2016
DOI: 10.1007/jhep01(2016)118
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Disambiguating seesaw models using invariant mass variables at hadron colliders

Abstract: We propose ways to distinguish between different mechanisms behind the collider signals of TeV-scale seesaw models for neutrino masses using kinematic endpoints of invariant mass variables. We particularly focus on two classes of such models widely discussed in literature: (i) Standard Model extended by the addition of singlet neutrinos and (ii) Left-Right Symmetric Models. Relevant scenarios involving the same "smoking-gun" collider signature of dilepton plus dijet with no missing transverse energy differ fro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 224 publications
(382 reference statements)
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, even for this last case of pair-production of semi-invisibly decaying particles, several methods for mass measurement have been developed, such as i) using kinematic endpoints of visible particle invariant mass distributions [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], which works only for two or more visible particles in the decay chain (thus necessarily facing combinatorics due to the pair-production), ii) the M T 2 variable 4 and its generalizations and variants , which often use MET, iii) polynomial methods [49][50][51][52][53], which often assume a specific event topology and impose an adequate number of on-shell constraints, or iv) the razor and related variables [54,55], which often need some assumptions about boosts of the mother particles. See also references [56][57][58][59][60][62][63][64][65][66] for other kinematic methods for mass measurement,…”
Section: Jhep04(2016)151mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Nevertheless, even for this last case of pair-production of semi-invisibly decaying particles, several methods for mass measurement have been developed, such as i) using kinematic endpoints of visible particle invariant mass distributions [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], which works only for two or more visible particles in the decay chain (thus necessarily facing combinatorics due to the pair-production), ii) the M T 2 variable 4 and its generalizations and variants , which often use MET, iii) polynomial methods [49][50][51][52][53], which often assume a specific event topology and impose an adequate number of on-shell constraints, or iv) the razor and related variables [54,55], which often need some assumptions about boosts of the mother particles. See also references [56][57][58][59][60][62][63][64][65][66] for other kinematic methods for mass measurement,…”
Section: Jhep04(2016)151mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The massless limit of these expressions is given by the limit γ * d → ∞ and reads 16) as necessary to reproduce the massless result of (2.7). We emphasize that the addition of θ(γ kin − γ M ) enables us to easily keep track of the consequence of γ cr M being larger or smaller than θ(γ kin − γ M ) on the shape of the energy distribution.…”
Section: Jhep04(2016)151mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…LR models provide also interesting candidates for a Z ′ boson as currently hinted at by b → sℓℓ observables [12][13][14]. Stringent constraints come from electroweak precision observables [15] and from direct searches at LHC [16][17][18][19][20], pushing the limit for LR models to several TeV. Studies in the framework of flavour physics suggest also that the structure for the right-handed CKM-like matrix should be quite different from the left-handed one, far from the manifest or pseudo-manifest scenarios [21][22][23][24][25].…”
Section: Jhep08(2016)128mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the see-saw mechanism comes in rather naturally in the context of left-right symmetric scenarios; aside from other nice features, as for instance the recovery of parity symmetry, and the appearance of right-handed currents at high energy, which also makes such extensions very appealing. Recently, the left-right scenarios have been revised [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] in order to make contact with the latest experimental data of LHC. Moreover, the dark matter problem [26][27][28] and the diphoton excess anomaly [29][30][31][32][33] have been explored in this kind of scenarios.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%