1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
4: \usepackage{t1enc}
5: \usepackage{cite}
6:
7: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
8: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
9: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
10: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
11: \parskip=1.0ex
12: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
13: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
14: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
15:
16: \textwidth=15.5cm
17: \textheight=22cm
18: \oddsidemargin=0.2cm
19: \evensidemargin=0.2cm
20: \topmargin=-1cm
21:
22:
23:
24:
25: \begin{document}
26: \vspace*{-3cm}
27: \begin{flushright}
28: hep-ph/0409342 \\
29: September 2004
30: \end{flushright}
31:
32: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
33:
34: \begin{center}
35: \begin{Large}
36: {\bf Top flavour-changing neutral interactions: \\[0.2cm]
37: theoretical expectations and experimental detection
38: \footnote{Presented at the final meeting of the European Network ``Physics at
39: Colliders'', Montpellier, September 26-27, 2004.}
40: }
41: \end{Large}
42:
43: \vspace{0.5cm}
44: J. A. Aguilar--Saavedra \\[0.2cm]
45: {\it Departamento de Física and CFTP, \\
46: Instituto Superior Técnico, P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal} \\
47: \end{center}
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: Top flavour-changing neutral interactions with a light quark $q=u,c$ and a gauge
51: or Higgs boson are very
52: suppressed within the Standard Model (SM), but can reach observable levels in
53: many of its extensions. We review the possible size of the effective vertices
54: $Ztq$, $\gamma tq$, $gtq$ and $Htq$ in several SM extensions, and discuss the
55: processes in which these interactions might show up at LHC and at a high energy
56: $e^+ e^-$ linear collider.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
60: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
61:
62:
63: \section{Introduction}
64:
65: The next generation of high energy colliders planned or under construction will
66: test the Standard Model (SM) with high precision and will explore higher
67: energies in
68: the search of new physics. New physics may manifest itself in two ways: through
69: direct signals involving the production of new particles or
70: by departures from the SM predictions for the known
71: particles. Direct signals are crucial in order to establish the type of
72: new physics present in nature but indirect effects are important as well, and
73: in some cases they could give evidence of physics beyond the SM before new
74: particles are discovered.
75:
76: The top quark plays a key role in the quest for deviations from SM predictions
77: for two reasons: ({\em i\/}) due to its large mass, radiative corrections
78: involving new particles are often more important than for
79: lighter fermions; ({\em ii\/}) its large mass suggests that it might
80: have a special role in electroweak symmetry breaking. Top quarks will be
81: copiously produced at LHC and, to a lesser extent, at a high energy $e^+
82: e^-$ collider like TESLA. With such large samples, precise measurements of
83: its couplings will be available to test SM
84: predictions \cite{top,tesla}. Here we study flavour-changing
85: neutral (FCN)
86: couplings involving the top quark. The most general effective Lagrangian
87: describing its interactions with a light quark $q=u,c$ and a gauge or Higgs
88: boson, containing terms up to dimension 5, can be written as
89: \begin{eqnarray}
90: -\mathcal{L}^\mathrm{eff} & = & \frac{g}{2 c_W} X_{qt} \, \bar q \gamma_\mu
91: (x_{qt}^L P_L + x_{qt}^R P_R) t Z^\mu
92: + \frac{g}{2 c_W} \kappa_{qt} \, \bar q (\kappa_{qt}^v +\kappa_{qt}^a \gamma_5)
93: \frac{i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu}{m_t} t Z^\mu \nonumber \\
94: & & + e \lambda_{qt} \, \bar q (\lambda_{qt}^v + \lambda_{qt}^a \gamma_5)
95: \frac{i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu}{m_t} t A^\mu
96: + g_s \zeta_{qt} \, \bar q (\zeta_{tq}^v + \zeta_{qt}^a \gamma_5)
97: \frac{i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu}{m_t} T^a q G^{a\mu} \nonumber \\
98: & & + \frac{g}{2 \sqrt 2} g_{qt} \, \bar q (g_{qt}^v + g_{qt}^a \gamma_5) t H
99: + \mathrm{H.c.} \,,
100: \label{ec:1}
101: \end{eqnarray}
102: where $q^\nu = (p_t-p_q)^\nu$ is the boson momentum and $\bar q$, $t$ are
103: shorthands for the quark fields $\bar u(p_q)$ and $u(p_t)$, respectively. The
104: couplings are constants
105: corresponding to the first terms in the expansion in momenta,
106: normalised to $|x_{qt}^L|^2+|x_{qt}^R|^2=1$,
107: $|\kappa_{qt}^v|^2+|\kappa_{qt}^a|^2=1$, etc., with $X_{qt}$,
108: $\kappa_{qt}$, $\lambda_{qt}$, $\zeta_{qt}$ and $g_{qt}$ real and positive.
109: In principle there are
110: additional terms that could be included in this effective Lagrangian, for
111: instance proportional to
112: $\sigma_{\mu \nu} (p_t+p_q)^\nu Z^\mu$. However, in the processes discussed
113: the top quark
114: can be considered on its mass shell to a very good approximation and the gauge
115: bosons are either on their mass shell or coupling to light fermions. Hence,
116: these extra interactions can be rewritten in terms of the ones in
117: Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}) using Gordon identities.
118:
119: Within the SM, the $\gamma_\mu$ couplings $x_{qt}^{L,R}$ vanish at the tree
120: level by the GIM mechanism, and non-renormalisable $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ terms
121: do not appear in the Lagrangian. Both types of vertices are generated at one
122: loop level but, as will be shown in Section \ref{sec:2}, they are strongly
123: suppressed by the GIM mechanism, making FCN top interactions very
124: small. In
125: models beyond the SM this GIM suppression can be relaxed, and
126: one-loop diagrams mediated by new
127: bosons may also contribute, yielding effective
128: couplings orders of magnitude larger than those of the SM.
129: The possible size of top FCN vertices in several SM extensions will be
130: summarised in Section \ref{sec:3}. These interactions
131: lead to various top decay and single top production processes which will be
132: discussed in Section \ref{sec:4}. The
133: observation of such processes, extremely rare in the SM,
134: would provide a clear indirect signal of new physics, although the presence of
135: SM backgrounds must be considered. In specific models, the presence of
136: these interactions may be correlated with other effects at high or low energies.
137: One example of such correlation will be shown in Section \ref{sec:5}.
138:
139: We note that in the literature there are numerous alternative normalisations of
140: the coupling constants in
141: $\mathcal{L}^\mathrm{eff}$. For this
142: reason, we express our limits on the couplings in terms of top decay
143: branching ratios. We use $m_t = 178.0 \pm 4.3$ GeV \cite{tmass},
144: $\alpha(m_t) = 1/128.921$,
145: $s_W^2(m_t) = 0.2342$, $\alpha_s(m_t) = 0.108$ and assume $m_H = 115$ GeV.
146: The tree-level prediction for the leading decay mode $t \to bW^+$ is
147: \begin{equation}
148: \Gamma(t \to bW^+) = \frac{\alpha}{16 \, s_W^2} |V_{tb}|^2 \frac{m_t^3}{M_W^2}
149: \left[ 1-3 \frac{M_W^4}{m_t^4} + 2 \frac{M_W^6}{m_t^6} \right] \,,
150: \label{ec:2}
151: \end{equation}
152: which yields $\Gamma(t \to b W^+) = 1.61$ GeV. We take this value as the total
153: top width $\Gamma_t$. The partial widths for FCN decays are given by
154: \begin{eqnarray}
155: \Gamma(t \to qZ)_\gamma & = & \frac{\alpha}{32 \, s_W^2 c_W^2} |X_{qt}|^2 \,
156: \frac{m_t^3}{M_Z^2} \left[ 1-\frac{M_Z^2}{m_t^2} \right]^2
157: \left[ 1+2 \frac{M_Z^2}{m_t^2} \right] \,, \nonumber \\
158: \Gamma(t \to qZ)_\sigma & = & \frac{\alpha}{16 \, s_W^2 c_W^2}
159: \left| \kappa_{qt} \right|^2 m_t
160: \left[ 1-\frac{M_Z^2}{m_t^2} \right]^2 \left[ 2+\frac{M_Z^2}{m_t^2} \right]
161: \,, \nonumber \\
162: \Gamma(t \to q \gamma) & = & \frac{\alpha}{2}
163: \left| \lambda_{qt} \right|^2 m_t \,, \nonumber \\
164: \Gamma(t \to q g) & = & \frac{2 \alpha_s}{3}
165: \left| \zeta_{qt} \right|^2 m_t \,, \nonumber \\
166: \Gamma(t \to q H) & = & \frac{\alpha}{32 \, s_W^2} |g_{qt}|^2 \, m_t
167: \left[ 1-\frac{M_H^2}{m_t^2} \right]^2 \,.
168: \label{ec:3}
169: \end{eqnarray}
170: The corresponding branching ratios are then
171: \begin{align}
172: & \mathrm{Br}(t \to qZ)_\gamma = 0.472 \; X_{qt}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
173: & \mathrm{Br}(t \to qZ)_\sigma = 0.367 \; \kappa_{qt}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
174: & \mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) = 0.428 \; \lambda_{qt}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
175: & \mathrm{Br}(t \to qg) = 7.93 \; \zeta_{qt}^2 \,, \nonumber \\
176: & \mathrm{Br}(t \to qH) = 3.88 \times 10^{-2} \; g_{qt}^2 \,.
177: \label{ec:br}
178: \end{align}
179:
180:
181:
182:
183: \section{Top FCN interactions in the SM}
184: \label{sec:2}
185:
186:
187: One-loop induced FCN couplings involving the top quark have a strong GIM
188: suppression, resulting in negligible branching ratios for top
189: FCN decays \cite{hewett,mele}. We
190: show how this cancellation mechanism operates taking as example
191: the $\gamma tc$ vertex. The SM diagrams contributing at one loop level are
192: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:diags}, with $d_i=d,s,b$. We omit the diagrams
193: involving unphysical scalars, which can be obtained replacing the $W$ boson
194: lines by charged scalars.
195:
196: \begin{figure}[htb]
197: \begin{center}
198: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
199: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d1W.eps,width=3.5cm,clip=}} & ~ &
200: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/d2WW.eps,width=3.5cm,clip=}}
201: \end{tabular}
202: \end{center}
203: \caption{SM diagrams contributing to the $tc\gamma$ vertex. The additional
204: diagrams involving unphysical scalars are not displayed.}
205: \label{fig:diags}
206: \end{figure}
207:
208: If we define $\mathcal{V}_\gamma \equiv e \lambda_{qt} \lambda_{qt}^v / m_t$,
209: $\mathcal{A}_\gamma \equiv e \lambda_{qt} \lambda_{qt}^a / m_t$, we can
210: write these form factors as
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: \mathcal{V}_\gamma & = & \sum_{i=1}^3 f_{\gamma V}(m_i^2/M_W^2) V_{ci} V_{ti}^*
213: \,, \nonumber \\
214: \mathcal{A}_\gamma & = & \sum_{i=1}^3 f_{\gamma A}(m_i^2/M_W^2) V_{ci} V_{ti}^*
215: \,,
216: \label{ec:5}
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: with $f_{\gamma V}(x) \simeq f_{\gamma A}(x)$ (equal in the limit $m_c=0$)
219: and $V$ the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The function
220: $f_{\gamma V}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:f} (a). Using the fact that
221: $m_{d,s} \simeq 0$ to an excellent
222: approximation, the $3 \times 3$ CKM unitarity relation
223: $V_{cd} V_{td}^* + V_{cs} V_{ts}^* + V_{cb} V_{tb}^* = 0$ implies
224: \begin{equation}
225: \mathcal{V}_\gamma = \left[ f_{\gamma V}(m_b^2/M_W^2)-f_{\gamma V}(0) \right]
226: V_{cb} V_{tb}^* \equiv f'_{\gamma V}(m_b^2/M_W^2) V_{cb} V_{tb}^* \,.
227: \label{ec:6}
228: \end{equation}
229: Hence, the form factor is controlled by the shifted function $f'_{\gamma V}$,
230: plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:f} (b). We observe that the consequence of $3 \times 3$
231: CKM unitarity is to cancel
232: the constant term $f_{\gamma V}(0) \simeq -5.1 \times 10^{-6} - 6.0 \times
233: 10^{-6} i$, common to the three $d,s,b$ contributions, leaving
234: $\mathcal{V}_\gamma$ proportional to the much smaller function
235: $f'_{\gamma V}(m_b^2/M_W^2) \simeq f'_{\gamma V}(0.0012)
236: \simeq -9.1 \times 10^{-9} -4.7 \times 10^{-9} i$.
237:
238: \begin{figure}[htb]
239: \begin{center}
240: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
241: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/A.eps,width=7cm,clip=}} & ~ &
242: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/Ap.eps,width=7cm,clip=}} \\
243: (a) & & (b)
244: \end{tabular}
245: \end{center}
246: \caption{Loop functions $f_{\gamma V}(m_i^2/M_W^2)$ and $f'_{\gamma
247: V}(m_i^2/M_W^2)$.}
248: \label{fig:f}
249: \end{figure}
250:
251: This cancellation makes the form factors rather sensitive to the value
252: of the $b$ quark mass in the internal propagators. The most
253: adequate choice is the running $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ mass evaluated
254: at a scale $O(m_t)$. With $\overline{m_b}(m_t) = 2.74 \pm 0.17$ GeV, the SM
255: prediction for $t \to c \gamma$ is \cite{bruno}
256: \begin{equation}
257: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) = (4.6 ~^{+1.2}_{-1.0} \pm 0.2
258: \pm 0.4 ~^{+1.6}_{-0.5}) \times 10^{-14} \,.
259: \label{ec:7}
260: \end{equation}
261: The first and second uncertainties quoted come from the bottom and top masses,
262: respectively, the third from CKM matrix elements and the fourth is estimated
263: varying the renormalisation scale
264: between $M_Z$ (plus sign) and $1.5 \, m_t$ (minus sign). The
265: analogous calculation of $t \to cg$ yields
266: \begin{equation}
267: \mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) = (4.6 ~^{+1.1}_{-0.9} \pm 0.2
268: \pm 0.4 ~^{+2.1}_{-0.7}) \times 10^{-12} \,.
269: \label{ec:8}
270: \end{equation}
271: These updated results are
272: one order of magnitude smaller than the values previously obtained in
273: Ref.~\cite{hewett}. For $t \to cZ$, $t \to cH$ the results of
274: Refs.~ \cite{hewett,mele} must be rescaled by a factor
275: $[\overline{m_b}(m_t)/(5 ~\mathrm{GeV})]^4
276: \simeq 0.09$ (the loop functions are approximately linear for $m_b^2/M_W^2 \ll
277: 1$), obtaining
278: \begin{eqnarray}
279: \mathrm{Br}(t \to cZ) & \simeq & 1 \times 10^{-14} \,, \nonumber \\[0.2cm]
280: \mathrm{Br}(t \to cH) & \simeq & 3 \times 10^{-15} \,.
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: The relative uncertainties on these values are expected to be similar to the
283: ones in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:7}),(\ref{ec:8}).
284: For decays $t \to uZ$, $t \to u \gamma$, $t \to ug$, $t \to uH$ the branching
285: ratios are a factor $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2 \simeq 0.0079$ smaller to the ones
286: corresponding to a $c$ quark, as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{ec:6}). The
287: difference between the $u$ and $c$ masses is irrelevant.
288:
289:
290:
291:
292:
293: \section{Top FCN interactions beyond the SM}
294: \label{sec:3}
295:
296:
297: New physics contributions to the effective Lagrangian in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1})
298: can enhance the rates of top FCN decays several orders of
299: magnitude, giving observable branching ratios in some regions
300: of parameter space. Here we examine the situation in the context of models with
301: extra quark singlets, with an extra Higgs doublet and in supersymmetric
302: extensions of the SM.
303:
304: In models with extra quarks the $3 \times 3$ CKM matrix is no longer unitary and
305: the GIM mechanism acting to suppress the SM amplitudes is relaxed. When the new
306: quarks are $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ singlets with charge $Q=2/3$, the couplings of the $Z$
307: boson to up-type quarks are not diagonal. Taking a
308: conservative value for the mass of the new quark, $m_T \geq 300$ GeV, present
309: experimental data allow
310: \begin{equation}
311: X_{qt} \simeq 0.015 \quad \quad (|x_{qt}^L| = 1 \,, x_{qt}^R = 0)
312: \end{equation}
313: at the tree level \cite{largo}.
314: Such couplings are possible both for up and charm quarks, but not
315: simultaneously. In these models there also
316: exist tree-level FCN scalar interactions, given by
317: \begin{equation}
318: g_{qt} \simeq \frac{m_t}{M_W} X_{qt} \quad \quad (g_{qt}^v = g_{qt}^a) \,.
319: \end{equation}
320: The branching ratios for top decays mediated by these vertices are
321: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to qZ) \simeq 1.1 \times 10^{-4}$,
322: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to qH) \simeq 4.1 \times 10^{-5}$, respectively.
323: The decay rates for $t \to q \gamma$, $t \to q g$ are also enhanced due to the
324: partial breaking of $3 \times 3$ CKM unitarity and the presence of extra Feynman
325: diagrams like those in Fig.~\ref{fig:diags} (a) but with an $u$ or $t$ internal
326: quark and a $Z$ boson. The rates obtained are
327: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) \simeq 7.5 \times 10^{-9}$,
328: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q g) \simeq 1.5 \times 10^{-7}$ for $X_{qt} \simeq 0.015$.
329: In models with $Q=-1/3$ singlets the branching ratios are much smaller
330: \cite{bruno} since CKM unitarity breaking is very constrained by experimental
331: data. In SM extensions with $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ doublets there may also exist
332: right-handed tree-level FCN couplings $X_{qt}$ \cite{prl}.
333:
334: FCN interactions with scalars are also present at the tree level in two Higgs
335: doublet models (2HDMs), unless a discrete symmetry is imposed to forbid them.
336: The couplings are often assumed to scale with quark masses \cite{cheng},
337: \begin{equation}
338: g_{qt} \simeq \frac{\sqrt{m_q m_t}}{M_W}
339: \end{equation}
340: up to a factor of order unity, {\em i.e.} $g_{ct} \simeq 0.20$,
341: $g_{ut} \simeq 0.012$, leading to
342: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c H) \simeq 1.5 \times 10^{-3}$,
343: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to u H) \simeq 5.5 \times 10^{-6}$, respectively.
344: The new scalar fields also give radiative contributions to the $Ztq$,
345: $\gamma tq$ and $gtq$ vertices, with diagrams analogous to those
346: in Fig.~\ref{fig:diags}, replacing the $W$ boson by a charged scalar, and
347: additional diagrams with an up-type internal quark and a neutral scalar.
348: The resulting branching ratios can be up to
349: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c Z) \sim 10^{-7}$,
350: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) \sim 10^{-6}$,
351: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) \sim 10^{-4}$ \cite{luke,atwood}, with smaller values
352: for decays to an up quark.
353: In 2HDMs without tree-level scalar FCN couplings,
354: charged and neutral Higgs contributions to $\mathcal{L}^\mathrm{eff}$ can still
355: increase significantly the rates for top FCN decays with respect to the SM
356: predictions. The maximum values reached are of
357: the order $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c Z) \sim 10^{-10}$,
358: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c \gamma) \sim 10^{-9}$,
359: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c g) \sim 10^{-8}$,
360: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to c H) \sim 10^{-5}$ \cite{atwood,sola1}.
361:
362: Recent calculations in the context of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard
363: Model (MSSM) show that for non-universal squark mass terms
364: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q Z) \simeq 2 \times 10^{-6}$,
365: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) \simeq 2 \times 10^{-6}$,
366: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q g) \simeq 10^{-4}$ can be reached while keeping agreement
367: with low energy data \cite{li,delepine}.
368: These results are larger than previous estimates \cite{li2,luca,lopez}.
369: The branching ratio of $t \to qH$ can be up to
370: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q H) \sim 10^{-5}$ \cite{sola2}, assuming squark masses above
371: 200 GeV. In all these decays
372: the largest contributions to the amplitudes come from gluino exchange
373: diagrams. In non-minimal supersymmetric models with $R$ parity violation,
374: top FCN decays can also proceed through baryon number violating interactions,
375: yielding
376: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q Z) \simeq 3 \times 10^{-5}$,
377: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) \simeq 1 \times 10^{-6}$,
378: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q g) \simeq 2 \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{yang1},
379: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q H) \sim 10^{-6}$ \cite{yang2}.
380: (We obtain these values taking $\Lambda = 1$ in Refs.~\cite{yang1,yang2}.)
381:
382:
383: We collect the data presented in this section in Table~\ref{tab:br}, together
384: with SM predictions. Two
385: conclusions can be extracted from these figures: ({\em i\/}) Models with
386: tree-level FCN couplings to $Z$, $H$ give the largest rates for
387: decays to these particles, as it is expected; ({\em ii\/}) the radiative
388: decays $t \to q\gamma$,
389: $t \to q g$ have largest branching ratios in supersymmetric extensions of the
390: SM.
391:
392: \begin{table}[htb]
393: \vspace*{0.2cm}
394: \begin{center}
395: \begin{small}
396: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
397: & SM & QS & 2HDM & FC 2HDM & MSSM & $R \!\!\!\!\!\! \not \quad$ SUSY
398: \\%[0.1cm]
399: \hline \\[-0.5cm]
400: $t \to u Z$ & $8 \times 10^{-17}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{-4}$
401: & $-$ & $-$
402: & $2 \times 10^{-6}$ & $3 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
403: %
404: $t \to u \gamma$ & $3.7 \times 10^{-16}$ & $7.5 \times 10^{-9}$
405: & $-$ & $-$
406: & $2 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
407: %
408: $t \to u g$ & $3.7 \times 10^{-14}$ & $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$
409: & $-$ & $-$
410: & $8 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
411: %
412: $t \to u H$ & $2 \times 10^{-17}$ & $4.1 \times 10^{-5}$
413: & $5.5 \times 10^{-6}$ & $-$
414: & $10^{-5}$ & $\sim 10^{-6}$ \\[0.2cm]
415: %
416: %
417: $t \to c Z$ & $1 \times 10^{-14}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{-4}$
418: & $\sim 10^{-7}$ & $\sim 10^{-10}$
419: & $2 \times 10^{-6}$ & $3 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
420: %
421: $t \to c \gamma$ & $4.6 \times 10^{-14}$ & $7.5 \times 10^{-9}$
422: & $\sim 10^{-6}$ & $\sim 10^{-9}$
423: & $2 \times 10^{-6}$ & $1 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
424: %
425: $t \to c g$ & $4.6 \times 10^{-12}$ & $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$
426: & $\sim 10^{-4}$ & $\sim 10^{-8}$
427: & $8 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
428: %
429: $t \to c H$ & $3 \times 10^{-15}$ & $4.1 \times 10^{-5}$
430: & $1.5 \times 10^{-3}$ & $\sim 10^{-5}$
431: & $10^{-5}$ & $\sim 10^{-6}$
432: \end{tabular}
433: \end{small}
434: \end{center}
435: \caption{Branching ratios for top FCN decays in the SM, models with
436: $Q=2/3$ quark singlets (QS), a general 2HDM, a flavour-conserving (FC)
437: 2HDM, in the MSSM and with $R$ parity violating SUSY.}
438: \label{tab:br}
439: \end{table}
440:
441:
442:
443:
444: \section{Experimental observation}
445: \label{sec:4}
446:
447: Present experimental limits on top FCN couplings come from the non-observation
448: of the decays $t \to qZ$, $t \to q \gamma$ at Tevatron and the absence of single
449: top production $e^+ e^- \to t \bar q$ at LEP and $eu \to et$ at HERA. The best
450: limits are
451: $\mathrm{Br} (t \to qZ) \leq 0.159$ \cite{opal},
452: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) \leq 0.032$ \cite{cdf},
453: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to u \gamma) \leq 0.011$ \cite{zeus,h1} with a 95\% confidence
454: level (CL), very weak if compared to the
455: rates which can be achieved in the SM and its extensions.\footnote{Our LEP bound
456: on $\mathrm{Br} (t \to qZ)$ slightly differs from the one quoted in
457: Ref.~\cite{opal} because we normalise the rates to $\Gamma(t \to bW^+)$. The
458: translation into limits on $X_{qt}$ is also different from theirs, because they
459: assume $X_{ut} = X_{ct}$ while we assume only one coupling is different from
460: zero, thus obtaining more conservative bounds.} These limits will
461: improve with Tevatron Run II, and will reach the $10^{-5}$ level
462: at LHC and TESLA (or other future $e^+ e^-$ collider), opening the possibility
463: of the experimental observation of top FCN interactions.
464:
465:
466:
467: \subsection{Observation at LHC}
468:
469: At LHC top quarks are abundantly produced in $t \bar t$ pairs via standard QCD
470: interactions, with a cross section around 860 pb \cite{top}. The search for
471: top FCN couplings can be performed looking for processes in which
472: the top quark decays via $t \to qZ$ \cite{han1},
473: $t \to q \gamma$ \cite{han2}, $t \to qg$ \cite{han3}, $t \to qH$ \cite{gustavo},
474: mediated by the operators in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}), while the antitop decays
475: $\bar t \to W^- \bar b$. The charge conjugate processes, with standard top
476: decay
477: and FCN antitop decay, are also included in the analyses but for brevity we
478: do not refer to them in the following.
479: Due to the large QCD backgrounds at LHC, the search for signatures of these
480: processes must be performed in the leptonic channels $W^- \to \ell^- \bar
481: \nu_\ell$,
482: with $\ell=e,\nu$ (with a good $\tau$ tagging this channel could be eventually
483: included as well). In $Z$ and $H$ decays the channels considered are $Z \to
484: \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $H \to b \bar b$, respectively. $b$ tagging is used in
485: order to reduce backgrounds.
486:
487:
488: On the other hand, one can search for single top production mediated by the
489: anomalous vertices in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}), in the processes $gq \to Zt$ \cite{npb},
490: $gq \to \gamma t$
491: \cite{npb}, $gq \to t$ \cite{hosch}, $gq \to Ht$ \cite{gustavo}, followed by a
492: standard top decay $t \to W^+ b$. The Feynman diagrams for these processes are
493: depicted
494: in Fig.~\ref{fig:single_t}. $Zt$ and $\gamma t$ production can also occur via
495: $gtq$ interactions, but the presence of this type of operator is easier to
496: detect in the process $gq \to t$.
497: We collect in Table~\ref{tab:cs} the tree-level cross
498: sections for FCN single top production processes, calculated with MRST
499: parton distribution functions
500: set A \cite{mrst}. Next-to-leading order corrections for $Zt$ and $\gamma t$
501: production
502: are available for Tevatron energies \cite{kidonakis}. For LHC they are expected
503: to increase the cross sections at the 10\% level.
504:
505: \begin{figure}[htb]
506: \begin{center}
507: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
508: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/zt1.eps,height=1.7cm,clip=}} &
509: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/zt2.eps,height=1.7cm,clip=}} & ~~ &
510: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/gammat1.eps,height=1.7cm,clip=}} &
511: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/gammat2.eps,height=1.7cm,clip=}} \\[0.2cm]
512: \multicolumn{2}{c}{(a)} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(b)} \\[0.3cm]
513: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\epsfig{file=Figs/gqt.eps,height=1.43cm,clip=}} & &
514: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/ht1.eps,height=1.7cm,clip=}} &
515: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/ht2.eps,height=1.7cm,clip=}} \\[0.2cm]
516: \multicolumn{2}{c}{(c)} & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(d)}
517: \end{tabular}
518: \end{center}
519: \caption{Diagrams for single top production in hadron collisions: (a) $Zt$
520: production mediated by
521: $Ztq$ couplings; (b) $\gamma t$ production mediated by $\gamma tq$ couplings;
522: (c) $t$ production; (d) $Ht$ production.}
523: \label{fig:single_t}
524: \end{figure}
525:
526: \begin{table}[htb]
527: \vspace*{0.5cm}
528: \begin{center}
529: \begin{small}
530: \begin{tabular}{llcll}
531: Process & Cross section & & Process & Cross section \\% [0.1cm]
532: \hline \\[-0.5cm]
533: $gu \to Zt$ ($\gamma_\mu$) & $(260 + 50) \, |X_{ut}|^2$ & ~~ &
534: $gc \to Zt$ ($\gamma_\mu$) & $(26 + 26) \, |X_{ct}|^2$ \\
535: $gu \to Zt$ ($\sigma_{\mu \nu}$) & $(540 + 87) \, |\kappa_{ut}|^2$ & ~~ &
536: $gc \to Zt$ ($\sigma_{\mu \nu}$) & $(45 + 45) \, |\kappa_{ct}|^2$ \\
537: $gu \to \gamma t$ & $(440 + 76) \, |\lambda_{ut}|^2$ & ~~ &
538: $gc \to \gamma t$ & $(39 + 39) \, |\lambda_{ct}|^2$ \\
539: $gu \to t$ & $(9.0 + 2.6) \times 10^5 \, |\zeta_{ut}|^2$ & ~~ &
540: $gc \to t$ & $(1.5 + 1.5) \times 10^5 \, |\zeta_{ct}|^2$ \\
541: $gu \to H t$ & $(16 + 2.8) \, |g_{ut}|^2$ & ~~ &
542: $gc \to H t$ & $(1.5 + 1.5) \, |g_{ct}|^2$
543: \end{tabular}
544: \end{small}
545: \end{center}
546: \caption{Cross sections (in pb) for single top plus antitop production
547: processes at LHC. In each case the first term in the sum corresponds to the
548: process quoted and the second term to the charge conjugate process.}
549: \label{tab:cs}
550: \end{table}
551:
552: It is clearly seen that
553: for $q=c$ these processes are suppressed by the smaller
554: structure functions for the charm quark. For
555: nonrenormalisable $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ couplings the cross sections are
556: enhanced by the $q^\nu$ factor appearing in the vertex: with the normalisation
557: chosen for the coupling constants, for $|X_{qt}| \simeq |\kappa_{qt}| \simeq
558: |\lambda_{qt}|$ the first three branching ratios in Eq.~(\ref{ec:br}) take
559: similar values, while the cross sections in Table \ref{tab:cs} are much larger
560: for $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$-type interactions.
561:
562: The search for these processes is cleaner in the channels where
563: $W^+ \to \ell^+ \nu_\ell$, $Z \to \ell^+ \ell^-$, $H \to b \bar b$, and taking
564: advantage of $b$ tagging to reduce
565: backgrounds. Their experimental signatures are
566: written in Table~\ref{tab:back}, where we also include the most important
567: backgrounds.
568:
569: \begin{table}[htb]
570: \begin{center}
571: \begin{tabular}{lcclccccl}
572: Process & Signal & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Background} & ~ & Process & Signal &
573: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Background} \\% [0.1cm]
574: \hline \\[-0.5cm]
575: $t \bar t$, $t \to qZ$ & $\ell^+ \ell^- j \ell \nu b$ & $ZWjj$ & LO &
576: & $gq \to Zt$ & $\ell^+ \ell^- \ell \nu b$ & $ZWj$ & LO \\
577: $t \bar t$, $t \to q \gamma$ & $\gamma j \ell \nu b$ & $\gamma Wjj$ & LO$^{**}$
578: & & $gq \to \gamma t$ & $\gamma \ell \nu b$ & $\gamma Wj$ & LO \\
579: $t \bar t$, $t \to q g$ & $j j \ell \nu b$ & $Wjjj$ & LO$^{*}$ &
580: & $gq \to t$ & $\ell \nu b$ & $Wj$ & NLO$^{**}$ \\
581: $t \bar t$, $t \to q H$ & $b \bar b j \ell \nu b$ & $Wb \bar b jj$ & LO$^{*}$
582: & & $gq \to Ht$ & $b \bar b \ell \nu b$ & $t \bar t$ & NLO$^{**}$ \\
583: \end{tabular}
584: \end{center}
585: \caption{Experimental signature and main background for several top rare decay
586: and single top production processes at LHC. The top antiquarks are assumed to
587: decay $\bar t \to W^- \bar b \to \ell^- \bar \nu_\ell \bar b$, and the $Z$ and
588: $H$ bosons in the channel $Z \to \ell^+ \ell^-$, $H \to b \bar b$.}
589: \label{tab:back}
590: \end{table}
591:
592: In order to determine the discovery potential of these processes we
593: consider that only one FCN coupling $X_{qt}$, $\kappa_{qt}$, $\lambda_{qt}$,
594: $\zeta_{qt}$ or $g_{qt}$ is nonzero at a time. We give the limits for
595: $3 \, \sigma$ evidence, what happens when
596: the expected number of signal ($S$) plus SM background ($B$) events
597: is not consistent with a background fluctuation at the $3 \,
598: \sigma$ level, corresponding to a CL of 0.9973.
599: For large samples, this translates
600: into $S/\sqrt B = 3$, while for $B \leq 5$ events Poisson statistics must be
601: used.
602: We rescale the data in Refs.~\cite{han1,han2,gustavo,npb,hosch} to a common
603: $b$ tagging efficiency of 50\%
604: and a mistagging rate of 1\%, recalculating the limits using these unified
605: criteria.\footnote{In Ref.~\cite{han1} $b$ tagging is not used and to obtain our
606: limits we scale their cross sections by the appropriate factors. The
607: interactions considered there are of $\gamma_\mu$ type only but the limits for
608: $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ couplings are expected to be the same. In
609: Ref.~\cite{han3} the analysis is done for Tevatron energies
610: only.} (We note that in these analyses a top quark mass $m_t \simeq 175$ GeV is
611: used.)
612: We assume an integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$, corresponding to one year
613: of running in the high luminosity phase.
614: For an increase in luminosity by a
615: factor $k$, the limits on branching ratios scale with $k^{-1/2}$.
616:
617: We point out that in real experiments a proper consideration of theoretical
618: uncertainties in background cross sections will be compulsory.
619: Present calculations in the literature are aimed at determining the
620: sensitivity to FCN couplings of various processes, and do not need to take them
621: into account. However, for the
622: comparison of theoretical predictions with experimental data,
623: leading order (LO) background calculations will often be insufficient and
624: next-to-leading order (NLO) calculations will be required
625: to match the statistical precision achieved at LHC.
626: In Table~\ref{tab:back} we have written the order in perturbation theory to
627: which these backgrounds are presently known.
628: We estimate that when the statistical uncertainty of the
629: background cross sections\footnote{Including $b$ tagging and kinematical cuts,
630: and considering 100 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity. For a higher luminosity
631: the relative statistical uncertainty decreases.} is better than 20\% the use
632: of NLO calculations is necessary (this is indicated in Table~\ref{tab:back} by
633: an asterisk) and when it is
634: better than 5\%, next-to-next-to-leading-order calculations may be required
635: (indicated by a double asterisk).\footnote{In principle, it may be also
636: possible to normalise the background cross sections using measured data from
637: other phase space regions, thus decreasing the theoretical uncertainty in
638: the regions of interest. If this is the case, NLO or even
639: LO calculations may be sufficient.}
640:
641: Our limits are collected in Table~\ref{tab:lim}.
642: In the majority of the cases top decay processes provide the best place to
643: discover top FCN
644: interactions, surpassed by single top production for $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$-type
645: interactions involving the up quark. Comparing these limits with the data in
646: Table~\ref{tab:br} we observe that in many examples the maximum rates predicted
647: are observable with $3 \, \sigma$ statistical significance or more within one
648: year (with a luminosity upgrade to 6000 fb$^{-1}$ \cite{LHCup} the figures in
649: Table~\ref{tab:lim} are reduced by a factor of 7.7).
650: If no signal is observed, upper bounds on top FCN decay
651: branching ratios can be placed. The 95\% upper limits obtained in this case
652: are numerically smaller than those in Table~\ref{tab:lim} by a factor
653: between 1.3 and 1.5.
654:
655: \begin{table}[htb]
656: \vspace*{0.2cm}
657: \begin{center}
658: %\begin{scriptsize}
659: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
660: & Top decay & Single top \\%[0.1cm]
661: \hline\\[-0.5cm]
662: $t \to u Z (\gamma_\mu)$ & $3.6 \times 10^{-5}$ & $8.0 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
663: $t \to u Z (\sigma_{\mu \nu})$ & $3.6 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2.3 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
664: $t \to u \gamma$ & $1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ & $3.1 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
665: $t \to u g $ & $-$ & $2.5 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
666: $t \to u H $ & $5.8 \times 10^{-5}$ & $5.1 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
667: \end{tabular}
668: \quad
669: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
670: & Top decay & Single top \\%[0.1cm]
671: \hline\\[-0.5cm]
672: $t \to c Z (\gamma_\mu)$ & $3.6 \times 10^{-5}$ & $3.9 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
673: $t \to c Z (\sigma_{\mu \nu})$ & $3.6 \times 10^{-5}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
674: $t \to c \gamma$ & $1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2.8 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
675: $t \to c g $ & $-$ & $1.6 \times 10^{-5}$ \\
676: $t \to c H $ & $5.8 \times 10^{-5}$ & $2.6 \times 10^{-3}$
677: \end{tabular}
678: %\end{scriptsize}
679: \end{center}
680: \caption{$3 \, \sigma$ discovery limits for top FCN interactions at LHC, for an
681: integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$. The limits are expressed in terms of top
682: decay branching ratios.}
683: \label{tab:lim}
684: \end{table}
685:
686: The ATLAS and CMS collaborations have performed full detector simulations
687: to investigate
688: the sensitivity to the decays $t \to qZ$, $t \to q\gamma$, giving $5 \, \sigma$
689: discovery limits on the rates for these processes for an integrated luminosity
690: of 100 fb$^{-1}$. For the ATLAS detector the limits are $\mathrm{Br}(t \to qZ)
691: = 2.0 \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{atlas1}, $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) = 1.0 \times
692: 10^{-4}$ \cite{top}, and for the CMS detector $\mathrm{Br}(t \to qZ) = 1.9
693: \times 10^{-4}$, $\mathrm{Br}(t \to q \gamma) = 3.4 \times 10^{-5}$ \cite{top}.
694: After correcting for the different confidence levels used, the numbers for $t
695: \to q \gamma$ at CMS agree very well with those in Table~\ref{tab:lim}, while
696: the rest are more pessimistic.
697:
698: To conclude this subsection we note that at LHC there are additional processes
699: which can occur through top FCN interactions. The first example is single top
700: production associated with a jet produced via $gtq$ interactions\cite{han4},
701: which is however less sensitive than $gq \to t$. The second example is
702: like-sign top production \cite{slabo}, mediated by two FCN vertices. This
703: process has a smaller cross section than processes with only one FCN vertex, but
704: might be observed at LHC due to its small background.
705:
706:
707:
708:
709:
710: \subsection{Observation at an $\boldsymbol{e^+ e^-}$ collider}
711:
712: A high energy $e^+ e^-$ collider like TESLA will complement LHC capabilities in
713: the search for top FCN couplings. As in hadron collisions, the operators in
714: Eq.~(\ref{ec:1})
715: mainly manifest themselves in top decay and single top production processes.
716: In $e^+ e^-$ annihilation top quark pairs are produced by electroweak
717: interactions, and single top quarks may be produced in the process
718: $e^+ e^- \to t \bar q$, \cite{hewett2}, via the diagrams in
719: Fig.~\ref{fig:eetq}. (The charge conjugate process is also summed.)
720: At TESLA the top pair production cross section at 500 GeV is only of 600 fb
721: \cite{tesla}, and limits obtained from top decays \cite{mio2,sher}
722: cannot compete with those from LHC, despite
723: the larger luminosity and smaller backgrounds. On the contrary, single top
724: production can match or even improve some LHC limits if beam
725: polarisation is used to reduce backgrounds \cite{mio}. We have updated the
726: study of Ref.~\cite{mio} to include the effect of initial state radiation (ISR)
727: \cite{isr} and beamstrahlung \cite{BS2,peskin} in the calculations. We assume
728: integrated luminosities of 345 fb$^{-1}$ and 534 fb$^{-1}$ per year for centre
729: of mass (CM) energies of 500 and 800 GeV, respectively \cite{lum}, and beam
730: polarisations $P_{e^-} = 0.8$, $P_{e^+} = -0.6$.\footnote{Here we use the
731: convention in which the degree of polarisation refers to the helicity both for
732: the electron and the positron, in contrast with Refs.~\cite{mio,mio2}.}
733: For beamstrahlung at 500 GeV
734: we use the parameters $\Upsilon = 0.05$, $N = 1.56$,
735: while at 800 GeV we take $\Upsilon = 0.09$, $N = 1.51$ \cite{lum}. We also
736: include a beam energy spread of 1\%. The total
737: cross sections at both energies for each type of anomalous coupling are written
738: in Table~\ref{tab:cs2}.
739:
740: \begin{figure}[htb]
741: \begin{center}
742: \vspace*{0,5cm}
743: \mbox{\epsfig{file=Figs/eetq.eps,height=2cm,clip=}}
744: \end{center}
745: \caption{Diagrams for single top production in $e^+ e^-$ collisions.}
746: \label{fig:eetq}
747: \end{figure}
748:
749: \begin{table}[htb]
750: \begin{center}
751: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
752: & 500 GeV & 800 GeV \\%[0.1cm]
753: \hline \\[-0.5cm]
754: $Z,\gamma_\mu$ & $370 \, |X_{qt}|^2$ & $230 \, |X_{qt}|^2$ \\
755: $Z,\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ & $2560 \, |\kappa_{qt}|^2$ & $2850 \, |\kappa_{qt}|^2$ \\
756: $\gamma$ & $5370 \, |\lambda_{qt}|^2$ & $6300 \, |\lambda_{qt}|^2$ % \\
757: % $W^+ \! jj$ & 350 & 410
758: \end{tabular}
759: \end{center}
760: \caption{Cross sections (in fb) for single top production
761: % and its $W^+ \! jj$ background
762: at TESLA, including ISR, beamstrahlung and beam energy spread, for
763: polarisations $P_{e^-} = 0.8$, $P_{e^+} = -0.6$. The cross section for single
764: antitop production is the same.}
765: \label{tab:cs2}
766: \end{table}
767:
768: We find that ISR and beamstrahlung make it more involved the reconstruction of
769: the top quark momentum and additionally they increase the $W\!jj$ background
770: cross
771: section. Following the analysis of
772: Ref.~\cite{mio}, but with a different reconstruction procedure and different
773: sets of kinematical cuts, we obtain the $3 \, \sigma$ discovery limits in
774: Table~\ref{tab:lim_tesla}. The limits for $\gamma_\mu$ couplings to
775: the $Z$ boson are slightly better than the ones previously obtained in
776: Ref.~\cite{mio} without ISR and beamstrahlung, but still not competitive with
777: those from LHC. For $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ interactions the opposite happens:
778: limits including these corrections are a little worse but at any rate
779: they improve the LHC potential in most cases, especially
780: at 800 GeV, where the $q^\nu$ factor in the vertex keeps signal cross sections
781: large.
782:
783: \begin{table}[htb]
784: \begin{center}
785: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
786: & 500 GeV & 800 GeV \\%[0.1cm]
787: \hline\\[-0.5cm]
788: $t \to q Z (\gamma_\mu)$ & $1.9 \times 10^{-4}$ & $1.9 \times 10^{-4}$ \\
789: $t \to q Z (\sigma_{\mu \nu})$ & $1.8 \times 10^{-5}$ & $7.2 \times 10^{-6}$ \\
790: $t \to q \gamma$ & $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ & $3.8 \times 10^{-6}$
791: \end{tabular}
792: \end{center}
793: \caption{$3 \, \sigma$ discovery limits for top FCN interactions in single top
794: production at TESLA, for CM energies of 500 and 800 GeV, with respective
795: luminosities of 345 fb$^{-1}$ and 534 fb$^{-1}$.
796: The limits are expressed in terms of top decay branching ratios.}
797: \label{tab:lim_tesla}
798: \end{table}
799:
800: We remark that LHC and TESLA are complementary in the search for top FCN
801: interactions. LHC has a better discovery potential for $\gamma_\mu$ couplings
802: to the $Z$ boson and FCN interactions with the gluon and the Higgs boson, while
803: TESLA is more sensitive to $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ couplings to the $Z$ and the
804: photon. Moreover, if positive signals are observed, results from both colliders
805: may be necessary to determine the type of operator involved. While TESLA
806: cannot disentangle $Z$ and photon interactions, its good $c$ tagging efficiency
807: may allow to determine the identity of the light quark. On the
808: contrary, the processes described at LHC determine if the FCN vertices involve
809: the $Z$ boson or the photon, but it is more difficult to tag the flavour of
810: the light quark.
811:
812:
813:
814: \subsection{Other colliders}
815:
816:
817: For completeness, we list here other possible places where top FCN interactions
818: can be probed as well. One possibility is $e \gamma$ and $\gamma \gamma$
819: collisions. The latter is specially sensitive, and a positive
820: signal could be found in the context of the MSSM \cite{yang3,yang4}. Note
821: however that in this case
822: there are further contributions to $\gamma \gamma \to t \bar c$ given by box
823: diagrams which cannot be parameterised by the vertices in
824: $\mathcal{L}^\mathrm{eff}$. (This is also the case for $e^+ e^-$
825: annihilation \cite{wudka}.) $ep$ scattering is another place where this type
826: of interactions
827: might lead to new effects, but their sensitivity is far beyond the ones
828: achievable at LHC or a future $e^+ e^-$ collider.
829:
830:
831:
832:
833:
834: \section{Conclusions}
835: \label{sec:5}
836:
837: In the previous sections we have seen that top FCN couplings are negligible in
838: the SM but can be enhanced in SM extensions. We have shown that these
839: interactions lead to observable effects at high energy colliders, mainly in top
840: decay and single top production processes. In order to cleanly observe an excess
841: with respect to SM expectations, and hence the presence of top FCN
842: interactions, a precise background calculation is compulsory. This is a task
843: which should be carried out in the next few years, before LHC experimental data
844: are available.
845:
846: We have shown that top FCN interactions offer a good place for the study of
847: indirect effects from physics beyond the SM. However, one important aspect which
848: has not been discussed is the correlation between top FCN processes and
849: other possible new physics effects at high or low energies.
850: This study includes, but is not limited to, the effect of top FCN operators in
851: low energy physics \cite{peris}. Although the branching
852: ratios in Table~\ref{tab:br} are in agreement with present experimental
853: data, effects in $B$ physics are possible and could be measured in experiments
854: under way at $B$ factories.
855:
856: One example of such correlation is present in models with $Q=2/3$ singlets. A
857: coupling $|X_{ct}| \sim 0.015$ observable at LHC requires a sizeable deviation
858: of the diagonal $Ztt$ coupling from its SM expectation \cite{largo}, which would
859: certainly be seen in $t \bar t$ production at TESLA. Furthermore, a FCN coupling
860: of this size allows for a CP-violating phase
861: $\chi = \arg (V_{ts} V_{tb}^* V_{cs}^* V_{cb}) \sim \pm 0.3$ in the CKM matrix
862: \cite{quico}, much larger in absolute value than the SM expectation
863: $0.015 \leq \chi \leq 0.022$. This phase would lead to observable phenomena in
864: $B$ oscillations and decay and, if such a phase is found, it necessarily
865: requires the presence of a FCN coupling at the observable level.
866:
867: The examination of possible correlations between top FCN interactions and
868: other processes at low and high energies is model-dependent, and further
869: analyses should be done in that direction. In particular, if indirect effects
870: are meant to serve as consistency tests of a (new physics) model, the relation
871: between the presence of top FCN interactions at an observable level and other
872: indirect effects must be fully understood. The
873: investigation of such correlations will help uncover the nature of new
874: physics, if
875: positive signals are found at the present or next generation of colliders.
876:
877: \vspace{1cm}
878: \noindent
879: {\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
880:
881: \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent
882: I thank F. del Águila for discussions.
883: This work has been supported by the European Community's Human Potential
884: Programme under contract HTRN--CT--2000--00149 Physics at Colliders and by
885: FCT through projects CERN/FIS/43793/2002, CFIF--Plurianual (2/91)
886: and grant SFRH/BPD/12603/2003.
887:
888: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
889:
890: \bibitem{top}
891: M. Beneke {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0003033
892: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
893:
894: \bibitem{tesla}
895: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.} [ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group
896: Collaboration], hep-ph/0106315
897: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%
898:
899: \bibitem{tmass}
900: P. Azzi {\it et al.} [CDF and D0 Collaborattions and Tevatron Electroweak
901: Working Group], hep-ex/0404010
902: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%
903:
904: \bibitem{hewett}
905: G. Eilam, J. L. Hewett and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44} (1991) 1473
906: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 039901]
907: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%
908:
909: \bibitem{mele}
910: B. Mele, S. Petrarca and A. Soddu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 435} (1998) 401
911: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805498;%%
912:
913: \bibitem{bruno}
914: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and B. M. Nobre, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 553} (2003) 251
915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210360;
916:
917: \bibitem{largo}
918: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 035003
919: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 099901]
920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210112;%%
921:
922: \bibitem{prl}
923: F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}
924: (1999) 1628
925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808400;%%
926:
927: \bibitem{cheng}
928: T. P. Cheng and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 35} (1987) 3484
929: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,3484;%%
930:
931: \bibitem{luke}
932: M. E. Luke and M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 307} (1993) 387
933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303249;%%
934:
935: \bibitem{atwood}
936: D. Atwood, L. Reina and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55} (1997) 3156
937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609279;%%
938:
939: \bibitem{sola1}
940: S. Bejar, J. Guasch and J. Sola, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 600} (2001) 21
941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011091;%%
942:
943: \bibitem{li}
944: J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang and L. G. Jin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 599} (2004) 92
945: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406155;%%
946:
947: \bibitem{delepine}
948: D. Delepine and S. Khalil, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 599} (2004) 62
949: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406264;%%
950:
951: \bibitem{li2}
952: C. S. Li, R. J. Oakes and J. M. Yang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 49} (1994) 293
953: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 3156]
954: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
955:
956: \bibitem{luca}
957: G. M.~de Divitiis, R. Petronzio and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 504}
958: (1997) 45
959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704244;%%
960:
961: \bibitem{lopez}
962: J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos and R. Rangarajan, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56} (1997)
963: 3100
964: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702350;%%
965:
966: \bibitem{sola2}
967: J. Guasch and J. Sola, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 562} (1999) 3
968: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906268;%%
969:
970: \bibitem{yang1}
971: J. M. Yang, B. L. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 055001
972: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705341;%%
973:
974: \bibitem{yang2}
975: G. Eilam, A. Gemintern, T. Han, J. M. Yang and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 510}
976: (2001) 227
977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102037;%%
978:
979: \bibitem{opal}
980: G. Abbiendi {\em et al.} [OPAL Collaboration], Phys. Lett. {\bf B521} (2001)
981: 181
982: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110009;%%
983:
984: \bibitem{cdf}
985: F. Abe {\em et al.} [CDF Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 2525
986: %%CITATION = PRLTA,80,2525;%%
987:
988: \bibitem{zeus}
989: S. Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B {\bf 559} (2003)
990: 153
991: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0302010;%%
992:
993: \bibitem{h1}
994: A. Aktas {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration] Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 33} (2004) 9
995: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0310032;%%
996:
997: \bibitem{han1}
998: T. Han, R. D. Peccei and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 454} (1995) 527
999: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506461;%%
1000:
1001: \bibitem{han2}
1002: T. Han, K. Whisnant, B. L.~Young and X. Zhang,
1003: %``Top-Quark Decay Via the Anomalous Coupling $\bar t c \gamma$ at Hadron
1004: %Colliders,''
1005: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55} (1997) 7241
1006: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603247;%%
1007:
1008: \bibitem{han3}
1009: T. Han, K. Whisnant, B. L. Young and X. Zhang,
1010: %``Searching for t $\to$ c g at the Fermilab Tevatron,''
1011: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 385} (1996) 311
1012: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606231;%%
1013:
1014: \bibitem{gustavo}
1015: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 495} (2000) 347
1016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004190;%%
1017:
1018: \bibitem{npb}
1019: F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 576} (2000) 56
1020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909222;%%
1021:
1022: \bibitem{hosch}
1023: M. Hosch, K. Whisnant and B. L. Young, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 56} (1997) 5725
1024: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703450;%%
1025:
1026: \bibitem{mrst}
1027: A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J.Stirling and R. S. Thorne, hep-ph/0307262
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307262;%%
1029:
1030: \bibitem{kidonakis}
1031: N. Kidonakis and A. Belyaev, JHEP {\bf 0312} (2003) 004
1032: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310299;%%
1033:
1034: \bibitem{LHCup}
1035: O. Bruning {\it et al.},
1036: %``LHC luminosity and energy upgrade: A feasibility study,''
1037: CERN-LHC-PROJECT-REPORT-626
1038: %%CITATION = NONE%%
1039:
1040: \bibitem{atlas1}
1041: L. Chikovani and T. Djobava, hep-ex/0205016
1042: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205016;%%
1043:
1044: \bibitem{han4}
1045: T. Han, M. Hosch, K. Whisnant, B. L. Young and X. Zhang,
1046: %``Single top quark production via FCNC couplings at hadron colliders,''
1047: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58} (1998) 073008
1048: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806486;%%
1049:
1050: \bibitem{slabo}
1051: Y. P. Gouz and S. R. Slabospitsky, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 457} (1999) 177
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811330;%%
1053:
1054: \bibitem{hewett2}
1055: T. Han and J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 074015
1056: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811237;%%
1057:
1058: \bibitem{mio2}
1059: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and T. Riemann, LC-TH-2001-067, hep-ph/0102197
1060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102197;%%
1061:
1062: \bibitem{mio}
1063: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Lett. {\bf B502} (2001) 115
1064: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012305;%%
1065:
1066: \bibitem{sher}
1067: T. Han, J. Jiang and M. Sher, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 516} (2001) 337
1068: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106277;%%
1069:
1070: \bibitem{isr}
1071: M. Skrzypek and S. Jadach, Z. Phys. C {\bf 49} (1991) 577
1072: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C49,577;%%
1073:
1074: \bibitem{BS2}
1075: K. Yokoya and P. Chen, SLAC-PUB-4935. {\em Presented at IEEE Particle
1076: Accelerator Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Mar 20-23, 1989}
1077: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1078:
1079: \bibitem{peskin}
1080: M. Peskin, Linear Collider Collaboration Note LCC-0010, January 1999
1081: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
1082:
1083: \bibitem{lum}
1084: International Linear Collider Technical Review Committee 2003 Report,
1085: {\small \tt
1086: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/ilc-trc/2002/2002/report/03rep.htm}
1087:
1088: \bibitem{yang3}
1089: J. j. Cao, Z. h. Xiong and J. M. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 651} (2003) 87
1090: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208035;%%
1091:
1092: \bibitem{yang4}
1093: J. M. Yang, Annals Phys. {\bf 316} (2005) 529
1094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409351;%%
1095:
1096: \bibitem{wudka}
1097: S. Bar-Shalom and J. Wudka, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 094016
1098: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905407;%%
1099:
1100: \bibitem{peris}
1101: R. D. Peccei, S. Peris and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 349} (1991) 305
1102: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B349,305;%%
1103:
1104: \bibitem{quico}
1105: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, F. J. Botella, G. C. Branco and M. Nebot,
1106: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 706} (2005) 204
1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406151;%%
1108:
1109: \end{thebibliography}
1110: \end{document}
1111: