Global Search for New Physics with 2.

0 fb−1 at CDF
T. Aaltonen,24 J. Adelman,14 T. Akimoto,56 M.G. Albrow,18 B. Álvarez González,12 S. Ameriox ,44 D. Amidei,35
A. Anastassov,39 A. Annovi,20 J. Antos,15 G. Apollinari,18 A. Apresyan,49 T. Arisawa,58 A. Artikov,16
W. Ashmanskas,18 A. Aurisano,54 F. Azfar,43 P. Azzurriaa ,47 W. Badgett,18 V.E. Barnes,49 B.A. Barnett,26
V. Bartsch,31 G. Bauer,33 P.-H. Beauchemin,34 F. Bedeschi,47 D. Beecher,31 S. Behari,26 G. Bellettiniy ,47
J. Bellinger,60 D. Benjamin,17 A. Beretvas,18 A. Bhatti,51 M. Binkley,18 D. Bisellox ,44 I. Bizjakdd ,31
R.E. Blair,2 C. Blocker,7 B. Blumenfeld,26 A. Bocci,17 A. Bodek,50 V. Boisvert,50 G. Bolla,49 D. Bortoletto,49
J. Boudreau,48 A. Boveia,11 B. Braua ,11 A. Bridgeman,25 L. Brigliadori,44 C. Bromberg,36 E. Brubaker,14
J. Budagov,16 H.S. Budd,50 S. Budd,25 S. Burke,18 K. Burkett,18 G. Busettox ,44 P. Busseyk ,22 A. Buzatu,34
K. L. Byrum,2 S. Cabrerar ,17 C. Calancha,32 M. Campanelli,36 M. Campbell,35 F. Canelli,18 A. Canepa,46
B. Carls,25 D. Carlsmith,60 R. Carosi,47 S. Carrilloj ,19 S. Carron,34 B. Casal,12 M. Casarsa,18 A. Castrow ,6
arXiv:0809.3781v2 [hep-ex] 10 Jan 2009

P. Catastiniz ,47 D. Cauzcc ,55 V. Cavalierez ,47 A. Cerri,29 L. Cerritok ,31 S.H. Chang,28 Y.C. Chen,1 M. Chertok,8
G. Chiarelli,47 G. Chlachidze,18 F. Chlebana,18 K. Cho,28 D. Chokheli,16 J.P. Chou,23 G. Choudalakis,33
S.H. Chuang,53 K. Chung,13 W.H. Chung,60 Y.S. Chung,50 T. Chwalek,27 C.I. Ciobanu,45 M.A. Ciocciz ,47
A. Clark,21 D. Clark,7 G. Compostella,44 M.E. Convery,18 J. Conway,8 M. Cordelli,20 G. Cortianax,44 C.A. Cox,8
D.J. Cox,8 F. Crescioliy ,47 C. Cuenca Almenarr ,8 J. Cuevaso ,12 R. Culbertson,18 J.C. Cully,35 D. Dagenhart,18
M. Datta,18 T. Davies,22 P. de Barbaro,50 S. De Cecco,52 A. Deisher,29 M. Dell’Orsoy ,47 L. Demortier,51
J. Deng,17 M. Deninno,6 P.F. Derwent,18 G.P. di Giovanni,45 C. Dionisibb ,52 B. Di Ruzzacc ,55 J.R. Dittmann,5
S. Donatiy ,47 P. Dong,9 J. Donini,44 T. Dorigo,44 S. Dube,53 J. Efron,40 A. Elagin,54 R. Erbacher,8 D. Errede,25
S. Errede,25 R. Eusebi,18 H.C. Fang,29 S. Farrington,43 W.T. Fedorko,14 R.G. Feild,61 M. Feindt,27
J.P. Fernandez,32 C. Ferrazzaaa,47 R. Field,19 G. Flanagan,49 R. Forrest,8 M.J. Frank,5 M. Franklin,23
J.C. Freeman,18 I. Furic,19 M. Gallinaro,52 J. Galyardt,13 F. Garberson,11 J.E. Garcia,21 A.F. Garfinkel,49
K. Genser,18 H. Gerberich,25 D. Gerdes,35 A. Gessler,27 S. Giagubb ,52 V. Giakoumopoulou,3 P. Giannetti,47
K. Gibson,48 J.L. Gimmell,50 C.M. Ginsburg,18 N. Giokaris,3 M. Giordanicc,55 P. Giromini,20 M. Giuntay ,47
G. Giurgiu,26 V. Glagolev,16 D. Glenzinski,18 M. Gold,38 N. Goldschmidt,19 A. Golossanov,18 G. Gomez,12
G. Gomez-Ceballos,33 M. Goncharov,54 O. González,32 I. Gorelov,38 A.T. Goshaw,17 K. Goulianos,51 A. Greselex ,44
S. Grinstein,23 C. Grosso-Pilcher,14 R.C. Group,18 U. Grundler,25 J. Guimaraes da Costa,23 Z. Gunay-Unalan,36
K. Hahn,33 S.R. Hahn,18 E. Halkiadakis,53 B.-Y. Han,50 J.Y. Han,50 F. Happacher,20 K. Hara,56 D. Hare,53
M. Hare,57 S. Harper,43 R.F. Harr,59 R.M. Harris,18 M. Hartz,48 K. Hatakeyama,51 C. Hays,43 M. Heck,27
A. Heijboer,46 J. Heinrich,46 C. Henderson,33 M. Herndon,60 J. Heuser,27 S. Hewamanage,5 D. Hidas,17
C.S. Hillc ,11 D. Hirschbuehl,27 A. Hocker,18 S. Hou,1 M. Houlden,30 S.-C. Hsu,29 B.T. Huffman,43 R.E. Hughes,40
U. Husemann,61 J. Huston,36 J. Incandela,11 G. Introzzi,47 M. Ioribb ,52 A. Ivanov,8 E. James,18 B. Jayatilaka,17
E.J. Jeon,28 M.K. Jha,6 S. Jindariani,18 W. Johnson,8 M. Jones,49 K.K. Joo,28 S.Y. Jun,13 J.E. Jung,28
T.R. Junk,18 T. Kamon,54 D. Kar,19 P.E. Karchin,59 Y. Kato,42 R. Kephart,18 J. Keung,46 V. Khotilovich,54
B. Kilminster,18 D.H. Kim,28 H.S. Kim,28 H.W. Kim,28 J.E. Kim,28 M.J. Kim,20 S.B. Kim,28 S.H. Kim,56
Y.K. Kim,14 N. Kimura,56 L. Kirsch,7 S. Klimenko,19 B. Knuteson,33 B.R. Ko,17 K. Kondo,58 D.J. Kong,28
J. Konigsberg,19 A. Korytov,19 A.V. Kotwal,17 M. Kreps,27 J. Kroll,46 D. Krop,14 N. Krumnack,5 M. Kruse,17
V. Krutelyov,11 T. Kubo,56 T. Kuhr,27 N.P. Kulkarni,59 M. Kurata,56 Y. Kusakabe,58 S. Kwang,14 A.T. Laasanen,49
S. Lami,47 M. Lancaster,31 R.L. Lander,8 K. Lannonn ,40 A. Lath,53 G. Latinoz ,47 I. Lazzizzerax,44 T. LeCompte,2
E. Lee,54 H.S. Lee,14 S.W. Leeq ,54 S. Leone,47 J.D. Lewis,18 J. Linacre,43 M. Lindgren,18 E. Lipeles,46 A. Lister,8
D.O. Litvintsev,18 C. Liu,48 T. Liu,18 N.S. Lockyer,46 A. Loginov,61 M. Loretix ,44 L. Lovas,15 D. Lucchesix ,44
C. Lucibb ,52 J. Lueck,27 P. Lujan,29 P. Lukens,18 G. Lungu,51 L. Lyons,43 R. Lysak,15 D. MacQueen,34 R. Madrak,18
K. Maeshima,18 K. Makhoul,33 T. Maki,24 P. Maksimovic,26 S. Malde,43 S. Malik,31 A. Manousakis-Katsikakis,3
F. Margaroli,49 C. Marino,27 C.P. Marino,25 A. Martin,61 V. Martini ,22 R. Martı́nez-Balları́n,32 T. Maruyama,56
P. Mastrandrea,52 T. Masubuchi,56 M. Mathis,26 M.E. Mattson,59 P. Mazzanti,6 K.S. McFarland,50 P. McIntyre,54
R. McNultyh ,30 A. Mehta,30 P. Mehtala,24 A. Menzione,47 P. Merkel,49 C. Mesropian,51 T. Miao,18 N. Miladinovic,7
R. Miller,36 C. Mills,23 M. Milnik,27 A. Mitra,1 G. Mitselmakher,19 H. Miyake,56 N. Moggi,6 C.S. Moon,28
R. Moore,18 M.J. Morelloy ,47 J. Morlok,27 P. Movilla Fernandez,18 J. Mülmenstädt,29 A. Mukherjee,18 Th. Muller,27
R. Mumford,26 P. Murat,18 M. Mussiniw ,6 J. Nachtman,18 Y. Nagai,56 A. Nagano,56 J. Naganoma,56
K. Nakamura,56 I. Nakano,41 A. Napier,57 V. Necula,17 J. Nett,60 C. Neus ,46 M.S. Neubauer,25 S. Neubauer,27
L. Nodulman,2 M. Norman,10 O. Norniella,25 E. Nurse,31 L. Oakes,43 S.H. Oh,17 Y.D. Oh,28 I. Oksuzian,19
T. Okusawa,42 R. Orava,24 S. Pagan Grisox ,44 E. Palencia,18 V. Papadimitriou,18 A. Papaikonomou,27
A.A. Paramonov,14 B. Parks,40 S. Pashapour,34 J. Patrick,18 G. Paulettacc,55 M. Paulini,13 C. Paus,33 T. Peiffer,27
2

D.E. Pellett,8 A. Penzo,55 T.J. Phillips,17 G. Piacentino,47 E. Pianori,46 L. Pinera,19 K. Pitts,25 C. Plager,9
L. Pondrom,60 O. Poukhov∗,16 N. Pounder,43 F. Prakoshyn,16 A. Pronko,18 J. Proudfoot,2 F. Ptohosg ,18
E. Pueschel,13 G. Punziy ,47 J. Pursley,60 J. Rademackerc,43 A. Rahaman,48 V. Ramakrishnan,60 N. Ranjan,49
I. Redondo,32 V. Rekovic,38 P. Renton,43 M. Renz,27 M. Rescigno,52 S. Richter,27 F. Rimondiw ,6 L. Ristori,47
A. Robson,22 T. Rodrigo,12 T. Rodriguez,46 E. Rogers,25 R. Roser,18 M. Rossi,55 R. Rossin,11 P. Roy,34
A. Ruiz,12 J. Russ,13 V. Rusu,18 A. Safonov,54 W.K. Sakumoto,50 L. Santicc ,55 S. Sarkarbb ,52 L. Sartori,47
K. Sato,18 A. Savoy-Navarro,45 P. Schlabach,18 A. Schmidt,27 E.E. Schmidt,18 M.A. Schmidt,14 M.P. Schmidt∗ ,61
M. Schmitt,39 T. Schwarz,8 L. Scodellaro,12 A. Scribanoz ,47 F. Scuri,47 A. Sedov,49 S. Seidel,38 Y. Seiya,42
A. Semenov,16 L. Sexton-Kennedy,18 F. Sforza,47 A. Sfyrla,25 S.Z. Shalhout,59 T. Shears,30 P.F. Shepard,48
M. Shimojimam ,56 S. Shiraishi,14 M. Shochet,14 Y. Shon,60 I. Shreyber,37 A. Sidoti,47 A. Sisakyan,16
A.J. Slaughter,18 J. Slaunwhite,40 K. Sliwa,57 J.R. Smith,8 F.D. Snider,18 R. Snihur,34 A. Soha,8 S. Somalwar,53
V. Sorin,36 J. Spalding,18 T. Spreitzer,34 P. Squillaciotiz ,47 M. Stanitzki,61 R. St. Denis,22 B. Stelzerp ,9
O. Stelzer-Chilton,17 D. Stentz,39 J. Strologas,38 G.L. Strycker,35 D. Stuart,11 J.S. Suh,28 A. Sukhanov,19
I. Suslov,16 T. Suzuki,56 A. Taffarde ,25 R. Takashima,41 Y. Takeuchi,56 R. Tanaka,41 M. Tecchio,35 P.K. Teng,1
K. Terashi,51 J. Thomf ,18 A.S. Thompson,22 G.A. Thompson,25 E. Thomson,46 P. Tipton,61 P. Ttito-Guzmán,32
S. Tkaczyk,18 D. Toback,54 S. Tokar,15 K. Tollefson,36 T. Tomura,56 D. Tonelli,18 S. Torre,20 D. Torretta,18
P. Totarocc,55 S. Tourneur,45 M. Trovato,47 S.-Y. Tsai,1 Y. Tu,46 N. Turiniz ,47 F. Ukegawa,56 S. Vallecorsa,21
N. van Remortelb ,24 A. Varganov,35 E. Vatagaaa ,47 F. Vázquezj ,19 G. Velev,18 C. Vellidis,3 V. Veszpremi,49
M. Vidal,32 R. Vidal,18 I. Vila,12 R. Vilar,12 T. Vine,31 M. Vogel,38 G. Volpiy ,47 P. Wagner,46 R.G. Wagner,2
R.L. Wagner,18 W. Wagner,27 J. Wagner-Kuhr,27 T. Wakisaka,42 R. Wallny,9 S.M. Wang,1 A. Warburton,34
D. Waters,31 M. Weinberger,54 J. Weinelt,27 W.C. Wester III,18 B. Whitehouse,57 D. Whitesone ,46 A.B. Wicklund,2
E. Wicklund,18 S. Wilbur,14 G. Williams,34 H.H. Williams,46 P. Wilson,18 B.L. Winer,40 P. Wittichf ,18 S. Wolbers,18
C. Wolfe,14 T. Wright,35 X. Wu,21 F. Würthwein,10 S.M. Wynne,30 S. Xie,33 A. Yagil,10 K. Yamamoto,42
J. Yamaoka,53 U.K. Yangl ,14 Y.C. Yang,28 W.M. Yao,29 G.P. Yeh,18 J. Yoh,18 K. Yorita,14 T. Yoshida,42 G.B. Yu,50
I. Yu,28 S.S. Yu,18 J.C. Yun,18 L. Zanellobb ,52 A. Zanetti,55 X. Zhang,25 Y. Zhengd ,9 and S. Zucchelliw ,6
(CDF Collaboration†)
1
Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Republic of China
2
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois 60439
3
University of Athens, 157 71 Athens, Greece
4
Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, E-08193, Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
5
Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798
6
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Bologna, w University of Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, Italy
7
Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02254
8
University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616
9
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024
10
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093
11
University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106
12
Instituto de Fisica de Cantabria, CSIC-University of Cantabria, 39005 Santander, Spain
13
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
14
Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
15
Comenius University, 842 48 Bratislava, Slovakia; Institute of Experimental Physics, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia
16
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, RU-141980 Dubna, Russia
17
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708
18
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510
19
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611
20
Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, I-00044 Frascati, Italy
21
University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
22
Glasgow University, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
23
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
24
Division of High Energy Physics, Department of Physics,
University of Helsinki and Helsinki Institute of Physics, FIN-00014, Helsinki, Finland
25
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
26
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218
27
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, Universität Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
28
Center for High Energy Physics: Kyungpook National University,
Daegu 702-701, Korea; Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742,
Korea; Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746,
 3

Korea; Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon,

305-806, Korea; Chonnam National University, Gwangju, 500-757, Korea
29
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720
30
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom
31
University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
32
Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas Medioambientales y Tecnologicas, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
33
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
34
Institute of Particle Physics: McGill University, Montréal,
Canada H3A 2T8; and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A7
35
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
36
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
37
Institution for Theoretical and Experimental Physics, ITEP, Moscow 117259, Russia
38
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
39
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208
40
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210
41
Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
42
Osaka City University, Osaka 588, Japan
43
University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RH, United Kingdom
44
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Padova-Trento, x University of Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
45
LPNHE, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie/IN2P3-CNRS, UMR7585, Paris, F-75252 France
46
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
47
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Pisa, y University of Pisa,
z
University of Siena and aa Scuola Normale Superiore, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
48
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260
49
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
50
University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627
51
The Rockefeller University, New York, New York 10021
52
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Roma 1,
bb
Sapienza Università di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
53
Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855
54
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
55
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Trieste/Udine, cc University of Trieste/Udine, Italy
56
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan
57
Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155
58
Waseda University, Tokyo 169, Japan
59
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201
60
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706
61
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520
(Dated: October 24, 2018)
Data collected in Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron are searched for indications of new electroweak-
scale physics. Rather than focusing on particular new physics scenarios, CDF data are analyzed for
discrepancies with the standard model prediction. A model-independent approach (Vista) considers
gross features of the data, and is sensitive to new large cross-section physics. Further sensitivity
to new physics is provided by two additional algorithms: a Bump Hunter searches invariant mass
distributions for “bumps” that could indicate resonant production of new particles, and the Sleuth
procedure scans for data excesses at large summed √ transverse momentum. This combined global
search for new physics in 2.0 fb−1 of pp̄ collisions at s = 1.96 TeV reveals no indication of physics
beyond the standard model.

The standard model (SM) of particle physics has been

remarkably successful in describing observed phenomena,

∗ Deceased
† With visitors from a University of Massachusetts Amherst,
Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, b Universiteit Antwerpen, B-2610
Antwerp, Belgium, c University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, United Manchester M13 9PL, England, m Nagasaki Institute of Applied
Kingdom, d Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100864, China, Science, Nagasaki, Japan, n University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame,
e University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, f Cornell Uni- IN 46556, o University de Oviedo, E-33007 Oviedo, Spain, p Simon
versity, Ithaca, NY 14853, g University of Cyprus, Nicosia CY-1678, Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6B
Cyprus, h University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland, i University 5K3, q Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, r IFIC(CSIC-
of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom, j Universidad Universitat de Valencia), 46071 Valencia, Spain, s University of Vir-
Iberoamericana, Mexico D.F., Mexico, k Queen Mary, University ginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, dd On leave from J. Stefan Insti-
of London, London, E1 4NS, England, l University of Manchester, tute, Ljubljana, Slovenia,
4

but is generally believed to require expansion. Using data

corresponding to√an integrated luminosity of 2.0 fb−1 of 120
Entries: 399
pp̄ collisions at s = 1.96 TeV collected by the CDF II
detector at the Fermilab Tevatron, we present a broad 100
search for physics beyond the standard model without

Vista Final States

focusing on any specific proposed scenario. A similar 80
search has previously been performed by the CDF Col-
laboration with 927 pb−1 of data [1]. 60

Events containing one or more particles with large

transverse momentum (pT ) are analyzed for discrepan- 40

cies relative to the SM prediction. A model-independent

approach (Vista) considers gross features of the data, 20
and is sensitive to new large cross-section physics. Fur-
ther sensitivity to beyond-SM physics is provided by two 0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
additional algorithms: a Bump Hunter searches invariant σ
mass distributions for “bumps” that could indicate reso-
nant production of new particles, and the Sleuth proce- FIG. 1: Distribution of observed discrepancy between data
dure scans for data excesses at large summed transverse and the SM prediction for populations of final states, mea-
momentum. These global algorithms provide a comple- sured in units of standard deviation (σ). The black line rep-
mentary approach to searches optimized for more specific resents the theoretical expectation assuming no new physics.
new physics scenarios.
CDF II [2] is a general-purpose detector for high-
energy pp̄ collisions. Tracking for charged particles is
Entries: 19650
provided by silicon strip detectors and a gas drift cham- 3500

ber inside a 1.4 T magnetic field. The tracking system

3000
is surrounded by electromagnetic and hadronic calorime-
Vista Distributions

ters and enclosed by muon detectors. 2500

The Vista procedure is extensively described in [1].
2000
A standard set of object identification criteria is used
to identify isolated and energetic objects produced in the 1500

overflow
hard collision, including electrons (e± ), muons (µ± ), taus
(τ ± ), photons (γ), jets (j), jets originating from a bottom 1000

quark (b), and missing transverse momentum ( /pT ) [7]. 500

All objects are required to have pT ≥ 17 GeV/c. With
all event selections applied, over 4 × 106 high-pT events 0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
are analyzed in this global search. The standard model σ
prediction is based on Monte Carlo event generators and
a simulation of the response of the CDF detector. Data FIG. 2: Distribution of observed discrepancy between data
and Monte Carlo events are partitioned into exclusive and the SM prediction for shapes of kinematic distributions,
final states labeled according to the number and type of measured in units of standard deviation (σ). The black
objects (e± , µ± , τ ± , γ, j, b, /
pT ) identified in each event. line represents the theoretical expectation assuming no new
To obtain an accurate standard model prediction, a physics.
correction model is used to improve systematic deficien-
cies in the Monte Carlo theoretical prediction and the
simulation of the detector response – this information by comparison to the SM prediction, and minimized as
can only be obtained from the data themselves. The de- a function of the correction factors. External informa-
tails of this correction model are motivated by individual tion (such as higher-order cross-section calculations) is
discrepancies noted in a global comparison of CDF high- used to constrain 26 of the 43 total correction factors. A
pT data to the SM prediction; however, the correction number of minor improvements have been made to the
model is intentionally kept as simple as possible in or- correction model since [1]; these changes are described in
der to avoid over-tuning. The correction model includes detail in [3].
specific correction factors for the integrated luminosity The first stage in the Vista global comparison is to
of the sample, the ratios (k-factors) of the actual cross study the populations of the exclusive final states, com-
sections for SM processes to the leading order approxi- pared to the SM expectation. Figure 1 summarizes the
mations given by event generators, object identification population discrepancies in all 399 final states, and the
efficiencies, object misidentification rates, and trigger ef- ten final states with the largest deviation from the SM
ficiencies. Values for the correction factors are deter- expectation are listed in Table I. After accounting for
mined from a global fit to the data: a global χ2 is formed the trials factor associated with considering many final
 5

∑p
CDF Run II Data
Final State Data Background σ σt 3j T < 400 GeV Other
Overlaid events : 0.1%
be± /pT 690 817.7 ± 9.2 −4.3 −2.7 6000 Pythia jγ : 0.1%
γτ ± 1371 1217.6 ± 13.3 +4.0 +2.2 Pythia bj : 3.9%
Pythia jj : 95.9%
µ± τ ±

Number of Events
63 35.2 ± 2.8 +3.7 +1.7
b2j /pT (ΣpT > 400 GeV) 255 327.2 ± 8.9 −3.7 −1.7
4000
2jτ ± (ΣpT < 400 GeV) 574 670.3 ± 8.6 −3.6 −1.5
3jτ ± (ΣpT < 400 GeV) 148 199.8 ± 5.2 −3.5 −1.4
e± τ ± /
pT 36 17.2 ± 1.7 +3.5 +1.4
2jτ ± τ ∓ 33 62.1 ± 4.3 −3.5 −1.3 2000
e± j 741710 764832 ± 6447.2 −3.5 −1.3
j2τ ± 105 150.8 ± 6.3 −3.4 −1.2

TABLE I: The ten most discrepant Vista final states, show- 0

1 2 3 4
ing the number of data events observed and the number of
background events expected. Only Monte Carlo statistical ∆R(j2,j3)
uncertainties on the background prediction are included. σ
FIG. 3: One ofpthe significant shape discrepancies seen by
and σt represent the level of discrepancy, before and after
Vista, ∆R = ∆φ2 + ∆η 2 between the second and third
accounting for the trials factor.
highest pT jets in the Vista 3-jet final state. Data are shown
as filled (black) circles, with the standard model prediction
shown as the shaded (red) histogram.
states, we find that no final state exhibits a statistically
significant population discrepancy.
The Vista global comparison also considers the shapes tions of the final state objects. If there is /pT , transverse
of kinematic distributions. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov mass variables are also considered. The SM background
test is used to assess the agreement between data and the is obtained from the Vista procedure.
SM prediction for 19 650 distributions. The results are The method is described in detail in [3]. Each mass
summarized in Fig. 2 which shows the degree of discrep- variable is scanned with a sliding window of width equal
ancy measured for each distribution, displayed in units to twice the typical detector resolution for the compo-
of standard deviation (σ). Distributions exhibiting dis- nent objects. Only windows that contain at least 5 data
agreement between data and SM prediction are at large events are considered. The p-value for the window is de-
positive σ. fined as the Poisson probability that the expected SM
We find that 555 distributions have a significant dis- background would fluctuate up to or above the number
crepancy, which is defined as being greater than 3σ after of data events observed. To ensure the window really
accounting for the trials factor associated with the num- represents a bump of the correct resolution-based width
ber of distributions considered. The discrepant distribu- and not some broader excess, the “side-bands” of equal
tions fall into three categories. Residual “crudeness” in width on either side of the central window are required to
the correction model, primarily from using simplified pT be within 5 standard deviations of the SM expectation,
dependences for fake rate correction functions, accounts and less discrepant than the central window.
for 3% . Another 16% are attributed to an inadequate In each mass variable, the bump candidate with the
modeling of the transverse boost of the colliding system. smallest p-value is selected. The significance of this
The remaining 81% most likely arise from incorrect mod- bump is given by Pa , the fraction of pseudoexperiments
eling of soft QCD parton showering. pThis is best exempli- which would have produced a more interesting bump in
fied by Fig. 3, which shows ∆R = ∆φ2 + ∆η 2 between this mass variable purely by random fluctuations of the
the second and third highest pT jets in the Vista 3-jet SM background. Pa incorporates the trials factor as-
final state. This observation has been discussed in more sociated with examining multiple overlapping windows
detail in [1]. The nature of these shape discrepancies within the mass variable. For computational reasons, it
does not warrant treating any of them as indicative of is prohibitive to determine Pa by pseudoexperiments for
potential new physics. all mass variables, so instead an analytic approximation
A statistically significant local excess of data in an in- is used. If the analytic estimation returns a value of Pa
variant mass variable would be the most direct evidence with a significance of ≥ 4.5σ, then pseudoexperiments
of resonant production of a new particle. The Bump are performed for accurate determination.
Hunter algorithm is designed to identify mass resonances Each mass variable is further assigned a probability Pb ,
with a narrow natural width that would appear as Gaus- defined as the probability under the null hypothesis that
sian bumps on top of the SM background, with width any mass variable would appear more significant than
equal to the detector resolution. The Bump Hunter this. Assuming no correlations, Pb = 1 − (1 − Pa )N ,
searches in all exclusive final states, and examines all where N is the total number of mass variables examined.
mass variables that can be constructed from combina- If Pb corresponds to a significance of ≥ 3σ, that effect is
6

∑p
CDF Run II Data
4j T < 400 GeV Other
Mass distributions: 5036 Pythia jγ : 0.1%
350 With bumps: 2316 Overlaid events : 0.2%
Pythia bj : 4.7%
300 Pythia jj : 94.9%

Number of Events
Mass Distributions

250 1000
200

150
500
100

50

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 0
100 200 300 400 500
σ
M(j1,j2,j3,j4) (GeV)
FIG. 4: Significance of the most interesting bump in each FIG. 5:PDistribution of the invariant mass of all four jets in
mass variable (Pa , in units of standard deviations) considered the 4j pT < 400 GeV final state. This variable contains the
by the Bump Hunter. The black line represents the theoretical most significant bump found by the Bump Hunter, indicated
expectation assuming no new physics. by the dashed (blue) lines.

then considered as potentially due to new physics. Entries 87

25
The Bump Hunter examines 5036 mass variables, of

Number of final states

which 2316 are found to have at least one local excess
20
satisfying our bump definition (the other variables are
mainly from small-population final states which fail to
15
satisfy the criterion of 5 data events in a mass window).
The expected and observed distributions of Pa , converted
10
to units of σ, are shown in Fig. 4. The distribution of
Pa in the data is seen to be shifted towards positive σ
relative to the expectation, indicating disagreement be- 5

tween data and the SM prediction. This reflects the fact

that the Bump Hunter algorithm is quite sensitive to lo- 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
cal features in mass variables which can arise since the P
Monte Carlo-based SM background prediction does not FIG. 6: The distribution of P in the data, with one entry for
perfectly describe the data. The sharp drop seen in the each final state considered by Sleuth. The black line repre-
data at Pa = 4.5σ results from the transition between sents the theoretical expectation assuming no new physics.
analytic estimation and accurate determination of Pa .
The only mass variable with a bump which exceeds the
discovery threshold is the invariant mass of all four jets termined as part of the Vista procedure. The exclusive
in the 4j final state, shown in Fig. 5. This mass variable final states examined by Sleuth are created by merging
has Pa corresponding to 5.7σ, and Pb to 4.1σ. However, Vista final states according to certain rules described
this bump is attributed to the aforementioned difficulty in [1]. For each final state, Sleuth determines the region
modeling soft QCD jets and is not thought to indicate
P
(defined as an interval in pT extending from a data-
new physics. point up to infinity) which has the smallest probability
The final component of this global search for physics that the SM prediction would fluctuate up to or above
beyond the standard model is a procedure called the number of observed data events. The algorithm then
Sleuth [4, 5, 6]. Sleuth is a quasi–model-independent finds P,Pthe fraction of pseudoexperiments drawn from
search technique, based on the assumption that new the SM pT distribution which produce any region more
electroweak-scale physics will manifest itself as a high-pT interesting than the region found in the data. Sleuth
excess of data over the SM expectation in a particular selects the final state with the smallest value of P, and
final state. Tests have shown Sleuth to have sensitiv- calculates the overall significance, P̃, which accounts for
ity comparable to targeted searches for phenomena that the number of final states considered. With an accurate
satisfy Sleuth’s basic assumptions. correction model and in the absence of new physics, the
The procedure is identical to that used in [1]. The al- distribution of P̃ is uniform between zero and unity; in
gorithm considers a singleP variable, the summed scalar the presence of new physics, a small value of P̃ is ex-
transverse momentum ( pT ) of all objects in Pthe event. pected. The threshold for pursuit of a possible discovery
The SM prediction for the distribution of pT is de- case is taken to be P̃ < 0.001.
 7

The distribution of P for the final states considered by gle final state purely by chance fluctuations. This is far
Sleuth in the data is shown in Fig. 6. The concavity of from the threshold of P̃ < 0.001, and therefore we do not
this distribution reflects the crudeness (i.e. under-tuning) pursue this as a potential discovery.
of our correction model. A crude correction model results
In summary, CDF has performed a model-independent
in more outliers than expected, which, when converted
global search√for new high-pT physics in 2.0 fb−1 of pp̄
into values of P, produces excesses at the extremes of
collisions at s = 1.96 TeV. The populations of 399 ex-
both lowP and high probability. clusive final states are compared to a standard model
The pT distributions of the four most interesting fi-
prediction, but no significant discrepancy is found after
nal states found by Sleuth are shown in Fig. 7. These
accounting for the trials factor associated with looking
are: e± µ± , e± µ± jj / p T , e ± µ± /
pT , and e± e∓ µ± /pT +
± ∓ ± in many places. The shapes of 19 650 kinematic distri-
µ µ e /pT . It is intriguing to note that all four con-
butions are also studied, and although 555 show a signif-
tain the rare signature of a same-sign electron-muon pair.
icant discrepancy, most of these are attributed to inad-
Such a signature can arise in a number of ways. SM pro-
equate modeling of soft QCD jet emission in the under-
cesses that produce real electrons and muons with the
lying Monte Carlo prediction, rather than a sign of new
same charge include W Z production with leptonic de-
physics. A Bump Hunter algorithm scans invariant mass
cays, where one of the leptons is not reconstructed in
distributions for narrow bumps that could indicate res-
the detector. There are also processes which produce
onant production of new particles: only one significant
real electrons in the forward region of the CDF II de-
bump is found, and it is attributed to the same underly-
tector, where the reduced tracking coverage means the
ing problem as above. The Sleuth algorithm searches
electron charge sign has a higher probability of being P
the pT spectrum of each final state, but finds no sig-
falsely reconstructed; such processes include tt̄ produc-
nificant excesses of data over the SM prediction in the
tion, and Z → τ + τ − where both taus decay leptonically.
tails of any single distribution. This CDF global search
In addition, there are processes with a real muon and a
has not discovered new physics in 2.0 fb−1 .
fake electron. These are largely W/Z+jets production,
where a primary quark or gluon jet is misidentified as an We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of
electron in the detector, and W γ/Zγ, where the photon the participating institutions for their vital contributions.
undergoes conversion to produce an electron. Also rel- This work was supported by the U.S. Department of En-
evant is the case when both the electron and the muon ergy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Isti-
are fakes, predominantly from dijet events. The rela- tuto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Educa-
tive proportion of these potential backgrounds varies for tion, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan;
each final state, depending on the presence of / pT and the the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
number of jets. Since all of these processes and detector of Canada; the National Science Council of the Repub-
effects also contribute to other more highly-populated fi- lic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the
nal states where good agreement is seen, their rates are A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium für Bil-
quite well constrained by this global analysis. dung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean Science and
However, while it is noteworthy that the top four fi- Engineering Foundation and the Korean Research Foun-
nal states all contain the same rare signature, this is an a dation; the Science and Technology Facilities Council and
posteriori observation and its significance is therefore dif- the Royal Society, UK; the Institut National de Physique
ficult to estimate. Sleuth’s a priori procedure is to cal- Nucleaire et Physique des Particules/CNRS; the Russian
culate the significance of only the single most discrepant Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministerio de Edu-
final state. We find that P̃ = 0.08, i.e. that 8% of pseudo- cación y Ciencia and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010,
experiments drawn from the Vista SM implementation Spain; the Slovak R&D Agency; and the Academy of
would have produced a more significant excess in a sin- Finland.

[1] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 78, [7] We use a cylindrical coordinate system where the z-axis
012002 (2008). is in the direction of the proton beam, and θ and φ are
[2] A. Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), J. Phys. G 34, respectively the polar and azimuthal angles. The pseudo-
2457 (2007). rapidity is defined as η = − ln(tan(θ/2)). The transverse
[3] G. Choudalakis, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of momentum pT is defined as pT = p sin θ. The missing
Technology (2008), arXiv:0805.3954. transverse momentum / pT is defined as the magnitude of
[4] B. Abbott et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, the transverse component of the negative vector sum of
3712 (2001). the four-vectors of all identified objects and unclustered
[5] B. Abbott et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 62, momentum in an event, where unclustered momentum is
092004 (2000). visible in the detector but not clustered into an identified
[6] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 64, object.
012004 (2001).
8

l + l’+ P = 0.00055 l + l’+ pT jj P = 0.0021

Number of Events
Number of Events

CDF Run II data CDF Run II data 2

30 8
Pythia Z(→ττ) : 23% SM= 26 2.5 Alpgen W( →µν) jjj : 18% 1.8 SM= 0.15
7
Pythia Z(→µµ ) : 22% d= 49 MadEvent W(→l ν)jγ : 13% 1.6 d= 3
6 1.4
Pythia jj : 20% Herwig tt : 13%
1.2
25 MadEvent Z(→µ µ) j : 6.5% 5 MadEvent Z(→µ µ) jj : 11%
4 1
Other Other
3 2 0.8
0.6
2 0.4
20 1 0.2
0 0
100 150 200 250 1.5 400 500 600 700

15

1
10

0.5
5

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

68 ∑ p (GeV)
T 342 ∑p (GeV)
T
+ + + -
l l’ pT P = 0.0042 l l l’ pT P = 0.0047
8
Number of Events

Number of Events
CDF Run II data CDF Run II data 4.5
10
Baur W(→µν)γ : 33% SM= 5.7 MadEvent Z(→µ µ) γ : 50% 4 SM= 0.39
16 Pythia Z(→µµ ) : 17% 8 d= 16 Pythia WZ : 33% d= 4
3.5
Alpgen W( →µν) j : 9.9% 7 MadEvent Z(→µ µ) j : 4.6% 3
MadEvent W(→l ν)jγ : 7% 6 Pythia Z(→ττ) : 3.2%
14 Other
2.5
Other 2
4 6
1.5
12 2 1
5 0.5
0 0
10 200 250 300 350 250 300 350

4
8

6 3

4 2

2 1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0
∑p
0 100 200 300 400 500
169 T
(GeV)
245 ∑p T
(GeV)

P
FIG. 7: The pT distributions of the four most interesting final states found by Sleuth. Data are shown as filled (black)
circles, with the expected contribution from standard model processes shown as the shaded (red) histograms and identified in
the legend. The category “Other” represents the sum of all remaining relevant SM processes, each of which individually is
smaller than the smallest itemized contribution. The label in the top left corner of each plot lists the objects in the final state,
where l± is a lepton (e or µ), l’ is an additional lepton of different flavor, j denotes a jet, and p6 T represents missing transverse
momentum. Global charge conjugation is implied, so that a final state labeled l+ l’+ also includes l− l’− . The region with the
most significant excess of data over the SM expectation is indicated by the arrow below the x-axis, and displayed in the inset
with the number of events expected (SM) and observed (d). The significance of the excess is shown by the value of P in the
top right corner.