# 1 The cross-hatched bands show the ±1⁢𝜎 limits for the quantities 𝐴_𝑙⁢(LEP+SLD), 𝐴_𝑏⁢(SLD). and 𝐴_{𝐹⁢𝐵}^{0,𝑏}⁢(LEP). The cross shows the best fit to 𝐴_𝑙 and 𝐴_𝑏, togther with 68%, 95% and 99% CL contours. The narrow cross hatched rectangle shows the SM prediction for 𝑚_𝐻=100 GeV and 𝑚_𝑡=174±5 GeV. The open arrow shows the SM prediction for 𝑚_𝐻=100₋₅₀⁺²⁰⁰ GeV and 𝑚_𝑡=174 GeV. The arrow points in the direction of increasing 𝑚_𝐻.

UGVA-DPNC 1998/10-181 October 1998   
hep-ph/9810288

The Indirect Limit on the Standard Model Higgs Boson Mass from the Precision FERMILAB, LEP and SLD Data.

J.H.Field

Département de Physique Nucléaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève

24, quai Ernest-Ansermet CH-1211 Genève 4.

E-mail: john.field@cern.ch

## Abstract

Standard Model fits are performed on the most recent leptonic and b quark Z decay data from LEP and SLD, and FERMILAB data on top quark production, to obtain $`m_t`$ and $`m_H`$. Poor fits are obtained, with confidence levels $``$ 2$`\%`$. Removing the b quark data improves markedly the quality of the fits and reduces the 95$`\%`$ CL upper limit on $`m_H`$ by $``$ 50 GeV.

PACS 13.10.+q, 13.15.Jr, 13.38.+c, 14.80.Er, 14.80.Gt   
Keywords ; Standard Electroweak Model, LEP, SLD and FERMILAB data, Z-decays, b quark couplings, top quark and Higgs boson masses   

Since the discovery of the top quark by the CDF and D0 Collaborations at FERMILAB  and the determination of its mass with a precision of $`3\%`$ , an important goal of the analysis of the precision electroweak data from LEP and SLD  has been to establish indirect limits on the mass, $`m_H`$, of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs Boson from the measurement of the effect of quantum corrections in Z decays. A 95$`\%`$ confidence level (CL) lower limit on $`m_H`$ of 89.8 GeV has also recently been set in the direct search for the Higgs Boson by the 4 LEP experiments . The consistency, or otherwise, of the indirect and direct limits for $`m_H`$ constitutes an important test of the SM.

Measurents of the same electroweak observables by different experiments are combined by the LEP-SLD Electroweak Working Group (LSEWWG) , but still, in the global fits to the data used to obtain the indirect limit on $`m_H`$, a large number of different ‘raw’ observables are included in the $`\chi ^2`$. These observables vary widely both in experimental precision and in sensitivity to $`m_H`$. They may, however, be further combined, using only very weak theoretical assumptions (lepton universality and the validity of perturbative QED and QCD corrections) to yield a much smaller number of parameters that contain all precise experimental information on $`m_H`$. Fitting these parameters to the SM prediction, as is done below, rather than the raw observables, as in the LSEWWG fits, results in much sharper test and, as will be seen, clearly pin-points possible anomalies or inconstencies in the data. There are essentially four such independent parameters, which may be chosen to be the effective weak coupling constants (vector and axial vector, or right-handed and left-handed) of the charged leptons and b quarks. The effective coupling constants of the other quarks have a similar theoretical status but, because of their much larger experimental errors, have a negligible weight in the determination of $`m_H`$ <sup>a</sup><sup>a</sup>aAlthough the direct measurement of the W mass is expected, in the future, to provide valuable information on $`m_H`$, the present experimental error is too large to be competitive with Z decay measurements.. Actually, in the SM, although all four parameters are sensitive to $`m_t`$ given the present experimental errors, the sensitivity of the b quark couplings to $`m_H`$ is extremely weak. The method of extraction of the effective coupling constants from the raw observables as been described previously . In order to simplify the fitting procedure it is convenient to use, instead of the effective vector (axial vector) coupling constants $`\overline{v}_f`$ ($`\overline{a}_f`$) ($`f=l,b`$) the equivalent quantities, with uncorrelated experimental errors, $`A_f`$, $`\overline{s}_f`$ defined by the relations:

$$A_f\frac{2(\sqrt{14\mu _f})\overline{r}_f}{14\mu _f+(1+2\mu _f)\overline{r}_f^2},$$
(1)   
where

$$\overline{r}_f\overline{v}_f/\overline{a}_f,$$

and

$$\overline{s}_f(\overline{a}_f)^2(16\mu _f)+(\overline{v}_f)^2.$$
(2)   
The parameter $`\mu _f=(\overline{m}_f(M_Z)/M_Z)^2`$ where $`\overline{m}_f(Q)`$ is the running fermion mass at the scale $`Q`$, can be set to zero for $`f=l`$ to sufficient accuracy, while for b quarks $`(\overline{m}_b(M_Z)/M_Z)^2=1.0\times 10^3`$ . The values of $`A_l`$, $`\overline{s}_l`$, $`A_b`$, $`\overline{s}_b`$ extracted from the most recent compilation of electroweak data  are presented in Table 1 where they are compared with the SM prediction for $`m_t=174`$ GeV, $`m_H=100`$ GeV. The SM predictions used here are derived from the ZFITTER5.10 program package , which includes the recently calculated $`O(g^4m_t^2/M_W^2)`$ two-loop corrections . Good agreement is seen for all parameters except $`A_b`$, which differs from the SM prediction by 3.0 standard deviations. The CL that all four parameters agree with the SM is only 1.0$`\%`$ ($`\chi ^2/dof=13.2/4`$). This apparent anomaly was already apparent in the 1996 LSEWWG averages , and has been extensively discussed .The right-handed (R) and left-handed (L) effective couplings of the b quarks: $`\overline{g}_b^R=(\overline{v}_b\overline{a}_b)/2`$, $`\overline{g}_b^L=(\overline{v}_b+\overline{a}_b)/2`$ are found to have the values:

$$\overline{g}_b^R=0.1050(90),\overline{g}_b^L=0.4159(24)$$

as compared with the respective SM predictions of 0.0774 and -0.4208. The largest anomaly is in $`\overline{g}_b^R`$ (3.1$`\sigma `$) rather than $`\overline{g}_b^L`$ (2.0$`\sigma `$).

The purpose of this letter is twofold: (i) To recall that only one parameter, $`\overline{g}_b^R`$, among the four that contain all the high precision information on quantum corrections in Z decays shows a large deviation from the SM prediction . (ii) To point out that the values of the limits on $`m_H`$ depend strongly on inclusion or exclusion of the b quark data. Using only the leptonic data, that agrees well with the SM prediction, leads to significantly lower values of $`m_H`$.

The results of SM fits for $`m_H`$ and $`m_t`$ to the parameter sets $`A_l`$, $`\overline{s}_l`$, $`m_t`$ and $`A_l`$, $`\overline{s}_l`$, $`A_b`$, $`\overline{s}_b`$, $`m_t`$ are presented in Table 2. The recent CDF, D0 average : $`m_t=173.8\pm 5.0`$ GeV and the fixed value $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.120`$, consistent with the world average $`0.118(5)`$  is used in the fits. For each parameter set three fits are performed for different values of $`\alpha (M_Z)`$, corresponding to the experimental value: $`\alpha (M_Z)^1=128.896(90)`$ , and $`\pm `$ 1$`\sigma `$ variations on the value. The fitted value of $`m_H`$ is seen to be very sensitive to $`\alpha (M_Z)`$. All fits give a very stable value of $`m_t`$ of $`171.2`$ with a maximum variation of 0.7 GeV, much smaller than the typical fit error of $`3.7`$ GeV. On the other hand, large variations are seen in $`m_H`$ both as a function of $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ and on the inclusion or exclusion of the b quark data. For $`\alpha (M_Z)^1=128.896`$ the fit excluding the b quark data gives $`m_H=38.0_{19.8}^{+30.5}`$ and a 95$`\%`$ CL upper limit of $`94`$ GeV; including the b quark data gives $`m_H=77.8_{26.2}^{+38.6}`$ and an upper limit of $`150`$ GeV. The CLs of the SM fits to the lepton data and $`m_t`$ are in the range $`24\%57\%`$, whereas when the b quark data is included, the CLs drop to only $`1.7\%1.8\%`$. The results on the indirect Higgs Boson Masss limits are summarised Table 3, where the variations due to the experimental error on $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ and $`\pm `$ 1$`\sigma `$ variations in the fitted value of $`m_t`$ are also presented. When the b quark data is included, the ‘maximum’<sup>b</sup><sup>b</sup>bGiven by adding linearly the shifts generated by the experimental error on $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ and the fit error on $`m_t`$. 95$`\%`$ CL upper limit on $`m_H`$ is found to be 278 GeV, in good agreement with the LSEWWG value of 280 GeV . Excluding the b quark data, which is incompatible, at the 3$`\sigma `$ level, with the SM, reduces the fitted value of $`m_H`$ by a factor two, and lowers the 95$`\%`$ CL upper limit by $`56`$ GeV. Taking into acccount the strong dependence of the limit on $`\alpha (M_Z)`$ and $`m_t`$ (see Table 3), this is still quite consistent with the direct lower limit of $`89.9`$ GeV . It should be stressed that the shift in the value of $`m_H`$ is generated due to the high sensitivity of $`A_l`$ via correlations ( $`A_{FB}^{0,b}=3A_lA_b/4`$) and not by any variation in the quantity $`A_b`$, which is quite insensitive to $`m_H`$.

This point is made clear by Figure 1, which shows a two dimensional plot of the LEP+SLD average value $`A_l`$ and $`A_b(\mathrm{SLD})`$. The diagonal band shows the LEP $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ measurement. Also shown are the 68$`\%`$, 95$`\%`$ and 99$`\%`$ CL contours of the best fit to $`A_l`$ and $`A_b`$ using all three data, as well as the prediction of the SM that lies just outside the 99$`\%`$ CL contour. The shift towards higher values of $`m_H`$ caused by the $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ measurement as well as poor agreement of the fit with the SM are evident.

None of the above conclusions were reported when the results of global SM fits by the LSEWWG to the same data set used in this letter, were presented at the recent Vancouver conference . This is because no attempt was made to extract the effective couplings of the b quarks, and the SM fit was performed on a large number (20) of raw electroweak observables, many of which have large errors and/or are relatively insensitive to $`m_H`$ or the b quark couplings. In fact it is clear from inspection of Figure 1 that the 3 largest ‘pulls’ <sup>c</sup><sup>c</sup>c i.e. (measurement-fit)/error in the global EW fit shown in Ref.(due to $`A_b(\mathrm{SLD})`$, $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{eff}^{lept}`$ derived from $`A_{LR}`$), are all correlated to the large deviation of the best fit value of $`A_b`$ from the SM prediction. These three data alone contribute 11.1 (or 65$`\%`$) out of the total $`\chi ^2`$ of 17.0 for 15 $`dof`$. The 3.1$`\sigma `$ deviation of $`\overline{g}_b^R`$ from the SM is not revealed in the SLEWWG fit. Instead smaller deviations appear in the correlated quantities $`A_b(\mathrm{SLD})`$, $`A_{FB}^{0,b}`$ and $`R_b`$. It is interesting to note that the 17 data whose pulls are least effected by the deviation in the b quark couplings give an anomalously low contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi ^2/dof=5.9/17`$, CL=99.45$`\%`$) indicating that, on average, the errors for these quantities may be overestimated by a factor of $`1.7`$. The very low contribution from these data hides the large positive contribution resulting from the deviation in $`A_b`$ when only the global $`\chi ^2`$ is considered. A similar criticism may be made of another recent global analysis  based on the data set used in this letter. In this case the global $`\chi ^2`$ contained 42 data fit to 6 parameters (including $`m_t`$ and $`m_H`$) yielding a $`\chi ^2/dof=28.8/36`$ (CL $`=80\%`$ ). It is stated, in consequence, that: ‘The fit to all precision data is perfect’. Although it is true that, as in the SLEWWG fit, ‘None of the observables deviates from the SM best fit prediction by more than 2 standard deviations’ it also remains true that an anomalously large contribution to the $`\chi ^2`$ comes from the b quark data, where the effective couplings do deviate from the SM at the 3$`\sigma `$ level. This is completely hidden by the good ageement with the SM of 39 out of the 42 data that are fitted!

Finally, it may be mentioned that none of the previous discussions in the literature of the sensitivity of $`m_H`$ to different data sets  pointed out either the sensitivity of the limit to the b quark data, or the poor overall confidence levels of SM fits to the effective couplings when the latter are included. A more detailed discussion of this previous literature is given in Ref..   
Acknowledgements   
I thank M.Dittmar for discussions, and his encouragement for the pursuit of this work.