Advertisement

Revealing timid pseudo-scalars with taus at the LHC

  • Giacomo Cacciapaglia
  • Gabriele Ferretti
  • Thomas FlackeEmail author
  • Hugo Serôdio
Open Access
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Abstract

A light pseudo-scalar that is copiously produced at the LHC may still be allowed by present searches. While masses above 65 GeV are effectively covered by di-photon searches, the lower mass window can be tested by a new search for boosted di-tau resonances. We test this strategy on a set of composite Higgs models with top partial compositeness, where most models can be probed with an integrated luminosity below 300 \(\hbox {fb}^{-1}\).

1 Introduction

The search for new resonances is one of the main physics goals at the LHC, with the discovery of a Higgs boson being an illustrious example [1, 2]. The efforts continue, mainly focusing on high mass objects typically heavier than the Higgs itself. There are in fact few searches exploring invariant masses of two Standard Model (SM) particles below, say, 100 GeV: one notable case is the search for a di-photon resonance [3, 4], mostly motivated by models that feature an extended Higgs sector, like two Higgs doublet models [5] and the next-to-minimal supersymmetric SM [6].

In this article, we focus on the LHC phenomenology of a light new scalar with a mass between 10 and 100 GeV. Generically, light new scalars are strongly constrained from electroweak precision measurements (indirectly) and from direct searches at LEP and Tevatron. At the LHC, besides the above-mentioned di-photon channel, light (pseudo)-scalars are usually searched for in the decays of the 125 GeV Higgs boson. Below roughly 10 GeV, strong bounds arise from searches related to mesons, or in experiments looking for light axion-like particles (ALPs) [7, 8, 9, 10]. Thus, the common lore is that a new scalar, in order to escape detection, needs to be either very heavy or weakly coupled to the SM.
Table 1

Couplings in the twelve models [15] used as benchmarks. For the top, several possibilities arise depending on the choice of top partner representation: here, as an illustration, we take the same coupling as for lighter fermions, whose mass arise from bilinear four-fermion interactions. \(f_a/f_\psi \) is an estimate of the ratio between the TCP decay constant \(f_a\) and the composite Higgs decay constant \(f_\psi \)

 

M1

M2

M3

M4

M5

M6

M7

M8

M9

M10

M11

M12

\(K_g\)

\(-\) 7.2

\(-\) 8.7

\(-\) 6.3

\(-\) 11.

\(-\) 4.9

\(-\) 4.9

\(-\) 8.7

\(-\) 1.6

\(-\) 10.

\(-\) 9.4

\(-\) 3.3

\(-\) 4.1

\(K_W\)

7.6

12.

8.7

12.

3.6

4.4

13.

1.9

5.6

5.6

3.3

4.6

\(K_B\)

2.8

5.9

\(-\) 8.2

\(-\) 17.

0.40

1.1

7.3

\(-\) 2.3

\(-\) 22.

\(-\) 19.

\(-\)5.5

\(-\)6.3

\(C_f\)

2.2

2.6

2.2

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.6

1.9

0.70

0.70

1.7

1.8

\(\frac{f_a}{f_\psi }\)

2.1

2.4

2.8

2.0

1.4

1.4

2.4

2.8

1.2

1.5

3.1

2.6

Note, however, that it is enough to have small couplings to electrons and to the electroweak gauge bosons in order to escape direct LEP searches and electroweak precision bounds, as well as small couplings to the Higgs to avoid the Higgs portal constraints. Couplings to gluons (and heavy quarks) are less constrained, and may lead to sizable production rates at the LHC. Candidates of this kind arise naturally in composite Higgs models that enjoy a fermion-gauge underlying description [11, 12, 13, 14, 15] providing a partial UV completion. Recent lattice results [16] have started to address the mass spectrum in a specific model [17].

In this article, we will consider this class of models to explore the 10–100 GeV mass window and show that it is, in fact, poorly tested. A timid composite pseudo-scalar (TCP) arises as the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson associated with an anomaly-free U(1) global symmetry in all models of partial compositeness that enjoy a UV completion, as defined in Ref. [12]. All the possible models can be classified, and give precise predictions for the properties of the TCP candidate [15], thus mapping out a complete landscape of possibilities. We show that, while some models are already partly tested by the low mass di-photon searches, others are unconstrained. We point out that searches for boosted di-tau resonances (which could reach a lower invariant mass than the current value of 90 GeV [18, 19]) give very promising signals and could be a powerful complementary probe to the di-photon channel, or even be the only way to access this class of TCPs.

2 Description of the models

The effective Lagrangian we consider is the SM Lagrangian augmented by the following terms, up to dimension five operators (counting powers of \(f_a\)):
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal {L}}&= \frac{1}{2}(\partial _\mu a)(\partial ^\mu a) -\frac{1}{2}m_a^2 a^2 - \sum _f \frac{i C_f m_f}{f_a} a \bar{\varPsi }_f \gamma ^5 \varPsi _f \nonumber \\&\quad +\frac{g_s^2 K_g a}{16\pi ^2 f_a}G^a_{\mu \nu }\tilde{G}^{a\mu \nu }+ \frac{g^2 K_W a}{16\pi ^2 f_a} W^i_{\mu \nu }\tilde{W}^{i\mu \nu } +\frac{g'^2 K_B a}{16\pi ^2 f_a} B_{\mu \nu }\tilde{B}^{\mu \nu } \, . \end{aligned}$$
(1)
A pseudo-scalar a described by this general Lagrangian arises, for example, in UV completions of composite Higgs models, which were classified and studied in Refs [12, 15]. In this section, we briefly summarize the main results relevant for our phenomenological study. Further background information on the models is provided in Appendix A.
Within this class of models, the coupling to the SM fermions in Eq. (1) is only the first term of the expansion of the spurion coupling \( -\,m_f(h)\ \mathrm {e}^{i C_f a/f_a} \bar{\varPsi }_{fL} \varPsi _{fR} + {\mathrm {h.c.}}\) (generating the fermions masses), which breaks explicitly the U(1) shift symmetry. A derivative coupling of the TCP to fermions of the form \((\partial _\mu a / f_a) \bar{\varPsi }_f \gamma ^5 \gamma ^\mu \varPsi _f\) is absent in these models since the SM fermions are neutral under the TCP U(1) charge. Although such a coupling can be obtained by using the fermion equations of motion on the leading term given in Eq. (1), the two couplings are of genuinely different origin [20], as manifested in the higher-order expansion of the spurion coupling. Starting from the complete spurion term, couplings of the Higgs to two TCPs, as well as to one TCP and Z boson, arise at loop level and are given by (see Appendix A.1 for the derivation)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {L}_{haa}= & {} \frac{3 C_t^2 m_t^2 \kappa _t}{8 \pi ^2 f_a^2 v} \log \frac{\varLambda ^2}{m^2_t}\ h (\partial _\mu a) (\partial ^\mu a), \end{aligned}$$
(2)
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {L}_{hZa}= & {} \frac{3 C_t m_t^2 g_A}{2 \pi ^2 f_a v} (\kappa _t - \kappa _V) \log \frac{\varLambda ^2}{m^2_t}\ h (\partial _\mu a) Z^\mu , \end{aligned}$$
(3)
where we list only the effect of the log-divergence (\(\varLambda \sim 4 \pi f_a\)), \(g_A= -g/(4 \cos \theta _W)\) is the axial coupling of the Z to tops, and \(\kappa _{V,t}\) are the corrections from compositeness to the couplings of the Higgs to vectors and tops, respectively. As \(\kappa _{V,t} = 1 + \mathcal {O} (v^2/f_a^2)\), our result agrees with the fact that the only non-zero contribution to the hZa coupling arises from a dimension 7 operator [21].

The couplings to gauge bosons in Eq. (1) arise as anomalous couplings if the TCP is a (SM singlet) bound state of underlying SM charged fermions. In this case, the anomaly coefficients \(K_{g,W,B}\) are fully determined by the charges of the hyper-fermions. We refer to [15] for an extensive description of a classification of UV completions giving rise to this TCP, which yields twelve models. For the purpose of this article, the TCP dynamics in the twelve models is fully specified1 by the numerical couplings in Table 1. Note that, due to the small TCP mass, top loops also give additional sizable contributions to the couplings to gauge bosons (not included in the table, but included in our analysis).

Our goal is to confront the TCP with the existing searches and to propose a new, more sensitive search for such object. We treat the mass \(m_a\) and the decay constant \(f_a\) of the TCP as free parameters. In composite Higgs UV completions, \(f_a\) is related to the composite Higgs decay constant \(f_\psi \), entering in the usual alignment parameter \(\xi = v^2/f_\psi ^2\), by a relative coefficient that was estimated in [15] and is summarized in Table 1. Since bounds on composite Higgs models require \(f_\psi \gtrsim 800 \text{ GeV }\), \(f_a\) is expected to be naturally of the order of \(1\div 2\) TeV.
Fig. 1

Constraints on \(f_a\) as a function of \(m_a\) for the benchmark models M1 - M12, defined in Table 1. The bounds arise from di-muon searches [22, 23] in the low mass range, di-photon searches [3, 4] in the higher one, and from the BSM decay width of the Higgs [24] below 65 GeV. We have also indicated the current bounds obtained by adapting the results in [10] in the region between 20 and 65 GeV for the two models (M9 and M10) where they are the strongest

3 Bounds from existing searches

Since the TCP is a gauge singlet, its couplings to Z and W are induced by the anomaly and by top loops, thus they are always much smaller than those of a SM Higgs boson. Hence, bounds from all LEP searches for a light Higgs, which are based on Z associated production, are evaded. At hadron colliders the TCP is copiously produced via gluon fusion. However, only very few Tevatron or LHC two-body resonant searches reach down to resonance masses below \(\sim 100\) GeV. Relevant bounds arise from Run–I ATLAS [3] and Run–II CMS [4] di-photon searches, which reach down to masses of 65 and 70 GeV, respectively, as well as ATLAS and CMS low-mass di-muon searches [22, 23], reaching up to 14 GeV. The bounds on \(f_a\) from these searches are shown in Fig. 1,2 for our models. The bounds are obtained by calculating the leading order TCP production cross section following from the Lagrangian (1) with PDF set NNPDF23_nnlo_as _0119_qed [25] and a conservative k-factor of 3.3 applied [26], and using branching ratios into \(\gamma \gamma \) and \(\mu \mu \) (computed at NLO following Ref. [9]) for the models listed in Table 1. Figures on the production cross sections and branching ratios in the twelve sample models are provided in Appendix A.2. Resonant di-tau searches reach values of the mass as low as 90 GeV [18, 19], however the current bounds are never competitive with the di-photon ones in that range, mainly due to the presence of the Z-peak background. As noted in Ref. [10], a CMS search looking for boosted \(Z'\) in di-jet [27] may give additional bounds above 50 GeV.

For other processes, a recent comprehensive review of the existing bounds on ALPs [9] can be directly used to confront TCPs. Firstly, the one-loop suppression (\(1/16\pi ^2\)) of couplings to vector bosons in the TCP Lagrangian (1) renders bounds from vector-boson-fusion or photon-fusion production very weak. This includes \(Z\rightarrow a \gamma \) processes and production by photon fusion in Pb–Pb ultra-peripheral collisions [28]. The up-to-date most constraining searches in the mass window between 14 and 65 GeV rely on the indirect production via Higgs portal, \(h\rightarrow a a\). As compared to the generic ALP model discussed in Ref. [9], the bounds from direct searches are weakened due to the smallness of the \(h\rightarrow a a\) branching fraction following from Eq. (2), and due to the smallness of the \(a\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) and \(a\rightarrow \mu \mu \) branching fractions. Nevertheless, indirect constraints arise from the bounds on the BSM decay width of the Higgs, which is currently below \(34\%\) [24]: as shown in Fig. 1, the lower bound on \(f_a\) always falls short of 1 TeV for the models under consideration.3 For \(m_a<34\ \text{ GeV }\) there is also a bound from \(h\rightarrow Z a\) (following from Eq.(3)), however it turns out even weaker than the Higgs portal one. Associated tta production may yield a bound on TCPs: using the results of the feasibility study [30] at \(\sqrt{s}=\) 14 TeV with 3 ab\(^{-1}\), which focuses on \(a\rightarrow bb\) in the mass range between 20 and 100 GeV, significant bounds on \(f_a\) can be found only for a few models in the low mass end. Associated bba production yields weaker bounds [31]. Lastly, we should mention that the contribution of the TCP to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon [32, 33] is also small. For \(m_a=10 \text{ GeV }\) and \(f_a=1 \text{ TeV }\) it varies from \(\varDelta a_\mu = -5.7\times 10^{-11}\) for M9 to \(\varDelta a_\mu = 2.7\times 10^{-10}\) for M7, the current discrepancy being \( a_\mu ^{\mathrm {exp.}} - a_\mu ^{\mathrm {SM}} = (29.3 \pm 7.6)\times 10^{-10}\).

As shown, the TCP represents an example of a light pseudo-scalar which would evade all existing bounds, while being copiously produced at the LHC in gluon fusion. Searches in final states from which current bounds arise can be extended in mass range. The low-mass di-muon search [23] (performed at \(\sqrt{s}= 7\) TeV) terminated at \(m_a = 14\) GeV, but the first severe physical barrier at higher mass is the di-muon background from Drell-Yan Z production. However, a dedicated low-mass di-muon trigger and a very high invariant mass resolution would be required.4

A recent study on inclusive di-photon cross section measurements [10] has shown how to extend the low-mass reach of di-photon searches for a generic ALP. Applying their projected reach to our models we find a nice complementarity between the di-photon channel and our proposal to use the di-tau channel to be discussed below.5
Table 2

The values of \(\sigma _{\mathrm {prod.}} \times BR_{\tau \tau }\times \epsilon \) in fb for \(f_a = 1\) TeV for each of the models defined in Table 1. The main backgrounds are di-top and single-top (59.2 fb), \(Z/\gamma ^*\) (24.7 fb), and di-bosons (11.0 fb)

\(m_a\)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

M1

30.

14.

9.3

6.6

5.3

3.7

3.0

2.3

1.7

1.4

M2

44.

20.

13.

9.5

7.7

5.4

4.4

3.2

2.4

2.0

M3

26.

12.

8.4

6.1

5.0

3.6

2.9

2.2

1.6

1.4

M4

28.

11.

6.1

3.8

2.9

1.9

1.5

1.1

0.80

0.67

M5

14.

6.3

4.2

3.0

2.4

1.7

1.4

1.0

0.74

0.63

M6

14.

6.3

4.2

3.0

2.4

1.7

1.4

1.0

0.74

0.63

M7

44.

20.

13.

9.5

7.7

5.4

4.4

3.2

2.4

2.0

M8

4.0

2.1

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.3

1.2

0.96

0.76

0.69

M9

8.3

3.1

1.6

0.95

0.70

0.47

0.36

0.26

0.19

0.16

M10

8.1

3.0

1.6

0.95

0.70

0.46

0.36

0.26

0.19

0.16

M11

9.4

4.7

3.5

2.8

2.4

1.8

1.5

1.2

0.87

0.74

M12

13.

6.4

4.7

3.6

3.1

2.3

1.9

1.4

1.1

0.92

4 Boosted di-tau searches as a chance to explore the TCP

As TCP decays to muons and photons have small rates, it is of interest to also look at other final states. The dominant TCP decay channels are gg and \(b\bar{b}\), but both have very large irreducible QCD background.6 The next-most frequent final state is \(\tau ^+\tau ^-\): sizable rates of a few % are possible and the models with the lowest rates are the ones with better di-photon reach (see Fig. 1). Compared to the di-muon channel, the branching ratios are larger by a factor of \(\sim m^2_\tau /m^2_\mu \sim 280\).

One of the main challenges for low-mass di-tau resonant searches is the trigger. The topology that we find most promising is that of a boosted TCP recoiling against an initial state radiation (ISR) jet, and then decaying into \(\tau ^+ \tau ^-\). The boost needs to be sufficient to allow the event to pass the high-level trigger requirement in at least one category (jet, tau or lepton \(p_T\)) and yet leave enough observable signal. Boosted di-tau pairs have already been considered by CMS [37] in searches for heavy resonances which decay to hh, hZ, or hW. In our case, the mass of the TCP is not known, thus it may not be necessary to require a full reconstruction of the taus with subsequent increase of the systematic uncertainty associated to the procedure. Furthermore, we are interested in light TCPs with a large boost, and thus smaller separation angles between the di-tau decay products can be expected. All decay modes of the di-tau system – fully hadronic, semi-leptonic, and leptonic – are potentially interesting. However, for the reasons mentioned above, we focus on the opposite flavor leptonic channel, in which one \(\tau \) decays to an electron and the other to a muon. One crucial issue, to be discussed more extensively in Appendix B, is related to the minimum angular separation \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }\) between the leptons, since the boosted tau pairs have a small separation angle. We generate the signal sample \(p p\rightarrow a \rightarrow \tau ^+ \tau ^-\) for \(m_a=10, 20, \cdots 100\) GeV with up to two jets at the partonic level using MadGraph [38]. We shower and hadronize with Pythia [39] and run the fast detector simulation of Delphes [40] using the standard CMS card after removing the isolation requirement between electrons and muons. Table 2 shows the value of the signal cross section \(\sigma _{\mathrm {prod.}}\times {\mathrm {BR}}_{\tau \tau }\) times the efficiency \(\epsilon \) expected for each of the benchmark models with \(f_a=1\) TeV after imposing the following requirements:7 \(p_{T\mu }>52\) GeV, \(p_{Te}>10\) GeV, \(\varDelta R_{\mu j}>0.5\), \(\varDelta R_{e j}>0.5\), \(p_{Tj}>150\) GeV, \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }<1\), \(m_{e\mu }<100\) GeV. The upper cut on the separation \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }<1\) is essential in reducing the background from W’s [41], while we do not impose any minimum value yet. (This last issue is discussed below and in Appendix B.)

The leading irreducible SM backgrounds are \(t \bar{t} +\) single top, \(\gamma ^*/ Z\) and VV, the last one being mainly \(W^+ W^-\). Our simulation of these backgrounds yields \(\sigma \times \epsilon = 59\), 25 and 11 fb, respectively, after imposing the same cuts as above. As discussed in Appendix B, we expect the reducible backgrounds of single vector boson+fakes and QCD to be sub-leading (of the order of a few fb) in the \((\mu , e)\) channel. Note that we do not require full reconstruction of the tau momentum.

To be able to estimate the reach of Run II + III at the LHC, it is essential to know the systematic uncertainties because we are in a situation where the signal over background ratio is small, \(S/B\ll 1\), as can be seen from Table 2. Since a search of this type has not been done by the experimental collaborations, we cannot reliably quantify the systematic uncertainties yet. Data driven techniques can certainly be used to reduce the systematic uncertainties on the different backgrounds. For the lepton identification, the systematic uncertainties typically amount to 1% [41], while we do not require tau identification, which would increase the systematics to 10–20%. To assess the feasibility of the analysis, we will include the systematic uncertainty \(\delta \) in the significance \(\mathcal {Z}\) according the approximate formula
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {Z}= \frac{S}{\sqrt{B + \delta ^2 B^2}}\,, \end{aligned}$$
(4)
where S and B are the number of signal and background events at a given integrated luminosity and \(\delta \) the relative systematic error on the background. Eq. (4) works quite well in the regime of interest for this work when compared to the more general treatment in [42]. A projection of the bound on \(f_a\) for the various models after 300 \(\hbox {fb}^{-1}\) integrated luminosity is shown in Fig. 2, including an estimated systematic uncertainty of 1%. We can see that for all models with exception of M9 and M10, the boosted di-tau search we propose can probe the mass range of 10–70 GeV with integrated luminosity below 300 fb\(^{-1}\).
Fig. 2

Values of \(f_a\) for models M1 - M12 for which \(\mathcal {Z} \equiv S/\sqrt{B+\delta ^2 B^2} = 3\) in the proposed di-tau search after an integrated Luminosity of 300 \(\hbox {fb}^{-1}\). We assume a systematic error on the background \(\delta = 1 \%\). Shown in grey are the current bounds as of Fig. 1

n Fig. 3 we show the relative change in the projected bound on \(f_a\) if a minimum \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }\) cut of 0.1 or 0.2 is imposed as well as its dependence on a change in systematic uncertainty from 1 to 0, 0.5, and 2%. These changes apply to all models in a universal way. We can see a loss of sensitivity for masses below \(\sim 30 - 40\) GeV when raising \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }\), while above this mass range the search is barely affected. Thus, being able to remove or reduce the minimum separation angle is important for the lowest mass region, as long as it does not imply an increase in the systematic errors.

The plot also clearly shows the importance of controlling the systematic uncertainties to a level close to 1%. The latter values are what CMS and ATLAS typically require for opposite sign leptons [41] in current searches.
Fig. 3

Relative change \(\xi _{f_a}\equiv f_a^{\delta ,\varDelta R_{e\mu }} / f_a^{1\%, 0}\) in the projected bounds on \(f_a\) with 300 \(\hbox {fb}^{-1}\) of data. We plot the relative change against the baseline presented in Fig. 2 for different values of systematic uncertainties \(\delta = 0, 0.5, 1,\) and \(2 \%\) (green, blue, black, and red) and choosing three different separation cuts \(\varDelta R_{e\mu } > 0\) (solid) 0.1 (dashed) and 0.2 (dotted) respectively

It is possible to improve sensitivity by imposing variable cuts on the invariant mass \(m_{e\mu }\) and particularly on the angular separation \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }\) of the lepton pair depending on the mass range of interest. For guidance we show in Fig. 4 the kinematic distribution of \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }\) for the most relevant backgrounds and the signal with \(m_a = 20\) and 80 GeV before imposing the \(m_{e\mu }<100\) GeV and \(\varDelta R_{e\mu }<1\) cuts.
Fig. 4

Angular separation (\(\varDelta R_{e\mu }\)) between the two leptons for two signal (SG) masses (20 and 80 GeV) compared to the most relevant backgrounds (BG). Small separation angles can be a good discriminant particularly for low masses

As mentioned above, fully or semi-hadronic decays of the di-tau system may also be testable by designing appropriate di-tau jet algorithms. For the semi-hadronic case, a sophisticated isolation procedure has been used by CMS for boosted Higgs tagging in the di-tau channel. However, large systematic uncertainties, or the order of 20–30% [37], are introduced due to the modified isolation and tau-identification procedures. Furthermore, the signal we are interested in features smaller separation between the two taus, thus a better performance may be achieved by a dedicated identification procedure. For instance, the technique of “mini-isolation” proposed in Ref. [43] may be adapted to this case, although this is beyond the scope of this paper. For the fully hadronic case, preliminary studies in Refs. [44, 45] show that a good discrimination between di-tau jets and single tau or QCD jets can be achieved using sub-jet variables. However, a correct estimate of the background (especially from QCD) can only be done with data driven techniques, thus we do not attempt to quantify the sensitivity of these channels.

5 Conclusions

The search for new resonances at the LHC continues, and many searches for high-mass resonances are being performed. Nevertheless, complementary searches for lower-mass resonances which have evaded current constraints must not be forgotten. We observe that light pseudo-scalars in the mass regime between 14 and 65 GeV can be copiously produced at the LHC while avoiding current experimental constraints.

We propose to search for boosted di-tau resonances, produced via gluon fusion, that can effectively cover this open window. We test this strategy on a set of twelve benchmark models of composite Higgs with top partial compositeness, which have a simple gauge-fermion underlying description. Low mass di-photon searches effectively cover masses above 65 GeV. Extending the di-photon search to lower masses is challenging due to triggers (but potential solutions have been presented  [10]), while resuming low-mass di-muon resonant searches and extending them to higher masses is possible but challenging due to increased muon \(p_T\) trigger thresholds. The boosted di-tau search we propose allows to access the open window below 65 GeV, and, for some models, it can be competitive with the di-photon channel at higher masses.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    The model in [17] is denoted by M6 in this work and in [15], while the model [11] is denoted by M8.

  2. 2.

    The 3-\(\sigma \) excess at 95.3 GeV in the Run–II CMS search [4] can be seen as a bump, giving a rough estimate of the required value of \(f_a\).

  3. 3.

    As the partial width scales with \(C_t^4\), choices of larger \(C_t\) can lead to bounds on \(f_a\) well above 1 TeV. We also remark that this bound will not substantially improve with higher luminosity, with a projected reach of \(10\%\) for 3 ab\(^{-1}\) [29].

  4. 4.

    A LHCb search for a dark photon in di-muon, within the mass range 10–70 GeV, can be found in Ref. [34].

  5. 5.

    Results of the comparison can be found in Appendix 1.

  6. 6.

    Searches for boosted low-mass di-jet resonances are possible, as for instance Ref. [27]. See also [35] for di-tau jets and [36] for associated top production.

  7. 7.

    For more details on event generation, cut-flows and results, see Appendix B.

  8. 8.

    Here, \(K_{g, {\mathrm{eff}}} \sim K_g - 1/2 C_t\) includes the effect of top loops in the gluon-fusion production.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Hwidong Yoo for helpful comments and suggestions on lepton-isolation and di-muon searches, Suzanne Gascon-Shotkin for comments on di-photon and di-tau searches. We thank Alberto Mariotti, Diego Redigolo and Filippo Sala for discussions about the relation of their proposed search to ours. We thank Matthias Neubert for email communications. GF and GC thank for hospitality the IBS CTPU, where part of this work was performed. TF was supported by IBS under the project code IBS-R018-D1. GF is supported in part by a grant from the Wallenberg foundation. GC acknowledges partial support from the Institut Franco-Suedois (project Tör) and the Labex Lyon Institute of the Origins – LIO. HS has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No 668679).

Supplementary material

References

  1. 1.
    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, arXiv:1207.7214
  2. 2.
    C.M.S. Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 30–61 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235
  3. 3.
    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for Scalar Diphoton Resonances in the Mass Range \(65-600\) GeV with the ATLAS Detector in \(pp\) Collision Data at \(\sqrt{s}\) = 8 \(TeV\), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014), no. 17 171801, arXiv:1407.6583
  4. 4.
    CMS Collaboration, Search for new resonances in the diphoton final state in the mass range between 70 and 110 GeV in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=\) 8 and 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-17-013, CERN, Geneva, 2017Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, S. Gascon-Shotkin, S. Le Corre, M. Lethuillier, J. Tao, Search for a lighter Higgs boson in two higgs doublet models. JHEP 12, 068 (2016). arXiv:1607.0865 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    U. Ellwanger, M. Rodriguez-Vazquez, Discovery prospects of a light scalar in the NMSSM. JHEP 02, 096 (2016). arXiv:1512.0428 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Brivio, M.B. Gavela, L. Merlo, K. Mimasu, J. M. No, R. del Rey, V. Sanz, ALPs Effective field theory and collider signatures arXiv:1701.0537
  8. 8.
    B. Bellazzini, A. Mariotti, D. Redigolo, F. Sala, J. Serra, R-axion at colliders, arXiv:1702.0215
  9. 9.
    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, A. Thamm, Collider probes of axion-like particles, arXiv:1708.0044
  10. 10.
    A. Mariotti, D. Redigolo, F. Sala, K. Tobioka, New LHC bound on low-mass diphoton resonances, arXiv:1710.0174
  11. 11.
    J. Barnard, T. Gherghetta, T.S. Ray, UV descriptions of composite Higgs models without elementary scalars. JHEP 02, 002 (2014). arXiv:1311.6562 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Ferretti, D. Karateev, Fermionic UV completions of composite Higgs models. JHEP 03, 077 (2014). arXiv:1312.5330 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Ferretti, Gauge theories of partial compositeness: scenarios for run-II of the LHC. JHEP 06, 107 (2016). arXiv:1604.0646 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. DeGrand, M. Golterman, E.T. Neil, Y. Shamir, One-loop Chiral Perturbation Theory with two fermion representations. Phys. Rev. D94, 025020 (2016). arXiv:1605.0773 ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, A. Parolini, H. Serodio, Di-boson signatures as standard candles for partial compositeness. JHEP 01, 094 (2017). arXiv:1610.0659 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Ayyar, T. DeGrand, M. Golterman, D. C. Hackett, W. I. Jay, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, B. Svetitsky, Spectroscopy of SU(4) composite Higgs theory with two distinct fermion representations, arXiv:1710.0080
  17. 17.
    G. Ferretti, UV completions of partial compositeness: the case for a SU(4) gauge group. JHEP 06, 142 (2014). arXiv:1404.7137 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    CMS Collaboration, Search for a neutral MSSM Higgs boson decaying into tautau at 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-16-006, CERN, Geneva, (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    CMS Collaboration, Search for a neutral MSSM Higgs boson decaying into \(\tau \tau \) with \(12.9~{{\rm fb}}^{-1}\) of data at \(\sqrt{s}=13~{{\rm TeV}}\), Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-16-037, CERN, Geneva, (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.E. Kim, A COMPOSITE INVISIBLE AXION. Phys. Rev. D 31, 1733 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, A. Thamm, Analyzing the CP nature of a new scalar particle via S->Zh decay. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 181801 (2016). [arXiv:1610.0000]
  22. 22.
    ATLAS Collaboration, A search for light CP-odd Higgs Bosons decaying to mu+ mu- in ATLAS, Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2011-020, (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan, Search for a light pseudoscalar Higgs boson in the dimuon decay channel in \(pp\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=7\) TeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 121801 (2012). arXiv:1206.6326
  24. 24.
    ATLAS, CMS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at \( \sqrt{s}=7 \) and 8 TeV, JHEP 08, 045 (2016) arXiv:1606.0226
  25. 25.
    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N. P. Hartland, J. Rojo, Parton distributions with QED corrections, Nucl. Phys. B877, 290–320 (2013) arXiv:1308.0598
  26. 26.
    T. Ahmed, M. Bonvini, M.C. Kumar, P. Mathews, N. Rana, V. Ravindran, Pseudo-scalar Higgs boson production at \(\text{ N }^3\) \(\text{ LO }_{\text{ A }}\) \(\text{+N }^3\) LL \(^{\prime }\). Eur. Phys. J. C76, 663 (2016). arXiv:1606.0083 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    CMS Collaboration, Search for low mass vector resonances decaying into quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = \) 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-EXO-17-001-003, CERN, Geneva, Sep, (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Knapen, T. Lin, H .K. Lou, T. Melia, Searching for axionlike particles with ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(17), 171801 (2017). arXiv:1607.0608 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ATLAS Collaboration, Projections for measurements of Higgs boson signal strengths and coupling parameters with the ATLAS detector at a HL-LHC, Tech. Rep. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-016, CERN, Geneva, Oct, (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Casolino, T. Farooque, A. Juste, T. Liu, M. Spannowsky, Probing a light CP-odd scalar in di-top-associated production at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 498 (2015). arXiv:1507.0700 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Kozaczuk, T.A.W. Martin, Extending LHC coverage to light pseudoscalar mediators and coy dark sectors. JHEP 04, 046 (2015). arXiv:1501.0727 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    W.J. Marciano, A. Masiero, P. Paradisi, M. Passera, Contributions of axionlike particles to lepton dipole moments. Phys. Rev. D 94(11), 115033 (2016). arXiv:1607.0102 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, A. Thamm, LHC as an axion factory: probing an axion explanation for \((g-2)_\mu \) with exotic Higgs decays. arXiv:1704.0820
  34. 34.
    LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for dark photons produced in 13 TeV \(pp\) collisions, arXiv:1710.0286
  35. 35.
    A. Chakraborty, A. M. Iyer, T. S. Roy, A universal framework for finding anomalous objects at the LHC, arXiv:1707.0708
  36. 36.
    D. Goncalves, D. Lopez-Val, Pseudoscalar searches with dileptonic tops and jet substructure. Phys. Rev. D94(9), 095005 (2016). arXiv:1607.0861 ADSGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    CMS Collaboration, Search for heavy resonances decaying into two Higgs bosons or into a Higgs and a vector boson in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-B2G-17-006, CERN, Geneva, (2017)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP 07, 079 (2014). arXiv:1405.0301 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    I. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852–867 (2008). arXiv:0710.3820. Inspire ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaitre, A. Mertens, M. Selvaggi, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment. JHEP 02, 057 (2014). arXiv:1307.6346. Inspire CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan, Search for narrow high-mass resonances in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}\) = 8 TeV decaying to a Z and a Higgs boson. Phys. Lett. B 748, 255–277 (2015). arXiv:1502.0499
  42. 42.
    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011). arXiv:1007.1727. (Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C73,2501(2013))CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    K. Rehermann, B. Tweedie, Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC. JHEP 03, 059 (2011). arXiv:1007.2221 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. Katz, M. Son, B. Tweedie, Ditau-jet tagging and Boosted Higgses from a multi-TeV resonance. Phys. Rev. D 83, 114033 (2011). arXiv:1011.4523 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    E. Conte, B. Fuks, J. Guo, J. Li, A.G. Williams, Investigating light NMSSM pseudoscalar states with boosted ditau tagging. JHEP 05, 100 (2016). arXiv:1604.0539 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ATLAS Collaboration, Trigger Menu in 2016, Tech. Rep. ATL-DAQ-PUB-2017-001, (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP3.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giacomo Cacciapaglia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gabriele Ferretti
    • 3
  • Thomas Flacke
    • 4
    Email author
  • Hugo Serôdio
    • 5
  1. 1.Université de LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.Université Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, UMR5822, IPNLVilleurbanne CedexFrance
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  4. 4.Center for Theoretical Physics of the UniverseInstitute for Basic Science (IBS)DaejeonKorea
  5. 5.Department of Astronomy and Theoretical PhysicsLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations