4.4 Article

Unsupervised hadronic SUEP at the LHC

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP12(2021)129

关键词

Beyond Standard Model; Hadron-Hadron scattering (experiments); Jets; Rare decay

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Canada Research Chair program
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [EXC 2121, 390833306, 396021762 - TRR 257]
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  5. Government of Ontario
  6. Ontario Research Fund - Research Excellence
  7. University of Toronto
  8. Compute Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Confining dark sectors with pseudo-conformal dynamics can produce SUEPs, and their patterns can be explored through observable measures such as charged particle multiplicity, event ring isotropy, and geometric distances between charged tracks. Utilizing these techniques, particularly the unsupervised strategy, can provide insights into exotic Higgs branching ratios at colliders without requiring detailed knowledge of signal features.
Confining dark sectors with pseudo-conformal dynamics produce SUEPs, or Soft Unclustered Energy Patterns, at colliders: isotropic dark hadrons with soft and democratic energies. We target the experimental nightmare scenario, SUEPs in exotic Higgs decays, where all dark hadrons decay promptly to SM hadrons. First, we identify three promising observables: the charged particle multiplicity, the event ring isotropy, and the matrix of geometric distances between charged tracks. Their patterns can be exploited through a cut-and-count search, supervised machine learning, or an unsupervised autoencoder. We find that the HL-LHC will probe exotic Higgs branching ratios at the per-cent level, even without a detailed knowledge of the signal features. Our techniques can be applied to other SUEP searches, especially the unsupervised strategy, which is independent of overly specific model assumptions and the corresponding precision simulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据