1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[preprint,eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
5: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
6:
7: %define less than or approx. / greater than or approx. - math mode
8: \def\nostrocostrutto#1\over#2{\mathrel{\mathop{\kern 0pt \rlap
9: {\raise.2ex\hbox{$#1$}}}
10: \lower.9ex\hbox{\kern-.190em $#2$}}}
11: \def\lsim{\nostrocostrutto < \over \sim} %less or around ...
12: \def\gsim{\nostrocostrutto > \over \sim} %greater or around...
13: \def\epem{e^+e^-}
14: \def\nb{\bar{n}_b}
15: \def\nc{\bar{n}_c}
16: \def\nl{\bar{n}_l}
17: \def\cc{\rm c\bar{c}}
18: \def\light{\rm u\bar{u},d\bar{d},s\bar{s}}
19: \def\dcl{\delta_{c\ell}}
20: \def\dbl{\delta_{b\ell}}
21: \def\cN{{\cal{N}}}
22: \def\cF{{\cal{F}}}
23: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}
24: \def\MeV{{\rm MeV}}
25: \def\eV{{\rm eV}}
26: \def\ra{ \rightarrow }
27: \def\qq{{q\bar{q}}}
28: \def\bb{{b\bar{b}}}
29:
30: %
31: \newcommand{\eref}[1]{(\ref{#1})} % automatically puts ( ) around ref.s
32: \newcommand{\pp}{{$\pm$}}
33: \newcommand{\N}{\overline{\mathcal N}}
34: %\newcommand{\labl}[1]{#1\label{#1}}
35: \newcommand{\labl}[1]{\label{#1}}
36:
37:
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39: %The following macro is from world_sci.sty, originally written for DPF91
40:
41: \catcode`@=11
42: % Collapse citation numbers to ranges. Non-numeric and undefined labels
43: % are handled. No sorting is done. E.g., 1,3,2,3,4,5,foo,1,2,3,?,4,5
44: % gives 1,3,2-5,foo,1-3,?,4,5
45: \newcount\@tempcntc
46: \def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
47: \@tempcnta\z@\@tempcntb\m@ne\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
48: {\@ifundefined
49: {b@\@citeb}{\@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citea\def\@citea{,}{\bf ?}\@warning
50: {Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
51: {\setbox\z@\hbox{\global\@tempcntc0\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname\relax}%
52: \ifnum\@tempcntc=\z@ \@citeo\@tempcntb\m@ne
53: \@citea\def\@citea{,}\hbox{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}%
54: \else
55: \advance\@tempcntb\@ne
56: \ifnum\@tempcntb=\@tempcntc
57: \else\advance\@tempcntb\m@ne\@citeo
58: \@tempcnta\@tempcntc\@tempcntb\@tempcntc\fi\fi}}\@citeo}{#1}}
59: \def\@citeo{\ifnum\@tempcnta>\@tempcntb\else\@citea\def\@citea{,}%
60: \ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb\the\@tempcnta\else
61: {\advance\@tempcnta\@ne\ifnum\@tempcnta=\@tempcntb \else \def\@citea{--}\fi
62: \advance\@tempcnta\m@ne\the\@tempcnta\@citea\the\@tempcntb}\fi\fi}
63: \catcode`@=12
64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
65:
66:
67: \begin{document}
68:
69: \setcounter{page}{1}
70: \thispagestyle{empty}
71:
72:
73: \def\jet{{\mbox{\scriptsize jet}}}
74: \def\cO#1{{\cal O}\left(#1\right)}
75: \def\lrang#1{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}
76: \def\br{brems\-strah\-lung}
77: \def\Br{Brems\-strah\-lung}
78: \def\QQ{\relax\ifmmode{Q\overline{Q}}\else{$Q\overline{Q}${ }}\fi}
79: \def\qq{\relax\ifmmode{q\bar q}\else{$q\bar q${ }}\fi}
80: \def\abs#1{\left|#1\right|}
81:
82: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}
83: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}
84: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt
85: \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
86:
87: % Units:
88: \def\eV{{\rm e\kern-0.12em V}}
89: \def\MeV{{\rm M}\eV} \def\keV{{\rm k}\eV}
90: \def\GeV{{\rm G}\eV} \def\TeV{{\rm T}\eV}
91:
92:
93: \newcommand\beeq{\begin{eqnarray}}
94: \newcommand\eeeq{\end{eqnarray}}
95: \def\as{\alpha_s}
96:
97: \begin{flushright}
98: {IPPP/05/36 \\
99: DCPT/05/72 \\
100: 4th July 2005\\}
101:
102: \end{flushright}
103:
104:
105: \vspace*{0.5cm}
106:
107: \begin{center}
108: {\Large \bf Diffractive processes as a tool for searching for new physics\footnote{To be published in
109: the Proc. of the Gribov-75 Memorial Workshop, Budapest, May 2005.}}
110:
111: \vspace*{1cm}
112: \textsc{V.A.~Khoze$^{a,b}$, A.B.~Kaidalov$^{a,c}$, A.D.~Martin$^a$, M.G.~Ryskin$^{a,b}$ and W.J.~Stirling$^a$} \\
113:
114: \vspace*{0.5cm}
115: $^a$ Institute for
116: Particle Physics Phenomenology, \\
117: University of Durham, DH1 3LE, UK \\
118: $^b$ Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina,
119: St.~Petersburg, 188300, Russia \\
120: $^c$ Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, 117259, Russia\\
121:
122: \end{center}
123:
124: \vspace*{0.5cm}
125:
126:
127: {\bf Abstract:} We show that the addition of detectors to tag the outgoing forward protons, at the LHC, will significantly
128: enlarge the potential of studying New Physics.
129: A topical example is
130: Higgs production by the exclusive double-diffractive process, $pp \to p+H+p$. We discuss the production of Higgs bosons in both the SM and MSSM. We show how the predicted rates may be checked at the Tevatron by observing the exclusive double-diffractive production of dijets, or $\chi_c$ or $\chi_b$ mesons, or $\gamma \gamma$ pairs.
131:
132:
133:
134:
135: %\title{\bf Diffractive processes as a tool for searching for new physics\footnote{To be published in
136: %the Proc. of the Gribov-75 Memorial Workshop, Budapest, May 2005.}
137: %\\ \vspace{0.5cm}}
138:
139:
140:
141: % \author{V.A. Khoze$^{1,2}$, A.B. Kaidalov$^{1,3}$, %
142: %\ A.D. Martin$^{1}$,\\
143: %M.G. Ryskin$^{1,2}$ \ and \ W.J. Stirling$^{1}$
144: %}
145:
146: %\date{
147: %{\normalsize\it
148: %$^{1)}$ Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of
149: %Durham,\\
150: %Durham DH1 3LE, UK\\
151: %$^{2)}$ PNPI, Gatchina, St. Petersburg, 188300, Russia\\
152: %$^{3)}$ Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
153: %Moscow, 117259, Russia\\
154: %\vspace{2cm}
155: %}}
156:
157: %\maketitle
158:
159:
160:
161:
162: \section{Introduction}
163:
164: The use of forward proton detectors as a means to study Standard Model (SM) and New Physics
165: at the LHC has only been fully appreciated within the last few years; see, for
166: example \cite{INC,cox1,kp,prs,mb} and references therein.
167: By detecting protons that have lost less than about 2\% of their longitudinal
168: momentum, a rich QCD, electroweak, Higgs and BSM programme becomes accessible, with
169: a potential to study phenomena which are unique to the LHC, and difficult even at a future
170: linear collider \cite{fp420}.
171:
172: In particular, the so-called central exclusive production (CEP) processes
173: may provide a
174: very friendly environment to search for, and identify
175: the nature of, new particles at the LHC; in particular, Higgs bosons.
176: There is also a potentially rich, more exotic, physics menu
177: including (light) gluino and squark production,
178: gluinonia, radions, and indeed any object which has $0^{++}$ (or $2^{++}$) quantum
179: numbers and couples strongly to gluons \cite{INC}.
180: By central exclusive, we mean the process $pp\rightarrow p + X + p$, where
181: the + signs denote the absence of hadronic activity (that is, the presence of a rapidity gap) between the outgoing protons and the
182: decay products of the central system $X$.
183:
184: It is a pleasure to recall that the whole strategy of predicting
185: diffractive phenomena, and, in particular, of
186: CEP processes, is based on the ideas developed by V.N. Gribov.
187: We list only some of these: Regge poles in particle physics,
188: the vacuum pole (Pomeron) and its shrinkage, Glauber-Gribov theory of multiple scattering,
189: Gribov's reggeon calculus, Gribov's factorization,
190: the Abramovsky-Gribov-Kancheli cutting rules, Gribov's theorem for
191: bremsstrahlung at high energies, the Gribov-Lipatov (DGLAP) evolution
192: equations, the Frolov-Gorshkov-Gribov-Lipatov approach to Regge processes in gauge theories,
193: and much, much more.
194:
195: There are three main reasons why CEP is especially attractive for searches for
196: new heavy objects.
197: First, if the outgoing protons remain intact and scatter through small angles then, to a very good approximation,
198: the primary active di-gluon system obeys a $J_z=0$, C-even, P-even, selection rule
199: \cite {Liverpool,KMRmm}. Here $J_z$ is the projection of the total angular momentum
200: along the proton beam axis. This selection rule readily permits a clean determination
201: of the quantum numbers of the observed new
202: (for example, Higgs-like) resonance, which will be dominantly produced in a scalar state.
203: Secondly, because the process is exclusive, the energy loss of the outgoing protons is directly
204: related to the mass of the central system, allowing a potentially excellent mass resolution, irrespective
205: of the decay mode of the produced particle.\footnote{Recent studies suggest that the missing mass resolution
206: $\sigma$ will be of order $1\%$ for a $140$~GeV
207: central system, assuming both the outgoing protons are detected at 420m from the interaction point \cite{cox1,fp420}.}
208: Thirdly, a signal-to-background ratio of order 1
209: (or even better) is achievable
210: %even with a moderate luminosity of 30~fb$^{-1}$
211: \cite{DKMOR,cox1}.
212: This ratio becomes significantly larger for the
213: lightest Higgs boson in certain regions of the MSSM parameter space
214: \cite{KKMR04}.
215:
216: Moreover, in some MSSM Higgs scenarios CEP provides
217: an opportunity for a lineshape analysis \cite{KKMR04,je}.
218: Another attractive feature is the ability to directly
219: probe the CP-structure of the Higgs sector by measuring the azimuthal asymmetry
220: of the outgoing tagged protons
221: \cite{Khoze:2004rc}. A different strategy, to explore the manifestation of
222: explicit CP-violation in the Higgs sector, was recently studied by Ellis et al.
223: \cite{je}.
224:
225: It is worth mentioning that,
226: by tagging both of the outgoing protons, the LHC is effectively turned into a gluon-gluon collider.
227: This will open up a rich, `high-rate' QCD physics menu (especially
228: concerning diffractive phenomena), which will allow the study of the skewed, unintegrated
229: gluon densities, as well as the details of rapidity gap survival; see, for example, \cite{INC,kmrBH}.
230: Note that CEP provides a source of practically
231: pure gluon jets; that is we effectively have a `gluon factory' \cite{KMRmm}. This can be an ideal laboratory in which
232: to study the properties of gluon jets, especially in comparison with the
233: quark jets, and will even allow a search for glueballs.
234: The forward-proton-tagging approach also offers a unique programme of
235: high-energy photon-interaction physics at the LHC; see, for example, \cite{kp,KMRphot}.
236:
237: The `benchmark' CEP process, for these new physics
238: searches, is Higgs production. In the mass range
239: around 115-130 GeV, its detection
240: %$M_H\approxeq 130$~GeV its detection
241: at the LHC will not be an easy task.
242: There is no obvious perfect detection
243: process, but rather a range of possibilities, none of which is
244: compelling on its own. {\em Either}
245: large signals are accompanied by a huge background, {\em or} the
246: processes have comparable signal and background rates for which
247: the number of Higgs events is rather small.
248: The predicted cross section for the CEP production of
249: a SM Higgs, with mass 120 GeV, at the LHC is
250: 3 fb, falling to 1 fb for a mass of 200 GeV; see \cite{KMR}.
251:
252: From an experimental perspective, the $WW$ decay channel is the simplest way to observe the SM Higgs in the tagged-proton approach \cite{krs,cox2}.
253: The $b \bar b$ decay channel is more challenging from a trigger perspective, although, in this case, the `useful' event rate is more favourable for masses below about 130 GeV.
254: Moreover, the latter decay mode becomes extremely important in the so-called
255: intense coupling regime \cite{bdn} of the MSSM, where CEP is
256: likely to be the discovery channel \cite{KKMR04}. In this case, we expect about 10$^3$
257: exclusively produced double-tagged Higgs bosons for 30 fb$^{-1}$ of delivered luminosity.
258: About 100 would survive the experimental cuts \cite{DKMOR}, with a signal-to-background
259: ratio of the order of 10.
260:
261: In the case of the exclusive process, $pp\ra p + H + p$,
262: a major experimental task is to provide
263: a set-up in which the bulk of the proton-tagged Higgs signal is deposited in a
264: smallest possible missing-mass window; $\Delta M_{\rm missing}$ of about 3 GeV should be achievable.
265: Note that for the $b \bar b$ channel the CEP process allows the mass of
266: the Higgs to be measured in two independent ways. First, the tagged
267: protons give $M_H = M_{\rm missing}$ and second, via the $H\ra\bb$
268: decay, we have $M_H = M_{\bb}$, although now the resolution is
269: much poorer, with $\Delta M_{\bb}\simeq10$~GeV or more. The existence of
270: matching peaks, centered about $M_{\rm missing}=M_{\bb}$, is a
271: unique feature of the exclusive diffractive Higgs signal. Besides
272: its obvious value in identifying the Higgs, the mass equality also
273: plays a key role in reducing background contributions. Another crucial
274: advantage of the exclusive process $pp\ra p+H+p$, with $H\ra\bb$,
275: is that the leading order $gg\ra\bb$ background subprocess is
276: suppressed by the $J_z=0$, P-even selection rule \cite{KMRmm,DKMOR}.
277:
278: \section{Calculation of the exclusive Higgs signal}
279:
280:
281: The basic mechanism for the exclusive process, $pp\ra p+H+p$, is
282: shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$. Since the dominant contribution comes from the
283: region $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2\ll Q_t^2\ll M_H^2$, the amplitude may
284: be calculated using perturbative QCD techniques \cite{KMR,KMRmm}
285: \begin{equation}
286: {\cal M}_H \simeq N\int\frac{dQ^2_t\ V_H}{Q^6_t}\: f_g(x_1, x_1', Q_t^2, \mu^2)f_g(x_2,x_2',Q_t^2,\mu^2), \label{eq:M}
287: \end{equation}
288: where the overall normalization constant $N$ can be
289: written in terms of the $H\to gg$ decay width \cite{INC,KMR}, and where the
290: $gg\to H$ vertex factors for CP $=\pm 1$ Higgs production are, after azimuthal-averaging,
291: %\be
292: \begin{equation}
293: V_{H(0^+)} \simeq Q_t^2, ~~{\rm and}~~
294: V_{A(0^-)} \simeq (\vec p_{1t} \times \vec p_{2t})\cdot \vec n_0,
295: \label{eq:rat4}
296: \end{equation}
297: %\ee
298: Expressions (\ref{eq:M},\ref{eq:rat4}) hold for small $p_{it}$, where the $\vec p_{it}$
299: are the transverse momenta of the outgoing protons,
300: and $\vec n_0$ is a unit vector in the beam direction.
301: The $f_g$'s are the skewed unintegrated gluon densities at the hard scale $\mu$,
302: taken to be $M_H/2$. Since $(x'\sim Q_t/\sqrt s)\ll (x\sim M_H/\sqrt s)\ll 1$, it is possible
303: to express
304: $f_g(x,x',Q_t^2,\mu^2)$, to single log accuracy, in
305: terms of the conventional integrated density $g(x)$. The $f_g$'s
306: embody a Sudakov suppression factor $T$, which ensures that the gluon does not radiate in the
307: evolution from $Q_t$ up to the hard scale $M_H/2$, and
308: so preserves the rapidity gaps. The apparent infrared divergence of~(\ref{eq:M}) is nullified
309: for $H(0^+)$ production by these Sudakov factors.\footnote{Note also that the
310: Sudakov factor inside the loop integration induces an additional strong
311: decrease (roughly as $M^{-3}$ \cite{KKMR04}) of the cross section as
312: the mass $M$ of the centrally produced hard system increases.
313: Therefore, the price to pay for neglecting this suppression effect
314: would be to considerably overestimate the CEP cross section at large masses.}
315: However, the amplitude for $A(0^-)$ production is much more sensitive to the infrared contribution. Indeed,
316: let us consider the case of small $p_{it}$ of the outgoing protons. Then we see, from~(\ref{eq:rat4}), that
317: the $dQ^2_t/Q_t^4$ integration for $H(0^+)$ is
318: replaced by $p_{1t}p_{2t} dQ^2_t/Q_t^6$ for $A(0^-)$, and now the Sudakov suppression is not
319: enough to prevent a significant contribution from the low $Q_t^2$ domain.
320:
321: \begin{figure}
322: \begin{center}
323: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.4\textwidth\epsfbox{slide.eps}}
324: \caption{Schematic diagram for central exclusive production,
325: $pp \to p+X+p$. The presence of Sudakov form factors ensures the infrared
326: stability of the $Q_t$ integral over the gluon loop. It is also necessary
327: to compute the probability, $S^2$, that the rapidity gaps survive soft rescattering.}
328: \label{fig:H}
329: \end{center}
330: \end{figure}
331:
332:
333: The radiation associated with the $gg\ra H$ hard
334: subprocess is not the only way to populate and to destroy the
335: rapidity gaps. There is also the possibility of soft rescattering
336: in which particles from the underlying event populate the gaps.
337: The probability, $S^2=0.03$ at the LHC, that the gaps survive the soft
338: rescattering was calculated using a two-channel eikonal model,
339: which incorporates high mass diffraction\cite{KMRsoft}. Including
340: this factor, and the NLO $K$ factor, the cross section is
341: predicted to be \cite{INC,KMR}
342: \begin{equation}
343: \sigma(pp\ra p+H+p)\simeq 3\:{\rm fb} \label{eq:sigma}
344: \end{equation}
345: for the production of a SM Higgs boson of mass 120~GeV
346: at the LHC. We evaluated
347: that there may be a factor of 2.5 uncertainty (up or down) in this
348: prediction\cite{KKMR04}.
349:
350: If we include a factor 0.6 for
351: the efficiency associated with proton tagging, 0.67 for the $H\ra\bb$ branching fraction,
352: 0.6 for $b$ and
353: $\bar{b}$ tagging, 0.5 for the $b,\bar{b}$ jet polar angle cut,
354: $60^\circ<\theta<120^\circ$, (necessary to reduce the $\bb$ QCD
355: background)\cite{DKMOR}, then,
356: for a luminosity of ${\cal L}=30\:{\rm fb}^{-1}$, the original $3 \times 30=90$
357: events are reduced to an observable
358: signal of 11 events.
359:
360:
361:
362:
363: \section{Background to the exclusive $H\ra\bb$ signal}
364:
365:
366:
367: The advantage of the $p+(H\ra\bb)+p\,$ signal is that there exists
368: a $J_z=0$ selection rule, which requires the leading order
369: $gg^{PP}\ra\bb$ background subprocess to vanish in the limit of
370: massless quarks and forward outgoing protons. (The $PP$ superscript is
371: to note that each gluon comes from colour-singlet $gg~t$-channel exchange.) However,
372: in practice, LO background contributions remain. The prolific
373: $gg^{PP}\ra gg$ subprocess may mimic $\bb$ production since we may
374: misidentify the outgoing gluons as $b$ and $\bar{b}$ jets.
375: Assuming the expected 1\% probability of misidentification, and
376: applying $60^\circ<\theta<120^\circ$ jet cut, gives a
377: background-to-signal ratio $B/S \sim 0.18$. (Here, for reference, we
378: assume that the mass window over which we collect the signal, $\Delta M\sim 3\sigma=3$ GeV).
379:
380: Secondly, there is an
381: admixture of $|J_z|=2$ production, arising from non-forward going
382: protons which gives $B/S \sim 0.24$. Thirdly, for a massive quark
383: there is a contribution to the $J_z=0$ cross section of order
384: $m_b^2/E_T^2$, leading to $B/S \sim 0.18$, where $E_T$ is the
385: transverse energy of the $b$ and $\bar{b}$ jets.\footnote{There are reasons
386: to hope that, due to higher-order QCD effects, this particular background contribution
387: will be a few times smaller.}
388:
389: Next, we have the possibility of NLO $gg^{PP}\ra\bb g$ background
390: contributions, which for large angle, hard gluon radiation does not obey the selection rules. Of course, the extra gluon may be observed
391: experimentally and these background events eliminated. However,
392: there are exceptions. The extra gluon may go unobserved in the
393: direction of a forward proton. This background may be effectively
394: eliminated by requiring the equality $M_{\rm missing} = M_{\bb}$.
395: Moreover, soft gluon emissions from the initial $gg^{PP}$ state
396: factorize and, due to the overriding $J_z=0$ selection rule, these
397: contributions to the QCD
398: $\bb$ production are also suppressed. The remaining danger is
399: large angle hard gluon emission which is collinear with either the
400: $b$ or $\bar{b}$ jet, and, therefore, unobservable. If the cone
401: angle needed to separate the $g$ jet from the $b$ (or $\bar{b}$)
402: jet is $\Delta R \sim 0.5$, then the expected background from
403: unresolved three-jet events leads to $B/S \simeq 0.18$.
404: The NNLO $\bb gg$ background contributions are found to be
405: negligible (after requiring $M_{\rm missing}\simeq M_{\bb}$), as
406: are soft Pomeron-Pomeron fusion contributions to the background
407: (and to the signal)~\cite{DKMOR}. Also note that radiation off the
408: screening gluon, in Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$, is numerically small \cite{myths}.
409:
410:
411:
412:
413:
414: \section{The signal-to-background ratio for $H\ra\bb$ mode}
415:
416: So, in total, for the exclusive production of a 120 GeV (SM) Higgs boson at the LHC
417: with the integrated luminosity ${\cal L}=30$ fb$^{-1}$, after cuts and acceptances
418: we can expect about 10 events, with a
419: signal-to-background
420: ratio $S/B$ of the order of 1.
421: In the case of a Gaussian missing mass distribution of
422: width $\sigma$, about 87\% of the signal is contained in a bin
423: $\Delta M_{\rm missing}=3\sigma$, that is $M_{\rm missing}=M_H \pm 1.5\sigma$.
424:
425: We could consider Higgs production in other diffractive channels, such as diffractive
426: production accompanied by
427: proton dissociation ($pp \to M_1+H+M_2$), or central inelastic production
428: ($pp \to p+(M \to HX)+p$) \cite{INC}. However, we do not gain
429: much as compared to the usual totally
430: inclusive production --
431: there is no precise missing mass measurement, no selection rule to suppress the $\bb$
432: background and more serious pile-up problems. The somewhat smaller density of soft secondary hadrons in the
433: Higgs rapidity region does not compensate for the much smaller statistics
434: (cross sections) in diffractive processes.
435:
436:
437:
438: \section{Exclusive SUSY $H\ra\bb$ signals}
439:
440: To be specific, we discuss the three neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM
441: model: $h,H$ with CP=1 and $A$ with CP=--1 \cite{CH}. There are regions of MSSM
442: parameter space, for example, the intense coupling regime \cite{bdn},
443: where the conventional signals ($\gamma\gamma, WW, ZZ$
444: decays) are suppressed, but where the exclusive subprocess $gg\ra H \ra \bb$ is strongly
445: enhanced \cite{KKMR04}. This is evident from Fig.~$\ref{fig:hH}$, which shows the cross section for CEP production of $h,H$ bosons as function of their mass for
446: $\tan\beta=30$.
447: Here, and in what follows, we use version 3.0 of the HDECAY code \cite{HDEC}.
448: \begin{figure}
449: \begin{center}
450: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth\epsfbox{hH.eps}}
451: \caption{The cross section times the $b \bar b$ branching ratio for central exclusive production of $h$ and $H$ MSSM Higgs bosons at the LHC for
452: $\tan\beta=30$. Also shown (by the dotted curve) is the cross section times the branching ratio for SM Higgs production.}
453: \label{fig:hH}
454: \end{center}
455: \end{figure}
456:
457:
458: Taking, for example, for $M_A$ = 130 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 50, we have
459: $M_h$ = 124.4 GeV with $S/B=71/9$ events, $M_H$ = 135.5 GeV with $S/B=124/6$
460: events and $M_A$ = 130 GeV with $S/B=0.17$, so both
461: $h$ and $H$ should be clearly visible. (Again, for reference,
462: we assume that $\Delta M_{\rm missing}=3$ GeV can be achieved.)
463: Let us emphasize that the intense coupling
464: regime of the MSSM \cite{bdn} is especially forward proton friendly,
465: and in this particular case the tagged-proton approach may well
466: be {\it the} discovery channel.
467:
468: The decoupling regime
469: ($M_A \gtrsim 2M_Z$ and tan$\beta\gtrsim 5$) is another example where the exclusive
470: signal is of great value. In this case $h$ is indistinguishable from a SM Higgs, and so the discovery
471: of $H$ is crucial to establish the underlying dynamics.
472:
473: If the exclusive cross sections for scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs production were comparable,
474: it would be possible to separate them readily by a missing mass scan, and by the study of
475: azimuthal correlations between the outgoing protons. Unfortunately,
476: pseudoscalar exclusive production is strongly suppressed by the P-even selection.
477: Maybe the best chance to identify the $A(0^-)$ boson is through the double-diffractive dissociation
478: process, $pp\ra X+A+Y$, where both
479: protons dissociate \cite{KKMR04}.
480:
481: \section{Detecting the Higgs in the $WW$ channel}
482:
483: The analysis in the previous sections was focused primarily
484: on light SM and MSSM Higgs production, with the Higgs
485: decaying to 2 $b-$jets. The potentially copious $b-$jet (QCD) background is controlled by
486: a combination of the spin-parity
487: selection rules
488: and the mass resolution from the forward proton
489: detectors. The missing-mass resolution is especially critical in controlling the background,
490: since poor resolution would allow more background events into the mass window around the resonance.
491:
492: Whilst the $b \bar b$ channel is very attractive theoretically,
493: allowing direct access to the dominant decay mode
494: of the light Higgs boson, there are some basic
495: problems which render it challenging from an experimental perspective,
496: see \cite{cox2} for details.
497: First, it relies heavily on the quality of
498: the mass resolution from the proton taggers to suppress
499: the background.
500: Secondly, triggering on the relatively low-mass dijet signature of the
501: $H \rightarrow b \bar b$ events is a challenge
502: for the Level 1 triggers of both ATLAS and CMS. And, thirdly, this
503: measurement requires double $b-$tagging, with a corresponding price to pay for the
504: tagging efficiency.
505:
506: In \cite{krs,cox2}, attention was turned to
507: the $WW^*$ decay mode of the light Higgs, and for a Higgs mass above
508: the $WW$ threshold, to the $WW$ decay mode. This channel
509: does not suffer from any of the above problems: suppression
510: of the dominant backgrounds does not rely so strongly on the mass resolution of the
511: detectors, and, certainly, in the semi-leptonic decay channel of the $WW$ system,
512: the Level 1 triggering is not a problem. The advantages of forward proton tagging are, however,
513: still explicit. Even for the double leptonic decay channel (i.e. with two leptons and two
514: final state neutrinos), the mass resolution will be very good, and, of course,
515: observation of the Higgs in the double-tagged channel immediately
516: establishes its quantum numbers. It is worth mentioning
517: that the mass resolution should improve with increasing Higgs mass.
518: Moreover, the semileptonic `trigger cocktail' may allow
519: a combination of signals, not only from $H\to WW$ decays, but also from
520: the $\tau\tau$, $ZZ$ and even the semileptonic $b-$decay channels.
521:
522: In Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta} we show the cross section for
523: the process $pp \rightarrow p+H+p \rightarrow p+WW+p$
524: as a function of the Higgs mass $M_H$ at the LHC. The increasing
525: branching ratio
526: to $WW^{(*)}$
527: as $M_H$ increases (see for example \cite{CH})
528: compensates for the falling central exclusive production cross section.
529: For comparison, we also show the cross
530: section times branching ratio for $pp \rightarrow p+H+p \rightarrow p+b \bar b +p$.
531: For reference purposes, the cross sections in Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta} are normalized in such a way
532: that $\sigma_H = 3$~fb for $M_H = 120$~GeV.
533: %%
534: In Fig.~\ref{fig:tanbeta} we show also the results for $\tan\beta=2,3,4$. Evidently the
535: expected CEP yield is also promising in the low $\tan\beta$ region.
536: \begin{figure}
537: \begin{center}
538: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth\epsfbox{swsum.eps}}
539: \caption{The cross section times branching ratio
540: for the central exclusive production of the MSSM Higgs boson (for three values of
541: $\tan\beta = 2,3,4$),
542: as a function of the Higgs mass, in the $WW$ and $b \bar b$ decay channels. The cross section
543: for the CEP production of a SM Higgs boson is also shown.}
544: \label{fig:tanbeta}
545: \end{center}
546: \end{figure}
547:
548: Experimentally, events with two $W$ bosons in the final
549: state fall into 3 broad categories --- fully-hadronic,
550: semi-leptonic and fully-leptonic --- depending on
551: the decay modes of the $W$'s. Events in which at
552: least one of the $W$s decays in either the electron or muon channel
553: are by far the simplest, and Ref.~\cite{cox2} focuses mainly
554: on these semi- and fully-leptonic modes.
555: %
556: As mentioned above, one of the attractive features of the $WW$ channel
557: is the absence of a relatively large
558: irreducible background, in contrast to the large
559: central exclusive $b \bar b$ QCD background in the case of $H \rightarrow b \bar b$,
560: suppression of which
561: relies strongly on the experimental missing-mass resolution
562: and di-jet identification.
563: %
564: The primary exclusive backgrounds for the $WW$ channel
565: can be divided into two broad categories:
566: \begin{enumerate}
567: \item central production of a $WW^*$ pair $pp\to
568: p+(WW^*)+p$ from either the (a) $\gamma\gamma\to WW^*$ or (b)
569: $gg^{PP}\to WW^*$ subprocess,
570: \item
571: the $W$-strahlung process $pp\to p+Wjj+p$
572: originating from the $gg^{PP}\to Wq \bar q$
573: subprocess, where the $W^*$ is `faked' by the
574: two quarks.
575: \end{enumerate}
576: As shown in \cite{cox2}, over a wide region of Higgs masses
577: the photon-photon initiated backgrounds are strongly suppressed
578: if we require that the final leptons and jets are central
579: and impose cuts on the transverse momenta of the protons in the taggers.
580: Moreover, our estimates show that the QCD quark-box-diagram contribution
581: from the $gg^{PP}\to WW^*$ subprocess
582: is very small.
583:
584: The most important background, therefore, comes from the second category, i.e. from
585: the $W$-strahlung process. Here
586: we have to take into account the $J_z=0$ projection of this amplitude, which requires
587: a calculation of the individual helicity amplitudes. This was done in \cite{krs}
588: using the spinor technique of Ref.~\cite{kwjs}.
589: The analysis in \cite {krs,cox2}
590: shows that this background can be manageable with carefully choosen experimental
591: cuts.
592: For $M_H = 140$~GeV we expect 19 exclusive $H\to WW$ events
593: for an LHC luminosity of 30~fb$^{-1}$.
594: Note that the largest loss of events in the $WW$ case is caused by
595: the Level 1 trigger efficiency, and we expect significant improvements
596: here.
597:
598:
599:
600: \section{Related processes: checks of the predicted exclusive Higgs yield}
601:
602: As discussed above, the exclusive Higgs signal is particularly clean, and the signal-to-background
603: ratio is favourable.
604: However, the expected number of events in the SM case is low.
605: Therefore it is important to check the predictions for exclusive Higgs production
606: by studying processes mediated by the same mechanism, but
607: with rates which are sufficiently high, so that they may be observed at the Tevatron
608: (as well as at the LHC). The most obvious examples are those in which the Higgs
609: is replaced by either a dijet system, a $\chi_c$ or $\chi_b$ meson, or
610: by a $\gamma \gamma$ pair, see Fig.~$\ref{fig:H}$.
611:
612: First, we discuss the exclusive production
613: of a pair of high $E_T$ jets, $p\bar {p} \to p+jj+\bar {p}$ \cite{KMR,INC}.
614: This would provide an effective $gg^{PP}$ `luminosity
615: monitor' just in the kinematical region of the Higgs
616: production. The corresponding cross section was evaluated to
617: be about 10$^4$ times larger than that for the SM Higgs boson.
618: Thus, in principle,
619: this process appears to be an ideal `standard candle'. The expected cross section is rather large,
620: and we can study its behaviour as a function of the mass of the dijet
621: system. This process is being studied by the CDF collaboration. Unfortunately, in the present CDF environment, the separation
622: of exclusive events is not unambiguous.
623: At first sight, we might expect that the exclusive dijets form a narrow peak,
624: sitting well above the background, in the
625: distribution of the ratio
626: \begin{equation}
627: R_{jj}=M_{{\rm dijet}}/M_{\rm {PP}}
628: \end{equation}
629: at $R_{jj}=1$, where $M_{\rm {PP}}$ is the invariant energy of the incoming
630: Pomeron-Pomeron system. In reality
631: the peak is smeared out due to hadronization and the jet-searching algorithm.
632: Moreover, since $M_{{\rm dijet}}$ is obtained from measuring just the two-jet part of the exclusive signal, there will be a `radiative tail' extending to lower values of $R_{jj}$.
633:
634: For jets with $E_T=10$ GeV and a jet cone $R<0.7$, more than 1 GeV will be lost
635: outside the cone, leading to (i) a decrease of the measured jet energy of about 1-2 GeV,
636: and, (ii) a rather wide peak ($\Delta R_{jj}\sim \pm 0.1$ or more) in the $R_{jj}$ distribution.
637: The estimates based on Ref.~\cite{INC} (see also \cite{KMRSgam}) give an exclusive cross section for dijet
638: production with $E_T> 10, 25, 35, 50$ GeV, with values which are rather close
639: to the recent CDF limits \cite{CDFchi}. The comparison is shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:JJ}$. In particular, for $E_T> 50$ GeV, we predict an exclusive cross section of about 1 pb \cite{INC}, which agrees well with the current
640: CDF upper limit obtained from events with $R_{jj} > 0.8$.
641: As discussed above,
642: one should not expect a clearly `visible' peak in the CDF data for $R_{jj}$ close to 1.
643: It is worth mentioning that the CDF measurements have already started to reach values of the invariant mass of the Pomeron-Pomeron system in the SM Higgs mass range.
644:
645: \begin{figure}
646: \begin{center}
647: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.9\textwidth\epsfbox{JJcdf.eps}}
648: \caption{The cross section limit for `exclusive' dijet production at the Tevatron as a function $E_{T,{\rm min}}$ as measured by CDF \cite{CDFchi}. These preliminary CDF data correspond to the cross section integrated over
649: the domain $R_{jj} =M_{\rm dijet}/M_{\rm PP} > 0.8$ and $E_T > E_{T,{\rm min}}$.
650: The curves are the pure exclusive cross section
651: calculated \cite{INC} using the CDF event selection. Different hadronization corrections were applied.
652: The solid curve is obtained assuming that, after the hadronization, the measured jet
653: transverse energy $E_T$ is less than the parton (gluon) transverse
654: energy by $\Delta E_T = E_{T,{\rm gluon}}-E_{T} =
655: \alpha_s(E_T) E_T + 2$ GeV; while for the dashed
656: curve it is assumed that $\Delta E_T$ is halved, i.e.
657: $\Delta E_T =(\alpha_s(E_T)/2) E_T + 1$ GeV. The dotted curve
658: is calculated assuming $E_{T,{\rm gluon}}=E_T$, but with the mass of the
659: whole central system (which determines the incoming
660: gluon-gluon luminosity) enlarged according to the $R_{jj}$
661: ratio -- $M_{\rm PP}
662: =(2E_T/{\rm sin}\theta)/0.8$, where $\theta$ is the jet polar angle in the
663: dijet rest frame.}
664: \label{fig:JJ}
665: \end{center}
666: \end{figure}
667:
668: An alternative `standard candle' process is exclusive double-diffractive $\gamma\gamma$ production
669: with high $E_T$ photons, that is $p\bar {p} \to p+\gamma \gamma +\bar {p}$ \cite{INC,KMRSgam}.
670: Here there are no problems with hadronization or with the identification of the jets.
671: On the other hand, the exclusive cross section is rather small.
672: The predictions of the cross section for
673: exclusive $\gamma \gamma$ production are shown in Fig.~$\ref{fig:gamma}$.
674:
675: \begin{figure}
676: \begin{center}
677: \centerline{\epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth\epsfbox{gamma.eps}}
678: \caption{The contributions to the cross section for exclusive $\gamma \gamma$ production
679: from $gg$ and $\qq$ exchange at the Tevatron and the LHC. Also shown is the
680: contribution from the QED subprocess $\gamma \gamma \to \gamma \gamma$. For each component we
681: show the cross section restricting the emitted photons to have $E_T>E_{\rm cut}$
682: and to lie in the centre-of-mass
683: rapidity interval $|\eta_{\gamma}|<1$ (or $|\eta_{\gamma}|<2$).
684: The figure is taken from Ref.~\cite{KMRSgam}.}
685: \label{fig:gamma}
686: \end{center}
687: \end{figure}
688:
689: The CDF collaboration has reported \cite{CDFchi}
690: a preliminary result for exclusive $\chi_c$ production.
691: Although it is consistent with perturbative QCD expectations \cite{KMRSchi},
692: the mass of the $\chi_c$-boson, which drives the scale of the process, is too
693: low to justify just the use of perturbative QCD \footnote {Even lower scales
694: correspond to the fixed target central double diffractive meson resonance production
695: observed by the WA102 collaboration at CERN\cite{WA102}}.
696: Therefore,
697: it is intriguing that the qualitative features of the observed $p_t$ and
698: azimuthal angular distributions appear to be in good agreement with the
699: perturbatively based expectations\cite{KMRtag}. However,
700: in Ref.~\cite{KMRSchi}, it was found that both a Regge formalism and perturbative QCD predict essentially the
701: same qualitative behaviour for the central double-diffractive production of
702: `heavy' $\chi_c(0^{++})$ and $\chi_b(0^{++})$ mesons\footnote{Note that the
703: results for $\chi_c(0^{++})$, given in \cite{KMRSchi}, should be
704: decreased by a factor of 1.5 due to the new value of the total
705: $\chi_c(0^{++})$ width in PDG-2004 \cite{pdg}. Thus, the predicted cross section for $\chi_c \to J/\psi + \gamma \to \mu \mu \gamma$ is now about 300 pb; with the CDF experimental cuts, it becomes about 50 pb.}.
706: Due to the
707: low scale, $M_\chi /2$, there is a relatively small contribution coming from the process,
708: in which the incoming protons dissociate. Therefore simply
709: selecting events with a rapidity gap on either side of the $\chi$, almost
710: ensures that they will come from the exclusive reaction, $p\bar {p} \to p\ +\ \chi\ +\ \bar {p}$.
711: Although exclusive $\chi$ production is expected to dominate, the predicted\cite{KMRSchi} event rates are large
712: enough to select double-diffractive dissociation events with large transverse
713: energy flows in the proton fragmentation regions. Such events are particularly
714: interesting. First, in this case, the large value of
715: $E_T$ provides the scale to justify the validity, and the reasonable
716: accuracy, of the perturbative QCD calculation of the cross section. Next, by measuring the
717: azimuthal distribution between the two $E_T$ flows, the
718: parity of the centrally produced system can be determined.
719:
720: Another possible probe of the exclusive double-diffractive
721: formalism would be to observe central open $\bb$ production;
722: namely $b,{\bar b}$ jets with $p_t\gtrsim m_b$.
723: Again, this would put the application of perturbative QCD on a sounder footing.
724: It would allow a check of the perturbative formalism, as well as
725: a study of the dynamics of $\bb$ production.
726:
727:
728: \section{Conclusion}
729:
730: The installation of proton-tagging detectors in the forward region around
731: ATLAS and/or CMS would add unique capabilities
732: to the existing LHC experimental programme. The current calculations of the rates of CEP
733: processes show that
734: there is a real chance that new heavy particle production could
735: be observed in this channel. For the
736: Standard Model Higgs, this would amount to a direct determination of its quantum numbers,
737: with an integrated luminosity of order
738: 30 fb$^{-1}$. For certain MSSM scenarios, the tagged-proton channel may even be the discovery channel.
739: At higher luminosities, proton tagging
740: may provide direct evidence of CP-violation within the Higgs sector. There is also a rich
741: QCD, electroweak, and
742: more exotic, physics menu. This includes searches for extra dimensions,
743: gluino and
744: squark production, gluinonia, and, indeed, any object which has $0^{++}$ or $2^{++}$ quantum
745: numbers and couples strongly to gluons \cite{INC}.
746:
747: Here we focused on the unique advantages of CEP
748: Higgs production. The missing mass, $M_{\rm missing}$, measured by
749: the forward proton detectors can then be matched with the mass $M_{\bb}$ from the main decay
750: mode, $H \to \bb$. Moreover the QCD $\bb$ background is suppressed by a $J_z=0$ selection rule.
751: The events are clean, but the predicted yield is low: about 10 events,
752: after cuts and acceptance, for an integrated luminosity of
753: ${\cal L}=30~{\rm fb}^{-1}$. The signal-to-background ratio is about 1,
754: depending crucially on the accuracy with which $M_{\rm missing}$ can be measured.
755:
756: From the experimental perspective, the simplest channel to observe a Higgs Boson of mass between
757: 140 GeV and 200 GeV
758: is the $WW$ decay mode. According to studies in \cite {cox2}, there will be a detectable signal, and the backgrounds
759: should be controllable.
760:
761: We have emphasized the importance of checking the perturbative QCD predictions by
762: observing analogous CEP processes, with larger cross sections, at the
763: Tevatron.
764:
765:
766:
767: \section*{Acknowledgements}
768:
769: This work was supported by
770: the UK PPARC, by a Royal Society FSU grant, by grants INTAS 00-00366,
771: RFBR 04-02-16073 and 01-02-17383 and by the Federal Program of
772: the Russian Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology SS-1124.2003.2.
773: ADM thanks the Leverhulme Trust for an Emeritus Fellowship.
774:
775:
776: \begin{thebibliography}{xx}
777:
778: \bibitem{INC} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf
779: C23} (2002) 311.
780: \bibitem{cox1} B.E. Cox, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0409144}.
781: \bibitem{kp} K. Piotrzkowski, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} (2001) 071502.
782: \bibitem{prs} V.A.~Petrov, R.A.~Ryutin A.E.~Sobol and J.-P.~Guillaud,
783: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0409118} and references therein.
784: \bibitem{mb}
785: M.~Bonnekamp et al., {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0506275} and
786: references therein.
787: \bibitem{fp420} FP-420, M. Albrow et al., CERN-LHCC-2005-025, LHCC-I-015.
788: \bibitem{Liverpool} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin,
789: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0006005}, in {\it Proc. of 8th Int. Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD (DIS2000)},
790: Liverpool,
791: eds. J.~Gracey and T.~Greenshaw (World Scientific, 2001), p.592.
792: \bibitem{KMRmm} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin, Eur.
793: Phys. J. {\bf C19} (2001) 477, erratum {\bf C20} (2001) 599.
794: \bibitem{DKMOR} A. De Roeck, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, R.~Orava and
795: M.G.~Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C25} (2002) 391.
796: \bibitem{KKMR04} A.B. Kaidalov, V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G.
797: Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C33} (2004) 261.
798: \bibitem{je}
799: J.R. Ellis, J.S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. {\bf D71} (2005) 075007.
800: \bibitem{Khoze:2004rc}
801: V.~A.~Khoze, A.~D.~Martin and M.~G.~Ryskin,
802: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 34} (2004) 327.
803: \bibitem{kmrBH} M.G. Ryskin, A.D. Martin and V.A. Khoze, these proceedings, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0506272}.
804: \bibitem{KMRphot} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C24} (2002) 459.
805: \bibitem{KMR} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C14} (2000) 525.
806: %\bibitem{bdn} E. Boos, A. Djouadi and A. Nikitenko, Phys.Lett. {\bf B578} (2004) 384.
807: \bibitem{krs} V.A. Khoze, M.G.Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0504131}.
808: \bibitem{cox2} B.E. Cox et al., {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0505220}.
809: \bibitem{bdn} E. Boos, A. Djouadi and A. Nikitenko, Phys.Lett. {\bf B578} (2004) 384.
810: \bibitem{KMRsoft} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C18} (2000) 167.
811: %\bibitem{kmrBH} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, These Proceedings.
812: \bibitem{myths} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C26} (2002) 229.
813: \bibitem{CH} M.~Carena and H.~Haber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 50} (2003) 63; \\
814: G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, P. ~Slavich and G.~Weiglein,
815: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C28} (2003) 133; \\A. Djouadi, {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0503175}.
816: \bibitem{HDEC} A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira, Comput. Phys. Com. {\bf 108} (1998) 56, {\tt
817: arXiv:hep-ph/9704448}.
818: \bibitem{kwjs} R.~Kleiss and W.J.~Stirling,
819: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B262}(1985)235.
820: %\bibitem{myths} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin and M.G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C26} (2002) 229.
821: \bibitem{CDFchi} M. Gallinaro (for the CDF Collaboration),
822: {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0311192}; {\tt arXiv:hep-ph/0505159. }
823:
824: \bibitem{KMRSgam} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C38} (2005) 475.
825: \bibitem{KMRSchi} V.A. Khoze, A.D. Martin, M.G. Ryskin and W.J. Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C35} (2004) 211.
826: \bibitem{WA102} WA102 Collaboration: D. Barberis et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B467} (1999) 165;
827: ibid. {\bf B474} (2000) 423; ibid. {\bf B484} (2000) 198; ibid. {\bf B488} (2000) 225;
828: ibid. {\bf B453} (1999) 305,316.
829: \bibitem{KMRtag} V.A.~Khoze, A.D.~Martin and M.G.~Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C24} (2002) 581.
830: \bibitem{pdg} S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. {\bf B592} (2004) 1.
831:
832:
833: \end{thebibliography}
834:
835:
836:
837:
838:
839:
840:
841:
842: \end{document}
843: