text:
# Remarks on experimental bounds on quantum gravity effects on fermions

## I Introduction

It has only recently been realized that certain quantum gravity corrections to Maxwell and spinor field equations can lead to measurable effects. Tiny corrections in the propagation of photons or neutrinos accumulate through cosmological distances, giving rise to potentially observable effects oe  that would imply a breakdown of Lorentz invariance. In particular, for photons, this might take the form a birefringence effect gapu , but, as indicated in glko , the observations of polarization in the visible and ultraviolet light from certain cosmological sources already imply an important upper bound on the effect. In the case of fermions, it has been shown in suv  that the breakdown could, in principle, be confirmed by means of extremely sensitive isotropy tests in nuclear systems suv . The results obtained in glko  and suv , however, provide experimental bounds that seem to indicate that the Lorentz violation, if present, is far smaller than suggested by the theoretical predictions, pointing to an apparent discrepancy between theory and experiment. Seeking an explanation for this mismatch in the case of suv , we consider here the possibility that the canonical structure of the effective low energy theory gets corrections that vanish in the $`\mathrm{}_P0`$ limit. This introduces additional terms in the field equations that may cancel some of the Lorentz violating effects, and therefore conciliate theory with experiment.

Let us start by recalling the action for a Majorana spinor in Minkowski space time

$$S=d^4x\left[i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{n\dot{\alpha }\alpha }_n\xi _\alpha \frac{m}{2}(\xi _\alpha ϵ^{\alpha \beta }\xi _\beta \overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\beta }})\right]$$
(1)
Here $`\sigma _{}^{0}{}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{}^{}=\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }=𝕀`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }^{j\dot{\alpha }\alpha }=\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{}^{}=`$ Pauli matrices. Spinor indices are raised and lowered using the second index of the antisymmetric tensors $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ ($`ϵ^{12}=ϵ_{21}=1`$, and similarly for $`ϵ^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$.) (21)The equation of motion that follows from (1)

$$i\overline{\sigma }^{n\dot{\alpha }\alpha }_n\xi _\alpha +mϵ^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\beta }}=0$$
(2)
gives the $`\mathrm{}_p=0`$ limit of eq.(111) in alf  ((7) in amu ,(1) in suv ). From (1) we obtain the field $`\pi ^\alpha `$ conjugate to $`\xi _\alpha `$

$$\pi ^\alpha =i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }$$
(3)
When performing a $`3+1`$ decomposition to write down the Hamiltonian, the $`SL(2,)`$ Lorentz symmetry is broken down to an $`SU(2)`$ rotation subgroup, under which dotted and undotted spinors are made equivalent by the $`SU(2)`$ invariant tensor $`\sigma _{}^{0}{}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{}^{}`$ and its inverse $`\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }`$. Defining $`\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\sigma _{}^{0}{}_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{}^{}\overline{\sigma }^{k\dot{\alpha }\beta },k=1,2,3`$, the Hamiltonian obtained from (1) can be written as

$$H=d^3x\left[\pi ^\beta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_k\xi _\alpha +\frac{m}{2}\left(\xi _\beta ϵ^{\beta \alpha }\xi _\alpha \pi ^\beta ϵ_{\beta \alpha }\pi ^\alpha \right)\right]$$
(4)
The canonical equal time anti-commutation relations

$$\{\xi _\alpha (x^0,𝐱),\pi ^\beta (x^0,𝐱^{})\}=i\delta _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})$$
(5)
together with the Hamiltonian (4) allow us to recover the field equations (2) for the Majorana spinor

$`i\dot{\xi }_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`[\xi _\gamma ,H]={\displaystyle d^3x^{}\left([\xi _\gamma ,\pi ^\beta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_k\xi _\alpha ]\frac{m}{2}[\xi _\gamma ,\pi ^\beta ϵ_{\beta \alpha }\pi ^\alpha ]\right)}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`i\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_k\xi _\alpha imϵ_{\gamma \beta }\pi ^\beta `$
The generalization of (4) to generic backgrounds gives the fermionic piece $`H_F`$ of the fermion-gravity Hamiltonian, eq. (3) in alf . In the quantum regime, operator products in $`H_F`$ are regularized following Thiemann t . A coherent $`|,\xi `$ state in the Hilbert space $`_{grav}_{fermion}`$ that approaches a flat space for distances $`d\mathrm{}_P`$, and a smooth fermion field living in it, is postulated in alf ; amu . $`|,\xi `$ is assumed to be peaked around a flat metric and connection, the expectation value of the spatial metric operator $`q_{ab}`$ behaving as $`,\xi |q_{ab}|,\xi =\delta _{ab}+𝒪(\mathrm{}_p/)`$, and also peaked around a fermion field configuration that varies slowly at the scale $``$. A low energy effective Hamiltonian is then defined as the expectation value of the regularized $`H_F`$ in this state. The result is eq.(109) in alf :

$$\begin{array}{c}H_{eff},\xi |H_F|,\xi \hfill \\ \hfill =d^3x\left[\pi ^\beta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_k\xi _\alpha +\frac{i}{2}\pi ^\alpha \widehat{C}\xi _\alpha +\frac{m}{2}\left(\xi _\beta ϵ^{\beta \gamma }O_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\xi _\alpha \pi ^\beta O_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }ϵ_{\gamma \alpha }\pi ^\alpha \right)\right].\end{array}$$
(7)
Here $`\pi ^\alpha i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }`$ (eq. (3)), $`O_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{ϵ}=\alpha \delta _{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{ϵ}i\beta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{ϵ}_k`$ and

$`\widehat{A}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\kappa _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+\kappa _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{2+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{2}}\mathrm{}_P^2^2`$
$`\widehat{C}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+\kappa _5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+\kappa _6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{2+3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _7}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{}_{P}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}^2`$ (8)
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`1+\kappa _8\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\beta /\mathrm{}_P={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _9}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is a positive constant introduced in alf  to allow non integer powers of $`(\mathrm{}_p/)`$ in the expansion of the expectation value of the connection, a possibility that was not considered in the previous works suv ; amu , where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=0`$. The dimensionless constants $`\kappa _j`$ are expected to be of order unity. An explicit construction of $`|,\xi `$ -which is lacking- would allow us to evaluate all these constants. Similar derivations can be found in gapu  for Maxwell fields and t2  for scalar, Maxwell and fermion fields, with the following conceptual difference: the effective Hamiltonian is defined as the partial expectation value $`H_{eff}|H_F|`$ in the gravity sector $`_{grav}`$. Since the regularized fermionic Hamiltonian is normal ordered t2  and $`|,\xi `$ coherent in the fermionic sector, both results look formally equal. However, in Thieman’s approach, (7) is an operator in $`_{fermion}`$. From (5) and (7) we obtain the field equation eq.(111) in alf  ((7) in amu ,(1) in suv )

$$\left[i_ti\widehat{A}\sigma ^j_j+\frac{\widehat{C}}{2}\right]\xi +m\left(\alpha i\beta \sigma ^j_j\right)i\sigma ^2\xi ^{}=0,$$
(9)
which reproduces (2) in the limit $`\mathrm{}_P0`$, and gives QG corrections up to order $`(E\mathrm{}_P)^2`$, $`E`$ a characteristic energy scale for the fermion amu ; suv .
Equation (9) with $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\kappa _4=0`$, and keeping only leading order corrections (i.e., setting all $`\kappa _j=0`$ except for $`j=1,5,9`$), was used in suv  to obtain a modified Dirac equation depending on $`\kappa _1,\kappa _5`$ and $`\kappa _9`$. This modified Dirac equation violates Lorentz symmetry, and therefore gives the time evolution in a preferred frame, which is understood to be the CMB frame. The equation actually follows from the lagrangian suv

$$\begin{array}{c}L_D=\frac{i}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^a_a\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{m}{2}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{i}{2}\kappa _1(m\mathrm{}_p)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _a(g^{ab}W^aW^b)_b\mathrm{\Psi }\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{8}\kappa _9(m\mathrm{}_p)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}ϵ_{abcd}W^a\gamma ^b\gamma ^c^d\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{4}\kappa _5(m\mathrm{}_p)mW_a\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma _5\gamma ^a\mathrm{\Psi }\end{array}$$
(10)
if we set $`W^a=(1,0,0,0)`$. Therefore (10) generalizes the theory to other frames if $`W^a`$ is replaced by the measured CMB frame’s four-velocity ($`|\stackrel{}{W}|1.23\times 10^3c`$ from the Earth.) Lorentz violation comes entirely from the fixed 4-vector $`W^a`$ in (10). However, this violation is severely restricted by data on high precision tests of rotational symmetry in atomic and nuclear systems, which, as shown in suv , can be used to set the following stringent bounds on the constants $`\kappa _1,\kappa _5`$ and $`\kappa _9`$, expected in principle to be of order unity:

$$\left|\kappa _1\right|<3\times 10^5\left|\kappa _9+\kappa _5\right|<4\times 10^9$$
(11)
The above bounds suggest that theory and experimental evidence will only agree if, after constructing the semiclassical states and fulfilling the details left over in the derivation of (9), one finds that $`\kappa _1=0`$ and $`\kappa _9=\kappa _5`$, i.e., the first Lorentz violating term in (10) is absent, and the other two appear with suitable coefficients. While cancellations of terms of the same order cannot be excluded, there appears to be no particular reason for a small $`\kappa _1`$, and its smallness is particularly intriguing suv . In the next Section we suggest an alternative formulation for the effective low energy description of quantum gravity in the femion sector. It makes essential use of the possibility that the choice of appropriate canonical variables for the effective theory may require the inclusion of corrective terms in the anticommutation relations, in such a way one may recover agreement with the observational bounds in a more natural way. The effect of these terms on the phenomenological description of neutrino propagation and some low energy nuclear physics experiments are considered respectively in Sections 3 and 4. The last Section is devoted to a brief summary and conclusions.

## II An extension of the formalism

Looking for an alternative explanation, we allow non integer powers of $`(\mathrm{}_p/)`$ by restoring $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in the operators (8), and further consider the possibility that, in the effective theory, $`\xi `$ and $`i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }`$ do not anticommute canonically. This possibility arises quite naturally in an effective lagrangian approach. If we replace $`\pi ^\alpha i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }`$ back in the expectation value (7) we obtain the effective energy

$$\begin{array}{c}d^3x\left[i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\beta }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\beta }\beta }\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_k\xi _\alpha +\frac{i}{2}i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\widehat{C}\xi _\alpha +\frac{m}{2}\left(\xi _\beta ϵ^{\beta \gamma }O_{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\xi _\alpha i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\beta }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\beta }\beta }O_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma }ϵ_{\gamma \alpha }i\overline{\xi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\sigma }^{0\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\right)\right]\hfill \\ \hfill d^3x_{eff}E_{eff}.\end{array}$$
(12)
Dropping for simplicity, as in suv , sub leading order corrections in (8) (in particular, terms containing Laplacians) yields $`_{eff}=_{eff}(\xi ,\overline{\xi },\stackrel{}{}\xi ,\stackrel{}{}\overline{\xi })`$. There is, however, a large freedom in the construction of effective lagrangians $`_{eff}`$ leading to the energy density $`_{eff}`$. In fact, since $`_{eff}`$ is expected to be linear in $`\dot{\xi }`$, for any $`f^\alpha (\xi ,\overline{\xi },\stackrel{}{}\xi ,\stackrel{}{}\overline{\xi })`$,

$$_{eff}=\{\dot{\xi }_\alpha f^\alpha (\xi ,\overline{\xi },\stackrel{}{}\xi ,\stackrel{}{}\overline{\xi })+cc\}_{eff}(\xi ,\overline{\xi },\stackrel{}{}\xi ,\stackrel{}{}\overline{\xi })$$
(13)
will do the job, since we loose track of the conjugate field $`f^\alpha `$ in the energy density. Different choices of $`f^\alpha `$ will, however, give different physics. Back to the Hamiltonian formalism, the dynamical information is recovered through the equal time anti-commutation relations

$$\{\xi _\alpha ,f^\beta (\overline{\xi })\}=i\delta _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(14)
together with the effective energy (12). Equivalently, we may adopt (3) as a definition and use (7), keeping in mind that $`\pi `$ and $`\xi `$ do not anticommute canonically. In view of (14), the anticommutator (5) will pick up corrective terms, the simplest possible correction being

$$\{\xi _\alpha (x^0,𝐱),\pi ^\beta (x^0,𝐱^{})\}=i\eta \delta _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})+\mathrm{}\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }_j\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).$$
(15)
with

$$\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_P\left(\kappa +\kappa ^{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\right)\eta =1+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}\right)^{2+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}$$
(16)
We remark that we may well avoid an effective lagrangian argumentation of (15). In the partial expectation value approach of ref t2 , $`H_{eff}=|H_F|`$, the possibility of allowing the deformation (15) of the canonical structure of the effective theory is quite natural, since the gravitational sector of the full Hilbert space affects even the notion of normal order of the matter fields t2 . In the alternative approach of refs amu ; alf , where $`H_{eff}=,\xi |H_F|,\xi `$, the perturbed dynamics from (15) would account for the departures of the time evolution of expectation values of fermion fields from their classical trajectory, departures that are well known to occur already at order $`\mathrm{}`$ in the simplest quantum mechanical systems, even if the initial state is coherent and properly fine tuned cs  (This happens because an initial coherent state evolves into non coherent states. For illustrations in specific 1-D systems see e.g. grandson .)

Equation (7) together with (15) and $`i_t\xi _\gamma (t,𝐱)=[\xi _\gamma (t,𝐱),H_{eff}]`$ give a modified equation for the Weyl spinor. We first evaluate the nonzero commutators:

$`{\displaystyle d^3x^{}[\xi _\gamma ,\pi ^\beta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_k\xi _\alpha ]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x^{}[i\eta \delta _{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})+\mathrm{}\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }_j\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})]\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_k^{}\xi _\alpha }`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`i\eta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_k\xi _\alpha +\mathrm{}\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_j_k\xi _\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`i\eta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{A}_k\xi _\alpha +\mathrm{}\widehat{A}^2\xi _\gamma ,`$
$`{\displaystyle d^3x^{}[\xi _\gamma ,\frac{i}{2}\pi ^\alpha \widehat{C}^{}\xi _\alpha ]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x^{}[i\eta \delta _{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})+\mathrm{}\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_j\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})]\widehat{C}^{}\xi _\alpha }`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\widehat{C}\xi _\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}\sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }_j\widehat{C}\xi _\alpha ,`$
and

$$\begin{array}{c}d^3x^{}[\xi _\gamma ,\frac{m}{2}\pi ^\beta O_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }ϵ_{\omega \alpha }\pi ^\alpha ]=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{m}{2}d^3x^{}(\{\xi _\gamma ,\pi ^\beta \}O_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }ϵ_{\omega \alpha }\pi ^\alpha \pi ^\beta O_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }ϵ_{\omega \alpha }\{\xi _\gamma ,\pi ^\alpha \})=\\ \hfill i\eta m\alpha ϵ_{\gamma \alpha }\pi ^\alpha m\mathrm{}\alpha \sigma _{}^{j}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }ϵ_{\beta \alpha }_j\pi ^\alpha \eta m\beta \sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\gamma }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }ϵ_{\omega \alpha }_k\pi ^\alpha m\mathrm{}ϵ_{\gamma \alpha }^2\pi ^\alpha \end{array}$$
(19)
(here we have used $`(\sigma ^{(k}\sigma ^{j)})_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=\delta ^{jk}\delta _{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }`$ and $`(\sigma ^{(k}ϵ\sigma ^{j)})_{\alpha \beta }=ϵ_{a\beta }\delta ^{kj}`$ and $`\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }ϵ_{\omega \beta }=\sigma _{}^{k}{}_{\beta }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }ϵ_{\omega \alpha }`$.) Collecting terms and suppressing spinor indices we arrive at the following equation:

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[i_ti\eta \widehat{A}\sigma ^j_j+\frac{\widehat{C}\eta }{2}\right]\xi +m\eta \left(\alpha i\beta \sigma ^j_j\right)i\sigma ^2\xi ^{}=\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}\left[\widehat{A}^2\xi +\frac{i}{2}\widehat{C}\sigma ^j_j\xi +m(i\alpha \sigma ^j_j+\beta ^2)(i\sigma ^2)\xi ^{}\right]\end{array}$$
(20)
Setting $`\mathrm{}=0,\eta =1`$ above we recover (9). Note that the operators on the right hand side of (20) are of the same type as those on its left hand side (with the exception of higher order corrections like $`\xi `$ in $`\widehat{A}\xi `$.) Then there is the possibility that an explicit evaluation of the $`\kappa `$ constants in the effective theory will show that the Lorentz symmetry breaking terms on the left and right hand sides of the equation cancel each other. In other words, the apparent symmetry breaking caused by the regularization, normal ordering and by further taking the partial expectation value of $`H_F`$ in the gravitational sector, is absorbed by a proper identification of the conjugate variables in the low energy regime. In fact, Lorentz symmetry can only be partially restored, as seen by matching equal powers of $`(\mathrm{}_P/)`$ in (20) to show that (15) and (16) amount to the following redefinitions of $`\widehat{A},\widehat{C},\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in (9):

$`\widehat{A}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(\kappa _1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \kappa _4}{2}}+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+\left(\kappa _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \kappa _5}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^{}\kappa _4}{2}}+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\kappa _1+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^{}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{2+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _3}{2}}\mathrm{}_P^2^2`$
$`\widehat{C}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}+(\kappa _5+\kappa _4\stackrel{~}{\kappa })\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}+(\kappa _6+\kappa _5\stackrel{~}{\kappa }+\kappa _4\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^{})\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{2+3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$ (21)
$`+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _7}{2}}2(\kappa \kappa _1+\kappa ^{})\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{}_{P}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2\kappa \mathrm{}_P\right]^2`$
$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1+(\kappa _8+\stackrel{~}{\kappa })\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\beta ^{}/\mathrm{}_P=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _9}{2}}+\kappa \right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}}{2}}+\kappa \kappa _8+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\kappa _9}{2}}+\kappa ^{}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_P}{}}\right)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$
Interestingly enough, this potential restoration of Lorentz symmetry, if only partial, is enough to solve the contradiction found in suv .

## III Quantum gravity corrections to neutrino propagation

We analyze the consequences of the modifications introduced by (15) in (20) in the results in amu , where the propagation of neutrinos from GRB is considered. For these fermions, $`p10^5GeV`$ and $`m10^9GeV`$, thus $`m/pp\mathrm{}_P10^{14}ϵ`$. Assuming $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}0`$, $`1/p`$, and keeping terms up to order $`ϵ^{2+3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$, we can see that all terms in (21) should be kept, except the $`(\frac{\mathrm{}_P}{})^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$ piece of $`\beta ^{}/\mathrm{}_P`$. This is so because $`_t\frac{1}{}p`$, whereas $`m=ϵp`$. Note that the laplacian term in $`\widehat{C}`$, which is order $`ϵ^2`$, has picked up a $`\kappa `$ correction of order $`ϵ`$. This is the most important change introduced by the correction (15). It implies helicity dependent effects of order $`p\mathrm{}_P`$ whenever $`\kappa 0`$, as opposed to the predicted effects of order $`(p\mathrm{}_P)^2`$ in amu  (this is seen by noting that the term $`\pm \kappa _7(p\mathrm{}_p)^2/2`$ of equation (7) in amu  gets replaced by $`2\kappa (p\mathrm{}_p)`$.) Also, the replacements $`\kappa _1\kappa _1+\kappa \kappa _4/2+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$, etc, may lead to cancellations that switch off some of the predicted QG effects on neutrinos. None of these predictions can be checked using currently available experimental data.

## IV Quantum gravity corrections in nuclear physics experiments

In suv , (10) is applied to non relativistic nucleons. The weave scale $``$ is set equal to $`1/m`$, $`\kappa _4`$ is set equal to zero, and only leading order corrections are kept. The results are the bounds (11). We will instead assume $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ to be a small (less than one) positive number and use (21) keeping terms up to order $`1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Equation (21) reduces to

$`\widehat{A}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(\kappa _1+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\right)(m\mathrm{}_P)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\widehat{C}^{}=\kappa _5(m\mathrm{}_P)^{1+2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}`$
$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1+(\kappa _8+\stackrel{~}{\kappa })(m\mathrm{}_P)^{1+\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\beta ^{}/\mathrm{}_P=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _9}{2}}+\kappa \right)`$ (22)
and the bounds predicted in suv  now read

$$\left|\left(\kappa _1+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\right)(m\mathrm{}_P)^\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right|<3\times 10^5\left|\kappa _9+2\kappa +\kappa _5(m\mathrm{}_P)^{2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\right|<4\times 10^9$$
(23)
(the $`\kappa _5`$ term should be dropped if $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}0`$.) These bounds can safely be satisfied for $`\kappa `$’s of order unity, unless $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\kappa =\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0`$. This shows that admitting an expansion in non-integer powers of $`(\mathrm{}_P/)`$, as in alf , and the corrections (5) to the anti-commutator in the semiclassical regime, the contradictions found in suv  can be solved without questioning the basic framework of loop quantum gravity.

## V Conclusions

The efforts directed at the construction of a quantum theory of gravity based on a canonical formalism have led in recent years to a formulation that appears quite promising, but that is so far incomplete. In particular, a definite procedure connecting the theory with the low energy regime is still lacking, and one has to resort to plausibility arguments as to the final form of the theory in order to make predictions regarding the observable consequences of the theory in that domain. Nevertheless, using as a guide essentially heuristic notions, a small number of possible phenomena where the quantum gravity effects might be sought, together with estimations of their magnitude, have been indicated in the recent literature. A common feature in all cases, however, is that the observable data, rather than indicating their presence, seems to impose severe upper bounds on their possible existence. But, again a common feature of these effects is they all violate in one form or another (local) Lorentz invariance. Since it is not at all clear that the complete theory should necessarily lead to such violation, in this Rapid Communication we have suggested a way in which, in the fermion sector, a modification of the effective canonical structure in the low energy regime might naturally lead to a better agreement with observational data and compatibility with Lorentz invariance.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by grants of the National University of Córdoba, CONICET and Agencia Córdoba Ciencia. The authors are researchers of CONICET (Argentina).


format: text

text:
# Lorentz invariance relations among parton distributions revisited

## Abstract

We revisit the derivation of the so-called Lorentz invariance relations between parton distributions. In the most important cases these relations involve twist-3 and transverse momentum dependent parton distributions. It is shown that these relations are violated if the path-ordered exponential is taken into account in the quark correlator.

1. Parton distributions which are of higher twist and (or) dependent on transverse parton momenta ($`k_{}`$-dependent) contain important information on the structure of the nucleon which is complementary to that encoded in the usual twist-2 distributions. Certain spin asymmetries in inclusive and semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (DIS) as well as in the Drell-Yan process are governed by twist-3 distributions . The $`k_{}`$-dependent correlation functions typically give rise to azimuthal asymmetries. Very recently significant efforts have been devoted to measure such asymmetries in semi-inclusive DIS .

In Refs.  several relations between twist-3 and (moments of) $`k_{}`$-dependent parton distributions have been proposed. The derivation of these relations (called LI-relations in the following) is based upon the general, Lorentz invariant decomposition of the correlator of two quark fields, where the fields are located at arbitrary space-time positions. The LI-relations impose important constraints on the distribution functions, which allow one to eliminate unknown structure functions in favor of the known ones, whenever applicable. Two specific LI-relations have been doubted in Ref.  by an explicit calculation of the involved parton distributions in light front Hamiltonian QCD using a dressed quark target. Although the arguments given in Ref.  are not complete, that work motivated us to revisit the derivation of the LI-relations. (Compare also the discussion in Ref. .)

It is the purpose of the present Letter to study the validity of the LI-relations in a model-independent way. We find that they are violated if the proper path-ordered exponential is taken into account in the quark correlation function. The reason for this result lies in the fact that the gauge link requires a decomposition of the correlator which contains more terms than the ones given in Refs. . Our result provides an explanation of the outcome of the model-calculation presented in Ref. .

2. To begin with, we specify the correlation function through which the $`k_{}`$-dependent parton distributions are defined,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{},S)=\frac{d\xi ^{}d^2\stackrel{}{\xi }_{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{ik^+\xi ^{}i\stackrel{}{k}_{}\stackrel{}{\xi }_{}}P,S|\overline{\psi }_j(0)𝒲_1(0,\xi )\psi _i(\xi )|P,S|_{\xi ^+=0}.$$
(1)
The target state is characterized by its four-momentum $`P=P^+p+(M^2/2P^+)n`$ and the covariant spin vector $`S`$ $`(P^2=M^2,S^2=1,PS=0)`$, where the two light-like vectors $`p`$ and $`n`$ satisfying $`p^2=n^2=0`$ and $`pn=1`$ have been used. The variable $`x`$ defines the plus-momentum of the quark via $`k^+=xP^+`$. A contour leading to a proper definition of the $`k_{}`$-dependent parton distributions was given in Refs. 111We note that the choice of the contour depends on the process considered. Here we restrict ourselves to the case of semi-inclusive DIS, although all our arguments are valid for other processes as well.:

$$𝒲_1(0,\xi )=𝒲(0,\xi |n)|_{\xi ^+=0},$$
(2)
with

$$𝒲(0,\xi |n)=[0,0,\stackrel{}{0};0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{0}]\times [0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{0};\xi ^+,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\xi }_{}]\times [\xi ^+,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{\xi }_{};\xi ^+,\xi ^{},\stackrel{}{\xi }_{}].$$
(3)
In this equation, $`[a^+,a^{},\stackrel{}{a}_{};b^+,b^{},\stackrel{}{b}_{}]`$ denotes the Wilson line connecting the points $`a^\mu =(a^+,a^{},\stackrel{}{a}_{})`$ and $`b^\mu =(b^+,b^{},\stackrel{}{b}_{})`$ along a straight line. It is important to note that the Wilson contour in eq. (3) not only depends on the coordinates of the initial and the final points but also on the light-cone direction $`n`$.222In fact Wilson lines that are near the light-cone rather than those exactly light-like are more appropriate in connection with $`k_{}`$-dependent parton distributions . However, our general reasoning remains valid if we use a near light-cone direction instead of $`n`$.

The $`k_{}`$-dependent parton distributions are defined by the correlator in eq. (1) using suitable projections. For instance, the unpolarized quark distribution is given by $`f_1(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2)=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }\gamma ^+)/2`$.

Before dealing with the derivation of the LI-relations, we list the most important examples , which will be shown to be not correct:

$`g_T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`g_1(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}g_{1T}^{(1)}(x),`$ (4)
$`h_L(x)`$ $`=`$ $`h_1(x){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_{1L}^{(1)}(x),`$ (5)
$`f_T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}f_{1T}^{(1)}(x),`$ (6)
$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_1^{(1)}(x),`$ (7)
with

$$g_{1T}^{(1)}(x)=d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}\frac{\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2}{2M^2}g_{1T}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2),etc.$$
(8)
specifying the $`k_{}`$-moments . All distributions on the lhs of eqs. (4)–(7) are of twist-3, while the functions on the rhs appear unsuppressed in the observables. For instance, $`g_T`$ is the well-known structure function measurable via inclusive DIS on a transversely polarized target. The functions $`g_1`$ and $`h_1`$, respectively, represent the quark helicity and transversity distribution. The distributions in eqs. (4),(5) are time-reversal even (T-even), while the ones in (6),(7) are T-odd. Only recently has it been explicitly shown that the $`k_{}`$-dependent T-odd distributions are non-vanishing in general .

3. The discussion of the LI-relations starts with the most general correlator which, upon integration over $`k^{}`$, reduces to the correlator in eq. (1):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}(P,k,S|n)=\frac{d^4\xi }{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik\xi }P,S|\overline{\psi }_j(0)𝒲(0,\xi |n)\psi _i(\xi )|P,S.$$
(9)
We emphasize that the correlator (9) (like the one in (1)) not only depends on the four-vectors $`P,k`$ and $`S`$ but also, through the gauge link, on the light cone direction $`n`$, which we have indicated now explicitly. As we shall show in the following, it is precisely the presence of this additional vector that spoils the LI-relations.

To write down the most general expression of the correlator in (9), we impose the following constraints due to hermiticity and parity333This implies a proper choice of the operator ordering in the correlator (9). The specific choice of this ordering is inessential for our discussion. ,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(P,k,S|n)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }(P,k,S|n)\gamma _0,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(P,k,S|n)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _0\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{P},\overline{S},\overline{k}|\overline{n})\gamma _0,`$ (11)
where $`\overline{P}^\mu =(P^0,\stackrel{}{P})`$, etc. With these constraints the most general form of the correlator reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(P,k,S|n)`$ $`=`$ $`MA_1+P/A_2+k/A_3+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2M}}[P/,k/]A_4+\mathrm{}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{Pn}}n/B_1+{\displaystyle \frac{iM}{2Pn}}[P/,n/]B_2+{\displaystyle \frac{iM}{2Pn}}[k/,n/]B_3+\mathrm{},`$
where we have not listed those terms which only appear in the case of target-polarization. The structures in the second line in eq. (12) containing the vector $`n`$ are absent in the decomposition given in Refs. . Note that, in order to specify the Wilson line in (9), a rescaled vector $`\lambda n`$ with some parameter $`\lambda `$ could be used instead of $`n`$. By construction, the terms in (12) are not affected by such a rescaling.

Next one makes use of the fact that integrating the correlator (9) upon $`k^{}`$ necessarily leads to the correlator given in (1), i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{},S)=𝑑k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(P,k,S|n).$$
(13)
This identity has been used to derive the LI-relations. As an explicit example, we consider the relation (7) which does not require target-polarization. In this case, Eq. (13) allows one to express the involved distributions according to

$`h_1^{}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2P^+{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{}\left(A_4\right)},`$ (14)
$`h(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`2P^+{\displaystyle 𝑑k^{}\left(\frac{kPxM^2}{M^2}A_4+(B_2+xB_3)\right)}.`$ (15)
If the structures in the second line in eq. (12) and, hence, the amplitudes $`B_i`$ were absent then both $`h_1^{}`$ and $`h`$ would be given as an integral over the same amplitude $`A_4`$, which is the origin of the LI-relation (see also in particular eq. (2.30) in Ref.  and Ref. ). However, as we have discussed, the amplitudes $`B_2`$ and $`B_3`$ need to be taken into account as a direct consequence of gauge invariance.444Note that the amplitudes $`B_i`$ don’t show up if one connects the quark fields in the correlators in eqs. (1),(9) by a single straight Wilson line. However, one cannot define $`k_{}`$-dependent parton distributions through such correlators. Accordingly, the relation (7) is violated. One can easily extend our analysis to show that the relations (4)–(6) involving target-polarization are violated also.

In summary we have shown that the so-called Lorentz invariance relations between parton distributions are violated due to the path-ordered exponential in the quark correlator. We note that this result applies to the corresponding relations among fragmentation functions as well.
Acknowledgements: We are grateful to J.C. Collins and A.V. Efremov for discussions. We thank V. Guzey for reading the manuscript. The work of A.M. and M.V.P. has been supported by the Sofia Kovalevskaya Programme of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The work has been partly supported by DFG, BMBF of Germany and the project COSY-Juelich.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We examine the prospects for measuring the $`HZ\gamma `$ coupling of a Standard Model-like Higgs boson with a mass between 120 and 160 GeV at the future TESLA linear $`e^+e^{}`$collider, assuming an integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1 and a center-of-mass energy of 500 GeV. We consider the Higgs boson produced in association with $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}`$ via the $`WW`$ fusion reaction $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$, followed by the rare decay into a $`Z`$ boson and a photon, $`HZ\gamma `$. Accounting for all main background contributions, different selection procedures are discussed. Uncertainties on the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction of approximately 48% (27%, 44%) can be achieved in unpolarised $`e^+e^{}`$collisions for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV. With appropriate initial state polarisations $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$BF($`HZ\gamma `$)/BF($`HZ\gamma `$), or the precisions on the $`HZ\gamma `$partial width, can be improved to 29% (17%, 27%) and provide valuable information on the $`HZ\gamma `$ coupling. We regard our results as a convincing confirmation of the great potential of a linear collider to access and reliably measure important parameters of the Higgs boson despite initially overwhelming background with final state signature similar to the signal events.

## 1 Introduction

Following the discovery of the Higgs boson, one of the main tasks of a future linear $`e^+e^{}`$collider will be precise model-independent measurements of its fundamental couplings to fermions and bosons and its total width . In particular, the determination of the couplings of the Higgs boson to the other fundamental particles will be a crucial test of the nature of the Higgs particle. In this respect future linear colliders will play a major role. Different colliding options with different beam polarisations combined with adjustable center-of-mass energies in a wide range and the clean enviroment in these machines will allow for rather precise determinations of these couplings.

A lot of detailed studies of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs couplings to fermions and $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons can be found in the literature . These studies demonstrate the ability of a linear collider to access these couplings with precision of a few percent. Also the trilinear Higgs self-coupling in the double Higgs production processes $`e^+e^{}`$$`ZHH`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}HH`$  are within the possibilities of experimental verification, although with substantially lower precision.

Another set of important Higgs boson couplings is represented by the effective vertices $`Hgg`$, $`H\gamma \gamma `$ and $`HZ\gamma `$. These couplings do not occur at the tree-level but are induced by loop diagrams . Since the Higgs interaction is proportional to particle masses, loop contributions of massive fermions do not decouple, and these vertices could therefore serve to count the number of particles which couple to the Higgs boson. The $`Hgg`$ vertex can be accessed through the $`Hgg`$ decay in $`e^+e^{}`$collisions  or in the fusion reaction $`ggH`$ at the LHC . The $`H\gamma \gamma `$ coupling can be determined either in $`e^+e^{}`$and LHC-$`pp`$ interactions when the Higgs decays into two photons , or directly by means of the Compton back-scattering $`\gamma \gamma `$fusion process $`\gamma \gamma `$$`HX`$, with probably the best precision .

In this study we explore the potential of a linear $`e^+e^{}`$collider to measure the $`HZ\gamma `$ coupling through the rare $`HZ\gamma `$decay, for masses of the Higgs particle in the range 120 to 160 GeV. Precise electroweak data provide the existence of a light Higgs boson with a mass below 193 GeV with 95% confidence level , with a preference for $`M_H`$ close to 120 GeV. There are also hints of a signal in the direct search in $`e^+e^{}`$$`HZ`$ at LEP2, with a lower mass limit of $`M_H`$ 114.1 GeV at 95% CL .

The reaction which will be used to explore the branching fraction BF($`HZ\gamma `$) is

$$e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma ,$$
(1)
assuming a Higgs boson mass $`M_H`$ = 120, 140 and 160 GeV, $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV and an integrated luminosity of $``$ = 1 ab-1.

The statistical precision for BF($`HZ\gamma `$) is mainly determined by $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$, where $`S`$ and $`B`$ are respectively the number of signal and background events within a small interval of the $`Z\gamma `$ invariant mass, centered around $`M_H`$. Hence, evaluation of all relevant signal and background processes and optimization of selection procedures are mandatory, taking into account acceptances and resolutions of a linear collider detector.

Our analysis is, to our knowledge, the first on the study of BF($`HZ\gamma `$) at any (future) collider. It includes the complete irreducible background and all main reducible background contributions expected. Since the SM branching fraction $`HZ\gamma `$is very small and there is in particular large irreducible background, the most important hadronic Z decays, $`Zq\overline{q}`$, are accounted for in this analysis. Although leptonic (e, $`\mu `$) $`Z`$ decays provide a clean final state signature and best $`Z`$ boson recognition, their rates are however too small to include them at this stage of the analysis or to allow for an independent approach. $`Z\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays are not considered since they prevent $`Z`$ boson reconstruction in reaction (1).

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss simulation of the Higgs signal and background events and their detector response. In Section 3 we present the results for unpolarised BF($`HZ\gamma `$) measurements, using different selection procedures. In Section 4 improvements to the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction measurements are discussed when e.g. beam polarisation is accounted for in signal and background events. Also, expectations on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) from the Higgs-strahlung process and possible systematic errors and the effect of overlap with $`\gamma \gamma hadrons`$ are reviewed. Section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

## 2 Event generation

In $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions the Standard Model Higgs boson is predominantly produced by two different processes, the Higgs-strahlung process

$$e^+e^{}ZH$$
(2)
and the weak boson ($`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$) fusion reactions

$$e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H$$
(3)
$$e^+e^{}e^+e^{}H$$
(4)
The $`ZZ`$ fusion process (4) is strongly suppressed with respect to the $`WW`$ fusion process (3) by about a factor of 10, rather independent of $`\sqrt{s}`$. Therefore, the production channel (4) is ignored in this study. The SM tree-level diagrams contributing to the signal reactions (2) and (3), including the $`Z\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}`$ and $`HZ\gamma `$decays, are shown in Fig. 1.

In the $`production\times decay`$ approximation the processes (2) and (3) are factorizable parts of the Higgs signal diagrams for the 2-to-4 body reaction (1) with electron neutrinos in the final state. In other words, the amplitude squared of diagram 1 in Fig. 1 integrated over the phase space gives $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )`$ and the amplitudes squared of diagrams 2 and 3 give $`\sigma \left(e^+e^{}ZH\right)BF\left(Z\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}\right)BF\left(HZ\gamma \right)`$. Thus, to be most general in our analysis, events of reaction (1) were generated for the complete set of tree-level diagrams (see Fig. 2 for the contributing background diagrams) by means of the program package CompHEP , including initial state bremsstrahlung and beamstrahlung for the TESLA linear collider option .

The present version of CompHEP performs analytic calculations of the matrix element squared, generates an optimized Fortran code and generates a flow of events. In addition, it provides for the user an appropriate kinematical scheme for the integration over the four-body phase space. The basic input parameters are taken from the report of the Particle Data Group  or are as listed here: $`m_b`$ = 4.3 GeV, $`\alpha _{EW}`$ =1/128, $`M_Z`$ = 91.19 GeV, $`sin^2\theta _W`$ = 0.23 and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ = 2.50 GeV. The CompHEP-PYTHIA interface package  was used to simulate the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma \nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ signature. In this way, Higgs boson production and the complete irreducible background as well as possible interferences are taken into account.

For unstable particles, Breit-Wigner formulae have been used for the s-channel propagators. The Higgs boson width and the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction were imported from the program package HDECAY . BF($`HZ\gamma `$) depends on the Higgs mass and is largest near $`M_H`$ = 144 GeV. Some values of this branching fraction, the total Higgs width and the $`HZ\gamma `$ effective coupling constant relevant for our study are summarized in Table 1.

| MH, GeV | BF($`HZ\gamma `$) | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}`$, GeV | $`\lambda _{HZ\gamma }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 120 | 1.1$`10^3`$ | 3.6$`10^3`$ | 5.4$`10^5`$ |
| 140 | 2.5$`10^3`$ | 8.1$`10^3`$ | 6.2$`10^5`$ |
| 160 | 1.2$`10^3`$ | 8.1$`10^2`$ | 8.8$`10^5`$ |

Table 1: Branching fractions, total widths and effective coupling constants of the SM Higgs boson for $`M_H`$ = 120-160 GeV.

As discussed in ref. , a favored signal to background situation is expected for the Higgs $`WW`$ fusion reaction (3) at e.g. $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV, and we will consider only this case in the following.

Due to the small cross-section expected for the signal reaction $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma `$, diagram 1 in Fig. 1, we only rely on events with the most important $`Z`$ $`q\overline{q}`$decays. Therefore, events of process (1) are characterized by two hadronic jets originating from the $`Z`$ boson, together with an energetic photon and large missing energy due to the two final state neutrinos. The invariant mass of the $`Z`$ and the photon should equal $`M_H`$.

The irreducible background expected from reaction (1) (the diagrams in Fig. 2) was accounted for at the same level as the signal events. Contributions from Z decays into $`\mu `$\- and $`\tau `$-neutrinos which would occur from diagrams 7, 9, 23, 24, 26 and 29 were effectivelly removed by an appropriate missing mass cut (section 3). Possible contributions from diagrams 5, 6, 21 and 22 with $`n_1=N_1=\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$ were also calculated and found to be negligible due to large off-shell $`n_1ZN_1`$ decay with the Z boson close to its nominal on-shell mass value. The surviving $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ background rates were found to be smaller than 1% of the total irreducible background. An important part of the background was found to arise from the W-exchange diagrams, but significant contributions were also found to be due to the single bremsstrahlung production process $`e^+e^{}ZZ\gamma \nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma `$.

As the cross-section for the irreducible background is more than two orders of magnitude larger than the signal cross-section, we first applied the following principal cuts at the generation level, to both the signal and background events:

* the photon energy should exceeds 10 GeV and
* the polar angle of the photon should lie in the range 5 to 175 degrees.

After these criteria, practically all ($``$96%) Higgs events survive, while the overwhelming irreducible background was substantially reduced. The cuts also largely avoid any infrared and collinear singularities in the calculation of the background amplitudes, as might be deduced from diagrams in Fig. 2.

Possible reducible backgrounds to $`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ events which might mimic the signal such as the large event rate reactions $`e^+e^{}`$$`WW\left(\gamma \right),e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`e^+e^{}\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)\left(\gamma \right),t\overline{t}\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`WWZ\left(\gamma \right)`$ and $`ZZZ\left(\gamma \right)`$, with beamstrahlung, initial state radiation, final state radiation and radiation from the W boson itself, were generated by either PYTHIA  or CompHEP . The $`e^+e^{}`$$`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right),e^+e^{}\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)\left(\gamma \right)`$ events were obtained by $`e\gamma e`$ splitting and subsequent $`\gamma e\nu W`$ respectively $`\gamma ee\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)`$ interactions by PYTHIA, with proper cross section normalizations. Only those events were used for further analyses if at least one final state photon exists with principal cut properties. It has been found that after detector response simulation and enforcing the same selection procedures as for the signal events (see below), $`t\overline{t}\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`WWZ\left(\gamma \right)`$ and $`ZZZ\left(\gamma \right)`$ events were effectively discarded, also if the two $`W`$ bosons from the top quarks and the prompt produced $`W`$’s decay leptonically leading together with $`Z`$ $`q\overline{q}`$to a topology similar to the signal topology. Events from the $`e^+e^{}`$$`WW\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)`$ and $`e^+e^{}\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)`$ processes could however not be removed to a negligible level. Their contributions will be discussed below for each selection procedure applied.

A further potential background is expected from the process $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}\gamma `$, where initial state radiation and beamstrahlung reduce the center-of-mass energy available close to the Higgs mass values. Only events with center-of-mass energy below 200 GeV, a $`q\overline{q}`$system consistent with the Z boson and a photon with large transverse energy were accepted and enforced to the selection procedures. We found that radiative return events add some non-negligible background to the final reconstructed $`Z\gamma `$ mass, with some uncertainties due to the ISR model used.

Also possible contributions from Higgs-strahlung process (2) with the dominant $`Hb\overline{b}`$ and $`WW^{}`$ decays were accounted for and found to contribute with at most four eevents thanks to our dedicated selection procedures.

All surviving reducible background events were included in the final $`Z\gamma `$ invariant mass distributions and taken into account in precision estimations for the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction.

## 3 BF($`𝑯\mathbf{}𝒁𝜸`$) measurements at 500 GeV

Based on the results of ref. that the branching fraction BF($`HZ\gamma `$) should be preferably best measured in the $`WW`$ fusion process (3) at a high-luminosity linear $`e^+e^{}`$collider, we examine the prospects of measuring this quantity at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV, for Higgs boson masses of 120, 140 and 160 GeV and an integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1. Since the $`WW`$ fusion cross-section rises logarithmically with $`\sqrt{s}`$, large energies are mandatory and the very small SM $`HZ\gamma `$branching ratio requires large accumulated luminosity.

The detector response for all generated signal and background events was simulated with the parametrized detector simulation program SIMDET-v4  using parameters as presented in the Technical Design Report .

Throughout this paper, it was demanded that each reconstructed event involves more than three charged particles in the final state and the total visible energy is less than 240 GeV with the transverse component relative to the beam direction below 210 GeV. Important for further analyses is the requirement that the missing mass (caused by the two undetected neutrinos) lies between 180 and 400 GeV. This cut ensures clean elimination of the Higgs-strahlung process, $`e^+e^{}ZH\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma `$, with a missing mass close to the $`Z`$ boson mass.

Large background event samples and tiny signal event rates need to pursue different strategies for extracting signal events. In order to account for the distinct properties of the final state $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$, we start with a conventional method using consecutive cuts on kinematical variables, while more sophisticated selection procedures are followed to hopefully achieve better signal-to-background event ratios and hence smaller uncertainties on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) or the $`HZ\gamma `$ coupling.

### 3.1 Event selection using consecutive cuts

In a first attempt, a conventional method using simple consecutive cuts was applied to isolate Higgs signal events. We start to account for the distinct properties of the photon from the Higgs decay, denoted as $`\gamma _H`$, by demanding an energy greater than 20 GeV with a transverse component of not less than 15 GeV. In events where more than one photon candidate exists the photon with largest transverse momentum was selected as the Higgs decay candidate. Thus, most of the bremsstrahlung photons with relatively small energy at low polar angles are eliminated. Furthermore, the $`\gamma _H`$ candidates should have no particle in a cone of half-angle of $`10^o`$ around its direction, i.e. they are demanded to be isolated. Once a Higgs decay photon candidate had been found, it was removed from the list of all final state particles, for which in turn, the jet clustering algorithm of PYTHIA (subroutine PUCLUS)  was enforced to isolate two jets. Each jet was required to pass the following cuts:

* the number of particles is greater than 3;
* the jet energy exceeds 8 GeV;
* the angle between any two jets is larger than $`20^o`$;
* the jet polar angle is within $`\left|cos\mathrm{\Theta }_{jet}\right|<0.95`$.

Thus, only well-measured and clearly separated jets were accepted. The compatibility of the dijet system with the $`Z`$ boson hadronic decay was quantified by demanding that its invariant mass is within 84 to 105 GeV. The lower limit of 84 GeV was chosen to reject part of the otherwise large $`WW\left(\gamma \right)`$ and $`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)`$ background contributions. This requirement indicates the importance of sufficient dijet invariant mass resolution of the detector in order to differentiate $`Z`$ $`q\overline{q}`$from $`Wq\overline{q}^{^{}}`$ decays. Then this dijet system was combined with $`\gamma _H`$ to establish the Higgs particle in the $`Z\gamma `$ invariant mass. In order to enforce an improved mass resolution of the $`Z\gamma `$ system, a 1-constraint fit requiring $`M_{jj}=M_Z`$ was performed.

These selection criteria were not varied with the Higgs masses considered. It was found that changes of the cut parameters used within reasonable limits had small or negligible effects on the signal-to-background ratios. Most of the remaining reducible background was due to the $`e^+e^{}`$$`WW\left(\gamma \right)l\nu q\overline{q}^{^{}}\left(\gamma \right)`$ and $`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)e\nu q\overline{q}^{^{}}\left(\gamma \right)`$ channels as well as radiative return events with an event topology similar to the signal event topology. We found that this background amounts to approximately 38% of the irreducible background for Higgs masses of 140 and 160 GeV, while for $`M_H`$ = 120 GeV it was close to 16%. For the 120 GeV Higgs case, few Higgs-strahlung $`e^+e^{}`$$`ZH`$ events were found to survive. Also some $`e^+e^{}\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)\left(\gamma \right)`$ events were retained above $`M_{Z\gamma }`$ = 130 GeV.

By following the strategy outlined above and assuming $``$ = 1 ab-1 of integrated luminosity, we obtain the $`Z\gamma `$ invariant mass distribution for the surviving signal and background events as shown in Fig. 3. Higgs signals are evident on non-negligible background, with best significance for $`M_H`$ = 140 GeV. Clearly, the $`HZ\gamma `$decay mode is not favoured for Higgs boson searches but it allows to estimate the branching fraction for Higgs masses close to 120 or 160 GeV.

Selection efficiencies for the signal and the irreducible background, the number of signal $`\left(S\right)`$ and background $`\left(B\right)`$ events in the $`Z\gamma `$ mass range between 117 and 123 (137-143, 157-163) GeV, the significances $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ and the statistical precisions $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$ obtained on $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )BF(Zq\overline{q})`$ are presented in Table 2. The rather small signal selection efficiencies obtained are mainly due to the difficulty to select $`\gamma _H`$, the photon from the Higgs decay, out of all photons in the final state. Stringent requirements on its energy and transverse momentum, together with further cuts on event and jet properties, were found to be neccessary in order to obtain acceptable signal-to-background event rates.

Accounting for all $`Z`$ decays and the surviving reducible background the relative precisions on the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction are then deduced after convolution with the uncertainty of the inclusive $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ cross-section of few percent : $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$BF($`HZ\gamma `$)/BF($`HZ\gamma `$) = 65% (28%, 57%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV, assuming 1 ab-1 integrated luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV.

|  | Signal (Background) | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`M_H`$ = 120 GeV | 140 GeV | 160 GeV |
| Selection efficiency (%) | 23.9 (0.67) | 27.7 (0.52) | 24.9 (0.45) |
| Number of events/1 ab-1 | 18 (149) | 45 (116) | 19 (99) |
| Significance $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ | 1.47 | 4.18 | 1.91 |
| Precision $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$ | 0.72 | 0.28 | 0.57 |

Table 2: Selection efficiencies (see text) for both signal and background $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ signature, together with significances and precisions of $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )BF(Zq\overline{q})`$ for $`M_H`$ = 120, 140 and 160 GeV, at the $`e^+e^{}`$linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV. A total integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1 is assumed.

### 3.2 Event selection using a jet finder

The events generated by CompHEP or PYTHIA including the principal cuts and reconstructed by SIMDET were passed through a jet cluster algorithm. The concern is that the jet finder is able to isolate the Higgs decay photon, $`\gamma _H`$, from all other final state particles due to its distinct properties, namely the high transverse momentum and its relative isolation from all other particles. The remaining particles in the final state were then clustered in two hadronic jets, with an invariant mass compatible with $`Z`$ $`q\overline{q}`$decays, i.e. $`M_{jj}`$ was required to lie in the range 84 to 105 GeV 111For the few events with three isolated hadronic jets it was demanded that their invariant mass lies within the same limits.. We applied two cluster algorithms in order to obtain some confidence on the jet finders and to control systematic uncertainties in extracting signal and background events. Subroutine PUCLUS of the PYTHIA package  was enforced to isolate three or more jets, with one jet to be consistent with a photon. The DURHAM algorithm  with $`y_{cut}`$ = 0.004 was applied to isolate events with at least three jets, with one jet required to pass the photon selection criteria. In general, the results from both algorithms were found to be very similar except for a somewhat stronger reducible background rejection of the PYTHIA algorithm. Therefore the numbers presented in the following are from the PUCLUS jet finder. For the photon-jet candidate, $`\gamma _H`$, it was demanded that it involves only one dominant neutral electromagnetic shower compatible with originating from a single photon and was not associated with any charged particle. This jet should also not contain any neutral hadronic activity and if it was accompanied by one or two further photons, their total energy should not exceed 10% of the jet energy. Finally we required that $`\gamma _H`$ has an energy transverse to the beams, $`E_T`$, greater than 15 GeV, which is exploited to increase the signal-to-background ratio. A variation of $`E_T`$ between 8 and 20 GeV verified that the value chosen optimizes in some way $`S/B`$ and ensures a statistically significant signal event rate. If one of these requirements failed the photon-jet candidate was discarded and, if no other candidate was found, the event was rejected from the analysis.

