1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %                                                                        %

3: %             ON DISTINGUISHING RADIONS FROM HIGGS BOSONS                %

4: %                                                                        %

5: %     Prasanta Kumar Das, Santosh Kumar Rai and Sreerup Raychaudhuri     %

6: %                                                                        %

7: %              Date of last modification: 31-12-2004                     %

8: %                                                                        %

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

10: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

11: \usepackage{graphicx}

12: \topmargin     -0.05in

13: \textheight     9.25in

14: \textwidth      6.50in

15: \oddsidemargin -0.30in

16: \parindent      0.25in

17: \def\baselinestretch{1.35}

18: %\setcounter{page}{0}

19: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

20: \begin{document}

21: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

22: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

23: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

24: \def\qv{{\it q.v.}}

25: \def\ib{{\it ibid.}}

26: \def\bc{\begin{center}}

27: \def\ec{\end{center}}

28: \def\bq{\begin{quotation}}

29: \def\eq{\end{quotation}}

30: \def\bit{\begin{itemize}}

31: \def\eit{\end{itemize}}

32: \def\benum{\begin{enumerate}}

33: \def\eenum{\end{enumerate}}

34: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

35: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

36: \def\bearr{\begin{eqnarray}}

37: \def\eearr{\end{eqnarray}}

38: \def\bdm{\begin{displaymath}}

39: \def\edm{\end{displaymath}}

40: \def\bfl{\begin{flushleft}}

41: \def\efl{\end{flushleft}}

42: \def\bfr{\begin{flushright}}

43: \def\efr{\end{flushright}}

44: \def\del{\partial}

45: \def\goes{\longrightarrow}

46: \def\epem{e^+e^-}

47: \def\MR{M_\Phi}

48: \def\VR{\Lambda_\Phi}

49: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

50: %                             Title Page                                 %

51: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

52: %\thispagestyle{empty}

53: %\bfr

54: %\today \\

55: %hep-ph/0410244 

56: %\efr

57: %\vskip 20pt

58: \bc

59: {\Large\bf  

60: On Distinguishing Radions from Higgs Bosons} \\

61: \vskip 10pt

62: {\sl Prasanta Kumar Das $^a$, Santosh Kumar Rai} $^b$ and 

63: {\sl Sreerup Raychaudhuri $^b$} \\

64: \bigskip

65: $^a$~{\rm Department of Physics, Chung Yuan Christian University, \\

66: 22 Pu-Jen, Pu-chung Li, Chung-Li (32023), Taiwan, R.O.C.}\\

67: {\rm Electronic address:} {\sf pdas@phys.cycu.edu.tw} \\

68: \bigskip

69: $^b$~{\rm Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, 

70: Kanpur 208016, India.} \\

71: {\rm Electronic addresses:} {\sf sreerup@iitk.ac.in, skrai@iitk.ac.in} \\

72: \vskip 20pt

73: {\large\bf ABSTRACT}

74: \ec

75: \bq \noindent {\footnotesize

76: Radion couplings are almost identical to Higgs boson couplings, making it very

77: difficult to distinguish the two states when the radion mass and vacuum

78: expectation value are similar to those of the Higgs boson. The only real

79: difference lies in the fact that the coupling of radions to off-shell fermions is

80: proportional to the momentum rather than the mass of the fermion. This extra

81: contribution gets cancelled in all tree-level processes and shows up only in

82: loop-induced processes like $\Phi \to \gamma\gamma$ and $\Phi \to gg$. We perform

83: a careful calculation of the branching ratios and establish that they can prove

84: crucial in clearly distinguishing a radion from a Higgs boson. This claim is made

85: concrete by evaluating the exclusive cross-sections in a radiative process

86: involving elementary scalars.}

87: \eq

88: %\vfill

89: \vskip 10pt

90: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

91: %                          Body of the Paper                             %

92: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

93: %\newpage

94: 

95: \noindent

96: In recent years the two-brane model of Randall and Sundrum\cite{RS1} has

97: attracted a great deal of attention because it provides an elegant

98: solution to the thirty-odd year-old hierarchy problem of high energy

99: physics. The most attractive feature of the 1+4 dimensional

100: Randall-Sundrum (RS) model is that it explains the large hierarchy

101: between the electroweak scale (0.1 -- 1 TeV) and the Planck scale

102: ($10^{16}$ TeV) in terms of an exponential damping of the gravitational

103: field across a small compact fifth dimension, without recourse to

104: unnaturally large numbers\footnote{However, it is only fair to mention

105: that this is achieved at the expense of a delicate fine-tuning of the

106: five-dimensional cosmological constant with the energy densities on two

107: branes at opposite ends of the fifth dimension.}. Since the hierarchy of

108: scales is generated by an exponential damping across the fifth dimension,

109: the size of this dimension requires to be just at the right value to

110: ensure that the hierarchy is indeed a factor of $\frac{M_{Pl}}{M_{ew}}

111: \sim 10^{16}$. Since the fifth dimension has the topology of a

112: once-folded circle, with two $D_3$-branes at the fixed points, this

113: amounts to fixing the distance $R_c$ between the two branes very

114: precisely. This, in turn, would require a mechanism to protect the radius

115: against large quantum corrections. The absence of such a mechanism is a

116: major flaw in the original braneworld model of Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos

117: and Dvali\cite{ADD}. The question was left unresolved even in the

118: original work\cite{RS1} of RS, but an elegant model to explain this was

119: given shortly afterwards by Goldberger and Wise\cite{GW2}. They used the

120: simple device of generating a force between the two branes which would

121: ensure equilibrium when the distance between them is precisely the radius

122: $R_c$ required to generate the required hierarchy. Because of the folded

123: structure of the fifth dimension, it is only necessary to generate an

124: attractive force between the branes --- since each brane is,

125: topologically speaking, on {\sl both} sides of the other, the two pulls

126: will balance at the equilibrium point. The attractive force is modelled

127: by postulating the time-honoured device of a scalar field which lives in

128: all five dimensions (bulk)  and has quartic self-interactions, in the

129: bulk, as well as in projection on the branes. It is necessary only to

130: tune the vacuum expectation values (vev's) of the scalar field on the two

131: branes to get an attractive force as required. In fact, it can be easily

132: shown that the potential has an extremely steep minimum at the argument

133: $R_c$, indicating that the hierarchy is fixed very accurately for small

134: oscillations of the bulk size about this minimum.

135: 

136: \bigskip\noindent

137: 

138: An important consequence of the (original)  RS model is that there exists

139: on the TeV-brane (which represents the observable Universe), a scalar

140: field $\Phi$, which is very much like a dilaton field and has been dubbed

141: the {\sl radion}. The RS metric, with radial fluctuations, is written in

142: the form

143: \be

144: ds^2 = e^{-2KT(x)\varphi} ~g_{\mu\nu}(x) dx^\mu dx^\nu - [T(x)]^2 ~d\varphi^2

145: \ee

146: where $T(x)$ is a modulus field representing dilatation of the bulk, $K$

147: is the bulk curvature and $\varphi$ is an angular coordinate describing

148: the fifth dimension. We can now show\cite{GW1} that the five-dimensional

149: Einstein-Hilbert action reduces, in four dimensions, to a theory with

150: Kaluza-Klein gravity and a scalar term

151: \be

152: S_\Phi = \int d^4x \sqrt{-|g|} ~~\frac{1}{2} \del_\mu \Phi(x) \del^\mu 

153: \Phi(x)

154: \ee

155: where the (massless, free) scalar field

156: \be

157: \Phi(x) = \sqrt{24M_5^3/K}~e^{-\pi K T(x)}

158: \ee

159: is the radion field. The Goldberger-Wise stabilisation mechanism, with a

160: bulk scalar field $B(x,\varphi)$ then creates an effective scalar

161: $\Phi^4$-potential for the radion field $\Phi(x)$ with a minimum at

162: $\langle T(x)\rangle = R_c$, where $KR_c \simeq 11.7$, the value required

163: to generate the electroweak hierarchy. This potential includes a radion

164: mass term $m_\Phi^2 \Phi^2$ where $m_\Phi$ is determined by the mass

165: $m_B$ and couplings of the bulk scalar field. Though $m_B$ is unknown,

166: arguing\cite{GW2} that $m_B$ should be of the order of the Planck scale

167: --- which is the only fundamental scale in the RS model --- leads to the

168: result that $m_\Phi$ should be of the order of the electroweak

169: symmetry-breaking scale, i.e. $m_\Phi \sim 100$~GeV.

170: 

171: \bigskip\noindent

172: Phenomenology of the radion field\cite{DHR1} starts with the coupling of

173: the radion to ordinary matter, consisting of the Standard Model (SM)

174: fields. This interaction which arises from the usual gravitational

175: coupling to matter, is the same as the coupling of a dilaton field, viz.,

176: \be

177: {\cal L}(x) = -\frac{1}{\VR} ~\Phi(x) ~\eta^{\mu\nu}T_{\mu\nu}(x)

178: \label{radcoup}

179: \ee

180: where $\Lambda_\Phi$ is the radion vev, corresponding to the minimum of

181: the radion potential on the TeV brane and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the

182: energy-momentum tensor composed of SM fields. The radion Feynman rules

183: can, therefore, be read off from (for example), the expressions given in

184: Ref.\cite{HLZ} by simply substituting the radion for the dilaton and

185: $\VR$ for $\bar M_P$. It turns out that the couplings are rather similar

186: to those of Higgs fields to other SM particles, though, of course, the

187: radion couplings originate from the 

188: couplings of the bulk scalar\footnote{It may be noted that the vev, 

189: $\VR$ is a free parameter arising from the couplings of the bulk scalar 

190: and has no

191: relation to the parameter $\Lambda_\pi$ which is strongly constrained by

192: bounds on the graviton mass \cite{lambdapi}.} 

193: while Higgs boson couplings arise from the Standard Model sector. An

194: important --- and for this work, crucial --- difference arises in the

195: fact that there are {\it momentum-dependent} terms in the radion coupling

196: to matter, which are not present in the Higgs boson coupling. To see

197: this, we write out in full the energy-momentum tensor for a scalar field

198: $S(x)$, a fermion field $\psi(x)$ and a vector gauge field $V_\mu(x)$.

199: \bearr

200: \eta^{\mu\nu}~T_{\mu\nu} & = & 

201: -2 \left[(D^\mu S)^\dagger (D_\mu S) - 2 M_S^2 ~S^\dagger S \right]

202: \nonumber \\ &   &

203: -3i \bar{\psi} \not{\!\!D} \psi + 4 m_\psi~\bar{\psi}\psi + \frac{3i}{2}

204: \del^\mu \left[ \bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi\right]

205: \nonumber \\ &   &

206: - M_V^2 ~V_\mu(x) V^\mu(x)

207: \label{tensor}

208: \eearr

209: where $D^\mu = \del^\mu + igT_a V^\mu_a$ and $T_a$ is the gauge group

210: generator in the appropriate representation. The explicit form of this

211: for the Standard Model fields is given in Ref.\cite{KCH}. This

212: interaction tells us that the vertex for $\Phi(p) \to \bar{\psi}(k_1) +

213: \psi(k_2)$ is given (in momentum space) by

214: \be

215: {\cal L}_{\Phi \psi\bar \psi} = \frac{3}{2\VR} \bar u(k_1) \left(

216: \not{\!k_1} + \not{\!k_2} - \frac{8}{3}m_\psi \right) u(k_2) ~\Phi(p) \ .

217: \label{offshell}

218: \ee 

219: If the fermions are on-shell, we can use the Dirac equation to write the above

220: equation as

221: \be

222: {\cal L}_{\Phi \psi\bar \psi} =

223: -\frac{m_\psi}{\VR} \bar u(k_1) u(k_2) \Phi(p) \ ,

224: \label{onshell}

225: \ee

226: which is a Yukawa coupling very reminiscent of the Higgs boson.

227: Obviously, if the fermions are {\it off-shell}, the coupling is

228: different.  An immediate consequence of the above is that radions, unlike

229: Higgs bosons can have significant couplings to light fermions, such as

230: electrons and $u,d$ quarks, if any of the fermions is off-shell and has

231: large energy-momentum values.

232: 

233: \bigskip\noindent

234: Once produced, a massive radion will clearly decay. Being a constituent

235: field of the metric tensor the radion couples, as described in Eqns.

236: (\ref{radcoup}) and (\ref{tensor}), to {\sl all} pairs of SM particles.

237: Naturally, only those decays which are kinematically allowed will occur.

238: For fermionic decay modes $\Phi \to f\bar{f}$ (on-shell), the partial

239: decay widths will be suppressed by the factor $m_f^2/\Lambda_\Phi^2$,

240: since the fermionic states will be on-shell and the radionic coupling

241: will be Higgs boson-like. Thus, we need to consider only the following

242: decay channels:

243: \bearr

244: \Phi & \goes & \gamma\gamma,~gg \nonumber \\ 

245:      & \goes & \tau^+\tau^- ,~c\bar{c},~b\bar{b} \nonumber \\ 

246:      & \goes & W^+W^-,~ Z^0Z^0,~H^0H^0 \nonumber \\ 

247:      & \goes & t\bar{t}

248: \nonumber

249: \eearr

250: Detailed formulae for these are given in Ref.\cite{KCH}. However, in this

251: last-mentioned work, the formulae for the decay widths $\Phi \goes \gamma

252: \gamma,~g g$ have been calculated assuming the coupling in

253: Eqn.(\ref{onshell}) rather than the one in Eqn.(\ref{offshell}), and are,

254: therefore, somewhat inaccurate. This is because loop-fermions will

255: obviously be off-shell and there will be consequent modifications to the

256: decay amplitude itself. It is worth noting that though the lighter

257: fermions will now couple to the scalar field through their momenta rather

258: than their masses, there is a helicity flip involved in the

259: scalar-vector-vector one-loop diagrams, which results in an amplitude

260: proportional to the fermion masses. As a result, it is only the top quark

261: loop which makes any significant contribution --- which is also the case

262: with Higgs bosons. The differences arise, then, solely from the extra

263: off-shell terms in the $\Phi t\bar t$ coupling.

264: 

265: \bigskip\noindent

266: In this work, we have calculated the one-loop-mediated decay widths

267: afresh, using the off-shell coupling of Eqn.(\ref{offshell}). The

268: relevant Feynman diagrams are listed in Figure~1. Of these, the triangle

269: diagrams marked (A) and (B) are similar to those responsible for the

270: process $H^0 \to \gamma\gamma$. The ones marked (C) and (D) arise from

271: non-renormalisable couplings of the radion (dilaton) to a photon and a

272: fermion pair, which arise at the lowest order in an effective theory of

273: gravity coupling to matter. It is worth mentioning at this point that the

274: presence of these vertices is responsible, in tree-level processes like,

275: for example, $e^+ e^- \to Z \Phi$ or $e^+ e^- \to \ell^+\ell^-\Phi$, for

276: precisely cancelling out the momentum-dependent part of the

277: $\ell^+\ell^-\Phi$ coupling and rendering the cross-section totally

278: Higgs-like. However, the situation is different inside a loop diagram, as

279: we shall presently argue.

280: 

281: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

282: \begin{center}

283: \includegraphics[height=3in]{Fig1.eps}

284: \end{center}

285: \noindent {\bf Figure 1}.

286: {\footnotesize\it Feynman diagrams with a top quark loop contributing to the process

287: $\Phi \goes \gamma\gamma$ at the one-loop level.}

288: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

289: 

290: 

291: \bigskip\noindent 

292: Following the usual procedure\cite{ABJ} for calculating the amplitude for a

293: process like $\Phi(p) \goes \gamma(k_1)\gamma(k_2)$, we write the amplitude as

294: \be

295: {\cal M}(\Phi\to\gamma\gamma) = 

296: \left[ A(p^2)k_1^\nu k_2^\mu + B(p^2) \eta^{\mu\nu} \right] 

297: \varepsilon^*_\mu(k_1)\varepsilon^*_\nu(k_2) 

298: \ee

299: which is consistent with Lorentz-symmetry and the transverse nature of

300: the photon. Imposition of gauge symmetry at once leads to the Ward

301: identity

302: \be

303: B(p^2) = - A(p^2) k_1.k_2

304: \ee

305: which relates the (naively divergent) form factor $B(p^2)$ to the finite form 

306: factor $A(p^2)$, and hence acts as a regulator for the process. The amplitude

307: then becomes

308: \be

309: {\cal M}(\Phi\to\gamma\gamma) = 

310: A(p^2) \left( k_1^\nu k_2^\mu - k_1.k_2 ~\eta^{\mu\nu} \right) 

311: \varepsilon^*_\mu(k_1)\varepsilon^*_\nu(k_2) 

312: \ee

313: which means that it is only necessary to calculate the finite form factor

314: $A(p^2) = A(M_\Phi^2)$ in order to get the decay width. Since $A(p^2)$

315: can be calculated by evaluating the coefficients of $k_1^\nu k_2^\mu$

316: alone, it can now be seen, by writing down the Feynman amplitudes for the

317: diagrams marked (A)--(D) in Figure~1, that the contributions to $A(p^2)$

318: arise from those marked (A) and (B), but not from those marked (C) and

319: (D). Thus, the exact cancellation of momentum-dependent terms, which

320: renders the effective radion coupling Higgs-like in the tree-level, does

321: {\sl not} go through at the one-loop level. This also ensures that the

322: diagrams (A) and (B) in Figure~1 have residual momentum-dependent effects

323: and justifies corrections to the partial decay width of Ref.\cite{KCH}

324: --- which is the thrust of our present work.

325: 

326: \bigskip\noindent

327: For the two-photon decay mode, then, our final results are

328: \be

329: \Gamma(\Phi \to \gamma\gamma) = \frac{1}{64\pi} \frac{M_\Phi^3}{\Lambda_\Phi^2} 

330: \left(\frac{ \alpha}{\pi}\right)^2 \left|I_\gamma\right|^2 

331: \qquad

332: {\rm where}

333:  \qquad I_\gamma = b_{QED} + I_W + \sum_{f} N_c~Q_f^2~I_f

334: \ee

335: In the above, $N_c$ is the number of colours of the fermion $f$ and $Q_f$

336: is the fermionic charge. The QED beta function (appearing because of the

337: trace anomaly)  is given by\cite{UMA1,UMA2}

338: \bearr

339: b_{QED} & = &  \frac{20}{9}  ~{\rm for}~~M_\Phi \leq 2M_W  \nonumber \\

340:         & = &  \frac{31}{18} ~{\rm for}~~2M_W < M_\Phi \leq 2m_t\nonumber \\

341: 	& = &  \frac{12}{6}  ~{\rm for}~~M_\Phi > 2m_t

342: \eearr

343: and the loop integral functions $I_W$ and $I_f$ are given by

344: \bearr

345: I_W & = & -1 - \frac{3}{2}\lambda_W + \frac{3}{2}\lambda_W 

346: (1 - \frac{1}{2}\lambda_W)~{\rm F}(\lambda_W) \nonumber \\

347: I_f & = & - 8 \lambda_f - \lambda_f ( 4 \lambda_f - 1)~{\rm F}(\lambda_f)

348: \label{function}

349: \eearr 

350: where $\lambda_i = \left({2m_i}/{M_\Phi}\right)^2$, with $i$ running over 

351: all the particles involved, and ${\rm F}(\lambda)$ is given by

352: \bearr

353: {\rm F}(\lambda) 

354: & = & -2\left[\sin^{-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right]^2 ~~{\rm for}~~ 

355: \lambda \geq 1 \nonumber \\

356: & = & -\frac{\pi^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\log^2 

357: \frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - \lambda}} {1 - \sqrt{1 - \lambda}}

358: - i\pi\log \frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - \lambda}} {1 - \sqrt{1 - \lambda}}

359: ~~{\rm for}~~ \lambda < 1 \nonumber

360: \eearr

361: This partial decay width differs from the analogous $H^0 \to

362: \gamma\gamma$ decay width\cite{BP} in two major particulars, viz.,

363: \bit

364: \item The presence of the trace anomaly, i.e. the $b_{QED}$ term.

365: \item  A different function $I_f$ in Eqn.~(\ref{function}) from that given in, for

366: example, Ref.\cite{BP}.

367: \eit

368: 

369: \bigskip\noindent

370: We now go on to calculate the very-similar process $\Phi \goes gg$, which

371: yields a partial decay width

372: \be

373: \Gamma(\Phi\to gg) = \frac{1}{64 \pi} \frac{M_\Phi^3}{\Lambda_\Phi^2} 

374: \left(\frac{ \alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2 \left|I_g\right|^2

375: \qquad

376: {\rm where}

377: \qquad  I_g = b_{QCD} + \sum_{f} \sqrt{2}~I_f

378: \ee

379: and, obviously, there is no $I_W$ contribution. The QCD beta function is given

380: by the usual formula

381: \bearr

382: b_{QCD} = 11 - \frac{2}{3}N_f 

383: & = & \frac{23}{3} ~{\rm for}~~M_\Phi \leq 2M_t \nonumber \\

384: & = & \frac{21}{3} ~{\rm for}~~M_\Phi > 2M_t 

385: \eearr

386: and for $\alpha_s$ we take the usual running value governed by $b_{QCD}$.

387: 

388: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

389: \begin{center}

390: \includegraphics[height=3in]{Fig2.eps}

391: \end{center}

392: \vskip -15pt

393: \noindent {\bf Figure 2}.

394: {\footnotesize\it Branching ratios for ($a$) a radion and ($b$) a Higgs boson

395: (of the Standard Model) as a function of the mass. Kinks at kinematic 

396: thresholds 

397: are mostly due to numerical instabilities. Note the enormous difference in the 

398: two-gluon decay mode for the two cases.}

399: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

400: 

401: \bigskip\noindent

402: Branching ratios of the radion to different decay channels may now be

403: calculated by combining the above formulae with those given in, for

404: example, Ref.\cite{KCH}, and varying the radion mass $M_\Phi$. Obviously

405: there will be no dependence on the radion vev, since all the partial

406: decay widths contain the same factor $\Lambda_\Phi^{-2}$. We have

407: exhibited our results in Figure~2($a$), which show the principal

408: branching ratios of the radion, assuming a Higgs boson mass of 150~GeV.

409: For comparison, Figure~2($b$) shows a similar set of branching ratios

410: (except the HH decay mode) for a Standard Model Higgs boson with masses

411: run over the same range. The dot-dashed lines marked $gg^{\cite{KCH}}$

412: and $\gamma\gamma^{\cite{KCH}}$ correspond to earlier results presented

413: in Ref.~\cite{KCH} where the momentum dependence of the

414: radion-fermion-antifermion coupling had not been taken into account. It

415: may be noted that the difference is quite significant, and indicates that

416: a cancellation takes place between the finite part of the loop diagram

417: and the trace anomaly, which is more pronounced for a heavy radion.

418: 

419: \bigskip\noindent

420: As the figure shows, the decay patterns of the two scalar particles in

421: question exhibit a great deal of similarity but have some significant

422: differences also.  Once above the $WW$ and $ZZ$ thresholds, both decay

423: primarily to weak bosons, with a small percentage of top-anti top decays

424: when the corresponding threshold is crossed. Both show significant

425: branching ratios for the $WW^*$ and $ZZ^*$ modes in the scalar mass range

426: between $M_W$ to $2M_W$ and $M_Z$ to $2M_Z$. At small masses, again, both

427: show large branching ratios for the $b\bar b$ decay mode, as well as some

428: for the $c\bar c$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$ channels. However, there the

429: similarity ends. The radion $\Phi$ has a $\Phi \to HH$ decay channel,

430: which is obviously forbidden for the Higgs boson. 

431: Of greater interest is the loop-mediated decay $\Phi \to

432: \gamma\gamma$, which is at the level of a few per mil when the radion is

433: light, but is much smaller for a Higgs boson of corresponding mass. (Of

434: course, such light Higgs bosons have not been found at LEP, so this decay

435: mode is not really of much use in distinguishing radions from Higgs

436: bosons.) However, the real {\sl pi\`ece de resistance} is the $\Phi \to

437: gg$ channel, which has a branching ratio around two orders of magnitude

438: larger than that of the usual $H \to gg$ process. This branching also

439: dominates when only the trace anomaly contribution is taken and people

440: have presented ways of distinguishing radions and Higgs in this

441: light\cite{huitu}.  Apart from enhancing the branching ratio for a radion

442: decaying to two hadronic jets significantly above the similar decay of

443: the Higgs boson, it reduces, (for a light radion, the branching ratio to

444: a $b\bar b$ pair quite significantly.)  In fact, we find that for light

445: radions, the {\sl dominant} decay mode is to gluon pairs, while for a

446: light Higgs boson, the dominant decay mode is to $b \bar b$. Since the

447: last decay can be pinned down with a fair degree of efficiency by

448: $b$-tagging methods, we obtain another means of distinguishing between

449: radions and Higgs bosons.

450: 

451: \bigskip\noindent

452: As an example of the efficacy of these ideas, we now consider a 1~TeV linear

453: $e^+e^-$ collider and calculate the production of a radion in association

454: with a $Z^0$ boson through a process of the form

455: \bearr

456: e^+ e^- & \goes           & Z^0 + \Phi \nonumber \\

457:         & \hookrightarrow & \ell^+ \ell^- + \Phi \nonumber

458: \eearr

459: which is then compared with the usual Higgs-strahlung

460: process\cite{HSTAHL} obtained by replacing $\Phi$ by $H^0$ in the above

461: process and considering the case when the masses and vev's are equal (or

462: comparable). In the above $\ell = e, \mu, \tau$, and we have folded in

463: the relevant detection efficiencies (i.e. 90\% for $\ell = e, \mu$ and

464: 80\% for $\ell = \tau$). Of course, there is a fundamental difference in

465: the two cases because the electroweak vev $v_{ew} \simeq 246$~GeV is

466: known, while the radion vev $\Lambda_\Phi$ is an unknown parameter. This

467: feature is also taken care of in our analysis.

468: 

469: \bigskip\noindent

470: The discussion in the preceding paragraph makes it clear that it is

471: interesting to focus on two kinds of final states, viz.

472: \benum

473: \item $e^+ e^- \goes \ell^+ \ell^- +$ two jets, which arises when the scalar 

474: particle decays to a pair of light quarks or gluons\footnote{We exclude 

475: $\tau^\pm$ decays because these produce narrow jets which can be identified 

476: as $\tau^\pm$ with 80-90\% efficiency.}, which then undergo fragmentation to 

477: form a pair of hadronic jets.  

478: Clearly, for a Higgs boson, this final state will receive contributions

479: mainly from the decays $H^0 \to b\bar b$ and $H^0 \to c \bar c$, with a

480: minuscule contribution due to $H^0 \to gg$. However, the radion decay

481: will have a much larger contribution from the $gg$ mode, and hence the

482: overall branching ratio to jets should be somewhat higher.

483: 

484: \item $e^+ e^- \goes \ell^+ \ell^- + b \bar b$, which simply means that

485: the final state in the above contains two tagged $b$-jets. The decay

486: width for $\Phi \to b \bar b$ is roughly the same as that for $H^0 \to b

487: \bar b$ when the masses and couplings are the same. However, the presence

488: of the two-gluon decay mode makes the branching ratio for the $b \bar b$

489: mode fall quite a bit as compared to that for the Higgs boson when the

490: radion is light. Of course, the $b \bar b$ cross-section will have to be

491: convoluted with efficiency factors, which we take\cite{BTAG} to be

492: $\eta_b = 0.45$ for each tagged $b$-quark.

493: \eenum

494: For both kinds of final states, the cross-section will be proportional

495: to, respectively, $v_{ew}^{-2}$ and $\Lambda_\Phi^{-2}$, and a direct

496: comparison between the Higgs boson and the radion is meaningful only if

497: these match, i.e. $\Lambda_\Phi = v_{ew} \simeq 246$~GeV --- a

498: possibility which, though not ruled out, may not, in general, be

499: realised. However, if we consider the {\sl ratio} of the two processes,

500: viz.

501: $\frac{\sigma(e^+ e^- \goes \ell^+ \ell^- + {\rm two~jets})}

502:       {\sigma(e^+ e^- \goes \ell^+ \ell^- + b \bar b)}$

503: the dependence on the vev cancels out and the differences between the two

504: cases are, therefore, more robust. In fact, the underlying scalar

505: production process being the same, this ratio is more-or-less equal to

506: the ratio of the branching fractions $\frac{B(H/\Phi \to {\rm

507: two~jets)}}{B(H/\Phi \to b \bar b)}$, the only difference being due to

508: efficiency factors.

509: 

510: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

511: \begin{center}

512: \includegraphics[height=2in]{Fig3.eps}

513: \end{center}

514: \noindent {\bf Figure 3}.

515: {\footnotesize\it Cross sections (in fb) 

516: for radiative scalar production in association

517: with $Z^0$ bosons, with scalar decay into ($a$) two jets and ($b$) two tagged 

518: $b$-jets, as a function of the scalar mass. The solid (red) line denotes the

519: prediction from a radion and the dashed (black) line that from a Higgs boson.

520: We set $\Lambda_\Phi = v_{ew} \simeq 246$~GeV, so that radion and Higgs 

521: production cross-sections match. The ratio of the two cross-sections is shown in

522: ($c$).}

523: % ------------------------------------------------------------------

524: 

525: \bigskip\noindent

526: In Figure~3 ($a$) and ($b$), we illustrate our results for the two processes 

527: discussed above, namely, \\

528: \hspace*{1.5in} ($a$) $e^+e^- \goes \ell^+\ell^-$ + two jets, and \\

529: \hspace*{1.5in} ($b$) $e^+e^- \goes \ell^+\ell^-$ + two $b$-jets. \\

530: The solid (red) line denotes the radion-mediated cross-section, while the

531: dashed (black) line denotes the Higgs-mediated one.  In generating the

532: above curves, we have imposed a few kinematic acceptance cuts on the

533: final state particles, viz.,

534: \benum

535: \item The final-state leptons should have transverse momentum 

536: $p_T^{(\ell)} > 20$~GeV.

537: \item The final-state leptons should have pseudo-rapidity 

538: $\eta^{(\ell)} < 2.0$.

539: \item The final-state jets should be clearly distinguishable by having their

540: thrust axes separated by $\Delta R_{JJ} = \sqrt{\Delta \eta_{JJ}^2 + 

541: \Delta \phi_{JJ}^2} > 0.4$, which is the usual criterion adopted at, 

542: for example, the LEP and Tevatron colliders.\footnote{In a parton-level 

543: calculation, this is simply implemented by calculating $\Delta R$ for the 

544: parent partons, without using a fragmentation algorithm.}

545: \item The final-state jets should have transverse momentum 

546: $p_T^{(J)} > 10$~GeV.

547: \item The final-state jets should have pseudo-rapidity $\eta^{(J)} < 2.0$.

548: \eenum

549: The $b$-tagging efficiency has been taken to be 45\%, which is consistent

550: with the LEP value and is probably a conservative estimate than

551: otherwise.  It should be noted that the graphs show the excess

552: cross-section after removing the non-Higgs part of the Standard Model

553: contributions (such as $e^+e^- \goes ZZ^*$, etc.). These lead to a large

554: SM four-fermion background, which is, however, easily reducible by

555: selecting only events corresponding to peaks in the $\ell^+\ell^-$ and

556: dijet ($b \bar b$) invariant masses. We have not exhibited the background

557: analysis in this work because we wish to focus on the {\it distinction}

558: between the two types of scalar resonances, rather than the mere

559: detection of a scalar resonance (for which several discussions are

560: already available in the literature).

561: 

562: \bigskip\noindent

563: A glance at the cross-sections exhibited in Figure 3 ($a$) and ($b$) will

564: make it clear that for scalar masses well below the $ZZ$-threshold, the

565: cross-sections for $\ell^+\ell^-$ plus two jets final state are almost

566: identical in the two cases, but there is considerable difference if we

567: tag $b$-jets for scalar masses up to at least 150 GeV. Above the

568: $ZZ$-threshold there is again significant difference in the total

569: cross-section, which may be attributed to the enhanced decays of the

570: radion to gluon jets. Noting that the plots are semi-logarithmic in

571: nature, the deviations between the two cases are quite large.

572: Interestingly, the two processes complement each other in the sense that

573: each shows a deviation in the mass region where the other process does

574: not. This shows up very clearly in Figure 3~($c$), where the ratio of the

575: two cross-sections is plotted and there is a very large deviation between

576: the two cases all through the mass range shown. We thus have a simple and

577: robust method of distinction between production of the two kinds of

578: scalar particle: simply measure the cross sections for $e^+e^- \goes

579: \ell^+\ell^-$ + two jets and for $e^+e^- \goes \ell^+\ell^-$ + two

580: $b$-jets and compute the ratio. A large ratio ($>10$) indicates a radion,

581: while a smaller ratio ($5 - 10$) indicates a Higgs particle. Of course,

582: if the radion vev $\Lambda_\Phi$ is very large, the radion effectively

583: decouples from the Standard Model fields and, though Figure 3 ($c$)

584: remains unchanged, the radion production cross-sections shown in

585: Figure~3($a,b$) dwindle accordingly, so that at some stage they become

586: impossible to measure. This case -- though not improbable -- is not the

587: point of interest to us in this work.

588: 

589: \bigskip\noindent

590: To summarise, then, this work consists of two parts. In the first part,

591: we have correctly computed the decay width of a radion into two photons

592: or into two gluons using the non-Higgs-like coupling of the radion to

593: off-shell fermions (specifically to off-shell top quarks, in this case).

594: This leads to modest changes in the two-photon branching ratios. However,

595: we predict large changes in the $b\bar b$ branching ratio for light

596: radions and to the overall dijet branching ratio for heavy radions, both

597: occurring because of a greatly-enhanced two-gluon decay mode. Using these

598: results, we compute a `radion-strahlung' process at a 1~TeV linear

599: $e^+e^-$ collider and show that the processes $e^+e^- \goes \ell^+\ell^-$

600: + two jets, with and without $b$-tagging, may be used to distinguish

601: signals from the on-shell production of a Higgs boson from those arising

602: from a genuine radion production event. The ratio of the two cases is a

603: robust method to distinguish between the two cases, even if the radion

604: vev $\Lambda_\Phi$ is not well-determined.

605: 

606: \bigskip\noindent

607: Before ending, it needs to be mentioned that we have not taken into

608: account the possibility\cite{MIX} of {\sl mixing} between the radion and

609: the Higgs boson.  This is permissible, and, even if precluded at the

610: tree-level, will be generated by quantum corrections, because the radion

611: and the Higgs boson carry the same set of gauge quantum numbers. In this

612: case, however, it is hardly meaningful to talk of the Higgs boson and the

613: radion separately --- there will just be two scalar states of disparate

614: masses, and with couplings scaled suitably by a mixing angle $\xi$. Our

615: work is, therefore, relevant principally in the limit $\xi \to 0$.

616: However, it is worth mentioning that even if $\xi$ is finite, the

617: calculation of the decay widths of the new scalar states to a photon pair

618: or a gluon pair, will be along the lines indicated in the present work,

619: and hence, our efforts will not have been entirely in vain.

620: 

621: \bq\noindent\small

622: The authors acknowledge many useful discussions with the late Uma Mahanta, and

623: wish to express a deep sense of loss at his passing. This work is, therefore,

624: dedicated to his memory.

625: \eq

626: \normalsize

627: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

628: 

629: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

630: %                             Bibliography                               %

631: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

632: %\newpage

633: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

634: \bibitem{RS1} 

635: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,~ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}~{\bf 83},~3370~(1999).

636: \bibitem{ADD}

637: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,~{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B429},

638: ~263~(1998); 

639: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,~{\it Phys. Lett.}

640: {\bf B436},~257~(1998); 

641: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.R.~Dvali,~{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59},

642: ~086004~(1999).

643: \bibitem{GW2} 

644: W.D.~Goldberger, M.B.~Wise,~{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}~{\bf 83},~4922~(1999).

645: \bibitem{GW1} 

646: W.~D.~Goldberger, M.B.~Wise,~{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D60},~107505~(1999).

647: \bibitem{DHR1}

648: H.~Davoudiasl, J.L.~Hewett and T.G.~Rizzo,~{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}~{\bf 84},

649: ~2080~(2000). 

650: \bibitem{HLZ} 

651: T.~Han, J.D.~Lykken and R.J.~Zhang,~{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D59},~105006~(1999).

652: \bibitem{lambdapi}

653: H.~Davoudiasl, J.L.~Hewett and T.G.~Rizzo,~{\it Phys. Rev.}~{\bf D63},

654: ~075004~(2001). 

655: \bibitem{KCH} 

656: Kingman Cheung,~{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63},~056007~(2001).

657: \bibitem{ABJ}

658: See, for example, {\it Current Algebra and Anomalies}, by S.~Treiman and 

659: R.~Jackiw, Princeton University Press (1986).

660: \bibitem{UMA1} 

661: U.~Mahanta and S.~Rakshit,~{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B480},~176~(2000).

662: \bibitem{UMA2}

663: U.~Mahanta and A.~Datta,~{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B483},~196~(2000).

664: \bibitem{BP} 

665: V.~Barger and R.J.N.~Phillips, {\it Collider Physics}, Addison-Wesley

666: Publishing Company~(1987).

667: \bibitem{huitu} 

668: A.~Datta and K.~Huitu,~{\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B578},~376~(2004).

669: \bibitem{HSTAHL} 

670: J.R.~Ellis {\it et al},~{\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B106},~292~(1976); 

671: B.L.~Ioffe and V.A.~Khoze,~{\it Sov. J. Part. Nucl.} {\bf 9},~50~(1978); 

672: B.W.~Lee {\it et al},~{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 38},~883~(1977).

673: \bibitem{BTAG} See, for example, K.~Desch, {\sl Particle Searches at a Linear

674: Collider}, ICHEP2000 (Osaka), 2000.

675: \bibitem{MIX} 

676: G.F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.D.~Wells,~{\it Nucl. Phys.} 

677: {\bf B595},~250~(2001); 

678: C.~Csaki, M.~Graesser and G.~Kribs,~{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63},~065002~(2001).

679: \end{thebibliography}

680: \vfill

681: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

682: \end{document}

683: %------------------------------------------------------------------------%

684: