

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
\input{intro.tex}
\section{Partially composite light quark partners}\label{sec:model}
\input{model.tex}
\section{Searching for light quark partners at the LHC Run II}\label{sec:results}
\input{results.tex}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
\input{conclusions.tex}

\bigskip
\emph{Acknowledgements:} \\
The authors would like to thank the Weizmann theory group for the hospitality during the initial stages of this project.
SL acknowledges the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics in Florence, Italy, where part of this work was completed.
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MEST) (No. 2012R1A2A2A01045722),
and Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (No. 2013R1A1A1062597). This work is also supported by HTCaaS group of KISTI (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information). SL and TF are also supported by Korea-ERC researcher visiting program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) (No. 2014K2a7B044399 and No. 2014K2a7A1044408).
JH is supported by the IBS Center for Theoretical Physics of the Universe.

\bigskip




\subsection{Data Generation and Pre-Selection Cuts}
\label{sec:Basic}



\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Signal_Diagram.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The pair production channel of the $U_h$ up quark partners. Note that for $M_{U_h} \sim 1 $ TeV, the Higgs bosons are boosted, resulting in a 2 ``fat jet'' - 2 light jet event topology. 
 }
\label{fig:channels}
\end{figure}




We generate all events using leading order \verb|MadGraph 5| \cite{Maltoni:2002qb} at a $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV $pp$ collider, assuming a  CTEQ6L \cite{Nadolsky:2008zw} set of parton distribution functions. At the hard process level, we require that all final state partons pass cuts of $p_T > 15$~GeV,~$| \eta |< 5$. Next, we shower the events with \verb|PYTHIA 6| \cite{Sjostrand:2006za} using the MLM-matching scheme \cite{Artoisenet:2010cn} with \verb|xqcut|~$> 20$~GeV and \verb|qcut|~$> 30$~GeV. We match the multi-jet events up to four jets, while the $t\bar{t}$ and $b\bar{b}$ samples are matched up to two extra jets. We cluster all showered events with the \verb|fastjet| \cite{Cacciari:2011ma} implementation of the anti-$k_T$ algorithm \cite{Cacciari:2008gp}.


In order to perform the analysis with a manageable number of events in the background channels ($i.e. \, \sim 10^6 $), we impose a generator level cut on $H_T$, a scalar sum of all final state parton transverse momenta. The motivation for the generator level $H_T$ cut comes from the fact that pair produced light quark partner events contain two objects of mass $\sim 1 $ TeV, implying that the signal will be characterized by $H_T$ of roughly 2 TeV. In order to avoid possible biases on the background data by increasing the $H_T$ cut too much, we hence require $ H_T > 1.6$ TeV on all generated backgrounds. 

We summarize the cross sections for the signal parameter point of $M_{Uh} = 1 {\rm\ TeV}$ and the most dominant backgrounds in Table~\ref{tab:HT1600}. For completeness, we show the $U_h$ pair production cross section as function of $M_{Uh}$ in Fig.\ref{fig:Partonic2}, where we assume ${\rm Br}(U_h \rightarrow hu) = 1$ and the branching ratio of Higgs to a pair of $b$ quarks is included. Notice that  the total production cross section for partner masses above 1.3 TeV goes into  the sub-femtobarn region which will be challenging to probe at the Run II of the LHC with $35 {\rm\ fb}^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.
A closer look at the numerical values of the signal and background cross sections suggests that a total improvement in $S/B$ of  $\mathcal{O} (10^5)$ is desired to reach $S/B \sim 1$. For that purpose, we will introduce a  new cut scheme in Section~\ref{sec:cutflow}, which exploits the characteristic topology and kinematic features of the signal events. 




\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Xsection_MUh.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{SigmaRatio_HTcut3_New.pdf}
\caption{Left: The cross section of the signal events as a function of $M_{U_h}$ with the basic pre-selection cuts, $p_T > 15$~GeV, $|\eta| < 5$ and  $H_T > 0$ GeV. \newline Right: Signal and background cross sections as a function of $H_T$ cut. The plot is normalized to NLO as in Table \ref{tab:HT1600}.}
\label{fig:Partonic2}
\end{figure}	



\vspace{1cm}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
	$\sigma^{\rm LO}_{s}$ [pb]   &  $\sigma^{\rm NLO}_{t\bar{t}}$ [pb]	&   $\sigma^{\rm NLO}_{b\bar{b}}$ [pb]  & $\sigma^{\rm NLO}_{\mathrm{multi-jet}}$ [pb]	\\ \hline
  
     $6.8 \times 10^{-3}$		& 	$4.6 \times 10^{-1}$		&  	8.4				&  	282.2			 \\  \hline		
\end{tabular}\par
\end{center}
\caption{Cross sections for the $U_h \bar{U}_h$ pair production (assuming $M_{U_h} = 1 {\rm\ TeV}$) and backgrounds (assuming $H_T > 1600$ GeV), at 14 TeV LHC. We normalize the `` $t \bar{t}$ +0,1,2 jets " to the NNLO + NNLL result of Ref.  \cite{Czakon:2013goa}, while for the rest of the backgrounds we use a conservative estimate for the NLO K-factor of 2.0.}
\label{tab:HT1600}  
\end{table}

\subsection{Tagging of Boosted Higgs Jets}
\label{sec:TOM}
The decay products of a boosted Higgs are collimated into a cone of  $R \sim 2m_h / p_T$, where $p_T$ is the transverse momentum of the Higgs boson. Since we consider light quark partners of mass $\sim 1 {\rm\ TeV}$, the resulting Higgs bosons will have $p_T \sim 500$ GeV, and hence will decay into a cone of roughly $R \sim 0.5$. Clustering the decay products of a boosted Higgs into a large cone ($e.g.  \, R=0.7$), will typically result in a single ``fat jet'' of mass $\sim m_h$. However, traditional jet observables such as jet  $p_T$ and $m$ are inadequate to efficiently  distinguish between Higgs, top and QCD ``fat jets'', and a further consideration of Higgs ``jet substructure,'' is needed to reduce the enormous QCD backgrounds. 
Many methods designed to tag the characteristic ``two prong'' substructure of the hadronically decaying Higgs exist in the literature \cite{Butterworth:2008iy, Almeida:2011aa, Backovic:2012jj, Schlaffer:2014osa, Soper:2011cr}. Here we will use the \verb| TemplateTagger v.1.0 |\cite{Backovic:2012jk} implementation of the Template Overlap Method \cite{Almeida:2010pa, Almeida:2011aa,  Backovic:2012jj, Backovic:2013bga}. 

The Template Overlap algorithm for boosted jet tagging attempts to match a parton level model (template) for a boosted jet decay  ($i.e.$ the $b \bar{b}$ system with the constraint of 
$( p_1 + p_2 )^2= m_h^2  $ ) to the energy distribution of a boosted jet. The procedure is performed by minimizing the difference between the calorimeter energy depositions within small angular regions around the template patrons and the parton energies, over the allowed phase space of the template  four-momenta. Refs. \cite{Almeida:2010pa, Almeida:2011aa,  Backovic:2012jj} studied the use of TOM to tag boosted Higgs decays in the context of the Standard Model. To our knowledge, our current effort is the first attempt to utilize TOM for boosted Higgs studies in a BSM scenario. 

An attractive feature of TOM is a relatively weak susceptibility to pileup contamination \cite{Backovic:2013bga}. The overlap analysis is affected only by the calorimeter depositions which land in angular regions of typically $ r \sim 0.1$ from the template patrons. The rest of the jet energy distribution does not contribute to the estimates of the likelihood that a particular template matches the jet energy distribution. As pileup contamination scales as $R^2$, where $R$ is the jet cone, the effects of pileup on the TOM analysis will be of order few percent, compared to (say) the $p_T$ of a typical fat jet of $R \sim 1.0.$  

Ideally, in order to maximize the information extracted from jet substructure, one would perform TOM analysis for all heavy standard model decays on each candidate fat jet. Such analysis would result in a vector of overlap scores 
\begin{equation}
\overrightarrow{Ov} = (Ov_2^i; Ov_3^i)\,,
\end{equation}

where $i = W, Z, h, t$. Various correlations within the multi-dimensional overlap space could then be exploited to fully maximize the ability of TOM to tag the desired heavy particles. 
The full multi-dimensional TOM analysis is beyond the scope of our current effort and we find it sufficient to use only  a combination of two body Higgs as well as three body top template analysis (in order to further suppress the large $t\bar{t}$ background) \footnote{Note that the addition of a three body (NLO) Higgs template analysis could further suppress the multi-jet and $b\bar{b}$ backgrounds, but would not significantly help in suppression of the $t\bar{t}$ background \cite{Backovic:2012jj}.}. As the three prong decay of a boosted top is more complex of an object than the typical two prong decay of a boosted Higgs, it is possible for a top fat jet to pass the two-body Higgs template tagging procedure. On the other hand, it is difficult for a Higgs to appear as a fake top \cite{Backovic:2012jj}. We hence require all Higgs candidate jets to pass the requirement 
\begin{equation}
	Ov_2^h > 0.4, \,\,\,\,\, Ov_3^t <0.4 \,.
\end{equation}
As we will show in the following sections, the combined requirement on $Ov_2^h$ and $Ov_3^t$ is very efficient at removing the $t\bar{t}$ fake rate.

For the purpose of this analysis, we generate 17 sets of both two body Higgs and three body top templates at fixed $p_T$, starting from $p_T = 425 {\rm\ GeV}$ in steps of $50 {\rm\ GeV}$, while we use a template resolution parameter $\sigma = p_T /3$ and scale the template subcones according to the rule of Ref. \cite{Backovic:2012jj}.

\subsection{$b$-tagging}
\label{sec:b-tagging}

The signal final states we consider contain four $b$-jets from two Higgses, which can be extremely useful in disentangling the signal events from the background channels. However, requiring four $b$-tags in a boosted configuration comes at a severe cost of the signal efficiency as even in the optimistic scenario of a single $b$-tag efficiency of 75\%, $b$-tagging four jets alone would cut out about 70\% of the signal events. Instead, here we will consider two $b$-tags, and require that they are contained within the two Higgs candidate jets. 


A full analysis of $b$-tagging requires a detailed detector study which is beyond the scope of our work. Here we adopt a simplified, semi-realistic $b$-tagging procedure, whereby we assign to each $r=0.4$ jet a $b$-tag if there is a parton level $b$ or $c$ quark within $\Delta r=0.4$ from the jet axis. We then weight each event by the benchmark $b$-tagging efficiencies:
\begin{equation}
	\epsilon_b = 0.75, \,\,\,\, \epsilon_c = 0.18, \,\,\,\,\, \epsilon_j = 0.01\,, 
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{b, c, j}$ are the efficiencies that a $b$, $c$ or a light jet will be tagged as a $b$-jet. 
For a Higgs fat jet to be $b$-tagged, we then require that a $b$-tagged $r=0.4$ jet lands within $\Delta R=0.7$ from the fat jet axis. Furthermore, we take special care of the fact that more than one $b$-jet might land inside the fat jet and reweigh the $b$-tagging efficiencies according to the rule of Table \ref{tab:btag}.

\vspace{1cm}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
	$b$-tag scores of a fat jet	 &  Efficiency & values \\ \hline
 	 0 (jet: u,d,s,g)				& 	 	$\epsilon_j$				&  0.01	\\  \hline
	1 (1c)					& 	 	$\epsilon_c$					&  0.18	\\  \hline
	2 (2c)					& 	 	$2\, \epsilon_c (1-\epsilon_c)+ {\epsilon_c}^2$		&  0.33			\\  \hline
	3 (1b)					& 	 	$\epsilon_b$					&  0.75		\\  \hline
	4 (1b+1c)					& 	 	$\epsilon_b (1-\epsilon_c) + \epsilon_c (1-\epsilon_b)+\epsilon_b \epsilon_c$		& 	0.80			\\  \hline
	5 (1b+2c)					& 	 	$\epsilon_b (1-\epsilon_c)^2 + 2 (1-\epsilon_b) (1-\epsilon_c) \epsilon_c + \epsilon_b {\epsilon_c}^2$	& 0.60	\\  \hline
	6 (2b)					& 	 	$2 \epsilon_b (1-\epsilon_b)+ {\epsilon_b}^2$				&   0.94		\\  \hline
	7 (2b+1c)					& 	 	$1 - (1-\epsilon_c) (1-\epsilon_b)^2$				&   0.95		\\  \hline
	8  (2b+2c)					& 	 	$1 - (1-\epsilon_c)^2 (1-\epsilon_b)^2$				& 	0.96	\\  \hline
	9  (3b)					& 	 	$1 - (1-\epsilon_b)^3$						&  0.98	\\  \hline					 
\end{tabular}\par
\end{center}
\caption{Efficiency that a Higgs fat jet will be $b$-tagged assuming that it contains a specific number of light, $c$ or $b$ jets within $\Delta R = 0.7$ from the jet axis. $\epsilon_j$, $\epsilon_c$ and $\epsilon_b$ are $b$-tagging efficiencies for light, $c$ and $b$ jets respectively. We neglect the possibilities beyond three proper $b$-tagged jets within a fat jet as they occur at  too low of a rate to be significant. } \label{tab:btag} 
\end{table}
	

\subsection{Event Selection and Reconstruction of the $U_h$ Pair}\label{sec:cutflow}

We proceed to discuss in detail the cut scheme we propose for the all-hadronic searches for pair produced $U_h$ partners. For the convenience of the reader, we outline the event selection in Table \ref{tab:Cuts1},  while a detailed  description  and definition of the observables  can be found in the following text.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{9}{*}{Cut Scheme}	 &   \multirow{7}{*}{Basic Cuts}   	& Demand at least four fat jets ($R = 0.7$)  with  		 \\   
						&							& $p_T > 300$ GeV, $| \eta |< 2.5$ 		\\ \cline{3-3}
			           &      	& Declare the two highest $p_T$ fat jets   \\  
			           &		& satisfying $Ov_{2}^h > 0.4$ and $Ov_{3}^t < 0.4$\\ & &  to be Higgs candidate jets.		\\ 
			            &        &   At least 1$b$-tag on both Higgs candidate jets. \\ \cline{3-3}
			           &		& Select the two highest $p_T$ light jets ($r=0.4$) \\
			           &		&  with $p_T > 25 {\rm\ GeV}$ to be the $u$ quark candidates.    \\  \cline{2-3}
 				   &  \multirow{4}{*}{Complex Cuts}       &    $|\Delta_{h}  | < 0.1$ 		 \\  
	 		 	 &         &  $| \Delta_{U_h} | < 0.1$		 \\  
				   &        &    $m_{U_{h1,2}} > 800$ GeV			 \\  
				   	 \hline
		 				
 	\end{tabular}\par
	\end{center}	
\caption{Summary of the Event Selection Cut Scheme. } \label{tab:Cuts1} 
\end{table}




\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_signal_hard1_r01_R07_sigma033_ColorBlue.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_signal_hard2_r01_R07_sigma033_ColorBlue.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_ttbar_hard1_r01_R07_sigma033_ColorBlue.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{2D_ttbar_hard2_r01_R07_sigma033_ColorBlue.pdf}
\caption{Two dimensional distributions of peak template overlap scores for the two highest $p_T$ fat jets in the event. The top panels show the events from pair produced $U_h$, while the bottom shows the $t\bar{t}$ background. Here we omit showing $b\bar{b}$ and multi-jet backgrounds, as their overlap distributions are trivial and simply peak at $Ov_2^h \approx Ov_3^t\approx 0$.}
\label{fig:Overlaps2d}
\end{figure}	



We begin by requiring at least four anti-$k_T$, $R=0.7$ jets with 
\begin{equation}
	p_T^{R=0.7} > 300 {\rm\ GeV}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\, |y^{R=0.7}| < 2.5\,.
\end{equation}
The requirement on the presence of four fat jets pre-selects signal event candidates, as we expect two pairs of boosted Higgs-light jets to appear in the final state \footnote{Selecting 4 $R=0.7$ fat jets also simplifies the TOM jet substructure analysis. }. In order to determine which of the four jets are the Higgs candidates, we select the two highest $p_T$ fat jets which satisfy the TOM requirement of 
\begin{equation}
	Ov_2^h > 0.4, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, Ov_3^t < 0.4 \,, \label{eq:tom_reqs}
\end{equation}
of Section \ref{sec:TOM}. The requirement on peak template overlap is designed to select the two Higgs candidate jets in the event, while ensuring that the jets are not fake tops. If less than two fat jets pass the overlap requirement, the event is rejected.  


The overlap selections in Eq.~\eqref{eq:tom_reqs} deserve more attention. Figure \ref{fig:Overlaps2d} illustrates how utilizing multi-dimensional TOM analysis ($i.e. \, Ov_2^h$ and $Ov_3^t$) can help in reducing the background contamination of signal events. If we consider only $Ov_2^h$ (dashed line), a significant fraction of $t\bar{t}$ would pass any reasonable overlap cut. However, in a two dimensional distribution, it is clear that many of the $t\bar{t}$ events which obtain a high $Ov_2^h$ also obtain a high $Ov_3^t$ score. Contrary to $t\bar{t}$ events, the signal events almost never get tagged with a high $Ov_3^t$ score, as it is difficult for a proper Higgs fat jet to fake a top. Hence, an upper cut on $Ov_3^t$ (solid line) efficiently eliminates a significant fraction of $t\bar{t}$ events, at a minor cost of signal efficiency. Note that the peak at $Ov_2^h \approx Ov_3^h \approx 0$ in the signal distributions corresponds to events where the hardest/second hardest fat jet is likely a light jet.



\begin{figure}[b]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{mh_hard1_BeforeOv.pdf}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{mh_Higgs1_AfterOv.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{mh_hard2_BeforeOv.pdf}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{mh_Higgs2_AfterOv.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{The invariant mass of the two highest $p_T$ fat jets ($R=0.7$) (labeled $h_{1, 2}$) before (left panels) and after (right panels) the boosted Higgs selection criteria. Notice that TOM selection filters out well both the high mass and low mass background events.}
\label{fig:MassPlotsh}
\end{figure}	




Figure \ref{fig:MassPlotsh} illustrates the effects of $Ov$ cuts on the mass distribution of the two highest $p_T$ jets. Note that the intrinsic mass filtering property of TOM can be clearly seen in the results. The mass resolution of the Higgs fat jets improves upon the cut on the overlap, while the contributions from both high mass and low mass background regions are significantly diminished. 

In addition to jet substructure requirements for Higgs tagging, we require both Higgs candidate jets to contain at least one $b$-tagged $r=0.4$ jet within the fat jet, as prescribed in Section \ref{sec:b-tagging}.

In order to pick out the light jets, we re-cluster each event with $r=0.4$ (also necessary for $b$-tagging) and select the two highest $p_T$ jets which pass the requirement of
\begin{equation}
 	p^{r=0.4}_T > 25 {\rm\ GeV}, \,\,\,\,\, |y^{r=0.4}| < 2.5, \,\,\,\,\,\, \Delta R_{uh} > 1.1\,,
\end{equation}

where $\Delta R_{uh}$ stands for the plain distance in $\eta, \phi$ between the $r=0.4$ jet ($i.e.$ the up type quark) and each of the Higgs candidate fat jets. We declare these jets to be the $u$ quark candidates.

Since we expect two Higgs fat jets in the final state, a comparison between the masses of the two hardest fat jets which pass the overlap criteria provides a useful handle on the background channels. In order to exploit this feature, we construct a mass asymmetry
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{h} \equiv \frac{m_{h1} - m_{h2}}{m_{h1} + m_{h2}}\,,
\end{equation}
where $m_{h_{1,2}}$ are the masses of the two Higgs candidate jets. Figure \ref{fig:MassPlotsDeltas} (left panel) shows the distribution of $\Delta_{h}$ for signal events and relevant backgrounds. Even after the overlap selections, the background distributions are significantly wider than the signal. Hence, in order to further suppress the background channels,  we impose a cut of 
\begin{equation}
|\Delta_{h}| < 0.1\,. 
\end{equation}


\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Delta_mh_Ex.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{Delta_mU_Ex.pdf}
\caption{Left panel: mass asymmetry $\Delta_h$ between the two highest $p_T$ fat jets which pass the Higgs tagging requirement.  Right panel: minimized mass asymmetry $\Delta_{U_h}$ of the reconstructed $U_h$ pair. }
\label{fig:MassPlotsDeltas}
\end{figure}

Upon identifying the $u$ and Higgs jets, we proceed with the reconstruction of the $U_h$ partner. The signal events are characterized by a distinct ``2 fat jet 2 light jet'' topology, a final state which represents somewhat of a combinatorial challenge (for each fat jet, two combinations with a light jet are possible).  In order to find the correct Higgs-light jet pairs, we construct four different combinations of invariant masses
\begin{equation}
	m^{U_h}_{ij}= \sqrt{(p^{h}_i + p^u_j)^2}\,, 
\end{equation}
where $p^{h}_i$ are the four momenta of the two $R=0.7$ jets which pass the Higgs tagging requirements and $p^u_j$ are the four momenta of the two hardest $r=0.4$ isolated from the Higgs jets by $\Delta R_{uh}  > 1.1.$ A correct Higgs-light jet pair then minimizes the value of
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{U_h} = \mathrm{min} \left[ |m^{U_h}_{11} -m^{U_h}_{22}|, |m^{U_h}_{12} - m^{U_h}_{21}|\right]\,.
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{m_Uh1.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{m_Uh2.pdf}
\caption{Reconstructed mass of the $U_h$ partner for true mass $M_{U_h} = 1 {\rm\ TeV}$. Left panel shows the mass reconstruction from the hardest Higgs candidate jet and the light jet which minimized $\Delta_{U_h}$, while the right panel shows the corresponding distribution assuming the second hardest Higgs candidate.}
\label{fig:MassPlotsUh}
\end{figure}

Consequently, we take the configuration of Higgs - light jet  pair which minimizes $\Delta_{U_h}$ to construct $m_{U_{h1,2}}$, the masses of the two $U_h$ partners in the event. Figure \ref{fig:MassPlotsUh}  shows the reconstructed invariant mass distribution of the $U_h$ pair (assuming $M_{U_h} = 1 {\rm\ TeV}$) and the background distributions. The signal events show a prominent peak at the correct partner mass for both $U_h$ partners in the event, while the background distributions are smeared over a wide range of mass values. The results of Figure \ref{fig:MassPlotsUh} illustrate well the degree to which our proposal is able to resolve the mass of the $U_h$ partners. 

The value of $\Delta_{U_h}$ represents the minimum of a  mass asymmetry between the two reconstructed objets and hence utilizes the fact that the $U_h$ partners are pair produced. 
In addition to allowing us to overcome the combinatorial issues when reconstructing the $U_h$ partners, $\Delta_{U_h}$ provides another handle on the background channels. Because the $U_h$ partners are pair produced, we expect the value of $\Delta_{U_h}$ to peak at 0 for signal events, while we expect the background channels to be characterized by wider distributions of $\Delta_{U_h}$ as there is no kinematic feature in the background channels which would lead to a reconstruction of two same mass resonances. 
Figure \ref{fig:MassPlotsDeltas} (right panel) shows $\Delta_{U_h}$  distributions for signal and relevant backgrounds. As in the case of $\Delta_{h}$, the background distributions of $\Delta_{U_h}$ are significantly broader compared to the signal, hence providing another unique handle on the background channels. In order to exploit this feature,  we impose a cut on
\begin{equation}
	|\Delta_{U_h}| < 0.1\,,
\end{equation}
as a part of our event selection. 

Finally, since we are interested in $U_h$ partners with mass $O(1 {\rm\ TeV})$, we require that both Higgs-light jet pairs pass the requirement
\begin{equation}
	m_{U_{h1,2}} > 800, 1000 {\rm\ GeV},
\end{equation}
for the benchmark values of $M_{U_h} = 1, 1.2 {\rm\ TeV}$ respectively, where we construct the mass of $U_{h1}$ and $U_{h2}$ from Higgs-light jet pairs which minimize $\Delta U_h$. 

\subsection{LHC Run II Sensitivity to $U_h$ Partners of Mass $\sim 1{\rm\ TeV}$}
\label{sec:CutScheme}

In this section we investigate the ability of our cutflow proposal to detect $\sim 1 {\rm\ TeV}$ light quark partners which decay to a Higgs-light jet pairs  at the Run II of the LHC.
Table~\ref{tab:1TeVBC1}~and~\ref{tab:12TeVBC1} show the main results, with respect to the initial cross section values in Table~\ref{tab:HT1600}. For all results on significance we assume a nominal integrated luminosity of $35 {\rm\ fb}^{-1}$. 

\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
							&	$\sigma_{s}$ [fb]	&$\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$ [fb]	&$\sigma_{b\bar{b}}$ [fb]	&$\sigma_{\rm multi-jet}$ [fb] & $S/B$ 			& $S/ \sqrt{B}$		\\ \hline
	Preselection Cuts			&	6.8\phantom{0}	&	4.6 $ \times 10^{2}$	&	8.4 $ \times 10^{3}$	&	2.8 $ \times 10^{5}$	     & $2.4 \times 10^{-5}$  & 7.5 $ \times 10^{-2}$			\\ \hline
	Basic Cuts				&	1.2\phantom{0} &	4.6				&	16.0				&	6.8 $ \times 10^{2}$	     & 1.7 $ \times 10^{-3}$	& 2.7 $ \times 10^{-1}$			\\  \hline
	 $| \Delta_{h}  | < 0.1$  		 &     0.82 			&	1.7				&	6.5				&	2.8 $ \times 10^{2}$	     & 2.9	$ \times 10^{-3}$ & 2.9 $ \times 10^{-1}$		\\  \hline
	  $| \Delta_{U_h}  | < 0.1$ 		 &	0.56 			&	5.5 $\times 10^{-1}$	&	2.0				&	87.0				     & 6.3 $ \times 10^{-3}$	   & 3.5 $ \times 10^{-1}$		\\  \hline
	  $m_{U_{h1,2}} > 800$ GeV	&	0.50			&	3.6 $\times 10^{-1}$	&	1.6				&	67.0				     & 7.3 $ \times 10^{-3}$	   & 3.6 $ \times 10^{-1}$		\\  \hline	
	    $b$-tag  				&	0.34			&	4.4 $\times 10^{-2}$	&	1.1  $\times 10^{-2}$	&	1.5 $\times 10^{-2}$	     & \textbf{4.8}				& \textbf{7.5}			\\  \hline
\end{tabular}\par
\end{center}
\caption{ $M_{U_{h}} = 1$ TeV , $\sigma_s = 6.8 {\rm\ fb}$ , $\mathcal{L }= 35 {\rm\ fb}^{-1}$} \label{tab:1TeVBC1} 
\end{table}

\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
						&$\sigma_{s}$ [fb]		  &$\sigma_{t\bar{t}}$ [fb]	&$\sigma_{b\bar{b}}$ [fb]	&$\sigma_{\rm multi-jet}$ [fb]	& $S/B$ 				& $S/ \sqrt{B}$		\\ \hline
Preselection Cuts			&	2.4\phantom{00}	  &	4.6 $ \times 10^{2}$	&	8.4 $ \times 10^{3}$	&	2.8 $ \times 10^{5}$		& $8.15 \times 10^{-6}$	& 2.6 $ \times 10^{-2}$ \\ \hline
	Basic Cuts 			& 	0.60\phantom{0}	  &	4.6				&	16.0				&	6.8 $ \times 10^{2}$		& 8.6 $ \times 10^{-4}$	& 1.4 $ \times 10^{-1}$	\\  \hline
	  $| \Delta_{h} | < 0.1$  	 &     0.39\phantom{0}	  &	1.7				&	6.5				&	2.8 $ \times 10^{2}$		& 1.4 $ \times 10^{-3}$	& 1.4 $ \times 10^{-1}$	\\  \hline
	  $| \Delta_{U_h} | < 0.1$ 	 &     0.27\phantom{0}	   &	5.5 $ \times 10^{-1}$	&	2.0				&	87.0					& 3.0 $ \times 10^{-3}$	& 1.7 $ \times 10^{-1}$	 \\  \hline
  $m_{U_{h1,2}} > 1$ TeV		&   0.22\phantom{0} 	   	&	1.9 $ \times 10^{-1}$	&	1.0				&	45.0					& 4.8	 $ \times 10^{-3}$	& 1.9 $ \times 10^{-1}$	\\  \hline	
	   $b$-tag  			 &  0.134				 &	2.2 $ \times 10^{-2}$	&	8.5 $ \times 10^{-3}$	&	1.2 $ \times 10^{-2}$		& \textbf{3.1}					& \textbf{3.8}			\\  \hline 
	\end{tabular}\par	
	\end{center}
\caption{ $M_{U_{h}} = 1.2$ TeV , $\sigma_s = 2.4 {\rm\ fb}$ , $\mathcal{L }= 35 {\rm\ fb}^{-1}$} \label{tab:12TeVBC1} 
\end{table}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}

Our results show that boosted jet techniques combined with fat jet $b$-tagging and kinematic constraints of pair produced heavy particles can achieve $S/B > 1$ with signal significance of $\sim 7 \sigma$ at $35 {\rm\ fb}^{-1}$, assuming light quark partners of $ M_{U_h} =1 {\rm\ TeV}.$ The significance we obtain is sufficient to claim a discovery of $1 {\rm\ TeV}$ light quark partners. In addition, we find that probing masses higher than $1 {\rm\ TeV}$ will require more luminosity and will be challenging at Run II of the LHC. However,  even with $35 {\rm\ fb}^{-1}$ signal significance of more than $3\sigma$ is achievable for $M_{U_h} = 1.2 {\rm\ TeV}$, enough to rule out the model point. 

Requiring that there exist four fat jets with $p_T >300 {\rm\ GeV}$ in an event, together with our boosted Higgs tagging procedure result in an improvement of $S/B$ by roughly a factor of 70-100 at $\sim 20\%$ signal efficiency relative to the pre-selection cuts. Additional cuts on mass asymmetries improve $S/B$ by roughly of factor a 3 in total.


\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{bTable_signal.pdf}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{bTable_ttbar.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{bTable_bbbar.pdf}&
\includegraphics[scale=0.37]{bTable_multi.pdf}
\end{tabular}
\caption{$b$-tag score tables for the signal (top panel, left), `` $t \bar{t}$ +0,1,2 jets " (top panel, right), `` $b \bar{b}$ +0,1,2 jets" (bottom panel, left) and ``multi(2,3,4)-jet" (bottom panel, right), following the simplified $b$-tagging procedure of Section \ref{sec:b-tagging}. $h_{1,2}$ are the two highest $p_T$ fat jets which pass the Higgs tagging criteria of Section \ref{sec:TOM}. No $b$-tagging efficiencies have been applied to the results displayed in the plots.}
\label{fig:btagscores}
\end{figure}	




The greatest improvement in both $S/B$ and $S/\sqrt{B}$ comes from fat jet $b$-tagging, where we find an enhancement by a factor of $\sim 500 -600 $ in $S/B$ and $15-20$ in signal significance. The improvement is largely due to the enormous suppression double fat-jet $b$-tagging exerts on the multi-jet and $b\bar{b}$ backgrounds, with the signal efficiency of $\sim 50\%$. The high rejection power of $b$-tagging can be understood well from results presented in Figure \ref{fig:btagscores}. The signal events almost always contain at least one $b$ quark in each of the fat jets which pass the boosted Higgs tagging criteria. Conversely, almost no multi-jet and $b\bar{b}$ events contain two ``Higgs like'' fat jets with each of the tagged heavy boosted objects containing a $b$-jet. The only background channel which seems to contain a significant fraction of events with both fat jets containing a proper $b$-tag is Standard Model $t\bar{t}$. Still, we find that only about $10\%$ of the $t\bar{t}$ events survive the double $b$-tagging criteria. 



