1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}
2: \let\jnfont=\rm
3: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ B }{\bf #1},}
4: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
5: \def\EPJC#1,{{\jnfont Euro.\ Phys.\ J.\ C }{\bf #1},}
6: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont \em Phys.\ Rev.\ D }{\bf #1},}
7: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
8: \def\MPLA#1,{{\jnfont Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A }{\bf #1},}
9: \def\JPG#1,{{\jnfont J.\ Phys.\ G}{\bf #1},}
10: \def\CTP#1,{{\jnfont Commun.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1},}
11: \def\btt#1{{tt$\backslash$#1}}
12: \def\BibTeX{\rm B{\sc ib}\TeX}
13: \def\p_slash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.1pt $p$}}}
14: \def\k_slash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.1pt $k$}}}
15: \def\E_slash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.1pt $E$}}}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \draft
19: \preprint{}
20:
21: \title{Probing Topcolor-Assisted Technicolor from Like-sign Top Pair Production at LHC}
22: \author{Junjie Cao $^{a,b}$, Guoli Liu $^b$, Jin Min Yang $^{b}$ \\\ }
23: \address{$^a$ Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Henan 453002, China}
24: \address{$^b$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China}
25:
26: \date{\today}
27: \maketitle
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: The topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2) theory predicts tree-level
31: flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) top quark Yukawa couplings
32: with top-pions. Such FCNC interactions will induce like-sign top
33: quark pair productions at CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). While
34: these rare productions are far below the observable level in the
35: Standard Model and other popular new physics models such as the
36: Minimal Supersymmetric Model, we find that in a sound part of
37: parameter space the TC2 model can enhance the production cross
38: sections to several tens of fb and thus may be observable at the
39: LHC due to rather low backgrounds. Searching for these productions
40: at the LHC will serve as an excellent probe for the TC2 model.
41:
42: \end {abstract}
43: \pacs{14.65.Ha, 12.60.Fr, 12.60.Jv}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46: Top quark physics \cite{review} will be intensively studied in the
47: coming years. The Fermilab Tevatron Collider and the CERN Large
48: Hadron Collider (LHC) will copiously produce top quarks and allow
49: to scrutinize top quark properties. Any new physics related to
50: top quark will be uncovered or stringently constrained
51: \cite{sensitive}. One striking property of top quark in the
52: Standard Model (SM) is its extremely weak flavor-changing
53: neutral-current (FCNC) interactions due to the GIM mechanism: they
54: are absent at tree-level and highly suppressed at loop-level
55: \cite{tcvh_sm}. By contrast, the extensions of the SM often
56: inevitably predict much larger FCNC interactions for top quark.
57: Therefore, the study of top quark FCNC processes will serve as a
58: sensitive test of the SM and a powerful probe of new physics.
59:
60: In the extensions of the SM, the top quark FCNC interactions may
61: be enhanced through two ways. One is that at loop-level the GIM
62: machanism does not work so well as in the SM since new particles
63: enter the loops to mediate top quark FCNC transitions. The other
64: is that some models natually predict tree-level top quark FCNC
65: Yukawa couplings with scalar fields, which is in contrast with the
66: SM where the generation of fermion masses is realized by simply
67: introducing Yukawa couplings with only one Higgs doublet and, as a
68: result, the Yukawa couplings can be diagonalized simultaneously
69: with the fermion mass matrices. The enhanced top quark FCNC
70: interactions will lead to various possibly observable FCNC
71: processes at colliders, such as the FCNC decays
72: \cite{tcv1,tcv2,tcv3} and the top-charm associated
73: productions\cite{cao1,yue}. In addition, they can also induce the
74: like-sign top pair productions at the LHC. Unlike top-charm
75: associated productions, these like-sign top pair productions are
76: free from huge QCD background $W+jets$ and also from $t \bar{t}$
77: background \cite{tc-background}. Due to rather low backgrounds
78: \cite{tt-background}, such productions will be an excellent probe
79: for top quark FCNC interactions \cite{Like-sign}.
80:
81: In this article, we study the possibility of using the like-sign top pair productions at the LHC
82: to probe the topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2) theory \cite{tc2-Hill,tc2-Lane}.
83: This theory, which combines the fancy idea of technicolor\cite{techni} with top quark
84: condensation\cite{top-condensation}, has not yet been excluded by experiments and remains
85: a typical candidate of new physics in the direction of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB).
86: A remarkable feature of this theory is that it predicts tree-level FCNC Yukawa interactions
87: for top quark since top quark is singled out for condensation to generate the main part
88: of its mass \cite{FCNH,top-Higgs}.
89: Such tree-level FCNC interactions are likely
90: to induce sizable like-sign top pair productions at the LHC.
91: Since these rare productions are far below the observable level in the SM
92: and other popular new physics models like supersymmetry (we will discuss and estimate later),
93: the observation/unobserevation of these productions will strongly favor/disfavor
94: the TC2 theory.
95:
96: This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we first
97: briefly introduce the TC2 theory and then recapitulate the current theoretical and
98: experimental constraints on the parameters of this theory. In Section
99: III, we calculate various like-sign top pair productions at the LHC
100: induced by top quark FCNC interactions in the TC2 theory and discuss
101: their observability. We also discuss about the predictions of other popular new
102: physics models. Finally in Section IV we give the conclusion.
103:
104: \section{Topcolor-assisted technicolor}
105:
106: The TC2 theroy \cite{tc2-Hill,tc2-Lane} introduces two strongly
107: interacting sectors, with one sector (topcolor interaction)
108: generating the large top quark mass and partially contributing to
109: EWSB while the other sector
110: (technicolor interaction) responsible for the bulk of EWSB and the
111: generation of light fermion masses. At the EWSB scale, it
112: predicts the existence of two groups of composite scalars from
113: topcolor and technicolor condensations, respectively
114: \cite{tc2-Hill,tc2-Lane,top-condensation}. In the linear
115: realization, the scalars of our interest can be arranged into
116: two $SU(2)$ doublets, namely $\Phi_{top}$ and $\Phi_{TC}$
117: \cite{top-condensation,2hd,Rainwater}, which are analogous to the
118: Higgs fields in a special two-Higgs-doublet model \cite{special}.
119: The doublet $\Phi_{top}$ from topcolor condensation couples only
120: to the third-generation quarks. Its main task is to generate the
121: large top quark mass. It can also generate a sound part of bottom
122: quark mass indirectly via instanton effect\cite{tc2-Hill}. Since a
123: small value of the top-pion decay constant $F_t $ (the vev of the
124: doublet $\Phi_{top}$) is theoretically favored (see below), this
125: doublet must couple strongly to top quark in order to generate the
126: expected top quark mass. The other doublet $\Phi_{TC}$, which is
127: technicolor condensate, is mainly responsible for EWSB and light
128: fermion masses. It also contributes a small portion to the
129: third-generation quark masses. Because its vev $v_{TC}$ is generally
130: comparable with $v_W$, its Yukawa couplings with all fermions are
131: small. The low-energy effective Lagrangian can be written as
132: \cite{Rainwater}
133: \begin{eqnarray}
134: {\cal L}= | D_{\mu} \Phi_{TC} |^2 + | D_{\mu} \Phi_{top} |^2 -
135: \left ( \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \lambda_{i j}^U \bar{Q}_{L i} \Phi_{TC}
136: U_{R j} + \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \lambda_{i j}^D \bar{Q}_{L i}
137: \tilde{\Phi}_{TC} D_{R j} + Y_t \bar{\Psi}_L \Phi_{top} t_R + h.c.
138: \right ) + \cdots
139: \end{eqnarray}
140: where $ D_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu}+ ig' \frac{Y}{2} B_{\mu} + ig
141: \frac{\tau_i}{2} W_{\mu}^i$, $Q_{L i}$ denotes the left-handed
142: quark doublet, $U_{R j}$ and $ D_{R j}$ are right-handed quarks,
143: $\Psi_L $ is the left-handed top-bottom doublet,
144: $\tilde{\Phi}_{TC} $ is the conjugate of $\Phi_{TC}$, and
145: $\lambda_{i j}^{U, D}$ and $Y_t $ are Yukawa coupling constants
146: satisfying $\lambda_{i j}^{U, D}\ll Y_t$. The two $SU(2)$ doublets
147: take the form
148: \begin{eqnarray}
149: \Phi_{TC}& =&\left ( \begin{array}{c} v_{TC} + ( H_{TC}^0 + i \Pi_{TC}^0 )/\sqrt{2} \\
150: \Pi_{TC}^- \end{array} \right ) , \\
151: \Phi_{top}& =& \left (\begin{array}{c} F_t + ( H_{top}^0 + i \Pi_{top}^0 )/\sqrt{2} \\
152: \Pi_{top}^- \end{array} \right ) .
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: We can rotate the two doublets into $\Phi_{1,2}$ such that
155: $<\Phi_1>=\sqrt{v_{TC}^2 + F_t^2}=v_w$ and $<\Phi_2> =0$
156: \begin{eqnarray}
157: \Phi_1 & = & (\cos \beta \Phi_{TC} + \sin \beta \Phi_{top} )=
158: \left ( \begin{array}{c} v_{w} + ( H_1^0+ i G^0 )/\sqrt{2} \\
159: G^- \end{array} \right ) , \\
160: \Phi_2 & = & (- \sin \beta \Phi_{TC} + \cos \beta \Phi_{top} )
161: =\left (
162: \begin{array}{c} ( H_2^0 + i A^0 )/\sqrt{2} , \\
163: H^- \end{array} \right ) ,
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: where $\tan \beta =F_t/v_{TC}$. Then the Lagrangian can be rewritten as
166: \begin{eqnarray}
167: {\cal L}&=&|D_{\mu} \Phi_{1}|^2 + |D_{\mu} \Phi_{2}|^2 -
168: \left ( \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \lambda_{i j}^{\prime U} \bar{Q}_{L i}
169: \Phi_{1} U_{R j} + \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \lambda_{i j}^D
170: \frac{\sqrt{v_w^2-F_t^2}}{v_w} \bar{Q}_{L i} \tilde{\Phi}_{1} D_{R
171: j} \right. \nonumber \\ & & \left. - \sum_{i,j=1}^3
172: \lambda_{i j}^D \frac{F_t}{v_w} \bar{Q}_{L i} \tilde{\Phi}_{2}
173: D_{R j} - \sum_{i,j=1}^3 \lambda_{i j}^U \frac{F_t}{v_w}
174: \bar{Q}_{L i} \Phi_2 U_{R j}+ Y_t \frac{\sqrt{v_w^2-F_t^2}}{v_w}
175: \bar{\Psi}_L \Phi_{2} t_R + h.c. \right ) + \cdots
176: \label{Lagrangian}
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: where $\lambda_{i j}^{\prime U} =\lambda_{i j}^U \cos \beta + Y_t
179: \sin \beta \delta_{i 3} \delta_{j 3} $. In this new basis, $G^\pm$
180: and $G^0$ are Goldstone bosons while the pseudoscalar $A^0$,
181: the charged scalar $H^\pm$ and the CP-even scalars $H_{1,2}^0$ are
182: physical Higgs bosons.
183: %In general, the CP-even neutral
184: %scalar $H_1^0$ and $H_2^0$ can mix through Higgs potential.
185: %In our following analysis, we omit such mixing for simplicity.
186: It is obvious that $H_1^0$ plays the role of the "standard"
187: Higgs boson with flavor diagonal couplings and $H_2^0$ decouples from
188: the SM vector bosons but has strong coupling only with top quark.
189: In our following analysis, we will adopt the same notations as in the literature,
190: i.e., using top-Higgs $h_t^0$, top-pions $\pi_t^{0,\pm}$ to denote $H_2^0$, $A^0$
191: and $H^\pm$, respectively.
192:
193: In Eq.(\ref{Lagrangian}), the rotation of quarks into their mass
194: eigenstates will induce FCNC Yukawa interactions from the $\Phi_2$
195: couplings \footnote{ Just like the Higgs field in the SM, $\Phi_1$
196: terms give no FCNC couplings since they are diagonalized
197: simultaneously with the fermion mass matrices.}. Since $\lambda_{i
198: j}^{U, D}\ll Y_t $, the FCNC couplings from $\lambda_{i j}^U$ and
199: $\lambda_{i j}^D$ can be safely neglected. Because $Y_t
200: =(1-\epsilon) m_t/F_t$ ($\epsilon $ denoting the fraction of
201: technicolor contribution to the top quark mass) is quite large
202: (about $2 \sim 3 $) and the mixing between $c_R$ and $t_R$ can be
203: natually as large as 30\% \cite{FCNH}, the FCNC coupling from the
204: $Y_t$ term may be sizable and thus may have significant
205: phenomenological consequence. The FCNC couplings from this term
206: are given by
207: %\footnote{If the 6th contribution is taken into account, the expression of Eq.(\ref{FCNH}) is modified
208: %by replacing the factor $\frac{\sqrt{v_{w}^{2}-F_{t}^{2}}} {v_{w}}$
209: %with $\frac{v_w}{\sqrt{v_{w}^{2}-F_{t}^{2}}}$. For $F_t \sim 50 $GeV,
210: %this does not make any significant difference for our results.}
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: {\cal{L}}_{FCNC}& = &\frac{(1 - \epsilon ) m_{t}}{\sqrt{2}F_{t}}
213: \frac{\sqrt{v_{w}^{2}-F_{t}^{2}}} {v_{w}} \left (
214: i K_{UL}^{tt*}K_{UR}^{tt } \bar{t}_L t_{R} \pi_t^0
215: + \sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tt *} K_{DL}^{bb}\bar{t}_R b_{L} \pi_t^-
216: + i K_{UL}^{tt *} K_{UR}^{tc} \bar{t}_L c_{R} \pi_t^0 \right . \nonumber \\
217: & & \left. + \sqrt{2} K_{UR}^{tc *} K_{DL}^{bb} \bar{c}_R b_{L} \pi_t^-
218: + K_{UL}^{tt*} K_{UR}^{tt } \bar{t}_L t_{R} h_t^0
219: + K_{UL}^{tt *} K_{UR}^{tc} \bar{t}_L c_{R} h_t^0 + h.c. \right ) ,
220: \label{FCNH}
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: where $K_{UL}$, $K_{DL}$ and $K_{UR}$ are the rotation matrices that
223: transform the weak eigenstates of left-handed up-type, down-type and
224: right-handed up-type quarks to their mass eigenstates, respectively.
225: According to the analysis of \cite{FCNH}, their favored values are
226: given by
227: \begin{equation}
228: K_{UL}^{tt} \simeq K_{DL}^{bb} \simeq 1, \hspace{5mm}
229: K_{UR}^{tt}\simeq \frac{m_t^\prime}{m_t} = 1-\epsilon,
230: \hspace{5mm} K_{UR}^{tc}\leq \sqrt{1-(K_{UR}^{tt})^2}
231: =\sqrt{2\epsilon-\epsilon^{2}},
232: \label{FCSI}
233: \end{equation}
234: with $m_t^\prime$ denoting the topcolor contribution to the top
235: quark mass. In Eq.(\ref{FCNH}) we neglected the mixing
236: between up quark and top quark.
237:
238: Now we recapitulate the theoretical and experimental constraints on the
239: relevent parameters.
240: \begin{itemize}
241: \item[{\rm (1)}] About the $\epsilon$ parameter. In the TC2 model,
242: $\epsilon $ parameterizes the portion of the extended-technicolor (ETC)
243: contribution to the top quark mass. The bare value of $\epsilon $ is generated at the
244: ETC scale, and subject to very large radiative enhancement from
245: the topcolor and $U(1)_{Y_1}$ by a factor of order $10$ when evolving
246: down to the weak scale \cite{tc2-Hill}. This $\epsilon$ can induce
247: a nonzero top-pion mass (proportional to $\sqrt{\epsilon} $) \cite{Hill}
248: and thus ameliorate the problem of having dangerously light scalars.
249: Numerical analysis shows that, with reasonable choice of other input parameters,
250: $\epsilon$ of order $10^{-2} \sim 10^{-1}$ may induce top-pions as massive as the top
251: quark \cite{tc2-Hill}. Indirect phenomenological constraints on $\epsilon $
252: come from low energy flavor-changing processes such as $b \to s \gamma$ \cite{b-sgamma}.
253: However, these constraints are very weak. From the theoretical point of view, $\epsilon $
254: with value from $0.01$ to $0.1$ is favored. Since a large $\epsilon$ can slightly suppress
255: the FCNC Yukawa couplings, we fix conservatively $\epsilon =0.1$ throughout this paper.
256:
257: \item[{\rm (2)}] The parameter $K_{UR}^{tc}$ is upper bounded by the unitary relation
258: $K_{UR}^{tc} \leq \sqrt{1-(K_{UR}^{tt})^ 2}=\sqrt{2\epsilon -\epsilon^2}$.
259: For a $\epsilon $ value smaller than $0.1 $, this corresponds to $ K_{UR}^{tc} < 0.43$.
260: In our analysis, we will treat $K_{UR}^{tc}$ as a free parameter.
261:
262: \item[{\rm (3)}] About the top-pion decay constant $F_t$, the Pagels-Stokar formula \cite{Pagels}
263: gives an expression in terms of the number of quark color $N_c$, the top quark mass, and
264: the scale $\Lambda $ at which the condensation occurs:
265: \begin{eqnarray}
266: F_t^2= \frac{N_c}{16 \pi^2} m_t^2 \ln{\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_t^2}}.
267: \label{ft}
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: From this formula, one can infer that, if $t\bar{t} $ condensation is fully responsible for EWSB,
270: i.e. $F_t \simeq v_w \equiv v/\sqrt{2} = 174$ GeV, then $\Lambda $ is about
271: $10^{13} \sim 10^{14}$ GeV. Such a large value is less attractive since by the
272: original idea of technicolor \cite{techni}, one expects new physics scale should not be far
273: higher than the weak scale. On the other hand, if one believes that new physics exists at TeV scale,
274: i.e. $\Lambda \sim 1$ TeV, then $F_t \sim 50$ GeV, which means that $t \bar{t} $ condensation alone
275: cannot be wholly responsible for EWSB and to break electroweak symmetry needs the joint effort of
276: topcolor and other interactions like technicolor. By the way, Eq.(\ref{ft}) should be understood as
277: only a rough guide, and $F_t$ may in fact be somewhat lower or higher, say in the range $40 \sim 70$ GeV.
278: Allowing $F_t $ to vary over this range does not qualitatively change our conclusion, and, therefore,
279: we use the value $F_t =50$ GeV for illustration in our numerical analysis.
280:
281: \item[{\rm (4)}] About the mass bounds for top-pions and top-Higgs.
282: On the theoretical side, some estimates have been done. The mass splitting between
283: the neutral top-pion and the charged top-pion should be small since it comes only
284: from the electroweak interactions \cite{mass-pion}. Ref.\cite{tc2-Hill} has estimated
285: the mass of top-pions using quark loop approximation and showed that $m_{\pi_t}$ is
286: allowed to be a few hundred GeV in a reasonable parameter space. Like Eq.(\ref{ft}),
287: such estimations can only be regarded as a rough guide and the precise values of top-pion
288: masses can be determined only by future experiments. The mass of the top-Higgs $h_t^0$
289: can be estimated in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model in the large $N_{c}$ approximation
290: and is found to be about $2m_{t}$ \cite{top-condensation,top-Higgs}. This estimation
291: is also rather crude and the mass below the $\overline{t}t$ threshold is quite possible
292: in a variety of scenarios \cite{y15}. On the experimental side, current experiments
293: have restricted the mass of the charged top-pion. For example, the absence of $t \to \pi_t^+b$
294: implies that $m_{\pi_t^+} > 165$ GeV \cite{t-bpion} and $R_b$ analysis yields
295: $m_{\pi_t^+}> 220$ GeV \cite{burdman,kuang}. For the neutral top-pion and top-Higgs,
296: the experimental restrictions on them are rather weak. (Of course, considering
297: theoretically that the mass splitting between the neutral and charged top-pions is small,
298: the $R_b$ bound on the charged top-pion mass should be applicable to the neutral top-pion
299: masses.) The current bound on techni-pions \cite{datagroup} does not apply here since the
300: properties of top-pion are quite different from those of techni-pions. The direct search
301: for the neutral top-pion (top-Higgs) via $ p p ({\rm or}~p\bar p) \to t \bar{t} \pi_t^0 (h_t^0)$ with
302: $\pi_t^0 (h_t^0) \to b \bar{b} $ was proven to be hopeless at Tevatron for the top-pion
303: (top-Higgs) heavier than $135 $ GeV \cite{Rainwater}. The single production of $\pi_t^0 $
304: ($h_t^0$ ) at Tevatron with $\pi_t^0 $ ($h_t^0$) mainly decaying to $t \bar{c} $ may shed
305: some light on detecting top-pion (top-Higgs)\cite{top-Higgs}, but the potential for the
306: detection is limited by the value of $K_{UR}^{tc}$ and the detailed background analysis
307: is absent now. Anyhow, these mass bounds will be greatly tightened at the upcoming LHC
308: \cite{cao1,FCNH,Rainwater}. Combining the above theoretical and experimental bounds,
309: we in our discussion will assume
310: \begin{equation}
311: m_{h_t^0} > 135 ~{\rm GeV} \hspace{5mm}
312: m_{\pi_{t}^{0}}=m_{\pi_{t}^+}\equiv m_{\pi_t} > 220 ~{\rm GeV} .
313: \end{equation}
314: \end{itemize}
315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
316: \begin{figure}[hbt]
317: \begin{center}
318: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=9cm}
319: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
320: \caption{Feynman diagrams for like-sign top pair productions induced by the FCNC Yukawa
321: interactions in the TC2 model. }
322: \label{feynman}
323: \end{center}
324: \end{figure}
325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
326:
327: \section{Like-sign top pair productions at LHC}
328:
329: Due to the existence of the top quark FCNC Yukawa interactions in Eq.(\ref{FCNH}),
330: the like-sign top pair productions can proceed through various parton processes
331: at the LHC, as shown in Fig.\ref{feynman}.
332: Since the signals of these processes as well as their corresponding backgrounds are
333: different, we will analysis these processes separately.
334: Throughout this paper, we take $m_t =178 $ GeV \cite{topmass}, $m_w=80.448 $
335: GeV \cite{datagroup}, $\alpha_s(m_z) = 0.118 $ and neglect bottom
336: quark mass as well as charm quark mass. We used CTEQ6L \cite{CTEQ} parton distribution
337: functions with scale $\mu =2m_t$.
338:
339: \subsection{ $t t$ production at the LHC}
340:
341: In the TC2 model, $ pp \to t t + X$ proceeds through the patron process
342: $c c \to t t$ by exchanging a neutral top-pion or top-Higgs, as shown in
343: Fig.\ref{feynman} (a).
344: This process has two characters. One is that its cross section is proportional to
345: $\left ( K_{UR}^{tc} \right )^4 $ in all the parameter space, and thus
346: very sensitive to $K_{UR}^{tc}$.
347: The other is that the top-pion diagrams and the top-Higgs diagrams
348: interfer destructively and such destructive effect is significant
349: for degenerate top-pion and top-Higgs masses. This feature is illustrated
350: in Fig.\ref{pptt} for three representative values of $m_{h_t}$.
351: For a light top-Higgs with $m_{h_t} =160$ GeV, the increase of the
352: cross section as top-pion becomes heavier is due to the weakening
353: cancellation effect. For a moderate top-Higgs with $ m_{h_t}=300 $ GeV,
354: the dip of the cross section as $m_{\pi_t}$ approaches $m_{h_t}$
355: is a direct reflection of the cancellation effect. For a heavy top-Higgs
356: $m_{h_t} =1000$ GeV, the top-Higgs contribution is strongly
357: suppressed relative to the top-pion contribution and the total
358: cross section is dominated by the top-pion contribution. As a result,
359: the total cross section decreases monotonously as the top-pions get heavier,
360: showing the decoupling effects.
361:
362: Note that in Fig.\ref{pptt} we fix $K_{UR}^{tc} =0.4$ and
363: the charge conjugate production $pp \to \bar t \bar t + X$ is
364: also taken into account.
365: The cross section for an arbitrary $K_{UR}^{tc}$ value can
366: be obatined by scaling the result of Fig.\ref{pptt} by a factor of
367: $ \left (K_{UR}^{tc}/0.4 \right )^4$. So one can infer that even for
368: $K_{UR}^{tc} =0.1$, the cross section can still reach the level of
369: several fb in a vast parameter space.
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371: \begin{figure}[hbt]
372: \begin{center}
373: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,width=10cm}
374: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
375: \caption{Cross section of $ p p \to t t +X$ at the LHC as a function of $m_{\pi_t}$.}
376: \label{pptt}
377: \end{center}
378: \end{figure}
379: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
380: Now we discuss the observability of the production $pp \to t t + X$
381: and its charge conjugate production channel.
382: The semileptonical decay of both top (or anti-top) quarks give rise to
383: a signal of like-sign dilepton plus two b-jets, i.e., $\ell^\pm \ell^\pm + 2$ b-jets
384: ($\ell=e,\mu$).
385: The major backgrounds are from the production of $t \bar{t} W^\pm$ (when the extra jets or
386: leptons in the deacy miss detection) and $W^\pm q^\prime W^\pm q^\prime$ (when
387: the two light quarks are misidentified as b-jets). Their
388: corresponding rates are found to be \cite{Like-sign,Barger,WW}
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: & & \sigma ( t \bar{t} W^+ ) = 0.21 ~{\rm pb},
391: ~~~\sigma (t \bar{t} W^- )= 0.1 ~{\rm pb} , \label{ttw}\\
392: && \sigma ( W^+ q^\prime W^+ q^\prime ) = 0.5 ~{\rm pb},
393: ~~~\sigma ( W^- q^\prime W^- q^\prime ) =0.23 ~{\rm pb} .
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: To effectively suppress the backgrounds and at the same time not
396: to hurt the signal too much, we search for the events with two
397: like-sign leptons plus exactly two jets in which at least one is
398: required to be a b-jet. Two-jets requirement can efficiently
399: suppress $t \bar{t} W$ backgound and one b-jet requirement can
400: eliminate most $WWqq$ background \cite{tt-background}. As a
401: result, the background can be suppressed by one order. The $S/B$
402: ratio can be further enhanced by imposing suitable kinematic cuts.
403: From the analysis of Ref. \cite{tt-background}, one may infer that
404: by assuming $60 \%$ b-tagging efficiency \footnote{ In Ref.
405: \cite{tt-background} a rather low b-tagging efficiency ($36 \% $)
406: was taken and thus more signal events were cut out.}, the
407: background can be reduced to $6$ events for $ 100 fb^{-1}$
408: integrated luminosity, at the cost of a reduction of $86\%$ to
409: the signal. So, for an integrated luminosity $100$ fb$^{-1}$,
410: $\sigma( p p \to t t+X)$ larger than $10$ fb may be observable at
411: the LHC.
412:
413: %Denoting $N(l^\pm l^\pm)$ as the number of $l^\pm l^\pm $ events,
414: %then by noting $N(l^+ l^+) =N(l^- l^-) $ for the signal while $
415: %N(l^+ l^+) \simeq 2 N(l^- l^-) $ for the background, we think it
416: %is more appropriate to define the asymmetry parameter
417: %\begin{eqnarray}
418: %A =\frac{N(l^+ l^+) + N(l^- l^-)}{N(l^+ l^+) - N(l^- l^-)}
419: %\end{eqnarray}
420: %Such a quantity is sensitive to new physics. For example, for
421: %$S/B =1,3 $, which corresponds to $ \sigma (p p \to t t) \simeq
422: %10, 30 fb$ respectively, $A \simeq 6,12 $ instead of $A \simeq 3$ for the SM.
423:
424: Note that in the TC2 theory there may exist other sources of FCNC
425: which may contribute to $ c c \to t t $. For example, the TC2 theroy
426: predicts a new gauge boson $Z^\prime $, which can also mediate flavor-changing
427: interactions \cite{tc2-Hill}. However, electroweak data constrained
428: $Z^\prime$ to be heavier than several TeV \cite{Electr-constrain},
429: and thus the effects of $Z^\prime$ are negligiblly small.
430:
431: \subsection{$t t \bar{c}$ production at the LHC}
432:
433: In the TC2 model the production $pp\to t t \bar{c}+X$ proceeds through
434: the patron process $ c g \to t t \bar{c}$, as shown in Fig.\ref{feynman} (b,c,d).
435: Like the process $ c c \to t t $, top-pion diagrams and top-Higgs diagrams
436: interfere destructively.
437: Since top-pion and top-Higgs may be produced on-shell in this process,
438: as shown in Fig.\ref{feynman} (b), we need to know their total widths.
439: The possible decay channels of top-pion (top-Higgs) are
440: \begin{eqnarray}
441: \pi_t^0 (h_t) \to t\bar{t}, ~t\bar{c}, ~\bar{t} c, ~b\bar{b},
442: ~WW, ~Z Z, ~\gamma Z, ~g g, ~\gamma \gamma
443: \label{decay}
444: \end{eqnarray}
445: For $m_t < m_{\pi_t^0, h_t} < 2 m_t$,
446: %% and non-degenerate top-pion and top-Higgs (so that their interference can be neglected),
447: the process can be approximated as the direct production
448: of top-pion (top-Higgs) followed by their deacy to $t \bar{c}$.
449: Since the last five decay modes in Eq.(\ref{decay}) occur only at loop-level,
450: a moderate $K_{UR}^{tc}$ will make $t \bar{c}$ channel the dominant
451: decay mode of top-pion (top-Higgs). So in the region
452: $m_t < m_{\pi_t^0, h_t} < 2 m_t$, the cross section is
453: proportional to the square of $K_{UR}^{tc}$, less sensitive to
454: $K_{UR}^{tc}$ than in other parameter regions where the cross section
455: is proportional to $(K_{UR}^{tc} )^4 $.
456:
457: Figs.(\ref{ttc},\ref{ttc1},\ref{ttc2}) show the cross section of
458: $p p \to t t \bar{c}+X$ as a function of $m_{\pi_t^0}$ for various
459: $K_{UR}^{tc} $ and $m_{h_t}$. The charge conjugate production $pp
460: \to \bar t \bar t c + X$ is also taken into account. From these
461: figures, one can see that even for $K_{UR}^{tc} =0.1$, the cross
462: section can reach several tens fb in a sound parameter space, and,
463: depending on different parameter space, it may be larger or
464: smaller than the cross section of $ p p \to t t +X$. The sharp
465: drops of the cross section at $m_{\pi_t} \simeq 360$ GeV in these
466: figures reflect the suppression of $ Br(\pi_t^0 \to t \bar{c})$
467: due to the opening of decay channel $ \pi_t^0 \to t \bar{t} $.
468: Like Fig. \ref{pptt}, the dip of the cross section around
469: $m_{\pi_t}=300$ GeV in Fig. \ref{ttc1} is due to the cancellation
470: effects of top-pion and top-higgs diagrams.
471:
472: The signature of $ p p \to t t \bar{c} +X$ is two like-sign dileptons,
473: two b-jets, one light quark jet plus missing energy, i.e.,
474: $\ell^+ \ell^+ b b j + \E_slash$ ($\ell=e,\mu$).
475: The background is mainly from $pp\to W^+ t \bar{t} \to \ell^+
476: \ell^+ b b j_1 j_2 + \E_slash$ with either $j_1 $ or $j_2 $
477: missing detection.
478: If we require exactly three jets with at least one b-jet in the signal
479: events, then according to Fig.9 of Ref. \cite{tt-background}, about
480: $3/4$ of the background can be cut out so that $\sigma( W t \bar{t} ) < 100$ fb.
481: The ratio of signal to background can be further enhanced by
482: applying appropriate kinetic cuts \cite{tt-background}.
483: So the signal with a rate large than several tens of fb should be observable
484: at the LHC.
485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
486: \begin{figure}[hbt]
487: \begin{center}
488: \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,width=11cm}
489: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
490: \caption{Cross section of $ p p \to t t \bar{c} +X $ at the LHC as a function of
491: $m_{\pi_t}$ for various $K_{UR}^{tc}$. }
492: \label{ttc}
493: \end{center}
494: \end{figure}
495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
496: \begin{figure}[hbt]
497: \begin{center}
498: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=11.5cm}
499: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
500: \caption{Same as Fig.\ref{ttc}, but for $m_{h_t} =300$ GeV.}
501: \label{ttc1}
502: \end{center}
503: \end{figure}
504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
505: \begin{figure}[hbt]
506: \begin{center}
507: \epsfig{file=fig5.ps,width=11.5cm}
508: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
509: \caption{Same as Fig.\ref{ttc}, but for fixed $m_{h_t}=1000 $ GeV.}
510: \label{ttc2}
511: \end{center}
512: \end{figure}
513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
514:
515: A contour of the cross section in the $K_{UR}^{tc}$-$m_{\pi_t}$ plane
516: is plotted in Fig.\ref{constant}. The region above each curve corresponds
517: to a cross section larger than $10$ fb.
518: We see that in a large part of parameter space the cross section can exceed
519: $10$ fb for both processes.
520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
521: \begin{figure}[hbt]
522: \begin{center}
523: \epsfig{file=fig6.ps,width=10cm}
524: %\vspace*{-.5cm}
525: \caption{The contour of the cross section for $ p p \to t t +X $
526: and $p p \to t t \bar{c}+X $ at the LHC in $m_{\pi_t}$-$K_{UR}^{tc}$
527: plane. }
528: \label{constant}
529: \end{center}
530: \end{figure}
531: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
532: We would like to make some comments on other like-sign top pair
533: production processes. First, we take a look at the production $ p
534: p \to t t \bar{c} q+X$, as shown in Fig.\ref{feynman} (e,f). At
535: first glance, this production may also have a sizable rate.
536: However, as found in the literature
537: \cite{Like-sign,Rainwater,Unitary}, due to the unitary constraint,
538: there exists severe cancellation between different diagrams so
539: that its rate is highly suppressed. We have calculated this
540: process and found that the cross section can maximally reach
541: several tens fb. But the background $t\bar t W^+$ in
542: Eq.(\ref{ttw}) is quite severe for this production. So it is not
543: as powerful as $tt$ and $t t \bar{c}$ productions in probing the
544: TC2 theory. The production $ p p \to t \bar{t} \pi_t^{0 \ast}
545: (h_t^\ast) \to t \bar{t} t \bar{c}$ \cite{Rainwater} can also lead
546: to like-sign top pairs in the final state at the LHC. But
547: analyzing its signal and background is quite complicated due to
548: the multi particles in the final state. Particularly, if we
549: require the two like-sign top quarks to decay semileptonically,
550: the reconstruction of this process may be quite difficult.
551: We do not perform further analysis about these processes.
552:
553: Before ending this section, we want to point out that the
554: like-sign top pair productions may be quite unique in probing the
555: TC2 model at the LHC. To enhance the like-sign top pair production
556: rate to the accessible level at the LHC, the FCNC top quark
557: couplings $t \bar c \phi$ ( $\phi$ is any scalar field) or $t \bar
558: c V$ ($V=\gamma,Z,g$ or any new gauge boson) cannot be too small.
559: The TC2 model predict sizable tree-level $t \bar c \phi$ ($\phi$
560: is top-pion or top-higgs) coupling and thus may enhance the
561: like-sign top pair production rate to the accessible level at the
562: LHC. In many other popular extensions of the SM, there are no tree-level
563: top quark FCNC couplings and the couplings $t \bar c \phi$ and $t
564: \bar c V$ are induced at loop-level, which are usually too small to make
565: the like-sign top pair productions observable at the LHC. For
566: example, the top quark FCNC couplings are induced at loop-level in
567: the MSSM \cite{tcv1}. Although they can be much larger than in the
568: SM, we found that their contribution to the cross sections of $ p
569: p \to t t +X $ at the LHC is smaller than $10^{-4}$ fb. Note that
570: among the two-Higgs doublet models, the so-called type-III model
571: (2HDM-III) \cite{2HDM} allows tree-level FCNC $t \bar c \phi$
572: interactions. However, such couplings are related by the CKM
573: matrix with the flavor-changing charged-Higgs interactions, and
574: thus are severely constrained by low energy
575: data\cite{constrain-2hdm}. For the currently allowed parameter
576: space of 2HDM-III, we found that the cross section at the LHC can
577: maximally reach several tens fb for $ p p \to t t \bar{c}+X $ and
578: $10$ fb for $ p p \to t t+X $. Such rates just lie on the edge of
579: observation at the LHC. Therefore, the like-sign top pair
580: productions at the LHC cannot constrain the 2HDM-III efficiently.
581:
582: \section{conclusion}
583: %%
584: The TC2 theory predicts tree-level FCNC top quark Yukawa couplings with top-pions.
585: We examined various like-sign top pair productions induced by such FCNC
586: couplings at the LHC.
587: We found that the productions $pp\to t t +X$ and $ pp \to t t \bar{c} +X $
588: can reach several tens fb in a sound part of parameter space,
589: which may be observable due to the low backgrounds.
590: Since other popular new physics models like the MSSM cannot enhance these
591: rare productions to the observable level, searching for these productions at the
592: LHC will serve as a powerful probe for the TC2 model.
593:
594: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
595: \vspace*{-1cm}
596: \bibitem{review} For recent reviews on top quark physics, see, e.g.,
597: C.~T.~Hill and E.~H.~Simmons, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 381}, 235 (2003);
598: C.-P. Yuan, hep-ph/0203088;
599: E. Simmons, hep-ph/0211335;
600: S. Willenbrock, hep-ph/0211067;
601: D. Chakraborty, J. Konigsberg, D. Rainwater, hep-ph/0303092.
602: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203079;%%
603: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203088;%%
604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211335;%%
605: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211067;%%
606: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303092;%%
607: \bibitem{sensitive} For general model-independent studies of new physics effects in top quark processes,
608: See, e.g.,
609: C. T. Hill and S. J. Parke, \PRD49, 4454 (1994);
610: K. Whisnant, et al., \PRD56, 467 (1997);
611: K. Hikasa, et al., \PRD58, 114003 (1998).
612: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,4454;%%
613: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,467;%%
614: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,114003;%%
615: \bibitem{tcvh_sm} G.~Eilam, J.~L.~Hewett and A.~Soni, \PRD44, 1473 (1991).
616: B.~Mele, S.~Petrarca, A.~Soddu, \PLB435, 401 (1998).
617: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%
618: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B435,401;%%
619: \bibitem{tcv1} For FCNC top decays in SUSY, see,
620: C.~S.~Li, R.~J.~Oakes and J.~M.~Yang, \PRD49, 293 (1994);
621: G.~Couture, C.~Hamzaoui and H.~Konig, \PRD52, 1713 (1995);
622: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan, \PRD56, 3100 (1997);
623: G.~M.~de Divitiis, R.~Petronzio and L.~Silvestrini, \NPB504, 45 (1997).
624: J.~M.~Yang, B.-L.~Young and X.~Zhang, \PRD58, 055001 (1998);
625: J.~M.~Yang and C.~S.~Li, \PRD49, 3412 (1994);
626: J.~Guasch, and J.~Sola, \NPB562, 3 (1999);
627: G. Eilam, {\it et al.}, \PLB510, 227 (2001);
628: J. Cao, Z. Xiong and J. M. Yang, \NPB651, 87 (2003);
629: J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang, L. G. Jin, \PLB599, 92 (2004).
630: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
631: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,1713;%%
632: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3100;%%
633: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B504,45;%%
634: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,055001;%%
635: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3412;%%
636: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B562,3;%%
637: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B510,227;%%
638: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B651,87;%%
639: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B599,92;%%
640: \bibitem{tcv2} For FCNC top decays in TC2 theory, see,
641: X.~L. Wang {\it et al.}, \PRD50, 5781 (1994);
642: G.~Lu, F.~Yin, X.~Wang and L.~Wan, \PRD 68, 015002 (2003).
643: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,5781;%%
644: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D68,015002;%%
645: \bibitem{tcv3} For FCNC top decays in two-Higgs-doublet model, see
646: D.~Atwood, L.~Reina and A.~Soni, \PRD55, 3156 (1997);
647: R.~A.~Diaz, R.~Martinez and J.~A. ~Rodriguez, hep-ph/0103307.
648: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,3156;%%
649: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103307;%%
650: \bibitem{cao1} J. Cao, Z. Xiong and J. M. Yang, \PRD67, 071701 (2003).
651: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,071701;%%
652: \bibitem{yue} C.~Yue, {\it et al.}, \PLB496, 93 (2000);
653: C. Yue, {\it et.al.}, \PLB525,301 (2002);
654: J. Cao, {\it et.al.}, hep-ph/0311166.
655: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B525,301;%%
656: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 00011112;%%
657: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311166;%%
658: \bibitem{tc-background} T.~Stelzer, Z.~Sullivan and S.~Willenbrock, \PRD58, 094021 (1998).
659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807340;%%
660: \bibitem{tt-background} Y.~P.~Gouz and S.~R.~Slabospitsky, \PLB457, 177 (1999).
661: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811330;%%
662: \bibitem{Like-sign} W.~S.~Hou, G.~L.~Lin, C.~Y.~Ma and C.~P.~Yuan, \PLB409, 344 (1997);
663: G.~L.~Lin, hep-ph/9705424;
664: F.~Larios and F.~Penunuri, J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 30}, 895 (2004).
665: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311056;%%
666: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705424;%%
667: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702260;%%
668: \bibitem{tc2-Hill} C. T. Hill, \PLB345, 483 (1995).
669: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B345,483;%%
670: \bibitem{tc2-Lane} K. Lane, E. Eichten, \PLB352, 382 (1995);
671: K. Lane, \PLB433, 96 (1998).
672: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B352,382;%%
673: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B433,96;%%
674: \bibitem{techni} E.~Farhi and L.~Susskind, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 74}, 277 (1981).
675: %%CITATION = PRPLC,74,277;%%
676: \bibitem{top-condensation} W.~A.~Bardeen, C.~T.~Hill and M.~Lindner, \PRD41, 1647 (1990);
677: G. Cvetic, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 71}, 513 (1999).
678: %%CITATION = RMPHA,71,513;%%
679: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1647;%%
680: \bibitem{FCNH} H. J. He and C. P. Yuan, \PRL83, 28 (1999).
681: %%CITATION = PRLTA,83,28;%%
682: \bibitem{top-Higgs} G. Burdman, \PRL83, 2888 (1999).
683: %%CITATION = PRLTA,83,2888;%%
684: \bibitem{2hd} T.~Eguchi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 14}, 2755 (1976).
685: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D41,1647;%%
686: \bibitem{Rainwater}A.~K.~Leibovich and D.~Rainwater, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055012 (2002).
687: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110218;%%
688: \bibitem{special} A.~K.~Das and C.~Kao, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 372}, 106 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9511329].
689: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9511329;%%
690: \bibitem{Hill} C.~T.~Hill and G.~G.~Ross, \NPB311, 253 (1988); \PLB203, 125 (1988).
691: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B203,125;%%
692: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B311,253;%%
693: \bibitem{b-sgamma} B.~Balaji, \PRD53, 1699 (1996) .
694: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505313;%%
695: \bibitem{Pagels} H.~Pagels and S.~Stokar, \PRD20, 2947 (1979).
696: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D20,2947;%%
697: \bibitem{mass-pion} C.~T.~Hill, \PLB266, 419 (1991).
698: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B266,419;%%
699: \bibitem{y15} R. S. Chivukula, B. Dobrescu, H. Georgi and C. T. Hill, \PRD59, 075003 (1999).
700: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,075003;%%
701: \bibitem{t-bpion} B.~Balaji, \PLB393, 89 (1997).
702: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610446;%%
703: \bibitem{burdman} G.~Burdman and D.~Kominis, \PLB403, 101 (1997);
704: W.~Loinaz and T.~Takeuchi, \PRD60, 015005 (1999).
705: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812377;%%
706: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702265;%%
707: \bibitem{kuang} C.~T.~Hill and X.~Zhang, \PRD51, 3563 (1995);
708: C.~Yue, Y.~P.~Kuang, X.~Wang and W.~Li, \PRD62, 055005 (2000).
709: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409315;%%
710: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001133;%%
711: \bibitem{datagroup} K. Hagiwara, {\it et. al.}, \PRD66, 010001 (2002).
712: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
713: \bibitem{topmass} D0 collaboration, Nature 429 (2004).
714: %%CITATION = HEP-PH EX 0406031 %%
715: \bibitem{CTEQ} J.~Pumplin, {\it et. al.}, JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002);
716: D.~Stump, {\it et. al.}, JHEP {\bf 0310}, 046 (2003).
717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303013;%%
718: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
719: \bibitem{Barger} V.~Barger, K.~Cheung, T.~Han and R.~J.~N.~Phillips, \PRD42, 3052 (1990).
720: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,3052;%%
721: \bibitem{WW} A.~Kulesza and W.~J.~Stirling, \PLB475, 168 (2000).
722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912232;%%
723: \bibitem{Electr-constrain} R.~S.~Chivukula and E.~H.~Simmons, \PRD66, 015006 (2002).
724: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205064;%%
725: \bibitem{w-approximation} S.~Dawson, \NPB249, 42 (1985);
726: D.~Espriu and J.~Manzano, hep-ph/0109059.
727: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109059;%%
728: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B249,42;%%
729: \bibitem{Unitary} F.~Maltoni, K.~Paul, T.~Stelzer and S.~Willenbrock, \PRD64, 094023 (2001).
730: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106293;%%
731: \bibitem{2HDM} T.~P.~Cheng and M.~Sher, \PRD35, 3484 (1987);
732: L.~J.~Hall and S.~Weinberg, \PRD48, 979 (1993).
733: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303241;%%
734: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,3484;%%
735: \bibitem{constrain-2hdm} M.~Sher, hep-ph/9809590;
736: D.~Atwood, L.~Reina and A.~Soni, \PRD54, 3296 (1996);
737: D.~Atwood, L.~Reina and A.~Soni, \PRD55, 3156 (1997);
738: J.~L.~D.~Cruz, J.~J.~G.~ Nava and G.~L.~ Castro, \PRD51, 5263 (1995).
739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509229;%%
740: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609279;%%
741: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603210;%%
742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809590;%%
743: \end{thebibliography}
744: \end{document}
745: