1: \def\Ord{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\;$}}
2: \def\OOrd{\lower .7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}\;$}}
3:
4:
5:
6: \part{Charged Higgs boson studies at the Tevatron and LHC}
7:
8: {\it V. Bunichev,
9: L. Dudko,
10: S. Hesselbach,
11: S. Moretti,
12: S. Perries,
13: J. Petzoldt,
14: A. Pompo\v s,
15: J. Rathsman and
16: A. Sopczak}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We report on detailed Monte Carlo comparison of selection variables used to
20: separate $ tbH^\pm$ signal events from the Standard Model $ t\bar t$ background.
21: While kinematic differences exist between the two processes whenever $m_{H^\pm}\ne m_W$,
22: in the particularly challenging case of the near degeneracy of the charged Higgs boson mass
23: with the $W$ mass, the exploration of the spin difference between the charged Higgs and the $W$ gauge boson
24: becomes crucial. The latest implementation of the charged Higgs boson process into
25: PYTHIA is used to generate the signal events. The TAUOLA package is used to decay the
26: tau lepton emerging from the charged Higgs boson decay. The spin information is then
27: transferred to the final state particles. Distributions of selection variables are found
28: to be very similar for signal and background,
29: rendering the degenerate mass region particularly challenging for a $ H^\pm$ discovery,
30: though some scope exists at both colliders.
31: In addition, the change in the behavior
32: of kinematic variables from Tevatron to LHC energies is briefly
33: discussed.
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36:
37: \section{INTRODUCTION}
38: %\section{Introduction}
39:
40: The importance of charged Higgs boson searches at future colliders
41: has in the recent years been emphasized~\cite{Sopczak:1993jt
42: ,Sopczak:1993yd,Carena:2000yx,Djouadi:2000gu}
43: for LEP, a future International Linear Collider (ILC), the Tevatron and the
44: Large Hadron Collider (LHC),
45: as the detection of the charged Higgs boson would be a definite
46: signal for the existence of New Physics going beyond the Standard Model (SM)~\cite{Djouadi:2005gi,Djouadi:2005gj}.
47: The charged Higgs boson states are naturally accommodated in non-minimal Higgs scenarios,
48: like the Two-Higgs Doublet Models (2HDMs). A Supersymmetric version of the
49: latter is the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). It is
50: a Type II 2HDM with specific relations among neutral
51: and charged Higgs boson masses and couplings, dictated by
52: Supersymmetry (SUSY) \cite{Gunion:1989we}.
53:
54: The
55: Tevatron collider at Fermilab is currently in its second stage
56: of operation, so-called
57: Run 2, with a higher center-of-mass (CM) energy of $\sqrt s=1.96$
58: TeV. This machine
59: will be the first one to probe charged Higgs boson masses in the
60: mass range up to $m_{H^\pm}\sim m_t$ \cite{Carena:2000yx}. Starting from
61: 2008, the LHC at CERN will be in a position
62: to confirm or rule out the existence of such a particle over a very
63: large portion of both the 2HDM and MSSM parameter space,
64: $m_{H^\pm}\Ord 400$ GeV, depending on $\tan\beta$
65: (see the reviews~\cite{Roy:2004az,Roy:2004mm,Roy:2005yu}).
66:
67: At present, a lower bound
68: on the charged Higgs boson mass exists from LEP \cite{:2001xy},
69: $m_{H^\pm}\Ord m_{W}$,
70: independently of the charged Higgs boson decay Branching Ratios (BRs).
71: This limit is valid within any Type II 2HDM whereas, in
72: the low $\tan\beta$ region (below about 3), an indirect lower
73: limit on $m_{H^\pm}$ can be derived in the MSSM
74: from the one on $m_{A}$ (the mass
75: of the pseudoscalar Higgs state of the model):
76: $m_{H^\pm}^2\approx m_{W}^2+m_{A}^2\OOrd (130~\mathrm{GeV})^2$.
77:
78: If the charged Higgs boson mass $m_{H^\pm}$ satisfies
79: $m_{H^\pm} < m_{t} - m_{b}$, where $ m_{t}$ is the top quark mass and
80: $ m_{b}$ the bottom quark mass,
81: $H^\pm$ particles could be produced in the decay of on-shell (i.e., $\Gamma_t\to0$)
82: top (anti-)quarks $ t \rightarrow bH^+$,
83: the latter being in turn produced in pairs via $gg$ fusion and $q\bar q$ annihilation.
84: This approximation
85: was the one customarily used in event generators
86: when $m_{H^\pm} \Ord m_{t}$.
87: Throughout this paper we adopt the same notation as in Ref.~\cite{Alwall:2003tc}:
88: charged Higgs production is denoted by
89: $ q\bar q$, $ gg \rightarrow t\bar t \rightarrow tbH^\pm$ if due to (anti-)top decays
90: and by $ q\bar q$, $ gg \rightarrow tbH^\pm$ if further production diagrams are included.
91: Owing to the large top decay width ($ \Gamma_{t} \simeq 1.5$~GeV) and
92: due to the additional diagrams which do not proceed via direct $ t\bar t$
93: production~\cite{Borzumati:1999th,Miller:1999bm,Moretti:1999bw},
94: charged Higgs bosons could
95: also be produced at and beyond the kinematic top decay threshold.
96: The importance of these effects in the so-called `threshold' or
97: `transition' region ($m_{H^\pm}\approx m_t$) was emphasized in
98: previous Les Houches proceedings~\cite{Cavalli:2002vs,Assamagan:2004mu}
99: as well as in Refs.~\cite{Alwall:2003tc,Guchait:2001pi,Moretti:2002ht,Assamagan:2004gv}
100: and the calculations of Refs.~\cite{Borzumati:1999th,Miller:1999bm}
101: (based on the appropriate $q\bar q,gg\to tb H^\pm$ description)
102: are now implemented in
103: HERWIG\,\cite{Marchesini:1991ch,Corcella:2000bw,Corcella:2002jc,Moretti:2002eu}\,and
104: PYTHIA\,\cite{Sjostrand:1993yb, Sjostrand:2000wi, Sjostrand:2001yu, Sjostrand:2003wg,Alwall:2004xw}. (A comparison between
105: the two generators was carried out in Ref.~\cite{Alwall:2003tc}.)
106: For any realistic simulation of $H^\pm$ production with
107: $m_{H^\pm}\OOrd m_t$
108: the use of these implementations is of paramount importance.
109: In addition,
110: in the mass region near the top quark mass, a matching of the calculations for the
111: $ q\bar q,~gg \rightarrow tbH^\pm$ and
112: $ gb \rightarrow tH^\pm$ processes might be required~\cite{Alwall:2004xw}.
113:
114: A charged Higgs boson with $m_{H^\pm}\Ord m_{t}$
115: decays predominantly into a $\tau$ lepton and
116: a neutrino.
117: For large values of $\tan \beta$ ($\OOrd$ 5), the ratio of the vacuum
118: expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, the corresponding branching ratio
119: is near 100\%. For $m_{H^\pm}\OOrd m_{t}$, $H^\pm\to \tau\nu$ is overwhelmed
120: by $H^\pm\to tb$, but the latter is much harder to disentangle from background
121: than the former.
122: The associated top quark decays predominantly into a $W$ boson, or at times
123: a second charged Higgs boson,
124: and a $b$ quark.
125: The reaction
126: \begin{equation}
127: q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm~~~(t\to bW)~~~(H^\pm \to \tau ^\pm \nu_{\tau})
128: \label{channel}
129: \end{equation}
130: is then a promising channel to search for the charged Higgs boson at both the Tevatron
131: (where the dominant production mode is $q\bar q$)
132: and the LHC (where $gg$ is the leading subprocess). If
133: the $H^\pm\to\tau\nu$ decay channel is used to search for Higgs bosons, then
134: a key ingredient in the signal selection process should be the exploration of
135: decay distributions that are sensitive to the spin nature of the particle
136: yielding the $\tau$ lepton ($H^\pm$ or $W^\pm$), as advocated in
137: Refs.~\cite{Roy:1991sf,Raychaudhuri:1995kv,Raychaudhuri:1995cc,Roy:1999xw}
138: (see also \cite{Assamagan:2002in,Assamagan:2002ne}).
139:
140: It is the purpose of this contribution to outline the possible improvements that can be
141: achieved at the Tevatron and LHC in the search for charged Higgs bosons, with
142: mass below, near or above $m_t$, when both the
143: appropriate description of the Higgs production process and polarization effects
144: are used to sharpen the $H^\pm\to\tau\nu$ signature.
145:
146: \section{EXPERIMENTAL SIMULATION AT THE TEVATRON ENERGY}
147: %\section{Experimental simulation at the Tevatron energy}
148:
149: We start by studying charged Higgs production $q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm$
150: with subsequent decays $t \to b W$, $H^\pm \to \tau^\pm \nu_\tau$
151: at the FNAL Tevatron with $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$~TeV.
152: In the following we analyse hadronic decays of
153: the $W$ boson and $\tau$ lepton
154: ($W \to q\bar{q}'$, $\tau \to \mathrm{hadrons} + \nu_\tau$),
155: which results in the signature
156: $2 b + 2 j + \tau_\mathrm{jet} + \not\!P_t$
157: (2 $b$ jets, 2 light jets, 1 $\tau$ jet and missing transverse momentum).
158: The most important background process is $q\bar q, gg \to t\bar{t}$
159: with the subsequent decays $t \to b W^+$ and $\bar{t} \to \bar{b} W^-$,
160: one $W$ boson decaying hadronically ($W \to q\bar{q}'$)
161: and one leptonically ($W \to \tau \nu_\tau$), which results in
162: the same final state particles as for the expected signal.
163:
164: The signal process $q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm$ is simulated with PYTHIA
165: \cite{Sjostrand:1993yb, Sjostrand:2000wi, Sjostrand:2001yu, Sjostrand:2003wg} using the implementation described in \cite{Alwall:2004xw},
166: in order to take the effects in the transition region into account.
167: The subsequent decays $t \to b W$, $W \to q\bar{q}'$ and
168: $H^\pm \to \tau^\pm \nu_\tau$ are carried out within PYTHIA,
169: whereas the tau leptons are decayed externally with the program TAUOLA
170: \cite{Jadach:1990mz, Golonka:2003xt},
171: which includes the complete spin structure of the $\tau$ decay.
172: The background process $q\bar q, gg \to t\bar{t}$ is also simulated
173: with PYTHIA with the built-in subroutines for $t\bar{t}$ production.
174: Here, the decays of the top quarks and $W$ bosons are performed within PYTHIA
175: and that of the $\tau$ lepton within TAUOLA.
176:
177: The momentum of the final $b$ and light quarks from the PYTHIA event
178: record is taken as the momentum of the corresponding jet, whereas for the
179: $\tau$ jet the sum of all non-leptonic final state particles as given by
180: TAUOLA is used.
181: The energy resolution of the detector is emulated through a Gaussian
182: smearing $(\Delta(P_t)/P_t)^2 = (0.80/\sqrt{P_t})^2$
183: of the transverse momentum $P_t$
184: for all jets in the final state, including the $\tau$ jet \cite{Carena:2000yx}.
185: The $\tau$-spin information affects both the energy and
186: the angular distribution of the $\tau$ decay products.
187: As a basic cut the transverse momenta of these final jets
188: are required to be larger than $5$~GeV.
189: The missing transverse momentum \mbox{$\not\!P_t$} is constructed from
190: the transverse momenta of all visible jets (including the visible $\tau$ decay
191: products).
192:
193: The signal and background processes have been simulated for $\tan\beta = 30$
194: and $m_{H^\pm} = 80, 100$ and $160$~GeV with PYTHIA, version 6.325.
195: As shown in \cite{Alwall:2003tc}, the signal cross section
196: $tbH^\pm$ agrees with the one from the top-decay approximation $ t\bar t \to
197: tbH^\pm$ for charged Higgs boson masses up to about 160~GeV.
198: For this to be true the same factorization
199: and renormalization scales have to be used,
200: as well as the same scale for the running
201: $b$ quark mass. In this study we have used the factorization scale $(m_t +
202: m_{H^\pm})/4$ \cite{Alwall:2004xw}, the renormalization scale $m_{H^\pm}$, and
203: the running $b$ quark mass has been evaluated at $m_{H^\pm}$
204: for both the signal and the background for consistency. This results
205: in a dependence of the background calculations on $\tan\beta$ and $m_{H^\pm}$.
206: However, the cross sections have then
207: been rescaled with a common factor such that the total $t \bar t$ cross section is
208: $\sigma^{\rm prod}_{t\bar{t}} = 5220$~fb \cite{ttbarxsec}.
209: The resulting cross sections into the final state with the signature
210: $2 b + 2 j + \tau_\mathrm{jet} + \not\!P_t$ for signal and
211: background are given in Table~\ref{tab:Hpm:crosssec} before
212: ($\sigma^{\rm th}$) and after ($\sigma$) applying the basic cut $P_t^{\rm jet} > 5$~GeV.
213: For the three signal masses, the $tbH^\pm$ and $ t\bar t \to tbH^\pm$
214: cross section calculations agree numerically.
215: The cross section $\sigma^{\rm th}$ for the background is given by
216: \begin{equation}
217: \sigma^{\rm th} = \sigma^{\rm prod}_{t\bar{t}} 2 BR(t \to b W^+)^2
218: BR(W \to jj) BR(W \to \tau\nu) BR(\tau \to \nu + \mathrm{hadrons}),
219: \end{equation}
220: whereas the signal is given by
221: \begin{equation}
222: \sigma^{\rm th} = \sigma^{\rm prod}_{tbH^\pm} BR(t \to b W^+)
223: BR(W \to jj) BR(H^+ \to \tau\nu) BR(\tau \to \nu + \mathrm{hadrons}),
224: \end{equation}
225: or alternatively, in the top-decay approximation, by
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: \nonumber
228: \sigma^{\rm th} = \sigma^{\rm prod}_{t\bar{t}}
229: 2 BR(t \to b H^+) BR(t \to b W^+) BR(W \to jj) \hspace{1cm}\\
230: BR(H^+ \to \tau\nu)
231: BR(\tau \to \nu + \mathrm{hadrons}) .
232: \end{eqnarray}
233:
234:
235: \begin{table}[!htbp]
236: \caption{\label{tab:Hpm:crosssec}%
237: Tevatron cross sections of background $q\bar q, gg \to t\bar{t}$
238: and signal $q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm$
239: for $\tan\beta = 30$ and $m_{H^\pm} = 80, 100$ and $160$~GeV
240: into the final state
241: $2 b + 2 j + \tau_\mathrm{jet} + \not\!P_t$
242: before ($\sigma^{\rm th}$) and after ($\sigma$) the basic cut
243: of $P_t > 5$~GeV for all
244: jets after smearing of the momenta as decribed in the text has been applied.
245: }
246: \centering
247: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
248: & $q\bar q, gg \to t\bar{t}$ &
249: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm$} \\
250: & $m_{H^\pm} = 80$~GeV
251: & $m_{H^\pm} = 80$~GeV & $m_{H^\pm} = 100$~GeV & $m_{H^\pm} = 160$~GeV \\
252: \hline
253: $\sigma^{\rm th}$ (fb) & 354 & 538 & 413 & 38 \\
254: $\sigma$ (fb) & 312 & 508 & 392 & 34 \\
255: \end{tabular}
256: \end{table}
257:
258: The kinematic selection variables are shown in
259: Figs.~\ref{fig:tau}--\ref{fig:shat} for a simulation at the Tevatron
260: energy of 1.96~TeV and a 80 GeV charged Higgs boson.
261: For this mass the kinematic signal distributions are very similar to those
262: of the SM $ t\bar t$ background.
263: The distributions of signal and background are normalized such that the maximum
264: value in both distributions coincide, in order to make small differences
265: better visible.
266: The different spin
267: of the charged Higgs boson and the $W$ boson has only a small effect on
268: most of the event variables. A significant difference however occurs in the
269: $P_t$ distribution of the $\tau$ jet, so that this variable
270: can be further explored to distinguish between signal and background.
271:
272: The kinematic selection is based on the method of so-called
273: ``Optimal Observables''~\cite{Assamagan:2004mu} (page 69),
274: which provide the universal procedure to find the complete set of kinematic
275: variables needed to separate one physics process from another.
276: Based on this method we can distinguish three possible classes of variables for the
277: analysis.
278: They are:
279: \begin{itemize}
280: \item Singular variables. In the case of $m_{H^\pm} = 80$~GeV exactly
281: the same `singularities' in phase space are expected
282: for the $tbH^\pm$ signal and $t\bar t$ background.
283: Thus, no variable of this class can help to disentangle the former from the latter.
284: For other Higgs mass values the position of the singularities
285: will instead change and we can use this class of variables for the separation
286: of signal and background events.
287:
288: \item Threshold variables. Owing to the same reason of equal $H^\pm$ and $W$ masses,
289: no variables of this class are useful to distinguish between mass degenerate
290: signal and background, since
291: the energy thresholds are the same in the two processes. For $m_{H^\pm}\ne m_W$,
292: some scope exists.
293:
294: \item Spin variables. In the signal process the spin-0 Higgs particle
295: produces the tau-lepton while in the background the tau arises from the
296: decay of the spin-1 $W$ vector boson. We can then expect that some of the variables of this class can help us to
297: separate the two processes.
298: There are no universal answers on how to choose these variables and
299: each particular choice requires a phenomenological study to determine the optimal
300: basis where the effects of spin correlations are most significant. On one hand,
301: the scalar Higgs boson will decay isotropically and no correlations between production and
302: decay process are expected. On the other hand, for the background spin correlations
303: between the production and the decay of a $W$ should be manifest, due to the
304: vectorial nature of the gauge boson. It is precisely the
305: exploration of these correlations that should offer the possibility of distinguishing signal
306: from background.
307: \end{itemize}
308:
309: In Figs.~\ref{fig:tau}--\ref{fig:shat} we can identify distributions
310: of different variables from the first two classes. Here, the signal and background spectra
311: are almost identical for the chosen Higgs boson mass. The next step is to investigate the spin variables.
312: An an example of spin dependent variable we take the $P_t$ distribution of the
313: tau lepton (Fig.~\ref{fig:tau}, Left).
314: Here, differences between the $H^\pm$ and $W$ spectra are visible.
315: Thus, the generated event sample is suitable for further studies of
316: the spin dependent properties of the signal and background reactions considered.
317:
318: A unique feature of the $2 b + 2 j + \tau_\mathrm{jet} + \not\!P_t$
319: signature in particle detectors is the presence of the tau lepton.
320: When searching experimentally for the charged Higgs boson signal, not only the magnitude of the production
321: cross section is important, but also the efficiency of identifying the tau lepton in the hadronic environment plays a crucial role.
322: Since tau leptons have a very short life time ($\sim10^{-6}$~s), they decay within the detectors and only can be identified through their decay products. In about 35\% of the cases they decay leptonically and in about 65\% hadronically.
323: Both of these decay modes are usually addressed in the charged Higgs boson searches by employing dedicated tau lepton triggers. Their properties can be derived by studying f.i. $Z\to\tau^+\tau^-$ events~\cite{Abazov:2004vd}.
324: In particular, the following aspects are taken into account for charged Higgs boson searches\footnote{Similar performances are expected from the CDF experiment.}:
325: \begin{itemize}
326: \item Trigger efficiencies: this is the fraction of tau leptons passing the requirements of various levels
327: of triggering. At the D\O\ experiment they are typically 70-90\%.
328: \item Geometrical acceptance: as the detectors are not $4\pi$ steradian hermetic,
329: only tau leptons whose decay products are inside the sensitive regions can be detected.
330: This fraction of tau leptons is referred to as the geometrical acceptance. At D\O\ it is typically around 85\%.
331: \item Reconstruction efficiency: detectors have various thresholds only above which they are able to measure physical
332: quantities, or only above which the signal to noise ratio is acceptable. About 80\% of the time
333: the tau decays in such a
334: way that it leaves a substantial energy in the calorimeters. With a carefully chosen energy cut on the tau energy
335: and clustering to minimize background contamination of the signal, the reconstruction efficiency
336: can be increased. At D\O\ this is typically between 60-85\%.
337: \item Tracking efficiency: each tau decay mode produces at least one charged particle. Precise tracking devices are
338: often one of the most limiting factors in reconstructing events. Therefore, it is important to determine the
339: fraction of the reconstructed tau clusters that match a track in the tracking device. This fraction is referred
340: to as the tracking efficiency. At D\O\ it is typically about 85\%.
341: \item Selection efficiencies: it is common to isolate with preselection cuts a sample of events with a given purity of
342: real tau leptons from the processes of interest before starting fine tuning the process of how to maximize the
343: signal extraction from background. The fraction of events preselected into such a sample is called preselection efficiency.
344: This can vary significantly and a typical value for D\O\ is about 65\% for the purity of 95\%.
345: \end{itemize}
346:
347: \begin{figure}[!htb]
348: \centerline{
349: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_pttau}}
350: \
351: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_etatau}}
352: }
353: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/pttau.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
354: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/etatau.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
355: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
356: \caption{
357: Left: $P_t$ of the tau-jet. % from the charged Higgs decay.
358: Right: $\eta$ distribution of the tau-jet.
359: }
360: \label{fig:tau}
361: \end{figure}
362:
363: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
364: \centerline{
365: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_etab1}}
366: \
367: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_etab2}}
368: }
369: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/etab1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
370: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/etab2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
371: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
372: \caption{
373: Left: $\eta$ distribution of leading (most energetic) $b$ quark jet.
374: Right: $\eta$ distribution of second (least energetic) $b$ quark jet.
375: }
376: \label{fig:eta-b}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
380: \centerline{
381: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_etaj1}}
382: \
383: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_etaj2}}
384: }
385: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/etaj1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
386: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/etaj2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
387: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
388: \caption{
389: Left: $\eta$ distribution of leading light quark jet.
390: Right: $\eta$ distribution of second light quark jet.
391: }
392: \label{fig:eta-jet}
393: \end{figure}
394:
395: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
396: \centerline{
397: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_dtaub1}}
398: \
399: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_dtaub2}}
400: }
401: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/dtaub1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
402: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/dtaub2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
403: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
404: \caption{
405: Left: spatial distance
406: $d(\tau,b_1) = \sqrt{(\phi(\tau) - \phi(b_1))^2 +
407: (\eta(\tau) - \eta(b_1))^2}$,
408: where $\phi$ (in rad) is the azimuthal angle,
409: between tau and leading $b$ quark jet.
410: Right: spatial distance $d(\tau,b_2)$ between tau and second $b$ quark jet.
411: }
412: \label{fig:distance-tau-b}
413: \end{figure}
414:
415: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
416: \centerline{
417: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_dtauj1}}
418: \
419: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_dtauj2}}
420: }
421: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/dtauj1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
422: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/dtauj2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
423: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
424: \caption{
425: Left: spatial distance $d(\tau,j_1)$
426: between tau and leading light quark quark jet.
427: Right: spatial distance $d(\tau,j_2)$ between tau and second light quark jet.
428: }
429: \label{fig:distance-tau-jet}
430: \end{figure}
431:
432: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
433: \centerline{
434: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_htall}}
435: \
436: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_htjet}}
437: }
438: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/htall.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
439: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/htjet.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
440: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
441: \caption{
442: Left: $H$ distribution per event, where $H= H({\rm jets})+ P_t(\tau)$.
443: Right: $H({\rm jets}$), where $H({\rm jets}) = \sum P^{\rm jet}_t$.
444: }
445: \label{fig:h-var}
446: \end{figure}
447:
448: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
449: \centerline{
450: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_mbb}}
451: \
452: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_mjj}}
453: }
454: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/mbb.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
455: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/mjj.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
456: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
457: \caption{
458: Left: invariant mass of $b$ quark jets.
459: Right: invariant mass of light quark jets.
460: }
461: \label{fig:inv-bb}
462: \end{figure}
463:
464: %\clearpage
465:
466: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
467: \centerline{
468: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_mjjb1}}
469: \
470: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_mjjb2}}
471: }
472: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/mjjb1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
473: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/mjjb2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
474: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
475: \caption{
476: Left: invariant mass of two light quark jets and the leading $b$ quark jet.
477: Right: invariant mass of two light quark jets and the second $b$ quark jet.
478: }
479: \label{fig:inv-jjb}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
483: \centerline{
484: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_shat}}
485: \
486: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_ptmiss}}
487: }
488: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/shat.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
489: %\epsfig{file=tevatron/ptmiss.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
490: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
491: \caption{
492: Left: $S_\mathrm{hat} = \sqrt{(p_\Sigma^4)^2 - (\vec{p}_\Sigma)^2}$
493: distribution,
494: where $p_\Sigma = p_{b_1} + p_{b_2} + p_{j_1} + p_{j_2} + p_\tau$.
495: Right: missing $p_t$ of the event.
496: }
497: \label{fig:shat}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500: \section{OUTLOOK AT THE LHC}
501: %\section{Outlook at the LHC}
502:
503: As at the Tevatron, the search strategies at the LHC depend on the charged Higgs
504: boson mass.
505: If $m_{H^\pm} < m_{t} - m_{b}$ (latter referred to as a light Higgs boson),
506: the charged Higgs boson can be produced in top \mbox{(anti-)}\-quark decay. The main source of
507: top (anti-)quark production at the LHC is $t \bar{t}$ pair production ($\sigma_{t\bar{t}}=850$ pb at
508: NLO)~\cite{Beneke:2000hk}.
509: For the whole ($\tan\beta, m_A$) parameter space there is a competition between the $ bW^\pm$
510: and $ bH^\pm$ channels in top decay keeping the sum
511: $\mathrm{BR}(t \to b W^+) + \mathrm{BR}(t \to b H^+)$
512: at almost unity.
513: The top quark decay to $ bW^\pm$ is however the dominant mode for most of the parameter space.
514: Thus, the best way to search for a (light) charged Higgs boson is by requiring that the top
515: quark produced in the $tbH^\pm$ process decays to a $W$.
516: While in the case of $H^\pm$ decays $\tau$'s will be tagged via their hadronic decay producing low-multiplicity narrow jets
517: in the detector, there are two different $W$ decays that can be explored. The leptonic signature
518: $ b \bar{b} H^\pm W^\mp \to b \bar{b} \tau \nu l \nu $ provides a clean selection
519: of the signal via the identification of the lepton $l=e,\mu$ but
520: the charged Higgs transverse mass cannot be reconstructed because
521: of the presence of two neutrinos with different origin. In this channel charged Higgs
522: discovery will be determined
523: by the observation of an excess of such events over SM expectations through a simple counting experiment. In the case of hadronic decays
524: $ b \bar{b}H^\pm W^\mp \to b \bar{b}\tau \nu jj$ the transverse mass can instead be
525: reconstructed since all neutrinos are arising from the charged Higgs boson decay.
526: This allows for an efficient separation of the signal and the main
527: $t\bar{t} \to b \bar{b}W^\pm W^\mp \to b \bar{b}\tau \nu jj$ background
528: (assuming $m_{H^\pm}\OOrd m_W$).
529: The absence of a lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) provides a less
530: clean environment but the use of the transverse mass makes it possible to reach the same mass discovery region as
531: in the previous case and also to extract the charged Higgs boson mass. Both these channels show that after an
532: integrated luminosity of 30 fb$^{-1}$ the discovery could be possible up to a mass of 150 GeV
533: for all tan$\beta$ values in both ATLAS and CMS~\cite{biscarat,abdullin}.
534:
535: If the charged Higgs is heavier than the top quark, the dominant channels are
536: $H^\pm \to \tau \nu$ and $H^\pm \to tb$. They have both been studied by
537: ATLAS and CMS~\cite{assamagan,kinnunen,salmi,lowette}.
538: The charged Higgs bosons are produced in the $pp \to tbH^\pm$ channel. For the
539: $H^\pm \to tb$ decay, a charged Higgs boson can be discovered up to
540: high masses ($m_{H^\pm} \sim 400$~GeV) in the case of very large $\tan\beta$ values and this reach
541: cannot be much improved because of the large multi-jet environment. For the
542: $H^\pm \to \tau \nu$ decay mode this reach is larger due to a cleaner signal despite a
543: lower branching ratio. In this case the 5$\sigma$ reach ranges from $\tan\beta=20$ for
544: $m_{H^\pm}=200$ GeV to $\tan\beta=30$ for $m_{H^\pm}=400$ GeV.
545:
546: For the LHC,
547: signal and background events have been simulated in the same way as for the
548: Tevatron as explained in Sec.~2, using PYTHIA, version 6.325, with
549: the factorization scale $(m_t + m_{H^\pm})/4$,
550: the renormalization scale $m_{H^\pm}$, and
551: the running $b$-quark mass evaluated at $m_{H^\pm}$.
552: Table~\ref{tab:Hpm:crosssecLHC} lists the resulting theoretical cross sections,
553: and the cross sections with the basic cut $P_t^{\rm jet}>5$~GeV applied.
554: The LHC rates allow for the discovery to be less challenging than at
555: the Tevatron in the region $m_{H^\pm} \sim m_{W^\pm}$,
556: yet the separation of signal events from
557: background remains crucial for the measurement of the charged Higgs mass.
558:
559: \begin{table}[htbp]
560: \vspace*{-0.3cm}
561: \caption{\label{tab:Hpm:crosssecLHC}%
562: LHC cross sections of background $q\bar q, gg \to t\bar{t}$
563: and signal $q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm$
564: for $\tan\beta = 30$ and $m_{H^\pm} = 80, 100$ and $160$~GeV
565: into the final state
566: $2 b + 2 j + \tau_\mathrm{jet} + \not\!P_t$
567: before ($\sigma^{\rm th}$) and after ($\sigma$) the basic cut
568: of $P_t > 5$~GeV for all
569: jets after smearing of the momenta as decribed in the text has been applied.
570: }
571: \centering
572: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
573: & $q\bar q, gg \to t\bar{t}$ &
574: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$q\bar q, gg \to tbH^\pm$} \\
575: & $m_{H^\pm} = 80$~GeV
576: & $m_{H^\pm} = 80$~GeV & $m_{H^\pm} = 100$~GeV & $m_{H^\pm} = 160$~GeV \\
577: \hline
578: $\sigma^{\rm th}$ (pb) & 44.9 & 73.1 & 51.1 & 4.4 \\
579: $\sigma$ (pb) & 40.0 & 68.8 & 47.8 & 4.0 \\
580: \end{tabular}
581: \end{table}
582:
583: The LHC kinematic distributions are shown in detail in Figs.~\ref{fig:lhc_tau}--\ref{fig:lhc_shat}.
584: The choice of variables is identical to the one for the Tevatron and allows for a one-to-one comparison,
585: the differences being due to a change in CM energy (and to a somewhat lesser extent, leading partonic mode).
586: The main differences with respect to Figs.~\ref{fig:tau}--\ref{fig:shat} are that all the $\eta$ distributions extend to larger values
587: and that the various invariant masses have longer high energy tails. As for similarities, it should be noted
588: that the effect of the spin differences between $W$ and $H^\pm$ events can only be explored
589: for the $P_t$ spectrum of the $\tau$ jet. These observations lead to the conclusion
590: that the same method of ``Optimal Observables" can be used to separate signal from background at
591: both the Tevatron and the LHC.
592:
593: \begin{figure}[!htb]
594: \vspace*{1cm}
595: \centerline{
596: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_pttau}}
597: \
598: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_etatau}}
599: }
600: %\epsfig{file=lhc/pttau.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
601: %\epsfig{file=lhc/etatau.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
602: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
603: \caption{
604: Left: $P_t$ of the tau-jet. % from the charged Higgs decay.
605: Right: $\eta$ distribution of the tau-jet.
606: }
607: \label{fig:lhc_tau}
608: \end{figure}
609:
610: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
611: \centerline{
612: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_etab1}}
613: \
614: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_etab2}}
615: }
616: %\epsfig{file=lhc/etab1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
617: %\epsfig{file=lhc/etab2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
618: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
619: \caption{
620: Left: $\eta$ distribution of leading $b$ quark jet.
621: Right: $\eta$ distribution of second $b$ quark jet.
622: }
623: \label{fig:lhc_eta-b}
624: \end{figure}
625:
626: %\clearpage
627:
628: \begin{figure}[!htb]
629: \centerline{
630: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_etaj1}}
631: \
632: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_etaj2}}
633: }
634: %\epsfig{file=lhc/etaj1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
635: %\epsfig{file=lhc/etaj2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
636: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
637: \caption{
638: Left: $\eta$ distribution of leading light quark jet.
639: Right: $\eta$ distribution of second light quark jet.
640: }
641: \label{fig:lhc_eta-jet}
642: \end{figure}
643:
644: \begin{figure}[!ht]
645: \centerline{
646: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_dtaub1}}
647: \
648: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_dtaub2}}
649: }
650: %\epsfig{file=lhc/dtaub1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
651: %\epsfig{file=lhc/dtaub2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
652: \vspace*{-0.7cm}
653: \caption{
654: Left: spatial distance
655: $d(\tau,b_1) = \sqrt{(\phi(\tau) - \phi(b_1))^2 +
656: (\eta(\tau) - \eta(b_1))^2}$,
657: where $\phi$ (in rad) is the azimuthal angle,
658: between tau and leading $b$ quark jet.
659: Right: spatial distance $d(\tau,b_2)$ between tau and second $b$ quark jet.
660: }
661: \label{fig:lhc_distance-tau-b}
662: \end{figure}
663:
664: \begin{figure}[!ht]
665: \centerline{
666: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_dtauj1}}
667: \
668: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_dtauj2}}
669: }
670: %\epsfig{file=lhc/dtauj1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
671: %\epsfig{file=lhc/dtauj2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
672: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
673: \caption{
674: Left: spatial distance $d(\tau,j_1)$
675: between tau and leading light quark quark jet.
676: Right: spatial distance $d(\tau,j_2)$ between tau and second light quark jet.
677: }
678: \label{fig:lhc_distance-tau-jet}
679: \end{figure}
680: \begin{figure}[!ht]
681: \centerline{
682: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_htall}}
683: \
684: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_htjet}}
685: }
686: %\epsfig{file=lhc/htall.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
687: %\epsfig{file=lhc/htjet.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
688: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
689: \caption{
690: Left: $H$ distribution per event, where $H= H({\rm jets})+ P_t(\tau)$.
691: Right: $H({\rm jets}$), where $H({\rm jets}) = \sum P^{\rm jet}_t$.
692: }
693: \label{fig:lhc_h-var}
694: \end{figure}
695:
696: %\clearpage
697:
698: \begin{figure}[!ht]
699: \centerline{
700: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_mbb}}
701: \
702: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_mjj}}
703: }
704: %\epsfig{file=lhc/mbb.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
705: %\epsfig{file=lhc/mjj.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
706: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
707: \caption{
708: Left: invariant mass of $b$ quark jets.
709: Right: invariant mass of light quark jets.
710: }
711: \label{fig:lhc_inv-bb}
712: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
713: \end{figure}
714:
715: \begin{figure}[!ht]
716: \centerline{
717: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_mjjb1}}
718: \
719: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_mjjb2}}
720: }
721: %\epsfig{file=lhc/mjjb1.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
722: %\epsfig{file=lhc/mjjb2.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
723: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
724: \caption{
725: Left: invariant mass of two light quark jets and the leading $b$ quark jet.
726: Right: invariant mass of two light quark jets and the second $b$ quark jet.
727: }
728: \label{fig:lhc_inv-jjb}
729: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
730: \end{figure}
731:
732: \begin{figure}[!ht]
733: \centerline{
734: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_shat}}
735: \
736: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{tbh_LHC_ptmiss}}
737: }
738: %\epsfig{file=lhc/shat.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm} \hfill
739: %\epsfig{file=lhc/ptmiss.eps, width=0.45\textwidth,height=5cm}
740: \vspace*{-0.6cm}
741: \caption{
742: Left: $S_\mathrm{hat} = \sqrt{(p_\Sigma^4)^2 - (\vec{p}_\Sigma)^2}$
743: distribution,
744: where $p_\Sigma = p_{b_1} + p_{b_2} + p_{j_1} + p_{j_2} + p_\tau$.
745: Right: missing $p_t$ of the event.
746: }
747: \label{fig:lhc_shat}
748: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
749: \end{figure}
750:
751: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
752: %\section{Conclusions}
753:
754: The discovery of charged Higgs bosons can shed light on the possible existence of
755: a Higgs mechanism beyond the SM. We have studied charged Higgs boson topologies
756: produced at the current Tevatron and the future LHC energies.
757: While sizable differences between signal and background
758: are expected whenever $m_{H^\pm}\ne m_W$,
759: near the current mass limit of about $m_{H^\pm}\approx 80$ GeV the
760: kinematic spectra are very similar between SM $t\bar t$ decays and
761: those involving charged Higgs bosons. For this mass spin information will however
762: help to distinguish between signal and background.
763: Characteristic differences of the kinematic distributions between signal and background
764: at both the Tevatron and LHC were discussed and the method of ``Optimal Observables''
765: has been emphasized as a generic analysis tool explorable at both accelerators. Future studies
766: will address the spin correlation issue in more detail. Independent of the kinematic
767: behavior, the identification of a hadronic
768: tau-lepton will be an experimental challenge in an environment with typically four jets being present.
769:
770: %\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
771: \section*{Acknowledgements}
772:
773: We would like to thank the Les Houches conference organizers
774: for their kind invitation and Johan Alwall for fruitful discussions.
775:
776: