Banner
    ATLAS Reach For The Higgs Boson
    By Tommaso Dorigo | July 21st 2010 04:54 AM | 16 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN and the CDF experiment at Fermilab. In my spare time I play chess...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    The Atlas collaboration made public, just in time for the 2010 ICHEP conference in Paris, the projected reach of their searches for standard model Higgs bosons. This is a whole set of interesting new results which, although necessarily still based on simulations, tell us a lot about what we might see toward the end of next year at the LHC.

    Here I will just flash a couple of the results, because the plentiful online documentation that ATLAS provided makes it a worthless exercise on my part to just echo it here. However, maybe I can comment the most relevant plots for those of you too lazy to browse the information-thick ATLAS pages.

    And since these days my blog is being identified as a source of information by the media, and a source of unauthorized broadcasting by the experiments (to the irritation of many), please allow me to add a disclaimer here. I am not affiliated with the ATLAS collaboration; what I write here is only based on my personal thoughts, and does not necessarily reflect the view of the experiment whose results I discuss. More information is available in the public ATLAS pages.


    Higgs to W boson pairs

    By far the most sensitive channel for a search of an intermediate-mass Higgs boson at the LHC is the one involving the production of the Higgs followed by its decay to two W bosons of opposite charge. Backgrounds include the direct production of two W bosons without the intercession of the Higgs, as well as the production of a top-antitop quark pair, which decays into two W bosons and two additional b-quark jets.

    The cleanest way to observe W bosons is to detect their decay into electron-neutrino or muon-neutrino pairs. But this unfortunately only happens two times out of nine for each W particle, because there are nine possible ways for the W to disintegrate (others being tau-neutrino pairs, plus three each of up-down and charm-strange quark pairs). All in all, if we want both W bosons to yield electrons or muons, this happens only four times in 81, which reduces significantly the yield of this already elusive process. Elusive is the word: Higgs production occurs less than once in a billion collisions!

    To compensate for the loss of the hardly detectable decays of W bosons to quarks or tau leptons, we note that if the Higgs boson has a mass close to 160 GeV -i.e. twice the W boson mass- the decay H->WW is almost certain. It can still occur, at a smaller rate, if the Higgs has a mass below 160 GeV, but then one of the W bosons will be "virtual": it will be in other words unnaturally light, and its decay products will be less energetic. Because of the smaller rate and less energetic final state objects, the sensitivity of the WW channel decreases for masses below 160 GeV.

    The sensitivity also decreases if the Higgs is heavier, because the heavier the particle is, the less probable is its production: this is due to the well-known feature of hadron colliders, whereby the quarks and gluons inside the colliding protons are harder to find carrying large fractions of the parent's energy, while more energetic gluon pairs are needed to produce heavier Higgs bosons.

    ATLAS studied its discovery reach by first developing a very careful search strategy, and then performing it on simulated data. This allowed them to produce the information summarized in the figure below.



    The figure shows the by now customary "brazil band", describing in this case what ATLAS expects to get with one inverse femtobarn of collisions, an amount of data which will be collected by the end of next year. On the horizontal axis you see the unknown value of the Higgs mass, while on the vertical axis there is the production rate of Higgs bosons, in units of the expected standard model rate. The horizontal hatched line reminds us what is the standard model expectation.

    Now let us take the red points and try to understand what they mean. At 150 GeV, the red point lies at a value of about 0.8. This means that on average (but I should say "at least 50% of the time", since the points describe the median and not the mean of a distribution of limits) ATLAS expects to exclude, at 95% confidence level, that the Higgs boson has a production rate larger than twice the standard model expectation, if the particle has a mass of 150 GeV.

    In other words, give ATLAS that much data, and with the WW search alone they will exclude that the standard model Higgs boson has a mass of 150 GeV. But this is only valid on average: backgrounds may fluctuate, and they may affect the limit that ATLAS can in fact set. This is described by the brazil band: all points within the green band, at the same 150 GeV abscissa, are ones that may occur 68% of the time, and all those within the green plus yellow band may occur 97% of the time. This implies that at 150 GeV the limit might well end up being at twice the standard model rate, or at 0.3 times the standard model rate: 0.8 is just the median of a wide distribution of possible outcomes of the experiment, when run on one single set of 1-femtobarn data.

    Having understood what the green and yellow bands mean for a single mass point, we can see what exactly the whole curve means: while the region that on average will be excluded is, if my eyes do not fail me, 145-182 GeV (the region bracketed by the points where the red line cross the hatched horizontal line), ATLAS might be "lucky": with a 1-sigma downward fluctuation of the backgrounds the exclusion might end up being between 133 and 192 GeV (points where the lower limit of the green band meet the hatched line); with a two-sigma downward fluctuation, the limit might be all the way from 125 and over 200 GeV!

    Of course, we are making two unnecessary assumptions here. The first one is that there is no Higgs boson! Of course, if the Higgs is present, the limit that will be obtained will be worse than the red line, in some region of the mass distribution. The second assumption is that the data "fluctuate" down coherently for different mass searches: you have to realize that the search details are different for different mass values, so when we say "the data fluctuates down" we are making approximations to a more complex situation.

    Finally, the ATLAS note also gives the predicted minimum luminosity necessary to observe a Higgs boson in the WW final state, as a function of Higgs mass. From table 9 in their  public document we thus learn that about 4.8 inverse femtobarns of proton-proton collisions will be necessary to achieve a 5-standard-deviation significance, if the Higgs mass is 160 GeV. For other masses, the required amount of data rapidly increases -but of course this is only relevant for the H->WW search alone.

    Combined Reach

    ATLAS produced 95% limit plots similar to the one shown above for other searches of the standard model Higgs boson; you can find all the material here. The most relevant summary is however in the combined reach plot, which takes three independent searches for the Higgs and produces a combined 95% confidence level limit on the Higgs rate.

    Besides the W-pair search described above, the two others included in the combination are the search for Z-pairs, and the search for photon pairs. The former is sensitive mostly at high mass, when the Higgs may decay into two real Z bosons; the latter provides sensitivity in the low-mass region, where the decay of the Higgs into just two light quanta is at its highest rate -albeit still roughly once in a thousand times!

    By now, you have all the information needed to decode the graph, so here it is below.



    We learn that one inverse femtobarn of collisions will allow ATLAS to exclude, on average, quite a large chunk of Higgs boson masses! The exclusion will likey be between 135 and 190 GeV, but a "2-sigma lucky" downward fluctuation of backgrounds in the data might allow to exclude from 120 GeV all the way to 200 GeV or more.

    Note that ATLAS has not included in the summary a couple of search channels that will provide added sensitivity in the low-mass region: notably, the search for decays to tau-lepton pairs and the one for b-quark pairs. If you add to this the fact that this is only half of the sky -the other half being CMS, the competing experiment at LHC, which is likely to have a similar sensitivity to the Higgs boson- you might well take home an interesting concept: if the Higgs boson does not exist, we might get a significant hint of its being a "fairy field" already toward the end of next year.

    Comments

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Tommaso, do you know what percentage of the particle collisions are actually detected and recorded?
    dorigo
    Sure. That however depends on the collision rate. Let us make an example and then you will be able to go fishing by yourself (if you remember Mao's statement about feeding the poor or teaching them to fish).

    Take a collision rate of 40 MHz: forty million per second. This is the design LHC frequency, but we will reach it only when all proton bunches will be filled in the machine.

    Take the output rate to disk: this is of the order of a few hundred Hz. Make it 400 for simplicity, then divide 40 MHz by 400 Hz: you get 100,000. This is the reduction factor that the trigger system must enforce. In other words, the trigger will discard 99,999 out of 100,000 events.

    Should you be worried that we miss important discoveries ? No. Those 99,999 are just not interesting enough. They belong to physical processes that were studied and beaten to death in the past. The online triggering system allows us to concentrate our effort on that single one-in-a-hundred-thousand event.

    Best,
    T.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    So did the physical processes that were studied and beaten to death provide the support for the current selection or exclusion criteria? The selection of 1 in every 100,000 collisions must itself create quite a skew in the data, how often do they experiment and vary these selection criteria? Do they occasionally shelve the selection criteria and allow random selections just to ensure that their selection and exclusion criteria they are using are indeed correct? Do scientists rely upon computer programmers to program this correctly or do they always verify and check everything or are the computer programmers scientists as well?
    Hi Helen,

    > Do they occasionally shelve the selection criteria and allow random selections just to ensure that their selection and exclusion criteria they are using are indeed correct?

    Yes, we do.
    Part of the bandwidth of the "triggers" is allocated to high-rate processes, but this portion of the bandwidth is fixed.
    In case this is too jargon to be clear, I try to be pedagogical below (I apologize if it is something you already know).
    Let's say that the total bandwidth is 400 Hz, which means that not more than 400 events can be recorded per second. As Tommaso said, we cannot allow all events to be blindly recorded because they would saturate the output rate to disk (and we would risk to miss the rare interesting events because the system is clogged by the non-rare and non-interesting ones). So we have triggers based on high-energy objects (or combinations of), and their threshold are chosen such to give, let's say, 300 Hz (I'm just throwing numbers randomly, don't take this figure as more than an example). The thresholds needed to yield a given rate are originally estimated by simulation, but whenever we notice that a trigger is firing much more often than expected, we adapt the threshold in order to avoid the saturation I mentioned.
    The remaining 100 Hz can be allocated to "prescaled" triggers, i.e. triggers with lower thresholds than the ones mentioned before, that are not allowed to record all the events that pass their threshold, but let's say only 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000, etc. (depending on how low is their threshold). And a smaller fraction of the bandwidth is even allocated to "minimum bias events" and "zero bias events", which are jargon terms that could be roughly translated as "record a collision event no matter what it is" and "record something whenever there is a bunch crossing, without even checking whether a collision happened or not". Not being able to record all of them, of course, this kind of trigger just records a few of them randomly.
    All this allows:
    - to measure the performance of the other triggers
    - to check that everything goes as expected in the murky region where collisions produce only low energy stuff (so, to check that the supposedly uninteresting region is behaving in the expected uninteresting way)
    - to measure quantities whose knowledge indirectly benefits other ("interesting" per se) analyses, and whose measurement doesn't require to analyze a huge dataset, so that even a few Hz accumulated for a few days are ok.

    In conclusion: your question is a very good question, have you considered working in HEP? :)

    dorigo
    Thanks for the Answer, Andrea! And thanks Helen for the good question.

    Best,
    T.m
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Yes, thankyou very much Andrea and Tommaso.
    ATLAS' result is actually motivated/stimulated by the CMS' result released earlier this year. There was no plan to get any MC result on Higgs out.

    dorigo
    Thanks for pointing that out Anon. I have decided to not discuss CMS in any way here, except from public results.

    Best,
    T.
    Come on, Tommaso. We all know that CMS's design is different from Atlas's, and the analysis will be different; the results should not match exactly. Can't you even show (and comment on) the mentioned MCs?

    On a completely unrelated question, is there a Joint LHC Higgs group like we have at Fermilab? Do they have any expectation published?

    dorigo
    Hi Anon,

    CMS published expectations for Higgs reach at 14 TeV last year. I presented those results at Kobe (PIC 2009), see here. I cannot comment on anything else.

    Best,
    T.
    Let's say that the total bandwidth is 400 Hz, which means that not more than 400 events can be recorded per second.

    Because I used to build/program real-time computers I'm curious how many values are recorded at each event and, if these are analog values, how many bits per value?

    Also, does the computer monitor the system to detect events and then start recording or does it continuously record throwing away data until until data are detected that should go to disk?

    dorigo
    Hi Steve,

    the trigger and DAQ system of these giant apparata are incredibly complex things. So I think I can easily summarize their working in two lines ;-)

    Analog values from the detector outputs are digitized quite early on. The devices that do that usually create digital values out of electric impulses, or out of time differences, with  just enough bits to cover the dynamic range of the input signal.

    The data comes in with a clock cycle set to the bunch crossing time. Let me explain in short how this works. There is a first-level trigger which looks at all collisions, and selects about 40 kHz of them. This first-level trigger must rely on very fast detector outputs, and there can be no high level of computing before a decision is taken. The trigger can usually decide whether there is an electron or a muon with a high enough energy to be worth looking at, or a very large energy deposit localized in the calorimeter (a hadronic jet), or a significant imbalance in the energy. If the event passes those rough criteria, there is more time at level two to run software algorithms and perform more complex reconstruction and apply more careful selection criteria.

    Hope this is enough to placate your curiosity... I have written about triggers elsewhere in the past, maybe it is due time to re-do it.

    Cheers,
    T.
    Thanks Tommaso,

    In the meantime I found a powerpoint which explains LHC triggering in much more detail:

    http://hep2006.physics.uoi.gr/presentation/day2/3/Foudas.ppt

    Hmmm, so in a few years with more data and a 2 experiment combined analysis ... we could be looking at some impressive fairy field exclusions. Good news!

    Thank you for the quick explanation and link. Interesting to learn of efforts to improve Trigger system by moving complex decisions earlier in the DAQ chain by creating smarter triggers -- to go with better sensors.

    Is LHC the only system improving DAQ to get more/better data at max energy?

    It was also good to read about detectors. Press usually ignores HOW data are collect and talks only about beam energy. (Likewise, little mention of HOW particles are generated.)

    These slides were made 2006 and I assume the year delay gave the data acquisition group extra time to either have another year to research their tools or that SLHC could be ready without waiting until 2013.

    Curious, what will SLHC enable from a physics perspective?

    dorigo
    Hi Anon,

    ah, the DAQ is not mentioned in the press because usually reporters either do not understand its importance or they think it is not interesting enough to the public. But it is actually an amazing part of the experiment.

    SLHC, what will it enable ? Excellent question, no answer. The sad truth is, we do not know yet... And still, if we want to be able to have a SLHC phase, we need to keep going... So we talk about "measuring supersymmetry features" (but we do not know whether there will be any Susy discovered), "measuring Higgs branching fractions" (but the Higgs is not there yet either), "extending the reach for new physics, when if you take the energy range from EW scale to the Planck scale and you imagine that it is equally likely that NP occurs at any energy value in this range (a wholly unsupported claim, I'll admit), the chance that it is between 2 and 14 TeV is about one in 10^15...

    It is as much an exciting moment for HEP today, as it is a bad moment to plan ahead!

    Cheers,
    T.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.