Exploring collider aspects of a neutrinophilic Higgs doublet model in multilepton channels
Abstract
We consider a neutrinophilic Higgs scenario where the Standard Model is extended by one additional Higgs doublet and three generations of singlet righthanded Majorana neutrinos. Light neutrino masses are generated through mixing with the heavy neutrinos via TypeI seesaw mechanism when the neutrinophilic Higgs gets a vacuum expectation value (VEV). The Dirac neutrino Yukawa coupling in this scenario can be sizable compared to those in the canonical TypeI seesaw mechanism owing to the small neutrinophilic Higgs VEV giving rise to interesting phenomenological consequences. We have explored various signal regions likely to provide a hint of such a scenario at the LHC as well as at future colliders. We have also highlighted the consequences of light neutrino mass hierarchies in collider phenomenology that can complement the findings of neutrino oscillation experiments.
I Introduction
The discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs boson Aad et al. (2012); Chatrchyan et al. (2012a) has been a remarkable achievement of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). This has provided us a closure regarding the predictions of the Standard Model (SM). While our quest towards understanding the physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) continues, the 13 TeV run of the LHC is expected to make a big impact both in terms of higher energy reach and better precision by accumulating huge amount of data at large luminosity. The enigma of nonzero neutrino mass has pushed the theorists as well as experimentalists to develop new theories and experimental techniques in order to establish the right theoretical pathway towards unveiling the true nature of neutrino mass generation. The neutrino oscillation experiments have established the fact that at least two of the three light neutrinos are massive, and that they have sizable mixing among themselves (for a review, see GonzalezGarcia and Maltoni (2008)). The SM, lacking any righthanded neutrinos, is unable to account for these phenomena. This has led to a plethora of scenarios leading to neutrino mass generation Minkowski (1977); Mohapatra and Senjanovic (1980); GellMann et al. (); Yanagida (); Glashow (1980); Schechter and Valle (1982, 1980); Weinberg (1979, 1980). As the resulting neutrino mass eigenstates may be either Dirac or Majorana type, both scenarios have potentially unique signatures Keung and Senjanovic (1983); Datta et al. (1994); Almeida et al. (2000); Panella et al. (2002); Han and Zhang (2006); del Aguila et al. (2007); Huitu et al. (2008); Atre et al. (2009); Keung and Senjanovic (1983); Datta et al. (1994); Almeida et al. (2000); Panella et al. (2002); Han and Zhang (2006); Chen and Dev (2012); Dev et al. (2014); Das et al. (2017) in the collider experiments. The LHC collaborations have put significant effort to extract any possible information about such scenarios from the accumulated data and the null results so far have only been able to constrain the parameter space of various neutrino mass models Abulencia et al. (2007); Chatrchyan et al. (2012b); ATL (2012); Khachatryan et al. (2015); Bhupal Dev et al. (2012); Deppisch et al. (2015).
In the post Higgs discovery LHC era, the true nature of the scalar sector remains another vital area of interest. The natural question that arises is whether the 125 GeV Higgs is the only scalar as predicted by the SM or other exotic scalars exist alongside, as predicted by various BSM theories including some of the neutrino mass models Schechter and Valle (1980); Magg and Wetterich (1980). The measurements of couplings of the 125 GeV Higgs with known SM particles have so far been consistent with the SM predictions CMS (2015). Thus, even if this Higgs boson were indeed part of a larger scalar sector, its mixing with the other states would be small. There are still enough uncertainties in these measurements to allow new exotic scalar multiplets. Unless the LHC observes some hint of a new scalar, our only hope lies in the precision measurements of the Higgs couplings in order to constrain the BSM physics scenarios. Meanwhile, there has been a long term interest in the simplest twoHiggs doublet models (2HDM) (for a review, see Branco et al. (2012)) which are also strongly motivated by supersymmetric scenarios. A twoHiggs doublet model predicts the presence of two CPeven, one CPodd and two charged Higgses, one of the CPeven Higgs states being the 125 GeV Higgs boson. Despite the presence of these additional scalar states, the mixing between the two doublets can be arranged so that the other scalars are practically decoupled from the SM Higgs. In such cases, the interaction of the SMlike Higgs with the exotic scalars may be so suppressed that any hint of such interactions can be very hard to pick up even with the precision measurements at the LHC. The hope of finding these scalars, therefore, lies in their direct search. While the increasing centerofmass energy at the LHC can probe heavier exotic particles, extracting any new physics information from the tremendous amount of collected data also faces the increasing challenge of tackling the QCD background. Hence looking for leptonenriched final states is understandably efficient in suppressing the SM background contributions and probing new physics scenarios which can potentially give rise to leptonrich final states.
In this work, we consider a 2HDM where the additional Higgs doublet has an odd symmetry charge opposite to all the SM particles, preventing it from interacting directly with the leptons and quarks. One can additionally incorporate righthanded neutrinos in the model with similar transformation property under symmetry as the new Higgs doublet. One can thus generate Dirac neutrino mass terms when the breaks spontaneously and the new Higgs doublet gets a vacuum expectation value (VEV). This class of models, known as neutrinophilic Higgs doublet models (HDM) have been proposed long ago Ma (2001); Gabriel and Nandi (2007); Davidson and Logan (2009) and the relevant phenomenology has been studied quite extensively Gabriel et al. (2008); Haba and Tsumura (2011); Haba and Horita (2011); Chao and RamseyMusolf (2014); Maitra et al. (2014); Chakdar et al. (2014); Seto (2015); Bertuzzo et al. (2016); Guo et al. (2017). In principle, one can also generate Majorana neutrino mass terms in such a scenario, since a Majorana mass term for the additional righthanded neutrinos does not break the symmetry but breaks the accidental lepton number symmetry by two units (). Such neutrino mass generation mechanism looks very similar to the TypeI seesaw Minkowski (1977); Mohapatra and Senjanovic (1980); Yanagida (); GellMann et al. () case, save for the fact that one uses the neutrinophilic Higgs VEV instead of electroweak VEV in order to generate the lightheavy neutrino mixing. The advantage of having the additional Higgs doublet to generate nonzero neutrino masses is that the additional VEV can be very small^{1}^{1}1This is also preferred from naturalness argument ’t Hooft (1980). in order to counter the smallness of the light neutrino masses which would otherwise be fit with a very small Dirac neutrino Yukawa coupling that has no significant collider phenomenological aspects.
Depending on whether the nonzero neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana type, the collider signals of a HDM scenario can be very different. When Majorana neutrinos exist, smoking gun signal would be lepton number violating final states. In this work, instead of looking for direct heavy neutrino production, we have considered the production of the neutrinophilic charged Higgs () and explored its various possible decay modes. There are some earlier studies on the charged Higgs in similar scenarios emphasising its decay into a charged lepton and a heavy neutrino in the process Guo et al. (2017). We show that even cleaner signals can be obtained using this decay mode with higher lepton multiplicity where the SM background is practically nonexistent. We also show that sizable signal event rates can be obtained with other possible decay modes of the , which can serve as complementary channels in probing a HDMlike scenario. We perform our analysis using the 13 TeV LHC as well as an collider with 1 TeV centerofmass energy. In the process, one can extract information on the neutrino sector parameters also. We show that a very clean indication of the neutrino mass hierarchy can be obtained from the multiplicity of the charged leptons in the final state even after a rigorous collider simulation. Such information can be very useful in complementing the neutrino oscillation experiments.
Ii Model
In the HDM model, the particle content of the SM is extended by one additional Higgs doublet () and three generations of SM gauge singlet righthanded neutrinos (). A discrete symmetry is introduced, under which both and , , are odd while all the SM fields are even. The most general scalar potential involving the two Higgs doublets is given by
(1) 
where a nonzero explicitly breaks the symmetry in the model. In the absence of this term, the symmetry can be broken spontaneously by a vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the field , while the standard electroweak symmetry is broken when acquires a VEV, .
Let us first discuss a framework, where , i.e. symmetry is broken only spontaneously in order to generate light neutrino masses and mixing. The model is constrained by sterile neutrino searches, effective number of neutrinos and amount of He required in big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), observed temperature anisotropies of cosmic microwave background (CMB) and astrophysical limits.
Due to an instability of righthanded neutrinos induced by their mixing to lefthanded neutrinos, the mixing strength between , , and , that is, , can be probed by sterile neutrino searches. In semileptonic meson decays, are produced, and can subsequently decay to charged leptons and mesons. Present constraints on and allow a region where their magnitude is of order to , assuming GeV Deppisch et al. (2015). For tausterile mixing, , assuming GeV.
In HDM, however, we found the model favoring even lower values of activesterile mixing, of order to , at GeV, and even lower for higher Majorana neutrino masses (see Fig. 1).
The largest and smallest activesterile mixings are driven by and elements. Therefore all the activesterile mixing elements fall between them: . The matrix elements are proportional to , therefore with some constants and . They are deduced from Fig. 1, having values MeV and MeV. The matrix elements then belong to the following interval:
(2) 
In addition, the constraints for were derived from assumption that the branching ratios for decay are dominant. This is not applicable for HDM, since then the decay modes of righthanded neutrinos are dominated by decays to invisible particles.
As the model is unconstrained by semileptonic and leptonic decay modes, the lower bound for arises from BBN. In the early universe the righthanded neutrinos must be heavy enough to fall off from the thermal equilibrium before BBN. This is due to the latest results for effective number of neutrinos () by PLANCK Planck Collaboration (2016), which forbids large interference from righthanded neutrinos. This leads to a constraint MeV.
In addition neutrinophilic VEV is constrained from both above and below. Ultralight VEV is forbidden by astrophysical constraints: (eV) Zhou (2011); Sher and Triola (2011). On the other hand, the surface energy density associated with the domain wall arising from discrete symmetry breaking is Zeldovich et al. (1974). The effect of these domain walls to the temperature anisotropies of CMB is
(3) 
where is Newton’s gravitational constant, is Hubble constant and we have assumed et al (2006). Since the observed temperature anisotropies by PLANCK are , the birth of a domain wall will not contradict cosmological data if the VEV is small. If we require the contribution to CMB temperature anisotropies not to exceed the experimental limit, together with the astrophysical constraints, we get
(4) 
In order to apply perturbative theory to HDM, the absolute values of the elements of the light neutrino Yukawa coupling matrices must be at most. We performed a global fit to available neutrino oscillation data to calculate the matrix elements, assuming normal neutrino mass ordering, higher octant and no CP violation. We found the dependence of the largest Yukawa coupling of and to be
(5) 
The dependence is illustrated in Fig. 2.
The breaking of symmetry is necessary in order to generate light neutrino masses within the framework of this model by means of their mixing with heavy righthanded neutrinos. One can add the following Yukawa interaction and Majorana neutrino mass terms to the Lagrangian while keeping the parity unbroken:
(6) 
where, represents the Majorana mass terms corresponding to the righthanded neutrinos. Once acquires a VEV, the Yukawa term gives rise to Dirac neutrino mass terms, .
The physical Higgs sector now consists of two neutral CPeven (, ), one neutral CPodd () and the charged Higgs ()^{2}^{2}2We have assumed the scalar potential to be CP invariant.. In the case when , the physical mass eigenvalues at tree level are given by:
(7) 
where, . being small, terms proportional to have been neglected. Note that the mixing angle between the SM and neutrinophilic Higgs states are proportional to the ratio and can be safely neglected since we assume . Under this circumstance, the CPeven neutrinophilic Higgs () is always light and the heavy neutrino almost always decay into and a light neutrino resulting in an oppositesign dilepton signal for a charged Higgs pair production channel Maitra et al. (2014). However, if the explicit symmetry breaking term is present in the Lagrangian, i,e, , the mass eigenvalues are given by:
(8) 
Now the neutrinophilic CPeven Higgs can be heavy depending on our choice of , . A heavy and (or) opens up the possibility of a cascade decay via heavy neutrinos resulting in multilepton signals of such a scenario that we intend to explore. In the limit , the symmetry of the theory is enhanced. Thus, can be assumed to be naturally small. Besides, a large can also give rise to significant mixing between the two Higgs doublets, which is strictly constrained from the present Higgs data.
ii.1 Neutrino Mass Generation
The neutrino oscillation data GonzalezGarcia and Maltoni (2008); GonzalezGarcia et al. (2016); de Salas et al. (2017) indicates that at least two of the three light neutrinos have nonzero mass. One of the most natural ways to generate tiny neutrino mass is via seesaw mechanism Minkowski (1977); Mohapatra and Senjanovic (1980); Yanagida (); GellMann et al. (); Glashow (1980); Schechter and Valle (1982, 1980); Weinberg (1979, 1980). In HDM the mechanism is very similar to that of TypeI seesaw Minkowski (1977); Mohapatra and Senjanovic (1980); Yanagida (); GellMann et al. (). The mixing between light and heavy neutrinos is introduced via the term in the aftermath of symmetry breaking, when gets a VEV. In the basis the neutrino mass matrix looks like
(9) 
where . The light effective neutrino mass matrix in the approximation is given by
(10) 
The above equation looks exactly similar to what we obtain in canonical TypeI seesaw scenario. The only difference is that in the present framework can be quite small and as a result one can have larger compared to the canonical TypeI seesaw scenario, thus making this model phenomenologically more interesting. In order to fit the oscillation data, one also needs to account for the mixing among the three light neutrino states constrained by the PMNS matrix. One can rewrite in Eq. (10) as
(11) 
where is the diagonal light neutrino mass matrix and is the PMNS mixing matrix. In order to produce proper mixing satisfying the experimental bounds on the PMNS matrix elements, one of the matrices, or , has to be offdiagonal. Here we choose to keep diagonal and fit the PMNS matrix via an offdiagonal . Thus is obtained using CasasIbarra parameterization Casas and Ibarra (2001)
(12) 
where can be any orthogonal matrix and complex provided . For simplicity, we have chosen to be an identity matrix.
Thus with correct choices of the parameters and , Eq. (9) is capable of explaining the neutrino oscillation data at the tree level itself. There is a potential source of large correction Pilaftsis (1992); Grimus and Lavoura (2002) to the neutrino states at one loop arising from the loops. These mass corrections can be sizeable enough to violate the experimental limits. However, the loop contributions to the neutrino masses corresponding to and have a mutual sign difference and can exactly cancel each other if they are mass degenerate Aristizabal Sierra and Yaguna (2011); Aristizabal Sierra (2011, 2012); Haba and Tsumura (2011). As can be seen both from Eq. (7) and (8), the mass splitting between these two states is driven by the parameter which is therefore set equal to zero throughout this work.
Iii Constraints and Benchmark Points
Constraints on the charged Higgs mass and its couplings may arise from direct collider search results, neutrino oscillation data and lepton flavor violating decay branching ratios. The LHC collaborations have looked for signatures of exotic scalars in various channels and put bounds on the charged Higgs mass in the range 300  1000 GeV provided it can decay only into a top and a bottom quark ATL (2016); McCarn (2016); Ohman (2016); Akeroyd et al. (2017). However, in our present scenario, the charged Higgs, being a neutrinophilic one, does not couple to the quarks. In such scenarios, there are no direct search constraints on . In principle, the constraints derived from slepton searches at the LHC can be reinterpreted to put bounds on the neutrinophilic charged Higgs masses although only in the massless limit of the lightest neutralino. Two body decay of the sleptons into a charged lepton and lightest neutralino gives rise to a dilepton signal which can be relevant for the the present scenario. Existing data excludes slepton masses upto 450 GeV in presence of massless neutralino Aad et al. (2014); Collaboration (2017). However, one always obtains sameflavoroppositesign(SFOS) lepton pairs from such slepton pair production processes. The signal requirement also demands a jet veto in the central region alongside the SFOS lepton pair for such analyses. In the present scenario, largest event rate in such a signal region can be obtained when decays into a charged lepton and a heavy neutrino. Heavy neutrino further decays into a light neutrino and Zboson which further decays invisibly. Clearly, the resulting signal crosssection is rendered small due to branching suppressions. Demand of SFOS lepton pairs makes this crosssection even smaller^{3}^{3}3The obtained signal crosssection for our lightest benchmark point even before the detector simulation is less than the observed number as quoted in Aad et al. (2014); Collaboration (2017).. Thus, the existing slepton mass limit when reinterpreted for proves to be much weaker. Its couplings with the heavy neutrinos on the other hand, can be constrained from neutrino oscillation data and lepton flavor violating decay branching ratios Guo et al. (2017). As mentioned in section II.1, we have used offdiagonal while fitting the PMNS matrix. These offdiagonal entries are severely constrained from LFV decay branching ratio constraints Adam et al. (2013); Baldini et al. (2013); Aubert et al. (2010); Aushev et al. (2010); Hayasaka et al. (2010); Bertl et al. (2006); Bartoszek et al. (2014). These constraints are also reflected upon our choice of the neutrinophilic Higgs VEV, . It has been observed and also verified by us that can be GeV Guo et al. (2017) at the smallest, if the neutrino oscillation data and the LFV constraints are to be satisfied simultaneously, the most stringent constraint arising from the nonobservation of BR() Adam et al. (2013); Baldini et al. (2013). This constraint puts the spontaneously breaking scenario in jeopardy. As evident from Fig. 2, such a choice of is clearly ruled out from restrictions on CMB temperature anisotropies induced by domain walls. However, if the symmetry is broken explicitly, this domain wall problem can be averted. Hence for this work, we choose to work with the scenario only.
iii.1 Charged Higgs branching ratios and pair production crosssection
The possible decay modes of the neutrinophilic charged Higgs () in our present scenario are , , and . The relevant interaction vertices are given in the Appendix. Depending on the mass hierarchy of , () and , and the choice of neutrino mass hierarchy one (or two) of these decay modes determine the event rates of the different possible final states at the collider. Note that the branching ratios of the decays into the neutral CPeven and CPodd Higgs states are always the same since they are mass degenerate by our choice of the parameters. These two decay modes dominate over the heavy neutrino decay modes always, if the mass difference, is larger than that of the Wboson mass, . This is an artefact of the small Dirac neutrino Yukawa parameters, which are otherwise constrained by neutrino oscillation data and the nonobservation of LFV decays. The being smaller by orders of magnitude from the competitive gauge coupling, a large branching ratio into the or decay modes are not ensured even if . In spite of the additional phase space suppression, threebody decays of via offshell decay, dominate over these twobody modes unless .
This behavior is depicted in Fig. 3 where the competitive nature of BR() and BR(), where , is clearly visible through the distributions of the starred and circular points respectively. BR() overtakes the threebody decay branching ratio only if GeV. For , BR() takes over and remains the only dominant decay mode.
In Fig. 4, we have shown variation of the production crosssection at the LHC and an collider. The figure on the left shows the variation of the crosssections as a function of at the 13 TeV LHC and different centerofmass energies (500 GeV, 1 TeV and 3 TeV) at an collider. Note that, at the LHC, the production channels include , and while for the collider, pair production is the only viable option. Since we have assumed for our study, the crosssections of the above mentioned second and third production channels exactly equal. Hence we have shown their combined crosssection in the figure and evidently, it dominates over the pair production crosssection throughout the entire charged Higgs mass range. However, both these crosssections fall rapidly with increasing mass. On the other hand, at an collider the crosssection falls far less rapidly implying the fact that such a collider will be more effective than the LHC in order to probe heavier charged Higgs masses. The figure on the right shows the variation of the pair production crosssection at an collider with varying centerofmass energies for our chosen benchmark points. Moreover, a lepton collider is likely to be much cleaner in terms of the SM background contributions. In this work, we have taken into account all the aforementioned production channels for LHC and just the pair production for the collider analysis.
iii.2 Choice of benchmark points
We now proceed to choose some benchmark points representing the different interesting features of the present scenario for further collider studies. As discussed earlier, one can obtain different possible final states depending upon the mass hierarchies of , () and . Since we also aim to correlate the light neutrino mass hierarchy with the multiplicity of different lepton flavor final states, we will study cases in which at least one of the heavy neutrinos is lighter than the neutrinophilic Higgs states so that it can appear in the cascade. In Table 1 below we present the input parameters, relevant masses and the resulting for the four benchmark points of our choice. We have incorporated the complete model in SARAH Staub (2008, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015), and subsequently imported in SPheno Porod (2003); Porod and Staub (2012) in order to perform the analytical and numerical computation of the masses and mixings of the particles, their branching ratios and other relevant constraints. See Appendix for LFV constraints for our benchmarks.
Parameters  BP1  BP2  BP3  BP4 

0.270  0.210  0.235  0.212  
0.50  0.50  0.50  0.50  
1.50  1.50  1.50  1.50  
0.01  1.50  0.01  1.10  
1.50  1.50  4.50  1.50  
(GeV)  100.0  100.0  200.0  125.0 
(GeV)  187.5  187.9  325.6  188.5 
(GeV)  188.5  272.8  326.4  252.8 
(GeV)  100.0  100.0  200.0  125.0 
(Normal)  (Normal)  (Normal)  (Normal)  
(Inverted)  (Inverted)  (Inverted)  (Inverted)  
() 
The four benchmark points are chosen such that all the dominant decay modes of the neutrinophilic Higgs and the heavy neutrinos are highlighted by different mass hierarchies. The relevant branching ratios are shown in Table 2. The two most dominant decay modes of are , where , and . The first decay mode is driven by the Dirac neutrino Yukawa couplings, , whereas the second one is driven by gauge couplings. As discussed above, the elements of are already constrained from the neutrino oscillation data as well as from the LFV constraints, and thus are in general weaker than the competitive gauge coupling. Hence, if the mass splittings among the neutral and charged neutrinophilic Higgs and the heavy neutrino states are such that both and decay modes are kinematically accessible for , the gauge boson associated one becomes its only relevant decay mode. However, if at least one of the heavy neutrinos is lighter than the and the states are almost degenerate to it, then the decay via heavy neutrinos becomes important. The latter scenario is highlighted in BP1 and BP3 while BP2 represents the former scenario. BP4, on the other hand, highlights the situation where the twobody mode competes with the threebody decay into (or ) alongside an offshell boson. However, being on the larger side, the threebody decay dominates as discussed earlier in Section III.1. The heavy neutrinos () in this scenario can decay either via the SM gauge bosons () or the different Higgs states. Note that decays of into , and can only occour through their mixing with the light neutrinos which are suppressed in the present scenario. Hence, these decay modes become relevant for only if the neutrinophilic Higgs states are kinematically inaccessible to it. The choice of neutrino mass hierarchy clearly reflects in the branching ratios of both and and is also expected to be reflected in the final event rates of the multilepton signals we intend to explore.
Branching  BP1  BP2  BP3  BP4  
Ratio  Normal  Inverted  Normal  Inverted  Normal  Inverted  Normal  Inverted 
BR()  0.49  0.77      0.49  0.77  0.05  0.13 
BR()  0.51  0.23      0.51  0.23  0.06  0.04 
BR()      0.50  0.50         
BR()      0.50  0.50         
BR()              0.10  0.09 
BR()              0.10  0.09 
BR()  0.21  0.43  0.21  0.43  0.16  0.21  0.17  0.23 
BR()  0.21  0.43  0.21  0.43  0.16  0.21  0.17  0.23 
BR()  0.23  0.01  0.23  0.01  0.18  0.13  0.20  0.14 
BR()  0.23  0.01  0.23  0.01  0.18  0.13  0.20  0.14 
BR()  0.12  0.12  0.12  0.12  0.32  0.32  0.27  0.27 
BR()  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00  1.00 
Iv Collider Analysis
Charged Higgs in our benchmark scenarios can give rise to novel signatures in lepton enriched final states. Majorana neutrinos, if produced via cascade from the charged Higgs can further decay resulting in samesign leptonic final states, which are characteristic to seesaw models and also have much less SM background. The gauge bosons resulting from the decays of the neutrinophilic Higgs and heavy neutrinos may also decay leptonically and thus one can easily obtain a multilepton final state associated with missing energy. Leptonic branching ratios of the gauge bosons being small, one would expect smaller event rates in the final state with increasing lepton multiplicity. However, it also means less SM background to deal with resulting in cleaner signals. In this section we explore the different possible multilepton final states with or without the presence of additional jets along with detailed signal to background simulation in order to ascertain the discovery potential of the charged Higgs for our chosen benchmark points in the context of 13 TeV LHC as well as future lepton colliders.
iv.1 Identifying signal regions
In the context of LHC, we aim to study cleaner multilepton channels with no tagged jets in the final state. The possible final states that we probe in the present context are (SR1), (SR2), and samesign trilepton () + (SR3), where represents everything else (jets, photons or leptons) ^{4}^{4}4For SR3, consists of no leptons since in this case, we demand exactly three leptons with same sign in the final state. in the final states. As mentioned earlier, the various branching ratios of and hence the final signal event rates depend on the mass difference factor . Thus, it is interesting to study how the signal rates vary depending on which in turn can also provide an indirect hint about the masses of and (or) .
In Fig. 6 we have shown the variation of the crosssections corresponding to the three signal regions mentioned above as a function of with colorcoded . Note that these crosssections are theoretical estimates obtained after combining contributions from all the three relevant production modes of at the LHC prior to detector simulation and do not include the cut efficiencies. The two rows of the figures correspond to normal and inverted hierarchy of neutrino masses respectively. While SR1 only receives contribution from pairproduction, both SR2 and SR3 are enriched with contributions from pair production as well as associated production of the . Most of the signal events corresponding to SR1 and SR2 are expected to arise from decay into a charged lepton and a heavy neutrino followed by the heavy neutrino decay into a charged lepton and . Depending on the leptonic or hadronic decays of the bosons, one can obtain various lepton multiplicities as represented by these signal regions. The signal crosssections are largest when and () are mass degenerate for any given and they drop with increasing and . SR3, on the other hand, receives more contribution when decays into (or ) along with an onshell or offshell boson. Moreover, in the case of pair production, samesign leptons can not be obtained if both the decays via resulting the crosssection of SR3 being smaller with smaller . However, the associated production channels contribute dominantly to this signal region throughout the whole range of . As evident from Fig. 6, SR3 is the most favorable channel to look for such scenarios. In general, the inverted hierarchy of the light neutrino masses is expected to generate more multileptonic events owing to the larger branching ratio, BR() as reflected by the plots on the bottom row.
In a similar way, we now proceed to choose some signal regions for our analyses in the context of an collider. The possible final states we probe in this context are (SR4), (SR5), and (SR6) ^{5}^{5}5Just like SR3, in SR6 also does not contain any leptons..
The corresponding signal rates are showcased as a function of in Fig. 7. Trends of the distributions are similar to what we obtained for the LHC case. However, the difference in the production crosssection is manifested by the signal crosssections indicating a larger event rate at the LHC for similar final states at low region. The rapid fall in production crosssection with increasing at the LHC makes it less relevant for heavier charged Higgs masses. An collider can be more effective provided the centerofmass energy is large enough for the production. Here, the signal rates drop alarmingly close to due to the choice of centerofmass energy as 1 TeV.
iv.2 Analysis
In order to carry out the simulation, events were generated at the parton level using MadGraph5 Alwall et al. (2011, 2014) with nn23lo1 parton distribution function Ball et al. (2013, 2015) and the default dynamic factorisation and renormalisation scales https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/projects/madgraph/wiki/FAQGeneral13 (). We have used PYTHIA Sjostrand et al. (2006) for the subsequent decay of the particles, showering and hadronization. After that the events are passed through Delphes de Favereau et al. (2014); Selvaggi (2014); Mertens (2015) for detector simulation. Jets have been reconstructed using antikT algorithm via FastJet Cacciari et al. (2012, 2008). The jet and jet tagging efficiencies as well as the mistagging efficiencies of the light jets as or jet have been incorporated according to the latest ATLAS studies in this regard ATL (2015).
Primary selection criteria
We have applied the following cuts (C0) on the jets, leptons and photons in order to identify them as final state particles:

All the charged leptons are selected with a transverse momentum threshold GeV and in the pseudorapidity window .

All the jets including jets and jets must have GeV and .

We demand between all possible pairs of the final state particles to make sure they are well separated.
As discussed in Section III, the choice of neutrino mass hierarchy affects the branching ratios of the neutrinophilic Higgs as well as the heavy neutrinos in certain flavor specific decay modes. Thus, the hierarchical effect is reflected by the abundance of certain flavor of leptons in the signal events. As we have seen, one would expect less abundance of electrons in the final states for normal hierarchy scenario compared to that for inverted hierarchy.
This feature is evident in Fig. 8 which shows the electron multiplicity in the final state with at least four leptons for BP1 in normal as well as inverted hierarchy scenarios. Such lepton multiplicity distributions can thus provide indirect probe of existing neutrino mass hierarchy.
iv.3 Results@LHC13
In the context of LHC, we have studied the final states corresponding to SR1, SR2 and SR3 as defined in Section IV.1. Although the choice of our signal regions ensure small or no SM background, we have checked the relevant production channels, , , , , , and + jets nevertheless in this regard. In Table 3 we show the expected number of different signal events at 13 TeV run of the LHC with an integrated luminosity () of 1000 after imposing a transverse missing energy cut, GeV and jet veto (C1) ^{6}^{6}6These cuts help reduce some of the surviving SM background contributions., in addition to the primary selection criteria, C0. The choice of our signal regions combined with the cuts C1 render the SM backgrounds to negligible event numbers. We have observed that our SR1 is nearly backgroundless whereas SR2 and SR3 are left with 2 and 1 SMbackground events, respectively, at 1000 integrated luminosity. As for the obtained signal event numbers, one can easily get an estimate of the expected rate from Fig. 6 for the different final states. However, note that in these figures the heavy neutrino mass is kept fixed at 100 GeV and if this mass is changed, so does the heavy neutrino branching ratios and hence the signal crosssections. However, the crosssections shown in these figures are good enough for order of magnitude estimation for a given .
Benchmark  Production  Neutrino  Number of Events  

Points  crosssection (fb)  hierarchy  ( 1000 )  
( TeV) 
SR1 
SR2 
SR3 

BP1  60.71  Normal  8  130  247 
Inverted  25  343  397  
BP2  22.13  Normal    13  42 
Inverted  1  24  55  
BP3  6.72  Normal  3  40  67 
Inverted  8  86  101  
BP4  27.34  Normal  1  26  71 
Inverted  3  60  112 
As expected SR1 has the smallest event rate owing to its large lepton multiplicity, but with negligible SM background. Thus it can be a very clean signal but only if the charged Higgs mass is on the lighter side, as in BP1, and at least one of the heavy neutrinos is lighter than the charged Higgs. The situation, however, worsens considerably with increasing charged Higgs mass, as indicated by BP3. SR2 has a much better event rate and can probe BP1 and BP3 at much lower luminosity than SR1. As the numbers in Table 3 indicate, the inverted hierarchy scenario for BP1 can be probed with a 3 statistical significance at an integrated luminosity of 30 in both SR2 and SR3, i.e, if these signal regions are studied, in this mass range can be probed and possibly be excluded with the LHC data already accumulated. For the corresponding normal hierarchy case however, for the same benchmark point, one needs for similar discovery significance in SR3. BP3 requires an integrated luminosity of (for inverted hierarchy) or more. For the benchmark points like BP4 and BP2, the decay is either suppressed or absent altogether. Thus for such points SR1 ceases to be a viable signal region while SR2 is relevant only at large luminosities. In this case SR3 turns out to be the most viable signal region. In this signal region, to achieve 3 statistical significance in the inverted hierarchy case of BP4 and BP2 one requires and respectively. For all the benchmark points, the choice of light neutrino mass hierarchy is clearly manifested through the different signal event rates. Evidently, with multileptonic final states, an inverted hierarchy scenario is more likely to be probed at lower luminosities at the LHC.
iv.4 Results@ collider
In Table 4 below we have presented the expected number of different signal events at 1 TeV run of an collider with an integrated luminosity of 100 after imposing a missing energy cut, GeV and bjet veto (D1), in addition to the primary selection criteria, C0. The event rates are quite good and devoid of any direct SM background, which makes it an ideal platform to look for a neutrinophilic charged Higgs. Although the number of events shown in Table 4 correspond to 100 , the inverted hierarchy scenarios in BP1 and BP3 can be probed with a statistical significance of 3 at a much lower luminosity ( 10 ). Note the improved event rates in signal regions SR5 and SR6 despite of the smaller pair production crosssection in BP3 over those of BP1. This is a consequence of increased hadronic branching ratio of and improved cut efficiency due to the larger mass gap between and in BP3. Even BP2 which can be probed at the LHC only at very high luminosity can be probed here at around with similar statistical significance via SR5 which turns out to be the most favored signal in general for all the benchmark points. The overall signal rate is relatively weaker in SR6 due to better lepton tagging efficiency at a lepton collider, which results in smaller number of events with exactly three samesign leptons as demanded.
Benchmark  Production  Neutrino  Number of Events  

Points  crosssection (fb)  hierarchy  ( 100 )  
( TeV) 
SR4 
SR5 
SR6 

BP1  22.83  Normal  36  47  9 
Inverted  77  90  9  
BP2  16.91  Normal  5  16  6 
Inverted  6  23  8  
BP3  12.48  Normal  30  75  16 
Inverted  63  122  17  
BP4  18.44  Normal  8  22  8 
Inverted  16  39  12 
V Summary and Conclusions
We have considered a simple extension of the SM with one additional scalar doublet and three generations of singlet righthanded Majorana neutrinos, where the additional Higgs states interact with the SM sector only via the righthanded neutrinos. The model, known as the neutrinophilic Higgs doublet model, is a wellmotivated framework from the viewpoint of neutrino mass generation. The light neutrinos gain tiny nonzero masses via TypeI seesaw mechanism when the neutrinophilic Higgs obtains a VEV to break the symmetry. We have discussed in brief why the spontaneous breaking of the symmetry is disfavored, if one imposes the constraints derived from the CMB temperature anisotropies induced by domain walls as well as LFV decay branching ratios. We have, therefore, considered a scenario where the parity is broken explicitly and thus is devoid of the domain wall problem. In such a scenario, the charged Higgs can have interesting collider phenomenology, explored in this work. Depending on the different decay modes of the neutrinophilic charged Higgs, we have identified some particularly clean signal regions likely to provide a hint of HDM scenarios at the collider experiments.
We have also highlighted the interesting roleplay of the light neutrino mass hierarchy. Whether the neutrinos follow normal or inverted hierarchy, is likely to be manifested via multiplicity of different flavored leptons in the final state. Thus such a finding at the collider experiments can complement the neutrino oscillation experiments which are yet to ascertain the correct mass hierarchy of the three light neutrinos.
The fact that the charged Higgs pair production crosssection falls quite rapidly at the LHC with increasing mass, led us to perform a comparative study between the LHC and a future machine in order to probe such scenarios. We observed that although LHC is quite efficient to probe light charged Higgs masses, an collider will be able to probe a much larger parameter space with heavier states.
Vi Acknowledgements
KH and SM acknowledge the H2020MSCARICE2014 grant no. 645722 (NonMinimalHiggs). TK expresses his gratitude to Magnus Ehrnrooth foundation for financial support. The work of SKR was partially supported by funding available from the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, for the Regional Centre for Acceleratorbased Particle Physics (RECAPP), HarishChandra Research Institute.
Vii Appendix
vii.1 Relevant interaction vertices
where , and are the charged lepton, neutrino and CPeven neutral Higgs mixing matrices, the bases of the mass matrices being , and respectively. Note that, is a diagonal matrix.
vii.2 Lepton Flavor Violating Branching Ratios
LFV  BP1  BP2  BP3  BP4  

Process  Normal  Inverted  Normal  Inverted  Normal  Inverted  Normal  Inverted 
BR()()  2.97  0.79  0.56  0.21  0.81  0.31  0.99  0.38 
BR()()  0.38  2.05  0.10  0.56  0.15  0.80  0.18  0.98 
BR()()  2.90  3.87  0.79  1.05  1.14  1.52  1.39  1.86 
BR()()  1.72  0.65  0.46  0.18  0.68  0.26  0.82  0.31 
BR()()  0.51  2.73  0.14  0.73  0.20  1.07  0.24  1.30 
BR()()  1.12  1.50  0.30  0.39  0.45  0.60  0.53  0.71 
In Table 5 we have shown the obtained branching ratios for various lepton flavor violating processes corresponding to the four benchmark points. BR() is projected to be probed experimentally up to in near future Baldini et al. (2013). As indicated by the numbers, the obtained branching ratios for this process are at least one order of magnitude smaller for our benchmark points. The rest of these obtained LFV branching ratios are several orders of magnitude below the present experimental sensitivity in the respective channels.
References
 Aad et al. (2012) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hepex] .
 Chatrchyan et al. (2012a) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012a), arXiv:1207.7235 [hepex] .
 GonzalezGarcia and Maltoni (2008) M. C. GonzalezGarcia and M. Maltoni, Phys. Rept. 460, 1 (2008), arXiv:0704.1800 [hepph] .
 Minkowski (1977) P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977).
 Mohapatra and Senjanovic (1980) R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980).
 (6) M. GellMann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Print800576 (CERN).
 (7) T. Yanagida, In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Baryon Number of the Universe and Unified Theories, Tsukuba, Japan, 1314 Feb 1979.
 Glashow (1980) S. L. Glashow, NATO Adv. Study Inst. Ser. B Phys. 59, 687 (1980).
 Schechter and Valle (1982) J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D25, 774 (1982).
 Schechter and Valle (1980) J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D22, 2227 (1980).
 Weinberg (1979) S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979).
 Weinberg (1980) S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D22, 1694 (1980).
 Keung and Senjanovic (1983) W.Y. Keung and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1427 (1983).
 Datta et al. (1994) A. Datta, M. Guchait, and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D50, 3195 (1994), arXiv:hepph/9311257 [hepph] .
 Almeida et al. (2000) F. M. L. Almeida, Jr., Y. do Amaral Coutinho, J. A. Martins Simoes, and M. A. B. do Vale, Phys. Rev. D62, 075004 (2000), arXiv:hepph/0002024 [hepph] .
 Panella et al. (2002) O. Panella, M. Cannoni, C. Carimalo, and Y. N. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. D65, 035005 (2002), arXiv:hepph/0107308 [hepph] .
 Han and Zhang (2006) T. Han and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 171804 (2006), arXiv:hepph/0604064 [hepph] .
 del Aguila et al. (2007) F. del Aguila, J. A. AguilarSaavedra, and R. Pittau, JHEP 10, 047 (2007), arXiv:hepph/0703261 [hepph] .
 Huitu et al. (2008) K. Huitu, S. Khalil, H. Okada, and S. K. Rai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 181802 (2008), arXiv:0803.2799 [hepph] .
 Atre et al. (2009) A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli, and B. Zhang, JHEP 05, 030 (2009), arXiv:0901.3589 [hepph] .
 Chen and Dev (2012) C.Y. Chen and P. S. B. Dev, Phys. Rev. D85, 093018 (2012), arXiv:1112.6419 [hepph] .
 Dev et al. (2014) P. S. B. Dev, A. Pilaftsis, and U.k. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 081801 (2014), arXiv:1308.2209 [hepph] .
 Das et al. (2017) A. Das, P. S. B. Dev, and R. N. Mohapatra, (2017), arXiv:1709.06553 [hepph] .
 Abulencia et al. (2007) A. Abulencia et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 221803 (2007), arXiv:hepex/0702051 [hepex] .
 Chatrchyan et al. (2012b) S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B717, 109 (2012b), arXiv:1207.6079 [hepex] .
 ATL (2012) Search for Majorana neutrino production in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV in dimuon final states with the ATLAS detector, Tech. Rep. ATLASCONF2012139 (CERN, Geneva, 2012).
 Khachatryan et al. (2015) V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B748, 144 (2015), arXiv:1501.05566 [hepex] .
 Bhupal Dev et al. (2012) P. S. Bhupal Dev, R. Franceschini, and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D86, 093010 (2012), arXiv:1207.2756 [hepph] .
 Deppisch et al. (2015) F. F. Deppisch, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and A. Pilaftsis, New J. Phys. 17, 075019 (2015), arXiv:1502.06541 [hepph] .
 Magg and Wetterich (1980) M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. 94B, 61 (1980).
 CMS (2015) ATLASCONF2015044, Tech. Rep. (2015).
 Branco et al. (2012) G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rept. 516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hepph] .
 Ma (2001) E. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2502 (2001), arXiv:hepph/0011121 [hepph] .
 Gabriel and Nandi (2007) S. Gabriel and S. Nandi, Phys. Lett. B655, 141 (2007), arXiv:hepph/0610253 [hepph] .
 Davidson and Logan (2009) S. M. Davidson and H. E. Logan, Phys. Rev. D80, 095008 (2009), arXiv:0906.3335 [hepph] .
 Gabriel et al. (2008) S. Gabriel, B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Nandi, and S. K. Rai, Phys. Lett. B669, 180 (2008), arXiv:0804.1112 [hepph] .
 Haba and Tsumura (2011) N. Haba and K. Tsumura, JHEP 06, 068 (2011), arXiv:1105.1409 [hepph] .
 Haba and Horita (2011) N. Haba and T. Horita, Phys. Lett. B705, 98 (2011), arXiv:1107.3203 [hepph] .
 Chao and RamseyMusolf (2014) W. Chao and M. J. RamseyMusolf, Phys. Rev. D89, 033007 (2014), arXiv:1212.5709 [hepph] .
 Maitra et al. (2014) U. Maitra, B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Nandi, S. K. Rai, and A. Shivaji, Phys. Rev. D89, 055024 (2014), arXiv:1401.1775 [hepph] .
 Chakdar et al. (2014) S. Chakdar, K. Ghosh, and S. Nandi, Phys. Lett. B734, 64 (2014), arXiv:1403.1544 [hepph] .
 Seto (2015) O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D92, 073005 (2015), arXiv:1507.06779 [hepph] .
 Bertuzzo et al. (2016) E. Bertuzzo, Y. F. Perez G., O. Sumensari, and R. Zukanovich Funchal, JHEP 01, 018 (2016), arXiv:1510.04284 [hepph] .
 Guo et al. (2017) C. Guo, S.Y. Guo, Z.L. Han, B. Li, and Y. Liao, JHEP 04, 065 (2017), arXiv:1701.02463 [hepph] .
 ’t Hooft (1980) G. ’t Hooft, Recent Developments in Gauge Theories. Proceedings, Nato Advanced Study Institute, Cargese, France, August 26  September 8, 1979, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135 (1980).
 Planck Collaboration (2016) Planck Collaboration, A&A 594, A13 (2016).
 Zhou (2011) S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 84, 038701 (2011).
 Sher and Triola (2011) M. Sher and C. Triola, Phys. Rev. D 83, 117702 (2011).
 Zeldovich et al. (1974) Ya. B. Zeldovich, I. Yu. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 3 (1974), [Sov. Phys. JETP40,1(1974)].
 et al (2006) W.M. Y. et al, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 33, 1 (2006).
 GonzalezGarcia et al. (2016) M. C. GonzalezGarcia, M. Maltoni, and T. Schwetz, Nucl. Phys. B908, 199 (2016), arXiv:1512.06856 [hepph] .
 de Salas et al. (2017) P. F. de Salas, D. V. Forero, C. A. Ternes, M. Tortola, and J. W. F. Valle, (2017), arXiv:1708.01186 [hepph] .
 Casas and Ibarra (2001) J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, Nucl. Phys. B618, 171 (2001), arXiv:hepph/0103065 [hepph] .
 Pilaftsis (1992) A. Pilaftsis, Z. Phys. C55, 275 (1992), arXiv:hepph/9901206 [hepph] .
 Grimus and Lavoura (2002) W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Phys. Lett. B546, 86 (2002), arXiv:hepph/0207229 [hepph] .
 Aristizabal Sierra and Yaguna (2011) D. Aristizabal Sierra and C. E. Yaguna, JHEP 08, 013 (2011), arXiv:1106.3587 [hepph] .
 Aristizabal Sierra (2011) D. Aristizabal Sierra, Proceedings, 21st International Europhysics Conference on High energy physics (EPSHEP 2011): Grenoble, France, July 2127, 2011, PoS EPSHEP2011, 435 (2011), arXiv:1110.6435 [hepph] .
 Aristizabal Sierra (2012) D. Aristizabal Sierra, Proceedings, 12th International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP 2011): Munich, Germany, September 59, 2011, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 042003 (2012), arXiv:1112.1871 [hepph] .
 ATL (2016) Search for charged Higgs bosons in the decay channel in collisions at TeV using the ATLAS detector, Tech. Rep. ATLASCONF2016089 (CERN, Geneva, 2016).
 McCarn (2016) A. McCarn (ATLAS, CMS), in Proceedings, 51st Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories: La Thuile, Italy, March 1219, 2016 (2016) pp. 307–316.
 Ohman (2016) H. Ohman (ATLAS, CMS), in Fourth Annual Large Hadron Collider Physics, Lund, Sweden, June 1318, 2016 (2016).
 Akeroyd et al. (2017) A. G. Akeroyd et al., Eur. Phys. J. C77, 276 (2017), arXiv:1607.01320 [hepph] .
 Aad et al. (2014) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 05, 071 (2014), arXiv:1403.5294 [hepex] .
 Collaboration (2017) C. Collaboration (CMS), (2017).
 Adam et al. (2013) J. Adam et al. (MEG), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 201801 (2013), arXiv:1303.0754 [hepex] .
 Baldini et al. (2013) A. M. Baldini et al., (2013), arXiv:1301.7225 [physics.insdet] .
 Aubert et al. (2010) B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 021802 (2010), arXiv:0908.2381 [hepex] .
 Aushev et al. (2010) T. Aushev et al., (2010), arXiv:1002.5012 [hepex] .
 Hayasaka et al. (2010) K. Hayasaka et al., Phys. Lett. B687, 139 (2010), arXiv:1001.3221 [hepex] .
 Bertl et al. (2006) W. H. Bertl et al. (SINDRUM II), Eur. Phys. J. C47, 337 (2006).
 Bartoszek et al. (2014) L. Bartoszek et al. (Mu2e), (2014), arXiv:1501.05241 [physics.insdet] .
 Staub (2008) F. Staub, (2008), arXiv:0806.0538 [hepph] .
 Staub (2010) F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1077 (2010), arXiv:0909.2863 [hepph] .
 Staub (2011) F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 808 (2011), arXiv:1002.0840 [hepph] .
 Staub (2014) F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1773 (2014), arXiv:1309.7223 [hepph] .
 Staub (2015) F. Staub, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 840780 (2015), arXiv:1503.04200 [hepph] .
 Porod (2003) W. Porod, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153, 275 (2003), arXiv:hepph/0301101 [hepph] .
 Porod and Staub (2012) W. Porod and F. Staub, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 2458 (2012), arXiv:1104.1573 [hepph] .
 He et al. (2001) H.J. He, N. Polonsky, and S. Su, Phys. Rev. D 64, 053004 (2001).
 Alwall et al. (2011) J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 06, 128 (2011), arXiv:1106.0522 [hepph] .
 Alwall et al. (2014) J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hepph] .
 Ball et al. (2013) R. D. Ball et al., Nucl. Phys. B867, 244 (2013), arXiv:1207.1303 [hepph] .
 Ball et al. (2015) R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), JHEP 04, 040 (2015), arXiv:1410.8849 [hepph] .
 (84) https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/projects/madgraph/wiki/FAQGeneral13, .
 Sjostrand et al. (2006) T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05, 026 (2006), arXiv:hepph/0603175 [hepph] .
 de Favereau et al. (2014) J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. LemaÃ®tre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv:1307.6346 [hepex] .
 Selvaggi (2014) M. Selvaggi, Proceedings, 15th International Workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research (ACAT 2013), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 523, 012033 (2014).
 Mertens (2015) A. Mertens, Proceedings, 16th International workshop on Advanced Computing and Analysis Techniques in physics (ACAT 14), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 608, 012045 (2015).
 Cacciari et al. (2012) M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hepph] .
 Cacciari et al. (2008) M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), arXiv:0802.1189 [hepph] .
 ATL (2015) Expected performance of the ATLAS btagging algorithms in Run2, Tech. Rep. ATLPHYSPUB2015022 (CERN, Geneva, 2015).