1: \documentclass{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \input axodraw.sty
5:
6: \newcommand{\mett}{{\not\!\!E}_{T}}
7: \newcommand{\mr}{\mathrm}
8: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
10: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
11: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
12: \def\sriimge{0.098}
13: \def\sriige{0.36}
14: \def\nriimge{195}
15: \def\nriige{720}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
19: \hfill\parbox{8cm}{\raggedleft CERN-TH/2001-303 \\ hep-ph/0111014 \\
20: }
21:
22:
23: \title{Explaining Anomalous CDF \boldmath{$\mu \gamma$} Missing-\boldmath{$E_T$} Events With Supersymmetry}
24: \author{B.C. Allanach, S. Lola and K. Sridhar}
25:
26: \altaffiliation{On leave of absence
27: from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road,
28: Mumbai 400 005, India.}
29: \affiliation{CERN, Geneva 23, CH 1211, Switzerland}
30: \date{\today}
31:
32: \begin{abstract}
33: CDF recently reported an excess of events in the $\mu \gamma$
34: missing $E_T$ ($\mett$) channel that disagrees with the Standard Model prediction.
35: No such excess was observed in the $e
36: \gamma \mett$ channel. We explain the excess via resonant smuon production
37: with a single dominant R-parity violating coupling $\lambda'_{211}$,
38: in the context of models where
39: the gravitino is the lightest supersymmetric particle.
40: The slepton decays to the lightest neutralino
41: and a muon followed by neutralino decaying to a gravitino and photon.
42: We determine a viable region of parameter space that fits the kinematical
43: distributions of the Run I excess
44: and illustrate the effect by examining the best fit point in detail.
45: We provide predictions for an excess in the $\mett$
46: and photon channel at Run I and Run II. Run II will decisively rule out or
47: confirm our scenario.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \maketitle
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: CDF has recently presented results
55: on the production of combinations
56: involving at least one photon and one lepton ($e$ or $\mu$)
57: in $p{\bar p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 1.8 ~{\rm TeV}$,
58: using 86 pb$^{-1}$ of Tevatron 1994-95 data \cite{CDF}.
59: In general the results were consistent with the Standard Model (SM),
60: however 16 photon-lepton events with
61: large ${{\not\!\!E}_{T}}$ were observed, with
62: $7.6\pm0.7$ expected.
63: Moreover, 11 of these events involved muons
64: (with 4.2 $\pm$ 0.5 expected)
65: and only 5 electrons (with 3.4 $\pm$ 0.3 expected),
66: suggestive of a lepton flavour violating asymmetry involving muons.
67:
68: What can such a process be?
69: A natural framework with explicit flavour violating couplings is provided
70: by R-violating supersymmetry \cite{pheno},
71: which contains operators
72: with a complicated flavour structure in the superpotential
73: \beq
74: W_{RPV}=\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{ijk} L_iL_j{\bar E}_k+\lambda'_{ijk}L_iQ_j{\bar D_k}+
75: \frac{1}{2}\lambda''_{ijk}{\bar U_i}{\bar D_j}{\bar D_k}+\mu_i L_i H_2
76: \label{eq:superpot}
77: \eeq
78: where $L$ $(Q)$ are the left-handed lepton (quark) superfields while ${\bar
79: E},{\bar D},$ and ${\bar U}$ contain the corresponding right-handed fields,
80: and $i,j,k$ generation indices.
81: The second of the above terms is of particular interest, since it can
82: lead to resonant slepton production in hadron-hadron collisions
83: \cite{previous}, via the diagram that appears below.
84: \begin{figure}
85: \begin{center}
86: \begin{picture}(200,70)
87: \ArrowLine(30,5)(60,25)
88: \ArrowLine(60,25)(30,45)
89: \DashLine(60,25)(90,25){3}
90: \ArrowLine(90,25)(120,5)
91: \DashLine(90,25)(120,45){3}
92: \DashLine(120,45)(150,35){3}
93: \Photon(120,45)(150,65){3}{2}
94: \put(32.5,2.5){$q$}
95: \put(32.5,45){$\bar q'$}
96: \put(122.5,5){$\mu$}
97: \put(100,40){$\chi_0$}
98: \put(75,32.5){$\tilde\mu$}
99: \put(152.5,32.5){$\tilde G$}
100: \put(152.5,62.5){$\gamma$}
101: \end{picture}
102: \end{center}
103: \caption{Resonant smuon production and subsequent decay}
104: \label{feynman}
105: \end{figure}
106:
107: Such a resonance would lead to enhanced cross sections with a rich final state
108: topology, which, as we are going to show,
109: can explain the CDF anomaly. What would then be the structure
110: of the associated operator? R-violating couplings have upper bounds coming from
111: various flavour-violating processes \cite{constraints}. Therefore, to get
112: the requisite number of events to explain the observed anomaly, a sizable
113: cross section is required which would then imply a process with valence quarks
114: in the initial state. Since the events
115: are seen in the muon channel, the operator can be specified to be
116: $L_2Q_1\bar{D}_1$, which generates the couplings ${\tilde \mu}u\bar{d}$ and
117: ${\tilde \nu}_\mu d \bar{d}$ (and charge conjugates), along with other
118: supersymmetrised copies involving squarks.
119: This coupling, $\lambda'_{211}$, is constrained from
120: $R_\pi = \Gamma (\pi \rightarrow e \nu) / (\pi \rightarrow \mu \nu)$
121: \cite{bgh} to be
122: $< 0.059 \times \frac{m_{\tilde{d_R}}}{100 ~{\rm GeV}}$ \cite{constraints}.
123:
124: Upon production, sleptons
125: (in our case, smuons or sneutrinos) can in general decay via a large
126: variety of channels \cite{previous} if they are kinematically accessible.
127: However, the crucial observation is that R-violating supersymmetry by itself
128: may not account for the observed anomaly, because of the fact that the
129: anomaly is observed in a channel where a photon is produced.
130: However, if the gravitino (present in all models where supersymmetry is
131: gauged) is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)
132: it is too long-lived to decay within the detector \cite{gaugmed}.
133: Thus, the gravitino, $\tilde G$, provides the missing energy signature since it is
134: electrically neutral and interacts rather weakly with matter.
135: If the neutralino, as is often the case, is dominantly
136: photino, then the decay $\chi_1^0 \rightarrow {\tilde G} \gamma$ can dominate
137: \cite{comm}. It is interesting to note that the
138: $ee \gamma \gamma \mett$ event
139: recorded by CDF~\cite{abe} can be explained
140: by such a decay~\cite{kane}.
141:
142: Since at the moment there is neither enhancement in the two-fermion
143: final state, nor observation of chains of cascade decays, the most
144: natural explanation is that the R-conserving
145: decay mode of the smuon which produces the lightest neutralino dominates over
146: the rest while subsequently
147: $\chi^0_1 \rightarrow {\tilde G} \gamma$. The competing R-parity violating
148: decay modes of $\chi_1^0 \rightarrow \nu jj$ and $\chi_1^0 \rightarrow \mu jj$
149: leading to $\mu jj \mett$ or $\mu \mu jj$ final states become negligible (as
150: is the case here) when $\lambda'_{211}$ and $m_{\tilde G}$ are both small
151: enough.
152: Smuon decay into two jets via the R-parity violating mode
153: is essentially unobservable
154: because of the huge 2 jet background. For example, for a resonance mass of
155: 200 GeV, only a $\sigma . B> 1.3 \times 10^4$ pb is excluded at 95\%
156: C.L.~\cite{cdfjets}.
157: This will not provide a restrictive bound upon our scenario.
158:
159: It is worth stressing the clarity of the signatures, but also of future
160: predictions in the case of a resonant process.
161: Moreover, the presence of both slepton and sneutrino resonances are in
162: principle to be expected, and we provide a prediction for
163: $\gamma {{\not\!\!E}_{T}}$ events.
164: The higher statistics in Run II of the Tevatron should allow verification
165: our model.
166:
167: The new aspect of the model we present here compared to previous studies
168: of resonant slepton production at hadron colliders~\cite{previous},
169: is to marry the gravitino LSP scenario with R-parity violating supersymmetry.
170: This marriage has been considered before in the context of dark
171: matter~\cite{contexts}.
172:
173: \section{Model and Results}
174:
175:
176: We use the {\small \tt ISASUSY} part of the {\small \tt ISAJET7.58}
177: package~\cite{isajet} to generate the spectrum, branching ratios and
178: decays of the sparticles.
179: For an example of parameters, we choose (in the notation used by
180: ref.~\cite{isajet}) $\lambda'_{211}=0.01$, $m_{3/2}=10^{-3}$ eV, $\tan
181: \beta=10$, $A_{t,\tau,b}=0$, and scan over the bino mass
182: $M_1$ and the slepton mass
183: $m_{\tilde l}\equiv m_{{\tilde L}_{1,2}}=m_{{\tilde e}_{1,2}}$
184: GeV. The values of $\lambda'_{211}$ and $m_{3/2}$ are dictated by the need
185: to have the decays shown in Fig.~\ref{feynman} being dominant. However, there
186: are ranges of values in the $R$-violating coupling and the gravitino
187: mass where this decay chain is obtained. In fact, the acceptable ranges are
188: an order of magnitude
189: in $\lambda'_{211}$ and two orders of magnitude
190: in $m_{3/2}$. $\mu$ together with
191: other flavour diagonal soft supersymmetry breaking parameters are set to
192: be so heavy that any superparticles except the first two
193: generation
194: sleptons, the lightest neutralino and the gravitino are too heavy to be
195: produced or to contribute to cascade
196: decays in Tevatron data. They therefore do not appear in this
197: analysis. We have checked that this is true over a large volume of parameter
198: space.
199: We emphasise that this is a representative hyperplane in the
200: supersymmetric parameter space and not a special choice.
201:
202: We use {\small \tt HERWIG6.3}~\cite{herwig} including parton showering (but
203: not including isolation cuts) to calculate cross-sections for single slepton
204: production.
205: A $\gamma$-in-active-region cut requires that the photon {\em
206: not}
207: have rapidity $|\eta|>1$ or $|\eta|<0.05$.
208: The region $0.77<\eta<1.0, 75^\circ<\phi<90^\circ$ is also excluded because it
209: is not instrumented. Fiducial photon detection efficiency was set to be
210: 81$\%$, whereas for the muons it is 66$\%$ for $1.0>|\eta_\mu|>0.6$ and 45$\%$
211: for $\vert \eta \vert < 0.6$. $\mett$ and the $E_T$ of both the muon and
212: photon were required to be greater than 25 GeV.
213:
214: \begin{figure}
215: \unitlength=1in
216: \begin{picture}(6,2.3)
217: %\put(1.35,0)%{\includegraphics{etmiss.eps}}
218: %{\epsfig{file=muon.eps, width=2.7in}}
219: \put(0,0)%{\includegraphics{muon.eps}}
220: {\epsfig{file=scanrpv1.eps, width=3in}}
221: \put(3,0)%{\includegraphics{photon.eps}}
222: {\epsfig{file=scanrpv2.eps, width=3in}}
223: \end{picture}
224: \caption{Scans over $M_1$ and $\Delta m$. The 95$\%$
225: C.L. regions indicated by the fit to each kinematical distribution is shown.}
226: \label{scans}
227: \end{figure}
228: We calculate the difference in log likelihood between our model and the
229: SM given by each kinematical
230: variable that was presented in ref.~\cite{CDF}. This provides 95$\%$
231: C.L. limits upon $M_1$ and $\Delta m=m_{\tilde l}-M_1$. We show the viable
232: regions for the energy distributions: $E_T(\gamma,\mu)$, $\mett$, the mass $m$
233: and transverse mass $M_T$
234: distributions
235: $m_{\mu \gamma}$, $M_T(\mu \mett)$, $M_T(\mett \gamma)$, $M_T(\gamma \mu
236: \mett)$ and various transverse angular separations $\Delta\phi_{ij}$, where
237: $i,j=\mu, \gamma, \mett$. $\Delta R$, defined as the distance in $\eta-\phi$
238: space between the muon and the photon, is also used.
239: It is not possible to take correlations between these different kinematical
240: variables into account because we do not possess the multi-dimensional data.
241: Therefore we resort to examining each one in turn and see to what extent each
242: region overlaps. Fig.~\ref{scans} shows that all of the 95$\%$ confidence level
243: regions overlap at $M_1\approx 90$ GeV, $\Delta m=25-40$ GeV, indicating that
244: our model is in good agreement with all of the observed kinematical properties
245: of the events. The region at the bottom the plots is ruled out by LEP2 from
246: neutralino pair production~\cite{pdg}.
247:
248: The most discriminating kinematical variable is $E_T(\mu)$, which favors our
249: model over the SM at the 3.3$\sigma$ level at the best fit point
250: $M_1=87$ GeV and $\Delta m=35$ GeV.
251: We refer to this point as ``the best fit
252: point'' from now on, and examine its properties more closely.
253: \begin{figure}
254: \unitlength=1in
255: \epsfig{file=muon.eps, width=3in}
256: \caption{Lepton $E_T$ distribution at the best-fit point in the data (points),
257: SM
258: background (dashed histogram) and our best-fit point (solid histogram).
259: $\sqrt{N}$ uncertainties have been imposed upon the data.}
260: \label{dists}
261: \end{figure}
262: We show the predicted distribution
263: of lepton $E_T$ in
264: Fig.~\ref{dists} and compare it with the excess of the data over the
265: SM background.
266: \begin{table}
267: \caption{MSSM spectrum used to explain anomalous events at the best fit
268: point within the acceptable fit range for $m_{\tilde G}=10^{-3}$ eV, $\tan
269: \beta=10$
270: and $\lambda'_{211}=0.01$. We have displayed the relevant
271: sparticle masses. All other
272: sparticles are heavier than 1900 GeV, and thus do not interfere with our
273: analysis.}
274: \label{tab:spec}
275: \begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
276: particle & ${\tilde e}_L$,${\tilde \mu}_L$ &
277: ${{\tilde \nu}_e}$,${{\tilde \nu}_\mu}$ & $\chi_1^0$ & ${\tilde
278: \mu}_R$,${\tilde e}_R$\\ \hline
279: best-fit mass & 131 GeV & 104 GeV & 87 GeV& 130 GeV \\
280: range & 121--162 GeV & 92--141 GeV & 87--120 GeV & 120--161 GeV \\
281: \end{tabular}
282: \end{table}
283: Important features of the
284: sparticle spectrum are displayed in Table~\ref{tab:spec}.
285: We also show the range of sparticle masses corresponding to the acceptable
286: fit range of
287: parameter space. The acceptable fit range is defined as being compatible with
288: at least all but one of the 95$\%$ C.L. regions in fig~\ref{scans}.
289: The relevant branching ratios of the smuon are
290: \begin{equation}
291: BR({\tilde \mu}_L \rightarrow \chi_1^0 \mu) = 0.984, \qquad
292: BR({\tilde \mu}_L \rightarrow \bar{u} d) = 0.015, \qquad
293: BR({\tilde \mu}_L \rightarrow {\tilde \mu} {\tilde G}) = 0.001,
294: \end{equation}
295: with a lifetime of $1\times 10^{-22}$ sec,
296: whereas for the lightest neutralino we have
297: \begin{equation}
298: BR(\chi^0_1 \rightarrow {\tilde G} \gamma) = 0.975, \qquad
299: BR(\chi_1^0 \rightarrow {\tilde G} e^- e^+) = 0.020, \qquad
300: \end{equation}
301: with a lifetime of $1 \times 10^{-18}$ sec. At such small values of
302: $\lambda'_{211}$ and $m_{\tilde G}$, R-parity violating decays of the
303: lightest neutralino are negligible.
304: In Table~\ref{tab:res1}, we show the percentage of events making it through
305: each of the cuts.
306: The table shows that 11.4$\%$ of the smuons produced end up as detected
307: $\mu \gamma \mett$ events in CDF.
308: \begin{table}
309: \caption{Percentage of SUSY events for the best fit point
310: that satisfy cumulative cuts for $\mu \gamma \mett$
311: events at CDF, Run I. Events that pass a cut in a given entry also pass
312: those cuts to the left.}
313: \label{tab:res1}
314: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
315: cut &
316: $E_T(\gamma)>25$ GeV & isolated detected $\gamma$ & $E_T(\mu)>25$ GeV&
317: $|\eta_\mu|<1.0$ & detected $\mu$ &
318: $\mett>25$ GeV \\ \hline
319: percentage & 80.8 & 48.6 & 35.2 & 22.8 & 13.3 & 10.9 \\
320: \end{tabular}
321: \end{table}
322: The corrected cross-section of 0.091 pb
323: corresponds to 7.8 events additional to the 4.2$\pm0.5$ predicted
324: by the SM
325: for 86 pb$^{-1}$ of
326: luminosity, adequately fitting the excess of events quoted by CDF at Run I.
327:
328: We now determine the rate of single sneutrino production at Run I.
329: The process is: ${\tilde \nu}\rightarrow\nu \chi^0_1$ followed by
330: $\chi^0_1 \rightarrow {\tilde G} \gamma$. This would appear
331: to mimic $Z \gamma$ production, where $Z \rightarrow \nu {\bar \nu}$.
332: To compute the cross-section for this process, we use the cuts used by
333: the D0 experiment in their $\gamma \mett$ analysis \cite {dzero}.
334: With their cuts, we predict a supersymmetric cross-section of $0.054$ pb for
335: the $\mett \gamma$ process at the Run I energy, which corresponds to about 0.7
336: events for the 14 pb$^{-1}$ data analyzed by the D0 experiment. The D0
337: experiment observed 4 events over a SM background of 1.8$\pm$0.2 events
338: but with a much bigger background coming from cosmic ray sources which
339: is estimated to be 5.8$\pm$1.0.
340: As far as we are aware, the analysis has not yet been done with the
341: full Run I Tevatron data but we would expect about 5.4 events for a
342: 100 pb$^{-1}$ data sample.
343:
344: We perform the above analyses for Run II (at $\sqrt{s}=2$ TeV) for the best
345: fit point
346: in order to make predictions for
347: observable supersymmetric cross sections:
348: \begin{equation}
349: \sigma(\gamma \mu \mett) = \sriimge \mbox{~pb},\qquad
350: \sigma(\gamma \mett) = \sriige \mbox{~pb},
351: \end{equation}
352: which, ought to be observable with good
353: statistics. Since the numbers for the cuts and the efficiencies
354: at Run II are not available, we have simply used those that the CDF experiment
355: used in
356: their $\mu \gamma \mett$ analysis at Run I. To that extent, these numbers
357: are only indicative.
358: For example,
359: with an integrated luminosity of 2 fb${}^{-1}$, these cross-sections would correspond
360: to \nriimge~and \nriige~events, respectively.
361: We predict 0.8 expected selectron pairs at Run I.
362: Thus, the discrepancy with respect to the SM~\cite{abe} from the
363: observation
364: of an $e e \gamma \gamma \mett$ event in the Run I data is vastly ameliorated.
365: R-parity conserving production processes such as these will be observable at
366: Run II providing more independent checks upon our scenario.
367: One expects an identical number of smuon pairs, leading to a $\mu \mu \gamma
368: \gamma \mett$ final-state. This final state has not yet been observed by CDF,
369: but we note that combining the $e e \gamma \gamma \mett$ and $\mu \mu \gamma
370: \gamma \mett$ channels, our model still vastly ameliorates the discrepancy
371: with respect to the SM.
372:
373: \section{Conclusions}
374:
375: We have demonstrated that R-parity violating supersymmetry with a
376: light gravitino can explain an anomalously high measured cross-section for
377: the $\mu \gamma \mett$ channel. We have provided possible tests for this
378: hypothesis, in the form of SUSY cross-sections for the
379: $\gamma \mett$ channel, and predictions for the cross-sections of both
380: channels at Run II of the Tevatron collider.
381: The $\gamma \mett$ channel looks particularly promising because it will allow
382: an
383: independent check of our scenario.
384:
385: Another interesting question to ask is whether
386: the signal can also be obtained from a specific model of supersymmetry
387: breaking consistent with all other data.
388:
389: \begin{acknowledgments}
390: We would like to thank K. Odagiri for focusing our attention on the $E_T$
391: distributions.
392: \end{acknowledgments}
393:
394: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
395:
396: \bibitem{CDF}
397: D. Acosta et. al, hep-ex/0110015.
398:
399: \bibitem{pheno}
400: For some of the earlier references, see:
401: F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B132 (1983) 103 ;
402: L. Hall and M. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. B231 (1984) 419;
403: J. Ellis et al, Phys. Lett. B150 (1985) 142 ;
404: S. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B261 (1985) 297 ;
405: R. Barbieri and A. Masiero, Nucl. Phys. B267 (1986) 679.
406:
407: \bibitem{previous}
408: S. Dimopoulos, R. Esmailzadeh, L. J. Hall, and G. D. Starkman,
409: Phys. Rev.D41 (1990) 2099;
410: J. Kalinowski, R. R\"{u}ckl, H. Spiesberger, and P. M. Zerwas
411: Phys. Lett. B414 (1997) 297;
412: J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, hep-ph/9809525,
413: proceedings of (ICHEP98), Vancouver;
414: B. C. Allanach {\em et al.}, hep-ph/9906224,
415: contribution to Physics at Run II Workshop, Batavia, November 98;
416: H. Dreiner, P. Richardson and M. Seymour, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 055008;
417: JHEP 0004:008 (2000); hep-ph/0001224;
418: G. Moreau, M. Chemtob, F. Deliot, C. Royon, and E. Perez,
419: Phys. Lett. B475 (2000) 184;
420: G. Moreau, E. Perez, and G. Polesello,
421: Nucl. Phys. B604 (2001) 3.
422:
423: \bibitem{constraints}
424: B. C. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H. K. Dreiner,
425: Phys. Rev. {D60}, 075014 (1999), hep-ph/9906209;
426: H. Dreiner, `Perspectives on Supersymmetry', Ed. by
427: G.L. Kane, World Scientific;
428: G. Bhattacharyya, hep-ph/9709395,
429: presented at Workshop on Physics Beyond the Standard
430: Model, Tegernsee, Germany, 8-14 Jun 1997.
431:
432: \bibitem{bgh}
433: V. Barger, G. F. Giudice and T. Han, Phys. Rev.
434: D 40 (1989) 2987.
435:
436: \bibitem{gaugmed}
437: A light gravitino of the kind that we are interested in is naturally
438: realised in models of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking. For a
439: review see,
440: G. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Rept. 322 (1999) 419 and references
441: therein.
442:
443: \bibitem{comm}
444: The radiative decay
445: $ \chi^{0} \rightarrow \nu \gamma$ is possible, but in practice
446: it is loop-suppressed with respect to the
447: 3-body neutralino decays which leads to a different final
448: state.
449:
450: \bibitem{abe}
451: F.Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D59, 092002 (1999).
452:
453: \bibitem{kane}
454: S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna,
455: Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3498;
456: G. L. Kane and S. Mrenna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3502;
457: S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna,
458: Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 1372.
459:
460: \bibitem{cdfjets}
461: F. Abe {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D55, 5263 (1997)
462:
463: \bibitem{contexts}
464: S. Borgani, A. Masiero and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B385 (1996) 189;
465: F. Takayama and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B485 (2000) 388.
466:
467: \bibitem{isajet}
468: F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopescu, H. Baer and X. Tata,
469: ``ISAJET 7.40: A Monte Carlo event generator for p p, anti-p p, and $e^+
470: e^-$ reactions'', hep-ph/9810440.
471:
472: \bibitem{herwig}
473: G. Corcella {\it et al.},
474: ``HERWIG 6.3'' ;
475: G. Marchesini, B. R. Webber, G. Abbiendi, I. G. Knowles, M. H. Seymour and
476: L. Stanco, JHEP 01 (2001) 010 hep-ph/0011363; {\em ibid.} hep-ph/0107071.
477: ``HERWIG: A Monte Carlo event generator for simulating hadron emission
478: reactions with interfering gluons. Version 5.1 - April 1991'',
479: {Comput. Phys.Commun.} {67} (1992) 465.
480:
481: \bibitem{pdg}
482: Particle Data Book, D.E. Groom {\it et al},
483: Eur. Phys. C15 (2000) 1.
484:
485: \bibitem{dzero}
486: D0 collaboration, S. Abachi {\it et al}, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 6742.
487:
488: \end{thebibliography}
489: \end{document}
490:
491: