4.8 Article

750 GeV Diphoton Excess May Not Imply a 750 GeV Resonance

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
Volume 116, Issue 15, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.151805

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DOE [DE-SC0010296, DE-FG02-12ER41809, DE-SC0007863]
  2. IBS [IBS-R018-D1]
  3. Korean Ministry of Education [NRF-2013R1A1A2061561, NRF-2015R1A4A1042542]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0007863] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  5. Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning, Republic of Korea [IBS-R018-D1-2016-A00] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A4A1042542, 2013R1A1A2061561] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We discuss nonstandard interpretations of the 750 GeV diphoton excess recently reported by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations which do not involve a new, relatively broad resonance with a mass near 750 GeV. Instead, we consider the sequential cascade decay of a much heavier, possibly quite narrow, resonance into two photons along with one or more additional particles. The resulting diphoton invariant mass signal is generically rather broad, as suggested by the data. We examine three specific event topologies-the antler, the sandwich, and the two-step cascade decay-and show that they all can provide a good fit to the observed published data. In each case, we delineate the preferred mass parameter space selected by the best fit. In spite of the presence of extra particles in the final state, the measured diphoton p(T) spectrum is moderate due to its anticorrelation with the diphoton invariant mass. We comment on the future prospects of discriminating with higher statistics between our scenarios, as well as from more conventional interpretations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available