1: %%\documentclass[12pt]{article} 

2: \documentclass[12pt,nofootinbib,preprint]{revtex4}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{color}

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

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

7: \newcommand{\br}{\begin{eqnarray}}

8: \newcommand{\er}{\end{eqnarray}}

9: \def\ET{\not\!\!{E_T}}

10: \def\ptm{E{\!\!\!/}_T} 

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

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

13: \def\bnq{\begin{eqnarray}}

14: \def\enq{\end{eqnarray}}

15: \def\barr{\begin{array}}

16: \def\earr{\end{array}}

17: \def\dis{\displaystyle}

18: \def\lsim{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle <}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}

19: \def\gsim{\buildrel{\scriptscriptstyle >}\over{\scriptscriptstyle\sim}}

20: \def\gev{\, {\rm GeV}}

21: %#############################

22: %#$\tan\beta \approx 3$ 

23: \def\lapp{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$<$}}

24:                     {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

25: \def\gapp{\mathrel{\rlap{\raise.5ex\hbox{$>$}}

26:                     {\lower.5ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

27: %\newcommand{\decay}[2]{

28: %\begin{picture}(25,20)(-3,3)

29: %\put(0,-20){\line(0,1){10}}

30: %\put(0,-20){\vector(1,0){15}}

31: %\put(0,0){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\ensuremath{#1}}}

32: %\put(25,-20){\makebox(0,0)[lc]{\ensuremath{#2}}}

33: %\end{picture}}

34: %#############################

35: \begin{document}

36: % \today

37: %December 07, 2006

38: %\begin{flushright}

39: %{\bf version -8}

40: %\end{flushright}

41: \bibliographystyle{revtex}

42: 

43: \title{LHC signals of $T$-odd heavy quarks in the Littlest Higgs model}

44: \author{Debajyoti Choudhury\footnote{debchou@physics.du.ac.in}

45: and Dilip Kumar Ghosh\footnote{dkghosh@physics.du.ac.in}

46: }

47: \affiliation{\vspace*{0.1in}Department of Physics $\& $ Astrophysics, \\ 

48: University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India}

49: %\footnote{debchou@physics.du.ac.in\\ dkghosh@physics.du.ac.in}}

50: 

51: \vspace*{1.in}

52: \begin{abstract}

53: Recently proposed Little Higgs models present a viable solution to

54: the naturalness problem of the Standard Model. An additional discrete

55: symmetry, called $T$-parity, has been included in the simplest Little

56: Higgs models to evade the constraints arising from electroweak

57: precision data. The Littlest Higgs model with $T$-parity (LHT) not only

58: predicts a set of new fermions in addition to the heavy gauge bosons

59: of the original Little Higgs model, but also provides a new candidate

60: for dark matter. In this paper, we study two particularly 

61: interesting signatures of $T$-odd fermion pair

62: production at the LHC, namely,

63:  $(a)$~$ jj + \ell^+\ell^- +\ptm $ and 

64:  $(b)$~$ jj + b \bar b + \ell^\pm +\ptm $.

65: Using a parton level Monte Carlo event

66: generator, we evaluate both the signal as well as the standard model

67: background profile for a selected set of model parameters thereby 

68: developing a good discriminator. Finally, 

69: we scan the  parameter space and delineate 

70: the possible discovery region in the same.

71: \end{abstract}

72: 

73: \maketitle

74: 

75: \section{Introduction}

76: \label{sect:Intro}

77: The experimental observation of the Higgs boson(s) and the

78: determination of its (their) properties is crucial for the

79: understanding of Electro-Weak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB)

80: and hence constitutes one the major goals of the presently

81: operating high energy collider viz. the Tevatron (Run II) as well as future ones

82: such as the forthcoming LHC and the planned International Linear

83: Collider (ILC). This process is rendered even more complicated 

84: by the fact that within the Standard Model (SM), the Higgs boson 

85: mass is not predicted uniquely. 

86: Negative results from current search efforts, thus, serve only to set a

87: lower bound of $114$ GeV on its mass\cite{Eidelman:2004wy,lep}.  

88: Precision electroweak data, on the other hand,

89: favor a light Higgs boson with a mass $m_H \leq 186 \,$ GeV at 95\%

90: CL \cite{higmax}.

91: 

92: 

93: This immediately leads us to the fine-tuning problem in the SM, namely 

94: that there is no symmetry which can protect the Higgs mass 

95: $M_h$ from large radiative corrections from the ultra-violet. 

96: As this constitutes an outstanding theoretical problem with the SM,

97: several mechanisms to protect the Higgs mass have been 

98: proposed; examples include technicolor, supersymmetry and 

99: a low fundamental quantum gravity scale.

100: Of these, supersymmetry is especially popular

101: as the stabilization of $M_h$ is assured in a {\em natural manner} due 

102: to the symmetry between the bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom in 

103: the theory. On the other hand, technicolor theories solve the

104: hierarchy problem by introducing some strong interactions at scales not too 

105: much above the electroweak scale. The low scale fundamental quantum gravity

106: models resolve the issue by just lowering the fundamental Planck scale.

107: Unfortunately though, 

108: despite intensive efforts over decades, no experimental hint 

109: for any of these scenarios has been forthcoming. 

110: Consequently, it is very

111: important to explore alternative mechanisms for EWSB that are 

112: testable in current or forthcoming experiments.

113: Recently, such an alternative mechanism for solving the naturalness problem

114: of the standard model has been developed~\cite{lh0}.

115: Dubbed as Little Higgs models, these incorporate the SM

116: Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of some global symmetry which is 

117: spontaneously broken at a high scale $\Lambda ( \equiv 4\pi f) \sim 10 $ TeV. 

118: The low energy 

119: effective theory is described by a non-linear sigma model.

120: With the introduction of new gauge bosons and partners of the 

121: top quark with masses of 

122: the order of $f$, the quadratically divergent contributions to

123: the Higgs mass are exactly cancelled at the one loop level, thereby 

124: ameliorating the fine-tuning problem.

125: 

126: 

127: However, in the presence of such a plethora of new particles, the

128: electroweak observables receive additional contributions at the tree

129: level due to the exchange of heavy gauge bosons (as also from a

130: non-zero vacuum expectation of a triplet Higgs field that often 

131: comes about naturally).  These additional contributions are in direct conflict

132: with experimental data, unless the scale $f$ is above $\sim 5$

133: TeV\cite{lh_ew}. For such a large value of $f$, one faces the

134: re-introduction of a fine

135: tuning between the cutoff scale ($\sim 4\pi f$) for the model 

136: and the weak scale.  To circumvent

137: this serious problem of the original Little Higgs model, a new

138: discrete symmetry, called $T$-parity (and analogous to the $R$ parity in

139: the MSSM), has been introduced. The Littlest

140: Higgs Model with $T$-parity (LHT) \cite{lht1,lht2,lht3,lht4} provides

141: a fully realistic and consistent model which satisfies the electroweak

142: precision data. Under this new symmetry all standard model fields are

143: $T$-even, while the new heavy partners are $T$-odd. As a consequence,

144: all $T$-odd fields can only be generated in pairs. Furthermore, after

145: the electroweak symmetry breaking, mixing between standard model

146: gauge bosons with their $T$-odd counterparts is prohibited by this

147: new discrete symmetry.  Hence, there are no tree level contributions

148: from $T$-odd heavy partners of the standard model particles to the

149: electroweak precision observables. With all such corrections arising

150: only at the one loop level or beyond, these are naturally small.  As

151: a result of this, the electroweak precision data now allows for 

152: a relatively low

153: value of new particle mass scale $f\sim 500$ GeV \cite{lht3}, thereby 

154: leading to copious production of different $T$-odd heavy

155: partners of the standard model particles at the LHC as well as future

156: $e^+ e^-$ linear collider (ILC)~\cite{lht2,wyler,belyaev,carena,kingman}.

157: Another interesting feature of $T$-parity is the existence of a

158: neutral and colorless weakly interacting stable $T$-odd particle (LTP)

159: $A_H$, the heavy partner of the hypercharge gauge boson; very often

160: termed the {\it heavy photon}, it is a good candidate for cold

161: dark matter \cite{lht_dm}. 

162: 

163: The long waited $pp$ Large Hadron Collider (LHC), to be operative in a year

164: from now, will be of great importance in revealing

165: the mystery of the electroweak symmetry breaking. While the major thrust

166: would be on the discovery of the standard model Higgs, it will also

167: provide a great opportunity to explore alternate mechanisms of the

168: electroweak symmetry breaking. This has motivated some phenomenological

169: studies of the Littlest Higgs model with $T$-parity

170: \cite{wyler,belyaev,carena,kingman,biswarup}. In this paper, we revisit the

171: LHC signatures of the first two generation $T$-odd heavy quark

172: pair production within the Littlest Higgs model(LHT) \cite{belyaev, wyler,

173: carena}. Performing a detailed estimation of the

174: observability of two type of signals $(a)$ $jj + \ell^+\ell^- + \ptm$

175: and $(b)$ $jj + b {\bar b} +\ell^\pm + \ptm$, we provide the discovery region

176: at the LHC of the LHT parameter space. The

177: rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section

178: \ref{sect:model}, we briefly discuss the main features of the

179: model. In Section \ref{sect:t-oddprod}, we discuss pair production of

180: $T$-odd heavy quarks and its two body decay branching ratio into

181: standard model quarks and $T$-odd heavy gauge bosons. In Section

182: \ref{sect:sigback}, signal and background events are

183: discussed in detail. In section \ref{sect:discover}, we discuss the possible 

184: $5\sigma $ discovery region in the LHT parameter space using the

185: signal $(b)$. Finally, our conclusions are given in Section

186: \ref{sect:concls}.

187: 

188: \section{The Model}

189: \label{sect:model}

190: The Littlest Higgs model with $T$-parity has been studied in great

191: detail elsewhere \cite{lht1,lht2,lht3}, and here we briefly discuss

192: some important features of the model relevant for our analysis.  It is

193: a non-linear sigma model based on a $SU(5)$ global symmetry of which a

194: $[SU(2)_1\times U(1)_1] \times [SU(2)_2\times U(1)_2] $ subgroup is gauged.  

195: A discrete symmetry ($T$-parity), 

196: exchanging the two $[SU(2) \times U(1)]$ groups is naturally

197: introduced in the model.  At a scale $f$, the global symmetry is

198: spontaneously broken down to a $SO(5)$ group resulting in 14 massless

199: Nambu-Goldstone (NG) bosons \cite{lh0}.  Simultaneously, the gauged

200: symmetry is broken down to its subgroup $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_{\rm Y} $

201: identified as the standard model gauge group.  Consequently, of the 14

202: NG bosons, four are eaten by the heavy gauge bosons associated with

203: the broken symmetry. The remaining NG bosons decompose into a $T$-even

204: $SU(2)$ doublet $h$, considered to be the standard model Higgs

205: doublet, and a complex 

206: $T$-odd $SU(2)$ triplet $\Phi $, which acquires a mass

207: $M_{\Phi} = \sqrt{2} M_{h} f/v_{\rm SM}$ at one loop, with $M_h$ being

208: the standard model Higgs mass.  These Higgs bosons remain in the low

209: energy effective theory.

210: 

211: 

212: After electroweak symmetry breaking, the masses of the $T$-odd heavy 

213: partners of the photon $(A_H)$, $Z$-boson $(Z_H)$ and $W$-boson$(W_H)$ are 

214: given by 

215: \beq

216: \barr{rclcl}

217: & & M_{A_H} & \simeq &  \dis 

218: \frac{g^\prime f}{\sqrt{5}}\left[1 - \frac{5v^2_{\rm SM}}{8 f^2}

219: +...\right] \ ; 

220: \\[2ex]

221: M_{Z_H} & \simeq &  M_{W_H} & = & \dis g f \left[ 1 - \frac{5v^2_{\rm SM}}{8 f^2}+...\right] \ .

222:    \label{eq:gauge_mass}

223: \earr

224: \eeq

225: Here, $v_{\rm SM}\simeq 246 $ GeV is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale.

226: Since $g^\prime < g $,  $A_H$ is substantially lighter 

227: than other $T$-odd heavy gauge bosons. 

228: 

229: For consistent implementation of $T$-parity in the fermion sector, 

230: each  standard model fermion doublet must be replaced by a pair of 

231: fields $F_\alpha (\alpha =1,2)$ \cite{lht1,lht2,lht3}, where each 

232: $F_\alpha$ is a doublet under $SU(2)_\alpha$ and singlet under the other. 

233: The aforementioned $T$-parity

234: exchanges $F_1 $ and $F_2$. The $T$-even combination of $F_\alpha$ is 

235: identified with 

236: the standard model fermion doublet and the other ($T$-odd) combination

237: is its heavy partner $(F_H)$. To generate mass terms for these $T$-odd

238: heavy fermions through Yukawa interactions one requires additional $T$-odd 

239: $SU(2)$ singlet fermions in the theory as suggested in \cite{lht1,lht2,lht3}. 

240: Assuming universal and flavour diagonal Yukawa coupling $\kappa $, 

241: we have, for $U_H $ and $D_H$ (the $T$-odd heavy partners of 

242: the standard model quarks $(u,c)$ and $(d,s)$ respectively),  

243: \bnq

244: M_{D_H} \simeq \sqrt{2} \, \kappa \, f \ ,

245: \qquad

246: M_{U_H}  \simeq \sqrt{2} \, \kappa \, f \, 

247:          \left(1 - \, \frac{v^2_{\rm SM}}{8 \, f^2} \right) \ .

248: \label{eq:Toddmass}

249: \enq 

250: Since $f \gapp 500 \gev$, 

251: it is clear from eq.(\ref{eq:Toddmass}) that the up and down 

252: type $T$-odd heavy partners have nearly equal masses.  We will not discuss the

253: top sector of the model, since in this paper our main focus will be on the

254: first two generation heavy quarks. Further details

255: about the implementation of $T$-parity in the fermion sector including the

256: top quark sector can be found in Refs.\cite{lht1,lht2,lht3,belyaev}. 

257: In summary, the complete spectrum of the 

258: Littlest Higgs model(LHT) with $T$-parity relevant for our analysis will only

259: depend on two free parameters: the new physics scale $f$ and the flavour 

260: independent Yukawa coupling $\kappa $ whose range is 

261: $0.5 \leq \kappa \leq 1.5 $ \cite{lht2,lht3}.

262: 

263: \section{The $1^{\rm st}$ and $2^{\rm nd}$ generation $T$-odd heavy quark 

264: production and decay}

265: \label{sect:t-oddprod}

266: Based on the model of section \ref{sect:model}, we now calculate the leading 

267: order production rates of $T$-odd quarks at the LHC. 

268: The latter can be copiously pair produced ($Q_H \bar Q_H$) as long as their 

269: masses are not too large. With the dominant production

270: mechanism being the QCD one (both $q \bar q$ and $g g $ initiated), 

271: one may safely neglect the sub-dominant weak production amplitudes. 

272: In fact, the latter contributions to $Q_H \bar Q_H $ 

273: production are even smaller 

274: than those leading 

275: to electroweak processes such as $u u \to U U$ or $ d d \to D D$. Although 

276: the last-mentioned lead to interesting final states containing like-sign 

277: dilepton pairs, we choose to neglect these.in the current analysis.

278: 

279: As the heavy quarks corresponding to the first two generations are

280: nearly degenerate, and lead to very

281: similar final state configurations, we sum over all four flavours.  In

282: our numerical analysis, we use the CTEQ5L parton distribution

283: functions\cite{cteq5}.  Variation of the factorisation scale over the

284: range $m_{Q_H}^2 / 4 < Q^2 < 4 m_{Q_H}^2$ corroborates the naive expectation

285: of the signal cross-section falling off with an increase in the scale,

286: and, to be conservative, we choose $Q^2 = 4 m_{Q_H}^2$.  In

287: Fig.~\ref{fig:csprod}, we display the production rate of the $T$-odd

288: quark as a function of the scale $f$ for three values of the parameter

289: $\kappa$ namely $\kappa = 0.6,1 $ and $1.5$. Although the production cross

290: section depends only on the mass of the heavy quark, and thus on the 

291: product $\kappa f$, both the branching 

292: fractions as well as the decay distributions have additional 

293: dependence on the scale $f$ and hence we choose to display the three 

294: curves in Fig.\ref{fig:csprod} so as to facilitate future comparisons.

295: 

296: \begin{figure}[!h]

297: \begin{center}

298: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{csprod1-scale.ps}

299: \end{center}

300: %\vspace*{-1cm}

301: \caption{\em The variation of the leading order $T$-odd quark pair $(

302: U_H \bar U_H+D_H \bar D_H+C_H \bar C_H+S_H \bar S_H)$ production 

303: with the scale $f$ for $\kappa = 0.6,1 $ and $1.5$.}

304: \label{fig:csprod}

305: \end{figure}

306: 

307: Once these heavy $T$-odd quarks are produced, they will promptly decay

308: into ($T$-even) standard model quarks and $T$-odd heavy gauge bosons

309: $(W^\pm_H, Z_H,A_H)$.  Now, as we have indicated in Sec.\ref{sect:model}, 

310: the masses of the latter are functions only of $f$. As a comparison of 

311: eq.(\ref{eq:Toddmass}) with eqs.(\ref{eq:gauge_mass}) shows, $U_H$ and 

312: $D_H$ are always significantly heavier than the $T$-odd gauge bosons, 

313: with a slightest hint of phase suppression in $Q_H \to q + Z_H \,  (q' + W_H)$ 

314: appearing only for the smallest allowed values for $\kappa$. 

315: More importantly, the 

316: $Q_H q^{(\prime)} V_H$ couplings too depend on $f$. Whereas the 

317: couplings $U_H-d-W_H$ and $D_H-u-W_H$ are of equal strength owing to 

318: $SU(2)$ invariance of the Lagrangian,

319: \begin{figure}[tb]

320: \begin{center}

321: \vspace*{10ex}

322: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{brfig.ps}

323: \end{center}

324: \vspace*{-9.5cm}

325: \caption{\em Variation of the decay branching ratio of heavy Quarks in the 

326: LHT model with the scale $f$ for two values of 

327: the parameter $\kappa = 0.6$ (left panel) and $1$ (right panel).}

328: \label{fig:brfig}

329: \end{figure}

330: \[

331:      g_{U_H d W_H} = g_{D_H u W_H} = g / \sqrt{2} \ ,

332: \]

333: the couplings to the $Z_H$ and $A_H$ have a crucial dependence 

334: on isospin ($T_3$), namely

335: \[

336: g_{f_H f Z_H} = g \, c_H \, T_{3f} + g' \, s_H \, Y' \ ,

337: \qquad

338: g_{f_H f A_H} = - g \, s_H \, T_{3f} + g' \, c_H \, Y' \ ,

339: \]

340: where $Y' = - 1/ 10$ and $\theta_H$ is the Weinberg angle in the heavy sector:

341: \[

342:   s_H  \equiv \sin\theta_H \simeq

343:  \frac{5 \, g \, g'} {5 \, g^2 - g'^2} \; \frac{v_{\rm SM}^2}{4 \, f^2}

344: \ ,

345: \qquad

346:   c_H  \equiv \cos\theta_H \ .

347: \]

348: This immediately opens up the possibility for a cancellation in 

349: $g_{D_H d A_H}$ for a relatively small $f$, and consequently 

350: in the suppression of $\Gamma(D_H \to d + A_H)$ for small $f$. This,

351: for example, is reflected in 

352: Fig.~\ref{fig:brfig} where we display the variation of the 

353: two body decay branching ratios of the $T$-odd quarks into standard

354: model quarks and heavy $T$-odd gauge bosons as a function of the scale

355: $f$. 

356: 

357: \section{Signal and background analysis}

358: \label{sect:sigback}

359: 

360: In this Section, we discuss the LHT signal arising from the production

361: and decay of heavy $T$-odd quarks of first two generations. We also

362: discuss possible standard model backgrounds and elaborate on the

363: selection criteria necessary for such signals to be significantly

364: observed over the standard model background.

365: % In our analysis we neglect fragmentation effects by treating all light 

366: % quarks/partons $(u,d,s,c,b)$ as jets and their four momenta are same 

367: % as that of jets. 

368: The large number of diagrams contributing to the standard model

369: background are calculated using the helicity amplitude package {\sc

370: Madgraph} \cite{madgraph}. To estimate the number of signal and

371: background events as well as their phase space distribution(s), we use

372: a parton level Monte-Carlo event generator. As {\em acceptance criteria}

373: for both the signal and background events we use the following initial set

374: of cuts:

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

376:  \begin{enumerate}

377:  \item We require that both jets and leptons should appear 

378: within the detectors' rapidity coverage, namely

379: \beq

380:   \mid \eta(\ell, j)\mid <2.5 \ .

381:      \label{cut:eta}

382: \eeq 

383: 

384: \item 

385: The leptons and jets should have energy large enough to render 

386: them visible to the detector. Imposing this in terms of transverse momenta, 

387: we demand that

388: \beq

389:  p_T^{{\rm jets}} > 30~{\rm GeV} \ , \qquad 

390:  p_T^{{\ell}} > 20~{\rm GeV} \ .

391:    \label{cut:pt}

392: \eeq

393: \item Finally, we must also ensure that the jets and leptons are well

394:   separated so that they can be identified as individual entities. For

395:   this, we use the well-known cone algorithm defined in terms of a 

396:   cone angle $\Delta R_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \sqrt{ \left

397:   (\Delta \phi_{\alpha\beta} \right)^2 + \left (\Delta

398:   \eta_{\alpha\beta} \right )^2} $ with $\Delta \phi$ and $\Delta \eta$ 

399:   being the azimuthal angular separation and rapidity difference

400:   between two particles. We demand that 

401:   \beq

402:     \Delta R_{jj} > 0.7 \ , \quad

403:     \Delta R_{\ell j} > 0.4 \ ,\quad

404:      \Delta R_{\ell \ell}> 0.3 \ .

405:      \label{cut:deltaR}

406:    \eeq

407:  \end{enumerate}

408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

409: While some of the above might seem too harsh as acceptance criteria,

410: it should be realized that simulating an actual detector environment

411: would typically necessitate further refinements and that the requirements

412: of eqs.(\ref{cut:eta}--\ref{cut:deltaR}) are to be treated more as

413: robust guidelines. Indeed, harsher requirement on jet rapidity or 

414: transverse momenta would suppress the QCD background events (wherein

415: jets come 

416: from initial or final state radiation) without affecting the signal

417: to any significant degree.

418: 

419: It stands to reason that finite resolution effects result in a difference 

420: between the energy as measured by the detector and its true value. To account 

421: for this in a realistic fashion, we impose a Gaussian smearing on the 

422: measured energy with a width given by 

423: \[

424: \frac{\delta E_j}{E_j} = \left [ \frac{(0.6)^2{\rm GeV}}{E_j} 

425: + (0.04)^2\right ]^{1/2} ,

426: \qquad

427: \frac{\delta E_\ell}{E_\ell} = \left [ \frac{(0.12)^2{\rm GeV}}{E_\ell} + (0.01)^2\right ]^{1/2} 

428: \]

429: respectively.  All the cuts described above as well as any further

430: selection criteria are to be imposed after smearing the energies as

431: above.  We may now discuss our strategies for the detection of $T$-odd

432: heavy quarks at the LHC. For the purpose of contrasting the 

433: phase space distributions of signal and background events, we choose 

434: to work with two particular points in the parameter set as displayed in  

435: Table \ref{tab:param}.

436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

437: \begin{table}[!h]

438: \begin{center}

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

440: \hline

441: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{LHT parameter set}  \\

442: \hline

443: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\bf A} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\bf B} \\

444: \hline

445: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$f = 1$~(TeV),~~$\kappa = 0.6 $} &

446: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$f = 1$~(TeV),~~$\kappa = 1.0 $}\\

447: \hline

448: $M_{Q_H}~(GeV) $ &  $M_{V_H}$~(GeV) & $ M_{A_H}$~(GeV) & $M_{Q_H}$~(GeV)

449: & $M_{V_H}$~(GeV) & $ M_{A_H}$~(GeV) \\

450: \hline

451: 842 & 648 & 154 & 1404 & 648 & 154 \\

452: \hline

453: \end{tabular}

454: \caption{\em The LHT parameter set for the signal study. 

455: $V_H$ corresponds to $W^\pm_H$ and $Z_H$.}

456: \label{tab:param}

457: \end{center}

458: \end{table}

459: 

460: The simplest final state would arise when both $Q_H$ and $\bar Q_H$

461: would decay in the $(q + A_H)$ channel. However, the observed final

462: state, namely dijet with missing transverse momentum is fraught with a

463: very large SM background. In fact, most final state configurations 

464: arising as a result of even one of $Q_H$ and $\bar Q_H$ decaying directly 

465: into  $(q + A_H)$ suffer on this account. In view of such considerations, 

466: we concentrate on two particular modes as described below.

467: 

468: 

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: \subsection{\boldmath $ pp \to Q_H \bar Q_H \to q^\prime {\bar q^\prime}

471: + W^+_H W^-_H \to jj + \ell^+ \ell^- + \ptm $} 

472: This particular final

473: state arises when both the $T$-odd heavy quarks decay into the ($q

474: + W^\pm_H$) mode (with a branching fraction as shown in

475: Fig.\ref{fig:brfig}). The $T$-odd gauge bosons $(W^\pm_H)$ decay into

476: the standard model gauge boson $W^\pm$ and the LTP $A_H$ with $\sim 100\%$

477: branching ratio. And finally, both the $W$'s decay leptonically with

478: total branching fraction of $\sim (2/9)^2$. The missing transverse energy

479: $(\ptm )$ is due to the presence of two heavy LTPs $(A_H)$ and two

480: neutrinos. For ease of detection, we discount $\tau$'s here and hence 

481: $\ell \equiv e, \mu $. And, while for the signal events 

482: the jets ($j$) are occasioned by hard processes involving two 

483: light quarks $(u,d,s,c)$ in the final state, for the SM background one must 

484: also include hard  gluon(s). 

485: 

486: The major QCD-driven background to this signal emanates 

487: from the top pair production process

488: $pp \to t\bar t \to b \bar b W^+ W^- \to b \bar b \ell^-\ell^+ \ptm $

489: with both $b$-jets being misidentified as light quark jets. Here we

490: assume that the mis-tagging probability of each $b$-jet as a non-$b$

491: one is $40\%$. 

492: The second important source of background 

493: is the SM process $pp \to W^+W^-jj$, where both $W$s

494: decay leptonically and the two jets arise from either

495: quarks or gluons (initial state radiation in the partonic subprocess). 

496: 

497: In addition to $W^+W^-jj$, there are other electroweak processes

498: contributing to the background, such as $ZZjj$, with one $Z$ decaying

499: into leptons and the other into neutrinos. Clearly, this background

500: may be largely eliminated by requiring that the invariant mass of the

501: lepton-pair be sufficiently away from $M_Z$. In an analogous fashion,

502: the part of this same background wherein the jet-pair is a resultant

503: of a $W$ or $Z$ decay, may be further reduced by stipulating that the

504: dijet invariant mass not be close to either $M_W$ or $M_Z$. In other 

505: words, our first selection cut (over and above the acceptance 

506: criteria) consists of

507:  \beq

508: M_{jj} \not \in \left[ 65,105 \right ]~{\rm GeV} \; ,\qquad 

509: M_{\ell \ell} \not \in \left[ 75,105 \right ]~{\rm GeV} \ .

510: \label{eq:cut_minv_jl}

511:  \eeq 

512: Similar arguments also hold for other on-shell modes such as

513: $W^+ W^- Z$ or $3\, W$'s. Of course, events wherein all the SM gauge

514: bosons are off-shell escape this cut, but then these appear only at a very

515: high order in perturbation theory and, consequently, are suppressed.

516: 

517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

518: \begin{table}[!ht]

519: %\footnotesize

520: \begin{center}

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

522: \hline

523: Parameter set $\Rightarrow $ & {\bf A} & {\bf B} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}

524: {$\sigma_{\rm background}$(fb)} \\ \hline

525: Cuts $\Downarrow$ &$\sigma_{\rm sig.}$(fb)&$\sigma_{\rm sig.}$(fb)&

526: $\qquad t \bar t \qquad $ & $W^+W^-jj $  \\ \hline 

527: Acceptance & 4.28~&0.18  & 1095 & 204 \\

528: \hline

529: $ M_{jj} \not\in [65, 105]~{\rm GeV}$ & 4.19~&0.18  & 892 &168  \\

530: \hline

531: $ M_{\ell\ell} \not\in [75,105]~{\rm GeV} $ & 3.92~&0.17 & 714 &136  \\

532: \hline

533: $ \ptm > 200 $ GeV & 2.48~&0.17 &5.6 & 9.33  \\

534: \hline

535: $ \ptm > 300 $ GeV & 1.40~&0.13&0.65 &3.12  \\

536: \hline

537: $ \ptm > 400 $ GeV & 0.62~&0.10 &0.10 & 1.16  \\

538: \hline

539: \end{tabular}

540: \caption{\em The effect of incremental increase of cuts on the 

541: signal and background rates (fb) for the process $pp \to Q_H {\bar Q_H}

542: \to q {\bar q} W^+_H W^-_H \to jj+ \ell^+ \ell^- + \ptm $.

543: The LHT parameter sets {\bf A} and {\bf B} are defined in 

544: Table \ref{tab:param}.}

545: \label{tab:sig_jjll}

546: \end{center}

547: \end{table}

548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

549: Clearly, the signal events are not expected to be affected seriously 

550: by the imposition of eq.(\ref{eq:cut_minv_jl}), since the jets therein 

551: arise directly from $Q_H$ decay, whereas the two leptons are the result 

552: of the decay of two different $W$'s. By the same token, the $t\bar t$

553: as well as the aforementioned $W^+W^-jj$ background also largely escape

554: this cut. This is illustrated by Table \ref{tab:sig_jjll}, which displays 

555: the incremental effect of these two cuts on the major background as well 

556: as on the signal (for two particular points in the parameter space). 

557: Of course, the effect of the selection cut (as well as the acceptance 

558: criteria) on the signal cross section would depend on the masses of the 

559: $T$-odd quark and gauge bosons, and can be inferred from a comparison of the 

560: total cross sections (Fig.\ref{fig:csprod}) with the post-cut effective 

561: cross-sections displayed in Fig.\ref{fig:csjjll}.

562: 

563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

564: \begin{figure}[!ht]

565: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{2j2lmet_sig.ps}

566: \caption{\em The variation of the signal $(pp \to Q_H {\bar Q_H} \to 

567: jj+\ell^+\ell^- + \ptm) $ cross-section with the 

568: scale $f$ after

569: imposing the acceptance criteria (eqs.\ref{cut:eta}--\ref{cut:deltaR}) 

570: as well as the selection cut of eq.(\ref{eq:cut_minv_jl}).}

571: \label{fig:csjjll}

572: \end{figure}

573: 

574: 

575: 

576: As is evinced from Table \ref{tab:sig_jjll}, the number of $t\bar t$

577: and $W^+W^-jj$ background events which survive eq.(\ref{eq:cut_minv_jl})

578: are still orders of magnitude higher than the typical signal event

579: rates. Thus, additional selection criteria are called for. An examination 

580: of the phase space distributions shows that missing transverse

581: energy  $(\ptm )$ is a very good discriminatory variable. This is not 

582: unexpected as the $\ptm$ in the background events arises mainly from 

583: the two neutrinos, each of which come from the decay of a $W$ and hence 

584: would typically have a transverse momentum of the order of $m_W$ or smaller.

585: The signal events, on the other hand, have, apart from the two neutrinos, two 

586: $A_H$'s each of which are the decay products of a very heavy particle. In 

587: Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmjjll}, we show the differential 

588: cross sections corresponding to the two major backgrounds as well as 

589: the signal (4 particular points in the parameter space). 

590: 

591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

592: \begin{figure}[!ht]

593: \vspace*{-5.2cm}

594: \hspace*{-1.5cm}

595: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{dsig_dptm_2j2l.ps}

596: \hspace*{-2.2cm}

597: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{dsig_dptjj_2j2l.ps}

598: \vspace*{-1cm}

599: \caption{\em {\em (a)} Missing $E_T$ distribution 

600: for the $jj \ell^+\ell^- + \ptm $ final 

601: state. {\em (b)} Distribution in scalar sum of the jet transverse energies.

602: Shown are the two dominant SM backgrounds as well as the 

603: signal for 4 representative points in the $(f, \kappa)$ parameter space.}

604: \label{fig:dist_ptmjjll}

605: \end{figure}

606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

607: 

608: It is immediately apparent that imposing a strong requirement on

609: $\ptm$ would result in a significant improvement in the signal to

610: noise ratio.  In Table \ref{tab:sig_jjll}, we illustrate this for

611: three choices of $\ptm^{\rm min}$. A second variable of some interest

612: is the scalar sum of the transverse energies of the two jets. Although 

613: it is not as discriminatory as $\ptm$, it can be of importance in 

614: estimating the masses of the quarks and the gauge bosons if a signal

615: is observed.

616: 

617: \subsection { \boldmath $ pp \to Q_H \bar Q_H \to q^\prime{\bar q}

618: + W^\pm_H Z_H \to jj + b \bar b + \ell^\pm + \ptm $}

619: This final state arises when one of the $T$-odd heavy quarks decays 

620: into $q + W^\pm_H$ mode, while the other one decays into $q+Z_H$ 

621: (the third mode, viz. $Q_H \to q + A_H$ can be dominant only for 

622: small $f$ and that too just for the up-type quarks alone). 

623: Each of the gauge bosons undergoes a two-body decay to a 

624: LTP and a SM boson, viz. 

625: $W_H^\pm  \to W^\pm + A_H$ and

626: $Z_H \to h + A_H$, with nearly $100\%$ branching ratio. 

627: And, in the final stages of the cascade, we consider only the 

628: leptonic decay of the $W$ (branching fraction of $\sim 2/9$), whereas

629: for the SM Higgs, with an assumed mass of $M_h = 120$ GeV, 

630: we consider the dominant decay mode, viz. $b \bar b $ (branching 

631: fraction of $0.68$). 

632: 

633: The collider signature is an interesting one and consists

634: of an isolated hard lepton $(\ell^\pm)$, four well separated jets 

635: and a large missing transverse momentum, which owes itself to the 

636: presence of two heavy LTPs $(A_H)$ and a neutrino from $W$ decay. 

637: Furthermore, of the four jets, two would be tagged as $b$-jets. 

638: We assume here that the efficiency for tagging an individual 

639: $b$-jet is $\epsilon_b = 0.6 $. 

640: 

641: The major background to this particular channel 

642: comes from the following standard model processes:

643: \begin{itemize}

644: \item Top pair production with one top decaying 

645: hadronically and the other leptonically: 

646: $pp \to t\bar t \to b \bar b W^+ W^- \to b \bar b 

647: jj \ell^\pm \ptm $. 

648: \item $pp \to W^+h jj \to b {\bar b} jj + \ell^\pm \ptm $, 

649: where the $W$ decays leptonically and $h$ decays

650: into pair of $b$-jets, while the light quark jets 

651: originate mainly from initial state radiation.

652: \item $pp \to W^\pm Z jj \to b {\bar b} jj + \ell^\pm \ptm $, 

653: where $W$ decays leptonically and $Z$ decays

654: into pair of $b$-jets. Again, the light quark jets are associated with

655: initial state radiation.

656: \end{itemize}

657: 

658: On imposition of just the acceptance criteria

659: (eqs.\ref{cut:eta}--\ref{cut:deltaR}), the signal cross-section is

660: $2.08$~fb and $0.077$ fb for LHT parameter 

661: sets {\bf A} and {\bf B} respectively, whereas the background arising 

662: from top pair production is $8930 $ fb as can be seen from 

663: Table \ref{tab:sig_jjbb}. Clearly, some additional cuts are demanded, 

664: especially 

665: to remove the $t \bar t$ background, without suppressing the 

666: signal cross section. The first such selection criterion is 

667: exactly the one imposed in the previous subsection, namely that 

668: the invariant mass of the non-$b$ dijet pair should not be too

669: close to $M_W$ or $M_Z$. In other words, that 

670: \beq

671:     M_{jj} \not \in \left[ 65,105 \right ]~{\rm GeV}.

672:     \label{cut:mjj}

673: \eeq

674: This, clearly, would help eliminate the bulk of the $t \bar t$

675: background (see Fig.\ref{fig:distminv}). 

676: In fact, the reduction factor is as large as 100 whereas the 

677: signal is hardly affected. 

678: Also eliminated would be the resonant contributions to

679: the second and third backgrounds listed above, i.e those where the

680: $jj$ pair resulted from the decay of a gauge boson ($WWh$ and $WZh$

681: for the second; $WWZ$, $WZZ$ for the third)\footnote{Since these are 

682: much smaller than the $t \bar t$ background (as well as other 

683: QCD contributions), we do not list them separately, although we de 

684: include these in our analysis.}

685:  

686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

687: \begin{figure}[tb]

688: \vspace*{-2cm}

689: \hspace*{-2cm}

690: \includegraphics[scale=1.1]{dist_minv.ps}

691: \hspace*{-1cm}

692: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{jjbblmet_sig.ps}

693: 

694: %\vspace*{-1.2cm}

695: \caption{\em {\em (a)} $M_{jj},M_{b\bar b}$ and $M_{jjb}$ 

696: distributions for the standard model background 

697: to the ($jj+ b{\bar b} +\ell^\pm + \ptm$) final state arising from 

698: $t\bar t$ production. For comparison, $M_{b \bar b}$ distribution

699: for the signal ($f=1$ TeV and $\kappa = 0.6$) process is also given. 

700:  Only the selection cuts (eqs.\ref{cut:eta}--\ref{cut:deltaR}) 

701: have been applied and the $b$-tagging efficiency included.

702: {\em (b)} The variation of the signal  cross-section 

703: with the scale $f$, on imposition of the acceptance cuts 

704: (eqs.\ref{cut:eta}--\ref{cut:deltaR})

705: as well as the selection cuts of eqs.(\ref{cut:mjj}--\ref{cut:lnb}). 

706: }

707: \label{fig:distminv}

708: \end{figure}

709: 

710: Similarly, since the signal events correspond to the $b$-jets arising from 

711: the decay of Higgs, we demand that 

712: \beq

713: \mid M_{b \bar b}-M_h \mid < 30~{\rm GeV}.

714:     \label{cut:mhig}

715: \eeq

716: The $t \bar t$ background would again be suppressed substantially 

717: by this requirement as Fig.\ref{fig:distminv} amply suggests. Also suppressed,

718: to an extent, would be the $WZjj$ background, whereas the $Whjj$ one would 

719: be largely unaffected. 

720: 

721: Since, for the $t \bar t$ events, the invariant mass $M_{jjb}$ 

722: constructed from the two untagged jets and one of the $b$-jets would 

723: cluster around the top mass, we further demand that 

724: \beq

725:  \mid M_{jjb}-M_t\mid > 30 \gev \ .

726:         \label{cut:jjb}

727: \eeq

728: for each of the $b$-jets. 

729: Once again, this requirement would serve to reduce the $t \bar t$ 

730: background to an extent (see Fig.\ref{fig:distminv}). That this peaking is 

731: not as sharp as the one for $M_{jj}$ is understandable as this one involves 

732: measurement of three momenta and hence is subject to larger resolution effects.

733: 

734: At the partonic level, all the missing transverse 

735: momenta in the $t \bar t$ background events is due to a single neutrino 

736: born of $W$-decay. Thus, if we equate $ p^T_{\nu} = p^T_{\rm miss}$, the 

737: longitudinal component of the neutrino momentum 

738: can be obtained within a quadratic ambiguity 

739: using the constraint that the invariant mass $M_{\ell \nu} = M_{W}$.

740: This allows us, then, to reconstruct the second top. 

741: To further reduce the $t\bar t$ background, we may then demand 

742: that the invariant mass of the ($\ell\nu b$) combinations 

743: should not match $M_t$:

744: \beq

745:  \mid M_{\ell \nu b}-M_t\mid > 30 \gev \ .

746:         \label{cut:lnb}

747: \eeq

748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

749: \begin{table}[!h]

750: \footnotesize

751: \begin{center}

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

753: \hline

754: Parameter set $\Rightarrow $ & {\bf A} & {\bf B} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}

755: {$\sigma_{\rm background}$(fb) } \\ \hline

756: Cuts $\Downarrow $ & $\sigma_{\rm sig.}$(fb) & $\sigma_{\rm sig.}$(fb) &

757: $t \bar t $ & $W^\pm h jj $ & $ W^\pm Z jj $ \\ 

758: \hline

759: Acceptance & 2.08 &0.077 &8930 & 12 & 35.54  \\

760: $ M_{jj} \not\in [65, 105]~{\rm GeV}$   & 2.04 &0.077 &88.36 & 10.1 & 30.02 \\

761: $ \mid M_{b \bar b}-M_h \mid < 30~{\rm GeV} $ 

762: & 2.04 &0.077 &27.29 & 9.45  &18.65  \\

763: $ \mid M_{jj b}-M_t \mid \ , \mid M_{\ell\nu b}-M_t \mid > 30~{\rm GeV} $ 

764:  & 2.03 &0.077 &1.26 &  9.41 & 18.57 \\

765: $ \ptm > 200 $ GeV & 1.41 &0.069 &$\sim {\cal O}(10^{-4})$& 0.21   & 0.47 \\

766: $ \ptm > 300 $ GeV &0.84  &0.06&$ \lsim {\cal O}(10^{-5})$ &0.043 & 0.11 \\

767: $ \ptm > 400 $ GeV & 0.40 &0.05 &$\lsim  {\cal O}(10^{-7})$ &0.010 & 0.038\\

768: \hline

769: \end{tabular}

770: \caption{\em The incremental effect of cuts on the 

771: signal and background rates for the process $pp \to Q_H {\bar Q_H}

772: \to q {\bar q} W^\pm_H Z_H \to b {\bar b} j j+ \ell^\pm + \ptm $.

773: The LHT parameters are as in Table \ref{tab:sig_jjll}.

774: The $b$-tagging efficiency has been included.}

775: \label{tab:sig_jjbb}

776: \end{center}

777: \end{table}

778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

779: 

780: As Table~\ref{tab:sig_jjbb} shows, the imposition of the selection

781: criteria of eqs.(\ref{cut:mjj}--\ref{cut:lnb}) results in suppressing

782: the $t \bar t$ background by a factor $\gsim 7000$ while leaving the

783: signal size essentially unaltered. Also reduced significantly is the

784: $W^\pm Z jj$ background, whereas the $W^\pm h jj$ suffers only a minor

785: reduction. However, owing to their large initial sizes, they still

786: dominate the signal over the entire LHT parameter space. Indeed, as even a

787: cursory comparison of Figs.\ref{fig:distminv} shows, for $m_{Q_H}

788: \lsim 1400 \gev$, the sensitivity, at this stage, is

789: background-limited rather than signal-limited. This, then, motivates

790: the introduction of further selection cuts, and once again we consider

791: the missing transverse momentum as well as $\sum E_T^j$, the scalar

792: sum of the transverse energies of the two non-$b$ jets. 

793: 

794: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

795: \begin{figure}[tb]

796: \vspace*{-5.2cm}

797: \hspace*{-1.5cm}

798: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{dsig_dptm_bb.ps}

799: \hspace*{-2.2cm}

800: \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{dsig_dptjj_bb.ps}

801: \vspace*{-1cm}

802: \caption{\em {\em (a)} Missing $E_T$ distribution 

803: for the $jj b \bar b \ell^\pm + \ptm $ final 

804: state. {\em (b)} Distribution in scalar sum of the two non-$b$ 

805: jet transverse energies.

806: Shown are the two dominant SM backgrounds as well as the 

807: signal for 4 representative points in the $(f, \kappa)$ parameter space.}

808: \label{fig:dist_ptmbb}

809: \end{figure}

810: 

811: As Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmbb} shows, the background $\ptm$ distribution

812: is much softer in this case (as compared to that in

813: Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmjjll} for the signal considered previously). This

814: is understandable as the final state now has only one neutrino rather

815: than the two for the previous case. And while the corresponding

816: distributions for the signal events are softer too (again due the

817: decrease in the number of neutrinos), the reduction is not

818: severe. This, in part, is due to the fact that a large part of $\ptm$

819: accrues on account of the the two (heavy) $A_H$'s. The difference in the

820: small $\ptm$ end of the spectrum is attributable to the fact that, for

821: the ($ jj + \ell^+ \ell^- +\ptm $) case, the requirement on a minimum

822: transverse momenta for both the leptons generically implies a larger

823: $\ptm$ as well. In all, thus, the imposition of an identical cut on

824: $\ptm$ serves to improve the signal to background ratio for the ($jj +

825: b \bar b + \ell^\pm + \ptm $) signal to a much larger degree than was

826: the case for the ($ jj + \ell^+ \ell^- +\ptm $) one. The quantitative

827: effect can be gauged by a perusal of Table~\ref{tab:sig_jjbb}. Of particular 

828: interest is the fact that the ordinarily dominating $t \bar t$ can be 

829: eliminated to the extent of less than one event satisfying the selection 

830: criteria during the entire planned run of the LHC. 

831: 

832: While the distribution in $\sum E_T^j$ continues to be less

833: discriminatory than the one in $\ptm$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmbb}),

834: an examination of the same is, nevertheless, quite

835: instructive. Naively, for the signal events, one would have expected

836: this distribution to look very similar for the ($ jj + \ell^+ \ell^-

837: +\ptm $) and ($jj + b \bar b + \ell^\pm + \ptm $) cases, since the

838: jets are occasioned in both cases by the decay of the $Q_H$ to a SM

839: quark and a $W_H$ or $Z_H$ (with the bosons being very close in

840: mass). That the spectra look a little different is

841: attributable to the effect of the kinematical cuts which, of course,

842: are different in the two cases. Once again, the distribution for the

843: background is softer in the present case as compared to the previous

844: one. As Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmbb} suggests, it would be profitable to

845: exploit a combination of cuts on $\ptm$ and $\sum E_T^j$, so as to

846: improve the signal to background ratio, but given the rather sharp

847: improvement from a consideration of $\ptm$ alone, we desist from doing

848: this.

849: 

850: \section{Discovery Limit}

851: \label{sect:discover}

852: Having established that a suitable choice of selection criteria can

853: serve to suppress the admittedly large SM background, thereby

854: enhancing the signal profile (for at least some parameter choices

855: studied above), we now examine the extent to which this can be done.

856: As a comparative study of Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmjjll} and

857: Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmbb} immediately shows, the ($jj + b \bar b +

858: \ell^\pm + \ptm$) final state is expected to have a far better signal

859: to noise ratio than the ($jj + \ell^+ \ell^- + \ptm $) one. We may thus 

860: safely concentrate on the former in our efforts to delineate the 

861: parameter space.

862: 

863: \begin{figure}[!h]

864: \vspace*{-4.0cm}

865: \hspace*{-1.5cm}

866: \includegraphics[scale=0.62]{cont_cs.ps}

867: \hspace*{-0.8cm}

868: \includegraphics[scale=0.62]{cont_signif.ps}

869: 

870: \vspace*{-1.2cm}

871: \caption{\em {\em (a)} Constant cross section contours in the 

872: $\kappa$-$f$ plane for the ($jj+ b{\bar b} +\ell^\pm + \ptm$) final state.

873: Apart from the acceptance cuts (eqs.\ref{cut:eta}--\ref{cut:deltaR}), 

874: thee selection cuts of eqs.(\ref{cut:mjj}--\ref{cut:lnb}) and a further 

875: requirement of $\ptm > 400 \gev$ have been imposed. 

876: {\em (b)} The associated $5 \sigma \, (1 - {\rm C.L.} = 

877: 5.7 \times 10^{-7})$ contours for different values of the 

878: integrated luminosity.

879: }

880: \label{fig:contours}

881: \end{figure}

882: 

883: In Fig.\ref{fig:contours}($a$), we present constant cross section

884: contours for the same. Since the requirement of $\ptm > 400 \gev$

885: eliminates virtually all of the background (vide

886: Table~\ref{tab:sig_jjbb}), we have chosen to impose this. As is

887: expected, for much of the parameter space, the cross section is

888: primarily a function of the combination ($\kappa \, f$) alone. At low

889: $\kappa$ and low $f$ though, the smallness of $A_H$ mass results in a

890: suppression of the total missing transverse energy and hence to a

891: relatively larger loss due to the cut on $\ptm$.  Similarly, the

892: smallness of the masses of the other $T$-odd particles ($Q_H, W^\pm_H,

893: Z_H$) results in the daughter particles having smaller energies leading to

894: a loss on account of the other selection cuts. 

895: 

896: This, then, reinforces the argument of the previous section in favour

897: of either mass-dependent selection cuts or the comparison of

898: multivariate event distributions for both signal and background (a la

899: unbinned likelihood analysis). However, bearing in mind the nature of

900: this analysis, we deliberately choose not to adopt such sophisticated

901: tools and restrict ourselves to just the set of mass-dependent

902: selection cuts mentioned above. This, of course, amounts to a conservative

903: choice. Since both the signal and background

904: events are small in number, 

905: we estimate the discovery limit in the LHT parameter

906: space, assuming that they follow the

907: well known Poisson distribution. Thus, a $5\sigma $ discovery corresponds

908: to $1- \alpha \le 5.7\times 10^{-7}$, with $\alpha (N_0)$ 

909: being the Poisson probability for seeing upto $N_0$ events

910: when $N_b$ background events are expected.  In

911: Fig. \ref{fig:contours} ($b$) we show the $5\sigma $ discovery region

912: in the LHT parameter space by using the signal topology of $jj + b

913: \bar b + \ell^\pm + \ptm $.  As Fig.\ref{fig:contours}($b$) amply

914: exhibits, even with a single year of low-luminosity run $(L = 10~{\rm

915: fb}^{-1})$, a remarkable part of the LHT parameter space can be

916: probed. For the highest luminosity, the reach can be

917: further improved, with $f$ being probed all the way upto 1.4 TeV for

918: $\kappa = 0.6$, while $\kappa $ can be probed upto 1.5 for $f \sim 600

919: $ GeV. Conversely, for optimistic values of the parameters, a discovery can be

920: made with only a few months running time.

921: 

922: \section{Conclusions}

923: \label{sect:concls}

924: In this paper, we have discussed two types of signatures of the first 

925: two generations of heavy $T$-odd quarks predicted by the Littlest Higgs model

926: (LHT). It has been shown that $T$-odd heavy

927: quarks can be copiously pair produced ($Q_H \bar Q_H$) at the LHC 

928: as long as their masses are not too large \cite{belyaev, wyler,

929: carena}. As the heavy quarks corresponding to the first two generations are

930: nearly degenerate (Sec. \ref{sect:t-oddprod}), and lead to very

931: similar final state configurations, we summed over all four flavours.  In

932: our numerical analysis, we have used the CTEQ5L parton distribution

933: functions\cite{cteq5}. Whereas the production cross

934: section depends only on the mass of the heavy quark, and hence on the 

935: product $\kappa f$, both the branching 

936: fractions as well as the decay distributions have additional 

937: dependence on the scale $f$ as we have discussed in Sections \ref{sect:model}

938: and \ref{sect:t-oddprod}. 

939: Once these heavy $T$-odd quarks are produced they will promptly decay

940: into ($T$-even) standard model quarks and $T$-odd heavy gauge bosons

941: $(W^\pm_H, Z_H,A_H)$ with appropriate branching ratios which depends 

942: upon the scale $f$ and $\kappa $ as we have shown in Fig. \ref{fig:brfig}.

943: 

944: We mainly focussed on the following two types of signal configurations, viz.

945: $(a)~pp \to Q_H \bar Q_H \to q^\prime {\bar q^\prime}

946: + W^+_H W^-_H \to jj + \ell^+ \ell^- + \ptm $ and 

947: $(b)~pp \to Q_H \bar Q_H \to q^\prime{\bar q}

948: + W^\pm_H Z_H \to jj + b \bar b + \ell^\pm + \ptm $. 

949: The major background for the signal

950: type $(a)$ comes from the standard model processes

951: $t \bar t$ and $W^+W^-jj $, whereas the standard model processes 

952: $t\bar t$, $W^+hjj$ and $W^\pm Z jj$ comprise the major 

953: backgrounds for the signal type $(b)$. 

954: To estimate the number of signal and

955: background events as well as their phase space distribution(s), we have 

956: used a parton level Monte-Carlo event generator. At first, we forced 

957: both signal as well as background events to satisfy acceptance criteria

958: as discussed in Section \ref{sect:sigback}. We have then selected two sets 

959: of LHT parameters as displayed in 

960: Table~\ref{tab:param} for the purpose of comparing differential distributions 

961: as well as total cross-sections of signal and background events. 

962: It was found that 

963: the standard model background rates were order of 

964: magnitude higher than that of the signal events even after satisfying 

965: our acceptance and preliminary selection cuts. Hence, additional set of 

966: selection cuts were required 

967: to improve the signal rates. After studying distributions of different 

968: kinematic variables, we find that the missing transverse energy $(\ptm)$

969: would provide a good discriminator. 

970: As Fig.\ref{fig:dist_ptmjjll} shows, even after a stringent cut on 

971: $\ptm > 400 $ GeV, signal $(a)$ can supersede the background only for a

972: small range of LHT parameters.

973: However, for signal $(b)$, we find a rather encouraging

974: situation, as all three standard model background rates turn out to be 

975: significantly smaller than the signal rates once we impose the 

976: cut $\ptm > 400 $ GeV as shown in the Table \ref{tab:sig_jjbb}. Consequently,

977: $pp \to Q_H \bar Q_H \to q^\prime{\bar q}

978: + W^\pm_H Z_H \to jj + b \bar b + \ell^\pm + \ptm $ constitutes the dominant

979: discovery channel for the first two generation $T$-odd heavy quarks at the

980: LHC. Using this particular channel we have obtained 

981: $5\sigma $ discovery limit in the LHT parameter space.  

982: As Fig.\ref{fig:contours}($b$) amply shows, 

983: adopting this methodology would allow us to make a discovery 

984: over a significant area in the allowed parameter space with only a few 

985: months' worth of data. For higher luminosities, the 

986: LHT scale $f$ can be probed all the way upto $\sim {\cal O}~({\rm TeV})$ using

987: this $jj + b \bar b +\ell^\pm+\ptm $ channel.  

988: We, thus, expect that the parton level study presented in this paper will 

989: encourage

990: the CMS and ATLAS collaboration to carry out further investigations

991: of the Littlest Higgs Model with $T$-parity.

992: 

993: \noindent 

994: \section*{Acknowledgments}

995: The authors acknowledge several useful discussions with Satyaki 

996: Bhattacharya and Sukanta Dutta. DC acknowledges support from the 

997: Department of Science and Technology, India under project number:

998: SR/S2/RFHEP-05/2006.

999: 

1000: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1001: 

1002: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}

1003: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

1004: %``Review of particle physics,''

1005: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004), see also {\tt  http://pdg.lbl.gov}.

1006: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%

1007: 

1008: 

1009: \bibitem{lep} ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, The LEP Higgs Working Group 

1010: for Higgs Boson Searches, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 565} 61, (2003). 

1011: {\tt CERN-EP-2003-011}.

1012: 

1013: \bibitem{higmax} LEP Electroweak Working Group,

1014: http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/

1015: 

1016: %\bibitem{mssm}For reviews, see, H.~P.~Nilles, Phys. Rept. {\bf 110},1 (1984);

1017: %H.~E.~Haber and G.~L.~Kane, Phys. Rept. {\bf 117},75 (1985).

1018: 

1019: \bibitem{lh0}N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi, Phys. \ Lett. \ B 

1020: {\bf 513}, 232 (2001); For reviews, see, for example, M.~Schmaltz and 

1021: D.~Tucker-Smith, Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 55},229 (2005); 

1022: M.~Perelstein, Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 58}, 

1023: 247 (2007); and references therein.

1024: 

1025: %%%%%%%%Electroweak Constrains on LH%%%%%%%%%

1026: \bibitem{lh_ew}

1027:   C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,

1028:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 115002 (2003);

1029:   J.~L.~Hewett, F.~J.~Petriello and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1030:   JHEP {\bf 0310}, 062 (2003);

1031:   C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning,

1032:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 035009 (2003);

1033:   M.~C.~Chen and S.~Dawson,

1034:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 015003 (2004);

1035:   W.~Kilian and J.~Reuter,

1036:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 015004 (2004);

1037:   Z.~Han and W.~Skiba,

1038:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 075009 (2005).

1039: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1040: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1041:   \bibitem{lht1}

1042:   I.~Low,

1043:   JHEP {\bf 0410}, 067 (2004).

1044: \bibitem{lht2}

1045:   J.~Hubisz and P.~Meade,

1046:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 035016 (2005).

1047: 

1048: \bibitem{lht3}

1049:   J.~Hubisz, P.~Meade, A.~Noble and M.~Perelstein,

1050:   JHEP {\bf 0601}, 135 (2006).

1051: 

1052: \bibitem{lht4}

1053:   H.~C.~Cheng and I.~Low,

1054:   JHEP {\bf 0309}, 051 (2003);

1055:   JHEP {\bf 0408}, 061 (2004).

1056: \bibitem{wyler}

1057: A.~Freitas and D.~Wyler, JHEP {\bf 0611}, 061 (2006).

1058: 

1059: \bibitem{belyaev} 

1060: A.~Belyaev, C.~R.~Chen, K.~Tobe and C.~P.~Yuan, arXiv:hep-ph/0609179.

1061: \bibitem{carena}

1062: M.~Carena, J.~Hubisz, M.~Perelstein and P.~Veredier, arXiv:hep-ph/0610156.

1063: \bibitem{kingman}

1064: Chian-Shu Chen, Kingman Cheung and Tzu-Chiang Yuan, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 644},

1065: 158 (2007).

1066: %\bibitem{Cheng}

1067: 

1068: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Dark Matter %%%%%%%%%

1069: \bibitem{lht_dm}

1070:   M.~Asano, S.~Matsumoto, N.~Okada and Y.~Okada,

1071:   arXiv:hep-ph/0602157.

1072:   A.~Birkedal, A.~Noble, M.~Perelstein and A.~Spray,

1073:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 035002 (2006).

1074: 

1075: \bibitem{biswarup}

1076: R.~S.~Hundi, B.~Mukhopadhyaya and A.~Nyffeler, arXiv:hep-ph/0611116.

1077:   

1078: \bibitem{cteq5} H.~L.~Lai {\it et al.}[CTEQ Collaboration], Eur. \ Phys. \ J C 

1079: {\bf 12}, 375 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9903282.

1080: \bibitem{madgraph}T.~Stelzer and W.~F.~Long, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 81},

1081: 371 (1994).

1082: %%% Reference for miss tag probability of light quark jets as b-jets

1083: %\bibitem{ATLAS} ATLAS TDR, report CERN/LHCC/99-15 (199).

1084: %\bibitem{CMS} CMS TP, report CERN/LHCC/94-38 (194).

1085: %\bibitem{gianotti} F.~Gianotti {\it etal.}, arXiv:hep-ph/0204087

1086: %\bibitem{hawkings} R.~Hawkings, ATLAS note SN-ATLAS-2003-034

1087: %\bibitem{u_baur}U.~Baur, T.~Plehn, D.~L.~Rainwater, 

1088: %  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 053004 (2004)

1089: \end{thebibliography}

1090: \end{document}

1091: