Search for associated W and Higgs Boson production in pp[over ] collisions at sqrt[s]=1.96 TeV.
V M Abazov, B Abbott, M Abolins, B S Acharya, M Adams, T Adams, E Aguilo, M Ahsan, G D Alexeev, G Alkhazov, A Alton, G Alverson, G A Alves, M Anastasoaie, L S Ancu, T Andeen, B Andrieu, M S Anzelc, M Aoki, Y Arnoud, M Arov, M Arthaud, A Askew, B Asman, A C S Assis Jesus, O Atramentov, C Avila, F Badaud, L Bagby, B Baldin, D V Bandurin, P Banerjee, S Banerjee, E Barberis, A-F Barfuss, P Bargassa, P Baringer, J Barreto, J F Bartlett, U Bassler, D Bauer, S Beale, A Bean, M Begalli, M Begel, C Belanger-Champagne, L Bellantoni, A Bellavance, J A Benitez, S B Beri, G Bernardi, R Bernhard, I Bertram, M Besançon, R Beuselinck, V A Bezzubov, P C Bhat, V Bhatnagar, C Biscarat, G Blazey, F Blekman, S Blessing, K Bloom, A Boehnlein, D Boline, T A Bolton, E E Boos, G Borissov, T Bose, A Brandt, R Brock, G Brooijmans, A Bross, D Brown, X B Bu, N J Buchanan, D Buchholz, M Buehler, V Buescher, V Bunichev, S Burdin, T H Burnett, C P Buszello, J M Butler, P Calfayan, S Calvet, J Cammin, E Carrera, W Carvalho, B C K Casey, H Castilla-Valdez, S Chakrabarti, D Chakraborty, K M Chan, A Chandra, E Cheu, F Chevallier, D K Cho, S Choi, B Choudhary, L Christofek, T Christoudias, S Cihangir, D Claes, J Clutter, M Cooke, W E Cooper, M Corcoran, F Couderc, M-C Cousinou, S Crépé-Renaudin, V Cuplov, D Cutts, M Cwiok, H da Motta, A Das, G Davies, K De, S J de Jong, E De La Cruz-Burelo, C De Oliveira Martins, K Devaughan, J D Degenhardt, F Déliot, M Demarteau, R Demina, D Denisov, S P Denisov, S Desai, H T Diehl, M Diesburg, A Dominguez, H Dong, T Dorland, A Dubey, L V Dudko, L Duflot, S R Dugad, D Duggan, A Duperrin, J Dyer, A Dyshkant, M Eads, D Edmunds, J Ellison, V D Elvira, Y Enari, S Eno, P Ermolov, H Evans, A Evdokimov, V N Evdokimov, A V Ferapontov, T Ferbel, F Fiedler, F Filthaut, W Fisher, H E Fisk, M Fortner, H Fox, S Fu, S Fuess, T Gadfort, C F Galea, C Garcia, A Garcia-Bellido, V Gavrilov, P Gay, W Geist, W Geng, C E Gerber, Y Gershtein, D Gillberg, G Ginther, N Gollub, B Gómez, A Goussiou, P D Grannis, H Greenlee, Z D Greenwood, E M Gregores, G Grenier, Ph Gris, J-F Grivaz, A Grohsjean, S Grünendahl, M W Grünewald, F Guo, J Guo, G Gutierrez, P Gutierrez, A Haas, N J Hadley, P Haefner, S Hagopian, J Haley, I Hall, R E Hall, L Han, K Harder, A Harel, J M Hauptman, J Hays, T Hebbeker, D Hedin, J G Hegeman, A P Heinson, U Heintz, C Hensel, K Herner, G Hesketh, M D Hildreth, R Hirosky, J D Hobbs, B Hoeneisen, H Hoeth, M Hohlfeld, S Hossain, P Houben, Y Hu, Z Hubacek, V Hynek, I Iashvili, R Illingworth, A S Ito, S Jabeen, M Jaffré, S Jain, K Jakobs, C Jarvis, R Jesik, K Johns, C Johnson, M Johnson, D Johnston, A Jonckheere, P Jonsson, A Juste, E Kajfasz, J M Kalk, D Karmanov, P A Kasper, I Katsanos, D Kau, V Kaushik, R Kehoe, S Kermiche, N Khalatyan, A Khanov, A Kharchilava, Y M Kharzheev, D Khatidze, T J Kim, M H Kirby, M Kirsch, B Klima, J M Kohli, J-P Konrath, A V Kozelov, J Kraus, T Kuhl, A Kumar, A Kupco, T Kurca, V A Kuzmin, J Kvita, F Lacroix, D Lam, S Lammers, G Landsberg, P Lebrun, W M Lee, A Leflat, J Lellouch, J Li, L Li, Q Z Li, S M Lietti, J K Lim, J G R Lima, D Lincoln, J Linnemann, V V Lipaev, R Lipton, Y Liu, Z Liu, A Lobodenko, M Lokajicek, P Love, H J Lubatti, R Luna, A L Lyon, A K A Maciel, D Mackin, R J Madaras, P Mättig, C Magass, A Magerkurth, P K Mal, H B Malbouisson, S Malik, V L Malyshev, Y Maravin, B Martin, R McCarthy, A Melnitchouk, L Mendoza, P G Mercadante, M Merkin, K W Merritt, A Meyer, J Meyer, J Mitrevski, R K Mommsen, N K Mondal, R W Moore, T Moulik, G S Muanza, M Mulhearn, O Mundal, L Mundim, E Nagy, M Naimuddin, M Narain, N A Naumann, H A Neal, J P Negret, P Neustroev, H Nilsen, H Nogima, S F Novaes, T Nunnemann, V O'Dell, D C O'Neil, G Obrant, C Ochando, D Onoprienko, N Oshima, N Osman, J Osta, R Otec, G J Otero Y Garzón, M Owen, P Padley, M Pangilinan, N Parashar, S-J Park, S K Park, J Parsons, R Partridge, N Parua, A Patwa, G Pawloski, B Penning, M Perfilov, K Peters, Y Peters, P Pétroff, M Petteni, R Piegaia, J Piper, M-A Pleier, P L M Podesta-Lerma, V M Podstavkov, Y Pogorelov, M-E Pol, P Polozov, B G Pope, A V Popov, C Potter, W L Prado da Silva, H B Prosper, S Protopopescu, J Qian, A Quadt, B Quinn, A Rakitine, M S Rangel, K Ranjan, P N Ratoff, P Renkel, P Rich, J Rieger, M Rijssenbeek, I Ripp-Baudot, F Rizatdinova, S Robinson, R F Rodrigues, M Rominsky, C Royon, P Rubinov, R Ruchti, G Safronov, G Sajot, A Sánchez-Hernández, M P Sanders, B Sanghi, G Savage, L Sawyer, T Scanlon, D Schaile, R D Schamberger, Y Scheglov, H Schellman, T Schliephake, S Schlobohm, C Schwanenberger, A Schwartzman, R Schwienhorst, J Sekaric, H Severini, E Shabalina, M Shamim, V Shary, A A Shchukin, R K Shivpuri, V Siccardi, V Simak, V Sirotenko, P Skubic, P Slattery, D Smirnov, G R Snow, J Snow, S Snyder, S Söldner-Rembold, L Sonnenschein, A Sopczak, M Sosebee, K Soustruznik, B Spurlock, J Stark, J Steele, V Stolin, D A Stoyanova, J Strandberg, S Strandberg, M A Strang, E Strauss, M Strauss, R Ströhmer, D Strom, L Stutte, S Sumowidagdo, P Svoisky, A Sznajder, P Tamburello, A Tanasijczuk, W Taylor, B Tiller, F Tissandier, M Titov, V V Tokmenin, I Torchiani, D Tsybychev, B Tuchming, C Tully, P M Tuts, R Unalan, L Uvarov, S Uvarov, S Uzunyan, B Vachon, P J van den Berg, R Van Kooten, W M van Leeuwen, N Varelas, E W Varnes, I A Vasilyev, P Verdier, L S Vertogradov, M Verzocchi, D Vilanova, F Villeneuve-Seguier, P Vint, P Vokac, M Voutilainen, R Wagner, H D Wahl, M H L S Wang, J Warchol, G Watts, M Wayne, G Weber, M Weber, L Welty-Rieger, A Wenger, N Wermes, M Wetstein, A White, D Wicke, M Williams, G W Wilson, S J Wimpenny, M Wobisch, D R Wood, T R Wyatt, Y Xie, S Yacoob, R Yamada, W-C Yang, T Yasuda, Y A Yatsunenko, H Yin, K Yip, H D Yoo, S W Youn, J Yu, C Zeitnitz, S Zelitch, T Zhao, B Zhou, J Zhu, M Zielinski, D Zieminska, A Zieminski, L Zivkovic, V Zutshi, E G Zverev
ABSTRACT We present results of a search for WH-->lnubb[over ] production in pp[over ] collisions based on the analysis of 1.05 fb;{-1} of data collected by the D0 experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron, using a neural network for separating the signal from backgrounds. No signal-like excess is observed, and we set 95% C.L. upper limits on the WH production cross section multiplied by the branching ratio for H-->bb[over ] for Higgs boson masses between 100 and 150 GeV. For a mass of 115 GeV, we obtain an observed (expected) limit of 1.5 (1.4) pb, a factor of 11.4 (10.7) times larger than the standard model prediction.
-
Citations (0)
-
Cited In (0)
Page 1
Research Papers in Physics and Astronomy
Kenneth Bloom Publications
University of Nebraska - LincolnYear
Search for Associated W and Higgs
Boson Production in pp Collisions at ?s
= 1.96 TeV
V. M. Abazov∗
Gregory Snow‡
Kenneth A. Bloom†
D0 Collaboration∗∗
∗Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
†University of Nebraska - Lincoln, kbloom2@unl.edu
‡University of Nebraska - Lincoln, gsnow1@unl.edu
∗∗
This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicsbloom/274
Page 2
Search for Associated W and Higgs Boson Production in p ? p Collisions at
ffiffiffis
p
¼ 1:96 TeV
V.M. Abazov,36B. Abbott,75M. Abolins,65B.S. Acharya,29M. Adams,51T. Adams,49E. Aguilo,6M. Ahsan,59
G.D. Alexeev,36G. Alkhazov,40A. Alton,64,*G. Alverson,63G.A. Alves,2M. Anastasoaie,35L.S. Ancu,35T. Andeen,53
B. Andrieu,17M.S. Anzelc,53M. Aoki,50Y. Arnoud,14M. Arov,60M. Arthaud,18A. Askew,49B. A˚sman,41
A.C.S. Assis Jesus,3O. Atramentov,49C. Avila,8F. Badaud,13L. Bagby,50B. Baldin,50D.V. Bandurin,59P. Banerjee,29
S. Banerjee,29E. Barberis,63A.-F. Barfuss,15P. Bargassa,80P. Baringer,58J. Barreto,2J.F. Bartlett,50U. Bassler,18
D. Bauer,43S. Beale,6A. Bean,58M. Begalli,3M. Begel,73C. Belanger-Champagne,41L. Bellantoni,50A. Bellavance,50
J.A. Benitez,65S.B. Beri,27G. Bernardi,17R. Bernhard,23I. Bertram,42M. Besanc ¸on,18R. Beuselinck,43
V.A. Bezzubov,39P.C. Bhat,50V. Bhatnagar,27C. Biscarat,20G. Blazey,52F. Blekman,43S. Blessing,49K. Bloom,67
A. Boehnlein,50D. Boline,62T.A. Bolton,59E.E. Boos,38G. Borissov,42T. Bose,77A. Brandt,78R. Brock,65
G. Brooijmans,70A. Bross,50D. Brown,81X.B. Bu,7N.J. Buchanan,49D. Buchholz,53M. Buehler,81V. Buescher,22
V. Bunichev,38S. Burdin,42,†T.H. Burnett,82C.P. Buszello,43J.M. Butler,62P. Calfayan,25S. Calvet,16J. Cammin,71
E. Carrera,49W. Carvalho,3B.C.K. Casey,50H. Castilla-Valdez,33S. Chakrabarti,18D. Chakraborty,52K.M. Chan,55
A. Chandra,48E. Cheu,45F. Chevallier,14D.K. Cho,62S. Choi,32B. Choudhary,28L. Christofek,77T. Christoudias,43
S. Cihangir,50D. Claes,67J. Clutter,58M. Cooke,50W.E. Cooper,50M. Corcoran,80F. Couderc,18M.-C. Cousinou,15
S. Cre ´pe ´-Renaudin,14V. Cuplov,59D. Cutts,77M. C´wiok,30H. da Motta,2A. Das,45G. Davies,43K. De,78S.J. de Jong,35
E. De La Cruz-Burelo,33C. De Oliveira Martins,3K. DeVaughan,67J.D. Degenhardt,64F. De ´liot,18M. Demarteau,50
R. Demina,71D. Denisov,50S.P. Denisov,39S. Desai,50H.T. Diehl,50M. Diesburg,50A. Dominguez,67H. Dong,72
T. Dorland,82A. Dubey,28L.V. Dudko,38L. Duflot,16S.R. Dugad,29D. Duggan,49A. Duperrin,15J. Dyer,65
A. Dyshkant,52M. Eads,67D. Edmunds,65J. Ellison,48V.D. Elvira,50Y. Enari,77S. Eno,61P. Ermolov,38,††H. Evans,54
A. Evdokimov,73V.N. Evdokimov,39A.V. Ferapontov,59T. Ferbel,71F. Fiedler,24F. Filthaut,35W. Fisher,50H.E. Fisk,50
M. Fortner,52H. Fox,42S. Fu,50S. Fuess,50T. Gadfort,70C.F. Galea,35C. Garcia,71A. Garcia-Bellido,71V. Gavrilov,37
P. Gay,13W. Geist,19W. Geng,15,65C.E. Gerber,51Y. Gershtein,49D. Gillberg,6G. Ginther,71N. Gollub,41B. Go ´mez,8
A. Goussiou,82P.D. Grannis,72H. Greenlee,50Z.D. Greenwood,60E.M. Gregores,4G. Grenier,20Ph. Gris,13
J.-F. Grivaz,16A. Grohsjean,25S. Gru ¨nendahl,50M.W. Gru ¨newald,30F. Guo,72J. Guo,72G. Gutierrez,50P. Gutierrez,75
A. Haas,70N.J. Hadley,61P. Haefner,25S. Hagopian,49J. Haley,68I. Hall,65R.E. Hall,47L. Han,7K. Harder,44A. Harel,71
J.M. Hauptman,57J. Hays,43T. Hebbeker,21D. Hedin,52J.G. Hegeman,34A.P. Heinson,48U. Heintz,62C. Hensel,22,x
K. Herner,72G. Hesketh,63M.D. Hildreth,55R. Hirosky,81J.D. Hobbs,72B. Hoeneisen,12H. Hoeth,26M. Hohlfeld,22
S. Hossain,75P. Houben,34Y. Hu,72Z. Hubacek,10V. Hynek,9I. Iashvili,69R. Illingworth,50A.S. Ito,50S. Jabeen,62
M. Jaffre ´,16S. Jain,75K. Jakobs,23C. Jarvis,61R. Jesik,43K. Johns,45C. Johnson,70M. Johnson,50D. Johnston,67
A. Jonckheere,50P. Jonsson,43A. Juste,50E. Kajfasz,15J.M. Kalk,60D. Karmanov,38P.A. Kasper,50I. Katsanos,70
D. Kau,49V. Kaushik,78R. Kehoe,79S. Kermiche,15N. Khalatyan,50A. Khanov,76A. Kharchilava,69Y.M. Kharzheev,36
D. Khatidze,70T.J. Kim,31M.H. Kirby,53M. Kirsch,21B. Klima,50J.M. Kohli,27J.-P. Konrath,23A.V. Kozelov,39
J. Kraus,65T. Kuhl,24A. Kumar,69A. Kupco,11T. Kurc ˇa,20V.A. Kuzmin,38J. Kvita,9F. Lacroix,13D. Lam,55
S. Lammers,70G. Landsberg,77P. Lebrun,20W.M. Lee,50A. Leflat,38J. Lellouch,17J. Li,78,††L. Li,48Q.Z. Li,50
S.M. Lietti,5J.K. Lim,31J.G.R. Lima,52D. Lincoln,50J. Linnemann,65V.V. Lipaev,39R. Lipton,50Y. Liu,7Z. Liu,6
A. Lobodenko,40M. Lokajicek,11P. Love,42H.J. Lubatti,82R. Luna,3A.L. Lyon,50A.K.A. Maciel,2D. Mackin,80
R.J. Madaras,46P. Ma ¨ttig,26C. Magass,21A. Magerkurth,64P.K. Mal,82H.B. Malbouisson,3S. Malik,67V.L. Malyshev,36
Y. Maravin,59B. Martin,14R. McCarthy,72A. Melnitchouk,66L. Mendoza,8P.G. Mercadante,5M. Merkin,38
K.W. Merritt,50A. Meyer,21J. Meyer,22,xJ. Mitrevski,70R.K. Mommsen,44N.K. Mondal,29R.W. Moore,6T. Moulik,58
G.S. Muanza,20M. Mulhearn,70O. Mundal,22L. Mundim,3E. Nagy,15M. Naimuddin,50M. Narain,77N.A. Naumann,35
H.A. Neal,64J.P. Negret,8P. Neustroev,40H. Nilsen,23H. Nogima,3S.F. Novaes,5T. Nunnemann,25V. O’Dell,50
D.C. O’Neil,6G. Obrant,40C. Ochando,16D. Onoprienko,59N. Oshima,50N. Osman,43J. Osta,55R. Otec,10
G.J. Otero y Garzo ´n,50M. Owen,44P. Padley,80M. Pangilinan,77N. Parashar,56S.-J. Park,22,xS.K. Park,31J. Parsons,70
R. Partridge,77N. Parua,54A. Patwa,73G. Pawloski,80B. Penning,23M. Perfilov,38K. Peters,44Y. Peters,26P. Pe ´troff,16
M. Petteni,43R. Piegaia,1J. Piper,65M.-A. Pleier,22P.L.M. Podesta-Lerma,33,‡V.M. Podstavkov,50Y. Pogorelov,55
M.-E. Pol,2P. Polozov,37B.G. Pope,65A.V. Popov,39C. Potter,6W.L. Prado da Silva,3H.B. Prosper,49S. Protopopescu,73
J. Qian,64A. Quadt,22,xB. Quinn,66A. Rakitine,42M.S. Rangel,2K. Ranjan,28P.N. Ratoff,42P. Renkel,79P. Rich,44
J. Rieger,54M. Rijssenbeek,72I. Ripp-Baudot,19F. Rizatdinova,76S. Robinson,43R.F. Rodrigues,3M. Rominsky,75
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICALREVIEWLETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
0031-9007=09=102(5)=051803(7)051803-1
? 2009 The American Physical Society
Page 3
C. Royon,18P. Rubinov,50R. Ruchti,55G. Safronov,37G. Sajot,14A. Sa ´nchez-Herna ´ndez,33M.P. Sanders,17B. Sanghi,50
G. Savage,50L. Sawyer,60T. Scanlon,43D. Schaile,25R.D. Schamberger,72Y. Scheglov,40H. Schellman,53
T. Schliephake,26S. Schlobohm,82C. Schwanenberger,44A. Schwartzman,68R. Schwienhorst,65J. Sekaric,49
H. Severini,75E. Shabalina,51M. Shamim,59V. Shary,18A.A. Shchukin,39R.K. Shivpuri,28V. Siccardi,19V. Simak,10
V. Sirotenko,50P. Skubic,75P. Slattery,71D. Smirnov,55G.R. Snow,67J. Snow,74S. Snyder,73S. So ¨ldner-Rembold,44
L. Sonnenschein,17A. Sopczak,42M. Sosebee,78K. Soustruznik,9B. Spurlock,78J. Stark,14J. Steele,60V. Stolin,37
D.A. Stoyanova,39J. Strandberg,64S. Strandberg,41M.A. Strang,69E. Strauss,72M. Strauss,75R. Stro ¨hmer,25D. Strom,53
L. Stutte,50S. Sumowidagdo,49P. Svoisky,55A. Sznajder,3P. Tamburello,45A. Tanasijczuk,1W. Taylor,6B. Tiller,25
F. Tissandier,13M. Titov,18V.V. Tokmenin,36I. Torchiani,23D. Tsybychev,72B. Tuchming,18C. Tully,68P.M. Tuts,70
R. Unalan,65L. Uvarov,40S. Uvarov,40S. Uzunyan,52B. Vachon,6P.J. van den Berg,34R. Van Kooten,54
W.M. van Leeuwen,34N. Varelas,51E.W. Varnes,45I.A. Vasilyev,39P. Verdier,20L.S. Vertogradov,36M. Verzocchi,50
D. Vilanova,18F. Villeneuve-Seguier,43P. Vint,43P. Vokac,10M. Voutilainen,67,kR. Wagner,68H.D. Wahl,49
M.H.L.S. Wang,50J. Warchol,55G. Watts,82M. Wayne,55G. Weber,24M. Weber,50,{L. Welty-Rieger,54A. Wenger,23,**
N. Wermes,22M. Wetstein,61A. White,78D. Wicke,26M. Williams,42G.W. Wilson,58S.J. Wimpenny,48M. Wobisch,60
D.R. Wood,63T.R. Wyatt,44Y. Xie,77S. Yacoob,53R. Yamada,50W.-C. Yang,44T. Yasuda,50Y.A. Yatsunenko,36H. Yin,7
K. Yip,73H.D. Yoo,77S.W. Youn,53J. Yu,78C. Zeitnitz,26S. Zelitch,81T. Zhao,82B. Zhou,64J. Zhu,72M. Zielinski,71
D. Zieminska,54A. Zieminski,54,††L. Zivkovic,70V. Zutshi,52and E.G. Zverev38
(D0 Collaboration)
1Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
2LAFEX, Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fı ´sicas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
4Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo Andre ´, Brazil
5Instituto de Fı ´sica Teo ´rica, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Sa ˜o Paulo, Brazil
6University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada,
York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
7University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, People’s Republic of China
8Universidad de los Andes, Bogota ´, Colombia
9Center for Particle Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
10Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech Republic
11Center for Particle Physics, Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic
12Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
13LPC, Universite ´ Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, Clermont, France
14LPSC, Universite ´ Joseph Fourier Grenoble 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, France
15CPPM, Aix-Marseille Universite ´, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
16LAL, Universite ´ Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS, Orsay, France
17LPNHE, IN2P3/CNRS, Universite ´s Paris VI and VII, Paris, France
18CEA, Irfu, SPP, Saclay, France
19IPHC, Universite ´ Louis Pasteur, CNRS/IN2P3, Strasbourg, France
20IPNL, Universite ´ Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, Villeurbanne, France and Universite ´ de Lyon, Lyon, France
21III. Physikalisches Institut A, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
22Physikalisches Institut, Universita ¨t Bonn, Bonn, Germany
23Physikalisches Institut, Universita ¨t Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
24Institut fu ¨r Physik, Universita ¨t Mainz, Mainz, Germany
25Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita ¨t Mu ¨nchen, Mu ¨nchen, Germany
26Fachbereich Physik, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
27Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
28Delhi University, Delhi, India
29Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, India
30University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
31Korea Detector Laboratory, Korea University, Seoul, Korea
32SungKyunKwan University, Suwon, Korea
33CINVESTAV, Mexico City, Mexico
34FOM-Institute NIKHEF and University of Amsterdam/NIKHEF, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICALREVIEWLETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
051803-2
Page 4
35Radboud University Nijmegen/NIKHEF, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
36Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
37Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia
38Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
39Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia
40Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
41Lund University, Lund, Sweden, Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden,
and Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
42Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom
43Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
44University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
45University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
46Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
47California State University, Fresno, California 93740, USA
48University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA
49Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida 32306, USA
50Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA
51University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60607, USA
52Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, USA
53Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA
54Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA
55University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA
56Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana 46323, USA
57Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA
58University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA
59Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, USA
60Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana 71272, USA
61University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
62Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA
63Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA
64University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA
65Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
66University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA
67University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA
68Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
69State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14260, USA
70Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA
71University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA
72State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA
73Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA
74Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma 73050, USA
75University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019, USA
76Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA
77Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA
78University of Texas, Arlington, Texas 76019, USA
79Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275, USA
80Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA
81University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901, USA
82University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
(Received 14 August 2008; published 4 February 2009)
We present results of a search for WH ! ‘?b?b production in p? p collisions based on the analysis of
1:05 fb?1of data collected by the D0 experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron, using a neural network for
separating the signal from backgrounds. No signal-like excess is observed, and we set 95% C.L. upper
limits on the WH production cross section multiplied by the branching ratio for H ! b?b for Higgs boson
masses between 100 and 150 GeV. For a mass of 115 GeV, we obtain an observed (expected) limit of 1.5
(1.4) pb, a factor of 11.4 (10.7) times larger than the standard model prediction.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.051803PACS numbers: 13.85.Rm, 14.80.Bn
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICAL REVIEWLETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
051803-3
Page 5
The Higgs boson is the last unobserved particle of the
standard model (SM). As a remnant of spontaneous elec-
troweak symmetry breaking, it is fundamentally different
from the other elementary particles, and its observation
would support the hypothesis that the Higgs mechanism
generates the masses of the weak gauge bosons and the
charged fermions. The Higgs boson mass (mH) is not
theoretically predicted, but the combination of results
from direct searches at the CERN LEP collider [1] with
the indirect constraints from precision electroweak mea-
surements results in a preferred range of 114:4 < mH<
185 GeVat95%C.L.[2].Suchamassrangecanbeprobed
at the Fermilab Tevatron collider. In this Letter, we con-
centrate on the most sensitive production channel at the
Tevatron for Higgs bosons of mass below 125 GeV, i.e., the
associated production of a Higgs boson with a W boson.
Several searches for WH production have been published
at a center-of-mass energy of
used subsamples (0.17 and 0:44 fb?1) of the data re-
ported in this Letter, while two others, from the CDF
Collaboration, are based on 0.32 and 0:95 fb?1of inte-
grated luminosity [5,6].
This analysis uses 1:05 fb?1of D0 [7,8] data, collected
between April 2002 and February 2006. As in our previous
WH analyses [3,4], we require one high transverse mo-
mentum(pT)lepton(eor?)and missingtransverseenergy
E 6
two jets from the decay of the Higgs boson, with at least
one of them being identified as originating from a bottom
(b) quark jet. We extend this data selection by including
also events with three jets and events with ‘‘forward’’
electrons detected at pseudorapidities [9] j?j > 1:5. We
also now accept the small contribution originating from
misreconstructed ZH, in which only one lepton from the Z
is identified. In addition, we use a more inclusive trigger
selection in the muon channel, increasing the detection
efficiency from approximately 70% to 100% [10], we
improve the b-jet identification using a neural network
algorithm [11], and we enhance the signal to background
discrimination using a neural network for the W þ 2 jet
events. Overall, the improvements in analysis techniques
have led to an increase of about 40% in the sensitivity (for
an equivalent luminosity) to a Higgs boson with mass
115 GeV, with respect to our previous analysis [4].
For the e channel, the W þ jets candidate events are
collected, with ? 90% efficiency, by triggers that require
at least one electromagnetic object in the calorimeter. In
the ? channel, ?90% of the candidates are collected by
triggers requiring a single muon or a muon plus a jet, while
the remaining 10% of events are collected by other trig-
gers, for a total trigger efficiency of ? 100%, as estimated
in data [10].
The event selection requires one lepton candidate with
pT> 15 GeV, E 6
with a forward electron), and exactly two jets with pT>
ffiffiffis
p
¼ 1:96 TeV. Two [3,4]
Ttoaccount fortheneutrinofromthe W bosondecay,and
T> 20 GeV (E 6
T> 25 GeV for events
25 and 20 GeV, and j?j < 2:5, or exactly three jets with
pT> 25, 20, and 20 GeV, and j?j < 2:5. We also require
the scalar sum of the pTof the jets to be >60 GeV, the W
transverse mass MT
lepton pTto be greater than 40 GeV ? 0:5 ? E 6
multijet background, and the primary interaction vertex to
take place within the longitudinal acceptance of the vertex
detector. Jets are reconstructed using a midpoint cone
algorithm [12] with a radius of 0.5. The E 6
from energies in calorimeter cells and corrected for the pT
of identified muons. All energy corrections applied to
electrons or jets are also propagated to the E 6
A central (forward) electron is required to have j?j <
1:1 (1:5 < j?j < 2:5). To reject fake electrons originating
mostly from instrumental effects (track-photon overlap),
the electron candidates must satisfy two sets of identifica-
tion (‘‘loose’’ and ‘‘tight’’) criteria [4]. The efficiencies of
these requirements are determined from a pure sample of
Z ! eþe?events. The differential multijet background for
every relevant distribution is then estimated from the loose
and tight lepton samples [4,13]. The same statistical
method is used for muons but with different loose or tight
definitions. Muons are reconstructed using information
from the outer muon detector and the central tracker and
must have j?j < 2:0. To reject muons originating from
semileptonic decays of heavy-flavor hadrons, we exploit
the fact that they have lower pTthan those originating
from W decay and are generally not isolated because of
accompanying jet fragments. The loose isolation criterion
is thus defined by specifying a spatial separation between a
muon and the closest jet in the ?-’ plane of ?R ¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Tighter isolation is defined by requiring little tracking and
calorimetric activity around the muon track.
The dominant backgrounds to WH production are from
W þ heavy flavor jets production, top quark pair produc-
tion (t? t), and single top quark production. Signal (WH and
ZH) and diboson processes (WW, WZ, and ZZ) are simu-
lated using the PYTHIA [14] event generator and CTEQ6L
[15]leading-orderparton
‘‘W þ jets’’ events refer to W bosons produced in associa-
tion with light-flavor jets (originating from u, d, and s
quarks or gluons) or charm jets (originating from c quarks)
and constitute the dominant background before b-jet iden-
tification. Wc? c and Wb?b are simulated individually and
associated as ‘‘Wb?b’’ for purposes of accounting. These W
boson processes are generated with ALPGEN [16] interfaced
to PYTHIA for showering and fragmentation, since ALPGEN
provides a more complete simulation of processes with
high jet multiplicities than PYTHIA. The tt and Z þ jets
events are also generated using ALPGEN or PYTHIA. The
production of single top quarks is simulated with COMPHEP
[17].
The simulated backgrounds are normalized to their re-
spective next-to-leading order theoretical cross sections,
Wreconstructed from the E 6
T, and the
Tto reject
Tis calculated
T.
ð??Þ2þ ð?’Þ2
p
> 0:5, where ’ is the azimuthal angle.
distributionfunctions.
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICALREVIEW LETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
051803-4
Page 6
with the exception of the W þ jets and W þ heavy-flavor
samples, which are normalized to data after subtraction of
all of the other backgrounds, before b-jet identification. All
generated events are processed through the D0 detector
simulation based on GEANT [18]. Data collected with a
random bunch crossing trigger are overlaid on the simu-
lated events to model the occupancy of the detector which
is dependent onthe instantaneous luminosity. The resulting
events are then passed through the reconstruction software.
Finally, corrections are applied to account for the trigger
efficiency and for residual discrepancies between the data
and the simulation.
We use a neural network b-tagging (NNb) algorithm
[11] to identify heavy-flavor jets. Its requirements are
optimized for the best sensitivity to the Higgs boson signal.
For each jet multiplicity, we form two statistically inde-
pendent samples, one (2 b-tag) with two b-tagged jets
using a loose NNbcriterion resulting in a b-jet efficiency
of59%andalight-jettagging(mistag)probabilityof1.7%,
and asecond(1b-tag)withexactlyone b-taggedjetusinga
tighter NNbcriterion (48% efficiency and 0.5% mistag
probability). All efficiencies are determined for jets satis-
fying minimum requirements in terms of track quality and
multiplicity (‘‘taggable jets’’), which constitute ? 80% of
alljets.In thesimulations, theb-tagged jetsareweighted to
reproduce the tagging rate measured in data samples.
Using these selection criteria, the distributions of the
dijet invariant mass, using the two jets of highest pT, are
shown for the 1 b-tag and 2 b-tag samples of the W þ 3 jet
events inFigs.1(a)and 1(b).The dataarewelldescribedby
the sum of the simulated SM processes and multijet back-
ground. The expected contributions from a Higgs boson
with mH¼ 115 GeV are also shown. The expected event
yields for such a signal and for the backgrounds are com-
pared to the observed number of events in Table I.
Although the dijet invariant mass is a powerful variable
for separating a Higgs boson signal from background [4],
the sensitivity of the analysis is enhanced through the use
of multivariate techniques: In W þ 2 jet events, a neural
network is trained on simulated signal and Wb?b events,
using seven kinematic variables: pTof the highest and
second-highest pTjets, ?Rðjet1;jet2Þ, ?’ðjet1;jet2Þ, pT
(dijet system), dijet invariant mass, and pT (W boson
candidate). The training is performed for every simulated
Higgs signal (different test masses) and separately for e, ?,
1 b-tag, and 2 b-tag events. The resulting neural networks
are then applied to W þ 2 jet data and to the background
and simulated signal samples. In the final limit-setting
Dijet Mass (GeV)Dijet Mass (GeV) Dijet Mass (GeV)
000 50 5050 100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300100 150 200 250 300
Events
000
50 5050
100100
Events
100DØ
-1
L = 1.05 fb
W + 3 jet (1 b-tag)
Data
W + jets
multijet
tt
Wbb
other
WH x 10
(115 GeV)
Events
Dijet Mass (GeV)
Dijet Mass (GeV)Dijet Mass (GeV)
000 50 5050100 150 200 250 300 100 150 200 250 300100 150 200 250 300
Events
000
10 1010
202020
303030
Events
DØ
L = 1.05 fb
-1
W + 3 jet (2 b-tag)
Data
W + jets
multijet
tt
Wbb
other
WH x 10
(115 GeV)
Events
115 GeV-Neural Network Output
115 GeV-Neural Network Output115 GeV-Neural Network Output
-0.2 0-0.2 0-0.2 00.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.2 0.4 0.6 0.81111.21.21.2
Events
000
5050 50
100100 100
150150 150
200 200
Events
200DØ
-1
L = 1.05 fb
W + 2 jet (1 b-tag)
Data
W + jets
multijet
tt
Wbb
other
WH x 10
(115 GeV)
Events
115 GeV-Neural Network Output
115 GeV-Neural Network Output 115 GeV-Neural Network Output
-0.2 0-0.2 0 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.2 0.4 0.6 0.81111.2 1.21.2
Events
000
1010 10
2020 20
3030 30
404040
Events
DØ
L = 1.05 fb
-1
W + 2 jet (2 b-tag)
Data
W + jets
multijet
tt
Wbb
other
WH x 10
(115 GeV)
Events
(b)(a)
(d)(c)
FIG. 1 (color online).
background prediction. The distributions in the neural network discriminant for W þ 2 jet 1 b-tag and 2 b-tag events are shown in (c)
and (d), respectively. The expectation from WHð?10Þ production for mH¼ 115 GeV is overlaid.
Dijet mass distributions for the W þ 3 jet 1 b-tag (a) and 2 b-tag (b) events. The data are compared to the
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICALREVIEWLETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
051803-5
Page 7
procedure, the distributions of the neural network discrimi-
nant corresponding to a specific Higgs boson test mass are
used for analyzing the W þ 2 jet events. The improvement
in sensitivity over just using the dijet invariant mass is
about 15% at mH¼ 115 GeV. The resulting neural net-
work discriminants are shown in Figs. 1(c) and 1(d). For
the W þ 3 jet samples, whose dominant background is t? t,
the limits are determined directly from the dijet mass
distributions.
Systematic uncertainties on efficiencies and from the
propagation of other systematics (e.g., energy calibration
and detector response) are (3–5)% for trigger efficiency,
(4–5)% for lepton identification efficiency, 6% for jet
identification efficiency and jet resolution, 5% from the
modeling of the jet multiplicity spectrum, 3% due to the
uncertainty in the jet energy calibration, 2%–10% due to
the uncertainty in modeling W þ jets, determined by com-
paring data and expectation before b-tagging and before
reweighting the W þ jet samples to match the data (the
effectof this uncertaintyon the shapeof the neural network
discriminant is also taken into account), 3% for jet tagg-
ability, and 2% uncertainty for b-tagging efficiency. For
light quark jets, the uncertainty on the mistag rate is 15%.
The multijet background, determined from data, has an
uncertainty of 18%–38%. The systematic uncertainty on
the theoretical cross section for the simulated backgrounds
is 6%–20%, depending on the process. The uncertainty on
the luminosity is 6% [19].
We use the CLs method [20,21] to assess the compati-
bility of data with the presence of a Higgs signal. In the
absence of any significant enhancement, we obtain upper
limits on WH production, using the neural network output
(dijet invariant mass of the b?b system) for the W þ 2 jet
(W þ 3 jet) sample as the final discriminating variable.
The 1 b-tag and 2 b-tag and the e and ? channels are
treated separately, giving a total of eight analyses, which
are then combined [4]. We incorporate systematic uncer-
tainties on signal and background expectations using
Gaussian sampling and include correlations among the
uncertainties across the analysis channels. The principal
correlations arise from the dijet mass shape, the cross
section of the backgrounds, and in the reconstruction of
leptons, jets and b jets. The impact of systematic uncer-
tainties is reduced using the profile likelihood technique
which uses the data to help to constrain the backgrounds
[21].
The combined upper limits obtained at the 95% C.L. on
?ðp? p ! WHÞ ? BðH ! b?bÞ are displayed in Fig. 2 and
given in Table II, together with the ratios of these limits to
the predicted SM cross section. For this analysis, all devi-
ations between observed and expected limits are less than
1.5 standard deviations. At mH¼ 115 GeV, the observed
(expected) limits are 1.5 (1.4) pb, or a factor of 11.4
(10.7) times higher than the SM prediction. Our new limits
are displayed in Fig. 2 and compared to the expected limit
from our previous analysis [4]. The improvement in sensi-
tivity is significant, and our expected limits scale approxi-
mately inversely with luminosity compared to our previous
result. These limits are the most stringent to date in this
process at a hadron collider.
In summary, we have presented 95% C.L. upper limits
on the product of WH ! ‘?b?b production cross section
and branching fraction for H ! b?b. These range between
2.1 and 1.0 pb for 100 < mH< 150 GeV, while the corre-
sponding SM predictions range from 0.23 to 0.01 pb. The
sensitivity should increase significantly in the near future
with the continuing accumulation of data from the
Tevatron and improvement in analysis techniques. The
Higgs Mass (GeV)
100 110 120130140 150
) (pb)
b
b
→
B(H
×
WH)
→
p
(p
σ
-1
10
1
10
b b
ν
l
→
WH
)
-1
(0.44 fb0D
)
-1
(1.05 fb0D
___ 95% C.L. limits
- - - expected limits
)
-1
CDF (0.95 fb
Standard Model (x4)
FIG. 2 (color online).
corresponding expected limit) on ?ðp? p ! WHÞ ? BðH ! b?bÞ
vs Higgs boson mass, compared to the SM expectation and to the
expected limit from our previous analysis [4]. Recent CDF
results [6] are also shown. Solid (dashed) lines represent ob-
served (expected) limits. The contribution of ZH reconstructed
in the same final state is taken into account in the WH signal
when deriving the limits, assuming the SM ratio of ZH=WH
cross sections.
95% C.L. cross section upper limit (and
TABLE I.
b-tagged jets þ E 6
with the expected number of 1 b-tag and 2 b-tag events in the
W þ 2 and W þ 3 jet samples, in simulated samples of diboson
(labeled ‘‘WZ’’ in the table), W=Z þ b?b or c? c (‘‘Wb?b’’),
W=Z þ light quark jets (‘‘W þ jets’’), top quark (‘‘t? t’’ and
‘‘single t’’) production, and multijet background (‘‘m jet’’)
determined from data (see text). The WH expectation is given
for mH¼ 115 GeV and not included in the ‘‘Total’’ SM expec-
tation.
Summary of event yields for the ‘ ðe and ?Þ þ
T final state. Events in data are compared
W þ 2 jet
1 b-tag
W þ 2 jet
2 b-tag
W þ 3 jet
1 b-tag
W þ 3 jet
2 b-tag
WH
WZ
Wb?b
W þ jets
t? t
Single t
m jet
2:8 ? 0:3
34:5 ? 3:7
268 ? 67
347 ? 87
95 ? 17
49:4 ? 9:0
104 ? 29
896 ? 177
885
1:5 ? 0:2
5:3 ? 0:6
54 ? 14
14:0 ? 4:4
37:4 ? 7:0
12:4 ? 2:3
8:9 ? 2:1
132 ? 27
136
0:7 ? 0:1
9:1 ? 1:0
87 ? 22
96 ? 24
156 ? 29
15:7 ? 2:9
54 ? 15
418 ? 76
385
0:4 ? 0:1
1:7 ? 0:2
22:7 ? 5:7
8:5 ? 2:7
81 ? 15
6:7 ? 1:2
8:7 ? 2:1
129 ? 24
122
Total
Data
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICAL REVIEWLETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
051803-6
Page 8
combination of CDF and D0 results, as in Ref. [22], has
improved the overall sensitivity of Tevatron measure-
ments; with increased integrated luminosity and further
improvementsin analysis
Tevatron should be sensitive to a low mass SM Higgs
boson.
We thank the staffs at Fermilab and collaborating insti-
tutions and acknowledge support from the DOE and NSF
(USA); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); FASI, Rosatom,
and RFBR (Russia); CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP, and
FUNDUNESP(Brazil); DAE
Colciencias (Colombia); CONACyT (Mexico); KRF and
KOSEF (Korea); CONICET and UBACyT (Argentina);
FOM (The Netherlands); STFC (United Kingdom);
MSMT and GACR (Czech Republic); CRC Program,
CFI, NSERC, and WestGrid Project (Canada); BMBF
andDFG (Germany);SFI
Research Council (Sweden); CAS and CNSF (China);
and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany).
under development,the
andDST (India);
(Ireland);the Swedish
*Visitor from Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD, USA.
†Visitor from The University of Liverpool, Liverpool,
United Kingdom.
‡Visitor from ECFM, Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa,
Culiaca ´n, Mexico.
xVisitor from II. Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-
University, Go ¨ttingen, Germany.
kVisitor from Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki,
Finland.
{Visitor from Universita ¨t Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
**Visitor from Universita ¨t Zu ¨rich, Zu ¨rich, Switzerland.
††Deceased.
[1] ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, and OPAL Collaborations, The
LEP Working Group for Higgs Boson Searches, Phys.
Lett. B 565, 61 (2003).
[2] LEP Electroweak Working Group, http://lepewwg.web.
cern.ch/LEPEWWG/.
[3] V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
94, 091802 (2005).
[4] V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 663,
26 (2008).
[5] D. Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 94,
091802 (2005).
[6] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 041801 (2008).
[7] V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 338, 185 (1994).
[8] V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 565, 463 (2006).
[9] The pseudorapidity is given in terms of the polar angle ?
as ? ? ?lnðtan?
of the detector.
[10] J. Lellouch, Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-THESIS-
2008-36, 2008.
[11] T. Scanlon, Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-THESIS-
2006-43, 2006.
[12] G. Blazey et al., arXiv:hep-ex/0005012.
[13] V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 76,
092007 (2007).
[14] T. Sjo ¨strand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 135, 238
(2001); we use version 6.3.
[15] H.L. Lai et al., Phys. Rev. D 55, 1280 (1997).
[16] M. Mangano et al., J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2003) 001.
[17] A. Pukhov et al., arXiv:hep-ph/9908288.
[18] R. Brun and F. Carminati, CERN Program Library Long
Writeup No. W5013, 1993 (unpublished).
[19] T. Andeen et al., Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-TM-
2365, 2007.
[20] T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 434,
435 (1999).
[21] W. Fisher, Fermilab Report No. FERMILAB-TM-2386-E,
2007.
[22] The TEVNPH Working Group, for the CDF and D0
Collaborations, arXiv:0804.3423.
2Þ, where ? is defined relative to the center
TABLE II.
B ¼ B(H ! b?b), for the Higgs boson mass values used to produce the simulated WH samples. The corresponding ratios to the
predicted SM cross section are also given.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction (? ? B) in picobarns, where
mH[GeV]100 105110115120 125 130135 140145150
Exp. ? ? B
Obs. ? ? B
Exp. ratio
Obs. ratio
1.66
2.07
7.3
9.1
1.53
2.08
8.0
11.0
1.44
1.80
9.2
11.5
1.36
1.46
10.7
11.4
1.25
1.54
12.3
15.1
1.19
1.21
15.1
15.3
1.13
1.15
19.1
19.5
1.16
1.12
27.3
26.4
1.09
1.46
37.4
50.1
1.01
1.10
53.5
58.2
1.01
0.95
90.2
83.9
PRL 102, 051803 (2009)
PHYSICALREVIEWLETTERS
week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2009
051803-7
View other sources
Hide other sources
-
Available from Horst D Wahl · 10 Jan 2013
-
Available from unl.edu