format: text

text:
# The Bisognano-Wichmann Theorem for Massive Theories

## Introduction.

In local relativistic quantum theory , a model is specified in terms of a net of local observable algebras and a representation of the Poincaré group, under which the net is covariant. The Bisognano-Wichmann theorem  intimately connects these two, algebraic and geometric, aspects. Namely, it asserts that under certain conditions modular covariance is satisfied: The modular unitary group of the observable algebra associated to a wedge region coincides with the unitary group representing the boosts which preserve the wedge. Since the boosts associated to all wedge regions generate the Poincaré group, modular covariance implies that the representation of the Poincaré group is encoded intrinsically in the net of local algebras. It has further important consequences: It implies the spin-statistics theorem  and, as Guido and Longo have shown , the CPT theorem. It also implies essential Haag duality, which is an important input to the structural analysis of charge superselection sectors .

Counterexamples  demonstrate that modular covariance does not follow from the basic principles of quantum field theory without further input. But its remarkable implications assign a significant role to this property, and it is desirable to find physically transparent conditions under which it holds. Bisognano and Wichmann have shown modular covariance to hold in theories where the field algebras are generated by finite-component Wightman fields . In the framework of algebraic quantum field theory, Borchers has shown that the modular objects associated to wedges have the correct111namely, as expected from modular covariance commutation relations with the translation operators as a consequence of the positive energy requirement . Based on his result, Brunetti, Guido and Longo derived modular covariance for conformally covariant theories . In the Poincaré covariant case, sufficient conditions for modular covariance of technical nature have been found by several authors  (see  for a review of these results).

In the present article, we derive modular covariance in the setting of local quantum physics for a large class of massive models. Specifically, the models must contain massive particles whose scattering states span the whole Hilbert space (asymptotic completeness). Further, within each charge sector the occurring particle masses must be isolated eigenvalues of the mass operator. The corresponding representation of the covering group of the Poincaré group must have no accidental degeneracies; i.e. for each mass and charge there is one single particle multiplet under the gauge group (the group of inner symmetries). We admit the most general localization properties for the charges carried by these particles, namely localization in spacelike cones .

A byproduct of our analysis is that the CPT theorem holds under these rather general and transparent conditions. It must be mentioned that Epstein has already proved a rudimentary version of the CPT theorem for massive theories in the framework of local quantum physics . But it refers only to the S-matrix (and not to the local fields), and is derived only for compactly localized charges. It must also be mentioned that the spin-statistics theorem, which is a consequence of modular covariance and needs not be assumed for our derivation, has already been proved by Buchholz and Epstein  for massive theories with charges localizable in spacelike cones.

The article is organized as follows. In Section 1, the general framework is set up and our assumptions concerning the particle spectrum are made precise, as well as our notion of modular covariance. We state our main result in Theorem 2. The proof will proceed in two steps: In Section 2, single-particle versions of the Bisognano-Wichmann and the CPT theorems are derived (Theorem 5). This is an extension of Buchholz and Epstein’s proof  of the spin-statistics theorem for topological charges. In Section 3 we prove modular covariance via Haag-Ruelle scattering theory (Proposition 7). As mentioned, this already implies the CPT theorem . Yet for the sake of self consistency, we show in Section 4 that the CPT theorem can be derived directly from our assumptions via scattering theory (Proposition 9).

## 1. Assumptions and Result.

In the algebraic framework, the fundamental objects of a quantum field theory are the observable algebra and the physically relevant representations of it. The set of equivalence classes of these representations, or charge superselection sectors, has the structure of a semigroup. We will assume that it is generated by a set of “elementary charges” which correspond to massive particles. Then all relevant charges are localizable in spacelike cones . Under these circumstances and if Haag duality holds, it is known  that the theory may be equivalently described by an algebra of (unobservable) charged field operators localized in spacelike cones, and a compact gauge group acting on the fields. The observable algebra is then the set of gauge invariant elements of the field algebra, and modular covariance of the former is equivalent to modular covariance of the latter . We take the field algebra framework as the starting point of our analysis. It is noteworthy that then essential Haag duality needs not be assumed for our result, but rather follows from it.

Let us briefly sketch this framework. The Hilbert space $``$ carries a unitary representation $`U`$ of the universal covering group $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}`$ of the Poincaré group which has positive energy, i.e. the joint spectrum of the generators $`P_\mu `$ of the translations is contained in the closed forward lightcone. There is a unique, up to a factor, invariant vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Further, there is a compact group $`G`$ (the gauge group) of unitary operators on $``$ which commute with the representation $`U`$ and leave $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ invariant.

For every spacelike cone222a spacelike cone is a region in Minkowski space of the form $`𝒞=a+_{\lambda >0}\lambda 𝒪,`$ where $`a^4`$ is the apex of $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒪`$ is a double cone whose closure does not contain the origin. $`𝒞`$ there is a von Neumann algebra $`(𝒞)`$ of so-called field operators acting in $`.`$ The family $`𝒞(𝒞),`$ together with the representation $`U`$ and the group $`G,`$ satisfies the following properties.

0) Inner symmetry: For all $`𝒞`$ and all $`VG`$

$$V(𝒞)V^1=(𝒞).$$

i) Isotony: $`𝒞_1𝒞_2`$ implies $`(𝒞_1)(𝒞_2).`$

ii) Covariance: For all $`𝒞`$ and all $`g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}`$

$$U(g)(𝒞)U(g)^1=(g𝒞).$$

iii) Twisted locality: There is a Bose-Fermi operator $`\kappa `$ in the center of $`G`$ with $`\kappa ^2=1,`$ determining the spacelike commutation relations of fields: let $`Z\frac{1+i\kappa }{1+i}.`$ Then

$$Z(𝒞_1)Z^{}(𝒞_2)^{}$$

if $`𝒞_1`$ and $`𝒞_2`$ are spacelike separated.

iv) Reeh-Schlieder property: For every $`𝒞,`$ $`(𝒞)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is dense in $`.`$

v) Irreducibility: $`_𝒞(𝒞)^{}=1.`$

Note that twisted locality (iii) is equivalent to normal commutation relations : Two field operators which are localized in causally disjoint cones anticommute if both operators are odd under the adjoint action of $`\kappa `$ (fermionic) and commute if one of them is even (bosonic) and the other one is even or odd.

Let

$$=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }}{}_\alpha $$

be the factorial decomposition of $`G^{\prime \prime },`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the set of equivalence classes of irreducible unitary representations of $`G`$ contained in the defining representation 333In fact, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains all irreducible representations of $`G,`$ and is in 1–1 correspondence with the superselection sectors of the observable algebra .. The subspaces $`_\alpha `$ will be referred to as (charge) sectors, and two sectors corresponding to conjugate representations $`\alpha ,\overline{\alpha }`$ of $`G`$ will be called conjugate sectors. We denote by $`E_\alpha `$ the projection in $``$ onto $`_\alpha ,`$ and by $`d_\alpha `$ the (finite) dimension of the class $`\alpha .`$ Note that the Poincaré representation commutes with $`E_\alpha .`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the set of charges carried by the particle types of the theory: $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ if, and only if, the restriction of the mass operator $`\sqrt{P^2}`$ to $`_\alpha `$ has non–zero eigenvalues.

vi) Massive particle spectrum. There are no massless particles, i.e. no eigenvectors of the mass operator with eigenvalue zero apart from the vacuum vector. For each $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)},`$ there is exactly one444Our results still hold if no restriction is imposed on the number of (isolated) mass values in each sector. non–zero eigenvalue $`m_\alpha `$ of $`\sqrt{P^2}E_\alpha `$, which is in addition isolated. Further, the corresponding subrepresentation of $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}`$ contains only one irreducible representation, with multiplicity equal to $`d_\alpha .`$ Thus, for each $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)},`$ there is one multiplet under $`G`$ of particle types with the same charge $`\alpha ,`$ mass and spin.

vii) Asymptotic completeness: The scattering states span the whole Hilbert space (see equation (3.5)).

The property of modular covariance, which we are going to derive from these assumptions, means the following. Due to the Reeh-Schlieder property and locality, for every spacelike cone $`𝒞`$ there is a Tomita operator  $`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(𝒞)`$ associated to $`(𝒞)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }:`$ It is the closed antilinear involution satisfying

$`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(𝒞)B\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=B^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ for all }B(𝒞).`$
Its polar decomposition is denoted as
$`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(𝒞)`$ $`=J_𝒞\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
The anti-unitary involution $`J_𝒞`$ in this decomposition is called the modular conjugation, and the positive operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ gives rise to the so-called modular unitary group $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞^{it}`$ associated to $`𝒞.`$ Modular covariance means, generally speaking, that the Tomita operators associated to a distinguished class of space-time regions have geometrical significance. This class is the set of wedge regions, i.e. Poincaré transforms of the standard wedge region $`W_1:`$ 555Wedges $`W`$ will be considered as limiting cases of spacelike cones. $`(W)`$ is the von Neumann algebra generated by all $`(𝒞)`$ with $`𝒞W.`$

$`W_1`$ $`\{x^4:|x^0|<x^1\},`$
and the geometrical significance is as follows. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)`$ denote the Lorentz boost in $`x^1`$-direction, acting on the coordinates $`x^0,x^1`$ as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(t)& \mathrm{sinh}(t)\\ \mathrm{sinh}(t)& \mathrm{cosh}(t)\end{array}\right),$$

and $`\lambda _1(t)`$ its lift to the covering group $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}.`$

###### Definition 1.

A theory is said to to satisfy modular covariance if

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{W_1}^{it}=U(\lambda _1(2\pi t)).$$
(1.1)
Other notions of modular covariance have been proposed in the literature (see, e.g. ), but this is the strongest one. In particular, it implies  that the modular conjugation $`J_{W_1}`$ has the geometric significance of representing the reflexion $`j`$ at the edge of $`W_1,`$ which inverts the sign of $`x^0`$ and $`x^1`$ and acts trivial on $`x^2,x^3.`$ More precisely, Guido and Longo have shown in  that equation (1.1) implies that the operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }Z^{}J_{W_1}`$ acts geometrically correctly, i.e. satisfies

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(W)\mathrm{\Theta }^1`$ $`=(jW)`$ (1.2)
for all wedge regions $`W,`$ and has the representation properties

$`\mathrm{\Theta }U(g)\mathrm{\Theta }^1=U(jgj)\text{ for all }g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{},\mathrm{\Theta }^2=1.`$ (1.3)
Here we have denoted by $`gjgj`$ the unique lift of the adjoint action of $`j`$ on the Poincaré group to an automorphism of the covering group . Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ also sends each sector to its conjugate, equations (1.2) and (1.3) exhibit $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ as a CPT operator666Here we consider $`j`$ as the $`PT`$ transformation. The total space-time inversion arises from $`j`$ through a $`\pi `$-rotation about the $`1`$-axis, and is thus also a symmetry (if combined with charge conjugation $`C`$). In odd-dimensional space-time, $`j`$ is the proper candidate for a symmetry in combination with $`C,`$ while the total space-time inversion is not. . Thus, modular covariance (1.1) implies the CPT theorem. Further, the last two equations imply, by the Tomita-Takesaki theorem, that the theory satisfies twisted Haag duality for wedges, i.e.

$$Z(W^{})Z^{}=(W)^{}.$$
(1.4)
Our main result is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.

Let the assumptions 0) $`,\mathrm{},`$ vii) be satisfied. Then modular covariance, the CPT theorem as expressed by equations (1.2) and (1.3), and twisted Haag duality for wedges hold.

It is noteworthy that equation (1.2) holds not only for wedge regions, but also for spacelike cones if one replaces the family $``$ with the so-called dual family $`^d.`$ Namely, twisted Haag duality for wedge regions implies that the dual family $`^d(𝒞)_{W𝒞}(W)`$ is still local. On this family, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ acts geometrically correctly, i.e. equation (1.2) holds for all $`^d(𝒞)`$ .

Our proof of the theorem will proceed in two steps: In the next section, modular covariance is shown to hold in restriction to the single particle space (Theorem 5). In Section 3 we show that modular covariance extends to the space of scattering states (Proposition 7). By the assumption of asymptotic completeness this space coincides with $`,`$ hence modular covariance holds, implying the CPT theorem.

## 2. Modular Covariance on the Single Particle
Space.

As a first step, we prove single-particle versions of the Bisognano-Wichmann and the CPT theorems. Let $`E_I`$, $`I,`$ be the spectral projections of the mass operator $`\sqrt{P^2}.`$ We denote by $`E^{(1)}`$ the sum of all $`E_{\{m_\alpha \}},`$ where $`\alpha `$ runs through the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ of single particle charges and $`m_\alpha `$ are the corresponding particle masses. The range of $`E^{(1)}`$ is called the single particle space.

An essential step towards the Bisognano-Wichmann theorem is the mentioned result of Borchers , namely that the modular unitary group and the modular conjugation associated to the wedge $`W_1`$ have the correct commutation relations with the translations. In particular, they commute with the mass operator, which implies that $`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(W_1)`$ commutes with $`E^{(1)}.`$ Let us denote the corresponding restriction by

$$S_{\mathrm{Tom}}S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(W_1)E^{(1)}.$$

Similarly, the representation $`U(\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{})`$ leaves $`E^{(1)}`$ invariant, giving rise to the subrepresentation

$$U^{(1)}(g)U(g)E^{(1)},$$

and one may ask if modular covariance holds on $`E^{(1)}.`$ We show in this section that this is indeed the case, the line of argument being as follows. Let $`K`$ denote the generator of the unitary group of 1-boosts, $`U(\lambda _1(t))=e^{itK}.`$ We exhibit an anti-unitary “PT-operator” $`U^{(1)}(j)`$ representing the reflexion $`j`$ on $`E^{(1)},`$ and show that $`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}`$ coincides with the “geometric” involution

$$S_{\mathrm{geo}}U^{(1)}(j)e^{\pi K}E^{(1)}$$
(2.1)
up to a unitary “charge conjugation” operator which commutes with the representation $`U^{(1)}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}.`$ By uniqueness of the polar decomposition, this will imply modular covariance on $`E^{(1)}.`$

We begin by exploiting our knowledge about $`U^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}).`$ By assumption, for each $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ the subrepresentation $`U(g)E^{(1)}E_\alpha `$ contains only one equivalence class of irreducible representations. As is well–known, the latter is fixed by the mass $`m_\alpha `$ and a number $`s_\alpha \frac{1}{2}_0,`$ the spin of the corresponding particle species.

We briefly recall the so-called covariant irreducible representation $`U_{m,s}`$ for mass $`m>0`$ and spin $`s\frac{1}{2}_0.`$ The universal covering group of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group $`L_+^{}`$ is identified with $`SL(2,)`$ . Explicitly, the boosts $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_k()`$ in $`k`$-direction and rotations $`R_k()`$ about the $`k`$-axis, $`k=1,2,3,`$ lift to

$$\lambda _k(t)=e^{\frac{1}{2}t\sigma _k}\text{ and }r_k(\omega )=e^{\frac{i}{2}\omega \sigma _k},k=1,2,3,$$
(2.2)
respectively. The universal covering group $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}`$ of the proper orthochronous Poincaré group $`P_+^{}`$ is the semidirect product of $`SL(2,)`$ with the translation subgroup $`^4,`$ elements being denoted by $`g=(x,A).`$ The representation $`U_{m,s}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}`$ for $`m>0`$ and $`s\frac{1}{2}_0`$ acts on a Hilbert space $`_{m,s}`$ of functions from the positive mass shell $`H_m`$ into $`^{2s+1}.`$ The latter, viewed as the space of covariant spinors of rank $`2s,`$ is acted upon by an irreducible representation $`V_s`$ of $`SL(2,)`$ satisfying

$$V_s(A^{})=V_s(A)^{}\text{ and }V_s(\overline{A})=\overline{V_s(A)}.$$

Let $`,`$ denote the scalar product in $`^{2s+1},`$ and $`\mathrm{d}\mu (p)`$ the Lorentz invariant measure on the mass shell $`H_m,`$ and let, for $`p=(p^0,𝒑)^4,`$

$`\stackrel{~}{p}p^01𝒑𝝈\text{ and }\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}p^01+𝒑𝝈,`$
where $`𝝈=(\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\sigma _3)`$ are the Pauli matrices. Then the scalar product in $`_{m,s}`$ is defined as

$$(\psi _1,\psi _2)=d\mu (p)\psi _1(p),V_s(\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{~}{p})\psi _2(p).$$
(2.3)
$`U_{m,s}`$ acts on $`_{m,s}`$ according to

$$\left(U_{m,s}(x,A)\psi \right)(p)=\mathrm{exp}(ixp)V_s(A)\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^1)p),$$
(2.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:SL(2,)L_+^{}`$ denotes the covering homomorphism. To this representation an anti–unitary operator $`U_{m,s}(j)`$ can be adjoined satisfying the representation properties

$$U_{m,s}(j)^2=1\text{ and }U_{m,s}(j)U_{m,s}(g)U_{m,s}(j)=U_{m,s}(jgj)$$
(2.5)
for all $`g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}.`$ Namely, it is given by 777A proof, as well as explicit formulae for the relevant group relations $`jgj,`$ are given in the Appendix for the convenience of the reader.

$$\left(U_{m,s}(j)\psi \right)(p)V_s\left(\frac{1}{m}\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _3\right)\overline{\psi (jp)}.$$
(2.6)
By our assumption vi), we may identify the subrepresentation $`U(g)E^{(1)}E_\alpha `$ with the direct sum of $`d_\alpha `$ copies of $`U_{m_\alpha ,s_\alpha }(g).`$ Then there are mutually orthogonal projections $`E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}E_\alpha ,`$ $`k=1,\mathrm{}d_\alpha ,`$ in $``$ onto irreducible subspaces such that

$`E^{(1)}E_\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{d_\alpha }{}}}E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)},`$ (2.7)
$`U(g)E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}`$ $`=U_{m_\alpha ,s_\alpha }(g)E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}\text{for all }g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}.`$
We define a “PT–operator” $`U^{(1)}(j)`$ on $`E^{(1)}`$ as the anti–linear extension of
$`U^{(1)}(j)E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}`$ $`U_{m,s}(j)E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}.`$
Note that this definition of $`U^{(1)}(j)`$ depends on the choice of the decomposition (2.7).

We define now a closed antilinear operator $`S_{\mathrm{geo}}`$ in terms of the representation $`U^{(1)},`$ as anticipated, by equation (2.1). Note that the group relation $`j\lambda _1(t)j=\lambda _1(t)`$ implies that $`S_{\mathrm{geo}}`$ is, like $`S_{\mathrm{Tom}},`$ an involution: it leaves its domain invariant and satisfies $`(S_{\mathrm{geo}})^21.`$ The following proposition is a corollary of the article  of Buchholz and Epstein.

