1: %$Modified: Thu May 2 13:40:58 2002 by uwer $
2: %\NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
3: \documentclass[titlepage,12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{amssymb,psfig,epsfig,pslatex,psfrag}
5:
6: %% get the accents working....
7: %% use T1 font encoding, otherwise it is not possible to
8: %% hyphen words with accents:
9: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
10: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
11: %\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
12: \textwidth15cm
13: \textheight22cm
14: \baselineskip1.0cm
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: %
17: % Version draft 1.0 (5.7.2002)
18: %
19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
20: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.8cm}
21: \oddsidemargin+0.4cm
22: \pagestyle{plain}
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: % definitions used in this file
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: \def\shat{\hat{s}}
27: \def\rshat{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}
28: \def\sp{{\mathbf s}_t}
29: \def\peter#1#2{{\bf #2}}
30: \def\pb{p_b}
31: \def\pt{p_t}
32: \def\e{\epsilon}
33: \def\Li#1{{\mbox{Li}_#1}}
34: \def\mt{m_t}
35: \def\mb{m_b}
36: \def\nn{\nonumber}
37: \def\pbhat{{\hat{\bf p}_b}}
38: \newcommand{\sm}{{\mathbf s}_{\bar{t}}}
39: \newcommand{\kh}{{\hat{\mathbf k}}}
40: \newcommand{\ph}{\hat{\mathbf p}}
41: \newcommand{\dhh}{\hat{\mathbf d}}
42: \newcommand{\one}{1\!\mbox{l}}
43: %define how a new paragraph is separated
44: \parindent0cm
45: \parskip1.5ex
46:
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: \begin{document}
49: \begin{titlepage}
50: \noindent
51: DESY 02-095 \hfill July 2002 \\
52: \vspace{0.4cm}
53: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
54: \begin{center}
55: {\LARGE {\bf Impact of SUSY-QCD corrections on
56: top quark decay distributions}} \\
57: \vspace{2cm}
58: {\bf
59: A. Brandenburg\footnote{supported by a Heisenberg fellowship of D.F.G.} and
60: M. Maniatis
61: }
62: \par\vspace{1cm}
63: DESY-Theorie, 22603 Hamburg, Germany
64: \par\vspace{2cm}
65: {\bf Abstract:}\\
66: \parbox[t]{\textwidth}
67: {We compute the supersymmetric QCD corrections to the decay
68: distribution of polarized top quarks for the semileptonic
69: decay mode $t(\uparrow)\to b l^+\nu_l$. As a byproduct,
70: we reinvestigate the SUSY-QCD corrections to
71: the total decay width $\Gamma(t\to W^+b)$
72: and resolve a discrepancy between two previous results in the
73: literature.}
74: \end{center}
75: \vspace{2cm}
76: %PACS number(s): 12.38.Bx, 13.88.+e, 14.65.Ha\\
77: Keywords: top quarks, supersymmetry, radiative corrections
78: \end{titlepage}
79: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
80:
81: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
82: \section{Introduction}
83: The dynamics of top quark production and decay will be studied in detail
84: at the Tevatron and LHC hadron colliders. Moreover, a possible future
85: linear $e^+e^-$ collider will allow for precision studies of top quarks, in
86: particular in the threshold region \cite{tesla}. Precise experimental
87: data will be matched by accurate theoretical predictions, which are
88: possible since non-perturbative effects in top quark decays are cut off
89: by the large decay width $\Gamma\approx 1.5$ GeV.
90: Such investigations may well yield hints to physics beyond the Standard Model,
91: since production and decay of top quarks involve very high energy scales.
92: In particular, virtual effects of supersymmetric particles may affect
93: top quark production and its decay profile \cite{guasch}.
94: Supersymmetric electroweak
95: \cite{garcia} and strong \cite{li,dabelstein} quantum corrections to the
96: total top quark decay width $\Gamma(t\to W^+b)$
97: have been calculated already some time ago.
98: In this article we extend
99: those calculations
100: by considering the SUSY-QCD corrections to the
101: fully differential decay
102: distribution of polarized top quarks for the semileptonic decay mode.
103: From this distribution we can easily derive as a special case
104: the SUSY-QCD corrections
105: to the total decay width and compare our result to two conflicting
106: previous calculations \cite{li,dabelstein}.\par
107: Our letter is organized as follows: In section 2 we discuss the calculation
108: of the SUSY-QCD correction to the
109: differential decay distribution for $t(\uparrow)\to b l \nu$ and to
110: the total top quark width. In section 3 we perform a numerical analysis
111: of our results in terms of sbottom and gluino masses, taking
112: into account mixing in the stop sector. Section 4 contains our
113: conclusions.
114: \section{Analytic results}
115: The virtual supersymmetric corrections to the $tW^+b$ vertex to
116: order $\alpha_s$ are determined by the following
117: SUSY-QCD interaction Lagrangian (where we suppress
118: colour and spinor indices of the (s)quark fields and $q=t,b$):
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: {\cal L}_{\tilde{g}\tilde{q}q}=\sqrt{2}g_s T^a{\bar q}
121: \left[P_L\tilde{g}_a\tilde{q}_R-P_R \tilde{g}_a\tilde{q}_L\right]+h.c.,
122: \end{eqnarray}
123: where $\tilde{g}_a$ are the Majorana gluino fields, $T^a=\lambda^a/2$
124: with the Gell-Mann matrices $\lambda^a$, and $\{\tilde{q}_L,\tilde{q}_R\}$
125: are the weak-eigenstate squarks that are associated to the chiral
126: components $P_{L,R}\ q=\frac{1}{2}(1\mp \gamma_5)\ q$ of the quarks.
127: The squark mass
128: eigenstates are related to these weak eigenstates through a rotation:
129: \begin{eqnarray}
130: \left(\begin{array}{l}\tilde{q}_1 \\ \tilde{q}_2 \end{array}\right)&=&
131: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos\theta_{\tilde{q}} &
132: \sin\theta_{\tilde{q}} \\ -\sin\theta_{\tilde{q}} &
133: \cos\theta_{\tilde{q}}
134: \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{l}\tilde{q}_L \\
135: \tilde{q}_R \end{array}\right)\equiv R^{\tilde{q}}.
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: Furthermore, we need
138: the contribution of the squarks to the charged current interaction,
139: which is given in the mass basis $\{\tilde{q}_1,\tilde{q}_2\}$ by:
140: \begin{eqnarray}
141: {\cal L}_{\rm cc}=\frac{-ie}{\sqrt{2}\sin\theta_W}\sum_{i,j}
142: \left[R^{\tilde{b}}_{i1}R^{\tilde{t}}_{j1}\tilde{t}^*_j\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial^{\mu}}\tilde{b}_iW^+_{\mu}\right] + h.c.
143: \end{eqnarray}
144: Consider now an initial state consisting of top quarks
145: at rest with polarization ${\bf P}$.
146: For the semileptonic decay
147: \begin{eqnarray}\label{reac}
148: t(p_t)\to b(p_b) + l^+(p_l) +\nu_l(p_{\nu}),
149: \end{eqnarray}
150: the renormalized amplitude including
151: the SUSY-QCD corrections can be written in terms of four formfactors
152: (we neglect lepton masses and the mixing between generations):
153: %
154: % top decay matrix element formula
155: %
156: \begin{eqnarray} \label{amp}
157: iT_{fi} &=& \left(\frac{-ie}{\sqrt{2}\sin\theta_W}\right)^2
158: \frac{(-ig_{\mu\nu})}{
159: (p_t-p_b)^2-m_W^2+i\Gamma_W m_W}\bar{u}(p_{\nu})\gamma^{\nu}P_L v(p_l) \nn \\
160: &\times & \bar{u}(p_b)\left\{\gamma^{\mu}P_L\left[1+F_L+
161: \frac{1}{2}(\delta Z_L^t+\delta Z_L^b)\right]
162: +\gamma^{\mu}P_RF_R+\frac{p_t^{\mu}}{m_t}
163: \left(P_LH_L+P_RH_R\right]\right\}u(p_t)
164: \nn \\ && \end{eqnarray}
165: %
166: In (\ref{amp}), $Z_L^{t,b}=1+\delta Z_L^{t,b}$ denotes the
167: renormalization constant for the top (bottom) quark field,
168: which we fix by imposing on-shell renormalization conditions.
169: This is equivalent
170: to the method used in \cite{dabelstein}, where
171: only one renormalization constant
172: for the $(t,b)$ doublet is used. In that case
173: an on-shell condition can only be
174: fulfilled by one field, inducing a finite wave-function renormalization
175: for the other. Accordingly, we find
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: \frac{1}{2}(\delta Z_L^t+\delta Z_L^b) = \delta Z_L -
178: \frac{1}{2}\hat{\Pi}_t(m_t^2),
179: \end{eqnarray}
180: where $\delta Z_L$ and $\hat{\Pi}_t(m_t^2)$ are given
181: explicitly in Eqs. (6)-(10)
182: of ref. \cite{dabelstein}.
183: The form factors in Eq. (\ref{amp}) are defined in complete analogy
184: to the corresponding ones in Eq. (3) of \cite{dabelstein},
185: except for a relative
186: factor $m_W/m_t$ in the definition of $H_{L,R}$. We find complete agreement
187: for all formfactors. They are listed explicitly
188: in Eq. (11) of \cite{dabelstein} for arbitrary squark mixing angles and
189: masses. Therefore we do not write them down here but
190: only remark that in the limit of vanishing $b$-quark mass and
191: no squark mixing the formfactors $F_R$ and $H_L$ are equal to zero.
192:
193: The phase space $R_3$ of the final state of reaction (\ref{reac})
194: may be parametrized
195: by two scaled energies and two angles:
196: %
197: % phase space formula
198: %
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: dR_3=\frac{m_t^2}{32(2\pi)^4}dx_{l}
201: dx_bd\chi d\cos\theta,
202: \end{eqnarray}
203: %
204: where $x_b=2E_b/m_t,\ x_{l}=2E_{l}/m_t$.
205: The four-momenta and the polarization of the top quark
206: are explicitly parametrized in the top quark rest frame as
207: follows:
208: \vspace{1cm}
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: p_l&=&E_l(1,0,0,1),\nn \\
211: p_b&=&E_b(1,0,\beta \sin \theta_{lb},\beta\cos \theta_{lb}),\nn \\
212: p_{\nu}&=&p_t-p_b-p_l,\nn \\
213: P&=&|{\bf P}|(0,\sin \theta \sin \chi,\sin \theta \cos \chi,\cos \theta),
214: \end{eqnarray}
215: where
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: \beta=\sqrt{1-4z_b/x_b^2},\ \ \ \ \ \cos \theta_{lb}=
218: \frac{x_lx_b-2(x_l+x_b-1)+2z_b}{x_lx_b\beta}
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: %
221: with the scaled mass square of the bottom quark $z_b=m_b^2/m_t^2$.
222: \def\pnu{p_{\nu}}%
223: \def\pl{p_{l}}%
224: \def\cM{{\cal M}}%
225: The differential decay rate is given by
226: \begin{eqnarray}\label{treeres1}
227: d\Gamma = \frac{1}{2m_t}\frac{1}{N_C}\sum |T_{fi}|^2 dR_3,
228: \end{eqnarray}
229: where the sum is taken over
230: the colour and spins of the final state.
231: The fully differential distribution
232: for reaction~(\ref{reac}) reads at tree level:
233: \begin{eqnarray}\label{treeres}
234: \frac{d\Gamma^0_{\rm lep}}{dx_ldx_bd\chi d\cos\theta}&=&
235: c \frac{x_l(1-x_l-z_b)}
236: {(1-x_b+z_b-\xi)^2+\eta^2\xi^2}\left(1+|{\bf P}|\cos\theta\right),
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: where
239: \begin{eqnarray}\label{kappa}
240: c=\frac{e^4m_t}{128(2\pi)^4\sin^4\theta_W
241: },
242: \end{eqnarray}
243: with
244: \begin{eqnarray}
245: \xi = \frac{m_W^2}{m_t^2},\ \ \ \ \ \eta = \frac{\Gamma_W}{m_W}.
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: \par
248: Our result for the SUSY-QCD corrections to the semileptonic decay
249: distribution reads:
250: \begin{eqnarray}\label{virres}
251: \frac{d\Gamma^{\rm SUSY-QCD}_{\rm lep}}{dx_ldx_bd\chi d\cos\theta}&=&
252: c\frac{x_l(1-x_l-z_b)}{(1-x_b+z_b-\xi)^2+\eta^2\xi^2}
253: \nonumber \\ &\times&
254: \left\{\left(1+|{\bf P}|\cos\theta\right){\rm Re\ }f_1
255: +|{\bf P}|\sin\theta\left[\cos\chi{\rm Re\ }f_2
256: +\sin\chi{\rm Im\ }f_2\right]\right\},
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: with
259: \begin{eqnarray}\label{f_1}
260: f_1 &=&2 F_L+\delta Z_L^t+\delta Z_L^b
261: -2\sqrt{z_b}\frac{1-x_b+z_b}{x_l(1-x_l-z_b)}F_R \nn \\
262: &+&\left[1-(1-x_b+z_b)\frac{1-x_l}{x_l(1-x_l-z_b)}\right]
263: \left[ H_R+\sqrt{z_b}H_L\right],
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: \begin{eqnarray}\label{f_2}
266: f_2 &=& -\frac{x_b\beta\sin\theta_{lb}}{2(1-x_l-z_b)}
267: \left[(1-x_l) H_R+\sqrt{z_b}(H_L+2F_R)\right].
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: The function ${\rm Im} f_2$ can only be nonzero if $m_t$ is larger than
270: $m_{\tilde{g}}+m^{\rm light}_{\tilde{t}}$, where $m^{\rm light}_{\tilde{t}}$
271: denotes the mass of the light stop.
272: We will not discuss this case in the following.
273:
274: The SUSY-QCD correction to the total decay rate $\Gamma(t\to W^+b)$
275: can be easily obtained from (\ref{virres}) in the following way:
276: The narrow width approximation is applied, i.e., one makes the replacement
277: \begin{eqnarray}\label{narrow}
278: \frac{1}{((p_t-p_b)^2-m_W^2)^2+m_W^2\Gamma_W^2}\to \frac{\pi}{m_W\Gamma_W}
279: \delta((p_t-p_b)^2-m_W^2).
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: In particular, this fixes the scaled $b$-quark energy to $x_b=1-\xi+z_b$.
282: The three remaining integrations are easily performed. Finally,
283: one has to divide out the branching ratio
284: for the semileptonic decay of the $W$, which is achieved by replacing
285: $\Gamma_W$ in (\ref{narrow}) by $\Gamma(W^+\to b l^+\nu_l)
286: =G_Fm_W^3/(6\sqrt{2}\pi)$ with $G_F=e^2/(4\sqrt{2}m_W^2\sin^2\theta_W)$.
287: The result is:
288: \begin{eqnarray}\label{g1}
289: \Gamma^1\equiv \Gamma^0+\Gamma^{\rm SUSY-QCD} &=&
290: \Gamma_0\Big[1+2{\rm Re\ } F_L+
291: {\rm Re\ } \delta Z_L^t+{\rm Re\ } \delta Z_L^b \nn \\ &+& 2\frac{G_1}{G_0}{\rm Re\ } F_R
292: +2\frac{G_2}{G_0}{\rm Re\ } H_L +2\frac{G_3}{G_0}{\rm Re\ } H_R\Big],
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: where the Born decay $\Gamma_0$ rate is given by
295: \begin{eqnarray}
296: \Gamma^0 = \frac{m_t^3G_F}{8\sqrt{2}\pi}
297: \left[(1-\xi+z_b)^2-4z_b\right]^{1/2}
298: G_0
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: and
301: \begin{eqnarray}
302: G_0 &=& (1-\xi)(1+2\xi)+z_b(z_b+\xi-2),\nn \\
303: G_1 &=& -2\xi\sqrt{z_b}, \nn \\
304: G_2 &=& \frac{\sqrt{z_b}}{2}\left[(1-\xi)^2+z_b(z_b-2\xi-2)\right], \nn \\
305: G_3 &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{z_b}}G_2.
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: Our result for the total decay rate
308: disagrees with the corresponding result given in Eq. (15) of \cite{dabelstein}.
309: The disagreement appears to be due to an error that occured in
310: deriving $G_{2,3}$ from
311: the standard matrix elements $M_{2,3}$ given in Eq. (13) of \cite{dabelstein}.
312: The result in \cite{dabelstein} can be corrected by
313: interchanging $G_2\leftrightarrow G_3$
314: (or, equivalently, $H_L \leftrightarrow H_R$).
315: In an earlier work \cite{li}, the supersymmetric QCD contributions to the top
316: quark width have been computed for the special case of degenerate SUSY masses
317: and $m_b=0$. We performed a numerical comparison with Figures 2 and 3
318: of \cite{li} and find complete agreement when using the same input parameters.
319:
320: \section{Numerical analysis}
321: In this section we discuss the impact of the SUSY-QCD corrections
322: on the total top quark decay width, on the energy spectra of the
323: charged lepton, and on observables sensitive to the top quark
324: polarization.
325:
326: We start by considering the relative correction
327: \begin{eqnarray}
328: \delta_{\tilde{g}} = \frac{\Gamma^1-\Gamma^0}{\Gamma^0}
329: \end{eqnarray}
330: to the total decay rate. As mentioned above, this quantity has been
331: studied in the literature before with two different results. Our calculation
332: confirms the earlier result \cite{li}. The effects of the mixing of the chiral components of
333: stop and sbottom have been considered only in \cite{dabelstein}.
334: Therefore it seems worthwhile to
335: reconsider the quantity $\delta_{\tilde{g}}$.
336:
337: The stop and sbottom mass matrices can be expressed in terms of MSSM
338: parameters as follows:
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: {\cal M}_{\tilde{t}}^2 &=& \left(\begin{array}{cc} M_{\tilde{Q}}^2+m_t^2+m_Z^2(\frac{1}{2}-Q_ts_W^2)\cos 2\beta& m_t(A_t-\mu\cot\beta)\\ m_t(A_t-\mu\cot\beta)&
341: M_{\tilde{U}}^2+m_t^2+m_Z^2Q_ts_W^2\cos 2\beta
342: \end{array}\right), \nonumber \\ && \nonumber \\ && \nonumber \\
343: {\cal M}_{\tilde{b}}^2 &=&\left(\begin{array}{cc} M_{\tilde{Q}}^2+m_b^2-m_Z^2(\frac{1}{2}+Q_bs_W^2)\cos 2\beta&m_b(A_b-\mu\tan\beta)\\ m_b(A_b-\mu\tan\beta)&
344: M_{\tilde{D}}^2+m_b^2+m_Z^2Q_bs_W^2\cos 2\beta
345: \end{array}\right),
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: where $M_{\tilde{Q}},\ M_{\tilde{U}},M_{\tilde{D}}$ are the soft SUSY-breaking
348: parameters for the squark doublet $\tilde{q}_L$ and the squark singlets
349: $\tilde{t}_R$ and $\tilde{b}_R$, respectively. Further, $A_{t,b}$
350: are the stop and sbottom soft SUSY-breaking trilinear couplings,
351: and $\mu$ is the SUSY-preserving bilinear Higgs coupling.
352: The ratio of the two Higgs vacuum expectation values is given by $\tan\beta$,
353: $Q_t=2/3$ and $Q_b=-1/3$ denote the electric charges of $t$ and $b$,
354: and $s_W=\sin\theta_W$. The squared physical masses of the stops and sbottoms
355: are the eigenvalues of the above matrices.
356: In order to keep the numerical discussion tractable, we make the following
357: simplifying assumptions: We neglect mixing in the sbottom sector. This is
358: certainly justified if $\tan\beta$ is not too large. In any case $\tan\beta$
359: only enters through the mass matrices. If sbottom mixing is neglected,
360: the dependence on $\tan\beta$ is very weak \cite{dabelstein} and we set
361: $\tan\beta=1$ for all following results.
362: Further, we set $M_{\tilde{Q}}=
363: M_{\tilde{D}}$ and neglect the bottom quark mass in the mass matrices.
364: Under these assumptions the sbottom mass matrix is diagonal with
365: degenerate mass eigenvalues, ${\cal M}_{\tilde{b}}^2=
366: {\rm diag}(m^2_{\tilde{b}},m^2_{\tilde{b}})$. Note that using degenerate
367: sbottom masses close to the experimental lower mass limit maximizes
368: the impact of the SUSY-QCD corrections. The stop mass matrix simplifies
369: under the above assumptions to
370: \begin{eqnarray}
371: {\cal M}_{\tilde{t}}^2 &=&
372: \left(\begin{array}{cc} m_{\tilde{b}}^2+m_t^2& m_tM_{LR}\\ m_tM_{LR}&
373: M_{\tilde{U}}^2+m_t^2
374: \end{array}\right),
375: \end{eqnarray}
376: with $M_{LR}= A_t-\mu$.
377: Maximal mixing ($\theta_{\tilde{t}}=\frac{\pi}{4}$ and
378: $M_{LR}\not =0$)
379: corresponds to $M_{\tilde{U}}^2=m_{\tilde{b}}^2$.
380: The latter relation will also be assumed for $M_{LR}=0$, leading to
381: the following stop mass eigenvalues{\footnote{Note that by fixing $\theta_{\tilde{t}}=\frac{\pi}{4}$ the light stop can be either $\tilde{t}_{1}$
382: or $\tilde{t}_{2}$ depending on the sign of $M_{LR}$.}}:
383: \begin{eqnarray}
384: m_{\tilde{t}_{1,2}}=\sqrt{m_{\tilde{b}}^2+m_t^2\pm m_t M_{LR}}.
385: \end{eqnarray}
386: Fig.~1 shows $\delta_{\tilde{g}}$ for $M_{LR}=0$ as a function
387: of the gluino mass for different values of $m_{\tilde{b}}$.
388: The SUSY-QCD corrections are negative and of the order of
389: several permill for gluino masses larger than 100 GeV.
390: Even for very small gluino masses
391: the SUSY-QCD corrections are at most $\sim (-1)$\%.
392: Our Fig. 1 corresponds exactly to Fig. 2a of
393: \cite{dabelstein}. In particular, we use $m_t=174$ GeV and
394: $\alpha_s(m_t)=0.11$. (For the bottom quark mass we use
395: $m_b=4.75$ GeV.) We find about 30\% to 40\% smaller SUSY-QCD effects
396: than the authors of \cite{dabelstein} and can exactly
397: reproduce their curves if we, just for this purpose, substitute
398: $H_L\leftrightarrow H_R$.
399: \begin{figure}
400: \unitlength1.0cm
401: \begin{center}
402: \begin{picture}(8,8)
403: \psfrag{delta}{\small{$\!\!\!\delta_{\tilde{g}}$[\%]}}
404: \psfrag{mgl}{\small{$m_{\tilde{g}}$[GeV]}}
405: \put(0,0){\psfig{figure=nomix.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}}
406: \end{picture}
407: %\vskip 0.25cm
408: \caption{SUSY-QCD correction $\delta_{\tilde{g}}$ as a function
409: of the gluino mass for different sbottom masses and no mixing:
410: $m_{\tilde{b}}=80$ GeV (a), 120 GeV (b), 160 GeV (c) and 200 GeV (d).}
411: \label{fig:nomix}
412: \end{center}
413: \end{figure}
414: %
415: \par
416: The effect of mixing is studied in Figs.~2a,b, where we plot
417: $\delta_{\tilde{g}}$ as a function of the mixing parameter $M_{LR}$ for
418: different sbottom and gluino masses. For $M_{LR}=200$ GeV, $m_{\tilde{g}}=150$
419: GeV and $m_{\tilde{b}}=100$ GeV (which implies
420: $m_{\tilde{t}}^{\rm light}=74$ GeV),
421: the SUSY-QCD corrections reduce the total
422: top quark decay width by about 2\%.
423: Larger squark and/or gluino masses lead to smaller SUSY-QCD corrections.
424: Note that the squark masses we use are compatible with bounds obtained
425: in a recent ALEPH analysis \cite{aleph}. For the gluino mass,
426: experimental lower
427: mass limits are typically higher than 200 GeV (see, e.g. \cite{d0,cdf}),
428: but these limits only apply within the minimal supergravity model.
429:
430: \begin{figure}[h]
431: \unitlength1.0cm
432: \begin{center}
433: \begin{picture}(8,8)
434: \psfrag{MLR}{\small $M_{LR}$[GeV]}
435: \psfrag{delta}{\small $\!\!\! \delta_{\tilde{g}}$[\%]}
436: \put(-3.75,0){\psfig{figure=mix_100.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}}
437: \put(4.25,0){\psfig{figure=mix_120.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}}
438: \end{picture}
439: %\vskip 0.25cm
440: \caption{SUSY-QCD correction $\delta_{\tilde{g}}$ as a function
441: of the mixing parameter $M_{LR}$ for $m_{\tilde{b}}=100$ GeV (a) and
442: $m_{\tilde{b}}= 120$ GeV (b). The full curve is for $m_{\tilde{g}}=150$
443: GeV, the dashed curve for $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV.}
444: \label{fig:mix}
445: \end{center}
446: \end{figure}
447: \par
448: \begin{figure}[h]
449: \unitlength1.0cm
450: \begin{center}
451: \begin{picture}(8,8)
452: \psfrag{xl}{\small $x_l$}
453: \psfrag{dGamma}[b]{\small $d \Gamma_{\rm lep}/dx_l$[GeV]}
454: \psfrag{dlep}[b]{\hspace{-6mm} \small $\delta_{\rm lep}(x_l)$[\%]}
455: \put(-3.75,0){\psfig{figure=leptona.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}}
456: \put(4.25,0){\psfig{figure=leptonb.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}}
457: \end{picture}
458: %\vskip 0.25cm
459: \caption{SUSY-QCD corrections to the charged lepton energy spectrum: (a) shows
460: $d\Gamma_{\rm lep}/dx_l$ in GeV in leading order (dashed line) and
461: including the SUSY-QCD corrections (full line),
462: (b) shows the relative correction
463: $\delta_{\rm lep}(x_l)$ in percent. The dashed curve in (b) shows
464: $\delta_{\rm lep}(x_l)$ using the narrow width approximation for the $W$
465: propagator. All curves are for
466: $m_{\tilde{b}}=100$ GeV, $m_{\tilde{g}}=150$ GeV, and $M_{LR}=200$ GeV.}
467: \label{fig:f1}
468: \end{center}
469: \end{figure}
470: We now turn to the discussion of the fully differential
471: leptonic decay distribution, Eq.~(\ref{virres}).
472: In Fig.~3a we plot
473: the charged lepton energy spectrum $d\Gamma_{\rm lep}/dx_l$ and in Fig.~3b
474: the relative SUSY-QCD correction
475: \begin{eqnarray}
476: \delta_{\rm lep}(x_l)=\left(\frac{d\Gamma^0_{\rm lep}}{dx_l}\right)^{-1}
477: \left[\frac{d\Gamma^1_{\rm lep}}{dx_l}-\frac{d\Gamma^0_{\rm lep}}{dx_l}\right].
478: \end{eqnarray}
479: In the narrow width approximation for the
480: $W$ boson we have
481: \begin{eqnarray}
482: \delta_{\rm lep}(x_l) = {\rm Re}\ f_1.
483: \end{eqnarray}
484: We consider here the case of maximal mixing
485: with $M_{LR}=200$ GeV and masses
486: $m_{\tilde{b}}=100$ GeV and $m_{\tilde{g}}=150$ GeV. In this case
487: $\delta_{\rm lep}(x_l)$ reaches values of $-2.7$\% close to the
488: sharp drop of the energy spectrum at $x_l\approx 0.2$.
489: As can be seen in Fig.~3b, the narrow width approximation for the
490: $W$ propagator works well in almost the whole kinematic range for $x_l$
491: which is allowed within this approximation.
492: \par
493: A sample of highly polarized top quarks (which can be produced
494: at a linear collider with polarized beams operating close
495: to the $t\bar{t}$ production threshold) would allow for additional tests
496: of the top quark decay profile.
497: A well-known characteristic of semileptonic decays of polarized top quarks
498: is the factorization of the double differential cross section
499: \begin{eqnarray}\label{fac}
500: \frac{d\Gamma_{\rm lep}}{dx_ld\cos\theta}=f(x_l)(1+|{\bf{P}}|\cos\theta),
501: \end{eqnarray}
502: which holds true not only at the Born level, but also to high accuracy
503: including QCD radiative corrections \cite{Czarnecki:1991}.
504: This means in particular
505: that the charged lepton is the perfect analyser of the top quark
506: spin, i.e. the distribution $(\Gamma)^{-1} d\Gamma/d\cos\theta$ has maximal
507: slope $|{\bf{P}}|$ up to permill QCD corrections.
508: As exhibited by Eq.~(\ref{virres}), SUSY-QCD corrections respect
509: the factorization (\ref{fac}) exactly. This means that
510: the normalized distribution $1/\Gamma d\Gamma/d\cos\theta$
511: is not affected by the SUSY-QCD corrections.
512: \par
513: The general decay distribution
514: (\ref{virres}) contains a further term for nonzero top quark polarization,
515: which is determined by
516: the function ${\rm Re}\ f_2$. This term may be accessed by considering
517: the azimuthal asymmetry
518: \begin{eqnarray}\label{azimuthal}
519: \delta_{\chi}(x_l)&=&\left(\frac{d\Gamma^0_{\rm lep}}{dx_l}\right)^{-1}
520: \left[\int_0^{\pi/2}+\int_{3\pi/2}^{2\pi}
521: -\int_{\pi/2}^{3\pi/2}\right]d\chi
522: \frac{d\Gamma^{\rm SUSY-QCD}_{\rm lep}}{dx_ld\chi}.
523: \end{eqnarray}
524: Note that $\delta_{\chi}(x_l)$ is zero in leading order.
525: In the narrow width approximation,
526: \begin{eqnarray}
527: \delta_{\chi}(x_l)= \frac{|{\bf{P}}|}{2}{\rm Re}\ f_2.
528: \end{eqnarray}
529: Fig.~4 shows $\delta_{\chi}(x_l)$ for the same choice of mass parameters that
530: have been used in Figs.~3a,b and for maximal top quark
531: polarization $|{\bf{P}}|=1$. The asymmetry is negative and
532: of the order of a permill.
533: \begin{figure}
534: \unitlength1.0cm
535: \begin{center}
536: \begin{picture}(8,8)
537: \psfrag{xl}{\small $x_l$}
538: \psfrag{deltachi}{\small $\!\!\!\!\!\! \delta_{\chi}(x_l)$[\%]}
539: \put(0,0){\psfig{figure=leptond.ps,width=8cm,height=8cm}}
540: \end{picture}
541: \caption{Azimuthal asymmetry $\delta_{\chi}(x_l)$ for $|{\bf{P}}|=1$
542: and the same choice of mass parameters as in Figs. 3a,b. The dashed line
543: shows $\delta_{\chi}(x_l)$ in the narrow width approximation.}
544: \label{fig:azimuth}
545: \end{center}
546: \end{figure}
547: \section{Conclusions}
548: The results of our analysis
549: of the SUSY-QCD corrections to the decay $t(\uparrow)\to
550: bl\nu$ may be summarized as follows:\\
551: 1. The total decay width of the top quark is reduced by a few permill
552: (no mixing) up to several percent (maximal mixing in the stop sector,
553: sbottom masses around 100 GeV and gluino masses in the range 150 to 200 GeV).
554: A conflict between two previous calculations \cite{li,dabelstein}
555: has been resolved in favour of the earlier work \cite{li}.\\
556: 2. The SUSY-QCD corrections to the energy spectrum of the charged lepton
557: reach values of almost $-3$\% for maximal mixing.\\
558: 3. Observables that are sensitive to the top quark polarization are hardly
559: affected by the SUSY-QCD corrections: The tree level factorization
560: of $d\Gamma_{\rm lep}/(dx_ld\cos\theta)$, cf. Eq.~(\ref{fac}), is respected,
561: and the azimuthal asymmetry (\ref{azimuthal}) induced at one-loop is tiny.\par
562: \section*{Acknowledgments}
563: We would like to thank W. Bernreuther, A. Freitas, and D. St\"ockinger
564: for comments on the manuscript.
565: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
566: \bibitem{tesla} J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra et al.,
567: TESLA technical design report part III: Physics at an $e^+e^-$ linear
568: collider [hep-ph/0106315].
569: \bibitem{guasch} J. Guasch, W. Hollik, J.I. Illana, C. Schappacher,
570: J. Sol{\`a}, hep-ph/0003109.
571: \bibitem{garcia} D. Garcia, R. A. Jim{\'e}nez, J. Sol{\`a}, W. Hollik,
572: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B427} (1994), 53 [hep-ph/9402341].
573: \bibitem{li} C.S. Li, J.M. Yang, B.Q. Hu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48} (1993) 5425.
574: \bibitem{dabelstein} A. Dabelstein, W. Hollik, C. J\"unger, R. A. Jim{\'e}nez,
575: J. Sol{\`a}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B454} (1995) 75 [hep-ph/9503398].
576: \bibitem{Czarnecki:1991}
577: M. Jezabek and J. H. K\"uhn, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 320}, 20 (1989);
578: A.~Czarnecki, M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~K\"uhn,
579: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 351}, 70 (1991).
580: \bibitem{aleph} ALEPH collaboration, CERN-EP/2002-026, hep-ex/0204036.
581: \bibitem{d0} D0 collaboration,
582: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83} (1999) 4937, hep-ex/9902013.
583: \bibitem{cdf} CDF collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88} (2002) 041801,
584: hep-ex/0106001.
585: \end{thebibliography}
586:
587:
588: \end{document}
589: