1: \documentclass[paper]{JHEP3}

2: 

3: % % \usepackage{epsfig}

4: % % \usepackage{amssymb}

5: % \usepackage{feynarts}

6: % %

7: % \def\URLtilde{\lower0.2em\hbox{$\tilde{\phantom{a}}$}}

8: 

9: % \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

10: % \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

11: % \def\eq{\beq\eeq}

12: % \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

13: % \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

14: % \def\nl{\hfill\break}

15: % %

16: % %                  Define command for making acronyms small capitals

17: % \def\s#1{{\small#1}}

18: % \def\HW{\s{HERWIG}}

19: % \def\mhat{\widehat{m}}

20: % %

21: % \def\v{\begingroup\obeyspaces\u}

22: % % (unusual definition is so that the argument

23: % %  is not expanded until after the \obeyspaces}

24: % \def\u#1{\tt#1\endgroup}

25: % %

26: % \def\ltap{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}

27: % %

28: % \def\red{\special{ps:1.0 0.0 0.0 setrgbcolor }}

29: % \def\black{\special{ps:0.0 0.0 0.0 setrgbcolor }}

30: % \def\mycomm#1{\hfill\break\strut\kern-3em{\red\tt ====> #1\black}\hfill\break}

31: 

32: % \newcommand{\ud}{\mathrm{d}}

33: % \newcommand{\up}{\mathbf{p}}

34: 

35: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

36: \usepackage{epsfig}

37: \usepackage{amssymb}

38: \usepackage{feynarts}

39: %

40: \def\URLtilde{\lower0.2em\hbox{$\tilde{\phantom{a}}$}}

41: 

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

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

44: \def\eq{\beq\eeq}

45: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

46: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

47: \def\nl{\hfill\break}

48: %

49: %                  Define command for making acronyms small capitals

50: \def\s#1{{\small#1}}

51: \def\HW{\s{HERWIG}}

52: \def\mhat{\widehat{m}}

53: %

54: \def\v{\begingroup\obeyspaces\u}

55: % (unusual definition is so that the argument

56: %  is not expanded until after the \obeyspaces}

57: \def\u#1{\tt#1\endgroup}

58: %

59: \def\ltap{\stackrel{<}{\sim}}

60: %

61: \def\red{\special{ps:1.0 0.0 0.0 setrgbcolor }}

62: \def\black{\special{ps:0.0 0.0 0.0 setrgbcolor }}

63: \def\mycomm#1{\hfill\break\strut\kern-3em{\red\tt ====> #1\black}\hfill\break}

64: 

65: \newcommand{\ud}{\mathrm{d}}

66: \newcommand{\up}{\mathbf{p}}

67: \newcommand{\llp}{\mathcal{M}_{ll}^+}

68: %

69: \def\mqq{m^2_D}

70: \def\mqr{m^4_D}

71: \def\mqn{m^2_{qn}}

72: \def\mqm{m^4_{qn}}

73: \def\mqf{m^2_{qf}}

74: \def\mll{m^2_{ll}}

75: 

76: 

77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% title page %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

80: 

81: \preprint{Cavendish--HEP--05/11}

82: \title{Distinguishing Spins in Supersymmetric and Universal Extra Dimension

83: Models at the Large Hadron Collider%

84: \footnote{Work supported in part by the UK Particle Physics and

85: Astronomy Research Council.}}

86: \author{Jennifer M.\ Smillie$^1$ and Bryan R.\ Webber$^2$\\

87:   Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge\\

88:   Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.\\

89:   $^1$E-mail: \email{smillie@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk}\\

90:   $^2$E-mail: \email{webber@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk}}

91: %

92: \abstract{An interesting alternative to supersymmetry (SUSY) for extending

93: physics beyond the Standard Model is a model with universal extra

94: dimensions (UED), in which the SUSY superpartners are replaced

95: by Kaluza-Klein excitations of the Standard Model particles. If new

96: particles are discovered at the LHC, even if their mass spectrum

97: favours SUSY or UED, it will be vital to distinguish between their

98: spin assignments in the two models as far as possible.  We extend

99: the method proposed by Barr~\cite{Barr:2004ze} to the UED case and

100: investigate the angular and charge asymmetries of decay distributions

101: for sample mass spectra of both SUSY and UED types. For hierarchical

102: (`SUSY-type') mass spectra there is a good chance of distinguishing the

103: spin structures of the two models.  However, a mass spectrum of

104: the quasi-degenerate type expected in UED would make it

105: difficult to observe spin correlations.

106:   }

107:  \keywords{Hadronic Colliders, Beyond Standard Model,

108: Supersymmetry Phenomenology, Large Extra Dimensions}

109: 

110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% main body %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

113: 

114: \begin{document}

115: 

116: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% introduction %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

119: 

120: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

121: 

122: The search for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) will be a principal

123: objective of the main experiments at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

124: (LHC).  The leading contender amongst theories of new physics is

125: undoubtedly supersymmetry (SUSY), in which the SM particles

126: have massive superpartners that differ from them by a half-unit of spin.

127: The partners of strongly-interacting partons (the spartons) should be

128: copiously produced once their production thresholds are passed. In

129: R-parity conserving SUSY, the spartons typically decay into partons

130: and electroweak sparticles, which themselves decay sequentially through

131: the emission of SM particles to the stable lightest

132: supersymmetric particle (LSP). The LSP is usually the lightest

133: neutralino $\widetilde\chi^0_1$, which escapes from the detector

134: unobserved.  Thus the expected signature of SUSY is the copious

135: production of high-energy jets and leptons plus large missing energy.

136: 

137: If the above signature of SUSY is observed at the LHC, it will

138: be essential to confirm as far as possible that the produced objects

139: are indeed superpartners and not some other manifestation of new

140: physics.  Methods are being developed for exploring the mass spectrum

141: and decay systematics of candidate superparticles.\footnote{See for

142: example refs.~\cite{Allanach:2000kt,Lester:2001zx}.} The key issue then

143: will be whether their spins fit the pattern expected for SUSY.

144: 

145: In this connection, a very interesting alternative hypothesis is that

146: the new objects are indeed partners of the SM particles but

147: with {\em the same spins}. This scenario is realized in the so-called

148: universal extra dimension (UED) model, of the type proposed in

149: refs.~\cite{Appelquist:2000nn}.  It is remarkable that UED and SUSY models

150: could look very similar in collider experiments. In the former, the

151: Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of the SM particles can carry a KK-parity

152: analogous to the R-parity of the latter, implying pair production of

153: the first KK-excitations and a stable lightest KK-particle (LKP),

154: usually the first KK-excitation of the photon.  If the energy of

155: the LHC is insufficient to produce higher KK-excitations, then

156: each SM particle would be found to have a single KK-partner with

157: the same spin but a higher mass related to the size of the extra

158: dimension. 

159: 

160: It is not our intention here to advocate or criticise UED models as

161: a viable alternative to SUSY, but simply to discuss the extent to which

162: they could be distinguished from SUSY models with the same mass spectra

163: and decay systematics.  Admittedly certain mass spectra would already be

164: suggestive of one model or the other: for example, the spectrum

165: of KK-excitations is quasi-degenerate if the extra dimension is simply

166: compactified on an $S_1/Z_2$ orbifold~\cite{Cheng:2002iz}.  The

167: degeneracy is broken only by zero-mode (SM) masses, volume-suppressed

168: boundary terms and loop corrections with a relatively low cutoff.

169: In SUSY models one usually assumes that soft SUSY-breaking terms

170: satisfy universal boundary conditions at a much higher scale, so

171: that such degeneracy at the weak scale would be unnatural.

172: However, the number of

173: unknowns and arbitrary assumptions in each case is so great that

174: the exclusion of either class of model in favour of the other would

175: only be truly convincing if their spin structures could be distinguished.

176: 

177: In the present paper we assume that a particular chain of decays that

178: is common in both SUSY and UED models, starting from a squark or a

179: KK-excited quark respectively, has been identified and that all

180: the masses of the new particles involved in it are known.  We then study

181: the extent to which decay correlations, manifest in the invariant mass

182: distributions of combinations of observable decay products, would

183: enable one to distinguish between the SUSY and UED spin assignments

184: of the new particles.  Our work is thus an extension of that described

185: in ref.~\cite{Barr:2004ze} (see also~\cite{Goto:2004cp}),

186: where the SUSY decay correlations were

187: compared with uncorrelated phase space.\footnote{Distinguishing between

188: SUSY and UED at future $e^+e^-$ colliders has been studied in

189: refs.~\cite{Bhattacharyya:2005vm,Battaglia:2005zf}.}

190: 

191: In the following section we present the decay chains to be considered, and in

192: section~\ref{sec:susyspin} we recall the SUSY correlations investigated earlier.  In

193: section~\ref{sec:uedspin} we present our new results on the corresponding UED decay

194: correlations.  We derive simple analytical formulae for the correlation coefficients in

195: terms of the masses in the decay chain, which should be of general use whatever the mass

196: spectrum might turn out to be.  We show graphical results for two specific mass scenarios,

197: one considered more probable in SUSY and the other in UED.  In both mass scenarios we

198: compare the correlations predicted by the SUSY and UED spin assignments.

199: 

200: As was emphasised by Barr~\cite{Barr:2004ze}, the observability

201: of interesting correlations depends crucially on the fact that

202: the LHC is a proton-proton collider, so that squarks/KK-quarks are

203: produced somewhat more copiously than their antiparticles.  To

204: quantify this effect, we need to know the direct and indirect

205: production cross sections of KK-quarks and KK-antiquarks. We

206: have therefore computed the lowest-order two-parton to two-KK-parton

207: matrix elements, which are expected to dominate the production of these

208: particles.  Our results, which differ somewhat from those presented in

209: ref.~\cite{Macesanu:2002db},\footnote{An erratum to ref.~\cite{Macesanu:2002db}

210: is in preparation (C.~Macesanu, private communication).} are discussed

211: in section~\ref{sec:prod} and listed in appendix~\ref{app:prod}.

212: 

213: Using our results on the UED production matrix elements and decay

214: correlations, together with the decay branching ratios suggested in

215: ref.~\cite{Cheng:2002iz}, we have included a full simulation of

216: the relevant UED processes in the \HW\ Monte Carlo event

217: generator~\cite{Corcella:2000bw,Corcella:2002jc}. Since the corresponding

218: SUSY processes, with full spin correlations, are already a well-established

219: feature of \HW~\cite{Richardson:2001df,Moretti:2002eu}, we are able in

220: section~\ref{sec:exp} to present first  detector-level results on distinguishing

221: UED and SUSY spin correlations at the LHC.  Our results and conclusions

222: are summarized in section~\ref{sec:conc}.

223: 

224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% sections %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

226: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

227: 

228: \section{Decay chains in SUSY and UED}\label{sec:dec}

229: 

230: \FIGURE{

231: \unitlength=0.5bp%

232: \put(2,1){(a)}

233: %\begin{feynartspicture}(432,504)(1,1)

234: \begin{feynartspicture}(432,380)(1,1)

235: 

236: \FADiagram{}

237: \FAProp(0.,10.)(5.5,13.5)(0.,){/ScalarDash}{0}

238: \FALabel(2.39784,12.5777)[br]{$\widetilde q_L$}

239: \FAProp(5.5,19.5)(5.5,13.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

240: \FALabel(4.43,16.5)[r]{$q_L$}

241: \FAProp(13.,17.5)(11.,13.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

242: \FALabel(11.0636,15.3995)[br]{$l^{\rm near}$}

243: \FAProp(20.,12.5)(14.5,11.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

244: \FALabel(16.8422,12.7654)[b]{$l^{\rm far}$}

245: \FAProp(16.,5.5)(14.5,11.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

246: \FALabel(16.2654,8.65783)[l]{$\widetilde\chi^0_1$}

247: \FAProp(5.5,13.5)(11.,13.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

248: \FALabel(8.10967,12.1864)[t]{$\widetilde\chi^0_2$}

249: \FAProp(11.,13.)(14.5,11.)(0.,){/ScalarDash}{0}

250: \FALabel(12.461,11.1342)[tr]{$\tilde l$}

251: \FAVert(5.5,13.5){0}

252: \FAVert(11.,13.){0}

253: \FAVert(14.5,11.){0}

254: \end{feynartspicture}

255: 

256: \put(2,1){(b)}

257: \begin{feynartspicture}(432,380)(1,1)

258: 

259: \FADiagram{}

260: \FAProp(0.,10.)(5.5,13.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

261: \FALabel(2.39784,12.5777)[br]{$q^*_L$}

262: \FAProp(5.5,19.5)(5.5,13.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

263: \FALabel(4.43,16.5)[r]{$q_L$}

264: \FAProp(13.,17.5)(11.,13.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

265: \FALabel(11.0636,15.3995)[br]{$l^{\rm near}$}

266: \FAProp(20.,12.5)(14.5,11.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

267: \FALabel(16.8422,12.7654)[b]{$l^{\rm far}$}

268: \FAProp(16.,5.5)(14.5,11.)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

269: \FALabel(16.2654,8.65783)[l]{$\gamma^*$}

270: \FAProp(5.5,13.5)(11.,13.)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

271: \FALabel(8.10967,12.1864)[t]{$Z^*$}

272: \FAProp(11.,13.)(14.5,11.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

273: \FALabel(12.461,11.1342)[tr]{$l^*$}

274: \FAVert(5.5,13.5){0}

275: \FAVert(11.,13.){0}

276: \FAVert(14.5,11.){0}

277: \end{feynartspicture}

278: \caption{(a) SUSY and (b) UED decay chains considered here.

279: \label{fig:decay_chains}}

280: }

281: 

282: The SUSY decay chain that we shall consider, which is the same

283: as that studied in ref.~\cite{Barr:2004ze}, is shown in

284: figure~\ref{fig:decay_chains}, together with the corresponding UED process.

285: In both cases the visible decay products are a quark jet and a pair of

286: opposite-sign same-flavour (OSSF) leptons with the same chirality.

287: We suppose that the new particle masses have been measured, either by an

288: edge analysis along the lines of refs.~\cite{Allanach:2000kt,Lester:2001zx}

289: or some other means, and it remains to decide whether the decay angular

290: distributions agree better with the SUSY or UED spin assignments.

291: 

292: The angular distributions depend on whether or not the chirality of the

293: slepton/KK-lepton is the same at that of the decaying

294: squark/KK-quark.\footnote{We should emphasise that we use

295: the term `chirality' loosely

296: here, since neither the sparticles nor the KK-excitations concerned

297: have definite handedness: what we mean is that they couple to SM particles

298: of that chirality.}

299: For definiteness, we assume that the latter is left-handed, which is

300: preferred in both of the models under consideration. We can then

301: characterise the process by the chirality and charge of the ``near'' lepton,

302: defined as shown in figure~\ref{fig:decay_chains}.  Of course, we cannot

303: distinguish experimentally between the ``near'' and ``far'' leptons,

304: and so their contributions to any distribution will eventually have to

305: be combined.  However, in principle (in the zero-width approximation that

306: we use) the processes with opposite  ``near'' and ``far'' charge assignments

307: are distinct.  There are then two fundamental processes with different

308: decay correlations, which (as in ref.~\cite{Barr:2004ze}) we label 1 and 2:

309: \begin{itemize}

310: \item Process 1: $\{ q,l^{\rm near},l^{\rm far}\} = 

311:     \{ q_L, l^-_L,l^+_L \}$ or $\{\bar q_L,l^+_L,l^-_L\}$

312: or $\{ q_L, l^+_R,l^-_R \}$ or $\{\bar q_L,l^-_R,l^+_R\}$;

313: \item Process 2: $\{ q,l^{\rm near},l^{\rm far}\} = 

314:     \{ q_L, l^+_L,l^-_L \}$ or $\{\bar q_L,l^-_L,l^+_L\}$

315: or $\{ q_L, l^-_R,l^+_R \}$ or $\{\bar q_L,l^+_R,l^-_R\}$.

316: \end{itemize}

317: 

318: \section{Spin correlations in SUSY}\label{sec:susyspin}

319: 

320: We first recapitulate from ref.~\cite{Barr:2004ze} the angular distributions

321: that are expected in the SUSY decay chain \ref{fig:decay_chains}(a).

322: The $\widetilde\chi^0_2$ has spin one-half and its helicity is the same as that

323: of the quark, since the squark is a scalar.  Therefore a near lepton with

324: the same helicity as the quark (process 1) will be emitted preferentially

325: at large values of the angle $\theta^*$ between its direction and that of

326: the quark in the $\widetilde\chi^0_2$ rest frame, with angular distribution

327: (neglecting all SM particle masses)

328: \beq

329: \frac{\ud P^{\rm SUSY}_1}{\ud\cos\theta^*} = \frac 12(1-\cos\theta^*)\;.

330: \eeq

331: A near lepton with helicity opposite to the quark (process 2), on the other hand,

332: will have angular distribution

333: \beq

334: \frac{\ud P^{\rm SUSY}_2}{\ud\cos\theta^*} = \frac 12(1+\cos\theta^*)\;.

335: \eeq

336: In terms of the $q l^{\rm near}$ invariant mass,

337: \beq

338: (m_{ql}^{\rm near})^2=2 \vert \up_l \vert \vert \up_q \vert(1-\cos \theta^*) =

339: \frac 12(m_{ql}^{\rm near})^2_{\rm max} (1-\cos \theta^*)\;,

340: \eeq

341: defining the rescaled invariant mass variable to be 

342: \beq\label{eq:mhat}

343: \mhat=~m_{ql}^{\rm near}/(m_{ql}^{\rm near})_{\rm max}=\sin(\theta^*/2)

344: \eeq

345: we therefore have

346: \beq\label{eq:SUSY_P1}

347: \frac{\ud P^{\rm SUSY}_1}{\ud \mhat} = 4 \mhat^3

348: \eeq

349: and

350: \beq\label{eq:SUSY_P2}

351: \frac{\ud P^{\rm SUSY}_2}{\ud \mhat} = 4 \mhat(1-\mhat^2)\;.

352: \eeq

353: 

354: The slepton produced in the decay of the $\widetilde\chi^0_2$ is a scalar

355: particle, and so its decay is isotropic in its rest frame, and the near and

356: far lepton directions are uncorrelated in that frame. There is nevertheless a

357: weak correlation between the directions of the far lepton and the quark,

358: due to the relative velocity of the slepton and the $\widetilde\chi^0_2$,

359: which we discuss in more detail in appendix~\ref{app:qlfar}.

360: 

361: \section{Spin correlations in UED}\label{sec:uedspin}

362: 

363: \subsection{Correlations in $q^*$ and $Z^*$ decays}

364: 

365: In the UED decay chain, the primary object has spin one-half and it

366: decays to a quark and a vector boson, $q^*\to qZ^*$.

367: % This is analogous to the decay of the top quark, $t\to bW$. 

368: The vector boson is either longitudinally

369: or transversely polarised, with relative probabilities $m_{q^*}^2$ and

370: $2m_{Z^*}^2$, respectively. By angular momentum conservation, when the

371: polarisation is transverse the helicity of the $Z^*$, and of the near

372: lepton, must be the same as that of the quark.  The distribution of

373: the angle $\theta^*$ between the directions of the near lepton

374: and the quark in the $Z^*$ rest frame is therefore of the form

375: \beq

376: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_{1,2}}{\ud\cos\theta^*} =\frac{1}{1+2x}\left(

377: \frac{\ud P_0}{\ud\cos\theta^*}+2x\frac{\ud P_{\mp}}{\ud\cos\theta^*}

378: \right)

379: \eeq

380: where $x=m_{Z^*}^2/m_{q^*}^2$ and $P_\lambda$ on the right-hand side

381: represents the distribution for $Z^*$ helicity $\lambda$.  

382: 

383: In the rest frame of the $Z^*$, the decay of

384: the longitudinally polarised state is forward-backward symmetric, with

385: angular distribution

386: \beq

387: \frac{\ud P_0}{\ud\cos\theta^*} = \frac{3}{2(2+y)}(\sin^2\theta^*

388: +y\cos^2\theta^*)

389: \eeq

390: where  $y=m_{l^*}^2/m_{Z^*}^2$.  The transverse decay distribution for

391: $\pm$ve helicity is

392: \beq

393: \frac{\ud P_\pm}{\ud\cos\theta^*} = \frac{3}{4(2+y)}[(1\pm\cos\theta^*)^2

394: +y\sin^2\theta^*]\;.

395: \eeq

396: The angular distributions for the two fundamental processes are therefore given by

397: \beq\label{eq:UEDstar}

398: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_{1,2}}{\ud\cos\theta^*} = 

399: \frac{3}{2(1+2x)(2+y)}\left[1+x+xy\mp 2x\cos\theta^*

400: -(1-x)(1-y)\cos^2\theta^*\right]\;.

401: \eeq

402: 

403: \subsection{Quark + near lepton mass distribution}

404: 

405: Using eq.~(\ref{eq:UEDstar}), the distribution of the rescaled

406: $q l^{\rm near}$ invariant mass (\ref{eq:mhat}) is given in process 1 by

407: \beq\label{eq:UED_P1}

408: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_1}{\ud \mhat} =\frac{6\mhat}

409: {(1+2x)(2+y)}\left[y+4(1-y+xy)\mhat^2-4(1-x)(1-y)\mhat^4\right]

410: \eeq

411: and in process 2 by

412: \beq\label{eq:UED_P2}

413: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_2}{\ud \mhat} =\frac{6\mhat}

414: {(1+2x)(2+y)}\left[4x+y+4(1-2x-y+xy)\mhat^2-4(1-x)(1-y)\mhat^4\right]\;.

415: \eeq

416: 

417: Notice that the $\mhat$ distributions for the two UED processes become

418: identical as $x\to 0$, i.e. for $m_{Z^*}\ll m_{q^*}$, since in that limit

419: the $Z^*$ polarisation is purely longitudinal.  On the other hand when

420: $x\to 1$ and $y\to 0$ ($m_{l^*}\ll m_{Z^*}\sim m_{q^*}$) the

421: UED distributions become indistinguishable from those of the

422: corresponding SUSY processes, eqs.~(\ref{eq:SUSY_P1},\ref{eq:SUSY_P2}).

423: 

424: The features of the $ql^{\rm near}$ mass distributions can be illustrated

425: by considering their forms for typical UED and SUSY patterns of new particle

426: masses. A possible UED mass spectrum (from \cite{Cheng:2002iz}) is given in

427: table~\ref{tab:UEDmasses} for inverse radius $R^{-1}=500$GeV, cut-off $\Lambda$

428: such that $\Lambda R=20$ and $m_h=120$ GeV.  This model also assumes vanishing

429: boundary terms at the cut-off scale $\Lambda$, and a vanishing boundary mass

430: term for the Higgs mass, $\overline{m}_h^2$.  The lightest four left KK-quarks

431: are degenerate in mass and are labelled here collectively as $q_L^*$.

432: Similarly the right and left KK-electrons and KK-muons are degenerate in mass

433: and are labelled here as $l_R^*$ and $l_L^*$ respectively.  This spectrum

434: illustrates the feature of UED that the new particles have masses which are

435: much closer to each other (usually within $100-200$ GeV) than in a

436: SUSY spectrum based on high-scale universality.

437: \TABLE{

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

439: \hline $\gamma^*$ & $Z^*$ & $q_L^*$ & $l_R^*$ & $l_L^*$ \\ \hline

440: 501&536&598&505&515\\ \hline

441: \end{tabular}

442: \caption{UED masses in GeV, for $R^{-1}=500$GeV, $\Lambda R=20$, $m_h=120$GeV,

443: $\overline{m}_h^2=0$ and vanishing boundary terms at cut-off scale $\Lambda$.

444: \label{tab:UEDmasses}}

445: }

446: 

447: In the UED model we have eqs.~(\ref{eq:UED_P1}) and (\ref{eq:UED_P2})

448: with $x=m_{Z^*}^2/m_{q^*}^2=0.803$; the $Z^*$ decays preferentially

449: to a left-handed excited lepton and so we use $y=m_{l_L^*}^2/m_{Z^*}^2

450: =0.923$, which yields

451: \beqn 

452: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_1}{\ud \mhat}&=&

453: 0.727 \mhat+2.577 \mhat^3-0.047 \mhat^5\;,\nonumber\\ 

454: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_2}{\ud \mhat}&=& 3.257

455: \mhat-2.483 \mhat^3-0.047 \mhat^5\;. 

456: \eeqn 

457: These should be compared with the corresponding SUSY expressions

458: (\ref{eq:SUSY_P1}) and (\ref{eq:SUSY_P2}), which are independent of

459: the particle masses.

460: 

461: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=ued1.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

462:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=ued2.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

463: \caption{UED and SUSY distributions for (a) Process 1 and (b) Process 2 with respect to the

464: rescaled $q l^{\rm near}$ invariant mass, for the UED mass spectrum in

465: table~\ref{tab:UEDmasses}. Dotted: phase space. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

466: \label{fig:UED-qlnear}}

467: }

468: 

469: The UED and SUSY angular distributions are plotted against each other for processes 1 and

470: 2 in figures \ref{fig:UED-qlnear}(a) and \ref{fig:UED-qlnear}(b) respectively.  Since

471: $x=m_{Z^*}^2/m_{q^*}^2$ is large in the typical UED scenario, and the effect of

472: $y=m_{l^*}^2/m_{Z^*}^2$ is weak at large $x$, the UED and SUSY distributions are similar.

473: Therefore it will be difficult to verify the UED spin assignments if the spectrum is

474: quasi-degenerate like that in table~\ref{tab:UEDmasses}.

475: 

476: \TABLE{

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

478: \hline $\widetilde{\chi}_1^0$ & $\widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ & $\widetilde{u}_L$ & $\widetilde{e}_R$

479: & $\widetilde{e}_L$ \\ \hline

480: 96&177&537&143&202\\ \hline

481: \end{tabular}

482: \caption{SUSY masses in GeV, for SPS point 1a.

483: \label{tab:SUSYmasses}}

484: }

485: 

486: The SUSY mass spectrum, on the other hand, does not naturally have the

487: same near-degeneracy of neutralinos and squarks, and therefore the UED

488: and SUSY  angular distributions are more distinct.  For illustration,

489: we consider the MSSM Snowmass point SPS 1a~\cite{Allanach:2002nj},

490: which has the mass spectrum shown in table~\ref{tab:SUSYmasses}.  The decay 

491: $\widetilde{\chi}_2^0\to l\tilde l_R$ is preferred and therefore we use

492: $x=m_{\widetilde{\chi}_2^0}^2/m_{\widetilde{u}_L}^2=0.109$ and

493: $y=m_{\widetilde e_R}^2/m_{\widetilde{\chi}_2^0}^2=0.653$ for the

494: comparative UED distributions, giving

495: \beqn 

496: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_1}{\ud \mhat}&=&

497: 1.213 \mhat+3.108 \mhat^3-2.301 \mhat^5\;,\nonumber\\ 

498: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_2}{\ud \mhat}&=& 2.020

499: \mhat+1.493 \mhat^3-2.301 \mhat^5\;. 

500: \eeqn

501: 

502: \FIGURE{\put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=sps1.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

503:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps2.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

504: \caption{UED and SUSY distributions for (a) Process 1 and (b) Process 2 with respect to

505: the rescaled $q l^{\rm near}$ invariant mass, for the SUSY mass spectrum in

506: table~\ref{tab:SUSYmasses}. Dotted: phase space. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

507: \label{fig:SUSY-q lnear}}

508: }

509: 

510: The resulting mass distributions are compared in

511: fig.~\ref{fig:SUSY-q lnear}. Owing to the small value of $x$, the

512: UED predictions for the two processes are similar to each other, and

513: different from the SUSY predictions.  This gives some grounds for

514: optimism that, if the spectrum is hierarchical, like that in

515: table~\ref{tab:SUSYmasses}, then the SUSY spin assignments can be

516: confirmed or ruled out in comparison with the UED assignments.

517: 

518: \subsection{Correlations in $l^*$ decay}

519: In the SUSY decay chain (figure 1a) , the slepton $\tilde l$ is spinless and therefore

520: it decays isotropically in its rest frame.   In the UED case (figure 1b), the spin of the

521: KK lepton $l^*$ induces non-trivial correlations. Up to an overall constant, the full

522: matrix elements for UED processes 1 and 2, as defined in section~\ref{sec:dec},

523: take the form

524: \beq\label{eq:uedspin}

525:  |\overline{\mathcal{M}}|^2 \propto 2z(1-z)W_{l^*}+(1-2z)W_f

526:  \eeq

527:  where $z=m_{\gamma^*}^2/m_{l^*}^2$, $f$ represents the far lepton and, for $l=l^*$ or $f$, 

528:   \beqn

529:  W_l&=& (1-x)(2p_{Z^*}\cdot p_n\,p_{Z^*}\cdot p_l+m_{Z^*}^2\,p_n\cdot p_l)

530:  -4x(p_n\cdot p_q\,p_{Z^*}\cdot p_l+p_n\cdot p_{Z^*}\,p_q\cdot p_l) +\nonumber\\

531:   &+& \left\{\begin{array}{c}

532:   8x^2\,p_n\cdot p_q\,p_{q^*}\cdot p_l\;\;\mbox{for process 1} \\

533:   8x^2\,p_n\cdot p_{q^*}\,p_q\cdot p_l\;\;\mbox{for process 2}\end{array}\right.

534: \eeqn

535:  where, as before, $x=m_{Z^*}^2/m_{q^*}^2$, and $n$ represents the near lepton.

536: 

537: To specify the $l^*$ decay distribution, we define $\theta$ as the angle between

538: the near and far leptons in the $l^*$ rest frame, and $\phi$ as the angle between

539: the $q l^{\rm near}$ and dilepton planes, in the same frame.   Then we find

540: \beqn

541: \frac{\ud^3 P^{\rm UED}_{1,2}}{\ud\cos\theta^*\,\ud\cos\theta\,\ud\phi} &=& 

542: \frac{3}{4\pi(1+2x)(2+y)}\Bigl[1+x+xy\mp 2x\cos\theta^*

543: -(1-x)(1-y)\cos^2\theta^*\nonumber\\

544: &&-\frac{1-2z}{1+2z}\Bigl\{\left[1+x-xy\mp 2x\cos\theta^*

545: -(1-x)(1+y)\cos^2\theta^*\right]\cos\theta\nonumber\\

546: &&-2\left[(1-x)\cos\theta^*\pm x\right]

547: \sqrt{y}\sin\theta^*\sin\theta\cos\phi\Bigr\}\Bigr]\;.

548: \eeqn

549: 

550: \subsection{Dilepton mass distribution}

551: The dilepton mass $m_{ll}$ is simply related to the $l^*$ decay angle $\theta$:

552: \beq

553: m_{ll}^2 = \frac 14 x^2(1-y)(1-z)(1-\cos\theta)\,m_{q^*}^2

554: \eeq

555: and so, defining 

556: \beq\label{eq:mhatll}

557: \mhat_{ll}= m_{ll}/(m_{ll})_{\rm max}=\sin(\theta/2)

558: \eeq

559: we have

560: \beq\label{eq:UED_ll}

561: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_{1,2}}{\ud \mhat_{ll}} =\frac{4\mhat_{ll}}

562: {(2+y)(1+2z)}[y+4z+(2-y)(1-2z)\mhat_{ll}^2]\;.

563: \eeq

564: 

565: The dilepton mass distribution is potentially a good indicator of UED spin correlations,

566: because it is the same for processes 1 and 2 and relatively easy to measure.  We see from

567: eq.~(\ref{eq:UED_ll}) that the deviation from the linear mass spectrum of phase space

568: or SUSY is greatest when

569: $y$ and $z$ are small, i.e., when $m_{\gamma^*}\ll m_{l^*}\ll m_{Z^*}$.  On the

570: other hand, the spin correlation vanishes when $z=\frac 12$, that is, when $m_{\gamma^*}

571: =m_{l^*}/\sqrt{2}$, which is close to the situation at SPS point 1a.  The typical UED

572: scenario with quasi-degenerate masses also yields a small effect, with a mass

573: spectrum proportional to $\mhat_{ll}(1-\mhat_{ll}^2/5)$.  Therefore a dilepton

574: mass distribution differing significantly from phase space or SUSY would only be

575: manifest in a UED model substantially different from those considered so far.

576: 

577: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=ued8.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

578:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps8.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

579: \caption{UED and SUSY distributions with respect to the rescaled dilepton

580: invariant mass, for (a) the UED and (b) the SUSY mass spectrum given above.

581: Dotted: phase space. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

582: \label{fig:lnlf}}

583: }

584: 

585: \subsection{Quark + far lepton mass distribution}\label{sec:qlfar}

586: 

587: The quark + far lepton mass is a function of all the decay angles,

588: \beqn

589: (m_{ql}^{\rm far})^2 &=& \frac 14 (1-x)(1-z)\Bigl[(1+y)(1-\cos\theta^*\cos\theta)+\nonumber\\

590: &&+(1-y)(\cos\theta^*-\cos\theta)-2\sqrt{y}\sin\theta^*\sin\theta\cos\phi\Bigr]\,m_{q^*}^2\;.

591: \eeqn

592: The maximum value occurs for $\theta^*=0$ and $\theta=\pi$, when

593: \beq

594: (m_{ql}^{\rm far})^2_{\rm max} = (1-x)(1-z)\,m_{q^*}^2\;,

595: \eeq

596: and therefore the rescaled quark + far lepton mass is given by

597: \beqn\label{eq:mqlfar}

598: \mhat_{qf} \equiv m_{ql}^{\rm far}/(m_{ql}^{\rm far})_{\rm max}

599: &=& \frac 12\Bigl[(1+y)(1-\cos\theta^*\cos\theta)+\nonumber\\

600: &&+(1-y)(\cos\theta^*-\cos\theta)-2\sqrt{y}\sin\theta^*\sin\theta\cos\phi\Bigr]^{\frac 12}\;.

601: \eeqn

602: 

603: The phase space for this quantity increases linearly up to the point $\mhat_{qf}

604: =\sqrt y$, then decreases logarithmically to zero.  In the region $\mhat_{qf}<\sqrt y$, the

605: probability distribution has a polynomial form, as illustrated in figures~\ref{fig:UED-qlfar}

606: and \ref{fig:SPS-qlfar} for the UED and SUSY mass scenarios respectively.

607: Equations for the distribution are given in appendix~\ref{app:qlfar}.

608: 

609: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=ued3.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

610:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=ued4.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

611: \caption{UED and SUSY distributions for (a) Process 1 and (b) Process 2 with respect to the

612: rescaled $ql^{\rm far}$ invariant mass, for the UED mass spectrum in

613: table~\ref{tab:UEDmasses}. Dotted: phase space. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

614: \label{fig:UED-qlfar}}

615: }

616: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=sps3.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

617:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps4.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

618: \caption{UED and SUSY distributions for (a) Process 1 and (b) Process 2 with respect to the

619: rescsled $q l^{\rm far}$ invariant mass, for the SUSY mass spectrum in

620: table~\ref{tab:SUSYmasses}. Dotted: phase space. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

621: \label{fig:SPS-qlfar}}

622: }

623: 

624: We see that, as in the case of the dilepton mass distribution, the spin dependence of the

625: quark + far lepton distribution is weak for both the mass spectra considered here.

626: 

627: \subsection{Observable quark-lepton correlations}

628: 

629: To proceed further, we must face the fact that the $ql^{\rm near}$

630: and $ql^{\rm far}$ mass distributions are not experimentally observable. 

631: As pointed out

632: in ref.~\cite{Barr:2004ze}, the best that can be done in reality is

633: to measure the invariant masses of jet + lepton combinations.

634: Assuming that the jet and lepton are indeed decay products from

635: process 1 or 2, the $jl^\pm$ mass distribution for a given lepton

636: charge receives near-lepton contributions from the corresponding

637: process and the charge conjugate of the other process, plus far-lepton

638: contributions from the other process and the charge conjugate of the

639: same process. Concentrating on the UED scenario of a left-handed

640: KK-quark decaying to a left-handed KK-lepton, we have

641: \beq\label{eq:mjl+}

642: \frac{\ud P}{\ud m_{jl^+}}

643: = f_q\left(

644: \frac{\ud P_2}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm near}}+ 

645: \frac{\ud P_1}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm far}}\right)

646: + f_{\bar q}\left(

647: \frac{\ud P_1}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm near}}+ 

648: \frac{\ud P_2}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm far}}\right)

649: \eeq

650: where $f_q$ and $f_{\bar q}$ are the quark and antiquark fractions

651: in the selected event sample.  Similarly

652: \beq\label{eq:mjl-}

653: \frac{\ud P}{\ud m_{jl^-}}

654: = f_q\left(

655: \frac{\ud P_1}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm near}}+ 

656: \frac{\ud P_2}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm far}}\right)

657: + f_{\bar q}\left(

658: \frac{\ud P_2}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm near}}+ 

659: \frac{\ud P_1}{\ud m_{ql}^{\rm far}}\right)\;.

660: \eeq

661: As will be discussed in section~\ref{sec:prod},

662: for both the UED and SUSY scenarios we find $f_q\simeq 0.7$, $f_{\bar q}\simeq 0.3$

663: at the LHC. The resulting observable jet+lepton mass distributions are then as depicted

664: in figure~\ref{fig:ued_mjl}, where again we have normalised to the maximum observable

665: mass.

666: 

667: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=ued_mjl+.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

668:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=ued_mjl-.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

669: \caption{UED and SUSY rescaled mass distributions for (a) jet + $l^+$ (b) jet + $l^-$,

670: for the UED mass spectrum in table~\ref{tab:UEDmasses}. Dotted: phase space. Dashed:

671: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

672: \label{fig:ued_mjl}}

673: }

674: 

675: Corresponding results for the SUSY mass scenario are shown in figure~\ref{fig:sps_mjl}.

676: Here the roles of processes 1 and 2 are interchanged in eqs.~(\ref{eq:mjl+}) and

677: (\ref{eq:mjl-}), since the decay now involves a right-handed slepton or KK-lepton.

678: 

679: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=sps_mjl+.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

680:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps_mjl-.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

681: \caption{UED and SUSY rescaled mass distributions for (a) jet + $l^+$ (b) jet + $l^-$,

682: for the SUSY mass spectrum in table~\ref{tab:SUSYmasses}. Dotted: phase space. Dashed:

683: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

684: \label{fig:sps_mjl}}

685: }

686: 

687: 

688: Figure~\ref{fig:asymm} shows the resulting charge asymmetry

689: \beq

690: A=\frac{\ud P/\ud m_{jl^+}-\ud P/\ud m_{jl^-}}

691:      {\ud P/\ud m_{jl^+}+\ud P/\ud m_{jl^-}}

692: \eeq

693: We see that the UED and SUSY charge asymmetries are similar in form, but the latter

694: is smaller by a factor of 2 -- 4.

695: 

696: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=ued7.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

697:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps7.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

698: \caption{UED and SUSY charge asymmetries with respect to the jet + lepton rescaled invariant mass,

699: for (a) the UED and (b) the SUSY mass spectrum given above. Dotted: phase space. Dashed: SUSY.

700: Solid/red: UED.

701: \label{fig:asymm}}

702: }

703: 

704: \section{Production cross sections}\label{sec:prod}

705: 

706: As we saw in the previous section, the observability of a charge asymmetry sensitive to

707: UED spin correlations depends critically on the difference between the production rates

708: of KK-excited quarks and antiquarks, just as in SUSY it depends on the difference of

709: squark and antisquark rates~\cite{Barr:2004ze}. We have therefore computed the

710: relevant lowest-order two-to-two scattering subprocess matrix elements and used them,

711: together with the UED branching ratios suggested in ref.~\cite{Cheng:2002iz}, to

712: estimate the UED production cross sections and the quantities $f_q$ and $f_{\bar q}$

713: appearing in eqs.~(\ref{eq:mjl+}) and (\ref{eq:mjl-}).

714: 

715: Our expressions for the subprocess matrix elements are listed in appendix~\ref{app:prod}.

716: These results were obtained by including the Feynman rules for the effective

717: four-dimensional theory in \texttt{CompHEP} \cite{Pukhov:1999gg}. They differ

718: in several respects from those presented in ref.~\cite{Macesanu:2002db}.

719: Details of the discrepancies are given in the appendix.  Most importantly,

720: we find a larger overall normalization.

721: 

722: \TABLE{

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

724: \hline

725: Masses & Model & $\sigma_{\rm all}$ & $\sigma_{q^*}$ & $\sigma_{\bar q^*}$ & $f_q$ \\

726: \hline \hline

727: & & & & & \\

728: UED    & UED  & 249 & 158 & 83 & 0.66 \\

729: & & & & & \\

730: UED    & SUSY &  28 &  18 &  9 & 0.65 \\

731: & & & & & \\

732: SPS 1a & UED  & 480 & 230 & 102 & 0.69 \\

733: & & & & & \\

734: SPS 1a & SUSY &  55 &  26 & 11 & 0.70 \\

735: & & & & & \\

736: \hline

737: \end{tabular}

738: \caption{Production cross sections (pb) in UED and SUSY models,

739: with UED or SUSY masses.

740: \label{tab:prod}}

741: }

742: 

743: Our numerical results for the production cross sections at the LHC are presented in

744: table~\ref{tab:prod}.  These results

745: were obtained from parton-level Monte Carlo simulations of the production processes

746: and decay chains, using the \HW\ event generator in SUSY mode with parton showering,

747: hadronization and underlying event switched off. The \HW\ default (MRST

748: leading-order~\cite{Martin:1998np}) parton distributions were used.

749: For the UED simulations, the SUSY

750: matrix element subroutine was replaced by a UED one and the SUSY particle data input

751: file consisted of UED data based on ref.~\cite{Cheng:2002iz}.

752: 

753: As a result of the more singular structure of the matrix elements and the extra helicity states,

754: the UED production cross sections tend to be larger than those of the analogous SUSY processes

755: for identical mass spectra, leading to an overall enhancement of the cross section, by

756: a factor of about 8 for both the mass scenarios that we studied.  Thus a SUSY-like

757: signature (e.g.\ many jets and leptons plus large missing energy) with a cross section

758: an order of magnitude larger than that predicted by SUSY models could be an

759: initial indication of UED.

760: 

761: The symbol $\sigma_{\rm all}$ represents the sum of cross section for all

762: two-to-two subprocesses included for that model, while $\sigma_{q^*}$ and

763: $\sigma_{\bar q^*}$ represent the inclusive cross sections for direct and

764: indirect production of the KK-quarks and -antiquarks (or squarks and antisquarks)

765: initiating the decay chains in figure 1.\footnote{Top-flavoured KK-quarks or

766: squarks were excluded as their decays would have a different signature.}

767: Although the overall magnitude of the cross sections is different in the UED

768: and SUSY models, we see that the KK-quark or squark fraction $f_q$ remains at

769: about 70\% for both models in both mass scenarios.

770: 

771: 

772: \section{Experimental observables}\label{sec:exp}

773: 

774: To investigate the observability of the effects discussed above, we switched on

775: the parton showering, hadronization and underlying event in our \HW\ simulations

776: and applied cuts to approximate those that might be used to select

777: new physics experimentally.  For jet cuts we used the simple calorimeter

778: simulation and cone jet finder GETJET~\cite{Paige_pc}, with cone size $\Delta R=0.7$.

779: Our cuts were as follows:

780: \begin{enumerate}

781: \item Missing transverse energy at least 100 GeV;

782: \item At least four jets with transverse energies ($E_T$) above 50 GeV;

783: \item Sum of missing $E_T$ and four highest jet  $E_T$'s at least 400 GeV;

784: \item Quark jet plus lepton invariant masses within the allowed range:

785: $m_{jl^\pm}\leq (m_{ql})_{\rm max}$.

786: \end{enumerate}

787: For cut 4 we cheated somewhat by selecting the jet that is nearest

788: (in $\Delta R$) to the true direction of the quark in the parton-level

789: decay chain, and the leptons that do belong to that chain.

790: Since we assume that all the new particle masses are already known, we expect that most

791: ambiguities in the reconstruction of decay chains would in fact be resolved by invariant

792: mass fits.

793: 

794: Of course more sophisticated cuts and detector simulations could be applied

795: to suit particular experiments, but this analysis should at least give an

796: indication of whether further efforts in that direction are warranted.

797: 

798: We included the UED spin correlations by generating decays according to phase space and

799: reweighting events according to the invariant expression (\ref{eq:uedspin}), evaluated

800: at the parton level. To improve efficiency, we forced the decay $Z^*\to l^*l$

801: ($l=e$ or $\mu$), and correspondingly $\widetilde\chi_2^0\to\tilde l l$, thereby

802: enhancing the yield of the desired decay chains by factors of 3 and 8 in the UED

803: and SUSY mass scenarios, respectively.  To have comparable

804: samples of each type, we generated $2\times 10^5$ chains of each type in figure 1

805: (including their charge conjugates) for each mass scenario. However, because of the

806: different production cross sections and branching ratios in UED and SUSY, this

807: corresponds to varying effective luminosities, as summarised in table~\ref{tab:lumi}.

808: 

809: \TABLE{

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

811: \hline

812: Masses & Model & ${\cal L}_{\rm eff}$ & Cut 1 & 1+2 & 1+2+3 & 1+2+3+4 \\

813: \hline \hline

814: & & & & & & \\

815: UED    & UED  &   7 & 0.52 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 0.05\\

816: & & & & & & \\

817: UED    & SUSY &  66 & 0.53 & 0.13 & 0.12 & 0.06\\

818: & & & & & & \\

819: SPS 1a & UED  &  14 & 0.86 & 0.56 & 0.56 & 0.55\\

820: & & & & & & \\

821: SPS 1a & SUSY & 131 & 0.86 & 0.54 & 0.54 & 0.53\\

822: & & & & & & \\

823: \hline

824: \end{tabular}

825: \caption{Effective luminosities (fb$^{-1}$) of our sample of

826: $2\times 10^5$ decay chains, and fractions surviving the cuts listed above.

827: \label{tab:lumi}}

828: }

829: 

830: Also shown in table~\ref{tab:lumi} are the fractions of events with the desired decay

831: chains that survive the cuts listed above.  For the SUSY mass scenario, the effect of

832: these cuts is not great. However, in the UED mass scenario the near-degeneracy of the

833: mass spectrum means that the quark jet is likely to be relatively soft.  It is

834: therefore often misidentified or not found, with the result that few events survive

835: the jet cuts.

836: 

837: Figures \ref{fig:ued_mjl_det} and \ref{fig:sps_mjl_det} show the reconstructed jet plus

838: lepton mass distributions for the UED and SUSY mass scenarios, respectively. As we

839: saw in section~\ref{sec:uedspin}, the expected quasi-degeneracy of the UED mass

840: spectrum reduces the spin correlations and makes it hard to distinguish UED from

841: SUSY in that case, even at the parton level.  The experimental problems mentioned

842: above, due to the relatively soft quark jet, further reduce the sensitivity and

843: statistics.  Consequently the charge

844: asymmetry, shown in figure \ref{fig:asymm_det}(a), is unlikely to be observable in

845: the case of a UED-like mass spectrum.

846: 

847: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)}\epsfig{figure=ued_mjl+_det.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

848:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=ued_mjl-_det.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

849: \caption{Detector-level rescaled mass distributions for (a) jet + $l^+$ (b) jet + $l^-$,

850: for the UED mass spectrum in table~\ref{tab:UEDmasses}. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

851: \label{fig:ued_mjl_det}}

852: }

853: 

854: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)}\epsfig{figure=sps_mjl+_det.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

855:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps_mjl-_det.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

856: \caption{Detector-level rescaled mass distributions for (a) jet + $l^+$ (b) jet + $l^-$,

857: for the SUSY mass spectrum in table~\ref{tab:SUSYmasses}. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

858: \label{fig:sps_mjl_det}}

859: }

860: 

861: The results for the SUSY (SPS 1a) mass spectrum, figures \ref{fig:sps_mjl_det} and

862: \ref{fig:asymm_det}(b), are more encouraging. The spin correlations are larger in this

863: case and, apart from some resolution smearing,

864: their effects are not greatly diminished at the detector level.

865: Correspondingly the charge asymmetry remains visible and similar to that predicted at the

866: parton level, except at very high and low masses, where the asymmetry is the ratio of two

867: vanishing quantities.

868: 

869: \FIGURE{ \put(20,0){(a)} \epsfig{figure=ued_asym_det.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

870:   \put(20,0){(b)}\epsfig{figure=sps_asym_det.ps,height=0.25\textheight}

871: \caption{Detector-level charge asymmetries with respect to the jet + lepton rescaled invariant

872: mass, for the (a) UED and (b) SUSY mass spectra given above. Dashed: SUSY. Solid/red: UED.

873: \label{fig:asymm_det}}

874: }

875: 

876: 

877: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

878: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% conclusions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

879: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

880: 

881: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conc}

882: 

883: We have presented results of a comparative study of spin correlations

884: in models with supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions.  Complete 

885: results were obtained for a decay chain that is likely to be important if

886: either model is relevant at LHC energies.  The analytical expressions

887: for two-particle invariant mass distributions in section~\ref{sec:uedspin}

888: can be used to test the models for any combination of masses and chirality

889: of the new particles involved in the decay chain.  We presented numerical

890: and graphical results for two particular mass scenarios: one UED-like

891: and one SUSY-like (SPS 1a). In the former case the near-degeneracy of the

892: mass spectrum of new particles would make it difficult to verify the spin

893: content of the model in this way.  In SUSY models such degeneracy would

894: be less likely and the prospects for distinguishing between SUSY and

895: UED spin assignments are better.

896: 

897: As an adjunct to our study of spin effects we rederived the production

898: cross sections for KK-partons in UED models and found some differences

899: from results in the literature.  Due to the more singular matrix elements

900: and extra helicity states, the cross sections are significantly larger

901: than those for SUSY particles with the same mass spectrum. This could

902: also serve as a means of discriminating between SUSY and UED.

903: 

904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% acknowledgements %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

906: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

907: 

908: \section*{Acknowledgements}

909: 

910: We thank colleagues in the Cambridge SUSY Working Group for helpful

911: discussions.  We are especially grateful to Chris Lester for assistance

912: in deriving the results on $ql^{\rm far}$ distributions in

913: appendix~\ref{app:qlfar}. We thank Cosmin Macesanu for valuable

914: communications which led to the correction of errors in an earlier

915: version of appendix~\ref{app:prod}. BRW thanks Mihoko Nojiri for stimulating

916: conversations and the Yukawa Institute, Kyoto University, and

917: the CERN Theory Group for hospitality while part of this work was

918: performed.

919: 

920: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% appendices %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

923: 

924: \section*{Appendices}

925: \appendix

926: \section{Quark + far lepton correlation}\label{app:qlfar}

927: \def\mqf{\mhat_{qf}}

928: The rescaled quark + far lepton invariant mass $\mqf$ is given in terms of the

929: decay angles by eq.~(\ref{eq:mqlfar}). The phase space distribution has the form

930: \beqn\label{eq:PS_qlf}

931: \frac{\ud P^{\rm PS}}{\ud \mqf} &=& -2\mqf\frac{\ln y}{1-y}

932: \qquad\;\;\mbox{for}\;0\leq \mqf\leq \sqrt{y}\nonumber\\

933: &=& -4\mqf\frac{\ln\mqf}{1-y}

934: \qquad\mbox{for}\; \sqrt{y} < \mqf\leq 1\;.

935: \eeqn

936: 

937: In the SUSY decay chain the only non-trivial dependence is on the angle $\theta^*$.

938: We find the following form for the rescaled mass distribution: for process 1

939: \beqn\label{eq:SUSY_qlf1}

940: \frac{\ud P^{\rm SUSY}_1}{\ud \mqf} &=& -\frac{4\mqf}{(1-y)^2}

941: (1-y+\ln y)\qquad\qquad\mbox{for}\;0\leq \mqf\leq \sqrt{y}\nonumber\\

942: &=& -\frac{4\mqf}{(1-y)^2}

943: (1-\mqf^2+2\ln\mqf)\;\;\;\mbox{for}\; \sqrt{y} < \mqf\leq 1

944: \eeqn

945: and for process 2

946: \beqn\label{eq:SUSY_qlf2}

947: \frac{\ud P^{\rm SUSY}_2}{\ud \mqf} &=& \frac{4\mqf}{(1-y)^2}

948: (1-y+y\ln y)\qquad\qquad\mbox{for}\;0\leq \mqf\leq \sqrt{y}\nonumber\\

949: &=& \frac{4\mqf}{(1-y)^2}

950: (1-\mqf^2+2y\ln\mqf)\;\;\;\;\mbox{for}\; \sqrt{y} < \mqf\leq 1\;.

951: \eeqn

952: 

953: In the case of UED, there is non-trivial dependence on all the decay angles.

954: We find the following form for the rescaled mass distribution: for process 1

955: \beqn\label{eq:UED_qlf1}

956: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_1}{\ud \mqf} &=&  \frac{12\mqf}

957: {(1 + 2x)(2 + y)(1 + 2z)(1-y)^2}

958: \{(1 - y)[4x - y + 2(2 + 3y - 2x(5 + y))z \nonumber \\ &&- 

959:          4\mqf^2(2 - 3x)(1 - 2z)] - 

960:        [y(1 - 2(4 + y)z) +  4x(2z - y(1 - 4z)) \nonumber \\ &&+

961:          4\mqf^2(1 + y - x(2 + y))(1 - 2z)]\ln y\}

962: \qquad\mbox{for}\;0\leq \mqf\leq \sqrt{y}\nonumber\\

963: &=&  \frac{12\mqf}{(1 + 2x)(2 + y)(1 + 2z)(1-y)^2}

964: \{(1 - \mqf^2)(4x(1 + 2y - 5z - 6yz)-5y+2(2 + 9y)z \nonumber \\ && 

965:         - 4\mqf^2(1 - x)(1 - z)]  - 

966:       2[y(1 - 2(4 + y)z) +  4x(2z - y(1 - 4z))\nonumber\\&&

967:        +4\mqf^2(1 + y - x(2 + y))(1 - 2z)]\ln\mqf\}

968: \qquad\mbox{for}\; \sqrt{y} < \mqf\leq 1

969: \eeqn

970: and for process 2

971: \beqn\label{eq:UED_qlf2}

972: \frac{\ud P^{\rm UED}_2}{\ud \mqf} &=& \frac{12\mqf}

973: {(1 + 2x)(2 + y)(1 + 2z)(1-y)^2}

974: \{(1 - y)[-y + 2(2 + 2x(1 - y) + 3y)z \nonumber \\ &&- 

975:          4\mqf^2(2 - x)(1 - 2z)] -[ y(1 - 2(4 + y)z)\nonumber \\ &&

976:    +4\mqf^2(1 + (1 - x)y)(1 - 2z)]\ln y\}

977: \qquad\mbox{for}\;0\leq \mqf\leq \sqrt{y}\nonumber\\

978: &=&  \frac{12\mqf}{(1 + 2x)(2 + y)(1 + 2z)(1-y)^2}

979: \{(1 - \mqf^2)[4(1 + x)z - y(5 - 18z + 8xz)\nonumber \\ &&-

980:          4\mqf^2(1 - x)(1 - z)] - 2[y(1 - 2(4 + y)z)\nonumber \\ &&+

981:          4\mqf^2(1 + (1 - x)y)(1 - 2z)]\ln\mqf\}

982: \qquad\mbox{for}\; \sqrt{y} < \mqf\leq 1\;.

983: \eeqn

984: 

985: \section{UED production cross sections}\label{app:prod}

986: We neglect all Standard Model particle masses and work at tree level,

987: so that the $n^{th}$ excited KK state of each particle has mass $n/R$.

988: In practice we ignore $n>1$ excitations. We use here the notation of

989: ref.~\cite{Macesanu:2002db}:

990: $q_1^{\bullet}$ or $q_1^{\circ}$

991: represent the first KK-excitations of the 5D fields whose zero-modes are the

992: left-handed doublet and right-handed singlet quarks respectively. 

993: Throughout, $q_1^*$ represents either $q_1^{\bullet}$ or $q_1^{\circ}$,

994: $M_1=1/R$, $s,t,u$ are the usual Mandelstam variables, $t_3=t-M_1^2$ and $u_4=u-M_1^2$.

995: Only (\ref{qqb2qpqbp}), (\ref{qqb2qqb}) and (\ref{qqbp2qqbp}) agree in form

996: with ref.~\cite{Macesanu:2002db}.

997: In addition we find an extra factor of 16 in the overall normalisation.

998: 

999: \begin{equation}

1000: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(q \bar{q} \to q_1^{* \prime} \bar{q}_1^{* \prime})|^2=\frac{4 g_s^4}{9} \left[ \frac{2 M_1^2}{s} + \frac{t_3^2+u_4^2}{s^2} \right], \label{qqb2qpqbp}

1001: \end{equation}

1002: 

1003: \begin{eqnarray}

1004: \nonumber \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(q\bar{q} \to q_1^{*}\bar{q}_1^*)|^2&=&\frac{g_s^4}{9}\left[ 2 M_1^2 \left( \frac{4}{s}+\frac{s}{t_3^2}-\frac{1}{t_3} \right) \right. \\ && \left. + \frac{23}{6} + \frac{2s^2}{t_3^2}+\frac{8s}{3 t_3} + \frac{6 t_3}{s} + \frac{8 t_3^2}{s^2} \right],\label{qqb2qqb}

1005: \end{eqnarray}

1006: 

1007: \begin{eqnarray}

1008: \nonumber \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(qq \to q_1^{*} q_1^*)|^2&=&\frac{g_s^4}{27} \left[ M_1^2 \left( 6\frac{t_3}{u_4^2}+6\frac{u_4}{t_3^2}-\frac{s}{t_3u_4}\right)\right. \\ && \quad \left. +2\left( 3\frac{t_3^2}{u_4^2}+3\frac{u_4^2}{t_3^2} + 4\frac{s^2}{t_3 u_4}-5 \right) \right],\label{qq2qq}

1009: \end{eqnarray}

1010: 

1011: \begin{eqnarray}

1012: \nonumber \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(gg \to q_1^{*}\bar{q}_1^*)|^2&=&g_s^4 \left[M_1^4 \frac{-4}{t_3u_4} \left( \frac{s^2}{6 t_3 u_4}-\frac{3}{8} \right) + M_1^2 \frac{4}{s} \left(\frac{s^2}{6t_3 u_4}-\frac{3}{8} \right) \right. \\ && \qquad \quad \left. + \frac{s^2}{6 t_3 u_4} -\frac{17}{24}+\frac{3 t_3 u_4}{4s^2}\right], \label{gg2qqb}

1013: \end{eqnarray}

1014: 

1015: \begin{equation}

1016: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(gq \to g^* q_1^{*})|^2=\frac{-g_s^4}{3} \left[ \frac{5s^2}{12 t_3^2}+\frac{s^3}{t_3^2 u_4}+\frac{11 s u_4}{6 t_3^2}+\frac{5u_4^2}{12 t_3^2}+\frac{u_4^3}{s t_3^2}\right],\label{qg2qg}

1017: \end{equation}

1018: 

1019: \begin{equation}

1020: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(q \bar{q}^{\prime} \to q_1^{*} \bar{q}_1^{* \prime}  )|^2=\frac{g_s^4}{18} \left[ 4 M_1^2 \frac{s}{t_3^2}+5+4\frac{s^2}{t_3^2}+8\frac{s}{t_3} \right],\label{qqbp2qqbp}

1021: \end{equation}

1022: 

1023: \begin{equation}

1024: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(qq^{\prime} \to q_1^{*} q_1^{* \prime})|^2=\frac{2 g_s^4}{9} \left[ - M_1^2 \frac{s}{t_3^2}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{s^2}{t_3^2} \right],\label{qqp2qqp}

1025: \end{equation}

1026: 

1027: \begin{equation}

1028: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(qq \to q_1^{\bullet} q_1^{\circ})|^2=\frac{g_s^4}{9}\left[ M_1^2 \left( \frac{2s^3}{t_3^2 u_4^2} - \frac{4s}{t_3 u_4} \right)+ 2\frac{s^4}{t_3^2 u_4^2} - 8\frac{s^2}{t_3 u_4}+5 \right],\label{qq2qbullqcirc}

1029: \end{equation}

1030: 

1031: \begin{equation}

1032: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(q \bar{q}^{\prime} \to q_1^{\bullet} \bar{q}_1^{\prime \circ} )|^2=\frac{g_s^4}{9} \left[ 2 M_1^2 \left( \frac{1}{t_3}+\frac{u_4}{t_3^2} \right) + \frac{5}{2} + \frac{4 u_4}{t_3}+\frac{2 u_4^2}{t_3^2} \right],\label{qqb2qbullqbcirc}

1033: \end{equation}

1034: which is the same result as for $q \bar{q} \to q_1^{\bullet}\bar{q}_1^{\circ},q_1^{\circ}\bar{q}_1^{\bullet}$ and $q \bar{q}^{\prime} \to q_1^{\circ} \bar{q}_1^{\prime \bullet}$ as these are given by the same $t$-channel diagram.

1035: 

1036: \begin{equation}

1037: \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(q q^{\prime} \to q_1^{\bullet} q_1^{\prime \circ} )|^2=\frac{g_s^4}{9} \left[ -2 M_1^2 \left( \frac{1}{t_3}+\frac{u_4}{t_3^2} \right) + \frac{1}{2} +\frac{2 u_4^2}{t_3^2} \right],\label{qq2qcircqbull}

1038: \end{equation}

1039: which is the same result as for $q q^{\prime} \to q_1^{\circ} q_1^{\prime

1040:   \bullet}$.\footnote{We are grateful to Martyn Gigg and Peter Richardson for pointing out that the result for these processes had mistakenly been

1041:  taken to be the same as equation

1042:   (\ref{qqb2qbullqbcirc}) in an earlier version.}

1043: 

1044: \begin{eqnarray}

1045: \nonumber \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(g g \to g^* g^*)|^2&=&\frac{9 g_s^4}{4} \left[ 3 M_1^4 \frac{s^2+t_3^2+u_4^2}{t_3^2 u_4^2}- 3 M_1^2 \frac{s^2+t_3^2+u_4^2}{s t_3 u_4} \right. \\ &&\qquad \quad \left. +1+\frac{(s^2+t_3^2+u_4^2)^3}{4s^2t_3^2u_4^2}-\frac{t_3 u_4}{s^2} \right],\label{gg2gg}

1046: \end{eqnarray}

1047: 

1048: \begin{eqnarray}

1049: \nonumber \overline{\sum}|\mathcal{M}(q \bar{q} \to g^* g^*)|^2&=&\frac{2 g_s^4}{27} \left[M_1^2 \left( -\frac{4s^3}{t_3^2 u_4^2}+\frac{57s}{t_3u_4}-\frac{108}{s} \right) \right. \\ && \qquad \quad \left. + \frac{20s^2}{t_3u_4}-93+\frac{108t_3 u_4}{s^2} \right].\label{qqb2gg}

1050: \end{eqnarray}

1051: 

1052: 

1053: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% bibliography %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1056: 

1057: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

1058: 

1059: %\cite{Barr:2004ze}

1060: \bibitem{Barr:2004ze}

1061: A.~J.~Barr,

1062: {\it Determining the spin of supersymmetric particles at the LHC using lepton charge asymmetry},

1063: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 596} (2004) 205

1064: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405052].

1065: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405052;%%

1066: 

1067: %\cite{Allanach:2000kt}

1068: \bibitem{Allanach:2000kt}

1069: B.~C.~Allanach, C.~G.~Lester, M.~A.~Parker and B.~R.~Webber,

1070: {\it Measuring sparticle masses in non-universal string inspired models at  the LHC},

1071: JHEP {\bf 0009} (2000) 004

1072: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007009].

1073: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007009;%%

1074: 

1075: %\cite{Lester:2001zx}

1076: \bibitem{Lester:2001zx}

1077: C.~G.~Lester,

1078: {\it Model independent sparticle mass measurements at ATLAS},

1079: CERN-THESIS-2004-003

1080: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=cern-thesis-2004-003}{SPIRES entry}

1081: 

1082: %\cite{Appelquist:2000nn}

1083: \bibitem{Appelquist:2000nn}

1084: T.~Appelquist, H.~C.~Cheng and B.~A.~Dobrescu,

1085: {\it Bounds on universal extra dimensions},

1086: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 035002

1087: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012100].

1088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012100;%%

1089: 

1090: %\cite{Cheng:2002iz}

1091: \bibitem{Cheng:2002iz}

1092: H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,

1093: {\it Radiative corrections to Kaluza-Klein masses},

1094: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 036005

1095: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204342];

1096: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204342;%%

1097: %\cite{Cheng:2002ab}

1098: %\bibitem{Cheng:2002ab}

1099: %H.~C.~Cheng, K.~T.~Matchev and M.~Schmaltz,

1100: {\it Bosonic supersymmetry? Getting fooled at the LHC},

1101: \ibid {\bf 66} (2002) 056006

1102: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205314].

1103: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205314;%%

1104: 

1105: %\cite{Goto:2004cp}

1106: \bibitem{Goto:2004cp}

1107: T.~Goto, K.~Kawagoe and M.~M.~Nojiri,

1108: {\it Study of the slepton non-universality at the CERN Large Hadron Collider},

1109: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 075016 (2004)

1110: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 71}, 059902 (2005)]

1111: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406317].

1112: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406317;%%

1113: 

1114: %\cite{Bhattacharyya:2005vm}

1115: \bibitem{Bhattacharyya:2005vm}

1116: G.~Bhattacharyya, P.~Dey, A.~Kundu and A.~Raychaudhuri,

1117: {\it Probing universal extra dimension at the International Linear Collider},

1118: arXiv:hep-ph/0502031.

1119: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502031;%%

1120: 

1121: %\cite{Battaglia:2005zf}

1122: \bibitem{Battaglia:2005zf}

1123: M.~Battaglia, A.~Datta, A.~De Roeck, K.~Kong and K.~T.~Matchev,

1124: {\it Contrasting supersymmetry and universal extra dimensions at the CLIC multi-TeV e+ e- collider},

1125: arXiv:hep-ph/0502041.

1126: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502041;%%

1127: 

1128: %\cite{Macesanu:2002db}

1129: \bibitem{Macesanu:2002db}

1130: C.~Macesanu, C.~D.~McMullen and S.~Nandi,

1131: {\it Collider implications of universal extra dimensions},

1132: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 015009

1133: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201300].

1134: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201300;%%

1135: 

1136: %\cite{Corcella:2000bw}

1137: \bibitem{Corcella:2000bw}

1138: G.~Corcella, I.G.~Knowles, G.~Marchesini, S.~Moretti, 

1139:   K.~Odagiri, P.~Richardson, M.~H.~Seymour and B.~R.~Webber,

1140: {\it HERWIG 6: An event generator for hadron emission reactions with  interfering gluons (including supersymmetric processes)}, JHEP {\bf 0101} (2001) 010

1141: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011363].

1142: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011363;%%

1143: 

1144: 

1145: %\cite{Corcella:2002jc}

1146: \bibitem{Corcella:2002jc}

1147: G.~Corcella {\it et al.},

1148: {\it HERWIG 6.5 release note},

1149: arXiv:hep-ph/0210213.

1150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210213;%%

1151: %\cite{Barr:2004ze}

1152: 

1153: %\cite{Richardson:2001df}

1154: \bibitem{Richardson:2001df}

1155: P.~Richardson,

1156: {\it Spin correlations in Monte Carlo simulations},

1157: JHEP {\bf 0111} (2001) 029

1158: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110108].

1159: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110108;%%

1160: 

1161: %\cite{Moretti:2002eu}

1162: \bibitem{Moretti:2002eu}

1163: S.~Moretti, K.~Odagiri, P.~Richardson, M.~H.~Seymour and B.~R.~Webber,

1164: {\it Implementation of supersymmetric processes in the HERWIG event  generator},

1165: JHEP {\bf 0204}, 028 (2002)

1166: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204123].

1167: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204123;%%

1168: 

1169: %\cite{Allanach:2002nj}

1170: \bibitem{Allanach:2002nj}

1171: B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.},

1172: {\it The Snowmass points and slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY searches},

1173: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,

1174: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 113

1175: [eConf {\bf C010630} (2001) P125]

1176: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202233].

1177: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%

1178: 

1179: %\cite{Pukhov:1999gg}

1180: \bibitem{Pukhov:1999gg}

1181: A.~Pukhov {\it et al.},

1182: {\it CompHEP: A package for evaluation of Feynman diagrams and integration  over

1183: multi-particle phase space. User's manual for version 33},

1184: arXiv:hep-ph/9908288.

1185: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908288;%%

1186: 

1187: %\cite{Martin:1998np}

1188: \bibitem{Martin:1998np}

1189: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,

1190: {\it Scheme dependence, leading order and higher twist studies of MRST  partons},

1191: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 443} (1998) 301

1192: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808371].

1193: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808371;%%

1194: 

1195: \bibitem{Paige_pc}

1196: F.~Paige, private communication.

1197: \end{thebibliography}

1198: \end{document}

1199: 

1200: