text:
# Chapter 1 Introduction

## Chapter 1 Introduction

This paper presents an update of combined results on electroweak parameters by the four LEP experiments and SLD using published and preliminary measurements, superseding previous analyses. Results derived from the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ resonance are based on data recorded until the end of 1995 for the LEP experiments and 1998 for SLD. Since 1996 LEP has run at energies above the W-pair production threshold. In 2000, the final year of data taking at LEP, the total delivered luminosity was as high as in 1999; the maximum centre-of-mass energy attained was close to 209 GeV although most of the data taken in 2000 was collected at 205 and 207 GeV. By the end of LEP-II operation, a total integrated luminosity of approximately 700$`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ per experiment has been recorded above the Z resonance.

The LEP-I (1990-1995) $`\mathrm{Z}`$-pole measurements consist of the hadronic and leptonic cross sections, the leptonic forward-backward asymmetries, the $`\tau `$ polarisation asymmetries, the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ partial widths and forward-backward asymmetries and the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ charge asymmetry. The measurements of the left-right cross section asymmetry, the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$ partial widths and left-right-forward-backward asymmetries for b and c quarks from SLD are treated consistently with the LEP data. Many technical aspects of their combination are described in References 2, 3 and references therein.

The LEP-II (1996-2000) measurements are di-fermion cross sections and forward-backward asymmetries; di-photon production, W-pair, Z-pair, single-W and single-Z production cross sections, and electroweak gauge boson self couplings. W boson properties, like mass, width and decay branching ratios are also measured. New studies on photon/Z interference in fermion-pair production as well as on colour reconnection and Bose-Einstein correlations in W-pair production are presented.

Several measurements included in the combinations are still preliminary.

This note is organised as follows:

$`\mathrm{Z}`$ line shape and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries;

$`\tau `$ polarisation;

Measurement of polarised asymmetries at SLD;

Heavy flavour analyses;

Inclusive hadronic charge asymmetry;

Photon-pair production at energies above the Z;

Fermion-pair production at energies above the Z;

Photon/Z-boson interference;

W and four-fermion production;

Electroweak gauge boson self couplings;

Colour reconnection in W-pair events;

Bose-Einstein correlations in W-pair events;

W-boson mass and width;

Interpretation of the Z-pole results in terms of effective couplings of the neutral weak current;

Interpretation of all results, also including results from neutrino interaction and atomic parity violation experiments as well as from CDF and DØ in terms of constraints on the Standard Model

Conclusions including prospects for the future.

To allow a quick assessment, a box highlighting the updates is given at the beginning of each chapter.

## Chapter 2 $`𝐙`$ Lineshape and Lepton Forward-Backward Asymmetries

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
Unchanged w.r.t. summer 2000: All experiments have published final results which enter in the combination. The final combination procedure is used, the obtained averages are final.

The results presented here are based on the full LEP-I data set. This includes the data taken during the energy scans in 1990 and 1991 in the range111In this note $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. $`\mathbf{|}\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ GeV, the data collected at the $`𝐙`$ peak in 1992 and 1994 and the precise energy scans in 1993 and 1995 ($`\mathbf{|}\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.8}`$ GeV). The total event statistics are given in Table 2.1. Details of the individual analyses can be found in References 4, 5, 6, 7.

For the averaging of results the LEP experiments provide a standard set of 9 parameters describing the information contained in hadronic and leptonic cross sections and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries. These parameters are convenient for fitting and averaging since they have small correlations. They are:

* The mass $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and total width $`𝚪_𝐙`$ of the Z boson, where the definition is based on the Breit-Wigner denominator $`\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒊𝒔𝚪_𝐙\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{)}`$ with $`𝒔`$-dependent width .
* The hadronic pole cross section of Z exchange:

$$𝝈_𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅}{𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐞}}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}}{𝚪_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(2.1)
Here $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐞}}`$ and $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}`$ are the partial widths of the $`𝐙`$ for decays into electrons and hadrons.
* The ratios:

$$𝑹_𝐞^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐞}}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{𝝁𝝁}\text{and}𝑹_𝝉^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{𝝉𝝉}\mathbf{.}$$
(2.2)
Here $`𝚪_{𝝁𝝁}`$ and $`𝚪_{𝝉𝝉}`$ are the partial widths of the $`𝐙`$ for the decays $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$. Due to the mass of the $`𝝉`$ lepton, a difference of 0.2% is expected between the values for $`𝑹_𝐞^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑹_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and the value for $`𝑹_𝝉^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, even under the assumption of lepton universality .
* The pole asymmetries, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐞}`$, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝝁}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝝉}`$, for the processes $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$. In terms of the real parts of the effective vector and axial-vector neutral current couplings of fermions, $`𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}`$ and $`𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}`$, the pole asymmetries are expressed as

$$𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐟}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝓐_𝐞𝓐_𝐟$$
(2.3)
with

$$𝓐_𝐟\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}}{𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}\mathbf{/}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}\mathbf{/}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(2.4)

The imaginary parts of the vector and axial-vector coupling constants as well as real and imaginary parts of the photon vacuum polarisation are taken into account explicitly in the fitting formulae and are fixed to their Standard Model values. The fitting procedure takes into account the effects of initial-state radiation  to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ , as well as the $`𝒕`$-channel and the $`𝒔`$-$`𝒕`$ interference contributions in the case of $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states.

The set of 9 parameters does not describe hadron and lepton-pair production completely, because it does not include the interference of the $`𝒔`$-channel $`𝐙`$ exchange with the $`𝒔`$-channel $`𝜸`$ exchange. For the results presented in this section and used in the rest of the note, the $`𝜸`$-exchange contributions and the hadronic $`𝜸𝐙`$ interference terms are fixed to their Standard Model values. The leptonic $`𝜸𝐙`$ interference terms are expressed in terms of the effective couplings.

The four sets of nine parameters provided by the LEP experiments are presented in Table 2.2. For performing the average over these four sets of nine parameters, the overall covariance matrix is constructed from the covariance matrices of the individual LEP experiments and taking into account common systematic errors . The common systematic errors include theoretical errors as well as errors arising from the uncertainty in the LEP beam energy. The beam energy uncertainty contributes an uncertainty of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.7}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ to $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.2}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ to $`𝚪_𝐙`$. In addition, the uncertainty in the centre-of-mass energy spread of about $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ contributes $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ to $`𝚪_𝐙`$. The theoretical error on calculations of the small-angle Bhabha cross section is $`\mathbf{\pm }`$0.054 % for OPAL and $`\mathbf{\pm }`$0.061 % for all other experiments, and results in the largest common systematic uncertainty on $`𝝈_𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}`$. QED radiation, dominated by photon radiation from the initial state electrons, contributes a common uncertainty of $`\mathbf{\pm }`$0.02 % on $`𝝈_𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.3}`$ MeV on $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}`$ MeV on $`𝚪_𝐙`$. The contribution of $`𝒕`$-channel diagrams and the $`𝒔`$-$`𝒕`$ interference in $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ leads to an additional theoretical uncertainty estimated to be $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.024}`$ on $`𝑹_𝐞^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0014}`$ on $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐞}`$, which are fully anti–correlated. Uncertainties from the model-independent parameterisation of the energy dependence of the cross section are almost negligible, if the definitions of Reference  are applied. Through unavoidable remaining Standard Model assumptions, dominated by the need to fix the $`𝜸`$-$`𝐙`$ interference contribution in the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ channel, there is some small dependence of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}`$ MeV of $`𝒎_𝐙`$ on the Higgs mass, $`𝒎_𝐇`$ (in the range 100 GeV to 1000 GeV) and the value of the electromagnetic coupling constant. Such “parametric” errors are negligible for the other results. The combined parameter set and its correlation matrix are given in Table 2.3.

If lepton universality is assumed, the set of 9 parameters is reduced to a set of 5 parameters. $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is defined as $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$, where $`𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ refers to the partial $`𝐙`$ width for the decay into a pair of massless charged leptons. The data of each of the four LEP experiments are consistent with lepton universality (the difference in $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ over the difference in d.o.f. with and without the assumption of lepton universality is 3/4, 6/4, 5/4 and 3/4 for ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, respectively). The lower part of Table 2.3 gives the combined result and the corresponding correlation matrix. Figure 2.1 shows, for each lepton species and for the combination assuming lepton universality, the resulting 68% probability contours in the $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}}`$ plane. Good agreement is observed.

For completeness the partial decay widths of the $`𝐙`$ boson are listed in Table 2.4, although they are more correlated than the ratios given in Table 2.3. The leptonic pole cross-section, $`𝝈_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, defined as

$`𝝈_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅}{𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚪_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (2.5)
in analogy to $`𝝈_𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, is shown in the last line of the Table. Because QCD final state corrections appear twice in the denominator via $`𝚪_𝐙`$, $`𝝈_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ has a higher sensitivity to $`𝜶_𝒔`$ than $`𝝈_𝐡^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, where the dependence on QCD corrections is only linear.

### 2.1 Number of Neutrino Species

An important aspect of our measurement concerns the information related to $`𝐙`$ decays into invisible channels. Using the results of Table 2.3, the ratio of the $`𝐙`$ decay width into invisible particles and the leptonic decay width is determined:

$`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{5.942}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}\mathbf{.}`$ (2.6)
The Standard Model value for the ratio of the partial widths to neutrinos and charged leptons is:

$`\mathbf{(}𝚪_{𝝂𝝂}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{1.9912}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0012}\mathbf{.}`$ (2.7)
The central value is evaluated for $`𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{=}\mathbf{91.1875}`$ GeV and the error quoted accounts for a variation of $`𝒎_𝐭`$ in the range $`𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{=}\mathbf{174.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{5.1}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and a variation of $`𝒎_𝐇`$ in the range $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐇\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$. The number of light neutrino species is given by the ratio of the two expressions listed above:

$`𝑵_𝝂`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{2.9841}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0083}\mathbf{,}`$ (2.8)
which is two standard deviations below the value of 3 expected from 3 observed fermion families.

Alternatively, one can assume 3 neutrino species and determine the width from additional invisible decays of the Z. This yields

$`𝚫𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.7}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.6}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (2.9)
The measured total width is below the Standard Model expectation. If a conservative approach is taken to limit the result to only positive values of $`𝚫𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}`$ and normalising the probability for $`𝚫𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to be unity, then the resulting 95% CL upper limit on additional invisible decays of the Z is

$`𝚫𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}`$ $`\mathbf{<}`$ $`\mathbf{2.0}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (2.10)
The theoretical error on the luminosity constitutes a large part of the uncertainties on $`𝑵_𝝂`$ and $`𝚫𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}`$.

## Chapter 3 The $`𝝉`$ Polarisation

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
All experiments have published final results which enter the combination. The final combination procedure is used, the obtained averages are final.

The longitudinal $`𝝉`$ polarisation $`𝓟_𝝉`$ of $`𝝉`$ pairs produced in $`𝐙`$ decays is defined as

$`𝓟_𝝉`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈_𝐑\mathbf{}𝝈_𝐋}{𝝈_𝐑\mathbf{+}𝝈_𝐋}}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.1)
where $`𝝈_𝐑`$ and $`𝝈_𝐋`$ are the $`𝝉`$-pair cross sections for the production of a right-handed and left-handed $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$, respectively. The distribution of $`𝓟_𝝉`$ as a function of the polar scattering angle $`𝜽`$ between the $`𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the $`𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$, at $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝐙`$, is given by

$`𝓟_𝝉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝓐_𝝉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓐_𝐞\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓐_𝝉𝓐_𝐞\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽}}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.2)
with $`𝓐_𝐞`$ and $`𝓐_𝝉`$ as defined in Equation (2.4). Equation (3.2) is valid for pure Z exchange. The effects of $`𝜸`$ exchange, $`𝜸`$-$`𝐙`$ interference and electromagnetic radiative corrections in the initial and final states are taken into account in the experimental analyses. In particular, these corrections account for the $`\sqrt{𝒔}`$ dependence of the $`𝝉`$ polarisation, which is important because the off-peak data are included in the event samples for all experiments. When averaged over all production angles $`𝓟_𝝉`$ is a measurement of $`𝓐_𝝉`$. As a function of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$, $`𝓟_𝝉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{)}`$ provides nearly independent determinations of both $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$, thus allowing a test of the universality of the couplings of the $`𝐙`$ to $`𝐞`$ and $`𝝉`$.

Each experiment makes separate $`𝓟_𝝉`$ measurements using the five $`𝝉`$ decay modes e$`𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$, $`𝝁𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$, $`𝝅𝝂`$, $`𝝆𝝂`$ and $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}𝝂`$. The $`𝝆𝝂`$ and $`𝝅𝝂`$ are the most sensitive channels, contributing weights of about $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ each in the average. DELPHI and L3 also use an inclusive hadronic analysis. The combination is made using the results from each experiment already averaged over the $`𝝉`$ decay modes.

### 3.1 Results

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 show the most recent results for $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ obtained by the four LEP collaborations and their combination. Although the sizes of the event samples used by the four experiments are roughly equal, smaller errors are quoted by ALEPH. This is largely associated with the higher angular granularity of the ALEPH electromagnetic calorimeter. Common systematic errors arise from uncertainties in radiative corrections (decay radiation) in the $`𝝅𝝂`$ and $`𝝆𝝂`$ channels, and in the modelling of the $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ decays. These errors and their correlations need further investigation, but are already taken into account in the combination (see also Reference 18). The statistical correlation between the extracted values of $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ is small ($`\mathbf{}`$ 5%).

The average values for $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$:

$`𝓐_𝝉`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1439}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0043}`$ (3.3)
$`𝓐_𝐞`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1498}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0049}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.4)
with a correlation of 0.012, are compatible, in good agreement with neutral-current lepton universality. This combination is performed including the small common systematic errors between $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ within each experiment and between experiments. Assuming $`𝐞`$-$`𝝉`$ universality, the values for $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ can be combined. The combined result of $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ is:

$`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1465}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0033}\mathbf{,}`$ (3.5)
where the error includes a systematic component of 0.0016.

## Chapter 4 Measurement of polarised lepton asymmetries at SLC

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
Unchanged w.r.t. summer 2000: SLD has published final results for $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ and the leptonic left-right forward-backward asymmetries.

The measurement of the left-right cross section asymmetry ($`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$) by SLD at the SLC provides a systematically precise, statistics-dominated determination of the coupling $`𝓐_𝐞`$, and is presently the most precise single measurement, with the smallest systematic error, of this quantity. In principle the analysis is straightforward: one counts the numbers of Z bosons produced by left and right longitudinally polarised electrons, forms an asymmetry, and then divides by the luminosity-weighted e- beam polarisation magnitude (the e+ beam is not polarised):

$$𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑵_𝐋\mathbf{}𝑵_𝐑}{𝑵_𝐋\mathbf{+}𝑵_𝐑}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑷_𝐞}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.1)
Since the advent of high polarisation “strained lattice” GaAs photo-cathodes (1994), the average electron polarisation at the interaction point has been in the range 73% to 77%. The method requires no detailed final state event identification ($`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final state events are removed, as are non-Z backgrounds) and is insensitive to all acceptance and efficiency effects. The small total systematic error of 0.64% relative is dominated by the 0.50% relative systematic error in the determination of the e- polarisation. The relative statistical error on $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ is about 1.3%.

The precision Compton polarimeter detects beam electrons that are scattered by photons from a circularly polarised laser. Two additional polarimeters that are sensitive to the Compton-scattered photons and which are operated in the absence of positron beam, have verified the precision polarimeter result and are used to set a calibration uncertainty of 0.4% relative. In 1998, a dedicated experiment was performed in order to test directly the expectation that accidental polarisation of the positron beam was negligible; the e+ polarisation was found to be consistent with zero ($`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$)%.

The $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ analysis includes several very small corrections. The polarimeter result is corrected for higher order QED and accelerator related effects, a total of ($`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}`$)% relative for 1997/98 data. The event asymmetry is corrected for backgrounds and accelerator asymmetries, a total of ($`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.15}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$)% relative, for 1997/98 data.

The translation of the $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ result to a “pole” value is a ($`\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.4}`$)% relative shift, where the uncertainty arises from the precision of the centre-of-mass energy determination. This small error due to the beam energy measurement reflects the results of a scan of the Z peak used to calibrate the energy spectrometers to $`𝒎_𝐙`$ from LEP data. The pole value, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, is equivalent to a measurement of $`𝓐_𝐞`$.

The 2000 result is included in a running average of all of the SLD $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ measurements (1992, 1993, 1994/1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998). This updated result for $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝓐_𝐞`$) is $`\mathbf{0.1514}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0022}`$. In addition, the left-right forward-backward asymmetries for leptonic final states are measured. From these, the parameters $`𝓐_𝐞`$, $`𝓐_𝝁`$ and $`𝓐_𝝉`$ can be determined. The results are $`𝓐_𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1544}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0060}`$, $`𝓐_𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.142}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}`$ and $`𝓐_𝝉\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.136}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}`$. The lepton-based result for $`𝓐_𝐞`$ can be combined with the $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ result to yield $`𝓐_𝐞\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1516}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}`$, including small correlations in the systematic errors. The correlation of this measurement with $`𝓐_𝝁`$ and $`𝓐_𝝉`$ is indicated in Table 4.1.

Assuming lepton universality, the $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ result and the results on the leptonic left-right forward-backward asymmetries can be combined, while accounting for small correlated systematic errors, yielding

$$𝓐_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1513}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}\mathbf{.}$$
(4.2)
## Chapter 5 Results from b and c Quarks

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
ALEPH has published their $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ measurement using leptons. DELPHI has finalised their $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ measurement using leptons. OPAL has published a new $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ measurement using jet charge.

### 5.1 Introduction

The relevant quantities in the heavy quark sector at LEP-I/SLD which are currently determined by the combination procedure are:

* The ratios of the b and c quark partial widths of the Z to its total hadronic partial width: $`𝑹_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}\mathbf{/}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}`$. (The symbols $`𝑹_𝐛`$, $`𝑹_𝐜`$ are used to denote the experimentally measured ratios of event rates or cross sections.)
* The forward-backward asymmetries, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$.
* The final state coupling parameters $`𝓐_𝐛\mathbf{,}𝓐_𝐜`$ obtained from the left-right-forward-backward asymmetry at SLD.
* The semileptonic branching ratios, $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$, and the average time-integrated $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ mixing parameter, $`\overline{𝝌}`$. These are often determined at the same time or with similar methods as the asymmetries. Including them in the combination greatly reduces the errors. For example $`\overline{𝝌}`$ parameterises the probability that a b-quark decays into a negative lepton which is the charge tagging efficiency in the asymmetry analyses. For this reason the errors coming from the mixture of different lepton sources in $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ events cancel largely in the asymmetries if they are analyses together with $`\overline{𝝌}`$.
* The probability that a c quark produces a $`𝐃^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃_𝐬`$, $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$ meson111Actually the product $`\mathrm{P}(\mathrm{c}\mathrm{D}^+)\times \mathrm{BR}(\mathrm{D}^+\pi ^+\mathrm{D}^0)`$ is fitted because this quantity is needed and measured by the LEP experiments. or a charmed baryon. The probability that a c quark fragments into a $`𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is calculated from the constraint that the probabilities for the weakly decaying charmed hadrons add up to one.

A full description of the averaging procedure is published in ; the main motivations for the procedure are outlined here. Several analyses measure more than one parameter simultaneously, for example the asymmetry measurements with leptons or D mesons. Some of the measurements of electroweak parameters depend explicitly on the values of other parameters, for example $`𝑹_𝐛`$ depends on $`𝑹_𝐜`$. The common tagging and analysis techniques lead to common sources of systematic uncertainty, in particular for the double-tag measurements of $`𝑹_𝐛`$. The starting point for the combination is to ensure that all the analyses use a common set of assumptions for input parameters which give rise to systematic uncertainties. The input parameters are updated and extended  to accommodate new analyses and more recent measurements. The correlations and interdependencies of the input measurements are then taken into account in a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation which results in the combined electroweak parameters and their correlation matrix.

### 5.2 Summary of Measurements and Averaging Procedure

All measurements are presented by the LEP and SLD collaborations in a consistent manner for the purpose of combination. The tables prepared by the experiments include a detailed breakdown of the systematic error of each measurement and its dependence on other electroweak parameters. Where necessary, the experiments apply small corrections to their results in order to use agreed values and ranges for the input parameters to calculate systematic errors. The measurements, corrected where necessary, are summarised in Appendix A in Tables A.1A.20, where the statistical and systematic errors are quoted separately. The correlated systematic entries are from physics sources shared with one or more other results in the tables and are derived from the full breakdown of common systematic uncertainties. The uncorrelated systematic entries come from the remaining sources.

#### 5.2.1 Averaging Procedure

A $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation procedure is used to derive the values of the heavy-flavour electroweak parameters, following the procedure described in Reference 3. The full statistical and systematic covariance matrix for all measurements is calculated. This correlation matrix takes into account correlations between different measurements of one experiment and between different experiments. The explicit dependence of each measurement on the other parameters is also accounted for.

Since c-quark events form the main background in the $`𝑹_𝐛`$ analyses, the value of $`𝑹_𝐛`$ depends on the value of $`𝑹_𝐜`$. If $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜`$ were measured in the same analysis, this would be reflected in the correlation matrix for the results. However the analyses do not determine $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜`$ simultaneously but instead measure $`𝑹_𝐛`$ for an assumed value of $`𝑹_𝐜`$. In this case the dependence is parameterised as

$`𝑹_𝐛`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑹_𝐛^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬}}\mathbf{+}𝒂\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝}}\mathbf{)}}{𝑹_𝐜}}\mathbf{.}`$ (5.1)
In this expression, $`𝑹_𝐛^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬}}`$ is the result of the analysis assuming a value of $`𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝}}`$. The values of $`𝑹_𝐜^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝}}`$ and the coefficients $`𝒂\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{)}`$ are given in Table A.1 where appropriate. The dependence of all other measurements on other electroweak parameters is treated in the same way, with coefficients $`𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ describing the dependence on parameter $`𝒙`$.

#### 5.2.2 Partial Width Measurements

The measurements of $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜`$ fall into two categories. In the first, called a single-tag measurement, a method to select b or c events is devised, and the number of tagged events is counted. This number must then be corrected for backgrounds from other flavours and for the tagging efficiency to calculate the true fraction of hadronic $`𝐙`$ decays of that flavour. The dominant systematic errors come from understanding the branching ratios and detection efficiencies which give the overall tagging efficiency. For the second technique, called a double-tag measurement, each event is divided into two hemispheres. With $`𝑵_𝒕`$ being the number of tagged hemispheres, $`𝑵_{𝒕𝒕}`$ the number of events with both hemispheres tagged and $`𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}`$ the total number of hadronic $`𝐙`$ decays one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑵_𝒕}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝜺_𝐛𝑹_𝐛\mathbf{+}𝜺_𝐜𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{+}𝜺_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐝𝐬}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐛\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (5.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑵_{𝒕𝒕}}{𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝓒_𝐛𝜺_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝐛\mathbf{+}𝓒_𝐜𝜺_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{+}𝓒_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐝𝐬}}𝜺_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐝𝐬}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐛\mathbf{}𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (5.3)
where $`𝜺_𝐛`$, $`𝜺_𝐜`$ and $`𝜺_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐝𝐬}}`$ are the tagging efficiencies per hemisphere for b, c and light-quark events, and $`𝓒_𝐪\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ accounts for the fact that the tagging efficiencies between the hemispheres may be correlated. In the case of $`𝑹_𝐛`$ one has $`𝜺_𝐛\mathbf{}𝜺_𝐜\mathbf{}𝜺_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐝𝐬}}`$, $`𝓒_𝐛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The correlations for the other flavours can be neglected. These equations can be solved to give $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝜺_𝐛`$. Neglecting the c and uds backgrounds and the correlations, they are approximately given by

$`𝜺_𝐛`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑵_{𝒕𝒕}\mathbf{/}𝑵_𝒕\mathbf{,}`$ (5.4)
$`𝑹_𝐛`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝑵_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑵_{𝒕𝒕}𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (5.5)
The double-tagging method has the advantage that the b tagging efficiency is derived from the data, reducing the systematic error. The residual background of other flavours in the sample, and the evaluation of the correlation between the tagging efficiencies in the two hemispheres of the event are the main sources of systematic uncertainty in such an analysis.

In the standard approach each hemisphere is simply tagged as b or non-b. This method can be enhanced by using more tags. All additional efficiencies can be determined from the data, reducing the statistical uncertainties without adding new systematic uncertainties.

Small corrections must be applied to the results to obtain the partial width ratios $`𝑹_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ from the cross section ratios $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜`$. These corrections depend slightly on the invariant mass cutoff of the simulations used by the experiments; they are applied by the collaborations before the combination.

The partial width measurements included are:

* Lifetime (and lepton) double-tag measurements for $`𝑹_𝐛`$ from ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD. These are the most precise determinations of $`𝑹_𝐛`$. Since they completely dominate the combined result, no other $`𝑹_𝐛`$ measurements are used at present. The basic features of the double-tag technique are discussed above. In the ALEPH, DELPHI, OPAL and SLD measurements the charm rejection is enhanced by using the invariant mass information. DELPHI, OPAL and SLD also add kinematic information from the particles at the secondary vertex. The ALEPH and DELPHI measurements make use of several different tags, which reduces largely the statistical error. This allows to cut harder in the primary b-tag so that, due to the higher b-purity, also the systematic uncertainties are reduced.
* Analyses with D/$`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$ mesons to measure $`𝑹_𝐜`$ from ALEPH, DELPHI and OPAL. All measurements are constructed in such a way that no assumptions about charm fragmentation are necessary as these are determined from the LEP-I data. The available measurements can be divided into three groups:

+ inclusive/exclusive double tag (ALEPH, DELPHI, OPAL): In a first step $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$ mesons are reconstructed in several decay channels and their production rate is measured, which depends on the product $`𝑹_𝐜\mathbf{\times }𝐏\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. This sample of $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ (and $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$) events is then used to measure $`𝐏\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ using a slow pion tag in the opposite hemisphere. In the ALEPH measurement only $`𝑹_𝐜`$ is given and no explicit $`𝐏\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ is available.
    + exclusive double tag (ALEPH): This analysis uses exclusively reconstructed $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐃^\mathbf{+}`$ mesons in different decay channels. It has lower statistics but better purity than the inclusive analyses.
    + reconstruction of all weakly decaying charmed states (ALEPH, DELPHI, OPAL): These analyses make the assumption that the production fractions of $`𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐃^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃_𝐬`$ and $`𝚲_𝐜`$ in c-quark jets of $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ events add up to one with small corrections due to unmeasured charm strange baryons. This is a single tag measurement, relying only on knowing the decay branching ratios of the charm hadrons. These analyses are also used to measure the c hadron production ratios which are needed for the $`𝑹_𝐛`$ analyses.
* A lifetime plus mass double tag from SLD to measure $`𝑹_𝐜`$. This analysis uses the same tagging algorithm as the SLD $`𝑹_𝐛`$ analysis, but with the neural net tuned to tag charm. Although the charm tag has a purity of about 84%, most of the background is from b which can be measured with high precision from the b/c mixed tag rate.
* A measurement of $`𝑹_𝐜`$ using single leptons assuming $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ from ALEPH .

To avoid effects from nonlinearities in the fit, for the inclusive/exclusive single/double tag and for the charm-counting analyses, the products $`𝐑_𝐜𝐏\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$, $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃^\mathbf{+}}`$, $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃_𝐬}`$ and $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝚲_𝐜}`$that are actually measured in the analyses are directly used as inputs to the fit. The measurements of the production rates of weakly decaying charmed hadrons, especially $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃_𝐬}`$ and $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝚲_𝐜}`$ have substantial errors due to the uncertainties in the branching ratios of the decay mode used. These errors are relative so that the absolute errors are smaller when the measurements fluctuate downwards, leading to a potential bias towards lower averages. To avoid this bias, for the production rates of weakly decaying charmed hadrons the logarithm of the production rates instead of the rates themselves are input to the fit. For $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃^\mathbf{+}}`$ the difference between the results using the logarithm or the value itself is negligible. For $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝐃_𝐬}`$ and $`𝐑_𝐜𝐟_{𝚲_𝐜}`$ the difference in the extracted value of $`𝑹_𝐜`$ is about one tenth of a standard deviation.

#### 5.2.3 Asymmetry Measurements

All b and c asymmetries given by the experiments correspond to full acceptance.

The QCD corrections to the forward-backward asymmetries depend strongly on the experimental analyses. For this reason the numbers given by the collaborations are also corrected for QCD effects. A detailed description of the procedure can be found in  with updates reported in .

For the heavy-flavour combinations described in this chapter, the LEP peak and off-peak asymmetries are corrected to $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{91.26}`$ GeV using the predicted dependence from ZFITTER. The slope of the asymmetry around $`𝒎_𝐙`$ depends only on the axial coupling and the charge of the initial and final state fermions and is thus independent of the value of the asymmetry itself, i.e., the effective electroweak mixing angle.

After calculating the overall averages, the quark pole asymmetries $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐪}`$, defined in terms of effective couplings, are derived from the measured asymmetries by applying corrections as listed in Table 5.1. These corrections are due to the energy shift from 91.26 GeV to $`𝒎_𝐙`$, initial state radiation, $`𝜸`$ exchange and $`𝜸`$-$`𝐙`$ interference. A very small correction due to the nonzero value of the b quark mass is included in the last correction. All corrections are calculated using ZFITTER.

The SLD left-right-forward-backward asymmetries are also corrected for all radiative effects and are directly presented in terms of $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$.

The measurements used are:

* Measurements of $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ using leptons from ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL. These analyses measure either $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ only from a high $`𝒑_𝒕`$ lepton sample or they obtain $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ from a fit to the lepton spectra. In the case of OPAL the lepton information is combined with hadronic variables in a neural net. DELPHI uses in addition lifetime information and jet-charge in the hemisphere opposite to the lepton to separate the different lepton sources. Some asymmetry analyses also measure $`\overline{𝝌}`$.
* Measurements of $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ based on lifetime tagged events with a hemisphere charge measurement from ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL. These measurements dominate the combined result.
* Analyses with D mesons to measure $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ from ALEPH or $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ from DELPHI and OPAL.
* Measurements of $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ from SLD. These results include measurements using lepton , D meson  and vertex mass plus hemisphere charge  tags, which have similar sources of systematic errors as the LEP asymmetry measurements. SLD also uses vertex mass for bottom or charm tagging in conjunction with a kaon tag or a vertex charge tag for both $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ measurements .

#### 5.2.4 Other Measurements

The measurements of the charmed hadron fractions $`𝐏\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐃_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐜_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}\mathbf{)}`$ are included in the $`𝑹_𝐜`$ measurements and are described there.

ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL measure $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\overline{𝝌}`$ or a subset of them from a sample of leptons opposite to a b-tagged hemisphere and from a double lepton sample. DELPHI and OPAL measure $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ from a sample opposite to a high energy $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }`$.

### 5.3 Results

In a first fit the asymmetry measurements on peak, above peak and below peak are corrected to three common centre-of-mass energies and are then combined at each energy point. The results of this fit, including the SLD results, are given in Appendix B. The dependence of the average asymmetries on centre-of-mass energy agrees with the prediction of the Standard Model, as shown in Figure 5.1. A second fit is made to derive the pole asymmetries $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐪}`$ from the measured quark asymmetries, in which all the off-peak asymmetry measurements are corrected to the peak energy before combining. This fit determines a total of 14 parameters: the two partial widths, two LEP asymmetries, two coupling parameters from SLD, three semileptonic branching ratios, the average mixing parameter and the probabilities for c quark to fragment into a $`𝐃^\mathbf{+}`$, a $`𝐃_𝐬`$, a $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$, or a charmed baryon. If the SLD measurements are excluded from the fit there are 12 parameters to be determined. Results for the non-electroweak parameters are independent of the treatment of the off-peak asymmetries and the SLD data.

#### 5.3.1 Results of the 12-Parameter Fit to the LEP Data

Using the full averaging procedure gives the following combined results for the electroweak parameters:

$`𝑹_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.21648}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00073}`$ (5.6)
$`𝑹_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1687}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0047}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0994}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0017}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐜}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0709}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}\mathbf{,}`$
where all corrections to the asymmetries and partial widths are applied. The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$d.o.f. is $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟗𝟔}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. The corresponding correlation matrix is given in Table 5.2.

#### 5.3.2 Results of the 14-Parameter Fit to LEP and SLD Data

Including the SLD results for $`𝑹_𝐛`$, $`𝑹_𝐜`$, $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ into the fit the following results are obtained:

$`𝑹_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.21644}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00065}\mathbf{,}`$ (5.7)
$`𝑹_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1718}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0031}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0995}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0017}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐜}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0713}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝓐_𝐛`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.922}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.020}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝓐_𝐜`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.670}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.026}\mathbf{,}`$
with a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$d.o.f. of $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$. The corresponding correlation matrix is given in Table 5.3 and the largest errors for the electroweak parameters are listed in Table 5.4. If only statistical errors are used in the fit the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$d.o.f. is $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟓}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$. This indicates that the data fluctuate towards a very small $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and that probably systematic uncertainties are estimated in a conservative way.

In deriving these results the parameters $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ are treated as independent of the forward-backward asymmetries $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐜}`$ (but see Section 15.1 for a joint analysis). In Figure 5.2 the results for $`𝑹_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are shown compared with the Standard Model expectation.

Amongst the non-electroweak observables the B semileptonic branching fraction ($`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.1062}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}`$) is of special interest. The dominant error source on this quantity is the dependence on the semileptonic decay models $`𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}`$ with

$$𝚫\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}_{𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.0012}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.8)
Extensive studies have been made to understand the size of this error. Amongst the electroweak quantities the quark asymmetries with leptons depend also on the assumptions on the decay model while the asymmetries using other methods usually do not. The fit implicitly requires that the different methods give consistent results. This effectively constrains the decay model and thus reduces the error from this source in the fit result for $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$.

To get a conservative estimate of the modelling error in $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ the fit is repeated removing all asymmetry measurements. The result of this fit is

$$\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.1065}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0023}$$
(5.9)
with

$$𝚫\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}_{𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.0014}\mathbf{.}$$
(5.10)
## Chapter 6 The Hadronic Charge Asymmetry $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
All experiments have published final results which enter the combination. The final combination procedure is used, the obtained averages are final.

The LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL provide measurements of the hadronic charge asymmetry based on the mean difference in jet charges measured in the forward and backward event hemispheres, $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$. DELPHI also provides a related measurement of the total charge asymmetry by making a charge assignment on an event-by-event basis and performing a likelihood fit. The experimental values quoted for the average forward-backward charge difference, $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$, cannot be directly compared as some of them include detector dependent effects such as acceptances and efficiencies. Therefore the effective electroweak mixing angle, $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$, as defined in Section 15.3, is used as a means of combining the experimental results summarised in Table 6.1.

The dominant source of systematic error arises from the modelling of the charge flow in the fragmentation process for each flavour. All experiments measure the required charge properties for $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ events from the data. ALEPH also determines the charm charge properties from the data. The fragmentation model implemented in the JETSET Monte Carlo program is used by all experiments as reference; the one of the HERWIG Monte Carlo program is used for comparison. The JETSET fragmentation parameters are varied to estimate the systematic errors. The central values chosen by the experiments for these parameters are, however, not the same. The smaller of the two fragmentation errors in any pair of results is treated as common to both. The present average of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ from $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$ and its associated error are not very sensitive to the treatment of common uncertainties. The ambiguities due to QCD corrections may cause changes in the derived value of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$. These are, however, well below the fragmentation uncertainties and experimental errors. The effect of fully correlating the estimated systematic uncertainties from this source between the experiments has a negligible effect upon the average and its error.

There is also some correlation between these results and those for $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ using jet charges. The dominant source of correlation is again through uncertainties in the fragmentation and decay models used. The typical correlation between the derived values of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ from the $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$ and the $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ jet charge measurements is estimated to be about 20% to 25%. This leads to only a small change in the relative weights for the $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$ results when averaging their $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ values (Section 15.3). Thus, the correlation between $`\mathbf{}𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}\mathbf{}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ from jet charge has little impact on the overall Standard Model fit, and is neglected at present.

## Chapter 7 Photon-Pair Production at LEP-II

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
ALEPH, L3 and OPAL have provided final results for the complete LEP-2 dataset, DELPHI up to 1999 data and preliminary results for the 2000 data. The combination and its interpretation are updated to take the new inputs into account.

### 7.1 Introduction

The reaction $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸𝜸\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ provides a clean test of QED at LEP energies and is well suited to detect the presence of non-standard physics. The differential QED cross-section at the Born level in the relativistic limit is given by :

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐧}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒔}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽}\mathbf{.}$$
(7.1)
Since the two final state particles are identical the polar angle $`𝜽`$ is defined such that $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Various models with deviations from this cross-section will be discussed in section 7.4. Results on the $`\mathbf{}`$2-photon final state using the high energy data collected by the four LEP collaborations are reported by the individual experiments . Here the results of the LEP working group dedicated to the combination of the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸𝜸\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ measurements are reported. Results are given for the averaged total cross-section and for global fits to the differential cross-sections.

### 7.2 Event Selection

This channel is very clean and the event selection, which is similar for all experiments, is based on the presence of at least two energetic clusters in the electromagnetic calorimeters. A minimum energy is required, typically $`\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝒔}`$ larger than 0.3 to 0.6, where $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are the energies of the two most energetic photons. In order to remove $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ events, charged tracks are in general not allowed except when they can be associated to a photon conversion in one hemisphere.

The polar angle is defined in order to minimise effects due to initial state radiation as

$$\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝜽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜽_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝜽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜽_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$

where $`𝜽_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝜽_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are the polar angles of the two most energetic photons. The acceptance in polar angle is in the range of 0.90 to 0.96 on $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{|}`$, depending on the experiment.

With these criteria, the selection efficiencies are in the range of 68% to 98% and the residual background (from $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ events and from $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ with $`𝝉^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{\pm }𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$) is very small, 0.1% to 1%. Detailed descriptions of the event selections performed by the four collaborations can be found in .

### 7.3 Total cross-section

The total cross-sections are combined using a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation. For simplicity, given the different angular acceptances, the ratios of the measured cross-sections relative to the QED expectation, $`𝒓\mathbf{=}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬}}\mathbf{/}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐄𝐃}}`$, are averaged. Figure 7.1 shows the measured ratios $`𝒓_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}`$ of the experiments $`𝒊`$ at energies $`𝒌`$ with their statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. There are no significant sources of experimental systematic errors that are correlated between experiments. The theoretical error on the QED prediction, which is fully correlated between energies and experiments is taken into account after the combination.

Denoting with $`𝚫`$ the vector of residuals between the measurements and the expected ratios, three different averages are performed:

1. per energy $`𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟕}`$: $`𝚫_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}\mathbf{=}𝒓_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝒌`$
2. per experiment $`𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}`$: $`𝚫_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}\mathbf{=}𝒓_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}\mathbf{}𝒚_𝒊`$
3. global value: $`𝚫_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}\mathbf{=}𝒓_{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒌}\mathbf{}𝒛`$

The seven fit parameters per energy $`𝒙_𝒌`$ are shown in Figure 7.1 as LEP combined cross-sections. They are correlated with correlation coefficients ranging from 5% to 20%. The four fit-parameters per experiment $`𝒚_𝒊`$ are uncorrelated between each other, the results are given in Table 7.1 together with the single global fit parameter $`𝒛`$.

No significant deviations from the QED expectations are found. The global ratio is below unity by 1.8 standard deviations not accounting for the error on the radiative corrections. This theory error can be assumed to be about 10% of the applied radiative correction and hence depends on the selection. For this combination it is assumed to be 1% which is of same size as the experimental error (1.0%).

### 7.4 Global fit to the differential cross-sections

The global fit is based on angular distributions at energies between 183 and 207 GeV from the individual experiments. As an example, angular distributions from each experiment are shown in Figure 7.2. Combined differential cross-sections are not available yet, since they need a common binning of the distributions. All four experiments give results including the whole year 2000 data-taking. Apart from the 2000 DELPHI data all inputs are final, as shown in Table 7.2. The systematic errors arise from the luminosity evaluation (including theory uncertainty on the small-angle Bhabha cross-section computation), from the selection efficiency and the background evaluations and from radiative corrections. The last contribution, owing to the fact that the available $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸𝜸\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ cross-section calculation is based on $`𝓞`$$`\mathbf{(}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ code, is assumed to be 1% and is considered correlated among energies and experiments.

Various model predictions are fitted to these angular distributions taking into account the experimental systematic error correlated between energies for each experiment and the error on the theory. A binned log likelihood fit is performed with one free parameter for the model and five fit parameters used to keep the normalisation free within the systematic errors of the theory and the four experiments. Additional fit parameters are needed to accommodate the angular dependent systematic errors of OPAL.

The following models of new physics are considered. The simplest ansatz is a short-range exponential deviation from the Coulomb field parameterised by cut-off parameters $`𝚲_\mathbf{\pm }`$ . This leads to a differential cross-section of the form

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝚲_\mathbf{\pm }}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐧}}\mathbf{\pm }\frac{𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅𝒔}{𝚲_\mathbf{\pm }^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(7.2)
New effects can also be introduced in effective Lagrangian theory . Here dimension-6 terms lead to anomalous $`\mathrm{𝐞𝐞}𝜸`$ couplings. The resulting deviations in the differential cross-section are similar in form to those given in Equation 7.2, but with a slightly different definition of the parameter: $`𝚲_\mathrm{𝟔}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝜶}𝚲_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$. While for the ad hoc included cut-off parameters $`𝚲_\mathbf{\pm }`$ both signs are allowed the physics motivated parameter $`𝚲_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ occurs only with the positive sign. Dimension 7 and 8 Lagrangians introduce $`\mathrm{𝐞𝐞}𝜸𝜸`$ contact interactions and result in an angle-independent term added to the Born cross-section:

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_𝚲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐧}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚲^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟔}}\mathbf{.}$$
(7.3)
The associated parameters are given by $`𝚲_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{=}𝚲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝚲_\mathrm{𝟖}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝐞𝚲_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ for dimension 7 and dimension 8 couplings, respectively. The subscript refers to the dimension of the Lagrangian.

Instead of an ordinary electron, an excited electron $`𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ with mass $`𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ could be exchanged in the $`𝒕`$-channel . In the most general case $`𝐞^{\mathbf{}}𝐞𝜸`$ couplings would lead to a large anomalous magnetic moment of the electron . This effect can be avoided by a chiral magnetic coupling of the form

$$𝓛_{𝐞^{\mathbf{}}𝐞𝜸}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚲}\overline{𝒆^{\mathbf{}}}𝝈^{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{\left[}𝒈𝒇\frac{𝝉}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑾_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{+}𝒈^{\mathbf{}}𝒇^{\mathbf{}}\frac{𝒀}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑩_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{\right]}𝒆_𝑳\mathbf{+}\text{h.c.}\mathbf{,}$$
(7.4)
where $`𝝉`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`𝒀`$ is the hypercharge. The parameters of the model are the compositeness scale $`𝚲`$ and the weight factors $`𝒇`$ and $`𝒇^{\mathbf{}}`$ associated to the gauge fields $`𝑾`$ and $`𝑩`$ with Standard Model couplings $`𝒈`$ and $`𝒈^{\mathbf{}}`$. For the process $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸𝜸\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, the following cross-section results :

$`\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}}\mathbf{\right)}_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}}\mathbf{\right)}_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐧}}`$
$`\mathbf{+}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟒}}}𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒑^\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒒^\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽}{\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$
with $`𝒇_𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒇\mathbf{+}𝒇^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{)}`$. Effects vanish in the case of $`𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒇^{\mathbf{}}`$. The cross-section does not depend on the sign of $`𝒇_𝜸`$.

Theories of quantum gravity in extra spatial dimensions could solve the hierarchy problem because gravitons would be allowed to travel in more than 3+1 space-time dimensions . While in these models the Planck mass $`𝑴_𝑫`$ in $`𝑫\mathbf{=}𝒏\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ dimensions is chosen to be of electroweak scale the usual Planck mass $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}}`$ in four dimensions would be

$$𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝑹^𝒏𝑴_𝑫^{𝒏\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(7.6)
where $`𝑹`$ is the compactification radius of the additional dimensions. Since gravitons couple to the energy-momentum tensor, their interaction with photons is as weak as with fermions. However, the huge number of Kaluza-Klein excitation modes in the extra dimensions may give rise to observable effects. These effects depend on the scale $`𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{)}`$ which may be as low as $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$. Model dependencies are absorbed in the parameter $`𝝀`$ which cannot be explicitly calculated without knowledge of the full theory, the sign is undetermined. The parameter $`𝝀`$ is expected to be of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and for this analysis it is assumed that $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The expected differential cross-section is given by :

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝐌_𝐬}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅𝝈}{𝒅𝛀}\mathbf{\right)}_{\mathrm{𝐁𝐨𝐫𝐧}}\mathbf{}𝜶𝒔\frac{𝝀}{𝑴_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒔^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟖}𝝅}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟖}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟒}𝜽\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(7.7)
### 7.5 Fit Results

Where possible the fit parameters are chosen such that the likelihood function is approximately Gaussian. The preliminary results of the fits to the differential cross-sections are given in Table 7.3. No significant deviations with respect to the QED expectations are found (all the parameters are compatible with zero) and therefore 95% confidence level limits are obtained by renormalising the probability distribution of the fit parameter to the physically allowed region. The asymmetric limits $`𝒙_{\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}}^\mathbf{\pm }`$ on the fitting parameter are obtained by:

$$\frac{\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{𝒙_{\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}}^\mathbf{+}}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝝈\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒙}{\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝝈\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒙}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.95}\text{and}\frac{\mathbf{}_{𝒙_{\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}}^{\mathbf{}}}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝝈\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒙}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝝈\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒙}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.95}\mathbf{,}$$
(7.8)
where $`𝚪`$ is a Gaussian with the central value and error of the fit result denoted by $`𝝁`$ and $`𝝈`$, respectively. This is equivalent to the integration of a Gaussian probability function as a function of the fit parameter. The 95 % CL limits on the model parameters are derived from the limits on the fit parameters, e.g. the limit on $`𝚲_\mathbf{+}`$ is obtained as $`\mathbf{[}𝒙_{\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝚲_\mathbf{\pm }^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}}`$.

The only model with more than one free model parameter is the search for excited electrons. In this case only one out of the two parameters $`𝒇_𝜸`$ and $`𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ is determined while the other is fixed. It is assumed that $`𝚲\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$. For limits on the coupling $`𝒇_𝜸\mathbf{/}𝚲`$ a scan over $`𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ is performed. The fit result at $`𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\text{GeV}`$ is included in Table 7.3, limits for all masses are presented in Figure 7.4. For the determination of the excited electron mass the fit cannot be expressed in terms of a linear fit parameter. For $`\mathbf{|}𝒇_𝜸\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ the curve of the negative log likelihood, $`𝚫\text{LogL}`$, as a function of $`𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ is shown in Figure 7.4. The value corresponding to $`𝚫\text{LogL}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.92}`$ is $`𝑴_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ = 248 GeV.

### 7.6 Conclusion

The LEP collaborations study the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸𝜸\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ channel up to the highest available centre-of-mass energies. The total cross-section results are combined in terms of the ratios with respect to the QED expectations. No deviations are found. The differential cross-sections are fit following different parametrisations from models predicting deviations from QED. No evidence for deviations is found and therefore combined 95% confidence level limits are given.

## Chapter 8 Fermion-Pair Production at LEP-II

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
The input from ALEPH is replaced by new preliminary results. New combinations of differential cross sections in lepton-pair production, in particular Bhabha scattering, are performed. Interpretations in terms of new-physics models are updated.

### 8.1 Introduction

During the LEP-II program LEP delivered collisions at energies from $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ to $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟗}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$. The 4 LEP experiments have made measurements on the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ process over this range of energies, and a preliminary combination of these data is discussed in this note.

In the years 1995 through 1999 LEP delivered luminosity at a number of distinct centre-of-mass energy points. In 2000 most of the luminosity was delivered close to 2 distinct energies, but there was also a significant fraction of the luminosity delivered in, more-or-less, a continuum of energies. To facilitate the combination of the data, the 4 LEP experiments all divided the data they collected in 2000 into two energy bins: from 202.5 to 205.5 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$; and 205.5 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and above. The nominal and actual centre-of-mass energies to which the LEP data are averaged for each year are given in Table 8.1.

A number of measurements on the process $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ exist and are combined. The preliminary averages of cross-section and forward-backward asymmetry measurements are discussed in Section 8.2. The results presented in this section update those presented in . Complete results of the combinations are available on the web page . In Section 8.3 a preliminary average of the differential cross-sections measurements, $`\frac{𝐝𝝈}{𝐝\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽}`$, for the channels $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ is presented. In Section 8.4 a preliminary combination of the heavy flavour results $`𝑹_𝐛`$, $`𝑹_𝐜`$, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ from LEP-II is presented. In Section 8.5 the combined results are interpreted in terms of contact interactions and the exchange of $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ bosons, the exchange of leptoquarks or squarks and the exchange of gravitons in large extra dimensions. The results are summarised in section 8.6.

There are significant changes with respect to results presented in Summer 2001 :

* Changes to the combinations of results

+ updated preliminary cross-sections and leptonic forward-backward asymmetries for ALEPH
    + a new combination of preliminary differential cross-sections for $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states
    + updated preliminary differential cross-section results for $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states from ALEPH
    + new preliminary heavy flavour results. Results are now averaged separately for $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ and $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ final states
* Changes to the interpretations of the combined results

+ previous results have been updated using the updated combinations
    + new interpretations of the updated data in terms of the exchange of leptoquarks
    + new interpretations of the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states in terms of contact interactions.

### 8.2 Averages for Cross-sections and Asymmetries

In this section the results of the preliminary combination of cross-sections and asymmetries are given. The individual experiments’ analyses of cross-sections and forward-backward asymmetries are discussed in .

Cross-section results are combined for the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$, $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ channels, forward-backward asymmetry measurements are combined for the $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states. The averages are made for the samples of events with high effective centre-of-mass energies, $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}`$.

Individual experiments have their own $`𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ signal definitions; corrections are applied to bring the measurements to a common signal definitions:

* $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}`$ is taken to be the mass of the $`𝒔`$-channel propagator, with the $`𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ signal being defined by the cut $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒔}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.85}`$.
* ISR-FSR photon interference is subtracted to render the propagator mass unambiguous.
* Results are given for the full $`\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅`$ angular acceptance.
* Initial state non-singlet diagrams , see for example Figure 8.1, which lead to events containing additional fermions pairs are considered as part of the two fermion signal. In such events, the additional fermion pairs are typically lost down the beampipe of the experiments, such that the visible event topologies are usually similar to a difermion events with photons radiated from the initial state.

The corrected measurement of a cross-section or a forward backward asymmetry, $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐄𝐏}}`$, corresponding to the common signal definition, is computed from the experimental measurement $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$,

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐄𝐏}}\mathbf{=}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐄𝐏}}\mathbf{}𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (8.1)
where $`𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ is the prediction for the measurement obtained for the experiments signal definition and $`𝐏_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐄𝐏}}`$ is the prediction for the common signal definition. The predictions are computed with ZFITTER .

In choosing a common signal definition there is a tension between the need to have a definition which is practical to implement in event generators and semi-analytical calculations, one which comes close to describing the underlying hard processes and one which most closely matches what is actually measured in experiments. Different signal definitions represent different balances between these needs. To illustrate how different choices would effect the quoted results a second signal definition is studied by calculating different predictions using ZFITTER:

* For dilepton events, $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}`$ is taken to be the bare invariant mass of the outgoing difermion pair (i.e., the invariant mass excluding all radiated photons).
* For hadronic events, it is taken to be the mass of the $`𝒔`$-channel propagator.
* In both cases, ISR-FSR photon interference is included and the signal is defined by the cut $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒔}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.85}`$. When calculating the contribution to the hadronic cross-section due to ISR-FSR interference, since the propagator mass is ill-defined, it is replaced by the bare $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ mass.

The definition of the hadronic cross-section is close to that used to define the signal for the heavy quark measurements given in Section 8.4.

Theoretical uncertainties associated with the Standard Model predictions for each of the measurements are not included during the averaging procedure, but must be included when assessing the compatibility of the data with theoretical predictions. The theoretical uncertainties on the Standard Model predictions amount to $`\mathbf{0.26}\mathbf{\%}`$ on $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{\%}`$ on $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ on $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, and 0.004 on the leptonic forward-backward asymmetries .

The average is performed using the best linear unbiased estimator technique (BLUE) , which is equivalent to a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation. All data from nominal centre-of-mass energies of 130–207 GeV are averaged at the same time.

Particular care is taken to ensure that the correlations between the hadronic cross-sections are reasonably estimated. As in  the errors are broken down into 5 categories, with the ensuing correlations accounted for in the combinations:

* The statistical uncertainty plus uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature.
* The systematic uncertainty for the final state X which is fully correlated between energy points for that experiment.
* The systematic uncertainty for experiment Y which is fully correlated between different final states for this energy point.
* The systematic uncertainty for the final state X which is fully correlated between energy points and between different experiments.
* The systematic uncertainty which is fully correlated between energy points and between different experiments for all final states.

Uncertainties in the hadronic cross-sections arising from fragmentation models and modelling of ISR are treated as fully correlated between experiments. Despite some differences between the models used and the methods of evaluating the errors in the different experiments, there are significant common elements in the estimation of these sources of uncertainty.

New, preliminary, results from ALEPH are included in the average. The updated ALEPH measurements use a lower cut on the effective centre-of-mass energy, which makes the signal definition of ALEPH closer to the combined LEP signal definition.

Table 8.2 gives the averaged cross-sections and forward-backward asymmetries for all energies. The differences in the results obtained when using predictions of ZFITTER for the second signal definition are also given. The differences are significant when compared to the precision obtained from averaging together the measurements at all energies. The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ per degree of freedom for the average of the LEP-II $`𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ data is $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}`$. Most correlations are rather small, with the largest components at any given pair of energies being between the hadronic cross-sections. The other off-diagonal terms in the correlation matrix are smaller than $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$. The correlation matrix between the averaged hadronic cross-sections at different centre-of-mass energies is given in Table 8.3. Differences in the results with respect to previous combinations at centre-of-mass energies from 130–207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$  arise from the updates to the ALEPH results.

Figures 8.2 and 8.3 show the LEP averaged cross-sections and asymmetries, respectively, as a function of the centre-of-mass energy, together with the SM predictions. There is good agreement between the SM expectations and the measurements of the individual experiments and the combined averages. The cross-sections for hadronic final states at most of the energy points are somewhat above the SM expectations. Taking into account the correlations between the data points and also taking into account the theoretical error on the SM predictions, the ratio of the measured cross-sections to the SM expectations, averaged over all energies, is approximately a $`\mathbf{1.7}`$ standard deviation excess. It is concluded that there is no significant evidence in the results of the combinations for physics beyond the SM in the process $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$.

### 8.3 Averages for Differential Cross-sections

#### 8.3.1 $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final state

The LEP experiments have measured the differential cross-section, $`\frac{𝐝𝝈}{𝐝\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽}`$, for the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ channel.A preliminary combination of these results is made by performing a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ fit to the measured differential cross-sections, using the statistical errors as given by the experiments. In contrast to the muon and tau channels (Section 8.3.2) the higher statistics makes the use of expected statistical errors unnecessary. The combination includes data from 189 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ from all experiments but DELPHI. The data used in the combination are summarised in Table 8.4.

Each experiment’s data are binned according to an agreed common definition, which takes into account the large forward peak of Bhabha scattering:

* 10 bins for $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ between $`\mathbf{0.0}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.90}`$ and
* 5 bins for $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ between $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.90}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.0}`$

at each energy. The scattering angle, $`𝜽`$, is the angle of the negative lepton with respect to the incoming electron direction in the lab coordinate system. The outer acceptances of the most forward and most backward bins for which the experiments present their data are different. The ranges in $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ of the individual experiments and the average are given in Table 8.5. Except for the binning, each experiment uses their own signal definition, for example different experiments have different acollinearity cuts to select events. The signal definition used for the LEP average corresponds to an acollinearity cut of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. The experimental measurements are corrected to the common signal definition following the procedure described in Section 8.2. The theoretical predictions are taken from the Monte Carlo event generator BHWIDE .

Correlated systematic errors between different experiments, energies and bins at the same energy, arising from uncertainties on the overall normalisation, and from migration of events between forward and backward bins with the same absolute value of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ due to uncertainties in the corrections for charge confusion, were considered in the averaging procedure.

An average for all energies between 189–207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ is performed. The results of the averages are shown in Figure 8.4. The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ per degree of freedom for the average is $`\mathbf{190.8}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟗}`$.

The correlations between bins in the average are well below $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ of the total error on the averages in each bin for most of the cases, and exceed $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ for the most forward bin for the energy points with the highest accumulated statistics. The agreement between the averaged data and the predictions from the Monte Carlo generator BHWIDE is good.

#### 8.3.2 $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$and $`𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states

The LEP experiments have measured the differential cross-section, $`\frac{𝐝𝝈}{𝐝\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽}`$, for the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ channels for samples of events with high effective centre-of-mass energy, $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒔}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.85}`$. A preliminary combination of these results is made using the BLUE technique. The statistical error associated with each measurement is taken as the expected statistical error on the differential cross-section, computed from the expected number of events in each bin for each experiment. Using a Monte Carlo simulation it has been shown that this method provides a good approximation to the exact likelihood method based on Poisson statistics .

The combination includes data from 183 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$, but not all experiments provided data at all energies. Since , the ALEPH results have been updated. The data used in the combination are summarised in Table 8.6.

Each experiment’s data are binned in 10 bins of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ at each energy, using their own signal definition. The scattering angle, $`𝜽`$, is the angle of the negative lepton with respect to the incoming electron direction in the lab coordinate system. The outer acceptances of the most forward and most backward bins for which the four experiments present their data are different. This was accounted for as part of the correction to a common signal definition. The ranges in $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ for the measurements of the individual experiments and the average are given in Table 8.7. The signal definition used corresponded to the first definition given in Section 8.2.

Correlated systematic errors between different experiments, channels and energies, arising from uncertainties on the overall normalisation are considered in the averaging procedure. Previously  three separate averages were performed for different centre-of-mass energies; one for 183 and 189 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ data, one for 192–202 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ data and for 205 and 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ data, which resulted in missing correlations between measurements in different groups of energies. Now all data from all energies are combined in a single fit to obtain averages at each centre-of-mass energy yielding a full covariance matrix between the different measurements at all energies.

The results of the averages are shown in Figures 8.5 and 8.6. The correlations between bins in the average are less that $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ of the total error on the averages in each bin. Overall the agreement between the averaged data and the predictions is reasonable, with a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}`$ degrees of freedom. At 202 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ the measured differential cross-sections in the most backward bins, $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.00}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.8}`$, for both muon and tau final states are above the predictions. The data at 202 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ suffer from rather low delivered luminosity, with less than 4 events expected in each experiment in each channel in this backward $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ bin. The agreement between the data and the predictions in the same $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽`$ bin is more consistent at higher energies.

### 8.4 Averages for Heavy Flavour Measurements

This section presents a preliminary combination of both published  and preliminary  measurements of the ratios cross section ratios $`𝑹_𝐪`$ defined as $`\frac{𝝈_{𝐪\overline{𝐪}}}{𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}}`$ for b and c production, $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜`$, and the forward-backward asymmetries, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$, from the LEP collaborations at centre-of-mass energies in the range of 130 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$. The averages have been updated with respect to . New, preliminary, results from ALEPH on $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ at centre-of-mass energies of 205 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and on $`𝑹_𝐜`$ at centre-of-mass energies of 196, 200, 205 and 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ are included. Table 8.8 summarises all the inputs that have been combined so far.

A common signal definition is defined for all the measurements, requiring:

* an effective centre-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.85}\sqrt{𝒔}`$
* no subtraction of ISR and FSR photon interference contribution and
* extrapolation to full angular acceptance.

Systematic errors are divided into three categories: uncorrelated errors, errors correlated between the measurements of each experiment, and errors common to all experiments.

Due to the fact that $`𝑹_𝐜`$ measurements are only provided by a single experiment and are strongly correlated with $`𝑹_𝐛`$ measurements, it was decided to fit the b sector and c sector separately, the other flavour’s measurements being fixed to their Standard Model predictions. In addition, these fitted values are used to set limits upon physics beyond the Standard Model, such as contact term interactions, in which only one quark flavour is assumed to be effected by the new physics during each fit, therefore this averaging method is consistent with the interpretations.

Full details concerning the combination procedure can be found in .

The results of the combination are presented in Table 8.9 and Table 8.10 and in Figures 8.7 and 8.8. The results for both b and c sector are in agreement with the Standard Model predictions of ZFITTER. The averaged discrepancies with respect to the Standard Model predictions is -2.08 $`𝝈`$ for $`𝑹_𝐛`$, +0.30 $`𝝈`$ for $`𝑹_𝐜`$, -1.56 $`𝝈`$ for $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and -0.24 $`𝝈`$ for $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$. A list of the error contributions from the combination at 189 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ is shown in Table 8.11.

### 8.5 Interpretation

The combined measurements presented above are interpreted in a variety of models. The cross-section and asymmetry results are used to place limits on contact interactions between leptons and quarks and, using the results on heavy flavour production, on contact interaction between electrons and $`𝒃`$ and $`𝒄`$ quarks specifically. Limits on the mass of a possible additional heavy neutral boson, $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$, are obtained for a variety of models. The results update those provided in . Using the combined differential cross-sections for $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states, limits on contact interactions in the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ channel and limits on the scale of gravity in models with large extra-dimensions are presented. Limits are also derived on the masses of leptoquarks - assuming a coupling of electromagnetic strength. In all cases the Born level predictions for the physics beyond the Standard Model have been corrected to take into account QED radiation.

#### 8.5.1 Contact Interactions

The averages of cross-sections and forward-backward asymmetries for muon-pair and tau-lepton pair and the cross-sections for $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ final states are used to search for contact interactions between fermions. The results are updated with respect to those given previously  due to updates of the averages. Limits are also given for interactions not considered before.

Following , contact interactions are parameterised by an effective Lagrangian, $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}`$, which is added to the Standard Model Lagrangian and has the form:

$`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹\mathbf{)}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒋\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑹}{\mathbf{}}}𝜼_{𝒊𝒋}\overline{𝒆}_𝒊𝜸_𝝁𝒆_𝒊\overline{𝒇}_𝒋𝜸^𝝁𝒇_𝒋\mathbf{,}`$ (8.2)
where $`𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅`$ is taken to be 1 by convention, $`𝜹\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ for $`𝒇\mathbf{=}𝒆\mathbf{(}𝒇\mathbf{}𝒆\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝜼_{𝒊𝒋}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for different interaction types, $`𝚲`$ is the scale of the contact interactions, $`𝒆_𝒊`$ and $`𝒇_𝒋`$ are left or right-handed spinors. By assuming different helicity coupling between the initial state and final state currents, a set of different models can be defined from this Lagrangian , with either constructive ($`\mathbf{+}`$) or destructive ($`\mathbf{}`$) interference between the Standard Model process and the contact interactions. The models and corresponding choices of $`𝜼_{𝒊𝒋}`$ are given in Table 8.12. The models LL±, RR±, VV±, AA±, LR±, RL±, V0±, A0± are considered here since these models lead to large deviations in $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ at LEP II. The corresponding energies scales for the models with constructive or destructive interference are denoted by $`𝚲^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝚲^{\mathbf{}}`$ respectively.

For leptonic final states 4 different fits are made

* individual fits to contact interactions in $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ using the measured cross-sections and asymmetries,
* fits to $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ (simultaneous fits to $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$) again using the measured cross-sections and asymmetries,
* fits to $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$, using the measured differential cross-sections.

For the inclusive hadronic final states three different model assumptions are used to fit the total hadronic cross-section

* the contact interactions affect only one quark flavour of up-type using the measured hadronic cross-sections,
* the contact interactions affect only one quark flavour of down-type using the measured hadronic cross-sections,
* the contact interactions contribute to all quark final states with the same strength.

Limits on contact interactions between electrons and $`𝒃`$ and $`𝒄`$ quarks are obtained using all the heavy flavour LEP-II combined results from 133 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ given in Tables 8.9 and 8.10. For the purpose of fitting contact interaction models to the data, $`𝑹_𝐛`$ and $`𝑹_𝐜`$ are converted to cross-sections $`𝝈_{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝝈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ using the averaged $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ cross-section of section 8.2 corresponding to the second signal definition. In the calculation of errors, the correlations between $`𝑹_𝐛`$, $`𝑹_𝐜`$ and $`𝝈_{𝐪\overline{𝐪}}`$ are assumed to be negligible. These results are of particular interest since they are inaccessible to $`𝐩\overline{𝐩}`$ or ep colliders.

For the purpose of fitting contact interaction models to the data, the parameter $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is used, with $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the limit that there are no contact interactions. This parameter is allowed to take both positive and negative values in the fits. Theoretical uncertainties on the Standard Model predictions are taken from .

The values of $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ extracted for each model are all compatible with the Standard Model expectation $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, at the two standard deviation level. As expected, the errors on $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ are typically a factor of two smaller than those obtained from a single LEP experiment with the same data set. The fitted values of $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ are converted into $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level lower limits on $`𝚲`$. The limits are obtained by integrating the likelihood function in $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ over the physically allowed values111To be able to obtain confidence limits from the likelihood function in $`ϵ`$ it is necessary to convert the likelihood to a probability density function for $`ϵ`$; this is done by multiplying by a prior probability function. Simply integrating the likelihood over $`ϵ`$ is equivalent to multiplying by a uniform prior probability function in $`ϵ`$., $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for each $`𝚲^\mathbf{+}`$ limit and $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for $`𝚲^{\mathbf{}}`$ limits.

The fitted values of $`\mathit{ϵ}`$ and their 68$`\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level uncertainties together with the 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level lower limit on $`𝚲`$ are shown in Table 8.13 for the fits to $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ ($`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝒆`$), $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ , inclusive $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$, $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$. Table 8.14 shows only the limits obtained on the scale $`𝚲`$ for other fits. The limits are shown graphically in Figure 8.9.

For the VV model with positive interference and assuming electromagnetic coupling strength instead of $`𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, the scale $`𝚲`$ obtained in the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ channel is converted to an upper limit on the electron size:

$`𝐫_𝐞\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}}𝐦`$ (8.3)
Models with stronger couplings will make this upper limit even tighter.

#### 8.5.2 Models with $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ Bosons

The combined hadronic and leptonic cross-sections and the leptonic forward-backward asymmetries are used to fit the data to models including an additional, heavy, neutral boson, $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$. The results are updated with respect to those given in  due to the updated cross-section and leptonic forward-backward asymmetry results.

Fits are made to $`𝐌_𝐙^{^{\mathbf{}}}`$, the mass of a $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ for models resulting from an E6 GUT and L-R symmetric models  and for the Sequential Standard Model (SSM) , which proposes the existence of a $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ with exactly the same coupling to fermions as the standard Z. LEP-II data alone does not significantly constrain the mixing angle between the Z and $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ fields, $`𝚯_{\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}^{^{\mathbf{}}}}`$. However results from a single experiment, in which LEP-I data is used in the fit, show that the mixing is consistent with zero (see for example ). So for these fits $`𝚯_{\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}^{^{\mathbf{}}}}`$ was fixed to zero.

No significant evidence is found for the existence of a $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ boson in any of the models. The procedure to find limits on the Z mass corresponds to that in case of contact interactions: for large masses the exchange of a Z can be approximated by contact terms, $`𝚲\mathbf{}𝐌_𝐙^{^{\mathbf{}}}`$. The lower limits on the Z mass are shown in Figure 8.10 varying the parameters $`𝜽_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ for the E6 models and $`𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$ for the left-right models. The results for the specific models $`𝝌\mathbf{,}𝝍\mathbf{,}𝜼`$ ($`𝜽_\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝝅\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐧}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}}`$), L-R ($`𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}`$=1.53) and SSM are shown in Table 8.15.

#### 8.5.3 Leptoquarks and R-parity violating squarks

Leptoquarks (LQ) would mediate quark-lepton transitions. Following the notations in Reference , scalar leptoquarks, $`𝑺_𝑰`$, and vector leptoquarks,$`𝑽_𝑰`$ are indicated based on spin and isospin $`𝑰`$. Leptoquarks with the same Isospin but with different hypercharges are distinguished by an additional tilde. See Reference 98 for further details. They carry fermion numbers, $`𝑭\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑩`$. It is assumed that leptoquark couplings to quark-lepton pairs preserve baryon- and lepton-number. The couplings $`𝒈_𝑳\mathbf{,}𝒈_𝑹`$, are labelled according to the chirality of the lepton.

$`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐒}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝐋\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝐒_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝐋\mathbf{)}`$ leptoquarks are equivalent to up-type anti-squarks and down-type squarks, respectively. Limits in terms of the leptoquark coupling are then exactly equivalent to limits on $`𝝀_{\mathrm{𝟏}𝒋𝒌}`$ in the Lagrangian $`𝝀_{\mathrm{𝟏}𝒋𝒌}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑸_𝒋\overline{𝑫}_𝒌`$.

At LEP, the exchange of a leptoquark can modify the hadronic cross-sections and asymmetries, as described at the Born level by the equations given in Reference 98. Using the LEP combined measurements of hadronic cross-sections, and the measurements of heavy quark production, $`𝑹_𝐛`$, $`𝑹_𝐜`$, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$, upper limits can be set on the leptoquark’s coupling $`𝒈`$ as a function of its mass $`𝑴_{𝐋𝑸}`$ for leptoquarks coupling electrons to first, second and third generation quarks. For convenience, one type of leptoquark is assumed to be much lighter than the others. Furthermore, experimental constraints on the product $`𝒈_𝑳𝒈_𝑹`$ allow the study leptoquarks assuming either only $`𝒈_𝑳\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`𝒈_𝑹\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Limits are then denoted by either (L) for leptoquarks coupling to left handed leptons or (R) for leptoquarks coupling to right handed leptons.

In the processes $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐮\overline{𝐮}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐝\overline{𝐝}`$ first generation leptoquarks could be exchanged in $`𝒖`$\- or $`𝒕`$-channel (F=2 or F=0) which would lead to a change of the hadronic cross-section. In the processes $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ the exchange of leptoquarks with cross-generational couplings can alter the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ angular distribution, especially at low polar angle. The reported measurements on heavy quark production have been extrapolated to $`\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅`$ acceptance, using SM predictions, from the measurements performed in restricted angular ranges, corresponding to the acceptance of the vertex-detector in each experiment. Therefore, when fitting limits on leptoquarks’ coupling to the 2nd or 3rd generation of quarks, the LEP combined results for b and c sector are extrapolated back to an angular range of $`\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.85}`$ using ZFITTER predictions.

The following measurements are used to constrain different types of leptoquarks

* For leptoquarks coupling electrons to 1st generation quarks, all LEP combined hadronic cross-sections at centre-of-mass energies from 130 GeV to 207 GeV are used
* For leptoquarks coupling electrons to 2nd generation quarks, $`𝝈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ is calculated from $`𝑹_𝐜`$ and the hadronic cross-section at the energy points where $`𝑹_𝐜`$ is measured. The measurements of $`𝝈_{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$ are then extrapolated back to $`\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.85}`$. Since measurements in the c-sector are scarce and originate from, at most, 2 experiments, hadronic cross-sections, extrapolated down to $`\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.85}`$ are also used in the fit, with an average $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ correlated errors.
* For leptoquarks coupling electrons to 3rd generation quarks, only $`𝝈_{𝒃\overline{𝒃}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$, extrapolated back to a $`\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.85}`$ are used.

The 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level lower limits on masses $`𝑴_{𝐋𝑸}`$ are derived assuming a coupling of electromagnetic strength, $`𝒈\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}}`$, where $`𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}`$ is the fine structure constant. The results are summarised in Table 8.16. These results complement the leptoquark searches at HERA  and the Tevatron . Figures 8.11 and 8.12 give the 95% confidence level limits on the coupling as a function of the leptoquark mass for leptoquarks coupling electrons to the second and third generations of quarks.

#### 8.5.4 Low Scale Gravity in Large Extra Dimensions

The averaged differential cross-sections for $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ are used to search for the effects of graviton exchange in large extra dimensions.

A new approach to the solution of the hierarchy problem has been proposed in , which brings close the electroweak scale $`𝐦_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$ and the Planck scale $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\sqrt{𝐆_𝐍}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}`$. In this framework the effective 4 dimensional $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}}`$ is connected to a new $`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ scale in a (4+n) dimensional theory:

$`𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝐌_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐥}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝐧}𝐑^𝐧\mathbf{,}`$ (8.4)
where there are n extra compact spatial dimensions of radius $`\mathbf{}𝐑`$.

In the production of fermion- or boson-pairs in $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ collisions this class of models can be manifested through virtual effects due to the exchange of gravitons (Kaluza-Klein excitations). As discussed in , the exchange of spin-2 gravitons modifies in a unique way the differential cross-sections for fermion pairs, providing clear signatures. These models introduce an effective scale (ultraviolet cut-off). Adopting the notation from  the gravitational mass scale is called $`𝐌_𝐇`$. The cut-off scale is supposed to be of the order of the fundamental gravity scale in 4+n dimensions.

The parameter $`𝜺_𝑯`$ is defined as

$`𝜺_𝑯\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀}{𝐌_𝐇^\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (8.5)
where the coefficient $`𝝀`$ is of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and can not be calculated explicitly without knowledge of the full quantum gravity theory. In the following analysis we will assume that $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in order to study both the cases of positive and negative interference. To compute the deviations from the Standard Model due to virtual graviton exchange the calculations  were used.

Theoretical uncertainties on the Standard Model predictions are taken from . The full correlation matrix of the differential cross-sections, obtained in our averaging procedure, is used in the fits. This is an improvement compared to previous combined analyses of published or preliminary LEP data on Bhabha scattering, performed before this detailed information was available (see e.g. ).

The extracted value of $`𝜺_𝑯`$ is compatible with the Standard Model expectation $`𝜺_𝑯\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The errors on $`𝜺_𝑯`$ are $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.5}`$ smaller than those obtained from a single LEP experiment with the same data set. The fitted value of $`𝜺_𝑯`$ is converted into $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level lower limits on $`𝐌_𝐇`$ by integrating the likelihood function over the physically allowed values, $`𝜺_𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝜺_𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ giving:

$`𝐌_𝐇`$ $`\mathbf{>}`$ $`\mathbf{1.20}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}\mathrm{𝐟𝐨𝐫}𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}`$ (8.6)
$`𝐌_𝐇`$ $`\mathbf{>}`$ $`\mathbf{1.09}\mathrm{𝐓𝐞𝐕}\mathrm{𝐟𝐨𝐫}𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}`$ (8.7)
An example of our analysis for the highest energy point is shown in Figure 8.13.

The interference of virtual graviton exchange amplitudes with both t-channel and s-channel Bhabha scattering amplitudes makes this the most sensitive search channel at LEP. The results obtained here would not be strictly valid if the luminosity measurements of the LEP experiments, based on the very same process, are also significantly affected by graviton exchange. As shown in , the effect on the cross-section in the luminosity angular range is so small that it can safely be neglected in this analysis.

### 8.6 Summary

A preliminary combination of the LEP-II $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ cross-sections (for hadron, muon and tau-lepton final states) and forward-backward asymmetries (for muon and tau final states) from LEP running at energies from 130 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ to 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ has been made. The results from the four LEP experiments are in good agreement with each other. The averages for all energies are shown given in Table 8.2. Overall the data agree with the Standard Model predictions of ZFITTER, although the combined hadronic cross-sections are on average $`\mathbf{1.7}`$ standard deviations above the predictions. Further information is available at .

Preliminary differential cross-sections, $`\frac{𝐝𝝈}{𝐝\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽}`$, for $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^\mathbf{+}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}`$ were combined. Results are shown in Figures 8.4, 8.5 and 8.6.

A preliminary average of results on heavy flavour production at LEP-II has also been made for measurements of $`𝑹_𝐛`$, $`𝑹_𝐜`$, $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}`$, using results from LEP centre-of-mass energies from 130 to 207 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$. Results are given in Tables 8.9 and 8.10 and shown graphically in Figures 8.7 and 8.8. The results are in good agreement with the predictions of the SM.

The preliminary averaged cross-section and forward-backward asymmetry results together with the combined results on heavy flavour production have been interpreted in a variety of models. Limits on the scale of contact interactions between leptons and quarks and in $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ and also between electrons and specifically $`𝐛\overline{𝐛}`$ and $`𝐜\overline{𝐜}`$ final states have been determined. A full set of limits are given in Tables 8.13 and 8.14. The LEP-II averaged cross-sections have been used to obtain lower limits on the mass of a possible $`𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ boson in different models. Limits range from $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟒𝟎}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟖𝟕}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{/}𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ depending on the model. Limits on the masses of leptoquarks have been derived from the hadronic cross-sections. The limits range from $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟏}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟑𝟔}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{/}𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ depending on the type of leptoquark. Limits on the scale of gravity in models with large extra dimensions have been obtained from combined differential cross-sections for $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$; for positive interference between the new physics and the Standard model the limit is $`\mathbf{1.20}`$ TeV and for negative interference $`\mathbf{1.09}`$ TeV.

## Chapter 9 Investigation of the Photon/Z-Boson Interference

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
This is a new chapter: the interference between photon and Z-boson exchange in fermion-pair production at LEP-I and LEP-II energies is investigated, and preliminary combinations are performed.

### 9.1 Introduction

The S-Matrix ansatz provides a coherent way of describing LEP measurements of the cross-section and forward-backward asymmetries in $`𝒔`$-channel $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐟\overline{𝐟}`$ processes at centre-of-mass energies around the $`𝐙`$ resonance, from the LEP-I program, and the measurements at centre-of-mass energies from 130 – 207 GeV from the LEP-II program.

Compared with the standard 5 and 9 parameter descriptions of the measurements at the $`𝐙`$ , the S-Matrix formalism includes an extra 3 parameters (assuming lepton universality) or 7 parameters (without lepton universality) which explicitly determine the contributions to the cross-sections and forward-backward asymmetries of the interference between the exchange of a $`𝐙`$ and a photon. The LEP-I data alone cannot tightly constrain these interference terms, in particular the interference term for hadronic cross-sections, since their contributions are small around the $`𝐙`$ resonance and change sign at the pole. Due to strong correlations between the size of the hadronic interference term and the mass of the $`𝐙`$, this leads to a larger error on the fitted mass of the $`𝐙`$ compared to the standard 5 and 9 parameter fits, where the hadronic interference term is fixed to the value predicted in the Standard Model. Including the LEP-II data leads to a significant improvement in the constraints on the interference terms and a corresponding reduction in the uncertainty on the mass of the $`𝐙`$. This results in a measurement of $`𝒎_𝐙`$ which is almost as sensitive as the standard results, but without constraining the interference to the Standard Model prediction.

This chapter describes the first, preliminary, combination of data from the full data sets of the 4 LEP experiments, to obtain a LEP combined results on the parameters of the S-Matrix ansatz. These results update those of a previous combination  which was based on preliminary LEP-I data and only partial statistics from the full LEP-II data set.

Different strategies are used to combined the LEP-I and LEP-II data. For LEP-I data, an average of the individual experiment’s results on the S-Matrix parameters is made. This approach is rather similar to the method used to combine the results of the 5 and 9 parameter fits. To include LEP-II data, a fit is made to LEP combined measurements of cross-sections and asymmetries above the $`𝐙`$, taking into account the results of the LEP-I combination of S-Matrix parameters.

In Section 9.2 the parameters of the S-Matrix ansatz are explained. In Sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 the average of the LEP-I data and the inclusion of the LEP-II data are described. The results are discussed in Section 9.3.3 and conclusions are drawn in Section 9.4.

### 9.2 The S-Matrix Ansatz

The S-matrix ansatz  is a rigorous approach to describe the cross-sections and forward-backward asymmetries in the $`𝒔`$-channel $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ annihilations under the assumption that the processes can be parameterised as the exchange of a massless and a massive vector boson, in which the couplings of the bosons including their interference are treated as free parameters.

In this model, the cross-sections can be parametrised as follows:

$$𝝈_{𝒕𝒐𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒇}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝝅𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝒈_𝐟^{𝒕𝒐𝒕}}{𝒔}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒋_𝐟^{𝒕𝒐𝒕}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒓_𝐟^{𝒕𝒐𝒕}𝒔}{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝚪}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathrm{𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡}𝐟\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}\mathbf{,}𝐞\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝝉\mathbf{,}$$
(9.1)
while the forward-backward asymmetries are given by:

$$𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐟𝐛}\mathbf{,}𝐟}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝅𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝒈_𝐟^{𝒇𝒃}}{𝒔}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒋_𝐟^{𝒇𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒓_𝐟^{𝒇𝒃}𝒔}{\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝚪}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{/}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}\mathbf{,}𝐟}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(9.2)
where $`\sqrt{𝒔}`$ is the centre-of-mass energy. The parameters $`𝒓_𝐟`$ and $`𝒋_𝐟`$ scale the $`𝐙`$ exchange and the $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝜸`$ interference contributions to the total cross-section and forward-backward asymmetries. The contribution $`𝒈_𝐟`$ of the pure $`𝜸`$ exchange was fixed to the value predicted by QED in all fits. Neither the hadronic charge asymmetry, nor the flavour tagged quark forward-backward asymmetries are considered here, which leaves 16 free parameters to described the LEP data: 14 $`𝒓_𝐟`$ and $`𝒋_𝐟`$ parameters and the mass and width of the massive $`𝐙`$ resonance. Applying the constraint of lepton universality reduces this to 8 parameters.

In the Standard Model the $`𝐙`$ exchange term, the $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝜸`$ interference term and the photon exchange term are given in terms of the fermion charges and their effective vector and axial couplings to the $`𝐙`$ by:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}𝒓_𝐟^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}\hfill & \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝜿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐞}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐞}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜿𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐞}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}𝑪_{𝑰𝒎}\hfill & \\ 𝒋_𝐟^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}\hfill & \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟐}𝜿𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐞}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑪_{𝑹𝒆}\mathbf{+}𝑪_{𝑰𝒎}\mathbf{\right)}\hfill & \\ 𝒈_𝐟^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}\hfill & \mathbf{=}\hfill & 𝑸_𝐞^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸_𝐟^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left|}𝑭_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill & \\ 𝒓_𝐟^{\mathrm{𝐟𝐛}}\hfill & \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟒}𝜿^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐞}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐞}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐟}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜿𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐞}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}𝑪_{𝑰𝒎}\hfill & \\ 𝒋_𝐟^{\mathrm{𝐟𝐛}}\hfill & \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟐}𝜿𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐞}}𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐟}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑪_{𝑹𝒆}\mathbf{+}𝑪_{𝑰𝒎}\mathbf{\right)}\hfill & \\ 𝒈_𝐟^{\mathrm{𝐟𝐛}}\hfill & \mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(9.3)
with the following definitions:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝜿\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅𝜶}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.50}\hfill \\ 𝑪_{𝑰𝒎}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝚪_𝐙}{𝒎_𝐙}𝑸_𝐞𝑸_𝐟\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑭_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}\hfill \\ 𝑪_{𝑹𝒆}\mathbf{=}𝑸_𝐞𝑸_𝐟\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑭_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}\hfill \\ 𝑭_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝜶\mathbf{\left(}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{\right)}}{𝜶}\mathbf{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9.4)
where $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{)}`$ is the complex fine-structure constant, and $`𝜶\mathbf{}𝜶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. The photonic virtual and bremsstrahlung corrections are included through the convolution of Equations 9.1 and 9.2 with radiator functions as in the 5 and 9 parameter fits. The expressions of the S-Matrix parameters in terms of the effective vector and axial-vector couplings given above neglect the imaginary parts of the effective couplings.

The usual definitions of the mass $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and width $`𝚪_𝐙`$ of a Breit-Wigner resonance are used, the width being $`𝒔`$-dependent, such that:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}𝒎_𝐙\hfill & \mathbf{}\hfill & \overline{𝒎}_𝐙\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝚪}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}\hfill & \mathbf{}\hfill & \overline{𝒎}_𝐙\hfill & \mathbf{+}& \hfill \mathbf{34.20}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{/}𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\\ 𝚪_𝐙\hfill & \mathbf{}\hfill & \overline{𝚪}_𝐙\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝚪}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝒎}_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}}\hfill & \mathbf{}\hfill & \overline{𝚪}_𝐙\hfill & \mathbf{+}& \hfill \mathbf{0.94}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(9.5)
In the following fits, the predictions from the S-Matrix ansatz and the QED convolution for cross-sections and asymmetries are made using SMATASY , which in turn uses ZFITTER  to calculate the QED convolution of the electroweak kernel. In case of the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ final state, $`𝒕`$-channel and $`𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒕`$ interference contributions are added to the $`𝒔`$-channel ansatz.

### 9.3 LEP combination

In the following sections the combinations of the results from the individual LEP experiments are described: firstly the LEP-I combination, then the combination of both LEP-I and LEP-II data. The results from these combinations are compared in Section 9.3.3. Although all 16 parameters are averaged during the combination, only results for the parameters $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ are reported here. Systematic studies specific to the other parameters are ongoing.

#### 9.3.1 LEP-I combination

Individual LEP experiments have their own determinations of the 16 S-Matrix parameters  from LEP-I data alone, using the full LEP-I data sets.

These results are averaged using a multi-parameter BLUE technique based on an extension of Reference 85. Sources of systematic uncertainty correlated between the experiments have been investigated, using techniques described in  and are accounted for in the averaging procedure and benefiting from the experience gained in those combinations.

The parameters $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ are the most sensitive of all 16 S-matrix parameters to the inclusion of the LEP-II data, and are also the most interesting ones in the context of the 5 and 9 parameter fits. For these parameters the most significant source of systematic error which is correlated between experiments comes from the uncertainty on the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ collision energy as determined by models of the LEP RF system and calibrations using the resonant depolarisation technique. These errors amount to $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟑}`$ MeV on $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.16}`$ on $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ with a correlation coefficient of $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.86}`$. The LEP averaged values of $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ are given in Table 9.1, together with their correlation coefficient. The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$D.O.F. for the average of all 16 parameters is 62.0/48, corresponding to a probability of $`\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\%}`$, which is acceptable.

#### 9.3.2 LEP-I and LEP-II combination

Some experiments have determined S-Matrix parameters using their LEP-I and LEP-II measured cross-sections and forward-backward asymmetries . To do a full LEP combination would require each experiment to provide S-Matrix results and would require an analysis of the correlated systematic errors on each measured parameter.

However, preliminary combinations of the measurements of forward-backward asymmetries and cross-sections from all 4 LEP experiments, for the full LEP-II period, have already been made  and correlations between these measurements have been estimated. The combination procedure averages measurements of cross-sections and asymmetry for those events with reduced centre-of-mass energies, $`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}}`$, close to the actual centre-of-mass energy of the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ beams, $`\sqrt{𝒔}`$, removing those events which are less sensitive to the $`𝐙\mathbf{}𝜸`$ interference where, predominantly, initial state radiation reduces the centre-of-mass energy to close to the mass of the $`𝐙`$. The only significant correlations are those between hadronic cross-section measurements at different energies, which are around 20–40%, depending on energies.

The predictions from SMATASY are fitted to the combined LEP-II cross-section and forward-backward asymmetry measurements . The signal definition 1 of Reference 120 is used for the data and for the predictions of SMATASY. Theoretical uncertainties on the S-Matrix predictions for the LEP-II results and on the corrections of the LEP II data to the common signal defintion are taken to be the same as for the Standard Model predictions of ZFITTER  which are dominated by uncertainties in the QED convolution. These amount to a relative uncertainty of $`\mathbf{0.26}\mathbf{\%}`$ on the hadronic cross-sections, fully correlated between all LEP-II energies.

The fit also uses as inputs the averaged LEP-I S-Matrix parameters and covariance matrix. These inputs effectively constrain those parameters, such as $`𝒎_𝐙`$, which are not accurately determined by LEP-II data. There are no significant correlations between the LEP-I and LEP-II inputs.

The LEP averaged values of $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ for both LEP-I and LEP-II data are given in Table 9.1, together with their correlation coefficient. The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$D.O.F. for the average of all 16 parameters is 64.4/60, corresponding to a probability of $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}\mathbf{\%}`$, which is good.

#### 9.3.3 Discussion

In the LEP-I combination the measured values of the Z boson mass $`𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{=}\mathbf{91.1925}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0059}`$ GeV agrees well with the results of the standard 9 parameter fit ($`\mathbf{91.1876}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}`$ GeV) albeit with a significantly larger error, resulting from the correlation with the large uncertainty on $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ which is then the dominant source of uncertainty on $`𝒎_𝐙`$ in the S-Matrix fits. The measured value of $`𝒋{}_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}{}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.084}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.324}`$ , also agrees with the prediction of the Standard Model ($`\mathbf{0.2201}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.0137}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.0032}}`$).

Including the LEP-II data brings a significant improvement in the uncertainty on the size of the interference between $`𝐙`$ and photon exchange compared to LEP-I data alone. The measured value $`𝒋{}_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}{}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.277}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.065}`$, agrees well with the values predicted from the Standard Model. Correspondingly, the uncertainty on the the mass of the $`𝐙`$ in this ansatz, $`\mathbf{2.3}`$ MeV, is close to the precision obtained from LEP-I data alone using the standard 9 parameter fit, $`\mathbf{2.1}`$ MeV. The slightly larger error is due to the uncertainty on $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ which amounts to 0.9 MeV. The measured value, $`𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{=}\mathbf{91.1869}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0023}`$ GeV, agrees with that obtained from the standard 9 parameter fits. The results are summarised in Figure 9.1.

The good agreement found between the values of $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ and their expectations provide a validation of the approach taken in the standard 5 and 9 parameter fits, in which the size of the interference between $`𝐙`$ boson and photon exchange in the hadronic cross-sections was fixed to the Standard Model expectation.

The precision on $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ is slightly better than that obtained by the VENUS collaboration  of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}`$, which was obtained using preliminary results from LEP-I and their own measurements of the hadronic cross-section below the $`𝐙`$ resonance. The measurement of the hadronic cross-sections from VENUS  and TOPAZ  could be included in the future to give a further reduction in the uncertainty on $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$.

Work is in progress to understand those sources of systematic error, correlated between experiments, which are significant for the remaining S-Matrix parameter that have not been presented here. In particular, for $`𝒋_𝐞^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ and $`𝒋_𝐞^{\mathrm{𝐟𝐛}}`$, it is important to understand the errors resulting from $`𝒕`$-channel contributions to the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ process. These errors have only limited impact on the standard 5 and 9 parameter fits.

### 9.4 Conclusion

Results for the S-Matrix parameter $`𝒎_𝐙`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$ have been presented for LEP-I data alone and for a fit using the full data sets for LEP-I and LEP-II from all 4 LEP experiments. Inclusion of LEP-II data brings a significant improvement in the determination of $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$, the fitted value $`\mathbf{0.277}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.065}`$, agrees well with the values predicted from the Standard Model. As a result in the improvement of the uncertainty in $`𝒋_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐭}}`$, the uncertainty on the fitted value of $`𝒎_𝐙`$ approaches that of the standard 5 and 9 parameter fits and the measured value $`𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{=}\mathbf{91.1869}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0023}`$ GeV is compatible with that from the standard fits.

## Chapter 10 W and Four-Fermion Production at LEP-II

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
New preliminary averages are performed with improved treatment of correlated uncertainties. Averages for WW$`𝜸`$ and Zee production cross sections are performed for the first time.

### 10.1 Introduction

This chapter summarises the combination of published and preliminary results of the four LEP experiments on four-fermion cross-sections for the Summer 2002 Conferences. If not stated otherwise, all presented results use the full LEP2 data sample at centre–of–mass energies up to 209 GeV and have to be considered as preliminary.

With respect to the results presented at the Winter 2002 Conferences , improved combination procedures for the measurements of W-pair, Z-pair and single-W cross-sections are used. This allowed to derive the average ratio of the measured cross-sections to the corresponding theoretical predictions from various models. For the first time the combination of single-Z and WW$`𝜸`$ cross-sections are also presented.

The centre–of–mass energies and the corresponding integrated luminosities are provided by the experiments and are the same used for previous conferences. The LEP energy value in each point (or group of points) is the luminosity-weighted average of those values.

Cross-section results from different experiments are combined by $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate method described in Ref. , properly taking into account the correlations between the systematic uncertainties.

The detailed breakdown of systematic errors for the measurements combined in this note is described in Appendix C. Experimental results are compared with recent theoretical predictions, many of which were developed in the framework of the LEP2 Monte Carlo workshop .

### 10.2 W-pair production cross-section

All experiments have published final results on the W-pair (CC03 ) production cross-section for centre–of–mass energies from 161 to 189 GeV  and have contributed to conferences preliminary measurements at $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}`$–207 GeV. Although none of these results have been updated by the experiments for the Summer 2002 Conferences, new LEP averages of the measurements at the eight centre–of–mass energies between 183 and 207 GeV have been computed, using a new grouping of the systematic errors which improves the treatment of correlations in the combination. In particular, some of the sources of systematics which were previously considered as uncorrelated between energy or experiments are now treated as fully correlated. The total systematic errors of the experiments are unchanged with respect to previous conferences. In the new grouping fragmentation effects (both on signal and backgrounds), final state interactions in the hadronic channel (Bose-Einstein and Colour Reconnection) and the theory uncertainties on radiative corrections are now treated as 100% LEP and energy correlated. Also the part of the systematic error in the luminosity determination due to theory error in the Bhabha cross-section is now treated as fully correlated. The detailed inputs used for the combination are given in Appendix C.

The measured statistical errors are used for the combination; after building the full 32$`\mathbf{\times }`$32 covariance matrix for the measurements, the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation fit is performed by matrix algebra, as described in Ref. , and is cross-checked using Minuit .

The results from each experiment for the W-pair production cross-section are shown in Table 10.1, together with the LEP combination at each energy. All measurements assume Standard Model values for the W decay branching fractions. The results for centre–of–mass energies between 183 and 207 GeV, for which new LEP averages have been computed, supersede the ones presented in : the new grouping of the systematic errors does not affect the central value of the cross-section but degrades, as expected, the total errors in each point by about 10%. The combined LEP cross-sections at the eight energies are all positively correlated, with correlations ranging from 13% to 34%. For completeness, the measurements at 161 and 172 GeV are also listed in the table.

Figure 10.1 shows the combined LEP W-pair cross-section measured as a function of the centre–of–mass energy. The experimental points are compared with the theoretical calculations from YFSWW  and RACOONWW  between 155 and 215 GeV for $`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.35}`$ GeV. The two codes have been extensively compared and agree at a level better than 0.5% at the LEP2 energies . The calculations above 170 GeV, based for the two programs on the so-called leading pole (LPA) or double pole approximations (DPA) , have theoretical uncertainties decreasing from 0.7% at 170 GeV to about 0.4% at centre–of–mass energies larger than 200 GeV, while in the threshold region, where the codes are run in Improved Born Approximation, a larger theoretical uncertainty of 2% is assigned . This theoretical uncertainty is represented by the blue band in Figure 10.1. An error of 50 MeV on the W mass would translate into additional errors of 0.1% (3.0%) on the cross-section predictions at 200 GeV (161 GeV, respectively). All results, up to the highest centre–of–mass energies, are in agreement with the considered theoretical predictions.

The agreement between the measured W-pair cross-section, $`𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬}}`$, and its expectation according to a given theoretical model, $`𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$, can be expressed quantitatively in terms of their ratio

$$𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬}}}{𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(10.1)
averaged over the measurements performed by the four experiments at different energies in the LEP2 region. The above procedure has been used to compare the measurements at the eight energies between 183 and 207 GeV to the predictions of GENTLE , KORALW , YFSWW  and RACOONWW . The measurements at 161 and 172 GeV have not been used in the combination because they were performed using data samples of low statistics and because of the high sensitivity of the cross-section to the value of the W mass at these energies.

The combination of the ratio $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ is performed using as input from the four experiments the 32 cross-sections measured at each of the eight energies. These are then converted into 32 ratios by dividing them by the considered theoretical predictions, listed in Appendix C. The full 32$`\mathbf{\times }`$32 covariance matrix for the ratios is built taking into account the same sources of systematic errors used for the combination of the W-pair cross-sections at these energies. As for the total cross-section measurement, the effect of the new grouping of the systematic is to increase the total error on $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ by 10%; the central values change by no more than 30% of the total error.

The small statistical errors on the theoretical predictions at the various energies, taken as fully correlated for the four experiments and uncorrelated between different energies, are also translated into errors on the individual measurements of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$. The theoretical errors on the predictions, due to the physical and technical precision of the generators used, are not propagated to the individual ratios but are used when comparing the combined values of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ to unity. For each of the four models considered, two fits are performed: in the first, eight values of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ at the different energies are extracted, averaged over the four experiments; in the second, only one value of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ is determined, representing the global agreement of measured and predicted cross-sections over the whole energy range.

The results of the two fits to $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ for the two models are given in Table 10.2. As already qualitatively noted from Figure 10.1, the LEP measurements of the W-pair cross-section above threshold are in very good agreement to the predictions of YFSWW and RACOONWW. In contrast, the predictions from GENTLE and KORALW are more than 2% too high with respect to the measurements; the equivalent values of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}}`$ in those cases are, respectively, $`\mathbf{0.972}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.011}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.978}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.011}`$. The main differences between these two sets of predictions come from non-leading $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ electroweak radiative corrections to the W-pair production process and non-factorisable corrections, which are included (in the LPA/DPA approximation ) in both YFSWW and RACOONWW, but not in GENTLE and KORALW. The data clearly prefer the computations which more precisely include $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ radiative corrections.

The results of the fits for YFSWW and RACOONWWare also shown in Figure 10.2, where relative errors of 0.5% on the cross-section predictions have been assumed. For simplicity in the figure the energy dependence of the theory error on the W-pair cross-section has been neglected.

### 10.3 Z-pair production cross-section

Final results of the measurements of the Z-pair production cross-section, defined as the NC02  contribution to four-fermion cross-sections, have been published by ALEPH, DELPHI and OPAL at $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟑}`$ and 189 GeV  and by L3 at all energies between 183 and 202 GeV . All experiments have also contributed preliminary results for all other energies up to 207 GeV. With respect to the Winter 2002 Conferences, L3  and DELPHI  have provided preliminary updates of their previous measurements at 205-207 GeV and 183-207 GeV, respectively.

The combination of results is performed with the same technique used for the WW cross-section. The symmetrized expected statistical error of each analysis is used, to avoid biases due to the limited number of selected events. The approach to determine the cross-section is different among the experiments: DELPHI uses a bayesian approach with the prior knowledge that the cross-section has to be positive, whereas a frequentist interval is given by the other experiments. This induces a certain inconsistency in the way the ZZ cross-section combination is performed, which might lead to wrong results in the low statistics/cross-section energy points like 183 or 192 GeV. However, using private DELPHI results given in a way consistent with the other collaborations, it was verified that the effect in the combined value is negligible, both in terms of error and central values.

In addition to the results presented at the last Winter 2002 Conferences , the correlation in energy of some of the systematic sources is now accounted for in the combination. These include the uncertainty on the backgrounds from q$`\overline{𝐪}`$, WW, Zee and We$`𝝂`$ processes and the uncertainty on the b quark modelling.

The results of the individual experiments and the LEP averages are summarised for the different centre–of–mass energies in Table 10.3. The combination of final results at $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟑}`$ and 189 GeV is the same that was given for the Summer 2000 Conferences . The results above 189 GeV supersede those presented for the Winter 2002 Conferences , and are all preliminary with the exception of the L3 results between 192 and 202 GeV.

The measurements are shown in Figure 10.3 as a function of the LEP centre–of–mass energy, where they are compared to the YFSZZ  and ZZTO  predictions. Both these calculations have an estimated uncertainty of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ . The data do not show any significant deviation from the theoretical expectations.

In analogy with the W-pair cross-section, a value for $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}}`$ can also be determined: its definition and the procedure of the combination follows the one described in the previous section. The data are compared with the YFSZZ and ZZTO predictions; table 10.4 reports the numerical values of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}}`$ in energy and combined, whereas figure 10.4 show them in comparison to unity, where the $`\mathbf{\pm }`$2% error on the theoretical ZZ cross-section is shown as a yellow band. The experimental accuracy on the combined value of $`𝓡_{\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}}`$ is about 5.5%.

The theory predictions, the details of the experimental inputs with the the breakdown of the error contributions and the LEP combined values of the total cross-sections and the ratios to theory are reported in Appendix C.

### 10.4 Single-W production cross-section

Single-W production at LEP2 is defined as the complete $`𝒕`$-channel subset of Feynman diagrams contributing to e$`𝝂_𝐞`$f$`\overline{𝐟}^{\mathbf{}}`$ final states, with additional cuts on kinematic variables to exclude the regions of phase space dominated by multiperipheral diagrams, where the cross-section calculation is affected by large uncertainties. The kinematic cuts used in the signal definitions are: $`𝒎_{𝐪\overline{𝐪}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}`$ GeV/c2 for the $`𝐞𝝂_𝐞𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ final states, $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ GeV for the $`𝐞𝝂_𝐞\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ final states with $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝝁`$ or $`𝝉`$, and finally $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.95}`$, $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽_{𝐞^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.95}`$ and $`𝑬_{𝐞^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ GeV (or the charge conjugate cuts) for the $`𝐞𝝂_𝐞𝐞𝝂_𝐞`$ final states.

Since the Summer 2001 Conferences only L3  has presented new measurements of the single-W cross-section, updating the published results corresponding to data taken at energies from 192 to 207 GeV, while none of the other results previously presented by the four experiments have been updated. These include published results by DELPHI  and L3  and preliminary results by ALEPH , DELPHI  and OPAL . The measurements performed on the small amount of data below 183 GeV, by L3 at 130–172  and ALEPH at 161–172 GeV , have not been converted into the single-W common LEP definition and are absent from the tables and the following plots.

A new combination of LEP results at all centre–of–mass energies has been performed, taking properly into account correlations of the systematic errors in energy and among experiments, in analogy with the WW and ZZ cross-section determinations. The expected statistical errors have been used for all measurements, given the limited statistical precision of the single-W cross-section measurements. The total and the hadronic single-W cross-sections, less contaminated by $`𝜸𝜸`$ interaction contributions, are combined independently; the inputs by the four LEP experiments between 183 and 207 GeV are listed in Tables 10.5 and 10.6, and the corresponding LEP combined values presented.

The LEP measurements of the single-W cross-section are shown, as a function of the LEP centre–of–mass energy, in Figure 10.5 for the hadronic decays and in Figure 10.6 for all decays of the W boson. In the two figures, the measurements are compared with the expected values from WPHACT  and grc4f . WTO , which includes fermion-loop corrections for the hadronic final states, is also used in figure 10.5. As discussed more in detail in  and , the theoretical predictions are scaled upward to correct for the implementation of QED radiative corrections at the wrong energy scale s. The full correction factor of 4%, derived  by the comparison to the theoretical predictions from SWAP , is conservatively taken as a systematic error. This uncertainty dominates the $`\mathbf{\pm }`$5% theoretical error currently assigned to these predictions , represented by the shaded area in Figures 10.5 and 10.6. All results, up to the highest centre–of–mass energies, are in agreement with the theoretical predictions.

The agreement can also be appreciated in table 10.7, where the values of the ratio between measured and expected cross-section values according to the computations by grc4f and WPHACT are reported. The combination is performed accounting for the energy and experiment correlations of the systematic sources. The results are also presented in figure 10.7.

The theory predictions and the details of the experimental inputs and the LEP combined values of the single-W cross-sections and the ratios to theory are reported in Appendix C.

### 10.5 Single-Z production cross-section

For the first time a LEP combination on the single-Z production cross-section has been performed using preliminary ALEPH , DELPHI  and L3  inputs to the Summer 2002 Conferences. Single-Z production at LEP2 is studied considering only the $`𝒆𝒆𝒒\overline{𝒒}`$, $`𝒆𝒆𝝁𝝁`$ final states with the following phase space cuts and assuming one visible electron: $`𝒎_{𝒒\overline{𝒒}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_{𝝁𝝁}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}`$ GeV/c2, $`𝜽_{𝐞^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}`$ degrees, 12 degrees$`\mathbf{<}𝜽_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{<}`$120 degrees and $`𝑬_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}`$3 GeV, with obvious notation and where the angle is defined with respect to the beam pipe, with the positron direction being along $`\mathbf{+}𝒛`$ and the electron direction being along $`\mathbf{}𝒛`$. Corresponding cuts are imposed when the positron is visible: $`𝜽_𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟖}`$ degrees, 60 degrees$`\mathbf{<}𝜽_{𝐞^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{<}`$168 degrees and $`𝑬_{𝐞^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{>}`$3 GeV.

Tables 10.8 and 10.9 synthesize the inputs by the experiments and the corresponding LEP combinations in the hadronic and muon channel, respectively. The $`𝒆𝒆𝝁𝝁`$ cross-section is already combined in energy by the individual experiments to increase the statistics of the data. The combination accounts for energy and experiment correlation of the systematic errors. The results in the hadronic channel are compared with the WPHACT and grc4f predictions as a function of the centre–of–mass energy and shown in figure 10.8. Table 10.10 and figure 10.9 show the preliminary values of the ratio between measured and expected cross-sections at the various energy points and the combined value; the testing accuracy of the combined value is about 8% with only two experiments contributing in the average.

The detailed breakdown of the inputs of the experiments with the split up of the systematic contribution according to the correlations for the single-Z cross-section and its ratio to theory can be found in Appendix C.

### 10.6 WW$`𝜸`$ production cross-section

For the first time a LEP combination on the WW$`𝜸`$ production cross-section has been performed using preliminary DELPHI  and L3  inputs to the Summer 2002 Conferences. The signal is defined as the part of the WW$`𝜸`$ process with the following cuts to the photon: $`𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}`$5 GeV, $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽_𝜸\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}`$0.95, $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽_{𝜸\mathbf{,}𝒇}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}`$0.90 and $`𝒎_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝑾\mathbf{<}𝒎_{𝒇𝒇^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{<}𝒎_𝑾\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝑾`$ where $`𝜽_{𝜸\mathbf{,}𝒇}`$ is the angle between the photon and the closest charged fermion and $`𝒎_{𝒇𝒇^{\mathbf{}}}`$ is the invariant mass of fermions from the $`𝑾`$s.

In order to increase the statistics, the LEP combination is performed in energy intervals rather than at each energy point; they are defined according to the LEP2 running period where more statistics was accumulated. The luminosity weighted centre–of–mass per interval is determined in each experiment and then combined to obtain the corresponding value in the combination. Table 10.11 reports those energies and the cross-sections measured by the experiments, together with the combined LEP values. Figure 10.10 shows the combined data points compared with the cross-section prediction by EEWWG

### 10.7 Summary

The updated combinations of the W-pair, Z-pair and single-W cross-section measurements, based on data collected up to 209 GeV by the four LEP experiments, has been presented. For the first time new LEP combinations of single-Z and WW$`𝜸`$ production cross-sections based on the same data have also been performed. All measurements agree with the theoretical predictions.

This note still reflects a preliminary status of the analyses at the time of the Summer 2002 Conferences. A definitive statement on these results must wait for publication by each collaboration. Further work for the possibility of providing a LEP combination of W angular differential distributions and other cross-sections in the neutral current sector (Z$`𝜸^{\mathbf{}}`$, Z$`𝜸𝜸`$) are ongoing.

## Chapter 11 Electroweak Gauge Boson Self Couplings

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
New preliminary results on charged TGCs are presented taking the effects of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ radiative corrections in W-pair production into account. A new combination of Quartic Gauge Couplings associated with the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$ vertex is presented.

### 11.1 Introduction

During its second phase of operation, from 1996 until November 2000, the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ collider LEP at CERN steadily increased its centre-of-mass energy from $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ reaching up to $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟗}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ in the final year. Until the end of LEP-II operation, a total integrated luminosity of approximately $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟎𝟎}\text{pb}\text{-1}`$ per experiment has been recorded.

The measurement of gauge boson couplings and the search for possible anomalous contributions due to the effects of new physics beyond the Standard Model are among the principal physics aims at LEP-II . Combined preliminary measurements of triple gauge boson couplings are presented here. Results from W-pair production are combined in single and also multi-parameter fits, the latter for the first time including $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections. A new combination of quartic gauge coupling (QGC) results for the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex is also presented, including at this stage data from L3 and OPAL. The combination of QGCs associated with the $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸𝜸`$ vertex, including the sign convention as reported in  and the reweighting based on  is foreseen for our next report. The combinations for neutral TGCs remain unchanged from our report  of last summer.

The W-pair production process, $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$, involves charged triple gauge boson vertices between the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the Z or photon. During LEP-II operation, about 10,000 W-pair events were collected by each experiment. Single W ($`𝐞𝝂𝐖`$) and single photon ($`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸`$) production at LEP are also sensitive to the $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸`$ vertex. Results from these channels are also included in the combination for some experiments; the individual references should be consulted for details.

For the charged TGCs, Monte Carlo calculations (RacoonWW  and YFSWW ) incorporating an improved treatment of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to the WW production process have recently become available. These corrections affect the measurements of the charged TGCs in W-pair production. Preliminary results including these $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections have been submitted from all four LEP collaborations ALEPH , DELPHI , L3  and OPAL . LEP combinations are made for the charged TGC measurements in single-, two- and three-parameter fits.

At centre-of-mass energies exceeding twice the Z boson mass, pair production of Z bosons is kinematically allowed. Here, one searches for the possible existence of triple vertices involving only neutral electroweak gauge bosons. Such vertices could also contribute to Z$`𝜸`$ production. In contrast to triple gauge boson vertices with two charged gauge bosons, purely neutral gauge boson vertices do not occur in the Standard Model of electroweak interactions.

Within the Standard Model, quartic electroweak gauge boson vertices with at least two charged gauge bosons exist. In $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ collisions at LEP-II centre-of-mass energies, the $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖𝐙}𝜸`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸𝜸`$ vertices contribute to $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸`$ and $`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸𝜸`$ production in $`𝒔`$-channel and $`𝒕`$-channel, respectively. The effect of the Standard Model quartic electroweak vertices is below the sensitivity of LEP-II. Quartic gauge boson vertices with only neutral bosons, like the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex, do not exist in the Standard Model. However, anomalous QGCs associated with this vertex are studied at LEP.

Anomalous quartic vertices are searched for in the production of $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸`$, $`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸𝜸`$ and $`𝐙𝜸𝜸`$ final states. The couplings related to the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  and $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸𝜸`$ vertices are assumed to be different , and are therefore treated separately. In this report, we only combine the results for the anomalous couplings associated with the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex. The combination of the $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸𝜸`$ vertex couplings is foreseen for the near future.

#### 11.1.1 Charged Triple Gauge Boson Couplings

The parametrisation of the charged triple gauge boson vertices is described in References . The most general Lorentz invariant Lagrangian which describes the triple gauge boson interaction has fourteen independent complex couplings, seven describing the WW$`𝜸`$ vertex and seven describing the WWZ vertex. Assuming electromagnetic gauge invariance as well as C and P conservation, the number of independent TGCs reduces to five. A common set is {$`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙\mathbf{,}𝜿_𝐙\mathbf{,}𝜿_𝜸\mathbf{,}𝝀_𝐙`$, $`𝝀_𝜸`$} where $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙\mathbf{=}𝜿_𝐙\mathbf{=}𝜿_𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝝀_𝐙\mathbf{=}𝝀_𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the Standard Model. The parameters proposed in  and used by the LEP experiments are $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙`$, $`𝝀_𝜸`$ and $`𝜿_𝜸`$ with the gauge constraints:

$`𝜿_𝐙`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝜿_𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝐖\mathbf{,}`$ (11.1)
$`𝝀_𝐙`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝝀_𝜸\mathbf{,}`$ (11.2)
where $`𝜽_𝑾`$ is the weak mixing angle. The couplings are considered as real, with the imaginary parts fixed to zero. In contrast to previous LEP combinations , we are now quoting the measured coupling values themselves and not their deviation from the Standard Model.

Note that the photonic couplings $`𝝀_𝜸`$ and $`𝜿_𝜸`$ are related to the magnetic and electric properties of the W-boson. One can write the lowest order terms for a multipole expansion describing the W-$`𝜸`$ interaction as a function of $`𝝀_𝜸`$ and $`𝜿_𝜸`$. For the magnetic dipole moment $`𝝁_𝑾`$ and the electric quadrupole moment $`𝒒_𝑾`$ one obtains $`𝒆\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜿_𝜸\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝐖`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝒆\mathbf{(}𝜿_𝜸\mathbf{}𝝀_𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, respectively.

The inclusion of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections in the Monte Carlo calculations has a considerable effect on the charged TGC measurement. Both the total cross-section and the differential distributions are affected. The cross-section is reduced by 1-2% (depending on the energy). Amongst the differential distributions, the effects are naturally more complex. The polar W- production angle carries most of the information on the TGC parameters; its shape is modified to be more forwardly peaked. In a fit to data, the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ effect manifests itself as a negative shift of the obtained TGC values with a magnitude of typically -0.015 for $`𝝀_𝜸`$ and $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙`$ and -0.04 for $`𝜿_𝜸`$.

#### 11.1.2 Neutral Triple Gauge Boson Couplings

There are two classes of Lorentz invariant structures associated with neutral TGC vertices which preserve $`𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_{𝒆𝒎}`$ and Bose symmetry, as described in .

The first class refers to anomalous Z$`𝜸𝜸^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐙𝜸𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ couplings which are accessible at LEP in the process $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐙𝜸`$. The parametrisation contains eight couplings: $`𝒉_𝒊^𝑽`$ with $`𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝜸`$,Z. The superscript $`𝜸`$ refers to Z$`𝜸𝜸^{\mathbf{}}`$ couplings and superscript Z refers to $`𝐙𝜸𝐙^{\mathbf{}}`$ couplings. The photon and the Z boson in the final state are considered as on-shell particles, while the third boson at the vertex, the $`𝒔`$-channel internal propagator, is off shell. The couplings $`𝒉_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑽`$ and $`𝒉_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑽`$ are CP-odd while $`𝒉_\mathrm{𝟑}^𝑽`$ and $`𝒉_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝑽`$ are CP-even.

The second class refers to anomalous $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙𝐙}^{\mathbf{}}`$ couplings which are accessible at LEP-II in the process $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ ZZ. This anomalous vertex is parametrised in terms of four couplings: $`𝒇_𝒊^𝑽`$ with $`𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝜸`$,Z. The superscript $`𝜸`$ refers to ZZ$`𝜸^{\mathbf{}}`$ couplings and the superscript Z refers to $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙𝐙}^{\mathbf{}}`$ couplings, respectively. Both Z bosons in the final state are assumed to be on-shell, while the third boson at the triple vertex, the $`𝒔`$-channel internal propagator, is off-shell. The couplings $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝑽`$ are CP-odd whereas $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟓}^𝑽`$ are CP-even.

The $`𝒉_𝒊^𝑽`$ and $`𝒇_𝒊^𝑽`$ couplings are assumed to be real and they vanish at tree level in the Standard Model.

#### 11.1.3 Quartic Gauge Boson Couplings

The couplings associated with the two QGC vertices $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐖}𝜸𝜸`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  are assumed to be different, and are by convention treated as separate couplings at LEP. In this report, we only combine QGCs related to the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex. The contribution of such anomalous quartic gauge boson couplings is described by two coupling parameters $`𝒂_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{/}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which are zero in the Standard Model . Events from $`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸𝜸`$ and $`𝐙𝜸𝜸`$ final states can originate from the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex and are therefore used to study anomalous QGCs.

### 11.2 Measurements

The combined results presented here are obtained from charged and neutral electroweak gauge boson coupling measurements, and from quartic gauge boson couplings measurements as discussed above. The individual references should be consulted for details about the data samples used.

The charged TGC analyses of ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL use data collected at LEP-II up to centre-of-mass energies of 209 GeV. These analyses use different channels, typically the semileptonic and fully hadronic W-pair decays . The full data set is analysed by ALEPH and OPAL, whereas DELPHI presently uses all data at 189 $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and above; L3 at this stage uses data from the semileptonic channel only. Anomalous TGCs affect both the total production cross-section and the shape of the differential cross-section as a function of the polar W- production angle. The relative contributions of each helicity state of the W bosons are also changed, which in turn affects the distributions of their decay products. The analyses presented by each experiment make use of different combinations of each of these quantities. In general, however, all analyses use at least the expected variations of the total production cross-section and the W- production angle. Results from $`𝐞𝝂𝐖`$ and $`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸`$ production are included by some experiments. Single W production is particularly sensitive to $`𝜿_𝜸`$, thus providing information complementary to that from W-pair production.

The $`𝒉`$-coupling analyses of ALEPH, DELPHI and L3 use data collected up to centre-of-mass energies of 209 GeV. The OPAL measurements so far use the data at 189 GeV. The results of the $`𝒇`$-couplings are now obtained from the whole data set above the ZZ-production threshold by all of the experiments. The experiments already pre-combine different processes and final states for each of the couplings. For the neutral TGCs, the analyses use measurements of the total cross sections of Z$`𝜸`$ and ZZ production and the differential distributions: the $`𝒉_𝒊^𝑽`$ couplings  and the $`𝒇_𝒊^𝑽`$ couplings  are determined.

The combination of quartic gauge boson couplings associated with the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex is at present based on analyses of L3  and OPAL . The L3 analysis uses data from the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝜸𝜸`$ final state at centre-of-mass energies of 205 GeV and 207 GeV. OPAL analyses the $`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸𝜸`$ final state at centre-of-mass energies ranging from 189 GeV to 209 GeV.

### 11.3 Combination Procedure

The combination is based on the individual likelihood functions from the four LEP experiments. Each experiment provides the negative log likelihood, $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$, as a function of the coupling parameters to be combined. The single-parameter analyses are performed fixing all other parameters to their Standard Model values. The two-parameter analyses are performed setting the remaining parameters to their Standard Model values. For the charged TGCs, the gauge constraints listed in Section 11.1.1 are always enforced.

The $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ functions from each experiment include statistical as well as those systematic uncertainties which are considered as uncorrelated between experiments. For both single- and multi-parameter combinations, the individual $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ functions are combined. It is necessary to use the $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ functions directly in the combination, since in some cases they are not parabolic, and hence it is not possible to properly combine the results by simply taking weighted averages of the measurements.

The main contributions to the systematic uncertainties that are uncorrelated between experiments arise from detector effects, background in the selected signal samples, limited Monte Carlo statistics and the fitting method. Their importance varies for each experiment and the individual references should be consulted for details.

In the neutral TGC sector, the systematic uncertainties arising from the theoretical cross section prediction in Z$`𝜸`$-production ($`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$ in the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝜸`$\- and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ in the $`𝝂\overline{𝝂}𝜸`$ channel) are treated as correlated. For ZZ production, the uncertainty on the theoretical cross section prediction is small compared to the statistical accuracy and therefore is neglected. Smaller sources of correlated systematic uncertainties, such as those arising from the LEP beam energy, are for simplicity treated as uncorrelated.

The combination procedure for neutral TGCs, where the relative systematic uncertainties are small, is unchanged with respect to the previous LEP combinations of electroweak gauge boson couplings . The correlated systematic uncertainties in the $`𝒉`$-coupling analyses are taken into account by scaling the combined log-likelihood functions by the squared ratio of the sum of statistical and uncorrelated systematic uncertainty over the total uncertainty including all correlated uncertainties. For the general case of non-Gaussian probability density functions, this treatment of the correlated errors is only an approximation; it also neglects correlations in the systematic uncertainties between the parameters in multi-parameter analyses.

In the charged TGC sector, systematic uncertainties considered correlated between the experiments are the theoretical cross section prediction ($`\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}`$ for W-pair production and $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ for single W production), hadronisation effects, the final state interactions, namely Bose-Einstein correlations and colour reconnection, and the uncertainty in the radiative corrections themselves. The latter is by convention presently taken to be the difference between Monte Carlo samples with and without the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections respectively, as a reliable and applicable estimate of this uncertainty is still under study. This conservative approach makes the radiative correction uncertainty by far the dominant contribution.

In case of the charged TGCs, the systematic uncertainties considered correlated between the experiments amount to roughly 70% of the combined statistical and uncorrelated uncertainties for $`𝝀_𝜸`$ and $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙`$, while for $`𝜿_𝜸`$ their contribution is equal. This means the measurement of $`𝝀_𝜸`$ and $`𝒈_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐙`$ is limited by statistics, whereas the precision in the $`𝜿_𝜸`$ measurement is limited by statistical and systematic uncertainties at the same level. An improved combination procedure  is used for the charged TGCs. This procedure allows the combination of statistical and correlated systematic uncertainties, independently of the analysis method chosen by the individual experiments.

The combination of charged TGCs uses the likelihood curves and correlated systematic errors submitted by each of the four experiments. The procedure is based on the introduction of an additional free parameter to take into account the systematic uncertainties, which are treated as shifts on the fitted TGC value, and are assumed to have a Gaussian distribution. A simultaneous minimisation of both parameters (TGC and systematic error) is performed to the log-likelihood function.

In detail, the combination proceeds in the following way: the set of measurements from the LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, OPAL and L3 is given with statistical plus uncorrelated systematic uncertainties in terms of likelihood curves: $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛_{𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕}^𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛_{𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕}^𝑫\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛_{𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕}^𝑳\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛_{𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕}^𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$, respectively, where $`𝒙`$ is the coupling parameter in question. Also given are the shifts for each of the five totally correlated sources of uncertainty mentioned above; each source $`𝑺`$ is leading to systematic errors $`𝝈_𝑨^𝑺`$, $`𝝈_𝑫^𝑺`$, $`𝝈_𝑳^𝑺`$ and $`𝝈_𝑶^𝑺`$.

Additional parameters $`𝚫^𝑺`$ are included in order to take into account a Gaussian distribution for each of the systematic uncertainties. The procedure then consists in minimising the function:

$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛_{𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \underset{𝑬\mathbf{=}𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑫\mathbf{,}𝑳\mathbf{,}𝑶}{\mathbf{}}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛_{𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕}^𝑬\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝑺\mathbf{=}𝑫𝑷𝑨\mathbf{,}𝝈_{𝑾𝑾}\mathbf{,}𝑯𝑨𝑫\mathbf{,}𝑩𝑬\mathbf{,}𝑪𝑹}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}𝝈_𝑬^𝑺𝚫^𝑺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝑺}{\mathbf{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}𝚫^𝑺\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$ (11.3)
where $`𝒙`$ and $`𝚫_𝑺`$ are the free parameters, and the sums run over the four experiments and the five systematic errors. The resulting uncertainty on $`𝒙`$ will take into account all sources of uncertainty, yielding a measurement of the coupling with the error representing statistical and systematic sources. The projection of the minima of the log-likelihood as a function of $`𝒙`$ gives the combined log-likelihood curve including statistical and systematic uncertainties. The advantage over the scaling method used previously is that it treats systematic uncertainties that are correlated between the experiments correctly, while not forcing the averaging of these systematic uncertainties into one global LEP systematics scaling factor. In other words, the (statistical) precision of each experiment now gets reduced by its own correlated systematic errors, instead of an averaged LEP systematic error. The method has been cross-checked against the scaling method, and was found to give comparable results. The inclusion of the systematic uncertainties lead to small differences as expected by the improved treatment of correlated systematic errors, a similar behaviour as seen in Monte Carlo comparisons of these two combinations methods . Furthermore, it was shown that the minimisation-based combination method used for the charged TGCs agrees with the method based on optimal observables, where systematic effects are included directly in the mean values of the optimal observables (see ), for any realistic ratio of statistical and systematic uncertainties. Further details on the improved combination method can be found in .

In the combination of the QGCs, the influence of correlated systematic uncertainties is considered negligible compared to the statistical error, arising from the small number of selected events. Therefore, the QGCs are combined by adding the log-likelihood curves from the single experiments.

For all single- and multi-parameter results quoted in numerical form, the one standard deviation uncertainties (68% confidence level) are obtained by taking the coupling values for which $`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.5}`$ above the minimum. The 95% confidence level (C.L.) limits are given by the coupling values for which $`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.92}`$ above the minimum. Note that in the case of the neutral TGCs, double minima structures appear in the negative log-likelihood curves. For multi-parameter analyses, the two dimensional 68% C.L. contour curves for any pair of couplings are obtained by requiring $`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.15}`$, while for the 95% C.L. contour curves $`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{3.0}`$ is required. Since the results on the different parameters and parameter sets are obtained from the same data sets, they cannot be combined.

### 11.4 Results

We present results from the four LEP experiments on the various electroweak gauge boson couplings, and their combination. The combined charged TGC results including $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections are available for the first time in two- and three-parameter fits; the single-parameter combination has been updated with the inclusion of recent results from ALEPH and OPAL . The neutral TGC results remain unchanged since our last note . The results quoted for each individual experiment are calculated using the methods described in Section 11.3. Therefore they may differ slightly from those reported in the individual references, as the experiments in general use other methods to combine the data from different channels, and to include systematic uncertainties. In particular for the charged couplings, experiments using a combination method based on optimal observables (ALEPH, OPAL) obtain results with small differences compared to the values given by our combination technique. These small differences have been studied in Monte Carlo tests and are well understood . For the $`𝒉`$-coupling result from OPAL and DELPHI, a slightly modified estimate of the systematic uncertainty due to the theoretical cross section prediction is responsible for slightly different limits compared to the published results.

#### 11.4.1 Charged Triple Gauge Boson Couplings

The individual analyses and results of the experiments for the charged couplings are described in .

##### Single-Parameter Analyses

The results of single-parameter fits from each experiment are shown in Table 11.1, where the errors include both statistical and systematic effects. The individual $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ curves and their sum are shown in Figure 11.1. The results of the combination are given in Table 11.2. A list of the systematic errors treated as fully correlated between the LEP experiments, and their shift on the combined fit result are given in Table 11.3.

##### Two-Parameter Analyses

The results of two-parameter fits from the experiments participating in the combination are shown in Table 11.4, where the errors include both statistical and systematic effects. Contours at 68% and 95% confidence level for the combined fits are shown in Figure 11.2. The numerical results of the combination are given in Table 11.5.

##### Three-Parameter Analysis

The results of the three-parameter fit from the experiments participating in the combination are shown in Table 11.6, where the errors include both statistical and systematic effects. Contours at 68% and 95% confidence level for the combined fit are shown in Figure 11.3. The numerical results of the combination are given in Table 11.7.

#### 11.4.2 Neutral Triple Gauge Boson Couplings in Z$`𝜸`$ Production

The individual analyses and results of the experiments for the $`𝒉`$-couplings are described in .

##### Single-Parameter Analyses

The results for each experiment are shown in Table 11.8, where the errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The individual $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ curves and their sum are shown in Figures 11.4 and 11.5. The results of the combination are given in Table 11.9. From Figures 11.4 and 11.5 it is clear that the sensitivity of the L3 analysis  is the highest amongst the LEP experiments. This is partially due to the use of a larger phase space region, which increases the statistics by about a factor two, and partially due to additional information from using an optimal-observable technique.

##### Two-Parameter Analyses

The results for each experiment are shown in Table 11.10, where the errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The 68% C.L. and 95% C.L. contour curves resulting from the combinations of the two-dimensional likelihood curves are shown in Figure 11.6. The LEP average values are given in Table 11.11.

#### 11.4.3 Neutral Triple Gauge Boson Couplings in ZZ Production

The individual analyses and results of the experiments for the $`𝒇`$-couplings are described in .

##### Single-Parameter Analyses

The results for each experiment are shown in Table 11.12, where the errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The individual $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ curves and their sum are shown in Figure 11.7. The results of the combination are given in Table 11.13.

##### Two-Parameter Analyses

The results from each experiment are shown in Table 11.14, where the errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The 68% C.L. and 95% C.L. contour curves resulting from the combinations of the two-dimensional likelihood curves are shown in Figure 11.8. The LEP average values are given in Table 11.15.

#### 11.4.4 Quartic Gauge Boson Couplings

The individual numerical results from the experiments participating in the combination, and the combined result are shown in Table 11.16. The corresponding $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛`$ curves are shown in Figure 11.9. The errors include both statistical and systematic uncertainties.

### Conclusions

Combinations of charged and neutral triple gauge boson couplings, as well as quartic gauge boson couplings associated with the $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}𝜸𝜸`$  vertex were made, based on results from the four LEP experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL. No significant deviation from the Standard Model prediction is seen for any of the electroweak gauge boson couplings studied. With the LEP-combined charged TGC results, the existence of triple gauge boson couplings among the electroweak gauge bosons is experimentally verified. As an example, these data allow the Kaluza-Klein theory , in which $`𝜿_𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$, to be excluded completely .

## Chapter 12 Colour Reconnection in W-Pair Events

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
This is a new chapter. Colour reconnection effects in hadronic W-pair events are studied.

### 12.1 Introduction

In $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events, the products of the two (colour singlet) W decays in general have a significant space-time overlap as the separation of their decay vertices, $`𝝉_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.1}`$ fm, is small compared to characteristic hadronic distance scales of $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ fm. Colour reconnection, also known as colour rearrangement (CR), was first introduced in and refers to a reorganisation of the colour flow between the two W bosons. A precedent is set for such effects by colour suppressed B meson decays, e.g. $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲`$, where there is “cross-talk” between the two original colour singlets, $`\overline{𝐜}`$+s and c+spectator.

QCD interference effects between the colour singlets in $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays during the perturbative phase are expected to be small, affecting the W mass by $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝜶_𝐒}{𝝅𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬}}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝑾`$ $`\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$ . In contrast, non-perturbative effects involving soft gluons with energies less than $`𝚪_𝐖`$ may be significant, with effects on $`𝒎_𝐖`$ $`\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$. To estimate the impact of this phenomenon a variety of phenomenological models have been developed , some of which are compared with data in this note.

Many observables have been considered in the search for an experimental signature of colour reconnection. The inclusive properties of events such as the mean charged particle multiplicity, distributions of thrust, rapidity, transverse momentum and $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒙_𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ are found to have limited sensitivity. The effects of CR are predicted to be numerically larger in these observables when only higher mass hadrons such as kaons and protons are considered. However, experimental investigations find no significant gain in sensitivity due to the low production rate of such species in W decays and the finite size of the data sample.

More recently, in analogy with the “string effect” analysis in 3-jet $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝒈`$ events, the so-called “particle flow” method  has been investigated by all LEP collaborations . In this, pairs of jets in $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events are associated with the decay of a W, after which four jet-jet regions are chosen: two corresponding to jets sharing the same W parent (intra-W), and two in which the parents differ (inter-W). As there is a two-fold ambiguity in the assignment of inter-W regions, the configuration having the smaller sum of inter-W angles is chosen.

Particles are projected onto the planes defined by these jet pairs and the particle density constructed as a function of $`\mathit{\varphi }`$, the projected angle relative to one jet in each plane. To account for the variation in the opening angles, $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, of the jet-jet pairs defining each plane, the particle densities in $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ are constructed as functions of normalised angles, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓\mathbf{=}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{/}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, by a simple rescaling of the projected angles for each particle, event by event. Particles having projected angles $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ smaller than $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in at least one of the four planes are considered further. This gives particle densities, $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭}}}\frac{𝐝𝒏}{𝐝\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓}`$, in four regions with $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓`$ in the range 0–1, and where $`𝒏`$ and $`𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭}}`$ are the number of particles and events, respectively.

As particle density reflects the colour flow in an event, CR models predict a change in the relative particle densities between inter-W and intra-W regions. On average, colour reconnection is expected to affect the particle densities of both inter-W regions in the same way and so they are added together, as are the two intra-W regions. The observable used to quantify such changes, $`𝑹_𝑵`$, is defined:

$$𝑹_𝑵\mathbf{=}\frac{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭}}}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{0.2}}^{\mathbf{0.8}}\frac{𝐝𝒏}{𝐝\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚}\mathbf{}𝐖\mathbf{)}𝐝\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓}{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭}}}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{0.2}}^{\mathbf{0.8}}\frac{𝐝𝒏}{𝐝\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{}𝐖\mathbf{)}𝐝\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓}\mathbf{.}$$
(12.1)
As the effects of CR are expected to be enhanced for low momentum particles far from the jet axis, the range of integration excludes jet cores ($`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒓\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$). The precise upper and lower limits are optimised by model studies of predicted sensitivity.

Each LEP experiment has developed its own variation on this analysis, differing primarily in the selection of $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events. In L3 and DELPHI, events are selected in a very particular configuration (“topological selection”) by imposing restrictions on the jet-jet angles and on the jet resolution parameter for the three- to four-jet transition (Durham or LUCLUS schemes). This selects events which are more planar than those in the inclusive $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ sample and the association between jet pairs and W’s is given by the relative angular separation of the jets. The overall efficiency for selecting events is $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$%. The ALEPH and OPAL event selections are based on their W mass analyses. Assignment of pairs of jets to W’s also follows that used in measuring $`𝒎_𝐖`$, using either a 4-jet matrix element  or a multivariate algorithm . These latter selections have much higher efficiencies, varying from 45% to 90%, but lead to samples of events having a less planar topology and hence a more complicated colour flow. ALEPH also uses the topological selection for consistency checks.

The data are corrected bin-by-bin for background contamination in the inter-W and intra-W regions separately. The possibility of CR effects existing in background processes, such as $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$, is neglected. Since the data are not corrected for the effects of event selection, momentum resolution and finite acceptance, the values of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ measured by the experiments cannot be compared directly with one another. However, it is possible to perform a relative comparison by using a common sample of Monte Carlo events, processed using the detector simulation program of each experiment.

### 12.2 Combination Procedure

The measured values of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ can be compared after they have been normalised using a common sample of events, processed using the detector simulation and particle flow analysis of each experiment. A variable, $`𝒓`$, is constructed:

$$𝒓\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑹_𝑵^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚}}}{𝑹_𝑵^{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐑}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(12.2)
where $`𝑹_𝑵^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚}}`$ and $`𝑹_𝑵^{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐑}}`$ are the values of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ measured by each experiment in data and in a common sample of events without CR. In the absence of CR, all experiments should find $`𝒓`$ consistent with unity. The default no-CR sample used for this normalisation consists of $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ events produced using the KORALW event generator and hadronised using either the JETSET, ARIADNE or HERWIG model depending on the colour reconnection model being tested. Input from experiments used to perform the combination is given in terms of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ and detailed in Appendix D.1.

#### 12.2.1 Weights

The statistical precision of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ measured by the experiments does not reflect directly the sensitivity to CR, for example the measurements of ALEPH and OPAL have efficiencies several times larger than the topological selections of L3 and DELPHI, yet only yield comparable sensitivity. The relative sensitivity of the experiments may also be model dependent. Therefore, results are averaged using model dependent weights, i.e.

$$𝒘_𝒊\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝑵^𝒊\mathbf{}𝑹_𝑵^{𝒊\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐧𝐨}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐑}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝈_{𝑹_𝑵}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{𝑹_𝑵}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(12.3)
where $`𝑹_𝑵^𝒊`$ and $`𝑹_𝑵^{𝒊\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐧𝐨}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐂𝐑}}`$ represent the $`𝑹_𝑵`$ values for CR model $`𝒊`$ and its corresponding no-CR scenario, and $`𝝈_{𝑹_𝑵}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are the total statistical and systematic uncertainties. To test models, $`𝑹_𝑵`$ values using common samples are provided by experiments for each of the following models:

1. SK-I, 100% reconnected (KORALW $`\mathbf{+}`$ JETSET),
2. ARIADNE-II, inter-W reconnection rate about 22% (KORALW $`\mathbf{+}`$ ARIADNE),
3. HERWIG CR, reconnected fraction $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}`$ (KORALW $`\mathbf{+}`$ HERWIG).

Samples in parentheses are the corresponding no-CR scenarios used to define $`𝒘_𝒊`$. In each case, KORALW is used to generate the events at least up to the four-fermion level. These special Monte Carlo samples (called “Cetraro” samples) have been generated with the ALEPH tuned parameters, obtained with hadronic Z decays, and have been processed through the detector simulation of each experiment.

#### 12.2.2 Combination of centre-of-mass energies

The common files required to perform the combination are only available at a single centre-of-mass energy ($`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐦}}`$) of 188.6 GeV. The data from the experiments can only therefore be combined at this energy. The procedure adopted to combine all LEP data is summarised below.

$`𝑹_𝑵`$ is measured in each experiment at each centre-of-mass energy, in both data and Monte Carlo. The predicted variation of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ with centre-of-mass energy is determined separately by each experiment using its own samples of simulated $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ events, with hadronisation performed using the no-CR JETSET model. This variation is parametrised by fitting a polynomial to these simulated $`𝑹_𝑵`$. The $`𝑹_𝑵`$ measured in data are subsequently extrapolated to the reference energy of 189 GeV using this function, and the weighted average of the rescaled values in each experiment is used as input to the combination.

### 12.3 Systematics

The sources of potential systematic uncertainty identified are separated into those which are correlated between experiments and those which are not. For correlated sources, the component correlated between all experiments is assigned as the smallest uncertainty found in any single experiment, with the quadrature remainder treated as an uncorrelated contribution. Preliminary estimates of the dominant systematics on $`𝑹_𝑵`$ are given in Appendix D.1 for each experiment, and described below.

#### 12.3.1 Hadronisation

This is assigned by comparison of the single sample of $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ events generated using KORALW, and hadronised with three different models, i.e. JETSET, HERWIG and ARIADNE. The systematic is assigned as the spread of the $`𝑹_𝑵`$ values obtained when using the various models given in Appendix D.1. This is treated as a correlated uncertainty.

#### 12.3.2 Bose-Einstein Correlations

Although a recent analysis by DELPHI reports the observation of inter-W Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) in $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events with a significance of 2.8 standard deviations for like-sign pairs and 2.4 standard deviations for unlike-sign pairs , analyses by other collaborations find no significant evidence for such effects, see also chapter 13. Therefore, BEC effects are only considered within each W separately. The estimated uncertainty is assigned, using common MC samples, as the difference in $`𝑹_𝑵`$ between an intra-W BEC sample and the corresponding no-BEC sample. This is treated as correlated between experiments.

#### 12.3.3 Background

Background is dominated by the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ process, with a smaller contribution from $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ diagrams. As no common background samples exist, apart from dedicated ones for BEC analyses, experiment specific samples are used. The uncertainty is defined as the difference in the $`𝑹_𝑵`$ value relative to that obtained using the default background model and assumed cross-sections in each experiment.

##### $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$

The systematic is separated into two components, one accounting for the shape of the background, the other for the uncertainty in the value of the background cross-section, $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{)}`$.

Uncertainty in the shape is estimated by comparing hadronisation models. Experiments typically have large samples simulated using 2-fermion event generators hadronised with various models. This uncertainty is assigned as $`\mathbf{\pm }\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ of the largest difference between any pair of hadronisation models and treated as uncorrelated between experiments.

The second uncertainty arises due to the accuracy of the experimentally measured cross-sections. The systematic is assigned as the larger of the deviations in $`𝑹_𝑵`$ caused when $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{)}`$ is varied by $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$% from its default value. This variation was based on the conclusions of a study comparing four-jet data with models, and is significantly larger than the $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$% uncertainty in the inclusive $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ ($`\sqrt{𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒔}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.85}`$) cross-section measured by the LEP2 2-fermion group. It is treated as correlated between experiments.

##### $`\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$

Similarly to the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ case, this background cross-section is varied by $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$%. For comparison, the uncertainty on $`𝝈\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐙𝐙}\mathbf{)}`$ measured by the LEP2 4-fermion group is $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}`$% at $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟗}`$ GeV. It is treated as correlated between experiments.

##### $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}`$

Semi-leptonic WW decays which are incorrectly identified as $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events are the third main category of background, and its contribution is very small. The fraction of $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}`$ events present in the sample used for the particle flow analysis varies in the range 0.04–2.2% between the experiments. The uncertainty in this background consists of hadronisation effects and also uncertainty in the cross-section. As this source is a very small background relative to those discussed above, and the effect of either varying the cross-section by its measured uncertainty or of changing the hadronisation model do not change the measured $`𝑹_𝑵`$ significantly, this source is neglected.

#### 12.3.4 Detector Effects

The data are not corrected for the effects of finite resolution or acceptance. Various studies have been carried out, e.g. by analysing $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}`$ events in the same way as $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events in order to validate the method and the choice of energy flow objects used to measure the particle yields between jets . To take into account the effects of detector resolution and acceptance, ALEPH, L3 and OPAL have studied the impact of changing the object definition entering the particle flow distributions and have assigned a systematic error from the difference in the measured $`𝑹_𝑵`$.

#### 12.3.5 Centre-of-mass energy dependence

As there may be model dependence in the parametrised energy dependence, the second order polynomial used to perform the extrapolation to the reference energy of 189 GeV is usually determined using several different models, with and without colour reconnection. DELPHI, L3 and OPAL use differences relative to the default no-CR model to assign a systematic uncertainty while ALEPH takes the spread of the results obtained with all the models with and without CR which have been used. This error is assumed to be uncorrelated between experiments.

#### 12.3.6 Weighting function

The weighting function of Equation 12.3 could justifiably be modified such that only the uncorrelated components of the systematic uncertainty appear in the denominator. To accommodate this, the average is performed using both variants of the weighting function. This has an insignificant effect on the consistency between data and model under test, e.g. for SK-I the result is changed by 0.02 standard deviations, and this effect is therefore neglected.

### 12.4 Combined Results

Experiments provide their results in the form of $`𝑹_𝑵`$ (or changes to $`𝑹_𝑵`$) at a reference centre-of-mass energy of 189 GeV by scaling results obtained at various energies using the predicted energy dependence of their own no-CR MC samples. This avoids having to generate common samples at multiple centre-of-mass energies.

The detailed results from all experiments are included in Appendix D.1. These consist of preliminary results, taken from the publicly available notes, and additional information from analysis of Monte Carlo samples. The averaging procedure itself is carried out by each of the experiments and good agreement is obtained.

An example of this averaging to test an extreme scenario of the SK-I CR model (full reconnection) is given in Appendix D.3. The average obtained in this case is:

$`𝒓\mathbf{(}𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.969}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.011}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.009}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.006}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (12.4)
$`𝒓\mathbf{(}\text{SK-I}\mathbf{100}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.8909}\mathbf{.}`$ (12.5)
The measurements of each experiment and this combined result are shown in Figure 12.1. As the sensitivity of the analysis is different for each experiment, the value of $`𝒓`$ predicted by the SK-I model is indicated separately for each experiment by a dashed line in the figure. Thus the data disagree with the extreme scenario of this particular model at a level of 5.2 standard deviations. The data from the four experiments are consistent with each other and tend to prefer an intermediate colour reconnection scenario rather than the no colour reconnection one at the level of 2.2 standard deviations in the SK-I framework.

#### 12.4.1 Parameter space in SK-I model

In the SK-I model, the reconnection probability is governed by an arbitrary, free parameter, $`𝒌_𝑰`$. By comparing the data with model predictions evaluated at a variety of $`𝒌_𝑰`$ values, it is possible to determine the reconnection probability that is most consistent with data, which can in turn be used to estimate the corresponding bias in the measured $`𝒎_𝐖`$. By repeating the averaging procedure using model inputs for the set of $`𝒌_𝑰`$ values given in Table D.2, including a re-evaluation of the weights for each value of $`𝒌_𝑰`$, it is found that the data prefer a value of $`𝒌_𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.18}`$ as shown in Figure 12.2. The 68% confidence level lower and upper limits are 0.39 and 2.13 respectively. The LEP averages in $`𝒓`$ obtained for the different $`𝒌_𝑰`$ values are summarised in Table D.4. They correspond to a preferred reconnection probability of 49% in this model at 189 GeV as illustrated in Figure 12.3.

The small variations observed in the LEP average value of $`𝒓`$ and its corresponding error as a function of $`𝒌_𝑰`$ (or $`𝑷_{𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐}`$) are essentially due to changes in the relative weighting of the experiments.

#### 12.4.2 ARIADNE and HERWIG models

The combination procedure has been applied to common samples of ARIADNE and HERWIG Monte Carlo models. The $`𝑹_𝑵`$ average values obtained with these models based on their respective predicted sensitivity are summarised in Table D.5. The four experiments have observed a weak sensitivity to these colour reconnected samples with the particle flow analysis, as can be seen from Figure 12.4.

### 12.5 Summary

A first, preliminary combination of the LEP particle flow results is presented, using the entire LEP2 data sample. The data disfavour by 5.2 standard deviations an extreme version of the SK-I model in which colour reconnection has been forced to occur in essentially all events. The combination procedure has been generalised to the SK-I model as a function of its variable reconnection probability. The combined data are described best by the model where 49% of events at 189 GeV are reconnected, corresponding to $`𝒌_𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.18}`$. The LEP data, averaged using weights corresponding to $`𝒌_𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.0}`$, i.e. closest to the optimal fit, do not exclude the no colour reconnection hypothesis, deviating from it by 2.2 standard deviations. A 68% confidence level range has been determined for $`𝒌_𝑰`$ and corresponds to \[0.39,2.13\].

For both the ARIADNE and HERWIG models, which do not contain adjustable colour reconnection parameters, differences between the results of the colour reconnected and the no-CR scenarios are small and do not allow the particle flow analysis to discriminate between them. To test consistency between data and the no-CR models, the data are averaged using weights where the factor accounting for predicted sensitivity to a given CR model has been set to unity. The $`𝑹_𝑵`$ values obtained with the no colour reconnection HERWIG and ARIADNE models, using the common Cetraro samples, differ from the measured data value by 3.7 and 3.1 standard deviations.

The observed deviations of the $`𝑹_𝑵`$ values from all no colour reconnection models may indicate a possible systematic effect in the description of particle flow for 4-jet events. Independent studies of particle flow in WW semileptonic events as well as other CR-oriented analyses are required to investigate this.

## Chapter 13 Bose-Einstein Correlations in W-Pair Events

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
This is a new chapter. Bose-Einstein correlations in hadronic W-pair events are studied.

### 13.1 Introduction

The LEP experiments have measured the strength of particle correlations between two hadronic systems obtained from W-pair decay occuring close in space-time at LEP-II. The work presented in this chapter is focused on so-called Bose-Einstein (BE) correlations, i.e., the enhanced probability of production of pairs (multiplets) of identical mesons close together in phase space. The effect is readily observed in particle physics, in particular in hadronic decays of the Z boson, and is qualitatively understood as a result of quantum-mechanical interference originating from the symmetry of the amplitude of the particle production process under exchange of identical mesons.

The presence of correlations between hadrons coming from the decay of a $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ pair, in particular those between hadrons originating from different Ws, can affect the direct reconstruction of the mass of the initial W bosons. The measurement of the strength of these correlations can be used for the estimation of the systematic uncertainty of the W mass measurement.

### 13.2 Method

The principal method , called “mixing method”, used in this measurement is based on the direct comparison of 2-particle spectra of genuine hadronic WW events and of mixed WW events. The latter are constructed by mixing the hadronic parts of two semileptonic WW events (first used in ). Such a reference sample has the advantage of reproducing the correlations between particles belonging to the same W, while the particles from different Ws are uncorrelated by construction.

This method gives a model-independent estimate of the interplay between the two hadronic systems, for which BE correlations and also colour reconnection are considered as dominant sources. The possibility of establishing the strength of inter-W correlations in a model-independent way is rather unique; most correlations do carry an inherent model dependence on the reference sample. In the present measurement, the model dependence is limited to the background subtraction.

### 13.3 Distributions

The two-particle correlations are evaluated using two-particle densities defined in terms of the 4-momentum transfer $`𝑸\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, where $`𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are the 4-momenta of the two particles:

$$𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑵_{𝒆𝒗}}\frac{𝒅𝒏_{𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒔}}{𝒅𝑸}$$
(13.1)
Here $`𝒏_{𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒓𝒔}`$ stands for number of like-sign (unlike-sign) 2-particle permutations.111For historical reasons, the number of particle permutations rather than combinations is used in formulas. For the same reason, a factor 2 appears in front of $`\rho _2^{mix}`$ in eq. 13.2. The experimental statistical errors are, however, based on the number of particle pairs, i.e., 2-particle combinations. In the case of two stochastically independent hadronically decaying Ws the two-particle inclusive density is given by:

$$𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑾𝑾}\mathbf{=}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑾^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{+}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}\mathbf{,}$$
(13.2)
where $`𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}`$ can be expressed via single-particle inclusive density $`𝝆_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ as:

$$𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆^{𝑾^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝝆^𝑾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(13.3)
Assuming further that:

$$𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑾^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(13.4)
we obtain:

$$𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑾𝑾}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(13.5)
In the mixing method, we obtain $`𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}`$ by combining two hadronic W systems from two different semileptonic WW events. The direct search for inter-W BE correlations is done using the difference of 2-particle densities:

$$𝚫𝝆\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑾𝑾}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(13.6)
or, alternatively, their ratio:

$$𝑫\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝑾𝑾}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝚫𝝆\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑾\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆^{𝒎𝒊𝒙}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(13.7)
In case of $`𝚫𝝆\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$, we look for a deviation from 0, while in case of $`𝑫\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$, inter-W BE correlations would manifest themselves by deviation from 1. The event mixing procedure may introduce artificial distortions, or may not fully account for some detector effects or for correlations other than BE correlations, causing a deviation of $`𝚫𝝆\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ from zero or D from unity for data as well as Monte Carlo without inter-W BE correlations. These possible effects are reduced by using the double ratio:

$$𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑫\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}_{𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒂}}{𝑫\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}_{𝑴𝑪\mathbf{,}𝒏𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓}}\mathbf{,}$$
(13.8)
where $`𝑫\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}_{𝑴𝑪\mathbf{,}𝒏𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓}`$ is derived from a MC without inter-W BE correlations.

In addition to the mixing method, ALEPH  also uses the double ratio of like-sign pairs ($`𝑵_𝝅^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$) and unlike-sign pairs $`𝑵_𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ corrected with Monte-Carlo simulations not including BE effects:

$$𝑹^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑵_𝝅^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}{𝑵_𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^{𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒂}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑵_𝝅^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}{𝑵_𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝒏𝒐𝑩𝑬}^{𝑴𝑪}\mathbf{.}$$
(13.9)
### 13.4 Results

As examples, the distributions of $`𝑹^{\mathbf{}}`$ measured by ALEPH  and $`𝚫𝝆`$ measured by L3  are shown in Figures 13.1 and 13.2, respectively. A simple combination procedure is available through a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ average of the numerical results of each experiment with respect to a specific BE model under study, here based on comparisons with various (tuned) versions of the LUBOEI model . The tuning is performed by adjusting the parameters of the model to reproduce correlations in samples of Z0 and semileptonic W decays, and applying identical parameters to the modelling of inter-W correlations (so-called “full BE” scenario). In this way the tuning of each experiment takes into account detector systematics in track measurements of different experiments. However, good agreement was found between tunings used in , and the sensitivity of the four LEP experiments to observe BE correlations between pions from the fragmentation of different Ws was found to be similar.

An important advantage of the combination procedure used here is that it allows the combination of results obtained using different analyses. The ALEPH result is based on data collected at centre-of-mass energies up to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟗}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$, while the L3 results are based on the complete LEP-2 luminosity. Since the inter-W BE correlations could be energy dependent, the results can only be combined within a model, here the LUBOEI model.

The combination procedure assumes a linear dependence of the observed size of BE correlations on various estimators used to analyse the different distributions. It was also verified that there is a linear dependence between the measured W mass shift and the values of these estimators . The estimators are: the integral of the term describing the BE correlation part, $`\mathbf{}𝝀\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝝈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, when fitting the function $`𝜿\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝝀\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝝈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ to the $`𝑹^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ distribution (ALEPH); the integral of the $`𝚫𝝆\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ distribution (L3); the parameter $`𝚲`$ when fitting the function $`𝑵\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚲\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝒌^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$, with $`𝑵`$ fixed to unity, to the $`𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ distribution (L3). The size of the correlations for like-sign pairs of particles measured in terms of these estimators is compared with the values expected in the model with and without inter-W correlations in Table 13.1. For the combination of these measurements, only the uncertainties in the understanding of the background contribution in the data are treated as correlated between experiments (denoted as “corr. syst.” in Table 13.1).

Table 13.2 summarizes the normalized fractions of the model seen. Using a correlation coefficient of 0.95 between the two L3 measurements, the combination via a MINUIT fit gives:

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐁𝐄}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐁𝐄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐁𝐄}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.18}\mathbf{,}$$
(13.10)
where “noBE” includes correlations between decay products of each W, but not the ones between decay products of different Ws and “fullBE” includes all the correlations. A reasonable $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/dof=0.8/2 of the fit is observed. The measurements and their average are also shown in Figure 13.3. It can thus be seen that there is no significant evidence for BE correlations between hadrons from different W bosons.

Note that after the summer conferences 2002 whose status is reported here, the DELPHI collaboration presented new preliminary results on BE correlations . Fitting the function $`𝑵\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚲\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝑸𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$, with $`𝑹`$ fixed by the model, to its $`𝑫\mathbf{(}𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ distribution, DELPHI finds a non-zero value of the estimator $`𝚲`$ for 2-particle correlations between like-sign particles from different W bosons at the level of 2.8 standard deviations, 1.9 standard deviations below that for a LUBOEI model with full strength correlations. DELPHI also finds a 2.4 standard deviation effect for pairs of unlike-sign particles from different W bosons, which is in agreement with the LUBOEI model with full strength correlations between particles from different W bosons.

The result of the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ combination of the measurements from ALEPH and L3 can be translated into a 68% confidence level upper limit on the shift of the W mass measurements due to the BE correlations between particles from different Ws, $`𝚫𝒎_𝐖`$, assuming a linear dependence of $`𝚫𝒎_𝐖`$ on the size of the correlation. For the specific BE model investigated, LUBOEI, a shift of $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ in the W mass is obtained at full BE correlation strength. Thus the preliminary 68% CL upper limit on the magnitude of the mass shift within the LUBOEI model is:

$`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.18}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}𝝈\mathrm{𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (13.11)
Further work is needed, such as: understanding the differences between the various estimators and fitting functions, including results from DELPHI and OPAL, and a generalisation to other BE models. For the time being, therefore, $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ is used as an uncertainty for BE correlations in the W mass combination presented in the following chapter.

## Chapter 14 W-Boson Mass and Width at LEP-II

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
New preliminary estimates for the common uncertainties due to final state interaction effects such as colour reconnection and Bose-Einstein correlations are used in the combination.

### 14.1 Introduction

The W boson mass and width results presented in this chapter are obtained from data recorded over a range of centre-of-mass energies, $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟗}`$ GeV, during the 1996-2000 operation of the LEP collider. The results reported by the ALEPH, DELPHI and L3 collaborations include an analysis of the year 2000 data, and have an integrated luminosity per experiment of about $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟎𝟎}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐛}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The OPAL collaboration has analysed the data up to and including 1999 and has an integrated luminosity of approximately $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓𝟎}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐛}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

The results on the W mass and width quoted below correspond to a definition based on a Breit-Wigner denominator with an $`𝒔`$-dependent width, $`\mathbf{|}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒊𝒔𝚪_𝐖\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{|}`$.

### 14.2 W Mass Measurements

Since 1996 the LEP $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}`$ collider has been operating above the threshold for $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ pair production. Initially, 10 $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐛}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of data were recorded close to the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ pair production threshold. At this energy the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ cross section is sensitive to the W boson mass, $`𝒎_𝐖`$. Table 14.1 summarises the W mass results from the four LEP collaborations based on these data .

Subsequently LEP has operated at energies significantly above the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ threshold, where the $`𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$ cross section has little sensitivity to $`𝒎_𝐖`$. For these higher energy data $`𝒎_𝐖`$ is measured through the direct reconstruction of the W boson’s invariant mass from the observed jets and leptons. Table 14.2 summarises the W mass results presented individually by the four LEP experiments using the direct reconstruction method. The combined values of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ from each collaboration take into account the correlated systematic uncertainties between the decay channels and between the different years of data taking. In addition to the combined numbers, each experiment presents mass measurements from $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ channels separately. The DELPHI and OPAL collaborations provide results from independent fits to the data in the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ decay channels separately and hence account for correlations between years but do not need to include correlations between the two channels. The $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ results quoted by the ALEPH and L3 collaborations are obtained from a simultaneous fit to all data which, in addition to other correlations, takes into account the correlated systematic uncertainties between the two channels. The L3 result is unchanged when determined through separate fits. The systematic uncertainties in the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ channel show a large variation between experiments; this is caused by differing estimates of the possible effects of Colour Reconnection (CR) and Bose-Einstein Correlations (BEC), discussed below. The systematic errors in the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ channel are dominated by uncertainties from hadronisation, with estimates ranging from 15 to 30 $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$.

The results presented in this note differ from those in the previous combination  due to revised Colour Reconnection and Bose-Einstein systematic uncertainties, the results are otherwise identical.

### 14.3 Combination Procedure

A combined LEP W mass measurement is obtained from the results of the four experiments. In order to perform a reliable combination of the measurements, a more detailed input than that given in Table 14.2 is required. Each experiment provided a W mass measurement for both the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ channels for each of the data taking years (1996-2000) that it had analysed. In addition to the four threshold measurements a total of 36 direct reconstruction measurements are supplied: ALEPH and DELPHI provided 10 measurements (1996-2000), L3 gave 8 measurements (1996-2000) having already combined the 1996 and 1997 results and OPAL provided 8 measurements (1996-1999). The $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ channel is also analysed by the ALEPH(1997-2000) and OPAL(1997-2000) collaborations; the lower precision results obtained from this channel are combined by the experiments with their $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ channel mass determinations.

Subdividing the results by data-taking years enables a proper treatment of the correlated systematic uncertainty from the LEP beam energy and other dependences on the centre-of-mass energy or data-taking period. A detailed breakdown of the sources of systematic uncertainty are provided for each result and the correlations specified. The inter-year, inter-channel and inter-experiment correlations are included in the combination. The main sources of correlated systematic errors are: colour reconnection, Bose-Einstein correlations, hadronisation, the LEP beam energy, and uncertainties from initial and final state radiation. The full correlation matrix for the LEP beam energy is employed. The combination is performed and the evaluation of the components of the total error assessed using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate (BLUE) technique, see Reference 275.

A preliminary study of colour reconnection has been made by the LEP experiments using the particle flow method  on a sample of fully-hadronic WW events, see chapter 12. These results are interpreted in terms of the reconnection parameter $`𝒌_𝒊`$ of the SK-I model  and yield a $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level range of:

$`\mathbf{0.39}\mathbf{<}𝒌_𝒊\mathbf{<}\mathbf{2.13}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.1)
The method was found to be insensitive to the HERWIG and ARIADNE-II models of colour reconnection.

Studies of simulation samples have demonstrated that the four experiments are equally sensitive to colour reconnection effects, i.e. when looking at the same CR model similar biases are seen by all experiments. This is shown in Figure 14.1 for the SKI model as a function of the fraction of reconnected events. For this reason a common value for all experiments of the CR systematic uncertainty is used in the combination.

For this combination, no offset has been applied to the central value of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ due to colour reconnection effects and a symmetric systematic error has been imposed. The $`𝒎_𝐖`$ error is set from a linear extrapolation of simulation results obtained at $`𝒌_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2.13}`$, the values used in the combination were: $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟒}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ shift for the 1996 data at a centre-of-mass energy of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ for 1997 at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟑}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ for 1998 at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟗}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ for 1999 at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟓}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ for 2000 at $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟕}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$, they are shown in Figure 14.2. Previous $`𝒎_𝐖`$ combinations have relied upon theoretical expectations of colour reconnection effects, in which there is considerable uncertainty. This new data driven approach achieves a more robust uncertainty estimate at the expense of a significantly increased colour reconnection uncertainty. The ARIADNE-II and HERWIG models of colour reconnection have also been studied and the W mass shift was found to be lower than that from SK1 with $`𝒌_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2.13}`$ used for the combination.

For Bose-Einstein correlations, a similar test has been made of the respective experimental sensitivities with the LUBOEI  model: the experiments observed compatible mass shifts. A common value of the systematic uncertainty from BEC of 35 MeV is assumed from studies of the LUBOEI model. This value may be compared with recent direct measurements from LEP of this effect , where the observed Bose-Einstein effect was of smaller magnitude than in the LUBOEI model, see chapter 13. Hence, the currently assigned 35 MeV uncertainty is considered a conservative estimate.

### 14.4 LEP Combined W Boson Mass

The combined W mass from direct reconstruction is

$`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.448}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.030}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.030}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{,}`$ (14.2)
with a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/d.o.f. of 31.1/35, corresponding to a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ probability of 66%. The weight of the fully-hadronic channel in the combined fit is 0.09. This reduced weight is a consequence of the relatively large size of the current estimates of the systematic errors from CR and BEC. Table 14.3 gives a breakdown of the contribution to the total error of the various sources of systematic errors. The largest contribution to the systematic error comes from hadronisation uncertainties, which are conservatively treated as correlated between the two channels, between experiments and between years. In the absence of systematic effects the current LEP statistical precision on $`𝒎_𝐖`$ would be $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$: the statistical error contribution in the LEP combination is larger than this (30 $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$) due to the significantly reduced weight of the fully-hadronic channel.

In addition to the above results, the W boson mass is measured at LEP from the 10 $`\mathrm{𝐩𝐛}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ per experiment of data recorded at threshold for W pair production:

$`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.40}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.20}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{(}𝐄_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐦}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.3)
When the threshold measurements are combined with the much more precise results obtained from direct reconstruction one achieves a W mass measurement of

$`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.447}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.030}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.029}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.4)
The LEP beam energy uncertainty is the only correlated systematic error source between the threshold and direct reconstruction measurements. The threshold measurements have a weight of only $`\mathbf{0.02}`$ in the combined fit. This LEP combined result is compared with the results (threshold and direct reconstruction combined) of the four LEP experiments in Figure 14.3.

### 14.5 Consistency Checks

The difference between the combined W boson mass measurements obtained from the fully-hadronic and semi-leptonic channels, $`𝚫𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{(}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, is determined:

$`𝚫𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{(}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.5)
A significant non-zero value for $`𝚫𝒎_𝐖`$ could indicate that CR and BEC effects are biasing the value of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ determined from $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ events. Since $`𝚫𝒎_𝐖`$ is primarily of interest as a check of the possible effects of final state interactions, the errors from CR and BEC are set to zero in its determination. The result is obtained from a fit where the imposed correlations are the same as those for the results given in the previous sections. This result is almost unchanged if the systematic part of the error on $`𝒎_𝐖`$ from hadronisation effects is considered as uncorrelated between channels, although the uncertainty increases by 16%: $`𝚫𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$.

The masses from the two channels obtained from this fit with the BEC and CR errors now included are:

$`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{(}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.448}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.033}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.028}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{,}`$ (14.6)
$`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{(}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.449}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.036}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.100}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.7)
These two results are correlated and have a correlation coefficient of 0.17. The value of $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/d.o.f is 31.1/34, corresponding to a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ probability of 61$`\mathbf{\%}`$. These results and the correlation between them can be used to combine the two measurements or to form the mass difference. The LEP combined results from the two channels are compared with those quoted by the individual experiments in Figure 14.4, where the common CR and BEC errors have been imposed.

Experimentally, separate $`𝒎_𝐖`$ measurements are obtained from the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ channels for each of the years of data. The combination using only the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ measurements yields:

$`𝒎_𝐖^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩}}\mathbf{(}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.448}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.033}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.029}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.8)
The systematic error is dominated by hadronisation uncertainties ($`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$) and the uncertainty in the LEP beam energy ($`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$). The combination using only the $`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ measurements gives:

$`𝒎_𝐖^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩}}\mathbf{(}𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐪\overline{𝐪}𝐪\overline{𝐪}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.438}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.036}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.101}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.9)
where the dominant contributions to the systematic error are from CR ($`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$) and BEC ($`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$).

### 14.6 LEP Combined W Boson Width

The method of direct reconstruction is also well suited to the direct measurement of the width of the W boson. The results of the four LEP experiments are shown in Table 14.4 and in Figure 14.3.

Each experiment provided a W width measurement for both $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ channels for each of the data taking years (1996-2000) that it has analysed. A total of 25 measurements are supplied: ALEPH provided 3 $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ results (1998-2000) and two $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ results (1998-1999), DELPHI 8 measurements (1997-2000), L3 8 measurements (1996-2000) having already combined the 1996 and 1997 results and OPAL provided 4 measurements (1996-1998) where for the first two years the $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐖^\mathbf{+}𝐖^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\mathbf{}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$$`𝐪\overline{𝐪}`$ results are already combined.

A common colour reconnection error of 65 $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ and a common Bose-Einstein correlation error of 35 $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ are used in the combination. These common errors were determined such that the same error was obtained on $`𝚪_𝐖`$ as when using the BEC/CR errors supplied by the experiments. The change in the value of the width is only 2 MeV. The BEC and CR values supplied by the experiments were based on studies of phenomenological models of these effects, the uncertainty has not yet been determined from the particle flow measurements of colour reconnection.

A simultaneous fit to the results of the four LEP collaborations is performed in the same way as for the $`𝒎_𝐖`$ measurement. Correlated systematic uncertainties are taken into account and the combination gives:

$`𝚪_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2.150}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.068}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.060}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{,}`$ (14.10)
with a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/d.o.f. of 19.7/24, corresponding to a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ probability of 71$`\mathbf{\%}`$.

### 14.7 Summary

The results of the four LEP experiments on the mass and width of the W boson are combined taking into account correlated systematic uncertainties, giving:

$`𝒎_𝐖`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{80.447}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.042}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{,}`$ (14.11)
$`𝚪_𝐖`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{2.150}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.091}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{.}`$ (14.12)
The statistical correlation between mass and width is small and neglected. Their correlation due to common systematic effects is under study.

## Chapter 15 Effective Couplings of the Neutral Weak Current

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
Updated measurements as discussed in the previous chapters are taken into account.

### 15.1 The Coupling Parameters $`𝓐_𝐟`$

The coupling parameters $`𝓐_𝐟`$ are defined in terms of the effective vector and axial-vector neutral current couplings of fermions (Equation (2.4)). The LEP measurements of the forward-backward asymmetries of charged leptons (Chapter 2) and b and c quarks (Chapter 5) determine the products $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐟}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝓐_𝐞𝓐_𝐟`$ (Equation (2.3)). The LEP measurements of the $`𝝉`$ polarisation (Chapter 3), $`𝓟_𝝉\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽\mathbf{)}`$, determine $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ separately (Equation (3.2)). Owing to polarised beams at SLC, SLD measures the coupling parameters directly with the left-right and forward-backward left-right asymmetries (Chapters 4 and 5).

Table 15.1 shows the results for the leptonic coupling parameter $`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$ from the LEP and SLD measurements, assuming lepton universality.

Using the measurements of $`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$ one can extract $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ from the LEP measurements of the b and c quark asymmetries. The SLD measurements of the left-right forward-backward asymmetries for b and c quarks are direct determinations of $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$. Table 15.2 shows the results on the quark coupling parameters $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ derived from LEP measurements (Equations 5.6) and SLD measurements separately, and from the combination of LEP+SLD measurements (Equation 5.7).

The LEP extracted values of $`𝓐_𝐛`$ and $`𝓐_𝐜`$ are in agreement with the SLD measurements, but somewhat lower than the Standard Model predictions (0.935 and 0.668, respectively, essentially independent of $`𝒎_𝐭`$ and $`𝒎_𝐇`$). The combination of LEP and SLD of $`𝓐_𝐛`$ is 2.6 sigma below the Standard Model, while $`𝓐_𝐜`$ agrees well with the expectation. This is mainly because the $`𝓐_𝐛`$ value, deduced from the measured $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ and the combined $`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$, is significantly lower than both the Standard Model and the direct measurement of $`𝓐_𝐛`$, this can also be seen in Figure 15.1.

### 15.2 The Effective Vector and Axial-Vector Coupling Constants

The partial widths of the $`𝐙`$ into leptons and the lepton forward-backward asymmetries (Section 2), the $`𝝉`$ polarisation and the $`𝝉`$ polarisation asymmetry (Section 3) are combined to determine the effective vector and axial-vector couplings for $`𝐞`$, $`𝝁`$ and $`𝝉`$. The asymmetries (Equations (2.3) and (3.2)) determine the ratio $`𝒈_𝐕\mathbf{}\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝐀\mathbf{}`$ (Equation (2.4)), while the leptonic partial widths determine the sum of the squares of the couplings:

$`𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝐅𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝝅\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}\mathbf{(}𝒈_𝐕\mathbf{}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒈_𝐀\mathbf{}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{\mathbf{}}^{𝑸𝑬𝑫}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (15.1)
where $`𝜹_{\mathbf{}}^{𝑸𝑬𝑫}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒒_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅\mathbf{)}`$, with $`𝒒_{\mathbf{}}`$ denoting the electric charge of the lepton, accounts for final state photonic corrections. Corrections due to lepton masses, neglected in Equation 15.1, are taken into account for the results presented below.

The averaged results for the effective lepton couplings are given in Table 15.3 for both the LEP data alone as well as for the LEP and SLD measurements. Figure 15.2 shows the 68% probability contours in the $`𝒈_𝐀\mathbf{}`$-$`𝒈_𝐕\mathbf{}`$ plane for the individual lepton species. The signs of $`𝒈_𝐀\mathbf{}`$ and $`𝒈_𝐕\mathbf{}`$ are based on the convention $`𝒈_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐞}}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. With this convention the signs of the couplings of all charged leptons follow from LEP data alone. The measured ratios of the $`𝐞`$, $`𝝁`$ and $`𝝉`$ couplings provide a test of lepton universality and are shown in Table 15.3. All values are consistent with lepton universality. The combined results assuming universality are also given in the table and are shown as a solid contour in Figure 15.2.

The neutrino couplings to the $`𝐙`$ can be derived from the measured value of the invisible width of the $`𝐙`$, $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}`$ (see Table 2.4), attributing it exclusively to the decay into three identical neutrino generations ($`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐯}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝚪_{𝝂𝝂}`$) and assuming $`𝒈_{𝑨𝝂}\mathbf{}𝒈_{𝑽𝝂}\mathbf{}𝒈_𝝂`$. The relative sign of $`𝒈_𝝂`$ is chosen to be in agreement with neutrino scattering data, resulting in $`𝒈_𝝂\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.50068}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00075}`$.

In addition, the couplings analysis is extended to include also the heavy-flavour measurements as presented in Section 5.3. Assuming neutral-current lepton universality, the effective coupling constants are determined jointly for leptons as well as for b and c quarks. QCD corrections, modifying Equation 15.1, are taken from the Standard Model, as is also done to obtain the quark pole asymmetries, see Section 5.2.3.

The results are also reported in Table 15.3 and shown in Figure 15.3. The deviation of the b-quark couplings from the Standard Model expectation is mainly caused by the combined value of $`𝓐_𝐛`$ being low as discussed in Section 15.1 and shown in Figure 15.1.

### 15.3 The Leptonic Effective Electroweak Mixing Angle $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$

The asymmetry measurements from LEP and SLD can be combined into a single parameter, the effective electroweak mixing angle, $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$, defined as:

$`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈_𝐕\mathbf{}}{𝒈_𝐀\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (15.2)
without making strong model-specific assumptions.

For a combined average of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ from $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝓐_𝝉`$ and $`𝓐_𝐞`$ only the assumption of lepton universality, already inherent in the definition of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$, is needed. Also the value derived from the measurements of $`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$ from SLD is given. We also include the hadronic forward-backward asymmetries, assuming the difference between $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^𝐟`$ for quarks and leptons to be given by the Standard Model. This is justified within the Standard Model as the hadronic asymmetries $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐜}`$ have a reduced sensitivity to the small non-universal corrections specific to the quark vertex. The results of these determinations of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ and their combination are shown in Table 15.4 and in Figure 15.4. The combinations based on the leptonic results plus $`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$(SLD) and on the hadronic forward-backward asymmetries differ by 2.9 standard deviations, caused by the two most precise measurements of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$, $`𝓐_{\mathbf{}}`$ (SLD) dominated by $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐋𝐑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ (LEP), likewise differing by 2.9 standard deviations. This is the same effect as discussed already in sections 15.1 and 15.2 and shown in Figures 15.1 and 15.3: the deviation in $`𝓐_𝐛`$ as extracted from $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ discussed above is reflected in the value of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ extracted from $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐛}`$ in this analysis.

## Chapter 16 Constraints on the Standard Model

Updates with respect to summer 2001:
Updated measurements as discussed in the previous chapters are taken into account, as well as the final combined results of the direct measurements of the mass and width of the W boson measured by CDF and DØ at Run-I of the Tevatron and the recently published final result of the NuTeV collaboration on the on-shell electroweak mixing angle.

### 16.1 Introduction

The precise electroweak measurements performed at LEP and SLC and elsewhere can be used to check the validity of the Standard Model and, within its framework, to infer valuable information about its fundamental parameters. The accuracy of the measurements makes them sensitive to the mass of the top quark $`𝒎_𝐭`$, and to the mass of the Higgs boson $`𝒎_𝐇`$ through loop corrections. While the leading $`𝒎_𝐭`$ dependence is quadratic, the leading $`𝒎_𝐇`$ dependence is logarithmic. Therefore, the inferred constraints on $`𝒎_𝐇`$ are much weaker than those on $`𝒎_𝐭`$.

### 16.2 Measurements

The LEP and SLD measurements used are summarised in Table 16.1. Also shown are the results of the Standard Model fit to all results.

The final results on the W-boson mass by UA2 and CDF and DØ in Run-I, and the W-boson width by CDF and DØ in Run-I were recently combined based on a detailed treatment of common systematic uncertainties. The results are: $`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟖𝟎𝟒𝟓𝟒}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟓𝟗}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$, $`𝚪_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟏𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟔}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$, with a correlation of $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{17.4}\mathbf{\%}`$. Combining these results with the preliminary LEP-2 measurements as presented in Chapter 14, the new preliminary world averages used in the following analyses are:

$`𝒎_𝐖`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{80.449}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.034}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ (16.1)
$`𝚪_𝐖`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{2.136}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.069}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ (16.2)
with a correlation of $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{6.7}\mathbf{\%}`$.

For the mass of the top quark, $`𝒎_𝐭`$, the results from CDF and DØ are combined111 See Reference 290 for a combination of these $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ measurements., with the result $`𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{=}\mathbf{174.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}\mathbf{.}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$. In addition, the recently published final result of the NuTeV collaboration on neutrino-nucleon neutral to charged current cross section ratios , and the measurements of atomic parity violation in caesium with the numerical result taken from a new analysis of atomic and nuclear theory corrections, are included in some of the analyses shown below.

Although the $`𝝂𝓝`$ result is quoted in terms of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2277}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0016}`$, radiative corrections result in small $`𝒎_𝐭`$ and $`𝒎_𝐇`$ dependences222The formula used is $`\delta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.00022\frac{m_\mathrm{t}^2(175\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^2}{(50\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^2}+0.00032\mathrm{ln}(\frac{m_\mathrm{H}}{150\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}).`$ See Reference 291 for details. that are included in the fit. Note that the NuTeV result in terms of the on-shell electroweak mixing angle is about three standard deviations higher than the expectation.

An additional input parameter, not shown in the table, is the Fermi constant $`𝑮_𝑭`$, determined from the $`𝝁`$ lifetime, $`𝑮_𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.16637}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The relative error of $`𝑮_𝑭`$ is comparable to that of $`𝒎_𝐙`$; both errors have negligible effects on the fit results.

### 16.3 Theoretical and Parametric Uncertainties

Detailed studies of the theoretical uncertainties in the Standard Model predictions due to missing higher-order electroweak corrections and their interplay with QCD corrections are carried out by the working group on ‘Precision calculations for the $`𝐙`$ resonance’, and more recently in . Theoretical uncertainties are evaluated by comparing different but, within our present knowledge, equivalent treatments of aspects such as resummation techniques, momentum transfer scales for vertex corrections and factorisation schemes. The effects of these theoretical uncertainties are reduced by the inclusion of higher-order corrections in the electroweak libraries.

The recently calculated complete fermionic two-loop corrections on $`𝒎_𝐖`$  are currently only used in the determination of the theoretical uncertainty. Their effect on $`𝒎_𝐖`$ is small compared to the current experimental uncertainty on $`𝒎_𝐖`$. However, the naive propagation of this new $`𝒎_𝐖`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}\mathbf{=}𝜿\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, keeping the electroweak form-factor $`𝜿`$ unmodified, shows a more visible effect as $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ is measured very precisely. Thus the corresponding calculations for $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ (or $`𝜿`$) and for the partial Z widths are urgently needed; in particular since partial cancellations of these new corrections in the product $`𝜿\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ could be expected .

The use of the QCD corrections increases the value of $`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ by 0.001, as expected. The effects of missing higher-order QCD corrections on $`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ covers missing higher-order electroweak corrections and uncertainties in the interplay of electroweak and QCD corrections and is estimated to be at least 0.002 . A discussion of theoretical uncertainties in the determination of $`𝜶_𝐒`$ can be found in References 298 and 304. The determination of the size of remaining theoretical uncertainties is under continued study.

The theoretical errors discussed above are not included in the results presented in Table 16.2. At present the impact of theoretical uncertainties on the determination of Standard Model parameters from the precise electroweak measurements is small compared to the error due to the uncertainty in the value of $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, which is included in the results.

The uncertainty in $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ arises from the contribution of light quarks to the photon vacuum polarisation ($`𝚫𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$):

$$𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝜶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝚫𝜶_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚫𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚫𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(16.3)
where $`𝜶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{137.036}`$. The top contribution, $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.00007}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, depends on the mass of the top quark, and is therefore determined inside the electroweak libraries. The leptonic contribution is calculated to third order to be $`\mathbf{0.03150}`$, with negligible uncertainty.

For the hadronic contribution, we no longer use the value $`\mathbf{0.02804}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00065}`$, but rather the new evaluation $`\mathbf{0.02761}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}`$  which takes into account the recently published results on electron-positron annihilations into hadrons at low centre-of-mass energies by the BES collaboration . This reduced uncertainty still causes an error of 0.00013 on the Standard Model prediction of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$, and errors of 0.2 GeV and 0.1 on the fitted values of $`𝒎_𝐭`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐇\mathbf{)}`$, included in the results presented below. The effect on the Standard Model prediction for $`𝚪_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ is negligible. The $`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ values for the Standard Model fits presented here are stable against a variation of $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in the interval quoted.

There are also several evaluations of $`𝚫𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ which are more theory-driven. One of the most recent of these (Reference 316) also includes the new results from BES, yielding $`\mathbf{0.02747}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00012}`$. To show the effects of the uncertainty of $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, we also use this evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation. Note that all these evaluations obtain values for $`𝚫𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ consistently lower than - but still in agreement with - the old value of $`\mathbf{0.02804}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00065}`$.

### 16.4 Selected Results

Figure 16.1 shows a comparison of the leptonic partial width from LEP (Table 2.4) and the effective electroweak mixing angle from asymmetries measured at LEP and SLD (Table 15.4), with the Standard Model. Good agreement with the Standard Model prediction is observed. The point with the arrow indicates the prediction if among the electroweak radiative corrections only the photon vacuum polarisation is included, which shows that LEP+SLD data are sensitive to non-trivial electroweak corrections. Note that the error due to the uncertainty on $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (shown as the length of the arrow) is not much smaller than the experimental error on $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$ from LEP and SLD. This underlines the continued importance of a precise measurement of $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬}\mathbf{)}`$ at low centre-of-mass energies.

Of the measurements given in Table 16.1, $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is one of the most sensitive to QCD corrections. For $`𝒎_𝐙\mathbf{=}\mathbf{91.1875}`$ GeV, and imposing $`𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{=}\mathbf{174.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{5.1}`$ GeV as a constraint, $`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1224}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0038}`$ is obtained. Alternatively, $`𝝈_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (see Table 2.4) which has higher sensitivity to QCD corrections and less dependence on $`𝒎_𝐇`$ yields: $`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1180}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0030}`$. Typical errors arising from the variation of $`𝒎_𝐇`$ between $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ are of the order of $`\mathbf{0.001}`$, somewhat smaller for $`𝝈_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$. These results on $`𝜶_𝐒`$, as well as those reported in the next section, are in very good agreement with recently determined world averages ($`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.118}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.002}`$, or $`𝜶_𝐒\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1178}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0033}`$ based solely on NNLO QCD results excluding the LEP lineshape results and accounting for correlated errors).

### 16.5 Standard Model Analyses

In the following, several different Standard Model fits to the data reported in Table 16.2 are discussed. The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimisation is performed with the program MINUIT , and the predictions are calculated with TOPAZ0  and ZFITTER . The somewhat increased $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/d.o.f. for all of these fits is caused by the same effect as discussed in the previous chapter, namely the large dispersion in the values of the leptonic effective electroweak mixing angle measured through the various asymmetries. For the analyses presented here, this dispersion is interpreted as a fluctuation in one or more of the input measurements, and thus we neither modify nor exclude any of them. A further drastic increase in $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/d.o.f. is observed when the NuTeV result on $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝐖`$ is included in the analysis.

To test the agreement between the LEP data and the Standard Model, a fit to the LEP data (including the LEP-II $`𝒎_𝐖`$ and $`𝚪_𝐖`$ determinations) leaving the top quark mass and the Higgs mass as free parameters is performed. The result is shown in Table 16.2, column 1. This fit shows that the LEP data predicts the top mass in good agreement with the direct measurements. In addition, the data prefer an intermediate Higgs-boson mass, albeit with very large errors. The strongly asymmetric errors on $`𝒎_𝐇`$ are due to the fact that to first order, the radiative corrections in the Standard Model are proportional to $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐇\mathbf{)}`$.

The data can also be used within the Standard Model to determine the top quark and W masses indirectly, which can be compared to the direct measurements performed at the $`𝐩\overline{𝐩}`$ colliders and LEP-II. In the second fit, all LEP and SLD results in Table 16.1, except the measurements of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ and $`𝚪_𝐖`$, are used. The results are shown in column 2 of Table 16.2. The indirect measurements of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ and $`𝒎_𝐭`$ from this data sample are shown in Figure 16.2, compared with the direct measurements. Also shown are the Standard Model predictions for Higgs masses between 114 and 1000 GeV. As can be seen in the figure, the indirect and direct measurements of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ and $`𝒎_𝐭`$ are in agreement, and both sets prefer a low value of the Higgs mass.

For the third fit, the direct $`𝒎_𝐭`$ measurement is used to obtain the best indirect determination of $`𝒎_𝐖`$. The result is shown in column 3 of Table 16.2 and in Figure 16.3. Also here, the indirect determination of W boson mass $`\mathbf{80.380}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.023}`$ GeV is in agreement with the combination of direct measurements from LEP-II and $`𝐩\overline{𝐩}`$ colliders of $`𝒎_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.449}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.034}`$ GeV. For the next fit, (column 4 of Table 16.2 and Figure 16.4), the direct $`𝒎_𝐖`$ and $`𝚪_𝐖`$ measurements from LEP and $`𝐩\overline{𝐩}`$ colliders are included to obtain $`𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}^{\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$ GeV, in very good agreement with the direct measurement of $`𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{=}\mathbf{174.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{5.1}`$ GeV. Compared to the second fit, the error on $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝒎_𝐇`$ increases due to effects from higher-order terms.

Finally, the best constraints on $`𝒎_𝐇`$ are obtained when all data are used in the fit. The results of this fit are shown in column 6 of Table 16.2 and Figure 16.5. While the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$/d.o.f. increases by 9.2 units for the additional degree of freedom due to the NuTeV result, the fit results themselves are rather stable when excluding this measurement, as shown in column 5. In Figure 16.5 the observed value of $`𝚫𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ as a function of $`𝒎_𝐇`$ is plotted for the fit including all data. The solid curve is the result using ZFITTER, and corresponds to the last column of Table 16.2. The shaded band represents the uncertainty due to uncalculated higher-order corrections, as estimated by TOPAZ0 and ZFITTER. Compared to previous analyses, its width is enlarged towards lower Higgs-boson masses due to the effects of the complete fermionic two-loop calculation of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ discussed above. The 95% confidence level upper limit on $`𝒎_𝐇`$ (taking the band into account) is 193 GeV. The lower limit on $`𝒎_𝐇`$ of approximately 114 GeV obtained from direct searches is not used in the determination of this limit. Also shown is the result (dashed curve) obtained when using $`𝚫𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ of Reference 316.

In Figures 16.6 to 16.9 the sensitivity of the LEP and SLD measurements to the Higgs mass is shown. Besides the measurement of the W mass, the most sensitive measurements are the asymmetries, i.e., $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐞𝐩𝐭}}`$. A reduced uncertainty for the value of $`𝜶\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ would therefore result in an improved constraint on $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝒎_𝐇`$ and thus $`𝒎_𝐇`$, as already shown in Figures 16.1 and 16.5. Given the constraints on the other four Standard Model input parameters, each observable is equivalent to a constraint on the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson. The constraints on the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson resulting from each observable are compared in Figure 16.10.

## Chapter 17 Conclusions

The combination of the many precise electroweak results yields stringent constraints on the Standard Model. In addition, the results are sensitive to the Higgs mass. Most measurements agree well with the predictions. The spread in values of the various determinations of the effective electroweak mixing angle is somewhat larger than expected. Within the Standard Model analysis, this seems to be caused by the measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry in b-quark production, showing the largest pull of all Z-pole measurements w.r.t. the Standard Model expectation. The final result of the NuTeV collaboration on the electroweak mixing angle differs more, by three standard deviations from the Standard Model expectation calculated based on all other precision electroweak measurements.

The LEP and SLD experiments wish to stress that this report reflects a preliminary status of their results at the time of the 2002 summer conferences. A definitive statement on these results must wait for publication by each collaboration.

### Prospects for the Future

Most of the measurements from data taken at or near the Z resonance, both at LEP as well as at SLC, that are presented in this report are either final or are being finalised. The main improvements will therefore take place in the high energy data, with more than 700 pb-1 per experiment. The measurements of $`𝒎_𝐖`$ are likely to reach a precision not too far from the uncertainty on the prediction obtained via the radiative corrections of the $`𝐙`$ data, providing a further important test of the Standard Model. In the measurement of the triple and quartic electroweak gauge boson self couplings, the analysis of the complete LEP-II statistics, together with the increased sensitivity at higher beam energies, will lead to an improvement in the current precision.

### Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the CERN accelerator divisions for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator, the precise information on the absolute energy scale and their close cooperation with the four experiments. The SLD collaboration would like to thank the SLAC accelerator department for the efficient operation of the SLC accelerator. We would also like to thank members of the CDF, DØ and NuTeV collaborations for making results available to us in advance of the conferences and for useful discussions concerning their combination. Finally, the results of the section on Standard Model constraints would not be possible without the close collaboration of many theorists.

## Appendix A The Measurements used in the Heavy-Flavour Averages

In the following 20 tables the results used in the combination are listed. In each case an indication of the dataset used and the type of analysis is given. Preliminary results are indicated by the symbol “†”. The values of centre-of-mass energy are given where relevant. In each table, the result used as input to the average procedure is given followed by the statistical error, the correlated and uncorrelated systematic errors, the total systematic error, and any dependence on other electroweak parameters. In the case of the asymmetries, the measurement moved to a common energy (89.55 GeV, 91.26 GeV and 92.94 GeV, respectively, for peak$`\mathbf{}`$2, peak and peak+2 results) is quoted as corrected asymmetry.

Contributions to the correlated systematic error quoted here are from any sources of error shared with one or more other results from different experiments in the same table, and the uncorrelated errors from the remaining sources. In the case of $`𝓐_𝐜`$ and $`𝓐_𝐛`$ from SLD the quoted correlated systematic error has contributions from any source shared with one or more other measurements from LEP experiments. Constants such as $`𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ denote the dependence on the assumed value of $`𝒙^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝}}`$, which is also given.

## Appendix B Heavy-Flavour Fit including Off-Peak Asymmetries

The full 18 parameter fit to the LEP and SLD data gave the following results:

$`𝑹_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.21643}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00065}`$
$`𝑹_𝐜^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1719}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0031}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0539}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0070}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.020}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.013}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐩𝐤}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0977}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0018}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐩𝐤}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0641}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0037}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐛\overline{𝐛}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1161}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0058}`$
$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐁}}^{𝐜\overline{𝐜}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.129}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.011}`$
$`𝓐_𝐛`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.922}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.020}`$
$`𝓐_𝐜`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.670}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.026}`$
$`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1062}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}`$
$`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐛\mathbf{}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0808}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0018}`$
$`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.0977}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0032}`$
$`\overline{𝝌}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1189}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0040}`$
$`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.234}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}`$
$`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐃_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.126}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.026}`$
$`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐜_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.095}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.023}`$
$`𝐏\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.1621}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0048}`$
with a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$d.o.f. of $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$. The corresponding correlation matrix is given in Table B.1. The energy for the peak$`\mathbf{}`$2, peak and peak+2 results are respectively 89.55 GeV, 91.26 GeV and 92.94 GeV. Note that the asymmetry results shown here are not the pole asymmetries shown in Section 5.3.2. The non-electroweak parameters do not depend on the treatment of the asymmetries.

## Appendix C Detailed inputs and results on W-boson and four-fermion averages

Tables C.1 \- C.14 give the details of the inputs and of the results for the calculation of LEP averages of the four-fermion cross-section and the corresponding cross-section ratios For both inputs and results, whenever relevant, the split up of the errors into their various components is given in the table.

For each measurement, the Collaborations have privately provided unpublished information which is necessary for the combination of LEP results, such as the expected statistical error or the split up of the systematic uncertainty into its correlated and uncorrelated components. Unless otherwise specified in the References, all other inputs are taken from published papers and public notes submitted to conferences.

## Appendix D Colour Reconnection Combination

### D.1 Inputs

### D.2 Example Average

### Links to LEP results on the World Wide Web

The physics notes describing the preliminary results of the four LEP experiments submitted to the 2002 summer conferences, as well as additional documentation from the LEP electroweak working group are available on the World Wide Web at:
ALEPH: http://alephwww.cern.ch/ALPUB/oldconf/summer02/summer.html  DELPHI: http://delphiwww.cern.ch/~pubxx/delsec/conferences/amsterdam02/  L3: http://l3.web.cern.ch/l3/conferences/Amsterdam2002/  OPAL: http://opal.web.cern.ch/Opal/pubs/ichep02/abstr.html  LEP-EWWG: http://cern.ch/LEPEWWG/