1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{cite}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\h}[1][1]{\frac{#1}{2}}

8: \newcommand{\hh}[1][1]{\textstyle \frac{#1}{2}}

9: \newcommand{\ts}[2]{{#1}_{\rm #2}}

10: 

11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SUSY notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

12: 

13: \newcommand{\sll}{{\tilde{l}}}

14: \newcommand{\slR}{{\tilde{l}_{\rm R}}}

15: \newcommand{\slL}{{\tilde{l}_{\rm L}}}

16: \newcommand{\msl}[1]{m_{\tilde{l_{#1}}}}

17: \newcommand{\smu}{{\tilde{\mu}}}

18: \newcommand{\smuR}{{\tilde{\mu}_{\rm R}}}

19: \newcommand{\smuL}{{\tilde{\mu}_{\rm L}}}

20: \newcommand{\se}{{\tilde{e}}}

21: \newcommand{\seR}{{\tilde{e}_{\rm R}}}

22: \newcommand{\seL}{{\tilde{e}_{\rm L}}}

23: \newcommand{\st}{{\tilde{t}}}

24: \newcommand{\sB}{{\tilde{b}}}

25: \newcommand{\stR}{{\tilde{t}_1}}

26: \newcommand{\stL}{{\tilde{t}_2}}

27: \newcommand{\glo}{{\tilde{g}}}

28: \newcommand{\mse}[1]{m_{\tilde{e}_{#1}}}

29: \newcommand{\mseR}{m_{\tilde{e}_{\rm R}}}

30: \newcommand{\mseL}{m_{\tilde{e}_{\rm L}}}

31: \newcommand{\msmu}[1]{m_{\tilde{\mu}_{#1}}}

32: \newcommand{\msmuR}{m_{\tilde{\mu}_{\rm R}}}

33: \newcommand{\MsQ}{\mathswitch M_{\tilde{\rm Q}}}

34: \newcommand{\cha}{\tilde{\chi}}

35: \newcommand{\neu}{\tilde{\chi}^0}

36: \newcommand{\mcha}[1]{m_{\tilde{\chi}^\pm_{#1}}}

37: \newcommand{\mneu}[1]{m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{#1}}}

38: \newcommand{\sbt}{\mathswitch {s_\beta}}

39: \newcommand{\cbt}{\mathswitch {c_\beta}}

40: 

41: \newcommand{\sfR}{{\tilde{f}_{\rm R}}}

42: \newcommand{\sfL}{{\tilde{f}_{\rm L}}}

43: \newcommand{\sF}{{\tilde{f}}}

44: \newcommand{\msf}[1]{m_{\rm \tilde{f}_{#1}}}

45: %\newcommand{\ff}{\rm f}

46: 

47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SM notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

48: 

49: \def\mathswitch#1{\relax\ifmmode#1\else$#1$\fi}

50: \def\mathswitchr#1{\relax\ifmmode{\mathrm{#1}}\else$\mathrm{#1}$\fi}

51: \newcommand{\PW}{\mathswitchr W}

52: \newcommand{\PZ}{\mathswitchr Z}

53: \newcommand{\PH}{\mathswitchr H}

54: \newcommand{\Pe}{\mathswitchr e}

55: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathswitchr b}

56: \newcommand{\Pt}{\mathswitchr t}

57: \newcommand{\PA}{\mathswitchr A}

58: \newcommand{\MW}{\mathswitch {M_\PW}}

59: \newcommand{\MZ}{\mathswitch {M_\PZ}}

60: \newcommand{\MH}{\mathswitch {M_\PH}}

61: \newcommand{\MA}{\mathswitch {M_\PA}}

62: \newcommand{\me}{\mathswitch {m_\Pe}}

63: \newcommand{\mb}{\mathswitch {m_\Pb}}

64: \newcommand{\mt}{\mathswitch {m_\Pt}}

65: \newcommand{\mf}{m_f}

66: \newcommand{\scrs}{{}}

67: \newcommand{\sw}{\mathswitch {s_{\scrs\PW}}}

68: \newcommand{\cw}{\mathswitch {c_{\scrs\PW}}}

69: 

70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% other notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

71: 

72: \newcommand{\tev}{\,\, \mathrm{TeV}}

73: \newcommand{\gev}{\,\, \mathrm{GeV}}

74: \newcommand{\mev}{\,\, \mathrm{MeV}}

75: \newcommand{\re}{\Re e \,}

76: \newcommand{\im}{\Im m \,}

77: \newcommand{\dd}{\partial}

78: 

79: \newcommand{\SLASH}[2]{\makebox[#2ex][l]{$#1$}/}

80: \newcommand{\Dslash}{\SLASH{D}{.5}\,}

81: \newcommand{\dslash}{\SLASH{\dd}{.15}}

82: \newcommand{\kslash}{\SLASH{k}{.15}}

83: \newcommand{\pslash}{\SLASH{p}{.2}}

84: \newcommand{\qslash}{\SLASH{q}{.08}}

85: \newcommand{\Eslash}{\SLASH{E}{.5}\,}

86: %\newcommand{\Eslash}{{\not{\!\!E}}}

87: \newcommand{\RR}{{\rm R}}

88: \newcommand{\LL}{{\rm L}}

89: \newcommand{\eR}{e_{\rm R}}

90: \newcommand{\eL}{e_{\rm L}}

91: \newcommand{\wL}{\mathswitch \omega_\LL}

92: \newcommand{\wR}{\mathswitch \omega_\RR}

93: \newcommand{\anc}{\rule{0mm}{0mm}}

94: \newcommand{\lesim}{\,\raisebox{-.1ex}{$_{\textstyle <}\atop^{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}

95: \newcommand{\gesim}{\,\raisebox{-.3ex}{$_{\textstyle >}\atop^{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}

96: \newcommand{\knickpfeil}{\;\raisebox{1.12ex}{$\lfloor$} \!\!\! \to}

97: \newcommand{\limit}[1]{\stackrel{#1}{-\!\!\!\longrightarrow}}

98: \newcommand{\drbar}{{\mathswitch {\overline{\rm DR}}} }

99: \newcommand{\OO}{{\mathcal O}}

100: \newcommand{\mwe}{M_{\rm ew}}

101: 

102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% layout style %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

103: 

104: \renewcommand{\figurename}{\bf Figure}

105: \renewcommand{\tablename}{\bf Table}

106: \newcommand{\mycaption}[1]{\caption{\sl #1}}

107: 

108: \hyphenation{}

109: 

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

111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

112: 

113: 

114: \oddsidemargin -0.5cm

115: \evensidemargin -0.1cm

116: \marginparwidth 68pt

117: \marginparsep 10pt

118: \topmargin 1cm

119: \headheight 0pt

120: \headsep 0pt

121: \footskip 25pt

122: \textheight 22cm

123: \textwidth 16.5cm

124: \columnsep 10pt

125: \columnseprule 0pt

126: 

127: 

128: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

129: %                                                %

130: %    BEGINNING OF TEXT                           %

131: %                                                %

132: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

133: 

134: \begin{document}

135: \thispagestyle{empty}

136: 

137: 

138: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

139: 

140: \begin{flushright}

141: ZH-TH 20/06

142: \end{flushright}

143: 

144: \vspace{1cm}

145: 

146: \begin{center}

147: 

148: {\Large\sc {\bf Phenomenology of Mirror Fermions in the Littlest Higgs Model 

149: with T-Parity}}

150: \\[3.5em]

151: %

152: %

153: {\large\sc 

154: A.~Freitas

155: and

156: D.~Wyler

157: }

158: 

159: \vspace*{1cm}

160: 

161: {\sl

162: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,

163:         Universit\"at Z\"urich, \\ Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057

164:         Z\"urich, Switzerland

165: }

166: 

167: \end{center}

168: 

169: \vspace*{2.5cm}

170: 

171: \begin{abstract}

172: 

173: Little Higgs models are an interesting alternative to explain electroweak

174: symmetry breaking without fine-tuning.  Supplemented with a discrete symmetry

175: (T-parity)  constraints  from electroweak precision data are naturally evaded

176: and also a viable dark matter candidate is obtained. T-parity implies the

177: existence of  new (mirror) fermions in addition to the heavy gauge bosons of

178: the little Higgs models.  In this paper we consider the effects of the mirror

179: fermions on the phenomenology of the littlest Higgs model with T-parity at the

180: LHC. We study  the most promising production channels and decay chains for the

181: new particles. We find that the mirror fermions have a large impact on the

182: magnitude of signal rates and on the new physics signatures. Realistic

183: background estimates are given.  

184: 

185: \end{abstract}

186: 

187: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}

188: \setcounter{page}{0}

189: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

190: 

191: \newpage

192: 

193: 

194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

196: 

197: \section{Introduction}

198: 

199: A simple doublet scalar field yields a perfectly appropriate gauge symmetry

200: breaking pattern in the  Standard Model (SM). On the other hand, its

201: theoretical shortcomings, such as quadratic  divergencies (hierarchy problem)

202: or the triviality of a $\phi^4$ theory suggest that it is  embedded in a

203: larger scheme. On the other hand,  electroweak precision data suggests that up

204: to a scale of about 10 TeV, no new strong interaction is present,  indicating

205: that indeed some form of a scalar interaction is required, including the 

206: possibility that the (Higgs) scalars  are composite. A much investigated

207: option to solve the hierarchy problem are supersymmetric theories; but also

208: models with extra dimensions have been considered. 

209: 

210: Recently, an alternative known as the \emph{little Higgs mechanism}

211: \cite{little}, has been proposed  where the smallness of the electroweak scale

212: is assured by interpreting the Higgs as a (Pseudo) Goldstone particle of a

213: symmetry breakdown at a scale $f$. The new gauge bosons

214: and  partners of the top quark  with a mass of order $f$  cancel the one-loop

215: quadratic corrections to the Higgs mass from Standard Model (SM) particles. 

216: A very appealing implementation of the little Higgs concept is the

217: \emph{littlest} Higgs model \cite{littlest}, which extends the SM by a

218: minimal number of gauge bosons and fermions.

219: 

220: However, even though these new particles 

221: are weakly coupled, electroweak precision data requires

222: $f$ to be above 5 TeV \cite{lhew}. On the other hand a scale as low as 1 TeV

223: is required to avoid fine-tuning of the Higgs mass.

224: 

225: A discrete symmetry, called \emph{T-parity} \cite{LHT, wudka} circumvents these 

226: problems. It forbids all

227: tree-level contributions of the new heavy degrees of freedom to electroweak

228: precision observables. The SM fields are T-even, while the new TeV-scale

229: particles are odd. Therefore, the new particles can only be generated in

230: pairs which is reminiscent of R-parity in supersymmetric theories.

231: Besides satisfying the electroweak constraints, T-parity also has the

232: interesting consequence that the lightest T-odd particle is stable and, if

233: neutral, a good candidate for cold dark matter.

234: 

235: 

236: One of the prime objectives of the next generation of colliders, especially the

237: Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is to unravel the physical mechanism of

238: electroweak symmetry breaking.  A first study of the phenomenology of the

239: littlest Higgs model with T-parity (LHT) at the LHC presented in

240: Ref.~\cite{hubmed} yielded attractive production rates for the new

241: particles.  The collider phenomenology of little Higgs theories with T-parity

242: has some similarities to supersymmetry. In particular, it involves signatures

243: with missing energy originating from the neutral lightest T-odd particle (LTP),

244: which escapes detection. On the other hand, little Higgs theories usually do

245: not involve a T-odd partner of the gluon, which leads to smaller new physics

246: cross-sections at the LHC compared to supersymmetry.

247: 

248: In this paper, the phenomenology of the littlest Higgs model with T-parity is

249: revisited and in particular the important role of  the T-odd fermions

250: (\emph{mirror fermions}) is stressed. Backgrounds from SM sources are

251: investigated in order to arrive at realistic estimates for the observability

252: of the new physics signals of the LHT model. After reviewing the LHT model in

253: section \ref{sc:model}, the production processes and signatures for

254: various T-odd particles are studied in detail in sections \ref{sc:lhc} and

255: \ref{sc:sign}. Finally, the conclusions are given in section \ref{sc:concl}.

256: 

257: 

258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

259: 

260: \section{The model}

261: \label{sc:model}

262: 

263: The littlest Higgs model is based on a coset SU(5)/SO(5), i.~e. a global SU(5)

264: symmetry that is explicitly broken down to a SO(5) group, with a $[SU(2) \times

265: U(1)]^2$ subgroup of SO(5) being gauged \cite{littlest}. The Goldstone modes of

266: the broken SU(5) are implemented in a non-linear sigma model with a breaking

267: scale $f$. Some of the Goldstone modes only become massive when {\it both} gauge

268: subgroups are broken. As a consequence of this simultaneous symmetry breaking

269: one-loop quadratic divergencies to the Higgs mass are naturally avoided and their  mass

270: get corrections at most at the two-loop level.

271: 

272: The littlest Higgs model can be supplemented by a discrete $Z_2$ called T-parity

273: \cite{LHT}, with SM

274: particles being even ($T=+1$), and non-SM particles odd ($T=-1$) under this

275: symmetry. The terms of the non-linear sigma generate masses

276: of order $f$ for the T-odd particles. Rather than giving the whole construction of the model 

277: we consider, we refer to \cite{hubmed} for a somewhat.

278: detailed description. 

279: 

280: The gauge bosons are formed from the gauge bosons of the two SU(2) and U(1)

281: groups, which in the following are indicated by subscripts 1 and 2,

282: respectively:

283: \begin{align}

284: W_L^a &= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(W_1^a + W_2^a), && \text{(T-even)} \\

285: B_L &= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(B_1 + B_2), 

286: \intertext{with masses from usual electroweak symmetry breaking, and}

287: W_H^a &= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(W_1^a - W_2^a), && \text{(T-odd)} \\

288: B_H &= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(B_1 - B_2), 

289: \end{align}

290: with masses of order $f$ generated from the kinetic term of the non-linear

291: sigma model. After electroweak symmetry breaking, the light gauge bosons mix to

292: form the usual physical states of the SM, $A_L = \cw B_L - \sw W_L^3$, $Z_L =

293: \sw B_L + \cw W_L^3$ and $W_L^\pm = (W_L^1 \mp W_L^2)/\sqrt{2}$. Similarly, a

294: small mixing of order ${\cal O}(v^2/f^2)$ is introduced between $B_H$ and $W_H^0 \equiv

295: Z_H$ through electroweak symmetry breaking. In this work, this mixing and all

296: other terms of order ${\cal O}(v^2/f^2)$ will be consistently neglected. In this

297: case, the masses of the T-odd gauge bosons are

298: \begin{equation}

299: M_{W_H^\pm} = M_{Z_H} = gf, \qquad 

300: M_{B_H} = \frac{g'}{\sqrt{5}}f,

301: \end{equation}

302: with $W_H^\pm = (W_H^1 \mp W_H^2)/\sqrt{2}$.

303: The $B_H$ is always lighter than the other T-odd gauge bosons and thus a good

304: candidate for the LTP (lightest T-odd particle) and dark matter.

305: 

306: T-parity also requires a doubling of the fermion sector associating to each 

307: T-even (SM) fermion a T-odd fermion. $F_H$ (mirror fermion).

308:  These 'partners' get  masses

309: \cite{mirrormass}

310: \begin{equation}

311: m_{f_{H,i}} = \sqrt{2} \kappa_{i} f,

312: \end{equation}

313: where the Yukawa couplings $\kappa$ can in general depend on the fermion species

314: $i$. The $\kappa$ can also generate flavor changing

315: interactions, but this will not be studied in this paper.

316: 

317: The implementation of the mass terms for the mirror fermions also introduces T-odd

318: SU(2)-singlet fermions, which

319: may receive large masses and do not mix with the SU(2)-doublets $f_H$.

320: Here it is therefore assumed that these extra singlet fermions have large masses

321: and decouple from phenomenology at the LHC.

322: 

323: The top sector requires an additional T-even fermion $t'_+$ and one T-odd

324: fermion $t'_-$ to cancel quadratic divergencies to the Higgs mass. Their masses

325: are

326: \begin{equation}

327: \mt = \frac{\lambda_1\lambda_2v}{\sqrt{\lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2}}, \qquad

328: m_{t'_+} = \sqrt{\lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2} \, f, \qquad

329: m_{t'_-} = \lambda_2 f.

330: \end{equation}

331: The Yukawa couplings $\lambda_{1,2}$ are constrained by the top mass $\mt$, but

332: one has the freedom to choose

333: \begin{equation}

334: s_\lambda \equiv \frac{\lambda_2}{\sqrt{\lambda_1^2 + \lambda_2^2}} =

335: \frac{m_{t'_-}}{m_{t'_+}}.

336: \end{equation}

337: The decay modes of the T-odd gauge bosons and mirror fermions are summarized in

338: Tab.~\ref{tab:decays} for $f = 1$ TeV, degenerate $\kappa_f = 0.5$ and

339: $s_\lambda = 1/\sqrt{2}$.

340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

341: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}

342: \begin{table}[tp]

343: \begin{center}

344: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{c@{\extracolsep\fill}ccr@{\extracolsep{0pt}\:}l@{\hspace{2em}}l}

345: \hline

346: Particle & Mass $m$ [GeV] & Width $\Gamma$ [GeV]

347:           & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Decay modes} \\

348: \hline 

349: $W_H^\pm$ & $647$  & $0.056$ &

350:         $W_H^\pm$ & $\to W^\pm \, B_H$ & 100\% \\

351: $Z_H$ & $647$  & $0.051$ &

352:         $Z_H$ & $\to h^0 \, B_H$ & 100\% \\

353: $B_H$ & $154$  & --- & \multicolumn{2}{c}{---} & \\

354: \hline

355: $u_H$ & $705$  & $0.36$ &

356:         $u_H$ & $\to B_H \, u$ & 50\% \\

357:         &&&& $\to W_H^+ \, d$ & 33\% \\

358:         &&&& $\to Z_H \, u$ & 17\% \\

359: $d_H$ & $705$  & $0.36$ &

360:         $d_H$ & $\to B_H \, d$ & 50\% \\

361:         &&&& $\to W_H^+ \, u$ & 33\% \\

362:         &&&& $\to Z_H \, d$ & 17\% \\

363: $t'_-$ & $1000$ & 1.25 &

364: 	$t'_-$ & $\to B_H \, t$ & 100\% \\

365: \hline

366: \end{tabular*}

367: \end{center}

368: \vspace{-1em}

369: \mycaption{Tree-level masses, widths and main branching ratios of the

370: T-odd states at Born level for $f = 1$ TeV, $\kappa_f = 0.5$ and

371: $s_\lambda = 1/\sqrt{2}$. Corrections of order ${\cal O}(v^2/f^2)$ are

372: neglected.}

373: \label{tab:decays}

374: \end{table}

375: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

376: 

377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

378: 

379: \section{T-odd  production at LHC}

380: \label{sc:lhc}

381: 

382: In this section we consider the (pair) production of the various T-odd particles at the

383: LHC. Our work completes the previous studies  in Ref.~\cite{hubmed} and stresses

384: the role of the T-odd fermions.

385: 

386: 

387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

388: 

389: \subsection{Heavy gauge bosons}

390: 

391: In Ref.~\cite{hubmed}, the production of heavy T-odd gauge bosons was computed

392: including the s-channel gauge boson contributions only,

393: Fig.~\ref{fig:diav}~(a--c). It was found that the cross-sections can be sizeable,

394: of the order ${\cal O}$(0.1 pb), for $f < 1$ TeV.

395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

396: \begin{figure}[tb]

397: \psfig{figure=WHWHs.ps, width=5cm}

398: \psfig{figure=WHZHs.ps, width=5cm}

399: \psfig{figure=WHAHs.ps, width=5cm}

400: \\

401: \anc\hspace{1.8cm}(a)\hspace{4.7cm}(b)\hspace{4.7cm}(c)\\[1.5em]

402: \psfig{figure=WHWHt.ps, width=5cm}

403: \psfig{figure=WHZHt.ps, width=5cm}

404: \psfig{figure=WHAHt.ps, width=5cm}

405: \\

406: \anc\hspace{1.8cm}(d)\hspace{4.7cm}(e)\hspace{4.7cm}(f)

407: \mycaption{Production diagrams for T-odd gauge bosons at LHC. 

408: Thick lines indicate T-odd propagators.}

409: \label{fig:diav}

410: \end{figure}

411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

412: However, for perturbative

413: Yukawa couplings $\kappa_f \lesim 1$, the mirror fermions cannot be much heavier

414: than the heavy gauge bosons, and thus never decouple from the production

415: process. Thus the t-channel mirror fermion exchange,

416: Fig.~\ref{fig:diav}~(d--f), is also important. 

417: 

418: To study this effect of the mirror fermions for heavy gauge boson production,

419: the Feynman rules for the littlest Higgs model with T-parity

420: \cite{hanetal,hubmed,hubpaz} have been implemented in CompHEP \cite{CompHEP}.

421: The package CompHEP was then used to generate numerical results for production

422: cross-sections and decay modes of the T-odd heavy gauge bosons.

423: 

424: It turns out that the t-channel contributions interfere destructively with the

425: s-channel diagrams, as may be expected by unitarity, thus resulting in lower cross-sections for gauge boson production, see Fig.~\ref{fig:vxsec}.

426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

427: \begin{figure}[tb]

428: \anc\hspace{1.9cm}$pp \to W_H^+ W_H^-$

429: \anc\hspace{1.5cm}$pp \to W_H^+ Z_H^{}$

430: \anc\hspace{1.65cm}$pp \to W_H^+ B_H^{}$\\[-3em]

431: \anc\hspace{-4ex}%

432: \psfig{figure=whwh1.eps, height=9.5cm}\hspace{-2ex}%

433: \psfig{figure=whzh1.eps, height=9.5cm, 

434: 	bb=80 382 221 682, clip=true}\hspace{-2ex}%

435: \psfig{figure=whah1.eps, height=9.5cm,

436: 	bb=80 382 221 682, clip=true}

437: \begin{minipage}[b]{1.5cm}

438: \rule{10mm}{.3mm} $\kappa = \infty$\\[1ex]

439: \rule{2mm}{.3mm}\rule{2mm}{0mm}\rule{2mm}{.3mm}\rule{2mm}{0mm}\rule{2mm}{.3mm}

440: $\kappa = 1$\\[1ex]

441: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

442: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

443: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

444: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

445: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

446: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

447: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

448: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

449: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

450: \rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm} $\kappa = 0.5$\\[1ex]

451: \rule{2mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}\rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

452: \rule{2mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}\rule{.5mm}{.3mm}\rule{.5mm}{0mm}%

453: \rule{2mm}{.3mm}

454: $\kappa = 0.2$\\[1ex]

455: \\[4.5em]

456: \end{minipage}\\[-4.5em]

457: \mycaption{Cross-sections for T-odd heavy vector boson production at the LHC as

458: a function of the symmetry breaking scale $f$, and for several values of the

459: T-odd fermions Yukawa coupling $\kappa$.}

460: \label{fig:vxsec}

461: \end{figure}

462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

463: For typical values $\kappa \sim {\cal O}(1)$, the LHC production cross-sections

464: are reduced by about one order of magnitude relative to the situation without

465: the t-channel diagrams ($\kappa \to \infty$). As a consequence, the expected

466: heavy gauge boson cross-sections are only several fb for all possible final states

467: $W_H^+ W_H^-$, $W_H^+ Z_H^{}$ and $W_H^+ B_H^{}$. The identification of new

468: physics processes of that size at the LHC relies strongly on the presence of

469: leptons in the signature. $W_H^\pm$ bosons decay into leptons $l=e,\mu$ with a

470: branching ratio of about 20\%. Folding in that branching ratio further reduces

471: the signal cross-section. Large backgrounds from SM gauge boson pair production

472: and $t\bar{t}$ production make the identification of a signal process with

473: ${\cal O}$(fb) cross-section practically impossible.

474: 

475: 

476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

477: 

478: \subsection{Mirror quarks}

479: \label{sc:mirrorquarks}

480: 

481: While the mirror quarks effectively lead to a reduction of the T-odd gauge boson

482: production at the LHC, the mirror quarks can also be produced directly with

483: large cross-sections through gluon exchange, see Fig.~\ref{fig:diaq}. In

484: addition, there are also subdominant weak production diagrams.

485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

486: \begin{figure}[tb]

487: \vspace{1ex}

488: \psfig{figure=QHQHs.ps, width=5cm} \hfill

489: \raisebox{1ex}{\begin{minipage}[b]{11cm}

490: \mycaption{QCD production diagram for T-odd mirror quarks at LHC. 

491: Thick lines indicate T-odd propagators.}

492: \label{fig:diaq}

493: \end{minipage}}

494: \end{figure}

495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

496: Due to the strongly interacting production amplitude, the cross-section for

497: mirror quarks is typically larger than for T-odd vector bosons, see

498: Fig.~\ref{fig:qxsec}.

499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

500: \begin{figure}[tb]

501: \anc\hspace{1.5cm}$pp \to q_H \bar{q}_H, \; q=u,d,s,c,b$\\[-1.3em]

502: \anc\hspace{-4ex}%

503: \psfig{figure=qhqh1.eps, height=9.5cm} \hfill 

504: \raisebox{1.5cm}{\begin{minipage}{9cm}

505: \mycaption{Cross-sections for T-odd mirror quark production at the LHC as

506: a function of the quark mass $m_{q_H} \sim \sqrt{2} \kappa f$.}

507: \label{fig:qxsec}

508: \end{minipage}}

509: \vspace{-1em}

510: \end{figure}

511: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

512: Since for generation- and flavor-independent $\kappa$ all mirror quarks, except

513: the top partners, have almost degenerate masses, the production cross-sections

514: are also independent of the mirror quark flavor.

