Heavy lepton singlets slightly mixed with a standard neutrino
are usually searched at the LHC
in the trilepton plus channel:
with . We
show that for the mass of the heavy lepton can be reconstructed.
For β GeV and the current luminosity (138 fb-1 at 13 TeV), we estimate that
this reconstruction
would set the bound on
at , versus the limit around obtained in a recent CMS analysis or
from flavor and electroweak precision data.
β
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.esmasip@ugr.esfuenvilches@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 is a left-handed spinor whereas its conjugate contravariant is right handed (we omit Lorentz indexes). For example, to define the electron we need two of these left handed spinors with opposite charge: and .
A mass term would then read , where is the 4-component electron in the chiral representation of : and ..
To explain neutrino masses we need at least two heavy neutral leptons (HNLs): two
bi-spinors of opposite lepton number combined into a Dirac field of mass . Assuming no extra Higgses, lepton-number conservation and only dim operators we have
(1)
where , 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
(2)
where and the dots indicate terms forbidden by . This rank-2 matrix implies a Dirac field , with , of mass plus three massless neutrinos. The
(massless) neutrino has now a small component along the
sterile flavor .
In order to get non-zero masses we need to break . In particular, we can add small Majorana masses
(, ) for
the two heavy fields and suppressed Yukawas (, ) for ,
implying the matrix
(3)
The mass
increases in one unit the rank of and defines an inverse seesaw with
[5].
The term does not give mass to a second standard
neutrino, it just breaks the degeneracy between the two (now Majorana) heavy
neutrinos. The term is then necessary to give a mass
to , with
staying massless.
Alternatively, could be forbidden by a discrete symmetry and obtained by adding a second heavy neutrino pair (i.e., an inverse seesaw for the two massive neutrino families).
The mass parameters and above are not EW, and the matrix in Eq. (3) may accommodate any values between and GeV: any heavy neutrino mass seems equally natural, and only the data may have a say about natureβs choice. One
could have,
for example, and eV for parameters around GeV and GeV or around GeV and GeV, in both cases with
GeV, GeV and . Notice, however, that HNL masses larger than the TeV imply a very small mixing 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:
GeV and .
The possibility of two Majorana HNLs at the TeV scale with sizeable heavy-light mixings (e.g., GeV,
TeV and ) requires a fine tuning () 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 , we will also discuss this fine tuned Majorana case.
The heavy-light mixing defines then the couplings of and
to the and bosons (we drop the prime to denote mass eigenstates). In particular, will see its gauge couplings reduced by a factor of whereas will now couple to the with a strength proportional to . The model also implies heavyβlight couplings to the boson () and
to the Higgs boson ().
Collider bounds on may be obtained at energies below or above . 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 decays (notice that the mixing with changes the definition of ), the invisible
width of the boson or one-loop flavor changing processes like . A global fit of these observables sets limits on ranging from to , being the most stringent ones for [6, 7, 8].
Figure 1: Dominant diagrams in 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 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 . We will focus on the
trilepton channel. We will show that, although the longitudinal momentum of the escapes detection, the mass 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 signal from observed at CMS
coincides with the one from , although
the kinematics in each process is obviously different.
Figure 2: Higgs to in the SM and possible HNL contributions to dilepton plus .
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 , or GeV HNL with, in all cases, a mixing 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 :
(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 in Fig. 1 may be an or a decaying into ).
We then apply the cuts defined in [10], namely, the three leptons must be isolated and with a
GeV (highest above 55 GeV), a pseudorapidity for the muons (electron),
and an invariant mass GeV with GeV and GeV.
We find that 20 events (just 2% of the initial HNL sample) pass the cuts for GeV, 17 events for GeV and 14 for GeV. The low efficiency of the cuts suggests that the CMS analysis has been optimized for larger HNL massesβ β β For GeV, in particular, we find that a reduction from 10 to 5 GeV in the minimum 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 and 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 of the neutrino can be obtained from . In addition,
we notice that for the boson decaying into electron plus neutrino is on shell. This can be used to deduce the longitudinal momentum of the neutrinoβ‘β‘β‘For (see Fig. 1) refers to the total momentum of the three final neutrinos.: it is solution to the quadratic equation
(5)
With the complete momenta of the neutrino and of the electron and the muon of opposite charge (i.e., ) we can now reconstruct ,
(6)
Only one of the two solutions for in Eq (5) provides the right reconstruction of , and we find the lower one to be the best choice. In particular,
when the two solutions are significantly
different () this is the right choice 96% of the times, whereas for similar solutions the prescription is
successful 84% of the times.
Figure 3: Mass reconstruction in (left) and (right) at 13 TeV, 138 fb-1 for GeV with
and diboson background.
In Fig. 3 we plot the distribution of the reconstructed 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 or GeV would be significant enough to exclude the mixing that we are considering.
We can increase the statistics if we include the possibility that the boson decays into a muon,
(7)
In this case, the muon needed to reconstruct 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 to the muon in the primary vertex and, together with the cut GeV, implies that 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 GeV or 87% for GeV.
Therefore we
consider as well this trimuon signal. Again, we find that only 2% of the HNL events pass the cuts for GeV or
6% at GeV.
The reconstruction of 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 of the background., we estimate that at the current luminosity the bounds on at CMS and ATLAS could be around
for GeV or for GeV. These limits are set at 95% confidence level using the prescription [19].
An analogous analysis for
(in Fig. 4) would imply very similar bounds for the mixing with the electron flavor: or for a HNL mass of or GeV, respectively.
Figure 4: Mass reconstruction in (left) and (right) at 13 TeV, 138 fb-1 for GeV with
and diboson background.
3 Majoranas and other production channels
Figure 5: Mass reconstruction in for a Majorana mass GeV with
at 13 TeV aat 13 TeV, 138 fb-1.
We can also reconstruct for a heavy Majorana singlet. This case implies -violating processes with , two muons (or electrons) with the same charge plus an electron (or muon) of opposite charge (see Fig. 1), e.g.,
(8)
To reconstruct we need to choose among the two same sign muons. As explained before, the muon from tends to be the most energetic one. Here, in addition, the chirality flip in favors that the from 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 GeV. Again, the efficiency of the cuts seems low: 19 out of 511 HNL events pass the cuts for GeV or 10 out of 83 for GeV.
Fig. 5 shows, however, that the reconstruction of works and, together with a total background 50% smaller than in the Dirac case, our results suggest similar limits. For example, at GeV we estimate
(9)
Finally, we would like to comment on the reconstruction of the HNL mass also in other channels. In particular, Higgs searches (dilepton of different flavor plus missing )
[21, 22, 23, 24, 25]
with slightly different cuts could be sensitive to the presence of the HNL: .
Take GeV (the argument applies to any masses between and around GeV)
and . Before the cuts described in [26], we estimate 9,950 HNL events versus 11,320 Higgs events. We notice that
the low value of strongly favors that the s-channel boson in Fig. 2 is near the mass shell, implying that the neutrino
from will carry little . We can then assume that most of the missing is carried by the second neutrino and, as before, use that the parent is on shell to find and reconstruct .
We find, however, that with the cuts optimized for Higgs searches very few 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 tends to have a below the 15 GeV required to the subleading lepton. If we relax this minimum to
5 GeV and impose that the electron is more energetic than the muon we
would keep 1.1% of the sample (106 events), while the fraction of events passing the cuts would be reduced to 4.4% (500 Higgs events). These frequencies underline the possible complementarity of Higgs physics and 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 channel. Our Monte Carlo simulation shows a clear peak in this variable, that would translate into better bounds on the heavy-light mixing . 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 would be a better choice in this case.
In another recent search for a light () HNL [27], ATLAS has reconstructed using that the -channel in (see Fig. 1) is near the
mass shell. Since the in is exactly on shell, our analysis provides a more accurate reconstruction
in the complementary regime with . We have also shown that a similar reconstruction could work in
the dilepton plus channel by changing the cuts currently being used in Higgs to 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 collisions could probe mixings that are not excluded by PMNS unitarity bounds.
[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]].
[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]].