The resulting dijet invariant mass, $`M_{jj}`$, is clearly dominated by the $`Z`$ boson at 91 GeV, with a total width at half-maximum of approximately 4.5 GeV. This gives us confidence that the jet clustering algorithms used isolates adequately the hadronic jets and the $`\gamma _H`$ candidate might result from the Higgs decay. To preserve good mass resolution for the final $`Z\gamma `$ system the two hadronic jets were fitted to the constraint $`M_{jj}=M_Z`$.

Remaining reducible background, mainly due to $`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`e^+e^{}`$$`\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)\left(\gamma \right)`$ and radiative return events, was found to grow slowly with $`M_{Z\gamma }`$ having a broad maximum around 140 GeV. It contributes at most 42% of the irreducible background in the Higgs mass region considered. Fig. 4 shows the reconstructed $`Z\gamma `$ mass for signal and summed background events after application of the jet finder algorithm PUCLUS and the cuts mentioned above. Higgs signals are visible at the assumed masses, with most abundant Higgs production at 140 GeV. Once the Higgs mass is known from searches in dominant decay channels, reliable BF($`HZ\gamma `$) estimates are possible even for the worst case of $`M_H`$ = 120 GeV.

Selection efficiencies for the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma \nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ signature, the number of signal $`\left(S\right)`$ and irreducible background $`\left(B\right)`$ events in the mass range $`M_{Z\gamma }`$ between 117 and 123 (137-143, 157-163) GeV, the significances $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ and the statistical precisions $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$ obtained on $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )BF(Zq\overline{q})`$ are presented in Table 3.

Thus, application of the PYTHIA jet finder for Higgs event selection and accounting for all $`Z`$ decays as well as the surviving reducible background yields for the relative precisions on the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$BF($`HZ\gamma `$)/BF($`HZ\gamma `$) = 70% (31%, 57%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV, after convolution with the uncertainty of the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ production cross-section  and assuming 1 ab-1 integrated luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV.

|  | Signal (Background) | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`M_H`$ = 120 GeV | 140 GeV | 160 GeV |
| Selection efficiency (%) | 13.0 (0.27) | 13.9 (0.26) | 13.9 (0.25) |
| Number of events/1 ab-1 | 12 (59) | 29 (57) | 14 (55) |
| Significance $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ | 1.56 | 3.84 | 1.89 |
| Precision $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$ | 0.70 | 0.32 | 0.54 |

Table 3: Jet finder selection efficiencies for both signal and background $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ signature, together with significances and precisions of $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )BF(Zq\overline{q})`$ for $`M_H`$ = 120, 140 and 160 GeV, at the $`e^+e^{}`$linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV. A total integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1 is assumed.

### 3.3 Event selection by means of ’Higgs-likeness’

The results obtained by exploiting consecutive cut or jet finder techniques lead to small signal samples accompanied by large backgound. Demanding further cuts beyond the ones discussed so far does not improve $`S/B`$ significantly, but would instead reduce signal event rates to a level precluding reasonable $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction measurements. This is mainly because the irreducible background has similar final state signature as the $`HZ\gamma `$events and exceed this sample by typically two or more orders of magnitude before any selection procedure.

Such a situation calls for a more sophisticated selection approach where also slight differences between signal and background events are taken into account. In this respect, a ’likelihood factor’ was constructed giving a measure of the probability that an event is part of the signal. For any particular event, kinematical variables of the final state photon, the $`Z`$ boson respectively the two jets and the missing neutrino system were combined into a global discriminant variable $`P_H`$. This quantity was constructed from a variety of normalised variables based on large statistics samples of simulated signal and background events. The variables used account for possible kinematic differences between the Higgs events (diagram 1 in Fig. 1) with the isotropic $`HZ\gamma `$decay and the background (diagrams of Fig. 2). In particular, the transverse momentum of the photon, its cms scattering angle, the cosine of the polar angle of the $`Z`$ boson, the photon polar and azimuthal decay angles in the Higgs rest frame, the cms polar and azimuthal angles between the photon and the $`Z`$, the cms photon energy, the collinearity angle between the electron beam and the photon, the coplanarity angles of the beam, the photon and the $`Z`$ boson as well as the beam, the Higgs and the photon in the Higgs rest frame, the transverse masses of the photon and the missing system as well as the Higgs and the missing system were considered. In events where more than one photon candidate exists (about 48 % of the cases) the photon with largest energy was selected as the Higgs decay candidate. For each event which passes the principal cuts, the event and jet quality cuts (see sect. 3.1) and the fit constraint $`M_{jj}=M_Z`$, signal and background probabilities were then calculated, and by multiplication of all signal probabilities the sensitivity for an event to be a Higgs candidate was maximised. The quantity so obtained is constraint to lie in the region \[0;1\]. Background events are preferably distributed at low $`P_H`$ values while for Higgs signal events $`P_H`$ is close to unity. Since several variables included in the analysis vary with the Higgs mass, signal probabilities were individually determined for $`M_H`$ = 120, 140 and 160 GeV. Therefore, the ’Higgs-likeness’ exists for each Higgs mass considered. Fig. 5 shows, as an example, $`P_H`$ for $`M_H`$ = 120 GeV signal and the sum of signal and background events. Similar distributions were obtaind for $`M_H`$ = 140 and 160 GeV. Finally, only events were retained if the energy of the Higgs photon candidate, $`\gamma _H`$, was greater than 20 GeV with the transverse component $`E_T>`$ 15 GeV. Reducible background was found to arise from $`WW\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)`$ and radiative return events, with rates of at most 32% of the irreducible background at the 160 GeV Higgs mass.

Fig. 6 shows the $`Z\gamma `$ invariant mass spectra for the luminosity adjusted $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma `$ signal and background events surviving the cut $`P_H>0.98`$, for $`M_H`$ = 120, 140 and 160 GeV. In all cases, convincing Higgs signals are evident on non-negligible backgrounds. Compared to the selection procedures discussed in the previous sections best Higgs signal significancies were obtained. In particular, the excess of events at 140 GeV is very encouraging. But also the somwhat degraded event rates at $`M_H`$ = 120 and 160 GeV allow for reliable $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction estimates. Variation of the discriminant variable $`P_H`$ between 0.82 and 0.98 does not improve $`S/B`$, but would rather lower the signal-to-background ratio.

Selection efficiencies for the $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma \nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ signature, the number of signal $`\left(S\right)`$ and irreducible background $`\left(B\right)`$ events in the mass range $`M_{Z\gamma }`$ between 117 and 123 (137-143, 157-163) GeV, the significances $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ and the statistical precisions $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$ obtained on $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )BF(Zq\overline{q})`$ are presented in Table 4.

|  | Signal (Background) | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`M_H`$ = 120 GeV | 140 GeV | 160 GeV |
| Selection efficiency (%) | 17.4 (0.23) | 13.9 (0.20) | 15.9 (0.16) |
| Number of events/1 ab-1 | 16 (51) | 29 (44) | 16 (41) |
| Significance $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ | 2.24 | 4.37 | 2.50 |
| Precision $`\sqrt{S+B}/S`$ | 0.51 | 0.29 | 0.47 |

Table 4: ”Higgs-likeness” selection efficiencies for both signal and background $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}q\overline{q}\gamma `$ signature, together with significances and precisions of $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)BF(HZ\gamma )BF(Zq\overline{q})`$ for $`M_H`$ = 120, 140 and 160 GeV, at the $`e^+e^{}`$linear collider with $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV. A total integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1 is assumed.

Accounting for all Z decays and the surviving reducible background the relative precisions on the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction are then deduced after convolution with the uncertainty of the inclusive $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ production rates : $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$BF($`HZ\gamma `$)/BF($`HZ\gamma `$) = 48% (27%, 44%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV, assuming 1 ab-1 integrated luminosity at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV.

### 3.4 Discussion of the results

Relatively independent on the selection technique exploited we would register typically 15 to 30 $`HZ\gamma `$events in reaction (3) and three or more times background events in the window $`M_H\pm 3`$ GeV at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV for an integrated luminosity of 1 ab-1. A comparison of the selection procedures applied favors the ’Higgs-likeness’ method, in particular for the 120 GeV Higgs mass case. The results attainable for the relative uncertainties of the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction are 48% (27%, 44%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV. We regard these numbers as rather encouraging, especially considering the initial value of the S/B rates. Although a complete optimization for neither selection technique has not been achieved, we are confident that room for improved $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction measurements is limited, mainly due to the presence of overwhelming irreducible background with final state signature similar to the signal events. Improvements may rely on the size of the Higgs window not yet adjusted to obtain optimized numbers of signal to background events for a narrow Gaussian resonance whose observed width is dominated by instrumental effects. Also Higgs-strahlung events which exist in the data sample at 500 GeV would provide an independent $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction, based on however different selection procedures. Although a less accurate measurement is anticipated (due to larger $`e^+e^{}`$$`ZZ\gamma `$ irreducible background and more complicated analyses when both Z bosons decay hadronically), but in combination with the $`WW`$ fusion measurement an improved $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$B($`HZ\gamma `$)/B($`HZ\gamma `$) of about 10% can be expected. Furthermore, inclusion of leptonic $`Z`$ boson decays and $`ZZ`$ fusion events of reaction (4), so far neglected, would slightly improve the results. However, the increase of the signal event sample of about 10 to 20% would be partially compensated by more background which scales in approximatelly the same way.

An alternative approach relies on studying the Higgs-strahlung process $`e^+e^{}HZZZ\gamma `$ at optimezed lower energies, e.g. at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 300 GeV. Here, approximately 95% of all Z decays are useful and for $``$ = 1 ab-1 about 200 $`HZZZ\gamma `$ events are expected. Assuming similar selection efficiencies as found for the $`WW`$ fusion process, the final $`HZ\gamma `$sample would consist of some 50 events, of which approximately 50% are 4-jet events with a prompt photon. A topology of four jets with an accompaning photon is not only produced by $`HZ\gamma `$$`q\overline{q}\gamma `$ decays, but also via fragmentation of quarks and gluons of continuum $`ZZ`$ production. Refering also to the huge irreducible $`e^+e^{}ZZ\gamma `$ background and the large cross-section process $`e^+e^{}WW\left(\gamma \right)`$ with initial and final state photon radiation, detailed analyses are needed and preliminary results indicate less precision on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) .

Linear $`e^+e^{}`$colliders offer the possibility for longitudinal polarised electron and positron beams, with varying polarisation degrees in right-handed or left-handed modes. Higgs boson production rates in both processes (2) and (3) depends strongly on the polarisation degree and the helicity of the incoming particles. For any given process, ratios of the cross-section for given electron and positron beam polarisations divided by the cross-section for unpolarised beams, denoted as $`R`$, are presented in Table 2 of  for different beam polarisations. The Higgs event rates in processes (2) and (3) are enhanced most for left-handed $`e^{}`$ colliding with right-handed $`e^+`$ with as large a degree of polarisation as possible. For the feasible though ambitious case of collisions between an $`e^{}`$ beam with polarisation $`P_{}`$ = -0.8 and an $`e^+`$ beam with polarisation $`P_+`$ = +0.6, $`R`$ = 1.77 and 2.88 for the Higgs-strahlung and $`WW`$ fusion processses, respectively. However, the dominant irreducible background in both processes scales in approximately the same way with beam polarisations as the signal processes , the precision of the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction improves by only a factor $`\sqrt{R}`$. Under such circumstances, the relative uncertaities on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) is lowered to 28% (16%, 26%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV, if the ”Higgs-likeness” selection technique is exploited. However, it should be noted that other physics processes will demand different beam polarisations and the assumption of using the full luminosity with the desired beam polarisation for this particular measurement gives some lower bound to the attainable precision.

Since the signal-to-background ratio is expected to be less than unity, it should be emphasized that large continuum $`Z\gamma `$ production and copious $`\pi ^0`$ background events must be rejected by excellent geometrical resolution and stringent isolation criteria combined with excellent electromagnetic and hadronic energy resolution and hermiticity. A worse resolution would flatten the marginal signal events over large $`Z\gamma `$ background, thus degrading the visibility of the signal. Systematic uncertainties due to detector effects such as photon detection effeciency, energy scales and resolutions are believed to be small and can be estimated from comparison of data with well understood processes, such as $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$, Compton scattering, Bhabha, $`ZZ`$ and $`WW`$ events. Systematic uncertainties on the integrated luminosity are expected to be below 0.5%, and statistical uncertainties due to final simulation sample sizes should be kept below few percent. Simulations of the Standard Model background channels are expected to yield most of the sytematic uncertainties. The use of different event generators would keep this uncertainty under control and agreement between them within few percent is expected. Taking all these effects together and accounting for a precise measurement of the inclusive Higgs cross section of about 4% or less , it appears that the error on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) will be dominated by the statistical uncertainty.

The effect of overlap of $`\gamma \gamma hadrons`$ to $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ events has also been studied. The $`\gamma \gamma `$ events due to photons radiated in the electro-magnetic interactions of the colliding beams have been generated by the GUINEA PIG program  with a rate modelled in . PYTHIA  has been used to generate the hadrons. The latest version of SIMDET  overlays the $`\gamma \gamma `$ events to $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ events, and all final state particles are then reconstructed. Without special care to isolate the particles from $`\gamma \gamma `$ interactions, we found that the Higgs events were recognized without notable loss or distortions after passing any of the selection procedure.

## 4 Conclusions

We have examined the prospects at a future linear $`e^+e^{}`$collider of measuring the branching fraction of a Standard Model-like Higgs boson into the $`Z`$ boson and a photon, BF($`HZ\gamma `$). Higgs boson masses of 120, 140 and 160 GeV and in integrated luminosity of $``$ = 1 ab-1 at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 500 GeV were assumed. In order to estimate the precision on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) which can be attained, all expected background processes were included in the analysis, and acceptances and resolutions of a linear collider detector were taken into account. In particular, by simulating the 2-to-4 particle reactions $`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma `$, in which the signal reaction $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ is embedded, the complete irreducible background has been taken into account. Only $`Z`$ $`q\overline{q}`$decays were included so far.

Since reactions like $`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}Z\gamma ,WW\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`e\nu W\left(\gamma \right)`$, $`e^+e^{}\left(\gamma ^{}/Z\right)`$ and radiative return $`q\overline{q}\gamma `$ events also constitute potentially serious background sources for the $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ signal, different selection techniques (consecutive cuts, jet finders, ’Higgs-likeness’) were applied and have been shown to result in tolerable background levels and Higgs detection in the rare $`HZ\gamma `$decay. As the favored selection procedure the ’Higgs-likeness’ technique has been found, with 15 to 30 identified signal events, comparable to the other methods, but with lowest total background.

For unpolarized beams, the expected relative precision for the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction was found to be 48% (27%, 44%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV, after accounting for all $`Z`$ decays and convolution with the uncertainty on the inclusive $`WW`$ fusion Higgs boson cross-section.

For $`e^{}`$ beam polarisation of -0.8 and $`e^+`$ beam polarisation of +0.6, the $`WW`$ fusion cross-section $`\sigma `$($`e^+e^{}`$$`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H)`$ is significantly enhanced, so improving substantially the precision on BF($`HZ\gamma `$) to 28$`\%`$ (17$`\%`$, 26$`\%`$), even taking into account the fact that the dominant irreducible background scales in the same way. With these uncertainties it should be possible to deduce a relative precision for the $`HZ\gamma `$partial width of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(HZ\gamma \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(HZ\gamma \right)}29\%(17\%,27\%)`$, if an uncertainty of 5% for the total Higgs width  is included. This in turn allows to expect a relative precision for the $`HZ\gamma `$ coupling of 15% (9%, 14%) for $`M_H`$ = 120 (140, 160) GeV.

Overlap of $`\gamma \gamma hadrons`$ to $`\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ events due to photons radiated in the electro-magnetic interactions of the colliding beams would not alter the uncertainties accessible.

The results presented also suggest that the $`WW`$ fusion reaction $`e^+e^{}\nu _e\overline{\nu _e}H`$ at 500 GeV would be superior in $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction measurements to the Higgs-strahlung process $`e^+e^{}`$$`HZ`$ at lower energies, e.g. at $`\sqrt{s}`$ = 300 GeV , in particular if polarised beams are taken into account. However, detailed analyses are needed for the latter process to establish present indications.

For Higgs masses significantly above 160 GeV, it will be difficult to determine the $`HZ\gamma `$ coupling with valuable precision since the $`HZ\gamma `$branching fraction is too small to be accurately measured.

In summary, our results confirms the unique ability of a linear $`e^+e^{}`$collider to access and reliably measure fundamental Higgs boson parameters in the presence of initially overwhelming background with final state signature similar to the signal events.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank K.Desch and E.Boos for useful discussions. The work of M.D. was partially supported by RFBR grant 01-02-1670 and INTAS grants 00-00313, 00-00679.