1 / 34

V.A. K hoze (IPPP, Durham)

FP-420. Diffractive processes at the LHC as a means to study SUSY Higgs sector. V.A. K hoze (IPPP, Durham). (in collaboration with S. H einemeyer, M. R yskin, W.J. S tirling, M. T asevsky and G. W eiglein ).

cianna
Download Presentation

V.A. K hoze (IPPP, Durham)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FP-420 Diffractive processes at the LHC as a means to study SUSY Higgs sector V.A. Khoze (IPPP, Durham) (in collaboration with S. Heinemeyer, M. Ryskin, W.J. Stirling, M. Tasevsky and G. Weiglein ) Main aims -to demonstrate thatDouble Proton Tagging @LHC is especially beneficial for the detailed studies of the MSSM Higgs bosons atlarge than β -to illustrate and to compare the salient features of the three main decay channels (bb, WW, ) for studies in the forward proton mode - hunting the CP-odd Higgs in the diffractive environment ☻If the potential experimental challenges are resolved, then there is a very real chance that for some areas of the MSSM parameter space the DPT could be the LHC Higgsdiscovery channel ! Disclaimer :some of the results are (very) preliminary and should be taken only as a snapshot of the current understanding. Further studies are still ongoing.

  2. Main motivations addressing the issues of : current theoretical understanding of the MSSM Higgs sector, ( e.g. CHWW-05 )  impact on the CP-even SUSY Higgs searches in the DPT mode in various regions of the parameter space update ofattempts to account for thereal-lifereduction factors for the observable signal (trigger, tagging efficiencies, angular cuts… ) (first studiesDKMROR-02 , a lot of activity since then)  evaluation of the bb- backgrounds in the more realistic conditions (current understanding of the RPacceptances...). hunting the CP-oddboson Ain diffractive events. (P. Bussey, Manch. wksp-05)

  3. The advantages of CED Higgs production • Prospects for high accuracy mass measurements irrespectively of the decay mode. • (H-widthand evenmissing masslineshape in some BSM scenarios). • Valuable quantum number filter/analyzer. • ( 0++dominance ;CP -even) • difficult or even impossible to explore thelight HiggsCPat theLHCconventionally. • (selection rule - an important ingredient of pQCD approach, • H bb opens up • (gg)CED bbLO (NLO,NNLO) BG’s -> studied • SM HiggsS/B~3(1GeV/M), M 3  • complimentary information to the conventional studies. • ☻SUSY H with large tan CED –friendly . • H→WW*/WW - an added valueespecially for SM Higgs with M≥ 135GeV, •  - potential of an ‘ advantageous investment’ • ● NMSSM (with J. Gunion et al. ) e. g., H4  (2- trigger) • unique leverage –proton momentum (energy flows) correlations • (probes of QCD dynamics, pseudoscalar ID , CP- violation effects)KMR-02; J.Ellis et al -05  LHC : ‘after discovery stage’,Higgs ID……

  4. ☻Experimental Advantages - Measure the Higgs mass via the missing mass technique - Mass measurements do not involve Higgs decay products - Cleanness of the events in the central detectors. Experimental Challenges Tagging the leading protons Selection of exclusive events & backgrounds Triggering at L1 in the LHC experiments Uncertainties in the theory Unusually large higher-order effects, model dependence of prediction (soft hadronic physics is involved after all) There is still a lot to learn from present and future Tevatron diffractive data (KMRS- friendly so far).BREAKING NEWS, -CDF (Dec.2005)

  5. Theoretical Input

  6. (h SM-like, H/A- degenerate.)

  7. (theoretical expectations –more on the conservative side)

  8. (KMR- based estimates) 8

  9. (2 jet +L1 trigger condition) -10% muon-rich final states (no RP condition)

  10. Current Experimental Understanding and Assumptions thanks to Monika, Albert , Michele & Peter bb mode Triggering on H (120 GeV)– currentlya special challenge.. Necessitates L1 jet ET as low as 40 GeV . QCD background saturating the available output bandwidth. ●2j+ L1 trigger condition can be kept on acceptable level by requiring single-sided 220 mRP condition (up to L=2*10^33), Signal efficiencies ~10-15%. ●10% of the bb events can be retained by exploiting muon-rich final states (no RPrequirements). AtM=120 GeV an overall reduction factor (combined effect of trigger/tagging efficiencies,angularcut…)R(120 GeV)~13(more on the optimistic side). AssumeR=13 at M<180 GeV. AtM180 GeV we may avoid the RP condition in the trigger, and the reduction factor can become R5. Prospects to work at higher luminosities. believable(Albert, Peter) AssumeR=5 at M>180 GeV.  Butmass resolution is much poorer when combining with 220m RP the situation may be even better… though no detailed studies so far

  11. Note, the existing estimates assume current hardware… • ☻1/Rshould rise with increasing M, partially compensating decreasing (CED). • (saturation probably somewhere around 200-250 GeV) • ●increasing RP acceptance (e.g. factor of ~1.3 when going from 120 to 180) • ●b-tagging efficiency, mass resolution improve for larger masses. • ●trigger efficiency should increase for larger M, • Mass resolution is critical for the S/B for the SM 120 GeV Higgs. Less critical at larger masses.

  12.  mode ●A sub-sample of the general dijet sample. Assume reduction factor R= 13; situation may be (much) better, especially at larger M. ●Trigger thresholds are lower than for the general category. ● Might be possible to find the signatures allowing to avoid the RP condition. semileptonic decays, missing ET… …..event topology (Monika, Albert) No dedicated studies yet. ●Irreducible bkgds (QED) are small and controllable. QCD bkgd is small if g/- misidentification is <0.02 (currently ~0.007 for -jet efficiency 0.60) Trigger cocktail - combined statistics (especially for searches and CP-ID purposes) bb and  are taken on the L1 simultaneously

  13. WW mode (detailed studies in B. Cox et al. hep-ph/0505240)  No trigger problems for final states rich in higher pT leptons. Efficiencies ~20% (including Br) if standard leptonic (and dileptonic) trigger thresholds are applied. Extra 10-15% from L1 jet +RP condition. Further improvements, e.g. dedicated -decay trigger. Much less sensitive to the mass resolution. Irreducible backgrounds are small and controllable. Within 30fb^-1 of delivered lumi about 5 events of SMH(140 GeV); 1.5 events of H(120GeV). Statistics may double if some realistic changes to leptonic trigger thresholds are made. Theh- rate can rise by about a factor of 3.5-4 in some MSSM models (e.g., smalleff scenario). (Monika) Pile-up is not such a severe problem as one might expect. The centrally –tagged data may be analysed efficiently even at 10^34 lumi, using the timing technique. FP-420

  14. hbb mhmax scenario, =200 GeV, MSUSY =1000 GeV

  15. Hbb

  16. h

  17. H

  18. hWW smalleff scenario mh 121-123 GeV for the SM Higgs at M = 120 GeV  = 0.4 fb, at M= 140 GeV  = 1 fb

  19. Current understanding of the bb backgrounds for CED production for reference purposes SM (120 GeV)Higgsinterms of S/B ratio (various uncrt. cancel)  First detailed studies by De Roeck et al (DKMRO-2002)  Preliminary results and guesstimates– work still in progress S/B1 at ΔM 4 GeV Four main sources (~1/4 each)  gluon-b misidentification (assumed 1% probability) Prospects to improve in the CEDP environment ?  NLO 3-jet contribution Correlations to be studied.  admixture of |Jz|=2 contribution b-quark mass effects in dijet events Further studies of the higher-order QCD in progress

  20. The complete background calculations are still in progress (unusually large high-order QCD and b-quark mass effects).  Optimization, MC simulation- still to be done Mass dependence of theSM(CEDP):SH~1/M³ Bkgd :ΔM/Mfor , ΔM/Mfor  ( ΔM ,triggering, tagging etc improving with rising M) 6 8

  21. h bb, assume currently = S/S+B, mhmax scenario, =200 GeV

  22. Hbb

  23. h

  24. H

  25. Hunting the CP-odd boson, A (LO)selection rule – an attractive feature of the CEDPprocesses, but…… the flip side to this coin: strong ( factor of ~ 10² )suppression of the CED production of the A boson. A way out : to allow incoming protons to dissociate(E-flowET>10-20 GeV)KKMR-04 pp p + X +H/A +Y +p(CDD) in LO azim. angular dependence: cos² (H), sin² (A), bkgd- flat A testing ground for CP-violation studies in the CDD processes (KMR-04) challenges: bb mode – bkgd conditions -mode- small (QED)bkgd, but low Br

  26. CDD results at  (RG) >3, ET>20 GeV within the (MS) MSSM, e.g.mh scenarios with  =±200 (500) GeV, tan=30-50 CDD(A->bb) ~ 1-3 fb, CDD(A->) ~ 0.1-03 fb CDD(H)~-CDD(A) max bb mode –challenging bkgd conditions (S/B ~1/50). -mode- small (QED)bkgd, but low Br situation looks borderline at best  ‘best case’ (extreme) scenario mh with =-700 GeV , tan =50, mg =10³GeV max

  27. in this extreme case : (Agg) Br(Abb)22-24MeV at MA=160-200GeV ,tan 50, CDD (A bb) is decreasing from 65fb to 25fb (noangular cuts) CDD (A) 0.8-0.3fb A S/B ~ (A->gg) Br (A->bb) / MCD  5.5 /MCD(GeV) currentlyMCD ~ 20-30 GeV… Prospects of A- searches strongly depend, in particular, on the possible progress with improving MCD in the Rap. Gap environment We have to watch closely the Tevatron exclusion zones There is no easy solution here, we must work hard in order to find way out .

  28. Proton Dissociative Production(experimental issues) thanks to Monika, Michele & Albert Can we discriminate between the cos² and sin² experimentally ?  Measurement of the proton diss. system with ET of 20 GeV and 3<<5 -probably OK for studying the azimuthal distributions (HF or FCAL calorimeters)  Trigger is no problem if there is no pile up (Rap Gaps at Level 1); 4jet at 2*10³³ lumi-borderline Maybe we can think about adding RPs into the trigger ( no studies so far) Maybe neutrons triggered with the ZDC (Michele )? From both the theoretical and experimental perspectives the situation with searches for theAin diffractive processes looks at bestborderline, but the full simulation should be performed before arriving at a definite conclusion.

  29. Known Unknowns or Unknown Unknowns ? (challenges, questions, miscommunication, misinterpretation, mis…… ) Triggering on the bb- channel without RP condition at M 180 GeV ? Triggering on the - channel without RP condition at lower M values ? Mass dependence of the signal reduction factor for the bb-channel ?  Trigger cocktail for the searches + CPID purposes. Experimental perspectives for the CP-odd Higgs studies in the p-dissociation modes ? Mass window MCDfrom the Central Detector only (bb,  modes) in the Rap Gap environment? Can we do better than MCD ~20-30 GeV? Mass dependence of MCD ? To educate the simple-minded theorists How would you define the stat. significance if B<<S, but the number of events is limited ? How to trigger on events with both protons in the 420m RP ? Increase in L1 trigger latency (SLHC) ? Special running modes ?.... Going to higher luminosities (up to 10^34) ? Pile-up…. ?

  30. CONCLUSION Forward Proton Taggingwouldsignificantlyextend the Higgs study reach of the ATLASand CMS detectors. FPT has a potential to perform measurements which are unique at LHC and complementary to ILC. For certain BSMscenarios theFPT may be the Higgs discoverychannel.

  31.  The LHC start-up is approaching FP-420 • Nothing would happen before theexperimentalists and engineers come FORWARDand do theREAL WORK

  32. BACKUP

More Related