---
abstract: |
    This Letter describes the current most precise measurement of the $WZ$ production cross section as well as limits on anomalous $WWZ$ couplings at a center-of-mass energy of 1.96 TeV in proton-antiproton collisions for the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF). $WZ$ candidates are reconstructed from decays containing three charged leptons and missing energy from a neutrino, where the charged leptons are either electrons or muons. Using data collected by the CDF II detector (7.1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity), 63 candidate events are observed with the expected background contributing $8 \pm 1$ events. The measured total cross section $\sigma (p \bar p \to WZ) =
    3.93_{-0.53}^{+0.60}(\text{stat})_{-0.46}^{+0.59}(\text{syst}) $ pb is in good agreement with the standard model prediction of $3.50\pm
    0.21$. The same sample is used to set limits on anomalous $WWZ$ couplings.
title: 'Measurement of the $WZ$ Cross Section and Triple Gauge Couplings in $p \bar p$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV'
---

The measurement of $WZ$ production is an important test of the standard model (SM) of particle physics. $WZ$ pairs are produced in both $s$-channel ($q\bar{q}\to W^{*}\to WZ$) and in $t$-channel ($q\bar{q}\to WZ$) interactions. The $WZ$ production is unique in that the $s$-channel mode of production provides sensitivity to the $WWZ$ vertex which is governed by triple-gauge boson couplings (TGCs); the presence of anomalous couplings [@ATGC] could be an indication of new physics at a higher mass scale leading to different rates and kinematic distributions than predicted by the SM. Furthermore, this process is an essential background for Higgs boson searches at particle colliders because the $WZ$ decay into leptons is the primary background to high mass Higgs boson searches in the three-lepton signature, as well as an important background process in two-lepton Higgs boson analyses [@CDFHWW].

This Letter reports a measurement of the $WZ$ production cross section and limits on anomalous TGCs using a final state consisting of three charged leptons and one neutrino in $p \bar p$ collision data collected by the CDF II detector from 7.1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. The $WZ\to l\nu ll$ decay, where $l$ is an electron or muon and $\nu$ is a neutrino contributing missing energy, allows for the reconstruction of a variety of kinematic quantities that are utilized to distinguish signal from background by training a neural network [@NeuroBayes]. The cross section is then extracted from the output of the neural network by fitting the shape with a maximum likelihood method. Limits on anomalous TGCs are set by analyzing the shape of the component of the momentum of the $Z$ boson that is transverse to the beamline as a discriminant.

The $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ part of the SM implies that $W$ and $Z$ weak vector bosons may interact via trilinear or quartic vertices. The $WZ$ cross section is proportional to the interaction coupling strength predicted by the SM as $e\cot\theta_W$, where $e$ is the electric charge and $\theta_W$ is the weak mixing angle. We want to measure the cross section of the process $p \bar p\rightarrow WZ$, whose expected value in the limit of zero $W$ and $Z$ boson decay widths is 3.50 pb [@MCFM; @MSTW2008]. We therefore measure the cross section by performing a likelihood fit to a parameter representing the ratio of the measured to expected $WZ$ cross section, to be discussed below.

The cross section of this process was first reported by CDF with 1.1 fb$^{-1}$ [@Neubauer] in 2007. Subsequently, DØ reported with 1.0 fb$^{-1}$ [@D0:1000] in 2005, updated with 4.1 fb$^{-1}$ [@D0:4100] in 2007, and again with 8.6 fb$^{-1}$ [@D0:8600] in 2012. Limits on anomalous TGCs were reported previously by LEP2 [@lep_tgc], DØ  [@D0atgc], and recently by CMS [@cms_tgc] and ATLAS [@atlas_tgc]. All results reported measurements consistent with the standard model. This analysis describes CDF’s most precise measurement of the $WZ$ cross section and TGCs.

In the CDF II detector [@CDFII], a particle’s direction is characterized by the azimuthal angle $\phi$ and the pseudorapidity $\eta = -\ln [ \tan (\theta/2) ]$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle measured with respect to the proton beam direction. The transverse energy $E_T$ is defined as $E \sin \theta$, where $E$ is the energy in the electromagnetic (EM) and hadronic calorimeter towers associated with a cluster of energy deposition. The transverse momentum $p_T$ is the particle’s momentum component transverse to the beam line. The magnitude of the $p_T$ for an electron is scaled according to the energy measured in the calorimeter in order to account for momentum loss from final state radiation and bremsstrahlung. The missing transverse energy vector ${\mbox{$\vec E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ is defined as $-\sum_{i} E_T^i ~ \hat{n}_T^i$, where the index $i$ loops over all towers of the calorimeter and $\hat{n}_T^i$ is the unit vector in the transverse plane pointing from the interaction point to the energy deposition in calorimeter tower $i$. The ${\mbox{$\vec E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ is corrected for the $p_T$ of muons, which do not deposit all of their energy in the calorimeter, and tracks that point to uninstrumented regions in the calorimeter. The scalar missing transverse energy is defined as $|{\mbox{$\vec E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}|$ and denoted as ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$. Strongly interacting partons produced in the $p \bar p$ collision undergo fragmentation that results in highly collimated jets of hadronic particles. Jet candidates are reconstructed using the calorimeter signals and are required to have $E_T > 15$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$. Isolated lepton candidates are accepted out to an $|\eta|$ of 2.0 for electron candidates and $|\eta|$ of 1.0 for muon candidates.

The experimental signature for the decay $WZ\to l\nu ll$ is reconstructed as three charged leptons (electrons or muons) and ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ from the neutrino(s) that escaped undetected. Events are also detected if the $W$ or $Z$ decays to tau lepton(s) and those tau(s) subsequently decay to detectable electrons or muons–these events are considered part of the signal. Consequently, events containing three charged leptons, not all with the same charge, are selected from the data sample. The online event triggering and selection of lepton candidates are identical to those used in the search for SM Higgs bosons decaying to two $W$ bosons at CDF [@CDFHWW]. Our baseline event selection is to require the leading-lepton’s $E_T$ (or $p_T$ for muons) to be above 20 GeV (GeV/$c$) to satisfy the trigger requirements, while the second and third leptons are allowed to have an $E_T$ ($p_T$) as low as $10$ GeV (GeV/$c$). Additionally, because the neutrino in the $W\rightarrow l\nu$ decay carries undetected energy, the $WZ\rightarrow l\nu ll$ process tends to produce events with higher missing energy than the background processes–aside from $t\bar{t}$ whose ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ distribution is also similarly high-valued, but is a nearly negligible background. We therefore require ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}> 25$ GeV.

Lastly, the dominant background remaining after these cuts is SM $ZZ$ production. This motivates two more cuts to require one and only one $Z\rightarrow ll$ candidate in the event. We make a standard $Z$ boson identification cut by requiring events to have a pair of same-flavor, opposite-signed leptons whose two-lepton mass falls within a window of $\pm15$ GeV$/c^2$ around the $Z$ mass. This removes most of the SM backgrounds with no $Z$ in the final state. We note that this cut reduces $Z\gamma\rightarrow ll\gamma$ events because the dilepton mass would not reconstruct back to the $Z$ when the $\gamma$ is emitted by one of the two leptons. In that case, the two-lepton mass underestimates the $Z$ mass because the three-body ($ll\gamma$) mass is what reconstructs the $Z$.

To further reduce the $ZZ\rightarrow llll$ background, we reject any event with an extra track with $p_T>8$ GeV$/c$, thereby rejecting events that may have a fourth lepton that failed to be identified. This cut reduces the remaining $ZZ$ background by $\sim 36\%$ while leaving the $WZ$ signal contribution essentially unchanged. Even so, $ZZ$ remains the primary background in this measurement.

There are several SM processes that result in a similar final state to $WZ$ and are backgrounds in this measurement. The aforementioned $ZZ\to llll$ process appears as a background when one of the four leptons fails to be reconstructed by the detector. This leaves three reconstructed leptons with the one lepton failing reconstruction providing the missing energy signature. Drell-Yan events produced in association with hadronic jets that mimic the signature of a third lepton as well as Drell-Yan pairs produced with an associated photon that converts to an electron-positron pair via interaction with the detector are also significant backgrounds. Lastly, top quark pair production ($t\bar{t}\rightarrow W^+ b W^- \bar{b}$) provides a minor contribution to the background when one of the subsequent $b$-quark jets mimics a lepton signature. The sum of these four backgrounds is quite small compared to the expected signal in the signal kinematics region.

The background modeling–with the exception of the $Z+$jets background–is MC simulated. Events from $WZ$, $ZZ$, and $t\bar{t}$ are simulated using the [pythia]{} [@PYTHIA] generator. The $Z\gamma$ background is determined using the generator described in Ref. [@BAUR]. The response of the CDF II detector is modeled with a [geant3]{}-based simulation [@GEANT] program. The expected yields for each process are normalized to the cross sections calculated at partial next-to next-to-leading order ($t \bar
t$ [@ttbarXsec]), next-to-leading order ($WZ$ and $ZZ$ [@MCFM]), or leading-order with an estimated normalization correction to account for higher-orders ($Z\gamma$ [@BAUR]). Efficiency corrections for the simulated detector response to lepton candidates are determined using samples of observed $Z \to l^+ l^-$ events. The $Z+$jets background normalization is calculated using the probability that a hadronic jet will be reconstructed as a lepton candidate (the same as is done in CDF’s $H\rightarrow WW$ search [@CDFHWW]), which is measured in independent jet-triggered data samples. These probabilities are applied to the jets in the $Z+$jets data sample to estimate the number of such events that will pass the lepton identification and signal selection criteria. The expected signal and background contributions are given in Table \[tbl:WZExpected\] along with the observed number of events.

  Process                           
  ------------------ ------ ------- ------
  $ZZ$                  3.6  $\pm$     0.5
  $Z+$jets              3.4  $\pm$     0.8
  $Z\gamma$             0.8  $\pm$     0.3
  $t \bar t$            0.1  $\pm$    0.04
  Total background      7.9  $\pm$     1.0
  $WZ$                 47.4  $\pm$     4.8
  Total expected       55.3  $\pm$     4.9
  Data                              

  : Expected number of signal ($WZ$) and background events along with the total number of expected and observed events in the data. Uncertainties include all systematic uncertainties described in the text.[]{data-label="tbl:WZExpected"}

The dominant systematic uncertainties on the estimated contributions come from the luminosity measurement (6%) [@LUMI] and the simulated acceptances of the signal and background processes. The acceptance uncertainty due to the parton distribution function modeling ranges from 2.1% to 2.7% for the various processes. A 10% uncertainty is assigned to $WZ$ and $ZZ$ processes for the kinematic differences between leading-order and higher-order calculations. The cross section uncertainty is $6\%$ on the $ZZ$ process, $7\%$ on $t \bar t$, and $5\%$ on $Z\gamma$. The $Z\gamma$ process has another $20\%$ uncertainty that accounts for possible mismodeling of the rate at which the $\gamma$ is misidentified as a lepton. Similarly, there is a $25\%$ ($23\%$) uncertainty for $Z+$jets ($t \bar t$) for mismodeling the rate at which light jets ($b$-jets) are misidentified as a lepton. The uncertainty for the modeling of lepton identification is $2\%$ and of trigger efficiencies is $5.4\%$. Lastly, uncertainties for overall rates for the modeling of jets accounts for $1.2\%$.

Within the signal kinematic region, we seek to further isolate the signal from background by utilizing a NeuroBayes neural network treatment [@NeuroBayes]. In general, the benefits of using a neural network (NN) over a simple counting experiment are two-fold: it can better isolate the signal from the background and provide a single distribution from which the cross section value can be extracted by fitting the data to the shape of the expected physical processes. We train a neural network with a combination of background events and simulated signal events. The input variables for the NN are kinematic quantities selected to exploit differences between signal and background distributions. Starting with many quantities that show relatively small differences in the distributions of backgrounds and signal, a neural network will assign a numerical score whose distribution for backgrounds and signal will be better separated than in any single input quantity alone. The ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ is a very useful input quantity for the NN because the $W\to l\nu$ decay in the signal yields a ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ distribution with higher values than the backgrounds. Similarly, the azimuthal angle distribution between the $W$ lepton and the ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ is useful for distinguishing $WZ$ from the backgrounds because they do not contain $W$ decays. The total energy transverse to the beamline deposited by the $WZ$ decay compared to that of background processes and lepton flavor combinations ($eee$, $ee\mu$, $e\mu \text{ track}$, etc.) are also examples of NN input variables used. Figure \[fig:WZNN\] shows the output of the NN treatment, with background-like events in simulation and data trending toward a value of $-1$ while signal-like events trend towards $+1$. Note that $t\bar{t}$ is represented in Fig. \[fig:WZNN\], but has too small of a contribution to be visible.

![The NN output for discriminating the $WZ$ signal events from background processes within the selected signal sample. Note that the $t\bar{t}$ contribution is small enough to not be visible. The processes are stacked.[]{data-label="fig:WZNN"}](WZ_Signal_TemplateStack.eps){width="\linewidth"}

The measured cross section for $WZ$ is extracted from the NN output in Fig. \[fig:WZNN\] with a binned maximum likelihood fit method. The likelihood function is formed from a product of Poisson probabilities for each bin in the NN output and Gaussian constraints are applied corresponding to each systematic uncertainty: $$\label{eqn:Likelihood}
\mathcal{L} = \left(\prod_i \frac{\mu_i^{n_i} e^{-\mu_i}}{n_i!} \right) \cdot \prod_c e^\frac{-S_c^2}{2}$$ where $\mu_i$ is the total expectation in the $i$-th bin, $n_i$ is the number of data events in the $i$-th bin, and $S_c$ is a floating parameter associated with the systematic uncertainty $c$. The $\mu_i$ parameter is given by $$\label{eqn:Mu}
\mu_i = \sum_k \left(\frac{\sigma^{\text{measured}}}{\sigma^{\text{expected}}}\right)_{k} \left[ \prod_c (1 + f^c_k S_c ) \right]  (N^{\text{expected}}_k)_i$$ The sum $k$ is over the five processes (one signal and four background) that can contribute to events in bin $i$ and $f^c_k$ is the fractional uncertainty for the process $k$ due to the systematic uncertainty $c$. Some systematic uncertainties are common to more than one process and so are correlated. These correlations are accounted for in the definition of $\mu_i$ through the $f^c_k$ parameters. The $(N^{\text{expected}}_k)_i$ is the expected number of events from process $k$ in the $i$-th bin. All the background processes are constrained to their SM expectations by setting the proportion of measured to expected cross section to unity. The likelihood is then maximized with respect to the floating systematic ($S_c$) and cross section proportion $\left(\frac{\sigma^{\text{measured}}}{\sigma^{\text{expected}}}\right)_{WZ}$ parameters, where $\sigma^{\text{expected}}$ is the expected signal cross section and $\sigma^{\text{measured}}$ is the $WZ$ cross section ultimately measured from the data. This method gives a measured value for the $WZ$ cross section of $\sigma (p \bar p \to WZ) =
3.93_{-0.53}^{+0.60}(\text{stat})_{-0.46}^{+0.59}(\text{syst}) $ pb, which is in good agreement with the aforementioned standard model prediction of $3.50\pm
0.21$[@MCFM; @MSTW2008].

The shape and normalization of the $p_T$ spectrum of the $Z$ boson (Fig. \[fig:Zpt\]) are used to place limits on anomalous TGCs. The most general modification of the $WWZ$ vertex preserving $C$ and $P$ separately is parametrized by $\lambda_Z$, $g_1^Z$ and $\kappa_Z$ [@tgccutoff]. In the SM, $\lambda_Z = \Delta g_1^Z
= \Delta \kappa_Z = 0$ where $\Delta g_1^Z$ and $\Delta \kappa_Z$ are used to denote the deviations of $g_1^Z$ and $\kappa_Z$ from their SM values. In general, the parameters $\lambda_z$, $\Delta g_1^Z$ and $\Delta
\kappa_Z$ can be functions of the invariant mass $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ of the $WZ$ system. Non-zero values of $\lambda_Z$, $g_1^Z$ and $\kappa_Z$ at large $\hat{s}$ violate unitarity. To avoid this, each coupling is modified by a form factor $\alpha(\hat{s}) =
\frac{\alpha_0}{(1+\hat{s}/\Lambda^2)^2}$, where $\alpha_0$ is the unmodified coupling $\lambda_z$, $g_1^Z$ or $\kappa_Z$.

The likelihood of the $Z$ $p_T$ distribution for various anomalous TGC models is used to set limits. The expected $Z$ $p_T$ distribution for a given TGC before the effect of the detector response is obtained using [MCFM]{} [@MCFM]. The detector acceptance and efficiency are modeled by multiplying the [MCFM]{} distribution by a $Z$ $p_T$-dependent factor. This factor is calculated using six different simulated event samples generated at different TGC values with the full detector response simulated by [geant3]{}. The TGC values are chosen to be in the parameter space near the existing limits. For each sample, the product of acceptance and efficiency is extracted from the simulation as a ratio of the reconstructed and generated yields. These ratios are averaged together as a function of $Z$ $p_T$ using the maximum variation as an estimate of the uncertainty due to assuming the efficiency and acceptance are not dependent on the TGC values.

A likelihood for each of the couplings, $\mathcal{L}(\lambda_Z)$, $\mathcal{L}(\Delta g_1^Z)$, and $\mathcal{L}(\Delta \kappa_Z)$, is computed as a product of the Poisson probability of each of the bins of the $Z$ $p_T$ distribution for the assumed anomalous coupling. Then 95% confidence levels are set where $(-2\text{ln}\mathcal{L}) -
(-2\text{ln}\mathcal{L}_{\text{min}}) = (1.96)^2$. The systematic uncertainties include everything considered for the $WZ$ cross section and the additional $p_T$-dependent uncertainty on the efficiency which ranges from 5% to 20%. Systematic uncertainties are implemented in a way that most reduces the TGC limit sensitivity when fluctuating the signal and background by one standard deviation, thereby taking a conservative approach in assigning systematic uncertainty. The observed 95% confidence level limits are consistent with expectations as shown in Table \[tab:TGC\].

![The $Z$ $p_T$ distributions for data compared to the SM expectation for signal ($WZ$) and background. Also presented is how the signal expectation would change with the introduction of anomalous couplings near the observed limits. The processes are stacked.[]{data-label="fig:Zpt"}](Zpt_sigandbkg.eps){width="\linewidth"}

               $ \Lambda$ (TeV)     $\lambda_Z$       $\Delta g_1^Z$    $\Delta \kappa_Z$
  ------ ---- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ -------------------
  Exp.               1.5          ($-0.11,\ 0.12$)   ($-0.12,\ 0.23$)   ($-0.58,\ 0.94$)
  Obs.               1.5          ($-0.09,\ 0.11$)   ($-0.09,\ 0.22$)   ($-0.42,\ 0.99$)
  Exp.               2.0          ($-0.10,\ 0.10$)   ($-0.11,\ 0.20$)   ($-0.53,\ 0.86$)
  Obs.               2.0          ($-0.08,\ 0.10$)   ($-0.08,\ 0.20$)   ($-0.39,\ 0.90$)

  : Expected and observed limits on anomalous TGCs. For each coupling limit set, the two other couplings are constrained at their SM values. Values of the couplings outside the given observed range are excluded at the 95% confidence level.[]{data-label="tab:TGC"}

To summarize, the $WZ$ production cross section has been measured in $p
\bar p$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV from reconstructed events in the trilepton plus ${\mbox{$E\kern-0.60em\raise0.10ex\hbox{/}_{T}$}}$ final state using a likelihood ratio formed from a NeuroBayes neural network distribution that discriminates signal from background. This result, $\sigma (p \bar p \to WZ) =
3.93_{-0.53}^{+0.60}(\text{stat})_{-0.46}^{+0.59}(\text{syst}) $ pb, is the most precise measurement at this energy with an overall uncertainty of less than 20% and in agreement with SM predictions. The same event sample is also used to perform the most sensitive probe to date at this energy of anomalous $WWZ$ couplings. The $Z$ $p_T$ distribution of the sample is found to be in agreement with the SM expectation and is used to place limits on anomalous triple gauge couplings.

We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation; the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare; the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Germany; the Korean World Class University Program, the National Research Foundation of Korea; the Science and Technology Facilities Council and the Royal Society, UK; the Institut National de Physique Nucleaire et Physique des Particules/CNRS; the Russian Foundation for Basic Research; the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, and Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010, Spain; the Slovak R&D Agency; the Academy of Finland; and the Australian Research Council (ARC).

[99]{}

J. Ellison and J. Wudka, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.  [**48**]{}, 33 (1998). T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**102**]{}, 021802 (2009).

M. Feindt and U. Kerzel, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**559**]{}, 190 (2006).

J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 113006 (1999). A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C [**63**]{}, 189 (2009).

Neubauer, Mark and [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 161801 (2007).

V.M. Abazov, and [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 111104 (2007).

V.M. Abazov, and [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 061801 (2010).

DØ Collaboration, V.M. Abazov, and [*et al.*]{} arXiv:1201.5652v1 \[hep-ex\] (2012).

LEP2 Collaboration, Presented at the 10th Lomonosov Conference on Elementary Particle Physics, Moscow, August (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0201035v1.

V.M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**695**]{}, 67 (2011).

CMS Collaboration, Presented at the 2011 Hadron Collider Physics symposium, Paris (HCP-2011), arXiv:1201.4596v1.

ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. B [**709**]{}, 341 (2012).

A. Abulencia [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), J. Phys. G [**34**]{}, 2457 (2007).

K. Hagiwara, R.D. Peccei, D. Zeppenfeld, and K. Hikasa, Nucl. Phys. B [**282**]{}, 253 (1987).

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, J. High Energy Phys.  05 (2006) 026. U. Baur, T. Han, and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev.  D [**57**]{}, 2823 (1998).

R. Brun, R. Hagelberg, M. Hansroul, and J. C. Lassalle, version 3.15, CERN-DD-78-2-REV.

S. Moch and P. Uwer, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.  [**183**]{}, 75 (2008).

D. Acosta [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A [**494**]{}, 57 (2002).

F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun.  [**10**]{}, 343 (1975).
