Banner
    The Plot Of The Week - Z' Not Here
    By Tommaso Dorigo | August 20th 2012 05:46 AM | 14 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN. In my spare time I play chess, abuse the piano, and aim my dobson...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    Perhaps a bit too simple, but certainly appealing. Extensions of the Standard Model which imply the existence of a new U(1) gauge group to complement the SU(2)xU(1) structure of electroweak interactions have been put forth in a number of slightly different versions. All imply the existence of a new Z' boson, a heavier version of the Z0. For those not yet introduced to the latter, the Z0 is the neutral vector boson hypothesized by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg in the sixties to complete a triplet of weak currents and thereby allow the unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions. Its first experimental effect was seen in neutral current interactions observed in 1973 in neutrino bubble chamber detectors, a discovery which convinced everybody of the correctness of the electroweak model; the Z0 was then discovered by Rubbia and collaborators in 1983 with the UA1 detector at CERN when its decays to charged lepton pairs were directly observed.

    The Z', like the Z0, should (or should not, in some less straightforward versions of the theory called "leptophobic") decay to pairs of electrons or muons. And the latter particles are very easy to detect and measure with the CMS detector. So it is not a surprise for us to see a very clean spectrum of dilepton invariant masses, extending from below the Z0 mass to multiple TeV. The spectrum, alas, does not show any sign of a second bump besides the towering Z0 peak on the left. Such a bump would be a direct proof of the existence of a Z'. Instead, CMS can only set lower limits on the mass of the particle.

    Below can be seen the dimuon (top) and dielectron (bottom) mass distribution measured by CMS (black points) in 4 inverse femtobarns of 2012 data collected at 8 TeV centre-of-mass energy. Expected standard model backgrounds are overlaid with different colours; the Z0 production component (light blue) is the largest. The data agree well with backgrounds, and no Z' signal is observed.




    The reasoning, however, is not as simple as one would be tempted to make it by looking at the plots above, "I see no Z' bumps here, up to 2 TeV of mass, so the Z' must have a mass larger than 2 TeV if it exists". That would be silly: one needs to take into account the size of the contribution that a signal would give to the distribution.

    What is done, instead, is to place an upper limit on the number of Z' decays that contribute to the data, as a function of the hypothetical Z' mass. So, for instance, having observed one event at a mass of 1300 GeV or so, and expecting to see roughly as much from background sources not related to the exotic Z' production processes, CMS sets an upper limit of a few events (with a statistical procedure which I have discussed elsewhere), if the Z' has a mass of 1300 GeV. Those few events get then converted in the total cross section limit of the new particle production, using the fact that the number of observed events N is related to the signal cross section σ and the detection efficiency ε through the formula N = σ ε L, where L is the integrated luminosity used in the search.

    Once the cross section limit is extracted, one compares it with the cross section that a Z' would have, if its mass where of 1300 GeV. If the predicted cross section is larger than the limit obtained by CMS, then a Z' with the quoted mass can be excluded: if it were there, it would have produced an observable excess of events, given detection efficiency and data size.

    CMS sets lower limits on a number of different flavours of Z'-producing models. The simplest model is the one which produces a Z' which behaves exactly like a Z0: in that case, the mass limit is at 2590 GeV. The preprint describing the details of the search can be found here.

    Comments

    How is it possible to have data event counts of non integer numbers?

    dorigo
    It depends on the fact that the bins have variable width (the graph is logarithmic), and one wants to have a uniform reading on the y axis (which is counts per GeV). So if you have three events in a 100 GeV wide bin, the point will be at 0.033 counts per GeV there.

    Cheers,
    T.
    Tommaso, I quess CMS can only set LOWER limits to the mass of the Z' ;-)

    dorigo
    I see nothing wrong with my text Anon, please be more clear. I never say CMS sets an upper limit on the mass. I am talking of event counts there. What am I missing ?

    Cheers,
    T.
    Last sentence of second paragraph: "Instead, CMS can only set upper limits on the mass of the particle. "

    dorigo
    Ah! thanks, corrected.
    Cheers,
    T.
    "Extensions of the Standard Model which imply the existence of a new U(1) gauge group to complement the SU(2)xU(1) structure of electroweak interactions have been put forth in a number of slightly different versions."
    What is the motivation for the possibility that might be a new U(1) gauge group? What do those models do that the SM does not?

    dorigo
    Ah, sorry Ohwilleke, but this question would require a long post by itself to be answered, and I have no time now. These new U(1)'s arise in many models, though,.


    Cheers,
    T.
    BDOA
    To be extremely brief

    U(1) axial i have just written about, chirality of the weak force requires

    U(1)_right in models of left-right symmetry breaking

    U(1)_B-L is very common in grand unified theories
    BDOA Adams, Axitronics
    Thank you for that brief outline. It is most helpful.

    Answering my own question somewhat, the new experimental data preprint's source for the GUT-like Z' bosons that it used as a model dependent hypothesis are based on the conclusions of a 1998 preprint (which is particularly lucid and uses particularly simplifed language as these kinds of papers go; it was published in 1999) is here. Key language introducing the Z' boson in the 1999 paper explains that:

    "As was shown by H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow in 1974, the smallest simple gauge group G, which can contain the SM, is G = SU(5). The number n of neutral gauge bosons of a GUT is given by n = rank[G]. We have rank[SU(5)] = 4. Therefore, there is no room for additional neutral gauge bosons in the SU(5) GUT.

    GUT’s make predictions which can be tested in experiments. In particular, they predict that the proton must decay. This decay is mediated by the exchange of gauge bosons with a mass O(EGUT ). It is the analogue of the β decay described in the electroweak theory. To be consistent with present experiments on proton decay, we get the condition EGUT > 10^15 GeV . This energy is much larger than Eweak. It is important that it is smaller than the Planck
    mass, MP ≈ 1.2 · 10^19 GeV . At energies above the Planck mass, gravity is expected to become as strong as the other interactions. At energies well below MP, as it happens in GUT’s, the effects of gravity can be neglected. EGUT is also predicted as the energy where the three running gauge coupling constants of the SM gauge group become equal.

    The value of EGUT obtained experimentally by this matching condition predicts a proton lifetime, which contradicted the measurement already several years ago [ i.e. several years before 1998]. . . . precision measurements at LEP and SLC . . . prove[d] that the three running gauge couplings do not meet in one point if they run as predicted in the SU(5) GUT. Therefore, one must add something else if one wants to describe all SM interactions by one simple gauge group.

    One popular direction of research is supersymmetry.

    We are interested here in another solution of the problem, the consideration of larger unification groups. All GUT’s with gauge groups larger than SU(5) predict at least one extra neutral gauge boson (Z′).

    It was shown by H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski in 1975 that the next interesting gauge group larger then SU(5) is SO(10). The SO(10) theory predicts one extra neutral gauge boson because rank[SO(10)] = 5. It is a non–trivial fact that all SM fermions of one generation fit in only one multiplet of SO(10). To complete the multiplet, one new fermion with the quantum numbers of the right–handed neutrino must be added. The SO(10) GUT is not in contradiction with present experiments.

    GUT’s with gauge groups larger than SO(10) predict more than one extra neutral gauge bosons and many new fermions. These new (exotic) fermions must be heavy to make the theories consistent with present experiments.

    The mass of the Z′ is not constrained by theory. A priori, it can be anywhere between Eweak and EGUT . . . . it has naturally a mass of about one TeV in some supersymmetric GUT’s."

    Thus, a high minimum value of Z' sets a high minimum energy level for the phenomenology of any GUT consistent with the Standard Model (other than SU(5) which recreates the particle content of the Standard Model but makes predictions in its naiive form that are contradicted by experimental evidence (e.g. regarding proton decay rates and coupling constant convergence)).

    The low end of the 95% confidence interval exclusion for the GUT-like Z' was 2260 GeV.

    Apparently, a Z' is also present in many SUSY GUT theories, so Z' mass also sets a floor on the energy scale of those theories. The Z' mass excluded in this experiment is, of course, far above the 1 TeV level that is natural "in some supersymmetric GUT’s."

    The paper also considered Z' bosons in a different and more obscure class of models (the "Sequential Standard Model") discussed in a 1989 paper whose abstract appears here, that I was not able to swiftly find in a preprint version. This is the Z' model to which the 2590 GeV floor of the 95% confidence interval exclusion applies.

    In the dimuon plot, what is going on at 600GeV? Why does the expected jet contribution go to zero and it gets totally picked up by the t-tbar contribution. I would have expected a smoother contribution from each. I am dumbfounded that each contribution balances each other such that (jet) + (t-tbar) is smooth.

    dorigo
    Hi Steve,

    nothing wrong really. There are two reasons. One is that this is a log plot, that is one where the jet contribution appears only slightly smaller than the next largest one, but it is actually an order of magnitude smaller. Second, each contribution is computed from a limited-statistics dataset. The jet contribution goes to zero in that bin, because the average expected is close to 1 or two events, and in that bin they fluctuate down. This has very little bearing on the total expectation, which is dominated by other processes. In reality, the event counts of the various background processes get normalized to cross sections per GeV, so the fact that there be one or two events per bin is "hidden" by the renormalized rate units.

    The point, if you will, is that the limited statistics of these background shapes contribute some uncertainty to the total background prediction. The relative uncertainty of the jet background is large, because at 600 GeV there are few events. But the contribution to the total background uncertainty is negligible, because the latter is dominated by the uncertainty in the much larger-statistics Z sample.

    Cheers,
    T.
    Thank you Tommaso!

    I totally missed the log plot and it was right there all the time. I was focused on the area of each color region (i.e. jets are most important since yellow is biggest. Not!). Your explanation makes perfect sense.

    SteveB