text:
# Critical Tsallis exponent in heavy ion reaction

## Abstract

The numerical solution of the nonlocal kinetic equation allows to simulate heavy ion reactions around Fermi energy. The expansion velocity and density profile show specific radial dependence which can be described with a Tsallis exponent of $`q=5/3`$. This might be considered as an indication of a phase transition.

The question whether multifragmentation in heavy ion collisions around the Fermi energy is associated with a nuclear matter phase transition has been investigated for decades. From the Van der Waals equation of state it is obvious that, in order to describe such possible phase transition, we must have a kinetic equation capable to describe the second virial coefficient, or, more specifically, the excluded volume and the correlated pressure in equilibrium. While the equilibrium virial correction including its quantum equivalent has been thoroughly investigated, it is astonishing that its nonequilibrium extension has not been considered. Therefore, we have developed a nonlocal quantum kinetic theory which leads to an excluded volume as well as to a correlated pressure . Solving the resulting kinetic equation demands no more numerical effort than solving the standard local Boltzmann equation extended by Pauli-blocking effects. Some experimental features of correlations are described by this result .

Searching for signals of a possible phase transition during the reaction is hindered by the over-shading of various reaction channels and four orders of magnitude later observation. Therefore dynamical models provide the correct approach to search for appropriate signals. In  it was found that in central heavy ion reactions around the Fermi energy a non-Hubblean expansion profile appears. This was associated with a peculiar density profile and it vanishes towards standard Hubble expansion for higher energies. This has been attributed to long range correlations which are typical for fluctuations near a phase transition.

Since the heavy ion reaction is a complicated evolution of a correlated finite size system we might search for a simpler effective description of main features of the numerical solution. A promising short cut to describe effectively a statistics including finite size effects is the nonextensive statistical mechanics, starting from nonextensive entropies, as suggested by Druyvenstein , Renyi , Sharma  or Tsallis . For a discussion of the kinetics underlying generalized statistics see . Here it will be shown that both the velocity as well as the density profile can be associated with an anomalous diffusion of fractional derivative Fokker-Planck-like equation  with a Tsallis exponent $`q=5/3`$. Since the latter value represents the border between Gauß and Lèvy- like fluctuations , we consider it a hint of phase transition.

Within the (extended) quasi-particle and quasi-classical approximations  we keep the gradient terms in the scattering integral of the Kadanoff and Baym equation and obtain a quantum non-local kinetic equation ,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1}{k}}={\displaystyle P^{}\left[f_3^{}f_4^{}\left(1f_1f_2^{}\right)\left(1f_3^{}f_4^{}\right)f_1f_2^{}\right]}.`$ (1)
The arguments of the distribution functions and the corresponding ones of the quasiparticle energies $`ϵ`$ are nonlocal, $`f_1f(k,r,t)`$, $`f_2^{}f(p,r\mathrm{\Delta }_2,t)`$, $`f_3^{}f(kq\mathrm{\Delta }_K,r\mathrm{\Delta }_3,t\mathrm{\Delta }_t)`$, and $`f_4^{}f(p+q\mathrm{\Delta }_K,r\mathrm{\Delta }_4,t\mathrm{\Delta }_t)`$. The scattering probability is the square of the T-matrix, $`P^{}=\frac{dpdq}{(2\pi )^5}\delta \left(ϵ_1+ϵ_2^{}ϵ_3^{}ϵ_4^{}2\mathrm{\Delta }_E\right)`$ $`\times \left|T(ϵ_1+ϵ_2^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_E,k\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_K}{2},p\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_K}{2},q,r\mathrm{\Delta }_r,t\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_t}{2})\right|^2`$. All non-local corrections are given by derivatives of the scattering phase shift $`\varphi =\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{ln}T(\mathrm{\Omega },k,p,q,r,t)`$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }}},\mathrm{\Delta }_E={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{t}},\mathrm{\Delta }_K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{r}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{k}},\mathrm{\Delta }_3={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{k}},\mathrm{\Delta }_4={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{q}}.`$ (2)
The collision is of finite duration $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$. During this time particles can gain momentum and energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K,E}`$ due to the medium effect on the collision. Three displacements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2,3,4}`$ correspond to the initial and final positions of two colliding particles/holes. The numerical values of the shifts calculated with realistic potentials are available  and lead to simple off-set in the the algorithm which simulates the collision .

We plot in Fig. 1 the time dependence of the power of radial velocity $`vr^\alpha `$ for different bombarding energies and the corresponding power of radial density dependence in Fig. 1. There are two distinct behaviors dependent on the bombarding energy. For higher energies, $`60`$MeV and $`90`$MeV, we see that the velocity exponent approaches $`\alpha 1`$, in agreement with the Hubble expansion. This is associated with a vanishing density exponent. The slightly negative values in Fig. 1 can be understood as ring-like expansions of matter (pancakes). The interesting observation is that for energies below or around Fermi energy the density exponent is $`\beta 3`$ and the surface velocity exponent $`\alpha 2`$. This remarkable feature is present in very different simulations we made with different reactions. It is more clearly pronounced in the nonlocal scenario when compared to the local scenario. Therefore, we propose that it is connected with correlations.

Both exponents can be understood from a critical Tsallis exponent $`q=5/3`$. To see this, we first interpret the radial and time dependent density as a probability distribution in the sense of a Fokker-Planck equation with fractional derivatives, the solution of which reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}P_\gamma (x,t)=D^\gamma P_\gamma (x,t)^\nu ,P_\gamma (x,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(t)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{z^{\gamma (\gamma +1)}}{(1+bz)^{1\gamma ^2}}}\right]^{\frac{1}{12\gamma }},`$ (3)
with $`z=x(|k_1|t)^{\frac{\gamma +1}{\gamma ^2\gamma +1}}`$. The order of fractional derivative $`\gamma `$ is linked to the Tsallis exponent by $`q=\frac{\gamma +3}{\gamma +1}\frac{5}{3}`$. For a critical value of $`\gamma =2`$ or $`q=5/3`$, one obtains indeed the above observed cubic density profile $`P_2(x,t,\gamma )x^3`$. The associated velocity profile can be explained also by observing that for $`\gamma =2`$ from (3) follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}P_2(x,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2(1+bz)^2}}z=x(|k_1|t)^1,`$ (4)
and the velocity profile can be estimated to

$`v(r)<x\dot{P}_2(x,t)>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}}(\mathrm{ln}(1+bz)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+bz}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{b^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{2}}+o(bz^3).`$ (5)
This explains the radial quadratic exponent of the observed velocity profile.

In conclusion, we saw that for bombarding energies below the Fermi energy there appears a peculiar quadratic velocity profile with respect to the radius and an associated cubic power law of the density. Both features can be fitted by a fractional derivative Fokker-Planck equation with the critical Tsallis exponent $`q=5/3`$. Since this exponent marks exactly the transition between Gauß- and Lèvy-like diffusion we suggest that the observed radial dependence might be associated with a phase transition during the reaction stage.


format: text

text:
# Polarization-Correlated Photon Pairs from a Single Quantum Dot

Also at \]Solid-State Photonics Laboratory, Stanford University. Also at \]NTT Basic Research Laboratories, Atsugishi, Kanagawa, Japan.

## Abstract

Polarization correlation in a linear basis, but not entanglement, is observed between the biexciton and single-exciton photons emitted by a single InAs quantum dot in a two-photon cascade. The results are well described quantitatively by a probabilistic model that includes two decay paths for a biexciton through a non-degenerate pair of one-exciton states, with the polarization of the emitted photons depending on the decay path. The results show that spin non-degeneracy due to quantum-dot asymmetry is a significant obstacle to the realization of an entangled-photon generation device.

New nonclassical light sources are needed for recently proposed optical implementations of quantum cryptography qcrypt1  and quantum computation qcomp . Single semiconductor quantum dots generaldot  are attractive as nonclassical light sources because they have engineered properties, do not suffer from photobleaching effects, and can be integrated into larger structures to make monolithic devices. Quantum dots have already shown potential as single-photon sources singlephot1 ; singlephot2 ; singlephot3 , but they can also generate sequences of photons in a radiative cascade cascade1 ; cascade2 . In such a cascade, each photon has a unique wavelength, and the photons may also have correlated, or even entangled benson  polarizations.

In the two-photon cascade, a biexciton singlet state (two electrons and two holes, 2X) decays to one of two optically active single-exciton states (one electron and one hole, 1X) by emitting one photon, and then to the empty-dot state by emitting a second photon. In theory, the polarization properties of photon pairs emitted through these two decay paths result entirely from properties of the optically-active 1X doublet srules1 ; srules2 ; srules3 . For a symmetric quantum dot, the two 1X states are degenerate, and the two decay paths become “indistinguishable,” ideally producing polarization-entangled photons benson . For an asymmetric quantum dot, the 1X doublet is split through the electron-hole exchange interaction into states that couple to photons having orthogonal linear polarizations xchange ; kulakovskii ; takagahara . If this splitting is much larger than the radiative linewidth, then the two paths become “distinguishable,” with one decay path producing two horizontally-polarized photons and the other producing two vertically polarized photons, for example. In this case, polarization correlation is expected only in a single, preferred basis. Some additional factors are also important, such as spin flip flip  and decoherence processes defaz2 ; defaz3 ; defaz4  that randomize the intermediate 1X state, and valence-band mixing pseudo .

In this article, we present an experimental study of the polarization correlation properties of photon pairs emitted through biexciton decay in a single InAs quantum dot. While temporal correlations between 1X and 2X photons have previously been seen gerard , polarization correlation has not yet been reported, to our knowledge, although a lack of such correlation has been mentioned elsewhere kiraz . For our sample, we observe a strong polarization correlation in a linear polarization basis, verifying the theoretical picture described above. However, we do not observe entanglement, suggesting that quantum-dot asymmetry is an obstacle to realizing an entangled photon source.

A sample was fabricated containing self-assembled InAs quantum dots generaldot  grown by molecular-beam epitaxy on a (001) GaAs substrate, capped by $`75\mathrm{nm}`$ of GaAs. A high growth temperature increased intermixing between the InAs and surrounding GaAs, shortening the quantum-dot emission wavelengths. Mesas about $`120\mathrm{nm}`$ tall, $`200\mathrm{nm}`$ wide, and spaced $`50\mu \mathrm{m}`$ apart were fabricated by electron-beam lithography and dry etching. The dots are sparse enough (11 $`\mu `$m<sup>-2</sup>) that the smallest mesas contain, on average, fewer than one dot.

The setup used to characterize the quantum-dot emission is shown in Fig. 1. The sample was cooled to 3-5K in a cryostat. Single mesas were excited above the GaAs bandgap ($`710\mathrm{nm}`$) by horizontally polarized, $`3\mathrm{ps}`$ Ti-Sapphire laser pulses every $`13\mathrm{ns}`$, using a beam incident $`54^{}`$ from normal and focussed to a $`20\mu \mathrm{m}`$ spot size on the sample surface. The emission from the dot was collected by an NA=0.5 aspheric lens, spectrally filtered to remove laser scatter, imaged onto a pinhole that selects emission from a $`7\mu \mathrm{m}`$-wide region of the sample, and sent to a Hanbury Brown and Twiss-type (HBT) correlation setup. The HBT setup begins with a nonpolarizing beamsplitter, followed by retarders to correct for the polarization-dependent phase shifts caused by this beamsplitter. Each arm then includes a rotatable half-wave plate to select the measurement polarization, a horizontal polarizer, a small monochromator ($`0.35\mathrm{nm}`$ resolution), and an avalanche-photodiode photon counter (EG&G SPCM) having about $`200\mathrm{s}^1`$ dark counts. The electrical pulses from the photon counters served as “start” ($`t_1`$) and “stop” ($`t_2`$) triggers for a time-to-amplitude converter (TAC), whose output was converted to a histogram by a multi-channel analyzer (MCA) card in a computer. The resulting histogram of time intervals $`\tau =t_2t_1`$ is equivalent to a measurement of the photon correlation function, since the collection efficiency is extremely low. The “stop” signal was delayed by $`100\mathrm{ns}`$ to allow both negative and positive values of $`\tau `$ in the correlation histogram.

A photoluminescence spectrum of the dot chosen for this study under continuous-wave (CW), above-band excitation ($`650\mathrm{nm}`$) is shown in the inset of Fig. 1. The lines labeled 1X and 2X are identified as one-exciton and biexciton emission, respectively, while the lines labeled C1 and C2 are identified as charged-exciton chargeX  emission. For all of the correlation measurements to be presented, the “start” counter was tuned to the 2X line, and the “stop” counter was tuned to the 1X line.

This quantum dot has a large polarization anisotropy. For convenience, we designate “H” to be a linear polarization rotated $`18^{}`$ from the horizontal lab axis (chosen to maximize the observed polarization correlations), and “V” as the orthogonal polarization. The horizontal lab axis is aligned with one of the two GaAs cleave directions, (110) or (1-10). The photon count rate for H is nearly double that for V. The normalized Stokes vectors of the 2X and 1X lines are $`𝐒_{2X}=(0.34,0.09,0.08)`$ and $`𝐒_{1X}=(0.28,0.12,0.04)`$, respectively, where the three components are the intensity visibilities in the H/V, $`+45^{}`$/$`45^{}`$, and circular bases, respectively. Most dots on this sample have polarization anisotropy, though the direction of the Stokes vector varies. Such anisotropy has been reported elsewhere aniso1 ; aniso2 , and is related to the asymmetry of the quantum dot or its environment.

Photon correlation histograms for four special polarization combinations are shown in Fig. 2. The histograms display a series of peaks, separated by the laser repetition period. Counts in the central peak at $`\tau =0`$ occur when both a 2X photon and a 1X photon are detected following the same laser pulse, and its area is proportional to the 2X-1X coincidence rate. Counts in the side peaks occur when two photons are detected that resulted from different laser pulses. The side peaks far from $`\tau =0`$ provide an uncorrelated normalization standard, with areas proportional to the product of the 2X and 1X count rates. The integration times were chosen to yield approximately the same side peak area for each histogram. A rise of the side peaks near $`\tau =0`$ as reported in singlephot1  does not appear here, because the excitation energy here is above the GaAs bandgap.

It is clear from Fig. 2 that, in the chosen measurement basis, a large degree of polarization correlation exists between the 2X and 1X photons. The central peak appears much larger relative to the side peaks for the $`\mathrm{H}_{2\mathrm{X}}`$/$`\mathrm{H}_{1\mathrm{X}}`$ and $`\mathrm{V}_{2\mathrm{X}}`$/$`\mathrm{V}_{1\mathrm{X}}`$ cases (a,d) than for the $`\mathrm{H}_{2\mathrm{X}}`$/$`\mathrm{V}_{1\mathrm{X}}`$ and $`\mathrm{V}_{2\mathrm{X}}`$/$`\mathrm{H}_{1\mathrm{X}}`$ cases (b,c). We choose to quantify the degree of correlation by the function

$$\chi _{HV}=\frac{\sqrt{C_{\mathrm{HH}}C_{\mathrm{VV}}}\sqrt{C_{\mathrm{HV}}C_{\mathrm{VH}}}}{\sqrt{C_{\mathrm{HH}}C_{\mathrm{VV}}}+\sqrt{C_{\mathrm{HV}}C_{\mathrm{VH}}}},$$
(1)
where $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the coincidence rate for 2X and 1X measurement polarizations of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively. This function yields values of $`+1`$, $`0`$ and $`1`$ for the cases of perfect polarization correlation, independent polarizations, and perfect polarization anticorrelation, respectively, and is simply related to the polarization-flip probability $`ϵ`$ in the model described below. The data shown in Fig. 2 were acquired with $`20\mu \mathrm{W}`$ excitation power, producing a correlation of $`\chi _{HV}=0.684`$. The measured value of $`\chi _{HV}`$ for a range of excitation powers is plotted in Fig. 3. The 2X and 1X count rates are also shown. A large degree of correlation occurs even when the 2X and 1X count rates are close to saturation.

While a strong polarization correlation is seen in the H/V basis, negligible correlation is seen in the $`+45^{}`$/$`45^{}`$ basis ($`\chi _{+45,45}=0.055`$), suggesting that the photon pairs have negligible entanglement. To obtain the entire two-photon density matrix, we followed the procedure outlined in kwiat . The density matrix can be determined from the coincidence rates measured with the following 2X-1X polarization combinations: HH, HV, VH, VV, HD, HL, DH, RH, DD, RD, RL, DR, DV, RV, VD, and VL, where the first and second letters refer to the 2X and 1X measurement polarizations, respectively, D refers to $`+45^{}`$, and R and L are the orthogonal circular polarizations. For measurement combinations including a circular polarization, a single quarter-wave plate was inserted after the collection lens. To minimize the effect of sample position drift, a significant error source, we calculated the coincidence rate from the ratio of the central correlation peak area to the more distant side peak areas:

$$D_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{C_{\alpha \beta }(0)}{\overline{C}_{\alpha \beta }(\tau _n)}\frac{1+𝐒_{2X}𝐌_{2X}}{2}\frac{1+𝐒_{1X}𝐌_{1X}}{2},$$
(2)
where $`D_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the corrected coincidence rate for 2X and 1X polarizations $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively, $`C_{\alpha \beta }(0)`$ is the raw central peak area, $`\overline{C}_{\alpha \beta }(\tau _n)`$ is the mean area of the more distant side peaks, $`𝐒_{2X}`$ and $`𝐒_{1X}`$ are the 2X and 1X normalized Stokes vectors, and $`𝐌_{2X}`$ and $`𝐌_{1X}`$ are the Stokes vectors of the 2X and 1X measurement polarizations. The effect of sample drift is largely canceled, since $`C_{\alpha \beta }(0)`$ and $`\overline{C}_{\alpha \beta }(\tau _n)`$ both depend on the square of the collection efficiency. The polarization dependence of $`\overline{C}_{\alpha \beta }(\tau _n)`$ is canceled by the last two terms.

The normalized density matrix obtained for a pump power of $`20\mu \mathrm{W}`$ is shown in Fig. 4. The relatively small off-diagonal elements show that little, if any, entanglement is present. This matrix can in fact be shown by the Peres criterion to be separable peres . The on-diagonal components display the polarization correlation that appears in the H/V basis. Their values are given in Table 1.

To model our results, we consider a two-path decay process for the initial biexciton, as described in kulakovskii . In one path, both photons are emitted with $`\pi _x`$ polarization (detected as H), while in the other path, both are $`\pi _y`$ (detected as V). We assume that the two paths occur with equal probability. We also include a probability $`ϵ`$ that the two photons have opposite polarizations. This takes into account both spin flipping in the one-exciton state, and the possibility of non-ideal selection rules. The coincidence probabilities are then $`C_{\alpha \alpha }=\eta _{\alpha ,2X}\eta _{\alpha ,1X}(1ϵ)/2`$ and $`C_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\alpha ,2X}\eta _{\beta ,1X}ϵ/2`$, where $`\alpha `$ represents either H or V polarization, $`\beta \alpha `$, and $`\eta _{\alpha ,2X}`$ and $`\eta _{\alpha ,1X}`$ are the 2X and 1X polarization-dependent collection efficiencies. To compare this model to the data, we calculate the collection efficiency ratios from the measured Stokes vectors, obtaining $`\eta _{V,2X}/\eta _{H,2X}=0.494`$ and $`\eta _{V,1X}/\eta _{H,1X}=0.560`$. To estimate $`ϵ`$, we note that $`ϵ=(1\chi _{HV})/2=0.158`$, where $`\chi _{HV}`$ is defined in Eq. 1. The on-diagonal density matrix elements predicted using these parameters are given in Table 1, and are in close agreement with the measured values. From this model, we can infer that the 1X polarization flip time $`T_1`$ is at least $`\tau _{rad}(12ϵ)/ϵ=2.2\mathrm{ns}`$, where $`\tau _{rad}=0.5\mathrm{ns}`$ is the 1X recombination lifetime.

The large difference between $`\rho _{HH,HH}`$ and $`\rho _{VV,VV}`$ is related to the unequal detection rates of H and V photons. In the model above, we assume that this is due to different collection efficiencies for $`\pi _x`$ and $`\pi _y`$ photons. One might alternatively assume preferential decay through the $`\pi _x`$ path, but this explanation cannot simultaneously predict the measured two-photon density matrix and the measured single-photon Stokes vectors. The collection efficiencies for $`\pi _x`$ and $`\pi _y`$ must be different, perhaps due to the different angular dipole radiation patterns for $`\pi _x`$ and $`\pi _y`$ photons pseudo .

The fact that we see polarization correlation in only one linear basis and not entanglement suggests that quantum-dot asymmetry is a dominant effect. Neglecting spin relaxation, we calculate that the reduced off-diagonal density matrix element $`\rho _{HH,VV}`$ produced by an ideal two-photon cascade is $`0.5/(1+i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \tau _{rad})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is the frequency splitting of the 1X state, and $`\tau _{rad}`$ is the 1X radiative lifetime. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \tau _{rad}1`$, $`\rho _{HH,VV}`$ vanishes, and the entanglement disappears. This is expected, since the two decay paths can then be distinguished by the energies of the emitted photons. We infer from the fact that we do not see significant entanglement that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 1.3\mu \mathrm{eV}`$, using $`\tau _{rad}=0.5\mathrm{ns}`$, but we also know that $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\omega <50\mu \mathrm{eV}`$, since we cannot resolve the polarization splitting spectrally. Since similar spin splittings have been reported for other material systems defaz4 ; aniso2 , it appears that spin splitting will be a major obstacle to the realization of an entangled-photon device.

Several possible remedies might be used to reduce the ratio of the 1X energy splitting to the spontaneous emission rate. One could attempt to reduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ by optimizing quantum-dot growth methods, and for this purpose a systematic study would be useful. It may also be possible to force the 1X states of an asymmetric quantum dot into degeneracy by applying an electric field or a strain to the sample. Spin relaxation would remain an issue, but a recent experimental result shows that the 1X spin decoherence time $`T_2`$ can be much longer than the radiative lifetime in CdSe quantum dots defaz4 . Alternatively, one could reduce $`\tau _{rad}`$, either by using larger quantum dots bellessa , or by placing the 1X state on resonance with a microcavity gerard2 . It has already been demonstrated that the spontaneous emission rates of quantum dots can be enhanced by a factor of up to 5 in pillar microcavities solomon . We hope that by one or more of these methods, a quantum-dot source of entangled photons may eventually be demonstrated.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank H. Kamada and O. Benson for valuable discussions. This work is partly supported by MURI DAAD19-00-1-0172 (UCLA). G.S.S. acknowledges support from DARPA, ARO and JST.


text:
# BTeV Level 1 Vertex Trigger

## 1 BTeV Detector

The BTeV detector is a collider detector with two back-to-back forward spectrometers ($`1.5<|\eta |<4.5`$) having sub-detectors in each arm for charged particle tracking, EM calorimetry, RICH particle ID and muon detection . At the core of the detector is a 30 station Si-pixel inner tracker spanning $``$120 cm centered at the IR ($`\sigma _z`$ = 30 cm) and immersed in a 1.6 Tesla dipole field. There are over $`20\times 10^6`$ active rectangular pixels measuring 50 $`\times `$ 400 $`\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$. Each pixel station has two planes, one with narrow pixel dimension oriented in the $`x`$-direction and the other with narrow dimension in the $`y`$-direction.

## 2 BTeV Trigger

BTeV will operate at a luminosity of $`2\times 10^{32}`$ cm-2 s-1 corresponding to $`2`$ interactions per beam crossing at a crossing rate of 7.6 MHz. Average event sizes will be $``$200 KB after zero-suppression of data is performed on-the-fly

by front-end detector electronics. Since every beam crossing will be processed, this translates to an extremely high data rate of $``$1.5 TB/sec!

To handle this high rate, BTeV will employ a three-level hierarchical trigger architecture  (see Fig. 1). Sparsified data from all detector components will be sent via optical links to Level 1 (L1) buffers. Data from the pixel and muon detectors will also be sent to the L1 trigger processor. Trigger decisions from the L1 muon and vertex trigger will be passed on to the Global Level 1 (GL1) trigger manager whose decisions will be stored as a list of accepted crossing numbers by the Information Transfer Control Hardware (ITCH). L1 will reject 99% of all incoming events reducing the data rate by a factor of $``$100 to $``$15 GB/sec.

Levels 2 & 3 (L2/3) will be implemented with a cluster of commodity CPU nodes. A request from an idle L2 node will be sent to the ITCH which will respond by assigning an accepted crossing number to that node. This node will then request a subset of the data (pixels+forward tracking) for that crossing from the L1 buffer managers. A switch will combine pixel data with forward tracking data for the same crossing and route them to the buffer of an L2 node allowing a more refined analysis that will further reduce the data rate by a factor of $``$10.

If that passes the L2 selection criteria, the same processing node will then enter the L3 phase and request data from the rest of the sub-detectors be transferred from the L1 to the L3 buffers (L2/3 buffers will simply be the RAM attached to the processing node). Using complete information from the detector, L3 will reduce the crossing rate by an additional factor of $``$2. Since L3 will also be able to further compress the data in the accepted crossings by a factor of $``$4, the expected data rate out of L3 is $``$200 MB/sec.

## 3 Level 1 Vertex Trigger Algorithm

The first phase of the L1 vertex trigger algorithm is the track finding phase  which starts by finding the beginning and ending segments of tracks in two separate regions of the pixel planes, an inner region close to the beam axis and an outer region close to the edge of the pixel planes. The search for the beginning and ending segments of tracks is restricted to these inner and outer regions respectively. Segments are found using hit clusters from three adjacent pixel stations in the defined regions. Inner segments are required to point back to the beam axis while outer segments are required to project outside pixel plane boundaries. Once these segments are found, they are then matched to form complete tracks in the segment matching stage.

After complete tracks are found, the vertexing phase  determines the momentum of each track and calculates its transverse distance from the beam axis. Primary vertices are found by looping through all tracks with transverse momentum $`p_T1.2`$ GeV/c that appear to originate close to the beamline. Remaining tracks are then tested for their detachment from the primary vertices found. A L1 vertex trigger is generated if there are at least 2 tracks in the same arm of the BTeV detector satisfying the following criteria: $`p_T^20.25`$ (GeV/c)2, $`b6\sigma `$, and $`b2`$mm where $`b`$ is the impact parameter.

Our studies indicate that the L1 vertex trigger is able to reject 99% of all minimum-bias events while accepting $``$60-70% of the $`B`$-events that would survive our offline analysis cuts.

## 4 Level 1 Vertex Trigger Hardware

A block diagram of the L1 vertex trigger is shown in Fig. 2. Data from all 30 stations of the pixel detector are sent to FPGA based pixel processors that group individual pixel hits into clusters. Hit clusters from three neighboring pixel stations are routed to FPGA based hardware that find beginning and ending segments of tracks in the track finding phase.

Segments found in this stage are sorted by a switch according to crossing number and routed to a DSP in the track/vertex farm. This DSP performs the segment matching step of the track finding phase and the entire vertex finding phase. Based on initial studies done for the BTeV proposal , we estimate the average processing time for the combined segment matching plus vertex finding phase to take $``$330 $`\mu `$s on a single 167 MHz TI TMS320C6711 floating point DSP. Since the time between beam crossings is 132ns, this will require a total of $``$2,500 DSP in the track/vertex farm in order to examine every beam crossing.

## 5 Work in Progress

Since hand-optimized assembly code can be difficult to maintain and debug, we are working on an optimized C version of the L1 segment matching and vertexing code. A version is currently running on a C6711 DSK board in which we have replaced costly function calls with intrinsics that map directly to built-in DSP instructions and completely rewritten major sections of the code. Preliminary results indicate that this optimized C version is only a factor of $``$4-5 slower than the hand-optimized assembly version used for initial timing estimates. While we expect substantial gains in DSP chip performance in the next few years, we will continue to explore ways to improve code performance, resorting to hand-optimized assembly programming only when necessary.

We are developing a prototype board for the segment matching and vertexing portion of the L1 trigger with four DSP’s on mezzanine cards. Onboard FPGA input and output buffers will have an LVDS interface to a host computer through which simulated data can be sent. Buffer managers in the FPGA will channel data to and from each DSP via DMA transfers. Trigger results from each processor will be sent through an FPGA interface to an on-board $`\mu `$-controller that will format the results and forward them to GL1 through ArcNet. A host computer serving as a pixel trigger supervisor monitor will be connected to a second on-board $`\mu `$-controller through ArcNet, allowing commands to be sent to the board, initialization of the DSP’s, and providing hardware monitoring and fault detection. JTAG ports will also be available for real-time debugging and initial start-up of the prototype.

We are also implementing the L1 segment finding algorithm in FPGA’s and doing simulations and queuing studies of the algorithm with MATLAB.

As a final note BTeV will greatly benefit from a newly approved NSF funded project called RTES (Real Time Embedded Systems)  which will develop a semi-autonomous, self-monitoring, fault-tolerant and adaptive framework for addressing issues facing complex computing architectures like that of BTeV.

## 6 Conclusion

We have designed a Level 1 vertex trigger that will address the demanding requirements of BTeV. We are currently working on optimizing a high-level version of the vertex trigger algorithm and developing a prototype board for investigating various aspects of the L1 vertex trigger hardware.


text:
# On the Explosion Mechanism of SNe Type Ia

## 1 Introduction

The most generally accepted scenario for the explosion of a Type Ia supernova consists of a thermonuclear reaction front propagating through a white dwarf of Chandrasekhar mass, which is subsequently disrupted. Very early on it was discovered that this combustion process cannot start out as a supersonic detonation wave, but has to burn at subsonic speeds at least during the early stages, in order to explain the abundances observed in SN Ia remnants (see, e.g., Hillebrandt and Niemeyer 2000).

This fact complicates the numerical modeling of such a process mainly for two reasons:

* The buoyancy of the hot ashes near the stellar center leads to the development of hydrodynamic instabilities on many scales, which have a significant influence on the explosion dynamics, mainly by increasing the total flame surface and therefore the energy generation rate. Only a small part of the relevant scales can be resolved, so that a large region of scale space must be described by numerical turbulence models.
* Since the resulting turbulent flow pattern inside the exploding white dwarf is inherently three-dimensional, reliable quantitative results can only be obtained by resource-intensive 3D numerical calculations. Two-dimensional simulations, which imply axial symmetry conditions, may exhibit a different turbulent energy and velocity cascade and also underestimate the total burning surface. Consequently, they can only provide qualitative results and serve for validation of the numerical models.

In the following we shortly describe the numerical techniques employed in our SN Ia code and discuss the results of 2D and 3D calculations and their relation to observational data.

## 2 Numerical methods

The ensemble of numerical techniques used for the presented simulations is based on those described by Reinecke et al. (1999b); however, several physical and numerical corrections and improvements were implemented in the meantime:

* The original minimalistic combustion scheme (one-step reaction from carbon/oxygen to nickel) was extended considerably. In the new version the composition of the ashes depends on the density of the fuel, i.e. a NSE-like mixture of nickel and $`\alpha `$-particles is synthesized at high densities and 24Mg (representing intermediate-mass elements) is produced at lower densities. Additionally, the composition in the Ni/$`\alpha `$ material tracks the NSE equilibrium during the expansion of the star, leading to delayed energy release.
* An incorrect numerical factor was found and corrected in the calculation of the source terms of the two-dimensional sub-grid model for the flame propagation speed. This mistake did not have a significant effect on the results published earlier (see, e.g., Reinecke et al. 1999a), but becomes noticeable if resolution studies are performed (see the next section).
* All numerical models were extended to allow three-dimensional simulations in Cartesian coordinates. Since 3D calculations are much more resource-intensive than 2D runs with comparable resolution, a parallelization of the complete numerical code was also necessary in order to run it on massively parallel computers.

## 3 SN calculations

Different series of simulations were performed to check the numerical reliability of the employed models and to compare two- and three-dimensional explosions.

### 3.1 Resolution study

A crucial test for the validity of the models for the unresolved scales (in this case the flame and subgrid models) is to check the dependence of integral quantities, like the total energy release of the explosion, on the numerical grid resolution. Ideally, there should be no such dependence, indicating that all effects on unresolved scales are accurately modeled.

Figure 1 shows the energy evolution of a centrally ignited white dwarf. The only difference between the simulations is the central grid resolution, which ranges from $`210^6`$cm (model c3\_2d\_128) down to $`2.510^5`$cm (model c3\_2d\_1024). Model c3\_2d\_128 is obviously under-resolved, but the results of the other calculations are in good agreement, with exception of the last stages, where the flame enters strongly non-uniform regions of the grid.

So far, this kind of parameter study could only be performed in two dimensions, because of the prohibitive cost of very highly resolved 3D simulations. Nevertheless the results suggest that a resolution of $`10^6`$cm should yield acceptable accuracy also in three dimensions.

### 3.2 Comparison of 2D and 3D simulations

In order to investigate the fundamental differences between two- and three-dimensional simulations, a 2D and a 3D model with identical initial conditions and resolution was calculated. Figures 2 and 3 show snapshots of the flame geometry at various explosion stages; the energy evolution of both models is compared in figure 4.

It is evident that both simulations evolve nearly identically during the first few tenths of a second, as was expected. This is a strong hint that no errors were introduced into the code during the enhancement of the numerical models to three dimensions. At later times, however, the 3D calculation develops instabilities in the azimuthal direction, which could not form in 2D because of the assumed axial symmetry. As a consequence the total burning surface and the energy generation rate is increased, resulting in a higher overall energy release.

## 4 Conclusions

Table 1 lists the energy releases, as well as the masses of intermediate elements and nickel for the three-dimensional simulations performed up to date. These results (in contrast to the 2D models, which give too weak explosions) agree fairly well with the energies and nickel masses derived from observations (Contardo et al., 2000). The results exhibit noticeable scatter for different initial conditions, i.e. the location of the flame at the beginning of the thermonuclear runaway seems to have an important influence on the supernova energetics. Since very little is known about this parameter, one has to investigate, as a next step, the secular pre-ignition evolution of the white dwarf, which finally determines the ignition conditions.

In addition to the good agreement with observations, it should be noted that our results also are quite similar to those obtained by Khokhlov (2000), who approached the task of modeling the deflagration in a SN Ia in a quite different way. This could indicate that our understanding of all relevant physical processes is now sufficient to devise correct numerical models and converge towards the real solutions.


text:
# OKHEP–01–10 Remark on the perturbative component of inclusive 𝜏-decay

\[

## Abstract

In the context of the inclusive $`\tau `$-decay, we analyze various forms of perturbative expansions which have appeared as modifications of the original perturbative series. We argue that analytic perturbation theory, which combines renormalization-group invariance and $`Q^2`$-analyticity, has significant merits favoring its use to describe the perturbative component of $`\tau `$-decay.

preprint: OKHEP–01–10
\]

A perturbative approximation in quantum chromodynamics as a rule cannot be exhaustive in the low energy region of a few GeV and a nonperturbative component has to be included. The reliability of extracting nonperturbative parameters from data is connected with uncertainties in the perturbative description of a process arising from the inevitable truncation of the perturbation theory (PT) series. The initial perturbative series that is obtained after the renormalization procedure is not the final product of the theory. This series can be modified and its properties can be improved on the basis of additional information coming from general properties of the quantity under consideration. In this note we consider various descriptions of the perturbative component in the context of an analysis of the inclusive decay of the $`\tau `$ lepton. We will discuss merits and drawbacks of the series expansion for the $`R_\tau `$-ratio in terms of powers of the parameter $`\alpha _s(M_\tau ^2)`$ , the prescription of Ref.  which uses a contour representation, and the approximation based on the analytic approach proposed in Ref. .

The main object in a description of the hadronic decay of the $`\tau `$-lepton and of many other physical processes is the correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)`$ or the corresponding Adler function $`D(q^2)=q^2d\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)/dq^2`$. The analytic properties of the $`D`$-function are contained within the relation

$$D(Q^2)=Q^2_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{(s+Q^2)^2}R(s),$$
(1)
where $`R(s)=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(s)/\pi `$. According to this equation, the $`D`$-function is an analytic function in the complex $`Q^2`$-plane with a cut along the negative real axis.

After renormalization, the perturbative expansion of the $`D`$-function has the form of a power series in the expansion parameter $`a_\mu =\alpha _s(\mu ^2)/\pi `$. In the massless case the series has the form

$`D(Q^2)1+a_\mu d_{1,0}+a_\mu ^2\left(d_{2,0}+d_{2,1}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)`$ (2)
$`+a_\mu ^3\left(d_{3,0}+d_{3,1}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}+d_{3,2}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (3)
As is well known, this expression is unsatisfactory both from theoretical and practical viewpoints. Any partial sum of it is not renormalization-group invariant and logarithms in the coefficients lead to an ill-defined behavior in both infrared and ultraviolet regions.

The modification of the initial representation (2) based on renormalization-group invariance reads

$`D(Q^2)`$ $``$ $`1+\overline{a}(Q^2)d_{1,0}+\overline{a}^2(Q^2)d_{2,0}`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\overline{a}^3(Q^2)d_{3,0}+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
where $`\overline{a}(Q^2)`$ is the running coupling. This commonly used modification removes some of the undesirable features of the expansion (2). A partial sum of the series (4) is now $`\mu `$-independent. The log-terms in the coefficients of Eq, (2) have been summed into the running coupling and the series (4) can now be used in the ultraviolet region. However, the correct analytic properties of the partial sum of Eq. (2), the principal merit of this expansion, are no longer valid due to unphysical singularities of the perturbative running coupling.

An analytic approach proposed in Ref.  gives a possible resolution of this problem. The series (4) has been constructed from that in Eq. (2) by using additional information of a general type—the renormalization-group invariance of the quantity under consideration. The analytic approach makes the next logical step in the modification of the perturbative expansion by bringing into consideration additional general principles of the theory which are reflected in the $`Q^2`$-analyticity. In the framework of analytic perturbation theory (APT), the series has the form of a nonpower expansion

$`D(Q^2)`$ $``$ $`1+𝒜_1(Q^2)d_{1,0}+𝒜_2(Q^2)d_{2,0}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`𝒜_3(Q^2)d_{3,0}+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
where $`𝒜_k(Q^2)`$ are analytic functions in the complex $`Q^2`$-plane with a cut along the negative real axis. The expansion (6) maintains not only correct analytic properties of the partial sum, but leads to some new remarkable features. For example, within the APT the renormalization scheme (RS) dependence of results obtained, caused by the inevitable truncation of the series, is reduced drastically (see details and applications to various processes in Refs. ). Moreover, the analytic approach allows one to give a self-consistent definition of the perturbative expansion in the timelike region . The APT representation of the $`R`$-ratio in the process of $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation into hadrons, defined in the timelike region, like the $`D`$-function, defined in the spacelike region, has the form of a nonpower expansion

$`R(s)`$ $``$ $`1+𝔄_1(s)d_{1,0}+𝔄_2(s)d_{2,0}`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`𝔄_3(s)d_{3,0}+\mathrm{}.`$ (9)
Both expansions, Eqs. (6) and (8), are related term by term by Eq. (1). The functions $`𝒜_k`$ and $`𝔄_k`$ are close to each other, although they do not coincide .

The functions $`D(Q^2)`$ and $`R(s)`$ can be written in terms of an effective spectral function $`\rho (\sigma )`$ :

$$D(Q^2)1+\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \frac{\rho (\sigma )}{\sigma +Q^2},$$
(10)
$$R(s)1+\frac{1}{\pi }_s^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }\rho (\sigma ).$$
(11)
The function $`\rho (\sigma )`$ is calculated by taking the discontinuity of $`D(Q^2)`$ across the cut.

The leading-order expansion functions in the spacelike and timelike regions are

$$𝒜_1(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta _0}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2Q^2}\right],$$
(12)
$$𝔄_1(s)=\frac{1}{\beta _0}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}{\pi }\right].$$
(13)
The expression (12) contains the standard logarithmic term which coincides with the perturbative expression having a ghost pole at $`Q^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. The second term in Eq. (12) (which appears automatically from the Källén–Lehmann representation) has a non-logarithmic power structure, cancels the ghost pole, and provides expression (12) with the correct analytic properties. This term has a short distance origin unrelated to the operator product expansion and, therefore, is not inconsistent with it (see, for instance, the discussion in Ref. ). Rewritten in terms of the PT running coupling the second term in Eq. (12) has the structure of the type $`\mathrm{exp}(1/\overline{a})`$ and it therefore makes no contribution to the perturbative series. Thus, the true analytic properties of the function (12) are restored by terms which are invisible in the perturbation expansion, which terms, nevertheless, are felt by the dispersion relation, even for the spectral function calculated perturbatively. The regularity of the function (13), defined in the timelike region, has another origin. Its perturbative expansion contains only logarithmic terms proportional to powers of $`\pi ^2/\mathrm{ln}^2(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$. The $`\pi ^2`$-terms are usually incorporated into the coefficients in the perturbative expansion of $`R(s)`$ without changing the expansion parameter, i.e., the form of the running coupling in the timelike region is taken to be the same as in the spacelike region. In any order of that expansion the relation (1) will be violated.

The experimentally measured $`R_\tau `$-ratio of hadronic to leptonic widths is given by

$$R_\tau =2_0^{M_\tau ^2}\frac{ds}{M_\tau ^2}\left(1\frac{s}{M_\tau ^2}\right)^2\left(1+2\frac{s}{M_\tau ^2}\right)R(s).$$
(14)
This expression can be represented in the form of a contour integral in terms of the Adler $`D`$-function

$$R_\tau =\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_{|z|=M_\tau ^2}\frac{dz}{z}\left(1\frac{z}{M_\tau ^2}\right)^3\left(1+\frac{z}{M_\tau ^2}\right)D(z).$$
(15)
The integration in Eq. (14) contains an interval over timelike momentum which extends down to small $`s`$ and, therefore, cannot directly be calculated if one applies the standard parameterizations of $`R(s)`$ in terms of the singular PT running coupling. At first glance the contour representation (15) solves this problem because the integration over the circle is well-defined even if the $`D`$-function is written in terms of $`\alpha _s(Q^2)`$. However, in order to perform this transformation self-consistently, it is necessary to maintain required analytic properties of the $`D`$-function, which are violated in the framework of standard PT with a singular running coupling.

Two approaches are usually used to describe the perturbative component in inclusive $`\tau `$-decay. In the first one , called the fixed-order perturbation theory (FOPT), the perturbative QCD contribution $`\delta _\tau `$ to $`R_\tau `$ is represented in the form of a power expansion in the parameter $`\overline{a}\left(M_\tau ^2\right)`$. The three-loop approximation reads

$$\delta _\tau ^{\mathrm{FOPT}}=\overline{a}\left(M_\tau ^2\right)+K_1\overline{a}^2\left(M_\tau ^2\right)+K_2\overline{a}^3\left(M_\tau ^2\right),$$
(16)
where in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme for three active flavors the coefficients are $`K_1=5.2023`$ and $`K_2=26.366`$.

Another PT form is obtained if the perturbative expansion (4) is substituted into the contour integral (15). This gives the so-called contour-improved perturbation theory (CIPT) representation

$$\delta _\tau ^{\mathrm{CIPT}}=A^{(1)}\left(M_\tau ^2\right)+d_1A^{(2)}\left(M_\tau ^2\right)+d_2A^{(3)}\left(M_\tau ^2\right)$$
(17)
with

$`A^{(n)}\left(M_\tau ^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{|z|=M_\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{z}{M_\tau ^2}}\right)^3\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{z}{M_\tau ^2}}\right)\overline{a}^n(z),`$ (19)
where $`d_1=1.640`$ and $`d_2=6.371`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme.

Both expressions, Eqs. (16) and (17), are widely used in the analysis of $`\tau `$-decay data. However, their status is different. The formula (16) can be obtained self-consistently. In Eq. (14) one has to use for $`R(s)`$ the initial perturbative approximation, like Eq. (2) for $`D`$-function, with the expansion parameter $`a_\mu `$. Then, after integration over $`s`$, the logarithmic terms containing $`\mathrm{ln}(M_\tau ^2/\mu ^2)`$ are removed by setting $`\mu ^2=M_\tau ^2`$. The same result is obtained if the contour representation (15) is used and the $`D`$-function is taken in the form (2) which preserves the required analytic properties. As for the representation (17), it will be consistent with Eqs. (14) and (15) if $`\overline{a}(z)`$ has analytic properties of the Källén–Lehmann type. The use of the standard running coupling with unphysical singularities in Eq. (18) breaks this consistency.

In the framework of APT, where the $`Q^2`$-analyticity is maintained, the expression for $`\delta _\tau `$ can be obtained both from the initial formula (14) and from the contour representation (15). In terms of the effective spectral function it has the form

$`\delta _\tau ^{\mathrm{APT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }}\rho (\sigma )`$ (20)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{M_\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_\tau ^2}}\right)^3\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_\tau ^2}}\right)\rho (\sigma ).`$ (21)
In Fig. 1, we compare $`\delta _\tau `$ as a function of the three-loop running coupling in the cases of FOPT, CIPT, and APT. The running coupling in the Euclidean region is defined by

$$\alpha (Q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma +Q^2}\text{Im}\left[\alpha _{\mathrm{pt}}(\sigma iϵ)\right],$$
(22)
which in lowest order coincides with Eq. (12). This plot corresponds to calculations in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme. The difference between these functions is negligible at sufficiently small $`\alpha _s(M_\tau ^2)`$ and becomes substantial with larger values of the coupling. The shaded area reflects the value $`\delta _\tau =0.200\pm 0.013`$  which corresponds to the experimental measurement for the non-strange channel of the $`\tau `$-data .

A discussion of the perturbative contribution to inclusive $`\tau `$-decay has been given in Ref. , in which it has been claimed that in order to describe the experimental data for $`\tau `$-decay the value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}(M_\tau ^2)`$ should be taken in the range of $`1.5`$$`2.0`$. This conclusion contradicts our result. Fig. 1 clearly demonstrates that in order to reproduce the experimental data such large values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}(M_\tau ^2)`$ are not required. Moreover, in the APT approach, the value of the analytic running coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}(Q^2)`$ is bounded from above and cannot exceed the infrared limiting value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}\pi /\beta _01.4`$ . Beyond this, in Ref. , it was noted that this impossibly large value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{an}}(M_\tau ^2)`$ corresponds to $`\alpha _s(M_Z^2)0.15`$. However, in order to obtain the value of $`\alpha _s`$ at the $`Z`$-boson mass scale, the region of five active quarks should be approached by applying a special procedure of matching from the three-quark region . Corresponding estimates have been given in Ref. . The large value of the scale parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ extracted in a pure APT analysis of the $`\tau `$-data indicates that nonperturbative effects are not negligible. As it has been demonstrated in Ref. , the light $`D`$-function corresponding to the non-strange vector channel $`\tau `$-data can be described by using reasonable effective quark masses with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}420`$ MeV.

As has been emphasized in Ref. , the merit of the contour representation is that it produces expressions for quantities in the physical region that are not expansions in the parameter $`\pi /\mathrm{ln}(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$, not a small quantity in the intermediate energy region. In particular, one can write the formula for $`R(s)`$ \[see Eq. (11) from Ref. \] which contains the expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (13). Although we agree with the authors of Ref.  that it is important to sum up the $`\pi ^2`$-terms in the region of intermediate energies (see Ref. ) and that it is preferable to use an expression which sums up the $`\pi ^2`$-contributions rather than the asymptotic expression $`1/\mathrm{ln}(s/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)`$, we note the following: The expression discussed in Ref.  is simply associated with the APT timelike function (13) which unambiguously leads to the Euclidean function (12). So, we conclude that the analytic approach provides a consistent form of expressions of the type (13) in the timelike region, whose evident advantage is the summation of the $`\pi ^2`$-contributions into a regular function, and results in the corresponding analytic expressions for the $`D`$-function in the spacelike region, where unphysical singularities are cancelled by functions of a nonlogarithmic type vanishing in a perturbative expansion. In other words, summation of the $`\pi ^2`$-contributions in the s-channel produces power (nonlogarithmic in $`Q^2`$) contributions in the t-channel that ensure the analytic properties by canceling unphysical singularities in the logarithmic terms.

A significant source of theoretical uncertainty of the results obtained arises from the RS dependence due to the inevitable inclusion of only a finite number of terms in the PT series. There are no general principles that give preference to a particular renormalization scheme and the stability of the result has to be studied at least with respect to a relevant class of schemes. A virtue of the APT approach is its higher stability over a wide range of RS . (A similar observation has been made in the context of deep-inelastic scattering sum rules .) In contrast, results obtained in the framework of FOPT have a strong RS dependence. Indeed, if one performs calculations in some scheme and then by using a RS transformation extracts the value of $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_\tau ^2)`$ in the commonly used $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-scheme, we find that this value possesses a strong uncertainty. This fact is shown in Fig. 2. A point on the $`(K_1,b_2)`$-plane corresponds to a RS, where $`b_2=\beta _2/\beta _0`$ is the ratio of the three-loop and one-loop coefficients of the $`\beta `$-function. In the shaded area there are no appropriate solutions of the cubic equation (16). We indicate the popular $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme and the optimal schemes: ECH, which recently has been applied to the $`\tau `$-decay , based on an effective charge method , and PMS based on a principle of minimal sensitivity . A straightforward way of extracting the value of the coupling based solely on the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme gives $`\alpha _s^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(M_\tau ^2)=0.337\pm 0.008`$. An analysis which takes into account the RS ambiguity leads to a much larger error in $`\alpha _s(M_\tau ^2)`$. The reason for the enhanced RS stability of the APT scheme is its perturbative stability—the leading order term captures the bulk of the QCD correction.

In summary, we have made a comparative analysis of the merits and drawbacks of three forms of perturbative approximations in the context of the application of QCD to the inclusive decay of the $`\tau `$-lepton. Two of them, the FOPT and CIPT, use, in one way or another, the running coupling with unphysical singularities to parameterize $`R_\tau `$. However, the justification of these schemes is rather different. The FOPT has a more solid foundation than the CIPT, which is simply self-contradictory. However, due to the strong RS dependence, the FOPT leads to a large uncertainty in extracting QCD parameters from the data. We have put forward arguments in favor of APT. Calculations in the framework of this approach are self-consistent and considerably reduce the theoretical uncertainty of the results obtained; this is important in extracting the nonperturbative component of the QCD description of the process.

The authors would like to thanks D.V. Shirkov for interest in this work and useful discussions. Partial support of the work by the U.S. Department of Energy, grant number DE-FG03-98ER41066, and by the RFBR, grants 99-01-00091, 99-02-17727, and 00-15-96691, is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric extensions of the standard model generally predict relatively light Higgs bosons. One of the most important tasks of the LHC is the search for Higgs bosons . An important milestone in understanding the potential of the LHC was the demonstration that at least one Higgs boson of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) would be detectable at the $`5\sigma `$ level throughout all of the MSSM parameter space so long as top squark masses do not exceed 1.5 to 2 TeV and so long as large branching fractions to decay channels containing supersymmetric particles are not substantial.

In the present paper, we study, subject to these same and a few other simplifying restrictions, the detectability of Higgs bosons in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model (NMSSM). In the NMSSM, one Higgs singlet superfield, $`\widehat{S}`$, is added to the MSSM in order to render unnecessary the bilinear superpotential term $`\mu \widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2`$ by replacing it with $`\lambda \widehat{S}\widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2`$, where the vacuum expectation value of the scalar component of $`\widehat{S}`$, $`S`$, results in an effective bilinear Higgs mixing with $`\mu =\lambda S`$. The detectability of the NMSSM Higgs bosons was first considered in a contribution to Snowmass 96 . The result, using the experimentally established modes and sensitivities available at the time, was that substantial regions in the parameter space of the NMSSM were found where none of the Higgs bosons would have been observable either at LEP2 or at the LHC even with an integrated luminosity of $`600\mathrm{fb}^1`$ (two detectors with $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ each).

Since then, progress has been made both on the theoretical and the experimental sides. On the theoretical side, the dominant two-loop corrections to the effective potential of the model have been computed . These lead to a modest decrease in the mass of the lightest Higgs scalar, holding fixed the stop sector parameters. Inclusion of the two-loop corrections thus increases somewhat the part of the NMSSM parameter space excluded by LEP2 (and accessible at the Tevatron) , but is of less relevance for the LHC. On the experimental side the expected statistical significances have been improved since 1996 . Most notably, associated $`t\overline{t}h`$ production with $`hb\overline{b}`$ (originally discussed in ), which in the SM context is particularly sensitive to $`m_h<120`$ GeV, has been added by ATLAS and CMS to the list of Higgs boson detection modes . Analysis of this mode was recently extended  to $`m_h=140\mathrm{GeV}`$, which, though not relevant in the SM case due to the decline in the $`b\overline{b}`$ branching ratio as the $`WW^{}`$ mode increases, is highly relevant for points in our searches for which the $`WW^{}`$ mode is suppressed in comparison to the SM prediction. In addition, techniques have been proposed  for isolating signals for $`WW`$ fusion to a light Higgs boson which decays to $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ or $`WW^{()}`$.

It turns out that adding in just the $`t\overline{t}h`$ process renders the no-Higgs-discovery parameter choices described and plotted in , including the “black point” described in detail there, visible . In the present paper, we search for any remaining parameter choices for which no Higgs boson would produce a $`5\sigma `$ signal. In this search, we perform a scan over nearly all of the parameter space of the model, the only parameter choices not included being those for which there is sensitivity to the highly model-dependent decays of Higgs bosons to other Higgs bosons and/or superparticles. The outcome is that, for an integrated luminosity of $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the LHC, there are still regions in the parameter space with $`<5\sigma `$ expected statistical significance (computed as $`N_{SD}=S/\sqrt{B}`$ for a given mode) for all Higgs detection modes so far studied in detail by ATLAS and CMS, i.e. including the $`t\overline{t}ht\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ mode but not the $`WW`$-fusion modes. On the other hand, the expected statistical significance for at least one of these detection modes is always above $`3.6\sigma `$ at $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$, and the statistical significance obtained by combining (using the naive Gaussian procedure) all the non-$`WW`$-fusion modes is at least $`4.8\sigma `$. However, we find that all such cases are quite observable (at $`10.1\sigma `$) in one of the $`WW`$-fusion modes (using theoretically estimated statistical significances for these modes). For all points in the scan of parameter space, statistical significances obtained by combining all modes, including $`WW`$-fusion modes, are always $`>10.7\sigma `$. Thus, NMSSM Higgs discovery by just one detector with $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ is essentially guaranteed for those portions of parameter space for which Higgs decays to other Higgs bosons or supersymmetric particles are kinematically forbidden. This represents substantial progress towards guaranteeing LHC discovery of at least one of the NMSSM Higgs bosons.

In order to clarify the nature of the most difficult points in those portions of parameter space considered, we present, in sect. 4, examples of particularly difficult bench mark points for the Higgs sector of the NMSSM. Apart from the “bare” parameters of the model, we give the masses and couplings of all Higgs scalars, their production rates and branching ratios to various channels (relative to the SM Higgs) and details of the statistical significances predicted for each Higgs boson in each channel. The latter will allow an assessment of exactly what level of improvement in statistical significance will be required in the various different detection modes in order to render marginal modes visible. Of course, our estimates of the expected statistical significances are often somewhat crude (e.g. their dependence on the accumulated integrated luminosity). We believe that our procedures always err in the conservative direction, leading to statistical significances that might be a bit small. Thus, the LHC procedures for isolating Higgs boson signals could provide even more robust signals for NMSSM Higgs boson detection than we estimate here.

The detection modes, which serve for the searches for standard model or MSSM Higgs bosons, include (using the notation $`h`$, $`a`$ for CP-even, CP-odd Higgs bosons, respectively):

1) $`ggh\gamma \gamma `$;

2) associated $`Wh`$ or $`t\overline{t}h`$ production with $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{}^\pm `$ in the final state;

3) associated $`t\overline{t}h`$ production with $`hb\overline{b}`$;

4) $`ggh/a`$ or associated $`b\overline{b}h/a`$ production with $`h/a\tau \overline{\tau }`$;

5) $`gghZZ^{()}`$ 4 leptons;

6) $`gghWW^{()}l^+l^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$;

7) LEP2 $`e^+e^{}Zh`$ and $`e^+e^{}ha`$;

8) $`WWh\tau \overline{\tau }`$;

9) $`WWhWW^{()}`$,

where 8) and 9) are those analyzed at the theoretical level in  and included in the NMSSM analysis for the first time in this paper. The above detection modes do not employ the possibly important decay channels i) $`hhh`$, ii) $`haa`$, iii) $`hh^+h^{}`$, iv) $`haZ`$, v) $`aha`$, vi) $`ahZ`$, vii) $`h,ah^\pm W^{}`$, viii) $`h,at\overline{t}`$ and ix) $`th^+b`$. The decay modes i)-vii) give high multiplicity final states and deserve a dedicated study , while the existing analyses of the $`t\overline{t}`$ final state signatures are not very detailed. Further, when kinematically allowed, the $`th^+b`$ signal would be easily observed according to existing analyzes. Thus, in this paper we restrict our scan over NMSSM parameter space to those parameters for which none of these decays are present. In addition, we take the constraints of LEP2 \[via the mode 7)\] into account, and only accept points for which $`5\sigma `$ discovery at LEP2 would not have been possible .

The Higgs sector of the NMSSM consists of 3 scalars, denoted $`h_1,h_2,h_3`$ with $`m_{h_1}<m_{h_2}<m_{h_3}`$, 2 pseudo-scalars, denoted $`a_1,a_2`$ with $`m_{a_1}<m_{a_2}`$, and a charged Higgs pair, denoted $`h^\pm `$. Mixing of the neutral doublet fields with the gauge singlet fields in the scalar and in the pseudo-scalar sector can be strong. The scalar mixing can lead to a simultaneous suppression of the couplings of all the $`h_i`$ to gauge bosons, and hence to a suppression of many of the detection modes above. (Of course, the $`a_i`$ have no tree-level couplings to gauge boson pairs and the one-loop couplings are too small to yield useful event rates.) The couplings of the Higgs bosons to t- or b-quarks can be amplified, reduced or even change sign with respect to the standard model couplings. Hence negative interferences can occur among the (loop-) diagrams contributing to $`ggh_i`$ and $`h_i\gamma \gamma `$, leading again to suppressions of the above detection modes. A complete simultaneous annulation of all detection modes is not possible, but simultaneous reduction of all detection modes is possible and it is for such parameter choices that NMSSM Higgs boson discovery is most difficult.

In the next section, we define the class of models we are going to consider, and the way we perform the scan over the corresponding parameter space. In section 3 we describe our computations of the expected statistical significances of the detection modes 1) – 9) above. In section 4, we present six particularly difficult bench mark points (in table 1) and details regarding their statistical significances in channels 1)-9) in table 2, with a summary of overall statistical significances in table 3. Using these tables, we give a discussion of the properties of these points.

## 2 NMSSM Parameters and Scanning Procedure

In this paper, we consider the simplest version of the NMSSM , where the term $`\mu \widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2`$ in the superpotential of the MSSM is replaced by (we use the notation $`\widehat{A}`$ for the superfield and $`A`$ for its scalar component field)

$$\lambda \widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2\widehat{S}+\frac{\kappa }{3}\widehat{S}^3,$$
(2.1)
so that the superpotential is scale invariant. We make no assumption on “universal” soft terms. Hence, the five soft supersymmetry breaking terms

$$m_{H_1}^2H_1^2+m_{H_2}^2H_2^2+m_S^2S^2+\lambda A_\lambda H_1H_2S+\frac{\kappa }{3}A_\kappa S^3$$
(2.2)
are considered as independent. The masses and/or couplings of sparticles are assumed to be such that their contributions to the loop diagrams inducing Higgs production by gluon fusion and Higgs decay into $`\gamma \gamma `$ are negligible. In the stop sector, which appears in the radiative corrections to the Higgs potential, we chose the soft masses $`m_Q=m_TM_{susy}=1`$ TeV, and varied the stop mixing parameter

$$X_t2\frac{A_t^2}{M_{susy}^2+m_t^2}\left(1\frac{A_t^2}{12(M_{susy}^2+m_t^2)}\right).$$
(2.3)
As in the MSSM, the value $`X_t=\sqrt{6}`$ – so called maximal mixing – maximizes the radiative corrections to the Higgs masses, and we found that it leads to the most challenging points in the parameter space of the NMSSM.

Assuming that the Higgs sector is CP conserving, the independent parameters of the model are thus: $`\lambda ,\kappa ,m_{H_1}^2,m_{H_2}^2,m_S^2,A_\lambda `$ and $`A_\kappa `$. For purposes of scanning and analysis, it is more convenient to eliminate $`m_{H_1}^2`$, $`m_{H_2}^2`$ and $`m_S^2`$ in favor of $`M_Z`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=\lambda S`$ through the three minimization equations of the Higgs potential (including the dominant 1- and 2-loop corrections ) and to scan over the six independent parameters

$$\lambda ,\kappa ,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mu _{\mathrm{eff}},A_\lambda ,A_\kappa .$$
(2.4)
We adopt the convention $`\lambda ,\kappa >0`$, in which $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can have either sign. The absence of Landau singularities for $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ below the GUT scale ($`2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV) imposes upper bounds on these couplings at the weak scale, which depend on the value of $`h_t`$ and hence of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ . Using $`m_{top}^{pole}=175`$ GeV, one finds $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}0.69`$ and $`\kappa _{\mathrm{max}}0.62`$ for intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

For each point in the parameter space, we diagonalize the scalar and pseudo-scalar mass matrices and compute the scalar, pseudo-scalar and charged Higgs masses and couplings taking into account the dominant 1- and 2-loop radiative corrections . We then demand that the Higgs scalars satisfy the LEP2 constraints on the $`e^+e^{}Zh_i`$ production mode (taken from , fig. 10), which gives a lower bound on $`m_{h_i}`$ as a function of the $`ZZh_i`$ reduced coupling. We also impose LEP2 constraints on $`e^+e^{}h_ia_j`$ associated production (from , fig. 6), yielding a lower bound on $`m_{h_i}+m_{a_j}`$ as a function of the $`Zh_ia_j`$ reduced coupling.

In order to render the above-mentioned processes i) – ix) kinematically impossible, we require the following inequalities among the masses:

$`m_{h_3}<2m_{h_1},2m_{a_1},2m_{h^\pm },m_{a_1}+M_Z,m_{h^\pm }+M_W;`$
$`m_{a_2}<m_{h_1}+m_{a_1},m_{h_1}+M_Z,m_{h^\pm }+M_W;m_{h^\pm }>155\text{GeV}.`$
In addition we require $`|\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}|>100`$ GeV; otherwise a light chargino would have been detected at LEP2. (The precise lower bound on $`|\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}|`$ depends somewhat on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the precise experimental lower bound on the chargino mass; however, our subsequent results do not depend on the precise choice of the lower bound on $`|\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}|`$.) We further note that for the most challenging parameter space points that we shall shortly discuss, $`|\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}|>100\mathrm{GeV}`$ is already sufficient to guarantee that the NMSSM Higgs bosons cannot decay to chargino pairs so long as the SU(2) soft-SUSY-breaking parameter $`M_2`$ is also large. In fact, in order to avoid significant corrections to $`\gamma \gamma h_i`$ and $`\gamma \gamma a_i`$ couplings coming from chargino loops it is easiest to take $`M_2\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (or vice versa). This is because the $`h_i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^{}`$ coupling is suppressed if the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^+`$ is either pure higgsino or pure gaugino. Since the parts of parameter space that are challenging with regard to Higgs detection typically have $`|\mu |100200\mathrm{GeV}`$, the validity of our assumptions requires that $`M_2`$ be large and that the chargino be essentially pure higgsino.

Using a very rough sampling, we determined, as expected from previous work , that it is only for moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ that $`<5\sigma `$ signals might possibly occur. From this sampling, we determined the most difficult parameter space regions and further refined our scan to the following:

* $`4.5<|\mathrm{tan}\beta |<8`$ (both signs) in steps of 0.25;
* $`0.001<\lambda <\mathrm{min}[0.21,\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}]`$, using 20 points;
* $`0.001<\kappa <\mathrm{min}[0.24,\kappa _{\mathrm{max}}]`$, using 20 points;
* $`100\mathrm{GeV}<|\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}|<300\mathrm{GeV}`$ (both signs), in steps of 5 GeV;
* $`0<|A_\lambda |<160\mathrm{GeV}`$, with $`A_\lambda `$ opposite in sign to $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, using steps of 5 GeV;
* $`25\mathrm{GeV}<|A_\kappa |<170\mathrm{GeV}`$, with $`A_\kappa `$ opposite in sign to $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}`$, using steps of 5 GeV.

For those points sampled in this final scan which satisfy all the constraints detailed earlier, we compute the expected statistical significances for the processes 1) to 9) listed in section 1, as described in the next section. As a rough guide, from the $`10^9`$ points detailed in the above list, we find about $`250,000`$ that pass all constraints and have $`N_{SD}<5`$ (for $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$) in each of the individual discovery modes 1) – 7). We shall tabulate a number of representative points taken from this final set in section 4.

## 3 Expected Statistical Significances

From the known couplings of the NMSSM Higgs scalars to gauge bosons and fermions it is straightforward to compute their production rates in gluon-gluon fusion and various associated production processes, as well as their partial widths into $`\gamma \gamma `$, gauge bosons and fermions, either relative to a standard model Higgs scalar or relative to the MSSM $`H`$ and/or $`A`$. This allows us to apply “NMSSM corrections” to the processes 1) – 9) above.

These NMSSM corrections are computed in terms of the following ratios. For the scalar Higgs bosons, $`c_V`$ is the ratio of the coupling of the $`h_i`$ to vector bosons as compared to that of a SM Higgs boson (the coupling ratios for $`h_iZZ`$ and $`h_iWW`$ are the same), and $`c_t`$, $`c_b`$ are the corresponding ratios of the couplings to top and bottom quarks (one has $`c_\tau =c_b`$). Note that we always have $`|c_V|<1`$, but $`c_t`$ and $`c_b`$ can be larger, smaller or even differ in sign with respect to the standard model. For the CP-odd Higgs bosons, $`c_V`$ is not relevant since there is no tree-level coupling of the $`a_i`$ to the $`VV`$ states; $`c_t`$ and $`c_b`$ are defined as the ratio of the $`i\gamma _5`$ couplings for $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$, respectively, relative to SM-like strength.

We emphasize that our procedure implicitely includes QCD corrections to the Higgs production processes at precisely the same level as the experimental collaborations. First, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations employed Monte Carlo programs such as ISAJET  and PYTHIA  in obtaining results for the (MS)SM. These programs include many QCD corrections to Higgs production in a leading-log sense. This is the best that can currently be done to implement QCD corrections in the context of experimental cuts and neural-net analyses. Clearly the more exact NNLO results for many of the relevant processes will slowly be implemented in the Monte Carlo programs and increased precision for Higgs discovery expectations will result. Since our goal is to obtain NMSSM results that are completely analogous to the currently available (MS)SM results, we have proceeded by simply rescaling the available (MS)SM experimental analyses. In doing the rescaling of the Higgs branching ratios we have included all relevant higher-order QCD corrections  using an adapted version of the FORTRAN code HDECAY . In our computations however, we neglect the contribution to the $`h_i\gamma \gamma `$ coupling coming from the charged Higgs loop. Despite the relatively small masses of the $`h^+`$ for our most problematical points, the charged Higgs loop decouples , especially for the small values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda A_\lambda `$ characteristic of difficult points for which the actual $`h^+h^{}h_i`$ coupling is only of order a few times $`gm_W/(4\sqrt{2})`$ . Its contribution would typically only be of order a few percent even though our difficult points have smaller $`\gamma \gamma h_i`$ coupling than a SM-like Higgs boson by virtue of suppressed $`h_iWW`$ coupling and/or cancellation between the top and $`W`$ loop contributions. We now give additional details on our rescaling procedures.

The expected statistical significances for the processes 1) and 6) are computed beginning with results for the SM Higgs boson taken from ref , fig.1 (“Expected Observability of Standard Model Higgs in CMS with $`100\mathrm{fb}^1`$”). The application of the NMSSM corrections using $`c_V`$, $`c_t`$ and $`c_b`$ \[which determine $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(ggh_i)`$, $`BR(h_i\gamma \gamma )`$ and $`BR(h_iWW^{})`$\] is straightforward in these two cases.

The expected statistical significances for process 2) are taken from the same figure. In ref.  one finds that $`Wh_i`$ and $`t\overline{t}h_i`$ production contribute with roughly equal weight to the SM signal. This allows us to decompose the expected significance into the corresponding production processes, apply the NMSSM corrections, and then recombine the production processes.

The expected Standard Model Higgs statistical significances for process 3) are taken from table 19-8 in ref. , with the extension to Higgs masses above 120 GeV as provided in , using a numerical interpolation for Higgs masses below 140 GeV. For the standard model process 5) we again use ref. , tables 19-18 and 19-21. In both cases, the application of the NMSSM corrections is straightforward.

The estimation of the statistical significances for the process 4) in the NMSSM requires the most discussion. Figure 19-62 of ref.  and fig. 8 of ref.  give the $`5\sigma `$ contours in the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ \- $`m_A`$ plane of the MSSM. The critical issue is how much of these $`5\sigma `$ signals derive from $`ggH+ggA`$ production and how much from associated $`b\overline{b}H+b\overline{b}A`$ production, and how each of the $`gg`$ fusion and $`b\overline{b}`$ associated production processes are divided up between $`H`$ and $`A`$. For the former, we turn to table 19-35 of ref. . There, we see that it is for cuts designed to single out the associated production processes that large statistical significance can be achieved and that such cuts provide 90% of the net statistical significance of $`N_{SD}=8.9`$ (3.9 for $`gg`$ fusion cuts combined in quadrature with 8.0 for $`b\overline{b}H+b\overline{b}A`$ associated production cuts) for $`m_A=150\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`L=30\mathrm{fb}^1`$. (For the associated production cuts, the table shows that the contribution of the $`gg`$ fusion processes to the signal is very small.) The percentage of $`N_{SD}`$ deriving from $`gg`$-fusion cuts is even smaller at high $`m_A`$. Since we are mainly interested in $`m_H,m_A[100\mathrm{GeV},200\mathrm{GeV}]`$, we will assume that 90% of the statistical significance along the contours of fig. 19-62 comes from the associated production cut analysis; this will give us a slightly conservative estimate of the associated production $`N_{SD}`$ values at still higher $`m_A`$. With this choice, the $`5\sigma `$ contour at $`L=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ from fig. 19-62 of ref.  corresponds to a $`4.5\sigma `$ contour for associated $`b\overline{b}H+b\overline{b}A`$ production alone. Since the values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ along this contour are large, we can separate the $`H`$ and $`A`$ signals from one another by using the following properties of the MSSM within which fig. 19-62 of ref.  was generated: (a) $`BR(H\tau \overline{\tau })BR(A\tau \overline{\tau })0.09`$; (b) the $`b\overline{b}A`$ and $`b\overline{b}H`$ couplings are very nearly equal and scale as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; and (c) $`m_Am_H`$ within the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ mass resolution. As a result, the net signal rate along this contour is approximately twice that for $`b\overline{b}A`$ or $`b\overline{b}H`$ alone. Thus, $`N_{SD}=2.25`$ would be achieved for $`b\overline{b}A`$ or $`b\overline{b}H`$ along this contour were $`m_A`$ and $`m_H`$ widely separated.

We can then compute the statistical significance for the $`b\overline{b}h_i`$ and $`b\overline{b}a_i`$ signals with $`h_i,a_i\tau \overline{\tau }`$ decay using the following procedure. First, the NMSSM $`b\overline{b}h_i`$ and $`b\overline{b}a_i`$ production rates are related to the MSSM $`b\overline{b}H`$ and $`b\overline{b}A`$ rates by the factors $`[c_b(h_i)]^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ and $`[c_b(a_i)]^2/\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$, respectively. Next, we account for the fact that the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ branching ratios of the NMSSM scalars and pseudo-scalars differ somewhat from the value of $`0.09`$ appropriate for the MSSM $`H`$ and $`A`$. In particular, $`BR(h_3\tau \overline{\tau })`$ is significantly reduced when the $`h_3`$ has large enough mass and large enough $`c_V`$ that it acquires a modest $`WW^{}`$ branching ratio. Typical reductions will be tabulated in table 2. Thus, defining the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as a function of $`m_A`$ shown by the $`100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ curve of fig. 19-62 in ref.  as $`\mathrm{tan}\beta _{2.25}(m_A)`$, we compute $`N_{SD}(h_i)`$ for $`L=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ as

$$N_{SD}(h_i)=2.25\left[\frac{c_b(h_i)}{\mathrm{tan}\beta _{2.25}(m_{h_i})}\right]^2BR_{\tau \overline{\tau }}(h_i),$$
(3.1)
where $`BR_{\tau \overline{\tau }}BR(h_i\tau \overline{\tau })/BR(H\tau \overline{\tau })=BR(h_i\tau \overline{\tau })/0.09`$. An exactly parallel procedure is employed for $`N_{SD}(a_i)`$.

The above procedure is conservative in that it assumes no contribution to the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ channel $`N_{SD}`$ from the $`gg`$ fusion processes. However, as we shall describe in the next section, for the most difficult points in parameter space the $`gg`$-fusion rates are very substantially suppressed relative to MSSM values. For these points, essentially 99% of the $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ channel $`N_{SD}`$ would derive from $`b\overline{b}`$+Higgs associated production.

In recombining the scalar and pseudo-scalar signals, we must account for the fact that they can have fairly different masses in the NMSSM. In this paper, we have chosen to recombine the scalar and pseudo-scalar signals at different masses following the procedure of ref. , section 5.4, with $`\sigma _m30`$ GeV as estimated from fig. 19-61 in  at high luminosity and extrapolated to $`m_A<150`$ GeV. This procedure leads to somewhat approximate estimates of the NMSSM statistical significances for this detection mode.

Results for the statistical significances of the $`h_i`$ signals in modes 8) and 9) were similarly obtained by rescaling the theoretical results of  ( summarized most conveniently in the last of the listed papers) using the values of $`[c_V(h_i)]^2`$, $`BR\tau \overline{\tau }`$ and $`BRWW^{}`$.

Using the above procedures, for each point in the parameter space of the NMSSM we obtain the statistical significances predicted for an integrated luminosity of $`100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ for each of the detection modes 1) – 9). In order to obtain the statistical significances for the various detection modes at $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$, we multiply the $`100\mathrm{fb}^1`$ statistical significances by $`\sqrt{3}`$ in the cases 1), 2), 3), 5) and 6), but only by a factor of $`1.3`$ in the cases 4), 8) and 9). That such a factor is appropriate for mode 4), see, for example, fig. 19-62 in . Use of this same factor for modes 8) and 9) is simply a conservative guess.

## 4 Difficult Points

As stated in the introduction we still find “black spots” in the parameter space of the NMSSM, where the expected statistical significances for all Higgs detection modes 1) – 7) are below $`5\sigma `$ at $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The reasons for this phenomenon have been described above; see also the corresponding discussion in . However, after including the modes 8) and 9), the points that provide the worst 1) – 6) statistical significances typically yield robust signals in one or the other of the $`WW`$-fusion modes 8) and 9).

In order to render the corresponding suppression mechanisms of the detection modes reproducible, we present the detailed properties of several difficult points in the parameter space in table 1. The notation is as follows: The bare parameters are as in eq. (2.5), with $`m_{H_1}^2`$, $`m_{H_2}^2`$ and $`m_S^2`$ fixed implicitly by the minimization conditions. (As noted earlier, with the convention $`\lambda `$, $`\kappa >0`$ in the NMSSM, the sign of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can no longer be defined to be positive.) For the reasons discussed below eq. (2.3) we chose in the stop sector $`m_Q=m_TM_{susy}=1`$ TeV and $`X_t=\sqrt{6}`$ for all of the points (1 – 6). We have also fixed $`m_{top}^{pole}=175`$ GeV. For both scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons, “gg Production Rate” denotes the ratio of the gluon-gluon production rate with respect to that obtained if $`c_t=c_b=1`$, keeping the Higgs mass fixed. For scalar $`h_i`$, this is the same as the ratio of the $`gg`$ production rate relative to that predicted for a SM Higgs boson of the same mass. For the scalar $`h_i`$, $`BR\gamma \gamma `$ denotes the ratio of the $`\gamma \gamma `$ branching ratio with respect to that of a SM Higgs boson with the same mass. (A verification of the reduced gluon-gluon production rates or $`\gamma \gamma `$ branching ratios would sometimes require the knowledge of the couplings to higher precision than given, for convenience, in table 1.) Also given for the scalar $`h_i`$ are the ratios $`BRb\overline{b}`$ and $`BRWW^{}`$ of the $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`WW^{}`$ branching ratios relative to the SM prediction (as noted above, one has $`BR\tau \overline{\tau }=BRb\overline{b}`$).

In table 2, we tabulate the statistical significances for the $`h_i`$ in all the channels 1) – 9); production of the CP-odd $`a_i`$ turns out to be relevant only when they add to the $`h_i`$ signals in process 4). Also note that, all these problematical points are such that $`m_{h_1}+m_{a_1}>206\mathrm{GeV}`$, so that $`e^+e^{}h_1+a_1`$ followed by $`h_1,a_1b\overline{b}`$ would have been kinematically forbidden at the highest LEP2 energy. Hence, for LEP2 mode 7) we only give the statistical significance for $`e^+e^{}Zh_i`$. Also tabulated in table 2 are four statistical significances obtained by combining various channels. This combination is done in the Gaussian approximation:

$$N_{SD}^{\mathrm{combined}}=\left[\underset{i}{}\left(N_{SD}^i\right)^2\right]^{1/2},$$

where $`_i`$ runs over the channels $`i`$ being combined. We give results for the following combinations:

a) $`N_{SD}`$ obtained by combining LHC channels 1) – 6);

b) $`N_{SD}`$ obtained by combining LHC channels 1) – 6) and LEP2;

c) $`N_{SD}`$ obtained by combining LHC channels 1) – 6) with the $`WW`$-fusion channels 8) and 9);

d) $`N_{SD}`$ obtained by combining all LHC channels and LEP2, i.e. by combining all channels 1) – 9).

In those cases where there is no LEP2 signal, a)=b) and c)=d). In addition, in our point selection we have required a mass difference of at least 10 GeV between scalar Higgses, so that they yield well separated signals and no statistical significance combination of two different scalar Higgses is needed. All parameter choices for which Higgs boson masses differ by less than 10 GeV yield stronger signals than the cases retained. (The increased net signal strength of overlapping Higgs signals in those channels with limited mass resolution arises as a result of $`N_{SD}^{\mathrm{eff}}(1+2)(S_1+S_2)/\sqrt{B}>\sqrt{S_1^2+S_2^2}/\sqrt{B}`$.)

As summarized in table 3, all of the tabulated “bench mark points” have statistical significances below $`5\sigma `$ for all of the detection modes 1) – 6) at $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and 7) at LEP2. In more detail, as tabulated in table 2 and summarized in table 3, the best signals in the modes 1) – 6) for the points #1 – #6 at the LHC are:

* point #1, $`N_{SD}=`$4.37 for mode 2) and $`h_1`$;
* point #2, $`N_{SD}=`$3.95 for mode 3) and $`h_2`$;
* point #3, $`N_{SD}=`$3.62 for mode 4) and $`h_3`$;
* point #4, $`N_{SD}=`$4.46 for mode 5) and $`h_3`$;
* point #5, $`N_{SD}=`$4.83 for mode 3) and $`h_1`$;
* point #6, $`N_{SD}=`$4.86 for mode 4) and $`h_3`$;

Further, for point #3, the combined statistical significance of modes 1) – 6) (also tabulated in table 3) would still be below $`5`$ for any one $`h_i`$, although $`\sqrt{2}N_{SD}^{16}>5`$ (as is likely to be relevant by combining ATLAS and CMS data once each detector has accumulated $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$) for at least one of the $`h_i`$. However, for all these “difficult” points the $`WW`$-fusion modes 8) and/or 9) provide (according to theoretical estimates) a decent (sometimes very strong) signal.

The points #1 – #4 differ as to which of the modes 1) – 6) and which $`h_i`$ yields the largest statistical significance should the $`WW`$-fusion mode 8) not provide as strong a signal as suggested by the theoretical estimates. To render these points observable without the $`WW`$-fusion mode 8) would require improvements of all detection modes 2) – 5).

As in , we find that difficult points in the parameter space generally have $`|\mathrm{tan}\beta |5`$. This is the region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for which the $`b\overline{b}h,b\overline{b}a`$ signals are still not very much enhanced but yet the $`ggh,a`$ and $`t\overline{t}h,t\overline{t}a`$ signals have been suppressed somewhat. In a few cases, however, difficulties also arise for $`|\mathrm{tan}\beta |`$ as large as 8, as shown in the case of point #5. Also as in , the most difficult points are those in which the masses of the $`h_i`$ and $`a_i`$ are relatively close in magnitude, typically clustered in a $`60\mathrm{GeV}`$ interval above $`105\mathrm{GeV}`$. Such clustering maximizes the mixing among the different Higgs bosons and thereby minimizes the significance of the discovery channels for any one Higgs boson. In particular, it is for strong mixing among the $`h_i`$ that the statistical significance for discovery modes based on a large $`VV`$ coupling for any one $`h_i`$ are most easily suppressed.

Finally, for point #6, we have minimized the statistical significances for the $`WW`$-fusion modes over the parameter space, while keeping the statistical significances of modes 1) – 6) below 5. One can see that it still gives a strong $`10.1\sigma `$ signal in mode 8). \[Smaller $`N_{SD}`$ for mode 8) would have been possible if we had allowed stronger signals in modes 1) – 6), in particular had we allowed smaller mass separation, $`<10\mathrm{GeV}`$, between the two lightest Higgs bosons.\] In addition, for point #6 $`m_{h_1}=112`$ GeV and the $`ZZ`$ coupling of $`h_1`$ is sufficiently large that it would have yielded a $`4.8\sigma `$ signal at LEP2. Had we taken a top quark mass slightly larger, $`m_{top}^{pole}=178`$ GeV, we would have found a very similar point with a $`h_1`$ mass of $`115`$ GeV, which could have been responsible for the excess observed at LEP2 .

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

In this paper, we have addressed the question of whether or not it would be possible to fail to discover any of the Higgs bosons of the NMSSM using combined LEP2 and LHC data, possibly resulting in the erroneous conclusion that Higgs bosons with masses below 200 GeV have been excluded. We have demonstrated that, assuming that the decay channels i) – ix) are either kinematically disallowed or render a Higgs boson observable, this is unlikely (at the $`>5\sigma `$ level) to happen. Certainly, there are points in NMSSM parameter space for which the statistical significances for the individual detection modes 1) – 6) (i.e. those analyzed in detail by ATLAS and CMS) are all well below $`5\sigma `$ for integrated luminosity of $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$. However, by combining several of the modes 1) – 6) and $`300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ data from both ATLAS and CMS, a $`>5\sigma `$ signal can be achieved based just on modes 1) – 6). Further, we have found that throughout all of the NMSSM parameter space (scanned subject to the earlier listed restrictions) for which such weak signals in modes 1) – 6) are predicted, the theoretical estimates for the $`WW`$-fusion modes indicate that an easily detected $`WWh\tau \overline{\tau }`$ signal should be present. Thus, our conclusion is that for all of the parameter space of the NMSSM compatible with reasonable boundary conditions for the parameters at the GUT scale (with, of course, non-universal soft terms in general) and such that Higgs pair and SUSY pair decays of the Higgs bosons are kinematically forbidden, at least one of the NMSSM Higgs bosons will be detected at the LHC. This is a big improvement over the results from the earlier Snowmass 1996 study which was somewhat negative without the inclusion of the $`t\overline{t}ht\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ mode 3), and the $`WW`$-fusion modes 8) and 9).

It is amusing to note that all of our bench mark points for which Higgs discovery is most difficult at the LHC include a Higgs scalar with mass close to 115 GeV (with, however, reduced couplings to the $`Z`$ boson), which could be responsible for the excess observed at LEP2 .

Another important point that appears from our analysis is the fact that the full $`L=300\mathrm{fb}^1`$ of integrated luminosity (per detector) is needed in order to have robust NMSSM Higgs discovery in the portion of parameter space considered here. Of course, as in the MSSM, it is very possible that only one of the CP-even NMSSM Higgs bosons might be detected at the LHC but that, as studied by Kamoshita et al. in , the observation of all the CP-even Higgs bosons of the NMSSM would be possible at the LC by virtue of all having some non-negligible level of $`ZZ`$ coupling and not having very high masses. Even at the LC, the CP-odd Higgs bosons might escape discovery, although this would not be the case for the parameter choices that we have found which make LHC discovery of even one NMSSM Higgs bosons most challenging. This is because, for such parameters, the $`a_i`$ are relatively light and could be readily seen at the LC in the processes $`e^+e^{}h_ia_j`$, $`e^+e^{}\nu \overline{\nu }a_ia_i`$ and $`e^+e^{}Z^{}Za_ia_i`$, assuming an integrated LC luminosity of $`1000\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and energy $`\sqrt{s}500\mathrm{GeV}`$ .

This study makes clear the importance of continuing to expand the sensitivity of existing modes and continuing to develop new modes for Higgs detection at the LHC in order not to have to wait for construction of a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider for detection of at least one of the SUSY Higgs bosons. In particular, study of modes i) – ix) and SUSY pair channels should all be pushed. The problematical points that we have emphasized here are unlikely to be substantially influenced by $`t\overline{t}`$ or SUSY decays since all the Higgs masses are below $`200\mathrm{GeV}`$ so that $`t\overline{t}`$ decays will be kinematically highly suppressed (one of the top quarks would have to be virtual) and SUSY pair decays are quite unlikely to be significant given LEP2 limits on the masses of SUSY particles. However, by allowing Higgs (in particular, pseudoscalar) masses such that one or more of the channels i)-vii) are kinematically allowed we have found points for which discovery in modes 1)-9) will not be possible . Thus, a full “no-lose” theorem for NMSSM Higgs boson discovery at the LHC will require exploring additional discovery modes sensitive to those portions of parameter space for which Higgs decays to other Higgs bosons are important, and might necessitate combining results from both the ATLAS and CMS detectors and/or accumulating more integrated luminosity.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge helpful discussions with M. Sapinski and D. Zeppenfeld. C.H. would like to thank the late theory group of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and the Theoretical Physics Department of Oxford, where part of this work was achieved, for their kind hospitality. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Table Captions

Table 1: We tabulate the input bare model parameters, the corresponding Higgs masses, and the corresponding Higgs couplings, relative to SM Higgs boson coupling strength, for 6 bench mark points. Also given for the CP-even $`h_i`$ are ratios of the $`gg`$ production rate and various branching fractions relative to the values found for a SM Higgs of the same mass. For the CP-odd $`a_i`$, “gg Production Rate” refers to the value relative to what would be found if both the $`b\overline{b}`$ and the $`t\overline{t}`$ $`\gamma _5`$ couplings had SM-like strength.

Table 2: Scalar Higgs statistical significances, $`N_{SD}=S/\sqrt{B}`$, in various channels for the 6 bench mark points. For each individual Higgs, we give (in order): $`N_{SD}`$ for the channels 1) – 9) described in the text; Gaussian combined $`N_{SD}`$ for non-$`WW`$-fusion LHC channels; combined $`N_{SD}`$ for non-$`WW`$-fusion LHC channels plus LEP2; combined $`N_{SD}`$ for all LHC channels, including the fusion channels $`WWh\tau \overline{\tau }`$ and $`WWhWW^{()}`$ channels; and combined $`N_{SD}`$ for all LHC channels plus LEP2.

Table 3: Summary for all Higgs bosons. The entries are: maximum non-$`WW`$ fusion LHC $`N_{SD}`$; maximum LHC $`WW`$ fusion $`N_{SD}`$; best combined $`N_{SD}`$ after summing over all non-$`WW`$-fusion LHC channels; and best combined $`N_{SD}`$ after summing over all LHC channels. The Higgs boson for which these best values are achieved is indicated in the parenthesis. One should refer to the preceding table in order to find which channel(s) give the best values.