format: text

text:
# What is the 𝐖𝐛𝐛̄, 𝐙𝐛𝐛̄ or 𝐭𝐭̄𝐛𝐛̄ irreducible background to the light Higgs boson searches at LHC?

## 1 Introduction

The $`Wb\overline{b}`$, $`Zb\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ production at LHC has been recognized , see e.g. ActaB31 ; ActaB30 , to present the most substantial irreducible backgrounds for the Standard Model (SM) and Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) light Higgs boson observability in the associated production, namely $`WH`$, $`ZH`$ and $`t\overline{t}H`$, followed by the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ decay. The ’light Higgs boson’ is in this context understood as the Higgs boson having the mass between 90 GeV and 130 GeV, thus describing the SM and MSSM Higgs boson(s) in the mass range indicated by the excess observed in searches of LEP experiments LEP1 ; LEP2 .

The potential of the ATLAS detector at LHC for the SM and MSSM Higgs boson observability in the $`t\overline{t}H`$ production has already been carefully studied and documented in ActaB30  and ATL-PHYS-TDR . The proposed analysis requires four identified (tagged) b-jets, reconstruction of both top-quarks decaying in hadronic and leptonic modes and an observable peak in the invariant mass distribution of the remaining b-jet pair. The irreducible $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ background is estimated to contribute about 60-70% to the total background, which consists mostly of the processes with a $`t\overline{t}`$ pair participating in the final state. The expected significance is deemed to be of the order of 3.6 $`\sigma `$ for the Higgs-boson mass of 120 GeV at integrated luminosity of $`30fb^1`$, with the expected signal-to-background ratio in the mass window rated to be 32%. The total contribution from the $`Wjjjjjj`$ backgrounds was estimated to be an order of magnitude smaller than the one consisting of $`t\overline{t}jj`$ events and the contribution of the $`t\overline{t}Z`$ production process was estimated to be negligible.

The potential for the Higgs boson observability in the $`WH`$ $`(W\mathrm{}\nu )`$ production, considered as rather weak, is documented in ActaB31  and ATL-PHYS-TDR . The expected production rates would be sufficient for the signal observability in the mass range around 120 GeV only if the backgrounds from $`Wb\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ events could be efficiently suppressed. For this channel both b-quarks are required to be tagged as b-jets and the reconstruction of a peak in the invariant mass of the b-jet system concentrated in the interval $`\pm 20`$ GeV around the expected Higgs mass could lead to an evidence of the signal. The identification of the accompanying lepton is also required in order to trigger the data acquisition. Relatively simple topology of the final state does not leave much room for a severe optimisation of kinematic cuts. The only possibility which can be explored seems to be using a veto on an additional jet to suppress reducible backgrounds or angular correlations between reconstructed b-jets themselves and/or between b-jets and leptons. Within the low luminosity operation, the irreducible $`Wb\overline{b}`$ background contributes about 35% of the total background to this channel, the expected signal-to-background ratio in the given mass window being on the order of a few percent. The expected significance is estimated to be on the level of 3.0 $`\sigma `$ for the Higgs-boson mass of 120 GeV and integrated luminosity of $`30fb^1`$.

Much less promising, if not hopeless to consider, is the observability of the $`ZH`$ production with subsequent leptonic Z-boson decay. Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, such a study was documented in ActaB31 . Both b-quarks are required to be tagged as b-jets and the accompanying leptons are required to be identified in order to trigger the data acquisition as well as for a reconstruction of the resonant peak around the Z-boson mass. The presence of a peak in the reconstructed invariant mass of the b-jet system concentrated in a mass window of $`\pm 20`$ GeV around the expected Higgs mass would lead to an evidence of the signal. The irreducible $`Zb\overline{b}`$ background contributes about 80% of the total background to this channel, the expected signal-to-background ratio in the mass window being on the order of a few percent. The expected significance is estimated to be about 1.0 $`\sigma `$ for the Higgs-boson mass of 120 GeV and integrated luminosity of $`30fb^1`$.

It is thus evident that good theoretical understanding of the irreducible $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$, $`Wb\overline{b}`$ and $`Zb\overline{b}`$ backgrounds is crucial for the light Higgs boson observation at LHC.

In the presented study the two available, albeit qualitatively different, approaches for simulating these backgrounds are compared. The first one (ME) is to use the lowest order massive matrix elements of the AcerMC generator AcerMC  which lead to the required final state. The latter is subsequently completed with the initial and final state radiation simulated via parton showering as implemented in the PYTHIA Pythia62  or HERWIG Herwig63  generators. The second one (PS) is to simulate inclusive $`t\overline{t}`$, $`W`$ and $`Z`$ production using the native PYTHIA or HERWIG implementations and subsequently obtain accompanying b-quarks using the parton shower approximation only. Both approaches have their caveats. Using the complete $`24`$ matrix element might not be sufficient as the b-quarks could appear at the different steps in the evolution of the partonic cascade and not necessarily only at the hard process level. Resorting to the parton shower approach on the other hand tends in several cases to underestimate hardness of the radiated partons and does not reproduce well their topological configurations.

In the presented comparison the approach of concentrating not on the partonic distributions but on the reconstructed experimental quantities, i.e. jets and isolated leptons, is chosen. The generated events are thus treated with a simplified reconstruction procedure using the algorithms of the fast simulation of the ATLAS detector at LHC ATL-PHYS-98-131  and subsequent fiducial cuts on reconstructed jets and isolated leptons are applied roughly as foreseen for this type of physics at LHC detectors: geometrical acceptance for b-jets and isolated leptons identification down to pseudorapidity $`\eta `$ of 2.5 and transverse momenta threshold for jets and leptons of 15 GeV. Although leptons will be identified with the lower thresholds, the 15 GeV transverse momenta represents roughly what is needed for triggering on such events. This limits the given comparison to the topological configurations close to those which will be selected by the experimental analysis. In jet reconstruction a simple procedure in form of a cone algorithm is performed, using a cone radius of 0.4 in the pseudorapidity - azimuthal angle plane. Subsequently, the procedures of jet energy calibration and b-tagging are applied. In case jet-veto was also applied, events with additional jets having transverse momenta $`p_T>30`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<5.0`$ were rejected. Efficiencies for b-tagging and lepton identification are not included in the given numbers, only the efficiencies for jet and b-jet reconstruction are taken into account. More details on the performance of the applied algorithms can be found in ATL-PHYS-98-131 .

The AcerMC Monte Carlo generator code and its interfaces to PYTHIA generator were used in the given evaluation. The generated statistics was typically about $`10^6`$ events for the ME and $`10^8`$ events for the PS simulation chain. The ME events were generated with AcerMC matrix element implementations and the PS events were generated with the default settings of PYTHIA 6.2. The ME events were further completed with the initial and final state radiation to assure more realistic jet reconstruction efficiencies and multiplicities, thus leading to a better description of the interaction kinematics. The CTEQ5Lcteq5l  parton density functions were used for all estimations and proton-proton collision at 14 TeV centre-of-mass energy were simulated. A similar study could also be repeated using HERWIG instead of PYTHIA generator.

At this point it might be relevant to mention that for the inclusive $`W`$ and $`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ production the so called improved parton shower algorithm is implemented in PYTHIA, i.e. some higher-order corrections are integrated; as shown in Sjostrand1998 , it gives good description of the complete $`p_T^W`$ spectrum. A corresponding improvement is also expected for the production of jets in association with the $`W`$ boson. For the $`t\overline{t}`$ production the standard parton algorithm is still used PYTHIA.

The comparisons between these two generation approaches for $`Wb\overline{b}`$, $`Zb\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ events are discussed in Section 2, 3 and 4 of the paper. Final conclusions are summarised in Section 5.

## 2 The $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐛}\overline{𝐛}`$ irreducible background

In this section the irreducible $`Wb\overline{b}`$ background to the Higgs boson searches in the $`WH`$ production, followed by the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ decay, is discussed. The evaluation is based on two simulation approaches, ME and PS, as specified below:

* ME: Use the $`24`$ matrix element for $`q\overline{q}W(\mathrm{}\nu )g^{}(b\overline{b})`$ process as implemented in AcerMC . The $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 33.2 pb for single leptonic flavour W-boson decay. The $`g^{}b\overline{b}`$ splitting is coded already at the level of the matrix element. This matrix element represents the lowest order contribution to the $`\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ final state. The initial (ISR) and final state radiation (FSR) are simulated with parton shower of PYTHIA, followed by hadronisation in order to complete the event generation.
* PS: Use the $`21`$ matrix element for $`q\overline{q}W`$ process as implemented in PYTHIA, followed by the ISR/FSR and hadronisation. The $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 17200 pb for the single flavour leptonic W-boson decay. Gluon splitting in the ISR partonic cascade is the source of b-quarks in the event. The implementation of this process includes ISR/FSR modeled with an improved parton shower approach Sjostrand1998 ; Sjostrand2000  to match/merge with higher order matrix element calculations for the $`p_T^W`$ spectra.

Considering the heavy flavour content of the cascade, a part of the higher order corrections is a priori already included in the parton shower approach (c.f. Hautmann ; Puljak ) whereas only the lowest order term for the $`g^{}b\overline{b}`$ splitting is present in the matrix element calculations.

However, as the $`24`$ matrix element with activated ISR and FSR is used, a part of the higher-order corrections is also to some extend included (e.g. additional branchings of $`bbg`$ are made possible), however without a rigorous check on the possible double-counting Catani . In order to limit the double counting possibility the scale of the ISR/FSR shower is tuned to avoid the radiated partons being harder than the hard-process ones. What is not included in the $`24`$ matrix element calculations is the contribution from events where gluon and quark interact in the hard process to produce the $`W`$-boson, with the gluon splitting into b-quarks occurring in the further steps of the cascade. As well not included is the contribution where the final state gluon in the hard process decays into light quarks, while b-quarks appear in another branch of the partonic shower.

Comparison of the differential distributions of the $`p_T^W`$ spectra is presented in Fig. 1. In the top plot the PS distribution after filtering on events with reconstructed 2 jets + 1 lepton is shown, along with PS and ME distributions after filtering on exactly 2 b-jets + 1 lepton. In the lower range of the $`p_T^W`$ spectra the PS events have different slope when requiring 2 jets or 2 b-jets; requiring 2 b-jets strongly suppresses the selection of events in the low $`p_T^W`$ range. After filtering on 2 b-jets the slope and normalisation of the PS and ME events agree relatively well, the normalisation ratio being on the level of 1.5-2.5. A closer look (bottom plots) indicates a substantial enhancement of PS events in the range $`p_T^W=40120`$ GeV. For much higher $`p_T^W`$ the ME predictions start to exceed the PS ones.

Table 1 quantifies the expected cross-sections for the inclusive production after requiring a reconstructed $`\mathrm{}bb`$ final state. The PS predictions turn out to be 50-100% higher than the ME ones but are still quite compatible for events with the invariant mass of the b-jet system in the range of interest. After requiring jet-veto, important for selection of the $`WH`$ channel to suppress the $`t\overline{t}`$ background, the ME predictions agree with the PS ones in the mass range of interest. The numbers in this table illustrate that the slope of the invariant mass distribution of the b-jet system and jet multiplicities is quite different for different simulation approaches.

For the sake of the evaluation consistency, factorisation/renormalisation energy scale $`Q^2=m_W^2`$ was used throughout the ME and PS event generation. The factorisation/renormalisation scale dependence for this process is of the order of 20% at most, which was estimated by using a range of different definitions of the energy scale implemented in AcerMC .

The fact that the overall normalisations differ, one can naively interpret as an effect indicating that the effective cascade branching into heavy flavour quarks is more intense in PS events, quantitatively by almost a factor of 1.5-2.5 higher. The feature was discussed in more detail in ATL-COM-PHYS-2001-032 , the conclusions being that it rather reflects a sum of several effects, not just a simple enhancement in the effective cascade branching.

In Fig. 2 the distributions relevant for the experimental analyses are plotted for events with two reconstructed b-jets and one tagged lepton. One can observe that there is a significant difference in the predicted cone separation between the b-jets, the $`R_{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}}`$111Cone separation is calculated as the separation in the plane of pseudorapidity ($`\eta `$) and azimuthal angle ($`\varphi `$), the $`R_{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}}=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}})^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}})^2}`$.. The parton shower approach predicts more events with a small cone separation. These events can be rejected if a threshold on that separation is required. In fact, they are not contributing to the higher range of the invariant mass of the b-jet pair. As expected, the shapes of the transverse momenta of the individual b-jets and of the b-jet system are also harder for the ME events. Quite different is the slope of the invariant mass distribution of the b-jet system; for PS events the distribution falls down more rapidly for higher masses. In Fig. 3 the invariant mass distribution after gradually adding selection requirements is drawn. A better agreement is observed when a large cone separation between b-jets and the jet-veto on the additional jets are required. This could be explained by the fact that after these requirements the topology of PS events comes closer to the ME one. As the ME events exhibit lower average multiplicity for reconstructed jets than the PS events, the latter are suppressed stronger by the jet veto requirement and thus give cross-section predictions which are even lower than the ones for ME events. The invariant mass distribution for ME events however remains harder than the one for PS events. Please also note the effect of imposing $`R_{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}}>0.7`$ on the shape of the invariant mass distribution of the b-jet system, which shifts the distribution maximum to about 40-60 GeV (compare Fig. 2 and 3).

More detailed discussions on the quantitative differences between PS and ME approaches for the $`q\overline{q}W(\mathrm{}\nu )g(b\overline{b})`$ process can be found in ATL-COM-PHYS-2001-032 .

## 3  The $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐛}\overline{𝐛}`$ irreducible background

In this section the estimates for the irreducible $`Zb\overline{b}`$ background to the Higgs boson searches in the $`ZH`$ production, followed by the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ decay, are discussed. The evaluation is based on two simulation approaches, ME and PS, as specified below:

* ME: Use the $`24`$ matrix element for $`gg,q\overline{q}Z/\gamma ^{}(\mathrm{}\mathrm{})b\overline{b}`$ process as implemented in AcerMC. The $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 26.2 pb for single leptonic flavour $`Z/\gamma ^{}`$ decay and for the invariant mass of the lepton pair above 60 GeV. This matrix element represents lowest order contribution to the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ final state. The initial (ISR) and final state radiation (FSR) is simulated with parton shower of PYTHIA, followed by hadronisation to complete the event generation.
* PS: Use the $`21`$ matrix element for $`q\overline{q}Z/\gamma ^{}`$ process as implemented in PYTHIA, followed by the ISR. The $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 1640 pb for single lepton flavour decay and invariant mass of the lepton pair above 60 GeV. Gluon splitting in the ISR partonic cascade is the source of b-quarks in the event. The implementation of this process includes ISR/FSR modeled with an improved parton shower approach Sjostrand1998 , Sjostrand2000  which integrates some higher-order corrections.

The study begins by comparing differential distributions of the Z-boson transverse momenta for both simulation approaches, see Fig. 4, after requiring reconstructed leptons and jets (b-jets) in the final state. With the generation threshold for the invariant mass of the lepton pair at 60 GeV, the studied events are dominated by the on-shell Z-boson exchange.

Contrary to the $`Wb\overline{b}`$ case, the slopes of the $`p_T^Z`$ distributions in the ME and PS events are very different; the ME events are found to be much harder. One should remember that there are several topologies of the Feynman diagrams leading to the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ final state, see e.g. AcerMC , the dominant one being the contribution from the multipheral topologies of $`ggZ/\gamma ^{}b\overline{b}`$ where each gluon splits into a $`b\overline{b}`$ pair and the $`b\overline{b}`$ pair originating from different gluons annihilates to produce the $`Z`$-boson. This might explain why in this case the universal improved parton shower approximation implemented in PYTHIA for $`q\overline{q}Z/\gamma ^{}`$ process is not working as well as in the previous case of the $`q\overline{q}W`$ process and the $`\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ events.

The overall normalisation prediction of both simulation streams, see Table 2, seems to be in reasonable agreement for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ events. This agreement remains after requiring lepton-pair and b-jet pair within the mass window, but would deteriorate if experimental analysis became sensitive to the hard tail of the $`p_T^Z`$ distribution. In both generation approaches the factorisation/renormalisation energy scale $`Q^2=m_Z^2`$ was used. Also in this case, the variation of the cross-section with the factorisation/renormalisation scales implemented in AcerMC is less than 20%.

In Fig. 5 the distributions relevant for the experimental analyses are drawn. One can observe that, contrary to the previous case, there is no significant difference in the cone separation between b-jets ($`R_{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}}`$) distribution. In both simulation approaches the dominant fraction of events has a b-jet pair with a large cone separation. This marks the topology of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ process as quite different from $`\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ events. Furthermore, the shapes of the transverse momenta of the individual b-jets and of the b-jet system are in this case also quite similar (compatible) for ME and PS events.

Surprisingly similar, given the complexity of the topologies introduced by the Feynman diagrams, is the distribution of the invariant mass of the b-jet system in PS and ME events. This is illustrated in Fig. 6. To illuminate this further, Fig. 7 shows the separate ME contributions from the $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ events to the total invariant mass spectrum of the b-jet system. One sees a distinctly different shape of both components; as expected the $`q\overline{q}`$ component is very similar to the one of $`Wb\overline{b}`$ events. Nevertheless, the latter class of events contributes only on the level of 10% to the total.

## 4  The $`𝐭\overline{𝐭}𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ irreducible background

In this section the estimates for the irreducible $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ background to the Higgs-boson searches in the $`t\overline{t}H`$ production, followed by the $`Hb\overline{b}`$ decay, are discussed. Two generation approaches, ME and PS, which lead to the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ final state are considered.

* ME: Use the $`24`$ matrix element for $`gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ processes as implemented in AcerMC . For the QCD component the $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 2.7 pb, with leptonic decay (electron or muon) of one W-boson and hadronic decay of the second one, both W bosons being produced in the top decays. For the EW component, $`gg,(Z/W/\gamma ^{})b\overline{b}`$, the $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 0.26 pb. These matrix elements represent the lowest order contribution to the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ final state. The interference between QCD and EW component is not available in the present implementation of AcerMC . In the numerical evaluation the central value of the factorisation scale NLOttH , $`Q_{QCD}^2=(m_t+m_H/2)^2`$, with $`m_H=120`$ GeV was used for the QCD component and the $`Q^2=m_Z^2`$ was used for electroweak one. For this process, as already stressed in AcerMC , different choices of the factorisation scale could lead to the cross-section estimates differing even by factor of four. Event generation is completed by ISR/FSR and hadronisation as modeled in PYTHIA.
* PS: Use the $`22`$ matrix element for $`gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}`$ process as implemented in PYTHIA, followed by the ISR. The $`\sigma \times BR`$ = 189 pb for leptonic decay (electron or muon) of one W-boson and hadronic decay of the second one, both W bosons being produced in the top decays. Gluon splitting in the ISR/FSR partonic cascade is the source of additional b-quarks in the event. The default factorisation energy scale of PYTHIA 6.2 is used.

There are two classes of processes which lead to the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ final state, the QCD and EW ones; for the corresponding Feynman diagrams see AcerMC . The PS events, where the hard process is just the top-quark pair production, contribute only the QCD component. Consequently, only the QCD ME component should be directly compared with the PS one.

As an inclusive control distribution the transverse momenta spectra of the top quarks were chosen. Fig. 8 shows that there is quite a good agreement between PS and ME predictions. With the factorisation energy scale used for evaluating the ME predictions the absolute normalisation agrees within 20% and the ratio of the PS and ME distributions is amazingly flat. For other choices of the factorisation energy scale, the ratio would be quite different (see Table with the total cross-sections in AcerMC ), but subsequent checks confirm that the distributions remain very similar.

In the proposed experimental analysis ATL-PHYS-TDR  both top-quarks have to be reconstructed and the remaining two b-jets are than considered as possible candidates for the Higgs boson decay products. In the present study this selection procedure was replaced by the tight matching requirements of the b-jets and their partonic origin. These lead to a very clean separation between b-jets originating from the top-quarks and those which are not. In what follows only the distributions of the b-jets which are not identified as originating from the top-quark decays are considered.

In Table 3 the expected total cross-sections and the cross-sections after simplified event selection are given. The EW ME component is on the level of 10% of the total ME cross-section and on the level of 25% of all ME events accepted in the mass window. The fact that the resonant electroweak background is not negligible makes the prospects for the observability more difficult, especially for the Higgs boson masses closer to the mass of the Z-boson. This mass range has been already excluded for the SM Higgs boson LEP1 , but for the MSSM scenarios is still in the region of a possible discovery LEP2 . While resonant EW component was estimated some time ago as negligible in ActaB30 222It was the consequence of the implementation for the $`Q\overline{Q}Z`$ process in PYTHIA 5.7 generator used at that time, which was not evaluating the total cross-section correctly., the non-resonant EW component was to our knowledge not considered prior to this study. It is clear that the evaluation presented in ActaB30  should be now revised to include the EW background properly.

In Fig. 9 the distributions relevant for the experimental analyses, simulated with QCD ME and PS simulation approaches, are drawn. One can observe some differences within the expected cone separation between b-jets, $`R_{\mathrm{bb}\mathrm{jets}}`$. In both simulation approaches the dominant fraction of events has the b-jet pair with a small cone separation. Quite different are the shapes of the transverse momenta of individual b-jets and of the b-jet system. In particular, the distribution of the transverse momenta of the b-jet system is much harder in the ME events than in the PS events. Nicely enough, the shape of the invariant mass distribution of the b-jet system is quite similar in the relevant mass range, see Fig. 10. Moreover, the normalisations are in a satisfactory agreement in the relevant mass range, for lower masses the PS predictions are exceeding the ME ones.

So far only the comparison between ME and PS predictions for the QCD $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ events was discussed. The EW component can at present only be simulated with the ME implemented in AcerMC. The implementation gives a possibility to estimate either only the resonant part, the $`gg,q\overline{q}t\overline{t}Z/\gamma ^{}`$ production with $`Z/\gamma ^{}b\overline{b}`$ decay, or to explore the full EW contribution, namely the process $`ggt\overline{t}`$ $`(Z/W/\gamma ^{})b\overline{b}t\overline{t}`$. An implementation of the $`q\overline{q}t\overline{t}`$ $`(Z/W/\gamma ^{})b\overline{b}t\overline{t}`$ is still missing, but will very likely contribute no more than 10-20% of the total EW background (assuming the same ratio as for QCD $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ contributions).

Fig. 11 shows the respective invariant mass distributions of the b-quark pair (left plot) and the b-jet pair (middle and right plots) not originating from top-quark decays in reconstructed $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ events, as estimated with either full or with only resonant EW ME processes. The presence of the flat non-resonant component, which is quite substantial with respect to the resonant one, is rather evident. One can also clearly see how the shape of the EW background is smeared when going from b-quark distribution to b-jet distribution.

Finally the QCD and EW component of the ME simulation chain are added together. Fig. 12 again shows the respective invariant mass distributions of the b-quark pair (top plot) and b-jet pair (bottom plots) in reconstructed $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ events. Also shown separately are the QCD $`ggt\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$, QCD $`q\overline{q}t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ and EW $`gg(Z/W/\gamma ^{})t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ components. The EW component contributes around 20-25% of the QCD one in the mass range of interest.

It is crucial to notice that the EW component produces a resonant structure above the non-resonant QCD+EW. This will make a discovery of MSSM light Higgs in the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ channel, with the mass between 95-110 GeV, even more difficult than assumed in ActaB30 . One should however keep in mind that the relative contribution of QCD and EW components strongly depends on the chosen factorisation scale, see AcerMC , and will thus require very good theoretical understanding before the signal observability could be claimed at LHC in this channel.

## 5  Conclusions

In this paper a quantitative comparison between matrix element (ME) and parton shower (PS) approaches for generating key irreducible backgrounds to the light Higgs boson searches at LHC with multi-b-jet final states was presented. Three processes were discussed: the $`Wb\overline{b}`$, $`Zb\overline{b}`$ and $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ production. The AcerMC Monte Carlo generator was used for simulating ME events while PYTHIA 6.2 was used for simulating PS events.

* For the $`Wb\overline{b}`$ background there is a reasonable agreement of $`p_T^W`$ spectra in $`\mathrm{}b\overline{b}`$ events. Expected rates are however almost 1.5-2.5 higher in PS simulation. This enhancement comes mostly from configurations where b-jets are very close. Requiring large cone separation between b-jets and vetoing events with additional jets brings the ME estimates to be in acceptable agreement for the relevant invariant mass range of the b-jet system.
* For the $`Zb\overline{b}`$ background the PS approach is clearly underestimating the hardness of the tail of the $`p_T^Z`$ spectra. This is due to the dominant contribution from the multipheral Feynman diagrams, not reproduced well even with an improved parton shower implementation in PYTHIA. The distributions of the invariant mass of the b-jet system and their normalisations are in reasonable agreement.
* There are two components of the $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ background, the QCD and EW ones. Only the QCD component can be simulated with the PS approach. For QCD PS and QCD ME events there is a relatively good agreement in the shape and normalisation of the invariant mass distribution of the b-jet system. The transverse momenta distribution of that system is however much harder in ME events. The EW ME component is not negligible and leads to the resonant structure in the total QCD+EW background. This would make observability of the mass range around the Z-boson mass more difficult than hoped so far.

It is quite evident that well understood theoretical predictions for these processes will provide the key for establishing the Higgs signal observability; it is however difficult to draw universal conclusions from the comparisons presented above. Therefore, it is rather encouraging that the PS and LO ME predictions are not very far off. The 50% differences e.g. for $`Wb\overline{b}`$ events in the overall normalisation are still within expected uncertainties for this type of background estimates. It would nevertheless be very important to perform a similar comparison with NLO ME predictions. Such implementations are already becoming available for $`Wb\overline{b}`$ events NLOWbb  and $`Zb\overline{b}`$ events NLOZbb . Nevertheless, at the time of the studies presented here, they were still not in the form allowing for straightforward applicability.

Given several possible tunings of the parton shower model as presently available in PYTHIA, one could probably easily improve further on the agreement between both approaches. The framework prepared in AcerMC generator could well be a nice tool for such a tedious task. It is however not clear, that the parameters should be tuned in a way to make the PS predictions agree with the ME ones. Rather, an enhanced theoretical understanding for which applications the PS or ME predictions are more credible and why should be achieved first. We hope that the results presented here could contribute to such discussions.

Indeed, most of the ME/PS comparison studies so far concentrated predominantly on soft gluon emissions and/or NLO effects, where the hard processes under study are very simple and/or unproblematic (e.g. Drell-Yan Z boson production, $`t\overline{t}`$ production etc…), whereas this study was concentrated on the limiting case of processes involving either a large set of diagrams (from ME viewpoint) or quite hard gluon emission (from PS viewpoint). The latter case might be even more problematic since the soft (NLO) effects have already been (to some extent) properly incorporated into the PS algorithms Sjostrand1998 ; Sjostrand2000  whereas the hard gluon radiation (at high $`p_T`$) is a feature that might be supposed not to work really well under PS approach by virtue of GLAP equations GLAP  and has received relatively little study so far. An additional point to support this claim is that the fiducial kinematic cuts applied in the above studies, which were chosen to reflect the cuts that will be applied in the future experimental analyses, to a certain extent suppress the soft (NLO) effects (e.g. cuts on minimal $`p_T`$, minimal cone separation etc..). This makes the discrepancies in the hard process description the focal point of attention.

The issue of establishing a consistent procedure for the appropriate Monte Carlo generation Field  is crucial as the complete evaluation of the expected background should include its estimates for both irreducible and reducible333 ’Reducible’ events denote events where one or more jets without heavy-flavour content are misidentified as b-jets components ATL-PHYS-TDR . Quantifying the discrepancies between the ME and PS simulation approaches is important because it indicates what could be the expected systematic bias on the evaluation of the reducible backgrounds. The fact that PS and ME predictions are not very far off in the discussed cases of the irreducible backgrounds is also encouraging for using PS approach for simulating their reducible components.

Results from the presented studies thus give us a stronger confidence in using the PS approach for simulating the complete backgrounds. The ME approach alone would be not sufficient but is nevertheless very valuable for quantifying the uncertainties of the PS approach in case of the irreducible background components. The results however also indicate that (for obvious reasons) the PS approach alone is also not without its shortcomings. Some contributions, like e.g. the full EW $`t\overline{t}b\overline{b}`$ can presently not be covered by the PS algorithms. One should thus definitely aim for having both approaches available in a form which is straightforward to use in the experimental analyses with a clear theoretical understanding of their individual shortcomings.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was performed within the framework of the Higgs Working Group of the ATLAS Collaboration. We are grateful to all our colleagues for the inspiring atmosphere and several very valuable discussions. We have used a simplified version of the fast simulation of the ATLAS detector for the quantitative evaluations of the detector responses presented in this paper.


text:
# Geometry of lipid vesicle adhesion

## I Introduction

Geometrical models provide a surprisingly robust phenomenological description of the equilibria of physical membranes Nelson et al. (1989); Peliti (1996); Lipowsky and Sackmann (1995); Bowick and Travesset (2001); Boal (2002). The hamiltonian which describes the membrane is constructed as a sum of geometrical scalars; in particular, lipid membrane vesicles are well approximated by one which is quadratic in the mean curvatureCanham (1970); Helfrich (1973); Evans (1974). Such models can also be extended to model adhesion between vesicles or between a vesicle and a rigid substrateEvans (1985); Servuss and Helfrich (1989); Seifert and Lipowsky (1990), processes which are increasingly relevant to biophysics. (Two reviews are Helfrich (1995); Evans (1995).) In this paper, we examine one important aspect of this problem, the geometry of the contact boundary, which, surprisingly, does not appear to have been examined in any generality.

To model the interaction one can exploit, as for an isolated membrane, the geometrical scalars characterizing the surface of contact as well, perhaps, as its boundary. As such, this is not a model of the adhesion of individual molecules to specific sites on the membrane, a task which lies beyond the scope of this continuum description.

In its simplest form, which is the one we consider, the interaction hamiltonian is proportional to (minus) the area of contact. The energy associated with the boundary of the contact region is ignored. Axially symmetric configurations have been studied thoroughly in this ‘ideal’ contextSeifert and Lipowsky (1990, 1995) . In Seifert (1991), the adhesion of ‘linear’ vesicles in two dimensions was considered. More recently, in Blokhuis and Sager (1999a, b) and Tordeux et al. (2002) perturbation theory has been developed in the strong bonding limit, in which the bending energy itself is small compared to that of adhesion. Non-axially symmetric configurations of an adhering vesicle under the effect of gravity were studied in Kraus et al. (1995) using numerical techniques. We note that a more realistic treatment of adhesion considering chemically structured or rough surfaces has been provided in Swain and Andelman (2001).

For definiteness, we will assume that one of the interacting surfaces is a fixed substrate, although it is simple to relax this restriction. We will not, however, assume that this surface is flat. More significantly, we relax the assumption that the vesicle geometry is axially symmetric. In previous axially symmetric work the geometric origins of the boundary conditions are not clear, because the technique is tailored so finely to the symmetry; nor is it clear to what extent they will survive the relaxation of symmetry. This is a less than desirable situation in a model which is intrinsically geometric to begin with. Of course, one is also interested in geometries which are not axially symmetric: to mention just one context where this would be the case, we note that all configurations with a negative area difference appear to be inconsistent with axial symmetry Svetina and Zeks (1989). Indeed, it may also be energetically favorable for an initially axially symmetric vesicle to adhere to a substrate in a manner which breaks its original symmetry.

Our first approach will be to search for minima of the energy. To do this, we will exploit the geometrical framework introduced recently to describe lipid membranesCapovilla and Guven (2002), and extended to accomodate edge effects in Capovilla et al. (2002). The extension to adhering geometries introduces its own subtleties due to potential discontinuities at the boundary of contact: the energy is stationary only when appropriate constraints on the vesicle geometry are satisfied on this boundary. Our treatment of the problem is divided into three parts. To establish our bearings, we begin in Sect. II with a rederivation of the Young equation for a liquid droplet where the bonding to the wall competes with the surface tension of the drop. In Sect. III, we consider lipid vesicles described by the Helfrich hamiltonian. Discontinuities at the boundary of the contact region are discussed in Sect. III.1. In Sect. III.2, establishing contact with the recent work in this direction, we study the strong bonding limit in which the bending energy is ignored but any asymmetry between the layers is accounted for. In this limit, discontinuities at the boundary of the contact region are not smoothed; a non-vanishing contact angle does not imply a divergent energy. Finally, in Sect. IV we consider the general case. The finiteness of the curvature energy necessarily eliminates an angle of contact between the vesicle and the substrate; stationary energy completely fixes the curvature at the boundary. This generalizes the situation for axially symmetric shapes, where, as is well known, the curvature is completely fixed at the boundarySeifert and Lipowsky (1990): the vesicle radius of curvature normal to the line of contact is inversely proportional to the square root of the bond strength, the tangential radius as well as the potentially non-vanishing off-diagonal curvature are both completely fixed by the substrate geometry. We demonstrate that the boundary condition is not modified by a curvature asymmetry. In Sect. V, we use the expressions for the internal stress tensor in a lipid membrane developed in Capovilla and Guven (2002), to provide a surprisingly simple interpretation of the boundary condition in terms of the balance of forces at the boundary for a flat substrate. We end with some brief conclusions.

## II Surface tension dominated model

It is worthwhile to first review the adhesion of a drop of liquid of fixed volume onto a surface. Here the focus is on the competition between the surface tension of the liquid and the attraction between the liquid surface and the substrate. The former tends to reduce the surface area of the drop; the latter to increase the area of contact. The energy is given as a sum of three terms

$$F=\mu AwA_{\mathrm{contact}}p(VV_0).$$
(1)
The energy associated with the constant surface tension $`\mu `$ of the drop is proportional to its total surface area $`A`$; that associated with adhesion is proportional to (minus) the area of contact $`A_{\mathrm{contact}}`$ between the drop and the substrate. The parameter $`w`$ is the attractive contact potential. The third term involving the Lagrange multiplier $`p`$ implements the volume constraint fixing the enclosed drop volume $`V`$ at the value $`V_0`$.

The equilibrium drop configurations are those at which the energy (1) is stationary. The problem posed here differs from the standard isoperimetric problem in that the area at different positions on the surface gets weighted according to whether or not it lies in the contact region, which itself is determined by the outcome of the variational problem. Indeed the contact surface might be weighted negatively. For physically realistic parameters, however, an equilibrium is realized. The energy is always bounded from below.

In equilibrium, the curvature of the drop’s surface will suffer a discontinuity along the boundary $`C`$ of the contact region. We parameterize the embedding of the free surface of the droplet in three dimensional space as follows: $`𝐱=𝐗(\xi ^a)`$, and the substrate $`𝐱=\stackrel{~}{𝐗}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }^a)`$, $`a=1,2`$. The energy is a functional both of $`𝐗`$ for the free surface and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$ for the region of contact. They coincide on $`C`$, $`𝐗=\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$. See Fig. 1. We now recast the first two terms appearing in $`F`$ as ($`A_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is the area of the free surface)

$`\mu A`$ $``$ $`wA_{\mathrm{contact}}=\mu A_{\mathrm{free}}+(\mu w)A_{\mathrm{contact}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{free}}}d^2\xi \sqrt{\gamma }+(\mu w){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{contact}}}d^2\stackrel{~}{\xi }\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}.`$
Here $`\gamma `$ is the determinant of the metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$ induced on the free surface given by $`\gamma _{ab}=𝐞_a𝐞_b`$, where $`𝐞_a=_a𝐗`$ are vectors tangent to the surface Similar definitions hold for the geometrical quantities, indicated with a tilde, associated with the substrate. Note that the boundary $`C`$ may possess disconnected components.

To derive the equations describing the equilibrium shape of a droplet, let us consider a variation of the embedding of the free surface, $`𝐗𝐗+\delta 𝐗`$. We let $`𝐧`$ denote the unit normal to the free surface. We decompose the displacement with respect to the spatial basis adapted to this surface, $`\{𝐞_a,𝐧\}`$: $`\delta 𝐗=\mathrm{\Phi }^a𝐞_a+\mathrm{\Phi }𝐧`$. We have for the corresponding variation of the induced metric $`\delta _X\gamma _{ab}=2K_{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }+_a\mathrm{\Phi }_b+_b\mathrm{\Phi }_a.`$ The normal deformation is proportional to the extrinsic curvature tensor, $`K_{ab}=𝐞_b_a𝐧`$. The mean extrinsic curvature is $`K=K_{ab}\gamma ^{ab}`$. The tangential deformation is the Lie derivative of $`\gamma _{ab}`$ along the vector field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$; $`_a`$ is the covariant derivative compatible with $`\gamma _{ab}`$.

On the boundary $`C`$, the fixed substrate constrains $`\delta 𝐗`$ to lie along the contact region. We will ignore this for the moment, treating $`\delta 𝐗`$ as though it were unconstrained on $`C`$. Then variation of $`A_{\mathrm{free}}`$ gives,

$$\delta _XA_{\mathrm{free}}=_{\mathrm{free}}𝑑AK\mathrm{\Phi }+_C𝑑sl^a\mathrm{\Phi }_a.$$
(3)
Here $`l^a`$ is the outward pointing normal to $`C`$ on the free surface; $`s`$ is arclength along $`C`$. We also have that the variation of the enclosed volume is

$$\delta _XV=_{\mathrm{free}}𝑑A\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(4)
Remote from $`C`$ only the normal projection of the variation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ plays a role in determining the equilibria of the droplet. This is generally true regardless of the model.

For this model, the free surface satisfies $`\mu K=p`$, as follows from the first term in Eq. (3), together with Eq. (4). Note that there is no boundary term associated with the normal deformation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This contrasts with the tangential deformation whose only net physical effect is to induce a displacement of the boundary.

The boundary deformation we have described is not free: the variation $`\delta 𝐗`$ on $`C`$ is constrained to lie tangent to the substrate. Without loss of generality, we can also assume that it is normal to the boundary $`C`$, so that

$$\delta 𝐗=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\stackrel{~}{𝐳},$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐳}`$ is the outward unit normal to $`C`$ on the substrate (see Fig. 1). We then have for the integrand appearing in the boundary term in Eq.(3), $`l^a\mathrm{\Phi }_a=𝐥\delta 𝐗=𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, where $`𝐥=l^a𝐞_a`$ is the surface vector $`l^a`$ treated as a spatial vector. The boundary contribution to the variation of the free surface $`\delta _XA_{\mathrm{free}}`$ is then

$$\delta _XA_{\mathrm{free}}=_C𝑑s𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(6)
We now consider the variation of the area of contact $`A_{\mathrm{contact}}`$. The deformation $`\delta 𝐗`$ of the free surface will induce a variation in $`A_{\mathrm{contact}}`$ through the boundary that they share,

$$\delta _XA_{\mathrm{contact}}=_C𝑑s\mathrm{\Phi }_0,$$
(7)
which is a two dimensional analog of Eq.(4). Note that the substrate need not be planar. We can now read off the total boundary contribution to the variation $`\delta _XF`$, with $`F`$ given by Eqs. (1), (2). In equilibrium, we require that

$$_C𝑑s\left[\mu 𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}+(\mu w)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0$$
(8)
for an arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. We therefore conclude that

$$w=\mu (1+𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}).$$
(9)
Defining the contact angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ by $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }=𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}`$, this expression reproduces the well known Young equation.

## III Lipid vesicle adhesion

A lipid membrane is modeled by the Helfrich bending energy

$$F_b=\alpha 𝑑AK^2.$$
(10)
For definiteness, we will focus on either of two variants of the model: in both versions the enclosed volume and the total surface area are fixed; in the spontaneous curvature model, $`K`$ is replaced by $`KK_0`$ in Eq.(10) where the constant $`K_0`$ is the spontaneous curvature; in the bilayer couple model, the area difference, proportional to the integrated mean curvature

$$M=𝑑AK,$$
(11)
is also fixed Svetina and Zeks (1989). Thus we construct the constrained energy,

$$F=F_bwA_{\mathrm{contact}}+\mu (AA_0)+\beta (MM_0)p(VV_0).$$
(12)
Here $`\mu `$ is now the Lagrange multiplier associated with the area constraint; likewise $`\beta `$ is that associated with the area difference constraint.

### III.1 Discontinuities resolved

In the simple model discussed in Sect. II there is no energy penalty associated with discontinuities along the contact boundary $`C`$. However, both the intrinsic and extrinsic curvature will suffer a discontinuity along $`C`$. When the curvature of the vesicle contributes to its energy, such a discontinuity will generally result in a singularity in the energy. Because this singular contribution has support on $`C`$, it is no longer valid to decompose the energy into two parts, $`F=F_{\mathrm{free}}+F_{\mathrm{contact}}`$,

This point is well illustrated by considering an axially symmetric surface. Cylindrical polar cooordinates $`\{\rho ,z,\phi \}`$ are introduced on $`R^3`$; constant $`\phi `$ curves on the surface are parametrized by arclength $`\mathrm{}`$. The surface is then described completely once $`\rho =R(\mathrm{})`$ is specified. The extrinsic curvature tensor consistent with axial symmetry is

$$K_{ab}=\mathrm{}_a\mathrm{}_bK_{\mathrm{}}+(\gamma _{ab}\mathrm{}_a\mathrm{}_b)K_R,$$
(13)
where the scalars $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`K_R`$ are the two principal curvatures, and $`\mathrm{}^a`$ is the outward pointing unit normal to the circle of fixed $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}^a=(1,0)`$. We identify the scalar curvature $`=2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}K=2K_{\mathrm{}}K_R`$, and $`K=K_{\mathrm{}}+K_R`$. Now let $`\theta `$ be the angle which the tangent to a curve of fixed $`\phi `$ makes with the positive $`x`$ axis. The principal curvatures are then given by

$$K_{\mathrm{}}=\theta ^{},K_R=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{R}.$$
(14)
The prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`\mathrm{}`$. We have for the integrated mean curvature

$$M=2\pi 𝑑\mathrm{}R\left(\theta ^{}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{R}\right).$$
(15)
Suppose that $`\theta `$ suffers a discontinuity $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the circle at $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_0`$, so that $`\theta (\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Theta }H(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_0)`$, where $`H`$ is the step function. There is a finite contribution from this circle given by

$$_C𝑑AK=2\pi _{\mathrm{}_0ϵ}^{\mathrm{}_0+ϵ}𝑑\mathrm{}\theta ^{}R=2\pi R(\mathrm{}_0)\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(16)
The mean curvature is thus integrable across the discontinuity. In general we have the decomposition

$$M=_{\mathrm{drop}/\mathrm{C}}𝑑AK_C𝑑s\mathrm{arccos}(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}),$$
(17)
with $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }=𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}`$, and where the notation for the normals is that introduced in Sect.II.

We note that the Gauss-Bonnet invariant for a vesicle of spherical topology can likewise be decomposed

$$_{\mathrm{drop}/\mathrm{C}}𝑑A+2_C𝑑s\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa =8\pi ,$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa =\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\kappa `$ is the discontinuity in the geodesic curvature of $`C`$. For an axially symmetric vesicle, the value of the latter term is $`2\pi \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. (An analogous decomposition of the Hilbert-Einstein action arises in the study of the dynamics of thin-shells in general relativity Farhi et al. (1990).) As long as the adhering vesicle remains intact, the Gauss-Bonnet invariant will not play a role in adhesion. Though each of the two components appearing in Eq.(18) will behave non-trivially under deformation of the surface, their sum will not change.

The geometric invariant $`K^2`$ does possess a singularity at a curvature discontinuity. We note that this singularity is identical to that arising from the alternative quadratic invariant, $`K_{ab}K^{ab}`$. This is because the Gauss-Codazzi equation, $`=K^2K_{ab}K^{ab}`$, identifies their difference as the scalar curvature $``$ which according to Eq.(18) picks up a finite contribution at a discontinuity. In an axially symmetric geometry the troublesome term in the bending energy is $`\theta ^{}^2`$:

$$𝑑AK^22\pi 𝑑\mathrm{}R\theta ^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
The $`\theta ^2`$ term appearing in the integrand gives rise to a delta function squared singularity across the boundary. To eliminate the corresponding divergence in the energy, we do require $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$. The surface must be differentiable across $`C`$. It is straightforward to bootstrap this axially symmetric analysis to the general case by introducing Gaussian normal coordinates adapted to the boundary. In general, we require that $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{𝐳}=𝐥`$.

### III.2 Strong Bonding Limit

Before adressing the full problem, let us consider the strong bonding limit, $`\alpha <<wA`$. At lowest order the bending energy $`F_b`$ is ignored in Eq. (12), and the variational problem reduces to the the minimization of the contact energy subject to the three constraints. (In this section, we will use the language appropriate to the bilayer couple model.) Whereas $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ necessarily vanishes on the contact boundary for the Helfrich hamiltonian, it need not vanish in this limit.

Let us first consider the variational problem on the free surface of the vesicle. Under a tangential deformation of this surface any scalar function $``$, and in particular $`=\mu +\beta K`$, transforms as a divergence which is transferred to the boundary:

$$\delta _{||}_{\mathrm{free}}𝑑A=_C𝑑sl_a\mathrm{\Phi }^a.$$
(20)
This is because $`\delta _{||}=\mathrm{\Phi }^a_a`$. The details of $``$ are irrelevant. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is constrained to lie tangent to the contact region, from Eq. (5), with $`=\mu +\beta K`$, we have then

$$\delta _{||}_{\mathrm{free}}𝑑A(\mu +\beta K)=_C𝑑s(\mu +\beta K)𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(21)
Note that this expression reduces to Eq.(6) when $`\mu =1,\beta =0`$.

We now examine a normal deformation of the free surface. The Euler-Lagrange equation which determines the local vesicle equilibrium shape is obtained by demanding that the energy be stationary with respect to normal deformations of the free surface. Its derivation within the present framework has been discussed in detail elsewhere Capovilla and Guven (2002). Let us focus on the normal deformation of the new ingredient with respect to the model discussed in Sect. II appearing in Eq.(12) which is $`M`$. We consider the contributions from the free surface, $`C`$ and the contact region as given by Eq.(17) separately. We begin with $`M_{\mathrm{free}}`$. We have

$$\delta _{}M_{\mathrm{free}}=_{\mathrm{free}}𝑑A\mathrm{\Phi }_C𝑑s_{}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(22)
We have used $`\delta _{}K=^2\mathrm{\Phi }K^{ab}K_{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, as well as the Gauss-Codazzi equation, and $`_{}=l^a_a`$ denotes the derivative along $`𝐥`$. It is now straightforward to read off the bulk Euler-Lagrange equation,

$$\mu K+\beta =p.$$
(23)
Note that this equation is second order in derivatives.

To proceed with the determination of the boundary conditions, we need to identify the independent unconstrained variation at the interface. We identify these as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\delta 𝐗`$ and its derivative along $`\stackrel{~}{𝐳}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. We will, however, continue to use $`_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ to denote $`𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\stackrel{~}{}_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. We note that the normal deformation at the boundary, using Eq. (5) is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=𝐧\delta 𝐗=𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\mathrm{\Phi }_0,$$
(24)
and on the boundary $`C`$, its normal derivative is

$`_{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`_{}\left(𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`(𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳})_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{\Phi }_0\stackrel{~}{𝐳}_{}𝐧+\mathrm{\Phi }_0𝐧_{}\stackrel{~}{𝐳}`$
$`=`$ $`(𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳})_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0+(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})[K_{}+(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})\stackrel{~}{K}_{}]\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$
where we have defined $`K_{}=K_{ab}l^al^b`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{}=\stackrel{~}{K}_{ab}\stackrel{~}{z}^a\stackrel{~}{z}^b`$. We have used the fact that $`𝐧_{}\stackrel{~}{𝐳}=(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})^2\stackrel{~}{K}_{}`$ as well as $`_{}𝐧=l^aK_a{}_{}{}^{b}𝐞_{b}^{}`$. Therefore the boundary contribution to Eq. (22) takes the form

$$\delta _{}M_{\mathrm{free}}=_C𝑑s\{(𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳})_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0+(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})[K_{}+(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})\stackrel{~}{K}_{}]\mathrm{\Phi }_0\}.$$
(26)
For the boundary contribution $`M_C`$, we have

$$\delta _XM_C=_C𝑑s\left[\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\delta _X\mathrm{\Theta }\right].$$
(27)
We emphasize that this term contributes only to the strong bonding limit. The first term comes from the variation of arclength: $`\delta _Xds=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. We now exploit the fact that $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }=𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}`$ to express $`\delta _X\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in terms of $`\delta _X(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})`$; to evaluate the latter we note that $`\delta _X\mathrm{\Theta }=(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta })^1\delta _X(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})`$, and that

$$\delta _X(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})=(\delta _X𝐥)\stackrel{~}{𝐳}=𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳}(𝐧\delta _X𝐥).$$
(28)
In general, we have for the tangent vectors to the free surface,

$$𝐧\delta _X𝐞_a=_a\mathrm{\Phi }K_{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }^b.$$
(29)
so that

$$(\delta _X𝐥)\stackrel{~}{𝐳}=\left(_{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})K_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳}.$$
(30)
Note that $`\delta _XM_C`$ need not vanish even when $`M_C`$ itself does.

Finally, the induced change in $`M`$ on the contact region due to the displacement of $`C`$ is just

$$\delta _XM_{\mathrm{contact}}=_C𝑑s\stackrel{~}{K}\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(31)
It is now straightforward to read off the boundary condition by equating the coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for the corresponding expression for $`F`$ to zero:

$$(𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳})(\mu +\beta K_{})+(\mu w)+\beta \stackrel{~}{K}+\beta \mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0.$$
(32)
We have used the fact that $`K`$ can be expressed as $`K=K_{}+K_{}`$, where $`K_{}=K_{ab}t^at^b`$ is the projection of $`K_{ab}`$ onto the unit tangent to $`C`$, $`t^a`$. In general, some simplification is possible by using the identity

$$K_{}=𝐧\dot{𝐭}=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{K}_{}+\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{\kappa }.$$
(33)
In particular, for axially symmetric geometries, we note that $`K_{}=K_R`$ is consistent with $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{}=\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi }/R`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi }/R`$, with the identification $`\theta =\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Note that Eq. (32) is consistent with Ref. Blokhuis and Sager (1999a) where an axially symmetric (indeed spherical) vesicle adhering to a flat substrate ($`\stackrel{~}{K}=0`$) is described.

## IV  No approximations

We now examine the general case, as given by the energy (12), including the bending energy $`F_b`$. As discussed in Sect. III.1, in order to avoid discontinuities at the boundary we impose $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ or $`𝐥\stackrel{~}{𝐳}=1`$ as a constraint.

For the tangential deformation of $`F_b`$, from Eq. (20), we have immediately

$$\delta _{}F_b=\alpha _C𝑑sK^2\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(34)
The novel non-trivial boundary term associated with the normal deformation of the free surface originates in the term

$$2\alpha _{\mathrm{free}}𝑑AK\gamma ^{ab}\delta _{}K_{ab}$$
(35)
contributing from the variation of $`F_{b\mathrm{free}}`$. Modulo the free bulk shape equation (described in Capovilla and Guven (2002)), there remains

$$\delta _{}F_{b\mathrm{free}}=2\alpha _C𝑑s\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{}KK_{}\mathrm{\Phi }\right).$$
(36)
We note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝐧\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$, so that the first term vanishes. For the second term, on $`C`$, Eq.(25) gives $`_{}\mathrm{\Phi }=(\stackrel{~}{K}_{}K_{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, so that the novel contribution is

$$\delta _{}F_{b\mathrm{free}}=2\alpha _C𝑑sK(K_{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{})\mathrm{\Phi }_0.$$
(37)
It is now straightforward to read off the boundary condition (there is no term proportional to $`_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$)

$$\alpha K^2\beta K_{}+\alpha \stackrel{~}{K}^2+\beta \stackrel{~}{K}_{}+2\alpha (K_{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{})K=w.$$
(38)
If we now use the fact that $`K_{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{}=0`$ when $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$, Eq.(38) reduces to the remarkably simple expression

$$K_{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{}=\sqrt{w/\alpha }.$$
(39)
This expression is independent of $`\beta `$.

The curvature $`K_{}`$ is completely fixed at the boundary by Eq.(39). We note that the off-diagonal term with respect to the basis $`l^a`$ and $`t^a`$, $`K_{}=l^at^bK_{ab}=𝐧\dot{𝐥}`$ will not generally be zero. Just like $`K_{}`$, however, it will is completely determined by its substrate counterpart, $`K_{}=\stackrel{~}{K}_{}`$. Thus, all three components of the curvature are fixed at the boundary.

If the substrate is flat at the boundary, we have $`K_{}=\sqrt{w/\alpha }`$. For an axially symmetric shape, $`K_{}=K_{\mathrm{}}=\theta ^{}`$ and Eq.(39) therefore reproduces the well known boundary condition Seifert and Lipowsky (1990),

$$\theta ^{}=\sqrt{w/\alpha }.$$
(40)
We note that if the substrate is axially symmetric and not flat, Eq. (40) is modified to

$$\theta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\sqrt{w/\alpha },$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ is the curvature along a meridian of the substrate. This agrees with the expression given in footnote 14 of Seifert and Lipowsky (1990).

## V Stresses at the boundary

In equilibrium, the forces directed along the normal from the boundary into the membrane must balance. In Capovilla and Guven (2002), it is shown that the stress tensor for the model (12) can be expressed as

$`𝐟^a`$ $`=`$ $`[\alpha K(2K^{ab}K\gamma ^{ab})+\beta (K^{ab}K\gamma ^{ab})`$ (42)
$``$ $`\mu \gamma ^{ab}]𝐞_b2\alpha ^aK𝐧.`$
This is the stress tensor on the free surface. It satisfies

$$_a𝐟^a=p𝐧$$
(43)
at each point.

Let us for simplicity suppose that the substrate is flat, so that $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{ab}=0`$. The corresponding stress tensor in that part of the vesicle which is bound to the substrate $`\stackrel{~}{𝐟}^a`$ is then

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐟}^a=(w\mu )\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{ab}\stackrel{~}{𝐞}_b,$$
(44)
which is isotropic. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐟}`$ does not satisfy the conservation law Eq.(43). Thus the construction of a Gaussian pillbox of infinitesimal thickness on the boundary does not lead to a useful identity. We note, however, that $`𝐥𝐟^al_a`$ is the pressure acting on the boundary due to unbalanced stresses in the free bulk at its boundary. We have

$$𝐥𝐟^al_a=\alpha K(2K_{}K)\beta K_{}\mu .$$
(45)
Similarly,

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐳}\stackrel{~}{𝐟}^a\stackrel{~}{z}_a=w\mu .$$
(46)
The stresses must balance in equilibrium. When they do, Eq.(39) is reproduced. This derivation is not only more efficient than the variational argument, it also homes in immediately on the physics at the boundary.

## VI Conclusions

We have shown how a combination of simple geometrical and variational techniques as well as conservation laws can be applied to study the adhesion of vesicles described by a geometrical hamiltonian. This provides a useful platform for either a numerical or perturbative approach to adhesion, particularly when one is interested in non-axially symmetric shapes. Axially symmetric shapes are very special ones.

These techniques also generalize to so-called floppy or egg-carton membranes where a term penalizing curvature gradients also appears in the hamiltonian Helfrich (1995); Goetz and Helfrich (1996). Now, not only is the contact angle fixed, but its first derivative vanishes. It is the second derivative which will be proportional to the bond strength. The interesting shapes are also certainly not axially symmetric.

Note added in proof: After this work was completed, Ref. Rosso and Virga (1998) was brought to our attention, where the adhesion of ‘linear’ vesicles in two dimensions is considered.

###### Acknowledgements.

RC is partially supported by CONACyT under grant 32187-E. JG is partially supported by CONACyT under grant 32307-E and DGAPA at UNAM under grant IN119799. We thank B. Bozic, S. Svetina, and B. Zeks for useful comments, for bringing Ref. Rosso and Virga (1998) to our attention, and for their help in pointing out a mistake in an earlier version of this paper.