###### Proposition 3.

There is a unitary “charge conjugation” operator $`C`$ on $`E^{(1)}`$ satisfying

$$CE_\alpha E^{(1)}=E_{\overline{\alpha }}CE^{(1)}\text{and}[C,U(g)]E^{(1)}=0\text{ for all }g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{},$$
(2.8)
such that

$$CS_{\mathrm{geo}}=S_{\mathrm{Tom}}.$$
(2.9)
###### Proof.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}.`$ Corresponding to the decomposition (2.7) of the particle multiplet $`\alpha `$ into particle types $`(\alpha ,k)`$ there is, for each $`k`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},d_\alpha \},`$ a family of linear subspaces $`𝒞_{\alpha ,k}(𝒞)(𝒞)`$ satisfying

$`E^{(1)}_{\alpha ,k}(𝒞)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}(𝒞)\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (2.10)
see e.g.  . Note that the closures of the above vector spaces are independent of $`𝒞`$ by the Reeh–Schlieder property and span $`E^{(1)}_\alpha `$ if $`k`$ runs through $`\{1,\mathrm{},d_\alpha \}.`$ Similarly, the “anti–particle” Hilbert spaces

$$E^{(1)}_{\alpha ,k}(𝒞)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}}$$
(2.11)
are independent of $`𝒞,`$ mutually orthogonal for different $`k,`$ and span $`E^{(1)}_{\overline{\alpha }}`$ if $`k`$ runs through $`\{1,\mathrm{},d_\alpha \}`$ (note that $`d_{\overline{\alpha }}=d_\alpha `$). Buchholz and Epstein  have shown the particle – anti-particle symmetry in this situation: For each $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{},d_\alpha `$ there is a unitary map $`C_{\alpha ,k}`$ from the closure $`E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}`$ of the vector space (2.10) onto the space (2.11) intertwining the respective (irreducible) subrepresentations of $`\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}`$. We now recall in detail the relevant result of Buchholz and Epstein. Denote by $`_{\alpha ,k}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$ the set of field operators $`B_{\alpha ,k}(𝒞)`$ such that the map $`gU(g)BU(g)^1`$ is smooth in the norm topology. Buchholz and Epstein consider a special class of spacelike cones: Let $`\underset{¯}{𝒞}^3`$ be an open, salient cone in the $`x^0=0`$ plane of Minkowski space, with apex at the origin. Then its causal completion $`𝒞=\underset{¯}{𝒞}^{\prime \prime }`$ is a spacelike cone. Its dual cone $`𝒞^{}`$ is defined as the set

$$𝒞^{}\{(p^0,𝒑)^4:𝒑𝒙>0\text{ for all }𝒙\underset{¯}{𝒞}^{\text{}}\{0\}\}.$$

###### Lemma 4 (Buchholz, Epstein).

Let $`B_{\alpha ,k}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞),`$ where $`𝒞`$ is a spacelike cone as above and $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}.`$ Then $`p\left(E^{(1)}B\mathrm{\Omega }\right)(p)`$ is, considered as a function on the mass shell $`H_{m_\alpha },`$ the smooth boundary value of an analytic function $`k\left(E^{(1)}B\mathrm{\Omega }\right)(k)`$ on the simply connected subset

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒞,\alpha }\{k^4|k^2=m_\alpha ^2,\mathrm{Im}k𝒞^{}\}$$

of the complex mass shell. Further, its boundary value on $`H_{m_\alpha }`$ satisfies

$$\omega _{\alpha ,k}V_{s_\alpha }(\frac{1}{m_\alpha }\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _2)\overline{\left(E^{(1)}B\mathrm{\Omega }\right)(p)}=\left(C_{\alpha ,k}^{}E^{(1)}B^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)(p),$$
(2.12)
where $`\omega _{\alpha ,k}`$ is a complex number of unit modulus which is independent of $`B`$ and $`\underset{¯}{𝒞}`$, and $`C_{\alpha ,k}^{}`$ is the mentioned intertwiner from $`E^{(1)}_{\alpha ,k}(𝒞)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\text{}}`$ onto $`E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}`$.

Note that equation (2.12) coincides literally with equation (5.13) in . We reformulate this result as follows. Denote by $`𝒦_1`$ the class of spacelike cones $`𝒞`$ contained in $`W_1`$ which are of the form $`\underset{¯}{𝒞}^{\prime \prime }`$ as in the lemma and contain the positive $`x^1`$-axis. Let further

$`D_0\underset{𝒞𝒦_1,\alpha ,k}{\mathrm{span}}E^{(1)}_{\alpha ,k}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (2.13)
where $`\alpha `$ runs through $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ and $`k=1,\mathrm{},d_\alpha .`$ The lemma asserts that on this domain an operator $`S_0`$ may be defined by

$`\left(S_0E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}\psi \right)(p)V_{s_\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\alpha }}\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _2)\overline{\left(E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}\psi \right)(p)},\psi D_0.`$ (2.14)
Further, the intertwiners $`C_{\alpha ,k},`$ modified by the factors $`\omega _{\alpha ,k}`$ appearing in (2.12), extend by linearity to a unitary “charge conjugation” operator $`C`$ on $`E^{(1)},`$

$$CE_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)}\omega _{\alpha ,k}C_{\alpha ,k}E_{\alpha ,k}^{(1)},$$

which satisfies the equations (2.8) of the proposition. Now equation (2.12) may be rewritten as

$$CS_0S_{\mathrm{Tom}}.$$
(2.15)
This inclusion implies in particular that $`S_0`$ is closable, its closure satisfying the same relation. But this closure is an extension of the operator $`S_{\mathrm{geo}},`$ as we show in the Appendix (Lemma 11). Hence we have

$$CS_{\mathrm{geo}}S_{\mathrm{Tom}},$$
(2.16)
and it remains to show the opposite inclusion. To this end, we refer to the opposite wedge $`W_1^{}=R_2(\pi )W_1.`$ Let

$`S_{\mathrm{geo}}^{}`$ $`U^{(1)}(r_2(\pi ))S_{\mathrm{geo}}U^{(1)}(r_2(\pi ))^1,`$
$`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}^{}`$ $`U^{(1)}(r_2(\pi ))S_{\mathrm{Tom}}U^{(1)}(r_2(\pi ))^1=S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(W_1^{})E^{(1)}.`$
We claim that the following sequence of relations holds true:

$$S_{\mathrm{Tom}}\kappa ^1(S_{\mathrm{Tom}}^{})^{}\kappa ^1C(S_{\mathrm{geo}}^{})^{}=CS_{\mathrm{geo}},$$
(2.17)
where $`\kappa `$ is the Bose-Fermi operator. Twisted locality and modular theory imply that

$$ZS_{\mathrm{Tom}}(W_1)Z^{}S_{\mathrm{Tom}}(W_1^{})^{}.$$

Applying $`E^{(1)},`$ this yields $`ZS_{\mathrm{Tom}}Z^{}`$ $`(S_{\mathrm{Tom}}^{})^{}.`$ But $`ZS_{\mathrm{Tom}}Z^{}=`$ $`Z^2S_{\mathrm{Tom}},`$ because $`\kappa `$ commutes with the modular operators. Using $`Z^2=\kappa ,`$ this proves the first inclusion. Since $`C`$ commutes with $`U^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{})`$ and both $`S_{\mathrm{geo}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}`$ are involutions, the inclusion (2.16) implies that

$$CU^{(1)}(j)=U^{(1)}(j)C^{}.$$
(2.18)
Thus, the adjoint of relation (2.16) reads $`S_{\mathrm{Tom}}{}_{}{}^{}CS_{\mathrm{geo}}{}_{}{}^{},`$ which implies the second of the above inclusions. Finally, the group relations (A.2) and $`\lambda _1(t)r_2(\pi )=r_2(\pi )\lambda _1(t)`$ imply that $`(S_{\mathrm{geo}}^{})^{}=U^{(1)}(r_2(2\pi ))S_{\mathrm{geo}}.`$ But the spin-statistics theorem  asserts that $`U(r_2(2\pi ))=\kappa .`$ (Namely, both operators act on $`_\alpha `$ as multiplication by the statistics sign $`\kappa _\alpha =e^{2\pi is_\alpha }.`$) Hence the last equation in (2.17) holds. This completes the proof of (2.17) and hence of the proposition. ∎

By uniqueness of the polar decomposition, equation (2.9) of the proposition implies the equations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{W_1}^{\frac{1}{2}}E^{(1)}=e^{\pi K}E^{(1)},J_{W_1}E^{(1)}=CU^{(1)}(j)E^{(1)}.$$

Since the unitary $`C`$ commutes with $`U^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{})`$ and satisfies equation (2.18), we have shown the single particle version of the Bisognano-Wichmann theorem:

###### Theorem 5.

Let the assumptions 0)$`,\mathrm{},`$ vi) of Section 1 hold. Then

i) Modular Covariance holds on the single particle space:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{W_1}^{it}E^{(1)}`$ $`=U(\lambda _1(2\pi t))E^{(1)}.`$ (2.19)
ii) $`J_{W_1}E^{(1)}`$ is a “CPT operator” on $`E^{(1)}`$:
$`J_{W_1}U(g)J_{W_1}E^{(1)}`$ $`=U(jgj)E^{(1)}\text{ for all }g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}.`$ (2.20)
## 3. Modular Covariance on the Space of Scattering States.

Having established modular covariance on the single particle space, we now show that it extends to the space of scattering states. The argument is an extension of Landau’s analysis  on the structure of local internal symmetries to the present case of a symmetry which does not act strictly local in the sense of Landau. The method to be employed is Haag-Ruelle scattering theory , whose adaption to the present situation of topological charges has been developed in .

This method associates a multi-particle state to $`n`$ single particle vectors, which are created from the vacuum by quasilocal field operators carrying definite charge. Recall  that for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma },`$ there is a family of linear subspaces $`𝒞_\alpha (𝒞)(𝒞)`$ of field operators carrying charge $`\alpha :`$

$$_\alpha (𝒞)\mathrm{\Omega }=E_\alpha (𝒞)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Operators in $`_\alpha (𝒞)`$ are bosons or fermions w.r.t. the normal commutation relations according as $`\kappa `$ takes the value $`1`$ or $`1`$ on $`_\alpha .`$ The mentioned quasilocal creation operators are constructed as follows. For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)},`$ let $`B_\alpha (𝒞)`$ be such that the spectral support of $`B\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has non–vanishing intersection with the mass hyperboloid $`H_{m_\alpha }.`$ Further, let $`f𝒮(^4)`$ be a Schwartz function whose Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ has compact support contained in the open forward light cone $`V_+`$ and intersects the energy momentum spectrum of the sector $`\alpha `$ only in the mass shell $`H_{m_\alpha }.`$ Recall that the latter is assumed to be isolated from the rest of the energy momentum spectrum in the sector $`_\alpha .`$ For $`t,`$ let $`f_t`$ be defined by

$$f_t(x)(2\pi )^2\mathrm{d}^4pe^{i(p_0\omega _\alpha (𝒑)t}e^{ipx}\stackrel{~}{f}(p),$$
(3.1)
where $`\omega _\alpha (𝒑)(𝒑^2+m_\alpha ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ For large $`|t|,`$ its support is essentially contained in the region $`tV_\alpha (f),`$ where $`V_\alpha (f)`$ is the velocity support of $`f,`$

$$V_\alpha (f)\{(1,\frac{𝒑}{\omega _\alpha (𝒑)}),p=(p^0,𝒑)\mathrm{supp}\stackrel{~}{f}\}.$$
(3.2)
More precisely , for any $`\epsilon >0`$ there is a Schwartz function $`f_t^\epsilon `$ with support in $`tV_\alpha (f)^\epsilon ,`$ where $`V^\epsilon `$ denotes an $`\epsilon `$–neighbourhood of $`V,`$ such that $`f_tf_t^\epsilon `$ converges to zero in the Schwartz topology for $`|t|\mathrm{}.`$ Let now

$$B(f_t)\mathrm{d}^4xf_t(x)U(x)BU(x)^1.$$

For large $`|t|,`$ this operator is essentially localized in $`𝒞+tV_\alpha (f).`$ Namely, for any $`\epsilon >0,`$ it can be approximated by the operator

$$B(f_t^\epsilon )\left(𝒞+tV_\alpha (f)^\epsilon \right)$$
(3.3)
in the sense that $`B(f_t^\epsilon )B(f_t)`$ is of fast decrease in $`t.`$ Further, it creates from the vacuum a single particle vector

$$B(f_t)\mathrm{\Omega }=(2\pi )^2\stackrel{~}{f}(P)B\mathrm{\Omega }E^{(1)}_\alpha ,$$

which is independent of $`t,`$ and whose velocity support is contained in that of $`f.`$ Here we understand the velocity support $`V(\psi )`$ of a single particle vector to be defined as in equation (3.2), with the spectral support of $`\psi `$ taking the role of $`\mathrm{supp}\stackrel{~}{f}.`$ To construct an outgoing scattering state from $`n`$ single particle vectors, pick $`n`$ localization regions $`𝒞_i,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and compact sets $`V_i`$ in velocity space, such that for suitable open neighbourhoods $`V_i^\epsilon ^4`$ the regions $`𝒞_i+tV_i^\epsilon `$ are mutually spacelike separated for large $`t.`$ Next, choose $`B_i_{\alpha _i}(𝒞_i),`$ and Schwartz functions $`f_i`$ as above with $`V_{\alpha _i}(f_i)V_i.`$ Then the standard lemma of scattering theory asserts the following: The limit

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}B_n(f_{n,t})\mathrm{}B_1(f_{1,t})\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1\right)^{\mathrm{out}}$$
(3.4)
exists and depends only on the single particle vectors $`\psi _iB_i(f_{i,t})\mathrm{\Omega },`$ justifying the above notation. The convergence in (3.4) is of fast decrease in $`t,`$ and the limit vector depends continuously on the single particle states, as a consequence of the cluster theorem. Further, the normal commutation relations survive in this limit.

Let us write $`^{(1)}E^{(1)},`$ and denote by $`^{(n)},`$ $`n2,`$ the closed span of outgoing $`n`$-particle scattering states and by $`^{(\mathrm{ex})}`$ the span of these spaces:

$$^{(\mathrm{ex})}=\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{n}{}^{(n)}.$$
(3.5)
Asymptotic completeness means that $`^{(\mathrm{ex})}`$ coincides with $`.`$ Our proof that modular covariance extends from $`^{(1)}`$ to $`^{(\mathrm{ex})}`$ relies on the following observation.

###### Lemma 6.

In each $`^{(n)},`$ $`n2,`$ there is a total set of scattering states as in equation (3.4), with the localization regions chosen such that $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_{n1}W_1^{}`$ and $`𝒞_n=W_1.`$

In particular, for these scattering states the regions $`𝒞_i+tV(\psi _i)^\epsilon ,`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$ are spacelike separated from $`W_1+tV(\psi _n)^\epsilon `$ for large $`t.`$

###### Proof.

Consider the set $`M^n`$ of velocity tupels $`(𝒗_1,\mathrm{},𝒗_n)^{3n}`$ satisfying the requirements that a) one of the velocities, say $`𝒗_{i_0},`$ has the strictly largest $`1`$-component:

$$(𝒗_{i_0})_1>(𝒗_i)_1\text{ for }ii_0,$$

and b) the relative velocities w.r.t. $`𝒗_{i_0}`$ have different directions:

$$^+(𝒗_i𝒗_{i_0})^+(𝒗_j𝒗_{i_0})\text{ for }ij.$$

Given such $`(𝒗_1,\mathrm{},𝒗_n),`$ let $`𝒞_{i_0}=W_1.`$ For $`ii_0,`$ let $`\underset{¯}{𝒞}_i`$ be a cone in the $`t=0`$ plane of $`^4`$ containing the ray $`^+(𝒗_i𝒗_{i_0})`$ and with apex at the origin, and let then $`𝒞_i`$ be its causal closure. Then, having chosen sufficiently small opening angles, the regions $`𝒞_i+t\{(1,𝒗_i)\},`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ are mutually spacelike separated for all $`t>0,`$ and further $`𝒞_iW_1^{}`$ for $`ii_0.`$ Now $`M^n`$ exhausts the set of all velocity tupels in $`^{3n}`$ except for a set of measure zero. Hence, a scattering state $`(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ as in (3.4) can be approximated by a sum of scattering states $`(\psi _n^\nu \times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1^\nu )^{\mathrm{out}},`$ whose localization regions satisfy that $`𝒞_{i_0}^\nu =W_1`$ for some $`i_0,`$ and $`𝒞_i^\nu W_1^{}`$ for $`ii_0.`$ This is accomplished by a standard argument  taking into account the continuous dependence of $`(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ on the $`\psi _i`$ and the Reeh-Schlieder theorem. But due to the normal commutation relations obeyed by the scattering states, $`(\psi _n^\nu \times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1^\nu )^{\mathrm{out}}`$ coincides with $`\pm (\psi _{i_0}^\nu \times \mathrm{}\psi _n^\nu \mathrm{}\times \psi _1^\nu )^{\mathrm{out}}`$ and hence is of the form required in the lemma. ∎

###### Proposition 7.

If the unitary groups $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{W_1}^{it}`$ and $`U(\lambda _1(2\pi t))`$ coincide on $`^{(1)},`$ they also coincide on the space $`^{(\mathrm{ex})}`$ of scattering states.

###### Proof.

Let $`U_t\mathrm{\Delta }_{W_1}^{it}U(\lambda _1(2\pi t)).`$ Considering this operator as an internal symmetry, it should act multiplicatively on the scattering states as shown by Landau in . The complication is that $`U_t`$ does not act strictly local, but only leaves $`(W_1)`$ invariant. We generalize Landau’s argument to this case utilizing the last lemma. By induction over the particle number $`n`$ we show that $`U_t`$ is the unit operator on each $`^{(n)}.`$ Let $`(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ be a scattering state with $`\psi _i=B_i(f_{i,t}),`$ where the localization regions $`𝒞_i`$ are as in the above lemma. Since $`B_{n1}(f_{n1,t})\mathrm{}B_1(f_t)\mathrm{\Omega }(\psi _{n1}\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ is of fast decrease in $`t,`$ while $`B_n(f_{n,t})`$ increases at most like $`|t|^4,`$ one concludes as Hepp in :

$`(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}B_n(f_{n,s})(\psi _{n1}\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}.`$ (3.6)
Hence
$`U_t(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}U_tB_n(f_{n,s})U_t^1(\psi _{n1}\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}},`$ (3.7)
where we have put in the induction hypothesis that $`U_t`$ acts trivially on $`^{(n1)}.`$ Due to Borchers’ result, $`U_t`$ commutes with the translations, which implies that $`U_tB_n(f_{n,s})U_t^1`$ coincides with $`(U_tB_nU_t^1)(f_{n,s}).`$ But modular theory and covariance guarantee that $`U_tB_nU_t^1`$ is, like $`B_n,`$ in $`(W_1).`$ In addition $`(U_tB_nU_t^1)(f_{n,s})`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }=`$ $`U_t\psi _n,`$ hence by the standard lemma of scattering theory, equation (3.7) may be rewritten as

$$U_t(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}=((U_t\psi _n)\times \psi _{n1}\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}.$$

By assumption of the proposition, $`U_t`$ acts trivially on $`\psi _n,`$ and hence on the scattering state. By linearity and continuity, the same holds on $`^{(n)},`$ completing the induction. ∎

The hypothesis of this proposition has been shown in Theorem 5 to hold under our assumptions 0)$`,\mathrm{},`$ vi). Hence, we have now derived modular covariance from these assumptions and asymptotic completeness. As mentioned, Guido and Longo have shown that modular covariance generally implies covariance of the modular conjugations, and hence the CPT theorem \[22, Prop. 2.8, 2.9\]. Thus, the proof of Theorem 2 is now completed.

## 4. The CPT Theorem.

We show here that the CPT theorem can also be derived directly from our assumptions in Section 1, via the single particle result and scattering theory. This should in particular turn out useful for a derivation of the CPT theorem in a theory of massive particles with non–Abelian braid group statistics (plektons) in $`d=2+1,`$ where the methods of  cannot be applied in an obvious way since one has no field algebra.

Recall that incoming scattering states can be constructed as in equation (3.4), where now $`t\mathrm{}`$ and the condition for the limit to exist is that the regions $`𝒞_i|t|V_i^\epsilon `$ be mutually spacelike separated for large $`|t|`$. The following result holds under the assumptions of Section 1, but without restrictions on the degeneracies of the mass eigenvalues in each sector. Like Proposition 7, it is an extension of Landau’s argument .

###### Lemma 8.

$`J_{W_1}`$ maps outgoing scattering states to incoming ones and vice versa according to

$$J_{W_1}\left(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1\right)^{\mathrm{out}}=\left(J_{W_1}\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times J_{W_1}\psi _1\right)^{\mathrm{in}}.$$
(4.1)
Let us put the statement of the lemma into a more concise form. Recall that the spaces of incoming and outgoing scattering states are isomorphic to an appropriately symmetrized Fock space over $`^{(1)}`$ via the operators $`W_{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{out}}`$ which map $`\psi _n\mathrm{}\psi _1`$ to $`(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{in},\mathrm{out}},`$ respectively. Lemma 8 then asserts that

$$J_{W_1}W_{\mathrm{out}}=W_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(J_{W_1}E^{(1)}),$$
(4.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U)`$ denotes the second quantization of a unitary operator $`U`$ on $`^{(1)}.`$ Note that the same equation holds with $`W_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{in}}`$ interchanged.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction along the same lines as in the last proposition. Let $`\psi _i=B_i(f_{i,t})\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the single particle states appearing in equation (4.1), with velocity supports contained in compact sets $`V_i,`$ and with localization regions $`𝒞_i,`$ such that $`𝒞_i+tV_i^\epsilon `$ are mutually spacelike separated for suitable $`\epsilon >0.`$ According to Lemma 6, we may assume that the localization regions satisfy $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_{n1}W_1^{}`$ and $`𝒞_n=W_1.`$ By the same arguments as in the last proof, we have

$`J_{W_1}(\psi _n\times \mathrm{}\times \psi _1)^{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}J_{W_1}B_n(f_{n,t})J_{W_1}(J_{W_1}\psi _{n1}\times \mathrm{}\times J_{W_1}\psi _1)^{\mathrm{in}},`$ (4.3)
where we have put in the induction hypothesis that $`J_{W_1}`$ acts as in equation (4.1) on $`^{(n1)}.`$ Now by Borchers’ result  we know that the commutation relations $`J_{W_1}U(x)J_{W_1}`$ $`=U(jx)`$ hold. From these we conclude that the spectral supports of $`\psi `$ and $`J_{W_1}\psi `$ are related by the transformation $`j,`$ and hence their velocity supports are related by

$$V(J_{W_1}\psi )=rV(\psi ),$$
(4.4)
where $`r`$ denotes the inversion of the sign of the $`x^1`$-coordinate. By virtue of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem and the continuity of the scattering states, we may assume that for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ there are $`\widehat{B}_i(r𝒞_i)`$ and $`\widehat{f}_i`$ such that $`\widehat{B}_i(\widehat{f}_{i,t})\mathrm{\Omega }=J_{W_1}\psi _i.`$ Further, $`\widehat{f}_i`$ can be chosen such that $`V(\widehat{f}_i)V(J_{W_1}\psi _i)^\epsilon ,`$ which in turn is contained in $`rV_i^\epsilon `$ due to equation (4.4). Then $`\widehat{B}_i(\widehat{f}_{i,t})`$ can be approximated by an operator $`A_i^\epsilon (t)`$ localized in the region $`r\{𝒞_i+tV_i^\epsilon \}.`$ These regions are mutually spacelike separated for large positive $`t,`$ and hence the incoming $`n1`$ particle state in equation (4.3) may be written as $`lim_t\mathrm{}`$ $`\widehat{B}_{n1}(\widehat{f}_{n1,t})\mathrm{}\widehat{B}_1(\widehat{f}_{1,t})\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Similarly, Borchers’ commutation relations imply that

$$J_{W_1}B_n(f_{n,t})J_{W_1}=\left(J_{W_1}B_nJ_{W_1}\right)(\widehat{f}_{n,t}),\text{ where }\widehat{f}_n(x)=\overline{f_n(jx)}.$$

Now $`J_{W_1}B_nJ_{W_1}`$ is in $`(W_1)^{},`$ and $`V(\widehat{f}_n)=rV(f_n),`$ and therefore the discussion around equation (3.3) implies that the above operator may be approximated by an operator $`A_n^\epsilon (t)\left(W_1+trV_n^\epsilon \right)^{}.`$ Recall that the operators $`A_i^\epsilon (t),`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$ are localized in the regions $`r\{𝒞_i+tV_i^\epsilon \}.`$ For large positive $`t,`$ these regions are spacelike to $`r\{W_1+tV_n^\epsilon \}`$ and are hence contained in $`W_1+trV_n^\epsilon .`$ Hence the $`A_i^\epsilon (t)`$ (anti-) commute with $`A_n^\epsilon (t)`$ for large $`t.`$ Thus the standard arguments of scattering theory  apply, yielding that the vector (4.3) may be written as

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(J_{W_1}B_nJ_{W_1}\right)(\widehat{f}_{n,t})\widehat{B}_{n1}(\widehat{f}_{n1,t})\mathrm{}\widehat{B}_1(\widehat{f}_{1,t})\mathrm{\Omega },`$
and only depends on the single particle vectors. But these are $`\left(J_{W_1}B_nJ_{W_1}\right)`$ $`(\widehat{f}_{n,t})`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }=J_{W_1}\psi _n,`$ and $`\widehat{B}_i(\widehat{f}_{i,t})\mathrm{\Omega }=J_{W_1}\psi `$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1.`$ Hence the limit coincides with the right hand side of equation (4.1), completing the induction. ∎

###### Proposition 9 (CPT).

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be the the anti–unitary involution $`\mathrm{\Theta }Z^{}J_{W_1}.`$

i)If the representation property

$$\mathrm{\Theta }U(g)\mathrm{\Theta }=U(jgj)\text{ for all }g\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}$$
(4.5)
holds on $`^{(1)},`$ then it is also satisfied on the space $`^{(\mathrm{ex})}`$ of scattering states.

ii) In this case, and if in addition asymptotic completeness holds, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ acts geometrically correctly on the family of wedge algebras $`(W)_W`$ in the sense of equation (1.2).

Note that equation (4.5) is equivalent to $`J_{W_1}U(g)J_{W_1}=U(jgj),`$ since $`Z`$ commutes with $`U(g)`$ and satisfies $`Z^{}J_{W_1}=J_{W_1}Z.`$ In Proposition 5, we have shown that $`J_{W_1}`$ satisfies this representation property on $`^{(1)}`$ if the assumptions 0)$`,\mathrm{},`$vi) of Section 1 hold. Hence Proposition 9 is a CPT theorem, holding under these assumptions and asymptotic completeness.

###### Proof.

i) Let $`J_{W_1}`$ have the above representation property on $`^{(1)}.`$ As is well known , the restriction of $`U(\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{})`$ to the space of scattering states is equivalent to the second quantization of its restriction to $`^{(1)}:`$ $`U(g)W_{\mathrm{out},\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=W_{\mathrm{out},\mathrm{in}}`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U(g)E^{(1)}).`$ By virtue of Lemma 8, see equation (4.2), the assumption thus implies

$`J_{W_1}U(g)J_{W_1}W_{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=W_{\mathrm{out}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(J_{W_1}U(g)J_{W_1}E^{(1)}\right)=U(jgj)W_{\mathrm{out}},`$
which proves the claim. ii) By twisted locality and modular theory, one has

$$(W_1^{})Z^{}(W_1)^{}Z=\mathrm{\Theta }(W_1)\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(4.6)
Now recall that $`U(r_2(\pi ))(W_1)U(r_2(\pi ))^1=(W_1^{})`$ and that $`jr_2(\pi )j=r_2(\pi ),`$ see equation (A.2). One therefore obtains, by applying $`\mathrm{Ad}\left(U(r_2(\pi ))\mathrm{\Theta }\right)`$ to the inclusion (4.6) and using equation (4.5), the opposite inclusion. Hence equality holds in (4.6). Since every wedge region arises from $`W_1`$ by a Poincaré transformation, the claimed equation (1.2) follows by covariance of the field algebras and the representation property (4.5) of $`\mathrm{\Theta }.`$

## Appendix A Single-Particle PT Operator and Geometric
Involution.

We provide an explicit formula for the group relations $`jgj`$ and a proof of the representation property of the “PT operator” $`U_{m,s}(j)`$ defined in equation (2.6). As before, we denote by $`gjgj`$ the unique lift  of the adjoint action of $`j`$ on the Poincaré group to an automorphism of the covering group. An explicit formula for $`jgj`$ follows from the observation that $`j`$ coincides with the proper Lorentz transformation $`R_1(\pi ):`$ Hence, for all $`ASL(2,)`$

$$j\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)j=R_1(\pi )\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)R_1(\pi )^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\sigma _1A\sigma _1).$$

This shows that the lift $`jgj`$ is given by

$$j(x,A)j=(jx,\sigma _1A\sigma _1)\text{for all }(x,A)\stackrel{~}{P}_+^{}.$$
(A.1)
Using equation (2.2), one has in particular the relations

$$jr_2(\omega )j=r_2(\omega ),j\lambda _1(t)j=\lambda _1(t).$$
(A.2)
###### Lemma 10.

The operator $`U_{m,s}(j)`$ defined in equation (2.6) is anti–unitary and satisfies the representation properties (2.5).

###### Proof.

We prove the second of the equations (2.5) for $`g=(0,A)`$ with $`ASL(2,)`$. The other assertions are shown along the same lines. Recall that the covering homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:SL(2,)L_+^{}`$ is characterized by $`\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(A)p}=A\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}A^{}.`$ We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(U_{m,s}(j)U_{m,s}(g)U_{m,s}(j)\psi \right)(p)\hfill \\ \hfill =V_s\left(m^2\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _3\overline{A}\overline{\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^1)(j)p)}}\sigma _3\right)\psi (j\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^1)jp).\end{array}$$
(A.3)
Using the identity

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^1)(j)p}=\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }(A^1i\sigma _1)p}=A^1\sigma _1\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _1(A^{})^1,$$

which follows from $`j=R_1(\pi ),`$ and the well-known relation

$`\sigma _2\overline{A}\sigma _2=(A^{})^1\text{ for }ASL(2,),`$
one verifies that the argument of $`V_s`$ in equation (A.3) equals $`\sigma _1A\sigma _1.`$ By equation (A.1), this proves the claim. ∎

We now relate the geometric involution $`S_{\mathrm{geo}}=U^{(1)}(j)e^{\pi K}E^{(1)}`$ with the closable operator $`S_0`$ defined in equation (2.14).

###### Lemma 11.

The closure of $`S_0`$ is an extension of $`S_{\mathrm{geo}}.`$

###### Proof.

Recall that for $`f𝒮()`$ the bounded operator $`f(K),`$ where $`K`$ denotes again the generator of the boosts $`\lambda _1(),`$ may be written as

$$f(K)=dt\stackrel{~}{f}(t)U(\lambda _1(t)).$$

Here $`\sqrt{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`f,`$ and the integral is understood in the weak sense. Let now $`c`$ be a smooth function with compact support, and let $`\psi =E^{(1)}B\mathrm{\Omega },`$ where $`B_{\alpha ,k}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒞)`$ for some $`𝒞𝒦_1.`$ Applying the above formula to $`c_\pi (K)e^{\pi K}c(K)`$ one finds, using that $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is analytic and $`\stackrel{~}{c_\pi }(t)=\stackrel{~}{c}(ti\pi ),`$

$`\left(S_{\mathrm{geo}}c(K)\psi \right)(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle dt\overline{\stackrel{~}{c}(ti\pi )}\left(U^{(1)}(j)U\left(\lambda _1(t)\right)\psi \right)(p)}`$ (A.4)
$`={\displaystyle dt\overline{\stackrel{~}{c}(ti\pi )}V_{s_\alpha }\left(\frac{1}{m_\alpha }\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _3\overline{e^{\frac{t}{2}\sigma _1}}\right)\overline{\psi \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)(jp)\right)}}.`$ (A.5)
The one-parameter group $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1()`$ extends to an entire analytic function satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(tit^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)\left(j_t^{}i\mathrm{sin}t^{}\sigma \right),$$

where $`j_t^{}`$ acts as multiplication by $`\mathrm{cos}t^{}`$ on the coordinates $`x^0`$ and $`x^1`$ and leaves the other coordinates unchanged, and $`\sigma `$ acts as $`\sigma _1`$ on $`(x^0,x^1)`$ and as the zero projection on $`(x^2,x^3)`$ . Note that in particular

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(ti\pi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)j.$$

Further, one easily verifies that for any $`qH_{m_\alpha },`$ the vector $`\sigma q`$ is in the dual cone $`𝒞^{}.`$ Hence for all $`t^{}(0,\pi )`$ and all $`pH_{m_\alpha },`$ the complex vector $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(tit^{})(jp)`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝒞,\alpha },`$ the domain of analyticity of $`\psi ,`$ and approaches $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)(p)`$ as $`t^{}\pi .`$ It follows that the integrand in the expression (A.5) is anti–holomorphic in $`t`$ in the strip $`0<\mathrm{Im}t<\pi ,`$ and that (A.5) coincides with

$`{\displaystyle dt\overline{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}V_{s_\alpha }\left(\frac{1}{m_\alpha }\underset{\stackrel{~}{}}{𝑝}\sigma _3\frac{1}{i}\sigma _1\overline{e^{\frac{t}{2}\sigma _1}}\right)\overline{\psi (\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)(p))}}`$
$`={\displaystyle dt\overline{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}\left(S_0U\left(\lambda _1(t)\right)\psi \right)(p)}.`$ (A.6)
Here we have used that for all $`t,`$ $`U(\lambda _1(t))\psi `$ is again in the domain $`D_0`$ of $`S_0`$ due to the covariance of the field algebra. This is so because for all $`t,`$ there is some $`𝒞_t𝒦_1`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(t)𝒞𝒞_t.`$ Let now $`\varphi `$ be in the (dense) domain of $`S_0^{},`$ and let $`\psi D_0.`$ We have shown from (A.4) to (A.6), that

$`(\varphi ,S_{\mathrm{geo}}c(K)\psi )={\displaystyle dt\overline{\stackrel{~}{c}(t)}(\varphi ,S_0U\left(\lambda _1(t)\right)\psi )}=(c(K)\psi ,S_0^{}\varphi ).`$
Let $`D`$ denote the set of finite linear combinations of vectors of the form $`c(K)\psi ,`$ where $`cC_0^{\mathrm{}}()`$ and $`\psi D_0.`$ Then the above equation shows that $`D`$ is in the domain of $`S_0^{},`$ and that $`S_0^{}=S_{\mathrm{geo}}`$ on $`D.`$ But $`D`$ is a core for $`S_{\mathrm{geo}},`$ hence $`S_0^{}`$ is an extension of $`S_{\mathrm{geo}}.`$

## Acknowledgements.

I thank K. Fredenhagen, R. Longo and D. Buchholz for stimulating discussions which have been essential to this work, and K.-H. Rehren for carefully reading the manuscript. Further, I gratefully acknowledge the hospitality extended to me by the Universities of Rome I and II. Last not least, I acknowledge financial support by the SFB 288 (Berlin), the EU (via TMR networks in Rome), the Graduiertenkolleg “Theoretische Elementarteilchenphysik” (Hamburg), and the DFG (Göttingen).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the Standard Model , the Higgs mechanism  gives mass to the electroweak gauge bosons, thus allowing the unification of the electromagnetic and weak interactions. Whether the Higgs boson exists is one of the most important open questions in particle physics. A number of improvements were made to the LEP collider for the year 2000 data taking, which increased the Higgs discovery potential, extending the sensitivity of the Higgs boson search to approximately 115 GeV if the data from all four LEP experiments are combined. The combination of the preliminary Higgs boson search results of the four LEP experiments  shows an excess of candidates which may indicate the production of a Standard Model Higgs boson with a mass near 115 GeV. In this letter we present the results of a search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the OPAL detector at LEP, considering particularly the mass hypothesis of 115 GeV.

Approximately 426 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of e+e- annihilation data were collected by OPAL in the years 1999 and 2000 at centre-of-mass energies in the range 192–209 GeV; this data sample is used for the analyses presented in this letter. Searches are performed for the “Higgs-strahlung” process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$, where $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ is the Standard Model Higgs boson, and $`\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$ is a fermion-antifermion pair from the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decay. For the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ ($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$) final state, the contribution from the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$) fusion process is also taken into account. Only the decays of the Higgs boson into $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are considered here. OPAL has already reported results from the Standard Model Higgs boson search at e+e- centre-of-mass energies up to 189 GeV , where a lower mass limit of $`m_\mathrm{H}>91.0`$ GeV was obtained at the $`95\%`$ confidence level. A similar search procedure is applied here. All data were processed with the most up-to-date detector calibrations available. For future publications more refined analyses and the final detector calibrations will be used.

## 2 OPAL Detector, Data and Monte Carlo Samples

Details of the OPAL detector can be found in . The data used in the analyses correspond to integrated luminosities of approximately 216 pb-1 at 192–202 GeV, 80 pb-1 at 203–206 GeV, and 130 pb-1 at centre-of-mass energies higher than 206 GeV. The total luminosity used to search for the Higgs boson varies by $`\pm `$2% from channel to channel, due to slightly different requirements on the operational status of different detector elements. During 2000 (1999), data were taken at $`\sqrt{s}=200`$-209 GeV (192-202 GeV) with a luminosity-weighted mean centre-of-mass energy of 206.1 (197.6) GeV.

A variety of Monte Carlo samples was generated at centre-of-mass energies between 192 and 210 GeV. Higgs boson production is modelled with the HZHA3 generator  for a wide range of Higgs boson masses. The size of these samples varies from 2000 to 10000 events for each mass and at each centre-of-mass energy. The background processes are simulated with typically more than 50 times the statistics of the corresponding data sample. The process $`(\mathrm{Z}/\gamma )^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$($`\gamma `$) is modelled with the KK2f generator using CEEX  for the modelling of the initial state radiation. The four-fermion processes (4f) are simulated using grc4f . The two-photon and other two-fermion processes have a negligible impact on the results. The hadronisation process is simulated with JETSET/PYTHIA  with parameters described in . In each search channel, the estimates of the signal efficiency and the selected background rate depend strongly on the centre-of-mass energy and are thus interpolated on a fine grid. For each Monte Carlo sample, the full detector response is simulated in detail as described in .

## 3 Analysis Procedures

We search for Higgs production in the following final states: $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ (four-jet channel), $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ (missing-energy channel), $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ (tau channels), $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ (electron and muon channels). In each channel, a preselection is applied to ensure that the events are well measured and are consistent with the desired signal topology. A likelihood selection combining 6 to 10 variables depending on the search channel is then used to further enrich the signal.

We use the same analysis techniques described in a previous publication , namely event reconstruction, b-flavour tagging, lepton (electron, muon and tau) identification and kinematic fits to reconstruct the Higgs boson mass. The b-tagging variable $``$ is evaluated for each jet to distinguish jets containing b-hadrons from those that do not. The tracking and b-tagging performance in the Monte Carlo simulation are tuned using 8.2 pb-1 of calibration data collected at $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$ at intervals during 1999 and 2000 with the same detector configuration and operating conditions as the high-energy data. Figure 1(a) shows the distribution of $``$ for the calibration data. Comparisons between the data and the Monte Carlo simulation are shown in Figure 1(b) for jets which are found opposite to jets passing or failing the b-tagging requirement. The tagging efficiency for b-flavoured (udsc-flavoured) jets is modelled by the Monte Carlo simulation to within an accuracy of 2% (5%).

The performance of the b-tagging for the data taken at $`\sqrt{s}192`$ GeV is checked with samples of $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}(\gamma )`$ events by selecting hadronic events with the mass of the $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ system near $`m_\mathrm{Z}`$. Figure 1(c) shows the b-tagging variable $``$ for jets opposite b-tagged jets in the 2000 sample. The efficiency for tagging udsc flavours is also checked by computing $``$ for the jets in a sample of $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ ($`\mathrm{}`$=e or $`\mu `$) obtained with the selection used to measure the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ cross-section  as shown in Figure 1(d). The expectation from the Standard Model Monte Carlo describes the data within the relative statistical uncertainty of 5–10%. The results of these cross-checks are not used in the evaluation of the systematic uncertainties described below.

Sources of systematic uncertainties are investigated for their effect on the signal detection efficiencies and the Standard Model backgrounds. The error from the modelling of the likelihood selection input variables on the background (signal) rates is 4–8% (1–4%), depending on the channel. These uncertainties are evaluated based on comparisons of the distributions of the variables in the data and the Monte Carlo. Comparisons of alternative Monte Carlo generators for the backgrounds  account for an additional 3–11% uncertainty in the background rates. The uncertainty in the four-fermion cross-section is taken to be $`\pm 2`$. The uncertainties on the detector performance, such as the spatial resolution of the tracking and the modelling of the efficiency of the silicon microvertex detector, are evaluated source by source with Monte Carlo studies. Recent improvements in the knowledge of heavy quark production processes and decays, such as the b-hadron charged decay multiplicity  and the gluon splitting rate to heavy quarks , are taken into account in the analyses by reweighting Monte Carlo events. The modelling of the b-hadron production and decay processes is constrained by various measurements summarized in ; residual uncertainties in these measurements result in systematic uncertainties here. In particular, the b-hadron charged decay multiplicity $`n_B`$ is varied within $`n_B=4.955\pm 0.062`$. The uncertainties from the fragmentation functions for b- and c-quarks are obtained by adjusting the mean energy $`x_E`$ within the range allowed by the measurements. The charm and bottom-flavoured hadron lifetimes are varied within their errors with negligible effect on all search channels. The total uncertainties on the background (signal) rates are 11–15% (5–6%) varying from channel to channel.

### 3.1  Event Selections and Mass Reconstruction

The preselection requirements in the four-jet channel are identical to those of . After the preselection, a likelihood selection based on eight variables is applied. For each selected candidate, two of the jets are associated to the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ using a likelihood method based on the kinematic fit result and the b-tagging information. The mass determined by a $`\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0`$ 5C kinematic fit for the chosen jet pair gives the reconstructed mass of the Higgs boson candidate, $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$. Because of the constraints of the kinematic fit, $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}<\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$. The variables used in the likelihood selection for the 1999 data are the same as those used in our earlier analysis . For the 2000 data, however, one variable, the $`\chi ^2`$ probability of the $`\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0`$ 5C kinematic fit, is replaced by the $`\chi ^2`$ probability of a fit imposing an equal-mass constraint as used in the OPAL W mass measurement  in order to further suppress the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ background.

The selection of the missing-energy channel is very similar to . The notable changes are: 1) tightening the requirement on the maximum fraction of the visible energy in the angular region $`|\mathrm{cos}\theta |>0.90`$ from 50% to 20% in order to further suppress $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}(\gamma )`$ background (changed only in the 2000 analysis); 2) a looser requirement on the missing mass which is now selected in the range from 40 to 140 GeV. Other small changes correspond to the scaling of cut values with $`\sqrt{s}`$ for variables related to the visible momenta. In the construction of the likelihood selection, two new variables are included: 1) the thrust value of the event, and 2) the angle between the missing momentum and the direction of the most energetic jet. This last variable adds discrimination power especially against the process $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ in which the charged lepton is close to one of the jet axes. The reconstructed Higgs boson mass $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ is evaluated using a kinematic fit constraining the missing mass to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ mass. Because of the fit constraints, $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}<\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$.

The event selections in the tau, electron and muon channels are identical to the ones used in . For the tau channel the reconstructed Higgs boson mass is evaluated (see ) with the 3C kinematic fit with the largest $`\chi ^2`$ probability fixing either the tau pair invariant mass or the jet pair invariant mass to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ mass. The reconstructed Higgs boson mass is determined by the recoil mass of the electron pair in the electron channel, and with the results of a 4C kinematic fit constraining energy and momentum in the muon channel. There is no upper bound of $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$ in the electron and muon channels.

The numbers of events selected in each analysis after preselection and after the final likelihood selection are shown in Table 1 for the data taken at $`\sqrt{s}192209`$ GeV. The errors on the background and signal expectations are the sums in quadrature of the individual systematic uncertainties. Distributions of the selection likelihood values $`^{\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}`$ in all channels are shown in Figure 2. The number of selected events in all search channels is 156 with 146.1$`\pm `$11.9 expected from Standard Model background processes.

The distributions of the reconstructed masses of the selected events are shown in Figure 3. Note that all data taken in the wide $`\sqrt{s}`$ range from 192 to 209 GeV are summed in the figure, while the expected signal rates strongly depend on $`\sqrt{s}`$. The method used to optimise the sensitivity to the signal is described in Section 3.2. The background accumulation at high reconstructed mass in the four-jet channel is dominated by $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ events and jet-pairing combinatorial backgrounds from the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ process. The $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ background in the missing-energy channel also clusters at high reconstructed mass because $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ events passing the selection requirements are largely composed of events with two or more undetected, energetic initial state radiation photons with a small momentum sum along the beam direction. The jets in such events are nearly back-to-back, which results in values of $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ near the maximum kinematically allowed in the fits, $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$.

### 3.2 Confidence Level Calculations

After the event selections, all results from the various search channels are combined to test for the presence of a Standard Model Higgs boson signal. Previous data taken at centre-of-mass energies near or below 189 GeV have a negligible impact on the sensitivity to Higgs boson signals with $`m_\mathrm{H}>100`$ GeV and are not included. The cross-sections used in computing the confidence level (CL) include the effects of $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ fusion processes and their interference with the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ process in the missing-energy and electron channels respectively, as calculated using HZHA3 .

In order to compute the confidence levels, a test statistic is defined which expresses how signal-like the data are. The confidence levels are computed from the test statistic of the observed data and the expected distributions of the test statistic in a large number of simulated experiments under two hypotheses: the background-only hypothesis and the signal+background hypothesis. The test statistic chosen is the likelihood ratio $`Q`$, the ratio of the probability of observing the data given the signal+background hypothesis to the probability of observing the data given the background-only hypothesis . The results of all search channels are expressed in fine bins of discriminating variables, such as $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$. The expected signal strength depends strongly on $`\sqrt{s}`$, hence the results are considered separately in fine divisions of $`\sqrt{s}`$. In each bin of each channel at each $`\sqrt{s}`$ the expected Higgs boson signal, $`s_i`$, and the Standard Model background rate, $`b_i`$, are estimated, and the observed data counts, $`n_i`$, are reported. The $`s_i`$ depend on the mass of the Higgs boson under study (the “test mass”). Each bin is considered to be a statistically independent search obeying Poisson statistics. The likelihood ratio $`Q`$ can then be computed  as $`\mathrm{ln}Q=_is_i+_in_i\mathrm{ln}(1+s_i/b_i)`$. Each event has a weight in the sum which depends on the signal-to-background ratio in the bin in which it is found; events may be classified by their local $`s/b`$ values. The confidence level for the background hypothesis is ($`1\mathrm{CL}_b`$ which is the probability in an ensemble of background-only experiments of observing a more signal-like $`Q`$ than is actually observed: $`1\mathrm{CL}_b=P(Q>Q_{\mathrm{obs}}|\mathrm{background})`$. A low value of $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ indicates an excess of candidates in data compared to the expectation from background. The distribution of ($`1\mathrm{CL}_b`$) is uniform between 0 and 1 in an ensemble of background-only experiments.

Similarly, the confidence level for the signal+background hypothesis is $`\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}=P(QQ_{\mathrm{obs}}|\mathrm{signal}+\mathrm{background})`$, and is used to exclude the signal+background hypothesis if it has a small value. To eliminate the possibility of excluding a signal to which there is no sensitivity, a third quantity is defined $`\mathrm{CL}_s=\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}/\mathrm{CL}_b`$ . Results are also presented in terms of the signal rate limit $`n_{95}=g_{\mathrm{min}}_is_i`$, where $`g_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the smallest number such that the signal hypothesis consisting of $`g_{\mathrm{min}}s_i`$ in each bin yields $`\mathrm{CL}_s=0.05`$. The signal rate limit $`n_{95}`$ depends on the test mass. The technique used to perform the computation of the confidence levels is the same as is used in .

In our previous papers, the only discriminating variables used were the values of $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$. Here, the discriminating power is improved by combining $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$ with other variables. In the four-jet channel, after the jet pairing assignment and mass determination, a new test-mass-dependent variable $`𝒟_{mass}`$ is formed using a likelihood technique in order to investigate the compatibility with the signal production hypothesis for a Higgs boson of a specific test mass. The variable $`𝒟_{mass}`$ is based on the following four quantities: 1) the combined b-tagging variable $`_{2jet}^H`$ defined by $`_{2jet}^H_1_2/(_1_2+(1_1)(1_2))`$ for the two jets with the most significant b tags; 2) the energy difference between the most energetic and the least energetic jets in the event; 3) $`\beta _{\mathrm{min}}`$, a selection likelihood variable (see ); and 4) the reconstructed Higgs boson mass $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$. Signal Monte Carlo samples were generated with Higgs boson masses in 1 GeV steps, and $`𝒟_{mass}`$ is interpolated between neighbouring test masses. The distribution of $`𝒟_{mass}`$ is shown for a test mass of 115 GeV in Figure 4(a).

In the missing-energy, electron and muon channels, the selection likelihood value, $`^{\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}`$, is used to form a two-dimensional discriminant ($`^{\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}`$, $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$). The cut on $`^{\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}`$ is chosen to optimise the sensitivity of this new discriminant. In Figures 4(b) and (c), the reconstructed mass distributions are shown in slices of the selection likelihoods for the electron and muon channels, and for the missing-energy channel, respectively. In each channel, the enrichment of the signal depends on both the likelihood value and on $`m_\mathrm{H}^{\mathrm{rec}}`$. For the tau channels, only the reconstructed mass is used for the discriminant as in .

The systematic uncertainties on the signal and background expectations in each channel are treated using an extension of the method described in . Uncertainties described in Section 3 are assumed to be 100% correlated if they arise from the same source in different channels, in the signal and background estimations, and at different centre-of-mass energies. The current uncertainty on the beam energy for the 2000 data is expected to be of the order of 100 MeV, and would therefore affect the limits by $``$ 200 MeV. The uncertainty on the integrated luminosity is estimated to be 0.3%. Both of these errors are neglected.

## 4 Results

Figure 5(a) shows $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ as a function of the test mass $`m_\mathrm{H}`$. It attains its lowest value of 0.02 at $`m_\mathrm{H}=107`$ GeV, indicating a local excess of candidates. The probability to observe such an excess anywhere in the range of test masses between 100 and 120 GeV is approximately 10%, estimated from the size of the range and the reconstructed mass resolution. The value of $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ observed at $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=115 GeV is 0.2. Figure 5(a) also shows the expected $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ in the presence of a 115 GeV Higgs boson signal.

The signal rate limit $`n_{95}`$ is shown as a function of $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ in Figure 5 (b) together with its median expectation in an ensemble of background-only experiments. Figure 5 (b) also shows the expected accepted signal rate. Where the signal rate curve crosses the $`n_{95}`$ curve is the 95% CL exclusion limit on $`m_\mathrm{H}`$, and the expected limit is where the median expected $`n_{95}`$ curve crosses the accepted signal rate curve. A lower mass bound of 109.7 GeV is obtained, and the expected limit is 112.5 GeV. In particular, the hypothesis $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=107 GeV is excluded at the 98% CL (CL$`{}_{s}{}^{}=0.02`$) even in the presence of the excess candidates because the excess in the data is not large enough to be consistent with the expected signal rate from a Standard Model Higgs boson of that mass.

The candidates with the largest weights, $`\mathrm{ln}(1+s/b)`$, in each channel for test masses of 115 GeV are listed in Table 2. Figure 6 shows the distributions of $`\mathrm{ln}(1+s/b)`$ of each candidate as a function of the Higgs boson test mass for the candidates collected in 1999 and 2000. The region of test mass for which a candidate’s contribution is significant depends on the mass resolution of the candidates in the channel, and the normalization of the curve depends on the candidate b-tags, the kinematic variables, the Higgs boson cross-section and the local background near the reconstructed candidate mass. Deviations from smoothness of the curves are due to Monte Carlo statistics; this uncertainty is included in the confidence level computation.

The most significant candidate for a Higgs boson search for a test mass $`m_\mathrm{H}=115`$ GeV (candidate #1) is found in the four-jet channel. For the jet-pairing chosen by the jet-pairing likelihood function, the event has a reconstructed Higgs boson mass of 110.7 GeV. The second most significant candidate (#2) is also found in the four-jet channel, with a reconstructed mass of 112.6 GeV. No jet pairing yields a reconstructed Higgs boson mass close to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ mass in either of these two candidates.

The observed low value of $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ at 107 GeV is caused by candidates which have relatively high weights at around 105–110 GeV seen in Figure 6. For the tau channel candidate #5, the reconstructed mass is taken from the invariant mass of the jets after a 3C kinematic fit where the tau pair mass is constrained to the Z0 mass. The tau pair mass is 91 GeV if a 2C fit  is performed. The muon channel candidate #7 significantly affects the results of the confidence level calculations around 100–105 GeV since its likelihood $`^{\mathrm{H}^0\mathrm{Z}^0}`$ is very close to one.

The observed $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ is shown as a function of the test mass $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ in Figure 7 (a). Also shown are the 68% and 95% probability contours centred on the median expectation. Figure 7 (b) shows the probability density functions of $`2\mathrm{ln}Q`$ for the signal+background hypothesis with $`m_\mathrm{H}=115`$ GeV, and also for the background hypothesis. The separation between the two hypotheses is not strong. The background confidence level ($`1\mathrm{CL}_b`$)=0.2 is the integral of the background-only probability density to the left of the data observation, and $`\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}=0.4`$ is the integral to the right of the data observation of the signal+background curve. The data are slightly more consistent with the presence of a 115 GeV Higgs boson than with the background alone.

## 5 Conclusions

A search for the Standard Model Higgs boson has been performed with the OPAL detector at LEP based on the full data sample collected at $`\sqrt{s}`$192–209 GeV in 1999 and 2000. The largest deviation with respect to the expected Standard Model background in the confidence level for the background hypothesis, $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$, is observed for a Higgs boson mass of 107 GeV with a minimum $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ of 0.02, but the observed excess is less significant than is expected for a Standard Model Higgs boson with a 107 GeV mass. A lower bound of 109.7 GeV on the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson is obtained at the 95% confidence level while the median expectation for the background-only hypothesis is 112.5 GeV. For a Higgs boson with a mass of 115 GeV, $`(1\mathrm{CL}_b)`$ is approximately 0.2 while CLs+b is approximately 0.4, indicating that the data slightly favour the hypothesis that a signal is present, but also that the data are consistent with the background hypothesis. These data alone provide little discrimination between the signal+background and background hypotheses for Higgs boson masses above 112 GeV, but more statistically powerful conclusions may be reached by combining the data presented here with those of the other LEP experiments .

## Acknowledgements

We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their continuing close cooperation with our experimental group. We thank our colleagues from CEA, DAPNIA/SPP, CE-Saclay for their efforts over the years on the time-of-flight and trigger systems which we continue to use. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the
Department of Energy, USA,
National Science Foundation, USA,
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,
Minerva Gesellschaft,
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,
Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (the Monbusho) and a grant under the Monbusho International Science Research Program,
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS),
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany,
National Research Council of Canada,
Research Corporation, USA,
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-029328, T023793 and OTKA F-023259.