1 1.5 2 Electrons 5 , g’$_{1}$=0.1 3 , g’$_{1}$=0.1 5 , g’$_{1}$=0.2 3 , g’$_{1}$=0.2 M$_{Z’}$ (TeV) Int. Lum. (fb −1 ) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 (a) 1 1.5 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Muons 5 , g’$_{1}$=0.1 3 , g’$_{1}$=0.1 5 , g’$_{1}$=0.2 3 , g’$_{1}$=0.2 M$_{Z’}$ (TeV) Int. Lum. (fb −1 ) (b) FIG. 6: Integrated luminosity required for observation at 3 σ and 5 σ vs. M$_{Z}$ ′ for selected values of g ′ 1 at the LHC for √$_{s}$ = 10 TeV for (6a) electrons and (6b) muons. Only allowed combination of masses and couplings are shown. especially for muons), only in the case of electrons and for high masses one could appreciate the Breit-Wigner shape of the peak, which instead will appear as a single bin for most of the parameter space along the 3 σ and 5 σ lines if looking at muons in the final state. Bare in mind though that this statement holds just for the minimal conditions, for sets of masses and couplings that minimally allow for the observation/discovery of the Z ′ B − L gauge boson. As the width increases quadratically with the coupling g ′ 1 (for fixed masses), it is expected that for significances bigger than the lowest appreciable one the peak will broaden significantly, especially for large masses. It is also expected that the width could be accessed for smaller masses by using electrons in the final state, as their resolution is much better than that of muons, thus allowing the natural width to show up at smaller values of the couplings (at fixed mass). C. LHC at √ s = 14 TeV 18 We consider here the design performance, i.e., √$_{s}$ = 14 TeV of CM energy with large luminosity, ∫ L = 100 fb − $^{1}$. Figure 8 show the discovery potential for the Z ′ B − L boson under