Abstract

Heavy lepton singlets N𝑁Nitalic_N slightly mixed with a standard neutrino Ξ½β„“subscriptπœˆβ„“\nu_{\ell}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are usually searched at the LHC in the trilepton plus pTmisssuperscriptsubscript𝑝Tmissp_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT channel: p⁒pβ†’W+β†’β„“+⁒N→𝑝𝑝superscriptπ‘Šβ†’superscriptℓ𝑁pp\to W^{+}\to\ell^{+}Nitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N with Nβ†’β„“βˆ’β’W+β†’β„“βˆ’β’β„“β€²β£+⁒ν→𝑁superscriptβ„“superscriptπ‘Šβ†’superscriptβ„“superscriptβ„“β€²πœˆN\to\ell^{-}W^{+}\to\ell^{-}\ell^{\prime+}\nuitalic_N β†’ roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½. We show that for mN>mWsubscriptπ‘šπ‘subscriptπ‘šπ‘Šm_{N}>m_{W}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the mass of the heavy lepton can be reconstructed. For mNβ‰ˆ90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}\approx 90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ 90–130130130130 GeV and the current luminosity (138 fb-1 at 13 TeV), we estimate that this reconstruction would set the bound on |Vℓ⁒N|2superscriptsubscript𝑉ℓ𝑁2|V_{\ell N}|^{2}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at 4Γ—10βˆ’44superscript1044\times 10^{-4}4 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, versus the limit around 2Γ—10βˆ’32superscript1032\times 10^{-3}2 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT obtained in a recent CMS analysis or |Vℓ⁒N|2<10βˆ’3superscriptsubscript𝑉ℓ𝑁2superscript103|V_{\ell N}|^{2}<10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT from flavor and electroweak precision data.

 

Reconstructing a Heavy Neutral Lepton at the LHC

Pablo de la Torre, Manuel Masip, Fuensanta Vilches

Departamento de FΓ­sica TeΓ³rica y del Cosmos
Universidad de Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain

pdelatorre@ugr.es      masip@ugr.es      fuenvilches@ugr.es

1 Introduction

Heavy fermion singlets with no electric charge provide the simplest UV completion of the Standard Model (SM) that is able to generate the dim-5 Weinberg operator [1], which arguably makes them the most motivated scenario for BSM physics. Let us briefly discuss the minimal setup (see the generic discussion in [2], the majoron model in [3] or the dark matter model in [4]) using 2-component spinors***In this notation Ο‡πœ’\chiitalic_Ο‡ is a left-handed spinor whereas its conjugate contravariant Ο‡Β―Β―πœ’\bar{\chi}overΒ― start_ARG italic_Ο‡ end_ARG is right handed (we omit Lorentz indexes). For example, to define the electron we need two of these left handed spinors with opposite charge: e𝑒eitalic_e and ecsuperscript𝑒𝑐e^{c}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. A mass term would then read m⁒(e⁒ec+e¯⁒ecΒ―)=m⁒Ψ¯e⁒Ψeπ‘šπ‘’superscript𝑒𝑐¯𝑒¯superscriptπ‘’π‘π‘šsubscript¯Ψ𝑒subscriptΨ𝑒m\left(ee^{c}+\bar{e}\bar{e^{c}}\right)=m\,\bar{\Psi}_{e}\Psi_{e}italic_m ( italic_e italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + overΒ― start_ARG italic_e end_ARG overΒ― start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) = italic_m overΒ― start_ARG roman_Ξ¨ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ¨ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where Ξ¨esubscriptΨ𝑒\Psi_{e}roman_Ξ¨ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the 4-component electron in the chiral representation of Ξ³ΞΌsuperscriptπ›Ύπœ‡\gamma^{\mu}italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT: Ξ¨e=(eecΒ―)subscriptΨ𝑒matrix𝑒¯superscript𝑒𝑐\Psi_{e}=\begin{pmatrix}e\\ \bar{e^{c}}\end{pmatrix}roman_Ξ¨ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_e end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL overΒ― start_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) and Ψ¯e=(ec⁒eΒ―)subscript¯Ψ𝑒superscript𝑒𝑐¯𝑒\bar{\Psi}_{e}=\left(e^{c}\;\bar{e}\right)overΒ― start_ARG roman_Ξ¨ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT overΒ― start_ARG italic_e end_ARG )..

To explain neutrino masses we need at least two heavy neutral leptons (HNLs): two bi-spinors (N,Nc)𝑁superscript𝑁𝑐(N,N^{c})( italic_N , italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of opposite lepton number L=Β±1𝐿plus-or-minus1L=\pm 1italic_L = Β± 1 combined into a Dirac field of mass M𝑀Mitalic_M. Assuming no extra Higgses, lepton-number conservation and only dim ≀4absent4\leq 4≀ 4 operators we have

βˆ’β„’βŠƒM⁒N⁒Nc+yν⁒H⁒L⁒Nc+h.c.,formulae-sequence𝑀𝑁superscript𝑁𝑐subscriptπ‘¦πœˆπ»πΏsuperscript𝑁𝑐hβ„’c-{\cal L}\supset M\,NN^{c}+y_{\nu}\,HLN^{c}+{\rm h.c.}\,,- caligraphic_L βŠƒ italic_M italic_N italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H italic_L italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + roman_h . roman_c . , (1)

where H=(h+⁒h0)𝐻superscriptβ„Žsuperscriptβ„Ž0H=(h^{+}\;h^{0})italic_H = ( italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), L=(ν⁒ℓ)πΏπœˆβ„“L=(\nu\;\ell)italic_L = ( italic_Ξ½ roman_β„“ ) and, with all generality, we have redefined the 3 lepton doublets to find the flavor combination in the Yukawa. After electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking the neutrino mass matrix reads

β„³=(β‹…00β‹…0β‹…mβ‹…β‹…β‹…β‹…M00mMβ‹…),β„³matrixmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionβ‹…0missing-subexpression0missing-subexpressionβ‹…0missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionβ‹…π‘šβ‹…β‹…β‹…β‹…π‘€00π‘šπ‘€β‹…{\cal M}=\begin{pmatrix}&&&\cdot&0\\ &0&&\cdot&0\\ &&&\cdot&m\\ \cdot&\cdot&\cdot&\cdot&M\\ 0&0&m&M&\cdot\end{pmatrix},caligraphic_M = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL italic_m end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL start_CELL italic_M end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_m end_CELL start_CELL italic_M end_CELL start_CELL β‹… end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) , (2)

where m=yν⁒v/2π‘šsubscriptπ‘¦πœˆπ‘£2m=y_{\nu}v/\sqrt{2}italic_m = italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v / square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG and the dots indicate terms forbidden by L𝐿Litalic_L. This rank-2 matrix implies a Dirac field (Nβ€²,Nc)superscript𝑁′superscript𝑁𝑐(N^{\prime},N^{c})( italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), with Nβ€²=cα⁒N+sα⁒ν3superscript𝑁′subscript𝑐𝛼𝑁subscript𝑠𝛼subscript𝜈3N^{\prime}=c_{\alpha}N+s_{\alpha}\nu_{3}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, of mass mN=M2+m2subscriptπ‘šπ‘superscript𝑀2superscriptπ‘š2m_{N}=\sqrt{M^{2}+m^{2}}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG plus three massless neutrinos. The (massless) neutrino Ξ½3β€²=βˆ’sα⁒N+cα⁒ν3subscriptsuperscriptπœˆβ€²3subscript𝑠𝛼𝑁subscript𝑐𝛼subscript𝜈3\nu^{\prime}_{3}=-s_{\alpha}N+c_{\alpha}\nu_{3}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has now a small component sΞ±=m/M2+m2subscriptπ‘ π›Όπ‘šsuperscript𝑀2superscriptπ‘š2s_{\alpha}=m/\sqrt{M^{2}+m^{2}}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_m / square-root start_ARG italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG along the sterile flavor N𝑁Nitalic_N.

In order to get non-zero masses we need to break L𝐿Litalic_L. In particular, we can add small Majorana masses (ΞΌ1,2β‰ͺMmuch-less-thansubscriptπœ‡12𝑀\mu_{1,2}\ll Mitalic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ͺ italic_M, Δ⁒L=2Δ𝐿2\Delta L=2roman_Ξ” italic_L = 2) for the two heavy fields and suppressed Yukawas (y~Ξ½β‰ͺyΞ½much-less-thansubscript~π‘¦πœˆsubscriptπ‘¦πœˆ\tilde{y}_{\nu}\ll y_{\nu}over~ start_ARG italic_y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ͺ italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, Δ⁒L=1Δ𝐿1\Delta L=1roman_Ξ” italic_L = 1) for N𝑁Nitalic_N, implying the matrix

β„³=(000ΞΌ30ΞΌ3β€²m0ΞΌ3ΞΌ3β€²ΞΌ1M00mMΞΌ2).β„³matrixmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpression00missing-subexpression0missing-subexpressionsubscriptπœ‡30missing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionmissing-subexpressionsubscriptsuperscriptπœ‡β€²3π‘š0subscriptπœ‡3subscriptsuperscriptπœ‡β€²3subscriptπœ‡1𝑀00π‘šπ‘€subscriptπœ‡2{\cal M}=\begin{pmatrix}&&&0&0\\ &0&&\mu_{3}&0\\ &&&\mu^{\prime}_{3}&m\\ 0&\mu_{3}&\mu^{\prime}_{3}&\mu_{1}&M\\ 0&0&m&M&\mu_{2}\end{pmatrix}.caligraphic_M = ( start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_m end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_M end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_m end_CELL start_CELL italic_M end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ) . (3)

The mass ΞΌ1subscriptπœ‡1\mu_{1}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT increases in one unit the rank of β„³β„³{\cal M}caligraphic_M and defines an inverse seesaw with mΞ½3β‰ˆΞΌ1⁒(m/M)2subscriptπ‘šsubscript𝜈3subscriptπœ‡1superscriptπ‘šπ‘€2m_{\nu_{3}}\approx\mu_{1}(m/M)^{2}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m / italic_M ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [5]. The term ΞΌ2subscriptπœ‡2\mu_{2}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT does not give mass to a second standard neutrino, it just breaks the degeneracy between the two (now Majorana) heavy neutrinos. The term ΞΌ3=y~ν⁒v/2subscriptπœ‡3subscript~π‘¦πœˆπ‘£2\mu_{3}=\tilde{y}_{\nu}v/\sqrt{2}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over~ start_ARG italic_y end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v / square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG is then necessary to give a mass mΞ½2β‰ˆΞΌ32/ΞΌ1subscriptπ‘šsubscript𝜈2superscriptsubscriptπœ‡32subscriptπœ‡1m_{\nu_{2}}\approx\mu_{3}^{2}/\mu_{1}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to Ξ½2β€²subscriptsuperscriptπœˆβ€²2\nu^{\prime}_{2}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with Ξ½1β€²subscriptsuperscriptπœˆβ€²1\nu^{\prime}_{1}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT staying massless. Alternatively, ΞΌ3subscriptπœ‡3\mu_{3}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT could be forbidden by a discrete symmetry and mΞ½2subscriptπ‘šsubscript𝜈2m_{\nu_{2}}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT obtained by adding a second heavy neutrino pair (i.e., an inverse seesaw for the two massive neutrino families).

The mass parameters M𝑀Mitalic_M and ΞΌ1,2subscriptπœ‡12\mu_{1,2}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT above are not EW, and the matrix in Eq. (3) may accommodate any values between 10βˆ’3superscript10310^{-3}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 1015superscript101510^{15}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 15 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT GeV: any heavy neutrino mass seems equally natural, and only the data may have a say about nature’s choice. One could have, for example, sΞ±=0.01subscript𝑠𝛼0.01s_{\alpha}=0.01italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.01 and mΞ½=(0.05, 0.008, 0)subscriptπ‘šπœˆ0.050.008 0m_{\nu}=(0.05,\,0.008,\,0)italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 0.05 , 0.008 , 0 ) eV for parameters around M=103𝑀superscript103M=10^{3}italic_M = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT GeV and m=10π‘š10m=10italic_m = 10 GeV or around M=1𝑀1M=1italic_M = 1 GeV and m=10βˆ’2π‘šsuperscript102m=10^{-2}italic_m = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT GeV, in both cases with ΞΌ1β‰ˆ10βˆ’6subscriptπœ‡1superscript106\mu_{1}\approx 10^{-6}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT GeV, ΞΌ3β‰ˆ10βˆ’8subscriptπœ‡3superscript108\mu_{3}\approx 10^{-8}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT GeV and ΞΌ2,ΞΌ3′≀μ1subscriptπœ‡2subscriptsuperscriptπœ‡β€²3subscriptπœ‡1\mu_{2},\mu^{\prime}_{3}\leq\mu_{1}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≀ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Notice, however, that HNL masses larger than the TeV imply a very small mixing sΞ±subscript𝑠𝛼s_{\alpha}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and thus a decoupled HNL. In particular, the usual seesaw mechanism is obtained if the three mass parameters and the Yukawa couplings are all unsuppressed: M,ΞΌ1,2β‰ˆ1010𝑀subscriptπœ‡12superscript1010M,\mu_{1,2}\approx 10^{10}italic_M , italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 10 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT GeV and ΞΌ3=O⁒(m)subscriptπœ‡3π‘‚π‘š\mu_{3}=O(m)italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_O ( italic_m ).

The possibility of two Majorana HNLs at the TeV scale with sizeable heavy-light mixings (e.g., m=10π‘š10m=10italic_m = 10 GeV, ΞΌ1,2β‰ˆ1subscriptπœ‡121\mu_{1,2}\approx 1italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ 1 TeV and M=0𝑀0M=0italic_M = 0) requires a fine tuning (m2/ΞΌ2+ΞΌ3′⁣2/ΞΌ1β‰ˆ10βˆ’8⁒m2/ΞΌ2superscriptπ‘š2subscriptπœ‡2subscriptsuperscriptπœ‡β€²23subscriptπœ‡1superscript108superscriptπ‘š2subscriptπœ‡2m^{2}/\mu_{2}+\mu^{\prime 2}_{3}/\mu_{1}\approx 10^{-8}m^{2}/\mu_{2}italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 8 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) that is not stable under radiative corrections. If one of the HNLs is significantly heavier than the other one, the cancelation forces its mixing to be smaller, and the model reduces to a single Majorana HNL mixed with a combination of the standard neutrinos. Therefore, although throughout our analysis we will assume a quasi-Dirac HNL N𝑁Nitalic_N, we will also discuss this fine tuned Majorana case.

The heavy-light mixing sΞ±subscript𝑠𝛼s_{\alpha}italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defines then the couplings of Ξ½β„“subscriptπœˆβ„“\nu_{\ell}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and N𝑁Nitalic_N to the WΒ±superscriptπ‘Šplus-or-minusW^{\pm}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Z𝑍Zitalic_Z bosons (we drop the prime to denote mass eigenstates). In particular, Ξ½β„“subscriptπœˆβ„“\nu_{\ell}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will see its gauge couplings reduced by a factor of cΞ±subscript𝑐𝛼c_{\alpha}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT whereas N𝑁Nitalic_N will now couple to the Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W with a strength proportional to Vℓ⁒Nβ‰ˆsΞ±subscript𝑉ℓ𝑁subscript𝑠𝛼V_{\ell N}\approx s_{\alpha}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰ˆ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The model also implies heavy–light couplings to the Z𝑍Zitalic_Z boson (∝sα⁒cΞ±proportional-toabsentsubscript𝑠𝛼subscript𝑐𝛼\propto s_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}∝ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) and to the Higgs boson (yΞ½=2⁒sα⁒M/vsubscriptπ‘¦πœˆ2subscript𝑠𝛼𝑀𝑣y_{\nu}=\sqrt{2}s_{\alpha}M/vitalic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M / italic_v).

Collider bounds on |Vℓ⁒N|2superscriptsubscript𝑉ℓ𝑁2|V_{\ell N}|^{2}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT may be obtained at energies below or above mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. At lower energies the HNL is not produced and the bounds are based on observables like the universality of weak interactions, precision observables related to ΞΌπœ‡\muitalic_ΞΌ decays (notice that the mixing with Ξ½ΞΌsubscriptπœˆπœ‡\nu_{\mu}italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT changes the definition of GΞΌsubscriptπΊπœ‡G_{\mu}italic_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT), the invisible width of the Z𝑍Zitalic_Z boson or one-loop flavor changing processes like ΞΌβ†’eβ’Ξ³β†’πœ‡π‘’π›Ύ\mu\to e\gammaitalic_ΞΌ β†’ italic_e italic_Ξ³. A global fit of these observables sets limits on |Vℓ⁒N|2superscriptsubscript𝑉ℓ𝑁2|V_{\ell N}|^{2}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ranging from 10βˆ’2superscript10210^{-2}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to 10βˆ’4superscript10410^{-4}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, being the most stringent ones for β„“=ΞΌβ„“πœ‡\ell=\muroman_β„“ = italic_ΞΌ [6, 7, 8].

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Dominant diagrams in N𝑁Nitalic_N searches at CMS (Dirac or Majorana) and L3.

Here we will discuss higher energy processes with the direct production of the HNL. The current collider limits for mN>MWsubscriptπ‘šπ‘subscriptπ‘€π‘Šm_{N}>M_{W}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have been obtained by CMS in the trilepton channel at the LHC [9, 10] and by L3 at LEP [11] (see the dominant diagrams in Fig. 1), in this second case only for β„“=eℓ𝑒\ell=eroman_β„“ = italic_e. We will focus on the trilepton channel. We will show that, although the longitudinal momentum of the ν𝜈\nuitalic_Ξ½ escapes detection, the mass mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the HNL can be reconstructed. We will also comment on the possible effects introduced by a HNL in Higgs searches at the LHC. In particular, notice (see Fig. 2) that the dilepton plus missing pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT signal from hβ†’W⁒Wβˆ—β†’β„Žπ‘Šsuperscriptπ‘Šh\to WW^{*}italic_h β†’ italic_W italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT observed at CMS coincides with the one from h,Z→ν⁒Nβ†’β„Žπ‘πœˆπ‘h,Z\to\nu Nitalic_h , italic_Z β†’ italic_Ξ½ italic_N, although the kinematics in each process is obviously different.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Higgs to W+⁒Wβˆ’superscriptπ‘Šsuperscriptπ‘ŠW^{+}W^{-}italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in the SM and possible HNL contributions to dilepton plus pTmisssubscriptsuperscript𝑝missTp^{\rm miss}_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

2 HNL at the LHC

To study a HNL at the LHC we first produce an UFO file [12] with FeynRules [13] that includes the new interactions, then we generate signal and background events with MadGraph5 [14] + Pythia [15], and finally we analyze the results with routines based on FasJet [16], ROOT [17] and HepMC [18].

Let us consider a 90909090, 110110110110 or 130130130130 GeV HNL with, in all cases, a mixing |Vμ⁒N|2=10βˆ’3superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘2superscript103|V_{\mu N}|^{2}=10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with the muon flavor. For 138 fb-1 at 13 TeV, our simulation estimates, respectively, 1021, 317 or 153 HNL events giving two opposite sign muons, an electron and pβ†’Tmisssuperscriptsubscript→𝑝Tmiss\vec{p}_{\rm T}^{\rm\,miss}overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

p⁒p→μ±⁒Nβ†’ΞΌΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“β’WΒ±β†’ΞΌΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“β’e±⁒ν.→𝑝𝑝superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minus𝑁→superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-plussuperscriptπ‘Šplus-or-minusβ†’superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-plussuperscript𝑒plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to\mu^{\pm}N\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}W^{\pm}\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}e^{\pm}\nu\,.italic_p italic_p β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ . (4)

In the simulation we have included the events where the final electron comes from the leptonic decay of a tau lepton (i.e., the ℓ′⁣+superscriptβ„“β€²\ell^{\prime+}roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Fig. 1 may be an e+superscript𝑒e^{+}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT or a Ο„+superscript𝜏\tau^{+}italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT decaying into ν¯τ⁒e+⁒νesubscript¯𝜈𝜏superscript𝑒subscriptπœˆπ‘’\bar{\nu}_{\tau}\,e^{+}\nu_{e}overΒ― start_ARG italic_Ξ½ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο„ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). We then apply the cuts defined in [10], namely, the three leptons must be isolated and with a pT>10subscript𝑝T10p_{\rm T}>10italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 10 GeV (highest pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT above 55 GeV), a pseudorapidity |Ξ·|<2.4⁒(2.5)πœ‚2.42.5|\eta|<2.4\,(2.5)| italic_Ξ· | < 2.4 ( 2.5 ) for the muons (electron), and an invariant mass mμ⁒μ>5subscriptπ‘šπœ‡πœ‡5m_{\mu\mu}>5italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 5 GeV with |mΞΌβ’ΞΌβˆ’mZ|>15subscriptπ‘šπœ‡πœ‡subscriptπ‘šπ‘15|m_{\mu\mu}-m_{Z}|>15| italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | > 15 GeV and |mμ⁒μ⁒eβˆ’mZ|>15subscriptπ‘šπœ‡πœ‡π‘’subscriptπ‘šπ‘15|m_{\mu\mu e}-m_{Z}|>15| italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_ΞΌ italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | > 15 GeV. We find that 20 events (just 2% of the initial HNL sample) pass the cuts for mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV, 17 events for mN=110subscriptπ‘šπ‘110m_{N}=110italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 110 GeV and 14 for mN=130subscriptπ‘šπ‘130m_{N}=130italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 130 GeV. The low efficiency of the cuts suggests that the CMS analysis has been optimized for larger HNL masses†††For mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV, in particular, we find that a reduction from 10 to 5 GeV in the minimum pTsubscript𝑝𝑇p_{T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the least energetic lepton increases the signal by a factor of 1.42 and the background by a factor of 1.12)..

The background, in turn, is dominated by W⁒Zπ‘Šπ‘WZitalic_W italic_Z and Z⁒Z𝑍𝑍ZZitalic_Z italic_Z production: we obtain that the cuts are satisfied by 285 events, which define around 50% of a total background yield [10] (these 285 events do not include leptons from hadron decays nor photons and jets misidentified as leptons).

The momenta of the two muons and the electron in the HNL events can be measured, whereas the transverse momentum pβ†’TΞ½subscriptsuperscriptβ†’π‘πœˆT\vec{p}^{\,\nu}_{\rm T}overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the neutrino can be obtained from pβ†’Tmisssuperscriptsubscript→𝑝Tmiss\vec{p}_{\rm T}^{\rm\,miss}overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In addition, we notice that for mN>mWsubscriptπ‘šπ‘subscriptπ‘šπ‘Šm_{N}>m_{W}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W boson decaying into electron plus neutrino is on shell. This can be used to deduce the longitudinal momentum pLΞ½superscriptsubscript𝑝L𝜈p_{\rm L}^{\nu}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the neutrino‑‑‑For β„“β€²=Ο„superscriptβ„“β€²πœ\ell^{\prime}=\tauroman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Ο„ (see Fig. 1) pLΞ½superscriptsubscript𝑝L𝜈p_{\rm L}^{\nu}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT refers to the total momentum of the three final neutrinos.: it is solution to the quadratic equation

(pTe)2⁒(pLΞ½)2βˆ’pLe⁒(mW2+2⁒pβ†’Teβ‹…pβ†’TΞ½)⁒pLΞ½βˆ’(mW44+mW2⁒pβ†’Teβ‹…pβ†’TΞ½+(pβ†’Teβ‹…pβ†’TΞ½)2βˆ’(pe)2⁒(pTΞ½)2)=0.superscriptsubscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑒T2superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑝L𝜈2subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑒Lsuperscriptsubscriptπ‘šπ‘Š2β‹…2subscriptsuperscript→𝑝𝑒Tsubscriptsuperscriptβ†’π‘πœˆTsuperscriptsubscript𝑝L𝜈superscriptsubscriptπ‘šπ‘Š44β‹…superscriptsubscriptπ‘šπ‘Š2subscriptsuperscript→𝑝𝑒Tsubscriptsuperscriptβ†’π‘πœˆTsuperscriptβ‹…subscriptsuperscript→𝑝𝑒Tsubscriptsuperscriptβ†’π‘πœˆT2superscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑒2superscriptsubscriptsuperscriptπ‘πœˆT20(p^{e}_{\rm T})^{2}\,(p_{\rm L}^{\nu})^{2}-p^{e}_{\rm L}\left(m_{W}^{2}+2\,% \vec{p}^{\,e}_{\rm T}\cdot\vec{p}^{\,\nu}_{\rm T}\right)p_{\rm L}^{\nu}-\left(% {m_{W}^{4}\over 4}+m_{W}^{2}\,\vec{p}^{\,e}_{\rm T}\cdot\vec{p}^{\,\nu}_{\rm T% }+(\vec{p}^{\,e}_{\rm T}\cdot\vec{p}^{\,\nu}_{\rm T})^{2}-(p^{e})^{2}\,(p^{\nu% }_{\rm T})^{2}\right)=0\,.( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 2 overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( divide start_ARG italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‹… overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 . (5)

With the complete momenta of the neutrino and of the electron and the muon of opposite charge (i.e., eΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“superscript𝑒plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-pluse^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) we can now reconstruct mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

mN=(EΞΌ+Ee+EΞ½)2βˆ’(pβ†’ΞΌ+pβ†’e+pβ†’Ξ½)2.subscriptπ‘šπ‘superscriptsuperscriptπΈπœ‡superscript𝐸𝑒superscript𝐸𝜈2superscriptsuperscriptβ†’π‘πœ‡superscript→𝑝𝑒superscriptβ†’π‘πœˆ2m_{N}=\sqrt{\left(E^{\mu}+E^{e}+E^{\nu}\right)^{2}-\left(\vec{p}^{\,\mu}+\vec{% p}^{\,e}+\vec{p}^{\,\nu}\right)^{2}}\,.italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + overβ†’ start_ARG italic_p end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG . (6)

Only one of the two solutions for pLΞ½superscriptsubscriptπ‘πΏπœˆp_{L}^{\nu}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Eq (5) provides the right reconstruction of mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and we find the lower one to be the best choice. In particular, when the two solutions are significantly different (m2>1.1⁒m1subscriptπ‘š21.1subscriptπ‘š1m_{2}>1.1\,m_{1}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1.1 italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) this is the right choice 96% of the times, whereas for similar solutions the prescription is successful 84% of the times.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Mass reconstruction in p⁒pβ†’ΞΌΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“β’e±⁒ν→𝑝𝑝superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-plussuperscript𝑒plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}e^{\pm}\nuitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ (left) and p⁒pβ†’ΞΌΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“β’ΞΌΒ±β’Ξ½β†’π‘π‘superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-plussuperscriptπœ‡plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\mu^{\pm}\nuitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ (right) at 13 TeV, 138 fb-1 for mN=(90,110,130)subscriptπ‘šπ‘90110130m_{N}=(90,110,130)italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 90 , 110 , 130 ) GeV with |Vμ⁒N|2=10βˆ’3superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘2superscript103|V_{\mu N}|^{2}=10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and diboson background.

In Fig. 3 we plot the distribution of the reconstructed mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for the 20, 17 and 14 signal events that correspond to the three HNL masses together with the 285 background events (these distributions have been obtained with a normalized sample 20 times larger). It is apparent that the peak at mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 or 110110110110 GeV would be significant enough to exclude the mixing |Vμ⁒N|2=10βˆ’3superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘2superscript103|V_{\mu N}|^{2}=10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that we are considering.

We can increase the statistics if we include the possibility that the Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W boson decays into a muon,

p⁒p→μ±⁒Nβ†’ΞΌΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“β’WΒ±β†’ΞΌΒ±β’ΞΌβˆ“β’ΞΌΒ±β’Ξ½.→𝑝𝑝superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minus𝑁→superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-plussuperscriptπ‘Šplus-or-minusβ†’superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡minus-or-plussuperscriptπœ‡plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to\mu^{\pm}N\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}W^{\pm}\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\mp}\mu^{\pm}\nu\,.italic_p italic_p β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ . (7)

In this case, the muon needed to reconstruct mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT appears together with a second muon with the same charge. We notice, however, that the production of a HNL (see Fig. 1) is favored by the collision of a valence quark and a see antiquark in the initial protons. This tends to give a larger |pL|subscript𝑝L|p_{\rm L}|| italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | to the muon in the primary vertex and, together with the cut pTmiss>55subscriptsuperscript𝑝missT55p^{\rm miss}_{\rm T}>55italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 55 GeV, implies that mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must be reconstructed with the muon of lower energy. The Monte Carlo simulation shows that this prescription gives the right choice 78% of the times for mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV or 87% for mN=130subscriptπ‘šπ‘130m_{N}=130italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 130 GeV.

Therefore we consider as well this trimuon signal. Again, we find that only 2% of the HNL events pass the cuts for mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV or 6% at mN=130subscriptπ‘šπ‘130m_{N}=130italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 130 GeV. The reconstruction of mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is done with the criteria described above but changing the electron by the less energetic muon among the two with same charge. The event distribution for this observable is shown in Fig. 3-right. Combined with the dimuon plus electron events and normalizing the background by a factor of 2§§§As shown in [10], nonprompt leptons and missidentified jets and photons account approximately for 50%percent5050\%50 % of the background., we estimate that at the current luminosity the bounds on |Vμ⁒N|2superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘2|V_{\mu N}|^{2}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at CMS and ATLAS could be around 4.0Γ—10βˆ’44.0superscript1044.0\times 10^{-4}4.0 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV or 8.4Γ—10βˆ’48.4superscript1048.4\times 10^{-4}8.4 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for mN=130subscriptπ‘šπ‘130m_{N}=130italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 130 GeV. These limits are set at 95% confidence level using the C⁒Ls𝐢subscript𝐿𝑠CL_{s}italic_C italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT prescription [19]. An analogous analysis for p⁒pβ†’e±⁒Nβ†’e±⁒eβˆ“β’β„“β€²β£Β±β’Ξ½β†’π‘π‘superscript𝑒plus-or-minus𝑁→superscript𝑒plus-or-minussuperscript𝑒minus-or-plussuperscriptβ„“β€²plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to e^{\pm}N\to e^{\pm}e^{\mp}\ell^{\prime\pm}\nuitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N β†’ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ (in Fig. 4) would imply very similar bounds for the mixing with the electron flavor: |Ve⁒N|2<3.8Γ—10βˆ’4superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑒𝑁23.8superscript104|V_{eN}|^{2}<3.8\times 10^{-4}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < 3.8 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT or 8.0Γ—10βˆ’48.0superscript1048.0\times 10^{-4}8.0 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for a HNL mass of 90909090 or 130130130130 GeV, respectively.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Mass reconstruction in p⁒pβ†’e±⁒eβˆ“β’ΞΌΒ±β’Ξ½β†’π‘π‘superscript𝑒plus-or-minussuperscript𝑒minus-or-plussuperscriptπœ‡plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to e^{\pm}e^{\mp}\mu^{\pm}\nuitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ (left) and p⁒pβ†’e±⁒eβˆ“β’e±⁒ν→𝑝𝑝superscript𝑒plus-or-minussuperscript𝑒minus-or-plussuperscript𝑒plus-or-minus𝜈pp\to e^{\pm}e^{\mp}e^{\pm}\nuitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ (right) at 13 TeV, 138 fb-1 for mN=(90,110,130)subscriptπ‘šπ‘90110130m_{N}=(90,110,130)italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 90 , 110 , 130 ) GeV with |Ve⁒N|2=10βˆ’3superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑒𝑁2superscript103|V_{eN}|^{2}=10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and diboson background.

3 Majoranas and other production channels

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Mass reconstruction in p⁒p→μ±⁒μ±⁒eβˆ“β’Ξ½β†’π‘π‘superscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscriptπœ‡plus-or-minussuperscript𝑒minus-or-plus𝜈pp\to\mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm}e^{\mp}\nuitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Β± end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ“ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ for a Majorana mass mN=(90,110,130)subscriptπ‘šπ‘90110130m_{N}=(90,110,130)italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 90 , 110 , 130 ) GeV with |Vμ⁒N|2=10βˆ’3superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘2superscript103|V_{\mu N}|^{2}=10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at 13 TeV aat 13 TeV, 138 fb-1.

We can also reconstruct mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for a heavy Majorana singlet. This case implies L𝐿Litalic_L-violating processes with pTmisssuperscriptsubscript𝑝Tmissp_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, two muons (or electrons) with the same charge plus an electron (or muon) of opposite charge (see Fig. 1), e.g.,

p⁒pβ†’W+β†’ΞΌ+⁒Nβ†’ΞΌ+⁒μ+⁒Wβˆ’β†’ΞΌ+⁒μ+⁒eβˆ’β’Ξ½Β―e.→𝑝𝑝superscriptπ‘Šβ†’superscriptπœ‡π‘β†’superscriptπœ‡superscriptπœ‡superscriptπ‘Šβ†’superscriptπœ‡superscriptπœ‡superscript𝑒subscriptΒ―πœˆπ‘’pp\to W^{+}\to\mu^{+}N\to\mu^{+}\mu^{+}\,W^{-}\to\mu^{+}\mu^{+}e^{-}\,\bar{\nu% }_{e}\,.italic_p italic_p β†’ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT overΒ― start_ARG italic_Ξ½ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (8)

To reconstruct mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we need to choose among the two same sign muons. As explained before, the muon from W+β†’ΞΌ+⁒Nβ†’superscriptπ‘Šsuperscriptπœ‡π‘W^{+}\to\mu^{+}Nitalic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N tends to be the most energetic one. Here, in addition, the chirality flip in N𝑁Nitalic_N favors that the ΞΌ+superscriptπœ‡\mu^{+}italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT from Nβ†’ΞΌ+⁒Wβˆ’β†’π‘superscriptπœ‡superscriptπ‘ŠN\to\mu^{+}W^{-}italic_N β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is emitted backwards [20], which also reduces its energy: 89% of the times the reconstruction with the less energetic muon provides the right value for mN=110subscriptπ‘šπ‘110m_{N}=110italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 110 GeV. Again, the efficiency of the cuts seems low: 19 out of 511 HNL events pass the cuts for mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV or 10 out of 83 for mN=130subscriptπ‘šπ‘130m_{N}=130italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 130 GeV. Fig. 5 shows, however, that the reconstruction of mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT works and, together with a total background 50% smaller than in the Dirac case, our results suggest similar limits. For example, at mN=90subscriptπ‘šπ‘90m_{N}=90italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 90 GeV we estimate

|Ve⁒N|2<4.0Γ—10βˆ’4;|Vμ⁒N|2<4.2Γ—10βˆ’4.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑉𝑒𝑁24.0superscript104superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘24.2superscript104|V_{eN}|^{2}<4.0\times 10^{-4}\,;\hskip 14.22636pt|V_{\mu N}|^{2}<4.2\times 10% ^{-4}\,.| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < 4.0 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; | italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < 4.2 Γ— 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (9)

Finally, we would like to comment on the reconstruction of the HNL mass also in other channels. In particular, Higgs searches hβ†’W⁒Wβˆ—β†’ΞΌ+⁒ν⁒eβˆ’β’Ξ½Β―β†’β„Žπ‘Šsuperscriptπ‘Šβ†’superscriptπœ‡πœˆsuperscriptπ‘’Β―πœˆh\to WW^{*}\to\mu^{+}\nu\,e^{-}\bar{\nu}italic_h β†’ italic_W italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT overΒ― start_ARG italic_Ξ½ end_ARG (dilepton of different flavor plus missing pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) [21, 22, 23, 24, 25] with slightly different cuts could be sensitive to the presence of the HNL: Z⁒(h)→ν⁒N→ν⁒μ+⁒Wβˆ’β†’Ξ½β’β„“+⁒ν¯⁒eβˆ’β†’π‘β„Žπœˆπ‘β†’πœˆsuperscriptπœ‡superscriptπ‘Šβ†’πœˆsuperscriptβ„“Β―πœˆsuperscript𝑒Z(h)\to\nu N\to\nu\,\mu^{+}W^{-}\to\nu\,\ell^{+}\bar{\nu}\,e^{-}italic_Z ( italic_h ) β†’ italic_Ξ½ italic_N β†’ italic_Ξ½ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_Ξ½ roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT overΒ― start_ARG italic_Ξ½ end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Take mN=85subscriptπ‘šπ‘85m_{N}=85italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 85 GeV (the argument applies to any masses between mWsubscriptπ‘šπ‘Šm_{W}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and around 100100100100 GeV) and |Vμ⁒N|2=10βˆ’3superscriptsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‡π‘2superscript103|V_{\mu N}|^{2}=10^{-3}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Before the cuts described in [26], we estimate 9,950 HNL events versus 11,320 Higgs events. We notice that the low value of mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT strongly favors that the s-channel Z𝑍Zitalic_Z boson in Fig. 2 is near the mass shell, implying that the neutrino from Z→ν⁒Nβ†’π‘πœˆπ‘Z\to\nu Nitalic_Z β†’ italic_Ξ½ italic_N will carry little pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We can then assume that most of the missing pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is carried by the second neutrino and, as before, use that the parent Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W is on shell to find pLΞ½subscriptsuperscriptπ‘πœˆπΏp^{\nu}_{L}italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ½ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and reconstruct mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We find, however, that with the cuts optimized for Higgs searches very few N𝑁Nitalic_N events are selected: the ones used in [26] keep only 0.7% of the 9,950 events, versus 11% of the 11,320 Higgs events. The basic reason is that the charged lepton from Nβ†’ΞΌ+⁒Wβˆ’β†’π‘superscriptπœ‡superscriptπ‘ŠN\to\mu^{+}W^{-}italic_N β†’ italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT tends to have a pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT below the 15 GeV required to the subleading lepton. If we relax this minimum pTsubscript𝑝Tp_{\rm T}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 5 GeV and impose that the electron is more energetic than the muon we would keep 1.1% of the N𝑁Nitalic_N sample (106 events), while the fraction of hβ†’W⁒Wβˆ—β†’β„Žπ‘Šsuperscriptπ‘Šh\to WW^{*}italic_h β†’ italic_W italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT events passing the cuts would be reduced to 4.4% (500 Higgs events). These frequencies underline the possible complementarity of Higgs physics and N𝑁Nitalic_N searches in some mass region.

4 Discussion

In any search for a new particle it is critical to find the optimal kinematical variable that discriminates between signal and background. Here we have discussed how to reconstruct the mass of a HNL in the trilepton plus pTmisssuperscriptsubscript𝑝Tmissp_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT channel. Our Monte Carlo simulation shows a clear peak in this variable, that would translate into better bounds on the heavy-light mixing |Vℓ⁒N|2superscriptsubscript𝑉ℓ𝑁2|V_{\ell N}|^{2}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In particular, a recent CMS analysis [10] uses a combination of observables optimized with machine learning techniques that distributes both signal and background in 20 bins. Our results clearly indicate that mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT would be a better choice in this case.

In another recent search for a light (mN<mWsubscriptπ‘šπ‘subscriptπ‘šπ‘Šm_{N}<m_{W}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) HNL [27], ATLAS has reconstructed mNsubscriptπ‘šπ‘m_{N}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT using that the s𝑠sitalic_s-channel Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W in p⁒pβ†’W+β†’β„“+⁒N→𝑝𝑝superscriptπ‘Šβ†’superscriptℓ𝑁pp\to W^{+}\to\ell^{+}Nitalic_p italic_p β†’ italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N (see Fig. 1) is near the mass shell. Since the Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W in Nβ†’β„“βˆ’β’W+→𝑁superscriptβ„“superscriptπ‘ŠN\to\ell^{-}W^{+}italic_N β†’ roman_β„“ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is exactly on shell, our analysis provides a more accurate reconstruction in the complementary regime with mN>mWsubscriptπ‘šπ‘subscriptπ‘šπ‘Šm_{N}>m_{W}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We have also shown that a similar reconstruction could work in the dilepton plus pTmisssuperscriptsubscript𝑝Tmissp_{\rm T}^{\rm miss}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_miss end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT channel by changing the cuts currently being used in Higgs to W⁒Wβˆ—π‘Šsuperscriptπ‘ŠWW^{*}italic_W italic_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT searches.

In summary, although it is a possibility not explored at the LHC yet, we show that the search for peaks associated to a HNL in p⁒p𝑝𝑝ppitalic_p italic_p collisions could probe mixings |Vℓ⁒N|2superscriptsubscript𝑉ℓ𝑁2|V_{\ell N}|^{2}| italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that are not excluded by PMNS unitarity bounds.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mikael Chala and JosΓ© Santiago for discussions. This work has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities MICIU/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033/ (grants PID2022-14044NB-C21 and PID2022-139466NB-C22) and by Junta de AndalucΓ­a (FQM 101).

References

  • [1] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 1566-1570 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1566
  • [2] A. Boyarsky, M. Drewes, T. Lasserre, S. Mertens and O. Ruchayskiy, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 104 (2019), 1-45 doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2018.07.004 [arXiv:1807.07938 [hep-ph]].
  • [3] A. J. Cuesta, M. E. GΓ³mez, J. I. Illana and M. Masip, JCAP 04 (2022) no.04, 009 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/04/009 [arXiv:2109.07336 [hep-ph]].
  • [4] P. de la Torre, M. GutiΓ©rrez and M. Masip, JCAP 11 (2023), 068 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/068 [arXiv:2309.00374 [hep-ph]].
  • [5] R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986), 1642 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1642
  • [6] E. Fernandez-Martinez, J. Hernandez-Garcia and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP 08 (2016), 033 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)033 [arXiv:1605.08774 [hep-ph]].
  • [7] G. HernΓ‘ndez-TomΓ©, G. LΓ³pez Castro and P. Roig, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.1, 84 [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.5, 438] doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6563-4 [arXiv:1807.06050 [hep-ph]].
  • [8] G. HernΓ‘ndez-TomΓ©, J. I. Illana, M. Masip, G. LΓ³pez Castro and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.7, 075020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.075020 [arXiv:1912.13327 [hep-ph]].
  • [9] A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.22, 221801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.221801 [arXiv:1802.02965 [hep-ex]].
  • [10] A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], [arXiv:2403.00100 [hep-ex]].
  • [11] P. Achard et al. [L3], Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001), 67-74 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00993-5 [arXiv:hep-ex/0107014 [hep-ex]].
  • [12] C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012), 1201-1214 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022 [arXiv:1108.2040 [hep-ph]].
  • [13] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014), 2250-2300 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012 [arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]].
  • [14] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli and M. Zaro, JHEP 07 (2014), 079 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]].
  • [15] C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten, L. LΓΆnnblad, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel and C. T. Preuss, et al. SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022), 8 doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8 [arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]].
  • [16] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012), 1896 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2 [arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]].
  • [17] R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 389 (1997), 81-86 doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(97)00048-X
  • [18] A. Buckley, P. Ilten, D. Konstantinov, L. LΓΆnnblad, J. Monk, W. Pokorski, T. Przedzinski and A. Verbytskyi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 260 (2021), 107310 doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107310 [arXiv:1912.08005 [hep-ph]].
  • [19] A. L. Read, J. Phys. G 28 (2002), 2693-2704 doi:10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313
  • [20] J. Shelton, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 014032 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.014032 [arXiv:0811.0569 [hep-ph]].
  • [21] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019), 508-529 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.064 [arXiv:1808.09054 [hep-ex]].
  • [22] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B 798 (2019), 134949 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134949 [arXiv:1903.10052 [hep-ex]].
  • [23] A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS], JHEP 03 (2021), 003 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2021)003 [arXiv:2007.01984 [hep-ex]].
  • [24] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.7, 622 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10366-1 [arXiv:2109.13808 [hep-ex]].
  • [25] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.9, 774 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11873-5 [arXiv:2301.06822 [hep-ex]].
  • [26] A. Tumasyan et al. [CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.7, 667 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11632-6 [arXiv:2206.09466 [hep-ex]].
  • [27] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no.6, 061803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.061803 [arXiv:2204.11988 [hep-ex]].