Arxiv:1810.03617V2 [Hep-Ph] 14 Mar 2019

R-parity Violation and Light Neutralinos at CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA

Daniel Dercks,1, ∗ Jordy de Vries,2, 3, † Herbi K. Dreiner,4, ‡ and Zeren Simon Wang4, § 1II. Institut fürTheoretische Physik, UniversitätHamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany 2Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions, Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA 3RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973-5000, USA 4Physikalisches Institut der UniversitätBonn, Bethe Center for Theoretical Physics, Nußallee 12, 53115 Bonn, Germany

The LQD¯ operator in R-parity-violating supersymmetry can lead to meson decays to light neutralinos and neutralino decays to lighter mesons, with a long lifetime. Since the high-luminosity LHC is expected to accumulate as much as 3/ab of data, several detectors proposed to be built at the LHC may probe unexplored regions in the parameter space, for long-lived neutralinos. We estimate the sensitivity of the recently proposed detectors, CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA, for detecting such light neutralinos singly produced from D- and B-meson decays in a list of benchmark scenarios, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed detectors in this context. We also present our results in a model independent fashion, which can be applied to any long-lived particle with mass in the GeV regime.

I. INTRODUCTION and decays via RPV couplings.1 Thus such a neutralino can be light. For small couplings and small mass these The discovery of a Standard-Model (SM) like Higgs bo- neutralinos can be long-lived enough to escape the reach son in 2012 has been a highlight of the Large Hadron Col- of the LHC detectors. Moreover, the RPV couplings can

lider (LHC) [1, 2]. The small Higgs mass, mh = 125.09 induce single production of neutralinos via rare meson GeV [3], has since, however, consolidated the hierarchy decays. Such scenarios have been investigated in vari- problem [4, 5]. Supersymmetric (SUSY) theories offer an ous fixed-target set-ups [13, 26–28]. More recently they elegant solution, for reviews see Ref. [6, 7]. All searches have also been studied in the context of the proposed for the new fields predicted by SUSY however, have been SHiP experiment [29–31]. Ref. [31] studied the expected unsuccessful yet. This leads to lower limits on the masses LHC sensitivity to such scenarios assuming an integrated of squarks and gluinos in various supersymmetric mod- luminosity of 250/fb. Ignoring differences in the recon- els of order 1 TeV and above [8–12]. On the other hand, struction efficiency the sensitivity in the R-parity violat- the lightest neutralino is not similarly constrained. In ing couplings at ATLAS was lower than at SHiP by roughly fact, if we drop the assumption for the gaugino masses, a factor of 2. 5 2 It is expected that the high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) M1 = 3 tan θW M2, which is motivated by grand uni- fied theories (GUTs), and do not require the lightest will deliver up to 3/ab of luminosity in the coming 20 neutralino to comprise the dark matter of the Universe, years [32]. As the cross sections for producing long-lived light neutralino masses below ∼ 10 GeV are still allowed particles (LLPs) are typically small, such a large amount [13–18]. For neutralino massess between about 1 eV and of data is required for high sensitivity to LLPs. Unsur- arXiv:1810.03617v2 [hep-ph] 14 Mar 2019 10 GeV the relic energy density of the neutralinos would prisingly, there have appeared several proposals to build overclose the Universe [11], thus such neutralinos must new detectors near the interaction points (IPs) at the decay. Since they are light they will typically have long LHC, exploiting the projected large luminosity: CODEX-b lifetimes. [33], FASER [34] and MATHUSLA [35]. In this study, we In R-parity-violating (RPV) SUSY (for reviews see estimate the sensitivity reach of these detectors for dis- Ref. [19–21]), the lightest neutralino is no longer stable covering singly produced light neutralinos from D- and B-mesons via RPV LQD¯ couplings, and compare them with each other. We also interpret our studies in a model

∗ [email protected] † [email protected] ‡ dreiner@uni–bonn.de 1 Incidentally in such RPV SUSY models the dark matter can be § [email protected] composed of axinos [22–25]. 2 independent way, independently of the RPV couplings. are consistent with all laboratory and astrophysical data Instead we set bounds on the product of the branching [16, 44, 46, 47]. Thus this is an allowed supersymmet- ratios of the production of an LLP from a meson decay ric parameter range, and should be investigated. Such a and the decay of the LLP to a meson and charged lepton light neutralino is only consistent with the observed dark in terms of the neutralino decay length cτ. This can be matter density if it decays on time-scales much shorter applied to any potential LLP. than the age of the universe. This is the case for R-parity CODEX-b is a comparatively small cubic detector mak- violating scenarios. R-parity violating supersymmetry ing use of a shielded space near the LHCb IP that is ex- naturally obtains light neutrino masses, without intro- pected to be free soon. Since it is to be installed at ducing a super heavy see-saw Majorana mass of order LHCb instead of ATLAS or CMS, CODEX-b will have an 1010 GeV or higher [48, 49]. The scenario of an O(1 GeV) expected luminosity of 300/fb, one order of magnitude neutralino does not in itself resolve any discrepancy be- smaller than ATLAS or CMS, if LHCb runs until 2035 with tween the Standard Model and current data. upgrades to a Phase-II [36]. FASER was proposed as a This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we briefly small cylindrical detector to be built in the very forward introduce the model of RPV-SUSY. In Sec. III we de- region several hundred meters downstream of the ATLAS scribe the three experiments for which we estimate the or CMS IP. In comparison, MATHUSLA would be built as a sensitivities, and explain the details of the numerical sim- massive surface detector above the ATLAS IP. The details ulation. In Sec. IV we present results for various bench- of the experimental setups are summarized in Sec. III. mark choices for RPV couplings. We summarize and The CODEX-b physics proposal [33] examined two conclude in Sec. V. benchmark models, i.e. Higgs decay to dark photons, and B-meson decays via a Higgs mixing portal. Sev- eral FASER papers have respectively studied dark pho- II. SUPERSYMMETRY WITH RPV, tons produced through light meson decays and pho- PRODUCTION AND DECAY OF LIGHT NEUTRALINOS ton bremsstrahlung [34], dark Higgs bosons produced through B- and K-mesons [37], heavy neutral leptons We give a brief introduction to the RPV-SUSY model, [38] and axion-like particles [39]. There are also stud- and describe the production and decay of light neutrali- ies investigating MATHUSLA with dark Higgs [40], exotic nos via RPV couplings. Compared to the R-parity con- Higgs decays to LLPs [35, 41], and the Dynamical Dark serving (RPC) supersymmetric theories, RPV-SUSY has Matter framework [42]. Recently a MATHUSLA white paper extra terms in the superpotential:2 [43] appeared, where the theory community presented de- tailed studies of MATHUSLA’s potential of detecting LLPs c WRPV =κiLiHu + λijkLiLjE + in many different models. Ref. [44] studied all these k 0 c 00 c c c three detectors with heavy neutral leptons in the Type-I λijkLiQjDk + λijkUi Dj Dk, (1) Seesaw model, and the lightest neutralino pair-produced where the first three terms are lepton number violating from Z bosons with the RPV-SUSY model. Very recently (LNV) and the last is baryon number violating (BNV). Ref. [45] investigated inelastic dark matter models at var- The co-existence of LNV and BNV terms would lead to ious existing and proposed LHC experiments including too fast proton decays, so in our study we choose to be CODEX-b, FASER and MATHUSLA. We extend this work to exclusively interested in the LQD¯ operators. With non- consider the production of supersymmetric neutralinos vanishing RPV couplings, the lightest supersymmetric via both - and -mesons, as well as the decays of the D B particle (LSP) is not stable and can decay to SM parti- neutralinos to a charged meson and a charged lepton. cles. If the lightest neutralino is sufficiently light, it can RPV-SUSY is a complete model and we thus also con- be the LSP. We assume this is the case in our study. sider the full kinematic constraints due to phase space. Neutralinos that are produced from charm and bottom The mass differences between the mesons, the neutralino meson decays are necessarily lighter than 10 GeV and and a potential tau-lepton strongly affect the search sen- are dominantly bino-like to avoid existing bounds, see sitivities. Ref. [16]. Formulas for the partial widths of heavy meson It is the purpose of this paper to investigate the discovery potential of light neutralinos at the detectors CODEX-b, FASER, and MATHUSLA. The primary motiva- tion of this scenario is that supersymmetry is a poten- 2 For a discussion of baryon- and lepton-number violating non- tial solution to the hierarchy problem. Light neutralinos holomorphic terms in the Kählerpootential see Refs. [50–52]. 3 decays and for the partial widths of neutralino decays via III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUPS AND LQD¯ couplings can be found in Refs. [13, 16, 26, 31]. SIMULATION In principle, one single LQD¯ coupling introduces several effective SM operators and hence may simultane- In this section we summarize the setups of the de- ously induce both meson decays to neutralinos and neu- tectors, and explain in detail our simulation procedure. tralino decays to lighter mesons. However, as Ref. [31] For more information on the proposed detectors we re- points out, due to kinematic constraints only the coupling fer to Refs. [33–35]. The main difference between them 0 lies in the projected luminosity, the geometry and in- λ112 may lead to such a complete decay chain: stalled position (large or small pseudorapidity η). More- 0 0 0 ± ∓ over, whether installed underground or above the ground, KL/S → χ˜1ν, χ˜1 → K l . (2) these proposals all argue that the background influence, 0 for example from cosmic rays, can be well controlled. Moreover, since the mass difference between KL/S and K± is only 4 MeV, the kinematically allowed neutralino Therefore, we do not discuss it and always assume 100% mass range is very small and this case is not worth study- detector efficiency. ing. Therefore, we only consider scenarios with two dis- In order to estimate the number of LLP decays inside tinct non-vanishing RPV operators, one for the produc- the respective detector’s chamber, we take into consider- tion of the neutralinos and the other for the decay. ation both the production of the mesons and hence the 0 ¯ neutralinos, and the decay of the neutralinos via mesons. The couplings λijk for the operator LiQjDk have strict bounds from different sources, though the bounds can be On the production side, since we study neutralinos pro- substantially weakened for heavy sfermion masses above duced from meson decays, we use results published by 1 TeV. For reviews, see Refs. [19, 53–56]. Since we inves- the LHCb collaboration [57, 58] for estimating NM , the tigate the same benchmark scenarios as in Ref. [31], we total number of the meson type “M” produced at the only list the relevant bounds, reproduced from Ref. [56]: LHC. For D-mesons, we consider only neutralinos pro- + duced from D - and Ds-mesons which are relevant for m m ˜ the benchmark scenarios we consider. Ref. [57] gives the λ0 < 0.03 s˜R , λ0 < 0.2 dR , (3) 112 100 GeV 121 100 GeV cross section for producing D+, and D∗+. The latter + decays to D -, and Ds-mesons at the 13-TeV LHC for 0 ms˜R 0 mt˜L λ < 0.2 , λ < 0.03 , (4) a certain kinematic range: 0 < p < 15 GeV/c and 122 100 GeV 131 100 GeV T 2.0 < y < 4.5, where pT denotes transverse momentum m˜ 0 ms˜R 0 bR and y rapidity. We use the computer program FONLL [59– λ312 < 0.06 , λ313< 0.06 . (5) 100 GeV 100 GeV 62] to extrapolate these numbers to the whole kinematic range, and, after taking into account the decay of the Some pairs of operators have even stricter product D∗+- to D+-mesons, we obtain the total numbers of D+ bounds. We take the relevant bounds from Ref. [53]: and Ds produced over the hemisphere for L = 3/ab: 16 ND+ = 1.58 × 10 , (9) 15 p 0 0 −5 mν˜L = 5 11 × 10 (10) λ λ < 3 × 10 , (6) NDs . . 121 112 100 GeV At the LHC the mesons are produced over the full 4π. m p 0 0 −3 s˜R However the detectors we are considering here for LLPs λ122λ112 < 4.7 × 10 , (7) 100 GeV are always off to one side of the collision point. We thus at

p me˜L first only consider the forward or backward hemisphere λ0 λ0 < 4.7 × 10−3 . (8) 131 112 100 GeV (2π) which contains the respective detector. We then later impose the necessary geometric cuts corresponding Throughout this work, we assume that all sfermions to a specific detector. 0 ± have degenerate masses mf˜. This allows us to directly Among the B-mesons, B and B are of interest here. compare the above bounds to our results even though the Ref. [58] presents the experimentally measured b-quark respectively relevant operators depend on the masses of production cross section at the 13-TeV LHC for 2 < η < possibly different SUSY particles. Note that results for 5, and the corresponding number after extrapolation over significantly non-degenerate SUSY spectra may therefore the full η range with the numerical tool Pythia 8 [63, 64]. differ significantly and can change the relative impor- We take the fragmentation factors of B-mesons directly tance of bounds from different sources. from Ref. [31], which were obtained by simulating 1 M 4 events of HardQCD:hardbbbar in Pythia 8 [63, 64]. We obtain Ld 14 NB+ = 7.30 × 10 , (11) 14 NB0 = 7.28 × 10 , (12) over a hemisphere for L = 3/ab. The branching ratios of these mesons decaying to neutralinos are easily calculated with the formulas given in Ref. [31]. We arrive at the L following expression for the total number of neutralinos produced in a hemisphere

prod X 0 θi Nχ = NM · BR(M → χ˜1 + l), (13) IP M where l is the associated lepton in the meson decay, which FIG. 1. Side-view sketch of the CODEX-b detector with def- can be charged or neutral. inition of distances and angles used in text. IP denotes the We then apply Monte Carlo (MC) techniques to deter- interaction point in LHCb. The dashed line describes an ex- mine the average probability of the neutralinos decaying ample LLP track. inside the detector chamber,

MC N 0 χ˜1 component of the 3-momentum along the z-axis, Ei is 0 1 X 0 hP [˜χ1 in d.r.]i = MC P [(˜χ1)i in d.r.] , (14) the total energy of the neutralino, and θi, φi are the po- Nχ˜0 1 i=1 lar and azimuthal angles, respectively. With this kine- 0 where P [(˜χ1)i in d.r.] is the probability for a given gen- matical information we derive the relativistic quantities erated neutralino to decay in the “detectable region”, as follows: “d.r.”. Dividing by the total number of simulated neu- γ = E /m 0 , (16) MC i i χ˜1 tralinos produced, Nχ˜0 , gives the average. We explain 1 q 0 −2 how to calculate hP [˜χ1 in d.r.]i for each detector in detail βi = 1 − γi , (17) below. 0 λi = βiγi/Γtot(˜χ1), (18) Since it is difficult to experimentally reconstruct the βz = pz/E , (19) trajectory of the neutral final-state particles of the neu- i i i z z 0 tralino decays, we consider only charged decay products λi = βi γi/Γtot(˜χ1). (20) to be detectable. (See Ref. [31] for a discussion of the 0 0 where Γtot(˜χ1) is the total decay width ofχ ˜1 and can potential influence of decays to K0’s.) The final number be calculated with formulas given in Ref. [31], λi is the of observed neutralino decays is expressed as 0 decay length of (˜χ1)i along the direction of its movement z obs prod 0 0 in the lab frame and λ is the z-component of λi. These Nχ˜0 = Nχ · hP [˜χ1 in d.r.]i · BR(˜χ1 → char.).(15) i 1 0 quantities are used to calculate P [(˜χ1)i in d.r.] for each We use Pythia 8.205 [63, 64] to perform the MC sim- detector. We now discuss the detectors in turn. 0 ulation in order to calculate hP [˜χ1 in d.r.]i in Eq. (14). We use two matrix element calculators of Pythia, namely HardQCD:hardccbar and HardQCD:hardbbbar, to gener- A. CODEX-b ate initial D- and B-mesons, respectively. Note that the differential cross section of producing heavy flavor mesons CODEX-b (“Compact detector for Exotics at LHCb”) in the very forward direction, where FASER sits, is not [33] was proposed as a cubic detector with dimension validated in Pythia. In order to solve this problem, we 103 m3, sitting inside an underground cavity at a dis- reweigh the Pythia meson production cross section at tance L = 25 m from the LHCb IP. The differential pro- different ranges of transverse momentum and pseudora- duction distribution is flat in the azimuthal angle and the pidity by the corresponding more reliable numbers calcu- azimuthal coverage of the detector is about 0.4/2π ≈ 6%. lated by using FONLL. We simulate 20,000 events for each The polar angle range of the CODEX-b experiment at benchmark scenario and extract the kinematical informa- the appropriate azimuthal angle is between 11.4◦ and 0 z ◦ tion of each neutralino (˜χ1)i from Pythia:(Ei, pi , θi, φi). 32.5 . This corresponds to the pseudo-rapidity range z Here the z-direction is along the beam pipe, pi is the η ∈ [0.2, 0.6]. For this narrow range, and at the precision 5 of this analysis, we also treat the polar angle differential respond respectively to 1) the extended potential neu- production distribution as flat. As we mentioned earlier, tralino trajectory misses the decay chamber, 2) the ex- LHCb is expected to have a total integrated luminosity of tended potential neutralino trajectory passes through 300/fb, smaller by one order of magnitude than ATLAS the entire length of the detector, and 3) the extended 0 or CMS. We calculate P [(˜χ1)i in d.r.] with the following neutralino trajectory exits through the side of the de- expression: tector. In practice, we treat the third case as negligible. It corresponds to the very narrow angular range  − Ld λi ◦ ◦  0.4 1 − e θi ∈ [0.1194 , 0.1219 ]. And furthermore the decay prod- 0  · L , ηi ∈ [0.2, 0.6], [(˜ ) in d.r.] = λ (21) P χ1 i 2π e i ucts of the neutralinos may exit through the side and may   0, else, thus miss the detector. These neutralinos hence would not be detected. A sketch of the geometric configuration where we approximately treat the box detector as a of FASER is shown in Fig. 2. spherical shell segment with the volume length Ld = 0 10m. ηi is the pseudorapidity of (˜χ1)i and ηi = − ln[tan θi/2]. A brief sketch of the setup of CODEX-b C. MATHUSLA is shown in Fig. 1.

Ld B. FASER H

IP θi Ld R Lv

L θi IP FIG. 2. Side-view sketch of the FASER detector with definition Lh of distances and angles used in text. The dashed line describes an example LLP track. FIG. 3. Side-view sketch of the MATHUSLA detector with definition of distances and angles used in text. The dashed line FASER (“ForwArd Search ExpeRiment”) [34] proposes describes an example LLP track. to build a small cylindrical detector placed a few hundred meters downstream of the ATLAS or CMS IP in the very In Ref. [35] it has been proposed to construct a sur- forward region. In a series of papers [34, 37–39] several face detector 100 m above the ATLAS IP called MATHUSLA different variants of FASER have been proposed. In this (“MAssive Timing Hodoscope for Ultra Stable neutraL paper, we focus on a recent setup, which would sit at a pArticles”). The detector should be horizontally offset particularly promising location in the side tunnel TI18 by 100 m from the ATLAS IP and with a massive dimen- [39]. We denote the distance from the IP to the near end sion of 200m×200m×20m, MATHUSLA is expected to have of the detector as L = 470m, the radius of FASER as R = excellent sensitivity for detecting LLPs. Below we show 0 1m, and the detector length as Ld = 10m. Following is the formulæ for calculating P [(˜χ1)i in d.r.] in MATHUSLA: the expression for calculating the probability for a given L0 − i neutralino to decay inside FASER: λz 1 1 − e i [(˜0) in d.r.] = (24) P χ1 i Li , Li 4 z − λz λ 1 − e i e i 0 P [(˜χ1)i in d.r.] = L , (22) Lv λz i Li = min max Lh, ,Lh + Ld , (25) e tan θ  R i  0 , tan θi > , L + H  L 0 v  Li = min max Lh, ,Lh + Ld − Li . (26)  R tan θi Li = Ld , tan θi < , (23)  L + Ld Here, and are the horizontal and vertical dis-  Lh Lv  R  − L, else . tance from the IP to the near end of MATHUSLA, and tan θi they both equal 100m. Ld = 200m is the horizontal There is no azimuthal angle suppression because the length of MATHUSLA and H = 20m is its height. The fac- FASER detector is cylindrical. Here the three cases cor- tor 1/4 comes from the azimuthal angle coverage. Both 6

0 0 MATHUSLA and FASER expect to have 3/ab luminosity of λP for production λ122 0 0 data by ∼ 2035. We show the schematic plot of MATHUSLA λD for decay λ112 in Fig. 3. produced meson(s) Ds visible final state(s) K±e∓,K∗±e∓ 0 0 invisible final state(s) via λP (η, η , φ) + (νe, ν¯e) IV. RESULTS 0 0 0 ∗ invisible final state(s) via λD (KL,KS ,K ) + (νe, ν¯e)

We present our numerical results in this section. In TABLE I. Features of Benchmark Scenario 1. Ref. [31] a series of benchmark scenarios representative of LQD¯ couplings were investigated. In these scenarios, both the light lepton flavor (electron/muon) and the exact construction of the detectors, they can possibly also heavy tau flavor are considered, as the τ lepton leads to track neutral mesons. We thus show sensitivity estimates large phase space suppression effects. Also, different neu- for two cases: 1) only charged final states can be tracked, tral or charged D- and B-mesons which would decay to and 2) both neutral and charged ones. the neutralino are considered; this is important because the cross sections of producing these mesons substan- A. Benchmark Scenario 1 tially differ, cf. Eqs. (9)-(12). In the present study, as a follow-up work to Ref. [31], we choose to focus only on one key benchmark scenario which features the important We begin with the RPV scenario we consider in de- characteristics for a comparison of the proposed LHC(b) tail in this study with Ds-mesons produced at the LHC, detectors’ sensitivities, while only briefly discussing the which decay to a neutralino, which in turn travels for other scenarios. We first consider the explicit RPV model a macroscopic distance before decaying to a kaon and a 0 0 and then also discuss the model-independent case. lepton. In this scenario we assume λ122 and λ112 are the only non-vanishing ¯ couplings. 0 gives rise to the Since the operators for production and decay scale with LQD λ122 production of ˜0 via 0 2 , we have three free parameters in the theory, af- χ1 λ /mf˜ ˜ 0 ± ter assuming that all SUSY fermions f have degenerate Ds → χ˜1 + e , (production) (27) 0 2 0 2 masses, cf. Sec. II, namely: λ /m , λ /m , and m 0 . P f˜ D f˜ χ˜1 0 ¯ and to the invisible neutralino decay Here λP/D is the LQD coupling giving rise to the pro- 0 2 duction/decay of theχ ˜1, and m ˜ is the sfermion mass 0 0 0 f χ˜1 → (η/η /φ) + νe , (decay via λ122) (28) relevant for the production/decay process, respectively.3 0 We therefore show model-dependent plots in two sepa- On the other hand, λ112 leads to both visible and invisible rate planes for the aforementioned benchmark scenarios: decays 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 mχ˜0 vs. (λ /m = λ /m ) and λ /m vs. λ /m .  1 P f˜ D f˜ P f˜ D f˜ K(∗)± + e∓ , For the latter plane, we present results for three different 0  0 χ˜1 → (decay via λ112) (29) 0 values of m 0 .  K + ν . χ˜1 S,L e In addition, we present model-independent results in The invisible decays are important to take into account the plane BR vs. cτ for a generic LLP. Here cτ is the in the evaluation because they affect the total width of decay length of the LLP, and BR is the product of the χ˜0. We summarize this scenario in Tab. I. branching ratios of the respective meson decaying to the 1 We now present our results. In Fig. 4 we show model- LLP and of the LLP decaying to a charged meson and a dependent sensitivity estimates for the three detectors: charged lepton. These results can be interpreted in terms CODEX-b, FASER and MATHUSLA. In the left column, plots of any LLP which has the same or similar reaction chain. 0 2 0 2 are presented in the plane mχ˜0 vs. (λ /m = λ /m ). For the key benchmark scenario, we choose to show all 1 P f˜ D f˜ We have set 0 = 0 , and vary their values and the mass three types of plots while for the others we select only λD λP 0 one single type of plot, where the distinctive features of ofχ ˜1. In order to see how the number of neutralino de- the scenario may be best emphasized. Depending on the cay events change with varying mass and RPV couplings, we show the light blue, blue, and dark blue areas corresponding to the parameter space where respectively ≥ 3, ≥ 3×103 and ≥ 3×106 events are observed. The hashed 3 The explicit formulae including the dependence on the relevant solid lines denote the present RPV limits for a set of sfermion masses are given in Ref. [31]. sfermion mass values, Eqs. (3), (4), translated to λ0/m˜ 2. 7

FIG. 4. Sensitivity estimate of CODEX-b, FASER and MATHUSLA for Benchmark Scenario 1. On the left, we show the reach in 0 2 0 2 terms of m 0 and λP /m ˜ = λD/m ˜. The light blue/blue/dark blue regions enclosed by the solid black lines correspond to χ˜1 f f ≥ 3/3 × 103/3 × 106 events. The light blue region is extended only slightly below by a dashed curve, representing the extended sensitivity reach if we assume our detectors can also detect neutral decays of the neutralino. The hashed solid lines correspond to the single RPV couplings’ limit for diﬀerent sfermion masses. On the right, the two couplings are not required to be identical 0 2 0 2 and plots in the plane λP /m ˜ vs. λD/m ˜ are shown for the detectors. We consider three choices of m 0 : 600 MeV (light blue), f f χ˜1 1200 MeV (blue), 1800 MeV (dark blue). The solid hashed lines again represent the individual coupling bounds and the hashed ¯ dot-dashed line is the upper bound derived from the limit on the product of the two LQD couplings for mf˜ = 1 TeV. 8

We do not show the product bound from Eq. (7), as for a 1 TeV sfermion mass it coincides almost exactly with the 5 TeV bound on the single couplings. The bound on λ0/m˜ 2 scales linearly with the sfermion mass, when taking the scaling of the bound on λ0 into account. The 3-event dashed contour isocurve is extended to the lighter shaded region, bounded by a dotted line; this is obtained when we assume that invisible decays of the neutralinos can be detected as well. Whether this will be possible is an outstanding experimental question. In any case, we observe that for this benchmark scenario this would only give a very small extension in the sensitivity reach.

The range of sensitivity in the neutralino mass m 0 is χ˜1 strictly determined by the kinematics of the production and decay FIG. 5. Model-independent sensitivity estimate of CODEX-b

(M ± + m ) < m 0 < (M − m ) . (30) (solid pink curves), FASER (dashed blue curves) and MATHUSLA K e χ˜1 Ds e (dot-dashed red curves) for Benchmark Scenario 1. We show and is thus identical for the three experiments. The range the sensitivity reach as isocurves of 3 events of visible de- in sensitivity in λ0/m˜ 2 is determined by the experimental cays. For the axes, we choose the neutralino’s unboosted de- set-up. Comparing the results for the three detectors, we cay length cτ and the relevant meson branching ratio. The find that for this model CODEX-b and FASER reach simi- light/medium colors correspond respectively to a 600/1200 MeV neutralino mass. λ0 = λ0 , λ0 = λ0 . lar values of 0 2 , while MATHUSLA is more sensitive by P 122 D 112 λ /mf˜ a factor ∼ 5. Furthermore they can all extend well beyond existing low-energy limits on the R-parity violating observables, BR= BRP ·BRD, instead of the RPV-SUSY couplings. parameters. Here On the right in Fig. 4, we show plots in the plane ± 0 2 0 2 BRP = BR(Ds → LLP + e ) , (31) λP /m ˜ vs. λD/m ˜ for three values of mχ˜0 : 600 MeV f f 1 (∗)± ∓ (light blue region), 1200 MeV (blue region), 1800 MeV BRD = BR(LLP → K + e ) , (32) (dark blue region). In this benchmark scenario, λ0 = P and we allow for any LLP. The results are shown in λ0 and λ0 = λ0 . For these results, the requirement 122 D 112 Fig. 5. The dashed blue isocurves are for 3 events of vis- that λ0 = λ0 is lifted, so we observe an interplay be- P D ible decays inside the FASER decay chamber for the two tween the production and decay ofχ ˜0. We may compare 1 lighter LLPmass values m values of those considered each detector’s sensitivity range in different parameters. LLP in Fig. 4. The solid pink curves are for CODEX-b and For example, the λ0 /m2 reach of FASER is only weaker P f˜ the dot-dashed red for MATHUSLA. The light and medium than that of MATHUSLA by a factor ∼ 3, even though colors correspond respectively to the smallest (600 MeV) FASER is more than 25,000 times smaller than MATHUSLA. and medium (1200 MeV) values for the LLP mass we This arises because FASER exploits very well the advan- choose to investigate. We do not show the curve for the tage of receiving the light D-mesons (and the produced heaviest mass value (1800 MeV) because it is almost the neutralinos) boosted in the very forward direction, where same as that for 1200 MeV. The cτ position of the val- the differential production cross section is significantly ley of the isocurves, the point of maximal sensitivity, is higher. As for the reach in λ0 /m2 , MATHUSLA shows D f˜ determined by again the strongest potential. Here we include single coupling bounds as solid hashed lines for three different hβγicτ ≈ hLi , (33) sfermion masses (250, 1000 and 5000 GeV) and now also the product bound as a dashed hashed line for a 1 TeV where hβγi is the average boost of the neutralinos fly- sfermion mass. Again all experiments are sensitive well ing in the direction of the detector and hLi is the dis- beyond existing limits. tance from the IP to the middle of the respective detec- We next consider a model-independent description, tor. We estimate hβγi of the neutralinos that fly inside where we interpret our results in terms of the physical each detector by simulating 10,000 events in each case, 9

0 0 Benchm. Sc. m 0 (MeV) hβγiCODEX-b hβγiFASER hβγiMATHUSLA λP for production λ121 χ˜1 0 0 1 (Ds) 1200 1.64 560 2.87 λD for decay λ112 2 (D±) 1200 1.50 682 2.90 produced meson(s) D± 3 (B0 & B¯0) 1000 4.07 793 7.32 visible final state(s) K±e∓, K∗±e∓ 0 0 0 0 0 ∗ 4 (B & B¯ ) 2000 2.22 391 3.88 invisible final state(s) via λP (KL,KS ,K ) + (νe, ν¯e) 0 0 0 0 0 ∗ 5 (B & B¯ ) 2500 1.88 308 3.36 invisible final state(s) via λD (KL,KS ,K ) + (νe, ν¯e) 5 (B±) 2500 1.55 358 2.95 TABLE III. Features of Benchmark Scenario 2. TABLE II. Summary of hβγi values for each detector in all the Benchmark Scenarios. Inside the parenthesis in each column, the type of the mother meson of the neutralino is given. the context of a Type-I Seesaw model, where the right- In particular, in Benchmark Scenario 5, neutralinos can be handed neutrino is the LLP with a mass of 1 GeV pro- produced from decay of either B0 or B±; therefore we show duced from D-meson decays. This illustrates the model- the results in two separate rows. independence of the results shown in the BR-cτ-plane. and summarize the results for each Benchmark Scenario B. Benchmark Scenario 2 and detector in Tab. II. The values for hLi are Now we briefly study the other the benchmark scenar-  30.0 m for CODEX-b, 0 0 0  ios. In Benchmark Scenario 2, λP = λ121 instead of λ122,  ± hLi = 475 m for FASER, (34) so that a D , instead of a Ds, decays to the lightest neu-   223 m for MATHUSLA tralino. Correspondingly, the invisible final states due 0 0 to λP are now kaons, instead of η, η , φ. The relevant Using the values of Benchmark Scenario 1, we get for the information is summarized in Tab. III. most sensitive cτ value The model-dependent results are very similar to those shown in Fig. 4. We do not show them again. One dif-  18.3 m for CODEX-b,  ference is that the low-energy product bound is stricter ( ) = 0 85 m for (35) cτ max. sensitivity . FASER, in this case, cf. Eq. (6). It is due to 0− ¯ 0-mixing and  K K  77 m for MATHUSLA scales linearly with the sneutrino mass. As pointed out which agrees with Fig. 5. The BR position of the valleys is determined by the luminosity of the experiment, the cross section of producing Ds-mesons, the pseudorapidity coverage, the volume of the detector and the product of the branching ratios. The BR reach of CODEX-b is roughly one order of magnitude larger than that of FASER. This is mainly due to the fact that LHCb has a one order of magnitude lower projected luminosity than that of ATLAS/CMS. Perhaps more importantly, in spite of the huge volume difference between MATHUSLA and CODEX-b/FASER, the BR reach in MATHUSLA is only one order of magnitude stronger than that in FASER. For large cτ values MATHUSLA performs far better than CODEX-b, but for shorter neutralino lifetimes the detectors perform equally well. The reason is that the distance traveled to MATHUSLA is about ten times larger than for CODEX-b, such that less neutralinos reach the former detector for short-lived neutralinos. This leads to FIG. 6. Model-independent sensitivity estimate of CODEX-b, a similar sensitivity despite the larger integrated lumi- FASER and MATHUSLA for Benchmark Scenario 2. The format nosity and the larger detector size of MATHUSLA. is the same as in Fig. 5. The plot corresponds to visible decay Note that Fig. 5 is very similar to the first plot of products only. The two LLP mass values are 600 and 1200 0 0 0 0 Fig. 1 in Ref. [44], the result of which was obtained in MeV. λP = λ121, λD = λ112. 10

0 0 0 0 λP for production λ131 λP for production λ131 0 0 0 0 λD for decay λ112 λD for decay λ121 produced meson(s) B0, B¯0 produced meson(s) B0, B¯0 visible final state(s) K±e∓,K∗±e∓ visible final state(s) D±e∓,D∗±e∓ 0 0 invisible final state(s) via λP none invisible final state(s) via λP none 0 0 0 ∗ 0 0 0 ∗ invisible final state(s) via λD (KL,KS ,K ) + (νe, ν¯e) invisible final state(s) via λD (KL,KS ,K ) + (νe, ν¯e)

TABLE IV. Features of Benchmark Scenario 3 TABLE V. Features of Benchmark Scenario 4

in Ref. [31], in the case of SHiP, also here, if the sneutrino is more than twice the D-meson mass, and hence the mass is equal to the relevant squark mass of production produced B-mesons are not as much boosted in the very and decay, the sensitivity reach of CODEX-b and FASER forward direction as the D-mesons. For the same reason, is excluded by these low-energy bounds. If there is a we also have a larger sensitive mass range than in the strong hierarchy and the sneutrinos are (unexpectedly) previous benchmark scenarios. MATHUSLA again has the significantly heavier than the relevant squarks, this sce- most extensive sensitivity range. nario is still viable. All the same, we present the model- independent results in Fig. 6 for the same LLP mass values as in Benchmark Scenario 1: 600 and 1200 MeV. We D. Benchmark Scenario 4 again drop the curve for the 1800 MeV neutralino mass. 0 The main difference between Fig. 6 and Fig. 5 is the BR In this scenario, we use the same λP as in the previous 0 0 0 reach. Benchmark Scenario 1 has a weaker BR reach scenario, but change λD from λ112 to λ121. Correspond- ingly the decay mode of the neutralino changes from the mainly because ND+ ' 3 · ND , cf. Eqs. (9), (10), and s ± ± the neutralinos have a smaller branching ratio to charged decay to a K to a D , though the invisible decay mode particles. remains the same. We summarize the relevant information in Tab. V. The kinematic reach in the neutralino mass is C. Benchmark Scenario 3 (M ± + m ) < m 0 < (M 0 − m ) , (37) D e χ˜1 B e We now study several scenarios where bottom mesons for the charged decay modes. It is extended when the in- decay to a neutralino. Since the bottom mesons are visible modes are included by replacing M ± → M 0 . much heavier than the charm mesons, the mass reach im- D K We present the results of this scenario in the plane proves compared to the previous scenarios. In the present 0 2 0 2 0 0 (λ /m = λ /m ) vs. mχ˜0 in Fig. 8. The lower mass Benchmark Scenario 3, as before, we have λ = λ giv- P f˜ D f˜ 1 D 112 sensitivity is now raised up to the D-meson mass, if only ing both invisible and visible neutralino decays. For the the visible decays of the neutralinos are considered. If we neutralino production we have λ0 = λ0 such that B0 P 131 consider the detectors able to track neutral final states, (and B¯0) decay to a neutralino. This is summarized in the lower mass sensitivity is dramatically extended, as Tab. IV. Kinematically we can thus probe expected, down to mK ∼ 500 MeV. For large values of 0 2 0 2 (M ± + m ) < m 0 < (M 0 − m ) . (36) (λP /m ˜ = λD/m ˜) we produce many more neutralinos, K e χ˜1 B e f f but they now mostly decay before reaching the detector. For this scenario we only show the model-dependent That is why there is no sensitivity here. For very small 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 plots in the plane λ /m ˜ vs. λ /m ˜ in Fig. 7. Here values of ( = ) we produce too few neu- P f D f λP /mf˜ λD/mf˜ the sensitivity reach in 0 2 is only slightly weaker tralinos and the neutralinos decay well after the detector. λP/D/mf˜ than the previous D-meson scenarios, mainly because at Otherwise the results are similar to those in Benchmark the LHC, the cross section of producing B-mesons is only Scenario 3. smaller than that of D-mesons by a factor of ∼ 10 − 50, cf. Eqs. (9)-(12). In the previous scenarios, CODEX-b shows similar sensitivity reach in 0 2 to that of λP/D/mf˜ FASER, but now the former exceeds the latter, despite the fact that its projected luminosity is smaller by one order of magnitude. This is because the B-meson mass 11

FIG. 7. Model-dependent sensitivity estimate of CODEX-b, FIG. 8. Model-dependent sensitivity estimate of CODEX-b, FASER and MATHUSLA for Benchmark Scenario 3. The format FASER and MATHUSLA for Benchmark Scenario 4. The format is the same as in Fig. 4. is the same as in Fig. 4. 12

0 0 λP for production λ313 0 0 λD for decay λ312 produced meson(s) B0, B¯0,B±(+ τ ∓) visible final state(s) K±τ ∓,K∗±τ ∓ 0 invisible final state(s) via λP none 0 0 0 ∗ invisible final state(s) via λD (KL,KS ,K ) + (ν, ν¯)

TABLE VI. Features of Benchmark Scenario 5. At the end of the third row we emphasize that the charged B-meson decay to the neutralino is accompanied by a tau lepton.

E. Benchmark Scenario 5

While the previous benchmark scenarios concern only the light electron, we here explore the effect of the heaviest lepton τ on the sensitivity estimates. We consider FIG. 9. Model-independent sensitivity estimate of CODEX-b, 0 0 0 0 0 ¯0 0 λP = λ313 and λD = λ312. Then both B (B ) and FASER and MATHUSLA for the B -case of Benchmark Scenario B± may decay to a neutralino. In particular, B± de- 5. The format is the same as in Fig. 6. The two mass values 0 0 0 0 cays then include a τ lepton along with a neutralino. are 2500 and 3750 MeV. λP = λ313, λD = λ312. This gives a large suppression in phase space and a cor- 0 1 respondingly lower neutralino mass sensitivity. While λP 0.9 Benchmark Scenario 1 does not induce any invisible decay of the lightest neu- Benchmark Scenario 2 0 0 0.8 Benchmark Scenario 3 tralino, λD = λ312 leads to both visible decays to a kaon Benchmark Scenario 4 0.7 Benchmark Scenario 5-B 0 and a τ, and invisible decays to a kaon and a ν. We sum- ± 0.6 Benchmark Scenario 5-B marize the information in Tab. VI. The mass sensitivity 0.5 -> visibles ) is given by 0 1 0.4 BR ( χ ( 0.3 MK± + mτ if only obs. visible decays, m 0 > , χ˜1 0.2 MK0 if also obs. invisible decays (38) 0.1 0 ( ± 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.3 MB± − mτ if produced via B m 0 [GeV] m 0 < . (39) χ1 χ˜1 0 MB0 if produced via B 0 We present a plot for this benchmark scenario in the FIG. 10. Branching ratios ofχ ˜1 to visible states in Benchmark 0 Scenarios 1-5 as a function of mχ˜0 [GeV], where we set λP = plane BR vs. cτ in Fig. 9. We restrict ourselves to the 1 λ0 . For each curve, only the kinematically allowed range of production via B0. As can be seen in Tab. II, between the D mχ˜0 is plotted. B0 and the B± cases the hβγi values, which determine 1 the cτ sensitivity, differ between 15 and 20%. This is below the resolution of our logarithmic plot. For the BR discussed. This again shows that most features of the 0 ± sensitivity the dominant contribution is the B vs. B figures are relativity insensitive to the nature of the LLP. production rate, however they are almost identical, cf. Eqs. (11), (12). The only real difference is that for B± 0 we must have m 0 < 3500 MeV, i.e. the medium mass F. Decay Branching Ratios of the χ˜1 χ˜1 ∼ case (3750 MeV) is not possible. In Fig. 9 the labeling is similar to the previous sce- After having presented results of different benchmark narios. For each detector, i.e. FASER (blue), CODEX-b scenarios in the previous subsections, we supplement our (pink) and MATHUSLA (red), the light/medium colors cor- results by showing in Fig. 10 the decay branching ratios 0 respond to the lightest(2500 MeV)/medium(3750 MeV) of theχ ˜1 to visible, i.e. charged meson final states, as m 0 . Fig. 9 is very similar to the right panel of Fig. 1 a function of m 0 in the kinematically allowed range for χ˜1 χ˜1 of Ref. [44] where the sensitivity to sterile neutrinos was all the scenarios. The curves can be well understood 13 by considering the kinematic thresholds for the various CODEX-b, depending on the meson flavour: while for the neutralino decays. For Benchmark Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 B-meson’s BR we observe a similar ranking of the two the first decay channel to open is to the charged kaon: experiments in the reach for 0 2 , FASER’s reach is ex- λ /mf˜ 0 ± ∓ χ˜1 → K e . Thus the visible branching ratio starts at pected to be slightly stronger than CODEX-b’s in case of 1. It rapidly drops as the K0-threshold is crossed. The scenarios with D-meson decays. In all cases MATHUSLA asymptotic value of the branching ratios in Benchmark shows the largest sensitivity reach. Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 is simply determined by the number As discussed above, our results in terms of cτ vs. BR of charged or neutral decay channels. For example, in can be used to estimate experimental sensitivities for Benchmark Scenario 2 above all thresholds there are 4 long-lived particles different from RPV neutralinos. We visible final states and 8 invisible final states, giving a used our results for Benchmark Scenario 1 as an example branching ratio to visible of 4/(4+8)=1/3. The bump by pointing out the strong resemblance of Fig. 5 and the in Benchmark Scenario 1 (red curve) is due to the extra first plot of Fig. 1 in Ref. [44] determined for a different threshold of the η-meson below the K+∗ and K0∗ masses. BSM model albeit with similar decay topology. Though Note that it is the vector meson K0∗ which is relevant we use this observation to label these limits as model in- for the neutralino decay, not the pseudoscalar [31]. dependent, our combined set of results still points to sev- In Benchmark Scenarios 4 and 5 the first kinematically eral sources of model-dependence. An important degree 0 accessible final state is invisible: K νe. Thus for low of freedom to mention here is the LLP mass. For fixed values of the neutralino mass the visible branching ratio cτ and branching ratio, changing the mass of the LLP vanishes. In Benchmark Scenario 4 the first visible decay has an important impact on its kinematic parameters βγ mode to open up is: D+e−, in Benchmark Scenario 5 it and η which, as we have shown, play a non-negligible role is: K+τ −. We also point out that we divide Scenario 5 as they are strongly connected to the preferred distance into two cases: the neutral bottom meson decaying to a L of the detector to the primary interaction vertex. An- neutralino, and the charged bottom meson decaying to other important aspect neither covered in cτ nor the LLP a neutralino accompanied by a tau lepton. This leads BR is the overall topology which leads to the production to the overlap of the two corresponding curves, the blue of the LLP. Though all our benchmarks share the same and the black ones, below a mass of ∼ 3.5 GeV. Above topology pp → meson+X, meson → LLP+Y , we observe that mass value, only B0 may decay to such a neutralino, sizable differences in the experimental coverages depend- because of the large mass of the tau lepton. ing on the flavor of the produced meson, here D or B. Not only do these have different total production cross sections but also their own kinematics — and with that G. Summary of our Results the kinematics of the LLPs they decay into — differ. A full “model-independent” analysis would require the We finish this section with some conclusions drawn consideration of several additional degrees of freedom, from the above results for specific benchmarks. For all some of which cannot be formulated as a continuous pa- scenarios, we observe similar reach in 0 2 for the two λ /mf˜ rameter like the overall production-and-decay-topology experiments CODEX-b and FASER and the strongest sensi- of the LLP. This results in an unfeasible, if not impossi- tivity for MATHUSLA. Even though FASER takes good ad- ble, exercise. Nevertheless, although the dependence on vantage of the boost of the D- and B-mesons in the very these additional parameters may not be explicitly cov- forward direction, MATHUSLA overcomes this disadvantage ered in our chosen degrees of freedom cτ and BR, our by virtue of its much larger volume. Compared to earlier results can still be applied to a large class of LLP models results determined for the SHiP experiment [31], both different from RPV as long as they share similarities to FASER and CODEX-b have a smaller expected reach in the topologies discussed here. 0 2 . Even MATHUSLA cannot outperform SHiP in sce- λ /mf˜ narios with D-meson dependence, because SHiP’s centre- of-mass energy of ≈ 27 GeV results in very high sensi- V. CONCLUSIONS tivity. For models with B-meson decays, however, we expect MATHUSLA’s sensitivity to be comparable or even We have investigated the sensitivity of three recently better than SHiPs. proposed detectors at the LHC: CODEX-b, FASER, and We also translated our results into sensitivity limits MATHUSLA with respect to the detection of light long- on the meson’s branching ratio BR and here we observe lived neutralinos in RPV-SUSY scenarios. The neutrali- differences in the experimental sensitivities of FASER and nos are produced and decay via the RPV LQD¯ oper- 14 ator with coupling λ0. We studied five representative lable background contamination in our analysis, the re- benchmark scenarios of the RPV couplings proposed in quired workload to fully control this background source Ref. [31] where a similar sensitivity study for SHiP was may be significantly different between the experiments completed. In general CODEX-b and FASER show simi- discussed here. lar reach in 0 2 , where is the mass of supersym- λ /mf˜ mf˜ metric fermion partners, while MATHUSLA performs bet- Acknowledgements ter by approximately one order of magnitude. Compar- ing MATHUSLA results with SHiP estimates, we find that H.K.D. and Z.S.W. are supported by the Sino-German MATHUSLA shows a better sensitivity in scenarios involv- DFG grant SFB CRC 110 “Symmetries and the Emer- ing B-meson while it provides only comparable or slightly gence of Structure in QCD”. D.D. acknowledges funding weaker results than SHiP for models in which neutralinos and support from DFG grant SFB 676, project B1. We interact with D-mesons. thank Oliver Freyermuth and Peter Wienemann for kind help with using the department cluster. We also thank Felix Kling for useful discussions on FASER. H.K.D. We also want to point out that cosmic rays may pro- would like to thank the Galileo Galilei Institute for The- vide an additional argument to choose an underground oretical Physics for the hospitality and the INFN for par- experiment like FASER over a surface experiment like tial support during the completion o this work. MATHUSLA. Although we ignored this allegedly control-

[1] ATLAS, G. Aad et al., Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), [17] D. Albornoz Vasquez, G. Belanger, C. Boehm, arXiv:1207.7214. A. Pukhov, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D82, 115027 (2010), [2] CMS, S. Chatrchyan et al., Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1009.4380. arXiv:1207.7235. [18] L. Calibbi, J. M. Lindert, T. Ota, and Y. Takanishi, [3] Particle Data Group, C. Patrignani et al., Chin. Phys. JHEP 10, 132 (2013), arXiv:1307.4119. C40, 100001 (2016). [19] R. Barbier et al., Phys. Rept. 420, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep- [4] E. Gildener, Phys. Rev. D14, 1667 (1976). ph/0406039. [5] M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B12, 437 (1981). [20] H. K. Dreiner, p. 462 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9707435, [6] H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. 110, 1 (1984). [Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.21,565(2010)]. [7] S. P. Martin, p. 1 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9709356, [Adv. [21] R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Scripta 90, 088004 (2015), Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18,1(1998)]. arXiv:1503.06478. [8] ATLAS, G. Aad et al., Eur. Phys. J. C75, 318 [22] E. J. Chun and H. B. Kim, Phys. Rev. D60, 095006 (2015), arXiv:1503.03290, [Erratum: Eur. Phys. (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906392. J.C75,no.10,463(2015)]. [23] H.-B. Kim and J. E. Kim, Phys. Lett. B527, 18 (2002), [9] CMS, V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 05, 078 (2015), arXiv:hep-ph/0108101. arXiv:1502.04358. [24] S. Colucci, H. K. Dreiner, F. Staub, and L. Ubaldi, Phys. [10] ParticleDataGroup, M. Tanabashi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. B750, 107 (2015), arXiv:1507.06200. D98, 030001 (2018). [25] S. Colucci, H. K. Dreiner, and L. Ubaldi, (2018), [11] P. Bechtle et al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 96 (2016), arXiv:1807.02530. arXiv:1508.05951. [26] A. Dedes, H. K. Dreiner, and P. Richardson, Phys. Rev. [12] D. Dercks, H. Dreiner, M. E. Krauss, T. Opferkuch, D65, 015001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106199. and A. Reinert, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 856 (2017), [27] H. Dreiner, G. Polesello, and M. Thormeier, (2002), arXiv:1706.09418. arXiv:hep-ph/0207160. [13] D. Choudhury, H. K. Dreiner, P. Richardson, and [28] H. K. Dreiner et al., Phys. Rev. D80, 035018 (2009), S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D61, 095009 (2000), arXiv:hep- arXiv:0905.2051. ph/9911365. [29] S. Alekhin et al., Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 124201 (2016), [14] D. Hooper and T. Plehn, Phys. Lett. B562, 18 (2003), arXiv:1504.04855. arXiv:hep-ph/0212226. [30] D. Gorbunov and I. Timiryasov, Phys. Rev. D92, 075015 [15] A. Bottino, N. Fornengo, and S. Scopel, Phys. Rev. D67, (2015), arXiv:1508.01780. 063519 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212379. [31] J. de Vries, H. K. Dreiner, and D. Schmeier, Phys. Rev. [16] H. K. Dreiner et al., Eur. Phys. J. C62, 547 (2009), D94, 035006 (2016), arXiv:1511.07436. arXiv:0901.3485. [32] CERN, CERN document server 15

http://cds.cern.ch/record/2114693 (2015). [50] C. Csaki, E. Kuflik, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [33] V. V. Gligorov, S. Knapen, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robin- 112, 131801 (2014), arXiv:1309.5957. son, Phys. Rev. D97, 015023 (2018), arXiv:1708.09395. [51] C. Csaki, E. Kuflik, O. Slone, and T. Volansky, JHEP [34] J. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. 06, 045 (2015), arXiv:1502.03096. Rev. D97, 035001 (2018), arXiv:1708.09389. [52] C. Csaki, E. Kuflik, S. Lombardo, O. Slone, and T. Volan- [35] J. P. Chou, D. Curtin, and H. J. Lubatti, Phys. Lett. sky, JHEP 08, 016 (2015), arXiv:1505.00784. B767, 29 (2017), arXiv:1606.06298. [53] B. C. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H. K. Dreiner, Phys. Rev. [36] LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al., CERN Report No. D60, 075014 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906209. CERN-LHCC-2017-003, 2017 (unpublished). [54] V. D. Barger, G. F. Giudice, and T. Han, Phys. Rev. [37] J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. D40, 2987 (1989). Rev. D97, 055034 (2018), arXiv:1710.09387. [55] G. Bhattacharyya, A Brief review of R-parity violat- [38] F. Kling and S. Trojanowski, (2018), arXiv:1801.08947. ing couplings, in Beyond the desert 1997: Accelerator [39] J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, and non-accelerator approaches. Proceedings, 1st Inter- (2018), arXiv:1806.02348. national Conference on Particle Physics beyond the Stan- [40] J. A. Evans, Phys. Rev. D97, 055046 (2018), dard Model, Tegernsee, Ringberg Castle, Germany, June arXiv:1708.08503. 8-14, 1997, pp. 194–201, 1997, arXiv:hep-ph/9709395. [41] D. Curtin and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. D97, 015006 [56] Y. Kao and T. Takeuchi, (2009), arXiv:0910.4980. (2018), arXiv:1705.06327. [57] LHCb, R. Aaij et al., JHEP 03, 159 (2016), [42] D. Curtin, K. R. Dienes, and B. Thomas, (2018), arXiv:1510.01707, [Erratum: JHEP05,074(2017)]. arXiv:1809.11021. [58] LHCb, R. Aaij et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 052002 [43] D. Curtin et al., (2018), arXiv:1806.07396. (2017), arXiv:1612.05140, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. [44] J. C. Helo, M. Hirsch, and Z. S. Wang, JHEP 07, 056 Lett.119,no.16,169901(2017)]. (2018), arXiv:1803.02212. [59] M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, JHEP 05, 007 [45] A. Berlin and F. Kling, (2018), arXiv:1810.01879. (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803400. [46] H. K. Dreiner, C. Hanhart, U. Langenfeld and [60] M. Cacciari, S. Frixione, and P. Nason, JHEP 03, 006 D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 055004 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102134. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.055004 [hep-ph/0304289]. [61] M. Cacciari et al., JHEP 10, 137 (2012), [47] H. K. Dreiner, J. F. Fortin, J. Isern and arXiv:1205.6344. L. Ubaldi, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 043517 [62] M. Cacciari, M. L. Mangano, and P. Nason, Eur. Phys. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043517 [arXiv:1303.7232 J. C75, 610 (2015), arXiv:1507.06197. [hep-ph]]. [63] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05, [48] L. J. Hall and M. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. B 231 (1984) 419. 026 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603175. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90513-3 [64] T. Sjöstrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 [49] S. Davidson and M. Losada, JHEP 0005 (2000) 021 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/05/021 [hep-ph/0005080].