1: \documentstyle[axodraw,graphicx]{article}
2:
3: \textwidth 465pt
4: \textheight 615pt
5: \oddsidemargin 5pt
6: \evensidemargin 5pt
7: \topmargin 0pt % -10pt
8: \baselineskip 30pt
9: \parindent 20pt
10: \def \eslt{\not\!\!{E_T}}
11: %\pagestyle{empty}
12:
13: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
14: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
15: %\newcommand{\Rsl}{{\not \!{R}}}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \vspace*{-1in}
19: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
20: \begin{flushright}
21: UH-511-1096-06\\
22: \end{flushright}
23: \vskip 5pt
24: \begin{center}
25: {\Large{\bf WW Fusion in Higgsless Models}}
26: \vskip 25pt
27: {\sf Rahul Malhotra}
28: \vskip 10pt
29: {\small High Energy Physics Group, University of Hawaii at Manoa} \\
30:
31: \vskip 20pt
32:
33: {\bf Abstract}
34: \end{center}
35:
36: \begin{quotation}
37: {\small Recently several Higgsless models of electroweak symmetry breaking have been
38: proposed in which unitarity of $W,Z$ scattering amplitudes is
39: partially restored through a tower of massive vector gauge bosons.
40: These massive states are expected to couple mainly to $W$ and $Z$ and should
41: appear as resonances in $WW$ and $WZ$ fusion at the CERN Large
42: Hadron Collider (LHC). We study the LHC discovery reach for the
43: first neutral state, $V_1^0$, through the reaction
44: $W^+W^- \rightarrow V_1^0 \rightarrow W^+W^- \rightarrow e^\pm \mu^\mp
45: + \eslt$. The background from $t\bar{t}$, $\tau^+\tau^-$ and $W$ pair
46: production is calculated and dual forward jet tagging as well as a
47: mini-jet veto in the central detector region are applied. The maximal
48: $P_T(e,\mu)$
49: distribution is found to have a fat tail for large $P_T$ that rises above
50: the backgrounds and allows $5\sigma$ discovery for $V_1^0$ masses above
51: $1$ TeV and total integrated luminosity of $300$ fb$^{-1}$.}
52: \end{quotation}
53:
54: \vskip 20pt
55:
56: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
57: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
58: %\vfill
59: %\clearpage
60: %\setcounter{page}{1}
61: %\pagestyle{plain}
62:
63: %% INTRODUCTION
64: \section{Introduction}
65: Though the Standard Model (SM) has been very successful in
66: explaining a range of observations at hadron colliders and LEP, the
67: exact mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) remains a
68: mystery. However, in most models of new physics, a Higgs scalar is
69: assumed to be responsible for EWSB as it also preserves the
70: unitarity of $WW$ and $WZ$ scattering amplitudes
71: \cite{higgsunitarity1,higgsunitarity2}.
72:
73: Recently some alternative methods for EWSB have been proposed in
74: models containing more than 4 dimensions \cite{higgsless} and in the
75: so-called deconstructed theories \cite{deconstructed}. In the
76: extra-dimensional models, the boundary conditions on fields in the
77: extra dimensions result
78: in constraints on the masses and ordering of Kaluza Klein (KK) modes
79: such that the lowest set of modes looks like the Standard Model. At
80: the same time, violation of unitarity in $WW$ and $WZ$ scattering is
81: delayed to $\Lambda \sim 5-10$ TeV due to exchange of a KK tower of
82: massive vector bosons. We denote these bosons by $V_N^0$ and
83: $V_N^\pm$; where $N = 0,1,2,...$ represents the KK level of the
84: state. The $N=0$ modes are the familiar $W^\pm$ and $Z$ bosons.
85:
86: Such Higgsless models initially faced serious challenges from
87: Precision Electroweak Constraints (PEC) as they predicted a positive
88: $S$ parameter \cite{spositive}. These issues were resolved recently
89: in warped space Higgsless models by fermion delocalization
90: \cite{szero} which also results in vanishing overlap between
91: wavefunctions of the higher ($N>0$) KK modes and those of the SM
92: fermions. Hence the primary couplings of the KK vector boson states
93: would be between themselves and the $W$, $Z$ particles. Other
94: remaining issues concern the top quark mass, which are currently
95: under active investigation \cite{topissues} and have been resolved
96: in some models.
97:
98: As Higgsless theories have now matured into viable models of new
99: physics at the TeV scale, it is important to investigate their
100: phenomenological signatures at the LHC. In this paper we concern
101: ourselves with $WW$ scattering where the $W$s are radiated off
102: initial state quarks. Fig. 1(a-c) shows the $WW \to WW$ scattering
103: diagrams involving intermediate $V_N^0$ particles. Normally, without
104: a Higgs boson or the KK modes, the $WW \to WW$ scattering amplitude
105: has terms that grow as $E^2$ or $E^4$. If there is a Higgs boson,
106: then these terms are identically zero. However, in Higgsless
107: extra-dimensional models, the terms are cancelled by the KK modes
108: provided certain identities between their masses and couplings to $W,Z$ bosons
109: are
110: satisfied. These are:
111: \begin{equation}
112: g_{WWWW} = g_{WWZ}^2 + g_{WW\gamma}^2 + \sum_{N=1}^{\infty}
113: (g_{WWV}^N)^2
114: \end{equation}
115: and
116: \begin{equation}
117: 4g_{WWWW}M_W^2 = 3g_{WWZ}^2 M_Z^2 +
118: 3\sum_{N=1}^{\infty} (g_{WWV}^N M_N^0)^2
119: \end{equation}
120: where $g_{WWV}^N$ is the trilinear $WWV_N^0$ coupling and $M_N^0$ is
121: the mass of $V_N^0$. As shown in \cite{matchev}, considerations of
122: series convergence as well as a survey of Higgsless models show that
123: the sum rules are nearly saturated by the first $N=1$ mode. In that
124: case Eqns. (1,2) reduce to
125: \begin{equation}
126: g_{WWV}^1 \approx g_{WWZ} \frac{M_Z}{\sqrt{3}M_1^0}
127: \end{equation}
128: which gives us the approximate coupling of the first mode to $W$
129: bosons. From Fig. 1(c) it is clear that the $V_N^0$ should show up
130: as resonances in pair production of $W$s. Also, the final state
131: decay rate $V_N^0 \to WW$ should be close to $100\%$, assuming
132: the $V_N^0$ decouple from SM fermions.
133:
134: \begin{figure}[t]
135: \begin{center}
136: \begin{picture}(500,100)(0,0)
137:
138: \Photon(10,10)(70,90){4}{8}
139: \Photon(10,90)(70,10){4}{8}
140: \Text(0,0)[lb]{$W$}
141: \Text(0,100)[lt]{$W$}
142: \Text(80,100)[rt]{$W$}
143: \Text(80,0)[rb]{$W$}
144: \Text(35,110)[lt]{$(a)$}
145:
146: \Photon(103,10)(123,50){4}{4}
147: \Photon(103,90)(123,50){4}{4}
148: \Photon(123,50)(153,50){4}{4}
149: \Photon(153,50)(173,90){4}{4}
150: \Photon(153,50)(173,10){4}{4}
151: \Text(93,0)[lb]{$W$}
152: \Text(93,100)[lt]{$W$}
153: \Text(183,100)[rt]{$W$}
154: \Text(183,0)[rb]{$W$}
155: \Text(133,70)[lt]{$V_N^0$}
156: \Text(133,110)[lt]{$(b)$}
157:
158: \Photon(203,10)(233,35){4}{4}
159: \Photon(233,35)(233,65){4}{4}
160: \Photon(203,90)(233,65){4}{4}
161: \Photon(263,90)(233,65){4}{4}
162: \Photon(263,10)(233,35){4}{4}
163: \Text(197,0)[lb]{$W$}
164: \Text(197,100)[lt]{$W$}
165: \Text(273,100)[rt]{$W$}
166: \Text(273,0)[rb]{$W$}
167: \Text(243,55)[lt]{$V_N^0$}
168: \Text(228,110)[lt]{$(c)$}
169:
170: \Photon(293,10)(313,50){4}{4}
171: \Photon(293,90)(313,50){4}{4}
172: \DashLine(313,50)(343,50){4}
173: \Photon(343,50)(363,90){4}{4}
174: \Photon(343,50)(363,10){4}{4}
175: \Text(283,0)[lb]{$W$}
176: \Text(283,100)[lt]{$W$}
177: \Text(373,100)[rt]{$W$}
178: \Text(373,0)[rb]{$W$}
179: \Text(328,65)[lt]{$h$}
180: \Text(323,110)[lt]{$(d)$}
181:
182: \Photon(398,10)(428,35){4}{4}
183: \DashLine(428,35)(428,65){4}
184: \Photon(398,90)(428,65){4}{4}
185: \Photon(458,90)(428,65){4}{4}
186: \Photon(458,10)(428,35){4}{4}
187: \Text(388,0)[lb]{$W$}
188: \Text(388,100)[lt]{$W$}
189: \Text(468,100)[rt]{$W$}
190: \Text(468,0)[rb]{$W$}
191: \Text(438,55)[lt]{$h$}
192: \Text(423,110)[lt]{$(e)$}
193:
194: \end{picture}
195: \end{center}
196: \caption{Feynman diagrams for $WW \to WW$ scattering. In Higgsless
197: models we only have diagrams (a-c). In the Standard Model however,
198: all diagrams contribute, with the $V_N^0$ replaced by the $Z$ boson
199: only.}
200: \end{figure}
201:
202: A similar resonance in $WZ \to WZ$ scattering was exploited in
203: \cite{matchev} to show that the lightest $V_1^\pm$ particles can be
204: discovered at the LHC with masses up to $1$ TeV using about $60$
205: fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. The purely leptonic decay of the
206: final state $WZ$ allows for a clean observation of the first
207: $V_1^\pm$ state, including mass reconstruction. The rest of the KK
208: modes are not expected to be observable due to their heavier masses
209: and smaller couplings to $WZ$.
210:
211: In the case of $V_1^0$ however, the $WW + 2$ forward jets final
212: state is much more difficult to separate from the background,
213: especially given the approximately $800$ pb of $t\bar{t}$ production
214: cross-section expected at the LHC \cite{topcross}. Mass reconstruction is only
215: possible in the $WW \to 2j + l\nu$ or $WW \to 4j$ channels, which
216: results in a minimum of $4$ jets in the final state once the forward
217: jets are counted. We concentrate on the much cleaner leptonic
218: channel $WW \to e\mu + \eslt$ where mass reconstruction is not
219: possible but appropriate cuts can be made to reveal an excess.
220:
221: To enhance the signal significance we employ the technique of
222: minijet veto which has been shown to be promising for the case of
223: intermediate and heavy Higgs production via $W$ fusion i.e. the
224: Higgs discovery reaction $WW \to H \to WW \to e\mu + \eslt$ \cite{higgssearch}.
225:
226: %% PHYSICS BACKGROUND
227: \section{Physics Background}
228:
229: The dominant physics backgrounds to the final state of $2$ "forward
230: jets" + $e^\pm \mu^\mp + \eslt$ come from $pp \to t\bar{t} + X$
231: production, followed by $pp \to WW + 2j$. We define ``forward jets''
232: as having transverse momentum $P_T > 20$ GeV and pseudorapidity $2 <
233: |\eta| < 4$, with one jet having positive and the other negative
234: $\eta$.
235:
236: \subsection{$t\bar{t}$ background}
237:
238: The main physics background to the $e^\pm \mu^\mp + \eslt$ signal
239: arises from $t\bar{t}$+jets production, due to its nearly 800 pb of
240: cross section at the LHC. Top pair production at the LHC is strongly
241: dominated by the gluon fusion channel, $gg \to t\bar{t}$, while the
242: $q\bar{q} \to t\bar{t}$ channel is less than 10\% of the total.
243: Emission of additional quarks or gluons leads to $t\bar{t}+j$ and
244: $t\bar{t}+2j$ events.
245:
246: If no additional partons are emitted, the $b$
247: quarks from the decaying tops are required to be in the forward jet
248: configuration. Then, the $t\bar{t}+j$ cross-section, where the $b$
249: quarks are required to be forward, allows us to estimate the minijet
250: activity in the central region. To estimate minijet activity in
251: $t\bar{t}+j$, for the configuration where the final-state light
252: quark or gluon, and one of the $b$ quarks are identified as forward
253: tagging jets, we calculate $t\bar{t}+2j$. Lastly, we also calculate
254: $pp \to t\bar{t} + 2j$, where the final state light quarks or gluons
255: are the two tagging jets and the $b$ quarks from top decay must pass
256: the minijet cuts (next section). Overall the methodology is very
257: similar to that used in \cite{higgssearch}. The matrix elements for
258: all three processes were obtained using CompHEP. The narrow-width
259: approximation is used for top and $W$ decays. A $K$ factor of 2 is
260: chosen which normalizes total $t\bar{t}$ production to 800 pb for
261: our renormalization and factorization scale $\mu_R=\mu_F=2M_{top}$.
262:
263: \subsection{$WW+2j$ background}
264:
265: This background consists of (a) radiation of $W^+,W^-$ during quark
266: anti-quark scattering and (b) QCD corrections to $W^+W^-$
267: production. Normally, (b) is higher than (a), but (a) includes $WW$
268: fusion diagrams, which give final states very similar to the signal.
269: Therefore, in the final analysis, (a) turns out to be larger than
270: (b). We also calculate the $WW+3j$ cross section to estimate minijet
271: activity. A similar factorization scale is chosen as for the signal
272: process $V^\pm+2j$, which is the invariant mass of the final state
273: $W$s i.e. $\mu_R=\mu_F=M_{WW}$. Variation of scale by a factor of 2
274: results in uncertainties as high as 30\%, which means that in the
275: absence of NLO calculations, experimental calibration might be
276: necessary. CompHEP is used here also to generate matrix elements.
277:
278: \subsection{$\tau^+ \tau^- + 2j$ background}
279:
280: The $e\mu+2j$ final state can be obtained from $\tau\tau+2j$
281: production due to the leptonic decay of $\tau$ leptons. We use the
282: collinear approximation for $\tau$ decay \cite{collinear}. However,
283: the $e,\mu$ from $\tau$ decay are comparatively soft and we see later that
284: in most cases this
285: background turns out to be insignificant ($< 1$\%) in comparison to
286: the two described above.
287:
288: \section{Analysis}
289:
290: We define "forward jets" as final state partons satisfying the
291: following selection criterion
292: \begin{equation}
293: P_T > 20 GeV; 2 < |\eta| < 4
294: \end{equation}
295: Furthermore, the two forward jets need to be on opposite ends of the
296: beam-line. The leptons are required to satisfy
297: \begin{equation}
298: P_T > 20 GeV; |\eta| < 2.5
299: \end{equation}
300: as well as isolation from the jets
301: \begin{equation}
302: \Delta R_{j,l} > 0.7
303: \end{equation}
304: to suppress the background from semi-leptonic decays of QCD $b$
305: quark production. With these cuts, the two types of $WW+2j$
306: backgrounds are already comparable in magnitude, which is due to the
307: fact that Standard Model $WW$ fusion processes (not including the
308: Higgs boson) pass the forward jet cut (4) naturally. This technique
309: of isolating $WW$ fusion processes is well established in the
310: literature \cite{forwardtagging1,forwardtagging2,forwardtagging3}.
311:
312: The $W$ pairs from decay of the heavy $V_1^0$ are close to being
313: back-to-back as the $V_1^0$ are slow-moving for higher masses. Also,
314: the $W$'s are boosted enough that the $e\mu$ pair from their decay
315: has a large separation angle i.e. $\cos\theta_{e\mu}$ is
316: predominantly negative. For the $t\bar{t}$ and the $WW$ backgrounds
317: however, the $\cos\theta_{e\mu}$ distribution is roughly uniform.
318: Therefore, we employ the following cut
319: \begin{equation}
320: \cos\theta_{e\mu} < 0.1
321: \end{equation}
322: which keeps $\sim 85$\% of the signal, but removes more than 50\% of
323: the background.
324:
325: We use real $\tau$ reconstruction to reduce the $\tau\tau+2j$
326: background. In the collinear approximation, if $x_1,x_2$ are the
327: $\tau$ momentum fractions carried by $e,\mu$ respectively, then we
328: have the equations
329: \begin{equation}
330: (1-\frac{1}{x_1}){\bf P_T^1} + (1-\frac{1}{x_2}){\bf P_T^2} = {\bf
331: \eslt}
332: \end{equation}
333:
334: \begin{figure*}[t!]
335: \centering
336: \begin{tabular}{|c||ccc|ccccccc||crc|}
337: \hline
338: \textbf{\em Cuts} & & $V_1^0+2j$ & & & $t\bar{t}+jets$ & & $\tau\tau+2j$ & & $WW+2j$ & & & $S/\sqrt{B}$ & \\
339: \hline \hline
340: forward jets, leptons (4,5,6) & & 0.742 & & & 1150 & & 17.1 & & 8.12 & & &0.375 &\\
341: + $b$ veto & & -- & & & 74.8 & & -- & & -- & & & 1.29 &\\
342: + $M_{JJ}$, $\cos\theta_{e\mu}$ (7,11) & & 0.551 & & & 19.5 & & 2.01 & & 2.98 & & & 1.93 &\\
343: + real $\tau$ rejection (9,10) & & 0.541 & & & 17.8 & & 0.290 & & 2.73 & & & 2.05 &\\
344: + minijet veto & & 0.487 & & & 5.69 & & 0.0884 & & 1.37 & & & 3.15 &\\
345: + $P_T^{max}(e,\mu) > 230$ GeV & & 0.138 & & & 0.0271 & & $\sim 10^{-4}$ & & 0.0583 & & & 8.12 &\\
346: \hline
347: \end{tabular}
348: \caption{Signal and background cross-sections and significance for
349: $M_V = 700$ GeV for the
350: $pp$ collider at the LHC with center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV and a
351: total integrated luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$. The
352: effect of various cuts on the cross-sections is shown. All cross-sections
353: are in fb. Without the mini-jet veto, $S/\sqrt{B}$ is still $\sim 5.9$ for a $V_1^0$ of the same mass.}
354: \end{figure*}
355: where $P_T^{1,2}$ are the original transverse momenta vectors of the
356: $\tau$ leptons that give rise to $e,\mu$ respectively. These two
357: equations for $x,y$ coordinates can be solved simultaneously to
358: yield $x_{1,2}$. If the $e,\mu$ really did come from a pair of
359: $\tau$s, then it must be true that
360: \begin{equation}
361: 0 < x_{1,2} < 1
362: \end{equation}
363: Furthermore, we can use the $x_{1,2}$ to reconstruct the invariant
364: mass of the $\tau$s, $M_{\tau\tau}$, and then veto events that fall
365: near the $Z$ pole as that is where most of the $\tau\tau$ pairs
366: originate. Finally, events that satisfy condition (9) and
367: \begin{equation}
368: M_Z - 30 GeV < M_{\tau\tau} < M_Z + 30 GeV
369: \end{equation}
370: are vetoed. This cuts down the $\tau\tau$ background by a factor of
371: 7 while leaving the signal and other backgrounds almost untouched.
372:
373: The most problematic background is the $W^+W^-$ pairs from
374: $t\bar{t}+X$ production. The first step in controlling this is a
375: veto on $b$ or $\bar{b}$ jets with $P_T > 20$ GeV in the region
376: between the two forward jets. It is to be noted that $b$ tagging is
377: not required here, just rejection of events with a central jet. This
378: by itself cuts down the $t\bar{t}$ background by a factor of 15. It
379: is still the largest background by far, but now of the same order of
380: magnitude as the other backgrounds.
381:
382: Besides this, a cut on the invariant mass, $M_{JJ}$, of the two
383: forward jets
384: \begin{equation}
385: M_{JJ} > 650 GeV
386: \end{equation}
387: is useful in reducing the $t\bar{t}$ background by about 60\% with little
388: effect on the signal.
389: This is because QCD processes at the LHC typically occur at lower
390: invariant masses than the signal. Similarly QCD corrections to $WW$
391: production are also reduced by about the same factor.
392:
393: The minijet veto on jets with $P_T > 20$ GeV in the region between
394: the forward jets is applied, to match the $b$ veto condition above.
395: We follow the procedure given in \cite{higgssearch} which has been
396: shown to be useful for Higgs discovery in the $WW$ fusion channel
397: extensively in the literature \cite{higgssearch2,higgssearch3}. For
398: our cuts, this procedure shows a survival probability of 90\% for
399: signal events, but only 32\% for the $t\bar{t}$ background and 53\%
400: for the $WW+2j$ background.
401:
402: In the $V_1^0 \to WW \to e\mu+\eslt$ decay channel, explicit
403: reconstruction of the invariant mass of the two $W$'s is not
404: possible as there are two neutrinos. Nor are the $W$'s boosted
405: enough to permit a collinear approximation for their decay products.
406: However, the maximal $P_T$ between the $e,\mu$ does have a peak at
407: an energy that increases monotonically with the mass of the $V_1^0$.
408: We do not employ a "window" cut though around the peak as there are
409: too few signal events. Instead, we note that the transverse momentum
410: distribution of the lepton carrying the higher $P_T$, hereafter denoted by
411: $P_T^{max}(e,\mu)$, has a fat tail towards higher momenta that rises above
412: the background. We then demand that
413: $P_T^{max}(e,\mu)$ be greater than a lower threshold which is chosen
414: for each $M_V$ such that the signal significance is maximized.
415:
416: We find that the optimal threshold for $P_T^{max}(e,\mu)$
417: varies roughly linearly between 100 and 350 GeV for $M_V$ between 400
418: and 1200 GeV. However, we also ask that there be at least 10 signal
419: events, which does not always allow this threshold to be used.
420:
421: The step-by-step effect of the cuts is shown in Fig. (2).
422:
423: \section{Results}
424:
425: We calculate signal significance over the background as a
426: function of the mass of $V_1^0$ for integrated luminosities of
427: ${\cal L} = 30, 100, 300$ fb$^{-1}$, as shown in Fig. (3).
428: \begin{figure}[h!]
429: \begin{center}
430: \includegraphics[angle=-90]{higgsless}
431: \end{center}
432: \caption{LHC discovery potential for $V_1^0$, the first Kaluza-Klein
433: excitation of the $Z^0$ boson in Higgsless models, at $\sqrt{s}$ =
434: 14 TeV.}
435: \end{figure}
436: For low
437: luminosity running (30 fb$^{-1}$), the $5\sigma$ discovery potential
438: is poor, with only masses below $\sim 300$ GeV being accessible. However,
439: for high luminosity running (300 fb$^{-1}$), $V_1^0$ as heavy as
440: 1.35 TeV can be discovered. As shown in the figure, between
441: $M_V = 800-1000$ GeV the discovery potential actually improves for
442: this luminosity because more energetic $V_1^0 \to WW$ decays lead
443: to higher transverse momenta for the final state $e,\mu$.
444: This offsets
445: to some extent the effect of the lower $VWW$ coupling (which falls off
446: as $1/M_V$), and the more restricted phase space.
447:
448: Our requirement that there be a minimum of 10 signal events implies
449: that for low luminosities we cannot always use the most optimal lower
450: cutoff on $P_T^{max}(e,\mu)$. Therefore, the signal significance drops
451: sharply beyond a point for all three luminosities considered.
452:
453: A minijet veto could be challenging to realise. If this cut is not
454: used, the discovery potential is still quite substantial, upto $M_V
455: = 900$ GeV, for ${\cal L} = 300$ fb$^{-1}$.
456:
457: It is clear therefore that both $V_1^\pm, V_1^0$ particles, which
458: are the key signatures of extra-dimensional (and deconstructed)
459: Higgsless models, are within reach of the LHC. While discovery of
460: the $V_1^\pm$ would provide a smoking gun \cite{matchev}, searches
461: for the $V_1^0$ would provide important confirmation,
462: and can be conducted in the same channels as those for a
463: heavy Higgs.
464:
465: %% ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
466: \section{Acknowledgements}
467:
468: I would like to thank D. Dicus, X. Tata, K. Melnikov and H. Paes for
469: useful discussions and help given throughout the course of this
470: work. This work was supported in part by the United States
471: Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG-03-94ER40833.
472:
473: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
474:
475: \bibitem{higgsunitarity1} D. A. Dicus and V. A. Mathur, Phys. Rev. D
476: {\bf 7}, 3111 (1973); C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 46},
477: 233 (1973); J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin and G. Tiktopoulos, Phys.
478: Rev. Lett. {\bf 30}, 1268 (1973) [Erratum-ibid. {\bf 31}, 572
479: (1973)]; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10}, 1145 (1974) [Erratum-ibid. D {\bf
480: 11}, 972 (1975)].
481:
482: \bibitem{higgsunitarity2} B. W. Lee, C. Quigg and H. B. Thacker, Phys.
483: Rev. Lett. {\bf 38}, 883 (1977); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 16}, 1519 (1977);
484: M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 261}, 379
485: (1985).
486:
487: \bibitem{higgsless} C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo and J. Terning, Phys.
488: Rev. D {\bf 69}, 055006 (2004); C. Csaki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo and J.
489: Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 101802 (2004); Y. Nomura, JHEP
490: 0311, 050 (2003); C. Csaki, C. Grojean, J. Hubisz, Y. Shirman and J.
491: Terning, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 015012 (2004).
492:
493: \bibitem{deconstructed} R.Sekhar Chivukula, Elizabeth H. Simmons, Hong-Jian He,
494: Masafumi Kurachi and Masaharu Tanabashi (Tohoku U.), Phys. Rev. D
495: {\bf 71},115001 (2005); Hong-Jian He, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 20},
496: 3362 (2005); R. Casalbuoni, AIP Conference Proceedings {\bf 806},
497: 104 (2006).
498:
499: \bibitem{spositive} H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie and T. G. Rizzo,
500: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 015006 (2004); G. Burdman and Y. Nomura,
501: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69}, 115013 (2004); H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett,
502: B. Lillie and T. G. Rizzo, JHEP 0405, 015 (2004); J. L. Hewett, B.
503: Lillie and T. G. Rizzo, hep-ph/0407059; R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R.
504: Rattazzi and A. Strumia, hep-ph/0405040.
505:
506: \bibitem{szero} Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Csaba Csaki, Christophe
507: Grojean and John Terning, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 035015 (2005)
508:
509: \bibitem{topissues} Roshan Foadi and Carl Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 075011
510: (2006); Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Csaba Csaki, Christophe Grojean,
511: Matthew Reece and John Terning, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 72}, 095018
512: (2005).
513:
514: \bibitem{matchev} Andreas Birkedal, Konstantin Matchev and Maxim Perelstein,
515: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 191803 (2005).
516:
517: \bibitem{topcross} Stefano Catani, Michelangelo L. Mangano, Paolo Nason and Luca Trentadue,
518: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 378}, 329 (1996); B.W. Harris, E. Laenen, L.
519: Phaf, Z. Sullivan and S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 054024
520: (2002); ATLAS Technical Design Report
521: http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/TDR/access.html.
522:
523: \bibitem{higgssearch} David L. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 113004
524: (1999)
525:
526: \bibitem{collinear} K. Hagiwara, A. D. Martin, and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 235}, 198 (1990)
527:
528: \bibitem{forwardtagging1} R. N. Cahn, S.D. Ellis, R. Kleiss and W.J. Stirling,
529: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35}, 1626 (1987); V. Barger, T. Han, and R. J. N.
530: Phillips, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37}, 2005 (1988); R. Kleiss and W. J.
531: Stirling, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 200}, 193 (1988); D. Froideveaux, in
532: Proceedings of the ECFA Large Hadron Collider Workshop, Aachen,
533: Germany, 1990, edited by G. Jarlskog and D. Rein (CERN report 90-10,
534: Geneva, Switzerland, 1990), Vol II, p. 444; M. H. Seymour, ibid, p.
535: 557; U. Baur and E. W. N. Glover, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 347}, 12
536: (1990); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 252}, 683 (1990).
537:
538: \bibitem{forwardtagging2} V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, and R. J. N. Phillips,
539: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 42}, 3052 (1990); V. Barger et al., Phys. Rev. D
540: {\bf 44}, 1426 (1991); V. Barger, K. Cheung, T. Han, and D.
541: Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 2701 (1991); erratum Phys. Rev. D
542: {\bf 48}, 5444 (1993); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 48}, 5433 (1993); V. Barger
543: et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 2028 (1992).
544:
545: \bibitem{forwardtagging3} D. Dicus, J. F. Gunion, and R. Vega, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 258},
546: 475 (1991); D. Dicus, J. F. Gunion, L. H. Orr, and R. Vega, Nucl.
547: Phys. B {\bf 377}, 31 (1991).
548:
549: \bibitem{higgssearch2} T. Plehn, David L. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 093005
550: (2000); N. Kauer, T. Plehn, David L. Rainwater and D. Zeppenfeld,
551: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 503}, 113 (2001); Vernon D. Barger, R.J.N.
552: Phillips and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 346}, 106 (1995);
553: Vernon D. Barger, King-man Cheung, Tao Han and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys.
554: Rev. D {\bf 44}, 2701 (1991); Erratum-ibid. D {\bf 48}, 5444 (1993).
555:
556: \bibitem{higgssearch3} D.A. Dicus, J.F. Gunion, L.H. Orr and R. Vega, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 377}, 31
557: (1992).
558:
559: \end{thebibliography}
560:
561: \end{document}
562: