Search for pair production of the heavy vectorlike top partner in same-sign dilepton signature at the HL-LHC
Abstract
New vectorlike quarks are predicted in many new physics scenarios beyond the Standard Model (SM) and could potentially be discovered at the LHC. Based on a simplified model including a singlet vectorlike top partner with charge , we investigate the process via a -channel induced by the couplings between the top partner with the first-generation SM quarks. We calculate the production cross section and further study the observability of the heavy top partner in the channel at the high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) using final states with same-sign dileptons (electrons or muons), two jets, and missing transverse momentum. At the 14 TeV LHC with an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb-1, the exclusion limits, as well as the discovery reach in the parameter plane of the two variables , are respectively obtained at the HL-LHC. We also obtain the exclusion limit on the coupling strength parameter in the case in which the vectorlike top partner is coupled only to the first-generation quarks.
I Introduction
Although the Standard Model (SM) has proved itself with great success, a theory beyond the SM (BSM) is necessary from both the theoretical and experimental points of view, one of which is the so-called gauge hierarchy problem DeSimone:2012fs . Many new physics models BSM, such as little Higgs ArkaniHamed:2002qy ; Han:2003wu ; Chang:2003vs , composite Higgs Agashe:2004rs , and other extended models He:1999vp ; Wang:2013jwa ; He:2001fz ; He:2014ora , have been proposed to solve this problem by introducing a spontaneously broken global symmetry, leading the Higgs boson to be a pseudo Goldstone boson. New vectorlike top partners (VLQ-) are generally predicted in these BSM models, which are color-triplet fermions but with its left- and right-handed components transforming in the same way under the gauge group Buchkremer:2013bha ; Aguilar-Saavedra:2013qpa . A common feature is that they are assumed to decay into a SM quark and a gauge boson or Higgs boson, which can generate characteristic signatures at hadron colliders (see, for example Cacciapaglia:2011fx ; Okada:2012gy ; Backovic:2014uma ; Barducci:2017xtw ; Cacciapaglia:2018qep ; Liu:2017rjw ; Liu:2017sdg ; Liu:2019jgp ; Tian:2021oey ; Tian:2021nmj ; Yang:2021btv ; Moretti:2016gkr ; Moretti:2017qby ; Carvalho:2018jkq ; Benbrik:2019zdp ; Aguilar-Saavedra:2019ghg ; Buckley:2020wzk ; Brown:2020uwk ; Deandrea:2021vje ; Belyaev:2021zgq ; Dasgupta:2021fzw ; Han:2022npb ; Cacciapaglia:2021uqh ; Bhardwaj:2022wfz ; Han:2022jcp ; Verma:2022nyd ).
From the experimental point of view, vectorlike quarks (VLQs) are still allowed by present searches, unlike the fourth generation of quarks with chiral couplings, which is ruled out by electroweak precision measurements Kribs:2007nz ; Banerjee:2013hxa ; Cao:2022mif , and by the measured properties of the SM Higgs boson ATLAS:2016neq ; Eberhardt:2012sb ; CMS:2013zma . VLQs can evade such exclusion bounds because they are not chiral, a priori, and do not have to acquire their mass via the Higgs mechanism. Therefore, such new particles are receiving a lot of attention at the LHC. Up to now, searches at the LHC for VLQ- have been performed and presented by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, with the lower mass bounds on reaching up to about GeV at 95% confidence level (C.L.), depending on the multiplets they belong to and different decay modes Aaboud:2018pii ; CMS:2019eqb . Besides, such VLQ- can also be singly produced at the LHC via their electroweak (EW) coupling with SM quarks and weak bosons, which depends on the strength of the interaction between the VLQ- and the weak gauge bosons. Current searches for single production of VLQ- have placed limits on the production cross sections for their masses between 1 and 2 TeV at 95% C.L. for various EW coupling parameters CMS:2017gsh ; CMS:2017voh ; CMS:2019afi ; ATLAS:2022ozf .
Typically, most of the phenomenological studies are based on the assumption that the VLQ- only couple to the third-generation quarks, since this is the scenario least constrained by previous measurements Buchkremer:2013bha . Considering the constraints from flavor physics Cacciapaglia:2010vn ; Botella:2012ju ; Cacciapaglia:2015ixa ; Alok:2015iha ; Ishiwata:2015cga ; Botella:2016ibj ; Vatsyayan:2020jan ; Branco:2021vhs ; Accomando:2022ouo ; Balaji:2021lpr , the VLQ- can mix in a sizable way with lighter quarks, which could have a severe impact on electroweak vectorlike quark processes at the LHC Atre:2011ae ; Basso:2014apa ; Liu:2016jho and the Large Hadron Electron Collider Han:2017cvu ; Zhang:2017nsn ; Gong:2020ouh . This is particularly of interest for couplings to first-generation quarks, where amplitudes involving VLQ- couplings direct to initial-state up quark become significant due to large high- valence-quark densities. The future high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) is expected to reach 3000 fb -1 Apollinari:2015wtw , which will be very beneficial for discovering possible new physical signals even for small production rates. Recently, Zhou and Liu Zhou:2020ovl ; Zhou:2020byj studied a new decay channel of the top partner mediated by the heavy Majorana neutrino (), which can be used to probe the top partner and test the seesaw mechanism simultaneously at the HL-LHC by searching for final same-sign dileptons. In this work, we study the pair production of the VLQ- at the HL-LHC in a model-independent way through the process with the decay channel , which induced the final states with two leptons of the same electric charge (electrons or muons), two jets, and missing transverse momentum.
The paper is arranged as follows. In Sec. II, we briefly review the simplified model including the singlet VLQ- and calculate its pair production involving the mixing with both the first- and third-generate quarks. In Sec. III, we discuss the observability of the VLQ- through the process at the HL-LHC. Finally, conclusions are presented in Sec. IV.
II Top partner in the simplified model
II.1 An effective Lagrangian for singlet VLQ-
Buchkremer et al. Buchkremer:2013bha proposed a generic parametrization of an effective Lagrangian for vectorlike quarks with different electromagnetic charge, where they considered vectorlike quarks embedded in general representations of the weak group. In particular, vectorlike quarks which can mix and decay directly into SM quarks of all generations are included. Particularly interesting for our purposes is the case in which the VLQ- is an singlet and can mix and decay directly into the first and third generation of SM quarks. The Lagrangian parametrizes the VLQ- couplings to quarks and electroweak boson can be expressed as222Note that the model file of the singlet VLQ- is publicly available online in the FeynRules repository http .
(1) | |||||
where is the gauge coupling constant, is the Weinberg angle, and GeV. Besides the VLQ- mass , there are the following two free parameters:
-
•
, the coupling strength to SM quarks in units of standard couplings, which is relevant only to the EW couplings.
-
•
, the generation mixing coupling parameter, which controls the share of the VLQ- coupling between first- and third-generation quarks. In the extreme case, and , respectively, correspond to coupling to third-generation quarks and the first generation of quarks only.
According to the above discussions, VLQ- has three typical decay modes: , , and , where is the index for the first and third generations of the SM fermions. In the limit of , the partial widths can be approximately written as
(2) | |||||
(3) | |||||
(4) |
where for and quarks, and for and quarks, From the above equations, we can see that the branching fractions of into , and reach a good approximation for a large mass of VLQ-, given by the ratios as expected from the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem He:1992nga ; He:1993yd ; He:1994br ; He:1996rb ; He:1996cm . A full study of the precision bounds of this particular model is beyond the scope of this paper, as we use this model only as illustration for VLQ- search strategies. These parameters can be constrained by the flavor physics and the oblique parameters. Here we consider a phenomenologically guided limit and . We also consider the case of in later discussions.
The branching ratios of the decay mode are plotted as functions of the mixing parameter in Fig. 1. For GeV, we can obtain that the branching ratio of is approximate equal to 50%. As expected, the branching ratios of the first-generation quark vanish rapidly when approaches zero. For , the branching ratios that decay into the first- and third-generation quarks are approximately equal. Hence, we choose the channel to study the possibility of detecting the signals of VLQ- at the LHC in our work.
II.2 Pair production of VLQ- at the LHC
Owing to the interaction with the first-generation quarks, the top partner can be pair produced by -channel exchange of the gauge boson and Higgs boson. The relevant Feynman diagrams are presented in Fig. 2.
The production cross section is plotted in Fig. 3, as a function of the mass for for and several values of at the 14 TeV LHC. The leading-order (LO) cross sections are obtained using MadGraph5-aMCNLO Alwall:2014hca with NNPDF23L01 parton distribution functions (PDFs) Ball:2014uwa taking the default renormalization and factorization scales. It is clear that the values of the cross sections are very sensitive to . This implies that the mixing with the first generation can largely enhance the pair production due to the large quark PDFs. Besides, the cross section falls slowly for a higher mass. Certainly, for the fixed VLQ- mass, the production cross section is proportional to the values of . Thus, the above advantages make it an ideal process for discovery of heavy VLQ- with small coupling to the first-generation quarks.
III Event generation and discovery potentiality
Next, we perform the Monte Carlo simulation and explore the sensitivity of the VLQ- at the 14 TeV LHC through the channel,
(5) |
where .
For the above same-sign dilepton final states, the major SM backgrounds at the LHC come from prompt multileptons (mainly from events with and jets) and nonprompt leptons (mainly from events with jets of heavy flavor, such as ). Other processes, such as the , triboson events, , and jets are not included in the analysis owing to the negligible cross sections resulting from application of the cuts. To be exact, opposite-sign dileptons, one of which is mismeasured, should also constitute our backgrounds but, as the rate of mismeasurement for muons, is generally low enough that we ignore its effects. The QCD next-to-leading-order (NLO) prediction for pair production is calculated in Ref. Fuks:2016ftf . Here we take the conservative value of the -factor as 1.3 for the signal. To account for contributions from higher-order QCD corrections, the cross sections of dominant backgrounds at LO are adjusted to NLO by means of factors, which are 1.04 for Jager:2009xx ; Melia:2010bm and 1.22 for Campbell:2012dh . The dominant background is normalized to the NNLO QCD cross section of 953.6 pb Czakon:2013goa . It should be noted that we assume that the kinematic distributions are only mildly affected by these higher-order QCD effects. Therefore, for simplicity, we rescale the above distributions by using constant bin-independent factors.
Signal and background events are generated at LO using MadGraph5-aMCNLO. As a reference point, we set a benchmark value of and . Analogously, our benchmark points in the mass axis read 1500 and 2000 GeV. However, we will present the reach later in the plane. Then we pass the parton-level events to Pythia 8.20 pythia8 and Delphes 3.4.2 deFavereau:2013fsa for performing the parton shower and fast detector simulations, respectively. The anti- algorithm Cacciari:2008gp with parameter is used to reconstruct jets. Finally, event analysis is performed by using MadAnalysis5 ma5 .
To identify objects, we choose the basic cuts at parton level for the signals and SM backgrounds as follows:
(6) |
where is the separation in the rapidity-azimuth plane and and are the transverse momentum and pseudorapidity of the leptons and jets, respectively.
Owing to the larger mass of VLQ-, the decay products are highly boosted. Therefore, the peaks of the signals are larger than those of the SM backgrounds. In Fig. 4, we plot some differential distributions for signals and SM backgrounds at the LHC, such as the transverse momentum distributions of the leading and subleading leptons (), the transverse momentum distributions of the leading and subleading jets (), the missing transverse energy , and the invariant mass distribution for the final system . Based on these kinematical distributions, we apply the following kinematic cuts to the events to distinguish the signal from the SM backgrounds.
-
(a)
Cut 1: There are exactly two same-sign isolated leptons and at least two jets
-
(b)
Cut 2: The transverse momenta of the leading and subleading leptons and jets are required and . Besides, the invariant mass of two jets are required to reduce the background from -boson decays.
-
(c)
Cut 3: The transverse missing energy is required .
-
(d)
Cut 4: The invariant mass of final system is required to have .
Cuts | Signals | Backgrounds | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1500 GeV | 2000 GeV | |||||
Basic | 0.014 | 0.0069 | 1221 | 1.54 | 0.43 | |
Cut 1 | 0.014 | 0.0069 | 1.06 | 1.29 | 0.43 | |
Cut 2 | 0.0095 | 0.0056 | 0.007 | 0.013 | ||
Cut 3 | 0.0074 | 0.0049 | 0.002 | 0.0049 | ||
Cut 4 | 0.0056 | 0.0041 | 0.0014 | |||
Efficiency | 41% | 59% | 0.023% | 0.33% |
We present the cross sections of three typical signal ( GeV) and the relevant backgrounds after imposing the cuts in Table 1. Among the three kinds of SM backgrounds, we can see from Table 1 that the dominant one is the events with the basic cut. The first two cuts on numbers of final same-sign leptons and transverse momenta of leptons and jets can greatly suppress the events, and other SM backgrounds to the same order as the signal remain. Then the large requirement can cut about 70% SM backgrounds while keeping 80% signal events. All backgrounds are suppressed very efficiently at the end of the cut flow, while the signals still have a relatively good efficiency. The dominant SM background comes from the process, with a cross section of fb.
It should be noted that we have not considered the pileup effects, which is important for a fully realistic simulation and needs appropriate removal techniques Cacciari:2007fd ; Krohn:2013lba ; Berta:2014eza . However, we expect that such effects can be limited on our results since the event selection is based on two same-sign hard leptons.
The median expected significance for discovery and exclusion can be approximated by Cowan:2010js
(7) | ||||
with
(8) |
In the idealized limit of a perfectly known background prediction, , these expressions would reduce to
(9) | ||||
Here and denote the event numbers after the above cuts for the signal and background, respectively. denotes the percentage systematic error on the SM background estimate. The integrated luminosity at the HL-LHC is set at 3000 fb-1.
In Fig. 5, we plot the excluded and discovery reaches in the plane of for two fixed VLQ- masses and at HL-LHC. In Fig. 5, one can see that the level discovery sensitivity of is 0.11 (0.12) for GeV and , and it changes as for . On the other hand, from the exclusion limits one can see that the upper limits on the size of are given as for , and that they change as for the smaller value .
As mentioned earlier, the case of means that the singlet VLQ- is coupled only to the first-generation SM quarks. Based on the cuts adopted in the above discussion, we extend our analysis in this case with the VLQ- masses ranging from 1500 to 2500 GeV in steps of 100 GeV. Figure 6 shows the exclusion limits as a function of and with two systematic error cases of and . We observe that our signals are not very sensitive to the values of the systematic uncertainties. Assuming a realistic 30% systematic error, the sensitivities are slightly weaker than those without any systematic error. For the considered mass range of 1500 to 2500 GeV, the upper limit on allowed values of rises from a minimum value of 0.056 starting at GeV, up to 0.074 for GeV. These results are slightly better than the noncollider limits () conservatively estimated in Ref. Buchkremer:2013bha for a mass scale of the order of a TeV from atomic parity violation measurements Deandrea:1997wk .
IV CONCLUSION
The new heavy vectorlike quark of charge 2/3 appears in many new physics models beyond the SM. In this paper, we exploited a simplified model with only two free parameters: the electroweak coupling parameter and the generation mixing parameter . We presented a search strategy at the future HL-LHC for a distinguishable signal with a same-sign dilepton plus two jets and missing energy. The exclusion limits, as well as the discovery reach in the parameter plane of the two variables , were obtained for two typical heavy quark masses. For two typical VLQ- masses GeV, the upper limits on the size of were given as for the smaller value , and for . Assuming that the VLQ- with mass of TeV scale couples to the first-generation quarks only, the correlated region and GeV can be excluded at the level at the future HL-LHC, which is slightly better than the noncollider limits from atomic parity violation measurements.
Acknowledgements.
This work is supported by the key research and development program of Henan Province (Grant No. 22A140019) and the Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province (Grant No. 222300420443).References
- (1) A. De Simone, O. Matsedonskyi, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, JHEP 04, 004 (2013).
- (2) N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson, JHEP 07, 034 (2002).
- (3) T. Han, H. E. Logan, B. McElrath and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 67, 095004 (2003).
- (4) S. Chang and H. J. He, Phys. Lett. B 586, 95-105 (2004).
- (5) K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 719 165 (2005).
- (6) H. J. He, T. M. P. Tait and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 62, 011702(R) (2000).
- (7) X. F. Wang, C. Du and H. J. He, Phys. Lett. B 723, 314-323 (2013).
- (8) H. J. He, C. T. Hill and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 65, 055006 (2002).
- (9) H. J. He and Z. Z. Xianyu, JCAP 10, 019 (2014).
- (10) M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and L. Panizzi, Nucl. Phys. B 876, 376-417 (2013).
- (11) J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Pérez-Victoria,, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094010 (2013).
- (12) G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, L. Panizzi, N. Gaur, D. Harada and Y. Okada, JHEP 03, 070 (2012).
- (13) Y. Okada and L. Panizzi, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013, 364936 (2013).
- (14) M. Backović, T. Flacke, S. J. Lee and G. Perez, JHEP 09, 022 (2015).
- (15) D. Barducci and L. Panizzi, JHEP 12, 057 (2017).
- (16) G. Cacciapaglia, A. Carvalho, A. Deandrea, T. Flacke, B. Fuks, D. Majumder, L. Panizzi, and H. S. Shao, Phys. Lett. B 793, 206 (2019).
- (17) Y. B. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B 923, 312 (2017).
- (18) Y. B. Liu and Y. Q. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 654 (2017).
- (19) Y. B. Liu and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015025 (2019).
- (20) X. Y. Tian, L. F. Du, and Y. B. Liu, Nucl. Phys. B 965, 115358 (2021).
- (21) X. Y. Tian, L. F. Du and Y. B. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 594 (2021).
- (22) B. Yang, M. Wang, H. Bi, and L. Shang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 036006 (2021).
- (23) S. Moretti, D. O’Brien, L. Panizzi, and H. Prager, Phys. Rev. D 96, 075035 (2017).
- (24) S. Moretti, D. O’Brien, L. Panizzi, and H. Prager, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035033 (2017).
- (25) A. Carvalho, S. Moretti, D. O’Brien, L. Panizzi, and H. Prager, Phys. Rev. D 98, 015029 (2018).
- (26) R. Benbrik, E. B. Kuutmann, D. Buarque Franzosi, V. Ellajosyula, R. Enberg, G. Ferretti, M. Isacson, Y. B. Liu, T. Mandal and T. Mathisen, et al. JHEP 05, 028 (2020).
- (27) J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. Alonso-González, L. Merlo and J. M. No, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035015 (2020).
- (28) A. Buckley, J. M. Butterworth, L. Corpe, D. Huang, and P. Sun, SciPost Phys. 9, 069 (2020).
- (29) S. Brown, C. Englert, P. Galler, and P. Stylianou, Phys. Rev. D 102, 075021 (2020).
- (30) A. Deandrea, T. Flacke, B. Fuks, L. Panizzi, and H. S. Shao, JHEP 08, 107 (2021).
- (31) A. Belyaev, R. S. Chivukula, B. Fuks, E. H. Simmons, and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095024 (2021).
- (32) S. Dasgupta, R. Pramanick, and T. S. Ray, Phys. Rev. D 105, 035032 (2022).
- (33) J. Z. Han, J. Yang, S. Xu, H. K. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 975, 115672 (2022).
- (34) S. Verma, S. Biswas, A. Chatterjee and J. Ganguly, [arXiv:2209.13888 [hep-ph]].
- (35) G. Cacciapaglia, T. Flacke, M. Kunkel and W. Porod, JHEP 02, 208 (2022).
- (36) A. Bhardwaj, K. Bhide, T. Mandal, S. Mitra and C. Neeraj, Phys. Rev. D 106, 075024 (2022).
- (37) J. Z. Han, Y. B. Liu, L. Xing and S. Xu, Chin. Phys. C 46, 103103 (2022).
- (38) G. D. Kribs, T. Plehn, M. Spannowsky and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 76, 075016 (2007).
- (39) S. Banerjee, M. Frank and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. D 89, 075005 (2014).
- (40) J. Cao, L. Meng, L. Shang, S. Wang and B. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 055042 (2022).
- (41) G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS], JHEP 08, 045 (2016).
- (42) O. Eberhardt, G. Herbert, H. Lacker, A. Lenz, A. Menzel, U. Nierste and M. Wiebusch, Phys. Rev. D 86, 013011 (2012).
- (43) S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Lett. B 725, 36-59 (2013).
- (44) M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 211801 (2018).
- (45) A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 072001 (2019).
- (46) A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 05, 029 (2017).
- (47) A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 781, 574 (2018).
- (48) A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), JHEP 01, 036 (2020).
- (49) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 105, 092012 (2022).
- (50) G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, D. Harada and Y. Okada, JHEP 11, 159 (2010).
- (51) F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco and M. Nebot, JHEP 12, 040 (2012).
- (52) G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, N. Gaur, D. Harada, Y. Okada and L. Panizzi, JHEP 09, 012 (2015).
- (53) A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, D. Kumar, S. U. Sankar and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 92, 013002 (2015).
- (54) K. Ishiwata, Z. Ligeti and M. B. Wise, JHEP 10, 027 (2015).
- (55) F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco, M. Nebot, M. N. Rebelo and J. I. Silva-Marcos, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 408 (2017).
- (56) D. Vatsyayan and A. Kundu, Nucl. Phys. B 960, 115208 (2020).
- (57) G. C. Branco, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo and J. I. Silva-Marcos, JHEP 07, 099 (2021).
- (58) E. Accomando, J. Brannigan, J. Gunn, Y. Huyan and S. Mulligan, arXiv:2202.05936 [hep-ph].
- (59) S. Balaji, JHEP 05, 015 (2022).
- (60) A. Atre, G. Azuelos, M. Carena, T. Han, E. Ozcan, J. Santiago, and G. Unel, JHEP 08, 080 (2011).
- (61) L. Basso and J. Andrea, JHEP 02, 032 (2015).
- (62) Y. B. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 95, 035013 (2017).
- (63) L. Han, Y. J. Zhang and Y. B. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 771, 106-112 (2017).
- (64) Y. J. Zhang, L. Han and Y. B. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 768, 241-247 (2017).
- (65) X. Gong, C. X. Yue, H. M. Yu and D. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 876 (2020).
- (66) G. Apollinari, O. Brüning, T. Nakamoto and L. Rossi, CERN Yellow Rep., 1-19 (2015).
- (67) H. Zhou and N. Liu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 72, 105201 (2020).
- (68) H. Zhou and N. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115028 (2020).
- (69) H. J. He, Y. P. Kuang, and X. y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2619 (1992).
- (70) H. J. He, Y. P. Kuang, and X. y. Li, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4842 (1994).
- (71) H. J. He, Y. P. Kuang, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6463 (1995).
- (72) H. J. He, Y. P. Kuang, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3038 (1997).
- (73) H. J. He and W. B. Kilgore, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1515 (1997).
- (74) See http://feynrules.irmp.ucl.ac.be/wiki/VLQ.
- (75) J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014).
- (76) R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], JHEP 04, 040 (2015).
- (77) B. Fuks and H. S. Shao, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 135 (2017).
- (78) B. Jager, C. Oleari and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D 80, 034022 (2009).
- (79) T. Melia, K. Melnikov, R. Rontsch and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 12, 053 (2010).
- (80) J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, JHEP 07, 052 (2012).
- (81) M. Czakon, P. Fiedler and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004 (2013).
- (82) T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).
- (83) J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP 02, 057 (2014).
- (84) M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008).
- (85) E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013).
- (86) M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B 659, 119-126 (2008).
- (87) D. Krohn, M. D. Schwartz, M. Low and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 90, 065020 (2014).
- (88) P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller and R. Leitner, JHEP 06, 092 (2014).
- (89) G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)].
- (90) A. Deandrea, Phys. Lett. B 409, 277-282 (1997).