1: \documentclass[nofootinbib,aps,11pt]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{cancel}
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{textcomp}
6: \usepackage{amsmath}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8: \usepackage{times}
9: \usepackage{epsfig}
10: \usepackage{color}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13: \begin{flushright}
14: NPAC-08-19\\
15: MADPH-08-1522
16: \end{flushright}
17: \title{\LARGE Leptoquarks and Neutrino Masses at the LHC}
18: \bigskip
19: \author{Pavel Fileviez P{\'e}rez$^1$, Tao Han$^{1}$, Tong Li$^{1,2}$, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf$^{1,3}$}
20: \address{
21: $^1$Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA\\
22: $^2$Department of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, P.R.~China \\
23: $^3$Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA}
24: \date{\today}
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: \begin{abstract}
27: The properties of light leptoquarks predicted in the context of a
28: simple grand unified theory and their observability at the LHC are
29: investigated. The $SU(5)$ symmetry of the theory implies that the leptoquark
30: couplings to matter are related to the neutrino mass matrix. We study
31: the resulting connection between neutrino masses and mixing parameters and
32: the leptoquark decays, and show that different light neutrino hierarchies
33: imply distinctive leptoquark decay signatures. We also discuss low-energy
34: constraints implied by searches for charged lepton flavour violation,
35: studies of meson decays, and electroweak precision data.
36: %
37: We perform a detailed parton-level study of the leptoquark signals and
38: the Standard Model backgrounds at the LHC. With the clean final states
39: containing a di-lepton plus two jets, the QCD production of the
40: leptoquark pair can be observed for a leptoquark
41: mass of one TeV and beyond.
42: %
43: By examining the lepton flavor structure of the observed events,
44: one could further test the model predictions related to the neutrino mass spectrum.
45: In particular, $b$-flavor tagging will be useful in distinguishing
46: the neutrino mass pattern and possibly probing an unknown Majorana
47: phase in the Inverted Hierarchy or the Quasi-Degenerate scenario.
48: %
49: Electroweak associated production of the leptoquark doublet can also be
50: useful in identifying the quantum numbers of the leptoquarks and distinguishing
51: between the neutrino mass spectra, even though the corresponding event
52: rates are smaller than for QCD production. We find that with only the clean
53: channel of $\mu+\cancel{E}_T+$jets, one could expect an observable
54: signal for a leptoquark masses of about 600 GeV or higher.
55: \end{abstract}
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: \pacs{}
58: \maketitle
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: \section{Introduction}
61: \label{sec:intro}
62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
63: The possibility of explaining all fundamental interactions in nature in a unified framework
64: is one of the main motivations for considering physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
65: In this respect, Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) are one of the most appealing SM extensions, as they may allow one
66: to understand the origin of the SM interactions
67: and predict both the quantization of the electric charge and
68: the weak mixing angle~\cite{GUTReview}. In these theories the unification of
69: gauge couplings is realized at a scale $M_{GUT}\approx 10^{14-16}$ GeV.
70: The unification of the matter fields implies
71: the decay of the lightest baryon, the proton~\cite{review},
72: and the generic existence of scalar and vector leptoquarks (denoted by LQ unless
73: specified otherwise)~\cite{LQreview} that carry both lepton- and baryon-numbers,
74: since the quarks and leptons live in the same enlarged
75: representation of the gauge group.
76:
77: Because of the important role played by LQs in GUTS and other SM extensions as well as their unique phenomenological features, the general properties and phenomenology of LQs have been studied extensively\cite{Buchmuller,HewettRizzo}.
78: Recently, a simple GUT based on the SU(5) gauge symmetry that contains light LQs has been proposed in Ref.~\cite{paper1}. In this theory, the Higgs sector is composed of ${\bf 5_H}$, ${\bf 15_H}$ and ${\bf 24_H}$; neutrino
79: masses are generated through the Type II seesaw mechanism~\cite{TypeII}; and there exist
80: light scalar leptoquarks consistent with the constraints from the gauge coupling unification
81: and experimental lower bounds on the proton lifetime. A distinctive feature of this framework is that the LQ-matter Yukawa interactions are governed by the neutrino mass matrix. Consequently, different scenarios for the light neutrino mass hierarchy lead to broadly distinguishable patterns for LQ interactions with matter. In this paper, we explore this phenomenology in detail, concentrating in particular on its implications for studies at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
82:
83: While several phenomenological and cosmological aspects of this proposal
84: were studied in Refs.~\cite{paper2} and~\cite{paper3}, a comprehensive analysis of the corresponding LQ collider phenomenology has not appeared previously in the literature. Here, we report the results of such an analysis. In doing so, we consider the constraints on the model implied by the results of neutrino oscillation experiments, searches for charged lepton flavor violation, and studies of SM-suppressed meson decays. We find that although the constraints from low-energy flavor physics are severe, they do not preclude the possibility of observing a statistically significant LQ signal at the LHC if the LQ mass is sufficiently heavy. The constraints from electroweak precision observables (EWPO) have a marginal impact at best on the LHC discovery potential of the model.
85:
86: In searching for the LQ at the LHC, we identify the dominant production mechanisms and the
87: experimentally fully reconstructable clean final states.
88: We find that the ``golden signals" for LQ discovery are the QCD pair production of
89: the charge $+2/3$ LQ (denoted $\Psi_1$), with its decays to a charged lepton plus a down-type
90: quark ($d_i$, $i=1-3$). After applying a series of judicious cuts to suppress SM backgrounds
91: that would produce the same final state, we find that one could expect on the
92: order of 1000 events with 100 fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity for a 400$-$600 GeV LQ.
93: By examining the lepton flavor structure of the observed events,
94: one could further test the model prediction for the neutrino mass spectrum.
95: In particular, $b$-flavor tagging will be useful in helping to distinguish the neutrino mass
96: pattern and to probe an unknown Majorana phase in the ``Inverted Hierarchy" or the
97: ``Quasi-Degenerate" scenario.
98: %
99: Assuming that one will have knowledge of the neutrino mass spectrum in the near future,
100: obtained from either searches for neutrinoless double $\beta$-decay or future
101: long baseline neutrino oscillation studies, the possible collider discovery analyzed
102: here would not only provide a crucial consistency check for the neutrino mass pattern,
103: but also indicate a neutrino mass generation mechanism at a fundamental level.
104:
105: Our study is organized in the remainder of the paper as follows: In Section II
106: we present the properties of the LQs in the model. In Section III the constraints on
107: the physical couplings and parameters coming from neutrino oscillation experiments,
108: rare processes and EWPO are investigated. The predictions for leptoquarks decays are
109: discussed in Section IV. Taking into account the effects of neutrino mass
110: and mixing we show the unique predictions for the branching fractions
111: of all leptonic decays $\Psi_1\to d_i e^+_j$ and $\Psi_2\to d_i \bar{\nu}$.
112: The impact of the Majorana phases is also studied. The pair and associated
113: production mechanisms, cuts necessary for SM background suppression,
114: and the signal observability at the LHC are investigated
115: in Section V. We summarize our results in Section VI.
116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
117: \section{Light Leptoquarks and Grand Unification}
118: \label{sec:model}
119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
120: A general classification of the properties of leptoquarks can be found
121: in Ref.~\cite{Buchmuller}. Here, we concentrate on the specific model
122: realization of Ref.~\cite{paper1} that consists of a simple realistic
123: extension of the Georgi-Glashow model~\cite{GG} in which the light neutrino masses
124: are generated through the Type II seesaw mechanism.
125: The Higgs sector of this model is composed of ${\bf 5_H}$, ${\bf 24_H}$ and ${\bf 15_H}$, and
126: the matter fields live in the ${\bf \bar{5}}= (d^C, l)_L$ and ${\bf 10}=(u^C, Q, e^C)_L$
127: representations, where $l^T=(\nu, e)$ and $\ Q^T=(u, d)$.
128: As emphasized in Section \ref{sec:intro}, one of the main features of this GUT is the possibility of having
129: light leptoquarks consistent with all constraints coming from the proton lifetime and
130: the unification of gauge couplings~\cite{paper1,paper2,paper3}. Here,
131: we focus on the properties of these light scalar leptoquarks
132: %
133: \begin{equation}
134: \Phi_b^T = (\Psi_1, \Psi_2 ) \sim (\bm{3},\bm{2},1/6).
135: \end{equation}
136: %
137: The electric charges of the leptoquarks are $Q(\Psi_1)=I_3+Y=2/3$ and $Q(\Psi_2)=-1/3$, respectively.
138: The LQ $\Phi_b$ lives in the ${\bf 15_H}$ representation together with $\Delta \sim (1,3,1)$,
139: the scalar triplet field responsible for implementing the Type II seesaw mechanism.
140: Using the interactions in the model~\cite{paper1} one finds
141: %
142: \begin{equation}
143: Y_\nu \ {\bf \bar{5}} \ {\bf \bar{5}} \ {\bf 15_H} \ \supset \ Y_\nu \left[ \ l_L^T \ C \ i \sigma_2 \ \Delta \ l_L \ + \
144: \sqrt{2} \ \overline{d}_R \ \ l_L^\alpha \ \Phi_b^\beta \ \epsilon_{\alpha \beta}\right] \ \ \ ,
145: \end{equation}
146: %
147: where we have suppressed the generation indices on the lepton and quark fields and Yukawa coupling matrix $Y_\nu$.
148:
149: It is important to notice that the $SU(5)$ symmetry of the theory implies that the coupling of the
150: leptoquark to matter is defined by the mass matrix for neutrinos
151: %
152: \begin{equation}
153: Y_\nu = {M_\nu \over \sqrt{2} \ v_{\Delta}} ,
154: \end{equation}
155: where $v_{\Delta}/\sqrt{2}$ is the vacuum expectation value of the neutral
156: component of the field $\Delta$. As shown in Ref.~\cite{paper1}
157: the leptoquark $\Phi_b$ has negative (positive) contribution to
158: $b_1 - b_2$ $(b_2 - b_3)$, where $b_i$ stands for the different beta function coefficients for the three SM gauge groups.
159: Therefore, the presence of this field helps to achieve unification without supersymmetry. If the LQ mass lies in the range of
160: 100 GeV$-$1 TeV, one obtains gauge coupling unification
161: in agreement with experimental observations at the low energies.
162:
163: The Lagrangian relevant for our study is given by:
164: %
165: \begin{equation}
166: {\cal L} = (D_\mu \Phi_b)^{\dagger} (D^\mu \Phi_b) \ +{\cal L}_Y-V ,
167: \end{equation}
168: where
169: \begin{eqnarray}
170: {\cal L}_Y & = & - \left( \sqrt{2} \ \overline{d}_R \ Y_\nu \ l_L^\alpha \ \Phi_b^\beta \ \epsilon_{\alpha \beta} \ + \ \text{h.c.} \right)\\
171: V & =& M_{\Phi_b}^2 \Phi_b^\dagger \Phi_b \ + \ \lambda_1 (\Phi_b^\dagger \Phi_b) (H^\dagger H) \ +
172: \ \lambda_2 (\Phi_b^\dagger H) (H^\dagger \Phi_b) \ +\lambda_3 (\Phi_b^\dagger \Phi_b)^2\ \ \ ,
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: where $H^T=(H^+, H^0)$ is the SM Higgs doublet.
175: The tree-level masses of the leptoquarks, after the electroweak symmetry breaking
176: $\langle H^0 \rangle = v_0 / \sqrt{2}$, are given by:
177: \begin{equation}
178: M_{\Psi_1}^2 = M_{\Phi_b}^2 \ + \ \lambda_1 v_0^2/2 \qquad \text{and} \qquad M_{\Psi_2}^2 = M_{\Psi_1}^2 \ + \ \lambda_2 v_0^2/2.
179: \end{equation}
180: In principle, the dimensionless couplings $\lambda_1,\ \lambda_2$ can be either positive,
181: negative, or zero\footnote{For negative $\lambda_1$ and/or $\lambda_2$, boundedness of the
182: potential restricts the magnitude of coupling relative to that of $\lambda_3$ and the
183: SM Higgs quartic coupling.}. Thus, we have no {\em a priori} prediction for which
184: of the two LQs is the lightest\footnote{We note that SM radiative corrections will generate a mass
185: splitting\cite{Cirelli:2005uq} $M_{\Psi_1} - M_{\Psi_2}\approx 106\ \mathrm{MeV}$ in the
186: $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme.}. In our study of the collider phenomenology,
187: we will focus on the case in which $M_{\Psi_2} - M_{\Psi_1}\geq 0$,
188: corresponding to $\lambda_2\geq 0$.
189:
190: Working in the basis of physical fermions,
191: the new LQ-matter Yukawa interactions read:
192: \begin{equation}
193: \overline{d}_R \ \Gamma_1 \ e_L \ \Psi_1\ \qquad
194: \text{and} \qquad
195: \overline{d}_R \ \Gamma_2 \ \nu_L \ \Psi_2 ,
196: \end{equation}
197: where
198: \begin{equation}
199: \Gamma_1 = \sqrt{2} \ D_R^\dagger Y_\nu E_L = \Gamma_2 \ V_{PMNS}^\dagger \ K_3^* \ \ {\rm and} \ \
200: \Gamma_2 = \sqrt{2} \ D_R^\dagger Y_\nu N_L = \sqrt{2} \ B \ K_3^* \ V_{PMNS}^* \ Y_\nu^{diag}.
201: \label{G12}
202: \end{equation}
203: Here, $V_{PMNS}$ is the leptonic (neutrino) mixing matrix; $D_R$, $E_L$, and $N_L$ transform the right-handed down quark, left-handed electron, and left-handed neutrino mass eigenstates into the corresponding flavor states; and
204: $K_3$ is a diagonal matrix containing the unknown phases
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: K_3 = \left(
207: \begin{array}{lll}
208: e^{i\alpha_1} & 0 & 0 \\
209: 0 & e^{i \alpha_2} & 0 \\
210: 0 & 0 & e^{i\alpha_3}
211: \end{array}
212: \right).
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: The other mixing matrix, $B$, appearing in Eq. (\ref{G12}) involves the product of RH quark and LH charged lepton rotation matrices: is $B=D_R^{\dagger} E_L^*$.
215: %
216: It has been pointed out \cite{upper1,upper2,paper3}
217: that in order to satisfy the constraints from proton decay,
218: the unitary matrix $B$ must be of the form
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: B = \left(
221: \begin{array}{lll}
222: 0 & 0 & e^{ i \beta_1} \\
223: 0 & e^{i \beta_2} & 0 \\
224: e^{i \beta_3} & 0 & 0
225: \end{array}
226: \right).
227: \end{eqnarray}
228: %
229: Once we impose the constraints from the lower limit on the proton lifetime, the LQ-matter couplings are dictated
230: by the neutrino masses and mixing, as presented in detail in
231: Appendix A.
232: It is useful to notice that the Yukawa couplings scale parametrically as
233: $\Gamma_{1,2}\propto m_\nu/ v^{}_\Delta$.
234: We summarize the interactions for the leptoquarks in Table.~\ref{int}.
235: %
236: \begin{table}[tb]
237: \begin{center}
238: \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|}
239: \hline
240: Fields & Vertices & Couplings
241: \\
242: \hline
243: $\Psi_i(i=1,2)$ & $\bar{d}\Psi_il_i$ & $i\Gamma_i P_L$\\
244: Yukawa & $l_1=e, \ l_2=\nu$ & $P_L=(1- \gamma_5)/2$ \\
245: \hline\hline
246: QCD & $\Psi_i(p_1)\Psi_i^\ast(p_2) G_\mu^a$ & $ig_s{\lambda_a\over 2}(p_1-p_2)_\mu$\\
247: & $\Psi_i\Psi_i^\ast G_\mu^a G^{b\mu}$ & $ig_s^2{\lambda_a\over 2}{\lambda_b\over 2}$\\
248: \hline\hline
249: 3-point EW & $\Psi_i(p_1)\Psi_i^\ast(p_2) A_\mu$ & $iQ_ie(p_1-p_2)_\mu$\\
250: & & $Q_1=2/3, \ Q_2=-1/3$\\
251: \hline
252: & $\Psi_i(p_1)\Psi_i^\ast(p_2) Z_\mu$ & $i{g_2\over 6}\cos\theta_WK_i(p_1-p_2)_\mu$\\
253: & & $K_1=4-{1\over \cos^2\theta_W}, \ K_2=-2-{1\over \cos^2\theta_W}$\\
254: \hline
255: & $\Psi_1(p_1)\Psi_2^\ast(p_2) W_\mu^-$ & $-i{g_2\over \sqrt{2}}(p_1-p_2)_\mu$ \\
256: \hline\hline
257: 4-point EW & $Z_\mu Z_\nu\Psi_i\Psi_i^\ast$ & $iG_{ZZii}g_{\mu\nu}$\\
258: & & $G_{ZZ11}={(g_1^2-3g_2^2)^2\over 18(g_1^2+g_2^2)}, G_{ZZ22}={(g_1^2+3g_2^2)^2\over 18(g_1^2+g_2^2)}$\\
259: \hline
260: & $A_\mu A_\nu\Psi_i\Psi_i^\ast$ & $iG_{AAii}g_{\mu\nu}$\\
261: & & $G_{AA11}={8g_1^2g_2^2\over 9(g_1^2+g_2^2)}, G_{AA22}={2g_1^2g_2^2\over 9(g_1^2+g_2^2)}$\\
262: \hline
263: & $Z_\mu A_\nu\Psi_i\Psi_i^\ast$ & $iG_{ZAii}g_{\mu\nu}$\\
264: & & $G_{ZA11}={-2g_1g_2(g_1^2-3g_2^2)\over 9(g_1^2+g_2^2)}, G_{ZA22}={g_1g_2(g_1^2+3g_2^2)\over 9(g_1^2+g_2^2)}$\\
265: \hline
266: & $W_\mu^+W_\nu^-\Psi_i\Psi_i^\ast$ & $iG_{WWii}g_{\mu\nu}$ \\
267: & & $G_{WW11}=G_{WW22}=g_2^2/2$\\
268: \hline
269: \end{tabular}
270: \end{center}
271: \caption{Feynman rules for the leptoquarks Yukawa and gauge interactions. The momenta are all assumed to be incoming.}
272: \label{int}
273: \end{table}
274:
275: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
276: \section{Constraints on the physical parameters}
277: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
278: In this section we discuss the constraints from neutrino oscillation experiments,
279: rare decays and collider experiments on the Yukawa couplings and
280: the physical parameters $M_{\Psi_1}, M_{\Psi_2}$ and $v_\Delta$
281: in this theory.
282: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
283: \subsection{Constraints From Neutrino Oscillation Experiments}
284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
285: The physical Yukawa couplings of leptoquarks for the leptonic
286: decays are given by Eq.~(\ref{G12}). In order to
287: understand the constraints from neutrino physics we start
288: from the correlation between the neutrino masses and
289: mixing angles. The leptonic mixing matrix is given by
290: %
291: \begin{eqnarray}
292: V_{PMNS}=
293: \left(
294: \begin{array}{lll}
295: c_{12} c_{13} & c_{13} s_{12} & e^{-\text{i$\delta $}} s_{13}
296: \\
297: -c_{12} s_{13} s_{23} e^{\text{i$\delta $}}-c_{23} s_{12} &
298: c_{12} c_{23}-e^{\text{i$\delta $}} s_{12} s_{13} s_{23} &
299: c_{13} s_{23} \\
300: s_{12} s_{23}-e^{\text{i$\delta $}} c_{12} c_{23} s_{13} &
301: -c_{23} s_{12} s_{13} e^{\text{i$\delta $}}-c_{12} s_{23} &
302: c_{13} c_{23}
303: \end{array}
304: \right)\times \text{diag} (e^{i \Phi_1/2}, 1, e^{i \Phi_2/2}),
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: where $s_{ij}=\sin{\theta_{ij}}$, $c_{ij}=\cos{\theta_{ij}}$,
307: $0 \le \theta_{ij} \le \pi/2$ and $0 \le \delta \le 2\pi$.
308: The phase $\delta$ is the Dirac CP phase, and $\Phi_i$ are the Majorana phases.
309: The experimental constraints on the neutrino masses and mixing parameters,
310: at $2\sigma$ level are \cite{Schwetz}
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: 7.3 \times 10^{-5} {\rm eV}^2 \ < & \Delta m_{21}^2 & < \ 8.1 \times 10^{-5} {\rm eV}^2, \\
313: 2.1 \times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2 \ < & |\Delta m_{31}^2| & < \ 2.7 \times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2, \\
314: 0.28 \ < & \sin^2{\theta_{12}} & < \ 0.37, \\
315: 0.38 \ < & \sin^2{\theta_{23}} & <\ 0.63, \\
316: & \sin^2{\theta_{13}} & <\ 0.033,
317: \end{eqnarray}
318: and $\sum_{i} m_{i} < \ 1.2 \ {\rm eV}$. Following the convention, we denote the case
319: $\Delta m_{31}^2 \equiv m^2_3 - m_1^2 >0$ as the normal hierarchy (NH) and otherwise the
320: inverted hierarchy (IH).
321:
322: \begin{figure}[tb]
323: \begin{center}
324: \begin{tabular}{cc}
325: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{nhy1iiub.eps}
326: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{ihy1iiub.eps}
327: \end{tabular}
328: \end{center}
329: \caption{Constraints on the leptoquark couplings
330: $Y_1^{i1}=\Gamma_1^{i1}\times v_\Delta$ versus the lowest neutrino
331: mass for NH (left) and IH (right) when all the phases vanish.
332: Due to the symmetry as in Eq.~(\ref{nmy}), the equal couplings
333: are also indicated in the parenthesis.}
334: \label{y2ii}
335: \end{figure}
336: %
337: \begin{figure}[tb]
338: \begin{center}
339: \begin{tabular}{cc}
340: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{nhy1ijub.eps}
341: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{ihy1ijub.eps}
342: \end{tabular}
343: \end{center}
344: \caption{Constraints on the leptoquark couplings $Y_1^{i2}=\Gamma_1^{i2}\times v_\Delta$
345: versus the lowest neutrino mass for NH (left) and IH (right) when all the phases vanish.
346: Due to the symmetry as in Eq.~(\ref{nmy}), the equal couplings are also indicated in the
347: parenthesis.}
348: \label{y2ij}
349: \end{figure}
350: %
351: In this section we neglect all the phases. The observed neutrino mass spectra indicate that
352: the neutrino mass matrix
353: %
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: M_\nu=V_{PMNS}^\ast m_\nu^{diag}V^\dagger_{PMNS},
356: \end{eqnarray}
357: presents the following patterns
358: \begin{eqnarray}
359: \nonumber
360: && M_\nu^{11}\ll M_\nu^{22}, M_\nu^{33} \quad {\rm for\ NH},\\
361: && M_\nu^{11}> M_\nu^{22}, M_\nu^{33}\quad {\rm for\ IH},\\
362: {\rm and} && M_\nu^{23}> M_\nu^{12}, M_\nu^{13}\quad {\rm for\ both\ NH,\ IH}.
363: \nonumber
364: \end{eqnarray}
365: where the last relation for the off-diagonal elements is
366: due to the large atmospheric mixing angle $\theta_{23}$.
367: See for example Ref.~\cite{seesaw} for more detailed discussions.
368:
369: In order to see the relationship between neutrino mass pattern and the
370: Yukawa couplings of the leptoquarks,
371: we first introduce a dimensionful coupling matrix relevant to
372: $\Psi_1$ Yukawa coupling
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: && Y_1=\Gamma_1\times v_\Delta=\left(
375: \begin{array}{lll}
376: 0 & 0 & 1 \\
377: 0 & 1 & 0 \\
378: 1 & 0 & 0
379: \end{array}
380: \right) M_\nu, \quad {\rm or}\quad Y_1^{ij}=M_\nu^{(4-i),j}.
381: \label{nmy}
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: %
384: Here we have neglected the phases in the B matrix. Note that the
385: neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu$ is symmetric but $Y_1$ is not,
386: with the first index $i$ for the down-type quarks and the
387: second index $j$ for the charged leptons.
388: %
389:
390: We are thus able to determine all the Yukawa couplings that are consistent with a given set of neutrino masses
391: and oscillation parameters. To illustrate this relationship, we perform a numerical scan over the neutrino masses and mixing angles, using a uniform, random distribution while taking into account
392: the above experimental constraints and neglecting all phases.
393: %
394: We show the scatter plots for the allowed values for the couplings of each lepton flavor
395: in Figs.~\ref{y2ii},~\ref{y2ij} and \ref{y2ji}, versus the lightest
396: neutrino mass in each spectrum, the normal hierarchy (left panels) and the inverted
397: hierarchy (right panels). We see two distinctive regions in terms of the lightest neutrino
398: mass. In the case $m_{1(3)} < 10^{-1}$ eV,
399: %
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: \nonumber
402: && {\rm Fig.~\ref{y2ii}\ for}\ e:\quad
403: Y_1^{31} \simeq Y_1^{11}, Y_1^{21}\quad {\rm for\ NH},\\
404: \nonumber
405: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad~~ Y_1^{31} \gg Y_1^{11}, Y_1^{21}\quad {\rm for\ IH},\\
406: \nonumber
407: && {\rm Fig.~\ref{y2ij}\ for}\ \mu :\quad Y_1^{22} \gtrsim Y_1^{12} > Y_1^{32}
408: \quad {\rm for\ both\ NH\ and\ IH},\\
409: \nonumber
410: && {\rm Fig.~\ref{y2ji}\ for}\ \tau :\quad Y_1^{13} \gtrsim Y_1^{23} > Y_1^{33}
411: \quad {\rm for\ both\ NH\ and\ IH}.
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: %
414: On the other hand, for $m_{1(3)} > 10^{-1}$ eV, we have the quasi-degenerate spectrum
415: $
416: M_\nu^{11} \approx M_\nu^{22} \approx M_\nu^{33},
417: $
418: and the leading couplings in each lepton flavor are
419: \begin{eqnarray}
420: Y_1^{31} \approx Y_1^{22} \approx Y_1^{13} .
421: \end{eqnarray}
422:
423: As for the $\Psi_2$ decays, we sum
424: over the final state neutrinos since they are experimentally unobservable.
425: Thus the relevant couplings are written as
426: \begin{eqnarray}
427: &&Y_2^{i}=\sum^3_{j=1}|\Gamma_2^{ij}|^2\times v_\Delta^2 \ \ (i=1,2,3 \ {\rm for \ down \ quarks} \ d,s,b).
428: \end{eqnarray}
429: The allowed values are shown in Fig.~\ref{y1i}. In this case,
430: $Y_2^3\ll Y_2^1,Y_2^2$ in the NH and $Y_2^3>Y_2^1,Y_2^2$ in the IH when the lightest
431: neutrino mass is smaller than $10^{-2}$ eV. The explicit expressions
432: of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ obtained via $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ are collected in Appendix A.
433: %
434: \begin{figure}[tb]
435: \begin{center}
436: \begin{tabular}{cc}
437: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{nhy1jiub.eps}
438: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{ihy1jiub.eps}
439: \end{tabular}
440: \end{center}
441: \caption{Constraints on the leptoquark couplings $Y_1^{i3}=\Gamma_1^{i3}\times v_\Delta$
442: versus the lowest neutrino mass for NH (left) and IH (right)
443: when all the phases vanish.
444: Due to the symmetry as in Eq.~(\ref{nmy}), the equal couplings are also indicated in the
445: parentheses. }
446: \label{y2ji}
447: \end{figure}
448: %
449: \begin{figure}[tb]
450: \begin{center}
451: \begin{tabular}{cc}
452: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{nhy2iub.eps}
453: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{ihy2iub.eps}
454: \end{tabular}
455: \end{center}
456: \caption{Constraints on $Y_2^{i}=\sum^3_{j=1}|\Gamma_2^{ij}|^2\times v_\Delta^2$ versus
457: the lowest neutrino mass for NH (left) and IH (right) when all the phases vanish.}
458: \label{y1i}
459: \end{figure}
460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
461: \subsection{Constraints from Rare Decays}
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: Here we discuss the constraints coming from meson decays, meson-antimeson mixing
464: and lepton flavor violating processes. The most important constraints for the leptoquark
465: parameters are from the $K_L^0$ decays to dileptons~\cite{PDG,constraint1,constraint2}
466: and searches for $\mu-e$ conversion in nuclei~\cite{PDG}.
467: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
468: \subsubsection{$K_L$ decays}
469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
470: The meson leptonic decay rate is given by
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: \Gamma(M(\bar{q}^jq^n)\to \ell^r\bar{\ell}^i)&=&{k\over 4\pi}{1\over M_{\Psi_1}^4}
473: {|\Gamma_1^{nr}|^2\over 2}{|\Gamma_1^{ji}|^2\over 2}\left({f_M\over 2}\right)^2(E_iE_r-k^2),
474: \end{eqnarray}
475: where
476: \begin{eqnarray}
477: E_{i,r}=\sqrt{m_{i,r}^2+k^2}, \ \ \ k&=&{m_M\over 2}\lambda^{1/2}(1,{m_i^2\over m_M^2},{m_r^2\over m_M^2}).
478: \end{eqnarray}
479: For $K_L^0$ decay, we take $m_{K}=497.648~{\rm MeV}, f_K=160~{\rm MeV}$ and $\tau_{K_L}=5.116\times 10^{-8}~{\rm s}$~\cite{PDG}.
480: \begin{table}[tb]
481: \begin{center}
482: \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|}
483: \hline
484: Mesons & Final states & Branching fraction
485: \\
486: \hline
487: $K_L^0$ & $\mu^+\mu^-$ & $(6.84\pm 0.11)\times 10^{-9}$\\
488: & $e^+e^-$ & $(0.087^{+0.057}_{-0.041})\times 10^{-10}$\\
489: & $e^-\mu^+$ & $<4.7\times 10^{-12}$ \\
490: \hline
491: \end{tabular}
492: \caption{Experimental Constraints on $K_L^0$ pure leptonic decays~\cite{PDG}.}
493: \label{Kb}
494: \end{center}
495: \end{table}
496: %
497: We list the most precise results for the $K_L^0$ decay branching fractions $B(K_L\to X)$ in Table~\ref{Kb}.
498: In the case of the $\mu^+\mu^-$ and $e^+e^-$ final states, SM expectations involve the sum of short-distance (SD) and long-distance (LD) contributions~\cite{smee,GomezDumm:1998pj}. The latter are dominant, as the predicted short-distance contribution gives roughly one sixth of the measured branching ratio. Using chiral perturbation theory to perform a model-independent analysis of the long-distance contributions, the authors of Ref.~\cite{smee} find that they are nearly saturated by the lowest order (l.o.) term in the chiral expansion that is fixed from the measured $K_L\to\gamma\gamma$ branching fraction. The sub-leading long-distance contribution depends on an {\em a priori} unknown scale-dependent low-energy constant $\chi(\mu)$ whose value is obtained from analysis of $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$, $\eta\to\mu^+\mu^-$, and $\pi^0\to e^+e^-$ decays\footnote{The scale $\mu$ is typically chose to be the $\rho$-meson mass.}. Of these, $B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ is known most precisely. The difference between its experimental value and the sum of the short-distance and leading order long-distance contributions
499: \begin{equation}
500: \Delta_K(\mu\mu)\equiv B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)^{\mathrm{exp}}-\left[B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)^{\mathrm{SD}}+B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)^{\mathrm{LD}}_{\mathrm{l.o.}}\right]
501: \end{equation}
502: determines the value of $\chi$ implied by this decay.
503:
504: Any non-SM contribution to $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$ would enter this difference and, thus, affect the extracted value of $\chi$. So long as the non-SM contribution is smaller than the uncertainty in $\Delta_K(\mu\mu)$, it could be absorbed by a shift in $\chi$ within its error bars without appreciably affecting the analysis of $K_L$, $\pi^0$, and $\eta$ decays into $\ell^+\ell^-$. The uncertainty $\delta\Delta_K$ is dominated by the theoretical uncertainty in $B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)^{\mathrm{SD}}$:
505: \begin{equation}
506: \label{eq:kdecay}
507: \delta\Delta_K(\mu\mu) \simeq (\pm 0.6)\times 10^{-9} \ \ \ .
508: \end{equation}
509: To be conservative, we thus require that the LQ contribution to $B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ be smaller than the magnitude of $\delta\Delta_K(\mu\mu)$ given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kdecay}).
510:
511: Once the constant $\chi$ has been obtained from the other processes discussed above, it is possible to make a model-independent prediction for the $K_L\to e^+e^-$ branching fraction. In this case, however, the comparison of the experimental result with the Standard Model prediction, $\delta\Delta_K(ee)$, is dominated by the experimental error in $B(K_L\to e^+e^-)$. Consequently, we require that the LQ contribution to this channel be less than the average of the upper and lower errors quoted in Table \ref{Kb}.
512:
513: In Figs.~\ref{nheemm} and \ref{iheemm},
514: we show the branching fractions for $K_L^0\to e^+e^-,\ \mu^+\mu^-$ for the NH and IH, respectively,
515: taking into account the leptoquark $\Psi_1$ contribution versus the lightest neutrino mass
516: for $M_{\Psi_1} v_\Delta > $1200 GeV$\cdot$ eV
517: (left panel) and 1600 GeV$\cdot$ eV (right panel).
518: Note that the decay rate is proportional to $(M_{\Psi_1} v_\Delta)^{-4}$ since each $\Gamma^{k\ell}\sim m_\nu/v_\Delta$.
519: We see that there exist parameter space points for which the
520: leptoquark contribution is smaller than uncertainty in $\Delta_K(\ell\ell)$ as indicated by the horizontal lines
521: for $M_{\Psi_1} v_\Delta > $1600 GeV$\cdot$ eV.
522:
523: In Fig.~\ref{nhem} we show the predictions for LQ contributions to the decay channel $e^-\mu^+$ with
524: $M_{\Psi_1} v_\Delta > $800 GeV$\cdot$ eV. In this case, the SM prediction is highly suppressed since flavor violation arises solely through the neutrino sector, so any observable effect would have to arise from new physics. The experimental BR limits, indicated by the horizontal lines in the left and right panels of Fig. \ref{nhem} thus translate into direct constraints on the LQ parameters. We find the BR results for this channel more spread out and, thus, less constraining than are those for the lepton flavor conserving decays.
525: This observation leads to an important point: Although the experimental bounds on
526: the $e\mu$ and $ee$ channels are stronger than that of $\mu\mu$,
527: they actually provide less stringent
528: constraints on the model parameters, due to the suppressed couplings governed
529: by the neutrino oscillation data.
530:
531: Additional constraints follow from other meson properties and low-energy semileptonic interactions, such as
532: the mass difference between
533: $K_L$ and $K_S$: $\Delta m_K=3.48\times 10^{-15}$ GeV~\cite{PDG}.
534: The box diagrams for a leptoquark with couplings to leptons give a contribution
535: to $\Delta m_K$~\cite{constraint1,constraint2}, that yields a constraint
536: \begin{eqnarray}
537: \left( (\Gamma_1 \Gamma_1^\dagger)^{21} \right)^2 \lesssim {192\pi^2 M_{\Psi_1}^2 \Delta m_K\over f_K^2 m_K}
538: \approx 5.2 \times 10^{-10} M_{\Psi_1}^2.
539: \end{eqnarray}
540: As we have shown in the previous section when the lightest neutrino mass is smaller than $10^{-2}$ eV,
541: $(Y_1 Y_1^\dagger)^{21}$ is smaller than $25 (24) \times 10^{-4}$ \ \text{eV}$^2$ in the NH (IH)
542: spectrum. Using these results one finds
543: \begin{equation}
544: \frac{v_\Delta}{1 \text{eV}} \gtrsim 1.05 \times \left(\frac{10^2 \ \text{GeV}}{M_{\Psi_1}} \right)^{1/2}.
545: \end{equation}
546: This leads to a weaker bound than that obtained from the rare decays.
547: The same constraints are valid for the case of $\Psi_2$. Notice that one can satisfy these
548: bounds easily.
549:
550: We emphasize that the most stringent constraints, which follow from $K_L^0\to \mu^- \mu^+$, imply that for
551: $M_{\Psi_1} v_\Delta > $1600 GeV$\cdot$ eV it is possible to find values for the Yukawa couplings that are consistent with both neutrino oscillation data and the quantity $\Delta_K(\mu\mu)$. As we discuss below, one could expect to observe a significant number of LQ events at the LHC for LQ masses in the approximate range
552: $400\lesssim M_{\Psi_1}\lesssim 1000$ GeV, or $v_\Delta$ lying between about two and four eV.
553: Since we have no independent handle on the value of $v_\Delta$ nor any reason to preclude
554: values lying in this range, we conclude that consistency of an LHC LQ discovery and the
555: flavor changing decay $K_L^0\to \mu^- \mu^+$ would imply a relatively large triplet vev in this model.
556:
557: %
558: \begin{figure}[tb]
559: \begin{center}
560: \begin{tabular}{cc}
561: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{kleemmnh1000.eps}
562: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{kleemmnh1200.eps}
563: \end{tabular}
564: \end{center}
565: \caption{Branching fractions for $K_L^0\to e^+e^-$(black) and $K_L^0\to \mu^- \mu^+$(blue)
566: versus the lowest neutino mass for NH neglecting the phases,
567: $M_{\Psi_1}v_\Delta=1200~({\rm left}),~1600~({\rm right})~{\rm GeV}\cdot {\rm eV}$.
568: The horizontal lines represent the current $1~{\sigma}$ experimental bounds~\cite{PDG}.}
569: \label{nheemm}
570: \end{figure}
571: %
572: \begin{figure}[tb]
573: \begin{center}
574: \begin{tabular}{cc}
575: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{kleemmih1000.eps}
576: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{kleemmih1200.eps}
577: \end{tabular}
578: \end{center}
579: \caption{Branching fractions for $K_L^0\to e^+e^-$(black) and $K_L^0\to \mu^- \mu^+$(blue) versus the lowest neutino mass for IH neglecting the phases, $M_{\Psi_1}v_\Delta=1200~({\rm left}),~1600~({\rm right})~{\rm GeV}\cdot {\rm eV}$. The horizontal lines represent the current $1~{\sigma}$ experimental bounds~\cite{PDG}. }
580: \label{iheemm}
581: \end{figure}
582: %
583: \begin{figure}[tb]
584: \begin{center}
585: \begin{tabular}{cc}
586: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhbrklem250ub.eps}
587: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihbrklem250ub.eps}
588: \end{tabular}
589: \end{center}
590: \caption{Branching fractions for $K_L^0\to e^- \mu^+$ versus the lowest neutrino mass for
591: NH (left) and IH (right)
592: neglecting the phases, $M_{\Psi_1}v_\Delta=800~{\rm GeV}\cdot {\rm eV}$.
593: The horizontal line represents the current $1~{\sigma}$ experimental bound~\cite{PDG}.}
594: \label{nhem}
595: \end{figure}
596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
597: \subsubsection{$\mu-e$ Conversion Constraints}
598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
599: Searches for charged lepton flavor violation (CLFV) in processes that conserve quark flavor can impose severe constraints on new physics. In the present case, searches for $\mu$-$e$ conversion in nuclei yield the most stringent constraints on the LQ couplings and masses. The tightest bound on the rate for this process has been obtained by the SINDRUM Collaboration\cite{Bertl:2006up} using the gold nucleus. The result for the conversion to capture ratio $R^{\rm Au}_{\mu\to e}$ is
600: \begin{equation}
601: R^{\rm Au}_{\mu\to e} = {\Gamma[\mu^-+A(Z,N) \to e^- + A(Z,N)]\over \Gamma[\mu^-+A(Z,N) \to \nu + A(Z-1,N+1)]}
602: < 7.0\times 10^{-13} \quad (90\% {\mathrm{C.L.}})\ \ \ .
603: \end{equation}
604: This ratio can be expressed in terms of the reduced conversion and capture rates $R^{\rm Au}_{\mu\to e}=\omega_{\rm conv}/\omega_{\rm capt}$ where \cite{mecon}
605: \begin{equation}
606: \omega_{\rm conv}={|\Gamma_1^{11}|^2|\Gamma_1^{12}|^2 m_\mu^5\over 4M_{\Psi_1}^4}(V^{(p)}+2V^{(n)})^2\ \ \ ,
607: \end{equation}
608: where $V^{(p)}$ and $V^{(n)}$ are overlap integrals involving the upper and lower components of the muon and electron wavefunctions and the proton (p) and neutron (n) number densities. Using the values for these integrals computed in Ref.~\cite{mecon}, the experimental value for $\omega_{\rm capt}$ and experimental limit on $R^{\rm Au}_{\mu\to e}$ shown in Table.~\ref{nucl}, we obtain 90\% C.L. constraints on the LQ parameters as shown in Fig.~\ref{nhAu} . There we give
609: $R^{\rm Au}_{\mu\to e}$ corresponding
610: to lightest neutrino mass in NH and IH when $M_{\Psi_1}v_\Delta=800~{\rm GeV\cdot eV}$. We observe that in either case, there exist values of the LQ parameters for which the predicted ratio lies below the 90\% C.L. limit (indicated by the horizontal line). Although the present limits exclude large portions of parameter space, they do not preclude the model entirely. Future searches for $\mu\to e$ conversion, such as the Mu2e experiment proposed for Fermilab or the PRIME experiment at JPARC, could improve the sensitivity be several orders of magnitude. A null result from these future experiments could rule out the LQ model under consideration here unless the product $M_{\Psi_1}v_\Delta$ is quite heavy. We will explore this possibility in a forthcoming study.
611:
612: Finally, we note that the leptoquark contribution to other lepton flavor violating processes, such as
613: $\mu\to e\gamma$ and $\mu\to 3e$, arise at one-loop level, and thus provide
614: less stringent constraints.
615:
616: %
617: \begin{table}[tb]
618: \begin{center}
619: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
620: \hline
621: Nucleus & $V^{(p)}$ & $V^{(n)}$ & $\omega_{\rm capt}(10^6s^{-1})$ & $\omega_{\rm conv}/\omega_{\rm capt}$
622: \\
623: \hline
624: $^{197}_{79}{\rm Au}$ & 0.0974 & 0.146 & 13.07 & $<7\times 10^{-13}$\\
625: \hline
626: \end{tabular}
627: \end{center}
628: \caption{Values of the relevant parameters for $\mu-e$ conversion in Au~\cite{PDG,mecon}.}
629: \label{nucl}
630: \end{table}
631: %
632: \begin{figure}[tb]
633: \begin{center}
634: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
635: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhmeAu250ub.eps}
636: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihmeAu250ub.eps}
637: \end{tabular}
638: \end{center}
639: \caption{The rate of $\mu-e$~conversion in $\rm Au$ nuclei versus the lowest neutrino mass for NH(left) and IH(right) without any phases $M_{\Psi_1}v_\Delta=800~{\rm GeV\cdot eV}$. The horizontal line represents the current 90\% C.L. experimental bound \cite{PDG}.}
640: \label{nhAu}
641: \end{figure}
642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
643: \subsection{Other Constraints}
644: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
645:
646: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
647: \subsubsection{Oblique Parameters}
648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
649: In this section we study the constraints implied by leptoquark loop contributions to electroweak precision observables (EWPO). Since the LQ-matter field couplings are tiny due to their dependence on $Y_\nu$, we may safely neglect vertex, fermion propagator, and box graph loop corrections and concentrate on corrections to the gauge boson propagators. For sufficiently heavy LQs, one may characterize the leading effects of these corrections in terms of the oblique parameters, $S$, $T$, and $U$ \cite{Peskin}. The $U$ parameter is typically quite small and does not add a significant constraint in this case. We have computed the full set of LQ contributions to the gauge boson self-energy functions, and the resulting contributions to $T$ and $S$ are:
650: %
651: \begin{eqnarray}
652: \label{eq:Tparam}
653: \hat{\alpha}(M_Z)T&\equiv& \frac{1}{M_W^2}
654: \Biggl\{ {\hat \Pi}_{WW}(0)-
655: {\hat c}^2\left( {\hat \Pi}_{ZZ}(0)+\frac{2{\hat s}}{\hat c}
656: {\hat \Pi}_{Z\gamma}(0) \right) \Biggr\}^{\rm
657: New}
658: \approx {N_C\over 8\pi^2 v^2}\left(-{2\Delta M^2\over 3}\right),\\
659: \nonumber
660: {\hat{\alpha}(M_Z)\over 4\hat{s}_Z^2\hat{c}_Z^2}S&\equiv& \frac{1}{M_Z^2}{\rm Re}\Biggl\{
661: {\hat \Pi}_{ZZ}(M_Z^2)-{\hat \Pi}_{ZZ}(0)+\frac{{\hat c}^2-{\hat
662: s}^2}{{\hat c}{\hat s}} \left[{\hat \Pi}_{Z\gamma}(0)-{\hat
663: \Pi}_{Z\gamma}(M_Z^2)\right] -{\hat \Pi}_{\gamma\gamma}(M_Z^2)
664: \Biggr\}^{\rm New} \\
665: \label{eq:Sparam}
666: &\approx& -{N_C\over 24\pi^2 v^2}\left({M_Z^2\Delta M\over 3M_{\Psi_1}}\right)
667: \end{eqnarray}
668: where $\Delta M=M_{\Psi_2}-M_{\Psi_1}$, ${\hat s}$ (${\hat c}$) is the sine (cosine) of the weak mixing angle in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme, and \lq\lq New" indicates the contribution from new physics ($\Psi_{1,2}$ ). We have carried out renormalization at a scale $\mu=M_Z$. The complete expressions for LQ contributions are given in Appendix \ref{app:oblique}, while in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Tparam},\ref{eq:Sparam}) we give approximate expressions in the limit that the mass splitting $|\Delta M|$ and $Z$-boson mass are small compared to the LQ mass $M_{\Psi_1}$.
669: The latest global fit to EWPO yields for these parameters
670: are $S=-0.10\pm 0.10(-0.08)$, $T=-0.08\pm 0.11(+0.09)$, and $U=0.15\pm 0.11 (+0.01)$, assuming a value for the SM Higgs boson mass $M_H=117$ GeV (300 GeV)~\cite{PDG}.
671: The most important constraint is from the $T$ parameter which gives us a
672: $1\sigma$ bound of leptoquark mass splitting $|\Delta M| \lesssim 60~{\rm GeV}$.
673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
674: \subsubsection{Collider Constraints and $\rho$-parameter}
675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
676: The current constraint on the LQ mass, $M_{\Psi_1}$ and $M_{\Psi_2}$, comes from the
677: direct searches at the Tevatron~\cite{PDG}
678: \begin{eqnarray}
679: M_{\Psi_{1,2}}\gtrsim 250~{\rm GeV}.
680: \end{eqnarray}
681: while for the values of the triplet vev one has,
682: \begin{eqnarray}
683: 1~{\rm eV}\lesssim v_\Delta\lesssim 1~{\rm GeV},
684: \end{eqnarray}
685: where the lower bound follows from the assumption that $m_\nu\sim 1$ eV and that the Yukawa interactions are perturbative, while the upper bound is from the constraint on the electroweak $\rho-$parameter~\cite{rho}.
686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
687: \section{Leptoquark Decays and Neutrino Masses}
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689: In this section we study the main features of the LQ decays taking into
690: account the constraints on the neutrino masses and mixing.
691: From Eq.~(\ref{G12}) one can conclude that the leptoquark (LQ)
692: decays could be different in each spectrum for neutrinos
693: and we will explore this interesting connection.
694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
695: \subsection{Main Features of the Leptoquarks Decays}
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697: The decays of the leptoquarks into fermions
698: $\Psi_1 \ \to \ d_i \ e^+_j$ and $\Psi_2 \to d_i \ \bar{\nu}$, where $d_i=d,s,b$ and $e_j=e,\mu,\tau$,
699: are of most interest. The partial widths are given by
700: \begin{eqnarray}
701: \Gamma(\Psi_1\to d_i e^+_j)={|\Gamma_1^{ij}|^2\over 16\pi}M_{\Psi_1},
702: \qquad
703: \Gamma(\Psi_2\to d_i \bar{\nu}_j)={|\Gamma_2^{ij}|^2\over 16\pi}M_{\Psi_2}.
704: \end{eqnarray}
705: The widths are proportional to the Yukawa coupling squared, governed by
706: $m^2_\nu/ v_\Delta^2$.
707:
708: The other competing decay modes come from the charged current gauge interaction.
709: Depending on the mass splitting between the leptoquarks, one has the decays of
710: the heavy leptoquark into the lighter one plus a real ($W$) or virtual ($W^*$)
711: gauge boson. For example, if $\Delta M=M_{\Psi_2}-M_{\Psi_1}>0$,
712: the $\Psi_2$ decay rates for these processes are given by
713: %
714: \begin{eqnarray}
715: \Gamma(\Psi_2\to \Psi_1 W^-)&=&{M_{\Psi_2}g_2^2\over 32\pi r_W^2}\lambda^{3\over 2}(1,r_W^2,r_{\Psi_1}^2),
716: \\
717: \Gamma(\Psi_2\to \Psi_1 W^{-\ast}\to \Psi_1\pi^-)&=&{g_2^4V_{ud}^2\Delta M^3 f_\pi^2\over 32\pi M_W^4}\sqrt{1-{m_\pi^2\over \Delta M^2}},
718: \\
719: \Gamma(\Psi_2\to \Psi_1 W^{-\ast}\to \Psi_1e^-(\mu^-)\bar{\nu}_e(\bar{\nu}_\mu))&=&{g_2^4\Delta M^5\over 480\pi^3M_W^4}, \\
720: \label{eq:qqbar}
721: \Gamma(\Psi_2\to \Psi_1 W^{-\ast}\to \Psi_1q\bar{q}')&=&3\Gamma(\Psi_2\to \Psi_1e^-(\mu^-)\bar{\nu}_e(\bar{\nu}_\mu)).
722: \end{eqnarray}
723: where we have omitted the CKM factor associated with the $W q{\bar q}^\prime$ coupling in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qqbar})
724: since we are considering the inclusive channels of $q\bar q'$, and
725: where $r_i=M_i/M_{\Psi_2}$.
726: %
727: In Fig.~\ref{brm} we show the branching fractions for the decays of $\Psi_2$
728: versus its mass with $M_{\Psi_1}=250~{\rm GeV}$ and $v_\Delta=5$ eV and $10$ eV
729: in (a) and (b), respectively, assuming that the Yukawa coupling is diagonal for simplicity.
730: We see that once the mass difference is large and a real gauge boson channel is open,
731: then it takes over the fermionic channels. In Fig.~\ref{brv} we plot the branching
732: fractions versus $v_\Delta$ with $M_{\Psi_1}=250~{\rm GeV}$ and $M_{\Psi_2}=300~{\rm GeV}$.
733: Also in the second case: $M_{\Psi_1}=400$ GeV, and $M_{\Psi_2}=450$ GeV.
734: We see that for $v_\Delta<10~{\rm eV}$, the Yukawa coupling is sufficiently large so that
735: the fermionic channels become dominant. The features are the same for $\Psi_1$ if it is heavier than $\Psi_2$.
736: %
737: \begin{figure}[tb]
738: \begin{center}
739: \begin{tabular}{cc}
740: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{phi1br1.eps}
741: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{phi1br10.eps}
742: \end{tabular}
743: \end{center}
744: \caption{Branching fractions of $\Psi_2$ decay for (a) $v_\Delta=5~{\rm eV}$ and
745: (b) $10~{\rm eV}$, respectively, with $M_{\Psi_1}=250~{\rm GeV}$.}
746: \label{brm}
747: \end{figure}
748: %
749: \begin{figure}[tb]
750: \begin{center}
751: \begin{tabular}{cc}
752: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{phi1brv.eps}
753: \end{tabular}
754: \end{center}
755: \caption{Branching fractions of $\Psi_2$ decay for $M_{\Psi_1}=250~{\rm GeV}$, $M_{\Psi_2}=300~{\rm GeV}$ and $M_{\Psi_1}=400~{\rm GeV}$, $M_{\Psi_2}=450~{\rm GeV}$.}
756: \label{brv}
757: \end{figure}
758: The presence of charged leptons in the final state (rather than missing energy associated with neutrinos) facilitates the use of collider observables to identify the connection between the leptoquark properties and the neutrino mass spectrum. Consequently,
759: we will focus on the parameter region in which $M_{\Psi_2}> M_{\Psi_1}$.
760: To further quantify this situation, we present the scatter plots in Fig.~\ref{mdv}
761: in a plane of $\Delta M-v_\Delta^{}$ under the condition
762: $\Gamma(\Psi_2\to d_i \bar{\nu}_j)>\Gamma(\Psi_2\to \Psi_1 W^*)$.
763: We see that if the mass difference is small enough, there is a broad range for the
764: vev $v_\Delta^{}\sim 1-10^6~{\rm eV}$, although an $\rm eV$ value may be more natural for the
765: light neutrino mass generation.
766: %
767: \begin{figure}[tb]
768: \begin{center}
769: \begin{tabular}{cc}
770: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{p2denhub.eps}
771: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{p2deihub.eps}
772: \end{tabular}
773: \end{center}
774: \caption{Allowed region of the parameter space when the
775: leptonic decays of $\Psi_2$ are dominant for NH (left) and IH (right). $\Delta M$ versus $v_\Delta$
776: assuming $M_{\Psi_1}=250~{\rm GeV}$ when $10^{-4}~{\rm eV}\leq m_0\leq 10^{-2}~{\rm eV}$, $m_0$ is the lightest neutrino mass.}
777: \label{mdv}
778: \end{figure}
779: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
780: \subsection{Leptoquark Decays and Neutrino Spectra}
781: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
782: As discussed earlier, the lepton-flavor contents of leptoquark decays will be
783: different for each neutrino spectrum. Here, we study this
784: issue in great detail. In Fig.~\ref{p1bre},~\ref{p1brm} and~\ref{p1brt} we show the
785: impact of the neutrino masses and mixing angles on the branching fractions of $\Psi_1$
786: decaying into $e,\mu,\tau$ lepton respectively, with the left panels for the
787: Normal Hierarchy (NH) and the right panels for the Inverted Hierarchy (IH).
788: We first note that the absence of the decay channel $be$ would indicate a NH
789: with $m_{1} < 10^{-2}$ eV, as seen in Fig.~\ref{p1bre}. In contrast, the $be$ channel is
790: the leading one in the IH.
791: %
792: The $s\mu,\ d\mu$ and $d\tau,\ s\tau$ channels have the
793: leading branching fractions in the NH, but those channels alone
794: do not seem to provide sufficient information to discriminate
795: among the various possible neutrino mass spectra.
796: If the lightest neutrino mass is above 0.1 eV, then this approaches
797: the ``quasi-degenerate" (QD) scenario of the neutrino mass pattern.
798: The channels ($be,\ s\mu,\ d\tau$) governed by the diagonal neutrino
799: matrix elements reach to about $30\%$ in this case.
800: The interesting feature here is that $d\mu$ and the
801: $s\tau$ channels vanish due to the unitarity cancelation
802: of the mixing matrix.
803: %
804: \begin{figure}[tb]
805: \begin{center}
806: \begin{tabular}{cc}
807: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1breub.eps}
808: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1breub.eps}
809: \end{tabular}
810: \end{center}
811: \caption{The branching fractions of $\Psi_1\to d_ie \ (d_i=d,s,b)$
812: versus the lowest neutrino mass for NH (left) and IH (right)
813: when all the phases vanish.
814: Due to the symmetry as in Eq.~(\ref{nmy}), the equal channels are also indicated in the
815: parentheses. }
816: \label{p1bre}
817: \end{figure}
818:
819: \begin{figure}[tb]
820: \begin{center}
821: \begin{tabular}{cc}
822: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1brmub.eps}
823: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brmub.eps}
824: \end{tabular}
825: \end{center}
826: \caption{The branching fractions of $\Psi_1\to d_i\mu \ (d_i=d,s,b)$
827: versus the lowest neutrino mass for NH (left) and IH (right)
828: when all the phases vanish.
829: Due to the symmetry as in Eq.~(\ref{nmy}), the equal channels are also indicated in the
830: parentheses. }
831: \label{p1brm}
832: \end{figure}
833:
834: \begin{figure}[tb]
835: \begin{center}
836: \begin{tabular}{cc}
837: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1brtub.eps}
838: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brtub.eps}
839: \end{tabular}
840: \end{center}
841: \caption{The branching fractions of $\Psi_1\to d_i\tau \ (d_i=d,s,b)$
842: versus the lowest neutrino mass for NH (left) and IH (right)
843: when all the phases vanish.
844: Due to the symmetry as in Eq.~(\ref{nmy}), the equal channels are also indicated in the
845: parentheses. }
846: \label{p1brt}
847: \end{figure}
848: %
849: The predictions for the decays of $\Psi_2$ taking into account the
850: experimental constraints on neutrino mass and mixing angles are shown in Fig.~\ref{p2i}.
851: Because of the existence of the missing neutrino in the final state, we must sum over the
852: contributing neutrinos incoherently. As one can see that, in the NH case the
853: decay $\Psi_2\to d\bar{\nu},s\bar{\nu}$ is the dominant channel, and in the
854: IH case $\Psi_2 \to b \bar{\nu}$ is the leading one.
855: %
856: \begin{figure}[tb]
857: \begin{center}
858: \begin{tabular}{cc}
859: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp2briub.eps}
860: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp2briub.eps}
861: \end{tabular}
862: \end{center}
863: \caption{$\Psi_2$ branching fractions versus the lowest neutrino mass
864: for NH (left) and IH (right), independent of the phases.}
865: \label{p2i}
866: \end{figure}
867: %
868: In Figs.~\ref{p1brwii} and \ref{p1brwij} we plot the branching fractions of $\Psi_1$ the leading
869: decay channels for NH and IH versus $M_{\Psi_1}$ without any constraints (red stars), and
870: with $K_L$ decay constraints and $\mu-e$ conversion constraints (green squares)
871: when $v_\Delta=4~{\rm eV}$. As noted earlier, present experimental results for these studies strongly constrain the LQ parameters, but do not preclude the possibility of scenarios in the LQ is sufficiently light to be discovered at the LHC. In the event of such a discovery, more precise measurements of $B(K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ and more sensitive searches for $\mu-e$ conversion would provide a consistency test for this model.
872:
873: \begin{figure}[tb]
874: \begin{center}
875: \begin{tabular}{cc}
876: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1brwiiub.eps}
877: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brwiiub.eps}
878: \end{tabular}
879: \end{center}
880: \caption{The branching fraction of leading channel $\Psi_1\to s\mu$ versus leptoquark mass for NH (left) and IH (right) without any constraints (red solid star), and with both $K_L$ decay and $\mu-e$ conversion constraints (green empty square), $v_\Delta=4~{\rm eV}$.}
881: \label{p1brwii}
882: \end{figure}
883: %
884: \begin{figure}[tb]
885: \begin{center}
886: \begin{tabular}{cc}
887: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1brwijub.eps}
888: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brwijub.eps}
889: \end{tabular}
890: \end{center}
891: \caption{The branching fraction of leading channel $\Psi_1\to d\tau$ for NH (left) and $\Psi_1\to be$ for IH (right) versus leptoquark mass without any constraints (red solid star), and with both $K_L$ decay and $\mu-e$ conversion constraints
892: (green empty square), $v_\Delta=4~{\rm eV}$.}
893: \label{p1brwij}
894: \end{figure}
895: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
896: \subsection{Impact of Majorana Phases in Leptoquark Decays}
897: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
898: Although the decays of the leptoquark $\Psi_1$ are independent
899: of the phases in the matrices $K_3$ and $B$, the unknown Majorana phases
900: could modify the predictions for their decays. In this section we study the
901: predictions for the LQ decays including the impact of the
902: Majorana phases. It is important to note that the $\Psi_2$ decay branching ratios are
903: independent of all unknown phases, including the phases
904: in the $K_3$ and $B$ matrices
905: and the Majorana phases, after summing over all final state neutrino
906: flavors incoherently. This feature could allow us
907: to probe the neutrino mass spectrum as well as the Majorana phases when
908: combining the information from the $\Psi_1$ decays. To illustrate this point, we consider the limiting cases of $m_1\approx 0$ ($m_3\approx 0$) for the NH (IH), an approximation that we expect to hold when the mass of the lightest neutrino in either case is smaller than $\sim 10^{-2}$ eV.
909: For a heavier mass of $m_{1,3} > 10^{-1}$ eV,
910: the situation approaches the quasi-degenerate, as we discuss below.
911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
912: \subsubsection{Normal Hierarchy with one massless neutrino $(m_1\approx 0)$}
913: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
914: The leptoquark decay rates depend on only one Majorana phase $\Phi_2$
915: when $m_1\approx 0$ in the NH case. Taking $s_{13}=0$ for simplicity,
916: one finds the expressions for the physical couplings:
917: \begin{eqnarray}
918: e^{-i\beta_3}\Gamma_1^{31}&=&{1\over v_\Delta}e^{-2i\alpha_1}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}s_{12}^2\right),
919: \\
920: e^{-i\beta_2}\Gamma_1^{21}&=&e^{-i\beta_3}\Gamma_1^{32}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}s_{12}c_{12}c_{23}\right),
921: \\
922: e^{-i\beta_1}\Gamma_1^{11}&=&e^{-i\beta_3}\Gamma_1^{33}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)}\left(-\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}s_{12}c_{12}s_{23}\right),
923: \\
924: e^{-i\beta_2}\Gamma_1^{22}&=&{1\over v_\Delta}e^{-2i\alpha_2}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}c_{12}^2c_{23}^2+\sqrt{\Delta m_{31}^2}e^{-i\Phi_2}s_{23}^2\right)\approx \sqrt{{\Delta m_{31}^2\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-i(2\alpha_2+\Phi_2)}s_{23}^2,
925: \\
926: e^{-i\beta_1}\Gamma_1^{12}&=&e^{-i\beta_2}\Gamma_1^{23}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-i(\alpha_2+\alpha_3)}\left(-\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}c_{12}^2+\sqrt{\Delta m_{31}^2}e^{-i\Phi_2}\right)s_{23}c_{23}\nonumber \\
927: &\approx& \sqrt{{\Delta m_{31}^2\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-i(\alpha_2+\alpha_3+\Phi_2)}s_{23}c_{23},
928: \end{eqnarray}
929: and
930: \begin{eqnarray}
931: &&e^{-i\beta_1}\Gamma_1^{13}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-2i\alpha_3}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}c_{12}^2s_{23}^2+\sqrt{\Delta m_{31}^2}e^{-i\Phi_2}c_{23}^2\right)\approx \sqrt{{\Delta m_{31}^2\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-i(2\alpha_3+\Phi_2)}c_{23}^2.
932: \end{eqnarray}
933: The behavior of the branching fractions for the dominant channels is
934: shown in Fig.~\ref{phinh}. We can see the rather weak dependence
935: of the decay branching fractions on the phase $\Phi_2$ that can be also
936: understood from the above analytical expressions. When the
937: phase $\Phi_2=\pi$, one obtains the maximal suppression (enhancement)
938: for the channels $\Psi_1\to s\mu^+$ and $\Psi_1\to d\tau^+$ ($\Psi_1\to d\mu^+, s\tau^+$),
939: by a factor two at most.
940: It is important to note that the braching ratio of the sum over all the
941: quark contributions for each lepton flavor,
942: $s\mu^+ + d\mu^+$ or $d\tau^+ + s\tau^+$, remains the same.
943: Thus, from the observational point of view in collider experiments, the signals of
944: $\mu+$jet and $\tau+$jet will be unchanged, insensitive to the Majorana phase.
945:
946: \begin{figure}[tb]
947: \begin{center}
948: \begin{tabular}{cc}
949: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1brphiiiub.eps}
950: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{nhp1brphiijub.eps}
951: \end{tabular}
952: \end{center}
953: \caption{$\Psi_1$ branching fractions versus the Majorana
954: phase $\Phi_2$ for the $m_1=0$ scenario.}
955: \label{phinh}
956: \end{figure}
957: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
958: \subsubsection{Inverted Hierarchy with one massless neutrino $(m_3 \approx 0)$}
959: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
960: In the case of the Inverted Hierarchy with one massless neutrino
961: one finds that all relevant decays depend on only one
962: phase $\Phi_1$.
963: The relevant couplings for $s_{13}=0$ are given by
964: \begin{eqnarray}
965: e^{-i\beta_3}\Gamma_1^{31}&=&{1\over v_\Delta}e^{-2i\alpha_1}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2+|\Delta m_{31}^2|}s_{12}^2+\sqrt{|\Delta m_{31}^2|}e^{-i\Phi_1}c_{12}^2\right)\nonumber \\
966: &\approx& \sqrt{{|\Delta m_{31}^2|\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-2i\alpha_1}(s_{12}^2+e^{-i\Phi_1}c_{12}^2),
967: \end{eqnarray}
968: \begin{eqnarray}
969: e^{-i\beta_2}\Gamma_1^{21}&=&e^{-i\beta_3}\Gamma_1^{32}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2+|\Delta m_{31}^2|}-\sqrt{|\Delta m_{31}^2|}e^{-i\Phi_1}\right)c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}\nonumber \\
970: &\approx& \sqrt{{|\Delta m_{31}^2|\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}(1-e^{-i\Phi_1})c_{12}c_{23}s_{12},
971: \\
972: e^{-i\beta_1}\Gamma_1^{11}&=&e^{-i\beta_3}\Gamma_1^{33}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)}\left(-\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2+|\Delta m_{31}^2|}+\sqrt{|\Delta m_{31}^2|}e^{-i\Phi_1}\right)c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}\nonumber \\
973: &\approx& \sqrt{{|\Delta m_{31}^2|\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)}(-1+e^{-i\Phi_1})c_{12}s_{23}s_{12},
974: \\
975: e^{-i\beta_2}\Gamma_1^{22}&=&{1\over v_\Delta}e^{-2i\alpha_2}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2+|\Delta m_{31}^2|}c_{12}^2+\sqrt{|\Delta m_{31}^2|}e^{-i\Phi_1}s_{12}^2\right)c_{23}^2\nonumber \\
976: &\approx& \sqrt{{|\Delta m_{31}^2|\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-2i\alpha_2}(c_{12}^2+e^{-i\Phi_1}s_{12}^2)c_{23}^2,
977: \\
978: e^{-i\beta_1}\Gamma_1^{12}&=&e^{-i\beta_2}\Gamma_1^{23}={1\over v_\Delta}e^{-i(\alpha_2+\alpha_3)}\left(-\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2+|\Delta m_{31}^2|}c_{12}^2-\sqrt{|\Delta m_{31}^2|}e^{-i\Phi_1}s_{12}^2\right)s_{23}c_{23}\nonumber \\
979: &\approx& \sqrt{{|\Delta m_{31}^2|\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-i(\alpha_2+\alpha_3)}(-c_{12}^2-e^{-i\Phi_1}s_{12}^2)s_{23}c_{23},
980: \end{eqnarray}
981: and
982: \begin{eqnarray}
983: e^{-i\beta_1}\Gamma_1^{13}&=&{1\over v_\Delta}e^{-2i\alpha_3}\left(\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2+|\Delta m_{31}^2|}c_{12}^2+\sqrt{|\Delta m_{31}^2|}e^{-i\Phi_1}s_{12}^2\right)s_{23}^2\nonumber \\
984: &\approx& \sqrt{{|\Delta m_{31}^2|\over v_\Delta^2}}e^{-2i\alpha_3}(c_{12}^2+e^{-i\Phi_1}s_{12}^2)s_{23}^2.
985: \end{eqnarray}
986: In Fig.~\ref{phiih} we show the dependence of the branching fractions
987: on this Majorana phase. The maximal suppression or enhancement takes
988: place also when $\Phi_1=\pi$.
989: In this scenario the dominant channels also
990: swap from one to the other. Unlike in the case of the NH where
991: $s\mu \leftrightarrow d\mu$ and $s\tau \leftrightarrow d\tau$ at $\Phi_2=\pi$,
992: the interchanges of the channels occur for
993: $s\mu,d\mu \leftrightarrow b\mu$, and $d\tau,s\tau \leftrightarrow b\tau$,
994: as well as $be \leftrightarrow de, se$, when $\Phi_1$ varies from $0$ to $\pi$.
995: %
996: Once again, we notice that the branching ratio for the sum over all the quark contributions for each lepton flavor,
997: $be^+ + de^+ + se^+$ or $s\mu^+ + d\mu^++b\mu^+$ or $d\tau^+ + s\tau^+ + b\tau^+$
998: remains the same.
999: This fact makes the collider search for a leptonic channel rather phase-independent.
1000: However, if we require a $b$-flavor tagging in the event selection along with the
1001: lepton flavor identification, this could provide crucial information on the
1002: value of the Majorana phase $\Phi_1$.
1003: Specifically, we see the qualitative features in the IH
1004: \begin{eqnarray}
1005: {\rm BR}(be) \left\{
1006: \begin{array}{lll}
1007: \gg {\rm BR}(b\mu),\ {\rm BR}(b\tau) & & {\rm for}\ \ \Phi_1 \approx 0; \\
1008: \ll {\rm BR}(b\mu),\ {\rm BR}(b\tau) & & {\rm for}\ \ \Phi_1 \approx \pi .
1009: \end{array}
1010: \right.
1011: \end{eqnarray}
1012:
1013: \begin{figure}[tb]
1014: \begin{center}
1015: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1016: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brphiiiub.eps}\\
1017: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brphiijub.eps}
1018: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{ihp1brphijiub.eps}
1019: \end{tabular}
1020: \end{center}
1021: \caption{$\Psi_1$ branching fractions versus the Majorana
1022: phase $\Phi_1$ for the $m_3=0$ scenario and $\Phi_1\in (0,2\pi)$.}
1023: \label{phiih}
1024: \end{figure}
1025: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1026: \subsubsection{Quasi-Degenerate Hierarchy}
1027: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1028: For a QD neutrino spectrum, the approximation of a nearly massless lightest neutrino
1029: no longer applies, and one must use the full expressions for the $\Gamma^{ij}$ that
1030: are given in Appendix \ref{app:gammas}. As one can readily appreciate from these
1031: expressions by setting $m_1 \approx m_2 \approx m_3$,
1032: the branching ratios for the $\Psi_1$ will in general depend on
1033: both $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$. From a numerical scan over the neutrino masses and mixing angles, we find
1034: that the mild $\Phi_2$-dependences
1035: of the branching ratios for $\Phi_1=0$ are quite similar to those of the NH,
1036: and that the strong $\Phi_1$-dependences of the branching ratios
1037: for $\Phi_2=0$ are quite similar to those of the IH.
1038: Again, if $b$-flavor tagging is effective along with the lepton flavor identification,
1039: one could hope to probe crucial information on the value of the Majorana phase
1040: $\Phi_1$. The only difference from the IH case is the numerical values for the
1041: branching ratio of the leading channels.
1042: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1043: \subsection{Total Decay Width of Leptoquarks}
1044: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1045: To complete our study about the LQ properties,
1046: in Fig.~\ref{wilp1} we plot the total width (left axis) and
1047: decay length (right axis) for $\Psi_1$ versus $v_\Delta$
1048: for $M_{\Psi_1}=250$ GeV in NH and IH. The total decay width
1049: is proportional to $M_{\Psi_1}/v_\Delta^2$. At the values
1050: $v_\Delta < 10^4$ eV, its decay is prompt. This is the standard scenario
1051: for collider searches to be discussed in the next section. For larger
1052: values of $v_\Delta$, the leptoquark can be long-lived in the
1053: detector's scale, making the collider signatures rather different. One may need
1054: to search for exotic hadrons or heavy charged tracks.
1055: Since these very large values of $v_\Delta$ are much higher than the
1056: light neutrino mass scale
1057: for our consideration of neutrino mass generation, we will not
1058: pursue this parameter region further.
1059: %
1060: \begin{figure}[tb]
1061: \begin{center}
1062: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1063: \includegraphics[scale=1,angle=90,width=8.5cm]{p1wiub1.eps}
1064: \end{tabular}
1065: \end{center}
1066: \caption{Total decay width and length of $\Psi_1$
1067: versus $v_{\Delta}$.}
1068: \label{wilp1}
1069: \end{figure}
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1071: \section{Search for Leptoquarks at the LHC}
1072: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1073: In this section we study the main production mechanisms of leptoquarks and their experimental
1074: signatures at the LHC. There exists extensive literature on this topic, treating
1075: both theoretical and phenomenological considerations~\cite{LQthe,nlopair,prod1,prod2}
1076: and as well as experimental searches~\cite{Affolder:2000ny,LQexp}.
1077: Our approach here goes beyond the existing studies in two respects: first we predict specific correlations between observables involving different final state lepton flavors, and second we delineate the connections between these correlations and the light neutrino mixing angles and possible mass spectra.
1078:
1079: As is well known in the case of the leptoquarks,
1080: the leading production channel is via the QCD
1081: interaction
1082: \begin{eqnarray}
1083: q \ + \ \bar{q} \ & \to & \ LQ \ + \ \overline{LQ} \\
1084: g \ + \ {g} \ & \to & \ LQ \ + \ \overline{LQ}.
1085: \end{eqnarray}
1086: The pair production total cross section versus its mass at the LHC
1087: is plotted in Fig.~\ref{cspair} (the solid curve).
1088: %
1089: The other unique channel is the single production via the Yukawa interaction
1090: \begin{equation}
1091: g \ + \ q(\bar{q}) \ \to \ LQ\ (\overline{LQ}) \ + \ \bar \ell\ (\ell).
1092: \label{eq:single}
1093: \end{equation}
1094: %
1095: This cross section is rather small in our model due to the constraints from
1096: the neutrino masses, as we will discuss later.
1097: \begin{figure}[tb]
1098: \begin{center}
1099: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1100: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{MHlq.eps}
1101: \end{tabular}
1102: \end{center}
1103: \caption{Leptoquark pair production total cross section at the LHC versus leptoquark mass.
1104: The solid curve is for $pp\to LQ + \overline{LQ}$ via QCD, assuming
1105: $\mu_F=\mu_R=M_\Psi=M_{\Psi_1}$. The dotted curve is for $pp\to \Psi_1 \Psi_2^\ast +
1106: \Psi_1^* \Psi_2$ via $W^\pm$ exchange, assuming $M_{\Psi_1}=M_{\Psi_2}=M_\Psi$.}
1107: \label{cspair}
1108: \end{figure}
1109: More importantly , the nature of the $SU(2)_L$ doublet $\Phi_b$ allows for associated production of $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$
1110: via $W$ exchange,
1111: \begin{eqnarray}
1112: q(p_1) \ + \ \bar{q}'(p_2) \ & \to & \ \Psi_1(k_1) \ + \ \Psi_2^\ast(k_2).
1113: \end{eqnarray}
1114: %
1115: In terms of the polar angle variable $y=\hat{p}_1\cdot \hat{k}_1$ in the parton c.m.~frame with energy $\sqrt{s}$, the parton level cross section for the associated production is
1116: \begin{eqnarray}
1117: {d\sigma\over dy}(q\bar{q}'\to \Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast)&=&{\pi\alpha^2\beta^3(1-y^2)\over 32N_c\sin^4\theta_W}{s\over (s-M_W^2)^2},
1118: \end{eqnarray}
1119: where $\beta=\sqrt{(1-(m_i+m_j)^2/s)(1-(m_i-m_j)^2/s)}$ is the speed factor of $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ in the c.m.~frame.
1120: %
1121: The total cross section versus its mass at the LHC is plotted in
1122: Fig.~\ref{cspair} (the dotted curve), assuming $M_{\Psi_1}=M_{\Psi_2}$.
1123: As expected, the cross section for $\Psi_1 \Psi_2^\ast$ production is smaller than the QCD
1124: pair production $\Psi_1 \Psi_1^\ast$ or $\Psi_2 \Psi_2^\ast$ by about three orders of magnitude.
1125:
1126: We now turn to the signal observability at the LHC. In Sec.~A and B, we are mainly
1127: concerned with the kinematical features for the signal and backgrounds. We will take
1128: the decay branching fractions of $\Psi_1,\ \Psi_2$ to be $100\%$ to the corresponding
1129: channels under discussion. In Sec.~C, we will devote ourself to the determination for
1130: the branching fractions.
1131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1132: \subsection{Pair Production of $\Psi_1$}
1133: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1134: The QCD corrections to leptoquark pair production at the LHC
1135: have been studied~\cite{nlopair} and a NLO K-factor of
1136: order $1.5 - 1.9$ for leptoquark mass range
1137: from $200~{\rm GeV}$ to $1500~{\rm GeV}$ is predicted.
1138: We apply the K-factor $1.5$ to the processes in our numerical analysis.
1139: %
1140: Assuming that $\Psi_1$ is the lighter leptoquark, its decay modes are
1141: \begin{eqnarray}
1142: \Psi_1\to d_i e^+_j \ \ \ (d_i=d,s,b;\ \ e_j=e,\mu,\tau).
1143: \end{eqnarray}
1144: We now explore the signal observability according to the different lepton flavors.
1145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1146: \subsubsection{$\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast\to \ell^+\ell^-jj \ \ \ (\ell=e,\mu)$}
1147: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1148: We start from the cleanest channels with $e,\mu$ in the final state from
1149: $\Psi_1$ decay. The signal consists of one pair of opposite-sign
1150: leptons of arbitrary $e, \mu$ flavor combinations plus two jets of $d,s,b$ quarks.
1151: We employ the following basic acceptance cuts for the event selection~\cite{cms}
1152: %
1153: \begin{eqnarray}
1154: &&p_T(\ell)\geq15~{\rm GeV}, \ |\eta(\ell)|<2.5,\\
1155: &&p_T(j)\geq25~{\rm GeV}, \ |\eta(j)|<3.0, \\
1156: &&\Delta R_{jj},\ \Delta R_{j\ell},\ \Delta R_{\ell\ell}\geq 1.0
1157: \end{eqnarray}
1158: where we require a large $\Delta R$ between the jet and lepton to resolve them because both $\Psi_1$s are produced nearly at rest implying that their two-body decay
1159: products are back-to-back.
1160: %
1161: To simulate the detector effects on the energy-momentum measurements,
1162: we smear the electromagnetic energy, the electromagnetic energy and jet energy
1163: by a Gaussian distribution whose width is parameterized as~\cite{cms}
1164: %
1165: \begin{eqnarray}
1166: { \Delta E\over E} &=& {a_{cal} \over \sqrt{E/{\rm GeV}} } \oplus b_{cal}, \quad
1167: a_{cal}=10\%,\ b_{cal}=0.7\% ,
1168: \label{ecal}\\
1169: %
1170: { \Delta E\over E} &=& {a_{had} \over \sqrt{E/{\rm GeV}} } \oplus b_{had}, \quad
1171: a_{had}=50\%,\ b_{had}=3\%.
1172: \end{eqnarray}
1173: %
1174: The leading SM backgrounds to this channel are
1175: \begin{eqnarray}
1176: Z^\ast/\gamma^\ast jj\to \ell^+\ell^- jj,\qquad t\bar{t}\to \ell^+\ell^-jj+\cancel{E}_T.
1177: \label{pairbkg}
1178: \end{eqnarray}
1179: %
1180: Although the background rates are very large to begin with, the signal and background kinematics are quite different. We outline the characteristics
1181: and propose some judicious cuts as follows.
1182: \begin{itemize}
1183: \item For a few hundred ${\rm GeV}$ leptoquark decay, the leptons and
1184: jets in final states are very energetic. We tighten up the kinematical cuts
1185: \begin{eqnarray}
1186: p_T^{\rm max}(\ell)>M_{\Psi_1}/4,\qquad p_T^{\rm max}(j)>M_{\Psi_1}/4.
1187: \end{eqnarray}
1188: \item To remove the $jjZ^\ast$ background, we veto the lepton pairs
1189: with opposite charges in the $Z$-mass window $|M_{\ell^+\ell^-}-M_Z|>15~{\rm GeV}$.
1190: This is a standard cut to remove the on-shell $Z$ contribution.
1191: \item To remove the $t\bar t$ background, we veto the events with large missing
1192: energy from $W$ decay: $\cancel{E}_T<25~{\rm GeV}$.
1193: \item In order to select the correct lepton and jet combination and reconstruct
1194: the leptoquark, we take advantage of the feature that the two leptoquarks have equal
1195: masses $M_{\ell_1j_1}=M_{\ell_2j_2}$. In practice, we take
1196: $|M_{\ell_1j_1}-M_{\ell_2j_2}|<M_{\Psi_1}/10$.
1197: This helps for the background reduction, in particular for $jj \gamma^*/Z^*$.
1198: \end{itemize}
1199: %
1200: The production cross section for the $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast$ signal with the basic cuts (solid curve)
1201: and all of the cuts above (dotted curve) are plotted in Fig.~\ref{cswbkg}. For comparison,
1202: the background processes of $jj\gamma^\ast/Z^\ast$ and $t\bar{t}$
1203: are also included with the sequential cuts as indicated. Incidentally, the two background
1204: curves after the $Z/W$ veto cuts coincide with each other.
1205: The backgrounds are suppressed substantially.
1206: %
1207: \begin{figure}[tb]
1208: \begin{center}
1209: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1210: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{MHlqpairemj.eps}
1211: \end{tabular}
1212: \end{center}
1213: \caption{Production cross section of $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast$ with basic cuts and hard final states cut. Branching fractions for leptoquark decay are not included in this plot. For comparison, the background processes are also included with the sequential cuts as indicated.}
1214: \label{cswbkg}
1215: \end{figure}
1216: %
1217: There are also other sub-leading backgrounds, such as $WZ,\ ZZ$ and $W^+W^-jj$.
1218: Their production rates are much smaller compared to those mentioned above. For instance,
1219: including the decay branching fractions, we have~\cite{smwzzz}
1220: \begin{eqnarray}
1221: \nonumber
1222: && \sigma(WZ)\sim 17.25~{\rm pb}\times {2\over 3}\times 6.72\%=0.77~{\rm pb},\\
1223: \nonumber
1224: && \sigma(ZZ)\sim 6.7~{\rm pb}\times 69.9\%\times 6.72\%=0.3~{\rm pb},\\
1225: \nonumber
1226: && \sigma(W^+W^-jj) \sim 0.2 \ {\rm pb\quad with\ basic\ cuts.}
1227: \end{eqnarray}
1228: Therefore, these backgrounds become negligible after our selective cuts as discussed
1229: above.
1230:
1231: Finally, when we perform a signal significance analysis, we look
1232: for a resonance in the mass distribution of the $\ell j$ pair.
1233: The invariant mass of $\ell+j$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{inmass}(a)
1234: for $400~{\rm GeV}$ leptoquark production.
1235: The width of the distribution $\sim\pm20$ GeV
1236: is governed by the detector resolution in our simulation.
1237: If we look at a mass window of $|M_{\ell_1j_1,\ell_2j_2}-M_{\Psi_1}|<M_{\Psi_1}/20$,
1238: the backgrounds will be at a negligible level.
1239:
1240: We would like to comment on the $b\bar{b}\ell^+\ell^-$ signal
1241: because the $\Psi_1\to e^+b$ channel plays an important role in distinguishing
1242: different neutrino mass spectra. The b-tagging rate is
1243: about $50\%$~\cite{cms}. The signal is still sizable with two b jets tagged.
1244: %
1245: \begin{figure}[tb]
1246: \begin{center}
1247: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1248: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{lqmlj.eps}
1249: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{lqm1tj.eps}
1250: \end{tabular}
1251: \end{center}
1252: \caption{Reconstructed invariant mass of $M(\ell j)$ for (a) $\ell^+\ell^- jj$ production
1253: and (b) $\ell^\pm \tau^\mp jj$ production, with a leptoquark mass of $400~{\rm GeV}$.}
1254: \label{inmass}
1255: \end{figure}
1256: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1257: \subsubsection{$\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast\to \tau^+\ell^-jj,\quad \tau^+\tau^-jj$}
1258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1259: Together with the $e$ and $\mu$ produced in the $\Psi_1$ decay,
1260: the $\tau$ lepton final state from leptoquark decay can play an important
1261: role in distinguishing different neutrino mass patterns. Its identification
1262: and reconstruction are different from $e,\mu$ final states because a $\tau$ decays
1263: promptly and there will always be missing neutrinos in $\tau$ decay products.
1264:
1265: In order to reconstruct the events with $\tau$s we note that all
1266: the $\tau$s produced in the decay of few hundred GeV LQ are highly energetic.
1267: The missing momentum will be along the direction of the charged track.
1268: We thus assume the momentum of the missing
1269: neutrinos to be reconstructed by
1270: \begin{eqnarray}
1271: \overrightarrow{p}({\rm invisible}) =\kappa\overrightarrow{p}({\rm track}).
1272: \end{eqnarray}
1273: Identifying $\overrightarrow{p_T}({\rm invisible})$ with the measured $\cancel{E}_T$,
1274: we thus obtain the $\tau$ momentum by
1275: \begin{eqnarray}
1276: \nonumber
1277: \overrightarrow{p}_T(\tau)=\overrightarrow{p}_T(\ell) +\overrightarrow{\cancel{E}}_T,\quad
1278: p_L^{}(\tau)=p_L^{}(\ell) + { \cancel{E}_T \over p_T^{}(\ell) } p_L^{}(\ell).
1279: \end{eqnarray}
1280: The leptoquark pair kinematics are, thus, fully reconstructed. The reconstructed
1281: invariant masses of $M(\ell j)$ and $M(\tau j)$ are plotted in Fig.~\ref{inmass}(b).
1282: We see that $M(\tau j)$ distribution is slightly broader as anticipated. The rather
1283: narrow mass peak of the $\ell j$ system nevertheless serves as the most distinctive
1284: kinematical feature for the signal identification.
1285:
1286: For $\tau\tau jj$ events with two $\tau$'s, we generalize the momenta reconstruction to
1287: \begin{eqnarray}
1288: \overrightarrow{p}({\rm invisible})=\kappa_1\overrightarrow{p}({\rm track}_1)+\kappa_2\overrightarrow{p}({\rm track}_2).
1289: \end{eqnarray}
1290: The proportionality constants $\kappa_1,\kappa_2$ can be determined
1291: from the missing energy measurement as long as the two charge tracks are
1292: linearly independent.
1293:
1294: In practice when we wish to identify the events with $\tau$'s, we require a minimal
1295: missing transverse energy
1296: \begin{equation}
1297: \cancel{E}_T > 20\ {\rm GeV}.
1298: \end{equation}
1299: This will effectively separate them from the $\ell\ell jj$ events.
1300: Another important difference between the leptons from the primary leptoquark
1301: decay and from the $\tau$ decay is that latter is much softer. In Fig.~\ref{ptl}
1302: we show the $p_T$ distribution of the softer lepton
1303: from the leptoquark and
1304: $\tau$ decays in the events of $\ell\ell jj$, $\ell\tau jj$ and $\tau\tau jj$,
1305: %
1306: \begin{figure}[tb]
1307: \begin{center}
1308: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1309: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{lqptlminlj.eps}
1310: \end{tabular}
1311: \end{center}
1312: \caption{$p_T$ distribution of the softer lepton from the leptoquark and
1313: $\tau$ decays in the events of $\ell\ell jj$, $\ell\tau jj$ and $\tau\tau jj$,
1314: for a leptoquark mass $400~{\rm GeV}$.}
1315: \label{ptl}
1316: \end{figure}
1317: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1318: \subsection{Associated Production of $\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast(\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2)$}
1319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1320: The total cross section of $\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast+\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{cspair}
1321: by the dotted curve. As discussed earlier, we focus on the fermionic decay $\Psi_2\to d_i \nu$. Correspondingly,
1322: we only consider the decays $\Psi_1\to d_i e$ and $d_i \mu$ in order to effectively reconstruct
1323: the final state kinematics. The signal is thus
1324: \begin{equation}
1325: \Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast,\ \Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2 \to \ell^\pm j, \ \ \nu j \quad (\ell=e,\mu),
1326: \end{equation}
1327: %
1328: consisting of one charged lepton and two jets plus missing energy. Once again, we consider
1329: the corresponding decay branching fractions to be $100\%$, and will leave the branching
1330: fraction determination to the next section.
1331:
1332: We employ the following basic acceptance cuts for the event selection
1333: \begin{eqnarray}
1334: &&p_T(\ell)\geq15~{\rm GeV}, \ |\eta(\ell)|<2.5, \ \cancel{E}_T>40~{\rm GeV}\\
1335: &&p_T(j)\geq25~{\rm GeV}, \ |\eta(j)|<3.0, \\
1336: &&\Delta R_{jj},\ \Delta R_{j\ell}\geq 0.4.
1337: \end{eqnarray}
1338: To simulate the detector effects on the energy-momentum measurements,
1339: we use the same smearing parameters as in the previous section.
1340: The irreducible SM backgrounds to this channel are
1341: \begin{eqnarray}
1342: W^\pm jj,\ \ W^+ W^-,\ \ W^\pm Z \to \ell^\pm jj+\cancel{E}_T.
1343: \end{eqnarray}
1344: %
1345: The $Wjj$ background is by far the largest. To further optimize the signal observability,
1346: \begin{itemize}
1347: \item we set additional cuts for hard lepton and jet
1348: \begin{eqnarray}
1349: p_T^{\rm max}(\ell)>M_\Psi/4,\quad p_T^{\rm max}(j)>M_\Psi/4.
1350: \end{eqnarray}
1351: \item The SM background events of $\ell^\pm \cancel{E}_T$ typically have
1352: the origin from $W^\pm$. We thus veto the $W$ boson with
1353: the help of a transverse mass cut $M_T(\ell\nu)>150~{\rm GeV}$.
1354: After this cut, the $WW,WZ$ backgrounds are at a negligible level.
1355: \item For the associated production of heavy particles like the
1356: two leptoquarks of several hundred ${\rm GeV}$, the cluster mass
1357: of the system indicates the large threshold. We define
1358: \begin{eqnarray}
1359: M_{cluster}=\sqrt{M_{2j}^2+(\sum\vec{p}_T^j)^2}+\sqrt{(\sum\vec{p}_T^\ell)^2}+\cancel{E}_T
1360: \end{eqnarray}
1361: and will impose a high mass cut to select the signal events $M_{cluster}>2M_\Psi$.
1362: \item The mass reconstruction for $\ell j$ and $\nu j$ can be
1363: very indicative. In order to select the correct
1364: lepton and jet combination to reconstruct $\Psi_1$ we define a transverse mass $M_T$
1365: by one jet and the missing transverse energy
1366: \begin{eqnarray}
1367: M_T(j\nu)= \sqrt{(E_T(j)+\cancel{E}_T)^2-(\vec{p}_T(j)+\vec{\cancel{p}}_T)^2}.
1368: \end{eqnarray}
1369: This variable has an upper bound $M_\Psi$, and is typically smaller than
1370: $M_{\ell j}$. We thus accept the momentum combination if
1371: $M(\ell j_1)>M_T(j_2\nu),\ M(\ell j_2)<M_T(j_1\nu)$, or
1372: $M(\ell j_2)>M_T(j_1\nu),\ M(\ell j_1)<M_T(j_2\nu)$.
1373: %
1374: However, there are two other possibilities that both transverse masses of the two
1375: combinations are smaller or larger than their invariant masses. In these cases,
1376: we select the combination with smaller $|M(\ell j)-M_T(j\nu)|$ as the right one.
1377: In Fig.~\ref{re} we show the reconstructed invariant
1378: mass and transverse mass distributions
1379: for a leptoquark mass $400~{\rm GeV}$ for illustration.
1380: %
1381: \begin{figure}[tb]
1382: \begin{center}
1383: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1384: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{lqpsi12mlj.eps}
1385: \end{tabular}
1386: \end{center}
1387: \caption{Reconstructed invariant mass of $M(\ell^\pm j)$ and transverse mass $M_T(j\nu)$ for a leptoquark mass $400~{\rm GeV}$.}
1388: \label{re}
1389: \end{figure}
1390: %
1391: After selecting correct resonance, we impose transverse mass and
1392: invariant mass cuts for leptoquarks
1393: \begin{eqnarray}
1394: M_T(j\nu)<M_\Psi, \ \ \ |M(\ell j)-M_\Psi|<20.
1395: \end{eqnarray}
1396: \end{itemize}
1397: We list the signal and background cross sections with the consecutive cuts in Table.~\ref{TabIV},
1398: for the case of $M_\Psi=400~{\rm GeV}$.
1399: We see that the $W^\pm jj$ background is at the $O(0.1~{\rm fb})$ level.
1400: %
1401: The production cross section of $\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast + \Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2$
1402: versus its mass with basic cuts and
1403: all cuts are plotted in Fig.~\ref{cs12wbkg}. We see that the cuts are highly
1404: efficient for the signal and the background processes of $Wjj$ is
1405: under control up to $M_{\Psi}\sim 1$ TeV.
1406:
1407: We would now like to consider the other potentially large backgrounds, namely,
1408: $t\bar{t}\to bb\ell^+\ell^-+\cancel{E}_T$ and leptoquark pair production via QCD
1409: $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast\to jj\ell^+\ell^-$. Demanding one isolated lepton with the basic
1410: cuts and vetoing the extra leptons in the range
1411: \begin{eqnarray}
1412: p_T(\ell)>10~{\rm GeV}, \ \ \ |\eta(\ell)|<3.0,
1413: \end{eqnarray}
1414: the $t\bar t$ background is reduced by more than two orders of magnitude and
1415: the $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast$ background by about five orders of magnitude.
1416: The lepton vetoing is considered part of the basic cuts.
1417: With the additional $M_T$ and $M(\ell j)$ cuts, the backgrounds would be under control,
1418: as listed in Table.~\ref{TabIV}.
1419: %
1420: \begin{figure}[tb]
1421: \begin{center}
1422: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1423: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8.5cm]{lqpsi12wbkg.eps}
1424: \end{tabular}
1425: \end{center}
1426: \caption{Total cross section for $\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast+\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2$
1427: production after the basic cuts (solid curve) and all cuts
1428: (dotted curves) and the leading $Wjj$ background after all cuts (''$\times$'' marks).}
1429: \label{cs12wbkg}
1430: \end{figure}
1431: %
1432: \begin{table}[tb]
1433: \begin{tabular}{| c || c | c |c | c| c|c|}
1434: \hline
1435: $\sigma$(fb) & Basic & $p_T^\ell,p_T^j$ cut & $M_W$ veto & $M_{\rm Cluster}$ & $M_T$ & $M_{\ell j}$ \\
1436: cuts & Cuts & $>M_\Psi/4,M_\Psi/4$ & $M_T(\ell\nu)>150~{\rm GeV}$ & $>2M_\Psi$ & $<M_\Psi$ & $M_\Psi\pm 20~{\rm GeV}$ \\
1437: \hline
1438: $\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast+\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2$ & & & & & & \\
1439: $M_\Psi=400~{\rm GeV}$ & 3.8 & 3.4 & 2.9 & 2.7 & 2.4 & 2.1\\
1440: \hline
1441: $jjW^\pm$ & & & & & & \\
1442: $M_\Psi=400~{\rm GeV}$ & $4.8\times 10^5$ & $2.3\times 10^4$ & 9.8 & 9.5 & 8.2 & 0.42\\
1443: $M_\Psi=600~{\rm GeV}$ & $4.8\times 10^5$ & 7332 & 6.7 & 5.1 & 4.7 & 0.091\\
1444: $M_\Psi=800~{\rm GeV}$ & $4.8\times 10^5$ & 2945 & 4.2 & 2.0 & 1.9 & 0.018\\
1445: \hline
1446: \hline
1447: $t\bar{t}$ & & & & & & \\
1448: $M_\Psi=400~{\rm GeV}$ & 186 & 11 & 7.5 & 0.6 & 0.58 & $-$\\
1449: \hline
1450: $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast$ & & & & & & \\
1451: $M_\Psi=400~{\rm GeV}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-2}$ & $2.4\times 10^{-2}$ & $7.2\times 10^{-3}$ & $7.2\times 10^{-3}$ & $7.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $5.4\times 10^{-3}$
1452: \\
1453: \hline
1454: \end{tabular}
1455: \caption{$\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast+\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2$ signal and irreducible background $jjW^\pm$ and reducible backgrounds $t\bar{t}$ and $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast$ for $400~{\rm GeV}$ leptoquark mass. }
1456: \label{TabIV}
1457: \end{table}
1458: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1459: \subsection{Measuring Branching Fractions and Probing the Neutrino Mass Patterns}
1460: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1461: So far, we have only studied the characteristic features of the signal and backgrounds
1462: for the leading channels and have taken the decay branching fractions of the leptoquarks
1463: to be $100\%$. As we presented earlier,
1464: the $\Psi_1,\ \Psi_2$ decay branching fractions and the light neutrino mass
1465: matrix are directly correlated. Measuring the BR's of different flavor
1466: combinations becomes crucial in understanding the neutrino mass pattern and thus
1467: the mass generation mechanism.
1468: %
1469: In contrast, it has been customarily assumed~\cite{Affolder:2000ny,LQexp}
1470: that the leptoquark is flavor diagonal in each fermion generation.
1471: %
1472: We list the leading reconstructible leptonic channels along with the predicted
1473: branching fractions in Table.~\ref{TabV}, where the light quarks ($d,s$) can be identified
1474: as jets, and the $b$ quark may be flavor-tagged.
1475: We also associate these channels with predictions of the neutrino mass patterns.
1476: %
1477: We reiterate some of the key observations in connecting the LHC signals of the leptoquarks
1478: to the neutrino parameters.
1479:
1480: %---------------------
1481: \begin{itemize}
1482: \item $\Psi_2$ decays are independent of any phases. They are thus
1483: robust to test the mass pattern.
1484: \item $\Psi_1$ decays to a lepton plus inclusive jets
1485: are also independent of any phases. They are robust to test the mass pattern as well.
1486: \item These channels are not sensitive to Majorana phase $\Phi_2$.
1487: \item The sensitivity to $\Phi_1$ can be significant if $b$-flavor tagging can be exploited
1488: in the cases of the IH and QD.
1489: \end{itemize}
1490:
1491: %
1492: \begin{center}
1493: \begin{table}[tb]
1494: \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|c|}
1495: \hline
1496: Signal channels & Leading modes and BR & Leading modes and BR & Leading modes and BR
1497: \\
1498: & Normal Hierarchy & Inverted Hierarchy & Quasi degenerate \\
1499: \hline \hline
1500: $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast$ & & & \\
1501: $\Phi_1=\Phi_2=0$ & & $e^+be^-\bar{b}: \ \ \ (40-50\%)^2$ & \\
1502: \hline
1503: & $\mu^+ j\approx \tau^+ j:$ & $\mu^+ j\approx \tau^+ j:$ & $e^+b \approx \mu^+s\approx \tau^+ d:$ \\
1504: & any $\ell$ pairs: \ $(40-60\%)^2$ & any $\ell$ pairs: \ $(20-30\%)^2$& any $\ell$ pairs:\ $(30\%)^2$\\
1505: % \hline
1506: & & $\mu^+j\ e^-\bar{b} \approx \tau^+j\ e^-\bar{b}:$ & \\
1507: & & $ (20-30\%)\times(40-50\%)$ & \\
1508: \hline
1509: $\Phi_1\approx \pi,\Phi_2=0$ & independent of $\Phi_1$ &
1510: $ e b \leftrightarrow e j$,\ $\mu j \leftrightarrow \mu b$, $\tau j \leftrightarrow \tau b$ &
1511: $ e b \leftrightarrow e j$,\ $\mu s \leftrightarrow \mu b$, $\tau d \leftrightarrow \tau b$ \\
1512: & &
1513: $ e b + e j$,\ $\mu j + \mu b$, $\tau j + \tau b$ &
1514: $ e b + e j$,\ $\mu j + \mu b$, $\tau j + \tau b$ \\
1515: & &
1516: unchanged &
1517: unchanged \\
1518: \hline
1519: $\Phi_1=0,\Phi_2\approx \pi$ &
1520: $s\mu \leftrightarrow d\mu$,\ \ $d\tau \leftrightarrow s\tau$
1521: & independent of $\Phi_2$ &
1522: $s\mu \leftrightarrow d\mu$,\ \ $d\tau \leftrightarrow s\tau$ \\
1523: %
1524: &
1525: $\mu j,\ \tau j$ unchanged
1526: & & $eb,\ \mu j,\ \tau j$ unchanged \\
1527: \hline \hline
1528: $\Psi_1\Psi_2^\ast(\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2)$ & & & \\
1529: $\Phi_1=\Phi_2=0$ & $\mu^+ j\ j\bar{\nu}:$
1530: & $e^+bb\bar{\nu}: \ \ (40-50\%)\times 50\%$ & $\mu^+s j\bar{\nu},e^+b j\bar{\nu} \ \ \ 2(30\%)^2$\\
1531: & $ (40-60\%)\times 100\%$ & $\mu^+j b\bar{\nu}: \ \ (20-30\%)\times 50\%$
1532: & $\mu^+s b\bar{\nu},e^+b b\bar{\nu} \ \ \ (30\%)^2$\\
1533: \hline
1534: $\Phi_1\approx \pi,\Phi_2=0$ & independent of $\Phi_1$ &
1535: $eb\leftrightarrow ej,\ \mu j \leftrightarrow \mu b $
1536: & $eb\leftrightarrow ej,\ \mu s \leftrightarrow \mu b $ \\
1537: \hline
1538: $\Phi_1=0,\Phi_2\approx \pi$ & $\mu^\pm j\ j\bar{\nu}$ unchanged
1539: & independent of $\Phi_2$ & $eb,\ \mu s $ unchanged \\
1540: \hline
1541: \end{tabular}
1542: \caption{Leading fully reconstructible channels and the indicative ranges
1543: of their branching fractions.
1544: The light neutrino mass patterns of the NH and IH with the
1545: lightest neutrino mass $m_0\lesssim 10^{-2}~{\rm eV}$ are shown in the first two
1546: columns, including the effects of vanishing and large Majorana phases.
1547: The last column shows the Quasi degenerate neutrino mass pattern when
1548: $m_0 > 0.1~{\rm eV}$. A jet of a light quark $(d,s)$ is denoted by $j$.}
1549: \label{TabV}
1550: \end{table}
1551: \end{center}
1552: %---------------------
1553: For illustration, consider first the cleanest
1554: channel, $\Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast\to \mu^+j \ \mu^- j\ (j=d,s)$. The number of events is written as
1555: \begin{eqnarray}
1556: N=L\times \sigma(pp\to \Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast)\times {\rm BR}^2(\Psi_1\to \mu^+j),\label{event}
1557: \end{eqnarray}
1558: where $L$ is the integrated luminosity. Given a sufficient number
1559: of events $N$, the mass of leptoquark is determined by the invariant
1560: mass of lepton and jet $M_{\ell j}$. We thus predict the corresponding
1561: production rate $\sigma(pp\to \Psi_1\Psi_1^\ast)$ for this given mass.
1562: The only unknown in the Eq.~(\ref{event}) is the decay branching fraction.
1563: %
1564: We present the event contours in the BR$-M_{\Psi_1}$ plane in Fig.~\ref{eve}(a)
1565: for $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ luminosity including all the judicious cuts described earlier, with which the backgrounds are insignificant.
1566: We see that the LHC has tremendous sensitivity to probe the channel
1567: $\Psi_1\to \mu +$jet within and beyond the predicted branching fraction
1568: ($35\%-60\%$ in NH, $20\%-30\%$ in IH, and $30\%$ in QD)
1569: up to and beyond $M_{\Psi_1}\sim 1$ TeV.
1570:
1571: Since the $\Psi_2$ decay is independent of the unknown Majorana phases, it is thus
1572: important to search for the $\Psi_1 \Psi_2^\ast(\Psi_1^\ast\Psi_2)$ signal. In Fig.~\ref{eve}(b),
1573: we show the event contours in the BR$-M_{\Psi_1}$ plane, for
1574: $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ luminosity including all the judicious cuts described earlier.
1575: We see that with the estimated branching fraction for $\nu+$jet, one can reach the
1576: coverage of about $M_{\Psi_1}\sim 0.6$ TeV or higher.
1577: %
1578: \begin{figure}[tb]
1579: \begin{center}
1580: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1581: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{evtlqpair.eps}
1582: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{evtlq12.eps}
1583: \end{tabular}
1584: \end{center}
1585: \caption{Event contours in the BR$-M_{\Psi_1}$ plane at the LHC with an integrated luminosity $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ for (a) $\Psi_1 \Psi_1^*\to \mu^+ j\ \mu^-j $,
1586: and (b) $\Psi_1 \Psi_2^*+\Psi_1^* \Psi_2\to \mu^+ j\ j \nu$,
1587: including all the judicious cuts describe in the early sections.}
1588: \label{eve}
1589: \end{figure}
1590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1591: \subsection{Single Production of $\Psi_1$}
1592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1593: The leptoquark pair production is
1594: well predicted by its SU$(3)_c$ and SU$(2)_L$ gauge interactions, and
1595: their decays studied in the previous sections are governed by the neutrino
1596: oscillation parameters, and all are model-independent.
1597: The drawback for this nice feature, however, is that it does not
1598: provide the model-dependent details, such as the Yukawa couplings or equivalently
1599: the vev $v^{}_\Delta$. In order to further test the theory, one needs to involve the
1600: Yukawa couplings in the production process. This is the single production of a leptoquark,
1601: as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:single}).
1602:
1603: The parton level cross section for this process is
1604: \begin{eqnarray}
1605: {d\sigma\over d\hat{t}}(gd_i(\bar{d}_i)\to \Psi_1(\Psi_1^\ast)\ell^-_j(\ell^+_j))&=&{|\Gamma_1^{ij}|^2\alpha_s\over 48\hat{s}^2}\left[{\hat{s}+\hat{t}-M_{\Psi_1}^2\over \hat{s}}+{\hat{t}(\hat{t}+M_{\Psi_1}^2)\over (\hat{t}-M_{\Psi_1}^2)^2}+{\hat{t}(2M_{\Psi_1}^2-\hat{s})\over \hat{s}(\hat{t}-M_{\Psi_1}^2)}\right]
1606: \end{eqnarray}
1607: where $\hat{t}=(p_{d_i}-p_{\ell_j})^2$.
1608: Taking into account the neutrino oscillation constraints, in Fig.~\ref{cssin} we show the scatter
1609: plots for the total cross section of single $\Psi_1$ production versus the lightest neutrino mass,
1610: for the NH case (left) and the IH case (right).
1611: The total cross sections for both cases are less than $1~{\rm fb}$, although it can become
1612: larger when reaching the quasi degenerate case for $m_\nu > 0.1$ eV.
1613: %
1614: \begin{figure}[tb]
1615: \begin{center}
1616: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1617: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{MHlqgqtaunh.eps}
1618: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{MHlqgqeih.eps}
1619: \end{tabular}
1620: \end{center}
1621: \caption{Total cross section for single $\Psi_1$ production with $4~{\rm eV}\leq v_\Delta\leq 10~{\rm eV}$.}
1622: \label{cssin}
1623: \end{figure}
1624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1625: To estimate the backgrounds, we start from the cleanest channels with $e,\mu$ in the final state
1626: from $\Psi_1$ decay. The signal consists of one pair of opposite-sign
1627: same-flavor leptons and one light jet. We employ the same basic
1628: acceptance cuts and smearing parameters as the pair production.
1629:
1630: The irreducible SM backgrounds to this channel are
1631: \begin{eqnarray}
1632: Z^\ast/\gamma^\ast j\to \ell^+\ell^- j, \quad W^+W^-j\to \ell^+\ell^-j+\cancel{E}_T.
1633: \label{bkg}
1634: \end{eqnarray}
1635: Once again, the signal and background kinematics are quite. We outline the characteristics and propose
1636: some judicious cuts as follows.
1637: \begin{itemize}
1638: \item The leptons and jets from the leptoquark decay are very hard. We tighten up the $p_T$
1639: cuts
1640: \begin{eqnarray}
1641: p_T^{\rm max}(\ell)>M_{\Psi_1}/4,\quad p_T^{\rm max}(j)>M_{\Psi_1}/4.
1642: \end{eqnarray}
1643: \item Because the two leptons are largely back-to-back
1644: for $jZ^\ast/\gamma^\ast$ background, we can set a cut for the angle between
1645: the two leptons in the transverse plane $\cos\phi_{\ell\ell}>-0.5$.
1646: \item To remove the $Z$ background, we veto the lepton pairs
1647: with opposite charges in the ${Z}$-mass window $|M_{\ell^+\ell^-}-M_Z|>15~{\rm GeV}$.
1648: \item To remove the $jWW$ background, we veto the missing energy from $W$ decay and
1649: require $\cancel{E}_T<25~{\rm GeV}$.
1650: \item In order to select the correct lepton and jet combination
1651: and reconstruct the leptoquark, we make use of the feature that the lepton
1652: from leptoquark decay is harder than that produced with $\Psi_1$, as seen
1653: in Fig.~\ref{sinptlmass}(a).
1654: \item Finally, when we perform a signal significance analysis,
1655: we look for a resonance in the mass distribution of $\ell j$.
1656: The invariant mass of $\ell+j$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{sinptlmass}(b) with
1657: the event selection for $400~{\rm GeV}$ leptoquark mass. The long tail in the
1658: high mass region is due to the wrong choice of the lepton.
1659: We propose to look at a mass window of $|M_{\ell j}-M_{\Psi_1}|<M_{\Psi_1}/20$.
1660: \end{itemize}
1661: We summarize the background rates with the above consecutive cuts, optimized
1662: for a $M_{\Psi_1}=400~{\rm GeV}$ signal in Table.~\ref{TabSin}.
1663: Unfortunately, even after all these optimal cuts, the $\gamma^*/Z j$ background
1664: is still larger than the signal by more than an order of magnitude for both the NH
1665: and IH cases. Unless we are deep in the quasi degenerate situation when the
1666: Yukawa coupling is substantially larger, the single LQ production would not be
1667: observable above the huge SM background.
1668: We will not pursue this channel further.
1669: %
1670: \begin{figure}[tb]
1671: \begin{center}
1672: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1673: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{lqgqptl.eps}
1674: \includegraphics[scale=1,width=8cm]{lqgqmlj.eps}
1675: \end{tabular}
1676: \end{center}
1677: \caption{(a) $p_T(\ell)$ distributions for the primary lepton and that from $\Psi_1$ decay,
1678: and (b) invariant mass $M(\ell j)$ for a $400~{\rm GeV}$ single leptoquark production.}
1679: \label{sinptlmass}
1680: \end{figure}
1681: %
1682: \begin{table}[tb]
1683: \begin{tabular}{| c || c | c |c | c| c|c|}
1684: \hline
1685: $\sigma$(pb) & Basic & $\cos\phi_{\ell\ell}$ & $p_T^\ell,p_T^j$ cut & $M_Z$ veto & $M_W$ veto & $M_{\ell j}$ \\
1686: cuts & Cuts & $>-0.5$ & $>100,100~{\rm GeV}$ & $\pm 15~{\rm GeV}$ & $\cancel{E}_T<25~{\rm GeV}$ & $\pm 20~{\rm GeV}$ \\
1687: \hline
1688: $j\gamma^\ast/Z^\ast$ & 309 & 113 & 9.3 & 0.82 & 0.82 & $6.5\times 10^{-2}$\\
1689: \hline
1690: $jW^\pm W^\mp$ & 0.87 & 0.48 & $5.8\times 10^{-2}$ & $4.7\times 10^{-2}$ & $5.6\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.3\times 10^{-4}$\\
1691: \hline
1692: \end{tabular}
1693: \caption{Backgrounds for a $400~{\rm GeV}$ leptoquark single production.}
1694: \label{TabSin}
1695: \end{table}
1696: %
1697: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1698: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
1699: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1700: We have studied the properties of light scalar leptoquarks,
1701: $\Phi_b^T = (\Psi_1, \Psi_2) \sim (3,2,1/6)$, in the context of
1702: a simple grand unified theory where the neutrino masses are
1703: generated through the Type II seesaw mechanism.
1704: The $SU(5)$ symmetry of this theory implies that the coupling of the
1705: leptoquarks to matter are governed by the neutrino mass matrix.
1706: We considered the low energy constraints on the model parameters
1707: and explored the feasibility of testing the theory at the LHC with
1708: detailed parton-level simulations for the signal and SM backgrounds.
1709: We focus mainly on the different scenarios where the semileptonic
1710: decays of leptoquarks are the dominant decay channels.
1711: We found the following interesting results:
1712: %
1713: \begin{itemize}
1714: \item Among the low-energy constraints coming from meson decays,
1715: lepton flavour violation, and electroweak precision data, the strongest bound
1716: is from the $K_L\to \mu^+\mu^-$ decay, that leads to
1717: $M_{\Psi_1} v^{}_\Delta >1600$ GeV$\cdot$eV.
1718: %
1719: \item The decays of the scalar leptoquarks are quite
1720: different in each spectrum for neutrino masses. Consider the most important
1721: $\Psi_1$ decay.
1722: In the NH scenario, the leading decay channels
1723: are $\mu+j$ and $\tau+j$, while the $e+j$ channel is absent.
1724: In the IH scenario, the $e+b$ channel is the leading one, while
1725: $\mu+j$ and $\tau+j$ are next. In the Quasi-degenerate case,
1726: the leading channels are shared by $eb\approx \mu s \approx \tau d$.
1727: %
1728: \item The decays of $\Psi_2$ are independent
1729: of the unknown phases in the theory. One can use these
1730: decays to test the neutrino mass pattern without additional ambiguity.
1731: %
1732: \item The signal dependence on the Majorana phase $\Phi_2$
1733: is very weak. However, the dependence on $\Phi_1$
1734: in the case of IH and QD hierarchy can be strong, and determining the $b\ell$ contributions
1735: could help probe $\Phi_1$ if we can effectively exploit $b$-flavor tagging.
1736: Specifically, we have, for the IH or QD hierarchy,
1737: \begin{eqnarray}
1738: {\rm BR}(be) \left\{
1739: \begin{array}{lll}
1740: \gg {\rm BR}(b\mu),\ {\rm BR}(b\tau) & & {\rm for}\ \ \Phi_1 \approx 0; \\
1741: \ll {\rm BR}(b\mu),\ {\rm BR}(b\tau) & & {\rm for}\ \ \Phi_1 \approx \pi .
1742: \end{array}
1743: \right.
1744: \end{eqnarray}
1745: We reiterate that due to the symmetry in the neutrino mass matrix, the
1746: theory has the interesting prediction for the correlations
1747: ${\rm BR}(b\mu)={\rm BR}(se)$ and ${\rm BR}(b\tau)={\rm BR}(de)$.
1748: We also note that the difference between the IH and QD cases is rather small,
1749: with $\ell b$ branching fraction to be $30\%$ in the QD case, compared to
1750: $40-50\%$ in the IH case.
1751: %
1752: \item The leading production of the leptoquarks is via the QCD process,
1753: $pp \to \Psi_1 \Psi_1^\ast$. We demonstrated that besides the clean di-lepton
1754: channels from $e,\ \mu$, the $\tau$ final state can be effectively reconstructed
1755: as well. Even with only the clean channel
1756: $\mu^+\mu^- +$jets, the signal observability can extend to
1757: $M_{\Psi_1} \sim 1$ TeV and beyond.
1758: %
1759: \item Although the rate is smaller than for QCD pair production, the electroweak process of associated production
1760: $\Psi_1 \Psi_2^\ast(\Psi_1^\ast \Psi_2)$ can be very useful by making use of
1761: both $\Psi_1,\ \Psi_2$ decays simultaneously
1762: to identify the quantum numbers of the leptoquarks and
1763: to distinguish between the neutrino mass spectra. Even with only the clean
1764: channel of $\mu+\cancel{E}_T+$jets, the signal observability can reach
1765: about $M_{\Psi_1}\sim 0.6$ TeV or higher.
1766: %
1767: \item We have found that the single leptoquark production via its
1768: Yukawa couplings is very small in both NH and IH spectrum.
1769: %
1770: \end{itemize}
1771:
1772: The discovery of these leptoquarks at the LHC could test this appealing scenario
1773: for neutrino mass generation at a fundamental level,
1774: and give us a hint about a possible candidate theory for grand unification.
1775:
1776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1777: \subsection*{Acknowledgments}
1778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1779: The work of P. F. P. and M.R-M. was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
1780: contract No. DE-FG02-08ER41531 and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni
1781: Research Foundation. P. F. P would like to thank I. Dorsner,
1782: R. Gonzalez Felipe, G. Rodrigo and G. Senjanovi\'c for discussions.
1783: The work of T. H. is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy
1784: under grant No. DE-FG02-95ER40896, and by the Wisconsin Alumni Research
1785: Foundation. T. L. would like to thank Kai Wang for discussions and
1786: the Ministry of Education of China for support and would also
1787: like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Phenomenology Institute,
1788: University of Wisconsin-Madison while the work was carried out.
1789: \appendix
1790: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1791: \section{EXPLICIT EXPRESSIONS FOR $\Gamma_1$ AND $\Gamma_2$}
1792: \label{app:gammas}
1793: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1794: As seen from Eq.~(\ref{G12}), we have
1795: \begin{eqnarray}
1796: &&\Gamma_1=\Gamma_2V^\dagger_{PMNS}K_3^* \ \ {\rm and} \ \
1797: \Gamma_2=BK_3^*V^*_{PMNS}{m_\nu^{diag}\over v_\Delta}
1798: \end{eqnarray}
1799: and define
1800: \begin{eqnarray}
1801: &&Y_1^{ij}=\Gamma_1^{ij}\times v_\Delta, \ \ Y_2^{i}=\sum^3_{j=1}|\Gamma_2^{ij}|^2\times v_\Delta^2,\\
1802: &&B=\left(
1803: \begin{array}{lll}
1804: 0 & 0 & e^{ i \beta_1} \\
1805: 0 & e^{i \beta_2} & 0 \\
1806: e^{i \beta_3} & 0 & 0
1807: \end{array}
1808: \right), \ \ K_3=\left(
1809: \begin{array}{lll}
1810: e^{ i \alpha_1} & 0 & 0 \\
1811: 0 & e^{i \alpha_2} & 0 \\
1812: 0 & 0 & e^{ i \alpha_3}
1813: \end{array}
1814: \right)
1815: \end{eqnarray}
1816: \begin{eqnarray}
1817: Y_2^{1}&=&c_{13}^2c_{23}^2m_3^2+c_{12}^2c_{23}^2s_{13}^2m_1^2+c_{23}^2s_{12}^2s_{13}^2m_2^2+c_{12}^2s_{23}^2m_2^2+
1818: s_{12}^2s_{23}^2m_1^2\nonumber \\
1819: &-&2c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\cos(\delta)(m_1^2-m_2^2),\\
1820: Y_2^{2}&=&c_{23}^2s_{12}^2m_1^2+c_{13}^2s_{23}^2m_3^2+s_{12}^2s_{13}^2s_{23}^2m_2^2+c_{12}^2(c_{23}^2m_2^2+
1821: s_{13}^2s_{23}^2m_1^2)\nonumber \\
1822: &+&2c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}\cos(\delta)(m_1^2-m_2^2),\\
1823: Y_2^{3}&=&c_{12}^2c_{13}^2m_1^2+c_{13}^2s_{12}^2m_2^2+s_{13}^2m_3^2.
1824: \end{eqnarray}
1825: and
1826: \begin{eqnarray}
1827: e^{-i\beta_3}Y_1^{31}&=&e^{-2i\alpha_1}(c_{13}^2s_{12}^2m_2+c_{12}^2c_{13}^2e^{-i\Phi_1}m_1+s_{13}^2e^{2i\delta}
1828: e^{-i\Phi_2}m_3),\\
1829: e^{-i\beta_2}Y_1^{21}&=&e^{-i\beta_3}Y_1^{32}=e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}c_{13}(s_{12}(c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{-i\delta})m_2\nonumber \\
1830: &+&
1831: c_{12}(-c_{23}s_{12}-c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{-i\delta})e^{-i\Phi_1}m_1+s_{13}s_{23}e^{i\delta}e^{-i\Phi_2}m_3),
1832: \end{eqnarray}
1833: \begin{eqnarray}
1834: e^{-i\beta_1}Y_1^{11}&=&e^{-i\beta_3}Y_1^{33}=e^{-i(\alpha_1+\alpha_3)}c_{13}(s_{12}(-c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}s_{13}c_{23}e^{-i\delta})m_2\nonumber \\
1835: &+&
1836: c_{12}(s_{23}s_{12}-c_{12}s_{13}c_{23}e^{-i\delta})e^{-i\Phi_1}m_1+s_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta}e^{-i\Phi_2}m_3),\\
1837: e^{-i\beta_2}Y_1^{22}&=&e^{-2i\alpha_2}((c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{-i\delta})^2m_2+(c_{23}s_{12}+
1838: c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{-i\delta})^2e^{-i\Phi_1}m_1\nonumber \\
1839: &+&c_{13}^2s_{23}^2e^{-i\Phi_2}m_3),\\
1840: e^{-i\beta_1}Y_1^{12}&=&e^{-i\beta_2}Y_1^{23}=e^{-i(\alpha_2+\alpha_3)}(-(c_{12}s_{23}+c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}e^{-i\delta})(c_{12}c_{23}
1841: -s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{-i\delta})m_2\nonumber \\
1842: &+&(s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta})(-c_{23}s_{12}-
1843: c_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{-i\delta})e^{-i\Phi_1}m_1\nonumber \\
1844: &+&c_{13}^2c_{23}s_{23}e^{-i\Phi_2}m_3),\\
1845: e^{-i\beta_1}Y_1^{13}&=&e^{-2i\alpha_3}((c_{12}s_{23}+c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}e^{-i\delta})^2m_2+(s_{12}s_{23}-
1846: c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta})^2e^{-i\Phi_1}m_1\nonumber \\
1847: &+&c_{13}^2c_{23}^2e^{-i\Phi_2}m_3).
1848: \end{eqnarray}
1849: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1850: \section{THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LEPTOQUARKS TO THE OBLIQUE PARAMETERS}
1851: \label{app:oblique}
1852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1853: We have computed the renormalized self-energy functions ${\hat\Pi_{VV'}}(q^2)$ in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme and find that ${\hat\Pi_{VV'}}(0)=0$ for $V,V'=Z,\gamma$. Thus, the $T$ parameter is determined entirely by ${\hat\Pi_{WW}}(0)$ and reads
1854: \begin{equation}
1855: {\hat\alpha}(M_Z)\, T = \frac{{\hat\alpha}}{8\pi{\hat s}^2}\frac{N_C}{ M_W^2}\, \left[ \frac{1}{2}(M_1^2+M_2^2)+\frac{M_1^2 M_2^2}{M_1^2-M_2^2}\, \ln \frac{M_2^2}{M_1^2}\right]\ \ \ ,
1856: \end{equation}
1857: where $M_k\equiv M_{\Psi_k}$ ($k=1,2$) and where the running parameters ${\hat\alpha}$ and ${\hat s}$ on the RHS have been evaluated at the scale $\mu=M_Z$. The $S$ parameter, in contrast, requires inclusion of ${\hat\Pi_{VV'}}(M_Z^2)\not=0$ for $V,V'=Z,\gamma$, leading to
1858: \begin{eqnarray}
1859: \nonumber
1860: {\hat\alpha}(M_Z)\, S & = & \frac{{\hat\alpha} N_C Y_{\mathrm{LQ}}}{\pi M_Z^2}\, \sum_{k=1}^2\, \Bigl[
1861: M_Z^2 F(M_k^2, M_k^2, M_Z^2) -\frac{M_Z^2}{6}\ln M_Z^2\\
1862: && + M_k^2\ln M_k^2-2 M_k^2 F_1(M_k^2, M_k^2, M_Z^2)\Bigr]\ \ \ ,
1863: \end{eqnarray}
1864: where the sum runs over the two LQ states having hypercharge $Y_{\mathrm{LQ}}$ and where
1865: \begin{eqnarray}
1866: F_n(a,b,c)&=&\int_0^1 dx\, x^n\, \ln[a(1-x)+bx-c x(1-x)-i\varepsilon]\\
1867: \nonumber
1868: F& = & F_1-F_2\ \ \ .
1869: \end{eqnarray}
1870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1872: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1874:
1875: \bibitem{GUTReview} For a review on GUTs, see for example
1876: G.~Senjanovi\'c,
1877: ``Course on grand unification,''
1878: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=7672721}{SPIRES entry}
1879: {\it Prepared for 2nd International Summer School in High Energy Physics, Mugla, Turkey, 25-30 Sep 2006}.
1880:
1881:
1882: \bibitem{review} For a review see
1883: P.~Nath and P.~Fileviez P\'erez,
1884: ``Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings, and in branes,''
1885: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 441} (2007) 191
1886: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601023]. For future proton decay experiments see
1887: %%CITATION = PRPLC,441,191;%%
1888: D.~Autiero {\it et al.},
1889: ``Large underground, liquid based detectors for astro-particle physics in
1890: Europe: scientific case and prospects,''
1891: JCAP {\bf 0711} (2007) 011
1892: [arXiv:0705.0116 [hep-ph]].
1893: %%CITATION = JCAPA,0711,011;%%
1894:
1895: \bibitem{LQreview} S. Rolli, M. Tanabashi in PDG, ``Leptoquarks,'' W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}, J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).
1896:
1897: \bibitem{Buchmuller}
1898: W.~Buchmuller, R.~Ruckl and D.~Wyler,
1899: ``Leptoquarks in lepton quark collisions,''
1900: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 191} (1987) 442
1901: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 448} (1999) 320].
1902: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B191,442;%%
1903:
1904: \bibitem{HewettRizzo}
1905: J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,
1906: ``Low-Energy Phenomenology of Superstring Inspired E(6) Models,''
1907: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 183} (1989) 193.
1908: %%CITATION = PRPLC,183,193;%%
1909:
1910: \bibitem{paper1}
1911: I.~Dorsner and P.~Fileviez~P\'erez,
1912: ``Unification without supersymmetry: Neutrino mass, proton decay and light
1913: leptoquarks,''
1914: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 723} (2005) 53
1915: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504276].
1916: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504276;%%
1917:
1918: \bibitem{TypeII}
1919: W.~Konetschny and W.~Kummer,
1920: ``Nonconservation Of Total Lepton Number With Scalar Bosons,''
1921: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 70} (1977) 433;
1922: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B70,433;%%
1923: T.~P.~Cheng and L.~F.~Li,
1924: ``Neutrino Masses, Mixings And Oscillations In SU(2) X U(1) Models Of
1925: Electroweak Interactions,''
1926: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 2860;
1927: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2860;%%
1928: G.~Lazarides, Q.~Shafi and C.~Wetterich,
1929: ``Proton Lifetime And Fermion Masses In An SO(10) Model,''
1930: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 181} (1981) 287;
1931: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B181,287;%%
1932: J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
1933: ``Neutrino Masses In SU(2) X U(1) Theories,''
1934: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 2227;
1935: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2227;%%
1936: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovi\'c,
1937: ``Neutrino Masses And Mixings In Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity
1938: Violation,''
1939: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23} (1981) 165.
1940: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,165;%%
1941:
1942: %\cite{Dorsner:2005ii}
1943: \bibitem{paper2}
1944: I.~Dorsner, P.~Fileviez~P\'erez and R.~Gonzalez Felipe,
1945: ``Phenomenological and cosmological aspects of a minimal GUT scenario,''
1946: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 747} (2006) 312
1947: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512068].
1948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512068;%%
1949:
1950: \bibitem{paper3}
1951: I.~Dorsner, P.~Fileviez~P\'erez and G.~Rodrigo,
1952: ``Fermion Masses and the UV Cutoff of the Minimal Realistic SU(5),''
1953: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75} (2007) 125007
1954: [arXiv:hep-ph/0607208].
1955: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,125007;%%
1956:
1957: %\cite{Georgi:1974sy}
1958: \bibitem{GG}
1959: H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow,
1960: ``Unity Of All Elementary Particle Forces,''
1961: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 32} (1974) 438.
1962: %%CITATION = PRLTA,32,438;%%
1963:
1964: %\cite{Cirelli:2005uq}
1965: \bibitem{Cirelli:2005uq}
1966: M.~Cirelli, N.~Fornengo and A.~Strumia,
1967: ``Minimal dark matter,''
1968: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 753}, 178 (2006)
1969: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512090].
1970: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B753,178;%%
1971:
1972: %\cite{Dorsner:2004xa}
1973: \bibitem{upper1}
1974: I.~Dorsner and P.~Fileviez~P\'erez,
1975: ``How long could we live?,''
1976: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625} (2005) 88
1977: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410198].
1978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410198;%%
1979:
1980: \bibitem{upper2}
1981: P.~Fileviez~P\'erez,
1982: ``Upper bound on the proton lifetime and the minimal non-SUSY grand unified
1983: theory,''
1984: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 903} (2006) 385
1985: [arXiv:hep-ph/0606279].
1986: %%CITATION = APCPC,903,385;%%
1987:
1988: \bibitem{Schwetz}
1989: T.~Schwetz,
1990: ``Neutrino oscillations: present status and outlook,''
1991: arXiv:0710.5027 [hep-ph];
1992: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.5027;%%
1993: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~Tortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
1994: ``Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations,''
1995: New J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 6} (2004) 122
1996: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405172]. See also:
1997: %%CITATION = NJOPF,6,122;%%
1998: %\cite{GonzalezGarcia:2007ib}
1999: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and M.~Maltoni,
2000: ``Phenomenology with Massive Neutrinos,''
2001: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 460} (2008) 1
2002: [arXiv:0704.1800 [hep-ph]];
2003: %%CITATION = PRPLC,460,1;%%
2004: A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
2005: ``Neutrino masses and mixings and.,''
2006: arXiv:hep-ph/0606054.
2007: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0606054;%%
2008:
2009: %\cite{Perez:2008ha}
2010: \bibitem{seesaw}
2011: P.~Fileviez Perez, T.~Han, G.~Y.~Huang, T.~Li and K.~Wang,
2012: ``Neutrino Masses and the LHC: Testing Type II Seesaw,''
2013: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 78} (2008) 015018
2014: [arXiv:0805.3536 [hep-ph]];
2015: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D78,015018;%%
2016: %\cite{Perez:2008zc}
2017: %\bibitem{Perez:2008zc}
2018: % P.~Fileviez Perez, T.~Han, G.~Y.~Huang, T.~Li and K.~Wang,
2019: %``Testing a Neutrino Mass Generation Mechanism at the Large Hadron
2020: %Collider,''
2021: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 78} (2008) 071301
2022: [arXiv:0803.3450 [hep-ph]].
2023: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D78,071301;%%
2024:
2025:
2026: \bibitem{PDG}
2027: W.~M.~Yao {\it{et al.}} [Particle Data Group],
2028: ``Review of particle physics,''
2029: J.\ Phys.\ {\bf G33} (2006) 1.
2030:
2031: \bibitem{constraint1}
2032: S.~Davidson, D.~Bailey and B.~A.~Campbell,
2033: ``Model independent constraints on leptoquarks from rare processes,''
2034: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C61} (1994) 613
2035: [arXiv:hep-ph/9309310].
2036:
2037: \bibitem{constraint2}
2038: M.~Leurer,
2039: ``A Comprehensive Study of Leptoquark Bounds,''
2040: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49} (1994) 333
2041: [arXiv:hep-ph/9309266].
2042:
2043: \bibitem{smee}
2044: D.~G.~Dumm and A.~Pich,
2045: ``Long-distance contributions to the $K_L \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decay width,''
2046: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80} (1998) 4633
2047: [arXiv:hep-ph/9801298].
2048:
2049: %\cite{GomezDumm:1998pj}
2050: \bibitem{GomezDumm:1998pj}
2051: D.~Gomez Dumm and A.~Pich,
2052: ``Short- and long-distance contributions to the rare decay K(L) to mu+
2053: mu-,''
2054: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 74}, 186 (1999)
2055: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810523].
2056: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,74,186;%%
2057:
2058: %\cite{Bertl:2006up}
2059: \bibitem{Bertl:2006up}
2060: W.~Bertl {\it et al.} [SINDRUM II Collaboration],
2061: ``A Search for $\mu - e$ conversion in muonic gold,''
2062: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 47}, 337 (2006).
2063: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C47,337;%%
2064:
2065: \bibitem{mecon}
2066: R.~Kitano, M.~Koike and Y.~Okada,
2067: ``Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon-electron conversion rate for various nuclei,''
2068: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D66} (2002) 096002, Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf D76} (2007) 059902
2069: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203110]
2070:
2071: %\cite{Peskin:1990zt}
2072: \bibitem{Peskin}
2073: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,
2074: ``A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector,''
2075: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65}, 964 (1990).
2076: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,964;%%
2077:
2078: \bibitem{rho}
2079: J.~F.~Gunion, R.~Vega and J.~Wudka,
2080: ``Naturalness Problems For Rho=1 And Other Large One Loop Effects For A Standard Model Higgs Sector Containing
2081: Triplet Fields,''
2082: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D43} (1991) 2322.
2083:
2084: \bibitem{LQthe}
2085: B.~Dion, L.~Marleau and G.~Simon,
2086: ``Scalar Leptoquark Pair Production at the CERN LHC: Signal and Backgrounds,''
2087: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C2} (1998) 497
2088: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701285].
2089:
2090: \bibitem{nlopair}
2091: M.~Kr\"{a}mer, T.~Plehn, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
2092: ``Pair production of scalar leptoquarks at the CERN LHC,''
2093: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 057503
2094: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411038].
2095:
2096: \bibitem{prod1}
2097: J.~L.~Hewett and S.~Pakvasa,
2098: ``Scalar-leptoquark production at hadron colliders,''
2099: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37} (1988) 3165;
2100: %\cite{Eboli:1997fb}
2101: %\bibitem{Eboli:1997fb}
2102: O.~J.~P.~Eboli, R.~Zukanovich Funchal and T.~L.~Lungov,
2103: ``Signal and backgrounds for leptoquarks at the CERN LHC,''
2104: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 1715 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9709319].
2105: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,1715;%%
2106:
2107: \bibitem{prod2}
2108: A.~Belyaev, C.~Leroy, R.~Mehdiyev and A.~Pukhov,
2109: ``Leptoquark single and pair production at LHC with CalcHEP/CompHEP in the complete model,''
2110: JHEP 0509:005 (2005)
2111: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502067].
2112:
2113: %\cite{Affolder:2000ny}
2114: \bibitem{Affolder:2000ny}
2115: A.~A.~Affolder {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
2116: ``Search for second and third generation leptoquarks including production via
2117: technicolor interactions in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.8$ TeV,''
2118: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 2056 (2000)
2119: [arXiv:hep-ex/0004003];
2120: %%CITATION = PRLTA,85,2056;%%
2121: %\cite{Acosta:2005ge}
2122: %\bibitem{Acosta:2005ge}
2123: D.~E.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
2124: ``Search for first-generation scalar leptoquarks in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at
2125: $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV,''
2126: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 051107 (2005)
2127: [arXiv:hep-ex/0506074];
2128: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,051107;%%
2129: %\cite{Abulencia:2005ua}
2130: %\bibitem{Abulencia:2005ua}
2131: A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
2132: ``Search for second-generation scalar leptoquarks in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at
2133: $\sqrt{s} =$ 1.96-TeV,''
2134: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 051102 (2006)
2135: [arXiv:hep-ex/0512055].
2136: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,051102;%%
2137:
2138: \bibitem{LQexp}
2139: %\cite{Abazov:2004mk}
2140: %\bibitem{Abazov:2004mk}
2141: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
2142: ``Search for first-generation scalar leptoquarks in p anti-p collisions at
2143: $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 071104 (2005),
2144: [arXiv:hep-ex/0412029];
2145: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D71,071104;%%
2146: D0 Collaboration,
2147: ``Searches for Leptoquark Production at D0,'' [arXiv:0710.0255 [hep-ex]];
2148: D0 Collaboration, V. M. Abazov {\textit{et al.,}}
2149: ``Search for third generation scalar leptoquarks decaying into $\tau b$,''
2150: [arXiv:0806.3527 [hep-ex]];
2151: %\cite{Abazov:2008np}
2152: %\bibitem{Abazov:2008np}
2153: %V.~M.~Abazov [D0 Collaboration],
2154: ``Search for pair production of second generation scalar leptoquarks,''
2155: arXiv:0808.4023 [hep-ex].
2156: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0808.4023;%%
2157:
2158: \bibitem{cms}
2159: CMS TDR: {\textit{CMS Physics: Technical Design Report V.2: Physics Performance,}}
2160: CERN-LHCC-2006-021;
2161: %\cite{Abdullin:1999im}
2162: %\bibitem{Abdullin:1999im}
2163: S.~Abdullin and F.~Charles,
2164: ``Study of leptoquark pair production at the LHC with the CMS detector,''
2165: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 464}, 223 (1999)
2166: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905396].
2167: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B464,223;%%
2168:
2169: \bibitem{smwzzz}
2170: F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer,
2171: ``MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,''
2172: JHEP 0302:027 (2003)
2173: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208156].
2174:
2175: \end{thebibliography}
2176:
2177: \end{document}
2178: