The s-channel charged Higgs in the fully hadronic

Full text

Translate

Turn on search term navigation

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4043-7&domain=pdf

Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4043-7&domain=pdf

Web End = Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:209DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4043-7

Regular Article - Experimental Physics

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4043-7&domain=pdf

Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4043-7&domain=pdf

Web End = The s-channel charged Higgs in the fully hadronic nal state at LHC

Ijaz Ahmed1,2,a, Majid Hashemi3,b, Wan Ahmad Tajuddin1,c

1 National Center for Particle Physics, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2 COMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad 44000, Pakistan

3 Physics Department and Biruni Observatory, College of Sciences, Shiraz University, Shiraz 71454, Iran

Received: 14 February 2016 / Accepted: 29 March 2016 / Published online: 16 April 2016 The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract With the current measurements performed by CMS and ATLAS experiments, the light charged Higgs scenario (mH < 160 GeV), is excluded for most of the parameter space in the context of MSSM. However, there is still possibility to look for heavy charged Higgs boson particularly in the s-channel single top production process where the charged Higgs may appear as a heavy resonance state and decay to t b. The production process under consideration

in this paper is pp H t b + h.c., where the top

quark decays to W+b and W+ boson subsequently decays to two light jets. It is shown that despite the presence of large

QCD and electroweak background events, the charged Higgs signal can be extracted and observed at a large area of MSSM parameter space (mH , tan) at LHC. The observability of charged Higgs is potentially demonstrated with 5 contours and 95% condence level exclusion curves at different integrated LHC luminosities assuming a nominal center of mass energy of s = 14 TeV.

1 Introduction

The neutral Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson with a mass of approximately 125 GeV was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS experiments [13] at CERN LHC in 2012 and marked a great triumph in the particle physics. Most of the properties till now have been found consistent with those predicted for the SM Higgs boson. However, the present scenario raises some interesting questions about the origin of the Electroweak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB). It is undoubtedly said that the scalar sector of SM does engineer all of EWSB, but at the same time there are very convincing evidences from

a e-mail: mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected]

b e-mail: mailto:hashemi\protect [email protected]

Web End [email protected]

c e-mail: mailto:[email protected]

Web End [email protected]

theoretical calculations and experimental signatures that SM needs to be superseded with other dynamics in order to consistently explain the issues regarding the dark matter in the universe, neutrino masses and naturalness problem.

Early attempts towards extending the SM scalar sector resulted in the Two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) [47], the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [8 10] and Next to Minimal Sypersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM) [11,12].

The discovery of another scalar boson, neutral or charged, would serve as unambiguous evidence for the new physics beyond the SM. The MSSM used as a benchmark in this paper is a special case of Type-II 2HDM. This model leads to ve physical Higgs bosons: light and heavy CP-even Higgs bosons, h and H, a CP-odd Higgs boson, A, and two charged Higgs bosons, H. In this model, the couplings of the charged Higgs boson to up-type quarks are proportional to cot while the charged Higgs boson couplings to the down-type quarks and charged leptons are proportional to tan, where tan is dened as the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs boson doublet elds.

The discovery of charged Higgs is quite challenging at particle colliders. On the other hand charged Higgs bosons provide unique signatures due to their electric charge which makes them different from neutral SM Higgs bosons in terms of their production, interaction and decay properties. Therefore there have been extensive searches for this particle over the last few years at Tevatron and LHC.

If the mass of charged Higgs mH is smaller than the mass difference between top and bottom quarks, mH < mt mb,

the dominant production mechanism for the charged Higgs is via top quark decay: t bH. In this case the charged Higgs

production is preferably produced via t t production process.

Most of the studies performed at LEP, Tevatron and LHC focus on light charged Higgs mass domain, where charged

123

209 Page 2 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209

Higgs predominantly decays into a pair of tan > 5 [1315] or into jets (H cs).

In case of the heavy charged Higgs with mH > mt + mb

the dominant production mode is the top quark associated production Htb. In this case, charged Higgs decay to a top quark, i.e., H tb, is kinematically allowed. However,

identication of t tb b signal in the presence of the huge irre

ducible background becomes difcult. Due to this reason, most early LHC analyses focus on the sub-dominant decay H or H cs in order to get advantage of sup

pressed backgrounds using -identication tools.Apart from t t production mechanism, the single top pro

duction processes at LHC have also been proved to be signicant sources of charged Higgs in both low and high mass regions. Recently, there have been a number of analyses focusing on single top production as a source of charged Higgs. The light charged Higgs study has been performed in a t-channel single top production through top quark decay (pp tq qbH qb) if the lepton decays

hadronically [16] or leptonically [17]. The heavy charged Higgs has been analyzed through s-channel single top production in the leptonic nal state (pp tb bbW

bbll) [18]. The off-diagonal couplings between incoming quarks in the s-channel single top production have also been studied leading to an enhancement of the total cross-section by a factor of 2.7 [19]. Similarly in [20] the t-channel single top production has been considered as a source of charged Higgs exchange, though being observable at very high integrated luminosities and high tan values.

In [21,22], the s-channel single top has been considered as a source of charged Higgs production and decay to t b

where the W boson from the top quark decay, undergoes a hadronic decay to a pair of light jets. To the best of our knowledge, no more detailed analysis of this type exists in the literature. The aim of this paper is to study the schannel

single top in the chain pp H tb bbW bbj1 j2

at LHC using new techniques and generators focusing on the charged Higgs mass in the available area of the parameter space which has not yet been excluded by LHC data, i.e., 200 < mH < 400 GeV. There are background processes like QCD multi jets and W+jets which make it a challenging analysis. However, as will be seen, they can be well under control.

In the following sections, signal and background events are introduced and their cross sections are presented. An event selection and analysis is described in detail with the aim of charged Higgs invariant mass reconstruction with different mass hypotheses. Finally an estimation of accessible regions of MSSM parameter space (m(H), tan) for a 5

discovery or exclusion at 95% CL is provided. The theoretical framework is based on MSSM, mh max scenario

with the following parameters: M2 = 200 GeV, Mg = 800

GeV, = 200 GeV and MSUSY = 1 TeV. The mhmax sce-

nario denes a benchmark point optimized to maximize the theoretical upper bound on mh for a given tan and xed mt and the soft SUSY breaking parameter MSUSY . This benchmark point provides the largest parameter space in the mh direction and conservative exclusion limits for tan.

2 Experimental constraints

2.1 Direct searches

The charged Higgs search has been performed for decades, at colliders like LEP [23], Tevatron [24] and LHC using the ATLAS [2528] and CMS [29,30] experiments. Experimental exclusion limits are set by the LEP experiments at mH >79.3 GeV at 95% CL independently of the branching ratios [31], assuming B R(cs) + B R() = 1. Assuming

B R() = 1 for the low charged Higgs mass, the set limit

is 87.8 GeV. For the heavier charged Higgs boson the best current limits are set by ATLAS and CMS.

For the charged Higgs mass range 80 GeV < mH < 160

GeV, ATLAS imposes 95% CL upper limits on B R(t

Hb) in the range 0.231.3%, and for the mass range 180 GeV < mH < 1000 GeV, 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section in the range 0.00450.76 pb, both with assumption that B R(H ) = 1 [28].

Similarly in the mass range 80 GeV < mH < 160 GeV, 95% CL upper limits on B R(t Hb) are set in the range

0.161.2%, and for 180 GeV < mH < 600 GeV, 95% CL upper limits on production cross-section of charged Higgs are set in the range 0.0260.38 pb, both with assumption that B R(H ) = 1 in CMS Experiment [30].

2.2 Indirect searches

The exclusion limits from the indirect searches can be obtained by studying avor physics, measuring electric dipole moment of electron or other precision measurements [32]. These limits are highly model dependent and can not replace the direct searches. On the other hand, they are generally for 2HDM and translating them to the case of a super-symmetric model like MSSM is not trivial.

1. In b s decay, a charged Higgs boson can contribute

and change the branching fraction with respect to the SM-only scenario and can therefore be used to probe physics beyond the SM. In [33], indirect mass constraints at 95% C.L. are set via B Xs , excluding charged Higgs

boson in the 2HDM type II up to 295 GeV.2. There are other processes where further constraints can be used in indirect searches e.g., Bu [34,35],

B D [36], Ds [37] and Bd,s +

[37].

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209 Page 3 of 10 209

3 Signal and background processes and their cross-sections

The single top production occurs through electroweak interactions and proceeds through three different processes at the LHC depending on the virtuality of the W-boson involved in SM. In the t-channel, the W-boson is space-like (q2W 0).

This process is the largest source of single top production in SM and its cross-section is around one third of the t t cross-

section. The signature of this channel is a high momentum forward light quark and a single top quark. In the s-channel process, the involved W-boson is time-like (q2W 0). In this

case a top quark and a hard b-quark are produced in nal state. In the associated tW production channel, the W-boson is real (q2W = m2W ). This process involves a b-quark and a

gluon both from proton sea, a real W-boson and a top quark.

In MSSM the single top production processes have the same nal state but with the possibility of exchanging the charged Higgs boson which changes the kinematics of the nal state particles.

The charged Higgs boson has been considered as a crucial signature of MSSM at LHC due to its distinct nature of decay channels. The search for heavy and light charged Higgs are quite different due to their different decay modes and topological parameters. In the s-channel single top production, a charged Higgs is produced in the intermediate phase as a heavy state decaying to a top and b quark in the ve avor scheme (H t b) as shown in Fig. 1. However in four

avor scheme a top quark, a b quark and a light quark are produced in the nal state. The top quark exclusively decays into a b quark and W-boson because of the largest coupling between top and b quark which leads to Vtb 1, while

the W-boson in the top quark decay undergoes a hadronic decay, i.e., two jets in the nal state. Events in which the top quark decays into a fully hadronic nal state are interesting from different aspects. They constitute the largest branching fraction 68% related to the W boson decay and thus the

signal statistics is larger than the leptonic nal state. There is also possibility to use them in mass reconstructions for

Charged Higgs Total Decay Width [GeV]

= 250

= 200

= 300

= 400

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

tan

Fig. 2 The total decay width of charged Higgs at various Higgs mass values are shown as a function of tan

the determination of the top-quark and charged Higgs mass. This is the reason of using the hadronic nal state in this analysis.

The main background processes are W j j, Wb b,

Wc c, t t, s-channel and t-channel single top in SM and QCD

multijets production. The cross-section of all backgrounds are computed and samples are generated by PYTHIA 8.1.53 [38] except W j j, Wb b and Wc c (also called W+2jets)

which are calculated using Madgraph [39,40] with a kinematic preselection cut applied as P jetsT > 20 GeV. The

W+jets events from Madgraph and also signal events generated using CompHEP [41,42] are obtained as output les in the LHA format [43] and passed to PYTHIA for multi-particle interaction, parton showering and hadronization. The corresponding cross-sections of all these process are listed in the Table 2. For signal cross-section calculation CompHEP package is used using the charged Higgs total decay width calculated by FeynHiggs [1315]. The results for decay widths are shown in Fig. 2.

The cross section of the signal includes both diagonal and off-diagonal contributions of the incoming partons. In order to see the relative contribution of each incoming parton pair, the cross section formula can be written in terms of the product of the charged Higgs partial decay rates, (H U D) (H U D ) for a signal process as

U D H U D . Here U D (U D ) is incoming (out

going) parton pair. This is, however, a partonic interaction which should be convoluted with parton distribution functions f (x, Q, i) where x is the proton momentum fraction carried by the parton, Q is the momentum transfer (set to the charged Higgs mass) and i is the parton index. Figure 3 shows these functions for Q = 200 GeV. An integration over

all x values from zero to unity gives the total cross section including all possible contributions.

W +

H+

Fig. 1 The s-channel single top production diagram as a signal process with its full hadronic decay mode

123

209 Page 4 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209

0.8

s, u d g d u

tan

= 20

0.7

Q = 200 Ge V

Total

cb cs

0.6

tb [pb]

0.5

H Cross section of pp

x f(x,Q)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Proton momentum fraction, x

200 250 300 350 400

[GeV]

Fig. 3 Parton distribution functions at the scale of Q = 200 GeV

It may not be obvious how different contributions are compared but the c b incoming pair has the largest contribution

to the cross section. In fact its contribution is larger than the diagonal contribution of cs pair. The reason is as follows. The

charged Higgs decay rate is proportional to the square of the CKM matrix element as well as the square of the down type quark mass at high tan values (for tan values considered in this paper, this is a good approximation). This is shown in Eq. (1).

HU D =

32GF VU D2

8 mH

Fig. 4 Cross section of different contribution of parton pairs as a function of the charged Higgs mass at tan = 20

) [pb] b t

= 250

= 200

= 300

= 400

1 m2U m2H

[parenrightBigg]

[m2U cot2 + m2D tan2 ] (1) A comparison of the parton distribution functions (shown in Fig. 3) shows that the b-quark distribution is roughly one third of that of the c-quark. The ratio of cross sections of the two incoming states can be written as

cs =

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

tan

Fig. 5 The s-channel charged Higgs production cross-section as a function of tan and charged Higgs masses

The integration over parton level cross-sections is performed using CTEQ 6.6 parton distribution function (PDF) provided by LHAPDF 5.9.1 [44] at nominal LHC centre of mass energy s = 14 TeV. The total cross-section is the sum of all initial states, i.e., the diagonal and off-diagonal couplings as shown in Fig. 5 at various tan values. In order to get the B R(W+ j j), a

factor of 0.68 is multiplied to all the signal and background cross-sections to ensure fully hadronic nal state. Jet reconstruction is performed with the FASTJET 3.1.3 [45,46] using anti-kt algorithm [47] and ET recombination scheme with a cone size of R = 0.4, where R =

( )2 + ( )2 with = ln tan(/2) and () are the polar (azimuthal) angles with respect to the beam pipe dened as z-axis.

V 2cb m2b V 2cb m2s

. (2)

Therefore the ratio of differential cross sections for a given x and Q is

dcb

dcs =

cb f (x, Q, b)

cs f (x, Q, s) =

V 2cb m2b f (x, Q, b) V 2cb m2s f (x, Q, s)

. (3)

Using quark masses at the scale of Q = 200 GeV, i.e.,

mb = 2.63 GeV and ms = 0.05 GeV, and the CKM matrix

elements as Vcb = 0.04 and Vcs =1, and the ratio of parton

distribution functions equal to 3, one would obtain the ratio of cross sections to be 1.5. This factor means that a large

part of the total cross section comes from the off-diagonal contribution of c b pair. Therefore the total cross section is 2.5 times that of the cs initiated process. Figure 4 shows

contribution of each incoming state to the total cross section.

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209 Page 5 of 10 209

1/N dN/d(n jets)

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

tW+jets Wbb Wcc QCD jets

1/N dN/dE

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

tW+jets Wbb Wcc QCD jets

0.045

0.5

0.04

0.035

0.4

0.03

0.3

0.025

0.02

0.2

0.015

0.01

0.1

0.005

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Jet E

[GeV]

Jet Multiplicity

Fig. 7 The reconstructed jets transverse energy distribution

Fig. 6 The jet multiplicity distribution is shown with both signal and background events

4 Event selection and analysis

The approach used in this analysis is the same as a typical physics channel analysis in the sense that rst the signal and corresponding background samples having similar nal states are identied and then cross sections are calculated by the event generators. Decay widths of particles can be calculated using available packages and used in cross section calculation. The algorithm then starts with optimized selection cuts using kinematic features of the signal and background and their kinematic differences and eventually the signal statistical signicance after all selection cuts is calculated. Different mass windows may be applied at each point for selecting W boson, top quark and charged Higgs invariant mass distributions. The detailed analysis is expressed as follows.

The nal state of signal events as shown in Fig. 1 contains a collection of 2 lights jets and 2 b-jets. First the jets reconstruction is performed and jets are selected if they satisfy the requirement of having E jetT > 20 GeV and || < 2.5, where

ET is transverse energy of the jet and is pseudo-rapidity dened previously. An event has to have 4 jets passing above requirement, two of which are b-tagged.

The b-tagging is emulated by a jet-quark matching algorithm which calculates the spatial distance between the reconstructed jet and a b or c quark from generator level information in terms of R. If R( jet, quark) < 0.2 with pT > 50 GeV and || < 3.0, the jet is agged as a b-jet.

The b-jet efciency is assumed to be 60% while c-jet mis-tagging rate is taken to be 10%. The existence of 2 b-jets in the event is expected to dramatically suppress the Wjj and QCD sample. However, as will be seen that the Wjj and t t

events are the main background.

The jets which do not satisfy the b-jet requirement are declared as light jets. For W boson invariant mass reconstruction, two leading jets are selected with same pT and

0.018

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

tW+jets Wbb Wcc QCD jets

JetEta Entries 4675730 Mean 0.1676 RMS 1.597

0.016

0.014

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Jet

Fig. 8 Pseudorapidity distribution of selected jets

1/N dN/d(n b-jets)

0.5

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

t W+jets Wbb Wcc

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 0 2 4 6 8 10

b-Jet Multiicity

Fig. 9 The b-jet multiplicity distribution in both signal and background events

cuts applied on all jets. The low jet multiplicity is a feature of signal events which can be used to suppress t t events and

single W events accompanied by more than two jets. Figure 6 shows a comparison between signal and background events in terms of their jet multiplicities. Throughout the paper, plots

123

209 Page 6 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209

0.06

1/N dN/dE

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

bJetEt Entries 1771762 Mean 46.12 RMS 17.77

0.045

0.05

arbitrary units

0.04

deltaphitb Entries 65138 Mean 2.631 RMS 0.6428

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

t W+jets Wbb Wcc

W+jets Wbb Wcc

0.035

0.04

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

b-Jet E

[GeV]

(top, bottom)

Fig. 10 The b-jet transverse energy distribution is shown in signal and background events

Fig. 13 The azimuthal angle difference is plotted between top and bottom quark to apply this cut in order to suppress those backgrounds which are not produce back-to-back

1/N dN/dm

Wmasshad Entries 392999 Mean 77.59 RMS 14.18

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

t W+jets Wbb Wcc

1/N dN/dm

0.08 = 200 GeV

= 250 GeV

0.16

= 300 GeV

0.14

0.07

= 400 GeV

0.06

0.12

0.1

0.05

0.08

0.04

0.06

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.01

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

di-jet invariant mass m [GeV]

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Charged Higgs mass [GeV]

Fig. 11 The reconstructed W-boson invariant mass in signal and events background

Fig. 14 The reconstructed charged Higgs mass distributions generated at different mass hypotheses

without changing the shape of distributions. In Figs. 7 and 8, the light jet transverse momentum and pseudo-rapidity distributions are plotted for signal and background events. Similar to light jets, Figs. 9 and 10 show b-jets multiplicity comparisons in both signal and background and transverse energy distributions respectively.

The two highest pT light jets are combined together to form the W-boson candidate as plotted in Fig. 11. The top quark candidate invariant mass distribution is obtained by combining three jets, i.e., two light jets and a b-jet which gives the closest top quark invariant mass to its nominal value as shown in Fig. 12.

Furthermore, another important and interesting aspect of s-channel signal events is that they tend to produce the top and bottom quark pair in opposite directions due to the typical nature of s-channel processes. This feature should appear in azimuthal plane of the detector too. Therefore the azimuthal angle between the top quark and bottom quark is determined and the result is plotted as a distribution for both signal and background events for comparison as seen in Fig.

1/N dN/dm

topmass Entries 103222

Mean 152.4 RMS 16.6

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top t

0.05

0.04

W+jets Wbb Wcc

0.03

0.02

0.01

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

jjb invariant mass [GeV]

Fig. 12 The reconstructed invariant mass distribution of m j jb signal and dominant backgrounds

are shown with a signal comprising of a charged Higgs mass mH = 200 GeV and tan = 50 abbreviated as ST20050.

The tan factor only contributes to the signal cross-section

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209 Page 7 of 10 209

Table 1 The selection cuts applied on both signal and background events

Light jets 2 highest PT jets, E jetsT > 20 GeV, || < 3.0 b-Jets with b-tagging EbjetT > 50 GeV, || < 3.0

W mass window 60 GeV < di-jet invariant mass (m j j ) < 100 GeV

Top quark mass window 150 GeV < jjb invariant mass (m j jb) < 190 GeV

Back-to-back production (top,bottom) > 2.8

Table 2 Signal efciencies at different charged Higgs masses at tan = 50 are givenSelection cut Signal Signal Signal Signal

MH = 200 GeV MH = 250 GeV MH = 300 GeV MH = 400 GeV x BR [pb] 5.63 4.68 2.73 0.98

2 light jets 39.5% 41.8% 43.3% 46.5%

W mass cut 91.3% 91.6% 91.9% 91.8%

2 bjets 27.9% 15.9% 11% 7.3%

Top mass cut 63% 76.6% 68.4% 56.3%

cut 56.7% 50.9% 49% 54.4%

Total efciency 3.6% 2.4% 1.5% 0.96%

Expected events at 100 f b1 20,268 11,232 4095 941

Table 3 Selection efciencies are shown for all background events

Selection cut t t SM single top SM single top Wjets Wb b Wcc QCD

s-channel t-channel

x BR[pb] 285.4 5.8 133 1.69 104 395 49 1.169 108

2 light jets 92.9% 40.5% 43.6% 35% 32% 36% 0

W mass cut 31.9% 92% 93% 94% 96% 95% 0

2 b-jets 11% 12% 9% 1.3% 6% 11% 0

Top mass cut 60.9% 64.3% 61% 23% 13% 31% 0

cut 22.2% 48.8% 22.5% 19% 56% 54% 0

Total efciency 0.45% 1.42% 0.52% 0.017% 0.1% 0.6% 0

Expected events at 100 f b1 128,430 8236 69,160 287,300 39,500 29,400 0

13. According to the Fig. 13, a selection cut is applied as (top quark, bottom quark) > 2.8. This cut will make the signal more visible on top of the background by increasing the signal to background ratio.

In signal events the top and bottom quark come from a charged Higgs boson and their invariant mass should in principle make the charged Higgs boson mass. However due to jet energy resolution, mis-identication of jets, errors in their energy and ight directions, and false jet combinations, a distribution of invariant mass with a peak at (almost) the nominal charged Higgs mass is obtained. This distribution is seen in Fig. 14 where different charged Higgs mass hypotheses are tested in the simulation to make sure the obtained peak lies around the input mass. When all selection cuts are applied as in Table 1, a chain of selection efciencies is obtained for signal and background processes as shown in the Tables 2 and 3. The

QCD multi jets sample is completely vanished even after generating millions of events with the limited computing resources.

The relative efciencies are calculated for each selection cut with respect to previous cut when passing the signal and background samples through kinematic cuts. In this analysis a charged Higgs with mH = 180 GeV has not been consid

ered because its mass is close to the top quark mass and is hard to observe due to a very limited phase space available for the charged Higgs decay to top and bottom quarks. This feature results in soft kinematics of the nal state particles.

The charged Higgs is reconstructed through j j jb combination which is considered as the charged Higgs candidate as plotted in Fig. 15 with all dominant backgrounds. Charged Higgs ST20050 mass peak can be seen clearly with signicant background suppression. However, there are always fraction of fake entries from background and system-

123

209 Page 8 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209

1/N dN/dm

ST20050 t-channel single top s-channel single top

CHmass Entries 36905 Mean 208.5 RMS 24.8

In the hadron collider experiments, the realistic approach needs to take care all the sources of uncertainties which must be taken into account including electronic noise, pile-up, trigger, vertex etc. To assess the impact of systematic uncertainties arising from detector simulation, the selection cuts are re-applied after shifting a particular parameter up and down by one unit of uncertainty. In this analysis, where the nal state is fully hadronic and large number of jets are expected, the jet energy uncertainty is expected to be the dominant source of uncertainty at the current LHC stage and it may be less than 1% in the central part of the detector for jets having transverse energies in the range 55500 GeV [49]. The correction coefcient of the jets four momentum may include several multiplicative factors for Data/MC calibration, jet energy scale uncertainties and off-set effects. In addition some other sources of uncertainties are also expected e.g., the uncertainty from the t function, the uncertainty on the b-tagging (mis-)identication efciency and the background modeling contributing in the total background probability density function. The latter part essentially relies on the correct understanding of background distributions which is well achievable in the real data analysis where the distributions of the different backgrounds are taken from real data and then MC are used for comparison to obtain a reasonable parton density function of the total background. The uncertainties on the scale factors arise from the statistical uncertainty of the factors; the effect of binning in trigger periods, the effect of binning in number of tracks associated with the selected jets and a potential kinematic bias, evaluated by varying the jet pT selection criterion. These systematic uncertainties are strongly correlated by statistical effects, so they are each considered individually in the complete analysis, rather than as a combined uncertainty. So the detailed calculation of systematics is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Finally in Table 4 the number of signal and background events, corresponding efciencies to the charged Higgs mass windows, S/B ratio and the optimized signal signicance (S/B) are shown. The S/B approaches to its best value

Table 4 Signal to background ratio and signal signicance values obtained for four different samples, where NS represents negligibly small

Sample Mass window Total efciency No. of events S/B Optimized

Lower limit Upper limit S/B

Signal, mH = 200 GeV 192 216 0.031 5244 0.3767 44

Total background 192 216 13,920

Signal, mH = 250 GeV 228 264 0.01679 2356 0.0864 14

Total background 228 264 27,267

Signal, mH = 300 GeV 276 324 0.00846 692 0.0368 5

Total background 276 324 18,827

Signal, mH = 400 GeV 396 564 NS 93 0.0108 1

Total background 396 564 8600

0.08

0.07

0.06

t W+jets Wbb Wcc

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Charged Higgs candidate invariant mass [GeV]

Fig. 15 The charged Higgs invariant mass distribution is obtained through 2 light jets and 2 b-jets combination. The signal and background distributions are normalized to unity to nd the most probable process over each other

CHmass Entries 82095 Mean 277.9 RMS 80.52

=250 GeV

=200 GeV

=300 GeV

=400 GeV

-1

Number of events @ 30 fb

10000

Total background

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Charged Higgs candidate invariant mass [GeV]

Fig. 16 Every sample is normalized to the real number of events obtained at 30 f b1. The charged Higgs is on the top of the total background events at different charged Higgs mass hypotheses independently at tan = 50. It shows its visibility for charged Higgs observ-

ability. Only dominant backgrounds are labeled

atic uncertainties. If each distribution is normalized to the real number of events at 30 f b1 including selection efciencies,

Fig. 16 is obtained.

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209 Page 9 of 10 209

tan

LHC 8 TeV, 19.7 fb

30 fb

-1

100 fb

500 fb

-1

95% C.L. contours @ 14 TeV

LEP Exclusion

0 150 200 250 300 350 400

[GeV]

Fig. 17 The exclusion curves shown with red, blue and green color bands corresponds to 95% C L contour as a function of charged Higgs mass and tan at three different integrated luminosities

tan

LHC 8 TeV, 19.7 fb

30 fb

-1

LHC 8 TeV, 19.7 fb

100 fb

-1

500 fb

-1

contours @ 14 TeV

References

1. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012a). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214

Web End =arXiv:1207.7214

2. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235

Web End =arXiv:1207.7235

3. S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 06, 081 (2013). http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4571

Web End =arXiv:1303.4571 4. G.C. Branco, P.M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M.N. Rebelo, M. Sher, J.P. Silva, Phys. Rep. 516, 1 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0034

Web End =arXiv:1106.0034

5. H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, T. Sterling, Nucl. Phys. B 161, 493 (1979)6. L.J. Hall, M.B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 187, 397 (1981)7. J.F. Donoghue, L.F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 19, 945 (1979)8. H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 110, 1 (1984)9. H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117, 75 (1985)10. R. Barbieri, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 11N4, 1 (1988)11. J.R. Ellis, J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, L. Roszkowski, F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev. D 39, 844 (1989)

12. M. Drees, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 4, 3635 (1989)13. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124, 76 (2000). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812320

Web End =arXiv:hep-ph/9812320

14. T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1426 (2009)

15. T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 205206, 152 (2010). http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0956

Web End =arXiv:1007.0956

16. M. Hashemi, JHEP 05, 112 (2013a). http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.2096

Web End =arXiv:1305.2096 17. R. Guedes, S. Moretti, R. Santos, JHEP 10, 119 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4071

Web End =arXiv:1207.4071

18. M. Hashemi, JHEP 11, 005 (2013b). http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5209

Web End =arXiv:1310.5209 19. M. Hashemi, H. Bakhshalizadeh, Phys. Lett. B 741, 145 (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3436

Web End =arXiv:1407.3436

LEP Exclusion

0 150 200 250 300 350 400

[GeV]

Fig. 18 The 5 discovery contours are plotted here as a function of charged Higgs at various integrated luminosities

around 37%. The charged Higgs mass window is applied in the specic region where a maximum signal signicance is achieved. This condition suppress signicant amount of background events. The QCD jets are restricted at the jets-quark matching stage. By generating a large statistics of QCD sample not even few events could survived effectively.

At the end to demonstrate the results validity in the MSSM parameter space within the presence of all previous experimental constraints, 5 discovery contours and exclusion curves at 95% Condence Level (CL) are obtained by scanning the chosen charged Higgs mass points and tan values. To perform this algorithm, the TLimit class implemented in ROOT [48] is used to obtain both contours. The results are shown in Figs. 17 and 18 together with the previously excluded areas by LEP and LHC 8 TeV data. As is seen, a wide range of parameter space is still available for the discovery of charged Higgs.

5 Conclusions

The s-channel single top process was studied as a source of charged Higgs in the fully hadronic nal state at LHC. Kinematic selection cuts were designed to increase the signal to background ratio and signal signicance at 14 TeV center of mass energy. On the basis of exclusion contours at 95% C.L. and 5 discovery contours, it was shown that the charged Higgs signal can be well observed or excluded in a wide range of (mH ,tan) phase space. This process requires large tan

> 25 at 30 f b1 integrated luminosity and can probe the area up to tan > 10 at 500 f b1. In all the above calculations the systematic and theoretical uncertainties are not taken into account. However, comparing results presented in this analysis and previous simulations performed at CMS and ATLAS experiments and the current LHC results, the channel proposed in this work can be considered as a complementary channel to other search channels and help increasing the signal statistics in case of the charged Higgs existence.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Web End =http://creativecomm http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Web End =ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP3.

123

209 Page 10 of 10 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76 :209

20. M. Hashemi, S.M. Zebarjad, H. Bakhshalizadeh (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06949

Web End =arXiv:1506.06949

21. F. Chevallier, A. Lucotte, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2006-014 (2006)22. V.M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. D78, 012005 (2008)23. Lepton and photon interactions at high energies. Proceedings, 20th International Symposium, LP 2001, Rome, Italy, July 2328, 2001 (2001). http://weblib.cern.ch/abstract?CERN-L3-NOTE-2689

Web End =http://weblib.cern.ch/abstract? http://weblib.cern.ch/abstract?CERN-L3-NOTE-2689

Web End =CERN-L3-NOTE-2689 . http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0107031

Web End =arXiv:hep-ex/0107031

24. T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 101803 (2009). http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1269

Web End =arXiv:0907.1269

25. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 03, 088 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6663

Web End =arXiv:1412.6663 26. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 03, 076 (2013a). http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.3572

Web End =arXiv:1212.3572 27. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2465 (2013b). http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3694

Web End =arXiv:1302.3694

28. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 06, 039 (2012b). http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2760

Web End =arXiv:1204.2760 29. CMS-PAS-HIG-11-008, CMS Collaboration (2011)30. CMS-PAS-HIG-14-020, CMS Collaboration (2014)31. A. Heister et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B543, 1 (2002). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0207054

Web End =arXiv:hep-ex/0207054

32. L. Basso, A. Lipniacka, F. Mahmoudi, S. Moretti, P. Osland, G.M.

Pruna, M. Purmohammadi, JHEP 11, 011 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6569

Web End =arXiv:1205.6569

33. M. Misiak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 221801 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609232

Web End =arXiv:hep-ph/0609232

34. J.P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D88, 031102 (2013). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0698

Web End =arXiv:1207.0698

35. K. Hara et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D82, 071101 (2010). http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4201

Web End =arXiv:1006.4201

36. J.P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5442

Web End =arXiv:1205.5442

37. Y. Amhis et al. (Heavy Flavor Averaging Group) (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1158

Web End =arXiv:1207.1158

38. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008). http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3820

Web End =arXiv:0710.3820

39. J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, T. Stelzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011). http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0522

Web End =arXiv:1106.0522

40. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014). http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0301

Web End =arXiv:1405.0301

41. E. Boos, V. Bunichev, M. Dubinin, L. Dudko, V. Ilyin, A. Kryukov,V. Edneral, V. Savrin, A. Semenov, A. Sherstnev (CompHEP), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A534, 250 (2004). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0403113

Web End =arXiv:hep-ph/0403113 42. A. Pukhov, E. Boos, M. Dubinin, V. Edneral, V. Ilyin, D. Kovalenko,A. Kryukov, V. Savrin, S. Shichanin, A. Semenov (1999). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9908288

Web End =arXiv:hep-ph/9908288 43. J. Alwall et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 176, 300 (2007). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0609017

Web End =arXiv:hep-ph/0609017

44. A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstrm, B. Page, M. Rfenacht, M. Schnherr, G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7420

Web End =arXiv:1412.7420

45. M. Cacciari, in Deep inelastic scattering. Proceedings, 14th International Workshop, DIS 2006, Tsukuba, Japan, April 2024, 2006, vol. 125, pp. 487490 (2006). http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0607071

Web End =arXiv:hep-ph/0607071

46. M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6097

Web End =arXiv:1111.6097

47. M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008). http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1189

Web End =arXiv:0802.1189

48. R. Brun, F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A389, 81 (1997)49. G. Aad et al., Jet energy measurement and its systematic uncertainty in protonproton collisions at s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 17 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0076

Web End =arXiv:1406.0076

123

Word count: 6789

Show less

SIF and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract

Translate

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae and/or non-USASCII text omitted; see image)

With the current measurements performed by CMS and ATLAS experiments, the light charged Higgs scenario (...... ...... 160 GeV), is excluded for most of the parameter space in the context of MSSM. However, there is still possibility to look for heavy charged Higgs boson particularly in the s-channel single top production process where the charged Higgs may appear as a heavy resonance state and decay to ....... The production process under consideration in this paper is ......, where the top quark decays to ...... and ...... boson subsequently decays to two light jets. It is shown that despite the presence of large QCD and electroweak background events, the charged Higgs signal can be extracted and observed at a large area of MSSM parameter space (......, tan......) at LHC. The observability of charged Higgs is potentially demonstrated with 5...... contours and 95 % confidence level exclusion curves at different integrated LHC luminosities assuming a nominal center of mass energy of ...... TeV.

Details

Title

The s-channel charged Higgs in the fully hadronic final state at LHC

Author

Ahmed, Ijaz; Hashemi, Majid; Tajuddin, Wan Ahmad

Pages

1-10

Publication year

2016

Publication date

Apr 2016

Publisher

Springer Nature B.V.

ISSN

14346044

e-ISSN

14346052

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4043-7

ProQuest document ID

1794086483

SIF and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

The s-channel charged Higgs in the fully hadronic final state at LHC

Jump to:

Full text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources