1: % ds.tex, for prd

2: %

3: %\documentstyle[psfig,12pt]{article}

4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: %\input{epsf}

7: %

8: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}

9: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}

10: \def\xwl {$x_W^l$}

11: \def\alr {$A_{LR}$}

12: \def\afb {$A_{FB}^b$}

13: \def\mh {$m_H$}

14: \def\mw {$m_W$}

15: % use next line topmargin for hepp

16: \def\journal{\topmargin 0.0in   \oddsidemargin 0in

17: % use next line topmargin for lbl

18: %\def\journal{\topmargin 0.75in   \oddsidemargin 0in

19:         \headheight 0pt \headsep 0pt

20:         \textwidth 6.5in % 1.2 preprint size  %6.5in

21: \textheight 9in % 1.2 preprint size 9in

22:         \marginparwidth 1.5in

23:         \parindent 2em

24:         \parskip .5ex plus .1ex         \jot = 1.5ex}

25: %

26: %       The default is set to be journal!

27: \journal

28: \def\baselinestretch{1.2}

29: %\def\baselinestretch{2}

30: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

31: %\input{epsf}

32: \begin{document}

33: \begin{titlepage}

34: 

35: %\date               \hfill   LBNL-50718    \\

36: \noindent June 24, 2002      \hfill    LBNL-50718\\

37: 

38: 

39: \begin{center}

40: 

41: \vskip .5in

42: 

43: {\large \bf Electroweak Data and the Higgs Boson Mass: \\

44:      A Case for New Physics}

45: \footnote

46: {This work is supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office

47: of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the

48: U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098}

49: 

50: \vskip .5in

51: 

52: Michael S. Chanowitz\footnote{Email: chanowitz@lbl.gov}

53: 

54: \vskip .2in

55: 

56: {\em Theoretical Physics Group\\

57:      Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\\

58:      University of California\\

59:      Berkeley, California 94720}

60: \end{center}

61: 

62: \vskip .25in

63: 

64: \begin{abstract}

65: 

66: Because of two $3\sigma$ anomalies, the Standard Model (SM) fit of the

67: precision electroweak data has a poor confidence level, $CL= 0.010$.

68: Since both anomalies involve challenging systematic issues, it might

69: appear that the SM could still be valid if the anomalies resulted from

70: underestimated systematic error. Indeed the $CL$ of the global fit

71: could then increase to 0.65, but that fit predicts a small Higgs boson

72: mass, $m_H=43$ GeV, that is only consistent at $CL=0.035$ with the

73: lower limit, $m_H>114$ GeV, established by direct searches.  The data

74: then favor new physics whether the anomalous measurements are excluded

75: from the fit or not, and the Higgs boson mass cannot be predicted

76: until the new physics is understood. Some measure of statistical

77: fluctuation would be needed to maintain the validity of the SM, which

78: is unlikely by broad statistical measures. New physics is favored, but

79: the SM is not definitively excluded.

80: 

81: \end{abstract}

82: 

83: \end{titlepage}

84: 

85: %THIS PAGE (PAGE ii) CONTAINS THE LBL DISCLAIMER

86: %TEXT SHOULD BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE (PAGE 1)

87: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\roman{page}}

88: \setcounter{page}{2}

89: \mbox{ }

90: 

91: \vskip 1in

92: 

93: \begin{center}

94: {\bf Disclaimer}

95: \end{center}

96: 

97: \vskip .2in

98: 

99: \begin{scriptsize}

100: \begin{quotation}

101: This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United

102: States Government. While this document is believed to contain correct

103:  information, neither the United States Government nor any agency

104: thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any of their

105: employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal

106: liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness

107: of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents

108: that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.  Reference herein

109: to any specific commercial products process, or service by its trade name,

110: trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or

111: imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States

112: Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of

113: California.  The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not

114: necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any

115: agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California.

116: \end{quotation}

117: \end{scriptsize}

118: 

119: 

120: \vskip 2in

121: 

122: \begin{center}

123: \begin{small}

124: {\it Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is an equal opportunity employer.}

125: \end{small}

126: \end{center}

127: 

128: \newpage

129: 

130: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}

131: \setcounter{page}{1}

132: %THIS IS PAGE 1 (INSERT TEXT OF REPORT HERE)

133: %starthere

134: %v6- shorten for PRL

135: 

136: \noindent{\bf 1. Introduction}

137: 

138: A decade of beautiful experiments at CERN, Fermilab, and SLAC have

139: provided increasingly precise tests of the Standard Model (SM) of

140: elementary particle physics. The data is important for two reasons: it

141: confirms the SM at the level of virtual quantum effects and it probes

142: the mass scale of the Higgs boson, needed to complete the model and

143: provide the mechanism of mass generation.  In the usual interpretation

144: the data is thought to constrain the Higgs boson mass, $m_H$, most

145: recently with $m_H<195$ GeV\cite{ewwg_02} at confidence level

146: $CL=95\%$.  At the same time direct searches for the Higgs boson at

147: LEP II have established a 95\% $CL$ lower limit, $m_H>114$

148: GeV.\cite{mhlimit}\footnote 

149: { 

150: N.B., the experimental 95\% lower limit

151: from the direct searches does {\em not} imply a 5\% chance that the

152: Higgs boson is lighter than 114 GeV; rather it means that if the

153: mass were actually 114 GeV there would be a 5\% chance for it to

154: have escaped detection. The likelihood for $m_H < 114$ GeV from the

155: direct searches is much smaller than 5\%. See for instance the

156: discussion in section 5 of \cite{mchvr}.  

157: }  

158: %This `triangulation' has created an expectation that the Higgs boson

159: %is probably `light,' meaning $m_H \ll 1$ TeV. 

160: 

161: Recently the agreement of the precision data with the SM has moved

162: from excellent to poor. For the global fits enumerated below, the 

163: confidence level has evolved from 0.45 in the Summer of

164: 1998,\cite{ewwg_98} to 0.04 in the Spring of 2001,\cite{ewwg_01} and

165: then to 0.010 in the current Spring 2002 data.\cite{ewwg_02}\footnote

166: {

167: $CL=0.010$ for Spring 2002 is from a fit specified below that uses the

168: same set of measurements as were included in the quoted 1998 and 2001

169: fits. Reference \cite{ewwg_02} has a slightly different value

170: for their all-data fit, $CL=0.017$, because of two recently introduced

171: measurements, which we do not include as discussed below. Furthermore, 

172: updating the all-data fit of \cite{ewwg_02} we find, as discussed below, 

173: that it would now yield $CL=0.009$. 

174: }

175: The current low $CL$ is a consequence of two $3\sigma$ anomalies,

176: together with the evolution of the $W$ boson mass measurement, as

177: shown below. The $3\sigma$ anomalies are (1) the discrepancy between

178: the SM determination of $x_W^l = {\rm sin}^2\theta^l_W$, the effective

179: leptonic weak interaction mixing angle, from three hadronic asymmetry

180: measurements, $x_W^l[A_H]$, versus its determination from three

181: leptonic measurements, $x_W^l[A_L]$, and (2) the NuTeV measurement of

182: charged and neutral current (anti)neutrino-nucleon

183: scattering,\cite{nutev} quoted as an effective on-shell weak

184: interaction mixing angle, $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$.

185: 

186: If either anomaly is genuine, it indicates new physics, the

187: SM fit is invalidated, and we cannot use the precision data to

188: constrain the Higgs boson mass until the new physics is

189: understood. However both anomalous measurements involve subtle

190: systematic issues, concerning experimental technique and, especially,

191: nontrivial QCD-based models.  If the systematic

192: uncertainties were much larger than current estimates, the $CL$ of the

193: global fit could increase to as much as 0.65, as shown below. It is

194: then possible to imagine that the SM might still provide a valid

195: description of the data and a useful constraint on the Higgs boson

196: mass. 

197: 

198: We will see however that this possibility is unlikely, because of a

199: contradiction that emerges between the resulting global fit and the

200: 95\% $CL$ lower limit, $m_H > 114$ GeV. The central point is that

201: {\em the anomalous measurements are the only $m_H$-sensitive

202: observables that place the Higgs boson mass in the region allowed by

203: the searches}. All other $m_H$-sensitive observables predict $m_H$ far

204: below 114 GeV. We find that if the anomalous measurements are

205: excluded, the confidence level for $m_H>114$ GeV from the global fit

206: is between 0.030 and 0.035, depending on the method of estimation.

207: 

208: The hypothesis that the anomalies result from systematic error then

209: also favors new physics, in particular, new physics that would raise

210: the prediction for $m_H$ into the experimentally allowed region. This

211: can be accomplished, for example, by new physics whose dominant effect

212: on the low energy data is on the $W$ and $Z$ vacuum polarizations

213: (i.e., ``oblique''\cite{pt}), as shown explicitly below. Essentially

214: any value of $m_H$ is allowed in these fits.

215: 

216: It should be clear that our focus on the possibility of underestimated

217: systematic error is not based on the belief that it is the most likely

218: explanation of the data. In fact, the situation is truly puzzling, and

219: there is no decisive reason to prefer systematic error over new

220: physics as the explanation of either anomaly. Rather we have

221: considered the systematic error hypothesis in order to understand

222: its implications, finding that it also points to new physics.

223: 

224: The SM is then disfavored whether the experimental anomalies are

225: genuine or not. The viability of the SM fit and the associated

226: constraint on $m_H$ can only be maintained by invoking some measure of

227: statistical fluctuation, perhaps in combination with a measure of

228: increased systematic uncertainty. This is {\it a priori} unlikely by

229: broad statistical measures discussed below, but it is not impossible.

230: The conclusion is that the SM is disfavored but not definitively

231: excluded. A major consequence is that it is important to search for the

232: Higgs sector over the full range allowed by unitarity,\cite{mcmkg} 

233: as, fortunately, we will be able  to do at the LHC operating at its 

234: design luminosity.\cite{ww} 

235: 

236: This paper extends and updates a previously published

237: report,\cite{mc1} based on the Spring 2001 data

238: set, which focused exclusively on the $m_H$-sensitive observables. The

239: present analysis is based on the Spring 2002 data, and considers

240: $m_H$-sensitive observables as well as global fits of all $Z$-pole

241: observables. The data has also changed in some respects: the $3\sigma$

242: NuTeV anomaly is a new development and the discrepancy between the

243: hadronic and leptonic determinations of $x_W^l$ has diminished from

244: 3.6 to 3.0$\sigma$. However the other $m_H$-sensitive observables are

245: unchanged, and the present conclusions are consistent with the

246: previous report.

247: 

248: Since in this work we also consider global fits, we can summarize the

249: conclusion quantitatively by introducing the combined probability

250: $$

251: P_C= CL({\rm Global\ Fit}) \times CL(m_H > 114).  \eqno(1.1)

252: $$

253: The internal consistency of the global fit and its consistency with

254: the search limit are independent constraints, so the combined

255: likelihood to satisfy both is given by $P_C$. We find that $P_C$ is

256: roughly independent of whether the three hadronic front-back asymmetry

257: measurements are included in the fit, although the two factors on the

258: right hand side of eq. (1.1) vary considerably in the two cases. For

259: instance, for the global fit to `all' data, we have $CL({\rm Global\

260: Fit})=0.010$ and $CL(m_H >114)= 0.30$ so that $P_C= 0.010 \times 0.30=

261: 0.0030$.  If the three hadronic asymmetry measurements are omitted we

262: have instead $CL({\rm Global\ Fit})=0.066$, $CL(m_H >114)= 0.047$, and

263: $P_C= 0.066 \times 0.047= 0.0031$. The extent of the agreement in this

264: example is accidental, but the point remains approximately valid: if

265: the three hadronic asymmetry measurements are omitted, the increase in

266: the global fit confidence level is approximately compensated by a

267: corresponding decrease in the confidence level that the fit is

268: consistent with the direct search limit.

269: 

270: In section 2 we review the data used in the fits, with a discussion of

271: how it has evolved during the past few years which 

272: emphasizes the importance of the $W$ mass measurement. In section 3

273: we briefly discuss the three generic explanations ---

274: statistics/systematics/new physics --- of the discrepancies in the

275: global SM fit.  In section 4 we review the methodology of the SM fits

276: and the choice of observables. In section 5 we present fits of the

277: data which exhibit the range in $m_H$ preferred by the $m_H$-sensitive

278: observables, as well as global fits with and without the anomalous

279: measurements. In these fits we use the $\chi^2$ distribution for the

280: global fits and the $\Delta\chi^2$ method to assess the consistency of

281: the fits with the direct search lower limit on $m_H$.  In section 6 we

282: use a ``Bayesian'' maximimum likelihood method instead of

283: $\Delta\chi^2$ to estimate the $CL$ for consistency with the direct

284: searches. Section 7 illustrates the possible effect of new physics in

285: the oblique approximation. The results are discussed in section 8.

286: 

287: \noindent {\bf 2. The Data}

288: 

289: We consider 13 $Z$-pole observables and in addition the directly

290: measured values of $m_W$, the $W$ boson mass, $m_t$, the top quark

291: mass, $\Delta \alpha_5$, the hadronic contribution to the

292: renormalization of the electromagnetic coupling at the $Z$ pole, and

293: the NuTeV result. As discussed in section 4, we do not include the $W$

294: boson width or the Cesium atomic parity violation measurement, which

295: is the principal reason for the small differences between the global

296: fits presented here and in \cite{ewwg_02}. These measurements have only 

297: recently been added to the global fits; they were not included in the

298: 1998 and 2001 fits\cite{ewwg_98,ewwg_01} which we also consider below.  Our

299: all-data fit is tabulated in table 2.1, with the current preliminary

300: experimental values from \cite{ewwg_02}. Details of the fitting

301: procedure are given in section 4.

302: 

303: The central value for $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ from the

304: NuTeV experiment is shown in table 2.1. In our SM fits we include the

305: small dependence of $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ on $m_t$

306: and $m_H$ given in \cite{nutev}.  Table 2.1 also contains the model

307: independent NuTeV result\cite{nutev}, given in terms of effective

308: $Zqq$ couplings, $g_L^2= g_{uL}^2 + g_{dL}^2$ and $g_R^2= g_{uR}^2 +

309: g_{dR}^2$. They are not included in the SM fits but are used instead

310: of $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ in the new physics fits of

311: section 7.

312: 

313: The confidence level of the SM fit in table 2.1 is poor, $CL=0.010$,

314: with $\chi^2/N=27.7/13$. The central value of the Higgs boson mass is

315: $m_H=94$ GeV. As shown in section 4, our results agree very well with

316: those of \cite{ewwg_02} when we fit the same set of observables.

317: 

318: The SM fit was excellent in 1998 and has now become poor.  Large

319: discrepancies occur among the six SM determinations of the effective

320: leptonic weak interaction mixing angle, \xwl. The three leptonic

321: measurements, $A_{LR}$, $A_{FB}^l$, and $A_{e,\tau}$ are quite

322: consistent with one another. They combine with $\chi^2/N = 1.6/2$,

323: $CL= 0.45$, to yield

324: $$

325: x_W^l[A_L]= 0.23113 (21).		\eqno(2.1)

326: $$

327: The three hadronic measurements are also mutually consistent and

328: combine, with $\chi^2/N = 0.03/2$ and $CL= 0.985$, to yield

329: $$

330: x_W^l[A_H]= 0.23220 (29).	\eqno(2.2)

331: $$

332: But $ x_W^l[A_L]$ and $ x_W^l[A_H]$ differ by 2.99$\sigma$

333: corresponding to $CL= 0.0028$.  Combining (2.1) and (2.2), the result

334: for all six measurements is $x_W^l= 0.23149 (17)$.  The very small

335: $\chi^2$ associated with the three hadronic measurements is either a 

336: fluctuation or it suggests that the errors are overestimated, in

337: which case the discrepancy between $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$ would

338: be even greater.

339: 

340: The discrepancy between $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$ is driven by the

341: difference of the two most precise measurements, $A_{LR}$ and

342: $A_{FB}^b$, which has been a feature of the data since the earliest

343: days of LEP and SLC.  At present, $x_W^l$ from $A_{LR}$ and $A_{FB}^b$

344: are respectively 0.23098(26) and 0.23218(31). They differ by

345: 2.97$\sigma$, $CL= 0.0030$, and combine to yield $x_W^l= 0.23151

346: (20)$.

347: 

348: Combining all 6 measurements directly we find $x_W^l= 0.23149(17)$ as

349: above, with $\chi^2/N = 10.6/5$ and $CL= 0.06$. Notice that the ratio

350: of this confidence level to the confidence level, $CL= 0.003$, for 

351: $x_W^l[A_L]$ versus $x_W^l[A_H]$, 0.06/0.003 = 20, is just the number of

352: ways that two sets of three can be formed from a collection of 6

353: objects. If one attaches an {\it a priori} significance to the

354: leptonic and hadronic subsets, then the appropriate confidence level

355: is 0.003, from the combination of $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$.  If

356: instead one regards the grouping into $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$ as one

357: of 20 random choices, then 0.06 is the appropriate characterization of

358: the consistency of the data.\footnote{I thank M. Grunewald for a

359: discussion.}  In either case the consistency is problematic.

360: 

361: The determination of $x_W^l$ from the hadronic asymmetries assumes

362: that the hadronic $Zq\overline q$ interaction vertices are given by

363: the SM. For instance, to obtain $x_W^l$ from 

364: $$

365: A_{FB}^b = {3\over4} A_b A_e \eqno{(2.3)}

366: $$ 

367: we assume that $A_b$ is at its SM value, $A_b = A_b[{\rm

368: SM}]$. $A_b[{\rm SM}]$ has very little sensitivity to the unknown

369: value of $m_H$, and not much sensitivity to the other SM parameters

370: either. $x_W^l$ is then obtained from $A_e = (g_{eL}^2 -

371: g_{eR}^2)/(g_{eL}^2 + g_{eR}^2)$, using $g_{eL} = {-1\over2} + x_W^l$

372: and $g_{eR} = x_W^l$. The only assumption in obtaining $x_W^l$ from

373: the leptonic asymmetries is lepton flavor universality.

374: 

375: The $3\sigma$ discrepancy between $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$ is

376: significant for three reasons. First, it is a failed test for the SM,

377: since it implies $A_q \neq A_q[{\rm SM}]$.  For instance,

378: $A_b$ extracted from $A_{FB}^b$ (taking $A_l$ from the three leptonic

379: asymmetry measurements) disagrees with $A_b[{\rm SM}]$ by 2.9$\sigma$,

380: $CL= 0.004$.  Second, together with the $m_W$ measurement, the

381: $x_W^l[A_L]$ -- $x_W^l[A_H]$ discrepancy marginalizes the global SM fit,

382: even without the NuTeV result. Finally, in addition to the effect on

383: the global fit, it is problematic that the determination of the Higgs

384: boson mass is dominated by the low probability combination of

385: $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$, or by the low probablility combination of

386: the six asymmetry measurements. In judging the reliability 

387: of the prediction for $m_H$ we are concerned not only with the 

388: quality of the global fit but also with the consistency of the 

389: smaller set of measurements that dominate the $m_H$ prediction. 

390: 

391: To understand the effect on the global fit it is useful to consider

392: the evolution of the data from 1998\cite{ewwg_98} to the

393: present\cite{ewwg_02}, shown in table 2.2, together with the

394: intervening Spring '01 data set\cite{ewwg_01}, on which \cite{mc1} was

395: based.  The $x_W^l[A_L]$ -- $x_W^l[A_H]$ discrepancy evolved from

396: 2.4$\sigma$ in '98 to 3.6$\sigma$ in Spring '01 to 3.0$\sigma$ in Spring

397: '02. Excluding NuTeV, the $CL$ of the set of measurements listed in

398: table 2.1 evolved during that time from a robust 0.46 to 0.04 to

399: 0.10.\footnote 

400: { 

401: The degrees of freedom decrease from 14 to 12 because

402: we follow the recent practice of the EWWG\cite{ewwg_02} in

403: consolidating the LEP II and FNAL measurements into a single $m_W$

404: measurement and the two $\tau$ polarization measurements into a single

405: quantity that we denote $A_{e,\tau}$.  The same set of measurements is

406: tracked for all three years.  

407: }

408: 

409: The decrease in the global $CL$ is only partially due to the changes

410: in the asymmetry measurements. An equally important factor is the

411: evolution of $m_W$, for which the precision improved dramatically, by

412: a factor of 3, while the central value increased by ${1\over 2}\sigma$ with

413: respect to the '98 measurement. To understand the role of $m_W$, table

414: 2.3 shows fits based on the current data plus two hypothetical

415: scenarios in which all measurements are kept at their Spring '02

416: values except $m_W$. In the first of these, $m_W$ is held at its '98

417: central value and precision. In the second the current precision is

418: assumed but with a smaller central value, corresponding to a

419: ${1\over 2}\sigma$ downward fluctuation of the '98 measurement. 

420: For both hypothetical data sets, the global $CL$ is greater by

421: a factor two than the $CL$ of the current data. 

422: 

423: To understand how $m_W$ correlates with the asymmetry measurements we

424: also exhibit the corresponding fits in which either $A_{FB}^b$ or $A_{LR}$

425: are excluded. In the current data, the $CL$ increases appreciably, to

426: 0.51, if $A_{FB}^b$ is excluded but much less if $A_{LR}$ is excluded,

427: reflecting the larger pull of $A_{FB}^b$ in the SM fit.  In the two

428: hypothetical scenarios the $CL$ increases comparably whether $A_{LR}$ 

429: or $A_{FB}^b$ is excluded. 

430: 

431: There are two conclusions from this exercise. First, the evolution of

432: the $m_W$ measurement contributes as much to the marginalization of

433: the global fit as does the evolution of the asymmetry measurements.

434: Second, at its current value and precision $m_W$ tilts the SM fit

435: toward $A_{LR}$ and $x_W^l[A_L]$, while tagging $A_{FB}^b$ and

436: $x_W^l[A_H]$ as `anomalous'.  The reason for this ``alliance'' of

437: $m_W$ and $x_W^l[A_L]$ will become clear in section 5, where we will

438: see that $m_W$ and $x_W^l[A_L]$ favor very light values of the Higgs

439: boson mass, far below the 114 GeV lower limit, while $x_W^l[A_H]$

440: favors much heavier values, far above 114 GeV.

441: 

442: Returning to table 2.2, we also see the effect on the global fit of

443: the new result from NuTeV. In the '98 and '01 data sets, NuTeV had

444: little effect on the global $CL$. In the current data set, because of

445: its increased precision and central value, it causes the $CL$ to

446: decrease from an already marginal 0.10 to a poor 0.010. The low

447: confidence level of the global SM fit is then due in roughly equal

448: parts to 1) the discrepancy between the $x_W^l[A_L]$--$m_W$ alliance

449: versus $x_W^l[A_H]$, and 2) the NuTeV result. We will refer to

450: $x_W^l[A_H]$ and $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ as ``anomalous''

451: simply as a shorthand indication of their deviation from the SM fit,

452: with no judgement intended as to their {\it bona fides}.

453: 

454: \noindent {\bf 3. Interpreting the Discrepancies}

455: 

456: In this section we wish to set the context for the fits to follow 

457: by briefly discussing the three generic explanations of the 

458: discrepancies in the SM fit reviewed in the previous section. 

459: They are statistical fluctuation, new physics, and underestimated 

460: systematic error. Combinations of the three generic options are also 

461: possible.

462: 

463: \noindent \underline{{\em 3.1 Statistical Fluctuations} }

464: 

465: One or both anomalies could be the result of statistical

466: fluctuations. However, if the data is to be consistent not only with

467: the global fit but also with the lower limit on $m_H$ from the Higgs

468: boson searches as discussed in sections 5 and 6, it is necessary that

469: both anomalous and non-anomalous measurements have fluctuated. If only

470: the anomalous measurements were to have fluctuated, the global fit

471: would improve but the conflict with the lower limit on $m_H$ would be

472: exacerbated.

473: %\footnote { Holding all other quantities fixed while

474: %varying $x_W^l[A_H]$ downward toward $x_W^l[A_L]$, we find that

475: %$P_C$ can increase by no more than a factor $\simeq 2$.  }

476: 

477: A high energy physics sage is reputed to have said, only partly in

478: jest, that ``The confidence level for $3\sigma$ is fifty-fifty.''

479: The wisdom of the remark has its basis in two different

480: phenomena. First, at a rate above chance expectation, many unusual

481: results are ultimately understood to result from systematic

482: error --- this possibility is discussed below and its

483: implications are explored in sections 5 and 6. Second, estimates of

484: statistical significance are sometimes not appropriately defined. For

485: instance, when a $3\sigma$ ``glueball'' signal is discovered over an

486: appreciable background in a mass histogram with 100 bins, the chance

487: likelihood is not the nominal 0.0027 associated with a $3\sigma$

488: fluctuation but rather the complement of the probability that none of

489: the 100 bins contain such a signal, which is $1 -0.9973^{100} =

490: 0.24$. The smaller likelihood is relevant only if we have an {\it a

491: priori} reason to expect that the signal would appear in the very bin

492: in which it was discovered.

493: 

494: In assessing the possibility of statistical fluctuations as the

495: explanation of the poor SM fit, it should be clear that the global fit

496: $CL$'s are appropriately defined, reflecting statistical ensembles

497: that correspond to replaying the previous decade of experiments many

498: times over. In particular, the $\chi^2$ $CL$'s of the global fits are

499: like the glueball example with the significance normalized to the

500: probability that the signal might emerge in any of the 100 bins, as

501: shown explicitly below.

502: 

503: Table 3.1 summarizes $\chi^2$ fits of four different data sets, in

504: which none, one, or both sets of anomalous measurements are

505: excluded. Consider for instance fit B in which only $x_W^{\rm

506: OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ is excluded, with $CL=0.10$.  In that

507: fit, consisting of 16 measurements, the only significantly anomalous

508: measurement is $A_{FB}^b$, with a pull of 2.77, for which the nominal

509: $CL$ is 0.0056. The likelihood that at least one of 16 measurements

510: will differ from the fit by $\geq 2.77\sigma$ is then $1-0.9944^{16} =

511: 0.09$, which matches nicely with the $\chi^2$ $CL$ of 0.10. Similarly,

512: in fit C which retains NuTeV while excluding the hadronic asymmetry

513: measurements, the outstanding anomaly is $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel

514: {(-)}{\nu} N]$ with a pull of 3.0, and the probability for at least

515: one such deviant is $1-0.9973^{14} = 0.04$, compared to the $\chi^2$ $CL=

516: 0.05$. Finally, for the full data set, fit A, the outstanding anomalies

517: are $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ with a pull of 3.0 and

518: $A_{FB}^b$ with a pull of 2.55. In that case we ask for the

519: probability of at least one measurement diverging by $\geq 3.0\sigma$

520: and a second by $\geq 2.55\sigma$, which is given by $1 -0.9973^{17} -

521: 17(1 - 0.9973)(0.9892)^{16}= 0.006$, compared to the $\chi^2$ $CL$ of

522: 0.010.

523: 

524: We see then that the $\chi^2$ $CL$'s appropriately reflect ``the

525: number of bins in the histogram,'' and that the poor $CL$'s of these

526: SM fits are well accounted for by the appropriately defined

527: probabilities that the outlying anomalous measurements could have

528: occurred by chance.  The nominal $\chi^2$ confidence levels of the

529: global fits are then reasonable estimates of the probability that

530: statistical fluctuations can explain the anomalies, which we may

531: characterize as unlikely but not impossible. Only fit D, with both

532: anomalies removed, has a robust confidence level, $CL=0.65$.  We refer

533: to fit D as the ``Minimal Data Set.'' The results and pulls for 

534: this fit are shown in table 3.2.

535: 

536: This discussion does not reflect the fact that the anomalous

537: measurements are all within the subset of measurements that dominate

538: the determination of $m_H$. In that smaller subset of measurements,

539: the significance of the anomalies is not fully reflected by the global

540: $CL$'s. As concerns the reliability of the fits of $m_H$, there is a

541: clear {\it a priori} reason to focus on the $m_H$-sensitive

542: measurements. We therefore also consider fits in which the observables

543: $O_i$ in equation (4.1) below are restricted to the measurements which

544: dominate the determination of $m_H$. These are the six asymmetries,

545: $m_W$, $\Gamma_Z$, $R_l$, and $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu}

546: N]$. (The $m_H$-insensitive measurements which are omitted from these

547: fits are $\sigma_h$, $R_b$, $R_c$, $A_b$, and $A_c$.) The results of

548: the corresponding fits, A$^\prime$ - D$^\prime$, are tabulated at the

549: bottom of table 3.1. Except for the minimal data sets, D and

550: D$^\prime$, in every other case the fit restricted to $m_H$-sensitive

551: measurements has an appreciably smaller confidence level than the

552: corresponding global fit. In addition to the problems of the

553: global fits, the poorer consistency of this sector of measurements provides

554: another cause for concern in assessing the reliability of the SM

555: prediction of $m_H$.

556: 

557: \noindent \underline{{\em 3.2 New Physics}}  

558: 

559: Each anomaly could certainly be the result of new physics. The NuTeV

560: experiment opens a very different window on new physics than the study

561: of on-shell $Z$ boson decays at LEP I and SLC.\cite{nutev_np} For

562: example, a $Z^\prime$ boson mixed very little or not at all with the

563: $Z$ boson, could have little effect on on-shell $Z$ decay but a big

564: effect on the NuTeV measurement, which probes a space-like region of

565: four-momenta centered around $Q^2 \simeq -20$ GeV$^2$. The strongest

566: bounds on this possibility would come from other off-shell probes,

567: such as atomic parity violation, $e^+e^-$ annihilation above the $Z$

568: pole, and high energy $p\overline p$ collisions.

569: 

570: New physics could also affect the hadronic asymmetry measurements.

571: Here we can imagine two  scenarios, depending on how

572: seriously we take the clustering of the three hadronic asymmetry

573: measurements. Taking it seriously, we would be led to consider 

574: leptophobic $Z^\prime$ models\cite{leptophobic}, as were invoked

575: to explain the $R_b$ anomaly, which was subsequently found to have a

576: systematic, experimental explanation.

577: 

578: Or we might regard the clustering of the three hadronic measurements

579: as accidental. Then we would be led to focus on $A_{FB}^b$, by far the

580: most precise of the three hadronic asymmetry measurements, and we

581: could arrive at acceptable global fits by assuming new physics coupled

582: predominantly to the third generation quarks. New physics would then

583: account for the $A_{FB}^b$ anomaly, with an additional effect on the

584: less precisely measured jet charge asymmetry, $Q_{FB}$. The third

585: generation is a plausible venue for new physics, since the large top

586: quark mass suggests a special connection of the third generation to

587: new physics associated with the symmetry breaking sector.

588: 

589: Since $R_b \propto g_{bL}^2 + g_{bR}^2$ while $A_{FB}^b\propto

590: g_{bL}^2 - g_{bR}^2$, and because $R_b$, which is more precisely

591: measured than $A_{FB}^b$, is only $\sim 1\sigma$ from its SM value,

592: some tuning of the shifts $\delta g_{bL}$ and $\delta g_{bR}$ is

593: required to fit both measurements. The right-handed coupling must

594: shift by a very large amount, with $\delta g_{bR} \gg \delta g_{bL}$

595: and $\delta g_{bR} \gtap 0.1g_{bR}$. An effect of this size suggests

596: new tree-level physics or radiative corrections involving a strong

597: interaction.  

598: 

599: Examples of tree-level physics are $Z\ -\ Z^\prime$ mixing or $b\ -\

600: Q$ mixing. A recent proposal to explain the $A_{FB}^b$ anomaly embeds

601: a $Z^\prime$ boson in a right-handed $SU(2)_R$ extension of the SM

602: gauge group in which the third generation fermions carry different

603: $SU(2)_R$ charges than the first and second

604: generations.\cite{valencia} $Z^\prime$ bosons coupled preferentially

605: to the third generation are generic in the context of topcolor

606: models.\cite{topcolor} An explanation by $b\ -\ Q$

607: mixing, requires $Q$ to be a charge $-1/3$ quark with non-SM weak

608: quantum numbers; this possibility has been explored in the context of

609: the latest data in reference \cite{wagner} and previously

610: in \cite{ma}.

611: 

612: If new physics explains the $A_{FB}^b$ anomaly, it must also

613: affect $A_b$. If we use eq. (2.3) with the factor

614: $A_e=0.1501(17)$ taken from the three leptonic asymmetry measurements

615: (assuming lepton universality), we find that the experimental value

616: $A_{FB}^b=0.0994(17)$ implies $A_b[A_{FB}^b]=0.883(18)$, which is

617: $2.89\sigma$ from $A_b[{\rm SM}]=0.935$, $CL=0.004$. However $A_b$ is

618: measured more directly at SLC by means of $A_{FBLR}^b$, the

619: front-back left-right asymmetry. In the Summer of 1998

620: that measurement yielded $A_b[A_{FBLR}^b]=0.867(35)$, lower by

621: $1.9\sigma$ than $A_b[{\rm SM}]$, lending support to the new physics

622: hypothesis. But the current measurement,

623: $A_b[A_{FBLR}^b]=0.922(20)$, is only $0.6\sigma$ below $A_b[{\rm

624: SM}]$. It no longer bolsters the new physics hypothesis but it is also

625: not grossly inconsistent with $A_b[A_{FB}^b]$, from which it differs

626: by $1.44\sigma$, $CL=0.15$.  Combining $A_b[A_{FB}^b]$ and

627: $A_b[A_{FBLR}^b]$ we find $A_b[A_{FBLR}^b \oplus

628: A_{FBLR}^b]=0.900(13)$, which differs from the SM by $2.69\sigma$,

629: $CL=0.007$. Thus while the $A_{FBLR}^b$ measurement no longer

630: supports the new physics hypothesis, it also does not definitively

631: exclude it.

632:  

633: If either anomaly is the result of new physics, the SM fails and we

634: cannot predict the Higgs boson mass until the nature of the new

635: physics is understood. New physics affecting the NuTeV

636: measurement and/or the hadronic asymmetry measurements will certainly

637: change the relationship between those observables and the value of

638: $m_H$, and could affect other observables in ways that

639: change their relationships with $m_H$.

640: 

641: \noindent \underline{{\em 3.3 Systematic Uncertainties}} 

642: 

643: The two $3\sigma$ anomalies each involve subtle systematic issues,

644: having to do both with performance of the measurements and the

645: interpretation of the results. With respect to interpretation, both

646: use nonperturbative QCD models with uncertainties that are difficult

647: to quantify. In both cases the experimental groups have put great

648: effort into understanding and estimating the systematic

649: uncertainties. Here we only summarize the main points.

650: 

651: The central value for the NuTeV SM result is $x_W^{\rm OS}(\stackrel

652: {(-)}{\nu} N)= 0.2277 \pm 0.0013({\rm statistical}) \pm 0.0009({\rm

653: systematic})$.  The estimated systematic error consists in equal parts of an

654: experimental component, $\pm 0.00063$, and a modelling component, $\pm

655: 0.00064$. Uncertainty from the $\nu_e$ and $\overline \nu_e$ fluxes makes the

656: largest single contribution to the experimental component, $\pm

657: 0.00039$, with the remainder comprised of various detector-related

658: uncertainties. The modelling uncertainty is dominated by

659: nonperturbative nucleon structure, with the biggest component, $\pm

660: 0.00047$, due to the charm production cross section.

661: 

662: Two possible nonperturbative effects have been considered (see

663: \cite{nutev_sys,nutev_np,nutev_sys_2} and references therein). One is

664: an asymmetry in the nucleon strange quark sea, $\int x(s(x) -

665: \overline s(x))\: dx \neq 0$.  Using dimuons from the separate $\nu$

666: and $\overline \nu$ beams, the NuTeV collaboration finds evidence for

667: a $-10\%$ asymmetry within the NuTeV cross section model. If truly

668: present, it would increase the discrepancy from 3.0 to

669: 3.7$\sigma$.\cite{nutev_sys} For consistency with the SM, an asymmetry

670: of $\simeq +30\%$ would be needed.

671: 

672: A second possible nonperturbative effect is isospin symmetry

673: breaking in the nucleon wave function, $d^p(x) \neq u^n(x)$.  Studies

674: are needed to determine if structure functions can be constructed that

675: explain the NuTeV anomaly in this way while maintaining consistency

676: with all other constraints. A negative result could rule out this

677: explanation, while a positive result would admit it as a possibility.

678: Confirmation would then require additional evidence.

679: 

680: The $3\sigma$ discrepancy between $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$ also

681: raises the possibility of subtle systematic uncertainties.  The

682: determination of $x_W^l[A_L]$ from the three leptonic measurements,

683: $A_{LR}$, $A_{FB}^l$, and $A_{e,\tau}$, involve three quite different

684: techniques so that large, common systematic errors are very unlikely.

685: The focus instead is on the hadronic measurements, $A_{FB}^b$,

686: $A_{FB}^c$, and $Q_{FB}$.  In these measurements, $b$ and $\overline

687: c$ quarks are mutual backgrounds for one another. The signs of

688: both the $A_{FB}^b$ and $A_{FB}^c$ anomalies are consistent with

689: misidentifying $b \leftrightarrow \overline c$, although the estimated

690: magnitude\cite{elsing} of the effect is far smaller than what is needed. 

691: QCD models of charge flow and gluon radiation

692: are a potential source of common systematic uncertainty for all three

693: measurements.  The two heavy flavor asymmetries, $A_{FB}^b$ and 

694: $A_{FB}^c$, have the largest error correlation of the heavy flavor

695: $Z$-pole measurements, quoted as 16\% in the most recent

696: analysis.\cite{ewwg_02}

697: 

698: Since $x_W^l[A_H]$ is dominated by $x_W^l[A_{FB}^b]$, the greatest concern

699: is the systematic uncertainties of $A_{FB}^b$. The combined

700: result of the four LEP experiments is $A_{FB}^b= 0.0994 \pm

701: 0.00157({\rm statistics}) \pm 0.00071({\rm systematic})$. The

702: systematic component arises from an ``internal'' (experimental)

703: component of $\pm 0.00060$ and a ``common'' component of $\pm

704: 0.00039$, where the latter is dominated by the $\pm 0.00030$

705: uncertainty ascribed to QCD corrections.\cite{elsing}

706: 

707: \noindent \underline{{\em 3.4 Summary}}

708: 

709: It is not now possible to choose among the three generic

710: explanations of the anomalies, except to say that statistical

711: fluctuations are unlikely per the nominal $CL$ of the global fit.

712: Bigger systematic errors could rescue the SM fit but would have to be

713: {\em much} bigger than current estimates. Rather than further

714: refinement of existing error budgets, this probably means discovering

715: new, previously unconsidered sources of error. In this paper we focus

716: on the systematic error hypothesis, {\em not} because we think it the

717: most likely explanation --- we do not --- but, assuming it to be true, 

718: to see if it can really reconcile the SM with the data.

719: 

720: \newpage

721: \noindent {\bf 4. Methods}

722: 

723: In this section we describe the methodology of the SM 

724: fits. We also discuss the choice of observables, which differs 

725: slightly from the choice made in \cite{ewwg_02}. 

726: 

727: We use ZFITTER v6.30\cite{zfitter} to compute the SM electroweak radiative

728: corrections, with results that agree precisely

729: (to 2 parts in $10^5$ or better) with those obtained in

730: \cite{ewwg_02}. The input parameters are $m_Z$,

731: $m_t$, the hadronic contribution to the renormalization of $\alpha$ at

732: the $Z$-pole, $\Delta \alpha_5(m_Z)$, the strong coupling constant at

733: the $Z$-pole, $\alpha_S(m_Z)$, and the Higgs boson mass, $m_H$.

734: For any point in this five dimensional space ZFITTER provides the

735: corresponding SM values of the other observables, $O_i$, listed in

736: table 2.1. 

737: 

738: To generate the $\chi^2$ distributions we scan over the four parameters,  

739: $m_t$, $\Delta \alpha_5(m_Z)$, $\alpha_S(m_Z)$, and $m_H$. For a specified  

740: collection of observables $O_i$, we then have 

741: $$

742: \chi^2= \left({m_t - m_t^{\rm EXPT} \over \Delta m_t^{\rm EXPT}}\right)^2

743:        + \left({\Delta \alpha_5- \Delta \alpha_5^{\rm EXPT}

744:                  \over \Delta(\Delta \alpha_5^{\rm EXPT})}\right)^2

745:        + \sum_i\left({O_i-O_i^{\rm EXPT} \over \Delta O_i^{\rm EXPT}}\right)^2

746:                                         \eqno{(4.1)}

747: $$

748: The experimental values are given in table 2.1. 

749: 

750: 

751: We do not scan over $m_Z$ but simply fix it at its central

752: experimental value.  Because $m_Z$ is so much more precise than the

753: other observables, it would contribute negligibly to $\chi^2$

754: if we did scan on it. We have verified this directly by performing

755: fits in which it was varied, with only negligible differences from the

756: fits in which it is fixed at the central value.  This can also be seen

757: in the global fits reported by the EWWG, in which the pull from $m_Z$

758: is invariably much less than 1. In this case, inclusion of $m_Z$ has

759: no effect on the $CL$ of the fit, because (1) the contribution to

760: $\chi^2$ is negligible and (2) the scan on $m_Z$ has no effect on the

761: number of degrees of freedom since it is both varied and

762: constrained. Since it has little effect, we choose not to scan on

763: $m_Z$ in order to facilitate the numerical calculations.

764: 

765: For $\Delta \alpha_5(m_Z)$ we use the determination of \cite{bp}, 

766: which incorporates the most recent $e^+e^-$ annihilation data

767: and is also the default choice of \cite{ewwg_02}. In \cite{mc1} we

768: also presented results for four other determinations of $\Delta

769: \alpha_5(m_Z)$.

770: 

771: For the global fits $\alpha_S(m_Z)$ is left unconstrained, as is also

772: done in \cite{ewwg_02}, because the $Z$-pole SM fit is itself the most

773: precise determination of $\alpha_S(m_Z)$. For the fits which consider

774: more limited sets of observables, we use the following rule: if at

775: least two of the three observables which dominate the the

776: determination of $\alpha_S(m_Z)$ (these are $\Gamma_Z$, $R_l$, and

777: $\sigma_h$) are included in the fit, $\alpha_S$ is unconstrained as in

778: the global fits. Otherwise we constrain it to 0.118(3). In any case,

779: because the $m_H$-sensitive observables are predominantly

780: $\alpha_S$-insensitive, the results we obtain for $m_H$ depend very

781: little on the details of how $\alpha_S$ is specified.

782: 

783: The fits also include the important correlations from the error

784: matrices presented in tables 2.3 and 5.3 of \cite{ewwg_02}. We retain

785: the correlations that are $\geq 0.05$ in the $6\times 6$ heavy flavor

786: error matrix, for $A_{FB}^b$, $A_{FB}^c$, $A_b$, $A_c$, $R_b$, and

787: $R_c$. Similarly we retain correlations $\geq 0.05$ in the $4 \times

788: 4$ correlation matrix for $\Gamma_Z$, $\sigma_h$, $R_l$, and

789: $A_{FB}^l$. These correlations shift the value of $\chi^2$ by as

790: much as 2 units.

791: 

792: Our global fits differ slightly from the all-data fit of

793: \cite{ewwg_02}, principally because we use the set of measurements

794: the Electroweak Working Group (EWWG) used through

795: Spring 2001 but not two measurements that were subsequently

796: added by the EWWG.  From Summer 2001 the EWWG all-data fit

797: included the Cesium atomic parity violation (APV) measurement, and

798: in Spring 2002, the $W$ boson width, $\Gamma_W$, was included. 

799: 

800: Reference \cite{ewwg_02} uses a 2001 determination of the Cesium APV

801: measurement that has recently been superseded by newer results from

802: the same authors\cite{dfg_02}. With the average value from the more

803: recent study, $Q_W= -72.18(46)$ (with experimental and theoretical

804: errors combined in quadrature), and the SM value from \cite{ewwg_02},

805: the pull is 1.6, rather than 0.6 as quoted in \cite{ewwg_02}.  The

806: effect on the all-data global fit in \cite{ewwg_02} is

807: to change $\chi^2/N=28.8/15$, $CL=0.017$ to $\chi^2/N=30.8/15$,

808: $CL=0.009$, decreasing the confidence level by a factor two.  Rather

809: than use the updated value, we choose not to include the Cs APV

810: measurement since the theoretical systematic uncertainties are still

811: in flux.

812: 

813: We choose not to include $\Gamma_W$ because it has not yet attained a

814: level of precision precision approaching that of the other

815: measurements in the fit. For instance, $\Gamma_Z$ is 30 times more

816: precise than $\Gamma_W$, so that $\Gamma_W$ has 1/900'th the weight of

817: $\Gamma_Z$ in the global fits.  At the current precision it has no

818: sensitivity to new physics signals of the order of magnitude probed by

819: the other observables in the fit.  Its effect on the fits of $m_H$,

820: which are the principal concern of this work, is completely

821: negligible.

822: 

823: In any case, the decision not to include the $\Gamma_W$ and APV

824: measurements does not have a major effect on our results.  In

825: particular, the effect on the Higgs boson mass predictions is

826: negligible. Furthermore, our all-data fit, with $CL=0.010$, has a

827: very similar confidence level to that of the all-data fit of

828: \cite{ewwg_02}, $CL=0.009$, if the APV determination is updated to

829: reflect \cite{dfg_02}.

830: 

831: We closely reproduce the results of \cite{ewwg_02} when we use the

832: same set of observables. For instance, adding $\Gamma_W$ and $Q_W({\rm

833: Cs})$ as specified in \cite{ewwg_02} to the observables in our global

834: fit, table 2.1, we obtain $\chi^2/N=28.7/15$, $CL= 0.018$, compared to

835: $\chi^2/N=28.8/15$, $CL= 0.017$ from the corresponding (all-data) fit

836: of \cite{ewwg_02}.

837: 

838: \noindent {\bf 5. The $\chi^2$ Fits}

839: 

840: In this section we present several SM fits of the data, using $\chi^2$

841: to estimate global $CL$'s and $\Delta \chi^2$ to obtain the 

842: constraints on the Higgs boson mass.  The $\Delta \chi^2$ method, used

843: also in \cite{ewwg_02}, is defined as follows. Let $m_{\rm MIN}$ be

844: the value of $m_H$ at the $\chi^2$ minimum, and let $m_L$ be an

845: arbitrary mass such that $m_L>m_{\rm MIN}$. Then the confidence level

846: $CL(m_H > m_L)$ is one half of the confidence level corresponding to 

847: a $\chi^2$ distribution for one degree of freedom, with the 

848: value of the $\chi^2$ distribution given by $\Delta \chi^2=

849: \chi^2(m_L) -\chi^2(m_{\rm MIN})$. We consider both global fits and fits

850: restricted to the $m_H$-sensitive observables.

851: 

852: In addition to $m_t$ and $\Delta \alpha_5$, which are input parameters

853: to the ZFITTER calculations, the observables with the greatest

854: sensitivity to $m_H$ are $x_W^l$ from the six asymmetry measurements,

855: $m_W$, $\Gamma_Z$, $R_l$, and $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu}

856: N]$. It is useful to consider the domains in $m_H$ favored by these

857: observables, in order to understand the ``alliances'' (see section 2)

858: that shape the global fit, and to understand the consistency of the

859: fits with the LEP II lower limit on $m_H$. In fits restricted to

860: $m_H$-sensitive obervables, $\chi^2$ is given by eq. 4.1, where the

861: $O_i$ are restricted to the $m_H$-sensitive observables under

862: consideration. In addition, for fits containing fewer than two of the

863: three $\alpha_S$-sensitive observables --- $\Gamma_Z$, $R_l$, and

864: $\sigma_h$ --- we constrain $\alpha_S(m_Z)$ by including it with the $O_i$

865: in equation (4.1) as discussed in section 4.

866: 

867: The experimental quantity that currently has the greatest sensitivity

868: to $m_H$ is $x_W^l$, determined from the six asymmetry

869: measurements. Figure 1 displays the distributions of the three

870: individual leptonic measurements and the combined result from all

871: three, $x_W^l[A_L]$; it shows that the upper limit is dominated by

872: $A_{LR}$.  The central value, $m_H=55$ GeV, symmetric 90\% confidence

873: interval, and likelihood $CL(m_H>114)$ are given in table 5.1.

874: Note that the 95\% upper limit is $m_H<143$ GeV.

875: 

876: Figure 2 shows that the $\chi^2$ distribution from $x_W^l[A_H]$ is

877: completely dominated by the $b$ quark asymmetry, $A_{FB}^b$.  The

878: central value is $m_H=410$ GeV and the 95\% lower limit is 145 GeV,

879: just above the 95\% upper limit from $x_W^l[A_L]$. The 95\% upper

880: limit extends above 1 TeV.  Figure 3 shows the $\chi^2$ distributions

881: of both $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$, with the respective symmetric

882: 90\% confidence intervals indicated by the dot-dashed horizontal

883: lines.

884: 

885: It is also interesting to isolate the effect of the $W$ boson mass

886: measurement, because it is the second most important quantity for

887: fixing $m_H$, and because it is a dramatically different measurement

888: with a completely different set of systematic uncertainties.  Figure

889: 4 shows the $\chi^2$ distribution from $m_W$.  The central value is

890: $m_H=23$ GeV and the 95\% upper limit is 121 GeV. Both $m_W$ and

891: $x_W^l[A_L]$ then favor very light values of $m_H$. This is the basis of

892: the ``alliance'' between $x_W^l[A_L]$ and $m_W$, discussed in section 2,

893: that pushes $A_{FB}^b$ to outlyer status and 

894: contributes to the marginal confidence level of the SM fit.

895: 

896: The two other $Z$-pole observables with sensitivity to $m_H$ are

897: $\Gamma_Z$ and $R_l$, which also involve different systematic

898: uncertainties than the asymmetry measurements. The corresponding

899: $\chi^2$ distributions are also plotted in figure 4, together with the

900: combined distribution for $m_W$, $\Gamma_Z$ and $R_l$. $R_l$ also

901: favors small $m_H$, with its $\chi^2$ minimum off the chart below 10

902: GeV.  $\Gamma_Z$ is often represented as favoring $m_H \simeq {\rm

903: O}(100)$ GeV, but we see in figure 4 and with the expanded scale in

904: figure 5, that it actually has two nearly degenerate minima, at about

905: 16 and 130 GeV.\footnote{I wish to thank D. Bardin and G. Passarino,

906: who kindly verified this surprising feature, using, respectively,

907: recent versions of ZFITTER\cite{zfitter} and TOPAZ0.\cite{topaz}} In

908: table 5.1 we see that the combined distribution of the three

909: non-asymmetry measurements has a central value at 13 GeV and a 95\%

910: upper limit at 73 GeV with $CL(m_H)>114)=0.021$

911: 

912: Figure 6 shows the $\chi^2$ distribution from the NuTeV

913: measurement, $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$.  The minimum lies

914: above 3 TeV and the 95\% lower limit is at $\simeq 660$ GeV.  The SM

915: fits the NuTeV anomaly by driving $m_H$ to very large

916: values, but the new physics that actually explains the effect, if it

917: is genuine, would not be so simply tied to the symmetry breaking

918: sector but might for instance reflect an extension of the gauge

919: sector, with implications for the symmetry breaking sector that cannot

920: be foretold. In any case, as discussed in section 7, values of 

921: $m_H$ above $\sim 1$ TeV cannot be interpreted literally. 

922: 

923: It is striking that the measurements favoring $m_H$ in the region

924: allowed by the direct searches are precisely the ones responsible 

925: for the large $\chi^2$ of the global fit. They favor values far above

926: 100 - 200 GeV while the measurements consistent with the fit favor

927: values far below, as shown in the bottom two lines of table 5.1.

928: The fit based on $x_W^l[A_L] \oplus m_W\oplus \Gamma_Z \oplus R_l$ 

929: (fit $D^\prime$ in table 3.1) has $m_H<106$ GeV at 95\% $CL$,

930: while the fit based on $x_W^l[A_H] \oplus x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel

931: {(-)}{\nu} N]$ has $m_H>220$ GeV at 95\% $CL$.  The corresponding

932: $\chi^2$ distributions are shown in figure 7.

933:  

934: Next we consider the global fits that were discussed in section 3.1.

935: The principal results are summarized in table 5.2.  The ``all-data''

936: fit, fit A (shown in detail in table 2.1), closely resembles the

937: all-data fit of \cite{ewwg_02}, up to small differences arising from

938: the slightly different choice of observables discussed in section

939: 4. As summarized in table 5.2, the $\chi^2$ minimum is at $m_H=94$

940: GeV, with $CL(\chi^2)= 0.010$. The 95\% upper limit is $m_H < 193$ GeV

941: and the consistency with the search limit is $CL(m_H>114\ {\rm

942: GeV})= 0.30$. The $\chi^2$ distribution is shown in figure 8, where

943: the vertical dashed line denotes the direct search limit and the

944: horizontal dot-dashed line indicates the symmetric 90\% $CL$ interval.

945: The combined likelihood for internal consistency of the fit and

946: consistency between fit and search limit, defined in equation (1.1),

947: is $P_C= 0.0030$.

948: 

949: The ``Minimal Data Set,'' fit D, with $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel

950: {(-)}{\nu} N]$ and $x_W^l[A_H]$ omitted, is shown in detail in table

951: 3.2, and the $\chi^2$ distribution is shown in figure 8.  The minimum

952: is at $m_H=43$ GeV, with a robust confidence level $CL(\chi^2)=

953: 0.65$. But the 95\% upper limit is $m_H < 105$ GeV and the consistency

954: with the search limit is a poor $CL(m_H>114\ {\rm GeV})= 0.035$.

955: (The latter is nearly identical to the value 0.038 shown in table 5.1

956: for fit D$^\prime$, which is the corresponding fit restricted to

957: $m_H$-sensitive observables, defined in section 3.1.) The combined

958: likelihood for fit D is $P_C= 0.023$.

959: 

960: In fit C with $x_W^l[A_H]$ omitted the $\chi^2$ minimum is at $m_H=45$

961: GeV with $CL(\chi^2)= 0.066$. The confidence level for consistency

962: with the search limit is $CL(m_H>114\ {\rm GeV})= 0.047$. The combined

963: likelihood is $P_C= 0.0031$.

964: 

965: Finally we consider fit B, with $x_W^l[A_H]$ retained and $x_W^{\rm

966: OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ omitted. Now the $m_H$ prediction is

967: raised appreciably, with the $\chi^2$ minimum at $m_H=81$ GeV, but the

968: quality of the fit is marginal, with $CL(\chi^2)= 0.10$. The

969: confidence level for consistency with the search limit is more robust,

970: $CL(m_H>114\ {\rm GeV})= 0.26$, and the combined likelihood is

971: $P_C= 0.026$.

972: 

973: The effect of the hadronic asymmetries and the NuTeV measurement is

974: apparent from table 5.2. The NuTeV measurement diminishes $CL(\chi^2)$

975: by a factor 10, seen by comparing fit A with fit B and fit C with fit

976: D, while its effect on $CL(m_H>114)$ is modest. Consequently the NuTeV

977: measurement also diminishes the combined likelihood $P_C$ by an

978: order of magnitude. Comparing fit A with fit C or fit B with fit D, we

979: see that the hadronic asymmetries also diminish $CL(\chi^2)$, by a

980: factor $\sim 7$, but that they increase $CL(m_H>114)$ by a nearly

981: identical factor, so that they have little effect on $P_C$.

982: 

983: \noindent {\bf 6. ``Bayesian'' Maximum Likelihood Fits}

984: 

985: The $\Delta \chi^2$ method for obtaining the confidence levels for

986: different regions of $m_H$ is poweful and convenient but, at least to

987: this author, not completely transparent. We have therefore also

988: approached these estimates by constructing likelihood

989: distributions as a function of $m_H$,

990: varying the parameters to find the point of maximum likelihood for each

991: value of $m_H$. Assuming Gaussian statistics, the log likelihood is

992: $$

993: -{\rm log}({\cal L}(m_H)) = C \chi^2(m_H),    \eqno{(6.1)}

994: $$

995: so that the maximization of the likelihood is equivalent to the

996: minimization of $\chi^2$. 

997: The proportionality constant $C$ is determined by the normalization

998: condition for ${\cal L}$.  

999: 

1000: The method is ``Bayesian'' in the sense that the domain of

1001: normalization and the measure are specified by {\it a priori} choices

1002: that are guided by the physics. The likelihood distribution is

1003: normalized in the interval $10\: {\rm GeV} \: \leq \: m_H\:

1004: \leq\: 3 {\rm TeV}$, 

1005: $$

1006: \int^{m_H=3\: {\rm TeV}}_{m_H=10 {\rm GeV}} d{\rm log}(m_H) {\cal L}(m_H) 

1007:               = 1.            \eqno{(6.2)}   

1008: $$ 

1009: The choice of measure is motivated by the fact that ${\rm log}(m_H)$

1010: is approximately linearly proportional to the experimental parameters,

1011: which are assumed to be Gaussian distributed, such as $m_t$, $\Delta

1012: \alpha_5$ and the various $O_i$ --- see for instance the interpolating

1013: formulae in \cite{dgps}.  The choice of interval is conservative in

1014: the sense that enlarging the domain above and below causes $CL(m_H>114

1015: {\rm GeV})$ to be even smaller than the results given below.

1016: 

1017: The normalized likelihood distributions for fits A and D, the all-data

1018: and Minimal Data Sets, are shown in figure 9, where we display both

1019: the differential and integrated distributions. The confidence level

1020: $CL(m_H>114)$ is the area under the differential distribution

1021: above 114 GeV.  For the Minimal Data Set the result is

1022: $CL(m_H>114\ {\rm GeV})= 0.030$, in good agreement with the result

1023: 0.035 obtained from $\Delta \chi^2$ in section 5.  For the all-data

1024: set it is $CL(m_H>114\ {\rm GeV})= 0.25$, compared with 0.30 from

1025: $\Delta \chi^2$.

1026: 

1027: It is clear from figure 9 that the likelihood distribution from the

1028: Minimal Data Set is vanishingly small at 3 TeV but has some support at

1029: 10 GeV. If we were to enlarge the domain in $m_H$ both above and

1030: below, the effect would be to further decrease the likelihood for 

1031: $m_H>114$ GeV.

1032: 

1033: \noindent {\bf 7. New Physics in the Oblique Approximation}

1034: 

1035: If we assume the Minimal Data Set, the contradiction with the LEP

1036: II lower limit on $m_H$ is either a statistical fluctuation or a

1037: signal of new physics. Two recent papers provide examples of new

1038: physics that could do the job. Work by Altarelli {\it et

1039: al.}\cite{altarellietal} in the framework of the MSSM finds that the

1040: prediction for $m_H$ can be raised into the region allowed by the

1041: Higgs boson searches if there are light sneutrinos, $\simeq 55$ -- 80

1042: GeV, light sleptons, $\simeq 100$ GeV, and moderately large tan$\:

1043: \beta \simeq 10$.  This places the sleptons just beyond the

1044: present experimental lower limit, where they could be discovered in

1045: Run II at the TeVatron.  A second proposal, by Novikov {\it et

1046: al.},\cite{novikovetal} finds that a fourth generation of quarks and

1047: leptons might also do the job, provided the neutrino has a mass just

1048: above $m_Z/2$. An illustrative set of parameters is $m_N \simeq 50$

1049: GeV, $m_E \simeq 100$ GeV, $m_U + m_D \simeq 500$ GeV, $|m_U - m_D|

1050: \simeq 75$ GeV, and $m_H \simeq 300$ GeV.

1051: 

1052: In this section we do not focus on any specific model of new physics

1053: but consider the class of models that can be represented in the

1054: oblique approximation\cite{oblique}, parameterized by the 

1055: quantities $S, T, U$.\cite{pt} The essential assumption is that the

1056: dominant effect of the new physics on the electroweak observables can

1057: be parameterized as effective contributions to the $W$ and $Z$ boson

1058: self energies. These contributions are not limited to loop

1059: corrections, since the oblique parameters can also 

1060: represent tree level phenomena such as $Z - Z^\prime$

1061: mixing.\cite{holdom} We will restrict ourselves to the $S$ and $T$

1062: parameters, since they suffice to make the point that oblique new

1063: physics can remove the contradiction between the Minimal Data Set and

1064: the search limit, leaving $m_H$ as an essentially free

1065: parameter. We also show that $S,T$ corrections do not 

1066: improve the confidence levels of the global fits that

1067: include the anomalous measurements.

1068: 

1069: For the observables $O_i$ the oblique corrections are given by

1070: $$

1071: dQ_i= \sum_i (A_i S + B_i T)       \eqno(7.1)

1072: $$

1073: with $Q_i$ defined by $Q_i = O_i$ or $Q_i = {\rm ln} (O_i)$ as

1074: indicated in table 7.1 where $A_i$ and $B_i$ are tabulated. Since

1075: these are not SM fits, instead of $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu}

1076: N]$ the NuTeV experiment is represented by the model independent fit

1077: to the effective couplings $g_L^2= g_{uL}^2 + g_{dl}^2$ and $g_R^2=

1078: g_{uR}^2 + g_{dR}^2$, for which the experimental values from

1079: \cite{nutev} are given in table 2.1.

1080: 

1081: Figure 10 shows the $S,T$ fit to the Minimal Data Set along with the 

1082: SM fit with $S=T=0$. The striking feature of the $S,T$ fit is that 

1083: $\chi^2$ is nearly flat as a function of $m_H$. There is therefore 

1084: no problem reconciling the fit with the lower limit on $m_H$, and 

1085: there is also no preference for any value of $m_H$. The fits are 

1086: acceptable all the way to $m_H=3$ TeV, and the variation across the 

1087: entire region is bounded by $\Delta \chi^2 \leq 1.2$. Because the 

1088: minimum is so shallow, it is not significant that it occurs 

1089: at $m_H=17$ GeV. The confidence level 

1090: at the minimum is 0.51, which is comparable to the confidence level, 

1091: $CL=0.65$, of fit D, the corresponding SM fit.

1092: 

1093: It is well known that arbitrarily large values of $m_H$ can be

1094: accomodated in $S,T$ fits of the electroweak data.\cite{flat} This can

1095: be understood as a consequence of the fact the SM fit of $m_H$ is

1096: dominated by two observables, $x_W^l$ and $m_W$.  Let $m_H$[MIN],

1097: $x_W^l$[MIN] and $m_W$[MIN] be the values of $m_H$, $x_W^l$ and $m_W$

1098: at the $\chi^2$ minimum of the SM fit.  The shifts $\delta x_W^l$ and

1099: $\delta m_W$ induced in the SM fit by choosing a different value of

1100: $m_H \neq m_H$[MIN], can then be compensated by choosing $S$ and $T$

1101: to provide equal and opposite shifts, $-\delta x_W^l$ and $-\delta

1102: m_W$. Inverting the expressions from equation (3.13) of \cite{pt} we

1103: have explicitly, in the approximation that we consider only $x_W^l$

1104: and $m_W$,

1105: $$

1106: S= -{4\over \alpha}\left(\delta x_W^l +2x_W^l {\delta m_W \over m_W}

1107:           \right) 		\eqno(7.2)

1108: $$

1109: and 

1110: $$

1111: T= -{2\over \alpha (1 - x_W^l)}\left(\delta x_W^l +

1112:           {\delta m_W \over m_W}\right).	\eqno(7.3)

1113: $$

1114: For instance, for $m_H=1$ TeV the $S,T$ fit to the Minimal Data Set

1115: (set D) shown in figure 10 yields $S,T= -0.22,+0.34$ compared with

1116: $S,T= -0.15,+0.22$ from equations (7.2) and (7.3). The approximation

1117: correctly captures the trend though it differs by 30\% from the

1118: results of the complete fit. The discrepancy reflects the importance of

1119: variations among parameters other than $x_W^l$ and $m_W$ that are

1120: neglected in deriving (7.2) and (7.3).

1121: 

1122: Values of $m_H$ above 1 TeV cannot be interpreted literally as

1123: applying to a simple Higgs scalar. For $m_H>1$ TeV symmetry breaking

1124: is dynamical, occurring by new strong interactions that cannot be

1125: analyzed perturbatively.\cite{mcmkg} If the Higgs mechanism is

1126: correct, there are new quanta that form symmetry breaking vacuum

1127: condensates.  Values of $m_H$ above 1 TeV should be regarded only as a

1128: rough guide to the order of magnitude of the masses of the

1129: condensate-forming quanta.

1130: 

1131: It is sometimes said that an SM Higgs scalar above $\simeq 600$ GeV

1132: is excluded by the triviality bound, which is of order 1 TeV in

1133: leading, one loop order\cite{dn}, refined to $\simeq 600$ GeV in

1134: lattice simulations.\cite{triv_lattice} The bound is based on

1135: requiring that the Landau singularity in the Higgs boson

1136: self-coupling, $\lambda$, occur at a scale $\Lambda_{\rm Landau}$ that

1137: is at least twice the Higgs boson mass, $\Lambda_{\rm Landau} \gtap

1138: 2m_H$, in order for the SM to have some minimal ``head room'' as an

1139: effective low energy theory.  However, the conventional analysis does

1140: not include the effect on the running of $\lambda$ from the new

1141: physics which {\em must} exist at the Landau singularity.  Although

1142: power suppressed, in the strong coupling regime, which is in fact the

1143: relevant one for the upper limit on $m_H$, the power suppressed

1144: corrections can change the predicted upper limit appreciably, possibly

1145: by factors of order one.\cite{mc_triv} To take literally the 600 GeV

1146: upper bound from lattice simulations we in effect assume that the new

1147: physics is a space-time lattice. The bound cannot be known precisely

1148: without knowing something about the actual physics that replaces the

1149: singularity.  The analysis in \cite{mc_triv} is performed in the

1150: symmetric vacuum and should be reconsidered for the spontaneously

1151: broken case, but the conclusion is likely to be unchanged since it

1152: follows chiefly from the ultraviolet behavior of the effective theory

1153: which is insensitive to the phase of the vacuum. An SM scalar between

1154: 600 GeV and 1 TeV therefore remains a possibility.

1155: 

1156: Figure 10 also displays the values of $S$ and $T$ corresponding 

1157: to the $\chi^2$ minimum at each value of $m_H$. For $m_H > 114$ GeV 

1158: the minima fall at moderately positive $T$ and moderately negative $S$. 

1159: Positive $T$ occurs naturally in models that break custodial $SU(2)$, 

1160: for instance with nondegenerate quark or lepton isospin doublets. 

1161: Negative $S$ is less readily obtained but there is not a no-go 

1162: theorem, and models of new physics with $S<0$ have been 

1163: exhibited.\cite{negative_s}

1164: 

1165: We also consider a fit to the Minimal Data Set in which only 

1166: $T$ is varied with $S$ held at $S=0$. The result is shown in figure 11. The

1167: minimum falls at $m_H=55$ GeV with $CL= 0.56$. The distribution at

1168: larger $m_H$ is flat though not as flat as the $S,T$ fit.  Moderately

1169: large, postive $T$ is again preferred. From $\Delta \chi^2$ we find

1170: that the confidence level for $m_H$ above the LEP II lower limit is

1171: sizeable, $CL(m_H>114\: {\rm GeV})= 0.21$, and that the 95\% upper

1172: limit is $m_H < 460$ GeV.

1173: 

1174: Next we consider the $S,T$ fit with the hadronic asymmetry

1175: measurements included, corresponding to SM fit B above. Shown

1176: in figure 12, it is not improved relative to the SM fit. The $\chi^2$

1177: minimum is at $m_H=15$ GeV with $\chi^2/N= 15/10$ implying

1178: $CL=0.12$. From $\Delta \chi^2$ the probability for $m_H$ in the

1179: allowed region is a marginal $CL(m_H>114\: {\rm GeV})= 0.08$, and

1180: the combined probability from equation (1.1) is $P_C= 0.01$.

1181: 

1182: The all-data $S,T$ fit, including both the hadronic asymmetry and

1183: NuTeV measurements, is shown in figure 13. In this case the $S=T=0$

1184: fit is not identical to SM fit A, since the NuTeV result is

1185: parameterized by $g_L$ and $g_R$ rather than $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel

1186: {(-)}{\nu} N]$ as in the SM fit. The minimum of the $S=T=0$ fit occurs

1187: at $m_H=94$ GeV, with $\chi^2/N= 26/14$ implying $CL=0.026$. The $S,T$

1188: fit is actually of poorer quality: the shallow minimum is at $m_H= 29$

1189: GeV with $\chi^2/N= 25.7/12$ implying $CL=0.012$.

1190: 

1191: \newpage

1192: \noindent {\bf 8. Discussion}

1193: 

1194: Taken together the precision electroweak data and the direct searches

1195: for the Higgs boson create a complex puzzle with many possible

1196: outcomes. An overview is given in the ``electroweak schematic

1197: diagram,'' figure 14. The diagram illustrates how various hypotheses

1198: about the two $3\sigma$ anomalies lead to new physics or to the

1199: conventional SM fit. The principal conclusion of this paper is

1200: reflected in the fact that the only lines leading into the `SM' box 

1201: are labeled `Statistical Fluctuation.' That is, systematic error

1202: alone cannot save the SM fit, since it implies the conflict with the

1203: search limit, indicated by the box labeled $CL(m_H>114)=0.035$, which

1204: in turn either implies new physics or itself reflects statistical

1205: fluctuation. This is a consequence of the fact that the combined

1206: probability $P_C$ defined in equation (1.1) is poor whether the

1207: anomalous measurements are included in the fit or not, as summarized

1208: in table 5.2.

1209: 

1210: The `New Physics' box in figure 14 is reached if either $3\sigma$

1211: anomaly is genuine or, conversely, if neither is genuine and the

1212: resulting 96.5\% $CL$ conflict with the search limit is

1213: genuine.  It is also possible to invoke statistical fluctuation as the

1214: exit line from any of the three central boxes. However we have argued

1215: that the global confidence levels indicated for fits A and B are fair

1216: reflections of the probability that those fits are fluctuations from

1217: the Standard Model. As such they do not favor the SM while they also

1218: do not exclude it definitively: ``It is a part of probability that

1219: many improbable things will happen.''\cite{aristotle}

1220: 

1221: The smoothest path to the SM might be the one which traverses the

1222: central box, fit B, and then exits via `Statistical Fluctuation' to

1223: the SM. In this scenario nucleon structure effects might explain the

1224: NuTeV anomaly and the 10\% confidence level of fit B could be a

1225: fluctuation. This is a valid possibility, but two other problems

1226: indicated in the central box should also be considered in evaluating

1227: this scenario. First, the consistency of the $m_H$-sensitive

1228: measurements is even more marginal, indicated by the 3.4\% confidence

1229: level of fit B$^\prime$. Second, the troubling $3\sigma$

1230: conflict ($CL=0.003$) between the leptonic and hadronic asymmetry

1231: measurements is at the heart of the determination of $m_H$. Thus

1232: even if we assume that the marginal $CL$ of the global fit is due to

1233: statistical fluctuation, the reliability of the prediction of $m_H$

1234: hangs on even less probable fluctuations. As noted

1235: above, to be consistent with the search limit statistical

1236: fluctuations must involve both the `anomalous' hadronic asymmetry

1237: measurements {\em and} the measurements that conform to the SM fit,

1238: especially the leptonic asymmetry measurements and the $W$ boson mass

1239: measurement.  The conflict with the search limit would be greatly

1240: exacerbated if the true value of $x_W^l[A_H]$ were equal to the

1241: present value of $x_W^l[A_L]$.

1242: 

1243: Since there are still some ongoing analyses of the hadronic asymmetry

1244: data, there may yet be changes in the final results, but unless major

1245: new systematic effects are uncovered the changes are not likely to be

1246: large. More precise measurements might be made eventually at a second

1247: generation Z factory, such as the proposed Giga-Z project.  However,

1248: to fully exploit the potential of such a facility it will be necessary

1249: to improve the present precision of $\Delta \alpha_5(m_Z)$ by a factor

1250: of $\sim 5$ or better, requiring a dedicated program to improve our

1251: knowledge of $\sigma(e^+e^- \rightarrow {\rm HADRONS})$ below $\sim 5$

1252: GeV.\cite{jegerlehner} The $W$ boson and top quark mass measurements

1253: will be improved at Run II of the TeVatron, at the LHC, and eventually

1254: at a linear $e^+e^-$ collider. For instance, an upward shift of the

1255: top quark mass\cite{mt_effect} or a downward shift of the $W$ boson

1256: mass could diminish the inconsistency between the Minimal Data Set and

1257: the search limit, while shifts in the opposite directions would

1258: increase the conflict.\footnote{The probability of such shifts is

1259: of course encoded in the fits by the contributions of $m_W$ and $m_t$ to

1260: $\chi^2$.}

1261: 

1262: The issues raised by the current data set heighten the excitement of

1263: this moment in high energy physics.  The end of the decade of

1264: precision electroweak measurements leaves us with a great puzzle, that

1265: puts into question the mass scale at which the physics of electroweak

1266: symmetry breaking will be found. The solution of the puzzle could

1267: emerge in Run II at the TeVatron.  If it is not found there it is very

1268: likely to emerge at the LHC, which at its design luminosity will be

1269: able to search for the new quanta of the symmetry breaking sector over

1270: the full range allowed by unitarity.

1271: 

1272: \vskip 0.2in

1273: 

1274: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements:} I am grateful to Martin Grunewald for

1275: his kind and prompt responses to my questions about the EWWG SM

1276: fits. I also thank Kevin McFarland and Geralyn Zeller for useful

1277: correspondence and comments. I thank Dimitri Bardin and Giampiero

1278: Passarino for kindly verifying the peculiar dependence of $m_H$ on

1279: $\Gamma_Z$, Robert Cahn for classical references, and Max Chanowitz

1280: for preparing figure 14.

1281:   

1282: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1283: 

1284: \bibitem{ewwg_02} The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, the LEP

1285: Electroweak Working Group, and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak

1286: Groups, LEPEWWG/2002-01, May 8, 2002.

1287: 

1288: \bibitem{mhlimit} LEP Higgs working group, CERN-EP/2001-055.

1289: 

1290: \bibitem{mchvr} M.S. Chanowitz, {\it Phys. Rev. D59}:073005,1999, 

1291: e-Print hep-ph/9807452. 

1292: 

1293: \bibitem{ewwg_98} The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, the LEP

1294: Electroweak Working Group, and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak

1295: Groups, CERN-EP/99-15, February 8, 1999.

1296: 

1297: \bibitem{ewwg_01} The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, the LEP

1298: Electroweak Working Group, and the SLD Heavy Flavour and Electroweak

1299: Groups, LEPEWWG/2001-01, May 31, 2001.

1300: 

1301: \bibitem{nutev} G.P. Zeller, K.S. McFarland {\it et al.},  {\it Phys. Rev. 

1302: Lett. 88}:091802, 2002. 

1303: 

1304: \bibitem{pt} M.E. Peskin, T. Takeuchi (SLAC), {\it Phys. Rev. D46:}381,1992.  

1305: 

1306: \bibitem{mcmkg} M.S. Chanowitz, M.K. Gaillard, {\it Nucl. Phys.

1307: B261}:379,1985; M.S. Chanowitz, Presented at Zuoz Summer School on

1308: Hidden Symmetries and Higgs Phenomena, Zuoz, Switzerland, Aug 1998, in

1309: {\it Zuoz 1998, Hidden symmetries and Higgs phenomena},

1310: ed. D. Graudenz, PSI Proceeedings 98-02, and e-Print: hep-ph/9812215.

1311: 

1312: \bibitem{ww} M.S. Chanowitz, W.Kilgore, {\it Phys. Lett. B322}:147,1994,  

1313: and e-Print: hep-ph/9311336; {\it ibid, B347}:387,1995, and  

1314: e-Print: hep-ph/9412275; J. Bagger {\it et al., Phys. Rev. D52}:3878,1995, 

1315: and e-Print: hep-ph/9504426.    

1316: 

1317: \bibitem{mc1} M.S. Chanowitz, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. 87}:231802, 2001, 

1318: e-Print: hep-ph/0104024.

1319: 

1320: \bibitem{nutev_np} S. Davidson, S. Forte, P. Gambino, N. Rius,

1321: A. Strumia, {\it JHEP 0202}:037,2002, e-Print: hep-ph/0112302.

1322: 

1323: \bibitem{leptophobic} G. Altarelli, N. Di Bartolomeo, F. Feruglio,

1324: R. Gatto, M.L. Mangano, {\it Phys. Lett. B375}:292,1996 and e-Print:

1325: hep-ph/9601324; P. Chiappetta, J. Layssac, F.M. Renard, {\it

1326: Phys. Rev. D54}:789,1996, e-Print: hep-ph/9601306; K.S. Babu,

1327: C.F. Kolda, John March-Russell, {\it Phys. Rev. D54}:4635,1996, 

1328: e-Print: hep-ph/9603212; K. Agashe, M. Graesser, I. Hinchliffe,

1329: M. Suzuki, {\it Phys .Lett. B385}:218,1996, e-Print: hep-ph/9604266. 

1330: 

1331: \bibitem{valencia} X-G. He and G. Valencia, e-Print: hep-ph/0203036, 

1332: Mar. 2002. 

1333: 

1334: \bibitem{topcolor} C.T. Hill, {\it Phys. Lett. B266}:419,1991; 

1335: {\it Phys. Lett. B345}:483,1995.  

1336: 

1337: \bibitem{wagner} D. Choudhury, T.M.P. Tait, C.E.M. Wagner, {\it

1338: Phys. Rev. D65}:053002,2002, e-Print: hep-ph/0109097. 

1339: 

1340: \bibitem{ma} D. Chang, W-F. Chang, E Ma,  {\it Phys. Rev. D61}:037301,2000,  

1341: e-Print: hep-ph/9909537. 

1342: 

1343: \bibitem{nutev_sys} G.P. Zeller, K.S. McFarland {\it et al.}, {\it

1344: Phys. Rev. D65}:111103,2002, e-Print: hep-ex/0203004.

1345: 

1346: \bibitem{nutev_sys_2} E. Sather, {\it Phys. Lett. B274}:433,1992;

1347: E.N. Rodianov, A.W. Thomas, J.T. Londergan, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.

1348: A9}:1799, 1994; F. Cao and A.I. Signal, {\it Phys. ReV C62}: 015203,

1349: 2000.

1350: 

1351: \bibitem{elsing} M. Elsing, presented at XXXVII Rencontres de Moriond,  

1352: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, March 9-16-2002 

1353: (posted at http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2002/transparencies).

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{zfitter} D. Bardin {\it et al.}, 

1356: {\it Comput. Phys. Commun.133}:229,2001, e-Print hep-ph/9908433.

1357: 

1358: \bibitem{bp} H. Burkhardt and B. Pietrzyk, LAPP-EXP-2001-03, Feb 2001

1359: (submitted to {\it Phys. Lett. B}).

1360: 

1361: \bibitem{dfg_02} V.A. Dzuba, V.V. Flambaum, J.S.M. Ginges, Apr 2002,

1362: e-Print: hep-ph/0204134. 

1363: 

1364: \bibitem{topaz} G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, F. Piccinini, G. 

1365: Passarino, {\it Comput. Phys. Commun. 117}:278-289,1999, e-Print:

1366: hep-ph/9804211.

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{dgps} A. Ferroglia, G. Ossola, M. Passera, A. Sirlin, {\it

1369: Phys. Rev. D65}:113002,2002, e-Print: hep-ph/020322.

1370: 

1371: \bibitem{altarellietal} G. Altarelli, F. Caravaglios, G.F. Giudice,

1372: P. Gambino, G. Ridolfi, {\it JHEP 0106}:018,2001, e-Print:

1373: hep-ph/0106029.

1374: 

1375: \bibitem{novikovetal} V.A. Novikov, L.B. Okun, A.N. Rozanov,

1376: M.I. Vysotsky, e-Print: hep-ph/0203132, Mar. 2002; and {\it

1377: Phys. Lett. B529}:111-116,2002, e-Print: hep-ph/0111028.

1378: 

1379: \bibitem{oblique} D.C. Kennedy and B.W. Lynn, 

1380: {\it Nucl. Phys. B322}:1,1989. 

1381: 

1382: \bibitem{holdom} B. Holdom, {\it Phys. Lett. B259}:329-334,1991. 

1383: 

1384: \bibitem{flat} L.J. Hall, C.F. Kolda, {\it Phys.Lett.B459}:213,1999,

1385: e-Print: hep-ph/9904236; J.A. Bagger, A.F. Falk, M. Swartz, {\it

1386: Phys. Rev. Lett. 84}:1385,2000, e-Print: hep-ph/9908327;

1387: R.S. Chivukula, N. Evans, {\it Phys. Lett. B464}:244,1999, e-Print:

1388: hep-ph/9907414; M.E. Peskin, J.D. Wells, {\it

1389: Phys. Rev. D64}:093003,2001 and e-Print: hep-ph/0101342. 

1390: 

1391: \bibitem{dn} R. Dashen and H. Neuberger, {\it Phys.Rev.Lett.}50:1897,1983.

1392: 

1393: \bibitem{triv_lattice} See for instance M. L\"uscher

1394: and P. Weisz, {\it Nucl.  Phys.}B318:705,1989; J. Kuti, L. Lin, and

1395: Y. Shen, {\it Phys.Rev.Lett.}61:678,1988; A. Hasenfratz {\it et al.},

1396: {\it Nucl.  Phys.}B317:81,1989; G.R. Bhanot and K. Bitar, {\it

1397: Phys.Rev.Lett.}61:798,1988.

1398: 

1399: \bibitem{mc_triv} M.S. Chanowitz, {\it Phys. Rev. D63}:076002,2001,

1400: e-Print: hep-ph/0010310. A lattice calculation with compatible

1401: results, though with a different purpose, is reported in U. Heller,

1402: M. Klomfass, H. Neuberger, and P. Vranas, {\it

1403: Nucl. Phys.} B405:555,1993, e-Print: hep-ph/9303215.

1404: 

1405: \bibitem{negative_s} C. Csaki, J. Erlich, John Terning, e-Print:

1406: hep-ph/0203034, Mar. 2002; B. Dobrescu and J. Terning, {\it

1407: Phys. Lett. B416:}129,1998, e-Print: hep-ph/9709297. For a review

1408: with citations of additional examples see C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons,

1409: FERMILAB-PUB-02-045-T, BUHEP-01-09, Mar 2002, submitted to Phys.Rep., 

1410: e-Print: hep-ph/0203079. 

1411: 

1412: \bibitem{aristotle} Agathon, quoted by Aristotle in the {\it Poetics}.

1413: 

1414: \bibitem{jegerlehner} F. Jegerlehner, DESY-01-028, Mar 2001, e-Print:

1415: hep-ph/0104304.

1416: 

1417: \bibitem{mt_effect} T. Aziz, A. Gurtu, CERN-OPEN-2001-067, Aug 2001,

1418: Submitted to Phys. Lett. B, e-Print: hep-ph/0110177.

1419: 

1420: \end{thebibliography}

1421: 

1422: %tables

1423: 

1424: \newpage

1425: \vskip 0.5in

1426: 

1427: \noindent Table 2.1. SM All-data fit (fit A). Experimental values for the

1428: model-independent parameters $g_L^2[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ and

1429: $g_R^2[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ are given for completeness but are not

1430: used in the SM fit. 

1431: 

1432: \begin{center}

1433: \vskip 12pt

1434: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}

1435:  &Experiment& SM Fit& Pull \\ 

1436: \hline

1437: \hline

1438: $A_{LR}$ & 0.1513 (21)  & 0.1481  &1.6  \\

1439: $A_{FB}^l$ & 0.0171 (10) &0.0165  & 0.7 \\

1440: $A_{e,\tau}$ & 0.1465 (33) & 0.1481 & -0.5 \\

1441: $A_{FB}^b$ & 0.0994 (17) & 0.1038 &-2.6  \\

1442: $A_{FB}^c$ & 0.0707 (34) & 0.0742 & -1.0 \\

1443: $x_W^l[Q_{FB}]$ & 0.2324 (12) & 0.23139 & 0.8  \\

1444: $m_W$ & 80.451 (33) & 80.395 & 1.7 \\

1445: $\Gamma_Z$ & 2495.2 (23) & 2496.4 &-0.5  \\

1446: $R_l$ & 20.767 (25) &20.742  &1.0  \\

1447: $\sigma_h$ & 41.540 (37) & 41.479 &1.6  \\

1448: $R_b$ & 0.21646 (65) & 0.21575 &1.1  \\

1449: $R_c$ & 0.1719 (31) & 0.1723 &-0.1  \\

1450: $A_b$ & 0.922 (20) & 0.9347 &-0.6  \\

1451: $A_c$ & 0.670 (26) &  0.6683 & 0.1 \\

1452: $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ & 0.2277 (16) &0.2227  &3.0  \\

1453: $m_t$ & 174.3 (5.1) &175.3  &-0.2  \\

1454: $\Delta \alpha_5(m_Z^2)$ & 0.02761 (36) &0.02768  & 0.2 \\

1455: $\alpha_S(m_Z)$ &  &0.1186  &  \\

1456: $m_H$ & & 94 &\\

1457: \hline

1458: $g_L^2[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ &  0.3005 (14)&  &  \\

1459: $g_R^2[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ & 0.0310 (11) &  &  \\

1460: \hline

1461: \hline

1462: \end{tabular}

1463: \end{center}

1464: 

1465: \newpage

1466: \vskip 0.5in

1467: 

1468: \noindent Table 2.2. Evolution of the electroweak data. As noted in the text, 

1469: the same data is tracked for the three data sets though, following 

1470: \cite{ewwg_02}, it is grouped into fewer degrees of freedom in the Spring 

1471: '02 data set. 

1472: \begin{center}

1473: \vskip 12pt

1474: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}

1475: & Summer '98& Spring '01& Spring '02 \\

1476: \hline

1477: \hline

1478: $x_W^l[A_L]$ &0.23128 (22) &0.23114 (20) &0.23113 (21) \\

1479: $x_W^l[A_h]$ &0.23222 (33) &0.23240 (29) &0.23220 (29) \\

1480: $CL(A_L \oplus A_H)$ &0.02 &0.0003 &0.003 \\

1481: $CL(x_W^l)$ &0.25 &0.02 &0.06 \\

1482: $m_W$  &80.410 (90) &80.448 (34) &80.451 (33) \\

1483: $\chi^2/N$ (no $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$&13.8/14&24.6/14&18.4/12\\

1484: $CL[\chi^2/N]$  &0.46 &0.04 &0.10 \\

1485: \hline

1486: $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$&0.2254 (21) &0.2255 (21) &0.2277 (16) \\

1487: Pull($x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$)  &1.1 &1.2 &3.0 \\

1488: $\chi^2/N$  &15/15 &26/15 &27.7/13 \\

1489: $CL[\chi^2/N]$  &0.45 &0.04 &0.01 \\

1490: \hline

1491: \hline

1492: \end{tabular}

1493: \end{center}

1494: 

1495: \vskip 0.5in

1496: 

1497: \noindent Table 2.3. ``What if?'': role of $m_W$ in shaping the global

1498: fit.  The first column reflects actual current data with $x_W^{\rm

1499: OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ omitted. In the second and third columns 

1500: $m_W$ is assigned hypothetical values as described in the text, while other 

1501: measurements are held at their Spring '02 values. 

1502: In each case the effect of omitting $A_{FB}^b$ or $A_{LR}$ is also 

1503: shown.

1504: 

1505: \begin{center}

1506: \vskip 12pt

1507: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}

1508: & $m_W['02]$&  $m_W['98]$&  $\Delta m_W['02]$\\

1509: \hline

1510: \hline

1511: $m_W$ & 80.451 (33) & 80.410 (90) & 80.370 (33) \\

1512: \hline

1513: $\chi^2/12$,  $CL$ &18.4, 0.10 &15.2, 0.23 & 15.3, 0.23 \\

1514: \hline

1515: $- A_{FB}^b$ &&&\\

1516: $\chi^2/11$, $CL$ & 10.2, 0.51 & 9.0, 0.62 & 9.8, 0.55 \\

1517: {\bf OR} &&&\\

1518:  $-A_{LR}$ &&&\\

1519: $\chi^2/11$, $CL$ & 15.7, 0.15 & 10.2, 0.51 & 10.0, 0.53 \\

1520: \hline

1521: \hline

1522: \end{tabular}

1523: \end{center}

1524: 

1525: 

1526: \vskip 1in

1527: 

1528: \noindent Table 3.1. Results for global fits A - D and for the

1529: corresponding fits restricted to $m_H$-sensitive observables, 

1530: A$^\prime$ - D$^\prime$.

1531: 

1532: \begin{center}

1533: \vskip 12pt

1534: \begin{tabular}{c||c|c}

1535:  & All &$- x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ \\

1536: \hline

1537: \hline

1538:   All & \bf A & \bf B \\

1539:     & $\chi^2/=27.7/13$, $CL=0.010$ & 18.4/12, 0.10 \\

1540: \hline

1541:   $-x_W^l[A_H]$ & {\bf C} & \bf D \\

1542:                 & 17.4/10, 0.066  &  6.8/9, 0.65 \\

1543: \hline

1544: \hline

1545: $m_H$-sensitive only: & &  \\

1546: All & \bf A$^\prime$ & \bf B$^\prime$ \\

1547:     & 24.3/8, 0.0020 &  15.2/7, 0.034 \\

1548: \hline 

1549:   $-x_W^l[A_H]$ & {\bf C$^\prime$} & \bf D$^\prime$ \\

1550:     & 13.8/5, 0.017 & 3.45/4, 0.49 \\

1551: \hline

1552: \hline

1553: \end{tabular}

1554: \end{center}

1555: 

1556: 

1557: \vskip .5in

1558: 

1559: \noindent Table 3.2. SM fit D, to Minimal Data Set, with 

1560: $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ and three hadronic asymmetry 

1561: measurements excluded. 

1562: 

1563: \begin{center}

1564: \vskip 12pt

1565: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}

1566:  &Experiment& SM Fit& Pull \\ 

1567: \hline

1568: \hline

1569: $A_{LR}$ & 0.1513 (21)  & 0.1509  & 0.2  \\

1570: $A_{FB}^l$ & 0.0171 (10) &0.0171  & 0.0 \\

1571: $A_{e,\tau}$ & 0.1465 (33) & 0.1509 & -1.4 \\

1572: $m_W$ & 80.451 (33) & 80.429 & 0.7 \\

1573: $\Gamma_Z$ & 2495.2 (23) & 2496.1 &-0.4  \\

1574: $R_l$ & 20.767 (25) &20.737  &1.2  \\

1575: $\sigma_h$ & 41.540 (37) & 41.487 & 1.4  \\

1576: $R_b$ & 0.21646 (65) & 0.21575 &1.1  \\

1577: $R_c$ & 0.1719 (31) & 0.1722 &-0.1  \\

1578: $A_b$ & 0.922 (20) & 0.9350 &-0.7  \\

1579: $A_c$ & 0.670 (26) &  0.670 & 0.0 \\

1580: $m_t$ & 174.3 (5.1) &175.3  &-0.2  \\

1581: $\Delta \alpha_5(m_Z^2)$ & 0.02761 (36) &0.02761  & 0.0 \\

1582: $\alpha_S(m_Z)$ &  &0.1168  &  \\

1583: $m_H$ & & 43 &\\

1584: \hline

1585: \hline

1586: \end{tabular}

1587: \end{center}

1588: 

1589: 

1590: \vskip .5in

1591: 

1592: \noindent Table 5.1. Predictions for $m_H$ from various restricted

1593: sets of $m_H$-sensitive observables. The value of $m_H$ at the

1594: $\chi^2$ minimum is shown along with the symmetric 90\% confidence

1595: interval and the likelihood for $m_H>114$ GeV.  Values indicated as

1596: $10-$ or $3000+$ fall below or above the interval $10 <m_H<3000$ GeV

1597: within which the fits are performed.

1598: 

1599: \begin{center}

1600: \vskip 12pt

1601: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}

1602:  & $m_H$ (GeV) & 90\% $CL$ & $CL(m_H>114)$ \\ 

1603: \hline

1604: \hline

1605: $x_W^l[A_L]$ & 55 & $16 <m_H<143$ & 0.10 \\

1606: $x_W^l[A_H]$ & 410 & $145 <m_H< 1230$ & 0.98 \\

1607: $m_W$ & 23 & $10- <m_H< 121$ & 0.059\\

1608: $m_W\oplus \Gamma_Z \oplus R_l$ & 13 &$ 10- <m_H< 73$ & 0.021 \\

1609: $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ &$3000+$ & $ 660 < m_H<3000+$&0.996 \\

1610: \hline

1611: $x_W^l[A_L] \oplus m_W\oplus \Gamma_Z \oplus R_l$ & 37 & $ 11 <m_H<106 $

1612:                        & 0.038\\

1613: $x_W^l[A_H] \oplus x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$&600& $220<m_H<1690 $

1614:                                    & 0.995\\

1615: \hline

1616: \hline

1617: \end{tabular}

1618: \end{center}

1619: 

1620: 

1621: \vskip .5in

1622: 

1623: \noindent Table 5.2. Confidence levels and Higgs boson mass

1624: predictions for global fits A - D. Each entry shows the value of $m_H$

1625: at the $\chi^2$ minimum, the symmetric 90\% confidence interval, the

1626: $\chi^2$ confidence level, the confidence level for consistency with

1627: the search limit, and the combined likelihood $P_C$ from

1628: equation (1.1).

1629: 

1630: \begin{center}

1631: \vskip 12pt

1632: \begin{tabular}{c||c|c}

1633:  & All &$- x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$ \\

1634: \hline

1635: \hline

1636:   All & \bf A & \bf B \\

1637:    & $m_H= 94$ & $m_H= 81$  \\  

1638:    & $37<m_H<193$ & $36<m_H<190$  \\              

1639:    &$CL(\chi^2)=0.010$ & $CL(\chi^2)=0.10$  \\

1640:    & $CL(m_H>114)=0.30$ & $CL(m_H>114)=0.26$  \\

1641:    & $P_C= 0.0030$ & $P_C= 0.02$6 \\

1642: \hline

1643:   $-x_W^l[A_H]$ & {\bf C} & \bf D \\

1644:    & $m_H= 45$ & $m_H= 43$  \\              

1645:    & $14<m_H<113$ & $17<m_H<105$  \\              

1646:    & $CL(\chi^2)=0.066$ &  $CL(\chi^2)=0.65$  \\

1647:    & $CL(m_H>114)=0.047$ &  $CL(m_H>114)=0.035$  \\

1648:    & $P_C= 0.0031$ & $P_C= 0.023$ \\

1649: \hline

1650: \hline

1651: \end{tabular}

1652: \end{center}

1653: 

1654: 

1655: \vskip 1in

1656: 

1657: \noindent Table 7.1 Coefficients for the oblique corrections as defined 

1658: in equation (7.1).

1659: 

1660: \begin{center}

1661: \vskip 12pt

1662: \begin{tabular}{c|cc}

1663:   $Q_i$ & $A_i$ & $B_i$ \\

1664: \hline

1665: \hline

1666:  $A_{LR}$  &  -0.0284 & 0.0202 \\

1667:  $A_{FB}^l$ & -0.00639 & 0.00454 \\

1668:  $A_{e,\tau}$  &  -0.0284 & 0.0202 \\

1669:  $x_W^l[Q_{FB}]$  & 0.00361    &  -0.00256   \\

1670:  $A_{FB}^c$  & -0.0156    & 0.0111    \\

1671:  $A_{FB}^b$  & -0.0202    & 0.0143    \\

1672:  ln($\Gamma_Z$)  & -0.00379    &  0.0105   \\

1673:  ln($R_l$)   & -0.00299    & 0.00213    \\

1674:  ln($\sigma_h$)  & 0.000254    & -0.000182    \\

1675:  $m_W$  & -0.00361    & 0.00555    \\

1676:  ln($R_c$)  & -0.00127    &  0.000906   \\

1677:  ln($R_b$)  & 0.000659    &  -0.000468   \\

1678:  $A_c$  & -0.0125    &  0.00886   \\

1679:  $A_b$  &   -0.00229  & 0.00163    \\

1680:  $g_L^2$  & -0.00268    &  0.00654   \\

1681:  $g_R^2$  & 0.000926    & -0.000198    \\

1682: \hline

1683: \hline

1684: \end{tabular}

1685: \end{center}

1686: 

1687: 

1688: %figures

1689: \newpage

1690: %ol_3

1691: \begin{figure}

1692: 

1693: \begin{center}                                                                 

1694: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f1.ps}

1695: \end{center}

1696: 

1697: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions as a function of $m_H$ from the

1698: leptonic asymmetry measurements. The dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted

1699: lines are obtained from $A_{LR}$, $A_{FB}^l$, and $A_{e,\tau}$

1700: respectively. The solid line is the combined fit to the three

1701: asymmetries.}

1702: 

1703: \label{fig1}

1704: \end{figure}

1705: 

1706: \newpage

1707: %oh_3

1708: \begin{figure}

1709: 

1710: \begin{center}                                                                 

1711: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f2.ps}

1712: \end{center}

1713: 

1714: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions from the hadronic asymmetry 

1715: measurements. The dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines are 

1716: obtained from $A_{FB}^b$, $A_{FB}^c$, and $Q_{FB}$ respectively. The 

1717: solid line is the combined fit to the three asymmetries.}

1718: 

1719: \label{fig2}

1720: \end{figure}

1721: 

1722: 

1723: 

1724: \newpage

1725: %ohl

1726: \begin{figure}

1727: 

1728: \begin{center}                                                                 

1729: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f3.ps}

1730: \end{center}

1731: 

1732: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions from the leptonic (left) and hadronic

1733: (right) asymmetry measurements. The dot-dashed lines indicate the

1734: respective symmetric 90\% $CL$ intervals.}

1735: 

1736: \label{fig3}

1737: \end{figure}

1738: 

1739: 

1740: 

1741: \newpage

1742: 

1743: %omgr_3

1744: \begin{figure}

1745: 

1746: \begin{center}                                                                 

1747: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f4.ps}

1748: \end{center}

1749: 

1750: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions from non-asymmetry measurements. The

1751: dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines are obtained from $m_W$,

1752: $\Gamma_Z$, and $R_l$ respectively. The solid line is the combined fit

1753: to the three measurementss.  The dot-dashed lines mark the 

1754: 95\% $CL$ upper limits for the combined distribution and for the 

1755: distribution obtained from $m_W$ alone.}

1756: 

1757: \label{fig4}

1758: \end{figure}

1759: 

1760: 

1761: 

1762: \newpage

1763: %o7_1

1764: \begin{figure}

1765: 

1766: \begin{center}                                                                 

1767: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f5.ps}

1768: \end{center}

1769: 

1770: \caption{$\chi^2$ distribution from $\Gamma_Z$ with expanded scale.}

1771: 

1772: \label{fig5}

1773: \end{figure}

1774: 

1775: 

1776: 

1777: \newpage

1778: %o15_1

1779: \begin{figure}

1780: 

1781: \begin{center}                                                                 

1782: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f6.ps}

1783: \end{center}

1784: 

1785: \caption{$\chi^2$ distribution from $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$.}

1786: 

1787: \label{fig6}

1788: \end{figure}

1789: 

1790: 

1791: 

1792: \newpage

1793: %o_anom_nonanom

1794: \begin{figure}

1795: 

1796: \begin{center}                                                                 

1797: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f7.ps}

1798: \end{center}

1799: 

1800: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions from the $m_H$-sensitive observables.

1801: The distribution on the left is a fit to the D$^\prime$ data set, i.e., 

1802: restricted to the $m_H$-sensitive observables $A_{LR}$, $A_{FB}^l$,

1803: $A_{e,\tau}$, $m_W$, $\Gamma_Z$, and $R_l$. The distribution on the

1804: right is a fit to the remaining $m_H$-sensitive observables:

1805: $A_{FB}^b$, $A_{FB}^c$, $Q_{FB}$, and $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel

1806: {(-)}{\nu} N]$. The dot-dashed lines indicate the respective symmetric

1807: 90\% $CL$ intervals.}

1808: 

1809: \label{fig7}

1810: \end{figure}

1811: 

1812: 

1813: 

1814: \newpage

1815: %o11_15

1816: \begin{figure}

1817: 

1818: \begin{center}                                                                 

1819: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f8.ps}

1820: \end{center}

1821: 

1822: \caption{$\Delta \chi^2$ for two SM global fits. The Minimal Data Set, 

1823: fit D, is on the left and the all-data set, fit A, is on the right. The 

1824: 90\% symmetric confidence intervals are indicated by the horizontal 

1825: dot-dashed line. The vertical dashed line denotes the 95\% $CL$ lower 

1826: limit on $m_H$ from the direct searches.}

1827: 

1828: \label{fig8}

1829: \end{figure}

1830: 

1831: 

1832: 

1833: \newpage

1834: %o11_15ml

1835: \begin{figure}

1836: 

1837: \begin{center}                                                                 

1838: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f9.ps}

1839: \end{center}

1840: 

1841: \caption{Differential and integrated likelihood distributions for the 

1842: Minimal Data Set (set D, solid lines) and the all-data set (set A, 

1843: dotted lines). The vertical dashed line denotes the 95\% $CL$ lower 

1844: limit on $m_H$ from the direct searches, and the horizontal dot-dashed 

1845: line indicates the 5\% likelihood level.}

1846: 

1847: \label{fig9}

1848: \end{figure}

1849: 

1850: 

1851: 

1852: \newpage

1853: %o11_st_2

1854: \begin{figure}

1855: 

1856: \begin{center}                                                                 

1857: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f10.ps}

1858: \end{center}

1859: 

1860: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions (solid lines) for the SM  and $S,T$ fits 

1861: to the Minimal Data Set (data set D). The corresponding values of $S$ 

1862: (dashed line) and $T$ (dot-dashed line) are read to the scale on the 

1863: right axis.}

1864: 

1865: \label{fig10}

1866: \end{figure} 

1867: 

1868: 

1869: \newpage

1870: %o11_t_not

1871: \begin{figure}

1872: 

1873: \begin{center}                                                                 

1874: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f11.ps}

1875: \end{center}

1876: 

1877: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions (solid lines) for the SM and $T$-only

1878: fits to the Minimal Data Set (data set D). 

1879: $T$ (dot-dashed line) is read to the scale on the right axis.}

1880: 

1881: \label{fig11}

1882: \end{figure}

1883: 

1884: 

1885: \newpage

1886: %o14_st_2

1887: \begin{figure}

1888: 

1889: \begin{center}                                                                 

1890: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f12.ps}

1891: \end{center}

1892: 

1893: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions (solid lines) for the SM and $S,T$

1894: fits to data set B, i.e., including the hadronic asymmetry

1895: measurements but not $x_W^{\rm OS}[\stackrel {(-)}{\nu} N]$. $S$

1896: (dashed line) and $T$ (dot-dashed line) are read to the scale on the

1897: right axis.}

1898: 

1899: \label{fig12}

1900: \end{figure}

1901: 

1902: 

1903: \newpage

1904: %o16_st_nost

1905: \begin{figure}

1906: 

1907: \begin{center}                                                                 

1908: \includegraphics[height=6in,width=4in,angle=90]{f13.ps}

1909: \end{center}

1910: 

1911: \caption{$\chi^2$ distributions (solid lines) for $S,T$ fits to the

1912: all-data set, data set A. The distribution for $S=T=0$ is not 

1913: equivalent to the SM fit since it uses the model-independent NuTeV fit

1914: to $g_{L,R}$ as discussed in the text. $S$ (dashed line) and $T$

1915: (dot-dashed line) are read to the scale on the right axis. }

1916: 

1917: \label{fig13}

1918: \end{figure}

1919: 

1920: 

1921: \newpage

1922: %flowchart_pdf

1923: \begin{figure}

1924: \caption{Electroweak schematic diagram.}

1925: 

1926: \begin{center}                                                                 

1927: \includegraphics[height=4in,width=6.5in,angle=-90]{f14.ps}

1928: \end{center}

1929: 

1930: %\caption{}

1931: 

1932: \label{fig14}

1933: \end{figure}

1934: 

1935: 

1936: 

1937: \end {document}

1938: 

1939: 

1940: 

1941: 

1942: 

1943: 

1944: 

1945: 

1946: 

1947: 

1948: 

1949: 

1950: 

1951: 

1952: 

1953: 

1954: 

1955: 

1956: 

1957: 

1958: