Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2016 Dec 2;76(12):664. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4489-7

Search for Higgs-like bosons decaying into long-lived exotic particles

R Aaij 39, B Adeva 38, M Adinolfi 47, Z Ajaltouni 5, S Akar 6, J Albrecht 10, F Alessio 39, M Alexander 52, S Ali 42, G Alkhazov 31, P Alvarez Cartelle 54, A A Alves Jr 58, S Amato 2, S Amerio 23, Y Amhis 7, L An 40, L Anderlini 18, G Andreassi 40, M Andreotti 17, J E Andrews 59, R B Appleby 55, O Aquines Gutierrez 11, F Archilli 1, P d’Argent 12, J Arnau Romeu 6, A Artamonov 36, M Artuso 60, E Aslanides 6, G Auriemma 26, M Baalouch 5, S Bachmann 12, J J Back 49, A Badalov 37, C Baesso 61, W Baldini 17, R J Barlow 55, C Barschel 39, S Barsuk 7, W Barter 39, V Batozskaya 29, V Battista 40, A Bay 40,, L Beaucourt 4, J Beddow 52, F Bedeschi 24, I Bediaga 1, L J Bel 42, V Bellee 40, N Belloli 21, K Belous 36, I Belyaev 32, E Ben-Haim 8, G Bencivenni 19, S Benson 39, J Benton 47, A Berezhnoy 33, R Bernet 41, A Bertolin 23, M-O Bettler 39, M van Beuzekom 42, I Bezshyiko 41, S Bifani 46, P Billoir 8, T Bird 55, A Birnkraut 10, A Bitadze 55, A Bizzeti 18, T Blake 49, F Blanc 40, J Blouw 11, S Blusk 60, V Bocci 26, T Boettcher 57, A Bondar 35, N Bondar 31,39, W Bonivento 16, S Borghi 55, M Borisyak 67, M Borsato 38, F Bossu 7, M Boubdir 9, T J V Bowcock 53, E Bowen 41, C Bozzi 17,39, S Braun 12, M Britsch 12, T Britton 60, J Brodzicka 55, E Buchanan 47, C Burr 55, A Bursche 2, J Buytaert 39, S Cadeddu 16, R Calabrese 17, M Calvi 21, M Calvo Gomez 37, P Campana 19, D Campora Perez 39, L Capriotti 55, A Carbone 15, G Carboni 25, R Cardinale 20, A Cardini 16, P Carniti 21, L Carson 51, K Carvalho Akiba 2, G Casse 53, L Cassina 21, L Castillo Garcia 40, M Cattaneo 39, Ch Cauet 10, G Cavallero 20, R Cenci 24, M Charles 8, Ph Charpentier 39, G Chatzikonstantinidis 46, M Chefdeville 4, S Chen 55, S-F Cheung 56, V Chobanova 38, M Chrzaszcz 27,41, X Cid Vidal 38, G Ciezarek 42, P E L Clarke 51, M Clemencic 39, H V Cliff 48, J Closier 39, V Coco 58, J Cogan 6, E Cogneras 5, V Cogoni 16, L Cojocariu 30, G Collazuol 23, P Collins 39, A Comerma-Montells 12, A Contu 39, A Cook 47, S Coquereau 8, G Corti 39, M Corvo 17, C M Costa Sobral 49, B Couturier 39, G A Cowan 51, D C Craik 51, A Crocombe 49, M Cruz Torres 61, S Cunliffe 54, R Currie 54, C D’Ambrosio 39, E Dall’Occo 42, J Dalseno 47, P N Y David 42, A Davis 58, O De Aguiar Francisco 2, K De Bruyn 6, S De Capua 55, M De Cian 12, J M De Miranda 1, L De Paula 2, P De Simone 19, C-T Dean 52, D Decamp 4, M Deckenhoff 10, L Del Buono 8, M Demmer 10, D Derkach 67, O Deschamps 5, F Dettori 39, B Dey 22, A Di Canto 39, H Dijkstra 39, F Dordei 39, M Dorigo 40, A Dosil Suárez 38, A Dovbnya 44, K Dreimanis 53, L Dufour 42, G Dujany 55, K Dungs 39, P Durante 39, R Dzhelyadin 36, A Dziurda 39, A Dzyuba 31, N Déléage 4, S Easo 50, U Egede 54, V Egorychev 32, S Eidelman 35, S Eisenhardt 51, U Eitschberger 10, R Ekelhof 10, L Eklund 52, Ch Elsasser 41, S Ely 60, S Esen 12, H M Evans 48, T Evans 56, A Falabella 15, N Farley 46, S Farry 53, R Fay 53, D Ferguson 51, V Fernandez Albor 38, F Ferrari 15,39, F Ferreira Rodrigues 1, M Ferro-Luzzi 39, S Filippov 34, M Fiore 17, M Fiorini 17, M Firlej 28, C Fitzpatrick 40, T Fiutowski 28, F Fleuret 7, K Fohl 39, M Fontana 16, F Fontanelli 20, D C Forshaw 60, R Forty 39, M Frank 39, C Frei 39, M Frosini 18, J Fu 22, E Furfaro 25, C Färber 39, A Gallas Torreira 38, D Galli 15, S Gallorini 23, S Gambetta 51, M Gandelman 2, P Gandini 56, Y Gao 3, J García Pardiñas 38, J Garra Tico 48, L Garrido 37, P J Garsed 48, D Gascon 37, C Gaspar 39, L Gavardi 10, G Gazzoni 5, D Gerick 12, E Gersabeck 12, M Gersabeck 55, T Gershon 49, Ph Ghez 4, S Gianì 40, V Gibson 48, O G Girard 40, L Giubega 30, K Gizdov 51, V V Gligorov 8, D Golubkov 32, A Golutvin 39,54, A Gomes 1, I V Gorelov 33, C Gotti 21, M Grabalosa Gándara 5, R Graciani Diaz 37, L A Granado Cardoso 39, E Graugés 37, E Graverini 41, G Graziani 18, A Grecu 30, P Griffith 46, L Grillo 12, B R Gruberg Cazon 56, O Grünberg 65, E Gushchin 34, Yu Guz 36, T Gys 39, C Göbel 61, T Hadavizadeh 56, C Hadjivasiliou 60, G Haefeli 40, C Haen 39, S C Haines 48, S Hall 54, B Hamilton 59, X Han 12, S Hansmann-Menzemer 12, N Harnew 56, S T Harnew 47, J Harrison 55, J He 62, T Head 40, A Heister 9, K Hennessy 53, P Henrard 5, L Henry 8, J A Hernando Morata 38, E van Herwijnen 39, M Heß 65, A Hicheur 2, D Hill 56, C Hombach 55, W Hulsbergen 42, T Humair 54, M Hushchyn 67, N Hussain 56, D Hutchcroft 53, M Idzik 28, P Ilten 57, R Jacobsson 39, A Jaeger 12, J Jalocha 56, E Jans 42, A Jawahery 59, M John 56, D Johnson 39, C R Jones 48, C Joram 39, B Jost 39, N Jurik 60, S Kandybei 44, W Kanso 6, M Karacson 39, J M Kariuki 47, S Karodia 52, M Kecke 12, M Kelsey 60, I R Kenyon 46, M Kenzie 39, T Ketel 43, E Khairullin 67, B Khanji 21,39, C Khurewathanakul 40, T Kirn 9, S Klaver 55, K Klimaszewski 29, S Koliiev 45, M Kolpin 12, I Komarov 40, R F Koopman 43, P Koppenburg 42, A Kozachuk 33, M Kozeiha 5, L Kravchuk 34, K Kreplin 12, M Kreps 49, P Krokovny 35, F Kruse 10, W Krzemien 29, W Kucewicz 27, M Kucharczyk 27, V Kudryavtsev 35, A K Kuonen 40, K Kurek 29, T Kvaratskheliya 32,39, D Lacarrere 39, G Lafferty 39,55, A Lai 16, D Lambert 51, G Lanfranchi 19, C Langenbruch 49, B Langhans 39, T Latham 49, C Lazzeroni 46, R Le Gac 6, J van Leerdam 42, J-P Lees 4, A Leflat 33,39, J Lefrançois 7, R Lefèvre 5, F Lemaitre 39, E Lemos Cid 38, O Leroy 6, T Lesiak 27, B Leverington 12, Y Li 7, T Likhomanenko 66,67, R Lindner 39, C Linn 39, F Lionetto 41, B Liu 16, X Liu 3, D Loh 49, I Longstaff 52, J H Lopes 2, D Lucchesi 23, M Lucio Martinez 38, H Luo 51, A Lupato 23, E Luppi 17, O Lupton 56, A Lusiani 24, X Lyu 62, F Machefert 7, F Maciuc 30, O Maev 31, K Maguire 55, S Malde 56, A Malinin 66, T Maltsev 35, G Manca 7, G Mancinelli 6, P Manning 60, J Maratas 5, J F Marchand 4, U Marconi 15, C Marin Benito 37, P Marino 24, J Marks 12, G Martellotti 26, M Martin 6, M Martinelli 40, D Martinez Santos 38, F Martinez Vidal 68, D Martins Tostes 2, L M Massacrier 7, A Massafferri 1, R Matev 39, A Mathad 49, Z Mathe 39, C Matteuzzi 21, A Mauri 41, B Maurin 40, A Mazurov 46, M McCann 54, J McCarthy 46, A McNab 55, R McNulty 13, B Meadows 58, F Meier 10, M Meissner 12, D Melnychuk 29, M Merk 42, E Michielin 23, D A Milanes 64, M-N Minard 4, D S Mitzel 12, J Molina Rodriguez 61, I A Monroy 64, S Monteil 5, M Morandin 23, P Morawski 28, A Mordà 6, M J Morello 24, J Moron 28, A B Morris 51, R Mountain 60, F Muheim 51, M Mulder 42, M Mussini 15, D Müller 55, J Müller 10, K Müller 41, V Müller 10, P Naik 47, T Nakada 40, R Nandakumar 50, A Nandi 56, I Nasteva 2, M Needham 51, N Neri 22, S Neubert 12, N Neufeld 39, M Neuner 12, A D Nguyen 40, C Nguyen-Mau 40, V Niess 5, S Nieswand 9, R Niet 10, N Nikitin 33, T Nikodem 12, A Novoselov 36, D P O’Hanlon 49, A Oblakowska-Mucha 28, V Obraztsov 36, S Ogilvy 19, R Oldeman 48, C J G Onderwater 69, J M Otalora Goicochea 2, A Otto 39, P Owen 41, A Oyanguren 68, A Palano 14, F Palombo 22, M Palutan 19, J Panman 39, A Papanestis 50, M Pappagallo 52, L L Pappalardo 17, C Pappenheimer 58, W Parker 59, C Parkes 55, G Passaleva 18, G D Patel 53, M Patel 54, C Patrignani 15, A Pearce 50,55, A Pellegrino 42, G Penso 26, M Pepe Altarelli 39, S Perazzini 39, P Perret 5, L Pescatore 46, K Petridis 47, A Petrolini 20, A Petrov 66, M Petruzzo 22, E Picatoste Olloqui 37, B Pietrzyk 4, M Pikies 27, D Pinci 26, A Pistone 20, A Piucci 12, S Playfer 51, M Plo Casasus 38, T Poikela 39, F Polci 8, A Poluektov 35,49, I Polyakov 32, E Polycarpo 2, G J Pomery 47, A Popov 36, D Popov 11,39, B Popovici 30, C Potterat 2, E Price 47, J D Price 53, J Prisciandaro 38, A Pritchard 53, C Prouve 47, V Pugatch 45, A Puig Navarro 40, G Punzi 24, W Qian 56, R Quagliani 7,47, B Rachwal 27, J H Rademacker 47, M Rama 24, M Ramos Pernas 38, M S Rangel 2, I Raniuk 44, G Raven 43, F Redi 54, S Reichert 10, A C dos Reis 1, C Remon Alepuz 68, V Renaudin 7, S Ricciardi 50, S Richards 47, M Rihl 39, K Rinnert 39,53, V Rives Molina 37, P Robbe 7,39, A B Rodrigues 1, E Rodrigues 58, J A Rodriguez Lopez 64, P Rodriguez Perez 55, A Rogozhnikov 67, S Roiser 39, V Romanovskiy 36, A Romero Vidal 38, J W Ronayne 13, M Rotondo 23, T Ruf 39, P Ruiz Valls 68, J J Saborido Silva 38, N Sagidova 31, B Saitta 16, V Salustino Guimaraes 2, C Sanchez Mayordomo 68, B Sanmartin Sedes 38, R Santacesaria 26, C Santamarina Rios 38, M Santimaria 19, E Santovetti 25, A Sarti 19, C Satriano 26, A Satta 25, D M Saunders 47, D Savrina 32,33, S Schael 9, M Schiller 39, H Schindler 39, M Schlupp 10, M Schmelling 11, T Schmelzer 10, B Schmidt 39, O Schneider 40, A Schopper 39, M Schubiger 40, M-H Schune 7, R Schwemmer 39, B Sciascia 19, A Sciubba 26, A Semennikov 32, A Sergi 46, N Serra 41, J Serrano 6, L Sestini 23, P Seyfert 21, M Shapkin 36, I Shapoval 17,44, Y Shcheglov 31, T Shears 53, L Shekhtman 35, V Shevchenko 66, A Shires 10, B G Siddi 17, R Silva Coutinho 41, L Silva de Oliveira 2, G Simi 23, M Sirendi 48, N Skidmore 47, T Skwarnicki 60, E Smith 54, I T Smith 51, J Smith 48, M Smith 55, H Snoek 42, M D Sokoloff 58, F J P Soler 52, D Souza 47, B Souza De Paula 2, B Spaan 10, P Spradlin 52, S Sridharan 39, F Stagni 39, M Stahl 12, S Stahl 39, P Stefko 40, S Stefkova 54, O Steinkamp 41, O Stenyakin 36, S Stevenson 56, S Stoica 30, S Stone 60, B Storaci 41, S Stracka 24, M Straticiuc 30, U Straumann 41, L Sun 58, W Sutcliffe 54, K Swientek 28, V Syropoulos 43, M Szczekowski 29, T Szumlak 28, S T’Jampens 4, A Tayduganov 6, T Tekampe 10, G Tellarini 17, F Teubert 39, C Thomas 56, E Thomas 39, J van Tilburg 42, V Tisserand 4, M Tobin 40, S Tolk 48, L Tomassetti 17, D Tonelli 39, S Topp-Joergensen 56, E Tournefier 4, S Tourneur 40, K Trabelsi 40, M Traill 52, M T Tran 40, M Tresch 41, A Trisovic 39, A Tsaregorodtsev 6, P Tsopelas 42, A Tully 48, N Tuning 42, A Ukleja 29, A Ustyuzhanin 66,67, U Uwer 12, C Vacca 16,39, V Vagnoni 15,39, S Valat 39, G Valenti 15, A Vallier 7, R Vazquez Gomez 19, P Vazquez Regueiro 38, S Vecchi 17, M van Veghel 42, J J Velthuis 47, M Veltri 18, G Veneziano 40, A Venkateswaran 60, M Vesterinen 12, B Viaud 7, D Vieira 1, M Vieites Diaz 38, X Vilasis-Cardona 37, V Volkov 33, A Vollhardt 41, B Voneki 39, D Voong 47, A Vorobyev 31, V Vorobyev 35, C Voß 65, J A de Vries 42, C Vázquez Sierra 38, R Waldi 65, C Wallace 49, R Wallace 13, J Walsh 24, J Wang 60, D R Ward 48, H M Wark 53, N K Watson 46, D Websdale 54, A Weiden 41, M Whitehead 39, J Wicht 49, G Wilkinson 39,56, M Wilkinson 60, M Williams 39, M P Williams 46, M Williams 57, T Williams 46, F F Wilson 50, J Wimberley 59, J Wishahi 10, W Wislicki 29, M Witek 27, G Wormser 7, S A Wotton 48, K Wraight 52, S Wright 48, K Wyllie 39, Y Xie 63, Z Xing 60, Z Xu 40, Z Yang 3, H Yin 63, J Yu 63, X Yuan 35, O Yushchenko 36, M Zangoli 15, K A Zarebski 46, M Zavertyaev 11, L Zhang 3, Y Zhang 7, Y Zhang 62, A Zhelezov 12, Y Zheng 62, A Zhokhov 32, V Zhukov 9, S Zucchelli 15
PMCID: PMC5335594  PMID: 28316499

Abstract

A search is presented for massive long-lived particles, in the 20–60 GeV/c2 mass range with lifetimes between 5 and 100 ps. The dataset used corresponds to 0.62fb-1 of proton-proton collision data collected by the LHCb detector at s=7TeV. The particles are assumed to be pair-produced by the decay of a Higgs-like boson with mass between 80 and 140 GeV/c2. No excess above the background expectation is observed and limits are set on the production cross-section as a function of the long-lived particle mass and lifetime and of the Higgs-like boson mass.

Introduction

The standard model of particle physics (SM) has shown great success in describing physics processes at very short distances. Nevertheless, open questions remain, such as the hierarchy problem, the imprecise unification of gauge couplings, and the absence of candidates for dark matter. Considerable efforts have been made to address these issues, resulting in a large variety of models. Supersymmetry (SUSY), in which the strong and electroweak forces are unified at a renormalisation scale near the Planck scale, provides a possible solution for the hierarchy problem; the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is the simplest, phenomenologically viable realisation of SUSY [1, 2].

The present study focuses on a subset of models featuring massive long-lived particles (LLP) with a measurable flight distance. We concentrate on scenarios in which the LLP decays hadronically in the LHCb vertex detector, travelling distances which can be larger than those of typical b hadrons.

A large number of LLP searches have been performed by the experiments at the LHC and Tevatron, mainly using the Hidden Valley framework [3] as a benchmark model [48]. Hidden Valley processes have also been sought by LHCb [9], which is able to explore the forward rapidity region only partially covered by other LHC experiments. In addition, it is able to trigger on particles with low transverse momenta, allowing the experiment to probe relatively small LLP masses.

The event topology considered in this study is quite different from that of Hidden Valley models. The minimal supergravity model (mSUGRA) realisation of the MSSM is used as a benchmark model with baryon number violation [10], as suggested in Refs. [11, 12]. Here a Higgs-like boson produced in pp collisions decays into two LLPs (neutralinos), subsequently decaying into three quarks each. The Higgs-like particle mass ranges from 80 up to 140 GeV/c2, covering the mass of the scalar boson discovered by the ATLAS and CMS experiments [13, 14]. The explored LLP lifetime range of 5–100 ps is higher than the typical b hadron lifetime, and corresponds to an average flight distance of up to 30 cm, which is inside the LHCb vertex detector region. The LLP mass range considered is between 20 and 60 GeV/c2.

Detector description

The LHCb detector [15, 16] is a single-arm forward spectrometer covering the pseudorapidity range 2<η<5, designed for the study of particles containing b or c quarks. The detector includes a high-precision tracking system consisting of a silicon-strip vertex detector surrounding the pp interaction region (VELO), a large-area silicon-strip detector located upstream of a dipole magnet with a bending power of about 4Tm, and three stations of silicon-strip detectors and straw drift tubes, placed downstream of the magnet. The tracking system provides a measurement of the momentum, p, of charged particles with a relative uncertainty that varies from 0.5% at low momentum to 1.0% at 200 GeV/c. The minimum distance of a track to a primary vertex (PV), the impact parameter, is measured with a resolution of (15 + 29/pT) μm, where pTis the component of the momentum transverse to the beam, in GeV/c. Different types of charged hadrons are distinguished using information from two ring-imaging Cherenkov detectors. Photons, electrons and hadrons are identified by a calorimeter system consisting of scintillating-pad and preshower detectors, an electromagnetic calorimeter and a hadronic calorimeter. Muons are identified by a system composed of alternating layers of iron and multiwire proportional chambers. The online event selection is performed by a trigger [17], which consists of a hardware stage, L0, based on information from the calorimeter and muon systems, followed by two software stages, HLT1 and HLT2, which run a simplified version of the offline event reconstruction.

Event generation and detector simulation

Various simulated event samples are used in this analysis. The pp collisions are generated with Pythia  6 [18]. The process simulated is h0χ~10χ~10, where the Higgs-like boson of mass mh0 is produced via gluon-gluon fusion, with the parton density function taken from CTEQ6L [19]. The neutralino χ~10 is an LLP of mass mLLP and lifetime τLLP, which decays into three quarks via the mSUGRA baryon number violating process available in Pythia. The corresponding decay flavour structure for the neutralino with a mass of 48GeV/c2 is 18.5% for each of the combinations with a b quark (udb, usb, cdb, csb), and 13% for each udq and cdq, where q is not a b quark, i.e. about 75% of LLPs have a b quark in the decay. This fraction becomes 70% for mLLP=20GeV/c2.

Two separate detector simulations are used, a full simulation where the interaction of the generated particles with the detector is based on Geant4  [20, 21], and a fast simulation. In Geant4, the detector and its response are implemented as described in Ref. [22]. Signal models for a representative set of theoretical parameters have been generated and fully simulated (Appendix A, Table 5). In the remainder of this paper, the following nomenclature is chosen: a prefix “BV”, indicating baryon number violation, is followed by the LLP mass in GeV/c2 and lifetime, and the prefix “mH” followed by the mh0 value in GeV/c2. Most of the fully simulated models have mh0=114 GeV/c2, which is in the middle of the chosen Higgs-like particle mass range. Only events with at least one χ~10 in the pseudorapidity region 1.8<η<5.0 are processed by Geant4, corresponding to about 30% of the generated events.

Table 5.

Parameters of the signal models generated by Pythia and fully simulated

Model M1 (GeV/c2) tanβ mh0 (GeV/c2) mLLP (GeV/c2) τLLP (ps)
BV48 5ps mH114 62 5 114 48 5
BV48 10ps mH114 62 5 114 48 10
BV48 15ps mH114 62 5 114 48 15
BV48 50ps mH114 62 5 114 48 50
BV48 100ps mH114 62 5 114 48 100
BV35 10ps mH114 46 5 114 35 10
BV20 10ps mH114 28 5 114 20 10
BV48 10ps mH100 71 2.4 100 48 10
BV48 10ps mH125 60 8 125 48 10
BV55 10ps mH114 71 5.1 114 55 10
BV55 10ps mH125 69 6.2 125 55 10

The fast simulation is used to cover a broader parameter space of the theoretical models. Here the charged particles from the h0χ~10χ~10 process falling in the geometrical acceptance of the detector are processed by the vertex reconstruction algorithm. The fast simulation is validated by comparison with the full simulation. The detection efficiencies predicted by the full and the fast simulation differ by less than 5% for all the signal models. The distributions for mass, momentum and transverse momentum of the reconstructed LLP, and for the reconstructed vertex position coincide.

Events with direct production of charm, bottom and top quarks are considered as sources of background. Samples of such events were produced and fully simulated. In particular, 17×106 inclusive bb¯ events (9×106 inclusive cc¯ events) were produced with at least two b hadrons (c hadrons) in 1.5<η<5.0, and half a million tt¯ events with at least one muon in the acceptance.

Event selection and signal determination

This analysis searches for events with pairs of displaced high-multiplicity vertices. The main background is due to secondary interactions of particles with the detector material. These events are discarded by a material veto, which rejects vertices in regions occupied by detector material [23]. The remaining candidates are found to be compatible with bb¯ events.

From simulation, LLP candidates within the detector acceptance are selected by the L0 and HLT1 triggers with an efficiency of more than 85%. The simulation indicates that the trigger activity is dominated by the hadronic component of the signal expected from high multiplicity events. In HLT2, primary vertices and displaced vertices are reconstructed from charged tracks [24]. Genuine PVs are identified by a small radial distance from the beam axis, Rxy<0.3 mm, and must have at least 10 tracks, including at least one forward track (i.e. in the direction of the spectrometer) and one backward track. Once the set of PVs is identified, all other reconstructed vertices are candidates for the decay position of LLPs. The preselection requires at least one PV in the event and two LLP candidates. The LLP candidates must have at least four forward tracks, no backward tracks, and a minimum invariant mass reconstructed from charged tracks larger than 3.5 GeV/c2 for one candidate, and larger than 4.5 GeV/c2 for the other. In addition, the two secondary vertices must have Rxy>0.4mm and pass the material veto.

The preselection criteria drastically suppress the hadronic background. Only 37 events (74 LLP candidates) survive from the simulated set of 17.1×106 bb¯ events generated in the LHCb acceptance, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 0.3pb-1. Three simulated cc¯ events pass the selection. They contain b hadrons and hence belong to the category of inclusive bb¯, which is also the case of the two surviving tt¯ events. From the 0.62fb-1 data sample, 42.9×103 events are selected. The bb¯ cross-section value measured by LHCb, 288±4±48 μb [25, 26], predicts (76±22)×103 events, 1.8±0.5 times the yield observed in data. The estimate uses the next-to-leading-order POWHEG calculation [27] to correct Pythia, and the detection efficiency obtained from the simulated events. The measured yield has also been compared to the rate observed in LHCb by a dedicated inclusive bb¯ analysis, based on a topological trigger [28]. The consistency with the bb¯ background is verified within a statistical precision of 10%.

The shapes of the distributions of the relevant observables are compatible with the bb¯ background. Figure 1 compares the distributions for the LLP candidates taken from data and from simulated bb¯ events. The distributions for three fully simulated signal models are also shown. The mass and the pTvalues are calculated assuming the pion mass for each charged track. Figure 1d presents the radial distribution of the displaced vertices; the drop in the number of candidates with a vertex above Rxy5mm is due to the material veto. The variables σR and σZ shown in Fig. 1e, f are the position uncertainties provided by the vertex fit in the transverse distance Rxy and along the z axis, parallel to the beam. The values of σR and σZ are larger for the candidates from bb¯ background than for the signal because light boosted particles produce close parallel tracks, with the consequence that the vertex fit has larger uncertainties than for the decay of heavier particles producing more diverging tracks. Figure 2 presents the LLP distance of flight and Rxy distributions compared to three fully simulated signal models, corresponding to τLLP values of 5, 10, and 50 ps.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Data (black dots) and simulated distributions after preselection normalised to unit integral. There are two LLP candidates per event. The simulated bb¯ background is shown by the filled red histograms with error bars. The dashed (blue), dotted (purple) and solid (green) lines are distributions for fully simulated signal models. The subplots show a number of tracks used to reconstruct the LLP candidates, b LLP transverse momentum, c LLP invariant mass, d radial distance, Rxy, e uncertainty of the radial position, σR, and f uncertainty of the longitudinal position, σZ, of the LLP vertex

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Distributions for a the LLP distance of flight from the PV, and, b the radial distance of the LLP vertex, Rxy. The fully simulated signal models are chosen with LLP lifetimes of 5, 10, and 50 ps. Symbols are defined as in Fig. 1

The reconstructed four-vectors of the two LLPs in the event are added to form the Higgs-like candidate (di-LLP), the corresponding invariant mass and pTdistributions are given in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Distributions for a the pTof the Higgs-like candidate, and b its invariant mass. Symbols are defined as in Fig. 1

Further cuts are applied to the preselected data, to increase the statistical sensitivity. The figure of merit used is given by ϵ/Nd+1, where ϵ is the signal efficiency from simulation for a given selection, and Nd the corresponding number of candidates found in the data. The baseline selection (Sel1) is defined by a minimum number of charged tracks on each vertex Nmintrack=6, a minimum reconstructed mass mminLLP=6GeV/c2, and maximum uncertainties from the vertex fit σmaxR=0.05mm, and σmaxZ=0.25mm. All the selections used in this analysis are described in Table 1, with the indication of the number of data events selected for a di-LLP reconstructed mass above 19 GeV/c2. Selection Bkg1 is used to model the background in the fit procedure described in Sect. 5, selections Sel2 and Bkg2 are used to study systematic effects.

Table 1.

Definition of the criteria used for the signal determination. Selections Sel1 and Bkg1 are the baseline selections used in the fit, Sel2 and Bkg2 are used for the determination of systematic effects. The material veto and the requirement Rxy>0.4 mm are applied to both LLP candidates. The last column gives the number of data events selected, for a di-LLP reconstructed mass above 19 GeV/c2

Selection Nmintrack mminLLP (GeV/c2) σmaxR (mm) σmaxZ Nd (mm)
Sel1 6 6 0.05 0.25 157
Sel2 5 5 0.05 0.25 387
Bkg1 4 4 23.2k
Bkg2 5 5 10.1k

Determination of the di-LLP signal

The signal yield is determined by a fit of the di-LLP invariant mass, assuming that the two LLPs are the decay products of a narrow resonance. This technique is hampered by the difficulty in producing a reliable background model from simulation, despite the fact that it is reasonable to believe that only bb¯ events are the surviving SM component. Therefore, in this analysis the alternative is chosen to infer the background model from data by relaxing the selection requirements, as given by lines Bkg1 and Bkg2 of Table 1. The comparison of the results obtained with the different signal and background selections is subsequently used to estimate the systematic effects.

The signal template is the histogram built from BV simulated events selected under the same conditions as data, i.e. Sel1. The background template is the histogram obtained from data events selected by the Bkg1 conditions. The number of signal (background) candidates Ns (Nb) is determined by an extended maximum likelihood fit. The results are given in Fig. 4 for the BV48 10 ps mH114 signal. The fit χ2/ndf is 0.6. Note that only the portion of the di-LLP mass spectrum above 19 GeV/c2 is used, in order to be sufficiently above the mass threshold set by the selections. Alternatively, Sel2 and Bkg2 are used to assess systematic effects. The fit results for the selections (Sel1,Bkg2), (Sel2,Bkg1) are shown in Fig. 5. The corresponding fit χ2/ndf values are 0.6 and 1.0. The results are given in Table 2 for all fully simulated signal models. All fits give a negative number of signal candidates, compatible with zero. These results are correlated because the data sample is in common and the di-LLP mass shapes are almost identical for the different fully simulated models as depicted in Fig. 3. A check is performed on 142 di-LLP candidates selected from simulated bb¯ background without the requirement on Rxy and with mminLLP=4GeV/c2 for both LLPs. The fitted number of signal events is -0.8±3.5.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Results of the fit based on the model BV48 10 ps mH114. In a log distribution and b linear scale with pull distribution. Dots with error bars are the data, the dotted (red) and the dashed (green) histograms show the fitted background and signal contributions, respectively. The purple histogram is the total fitted distribution

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Results of the fit based on the model BV48 10ps mH114, for different combinations of signal and background selections, a signal from Sel1 and background from Bkg2, b signal from Sel2 and background from Bkg1. Dots with error bars are data, the dashed (green) line is the fitted signal and the dotted (red) line the background. In both cases the fitted signal is negative. The histogram (blue) is the total fitted function

Table 2.

Values of the fitted signal and background events for the different fully simulated signal models. The signal/background combinations are defined in the first row

Model (Sel1, Bkg1) (Sel1, Bkg2) (Sel2, Bkg1)
Ns Nb Ns Ns
BV48 5ps mH114 -2.6±4.4 163.6 ±13.6 -4.8±3.9 -1.7±3.9
BV48 10ps mH114 -3.3±3.5 164.3 ±13.4 -4.6±3.1 -3.1±3.6
BV48 15ps mH114 -3.5±3.6 164.5 ±13.5 -4.4±3.1 -2.0±3.6
BV48 50ps mH114 -1.4±3.6 162.4 ±13.3 -2.7±3.4 -2.1±4.2
BV48 100ps mH114 -0.7±4.1 161.7 ±13.4 -3.5±3.9 -3.2±4.2
BV35 10ps mH114 -4.3±3.3 165.3 ±13.4 -5.9±3.1 -4.6±3.5
BV20 10ps mH114 -1.9±1.6 162.8 ±12.9 -2.7±1.7 -2.0±2.4
BV48 10ps mH100 -1.7±4.7 162.7 ±13.7 -4.4±4.4 -5.2±4.7
BV48 10ps mH125 -2.8±3.5 163.8 ±13.4 -4.1±3.2 -3.2±3.6
BV55 10ps mH114 -3.1±3.7 164.1 ±13.5 -4.6±3.4 -1.1±3.7
BV55 10ps mH125 -2.6±3.5 163.6 ±13.4 -4.0±3.2 -3.9±3.8

The behaviour and sensitivity of the procedure is further studied by adding a small number of signal events to the data according to a given signal model. Figure 6 shows the results for two models with 10 signal events added to the data. The fitted Ns corresponds well to the number of injected signal events.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Results of the fit to the data to which 10 signal events have been added randomly chosen following the signal model. For the theoretical model BV48 10 ps mH100, in a, the fitted signal is 11.1±7.0 events; for BV48 10 ps mH125, in b, the result is 9.3±5.6 events

An alternative fit procedure has been applied, using parameterised signal and background templates. The sum of two exponential functions is used for the background, and an exponential convolved with a Gaussian function for the signal. The results are consistent with a null signal for all the models.

As a final check a two-dimensional sideband subtraction method (“ABCD method” [29]) has been applied in the reconstructed mass of one LLP and the number of tracks of the other LLP, also giving results consistent with zero signal.

Detection efficiency and systematic uncertainties

The determination of the detection efficiency is based on simulated events. The geometrical acceptance for the detection of one χ~10 in LHCb is, depending on the model, between 20 and 30%. After selection Sel1 the predicted total di-LLP detection efficiency is in the range 0.1–1% for most of the models. Potential discrepancies between simulation and data are considered as sources of systematic uncertainties. Table 3 summarises the contributions of the systematic uncertainties, which are valid for all fully simulated models, dominated by the 15% contribution from the trigger.

Table 3.

Contributions to the systematic uncertainty for fully simulated models. For the analysis based on the fast simulation the same total systematic uncertainty is adopted augmented by 5% to account for the relative imprecision of the fast and full simulations. The contributions from the signal and the data-driven background models used in the di-LLP mass fit are discussed in the text

Source %
Trigger 15
Track reconstruction 5
Vertex reconstruction 4
pT and mass calibration 6
Material veto 4
PV multiplicity 0.1
Beam line position 0.7
Theoretical model 9.9
Integrated luminosity 1.7 
Total 20.5 

The consistency between the trigger efficiency in data and simulation is checked by selecting LLP events with an independent trigger, designed for the detection of J/ψ events. Comparing the fraction of the data that also passes the double-LLP selection with the corresponding fraction in simulated inclusive J/ψ events, consistent efficiencies are found within a statistical uncertainty of 30%. A more precise result is obtained when requiring only a single LLP candidate [9] and assuming uncorrelated contributions from the two LLPs to determine the efficiency for detecting two LLPs in coincidence. A maximum discrepancy between data and simulation of 15% is inferred, which is the value adopted.

The consistency between the track reconstruction efficiency in data and simulation is studied by a comparison of the number of tracks selected in displaced vertices from bb¯ events. The average number of tracks per LLP in data is higher than in simulated events by about 0.07 tracks. Assuming that this small effect is entirely due to a difference in tracking efficiency, the overall di-LLP detection efficiency changes by at most 5%.

The vertex reconstruction efficiency is affected by the tracking efficiency and resolution. A study of vertices from B0J/ψK0 with J/ψμ+μ- and K0K+π- has shown that the data and simulation detection efficiencies for this four-prong process agree within 7.5% [9]. This has been evaluated to correspond at most to a 4% discrepancy between the di-LLP efficiency in data and simulation.

A maximum mismatch of 10% on both the transverse momentum and mass scales is inferred from the comparison of data and simulated bb¯ distributions, which propagates to a 6% contribution to the systematic uncertainty.

The effect of the material veto corresponds to a reduction of the geometrical acceptance and depends mainly on the LLP lifetime. An analysis with the requirement of Rxy<4mm allows to infer a maximum systematic uncertainty of 4%.

A small contribution to the systematic uncertainty of 0.1% is determined by reweighting the simulated events to match the PV multiplicity in the data.

The uncertainty on the position of the beam line is less than 20μm  [30]. It can affect the secondary vertex selection, mainly via the requirement on Rxy. By altering the PV position in simulated signal events, the maximum effect on the di-LLP selection efficiency is 0.7%.

The Higgs-like particle production model is mainly affected by the uncertainty on the parton luminosity. A maximum variation of the detection efficiency of 9.5% is obtained following the prescriptions given in [31]. A second contribution of 3% is obtained by reweighting the Pythia generated events to match a recent calculation of the pTdistributions [32]. The total theoretical uncertainty is 9.9%, obtained by summing in quadrature the mentioned contributions.

In addition to the systematic uncertainty on the detection efficiency, the following contributions have been considered. The uncertainty on the integrated luminosity is 1.7% [33]. As previously stated, the uncertainty on the momentum scale and the invariant mass scale is smaller than 10%. This value is also assumed for the di-LLP mass calibration. To assess the impact on the signal measurement, pseudoexperiments are produced with 10 events of simulated signal added to the background following the nominal signal distribution but with the di-LLP mass value scaled by ±10%. The subsequent maximum variation of the fitted number of events is ±1.6, for all the signal hypotheses. The uncertainty due to the shape of the background template is obtained by comparing the number of fitted events obtained with the Bkg1 and Bkg2 selections. The change is less than one event, for all the signal models. The difference in data and simulation in the di-LLP mass resolution and the statistical precision of the signal templates used in the fit have a negligible effect. Hence, a fit uncertainty of ±2 events is considered in the calculation of the cross-section upper limits.

For the analysis based on the fast simulation, a 5% uncertainty is added to account for the relative imprecision of the fast simulation with respect to the full simulation, as explained in Sect. 3.

Results

The 95% confidence level (CL) upper limits on the production cross-section times branching ratio are presented in Table 4, for the fully simulated models, based on the CLs approach [34]. The fast simulation allows the exploration of a larger region of parameter space. The cross-section times branching fraction upper limits at 95% CL for benchmark theoretical models are shown in Fig. 7 (the corresponding tables are given in Appendix C).

Table 4.

Detection efficiency with total uncertainty, and upper limits at 95% CL on the cross-section times branching ratio for the process pph0X, h0χ~10χ~106q for the fully simulated models

Model Efficiency (%) Expected upper limit (pb) Observed upper limit (pb)
BV48 5ps mH114 0.528 ± 0.114 3.2-1.1+2.1 3.5
BV48 10ps mH114 0.925 ± 0.194 1.8-0.6+1.2 1.7
BV48 15ps mH114 0.966 ± 0.208 1.8-0.6+1.2 1.6
BV48 50ps mH114 0.419 ± 0.090 4.6-1.6+2.9 4.4
BV48 100ps mH114 0.171 ± 0.037 11.9-3.8+7.1 12.3
BV35 10ps mH114 0.268 ± 0.058 5.6-2.0+3.8 4.9
BV20 10ps mH114 0.016 ± 0.003 52-20+38 54
BV48 10ps mH100 0.864 ± 0.186 2.5-0.8+1.6 2.6
BV48 10ps mH125 0.771 ± 0.166 2.0-0.7+1.4 2.0
BV55 10ps mH114 0.851 ± 0.183 1.9-0.7+1.3 1.9
BV55 10ps mH125 0.937 ± 0.201 1.7-0.6+1.1 1.7

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Expected (open dots with 1σ and 2σ bands) and observed (full dots) upper limits at 95% confidence level, ac shown for different masses of the Higgs-like particle, d, f for different LLP lifetimes, and e as a function of the LLP mass. The values of the other parameters are indicated on the plots. Results inferred from the fast simulation

The estimated detection efficiencies can be found in Appendix B, Tables 6 and 7. The efficiency increases with mLLP because more particles are produced in the decay of heavier LLPs. This effect is only partially counteracted by the loss of particles outside of the spectrometer acceptance, which is especially the case with heavier Higgs-like particles. Another competing phenomenon is that the lower boost of heavier LLPs results in a shorter average flight length, i.e. the requirement of a minimum Rxy disfavours heavy LLPs. The cut on Rxy is more efficient at selecting LLPs with large lifetimes, but for lifetimes larger than 50ps a portion of the decays falls into the material region and is discarded. Finally, a drop of sensitivity is expected for LLPs with a lifetime close to the b hadron lifetimes, where the contamination from bb¯ events becomes important, especially for low mass LLPs.

Table 6.

Detection efficiency values in percent estimated by the fast simulation as a function of mh0 and mLLP. The LLP lifetime is 10 ps. The statistical uncertainty is 10% for ϵ0.02%, 5 % for ϵ0.1%, 3% for ϵ0.5%, and 2% for ϵ1%

mh0 (GeV/c2) mLLP (GeV/c2)
20 25 30 35 40 48 55 60
80 0.035 0.126 0.276 0.514
90 0.027 0.084 0.213 0.456 0.699
95 0.023 0.077 0.203 0.414 0.689
100 0.025 0.073 0.184 0.368 0.647 0.858
105 0.018 0.066 0.139 0.324 0.574 1.018
110 0.017 0.053 0.146 0.291 0.525 1.016
114 0.014 0.048 0.134 0.259 0.472 0.963 0.817
120 0.016 0.047 0.107 0.222 0.402 0.836 1.013
125 0.009 0.042 0.097 0.225 0.377 0.765 0.997
130 0.014 0.037 0.085 0.191 0.325 0.708 0.914 0.991
140 0.002 0.031 0.075 0.163 0.277 0.566 0.782 0.881

Table 7.

Detection efficiency in percent estimated by the fast simulation as a function of the mLLP and τLLP, for mh0 = 114 GeV/c2. The statistical uncertainty is 10% for ϵ0.02%, 5 % for ϵ0.1%, 3% for ϵ0.5%, and 2% for ϵ1%

τLLP (ps) mLLP (GeV/c2)
20 25 30 35 40 48 55
5 0.021 0.053 0.129 0.234 0.366 0.545 0.289
10 0.014 0.048 0.134 0.259 0.472 0.963 0.817
15 0.013 0.042 0.113 0.198 0.389 0.932 1.052
20 0.007 0.035 0.083 0.174 0.338 0.834 1.150
25 0.006 0.034 0.073 0.148 0.289 0.731 1.126
30 0.005 0.026 0.066 0.128 0.241 0.643 1.091
40 0.003 0.017 0.044 0.114 0.193 0.490 0.960
50 0.004 0.015 0.035 0.082 0.157 0.397 0.806
70 0.002 0.009 0.021 0.062 0.104 0.280 0.596
100 0.001 0.005 0.015 0.033 0.071 0.178 0.383

Conclusion

A search for Higgs-like bosons decaying into two long-lived particles decaying hadronically has been carried out using data from pp collisions at 7TeV collected with the LHCb detector, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 0.62 fb-1.

The model used to describe the LLP decay is an mSUGRA process in which the lightest neutralino χ~10 decays through a baryon number violating coupling to three quarks. Upper limits have been placed on the production cross-section for Higgs-like boson masses from 80 to 140 GeV/c2, LLP masses in the range 20–60 GeV/c2, and LLP lifetimes in the range of 5–100 ps. The number of candidates is determined by the di-LLP invariant mass fit with signal templates inferred from simulation, and background estimates from data. For the explored parameter space of the theory all results, which are correlated, are consistent with zero. Upper limits at 95% CL for cross-section times branching ratio of 1 to 5pb are inferred for most of the considered parameter range. They are below 2pb for the decay of a 125 GeV/c2 Higgs-like particle in two LLPs with mass in the 48–60 GeV/c2 range and 10 ps lifetime.

Acknowledgements

We express our gratitude to our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC. We thank the technical and administrative staff at the LHCb institutes. We acknowledge support from CERN and from the national agencies: CAPES, CNPq, FAPERJ and FINEP (Brazil); NSFC (China); CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG and MPG (Germany); INFN (Italy); FOM and NWO (The Netherlands); MNiSW and NCN (Poland); MEN/IFA (Romania); MinES and FANO (Russia); MinECo (Spain); SNSF and SER (Switzerland); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); NSF (USA). We acknowledge the computing resources that are provided by CERN, IN2P3 (France), KIT and DESY (Germany), INFN (Italy), SURF (The Netherlands), PIC (Spain), GridPP (United Kingdom), RRCKI and Yandex LLC (Russia), CSCS (Switzerland), IFIN-HH (Romania), CBPF (Brazil), PL-GRID (Poland) and OSC (USA). We are indebted to the communities behind the multiple open source software packages on which we depend. Individual groups or members have received support from AvH Foundation (Germany), EPLANET, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions and ERC (European Union), Conseil Général de Haute-Savoie, Labex ENIGMASS and OCEVU, Région Auvergne (France), RFBR and Yandex LLC (Russia), GVA, XuntaGal and GENCAT (Spain), Herchel Smith Fund, The Royal Society, Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 and the Leverhulme Trust (United Kingdom).

Appendices

Fully simulated signal datasets

Table 5 shows the parameters used to generate the 11 fully simulated signal models with Pythia  6. The Higgs-like boson is produced by gluon-gluon fusion. In the table M1 corresponds to the Pythia parameter RMSS(1), and tanβ  to RMSS(5). In addition, M2 (RMSS(2)) is set at 250 GeV/c2 and μ (RMSS(4)) has the value 140. A mh0 value of 125 GeV/c2 requires RMSS(16) = 2300.

Detection efficiencies

Table 6 gives the detection efficiency as a function of mh0 and mLLP, the LLP lifetime is 10 ps. Table 7 gives the efficiency as a function of mLLP and τLLP, assuming mh0=114GeV/c2.

Cross-section upper limits tables

Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section times branching ratio upper limits for benchmark models, from the fast simulation. Tables 8 and 9 give the limits as a function of mh0, covering LLP masses from 35 to 60 GeV/c2, τLLP=10ps. Table 10: limits as a function of the LLP lifetime for mh0=100GeV/c2 and mLLP=40GeV/c2, and for mh0=125GeV/c2 and mLLP=48GeV/c2. Table 11: limits as a function of the LLP mass, for mh0=125GeV/c2, τLLP=10ps.

Table 8.

Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section times branching ratio upper limits as a function of mh0, with mLLP=35GeV/c2, and τLLP=10ps, estimated by the fast simulation

Model Expected upper limit (pb) Observed upper limit (pb)
BV35 10ps mH80 6.49-2.16+3.94 6.20
BV35 10ps mH90 5.50-1.89+3.42 4.56
BV35 10ps mH95 5.42-1.88+3.41 4.06
BV35 10ps mH100 5.55-1.92+3.52 4.45
BV35 10ps mH105 5.92-2.06+3.79 4.78
BV35 10ps mH110 5.94-2.06+3.79 4.56
BV35 10ps mH114 6.07-2.11+3.92 4.77
BV35 10ps mH120 6.79-2.39+4.42 5.47
BV35 10ps mH125 7.21-2.54+4.70 6.03
BV35 10ps mH130 7.28-2.59+4.83 7.08
BV35 10ps mH140 7.95-2.85+5.32 6.35

Table 9.

Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section times branching ratio upper limits as a function of mh0, for LLP masses of 40, 48, 55, and 60 GeV/c2, τLLP=10ps, estimated by the fast simulation

Model Expected upper limit (pb) Observed upper limit (pb)
BV40 10ps mH90 3.57-1.18+2.23 3.04
BV40 10ps mH95 3.52-1.17+2.18 2.96
BV40 10ps mH100 3.55-1.16+2.12 2.86
BV40 10ps mH105 3.49-1.18+2.19 2.77
BV40 10ps mH110 3.59-1.21+2.32 2.93
BV40 10ps mH114 3.76-1.30+2.38 2.99
BV40 10ps mH120 4.07-1.42+2.63 3.20
BV40 10ps mH125 4.04-1.43+2.66 3.07
BV40 10ps mH130 4.55-1.61+2.98 3.63
BV40 10ps mH140 4.71-1.69+3.14 3.79
BV48 10ps mH100 2.78-0.95+1.75 2.23
BV48 10ps mH105 2.17-0.74+1.36 1.73
BV48 10ps mH110 1.99-0.69+1.24 1.56
BV48 10ps mH114 2.02-0.70+1.29 1.65
BV48 10ps mH120 2.07-0.71+1.34 1.68
BV48 10ps mH125 2.12-0.74+1.38 1.74
BV48 10ps mH130 2.22-0.78+1.45 1.80
BV48 10ps mH140 2.49-0.89+1.65 1.98
BV55 10ps mH130 1.94-0.69+1.27 1.76
BV55 10ps mH140 1.93-0.69+1.26 1.75
BV60 10ps mH130 1.79-0.63+1.16 1.52
BV60 10ps mH140 1.86-0.66+1.21 1.48

Table 10.

Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section times branching ratio upper limits as a function of the LLP lifetime, for mh0=100GeV/c2 and mLLP=40GeV/c2, and for mh0=125GeV/c2 and mLLP=48GeV/c2, estimated by the fast simulation

Model Expected upper limit (pb) Observed upper limit (pb)
BV40 5ps mH100 5.36-1.85+3.36 4.11
BV40 10ps mH100 3.55-1.16+2.12 2.86
BV40 15ps mH100 3.76-1.26+2.34 2.98
BV40 20ps mH100 4.41-1.49+2.73 3.63
BV40 25ps mH100 5.21-1.75+3.23 4.20
BV40 30ps mH100 6.32-2.13+3.95 5.10
BV40 50ps mH100 10.5-3.6+6.5 9.0
BV40 70ps mH100 17.0-5.8+10.6 13.8
BV40 100ps mH100 26.7-9.1+16.5 22.1
BV48 5ps mH125 3.19-1.14+2.06 2.54
BV48 10ps mH125 2.12-0.74+1.38 1.74
BV48 15ps mH125 2.38-0.86+1.50 1.98
BV48 20ps mH125 2.80-0.95+1.76 2.37
BV48 25ps mH125 3.31-1.15+2.11 2.57
BV48 30ps mH125 3.76-1.28+2.38 2.99
BV48 50ps mH125 6.45-2.26+4.09 5.63
BV48 70ps mH125 9.86-3.42+6.23 9.74
BV48 100ps mH125 16.9-5.8+10.6 13.2

Table 11.

Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section times branching ratio upper limits as a function of the LLP mass, with mh0=125GeV/c2 and τLLP=10ps, estimated by the fast simulation

Model Expected upper limit (pb) Observed upper limit (pb)
BV20 10ps mH125 95.3-34.7+64.9 112.6
BV25 10ps mH125 31.4-11.3+21.0 22.5
BV30 10ps mH125 13.6-4.9+9.1 10.9
BV35 10ps mH125 7.21-2.54+4.70 6.03
BV40 10ps mH125 4.04-1.43+2.66 3.07
BV48 10ps mH125 2.12-0.74+1.38 1.74
BV55 10ps mH125 1.81-0.63+1.17 1.50
BV60 10ps mH125 2.18-0.76+1.40 1.64

References

  • 1.Dimopoulos S, Raby S, Wilczek F. Supersymmetry and the scale of unification. Phys. Rev. D. 1981;24:1681. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1681. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.S.P. Martin, A supersymmetry primer (2016). arXiv:hep-ph/9709356. doi:10.1142/9789812839657_0001
  • 3.Strassler MJ, Zurek KM. Discovering the Higgs through highly-displaced vertices. Phys. Lett. B. 2008;661:263. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.02.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.D0 Collaboration, V.M. Abazov et al., Search for resonant pair production of neutral long-lived particles decaying to bb¯ in pp¯ collisions at s=1.96 TeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 071801 (2009). arXiv:0906.1787. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.071801 [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 5.CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen et al., Search for heavy metastable particles decaying to jet pairs in pp¯ collisions at s=1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 85, 012007 (2012). arXiv:1109.3136. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.012007
  • 6.CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Search for long-lived neutral particles decaying to quark-antiquark pairs in proton-proton collisions at s=8TeV. Phys. Rev. D 91, 012007 (2015). arXiv:1411.6530. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.012007
  • 7.ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for pair-produced long-lived neutral particles decaying in the ATLAS hadronic calorimeter in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV. Phys. Lett. B 743, 15 (2015). arXiv:1501.04020. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.015
  • 8.ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for displaced vertices arising from decays of new heavy particles in 7 TeV pp collisions at ATLAS. Phys. Lett. B 707, 478 (2012). arXiv:1109.2242. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.057
  • 9.LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for long-lived particles decaying to jet pairs. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 152 (2014). arXiv:1412.3021. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3344-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 10.Carpenter LM, Kaplan DE, Rhee E-J. Six-quark decays of the Higgs boson in supersymmetry with R-parity violation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007;99:211801. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.211801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kaplan DE, Rehermann K. Proposal for Higgs and superpartner searches at the LHCb experiment. JHEP. 2007;10:056. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/056. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Graham PW, Kaplan DE, Rajendran S, Saraswat P. Displaced supersymmetry. JHEP. 2012;07:149. doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2012)149. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.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. B 716, 1 (2012). arXiv:1207.7214. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020
  • 14.CMS 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 (2012). arXiv:1207.7235. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021
  • 15.LHCb Collaboration, A.A. Alves Jr. et al., The LHCb detector at the LHC. JINST 3, S08005 (2008). doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08005
  • 16.LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., LHCb detector performance. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530022 (2015). arXiv:1412.6352. doi:10.1142/S0217751X15300227
  • 17.Aaij R, et al. The LHCb trigger and its performance in 2011. JINST. 2013;8:P04022. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sjöstrand T, Mrenna S, Skands P. PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. JHEP. 2006;05:026. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pumplin J, et al. New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis. JHEP. 2002;07:012. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2002/07/012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Geant4 Collaboration, J. Allison et al., Geant4 developments and applications. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 270 (2006). doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826
  • 21.Geant4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Geant4: a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 506, 250 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
  • 22.Clemencic M, et al. The LHCb simulation application, Gauss: design, evolution and experience. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2011;331:032023. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Search for the rare decay KS0μ+μ-. JHEP 01, 090 (2013). arXiv:1209.4029. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2013)090
  • 24.M. Kucharczyk, P. Morawski, M. Witek, Primary vertex reconstruction at LHCb, CERN-LHCb-PUB-2014- 044, LHCb-PUB-2014-044 (2014). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search?p=LHCb-PUB-2014-044&f=reportnumber&action_search=Search&c=LHCb+Notes
  • 25.LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of J/ψ production in pp collisions at s=7 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1645 (2011). arXiv:1103.0423. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1645-y
  • 26.LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Measurement of σ(ppbb¯X) at s=7 TeV in the forward region. Phys. Lett. B 694, 209 (2010). arXiv:1009.2731. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.10.010
  • 27.Oleari C. The POWHEG BOX. Nucl. Phys. B-Proc. Suppl. 2010;205–206:36. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.LHCb Collaboration, M. Williams et al., The HLT2 topological lines, CERN-LHCb-PUB-2011-002, LHCb-PUB-2011-002 (2011). http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search?p=LHCb-PUB-2011-002&f=reportnumber&action_search=Search&c=LHCb+Notes
  • 29.ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Measurement of the inclusive isolated prompt photon cross section in pp collisions at s=7TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 83, 052005 (2011). arXiv:1012.4389. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.052005
  • 30.Aaij R, et al. Performance of the LHCb vertex locator. JINST. 2014;9:P09007. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/9/09/P09007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.M. Botje et al., The PDF4LHC working group interim recommendations (2011). arXiv:1101.0538
  • 32.Neill D, Rothstein IZ, Vaidya V. The Higgs transverse momentum distribution at NNLL and its theoretical errors. JHEP. 2015;12:097. doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2015)097. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Precision luminosity measurements at LHCb. JINST 9, P12005 (2014). arXiv:1410.0149. doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/12/P12005
  • 34.Read AL. Presentation of search results: the CLs technique. J. Phys. G. 2002;28:2693. doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The European Physical Journal. C, Particles and Fields are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES