1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \textheight=24 true cm

3: \textwidth=16.5 true cm

4: \oddsidemargin=-0.5cm

5: \topmargin=-.1in

6: %\usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage{epsfig}

8: %\usepackage{epsf}

9: %\usepackage{axodraw}

10: \usepackage{amssymb}

11: %\usepackage{rotate}

12: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.4}

13: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

16: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

17: 

18: % Bra-Kets:

19: \def\bra{\langle}

20: \def\ket{\rangle}

21: 

22: % Greek letters:

23: \def\a{\alpha}

24: \def\b{\beta}

25: \def\g{\gamma}

26: \def\d{\delta}

27: \def\e{\epsilon}

28: \def\ve{\varepsilon}

29: \def\l{\lambda}

30: \def\m{\mu}

31: \def\n{\nu}

32: 

33: \def\n{\nu}

34: 

35: \def\bmu {B_{\mu}}

36: \def\wmu {W^{3}_{\mu}}

37: \def\wmupm {W^{\pm}_{\mu}}

38: \def\wmum {W^{-}_{\mu}}

39: \def\wmup {W^{+}_{\mu}}

40: \def\bh {B_H}

41: \def\wh {W^{3}_{H}}

42: \def\whpm {W^{\pm}_{H}}  

43: \def\whm {W^{-}_{H}}

44: \def\whp {W^{+}_{H}}

45: 

46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

47: \begin{document}

48: 

49: 

50: 

51: \thispagestyle{empty}

52: \begin{flushright}

53: %\texttt{CU-Physics/14-2007}\\

54: 

55: \end{flushright}

56: \vskip 15pt

57: %\parindent 0pt

58: 

59: \begin{center}

60: {\Large {\bf Probing two Universal Extra

61:     Dimension model with leptons and photons at the LHC and ILC}}

62: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

63: 

64: \hspace*{\fill}

65: 

66: \hspace*{\fill}

67: 

68: { \tt{

69: Kirtiman Ghosh\footnote{E-mail address:

70: kirtiman.ghosh@saha.ac.in}

71: }}\\

72: 

73: 

74: \small {\em Department of Physics, University of Calcutta,\\

75: 92, A. P. C. Road, Kolkata 700009, India.}

76: \\

77: 

78: \vskip 40pt

79: 

80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

81: {\bf ABSTRACT}

82: \end{center}

83: 

84: \vskip 0.5cm

85: 

86: We discuss the collider signatures of electroweak $(1,0)$-mode

87: excitations in the framework of two universal extra dimension

88: (2UED) at the LHC and ILC. In general, pair production of electroweak

89: $(1,0)$-mode 

90: particles of 2UED gives rise to {\em multi lepton plus missing transverse

91: momentum} signal. Upto 1/R = 400 GeV {\em 2-lepton plus missing

92: transverse momentum} signal and upto 1/R = 600 GeV {\em 3-lepton

93: plus missing transverse momentum} signal stands over the $5\sigma$

94: standard deviation of the Standard Model 

95: background at the LHC with $100~fb^{-1}$ integrated luminosity. At ILC

96: we study {\em single photon plus missing energy} signal from the

97: production of $U(1)$ gauge boson in association with a $U(1)$ spinless

98: adjoint. With proper choice of beam polarization, signal strength is

99: greater than  $5\sigma$ standard deviation of the Standard Model

100: background almost upto the kinematic limit of the collider.

101: 

102: \vskip 30pt

103: 

104: 

105: 

106: 

107: 

108: 

109: \section{Introduction}

110: One of the goals for the future collider experiments

111: will be to find out whether a new dynamics beyond the Standard Model

112: (SM) really exists around the TeV scale of energy. A great effort have

113: been also put in to pin down the exact nature of this new dynamics. In

114: this endeavor, supersymmetry and models with one or

115: more {\em extra dimension} play very special role.

116: 

117: 

118: Extra dimensional theories can be classified into several

119: classes. Models of ADD \cite{add} or RS \cite{rs} have been proposed to

120: circumvent the long-standing hierarchy problem. In this framework,

121: gravity lives in $(4+D)$ dimensions and the SM particles

122: are confined to a 3-brane (a $(3+1)$ dimensional space) embedded in

123: the 

124: $(4+D)$ dimensional bulk, with $D$ spatial dimensions compactified on

125: a volume $V$. For large enough value of this extra dimensional volume

126: $V$, the fundamental $4+D$ dimensional Plank mass can be as low as $1$

127: TeV, although the effective $4$ dimensional Plank mass can be as large

128: as $10^{19}$ GeV. There are some interesting generalization of these

129: models in which the SM

130: particles are confined to a $(3+n)$-brane ($3+n+1$ dimensional

131: manifold) embedded in a $(4+D)$ dimensional bulk \cite{NPB550}. Since

132: $n$ spatial dimensions are

133: compact, in this framework, effective 4-dimensional theory also

134: contain the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of SM fields. The

135: phenomenology of these models are extensively studied in

136: Ref. \cite{PRD66}. The volume of $n$ spatial dimensions (internal to

137: the bulk) can not be too large due to the experimental lower bound on the

138: KK-mode masses. There are also models in which the

139: SM particles are confined to a $3$-brane which is ``fat'' i.e. it

140: has an extension in the $(4+D)$ dimensional bulk \cite{PLB482}.   

141: 

142: On the other hand, there are

143: class of models where some or all of the SM fields can access

144: the full space-time manifold.  One such example is Universal Extra

145: Dimension (UED), where all the fields can propagate in the full

146: manifold \cite{UED}. Apart from the rich phenomenology, UED models in

147: general offer possible unification of the gauge couplings at a

148: relatively low scale of energy, not far beyond the reach of the next

149: generation colliders \cite{unificUED}.  Moreover, particle spectra of

150: UED models naturally contain a weakly interacting stable massive

151: particle, which can be a good candidate for cold dark matter

152: \cite{dark_ued5,dark_ued6}. 

153: 

154: A particular variant of the UED model where all the SM fields

155: propagate in $(5 + 1)$ dimensional space-time, namely the {\em two

156: Universal Extra Dimension} (2UED) model has some attractive

157: features. 2UED model can naturally explain the long life time for

158: proton decay \cite{dobrescu} and more interestingly it predicts that the

159: number of fermion generations should be an integral multiple of three

160: \cite{dobrescu1}. When the $(5+1)$ dimensional theory is compactified

161: into a $(3+1)$ dimensional effective theory, each 6D field decomposes

162: to a tower (known as KK-tower) of 4D fields. Each field

163: in the KK-tower is characterized by a pair of integers $(j,k)$, known

164: as KK-numbers. The zero mode (with $j=k=0$) fields are identified with

165: the SM particles. In this article we will concentrate on the

166: phenomenology of the $(1,0)$-mode (the lightest KK-mode) particles.

167: 

168: Recently, signals of 2UED model in future colliders

169: like LHC \cite{dobrescu4, dobrescu3, KGAD1} and ILC \cite{kong, KGAD2}

170: have been studied in some details. The pair production of strongly

171: interacting $(1,0)$ modes at the LHC was previously discussed in

172: Ref. \cite{dobrescu4}. The production of strongly interacting $(1,0)$

173: modes results into {\em multi lepton + multi jet + missing transverse

174:   momentum} signal. It is needless to mention that production rate for

175: strongly interacting particles are high. However, detecting {\em

176:   multi lepton + missing

177:   transverse momentum} signal in presence of more than one jets could be

178: challenging. At the same time it is also important to look for other

179: smoking gun signature of

180: this model in other channels and

181: correlating it with the signal from strong

182: production channel. Therefore, in this article we

183: concentrate on the hadronically quiet\footnote{In an environment like

184:   LHC, even a hadronically quiet process, like the one of our interest, is always associated with one or more soft jets due to initial state radiation. Thus in such an environment, one should ask for the absence of any hard jets (say

185:   within $p_T>30$ GeV). An event generator like PYTHIA can easily generate such events with soft jets even the hard partonic process does not have any partons in the final state. In our analysis which is done only

186:   at partonic level, we could not implement this.} signals which

187: can arise from the 

188: pair production of the $(1,0)$-mode electroweak particles. We show that the 

189: pair production of weakly interacting $(1,0)$-modes of 2UED at the LHC

190: gives rise to {\em multi lepton + missing transverse momentum}

191: ($p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~$) signal. We

192: concentrate only on {\em 2 (3)-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$}

193: signal. The hypercharge gauge boson $\bmu^{(1,0)}$ decays to

194: $\bh^{(1,0)}$ and a {\em photon}. The production of

195: $\bmu^{(1,0)}$ in association with $\bh^{(1,0)}$ can give rise to

196: $\gamma E\!|!\!\!/~~$ signal at the LHC. This is a very

197: characteristic feature of 2UED. However, $\bmu^{(1,0)}$ and

198: $\bh^{(1,0)}$ coupling to quarks, being proportional to the quark

199: hypercharge, $\bh^{(1,0)} \bmu^{(1,0)}$ production rate is suppressed

200: at the LHC. Consequently, we

201: investigate $\gamma~+~E\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal from

202: $\bh^{(1,0)}\bmu^{(1,0)}$ production in the context of future

203: $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider. 

204: 

205: The plan of the article is the following. We will give a brief

206: description of the model in

207: the next section. Signature of $(1,0)$-mode electroweak particles at

208: the LHC and ILC will be discussed in section 3 and section 4

209: respectively. We summarize in the last section.

210: 

211: 

212: \section{Two Universal Extra Dimensions}

213: 

214: In 2UED all the SM fields can propagate

215: universally in the $(5+1)$ dimensional space-time. Four space time

216: dimensions with coordinates $x^{\mu}$ ($\mu=0,1,2,3$) form the

217: Minkowski space. Two extra spacial dimensions ($x^4$ and $x^5$) are

218: flat and are compactified with  

219: $0\le~x^4,~x^5~\le L$. This implies that the extra dimensional

220:  space (before compactification) is a square\footnote{This implies

221:    that the size of the two 

222:   extra dimensions are same. 

223:    However, the most general 2UED model should include two different

224:    sizes for two compactified dimensions instead of one. In

225:    the absence of any obvious symmetry

226:  that can relate these two length-scales, we

227:  are thus considering only a specific choice of parameters of this theory.} with sides $L$. 

228: Identifying the opposite sides of the

229: square will make the compactified manifold a torus. However, toroidal

230: compactification, leads to 4D fermions that are vector-like with

231: respect to any gauge symmetry. The alternative is to identify 

232: two pairs of adjacent sides of the square:

233: 

234: \begin{equation}

235:  (y,0)~\equiv~(0,y),~~~(y,L)~\equiv~(L,y),~~~\forall~y\in~[0,L]

236: \label{b_cond}

237: \end{equation}

238: This is equivalent to folding the square along a

239: diagonal and gluing the boundaries. Above compactification mechanism

240: automatically leaves at most a single 4D fermion of definite chirality

241: as the zero mode of any chiral 6D fermion \cite{dobrescu2}. The physics at identified points is

242: identical if the Lagrangian takes the same value for any field

243: configuration:

244: \begin{eqnarray}

245: {\cal L}\vert_{x^\mu,y,0}\;=\;{\cal L}\vert_{x^\mu,0,y};~~

246: {\cal L}\vert_{x^\mu,y,L}\,=\,{\cal L}\vert_{x^\mu,L,y} \nonumber

247: \end{eqnarray}

248: This requirement fixes the boundary conditions for 6D scalar fields

249:  $\Phi(x^\alpha)$ and 6D Weyl fermions $\Psi_{\pm}(x^\alpha)$. The

250:  requirement that the boundary conditions for 6D scalar or fermionic

251:  fields are compatible with the gauge symmetry, also fixes the boundary

252:  conditions for 6D gauge fields. The folding boundary conditions do

253:  not depend on continuous parameters, rather there are only eight

254:  self-consistent choices out of which one particular choice leads to

255:  zero mode fermions after compactification. Any 6D field (fermion/gauge

256:  or scalar) $\Phi(x^\mu,x^4,x^5)$ can be decomposed as:

257: 

258: \begin{equation}

259:  \Phi(x^\mu,x^4,x^5)~=~\frac{1}{L}\sum_{j,k}f^{(j,k)}_n(x^4,x^5)

260: \Phi^{(j,k)}(x^\mu)

261: \label{kk_dcomp}

262: \end{equation}

263: Where,

264: \begin{equation}

265:  f^{(j,k)}_n(x^4,x^5)~=~\frac{1}{1~+~\delta_{j,0}\delta_{k,0}}\left[e^{-in\pi/2}cos\left(\frac{jx^4+kx^5}{R}~+~\frac{n\pi}{2}\right)~+~cos\left(\frac{kx^4-jx^5}{R}~+~\frac{n\pi}{2}\right)\right]

266: \label{kk_func}

267: \end{equation}

268: The compactification radius $R$ is related to the size, $L$, of the 

269: compactified space as : $L = \pi R$. Where 4D fields

270: $\Phi^{(j,k)}(x^\mu)$ are the $(j,k)$-th KK-modes of the 6D field

271: $\Phi(x^{\alpha})$ and $n$ is a integer 

272: whose value is restricted to $0,1,2$ or $3$ by the boundary

273: conditions. Since $f^{(j,k)}_n(x^4,x^5)$ should form a complete set on the

274: compactified manifold, it must satisfy the following:

275: \be

276: \frac{1}{L^2}\sum_{j,k}\left[f_{n}^{(j,k)}(x^4,x^5)

277:   \right]^*f_{n}^{(j,k)}(x^{\prime4},x^{\prime 5}) ~=~\delta(x^{\prime

278: 4} - x^{4}) \delta(x^{\prime 5} - x^{5}) 

279: \label{comp}

280: \end{equation}

281: The allowed values of $j$ and $k$ should be chosen such that the

282: completeness condition in Eq. \ref{comp} is satisfied. It is clear

283: from the form of $f_{n}^{(j,k)}$ that the functions $f_{n}^{(1,0)}$

284: and $f_{n}^{(0,1)}$ are not independent ($f_{n}^{(0,1)}=(-1)^n

285: f_{n}^{(1,0)}$). Therefore, it is sufficient to take $j > 0,~k \ge 0$

286: and $j=k=0$ to form a complete set of functions on the chiral square. 

287: It is also obvious from the form of $f^{(j,k)}_n(x^4,x^5)$ that

288: only $n=0$ allows zero mode ($j=k=0$) fields in the 4D effective

289: theory. The zero mode fields and the interactions among zero modes can

290: be identified with the SM.

291: 

292: In 6D, the Clifford algebra is generated by six anticommuting

293: matrices: $\Gamma^{\alpha},~ \alpha=0,1,..,5$. The minimum

294: dimensionality of $\Gamma$ matrices in 6D is $8\times8$. The spinor

295: representation of the $SO(1,5)$ Lorentz symmetry is reducible and

296: contain two irreducible Weyl representation characterized by different

297: eigenvalues of the 6D chirality operator: $\bar \Gamma =

298: \Gamma^0\Gamma^1\Gamma^2\Gamma^3\Gamma^4\Gamma^5$. The chirality

299: projection operator is defined as: $P_{\pm}=(1\pm\bar\Gamma)/2$, where

300: $+$ and $-$ label the 6D chiralities defined by the eigenvalues of

301: $\bar \Gamma$. 

302: \begin{equation}

303: \Psi_{\pm}(x^{\alpha})= P_{\pm}\Psi(x^\alpha);~~~~~~~~ \bar \Gamma \Psi_{\pm}

304: (x^\alpha) = \pm \Psi_{\pm}(x^{\alpha}).

305: \label{chirality}

306: \end{equation}

307: The chiral fermions in 6D have four components. Each 6D chiral fermion

308: contains both the chiralities of $SO(1,3)$.

309: 

310: 

311: Now we move on to the Standard Model in 6-dimensions. In 6D, the fields

312: and boundary conditions are chosen such that upon compactification,

313: the zero modes of the resulting effective theory should reproduce the

314: SM. The requirements of anomaly cancellation and fermion mass generation

315:  force the weak-doublet fermions to have opposite {\em 6D chiralities}

316:  with respect to the weak-singlet fermions. So the quarks of one

317:  generation are given by $Q_+~\equiv~(U_+,D_+),~U_-,~D_-$. Since

318:  observed quarks and leptons have definite 4D chirality, an immediate

319:  constraint is imposed on the boundary conditions of doublet and

320:  singlet fermions. 

321:  The 6D doublet quarks and leptons decompose into a

322:  tower of heavy vector-like 4D fermion doublets with left-handed zero

323:  mode doublets.  Similarly each 6D singlet quark and lepton decompose

324:  into the towers of heavy 4D vector-like singlet fermions along with

325:  zero mode right-handed singlets. These zero mode fields are

326:  identified with the SM fermions. As for example, SM doublet and

327:  singlets of 1st generation quarks are given by

328:  $(u_{L},d_{L})~\equiv~Q_{+L}^{(0,0)}(x^{\mu})$, $u_{R}~\equiv~U_{-R}^{(0,0)}(x^{\mu})$

329:  and $d_{R}~\equiv~D_{-R}^{(0,0)}(x^{\mu})$.   

330: 

331: 

332:  In 6D, each of the gauge fields, has six

333:  components. Upon compactification, they decompose into  towers of 4D

334:  spin-1 fields, a tower of spin-0 fields which are eaten by heavy

335:  spin-1 fields. Another tower of 4D spin-0 fields, all belonging to

336:  the adjoint representation of the corresponding gauge group, remain

337:  in the physical spectrum. These are the physical {\em spinless

338:  adjoints}. The 6D gluon fields, $G_{\alpha}^{a}$ decompose into a tower

339:  of 4D spin-1 fields, $G_{\mu}^{a(j,k)}$, and a tower of spin-0 fields,

340:  $G_{H}^{a(j,k)}$. $G_{\mu}^{a(j,k)}$ tower includes a zero mode which

341:  can be identified with the SM gluons. Similarly 6D $SU(2)$ gauge

342:  fields have KK-modes $W_{\mu}^{(j,k)\pm}$, $W_{H}^{(j,k)\pm}$,

343:  $W_{\mu}^{(j,k)3}$ and $W_{H}^{(j,k)3}$, while the hypercharge gauge

344:  field has KK-mode $B_{\mu}^{(j,k)}$ and $B_{H}^{(j,k)}$. The zero

345:  modes of $W_{\mu}^{(j,k)\pm}$ towers are identified with the SM

346:  $W^{\pm}_{\mu}$ bosons. The mixing of $W_{\mu}^{(0,0)3}$ and

347:  $B_{\mu}^{(0,0)}$ gives photon and $Z$-boson. However, for non-zero

348:  modes this mixing is negligible. 

349: 

350: 

351: The tree-level masses for $(j,k)$-th KK-mode particles are given by

352: $\sqrt{M_{j,k}^2~+~m_{0}^{2}}$, where $M_{j,k}=\sqrt{j^2+k^2}/R$.

353:  $m_0$ is the mass of the corresponding zero mode particle. As a result,

354:  the tree-level masses are approximately degenerate. This degeneracy

355:  is lifted by radiative effects. 

356:  The fermions receive mass corrections from the gauge interactions 

357:  (with gauge bosons and adjoint scalars) and Yukawa interactions. 

358: All of these give positive mass shift. The gauge fields and spinless 

359: adjoints receive mass corrections from the self-interactions and gauge

360:  interactions. Gauge interactions with fermions give a negative mass 

361: shift. While the self-interactions give positive mass shift with 

362: different strength with respect to the former. However, masses of the 

363: hypercharge gauge boson $B_{\mu}^{(j,k)}$ and the corresponding 

364: scalar $B_{H}^{(j,k)}$ 

365: receive only negative corrections from fermionic loops. Numerical 

366: computation shows that the lightest KK particle is the spinless adjoint 

367: $B_{H}^{(1,0)}$, associated with the hypercharge gauge boson. As a result, 

368: 2UED model gives rise to a scalar dark matter.  

369: 

370: 

371: 

372: 

373: \subsection{$(1,0)$-mode electroweak sector of 2UED}

374:  The $(1,0)$-mode electroweak sector of 2UED consists of

375:  $(1,0)$-mode gauge bosons ($\bmu^{(1,0)},~W_{\mu}^{3(1,0)}$ and

376:  $~W_{\mu}^{\pm(1,0)}$), spinless adjoints

377:  ($\bh^{(1,0)},~W_{H}^{3(1,0)}$ and $~W_{H}^{\pm(1,0)}$) of $U(1)$ and

378:  $SU(2)$ gauge group respectively, $(1,0)$-mode KK excitations of

379:  the SM leptons and $(1,0)$-mode excitations of the Higgs doublet.

380:  In the previous section we have qualitatively discussed the effects

381:  of radiative corrections on the mass spectrum. After incorporating

382:  the radiative effects, approximate expressions for the masses at the

383:  $(1,0)$ level can be

384:  written as 

385: \bea  

386: M_{L_{+}}&\simeq&{1.04}~{R^{-1}}, \hskip 100pt

387: M_{E_{-}}~\simeq~{R^{-1}}, 

388: \nonumber\\ 

389: M_{B_{\mu}}&\simeq&{0.97}~{R^{-1}}, \hskip 100pt

390: M_{B_{H}}~\simeq~{0.86}~{R^{-1}}, 

391: \nonumber\\ 

392: M_{W_{\mu}}&\simeq&{1.07}~{R^{-1}}, \hskip 100pt

393: M_{W_{H}}~\simeq~{0.92}{R^{-1}}.

394: \label{mass}

395: \eea

396: The numerical factors in the above expressions are almost independent

397: of $R^{-1}$ for 

398: $(1,0)$-mode leptons, gauge boson and spinless adjoint

399: corresponding to $U(1)$ gauge group. However, masses of $SU(2)$ gauge

400: bosons and spinless adjoints do have mild dependencies on $R^{-1}$. Detailed

401: expressions for the one-loop corrected masses of KK particles in

402: 2UED can be found in Ref. \cite{loop}. 

403: 

404: 

405: Decays of $(1,0)$-mode particles of 2UED have been previously

406: investigated in details in Ref. \cite{dobrescu4}. Conservation

407: of KK-parity allows $(1,0)$-mode particles to decay only into

408: a $(1,0)$-mode particle and one or more SM particles if kinematically

409: allowed. It is clear from Eq. (\ref{mass}) that $B_{H}^{(1,0)}$ is the

410: lightest KK particle (LKP) in this theory. It is important to notice

411: that, unlike in the case of 1UED, the LKP is a scalar in this

412: scenario. Since $\bh^{(1,0)}$ is a stable particle and weakly

413: interacting, it passes through the detector without being

414: detected. Decays of all the $(1,0)$-mode particles thus result into

415: one or more SM particles plus missing energy/momentum signature.       

416:  

417: 

418: 

419: %------------------------------------------------------------------

420: 

421: \begin{table}[h]

422: 

423: \begin{center}

424: 

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

426: \hline \hline

427: $R^{-1}$ in GeV              & 300 & 350 & 400 & 450 & 480 & 500 

428: \\\hline \hline 

429: $B_{\mu} \to l \bar l B_{H}$ & 0.610 & 0.618 & 0.624 & 0.630 & 0.633 & 0.635

430: \\\hline 

431: $B_{\mu} \to \gamma B_{H}$   & 0.390 & 0.382 & 0.375 & 0.369 & 0.364 & 0.362

432: \\\hline\hline

433: 

434: 

435: \end{tabular}

436: 

437: \end{center}

438: 

439: \caption{Branching fractions of $B_{\mu}$ in $l \bar l B_{H}$ and

440:   $\gamma B_{H}$ channel for different values of $R^{-1}$} 

441: 

442: \label{bmu_br}

443: \end{table}

444: 

445: %--------------------------------------------------------------------   

446:             

447: Let us

448: begin with the $U(1)$ gauge boson $\bmu$\footnote{From now on we will

449:   only concentrate on $(1,0)$-mode, thus drop the $(1,0)$

450:   superscript.}. $\bmu$ dominantly decays to

451: two SM charged leptons and $\bh$. This is a tree level 3-body

452: decay. Apart from this 3-body decay, loop induced decay into a

453: photon and $\bh$ has comparable branching fraction

454: \cite{dobrescu4}. $\bmu$ decay to $f\bar f \bh$ is 3-body decay

455: mediated by corresponding $(1,0)$ mode fermion. Decay amplitude is

456: proportional to the hypercharge of the fermions in consideration. As a

457: result, $\bmu~\to ~\nu \bar \nu \bh$ and $\bmu~\to ~q \bar q \bh$ are

458: suppressed compared to $\bmu~\to ~l \bar l \bh$. This is even

459: applicable for $\bmu~\to ~u_R \bar u_R \bh$ decay (hypercharge of

460: $u_R$ is $4/3$). This is accounted by the fact that in case of

461: $\bmu~\to ~u \bar u \bh$, decay amplitude is suppressed by heavier

462: $U^{(1,0)}$ propagator (than $L^{(1,0)}$ propagator in case of

463: $\bmu~\to ~l \bar l \bh$). In fact decay amplitude is inversely

464: proportional to the mass difference of $\bmu$ and the propagator mass.

465: In Table 1, we have tabulated the branching fractions of $\bmu$ in $l 

466: \bar l \bh$ (where $l$ includes $e,~\mu$ and $\tau$) and $\gamma \bh$

467: channel for different values of $R^{-1}$. $SU(2)$ spinless

468: adjoints ($W^{\pm}_H,~W^3_H$) can decay only to the $B_{H}$ and SM

469: particles. $W^3_H$

470: decays to a pair of SM leptons and $\bh$ with equal branching ratio to

471: charged leptons and neutrinos. Branching 

472: fraction to quark antiquark pairs is again negligible due to

473: hypercharge and heavy $(1,0)$ mode quark propagator. $W^{\pm}_{H}$

474: decay with almost 100\% branching ratio to $ l \bar\nu_{l} \bh$ ($l$

475: includes all 3 SM lepton generations). Branching fractions of $SU(2)$

476: spinless adjoints are independent of $R^{-1}$.  

477: 

478: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

479: \begin{table}[h]

480: 

481: \begin{center}

482: 

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

484: \hline \hline

485: Particle & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Branching fractions in } \\\cline{2-5}

486:          &  $0l~+~E\!\!\!/$ & $1l~+~E\!\!\!/$ &

487: $2l~+~E\!\!\!/$ & $3l~+~E\!\!\!/$\\\hline\hline

488: $W^{3}_{\mu}$  & 0.16 & 0 & 0.72 & 0 \\

489: $W^{\pm}_{\mu}$  & 0 & 0.55 & 0 & 0.42\\\hline\hline

490: 

491: \end{tabular}

492: 

493: \end{center}

494: 

495: \caption{Branching fractions of $(1,0)$-mode $SU(2)$ gauge bosons in

496:   {\em multi lepton + missing energy ($E\!\!\!/~$)} channel for

497:   $R^{-1}=500$ GeV} 

498: 

499: 

500: 

501: 

502: \label{wmu_br}

503: \end{table}

504: 

505: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

506: Since the $(1,0)$-mode $SU(2)$ gauge bosons ($W^\pm_\mu,~W^3_\mu$) are

507: heavier than $(1,0)$-mode 

508: leptons (see Eq. \ref{mass}), they decay dominantly into

509: $(1,0)$-mode lepton doublets and corresponding SM leptons

510: \cite{dobrescu4}. As for

511: example, $W^3_\mu$ can decay into one of the six ($l_i L_i^{(1,0)}$ and

512: $\nu_i \nu_i^{(1,0)},~i=e,\mu,\tau$) channels with equal

513: probability. Similarly, 

514: $W^\pm_\mu$ decays into one of the six possible decay modes ($l_i

515: \nu_i^{(1,0)}$ and $\nu_i L_i^{(1,0)},~i=e,\mu,\tau$) with branching

516: fraction of $1/6$ into each decay modes. The $(1,0)$-mode leptons are

517: heavier than  

518: $\bmu$, $\bh$ and $SU(2)$ spinless adjoints. Therefore,

519: $L^{(1,0)},~\nu^{(1,0)}$ can decay 

520: into the corresponding SM lepton and $\bmu~ (\bh)$ or $SU(2)$ spinless

521: adjoints. Following

522: this decay chain, one can see that $(1,0)$-mode $SU(2)$ gauge bosons

523: dominantly decay to

524: $\bh$ and one or more SM leptons. We have presented the branching

525: fractions of $(1,0)$-mode $SU(2)$ gauge 

526: bosons in multi lepton plus missing energy channels for

527: $R^{-1}=500~$GeV in Table \ref{wmu_br}.

528: Branching ratios of $SU(2)$ gauge bosons are almost independent over

529: $R^{-1}$. As for example, branching fraction of $W_{\mu}^{3}\to~2l~+

530: E\!\!\!/$ increases by 0.11\% when $R^{-1}$

531: is changed from 300 to 500 GeV.

532: 

533: One may tempted to think that the existing bound of $Z^\prime$-mass

534: (present in an extension of the SM with an extra $U(1)$ symmetry) might

535: be applicable also to $\bmu~(W_{\mu}^3)$. For example,

536: $Z^\prime$ can be produced at resonance at the Tevatron and can decay

537: to $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pairs \cite{PDG}. The present bound on

538: $Z^\prime$-mass is around $900$ GeV. However, $\bmu~(W_\mu^3)$ can not be

539: produced singly (due to KK-parity conservation) from $p\bar p$

540: collisions. At the same time $\bmu~(W_\mu^3)$, once produced, decays

541: to some SM particles (photon or leptons) and $\bh$. As a result, any

542: decay of $\bmu~(W_\mu^3)$ is always associated with large missing

543: momentum/energy. Thus the direct/indirect search limits on $Z^\prime$

544: are not applicable to $\bmu~(W^3_\mu)$.  

545: 

546: \section{Signature of electroweak $(1,0)$-mode particles at the LHC}

547: 

548: In this section, we will first discuss the production of electroweak

549: $(1,0)$-mode particles of 2UED at the LHC. Phenomenology in 2UED is

550: different and

551: perhaps more complicated compared to 1UED due to the presence of spinless

552: adjoints. In a previous work \cite{KGAD1} we have studied

553: the production (in the context of LHC) and decays of $(1,1)$-mode

554: spinless adjoints in some details. 

555: 

556: %------------------------------------------------------------------- 

557: \begin{figure}[t]

558: \begin{center}

559: \epsfig{file=1kk_cross_LHC.ps,width=10cm,height=13cm,angle=270}

560: \end{center}

561: \caption{Pair production cross-sections of $(1,0)$-mode

562:   states

563: at the LHC as a function of

564:   $R^{-1}$. CTEQ4L parton distribution functions are used to evaluate

565:   those cross-sections.} 

566: \label{cross_LHC}

567: \end{figure}

568: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

569: 

570: 

571: 

572: 

573: Due to the conservation of KK-parity, single

574: production of $(1,0)$-mode particles is not possible. So they must be

575: produced in pairs. All the $(1,0)$-mode electroweak

576: gauge bosons and spinless adjoints have tree level couplings with an

577: $(1,0)$-mode fermion and a SM fermion. These couplings arise

578: from the compactification of 6D kinetic term for fermions, present in

579: the 6D bulk Lagrangian. Two $(1,0)$-mode charged $SU(2)$ gauge

580: bosons or spinless adjoints can couple to a SM photon or a SM

581: $Z$-boson. Those couplings arise from the compactification of the

582: kinetic term for 6D non Abelian gauge

583: fields. All the vertices relevant for the pair production of

584: $(1,0)$-mode electro-weak particles can be found in Appendix A. Pair

585: production of $(1,0)$-mode electroweak gauge bosons or

586: spinless adjoints at the LHC take place via the above mentioned

587: interactions only. We have estimated the production

588: cross-sections of the following pairs of neutral $(1,0)$-mode states:

589: $\sigma(\bmu,\bh)$, $\sigma(\wmu,\bh)$, $\sigma(\wh,\bh)$, $

590: \sigma(\wmu,\wh)$, $\sigma(\wh,\wh)$, $\sigma(\wmu,\wmu)$; pairs of

591: opposite charged $(1,0)$- modes: $

592: \sigma(\wmupm$, $W_{\mu}^{\mp})$, $\sigma(\whpm,W_{H}^{\mp})$,

593: $\sigma(\wmupm,W_{H}^{\mp})$ and pairs of one charged and one neutral

594: states: 

595: $\sigma(\wmupm,\wmu)$, $\sigma(\wmupm,\wh)$, 

596: $\sigma(\whpm,\wmu)$, $\sigma(\whpm,\wh)$ in proton-proton collision

597: at center-of-mass energy of $14$ TeV. CTEQ4L parton distribution functions

598: \cite{cteq4} are used to numerically evaluate the above

599: cross-sections. The factorization scale (for parton distribution

600: functions) is fixed at the $(1,0)$-mode mass. For this study we have

601: used one-loop corrected mass spectrum for $(1,0)$-mode particles given

602: in Eq. (\ref{mass}). 

603: 

604: %------------------------------------------------------------------- 

605: \begin{figure}[t]

606: \begin{center}

607: \epsfig{file=cross_charged.ps,width=8cm,height=10cm,angle=270}

608: \end{center}

609: \caption{Production cross-sections for one charged $+$ one neutral

610:   $(1,0)$-modes 

611: at the LHC as a function of

612: $R^{-1}$. CTEQ4L parton distribution functions are used to evaluate

613: those cross-sections.} 

614: \label{cross_charged}

615: \end{figure}

616: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

617: 

618: The production cross-sections of two neutral $(1,0)$-mode or two

619: oppositely charged $(1,0)$-mode final particles are

620: presented in

621: Fig. \ref{cross_LHC} as function of $R^{-1}$. The processes presented in

622: Fig. \ref{cross_LHC}, apart from being completely driven by

623: electroweak couplings, are initiated by a quark and an antiquark. LHC,

624: being a proton-proton collider, antiquarks can only arise from

625: sea-excitations. Consequently, at the energy scale of our interest, the density of

626: antiquarks inside a proton is small compared to quarks. This makes

627: the above cross-sections small. 

628: 

629: Production cross-sections of $U(1)$ spinless adjoint ($\bh$) in

630: association with $SU(2)$ spinless adjoint ($\wh$) or gauge boson

631: ($\wmu$) are smallest among the others. $\bh\wh~(\wmu)$ pair

632: production cross-section vary from 0.05 (2.5) fb to 0.01 fb as as we

633: vary $R^{-1}$ from 200 to 650 (700) GeV. $\sigma(\wh\wh)$ and

634: $\sigma(\bmu\bh)$ are

635: large compared to the previous two but the numerical values are not

636: very promising. $\wh\wh~(\bmu\bmu)$ production cross-section varies

637: from 8.75 (14.4) fb to 0.06 (0.09) fb as we vary $R^{-1}$ from 200 to

638: 690 GeV. At the parton level, $q \bar q\to\bh \wh ~(\wmu)$ or $\wh\wh$

639: process is mediated by an excited $(1,0)$-mode quark in the $t~

640: (u)$-channel. Since 

641: $SU(2)$ gauge fields in 4D (6D) couple only with left-handed (6D +ve

642: chirality) fermions, only the +ve chirality $(1,0)$-mode fermion

643: $Q^{(1,0)}_{+}$ contributes in $t~(u)$-channel. The coupling of a

644: $(1,0)$-mode $U(1)$ gauge boson or spinless adjoint with an

645: $(1,0)$-mode quark and a SM quark is proportional to the hypercharge

646: of the corresponding quark. Due to small hypercharge of the quarks,

647: processes involving one or two $U(1)$ gauge boson or spinless adjoint

648: are suppressed at hadron collider.

649: 

650: Rest of the cross-sections, shown in Fig. \ref{cross_LHC}, involves

651: $SU(2)$ gauge bosons and spinless adjoints. These cross-sections are

652: large even for larger value of $R^{-1}$. As for example, cross-section

653: for $\wmupm W_{H}^{\mp}~(W_{\mu}^{\mp})$ production and $\wmu$ pair

654: production varies from few hundred femtobarn to few femtobarn as we

655: vary $R^{-1}$ from 200 to 700 GeV. 

656: 

657: 

658: The production cross-sections of one charged and one neutral

659:   $(1,0)$-modes are presented

660: in Fig. \ref{cross_charged}. $\wmupm\wh$ and

661: $\whpm\wmu$ production cross-sections vary

662: from few hundred femtobarn to $1$ fb as we vary $R^{-1}$ from $200$

663: GeV to $1$ TeV. In Fig. \ref{cross_charged} we have not presented the

664: production cross-sections of charged $SU(2)$ gauge bosons or spinless

665: adjoints in association with a $U(1)$ gauge boson or spinless

666: adjoint. Those production cross-sections are very much suppressed

667: compared to the others due to the small hypercharge of quarks.  

668: 

669: %------------------------------------------------------------------

670: 

671: \begin{table}[h]

672: 

673: \begin{center}

674: 

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

676: \hline \hline

677: Final State & Parton level sub-processes \\

678:             &  $q\bar q \to AB$\\\hline\hline

679:  & $\bmu \bh$, $\wmu \bh$, $\wh \bh$,\\

680: $2-lepton~+~p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ &$\wmu \wh$, $\wh \wh$, $\wmu \wmu$,\\

681: & $\wmupm W_{\mu}^{\mp}$, $\whpm W_{H}^{\mp}$, $\wmupm

682: W_{H}^{\mp}$\\\hline 

683: $3-lepton~+~p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ & $\wmupm \wmu$, $\wmupm\wh$,

684: $\whpm,\wmu$,\\ 

685: & $\whpm,\wh$ \\\hline\hline

686: 

687: 

688: \end{tabular}

689: 

690: \end{center}

691: 

692: \caption{List of parton level sub-processes that contribute to the

693:   $2-lepton~+~p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ and $3-lepton~+~p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$

694:   signal at the LHC.} 

695: 

696: \label{list}

697: \end{table}

698: 

699: %--------------------------------------------------------------------   

700: 

701: 

702: 

703: 

704: 

705: After a very short discussion about the pair production

706: cross-sections of

707: $(1,0)$-mode electroweak bosons and spinless-adjoints, we will now

708: analyze the possible 

709: signals of this sector at the LHC. Electroweak

710: $(1,0)$-mode particles of 2UED exclusively decay to multi

711: lepton and $\bh$. Only exception is the $U(1)$ gauge boson

712: $\bmu$, which can decay into a photon and $\bh$. Therefore,

713: the pair production of $\bmu$ and production of $\bmu$

714: in association with $\bh$ give rise to two photon and one

715: photon +  $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal respectively. One or two

716: photon +

717: $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signals are unique for 2UED. However, due to small

718: hypercharge of quarks, these production cross-sections are small

719: at the LHC. Thus it is not possible to detect photon plus

720: $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~$ signal over the SM background. Since the

721: hypercharges of electron and positron are large, the production

722: cross-sections of $\bmu$ in association with a $\bh$ is expected to be

723: large at an $e^+e^-$ collider. Therefore, $\bmu \bh$ pair production

724: may gives rise to interesting signals of 2UED at $e^+e^-$ collider. We

725: will consider this possibility in Section 4 in details.     

726: 

727: 

728: Since all other electroweak $(1,0)$-mode spinless adjoints or gauge

729: bosons almost exclusively decay to SM leptons and $\bh$, we

730: concentrate on {\em two SM leptons + $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal

731: resulting from the production of two neutral or two oppositely charged

732: $(1,0)$-mode particles and {\em

733:   three SM lepton + $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal arising

734: from the production of one charged plus one neutral $(1,0)$-mode

735: states. In Table \ref{list}, we have listed all the parton level

736: sub-processes that contribute (after decay) to the {\em two

737:   (three) SM leptons + $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal. The decays of

738: electroweak $(1,0)$-modes are discussed in section 2.1 (see Table

739: \ref{bmu_br} and Table \ref{wmu_br}).

740: 

741: \subsection{2-lepton + $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal}

742: 

743: 2-lepton + $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal arises from the production of

744: two (both neutral or charged) $(1,0)$ mode electroweak particles

745: (presented in Fig. \ref{cross_LHC}).

746: Since the tau lepton

747: detection efficiency 

748: is significantly different from both electron and muon, the signal

749: is summed over electron and muon only ($l=e,~\mu$).   

750: 

751: 

752: %====================================================================%

753: \begin{table}[h]

754: 

755: \begin{center}

756: 

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

758: \hline\hline

759: 

760: Kinematic Variable & Minimum value & Maximum value \\\hline\hline

761: $\Delta R(l^{+}l^{-})$ & 0.3  & -    \\

762: $p_{T}^{l^{+},l^{-}}$  & 10 GeV   & -    \\

763: $\eta_{l^{+},l^{-}}$ & -2.5  & 2.5 \\

764: $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~$  & 25 GeV   & -  \\

765: $M(l^{+}l^{-})$    & 10 GeV      & - \\\hline\hline

766: 

767: 

768: 

769: \end{tabular}

770: 

771: \end{center}

772: 

773: \caption{Acceptance cuts on the kinematical variables for {\em

774: 2-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal.} 

775: 

776: 

777: 

778: 

779: \label{cut_acc}

780: \end{table}

781: 

782: %====================================================================%

783: 

784: 

785: We have used a parton level Monte-Carlo computer code to evaluate the

786: $2l+p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ and $3l+p_T\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ cross-sections. To

787: parametrize detector acceptance and enhance signal to background ratio

788: , we have 

789: imposed kinematic cuts, listed in Table \ref{cut_acc}. It is important

790: to mention that production of 

791: $(1,0)$-mode lepton pairs and their decay to a SM lepton + $\bh$ also

792: contributes to the signal. However, production of $(1,0)$-mode lepton

793: pairs at a hadron collider is purely a s-channel process and thus is

794: very much suppressed.  

795: 

796: With the acceptance cuts, defined in Table \ref{cut_acc}, the total

797: signal cross-section is small 

798: for the higher values of $R^{-1}$. As for example, the total signal

799: cross-section is $19.46$ fb for $R^{-1}=450$ GeV.

800: However, the difficulty in detecting the

801: signals is not the small rate of

802: production, but due to the large SM background which we will discuss

803: in the following.   

804: 

805: 

806: In the SM, the dominant contribution to $2l+ p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$

807: comes from the $W$-boson pair production, $Z$-boson pair production

808: and production of a Z-boson in association with a virtual

809: photon. $2l+ p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ background can also come

810: from the production of a $WZ$-pairs followed by leptonic decay of both

811: $W$ and $Z$ where one of the charged lepton falls outside the detector

812: coverage. However, with the acceptance cuts (listed in Table

813: \ref{cut_acc}) this cross-section is estimated to be very small.  

814: 

815: 

816: %====================================================================%

817: \begin{table}[h]

818: 

819: \begin{center}

820: 

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

822: \hline\hline

823: 

824: Kinematic Variable & Minimum value & Maximum value \\\hline\hline

825: $M(l^{+}l^{-})$    & 10 GeV      & 85 GeV \\

826: $\Delta \Phi_{l^+ l^-}$ &   -    & $177^0$\\\hline\hline

827: 

828: 

829: 

830: \end{tabular}

831: 

832: \end{center}

833: 

834: \caption{Selection cuts on the kinematical variables for {\em

835: 2-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal.} 

836: 

837: 

838: 

839: 

840: \label{sec_2l}

841: \end{table}

842: 

843: %====================================================================%

844: 

845: 

846: 

847: 

848: 

849: \begin{figure}[t]

850: 

851: \begin{center}

852: \epsfig{file=inv_mas.ps,width=10cm,angle=270}

853: \end{center}

854: \caption{Invariant mass (of lepton pair) distribution of signal

855:   (for three different values of $R^{-1}$) and background (for {\em

856: 2-lepton plus $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal).}

857: \label{inv_mas}

858: 

859: \end{figure} 

860: 

861: 

862: 

863: It is important to notice that the signal, we are considering, consists

864: of only two observable charged leptons which may come from

865: ordinary Drell-Yan process. However, Drell-Yan production of lepton pairs

866: is not accompanied by missing energy. So this kind of background can

867: be removed simply by demanding a minimum value of the missing transverse

868: momentum. Drell-Yan production of $\tau$-lepton pairs and subsequent

869: leptonic decays of $\tau$ provides a real background to 2UED

870: signal. However, the leptons ($l=e,~\mu$) resulting from the

871: Drell-Yan production of $\tau$ pairs are almost back to back in

872: the transverse plane. Therefore, this contribution can be

873: completely removed by demanding an upper bound on the angle between

874: leptons in the transverse plane. 

875: 

876: 

877: %====================================================================%

878: \begin{table}[t]

879: 

880: \begin{center}

881: 

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

883: \hline\hline

884: 

885: Contributing & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Cross-section in fb} \\\cline{2-3}

886: SM process   & After acceptance cuts & After selection cuts \\\hline\hline

887: $pp\to \tau \bar \tau$ & 216 & 4.7 \\\hline

888: $pp\to W^{\pm}Z$       & 2.1 & 0.4  \\\hline

889: $pp\to t \bar t$       & 22.5 & 8.13  \\\hline

890: $pp \to W^+W^-+\gamma^* Z$ &1220  & 444 \\\hline\hline

891: 

892: 

893: \end{tabular}

894: 

895: \end{center}

896: 

897: \caption{Standard model background cross-sections for {\em

898: 2-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal.} 

899: 

900: 

901: 

902: 

903: \label{red_bac}

904: \end{table}

905: 

906: %====================================================================%

907: 

908: 

909: 

910: 

911: 

912: The production $t \bar t$ pairs and subsequent semi-leptonic decays of

913: both the top quarks also contributes to the $2l+ p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$

914: background where both the partons are either too soft to be identified

915: as jets or fall outside detector coverage. We made an estimate of this

916: background by demanding the partons can be identified as jets only if their

917: $p_T > 30$ GeV\footnote{We keep in mind that in LHC environment

918:   purely leptonic signal like ours are always come with soft jets. In

919:   our parton level analysis, we assume that unless the $b$-parton

920:   coming from $t$-decay have $p_T>30$ GeV, it can not be identified as

921: jets.}.

922: 

923: 

924: %====================================================================

925: 

926: \begin{table}[h]

927: 

928: \begin{center}

929: 

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

931: \hline \hline

932: $R^{-1}$ & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Signal cross-section in fb}

933: \\\cline{2-3}

934: in GeV  &  After acceptance cut & After selection cut \\\hline \hline

935: 300     & 24.4 & 18.5 \\

936: 350     & 19.1 & 11.4 \\

937: 400     & 10 & 7.3\\

938: 450     & 6.7 & 4.7\\ \hline\hline

939: \end{tabular}

940: \end{center}

941: 

942: \caption{{\em 2-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal

943:   cross-sections for different values of $R^{-1}$.}  

944: 

945: 

946: 

947: 

948: \label{signal}

949: \end{table}

950: 

951: 

952: %===================================================================

953: 

954: 

955: 

956: The background from $Z$-boson pair production can be eliminated by 

957: rejecting events in which the invariant mass of the lepton pairs is

958: close to the mass of $Z$-boson. Fig. \ref{inv_mas} shows the invariant

959: mass distribution for the SM background and signal. $Z$-pole is

960: clearly visible in the SM background distribution. To extract signal

961: from the SM 

962: background we impose the selection cuts listed in Table

963: \ref{sec_2l}. The choice of selection cut on the 

964: invariant mass of the lepton pairs is largely aimed to reduce

965: the contribution from the $Z$-boson pair production. With those

966: selection cuts, listed in Table \ref{sec_2l}, the background, arises from

967: production of $t \bar t$ pairs, is also found to be small. In Table

968: \ref{red_bac}, we have presented the background

969: cross-sections after acceptance cuts (second column) and selection

970: cuts (third column).

971:     

972: The dominant

973: background to the $2l+p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal is $W$-boson pair

974: production from 

975: quark-antiquark annihilation followed by leptonic decay of each of the 

976: $W$-bosons. It is difficult to choose a selection criteria which can

977: completely remove

978: this background without affecting the signal.

979: 

980: 

981: Signal cross-section for different values of $R^{-1}$

982: are presented in Table \ref{signal} after applying the

983: acceptance cuts (2nd 

984: column) and selection cuts (3rd column) respectively. The

985: corresponding background 

986: cross-sections are also presented in Table \ref{red_bac}. In

987: order to quantify the ability of extracting signal event, 

988: $N_S=\sigma_S{\cal L}$, for a given integrated luminosity ${\cal L}$

989: over the SM background events, $N_B=\sigma_B{\cal L}$, we define the

990: significance $S=N_S/{\sqrt N_B}$. It is

991: clear from the numbers in Table \ref{signal} that, with $100~fb^{-1}$

992: luminosity, more than $5\sigma$ discovery of the signal is possible upto

993: $R^{-1}~=~ 350$ GeV.      

994: 

995: 

996: 

997: \subsection{3-lepton + $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal}

998: 

999: In the frame work of 2UED, {\em 3-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$}

1000: signal results from the production of a neutral $(1,0)$-mode gauge

1001: boson or spinless adjoint in association with a charged $(1,0)$-mode

1002: $SU(2)$ gauge boson or spinless adjoint (presented in

1003: Fig. \ref{cross_charged}). As for example, the

1004: production of a neutral gauge boson or spinless adjoint in association

1005: with a charged $SU(2)$ spinless adjoint and the subsequent decay of the

1006: charged adjoint in {\em 1-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} channel

1007: and neutral particle in {\em 2-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$}

1008: channel give rise to {\em 3-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$}

1009: signal, 

1010: $

1011: pp\to\whpm \wmu~(\wh)\to(l^{\pm}\bh)(l^+l^-\bh) 

1012: $.

1013: However, the decay of $(1,0)$-mode $SU(2)$ charged gauge bosons into

1014: {\em 1-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} channel and {\em 3-lepton

1015:   + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} channel are equally probable as

1016: can be seen from Table \ref{wmu_br}. Therefore, for $\wmupm\wmu~(\wh)$

1017: production, both the invisible decay and {\em 2-lepton + $\bh$}

1018: decay of $\wmu~(\wh)$ contributes to the signal. Instead of including all 

1019: three SM lepton generations, in this part of the work we consider

1020: only first two 

1021: generations of SM leptons ($l=e,~\mu$). We impose following selection

1022: criteria, listed in Table \ref{cuts_3l}, on the kinematical variables after

1023: ordering the leptons according to their $p_T$ hardness ($p_T^{l_1}\le

1024: p_T^{l_2}\le p_T^{l_3}$).

1025: 

1026: %====================================================================%

1027: \begin{table}[t]

1028: 

1029: \begin{center}

1030: 

1031: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}

1032: \hline\hline

1033: 

1034: Kinematic Variable & Minimum value & Maximum value \\\hline\hline

1035: $\Delta R(l_i l_j)$, $i\ne j$ & 0.3  & -    \\

1036: $p_{T}^{l_i}$  & 10 GeV   & -    \\

1037: $\eta_{l_i}$ & $-$2.5  & 2.5 \\

1038: $p_{T}\!\!\!\!\!\!/~$  & 25 GeV   & -  \\\hline\hline

1039: 

1040: 

1041: 

1042: \end{tabular}

1043: 

1044: \end{center}

1045: 

1046: \caption{Acceptance cuts on the kinematical variables for {\em

1047: 3-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal with $i,j=1,2,3$ and

1048:   $l=e,~\mu$.}  

1049: 

1050: 

1051: 

1052: 

1053: \label{cuts_3l}

1054: \end{table}

1055: 

1056: %====================================================================%

1057: 

1058: %====================================================================%

1059: \begin{table}[h]

1060: 

1061: \begin{center}

1062: 

1063: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|c|c|}

1064: \hline\hline

1065:  &  & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Signal} \\

1066:   &Background & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{cross-section} \\

1067: Applied Cuts & cross-section & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{in fb} \\\cline{3-6}

1068:   &  in fb & \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$R^{-1}$ in GeV}

1069: \\\cline{3-6}

1070:   &                & 400 & 500 & 550 & 600 \\\hline\hline

1071: 

1072: Acceptance cuts & 145 & 8.83 & 4.51 & 3.29 & 2.44 \\\hline

1073: $10~GeV< p_T^{l_1}< 50~GeV$, & & & & & \\

1074: $15~GeV< p_T^{l_2}< 50~GeV$, & 99.7 & 7.2 & 3.71 & 2.74 & 1.98\\

1075: $p_T^{l_3}>20~GeV$ & & & & & \\\hline 

1076: $20~GeV< M_{l_1 l_2} < 70~GeV$, & & & & & \\

1077: $|M_{l_1 l_3}-m_Z|> 10~GeV$,  & 6.39 & 4.8 & 2.46 & 1.72 & 1.23\\

1078: $|M_{l_2 l_3}-m_Z|> 10~GeV$ & & & & &  \\\hline\hline

1079: 

1080: \end{tabular}

1081: 

1082: \end{center}

1083: 

1084: \caption{{\em 3-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal (for

1085:   different values of $R^{-1}$) and corresponding SM background after

1086:   three sets of successive cuts. $m_Z$ is the mass of $Z$-boson.}  

1087: 

1088: 

1089: 

1090: 

1091: \label{signal_3l}

1092: \end{table}

1093: 

1094: %====================================================================%

1095: 

1096: 

1097: 

1098: 

1099: In the SM, the dominant contribution to {\em 3-lepton +

1100:   $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} comes from the production of $W$-boson in

1101:   association with a $Z$-boson or a virtual photon. The $WZ$ production is

1102:   characterized by a peak in the invariant mass distribution of the

1103:   lepton pairs at the $Z$-boson mass. Fig. \ref{inv_mas3l} shows the

1104:   invariant mass (of three possible combinations of leptons)

1105:   distributions for signal (for

1106:   $R^{-1}=500$ GeV) and background. Therefore, the

1107:   contributions from $WZ$ production can be eliminated by rejecting

1108:   the events in which the invariant mass of any lepton pair is close

1109:   to the mass of the $Z$-boson. However, it is difficult to introduce an

1110:   event selection criteria to eliminate the $W\gamma^*$ contribution

1111:   without affecting the signal. However, the lepton pairs coming from

1112:   $\gamma^*$ are in general soft an try to be collinear to each

1113:   other. Hence a cut on the invariant mass of the $l_1 l_2$ can remove

1114:   a large part of this background.

1115: 

1116: To extract the signal from the SM background we have introduced a set

1117: of cuts, listed in Table \ref{signal_3l}. It is important to notice

1118: that the signal leptons results from the decay of a heavy particle

1119: (such as $W^{\pm}_{\mu},~W_H^{\pm},~W^{3}_{\mu}$ and $W_H^{3}$)

1120: into another heavy particle ($\bh$) plus one or more SM

1121: leptons. Therefore, the SM leptons most of the time carry small amount

1122: of energy. However,

1123: the background leptons arises from the decay of $W$ and $Z$ or a virtual

1124: photon. Consequently, the leptons from the decay of $W$ or $Z$ bosons are not

1125: very much soft. We have exploited this feature of the signal to

1126: enhance the signal to background ratio. In Table \ref{signal_3l}, we have

1127: imposed some upper bounds on the transverse momentum and invariant

1128: mass of leptons. We have also excluded the some region of the

1129: invariant mass distribution near $Z$-boson mass to suppress the

1130: reducible background arises from $WZ$ production.      

1131: Table \ref{signal_3l} also 

1132: include signal (for different values of $R^{-1}$) and SM background

1133: cross-sections after the selection cuts ($p_T$ cuts and cuts on the

1134: invariant mass of the three lepton pairs). Here it is important to

1135: mention that the transverse mass distributions of the three background

1136: leptons also show a characteristics $W$-boson peak. However, we found

1137: that the cuts on the invariant masses are more effective than the cuts

1138: on the transverse masses. Numbers presented in Table

1139: \ref{signal_3l} clearly indicates that, at $100~fb^{-1}$ luminosity of

1140: the LHC, $5\sigma$ discovery of the {\em 3-lepton +

1141:   $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal is possible upto $R^{-1}=600$ GeV.                 

1142: 

1143: 

1144: 

1145: \begin{figure}[t]

1146: 

1147: \begin{center}

1148: \epsfig{file=inv_mas_3l.ps,width=10cm,angle=270}

1149: \end{center}

1150: \caption{Invariant mass distribution of signal

1151: (for $R^{-1}=500$ GeV) and background (for {\em

1152: 3-lepton + $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$} signal).}

1153: \label{inv_mas3l}

1154: 

1155: \end{figure} 

1156: 

1157: 

1158: \section{Signature of $(1,0)$-mode $U(1)$ sector at the ILC}

1159: 

1160: The importance of $\bmu$ production in association with a

1161: $\bh$ has been briefly mentioned in the 

1162: section 3. 

1163: Since the couplings of $U(1)$ gauge boson or spinless adjoint

1164: with quarks are suppressed by the hypercharge of the respective

1165: quark, the $\bmu\bh$ pair production cross-section is

1166: very small at LHC. Therefore, if not possible to study the signals

1167: from $\bmu\bh$ pair production at the LHC.  

1168: However, the couplings of $U(1)$ gauge boson or spinless

1169: adjoint with leptons are enhanced by the hypercharges of the

1170: corresponding leptons. One can expect a higher rate of production for

1171: $U(1)$ gauge boson and spinless adjoint at a $e^+e^-$ collider. In

1172: this section we will discuss the 

1173: prospect of $\bmu\bh$ pair production at a future linear

1174: $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider.   

1175: 

1176: Both $\bmu$ and $\bh$ can couple to a $(1,0)$-mode

1177: lepton and a SM lepton. The couplings arise from the compactification

1178: of 6D kinetic term for 6D leptons and can be found in Appendix A. At an 

1179: $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider, they can be directly produced in pairs,

1180: \be

1181: e^{+} + e^{-}~\to~\bmu + \bh,

1182: \ee

1183: which proceeds via the exchange of an $(1,0)$-mode electron

1184: ($E_{+}^{(1,0)}$ or 

1185: $E_{-}^{(1,0)}$) in $t~(u)$ channel. 

1186: %Spin averaged matrix element square

1187: %at the LO for this process is given by: 

1188: %\be

1189: %\sum |\bar {\cal M}|^{2}~=~

1190: %\ee

1191: %s,t,u are the usual Mandelstam variables. 

1192: The numerical values of the

1193: cross-sections are presented in Fig. \ref{cross_ILC} as a function of

1194: $R^{-1}$ for two different values of $e^{+}e^{-}$ center-of-mass

1195: energies.

1196: \begin{figure}[t]

1197: 

1198: \begin{center}

1199: \epsfig{file=cross_BBH_ILC.ps,width=8cm,angle=270}

1200: \end{center}

1201: \caption{$\bmu\bh$ pair production cross section as a

1202:   function of the compactification radius $R^{-1}$ for 1 TeV (solid

1203:   line) and 3 TeV (dashed line) center-of-mass energy of $e^{+}e^{-}$

1204:   collider.}

1205: \label{cross_ILC}

1206: 

1207: \end{figure} 

1208: 

1209: 

1210: %====================================================================

1211: 

1212: 

1213: $\bmu$ dominantly decays to two SM leptons and a LKP resulting into

1214: 2-leptons and missing energy signal. However,

1215: this is not the only source of 2-lepton and missing energy

1216: in 2UED. Pair productions of almost all combinations of electroweak

1217: gauge bosons and spinless adjoints give rise to 2-lepton and

1218: missing energy final state. In fact, the largest contribution to 2-lepton and

1219: missing energy, in 2UED, comes from the pair production of

1220: $(1,0)$-mode electrons and their subsequent decays to SM electrons and

1221: LKP \cite{kong}. However, in this work we will concentrate on the other

1222: decay mode of $\bmu$, i.e to a photon and LKP. We are

1223: interested in analysing the $\gamma+E\!\!\!/$ signal. 

1224: 

1225: {\em Single photon + missing energy} signal is

1226: particularly interesting because this signal is the characteristics of

1227: this theory. Since the structure of 2UED theory and 1UED theory

1228: are almost identical, they give rise to

1229: similar kind of signals at colliders. However, {\em single photon +

1230:   missing energy} signal 

1231: is one of the very few spectacular signals which can distinguish 1UED

1232: and 2UED. In 1UED similar kind of signal can only arise from the

1233: production of LKP in association with a photon. In fact, all those

1234: theories which include a dark matter candidate 

1235: can give rise to {\em single photon + missing transverse momentum}

1236: signal\footnote{It is important to mention that in 

1237:   MSSM the production of lightest 

1238: nutralino ($\tilde \chi_{1}$) in association with the next to lightest

1239: nutralino ($\tilde \chi_{2}$) and subsequent radiative decay of

1240: $\tilde \chi_{2}$ to a photon and $\tilde \chi_{1}$ \cite{nutralino}

1241: gives rise to the 

1242: similar kind of signal. It is beyond the scope of this article to

1243: compare this process with 2UED. 

1244: }

1245: via the radiative production of the dark matter candidate. As for

1246: example, radiative production of lightest supersymmetric particles

1247: (LSP) in different R-parity conserving supersymmetric models gives

1248: rise to single photon plus missing transverse momentum signal. However, all

1249: those radiative production processes are suppressed by the square of

1250: an additional electron photon coupling. Moreover, photons from

1251: radiative productions are predominantly soft or collinear. Therefore, the

1252: detector acceptance cuts on photon energy and rapidity almost remove

1253: the contributions from radiative pair production of LKP or LSP. 

1254: 

1255: 

1256: Radiative neutrino production ($e^{+}e^{-}~\to~\nu_{l}\bar

1257: \nu_{l}\gamma$) is the major SM background to the signal.

1258: Some acceptance cuts on the signal and background are listed in Table

1259: \ref{cut_acc_ILC}. It is worthwhile to mention that photon rapidity

1260: cut reduces another potentially 

1261: dangerous background namely the radiative Bhabha scattering, $e^{+}e^{-}\to

1262: e^{+}e^{-}\gamma$, where both the final state leptons escape along the

1263: beam pipe.  

1264: 

1265: %====================================================================%

1266: \begin{table}[h]

1267: 

1268: \begin{center}

1269: 

1270: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c}

1271: \hline\hline

1272: 

1273: Kinematic Variable & Minimum value & Maximum value \\\hline\hline

1274: $\eta_{\gamma}$ & $-$2.5  & 2.5 \\

1275: $E_{\gamma}$     & 10 GeV   &  -  \\\hline \hline

1276: 

1277: 

1278: 

1279: \end{tabular}

1280: 

1281: \end{center}

1282: 

1283: \caption{Acceptance cuts on the photon rapidity

1284:   $\eta_{\gamma}$ and photon energy $E_{\gamma}$} 

1285: 

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: \label{cut_acc_ILC}

1290: \end{table}

1291: 

1292: %====================================================================%

1293: We have estimated background cross-sections for two center-of-mass

1294: energies of $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider. In

1295: Table \ref{s_b_ILC}, we have presented the numerical values of the signal

1296: and background  cross-sections for three different values of $R^{-1}$

1297: at 1 TeV and 3 TeV $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider. Table \ref{s_b_ILC} shows

1298: that the signal cross-sections (at 1 TeV) are small in comparison with the

1299: background for the values of $R^{-1}$ close to the

1300: kinematic limit of the collider. The situation is even worse for 3 TeV

1301: collider. Here the signal is much smaller compared to the  background

1302: even for the smaller value of $R^{-1}$.  

1303: 

1304: %====================================================================

1305: 

1306: \begin{table}[h]

1307: 

1308: \begin{center}

1309: 

1310: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|}

1311: \hline \hline

1312: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$\sqrt{s}~=~1$ TeV} &

1313: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\sqrt{s}~=~3$ TeV}

1314: \\\hline 

1315: $ R^{-1}$ & Signal & Background & $R^{-1}$ & Signal & Background \\

1316: in GeV  & in fb  & in fb & in GeV  & in fb  & in fb \\\hline\hline

1317: 300     & 26.03 & & 500 & 6.21 & \\ 

1318: 400     & 11.15 & 3609 & 1000 & 2.28 & 4248\\ 

1319: 500     & 1.87 & & 1500 & 0.21 & \\\hline\hline 

1320: \end{tabular}

1321: 

1322: \end{center}

1323: 

1324: \caption{Signal and background cross-section at 1 TeV and 3 TeV

1325:   collider after imposing acceptance cuts on the photon rapidity and

1326:   energy.} 

1327: 

1328: 

1329: \label{s_b_ILC}

1330: \end{table}

1331: 

1332: 

1333: %===================================================================

1334:      

1335: Pair production of $\bh$ in association with a photon also

1336: gives rise to {\em single photon + missing energy} signal.

1337: \be

1338: e^{+} + e^{-}~\to~\gamma + \bh + \bh

1339: \ee

1340: However, cross-section of this process is suppressed w.r.t. the former. Also

1341: the photons, 

1342: radiated from incident electron or positron, are predominantly soft or

1343: collinear. So the cuts on photon rapidity and energy completely

1344: remove this contribution. We have estimated $\gamma \bh \bh$

1345: contribution at $R^{-1}=500$ GeV and it is found that this is

1346: suppressed by a large factor ($\sim 200$ at an 1 TeV collider) compared

1347: to the $\bmu \bh$ contribution.        

1348: 

1349: 

1350: \begin{figure}[t]

1351: 

1352: \begin{center}

1353: \epsfig{file=contur_signal.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=270}

1354: \epsfig{file=background_h.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=270}

1355: \end{center}

1356: \caption{The beam polarization dependence of (a) $\sigma(e^+e^- \to

1357:   \bmu\bh)$ for $R^{-1}=500$ GeV and (b) SM

1358:   background at 1 TeV center-of-mass energy of $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider.}

1359: \label{contur_ILC}

1360: 

1361: \end{figure} 

1362: 

1363: 

1364: 

1365: \subsection{Beam polarization dependence of signal and background}

1366: 

1367: One of the merits for an $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider is the possibility of

1368: highly polarized $e^+$ and $e^{-}$ beams. Here it is important to mention that

1369: the maximum 80\% longitudinal beam polarization of electron beam and

1370: 60\% longitudinal beam polarization of positron beam is possible at

1371: the ILC and CILC \cite{coll_phys}. Denoting the average $e^{\pm}$ beam

1372: polarization by 

1373: $P_{\pm}$, the polarized squared matrix element can be constructed

1374: \cite{coll_phys} based on the helicity amplitude ${\cal

1375:   M}_{\sigma_{e^+}\sigma_{e^-}}$:

1376: \bea

1377: \overline{\sum |{\cal M}|^{2}}&=&\frac{1}{4}[(1-P_{-})(1-P_{+})|{\cal

1378:     M}_{LL}|^2+(1-P_{-})(1+P_{+})|{\cal M}_{LR}|^2\nonumber \\ 

1379: &+&(1+P_{-})(1-P_{+})|{\cal M}_{RL}|^2+(1+P_{-})(1+P_{+})|{\cal

1380:     M}_{RR}|^2]

1381: \label{pol_m2}

1382: \eea

1383: Eq. (\ref{pol_m2}) clearly indicates that $P_{\pm}=1$ corresponds to

1384: purely right handed and $P_{\pm}=-1$ corresponds to purely left handed

1385: electron or positron beam. Since the electroweak interactions of both SM

1386: and 2UED are chiral, it may be possible to suppress SM background

1387: compared to the 2UED signal by proper choice of beam polarization.

1388: 

1389: Since electron is nearly massless, the background amplitude vanishes unless

1390: electron and positron have opposite helicity (${\cal M}_{LL}^{B}={\cal

1391:   M}_{RR}^{B}=0$). Production of $\bmu$ in association with a

1392: $\bh$ is mediated by a massive $(1,0)$-mode electron

1393: ($E_{\pm}^{(1,0)}$) exchanged in $t~(u)$-channel. However, the structure of

1394: 2UED is such that $E_{+}^{(1,0)}~(E_{-}^{(1,0)})$ can only couple to a

1395: left (right) handed electron or a right (left) handed positron and a

1396: $(1,0)$-mode gauge boson or spinless adjoint. Therefore, here also the

1397: amplitude

1398: vanishes for the same helicity of electron and positron beam.

1399: Since the hypercharge of right handed leptons are larger than left

1400: handed leptons by a factor of 2, 

1401: the coupling of a right (left) handed electron (positron) with

1402: $E_{-}^{(1.0)}$ and $\bh^{(1,0)}$ or $\bmu^{(1,0)}$ is enhanced by a

1403: factor two than the coupling of a left (right) handed electron

1404: (positron) with $E_{+}^{(1.0)}$ and $\bh^{(1,0)}$ or

1405: $\bmu^{(1,0)}$. Thus the contribution from $E_{-}^{(1,0)}$ exchange to

1406: the cross-section is about a factor 16 larger than the $E_{+}^{(1,0)}$

1407: contribution. The background process mainly proceeds via $W$ boson

1408: exchange. Thus positive electron beam polarization, $P_-$, and negative

1409: positron beam polarization, $P_+$, enhance signal cross-section and

1410: reduce background at the same time. We have presented the beam

1411: polarization dependence of the cross-section $\sigma(e^+e^- \to

1412: \bmu^{(1,0)}\bh^{(1,0)})$ for $R^{-1}=500$ GeV and $\sqrt s=1$ TeV in

1413: Fig. \ref{contur_ILC}a. Fig. \ref{contur_ILC}b shows the polarization

1414: dependence of background cross-section $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \gamma

1415: \nu_l\bar\nu_l)$ at 1 TeV center-of-mass energy of $e^+e^-$ collider.       

1416: 

1417: \begin{figure}[t]

1418: 

1419: \begin{center}

1420: \epsfig{file=significance.ps,width=8cm,angle=270}

1421: \end{center}

1422: \caption{Contour lines of the significance for $e^+e^- \to

1423:   \bmu\bh$ at $R^{-1}=500$ GeV, $\sqrt s=1$ TeV and

1424:   ${\cal L}=500~fb^{-1}$.}

1425: \label{signi_ILC}

1426: 

1427: \end{figure} 

1428: 

1429: We have used the same definition of the statistical significance as

1430: defined in the Section 3.1. Fig. \ref{signi_ILC} shows the polarization

1431: dependence of the significance for $\gamma+E_T\!\!\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal

1432: at $R^{-1}=500$ GeV, ${\cal 

1433: L}=500~fb^{-1}$ and $\sqrt {s_{ee}}=1$ TeV. In going from unpolarized beam

1434: $(P_-,P_+)=(0,0)$ to partially polarized beam $(P_-,P_+)=(0.8,-0.6)$,

1435: the significance is enhanced by a factor $\sim~8$ to $S=6$. But the

1436: situation is not that hopeful for 3 TeV collider. At $R^{-1}=1.5$

1437: TeV the significance enhanced by a factor $\sim 10$ to $S=0.7$ as we

1438: vary beam polarization from $(P_-,P_+)=(0,0)$ to

1439: $(P_-,P_+)=(0.8,-0.6)$.

1440: 

1441: After exploiting the beam polarization to enhance the signal, further

1442: suppression of background can be possible by looking at some kinematic

1443: distributions. In Fig. \ref{dist_ILC}a we have presented the photon rapidity

1444: ($\eta_{\gamma}$) distribution for signal and background for $\sqrt{

1445: s_{ee}}~=~1$ TeV. Fig. \ref{dist_ILC}a shows that signal

1446: events are dominantly in the central rapidity region. Therefore, the cut on

1447: photon rapidity (in Table \ref{cut_acc_ILC})

1448: suppress the SM background compared to the signal. 

1449: 

1450: \begin{figure}[t]

1451: 

1452: \begin{center}

1453: \epsfig{file=aye_e.ps,width=7.6cm,angle=270}

1454: \epsfig{file=E_e.ps,width=7.6cm,angle=270}

1455: \end{center}

1456: \caption{Photon (a) rapidity distribution and (b) energy distribution

1457:   for $\gamma+E\!\!\!\!/~~$ events for signal (dotted, dashed,

1458:   long dashed histogram) and background (solid histogram) at $\sqrt

1459:   s=1$ TeV, ${\cal L}=500~fb^{-1}$ and beam polarization

1460:   $(P_-,P_+)=(0.8,-0.6)$.} 

1461: \label{dist_ILC}

1462: 

1463: \end{figure} 

1464: 

1465: Since $W$-boson can only couple with left (right) handed electrons

1466: (positrons), the selection of beam polarization, $P_-=0.8,~P_+=-0.6$,

1467: reduces the background via t-channel $W$-boson exchange. Due to the

1468: hypercharge, coupling of $Z$-boson with right (left) handed electrons

1469: (positrons) is larger than left (right) handed electrons

1470: (positrons). So the background from radiative production of

1471: $Z$-boson increases as we select positive electron beam polarization

1472: and negative positron beam polarization. However, radiative production of

1473: $Z$-boson is characterized by a peak in photon energy distribution at

1474: $E_{\gamma} = \frac{s-m_{Z}^{2}}{2\sqrt s}$. Fig. \ref{dist_ILC}b shows

1475: $E_{\gamma}$ distribution of signal and background at an 1 TeV

1476: center-of-mass energy of $e^+e^-$ collider for the previous choice of

1477: $P_-$ and $P_+$ and

1478: an integrated luminosity of ${\cal L}=500~fb^{-1}$. 

1479: 

1480: We will first concentrate on the $E_{\gamma}$ distribution of the

1481: signal. The decay

1482: $B_{\mu}\to \gamma \bh$ gives rise to a monoenergetic

1483: photon with energy $E^{0}_{\gamma}=

1484: \frac{m_{\bmu}^2-m_{\bh}^2}{2m_{\bmu}}$ at the

1485: rest frame of $\bmu$. Photon energy spreads out due to the

1486: velocity of  the produced $\bmu$, resulting into a box shaped

1487: distribution. In a fixed center-of-mass energy $e^+e^-$ collider, as

1488: we increase $R^{-1}$, $\bmu\bh$ pair production

1489: approaches towards the kinematical threshold of the

1490: collider. Therefore, increasing $R^{-1}$ implies decreasing velocity of

1491: $\bmu$ and decreasing width of box shaped $E_{\gamma}$

1492: distribution. 

1493: 

1494: %%======================================================================

1495: 

1496: \begin{table}[h]

1497: 

1498: \begin{center}

1499: 

1500: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c||c|c|c|}

1501: \hline \hline

1502: \multicolumn{3}{|c||}{$\sqrt {s_{ee}}~=~1$

1503:   TeV} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$\sqrt {s_{ee}}~=~3$ TeV} \\ \hline \hline

1504: $R^{-1}$& Signal & Background & $R^{-1}$& Signal & Background \\

1505: in GeV  & Events & Events     &in GeV  & Events & Events     \\ \hline

1506: \hline 

1507:  300 & 35291 & 114760 (339) &  500  &  8279 &  141378 (376) \\  

1508:  350 & 24192 & 93193 (305)  &  800  &  4528 &  69964 (264) \\

1509:  400 & 15141 & 75194 (274)  &  1000 &  2835 &  53056 (230) \\

1510:  450 & 7851  & 61669 (248)  &  1200 &  1154 &  21485 (146) \\

1511:  500 & 2538  & 40369 (201)  &  1250 &  755  &  12735 (113) \\

1512:  520 & 999   & 25538 (160)  &  1300 &  484  &  8182  (90) \\ \hline \hline

1513: 

1514: 

1515: \end{tabular}

1516: 

1517: \end{center}

1518: 

1519: \caption{Number of $\gamma + E\!\!\!\!/~~$ signal and SM

1520:   background events for 

1521: two values of $e^+e^-$ center-of-mass energy assuming 500 $fb^{-1}$ 

1522: integrated luminosity. $1\sigma$ fluctuations of the background events are

1523: also shown in the brackets.} 

1524: 

1525: 

1526: 

1527: 

1528: \label{s_b_cut}

1529: \end{table}

1530: 

1531: 

1532: %========================================================================

1533: 

1534: In Table \ref{s_b_cut}, the total number of signal events are

1535: presented for different values of $R^{-1}$ and for two center-of-mass

1536: energies of $e^+e^-$ collider. In Table \ref{s_b_cut}, we have used the

1537: following event selection criteria. In a particular bin and also in

1538: one of its adjacent bins, if the number of events are greater than

1539: the SM background events plus $1\sigma$ fluctuation of SM background

1540: events, we

1541: take the background subtracted events in that particular 

1542: bin as the signal events. The total number of signal events are the

1543: sum of signal events in the above mentioned bins. The sum of the

1544: background events in those bins are also presented in Table

1545: \ref{s_b_cut} with their $1\sigma$ fluctuation. 

1546: 

1547: Now we will discuss one more interesting feature of this signal. For a

1548: fixed center-of-mass energy $e^+e^-$ collider, the width ($\Delta

1549: E_{\gamma}$) of photon energy distribution is directly related to the

1550: $R^{-1}$ by the relation

1551: \be

1552: 0.0405~R^{-4}-3.361~ s~ R^{-2} +s^2 ~=~87.3439~ s~ (\Delta E_{\gamma})^2

1553: \label{width}

1554: \ee 

1555: From the measurement of the width of photon energy distribution

1556: experimentally, one can calculate $R^{-1}$ by solving

1557: Eq. (\ref{width}). But, experimentally the measurement of width will be

1558: challenging task. Particularly, the measurement of the lower kinematical end

1559: point ($E_{\gamma,min}$) of photon energy distribution will be

1560: difficult due to the huge SM background in the lower $E_{\gamma}$

1561: region and detector limitation of measuring very low energy

1562: photon. However, the upper kinematical end point, $E_{\gamma,max}$, of photon  

1563: energy distribution can be relatively easily measured. $E_{\gamma,max}$ is

1564: related with $R^{-1}$ by the following relation

1565: \bea

1566: &~&0.107\left( 0.0405~ R^{-4}-3.361~ s~ R^{-2} +

1567: s^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\nonumber\\   

1568: &~&0.0535\left( 0.0405~ R^{-4}+ 0.4026~s~ R^{-2} +

1569: s^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\sqrt s~ E_{\gamma,max}

1570: \label{edge}

1571: \eea

1572: With the measured value of $E_{\gamma,max}$, Eq. (\ref{edge}) can

1573: again be solved numerically to estimate the value of $R^{-1}$.

1574: 

1575: 

1576: 

1577: \section{Conclusion}

1578: 

1579: To summarise, we have investigated possible signatures of

1580: $(1,0)$-mode electroweak particles in the framework of 2UED model in

1581: the context of LHC and also at a future $e^{+}e^{-}$

1582: collider. KK-parity allows only the pair production of these

1583: particles. Once they

1584: are produced in pairs, they give rise to {\em multi lepton + missing

1585: transverse momentum} signal. The only exception is

1586: $\bmu\bh$ production which gives rise {\em single

1587: photon + missing transverse momentum} signal. 

1588: 

1589: At the LHC we study {\em two} and {\em three (charged

1590: SM) lepton + missing transverse momentum} signal. We have estimated

1591: contributions to the signal from 

1592: different combinations of $(1,0)$-mode gauge bosons and spinless

1593: adjoints pair production at the LHC. We have also estimated the SM

1594: background 

1595: contributions to {\em two} and {\em three charged lepton + missing

1596:   transverse momentum} signal. We

1597: find that with $100~fb^{-1}$ luminosity of the LHC, {\em two (three)

1598:   lepton + missing transverse momentum} signal from the

1599: $(1,0)$-mode electroweak sector of 2UED is greater than $5\sigma$

1600: standard deviation of the SM background upto $R^{-1}=400~(600)$ GeV.    

1601: 

1602: At $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider we only concentrate on $\bmu \bh$ production.

1603: $\bmu\bh$ production

1604: cross-section is large due to the large hypercharge of electron and

1605: positron. We have only investigated {\em single photon + missing

1606:   energy} signal at a future $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider. The SM

1607: model contribution 

1608: ($e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma \nu \bar 

1609: \nu$) to the {\em single photon + missing energy} is huge. Kinematical

1610: cuts (cuts on photon energy) 

1611: can remove only those part of background which  arises from the

1612: radiative production of $Z$-boson. The dominant contribution

1613: to $e^{+}e^{-}\to \gamma \nu \bar \nu$ arises from  t-channel

1614: $W$-boson exchange. Fortunately, the choice of

1615: positive electron beam polarization and negative positron beam

1616: polarization reduces t-channel $W$-boson exchange contribution to the

1617: background and at the same time enhance the signal cross-section. In our

1618: analysis, we choose 80\% positive electron beam polarization and 60\%

1619: negative positron beam polarization ($(P_{-},P_{+})=(0.8,-0.6)$). We

1620: find that for $500~fb^{-1}$ luminosity of $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider,

1621: {\em single photon + missing energy} signal form

1622: $e^{+}e^{-}\to \bmu\bh$ production and

1623: $\bmu\to \gamma \bh$ decay is greater than $5\sigma$

1624: standard deviation of the SM background, almost upto the kinematic

1625: limit of the collider. Since the photon arises from the $\bmu$

1626: decay, the kinematical endpoints of

1627: photon energy distribution only depend on the center-of-mass

1628: energy, $\sqrt {s_{ee}}$, of $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider and $R^{-1}$. So from the

1629: experimental measurement of one of the kinematical end points

1630: (preferably upper kinematical end point) of photon energy distribution,

1631: one can estimate $R^{-1}$. We find very high sensitivity of $R^{-1}$

1632: with the upper kinematical end point of photon energy

1633: distribution. Therefore, precise determination of photon energy

1634: at electromagnetic calorimeter will enhance the accuracy $R^{-1}$

1635: estimation.  

1636: 

1637: 

1638: \noindent

1639: {\bf {Acknowledgments}} KG acknowledges the support from

1640: Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Govt. of India

1641: (Sanction No. 09/028(0675)/2006 EMR-1). 

1642: 

1643: \vskip 10pt

1644: 

1645: 

1646: %\newpage

1647: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.{\arabic{equation}}}

1648: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1649: 

1650: {\bf Appendix A : Relevant Feynman Rules} \\

1651: 

1652: \begin{figure}[h]

1653: \epsfig{file=bmu_qQ.ps,width=8cm}

1654: \epsfig{file=wmu_qQ.ps,width=8cm}

1655: 

1656: \caption{Feynman rules of KK-number conserving interactions of a

1657:   $(j,k)$-mode gauge boson ($B_\mu^{(j,k)}$ and $W_\mu^{3,\pm(j,k)}$) with

1658:   the $(j,k)$-mode fermion and the corresponding SM fermion.  $g$ and

1659:   $g^\prime$ are the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gauge coupling constant

1660:   respectively and $T^a_2$'s are the generators of the $SU(2)$ gauge

1661:   group. $y_{\psi_\pm}$ is the hypercharge of the fermion $\psi_\pm$.}

1662: \label{AQQ}

1663: \end{figure}

1664: 

1665: 

1666: 

1667: In this section we show the Feynman rules that are

1668: relevant for the production of the $(1,0)$-mode electroweak particles

1669: at the hadron collider and electron-positron collider. To make this

1670: discussion more general, we present electroweak vertices

1671: involving two $(j,k)$-mode particles and a SM particle. Corresponding

1672: vertices involving $(1,0)$-mode can be easily inferred from the Feynman

1673: rules given in Figs. \ref{AQQ}, \ref{AhQQ}, \ref{AWW}.

1674: 

1675: 

1676: \begin{figure}[h]

1677: \epsfig{file=bh_qQ.ps,width=8cm}

1678: \epsfig{file=bh_Qq.ps,width=8cm}\\

1679: \epsfig{file=wh_qQ.ps,width=8cm}

1680: \epsfig{file=wh_Qq.ps,width=8cm}

1681: 

1682: \caption{Feynman rules of KK-number conserving interactions of a

1683:   $(j,k)$-mode spinless adjoint ($B_H^{(j,k)}$ and $W_H^{3,\pm(j,k)}$) with

1684:   the $(j,k)$-mode fermion and the corresponding SM fermion.}

1685: \label{AhQQ}

1686: \end{figure}

1687: 

1688: 

1689: 

1690: Compactification of the 6-dimensional kinetic terms for fermions and

1691: integration over the compactified co-ordinates results KK-number

1692: conserving interactions involving a KK gauge boson (spinless adjoint)

1693: and two fermions. In Fig. \ref{AQQ}, we have presented $V^{(j,k)}_\mu

1694: \psi^{(j,k)} \bar \psi^{(0,0)}$ ($V_\mu^{(j,k)}$ corresponds to

1695: $B_{\mu}^{(j,k)}$ or $W_{\mu}^{3,\pm(j,k)}$) vertices and

1696: Fig. \ref{AhQQ} shows $V^{(j,k)}_H

1697: \psi^{(j,k)} \bar \psi^{(0,0)}$ ($V_H^{(j,k)}$ corresponds to

1698: $B_{H}^{(j,k)}$ or $W_{H}^{3,\pm(j,k)}$) vertices. In Fig. \ref{AQQ} and

1699: Fig. \ref{AhQQ}, $+$ and $-$ label the 6-dimensional chiralities of the

1700: fermion as discussed in section 2 (see Eq. \ref{chirality}).

1701: 

1702: 

1703: 

1704: 3-point interaction involving only one SM vector boson ($\gamma,~Z$ or

1705: $W^{\pm}_\mu$) and two $(j,k)$-mode $SU(2)$ spinless adjoints

1706: ($W_{H}^{3,\pm(j,k)}$) arises from the

1707: compactification of the self-interacting part of the 6-dimensional

1708: $SU(2)$ gauge fields. Corresponding vertices are presented in

1709: Fig. \ref{AWW}.

1710: 

1711: \begin{figure}[h]

1712: \epsfig{file=AWhWh.eps,width=7cm}~~

1713: \epsfig{file=ZWhWh.eps,width=7cm}\\\\

1714: \epsfig{file=WpWhWh.eps,width=7cm}~~

1715: \epsfig{file=WmWhWh.eps,width=6.5cm}

1716: 

1717: \caption{Feynman rules of KK-number conserving interactions of two

1718:   $(j,k)$-mode $SU(2)$ spinless adjoint ($W_{H}^{3,\pm(j,k)}$) with a

1719:   SM vector boson ($\gamma,~Z$ or $W^{\pm(0,0)}_\mu$).}

1720: \label{AWW}

1721: \end{figure}

1722: 

1723: 

1724: 

1725: 

1726: 

1727: 

1728: 

1729: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1730: 

1731: \bibitem{add} I.~Antoniadis,

1732:   %``A Possible New Dimension At A Few Tev,''

1733:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 246}, 377 (1990); 

1734: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulous and G.~Dvali, {

1735:   Phys.~Lett.~}{B~}{\bf 429}, 263 (1998); I.~Antoniadis,

1736:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali, {

1737:   Phys.~Lett.~}{B~}{\bf 436}, 257 (1998).

1738: 

1739: \bibitem{rs} L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, { Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~}{\bf

1740: 83}, 3370 (1999); {\em ibid} {\bf 83}, 4690 (1999).

1741: 

1742: \bibitem{NPB550}

1743: A.~Donini,~S.~Rigolin;

1744: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B550}, 59 (1999);

1745: I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, M. Quiros;

1746: {Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 460}, 176 (1999).

1747: 

1748: \bibitem{PRD66}

1749: C. Macesanu, C. D. McMullen, S. Nandi; 

1750: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 015009 (2002);

1751: 

1752: 

1753: 

1754: \bibitem{PLB482}

1755: A. De Rujula , A. Donini, M. B. Gavela, S. Rigolin;

1756: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 482}, 195 (2000);

1757: D. A. Dicus, C. D. McMullen, S. Nandi; 

1758: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 076007 (2002);

1759: C. Macesanu, C. D. McMullen, S. Nandi; 

1760: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 546}, 253 (2002); 

1761: C. Macesanu , A. Mitov , S. Nandi; 

1762: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 084008 (2003);

1763: C. Macesanu, S. Nandi, C. M. Rujoiu; 

1764: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 076001 (2006).

1765: 

1766: 

1767: \bibitem{UED} T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu,

1768:   %``Bounds on universal extra dimensions,''

1769:   { Phys. Rev. D}  {\bf 64}, 035002 (2001); 

1770: H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,

1771:   %``Bosonic supersymmetry? Getting fooled at the LHC,''

1772:   { Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 66}, 056006 (2002).

1773: 

1774: \bibitem{unificUED}K. Dienes, E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, { Nucl. Phys.} 

1775: {\bf B537}, 47 (1999); K. Dienes, E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, {

1776:   Phys. Lett. B} 

1777: {\bf 436}, 55 (1998); G. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, S. K. Majee and

1778: A. Raychaudhuri, { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B760}, 117 (2007). 

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{dark_ued5}G. Servant, T. Tait, { Nucl. Phys.} 

1781: {\bf B650}, 391 (2003); K. Kong. K. Matchev, {

1782:   J. High Energy Phys.~}{\bf 038},~{0601},~(2006).

1783: 

1784: \bibitem{dark_ued6} B. Dobrescu, D.~Hooper, K.~Kong,

1785:  R.~Mahbubani; {Jour. Cosmo. Astro. Phys.~}{\bf 0710}, 012 (2007).  

1786: 

1787: \bibitem{dobrescu} T. Appelquist, B. Dobrescu, E.~Ponton, H. Yee,

1788:  { Phys. Rev. Lett.~}{\bf 87}, 181802 (2001).

1789: 

1790: \bibitem{dobrescu1} B. Dobrescu, E.~Poppitz,

1791:  { Phys. Rev. Lett.~}{\bf 87}, 031801 (2001). 

1792: 

1793: \bibitem{dobrescu2}

1794:  B. Dobrescu, E.~Ponton, { J. High Energy Phys.~}{\bf 071},~{0403},~(2004).

1795: 

1796: \bibitem{dobrescu4} B. Dobrescu, K.~Kong, R.~Mahbubani, { J. High

1797:   Energy Phys.~} {\bf 006},~{0707},~(2007).

1798: 

1799: \bibitem{dobrescu3} G.~Burdman, B.~Dobrescu, E.~Ponton, {

1800: Phys. Rev. D~}{\bf 74}, 075008 (2006).

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{KGAD1}

1803:  K.~Ghosh and A.~Datta,

1804:   %``Phenomenology of spinless adjoints in two Universal Extra Dimensions,''

1805: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B800}, 109 (2008).

1806:   %arXiv:0801.0943 [hep-ph].

1807:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0801.0943;%%

1808: 

1809: \bibitem{kong}

1810:  A.~Freitas and K.~Kong,

1811:   %``Two universal extra dimensions and spinless photons at the ILC,''

1812:   J. High

1813:   Energy Phys. {\bf 0802}, 068 (2008).

1814:   %%[arXiv:0711.4124 [hep-ph]].

1815:   %%CITATION = JHEPA,0802,068;%%

1816: 

1817: \bibitem{KGAD2}

1818:   K.~Ghosh and A.~Datta,

1819:   %``Probing two Universal Extra Dimensions at International Linear Collider,''

1820:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 665}, 369 (2008).

1821:   %%[arXiv:0802.2162 [hep-ph]].

1822:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B665,369;%%

1823: 

1824: \bibitem{loop} E.~Ponton, L.~Wang, { J. High Energy Phys.~}{\bf 018},~{0611}, (2006).

1825: 

1826: 

1827: \bibitem{PDG}

1828:   C.~Amsler {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

1829:   %``Review of particle physics,''

1830:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 667}, 1 (2008).

1831:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B667,1;%%

1832: 

1833: 

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{cteq4} H. Lai et al., {Phys. Rev. D~} {\bf 55}, 1280 (1997).

1836: 

1837: \bibitem{nutralino}

1838:   S.~Ambrosanio and B.~Mele,

1839:   %``Neutralino decays in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model,''

1840:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 53}, 2541 (1996).

1841: %%  [arXiv:hep-ph/9508237].

1842:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D53,2541;%%

1843: 

1844: \bibitem{coll_phys}

1845: K. Hagiwara and D. Zeppenfeld, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B313}, 560 (1989).

1846: 

1847: \end{thebibliography}

1848: 

1849: 

1850: 

1851: 

1852: 

1853: 

1854: 

1855: 

1856: 

1857: \end{document}

1858: