1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

2: 

3: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.5cm}

4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.3cm}

5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-.3cm}

6: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1.0cm}

7: \setlength{\textheight}{24.5cm}

8: 

9: \pagestyle{plain}

10: 

11: \def\gsim{\lower0.5ex\hbox{$\:\buildrel >\over\sim\:$}}

12: \def\lsim{\lower0.5ex\hbox{$\:\buildrel <\over\sim\:$}}

13: \def \n{\noindent}

14: \def\ocal{{\cal O}}

15: \def\treeocal{{\color{green}{\bm\ocal}}}

16: \def\loopocal{{\color{red}{\bm\ocal}}}

17: \def\lcal{{\cal L}}

18: \def\lesim{\,{\raise-3pt\hbox{$\sim$}}\!\!\!\!\!{\raise2pt\hbox{$<$}}\,}

19: 

20: \def\as#1{\alpha_{{\rm s}#1}}

21: \def\av{\alpha_{\rm v}}

22: \def\awl{\alpha_{{\rm w}l}}

23: \def\awr{\alpha_{{\rm w}r}}

24: \def\half{\frac12}

25: \def\mw{m_{\rm w}}

26: \def\gw{\Gamma_{\rm w}}

27: \def\vevof#1{\left\langle#1\right\rangle}

28: 

29: \begin{document}

30: \baselineskip=18pt

31: 

32: \begin{flushright}

33: {UG-FT-230/08}\\

34: {CAFPE-100/08}\\

35: {UCI-TR-2008-21}\\

36: {BNL-HET-08/14}\\

37: {UCRHEP-T451}\\

38: \end{flushright}

39: 

40: 

41: \begin{center}

42: {\large\bf

43: Heavy Majorana Neutrinos in the

44: Effective Lagrangian Description: Application to Hadron Colliders}

45: \end{center}

46: 

47: \vspace*{0.5 in}

48: 

49: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

50: \centerline{Francisco del \'Aguila$^a$\footnote{Electronic address: faguila@ugr.es},

51: Shaouly Bar-Shalom$^{b,c}$\footnote{Electronic address: shaouly@physics.technion.ac.il},

52: Amarjit Soni$^d$\footnote{Electronic address: soni@bnl.gov},

53: Jose Wudka$^{a,e}$\footnote{Electronic address: jose.wudka@ucr.edu}}

54: 

55: \vspace{0.1 in}

56: 

57: \centerline{\it $^a$Departamento de F{\'\i}sica Te\'orica y del Cosmos and CAFPE,}

58: \centerline{\it Universidad de Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain}

59: \centerline{\it $^b$Physics Department, Technion-Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel}

60: \centerline{\it $^c$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA}

61: \centerline{\it $^d$Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA}

62: \centerline{\it $^e$Department of Physics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA}

63: 

64: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

65: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

66: %

67: \vspace*{0.5 in}

68: %

69: \begin{abstract}

70: We consider the effects of heavy Majorana neutrinos $N$ with sub-TeV

71: masses.  We argue that the mere presence of these particles would be a

72: signal of physics beyond the minimal seesaw mechanism and their

73: interactions are, therefore, best described using an effective Lagrangian. We then

74: consider the complete set of leading effective operators (up to dimension 6)

75: involving the $N$ and

76: Standard Model fields and show that these interactions can be

77: relatively easy to track at high-energy colliders.

78: For example, we find that an exchange of a TeV-scale heavy vector field

79: can yield thousands of characteristic same-sign lepton number violating $\ell^+ \ell^+ jj$ events

80: ($j=$ light jet) at the LHC if $m_N \lsim 600$ GeV, which can also have a distinctive

81: forward-backward asymmetry signal; even the Tevatron has good prospects for this signature if

82: $m_N \lsim 300$ GeV.

83: \end{abstract}

84: 

85: \vspace*{0.5 in}

86: 

87: The spectacular discovery in the past decade of neutrino oscillation

88: and its interpretation in terms of a non-vanishing neutrino mass matrix is one

89: of the most important recent discoveries in particle physics. The

90: $m_\nu \gsim O(10^{-2})$ eV neutrino masses that appear in this scenario

91: are difficult to generate naturally in the

92:  Standard Model (SM)

93: using the Yukawa interactions; the sub-eV mass scale then suggests the

94: presence of new physics (NP) beyond the SM.

95: One attractive framework for generating light neutrino masses

96: naturally is the so-called seesaw mechanism, which requires

97: the presence of one or more heavy right-handed neutrino species

98: $N_a$ with interactions of the form

99: %

100: \begin{eqnarray}

101: {\cal L}_{\nu SM} \equiv {\cal L}_{SM} + \left( \frac{1}{2}

102: \bar N_a M_{a b} N_b^c - \bar L_i \tilde\phi

103: Y_{i a} N_a + \hbox{H.c.} \right) ,

104: \label{nSMF}

105: \end{eqnarray}

106: %

107: where $L$ denotes the left-handed SU(2) lepton doublet, $\phi$ the

108: SM scalar isodoublet, $Y$ the Yukawa coupling matrix,

109: and $M$ the Majorana mass matrix.

110: If the structure of

111: $M$ does not allow for a conserved fermion number

112: then the heavy neutrinos are of Majorana type

113: and they exhibit characteristic lepton number

114: violation (LNV) effects that have very distinctive observable

115: signatures.

116: 

117: In this case, the light neutrino mass matrix is

118: %

119: \begin{eqnarray}

120: m_\nu = - m_D M^{-1} m_D^T, \quad m_D = Y \vevof\phi  = Y \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}

121: \label{seesawmass}~.

122: \end{eqnarray}

123: %

124: so that $m_\nu\sim 0.01 $ eV if, for example,

125: $M \sim 100$ GeV and $ m_D \sim m_{\rm electron}/10$

126: or if $M \sim 10^{15} $ GeV and $m_D \sim m_W$.

127: The second choice, which seems to be favored by naturalness (since

128: then $Y \sim O(1)$), clearly leads to the decoupling of the $N$.  In fact, even

129: if $M \sim 100$ GeV, such that $Y$ is

130: fine-tuned to the level $\sim 10^{-7}$, we expect $N$ to

131: decouple since (\ref{seesawmass}) necessarily leads to a vanishingly

132: small $N-\nu_L$ mixing, $U_{\ell N} \sim \sqrt{m_\nu/M} \sim 10^{-7}

133: $, and this parameter governs all interactions of $N$ with the SM

134: particles, e.g., the V$-$A $\ell N W$ vertex \cite{delAguila2}:

135: %

136: \begin{eqnarray}

137: {\cal L}_{V-A}^W = -\frac{g}{\sqrt{8}} U_{\ell N} \overline{N^c} \gamma^\mu

138: (1-\gamma_5) \ell W^+_\mu + {\rm H.c.}

139: \label{YWln} ~.

140: \end{eqnarray}

141: %

142: Thus, any LNV signal of an EW-scale $N$ would unambiguously indicate the

143: existence of NP beyond the minimal seesaw framework encoded

144: in ${\cal L}_{\nu SM}$; the study of heavy Majorana neutrino physics

145: is then of central importance for our understanding of the short

146: distance dynamics underlying EW physics.

147: 

148: In this letter we will thus consider $N$ interactions and

149: phenomenology in the Majorana scenario

150: when $ M $ is relatively light, $M \lesim O(1) $ TeV, and

151: its mixing with $\nu _L$ negligible.

152: Our primary purpose here

153: is to present a natural, model-independent formalism

154: that allows a broader and a more reliable

155: view of the expected physics of heavy TeV-scale Majorana neutrinos,

156: and lays the ground for further investigations of $N$-mediated LNV

157: phenomenology at high-energy colliders. We will give a

158: complete set of leading effective operators (up to dimension 6)

159: involving the $N$ and

160: SM fields and then, as an illustration, use it

161: to demonstrate some aspects of $N$-phenomenology at present or near

162: future high-energy colliders, such as the Tevatron and the

163: LHC.

164: Our approach departs from the traditional viewpoint (see, e.g.

165: \cite{delAguila2,delAguila1,han,Wpapers,old-N-pheno}), where the

166: couplings in (\ref{YWln}) (and the associated $\nu N Z$ and $\nu N

167: H^0$ interactions) was assumed to determine the rate of $N$-mediated

168: LNV signals and to satisfy $ U_{\ell N} \lesim {\cal

169: O}(0.1)$, i.e., many orders of magnitude larger than the value

170: $\sim {\cal O}(10^{-7})$ derived from the seesaw

171: mechanism (\ref{seesawmass}).

172: Although there are models that can accommodate this scenario

173: \cite{beyond}, they usually rely on fine

174: tuning or on an extended spectrum,

175: as it is difficult to meet these conditions otherwise.

176: 

177: The effects of the NP underlying ${\cal L}_{\nu SM}$ can be

178: parameterized by a series of effective operators ${\cal O}_i$

179: constructed using the $\nu$SM fields and whose coefficients are

180: suppressed by inverse powers of the NP scale $\Lambda$,

181: %

182: \begin{eqnarray}

183: {\cal L} = {\cal L}_{\nu SM} + \sum_{n=5}^\infty

184:  \frac{1}{\Lambda^{n-4}} \sum_i \alpha_i {\cal O}_i^{(n)}

185:  \label{effLag}~,

186: \end{eqnarray}

187: %

188: where $n$ is the mass dimension

189: of $ {\cal O}_i^{(n)}$ (we assume decoupling and

190: weakly coupled heavy physics,

191: so $n $ equals the canonical dimension).

192: Dominating NP effects are generated by contributing operators

193: with the lowest $n$ value that can be generated at tree level.

194: The complete list of baryon and lepton number conserving effective operators

195: of dimension below 6 involving only SM fields are listed in

196: \cite{effectiveL}; some LNV operators constructed with SM fields are listed in

197: \cite{effLNV}. Those involving also $N$ are listed below.

198: 

199: There are two tree-level-generated (TLG) dimension $5$ operators

200: involving the neutrinos, $ (\bar L \tilde \phi)(\phi^\dagger L^c) $

201: first presented in \cite{Weinberg:1979sa}, and a new one: $ (\bar N

202: N^c) (\phi^\dagger \phi)$.  Both these terms violate lepton number;

203: the effects of the second one on the reactions studied below can be

204: absorbed in a renormalization of the Majorana mass $M$. The dimension

205: 6 TLG operators can be sub-divided into those involving

206: scalars and vectors (we will use $e,u,d$ and $L,Q$ to denote the

207: right-handed SU(2) singlets and left-handed SU(2) doublets,

208: respectively):

209: %

210: \begin{eqnarray}

211: \ocal_{L N \phi} = (\phi^\dagger \phi) (\bar L N \tilde\phi),~

212: \ocal_{N N \phi} = i (\phi^\dagger D_\mu \phi) (\bar N \gamma^\mu N),~

213: \ocal_{N e \phi} = i (\phi^T \varepsilon D_\mu \phi)

214: (\bar N \gamma^\mu e)~,

215: \label{FSV}

216: \end{eqnarray}

217: %

218: and 4-fermion contact terms that either conserve baryon-number

219: (here $f=u,d,Q,N,e$ or $L$):

220: %

221: \begin{eqnarray}

222: \ocal_{d u N e} = (\bar d \gamma^\mu u)(\bar N \gamma^\mu e) , &&

223: \ocal_{f NN} = (\bar f \gamma_\mu f)(\bar N \gamma^\mu N), \cr

224: \ocal_{LNLe} = (\bar L N) \varepsilon (\bar L e) , &&

225: \ocal_{LNQd} = (\bar L N) \varepsilon (\bar Q d) , \cr

226: \ocal_{Q u N L} = (\bar Q u)(\bar N L) , &&

227: \ocal_{QNLd} = (\bar Q N)\varepsilon (\bar L d) , \cr

228: \ocal_{L N} = |\bar L N|^2 ,  &&

229: \ocal_{Q N} = |\bar Q N|^2 , \cr

230: \ocal_{NN} = (\bar N N^c)^2 , &&

231: \ocal_{NN}' = |\bar N N^c|^2 \ ,

232: \label{4FBC}

233: \end{eqnarray}

234: %

235: or violate baryon-number by one unit:

236: %

237: \begin{eqnarray}

238: \ocal_{QdN} = (\bar Q Q^c)(\bar d N^c) , &&

239: \ocal_{QNdQ} = (\bar Q N^c)(\bar d Q^c) , \cr

240: \ocal_{uNd} = (\bar u N^c)(\bar d d^c) , &&

241: \ocal_{u d d N} = (\bar u d^c)(\bar d N^c) \ .

242: \label{4FBV}

243: \end{eqnarray}

244: %

245: In addition, there are loop-generated operators whose coefficients are

246: naturally suppressed, $\alpha \sim \ocal (1/16\pi^2)$:

247: %

248: \begin{eqnarray}

249: \ocal^{(5)}_{NNB} & = & \bar N \sigma^{\mu\nu} N^c B_{\mu\nu}, \cr

250: \ocal_{ N B} = (\bar L \sigma^{\mu\nu} N) \tilde \phi B_{\mu\nu} , &&

251: \ocal_{ N W } = (\bar L \sigma^{\mu\nu} \tau^I N) \tilde \phi W_{\mu\nu}^I , \cr

252: \ocal_{ D N} = (\bar L D_\mu N) D^\mu \tilde \phi, &&

253: \ocal_{ \bar D N} = (D_\mu \bar L N) D^\mu \tilde \phi \ .

254: \label{loopO}

255: \end{eqnarray}

256: %

257: 

258: The above operators can give rise to a rich $N$-collider phenomenology.

259: In this paper we will focus only on $N$-signals at hadron colliders.

260: Specifically, we will consider the widely studied Drell-Yan like

261: production of the $N$ in association with a charged lepton: $ p

262: \bar p , pp \to N \ell $, followed by the decays $N \to \ell jj$ ($j$

263: stands for a light-quark jet), which gives a distinct LNV signal:

264: same-sign charged leptons in association with a pair of light

265: jets\footnote{We focus on the positively-charged

266: di-lepton signal; at the Tevatron $\sigma(p \bar p \to

267: \ell^+ \ell^+ jj) = \sigma(p \bar p \to \ell^- \ell^- jj)$ while at

268: the LHC $\sigma(p p \to \ell^+ \ell^+ jj) \sim 2\ \sigma(p p \to \ell^-

269: \ell^- jj)$.}

270: %

271: \begin{eqnarray}

272: p \bar p , pp \to \ell^+ \ell^+ jj \ ,

273: \label{process}

274: \end{eqnarray}

275: %

276: which is traditionally taken to be the leading

277: $N$-signature at the LHC \cite{delAguila2,delAguila1,han,Wpapers},

278: since it is expected to be the easiest to detect.  However, all

279: previous studies on this signal assumed that the underlying hard

280: process is $u \bar d \to W^{+ \star} \to N \ell_L^+$ followed by $N

281: \to W^- \ell_L^+ \to jj \ell^+_L$, with an unnaturally large coupling

282: $U_{\ell N} \sim {\cal O}(0.1)$ in (\ref{YWln}).

283: In contrast, we will see that the

284: effective Lagrangian description outlined above suggests that the

285: $\ell^+ \ell^+ jj$ signature is expected to be dominated by other operators.

286: 

287: The TLG operators $ {\cal O}_i $ that contribute to the process (\ref{process})

288: correspond to $ i = N e\phi$, $duNe$, $QuNL$, $LNQd$ and $QNLd$,

289: so that (after spontaneous symmetry breaking) the relevant terms in

290: the effective theory are

291: %

292: \begin{eqnarray}

293: {\cal L}_{eff}^{N} &=& \frac{1}{\Lambda^{2}} \left[ - \sqrt{2} v \mw

294:   \left(\awl \overline{N^c} P_R + \awr \bar N P_L \right) \gamma^\mu e W^+_\mu

295:   + \av\left(\bar d \gamma^\mu P_R u \right)

296:   \left( \bar N \gamma_\mu P_R e \right)

297:   \right. \cr

298: && \left. + \ \as1 \left(\bar u P_L d \right) \left( \bar e P_R N

299: \right) - \as2 \left(\bar u P_R d \right) \left( \bar e P_R N \right)

300: + \as3 \left(\bar u P_R N \right) \left( \bar e P_R d \right) + {\rm

301: H.c.} \right] \ ,

302: \label{NRinter}

303: \end{eqnarray}

304: %

305: where $\awr \equiv \alpha_{N e \phi}/2$, $\av \equiv \alpha_{duNe}$,

306: $\as1 \equiv \alpha_{QuNL}$, $\as2 \equiv \alpha_{LNQd}$ and $ \as3

307: \equiv \alpha_{QNLd}$. Although

308: not explicitly indicated, (\ref{NRinter}) will in general

309: contain non-diagonal flavor interactions that may involve heavy

310: quarks; we will return to these issues in a future publication.

311: 

312: For comparison with the literature we also

313: included a general SM-like V$-$A term [see (\ref{YWln})], $U_{\ell N}

314: \equiv \awl \times v^2 /\Lambda^2$, even though such a coupling is

315: expected to be $ \sim 10^{-7} $, in which case the corresponding vertex

316: will have no observable effects.

317: Thus, the observation of LNV effects associated with

318: an $N$ with $M = O(100)$ GeV

319: will be most likely associated with

320: $ \alpha_i \not= 0 $ for some $i \not= {{\rm w}l} $,

321: indicative of physics beyond the classic seesaw mechanism.

322: 

323: Underlying the use of the

324: effective interactions (\ref{NRinter}) is the presumption that this

325: NP is not directly observable. Nonetheless one can use

326: observables contributing to (\ref{process})  to extract (or constrain)

327: the values of the various coefficients in (\ref{NRinter})

328: and use this information to

329: restrict the possible types of NP responsible for these

330: effects.

331: While a detailed study in this direction lies beyond the scope of

332: this paper,

333: we will comment on how this can be done and

334: on the precision to which these

335: coefficients can be measured in the LNV reaction

336: (\ref{process}).

337: 

338: Using (\ref{NRinter}), we find that the differential cross-section for

339: the hard process $ u \bar d \to N \ell^+$ and the spin-averaged

340: differential decay width for $N \to \ell^+ j j$ are

341: respectively

342: %

343: \begin{eqnarray}

344: \frac{d \hat\sigma}{d c_\theta} &=& \frac{(\hat s -M^2)^2}{128 \pi \; \hat s

345: \Lambda^4 } \left\{ \as1^2 + \as2^2

346: - \as2 \as3 (1 + c_\theta) +

347: \as3^2\Upsilon_+ + 4 \av^2 \Upsilon_- + 16 \left(\awl^2 \Upsilon_-

348: + \awr^2 \Upsilon_+ \right) \Pi_{\rm w}(\hat s) \right\} \ , \label{cs} \\

349: %

350: \frac{d\Gamma}{dx} &=& \frac{M}{128 {\pi}^3} \left( \frac M\Lambda

351: \right)^4 \left\{ \left( \as1^2 + \as2^2 - \as2 \as3 \right) f_{\rm s}

352: + \left[ \as3^2 + 4\av^2 + 16 \left( \awl^2 + \awr^2 \right)

353: \Pi_{\rm w}(2 z M^2) \right] f_{\rm v}\right\} \ ,

354: \label{width}

355: \end{eqnarray}

356: %

357: where we assume real coefficients and

358: \begin{eqnarray}

359: \Upsilon_\pm = \frac{1}{4}\left[(1 \pm c_\theta)^2 + M^2 \frac{s_\theta^2}{\hat s}\right]~,~

360: \Pi_{\rm w}(\hat s) \equiv \frac{\mw^4}{(\hat s-\mw^2)^2 + (\mw \gw)^2} ~,

361: \end{eqnarray}

362: 

363: \noindent $\gw$ denotes the total $W$ width, $c_\theta$

364: is the cosine of the center of mass

365: (CM) scattering angle between $\ell$ and $u$,

366: $\hat s$ the CM energy squared of the hard

367: process, $ f_{\rm s} (x) = 12 x^2 z$, $f_{\rm v}(x) = 2 x^2(x+3z)$,

368: with $z=1/2-x$, and $Mx$ is the energy of the $N$ decay lepton

369: in the $N$ rest frame.

370: %

371: \begin{figure}[htb]

372: \begin{center}

373: \epsfig{file=fig_CSX.eps,height=9cm,width=9cm,angle=0}

374: %\vspace{-0.8cm}

375: \caption{\emph{The total cross-section $\sigma(p \bar p, pp \to \ell^+

376: N)$ derived from (\ref{NRinter}) for the Tevatron and the LHC, as a

377: function of $M$, for $ |c_\theta|<0.9, ~ \Lambda=1$ TeV and $\hat s

378: < \Lambda^2 $ (for this $ \Lambda $, $ \awl =1 $ corresponds to

379: $ U_{\ell N} \sim 0.06$). See text.}}

380: \label{fig1}

381: \end{center}

382: \end{figure}

383: %

384: 

385: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we plot the total cross-sections $\sigma$,

386: convoluted with the initial parton densities inside the (anti)protons, as a

387: function of $M$ and for $\Lambda=1$ TeV and various values of the

388: coefficients $\alpha_i$. The cross-section is integrated for

389: $ |c_\theta| \leq 0.9$ up to $\sqrt{\hat s} < \Lambda $

390: (the decrease in $\sigma$ with $M$ results from this cut),

391: imposed in order to insure the validity of the effective

392: Lagrangian approach.

393: The signal to background analysis described in

394: \cite{delAguila2,delAguila1,han,Wpapers} for $pp \to \mu N \to \mu \mu

395: jj$ also applies to the cross-sections in Fig.~\ref{fig1},

396: based on which we expect a $5 \sigma$ same-sign leptons

397: signal at the LHC if $M \lsim 200$ GeV, $\Lambda \sim {\cal O}(1)$ TeV,

398: and $\awr \sim {\cal O}(1)$ with $ \alpha_i =0 $ otherwise ~\cite{delAguila1}.

399: The Tevatron is, however,

400: not sensitive to this process and coupling for $M > \mw$ \cite{delAguila1}.

401: 

402: Also note that the 4-fermion terms can significantly

403: contribute to $\sigma$, especially for $M > \mw$

404: when the s-channel W-exchange process is non-resonant.

405: Hence, if $\av \sim 1$ and $\Lambda \sim 1$

406: TeV, then $\sigma \gsim 10~(100)$ fb at the Tevatron (LHC)

407: for $M \lsim 300 ~(600)$ GeV.  Based on

408: the results of \cite{delAguila1}, such a large $\mu^+ N$

409: production rate

410: is within the sensitivity of both colliders

411: with integrated luminosities of ${\cal O}(10)$

412: fb$^{-1}$.

413: The 4-fermion interactions are generated,

414: e.g., by a new right-handed gauge

415: interaction mediated by a $W_R^\prime$ too heavy to be directly

416: observable.\footnote{If the $W_R^\prime$ were to be directly

417: observable, the sensitivity to $N$ would be markedly

418: improved \cite{delAguila2},

419: though the effective theory approach would no longer

420: be applicable.}

421: 

422: As mentioned previously, one

423: can use observables such as (\ref{cs}) and (\ref{width}) to

424: measure or bound the magnitudes of the $ \alpha_i $ in

425: (\ref{NRinter})

426: and the $\as2-\as3$ relative phase (terms containing other relative

427: phases are multiplied by a light lepton or quark mass).

428: Perhaps the simplest example is the

429: forward-backward (FB) asymmetry ($A_{FB}$) in the underlying process

430: $p\bar p, pp \to \ell^+ N$, which requires the

431: proper lepton assignment, usually that of largest transverse momentum,

432: and can be used to extract the terms linear in $c_\theta $ in (\ref{cs}).

433: Note that for the LHC the conventional $A_{FB}$ vanishes

434: (due to the identical colliding beams) but we can use $A_{FB}^y$,

435: the double asymmetry in $ \theta $ and the rapidity $y$, as described,

436: e.g., in \cite{aguila3}.

437: In Table \ref{tab1} we give the expected FB asymmetries at the Tevatron

438: and the LHC when a single $ \alpha_i $ is not zero and

439: for $M=200$ GeV (the asymmetries depend very weakly on $M$).

440: %

441: \begin{table}[htb]

442: \begin{center}

443: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}

444: ~ & \multicolumn{5}{c}{\underline{non-zero coefficient}} %\vspace{.1cm}

445: \\[.1cm]

446: ~ & $\awl$ & $\awr$ & $\av$ & $\alpha_{s1, s2}$

447: & $\as3$ \\

448: \hline

449: %~ & ~ & ~ & ~ & ~ &  \\

450: %\vspace{.1cm}

451: $A_{FB}$ (Tevatron) & $0.55$ & $-0.55$ & $0.62$ & $0$ & $-0.62$ \\

452: $A_{FB}^y$ (Tevatron) & $0.11$ & $-0.11$ & $0.12$ & $0$ & $-0.12$ \\

453: $A_{FB}^y$ (LHC) & $0.35$ & $-0.35$ & $0.40$ & $0$ & $-0.40$ \\

454: \end{tabular}

455: \caption{\emph{The expected FB asymmetries $A_{FB}$ at the Tevatron and

456: $A_{FB}^y$ at the Tevatron and at the LHC (see text),

457: corresponding to each of the effective operators in (\ref{NRinter})

458: when $M=200$ GeV.}}

459: \label{tab1}

460: \end{center}

461: \end{table}

462: %

463: \medskip

464: 

465: Other differential distributions for the reaction (\ref{process})

466: can also be utilized.

467: For instance, we find that the invariant mass distribution

468: of the two leptons or of the two jets,

469: can differentiate between the $W$ and 4-fermion mediated processes.

470: On the other hand, by taking the moments of (\ref{width})

471: with appropriate functions of $x$,

472: the coefficient combinations multiplying

473: $ f_{\rm s} $ and $ f_{\rm v} $ can be

474: measured. Additional information can be extracted from other

475: differential distributions involving the $N$ spin dependence.

476: A realistic determination of the constraints on the $ \alpha_i $

477: requires careful consideration of the various backgrounds and

478: event selection efficiencies; this lies beyond the scope of the

479: present work but will be detailed in a future publication.

480: Here we only remark that

481: the very distinctive characteristics of LNV signatures of

482: this type should allow for a drastic reduction of the backgrounds

483: after an optimal

484: event (distribution) selection, see e.g., \cite{BarShalom:2008fq}.

485: 

486: To summarize, we have argued

487: that the natural size of the

488: heavy-to-light $N-\nu_L$ mixing is expected to be ${\cal

489: O}(\sqrt{m_\nu/M}) \ll 1 $ within the classic seesaw mechanism,

490: leading to the decoupling of

491: the heavy Majorana neutrinos

492: even if their masses are $\sim 100$ GeV -- $1$ TeV, unless additional

493: interactions are present. Thus, any signal of EW-scale heavy Majorana

494: neutrinos provides a strong indication of physics beyond the

495: minimal seesaw mechanism, at a near-by scale.

496: 

497: Adopting this viewpoint, we re-examined heavy Majorana neutrino physics

498: using an effective Lagrangian approach. We gave a complete set of

499: the leading effective operators (of dimension $ \le6 $) involving the $N$ and the SM

500: fields. As an illustration, we studied the effects

501: of the higher dimensional operators that yield a new (V$+$A) $\ell N W$

502: interaction and new 4-fermion

503: $ud\ell N$ contact terms,

504: on the LNV process $p \bar p, pp \to \ell^+ N$ followed by $N

505: \to \ell^+ j j$ at the Tevatron and the LHC.

506: 

507: We found that these new effective operators can significantly enhance

508: the production of N at hadron colliders, potentially leading to hundreds or

509: even thousands of LNV $\ell^+ \ell^+ jj$ events at the Tevatron and at

510: the LHC, if the typical scale of the new physics is $ \Lambda \sim 1$ TeV.

511: We have also found that it is possible, to a certain extent, to discriminate

512: between the various types of new physics responsible for the effective

513: interactions, by measuring

514: differential distributions of the outgoing charged leptons and

515: jets. For example, if the new physics is manifest only through a new

516: (V$+$A) $\ell N W$ interaction, then we expect $\sigma(\ell^+_R \ell^+_R

517: j j) \gg \sigma(\ell^+_L \ell^+_L j j)$, which would manifest in the

518: FB asymmetry and will thus stand as an unambiguous signal of beyond

519: the $N-\nu_L$ mixing scheme implied by the classic seesaw mechanism.

520: 

521: \bigskip

522: 

523: {\it \bf Acknowledgments:} The work of FA and JW was supported in part

524: by MEC (FPA2006-05294, SAB2006-0173) and by Junta de Andaluc{\'\i}a,

525: and the work of SBS by NSF

526: Grants No. PHY-0653656 (UCI), PHY-0709742 (UCI) and by the Alfred

527: P. Sloan Foundation. The work of AS was supported in part by the DOE grant

528: DE-AC02-98CH10886 (BNL).

529: JW is also partially  supported by the U.S. DoE under grant

530: DE-FG03-94ER40837.

531: 

532: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

533: 

534: %%%%%  REFERENCES FOR COLLIDER SIGNATURES OF N %%%%%

535: 

536: \bibitem{delAguila2} F.~del Aguila {\it et al.}, arXiv:0801.1800 [hep-ph].

537: 

538: \bibitem{delAguila1} F. del Aguila, J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Pittau,

539: JHEP {\bf 0710}, 047 (2007).

540: 

541: \bibitem{han}

542: T. Han and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 171804 (2006).

543: 

544: \bibitem{Wpapers}

545: F.M.L. Almeida {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 075004 (2000).

546: 

547: \bibitem{old-N-pheno} T.G. Rizzo, Phys Let. {\bf B116}, 23 (1982);

548: F. del Aguila, E. Laermann, P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B297}, 1 (1988);

549: H. Tso-Hsiu, C. Cheng-Rui and T. Zhi-Jian,

550: Phys. Rev. {\bf D42}, 2265 (1990);

551: D.A. Dicus and D.D. Karatas, Phys. Rev. {\bf D44}, 2033 (1991);

552: W. Buchm\"{u}ller and C. Greub,

553: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B256}, 465 (1991);

554: W. Buchm\"{u}ller and C. Greub,

555: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B363}, 345 (1991);

556: J. Gluza, M. Zralek, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, (1993);

557: G. Ingelman, J. Rathsman, Z. Phys. {\bf C60}, 243 (1993);

558: A. Datta, M. Guchait and D.P. Roy, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 961 (1993);

559: G. Azuelos, A. Djouadi, Z. Phys. {\bf C63}, 327 (1994);

560: A. Datta, M. Guchait and A. Pilaftsis,

561: Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, 3195 (1994);

562: T.G. Rizzo, hep-ph/9501261;

563: G. Belanger {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53}, 6292 (1996);

564: J. Gluza {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B407}, 45 (1997);

565: A. Ferrari {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 013001 (2000);

566: M. Flanz, W. Rodejohann and K. Zuber, Phys. Lett. {\bf B473}, 324 (2000),

567: Erratum-{\it ibid.} {\bf B480}, 418 (2000);

568: A. Ali, A.V. Borisov and N.B. Zamorin,

569: Eur. Phys. J. {bf C21}, 123 (2001);

570: O. Panella {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 035005 (2002);

571: F.M.L. Almeida {\it et al.},

572: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C30}, 327 (2003);

573: S. Bray, J.S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis,

574: Phys. Lett. {\bf B628}, 250 (2005);

575: A. Ali, A.V. Borisov and D.V. Zhuridov, hep-ph/0512005;

576: S. Bar-Shalom {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B643}, 342 (2006);

577: S. Bray, J. S. Lee and A. Pilaftsis, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B786}, 95 (2007);

578: D. Atwood, S. Bar-Shalom and A. Soni,

579: Phys. Rev. {\bf D76}, 033004 (2007);

580: 

581: %% REFRENCES FOR BEYOND THE SEESAW SCENARIOS WITH NON-SUPPRESSED MIXINGS %%%%%

582: 

583: \bibitem{beyond}

584: A. Pilaftsis,

585: Z. Phys. {\bf C55}, 275 (1992) (also in hep-ph/9901206);

586: D. Tommasini {it et al}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B444}, 451 (1995);

587: J. Gluza Acta Phys. Polon. {\bf B33}, 1735 (2002);

588: F. del Aguila, M. Masip and J.~L. Padilla, Phys. Lett. {\bf B627}, 131 (2005);

589: E. Ma, Phys. Rev. {\bf D73}, 077301 (2006);

590: J.~W.~F. Valle, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. {\bf 53}, 473 (2006);

591: J. Kersten and A. Y. Smirnov, arXiv:0705.3221 [hep-ph].

592: 

593: \bibitem{effectiveL} W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys.

594: {\bf B268}, 621 (1986); C. Arzt, M.B. Einhorn and J. Wudka,

595: {\bf B433}, 41 (1995).

596: 

597: \bibitem{effLNV}

598: K.~S.~Babu and C.~N.~Leung, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B619}, 667 (2001).

599: A.~de Gouvea and J.~Jenkins, Phys. Rev. {\bf D77}, 013008 (2008).

600: 

601: \bibitem{Weinberg:1979sa}

602: S.~Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 43}, 1566 (1979).

603: 

604: \bibitem{aguila3} F. del Aguila, M. Quiros and F. Zwirner,

605: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B287}, 419 (1987).

606: 

607: \bibitem{BarShalom:2008fq}

608: S.~Bar-Shalom, A.~Rajaraman, D.~Whiteson and F.~Yu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D77}, 095011 (2008).

609: 

610: \end{thebibliography}

611: 

612: \end{document}

613: