# Large Hadron Collider constraints on a light baryon-number violating sbottom coupling to a top and a light quark

- 411 Downloads
- 2 Citations

## Abstract

We investigate a model of \(R\)-parity violating (RPV) supersymmetry in which the right-handed sbottom is the lightest supersymmetric particle, and a baryon-number violating coupling involving a top is the only non-negligible RPV coupling. This model evades proton decay and flavour constraints. We consider in turn each of the couplings \(\lambda ''_{313}\) and \(\lambda ''_{323}\) as the only non-negligible RPV coupling, and we recast a recent LHC measurement (CMS top transverse momentum \(p_\mathrm{T}(t)\) spectrum) and a LHC search (ATLAS multiple jet resonance search) in the form of constraints on the mass–coupling parameter planes. We delineate a large region in the parameter space of the mass of the sbottom (\(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\)) and the \(\lambda ''_{313}\) coupling that is ruled out by the measurements, as well as a smaller region in the parameter space of \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\) and \(\lambda ''_{323}\). A certain region of the \(m_{\tilde{b}_R} \mathrm {-} \lambda ''_{313}\) parameter space was previously found to successfully explain the anomalously large \(t {\bar{t}}\) forward–backward asymmetry measured by Tevatron experiments. This entire region is now excluded at the 95 \(\%\) confidence level (CL) by CMS measurements of the \(p_\mathrm{T}(t)\) spectrum. We also present \(p_\mathrm{T}(t{\bar{t}})\) distributions of the Tevatron \(t {\bar{t}}\) forward–backward asymmetry for this model.

### Keywords

Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model Light Supersymmetric Particle Strange Quark Generation Squarks Atomic Parity Violation## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a beyond the Standard Model (BSM) theory that answers some of the unsolved questions of the Standard Model. In particular, weak scale SUSY provides a solution to the hierarchy problem, which is the problem of explaining how the Higgs boson mass is stable under radiative corrections which would otherwise tend to bring it up to huge values in the absence of any new physics beyond the Standard Model. However, there has been no significant evidence for supersymmetry so far at the LHC. One possible reason for this might be that most of the LHC searches have been looking for \(R\)-parity conserving supersymmetry, which implies a stable lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). This LSP would escape the detector undetected, and so searches for this variety of supersymmetry at the LHC rely on signatures with large missing transverse momentum. Stringent cuts on the missing transverse momentum are usually imposed for these analyses. However, if supersymmetry is instead \(R\)-parity violating (RPV), it can evade these searches because the LSP is not stable, so there is no large missing transverse momentum. One argument offered for \(R\)-parity conservation is that it ensures that the proton is stable, but RPV SUSY can also avoid getting into trouble with lower bounds on proton lifetimes if either baryon number or lepton number is violated, but not both (proton decay would rely on both being present). Recently, it has also been realised that, by considering flavour symmetries and adding some extra fields charged under such symmetries, a baryon-number violating model may also be consistent with stable dark matter constraints [1]. Depending on the flavour structure of the baryon-number violating couplings, the gravitino has been shown to be a viable dark matter candidate in the \(R\)-parity violating MSSM with lifetimes long enough to evade certain bounds [2]. Thus another argument for \(R\)-parity conservation (that it guarantees a dark matter candidate) is seen to be avoidable.

If only baryon-number violating operators are present, then decays of superpartners will produce jets, which might hide amongst large quantum chromodynamics (QCD) backgrounds at the LHC. The general difficulty of discovering baryon-number violating SUSY amongst QCD backgrounds is a well-known one; many papers have discussed this problem and suggested methods involving studying jet substructure for distinguishing jets produced through BSM processes [3, 4]. Other suggested analyses have relied on leptons produced in sparticle cascades (for example, Ref. [5]). The tendency of baryon-number violating SUSY to ‘hide’ in QCD backgrounds, along with the fact that it is expected that third generation squarks should be light to make the theory more natural [6], has led to the suggestion that baryon-number violating SUSY with light third generation squarks should be the next new physics scenario to search for, given the lack of SUSY signals at the LHC so far [7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Some recent works have built RPV models with minimal flavour violation [12, 13, 14, 15] or product group unification [16] in order to provide natural models that evade LHC constraints more easily than \(R\)-parity conserving ones. General features of these models include a \(U_i^\mathrm{c}D_j^\mathrm{c}D_k^\mathrm{c}\) operator involving a top (s)quark as the dominant RPV operator, and a flavour mass hierarchy which predicts one of the third generation squarks as a likely LSP. The set up we investigate has these features.

*t*-channel exchange of a right-handed sbottom which couples to top and down quarks via the \(\lambda ''_{313}\) coupling (as shown in Fig. 2) could produce an asymmetry which agrees with the Tevatron measurements. They checked their model against measurements of the \(t{{\bar{t}}}\) charge asymmetry at the LHC [31] and total cross-section measurements for a range of values of the sbottom coupling \(\lambda ''_{313}\) (to right-handed down and top quarks) and sbottom mass \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\), and found an allowed region for the model in this parameter space. Around the same time as Allanach and Sridhar’s paper, Dupuis and Cline proposed the same model [20] to explain the \(t{\bar{t}}\) asymmetry, and Hagiwara and Nakamura proposed a very similar model phrased in terms of diquarks [32]. All three papers found approximately compatible allowed regions in mass–coupling space to explain the asymmetry.

In this paper we recast recent LHC measurements in terms of constraints upon the \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\, \lambda ''_{313}\) parameter space and (separately) the \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\, \lambda ''_{323}\) parameter space. The disfavoured region in the \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\lambda ''_{313}\) parameter space includes Allanach and Sridhar’s region that could explain the \(t{\bar{t}}\) asymmetry whilst evading other collider constraints.

The paper is organised as follows: we begin in Sect. 2 by looking at the \(p_\mathrm{T}(t{\bar{t}})\) dependence of the \(t{\bar{t}}\) forward–backward asymmetry as measured by the CDF experiment at the Tevatron, and compare this to the predictions of the sbottom model. In Sect. 3 we reinterpret LHC measurements and calculate excluded regions in mass–coupling parameter spaces of the sbottom. We conclude in Sect. 4.

## 2 Top pair transverse momentum distribution of the forward–backward asymmetry

In particular, CDF measured the forward–backward asymmetry as a function of the transverse momentum (\(p_\mathrm{T}\)) of the top anti-top pair. A non-zero \(p_\mathrm{T}\) occurs when the \(t {\bar{t}}\) system recoils against an additional jet, for example. This measurement gives new information to compare to different BSM models which attempt to explain the forward–backward asymmetry. In fact, both colour octet (for example axigluon exchange) models and colour singlet models (for example, \(Z'\) exchange) were recently shown to have rather flat differential distributions of \(A_{FB}(t{\bar{t}})\) with \(p_\mathrm{T}(t{\bar{t}})\) [34]. The predictions from \(t\)-channel colour anti-triplet exchange have not appeared in the literature, and so we provide them here.

Since the CDF results are unfolded, to compare to these we did not need to apply any cuts on the simulated \(t{\bar{t}}\) plus jet system, or on any decay products of the tops. However, MadGraph5_v1_5_11 can only simulate tree-level processes—it does not include loops—so to avoid difficulties with soft jet divergences, we imposed a lower cut of 10 GeV on the transverse momentum of the jet in our simulated events. This is why our histograms of MadGraph5_v1_5_11 predictions in Fig. 4 do not include the first bin. At a sbottom mass of 600 GeV, the smaller coupling value shown (\(\lambda ''_{313}=3.0\)) falls within the region Allanach and Sridhar found which gives the correct value for the total forward–backward asymmetry, and passed other constraints that were relevant at the time. A sbottom mass of 1,100 GeV and coupling of \(5.0\) also falls within this region. The figure shows that the leading-order Standard Model \(p_\mathrm{T}(t{\bar{t}})\) distribution is fairly flat, in apparent contradiction with the data (the \(\chi ^2\)-value is \(60\) and there are 6 degrees of freedom). All of the points in \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}-\,\lambda ''_{313}\) parameter space listed produce a flat distribution, which does not appear to be mirrored well in the data, which has the trend of decreasing \(A_{FB}(t{\bar{t}})\) with increasing top quark pair \(p_\mathrm{T}\). The prediction of \(\lambda ''_{313}=3.0\), \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}=600\) GeV has a \(\chi ^2\)-value of 35, and that of \(\lambda ''_{313}=5.0\), \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}=1{,}100\) GeV has a \(\chi ^2\)-value of 42. The prediction of \(\lambda ''_{313}=5.0\), \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}=600\) GeV is far above the SM prediction but has a \(\chi ^2\)-value of \(61\). For 6 degrees of freedom, each of these \(m_{{\tilde{b}}_R}-\,\lambda ''_{313}\) points has a \(p\)-value of less than \(10^{-5}\), as does our Standard Model result. We have not included theoretical errors on the MadGraph5_v1_5_11 calculations; of course the \(p\)-values will alter somewhat if these are taken into account. Throughout this paper, we assume that the likelihood is Gaussian distributed in the observables and we use two tailed \(p\)-values to set limits.

Colour anti-triplet exchange thus has a similar status to axigluon or \(Z'\) explanations of the \(A_{FB}(t{\bar{t}})\) measurements: \(A_{FB}(t{\bar{t}})\) is prediction to be approximately flat in \(p_\mathrm{T}\), as is the Standard Model itself.

## 3 Recasting an LHC search and an LHC measurement

We now sketch the procedure whereby we calculate exclusion regions upon the relevant parameter space by recasting LHC measurements and searches in terms of the RPV light sbottom model. For each search or measurement to be reinterpreted, experimental observables for the RPV SUSY model were calculated using the matrix element event generator MadGraph5_v1_5_11 [35] assuming a top mass of \(m_{t}=172.5\) GeV, the CTEQ6L1 parton distribution functions (PDFs) [40] and using the FeynRules [36] implementation of the RPV MSSM [37, 38]. We define \(11 \times 11\) grids in \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\, \lambda ''_{313}\) and \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\, \lambda ''_{323}\) parameter space, simulating 10,000 events at each grid point. At different grid points, the only quantities that are changed in the simulations are the mass, coupling and width of the sbottom. Predicted observables were interpolated between the grid points.

As seen in Fig. 5, the \(t{\bar{t}}d{\bar{d}}\) BSM process is sub-dominant to one of the other two, but it can be of the same order as the dominant process, and so we include it in our simulations. It can have two gluons in its initial state and so, similarly to the \(t{\bar{t}}d\) process, PDF enhancements can counteract the naive suppression that is expected for higher-order diagrams.

The cross sections of processes involving the coupling \(\lambda ''_{323}\) are always smaller than equivalent processes involving the coupling \(\lambda ''_{313}\), because they require strange quarks and/or anti-quarks in the initial state, as opposed to downs and/or anti-downs. Since there are no valence strange quarks in protons, but there are valence downs, the strange PDF is smaller than the down PDF for all values of \(x\) (the fraction of the proton momentum carried by the interacting parton). Consequently the excluded regions we found are smaller in the \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\,\lambda ''_{323}\) parameter space than in the \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\,\lambda ''_{313}\) parameter space.

As well as the measurements described below, we also looked at two more LHC searches. One of these was a search for contact interactions published by the CMS collaboration [41]. They displayed the inclusive jet \(p_\mathrm{T}\) spectrum for jets produced in pp collisions at a centre of mass energy of 7 TeV, for jets with a \(p_\mathrm{T}\) between 507 and 2,116 GeV. We tried to produce an exclusion region for the sbottom in mass–coupling parameter space using this measurement, but the cross sections for the simulated RPV SUSY events were too low (by a factor of about 15) to exclude any points within either mass–coupling parameter space grid.

### 3.1 Differential top quark transverse momentum

The first excluded regions were calculated using the differential top transverse momentum distribution in dileptonic \(t{\bar{t}}\) production events as measured by the CMS collaboration at the LHC [43]. CMS measured the differential cross section of \(t{\bar{t}}\) events as a function of the transverse momentum of the top quarks (including both top and anti-top quarks) in 5 \(\hbox {fb}^{-1}\) of proton–proton collisions at a centre of mass energy of \(7\) TeV.

The SUSY \(t{\bar{t}}\) processes that we simulated for the \(\lambda ''_{313}\) coupling case are shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 6. Equivalent diagrams with down quarks replaced by strange quarks were simulated for the case involving the \(\lambda ''_{323}\) coupling. The leading-order Standard Model \(t{\bar{t}}\) production diagram was also included.

A statistical comparison between measurement and simulation was made using the CL\(_s\) test [44, 45]. At each point on the parameter space grid, the differential \(p_\mathrm{T}\) distribution of the tops was calculated and binned in the same way as in the CMS paper. The differential distribution of the top \(p_\mathrm{T}\) is illustrated for the CMS measurement and our MadGraph5_v1_5_11 calculations in Fig. 7. We see from the figure that the new physics contribution enhances the high \(p_\mathrm{T}(t)\) tail.

### 3.2 ATLAS search for pair production of massive particles decaying into several quarks

The ATLAS collaboration recently undertook a search for the production of pairs of massive particles, each of which decays into multiple quarks, in 20.3 fb\(^{-1}\) of proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=8\) TeV at the LHC [52]. They were looking in particular for baryon-number violating gluinos which decay to three or five quarks each. The search involved counting the number of events which contained at least seven jets all with \(p_\mathrm{T}>80\) GeV and \(|\eta |<2.8\) (\(\eta \) is pseudorapidity), and with either 0, 1 or 2 \(b\)-tags (where the \(b\)-jets must have \(|\eta |<2.5\)). Since our signal contains a \(t{\bar{t}}\) pair in the final state, we used the ATLAS 2 \(b\)-tag event count to calculate an exclusion region.

Using MadGraph5_v1_5_11, we simulated all of the processes shown in Figs. 3 and 6 (we excluded the diagram in Fig. 2 since it cannot produce 7 partons in the final state), decaying the tops hadronically. Then for each value of the sbottom mass and coupling values investigated, the cross section was taken to be the fraction of events that passed the cuts (i.e. those which contain at least seven final-state partons each with \(p_\mathrm{T}>80\) GeV and \(|\eta |<2.8\) of which two are b quarks with \(|\eta |<2.5\)) in the simulated event samples times the production cross section, plus the background estimation given in the ATLAS paper. The number of events predicted is then this cross section multiplied by the integrated luminosity. Using the \(\chi ^2\) test between the number of events found in this way and ATLAS’s measured number, for each point in mass–coupling parameter space, we were able to find the regions of \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\,\lambda ''_{313}\) and \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\,\lambda ''_{323}\) parameter space that are excluded at 95 % by the ATLAS measurement. These regions are shown in Figs. 8 and 9.

## 4 Conclusions

We have investigated constraints on a light sbottom which couples to quarks via the \(R\)-parity violating coupling \(\lambda ''_{313}\) or \(\lambda ''_{323}\). Our constraints complement recent work which focusses on baryon-number violating decays of top squarks whose mother is a gluino [7, 8, 9, 10, 11], which leads to the experimentally advantageous like-sign dilepton signature. Using recent LHC measurements, we have ruled out a large region in \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\,\lambda ''_{313}\) parameter space. This region includes the entire previously allowed parameter space region [20, 30, 32], which explains the anomalously high \(t{\bar{t}}\) forward–backward asymmetry at the Tevatron [21, 22, 23, 24]. The excluded region in \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}-\,\lambda ''_{323}\) parameter space is smaller, because processes involving the \(\lambda ''_{323}\) coupling require strange quarks in the initial state as opposed to down quarks. The associated PDF suppression in the cross sections of processes involving the \(\lambda ''_{323}\) coupling, relative to those involving similar values of \(\lambda ''_{313}\), makes it more difficult to constrain \(m_{\tilde{b}_R}\mathrm {-}\,\lambda ''_{323}\) parameter space.

Excluded RPV couplings are rather large (higher than about 0.7), and therefore we see that our results should be fairly robust with respect to changes to our initial simplifying assumption that the sbottom is the LSP. If the sbottom were not the LSP, the worry was that competing \(R\)-parity conserving decays would weaken our bounds. While this is in principle true, the \(R\)-parity conserving decay modes will likely be sub-dominant to the RPV decay modes for couplings higher than about 0.7, and so the effect of having a different LSP on our observables is likely to be small. For the same reason, \(R\)-parity conserving contributions to the sbottom width are likely to be small compared to Eq. 4.

Our simulations were performed at the parton level. But we can be confident that our conclusions are reliable without simulating parton showering, hadronisation and detectors, because the most constraining measurement is the CMS top \(p_\mathrm{T}\) distribution, which was unfolded to the \(t{\bar{t}}\) level.

We presented the top pair \(p_\mathrm{T}\) dependence of the Tevatron forward–backward asymmetry predicted by this sbottom model (with \(\lambda ''_{313}\) as the non-zero RPV coupling). We found it to predict a flat distribution, which does not fit CDF data well [33].

We have investigated both possibilities for a real \(\lambda ''_{3j3}\) coupling for which the sbottom couples to a top. But there are of course other possibilities for the dominant \(\lambda ''_{ij3}\) coupling which do not involve tops. For example the sbottom could couple to an up quark and a strange quark. In this situation, the sbottom would be more difficult to discover at the LHC, since the signal would be hiding in the extremely large jet background.

We had some trouble finding LHC searches which would be sensitive to our signal. Most of the SUSY searches are not applicable because they usually put strong lower cuts on the missing transverse momentum (MET). They also often veto leptons in the event to ensure that the MET does not come from a W boson decaying leptonically. This is because they are looking for stable LSPs which would show up as large MET, and they want to exclude events where the only MET is due to a neutrino, since such events constitute a new physics background. Since the only source of MET in our signal is neutrinos from tops decaying leptonically, a large part of our signal does not pass cuts on the \(R\)-parity conserving SUSY searches and we cannot use them to strongly constrain the model. ATLAS have recently performed a search for \(B\)-violating operators in RPV supersymmetry, but the search required kinematically accessible gluinos in the model, and their signal was same-sign dileptons, neither of which are predicted by our set up [53]. In this case, for a 100 \(\%\) branching ratio of \({\tilde{g}} \rightarrow t bs\), the experimental limit \(m_{{\tilde{g}}}> 900\) GeV applies [53]. The recent recasting [9] of 3.95 fb\(^{-1}\) of an 8 TeV CMS \(b\)-tags and like-sign lepton search yields \(m_{{\tilde{g}}}> 800\) GeV [54]. Recent searches for RPV SUSY that look in particular for lepton-number violating operators [55, 56] require more leptons in the final state than our signal produces, so we cannot reinterpret these to put bounds on our model. However, we expect precision top measurements to better exclude this model in the future, because processes involving these LSP sbottoms alter the differential production cross section of tops.

## Notes

### Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by STFC. We thank M. Schmaltz for the initial idea. Thanks to the Cambridge Supersymmetry Working Group for helpful discussions.

### References

- 1.B. Batell, T. Lin, L.-T. Wang, (2013). arxiv:1309.4462
- 2.N.-E. Bomark, S. Lola, P. Osland et al., Phys. Lett. B
**677**, 62 (2009). arxiv:0811.2969 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.E. Duchovni, in
*Proceedings of 32nd International Symposium on Physics in Collision (PIC 2012)*. (2013), pp. 79–92. arxiv:1305.4920 - 4.J.M. Butterworth, J.R. Ellis, A.R. Raklev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
**103**, 241803 (2009). arxiv:0906.0728 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.B. Allanach, A. Barr, L. Drage et al., JHEP
**0103**, 048 (2001). arxiv:hep-ph/0102173 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.C. Brust, A. Katz, S. Lawrence et al., JHEP
**1203**, 103 (2012). arxiv:1110.6670 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.
- 8.M. Asano, K. Rolbiecki, K. Sakurai, JHEP
**1301**, 128 (2013). arxiv:1209.5778 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.J. Berger, M. Perelstein, M. Saelim et al., JHEP
**1304**, 077 (2013). arxiv:1302.2146 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.Z. Han, A. Katz, M. Son et al., Phys. Rev. D
**87**, 075003 (2013). arxiv:1211.4025 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.
- 12.
- 13.C. Csaki, B. Heidenreich, Phys. Rev. D
**88**, 055023 (2013). arxiv:1302.0004 - 14.C. Csaki, Y. Grossman, B. Heidenreich, Phys. Rev. D
**85**, 095009 (2012). arxiv:1111.1239 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.G. Krnjaic, D. Stolarski, JHEP
**04**, 064 (2013). arxiv:1212.4860 - 16.B. Bhattacherjee, J. Evans, M. Ibe et al., Phys. Rev. D
**87**, 115002 (2013). arxiv:1301.2336 - 17.G.F. Giudice, B. Gripaios, R. Sundrum, JHEP
**1108**, 055 (2011). arxiv:1105.3161 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.
- 19.M.I. Gresham, I.-W. Kim, S. Tulin et al., Phys. Rev. D
**86**, 034029 (2012). arxiv:1203.1320 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.
- 21.V. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**100**, 142002 (2008). arxiv:0712.0851 Google Scholar - 22.T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**101**, 202001 (2008). arxiv:0806.2472 Google Scholar - 23.T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
**83**, 112003 (2011). arxiv:1101.0034 - 24.V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
**84**, 112005 (2011). arxiv:1107.4995 - 25.V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert et al., Phys. Rev. D
**84**, 074004 (2011). arxiv:1106.6051 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.J.F. Kamenik, J. Shu, J. Zupan, Eur. Phys. J. C
**72**, 2102 (2012). arxiv:1107.5257 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.S. Westhoff, PoS EPS-HEP
**2011**, 377 (2011). arxiv:1108.3341 - 28.J. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nuovo Cim.
**C035N3**, 167 (2012). arxiv:1202.2382 - 29.C. Gross, G. Marques Tavares, M. Schmaltz et al., Phys. Rev. D
**87**, 014004 (2013). arxiv:1209.6375 - 30.
- 31.G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C
**72**, 2039 (2012). arxiv:1203.4211 - 32.
- 33.T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
**87**, 092002 (2013). arxiv:1211.1003 - 34.B. Gripaios, A. Papaefstathiou, B. Webber, JHEP
**1311**, 105 (2013). arxiv:1309.0810 - 35.J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni et al., JHEP
**1106**, 128 (2011). arxiv:1106.0522 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.N.D. Christensen, C. Duhr, Comput. Phys. Commun.
**180**, 1614 (2009). arxiv:0806.4194 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 37.
- 38.C. Duhr, B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun.
**182**, 2404 (2011). arxiv:1102.4191 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar - 39.M. Bahr, S. Gieseke, M. Gigg et al., Eur. Phys. J. C
**58**, 639 (2008). arxiv:0803.0883 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.J. Pumplin, D. Stump, J. Huston et al., JHEP
**0207**, 012 (2002). arxiv:hep-ph/0201195 - 41.S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
**87**, 052017 (2013). arxiv:1301.5023 - 42.S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), CMS-PAS-B2G-12-014 (2013). arxiv:1311.5357
- 43.S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C
**73**, 2339 (2013). arxiv:1211.2220 - 44.J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D
**86**, 010001 (2012)Google Scholar - 45.A.L. Read, J. Phys. G
**28**, 2693 (2002)ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 46.S. Leone et al. (CDF Collaboration), Electroweak Session of Rencontres de Moriond 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
- 47.T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF and D0 Collaborations), note 9913 (2009)Google Scholar
- 48.T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**102**, 222003 (2009). arxiv:0903.2850 Google Scholar - 49.G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS-CONF-2011-121 (2011)Google Scholar
- 50.S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), CMS PAS TOP-11-003 (2011)Google Scholar
- 51.S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B
**709**, 28 (2012). arxiv:1112.5100 - 52.G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS-CONF-2013-091 (2013)Google Scholar
- 53.G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS-CONF-2013-007, ATLAS-COM-CONF-2013-006 (2013)Google Scholar
- 54.Search for supersymmetry in events with same-sign dileptons, Technical Report CMS-PAS-SUS-12-017, CERN, Geneva (2012)Google Scholar
- 55.S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**111**, 221801 (2013). arxiv:1306.6643 Google Scholar - 56.G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS-CONF-2013-036 (2013)Google Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Funded by SCOAP^{3} / License Version CC BY 4.0.