Scholarly article on topic 'Search for doubly-charged Higgs boson production at HERA'

Search for doubly-charged Higgs boson production at HERA Academic research paper on "Physical sciences"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Physics Letters B
OECD Field of science

Abstract of research paper on Physical sciences, author of scientific article — A. Aktas, V. Andreev, T. Anthonis, B. Antunovic, S. Aplin, et al.

Abstract A search for the single production of doubly-charged Higgs bosons H ± ± in ep collisions is presented. The signal is searched for via the Higgs decays into a high mass pair of same charge leptons, one of them being an electron. The analysis uses up to 118 pb−1 of ep data collected by the H1 experiment at HERA. No evidence for doubly-charged Higgs production is observed and mass dependent upper limits are derived on the Yukawa couplings h e l of the Higgs boson to an electron–lepton pair. Assuming that the doubly-charged Higgs only decays into an electron and a muon via a coupling of electromagnetic strength h e μ = 4 π α em ≃ 0.3 , a lower limit of 141 GeV on the H ± ± mass is obtained at the 95% confidence level. For a doubly-charged Higgs decaying only into an electron and a tau and a coupling h e τ ≃ 0.3 , masses below 112 GeV are ruled out.

Academic research paper on topic "Search for doubly-charged Higgs boson production at HERA"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SCIENCE ^DIRECT6

Physics Letters B 638 (2006) 432-440

www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

Search for doubly-charged Higgs boson production at HERA

H1 Collaboration

A. Aktasi, V. Andreevy, T. Anthonisc, B. Antunovicz, S. Aplini, A. Asmoneag, A. Astvatsatourovc, A. Babaevx*, S. Backovicad, A. Baghdasaryanak, P. Baranovy, E. Barreletac, W. Barteli, S. Baudrandaa, S. Baumgartneram, J. Beckeran, M. Beckinghami, O. Behnkel, O. Behrendtf, A. Belousovy, N. Bergeram, J.C. Bizotaa, M.-O. Boenigf, V. Boudryab, J. Bracinikz, G. Brandtl, V. Brissonaa, D. Brunckoo, F.W. Büsserj, A. Bunyatyankak, G. Buschhornz, L. Bystritskayax, A.J. Campbelli, F. Cassol-Brunneru, K. Cernyaf, V. Cernyo at, V. Chekelianz, J.G. Contrerasv, J.A. Coughland, B.E. Coxt, G. Cozzikah, J. Cvachae, J.B. Daintonq, W.D. Daun, K. Daumajap, Y. de Boei x, B. Delcourtaa, M. Del Deganam, A. De Roeckiar, E.A. De Wolfc, C. Diaconuu, V. Dodonovk, A. Dubakadas, G. Eckerlini, V. Efremenkox, S. Egliai, R. Eichlerai, F. Eiselel, A. Eliseevy, E. Elseni, S. Essenovx, A. Falkewicze, P.J.W. Faulknerb, L. Favartc, A. Fedotovx, R. Felsti, J. Feltesseh, J. Ferenceio, L. Finkej, M. Fleischeri, G. Fluckeag, A. Fomenkoy,

G. Frankei, T. Frissonab, E. Gabathulerq, E. Garuttii, J. Gayleri, C. Gerlichl, S. Ghazaryanak, S. Ginzburgskayax, A. Glazovi, I. Glushkoval, L. Goerliche, M. Goettlichi, N. Gogitidzey, S. Gorbounoval, C. Grabam, T. Greenshawq, M. Gregorir, B.R. Grelli, G. Grindhammerz,

C. Gwilliamt, D. Haidti, L. Hajduke, M. Hanssons, G. Heinzelmannj, R.C.W. Hendersonp,

H. Henschelal, G. Herreraw, M. Hildebrandtai, K.H. Hilleral, D. Hoffmann u, R. Horisbergerai, A. Hovhannisyanak, T. Hreusc aq, S. Hussainr, M. Ibbotsont, M. Ismailt, M. Jacquetaa,

L. Janauschekz, X. Janssenc, V. Jemanovj, L. Jönssons, D.P. Johnsonc, A.W. Jungm, H. Jungs i, M. Kapichineg, J. Katzyi, I.R. Kenyonb, C. Kieslingz, M. Kleinal, C. Kleinworti, T. Klimkovichi, T. Klugei, G. Kniesi, A. Knutssons, V. Korbeli, P. Kostkaal, K. Krastevi, J. Kretzschmaral,

A. Kropivnitskayax, K. Krüger m, M.P.J. Landonr, W. Langeal, G. Lastovicka-Medinad, P. Laycockq, A. Lebedevy, G. Leibengutham, V. Lendermannm, S. Levoniani, L. Lindfeldan,

K. Lipkaal, A. Liptajz, B. Listam, J. Listj, E. Lobodzinskaale, N. Loktionovay, R. Lopez-Fernandez w, V. Lubimovx, A.-I. Lucaci-Timocei, H. Luedersj, D. Lükef i, T. Luxj, L. Lytkink, A. Makankineg, N. Maldent, E. Malinovskiy, S. Manganoam, P. Maragec, R. Marshallt, L. Martii, M. Martisikovai, H.-U. Martyna, S.J. Maxfieldq, A. Mehtaq, K. Meier m, A.B. Meyeri, H. Meyeraj, J. Meyeri, V. Michelsi, S. Mikockie, I. Milcewicz-Mikae, D. Milsteadq, D. Mladenovah, A. Mohamedq, F. Moreauab, A. Morozovg, J.V. Morrisd, M.U. Mozerl, K. Mülleran, P. Murinoaq, K. Nankovah, B. Naroskaj, Th. Naumannal, P.R. Newmanb, C. Niebuhri,

A. Nikiforovz, G. Nowake, K. Nowakan, M. Nozickaaf, R. Oganezovak, B. Olivierz, J.E. Olssoni, S. Osmans, D. Ozerovx, V. Palichikg, I. Panagouliasi, T. Papadopouloui, C. Pascaudaa, G.D. Patelq,

H. Pengi, E. Perez h *, D. Perez-Astudillov, A. Perieanui, A. Petrukhinx, D. Pitzli, R. Placakytez,

B. Portheaultaa, B. Povhk, P. Prideauxq, A.J. Rahmatq, N. Raicevicad, P. Reimerae, A. Rimmerq, C. Risleri, E. Rizvir, P. Robmannan, B. Rolandc, R. Roosenc, A. Rostovtsevx, Z. Rurikovaz,

S. Rusakovy, F. Salvairej, D.P.C. Sankeyd, E. Sauvanu, S. Schätzer, S. Schmidti, S. Schmitti,

0370-2693/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.061

C. Schmitzan, L. Schoeffelh, A. Schöningam, H.-C. Schultz-Coulon m, F. Sefkow\ R.N. Shaw-Westb, I. Sheviakovy, L.N. Shtarkovy, Y. Siroisab, T. Sloan p, P. Smirnovy, Y. Solovievy,

D. Southi, V. Spaskovg, A. Speckaab, M. Stederi, B. Stellaag, J. Stiewem, A. Stoilovah, U. Straumannan, D. Sunarc, V. Tchoulakovg, G. Thompsonr, P.D. Thompsonb, T. Tolli, F. Tomaszo, D. Traynorr, P. Truölan, I. Tsakovah, G. Tsipolitisi ao, I. Tsurini, J. Turnaue, E. Tzamariudakiz, K. Urban m, M. Urbanan, A. Usiky, D. Utkinx, A. Valkárováaf, C. Vallée u, P. Van Mechelenc, A. Vargas Trevinof, Y. Vazdiky, C. Veelkenq, S. Vinokurovai, V. Volchinskiak, K. Wackerf, G. Weberj, R. Weberam, D. Wegenerf, C. Wernerl, M. Wesselsi, B. Wesslingi, Ch. Wissingf, R. Wolfl, E. Wünschi, S. Xellaan, W. Yani, V. Yeganovak, J. Zácekf J. Zálesákae, Z. Zhangaa, A. Zhelezovx, A. Zhokinx, Y.C. Zhui, J. Zimmermann2, T. Zimmermannam,

H. Zohrabyanak, F. Zomeraa

a I. Physikalisches Institut der RWTH, Aachen, Germany 1 b School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK 2 c Inter-University Institute for High Energies ULB-VUB, and Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium 3 d Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, UK 2 e Institute for Nuclear Physics, Cracow, Poland 4 f Institut für Physik, Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany1 g Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia h CEA, DSM/DAPNIA, CE-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 1 DESY, Hamburg, Germany j Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany 1 k Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany ' Physikalisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 1 m Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany1 n Institut für Experimentelle und Angewandte Physik, Universität Kiel, Kiel, Germany o Institute of Experimental Physics, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice, Slovak Republic 6 p Department of Physics, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK2 q Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 2 r Queen Mary and Westfield College, London, UK 2 s Physics Department, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden 7 t Physics Department, University ofManchester, Manchester, UK 2 u CPPM, CNRS/IN2P3, University ofMediterranee, Marseille, France v Departamento de Fisica Aplicada, CINVESTAV, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico10 w Departamento de Fisica, CINVESTAV, Mexico10 x Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia11 y Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia 5 z Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany aa LAL, Université de Paris-Sud 11, IN2P3-CNRS, Orsay, France ab LLR, Ecole Polytechnique, IN2P3-CNRS, Palaiseau, France ac LPNHE, Universités Paris VI and VII, IN2P3-CNRS, Paris, France ad Faculty of Science, University of Montenegro, Podgorica, Serbia and Montenegro 5 ae Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Praha, Czech Republic8 af Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic8 ag Dipartimento di Fisica Université di Roma Tre and INFN Roma 3, Roma, Italy ah Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Sofia, Bulgaria 5 ai Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen, Switzerland aj Fachbereich C, Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany ak Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia al DESY, Zeuthen, Germany am Institut für Teilchenphysik, ETH, Zürich, Switzerland 9 an Physik-Institut der Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 9 ao Physics Department, National Technical University, Zografou Campus, GR-15773 Athens, Greece ap Rechenzentrum, Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany aq University ofP.J. Safárik, Kosice, Slovak Republic

ar CERN, Geneva, Switzerland as Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München, Germany at Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Received 17 April 2006; accepted 23 May 2006 Available online 21 June 2006 Editor: W.-D. Schlatter

Abstract

A search for the single production of doubly-charged Higgs bosons Hin ep collisions is presented. The signal is searched for via the Higgs decays into a high mass pair of same charge leptons, one of them being an electron. The analysis uses up to 118 pb-1 of ep data collected by the H1 experiment at HERA. No evidence for doubly-charged Higgs production is observed and mass dependent upper limits are derived on the Yukawa couplings hei of the Higgs boson to an electron-lepton pair. Assuming that the doubly-charged Higgs only decays into an electron and a muon via a coupling of electromagnetic strength he^ = V4naem ~ 0.3, a lower limit of 141 GeV on the Hmass is obtained at the 95% confidence level. For a doubly-charged Higgs decaying only into an electron and a tau and a coupling heT ~ 0.3, masses below 112 GeV are ruled out.

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Doubly-charged Higgs bosons (H) appear when the Higgs sector of the Standard Model (SM) is extended by one or more triplet(s) with non-zero hypercharge [1-3]. Examples are provided by some left-right symmetric models [4], or their supersymmetric extensions, which are of particular interest since they provide a mechanism to generate small non-zero neutrino masses. Such models can lead to a doubly-charged Higgs boson light enough [5] to be produced at the existing colliders. The Higgs triplet(s) may be coupled to matter fields via Yukawa couplings which are generally not related to the fermion masses. A non-vanishing coupling of a doubly-charged Higgs to an electron would allow its single production in ep collisions at HERA. This possibility is investigated in this Letter with a search for doubly-charged Higgs bosons decaying into a high mass pair of same charge leptons, one of them being an electron. An analysis of multi-electron events was already presented by the H1 Collaboration [6]. Six events were observed with a di-electron mass above 100 GeV, a domain in which

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: eperez@hep.saclay.cea.fr (E. Perez).

1 Supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, FRG, under contract numbers 05H11GUA/1, 05H11PAA/1, 05H11PAB/9, 05H11PEA/6, 05H11VHA/7 and 05H11VHB/5.

2 Supported by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, and formerly by the UK Science and Engineering Research Council.

3 Supported by FNRS-FWO-Vlaanderen, IISN-IIKW and IWT and by In-teruniversity Attraction Poles Programme, Belgian Science Policy.

4 Partially Supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, SPUB/DESY/P003/DZ, 118/2003/2005.

5 Supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

6 Supported by VEGA SR grant No. 2/4067/24.

7 Supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council.

8 Supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic under the projects LC527 and ING0-1P05LA259.

9 Supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

10 Supported by CONACYT, México, grant 400073-F.

11 Partially Supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grants 0302-17291 and 04-02-16445.

* Deceased.

the Standard Model prediction is low. In the present Letter the compatibility of these events with the hypothesis of a doubly-charged Higgs coupling to ee is addressed and a further search for a Hboson coupling to e¡i and ex is performed. The analysis is based on ep data collected by the H1 experiment between 1994 and 2000, which amount to a luminosity of up to 118 pb-1.

2. Phenomenology

At tree level, doubly-charged Higgs bosons couple only to charged leptons and to other Higgs and gauge bosons. Couplings to quark pairs are forbidden by charge conservation. The couplings of a doubly-charged Higgs to charged leptons can be generically described by the Lagrangian:

£ = E hLRHL+PL,Rlj + h.c.,

where l are the charged lepton fields, lc denote the charge conjugate fields, i, j are generation indices, and PLr = (1T Y5)/2. The Higgs fields H++ coupling to left- or right-handed leptons correspond to different particles and not all models predict their

simultaneous existence. The Yukawa couplings hL,R = h\ are free parameters of the model.

The phenomenology of doubly-charged Higgs production at HERA was first discussed in [7]. For a non-vanishing coupling h^l,R the single production of a doubly-charged Higgs boson is possible at HERA in ey * interactions via the diagrams shown in Fig. 1, where a photon is radiated off the proton or one of its constituent quarks. The proton may remain intact or be broken

Fig. 1. Diagrams for the single production of a doubly-charged Higgs boson in e+p collisions at HERA via the hei coupling. The hadronic final state is denoted by p (X) in the elastic (inelastic) case, where the initial proton remains intact (dissociates). The contribution of Z exchange can be safely neglected.

during this interaction, leading to an elastic or inelastic reaction, respectively. With longitudinally unpolarised lepton beams, as were delivered by HERA until 2000, the H±± production cross section does not depend on whether the Higgs couples to left- or right-handed leptons. Hence a generic case is considered here of a doubly-charged Higgs boson which couples to either left-or right-handed leptons and the L, R indices are dropped in the following.

Within the mass range considered in this analysis, it is assumed that decays of the H±± into gauge bosons and other Higgs particles are not allowed kinematically such that the doubly-charged Higgs only decays via its Yukawa couplings into a lepton pair.

Indirect upper bounds on the Yukawa couplings of a doubly-charged Higgs to leptons are reviewed in [8]. The coupling hee of a doubly-charged Higgs to an electron pair is constrained by the contribution of virtual H±± exchange to Bhabha scattering in e+e— collisions. A recent OPAL analysis [9] sets the constraint hee < 0.14 for a doubly-charged Higgs mass MH = 100 GeV. From low energy e+e— data, coupling values of 0(0.1) are allowed for hex and heT for a Higgs mass of 100 GeV [10]. Taking these indirect constraints into account, the production of a doubly-charged Higgs mediated by hee, hex or heT might be observable at HERA. The Higgs signal would manifest itself as a peak in the invariant mass distribution of same charge ee, e/ or ex leptons, respectively. For the range of masses and couplings probed in this analysis, the Higgs decay length is vanishingly small but its width remains negligible compared to the experimental resolution on the mass of the lep-ton pair.

3. Simulation of the signal and Standard Model backgrounds

The calculation of the cross section for doubly-charged Higgs production, as well as the simulation of signal events, relies on a dedicated Monte Carlo program developed for this analysis. The differential cross sections are integrated using the VEGAS package [11]. Different approaches are followed depending on the photon virtuality Q2 and on the mass W of the hadronic final state:

• In the inelastic region (W > mp + mn, with the proton mass mp and the pion mass mn) and when the photon virtuality is large (Q2 > 4 GeV2), the interaction involves a quark inside the proton. The squared amplitude of the process e±q ^ e^H±±q is evaluated using the CompHEP package [12,13]. The parton densities in the proton are taken from the CTEQ4L [14] parameterisation and are evaluated at the scale ^[Q2. The parton shower approach [15] based on the DGLAP [16] evolution equations is applied to simulate QCD corrections in the initial and final states, and the hadronisation is performed using PYTHIA 6.1 [15].

• For the elastic region (W = mp) and the inelastic region at low Q2 (W > mp + mn, Q2 < 4 GeV2), the squared amplitude is calculated using the FORM program [17]. The hadronic tensor is parameterised in terms of the usual elec-

tromagnetic structure functions F\(x, Q2) and F2(x, Q2) of the proton, where x = Q2/(W2 + Q2 — mp). For the elastic process these structure functions are expressed in terms of the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton. For the low Q2 inelastic region they are taken from analytical parameterisations [18]. The simulation of the hadronic final state for low Q2 inelastic events is performed via an interface to the SOPHIA program [19].

For a Yukawa coupling hee or he/ of electromagnetic strength (h = V4naem(Q2 = 0) ~ 0.3) the total cross section amounts to 0.39 pb (0.04 pb) for a Higgs mass of 100 GeV (150 GeV). The low Q2 (high Q2) inelastic contribution is found to be ~30% (~20%) of the total cross section in the mass range 80-150 GeV. The cross section for producing a doubly-charged Higgs via a coupling heT is lower by about 40% due to the non-negligible mass of the t lepton produced in association with the Higgs.

The theoretical uncertainty on the cross sections obtained is taken to be 4% in the mass range considered. This is derived from an assessed uncertainty of 2% on the proton form factors [20] and from the uncertainty on the scale at which the parton densities for the inelastic contribution are evaluated. The latter uncertainty is estimated from the variation of the computed cross section as this scale is changed from sfQ2/2 to 2^/~Q2.

Separate signal event samples corresponding to the production and decay of a doubly-charged Higgs via a coupling hee, he/ and heT have been produced for Higgs masses ranging between 80 and 150 GeV, in steps of 10 GeV.

Di-electron production, which proceeds mainly via two-photon interactions, constitutes an irreducible background for ee final states. The production of muon or tau pairs constitutes a background for the e/ and eT analyses when the scattered electron is detected. The Cabibbo-Parisi process ee ^ y, Z ^ ll, in which the incoming electron interacts with an electron emitted from a photon radiated from the proton, contributes at high transverse momentum only. The Drell-Yan process was calculated in [21] and found to be negligible. All these processes are simulated using the GRAPE Monte Carlo generator [22], which also takes into account contributions from Bremsstrahlung with subsequent photon conversion into a lep-ton pair and electroweak contributions.

Experimental backgrounds come dominantly from neutral current deep inelastic scattering (NC DIS) where a jet is misidentified as an electron, a muon or a tau. Compton scattering is also a source of background for ee final states when the photon is misidentified as an electron. These processes are simulated with the DJANGO [23] and WABGEN [24] generators.

All generated events are passed through the full simulation of the H1 apparatus and are reconstructed using the same program chain as for the data.

4. The H1 detector

A detailed description of the H1 experiment can be found in [25]. Only the H1 detector components relevant to the present

analysis are briefly described here. Jets and electrons are measured with the liquid argon (LAr) calorimeter [26], which covers the polar angle12 range 4° < 0 < 154°. Electromagnetic shower energies are measured with a precision of a(E)/E = 12%/VE/GeV © 1% and hadronic energies with a(E)/E = 50%/VE/GeV © 2%, as determined in test beams [27]. In the backward region a lead/scintillating-fibre13 (SpaCal) calorimeter [28] covers the range 155° <0 < 178°. The central (20° < 0 < 160°) and forward (7° < 0 < 25°) tracking detectors are used to measure charged particle trajectories, to reconstruct the interaction vertex and to supplement the measurement of the hadronic energy. The LAr and inner tracking detectors are enclosed in a super-conducting magnetic coil with a strength of 1.15 T. The return yoke of the coil is the outermost part of the detector and is equipped with streamer tubes forming the central muon detector (4° < 0 < 171°). In the forward region of the detector (3° < 0 < 17°) a set of drift chamber layers (the forward muon system) detects muons and, together with an iron toroidal magnet, allows a momentum measurement. The luminosity measurement is based on the Bethe-Heitler process ep ^ epY, where the photon is detected in a calorimeter located downstream of the interaction point.

5. Data analysis

The analyses of ee and ei final states use the full e±p data set recorded in the period 1994-2000, which corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 118 pb-1. The analysis of ex final states makes use of the e+p data collected in the years 1996-1997 and 1999-2000, which amount to a luminosity of 88 pb-1. The HERA collider was operated at a centre-of-mass energy V of 300 GeV in 1994-1997 and of 318 GeV in 1998-2000.

Events are first selected by requiring that the longitudinal position of the vertex be within 35 cm around the nominal interaction point. In addition topological filters and timing vetoes are applied to remove background events induced by cosmic showers and other non-ep sources. The main triggers for the events are provided by the LAr calorimeter and the muon system.

5.1. Lepton identification

An electron14 candidate is identified by the presence of a compact and isolated electromagnetic energy deposit above 5 GeV in the LAr or SpaCal calorimeter. The energy of the electron candidate is measured from the calorimetric information. In the angular range 20° < 0 < 150° the electron identification is complemented by tracking conditions, in which

12 The origin of the H1 coordinate system is the nominal ep interaction point, with the direction of the proton beam defining the positive z-axis (forward region). The transverse momenta are measured in the xy plane. The pseudo-rapidity n is related to the polar angle 0 by n = - ln tan(0/2).

13 Before 1995 a lead-scintillator calorimeter was used.

14 Unless otherwise stated, the term "electron" is used in this Letter to generi-cally describe electrons or positrons.

case the direction of the electron candidate is given by that of the associated track. Electron candidates in the forward region, 5° < 0 < 20°, are required to have an energy above 10 GeV.

A muon candidate is identified by associating an isolated track in the forward muon system or in the inner tracking system with a track segment or an energy deposit in the instrumented iron. The muon momentum is measured from the track curvature in the toroidal or solenoidal magnetic field, respectively.

Tau leptons are preselected as described in [29] by requiring a track with transverse momentum above 5 GeV measured in the inner tracking detector. The leptonic tau decays t ^ evv and t ^ ivv are reconstructed by matching the selected track to an identified electron or muon. Tracks that are not identified as electrons or muons are attributed to hadronic tau decays if at least 40% of the track momentum is reconstructed in the LAr calorimeter as matched clustered energy. In that case it is moreover required that the track belong to a narrow jet: No other track should be reconstructed within 0.15 < R < 1.5 around the track direction, where R = ^An2 + Ay2 with An and Ay being the distances in pseudorapidity and azimuthal angle, respectively. The transverse momentum and the direction of the t candidate are approximated by those of the associated track.

5.2. Analysis of the H ^ ee decay

This analysis is based on the published H1 measurement of multi-electron production [6]. The event selection requires at least two central (20° <0e < 150°) electron candidates, one of them with a transverse momentum P^1 > 10 GeV (ensuring a trigger efficiency close to 100% [30]) and the other one with P|2 > 5 GeV. After this preselection, 125 events are observed, in good agreement with the SM expectation of 137.4 ± 10.7. In each event, the two highest PT electrons, one of those being possibly outside the central region, are assigned to the Higgs candidate. The distribution of their invariant mass Mee is shown in Fig. 2(a). At low mass a good agreement is observed between data and the SM expectation which is largely dominated by yy contributions. Six events are observed at Mee > 100 GeV, compared to the SM expectation of 0.53 ± 0.08.

Further selection criteria are then applied, which are designed to maximise the sensitivity of the analysis to a possible Hsignal. The charge measurement of the two leptons assigned to the Higgs candidate is exploited. In e+p (e-p) collisions, where H++ (H ) bosons could be produced, events in which one of the two leptons is reliably assigned a negative (positive) charge are rejected. The charge assignment requires that the curvature k of the track associated with the lepton be measured with an error 8k satisfying \k/Sk\ > 2. The precise calorimetric measurement of the electron transverse momenta is further exploited by applying an additional Mee dependent cut on the sum of the transverse momenta of the two electrons assigned to the Higgs candidate. The lower bound is optimised to keep 95% of the signal and varies between 45 and 120 GeV. This cut reduces the background by typically 50%, suppressing Y Y events in which a large mass is reconstructed from low PT electrons, as occurs when a forward electron is combined with

Fig. 2. Distribution of (a) the invariant mass Mee of the two highest Pj electrons for multi-electron events, (b) the electron-muon invariant mass Mei, and (c) the electron-tau candidate invariant mass MeT. The data (symbols) are compared with the Standard Model expectation (histogram). The distributions are shown at the preselection level (see text).

the scattered electron detected at a large angle. The efficiency for selecting signal events varies from 50% for a Hmass of 80 GeV to 35% for a Hmass of 150 GeV. In this mass range the resolution on Mee varies between 2.5 and 5 GeV.

After these requirements, 3 events are observed at Mee > 65 GeV, in agreement with the SM expectation of 2.45 ± 0.11 events. Amongst the six events15 at Mee > 100 GeV, only one satisfies the final selection criteria.

5.3. Analysis of the H ^ e i decay

Events having one electron and one muon with minimal transverse momenta of PJ£ > 10 GeV and P^ > 5 GeV are selected. The polar angle of electron candidates is restricted to 20° < 0e < 140° to reduce the large background arising from NC DIS events. The 0 range for muon candidates extends towards low angles, 10° < 01 < 140°, which increases the efficiency for high Hmasses. The minimum transverse momentum required for electron candidates ensures a trigger efficiency close to 100% for these events. After this preselection, 35 data events are observed compared to a SM expectation of 29.6 ± 3.4. In each event, the highest PT electron and muon which fulfill the above angular cuts are assigned to the Higgs candidate and the distribution of their invariant mass M

shown in Fig. 2(b). A good agreement is observed between the data and the SM expectation, which is dominated by yy contributions.

For the final selection of H ^ ei candidates the charge of the e and ¡i is exploited using the same criteria as used in Sec-

15 Out of these, three do not fulfill the Mee dependent P j cut, and two do not satisfy the charge requirement.

tion 5.2. The efficiency for selecting signal events varies from 55% to 40% for a Hmass between 80 and 150 GeV. The resolution on Mei varies between 3 and 8 GeV. For Mei > 65 GeV one event is observed while 4.17 ± 0.44 events are expected from the SM.

5.4. Analysis of the H ^ eT decay

The search for a H++ boson decaying into eT is performed in three final states, depending on whether the t decays into an electron, a muon or hadronically (h). Details of this analysis can be found in [29]. Events are selected which contain either two electrons (ee), or an electron and a muon (ei), or an electron and a hadronic t candidate (eh) as defined in Section 5.1. The two leptons, or the electron and the hadronic-t candidate, should have a transverse momentum above 5 GeV and be in the angular range 20° <0 < 140°. If more than one electron, muon or hadronic t candidate fulfills these requirements, the one with the highest PT is assigned to the Higgs candidate. The two particles assigned to the Higgs should be separated from each other by R > 2.5 in pseudorapidity-azimuth. One of them must have a transverse momentum above 10 GeV, which ensures a trigger efficiency above 95% in all three classes. For events in the ei class the polar angle of the electron candidate is required to be below 120°.

A significant amount of missing transverse and longitudinal momentum is expected due to the neutrinos produced in the t decays. Events in the ee class are required to have a missing transverse momentum Pmiss > 8 GeV. For the eh class, which suffers from a large NC DIS background, it is required that Prmiss > 11 GeV, that the energy deposited in the SpaCal calorimeter be below 5 GeV, and that the variable J]iEl - Plz, where the sum runs over all visible particles, be smaller than 49 GeV. For fully contained events J]i El - Plz is expected to peak at twice the lepton beam energy E0 = 27.5 GeV, i.e. 55 GeV, while signal events are concentrated at lower values due to the non-observed neutrinos. In total 6 events are preselected, in agreement with the SM prediction of 7.8 ± 1.5.

In each class, the eT invariant mass MeT is reconstructed by imposing longitudinal momentum and energy conservation, and by minimising the total momentum imbalance in the transverse plane. Tau leptons are assumed to decay with a vanishing opening angle. This method yields a resolution of about 4 GeV on the mass MeT. Fig. 2(c) shows the eT invariant mass distribution of the selected events together with the SM expectation.

For the final selection, events are rejected if the track associated with one of the Higgs decay product candidates is reliably assigned a negative charge, opposite to that of the incoming lepton beam. The signal efficiencies depend only weakly on MH. The fractions of simulated H ^ eT events which are reconstructed in the various classes are given in Table 1, for an example mass of MH = 100 GeV. The total efficiency on the signal amounts to about 25%.

The final event yields are also shown in Table 1. Only one event (in the eh class) satisfies the final criteria, while 2.1 ± 0.5 events are expected.

Fig. 3. (a) Upper limits at the 95% confidence level on the Hproduction cross section times the branching ratio for the Hto decay into ee, ef or ex, as a function of the Higgs mass. (b)-(d) Upper limits on the coupling hei assuming that the Hcouples only (b) to ee, (c) to ef or (d) to ex. Regions above the curves are excluded. The constraints obtained from pair production at LEP and at CDF and from single production at OPAL are also shown.

Table 1

Number of observed (Nobs) and expected (Nbckg) events in each event class which satisfy all criteria to select H++ ^ e+ T+ candidates with a mass MeT > 65 GeV. The last column shows the fractions of the H ^ eT Monte Carlo events which are reconstructed in the various classes, for a mass of 100 GeV

Event class He+x + final selection

Nobs Nbckg Signal fraction

ef 0 0.27 ± 0.02 6%

eh 1 1.66 ± 0.48 12%

ee 0 0.14 ± 0.04 7%

Total 1 2.07 ± 0.54 25%

5.5. Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties attributed to the Monte Carlo predictions for the ee analysis are detailed in [6]. The dominant systematic uncertainty is due to the electron-track association efficiency, which is 90% on average with an uncertainty increasing with decreasing polar angle from 3% to 15%. Systematic errors due to the uncertainty on the electromagnetic energy scale (known at the 0.7% to 3% level in the central and forward regions of the LAr calorimeter, respectively) and on the trigger efficiency (3%) are also taken into account.

For the e/ analysis, the dominant additional systematic uncertainty is due to the muon identification efficiency known within 6% [31]. The uncertainty due to the reconstruction efficiency of the central tracking detector for central muons con-

tributes an additional 3%. The muon momentum scale is known within 5%, and the trigger efficiency for e/x final states is known within 3%.

The same systematic uncertainties affect the SM expectations in the ee and e/x classes of the eT analysis. The uncertainty of the hadronic energy scale in the LAr calorimeter (4%) constitutes another source of uncertainty due to the cuts applied on the P™ss and Y,i El — Plz variables. For the eh event class the dominant uncertainties on the SM expectation, coming mainly from NC DIS processes, are due to the uncertainty of 3% of the track efficiency, to that of the hadronic energy scale, and to that (15%) of the hadronisation model.

The luminosity measurement leads to a normalisation uncer-taintyof 1.5%.

For both the expected signal and the predicted background, the systematic uncertainties resulting from the sources listed above are added in quadrature.

6. Interpretation

With the final Higgs selection no significant excess over the SM expectation is observed. Upper limits on the H±± production cross section times the branching ratio for the H±± to decay into one of the analysed final states are derived as a function of the H±± mass and are shown in Fig. 3(a). The limits are presented at the 95% confidence level and are obtained using a modified frequentist approach [32]. Statistical uncertainties, as

well as the influence of the various systematic uncertainties on both the shape and the normalisation of the mass distributions for signal and background events, are taken into account. The best sensitivity is obtained for a H ±± produced and decaying via hef, with upper limits around 0.05 pb.

Assuming that only one Yukawa coupling hel is non-vanishingly small, these constraints are translated into mass dependent upper limits on the coupling hel, as shown in Fig. 3(b)-(d).

If the doubly-charged Higgs boson couples only to an electron pair (Fig. 3(b)) the ee analysis rules out Hmasses below 138 GeV for a coupling hee of the electromagnetic strength, hee ~ 0.3. The result is compared to the bounds obtained from searches for Hpair production at LEP [33] and by the CDF experiment [34], and to both the indirect and direct limits obtained by the OPAL experiment [9], the latter being the most stringent. The OPAL experiment has also set similar stringent constraints on hee independently of the Higgs decay mode. These constraints also exclude a sizeable Hproduction at HERA via hee followed by the Hdecay via hff or hTT, which is consistent with the non-observation of a resonance signal in the fif [31] and tt [29] final states in the present H1 data.

Assuming that the doubly-charged Higgs boson couples only to an electron-muon (electron-tau) pair, the ef (eT) analysis allows masses below 141 GeV (112 GeV) to be ruled out for hef ~ 0.3 (heT ~ 0.3), as shown in Fig. 3(c) (Fig. 3(d)). The H1 limits extend the excluded region in the electron-muon and electron-tau channels to masses that are beyond those reached in previous searches for pair production at LEP [33] and the Tevatron [34].

7. Conclusion

A search for the single production of doubly-charged Higgs bosons coupling to ee, ef or eT is presented. In a previous model independent multi-electron analysis, H1 observed six events with a di-electron mass above 100 GeV, a region where the Standard Model expectation is small. Out of the six events, only one is compatible with the signature of a doubly-charged Higgs boson. No electron-muon or electron-tau event is found in this mass domain.

This analysis places new limits on the Hmass and its Yukawa couplings hel to an electron-lepton pair. Assuming that the doubly-charged Higgs boson only couples to electron-muon (electron-tau) pairs, a limit of 141 GeV (112 GeV) is obtained on the Higgs mass, for a coupling hef ~ 0.3 (heT ~ 0.3) corresponding to an interaction of electromagnetic strength.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the HERA machine group whose outstanding efforts have made this experiment possible. We thank the engineers and technicians for their work in constructing and maintaining the H1 detector, our funding agencies for financial support, the DESY technical staff for continual assistance and the DESY directorate for support and for the hospitality which

they extend to the non-DESY members of the collaboration. We are especially grateful to J. Maalampi and N. Romanenko for providing the doubly-charged Higgs Lagrangian implementation in CompHEP which was used in this analysis. We would also like to thank K. Huitu and E. Boos for their help and valuable discussions.

References

[1] G.B. Gelmini, M. Roncadelli, Phys. Lett. B 99 (1981) 411.

[2] J.C. Pati, A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275;

R.E. Marshak, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 222.

[3] R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912.

[4] G. Senjanovic, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502; R.N. Mohapatra, R.E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1316;

R.N. Mohapatra, R.E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1643, Erratum.

[5] C.S. Aulakh, A. Melfo, G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 4174, hep-ph/9707256;

Z. Chacko, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 015003, hep-ph/9712359;

B. Dutta, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 015018, hep-ph/9804277.

[6] A. Aktas, et al., H1 Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 31 (2003) 17, hep-ex/0307015.

[7] E. Accomando, S. Petrarca, Phys. Lett. B 323 (1994) 212, hep-ph/9401242.

[8] M.L. Swartz, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 1521;

J.F. Gunion, et al., Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 1546; M. Lusignoli, S. Petrarca, Phys. Lett. B 226 (1989) 397; G. Barenboim, K. Huitu, J. Maalampi, M. Raidal, Phys. Lett. B 394 (1997) 132, hep-ph/9611362;

S. Godfrey, P. Kalyniak, N. Romanenko, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 033009, hep-ph/0108258.

[9] G. Abbiendi, et al., OPAL Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 577 (2003) 93, hep-ex/0308052.

[10] F. Cuypers, S. Davidson, Eur. Phys. J. C 2 (1998) 503.

[11] G.P. Lepage, An adaptative multidimensional integration program, CLNS-80/447, 1980.

[12] E. Boos, et al., CompHEP Collaboration, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 534 (2004) 250, hep-ph/0403113;

A. Pukhov, et al., hep-ph/9908288, available at http://theory.sinp.msu. ru/comphep.

[13] S. Godfrey, P. Kalyniak, N. Romanenko, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 033009, hep-ph/0108258.

[14] H.L. Lai, et al., Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 1280, hep-ph/9606399.

[15] T. Sjöstrand, et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 135 (2001) 238, hep-ph/0010017.

[16] V.N. Gribov, L.N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. 15 (1972) 781, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438;

G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298;

Y.L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 73

(1977) 1216.

[17] J.A.M. Vermaseren, math-ph/0010025.

[18] F.W. Brasse, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 39 (1972) 421.

[19] A. Mucke, R. Engel, J.P. Rachen, R.J. Protheroe, T. Stanev, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 290, astro-ph/9903478.

[20] R.C. Walker, et al., Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 5671.

[21] N. Arteaga-Romero, C. Carimalo, P. Kessler, Z. Phys. C 52 (1991) 289.

[22] T. Abe, Comput. Phys. Commun. 136 (2001) 126, hep-ph/0012029.

[23] DJANGO 6.2;

G.A. Schuler, H. Spiesberger, in: W. Buchmüller, G. Ingelman (Eds.), in: Proceedings of the Workshop Physics at HERA, vol. 3, 1991, p. 1419.

[24] Ch. Berger, P. Kandel, A new Generator for Wide Angle Bremsstrahlung, in: A.T. Doyle, G. Grindhammer, G. Ingelman, H. Jung (Eds.), Proceedings of the Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics Workshop, DESY-PR0C-1999-02, p. 596.

[25] I. Abt, et al., H1 Collaboration, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 386 (1997) 310; I. Abt, et al., H1 Collaboration, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 386 (1997) 348.

[26] B. Andrieu, et al., H1 Calorimeter Group, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 336

(1993) 460.

[27] B. Andrieu, et al., H1 Calorimeter Group, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 344

(1994) 492;

B. Andrieu, et al., H1 Calorimeter Group, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 350 (1994) 57;

B. Andrieu, et al., H1 Calorimeter Group, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 336 (1993)499.

[28] R.D. Appuhn, et al., H1 SPACAL Group, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 386 (1997)397.

[29] S. Baumgartner, Search for doubly-charged Higgs decaying into T lep-tons at HERA, Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zürich, ETH-16125, 2005, available at http://www-h1.desy.de/publications/theses_list.html.

[30] C. Adloff, et al., H1 Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 30 (2003) 1, hep-ex/0304003.

[31] A. Aktas, et al., H1 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 583 (2004) 28, hep-ex/0311015.

[32] T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 434 (1999) 435, hep-ex/9902006.

[33] J. Abdallah, et al., DELPHI Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 552 (2003) 127, hep-ex/0303026;

P. Achard, et al., L3 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 576 (2003) 18, hep-ex/0309076;

G. Abbiendi, et al., OPAL Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 221, hep-ex/0111059.

[34] D. Acosta, et al., CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 221802, hep-ex/0406073.