515: 

516: For sufficiently large masses of the heavy T-odd quarks, they decay into T-odd

517: vector bosons. This leads to signatures that are similar to supersymmetric

518: theories, where squarks with large production cross-sections decay via

519: charginos and neutralinos. However, for a realistic assessment of the discovery

520: potential of the LHC for the T-odd quarks, the production rates and relevant SM

521: backgrounds need to be studied in more detail.

522: 

523: In the following the specific scenario with $f = 1$ TeV, $\kappa = 0.5$ for all

524: T-odd fermion flavors, and $s_\lambda = 1/\sqrt{2}$ will be considered as a

525: concrete example to analyze the discrimination of the mirror fermions signal

526: against SM backgrounds. The relevant T-odd particle masses in this scenario are

527: $M_{W_H^\pm} = M_{Z_H} = 647$ GeV, $M_{B_H} = 154$ GeV, $m_{q_H} = 705$ GeV for

528: $ q=u,d,s,c,b$ and $m_{t'_-} = 1000$ GeV.

529: 

530: \paragraph{(a)} {\boldmath $pp \to q_H q_H \to q q' W^\pm_H B_H \to jj\,l +

531: \Eslash_T$}. Here $j$ indicates a (light-flavor) jet, $l=e,\mu$ an identified

532: lepton, and $\Eslash_T$ stands for missing transverse energy. Since signatures

533: with only hadronic objects in the final state are very challenging to select

534: from the backgrounds, only leptonic decays of the $W_H^\pm$  are considered

535: here. The major SM background for the $jj\,l + \Eslash_T$ signature comes from

536: $pp \to W^+W^- \to q\bar{q}'l^\pm\nu_l$ production.

537: 

538: Here the signal and background have been calculated with CompHEP, where also

539: off-shell effects have been included in the computation of the

540: $q\bar{q}'l^\pm\nu_l$ background. Since the SM background is several orders of

541: magnitude larger than the signal,  the signal-to-background ratio needs to be

542: improved with suitable selection cuts. The result is

543: summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab:sel1}.

544: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

545: \begin{table}[tb]

546: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l}

547: \hline

548: Cut & Signal  &

549: Background  & S/B \\

550:  & $pp \to q_H q_H \to jj\,l + \Eslash_T$ &

551: $pp \to q\bar{q}'l^\pm\nu_l \to jj\,l + \Eslash_T$ & \\

552: \hline

553:  & 55 fb & IR-div. & \\

554: \hline

555: $E_{T,j_1} > 200$ GeV, & & \\

556: $E_{T,j_2} > 50$ GeV, & & \\

557: $\eta_j < 2.5$,\\

558:  $\angle(j_1,j_2) > 30^\circ$ & 23 fb & 3.5 pb & $6.6 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

559: \hline

560: $\Eslash_T > 400$ GeV & 11 fb & 31 fb & 0.3\\

561: \hline

562: $E_{T,l} > 50$ GeV & 8 fb & 15 fb & 0.5 \\

563: \hline

564: \end{tabular*}

565: \mycaption{Signal and background rates for the process $pp \to q_H q_H \to q

566: q'\,W^\pm_H B_H \to jj\,l + /\!\!\!\!E_T$ with incremental application of signal

567: selection cuts. "IR-div." indicates that without any jet separation cuts, the

568: SM background is not infrared safe at fixed order Born approximation and thus

569: no number can be given here.}

570: \label{tab:sel1}

571: \end{table}

572: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

573: Generally, a lower threshold for the transverse energy $E_{T,j}$ of the jets

574: needs to be applied. Since the jet originating from the mirror squark decay into

575: $B_H$ is expected to be relatively hard, a rather strong cut of 200 GeV is

576: imposed on the transverse energy of the hardest jet. Furthermore, the jets are

577: required to be in the central region with rapidity $\eta_j < 2.5$ and the jets

578: must be separated in solid angle to be identifiable as two individual jets.

579: Due to the large mass of the $B_H$, which are the stable LTPs in this scenario,

580: the signal is characterized by large missing transverse energy$\Eslash_T$, so

581: that a cut on this variable is very effective to reduce the SM backgrounds.

582: Furthermore, since the $W$ boson from the $W_H$ decay is strongly boosted, the

583: final state lepton tends to be relatively hard, so that a cut on the lepton

584: transverse energy is useful.

585: 

586: We have checked that the

587: statistical significance of the signal cannot be improved by varying the values

588: of the cuts in the table. Even after the relatively aggressive

589: cuts in Tab.~\ref{tab:sel1}, the signal-to-background ratio is still

590: smaller than one, making a meaningful measurement of the T-odd production

591: process difficult, but not impossible. With 30 fb$^{-1}$, a statistical

592: significance of nine standard deviations could be achieved, but systematic

593: uncertainties might affect this substantially.

594: 

595: \paragraph{(b)} {\boldmath $pp \to q_H q_H \to q q W^+_H W^-_H \to jj\,l^+l^- +

596: \Eslash_T$}. With an additional lepton in the final state, this process might be

597: better separable from the SM background than process (a). The main SM

598: backgrounds are $t\bar{t}$, where both top quarks decay leptonically, and

599: $W^+W^-jj$, where the two jets originate from initial-state radiation.

600: Note that also for the signal, additional hard jets stemming from initial-state

601: radiation are expected \cite{susyjets}.

602: 

603: As before, the signal has been calculated with CompHEP, while the SM background

604: was simulated with MADGRAPH \cite{mad}. Again, the SM background is several

605: orders of magnitude larger than the signal, but can be improved with the cuts

606: listed in  Tab.~\ref{tab:sel2}.

607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

608: \begin{table}[tb]

609: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l}

610: \hline

611: Cut & Signal  &

612: Background  & & S/B \\

613:  & $q_H q_H \to jj\,ll + \Eslash_T$ &

614: $t\bar{t} \to jj\,ll + \Eslash_T$ & $WWjj \to jj\,ll +

615: \Eslash_T$ \\

616: \hline

617:  & 2.7 fb \\

618: \hline

619: $E_{T,j} > 50$ GeV, \\

620: $E_{T,l} > 10$ GeV, \\

621: $\eta_j < 2.5$,\\

622: $\Delta R_{jj} < 0.4$ & 2.2 fb & 30 pb & 180 fb & $8 \times 10^{-5}$ \\

623: \hline

624: $\Eslash_T > 400$ GeV & 1.0 fb & 88 fb & 21 fb & 0.01\\

625: \hline

626: $E_{T,l} > 50$ GeV & 0.7 fb & 46 fb & 9 fb & 0.013 \\

627: \hline

628: b-tag veto & 0.5 fb & 3.2 fb & 7 fb & 0.03 \\

629: \hline

630: \end{tabular*}

631: \mycaption{Signal and background rates for the process $pp \to q_H q_H \to q q

632: W^+_H W^-_H \to jj\,l^+l^- + /\!\!\!\!E_T$ with incremental application 

633: of signal

634: selection cuts.}

635: \label{tab:sel2}

636: \end{table}

637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

638: In addition to kinematic cuts, b-tagging also helps to reduce the $t\bar{t}$

639: background, since only little heavy flavor content is expected in the signal.

640: According to Ref.~\cite{atlas},  a b-tagging efficiency of 90\% with an

641: impurity of 25\% is assumed. The other selection cuts are similar to the ones

642: used in Tab.~\ref{tab:sel1}, with the jet cone size defined as $\Delta R_{jj} =

643: \sqrt{(\Delta \eta_{jj})^2 + (\Delta \phi_{jj})^2}$, where $\Delta\phi_{jj}$ is

644: the azimuthal angle between the two jets. It turns out that the

645: signal-to-background ratio remains well below one after application of the

646: selection cuts, and moreover the signal statistics are very low. Therefore this

647: channel does not look promising as a discovery mode for the LHT model at the

648: LHC.

649: 

650: \paragraph{(c)} {\boldmath $pp \to q_H q_H \to q q' W^\pm_H Z_H \to  q q' W^\pm

651: h^0 B_H B_H \to jj\,bb\,l + \Eslash_T$}. Since the $Z_H$ boson almost always

652: decays into the (little) Higgs boson $h^0$, the selection of this signal

653: process needs to make use of the two b jets in the final state. The largest

654: SM background is semileptonic $t\bar{t}$ decays.

655: 

656: Again, CompHEP was used to calculate the signal, while the SM background

657: was simulated with MADGRAPH. For the signal selection procedure, it is assumed

658: that the Higgs boson has already been discovered and its mass measured, so that

659: a cut can be applied on the invariant mass $m_{\rm bb}$ of the two bottom jets

660: stemming from the Higgs. This requires a good identification of the b jets among

661: the four or more jets in the event. Thus b-tagging is mandatory for the signal

662: selection, and it is advantageous to optimize the b-tagging procedure for a high

663: purity of 98\%, at an efficiency of 60\% \cite{atlas}.

664: Applying the cuts in Tab.~\ref{tab:sel3},

665: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

666: \begin{table}[tb]

667: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l}

668: \hline

669: Cut & Signal  &

670: Background  & S/B \\

671:  & $q_H q_H \to jj\,bb\,l + \Eslash_T$ &

672: $t\bar{t} \to jj\,bb\,l + \Eslash_T$ \\

673: \hline

674:  & 14.0 fb \\

675: \hline

676: $E_{T,j} > 50$ GeV, \\

677: $E_{T,l} > 10$ GeV, \\

678: $\eta_j < 2.5$,

679: $\Delta R_{jj} < 0.4$ & 13.4 fb & 128 pb & $1 \times 10^{-4}$ \\

680: \hline

681: $\Eslash_T > 250$ GeV & 9.8 fb & 3.1 pb & $3 \times 10^{-3}$\\

682: \hline

683: $E_{T,l} > 50$ GeV & 8.4 fb & 1.3 pb & $6 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

684: \hline

685: b-tag & 5.0 fb & 770 fb & $6 \times 10^{-3}$ \\

686: \hline

687: $100 \gev < m_{\rm bb} < 150 \gev$ & 5.0 fb & 65 fb & 0.08 \\

688: \hline

689: \end{tabular*}

690: \mycaption{Signal and background rates for the process $pp \to q_H q_H \to q q'

691: W^\pm_H Z_H \to jj\,bb\,l + /\!\!\!\!E_T$ with incremental application 

692: of signal

693: selection cuts.}

694: \label{tab:sel3}

695: \end{table}

696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

697: it is found that the signal-to-background ratio stays well below one after

698: application of the selection cuts, so that this channel is also not suitable

699: for new physics discovery in the LHT model.

700: 

701: \paragraph{(d)} {\boldmath $pp \to t'_- \bar{t}'_- \to t \bar{t} B_H B_H$}. 

702: The final state signature of this process is identical to $t\bar{t}$ production.

703: As an example, the semileptonic decay of the top quark pair is considered,

704: leading to the final state $jj \, bb \, l + \Eslash_T$.

705: 

706: Signal and background have been computed as above, using b-tagging with

707: 98\% purity and 60\% efficiency. The main discrimination to the $t\bar{t}$

708: background is a cut on missing transverse energy, see Tab.~\ref{tab:sel4},

709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

710: \begin{table}[tb]

711: \begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l@{\extracolsep\fill}l}

712: \hline

713: Cut & Signal  &

714: Background  & S/B \\

715:  & $t'_- \bar{t}'_- \to jj\,bb\,l + \Eslash_T$ &

716: $t\bar{t} \to jj\,bb\,l + \Eslash_T$ \\

717: \hline

718: $E_{T,j} > 50$ GeV, \\

719: $E_{T,l} > 10$ GeV, \\

720: $\eta_j < 2.5$,

721: $\Delta R_{jj} < 0.4$ & 8.2 fb & 128 pb & $6 \times 10^{-5}$ \\

722: \hline

723: $\Eslash_T > 800$ GeV & 1.4 fb & 3.2 fb & $0.4$\\

724: \hline

725: b-tag & 0.8 fb & 1.9 fb & 0.4 \\

726: \hline

727: \end{tabular*}

728: \mycaption{Signal and background rates for the process $pp \to t'_- \bar{t}'_-

729: \to t \bar{t} B_H B_H \to jj \, bb \, l + /\!\!\!\!E_T$ with incremental application 

730: of signal selection cuts.}

731: \label{tab:sel4}

732: \end{table}

733: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

734: which improves the signal-to-background ratio tremendously. However, the

735: resulting signal-to-background ratio is still below one, and the remaining

736: signal rate is small, so that even without considering systematic uncertainties,

737: only a statistical significance of less than three standard deviations is 

738: achievable with 30 fb$^{-1}$.

739: 

740: \paragraph{}Other decay chains, such as $pp \to q_H q_H \to q q' Z_H Z_H$ have large SM

741: background and will not be considered.

742: 

743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

744: 

745: \section{Mirror leptons and decay signatures}

746: \label{sc:sign}

747: 

748: Mirror leptons, the T-odd partners of the leptons, can be produced directly at

749: the LHC through s-channel exchange of SM gauge bosons. However, their production

750: cross-sections are small, below 1 fb

751: for the scenario with $\kappa_l = 0.5$ and $f = 1000$ GeV, i.e. $m_{l_H} = 707$

752: GeV. We therefore do not consider the direct production further.

753: 

754: However, the mirror leptons may play an important role in the decay signatures.

755: If the mirror fermions are not degenerate, but for instance T-odd leptons and

756: T-odd quarks have different masses, the experimental signatures can be greatly

757: altered. For example for $\kappa_q = 0.5$ and $\kappa_l = 0.2$, the mirror

758: lepton mass is $m_{l_H} = 283$ GeV, and the heavy gauge

759: boson can decay into the mirror leptons, $Z_H \to l^\pm l^\mp_H$. If this decay

760: channel is open, the branching ratio will be almost 100\% for all lepton

761: flavors combined. As a consequence, the T-odd quarks

762: can decay through cascades like 

763: \begin{equation}

764: q_H \to q \, Z_H \to q \, l^\pm l^\mp_H \to

765: q \, l^+l^- \, B_H, \label{eq:samel}

766: \end{equation}

767: leading to a signal of opposite-sign same-flavor leptons

768: and missing transverse energy, similar to the situation in mSUGRA scenarios in

769: supersymmetry \cite{msugralhc}. Here one can make use of the fact that the main

770: SM backgrounds produces uncorrelated leptons, with the same proportion of

771: same-flavor ($e^+e^-$/$\mu^+\mu^-$) and opposite-flavor ($e^\pm\mu^\mp$)

772: leptons. If then the opposite-flavor events are subtracted from the total

773: sample, the SM backgrounds are effectively removed, while the little Higgs

774: signal is not affected \cite{msugralhc}. However, the statistical noise from the

775: backgrounds is not reduced by this method and still affects the extraction of

776: the signal process.

777: 

778: For the signal selection of the decay chain eq.~\eqref{eq:samel}, the same cuts

779: as listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:sel2} can be used. Since the decay of one mirror

780: quark already leads to two leptons in the final state, no assumption for the

781: decay of the second mirror quark needs to be made, other than that it leads to

782: the LTP $B_H$ in the final state, which generates missing transverse energy in

783: the signature. This improves the signal statistics compared to the analysis in

784: section~\ref{sc:mirrorquarks}~(b). After application of the cuts in

785: Tab.~\ref{tab:sel2}, the signal rate for the process eq.~\eqref{eq:samel} is 

786: % 0.67e-3 * 2 * 310/2.22 * 0.17 * BR(Z -> l lH) * 2/3 = 21.2 fb

787: 21 fb, while the SM backgrounds amount to 10 fb.

788: If in addition the different-lepton-flavor subtraction described above is used,

789: the remaining backgrounds are negligible, but introduce some statistical noise.

790: Combining the statistical errors, the new physics signal can be identified in

791: this channel with more than 20 standard deviations with 30 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity.

792: 

793: Furthermore, the di-lepton invariant mass distribution shown in

794: Fig.~\ref{fig:mll} exhibits a distinct upper endpoint

795: at

796: \begin{equation}

797: (m_{ll}^{\rm max})^2 = (m^2_{Z_H} - m^2_{l_H})(m^2_{l_H}-m^2_{B_H})/m^2_{l_H}.

798: \label{eq:mllmax}

799: \end{equation}

800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

801: \begin{figure}[tb]

802: \anc\hspace{1.5cm}

803: \psfig{figure=fmll.lhcll.eps, width=12cm}

804: \mycaption{Distribution of the di-lepton invariant mass $m_{ll}$ associated with

805: the decay chain $q_H \to q \, Z_H \to q \, l^\pm l^\mp_H \to

806: q \, l^+l^- \, B_H$, for the parameter values $f =1000 \gev$, $\kappa_q = 0.5$ 

807: and $\kappa_l = 0.2$. The error bars correspond to the statistical uncertainty

808: for 30 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity, after subtraction of backgrounds.}

809: \label{fig:mll}

810: \end{figure}%

811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

812: This feature can be used to extract some

813: information about the T-odd particle masses. The spectrum

814: edge can be fitted with a simple triangle-shaped fit function, see

815: Fig.~\ref{fig:mll}.

816: Assuming 30 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity, one obtains

817: \begin{equation}

818: m_{ll}^{\rm max} = 488.6^{+5.2}_{-4.4} \gev,

819: \end{equation}

820: which is in good agreement with the input value of the underlying model, 

821: 488.5~GeV. Due to the relatively small signal cross-section, 

822: the statistical error is quite large. It can be improved by using more

823: luminosity. With a total luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$, the error is reduced

824: to 

825: \begin{equation}

826: \delta m_{ll}^{\rm max} = \ ^{+2.1}_{-1.7} \gev.

827: \end{equation}

828: Still, at this level of precision, systematic errors due to the lepton energy

829: scale uncertainty or due to mistagging can be neglected. 

830: 

831: Since eq.~\eqref{eq:mllmax} depends only mildly on $m_{l_H}$ for $m_{B_H} \ll

832: m_{l_H} \ll m_{Z_H}$, the measured endpoint $m_{ll}^{\rm max}$ gives a rough

833: estimate of the mass difference between the T-odd gauge bosons, $m_{ll}^{\rm

834: max} \approx m_{Z_H}-m_{B_H}$. In the case of the scenario studied here,

835: $m_{Z_H}-m_{B_H} = 493$ GeV,  so that this simplified relation holds within

836: statistical errors.

837: 

838: More information about

839: the mass spectrum of the T-odd particle could be obtained by studying invariant

840: mass distributions including the jet originating from the mirror quark decay

841: \cite{msugralhc}. However, due to additional jet radiation and ambiguities in

842: the selection of the jet, the kinematic endpoints of these distributions are

843: more smeared out. This fact together with the low signal statistics leads to

844: very large errors for fits to kinematic endpoints of jet-lepton distributions.

845: 

846: 

847: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

848: 

849: \section{Conclusion}

850: \label{sc:concl}

851: 

852: 

853: In this paper we have considered the production and decay of the T-odd heavy

854: particles at LHC in littlest Higgs models with T-parity. This symmetry implies

855: the presence of heavy mirror particles and that the heavy particles  can only

856: be pair produced. In the case of heavy gauge bosons, 

857: s-channel and t-channel production mechanisms interfere destructively. This

858: reduces the production rate substantially to less than about $0.1$ pb and makes

859: this channel  almost impossible to observe. 

860: 

861: Similarly, the discovery and measurement of T-odd mirror quarks at the LHC is

862: very difficult. We have considered all possible decay chains, but  most decay

863: channels are lost in the SM background. Only the channel $pp \to q_H q_H \to q

864: q' W^\pm_H B_H \to jj\,l + \Eslash_T$ with  a production rate of about 10 fb

865: might be promising, but mandates further study. We discuss to some extent the

866: cuts required to reduce the SM background (see table \ref{tab:sel1}).  Although

867: the final state signatures are quite similar to the ones for squark production

868: in the MSSM, the signal rates are typically lower in the LHT models than in the

869: MSSM because there is no partner to the gluon. Recall that  in supersymmetric

870: models, the partner of the gluon, the gluino, is typically the primary particle

871: for squark production. This yields larger cross-section and additional hard

872: jets in the final state, which help to discriminate from the background. In LHT

873: models however, the gluon is a has no partner. It should be noted, however,

874: that the somewhat pessimistic results of this section strongly depend on the

875: underlying scenario. For example, by lowering the breaking scale $f$, the

876: production cross-section of T-odd quarks at the LHC are greatly enhanced.

877: Fig.\ref{fig:qxsec} gives a rough picture of the dependence on $f$; the actual

878: dependence is more complicated because of the intricate energy dependence of

879: the cuts.

880: 

881: Mirror leptons, are only produced through weak processes, but may play a role

882: in the decay  signatures of the heavy quarks if they are  lighter than the

883: heavy quarks or gauge bosons. Then the leptonic branching ratio of the neutral

884: gauge boson $Z_H$ is close to one, with opposite-sign same-flavor leptons. As

885: detailed above, this can be used to effectively suppress the SM background;

886: although some non-negligible statistical noise remains. Moreover, this decay

887: could also yield information about the spectrum of the T-odd particles. Clearly

888: detailed experimental studies along these lines will be required for a more

889: conclusive assessment.

890: 

891: \bigskip

892: 

893: \vspace{- .3 cm}

894: \section*{Acknowledgments}

895: This work was supported by the Schweizer Nationalfonds.

896: 

897: %\pagebreak

898: 

899: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

900: \frenchspacing

901: 

902: \bibitem{little}

903:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,

904:   %``Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction,''

905:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 513}, 232 (2001).

906: %  [hep-ph/0105239].

907:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105239;%%

908: 

909: \bibitem{littlest}

910:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz and A.~E.~Nelson,

911: %   ``The littlest Higgs,''

912:   %

913:   JHEP {\bf 0207}, 034 (2002).

914: %  [hep-ph/0206021].

915:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206021;%%

916: 

917: 

918: \bibitem{lhew}

919:   C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,

920:   %``Big corrections from a little Higgs,''

921:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 115002 (2003);\\

922: %  [hep-ph/0211124];\\

923:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211124;%%

924:   J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo,

925:   %``Constraining the littlest Higgs. ((U)),''

926:   JHEP {\bf 0310}, 062 (2003);\\

927: %  [hep-ph/0211218];\\

928:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211218;%%

929:   C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,

930:   %``Variations of little Higgs models and their electroweak constraints,''

931:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 035009 (2003).

932: %  [hep-ph/0303236].

933:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303236;%%

934: 

935: \bibitem{wudka}

936:    J.~Wudka,

937:   %``Natural and model-independent conditions for evading the limits on the

938:   %scale of new physics,''

939:   hep-ph/0307339.

940:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307339;%%   

941:   

942: 

943: \bibitem{LHT}

944:   H.~C.~Cheng and I.~Low,

945: %   ``Little hierarchy, little Higgses, and a little symmetry,''

946:   %

947:   JHEP {\bf 0408}, 061 (2004).

948: %  [hep-ph/0405243].

949:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405243;%%

950: 

951: \bibitem{hubmed}

952:   J.~Hubisz and P.~Meade,

953: %   ``Phenomenology of the littlest Higgs with T-parity,''

954:   %

955:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 035016 (2005).

956: %  [hep-ph/0411264].

957:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411264;%%

958:   

959: \bibitem{mirrormass}

960:   I.~Low,

961: %   ``T parity and the littlest Higgs,''

962:   JHEP {\bf 0410}, 067 (2004).

963: %  [hep-ph/0409025].

964:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409025;%%

965:   

966: \bibitem{hanetal}

967:   T.~Han, H.~E.~Logan, B.~McElrath and L.~T.~Wang,

968:   %``Phenomenology of the little Higgs model,''

969:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 095004 (2003).

970: %  [hep-ph/0301040].

971:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301040;%%

972: 

973: \bibitem{hubpaz}

974:   J.~Hubisz, S.~J.~Lee and G.~Paz,

975:   %``The flavor of a little Higgs with T-parity,''

976:   JHEP {\bf 0606}, 041 (2006).

977: %  [hep-ph/0512169].

978:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512169;%%

979:  

980: \bibitem{CompHEP}

981:   E.~Boos {\it et al.}  [CompHEP Collaboration],

982:   %``CompHEP 4.4: Automatic computations from Lagrangians to events,''

983:   Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 534}, 250 (2004).

984: %  [hep-ph/0403113].

985:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403113;%%

986: 

987: \bibitem{mad}

988:   F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer,

989:   %``MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,''

990:   JHEP {\bf 0302}, 027 (2003).

991: %  [hep-ph/0208156].

992:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208156;%%

993: 

994: \bibitem{susyjets}

995:   T.~Plehn, D.~Rainwater and P.~Skands,

996:   %``Squark and gluino production with jets,''

997:   hep-ph/0510144.

998:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510144;%%

999: 

1000: \bibitem{atlas}

1001: ATLAS Technical Design Report, Vol 1, CERN/LHCC-99-15, Chapt.~10;\\

1002: E.~Richter-Was, D.~Froidevaux and L.~Poggioli,

1003: %''ATLFAST 2.0 a fast simulation package for ATLAS''

1004:  ATL-PHYS-98-131 (1998).

1005: 

1006: \bibitem{msugralhc}

1007:   B.~K.~Gjelsten, D.~J.~Miller and P.~Osland,

1008:   %``Measurement of SUSY masses via cascade decays for SPS 1a,''

1009:   JHEP {\bf 0412}, 003 (2004).

1010: %  [hep-ph/0410303].

1011:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410303;%%

1012: 

1013: \end{thebibliography}

1014: 

1015: \end{document}

1016: