuts were not optimized with the MSSM in mind) we have a reduced discovery
1643: potential of up to $6.5\sigma$ for the $F_2$ MSSM model.
1644: \clearpage
1645: \begin{table}[th!]
1646: \begin{center}
1647: {\hspace*{-0.4cm}
1648: {\large\sf ATLAS \LV-SUSY DISCOVERY POTENTIAL}\\
1649: {\hspace*{-0.4cm}\setlength{\extrarowheight}{3.pt}\sf
1650: \begin{tabular}[t]{c|c}\toprule
1651: \begin{tabular}[t]{lccc}
1652: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\sf NETWORK}\\
1653: SUSY & MSSM & LLE & LQD \vspace*{-\extrarowheight}\\
1654: Point & $P/P_{corr}$ & $P/P_{corr}$ & $P/P_{corr}$
1655: \\ \cmidrule{1-4}
1656: \input{TABLES/tab_lle}\vspace*{-3ex}\\
1657: \cmidrule{1-4}
1658: \input{TABLES/tab_lqd}\vspace*{-3ex}\\
1659: \end{tabular}
1660: &
1661: \begin{tabular}[t]{lccc}
1662: & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\sf NETWORK}\\
1663: SUSY & \multicolumn{1}{c}{MSSM} &
1664: \multicolumn{1}{c}{LLE} &
1665: \multicolumn{1}{c}{LQD}\vspace*{-\extrarowheight}\\
1666: Point
1667: &$P/P_{corr}$
1668: &$P/P_{corr}$ &
1669: $P/P_{corr}$
1670: \\ \cmidrule{1-4}
1671: \input{TABLES/tabmssm}\vspace*{-3ex}
1672: \\ \cmidrule{1-4}
1673: \input{TABLES/tab_lqe}\vspace*{-3ex}
1674: \end{tabular}\\
1675: \bottomrule
1676: \end{tabular}}}
1677: \caption[\small ATLAS Discovery Potential]{ATLAS discovery potential and
1678: corrected discovery potential (see text) for all
1679: SUSY scenarios investigated using each of the three networks.\label{tab:discoverypotential}}
1680: \end{center}
1681: \end{table}
1682: \clearpage
1683: %%% Local Variables:
1684: %%% mode: latex
1685: %%% TeX-master: t
1686: %%% End:
1687: