1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{multicol} 

5: \usepackage{color}

6: 

7: \usepackage{amsmath}

8: \usepackage{amssymb}

9: 

10: \def\ie{{\it i.e. }}

11: \def\eg{{\it e.g. }}

12: \newcommand{\met}{{\rm E}\hspace{-0.45em}|\hspace{0.1em}}

13: \newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}

14: \newcommand{\tev}{\,\mbox{TeV}}

15: \newcommand{\fb}{\,\mbox{fb}}

16: \newcommand{\mll}{M_{\ell\ell}}

17: \newcommand{\meff}{M_{\rm eff}}

18: 

19: 

20: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,0.5,1,0.2}

21: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.9}

22: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.9}

23: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

24: \definecolor{viola}{cmyk}{0,1,0,0.6}

25: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

26: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

27: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

28: 

29: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

30: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.9}

31: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}

32: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

33: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}

34: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}

35: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

36: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

37: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

38: \definecolor{giallo}{cmyk}{0,0,1,0}

39: \definecolor{gialloverde}{cmyk}{0.44,0,0.74,0}

40: \definecolor{purple}{cmyk}{0.44,1,0.74,0}

41: 

42: 

43: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 12pt

44: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

45: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

46: \newfam\rsfsfam

47: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

48: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

49: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

50: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

51: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

52: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}

53: 

54: \oddsidemargin 0cm  \evensidemargin 0cm

55: \topmargin -1cm  \textwidth 17cm  \textheight 22.5cm

56: %\oddsidemargin 1cm  \evensidemargin 1cm \textwidth 14cm  \usepackage{showkeys}

57: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

58: \newcommand{\Ord}{{\cal O}}

59: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~\ref{fig:#1}}

60: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{eq:#1})}}

61: \newcommand{\sys}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{sys:#1})}}

62: \newcommand{\scatola}[1]{\fbox{$\displaystyle #1$}}

63: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}

64: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}

65: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,\hbox{\rm MeV}}

66: \newcommand{\eV}{\,\hbox{\rm eV}}

67: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

68: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}

69: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

70: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}

71: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}

72: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

73: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

74: \newcommand{\diag}{\hbox{diag}\,}

75: 

76: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

77: \makeatletter

78: 

79: %

80: % formato bibliografico standard

81: %

82: %\art[hep-ph/0408320]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

83: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}

84: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #3 \bf #4} {\rm (#6) #5} ({\em #1})}

85: %\def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #1}}

86: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, \em#1}}

87: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {\em #2 \bf #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

88: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }

89: %

90: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

91: %

92: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

93: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}

94: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to

95: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

96: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA

97: \def\eqnsystem#1{

98: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}

99: %

100: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or

101:   \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa

102:   \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi

103: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}

104: %

105: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}

106: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi

107: %

108: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

109: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

110: %

111: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr

112: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering

113: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne

114: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

115: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil

116: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}

117: %

118: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother

119: 

120: 

121: 

122: 

123: 

124: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm \evensidemargin -0.5cm

125: \topmargin -0.5cm  \textwidth 17cm  \textheight 24cm

126: \def\baselinestretch{1.05}

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

128: 

129: 

130: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10

131: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

132: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

133: \newfam\rsfsfam

134: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

135: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

136: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

137: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

138: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

139: 

140: 

141: 

142: 

143: \newcommand{\sW}{s_{\rm W}}

144: \newcommand{\cW}{c_{\rm W}}

145: 

146: \def\Emisst{E_T\hspace{-2.6ex}/\hspace{2ex}}

147: \def\Emiss{E\hspace{-1.3ex}/\hspace{0.3ex}}

148: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

149: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

150: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

151: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

152: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\normalsize\boldmath $#1$}}

153: \def\Ord{{\cal O}}  \def\SU{{\rm SU}}

154: \def\SO{{\rm SO}} \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}

155: \begin{document}

156: \centerline{hep-ph/0408320\hfill

157: IFUP--TH/2004-18 \hfill   CERN-TH/2004-160}

158: 

159: \vspace{1cm}

160: \centerline{\LARGE\bf \color{rossos}Graviton collider effects 

161: in one}\vspace{3mm}

162: \centerline{\LARGE\bf  \color{rossos}and more large extra dimensions}

163: \vspace{0.3cm}

164: \bigskip\bigskip

165: 

166: \begin{center}

167: {\large\bf Gian F. Giudice, Tilman Plehn}  

168: 

169: \medskip

170: 

171: {\em Theoretical Physics Division,  CERN, CH-1211,  Geneva 23, Switzerland}

172: 

173: \bigskip

174: 

175: {\large and {\large\bf Alessandro Strumia}}  

176: 

177: \medskip

178: 

179: {\it Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit{\`a} di Pisa and INFN,  Italy}

180: \end{center}

181: 

182: 

183: \bigskip\bigskip\color{blus}

184: \centerline{\large\bf Abstract}\begin{quote}\large

185: Astrophysical bounds severely limit the possibility of observing collider

186: signals of gravity with less than 3 flat extra dimensions.

187: However, small distortions of the compactified space can lift the masses

188: of the lightest 

189: graviton excitations, evading astrophysical bounds without affecting

190: collider signals of quantum gravity.

191: Following this procedure we reconsider theories with one large extra dimension.

192: A slight space warping gives a model which is safe in the infrared 

193: against astrophysical and observational bounds,

194: and which has the ultraviolet properties of gravity 

195: with a single flat extra dimension.

196: We extend collider studies to the case of one extra dimension, pointing 

197: out its peculiarities.

198: Finally, for a generic number of extra dimensions, we compare

199: different channels in LHC searches for quantum gravity, introducing

200: an ultraviolet cutoff as an additional parameter besides the Planck mass.

201:  \end{quote}\color{black}

202: \noindent

203: 

204: 

205: %\tableofcontents

206: 

207: 

208: \section{Introduction}

209: LHC experiments will hopefully allow us to understand

210: why the electroweak scale is much smaller than the Planck scale.

211: This hierarchy can arise  from a fundamental $(4+\delta )$-dimensional Planck mass close

212: to the electroweak scale if gravity propagates

213: in $\delta$ extra dimensions compactified on a large volume~\cite{add}. 

214: This hypothesis has important phenomenological

215: consequences, since high-energy colliders could probe the dynamics of

216: gravity in its quantum and semi-classical regimes.

217:  

218: The prospects for observing graviton-induced processes at future collider

219: experiments, in the case of 2 and 3 flat extra dimensions, are very much 

220: limited by the present astrophysical bounds~\cite{astro}. Graviton emissions

221: in supernov\ae{} and neutron stars set a limit on the $D$-dimensional 

222: ($D=4+\delta$)

223: gravitational mass scale $M_D$ of about 40~TeV for $\delta=2$ and

224: 3~TeV for $\delta=3$, while the limits for larger values of $\delta$

225: are below the TeV scale~\cite{astro}. These bounds apparently rule 

226: out the possibility

227: of testing the theory at the LHC for $\delta=2$, and severely restrict

228: the available parameter space for $\delta=3$. However, it is well known

229: that, while astrophysics probe only the infrared

230: end of the Kaluza-Klein (KK) spectrum of gravitons, high-energy experiments

231: are mainly sensitive to the ultraviolet side. Therefore, one can conceive

232: non-trivial compactification spaces for which the large volume determines

233: the hierarchy between the multi-dimensional and 4-dimensional Planck 

234: scales ($V\sim M_{\rm Pl}^2/M_D^{2+\delta}$), 

235: and in which the mass of lightest KK excitation

236: is not given by the inverse radius $1/R\sim V^{-1/\delta}$, 

237: but by a new intrinsic mass

238: $\mu$. If $\mu\circa{>}50$~MeV gravitons cannot be produced 

239: in astrophysical environments, which therefore give no bounds on the scale

240: $M_D$. Whenever $\mu$ is smaller than 

241: the characteristic energy resolution of high-energy

242: experiments, collider predictions are not affected by its presence.

243: 

244: Therefore, LHC quantum-gravity searches for $\delta =2$ and 3 are still

245: viable, in spite of the strong astrophysical bounds\footnote{Incidentally, 

246: we should add that, on the contrary, the astrophysical bounds

247: directly rule out the possibility of observing graviton-induced signals

248: in experiments testing gravity in the micron-to-millimeter region.}.    

249: Undoubtedly, 

250: it is quite

251: disturbing that the new geometrical mass scale $\mu$ has a size which

252: is unrelated to the other scales $V^{-1/\delta}$ or $M_D$, and (unless

253: a satisfying  justification is found) it appears

254: that its only

255: purpose is to make the theory

256: evade the astrophysical bounds. Nevertheless, because of 

257: the great interest in investigating quantum gravity at colliders, 

258: studies of $\delta =2$ and 3 are still actively pursued.

259: 

260: \medskip

261: 

262: 

263: On the other hand, the case $\delta=1$ has been discarded immediately.

264: This is because Newtonian gravity would be modified at the macroscopic scale

265: $M_{\rm Pl}^2/(2\pi M_5^3)=(\TeV /M_5)^3$~AU, and this is excluded by

266: astronomical observations.

267: We have just seen that the large distance behavior of the theory can be mended by introducing

268: an appropriate KK mass gap $\mu$ that eliminates 

269: graviton effects in astrophysics.

270: However, this remedy does not appear immediately

271: applicable to the case $\delta =1$. The reason is that a one-dimensional

272: compact manifold cannot have a non-trivial shape

273: that makes the lightest KK heavier than $1/R$.

274:  

275: %does not have shape moduli.

276: % and therefore its radius $R$ uniquely determines the KK mass spectrum. 

277: 

278: In this paper we show that it is indeed 

279: possible to distort the ADD model~\cite{add}

280: with $\delta=1$ in such a way that the infrared regime coincides with

281: Newtonian gravity up to a distance determined by the inverse of the

282: KK mass gap

283: $\mu$, chosen to avoid any bound from astrophysics or large-distance

284: observations. The ultraviolet behavior of ADD with

285: $\delta=1$ remains unmodified. Although the value of $\mu$ is chosen {\it

286: ad hoc} for phenomenological reasons, this is completely analogous to

287: the procedure required for the cases $\delta =2$ and 3. Therefore, 

288: LHC searches should not dismiss

289: the case $\delta =1$ which, as we  show in this paper, present

290: interesting peculiarities.

291: 

292: The crucial point is that collider searches provide a test of the theory

293: which is very robust and independent of the details of the compactification

294: geometry. This can be simply understood by noting that the high-energy

295: predictions are valid in the limit $V\to \infty$ (in which ordinary

296: gravity decouples, $M_{\rm Pl}\to \infty$) and $\mu \to 0$ (in which 

297: the KK mass gap is neglected). High-energy collisions effectively see

298: a $D$-dimensional infinite, non-compact and flat space. On the other

299: hand, astrophysical bounds crucially depend on the details of the geometry

300: and of the compactification, and are most sensitive to $\mu$ and $V$.

301: 

302: \bigskip

303: 

304: A second aspect of extra-dimensions  discussed in this paper

305: is the comparison between searches for graviton emission and contact 

306: interactions at the LHC. 

307: Graviton emission  can be

308: consistently computed by linearizing Einstein gravity, as long as the

309: relevant energy is sufficiently smaller than $M_D$. For an $e^+e^-$ collider,

310: this condition has to be applied simply to the value of $\sqrt{s}$

311: at which the collider operates.

312: But at the LHC,

313: where parton collisions can occur at very different center-of-mass

314: energies, some care is required~\cite{noi} to define the validity region

315: of perturbation theory. 

316: 

317: On the other hand, unlike graviton emission,

318: the exchange of virtual gravitons

319: is dominated by the ultraviolet region and it is 

320: therefore not calculable in the effective Einstein theory, without

321: specific knowledge of its short-distance completion. In ref.~\cite{stru}

322: we introduced a prescription to parametrize this ignorance in terms of an

323: ultraviolet cutoff $\Lambda$, allowing for a possible comparison

324: between graviton emission, tree-level graviton exchange, and graviton

325: loops. In particular, it was shown that, for small values of $\Lambda$,

326: direct graviton production at LEP provides the strongest constraint

327: on $M_D$ while, for moderate and large $\Lambda$, the most stringent

328: constraint arises from LEP limits on a dimension-6 axial-axial

329: effective operator which is induced by loops of gravitons. In this

330: paper, we extend the analysis to searches at the LHC, including

331: also the case $\delta =1$.

332: 

333: \medskip

334: 

335: This paper is organized as follows.

336: In section~\ref{seccaz} we show how it is possible to distort one large extra dimension

337: avoiding unwanted astrophysical effects,

338: without affecting the signals at high-energy colliders.

339: In section~\ref{5d} we compute these signals, which are

340: somewhat different than in the cases $\delta >1$.

341: In section~\ref{LEP} we study present data, 

342: obtaining a bound $M_D\circa{>}2\TeV$ for $\delta=1$.

343: In section~\ref{LHC} we consider LHC signals and compare the

344: discovery reach of the different channels, for a generic number of

345: extra dimensions $\delta$.

346: Appendix~\ref{cross} contains explicit formul{\ae} for

347: graviton effects.

348: 

349: 

350: \section{IR modifications of gravitons in large extra dimensions}\label{seccaz}

351: 

352: In this section we present a distorted version of the ADD model~\cite{add}

353: with one extra dimension ($\delta =1$),

354: which has the same properties of the original model in the short-distance

355: region (probed by colliders), but satisfies observational and

356: astrophysical limits in the large-distance regime.

357: %In practice, this model gives effects at high-energy colliders,

358: %that can be computed by 

359: %skipping this section and considering

360: %the flat-space ADD model with $\delta=1$.

361: The distortion introduced to forbid the unwanted

362:  low-energy effects

363: corresponds to the RS1 model~\cite{rs1}, in

364: the limit in which both the compactification and the AdS radii are

365: large with respect to the inverse of the fundamental gravity scale $M_5$.

366: Pictorially, we consider a slightly warped but long extra dimension,

367: that results in a moderately large total warp factor.

368: The hierarchy between the Fermi and the Planck scale is generated by two

369: factors:  the large extra dimension, and warping.

370: 

371: 

372: 

373: 

374: %\footnote{As well known

375: %the RS model is equivalent, via the AdS/CFT correspondence,

376: %to slowly running 4d technicolor models with large gauge groups.

377: %In our case it condenses at the TeV-scale $M_5$, but leaves

378: %many light spin-2 composite states.}

379: 

380: We start from the RS1 model, choosing the coordinates such that the

381: visible brane is located at $y=0$ and the Planck brane at $y=\pi R$ and

382: the line element is

383: \beq

384: ds^2=e^{2\sigma(y)}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,~~~~\sigma(y)\equiv

385: \mu |y|

386: \eeq

387: with  $0\le |y|\le \pi R$. The 4-dimensional Planck mass is given 

388: by\footnote{Throughout the paper $M_{\rm Pl}=2.4\times 10^{18}$~GeV

389: is the reduced 4-dimensional Planck mass. We define ${\bar M}_5$

390: to be the reduced 5-dimensional Planck mass which, following the

391: notation of ref.~\cite{noi}, is related to the Planck mass by

392: $M_5=(2\pi)^{1/3} {\bar M}_5$.}

393: \beq\label{eq:MPl}

394: M_{\rm Pl}^2 =\frac{{\bar M}_5^3}{\mu}\left( e^{2\mu R\pi}-1\right).

395: \eeq

396: In the limit of small $\mu$ ($\mu \ll R^{-1}$), eq.\eq{MPl} reduces to the usual

397: flat-space relation  $M_{\rm Pl}^2 ={\bar M}_5^3 V$, where the ``volume'' 

398: of the circle

399: is $V=2\pi R$. However, if $\mu$ is smaller than the inverse radius,

400: it cannot really affect the KK mass gap. So we are interested in the

401: case in which $\mu$ is larger than $R^{-1}$ (enough to damp processes in

402: astrophysical environments), but both are much smaller than ${\bar M}_5$.

403: 

404: We expand the metric fluctuation as

405: \beq

406: h_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}(x)}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}

407: \phi^{(n)}(y),

408: \eeq

409: where $h_{\mu\nu}^{(n)}(x)$ has the canonical propagator as defined in 

410: ref.~\cite{noi}.

411: The KK masses are obtained by computing the eigenvalues of the

412: operator $p_y^2$, corresponding to the square of the momentum along the 

413: fifth direction in warped space,

414: \beq  

415: \left[ e^{-2\sigma}\frac{d}{dy}\left( e^{4\sigma}\frac{d}{dy}\right)

416: +m_n^2 \right]\phi^{(n)}(y)=0.

417: \label{masse}

418: \eeq

419: The graviton eigenfunctions are even, $\phi^{(n)}(-y)= \phi^{(n)}(y)$,

420: satisfy the boundary conditions $d\phi^{(n)}/dy =0$ at $y=0$

421: and at $y=\pi R$, and the orthonormality relation

422: $\int_{-\pi R}^{\pi R}dy~e^{2\sigma}\phi^{(n)}(y)\phi^{(m)}(y)=2\pi R\delta_{n m}$.

423: 

424: 

425: The solutions to eq.~(\ref{masse}) are

426: \beq

427: \label{ripaz}

428: \phi^{(n)}(y)=\frac{z_n^2}{N_n}\left[ J_2(z_n)+c_nY_2(z_n)\right] ,

429: ~~~~z_n\equiv \frac{m_n}{\mu}e^{-\sigma(y)},

430: \eeq

431: where $J_\nu$ and $Y_\nu$ are Bessel functions\footnote{We list some 

432: properties 

433: of the Bessel functions we used to obtain our results:

434: $$J_{\nu+1}(x) Y_{\nu}(x)-J_{\nu}(x)Y_{\nu+1}(x) = 2/(\pi x),~~~

435: J_{\nu+2}(x) Y_{\nu}(x)-J_{\nu}(x)Y_{\nu+2}(x) = 4(\nu+1)/(\pi x^2),$$

436: $$J_1(x)\stackrel{x\to \infty}{\simeq}

437: \sqrt{2/(\pi x)}\cos ( x-3\pi/4),~~~

438: Y_1(x)\stackrel{x\to \infty}{\simeq}

439: \sqrt{2/(\pi x)}\sin ( x-3\pi/4),$$

440: $$J_1(x)\stackrel{x\to 0}{\simeq}x/2 ,~~~

441: Y_1(x)\stackrel{x\to 0}{\simeq} -2/(\pi x).$$}.

442: The integration constants $N_n$ and $c_n$ are determined by the 

443: orthonormality condition and by the first 

444: boundary condition

445: \beq

446: N_n^2=\frac{2a_n^2}{\mu R \pi^3}\left[ \frac{1}{Y_1^2(a_n)}-

447: \frac{1}{Y_1^2(b_n)}\right],~~~~

448: c_n=-\frac{J_1(a_n)}{Y_1(a_n)},

449: \eeq

450: \beq

451: a_n\equiv \frac{m_n}{\mu},~~~~b_n\equiv a_n e^{-\mu R\pi}.

452: \eeq

453: The second boundary condition determines the masses $m_n$ from the equation

454: \beq

455: J_1(a_n)Y_1(b_n)=J_1(b_n)Y_1(a_n).

456: \label{ahmasse}

457: \eeq

458: 

459: \begin{figure}

460: $$\includegraphics[width=17cm]{KKcouplings}$$

461: \caption{\label{fig:Lambdapi}\em Masses and couplings to matter

462: of the first 10 Kaluza-Klein

463: excitations of gravitons,

464: as functions of the warp factor $\mu\pi R$.

465: The masses $m_n$ are given in units of $1/R$;

466: couplings in units of $e^{\mu\pi R}/M_{\rm Pl}$.}

467: \end{figure}

468: 

469: The interactions of massive gravitons are described by the Lagrangian

470: density

471: \beq

472: \Lag=-\frac{1}{{\bar M}_5^{3/2}}\int dy~ h_{\mu \nu}(x,y) T^{\mu\nu}(x)

473: \delta (y)=

474: -T^{\mu \nu} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\Lambda_n} h_{\mu \nu}^{(n)}

475: (x),

476: \label{ahlamm}

477: \eeq

478: with

479: \beq

480: \Lambda_n  \equiv \frac{{\bar M}_5^{3/2}\sqrt{2\pi R}}{\phi^{(n)}(0)}

481: \eeq

482: Using eqs.~(\ref{eq:MPl}) and (\ref{ripaz}), the graviton interaction

483: scale can be written as

484: \beq

485: \Lambda_n =

486: M_{\rm Pl}\sqrt{\frac{1-J_1^2(a_n)/J_1^2(b_n)}{e^{2\mu R\pi}-1}},

487: \label{lamm}

488: \eeq

489: and it is shown in fig.~\ref{fig:Lambdapi}, where we plot

490: the masses and the matter couplings of the first 10 KK excitations of

491: the graviton as functions of the warp factor.

492: We see that warping removes the lightest KK's with mass $\sim1/R$ from

493: the spectrum.

494: 

495: 

496: 

497: 

498: The expressions written so far are valid for any value of $\mu$. 

499: First consider the limit of small AdS inverse radius $\mu \ll R^{-1}$,

500: in which eq.~(\ref{ahmasse}), determining the mass eigenvalues,

501: becomes $\sin (m_nR\pi)=0$. This leads to

502: the 

503: equally-spaced KK masses $m_n=n/R$, characteristic of flat space. 

504: In the same limit, eq.~(\ref{lamm}) becomes $\Lambda_n =

505: M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{2}$, recovering the ADD result~\footnote{We are summing

506: only over positive KK indices $n$, and this explains the extra $\sqrt{2}$

507: factor.}.

508: 

509: However, we are interested here in the case

510: $\mu >R^{-1}$. Then eq.~(\ref{ahmasse}) is approximately equal 

511: to

512: $J_1(a_n)=0$, whose solutions are

513: $m_n=x_n \mu$ with \beq

514: x_1\approx 3.8,\qquad

515: x_2\approx 7.0,\qquad

516: %x_n = (n+1/4)\pi + {\cal O}(n)^{-1}.

517: x_n=\beta_n-\frac{3}{8\beta_n}

518: %+{\cal O}(\beta_n)^{-3},\qquad

519: +\frac{3}{128\beta_n^3}-\frac{1179}{5120\beta_n^5}+\dots ,~~~

520: \beta_n\equiv \left( n+\frac{1}{4}\right)\pi .

521: \eeq

522: Notice that at large $n$ KK states are again equally spaced.

523: 

524: For a given KK mass gap $m_{\rm GAP} = m_1$,

525: we obtain 

526: %$\mu = m_1/x_1$ and

527: \beq

528: \mu =\left(\frac{m_{\rm GAP}}{50~\MeV}\right) ~13~\MeV,

529: \eeq

530: \beq

531: R=\frac{1}{2\pi\mu}\ln \frac{\mu M_{\rm Pl}^2}{{\bar M}_5^3} =

532: \left(\frac{50~\MeV} {m_{\rm GAP}}\right) 

533: \left[ 1.9 +1.2\times 10^{-2}\ln\left(\frac{m_{\rm GAP}}{50~\MeV}\right)

534: \left(\frac{\TeV}{{\bar M}_5}\right)^3\right] \MeV^{-1}.

535: \eeq

536: Therefore, $\mu$ is the parameter which controls the mass gap and its

537: minimum value is determined by the astrophysical bounds. The KK mass gap

538: is large enough to avoid clash with observations,

539: but still small enough to be unessential in the

540: ultraviolet region where high-energy experiments are performed.

541: The warp factor $\exp(\mu R\pi)\sim M_{\rm Pl} \mu^{1/2}/\bar{M}_5^{3/2}$ is large, 

542: but much smaller than in RS1, where $\exp(\mu R\pi)\sim M_{\rm Pl} /\bar{M}_5$.

543: 

544: For $\mu >R^{-1}$, the graviton interaction scale becomes 

545: $\Lambda_n=M_{\rm Pl} \exp(-\mu R\pi)$, which can be expressed as

546: \beq

547: \Lambda_n  \simeq \frac{{\bar M}_5^{3/2}}{\mu^{1/2}}=

548: \left(\frac{{\bar M}_5}{\TeV}\right)^{3/2}

549: \left(\frac{50~\MeV} {m_{\rm GAP}}\right)^{1/2} 2.8\times 10^5~\GeV .

550: \eeq 

551: Notice that both in the limit of small or large $\mu R$, the

552: interaction scale $\Lambda_n$ is independent of $n$ and

553: all KK gravitons have a universal coupling. This is not true in the

554: intermediate region, as illustrated in fig.~\ref{fig:Lambdapi}.

555: 

556: If the energy resolution in a collider experiment is larger than 

557: the graviton KK mass splitting ($\sim \pi \mu$),

558: it is more appropriate to consider inclusive processes, in which we sum

559: over the individual contributions of the KK modes. 

560: Using a continuous, instead of a discrete, description of the KK spectrum,

561: the density of states in the original ADD model with $\delta =1$, expressed

562: in terms of the KK masses $m$, is

563: \beq

564: dn=R~dm=\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{2\pi{\bar M} _5^3}~dm .

565: \eeq

566: In the case of the distorted ADD model under consideration, we find

567: \beq

568: dn=\left( \frac{dx_n}{dn}\right)^{-1} \frac{dm}{\mu},~~~~

569: \frac{dx_n}{dn}=\pi \left( 1+\frac{3}{8\beta_n^2}+\dots \right) .

570: \eeq

571: We write the $n$-th KK graviton production cross section as $\hat{\sigma}_n

572: /\Lambda_n^2$, where we have factored out the interaction mass scale

573: defined in eq.~(\ref{ahlamm}). We obtain that the inclusive cross section,

574: both in the case of undistorted and distorted ADD is given by

575: \beq

576: \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\hat{\sigma}_n}{\Lambda_n^2}=\frac{1}{\pi 

577: {\bar M}_5^3}\int_0^\infty dm

578: ~\hat{\sigma}(m) .

579: \eeq

580: Therefore, although in the distorted model the state distribution 

581: is less dense, the KK modes interact more strongly than in the undistorted

582: model, in such a way that the two effects exactly compensate in inclusive

583: cross sections. The result is easily understood: if a collider experiment

584: is not sensitive to the aspects of the discretization ({\it i.e.} if

585: the energy resolution is larger than both $\mu$ and $1/R$), the two models are

586: completely indistinguishable. The two models differ only in the far infrared,

587: where astrophysical probes are important.

588: 

589: The equivalence between the two models holds also for effective interactions

590: mediated by gravitons, as long the typical energy of the relevant physical

591: process is larger than the KK mass gap (and we are allowed to go from 

592: the discrete to the continuum). For instance, graviton tree-level exchange

593: in the $s$-channel leads to the scattering amplitude

594: \beq\label{eq:T}

595: {\cal A} ={\cal S}(s) {\cal T},~~~~{\cal T}\equiv  T_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}-

596: \frac{1}{3}T^\mu_\mu T^\nu_\nu ,

597: \eeq

598: \beq

599: {\cal S}(s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\Lambda_n^2}

600: \frac{1}{s-m_n^2+i\varepsilon}=\frac{1}{\pi{\bar M} _5^3}

601: \int_0^\infty \frac{dm}{s-m^2+i\varepsilon}.

602: \eeq

603: which agrees with the usual definition in $D$ dimensions~\cite{noi}

604: \beq {\cal S}(s)=\frac{1}{M _D^{2+\delta}}\label{spuf}

605: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} ~\frac{d^\delta q}{s-q^2+i\varepsilon}.\eeq

606: 

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: \subsection*{Extensions to $\delta >$ 1}

611: 

612: The deformation of the $\delta =1$ ADD model presented above

613: can be generalized to $\delta >1$. Particularly interesting is the case

614: $\delta =2$, where a distortion is needed to confront the strong

615: astrophysical bounds.

616: 

617: The simplest generalization can be obtained by following the construction

618: described in ref.~\cite{inter}. Let us consider $\delta$ (with $\delta >1$)

619: non-parallel $(2+\delta)$ branes which live in a $(4+\delta )$ dimensional 

620: space. Each brane has co-dimension 1, and therefore for each one we can

621: construct an RS model with an AdS mass $\mu$ which acts as a mass gap.

622: The intersection of the branes, which has dimension $(2+\delta)-(\delta -1)=3$,

623: is taken to be the ordinary space where the SM fields are confined.

624: In this case, one can explicitly compute the mass spectrum in presence

625: of the distortion parameter $\mu$. Another possibility is to start

626: from the 6-dimensional models with gravity localized on string-like 

627: defects~\cite{shap}.

628: 

629: For $\delta >1$, one can use an alternative approach and consider

630: non-trivial compactification spaces, as the compact hyperbolic

631: manifold, considered in ref.~\cite{rus}. 

632: In this case, the volume-radius ratio

633: $V/R^\delta$ is a coefficient determined by the topology, which can be 

634: much larger than one. By making an appropriate choice of the largest

635: distance inside the manifold, it is possible to arbitrarily increase

636: the KK mass gap, for a fixed value of the volume $V$. 

637: 

638: A different example~\cite{keit} 

639: is given by a general 2-dimensional torus determined by its

640: volume $V$, by the ratio between the two radii $r$ (choosing $r\le 1$), and

641: by the shift angle $\theta$ (with $0< \theta \le \pi/2$). The KK

642: mass spectrum is given by

643: \beq

644: m_n^2=\frac{4\pi^2}{V\sin\theta}\left( n_1^2r+\frac{n_2^2}{r}-2n_1n_2

645: \cos\theta \right) ,

646: \label{spec}

647: \eeq

648: where $n_{1,2}\in {\bf Z}$. For $\theta =\pi /2$, the

649: mass square of the

650: first KK mode is $4\pi^2r/V$, and therefore departing from the standard

651: value $r=1$ can only reduce the mass gap. When $\theta \to 0$, it is

652: always possible to find values of $n_{1,2}$ such that the term inside

653: brackets in eq.~(\ref{spec}) vanishes, as long as $r$ is rational. Therefore,

654: for rational $r$, 

655: the mass gap goes to zero as $\theta \to 0$. According to ref.~\cite{keit},

656: an interesting twist arises

657: when $r$ is an algebraic irrational number. In this case, 

658: for $\theta \to 0$, the mass gap determined by eq.~(\ref{spec}) 

659: goes to a constant, which can then be chosen arbitrarily large, for any

660: fixed value of $V$. For a careful choice of parameters, one can appropriately

661: tune the mass gap to the preferred value of $\mu$.

662: 

663: 

664: 

665: 

666: \section{Graviton signals in one large extra dimension}\label{5d}

667: The distortion introduced in the previous section

668: to cure the low-energy phenomenology of gravitons in large extra dimensions

669: does not affect their high-energy signals.

670: Therefore we can study them by setting $\delta=1$ in the expressions,

671: valid for a generic number of extra dimensions,

672: for graviton-emission processes~\cite{noi} and graviton-loop induced

673: interactions~\cite{stru}. 

674: An interesting peculiarity of $\delta =1$ occurs in processes generated

675: by tree-level graviton exchange.

676: Contrary to

677: the cases with more extra dimensions, the integral in eq.~(\ref{spuf})

678: is not divergent in the ultraviolet. 

679: For $\delta=1$ the integral is dominated by KK masses of the order of $\sqrt{s}$.

680: %and therefore our approximation is valid under the assumption stated above. 

681: Introducing an ultraviolet cutoff

682: $\Lambda$, 

683: which corresponds to the largest KK graviton

684: mass, we obtain

685: \beq\label{eq:S(s)}

686: {\cal S}(s)=\frac{2}{M_5^3\sqrt{s}}~{\rm arctanh}\frac{\Lambda}

687: {\sqrt{s}}

688: \simeq \frac{1}{M_5^3} \left( \frac{-i\pi}{\sqrt{s}}+\frac{2}{ 

689: \Lambda}\right) .

690: \eeq

691: 

692: 

693: 

694: In the limit $\Lambda\to \infty$, 

695: ${\cal S}(s)$ is actually purely imaginary, 

696: and therefore there is no interference with Standard Model contributions

697: to the same physical process. 

698: The imaginary part in ${\cal S}(s)$ corresponds to the exchange of a 

699: resonant graviton, as can be seen by giving a small width $\Gamma$ to the

700: KK excitations.

701: The physical value of the width 

702: can be smaller or larger than the separation

703: between consecutive KK, giving rise to a series of separated or of overlapped resonances.

704: Studying experiments that do not have enough energy resolution to see the difference,

705: it is convenient to take the simpler limit $\Gamma\to 0$, where

706: \beq

707: \lim_{\Gamma\to 0}\frac{1}{s-m^2 + i m \Gamma } = P\left(

708: \frac{1}{s-m^2}\right) - i \pi \delta(s-m^2) .

709: \eeq

710: Physically this means that at any $s$ the dominant effect is 

711: on-shell production

712: of the KK mode with mass $m=\sqrt{s}$.

713: This is why graviton exchange does not interfere with the SM

714: amplitude, as mathematically accounted by the $i$ factor in eq.\eq{S(s)}.

715: The unknown physics that acts as cut-off of quantum gravity

716: can give the uncontrollable extra contribution suppressed by $\Lambda$ in eq.\eq{S(s)},

717: which can be real and change the above conclusion.

718: 

719: 

720: 

721: \medskip

722: 

723: 

724: Effects mediated by virtual graviton exchange in the $t$-channel are

725: qualitatively different, because now

726: gravitons cannot be resonantly produced.

727: Indeed, inserting $t<0$ in the expression for ${\cal S}$, eq.\eq{S(s)},

728: we get that the $t$-channel

729: contribution is purely real, ${\cal S}(t)<0$.

730: Therefore the $t$-channel contribution can interfere with the SM amplitude.

731: When the SM cross section is dominant, 

732: $t$-channel graviton exchange gives the only significant correction.

733: Consequently particular attention should be paid to 

734: elastic processes, like Bhabha

735: scattering at LEP, electron-jet final states at HERA, and dijet production

736: at Tevatron and LHC. 

737: 

738: 

739: 

740: %

741: 

742: %the exact compensation between infrared

743: %and ultraviolet is broken by the introduction of a cutoff. Therefore,

744: %short-distance physics modifying the KK graviton tower can induce a real

745: %part in  ${\cal S}(s)$.

746: 

747: \medskip

748: 

749: The dependence of ${\cal S}$ on the kinematical variables of the process

750: signals a non-local effect. 

751: This can be interpreted as the result of

752: a large anomalous dimension of the local

753: dimension-8 operator $\cal T$ corresponding to the linear (instead of 

754: logarithmic) running in 5 dimensions. Effectively, this turns 

755: $\cal T$ into a dimension-7 operator, suppressed only by 3 powers of 

756: ${\bar M}_5$,

757: enhancing the effect of tree-level graviton exchange.

758: Despite the IR enhancement in eq.\eq{S(s)},

759: the graviton contribution still grows with the collider energy.

760: However, at fixed energy, forward elastic scattering events (i.e.\ small $|t|$)

761: are statistically as significant as hard scattering events (i.e.\ $t\sim -s$).

762: This can be contrasted to the $\delta >1$ case,

763: where the SM background hides graviton effects in forward elastic scattering.

764: 

765: The case $\delta =1$ is rather special, because of

766: the potential sensitivity to the infrared. 

767: %Tree-level exchange of bulk

768: %gravitons reduces the dimensionality of the induced effective operator.

769: New infrared-dominated phenomena can occur if, besides gravitons, other

770: massless (non-derivatively coupled) scalar or vector particles exist in

771: the bulk. For instance, the tree-level exchange of a massless bulk

772: scalar particle coupled to a constant source on the Planck brane can give

773: corrections to parameters on the visible brane proportional to

774: ${\bar M}_5\int dk_5/k_5^2 \sim {\bar M}_5/\mu$, where $\mu$ is the infrared cutoff.

775: It was argued in ref.~\cite{anto} that this effect can 

776: destabilize the hierarchy

777: in the limit of a large compactification radius $R$, whenever $\mu =1/R$.

778: 

779: Suppose that a new U(1) gauge field exist in the bulk. This can mix

780: in the kinetic term with the hypercharge gauge field, $\epsilon F_{\mu \nu}^Y

781:  F^{(X)\mu \nu}$, where $\epsilon$ is some effective coupling constant. 

782: The tree-level exchange of the $X$ gauge KK modes  induces a running

783: of $\alpha$ linear (and not logarithmic) with energy proportional to 

784: $\epsilon$. Here we  assume the absence of such scalar or vector

785: bulk massless particles.

786: 

787: 

788: \begin{figure}

789: $$\includegraphics[width=8cm]{LEPreal}$$

790: \caption{\label{fig:LEPreal}\em Photon spectrum

791: ($x_\gamma = 2E_\gamma/\sqrt{s}$) in

792:  $e^+e^-\to \gamma G$ collisions for different 

793:  numbers of extra dimensions, $\delta=1,2,3,4,5,6$.

794: % We assumed 

795: %$\sqrt{s} = 207\GeV$

796: %$M_D = 2.5\TeV/\delta$ (which is

797: % around the present experimental bound for any $\delta$)

798:  We included the typical cuts performed by LEP collaborations

799: ($p_T^\gamma > 0.0365\sqrt{s}$ and $|\cos\theta_\gamma|<0.95$).}

800: \end{figure}

801: 

802: \begin{figure}[t]

803: $$\includegraphics[width=17cm]{LEPvirtual}$$

804: \caption{\label{fig:LEPvirtual}\em Corrections to $e^+e^-\to e^+e^- $ 

805: (left) and

806: $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$ (right) cross sections

807: due to tree-level virtual exchange of

808: gravitons with $\delta = 1$ (red continuous line, for $M_D = 2.5\TeV$)

809: and $\delta >1$ (blue dashed lines, for ${\cal S} = 8\lambda /(1.25\TeV)^4$

810: and $\lambda=\pm1$).

811: In the latter case the result depends on the UV cut-off,

812: so that not even its sign can be reliably computed: we consider

813: the two cases of constructive and destructive interference with the SM.

814: For $\delta=1$ the effect is unambiguously fixed: it

815: increases the  Bhabha cross section, and gives a negligible correction to inelastic scatterings.

816: }

817: \end{figure}

818: 

819: 

820: \begin{figure}

821: $$\includegraphics[width=8cm]{MDL}$$

822: \caption[]{\label{fig:MDL}\em 95\% CL collider bounds on graviton phenomenology in 

823: the plane $(M_D,\Lambda_{\rm NDA})$ for

824: $\delta=1$ flat large extra dimension.

825: The solid black line 

826: shows the value

827: of the cut-off $\Lambda_{\rm NDA}$ corresponding to a strongly-interacting

828: gravitational theory.

829: The other lines mark the regions excluded by the bounds from 

830: {\color{blus} graviton emission (vertical blue line)}, 

831: {\color{purple} tree-level virtual graviton exchange (purple vertical line with short borderlines)}, 

832: {\color{rossos} graviton loops (red solid line)}, 

833: {\color{verdes} graviton and gauge boson loops (green dashed 

834: line)}.}

835: 

836: \end{figure}

837: 

838: 

839: 

840: \section{Comparison with present data}\label{LEP}

841: Presently, LEP experiments are the most sensitive probes

842: of gravitons in one large extra dimension.

843: We consider three kinds of graviton effects:

844: 1) graviton emission; 2) tree-level virtual exchange of gravitons;

845: 3) one-loop virtual exchange of gravitons.

846: 

847: \paragraph{1) Graviton emission.}

848: LEP experiments measured the energy and angular spectrum

849: of $e^+e^- \to \gamma$ + missing energy events at $\sqrt{s}\approx 200\GeV$.

850: The predicted

851: $d^2\sigma/dE_\gamma d\cos\theta_\gamma$

852: (where $E_\gamma$ and $\theta_\gamma$ are the energy and direction of the photon

853: in the center-of-mass frame) was computed in ref.~\cite{noi} 

854: and is here reported in appendix A

855: and plotted in fig.\fig{LEPreal} for different values of $\delta$.

856: For $\delta >1$ the bounds are dominated by data at small values of $E_\gamma\ll\sqrt{s}$

857: (where there is some SM background)

858: because the signal is strongly suppressed at the highest photon energies 

859: ($E_\gamma$ close to $\sqrt{s}/2$),

860: where the SM background is negligible.

861: %On the contrary, for $\delta=1$ the region of large $E_\gamma$ is interesting

862: %and gives an important contribution.

863: %The cross section is given by~\cite{noi}

864: %\beq

865: %\frac{d^2\sigma}{dE_\gamma d\cos\theta_\gamma}\left(e^+e^- \to \gamma G\right)

866: %=\frac{\alpha \pi^{\delta/2}s^{(\delta -1)/2}}{16\Gamma(\delta/2) 

867: %M_D^{\delta+2}}~f_\delta \left( \frac{2E_\gamma }{\sqrt{s}},\cos\theta_\gamma 

868: %\right) ,

869: %\eeq

870: %where $E_\gamma$ and $\theta_\gamma$ are the energy and direction of the photon

871: %in the center-of-mass frame, and the function $f_\delta$ is given in

872: %the appendix.

873: Indeed the differential cross section is divergent when $E_\gamma \to 0$ or

874: $|\cos \theta_\gamma |\to 1$, because of the familiar

875: massless electron exchange in the

876: $t$ channel.

877: The graviton signal decreases with $E_\gamma$ more slowly 

878: as the value of $\delta $ is increased.

879: 

880: A novelty specific to the case $\delta=1$ is

881: the rise around the largest values of $E_\gamma$.

882: Actually, the differential

883: cross section

884: is divergent  for $E_\gamma\to \sqrt{s}/2$ (see fig.\fig{LEPreal}).

885: Such divergence  corresponds to emission

886: of KK gravitons with very small mass

887: and is present because we approximated the dense KK graviton spectrum with a

888: continuum.  This approximation is valid because

889: the integrated cross section remains finite.

890: 

891: By imposing $\sigma(e^+e^- \to \gamma G)< 0.01\,\hbox{pb}^{-1}$ at

892: $\sqrt{s} = 207\GeV$ with the following cuts

893: $$E_\gamma > 0.7\sqrt{s}, \qquad

894: p_T^\gamma > 0.0365\sqrt{s},\qquad

895: |\cos\theta_\gamma|<0.95,$$

896: we obtain the bound $M_D > 2.4\TeV$.

897: This  requirement  roughly corresponds  to less than 10 events in all LEP2 experiments.

898: %We estimate that LEP2 data set a bound $M_D\circa{>}2\TeV$ at $\sim95\%$ C.L.

899: A precise analysis can only be performed by the experimental collaborations.

900: %(in practice, this can be done by setting $\delta =1$ in the codes previously developed to study the

901: %cases  $\delta >1$).

902: 

903: \medskip

904: 

905: For $\delta >1$ the process $e^+e^- \to \gamma G$ gives

906: a more significant probe of graviton emission than $e^+e^-\to ZG$.

907: This is because the signal is maximal in the kinematical region where

908: the graviton is heaviest, and the $Z$ mass limits the accessible region

909: of graviton masses. As previously discussed, the case $\delta=1$ is special,

910: since a significant contribution to the signal comes from the region of

911: light gravitons. 

912: Therefore, for $\delta =1$ one can take full advantage

913: of the coupling of the $Z$ to electron, which is stronger than the $\gamma$

914: coupling. 

915: Appendix A contains our result for the cross section, 

916: in agreement with previous studies~\cite{ciunciun}.

917: %We recomputed the cross section, finding a result in 

918: %The cross section is

919: %\beq

920: %\frac{d^2\sigma}{dE_\gamma d\cos\theta_Z}\left(e^+e^- \to Z G\right)

921: %=\frac{\alpha \left( 1-4\sin^2\theta_W+8\sin^4\theta_W\right) 

922: %\pi^{\delta/2}s^{(\delta -1)/2}}{32\sin^22\theta_W \Gamma(\delta/2) 

923: %M_D^{\delta+2}}~g_\delta \left( \frac{2E_\gamma }{\sqrt{s}},\cos\theta_Z 

924: %,\frac{M_Z^2}{s} \right) ,

925: %\eeq

926: %where the function 

927: %$g_\delta$ is given in the appendix.

928: The L3 limit on the total cross section,

929: $\sigma(e\bar{e}\to ZG)<0.29\,\hbox{pb}$ at $95\%$ C.L.~\cite{L3}, implies

930: $M_D >1.4\TeV$ for $\delta=1$.

931: This limit is subdominant, but using

932: up-to-date LEP-combined data on the differential

933: $e\bar{e}\to ZG$ cross section (presently  not available)

934: might give a probe competitive with other processes.

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: \paragraph{2) Tree-level virtual graviton exchange.}

939: As explained in section~\ref{5d}  and illustrated in fig.\fig{LEPvirtual},

940: virtual effects mediated by tree level exchange

941: of  gravitons in $\delta =1$ extra dimension are qualitatively different

942: than in the other cases.

943: For $\delta >1$ these effects are UV divergent,

944: so that it is only possible to estimate them by introducing an arbitrary cut-off $\Lambda$,

945: which becomes more and more important for bigger $\delta$.

946: Only in the case $\delta = 1$ these effects can be reliably computed,

947: and used to set a constraint on $M_D$.

948: In appendix~\ref{cross} we give our results for the cross sections 

949: of the most interesting processes at electron-positron

950: and hadron colliders.

951: When specialized to $\delta >1$ some of our results do not fully agree 

952: with previous literature.

953: For $\delta=1$ Bhabha scattering is the only relevant LEP probe~\cite{LEP2}.

954: We find that it sets the $99\%$ C.L.\ bound $M_D\circa{>}2.4\TeV$.

955: This value is somewhat higher than the sensitivity of the experiments, 

956: $M_D=2.0\TeV$ at $99\%$ C.L., because the data show

957: a moderate preference (almost $2\sigma$)

958: for an effect with the opposite sign.

959: A precise analysis can only be done by the experimental collaborations.

960: (Notice that setting $\delta=1$ in codes developed for studying $\delta >1$ 

961: is not correct.)

962: 

963: \paragraph{3) One-loop virtual graviton exchange.}

964: The effects of graviton loops can become more important than tree-level

965: exchange because they generate effective operators with dimensions lower

966: than $\cal{T}$. As discussed in ref.~\cite{stru}, especially important

967: is the operator

968: \beq\label{eq:Upsilon}

969: \Lag =c_\Upsilon \Upsilon ,~~~~\Upsilon =\frac{1}{2}

970: \bigg( \sum_f {\bar f}\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 f\bigg)

971: \bigg( \sum_f {\bar f}\gamma^\mu \gamma_5 f\bigg) ,

972: \eeq

973: where the sum is over quarks and leptons, and the coefficient $c_\Upsilon$

974: is flavour-universal. Using the rules of na\"{\i}ve-dimensional analysis 

975: presented in ref.~\cite{stru}, we estimate

976: \beq

977: c_\Upsilon =\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\frac{\Lambda_{\rm NDA}^4}{M_5^6},

978: \label{patuff}

979: \eeq

980: where  $\Lambda_{\rm NDA}$ is the UV cutoff.

981: 

982: The different limits on $M_D$ and $\Lambda_{\rm NDA}$ for $\delta =1$

983: are shown in fig.\fig{MDL}. This figure extends the results of

984: ref.~\cite{stru} to the case of one extra dimension ($\delta =1$).

985: Notice that the constraint on $c_\Upsilon$ is the dominant one

986: for large values of $\Lambda_{\rm NDA}$ and, in particular, it rules out

987: the case of strongly-interacting gravity at the weak scale. For low

988: values of $\Lambda_{\rm NDA}$, the dominant constraint comes from

989: graviton emission and the dimension-8 operator $\cal T$ does not add

990: new information.

991: 

992: \bigskip

993: 

994: Finally, we comment on graviton contributions to low-energy processes,

995: which are generally irrelevant for $\delta >1$, but have to be reconsidered

996: for $\delta =1$\footnote{We thank G.~Isidori for proposing these tests

997: and for useful discussions.}. First consider the decay $K^+\to\pi^+ G$,

998: which contributes to the observable 

999: measured as ${\rm BR}(K^+\to\pi^+{\bar \nu} \nu )=(1.47 ~_{-0.89}^{+1.30})\times 10^{-10}$~\cite{kpi}. 

1000: The na\"{\i}ve estimate, ${\rm BR}(K^+\to\pi^+G )\sim (m_K/M_D)^{2+\delta}$,

1001: suggests that this process is interesting for $\delta=1$.

1002: However a careful analysis gives a different result.

1003: The part of the chiral Lagrangian bilinear in the charged $K$ and $\pi$ mesons is

1004: \beq

1005: \Lag =a_{ij}(D_\mu \phi_i)^\dagger (D^\mu \phi_j )-m^2_i \phi^\dagger_i

1006: \phi_i .

1007: \eeq

1008: Here $\phi =(\pi^-,K^-)$, $m^2=(m^2_\pi,m^2_K)$, $a_{11}=a_{22}=1$,

1009: $a_{12}=a_{21}=-\sqrt{2}G_Ff_\pi^2g_8\sin\theta_{\rm C} $, and $|g_8|=5.1$

1010: is the octet coupling. With a field redefinition, we can simultaneously

1011: diagonalize both the kinetic and mass terms. The graviton

1012: is coupled to the current $T_{\mu \nu}=g_{\mu \nu}\Lag-(\partial \Lag/

1013: \partial\partial^\mu \phi_i )\partial_\nu \phi_i$, which is also diagonal.

1014: Therefore (in contrast with axion emission), one finds no tree-level

1015: contribution to $K^+\to\pi^+ G$~\cite{bijnens}. 

1016: Loop effects exist

1017: but, given the LEP limits previously obtained, they are very small, since

1018: they are suppressed by a factor $(m_K/M_5)^3/(4\pi)^4 \sim

1019: (2~{\rm TeV}/M_5)^3~6\times 10^{-16}$. The processes $(q{\bar q})\to G\gamma$

1020: are possible at tree level, but no interesting bounds can be extracted

1021: from $J/\psi$ or $\Upsilon$ decays~\cite{bijnens}.

1022: 

1023: 

1024: 

1025: \section{Graviton signals at the LHC}\label{LHC}

1026: 

1027: Collider signatures of KK gravitons occur through real-graviton

1028: emission and virtual-graviton effects. 

1029: Real-emission signals give clean signatures with

1030: jets

1031: or leptons plus missing energy, a class of signals very carefully

1032: studied in the framework of supersymmetry. 

1033: A hard cut

1034: on missing energy removes QCD backgrounds very efficiently and, even

1035: for jet final states, leaves us mostly with $W$ and $Z$ boson

1036: production processes in the Standard Model. These background processes are fairly well

1037: understood theoretically and have small rates. In this

1038: section we will also explore virtual-graviton search strategies in

1039: detail. These signals come from tree-level virtual-graviton

1040: exchange (the dimension-8 $\cal T$ operator)

1041: and one-loop graviton contributions, which lead to the dimension-6

1042: axial-axial

1043: operator $\Upsilon$.

1044: Because virtual-graviton effects have no golden cut to

1045: efficiently suppress Standard Model backgrounds, our focus moves from

1046: the computation of the signal rates to the estimate of the error on

1047: the background processes.\medskip

1048: 

1049: %It will turn out that because of the large

1050: %event rates at the LHC the systematical error will tend to determine

1051: %the reach, which in turn means that these searches will not benefit from

1052: %a particularly large integrated luminosity.\smallskip

1053: We move beyond a one-parameter description in which one

1054: identifies the $D$ dimensional Planck scale $M_D$ with the cutoff

1055: $\Lambda$ of the theory. We apply a cutoff $\Lambda$ to the graviton-emission

1056: and virtual-graviton exchange rates,

1057: setting the partonic cross section to zero when

1058: $\hat{s}>\Lambda^2$.\footnote{Ref.~\cite{hinchliffe} suppressed the

1059: cross sections in a slightly different way, 

1060: by adding in a factor $\Lambda^4/\hat{s}^2$ for

1061: $\hat{s}>\Lambda^2$. Our

1062: results and those in~\cite{hinchliffe} are in good agreement.}

1063:  This cutoff is important for the LHC

1064: because with a hadronic collider energy of $14\tev$ we expect to probe

1065: a wide range of energies. 

1066: Separating the cutoff from the Planck mass allows us to investigate the

1067: behavior of the effective KK theory for LHC observables.

1068: Unless explicitly stated otherwise, we 

1069: combine the statistical significance $S/\sqrt{B}$ and the

1070: systematical significance $S/\Delta B$ in quadrature and we require a

1071:  $5\sigma$ effect. 

1072: 

1073: The same cutoff $\Lambda$ is used to regulate the ultraviolet divergences

1074: that appears in operators induced by virtual-graviton exchange.

1075: %Operators which arise from virtual gravitons

1076: %are obviously ultraviolet divergent, \ie they exhibit a dependence on

1077: %some power of $\Lambda$ in the numerator, which

1078: %is canceled by a corresponding power of $M_D$ in the

1079: %denominator. 

1080: These divergences are expected to be removed by the

1081: ultraviolet completion of our effective KK theory. Because we do not

1082: know this ultraviolet completion, the dependence on the cutoff

1083: $\Lambda$ parametrizes our ignorance of ultraviolet effects. 

1084: %This is not 

1085: %a conceptual problem for the effective theory approach, but it has to

1086: %be treated as a theoretical uncertainty of all cross section

1087: %predictions. 

1088: \medskip

1089: 

1090: Effects from virtual graviton exchange are described in terms of $M_D$, 

1091: $\Lambda$ and $\delta$. 

1092: The dependence is defined by the coefficients $c_{\cal T}$

1093: and $c_\Upsilon$ of the dimension-8 and dimension-6 operators, obtained

1094: in modified na\"{\i}ve dimensional analysis (NDA)~\cite{stru}

1095: \beq

1096: c_{\cal T} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll }\displaystyle

1097:  \frac{\pi^{\delta /2}}{\Gamma (\delta /2)} \;

1098:                \frac{\Lambda_{\rm NDA}^{\delta -2}}{M_D^{\delta +2}}      &  {\rm for}~\delta >2  \\

1099: \displaystyle

1100: \frac{\pi}{M_D^4}\ln \frac{\Lambda_{\rm NDA}^2}{E^2}      &   {\rm for}~\delta =2

1101: \end{array}\right.,\qquad

1102: c_\Upsilon = \frac{1}{16} \;

1103:                \frac{\pi^{\delta -2}}{\Gamma^2 (\delta /2)} \;

1104:                \left( \frac{\Lambda_{\rm NDA}^{\delta +1}}{M_D^{\delta +2}}

1105:                \right)^2

1106: \label{eq:op_lhc}

1107: \eeq

1108: where $E$ is a typical partonic energy of the process. The expressions for

1109: $\delta =1$ are given by eqs.~(\ref{eq:S(s)}) and~(\ref{patuff}). 

1110: 

1111: The ratio $\Lambda/M_D$ controls how strongly gravity is coupled,

1112: i.e.\ the relative importance of tree and loop effects. Even in string models of quantum gravity

1113: this remains an unknown parameter, controlled by the vev of the dilaton.

1114: The maximal value of $\Lambda/M_D$ corresponds to the case of

1115: strongly-coupled gravity, where all loops give comparable contributions.

1116: Na\"{\i}ve dimensional analysis estimates it to be~\cite{stru}

1117: \beq

1118: \Lambda \circa{<}\Lambda_S \equiv \left[ 16 \, \pi^{\frac{4-\delta}{2}} \, \Gamma

1119: \left( \frac{\delta}{2}\right) \right]^\frac{1}{2+\delta}M_D .

1120: \label{eq:lambda_s}

1121: \eeq

1122: For real graviton emission, the dependence on the ultraviolet cutoff

1123: $\Lambda$ measures the fraction of the signal coming from different 

1124: regions of the KK mass spectrum, while the matrix element itself is

1125: independent of $\Lambda$.  Again, we limit the parton energies to

1126: $\sqrt{\hat{s}} < \Lambda \circa{<} \Lambda_S$. 

1127: 

1128: We stress that care should be applied when different signals are compared,

1129: since the cutoff $\Lambda$ will be in general different for different

1130: processes: order one factors can be fixed only after understanding quantum gravity.

1131: 

1132: 

1133: %While in this paper we set the parton

1134: %luminosity to zero for $\sqrt{\hat{s}}>M_D$ one can also suppress the

1135: %cross section adding a factor $M_D^4/\hat{s}^2$ for

1136: %$\sqrt{\hat{s}}>M_D$ and get comparable results~\cite{hinchliffe}.

1137: %This is not a unique LHC problem, either: the explanation

1138: %of ultra-high energy cosmic rays probes a much wider parton $x$ range

1139: %and requires a detailed modeling of cross sections above the cutoff

1140: %$\Lambda$. It has been shown that the corresponding theoretical

1141: %uncertainties linked to the cutoff dependence is

1142: %overwhelming~\cite{pluemi,fluct}.

1143: 

1144: \subsection{Graviton emission}

1145: 

1146: Two well-suited search channels

1147: for real-graviton emission 

1148: are a single hard jet plus missing

1149: energy~\cite{noi} and Drell--Yan lepton pairs plus missing

1150: energy~\cite{dave}. The latter is a particularly clean channel, but

1151: its reach has shown to be somewhat less than the single jet

1152: counterpart's. We therefore concentrate on the process $pp \to {\rm

1153: G+ jet}$.\medskip

1154: 

1155: We perform a parton-level analysis, including the dominant irreducible

1156: background $pp \to Z+{\rm jet}$ where the $Z$ decays to

1157: neutrinos. Apart from a basic acceptance cut for the jet, $|\eta_j|<4.5$,

1158: we apply a variable transverse momentum cut: $p_{T,j}>\Lambda/4$ for

1159: $\Lambda<4\tev$ and $p_{T,j}>1\tev$ otherwise. To first approximation the

1160: signal and the dominant background processes will lead to a

1161: back-to-back signature of the jet with the invisible KK graviton or

1162: $Z$ boson, respectively. Therefore, there is no need to apply a hard

1163: missing-energy cut beyond the triggering requirements --- for each

1164: event we expect $\Emisst \sim p_{T,j}$. A minimum $\Emisst$ cut could be

1165: added, but would only increase the uncertainty because of the $\Emisst$

1166: smearing of the detector and the appropriate calibration. The second

1167: largest background arises from $pp \to W+{\rm jet}$, where we lose the

1168: lepton from the $W$ decay because it is too soft or too far

1169: forward. Even though the rate before acceptance cuts is much larger

1170: than the $Z+{\rm jet}$ rate, after cuts it only leads to a

1171: $\sim 10\%$ correction to the $Z+{\rm jet}$ background.\medskip

1172: 

1173: \begin{figure}[t]

1174: \centering

1175: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{zj_nlo.eps}

1176: \vspace{0mm}

1177: \caption[]{\em The leading order and NLO cross sections for the process $pp

1178: \to Z+{\rm jet}$ with a subsequent $Z$

1179: decay into electrons or muons~\cite{Giele:dj}. 

1180: The factorization and renormalization scales

1181: are set equal and varied around a common central value. The only cut

1182: applied is the shown minimum cut on the transverse jet momentum.}

1183: \label{fig:lhc_nlo}

1184: \end{figure}

1185: 

1186: The nature of the graviton signal does not permit any kind of

1187: simple side-bin analysis. All information is encoded in the hard

1188: $p_{T,j}$ spectrum of the signal plus the $Z+{\rm jet}$

1189: background. The NLO correction to the backgrounds $pp \to Z/W+{\rm

1190: jet}$ are known~\cite{Giele:dj}. We show the leading order as well as

1191: the NLO cross sections as a function of the $p_{T,j}^{\rm min}$ cut in

1192: fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_nlo}.

1193: If we do not apply any cut,

1194: we obtain a $K$ factor of $1.6$ and a remaining NLO scale variation of

1195: the order of $25 \%$. For a large $p_{T,j}$ cut the relative

1196: correction increases to $K \sim 2$ with a remaining NLO scale

1197: uncertainty of almost $100 \%$. This does not even take into account

1198: the fact that we have two scales present in the process, namely the

1199: weak boson mass $m_Z$ and the transverse momentum of the jet --- in

1200: principle we would have to resum large logarithms $\log

1201: p_{T,j}/M_Z$. Therefore we can immediately conclude that trying to

1202: extract the KK signal out of the $Z+{\rm jet}$ background using the

1203: theoretical prediction of the $p_{T,j}$ spectrum of the $Z+{\rm jet}$

1204: final state will have to cope with very large systematic errors and it is

1205: therefore pointless.

1206: 

1207: Instead, we normalize the $Z+{\rm jet}$ rate using $Z$ decays to

1208: electrons and muons, as suggested in ref.~\cite{noi}. 

1209: Since this final state can be fully

1210: reconstructed, we can even mimic signal cuts and look for effects from

1211: large logarithms induced by the $p_{T,j}$ cut in the actual

1212: analysis. The remaining statistical uncertainty on the background

1213: measurement can be estimated from fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_nlo}. Using only

1214: $10 \fb^{-1}$ of data and a $p_{T,j}$ cut of $600 \gev$, we are left

1215: with $S=1000$ events for one lepton flavor, which gives us a

1216: statistical uncertainty of $1/\sqrt{S} \sim 3\%$ per lepton

1217: flavor. Combining both the electron and the muon final state it seems

1218: to be conservative to assume a systematic uncertainty of $5 \%$ on the

1219: prediction of the $Z+{\rm jet}$ background cross section including

1220: detector effects.

1221: 

1222: The $W+{\rm jet}$ background cannot be reconstructed, because the

1223: three-quark final state with a hadronic $W$ decay will be dominated by

1224: the large QCD three-jet continuum. However, 

1225: the NLO corrections scale with the $Z+{\rm jet}$ production

1226: process; \ie the $W+{\rm jet}$ rate can be estimated from the measured

1227: $Z+{\rm jet}$ rate. 

1228: Since the $W+{\rm jet}$ rate gives a contribution to

1229: the total background of at most $10\%$, and is affected by

1230: an uncertainty of less than $20\%$, 

1231: we can essentially neglect this contribution, which is taken into account 

1232: in 

1233: the $5\%$ quoted uncertainty.\medskip

1234: 

1235: \begin{figure}[t]

1236: \centering

1237: \includegraphics[width=16cm]{pdf_emission.eps}

1238: \vspace{0mm}

1239: \caption[]{\em The range of $Z+{\rm jet}$ background cross

1240: sections, due to the uncertainty in the parton densities. The histograms 

1241: show the deviation $\sigma/\sigma_{\rm Cteq6.1M}$.

1242: The set of 40 parton densities included in the histograms is described in

1243: ref.~\cite{Stump:2003yu}.}

1244: \label{fig:lhc_pdf}

1245: \end{figure}

1246: 

1247: For completeness, we study the uncertainty caused by the parton

1248: densities. This source of uncertainty can be possibly reduced through a

1249: complete two-loop analysis with HERA and hadron collider jet data, but

1250: it should not just be neglected. For different $p_{T,j}$ cuts we show

1251: histograms using a consistent set of different Cteq6.1 parton

1252: densities~\cite{Stump:2003yu} in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_pdf}. 

1253: As expected, we observe a very

1254: narrow distribution if we require $p_{T,j}>100 \gev$, pushing the

1255: parton momentum fraction into the well determined region $x \sim

1256: 1/100$. In the region of larger transverse jet momenta, where we can

1257: observe the graviton radiation signal, the probed $x$ values become larger,

1258: but the systematic uncertainty on the cross section prediction

1259: inherited from uncertainties in the parton density input does not grow

1260: beyond $2\%$, the maximum width we observe in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_pdf}.

1261: This small uncertainty can be traced back to the parton

1262: kinematics: while the uncertainty on the gluon densities for $x>0.5$

1263: is indeed very large, it stays small for valence quarks~\cite{Stump:2003yu}.

1264: We include at maximum one gluon in the initial state. When the

1265: gluon luminosity drops sharply for large $x$ values, the mixed $qg$

1266: initial state will be pushed to asymmetric $x_g \ll x_q$

1267: configurations, which do not suffer from large uncertainties. Last but

1268: not least, this theoretical uncertainty is of no concern if we measure

1269: the $Z+{\rm jet}$ background, but even if we were to combine the

1270: measured background rate and its theoretical prediction the parton

1271: densities would be no reason to worry.\bigskip

1272: 

1273: \begin{figure}[t]

1274: \centering

1275: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{coverage_emission.eps}

1276: \vspace{0mm}

1277: \caption[]{\em The LHC reach in the search for graviton emission. The

1278: number of extra dimensions $\delta$ is varied from 1 to 6, in the

1279: lines from top to bottom. The switch from thick to thin lines indicates

1280: the end of the region $\Lambda<\Lambda_S$.}

1281: \label{fig:lhc_emission}

1282: \end{figure}

1283: 

1284: In fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_emission} we show the discovery reach for

1285: graviton plus jet production at the LHC, assuming an integrated

1286: luminosity of $10 \fb^{-1}$ and $100 \fb^{-1}$. The area to the right

1287: and below the lines will lead to a $5 \sigma$ signal with combined

1288: systematical and statistical errors. Large values of $M_D$ lead to a

1289: direct suppression of the graviton coupling and thereby a suppression

1290: of the signal rate. Smaller cutoffs remove a larger fraction of the

1291: graviton mass spectrum we integrate over.\smallskip

1292: 

1293: The plateau reached by the curves at large $\Lambda$ indicates the region

1294: where the signal becomes independent of the ultraviolet cutoff. If the

1295: onset of the plateau starts when $\Lambda$ is in the perturbative

1296: regime ($\Lambda <\Lambda_S$), the use of the effective theory, obtained

1297: by linearizing Einstein gravity, is well justified (for the

1298: values of $M_D$ probed). In this case, the

1299: contribution to the signal coming from very energetic gravitons is strongly

1300: suppressed by parton luminosity. On the other hand, 

1301: if the plateau is reached only for $\Lambda >\Lambda_S$, the signal is 

1302: sensitive

1303: to the unknown physics from the ultraviolet completion of the

1304: effective theory. This happens for $\delta \gtrsim

1305: 5$, as shown in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_emission}. 

1306: Over some fraction of the

1307: discovery contour shown in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_emission} we find $M_D

1308: \sim \Lambda \sim \sqrt{\hat{s}}$. 

1309: While the one-graviton production cross section remains finite

1310: even for large cutoff values, the complete $\Emisst$ signal will

1311: consist of an uncalculable increasing fraction of multi-graviton emission. 

1312: 

1313: For a smaller number of extra dimensions, the graviton mass

1314: spectrum is dominated by lighter modes, since the graviton mass

1315: distribution is proportional to $m^{\delta -1}dm$ (and, in particular,

1316: becomes flat for $\delta =1$).  This means that, for small $\delta$,

1317: the cutoff will have a less dramatic effect: the transition to the

1318: plateau is more abrupt and the discovery reach becomes independent of

1319: $\Lambda$ already for $\Lambda \ll \Lambda_S$. Moreover, since the

1320: cross section is proportional to $M_D^{-2-\delta}$, we can

1321: probe much larger values of $M_D$ for a small number of extra

1322: dimensions.  

1323: For larger values of $\delta$, the signal is dominated by gravitons

1324: with the largest possible energy, and therefore the reach on $M_D$

1325: critically depends on $\Lambda$, as shown in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_emission}.

1326: 

1327: We recall that the curves

1328: in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_emission} show the upper limit on $M_D$ that can be 

1329: reached by LHC.

1330: The successful theoretical description of the LHC reach

1331: is based on the separation of the two scales $\sqrt{\hat{s}} <

1332: M_D$, which works very well for the maximum $M_D$ values which can 

1333: be probed. A lower bound on the range of $M_D$ which can be probed is 

1334: given by the theoretical

1335: requirement $\Lambda <\Lambda_S$ and the condition that $\Lambda$ has to 

1336: be larger than the typical partonic collider energy, thereby allowing

1337: for the observed saturation behavior. For smaller values of $M_D$

1338: the requirement that gravity cannot

1339: become strongly interacting can lead a theoretical uncertainty

1340: $d\sigma(M_D,\delta;\Lambda)/d\Lambda \ne 0$ that has to be properly taken into

1341: account.

1342: Looking at the different values of $\delta$ we conclude that LHC

1343: searches for KK emission become more probing and less

1344: theoretically uncertain the smaller the number of extra

1345: dimensions.\medskip

1346: 

1347: The improvement of the LHC reach with a luminosity increase is linked

1348: to either a dominating systematical or statistical error: for small

1349: cutoff values $\Lambda$, the transverse momentum cut is small as well,

1350: leaving us with a large background rate. The systematical error on

1351: this large background rate determines the reach, so a luminosity

1352: increase will only slightly improve the reach. Taking into account detector

1353: effects, a purely high-luminosity sample is likely to be inferior to

1354: its low-luminosity counterpart. Once we probe larger values of

1355: $\Lambda$, which is possible for a small number of extra dimensions,

1356: the background suppression cut tightens and a luminosity increase does

1357: have a sizeable effect, as we can see in the $\delta=1,2$ cases in

1358: fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_emission}.\smallskip

1359: 

1360: We have confronted the real graviton emission with the Standard

1361: Model process $pp \to Z+{\rm jet}$, but new backgrounds can arise from

1362: the unknown dynamics at the cutoff scale. Although tree-level graviton

1363: exchange does not directly contribute to the dominant parton

1364: subprocess $qg \to qZ$, in general there could be other effective

1365: operators involving neutrinos or $Z$ bosons, which can affect our

1366: background measurement. While we know from LEP that on the $Z$ pole

1367: virtual graviton exchange cannot have a large effect, unknown neutrino

1368: operators could mimic a KK mediated deviation from the Standard Model

1369: $pp \to Z+{\rm jet}$ prediction.

1370: 

1371: \subsection{Tree-level virtual graviton exchange}

1372: 

1373: There are three most promising 

1374: candidate channels to study tree-level virtual graviton effects:

1375: Drell--Yan lepton pairs, photon pairs and two jets. 

1376: The dimension-8 operator $\cal{T}$ induced by tree-level graviton

1377: exchange can interfere with Standard

1378: Model contributions for $\delta >1$ and with the elastic contribution

1379: for $\delta =1$.

1380: Therefore, it can lead to effects suppressed by only

1381: one power of ${\cal S} \sim M_D^{-2-\delta}$. Because we are dealing with

1382: interfering amplitudes, there

1383: will be no golden cut to distinguish signal and backgrounds; at most

1384: we expect significant changes in some distribution. Instead of the

1385: transverse momentum distribution which we have utilized for the real emission, we now study

1386: the invariant mass of the final state leptons or photons or jets to

1387: measure a deviation from the Standard Model behavior. In contrast to the

1388: real emission case, there is no independent background measurement, but

1389: the Drell--Yan $\mll$ spectrum can at least be normalized at the low

1390: end just above the $Z$ pole, where the heavy KK states

1391: should not contribute. 

1392: 

1393: In earlier works the reaches of the two lepton and the two photon

1394: channels have been found to be comparable~\cite{Kingman,atlas_dy}. The

1395: diphoton processes, however, suffers from several disadvantages: the

1396: total rate is only known at NLO~\cite{binoth}, with an estimated error of about 

1397: $20$--$30\%$. A normalization of the invariant mass distribution in

1398: the small $M_{\gamma \gamma}$ region might suffer from soft-photon

1399: radiation on the one hand, and its extrapolation is affected by 

1400: large logarithms

1401: on the other hand. Finally the error due to QCD uncertainties of

1402: misidentified photons will be at least of the order of $10\%$ to

1403: $20\%$ for the extracted photon rate, well above the estimated error

1404: for the Drell--Yan process~\cite{binoth}.\medskip

1405: 

1406: Again, we only require basic cuts for the leptons $|\eta_\ell|<2.5$

1407: and $p_{T,\ell}>50 \gev$, plus a variable minimum cut $\mll>\Lambda/2$

1408: for $\Lambda<4 \tev$ and $\mll>2 \tev$ otherwise. The $5 \sigma$ reach of

1409: this channel is illustrated in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8}.

1410: We start by showing our results, in the left panel of the figure, 

1411: by using the model-independent

1412: parameters $\meff$ (where $c_{\cal T} \equiv 8/\meff^4$) and $\Lambda$, the

1413: ultraviolet cutoff. In this case, $\Lambda$ corresponds to the maximum

1414: allowed value of the two-lepton invariant mass $\mll$. 

1415: 

1416: In contrast to the

1417: background, the KK signal involves two parton subprocesses: the usual

1418: Drell--Yan type diagram with an $s$ channel KK exchange, and a gluon initiated

1419: process. The latter will have a large effect on the total rate

1420: at the LHC, but the $\mll$ cut selects the large parton $x$ regime

1421: where initial state quarks dominate (see left panel of fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8}).

1422: The interference between KK and Standard Model

1423: contributions to the Drell-Yan channel

1424: %(present for $\delta >1$)

1425: is strongly suppressed by a combination of couplings and phase space

1426: factors when we integrate over the entire phase space. Therefore,

1427: the rate for the KK effects is not proportional to $c_{\cal T}$,

1428: but to $c_{\cal T}^2$. Indeed the curves for positive and negative values

1429: of $c_{\cal T}$ in the left panel of fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8} are nearly

1430: identical. Taking into account only the interference term would reduce

1431: the LHC reach to $\meff <2$~TeV.

1432: We

1433: note, however, that it might still be possible to enhance the

1434: reach applying a more sophisticated set of cuts to increase the

1435: interference effects.

1436: As long as $\Lambda$ is larger than about 4~TeV, the reach shown in

1437: the left panel of fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8} is independent of $\Lambda$,

1438: since the condition $\mll <\Lambda$ does not reduce the signal.

1439: \medskip

1440: 

1441: \begin{figure}[t]

1442: \centering

1443: \includegraphics[width=7.2cm]{coverage_d8_eff.eps}\hspace*{5mm}

1444: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{coverage_d8.eps} 

1445: \vspace{-3mm}

1446: \caption[]{\em The LHC reach in the search for virtual graviton

1447: effects through the dimension-8 operator $\cal T$ in Drell-Yan lepton

1448: pair production. Left: the result in terms

1449: of the coefficient $c_{\cal T}$ of the dimension-8 operator, with 

1450: $c_{\cal T} = \pm 8/\meff^4$ (the sign does not affect the result). The

1451: reach is shown for the $q\bar{q}$ initial state only (lower $\meff$)

1452: and including the $gg$ initial state (higher $\meff$). The cutoff

1453: $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ acts on the partonic collider energy and defines

1454: the minimum $\mll$ cut exactly like $\Lambda$ in the extra-dimensions

1455: parametrization. Right: the same result in terms of the extra-dimension

1456: parameters $\delta$, $\Lambda$, and $M_D$.

1457: The switch from thick to thin lines indicates the

1458: end of the region $\Lambda<\Lambda_S(M_D)$.}

1459: \label{fig:lhc_d8}

1460: \end{figure}

1461: 

1462: Next, we show in the right panel of

1463: fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8} the same result expressing $c_{\cal T}$

1464: in terms of $\Lambda$ and $M_D$, as given in eq.~(\ref{eq:op_lhc}).

1465: For $\delta >2$, the LHC reach on $M_D$ grows with $\Lambda$, as

1466: an effect of this particular parametrization. 

1467: The form of ${\cal S}$ will lead to a scaling $M_D^{\rm max} \propto

1468: \Lambda^{(\delta-2)/(\delta+2)}$ for $\Lambda \gtrsim 1\tev$. 

1469: The growth is limited by the requirement $\Lambda <\Lambda_S$ which 

1470: implies $\Lambda < (\sqrt{2} \pi)^{1/2} \meff^{\rm max}\simeq 10$~TeV,

1471: for any $\delta >2$, where $\meff^{\rm max}$ is the reach on $\meff$,

1472: shown in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8}.

1473: Because the interference between KK and Standard

1474: Model contributions is suppressed, the numerical impact of a shift

1475: $\Lambda_S=M_D \to 4 M_D$ on the total cross section could be as large

1476: as a factor $4^{2(\delta-2)}$. For $\delta=6$ we find a change of the

1477: cross section by more than a factor $10^5$ for fixed $M_D=4\tev$ and a

1478: fixed kinematic cut $\mll>1\tev$. The total cross section, however, is

1479: extremely sensitive to changes in $\Lambda$ and also in $M_D$. If we

1480: translate the factor $4^{2(\delta-2)}$ into a compensating shift in

1481: $M_D$ we only get a shift by a factor $(4)^{(\delta-2)/(\delta+2)}$,

1482: which for $\delta=6$ means $M_D \to 2 M_D$. 

1483: \medskip

1484: 

1485: For $\delta=2$ the

1486: cutoff dependence of $c_{\cal T}$ 

1487: is only logarithmic, and $c_{\cal T}$ is finite

1488: for $\delta =1$. 

1489: In fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8} we see that, for these two cases, the LHC reach is

1490: practically independent of $\Lambda$, as soon as $\Lambda >4$~TeV, when

1491: the condition $\mll <\Lambda$ no longer affects the signal.

1492: Therefore, for small $\delta$ (and especially for $\delta =1$), the

1493: coefficient is less sensitive to the ultraviolet behavior of the

1494: theory, here parametrized by $\Lambda$. 

1495: This means that 

1496: the search for tree-level virtual-graviton effects,

1497: although

1498: theoretically more under control, covers a smaller portion of the

1499: $M_D$--$\Lambda$ region, as the value of $\delta$ is decreased. 

1500: This is in contrast to real-graviton emission, where the reach is enhanced for

1501: small $\delta$.

1502: 

1503: \begin{figure}[t]

1504: \centering

1505: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{coverage_jj.eps}

1506: \vspace{0mm}

1507: \caption[]{\em The LHC reach in the search for tree-level virtual-graviton effects 

1508: through

1509: the dimension-8 operator ${\cal T}$ in 

1510: two-jet process. For illustrative purposes, the systematic errors are

1511: set to zero, even though they will dominate and even nullify the

1512: reach.}

1513: \label{fig:lhc_jj}

1514: \end{figure}

1515: 

1516: %The main difference between virtual graviton effects and real emission

1517: %is precisely this ultraviolet behavior: for real graviton emission the

1518: %numerator in the matrix element squared is proportional to $m_{\rm

1519: %KK}^{\delta-1}$, it is not a function of $\Lambda$. This means that

1520: %for $\delta>1$ the KK mass spectrum is pushed toward $\Lambda$, but it

1521: %is cut off by the parton luminosity, developing a maximum at $m_{\rm

1522: %KK}$ values considerably below $\Lambda$. The additional powers of

1523: %$m_{\rm KK}$ will always lead to factors $\sqrt{\hat{s}}/M_D$ in the

1524: %matrix element, and the parton luminosity will not allow the single

1525: %gravition production process to diverge. As discussed before, the

1526: %weakly interacting gravity condition $\Lambda<\Lambda_S$ only has an

1527: %(indirect) effect on single graviton production in the case of a large

1528: %number of extra dimensions, where the perturbation theory description

1529: %of real graviton emission is starting to fail. In contrast, virtual

1530: %graviton effects are directly affected by gravity becoming strongly

1531: %interacting: for $\delta>2$ the powers of $\Lambda$ in the numerator

1532: %can cancel the suppression through powers of $M_D$ in the denominator

1533: %of the dimension-8 operator $c_{\cal T}$ and the collider effects will

1534: %be dominated by the highest-mass gravitons which we allow in the

1535: %theory before we cut it off at $\Lambda=\Lambda_S$. In

1536: %fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8} the $5\sigma$ contours will cover infinitely

1537: %large values of $M_D$ if we allow arbitrarily large cutoff

1538: %valules. The LHC reach is only defined in conjunction with

1539: %$\Lambda<\Lambda_S$, \ie the condition that gravity cannot become

1540: %strongly interacting. Of course, this cutoff procedure will become

1541: %unnecessary once we know the ultraviolet completion of the

1542: %theory. Until then we have to treat $d M_D^{\rm

1543: %max}(\delta;\Lambda_S)/d\Lambda_S$ as a theoretical

1544: %uncertainty.\bigskip

1545: 

1546: %Until now we have relied on a particular parametrization of the

1547: %dimension-8 operator in terms of $M_D$ and $\Lambda$, as defined in

1548: %eq.(\ref{eq:op_lhc}). Because the explicit appearance of the cutoff

1549: %$\Lambda$ leads to the above described problems with the effective

1550: %theory description for $\delta>2$ it is useful to also investigate to

1551: %the standard parametrization $c_{\cal T}=8/\meff^4$. In this approach

1552: %the cutoff $\Lambda$ only appears as the maximum $\mll$ value

1553: %allowed. The LHC reach in $\meff$ is shown in

1554: %fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d8}. It is interesting to note that we can translate

1555: %the maximum reach $\meff^{\rm max}$ in the general parametrization

1556: %into the cutoff value $\Lambda$ for which the discovery reach in $M_D$

1557: %is limited by the condition $\Lambda<\Lambda_S$: $\Lambda^{\rm max} =

1558: %2^{1/4} \sqrt{\pi} \meff^{\rm max}$. As mentioned above, the

1559: %interference term between the dimension-8 operator and the Standard

1560: %Model diagrams is strongly suppressed, so that the lines for a

1561: %positive and negative sign in $c_{\cal T}$ are identical. Only taking

1562: %into account the interference term reduces the LHC reach to $\meff <

1563: %2\TeV$. For this general parametrization there is no problem with the

1564: %saturation of the cutoff dependence and the typical scales of $\meff$

1565: %of up to $5\TeV$ and $\mell \lesssim 2\TeV$ are sufficiently

1566: %separated. This reflects the fact that there is of course nothing

1567: %wrong with searches for dimension-8 operator effects at the LHC. The

1568: %problem appears if we try to interpret the general results in terms

1569: %of an effective theory of higher dimensions which is not

1570: %renormalizable and for which we do not know the ultraviolet

1571: %completion. We will discuss these theoretical uncertainties in more

1572: %detail in the next section.\bigskip

1573: 

1574: The two-jet channel is of course tempting at the LHC, just because of

1575: its large rate. However, this rate also comes with a large uncertainty,

1576: not only on the total rate but also on distributions. The invariant

1577: mass spectrum for example is a likely candidate to measure parton

1578: distribution functions, which means that even if we knew its

1579: normalization (which we do not know) it would be hard to extract any

1580: information from it. In fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_jj} we show an example for

1581: discovery reach of the LHC looking for dimension-8 virtual graviton effects for

1582: two jet production {\sl in the limit of zero systematical

1583: uncertainty}. We see that the reach is similar to the corresponding Drell--Yan

1584: process; however, we find $S/B$ well below $10^{-2}$, which means that

1585: we do not even have to estimate a systematical error on the QCD two

1586: jet production --- any reasonable number will return a discovery potential

1587: worse than in the lepton pair channel.

1588: 

1589: 

1590: \subsection{One-loop virtual graviton exchange}

1591: 

1592: \begin{figure}[t]

1593: \centering

1594: \includegraphics[width=7.2cm]{coverage_d6_eff.eps} \hspace*{5mm}

1595: \includegraphics[width=9cm]{coverage_d6.eps} 

1596: \vspace{-8mm}

1597: \caption[]{\em The LHC reach in the search for graviton-loop effects

1598: through the dimension-6 operator $\Upsilon$ in Drell-Yan lepton-pair

1599: production. The cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm eff}$ acts on the partonic

1600: collider energy and defines the minimum ${\mll}$ cut exactly like

1601: $\Lambda$ in the extra-dimension parametrization. Left: the results

1602: in terms of the parametrization $c_\Upsilon = \pm

1603: 4\pi/\meff^2$. Right: the reach in terms of the parametrization in

1604: eq.~(\ref{eq:op_lhc}), for a positive value of $c_\Upsilon$.}

1605: \label{fig:lhc_d6}

1606: \end{figure}

1607: 

1608: Graviton loops induce a dimension-6 operator $\Upsilon$~\cite{stru,oleg}.  

1609: We perform the same analysis

1610: of the Drell--Yan lepton pairs at the

1611: LHC as for the dimension-8 operator $\cal T$.

1612: First, we determine the LHC reach in terms of the 

1613: parametrization $c_\Upsilon = \pm 4\pi/\meff^2$. Because of the

1614: cancellation between interference effects and the dimension-6 operator

1615: squared, a positive sign $c_\Upsilon$  has a reduced effect on the

1616: Drell--Yan cross section. From fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d6} we observe that 

1617: the cutoff

1618: dependence disappears for 

1619: $\Lambda >

1620: 4\TeV$, which is only slightly above the typical $\mll$ values at the LHC

1621: and well below the maximum values $\meff \sim 25$--$40\TeV$. 

1622: The two scales are well separated, and the result is fairly

1623: independent of the

1624: cutoff.

1625: We can translate the maximum range in terms of the

1626: dimension-8 operator $c_{\cal T}^2=(8/\meff^4)^2$ into the range for

1627: the dimension-6 operator $c_\Upsilon = 4\pi/\meff^2$, assuming the

1628: typical partonic collider energy is $\mll \sim 2\TeV$.\bigskip

1629: 

1630: As a second step we interpret the same result in terms of the

1631: extra-dimensional

1632: effective theory, using the definition of the

1633: dimension-6 operator coefficient $c_\Upsilon$ in eq.~(\ref{eq:op_lhc}). 

1634: The dependence on $\Lambda$ of $c_\Upsilon \sim 

1635: \Lambda^{2\delta+2}/M_D^{2\delta+4}$ is steeper than for the real 

1636: emission and the dimension-8

1637: cases.

1638: Moreover, comparing the two parametrizations of the dimension-6 operator

1639: for $M_D = \Lambda = \meff$ we find a considerably smaller

1640: prefactor for $c_\Upsilon$ for the extra dimension

1641: ansatz. 

1642: Correspondingly, the $5 \sigma$ discovery curves in

1643: fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d6}, shown for positive $c_\Upsilon$, 

1644: only barely cross the diagonal $\Lambda<M_D$.

1645: In contrast to the dimension-8 operator the dimension-6 analysis will

1646: have basically no reach at the LHC if we limit ourselves to

1647: $\Lambda<M_D$, but surpasses the dimension-8 operator for $M_D <

1648: \Lambda < \Lambda_S$.

1649: This is consistent with the notion that loop effects become overwhelming

1650: when $\Lambda$ is large, and the effective gravitational coupling 

1651: becomes sufficiently strong.

1652: 

1653: The reach on $M_D$ shown in fig.~\ref{fig:lhc_d6} grows with 

1654: $\Lambda$ almost linearly, $M_D^{\rm max} \propto

1655: \Lambda^{(\delta+1)/(\delta+2)}$, until it is overcome by the condition

1656: $\Lambda <\Lambda_S$. This happens for $\Lambda =2\pi^{1/2} \meff^{\rm max}

1657: \sim 89\TeV$, for any $\delta$. This means that searches for the

1658: operator $\Upsilon$ can very efficiently cover the case of strong gravity

1659: ($\Lambda \gtrsim M_D$) in a large range of $M_D$ values, namely up

1660: to $M_D^{\rm max}=(16,33,47,56,62,66)\TeV$ for $\delta =(1,\dots ,6)$.

1661: This typical scale of $M_D^{\rm max}$ is set by the

1662: maximum value of $\meff$ which we can probe at the LHC. 

1663: This corresponds to the hierarchy of scales in

1664: the dimension-8 case, where the typical scale is set by $\meff \sim

1665: 5\TeV$, the reach in $M_D$ is somewhat larger (depending on $\delta$),

1666: and $\Lambda$ is fixed by the condition $\Lambda<\Lambda_S(M_D)$. The

1667: collider energy as a scale has no impact once $s/\meff^2$ fixes the

1668: reach in $\meff$.

1669: 

1670: 

1671: \section{Conclusions}

1672: 

1673: We have reconsidered the physics of KK graviton excitations 

1674: in theories with

1675: $\delta$ large extra dimensions. The high-energy

1676: and low-energy ends of the KK spectrum lead to different effects.

1677: \begin{itemize}

1678: \item The heaviest KK modes affect high-energy experiments

1679: in a way that does not depend on the detailed shape of the

1680: compactification. However, while graviton emission is a truly

1681: model-independent test, virtual-graviton exchange for $\delta \ge 2$

1682: cannot be fully computed without knowledge of the UV completion.

1683: \item The lightest KK modes affect Newtonian gravity at measurable distances

1684: and astrophysical processes

1685: in a fully computable way

1686: that however depends on the detailed shape of the extra dimensions.

1687: In models with $\delta$ flat extra dimensions with equal radii, the KK masses

1688: are $m\sim M_D (M_D/M_{\rm Pl})^{1/\delta}$, 

1689: leading to conflict with observations for $\delta \le 3$ and $M_D<3$~TeV.

1690: 

1691: \end{itemize}

1692: Many previous works studied high-energy signals of $\delta=2,3$ extra 

1693: dimensions, tacitly

1694: assuming the existence of 

1695: some appropriate non-minimal shape that 

1696: removes the light KK modes.

1697: The case $\delta=1$ was ignored, 

1698: maybe because it is less trivial to imagine an appropriate non-minimal shape 

1699: for a one-dimensional extra dimension, 

1700: or maybe just because of psychological reasons:

1701: in the flat limit the case $\delta=1$ contradicts even ordinary experience.

1702: 

1703: \smallskip

1704: 

1705: In section~\ref{seccaz} we discussed how making the long extra dimension slightly warped

1706: introduces an extra mass $\mu$ to the spectrum of KK excitations

1707: that allows to make all states heavier than about $50\MeV$,

1708: avoiding problems with observations.

1709: Warping also makes each KK more strongly coupled:

1710: the combined effect of these two factors leaves unaffected high-energy experiments 

1711: which cannot resolve the individual KK modes.

1712: 

1713: The explicit model motivates our later study of high-energy signals,

1714: which 

1715: do not depend on the specific mechanism introduced to cure low-energy problems.

1716: In section~\ref{5d} we studied collider signals of a

1717: single gravitational large extra dimension, findings

1718: a few peculiarities.

1719: \begin{itemize}

1720: \item[1)]  Unlike $\delta\ge 2$,

1721: for $\delta=1$ the graviton-emission cross sections are not dominated by 

1722: events with the largest kinematically allowed graviton energy.

1723: LEP measurements of  $e^+e^-\to \gamma G$ events with large $E_\gamma\circa{>}M_Z$

1724: give the constraint $M_D \circa{>} 2.4\TeV$ on the 5-dimensional Planck mass

1725: (normalized as in ref.~\cite{noi}).

1726: Furthermore, unpublished $e^+e^- \to Z G$ data might give a competitive test.

1727: 

1728: 

1729: 

1730: \item[2)]

1731: For $\delta \ge 2$ tree-level virtual graviton exchange

1732: gives the dimension-8 operator ${\cal T}$ of eq.\eq{T}

1733: which has an

1734: uncomputable UV-divergent coefficient~\cite{noi}.

1735: For $\delta=1$ tree-level virtual graviton exchange

1736: gives a dimension-7 fully computable amplitude,

1737: which interferes with the SM amplitude only in elastic channels.

1738: The dominant effect at LEP is an increase of the $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ cross section,

1739: with a peculiar scattering-angle dependence.

1740: The present constraint  is $M_D\circa{>}2.4\TeV$.

1741: 

1742: \item[3)] One loop graviton exchange gives the dimension-6 operator $\Upsilon$ of eq.\eq{Upsilon};

1743: its coefficient is UV-divergent coefficient for any $\delta$, including $\delta=1$.

1744: 

1745: \end{itemize}

1746: 

1747: 

1748: 

1749: 

1750: \medskip

1751: 

1752: Finally we reconsidered how the sensitivity of LHC searches

1753: to gravitons in $\delta$ large extra dimensions

1754: depends on the cut-off $\Lambda$ of the theory.

1755: Previous analyses assumed $\Lambda = M_D$, which

1756: fixes in an arbitrary way the relative merit of the different signals discussed above.

1757: In appendix~A we give the cross sections 

1758: of graviton-induced hadronic processes relevant for LHC studies

1759: (with finding that do not fully agree with previous 

1760: results valid for $\delta\ge 2$).

1761: 

1762: 

1763: Searches for real-graviton emission, tree-level graviton exchange, and

1764: graviton-loop effects give complementary information. For graviton emission,

1765: we have focused on the jet and missing energy channel. The case $\delta =1$

1766: is particularly interesting, since LHC can probe values of $M_D$ up to

1767: 14~TeV (for an integrated luminosity of 10~fb$^{-1}$) or 17~TeV

1768: (for 100~fb$^{-1}$). The reach rapidly deteriorates as $\delta$ is

1769: increased, becoming very sensitive to the cut-off $\Lambda$ and therefore

1770: to the unknown ultraviolet behavior of the theory.

1771: 

1772: Tree-level graviton exchange is best studied at the LHC in the Drell-Yan

1773: channel, which can probe regions of the $(M_D,\Lambda)$ plane not

1774: accessible to other searches. The case $\delta =1$ allows a prediction

1775: of the rate, which is independent of the ultraviolet cutoff,

1776: with the result that graviton emission is a more sensitive probe than tree-level graviton exchange.

1777: 

1778: 

1779: 

1780: Graviton-loop effects can dominate over tree-level exchange because

1781: they induce operators with lower dimensionality.   % (6 rather than 8).

1782: In the regime where gravity can become strong ($\Lambda \gtrsim M_D$),

1783: the search for the effective operator $\Upsilon$ in the Drell-Yan channel

1784: provide the most efficient probe of theories with multi-dimensional

1785: gravity.

1786: 

1787: 

1788: 

1789: \bigskip

1790: 

1791: 

1792: 

1793: %For $\delta>2$ the real and the virtual graviton effects seem to have

1794: %a similar reach at the LHC. However, we should keep in mind that the

1795: %applicability of the effective theory is much more obvious for the

1796: %real emission than it is for the virtual effects. For smaller values

1797: %$\delta=1,2$ the most promising strategy at the LHC is clearly the

1798: %search for real KK graviton emission. However, the effective theory

1799: %description of virtual graviton effect for example through dimension 8

1800: %operators in DY lepton pair production seems so apply without any

1801: %problem.

1802: 

1803: \paragraph{Acknowledgments}

1804: We thank G. Isidori, S. Mele and R. Rattazzi for interesting discussions.

1805: We thank I. De Bonis, R. Tenchini and P. Wells for providing and explaining

1806: us the results on $e\bar{e}\to e\bar{e}$ data.

1807: 

1808: 

1809: 

1810: \appendix

1811: 

1812: 

1813: \section{Cross sections of graviton processes}\label{cross}

1814: Here we list all cross sections necessary for studying the signals generated by

1815: tree-level exchange of gravitons in $\delta\ge 1$ extra dimensions,

1816: with the following final states:

1817: $f\bar{f}$ and

1818: $\gamma\gamma$ at electron-positron colliders,

1819: and jet jet, $\gamma\gamma$, $\ell\bar{\ell}$ at hadron colliders.

1820: It is useful to define

1821: $$G(s,t)\equiv \frac{s^4 + 10s^3 t+ 42 s^2 t^2 + 64 s t^3 + 32 t^4}{4}.$$

1822: Here $s,t,u$ are the usual Mandelstam variables, related by $s+t+u=0$.

1823: All our cross section are normalized such that the integration range is 

1824: $-s<t<0$, even when 

1825: there are two identical particles in the final state.

1826: 

1827: 

1828: The effective graviton propagator ${\cal S}$ in $\delta$ extra dimensions

1829: is defined in eq.~(\ref{spuf}).

1830: For $\delta > 2$ the uncomputable UV divergent contribution dominates and our expressions

1831: can be simplified setting

1832: ${\cal S}(s)={\cal S}(t) = {\cal S}(u) ={\cal S}$, which is the limit studied in the previous literature.\footnote{

1833: Our results agree with ref.~\cite{noi},

1834: but we find the following discrepancies with the cross sections for the

1835: hadronic processes computed in ref.~\cite{Soni}.

1836: Their parameter $F/M_S^4$ corresponds to our $-{\cal S}/8\pi$.

1837: In $qq\to qq$, $q\bar{q}\to q\bar{q}$ and $\bar q\bar q\to \bar q\bar q$ scatterings 

1838: our results would agree using instead  $F/M_S^4 \leftrightarrow {\cal S}/4\pi$.

1839: In  $qq'\to qq'$ and $\bar q\bar q'\to \bar q\bar q'$ 

1840: we must also replace $s\leftrightarrow t$ in their SM propagators.

1841: In $gg\to q\bar{q}$ scattering we would agree for  $F/M_S^4 \leftrightarrow- {\cal S}/4\pi$.

1842: The pure graviton contribution to $gg\to gg$ is 4 times bigger than in

1843: ref.~\cite{Soni}.}

1844: 

1845: \begin{enumerate}

1846: \item {\bf  Electron positron $\rightarrow$ fermion antifermion}.

1847: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar1}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(e^+e^-\leftrightarrow f\bar{f}) &=&

1848: \frac{u^2(|G^{LL}|^2 + |G^{RR}|^2) + 
t^2 (|G^{LR}_s|^2 +|G^{RL}_s|^2) + 
s^2 (|G^{LR}_t|^2 +|G^{RL}_t|^2) }{16\pi s^2}\\

1849: &&+\frac{1}{128\pi s^2}\bigg[|{\cal S}(s)|^2 G(s,t) + |{\cal S}(t)|^2 G(t,s) \\

1850: &&+2\hbox{Re}\,{\cal S}(s)^* \bigg( (G^{LR}_s+G^{RL}_s) t^2 (3s+4t) + (G^{LL} + G^{RR}) (s+4t)u^2\bigg)\\

1851: &&+2\hbox{Re}\,{\cal S}(t)^* \bigg( (G^{LR}_t+G^{RL}_t) s^2 (4s+3t) + (G^{LL} + G^{RR}) (4s+t)u^2\bigg)\delta_{ef}\\

1852: &&+ \frac{\hbox{Re}\,{\cal S}(s) {\cal S}(t)^*}{2} (4s+t)(4t+s)u^2\delta_{ef}\bigg]
\end{eqnarray*}

1853: where $\delta_{ef}=1$ if $f=e$ and $\delta_{ef}=0$ otherwise.

1854: If $f$ is a quark

1855: $d\sigma(e\bar{e}\to f\bar{f})$ must be multiplied by $N_f=3$ while

1856: $d\sigma(f\bar{f} \to e\bar{e})$ must be divided by $N_f$.

1857: The factors 

1858: $$

1859: G^{AB}_s \equiv \sum_{V=\gamma,Z,W} \frac{g_A(V\to \ell\bar{\ell}) g_B(V\to f\bar{f})}{s-M_V^2 + i M_V \Gamma_V} ,  \qquad

1860: G^{AB}_t \equiv \sum_{V=\gamma,Z,W} \frac{g_A(V\to f\bar{\ell}) g_B(V\to \ell\bar{f})}{t-M_V^2} 

1861: $$

1862: ($A,B=\{L,R\}$) are the propagators of electroweak SM gauge bosons,

1863: and $G^{LL} = G^{LL}_s + G^{LL}_t$, 

1864: $G^{RR} = G^{RR}_s + G^{RR}_t$.

1865: If $f\neq e,\nu_e$ there is no $t$-channel contribution,  $G_t^{AB}=0$.

1866: In the case of  Bhabha scattering $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ one has

1867: $$ 
G^{AB}_x =\frac{e^2}{x}+
 \frac{g_2^2 g_{Ae} g_{Be}/

1868: \cos^2\theta_{\rm W}}{x-M_Z^2+i \Gamma_Z M_Z}\qquad

1869: x = \{s,t\}$$

1870: with $g_{Le} = \sin^2\theta_{\rm W}-1/2$ and $g_{Re} = 

1871: \sin^2\theta_{\rm W}$.\footnote{For 

1872: $\delta = 1$, tree-level virtual graviton effects, 

1873: and in particular the sign of their interference with the

1874: SM, are unambiguously determined.

1875: To compute it correctly it is convenient to focus on the small $t$ limit of Bhabha scattering,

1876: where the cross section does not depend on the spin of the colliding particles

1877: (eikonal approximation). As well known, in such a limit both electromagnetism and gravity

1878: give an attractive force between electrons and positrons, therefore their interference is constructive:

1879: graviton exchange increases the SM $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-$ cross section.

1880: 

1881: This argument allows to fix related processes, although it 

1882: does not directly apply to $q\bar{q}\to q\bar{q}$ scattering:

1883: gluon exchange and graviton exchange have different colour indices,

1884: which suppress the would-be dominant interference at $|t|\ll s$.}

1885: 

1886: 

1887: 

1888: 

1889: 

1890: \item

1891: {\bf  Electron fermion $\to$ electron fermion}

1892: scattering can be obtained from 1.\ by crossing $s\to t$, $t\to u$ and $u\to s$ in the squared amplitude:

1893: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar2}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(e f\to e'f') &=&

1894: \frac{s^2(|G^{LL}|^2 + |G^{RR}|^2) + 
u^2 (|G^{LR}_t|^2 +|G^{RL}_t|^2) + 
t^2 (|G^{LR}_u|^2 +|G^{RL}_u|^2) }{16\pi s^2}\\

1895: &&+\frac{1}{128\pi s^2}\bigg[|{\cal S}(t)|^2 G(t,u) + |{\cal S}(u)|^2 G(u,t) \\

1896: &&+ 2\hbox{Re}{\cal S}(t) ^*\bigg( (G^{LR}_t+G^{RL}_t) u^2 (3t+4u) + (G^{LL} + G^{RR}) (t+4u)s^2\bigg)\\

1897: &&+2\hbox{Re}{\cal S}(u)^* \bigg( (G^{LR}_u+G^{RL}_u) t^2 (4t+3u) + (G^{LL} + G^{RR}) (4t+u)s^2\bigg)\delta_{ef}\\

1898: &&+ \frac{\hbox{Re}\,{\cal S}(t) {\cal S}(u)^*}{2} (4t+u)(4u+t)s^2\delta_{ef}\bigg]
\end{eqnarray*}

1899: Here 

1900: $$

1901: G^{AB}_t \equiv \sum_{V=\gamma,Z,W} \frac{g_A(V\to \ell\bar{\ell}) g_B(V\to f\bar{f})}{t-M_V^2} ,  \qquad

1902: G^{AB}_t \equiv \sum_{V=\gamma,Z,W} \frac{g_A(V\to f\bar{\ell}) g_B(V\to \ell\bar{f})}{u-M_V^2} 

1903: $$

1904: and $G^{LL} = G^{LL}_t + G^{LL}_u$, 

1905: $G^{RR} = G^{RR}_t + G^{RR}_u$.

1906: If $f=e$ $d\sigma(ee\to ee)$ must be divided by 2, if one wants to integrate it

1907: in the full range $-s<t<0$.

1908: At small $t$ SM/graviton interference is destructive in $ee\to ee$ collisions and

1909: constructive in $ep\to ep$ collisions.

1910: 

1911: 

1912: \item {\bf  fermion antifermion $\to $ photon photon} 

1913: $$\frac{d\sigma}{dt}(f\bar{f}\to\gamma\gamma) = \frac{t^2+u^2}{64\pi s^2tu N_f}

1914: |2 Q_f^2-tu{\cal S}(s)|^2$$

1915: where $N_f = 1$ and $Q_f = -e$ if $f=e$;

1916: $N_f = 3$ if $f$ is a quark.

1917: 

1918: \item {\bf  gluon gluon $\to $ photon photon} 

1919: $$\frac{d\sigma}{dt}(gg\to\gamma\gamma) = \frac{t^4+u^4}{512\pi s^2}|{\cal S}(s)|^2$$

1920: 

1921: \item {\bf  quark antiquark $\to $ quark antiquark}.

1922: Including only the gluon and the graviton contributions we find

1923: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar3}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(q\bar{q}\to q\bar{q}) &=&\frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\bigg[

1924: \frac{8g_3^4}{27s^2 t^2}(s^2-st+t^2)(3s^2+5st+3t^2)\\

1925: &&+\frac{2g_3^2}{9} u^2\hbox{Re}\bigg(\frac{4t+s}{t}{\cal S}(s)^*+\frac{4s+t}{s} {\cal S}(t) ^*\bigg)\\

1926: &&+\frac{|{\cal S}(s)^2| G(s,t) + |{\cal S}(t)^2| G(t,s)}{8} + \frac{\hbox{Re}\,{\cal S}(s) {\cal S}(t)^*}{48}(4s+t)(4t+s)u^2\bigg]

1927: \end{eqnarray*}

1928: 

1929: \item {\bf  quark quark $\to$ quark quark} is obtained by crossing the previous expression:

1930: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar4}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(q{q}\to q{q}) &=&\frac{1}{32\pi s^2}\bigg[

1931: \frac{8g_3^4}{27s^2 t^2}(t^2-tu+u^2)(3t^2+5tu+3u^2)\\

1932: &&+\frac{2g_3^2}{9} s^2\hbox{Re}\,\bigg(\frac{4u+t}{u} {\cal S}(t)^*+ \frac{4t+u}{t}{\cal S}(u)^*\bigg)\\

1933: &&+\frac{|{\cal S}(t)|^2 G(t,u) + |{\cal S}(u)|^2 G(u,t)}{8} + \frac{\hbox{Re}\, {\cal S}(t) {\cal S}(u)^*}{48}(4t+u)(4u+t)s^2\bigg]

1934: \end{eqnarray*}

1935: and $d\sigma(q{q}\to q{q}) =d\sigma(\bar q\bar {q}\to \bar q\bar {q}) $.

1936: %These cross sections must be divided by 2, if one wants to integrate them

1937: %in the full range $-s<t<0$.

1938: 

1939: 

1940: \item {\bf  quark antiquark $\to $ quark$'$ antiquark$'$}.

1941: The prime denotes that the two quarks are of different type.

1942: Including only the gluon and the graviton contributions we find

1943: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar5}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(q\bar{q}\to q'\bar{q}') &=&\frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\bigg[

1944: \frac{4g_3^4}{9s^2}(s^2+2st+2t^2)+\frac{|{\cal S}(s)|^2}{8} G(s,t) \bigg]

1945: \end{eqnarray*}

1946: %in agreement with ASS.

1947: 

1948: 

1949: \item {\bf  quark quark$'$ $\to $ quark quark$'$} and

1950:  {\bf  quark antiquark$'$ $\to $ quark antiquark$'$}.

1951: Including only the gluon and the graviton contributions we find

1952: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar6}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(q\bar{q}'\to q\bar{q}') =\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(q{q}'\to q{q}') &=&\frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\bigg[

1953: \frac{4g_3^4}{9t^2}(t^2+2tu+2u^2)+\frac{|{\cal S}(t)|^2}{8} G(t,u) \bigg]

1954: \end{eqnarray*}

1955: 

1956: 

1957: \item {\bf  gluon gluon $\to$ gluon gluon}:

1958: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:ffbar7}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(gg\to gg) &=&\frac{1}{256\pi s^2}\bigg[\frac{9g_3^4(s^2+t^2+u^2)^3}{2s^2 t^2 u^2}

1959: \\

1960: &&-6 g_3^2\hbox{Re}\,\bigg( \frac{t^4+u^4}{tu}{\cal S}(s)^* + \frac{s^4+u^4}{su}{\cal S}(t)^*+\frac{s^4+t^4}{st}{\cal S}(u)^*\bigg)\\

1961: && +u^4(4|{\cal S}(s)|^2+\hbox{Re}\,{{\cal S}(s) {\cal S}(t)^*} +4|{\cal S}(t)|^2) \\

1962: &&+ t^4 (4|{\cal S}(s)|^2+\hbox{Re}\,{{\cal S}(s) {\cal S}(u)^*}+4|{\cal S}(u)|^2)  \\

1963: &&+s^4 (4|{\cal S}(t)|^2+\hbox{Re}\,{{\cal S}(t) {\cal S}(u)^*}+4|{\cal S}(u)|^2)\bigg]

1964: \end{eqnarray*}

1965: 

1966: 

1967: \item {\bf  gluon gluon $\leftrightarrow$ quark antiquark}

1968: \begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(gg\to q\bar{q}) &=&\frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\bigg[

1969: \frac{-g_3^4}{24s^2t(s+t)}(s^2+2st+2t^2)(4s^2+9st+9t^2)\\

1970: &&-

1971: \frac{g_3^2}{8}(s^2+2st+2t^2)\hbox{Re} {\cal S}(s)^*-\frac{3}{16}|{\cal S}(s)|^2 t(s+t)(s^2+2st+2t^2) \bigg]

1972: \end{eqnarray*}

1973: The cross section for the inverse process is

1974:   $d\sigma(q\bar{q}\to gg )/dt= (32/9)d\sigma(gg\to q\bar{q})/dt$.

1975:  %  1/2 * (8/3)^2       $1/2$ because one wants to integrate in the full $t$ range.

1976: 

1977: 

1978: 

1979: \item {\bf  gluon quark $\to $ gluon quark} can be obtained from

1980: the previous result by crossing $s\to t$, $t\to u$. Since we average over the colour  of the initial state,

1981: we must also rescale $\sigma$ by a factor $8/3$. The result is:

1982: \begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d\sigma}{d t}(gq\to gq) &=&\frac{1}{16\pi s^2}\bigg[

1983: \frac{g_3^4}{9st^2(s+t)}(2s^2+2st+t^2)(9s^2+9st+4t^2)+\\

1984: &&+

1985: \frac{g_3^2 }{3}(2s^2+2st+t^2)\hbox{Re}\, {\cal S}(t) +\frac{1}{2}|{\cal S}(t)|^2 s(s+t)(2s^2+2st+t^2) \bigg]

1986: \end{eqnarray*}

1987: Also,  $d\sigma(gq\to gq )/dt=d\sigma(g\bar{q}\to g\bar{q})/dt$.

1988: 

1989: 

1990: 

1991: \end{enumerate}

1992: %{\em Finally we give the functions $f_\delta$ and $g_\delta$ which describe

1993: %the differential cross sections for the processes $e^+e^-\to \gamma G$

1994: %and $e^+e^-\to Z G$, 

1995: %$$

1996: %f_\delta^{\rm Giudice}(x,y)=\frac{2(1-x)^{\frac{\delta}{2}-1}}{x(1-y^2)}\left[ 

1997: %(2-x)^2(1-x+x^2)

1998: %-3x^2(1-x)y^2-x^4y^4\right],$$}

1999: 

2000: 

2001: Finally we give 

2002: the differential cross sections for the processes $e^+e^-\to \gamma G$

2003: and $e^+e^-\to Z G$:

2004: \beq\frac{d\sigma}{dx\,dy} (e^+ e^- \to V G)= 

2005: \frac{S_{\delta -1}\alpha_V}{M_D^{2+\delta}} s^{\delta/2} y^{\delta/2-1} g_V(x,y,z)\eeq

2006: where $x=t/s$, $y=m^2/s$, $z=M_V^2/s$, $\alpha_\gamma = \alpha_{\rm em}$,

2007: $\alpha_Z =\alpha_{\rm em}(1-4\sin^2\theta_{\rm W} +\sin^4\theta_{\rm W}

2008: )/2\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm W}=0.36 ~\alpha_{\rm em}$, 

2009: and

2010: \begin{eqnarray}

2011: g_Z(x,y,z)&= &

2012:  \frac{1}{96 x^2 

2013:     {(z -1 - x + y   ) }^2}

2014: \left\{

2015:  -4 x^6  ( z-6   )  + 12 x^5  ( z-6   )   ( z-1 + y   )  \right.

2016:   \\   &&- \nonumber

2017:     3 y^2 { ( z-1   ) }^2 z { ( z-1 + y   ) }^2 -     

2018:     2 x^4  \left[ -42 + 6 y^2  ( z-7   )  + 78 z - 58 z^2 + 6 z^3 \right.

2019:       \\   &&+ \nonumber

2020: \left.       y  ( 75 - 114 z + 17 z^2  )   \right]  + 

2021:     3 x y  (z -1   )   \left[ 1 + y^3  ( z-1  )  - 2 z + 10 z^2 - 

2022: 10 z^3 + z^4 \right.  

2023:       \\   &&+\nonumber

2024: \left.       

2025: y^2  ( 1 - 14 z + 5 z^2  )  + y  (  13 z-1 - 25 z^2 + 5 z^3  )   \right]  + 

2026:     4 x^3  \left[ 12 + y^3  ( z-12   )  - 25 z \right. 

2027:       \\   &&+\nonumber

2028: \left.      31 z^2 - 19 z^3 + z^4 + y^2  ( 27 - 57 z + 8 z^2  )  + 

2029:        y  ( -27 + 72 z - 69 z^2 + 8 z^3  )   \right]     

2030:        \\   &&+\nonumber

2031:     x^2  \left[ 12 y^4 + y^3  ( -33 + 90 z - 13 z^2  )  

2032: + 4 { ( z-1   ) }^2  ( 3 + 5 z^2  ) \right.  

2033:      \\   &&-\nonumber \left. \left.

2034: 4 y^2  ( -9 + 48 z - 55 z^2 + 8 z^3  )  + y  ( -33 + 102 z - 206 z^2 + 

2035: 150 z^3 - 13 z^4  )   \right] \right\}, \\

2036: g_\gamma(x,y)&=&g_Z(x,y,0)=\frac{\left[ 

2037: 4x(1+x-y)-y\right] \left[ 1+2x(1+x)-2xy+y^2\right] }{32x(1+x-y)}.

2038:        \end{eqnarray}

2039: 

2040: 

2041: 

2042: 

2043: 

2044: 

2045: 

2046: \bibliographystyle{plain}\frenchspacing

2047: 

2048: 

2049: \begin{multicols}{2}

2050: 

2051: 

2052: \footnotesize

2053: \begin{thebibliography}{nn}

2054: 

2055: \bibitem{add}

2056: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

2057: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

2058: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {429} (1998) 263

2059: [hep-ph/9803315].

2060: 

2061: \bibitem{astro} 

2062: S.~Hannestad and G.~G.~Raffelt,

2063: %``Supernova and neutron-star limits on large extra dimensions reexamined,''

2064: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {67} (2003) 125008

2065: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {69} (2004) 029901]

2066: [hep-ph/0304029];

2067: C.~Hanhart, D.~R.~Phillips, S.~Reddy and M.~J.~Savage,

2068: %``Extra dimensions, SN1987a, and nucleon nucleon scattering data,''

2069: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {595} (2001) 335

2070: [nucl-th/0007016].

2071: 

2072: \bibitem{noi}

2073:  G.~F.~Giudice, R.~Rattazzi and J.~D.~Wells,

2074:  %``Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders,''

2075:  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {544}, 3 (1999)

2076:  [hep-ph/9811291].

2077:  

2078: \bibitem{stru}G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Strumia,

2079: %``Constraints on extra-dimensional theories from virtual-graviton  exchange,''

2080: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {663} (2003) 377

2081: [hep-ph/0301232].

2082: 

2083: \bibitem{rs1}

2084: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,

2085: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''

2086: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {83} (1999) 3370

2087: [hep-ph/9905221].

2088: 

2089: \bibitem{inter}

2090: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.~R.~Dvali and N.~Kaloper,

2091: %``Infinitely large new dimensions,''

2092: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {84} (2000) 586

2093: [hep-th/9907209].

2094: 

2095: \bibitem{shap}

2096: T.~Gherghetta and M.~E.~Shaposhnikov,

2097: %``Localizing gravity on a string-like defect in six dimensions,''

2098: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {85} (2000) 240

2099: [hep-th/0004014].

2100: 

2101: \bibitem{rus}

2102: N.~Kaloper, J.~March-Russell, G.~D.~Starkman and M.~Trodden,

2103:  %``Compact hyperbolic extra dimensions: Branes, Kaluza-Klein modes and

2104: %cosmology,''

2105: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {85} (2000) 928

2106: [hep-ph/0002001].

2107: 

2108: \bibitem{keit}

2109: K.~R.~Dienes,

2110: %``Shape versus volume: Making large flat extra dimensions invisible,''

2111: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {88} (2002) 011601

2112: [hep-ph/0108115].

2113: 

2114: \bibitem{anto}

2115: C.~P.~Bachas,

2116: %``Unification with low string scale,''

2117: JHEP {9811} (1998) 023

2118: [hep-ph/9807415];

2119: I.~Antoniadis and C.~Bachas,

2120: %``Branes and the gauge hierarchy,''

2121: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {450} (1999) 83

2122: [hep-th/9812093].

2123: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9812093;%%

2124: 

2125: \bibitem{ciunciun}

2126: K.M.~Cheung and W.~Y.~Keung,

2127: %``Direct signals of low scale gravity at e+ e- colliders,''

2128: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {60} (1999) 112003

2129: [hep-ph/9903294].

2130: 

2131: \bibitem{L3}

2132: L3 collaboration, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {470} (1999) 281 [hep-ex/9910056].

2133: 

2134: 

2135:  \bibitem{LEP2}

2136:  \hepart[hep-ex/0312023]{ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL collaborations and

2137: LEP, SLD  electroweak working groups}.

2138: The LEP2 data we fitted are summarized and combined in its chapter 8.

2139: For the differential $e\bar{e}\to e\bar{e}$ cross sections

2140: we use instead the most recent results presented in:

2141: \hepart[CERN-EP/2003-053]{OPAL collaboration} and in:

2142: ALEPH collaboration, ``{\em Fermion Pair production in e+e- collisions at 189-209 GeV and Constraints on Physics Beyond the Standard Model}'', paper in preparation.

2143: 

2144: \bibitem{kpi}

2145: V.~V.~Anisimovsky {\it et al.}  [E949 Collaboration],

2146: %``Further study of the decay K+ $\to$ pi+ nu anti-nu,''

2147: hep-ex/0403036.

2148: 

2149: \bibitem{bijnens}

2150: J.~Bijnens and M.~Maul,

2151: %``Large extra dimensions in rare decays,''

2152: JHEP {0010}, 003 (2000)

2153: [hep-ph/0006042].

2154: 

2155: 

2156: \bibitem{hinchliffe}

2157: L.~Vacavant and I.~Hinchliffe,

2158:  %``Signals Of Models With Large Extra Dimensions In Atlas,''

2159:  J.\ Phys.\ G {27}, 1839 (2001).

2160:  

2161: 

2162: \bibitem{dave}

2163: T.~Han, D.~L.~Rainwater and D.~Zeppenfeld,

2164:  %``Drell-Yan plus missing energy as a signal for extra dimensions,''

2165:  Phys.\ Lett.\ B {463}, 93 (1999).

2166:  %[arXiv:hep-ph/9905423].

2167: 

2168: \bibitem{Giele:dj}

2169: W.~T.~Giele, E.~W.~N.~Glover and D.~A.~Kosower,

2170:  %``Higher Order Corrections To Jet Cross-Sections In Hadron Colliders,''

2171:  Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {403}, 633 (1993).

2172:  %[hep-ph/9302225].

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{Stump:2003yu}

2175:  D.~Stump, J.~Huston, J.~Pumplin, W.~K.~Tung, H.~L.~Lai, S.~Kuhlmann and J.~F.~Owens,

2176:  %``Inclusive jet production, parton distributions, and the search for new physics,''

2177:  JHEP {0310}, 046 (2003).

2178:  %[hep-ph/0303013].

2179:   

2180: \bibitem{Kingman}

2181: K.~M.~Cheung and G.~Landsberg,

2182:  %``Drell-Yan and diphoton production at hadron colliders and low scale gravity model,''

2183:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {62}, 076003 (2000).

2184:  %[arXiv:hep-ph/9909218].

2185: 

2186: \bibitem{atlas_dy}

2187: V.~Kabachenko, A.~Miagkov and A.~Zenin,

2188:  preprint ATL-PHYS-2001-012

2189: 

2190: \bibitem{binoth}

2191:  T.~Binoth, J.~P.~Guillet, E.~Pilon and M.~Werlen,

2192:  %``A full next to leading order study of direct photon pair production in hadro

2193: %nic collisions,''

2194:  Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {16}, 311 (2000)

2195:  %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911340];

2196:  and T.~Binoth, private communication

2197: 

2198: \bibitem{oleg}

2199: L.~N.~Chang, O.~Lebedev, W.~Loinaz and T.~Takeuchi,

2200:  %``Universal torsion-induced interaction from large extra dimensions,''

2201:  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {85}, 3765 (2000).

2202:  

2203:  \bibitem{Soni}

2204:  D.~Atwood, S.~Bar-Shalom and A.~Soni,

2205: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {62} (2000) 056008

2206: [hep-ph/9911231].

2207: 

2208: 

2209: \end{thebibliography}

2210: \end{multicols}

2211: \end{document}

2212: 

2213: 

2214: 

2215: 

2216: 

2217: 

2218: 

2219: 

2220: 

2221: 

2222: 

2223: