1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
6: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
7: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
9: \parskip=1.0ex
10: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
11: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
12: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
13:
14: \textwidth=15.5cm
15: \textheight=22cm
16: \oddsidemargin=0.2cm
17: \evensidemargin=0.2cm
18: \topmargin=-1cm
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: \vspace*{-3cm}
22: \begin{flushright}
23: FISIST/08--2002/CFIF \\
24: UG--FT--141/02, CAFPE--11/02 \\
25: hep-ph/0208171 \\
26: August 2002
27: \end{flushright}
28: \vspace{0.5cm}
29: \begin{center}
30: \begin{Large}
31: {\bf Precise determination of the $Wtb$ couplings at LHC}
32: \end{Large}
33:
34: \vspace{0.5cm}
35: F. del \'Aguila \\
36: {\em Departamento de F\'{\i}sica Te\'{o}rica y del Cosmos \\
37: Universidad de Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain} \\
38: \vspace{0.5cm}
39: J. A. Aguilar--Saavedra \\
40: {\em Departamento de F\'{\i}sica and CFIF \\
41: Instituto Superior T\'ecnico,
42: P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal}
43: \end{center}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: Top pair production at LHC is the ideal place to search for nonstandard $Wtb$
47: couplings in $t \to W b \to l \nu b$ decays. The $lb$ forward-backward
48: asymmetry in the $W$ rest frame is very sensitive to $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$
49: couplings, and
50: can spot one-loop QCD corrections to the decay vertex with more than $5\sigma$
51: statistical significance. We discuss the potential of this asymmetry to signal
52: nonstandard $\gamma^{\mu}$ and $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$
53: couplings and compare with top-antitop spin correlation
54: asymmetries, which have a lower sensitivity. We also
55: briefly summarise the results for Tevatron.
56: \end{abstract}
57: %\pacs{14.65.Ha,14.70.Fm,12.60.-i,12.15.Ff}
58: %\keywords{anomalous top couplings, hadron colliders}
59: %\preprint{FISIST/08--2002/CFIF}
60: %\preprint{UG--FT--141/02}
61: %\preprint{CAFPE--11/02}
62: %\maketitle
63:
64: % 12.60.-i Models beyond the standard model
65: % 12.15.Ff Quark and lepton masses and mixing
66: % 14.65.Ha Top quarks
67: % 14.70.Fm W bosons
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70: LHC will be by far the largest source of
71: top quarks available in the forthcoming years, with a top pair cross-section
72: of 860 pb \cite{papiro1} and a total single top (plus antitop) cross-section of
73: 306 pb from three processes \cite{papiro2,papiro2b,papiro2c}. This will allow to
74: perform precision studies of top couplings. In the Standard Model (SM) the
75: $Wtb$ vertex is purely left-handed and its size is given by the
76: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $V_{tb}$. Unfortunately,
77: the $t \bar t$ cross-section is rather insensitive to its actual value,
78: assuming that it is much larger than $V_{td}$ and $V_{ts}$.
79: Hence, to obtain a measure of the {\em absolute} value
80: of $V_{tb}$ it is necessary to fall back on less abundant single top
81: production \cite{papiro2}, with a
82: rate proportional to $|V_{tb}|^2$.
83: Still, $t\bar t$ production can give invaluable information on the $Wtb$
84: vertex. Angular asymmetries between decay products are very sensitive to
85: a small admixture of a right-handed $\gamma^{\mu}$ term
86: or a $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ coupling of either chirality.
87: That is, if we parameterise the most general CP-conserving
88: $Wtb$ vertex with the effective Lagrangian
89: \footnote{The most general $Wtb$ vertex (up to dimension five) involves ten
90: operators, but at the level of precision of these asymmetries it is an excellent
91: approximation to consider the top on-shell. With $b$ also on-shell and
92: $W \to l \nu,jj$ six of them can be eliminated using Gordon identities. The
93: resulting Lagrangian can be further restricted assuming CP conservation. The
94: couplings can then be taken to be real, of either sign.}
95: \begin{eqnarray}
96: \mathcal{L} & = & - \frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \bar b \, \gamma^{\mu} \left( V_{tb}^{L}
97: P_L + V_{tb}^R P_R
98: \right) t\; W_\mu^- \nonumber \\
99: & & - \frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \bar b \, \frac{i \sigma^{\mu \nu} q_\nu}{M_W}
100: \left( g^L P_L + g^R P_R \right) t\; W_\mu^- + \mathrm{h.c.} \,,
101: \label{ec:1}
102: \end{eqnarray}
103: these asymmetries are sensitive to the values of $V_{tb}^R$, $g^L$ and
104: $g^R$ {\em relative} to the SM coupling $V_{tb}^L \equiv V_{tb}$,
105: which from now on will be normalised to
106: one. These new couplings vanish at tree-level in the SM, but
107: can be generated at higher orders in the SM or its extensions \cite{papiro1}.
108: In particular,
109: one-loop QCD corrections prompt the appearance of
110: a coupling $g^R = -0.00642$ \cite{papiro3}
111: that is detectable at LHC, as we argue in the following.
112:
113: It is worth drawing attention to the importance of a direct measurement
114: of these parameters. Unless there is some accidental cancellation among
115: new contributions, new physics scenarios are bound to bring about
116: the appearance of new observable $V_{tb}^R$, $g^L$ or $g^R$ terms, which are
117: likely to be comparable in size to the one-loop QCD correction to $g^R$ above.
118: It has
119: been shown that in supersymmetric or two Higgs doublet models radiative
120: corrections can give enhanced contributions to the top width
121: \cite{papiro3b,papiro3c},
122: but these corrections should better manifest themselves in
123: angular asymmetries, whose study can be carried out with high precision
124: at LHC. On the other hand, low energy physics measurements do not set
125: model-independent constraints on these parameters.
126: Usually $V_{tb}^R$ is neglected in the
127: literature arguing that the presence of
128: such coupling at a detectable level would increase
129: the $b \to s \gamma$ branching ratio, resulting in
130: a value larger than the measured rate $\mathrm{Br} (b \to s
131: \gamma) = 3.15 \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{papiro5}.
132: (The $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ terms are not discarded with this argument because they contain an
133: extra $q_\nu$ factor suppressing their contribution for small $q_\nu$.)
134: However, this is not compulsory since the amplitude involving $V_{tb}^R$ contains
135: the product $V_{ts} V_{tb}^R$, and $V_{ts}$ is not directly measured \cite{papiro5b}.
136: The SM value $V_{ts} \simeq 0.04$ is obtained assuming $3 \times 3$ CKM
137: unitarity, that does not hold if heavier fermions exist.
138: So, in principle the value of $V_{ts}$ can be a fraction of its SM
139: estimate, and the indirect limit $|V_{tb}^R| \leq 0.04$ \cite{papiro4}
140: can be relaxed without spoiling the prediction for $b\to s \gamma$ and
141: other processes \cite{papiro6}.
142:
143: At LHC these nonstandard couplings can be measured in single top production
144: \cite{papiro7,papiro21},
145: being the expected $2\sigma$ limits (with a realistic assumption of 5\%
146: systematic uncertainties) $-0.052 \leq g^L
147: \leq 0.097$, $-0.12 \leq g^R \leq 0.13$ \cite{papiro7}. In this Letter we
148: show that these bounds can be further improved in top pair production
149: $pp \to t \bar t \to WbW\bar b \to l\nu\!jjjj$
150: with the analysis of the $lb$ forward-backward (FB)
151: asymmetry in $t \to l\nu b$ decays, first proposed in \cite{papiro8}.
152: Not only it is more sensitive than single top production but it also
153: has smaller systematic uncertainties and does not depend on the details of the
154: production process. Here we investigate the
155: dependence of this asymmetry on all the anomalous couplings
156: in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}), comparing its sensitivity
157: with that of other popular spin correlation asymmetries \cite{papiro1}.
158: The main background from $W\!jjjj$ is taken into account, and we perform a
159: simple simulation of the detector effects.
160:
161:
162:
163:
164: \section{Asymmetries in $t \bar t$ decays}
165:
166: The FB asymmetry in the decay of the top quark $t \to W^+ b \to l^+ \nu b$
167: is defined as
168: \begin{equation}
169: A_\mathrm{FB} = \frac{N(x_{bl} > 0) -
170: N(x_{bl} < 0)}{N(x_{bl} > 0) +
171: N(x_{bl} < 0)}\,,
172: \end{equation}
173: where $x_{bl}$ is the cosine of the
174: angle between the 3-momenta of the $b$ quark and the
175: charged lepton in the $W$ rest frame, and $N$
176: stands for the number of events.
177: The same definition holds for the $\bar t \to l^- \bar \nu \bar b$ decay.
178:
179: Angular asymmetries involving the
180: top spin rely on the fact that
181: top pairs are produced with correlated spins, decaying before
182: depolarisation takes place.
183: In order to fix the notation
184: we briefly summarise how angular asymmetries can be built from
185: spin correlations (see for instance Ref.~\cite{papiro1}).
186: A complete set of spin correlation observables for $t \bar t$ production
187: is described in Ref. \cite{papiro13}.
188: Let $\hat \mathbf{p}_t$, $\hat \mathbf{p}_{\bar t}$ be the normalised top and
189: antitop 3-momenta in the CM frame, and $\mathbf{s}_t$, $\mathbf{s}_{\bar t}$
190: their spins. We will study angular asymmetries based on the observables
191: $(\hat \mathbf{p}_t \cdot \mathbf{s}_t) \,
192: (\hat \mathbf{p}_{\bar t} \cdot \mathbf{s}_{\bar t})$,
193: which provides the spin correlation in the helicity basis, and
194: $(\mathbf{s}_t \cdot \mathbf{s}_{\bar t})$.
195: We do not consider the beam line or mixed bases, since the helicity basis
196: exhibits the highest degree of correlation at LHC \cite{papiro14}.
197: To build these angular asymmetries
198: the spins $\mathbf{s}_t$, $\mathbf{s}_{\bar t}$ can be inferred from the
199: distribution of the decay products. For a left-handed $Wtb$ vertex the
200: angular distribution of the fermion $f$ with respect
201: to the top spin in the top
202: rest frame is given by \cite{papiro14b}
203: \begin{equation}
204: \label{ec:3}
205: \frac{d\Gamma}{d \cos \theta_f} =
206: \frac{1}{2} \left( 1+h_f \cos \theta_f \right) \,,
207: \end{equation}
208: where $\theta_f$ is the angle between the fermion 3-momentum in the top rest
209: frame $\mathbf{p}_f$ and the top spin $\mathbf{s}_t$,
210: and $h_f$ are constants between $-1$ and $1$. For the antitop quark, the
211: distributions are obtained from the above formula with similar definitions
212: but replacing $\cos \theta_f$
213: by $-\cos \theta_f$.
214: For charged leptons and $d,s$ quarks $h_f = 1$ and the correlation
215: is maximal.
216: For neutrinos and $u,c$ quarks $h_f = -0.31$.
217: For leptonic decays we select
218: the charged lepton as spin analyser. For hadronic decays, the best choice
219: would be to select the down-type jet. However, the $d,s$ jets cannot be
220: experimentally identified,
221: and they are conventionally assigned to
222: the jet from the $W$ decay with smaller energy
223: in the top rest frame \cite{papiro16}. This
224: corresponds to a $d$ or $s$ 61\% of the time, and has an average correlation
225: with the top spin $h_q = 0.51$. Corresponding to these spin correlations,
226: we build the asymmetries
227: \begin{equation}
228: A_1 = \frac{N(x_l x_q > 0) - N(x_l x_q < 0)}{N(x_l x_q > 0) + N(x_l x_q < 0)}\,,
229: \label{ec:4}
230: \end{equation}
231: \begin{equation}
232: A_2 = \frac{N(x_{lq} > 0) - N(x_{lq} < 0)}{N(x_{lq} > 0) + N(x_{lq} < 0)}\,,
233: \label{ec:5}
234: \end{equation}
235: where $x_l$ is the cosine of the angle between $\mathbf{p}_l$
236: and $\hat \mathbf{p}_t$, $x_q$ the analogue for $\mathbf{p}_q$
237: and $\hat \mathbf{p}_{\bar t}$, and $x_{lq}$ the angle between $\mathbf{p}_l$
238: and $\mathbf{p}_q$.
239: Besides, we consider the correlation
240: $(\hat \mathbf{p}_t \cdot \mathbf{s}_t) \,
241: (\hat \mathbf{p}_{\bar t} \cdot \mathbf{s}_{\bar t})$ using the neutrino
242: as spin analyser in semileptonic decays
243: \cite{papiro15}. This yields the asymmetry
244: \begin{equation}
245: A_3 = \frac{N(x_\nu x_q > 0) - N(x_\nu x_q < 0)}{N(x_\nu x_q > 0) +
246: N(x_\nu x_q < 0)} \,,
247: \label{ec:6}
248: \end{equation}
249: with $x_\nu$ the cosine of the angle between $\mathbf{p}_\nu$ and
250: $\hat \mathbf{p}_t$.
251: When nonstandard couplings are present, the angular distribution of the
252: decay products no longer corresponds to Eq.~(\ref{ec:3}).
253: Therefore, comparing the measured
254: angular asymmetries with their SM expectations
255: the presence of anomalous $Wtb$ couplings
256: can be established. However, these
257: asymmetries depend on the degree of correlation between the $t$ and $\bar t$
258: spins, and hence on other variables such as new production mechanisms,
259: center of mass energy, parton
260: distributions, or the presence of
261: anomalous $gtt$ couplings. This dependence on the production process makes the
262: analysis of the $Wtb$ vertex with spin correlations less clean
263: than with the FB asymmetry.
264:
265:
266:
267:
268: \section{Dependence of the FB asymmetry on couplings and masses}
269:
270: Before the numerical discussion it is enlightening to have a look at the
271: dependence of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ (which will be the best observable among the
272: asymmetries discussed) on the nonstandard
273: couplings. For simplicity we ignore corrections from the $t$ and $W$ widths,
274: which will turn out to be irrelevant, but keep $m_b$ nonvanishing. Unlike
275: $A_{1-3}$, $A_\mathrm{FB}$ only depends on the $t$, $b$ and $W$ boson masses,
276: and on the couplings in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}). For small $g^R$ the leading dependence
277: of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ on this coupling is given by the interference term
278: $V_{tb}^L g^R$.
279: For $g^R = 0$ we obtain the SM tree-level (LO) value $A_\mathrm{FB} = 0.2223$.
280: The bulk effect of one-loop QCD corrections in the asymmetry can be taken into
281: account including a $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ term $g^R = -0.00642$ \cite{papiro8}.
282: The corresponding NLO value is $A_\mathrm{FB} = 0.2257$. Borrowing from our
283: numerical analysis below the combined statistical error of
284: the asymmetry, $\delta A_\mathrm{FB} \simeq 5 \times 10^{-4}$,
285: we obtain the simple estimate that QCD corrections amount to a $10\sigma$
286: effect. This high sensitivity is due to the presence of the large linear
287: term. The dependence of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ on $g^L$ and $V_{tb}^R$ is mainly
288: quadratic because the linear terms are suppressed. Then, the sensitivity to
289: these couplings is less impressive.
290: In Fig.~\ref{fig:afb} we plot $A_\mathrm{FB}$
291: for different values of $\delta g^R \equiv g^R +
292: 0.00642$, $\delta g^L \equiv g^L$ and $\delta V_{tb}^R \equiv V_{tb}^R$.
293: (We use $m_t = 175$, $M_W =
294: 80.33$, $m_b = 4.8$ GeV.)
295:
296: \begin{figure}[htb]
297: \begin{center}
298: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/afb.eps,width=12cm,clip=}}
299: \end{center}
300: \caption{Dependence of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ on $\delta g^R$ (solid line),
301: $\delta g^L$ (dashed line) and $\delta V_{tb}^R$ (dotted line) using the
302: analytical expression.
303: \label{fig:afb} }
304: \end{figure}
305:
306: We expect that the main source of systematic error on $A_\mathrm{FB}$ will be
307: the uncertainty in the top mass. For $\delta m_t \simeq 1$ GeV, as estimated
308: for LHC, the variations in the LO and NLO predictions of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ with
309: respect to the central values with $m_t = 175$ GeV are shown in
310: Fig.~\ref{fig:afb2}. The thickness of the lines corresponds to the
311: uncertainty in the $W$ mass, which is expected to be measured at LHC with a
312: precision of $0.015$ GeV, and has a much smaller effect on the FB asymmetry.
313: The full potential of the measurement of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ will be available
314: when $\delta m_t$ is reduced to $0.15$ GeV and $\delta M_W$ to $0.006$ GeV at
315: TESLA (see Ref.~\cite{papiro22} and references there in). With these precisions,
316: the systematic errors due to $m_t$ and $M_W$ are almost negligible.
317:
318: \begin{figure}[htb]
319: \begin{center}
320: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/afb2.eps,width=12cm,clip=}}
321: \end{center}
322: \caption{Dependence of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ on the top mass for $m_t = 175 \pm 1$
323: GeV. The thickness of the lines shows the variation for
324: $M_W = 80.33 \pm 0.015$ GeV.
325: \label{fig:afb2} }
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: \section{Numerical results}
329:
330: The calculation of the matrix elements for the $2 \to 6$ processes
331: $gg,\;q \bar q \to t \bar t \to W^+ b W^- \bar b \to l \nu jjjj$,
332: including all spin correlations,
333: is performed using HELAS extended to compute the $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$
334: vertices present in the top and antitop decays. As background we
335: consider $W^\pm$ plus four jets, calculated with VECBOS \cite{papiro10}. We use
336: the MRST structure functions set A \cite{papiro11} with $Q^2 = \hat s$.
337: We generate enough events to ensure that
338: the Monte Carlo uncertainties are below the experimental statistical
339: errors, and use the same event sets (one for the $\mu$ channel and another
340: for the $e$ channel) for all the evaluations of the asymmetries.
341: This is crucial to make certain that the small deviations in the
342: asymmetries are not an artifact of the numerical integration.
343:
344: Assuming for the moment perfect particle identification and neglecting any
345: detector effects, we obtain for the FB asymmetry the
346: LO value $A_\mathrm{FB} = 0.2222$ and the NLO value $A_\mathrm{FB}=0.2257$. These
347: are remarkably close to the ones obtained above neglecting corrections from the
348: top and $W$ widths. These corrections
349: cancel after integration in phase space due to their linear dependence on
350: the small ratios $\Gamma_t/m_t$ and $\Gamma_W/M_W$.
351: Note also that
352: NLO corrections to the production of $t \bar t$ pairs do not modify the FB
353: asymmetry, and can be taken into account with a global factor $K = 1.7$
354: \cite{papiro1}. For the spin correlation asymmetry $A_1$
355: we obtain the tree-level value $-0.0835$, in agreement with
356: Ref.~\cite{papiro14} within Monte Carlo uncertainties.
357: The sensitivity of the asymmetries $A_{1-3}$ to anomalous couplings is not
358: modified by NLO corrections to $t \bar t$ production, which
359: have little influence on top-antitop spin correlations at LHC
360: \cite{papiro18}. These corrections must be included when
361: comparing with real data. In this case it is also compulsory to take
362: hadronisation into account and to use a proper detector simulation.
363: In order to estimate the
364: sensitivity to anomalous $Wtb$ couplings, it is sufficient
365: to simulate the calorimeter resolution by performing a Gaussian
366: smearing of the energies. We use
367: \begin{eqnarray}
368: \frac{\Delta E^j}{E^j} & = & \frac{50\%}{\sqrt{E^j}} \oplus 3\% \,, \nonumber \\
369: \frac{\Delta E^e}{E^e} & = & \frac{10\%}{\sqrt{E^e}} \oplus 0.3\% \,,
370: \nonumber \\
371: \frac{\Delta E^\mu}{E^\mu} & = & 2.5\%
372: \label{ec:6b}
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: for jets, electrons and muons, respectively.
375: The energies in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:6b}) are GeV and the terms are added in
376: quadrature. We apply ``detector'' cuts on transverse momenta of the jets
377: $p_T^j \geq 20$ GeV, electrons $p_T^e \geq 15$ GeV, and muons $p_T^\mu \geq 6$
378: GeV. We also require pseudorapidities $|\eta| \leq 2.5$ and reject the events
379: where the charged lepton and/or the jets are not isolated, requiring a distance
380: in ($\eta$, $\phi$) space $\Delta R \geq 0.4$.
381: We then require the signal and background events to fulfill at least one of the
382: ATLAS trigger conditions. In practice, at the high luminosity phase
383: they imply the cuts $p_T^e \geq 30$ GeV in the
384: electron channel and $p_T^\mu \geq 20$ GeV in the muon channel. These
385: conditions reduce the phase space in the forward region
386: and then $A_\mathrm{FB}$ to $\sim 0.15$ for muons and $\sim 0.05$ for
387: electrons. For $A_{1,2}$, the effect of the detector simulation
388: is to reduce them by factors of $0.55$, $0.7$ in the muon channel and
389: $0.15$, $0.4$ in the electron channel, respectively.
390: $A_3$ is washed out in both channels.
391:
392: The events are reconstructed identifying first the three jets from the antitop
393: hadronic decay.Among the four final jets, two of them $j_1$, $j_2$ must
394: reproduce the $W$ mass $(M_W^\mathrm{rec})^2 = (p_{j_1}+p_{j_2})^2$, and with a
395: third one $j_3$ the $\bar t$ mass
396: $(m_{\bar t}^\mathrm{rec})^2 = (p_{j_1}+p_{j_2}+p_{j_3})^2$. Of the twelve
397: possible
398: combinations, we choose the one minimising the sum of square mass differences
399: $(m_{\bar t}^\mathrm{rec}-m_t)^2+(M_W^\mathrm{rec}-M_W)^2$.
400: The remaining jet is then assigned to the $b$
401: quark. With this kinematic identification $b$ tagging is neither necessary
402: nor convenient in order to keep the signal as large as possible. The neutrino
403: momentum $p_\nu$ is reconstructed from the missing transverse momentum
404: $p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \not \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$ and the charged lepton momentum
405: $p_l$, identifying
406: $(p_\nu)_T = p_T\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \not \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$ and solving
407: $(p_\nu + p_l)^2 = M_W^2$ for $(p_\nu)_L$. Of the two possible values for the
408: longitudinal
409: momentum we choose the solution with $(p_\nu + p_l + p_b)^2$ closer to
410: $m_t^2$, what ensures the correct event reconstruction.
411:
412: The presence of a calculable $W\!jjjj$ background does not change
413: the value of the asymmetries but increases their statistical error.
414: Thus, it is convenient to reduce the background as much as possible
415: without spoiling
416: the signal. For this purpose we apply loose cuts on the reconstructed masses
417: of $t$, $\bar t$ and $W^-$,
418: \begin{eqnarray}
419: 130 \leq & \hspace*{-0.1cm} m_t^\mathrm{rec} \hspace*{-0.1cm}
420: & \leq 220 \,, \nonumber \\
421: 150 \leq & \hspace*{-0.1cm} m_{\bar t}^\mathrm{rec} \hspace*{-0.1cm}
422: & \leq 200 \,, \nonumber \\
423: 65 \leq & \hspace*{-0.1cm} M_{W^-}^\mathrm{rec} \hspace*{-0.1cm}
424: & \leq 95 \,,
425: \end{eqnarray}
426: which have very little effect on the signal.
427: The mass window is wider for $m_t^\mathrm{rec}$ than for
428: $m_{\bar t}^\mathrm{rec}$ because the reconstruction of
429: the top from missing transverse momentum is worse than the antitop
430: reconstruction from three jets.
431: In Table~\ref{tab:1} we collect
432: the signal and background cross-sections in the SM.
433: The statistical errors for the asymmetries computed from this Table
434: are $\delta A \simeq 6.5 \times 10^{-4}$ and
435: $\delta A \simeq 7.3 \times 10^{-4}$
436: in the muon and electron channels, respectively, for an integrated luminosity
437: of 100 fb$^{-1}$.
438: In Table~\ref{tab:2} we collect the asymmetries
439: within the SM and for several values of the anomalous parameters.
440: Using these figures the statistical significance of the deviations
441: from the SM NLO prediction can be
442: computed for each channel and combined to yield the total statistical
443: significance in Table~\ref{tab:3}.
444: Notice that although the asymmetries for the $e$ channel are typically smaller
445: than for the $\mu$ channel, the sensitivities are similar.
446: We also observe that the significances obtained are 60--70\% of those
447: obtained naively from Figure~\ref{fig:afb} and the combined statistical error.
448:
449: \begin{table}[p]
450: \begin{center}
451: \begin{tabular}{llcccc}
452: \hline
453: \hline
454: & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$l=\mu$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$l=e$} \\
455: & & $t \bar t$ & $W\!jjjj$ & $t \bar t$ & $W\!jjjj$ \\
456: \hline
457: $A_\mathrm{FB}$ & $N_F$ & 16.065 & 2.62 & 12.227 & 2.99 \\
458: & $N_B$ & 11.874 & 2.59 & 11.009 & 2.42 \\
459: $A_1$ & $N_F$ & 13.641 & 2.51 & 11.544 & 2.66 \\
460: & $N_B$ & 14.297 & 2.71 & 11.693 & 2.74 \\
461: $A_2$ & $N_F$ & 14.523 & 2.82 & 11.907 & 2.94 \\
462: & $N_B$ & 13.415 & 2.40 & 11.330 & 2.46 \\
463: $A_3$ & $N_F$ & 13.956 & 2.62 & 11.550 & 2.67 \\
464: & $N_B$ & 13.983 & 2.59 & 11.687 & 2.73 \\
465: \hline
466: \hline
467: \end{tabular}
468: \caption{Signal and background cross-sections (in pb) in the F and B hemispheres
469: for each asymmetry and decay channel.
470: \label{tab:1}}
471: \end{center}
472: \end{table}
473:
474: \begin{table}[p]
475: \begin{center}
476: \begin{tabular}{llcccc}
477: \hline
478: \hline
479: Coupling & $l$ & $A_\mathrm{FB}$ & $A_1$ & $A_2$ & $A_3$ \\
480: \hline
481: SM (NLO) & $\mu$ & 0.1500 & -0.0235 & 0.0397 & -0.0010 \\
482: SM (NLO) & $e$ & 0.0524 & -0.0064 & 0.0248 & -0.0059 \\
483: SM (LO) & $\mu$ & 0.1470 & -0.0236 & 0.0398 & -0.0012 \\
484: SM (LO) & $e$ & 0.0496 & -0.0066 & 0.0250 & -0.0061 \\
485: $\delta g^R = +0.003$ & $\mu$ & 0.1486 & -0.0235 & 0.0398 & -0.0011 \\
486: $\delta g^R = +0.003$ & $e$ & 0.0511 & -0.0065 & 0.0249 & -0.0060 \\
487: $\delta g^R = -0.003$ & $\mu$ & 0.1514 & -0.0234 & 0.0396 & -0.0009 \\
488: $\delta g^R = -0.003$ & $e$ & 0.0537 & -0.0063 & 0.0247 & -0.0058 \\
489: $\delta g^L = +0.02$ & $\mu$ & 0.1486 & -0.0233 & 0.0396 & -0.0010 \\
490: $\delta g^L = +0.02$ & $e$ & 0.0510 & -0.0064 & 0.0247 & -0.0059 \\
491: $\delta g^L = -0.05$ & $\mu$ & 0.1488 & -0.0234 & 0.0396 & -0.0010 \\
492: $\delta g^L = -0.05$ & $e$ & 0.0512 & -0.0064 & 0.0247 & -0.0059 \\
493: $\delta V_{tb}^R = +0.08$ & $\mu$ & 0.1485 & -0.0229 & 0.0390 & -0.0010 \\
494: $\delta V_{tb}^R = +0.08$ & $e$ & 0.0510 & -0.0061 & 0.0242 & -0.0059 \\
495: $\delta V_{tb}^R = -0.04$ & $\mu$ & 0.1488 & -0.0231 & 0.0393 & -0.0009 \\
496: $\delta V_{tb}^R = -0.04$ & $e$ & 0.0512 & -0.0062 & 0.0245 & -0.0058 \\
497: \hline
498: \hline
499: \end{tabular}
500: \caption{Asymmetries for some representative values of the anomalous couplings.
501: \label{tab:2}}
502: \end{center}
503: \end{table}
504:
505: \begin{table}[ht]
506: \begin{center}
507: \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
508: \hline
509: \hline
510: Coupling & $A_\mathrm{FB}$ & $A_1$ & $A_2$ & $A_3$ \\
511: \hline
512: SM (NLO) & $6.1\sigma$ & $0.3\sigma$ & $0.4\sigma$ & $0.4\sigma$ \\
513: $\delta g^R=+0.003$ & $2.8\sigma$ & $0.1\sigma$ & $0.2\sigma$ & $0.2\sigma$ \\
514: % 4.67 60%
515: $\delta g^R=-0.003$ & $2.8\sigma$ & $0.1\sigma$ & $0.2\sigma$ & $0.2\sigma$ \\
516: % 4.65 60%
517: $\delta g^L=+0.02$ & $3.0\sigma$ & $0.3\sigma$ & $0.1\sigma$ & $0.0\sigma$ \\
518: % 4.21 71%
519: $\delta g^L=-0.05$ & $2.5\sigma$ & $0.1\sigma$ & $0.1\sigma$ & $0.0\sigma$ \\
520: % 3.62 70%
521: $\delta V_{tb}^R=+0.08$ & $3.1\sigma$ & $0.9\sigma$ & $1.2\sigma$ & $0.0\sigma$
522: \\
523: % 5.04 61%
524: $\delta V_{tb}^R=-0.04$ & $2.6\sigma$ & $0.6\sigma$ & $0.7\sigma$ & $0.1\sigma$
525: \\
526: % 3.65 71%
527: \hline
528: \hline
529: \end{tabular}
530: \caption{Combined statistical significance of the deviations in the asymmetries
531: in Table \ref{tab:2}.
532: \label{tab:3}}
533: \end{center}
534: \end{table}
535:
536: We have ignored systematic errors in our study. As we have mentioned in the
537: previous Section, we expect that the main source of systematic error will be the
538: uncertainty in the top mass (see Fig.~\ref{fig:afb2}). We have given in
539: Table~\ref{tab:3} the precision in the determination of anomalous couplings
540: that will be possible when TESLA reduces the uncertainty in the top mass to
541: $\delta m_t = 0.15$ GeV. Before TESLA operation, the theoretical uncertainty due
542: to $\delta m_t$ must be taken into account in each decay channel.
543: The bulk effect of this systematic uncertainty for the expected LHC precision
544: $\delta m_t = 1$ GeV is that the figures in Table~\ref{tab:3} have to be
545: reduced by factors of $0.6-0.7$, being the difference between the SM LO and NLO
546: predictions approximately $3.6 \sigma$ in this case, and the remaining
547: statistical significances between $1.8\sigma$ and $2 \sigma$.
548: Additionally, it should be pointed out
549: that if we assumed that no new physics contributes to the
550: $Wtb$ vertex, the measurement of the FB asymmetry could be turned into an
551: indirect, model-dependent determination of the top mass
552: \cite{papiro19} with an accuracy of
553: $\delta m_t \simeq 0.5$ GeV.
554:
555: The FB asymmetry will be first observed at Tevatron, but the small statistics
556: available will not allow to perform precision tests. With a similar analysis
557: and the cuts $p_T^{e,\mu,j} \geq 10$ GeV,
558: $|\eta^e| \leq 2$, $|\eta^\mu| \leq 1.5$, $|\eta^j| \leq 2.5$, we obtain for
559: an integrated luminosity of 2 fb$^{-1}$
560: $A_\mathrm{FB} = 0.21 \pm 0.04$ and $A_\mathrm{FB} = 0.23 \pm 0.08$ in the $e$
561: and $\mu$ channels,
562: respectively. The asymmetry can be measured with $5.4\sigma$, but
563: the anomalous couplings needed to have a $3\sigma$ deviation
564: are large, $|g_{R,L}| \sim 0.3$, $|V_{tb}^R| \sim 0.7$.
565:
566: In summary, we conclude that $A_\mathrm{FB}$ is an excellent tool for the study
567: of the $Wtb$ vertex that can spot one-loop QCD corrections with $6\sigma$
568: significance. The sensitivity to $g^R$ is one order of magnitude better than in
569: single top production at LHC \cite{papiro7}, and even at a 1000 GeV
570: $\gamma e^-$ collider with a luminosity of 500 fb$^{-1}$ \cite{papiro20}. The
571: sensitivity to $g^L$ is similar but better than the one expected at a linear
572: $e^+ e^-$ or $\gamma e^-$ collider, or in single top production at LHC. Spin
573: correlation asymmetries are not quite as sensitive and they depend on the
574: production process as well. This fact has, however, a bonus: if $A_\mathrm{FB}$
575: has its predicted value and $A_1$ or $A_2$ do not, then the source of the
576: discrepancy is bound to be an anomalous coupling or mechanism in $t \bar t$
577: production. Hence, the study of the FB asymmetry in $t\bar t$ production also
578: complements spin correlation asymmetries helping to disentangle the origin of
579: new physics, if observed.
580:
581:
582:
583: \vspace{1cm}
584: \noindent
585: {\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
586:
587: \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent
588: This work has been supported by the European Community's Human Potential
589: Programme under contract HTRN--CT--2000--00149 Physics at Colliders and by MCYT
590: and Junta de Andaluc\'{\i}a.
591:
592:
593: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
594: \bibitem{papiro1}
595: M. Beneke {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0003033
596: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
597:
598: \bibitem{papiro2}
599: T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} 094021 (1998)
600: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807340;%%
601: \bibitem{papiro2b}
602: A.S. Belyaev, E. E. Boos and L. V. Dudko, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 075001 (1999)
603: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806332;%%
604: \bibitem{papiro2c}
605: T. Tait and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 014018 (2001)
606: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007298;%%
607:
608: \bibitem{papiro3}
609: C.S. Li, R.J. Oakes and T.C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43} 3759 (1991)
610: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,3759;%%
611:
612: \bibitem{papiro3b}
613: D. Garcia, R.A. Jimenez, J. Sola and W. Hollik, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 427}, 53
614: (1994);
615: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402341;%%
616: A. Dabelstein, W. Hollik, C. Junger, R.A. Jimenez and J. Sola, Nucl. Phys. B
617: {\bf 454}, 75 (1995)
618: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503398;%%
619:
620: \bibitem{papiro3c}
621: A. Denner and A.H. Hoang, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 397}, 483 (1993)
622: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B397,483;%%
623:
624: \bibitem{papiro5}
625: S. Ahmed {\em et al.} [CLEO Collaboration], hep-ex/9908022
626: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9908022;%%
627:
628: \bibitem{papiro5b}
629: K. Hagiwara {\em et al.}, Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66},
630: 010001 (2002)
631: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
632:
633: \bibitem{papiro4}
634: F. Larios, M.A. Perez and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 457} 334 (1999);
635: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903394;%%
636: K. Whisnant, J.M. Yang, B.L. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56}
637: 467 (1997)
638: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702305;%%
639:
640: \bibitem{papiro6}
641: J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra, hep-ph/0210112
642: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210112;%%
643:
644: \bibitem{papiro7}
645: E. Boos, L. Dudko and T. Ohl, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 11} 473 (1999)
646: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903215;%%
647: \bibitem{papiro21}
648: D. Espriu and J. Manzano, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 073005 (2002);
649: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107112;%%
650: D. Espriu and J. Manzano, hep-ph/0209030
651: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209030;%%
652:
653: \bibitem{papiro8}
654: B. Lampe, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 454} 506 (1995)
655: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B454,506;%%
656:
657: \bibitem{papiro13}
658: A. Brandenburg, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 388}, 626 (1996)
659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603333;%%
660:
661: \bibitem{papiro14}
662: G. Mahlon and S. Parke, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 4886 (1996)
663: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512264;%%
664:
665: \bibitem{papiro14b}
666: M. Je\.zabek and J.H. K\"uhn, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 320}, 20 (1989)
667: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B320,20;%%
668:
669: \bibitem{papiro16}
670: T. Stelzer and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 374}, 169 (1996)
671: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512292;%%
672:
673: \bibitem{papiro15}
674: M. Je\.zabek and J.H. K\"uhn, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 329}, 317 (1994)
675: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403366;%%
676:
677: \bibitem{papiro22}
678: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\em et al.} [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group
679: Collaboration], hep-ph/0106315
680: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
681:
682: \bibitem{papiro10}
683: F.A. Berends, H. Kuijf, B. Tausk and W.T. Giele, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B357},
684: 32 (1991)
685: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B357,32;%%
686:
687: \bibitem{papiro11}
688: A.D. Martin, R.G. Roberts, W.J. Stirling and R.S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C
689: {\bf 14}, 133 (2000)
690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907231;%%
691:
692: \bibitem{papiro18}
693: W. Bernreuther, A. Brandenburg, Z.G. Si and P. Uwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},
694: 242002 (2001)
695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107086;%%
696:
697: \bibitem{papiro19}
698: M. Fischer, S. Groote, J.G. Korner and M.C. Mauser, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},
699: 054036 (2002);
700: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101322;%%
701: H.S. Do, S. Groote, J.G. Korner and M. C. Mauser, hep-ph/0209185
702: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209185;%%
703:
704: \bibitem{papiro20}
705: E. Boos, M. Dubinin, A. Pukhov, M. Sachwitz and H.J. Schreiber, Eur. Phys. J. C
706: {\bf 21}, 81 (2001)
707: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104279;%%
708:
709: \end{thebibliography}
710: \end{document}
711:
712: