- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Can effective four-quark operators describe signals of a supersymmetric diquark model at the LHC?

Manuel Drees1 and Cong Zhang1,2,*

  • *Contact author: zhangcong.phy@gmail.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 015040 – Published 29 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/g51t-v8px

Abstract

The Standard Model effective field theory (SMEFT) is constrained by current LHC data. Supposedly, extensions of the Standard Model involving heavy particles can be constrained by matching onto the SMEFT. However, the reliability of these indirect constraints compared to those derived directly from the UV model remains an open question. In this paper, we investigate whether four-quark operators can accurately capture the effects of an R-parity-violating (RPV) supersymmetric model on the production of pairs of top quarks, for parameters that satisfy all known constraints and lead to measurable effects. We assume that the sbottom is the lightest supersymmetric particle and focus on its interaction with a light quark and a top quark; the sbottom thus acts like a specific diquark. The four-quark operators arise by integrating out the sbottom at tree level. We analyze measurements of inclusive top-pair production by the CMS and ATLAS Collaborations. We find that the four-quark operators can accurately describe the RPV model’s effects only for very heavy sbottom squarks, where the effects are well below the sensitivity of LHC experiments for all values of the RPV coupling that satisfy unitarity constraints. Therefore present or near-future bounds on this RPV model cannot be derived from SMEFT analyses.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (66)

  1. M. Drees, R. Godbole, and P. Roy, Theory and Phenomenology of Sparticles: An Account of Four-Dimensional N=1 Supersymmetry in High Energy Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005), 10.1142/4001.
  2. H. Baer and X. Tata, Weak Scale Supersymmetry: From Superfields to Scattering Events (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2006).
  3. I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV, Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998).
  4. L. Randall and R. Sundrum, A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999).
  5. G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Weak decays beyond leading logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996).
  6. G. G. Ross, Grand Unified Theories (Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company, 1985), https://books.google.com/books?id=iRpOPgAACAAJ.
  7. S. Weinberg, Baryon and lepton nonconserving processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979).
  8. W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986).
  9. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  10. I. Brivio and M. Trott, The standard model as an effective field theory, Phys. Rep. 793, 1 (2019).
  11. A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, K. Nördstrom et al., Results from TopFitter, Proc. Sci., CKM2016 (2016) 127 [arXiv:1612.02294].
  12. A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell et al., Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC run II era, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2016) 015.
  13. N. P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, A Monte Carlo global analysis of the standard model effective field theory: The top quark sector, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2019) 100.
  14. I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou, S. Westhoff, and C. Zhang, O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2020) 131.
  15. J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, Top, Higgs, diboson and electroweak fit to the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 279.
  16. S. Bißmann, C. Grunwald, G. Hiller, and K. Kröninger, Top and beauty synergies in SMEFT-fits at present and future colliders, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 010.
  17. A. Biekötter, T. Corbett, and T. Plehn, The gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC run II, SciPost Phys. 6, 064 (2019).
  18. J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz, and T. You, Updated global SMEFT fit to Higgs, Diboson and electroweak data, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2018) 146.
  19. E. da Silva Almeida, A. Alves, N. Rosa Agostinho, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Electroweak sector under scrutiny: A combined analysis of LHC and electroweak precision data, Phys. Rev. D 99, 033001 (2019).
  20. J. Baglio, S. Dawson, S. Homiller, S. D. Lane, and I. M. Lewis, Validity of standard model EFT studies of VH and VV production at NLO, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115004 (2020).
  21. S. Alioli, W. Dekens, M. Girard, and E. Mereghetti, NLO QCD corrections to SM-EFT dilepton and electroweak Higgs boson production, matched to parton shower in POWHEG, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 205.
  22. J. J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni, and J. Rojo, SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and diboson data from the LHC Run II, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 560 (2021).
  23. A. Greljo and D. Marzocca, High-pT dilepton tails and flavor physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 548 (2017).
  24. R. Gomez-Ambrosio, Studies of dimension-Six EFT effects in vector boson scattering, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 389 (2019).
  25. A. Dedes, P. Kozów, and M. Szleper, Standard model EFT effects in vector-boson scattering at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 104, 013003 (2021).
  26. J. Aebischer, J. Kumar, P. Stangl, and D. M. Straub, A global likelihood for precision constraints and flavour anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 509 (2019).
  27. A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, and Z. Tabrizi, Reactor neutrino oscillations as constraints on effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2019) 173.
  28. A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso, and K. Mimouni, Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion operators in the SMEFT, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2017) 123.
  29. S. Bruggisser, R. Schäfer, D. van Dyk, and S. Westhoff, The flavor of UV physics, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 257.
  30. G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: An effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B645, 155 (2002).
  31. SMEFiT Collaboration, Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 089.
  32. A. Lessa and V. Sanz, Going beyond top EFT, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2024) 107.
  33. A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and T. You, Comparing EFT and exact one-loop analyses of non-degenerate stops, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2015) 028.
  34. Y. Bai, P. J. Fox, and R. Harnik, The tevatron at the frontier of dark matter direct detection, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2010) 048.
  35. M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, Z. A. C. Krusberg, and T. M. P. Tait, Maverick dark matter at colliders, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2010) 037.
  36. P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and Y. Tsai, Missing energy signatures of dark matter at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 85, 056011 (2012).
  37. J. Goodman and W. Shepherd, LHC bounds on UV-complete models of dark matter, arXiv:1111.2359.
  38. S. Belwal, M. Drees, and J. S. Kim, Analysis of the bounds on dark matter models from monojet searches at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 98, 055017 (2018).
  39. M. Drees and Z. Zhang, LHC constraints on a mediator coupled to heavy quarks, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134832 (2019).
  40. R. Barbier et al., R-parity violating supersymmetry, Phys. Rep. 420, 1 (2005).
  41. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for R-parity-violating supersymmetry in a final state containing leptons and many jets with the ATLAS experiment using s=13  TeV proton–proton collision data, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1023 (2021).
  42. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for phenomena beyond the standard model in events with large b-jet multiplicity using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 11 (2021).
  43. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with same-sign leptons and jets using 139  fb−1 of data collected with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2020) 046.
  44. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for R-parity-violating supersymmetric particles in multi-jet final states produced in p−p collisions at s=13  TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 785, 136 (2018).
  45. CMS Collaboration, Search for top squarks in final states with two top quarks and several light-flavor jets in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 104, 032006 (2021).
  46. CMS Collaboration, Search for resonant production of second-generation sleptons with same-sign dimuon events in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 305 (2019).
  47. CMS Collaboration, Search for R-parity violating supersymmetry in pp collisions at s=13  TeV using b jets in a final state with a single lepton, many jets, and high sum of large-radius jet masses, Phys. Lett. B 783, 114 (2018).
  48. CMS Collaboration, Search for R-parity violating supersymmetry with displaced vertices in proton-proton collisions at s=8  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 95, 012009 (2017).
  49. CMS Collaboration, Searches for R-parity-violating supersymmetry in pp collisions at s=8  TeV in final states with 0-4 leptons, Phys. Rev. D 94, 112009 (2016).
  50. CMS Collaboration, Search for top squarks in R-parity-violating supersymmetry using three or more leptons and B-tagged jets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 221801 (2013).
  51. ATLAS Collaboration, Summary of the searches for squarks and gluinos using s=8  TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2015) 054.
  52. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for squarks and gluinos in events with isolated leptons, jets and missing transverse momentum at s=8  TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 116.
  53. B. C. Allanach and S. A. Renner, Large Hadron Collider constraints on a light baryon number violating sbottom coupling to a top and a light quark, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2707 (2014).
  54. L. Calibbi, G. Ferretti, D. Milstead, C. Petersson, and R. Pöttgen, Baryon number violation in supersymmetry: n−n¯ oscillations as a probe beyond the LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 144; 10 (2017) 195(E).
  55. CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of heavy particles decaying to a top quark and a gluon in the lepton+jets final state in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 342 (2025).
  56. CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of excited top quarks in the lepton+jets final state, Phys. Lett. B 778, 349 (2018).
  57. CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of excited top quarks in the lepton+jets final state, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2014) 125.
  58. CMS Collaboration, Measurement of differential tt¯ production cross sections in the full kinematic range using lepton+jets events from proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 104, 092013 (2021).
  59. ATLAS Collaboration, Evidence for the charge asymmetry in pp→tt¯ production at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2023) 077.
  60. C. Degrande, G. Durieux, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 096024 (2021).
  61. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2014) 079.
  62. R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani, H. S. Shao, and M. Zaro, The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2018) 185.
  63. S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, and J. Mazzitelli, Top-quark pair production at the LHC: Fully differential QCD predictions at NNLO, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2019) 100.
  64. B. C. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H. K. Dreiner, Two loop supersymmetric renormalization group equations including R-parity violation and aspects of unification, Phys. Rev. D 60, 056002 (1999).
  65. M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos, and M. Zaro, Top-quark charge asymmetry at the LHC and Tevatron through NNLO QCD and NLO EW, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014003 (2018).
  66. M. Czakon, Z. Kassabov, A. Mitov, R. Poncelet, and A. Popescu, HighTEA: High energy theory event analyser, J. Phys. G 51, 115002 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 015040– Published 29 January, 2026
  • Received 7 August 2025
  • Accepted 23 December 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation