1: %%
2: \chapter{ Production of heavy neutral Higgs bosons in the MSSM \label{ch_mssm_analysis}}
3: %%
4:
5: %%
6: The analysis of the MSSM Higgs-bosons production
7: closely follows the SM study described in Chapter \ref{ch_sm_analysis}.
8: %
9: Therefore only these parts of the analysis which differ from the SM case
10: are discussed in detail below.
11: %%
12:
13: %%
14: The analysis was developed for set \textit{I} of the MSSM parameters,
15: as defined in Section \ref{sec_signal}, with $\tbseven$.
16: %%
17: To simplify the description the procedure is first presented for \MAOeq 300~GeV,
18: and later extended to \MAOeq 200, 250 and 350~GeV.
19: %%
20: In each case the beam energy was chosen in such a way,
21: as to provide
22: the highest luminosity for $\gaga$ collisions with $J_z=0$ at $\Wgaga = \MAO$.
23: %%
24: %For comparison, the analysis was also done for Higgs bosons produced off the luminosity peak.
25: %%
26: For detailed information about beam energies and $\gaga$-luminosities,
27: for the considered Higgs-boson masses,
28: see Tab.\ \ref{tab:PLCluminosity}.
29: % and is summarized in Tab.\ \ref{tab:sqrtseeMAO}.
30: %%
31:
32: %%
33: %% Table: sqrt(s_ee) for M_A
34: %%
35: %% \begin{table}[!b]
36: %% \label{tab:sqrtseeMAO}
37: %% \bc
38: %% \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
39: %% \hline
40: %% $\MAO$ [GeV] & $\sqrt{s_{ee}}$ [GeV] \\
41: %% \hline
42: %% %%
43: %% 200, 210 & 305 \\
44: %% 240, 250, 260 & 362 \\
45: %% 290, 300, 310 & 419 \\
46: %% 340, 350 & 473 \\
47: %% % m_h, sqrt_s_ee
48: %% %%
49: %% \hline
50: %% \end{tabular}
51: %% \ec
52: %% \caption{ Used values of $\sqrt{s_{ee}}$ for considered values of $\MAO$.}
53: %% \end{table}
54: %%
55:
56: %%
57: For $\sqrtsee \approx$ 400~GeV about two \gagahad{} events are expected on average
58: in each bunch crossing.
59: %
60: To suppress the influence of these events optimization of the $\thetamindet$ cut was repeated,
61: as described in Appendix \ref{app_thetatc}
62: %
63: and the value \thetamindeteq 0.85, used in the SM analysis,
64: turned out to be optimal also for the MSSM case.
65: %%
66:
67: %%
68: Selection criteria were optimized for the measurement of the \higgs{} production cross section.
69: %%
70: %%
71: The event distributions for $|\cos {\theta}^{jet}|^{\max}$ and $|P_{z}|/E$
72: are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:max_abs_costhjet_mh300} and \ref{fig:pz_to_evis_ratio_mh300}, respectively.
73: %%
74: For \MAOeq 300~GeV the
75: optimized cut values are $\Cct = 0.65$ and $\Cpz = 0.06$ (indicated by arrows).
76: %%
77: The measurement precision is estimated to be around 32\% and 22\%,
78: after the $|\cos {\theta}^{jet}|$ cut and after the $|P_{z}|/E$ cut, respectively.
79: %%
80:
81: %%
82: %
83: %%%
84: \pnfig{!}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var33_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:max_abs_costhjet_mh300}
85: {
86: Distributions of $|\cos {\theta}_{ jet}|^{\max}$ for signal and background events.
87: %%
88: Only $\gagabbg$ events are shown for the background.
89: %%
90: The signal measurement precision for events fulfilling the cut $ |\cos {\theta}_{jet}|^{\max} < \Cct = 0.65$, $\Delta\xs/\xs$,
91: is around 32\%.
92: }
93: %%%
94:
95: %
96: %%%
97: \pnfig{!}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var32_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:pz_to_evis_ratio_mh300}
98: {
99: Distributions of $|P_{z}|/E$ for signal and background events. Only $\gagabbg$ events are shown for the background.
100: %%
101: The signal measurement precision for events fulfilling the cut $ |P_{z}|/E < \Cpz = 0.06$, $\Delta\xs/\xs$, is around 22\%.
102: }
103: %%%
104:
105:
106: %%
107: %% 0.5316040
108: %% 0.5928640E-01
109: %% 0.4686550
110: %% 0.2815830E-01
111: %%
112: As in the SM case, $\bbbar$ events were selected by considering $b$-tag values
113: for two jets with highest transverse momentum.
114: %%
115: For \MAOeq 300~GeV the selection region in the ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$ plane
116: which gives the best precision of the $\sgagaAHbb$
117: measurement is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_btag2j_m300_modmssm}. %for production of Higgs bosons $\AO$ and $\HO$.
118: %
119: %%
120: Optimal $\bbbar$ selection,
121: when overlaying events are taken into account,
122: corresponds to the efficiencies
123: $\varepsilon_{h}=53\%$, $\varepsilon_{bb}=47\%$, $\varepsilon_{cc}=2.9\%$, and $\varepsilon_{uds}=0.5\%$,
124: %%
125: \ie $\ccbar$ background suppression
126: by a factor of $\varepsilon_{bb}/\varepsilon_{cc} \approx 16$.
127: %and of $\varepsilon_{bb}/\varepsilon_{uds} \approx 94$.
128: %
129: This should be compared to results obtained when overlaying events are not included
130: -- then the optimized selection
131: corresponds to the efficiencies
132: $\varepsilon_{h}=57\%$, $\varepsilon_{bb}=52\%$, $\varepsilon_{cc}=1.8\%$, and $\varepsilon_{uds}=0.1\%$,
133: %%
134: \ie $\varepsilon_{bb}/\varepsilon_{cc} \approx 29$.
135: %and $\varepsilon_{bb}/\varepsilon_{uds} \approx 520$.
136: %%
137: %$\varepsilon_{bb}=72\%$ and $\varepsilon_{cc}=1.7\%$, \ie $\varepsilon_{bb}/\varepsilon_{cc} \approx 42$.
138: %%
139: This comparison shows that for heavy Higgs bosons overlaying events
140: increase relative probability of \ccmistagging{} by a factor of about 2.
141: %%
142: Even larger effect is observed for light quark-pair production as we
143: observe increase of $\varepsilon_{uds}$ by a factor of 5
144: despite the tighter selection cut.
145: %%
146: %%
147: %%
148:
149:
150: %
151: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:wrec_a0_oe01_m300} we compare the ($W_{rec} - \Wgaga $) distributions,
152: for signal events $\gagaAbb$,
153: before and after taking into account the overlaying events.
154: %
155: Mass resolution, derived from the
156: Gaussian fit in the region from \( \mu - 1.3 \sigma \)
157: to \( \mu + 1.3 \sigma \), is about 8 and 12~GeV, respectively.
158: %
159: The overlaying events and cut $\thetamindet$ suppressing their contribution
160: significantly influence the reconstructed mass distribution
161: and result in a deterioration of the mass resolution.
162: %
163: However, no significant drop in the selection efficiency
164: is observed (the number of selected events is about 220 in both cases),
165: in contrary to the SM case.
166: %%
167: %As there are
168: %%
169: Corresponding distributions of ($W_{corr} - \Wgaga $) are compared in Fig.\ \ref{fig:wrec_a0_oe01_m300}.
170: %%
171: The mass resolution for $\gagaAbb$ events, for \MAOeq 300~GeV,
172: is about 7~GeV without and about 10~GeV with overlaying events.
173: %%
174: As the mass resolution is much bigger than
175: the mass difference between heavy neutral Higgs bosons $\HO$ and $\AO$, $\MHO - \MAO \approx 1.5$~GeV,
176: the separation of these two contributions will be impossible for the considered parameter set.
177: %%
178: Even for \tanbeq 3 the mass difference ($\MHO - \MAO \approx 6.8$~GeV) will be too small
179: to resolve $\AO$ and $\HO$ contributions,
180: see Fig.\ \ref{fig:wcorr_a0hh0_ma300}.
181: %%
182:
183:
184: %%%
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: \pnfig{tb}{\twofigheight}{Plots/plot_btag2j_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:plot_btag2j_m300_modmssm}
187: {
188: %%
189: Ratio of $\gagaAHbb$ events to $\gagabbg$, $\gagaccg$ and $\gagaqq$, $\quds$, events distributions
190: in the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.
191: %%
192: The region is indicated by stars which gives the best precision measurement for $\sgagaAHbb$.} % (\higgstagging)
193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
195: %%%
196:
197:
198: %%%
199: %%%%%%%%%
200: \pnfiggeneral{p}{\twofigheight}{\includegraphics{Plots/higgses_histos_6_m300_modmssm_a0.eps}
201: \includegraphics{Plots/higgses_histos_7_m300_modmssm_a0.eps} }{fig:wrec_a0_oe01_m300}{
202: %%
203: Mass resolution of the Higgs-boson $\AO$ , $W_{rec} - \Wgaga$ (left), and $W_{corr} - \Wgaga$ (right),
204: for the selected events for \MAOeq 300~GeV,
205: obtained without and with overlaying events (OE).
206: %%
207: Mean and dispersion values, $\mu$ and $\sigma$, from the Gaussian fit
208: between $\mu - 1.3\sigma$ and $\mu + 1.3\sigma$ are indicated.
209: %%
210: }
211: %%%%%%%%%
212: %%%
213: %%
214: %%%
215: %%%%%%%%%
216: \pnfiggeneral{p}{\twofigheight}{\includegraphics{Plots/higgses_histos_8_m300_modmssm.eps}
217: \includegraphics{Plots/higgses_histos_9_m300_modmssm.eps}}{fig:wcorr_a0hh0_ma300}{
218: %%
219: Corrected invariant mass, $W_{corr}$,
220: distributions for the selected $\gagaHbb$ and $\gagaAbb$ events (\MAOeq 300~GeV),
221: with overlaying events, for \tanbeq 7 (left) and \tanbeq 3 (right), respectively.
222: %%
223: For \tanbeq 3 also the sum of both contributions is shown.
224: %%
225: }
226: %%%%%%%%%
227:
228:
229:
230: %\newpage
231: %%%
232: %%%%%%%%%
233: \pnfiggeneral{p}{0.39\textwidth}{\includegraphics{Plots/mssm_ww0/plot_var31_m300_modmssm_oe0_costhtc0.99_psnloqqg0.eps}
234: \includegraphics{Plots/mssm_ww0/plot_var31_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}}
235: {fig:plot_m300_modmssm_var1_oe01}{
236: Distribution of the reconstructed invariant mass,
237: $W_{rec}$, for $\bbbar$ events (\MAOeq 300~GeV) selected
238: before (left plot) and after (right plot) taking into account
239: overlaying events.
240: %
241: Contributions of the $\HO$ and $\AO$ signal and of the quark-pair backgrounds are shown separately.
242: %
243: Arrows indicate the mass windows optimized for the measurement of $\sgagaAHbb$.
244: }
245: %%%%%%%%%
246: %%%
247: %
248: %%%
249: %%%%%%%%%
250: \pnfiggeneral{p}{0.39\textwidth}{\includegraphics{Plots/mssm_ww0/plot_var34_m300_modmssm_oe0_costhtc0.99_psnloqqg0.eps}
251: \includegraphics{Plots/mssm_ww0/plot_var34_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}}
252: {fig:plot_m300_modmssm_var4_oe01}{
253: As in Figs.\ \ref{fig:plot_m300_modmssm_var1_oe01},
254: for the corrected invariant-mass, $W_{corr}$, distributions.
255: %
256: The statistical precision is 7.6\% without overlaying events (left plot)
257: and 9.4\% with overlaying events (right plot).
258: \vspace{3cm}
259: }
260: %%%%%%%%%
261: %%%
262:
263: %%
264: The influence of overlaying events on the Higgs-boson production measurement
265: is also illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_m300_modmssm_var1_oe01} and \ref{fig:plot_m300_modmssm_var4_oe01}
266: where
267: %For comparison, at this stage of analysis we show
268: the $W_{rec}$ and $W_{corr}$ distributions, respectively,
269: are shown for signal and background events (for this comparison only quark-pair production is taken as the background).
270: %%
271: In both cases distributions obtained without and with overlaying events are compared.
272: %%
273: We conclude that overlaying events significantly deteriorate the cross section measurement
274: by increasing the selection efficiency of background contributions.
275: %%
276: As in the SM case, better estimates for measurement error $\DssgagaAHbb$
277: are obtained when using the variable $W_{corr}$.
278: %%
279: %%
280: %\newpage
281:
282:
283: %\newpage
284: %%
285: For all considered heavy Higgs-boson masses in the MSSM,
286: additional cuts to suppress $\gagaWW$ background were also applied,
287: as described for the SM Higgs boson with \Mheq 160~GeV.
288: %%
289: For \MAOeq 300~GeV the optimal threshold values are $\Cmj=65$~GeV and $\Cec=80$~GeV.
290: %%
291: The corresponding distributions of events are shown
292: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_var420_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85} and \ref{fig:plot_var430_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85}.
293: %%
294: The resulting estimate of the cross-section measurement precision is about 14\%.
295: %%
296: After the additional cut on the number of tracks in each jet ($\Cnt=4$),
297: %the precision of \DssgagaAHbbeq 14\% is obtained.
298: %%
299: the final result for \MAOeq 300~GeV is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_var34_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85}.
300: %%
301: For the optimized $W_{corr}$ window the cross-section measurement precision of 11\% is obtained.
302: %%
303:
304: %%%
305: %%%%%%%%%
306: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var420_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:plot_var420_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85}{
307: Distributions of the maximal jet mass, $M_{jet}^{\max}$, expected for signal and background contributions (overlaying events included).
308: }
309: %%%%%%%%%
310: %%%
311:
312: %%%
313: %%%%%%%%%
314: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var430_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:plot_var430_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85}{
315: Distributions of the energy below $\thetamindet$ measured in the calorimeters, $E_{CAL}$, for signal and background contributions,
316: with overlaying events included.
317: }
318: %%%%%%%%%
319: %%%
320:
321: %%%
322: %%%%%%%%%
323: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var34_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:plot_var34_m300_modmssm_oe1_costhtc0.85}{
324: Distributions of the corrected invariant mass, $W_{corr}$, for signal and all considered background contributions,
325: with overlaying events included.
326: %%
327: The best precision of 11\% for $\gagaAHbb$ cross section measurement
328: is achieved in the $W_{corr}$ window between 285 and 325~GeV.
329: %%
330: }
331: %%%%%%%%%
332: %%%
333:
334:
335: %%
336: After discovery or a 'hint' of the resonant-like excess of events
337: at LHC or ILC
338: the~Photon Collider can be used
339: to confirm the existence and to measure the cross section
340: %%
341: %%%
342: %\noindent
343: for~production of the new state.
344: %%
345: In this case the beam energy will also be optimized for the production of the observed resonance.
346: %%
347: Under this assumption,
348: %Hence, for ``in-peak'' \higgses{} obtained results are used to
349: we estimate precision expected for $\gagaAHbb$ cross section measurement
350: in the considered MSSM scenario
351: after one year of experimentation.
352: %%
353: %as shown in Fig.\ ........ for all considered parameter sets and for \tanbeq 3--20.
354: %%
355: %These results take into account systematic uncertainties of heavy quark background cross section and luminosity determination.
356: %%
357: %After one year of experimentation the precision will be in the range 13--45\%, depending on the scenario.
358: %%
359: %%
360: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_precision_summary_modmssm} the precisions for all considered values of $\MAO$ are shown
361: and compared with our previous results.
362: %%
363: Thanks to the cuts optimization better estimated precision for \MAOeq 200~GeV has been obtained;
364: earlier results were obtained with cuts optimized for Higgs-bosons production for \MAOeq 300~GeV.
365: %%
366: %The maximum likelihood method assuming no uncertainty on background estimates
367: %results in better precisions than the simple counting method as shown in Fig.\ ... .
368: %%
369: %However, when the estimated systematic uncertainties on the heavy quark background cross section
370: %and total luminosity are taken into account,
371: %the estimated precisions deteriorate by around 10\% of their values (see Fig.\ ...).
372: %%
373: %%
374:
375:
376: %%%
377: %%%%%%%%%
378: %% \pnfig{!h}{8cm}{Plots/higgses_histos_7_m300_modmssm_a0.eps}{fig:wcorr_a0_oe01_m300}{
379: %% Mass resolution of the Higgs-boson $\AO$ , $W_{corr} - \Wgaga$,
380: %% for the selected events for \MAOeq 300~GeV,
381: %% obtained without and with overlaying events (OE).
382: %% }
383: %%%%%%%%%
384: %%%
385:
386:
387: %%%
388: %%%%%%%%%
389: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_precision_summary_modmssm.eps}{fig:plot_precision_summary_modmssm}{
390: Precisions of $\sgagaAHbb$ measurement for MSSM parameter set $I$, for \MAOeq 200--350~GeV and \tanbeq 7.
391: %%
392: Final results of this analysis are compared with our earlier results,
393: which did not take into account some of the
394: background contributions, % $\gagaqq$ for $\quds$, $\gagatautau$,
395: %\gagahad{} (as a separate contribution with \emph{hadron-like$\times$hadron-like} interactions only; indicated as 'resolved'),
396: $\gagaWW$,
397: distribution of primary vertex or overlaying events.
398: %
399: The lines are drawn to guide the eye.
400: %%
401: }
402: %%%%%%%%%
403: %%%
404:
405:
406:
407:
408: %%
409: Presented results were also used to estimate precision of the cross-section measurement at the Photon Collider for
410: other parameter sets described in Section \ref{sec_signal}.
411: %%
412: For all sets the
413: total widths of the Higgs bosons $\AO$ and $\HO$ are comparable or smaller than for the set \textit{I}
414: and % in all sets masses of both \higgses{} are nearly degenerated.
415: their masses are nearly degenerated (the mass difference is smaller or comparable with detector resolution).
416: %%
417: Precision estimates for $\sgagaAHbb$ measurement for all considered parameter sets,
418: assuming \tanbeq 7 are compared
419: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_mssm_precision_vs_ma_tgb7}.
420: %%
421: The most precise measurement is expected
422: for parameter sets $II$ and $III$ --- precision hardly depends on $\MAO$
423: and is about 10\%.
424: %%
425: The worst measurement is expected for scenario $IV$, \ie the one considered by the CMS collaboration.
426: %%
427:
428: %%%
429: %%%%%%%%%
430: \pnfig{p}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_mssm_precision_vs_ma_tgb7.eps}{fig:plot_mssm_precision_vs_ma_tgb7}{
431: %%
432: Precisions of $\sgagaAHbb$ measurement are shown for MSSM parameter sets $I$-$IV$, for \MAOeq 200--350~GeV and \tanbeq 7.
433: %
434: The lines are drawn to guide the eye.
435: %The points are connected with lines to guide the eye.
436: }
437: %%%%%%%%%
438: %%%
439:
440: %%
441: For all considered values of $\MAO$ the dependence of the measurement precision
442: %$\DssgagaAHbb$
443: on $\tanb$ was studied
444: %%
445: and the results are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:mssm_precision_vs_tgb_ma200_350}.
446: %%
447: The precision weakly depends on $\tanb$ %in the whole range
448: if parameter sets $II$ or $III$ are considered.
449: %%
450: In case of parameter sets $I$ or $IV$ the precise measurement will not be possible
451: for low $\tanb$ values, $\tanb \lesssim 5 $.
452: %%
453:
454: %%%
455: %%%%%%%%%
456: \begin{figure}[p]
457: {
458: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
459: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_precision_vs_tgb_ma200.eps}
460: \end{minipage}
461: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
462: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_precision_vs_tgb_ma250.eps}
463: \end{minipage} \\
464: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
465: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_precision_vs_tgb_ma300.eps}
466: \end{minipage}
467: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
468: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_precision_vs_tgb_ma350.eps}
469: \end{minipage}
470: }
471: \caption{\label{fig:mssm_precision_vs_tgb_ma200_350}
472: Precisions of $\sgagaAHbb$ measurement are shown for \MAOeq 200, 250, 300 and 350~GeV, for MSSM parameter sets $I$-$IV$ with \tanbeq 3--20.
473: }
474: \end{figure}
475:
476: %%%%%%%%%
477: %%%
478:
479:
480: %%
481: As already mentioned in Chapter \ref{ch_motivation} considered range of MSSM parameters
482: covers the region of so-called LHC wedge
483: %%
484: where the expected number of reconstructed $\AO$ and $\HO$ production events
485: will be too small to claim 5$\sigma$ discovery.
486: %%
487: Also the heavy MSSM Higgs-boson production signal at the ILC
488: may not be sufficient. % for discovery.
489: %%
490: In such a case
491: %%
492: %For some MSSM scenarios considered here
493: the Photon Collider was considered as the only machine which will be able to
494: confirm the existence of the heavy neutral \higgses.
495: %%
496: For \MAOeq 300~GeV, assuming parameter set $I$ and \tanbeq 7,
497: the expected statistical significance $\delta$ of the $\AO+\HO$ signal measurement
498: at the Photon Collider is
499: $\delta=\mu_S/\sqrt{\mu_B} = 7.2$, in the optimal mass window.
500: %%
501: The significance of the Higgs-bosons measurement, $\delta$,
502: for different parameter sets considered in this analysis
503: is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_mssm_significance_vs_ma_tgb7}.
504: %%
505: The bands widths indicate the level of possible statistical fluctuations of the actual measurement:
506: \[
507: \delta = \frac{\mu_S}{\sqrt{\mu_B}} \pm \sqrt{1 + \frac{\mu_S}{\mu_B}}
508: \]
509: %%
510: In three from the four considered MSSM scenarios, assuming $\tbseven$,
511: 5$\sigma$ discovery of heavy, neutral \higgses{} will be possible
512: in the whole range of $\MAO$,
513: if only the optimum beam energy is chosen
514: %%
515: %(in case no estimates exist for $\MAO$ at the starting time of the Photon Collider).
516: (some hint for $\MAO$ value is expected from LHC and ILC measurements).
517:
518: %%%
519: %%%%%%%%%
520: \pnfig{p}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_mssm_significance_vs_ma_tgb7.eps}{fig:plot_mssm_significance_vs_ma_tgb7}{
521: Significances of $\sgagaAHbb$ measurement for MSSM parameter sets $I$-$IV$, for \MAOeq 200--350~GeV and \tanbeq 7.
522: %
523: The band widths indicate the level of possible statistical fluctuations of the actual measurement.
524: %%
525: %The points are connected with lines to guide the eye.
526: }
527: %%%%%%%%%
528: %%%
529:
530: %%
531: %% As expected, for ``off-peak'' values of $\MAO$, \ie for \MAOeq 210, 240, 260, 290, 310 and 340~GeV,
532: %% the precision is worse than for Higgs-boson masses for which the beam energy is optimal.
533: %% %%
534: %% However, still Higgs bosons with these masses will be discovered within one year experimentation.
535: %% %%
536: %% The results of this analysis indicate that in ... years of the Photon Collider running
537: %% the whole energy range of \MAOeq 200--350~GeV can be covered (the regions 210--240, 260--290 and 310--340 will be covered
538: %% after $3/4$ time of the considered runs).
539: %%
540:
541: %%
542: For all considered values of $\MAO$ we also studied the significance
543: of signal measurement %dependence on the value of $\tanb$, for \tanbeq 3--20,
544: as a function of $\tanb$, for \tanbeq 3--20.
545: %%
546: Results obtained for different parameter sets are compared
547: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:mssm_significance_vs_tgb_ma200_350}.
548: %%
549: % for all parameter sets, \ie for \textit{I}, \textit{II}, \textit{III} and \textit{IV}.
550: %%
551: The estimated lower limit of the discovery region of LHC experiments
552: (as presented by CMS collaboration \cite{CMSDiscovery}) is indicated by arrows.
553: %%
554: For all parameter sets the expected statistics of signal events for \MAOeq 200--350~GeV will be sufficient
555: to cover most of the considered MSSM parameters space.
556: %%
557: We can conclude that for $\MAO \gtrsim 300 $~GeV the Photon Collider
558: should be able to discover Higgs bosons
559: for much lower values of $\tanb$ than experiments at the LHC.
560: %%
561:
562: %%%
563: %%%%%%%%%
564: \begin{figure}[p]
565: {
566: % \centering
567: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
568: \centering
569: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_significance_vs_tgb_ma200.eps}
570: \end{minipage}
571: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
572: \centering
573: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_significance_vs_tgb_ma250.eps}
574: \end{minipage} \\
575: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
576: \centering
577: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_significance_vs_tgb_ma300.eps}
578: \end{minipage}
579: \begin{minipage}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
580: \centering
581: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Plots/plot_mssm_significance_vs_tgb_ma350.eps}
582: \end{minipage}
583: }
584: \caption{\label{fig:mssm_significance_vs_tgb_ma200_350}
585: %%
586: Significances of $\sgagaAHbb$ measurement for MSSM parameter sets $I$-$IV$,
587: for \MAOeq 200, 250, 300 and 350~GeV, and \tanbeq 3--20.
588: %
589: The band widths indicate the level of possible statistical fluctuations of the actual measurement.
590: %%
591: }
592: \end{figure}
593:
594: %%%%%%%%%
595: %%%
596:
597:
598: %%%
599: %%%%%%%%%
600: %\pnfig{h}{8cm}{Plots/}{fig:}{}
601: %%%%%%%%%
602: %%%
603:
604:
605: