text:
# Hard diffraction and the nature of the Pomeron

## Abstract

We ask the question whether the quark and gluon distributions in the Pomeron obtained from QCD fits to hard diffraction processes at HERA can be dynamically generated from a state made of valence-like gluons and sea quarks as input. By a method combining backward $`Q^2`$-evolution for data exploration and forward $`Q^2`$-evolution for a best fit determination, we find that the diffractive structure functions published by the H1 collaboration at HERA can be described by a simple valence-like input at an initial scale of order $`\mu ^22.32.7GeV^2`$. The parton number sum rules at the initial scale $`\mu ^2`$ for the H1 fit gives $`2.1\pm .1\pm .1`$ and $`.13\pm .01\pm .02`$ for gluon and sea quarks respectively, corresponding to an initial Pomeron state made of (almost) only two gluons. It has flat gluon density leading to a plausible interpretation in terms of a gluonium state.

1. Introduction

Since years, the Pomeron remains a subject of many interrogations. Indeed, defined as the virtual colourless carrier of strong interactions, the nature of the Pomeron is still a real challenge. While in the perturbative regime of QCD it can be defined as a compound system of two Reggeized gluons  in the approximation of resumming the leading logs in energy, its non-perturbative structure is basically unknown.

However, in the recent years, an interesting experimental investigation on “hard” diffractive processes led to a new insight into Pomeron problems. At the HERA accelerator, it has been discovered that a non negligeable amount of $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{proton}`$ deep inelastic events can be produced with no visible breaking of the incident proton. There are various phenomenological interpretations of this phenomenon, but a very appealing one (which indeed constituted a prediction ) relies upon a partonic interpretation of the structure of the Pomeron. In fact, it is possible to nicely describe the two sets of cross-section data from H1  and ZEUS  (after taking into account also a Reggeon component) by a QCD DGLAP evolution of parton distributions in the Pomeron combined with Pomeron flux factors describing phenomenologically the probability of finding a Pomeron state in the proton. Sets of quark and gluon distributions in the Pomeron following LO or NLO $`Q^2`$-evolution equations are obtained , which successfully describe H1 and ZEUS data sets separately***Both sets are compatible within the errors but a difference was observed between the two sets of structure functions corresponding to different trends in the $`Q^2`$-dependence of the data . This motivates the separation between the two sets of data for the analysis..

The idea carried on in the present work is to find whether the Pomeron structure functions can be obtained from a standard DGLAP  evolution equation initialized by a valence-like input at some scale $`\mu .`$ By valence-like we mean an input distribution at low scale $`\mu ^2`$ for which both the density of gluons and sea quarks remains finite when $`\beta 0,`$ where $`\beta `$ is the energy-momentum shared between the constituants. If this is achieved, the number of gluons and sea quarks in the Pomeron is well-defined and finite. This may give an information on the non-perturbative origin of the Pomeron which can then be interpreted as a state made of constituent gluons and sea quarks with a given $`\beta `$ distribution (which reflects the energy-momentum sharing between the constituants and thus their interaction) and a given transverse size given by the scale $`\mu .`$

Our approach is inspired by the well-known GRV approach for the proton  (as well as its extensions to pion, photon) where the gluon, quark and antiquark distribution are obtained via  dynamical parton generation from LO or NLO DGLAP evolution starting at low scale. In the case of the proton, taken as an example, the idea was in principle to generate all proton distributions from QCD radiation starting only with the three valence quarks. After a series of refinements due to precise data analysis , it happens necessary to introduce also valence-like antiquarks and gluons. In any case, the overall picture leads to the useful GRV set of structure functions widely used in QCD phenomenology.

The main results of our analysis are herafter summarized:

i) The H1 set of data is fully compatible with an initial valence-like set of sea $`(Sq+\overline{q})`$ and gluon $`(G)`$ distributions at a scale $`\mu _{NLO}^22.7GeV^2`$ ($`\mu _{LO}^22.3GeV^2`$).

ii) Simple input valence-like distributions

$`\beta S(\beta ,Q^2=\mu ^2)=a_q\beta (1\beta )^{b_q}`$ (1)
$`\beta G(\beta ,Q^2=\mu ^2)=a_g\beta (1\beta )^{b_g},`$ (2)
give rise to a good fit of data. The four parameters $`a_{q,g},b_{q,g}`$ are given in table I with both statistical and systematic errors.

iii). The values obtained for $`b_g,b_q`$ are small, leading to flat initial parton density distributions for the Pomeron at the initial scale $`\mu ^2.`$ The exponential term in the usual parametrizations of input quark and gluon densities , with an essential singularity at $`\beta =1,`$ is needed to compensate for the singularities of QCD matrix elements at low $`Q^2.`$ This explains the difference between the usual initial parametrizations for diffractive vs. total proton structure functions.

iv) The ZEUS set of data, when parametrized using (2), leads to a worse $`\chi ^2`$ fit, see table I. Even if these data have smaller weight in a global analysis, this difference deserves further study.

v) Considering the obtained set of Pomeron structure functions, the input parton distributions of the Pomeron can be interpreted as those of a gluonium in a fundamental quantum state. Indeed, the gluon and sea quark number QCD sum rules (see formula (8) in section 4), correspond to a state of (almost only) two interacting gluons with (almost) flat parton density in $`\beta .`$

2. Backward evolution

Our method can be decomposed in two steps. First, we consider the existing parametrizations of the Pomeron structure functions, which are not of GRV type. We perform a backward QCD evolution in order to see whether at the same small $`Q^2`$ scale, the sea quark and gluon distributions can be compatible with the valence-like property. Then, if this investigation leads to a positive result, we perform a new QCD analysis of data, starting directly from a valence-like input. A consistency check is to verify that the new parametrizations of the Pomeron structure functions are compatible, within errors, with the initial ones.

As an illustration of our method for generating dynamical parton distributions, let us first consider the backward evolution for the proton within the GRV scheme . By construction, the parton distributions are obtained from valence-like quark, antiquark and gluon distributions at a small scale $`\mu ^2.`$ In the Mellin $`j`$-plane, the valence-like inputs correspond to Mellin transformed moments, or more generally continuous $`j`$-distributions, which remain finite when $`j1.`$ Indeed, the $`j=1`$ moment, when it is well-defined and normalized to the $`j=2`$ energy-momentum sum rule, defines the number of partons. It is constant for valence quarks for any $`Q^2,`$ while it is in general infinite for sea quarks and gluons, except eventually at the input scale $`\mu ^2,`$ if and only if the input distributions are valence-like.

In the case of the total structure functions of the proton, this is what can be seen in Fig.1, where we have reproduced the NLO backward evolution back to $`\mu ^2`$ of the valence, sea quark and gluon distributions from the GRV parametrization. It shows that all distributions which are infinite at $`Q>\mu `$ become finite at $`j1`$ when $`Q\mu .`$ In this instructive exercise we use the Mellin transform formalism for the (LO and NLO) $`Q^2`$-evolution, which is particularly suitable for our purpose since DGLAP equations take a simple two-by-two matrix form in Mellin space and allow us to use an exact analytical solution for the Pomeron structure functions at all $`Q^2.`$ We use the same method for the diffractive structure functions.

In our search for a valence-like input for the Pomeron, we now use the NLO backward evolution starting from the ansätze of Ref.. Indeed, the key technical point of our analysis is the identification of an exact analytic Mellin transform of the input parametrizations commonly used  for the DGLAP evolution of the Pomeron structure functions.

Starting from the parametrizations at $`Q_0^2=3GeV^2`$ , the sea quark distribution $`S(\beta ,Q^2)=_{flavors}(q+\overline{q})(\beta ,Q^2)`$ and the gluon distribution $`G(\beta ,Q^2)`$ are parameterized in terms of coefficients $`C_j^{(G,S)}`$ :

$$\beta S(\beta ,Q_0^2)=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_j^{(S)}P_j(2\beta 1)\right]^2e^{\frac{a}{\beta 1}};\beta G(\beta ,Q_0^2)=\left[\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_j^{(G)}P_j(2\beta 1)\right]^2e^{\frac{a}{\beta 1}},$$
(3)
where $`P_j(\zeta )`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ member in a set of Chebyshev polynomials, $`P_1=1`$, $`P_2=\zeta `$ and $`P_{j+1}(\zeta )=2\zeta P_j(\zeta )P_{j1}(\zeta ).`$ The parameters $`C_j^{(G,S)}`$ used in  are given in Table II. In formula (3), one takes the parameter $`a=.01.`$

Now, let the structure functions be expanded as $`_{i=0}^4d_i^{(G,S)}\beta ^i\mathrm{exp}[a/(\beta 1)],`$ with straightforward linear relations between $`d_i^{(G,S)}`$ and $`C_i^{(G,S)};`$ The Mellin transform reads :

$$F^{(G,S)}(j,Q^2)\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}d_i^{(G,S)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(i+j1)e^{\frac{a}{2}}W_{1ij,\frac{1}{2}}(a),$$
(4)
where the Whittaker function $`W_{1ij,\frac{1}{2}}(a)`$ can also be expressed in terms of the Meijer function $`G_{24}^{40}`$ .

Once using expressions (4), together with the NLO or LO evolution scheme , it is straightforward to get the whole $`j`$-dependent parton distributions in any suitable range of $`Q^2,`$ either for forward $`(Q>Q_0)`$ or backward $`(Q<Q_0)`$ evolution.

For the Pomeron, looking for a valence-like input, we use the NLO backward evolution starting from the ansätze of Ref. and look for the possibility of valence-like distributions in some range of $`Q^2\mu ^2.`$ The analytic singularities of the Whittaker function in (4) are approximately cancelled by those of the evolution matrix elements. They are both situated at $`j=1`$ and the $`Q^2`$ backward evolution induces a change of sign both for the sea and the glue distributions in the same range $`Q^2\mu ^2.`$

The results (dashed lines) are shown in Fig.2 for the H1 sea and gluon $`j`$-distributions and in Fig.3 for ZEUS. Let us first comment the results obtained for the parametrizations of H1 data. As shown in Fig.2, the behaviour of the Mellin transformed distributions show a different trend for small $`Q^2`$ values. The singularities present at $`j=1`$ in the initial parametrizations (4) interfere negatively with those present in the evolution matrix elements . The key point is that they do so both for sea and gluon distributions in the same range of $`Q^22GeV^2`$ below which a transition occurs. Around this value, the singularities in matrix elements overcome the initial ones. In the same figure, a qualitative exemple of forward evolution starting from a valence-like input, showing how the $`Q^2`$ dependent matrix elements conspire to mimic the original parametrizations of . This will be studied in detail and quantitatively confirmed in the next section.

Note that the exponential term in formulae (3), which was necessary to describe the H1 diffractive structure function data , has an essential singularity at $`\beta =1.`$ It can now be understood as being induced by the compensation of the singularities of QCD matrix elements at low $`Q^2.`$ It is related to the flatness of the input parton distributions of the PomeronThe situation is different for the total structure functions. The input distributions  are decreasing like powers when $`\beta 1.`$ that we find in our fits of the diffractive structure functions.

Fig.3 deals with the analysis of the backward evolution for the parametrizations of ZEUS data performed in paper  within the same scheme as for H1 data. Quite interestingly, we did not find a range of $`Q^2`$ below which both sea and gluon $`j`$-distributions meet a transition when $`j1.`$ In fact, while the glue distribution flips down at lower $`Q^2,`$ the sea keeps its singular trend. This result can be traced back to the difference seen in the $`\beta `$-distributions of . The gluon distribution is weaker than for H1, while the sea distribution remains larger at $`\beta 0.`$ In some sense, the backward evolution is more drastically driven by the sea than by the glue. This qualitative result of backward evolution will also be confirmed by the subsequent forward evolution analysis.

3. Forward evolution

It is well-known  that the diffractive structure function $`F_2^{D(3)}`$, measured from DIS events with large rapidity gaps can be expressed as a sum of two factorised contributions corresponding to a Pomeron and secondary Reggeon trajectories.

$`F_2^{D(3)}(Q^2,\beta ,x_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}})=f_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}/\mathrm{p}}(x_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}})F_2^{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}}(Q^2,\beta )+f_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}/\mathrm{p}}(x_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}})F_2^{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}}(Q^2,\beta ),`$ (5)
where $`x_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}}`$ is the fraction of energy of the proton flowing into the Pomeron or Reggeon. In this parameterisation, $`F_2^{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}}`$ can be interpreted as the structure function of the Pomeron and thus be expressed in a conventional way in terms of $`\beta S(\beta ,Q^2)`$ and $`\beta G(\beta ,Q^2)`$. The same can be said for for $`F_2^{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}},`$ with the restriction that it takes into account various secondary Regge contributions which can hardly be separated and whose structure functions are modelized from the pion ones. The Pomeron and Reggeon fluxes are assumed to follow a Regge behaviour with linear trajectories $`\alpha _{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P},\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}}(t)=\alpha _{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P},\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}}(0)+\alpha _{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P},\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}}^{^{}}t`$, such that

$$f_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P},\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}/p}(x_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}})=_{t_{cut}}^{t_{min}}\frac{e^{B_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P},\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}}t}}{x_{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P}}^{2\alpha _{\mathrm{l}\mathrm{P},\mathrm{l}\mathrm{R}}(t)1}}dt$$
(6)
where $`|t_{min}|`$ is the minimum kinematically allowed value of $`|t|`$ and $`t_{cut}=1`$ GeV2 is the limit of the measurement.

The H1 and ZEUS diffractive data  were fitted using the simple formulae (2) for the sea quark and gluon distributions, with five free parameters: $`a_q,b_q,a_g,b_g`$ and $`\mu ^2,`$ the initial scale of the forward evolution. In order to avoid a region where the diffractive longitudinal structure function is large, only data with $`y<0.45`$ are included in the fit to find the Pomeron and Reggeon intercepts. Further more, for the Reggeized flux factors, we take the same values of the Pomeron and Reggeon trajectory intercept as in Ref. , namely $`\alpha _P(0)=1.20\pm 0.09`$ and $`\alpha _R(0)=0.62\pm 0.03`$ for H1, and $`\alpha _P(0)=1.13\pm 0.04`$ for ZEUS (there is no need for Reggeons for ZEUS data). Only data points with $`Q^23`$ GeV2, $`\beta 0.65`$, $`M_X>2`$ GeV, and $`y<0.45`$ are included in the QCD fit to avoid large higher twist effects and the region that may be most strongly affected by a non-zero value of $`R`$, the ratio of the longitudinal to the tranverse diffractive structure functions. The QCD fit was performed both at leading order and next-to-leading order using the usual DGLAP  evolution equation.

The fitted parameter values obtained for the H1 and ZEUS data are given in Table I. The $`\chi ^2`$ value obtained for the H1 collaboration is quite good ($`\chi ^2`$=210.7 and $`\chi ^2`$=194.6 respectively at LO and NLO for 161 data points) and the fit result at NLO is shown in Fig.4. We even note a good description of the data at high $`\beta `$ which are not included in the fit (dashed lines in Fig.4).

In Fig.5 and Fig.6 are displayed the parton densities obtained with the LO and NLO fits. As expected, we find that the gluon densities is much larger than the quark one. The input distributions are characterized by a starting scale ($`\mu ^2=`$2.7 GeV2) which is higher for diffractive structure functions than for the total ones  (.4 GeV2, see Fig.1).

The error band corresponds to the systematic and statistical errors added in quadrature. Note that the errors are very small at low values of $`\beta `$ by definition since we impose the behaviour at low $`\beta `$ to be proportional to $`\beta `$ in our parametrisation, see equation (2). As shown in the figures, the result is also compatible with the quark and gluon densities  found using the usual H1 QCD fit using the input (3) with the parameters of table II. The scaling violations obtained using our parametrisation are given in Fig. 7. We note that our parametrisation leads to positive scaling violations for all $`\beta `$ values and flattens out at the highest values of $`\beta ,`$ in good agreement with data.

The results for the ZEUS collaboration are given in Fig.8 for the NLO fit. The obtained $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^2`$=44.6 and $`\chi ^2`$=52.1 respectively at LO and NLO for 30 data points) are two times worse than the one obtained by the usual QCD fit . We note in Fig. 8 that our parametrisation cannot describe the data at low $`\beta `$. The gluon are quark densities we obtain are respectively two times higher and smaller than the usual results of the fit to the ZEUS data. We are thus unable to reproduce ZEUS data using our parametrisation.

4. Outlook: The Nature of the Pomeron

As a brief summary of our study, the data on hard diffraction at HERA, as obtained from rapidity gap selection by the H1 collaboration, are well described using a QCD evolution of parton distributions in the Pomeron, starting mainly from valence-like gluons (plus a small fraction of valence-like sea quarks) as an input at low scale. More details have been given at the end of section 1. In this last section we want to discuss the possible physical interpretation of this phenomenological result in terms of characteristic non-perturbative structures of the enigmatic Pomeron. Note that the similar question about the proton was the underlying physical motivation for the GRV parametrizations .

Using the H1 fit results, and considering the $`j=1`$ moments which are finite by definition of the model, it is possible to compute the number of quarks and gluons at the starting scale $`\mu ^2`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\beta S}{\beta 𝑑\beta (S+G)}}=0.13\pm 0.01\pm 0.02`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\beta G}{\beta 𝑑\beta (S+G)}}=2.1\pm 0.1\pm 0.1.`$ (8)
We thus find around $`2.1`$ for the gluon density and around $`0.1`$ for the quark density, which is compatible with a picture of Pomeron made of two gluons at the initial scale of low $`Q^2`$. Note that this number has nothing of an initial input of our study, since only $`j=2`$ moments have been constrained by energy momentum conservation to sum to $`1`$ at all $`Q^2.`$

The probability density of gluons $`G(\beta ,Q^2)`$ (and sea quarks $`S(\beta ,Q^2)`$) gives other interesting complementary information. It is displayed in Fig.9, for various values of $`Q^2.`$ It exemplifies the dynamical parton generation through QCD evolution with an increasing number of partons at small $`\beta `$ at the expense of those at high $`\beta .`$ In the top figure, we see the input probability density $`G(\beta ,\mu ^2)`$ (and sea quarks $`S(\beta ,\mu ^2)`$) which is almost flat in $`\beta .`$ This striking feature means that the (almost) two gluons refferred to above, have an (almost) equal probability in terms of energy sharing. This feature indicates a state with two highly interacting gluons, which cannot be interpreted as independent constituent gluons. This is different from what has been observed for the proton, namely a constituent quark model for the proton or, also, from the peaked distribution  of quasi-free heavy quarks in mesons, for comparison.

Summarizing the features of the obtained input distributions:

* The gluon distribution is largely dominant over the sea quark one.
* The total $`j=1`$ moments (see formula (8)) are near the value 2.
* The probability densities are nearly flat in momentum fraction.

These features are quite reminiscent of a gluonium in a fundamental $`0^{++}`$ or $`2^{++}`$states, where almost no $`q\overline{q}`$ excitations are present. Such a spectrum has been foundHowever a different study by Dalley and van de Sande  using transverse lattice technics gives a spectrum decreasing at large $`\beta .`$ in a $`1+1`$-dimensional reduction of $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories.

The relatively high (compared to the proton case in GRV) value of the initial scale $`\mu `$ is also to be remarked. It is less stable than the other parameters, considering the variations between LO and NLO fits, but it stays in the range $`2.12.7`$ GeV$`^2.`$ This could be interpreted as an input Pomeron state having a rather large mass squared. Note the existence of $`2^{++}`$ gluonium states near-by in mass . They also have been already discussed as possible candidates of gluonium states situated on the Pomeron trajectories .

As an outlook, It will be interesting to look for an analytic representation of Pomeron QCD structure functions for all $`Q^2`$ in the spirit of the GRV parametrizations. On a more experimental ground, it will be very interesting to verify our conclusions with the data announced by the H1 collaboration . A first look seems encouraging and these data when publicly available will allow a better determination of the parameters of our input valence-like parametrization (2). We thus expect that they will give even more information on the elusive nature of the Pomeron.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We greatly appreciated fruitful discussions with S. Munier and e-mail exchanges with S. Dalley. One of us (J.L.) thanks the “Service de Physique Théorique de Saclay” for hospitality.

REFERENCES

TABLES

FIGURES


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There is a well-known analogy (formulated by A. Weinstein ) between symplectic manifolds and vector spaces:

| symplectic manifold | vector space |
| --- | --- |
| Lagrangian submanifold | vector |
| product | tensor product |
| opposite sympl. form | dual space |
| Lagrangian relation | linear map |

It is very fruitful, though it is just an analogy, i.e. there is no functor from the symplectic category to the category of vector spaces.

However, there is such a quantization functor, if we substitute symplectic manifolds with odd symplectic supermanifolds, and vector spaces with $`_2`$-graded chain complexes, i.e. $`_2`$-graded vector spaces $`V=V_0V_1`$ with a differential $`D:V_0V_1`$, $`V_1V_0`$, $`D^2=0`$. Namely, to an odd symplectic supermanifold $`Y`$ it associates the vector space of semidensities on $`Y`$, with $`D`$ the BV operator (due to H. Khudaverdian). Before giving the details, let us look at the result of quantization of odd symplectic groupoids.

## 2 Differential forms on odd Poisson supermanifolds

Let $`X`$ be a supermanifold and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ the differential graded algebra of differential forms on $`X`$. By a filtered deformation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ we mean a differential filtered algebra $`A`$ (i.e. a differential algebra $`A`$ with an increasing filtration $`F^0F^1\mathrm{}A`$ such that $`dF^iF^{i+1}`$) with an isomorphism between $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ and the differential graded algebra $`\mathrm{𝐺𝑟}A`$ associated to $`A`$ (where $`(\mathrm{𝐺𝑟}A)^i=F^i/F^{i1})`$. We have the following simple theorem:

###### Theorem 1.

There is a natural bijection between (isomorphism classes of) filtered deformations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ and odd Poisson structures on $`X`$. It is given by the commutation relation

$$[f,dg]=\{f,g\},$$
(1)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are any functions on $`X`$, $`[,]`$ is the supercommutator in the deformed algebra and $`\{,\}`$ is the odd Poisson structure.

###### Proof.

Notice that $`F^0=C^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ is generated (as an algebra) by functions on $`X`$ and by their differentials, the same is true for $`A`$ (as is easily proved by induction). Finally, for any $`f,gF^0`$ we have $`[f,dg]F^0`$ (because $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ is graded commutative, i.e. there $`[f,dg]=0`$). The algebra $`A`$ is thus known (up to canonical isomorphism) if we know the function $`\{f,g\}:=[f,dg]`$ for every two functions $`f`$ and $`g`$. It is straightforward to verify that $`\{f,g\}`$ has to be an odd Poisson structure. The converse (i.e. given an odd Poisson structure, the formula (1) gives a fitered deformation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$) can also be easily verified directly, but we give a more conceptual proof of this fact, using quantization of odd symplectic groupoids, later. ∎

If $`\pi `$ is an odd Poison structure on $`X`$, we denote the corresponding filtered deformation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi (X)`$. Since our construction is natural, for any Poisson map $`X_1X_2`$ we have a pullback map $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pi _2}(X_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pi _1}(X_1)`$ preserving all the structure; hence, e.g., if $`X`$ is a Poisson Lie group, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi (X)`$ is a (differential filtered) Hopf algebra.

Let us give some examples of odd Poisson manifolds and of their algebras $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi (X)`$. If $`X=\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ with its canonical odd symplectic form, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi (X)`$ is the algebra of differential operators acting on differential forms on $`M`$. The operator corresponding to a function on $`X`$, i.e. to a multivector field $`m`$ on $`M`$, is $`i_m`$. The differential is the supercommutator with the de Rham $`d`$.

As another example, if $`𝔤`$ is a Lie algebra, take $`X=\mathrm{\Pi }𝔤^{}`$ with its Kirillov-Kostant Poisson structure. Geometrically, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi (X)`$ is the convolution algebra of deRham currents on the group $`G`$, supported at $`1G`$. More algebraically, it is the crossed product of $`𝔄𝔤`$ with $`𝔤`$; the differential maps identically $`𝔤𝔤`$ to $`𝔤𝔄𝔤`$.

These two examples were special cases of $`X=\mathrm{\Pi }A^{}`$, where $`AM`$ is a Lie algebroid. Lie theory is a source of other interesting odd Poisson structures on graded supermanifolds. Recall these important observations of A. Vaintrob : A Lie algebroid structure on $`A`$ is equivalent to a degree $`1`$ odd Poisson structure $`\pi `$ on $`A^{}[1]`$ (this is the one we just mentioned) and also to a degree $`1`$ odd vector field $`Q`$ on $`A[1]`$ with $`Q^2=0`$. A bialgebroid structure on $`A`$ is both $`\pi `$ and $`Q`$ on $`A^{}[1]`$, such that $`_Q\pi =0`$. They can be combined to a single Poisson structure $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }=\pi +Q_t`$ on $`A^{}[1]\times [2]`$ (here $`t`$ is the coordinate on $`[2]`$; recall that an odd Poisson structure on $`X`$ is an odd quadratic function $`\pi `$ on $`T^{}X`$ such that $`\{\pi ,\pi \}=0`$; $`Q_t`$ is understood as a product of two linear functions on $`T^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }A^{}\times )`$).

A quasi-bialgebroid structure on $`A`$ is a graded principal $`[2]`$-bundle $`XA^{}[1]`$ with a $`[2]`$-invariant odd Poisson structure $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ of degree $`1`$. Choosing a trivialization $`X=A^{}[1]\times [2]`$ we get a decomposition $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }=\pi +Q_t+\varphi _t^2`$, where $`\pi `$ is a degree $`1`$ odd Poisson structure on $`A^{}[1]`$, $`Q`$ a degree 1 odd vector field on $`A^{}[1]`$ and $`\varphi `$ a degree 3 odd function on $`A^{}[1]`$ ($`\pi `$, $`Q`$ and $`\varphi `$ satisfy the obvious equations coming from $`\{\stackrel{~}{\pi },\stackrel{~}{\pi }\}=0`$). It is not clear to me what role the differential algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}(X)`$ may play e.g. in the problem of quantization of quasi-bialgebroids.

## 3 Khudaverdian’s BV operator

In this section we recall several theorems of H. Khudaverdian .

Let $`Y`$ be an odd symplectic manifold and let $`x^i`$, $`\xi _i`$ be local Darboux coordinates (i.e. $`\omega =dx^id\xi _i`$). Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{^2}{x^i\xi _i},$$

understood as a differential operator from semidensities to semidensities. Then

###### Theorem 2.

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is odd and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0`$
2. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is formally selfadjoint
3. $`_{X_f}=[\mathrm{\Delta },f]`$, where $`X_f`$ is the Hamiltonian vector field generated by $`f`$ and $`[,]`$ the supercommutator
4. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is independent of the choice of Darboux coordinates

###### Proof.

This is just a sketch: 1. and 2. are evident and 3. can be directly computed. From 1. and 3. we get that $`[_{X_f},\mathrm{\Delta }]=0`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is invariant under Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms, hence we get 4. ∎

Notice that Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms act trivially of the cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, since by 3. they are homotopies. If $`Y=\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ then one can identify differential forms on $`M`$ with semidensities on $`Y`$ using Fourier transform along the fibres of $`\mathrm{\Pi }TM`$; then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes $`d`$ and 3. contains as a special case Cartan formula.

If $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are semidensities on $`Y`$, we set

$$(\alpha ,\beta )=_Y\alpha \beta $$

(provided the integral is well defined). Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is formally selfadjoint, if $`\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-closed and $`\beta `$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-exact then $`(\alpha ,\beta )=0`$, i.e. $`(,)`$ is well defined on cohomology classes (provided the appropriate care is taken for the finiteness of the integral).

Let $`LY`$ be a Lagrangian submanifold. We define a $`\delta `$-like generalized semidensity $`\delta _L`$ supported on $`L`$: in local Darboux coordinates $`x^i`$, $`\xi _i`$, with $`L`$ given by the equations $`\xi _i=0`$, we set $`\delta _L=_i\delta (\xi _i)`$.

###### Theorem 3.

$`\delta _L`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-closed and independent of the choice of coordinates

###### Proof.

Closedness is obvious and independence can be computed.∎

Since Hamiltonian flows generate homotopies on semidensities, we know that $`\delta _L`$ and $`\delta _L^{}`$ lie in the same cohomology class whenever $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ can be connected by a Hamiltonian diffeomorphism. Hence, if $`\alpha `$ is closed (and appropriate integrals are finite) then $`(\delta _L,\alpha )=(\delta _L^{},\alpha )`$; this is the geometrical basis for BV quantization.

## 4 Quantization functor

###### Definition 1.

The objects of the quantum odd symplectic category (QOSC) are odd symplectic manifolds and $`\text{Hom}(Y_1,Y_2)`$ is the $`_2`$-graded complex of generalized semidensities on $`\overline{Y}_1\times Y_2`$ ($`\overline{Y}_1`$ denotes $`Y_1`$ with the opposite sympectic form); composition of morphisms is given by integration.

Notice that the composition is not always defined, hence we don’t really have a category. This is the same problem as with the symplectic category; we’ll keep it in mind and ignore it.

Composition is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-equivariant since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is formally selfadjoint. The quantization of an odd symplectic manifold $`Y`$ can be defined as $`\text{Hom}(pt,Y)`$, i.e. as the space of generalized semidensities on $`Y`$.

###### Definition 2.

The quantization functor from the odd symplectic category to QOSC is the identity on objects and it maps any Lagrangian relation $`L`$ to $`\delta _L`$.

Of course, we have to prove that composition of $`L`$’s corresponds to composition of $`\delta _L`$’s. This is quite simple. If two relations $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ can be composed (i.e. they satisfy the transversality condition) and their composition is $`L`$, the composition of $`\delta _{L_1}`$ with $`\delta _{L_2}`$ is a $`\delta `$-like distribution supported at $`L`$, i.e. a multiple of $`\delta _L`$. Since both $`\delta _{L_1}`$ and $`\delta _{L_2}`$ are closed, so must be their composition, i.e. it is a constant multiple of $`\delta _L`$. Finally, we have to verify that the constant is 1. It is enough to do it at a single point. For example, we can locally deform $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ so that they are both given by setting some of chosen Darboux coordinates to 0. For such $`L`$’s the constant is clearly 1, therefore it is 1 also in the undeformed parts of $`L`$’s, and so it is 1 for the original $`L`$’s as well.

## 5 Differential forms on odd Poisson supermanifolds II

Now the following dream is fulfilled: whenever we have an algebraic structure in the odd symplectic world, we get a corresponding structure in the world of $`_2`$-graded chain complexes. As the most obvious example, let us start with an odd Poisson manifold $`X`$ and let $`Y`$ be its (local) odd symplectic groupoid; the quantization of $`Y`$ will be a differential algebra.

The quantization of $`Y`$ is the space of generalized semidensities on $`Y`$. We choose a reasonable subspace so that the product in the algebra (given by composition with $`\delta _L\text{Hom}(Y\times Y,Y)`$, where $`L`$ is the graph of the product in the groupoid $`Y`$) is well defined. A cheap choice is to take smooth multiples of $`\delta _X`$ and of its derivatives (here $`XY`$ is the Lagrangian submanifold of units of the groupoid $`Y`$). In this way we get a differential algebra with an increasing filtration (given by the degree of the distributions). As one easily sees, it is the algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi (X)`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for supersymmetric particles addressed in this paper is performed in the framework of the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM)  with R-parity violation. Conservation of R-parity  is usually assumed in order to prevent experimentally forbidden low energy processes (e.g. fast proton decay). Nevertheless this symmetry is not required theoretically, and models with R-parity violation can be constructed, which are compatible with experimental constraints.

A generic model can be built from the R-parity violating terms of the superpotential

$$W_\mathit{}_p=\lambda _{ijk}L_iL_j\overline{E}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{}L_iQ_j\overline{D}_k+\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\overline{U}_i\overline{D}_j\overline{D}_k,$$
(1)
where $`\overline{D},\overline{U}`$ and $`\overline{E}`$ are down-like quark, up-like quark and lepton singlet superfields, $`Q`$ and $`L`$ are the quark and lepton doublet superfields; $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ are Yukawa couplings and $`i,j,k=1,2,3`$ are generation indices. The presence of such R-parity violating terms implies that the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) is unstable and that supersymmetric particles can decay directly to Standard Model particles.

The sparticle decays which proceed directly to Standard Model particles are called direct decays (Fig. 1). Decays in which the sparticle first decays, conserving R-parity, to the lightest neutralino are referred to as indirect decays (Fig. 2). Other cascade decays are possible but not considered in the following.

The following assumptions are made throughout:

* All three terms in Equation (1) are addressed, however only one term at a time is considered to be nonzero for a specific set of indices ($`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$). Unless otherwise stated the derived limits correspond to the choice of indices for the coupling giving the least stringent limit.
* The lifetime of the sparticles can be neglected, i.e. the mean flight path is less than $`1`$ cm. This assumption restricts the sensitivity of the search to R-parity violating couplings greater than $`10^4`$ for gauginos and $`10^7`$ for direct decays of sfermions, and constrains the mass of the neutralino to be above 10 GeV$`/c^2`$ .
* Results are interpreted within the framework of the MSSM with R-parity violation. In addition to R-parity violating couplings, the parameters are the gaugino mass terms ($`M_i`$), the sfermion masses ($`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{f}}}`$), the ratio of the Higgs doublet vacuum expectation values ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$), the higgsino mass term ($`\mu `$) and the trilinear couplings ($`A_i`$). Gaugino mass term unification at the GUT scale is assumed, giving the condition $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}M_2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W`$ at the electroweak scale.
* For chargino and neutralino decays, only large values of sfermion masses are considered, with the consequence that the $`direct`$ decays of the lightest chargino and the next-to-lightest neutralino are suppressed. It also implies three-body kinematics for the lightest neutralino decay.

The searches presented in this paper cover all types of sparticle pair production; the case of single sneutrino production is addressed in . The results reported are based on all data collected by the ALEPH detector in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. The new data collected in year 2000 at centre-of-mass energies up to $`209\text{GeV}`$ is grouped in two samples of $`81.6\text{pb}\text{-1}`$ and $`133.7\text{pb}\text{-1}`$ luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}=204.9\text{GeV}`$ and $`206.5\text{GeV}`$, respectively. Those two samples will be called $`205\text{GeV}`$ and $`207\text{GeV}`$ in the following.

This paper is organized as follows: after a brief description of the ALEPH detector, the Monte Carlo generators used for signal and background are listed in Section 2. The selections used for all topologies and the results obtained when those selections are applied on data and Monte Carlo events are presented in Section 3. Section 4 gives the interpretations, within the MSSM framework, of the absence of any supersymmetric signal in the data. A summary of the results is presented in Section 5.

## 2 The ALEPH Detector and Monte Carlo generators

The ALEPH detector is described in detail in Ref. . An account of the performance of the detector and a description of the standard analysis algorithms can be found in Ref. . Here, only a brief description of the detector components and the algorithms relevant for this analysis is given.

The trajectories of charged particles are measured with a silicon vertex detector, a cylindrical drift chamber, and a large time projection chamber (TPC). The central detectors are immersed in a 1.5 T axial magnetic field provided by a superconducting solenoidal coil. The electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), placed between the TPC and the coil, is a highly segmented sampling calorimeter which is used to identify electrons and photons and to measure their energies. The hadron calorimeter (HCAL) consists of the iron return yoke of the magnet instrumented with streamer tubes. It provides a measurement of hadronic energy and, together with the external muon chambers, muon identification. The luminosity monitors extend the calorimetric coverage down to 34 mrad from the beam axis. The calorimetric and tracking information are combined in an energy flow algorithm which gives a measure of the total energy with an uncertainty of $`(0.6\sqrt{E}+0.6)`$ GeV.

Electron identification is primarily based upon the matching between the measured momentum of the charged track and the energy deposited in the ECAL. Additional information from the shower profile in the ECAL and the measured rate of specific ionisation energy loss in the TPC are also used. Muons are separated from hadrons by their characteristic pattern in HCAL and the presence of associated hits in the muon chambers.

The signal topologies were simulated using the SUSYGEN Monte Carlo program , modified as described in Ref. . The events were subsequently passed either through a full simulation, or through a faster simplified simulation of the ALEPH detector for interpolation purposes.

Samples of all major backgrounds were generated and passed through the full simulation. The PYTHIA generator  was used to produce $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ events and four-fermion final states from $`\mathrm{We}\nu `$, $`\mathrm{ZZ}`$ and $`\mathrm{Zee}`$. Pairs of W bosons were generated with KORALW . Pair production of leptons was simulated with BHWIDE  (electrons) and KORALZ  (muons and taus). The $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$ processes were generated with PHOT02 .

## 3 Selections and results

The selections were optimized to give the minimum expected $`95\%`$ C.L. excluded cross section in the absence of a signal for masses close to the high end of the expected sensitivity. Selection efficiencies were determined as a function of the SUSY particle masses and the generation structure of the R-parity violating couplings $`\lambda _{ijk}`$, $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{ijk}^{^{\prime \prime }}`$. Two new selections have been added with respect to previous publications, the others are unchanged from those used in Refs. , except for centre-of-mass energy rescaling. The new selections : “Many jets + Taus” and “Four jets + Taus” address topologies with many jets and taus and are used in the search for indirect stau decays. The set of cuts is shown in Table 1. Tau production is tagged by missing energy and a low multiplicity jet. The corresponding event variable ($`N_{jetch}^{min}`$) is the number of charged tracks in the lowest multiplicity jet when forcing the event into four jets.

### 3.1  Selections for a dominant $`𝑳𝑳\overline{𝑬}`$ coupling

Direct decays with a dominant $`LL\overline{E}`$ coupling only involve leptons and neutrinos in the final states. When indirect decays occur, additional leptons, neutrinos and jets are produced.

The decay topologies consist either of purely leptonic final states — as few as two acoplanar leptons in the simplest case (direct slepton decay) or as many as six leptons plus four neutrinos in the most complicated case (indirect chargino decay) — or of multi-jet and multi-lepton final states.

The various selections addressing the above topologies are summarized in Table 2 together with the references of the papers in which detailed descriptions of the selection cuts can be found. The numbers of selected data candidates and the expected backgrounds are also given in this table.

### 3.2  Selections for a dominant $`𝑳𝑸\overline{𝑫}`$ Coupling

For a dominant $`LQ\overline{D}`$ operator the event topologies are mainly characterized by large hadronic activity, possibly with some leptons and some missing energy. In the simplest case the topology consists of four jets, and in the more complicated scenarios, of several jets or leptons, with or without missing mass. The various selections are listed in Table 3 together with the corresponding numbers of observed data candidates and expected background events.

### 3.3  Selections for a dominant $`\overline{𝑼}\overline{𝑫}\overline{𝑫}`$ coupling

For a dominant $`\overline{U}\overline{D}\overline{D}`$ operator the final states are characterized by topologies having many hadronic jets, possibly associated with leptons or taus and missing energy.

These selections rely mainly on two characteristics of the signal events: the reconstructed mass of pair produced sparticles and the presence of many jets in the final state. In Table 4 the list of all the selections is given, together with the numbers of data candidates and expected background events.

## 4 Interpretation within the MSSM framework

For all selections, the number of candidate events observed in the data is in agreement with the Standard Model background expectations. The results of the selections have been used to set limits on the MSSM parameter space.

The cross-section limits were evaluated at 208 GeV. Data taken at lower centre-of-mass energies also contribute to the limits with a reduced weight. The weight was calculated from the expected evolution of the cross section with $`\sqrt{s}`$.

The systematic uncertainties on the selection efficiencies are of the order of 4–5$`\%`$ and are dominated by the statistics of the simulated signal samples, with small additional contributions from lepton identification and energy flow simulation. They were taken into account by reducing the selection efficiencies by the estimated systematic uncertainty.

When setting the limits, background subtraction was performed for two- and four-fermion final states according to the prescription described in Ref. . The systematic uncertainty on the expected Standard Model background has been evaluated by detailed comparison of the simulation with the data on control samples obtained with relaxed cuts. The subtracted background has been reduced by the systematic uncertainty derived from these comparisons (typically a few percent depending on the analysis). For the $`\mathrm{We}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{Zee}`$ processes the subtracted background has been further reduced by $`20\%`$ due to the poor knowledge of the production cross section in the kinematic region selected by this analysis. No background is subtracted for the $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$ process.

The absolute lower limit on the mass of the lightest neutralino of $`23\text{GeV}/c^2`$ obtained in Ref.  for a dominant $`LL\overline{E}`$ coupling, which is valid for any choice of $`\mu `$, $`M_2`$, $`m_0`$ (the unified sfermion mass term at the GUT scale) and generational indices ($`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$), is used to restrict the range of neutralino mass considered for the indirect decays of the $`LL\overline{E}`$ searches.

The limits on sfermion masses derived from searches and indirect constraints obtained at LEP1 are discussed in Ref. . They range from 40 to 45 GeV$`/c^2`$ and are indicated on the exclusion plots.

### 4.1 Charginos and neutralinos decaying via $`𝑳𝑳\overline{𝑬}`$

The results are interpreted assuming large scalar masses ($`m_0=500\text{GeV}/c^2`$). Depending on the masses of the gauginos and on the lepton flavour composition in the decay, the indirect decays of charginos to neutralinos populate different regions in track multiplicity, visible mass and leptonic energy. The “Leptons and Hadrons” selection, optimized for each possible topology, is used.

In the framework of the MSSM, 95$`\%`$ C.L. exclusion limits are derived in the ($`\mu `$,$`M_2`$) plane as shown in Fig. 3a for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =1.41`$. The corresponding lower limit on the mass of the lightest chargino is 103 GeV$`/c^2`$.

The searches for the lightest and second lightest neutralino do not extend the excluded region in the ($`\mu `$,$`M_2`$) plane beyond that achieved with the chargino search alone.

### 4.2 Squarks decaying via $`𝑳𝑳\overline{𝑬}`$

Squarks cannot decay directly with an $`LL\overline{E}`$ coupling but they may decay indirectly via the lightest neutralino. Because the resulting topology is close to that arising from the indirect chargino decay, the “Leptons and Hadrons” selection is used. The $`95\%`$ C.L. squark mass limits are presented as functions of $`m_\chi `$ in Fig. 4 for the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}_1`$ squarks. The results are displayed for left-handed squarks and for the values of the mixing angle for which the coupling to the Z vanishes. In the case of purely left-handed squarks, the following limits can be derived: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}}>91\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{L}}>90\text{GeV}/c^2`$ for any $`\lambda _{ijk}`$.

### 4.3 Sleptons decaying via $`𝑳𝑳\overline{𝑬}`$

A slepton can decay directly via the $`LL\overline{E}`$ coupling to a lepton and anti-neutrino, hence the “Acoplanar Leptons” selection is used. For a given choice of $`LL\overline{E}`$ coupling, the decay of a right-handed slepton produces two different final states, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\mathrm{}^i\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{}^j`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}^j`$, with equal branching ratios. Excluded cross sections are shown in Fig. 5a for the different mixtures of acoplanar lepton states. The MSSM production cross sections for right-handed smuon pairs, and for selectron pairs at $`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$, are superimposed. The cross section limits translate into lower bounds of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{R},\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{R}}>87\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_\mathrm{R}}>96\text{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$).

Indirect decays of sleptons are selected using the “Six Leptons $`+\overline{)}E`$” selection. Limits corresponding to this case are shown in Figs. 5b, 5c and 5d. Using the bound of $`m_\chi >23\text{GeV}/c^2`$ these limits can be interpreted as the mass limits $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_\mathrm{R}}>96\text{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$), $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{R}}>96\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{R}}>95\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

### 4.4 Sneutrinos decaying via $`𝑳𝑳\overline{𝑬}`$

Sneutrinos can decay directly via $`LL\overline{E}`$ into pairs of charged leptons. For pair produced sneutrinos, the final states, depending on the generation indices, are eeee, ee$`\mu \mu `$, ee$`\tau \tau `$, $`\mu \mu \mu \mu `$, $`\mu \mu \tau \tau `$ and $`\tau \tau \tau \tau `$, and can be selected with the “Four Lepton” selection. The exclusion limits on the sneutrino pair production cross section are shown in Fig. 6a. These limits translate into a lower bound on the electron sneutrino mass of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mathrm{e}}>100\text{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$) and the muon sneutrino mass of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }>90\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

Indirect decays of sneutrinos are selected using the “Four Leptons $`+\overline{)}E`$” selection. The limits in the ($`m_\chi `$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$) plane corresponding to this case are shown in Figs. 6b and 6c. Using the bound $`m_\chi >23\text{GeV}/c^2`$ this limit can be interpreted as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }}>89\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mathrm{e}}>98\text{GeV}/c^2`$, where the cross section for the electron sneutrino is evaluated at $`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$.

### 4.5 Charginos and neutralinos decaying via $`𝑳𝑸\overline{𝑫}`$

The results are interpreted assuming large scalar masses ($`m_0=500\text{GeV}/c^2`$). For the various topologies produced in the indirect decays of the chargino pairs via an $`LQ\overline{D}`$ coupling, the “MultiJets + Leptons” selection is used.

In the framework of the MSSM, $`95\%`$ C.L. exclusion limits are derived in the ($`\mu `$,$`M_2`$) plane as shown in Fig. 3b. The corresponding lower limit on the mass of the lightest chargino is 103 GeV$`/c^2`$.

The searches for the lightest and second lightest neutralino do not extend the excluded region in the ($`\mu `$,$`M_2`$) plane beyond that achieved with the chargino search alone.

### 4.6 Squarks decaying via $`𝑳𝑸\overline{𝑫}`$

A squark can decay directly via $`LQ\overline{D}`$ to a quark and either a lepton or a neutrino, leading to topologies with acoplanar jets and up to two leptons. Couplings with electrons or muons in the final state are not considered as existing limits from the Tevatron  exclude the possibility of seeing such a signal at LEP. To select $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{q}\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{q}\nu `$, the “2J+2$`\tau `$” and the “AJ-H” selections are used. Examples of limits for squark production are shown in Fig. 7. In particular, for a dominant $`\lambda _{33k}^{}`$ coupling, which implies Br$`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}\mathrm{q}\tau )=100\%`$, a lower limit of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}}>97\text{GeV}/c^2`$ is obtained.

Indirect decays of squarks via the $`LQ\overline{D}`$ operator lead to six jets and up to two charged leptons. The selections used are “Jets-HM”,“4 Jets + 2$`\tau `$”, “5 Jets + 1 Iso. $`\mathrm{}`$” and “Multi-jets plus Leptons”.

Limits for left-handed squarks are shown in Fig. 8. The following limits for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{L}`$ are derived: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}}>85\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{L}}>80\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

### 4.7 Sleptons and Sneutrinos decaying via $`𝑳𝑸\overline{𝑫}`$

Direct decays of sleptons and sneutrinos via the $`LQ\overline{D}`$ operator lead to four-jet final states. The “Four-Jets” selection is applied. The distributions of the di-jet masses for data and Monte Carlo are shown in Figs. 9a and 9b. Limits are derived by sliding a mass window of $`5\text{GeV}/c^2`$ across the di-jet mass distribution. The results are shown in Fig. 9c and imply $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }>79\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{L}}>81\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

Indirect decays of the sleptons via the $`LQ\overline{D}`$ operator yield two, three or four leptons and four jets in the final state; two leptons are of the same flavour as the initial sleptons. The indirect decays of sneutrinos produce a final state with four jets, up to two leptons and missing energy. For selectrons and smuons the “4 Jets + 2 Iso. $`\mathrm{}`$” selection is used except for the special case of $`\lambda _{3jk}^{}0`$ and $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_\mathrm{R}}m_\chi )<10\text{GeV}/c^2`$ where the “4 Jets + 2$`\tau `$” selection is used. Indirect stau decays are selected with the “5 Jets + 1 Iso. $`\mathrm{}`$” selection if $`m_\chi >20\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and either $`\lambda _{2jk}^{}0`$ or $`\lambda _{1jk}^{}0`$. The combination of the “5 Jets + 1 Iso. $`\mathrm{}`$” and the “Leptons and Hadrons” selections is used otherwise. The sneutrinos are selected with the “4JH” selection for $`m_\chi >20\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and “AJ-H” (acoplanar jets) otherwise. Limits for sleptons with indirect decays are shown in Figs. 10 and 11 with the selectron and electron sneutrino cross sections evaluated at $`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$. The limits are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_\mathrm{R}}>93\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{R}}>90\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{R}}>76\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mathrm{e}}>91\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }>78\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

### 4.8 Charginos and neutralinos decaying via $`\overline{𝑼}\overline{𝑫}\overline{𝑫}`$

The decay of the lightest neutralino leads to six hadronic jets in the final state. The indirect decays of a chargino or the second lightest neutralino give rise to a variety of final states which range from ten hadronic jets to six jets associated with leptons and missing energy. The “Many Jets”, “Four Jets” and “Many Jets + Lepton” selections are used to cover these topologies.

In the framework of the MSSM, $`95\%`$ C.L. exclusion limits in the ($`\mu `$, $`M_2`$) plane are obtained as shown in Fig. 3c. The lower limit on the lightest chargino mass is $`103\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

The searches for the lightest and second lightest neutralino do not extend the excluded region in the ($`\mu `$,$`M_2`$) plane beyond that achieved with the chargino search alone.

### 4.9 Squarks decaying via $`\overline{𝑼}\overline{𝑫}\overline{𝑫}`$

The direct decay of pair produced squarks leads to four-quark final states. The “Four Jet” selection is therefore used to extract the mass limits. As shown in Fig. 9c the mass limits are $`82.5\text{GeV}/c^2`$ for up-type squarks and $`77\text{GeV}/c^2`$ for down-type squarks.

For indirect squark decays, which lead to eight-jet topologies, the “Four Jets Broad” and “Four Jets” selections are used. Figure 12 shows the $`95\%`$ C.L. exclusion limits in the ($`m_\chi `$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{q}}}`$) plane for left-handed stop and sbottom. The corresponding mass limits are $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}}>71.5\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{L}}>71.5\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

### 4.10 Sleptons decaying via $`\overline{𝑼}\overline{𝑫}\overline{𝑫}`$

No direct slepton decays are possible via the $`\overline{U}\overline{D}\overline{D}`$ coupling. For the indirect decays of pair produced selectrons and smuons, which lead to six-jet plus two-lepton final states, the “Four Jets + 2 Leptons” selection is used for large mass differences between the slepton and neutralino, and the “Many Jets + 2 Leptons” for the low mass difference region. In addition, for the very low mass difference region the leptons are very soft and the “Four Jets” selection is used. For indirect stau decays, which lead to six-jet plus two tau final states, the “Four Jets + Taus” and “Many Jets + Taus” selections are used for large and low mass differences between the stau and the neutralino, respectively.

The resulting $`95\%`$ C.L. exclusion limits in the ($`m_\chi `$, $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$) plane are shown in Fig. 13. The selectron cross section is evaluated at $`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$. For $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}m_\chi >10\text{GeV}/c^2`$ this yields $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_\mathrm{R}}>94\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{R}}>85\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{R}}>70\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

### 4.11 Sneutrinos decaying via $`\overline{𝑼}\overline{𝑫}\overline{𝑫}`$

No direct sneutrino decays are possible via the $`\overline{U}\overline{D}\overline{D}`$ coupling. Sneutrinos decaying indirectly lead to six-jet final states plus two neutrinos. For small mass differences between the sneutrino and neutralino, the six jets are well separated and the “Many Jets + $`\overline{)}E`$” selection is used. For large mass differences the event is characterized by a significant missing energy, and the “Four Jets + $`\overline{)}E`$” selection is used.

The $`95\%`$ C.L. exclusions in the ($`m_\chi `$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$) plane are shown in Fig. 14a for the electron sneutrino and in Fig. 14b for the muon or tau sneutrino. The electron sneutrino cross section is evaluated at $`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$. The limits $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mathrm{e}}>88\text{GeV}/c^2`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }}>65\text{GeV}/c^2`$ are obtained for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}m_\chi >10\text{GeV}/c^2`$ .

## 5 Summary

Pair production of supersymmetric particles, followed by direct or indirect decays involving R-parity violating couplings, has been searched for in the data collected with the ALEPH detector at LEP at centre-of-mass energies between 189 and 209 GeV. It has been assumed that the LSP has a negligible lifetime, and that only one $`\lambda _{ijk},\lambda _{ijk}^{}`$ or $`\lambda _{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ coupling is nonzero. Several selections covering all the possible final states have been applied. No evidence for a signal has been found and various limits have been set within the framework of the MSSM with R-parity violating couplings. These results improve on those previously published by ALEPH  and by the other LEP collaborations .

The limits obtained for direct decays of sfermions are

* for an $`LL\overline{E}`$ coupling:

+ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{e}}_\mathrm{R}}>96\text{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$),
    + $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mathrm{e}}>100\text{GeV}/c^2`$ ($`\mu =200\text{GeV}/c^2`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2`$),
    + $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{R},\stackrel{~}{\tau }_\mathrm{R}}>87\text{GeV}/c^2`$,
    + $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }>90\text{GeV}/c^2`$.
* for an $`LQ\overline{D}`$ coupling:

+ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_\mathrm{L}}>81\text{GeV}/c^2`$,
    + $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\mu }>79\text{GeV}/c^2`$,
    + $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}}>97\text{GeV}/c^2`$ for Br$`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{t}}_\mathrm{L}q\tau )=1`$.
* for a $`\overline{U}\overline{D}\overline{D}`$ coupling:

+ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{u}}_\mathrm{L}}>82.5\text{GeV}/c^2`$,
    + $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{d}}_\mathrm{L}}>77.0\text{GeV}/c^2`$.

For the indirect decays of sfermions, mass limits are listed in Table 5. For large sfermion masses, an absolute limit of 103 GeV$`/c^2`$ has been set on the chargino mass, irrespective of the R-parity violating operator.

## 6 Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to congratulate our colleagues from the accelerator divisions for the successful operation of LEP at high energy. We would like to express our gratitude to the engineers and support people at our home institutes without whose dedicated help this work would not have been possible. Those of us from non-member states wish to thank CERN for its hospitality and support.