1, f. romeo 2, y 3, z 2, x 1, 4,5, - arxiv5physics department, sapienza university of rome, piazzale...
TRANSCRIPT
Phenomenology at the LHC of composite particles from strongly interacting StandardModel fermions via four-fermion operators of NJL type
R. Leonardi∗ and O. Panella†
INFN, Sezione di Perugia, Via A. Pascoli, I-06123, Perugia, Italy
F. Romeo‡ and A. Gurrola§
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA
H. Sun¶
Institute of Theoretical Physics, School of Physics, Dalian University of Technology,No.2 Linggong Road, Dalian, Liaoning, 116024, P.R.China
S. S. Xue∗∗
ICRANet, Piazzale della Repubblica, 10-65122, Pescara, Italy andPhysics Department, Sapienza University of Rome, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italy
(Dated: March 20, 2020)
A new physics scenario shows that four-fermion operators of Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) type havea strong-coupling UV fixed point, where composite fermions F (bosons Π) form as bound statesof three (two) SM elementary fermions and they couple to their constituents via effective contactinteractions at the composite scale Λ ≈ O(TeV). We present a phenomenological study to investigatesuch composite particles at the LHC by computing the production cross sections and decay widthsof composite fermions in the context of the relevant experiments at the LHC with pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV and
√s = 14 TeV. Systematically examining all the different composite particles F
and the signatures with which they can manifest, we found a vast spectrum of composite particlesF that has not yet been explored at the LHC. Recasting the recent CMS results of the resonantchannel pp → e+F → e+e−qq′, we find that the composite fermion mass mF below 4.25 TeV isexcluded for Λ/mF = 1. We further highlight the region of parameter space where this specificcomposite particle F can appear using 3 ab−1, expected by the High-Luminosity LHC, computing3 and 5 σ contour plots of its statistical significance.
PACS numbers: 12.60.-i,12.60.Rc,14.80.-j
I. INTRODUCTION
The parity-violating gauge symmetries and sponta-neous/explicit breaking of these symmetries for the hi-erarchy pattern of fermion masses have been at the cen-ter of a conceptual elaboration that has played a majorrole in donating to mankind the beauty of the StandardModel (SM) and possible scenarios beyond SM for funda-mental particle physics. A simple description is providedon the one hand by the composite Higgs-boson modelor the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model [1] with effec-tive four-fermion operators, and on the other by the phe-nomenological model of the elementary Higgs boson [2].These two models are effectively equivalent for the SM atlow energies. After a great experimental effort for manyyears, using pp collision data at
√s = 7, 8 TeV at the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the ATLAS [3] and CMS[4] collaborations have shown the first observations of a
∗ [email protected]† [email protected]‡ [email protected]§ [email protected]¶ [email protected]∗∗ [email protected] ; corresponding author
125 GeV scalar particle in the search for the SM Higgsboson [5, 6]. This far-reaching result begins to shed lighton this most elusive and fascinating arena.
Recently, in the Run 2 of the upgraded LHC, stud-ies on
√s = 13 TeV pp collision data are performed by
ATLAS and CMS to search for new (beyond the SM)resonant and/or non-resonant phenomena [7–11]. Thesestudies are continuously pushing up exclusion boundson the parameter spaces of many possible scenarios be-yond SM [12–15]. Among these models, are of particu-lar interest composite-fermion scenarios that have offereda possible solution to the hierarchy pattern of fermionmasses [16, 17]. In this context [18–22], the assumptionis that SM quarks “q” and leptons “`” are assumed tobe bound states of some not yet observed fundamentalconstituents generically referred to as preons and to havean internal substructure and heavy excited states F ofmasses m∗F that should manifest themselves at the highenergy compositeness scale Λ. Exchanging preons and/orbinding quanta of unknown interactions between themresults in effective contact interactions of SM fermionsand heavy excited states. While different heavy excitedstates have been considered in literature [23–25], below,we take as a reference the case of a heavy compositeMajorana neutrino, N`, for which the interaction La-
arX
iv:1
810.
1142
0v2
[he
p-ph
] 1
9 M
ar 2
020
2
grangian would be (g∗/Λ)2qLγµqLN`γµ`L. Its theoret-ical studies and numerical analysis have been carefullyelaborated in [26, 27]. Moreover, an experimental anal-ysis of
√s = 13 TeV pp collisions at the LHC of the
process pp → `N` → ``qq of the dilepton (dielectrons ordimuons) plus diquark final states has been carried outby the CMS collaboration [28] excluding the existence ofN` for masses up to 4.60 (4.70) TeV at 95% confidencelevel, assuming mN`
= Λ.In this article, we present phenomenological studies of
new composite states according to a scenario recentlyproposed in Refs. [31, 32] that relies on the four-fermionoperators (interactions) of the NJL type and has es-caped the spotlight of the LHC searches so far. Thefour-fermion interactions beyond SM considered in thisnew model are motivated by the theoretical inconsistency[29] between the SM bilinear Lagrangian of chiral gaugedfermions and the natural UV regularization of unknowndynamics or quantum gravity, that implies quadrilinearfour-fermion interactions (operators) of the NJL type, orEinstein-Cartan type [30], at high energies. On the basisof SM gauge symmetries, four-fermion operators of SMleft- and right-handed fermions (ψL, ψR) in the chargesector “Qi” and flavor family “f” can be written as∑
f=1,2,3
G[ψf
Lψf
Rψf
Rψf
L
]Qi=0,−1,2/3,−1/3
. (1)
From the point of view of an effective theory, these effec-tive operators are attributed to the new physics at thehigh energy cutoff Λcut.
The effective coupling G (1) has two fixed points: (i)the weak-coupling infrared (IR) fixed point and (ii) thestrong-coupling ultraviolet (UV) fixed point. In the scal-ing domain of IR fixed point of the weak four-fermioncoupling G at the electroweak scale v ≈ 239.5 GeV, ef-fective operators (1) give rise to SM physics with tightlycomposite Higgs particle via the NJL mechanism, andalso offers possible solution to the hierarchy pattern offermion masses [31, 33]. The heaviest top quark mass isgenerated by the spontaneous breaking of SM gauge sym-metries in the top sector (in Eq. 1) [34] with a tt boundstate as a candidate for the SM Higgs particle, and threeGoldstone bosons becoming the longitudinal modes ofmassive gauge bosons W± and Z0. The reason why onlythe top sector undergoes the condensation is due to theenergetically favorable ground state of NJL interactions(Eq. 1), as shown in Ref. [35]. Other SM fermion massesare generated by the explicit breaking of SM gauge sym-metries due to the CKM flavor mixing of three SM gener-ations [31]. Most importantly, the measured Higgs massmakes it possible to uniquely determine the solutions ofthe renomalization group equations for the form factorand quartic interaction of the composite Higgs particle[37]. The extrapolation of these solutions to TeV regimeimplies that the composite Higgs is a tighly bound stateand a strong-coupling dynamics occurs. In the scalingdomain of UV fixed point of the strong four-fermion cou-pling G at the composite scale Λ ∼ O (TeV), composite
fermions (bosons) form as bound states of three (two)SM elementary fermions and they couple to their con-stituents via effective contact interactions [32, 36].
We focus on the composite particles arising from four-fermion operators of NJL type, with massive (mF ) com-
posite fermions F fR ∼ ψfR
(ψfRψf
L) (bound states of three
SM fermions) and massive (mΠ) composite bosons Πf ∼(ψf
Rψf
L) (bound states of two SM fermions) forming in
the scaling domain of a UV fixed point of the strong four-fermion coupling G at the composite scale Λ & mF & mΠ
[32, 37]. The effective coupling between the compos-ite fermion (boson) and its constituents is given by thefollowing contact interaction, which describes compositeparticle F f (Πf ) production and decay:
(g∗/Λ)2ψfL
(ψfLψf
R)F f
R+ h.c., (2)
(FΠ/Λ)2(ψfLψf
R)Πf + h.c., (3)
where (g∗/Λ)2 is a phenomenological parameter, and onecan choose g2
∗ = 4π so that 4π/Λ2 is a geometric cross-section in the order of magnitude of inelastic processesforming composite fermions (Fig. 1). Whereas, (FΠ/Λ)2
is the Yukawa coupling between composite boson (Fig. 2)and two fermionic constituents, and (g∗/FΠ)2 relatesto the form factor of composite boson. The compositefermion is in fact a bound state of an SM fermion andcomposite boson, namely F fR ∼ ψfRΠf . The compositescales Λ and FΠ can only be experimentally determinedlike the electroweak scale v. The composite-fermion (-boson) mass mF ,mΠ ∝ Λ and the proportionality is ofthe order of unity.
Analogously to composite-fermion scenarios mentionedabove where new particles originate from preons (formore details see Refs. [16–25]) the present scenario inthe domain of UV fixed point has two model-independentproperties that are experimentally relevant: (a) the ex-istence of composite fermions; (b) the existence of con-tact interactions, in addition to SM gauge interactions,which represents an effective approach for describing theeffects of the unknown internal dynamics of composite-ness. However, the present scenario is not only conceptu-ally, but also consequently and quantitatively rather dif-ferent from the previous composite-fermion scenarios. Infact, the composite fermions are formed as bound statesof SM fermions, not preons, by strong four-fermion inter-actions of SM fermions at high energies and they furtherhave different contact interacting processes. Therefore,it deserves more detailed phenomenological studies to re-veal new features of the present scenario that are relevantto LHC experiments. This is the aim of this article andwe find that the model foresee a large number of newcomposite particles that could appear in signatures notyet investigated and hence of great interest for the ongo-ing LHC physics program related to searches of physicsbeyond SM.
The model parameters in Eqs. (2) and (3) are uniquefor all SM fermions f and composite fermions F andbosons Π together with their interacting channels and
3
we aim to study them for detailing the complete phe-nomenology of F , for all the corresponding flavors “f”.In Sec. II composite fermions’ constituents and effectivecontact interactions among them are discussed consid-ering the model in Eq. (1) with contact interactions ofEqs. (2) and (3). The production cross sections and de-cay widths of these composite fermions are calculatedin Sec. III, while in Sec. IV the search for F , for allits flavors, is outlined deriving the final states and theirtopology that are relevant for its discovery at the LHC.It turns out that there is a wide range of new physicalstates that deserve dedicated searches at the LHC in or-der to investigate the entire phase space in which F canmanifest. In Sec. V, we take advantage of the aforemen-tioned heavy composite Majorana neutrinoN experimen-tal studies [26, 27] in the channel pp→ Ne− → e−e−qq′
to determine some constraints on the model parameters.We further compute 5σ contour plots of the statisticalsignificance and highlight the region of parameter spacewhere F can appear in the same channel using 3 ab−1,as an example of the sensitivity to this model for a par-ticular flavor of F . Finally, we summarize the work withsome closing remarks in Sec. VI.
II. FOUR-FERMION OPERATORS ANDCONTACT INTERACTIONS
In this section we describe the four-fermion operatorsand contact interactions that are relevant for the studyof the phenomenology of the composite fermions at pp orep collisions, including the LHC, which will be detailedin Sec. III.
A. Composite fermions F
We consider, among four-fermion operators (1), thefollowing SM gauge-symmetric and fermion-number con-serving four-fermion operators,
G[(¯iLeR)(daRψLia) + (¯i
LνeR)(uaRψLia)
]+ h.c., (4)
G[(ψbiL dRb)(d
aRψLia) + (ψbiL uRb)(u
aRψLia)
]+ h.c., (5)
being the SM doublet `iL = (νeL, eL) and singlet eRwith an additional right-handed neutrino νeR for leptons;ψLia = (uLa, dLa) and uaR, d
aR for quarks, where the
color a, b and SUL(2)-isospin i indexes are summed over.Equation (4) or (5) is for the first family only, as a repre-sentative of the three fermion families. The SM left- andright-handed fermions are mass eigenstates, their massesare negligible in TeV-energy regime and small mixingamong three families encoded in G is also neglected [31].
In Eqs. (4) and (5), each four-fermion operator has thetwo possibilities to form composite fermions, listed in Ta-ble I and II. Up to a form factor, E (N) or D (U) indicatea composite fermion made of an electron (a neutrino) or a
ℓ
d
u
F
FIG. 1. A lepton `, two quarks q (u-type) and q (d-type) forma composite fermion F via the contact interaction (dark blob)PL,R(g2
∗/Λ2), where PL,R = (1 ∓ γ5)/2. The thin solid line
represents an SM elementary fermion, and the thick doubleline represents a composite fermion F . By a crossing symme-try applied to the lepton line ` → `† (dashed line) the samediagram describes a 2→ 2 production process qq → `†F .
q
q
Π
FIG. 2. We show the Feynman diagrammatic representationfor the contact interaction between the composite boson andits constituent quarks, where the thin solid line represents anSM elementary fermion, double wave line represents a com-posite boson, and the blob represents an interacting vertex(FΠ/Λ)2PL,R.
down quark d (an up quark u) plus a color-singlet quarkpair Π, and its superscript for electric charge. In Eq. (4),there are four independent composite fields F : E0
R, N−R ,
E−R , N0R and their Hermitian conjugates: E0
L = (E0R)†γ0,
N+L = (N−R )†γ0, E+
L = (E−R )†γ0, N0L = (N0
R)†γ0. Analo-gously, in Eq. (5), there are four independent composite
fields F : D2/3Ra , U
−1/3Ra , D
−1/3Ra , U
2/3Ra and their Hermi-
tian conjugates: D−2/3La = (D
2/3Ra )†γ0, U
1/3La = (U
−1/3Ra )†γ0,
D1/3La = (D
−1/3Ra )†γ0, U
−2/3La = (U
2/3Ra )†γ0. They carry SM
quantum numbers ti3L, Y , and Qi = Y + ti3L, which arethe sum of SM quantum numbers (ti3L, Y,Qi) of theirconstituents, i.e., the elementary leptons and quarks inthe same SM family [32], listed in Table III and IV, sothat the contact interactions in Eq. (2) are SM gaugesymmetric.
The contact interactions for the production and decayof a composite fermions F are:
LFCI = VF + V†F . (6)
4
Operator Composite fermion FR Composite fermion FL Composite boson Π
(νeLeR)(daRuLa) E0R ∼ eR(daRuLa) E0
L ∼ eL(uaRdLa) Π+ ∼ (daRuLa)
(eLνeR)(ua
RdLa) N−R ∼ νeR(ua
RdLa) N+L ∼ ν
eL(daRuLa) Π− ∼ (ua
RdLa)
(eLeR)(daRdLa) E−R ∼ eR(daRdLa) E+L ∼ eL(daLdRa) Π0
d ∼ (daRdLa)
(νeLνeR)(ua
RuLa) N0R ∼ νeR(ua
RuLa) N0L ∼ νeL(ua
LuRa) Π0u ∼ (ua
RuLa)
TABLE I. Four-fermion operators in Eq. (4) and possible composite fermions F and composite bosons Π. The color a indexis summed.
Operator Composite fermion FR Composite fermion FL Composite boson Π
(uLbdRb)(daRuLa) D
2/3Rb ∼ dRb(d
aRuLa) D
−2/3Lb ∼ dLb(u
aRdLa) Π+ ∼ (daRuLa)
(dLbuRb)(uaRdLa) U
−1/3Rb ∼ uRb(u
aRdLa) U
1/3Lb ∼ uLb(d
aRuLa) Π− ∼ (ua
RdLa)
(dLbdRb)(daRdLa) D
−1/3Rb ∼ dRb(d
aRdLa) D
1/3Lb ∼ dLb(d
aLdRa) Π0
d ∼ (daRdLa)
(uLbuRb)(uaRuLa) U
2/3Rb ∼ uRb(u
aRuLa) U
−2/3Lb ∼ uLb(u
aLuRa) Π0
u ∼ (uaRuLa)
TABLE II. Four-fermion operators (5) and possible composite fermions F . The color a index is summed.
In the case of Eq. (4) and Table I,
VE0 =g2∗
Λ2(E0
LeR)(daRuLa), pp or ep→ E0LeR, (7)
VN+ =g2∗
Λ2(N+
L νeR)(uaRdLa), pp or ep→ N+
L νeR, (8)
VE+ =g2∗
Λ2(E+
L eR)(daRdLa), pp or ep→ E+L eR, (9)
VN0 =g2∗
Λ2(N0
LνeR)(uaRuLa), pp or ep→ N0
LνeR, (10)
and their Hermitian conjugates,
V†E0 =g2∗
Λ2(eLE
0R)(uaRdaL), E0
R → eL(uaRdaL), (11)
V†N− =g2∗
Λ2(νeLN
−R )(daRuaL), N−R → νeL(daRuaL),(12)
V†E− =g2∗
Λ2(eLE
−R )(daLdRa), E−R → eL(daLdRa), (13)
V†N0 =g2∗
Λ2(νeLN
0R)(uaLuRa), N0
R → νeL(uaLuRa). (14)
In the case of Eq. (5) and Table II,
VD−2/3 =g2∗
Λ2(D−2/3Lb dRb)(d
aRuLa); pp → D
−2/3La dRa,(15)
VU1/3 =g2∗
Λ2(U
1/3Lb uRb)(u
aRdLa); pp → U
1/3La uRa, (16)
VD1/3 =g2∗
Λ2(D
1/3Lb dRb)(d
aRdLa); pp → D
1/3La dRa, (17)
VU−2/3 =g2∗
Λ2(U−2/3Lb uRb)(u
aRuLa); pp → U
−2/3Lb uRb,(18)
and their Hermitian conjugates,
V†D2/3 =
g2∗
Λ2(dLbD
2/3Rb )(uaRdLa); D
2/3Rb → dLb(u
aRdLa),(19)
V†U−1/3 =
g2∗
Λ2(uLbU
−1/3Rb )(daRuLa);U
−1/3Rb → uLb(d
aRuLa),(20)
V†D−1/3 =
g2∗
Λ2(dLbD
−1/3Rb )(daLdRa);D
−1/3Rb → dLb(d
aLdRa),(21)
F
ℓ/νℓ
Π
FIG. 3. We show the Feynman diagrammatic representationfor the contact interaction between the composite fermion andboson, where the thin solid line represents an SM elementaryfermion, the double solid line is a composite fermion and thedouble wave line represents a composite boson and the blobrepresents an interacting vertex (FΠ/Λ)2PL,R.
V†U2/3 =
g2∗
Λ2(uLbU
2/3Rb )(uaLuRa); U
2/3Rb → uLb(u
aLuRa).(22)
These are relevant contact interactions for phenomeno-logical studies of possible inelastic channels of composite-fermion production and decay in pp or ep collisions.
B. Composite bosons Π0,±
From the four-fermion interaction in Eq. (4) or (5), itis possible to form composite bosons
Π+ = (g∗/FΠ)2(daRuLa), Π− = (Π+)†, (23)
Π0d = (g∗/FΠ)2(daRdLa), (24)
Π0u = (g∗/FΠ)2(uaRuLa), (25)
and their Hermitian conjugates. Such normalized com-posite boson field has the same dimension [energy] ofelementary boson field. The composite boson carries thequantum numbers that are the sum over SM quantumnumbers of its two constituents, see Table V. These are
5
composite fermions FR constituents charge Qi = Y + ti3L SUL(2) 3-isospin ti3L UY (1)-hypercharge Y
E0R eR(daRuLa) 0 1/2 −1/2
N−R νeR(uaRdLa) −1 −1/2 −1/2
E−R eR(daRdLa) −1 −1/2 −1/2
N0R νeR(ua
RuLa) 0 1/2 −1/2
TABLE III. Composite fermions FR, their constituents and SM quantum numbers.
composite fermions FR constituents charge Qi = Y + ti3L SUL(2) 3-isospin ti3L UY (1)-hypercharge Y
D2/3Rb dRb(d
aRuLa) 2/3 1/2 1/6
U−1/3Rb uRb(u
aRdLa) −1/3 −1/2 1/6
D−1/3Rb dRb(d
aRdLa) −1/3 −1/2 1/6
U2/3Ra uRb(u
aRuLa) 2/3 1/2 1/6
TABLE IV. Composite fermions FR, their constituents and SM quantum numbers.
pseudo composite bosons Π0,±, analogous to charged andneutral pions π0,± in the low-energy QCD.
As shown in Fig. 2, the effective coupling between com-posite boson and its two constituents can be written asan effective contact interaction,
LΠ±
CI = gY
(daRuLa)Π− + h.c., (26)
LΠ0d
CI = gY(daRdLa)Π0d + h.c., (27)
LΠ0u
CI = gY
(uaRuRa)Π0u + h.c., (28)
where gY
= (FΠ/Λ)2. Appropriately normalizing thecomposite boson Π with the form factor (g∗/FΠ)2 in Eqs.(23-25), the effective contact interaction in Eqs. (26-28)can be expressed as a dimensionless Yukawa coupling g
Y,
whose value, corresponding to FΠ value, can be differ-ent for composite bosons in Eqs. (23-25), but we do notconsider such difference here.
C. Contact interaction of composite fermion andboson
In the view of the composite fermion being a boundstate of a composite boson and an SM fermion, usingcomposite-boson fields in Eqs. (23-25), we rewrite V† inEqs. (11-14) as follows,
V†E0 = gY
(eLE0R)Π−, E0
R → eLΠ+, (29)
V†N− = gY(νeLN−R )Π+, N−R → νeLΠ−, (30)
V†E− = gY
(eLE−R )Π0
d, E−R → eLΠ0d, (31)
V†N0 = gY(νeLN0R)Π0
u, N0R → νeLΠ0
u, (32)
and their Hermitian conjugates V in Eqs. (7-10), asshown in Fig. 3. In the same way, we rewrite V† in Eqs.(19-22) as follows,
V†D2/3 = g
Y(dLD
2/3R )Π−, D
2/3R → dLΠ+ (33)
V†U−1/3 = g
Y(uLU
−1/3R )Π+, U
−1/3R → uLΠ− (34)
V†D−1/3 = g
Y(dLD
−1/3R )Π0
d, D−1/3R → dLΠ0
d (35)
V†U2/3 = g
Y(uLU
2/3R )Π0
u, U2/3R → uLΠ0
u. (36)
These contact interactions in Eqs. (29-32) and (33-36)imply that composite fermions F : E0
R, N−R , E−R , N0R and
F : D2/3R , U
−1/3R , D
−1/3R , U
2/3R can decay into composite
bosons Π± and Π0, which decay then to SM fermions,following the contact interactions in Eqs. (26-28) at theleading order of tree level. However, we shall considerother decay channels at the next-to-leading order, such asneutral composite boson decay to two SM gauge bosonsΠ0u,d → G+ G′.
D. Contact interaction of Π0 composite boson andgauge bosons
Analogously to π0 → γγ, the massive Π0u,d composite
boson can also decay into two gauge bosons [32] :
Π0u,d → γγ, (37)
Π0u,d → γZ0, (38)
Π0u,d → Z0Z0, (39)
Π0u,d →W+W−, (40)
via the contact interaction
LΠ0
GG′=∑i=u,d
gg′Nc4π2FΠ
εµνρσ(∂ρAµ)(∂σA′ν)Π0i , (41)
where g and g′ represent the couplings of gauge bosonsAµ and A′ν to the SM quarks u and d with differentSUL(2)-isospin i = u, d. Actually, this effective contactinteraction (41) is an axial anomaly vertex, as a resultof a triangle quark loop and standard renormalizationprocedure in SM. It should be mentioned that two gaugebosons can be two gluons that possibly fuse to a Higgsparticle in the final states.
6
composite bosons Π constituents charge Qi = Y + ti3L SUL(2) 3-isospin ti3L UY (1)-hypercharge Y
Π+ (daRuLa) +1 1/2 1/2
Π− (uaRdLa) −1 −1/2 −1/2
Π0d (daRdLa) 0 −1/2 1/2
Π0u (ua
RuLa) 0 1/2 −1/2
TABLE V. Composite bosons Π0,±, their constituents and SM quantum numbers.
III. PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE COMPOSITEFERMIONS IN pp COLLISIONS
In this section we study the phenomenology of the com-posite fermions in pp collisions. We first outline their pro-duction and decay mode and then calculate their crosssection and decay width. This study leads us to the dis-cussion on the search for F that will be discussed in thenext section.
A. Production and decay of F
As already specified in Sec. II, the composite fermionF can be
E (E0, E0, E−, E+),
N (N0, N0, N−, N+)
D (D2/3, D−2/3, D−1/3, D+1/3)
U (U−1/3, U+1/3, U2/3, U−2/3), (42)
where E,N,D,U stand for the charge sector Q =−1, 0,−1/3, 2/3 respectively, and the corresponding com-posite fermions of the higher generation of families in theSM.
The kinematics of the processes is derived in the centerof mass frame of pp collisions and virtual processes of Fare not considered. If the energy
√s in the parton center
of mass frame is larger than composite fermion masses,the following resonant process can occur:
pp→ f F (43)
where the Standard Model fermion f is produced in asso-ciation with the corresponding composite fermion F . Wenote that f in Eq. (43) can be e, ν, u, d, and the corre-sponding Standard Model fermions of the higher genera-tion of families. The kinematics of final states is simplein the center of mass frame of pp collisions. If we ne-glect the quark-family mixing, the previous process canmanifest at parton level as:
ud→ e+E0 or νN+ or dD2/3, (44)
ud→ e−E0 or νN− or uU−1/3, (45)
dd→ e+E− or e−E+ or dD−1/3, (46)
uu→ νN0 or νN0 or uU2/3. (47)
The composite fermion F can decay through two dif-ferent channels: f plus two quarks, via the interactions
in Eqs. (11, 12, 13, 14) and Eqs. (19, 20, 21, 22); orf plus a composite boson Π, via the interactions inEqs. (29,30,31,32) and Eqs. (33,34,35, 36), where f in-dicates a fermion that is the antiparticle of f . Then thecomposite fermion F decays as:
F → f qq′, (48)
F → f Π0,±. (49)
The full decay chain is:
pp→ fF → ffqq′, (50)
pp→ fF → ff Π0,±. (51)
It appears clear, considering all the possible flavors off and F , that a large range of final states is possible. Thecross section of the process pp→ fF , the decay branch-ing ratio of F , and the final states and their topologiesare discussed below.
B. Cross sections, decay widths and branchingratios
1. Cross sections
The partonic cross section of qq′ → fF is calculatedby standard methods via the contact interaction in Eqs.(7-22),
σ(s,mF ) =1
3× 64π
(g2∗
Λ2
)2(s−m2
F )2
m2F
, (52)
where√s stands for the parton center-mass-energy of pp
collisions in LHC experiments.We consider the production cross section for the com-
posite fermions F in pp collisions expected at the LHCcollider according to Feynman’s parton model. The QCDfactorization theorem allows to obtain any hadronic crosssection (e.g. in pp collisions) in terms of a convolution ofthe hard partonic cross sections σ, evaluated at the par-ton center of mass energy
√s =√τs, with the universal
parton distribution functions fa(x, Q) which depend onthe parton longitudinal momentum fractions x, and onthe factorization scale Q:
σ =∑ij
1∫m2
Fs
dτ
1∫τ
dx
xfi(x, Q2)fj(
τ
x, Q2)σ(τs,mF ) . (53)
7
10-6
10-4
10-2
100
102
104
106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
σ(p
p →
F f)
(fb)
mF (TeV)
mF/Λ=0.8, √s=13 TeV
analytical+numericalCalcHEP
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Γ(F
→ fqq )
(G
eV
)
mF (TeV)
mF/Λ=0.8
analyticalCalcHEP
FIG. 4. (Color Online). On the left panel, we show the production cross section of pp → fF as a function of mF for thecase mF /Λ = 0.8 and at a center of mass energy
√s = 13 TeV. The solid red line represents the results of an analytical and
numerical calculation based on Eqs. (52) and (53) and the filled circles (black) represent the results from our implementationof the model in CalcHEP. We find good agreement. On the right panel, we plot the decay width of composite fermion F asa function of its mass mF for the case mF /Λ = 0.8. Again, we observe a good agreement between the expectation from aCalcHEP simulation and the analytical result based on Eq. (54).
The factorization and renormalization scale Q is gener-ally fixed at the value of the mass that is being produced.The parametrization of the parton distribution functionis NNPDF3.0 [38] and the factorization scale has been
chosen as Q = mF .The right panel of Fig. 4 shows the agreement between
analytical calculations based on Eqs. (52) and (53) forthe case of the composite fermion F , and the results ofsimulations with CalcHEP where the model with four-fermion interactions has been implemented. We remarkthe quite good agreement that validates our model im-plementation in CalcHEP.
2. Decay widths
Analytical calculations, in the similar way as the firstterm in Eq. (5) of Ref. [26], yield to the width of the3-body process F → f qq′
Γ3−body(F → f qq′) =
(g2∗
Λ2
)2m5F
4× (8π)3. (54)
Note that at TeV energy scales, composite fermions aremassive (mF ) Dirac fermions, whereas all SM elementaryfermions are treated as massless Dirac fermions of fourspinor components, consisting of right- and left-handedWeyl fermions of two spinor components. Alternatively,the decay width ΓF has also been evaluated via CalcHEP,and numerical results are completely in agreement withanalytical one in Eq. (54), see the left panel of Figure 4.
The decay width of the composite fermion F in theprocess F → fΠ can easily be computed from the effec-tive contact lagrangian in Eqs. (29-36)
Γ(F → fΠ) =1
32π
(F 2
Π
Λ2
)2
mF
(1− m2
Π
m2F
)2
, (55)
and the total width is
Γtot(F ) = Γ(F → fΠ) + Γ3−body(F → f qq′). (56)
The decay width of the Π boson to two quarks is simplycalculated by using the effective contact Lagrangian inEq. (26) and (27),
Γ(Π→ qq′) =3
16π
(FΠ
Λ
)4
mΠ. (57)
For the case that Π equals to Π+ or Π− composite bo-son, Π → qq′ of Eq. (57) is the only decay channel, seeEqs. (23) and (26). The Π0
u,d composite bosons, instead,
can also decay to two gauge bosons GG′ (37-40), accord-ing to the contact interaction (41), the corresponding de-cay widths are [32] :
ΓΠ0u,d→γγ =
(5
9
)2
Γ, (58)
ΓΠ0u,d→γZ0 =
1
sin2 2θW
(1
2− 5
9sin2 θW
)2
Γ, (59)
ΓΠ0u,d→Z0Z0 =
(1/2−sin2 θW +(5/9) sin4 θW
sin2 2θW
)2
Γ,(60)
ΓΠ0u,d→W+W− =
(1
8 sin2 θW
)2
Γ, (61)
where θW is the Weinberg angle,
Γ =
(αNc3πFΠ
)2 m3Π0
u,d
64π, (62)
and the number of colors Nc = 3. Total decay rateΓtot(Π0
u,d → GG′) is the sum over all contributions from
Eqs. (58-61). The total Π0u,d-decay rate reads
Γtot(Π0u,d) = Γ(Π0
u,d → qq′) + Γtot(Π0u,d → GG′), (63)
8
where Γ(Π0d → qq′) is given by Eq. (57). Based on these
results, we calculate the exact branching ratios of differ-ent channels for different parameters of the model.
3. Branching ratios
The branching ratios of the Π0u,d decay to two quarks
qq′,
B(Π0u,d → qq′) =
Γ(Π0u,d → qq′)
Γtot(Π0u,d)
, (64)
and the Π0u,d decay to two gauge bosons GG′,
B(Π0u,d → GG′) =
Γtot(Π0u,d → GG′)
Γtot(Π0u,d)
. (65)
Whereas, the branching ratios of the composite fermionF decay to fΠ,
B(F → fΠ) =Γ(F → fΠ)
Γtot(F ). (66)
The branching ratios of the direct decay F → f qq′,
B(F → f qq′,direct) =Γ3−body(F → f qq′)
Γtot(F ), (67)
and indirect decay F → fΠ→ f qq′,
B(F → fΠ→ f qq′) =Γ(F → fΠ)
Γtot(F )B(Π→ qq′).(68)
The sum of these two branching ratios gives the totalbranching ratio B(F → f qq′) of F decaying to f qq′,
B(F → f qq′) = Γ−1tot(F )×
[Γ3−body(F → f qq′)
+ Γ(F → fΠ) B(Π→ qq′)]. (69)
For the case Π±, B(Π± → qq′) = 1. For the case Π0u,d,
B(Π0u,d → qq′) is given by Eq. (64), and the branching
ratios of decay F → fΠ0u,d → f GG′ is given by
B(F → fΠ0u,d → f GG′) =
Γ(F → fΠ0u,d)
Γtot(F )
× B(Π0u,d → GG′). (70)
As a result, the cross sections of these processes are:
σ(pp→ fF → ffqq′) = σ(pp→ fF )
× B(F → f qq′), (71)
and
σ(pp→ fF → ffGG′) = σ(pp→ fF )
× B(F → fΠ0u,d → f GG′).
(72)
All channels of composite fermion F production and de-cay give the same results at this level of approximationby using contact interactions only.
For the processes with the e+e−qq′ final state in ppcollisions, the total cross section is approximately givenby
σ(pp→e+e−qq′) ≈σ(pp→ e+E0)× B(E0 → e+ud)
+σ(pp→ e−E0)× B(E0 → e−ud)
+σ(pp→ e+E−)× B(E− → e−dd)
+σ(pp→e−E+)× B(E+→e+dd), (73)
and the total width is
Γtot(F ) = Γ(F → e+Π) + Γ3−body(F → e+qq′). (74)
The calculation of these quantities will be given in thenext sections.
IV. SEARCH FOR F AT THE LHC
After having discussed the production and decay of Fand its cross-section, width, and decay branching ratio,we now examine these results in terms of parameters ofthe model and derive the possible final states and theirtopologies, highlighting their impact to the current pro-gram of beyond SM searches at the LHC.
A. Branching ratios and topology of F withrespect to model parameters
In order to present the branching ratios of differentpossible channels in terms of parameters of the model,we are bound to discuss physically sensible parametersto explore. This model has four parameters that can berearranged to three dimensionless parameters for a givenΛ value: (Λ,mF , FΠ,mΠ)→ (mF /Λ, FΠ/mΠ,mΠ/mF ).
The ratio mF /Λ < 1 (mΠ/Λ < 1) of the compos-ite fermion (boson) mass and the basic composite scaleΛ gives us an insight into the dynamics of compositefermion (boson) formation. In addition, as the parame-ters mΠ and FΠ represent the same dynamics of compos-ite boson formation we use the FΠ/mΠ ratio. Finally, totake into account the feature that a composite fermion Fis composed by a composite boson and an elementary SMfermion, we adopt the ratio mΠ/mF < 1 as a parameter.As a result, for given
√s and Λ values, we have three pa-
rameters mF /Λ, FΠ/mΠ, and mΠ/mF to represent theresults of the possible branching ratios. Figure 5 showsthree sets of plots for the branching ratios of F → f qq′
and F → fΠ (left column), Π → qq′ and Π → GG′
(center column), and the full decay chains F → f qq′,
F → fΠ → f qq′, and F → fΠ → fGG′ (right col-umn). These branching ratios are plotted with respectto the mΠ/mF ratio and for the values of FΠ/mΠ = 0.8,FΠ/mΠ = 5, FΠ/mΠ = 15. Note that the branching
9
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
FΠ
/mΠ
=0.8 F → f ΠF → f q q-
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=0.8
Π → GG’Π → q q- 10
-1210
-1110
-1010
-910
-810
-710
-610
-510
-410
-310
-210
-110
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=0.8
F → f q q-
F → f q q- DirectF → f Π → f q q-
F → f Π → f GG’
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
FΠ
/mΠ
=5 F → f ΠF → f q q-
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=5
Π → GG’Π → q q-
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=5
F → f q q-
F → f q q- DirectF → f Π → f q q-
F → f Π → f GG’
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
FΠ
/mΠ
=15 F → f ΠF → f q q-
10-13
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=15
Π → GG’Π → q q-
10-13
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=15F → f q q-
F → f q q- DirectF → f Π → f q q-
F → f Π → f GG’
FIG. 5. (Color Online). The branching ratios of F → fqq′ and F → fΠ (left column), Π → qq′ and Π → GG′ (center
column), and the full decay chains F → fqq′, F → fΠ→ fqq′, and F → fΠ→ fGG′ (right column) are plotted with respectto the ratio mΠ/mF and for the values of mF /Λ = 0.8, FΠ/mΠ = 0.8 (the 1st row), FΠ/mΠ = 5 (the 2nd row), FΠ/mΠ = 15(the 3rd row). Further plots in a wider range of parameter space are in Appendix A, Fig. 8.
ratios of F → fqq′ and F → fΠ (left column) do not de-pend on mF /Λ, which can be seen from Eqs. (54,55) and(56). For the Π± decay, the channel (57) is unique, so thebranching ratio is one, independent of mF /Λ. Whereasthe Π0
u,d decays also to G′G, see Eqs. (64) and (65), and
the branching ratio depends on mF /Λ. However, in theregime of mΠ/mF we consider, the branching ratio ofΠ0u,d → G′G is very small and negligible, compared with
the branching ratio of Π0u,d → q′q. Therefore, our results
of branching ratio of F decay presented in Fig. 5 are inde-pendent of the parameter mF /Λ. As a result, regardingthe branching ratio and topologies of F decay, the modeleffectively depends only on two parameters FΠ/mΠ andmΠ/mF . However, the cross section of F production de-pends on the parameter mF /Λ, as indicated in Eq. 52.
In Fig. 5, it is shown that the branching ratios F →fqq direct (67) and F → fΠ→ fqq indirect (68) tend toswap each other for different values of FΠ/mΠ. Increasingthe coupling FΠ (and the ratio FΠ/mΠ) of composite bo-son Π to its two constituents (qq), see contact interactions(26,27,28), the branching ratios F → fΠ→ fqq indirect(68) becomes dominant over the branching ratios F →fqq direct (67). We thus consider two reference cases ofFΠ/mΠ:
(i) FΠ/mΠ . 0.8 where F → fqq direct dominates.
We have verified that for the value 0.8 the directproduction dominates by at least a factor 10 overthe production with the Π for all values of mΠ/mF .
(ii) FΠ/mΠ & 5 where F → fΠ→ fqq indirect (68) be-comes relevant for all values of mΠ/mF and domi-nates abovemΠ/mF > 0.2 over F → fqq direct. Wenotice from Fig. 5 that as FΠ/mΠ increases above15, the decay F → fΠ → fqq indirect dominatesover all possible decays for all values of mΠ/mF .
The expected topologies related to the phenomenologyof F are summarized in Table VI, considering the twocomplementary cases of FΠ/mΠ ≤ 0.8 and FΠ/mΠ ≥ 15.These cases are representative of the topology of F inall the phase space, including the intermediate region0.8 < FΠ/mΠ < 15, in which the decay F → fqq director F → fΠ → fqq indirect dominates depending onthe specific value of FΠ/mΠ considered. To this purposewe provide in Appendix A the total decay branching ra-tios corresponding to Fig. 5 (right column) for values ofFΠ/mΠ between 1 and 14, increasing in step of 1. Wefurther outline that the value 0.2 for mΠ/mF that sep-arates the boosted from the resolved topology when Fdecays through a Π is indicative and may vary based onthe mass of F . We have verified, using CalcHEP, that fora mass of F of 1 TeV, the two quarks decaying from the
10
Π originating from F are indeed within a ∆R(q, q′) below0.8, which determines the cone size of a large-radius jetssuitable for boosted jet at the LHC experiments. For amass of F of 7 TeV instead, the value 0.2 is lowered to0.15 to guarantee ∆R(q, q′) < 0.8, as for higher massesof F its width increases.
So far we have presented the studies relying on the firstSM generation, i.e. considering the electron flavoflavorrof F (F = E). However, these discussions and calcula-tions are straightforwardly generalized to the second andthird SM generations, and in the text we keep the gen-eral notation F instead of E. At the leading order ofonly contact interactions being taken into account, theformulae of cross-sections, decay rates and branching ra-tios of the second and third generations are the same asthose of the first generation, however composite fermionsF and their productions, decay channels and rates aredifferent, depending on the values of their parametersmF , mΠ and FΠ, which vary from one SM generationto another. The reasons are that the effective couplings∼ g2∗/Λ
2 and ∼ gY
of contact interactions can be differ-ent, due to the modifications from the flavor mixing andgauge interactions. However, we neglect these modifica-tions in this article, and expect the variations of massesmF , mΠ, decay constant FΠ to be small. In this sense,there are two basic parameters FΠ/mΠ and mΠ/mF foreach SM generation to be determined by different chan-nels and their topologies in LHC experiments discussedin next sections.
B. Signatures to search for F at the LHC
We now summarize on the possible signatures withwhich F can manifest at the LHC. We remark that F canhave the different flavors corresponding to the StandardModel flavors of f and the fact that these particles arenot necessarily mass degenerate. This implies that theycan have different masses with which they can appearwithin the energy reach of the LHC, and thus they haveto be searched for independently. Based on the flavorsof f , we expect 8 different final states to be investigatedfor the pair fF produced in the process pp→ fF , whichare: eE, µM, τT , νN, jJ, cC, bB, tT . Here, we considerone single channel (νN) for all the ν neutrinos of theStandard Model and one single channel (jJ) for the u, d, squarks. We notice that the flavor cC is taken separately,because of the improving performances in c-tagging al-gorithms at the LHC ([56, 57]) and dedicated searchesfor new physics with c quarks in the final state ([58, 59]).Moreover, we distinguish the three topologies (resolvedwith and without Π and boosted) explained in the pre-vious paragraph, so that we have in total 24 differentsignatures that have to be considered in order to pursuea comprehensive search of F .
In Table VII we outline these signatures based on theflavors f and F , the possible topology, the correspondingfinal states, and the LHC search that, to the best of our
knowledge, could be more sensitive to searching for F .In the last column, we further report on features of Fand its decay that have not been exploited directly inthe cited LHC searches and could be used to improvepossible future searches dedicated to F . We especiallyremark that the F quark flavors appear to be completelyunexplored yet and we urge on the importance of carryingout specific analyses at LHC to investigate it. This iscertainly noteworthy and can have a relevant impact onthe beyond the SM physics program of the LHC.
We notice that, despite possible and with a peculiarsignature, the channel fF → f(fΠ) → f(f(GG′)) is
negligible since the decay Π0 → (GG′) is only relevantfor FΠ/mΠ = 0.1 when, however, the decay F → f(Π)has a branching ratio close to zero. Because of this wedo not include this case in Table VII and we point outthat this case would become of interest in the case F isfound in one of the possible signatures mentioned above,to study the nature of the new particle.
We put emphasis on the case of the composite fermionsF = N0, N0, N+, N− for the final state ννqq′, where ννstands for the pairs of the SM left-handed neutrino νeLand/or sterile right-handed neutrino νeR, as the latter isa candidate of dark-matter particles.
Finally, we acknowledge that the final state ffqq′ isrelevant for a wide range of the parameter space of themodel and thus will consider it in the next section and, inparticular, the case of f = e and F = E to derive limitson the model parameters based on existing LHC results.
V. BOUNDS ON THE MODEL PARAMETERS
In this section we provide a discussion of the boundsof the model parameters taking as a reference the caseF = E and the final state eeqq′ that has been shown to besensitive to a wide portion of the parameter space of themodel in the previous section. For this purpose, we recastthe 95% confidence level (C.L.) experimental upper limiton σ(pp→ eeqq′) using a recent analysis [28] of 2.3 fb−1
data from the 2015 Run II of the LHC by the CMS col-laboration with respect to the predictions of the model ofcomposite fermions discussed in this article. Note thatboth electrons and positrons are collected in the finalstates of eeqq′, electrons and positrons are not distin-guished in the data analysis. For the case mF /Λ = 1one obtains that the composite fermions of this modelare excluded up to masses mex
F ≈ 4.25 TeV. This resultis shown in Figure 6, together with the exclusion lim-its mex
F ≈ 3.3, 2.4, 1.5 TeV for Λ fixed at 6, 9 and 12TeV. Figure 7 shows the exclusion curve, lower (dashed)line, in the 2-dimensional parameter space (Λ,mF ) forthe model obtained via the recasting of the analysis [28]of 2.3 fb−1 data from the 2015 Run II of the LHC by theCMS collaboration. Here the regions of the parameterspace below the curves are excluded.
We also performed a study about the potential of adedicated analysis in the High Luminosity LHC (HL-
11
FΠ/mΠ mΠ/mF Channel Resonances Topology Experimental features
15 [∼ 0.2,∼ 1] fF → f(fΠ)→ f(f(qq′)) F,Π Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ identification of Π and F
≤ 0.2 fF → f(fΠ)→ f(f(qq′)) F , Π Boosted identification of F ;
Π large-radius jet:
2-prong, no V boson tag
≤ 0.8 [0,1] fF → f(f qq′) F Fully resolved same of FΠ/mΠ = 10
TABLE VI. Summary of the relevant channels where F can decay considering two complementary values of FΠ/mΠ and theranges of mΠ/mF that correspond to different topologies of F . Similar considerations on the channels where F can decay andits topology apply to all values of FΠ/mΠ, depending on the value of FΠ/mΠ, the value of mΠ/mF , and the branching ratiosof F → fqq direct and F → fΠ→ fqq indirect.
f F Topology Final state LHC searches Features not exploited in LHC searches
e E Fully resolved e±(e∓qq′) [28, 48] E identification
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ e±(e∓(qq′)) [48, 52] E,Π identification
Boosted e±e∓J [28] 2-prong, no V boson tag, boosted Π decay
µ M Fully resolved µ±(µ∓qq′) [28, 48] M identification
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ µ±(µ∓(qq′)) [48, 52] M,Π identification
Boosted µ±µ∓J [28] 2-prong, no V boson tag, boosted Π decay
τ T Fully resolved τ±(τ∓qq′) [49] T identification
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ τ±(τ∓(qq′)) [49] T ,Π identification
Boosted τ±τ∓J n/a
ν N Fully resolved ν(νqq′) [50, 51] N identification
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ ν(ν(qq′)) [50, 51] N,Π identification
Boosted ννJ [55] 2-prong, no V boson tag, boosted Π deacy
j J Fully resolved j(jqq′) n/a
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ j(j(qq′)) n/a
Boosted jjJ n/a
c C Fully resolved c(cqq′) n/a
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ c(c(qq′)) n/a
Boosted ccJ n/a
b B Fully resolved b(bqq′) n/a
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ b(b(qq′)) n/a
Boosted bbJ n/a
t T Fully resolved t(tqq′) n/a
Resolved w/ Π→ qq′ t(t(qq′)) n/a
Boosted ttJ n/a
TABLE VII. List of all the signatures foreseen by the model for the different flavors of f , F , their topology and final states. Inthe table “j” indicates any reconstructed jet that originates from a u, d, s quark and “J” a large-radius (cone-size of 0.8) jetthat is reconstructed from 2 quarks produced with low angular separation. The notation w/Π indicates the decay of F througha Π. The LHC searches for these signatures are reported along with some comments on the features that are typical of thismodel and have not been exploited in the referenced LHC searches. In the table, ”n/a” indicates the case in which an LHCsearch interesting the corresponding final state has not been found.
LHC) conditions (center of mass energy of 14 TeV andluminosity of 3 ab−1). We used CalcHEP to generatethe processes and DELPHES [39] to simulate the de-tector effects. In order to separate the signal from thebackground, we selected events with pte1 ≥ 180 GeV,pte2 ≥ 80 GeV, ptj1 ≥ 210 GeV, mee ≥ 300 GeV (ptis the transverse momentum, e1 the leading electron, e2
the subleading electron, j1 the leading jet and mee theinvariant mass of the two electrons). Then we evaluatedthe reconstruction and selection efficiencies for signal (εs)and background (εb) as the ratio of the selected and thetotal generated events. From these efficiencies, the signal
and background cross sections (σs, σb) and the integratedluminosity (L), it is possible to evaluate the expectednumber of events for the signal (Ns) and the SM back-ground (Nb) and finally the statistical significance (S):
Ns = Lσsεs, Nb = Lσbεb, S =Ns√Nb
. (75)
The S = 5 contour curve is shown by the upper (solid)line in Figure 7. It can be used to get indications aboutthe potential for discovery or exclusion with the experi-ments at the HL-LHC, showing that there is a wide re-gion of the model phase space where the existence of
12
10-2
10-1
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
σ (
fb)
mF (TeV)
95% C.L. observed
95% C.L. expectedTheory (Λ=mF)
Theory (Λ=6 TeV)
Theory (Λ=9 TeV)
Theory (Λ=12 TeV)
FIG. 6. (Color Online). Recast of the experimental upperlimit on σ(pp → eeqq′) published in [28] against the modelof composite fermions studied in this article. The dotted line(solid green line) is the 95% C.L. observed (expected) upperlimit on σ(pp→ eeqq′) as reported in [28]. The solid line (red)is the theoretical expectation from the model described in thiswork as given by Eq. (73) for the case mF /Λ = 1, the dashedlines (orange) are the theoretical expectation from the modelfor the cases Λ = 6, 9, 12 TeV. If mF /Λ = 1 one obtainsthat the composite fermions of this model are excluded up tomasses mex
F ≈ 4.25 TeV.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Λ (
TeV
)
mF (TeV)
recast of RunII analysis
predicted S=5 at HL-LHCmF>Λ
FIG. 7. (Color Online). Recast of the experimental up-per limit from [28] (dashed line) and the predicted contourcurve at a 5-level statistical significance (solid line) in the2-dimensional parameter space (Λ,mF ). The shaded regiondenotes unphysical values of the parameters (Λ < mF ).
the composite fermions can be investigated; for the casemF /Λ = 1 we can reach masses up to ≈ 6.2 TeV. We no-tice that, despite having considered the case of F = E inthis section, it could be inferred that the cross section forF , which should approximately be the same for all its fla-vors, is sufficient for the F to appear at the LHC with thestatistics already collected at the LHC experiments, andthat is expected by the HL-LHC. Based on this result,we recommend that the physics program of the LHC con-
sider the new particles foreseen by this model and theirsignatures in its investigations.
VI. SUMMARY AND REMARKS
In the weak coupling regime the effective four-fermionoperators of NJL-type possess an IR-fixed point, render-ing the elegant Higgs mechanism of the SM of particlephysics at low energies. In the strong coupling regime, onthe other end, these operators could possess an UV-fixedpoint, giving rise to composite fermions F (bosons Π)composed by SM fermions as bound states of three (two)SM elementary leptons or quarks, and to their relevantcontact interactions with them at high energies O(TeV).
We study, for the first time for this model, the spec-trum of composite particles and contact interactions inquark-lepton and quark-quark sectors in relationship totheir phenomenology at the LHC in order to unveil theirdiscovery potential. The cross sections and decay ratesof composite particles are calculated based on the LHCphysics from pp collision at high energy TeV scale. Wefind out that a comprehensive investigation of the modelpresented here can be effectively achieved, for given√s and Λ values, by considering only two parameters:
FΠ/mΠ and mΠ/mF . Based on these results, we ex-haustively examine all the possible F states and the sig-natures with which they can manifest at the LHC, ac-cording to different FΠ/mΠ and mΠ/mF . Interestingly,we find that there is a broad variety of new compositeparticles that could manifest in signatures that have es-caped the realm of the searches at the LHC. We summa-rize these cases in Table VII. They can offer an unprece-dented discovery potential of physics beyond the SM andwe urge on the importance for the LHC experiments toinclude such searches in their ongoing physics program.
In order to set bounds on the model parameters, wederive constraints for the particular case where F haselectron-like flavor. We analyzed the particular processesgiving e+e−qq′ final state by using the recast of the ex-perimental upper limit by the CMS collaboration on thecross-section σ(pp → eeqq′). We determine that a com-posite fermion F of mass mF below 4.25 TeV can beexcluded for Λ = mF . At the same time, we compute 3σand 5σ contour plots of the statistical significance andhighlight the phase space in which F can manifest using3 ab−1, foreseen at the high luminosity LHC (HL-LHC).This result shows that, even for final state traditionallyconsidered at the LHC experiments, there is a vast rangeof model parameters to which a dedicated search can besensitive to the F composite fermions. We encouragesuch efforts in future investigations in light of peculiarfeatures of F not yet exploited at the LHC searches andhighlighted in Table VII. We are preparing the next arti-cle presenting the investigation of phenomenology at theLHC of composite bosons.
Both composite bosons (Π) and fermions (F ) are masseigenstates and have definite SM quantum numbers, so
13
that the CKM flavor mixing and the Feynman diagram-matic representations of SM perturbative gauge inter-actions can be easily implemented, see Eqs. (4.8)-(4.11)in Ref. [32]. At the leading order of contact interactionsconsidered in this article, the contributions from all CKMflavor mixing and gauge interactions to composite par-ticle masses are neglected. It should be mentioned thatthese effective couplings between composite particles andSM gauge bosons have two main effects. First, they givethe possible decay channels of composite particles to finalstates involving SM gauge bosons, like two gauge bosonsas in Sec. II D. The branching ratios of these channels arenegligible in the composite fermion production and decaystudied in this article. However, they could be importantin the composite boson formation and decay, which is un-der examination in a separate effort. Second, these effec-tive couplings between composite particles and SM gaugebosons should affect the well-measured SM quantities inthe IR regime, like the electroweak oblique parametersor the decay width of the Z boson, as well as the Higgsphysics. These issues are indeed important and neces-sary, and will be addressed in a future study. So far onlysome general and qualitative discussions have been pre-sented [31, 32], showing that the composite Higgs bosonis a tight bound state of tt, as if it was an elementaryparticle, and possible corrections to the SM quantitiesare small.
It is an interesting question to see how these phe-nomenologies can possibly account for some recent resultsobtained in both space and underground laboratories.The cosmic rays pp collisions might produce compositefermions F = E that decay into electrons and positrons.This may explain an excess of cosmic ray electrons andpositrons around TeV scale [40, 41]. In addition, recentAMS-02 results [42] show that at TeV scale the energy-dependent proton flux changes its power-law index. Thisimplies that there would be “excess” TeV protons whoseorigin could be also explained by the resonance of com-posite fermions F = N due to the interactions of dark-matter and normal-matter particles. These compositefermions should appear as resonances by high-energy
sterile neutrinos inelastic collisions with nucleons (xenon)at the largest cross-section, then resonances decay andproduce some other detectable SM particles in under-ground laboratories [43]. Similarly, in the ICECUBEexperiment [44], we expect events where the neutrinoschange their directions (lower their energies) by theirinelastic collisions to form the resonances of compositefermions N at a high energy scale (≈ TeV). It is worth-while to mention that in the IR domain of this modelthere are effective coupling vertexes of the SM gauge bo-son W and the right-handed currents: gRνRγ
µeRW+µ or
gRuRγµdRW
+µ , where gR ∝ (v/Λ)2 [45]. The parity sym-
metry is restored at the scale Λ [31, 32] and none of ad-ditional intermediate gauge bosons WR or W ′ is present.The recent phenomenological studies of this effective cou-pling in the quark sector can be found in Ref. [46]. Inthe lepton sector, these effective contact interactions re-late to the dark-matter physics of right-handed neutrinosνR. Similarly to the analogy between the Higgs mecha-nism and BCS superconductivity, the composite-particlecounterparts in condensed matter physics have been re-cently discussed [47].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work of Alfredo Gurrola and Francesco Romeo issupported in part by NSF Award PHY-1806612. Thework of Hao Sun is supported by the National NaturalScience Foundation of China (Grant No.11675033).
Appendix A: F branching ratios for FΠ/mΠ assumingvalues in [1,15]
In this appendix we provide the branching ratios of allthe possible decays of F , as in Fig. 5 (right column), forvalues of FΠ/mΠ between 1 and 15, increasing in step of1.
[1] Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122 (1961)345.
[2] F. Englert, R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321;P. W. Higgs, Phys. Lett. 12 (1964) 132;Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508; Phys. Rev. 145(1966) 1156;G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, T. W. B. Kibble,Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585; and T. W. B. Kibble,Phys. Rev. 155 (1967) 1554.
[3] ATLAS Collaboration, JINST 3 (2008) S08003[4] CMS Collaboration, JINST 3 (2008) S08004[5] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1, and
http://atlas.ch/.[6] CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30-61.
[7] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP1609, 001 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)001[arXiv:1606.03833 [hep-ex]].
[8] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration],Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 5, 051802 (2016)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.051802 [arXiv:1606.04093[hep-ex]].
[9] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 87,015010 (2013).
[10] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys.J. C 76, no. 5, 237 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4067-z [arXiv:1601.06431 [hep-ex]].
[11] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1512, 055(2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)055 [arXiv:1506.00962
14
[hep-ex]].[12] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration],
Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 5, 052009 (2015)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052009 [arXiv:1501.04198[hep-ex]].
[13] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP1408, 173 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2014)173[arXiv:1405.1994 [hep-ex]].
[14] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys.Rev. Lett. 115, no. 13, 131801 (2015)doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.131801 [arXiv:1506.01081[hep-ex]].
[15] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP1506, 121 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)121[arXiv:1504.03198 [hep-ex]].
[16] J.C. Pati, A. Salam, J.A. Strathdee, Are quarkscomposite?, Phys. Lett. B 59 (1975) 265,https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(75)90042-8;H. Harari, Composite models for quarksand leptons, Phys. Rep. 104 (1984) 159,https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(84)90207-2;O.W. Greenberg, C.A. Nelson, Composite mod-els of leptons, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 2567,https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2567.
[17] P. A. M. Dirac, Scientific American 208, 45 (1963).[18] H. Terazawa, K. Akama, and Y. Chikashige, Phys. Rev.
D15, 480 (1977).[19] H. Terazawa, Phys.Rev. D22, 184 (1980).[20] E. Eichten and K. Lane, Physics Letters B 90, 125 (1980).[21] E. Eichten, K. D. Lane, and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 50, 811 (1983).[22] H. Terazawa, in Europhysics Topical Conference: Flavor
Mixing in Weak Interactions Erice, Italy, March 4-12,1984 (1984).
[23] N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, and Y. Srivastava, Phys. Lett.B139, 459 (1984).
[24] U. Baur, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Phys. Rev. D 42,815 (1990).
[25] U. Baur, I. Hinchliffe, and D. Zeppenfeld, Int. J. Mod.Phys. A2, 1285 (1987).
[26] R. Leonardi, O. Panella, and L. Fano, “Doubly chargedheavy leptons at the LHC via contact interactions”, Phys.Rev. D 90, 035001, (2014).
[27] R. Leonardi, L. Alunni, F. Romeo, L. Fano, O.Panella, “Hunting for heavy composite Majorana neu-trinos at the LHC” Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) no.11, 593,arXiv:1510.07988 .
[28] The CMS Collaboration, “Search for a heavy compositeMajorana neutrino in the final state with two leptonsand two quarks at
√s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 775, 315
(2017) arXiv:1706.08578.[29] H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Nucl. Phys. B
185 (1981) 20 [Erratum ibid. B 195 (1982) 541];Phys. Lett. B 105 (1981) 219; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A6 (1991) 2913.
[30] S.-S. Xue, “Quantum Regge calculus of Einstein-Cartantheory”, Phys. Lett. B 682 (2009) 300,[arXiv:0902.3407];“Detailed discussions and calculations of quantum Reggecalculus of Einstein-Cartan theory”, Phys. Rev. D 82(2010) 064039 [arXiv:0912.2435];“The phase structure of Einstein-Cartan theory”, Phys.Lett. B 665 (2008) 54 [arXiv:0804.4619];“The Phase and Critical Point of Quantum Einstein-Cartan Gravity”, Phys. Lett. B 711 (2012) 404
[arXiv:1112.1323].[31] S.-S. Xue, JHEP 11 (2016) 072, arXiv:1605.01266. For
more details, see Refs. [33].[32] S.-S. Xue, JHEP 05(2017)146, arXiv:1601.06845. For
more details, see Refs. [36].[33] S.-S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D93, 073001 (2016),
arXiv:1506.05994; Phys. Lett. B 721 (2013) 347,arXiv:1301.4254; Mod. Phys. Lett. A, Vol. 14 (1999)2701, ibid Vol.15 (2000) 1089; Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997)177; ibid B224, (1989) 309; B245, (1990), 565; Z. Phys.C 50, (1991) 145; Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 53 (1997)688, ibid 63A-C (1998) 596, ibid 94 (2001) 781;G. Preparata and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991)35; B 302 (1993) 442; B325 (1994) 161-165.
[34] W. A. Bardeen, C. T. Hill and M. Lindner,Phys.Rev.D41(1990) 1647.
[35] G. Preparata and S.-S. Xue, Phys. Lett. B377 (1996) 124-128; S.-S. Xue, Phys. Lett. B721 (2013) 347-352.
[36] S.-S. Xue, Phys. Lett. B 381, 277 (1996), Nucl. Phys. B486, 282 (1997), ibid 580, 365 (2000); Phys. Rev. D 61,054502 (2000), ibid 64, 094504 (2001); J. Phys. G, Nucl.Part. Phys. 29 (2003) 2381, arXiv:hep-ph/0106117; Phys.Lett. B 706 (2011) 213; ibid 665 (2008) 54.
[37] S.-S. Xue, Phys. Lett. B727 (2013) 308(arXiv:1308.6486); ibid B737 (2014) 172(arXiv:1405.1867); B744 (2015) 88 (arXiv:1501.06844).
[38] R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], JHEP1504 (2015) 040 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040[arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]].
[39] J. deFavereau et al., JHEP 1402, 057 (2014).[40] See for example, J. Chang, et al. Nature Vol 456—20
Nov. 2008; Y-Z. Fan, B. Zhang and J. Chang, IJMPDVol. 19, (2010) 2011.
[41] N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. Slatyer, and N.Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009);Dmitry Malyshev, Ilias Cholis, and Joseph Gelfand,Phys. Rev. D80, 063005 (2009).
[42] AMS collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 171103 (2015).[43] https://www.lngs.infn.it/en and
http://pandax.physics.sjtu.edu.cn/.[44] https://icecube.wisc.edu/.[45] S.-S. Xue, Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997) 177, [hep-
ph/9610508]; Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14 (1999) 2701, [hep-ph/9706301];
[46] S. Alioli, V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vriesdan, E.Mereghetti JHEP05(2017)086; ArXiv ePrint:1703.04751
[47] H. Kleinert and S.-S. Xue, “Composite Fermionsand their pair states in a Strongly-Coupled FermionLiquid”, Nuclear Physics B 936 (2018) 352363,https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04023.
[48] ATLAS Collaboration, “Searches for scalar lepto-quarks and differential cross-section measurements indilepton-dijet events in proton-proton collisions at acentre-of-mass energy of
√s = 13 TeV with the
ATLAS experiment”, Eur.Phys.J. C79 (2019) no.9,733, DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7181-x, ArXiv e-Print1902.00377
[49] CMS Collaboration, “Search for heavy neutrinos andthird-generation leptoquarks in hadronic states of twoτ leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisionsat√s = 13 TeV”, JHEP 1903 (2019) 170, DOI:
10.1007/JHEP03(2019)170, ArXiv ePrint:1811.00806[50] CMS Collaboration, “Searches for physics beyond the
standard model with the MT2 variable in hadronic
15
final states with and without disappearing tracks inproton-proton collisions at
√s = 13 TeV”, ArXiv e-
Print:1909.03460[51] ATLAS Collabortion, “Search for squarks and gluinos in
final states with jets and missing transverse momentumusing 36 fb−1 of
√s = 13 TeV pp collision data with
the ATLAS detector”, Phys.Rev. D97 (2018) no.11, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.112001, ArXiv e-Print:1712.02332
[52] CMS Collaboration, “Search for a heavy right-handed Wboson and a heavy neutrino in events with two same-flavor leptons and two jets at
√s = 13 TeV”, JHEP
1805 (2018) no.05, 148, DOI: 10.1007/JHEP05(2018)148,ArXiv e-Print:1803.11116
[53] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for TeV-scale grav-ity signatures in high-mass final states with lep-tons and jets with the ATLAS detector at
√s
=13 TeV”, Phys.Lett. B760 (2016) 520-537, DOI:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.030, ArXiv e-Print:1606.02265
[54] CMS Collaboration, “Search for dijet resonancesin events with three jets from proton-proton col-lisions at
√s = 13 TeV”, CMS-PAS-EXO-19-004,
http://cds.cern.ch/record/2684756?ln=en[55] ATLAS Collaboratin, “Constraints on mediator-based
dark matter and scalar dark energy models using√s
= 13 TeV pp collision data collected by the ATLASdetector”, JHEP 1905 (2019) 142 (2019-05-23), DOI:10.1007/JHEP05(2019)142, ArXiv e-Print:1903.01400
[56] ATLAS Collaboration, “Optimisation of the AT-LAS b-tagging performance for the 2016 LHCRun”, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2016-012, 2016, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2160731.
[57] CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavorjets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13TeV”, JINST 13 (2018) P05011, DOI: 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011, ArXiv e-Print:1712.07158.
[58] ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry in fi-nal states with charm jets and missing transverse momen-tum in 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP 09 (2018) 050, DOI: 10.1007/JHEP09(2018)050,ArXiv e-Print:1805.01649.
[59] CMS Collaboration, “Search for the pair production ofthird-generation squarks with two-body decays to a bot-tom or charm quark and a neutralino in protonpro-ton collisions at
√s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 778
(2018) 263, DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.012, ArXive-Print:1707.07274.
16
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=1
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=2
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8
FΠ
/mΠ
=3
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=4
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=5
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=6
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=7
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=8
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=9
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=10
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=11
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=12
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=13
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=14
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
10-13
10-12
10-11
10-10
10-9
10-8
10-7
10-6
10-5
10-4
10-3
10-2
10-1
100
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Br
mΠ
/mF
mF/Λ=0.8F
Π/m
Π=15
E → e q q-
E → e q q- DirectE → e Π → e q q-
E → e Π → e GG’
FIG. 8. (Color Online). The branching ratios of all the possible decays of F for values of FΠ/mΠ between 1 and 15, increasingin step of 1, to complement the cases reported in Fig. 5 (right column).