Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in High Energy Physics
Volume 2019, Article ID 9090785, 11 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9090785
Research Article

Search for Excited and Quarks in Dijet Final States at Future Colliders

1TOBB Economics and Technology University, Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Physics, Kahramanmaras Sütcü Imam University, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
3Department of Physics, Usak University, Usak, Turkey
4ANAS, Institute of Physics, Baku, Azerbaijan

Correspondence should be addressed to Yusuf Oguzhan Günaydin; moc.liamg@nidyanugfusuy

Received 17 November 2018; Revised 19 February 2019; Accepted 25 February 2019; Published 17 March 2019

Academic Editor: Theocharis Kosmas

Copyright © 2019 Ahmet Nuri Akay et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The publication of this article was funded by SCOAP3.

Abstract

Resonant production of excited and quarks at the Future Circular Collider and Super Proton-Proton Collider has been researched. Dominant jet-jet decay mode has been considered. It is shown that FCC and SppC have great potential for discovery of excited () quark: up to 44.1 (36.3) and 58.4 (47.8) TeV masses, respectively. For degenerate case ( = ), these values are 45.9 and 60.9 TeV, respectively. This discovery will also afford an opportunity to determine the compositeness scale up to multi-PeV level.

1. Introduction

Standard model (SM) contains plenty of elementary particles and their parameters that are not completely explained. To overcome these unsolved problems that the SM does not give answers, new models have been developed beyond the standard model (BSM) such as composite models, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, string theory, and so on. These BSM theories require higher energy level than SM energy domain to bring solutions for unanswered problems. Therefore, the SM is considered as low energy configuration of the more fundamental theory.

Numbers of particles and parameters in the SM are reduced in the frame of the composite models [116]. According to composite models, while SM quarks and leptons are predicted as composite particles, preons are considered as the most fundamental particles. If excited states of the SM fermions are experimentally observed, this observation will be clear proof of quarks and leptons’ compositeness.

Excited fermions are known to represent much heavier particles than the SM fermions and they could be split into two classes: excited quarks () and excited leptons (). These heavy particles could also have spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 states. From the first publication on excited leptons in 1965 [17] until today, there have been plenty of phenomenological [1838] and experimental [3953] studies performed on excited fermions.

Excited states of SM quarks might be shown in four possible final states with light jets, , , , and . Currently, the LHC puts experimental mass limits for all four final state cases [47, 5154] that are (6.0), (5.5), (5.0), and (4.7) TeV for ATLAS (CMS), respectively. Like SM fermions, excited fermions also have three families and we focused on and productions which decay to dijet final states.

After the LHC physics mission is over, a new and more powerful collider will take place as an energy frontier discovery machine for the high energy physics. At CERN located in Geneva, Future Circular Collider (FCC) [55] is planned for the next step with TeV. The other project, Super Proton-Proton Collider (SppC), is planned in China at multi-TeV center of mass (CM) energies [56]; we chose TeV option in this study. Both projects promise very high luminosity. The FCC will be expected to reach 2500 integrated luminosity in ten years (Phase I) and 15000 integrated luminosity in 15 years (Phase II) [5759]. Overall in 25 years, total integrated luminosity will be 17500 . On the other hand, the SppC will deliver collisions with 22500 integrated luminosity in 15 years (see Table 1).

Table 1: Planned operation time of FCC and SppC and their main parameters.

In this research, we explore spin-1/2 excited and quark ( and ) decaying into dijet final states at the FCC and the SppC. In the following sections, we state spin-1/2 excited quark interaction Lagrangian, decay widths, and cross section values in Section 2, signal-background analysis to determine cuts in Section 3, and attainable mass and compositeness scale () limits and conclusions in Section 4.

2. Interaction Lagrangian, Decay Widths, and Cross Sections

When left- and right-handed components of excited quarks are assigned to isodoublets, isospin structure of the first generation SM and excited quarks will be

Since interaction Lagrangian is magnetic-moment type, it contains only left-handed quark doublet and consequently right-handed excited quark doublet. For that reason, as an effective interaction Lagrangian [20, 22, 25, 54], Equation (2) was utilized for the spin-1/2 excited quarks:where compositeness scale is represented as , denotes right-handed excited quark doublet, depicts ground state left-handed quark doublet, and field strength tensors are for gluon, for SU, and for U. , , and are color parameters for gluon-quark interaction, Pauli spin matrices, and weak hyper-charge, respectively. Gauge coupling constants are , , and ; and are free parameters that are taken as equal to 1 in numerical calculations. In addition, mentioned interactions with Higgs Boson as well as mass mixing among quarks and excited quarks can be neglected since ( is vacuum expectation value of Higgs field). Indeed, 6 TeV from the LHC data, 245 GeV, and is in MeV region.

Interaction Lagrangian Equation (2) was implemented into CalcHEP [60] software by using LanHEP interface [61, 62]. In our calculations, CTEQ6L1 [63, 64] parton distribution function was used and factorizations and renormalization scale were taken equal to .

Partial decay widths of first generation excited quarks are listed in Table 2. Parameters in the last column of Table 2 are , , , , and ; here is the third component of the weak isospin of . In Figure 1, total decay widths are given for , , and TeV by scanning excited quarks mass from 6 TeV to 100 TeV. Total decay widths of and are close to each other since dominant decay modes are and . There are small differences caused by and channels. It is obviously seen that while and mass values are risen, decay widths are increased.

Table 2: Third component of isospins, charges, decay channels, and widths of up- and down-type excited quarks.
Figure 1: Decay widths versus first generation excited quark masses for both , , and TeV.

For the following parts of this study, we consider three cases to do analysis: (a) , (b) , and (c) (degenerate state) with , , and signal processes, respectively (here, denotes ). 6 Feynman diagrams emerge for cases (a) and (b), and 12 Feynman diagrams make contributions to signal cross section calculations for the case (c). Figure 2 presents the case (a) Feynman diagrams for illustration. Analytical expression for the cross sections at parton level corresponding to these diagrams is described by Equation (3):

Figure 2: Feynman diagrams for direct (first column) and indirect production of at colliders.

In Figure 3, first generation excited quarks cross section values for three cases mentioned above are plotted for the FCC ( TeV) and the SppC ( TeV) with , , (degenerate state), and TeV. When the compositeness scale value is taken as equal to excited quark masses, cross section values are about 300 times higher at 6 TeV mass value for both collider options. Indeed, it seems that excited quark could be produced at very high mass values for both collider options. It should be noted that as the LHC experimental studies on excited quarks with dijet final states do not consider SM interference contribution to cross section [47, 51], we did not simulate interference with SM for the FCC and SppC at this stage. For the same reason, QCD corrections were disregarded in this analysis [47, 52, 6567].

Figure 3: Cross section values of the first generation , , and (degenerate state) excited quarks at the FCC and SppC.

3. Signal and Background Analysis

Signal processes were defined in previous section. Background process which is used in calculation is ; here denotes and for three signal cases. It is important to determine transverse momentum (), pseudo rapidity (), and invariant mass () cut values for selecting clear signal. To illustrate cut selection, only final state particles distribution originated by excited quark plots are included in Figure 4. According to these figures, cuts are applied as 2 TeV, and cuts are determined as in signal and background cross section calculations for three cases. Also, the cone angle radius is chosen as for both colliders. Additionally, invariant mass cuts are applied as mass window for again both collider options; here denotes excited quarks (, , and ) mass and is total decay widths of the excited quarks.

Figure 4: Transverse momentum and distribution plots for FCC (left column) and SppC (right column).

In order to calculate statistical significance, Equation (4) is used:

where and denote signal and background cross section values, respectively, and represents integrated luminosity. Using Equation (4), we have calculated excited quarks mass’ discovery (), observation (), and exclusion () limits on prospective frontier machines, namely, FCC and SppC.

4. Results and Conclusions

Discovery, observation, and exclusion limits on the mass of excited quarks for three cases depending on integrated luminosity of the FCC and SppC with cases are plotted in Figure 5. Attainable mass limits for all three cases for FCC-Phases I and II and SppC with their final integrated luminosity values at the end of operating times are listed in Table 3. It is seen that FCC-Phase I will afford an opportunity to discover, observe, or exclude degenerate case of excited quarks up to 40.1, 43.2, and 45.6 TeV, respectively. At the end of the FCC-Phase II, these values become TeV (), TeV (), and TeV (). On the other hand, corresponding values for SppC are TeV (), TeV (), and TeV () that essentially exceed the FCC limits.

Table 3: Attainable mass limits for all three cases at FCC and SppC with corresponding final integrated luminosity values. Compositeness scale is chosen equal to excited quarks mass values.
Figure 5: Mass dependence on luminosity at all confidence levels for the FCC (left column) and SppC (right column).

As mentioned above, we did not anticipate interference of the signal model with the SM contribution. In order to estimate this contribution, we compared discovery limits for at the FCC-Phase II. As seen from Table 3, this limit was 44.1 TeV in our case. If one takes interference terms into account, discovery limit becomes 45.0 TeV. The latter value was obtained using same discovery cuts together with corresponding statistical signification equation, namely,

where includes signal, SM, and interference contributions. Interference terms lead to slightly higher discovery limit. Therefore, presented results in this study can be considered as a bit conservative.

Concerning the role of systematic uncertainties caused by choice of PDF, factorization and renormalization scales, analysis performed at the ATLAS and CMS experiments show that their impact is less than 1% for channel [47]. As for the efficiency of jet registration, it is nearly 100% for jets with above 20 GeV [47].

In principle, compositeness scale might be quite higher than excited quark mass. If excited and quarks are not discovered at FCC or SppC, one can evaluate lower limits on compositeness scale. For illustration, we plot achievable compositeness scale depending on , , and mass for ultimate luminosity values at both colliders in Figure 6. If it is assumed that mass equals 20 TeV and it is not seen at FCC in resonant channel, according to Figure 6, this means that compositeness scale is larger than 1.2 PeV (), 2.0 PeV (), and 3.0 PeV (). Achievable scales for other values of as well as and (degenerate state) are presented in Table 4. Similar results for the SppC are given in Table 5.

Table 4: Compositeness scale values corresponding to some selected mass quantities for all three cases at FCC with final integrated luminosity values.
Table 5: Compositeness scale values corresponding to some selected mass quantities for all three cases at SppC with final integrated luminosity values.
Figure 6: Compositeness scale dependence on mass for the FCC (left column) and SppC (right column).

In Figure 7, necessary luminosities for observation and discovery of 20 TeV mass excited u quark depending on compositeness scale are plotted for both energy-frontier colliders. It is seen that if TeV, FCC will observe with integrated luminosity and is needed for discovery, which correspond to 12 and 19.5 operation years, respectively. Concerning the SppC, it will observe with 20 TeV mass within first year and discover it in 2 years if compositeness scale is equal to 1000 TeV.

Figure 7: Compositeness scale-luminosity correlation plots for the FCC (left column) and SppC (right column).

In conclusion, FCC and SppC have excellent potential for discovery of excited and quarks. If compositeness scale coincides with excited quark masses, FCC reaches = 44 TeV, = 36 TeV, and = 46 TeV (degenerate state). Corresponding values for SppC are 58 TeV, 48 TeV, and 61 TeV, respectively. If compositeness scale is higher than excited quark masses, discovery of excited quarks will afford an opportunity to determine at the same time.

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study is supported by TUBITAK under the grant No. [114F337]. Authors are grateful to the Usak University, Energy, Environment and Sustainability Application and Research Center for their support.

References

  1. J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Erratum: Lepton number as the fourth 'color',” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 10, pp. 275–289, 1975. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. H. Terazawa, Y. Chikashige, and K. Akama, “Unified model of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio type for all elementary-particle forces,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 480–487, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. A. Shupe, “A composite model of leptons and quarks,” Physics Letters B, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 87–92, 1979. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. H. Harari, “A schematic model of quarks and leptons,” Physics Letters B, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 83–86, 1979. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. H. Terazawa, “Subquark model of leptons and quarks,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 184–199, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. H. Fritzsch and G. Mandelbaum, “Weak interactions as manifestations of the substructure of leptons and quarks,” Physics Letters B, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 319–322, 1981. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. H. Terezawa, M. Yasuè, K. Akama, and M. Hayashi, “Observable effects of the possible sub-structure of leptons and quarks,” Physics Letters B, vol. 112, no. 4-5, pp. 387–392, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  8. H. Terazawa, “A fundamental theory of composite particles and fields,” Physics Letters B, vol. 133, no. 1-2, pp. 57–60, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. E. J. Eichten, K. D. Lane, and M. E. Peskin, “New tests for quark and lepton substructure,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 811–814, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. I. A. D'Souza and C. S. Kalman, Preons: Models of Leptons, Quarks and Gauge Bosons as Composite Objects, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. A. Çelikel, M. Kantar, and S. Sultansoy, “A search for sextet quarks and leptogluons at the LHC,” Physics Letters B, vol. 443, no. 1-4, pp. 359–364, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. M. E. De Souza, “Weak decays of hadrons reveal compositeness of quarks,” Scientia Plena, vol. 4, no. 6, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  13. H. Terazawa and M. Yasuè, “Composite higgs boson in the unified subquark model of all fundamental particles and forces,” Journal of Modern Physics, vol. 05, no. 05, pp. 205–208, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. H. Terazawa and M. Yasue, “Excited gauge and higgs bosons in the unified composite model,” Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  15. H. Fritzsch, “Composite weak bosons at the large hadronic collider,” Modern Physics Letters A, vol. 31, no. 20, Article ID 1630019, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. U. Kaya, B. B. Oner, and S. Sultanoy, “A minimal fermion-scalar preonic model,” Turkish Journal of Physics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 235–241, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. F. E. Low, “Heavy electrons and muons,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 14, pp. 238-239, 1965. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  18. F. M. Renard, “Excited quarks and new hadronic states,” Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970), vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  19. L. Lyons, “An introduction to the possible substructure of quarks and leptons,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 10, pp. 227–304, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. J. Kühn and P. M. Zerwas, “Excited quarks and leptons,” Physics Letters B, vol. 147, no. 1–3, pp. 189–196, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. G. Pancheri and Y. N. Srivastava, “Weak isospin spectroscopy of excited quarks and leptons,” Physics Letters B, vol. 146, no. 1-2, pp. 87–94, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. A. de Rújula, L. Maiani, and R. Petronzio, “Search for excited quarks,” Physics Letters B, vol. 140, no. 3-4, pp. 253–258, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. K. Hagiwara, S. Komamiya, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Excited lepton production at LEP and HERA,” Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 115–122, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. J. H. Kühn, H. D. Tholl, and P. M. Zerwas, “Signals of excited quarks and leptons,” Physics Letters B, vol. 158, no. 3, pp. 270–275, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. U. Baur, I. Hinchliffe, and D. Zeppenfeld, “Excited quark production at Hadron colliders,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1285–1297, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. M. Spira and P. Zerwas, “Excited quarks and leptons,” in Heavy Flavours and High-Energy Collisions in the 1–100 TeV Range, pp. 519–529, Springer, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  27. U. Baur, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, “Excited-quark and -lepton production at hadron colliders,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 815–824, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. G. Jikia, “Excited quark production at ep and γp colliders,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 333, no. 2, pp. 317–334, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. F. Boudjema, A. Djouadi, and J. L. Kneur, “Excited fermions at e+e- and ep colliders,” Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 425–449, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. O. Çakır and R. Mehdiyev, “Excited quark production at the CERN LHC,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 60, no. 3, Article ID 034004, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. O. Çakır, C. Leroy, and R. Mehdiyev, “Search for excited quarks with the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC: Double jets channel,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 62, no. 11, Article ID 114018, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. O. Çakır, C. Leroy, and R. Mehdiyev, “Search for excited quarks with the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC: W/Z+jet channel,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 63, no. 9, Article ID 094014, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. O. J. P. Éboli, S. M. Lietti, and P. Mathews, “Excited leptons at the CERN large Hadron collider,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 65, no. 7, Article ID 075003, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. O. Çakır, A. Yılmaz, and S. Sultansoy, “Single production of excited electrons at future e+e, ep and pp colliders,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 70, no. 7, Article ID 075011, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. O. Çakır, C. Leroy, R. Mehdiyev, and A. Belyaev, “Production and decay of excited electrons at the LHC,” The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, vol. 32, supplement 2, pp. s1–s17, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. O. Çakır and A. Ozansoy, “Search for excited spin-3/2 and spin-1/2 leptons at linear colliders,” Physical Review D: Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 77, no. 3, Article ID 035002, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. A. Caliskan, S. O. Kara, and A. Ozansoy, “Excited muon searches at the FCC-based muon-hadron colliders,” Advances in High Energy Physics, vol. 2017, Article ID 1540243, 9 pages, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. A. Caliskan, “Excited neutrino search potential of the FCC-based electron-hadron colliders,” Advances in High Energy Physics, vol. 2017, Article ID 4726050, 9 pages, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. F. Abe, M. G. Albrow, S. R. Amendolia et al., “Search for new particles decaying to dijets in pp collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 74, no. 18, pp. 3538–3543, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  40. The H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al., “A search for excited fermions at HERA,” The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 567–581, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  41. L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., “Search for excited leptons in e+e- interactions at s=192–202 GeV,” Physics Letters B, vol. 502, no. 1-4, pp. 37–50, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  42. ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al., “Searches for excited fermions in ep collisions at HERA,” Physics Letters B, vol. 549, no. 1-2, pp. 32–47, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  43. J. Abdallah, DELPHI Collaboration et al., “Search for excited leptons in e+e- collisions at √s =189–209 GeV,” The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, vol. 46, p. 277, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  44. CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Search for excited quarks in the γ + jet final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8TeV,” Physics Letters B, vol. 738, pp. 274–293, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  45. G. Aad, ATLAS collaboration et al., “Search for new phenomena with photon+jet events in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2016, no. 3, p. 41, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  46. G. Aad, ATLAS collaboration et al., “Search for new phenomena in dijet mass and angular distributions from pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Physics Letters B, vol. 754, pp. 302–322, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  47. M. Aaboud, ATLAS Collaboration et al., “Search for new phenomena in dijet events using 37 fb−1 of pp collision data collected at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Physical Review D, vol. 96, Article ID 052004, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  48. V. Khachatryan, CMS Collaboration et al., “Search for narrow resonances decaying to dijets in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 116, Article ID 071801, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  49. CMS Authors, “Search for excited quarks in the photon + jet final state in proton proton collisions at 13 TeV,” CMS-PAS-EXO-16-015, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  50. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for dijet resonances in proton proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV and constraints on dark matter and other models,” Physics Letters B, vol. 769, Article ID S0370269317301028, pp. 520–542, 2017. View at Google Scholar
  51. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for narrow and broad dijet resonances in proton-proton collisions at √s =13 TeV and constraints on dark matter mediators and other new particles,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2018, p. 130, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  52. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for excited quarks of light and heavy flavor in γ+jet final states in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV,” Physics Letters B, vol. 781, pp. 390–411, 2018. View at Google Scholar
  53. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al., “Search for massive resonances decaying into WW, WZ, ZZ, qW, and qZ with dijet final states at √s = 13 TeV,” Physical Review D, vol. 97, Article ID 072006, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  54. C. Patrignani, Particle Data Group et al., “Review of particle physics,” Chinese Physics C, vol. C40, no. 10, Article ID 100001, 2016. View at Google Scholar
  55. “Future circular collider study kickoff meeting,” University of Geneva, February 2014. http://indico.cern.ch/e/fcc-kickoff.
  56. F. Su, J. Gao, M. Xiao et al., “Method study of parameter choice for a circular proton-proton collider,” Chinese Physics C, vol. 40, no. 1, Article ID 017001, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. M. Benedikt, D. Schulte, and F. Zimmermann, “Optimizing integrated luminosity of future hadron colliders,” Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams, vol. 18, no. 10, Article ID 101002, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  58. M. Benedikt, F. Zimmermann, M. Syphers, B. Goddard, and D. Schulte, “Fcc-hh hadron collider-parameter scenarios and staging options,” Tech. Rep. IPAC2015, 2015. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. M. Benedikt and F. Zimmermann, “Towards future circular colliders,” Journal of the Korean Physical Society, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 893–902, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, “CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within and beyond the standard model,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 184, no. 7, pp. 1729–1769, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  61. A. V. Semenov, “LanHEP: A Package for automatic generation of Feynman rules in field theory. Version 2.0,” 2002. View at Scopus
  62. A. Semenov, “LanHEP - A package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the Lagrangian. Version 3.2,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 201, pp. 167–170, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. J. Pumplin, D. Robert Stump, J. Huston, H.-L. Lai, P. Nadolsky, and W.-K. Tung, “New generation of Parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analysis,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2002, article 012, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  64. D. Stump, J. Huston, and J. Pumplin, “Inclusive jet production, parton distributions, and the search for new physics,” Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2003, no. 10, article 046, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  65. S. Chatrchyan, CMS Collaboration et al., “Search for resonances in the dijet mass spectrum from 7 TeV pp collisions at CMS,” Physics Letters B, vol. 704, no. 3, pp. 123–142, 2011. View at Google Scholar
  66. K. Gumus, N. Akchurin, S. Esen, and R. M. Harris, “CMS sensitivity to dijet resonances,” Tech. Rep., 2006. View at Google Scholar
  67. R. M. Harris and K. Kousouris, “Searches for Dijet resonances at Hadron colliders,” International Journal of Modern Physics A, vol. 26, no. 30-31, pp. 5005–5055, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar