SciPost Submission Page
New sensitivity of current LHC measurements to vector-like quarks
by A. Buckley, J. M. Butterworth, L. Corpe, D. Huang, P. Sun
|As Contributors:||Andy Buckley · Jonathan Butterworth · Louie Corpe|
|Arxiv Link:||https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07172v2 (pdf)|
|Date submitted:||2020-09-08 10:32|
|Submitted by:||Corpe, Louie|
|Submitted to:||SciPost Physics|
|Subject area:||High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology|
Quark partners with non-chiral couplings appear in several extensions of the Standard Model. They may have non-trivial generational structure to their couplings, and may be produced either in pairs via the strong and EM interactions, or singly via the new couplings of the model. Their decays often produce heavy quarks and gauge bosons, which will contribute to a variety of already-measured "Standard Model" cross-sections at the LHC. We present a study of the sensitivity of such published LHC measurements to vector-like quarks, first comparing to limits already obtained from dedicated searches, and then broadening to some so-far unstudied parameter regions.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
We have introduced some other changes to the manuscript as requested, with details provided below.
In the introduction, we have specified the charges of the VLQs, as suggested. The reviewers asked whether the signal predictions were LO or NLO. We confirm they are all LO, and mention this in the text and relevant figure captions (where we also increased the label size as requested). We are aware that NLO predictions exist and have now mentioned them, but using those is beyond the scope of this work.
For Section 2, in the second paragraph , we agree with the reviewers that the statement was confusing, and we have opted to delete the statement, which in the end was not really needed. We now note that the effect of first-generation quark couplings on EW pair-production has been remarked upon in the previous papers. We have remarked upon the W/Z -> QQ coupling as suggested. The arrow on the diagram in fig 1 e) has been fixed. Also in this section, as requested, we have clarified/reworded the statements on: phase space suppression in pair production versus single production; and the suppression T+q/B+q channels.
In Section 3, when comparing to LHC results, we have noted the integrated luminosities of the relevant analyses, and made a statement and added references for the CMS coverage.
Regarding Section 4/Fig 6, we have clarified that this relates to third-generation couplings only. We take on board the comment about the BTXY-multiplet being unrealistic, and now provide results for the various singlets, doublets and triplets which are allowed (in addition to the unrealistic BTXY case as a benchmark). As suggested, we have also commented that these bounds cannot be directly compared to searches without accounting for enhancements due to degenerate VLQs.
For section 5, we have kept in the main body the BTXY results as a useful benchmark, but noted that the more realistic multiplet results can be found in the appendix. We have also added Section 5.4 which describes the main differences between the BTXY and multiplet results. We have also replaced the WHZ=111 with a more appropriate admixture in each case. We have clarified as requested which diagrams from Fig 1 are included in the study.
In addition, we have added additional references where appropriate.
Submission & Refereeing History
You are currently on this page
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2020-9-15 Invited Report
1- Broad results, complementary to standard analyses
2- The methodology used can be easily exported to other experimental analyses and have significant positive implications.
1- No significant weaknesses.
I think the improvements introduced in the second version of the article make it suitable for publication in SciPost.
Incidentally, I'm a bit confused by the choice of 0:1/2:1/2 branching fractions for the doublet case. I understand it was motivated by the request by the reviewer but this BRs only make sense if one is considering one of the two quarks in the doublet. If both quarks in the doublet are included, then we recover the 1/2:1/4:1/4 ratios when adding both quarks (as dictated by the equivalence theorem). For instance in the (X, T) case Gamma(X->Wt)=2Gamma(T->Z t)=2Gamma(T->H t) in the asymptotic limit. Probably this is what the authors do (they explicitly say that the X->Wt BR is always 1) but it is not entirely obvious from the text in the appendix. In any case, I think this is a minor issue that I don't feel needs any change.