AG-2025.06-1325·hep-ph
Quirk SUEP
Authors
- David Curtin
- Sascha Dreyer
- Max Fusté Costa
- Sarah Heim
- Gregor Kasieczka
- Louis Moureaux
- David Rousso
- David Shih
- Manuel Sommerhalder
Abstract
We propose searching for physics beyond the Standard Model in the low-transverse-momentum tracks accompanying hard-scatter events at the LHC. TeV-scale resonances connected to a dark QCD sector could be enhanced by selecting events with anomalies in the track distributions. As a benchmark, a quirk model with microscopic string lengths is developed, including a setup for event simulation. For this model, strategies are presented to enhance the sensitivity compared to inclusive resonance searches: a simple cut-based selection, a supervised search, and a model-agnostic weakly supervised anomaly search with the CATHODE method. Expected discovery potentials and exclusion limits are shown for 140 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions at the LHC.
Submitted
12 June 202510 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2506.11192
Summary
A new search strategy for hidden dark-matter sectors at the LHC using unusual track patterns from particle collisions, tested on a "quirk" model where new particles are connected by tiny strings.
- Instead of looking for massive particles directly, this approach searches for the telltale 'signatures' they leave—anomalous patterns in low-energy tracks that accompany high-energy collisions.
- The quirk model describes exotic particles bound by microscopic strings, a testable version of physics beyond the Standard Model that conventional searches might miss.
- Three detection methods are compared: simple selection cuts, machine-learning classification, and an unsupervised anomaly detector (CATHODE) that requires no prior knowledge of what new physics looks like.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.