1: \documentclass{appolb}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{feynarts}

4: \usepackage{axodraw}

5: % epsfig package included for placing EPS figures in the text

6: %------------------------------------------------------

7: 

8: \newcommand{\lc}{linear collider}

9: \newcommand{\epem}{$e^+e^-$}

10: \newcommand{\msbar}{$\overline{\rm{MS}}$}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\lsim}

13: {\;\raisebox{-.3em}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle <}{\sim}$}\;}

14: \newcommand{\gsim}

15: {\;\raisebox{-.3em}{$\stackrel{\displaystyle >}{\sim}$}\;}

16: 

17: 

18: \newcommand{\BC}{\begin{center}}

19: \newcommand{\EC}{\end{center}}

20: \newcommand{\BE}{\begin{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\EE}{\end{equation}}

22: \newcommand{\BEA}{\begin{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\BEAnn}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

24: \newcommand{\EEA}{\end{eqnarray}}

25: \newcommand{\EEAnn}{\end{eqnarray*}}

26: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}

27: 

28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

29: %                                                %

30: %    BEGINNING OF TEXT                           %

31: %                                                %

32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

33: \begin{document}

34: % \eqsec  % uncomment this line to get equations numbered by (sec.num)

35: \title{Top Quark Physics at Colliders%Life at the top%

36: \thanks{Presented at the final meeting of the European Network "Physics at

37: Colliders", Montpellier, September 25-28,2004.

38: This work has been supported by the European Community's Human

39: Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149.

40: }%

41: % you can use '\\' to break lines

42: }

43: \author{E.W.N. Glover

44: \address{Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, University of Durham,\\

45: Durham DH1~3LE, UK}

46: \and

47: F.~del \'Aguila, J.A.~Aguilar--Saavedra,  M.~Beccaria, S.~B\'{e}jar, 

48: A.~Brandenburg, J.~Fleischer,

49: J.~Guasch, T.~Hahn, W.~Hollik,

50: S.~Heinemeyer, S.~Kraml, A.~Leike, A.~Lorca, W.~Porod, S.~Prelovsek,

51: F.M.~Renard, T.~Riemann,

52: C.~Schappacher, Z.G.~Si,

53: J.~Sol\`{a}, P.~Uwer,  C.~Verzegnassi, G.~Weiglein and A.~Werthenbach

54: \address{Universitat~Autonoma~de~Barcelona,

55: Universitat~de~Barcelona,

56: CERN,

57: Univ.~of~Durham,

58: Univ.d~de~Granada,

59: DESY,~Hamburg,

60: INFN~Lecce,

61: Univ.~di~Lecce,

62: Instituto~Superior~Tecnico~Lisbon,

63: Univ.~de~Montpellier II,

64: Ludwig-Maximilians-Univ.~M\"unchen,

65: Max~Planck~Inst.~f\" ur Phys.~M\"unchen,

66: Shandong~Univ.,

67: INFN~Trieste,

68: Univ.~di~Trieste,

69: Paul~Scherrer~Institut~Villigen,

70: DESY,~Zeuthen,

71: Univ.~Z\"urich}

72: }

73: \maketitle

74: \begin{abstract}

75: We review some recent developments in top quark production and decay

76: at current and future colliders.

77: \end{abstract}

78: \PACS{12.15.Lk, 12.38.Bx, 13.66.Bc,  14.65.Ha}

79:   

80: \section{Introduction}

81: The detailed analysis of the dynamics of top quark production and decay 

82: is a major objective of experiments at the Tevatron, the LHC, and a possible

83: international linear $e^+e^-$ collider (ILC). 

84: A special feature of the top quark that

85: makes such studies very attractive is its large decay width,

86:  $\Gamma_t\approx 1.48$~GeV, which  serves as a cut-off for non-perturbative

87: effects in top quark decays. As a consequence 

88: {\em precise} theoretical predictions of

89: cross sections and differential distributions involving top quarks 

90: are possible within the Standard Model and its extensions.

91: A confrontation  of such predictions 

92: with forthcoming high-precision data will lead

93: to accurate determinations of Standard Model parameters and possibly

94: hints of new phenomena. 

95: 

96: For more details on the general subject 

97: of top physics, we refer the reader to the recent collider studies 

98: \cite{Beneke:2000hk,

99: Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg,

100: Abe:2001wn,Abe:2001gc} and 

101:  references therein.

102: In this talk, I review the joint contribution to top quark physics

103: made by the network. 

104:  

105: 

106: %\newpage

107: \section{Top quark production at the

108: ILC~\cite{Fleischer:2003kk,Fleischer:2002kg,Fleischer:2002nn,Fleischer:2002rn,Hahn:2003ab}}

109: 

110: At the ILC, one of the most important {reactions will be

111: top-pair production well above the threshold} (i.e. in the

112: continuum region),

113: \begin{eqnarray}

114:   \label{eq:qqtt}

115:   e^+ ~+~ e^- \rightarrow t ~+~  \bar t~ \,\,.

116: \end{eqnarray}

117: Several hundred thousand events are expected, and the anticipated

118: accuracy of the corresponding theoretical

119: predictions should be around a few per mille. 

120: Of course, it is not only

121: the two-fermion production process (\ref{eq:qqtt}), with electroweak (EW) 

122: and

123: QCD radiative corrections to the final state that must be calculated with

124: high precision.

125: In addition, the decay

126: of the top 

127: quarks and a variety of quite different radiative corrections such as

128: real photonic bremsstrahlung and other non-factorizing contributions

129: to six-fermion production and beamstrahlung  have to be considered.  

130: New physics effects may also have to be taken into

131: account.

132: 

133: In \cite{Fujimoto:1988hu,Yuasa:1999rg},  the complete

134: $O(\alpha)$ corrections, including hard photon radiation, are calculated. The

135: virtual and soft photon corrections both in the Standard Model (SM)

136: and in the

137: minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) are determined in 

138: \cite{Beenakker:1991ca,Hollik:1998md}, and (only) in the    SM in

139: \cite{Bardin:2000kn}.

140: At the time of the public presentation of the TESLA 

141: Technical Design Report~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}.

142: detailed comparisons between these calculations had not been made.

143: For this reason, and to

144:  produce an event generator for the evaluation of experimental data,

145: the fortran code

146: {\tt topfit} has been written~\cite{Fleischer:2003kk,Fleischer:2002kg} 

147: which describes the fixed-order QED and electroweak one-loop corrections to

148: top pair production. 

149: 

150: 

151: Top quark pair production from $e^+e^-$

152: annihilation at one-loop differs from light fermion production because

153: two new structures appear in the theoretical description that are a

154: consequence of the fact that the top mass is not negligible.  To

155: understand the origin of the extra structures, it is sufficient to

156: consider the theoretical expansion of a one-loop vertex coupling the top quark

157: pair to

158: either a photon or a $Z$.

159: In full generality, with CP-conserving interactions

160: one can identify the effective vertex~\cite{Beccaria:2000jz}

161: \begin{equation}

162: \Gamma^X_{\mu}=-e^X\left[\gamma_{\mu}(g^X_{Vt}-g^X_{At}\gamma^5)+{d^X\over

163: m_t}(p-p')_{\mu}\right]

164: \label{3forms}

165: \end{equation}

166: where $X=\gamma,Z$,  $e^{\gamma}=|e|$, $e^Z={|e|\over2s_Wc_W}$

167: and $p$, $p'$ represent the outgoing $t$, $\bar t$ momenta;

168: $g^X_{Vt},~g^X_{At},~d^X$ are $O(\alpha)$ one-loop contributions

169: which in general are

170: $q^2=(p+p')^2$ dependent. 

171: The new quantity $d^X$ enters because the top mass cannot 

172: be  neglected and appear

173: in the various theoretical expressions at one loop, making the overall

174: number of independent amplitudes of the process to increase from four

175: (in massless fermion production) to six. This is because the

176: \underline{three} independent coefficients of eq.~(\ref{3forms}) 

177: will be combined

178: with the \underline{two} independent coefficients ($g^X_{Vl},~g^X_{Al}$)

179: of the initial

180: (massless) lepton current. 

181: 

182: The one-loop corrections to $t\bar t$ production therefore consists of

183: evaluating these six form factors.

184: Typical one-loop vertex and box graphs contributing 

185: to the EW and QED corrections process are shown in

186: Fig.~1.

187: \begin{center}

188: \begin{figure}[tb!]

189: \label{fig:eett}

190: \unitlength=0.60bp%

191: 

192: \begin{scriptsize}

193: \begin{feynartspicture}(632,101)(4,1)

194: \FADiagram{}

195: \FAProp(0.,15.)(4.,14.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

196: \FALabel(2.37593,15.5237)[b]{$e$}

197: \FAProp(0.,5.)(4.,6.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

198: \FALabel(2.37593,4.47628)[t]{$e$}

199: \FAProp(20.,15.)(16.,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

200: \FALabel(17.2697,12.9883)[br]{$t$}

201: \FAProp(20.,5.)(16.,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

202: \FALabel(18.7303,7.98828)[bl]{$t$}

203: \FAProp(16.,10.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

204: \FALabel(13.25,8.93)[t]{$\gamma, Z$}

205: \FAProp(4.,14.)(4.,6.)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

206: \FALabel(2.93,10.)[r]{$\gamma, Z$}

207: \FAProp(4.,14.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

208: \FALabel(7.58235,12.8401)[bl]{$e$}

209: \FAProp(4.,6.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

210: \FALabel(7.58235,7.15993)[tl]{$e$}

211: \FAVert(4.,14.){0}

212: \FAVert(4.,6.){0}

213: \FAVert(16.,10.){0}

214: \FAVert(10.5,10.){0}

215: 

216: \FADiagram{}

217: \FAProp(0.,15.)(4.,14.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

218: \FALabel(2.37593,15.5237)[b]{$e$}

219: \FAProp(0.,5.)(4.,6.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

220: \FALabel(2.37593,4.47628)[t]{$e$}

221: \FAProp(20.,15.)(16.,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

222: \FALabel(17.2697,12.9883)[br]{$t$}

223: \FAProp(20.,5.)(16.,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

224: \FALabel(18.7303,7.98828)[bl]{$t$}

225: \FAProp(16.,10.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

226: \FALabel(13.25,8.93)[t]{$\gamma, Z$}

227: \FAProp(4.,14.)(4.,6.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

228: \FALabel(2.93,10.)[r]{$\nu_e$}

229: \FAProp(4.,14.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Sine}{-1}

230: \FALabel(7.58235,12.8401)[bl]{$W$}

231: \FAProp(4.,6.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Sine}{1}

232: \FALabel(7.58235,7.15993)[tl]{$W$}

233: \FAVert(4.,14.){0}

234: \FAVert(4.,6.){0}

235: \FAVert(16.,10.){0}

236: \FAVert(10.5,10.){0}

237: 

238: \FADiagram{}

239: \FAProp(0.,15.)(4.,14.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

240: \FALabel(2.37593,15.5237)[b]{$e$}

241: \FAProp(0.,5.)(4.,6.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

242: \FALabel(2.37593,4.47628)[t]{$e$}

243: \FAProp(20.,15.)(16.,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

244: \FALabel(17.2697,12.9883)[br]{$t$}

245: \FAProp(20.,5.)(16.,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

246: \FALabel(18.7303,7.98828)[bl]{$t$}

247: \FAProp(16.,10.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

248: \FALabel(13.25,8.93)[t]{$Z$}

249: \FAProp(4.,14.)(4.,6.)(0.,){/Sine}{-1}

250: \FALabel(2.93,10.)[r]{$W$}

251: \FAProp(4.,14.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

252: \FALabel(7.58235,12.8401)[bl]{$\nu_e$}

253: \FAProp(4.,6.)(10.5,10.)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

254: \FALabel(7.58235,7.15993)[tl]{$\nu_e$}

255: \FAVert(4.,14.){0}

256: \FAVert(4.,6.){0}

257: \FAVert(16.,10.){0}

258: \FAVert(10.5,10.){0}

259: \end{feynartspicture}

260: \end{scriptsize}

261: 

262: \unitlength=0.60bp%

263: 

264: \begin{scriptsize}

265: \begin{feynartspicture}(632,101)(4,1)

266: \FADiagram{}

267: \FAProp(0.,15.)(5.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

268: \FALabel(2.89033,15.8136)[b]{$e$}

269: \FAProp(0.,5.)(5.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

270: \FALabel(2.89033,4.18637)[t]{$e$}

271: \FAProp(20.,15.)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

272: \FALabel(17.1097,15.8136)[b]{$t$}

273: \FAProp(20.,5.)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

274: \FALabel(17.1097,4.18637)[t]{$t$}

275: \FAProp(5.5,14.5)(5.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

276: \FALabel(4.43,10.)[r]{$e$}

277: \FAProp(5.5,14.5)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

278: \FALabel(10.,15.57)[b]{$\gamma, Z$}

279: \FAProp(5.5,5.5)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

280: \FALabel(10.,4.43)[t]{$\gamma, Z$}

281: \FAProp(14.5,14.5)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

282: \FALabel(15.57,10.)[l]{$t$}

283: \FAVert(5.5,14.5){0}

284: \FAVert(5.5,5.5){0}

285: \FAVert(14.5,14.5){0}

286: \FAVert(14.5,5.5){0}

287: 

288: \FADiagram{}

289: \FAProp(0.,15.)(5.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

290: \FALabel(2.89033,15.8136)[b]{$e$}

291: \FAProp(0.,5.)(5.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

292: \FALabel(2.89033,4.18637)[t]{$e$}

293: \FAProp(20.,15.)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

294: \FALabel(18.2636,13.1453)[br]{$t$}

295: \FAProp(20.,5.)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

296: \FALabel(18.7364,8.14526)[bl]{$t$}

297: \FAProp(5.5,14.5)(5.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

298: \FALabel(4.43,10.)[r]{$e$}

299: \FAProp(5.5,14.5)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

300: \FALabel(10.,15.57)[b]{$\gamma, Z$}

301: \FAProp(5.5,5.5)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Sine}{0}

302: \FALabel(10.,4.43)[t]{$\gamma, Z$}

303: \FAProp(14.5,5.5)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

304: \FALabel(13.43,10.)[r]{$t$}

305: \FAVert(5.5,14.5){0}

306: \FAVert(5.5,5.5){0}

307: \FAVert(14.5,5.5){0}

308: \FAVert(14.5,14.5){0}

309: 

310: \FADiagram{}

311: \FAProp(0.,15.)(5.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

312: \FALabel(2.89033,15.8136)[b]{$e$}

313: \FAProp(0.,5.)(5.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

314: \FALabel(2.89033,4.18637)[t]{$e$}

315: \FAProp(20.,15.)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

316: \FALabel(18.2636,13.1453)[br]{$t$}

317: \FAProp(20.,5.)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

318: \FALabel(18.7364,8.14526)[bl]{$t$}

319: \FAProp(5.5,14.5)(5.5,5.5)(0.,){/Straight}{-1}

320: \FALabel(4.43,10.)[r]{$\nu_e$}

321: \FAProp(5.5,14.5)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Sine}{-1}

322: \FALabel(10.,15.57)[b]{$W$}

323: \FAProp(5.5,5.5)(14.5,5.5)(0.,){/Sine}{1}

324: \FALabel(10.,4.43)[t]{$W$}

325: \FAProp(14.5,5.5)(14.5,14.5)(0.,){/Straight}{1}

326: \FALabel(13.43,10.)[r]{$b$}

327: \FAVert(5.5,14.5){0}

328: \FAVert(5.5,5.5){0}

329: \FAVert(14.5,5.5){0}

330: \FAVert(14.5,14.5){0}

331: \end{feynartspicture}

332: \end{scriptsize}

333: \caption{Typical graphs contributing to the weak and QED corrections to $e^+e^-

334: \to t\bar t$}

335: \end{figure}

336: \end{center}

337: The virtual corrections contain both ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR)

338: divergences and are treated by dimensional regularization. 

339: The  UV divergences  are eliminated by renormalization on the

340: amplitude level, while the  IR poles can only be eliminated at the

341: cross-section level by including the emission of soft photons. 

342: 

343: The real radiation contribution is evaluated using a semi-analytical

344: integration approach with physically accessible observables as integration

345: variables.  This allows control over the numerical precision to  more than four

346: digits.   The phase space with three particles in the final state is

347: five-dimensional.  However, two of the angles are trivial and may be

348: integrated out so that, 

349: \begin{equation}

350: d\sigma = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{1}{2s\beta_0}|{\cal M}|^2~

351: \frac{\pi s}{16}\;\mbox{d}r\mbox{d}x\mbox{d}\cos\theta,

352: \label{space}

353: \end{equation}

354: where $\theta$ is the angle between the anti-top quark and the positron,

355: $x = 2 p_\gamma\cdot p_{\bar t}/s$ and $r = (p_t+p_{\bar t})^2/s$.

356: Cuts on the energies of the photon or top quarks, or cuts on the angles between

357: particles directly transfer into cuts on these variables.

358: The phase space is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:phasecuts}.

359: %

360: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

361: \begin{figure}[tb!]

362: \begin{center}

363:  \epsfig{file=spacec_mod.eps,width=6.0cm}

364:  \epsfig{file=tetattbm_mod.eps,width=6.0cm}

365: \end{center}

366: \caption

367: {Phase space for 

368: $r_m=\frac{4 m_t^2}{s}=0.2$ (non-zero top mass).

369: Energetic cuts are also shown in (a)

370: $r_E=2E_{t}^{min}/\sqrt{s}$, 

371: $r_{\bar E}=2\bar E_{t}^{min}/\sqrt{s}$, 

372: $r_\omega=1-2\omega/\sqrt{s}=1-2E_{min}(\gamma)/\sqrt{s}$, 

373: $r_\gamma=1-2E_{max}(\gamma)\sqrt{s}$

374: while (b) shows

375: different values of the acollinearity

376: angle $\xi = \pi - \theta_{t\bar t}$.  Note that $\cos \xi = 1$ corresponds to

377: the elastic case.

378: \label{fig:phasecuts}

379: }

380: \end{figure}

381: The $t$ ($\bar t$) are at rest at points $A$ ($B$).

382: Soft photons are located at point $C$.   All phase space points away from $(r,x)

383: = (1,0)$ are finite and can be obtained numerically for any set of reasonable

384: cuts.  The soft photon contribution is analytically removed and combined with

385: the virtual graphs.

386: 

387: Numerical results from {\tt topfit} have been compared with two other groups.   First the 

388: virtual and soft photon contribution have been compared with results from

389: the Karlsruhe group~\cite{Fleischer:2002rn,Hahn:2003ab}.  The weak virtual corrections to

390: the angular distributions agree

391: to twelve digits, while the pure photonic corrections agree to at least eleven

392: digits.   Second, the hard photon corrections have been compared with results

393: from the GRACE group~\cite{Yuasa:1999rg}.  Depending on the observable,

394: agreement to three digits is generally obtained.  

395: 

396: 

397: \begin{figure}[tb!]

398: \begin{center}

399: \hspace*{-1cm}

400: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.5cm\epsffile{stotal-top.eps}}

401: \mbox{\epsfysize=6.5cm\epsffile{asym-top.eps}}

402: \vspace*{-1cm}

403: \end{center}

404: \caption[]{\label{fig:physres}

405: The (a) total cross-section and (b)

406: forward--backward asymmetry  for top-pair production as a function of $s$.

407: Born (solid lines), electroweak (dashed lines), electroweak with

408: $s'= 0.7 \, s$-cut (dotted lines)  and electroweak with  $s'=0.7 \, s$- and

409: $\cos\theta = 0.95$-cut (dash-dotted lines).}

410: \end{figure}

411: %------------------------------------------------------------

412: %

413: 

414: Fig.~\ref{fig:physres} shows the (a) total cross section and (b)

415: forward-backward asymmetry as a function of $\sqrt{s}$.\footnote{Note that this

416: is a fixed-order $\alpha$ calculation, i.e. no higher order corrections such as

417: photon exponentiation have been taken into account} The values of the input

418: parameters can be found in Ref.~\cite{Fleischer:2003kk}. The effects of

419: radiative corrections are more dramatic for top-pairs produced close to the

420: direction of the beam. For the ILC range of centre-of-mass energies, 

421: backward scattered top quarks give rise to slightly larger corrections to the

422: toral cross section

423: than

424: forward scattered ones~\cite{Fleischer:2002rn}. For higher energies this

425: effect is more or less washed out. This is not the case for the

426: forward--backward asymmetry.

427: 

428: In summary Ref.~\cite{Fleischer:2003kk} shows that at the ILC,

429: EW radiative corrections modify the differential (as well as the

430: integrated) top-quark observables

431: by more than the anticipated experimental precision of a few per mille.

432: The package {\tt topfit} provides the means to calculate those corrections and

433: allows predictions for various realistic cuts on the scattering angle as well

434: as on the energy of the photon.  The successful comparison with

435: Refs.~\cite{Fleischer:2002nn,Fleischer:2002rn} means that the technical

436: precision of {\tt topfit} is completely tested.

437: 

438: %\newpage

439: \section{Polarised top quark decay~\cite{Brandenburg:2002xr}}

440: 

441: In $e^+e^-$ collisions, top quarks are produced highly polarized, especially 

442: if one  tunes the polarization of the incoming beams, as possible e.g. at the

443: ILC collider~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}.  At the LHC  the polarization of

444: top quarks  is  tiny due to parity and time reversal  invariance  of QCD.

445: However the spins of  $t$ and $\bar t$ are in general highly correlated.

446: 

447: The polarization  of the top quark  is transferred to the angular distribution

448: of its decay products through its weak, parity violating decays. 

449: If we consider a polarized  ensemble of top quarks at rest with polarization

450: vector ${\bf P},\ 0\le |{\bf P}|\le 1$,  the differential decay distribution

451: with respect to the angle $\vartheta$ between ${\bf P}$ and the direction

452: $\hat{\bf p}$ of a given decay product is given by,

453: \begin{eqnarray}\label{power}

454: \frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{d\Gamma}{d\cos\vartheta}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+

455: |{\bf P}|\kappa_p\cos\vartheta\right).

456: \end{eqnarray} 

457: In Eq.~(\ref{power}), ${\Gamma}$ is the partial width for the  corresponding

458: decay of unpolarized top quarks, and $\kappa_p$ is the so-called {\it spin

459: analysing power} of the final state  particle or jet under consideration. For

460: example, in the semileptonic decay $t\to l^+\nu_l b$, the charged  lepton

461: ($b$-quark) has spin analysing power $\kappa_p=+1$ ($\sim -0.41$)  at the tree

462: level within the Standard Model.  In hadronic top decays $t\to b \bar{d} u$

463: (where $d (u)$ stands generically for $d,s\ (u,c)$),    the r\^ole of the

464: charged lepton is played by the  $\bar{d}$ quark.  However, the $\bar d$ quark

465: cannot be easily identified,  but with a 61\% probability is contained in the

466: least energetic light (i.e. non-$b$-quark)  jet. The spin analysing for the

467: least energetic jet is denoted by $\kappa_j$.

468: %Tree level results are shown in Table~\ref{tab:lo}. 

469: %\begin{table}[h]

470: %\caption{Born results for spin analysing power of $\bar{d}$, $b$, $u$ 

471: %, least energetic light jet and thrust axis.}

472: %\begin{center}

473: %\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\hline

474: %                     & $m_b=0$, $\Gamma_W\to 0$  & $m_b=5$ GeV, $\Gamma_W$ kept\\  \hline

475: %$\kappa_{\bar{d}}^0$ & $1$                       & $1$\\

476: %$\kappa_{b}^0$       & $-0.40622$                & $-0.40800$\\

477: %$\kappa_{u}^0$       & $-0.31817$                & $-0.31236$\\

478: %$\kappa_j^0$         & $\ \ \ 0.50774$           & $\ \ \ 0.51021$\\ 

479: %$\kappa_T^0$         & $-0.31712$                & $-0.31671$\\\hline

480: %\end{tabular}

481: %\vspace*{1em}

482: %\label{tab:lo}

483: %\end{center}

484: %\end{table}

485: 

486: The QCD corrections to $\kappa_p$ for hadronic top decays 

487: are computed in Ref.~\cite{Brandenburg:2002xr}. 

488: These corrections are one 

489: ingredient in a full analysis of

490: top quark (pair) production and decay at next-to-leading

491: order in $\alpha_s$, both at lepton

492: and hadron colliders. They form part of the {\it factorizable}

493: corrections within the pole approximation for the top quark propagator. 

494: The QCD corrections for semileptonic

495: polarized top quark decays have been computed

496: in ref.~\cite{Czarnecki:1991}.

497: 

498: The size of the next-to-leading order (NLO) correction is defined as

499: \begin{eqnarray}\label{kappa_nlo}

500: \kappa_p \equiv \kappa_p^0[1+\delta_p^{QCD}]

501: +O(\alpha_s^2) ,

502: \end{eqnarray}

503: where $\kappa_p^{0}$ denotes the Born result.

504: Table~\ref{tab:nlo}

505:  shows that the top-spin analysing powers

506: of the final states in non-leptonic top quark decays receive

507: QCD corrections in the range $+1.4$\% to $-7.2$\%. 

508: The spin analysing power of jets is smaller than that of

509: the corresponding bare quarks.

510: This has to be contrasted

511: with the spin analysing power of the charged lepton in  

512: decays $t(\uparrow)\to

513: bl^+\nu_l$ where the QCD corrected result (for $m_b=0$) 

514: reads~\cite{Czarnecki:1991} $\kappa_l=1-0.015\alpha_s$, i.e. the correction

515: is at the per mille level.

516:  

517: \begin{table}[h]

518: \caption{QCD-corrected results for spin analysing powers.}

519: \begin{center}

520: \begin{tabular}{

521: %|c

522: |c|c|c|c|}\hline

523: %& Born 

524: & partons & jets, E-alg.  & jets, D-alg. \\  \hline

525: $\kappa_{\bar{d}}$ 

526: %& 1 

527: & $0.9664(7)$&  $0.9379(8)$ & 

528: $0.9327(8)$ \\ 

529: $\delta^{QCD}_{\bar{d}}$ [\%] & $-3.36\pm 0.07$ & $-6.21\pm 0.08$

530:  &  $-6.73 \pm 0.08$   \\ \hline  

531: $\kappa_{b}$ 

532: %&$-0.408$

533: & $-0.3925(6)$& $-0.3907(6)$ & 

534: $-0.3910(6)$\\

535: $\delta^{QCD}_{b}$ [\%] & $-3.80\pm 0.15$ & $-4.24\pm  0.15$ & 

536: $-4.18  \pm 0.15$ \\ \hline  

537: $\kappa_{u}$ 

538: %&$-0.312$

539: & $-0.3167(6)$&  $-0.3032(6)$ & 

540: $-0.3054(6)$ \\

541: $\delta^{QCD}_{u}$ [\%] & $+1.39\pm 0.19$ & $-2.93\pm 0.19$ & 

542: $-2.22\pm  0.19$   \\ \hline

543: $\kappa_j$ 

544: %&$0.510$

545: & $-$ & $0.4736(7)$ & 

546: $ 0.4734(7)$\\

547:  $\delta^{QCD}_{j}$ [\%] & $-$ & $-7.18\pm  0.13$ &  $-7.21\pm 

548:  0.13$   \\ 

549:  %\hline

550: %$\kappa_T$ 

551: %%&$-0.317$

552: %& $ -0.3083(6)$ & $-$ & $-$\\

553: %$\delta^{QCD}_{T}$ [\%] & $-2.65\pm 0.19$ & $-$ &  $-$  \\

554: \hline

555: \end{tabular}

556: \vspace*{1em}

557: \label{tab:nlo}

558: \end{center}

559: \end{table} 

560: 

561:    

562: %\newpage

563: \section{Six fermion production~\cite{lusifer}}

564: 

565: Since top quarks decay via the cascade $t\to b W^+\to b f\bar f'$ into three

566: fermions, the production of $t\bar t$ pairs corresponds to a particular class

567: of $e^+e^-\to 6f$ processes: $e^+e^-\to b\bar b  f_1 \bar f'_1 f_2 \bar f'_2$,

568: where $f_i \bar f'_i$ denote two weak isospin doublets as

569: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ttgraphs}. Ref.~\cite{lusifer}

570: presents the Monte Carlo event generator {\tt Lusifer}, which 

571: is designed for all SM processes $e^+e^-\to 6$~fermions in

572: lowest order.\footnote{Note that Ref.~\cite{Gleisberg:2003bi} describes similar

573: results based on the HELAC/PHEGAS~\cite{Kanaki:2000ms} and 

574: AMEGIC++~\cite{Schalicke:2002ck} packages}   

575: Gluon-exchange diagrams can be included for final

576: states with two leptons and four quarks (not yet for six-quark final states). 

577: The matrix elements are evaluated using the Weyl--van~der~Waerden (WvdW) spinor

578: technique and the phase-space integration is performed using multi-channel

579: Monte Carlo integration improved by adaptive weight optimization. The

580: lowest-order predictions are dressed by initial-state radiation (ISR) in the

581: leading logarithmic approximation following the structure-function

582: approach~\cite{sf}.

583: 

584: There is a technical problem due to the finite decay widths of unstable

585: particles in the amplitudes which generates gauge-invariance-breaking effects. 

586: Already for CM energies in the TeV range these effects are

587: clearly visible  in some cases, underlining the importance of this issue. 

588: Within {\tt Lusifer}  several width schemes are implemented, including  

589: the {\it complex-mass scheme}, which was introduced in Ref.~\cite{Denner:1999gp} for

590: tree-level predictions and maintains gauge invariance. Hence, gauge-violating

591: artefacts can be controlled by comparing a given  width scheme with the

592: complex-mass scheme.

593: 

594: \begin{figure}[tb!]

595: \centerline{

596: %\framebox{

597: \setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}

598: \begin{picture}(155,125)(0,5)

599: \ArrowLine( 10, 45)( 30, 65)

600: \ArrowLine( 30, 65)( 10, 85)

601: \ArrowLine(145, 30)(130, 45)

602: \ArrowLine(130, 45)(145, 55)

603: \ArrowLine(145, 75)(130, 85)

604: \ArrowLine(130, 85)(145,100)

605: \ArrowLine( 70, 65)(100, 95)

606: \ArrowLine(100, 35)( 70, 65)

607: \ArrowLine(100, 95)(145,120)

608: \ArrowLine(145, 10)(100, 35)

609: \Photon(30, 65)( 70, 65){2}{6}

610: \Photon(100, 35)(130, 45){2}{5}

611: \Photon(100, 95)(130, 85){2}{5}

612: \Vertex(30,  65){2.0}

613: \Vertex(130, 45){2.0}

614: \Vertex(130, 85){2.0}

615: \Vertex(70, 65){2.0}

616: \Vertex(100, 35){2.0}

617: \Vertex(100, 95){2.0}

618: \put(40,50){$\gamma/ Z$}

619: \put(80,90){$t$}

620: \put(80,34){$t$}

621: \put(105,73){$W$}

622: \put(105,48){$W$}

623: \put(150,120){$b$}

624: \put(150, 5){$b$}

625: \put( -5, 85){$e^+$}

626: \put( -5, 40){$e^-$}

627: \end{picture}

628: } %}

629: \caption{Diagram for $t\bar t$ production:

630: $e^+e^-\to t\bar t\to b W^+\bar b W^-\to6f$}

631: \label{fig:ttgraphs}

632: \end{figure}

633: 

634: Figure~\ref{fig:topmassdist}(a) illustrates the energy dependence 

635: of the top-quark pair production cross section for final states where

636: one of the produced W~bosons decays hadronically and the other

637: leptonically. 

638: The cross section steeply rises at the $t\bar t$ threshold, reaches

639: its maximum between $400$~GeV and $500$~GeV, and then decreases with

640: increasing energy. We see that ISR reduces the

641: cross section for energies below its maximum and enhances it above, 

642: thereby shifting the maximum to a higher energy. This behaviour is

643: simply due to the radiative energy loss induced by ISR. Near a CM energy

644: of $250$~GeV the onset of $WWZ$ production can be observed.

645: Note that this contribution is entirely furnished by background

646: diagrams, i.e.\ by diagrams that do not have a resonant top-quark

647: pair.

648: \begin{figure}[tb!]

649: \begin{center}

650: \vspace*{0.5cm}

651:  \epsfig{file=eett.cs.mu.isr.eps,width=5.0cm}

652:  \epsfig{file=mass.top.eps,width=5.0cm}

653: \end{center}

654: \caption{(a) Total cross section of

655: $e^+e^-\to\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar d b\bar b$ (without

656: gluon-exchange diagrams)

657: as function of the CM energy with and without ISR and (b) 

658: Invariant-mass distribution of the $u\bar d b$ quark triplet

659: in $e^+e^-\to\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar d b\bar b$ 

660: (without gluon-exchange diagrams):

661: absolute prediction with and without ISR}

662: \label{fig:topmassdist}

663: \end{figure}

664: Figure~\ref{fig:topmassdist}(b) shows the invariant-mass distribution of the 

665: $u\bar d b$ quark triplet that results from the top-quark decay.

666: As expected, ISR does not distort the resonance shape but merely

667: rescales the Breit--Wigner-like distribution.

668: 

669: {\tiny

670: \begin{table}

671: \begin{center}

672: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|c|}

673: \hline

674: \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{

675: $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar d b\bar b)\,[{\rm fb}]$}

676: \\ \hline \hline

677: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{$\sqrt{s}[{\rm GeV}]$} & 500 & 800 & 2000

678: \\ \hline \hline

679: {\tt Lusifer} 

680: & fixed width /& 17.095(11) & 8.6795(83) & 1.8631(31)

681: \\[-.2em]

682: & step width  & & &   

683: \\ \cline{2-5} 

684: & running width & 17.106(10) & 8.6988(85) & 2.3858(31)

685: \\ \cline{2-5} 

686: & complex mass & 17.085(10) & 8.6773(84) & 1.8627(31)

687: \\ \hline  \hline 

688: {\tt W.\&{}M.} & step width & 17.1025(80) & 8.6823(44) & 1.8657(12)

689: \\ \hline 

690: \end{tabular}

691: \caption{Born cross sections (without ISR and gluon-exchange diagrams) for 

692: $e^+e^-\to\mu^-\bar\nu_\mu u\bar d b\bar b$

693: for various CM energies and schemes for introducing decay widths}

694: \label{tab:wwww_width}

695: \end{center}

696: \end{table}

697: }

698: 

699: Table~\ref{tab:wwww_width} shows the effect of using different schemes for

700: introducing finite decay widths. In spite of  violating gauge invariance, the

701: fixed width practically yields the same results as the complex-mass scheme that

702: maintains gauge invariance. Table~\ref{tab:wwww_width} also shows some

703: results obtained

704: from the multi-purpose packages {\tt Whizard}~\cite{Kilian:2001qz} and 

705: {\tt Madgraph}~\cite{Stelzer:1994ta}. In general, and apart from a

706: few cases, where the limitations of {\tt Whizard} and {\t Madgraph} become

707: visible, there is good numerical agreement, demonstrating the reliability of

708: {\tt Lusifer}. 

709: 

710: \section{Top production in the asymptotic regime~\cite{Beccaria:2000jz,

711: Beccaria:2001an,Beccaria:2002tz,Beccaria:2004yt,Beccaria:2004qg}}

712: 

713: At energies far above the electroweak scale, $\sqrt{s} >\!\!> M \sim M_W\sim

714: M_Z$, the electroweak corrections are enhanced by large logarithmic corrections

715: of the type

716: $$

717: \alpha^L \log^N\left(\frac{s}{M^2}\right), \qquad 1 \leq N \leq 2L.$$

718: The leading logarithmic corrections correspond to $N=2L$. These corrections are

719: related to the singular part of the radiative corrections in the massless limit

720: $M^2/s \to 0$.  They are either remnants of UV singularities or mass

721: singularities from soft/collinear emission of virtual or real particles from

722: initial or final state particles.   This is because the mass of the gauge

723: bosons provide a physical cut-off to the real radiation.  Furthermore, the

724: Bloch-Nordsieck theorem is violated for inclusive quantities if the asympototic

725: states carry non-abelian charges.

726: 

727: The top quark effective vertex of Eq.~\ref{3forms} receives logarithmic

728: corrections in the asymptotic limit.  In fact, it is possible to see

729: immediately from the structure of the one-loop Feynman diagrams

730: of both the SM and the MSSM that the coefficients

731: of the new extra Lorentz structure $(p-p')^{\mu}$ vanish at large $q^2$ like

732: $1/q^2$,  while those of the conventional Lorentz structures

733: ($\gamma^{\mu},~\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^5$) can produce either quadratic or linear

734: logarithms. Therefore, the leading terms of $t\bar t$ production at

735: asymptotic energies are exactly those that would be computed in a

736: conventional scheme in which the new scalar component of eq.(\ref{3forms})

737: has been neglected, and \underline{four} independent gauge-invariant

738: combinations survive that are, formally, equivalent to those of the final light

739: quark case.

740: 

741: Within the SM, typical diagrams giving rise to these

742: logarithms are shown in Fig.~\ref{figsm}.

743: \begin{figure}[tb!]

744: \begin{center}

745: \epsfig{file=figsm.eps,width=8cm}

746: \end{center}

747: \caption{Triangle SM diagrams contributing to the asymptotic

748: logarithmic behaviour in the energy; $f$ represent $t$ or $b$ quarks,

749: $B$ represent $W^{\pm}$, $\Phi^{\pm}$ or $Z$, $G^{0}$, $H_{SM}$.}

750: \label{figsm}

751: \end{figure} 

752: The one-loop logarithmic corrections in the SM

753: have been computed in Ref.~\cite{Beccaria:2000jz} for

754: the integrated $e^+e^-\to t\bar t$ cross section, 

755: $\sigma_t$, 

756: \begin{eqnarray}

757: \sigma_{t}&=&\sigma^{B}_{t}\Biggl(1+{\alpha\over4\pi}\Biggl((8.87N-33.16

758: )\ln{q^2\over\mu^2}+(22.79 \ln{q^2\over M^2_W}-

759: 5.53\ln^2{q^2\over M^2_W})

760: \nonumber\\

761: &&

762: +(3.52\ln{q^2\over M^2_Z}-1.67\ln^2{q^2\over M^2_Z})

763: -~14.21 \ln{q^2\over m^2_t}

764: \Biggr)\Biggr),

765: \label{sigtt}\end{eqnarray}

766: the forward backward asymmetry $A_{FB,t}$, \begin{eqnarray}

767: A_{FB,t}&=&A^{B}_{FB,t}+{\alpha\over4\pi}\Biggl((0.45N-4.85

768: )\ln{q^2\over\mu^2}-(1.79 \ln{q^2\over M^2_W}+0.17\ln^2{q^2\over M^2_W})

769: \nonumber\\

770: &&

771: -(1.26\ln{q^2\over M^2_Z}+0.06\ln^2{q^2\over M^2_Z})

772: +0.61 \ln{q^2\over m^2_t}

773: \Biggr)

774:  \ ,

775: \label{AFBt}

776: \end{eqnarray}

777: the

778: longitudinal polarization asymmetry $A_{LR,t}$ and its

779: forward-backward polarization asymmetry $A_t$.

780: The MSSM effects have also been computed~\cite{Beccaria:2000jz}. 

781: The effects are largest for the total cross section as shown in Fig.~\ref{sigt}.

782: \begin{figure}[tb!]

783: \begin{center}

784: \epsfig{file=sigmat.eps,width=8cm}

785: \end{center}

786: \caption{Relative effects on the $t\bar t$ cross section $\Delta

787: \sigma_t/\sigma_t$ in $e^+e^-$

788: annihilation at CM energy $\sqrt{q^2}$ due to the asymptotic 

789: logarithmic terms.}

790: \label{sigt}

791: \end{figure}

792: 

793: The conclusion is that the leading

794: electroweak effect at the one-loop level is

795: quite sizeable in the TeV region in all observables, with the only (expected)

796: exception of the forward-backward asymmetry.

797: These effects are systematically larger

798: than those in the corresponding lepton or ``light'' $(u,d,s,c,b)$ quark

799: production observables, both in the SM and MSSM.

800: In the latter case, top production exhibits also in the

801: leading terms a strong dependence on $\tan\beta$, much stronger than

802: that of bottom production.

803: 

804: In the asymptotic region, the different  effects on the $t\bar t$ and $b\bar b$

805: cross sections can in principle be

806: exploited~\cite{Beccaria:2001an,Beccaria:2002tz,Beccaria:2004yt,Beccaria:2004qg}.   

807: Refs.~\cite{Beccaria:2004qg} examine the effect at the LHC under the assumption

808: of a ``moderately'' light SUSY scenario and find that   the  electroweak and

809: the strong SUSY contributions combine to produce an enhanced effect whose

810: relative value in the $t\bar t$ and $b\bar b$ cross sections could be as large

811: as 20\%  for large values of $\tan\beta$.

812: 

813: %\begin{figure}[tb!]

814: %\centering

815: %\epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=8cm}

816: %\caption{Effect of the combined electroweak and SUSY 

817: %QCD corrections in the cross section for final bottom or top pairs

818: %at LHC.

819: %The various parameters are $\sqrt{S}$ = 14 TeV, $M_{SUSY}$ = 350 GeV and $p_{T, min}$ = 10 GeV. We show the results 

820: %obtained with two values of the MSSM parameters $\tan\beta$.}

821: %\label{run1}

822: %\end{figure}

823: 

824: 

825: 

826: %\newpage 

827: \section{Top quark couplings}

828: 

829: 

830: \subsection{$Wtb$~\cite{delAguila:2002nf}}

831: 

832: The most general CP-conserving $Wtb$ vertex can be parameterised

833: with the effective Lagrangian 

834: given by \footnote{The most general $Wtb$ vertex (up to dimension five)

835: involves ten operators, but at the expected level of precision it is an

836: excellent approximation to consider the top on-shell. With $b$ also on-shell

837: and $W \to l \nu,jj$ six of them can be eliminated using Gordon identities.

838: The resulting Lagrangian can be further restricted assuming CP conservation.

839: The couplings can then be taken to be real, of either sign.}

840: \begin{eqnarray}

841: \mathcal{L} & = & - \frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \bar b \, \gamma^{\mu} \left( V_{tb}^{L}

842: P_L + V_{tb}^R P_R

843: \right) t\; W_\mu^- \nonumber \\

844: & & - \frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \bar b \, \frac{i \sigma^{\mu \nu} q_\nu}{M_W}

845: \left( g^L P_L + g^R P_R \right) t\; W_\mu^- + \mathrm{h.c.} 

846: \label{ec:1}

847: \end{eqnarray}

848: In the SM the $Wtb$ vertex is purely left-handed and its size

849: is given by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $V_{tb}^L

850: \equiv V_{tb}$. The right-handed vector and both tensor couplings vanish at

851: tree-level in the SM, but can be generated at higher orders in the SM or its

852: extensions \cite{Beneke:2000hk}. Note that $V_{tb}^R$ is constrained by $b \to

853: s\gamma$ decays while  the $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ terms are not because

854: of the extra $q^{\mu}$ factor that suppresses their effect in $b$

855: decays. The $Wtb$ vertex structure can be probed and measured using either

856: top-pair production or single-top-quark production processes.   The $t \bar t$

857: cross-section is rather insensitive to the size

858: of $V_{tb}$ and 

859: to obtain a measure of the {\em absolute} value of $V_{tb}$ it is necessary to

860: fall back on less abundant single top production \cite{papiro2}, with a rate

861: proportional to $|V_{tb}|^2$.  Nevertheless, $t\bar t$ production can give

862: invaluable information on the $Wtb$ vertex. Angular asymmetries between decay

863: products are very sensitive to a small admixture of a right-handed

864: $\gamma^{\mu}$ term or a $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ coupling of either chirality.

865: 

866: In Ref.~\cite{delAguila:2002nf}, the forward-backward asymmetry

867:  in the decay of the top quark $t \to

868: W^+ b \to l^+ \nu b$ as measured in the $W$ rest frame

869: is proposed as a particularly sensitive probe of

870: anomalous top quark couplings. It is defined as

871: \begin{equation}

872: A_\mathrm{FB} = \frac{N(x_{bl} > 0) -

873: N(x_{bl} < 0)}{N(x_{bl} > 0) +

874: N(x_{bl} < 0)}\,,

875: \end{equation}

876: where $x_{bl}$ is the cosine of the angle between the 3-momenta of the $b$

877: quark and the charged lepton in the $W$ rest frame, and $N$ stands for the

878: number of events. The same definition holds for the $\bar t \to l^- \bar \nu

879: \bar b$ decay.

880: 

881: $A_\mathrm{FB}$ only depends on the $t$, $b$ and $W$ boson masses, and on the

882: couplings in Eq.~(\ref{ec:1}).  The SM tree-level (LO) value is $A_\mathrm{FB} =

883: 0.2223$ while the bulk effect of the 

884: one-loop QCD corrections can be

885: taken into account by including a $\sigma^{\mu \nu}$ term $g^R = -0.00642$

886: \cite{papiro8}. The corresponding NLO value is $A_\mathrm{FB} = 0.2257$.  In

887: Fig.~\ref{fig:afb} we plot $A_\mathrm{FB}$ for different values of $\delta g^R

888: \equiv g^R + 0.00642$, $\delta g^L \equiv g^L$ and $\delta V_{tb}^R \equiv

889: V_{tb}^R$. 

890: \begin{figure}[tb!]

891: \vspace{5mm}

892: \begin{center}

893: \mbox{\epsfig{file=afb.eps,width=8cm}}

894: \end{center}

895: \caption{Dependence of $A_\mathrm{FB}$ on $\delta g^R$ (solid line),

896: $\delta g^L$ (dashed line) and $\delta V_{tb}^R$ (dotted line).

897: The SM result occurs where all three lines cross. 

898: We use $m_t = 175$, $M_W =

899: 80.33$, $m_b = 4.8$ GeV.

900: \label{fig:afb} }

901: \end{figure}

902: Numerical studies of the tree-level $2 \to 6$ processess $gg,\;q \bar q \to t

903: \bar t \to W^+ b W^- \bar b \to l \nu jjjj$ plus $Wjjjj$ background,

904: including all spin correlations

905: and realistic cuts suggest that a statistical error of $\delta A_\mathrm{FB}

906: \simeq 5 \times 10^{-4}$ is achievable at the LHC.   The

907: main systematic errors come from the uncertainty in $m_t$ and $M_W$ and will

908: be negligible with ILC precision.

909: 

910: The cross sections in the forward and backward hemispheres are of the order of

911: 11-16~pb (2-3~pb) for the signal (background). Using both electron and muon

912: channels leads to a (statistical) sensitivity of

913: $\delta g^R =\pm 0.003$, $\delta g^L = +0.02 (-0.05)$ and 

914: $\delta V_{tb}^R=+0.08 (-0.04)$.

915: %  shown in Table~\ref{tab:3}.

916: %\begin{table}[ht]

917: %\begin{center}

918: %\begin{tabular}{lc}

919: %\hline

920: %\hline

921: %Coupling                & $A_\mathrm{FB}$  \\

922: %\hline

923: %SM (NLO)             & $6.1\sigma$  \\

924: %$\delta g^R=+0.003$  & $2.8\sigma$  \\

925: %% 4.67 60%

926: %$\delta g^R=-0.003$  & $2.8\sigma$  \\

927: %% 4.65 60%

928: %$\delta g^L=+0.02$   & $3.0\sigma$  \\

929: %% 4.21 71%

930: %$\delta g^L=-0.05$  & $2.5\sigma$  \\

931: %% 3.62 70%

932: %$\delta V_{tb}^R=+0.08$ & $3.1\sigma$ 

933: %\\

934: %% 5.04 61%

935: %$\delta V_{tb}^R=-0.04$ & $2.6\sigma$ 

936: %\\

937: %% 3.65 71%

938: %\hline

939: %\hline

940: %\end{tabular}

941: %\caption{Combined statistical significance of the deviations $S_{FB}$.

942: %\label{tab:3}}

943: %\end{center}

944: %\end{table}

945: The sensitivity to $g^R$ is one order of magnitude better than

946: in single top production at LHC \cite{papiro7} while the

947: sensitivity to $g^L$ is competitive with that expected at the ILC, 

948: or from single top production at LHC. 

949: 

950: \subsection{Flavour Changing Neutral

951: Couplings~\cite{Bejar:2000ub,Bejar:2001sj,Aguilar-Saavedra:2001ab,Aguilar-Saavedra:here}}

952: 

953: Flavor Changing Neutral (FCN) decays of the top quark within the strict

954: context of the Standard Model are  known to be extremely rare.  In fact, there

955: are no tree-level FCN current   processes in the

956: Standard Model. However, they can be generated at the one-loop level by

957: charged current interactions.  The most general effective Lagrangian

958: describing the possible interactions of a top quark, a light quark $q$ and a

959: $Z$ boson, photon $A$, gluon $G$ or Higgs $H$ can be written as,

960: \begin{eqnarray}

961: {\mathcal L} & = & -\frac{g^\prime}{2} \, X_{tq} \, \bar t \gamma_\mu  

962: (x_{tq}^L P_L - x_{tq}^R P_R) q Z^\mu 

963: - \frac{g^\prime}{2} \, \kappa_{tq}\, \bar t (\kappa_{tq}^{v}+ \kappa_{tq}^{a}

964: \gamma_5) \frac{i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu}{m_t} q Z^\mu  \nonumber \\

965: & &  - e \, \lambda_{tq}\, \bar t (\lambda_{tq}^{v}+ \lambda_{tq}^{a} \gamma_5)

966: \frac{i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu}{m_t} q A^\mu 

967: -g_s\zeta_{tq}\bar t  \left(\zeta_{tq}^V+\zeta_{tq}^A\gamma_5\right) 

968: \frac{i \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu}{m_t} q T^aG^{a\mu}\nonumber \\

969: &&-\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}g_{tg}\bar t \left(g_{tq}^V+g_{tq}^Q\gamma_5\right)q H + h.c.\,, 

970: \label{Lfcnc}

971: \end{eqnarray}

972: where $g^\prime = g/\cos\theta_W$, $P_{R,L}=(1 \pm \gamma_5)/2$.  The chirality-dependent couplings are

973: constants and are normalized to $(x_{tq}^L)^2+(x_{tq}^R)^2=1$ etc.  Within the

974: SM, all of these vertices vanish at the tree-level, but can be generated

975: at one-loop by charged current interactions.   However, because of GIM

976: cancellations, the one-loop effects are parametrically suppressed beyond naive

977: expectations based on pure dimensional analysis,  power counting and CKM

978: matrix elements by $m_b^4/M_W^4$. The Standard Model  typical branching ratios

979: for these rare top quark decays   are so small ($\sim 10^{-12}$--$10^{-17}$)

980: that they are hopelessly undetectable at the Tevatron, LHC and ILC in any of

981: their scheduled upgradings. 

982: %Therefore, the observation of a single event of 

983: %this kind would be ``smoking gun'' for new physics.

984: 

985: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

986: \begin{figure}[tb!]

987: \begin{center}

988: \epsfig{figure=fcnc.eps, height=6cm}

989: \caption{One-loop vertex diagrams contributing to the FCN top quark decays. 

990: Shown are the vertices and mixed self-energies with 

991: all possible contributions from the SM fields and the Higgs bosons from the 

992: general 2HDM. } 

993: \label{fig:FCNC}

994: \end{center}

995: % \vspace{-1em}

996: \end{figure}

997: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

998: 

999: Refs.~\cite{Bejar:2000ub,Bejar:2001sj} considered loop induced $ t\to ch$ and

1000: $t \to cg$ FCN decays in the MSSM and in the general two-Higgs doublet model

1001: (2HDM) - see also Ref.~\cite{Guasch:1999jp}.   

1002: Typical diagrams contributing to these decays are shown in

1003: Fig.~\ref{fig:FCNC}. The 2HDM parameter space is constrained by the $\rho$

1004: parameter and the one-loop corrections to the $\rho$-parameter from the 2HDM

1005: sector cannot  deviate from the reference SM contribution by more than one per

1006: mille,   $|\delta\rho^{2HDM}|< 0.001$. There are also constraints

1007: on the charged Higgs from radiative $B$ decays.  Nevertheless the  fiducial

1008: branching ratio defined by 

1009: \begin{equation} 

1010: B^{j}(t\rightarrow X+c)=\frac{\Gamma^{j}(t\rightarrow X+c)}{\Gamma 

1011: (t\rightarrow W^{+}+b)+\Gamma^{j}(t\rightarrow H^{+}+b)}\,\,, 

1012: \label{fiducialH} 

1013: \end{equation} 

1014: may be as large as $10^{-5}$ for top decay into the lightest CP-even higgs and

1015: $10^{-6}$ for $t \to g c$. Values for other models are reviewed in

1016: ~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:here}.\footnote{

1017: Note that the related decay $H \to t\bar c$

1018: is discussed in the context of the 2HDM in~\cite{Bejar:2003em}.  

1019: The isolated top quark signature, unbalanced by any other heavy particle 

1020: should help to identify the FCN event and makes branching ratios of 

1021: $10^{-5}$ accessible at the LHC.}

1022: 

1023: 

1024: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1025: \begin{figure}[tb!]

1026: \begin{center}

1027: \epsfig{figure=2hdm2.eps, width=10cm}

1028: \caption{Evolution of the FCNC top quark fiducial ratios in Type~II 2HDM 

1029: as functions of (a) the mixing angle $\alpha$ in the CP-even Higgs sector, 

1030: and (b)  $\tan\beta$ for $t \to Xc$ with $X=h$ (green), $X-H$ (red) and $X=g$ (dash).

1031: The plot in (b) 

1032: continues above the usual bound on $\tan\beta$ just to better show the 

1033: general trend.} 

1034: \label{fig:2hdm2}

1035: \end{center}

1036: % \vspace{-1em}

1037: \end{figure}

1038: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1039: 

1040: To illustrate the potential effects in a 2HDM model,

1041: Fig.~\ref{fig:2hdm2} shows  the branching ratios for $t\to Xc$ for

1042: $X=h,H,~g$ as functions of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The 

1043: highest potential rates are of order $10^{-5}$, and so there is hope

1044: for  being visible.

1045: 

1046: 

1047: 

1048: 

1049: Current limits on FCN top decays from the Tevatron, LEP and HERA are at the

1050: few per cent level.  Run 2 at the Tevatron is expected to reduce these limits

1051: by about an order of magnitude. At the LHC, the search for FCN top couplings

1052: can be carried out examining two different types of processes. On the one

1053: hand, we can look for FCN top decays in  $gg,q \bar q \to t \bar t \to X q W

1054: b$ where $X=\gamma, Z, g$ or Higgs.   On the other hand, one can search for

1055: single top production via an anomalous effective vertex such as $qg \to X t$  

1056: where the top quark is assumed to decay in the SM dominant mode $t \to Wb$. 

1057: The main backgrounds are thus $t\bar t$, $W + {\rm jets}$, $VV+{\rm jets}$ and

1058: single top production.    Numerical simulations of signal and background

1059: indicate that the LHC will improve by at least a factor of 10 on the Tevatron

1060: sensitivity to around $10^{-5}$.   

1061: 

1062: 

1063: 

1064: \begin{figure}[b!]

1065: \begin{center}

1066: \mbox{\epsfig{file=eetq.eps,width=3cm}}

1067: \end{center}

1068: \caption{Feynman diagrams for $e^+ e^- \to t\bar q$ via $Ztq$ or $\gamma tq$

1069: FCN couplings. The top quark is off-shell and decays to $Wb$.

1070: \label{fig:feyn1} }

1071: \end{figure}

1072: 

1073: At the ILC, the top pair production cross section is much smaller  than at the

1074: LHC and  the limits obtained from top decays cannot compete with those from

1075: the LHC. The capabilities of the ILC have been studied in

1076: Ref.~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001ab} for the single top production processes

1077: $e^+e^- \to tq$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:feyn1} and $e^+e^- \to tq\gamma$ and

1078: $e^+e^- \to tqZ$.  The  signal matrix elements including the top decay were

1079: evaluated using HELAS \cite{papiro18} and introducing a new HELAS-like

1080: subroutine {\tt IOV2XX} to compute the non-renormalizable $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$

1081: vertex. The relevant backgrounds are $e^+ e^- \to W^+ q \bar q'$, $W^+ q \bar

1082: q'Z$ and $W^+ q \bar q'\gamma$ and were evaluated using MadGraph

1083: \cite{Stelzer:1994ta}.  

1084: 

1085: Assuming one year of running time in all the cases, that

1086: is, 100 fb$^{-1}$ for LHC, 300 fb$^{-1}$ for ILC at 500 GeV 

1087: and no beam polarisation,

1088:  Refs.~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2000db,Aguilar-Saavedra:2001ab} find that by combining

1089: the information from both production and decay, 

1090: the sensitivities on the $t \to Xc$ coupling 

1091: are given in Table~\ref{tab:lim}.

1092: The most optimistic case with 500 fb$^{-1}$ of data 

1093: 80\% polarised electron and 60\% polarised positron

1094: beams and a CM energy of 800~GeV is denoted by ILC+.

1095: \begin{table}[htb]

1096: \begin{center}

1097: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

1098: \hline

1099: &  {LHC} &  {ILC}&  {ILC+} \\

1100: \hline

1101: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to Zc)$ $(\gamma_\mu)$ &

1102:    $3.6 \times 10^{-5}$ &

1103:    $1.9 \times 10^{-4}$ &

1104:    $1.9 \times 10^{-4}$ \\

1105: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to Zc)$ $(\sigma_{\mu \nu})$ &

1106:    $3.6 \times 10^{-5}$ &

1107:    $1.8 \times 10^{-5}$ &

1108:    $7.2 \times 10^{-6}$ \\

1109: $\mathrm{Br}(t \to \gamma c)$ &

1110:    $1.2 \times 10^{-5}$ &

1111:    $1.0 \times 10^{-5}$ &

1112:    $3.8 \times 10^{-6}$ \\ \hline

1113: \end{tabular}

1114: \end{center}

1115: \caption{3$\sigma$ discovery limits on top FCN couplings that can be obtained at LHC and ILC

1116: for one year of operation.

1117: \label{tab:lim}}

1118: \end{table}

1119: 

1120: We see that LHC and ILC complement each other in the search for top FCN

1121: vertices. The $\gamma_\mu$ couplings to the $Z$ boson can be best measured or

1122: bound at LHC, whereas the sensitivity to the $\sigma_{\mu \nu}$ ones is better

1123: at ILC. 

1124: For a more detailed discussion, see Ref.~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:here}

1125: 

1126: 

1127: %\newpage

1128: \section{Impact of a precise top mass measurement~\cite{Heinemeyer:2003ud,Heinemeyer:2004ju}}

1129: 

1130: 

1131: The current world average for the top-quark mass is $m_t = 178.0 \pm

1132: 4.3$~GeV~\cite{Azzi:2004rc,natured0}.  The expected accuracy at the 

1133: Tevatron and the LHC is $\delta m_t = \mbox{1--2}$~GeV~\cite{Beneke:2000hk},  while

1134: at the ILC a very precise determination of $m_t$ with an accuracy of $\delta m_t

1135: \lsim 100 ~{\rm MeV}$ should be 

1136: possible~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg,Abe:2001wn,Abe:2001gc,mtdet}. This error contains both

1137: the experimental error of the mass parameter extracted from the $t \bar t$

1138: threshold measurements at the ILC and  the expected theoretical uncertainty

1139: from its transition into a suitable short-distance mass (like the \msbar\

1140: mass).

1141: 

1142: \subsection{Electroweak Precision Observables}

1143: 

1144: Electroweak precision observables (EWPO) can be used to perform internal

1145: consistency checks of the model under consideration and to obtain indirect

1146: constraints on unknown model parameters. This is done by comparing experimental

1147: results for the precision observables with their theory prediction within, for

1148: example, the Standard Model (SM). Any improvement in the precision of the

1149: measurement of $m_t$ will have an effect on the analysis of EWPO of which the

1150: two most prominent are the $W$~boson mass $M_W$ and the effective leptonic

1151: mixing angle $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$. 

1152: 

1153: Currently the uncertainty in $m_t$ is by far the dominant effect in the

1154: theoretical uncertainties of the EWPO. Today's experimental errors of $M_W$ and

1155: $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$~\cite{ewdataw03} are shown in Table~\ref{tab:ewpounc},

1156: together with the prospective future experimental errors at high energy

1157: colliders (see \cite{blueband} for a compilation of

1158: these errors and additional references).

1159: 

1160: %%%%%%%%%%%%% T A B L E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1161: \begin{table}[htb!]

1162: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}

1163: \begin{center}

1164: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}

1165: \cline{2-5} \multicolumn{1}{c||}{}

1166: & Today & Tevatron/LHC & ~ILC~  & GigaZ \\

1167: \hline\hline

1168: $\delta \sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}(\times 10^5)$ & 16 & 14--20   & --  & 1.3  \\

1169: \hline

1170: $\delta M_W$ [MeV]           & 34 & 15   & 10   & 7      \\

1171: \hline\hline

1172: \end{tabular}

1173: \end{center}

1174: \caption{Experimental errors of $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ at present and future

1175:   colliders~\cite{ewdataw03,blueband}. 

1176: }

1177: \label{tab:ewpounc}

1178: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}

1179: \end{table}

1180: %%%%%%%%%%%%% T A B L E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1181: 

1182: 

1183: 

1184: In general, there are two sources of theoretical uncertainties: those from

1185: unknown higher-order corrections (``intrinsic'' theoretical uncertainties), and

1186: those from experimental errors of the input parameters (``parametric''

1187: theoretical uncertainties). The intrinsic uncertainties within the SM are 

1188: \BE

1189: \Delta M_W^{\rm intr,today} \approx 4~{\rm MeV},\qquad\qquad 

1190: \Delta \sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}^{\rm intr,today} \approx 4.9 \times

1191: 10^{-5}

1192: \label{eq:intruncSM}

1193: \EE 

1194: at present~\cite{mwsweff,mwsweff2}.  

1195: They are based on the present status of the theoretical predictions in

1196: the SM, namely the complete two-loop result for $M_W$ (see

1197: \cite{mwsweff,MWtwoloop} and references therein),

1198: the complete two-loop fermionic result for $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ 

1199: (see \cite{mwsweff2}, previous partial results and references can be found in~\cite{dgs})

1200:  and leading three-loop contributions to both observables (see

1201: \cite{faisst} for the latest result, and references therein). 

1202: 

1203: The current parametric uncertainties induced by the experimental errors of

1204: $m_t$~\cite{MWradcor} are

1205: \BE

1206: \delta m_t = 4.3 ~{\rm GeV} \Rightarrow 

1207: \Delta M_W^{{\rm para},m_t} \approx \pm 26 ~{\rm MeV}, \quad

1208: \Delta \sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}^{{\rm para}, m_t} \approx \pm 14 

1209: \times 10^{-5}.\EE

1210: We see that the parametric uncertainties of $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$

1211: induced by $\delta m_t$ are

1212: approximately as large as the current experimental errors.\footnote{

1213: Note that the parametric errors induced by $\delta(\Delta\alpha_{\rm had})$

1214: are 

1215: $\Delta M_W^{{\rm para},\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}} \approx \pm 6.5 ~{\rm MeV}$

1216: and  $\Delta \sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}^{{\rm para},\Delta\alpha_{\rm had}} \approx 

1217:   \pm 13 \times 10^{-5}$~\cite{MWradcor}}

1218: 

1219: 

1220: A future experimental error of $\delta m_t \approx

1221: 1.5$~GeV at the LHC will give rise to parametric uncertainties of $$\Delta

1222: M_W^{\rm para,LHC} \approx 9 ~{\rm MeV},\qquad\qquad\Delta \sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}^{\rm para,LHC}

1223: \approx 4.5 \times 10^{-5}.$$ 

1224: On the other hand,  the  ILC precision of $\delta m_t \approx

1225: 0.1$~GeV will reduce the parametric uncertainties to $$\Delta M_W^{\rm para,ILC}

1226: \approx 1 ~{\rm MeV},\qquad\qquad\Delta \sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}^{\rm para,ILC} \approx 0.3 \times

1227: 10^{-5}.$$ 

1228: In order to keep the theoretical uncertainty induced by $m_t$ at 

1229: a level comparable to or smaller than the other parametric and intrinsic

1230: uncertainties, $\delta m_t$ has to be smaller than about $0.2 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the

1231: case of $M_W$, and about $0.5 ~{\rm GeV}$ in the case of $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$.

1232: In other words, ILC accuracy on $m_t$ will be

1233: necessary in order to keep the parametric error induced by $m_t$ at or below

1234: the level of the other uncertainties. With the LHC accuracy on $m_t$, on the

1235: other hand, $\delta m_t$ will be the dominant source of uncertainty.

1236: 

1237: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1238: \begin{figure}[tb!]

1239: \begin{center}

1240: \epsfig{figure=MWSW04.bw.eps, height=6cm}

1241: \caption{

1242: The predictions for $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ in the SM and MSSM. The inner 

1243: (blue) area corresponds to $\delta m_t^{exp} = 0.1 ~{\rm GeV}$ (ILC), while

1244: the outer (green) area arises from $\delta m_t^{exp} = 2 ~{\rm GeV}$ (LHC). 

1245: The anticipated experimental errors on $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ at the

1246: LHC/ILC and at an ILC with GigaZ option are indicated. 

1247: }

1248: \label{fig:SWMW}

1249: \end{center}

1250: % \vspace{-1em}

1251: \end{figure}

1252: %%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1253: 

1254: As an example of the potential of a precise measurement of the EWPO

1255: to explore the effects of new physics, Fig~\ref{fig:SWMW} shows the

1256: predictions for $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ in the SM in

1257: comparison with the prospective experimental accuracy obtainable at

1258: the LHC and the ILC without GigaZ option (labelled as LHC/ILC) and with the 

1259: accuracy obtainable at an ILC with GigaZ option (labelled as GigaZ).

1260: The current experimental values are taken as the central ones~\cite{ewdataw03}.

1261: For the Higgs boson mass a future measured value of $m_h = 115~{\rm GeV}$

1262: has been assumed (in accordance with the final lower bound obtained at

1263: LEP~\cite{mhLEPfinal}).

1264: We see that the improvement in $\delta m_t$ from

1265: $\delta m_t = 2 ~{\rm GeV}$ to $\delta m_t = 0.1 ~{\rm GeV}$ 

1266: strongly reduces the

1267: parametric uncertainty in the prediction for the EWPO and 

1268: leads to a reduction by about a factor of 10

1269: in the allowed parameter space of the $M_W$--$\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ plane. 

1270: 

1271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1273: 

1274: \subsection{Indirect determination of the SM top Yukawa coupling}

1275: \label{subsec:topyuk}

1276: 

1277: A high precision on $m_t$ is also important to obtain indirect

1278: constraints on the top Yukawa coupling $y_t$ from EWPO~\cite{ytdet}.

1279: The top Yukawa coupling enters the SM 

1280: prediction of EWPO starting at ${\cal O}(\alpha\alpha_t)$~\cite{delrhoSMal2}.

1281: Indirect bounds on this coupling can be obtained if one assumes that

1282: the usual relation between the Yukawa coupling and the top quark mass,

1283: $y_t = \sqrt{2} m_t/v$ (where $v$ is the vacuum expectation value), is

1284: modified. 

1285: 

1286: Assuming a precision of $\delta m_t = 2 ~{\rm GeV}$, an indirect determination

1287: of $y_t$ with an accuracy of only about 80\% can be obtained from the EWPO

1288: measured at an LC with GigaZ option. A precision of $\delta m_t = 0.1 ~{\rm GeV}$, 

1289: on the other hand, leads to an accuracy of the indirect determination of 

1290: $y_t$ of about 40\% which is competitive with the

1291: indirect constraints from the $t \bar t$~threshold~\cite{mtdet2}. 

1292: These indirect determinations of $y_t$ represent an independent 

1293: and complementary approach to the direct measurement of $y_t$ via 

1294: $t \bar t H$ production at the ILC, which of course provides the

1295: highest accuracy~\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}. 

1296: 

1297: \subsection{The MSSM}

1298: 

1299: Within the MSSM, EWPO are also heavily

1300: influenced by the accuracy of the top quark mass. However, the available results beyond one-loop order are less advanced than

1301: in the SM (for the latest two-loop results, see \cite{ytdet} 

1302: and references therein). Thus, the intrinsic uncertainties in the MSSM

1303: are still considerably larger than the ones quoted for the SM in 

1304: Eq.~\ref{eq:intruncSM}.

1305: Fig.~\ref{fig:SWMW} also shows the predictions for $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$

1306: in the MSSM where the MSSM parameters have

1307: been chosen in this example according to the

1308: reference point SPS~1b~\cite{sps}, and all SUSY parameters have been

1309: varied within realistic error intervals. 

1310: In the MSSM case, where many additional parametric uncertainties enter,

1311: a reducing $\delta m_t$ from $2$~GeV to 0.1~GeV leads to

1312: reduction in the allowed parameter space of the $M_W$--$\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$ plane

1313: by a factor of more than 2.

1314: 

1315: Because of the additional symmetry of the MSSM, a precise knowledge

1316: of $m_t$ yields additional constraints.

1317: For example,  and in contrast to the SM, where the Higgs boson mass 

1318: is a free input parameter,

1319: the mass of the lightest $CP$-even Higgs boson in the MSSM can be 

1320: predicted in terms of other parameters of the model. Thus, precision

1321: measurements in the Higgs sector of the MSSM have the potential to play a 

1322: similar role as the ``conventional'' EWPO for constraining the parameter

1323: space of the model and possible effects of new physics.

1324: 

1325: %At the tree level, the mass of the lightest neutral $CP$-even Higgs boson

1326: %can be expressed in terms of $M_Z$, the mass of the $CP$-odd Higgs boson

1327: %$M_A$ and $\tan\beta = v_2/v_1$

1328: %as 

1329: %\BE

1330: %m_{h, {\rm tree}}^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left[ M_A^2 + M_Z^2 

1331: %      - \sqrt{M_A^2 + M_Z^2)^2 - 4 M_Z^2 M_A^2 \cos^22\beta} \right]

1332: %\EE

1333: %which implies an upper bound of  $m_{h, {\rm tree}} < M_Z$. 

1334: %The existence of such a bound, which does not

1335: %occur in the case of the SM Higgs boson, can be related to the fact that

1336: %the quartic term in the Higgs potential of the MSSM is given in terms of

1337: %the gauge couplings, while the quartic coupling is a free parameter in 

1338: %the SM. 

1339: 

1340: %The tree-level bound receives

1341: %large corrections from SUSY-breaking effects in the Yukawa sector of the

1342: %theory. The leading one-loop correction is proportional to $m_t^4$. For

1343: %instance, the leading logarithmic one-loop term (for vanishing mixing

1344: %between the squarks) is 

1345: %\BE

1346: %\Delta m_h^2 = \frac{3 G_F m_t^4}{\sqrt{2}\, \pi^2\,\sin^2\beta}

1347: %          \ln \left( \frac{m_{\tilde{t_1}}m_{\tilde{t_2}}}{m_t^2} \right)~.

1348: %\EE

1349: %Corrections of this kind have dramatic effects on the predicted value of

1350: %$m_h$ and many other observables in the MSSM Higgs sector. The one-loop

1351: %corrections can shift $m_h$ by 50--100\%. Since this shift is related to

1352: %effects from a part of the theory that does not enter at tree level,

1353: %corrections even of this size do not invalidate the perturbative

1354: %treatment. 

1355: 

1356: %Since these very large corrections are proportional to

1357: %the fourth power of the top quark mass, the predictions for $m_h$ and

1358: %many other observables in the MSSM Higgs sector strongly depend 

1359: %on the value of $m_t$. Roughly speaking, a shift of 

1360: %$\delta m_t = 1~{\rm GeV}$ induces a parametric theoretical uncertainty of 

1361: %$m_h$

1362: %of also about $1~{\rm GeV}$, i.e.\ $\Delta m_h^{\delta m_t} \approx \delta

1363: %m_t^{exp}$.

1364: 

1365: Fig.~\ref{fig:mhmssm} shows the impact of the experimental error of $m_t$ on

1366: the prediction for $m_h$ in the MSSM. The parameters are chosen

1367: according to the $m_h^{max}$ benchmark scenario~\cite{benchmark}. The band

1368: in the left plot corresponds to the present

1369: experimental error of $m_t$~\cite{Azzi:2004rc,natured0}, while in the 

1370: right plot the situation at the LHC ($\delta m_t = 1, 2$~GeV) is compared 

1371: to the ILC

1372: ($\delta m_t = 0.1 $~GeV). The figure shows that the ILC precision on

1373: $m_t$ will be necessary in order to match the experimental precision of

1374: the $m_h$ determination with the accuracy of the theory prediction

1375: (assuming that the intrinsic theoretical uncertainty can be reduced to

1376: the same level, see Ref.~\cite{mhiggsAEC}).

1377: 

1378:      \begin{figure}[tb!]

1379:      \begin{center}

1380:      \begin{tabular}{cc}

1381:      \mbox{\epsfig{file=mh_naturetop_xv.ps,width=5.7cm,height=4.5cm}}&

1382:      \mbox{\epsfig{file=mhMA06.bw.eps,width=5.7cm,height=4.5cm}}

1383:      \end{tabular}

1384:      \end{center}

1385: \vspace{-0.5em}

1386: \caption{Prediction for $m_h$ in the $m_h^{max}$ scenario of the MSSM as a

1387: function of $\tan\beta$ (left) and

1388: $M_A$ (right). In the left plot ~\cite{naturetop}

1389: the impact of the present experimental error of $m_t$ on the $m_h$

1390: prediction is shown. The three bands in the right plot~\cite{Heinemeyer:2003ud}

1391: correspond to $\delta m_t = 1, 2$~GeV (LHC) and $\delta m_t = 0.1$~GeV (ILC).

1392: The anticipated experimental error on $m_h$ at the ILC

1393: is also indicated.

1394: }

1395:      \label{fig:mhmssm}

1396: \vspace{-0.5em}

1397:      \end{figure}

1398: 

1399: Further examples of the importance of 

1400: a precise determination of $m_t$ in the MSSM are

1401: the prediction of sparticle masses, parameter

1402: determinations, and the reconstruction of the supersymmetric high scale

1403: theory~\cite{Heinemeyer:2003ud}.

1404: 

1405: 

1406: %\subsection{The bottom line}

1407: %To summarize,  a precise knowledge of the top quark mass

1408: %has a strong impact on the prediction of electroweak precision

1409: %observables such as $M_W$ and $\sin^2\theta_{{\rm eff}}$, which receive higher-order

1410: %corrections $\sim m_t^2$. 

1411: %Stringent internal consistency checks of both models are only possible

1412: %with the ILC accuracy on $m_t$. In particular, a precision of $m_t$

1413: %significantly better than 1~GeV will be necessary in order to exploit

1414: %the prospective precision of the EWPO. The precise value of $m_t$

1415: %also improves the indirect determination of the top Yukawa 

1416: %coupling by a factor of about 2.

1417: 

1418: %The precision of the top quark mass is particularly important for

1419: %the MSSM Higgs

1420: %sector, since the parametric error of $m_h$, being $\sim m_t^4$, is

1421: %roughly given by $\Delta m_h^{\rm para} \approx \delta m_t$. We have

1422: %demonstrated that precision physics in the MSSM Higgs sector will

1423: %require a very precise knowledge of $m_t$. The accuracy of $\delta m_t =

1424: %0.1 ~{\rm GeV}$ can, however, only be fully exploited provided that 

1425: %the intrinsic 

1426: %theoretical uncertainty in $m_h$ can be reduced to a similar level. 

1427: 

1428: 

1429: \section{Other topics}

1430: 

1431: Other topics of relevance to top quark physics are discussed in the Higgs and 

1432: Electroweak reviews~\cite{Higgs,EW}.   

1433: 

1434: 

1435: The SM Higgs boson can be searched for in the channels $p \bar p / pp \to

1436: t \bar t H

1437: + X$ at the Tevatron and the LHC. The cross sections for these processes and the

1438: final-state distributions of the Higgs boson and top quarks are presented at

1439: next-to-leading order QCD in Refs.~\cite{Beenakker:2002nc,Beenakker:2001rj}. 

1440: The impact of the

1441: corrections on the total cross sections is characterized by $K$ factors, the

1442: ratio of next-to-leading order and leading order cross sections.

1443: At the central scale $\mu_0 = (2 m_t + M_H)/2$, the K factors are found to be

1444: slightly below unity for the Tevatron ($K \sim 0.8$) and slightly above unity for

1445: the LHC ($K \sim 1.2$). Including the corrections significantly stabilizes the

1446: theoretical predictions for total cross sections and for the distributions in

1447: rapidity and transverse momentum of the Higgs boson and top quarks.

1448: 

1449: The two-loop corrections to the heavy quark form factor are studied in

1450: Ref.~\cite{Bernreuther:2004ih} where

1451:  closed analytic expressions of the electromagnetic vertex form

1452: factors for heavy quarks at the two-loop level in QCD are presented

1453: for arbitrary momentum transfer.   This calculation represents

1454: a first step towards 

1455: the two-loop QCD corrections to $t\bar t$ production in both electron-positron annihilation

1456: and hadron collisions. 

1457: 

1458: 

1459: \section{Summary and Outlook}

1460: 

1461: There has been significant progress in the study of top quark physics at

1462: current and future particle colliders during the past four years.   As detailed above,

1463: the network 

1464: has contributed to an improved knowledge of the top quark

1465: production and decay properties, both within and without the SM.   

1466: However, much work 

1467: remains to be carried out.

1468: In particular, although the one-loop strong and weak corrections to the top-pair

1469: production cross section are well known, the two-loop QCD corrections are needed to

1470: match the experimental accuracy.   Similarly, it may be necessary to make more

1471: precise predictions of the single top cross section.   Experimental studies of the 

1472: observability of FCN decays of the $t \to Hc$ and $t\to gc$ 

1473: decays are also needed.   

1474: 

1475: Finally, we  note that the treatment of unstable particles close to resonance

1476: suffers  from the breakdown of ordinary perturbation theory.   A toy model

1477: showing how to systematically improve the calculational accuracy order by order

1478: in perturbation theory  has recently been

1479: proposed~\cite{Beneke:2003xh,Beneke:2004km}.   We anticipate that application

1480: of this improved theoretical approach to the $t\bar t$ cross section close top

1481: threshold should yield an even more accurate experimental determination of the

1482: top quark mass at the ILC.   Because of the large sensitivity of the Higgs

1483: boson mass to $m_t$, this will have an inevitable knock on in any model where

1484: the Higgs mass can be predicted from the other parameters of the theory.

1485: 

1486: 

1487: \newpage

1488: 

1489: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1490: 

1491: 

1492: %\cite{Beneke:2000hk}

1493: \bibitem{Beneke:2000hk}

1494: M.~Beneke {\it et al.},

1495: %``Top quark physics,''

1496: arXiv:hep-ph/0003033.

1497: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%

1498: 

1499: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001rg}

1500: J. Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},

1501: %{ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group (J. Aguilar-Saavedra et al.)}, ``{TESLA

1502: %  Tech\-ni\-cal De\-sign Report Part III: Physics at an $e^+e^-$ Linear

1503: %  Collider}'', preprint DESY 2001--011 (2001),

1504: arXiv:hep-ph/0106315.

1505: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106315;%%.

1506: 

1507: \bibitem{Abe:2001wn}

1508: T. Abe {\it et al.},

1509: %{American Linear Collider Working Group (T. Abe et al.)}, ``Linear collider

1510: %  physics resource book for {Snowmass} 2001'', Fermilab preprint

1511: %  FERMILAB-PUB-01-058-E (2001),

1512: arXiv:hep-ex/0106055, hep-ex/0106056, hep-ex/0106057,

1513:   hep-ex/0106058.

1514: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106055;%%.

1515: 

1516: %\cite{Abe:2001gc}

1517: \bibitem{Abe:2001gc}

1518: K.~Abe {\it et al.}  

1519: %[ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration],

1520: %``Particle physics experiments at JLC,''

1521: arXiv:hep-ph/0109166.

1522: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109166;%%

1523: 

1524: 

1525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1526: % Top quark production at the ILC

1527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1528: %\cite{Fleischer:2003kk}

1529: \bibitem{Fleischer:2003kk}

1530: J.~Fleischer, A.~Leike, T.~Riemann and A.~Werthenbach,

1531: %``Electroweak one-loop corrections for e+ e- annihilation into t anti-t

1532: %including hard bremsstrahlung,''

1533: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\  {\bf C31} (2003) 37

1534: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302259].

1535: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302259;%%

1536: 

1537: %\cite{Fleischer:2002kg}

1538: \bibitem{Fleischer:2002kg}

1539: J.~Fleischer, A.~Leike, T.~Riemann and A.~Werthenbach,

1540: %``Status of electroweak corrections to top pair production. ((U)),''

1541: arXiv:hep-ph/0211428.

1542: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211428;%%

1543: 

1544: %\cite{Fleischer:2002nn}

1545: \bibitem{Fleischer:2002nn}

1546: J.~Fleischer, J.~Fujimoto, T.~Ishikawa, A.~Leike, T.~Riemann, Y.~Shimizu and A.~Werthenbach,

1547: %``One-loop corrections to the process e+ e- $\to$ t anti-t including hard

1548: %bremsstrahlung,''

1549: arXiv:hep-ph/0203220.

1550: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203220;%%

1551: 

1552: %\cite{Fleischer:2002rn}

1553: \bibitem{Fleischer:2002rn}

1554: J.~Fleischer, T.~Hahn, W.~Hollik, T.~Riemann, C.~Schappacher and A.~Werthenbach,

1555: %``Complete electroweak one-loop radiative corrections to top-pair  production

1556: %at TESLA: A comparison,''

1557: arXiv:hep-ph/0202109.

1558: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202109;%%

1559: 

1560: %\cite{Hahn:2003ab}

1561: \bibitem{Hahn:2003ab}

1562: T.~Hahn, W.~Hollik, A.~Lorca, T.~Riemann and A.~Werthenbach,

1563: %``O(alpha) electroweak corrections to the processes e+ e- $\to$ tau- tau+,  c

1564: %anti-c, b anti-b, t anti-t: A comparison,''

1565: arXiv:hep-ph/0307132.

1566: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307132;%%

1567: 

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{Fujimoto:1988hu}

1570: J.~Fujimoto and Y.~Shimizu, { Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf 3A} (1988)

1571: 581.

1572: %%CITATION = MPLAE,3A,581;%%.

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{Yuasa:1999rg}

1575: F.~Yuasa {\it et al.}, {Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} {\bf 138} (2000) 18 

1576: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007053].

1577: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007053;%%.

1578: 

1579: \bibitem{Beenakker:1991ca}

1580: W.~Beenakker, S.~van~der Marck, and W.~Hollik, { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B365}

1581:   (1991)

1582: 24.

1583: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B365,24;%%.

1584: 

1585: \bibitem{Hollik:1998md}

1586: W.~Hollik and C.~Schappacher, { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B545} (1999) 98

1587: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807427].

1588: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807427;%%.

1589: 

1590: \bibitem{Bardin:2000kn}

1591: D.~Bardin, L.~Kalinovskaya, and G.~Nanava, 

1592: %``An electroweak library for the

1593: %  calculation of {EWRC} to $e^+ e^- \to f {\bar f}$ within the {CalcPHEP}

1594: %  project'', Dubna preprint JINR E2--2000--292 (2000),

1595: arXiv:hep-ph/0012080.

1596: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012080;%%.

1597: 

1598: %\cite{Beccaria:2000jz}

1599: \bibitem{Beccaria:2000jz}

1600: M.~Beccaria, F.~M.~Renard and C.~Verzegnassi,

1601: %``Top quark production at future lepton colliders in the asymptotic  regime,''

1602: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} (2001) 053013 

1603: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010205].

1604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010205;%%

1605: 

1606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1607: % Top quark decay

1608: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1609: 

1610: %\cite{Brandenburg:2002xr}

1611: \bibitem{Brandenburg:2002xr}

1612: A.~Brandenburg, Z.~G.~Si and P.~Uwer,

1613: %``QCD-corrected spin analysing power of jets in decays of polarized top

1614: %quarks,''

1615: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B539} (2002) 235 

1616: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205023].

1617: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205023;%%

1618: \bibitem{Czarnecki:1991}

1619: M. Jezabek and J. H. K\"uhn, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 320} (1989) 20 ;

1620: A.~Czarnecki, M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~K\"uhn,

1621: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B351} (1991) 70 .

1622: 

1623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1624: % six fermion production at the ILC

1625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1626: %\cite{Dittmaier:2002ap}

1627: \bibitem{lusifer}

1628: S.~Dittmaier and M.~Roth,

1629: %``LUSIFER: A LUcid approach to SIx FERmion production,''

1630: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf B642}, 307 (2002)

1631: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206070].

1632: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206070;%%

1633: 

1634: %\cite{Gleisberg:2003bi}

1635: \bibitem{Gleisberg:2003bi}

1636: T.~Gleisberg, F.~Krauss, C.~G.~Papadopoulos, A.~Schaelicke and S.~Schumann,

1637: %``Cross sections for multi-particle final states at a linear collider,''

1638: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 34} (2004) 173

1639: [arXiv:hep-ph/0311273].

1640: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311273;%%

1641: 

1642: %\cite{Kanaki:2000ms}

1643: \bibitem{Kanaki:2000ms}

1644: A.~Kanaki and C.~G.~Papadopoulos,

1645: %``HELAC-PHEGAS: Automatic computation of helicity amplitudes and cross

1646: %sections,''

1647: arXiv:hep-ph/0012004.

1648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012004;%%

1649: 

1650: 

1651: 

1652: %\cite{Schalicke:2002ck}

1653: \bibitem{Schalicke:2002ck}

1654: A.~Schalicke, F.~Krauss, R.~Kuhn and G.~Soff,

1655: %``Implementing initial state radiation for lepton induced processes in

1656: %AMEGIC++,''

1657: JHEP {\bf 0212}, 013 (2002)

1658: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203259].

1659: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203259;%%

1660: 

1661: 

1662: 

1663: \newcommand{\vj}[4]{{#1~}{\bf~#2 }\ifnum#3<100 (19#3) \else (#3) \fi #4}

1664:  \newcommand{\sjnp}[3]{\vj{Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.}{#1}{#2}{#3}}

1665: 

1666: \bibitem{sf}

1667: E.~A.~Kuraev and V.~S.~Fadin,

1668: \vj{Yad.\ Fiz.}{41}{1985}{753} [\sjnp{41}{1985}{466}];\\

1669: G.~Altarelli and G.~Martinelli, in {\it ``Physics at LEP''},

1670: eds. J.~Ellis and R.~Peccei, CERN 86-02 (CERN, Geneva, 1986), Vol.~1, p.~47;\\

1671: %\cite{Nicrosini:1987sm}

1672: O.~Nicrosini and L.~Trentadue,

1673: %``Soft Photons And Second Order Radiative Corrections To E+ E- $\to$ Z0,''

1674: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B196} (1987) 551;

1675: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B196,551;%%

1676: %\cite{Nicrosini:1988sw}

1677: %``Second Order Electromagnetic Radiative Corrections To E+ E- $\to$ Gamma*, Z0 $\to$ Mu+ Mu-,''

1678: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C39} (1988) 479;\\

1679: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C39,479;%%

1680: %\cite{Berends:1988ab}

1681: F.~A.~Berends, W.~L.~van Neerven and G.~J.~Burgers,

1682: %``Higher Order Radiative Corrections At Lep Energies,''

1683: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B297} (1988) 429; 

1684: Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf B304} (1988) 921.

1685: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B297,429;%%

1686: 

1687: %\cite{Denner:1999gp}

1688: \bibitem{Denner:1999gp}

1689: A.~Denner, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Roth and D.~Wackeroth,

1690: %``Predictions for all processes e+ e- --> 4fermions + gamma,''

1691: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B560} (1999) 33

1692: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904472].

1693: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904472;%%

1694: 

1695: %\cite{Kilian:2001qz}

1696: \bibitem{Kilian:2001qz}

1697: W.~Kilian,

1698: %``WHIZARD 1.0: A generic Monte-Carlo integration and event generation  package for multi-particle processes. Manual,''

1699: LC-TOOL-2001-039,

1700: {\it 2nd ECFA/DESY Study 1998-2001,} p.~1924.

1701: 

1702: %\cite{Stelzer:1994ta}

1703: \bibitem{Stelzer:1994ta}

1704: T.~Stelzer and W.~F.~Long,

1705: %``Automatic generation of tree level helicity amplitudes,''

1706: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 81} (1994) 357

1707: [arXiv:hep-ph/9401258].

1708: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9401258;%%

1709: 

1710: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1711: % asymptotic top

1712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1713: 

1714: %\cite{Beccaria:2001an}

1715: \bibitem{Beccaria:2001an}

1716: M.~Beccaria, S.~Prelovsek, F.~M.~Renard and C.~Verzegnassi,

1717: %``Top quark production at TeV energies as a potential SUSY detector,''

1718: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D64} (2001) 053016 

1719: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104245].

1720: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104245;%%

1721: 

1722: %\cite{Beccaria:2002tz}

1723: \bibitem{Beccaria:2002tz}

1724: M.~Beccaria, F.~M.~Renard and C.~Verzegnassi,

1725: %``A high energy determination of Yukawa couplings in SUSY models,''

1726: arXiv:hep-ph/0212247.

1727: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212247;%%

1728: 

1729: %\cite{Beccaria:2004yt}

1730: \bibitem{Beccaria:2004yt}

1731: M.~Beccaria, F.~M.~Renard and C.~Verzegnassi,

1732: %``Supersymmetric virtual effects in heavy quark pair production at LHC,''

1733: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D69} (2004) 113004 

1734: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402028].

1735: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402028;%%

1736: 

1737: %\cite{Beccaria:2004qg}

1738: \bibitem{Beccaria:2004qg}

1739: M.~Beccaria, F.~M.~Renard and C.~Verzegnassi,

1740: %``Special features of heavy quark-antiquark pair production ratios at LHC,''

1741: arXiv:hep-ph/0405036.

1742: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405036;%%

1743: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1744: %\cite{delAguila:2002nf}

1745: \bibitem{delAguila:2002nf}

1746: F.~del Aguila and J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra,

1747: %``Precise determination of the W t b couplings at LHC,''

1748: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D67} (2003) 014009

1749: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208171].

1750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208171;%%

1751: \bibitem{papiro2}

1752: T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} 094021 (1998)

1753: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807340].

1754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807340;%%

1755: \bibitem{papiro8}

1756: B. Lampe, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B454}  (1995) 506

1757: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B454,506;%%

1758: \bibitem{papiro7}

1759: E. Boos, L. Dudko and T. Ohl, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C11} (1999) 473 

1760: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903215]. 

1761: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903215;%%

1762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1763: 

1764: %\cite{Bejar:2000ub}

1765: \bibitem{Bejar:2000ub}

1766: S.~Bejar, J.~Guasch and J.~Sola,

1767: %``Loop induced flavor changing neutral decays of the top quark in a  general

1768: %two-Higgs-doublet model,''

1769: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B600}

1770: (2001) 21 

1771: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011091].

1772: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011091;%%%\cite{Bejar:2001sj}

1773: \bibitem{Bejar:2001sj}

1774: S.~Bejar, J.~Guasch and J.~Sola,

1775: %``FCNC top quark decays beyond the standard model,''

1776: %in {\it Proc. of the 5th International Symposium on Radiative Corrections (RADCOR 2000) } ed. Howard E. Haber,

1777: arXiv:hep-ph/0101294.

1778: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101294;%%

1779: 

1780: 

1781: %\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001ab}

1782: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2001ab}

1783: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra and T.~Riemann,

1784: %``Probing top flavor-changing neutral couplings at TESLA,''

1785: arXiv:hep-ph/0102197.

1786: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102197;%%

1787: 

1788: 

1789: 

1790: 

1791: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:here}

1792: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra, hep-ph/0409342.

1793: 

1794: 

1795: %\cite{Bejar:2003em}

1796: \bibitem{Bejar:2003em}

1797: S.~Bejar, J.~Guasch and J.~Sola,

1798: %``Higgs boson flavor-changing neutral decays into top quark in a general

1799: %two-Higgs-doublet model,''

1800: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675} (2003) 270

1801: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307144].

1802: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307144;%%

1803: 

1804: %\cite{Guasch:1999jp}

1805: \bibitem{Guasch:1999jp}

1806: J.~Guasch and J.~Sola,

1807: %``FCNC top quark decays: A door to SUSY physics in high luminosity

1808: %colliders?,''

1809: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 562} (1999) 3

1810: [arXiv:hep-ph/9906268].

1811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906268;%%

1812: 

1813: %\cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2000db}

1814: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2000db}

1815: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra,

1816: %``Top flavour-changing neutral coupling signals at a linear collider,''

1817: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B502} (2001) 115

1818: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012305].

1819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012305;%%

1820: 

1821: 

1822: \bibitem{Eilam:1991zc}

1823: G.~Eilam, J.~L. Hewett,  A.~Soni, {Phys. Rev.} {\bf D44} (1991)

1824: 1473.

1825: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%.

1826: \bibitem{papiro18}

1827: E. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK report 91-11, January 1992

1828: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

1829: 

1830: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1831: % impact of top mass

1832: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1833: %\cite{Heinemeyer:2003ud}

1834: \bibitem{Heinemeyer:2003ud}

1835: S.~Heinemeyer, S.~Kraml, W.~Porod and G.~Weiglein,

1836: %``Physics impact of a precise determination of the top quark mass at an  e+ e-

1837: %linear collider,''

1838: JHEP {\bf 0309}, 075 (2003)

1839: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306181].

1840: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306181;%%

1841: %\cite{Heinemeyer:2004ju}

1842: \bibitem{Heinemeyer:2004ju}

1843: S.~Heinemeyer, S.~Kraml, W.~Porod and G.~Weiglein,

1844: %``Impact of a precise top mass measurement,''

1845: arXiv:hep-ph/0409063.

1846: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409063;%%

1847: \bibitem{Azzi:2004rc}

1848: P.~Azzi {\it et al.},   

1849: %[CDF and D0 Collaborations and the Tevatron

1850: %Electroweak Working Group],

1851: %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''

1852: arXiv:hep-ex/0404010.

1853: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%

1854: \bibitem{natured0}

1855: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.}, 

1856: %[D0 Collaboration],

1857: %``A precision measurement of the mass of the top quark,''

1858: {\em Nature} {\bf 429} (2004) 638.

1859: [arXiv:hep-ex/0406031].

1860: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406031;%%

1861: \bibitem{mtdet} 

1862: A.~Hoang et al., { Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C3} (2000) 1;

1863: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001286].

1864: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001286;%%

1865: 

1866: \bibitem{ewdataw03} M.~Gr\"unewald,

1867:                hep-ex/0304023; updated as: \\

1868:                %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0304023;%%

1869:                F.~Teubert, 

1870:   talk given at ``ICHEP04'', Beijing, China, August 2004, see:\\

1871:   {\tt ichep04.ihep.ac.cn/data/ichep04/ppt/plenary/p21-teubert-f.ppt};\\

1872:   see also: {\tt lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/Welcome.html}.

1873:   

1874: \bibitem{blueband} U.~Baur, R.~Clare, J.~Erler, S.~Heinemeyer, 

1875:                    D.~Wackeroth, G.~Weiglein and D.~Wood, 

1876:                    arXiv:hep-ph/0111314.

1877:                    %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111314;%%

1878: 

1879: \bibitem{mwsweff}

1880: M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas, G.~Weiglein,

1881: %``Precise prediction for the W-boson mass in the standard model,''

1882: { Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf D69} (2004) 053006;

1883:  [arXiv:hep-ph/0311148]

1884: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311148;%%

1885: 

1886: 

1887: \bibitem{mwsweff2}

1888: M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas and G.~Weiglein,

1889: %``Complete two-loop electroweak fermionic corrections to

1890: %sin**2(Theta(lept)(eff)) and indirect determination of the Higgs boson mass,''

1891: arXiv:hep-ph/0407317, to be published in Phys. Rev. Lett;\\

1892: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407317;%%

1893: M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas and G.~Weiglein,

1894: %``Two-loop fermionic electroweak corrections to the effective leptonic weak

1895: %mixing angle in the standard model,''

1896: arXiv:hep-ph/0408207;\\

1897: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408207;%%

1898: M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Freitas and G.~Weiglein,

1899: %``Towards better constraints on the Higgs boson mass: Two-loop fermionic

1900: %corrections to sin**2(theta(lept)(eff)),''

1901: arXiv:hep-ph/0409142.

1902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409142;%%

1903: 

1904: 

1905: 

1906: \bibitem{MWtwoloop} A.~Freitas, W.~Hollik, W.~Walter and G.~Weiglein,

1907:                     { Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B495} (2000) 338, 

1908:                     [arXiv:hep-ph/0007091]; %\\

1909:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007091;%%

1910:                     %A.~Freitas, W.~Hollik, W.~Walter and G.~Weiglein,

1911:                     {Nucl.\ Phys.} {\bf B632} (2002) 189,

1912:                     [arXiv:hep-ph/0202131];\\

1913:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202131;%%

1914:                     M.~Awramik and M.~Czakon,

1915:                     {Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}  {\bf 89} (2002) 241801,

1916:                     [arXiv:hep-ph/0208113];\\

1917:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208113;%%

1918:                     A.~Onishchenko and O.~Veretin,

1919:                     {Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf B551} (2003) 111,

1920:                     [arXiv:hep-ph/0209010];\\

1921:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209010;%%

1922:                     M.~Awramik, M.~Czakon, A.~Onishchenko and O.~Veretin,

1923: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D68} (2003) 053004

1924: [arXiv:hep-ph/0209084];\\

1925:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209084;%%

1926:                     M.~Awramik and M.~Czakon, 

1927: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B568} (2003) 48

1928: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305248].

1929:                     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305248;%%

1930: 		    

1931: 		    

1932: 

1933: \bibitem{dgs} G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and A.~Sirlin,

1934:               { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B394} (1997) 188,

1935:               [arXiv:hep-ph/9611363].

1936: 

1937: \bibitem{faisst} M.~Faisst, J.~K\"uhn, T.~Seidensticker and O.~Veretin,

1938:                  %``Three loop top quark contributions to the rho parameter,''

1939: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf B665} (2003) 649

1940: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302275].

1941:                  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302275;%%

1942: 

1943: \bibitem{MWradcor} A.~Freitas, S.~Heinemeyer and G.~Weiglein,

1944:                    %``Two-loop results for M(W) in the standard model and 

1945:                    %the MSSM,''

1946: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 116} (2003) 331

1947: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212068].

1948:                    %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212068;%%

1949: 

1950: \bibitem{mhLEPfinal} R.~Barate {\it et al.},

1951: Phys.\ Lett.\  {\bf B565} (2003) 61

1952: [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].

1953: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306033;%%

1954: 

1955: 

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{ytdet} S.~Heinemeyer and G.~Weiglein, 

1958:                 {JHEP} {\bf 0210} (2002) 072,

1959:                 [arXiv:hep-ph/0209305].

1960:                 %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209305;%%

1961: 

1962: \bibitem{delrhoSMal2} R.~Barbieri, M.~Beccaria, P.~Ciafaloni, G.~Curci

1963:                       and A.~Vicere,

1964:                       {Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B409} (1993) 105;\\

1965:                       %%CITATION = NUPHA,B409,105;%%

1966:                       J.~Fleischer, F.~Jegerlehner and O.V.~Tarasov,

1967:                       {Phys. Lett.} {\bf B319} (1993) 249.

1968:                       %%CITATION = PHLTA,B293,437;%%

1969: 

1970: \bibitem{mtdet2} M.~Martinez and R.~Miquel,

1971:                  {Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C27} (2003) 49,

1972:                  [arXiv:hep-ph/0207315].

1973:                  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207315;%%

1974: 

1975: \bibitem{sps} 

1976: B.~Allanach et al., {Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C25} (2002) 113.

1977: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202233].

1978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%

1979: 

1980: 

1981: %\cite{Weiglein:2004xp}

1982: \bibitem{naturetop}

1983: G.~Weiglein,

1984: %``From the top,''

1985: Nature {\bf 429} (2004) 613.

1986: %%CITATION = NATUA,429,613;%%

1987: 

1988: \bibitem{benchmark} 

1989: M.~Carena, S.~Heinemeyer, C.~Wagner, G.~Weiglein, 

1990: arXiv:hep-ph/9912223;

1991: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912223;%%

1992: {Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C26} (2003) 601.

1993: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202167].

1994: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202167;%%

1995: 

1996: \bibitem{mhiggsAEC} 

1997: G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, P.~Slavich, G.~Weiglein,

1998: {Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C28} (2003) 133.

1999: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212020].

2000: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212020;%%

2001: 

2002: 

2003: 

2004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2005: % other topics

2006: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2007: \bibitem{Higgs}M. Krawczyk et al, these proceedings.

2008: \bibitem{EW}A. Denner et al, these proceedings.

2009: %\cite{Beenakker:2002nc}

2010: \bibitem{Beenakker:2002nc}

2011: W.~Beenakker, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kramer, B.~Plumper, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,

2012: %``NLO QCD corrections to t anti-t H production in hadron collisions. ((U)),''

2013: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B653} (2003) 151

2014: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211352].

2015: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211352;%%

2016: 

2017: %\cite{Beenakker:2001rj}

2018: \bibitem{Beenakker:2001rj}

2019: W.~Beenakker, S.~Dittmaier, M.~Kramer, B.~Plumper, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,

2020: %``Higgs radiation off top quarks at the Tevatron and the LHC,''

2021: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87} (2001) 201805

2022: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107081].

2023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107081;%%

2024: 

2025: 

2026: %\cite{Bernreuther:2004ih}

2027: \bibitem{Bernreuther:2004ih}

2028: W.~Bernreuther, R.~Bonciani, T.~Gehrmann, R.~Heinesch, T.~Leineweber, P.~Mastrolia and E.~Remiddi,

2029: %``Two-loop QCD corrections to the heavy quark form factors: The vector

2030: %contributions,''

2031: arXiv:hep-ph/0406046.

2032: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406046;%%

2033: 

2034: %\cite{Beneke:2003xh}

2035: \bibitem{Beneke:2003xh}

2036: M.~Beneke, A.~P.~Chapovsky, A.~Signer and G.~Zanderighi,

2037: %``Effective theory approach to unstable particle production,''

2038: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93} (2004) 011602

2039: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312331].

2040: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312331;%%

2041: 

2042: %\cite{Beneke:2004km}

2043: \bibitem{Beneke:2004km}

2044: M.~Beneke, A.~P.~Chapovsky, A.~Signer and G.~Zanderighi,

2045: %``Effective theory calculation of resonant high-energy scattering,''

2046: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 686} (2004) 205

2047: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401002].

2048: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401002;%%

2049: 

2050: \end{thebibliography}

2051: 

2052: \end{document}

2053: 

2054: 

2055: 

2056: 

2057: 

2058: 

2059: