1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,cite,epsfig}
3: \topmargin -0.5in
4: \textheight 9.4in
5: \textwidth 6.5in
6: \oddsidemargin -0.4in
7: \def\baselinestretch{1.5}
8: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
9: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
10: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}
11: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \def\bt{\begin{table}}
15: \def\et{\end{table}}
16: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
17: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
18: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
19: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \def\hr{\hookrightarrow}
21: \def\hl{\stackrel{\lambda}{\hookrightarrow}}
22: \def\tl{\stackrel{\lambda}{\rightarrow}}
23: \def\l{\lambda}
24: \def\e{\ell}
25: \def\tq{\tilde{q}}
26: % Bra-Kets:
27: \def\bra{\langle}
28: \def\ket{\rangle}
29: % Greek letters:
30: \def\a{\alpha}
31: \def\as {\alpha_s}
32: \def\b{\beta}
33: \def\g{\gamma}
34: \def\d{\delta}
35: \def\e{\epsilon}
36: \def\ve{\varepsilon}
37: \def\m{\mu}
38: \def\n{\nu}
39: \def\G{\Gamma}
40: \def\D{\Delta}
41: \def\L{\Lambda}
42: \def\s{\sigma}
43: \def\p{\pi}
44: \def\pa {\partial}
45: \def\r {\rightarrow}
46: \def\t {\times }
47: \def\slash {\!\!\!\!/}
48: \def\h{\phi^{\pm\pm}}
49: \def\f{\phi^{--}}
50: %
51: \catcode`@=11 % This allows us to modify PLAIN macros.
52: \def \gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim>}}
53: \def \lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<}}
54: \def \@versim#1#2{\lower0.4ex\vbox{\baselineskip\z@skip\lineskip\z@skip
55: \lineskiplimit\z@\ialign{$\m@th#1\hfil##\hfil$%
56: \crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
57: \catcode`@=12 % at signs are no longer letters
58: %
59: \begin{document}
60: %\setcounter{page}{0}
61: %\thispagestyle{empty}
62: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------
63: % Title page
64: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
65: \begin{flushright}
66: HRI-P-05-09-001 \\
67: \end{flushright}
68: \begin{center}
69: {\Large\sc Identifying the contributions of Universal Extra
70: Dimensions in the Higgs sector at linear $e^+ e^-$ colliders} \\
71: \vspace*{0.2in}
72: {\large\sl Anindya Datta$^{1,2~\dagger}$ {\rm and} Santosh Kumar Rai$^{1~\ddagger~\ast}$} \\
73: \vspace*{0.2in}
74: $^1$Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad, India 211 019.\\
75: $^2$Department of Physics, University of Calcutta, 92 A.P.C. Road, Kolkata, India 700 009.\\
76: \vspace*{0.5in}
77: {\Large\bf ABSTRACT}
78: \end{center}
79: \noindent
80: We study the dilepton-dijet signal in the dominant Higgs production
81: channel at a linear $e^+ e^-$ collider. We estimate the effects of
82: Universal Extra Dimension (UED) by a simple analysis of the
83: cross-sections. The heavy Kaluza-Klein excitations of the Standard Model
84: fields in UED can significantly alter the decay properties of the Higgs
85: boson to loop-driven final states. We show that by taking a simple ratio
86: between cross-sections of two different final states this difference
87: can be very easily highlighted.
88: \noindent
89: \rm\normalsize
90:
91: \vfill
92: \noindent$^{\dagger}$adphys@caluniv.ac.in ~~~~
93: \noindent$^{\ddagger}$santosh.rai@helsinki.fi \\
94: \noindent$^{\ast}$ {\sl \underline {Present address}:} \\
95: High Energy Physics Division, Department of Physical Sciences, University
96: of Helsinki,\\ and Helsinki Institute of Physics, P.O. Box 64,
97: FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland\\
98: \newpage
99:
100: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------
101: % Body of the paper
102: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
103: \section{Introduction}
104: Theories of large extra spacetime dimensions \cite{LED1,LED2} and warped
105: extra dimensions \cite{RS1,RS2} have received a great deal of attention
106: during the past several years. The most popular amongst them have
107: been the models which consider localization of Standard Model (SM)
108: fields on a 3-brane. In these scenario the SM fields can only feel the
109: effects of the extra dimensions through interactions with the
110: Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the gravitational field in the bulk,
111: projected onto the brane by the usual KK mechanism. However, within
112: some other models motivated from the framework of string theory
113: \cite{antoniadis1}, other non-gravitational fields can also propagate
114: in the bulk provided they do not disturb the experimental constraints,
115: which puts a limit on the maximum size of the extra dimension.
116:
117: \bigskip\noindent
118: One such scenario, referred to as the Universal Extra Dimension (UED)
119: model \cite{appel}, allows all the Standard Model (SM) fields to propagate
120: in extra dimensions. At tree level, the momentum along the extra
121: dimensions is also conserved, requiring pair production of the
122: Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes at colliders and preventing tree level mixing
123: effects from altering precision electroweak measurements.
124: Values of compactification scale, as low as 250-300 GeV are allowed for
125: one extra dimension \cite{appel-yee}.
126: The phenomenological implications of UED have been extensively studied
127: in the literature \cite{appel,phenolow1,phenolow2,phenolow3,phenolow4,
128: phenolow5,phenolow6,phenolow7,phenohigh1,phenohigh2,phenohigh3,phenohigh4,
129: phenohigh5,phenohigh6,phenohigh7,phenohigh8,phenohigh9,phenohigh10,phenohigh11,
130: phenohigh12,phenohigh13}.
131:
132: \bigskip\noindent
133: Direct detection of UED KK states at future
134: colliders requires them to be pair produced due to the KK number
135: conservation and hence already puts a limit on the minimum energy at
136: which the collider should run to produce these particles. However,
137: effects of UED excitations can be also be observed in loops at much
138: lower energies \cite{phenolow1,phenolow2,phenolow3,phenolow4,phenolow5,
139: phenolow6,phenolow7} than that required to produce them on-shell.
140: It is therefore interesting to determine whether there are other, indirect
141: ways in which the effects of UED can be detected at future high energy
142: colliders. One such possibility is through the modification of Higgs
143: decay properties due to the KK states.
144:
145: \bigskip\noindent
146: Higgs boson discovery will prove to be a crucial ingredient towards
147: understanding the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking.
148: Once discovered, a major goal would be
149: to determine its other intrinsic properties, couplings and its total
150: width with high accuracy in a model independent way.
151: The partial width of the Higgs decaying to the massless gauge boson is
152: of special interest, since there are no tree level couplings of the
153: Higgs to them and any contribution is generated at the one-loop level.
154: The di-photon partial width gets contribution through massive charged
155: particles in the loops while the gluon-gluon partial width gets
156: contributions from the heavy quarks running in the loops. The effective
157: loop induced couplings of $H\g\g$ and $Hgg$ are sensitive to new
158: contributions from particles which appear in various extensions of the
159: SM. Not only do these decay modes provide for a possible probe of new
160: physics particles which are too heavy to be produced directly but they
161: are also sensitive to scales far beyond the Higgs mass.
162: The partial decay widths for $H\to gg$,
163: $H\to\g\g$ and $H\to\g Z$ decay modes which are driven by loops can be
164: substantially modified due to KK excited modes of SM particles running
165: in the loops. As pointed out in Ref.\cite{petriello} there is a
166: remarkably significant enhancement in the partial decay width of the
167: Higgs in $H\to gg$ due to the excited top quark loops. This can
168: greatly enhance the Higgs production at the Large Hadron Collider
169: (LHC) viz. the $gg \to H$ mode of production. However, there are
170: large uncertainties associated with the PDF's and the choice of scale
171: (scale uncertainties)\cite{pdfscale1,pdfscale2} at the LHC which might just
172: mask this enhancement and make it difficult to differentiate the contributions
173: coming from UED. Also the very fact that the $H\to gg$ or
174: decays into light quarks cannot be observed at the LHC due to the huge
175: QCD backgrounds, makes it difficult to look for UED contributions in the
176: dijet final state.
177: It is quite evident that one requires a linear electron-positron collider to
178: study the properties of the Higgs boson, viz. its coupling to SM particles and
179: its decay properties. In view of whether any new physics beyond the SM
180: affects its properties, will be a crucial detail one needs to understand.
181: The future lepton colliders would be
182: instrumental in identifying the Higgs properties more precisely due to the much
183: cleaner environment. In this work we try to point out a very robust and simple
184: technique of identifying the effect of the contributions of the heavy KK-modes
185: to the loop induced decay modes of the Higgs boson. In fact the technique is
186: useful in testing the sensitivity of the scale of new physics beyond SM.
187: For our study we focus on the UED model and we look at the
188: dominant mode of Higgs production at a future $e^+e^-$ collider and
189: its subsequent decay into two jets and try to identify the contribution
190: coming from UED. In Section~2 we give a very brief overview about the
191: model in consideration and how the partial width for $H\to gg$ gets
192: modified. In Section~3 we present our results and conclusions.
193:
194: \section{The Model}
195: The UED model, in its simplest form \cite{appel}, has all the SM particles
196: propagating in a single extra dimension, which is
197: compactified on an $S_1/Z_2$ orbifold with $R$ as the radius of
198: compactification. Conservation of KK number
199: which is a consequence of momentum conservation along the extra
200: dimension forces the KK particles to be pair produced. Consequently, UED
201: predicts a stable lightest Kaluza-Klein particle (LKP) which would be much
202: like the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The LKP is a viable
203: candidate for dark matter \cite{LKP1,LKP2}.
204: Bulk and brane radiative effects \cite{branebulk1,branebulk2,
205: branebulk3,branebulk4} however break KK number down to a
206: discrete conserved quantity, the so called KK parity, $(-1)^n$, where
207: $n$ is the KK level. KK parity conservation in turn, implies that the
208: contributions to various precisely measured low-energy observables
209: only arise at loop level and are small \cite{phenolow1,phenolow2,phenolow3,
210: phenolow4,phenolow5, phenolow6,phenolow7}. As a result, the limits on the
211: scale of the extra dimension, from precision electro-weak data, are
212: rather weak, constraining $R^{-1}$ to be larger than 300 GeV.
213:
214: \bigskip\noindent
215: The KK tower resulting on the four dimensional space-time has a tree
216: level mass given by
217: \bea
218: m_n^2 = m^2 + \frac{n^2}{R^2}
219: \eea
220: where $n$ denotes the $n^{th}$-level of the KK tower and $m$
221: corresponds to the mass of the SM particle in question. This implies a
222: mass degeneracy in the $n^{th}$-level of the spectrum at least for the
223: leptons and lighter quarks. This degeneracy is however
224: removed due to radiative corrections to the masses \cite{branebulk1,branebulk2,
225: branebulk3,branebulk4}. In the following, we use
226: the tree-level masses, but our result is still valid with the
227: mass degeneracies lifted.
228:
229: \bigskip\noindent
230: In this work, we are mainly interested in the modification of the
231: partial decay width of the Higgs in $H\to gg$ due to the KK tower of the
232: top quark running in the loops. Since the KK number is not violated at
233: any of the vertices inside a loop, the contributions come from all the
234: KK-excitations, with a decoupling nature for the higher modes. So
235: only the first few KK modes have relevant contribution. Below we give
236: the contributions to the two-gluon decay width of the Higgs boson in the
237: SM and UED.
238:
239: \bigskip\noindent
240: Since the $H \to gg$ proceeds through diagrams containing fermion
241: triangle loops and the coupling is proportional to the zero-mode mass of the
242: fermion even in the case of UED, we consider contributions of the KK
243: tower of the top quark only. The partial decay width for $H \to gg$ with
244: UED contribution is \cite{petriello},
245: \bea
246: \G(H\to gg) = \frac{G_F~m_H^3}{36\sqrt{2}\pi}
247: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_H)}{\pi}\right)^2~|I_q+\sum_n {\tilde I}_{\tq^{(n)}}|^2
248: \eea
249: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $\alpha_s(m_H)$ is the running
250: QCD coupling evaluated at $m_H$ and $I_q, {\tilde I}_{\tq^{(n)}}$ are the
251: contributions of the loop integrals for the SM and UED case
252: respectively. These loop integral functions can be written down as:
253: \bea
254: I_q &=& \frac{3}{4}\lambda_q \left[2-(1-\lambda_q) F(\lambda_q)\right]
255: \nonumber \\
256: \tilde{I}_{\tq^{(n)}} &=& \frac{6}{4} \lambda_q \left[2-(1-\lambda_{\tq^{(n)}})
257: F(\lambda_{\tq^{(n)}}) \right]
258: \label{eqn:fnloop}
259: \eea
260: where $\lambda_i=4 m_i^2/M_H^2$. The $q$ stands for the different quark
261: flavours in the SM while $\tq^{(n)}$ represents the $n^{th}$ KK excitation of
262: the particular quark flavour. The function $F(\lambda)$ in the above
263: expression is given by
264: \bea
265: F (\lambda)
266: & = & -2 \left(\sin^{-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\right)^2 ~~{\rm for}~~ \lambda \geq 1 \nonumber \\
267: & = & -\frac{\pi^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\log^2
268: \frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - \lambda}} {1 - \sqrt{1 - \lambda}}
269: - i\pi\log \frac{1 + \sqrt{1 - \lambda}} {1 - \sqrt{1 - \lambda}}
270: ~~{\rm for}~~ \lambda < 1
271: \label{eqn:spence}
272: \eea
273: We find that only the KK excitations of the top quark has a relevant
274: contribution to the partial decay width. The UED contributions include the
275: sum over the KK towers of the respective particle. As the more massive modes
276: in the loop will hardly make significant contributions, we ensure that the
277: sum is terminated as the higher modes decouple. We include the corrections
278: to all the decay modes affected by UED contributions in the decay package
279: HDECAY \cite{hdecay} to evaluate the relative sensitivities to the branching
280: ratios to the different decay channels of the Higgs boson.
281:
282: To illustrate the effect of the KK-modes on the branching ratio of $H\to gg$,
283: we plot the UED enhanced result along with the SM result as a function of Higgs
284: mass in Figure~\ref{bratio} for different values of $R^{-1}$. One can clearly
285: see that large effects from UED result for lower values of $R^{-1}$. However,
286: very low values of $R^{-1}$ are constrained by precision electroweak data.
287: %-----------------------------------
288: \begin{figure}[htb]
289: \begin{center}
290: \includegraphics[width=3.2in,height=3.2in]{brgg.eps}
291: %\includegraphics[width=3in,height=3in]{brbb.eps}
292: \caption{ \it Illustrating the effects of UED contributions on the branching
293: ratio of $h \to gg$ as a function of Higgs mass ($M_H$) for different values
294: of the inverse of radius of compactification $R^{-1}$.}
295: \label{bratio}
296: \end{center}
297: \end{figure}
298: %-----------------------------------
299:
300: \section{Results and Discussions}
301: We have considered the case of a 500~GeV linear $e^+e^-$
302: collider and calculated the production of a Higgs in association with
303: a $Z$ boson \cite{higgstrahlung1,higgstrahlung2,higgstrahlung3} through a
304: process of the form
305: \bea
306: e^+e^- & \to & Z + H \nonumber \\
307: & \hookrightarrow & \ell^+ \ell^- + H \nonumber
308: \eea
309:
310: \bigskip\noindent
311: In the preceding paragraph we discuss the final states relevant for our
312: study.
313: \begin{enumerate}
314: \item $e^+ e^- \to \ell^+ \ell^- +$ two jets, which arises when the
315: Higgs boson decays to a pair of quarks ($u\bar{u},d\bar{d},c\bar{c},s\bar{s}$
316: and $b\bar{b}$) or gluons\footnote{We
317: exclude $H \to \tau^\pm$ decays because these produce narrow jets which can
318: be identified as $\tau^\pm$ with 80-90\% efficiency.}, which then
319: undergo fragmentation to form a pair of hadronic jets. Clearly, for a
320: Higgs boson in the SM, final state will receive contributions
321: mainly from the decays $H \to b\bar b$ and $H \to c \bar c$, with a
322: minuscule contribution due to $H \to gg$. However, due to the increase
323: in the partial width for $H \to gg$ due to the extra contribution
324: coming from the additional KK excitations of the top quark in the loops,
325: there will be an enhancement in the overall branching ratio to jets.
326:
327: \item $e^+ e^- \to \ell^+ \ell^- + b \bar b$, which simply means that
328: the final state in the above contains two tagged $b$-jets. The decay
329: width for $H \to b \bar b$ is roughly the same in SM as well as UED,
330: although the change of the two-gluon decay mode will have a small effect on
331: the branching ratio for the $b \bar b$ mode.
332: This would be observable in the rates for $b \bar{b}$ final state only
333: if the change in the two-gluon mode is quite large, considering the fact
334: that the corresponding branching ratios differ by more than an order of
335: magnitude in the intermediate mass range of the Higgs boson. However, this
336: small change in the branching ratio of $H \to b \bar b$ can still play
337: a pivotal role in identifying effects of UED, as we show in our analysis.
338: \end{enumerate}
339:
340: \bigskip\noindent
341: In our subsequent analysis, we have imposed a few kinematic acceptance
342: cuts on the final state particles, viz.,
343: \begin{enumerate}
344: \item The final-state leptons should have transverse momentum
345: $p_T^{(\ell)} > 10$~GeV.
346: \item The final-state leptons should have pseudo-rapidity
347: $\eta^{(\ell)} < 3.0$.
348: \item The final-state jets should be clearly separated from each oher.
349: This can be implimented in a parton level analysis like ours by imposing
350: a cut: $\Delta R_{JJ} (\equiv \sqrt{\Delta \eta_{JJ}^2 +
351: \Delta \phi_{JJ}^2}) > 0.4$, which is the usual criterion adopted at,
352: for example,
353: the LEP and Tevatron colliders.
354: \item The final-state jets should have transverse momentum $p_T^{(J)} >
355: 10$~GeV.
356: \item The final-state jets should have pseudo-rapidity $\eta^{(J)} <
357: 2.5$.
358: \end{enumerate}
359: The $b$-tagging efficiency \cite{desch} has been taken to be 50\%, which
360: is probably a conservative estimate.
361:
362: \bigskip\noindent
363: In Figure~\ref{fig1}(a), we illustrate our result for the process discussed
364: above, namely,
365: $$ e^+e^- \to \ell^+\ell^- ~+~ two ~jets $$
366: at a $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV, $e^+e^-$ collider.
367: The solid (red) line denotes the UED-included cross-section where we
368: have chosen the value of $R^{-1} = 350$ GeV which gives a greater
369: enhancement compared to values of $R^{-1}$ greater than the above, while
370: % ------------------------------------------------------------------
371: \begin{figure}[htb]
372: \begin{center}
373: \includegraphics[height=3.3in,width=3.2in]{Fig1a.eps}
374: \includegraphics[height=3.2in,width=3.25in]{Fig1b.eps}
375: \caption{\sl\small The curves are generated for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV
376: linear $e^+e^-$ collider.(a) Shows the cross-section for the process
377: ($e^+ e^- \to \ell^+\ell^- ~+~ two~jets$) where the solid (red) line
378: includes the UED contribution while the dashed (black) line
379: corresponds to the SM prediction. (b) Shows the ratio of cross-section
380: between two final states viz. $\frac{\s(e^+e^- \to \ell^+\ell^- ~+~
381: two ~jets)}{\s(e^+e^- \to \ell^+\ell^- + b \bar b)}$ for different
382: values of the compactification radius. The solid (black) line
383: corresponds to the SM prediction.}
384: \label{fig1}
385: \end{center}
386: \end{figure}
387: % ------------------------------------------------------------------
388: the dashed (black) line denotes the SM contribution only. It should
389: be noted that the graph shows the excess cross-section after removing
390: the non-Higgs part of the Standard Model contributions (such as
391: $e^+e^- \to ZZ, ZZ^*$ etc.). These lead to a large SM four-fermion
392: background, which is however, easily reducible by selecting only
393: events corresponding to peaks in the $\ell^+\ell^-$ around $Z$-mass and
394: dijet invariant masses, but rejecting those events with 2-jet
395: invariant mass corresponds to $Z$-mass. The continuum background
396: ($\gamma^\ast \gamma^\ast$, $Z^\ast Z^\ast$) too can be easily
397: neglected as it lies below $10^{-3}~fb$ (in the bins of $b \bar b$
398: invariant mass) and would hardly affect the rates for the signal in
399: consideration. The cross-section shown in Figure~\ref{fig1}(a) makes
400: it clear that it is very hard to see for differences by just looking
401: at the rates. The cross-sections for $\ell^+\ell^- + {\rm two~jets}$
402: final state are almost identical in the two cases. As the
403: cross-sections look very similar, it would require very precise
404: measurements to form a distinction between the two cases.
405:
406: \bigskip\noindent Thus, it seems that the two jet decay mode of the
407: Higgs alone will not be able to show observable difference due to the
408: enhancement in the decay channel of the two-gluon mode due to UED
409: contributions. However if we consider the ratio of the two processes
410: mentioned above, viz. $\frac{\s(e^+e^- \to \ell^+\ell^- ~+~ two
411: ~jets)}{\s(e^+e^- \to \ell^+\ell^- + b \bar b)}$ we can see that the
412: difference between the two cases becomes more prominent.
413: The number of 2$\ell +$ 2 $jets$ events do not differ in SM and
414: UED to a great extent as revealed from Figure~\ref{fig1}(a). However,
415: efficacy of the above mentioned ratio is also evident from the following
416: figure (Fig1~\ref{fig1}(b)). Enhancement of the gluonic width of the Higgs
417: boson in UED case has two fold effect on the ratio. It not only increases the
418: $gg$ branching ratio (which affects the numerator of the ratio), but also
419: suppresses the branching ratio in $b\bar b$-channel (thus suppressing the
420: denominator and hence amplifies the ratio).
421: In Figure~\ref{fig1}(b) we plot this ratio for different values of the
422: compactification scale $R^{-1}$. We find that the ratio differs from
423: that of the SM throughout the mass range of $120~{\rm GeV} \leq m_H
424: \leq 200~{\rm GeV}$ with the lines converging towards the SM value as
425: $R^{-1}$ is increased. In fact this also highlights the decoupling
426: nature of the higher levels of the KK tower and justifies our
427: termination of the sum of KK towers in the loop, to values where the
428: contributions become negligibly small. The ratios tend to diverge more
429: as the Higgs mass increases. This is because the branching ratios of
430: $H\to gg$ and $H\to b\bar{b}$ become comparable and the enhancement in
431: the $H\to gg$ mode starts playing a more significant role in the 2-jet
432: final state. However, there is a caveat. For comparatively higher
433: Higgs masses, cross-sections for both the above processes are
434: small. Hence, we need higher luminosity to differentiate between the
435: SM and the UED cases in a statistically significant way. The
436: robustness of this method is, nevertheless, highlighted in the fact
437: that although the $H\to gg$ branching ratio is more than an order
438: smaller than that of $H\to b\bar{b}$ in the intermediate mass range
439: for the Higgs boson, we are still able to identify the difference due
440: to the UED contribution which would have been otherwise very difficult
441: to see, by just looking at the cross-sections.
442:
443: %\input{1TeV.tex}
444:
445: \bigskip\noindent
446: It is necessary to mention here that the differences in the ratios as
447: evident from the graphs is due to the difference in the corresponding
448: branching ratios. The ratios are not susceptible to uncertainties like
449: different efficiency factors associated with particle identifications
450: as they would cancel out. The efficiency factors will however give a more
451: realistic estimate of the events that will be observed at the
452: experiments and which gives us an estimate of the uncertainties in the
453: statistics.
454:
455: %However it must be remembered that for large Higgs masses,
456: %the branching ratios go down very rapidly for the above channels beyond
457: %the ZZ-threshold. So to make the rates statistically significant, the
458: %high luminosity option will become imperative.
459:
460: \bigskip\noindent A similar exercise can be carried out for a 1 TeV
461: machine too, but the rates for the above processes would rapidly fall
462: due to the s-channel suppression. Infact, we find that the
463: cross-section for the $\ell^+\ell^- +~{\rm two~jets}$ process falls by
464: an order of magnitude compared to that of $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV collider.
465: A better option at the higher $\sqrt{s}$ machine would be the
466: production of Higgs through the $WW-$fusion channel with the final
467: states being ``${\rm two~jets} + E\slash{}_T$" and ``$b \bar b +
468: E\slash{}_T$". The ratio between the final states will again show
469: differences, but it would be challenging to isolate the signal from
470: the large continuum background for the above process without losing
471: out much on the signal. Since the major background will be due to the
472: $e^+ e^- \to \g ^\ast Z,\g ^\ast Z^*$, etc. a large proportion of that
473: can be suppressed by rejecting events for $M_{inv}^{missing} < 100$
474: GeV.\footnote{$M_{inv}^{missing}$ is defined to be the mass of the
475: system recoiling against the jet-pairs} Due to the t-channel nature
476: of the background processes, the momentum vector reconstructed from
477: the two jets, would be mostly in the high rapidity region, in contrast
478: to the same momentum vector coming from the Higgs boson produced by
479: the $WW-$fusion process. The distribution of the latter, would be
480: expected to peak in the central rapidity region. This too can provide
481: for a substantial suppression of the background by putting an
482: appropriate kinematic cut. However, we should accept the possibility
483: that it might just be kinematically allowed, at a $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV
484: machine, to pair produce the n=1 KK excitations for direct
485: observation. In which case our results for the $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV
486: machine becomes all the more interesting and worthy of attention.
487:
488: \bigskip\noindent To summarise, we have shown that the effects of KK
489: excitations in the UED scenario can be evident at future lepton
490: colliders, much before the direct observation of these particles
491: (which are constrained to be produced in pairs), through the decay
492: mode of Higgs, driven by loops. We find that, although these
493: enhancements might not be distinguishable by just looking at a single
494: cross-section viz. $\ell^+\ell^- +~{\rm two~jets}$, this difference
495: can be highlighted by looking at the ratio of cross-sections for two
496: different final states. Another advantage of taking ratios is that
497: many systematic errors and efficiency factors cancel out, making it a
498: more useful option. Infact, considering ratios to determine parameters
499: have been a usual practice where large uncertainties and errors are
500: involved. We also find that the differences are more pronounced for
501: higher Higgs masses, but are constrained by the low cross-sections for
502: the specific process in consideration, in that mass range. However,
503: the high luminosity achievable at the future lepton colliders is expected
504: to probe this mass range too.
505:
506: \bigskip\noindent
507: In fact the above technique can be used to identify other new physics
508: scenarios predicting massive particles,
509: which play a similar role in modifying the partial width of the
510: Higgs to massless gauge bosons. It can also be used to distinguish scalars
511: of other theories which behave similar to the Higgs boson, like the Radion which has
512: similar couplings like the Higgs boson\cite{skrai}. A major difference is the
513: enhanced coupling of Radion to gluons through the trace anomaly.
514:
515: % ------------------------------------------------------------------
516: \vskip 5pt
517: {\bf Acknowledgments:}
518: The authors would like to thank Anirban Kundu for useful discussions.
519: The authors would also like to thank the organisers of "Study Group on
520: Extra dimensions at LHC", held in June, 2005 at Harish-Chandra Research
521: Institute, where the early part of this work was initiated.
522: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
523: % References
524: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
525: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
526:
527: \bibitem{LED1}
528: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
529: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''
530: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998);
531: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315];
532: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%
533: \bibitem{LED2}
534: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,
535: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''
536: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998).
537: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398].
538: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%
539:
540: \bibitem{RS1}
541: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
542: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
543: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999);
544: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221];
545: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%
546: \bibitem{RS2}
547: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
548: %``An alternative to compactification,''
549: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999).
550: % [arXiv:hep-th/9906064].
551: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9906064;%%
552:
553: \bibitem{antoniadis1}
554: I.~Antoniadis,
555: %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''
556: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990).
557: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B246,377;%%
558:
559: \bibitem{appel}
560: T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu,
561: %``Bounds on universal extra dimensions,''
562: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001).
563: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0012100].
564: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012100;%%
565: \bibitem{appel-yee}
566: T.~Appelquist and H.~U.~Yee,
567: %``Universal extra dimensions and the Higgs boson mass,''
568: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 055002 (2003).
569:
570: \bibitem{phenolow1}
571: K.~Agashe, N.~G.~Deshpande and G.~H.~Wu,
572: %``Universal extra dimensions and b $\to$ s gamma,''
573: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 309 (2001);
574: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0105084];
575: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105084;%%
576: \bibitem{phenolow2}
577: D.~Chakraverty, K.~Huitu and A.~Kundu,
578: %``Effects of universal extra dimensions on B0 - anti-B0 mixing,''
579: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 558}, 173 (2003);
580: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0212047];
581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212047;%%
582: \bibitem{phenolow3}
583: A.~J.~Buras, M.~Spranger and A.~Weiler,
584: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on the unitarity triangle
585: %and rare
586: %K and B decays. ((U)),''
587: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 660}, 225 (2003);
588: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0212143];
589: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212143;%%
590: \bibitem{phenolow4}
591: A.~J.~Buras, A.~Poschenrieder, M.~Spranger and A.~Weiler,
592: %``The impact of universal extra dimensions on B $\to$ X/s gamma, B
593: %$\to$ X/s
594: %gluon, B $\to$ X/s mu+ mu-, K(L) $\to$ pi0 e+ e-, and
595: %epsilon'/epsilon,''
596: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 678}, 455 (2004);
597: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0306158];
598: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306158;%%
599: \bibitem{phenolow5}
600: J.~F.~Oliver, J.~Papavassiliou and A.~Santamaria,
601: %``Universal extra dimensions and Z $\to$ b anti-b,''
602: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 056002 (2003);
603: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0212391];
604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212391;%%
605: \bibitem{phenolow6}
606: T.~Appelquist and B.~A.~Dobrescu,
607: %``Universal extra dimensions and the muon magnetic moment,''
608: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 516}, 85 (2001);
609: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0106140];
610: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106140;%%
611: \bibitem{phenolow7}
612: K.~Agashe, N.~G.~Deshpande and G.~H.~Wu,
613: %``Can extra dimensions accessible to the SM explain the recent
614: %measurement
615: %of anomalous magnetic moment of the muon?,''
616: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 85 (2001).
617: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0103235];
618: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103235;%%
619:
620: \bibitem{phenohigh1}
621: T.~G.~Rizzo and J.~D.~Wells,
622: %``Electroweak precision measurements and collider probes of the
623: %standard
624: %model with large extra dimensions,''
625: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 016007 (2000);
626: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9906234];
627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906234;%%
628: \bibitem{phenohigh2}
629: A.~Strumia,
630: %``Bounds on Kaluza-Klein excitations of the SM vector bosons from
631: %electroweak tests,''
632: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466}, 107 (1999);
633: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266];
634: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906266;%%
635: \bibitem{phenohigh3}
636: C.~D.~Carone,
637: %``Electroweak constraints on extended models with extra
638: %dimensions,''
639: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 015008 (2000);
640: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9907362];
641: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907362;%%
642: \bibitem{phenohigh4}
643: C.~Macesanu, C.~D.~McMullen and S.~Nandi,
644: %``Collider implications of universal extra dimensions,''
645: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 015009 (2002);
646: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0201300];
647: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201300;%%
648: \bibitem{phenohigh5}
649: C.~Macesanu, C.~D.~McMullen and S.~Nandi,
650: %``New signal for universal extra dimensions,''
651: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546}, 253 (2002);
652: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0207269];
653: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207269;%%
654: \bibitem{phenohigh6}
655: H.~C.~Cheng,
656: %``Universal extra dimensions at the e- e- colliders,''
657: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 18}, 2779 (2003);
658: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0206035];
659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206035;%%
660: \bibitem{phenohigh7}
661: A.~Muck, A.~Pilaftsis and R.~Ruckl,
662: %``Probing minimal 5D extensions of the standard model: From LEP to
663: %an e+ e-
664: %linear collider,''
665: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 687}, 55 (2004);
666: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0312186];
667: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312186;%%
668: \bibitem{phenohigh8}
669: G.~Bhattacharyya, P.~Dey, A.~Kundu and A.~Raychaudhuri,
670: %``Probing universal extra dimension at the International Linear
671: %Collider,''
672: arXiv:hep-ph/0502031;
673: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502031;%%
674: \bibitem{phenohigh9}
675: M.~Battaglia, A.~Datta, A.~De Roeck, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,
676: %``Contrasting supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions at the
677: %CLIC
678: %multi-TeV e+ e- collider,''
679: JHEP {\bf 0507}, 033 (2005);
680: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0502041];
681: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502041;%%
682: \bibitem{phenohigh10}
683: H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
684: %``Bosonic supersymmetry? Getting fooled at the LHC,''
685: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 056006 (2002);
686: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0205314];
687: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205314;%%
688: \bibitem{phenohigh11}
689: B.~Bhattacherjee and A.~Kundu,
690: %``The International Linear Collider as a Kaluza-Klein factory,''
691: arXiv:hep-ph/0508170;
692: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508170;%%
693: \bibitem{phenohigh12}
694: J.~M.~Smillie and B.~R.~Webber,
695: %``Distinguishing spins in supersymmetric and universal extra
696: %dimension models
697: %at the Large Hadron Collider,''
698: arXiv:hep-ph/0507170;
699: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507170;%%
700: \bibitem{phenohigh13}
701: M.~Kakizaki, S.~Matsumoto, Y.~Sato and M.~Senami,
702: %``Significant effects of second KK particles on LKP dark matter
703: %physics,''
704: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 123522 (2005).
705: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0502059];
706: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502059;%%
707:
708: \bibitem{petriello}
709: F.~J.~Petriello,
710: %``Kaluza-Klein effects on Higgs physics in universal extra
711: %dimensions,''
712: JHEP {\bf 0205}, 003 (2002).
713: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0204067].
714: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204067;%%
715:
716: \bibitem{pdfscale1}
717: A.~Djouadi and S.~Ferrag,
718: %``PDF uncertainties in Higgs production at hadron colliders,''
719: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 586}, 345 (2004);
720: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0310209];
721: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310209;%%
722: \bibitem{pdfscale2}
723: V.~Ravindran, J.~Smith and W.~L.~van Neerven,
724: %``NNLO corrections to the total cross section for Higgs boson
725: %production in
726: %hadron hadron collisions,''
727: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 665}, 325 (2003).
728: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0302135].
729: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302135;%%
730:
731: \bibitem{LKP1}
732: G.~Servant and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
733: %``Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter
734: %candidate?,''
735: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650}, 391 (2003);
736: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0206071];
737: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206071;%%
738: \bibitem{LKP2}
739: D.~Majumdar,
740: %``Detection rates for Kaluza-Klein dark matter,''
741: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 095010 (2003).
742: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0209277].
743: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209277;%%
744:
745: \bibitem{branebulk1}
746: H.~Georgi, A.~K.~Grant and G.~Hailu,
747: %``Brane couplings from bulk loops,''
748: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 506}, 207 (2001);
749: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0012379];
750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012379;%%
751: \bibitem{branebulk2}
752: G.~von Gersdorff, N.~Irges and M.~Quiros,
753: %``Bulk and brane radiative effects in gauge theories on orbifolds,''
754: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 635}, 127 (2002);
755: % [arXiv:hep-th/0204223];
756: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0204223;%%
757: \bibitem{branebulk3}
758: H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,
759: %``Radiative corrections to Kaluza-Klein masses,''
760: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 036005 (2002);
761: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0204342];
762: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204342;%%
763: \bibitem{branebulk4}
764: M.~Puchwein and Z.~Kunszt,
765: %``Radiative corrections with 5D mixed position- / momentum-space
766: %propagators,''
767: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 311}, 288 (2004).
768: % [arXiv:hep-th/0309069].
769: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0309069;%%
770:
771: \bibitem{hdecay}
772: A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,
773: %``HDECAY: A program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and
774: %its
775: %supersymmetric extension,''
776: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 108}, 56 (1998)
777: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704448].
778: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704448;%%
779:
780:
781: \bibitem{higgstrahlung1}
782: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
783: %``A Phenomenological Profile Of The Higgs Boson,''
784: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 106}, 292 (1976);
785: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B106,292;%%
786: \bibitem{higgstrahlung2}
787: B.~W.~Lee, C.~Quigg and H.~B.~Thacker,
788: %``The Strength Of Weak Interactions At Very High-Energies And The
789: %Higgs Boson
790: %Mass,''
791: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 38}, 883 (1977);
792: %%CITATION = PRLTA,38,883;%%
793: \bibitem{higgstrahlung3}
794: B.~L.~Ioffe and V.~A.~Khoze,
795: %``What Can Be Expected From Experiments On Colliding E+ E- Beams
796: %With E
797: %Approximately Equal To 100-Gev?,''
798: Sov.\ J.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ {\bf 9}, 50 (1978)
799: [Fiz.\ Elem.\ Chast.\ Atom.\ Yadra {\bf 9}, 118 (1978)].
800: %%CITATION = SJPNA,9,50;%%
801:
802: \bibitem{desch}
803: See for example, K.~Desch, "Particle searches at a Linear Collider,
804: ICHEP2000, Osaka, 2000.
805:
806: \bibitem{skrai}
807: P.~K.~Das, S.~K.~Rai and S.~Raychaudhuri,
808: %``On distinguishing radions from Higgs bosons,''
809: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 618}, 221 (2005).
810: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410244].
811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410244;%%
812: \end{thebibliography}
813: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
814: \end{document}
815: