text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This note describes a combination of preliminary results of searches for the neutral Higgs bosons of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) by the four LEP collaborations, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL. The results are based on data collected at $`\sqrt{s}200209`$ GeV, the highest $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collision energies attained at LEP, and are combined with data collected earlier at lower centre-of-mass energies.

The MSSM predicts the existence of two complex scalar field doublets, with a total of eight degrees of freedom. As in the Standard Model (SM), three degrees of freedom appear as the longitudinal polarization states of the gauge bosons W+, W- and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$. The remaining five degrees of freedom are manifested in five physical scalar Higgs states. In this note, the Higgs sector of the MSSM is assumed to conserve CP. Under this assumption, the physical Higgs bosons are the CP-even $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{H}^0`$, the CP-odd $`\mathrm{A}^0`$, and the charged bosons H+ and H-. The quartic self-coupling of the Higgs fields are determined by the gauge couplings, which limits the mass of the lighter of the two CP-even Higgs bosons to be less than the mass of the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ at tree level. Radiative corrections, particularly from loops containing the top quark, allow the lightest Higgs boson mass to range up to approximately 135 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, which is its maximal value  for all choices of parameters in the MSSM models within the constrained framework considered in this note (see Section 3.1). This constraint on the mass of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ suggests that the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ may be light enough to be produced at LEP. Searches are performed for the possible final states containing Higgs bosons and they are combined among the four collaborations in order to place the tightest constraints on the possible values of the parameters of the MSSM Higgs sector.

In the MSSM, the Higgs-strahlung process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ proceeds as in the Standard Model, but its rate is suppressed by the factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two field doublets, and $`\alpha `$ is the mixing angle in the neutral CP-even Higgs boson sector. The WW- and ZZ-fusion processes of the SM also proceed with a rate suppressed by the same factor relative to the SM rate. Heavy-Higgs-strahlung, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, occurs if it is kinematically possible, and has the SM production cross-section suppressed by the factor $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$. In some cases $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ can have a higher cross-section than $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$. The process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ also occurs when kinematically allowed, and its production cross-section is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$. Dedicated analyses are used to search for this final state.

The Higgs boson sector of the MSSM corresponds to a Type II two-Higgs-doublet model, in that the couplings of the Higgs fields to the fermions are constrained such that at tree level one Higgs field couples to the up-type fermions and the other to the down-type fermions and the charged leptons. This is arranged in order to avoid loop anomalies, to prevent flavour-changing neutral currents, and to give mass to the up-type and down-type fermions. This structure also implies that the decay branching ratios of the Higgs bosons to fermions depend not only on the masses, but also on the values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. At tree level, the coupling of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha /\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, the coupling of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ to $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha /\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, the coupling of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the coupling of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ to $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{cot}\beta `$. Over much of the parameter space considered, the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ decay predominantly into $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ pairs, although for various choices of parameters, the decays $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$, $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$, $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$gg and $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ can become important.

The searches that are combined in this note are the searches for the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ (and WW- and ZZ-fusion) processes which are used in the Standard Model interpretations presented separately by the four collaborations in , combined with the searches for the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ process described in . In addition, for models in which the decay branching ratios of the Higgs bosons to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are suppressed, the flavour-independent results are used . In all combinations, a full specification of the production cross-sections at all relevant centre-of-mass energies and all decay branching ratios are incorporated into the calculations of the expected signal rates. The searches combined are sensitive predominantly to the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decays of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$. A number of the searches mentioned above also have estimated efficiencies for the decays $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$, gg, $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ (with specified decays of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$, usually only to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$), etc. The signal estimations for these searches also include the contributions from these sources. The Higgs boson masses, cross-sections and decay branching ratios are computed using HZHA03 , modified to use either the FeynHiggs calculations  or SUBHPOLE2 .

Each experiment has generated Monte Carlo simulations of the signal processes and the SM background processes, typically at centre-of-mass energies of 200, 202, 204, 206, 208 and 210 GeV. The rates and distributions for energies in between the Monte Carlo points are interpolated.

The statistical procedure adopted for the combination of the data and the definitions of the test statistic $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ and the confidence levels $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$, $`\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$, are described in . The main sources of systematic uncertainty in the estimations of the accepted signal and background rates are incorporated using an extension of the method of Cousins and Highland , where the correlations arising from shared error sources between analyses conducted at different energies, and between similar analyses conducted by the separate collaborations, are taken into account.

Searches for charged Higgs bosons are presented separately in .

## 2 Searches for $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`𝐀^\mathrm{𝟎}`$

The analyses of the full data sample for the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ processes are documented in . This section describes only the results of searches for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$. In the MSSM, $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ is significantly different from zero only when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large ($`>8`$) and $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ is less than the maximum allowed $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ (depending on the parameters of the scenario). The models with $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ significantly different from zero have $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$$``$$`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$. The $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decays of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ are dominant for such models, and the searches concentrate on these decays only. The numbers of selected events, the expected signal for $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$=90 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$=90 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and the estimated background from SM processes are shown in Table 1, separately for each experiment. Also listed are the integrated luminosities reported by the experiments for the data taken in the year 2000. Due to the $`\beta ^3`$ kinematical factor dependence of the production cross-section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$, the expected limits on the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$=$`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ diagonal are 10 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ below the average energy of the LEP2 data in 2000, and so the precise distribution of the beam energy is of less importance to the sensitivity of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ searches than it is to the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ searches.

## 3 Limits in the MSSM Parameter Space

The $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ searches at LEP in the year 2000 are combined with previous LEP Higgs searches presented in  and references therein, conducted at centre-of-mass energies between $`88`$ GeV and 202 GeV.

### 3.1 Benchmark Scenarios

We test for the presence of an MSSM Higgs boson signal using a constrained model with seven parameters, $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, $`M_2`$, $`\mu `$, $`A`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$. All of the soft SUSY-breaking parameters in the sfermion sector are set to $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ at the electroweak scale. $`M_2`$ is the SU(2) gaugino mass parameter at the electroweak scale, and $`M_1`$ is derived from $`M_2`$ using the GUT relation $`M_1=M_2(5\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W/3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W)`$, where $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle111$`M_3`$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ are the mass parameters associated with the SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) subgroups of the Standard Model. The relevance of $`M_3`$ only enters via loop corrections sensitive to the gluino mass.. The supersymmetric Higgs boson mass parameter is denoted $`\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs field doublets. The parameter $`A`$ is the common trilinear Higgs-squark coupling parameter, assumed to be the same for up-type squarks and for down-type squarks. The largest contributions to $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ from radiative corrections arise from stop loops, with much smaller contributions from sbottom loops. The gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ affects loop corrections from both stops and sbottoms. The mass of the top quark is assumed to be 174.3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the current average  of the TeVatron measurements.

Three benchmark scenarios are considered . The first (“no-mixing” scenario) assumes that there is no mixing between the scalar partners of the left-handed and the right-handed top quarks, with the following values and ranges for the parameters: $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1`$ $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$, $`M_2=200`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mu =200`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`X_t(A\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )=0`$, $`0.4<\mathrm{tan}\beta <50`$ and 4 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ $`<m_{\mathrm{A}^0}<1`$ $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$. The gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}`$ is set to 800 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$; it has little effect on the phenomenology of this scenario. Most of the experimental Monte Carlo samples assume that the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ have decay widths which are small compared to the resolutions of the reconstructed masses; only DELPHI has performed tests in which the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ widths are significant . The assumption that the decay widths can be neglected is only valid for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <30`$ in this scenario, and hence higher values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are not considered.

The second scenario (“$`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$”) is designed to yield the maximal value of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ in the model. The $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario corresponds to the most conservative range of excluded $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values for fixed values of the mass of the top quark and $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$. The dependence of the limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ on the top quark mass is given in Section 3.2.1. The values of the parameters in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario are fixed at the same values used in the no-mixing scenario, except for the stop mixing parameter $`X_t=2M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, using the conventions of the two-loop diagrammatic calculation of . Only values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ below 30 are considered in this model also in order to satisfy the assumptions made on the decay widths.

The third scenario (“large $`\mu `$” scenario) is a scan with parameters chosen to be $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=400`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mu =1`$ $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$, $`M_2=400`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{g}}}=200`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`4m_{\mathrm{A}^0}400`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, $`X_t=300`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This third scenario is designed to illustrate choices of MSSM parameters for which the Higgs boson $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ does not decay into pairs of b quarks due to large corrections from SUSY loop processes. This situation occurs mostly at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >20`$ and for $`120<m_{\mathrm{A}^0}<220`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The dominant decay modes of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ for these models are to $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$, gg, $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. For many of these models, the decay $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is also suppressed, providing an additional experimental challenge. In this scenario, for all choices of $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, at least one Higgs boson signal with a large production cross-section is within the kinematic reach of LEP2. The maximum value of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ in this scenario is slightly less than 108 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. For some choices of $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ cross-section is suppressed by a small value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$, and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ is not within the kinematic reach of LEP2. For these models, however, the heavy Higgs $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ has a mass less than 109 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and may be produced in Higgs-strahlung. The value of Br($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$) may be suppressed, however. For all choices of parameters within the recommended ranges in the large $`\mu `$ scenario, the decay widths of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ remain small when compared with the resolutions on the reconstructed masses. For this reason, the full recommended range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ up to 50 is considered in this scenario, in contrast to the first two scenarios.

For the no-mixing and $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenarios, the two-loop diagrammatic approach of  is used to compute the relations between the SUSY parameters, $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and the production cross-sections and decay branching ratios. For the large $`\mu `$ scenario, the one-loop renormalization-group improved calculation of  is used. These two calculations give consistent results , although small differences still exist. For example, in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario, the diagrammatic approach gives a more conservative upper edge of the excluded region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, while one-loop renormalization-group improved approach gives a slightly more conservative lower edge. The value of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ predicted by FeynHiggs is uncertain at the 2–3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ level, due to uncalculated subleading and higher-order corrections. A recent calculation is available  which incorporates subleading two-loop top-Yukawa terms not yet included in FeynHiggs, although its applicability is limited to situations with $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}m_{\mathrm{Z}^0}`$. The differences with the FeynHiggs calculation fall within the 2–3 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ uncertainty, and are smaller than those induced by the current uncertainty in the top quark mass. The effect of the uncertain top quark mass on the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit is given below.

### 3.2 Results

The calculations of the confidence levels are performed for the three benchmark scenarios separately, and the results are shown in this section. The $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ and no-mixing scenarios are described together in Section 3.2.1, while the large $`\mu `$ scenario is described separately in Section 3.2.2 because of qualitative differences in the features of these scenarios.

#### 3.2.1 The $`𝒎_{𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}`$ and No-Mixing Scenarios

Figure 1 shows the $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ significance contours as functions of $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ mass and $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ mass for the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario. An excess is seen at $`(m_{\mathrm{h}^0},m_{\mathrm{A}^0})(83,83)`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, with a significance level slightly in excess of 2$`\sigma `$. This is due to candidates in the OPAL 189 GeV $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ channel  which have not been confirmed by later running or in other experiments; the significance has gradually decreased as additional luminosity has been accumulated. Another excess is seen near $`(m_{\mathrm{h}^0},m_{\mathrm{A}^0})(93,93)`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, due to candidates in the OPAL four-jet channel in the data taken in 2000 , which also does not appear in other samples. The current 95% CL exclusion limits from LEP (shown also in the same figure) rules out the possibility of a signal with $`(m_{\mathrm{h}^0},m_{\mathrm{A}^0})(83,83)`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ within the MSSM models considered, but is not strong enough to exclude the $`(m_{\mathrm{h}^0},m_{\mathrm{A}^0})(93,93)`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ hypothesis. There are two excesses in the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ searches which appear as vertical bands in Figure 1, at $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}97`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and at $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}115`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The excess at $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$=97 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is present in the 189 GeV data collected in 1998 , but does not appear in the 192–202 GeV data collected in 1999 . Its significance is only slightly over 2$`\sigma `$. The excess at $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}115`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ is discussed in ; its significance is also only slightly over 2$`\sigma `$.

Due to the large range of models investigated and the fine reconstructed mass resolutions, the probability to have a 2$`\sigma `$ excess somewhere is much larger than the 5% it would be if only a single counting experiment had been done. Over the range shown in Figure 1, the dilution factor of the significance is estimated to be 30–60. This estimation was performed by scaling the signal and background estimations of DELPHI and OPAL’s test-mass-independent analyses of the 1999 and earlier data222Since this estimation was done, OPAL has created new test-mass-dependent analyses for the 1999 data. by a factor of two, randomly generating candidates according to the background estimations, and for each set of random candidates, performing a confidence level calculation in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$-max scenario and noting the smallest $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ obtained. The probability of obtaining a particular value of $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ or smaller was estimated and compared against $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$. More than one independent 2$`\sigma `$ excess is probable.

A more detailed view of the combined $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ search results is shown in Figures 2 and 3. In these figures, the values of $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$, $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$ are shown for $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ and at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$=20, as functions of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$+$`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$. For these models, $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )1`$, and the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ searches do not contribute. The significance of the excesses with $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ in Figure 1 are seen in the plot of $`1\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{b}`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$ is used to exclude the signal hypothesis as a function of the MSSM parameters. The lowest unexcluded values of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ correspond to models with lower values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for which $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$, and so these lower bounds cannot be determined from Figure 3.

The 95% CL exclusion contours are shown in Figure 4 for the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario, and in Figure 5 for the no-mixing scenario. The results for the large $`\mu `$ scenario are discussed separately below. In the no-mixing and $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenarios, limits are shown in four projections: the ($`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$$`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$) projection, the ($`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) projection, the ($`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) projection, and the ($`m_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) projection.

The observed and expected limits for $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ for the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ and no-mixing scenarios are given in Table 2. For the no-mixing scenario, the lower bounds on $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ are given for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >0.7`$ to highlight the search sensitivity to heavy Higgs bosons. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.7`$, there is an unexcluded region with $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ below 40 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ above 65 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. This region is unexcluded because the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ process dominates, and Br($`\mathrm{A}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$) is suppressed, either kinematically, when $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}<10`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, or because the coupling of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ becomes sufficiently suppressed so that exclusion via b-tagging channels becomes impossible. For unexcluded models in the no-mixing scenario with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <0.7`$, the mass of the charged Higgs boson is less than 74 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The lower bound obtained by the combination of direct searches at LEP  is 78.6 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$. The LEP charged Higgs boson searches assume however that Br($`\mathrm{H}^+`$$``$$`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$)+Br($`\mathrm{H}^+`$$``$$`\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$)=1. This assumption is broken by Br($`\mathrm{H}^+\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{A}^0`$), which can be as large as 0.6 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =0.7`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$=74 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, at the extremum of the unexcluded area. The decays of both the $`\mathrm{H}^+`$ and the $`\mathrm{H}^{}`$ have to be considered in signal events. The LEP-combined limits on the cross-section assuming only fermionic $`\mathrm{H}^\pm `$ decays are of the order of 20% of the predicted cross-section for $`m_{\mathrm{H}^\pm }`$=74 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and so it is not clear that the entire unexcluded region can be covered by the constraint from charged Higgs boson searches. Additional study is required to quantify the effect of the charged Higgs searches on this scenario.

For models with $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}<4`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the decay branching fractions of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ are uncertain. In the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario for all values of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$, and for the no-mixing scenario for $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}<65`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, however, models with $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}<4`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ are excluded regardless of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ decay modes because the production cross-section for $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ multiplied by Br($`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$) provides a sufficient signal to exclude these models. If $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ is too low to allow decays to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, then the additional width to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ resonance from the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ process or the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ process would exceed the upper limit on the excess $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ width .

The searches presented here allow regions of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to be excluded within the contexts of the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ and no-mixing scenarios. For the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario, values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ between 0.5 and 2.4 are excluded, while for the no mixing scenario, values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ between 0.7 and 10.5 are excluded. The $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limits in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario are determined by the exclusion limit for the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ process, which depends strongly on the centre-of-mass energies LEP achieved. For the no-mixing scenario, the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limits are more complex. The lower limit is determined by the lack of sensitivity to the processes $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, where the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ does not decay to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ either because $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is too small or because the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ is too light. The upper limit is determined by the kinematic sensitivity of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ searches which leave an unexcluded region for $`90<m_{\mathrm{A}^0}<120`$ GeV. In this reigon, where Higgs-strahlung is suppressed by the small value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ is kinematically out of reach, the maximum value of $`m_{\mathrm{H}^0}`$ is 114.6 GeV. However, including the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ production does not improve the limits because models with $`m_{\mathrm{H}^0}`$ between 114.1 GeV and 114.6 GeV exist near the limits that are set. The uncertainty on the model also does not encourage the use of the Heavy Higgs signal to place limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The region with $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}>300`$ GeV in the no-mixing scenario also has an unexcluded portion at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ due to the fact that the limit in the Standard Model ($`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$) searches is 114.1 GeV , while the maximum possible value of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ in this scenario is 114.3 GeV. This region at high $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ does not contribute to the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit because it is at higher $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ than the region at lower $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$. If the model were to allow even slightly higher maximal values of $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$ in the no-mixing scenario, then the upper value of the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit could be reduced because unexcluded regions will appear at high $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$; it is for this reason that the upper limit on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in this scenario is rather uncertain.

In a more general scan, where the MSSM parameters are varied independently and the top quark mass is allowed to be larger, the limits on $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}`$, $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are weaker (see the discussions, for example, of Ref. ). In particular, if the mass of the top quark is 179 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ (roughly 1$`\sigma `$ higher than measured central value), then $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can no longer be excluded above 1.9 or below 0.6 in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario.

#### 3.2.2 The Large $`𝝁`$ Scenario

The combination of the four experiments’ results in the large $`\mu `$ scenario now includes the flavour-independent $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ searches with $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$hadrons . In all cases, the cross-sections and decay branching ratios are computed with SUBHPOLE2 . Because of the large overlaps of the accepted signals, backgrounds, and the observed candidates between the flavour-independent searches with the corresponding b-tagged searches, only one set of searches is considered for each set of parameters in the scenario, choosing between the flavour-independent set and the b-tagged set the channels which yield the best expected sensitivity, given by the smallest median $`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}`$ in the background-only hypothesis. The previous combination  of the LEP search results, which only included channels relying333The ALEPH leptonic and missing-energy Standard Model Higgs channels have some sensitivity to non-$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ Higgs boson decays, but they are not optimised for the flavour-blind interpretations, and more sensitivity is needed to exclude some models in the large $`\mu `$ scenario. on $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ decays to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, did not exclude some choices of $`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For the unexcluded models, the signal events, while plentiful, were not selected because the leading decay branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ are to $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$, gluons and $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$; the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ decays are suppressed by the choice of model parameters and there is an insufficient branching ratio of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$.

Because the light Higgs boson $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ has a mass less than 108 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for all choices of ($`m_{\mathrm{A}^0}`$,$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$) in this model, and because $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ is within kinematic reach whenever $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ is suppressed by a small $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}+m_{\mathrm{A}^0}>\sqrt{s}`$, there is always a Higgs signal with sizeable strength for all considered models within the large $`\mu `$ scenario. The challenge of this scenario is to test models with non-$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and non-$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decay modes.

A careful scan over the model space indicates that the addition of the flavour-independent $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ searches adds enough sensitivity to exclude the models which were previously unexcluded, although for some model points they are interpreted as flavour-independent $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ searches. This scenario is therefore entirely excluded at the 95% confidence level.

### 3.3 Coupling Strength Limits

Searches for $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ production with reduced cross-sections or branching ratios compared to those predicted in the MSSM scenarios investigated here are of great interest. More stringent limits on the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ production cross-section allow tests of models which either predict lower cross-sections or reduced branching ratios of the Higgs bosons to the final states which are sought at LEP. Examples of such models are those involving substantial CP-violation in the MSSM Higgs sector  and general two-Higgs-doublet models (2HDMs) without SUSY constraints .

The $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ search results from the four experiments are combined using the MSSM model considered in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario above to compute the dependence of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ cross-section on the centre-of-mass energy. The coupling limits are produced separately for the set of $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ search channels, for the set of $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ search channels, and also for a combination of all $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ search channels assuming fixed branching ratios. The branching ratios chosen for the third set of coupling limits is Br($`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$)=0.94, Br($`\mathrm{A}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$)=0.92, Br($`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$)=0.06 and Br($`\mathrm{A}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$)=0.08, which are typical in the $`m_{\mathrm{h}^0}\mathrm{max}`$ scenario for values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ greater than 10. In all cases, $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )=1`$, and the signal is multiplied by a scale factor such that the scaled signal is excluded at exactly the 95% confidence level ($`\mathrm{CL}_\mathrm{s}=0.05`$). Presently, no $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ searches are combined. The coupling strength limits for the three combinations of channels are shown in Figures 6 through 8. These limits can be interpreted as upper bounds on $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )\mathrm{B}r(\mathrm{h}^0\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})\mathrm{B}r(\mathrm{A}^0\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})`$, $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )\mathrm{B}r(\mathrm{h}^0\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})\mathrm{B}r(\mathrm{A}^0\tau ^+\tau ^{})`$, and $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ assuming the fixed branching ratios mentioned above. The limits for the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channels can be interpreted for either the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ or the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ decaying into $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, while the other decays to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$. The experimental limits are shown in the figures along with the limits that are expected in an ensemble of hypothetical experiments in which there is no signal.

## Acknowledgements

We congratulate our colleagues for the LEP Accelerator Division for the successful running in the year 2000 at the highest energies, and would like to express our thanks to the engineers and technicians in all our institutions for their contributions to the excellent performance of the four LEP experiments. The LEP Higgs working group acknowledges the fruitful cooperation between the experiments in exchanging the experimental results and developing and applying procedures for combining them.


format: text

text:
# Photoemission view of electron fractionalization in quasi-one dimensional metal Li0.9Mo6O17

## Abstract

We report Luttinger liquid (LL) line shapes better revealed by new angle resolved photoemission data taken with a much improved angle resolution on a quasi-1-dimensional metal Li0.9Mo6O17. The new data indicate a larger spinon velocity than our previous lower resolution data indicated.

journal: SCES’2001: Version 1

Of central interest in current condensed matter physics is the fractionalization  of an electron into density waves in a quasi one dimensional (quasi-1D) metal, e.g. spinons and holons in the Luttinger liquid (LL), and dimensional crossover  in which an electron (or a Landau quasi-electron) re-emerges as the effective dimension is changed to three, e.g. by lowering the temperature (T) through a phase transition. Angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) is an ideal tool to study these phenomena through the view of the single particle spectral function, and we have shown  that the quasi-1D metals Li0.9Mo6O17 and K0.3MoO3 are very good materials for such studies. In particluar, the former is suitable for studying the fractionalization phenomenon and the latter for the the dimensional crossover phenomenon. In this paper, due to the space limit, we discuss Li0.9Mo6O17 only.

In our previous work  on Li0.9Mo6O17, we reported non-Fermi liquid (non-FL) ARPES line shapes which compared favorably with an LL theory. In this paper, we analyze data taken with better angular resolution (0.36o instead of 2o), which give a better view of LL line shapes. Therefore, this paper can be viewed as providing details of our previous work  disproving another group’s claim  that FL line shapes are revealed by improved angle resolution in Li0.9Mo6O17. Fig. 1 shows ARPES data taken along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-Y line at T = 250 K with 30 eV photons at the 4m NIM beam line equipped with an SES 200 Scienta analyzer at the Synchrotron Radiation Center (SRC). The energy resolution was 49 meV FWHM, practically the same as before . This energy resolution is somewhat worse than what was used for other high resolution data published already , but gives a better signal to noise ratio without compromising the line shapes. The bands A,B,C,D found in Fig. 1 correspond very well to the 4 bands predicted by band theory , consistent with our more detailed band structure analysis . The band D, observed strongly along a different $`k`$-path , is very weak in Fig. 1, and the band C is observed more clearly due to the improved angular resolution . As a result, we can now study $`E_F`$ crossing line shapes of a single 1D band.

We focus our attention on the line shapes of band C near its $`E_F`$ crossing in Fig. 2 (a). The band B, while strong in intensity, contributes little weight at energies close to or greater than the peak positions of the band C, according to our test modelling of its line shape. Therefore, the band B distorts only the high binding energy tail region of the band C line shapes. The current data are similar to our lower resolution data  in showing the peak and the edge moving at different speeds, a monotonic decrease of the peak height, and intensity retraction from $`E_F`$ for $`k>k_F`$. However, there are important differences. (1) $`E_F`$ weight relative to the peak height for $`k=k_F`$ is now much larger. (2) As the inset shows, the edge is steeper and in consequence the movement of the zero intensity intercept of the edge, taken as indicative of the spinon velocity, is now only twice, instead of five times, slower than the peak.

As we argued before , (1) is a simple consequence of the improved angular resolution. We note that the increased $`E_F`$ intensity is still much less than that expected for a FL, marginal Fermi liquid (MFL)  or a small anomalous dimension $`\alpha `$ ($`0`$) LL, as demonstrated by an MFL simulation with coupling constant = 1 and $`\omega _c=1`$ eV, shown in the inset of Fig. 2 (b). Another reason to reject these ground states is that the peak sharpening expected in their line shapes as $`kk_F`$ is not observed in our data. In fact, the line shape at $`k=k_F`$ is very featureless. The $`k=k_F`$ line shape is well explained within the LL, as seen in Fig. 2 (b) which shows an LL simulation within a Tomonaga-Luttinger (TL) model  with $`\alpha =0.9`$ for which $`\beta `$, the ratio of the holon velocity to the spinon velocity, is 5. This is the same simulation as that presented by us previously  except for using the improved angle resolution of the new data and the unimportant differences of T (for Fermi-Dirac cutoff) and $`v_F`$ (0.8 eV Å, instead of 0.7 eV Å, describes the peak movement better in this narrow momentum range).

The finding (2) is not explained by our simulation, because the kink between the holon peak and the spinon edge and the slow spinon edge in the simulation are not observed in the data. Nonetheless, the more gap-like line shape produced by the better resolved steeper edge is even more suggestive of the generic LL line shape with its gap around $`E_F`$ for $`kk_F`$. Finding (2) implies a $`\beta `$ value more like 2 instead of the value 5 inferred previously, for which $`\alpha =1/8`$ would obtain in the TL model used. However, $`\alpha =1/8`$ would imply a spinon peak instead of an edge, and the ($`k_F`$, $`E_F`$) weight is strongly dependent on $`\alpha `$, and so we must take the $`\alpha `$ value to be unchanged. Thus the better resolved spectra show more clearly the essential Non-Fermi liquid character but force us to abandon the $`\alpha `$-$`\beta `$ relationship of the model. Because this relationship is known to be highly special to the TL model used and subject to modification due to residual interactions present in other models, the 1D Hubbard model  being a pointed example, it is easily given up.

In conclusion, we have reported LL line shapes revealed by new high resolution ARPES data on Li0.9Mo6O17. Currently, Li0.9Mo6O17 remains as the best example to show LL line shapes. We note that the theory of LL line shapes is making a steady progress. For example, a finite T theory  is now available. An identification of finite T features in our data set is a work in progress.

The work at U-M was supported by the U.S. NSF under the grant DMR-99-71611) and the U.S. DoE by the grant DE-FG-02-90ER45416. The Ames Lab is supported by the US DOE under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-82 and the SRC is supported by the US NSF Grant No. DMR-00-84402.


text:
# Correlated perturbations from inflation and the cosmic microwave background

\[

## Abstract

We compare the latest cosmic microwave background data with theoretical predictions including correlated adiabatic and CDM isocurvature perturbations with a simple power-law dependence. We find that there is a degeneracy between the amplitude of correlated isocurvature perturbations and the spectral tilt. A negative (red) tilt is found to be compatible with a larger isocurvature contribution. Estimates of the baryon and CDM densities are found to be almost independent of the isocurvature amplitude. The main result is that current microwave background data do not exclude a dominant contribution from CDM isocurvature fluctuations on large scales.

preprint: astro-ph/0107089

\]

Increasingly accurate measurements of temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background sky offer the prospect of precise determinations of both cosmological parameters and the nature of the primordial perturbation spectra. The recent Boomerang , DASI  and Maxima  data have shown evidence for three peaks in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropy power spectrum as expected in inflationary scenarios. In this context the CMB data support the current ‘concordance’ model based on a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe dominated by cold dark matter and a cosmological constant . In addition, the CMB data no longer shows any signs of being in conflict with the big bang nucleosynthesis data .

In the studies which have estimated the cosmological and primordial parameters with these new data sets, only the case of purely adiabatic perturbations has been considered so far. That is, the perturbation in the relative number densities of different particle species is taken to be zero. Although this assumption is justified for perturbations originating from single field inflationary models, it does not necessarily follow when there is more than one field present during inflation . Other possible primordial modes are isocurvature  (also referred to as “entropy”) modes in which the particle ratios are perturbed but the total energy density is unperturbed in the comoving gauge.

Most previous studies have examined the extent to which a statistically independent isocurvature contribution to the primordial perturbations may be constrained by CMB and large-scale structure data . It has recently been shown that multi-field inflationary models in general produce correlated adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations . These correlations can dramatically change the observational effect of adding isocurvature perturbations . Up until now, only the case of scale-invariant correlated adiabatic and entropy perturbations has been considered. Trotta et al.  found (with an earlier CMB dataset) that in this case the cold dark matter (CDM) isocurvature mode was likely to be very small if not entirely absent, though they did find that a neutrino isocurvature mode contribution  was not ruled out. In this letter we examine to what extent a correlated CDM isocurvature mode is consistent with the recent CMB data when a tilted power law spectrum is allowed.

Non-adiabatic perturbations are produced during a period of slow-roll inflation in the presence of two or more light scalar fields, whose effective masses are less than the Hubble rate. On sub-horizon scales, fluctuations remain in their vacuum state so that when fluctuations reach the horizon scale their amplitude is given by $`\widehat{\delta \varphi }_i\left(H_{}/2\pi \right)\widehat{a}_i`$ where the subscript $``$ denotes horizon-crossing and $`\widehat{a}_i`$ are independent normalised Gaussian random variables, obeying $`\widehat{a}_i\widehat{a}_j=\delta _{ij}`$. The total comoving curvature and entropy perturbation at any time during two-field inflation can quite generally be given in terms of the field perturbations, along and orthogonal to the background trajectory, as

$`\widehat{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\delta \varphi }_1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\delta \varphi }_2,`$ (1)
$`\widehat{𝒮}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\delta \varphi }_1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\delta \varphi }_2,`$ (2)
where $`\theta `$ is the angle of the inflaton trajectory in field space. Although the curvature and entropy perturbations are uncorrelated at horizon-crossing, any change in the angle of the trajectory, $`\theta `$, will begin to introduce correlations . Further correlations may be introduced by the model dependent dynamics when inflation ends and the fields’ energy is transformed into radiation and/or dark matter. The comoving curvature perturbation, $`_{\mathrm{rad}}`$, on large-scales during the radiation-dominated era is related to the conformal Newtonian metric perturbation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, by $`_{\mathrm{rad}}=3\mathrm{\Phi }/2`$. The isocurvature perturbation is $`𝒮_{\mathrm{rad}}=\delta \rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}/\rho _{\mathrm{cdm}}(3/4)\delta \rho _\gamma /\rho _\gamma `$ and remains constant on large scales until it re-enters the horizon. On large scales the CMB temperature perturbation can be expressed in terms of the primordial perturbations

$$\frac{\widehat{\delta T}}{T}\frac{1}{5}\left(\widehat{}_{\mathrm{rad}}2\widehat{𝒮}_{\mathrm{rad}}\right).$$
(3)
The general transformation of linear curvature and entropy perturbations from horizon-crossing during inflation to the beginning of the radiation era will be of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}_{\mathrm{rad}}\\ \widehat{𝒮}_{\mathrm{rad}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& T_𝒮\\ 0& T_{𝒮𝒮}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{}_{}\\ \widehat{𝒮}_{}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
Two of the matrix coefficients, $`T_{}=1`$ and $`T_𝒮=0`$, are determined by the physical requirement that the curvature perturbation is conserved for purely adiabatic perturbations and that adiabatic perturbations cannot source entropy perturbations on large scales . The remaining terms will be model dependent. If the fields and their decay products completely thermalize after inflation then $`T_{𝒮𝒮}=0`$ and there can be no entropy perturbation if all species are in thermal equilibrium characterised by a single temperature, $`T`$. This means that it is unlikely that a neutrino isocurvature perturbation could be produced by inflation unless the reheat temperature is close to that at neutrino decoupling shortly before primordial nucleosynthesis takes place. On the other hand, a cold dark matter species could remain decoupled at temperatures close to, or above, the supersymmetry breaking scale yielding $`T_{𝒮𝒮}`$. The simplest assumption being that one of the fields can itself be identified with the cold dark matter .

The slow evolution (relative to the Hubble rate) of light fields after horizon-crossing translates into a weak scale dependence of both the initial amplitude of the perturbations at horizon crossing, and the transfer coefficients $`T_𝒮`$ and $`T_{𝒮𝒮}`$. Parameterising each of these by simple power-laws over the scales of interest, requires three power-laws to describe the scale-dependence in the most general adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations,

$`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ $`=`$ $`A_rk^{n_1}\widehat{a}_r+A_sk^{n_3}\widehat{a}_s,`$ (5)
$`\widehat{𝒮}_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ $`=`$ $`Bk^{n_2}\widehat{a}_s.`$ (6)
The generic power-law spectrum of adiabatic perturbations from single field inflation can be described by two parameters, the amplitude and tilt, $`A`$ and $`n`$. Uncorrelated isocurvature perturbations require a further two parameters, whereas we now have in general six parameters. The dimensionless cross-correlation

$$\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{_{\mathrm{rad}}𝒮_{\mathrm{rad}}}{(_{\mathrm{rad}}^2𝒮_{\mathrm{rad}}^2)^{1/2}}=\frac{\mathrm{sign}(B)A_sk^{n_3}}{\sqrt{A_r^2k^{2n_1}+A_s^2k^{2n_3}}}$$
(7)
is in general scale-dependent.

We will investigate in this letter the restricted case where all the spectra share the same spectral index and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is scale-independent. This might naturally arise in the case of almost massless fields where the scale-dependence of the field perturbations is primarily due to the decrease of the Hubble rate during inflation, which is common to both perturbations and yields $`n_i<0`$. In the following analysis we also allow $`n_i>0`$, but we shall see that blue power spectra of this type are not favoured by the data.

We then have four parameters, $`A=\sqrt{A_r^2+A_s^2}`$, $`B`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`n`$ describing the effect of correlated perturbations, where $`n=1+2n_i`$ is defined to coincide with the standard definition of the spectral index for adiabatic perturbations. We leave an investigation of the full six parameters for future work.

By defining the entropy-to-adiabatic ratio $`B^{}=B/A`$ the parameter $`A`$ becomes an overall amplitude that can be marginalized analytically (see below). In the following, to simplify notation, we write $`A=1`$ and drop the star from $`B^{}`$. We limit the analysis to $`B>0`$ and $`0<\mathrm{\Delta }<\pi `$, since there is complete symmetry under $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and under $`(BB,\mathrm{\Delta }\pi \mathrm{\Delta })`$. Further, we allow three background cosmological parameters to vary, $`\omega _b\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,\omega _c\mathrm{\Omega }_{cdm}h^2,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,cdm,\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is the density parameter for baryons, CDM and the cosmological constant, respectively. Since we assume spatial flatness, the Hubble constant is $`h^2=\frac{\omega _c+\omega _b}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Our aim is therefore to constrain the six parameters

$`\alpha _i\{B,\mathrm{\Delta },n,\omega _b,\omega _c,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\},`$by comparison with CMB observations. We consider the COBE data analysed in , and the recent high-resolution Boomerang , Maxima  and DASI data . In order to concentrate on the role of the primordial spectra (and limit the numerical computation required) we will fix the neutrino masses (zero) and spatial curvature (zero). We will also neglect any contribution from tensor (gravitational wave) perturbations.

We use a CMBFAST code  modified in order to allow correlated perturbations to calculate the expected CMB angular power spectrum, $`C_l`$, for all parameter values. (Our $`C_l`$ is defined as $`C_l=l(l+1)C_l^{}/(2\pi )`$ where $`C_l^{}`$ is the square of the multipole amplitude). The computations required can be considerably reduced by expressing the spectrum for a generic value of $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as a function of the spectra for other values. Let us denote the purely adiabatic and isocurvature spectra when $`B=1`$ as $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{ad}}`$ and $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ respectively, and the correlation term for totally correlated perturbations $`B=1,\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ as $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{corr}}`$ . Then we can write the generic spectrum for arbitrary $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as

$$C_l=[C_l]_{\mathrm{ad}}+B^2[C_l]_{\mathrm{iso}}+2B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }[C_l]_{\mathrm{corr}}$$
(8)
We can obtain $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{corr}}`$ from Eq. (8) and using any $`B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. The library spectra $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{ad}}`$ and $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ and $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{corr}}`$ can then be used to evaluate $`C_l`$ for any $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A different set of library spectra will be needed for each set of cosmological parameters. When $`n_1n_3`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not generally scale independent and so it would be necessary to evaluate the shape of the cross-correlation spectra $`[C_l]_{\mathrm{corr}}`$ for each form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$, but one can always perform the scaling with respect to $`B`$ analytically.

The remaining input parameters requested by the CMBFAST code are set as follows: $`T_{cmb}=2.726K,`$ $`Y_{He}=0.24,N_\nu =3.04`$. All our likelihood functions below are obtained marginalizing over $`\tau _c`$, the optical depth to Thomson scattering, in the range (0,0.2) (larger $`\tau _c`$ have a very small likelihood). We did not include the cross-correlation between band powers because it is not available, but it should be less than 10% according to . An offset log-normal approximation to the band-power likelihood has been advocated by  and adopted by , but the quantities necessary for its evaluation are not available. Since the offset log-normal reduces to a log-normal in the limit of small noise we evaluated the log-normal likelihood

$$2\mathrm{log}L(\alpha _j)=\underset{i}{}\left[Z_{\mathrm{},t}(\mathrm{}_i;\alpha _j)Z_{\mathrm{},d}(\mathrm{}_i)\right]^2\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2$$
(9)
where $`Z_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}\widehat{C}_{\mathrm{}}`$, the subscripts $`t`$ and $`d`$ refer to the theoretical quantity and to the real data, $`\widehat{C}_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the spectra binned over some interval of multipoles centered on $`\mathrm{}_i`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ are the experimental errors on $`Z_{\mathrm{},d}`$, and the parameters are denoted collectively as $`\alpha _j`$.

The overall amplitude parameter $`A`$ can be integrated out analytically using a logarithmic measure $`d\mathrm{log}A`$ in the likelihood. Analogously, we can marginalise over the relative calibration uncertainty of the Boomerang, Maxima and DASI data (see ), by an analytic integration to obtain the final likelihood function that we discuss in the following. We neglected beam and pointing errors, but we checked that the results do not change significantly even increasing the calibration errors by 50%. We assume a linear integration measure for all the other parameters.

In order to compare with the Boomerang, Maxima and DASI analyses we assume uniform priors as in , with the parameters confined in the range $`B(0,3),`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,\pi ),`$ $`n(0.6,1.4),`$ $`\omega _b(0.0025,0.08),`$ $`\omega _c(0.05,0.4)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(0,0.9)`$. As extra priors, the value of $`h`$ is confined in the range $`(0.45,0.9)`$ and the universe age is limited to $`>10`$ Gyr as in . A grid of $`10,000`$ multipole CMB spectra is used as a database over which we interpolate to produce the likelihood function.

Figure 1 shows one of the best cases in our database, corresponding to $`(B,\mathrm{\Delta },n,\omega _b,\omega _c,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.63,\pi /4,0.9,0.0225,0.1,0.7)`$. The adiabatic $`([C_l]_{\mathrm{ad}})`$, entropy ($`B^2[C_l]_{\mathrm{iso}}`$) and correlated $`(2B\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }[C_l]_{\mathrm{corr}})`$ components are shown. The primary effect of adding a positively correlated component is to reduce the height of the low-$`l`$ plateau relative to the acoustic peaks . This is in contrast to the uncorrelated case where the addition of entropy perturbations increases the plateau height relative to the peaks. Isocurvature perturbations only have a significant effect on intermediate angular scales for strongly blue-tilted spectra. They have a minimal effect on the peak structure for $`n<1`$. Thus we find a near-degeneracy between $`B`$ and $`n`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$: the effect of adding maximally correlated isocurvature perturbations mimics an increase in the primordial slope. This makes clear the importance of varying $`n`$ when studying correlated isocurvature perturbations: a lower $`n`$ allows a larger $`B`$ to be consistent with the CMB data.

This near-degeneracy is broken due to the effect of $`n`$ on the slope at low-$`l`$. In Fig. 2 we plot the likelihood for $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, having marginalized over the other parameters. The plot shows that the marginalized likelihood peak occurs for $`B=0.4,\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }=0.7`$, although the pure adiabatic case $`B=0`$ is well within one sigma. It is remarkable that when a non-zero correlation is allowed, quite large values of $`B`$ become acceptable, up to $`B=1.5`$ (to 95% c.l.) when $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }0.8`$. Anti-correlation, on the other hand, reduces the range of $`B`$. We also show the likelihood contours possible in a future Planck-like experiment with zero calibration uncertainty and accuracy limited only by cosmic variance for $`l<1000`$. This shows that future CMB data alone could detect a finite isocurvature contribution around the current peak of likelihood.

We found that the contour lines of the cosmological parameters $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _c`$ are almost parallel to $`B`$ for $`B<1`$. This means that the isocurvature perturbations do not alter significantly the best estimates for these cosmological parameters. On the other hand, increasing $`B`$ enlarges the region of confidence for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and of $`n`$ toward smaller values.

Figure 3 summarizes our results: we plot the one-dimensional likelihood functions obtained by marginalizing all the remaining parameters. Panel *a* shows that the contribution of isocurvature perturbations can be as large as the adiabatic perturbations, or even larger: we find that $`B<1.3`$ to 95% c.l.. In contrast, uncorrelated isocurvature perturbations cannot exceed $`B<0.5`$ to the same c.l.. The likelihood functions for $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ extend toward smaller values, as anticipated, while the CDM and the baryon density estimates remain quite unaffected. The average values are $`n=0.94\pm 0.1`$, $`\omega _b=0.023\pm 0.004`$, $`\omega _c=0.1\pm 0.03`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.72\pm 0.11`$, .

By contrast, Enqvist et al  found that a large uncorrelated isocurvature contribution is only consistent with blue tilted slopes. The reason for this difference is that correlations can cause the acoustic peak height to increase relative to the Sachs Wolfe plateau (see Fig. 1) unlike the case of independent perturbations where the relative height always decreases. Trotta et al  found that the CMB data was not consistent with a significant CDM isocurvature contribution because they restricted the primordial slope, $`n`$, to be unity.

As can be seen from Fig. 3 our estimates of $`\omega _b`$ and $`\omega _c`$ are virtually unaffected by the addition of correlated CDM isocurvature perturbations. Thus, in our model, the nature of the isocurvature component can be investigated almost independently of the composition of the matter component.

The main conclusion of the present work is that the current CMB data is consistent with a large correlated CDM isocurvature perturbation contribution when the spectral slopes is allowed a tilt to the red ($`n<1`$). The higher precision of future satellite data has the potential to detect the isocurvature contribution, if any, thereby showing that inflation was not a single-field process.

The authors are grateful to David Langlois, Roy Maartens and Carlo Ungarelli for useful discussions. CG was supported by the ORS, and DW by the Royal Society.