SciPost Submission Page
First steps towards the reconstruction of the squark flavour structure
by Jordan Bernigaud, Björn Herrmann
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Jordan Bernigaud · Björn Herrmann |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04370v3 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2019-06-04 |
| Date submitted: | 2019-05-07 02:00 |
| Submitted by: | Herrmann, Björn |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
Assuming the observation of a squark at the Large Hadron Collider, we investigate methods to access its flavour content and thus gain information on the underlying flavour structure of the theory. Based on simple observables, we apply a likelihood inference method to determine the top-flavour content of the observed particle. In addition, we employ a multivariate analysis in order to classify different flavour hypotheses. Both methods are discussed within a simplified model and the more general Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model including most general squark mixing. We conclude that the likelihood inference may provide an estimation of the top-flavour content if additional knowledge, especially on the gaugino sector is available, while the multivariate analysis identifies different flavour patterns and can accommodate a more minimalistic set of observables.
Author comments upon resubmission
we would like to thank the Referees for their careful evaluation of our manuscript as well as for their useful comments and questions.
We hereby submit a revised version of our manuscript, addressing the mentioned points.
Sincerely yours,
the authors
List of changes
We have made the following changes to our manuscript following the Editor's requests:
1) We have added a paragraph discussing the impact of the uncertainties on the likelihood-based analysis in Sec. 4. Moreover, the comments added in the Conclusion section refer to the treatment of uncertainties in the context of the multivariate analysis.
2) In the same paragraph within Section 4, we also comment on the uncertainties associated to the ratios R_{c/t} and R_{b/t}.
3) We have added a new paragraph in the end of the Conclusion section, explaining the lack of a more complete LHC analysis in the present paper. There is also a comment in the text added in Sec. 4.
4) The figures have been improved as requested. We have adapted the corresponding figure captions accordingly.
5) We have improved the discussion of the motivation in the Introduction section.
6) We have incorporated a clear explanation of the MLP results and their interpretation into our text. In particular, we have added a detailed explanation on pages 10 and 11. Moreover, on pages 14/15, we have added one sentence concerning the interpretation of the results presented in Table 3.
In addition to the recommendations formulated by the Referees and the Editor, we have incorporated the following minor modifications:
*) As one of the referees has pointed out, the matrices used to indicate the gaugino composition in Eq. (4.3) were not properly defined. We have included their meaning in the sentence following Eq. (4.3).
*) In Section 3, we have added a comment about how the key observable R_{c/t} may be obtained experimentally.
*) We have corrected a few minor typographical and punctuation errors.
Published as SciPost Phys. 6, 066 (2019)