Randall-Sundrum graviton spin determination using azimuthal angular dependence
Hitoshi Murayama1,2,3 and Vikram Rentala1,3
1

2

Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA and3
Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe,
University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwa-no-ha, Kashiwa, Japan 277-8568(Dated: April 27, 2009)

Quantum interference of helicity amplitudes provides a powerful tool for measuring the spins of new particles.
By looking at the azimuthal angular dependence of the differential cross-section in the production followed bydecay of a new particle species one can determine its spin by looking at the various cosine modes. The heavy
spin-2 Kaluza-Klein (KK) graviton provides a unique signature with a cos (4φ) mode. We study the feasibilityof this approach to measuring the spin of the KK graviton in a Randall-Sundrum Model at the LHC.
PACS numbers:

graviton spin and look at its feasibility at the LHC.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is expected to
produce a wealth of discoveries by probing the TeV scale forthe first time. Apart from finally accessing the electroweak
symmetry breaking scale and thus potentially discovering theelusive Higgs boson, we expect to see new physics that resolves the hierarchy/naturalness problem [1, 2, 3, 4] and perhaps provides an insight into the nature of dark matter. One
exciting possible solution to the hierarchy problem is the existence of warped extra dimensions [5, 6] which allows for TeV
scale gravitational interactions. There are many variations of
the basic theory [7] but one common feature that they share is
the existence of heavy Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons.
For the purpose of this paper we will consider a RandallSundrum model with 3+1 dimensional spacetime with one additional warped extra dimension (RS1). The Standard Model
fields are confined to a 3+1 dimensional TeV brane and thegraviton propagates freely in the 4+1 dimensional bulk. Quantization of the graviton wave function in the extra dimension,
with boundaries between the TeV brane and a Planck brane,
leads to various modes which appear as heavy spin-2 fields inthe 3+1 dimensional effective theory on the TeV brane.
One of the challenges at the LHC will be to determine thespins of newly discovered particles in order to distinguish various theoretical models. The KK graviton provides a uniquesignature of gravitational physics at the TeV scale by virtue of
its spin-2 nature. Thus, it becomes crucial to have techniques
to identify its spin. So far, the technique proposed to measure
KK graviton spin at the LHC relies on resonant graviton production followed by decay into a lepton pair [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
By looking at the polar angular dependence of the leptons relative to the beam axis, one sees a quartic behaviour of thedifferential cross-section.
dσ= A cos4 θ + B cos2 θ + C
d cos θ(1)

Recently, a new technique for measuring spin has been
proposed. One can look at quantum interference of helicity
states in the azimuthal angular dependence of particle decays
to study their spin in a model independent way [13, 14]. The
goal of this paper is to apply this technique to study the KK

II. MODEL PARAMETERS

The interaction between the massive KK gravitons and theStandard Model fields in the 4-d effective theory is given by
the Lagrangian [16, 17],
Lint = −1 X (n)µν
G
Tµν
Λ n

(2)

Here, G(n)µν represents the nth KK graviton mode. Tµν is thestress-energy tensor of the Standard Model Lagrangian givenby,Tµν = −ηµν LSM + 2

δLSMδgµν gµν =ηµν

(3)Λ is the coupling given by,Λ = e−krc π M̄pl(4)

where k is of the order of the Planck scale, rc is the compact√
ification radius of the extra dimension and M̄pl ≡ Mpl / 8π
is the reduced Planck scale. Note the absence of KK-parity
which allows the heavy graviton modes to decay into purelyStandard Model particles.
The mass of the nth KK-graviton is given by,
mn = xn Λ

k
M̄pl

(5)

where xn are the nth zeros of the J1 Bessel function. While
studying the properties of the n = 1 KK graviton we can thus
regard this theory as being dependent on only two parametersΛ and k or equivalently the dimensionless coupling c ≡ M̄kpl
and m1 , the mass of the KK graviton of interest.
Naturalness constraints require Λ less than about 10 TeV. In
order for an effective field theory description of gravity to bevalid we require that the 5-d curvature bound, |R5 | < M52 , issatisfied, where M5 is the 5-d Planck scale. By looking at thevarious theoretical and experimental constraints on the model

2

FIG. 2: Production and decay planes of the process A + B → X + Y→ M + N . The angle φ is defined as the azimuthal angle betweenp~X and p~M or equivalently the angle between the production anddecay planes.

FIG. 1: Experimental and theoretical constraints on the KK graviton parameters in the c − m1 plane. Red curves show experimental
constraints and blue curves show theoretical constraints. The green
shaded region shows the allowed parameter space.

parameters [9] (Figure 1) we expect c to lie roughly between
0.01 (weakly coupled) and 0.1 (strongly coupled). We consider m1 in the range of 750 GeV - 2 TeV. The decay width of
the graviton to Standard Model particles can be evaluated byusing the expressions given in [10, 17, 18]. In the limit thatdecay particle masses can be neglected the decay width of thegraviton is given by2

Γn = αmn (xn c)(6)where α is a constant depending upon the number of open
decay channels. If one assumes decay to only Standard Modelparticles the ratio Γ1 : m1 is found to be 1.37% for c = 0.1(Assuming a Higgs mass of 120 GeV and decay into Standard
Model particles only). This value is in disagreement with thevalue 1.43% cited in the literature [19].

III.

USING AZIMUTHAL ANGULAR DEPENDENCE TO
MEASURE SPIN

To determine the spin of a particle X, we consider the production process A + B → X + Y where X further decays to
M , N . Here, A and B refer to beam particles or partons, X is
the parent particle whose spin we wish to measure. M and N
are the daughter particles that X decays into.
This gives us two planes to consider, namely the production
plane (defined by the beam direction and the parent momentum) and the decay plane (defined by the parent momentum
and either daughter) (Figure 2).
Now consider the daughter M with momentum ~pM . The
angle it makes with the parent momentum ~pX is defined tobe θ. Projecting out the component of p~M parallel to ~pX andlooking at the angle between the residual vector and the production plane we define an angle φ. Thus, φ describes azimuthal rotations of the vector p~M in the x − y plane with p~X

taken to be the z-axis. From the figure it is clear that, equivalently φ can be defined as the angle between the production
plane and the decay plane. More explicitly, we define the two
vectors,p~prod = p~A × ~pX(7)p~decay = p~X × p~M(8)cos φ = p̂prod × p̂decay

(9)

and,

Then,

Here p̂ denotes the normalized vectors.
In the limit of the narrow width approximation, the amplitude can be split into Mprod and Mdecay .
Mprod = hX, Y |Tprod |A, Bi(10)

Mdecay (φ) = hM, N, φ|Tdecay |Xi(11)

where we have explicitly shown the φ dependence of the thefinal state and decay amplitude. We also have,
Mdecay (φ) = hM, N (φ = 0)|e+iJz φ Tdecay |Xi(12)

where Jz generates rotations about the p~X direction. We can
now think of the rotation operator as acting on the interaction
T -matrix plus ket, rather than on the bra. Assuming, Tdecay
is rotationally invariant, we only need to consider rotations of
the particle X about its own momentum axis. In this case,Jz = J~ · p̂ = (~s + ~r × ~p) · p̂ = ~s · p̂ = h(13)Thus, rotations about the momentum axis of a given helicity
state, h for X only produce a phase e+ihφ . So,
Mdecay (φ) = e+ihφ Mdecay (φ = 0)

(14)

Thus, allowing for production over all possible helicity statesof X we must sum coherently over all possible amplitudes,
and so, the differential cross section takes the formXdσ
Mprod e+ihφ Mdecay (φ = 0)
∝
dφ
h

2

(15)

3
Here, h runs from −s to +s where X has spin s. From, this
it is clear that if we look at the differential distribution dσ
dφ ,interference between various helicity states is responsible fora non-trivial φ dependence.
dσ= A0 + A1 cos (φ) + A2 cos (2φ) + .... + A2s cos (2sφ)dφ(16)
Note the absence of sin (nφ) modes, which would be present
in the case of CP violating processes.
The Standard Model has no particles with spin greater than
1 and so the largest mode from the Standard Model would
only be cos (2φ), corresponding to X being a gauge boson.
We can now see the unique signature that the KK graviton
will produce, namely a cos (4φ) mode.
Also, we note that this result is valid in any reference frame
but the size of the coefficients Ai will be different in different
reference frames. To maximize this unique signature for the
KK graviton, we need to choose a reference frame in which
A4
A0 has a large value.

large. It was found that in the center of mass frame of the partonic processes, S4 was larger than in the lab frame. However,transforming from the lab-frame to the center of mass frame
would have an error dependent on the error of the jet reconstruction. To avoid this error and still make an improvementin the signal, we studied S4 in the zero rapidity frame of thegraviton, i.e. the frame where the graviton is purely transverseto the beam axis (Figure 3). The reason for this is the boost
factor can be calculated from just the graviton momentum inthe lab frame which is well reconstructed from the leptons.

IV. SIGNAL AND BACKGROUND

B. Cuts

We assume that the mass of the graviton will be well measured using resonant graviton production through the process
pp → G → l+ l− [8, 9].
The process we are considering is pp → G + jet followed by
G → l+ l− where l are muons or electrons. The dominant parton level subprocess comes from gg → Gg with subdominantq(q̄) g → G q(q̄) and the crossed channel q q̄ → G g. Here G
represents the graviton, g represents gluons and q represents
the various quarks.
The Standard Model background comes from the subdominant channels with G replaced by an off-shell Z, γ. This is
the exact analog of Drell-Yan background in resonant graviton
production. Cutting on the invariant mass of the lepton pair ina mass window around the graviton mass gets rid of most of
the background. The Standard Model background consists ofspin-1 states and can not give any contribution to A4 . At mostit can affect the value of A0 and dilute the value of A4 /A0 .

V.

CALCULATING THE DIFFERENTIALCROSS-SECTION
A.

Zero Rapidity Frame

The dilepton + jet events that we are looking for are fullyreconstructible at the LHC. The key reason for this is that wehave a signature with no missing energy-momentum which inturn is a direct consequence of the absence of KK parity. The
graviton 4-momenta should have minor errors compared to thejet reconstruction since it is reconstructed from the di-lepton
4-momenta. As previously mentioned the size of the non-zerocoefficients Ai are frame dependent and so we must choose aframe in which the normalized coefficient S4 ≡ |A4 /A0 | isFIG. 3: Boost from center of mass or laboratory frame to the Zero
Rapidity frame

The first set of cuts used included a pseudo-rapidity (|η| <2.5) cut and pT > 20 GeV cut for the jet. The second set ofcuts was a mass-window cut on the invariant mass distributionof the lepton pair. This gets rid of a large portion of the Standard Model background. The size of the window was determined by detector resolution at ATLAS [22, 23] for an e+ e−pair. The third set of cuts involved rapidity cuts (|η| < 2.6)
on each of the leptons with a requirement that pT > 10 GeV
for either one of the leptons
q and pT > 20 GeV for the other.

An isolation cut, ∆r ≡ (∆η)2 + ∆φ2 > 0.7, was imposed
between the lepton and the jet. However, the third set of cuts
affects the angular distribution of the leptons and can create
false cosine modes in the differential distribution.
To solve this problem one imposes ‘rotationally invariant
cuts’, first introduced in [15]. Thus, it is not sufficient for theobserved lepton to simply pass these cuts, the leptons are rotated around the graviton momentum axis in small increments
and at each step it is checked that the lepton passes the cuts.
The added complication is that the rotations must be madein the zero-rapidity frame to preserve rotational invariance inthat frame (Figure 4). So, the procedure is as follows:
1. First, reconstruct the event completely using the dilepton and jet signals.
2. Calculate the boost factor to take us from the lab frameto the zero-rapidity frame of the graviton.
3. Boost all momenta to the zero-rapidity frame. Rotate
the leptons about the graviton momentum direction bya small angle, say 1◦ .
4. Reboost the new lepton and jet momenta to the labframe. Check if they pass the cuts, if they don’t throwout the event.

4
Dilepton + Jet signal
14dΣdΦ Hfb rad-1 L

13

12

11

10

9

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Φ Hdefined in the Zero-Rapidity FrameL

FIG. 4: The leptons are rotated about the graviton momentum axis
in the zero rapidity frame. The dilepton + jet momenta must be reboosted to the lab frame at each step to make sure that they pass thecuts.

FIG. 5: Differential distribution ( dσ) for m1 = 1 TeV and c = 0.05.
dφ
A strong cos (2φ) mode can be seen but there is also a cos (4φ) component. The theoretical curve (produced from simulations) is shownin green. The red dots indicate the binned values, with error bars
corresponding to Gaussian errors for a luminosity of 500 fb −1

5. If they do pass the cuts go back to step 3.
6. Repeat this procedure until we have made a full 360◦
rotation of the lepton momenta about the graviton momentum axis in the zero rapidity frame.
This procedure ensures that the cuts do not affect the azimuthal angular distribution in the zero-rapidity frame.

C. Simulations

where i runs over 0,1,2 ... ,2n−1. The integration accounts
for the binning process and the 2n coefficients A0 , ..., An−1 ,B1 ....,Bn correspond to the strengths of the various cosine
and sine modes that can be resolved from each other.
Thus, we have a simple linear relationship between the 2ndσ(xi ) and the 2n binned-Fourier coeffibinned values of dφcients (yj ) of the form xi = pij yj . Here, pij are either of the
Z 2πi
Z 2πi
2n
2n
form
cos (jφ)dφ orsin (jφ)dφ.
2π(i−1)2n

We used HELAS [24] with spin-2 particles [25] to calculate the helicity amplitudes for the graviton scattering process.
LHApdf [26] was used to fold in the parton distribution functions for the protons. We used the pdf set CTEQ6L [27]. An
adaptive Monte-Carlo package, BASES [28], was used to perform the integration over phase space and produce the differential cross-section dσdφ .

Now, we can simply invert this matrix for a given valueof n to recover the amplitudes of the various harmonics. Fordσ
the dφdistribution for the graviton we expect to see only thecoefficients A0 , ..., A4 to be non-zero. Also, since the beams
are identical, we expect to see only the even cosine modes.
The odd cosine modes drop out since they flip sign when the
beams are switched (φ → π − φ).
VII.

VI. DETERMINING THE COEFFICIENTS OF THE
VARIOUS COSINE MODESdσ
with 2n bins (ForOnce we have the binned distribution dφ
the purposes of calculation in this paper we used 50 bins), we
try to fit coefficients of the formxi ≡1
Binsize

=

1
2π/2n

Z 2πi
2n

dσ
dφ
dφ

n−1
X

Aj cos (jφ)

2π(i−1)
2n

Z 2πi
2n

2π(i−1)
2n

+

n
X
j=1

j=0



Bj sin (jφ) dφ(17)2π(i−1)2n

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Simulations were done for the process pp → e+ e− j at 7
TeV beam energy using a dilepton invariant mass window cutdσaround the graviton mass. Figure 5 shows the dφ
distribution for a 1 TeV graviton with c = 0.05. Figure 6 shows thenormalized fitted coefficients. The normalized cosine coefficients (Si ) are shown in the first 25 bins, with the zero mode
suppressed. The next 25 bins show the sine modes. The sizeof the S4 coefficient is 3.14%. Note the absence of odd cosine
modes, this arises from the fact that we are using identicalbeams.
To look at the dependence of the signal on graviton mass,simulations were performed for c = 0.1 and m1 = 750 GeV,
1 TeV, 1.5 TeV and 2 TeV. The results are summarized in Table I. The total cross-section decreases rapidly with graviton
mass as expected. The background is negligible and, as we5Normalized Coefficient HSiL %Dilepton + Jet signal

VIII. ERROR ANALYSIS

20

As we have seen, the effect of background is small anddoes not contribute to A4 . Its only effect is to dilute the normalized coefficient S4 . Thus, the experimental error will be
determined by√ event statistics. We assumed Gaussian errors
Njx) in the jth bin assuming Nj = Lσ Pj(∆xj = xj

15

Nj

10

5

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

xj

events in each bin for integrated luminosities L of 10, 100 and
500 fb−1 . Since, the coefficients Ai are determined from thebinned values xj through a simple linear relationship (via the−1matrix qij = pij). It is then straightforward to work out theerrors in the normalized coefficients (∆Si ).

CosineSine Mode

FIG. 6: Fitted cosine coefficients of the binned differential crosssection shown in Figure 5 corresponding to 50 bins. The first 25
modes label the normalized cosine modes, the next 25 show the sinemodes. The large 0-mode which would be 100% is not shown). See
text for how the error bars in this plot are calculated using error bars
from the binned differential cross-section.
m1 (TeV) ∆m (GeV) σtotal (fb) σbgd (fb)
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0

24.4
30.7
42.8
55.0

871.7
229.8
28.7
5.52

0.39
0.15
0.03
0.01

S2

S4

20.00% 3.50%
20.48% 3.16%
20.70% 1.52%
20.08% 0.80%

TABLE I: Signal strength S4 ≡ |A4 /A0 | as a function of the mass ofthe graviton. c = 0.1 for all entries. S2 is shown for comparison. The
mass window (based on the ATLAS detector resolution for e+ e−
invariant mass [22, 23]) cuts out most of the background.

will see in the next paragraph, has little effect even if the coupling c is reduced. The main concern is therefore the decreasein S4 and the low cross-section at large values of m1 .
The results for a 1 TeV graviton at different values of thecoupling c are shown in Table II. In the absence of cuts thegraviton cross-section is expected to approximately scale likec2 . The Standard Model background level is 0.15 fb whichis ∼ 5% at c = 0.01. The value of S4 is expected to be diluted slightly by the background because of a corresponding
5% increase in A0 . As c is increased, the background as apercentage of the cross-section decreases and S4 is restored toits maximum strength.
c

σtotal (fb)

0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1

3.27
12.51
72.75
229.8

S2

S4

18.62% 3.05%
20.02% 3.15%
20.42% 3.14%
20.48% 3.16%

TABLE II: Signal strength S4 ≡ |A4 /A0 | as a function of the coupling c. All entries are for m1 = 1 TeV. S2 is shown for comparison.
The Standard Model background cross-section is 0.15 fb.

v
uX 
2
u
qij
Si
t
∆Si =
−
q0j ∆x2j
A
A
0
0
j

(18)

The first term in the paranthesis arises from the simple linear relationship between Ai and xj . The second term comesfrom the error associated with the normalization factor A0 .
4
The relative errors ( ∆S
S4 ) for various integrated luminosities atdifferent points in the parameter space of the model are given
in Table III. A value> 1 for the relative error indicates thatstatistics would be poor and give no reason to doubt S4 being
consistent with 0. A value of 0.20 or less indicates at leasta 5σ effect indicating high likelihood of confirmation of thespin-2 nature of the KK graviton.
m1 (TeV)
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0

c

10 fb−1 100 fb−1 500 fb−1

0.1 0.43
0.01 8.03
0.02 3.97
0.05 1.65
0.1 0.93
0.1 5.42
0.1 23.52

0.14
2.54
1.26
0.52
0.29
1.71
7.44

0.06
1.14
0.56
0.23
0.13
0.77
3.32

TABLE III: Statistical Error ∆S4 /S4 for different integrated luminosities for the process pp → e+ e− j. ∆S4 /S4 < 0.5(0.71) corresponds to a 2σ confirmation of the graviton spin, and ∆S4 /S4 <0.2(0.28) corresponds to a 5σ confirmation. The values in brackets denote the 2σ and 5σ confidence levels if one includes µ+ µ− jproduction channels as well.

Alternatively, if one requires only a 95% confidence level(2σ) effect then a value of 0.5 or less for ∆S4 /S4 should
suffice. If we additionally assume information from µ+ µ− jstatistics in addition to the e+ e− j channel (assuming that detector resolution for the invariant mass is the same for both
lepton species), then we can see a factor 2 improvementin the√statistics. This would in turn result in a factor 2 drop in theerror. Thus, in this case the parameter space in Table III for
which ∆S4 /S4 < 0.71 would correspond to potential for a 2σ
confirmation of the graviton spin, and ∆S4 /S4 < 0.28 would
correspond to a 5σ confirmation.

6
IX. COMPARISON WITH RESONANT GRAVITONPRODUCTION METHOD AND DISTINCTION FROM
SPIN-0Osland et al. [11, 12] consider the resonant graviton production process pp → G → l+ l− to measure the spin of
the graviton using the quartic angular dependence of the polar
angle of the lepton. This results in a center-edge asymmetrydσ(ACE ) in the differential distribution d cos
θ . Their results indicate (2σ) identification of the graviton spin for c = 0.01 and10−1 fb of luminosity for masses upto 1.1 TeV. For c = 0.1
they claim identification upto masses of 2.4 TeV.
The azimuthal angular dependence method that we considered, has inherently lower statistics compared to resonant
graviton production because of the extra recoiling jet. Our
method suffers from lower statistics, but given higher luminosities, it can still provide an independent confirmation of
the KK graviton spin for a large region of the expected parameter space of the KK graviton.
The center-edge asymmetry method can distinguish a spin1 particle (Z ′ ) from a KK graviton more readily than it candistinguish it from a spin-0 particle.
Our method proves complementary, since the KK graviton
also produces a large cos(2φ) mode (S2 ∼ 20%) and can thus
easily be distinguished from a scalar which would not produce
any non-zero modes. The results for ∆S2 /S2 are shown in
Table IV.
m1 (TeV)c

10 fb−1 100 fb−1 500 fb−1

0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0

0.1
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1

0.07
1.30
0.62
0.25
0.14
0.39
0.93

0.02
0.41
0.19
0.08
0.04
0.12
0.29

0.01
0.18
0.09
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.13

TABLE IV: Statistical Error ∆S2 /S2 for different integrated luminosities for the process pp → e+ e− j. ∆S2 /S2 < 0.5(0.71) corresponds to a 2σ distinction from a spin-0 particle, and ∆S2 /S2 <0.2(0.28) corresponds to a 5σ distinction. The values in brackets
denote the 2σ and 5σ confidence levels if one includes µ+ µ− j production channels as well.

the off-shell γ and Z, being spin-1, contribute to the A2 coefficient.
From the table, we can see that even with 10 fb−1 of luminosity, the spin-0 hypothesis can be ruled out for a large portion of the allowed parameter space. Thus, our method provescomplementary to the approach by Osland et al. by rulingout spin-0 more easily than spin-1. In both methods the distinction from spin-0 can be made from comparable integrated
luminosities.

X. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We studied the process pp → G jet → l+ l− jet and lookeddσ
at the differential distribution dφ. The distribution was foundto have a cos (4φ) mode, characteristic of a spin-2 particle,
with strength parametrized by S4 . The parameter S4 was ∼3% for values of m1 below a TeV. As we go to higher graviton
masses the signal drops off, but what is of more concern is thedrop in cross-section with large m1 or low values of c. Boththese scenarios are unlikely to occur in conjunction becauseof naturalness constraints (See Figure 1).
In conclusion, observing higher cosine modes (> 2) inthe differential distribution would be a clear signal of beyond
Standard Model physics. Observing the cos(4φ) mode at the
LHC would be a strong indicator of gravitational physics at
the TeV scale. If the coupling is strong enough ∼ 0.05 or
greater and the mass is sufficiently low ∼ 1 TeV or less, we
expect to have a clear signal of the spin-2 nature of the KK
graviton at the LHC.
For regions of parameter space with larger masses or lower
couplings, the azimuthal angular dependence of the crosssection is still useful in ruling out the spin-0 hypothesis andthis can be done for fairly low luminosities ∼ 10 fb−1 as well.
This method provides an important complementary and independent approach to measuring the spin of the KK graviton,
as compared to the method of using polar angular dependence
from resonant KK-graviton production.

Acknowledgments

Assuming, as before inclusion of µ+ µ− statistics∆S2 /S2 < 0.71 corresponds to a 2σ distinction from a spin-0
particle, and ∆S2 /S2 < 0.28 corresponds to a 5σ distinction.
In regions of the parameter space of m1 , where the Standard
Model background is comparable to the cross-section of interest (Table I), the confidence levels are altered slightly because

The authors would like to express their thanks to William
Klemm, Kai Wang, Mihoko Nojiri and Matthew Buckley for
their help and feedback. This work was supported in part byWorld Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI
Initiative), MEXT, Japan, in part by the U.S. DOE under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098, and in part by the NSF under
grant PHY-04-57315.

[1] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 974 (1976).
[2] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1277 (1979).
[3] L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619 (1979).
[4] G. ’t Hooft, C. Itzykson, A. Jaffe, H. Lehmann, P. K. Mitter,

I. M. Singer and R. Stora, New York, Usa: Plenum ( 1980) 438
P. ( Nato Advanced Study Institutes Series: Series B, Physics,
59)[5] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999)

7[arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].
[6] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999)[arXiv:hep-th/9906064].
[7] C. Csaki and Y. Shirman, [arXiv:hep-th/9908186]; J. Lykken
and L. Randall, [arXiv:hep-th/9908076]; I. Oda, [arXiv:hepth/9908104,hep-th/9909048]; T. Li, [arXiv:hep-th/9911234];
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali and N. Kaloper,[arXiv:hep-th/9907209]; I.I. Kogan et al, [arXiv:hepph/9912552][8] H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.
84, 2080 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9909255].
[9] H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 63,
075004 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006041].
[10] B. C. Allanach, K. Odagiri, M. A. Parker and B. R. Webber,
JHEP 0009, 019 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006114].
[11] P. Osland, A. A. Pankov, N. Paver and A. V. Tsytrinov, Phys.
Rev. D 78, 035008 (2008) [arXiv:0805.2734 [hep-ph]].
[12] P. Osland, A. A. Pankov, A. V. Tsytrinov and N. Paver,arXiv:0902.1593 [hep-ph].
[13] H. Murayama, International Linear Collider Workshop(LCWS2000), Oct. 24-28, 2000, Fermilab[14] M. R. Buckley, H. Murayama, W. Klemm and V. Rentala, Phys.
Rev. D 78, 014028 (2008) [arXiv:0711.0364 [hep-ph]].
[15] M. R. Buckley, B. Heinemann, W. Klemm and H. Murayama,
Phys. Rev. D 77, 113017 (2008) [arXiv:0804.0476 [hep-ph]].

[16] G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B 544, 3(1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9811291].
[17] T. Han, J. D. Lykken and R. J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 59, 105006(1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9811350].
[18] K. Agashe, H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D
76, 036006 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0701186].
[19] I. Belotelov et al., CERN-CMS-NOTE-2006-104[20] P. Traczyk and G. Wrochna, arXiv:hep-ex/0207061.
[21] V. M. Abazov et al. [D0 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95,
091801 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ex/0505018].
[22] “ATLAS: Detector and physics performance. Technical design
report. Volume 1,”[23] “ATLAS detector and physics performance. Technical design
report. Vol. 2,”[24] H. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK-91-11[25] K. Hagiwara, J. Kanzaki, Q. Li and K. Mawatari, Eur. Phys. J.
C 56, 435 (2008) [arXiv:0805.2554 [hep-ph]].
[26] M. R. Whalley, D. Bourilkov and R. C. Group, arXiv:hepph/0508110.
[27] J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky and W. K. Tung, JHEP 0207, 012 (2002) [arXiv:hepph/0201195].
[28] S. Kawabata, Comput. Phys. Commun. 41, 127 (1986).