1:
2: \chapter{ Standard Model Higgs-boson production \label{ch_sm_analysis}}
3:
4: %
5: In this Chapter the measurement of the Standard Model Higgs-boson production cross section
6: at the TESLA Photon Collider is discussed.
7: %
8: Following steps of the analysis are described:
9: %
10: selection of energy-flow objects,
11: %
12: jet reconstruction,
13: %
14: %rejection of jets coming from overlaying events,
15: %
16: kinematical and topological selection cuts optimized for cross section measurement,
17: %
18: and the role of \btagging{} in selection of signal events.
19: %
20: %optimization of the angle $\thetamindet$ below
21: %which tracks and clusters are not considered in the energy flow algorithm.
22: %
23: To simplify the description, the analysis is presented in detail for
24: the Higgs-boson mass \Mheq 120~GeV.
25: % is considered
26: %and the whole analysis procedure is presented in details.
27: %
28: For other considered masses of the Higgs boson,
29: \Mheq 130, 140, 150 and 160~GeV,
30: %the independent optimization of the selection thresholds was performed.
31: the same procedure was performed with independent optimization of selection thresholds.
32: %
33: The cuts dedicated to suppress $\gagaWW$ background,
34: which is not relevant for lower Higgs-boson masses, are described for \Mheq 160~GeV.
35: % as for this case a new background process,, must be considered.
36: %
37: %To discriminate $\WW$ events, besides optimization of cuts used for \Mheq 120~GeV,
38: %a new cut is introduced.
39: %
40: Expected precisions of the measurement obtained in this analysis are compared with results of our earlier works
41: in which some of experimental aspects and background contributions
42: considered here
43: were not yet taken into account.
44: %
45:
46: \section{Preselection of energy-flow objects and jet reconstruction} %and their pre-selection}
47:
48: %
49: %Despite the $\thetamindet$-cut,
50: %
51: In the energy range \sqrtseeeq 210--260~GeV about one \gagahad{} event
52: takes place on average at each bunch crossing.
53: %
54: The contribution from these overlaying events
55: is expected to affect observed particle and energy flow mainly at low polar angles (see Section \ref{sec_overlaying_events}).
56: %
57: Therefore, we introduce an angle $\thetamindet$ defining the region strongly contaminated by this contribution;
58: tracks and clusters with polar angle less than $\thetamindet$
59: are not taken into account when applying energy-flow algorithm.
60: %
61: In spite of that energy-flow objects with
62: polar angle less than $\thetamindet$ can still be formed; they are also ignored in further steps of analysis.
63: %
64: A few values of $\thetamindet$ were considered in the analysis
65: as discussed in detail in Appendix \ref{app_thetatc}.
66: %
67: We decided to use the value \thetamindeteq 0.85 as with this choice almost the whole
68: contribution from hadron-like photon interactions is suppressed
69: and distributions of jet transverse momentum and jet mass % and mass resolution for signal events
70: are similar
71: to those obtained without overlaying events and without $\thetamindet$ cut.
72: %%
73: It was checked that \thetamindeteq 0.85 results also in the best
74: final cross section measurement precision.
75: %%
76: %
77:
78: %
79: For the signal process considered in this analysis
80: we expect that
81: the produced partonic state
82: %of the process can be efficiently approximated
83: is well reproduced
84: by jets reconstructed from energy-flow objects.
85: %
86: In the presented study jets are reconstructed using the Durham algorithm \cite{Durham}
87: where the distance measure between two jets, $i$ and $j$,
88: is defined as
89: \[
90: y_{ij}=2\min (E^{2}_{i},E^{2}_{j})(1-\cos\theta_{ij})/E^{2};
91: \]
92: $E_{i}$ and $E_{j}$ are energies of jets, $\theta_{ij}$ is the relative angle
93: between jets
94: and $E$ is the total energy measured in the detector.
95: %
96: %%
97: The list of energy-flow objects reconstructed in the detector
98: is used as the input to
99: the algorithm, assuming that each energy-flow object is a jet.
100: %
101: In following steps a pair of jets which has the smallest value of $y_{ij}$
102: is searched for and these two jets are merged into one jet.
103: %
104: The algorithm terminates when all possible values of $y_{ij}$ are greater than
105: the value of the cut-off parameter, $y_{cut}$.
106: %
107: %In these analysis \( y_{cut} = 0.02 \) is used.
108: %
109: %\footnote{
110: The choice of the distance measure $y_{ij}$ and of the parameter $y_{cut}$ value
111: used in this analysis is based on the approach adopted in the NLO QCD \cite{JikiaAndSoldner} program
112: which is used
113: for generation of background events $\gagaQQg$.
114: %
115: In this program the real gluon emission is considered only for $y_{qg} >$ 0.01.
116: %
117: Soft gluon emissions, \ie emissions with $y_{qg} \le$ 0.01, are absorbed in
118: the cross-section calculation for $\QQbar$ final state.
119: %
120: %two classes of events are considered: events with only virtual gluons
121: %($y_{cut} \leq$ 0.01)
122: %and events with external gluon
123: %($y_{cut} >$ 0.01).
124: %
125: %This results in the requirement that
126: %%
127: For consistency with this approach jets have to be reconstructed with $y_{cut} >$ 0.01,
128: as for lower $y_{cut}$ values additional jets expected from soft-gluons emission
129: would not be described by the generator.
130: %
131: Moreover, the distance measure used in the NLO generator is calculated using true values of kinematic variables
132: and is inversely proportional to the $\gaga$ invariant mass
133: squared, $y_{ij}^{gen} \propto 1/s_{\gaga}$, whereas the visible
134: energy is used in the jet reconstruction, $y_{ij} \propto 1/E^{2}$.
135: %
136: In the significant fraction of events we expect that due to detector acceptance $E^{2} < s_{\gaga}$.
137: %
138: Therefore, the value $y_{cut}=0.02$, two times larger than the one used in generator,
139: has been chosen.
140: %
141: With this value, reconstructed jets can be relatively wide.
142: %%
143: For example, two perpendicular jets will be joined together
144: if one of them has energy of 12~GeV or below (assuming $E \approx 120$~GeV, most probable value for \Mheq 120~GeV).
145: %%
146:
147: %
148: As the NLO QCD generator does not include additional gluon emissions due to higher order corrections,
149: we study
150: the resulting systematic uncertainty of the result, by applying the parton shower
151: algorithm to the NLO heavy quark background events.
152: %
153: Although some gluon contributions are double counted in such procedure,
154: it allows us to determine the sensitivity of the analysis to the higher order corrections.
155: %%
156: Results are presented in Appendix \ref{app_uncert_gagaQQg}.
157: %}
158: %
159:
160: %%
161: To correct for the non-zero beam crossing angle, all reconstructed jets are transformed
162: from the laboratory frame
163: to the frame moving
164: with the speed factor $\beta=\sin\frac{\alpha_{c}}{2} \approx \frac{\alpha_{c}}{2} = 0.017$
165: in the $x$ direction, where $\alpha_{c}$ is the beam crossing angle.
166: %%
167: After this correction the average value of the measured transverse momentum in the horizontal direction, $P_x$,
168: is zero.
169: %%
170:
171: \section{Kinematical and topological cuts}
172:
173: %%
174: The first cut applied after detector simulation
175: is introduced to exclude possible
176: influence of % artificial effects
177: %due to the unphysical edge around the minimal invariant mass,
178: the cut $\Wgaga^{\min}$, the lower limit on the $\gaga$ invariant mass, used in the event generation.
179: %%
180: Therefore, the condition $W_{rec} > 1.2 \: \Wgaga^{\min}$ is imposed for all considered events,
181: where $W_{rec}$ is the total reconstructed invariant mass of the event
182: (calculated from all energy-flow objects above $\thetamindet$).
183: %%
184:
185: %
186: Higgs-boson decay events are expected to consist mainly of
187: two $b$-tagged jets with large transverse momentum and nearly isotropic distribution
188: of the jet directions.
189: %
190: The significant number of events ($\sim 25\%$) contains the third jet
191: due to the real gluon emissions which are approximated in this analysis by the parton shower algorithm,
192: as implemented in the \Pythia.
193: %
194:
195: %
196: The following cuts are used to
197: select properly reconstructed $\bbbar$ events coming from Higgs decay.
198: %
199: \begin{enumerate}
200: %
201: %% \item Jets with relatively low transverse momentum are rejected,
202: %% as they are likely to come from overlaying events (see Appendix \ref{app_thetatc}).
203: %% Only jets with $\ptjetET>0.1$ are considered in the analysis
204: %% where $\ptjet$ is the transverse momentum of the jet
205: %% and $E_{T}$ is the total transverse energy measured in the detector above $\thetamindet$.
206: %% Also in calculation of
207: %% all considered quantities
208: %% (number of jets, total energy, invariant mass etc.)
209: %% in the subsequent steps of the analysis
210: %% only jets remaining after this cut are taken into account.
211:
212: %
213: \item Number of selected jets should be 2 or 3.
214: In addition to two $b$-quark jets we allow for one additional jet from hard gluon emission. %
215: % \footnote{See comments in Chapter \ref{ch_summary} about possible modification of this choice in the future.}
216: The signal-to-background ratio is similar for both jet multiplicities.
217: Moreover, the NLO QCD generator used for heavy-quark background generation does not
218: include resummation of the so-called Sudakov logarithms which would be relevant
219: %in case of analysis which
220: if 2- and 3-jet events classes were considered separately.
221: %
222: \item The condition \( |\cos {\theta}_{jet}| < \Cct \)
223: is imposed for all jets in the event where ${\theta}_{jet}$
224: is the jet polar angle, \ie the angle between the jet axis and the beam line.
225: %%
226: This cut should improve signal-to-background ratio
227: as the signal is almost uniform in $\cos\theta$,
228: while the background is peaked at $|\cos\theta|=1$.
229: %
230: \item Since the Higgs bosons are expected to be produced almost at rest,
231: the ratio of the total longitudinal momentum calculated from all jets in the event, $P_{z}$,
232: to the total energy, $E$, should fulfill condition \( |P_{z}|/E < \Cpz \).
233: %
234:
235: \end{enumerate}
236:
237: %%
238: To determine the cut parameter values $\Cct$ and $\Cpz$ the corresponding distributions of the signal and
239: heavy quark background events were compared
240: %%
241: (other background contributions were not considered at this stage).
242: %%
243: After cut 1 the optimal value of parameter $\Cct$ (cut 2) is found
244: %%
245: as the one which minimizes the estimated statistical uncertainty of the measurement:
246: %
247: \[
248: \frac{\Delta \sgagahbb}{\sgagahbb} =
249: \frac{\sqrt{\mu_{S}+\mu_{B}}}{\mu_{S}},
250: \]
251: %% \begin{equation}
252: %% \label{eq:prec0}
253: %% \frac{\Delta \sgagahbb}{\sgagahbb} =
254: %% \frac{\sqrt{\mu_{S}+\mu_{B}}}{\mu_{S}},
255: %% \end{equation}
256: %
257: where $\mu_{S}$ and $\mu_{B}$ are the numbers
258: of expected signal and background events after the cut, respectively.
259: %%
260: With optimized cut 2 the same procedure is repeated for parameter $\Cpz$ (cut 3).
261: %%
262: The expected event distributions for $|\cos {\theta}_{jet}|^{\max}$
263: (the maximum value of $|\cos {\theta}_{jet}|$ over all jets in the event)
264: and $|P_{z}|/E$
265: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:max_abs_costhjet_mh120} and \ref{fig:pz_to_evis_ratio_mh120}, respectively.
266: %%
267: For simplicity only $\gagabbg$ background contribution is shown.
268: %%
269: The $\gagaccg$ contribution, which is around 16 times larger, has a very similar shape.
270: %%
271: Both background contributions are taken into account in cut optimization.
272: %%
273: For \Mheq 120~GeV the
274: optimized cut values are $\Cct = 0.725$ and $\Cpz = 0.1$, as indicated in the figures (vertical arrows).
275: %%
276: %After the cuts 2 and 3 the estimated measurement precision is about 7\% and 5\%, respectively.
277: %%
278: The measurement precision is estimated to be around 7\% and 5\% after
279: the $|\cos {\theta}^{jet}|$ cut and after the $|P_{z}|/E$ cut, respectively.
280: %%
281: %
282: Angular cuts used in the event selection procedure are compared in Fig.\ \ref{fig:angles}. % to illustrate their sizes.
283: %%
284:
285: %% 120.0000
286: %% 0.000000
287: %% 0.7250000
288: %% 7.218860
289: %% 11917.50
290: %% 728212.0
291: %% 3.000000
292: %% 0.000000
293:
294: %%
295: %
296: %%%
297: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var33_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:max_abs_costhjet_mh120}
298: {
299: %%
300: Distributions of $|\cos {\theta}_{ jet}|^{\max}$ (maximal value of $|\cos {\theta}_{jet}|$ over all jets)
301: for signal and background events.
302: %%
303: For background only $\gagabbg$ events are shown.
304: The signal measurement precision $\Delta\xs/\xs$ of about 7\% is obtained % (indicated as $\Delta\xs/\xs$)
305: for $ |\cos {\theta}_{jet}|^{\max} < \Cct = 0.725$.
306: %%
307: }
308: %%%
309:
310:
311: %% 120.0000
312: %% 0.000000
313: %% 0.1000000
314: %% 5.249450
315: %% 9570.260
316: %% 242821.0
317: %% 3.000000
318: %% 0.000000
319:
320: %
321: %%%
322: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var32_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:pz_to_evis_ratio_mh120}
323: {Distributions of $|P_{z}|/E$ for signal and background events.
324: For background only $\gagabbg$ events are shown.
325: The signal measurement precision $\Delta\xs/\xs$ of about 5\% is obtained
326: % (indicated as $\Delta\xs/\xs$)
327: for $ |P_{z}|/E < \Cpz = 0.1$.}
328: %%%
329:
330: %%%
331: \pnfig{htb}{\figheightsmall}{Plots/angles.eps}{fig:angles}{
332: Comparison of the angular cuts used in the selection procedure of the Higgs-boson production events for \Mheq 120~GeV.
333: }
334: %%%
335: %%
336:
337: %% pi=a(1)*4
338: %% pi
339: %% 3.14159265358979323844
340: %% r2d=180/pi
341: %% r2d
342: %% 57.29577951308232087721
343: %% mask=0.131*r2d
344: %% mask
345: %% 7.50574711621378403491
346: %% thtc=0.555*r2d
347: %% thtc
348: %% 31.79915762976068808685
349: %% cthjet=0.7250000
350: %% c(0.76)
351: %% .72483601074090517233
352: %% thjet=0.76*r2d
353: %% thjet
354: %% 43.54479242994256386667
355: %% c(thjet)
356: %% .90581168353064728744
357: %% c(thjet/r2d)
358: %% .72483601074090517234
359: %% cthjet
360: %% .7250000
361:
362: %\newpage
363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
364: \section{ \protect\btagging{} algorithm}
365: %%%%
366: For \btagging{}
367: the \ZBHT{} package prepared for the TESLA project was used \cite{HawkingBT,XellaBT,Btagging}.
368: %
369: %The topological vertexing
370: The flavour tagging algorithm is based primarily on ZVTOP,
371: the topological vertex finding procedure developed at SLD \cite{ZVTOP}. % SLD
372: %, with updates included to eliminate approximations which cease to hold adequately
373: %in the case of long-lived particles in the high magnetic field of TESLA.
374: %
375: In addition to the ZVTOP results, a one-prong charm tag \cite{HawkingBT}
376: and an impact parameter joint probability tag \cite{ALEPH_IMPP_JP}
377: outputs are used to train a neural net. %approach similar to that used by OPAL \cite{OPALNN}
378: %to obtain the highest performance of flavour tagging.
379: %
380: Following parameters are given as an input to the neural-network algorithm (for all tracks or all vertices):
381: %%
382: \begin{enumerate}
383: %%
384: \item Impact parameters in $r-\phi$ and $r-z$.
385: Impact parameter in the $r-\phi$ plane is defined
386: as the minimal distance between the track trajectory and the beam axis;
387: impact parameter in $r-z$ plane is defined as the distance between the reconstructed primary vertex position
388: and the point on the beam axis nearest to the track trajectory.
389: %%
390: \item Significance of the track impact parameters -- the ratio of the impact parameters to their estimated errors.
391: \item Vertex decay length -- the distance between the primary vertex and the secondary or tertiary vertex.
392: \item Vertex decay length significance -- the ratio of the vertex decay length to its measurement error.
393: %%
394: \item $p_t$-corrected mass of the secondary vertex -- the invariant mass
395: of particles coming from the vertex. As only charged particles (tracks) are considered,
396: the correction for neutral particles is applied.
397: The correction is based on the assumption
398: that the total momentum of all particles coming from the secondary vertex must
399: be parallel to the vector between the primary and secondary vertex positions.
400: % SLD Collaboration, K. Abe \etal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 660.
401: %%
402: \item Vertex momentum -- the total momentum of all tracks belonging to the vertex.
403: \item Secondary vertex track multiplicity.
404: \item Secondary vertex probability -- the probability that all tracks assigned by the ZVTOP algorithm
405: to the secondary vertex belong to this one vertex.
406: \end{enumerate}
407: %
408: The neural-network algorithm was trained on the $Z$ decays.
409: %
410: For each jet the routine returns a ``$b$-tag'' value -- the number
411: between 0 and 1 corresponding to ``$b$-jet'' likelihood.
412: %%%%
413:
414:
415:
416: %
417: In order to optimize the signal cross-section measurement,
418: the two-dimensional cut on $b$-tag values is used.
419: %
420: In the signal events two jets with the highest transverse momentum
421: are most likely to originate from $b$ quarks.
422: %as shown in Fig.\ ... .
423: %
424: Therefore, all jets in the event are sorted according
425: to the value of their transverse momentum. % in decreasing order.
426: %
427: The distribution of $b$-tag values for 2 and 3-jet events is considered in the plane
428: $b$-tag(jet$_1$)$\otimes$$b$-tag(jet$_2$)
429: where indices 1 and 2 correspond to two jets with the highest transverse momenta.
430: %
431: The two-dimensional distributions of $b$-tag values % events are shown
432: for the signal, $\gagahbb$, and for the background, $\gagabbg$, events are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:btag_h_bbg}.
433: %%
434: The corresponding distributions for other considered background contributions,
435: $\gagaccg$ and $\gagaqq$ ($\quds$), are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:btag_ccg_uds}.
436: %%
437: Events considered in the \btagging{} studies %only these events are considered
438: fulfill fore-mentioned, optimized selection cuts and an additional
439: cut $W_{rec}>0.7 \: \Mh$ which removes low-mass events not relevant for the final result
440: %%
441: (this cut is used only for tagging optimization).
442: %%
443: As expected, for processes $\gagahbb$ and $\gagabbg$ most events populate the regions
444: with high $b$-tag values (Fig.\ \ref{fig:btag_h_bbg}),
445: %%
446: whereas most $\gagaccg$ and $\gagaqq$ events have small $b$-tag values (Fig.\ \ref{fig:btag_ccg_uds}).
447: %%
448: Nevertheless, significant fraction of $\gagaccg$ events
449: populates the region of high $b$-tag values, and the event distribution is more flat
450: than the one for $\gagaqq$ events.
451: %
452: The optimal \higgstagging{} cut is found by considering the value of
453: the signal to background ratio $S/B$,
454: where $S$ and $B$ denote the expected numbers of events for the signal $\gagahbb$
455: and for the sum of background contributions from processes $\gagaQQg$ ($\Qcb$) and $\gagaqq$ ($\quds$),
456: respectively.
457: %
458: Obtained $S/B$ distribution in the $b$-tag(jet$_1$)$\otimes$$b$-tag(jet$_2$)
459: plane for Higgs-boson production with \Mheq 120~GeV is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_btag2j_m120_modsm}.
460: %%
461: The selection criteria
462: which results in the best precision of the $\Ghgagahbb$
463: measurement corresponds to $S/B> 0.19$ as indicated in the figure (stars).
464: %%
465:
466: %%%
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%
468: %%%%%%%%%%%%
469: \pnfiggeneral{t}{\twofigheight}{\includegraphics{Plots/plot_btag2j_iflag1_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}
470: \includegraphics{Plots/plot_btag2j_iflag4_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}}{fig:btag_h_bbg}{
471: Distributions of $\gagahbb$ (left) and $\gagabbg$ (right) events
472: in the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.
473: }
474: %%%%%%%%%%%%
475: %%%%%%%%%%%%
476: %%%
477: %%%
478: %%%%%%%%%%%%
479: %%%%%%%%%%%%
480: \pnfiggeneral{t}{\twofigheight}{\includegraphics{Plots/plot_btag2j_iflag5_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}
481: \includegraphics{Plots/plot_btag2j_iflag6_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}}{fig:btag_ccg_uds}{
482: Distributions of $\gagaccg$ (left) and $\gagaqq$, $\quds$, (right) events
483: in the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.
484: }
485: %%%%%%%%%%%%
486: %%%%%%%%%%%%
487: %%%
488:
489: %%%
490: %\pnfig{!h}{7cm}{Plots/jbtagjbtag_hi_2j.eps}{fig:jbtagjbtag_hi_2j}
491: %{OLD: Distribution of $\gagahbb$ events on the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.}
492: %%%
493: %%%
494: %\pnfig{!h}{7cm}{Plots/jbtagjbtag_bb_2j.eps}{fig:jbtagjbtag_bb_2j}
495: %{OLD: Distribution of $\gagabbg$ events on the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.}
496: %%%
497: %%%
498: %\pnfig{!h}{7cm}{Plots/jbtagjbtag_cc_2j.eps}{fig:jbtagjbtag_cc_2j}
499: %{OLD: Distribution of $\gagaccg$ events on the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.}
500: %%%
501: %%%
502: %\pnfig{!h}{7cm}{Plots/jbtag_ratio_bb_to_cc_2j.eps}{fig:jbtag_ratio_bb_to_cc_2j}{Ratio of 2-jet $\gagabbg$ events to 2-jet $\gagaccg$ events distributions on the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.}
503: %%%
504: %%%
505: %\pnfig{!h}{7cm}{Plots/jbtag_ratio_bb_to_cc_stars_2j.eps}{fig:jbtag_ratio_bb_to_cc_stars_2j}{Distributions ratio of 2-jet $\gagabbg$ events to 2-jet $\gagaccg$ events on the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$. The region is indicated which gives the best precision measurement for $\sgagahbb$.}
506: %%%
507:
508: %%%
509: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
510: %% \pnfiggeneral{htb}{7.5cm}{\includegraphics{Plots/plot_btag2j_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}
511: %% \includegraphics{Plots/plot_btag2j_m120_modsm_oe0_costhtc0.99_psnloqqg0.eps}}{fig:plot_btag2j_m120_modsm}
512: %% {
513: %% %%
514: %% Ratio of $\gagahbb$ events to $\gagabbg$, $\gagaccg$ and $\gagaqq$, $\quds$, events distributions
515: %% in the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$
516: %% for analysis with (left) and without \gagahad{} overlaying events (right).
517: %% %%
518: %% The region is indicated by stars which gives the best precision measurement for $\sgagahbb$.} % (\higgstagging)
519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
520: %%%
521:
522: %%%
523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
524: \pnfig{htb}{\twofigheight}{Plots/plot_btag2j_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:plot_btag2j_m120_modsm}
525: {
526: %%
527: The expected ratio of signal ($\gagahbb$) to background ($\gagaQQg$, $\Qcb$, and $\gagaqq$, $\quds$)
528: event distributions
529: in the plane ${\rm btag}({\rm jet_{1}}) \otimes {\rm btag}({\rm jet_{2}})$.
530: %%
531: The region which results in the best precision measurement for the cross-section measurement is indicated by stars.} % (\higgstagging)
532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
533: %%%
534:
535: %%%
536: %%%%%%%%%
537: %% \pnfig{!h}{8cm}{Plots/btag_efficiency_mh120_oe01.eps}{fig:btag_efficiency_mh120_oe01}{
538: %% The \bbtagging{} efficiency of $ \gagabbg $ events, $\varepsilon_{bb}$,
539: %% versus
540: %% \ccmistagging{} probability of $ \gagaccg $ events, $\varepsilon_{cc}$,
541: %% for \sqrtseeeq 210.5~GeV with the additional cut $E_{vis}>85$~GeV,
542: %% without and with overlaying events.
543: %% %
544: %% %This analysis choice based on simulation and the earlier analyses estimate are indicated.
545: %% %
546: %% Optimal $\varepsilon_{bb}$ (and $\varepsilon_{cc}$) from these simulations (square and dot)
547: %% and the earlier estimate (star) are indicated.
548: %% }
549: %%%%%%%%%
550: %%%
551:
552: %% 0.7022750
553: %% 0.7519650E-01
554: %% 0.6277210
555: %% 0.4326900E-01
556:
557: %% 0.5805560
558: %% 0.1511930E-01
559: %% 0.4993500
560: %% 0.2218420E-01
561: %% 0.1628610E-02
562:
563: %
564: The obtained efficiencies for tagging \higgs{} events,
565: $\bbbar$ background events,
566: and the probabilities for mistagging of the $\ccbar$ and $\qqbar$ ($\quds$) events %, \ccmistagging{},
567: are $\varepsilon_{h}=58\%$, $\varepsilon_{bb}=50\%$, $\varepsilon_{cc}=2.2\%$ and $\varepsilon_{uds}=0.16\%$, respectively.
568: %
569: Similar efficiencies were obtained for other considered electron-beam energies.
570: %%
571: We call this procedure '\higgstagging' as the efficiency for tagging signal
572: events, $\varepsilon_{h}$, is significantly higher than the efficiency
573: for tagging $\bbg$ background events, $\varepsilon_{bb}$.
574: %%
575: This is because large fraction of background events is reconstructed
576: as 3-jet events (LO contribution is suppressed for $J_z=0$)
577: in which the gluon jet is often one of the two jets with highest transverse momenta.
578: %
579: In the earlier analyses \cite{JikiaAndSoldner,NZKhbbm120appb}
580: a fixed \bbtagging{} efficiency, \( \varepsilon_{h}=\varepsilon _{bb}=70\% \),
581: and a fixed \ccmistagging{} efficiency, \( \varepsilon _{cc}=3.5\% \),
582: were assumed. % (indicated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:BBtaggingCCtagging}).
583: %%
584: Although the efficiencies resulting from the optimized selection
585: are much lower,
586: signal to background ratio $\varepsilon_{h}/\varepsilon_{cc}$ improves significantly.
587: %
588:
589: %
590: Particles from \gagahad{} overlaying events can significantly change properties
591: of the jet to which they are assigned by the jet clustering algorithm.
592: %
593: For example, the invariant mass of the jet increases on average by 3~GeV,
594: if the angular cut is not applied (\ie parameter $\thetamindet = \thetamask$;
595: see Fig.~\ref{fig:ptjet_mjet_120} in Appendix~\ref{app_thetatc}).
596: %%
597: Although the average invariant mass of the
598: jet after the cut corresponding to \costhmindeteq 0.85
599: is similar to the jet mass without overlaying-events contribution,
600: the jet structure can still be affected by the remaining particles from \gagahad{} interactions,
601: and by rejection of some particles coming from the signal process.
602: %
603: These effects influence also the flavour tagging algorithm
604: and cause a significant change
605: in the results of the \bbtagging{} optimization.
606: %
607: %The influence of overlaying events on \btagging{} is discussed
608: %in Appendix \ref{app_btag_oe0}
609: %where the distributions of events in $b$-tag(jet$_1$)$\otimes$$b$-tag(jet$_2$) plane,
610: %expected without overlaying events are presented.
611: %
612: To quantify the influence of overlaying events we repeated
613: the optimization procedure,
614: %%
615: for production of the SM Higgs boson with \Mheq 120~GeV,
616: without overlaying events and with \costhmindeteq 0.99.
617: %%
618: The resulting efficiencies,
619: corresponding to optimal cut $S/B>0.16$,
620: are
621: $\varepsilon_{h}=71\%$, $\varepsilon_{bb}=64\%$,
622: $\varepsilon_{cc}=2.9\%$ and $\varepsilon_{uds}=0.11\%$.
623: %
624: The corresponding selection region in the $b$-tag(jet$_1$)$\otimes$$b$-tag(jet$_2$) plane
625: is significantly wider than for the nominal analysis,
626: but the $\ccbar$ background suppression factor $\varepsilon_{bb}/\varepsilon_{cc}$
627: is similar.
628: %is chosen. % as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_btag2j_m120_modsm}.
629: %%
630: %The biggest impact on the optimization of the selection region
631: %have events with light quark production.
632:
633: %%
634: Although the selection region is smaller when overlaying events are taken into account,
635: the efficiency for $\gagaqq$, $\quds$, is greater by about 50\%.
636: %in contrary to efficiences of other contributions.
637: %%
638: Jets coming from light-quark production can be significantly modified by \gagahad{} events,
639: and are more likely to be recognized as $b$-jets. % than in the 'ideal' case without overlaying events.
640: %%
641: %%
642: %The contribution of overlaying events results in increase of the background
643: %contribution from mistagged $\ccg$ events by about a factor of ....
644: %
645: One of important reasons is that the primary vertex of the overlaying
646: event is usually shifted with respect to the primary vertex of the hard interaction.
647: %%
648: If particles from both interactions are combined in the reconstructed hadronic jet,
649: the vertex finding algorithm is likely to reconstruct two vertices
650: treating one of them as a primary vertex,
651: and the second one as the vertex resulting from $b$ decay.
652: %%
653: The effect of tagging deterioration is even stronger for higher beam energies as
654: more overlaying events per bunch crossing are produced
655: due to higher luminosity and cross section.
656: %
657: The influence of overlaying events on the event reconstruction
658: is clearly seen also in case of the heavy MSSM Higgs-bosons production
659: as will be discussed in Chapter \ref{ch_mssm_analysis}.
660: %
661:
662:
663:
664: %%%
665: %% \pnfig{!h}{7cm}{Plots/neutrinos_pt_to_et_cuts_mh120.eps}{fig:neutrinos_pt_to_et_cuts_mh120}{
666: %% Reconstructed invariant mass $ W_{rec}$ distributions for $\gagahbb$ events,
667: %% for various $P_{T}/E_{T}$ cuts.
668: %% %
669: %% Contributions of events with a different total energy
670: %% of neutrinos in the event $ E_{\nu s}$
671: %% are indicated by different colours.
672: %% %
673: %% The parameters $ \mu $ and $\sigma$ are obtained from the Gaussian fit
674: %% in the region $ (\mu -\sigma ,\, \, \mu +2\sigma )$.
675: %% }
676: %%%
677:
678: %%%
679: %%%
680: %\pnfig{!h}{4cm}{Plots/diagram_gagaptpl_1.eps}{fig:diagram_gagaptpl_1}{The process $\gagahbb$.}
681: %%%
682:
683: %%%
684: %\pnfig{!h}{4cm}{Plots/diagram_gagaptpl_2.eps}{fig:diagram_gagaptpl_2}{The process $\gagahbb$.}
685: %%%
686:
687:
688: %%
689: The influence of the optimized \higgstagging{} criteria on
690: the reconstructed invariant-mass, \( W_{rec} \), distribution is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_ptet_m120_modsm_var1}
691: for signal events $\gagahbb$ after all described selection cuts.
692: %%
693: % before/after $b$-tagging
694: %\footnote{
695: These results were obtained without overlaying events \gagahad{}. %}
696: %
697: The tail towards low masses is due to events with energetic neutrinos
698: coming from semileptonic decays of $D$ and $B$ mesons (see \cite{NZKhbbm120appb} for more details).
699: %
700: Contribution of these events can be suppressed by an additional cut
701: \( P_{T}/E_{T} < 0.04 \), where
702: \( P_{T} \) and \( E_{T} \) are the absolute values of the total transverse
703: momentum of an event, $\vec{P}_{T}$, and the total transverse energy,
704: respectively.
705: %%
706: We see that the efficiency of \btagging{} is similar for events with and without
707: energetic neutrinos as the algorithm does not significantly influence
708: the shape of the distributions.
709: %
710:
711: %%%
712: %%%%%%%%%
713: \pnfig{tb}{\twofigheight}{Plots/higgses_histos_1_m120_modsm.eps}{fig:plot_ptet_m120_modsm_var1}{
714: Distributions of the reconstructed invariant mass, $W_{rec}$,
715: for selected $\gagahbb$ events, for \Mheq 120~GeV.
716: %
717: Distributions obtained before and after applying the \btagging algorithm,
718: without and with the additional $P_{T}/E_{T} < 0.04$ cut are compared.
719: %%
720: Overlaying events are not included.
721: }
722: %%%%%%%%%
723: %%%
724:
725:
726: %%%%%
727: \section{Results}
728:
729: %
730: The invariant-mass distributions
731: for signal events passing all optimized selection cuts,
732: before and after taking into account the overlaying events \gagahad{}
733: are compared in Fig.\ \ref{fig:wrec_h_oe01_m120} (left).
734: %
735: Mass resolution, derived from the
736: Gaussian fit in the region from \( \mu - 1.3\sigma \)
737: to \( \mu + 1.3 \sigma \), is about 4 and 6~GeV, respectively.
738: %
739: %%
740: %Despite the $\thetamindet$ cut %and jet selection based on their transverse momentum,
741: The overlaying events and cuts suppressing their contribution
742: significantly influence the mass reconstruction
743: and result in an increase of distribution width by about 2~GeV,
744: and in a shift of the mean value, $\mu$, by about 3~GeV.
745: %long tail of events in the invariant-mass distribution for \( W_{rec} >\Mh \).
746: % for signal-with-overlaying-events than for signal-only events is present.
747: %
748: % Here numbers:
749: %
750: % btag,noptetcut, WITHOUT OE
751: % Initial number of events: 16037.2
752: % Current number of events: 8523.57
753: % Efficiency : 0.531487
754: %
755: %
756: % btag,noptetcut, WITH OE
757: % Initial number of events: 16037.2
758: % Current number of events: 7742.24
759: % Efficiency : 0.482768
760: %
761: % (8523.-7742.)/8523.57
762: % = 0.09162827312968626995
763: %
764: %%%
765: %%%%%%%%%
766: \pnfiggeneral{tb}{\twofigheight}{\includegraphics{Plots/higgses_histos_2_m120_modsm.eps}
767: \includegraphics{Plots/higgses_histos_3_m120_modsm.eps}}{fig:wrec_h_oe01_m120}
768: {Reconstructed invariant-mass , $W_{rec}$, (left)
769: and corrected invariant-mass , $W_{corr}$, (right)
770: distributions for selected $\gagahbb$ events, for \Mheq 120~GeV.
771: %%
772: Distributions obtained without and with overlaying events (OE) are compared.
773: %%
774: Results for the mean $\mu$ and dispersion $\sigma$ from the Gaussian fit in the region from \( \mu - 1.3\sigma \)
775: to \( \mu + 1.3 \sigma \), are also shown.
776: %%
777: }
778: %%%%%%%%%
779: %%%
780: %% \pnfig{!th}{8cm}{Plots/higgses_histos_2_m120_modsm.eps}{fig:wrec_h_oe01_m120}
781: %% {Reconstructed invariant-mass, $W_{rec}$,
782: %% distributions for selected $\gagahbb$ events, for \Mheq 120~GeV,
783: %% obtained without and with overlaying events (OE).
784: %% }
785: %%
786: %
787: A drop in a selection efficiency,
788: resulting in the reduced number of events expected after selection cuts
789: (from about 6450 to 5530 events),
790: is also observed.
791: %
792: This is because tighter \btagging{} cuts have to be imposed to reduce influence
793: of overlaying events.
794: %%
795: More events are also rejected by the cut on the longitudinal momentum.
796: %after rejection of particles below $\thetamindet$ .
797: %
798: %The effect can be also partially attributed
799: Some drop in the selection efficiency is also due
800: to the fact
801: that the energy deposits from the \gagahad{} processes,
802: remaining after the $\thetamindet$ cut, ``shift''
803: jets nearer to the beam axis and the event
804: can be rejected by the jet-angle cut.
805: %
806: %Moreover, the additional deposits and $\theta_{min}$-cut deform jets, what
807: %slightly reduces the selection efficiency.
808: %
809: %To study this issue in details we plan to simulate in the future
810: %the signal events with various $\theta_{min}$ values.
811: %
812: %
813: %There is other important point when overlaying eventsare considered.
814: %Due to large cross sections uncertainties of \gagahad{} processes,
815: %to minimize their influence on the systematic error
816: %it may be advantageous to reject deposits below even larger angle.
817:
818:
819: %% 120.0000
820: %% 100.0000
821: %% 127.5000
822: %% 2.257810
823: %% 4633.920
824: %% 6312.480
825: %% 2.000000
826: %% 0.000000
827:
828:
829: %%%
830: %%%%%%%%%
831: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var31_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:m120_modsm_var31_oe1}{
832: %%
833: Distributions of the reconstructed invariant mass, $W_{rec}$,
834: for selected $\bbbar$ events.
835: %%
836: Contributions of the signal, for \Mheq 120~GeV,
837: and of the background processes, \ie
838: %%
839: $\gagaqq$ for $\quds$, $\gagatautau$,
840: and \gagahad{} (as a separate contribution with \emph{hadron-like$\times$hadron-like} interactions only,
841: indicated as 'resolved'),
842: are shown separately.
843: %%
844: Arrows indicate the mass window, 100 to 127.5~GeV, optimized for the measurement of the
845: $\Ghgagahbb$, which leads to the statistical precision of 2.3\%.
846: %%
847: }
848: %%%%%%%%%
849: %%%
850:
851: %%
852: Distributions of the reconstructed invariant mass, $W_{rec}$,
853: expected after applying all selection cuts and \btagging{} algorithm, %and rejecting low-angle deposits
854: %we obtain the
855: %distributions of the reconstructed \( \gaga \) invariant mass, \( W_{rec} \),
856: %for a signal and for a background,
857: %shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:m120_modsm_var31_oe1}.
858: %The signal and background contributions,
859: %$\bbg$ and $\ccg$, are shown separately.
860: %
861: %For a comparison, the estimated LO background is presented as well (dotted line).
862: %
863: %A more detailed comparison of the LO and NLO background estimations
864: %is presented in Appendix \ref{app_compnlolo}.
865: %
866: %
867: %%
868: %The
869: for the signal ($\gagahbb$) and all considered background contributions
870: %(heavy quark pair production $\gagabbg$ and $\gagaccg$,
871: %light-quark pair production $\gagaqq$, $\quds$,
872: %tau lepton pair production $\gagatautau$, and resolved photon interactions \gagahad{})
873: are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:m120_modsm_var31_oe1}.
874: %%
875: Beside the heavy quark production, $\gagabbg$ and $\gagaccg$, all background contributions are small,
876: of the order of 30\%, 15\% and 5\% of the signal
877: for \gagahad{}, $\gagaqq$ and $\gagatautau$, respectively.
878: %%
879:
880:
881: %%
882: We assume that the number of observed Higgs-boson production events
883: will be extracted
884: by counting the number of \( \bbbar \) events in the mass window
885: around the Higgs-boson mass peak, $N_{obs}$,
886: and subtracting the expected contribution of background events, $\mu_{B}$.
887: %%
888: The relative statistical error expected in the measurement of the Higgs-boson production cross section
889: \( \sgagahbb \),
890: or of the partial width multiplied by the branching ratio \( \Ghgagahbb \),
891: can be estimated from the following formula:
892: %
893: \begin{equation}
894: \label{eq:prec1}
895: \frac{\Delta \sgagahbb}{\sgagahbb} =
896: \frac{\Delta \left[ \Ghgagahbb \right] }{ \Ghgagahbb }=
897: \frac{\sqrt{\mu_{S}+\mu_{B}}}{\mu_{S}}
898: \end{equation}
899: %%
900: where $\mu_s$ is expected number of signal events,
901: and the expected number of observed events is $\left< N_{obs} \right> = \mu_{S}+\mu_{B}$.
902: %
903: The accuracy obtained
904: from the reconstructed invariant-mass distribution for \Mheq 120~GeV
905: is equal to 2.3\%.
906: %%
907: The mass window used to calculate the signal measurement precision
908: is again optimized to obtain the lowest relative error.
909: %%
910: For \Mheq 120~GeV the selected mass window is 100 to 127.5~GeV
911: as indicated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:m120_modsm_var31_oe1} (vertical arrows).
912: %
913: The obtained result is consistent with
914: results of our previous analyses \cite{NZKhbbm120appb,NZKSMeps2003}
915: which however did not take into account many aspects of the measurement considered here.
916: %
917: In the current analysis additional background contributions
918: deteriorate the precision of the cross section measurement.
919: %
920: However, the effect is partially compensated by the performed optimization of selection procedure.
921: %
922: %Our earlier analysis assumed a fixed \bbtagging{} efficiency equal to ... .
923: %
924:
925:
926: %%
927: Significant part of the energy in the signal events can be lost due to
928: escaping neutrinos.
929: %%
930: As shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_ptet_m120_modsm_var1},
931: this effect worsens the mass resolution and, as a result, the cross section measurement precision.
932: %%
933: We have looked for a correction method which would improve the mass resolution without reducing the event statistics.
934: %%
935: Unfortunately, due to a large spread of the photon beam energy, no unambiguous constraint can
936: be imposed on the reconstructed longitudinal momentum.
937: %%
938: %%%
939: \pnfig{tb}{\figheightsmall}{Plots/diagram_gagaptpl_3.eps}{fig:diagram_gagaptpl_3}
940: {
941: The 2-jet $\gagahbb$ event in which part of energy is carried out by neutrinos.
942: %%
943: As the total longitudinal momentum, $P_L$, is unknown, the missing
944: longitudinal momentum, $P_L^{miss}$, cannot be estimated.
945: %%
946: However, the total transverse momentum should be balanced
947: %%
948: and the missing transverse momentum, $P_T^{miss}$, can be attributed
949: to the 'effective' neutrino, $\nu_{eff}$.
950: }
951: %%%
952: We have considered four methods of correcting the measured invariant
953: mass:
954: %%
955: \begin{enumerate}
956: %%
957: \item The value of the measured transverse momentum is added
958: to the total energy and the transverse momentum is balanced.
959: %%
960: This is equivalent to the assumption that the missing transverse
961: momentum is due to a single neutrino emitted perpendicularly to the beam line.
962: %%
963: The procedure is illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:diagram_gagaptpl_3}
964: where the 2-jet $\gagahbb$ event is shown
965: with energy and momentum carried out by two neutrinos.
966: %%
967: As the total longitudinal momentum, $P_L$, is not constrained, the missing
968: longitudinal momentum, $P_L^{miss}$, cannot be estimated.
969: %%
970: However, the total transverse momentum should be balanced.
971: %%
972: Thus, the missing transverse momentum, $P_T^{miss}$, can be attributed
973: to the 'effective' neutrino.
974: %%
975: This correction was introduced in our earlier analysis \cite{NZKhbbm120appb}.
976: %%
977: \item The transverse momentum, $p_T$, of the jet with lowest $p_T$ is increased by
978: a value of the total missing transverse momentum
979: and the longitudinal jet momentum is rescaled to preserve its original direction.
980: This method is applied for 2-jet events
981: and assumes that the missing $P_T$ is due to the single neutrino
982: emitted along the jet with lower $p_T$.
983: In general the total transverse momentum is still unbalanced after this correction.
984: %%
985: \item The transverse momentum of 2-jet event is balanced
986: under assumption that the missing $P_T$
987: is due to the neutrino emitted under the polar angle equal to the polar angle
988: of the jet with lowest $p_T$.
989: %%
990: \item The transverse momentum of 3-jet events is balanced by rescaling momenta of two jets.
991: All combinations are checked and the most ``reasonable'' one is chosen,
992: \ie the one satisfying the requirement that each of two rescaling factors is greater than 1 and less than 1.3.
993: %%
994: \end{enumerate}
995: %%
996: Approaches combining these methods were also taken into account.
997: %%
998: Moreover, we also considered the algorithms where the correction were limited to events with transverse momentum
999: greater than some threshold value, which was varied to obtain the best mass resolution.
1000: %%
1001: Surprisingly, the first (and simplest) procedure proved to be the best one when applied to all events.
1002: %%
1003: Other correction methods introduce %some artificial modifications of the corrected invariant
1004: systematic bias in the corrected invariant
1005: mass distributions and sometimes result even
1006: in the deterioration of the final cross-section measurement precision.
1007: %%%
1008: Thus, the corrected reconstructed invariant mass used for the final analysis was defined as \cite{NZKhbbm120appb}:
1009: %
1010: \begin{equation}
1011: %\label{eq:Wcorr}
1012: W_{corr} \equiv \sqrt{W_{rec}^{2}+2P_{T}(E+P_{T})}.
1013: \end{equation}
1014: %
1015:
1016:
1017:
1018: %
1019: %In Fig.\ \ref{fig:wcorr_h_oe01_m120} the distributions of \( W_{corr} \)
1020: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:wrec_h_oe01_m120} (right) the distributions of \( W_{corr} \)
1021: for the selected signal events, without and with overlaying events,
1022: are presented.
1023: %
1024: The tail of events with invariant masses below $\sim 110$~GeV
1025: is much smaller than for the $W_{rec}$ distributions (compare with the left figure).
1026: %
1027: The mass resolutions,
1028: derived from the Gaussian fits to the $W_{corr}$ distributions
1029: in the region from \( \mu - 1.3\sigma \) to \( \mu + 1.3\sigma \),
1030: are equal to 3.2 and 4.9~GeV,
1031: without and with overlaying events, respectively.
1032: %%
1033: Also the mean values obtained from the fit are closer to $\Mh$ than the values when $W_{rec}$ was used.
1034: %
1035:
1036:
1037: %%%
1038: %%%%%%%%%
1039: %% \pnfig{h}{8cm}{Plots/higgses_histos_3_m120_modsm.eps}{fig:wcorr_h_oe01_m120}{
1040: %% Corrected invariant mass, $W_{corr}$,
1041: %% distributions for selected $\gagahbb$ events, for \Mheq 120~GeV,
1042: %% obtained without and with overlaying events (OE).
1043: %% }
1044: %%%%%%%%%
1045: %%%
1046:
1047: %% 120.0000
1048: %% 107.5000
1049: %% 132.5000
1050: %% 2.089970
1051: %% 4851.910
1052: %% 5430.790
1053: %% 2.000000
1054: %% 0.000000
1055:
1056: %%%
1057: %%%%%%%%%
1058: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_var34_m120_modsm_oe1_costhtc0.85_psnloqqg0.eps}{fig:m120_modsm_var34_oe1}{
1059: %%
1060: As in Fig.\ \ref{fig:m120_modsm_var31_oe1}, for the corrected invariant mass, $W_{corr}$,
1061: distributions.
1062: %%
1063: Arrows indicate the mass window, 107.5 to 132.5~GeV, optimized for the measurement of the
1064: $\Ghgagahbb$, which leads to the statistical precision of 2.1\%.
1065: %%
1066: }
1067: %%%%%%%%%
1068: %%%
1069:
1070:
1071: %%
1072: The final \( W_{corr} \) distributions for the signal and
1073: background events (with overlaying events included) are shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:m120_modsm_var34_oe1}.
1074: %
1075: For \Mheq 120~GeV the most precise measurement of the Higgs-boson production cross section
1076: is obtained for the mass window
1077: between 108 and 133~GeV, as indicated by arrows.
1078: %
1079: In the selected \( W_{corr} \) region one expects, after one year of
1080: the Photon Collider running at nominal luminosity,
1081: %
1082: about 4900 reconstructed signal
1083: events and 5400 background events (\ie \( \mu_S/\mu_B \approx 0.9 \)).
1084: %
1085: This corresponds to the statistical precision of:
1086: %
1087: %
1088: \[
1089: \frac{\Delta \left[ \Ghgagahbb \right] }{ \Ghgagahbb }=2.1\%.
1090: \]
1091: %
1092:
1093: %
1094: The statistical precision calculated with the formula \ref{eq:prec1}
1095: should be considered a conservative estimate as it
1096: does not take into account our
1097: knowledge of the shape of the signal and background contributions.
1098: %
1099: To exploit this additional information we can determine the measured number
1100: of signal events by the maximum likelihood method.
1101: %
1102: In this procedure the background contribution is assumed to be fixed
1103: and the likelihood function depends only on the total number of signal events.
1104: %
1105: The Poissonian distribution of events in each bin is assumed.
1106: %
1107: For the production of the Higgs boson with \Mheq 120~GeV
1108: we find that
1109: precision of the signal cross-section determination
1110: from the measured $W_{corr}$ distribution
1111: (without mass window cut)
1112: is 2.0\%.
1113: %
1114:
1115: %%
1116: The maximum likelihood method can also be used to estimate the systematic uncertainty
1117: of the cross section measurement.
1118: %
1119: With this approach the systematic uncertainties of
1120: the estimated total background contribution
1121: and of the luminosity determination are included.
1122: %%
1123: We assume that both uncertainties are described by
1124: Gaussian distributions.
1125: % with standard deviation equal to 2\% and 1\% of the main value, respectively.
1126: %
1127: The systematic uncertainty of the total background contribution
1128: is estimated to be about 2\%.
1129: %%
1130: This is based
1131: on the assumption that the background can be constrained from the dedicated run of the Photon Collider
1132: at lower value of $\sqrtsee$.
1133: %%
1134: If the center-of-mass-system energy is reduced by about 10~GeV,
1135: then only background events are measured (the Higgs boson will not be produced
1136: due to very low luminosity at $\Wgaga = \Mh$)
1137: while the detector performance remains almost unchanged.
1138: %%
1139: During half a year of the Photon Collider running
1140: about 3000 events can be selected
1141: in the invariant-mass range corresponding to
1142: the optimal mass window for the Higgs-boson production measurement.
1143: %%
1144: The statistical uncertainty of 2\% on the background contribution
1145: can be obtained
1146: which could be reduced by in a longer run if required.
1147: %%
1148: This uncertainty will result in the corresponding systematic error
1149: in the (independent) Higgs-boson production measurement.
1150: %%
1151: %
1152: The $J_z=0$ luminosity contribution will be measured with precision of around 1\% \cite{KMonigLumi}
1153: %
1154: and this is assumed to be the expected uncertainty for the total luminosity
1155: %
1156: (the $|J_z|=2$ luminosity contribution will be known with much better precision
1157: but it is small in the Higgs-resonance region).
1158: %%
1159: %% However, our approach effectively takes into account other uncertainties,
1160: %% \eg uncertainties caused by the estimating the background contribution for lower $\sqrtsee$ value
1161: %% and 'translating' this measurement to the optimal value \sqrtseeeq 210~GeV.
1162: %
1163: Using maximal likelihood procedure with assumed systematic uncertainties
1164: we obtain precision of 2.7\% for $\sgagahbb$ measurement at \Mheq 120~GeV.
1165: %%
1166: %However, the systematic uncertainty
1167: %%
1168: Therefore we can conclude that the systematic error of the measurement is of the order of 1.8\%.
1169: %if we assume that total uncertainty of 2.7\% can be obtained by adding in quadrature
1170: %statistical uncertainty (2.0\%) and systematic one.
1171: %%
1172:
1173: %%
1174: The final result for $\Ghgagahbb$ should be extracted from the measured event rate
1175: by applying correction for the selection efficiency.
1176: %%
1177: In our analysis the total efficiency for signal events is only about 30\%.
1178: %%
1179: %% geneff=0.945728428
1180: %% inmasswind=4851.910
1181: %% generated=16021.2648
1182: %% eff=inmasswind/(generated/geneff)
1183: %% eff
1184: %% .28640617793780426124
1185: %%
1186: %% eff_tot/eff_btag=eff_cuts
1187: %% 0.30/0.58
1188: %% .51724137931034482758
1189: %%
1190: The significant reduction of the signal events is due to the \btagging{} cut.
1191: %%
1192: Therefore a very precise determination of flavour tagging efficiency will be crucial.
1193: %%
1194: %%
1195: %%
1196: %%
1197: To minimize influence of the uncertainties
1198: resulting from the Monte Carlo description of the detector performance
1199: we propose to use hadronic decays of $Z$ bosons for \btagging{} studies.
1200: %%
1201: After one year of the Photon Collider running at \sqrtseeeq 419~GeV,
1202: the sample of about 26000 $\gaga \ar ZZ$ events
1203: will be collected \cite{wwzz}.
1204: %%
1205: %% gagaZZ ; Z->bb
1206: %% nev=26000 ; nqq=nev*376/2500*2 ; nqq ; eff=0.8 ; nqqrec=nqq*eff ; nqqrec ; 1/sqrt(nqqrec)
1207: %% 7820.80000000000000000000
1208: %% 6256.64000000000000000000
1209: %% .01264239678223023245
1210: %%
1211: %%
1212: Taking into account branching ratios and the selection efficiency of about 80\%,
1213: the expected number of $Z \ar \bbbar$ decays
1214: will be about 5000.
1215: %%
1216: This sample will allow us to determine the flavour tagging efficiency for $b$-jets
1217: with statistical precision of about 1.4\%.
1218: %%
1219: %Determination of \btagging{} efficiences from $Z$ decays will be a 'by-product'
1220: %as the run with \sqrtseeeq 419~GeV will be used for MSSM Higgs-boson searches (see the next Chapter).
1221: %%
1222: %%
1223: %%
1224: %% %%
1225: %% To minimize influence of theoretical uncertainties
1226: %% we propose to use hadronic decays of $W$ bosons for \btagging{} studies.
1227: %% %%
1228: %% After a one-year run at \sqrtseeeq 419~GeV, the sample of about 9$\cdot 10^6$
1229: %% hadronic decays of $W$ can be collected by measuring $\gagaWW$ events.
1230: %% %%
1231: %% %% Floavour tagging efficiences:
1232: %% %% v=Vij CKM
1233: %% %% ntot -- all WW for m_A=300
1234: %% %% n -- number of single W (factor 2)
1235: %% %% nhad -- W hadronic decays (factor 2)
1236: %% %%
1237: %% %% V_{cs}
1238: %% %% v=0.97 ; ntot=6.5*1000000 ; ; n=ntot*710/2100*(v^2)*2 ; nhad=ntot*0.68*2 ; n ; 1/sqrt(n) ; sqrt(1-n/nhad)/sqrt(n)
1239: %% %% 4135479.52380952380952380950
1240: %% %% .00049174172750930956
1241: %% %% .00035873075506309561
1242: %% %%
1243: %% %% V_{cb}
1244: %% %% v=0.04 ; ntot=6.5*1000000 ; ; n=ntot*710/2100*(v^2)*2 ; nhad=ntot*0.68*2 ; n ; 1/sqrt(n) ; sqrt(1-n/nhad)/sqrt(n)
1245: %% %% 7032.38095238095238095238
1246: %% %% .01192473689210075691
1247: %% %% .01191999277574794160
1248: %% %%
1249: %% %% ntot=6.5*1000000 ; nhad=ntot*0.68*2 ; nhad
1250: %% %% 8840000.000
1251: %% %%
1252: %% Taking into account branching ratios of $W$
1253: %% the expected number of $W^{+} \ar c\; \bar{s}/\bar{d}$ and of $W^{+} \ar c\; \bar{b}$ decays
1254: %% will be about 4$\cdot 10^6$ and 7000, respectively.
1255: %% %%
1256: %% This measurement will allow us to determine flavour tagging efficiences per $c$- and $b$-jet
1257: %% with statistical precision of about 0.04\% and 1\%, respectively.
1258: %% %%
1259: %% Determination of \btagging{} efficiences from $W$ decays will be a 'by-product'
1260: %% as the run with \sqrtseeeq 419~GeV will be used to MSSM Higgs-boson searches (see the next Chapter).
1261: %% %%
1262: %%
1263: %%
1264: %%
1265: %% Z -> bb
1266: %% nz=1000000000 ; n=nz*376/2500*2 ; nhad=nz*0.70*2 ; n ; 1/sqrt(n) ; sqrt(1-n/nhad)/sqrt(n)
1267: %% 300800000.00000000000000000000
1268: %% .00005765820050180531
1269: %% .00005108994393049055
1270: %%
1271: %% Z -> cc
1272: %% nz=1000000000 ; n=nz*300/2500*2 ; nhad=nz*0.70*2 ; n ; 1/sqrt(n) ; sqrt(1-n/nhad)/sqrt(n)
1273: %% 240000000.00000000000000000000
1274: %% .00006454972243679028
1275: %% .00005875696513930031
1276: %%
1277:
1278: %%
1279: There is also
1280: an alternative solution:
1281: taking $\epem$ data at \sqrtseeeq $M_Z$
1282: for two to three months (the so-called GigaZ project),
1283: using the same detector and selection procedure as described above.
1284: %%
1285: Having about $10^9$ events of $Z$-boson production we could determine flavour-tagging efficiencies
1286: %and unceof other
1287: with exceptional statistical precision of about $10^{-4}$.
1288: %%
1289: Also other systematic uncertainties could be significantly reduced with such a large sample of $Z$ decays.
1290: %%
1291: Therefore we would like to stress that
1292: the possibility of $\epem$ operation in the collision point designed for the $\gaga$ mode should be guaranteed
1293: to make full use of the physics potential of the Photon Collider.
1294: %%
1295:
1296: %%
1297: For all methods, results for systematic uncertainties will require some extrapolation.
1298: %which will increase the systematic uncertainty.
1299: %%
1300: However, we estimate that after a year of additional running,
1301: the total systematic uncertainty of the $\Ghgagahbb$ measurement can be reduced to about 2\%.
1302: %%
1303:
1304:
1305:
1306: %
1307: The background contribution due to $\gagaWW$ production is included in the analysis for \Mheq 150 and 160~GeV.
1308: %%
1309: Hadronic decays of $\WW$ pairs result in 4-jet final state.
1310: %%
1311: However, in significant fraction of events only 3 or 2 jets are reconstructed.
1312: %%
1313: As cross section for $\WW$ production is very high,
1314: %
1315: additional cuts, dedicated to suppress $\gagaWW$ background are introduced:
1316: %
1317: %\setcounter{enumi}{4}
1318: %
1319: \begin{enumerate}
1320: %
1321: %\item Transverse momentum to transverese energy ratio calculated from selected jets should be small, $P_T/E_T< 0.11$.
1322: %
1323: \item Events %in which the jet with high invariant-mass is present
1324: are rejected %by the requirement
1325: if $M_{jet}^{\max} > \Cmj$,
1326: where $M_{jet}^{\max}$ is the highest invariant mass of the jet in the event.
1327: %
1328: %\item All pairs of all jets should fulfill $|M_{ij}-M_W|>$ ...~GeV
1329: % where $M_{ij}$ is the invariant mass of two jets and $M_W$ is the mass of the $W$ boson.
1330: %
1331: \item Total energy measured below $\thetamindet$, $E_{TC}$, should be less than $\Cec$.
1332: %
1333: \item Each jet in the event should contain at least $ \Cnt $ tracks, \ie $N_{trk}^{\min} \geq \Cnt $
1334: where $N_{trk}^{\min}$ is the minimal number of tracks in jet for a given event.
1335: %
1336: \end{enumerate}
1337: %
1338: The first cut removes the events in which two jets from decay of one $W$ boson have been joined into one jet
1339: by the jet-clustering algorithm.
1340: %
1341: The second condition rejects events with substantial energy in the forward region,
1342: below $\thetamindet$, where one or two jets
1343: from $\WW$ decay could deposit their energy.
1344: %
1345: The last cut, with the parameter value $\Cnt=4$, suppresses leptonic decays of $W$.
1346: %
1347: For \Mheq 160~GeV the optimal values for the two other thresholds are $\Cmj=70$~GeV and $\Cec=90$~GeV.
1348: %%
1349:
1350:
1351:
1352: %\pagebreak
1353: %
1354: We have performed a full simulation of signal and background events also
1355: for \Mheq 130, 140, 150 and 160~GeV
1356: choosing optimal $\emem$ beam energy for each Higgs-boson mass.
1357: %
1358: Statistical precision of $\Ghgagahbb$ measurement was estimated in each case.
1359: It is equal to 2.1\%, 2.5\%, 3.4\% and 7.7\%, respectively.
1360: These results, together with the result for \Mheq 120~GeV described above,
1361: are presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig:plot_precision_summary_modsm}.
1362: %
1363: For comparison, our earlier results % \cite{NZKamsterdam,iinne},
1364: obtained without overlaying events,
1365: without various background contributions or
1366: without distribution of interaction point
1367: are also shown.
1368: %%
1369: For \Mheq 160~GeV, after the full optimization of the selection cuts,
1370: better precision is obtained % in this analysis
1371: than in earlier analyses, which did not take into account some background contributions.
1372: %%
1373:
1374: %%
1375:
1376:
1377: %%%
1378: %%%%%%%%%
1379: \pnfig{tb}{\figheight}{Plots/plot_precision_summary_modsm.eps}{fig:plot_precision_summary_modsm}{
1380: %%
1381: Statistical precision of $\Ghgagahbb$ measurement for the SM Higgs boson with mass 120--160~GeV.
1382: %with and without overlaying events (OE).
1383: %
1384: Final results of this analysis are compared with our earlier results,
1385: which did not take into account some of the
1386: background contributions,
1387: %$\gagaqq$ for $\quds$, $\gagatautau$,
1388: %\gagahad{} (as a separate contribution with \emph{hadron-like$\times$hadron-like} interactions only; indicated as 'resolved'),
1389: %$\gagaWW$,
1390: distribution of the interaction point or overlaying events.
1391: %
1392: The lines are drawn to guide the eye.
1393: }
1394: %%%%%%%%%
1395: %%%
1396:
1397: