1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}
5: \usepackage{t1enc}
6: \usepackage{cite}
7:
8: \newcommand{\ptlep}{p_t^\mathrm{lep}}
9: \newcommand{\ptmax}{p_t^{j,\mathrm{max}}}
10: \newcommand{\ptbmax}{p_t^{b,\mathrm{max}}}
11: \newcommand{\ptmiss}{p_t\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \not \,\,\,\,\,\,}
12: \newcommand{\mthad}{m_T^\mathrm{had}}
13: \newcommand{\mtlep}{m_T^\mathrm{lep}}
14: \providecommand{\openone}{\leavevmode\hbox{\small1\kern-3.8pt\normalsize1}}
15:
16: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
17: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
18: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
19: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
20: \parskip=1.0ex
21: \setcounter{topnumber}{10}
22: \setcounter{bottomnumber}{10}
23: \setcounter{totalnumber}{10}
24:
25: \textwidth=15.5cm
26: \textheight=22cm
27: \oddsidemargin=0.2cm
28: \evensidemargin=0.2cm
29: \topmargin=-1cm
30:
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34:
35: \begin{center}
36: \begin{Large}
37: {\bf Pair production of heavy $\boldsymbol{Q=2/3}$ singlets at LHC}
38: \end{Large}
39:
40: \vspace{0.5cm}
41: J. A. Aguilar--Saavedra \\[0.2cm]
42: {\it Departamento de Física and CFTP, \\
43: Instituto Superior Técnico, P-1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal} \\
44: \end{center}
45:
46:
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: We examine the LHC discovery potential for new $Q=2/3$ quark singlets $T$ in the
50: process $gg,qq \to T \bar T \to W^+ b \, W^- \bar b$, with one $W$ boson
51: decaying hadronically and the other one leptonically. A particle-level
52: simulation of this signal and its main backgrounds is performed, showing that
53: heavy quarks with masses of 500 GeV or lighter can be discovered at the $5
54: \sigma$ level after a few months of running, when an integrated luminosity of 3
55: fb$^{-1}$ is collected. With a luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$, this process can
56: signal the presence of heavy quarks with masses up to approximately 1 TeV.
57: Finally, we discuss the complementarity among $T \bar T$, $Tj$ production and
58: indirect constraints from precise electroweak data in order to discover a new
59: quark or set bounds on its mass.
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62:
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65:
66: The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be a powerful tool to explore energies up
67: to the scale of a few TeV. It is expected to provide some
68: striking evidence of new physics, for instance of a light Higgs boson, in its
69: first months of operation \cite{atlascms,lhcilc}.
70: Among many promising possibilities for the discovery
71: of new particles, LHC will offer an ideal environment for the
72: production of heavy quarks.
73: New quarks of either charge can be copiously
74: produced in pairs through QCD
75: interactions, namely via gluon fusion and quark-antiquark annihilation, if there
76: is available phase space \cite{eichten,frampton}. Up-type quarks $T$ can also
77: be produced in association with light jets, {\em e.g.} in the
78: processes $q b \to q' T$, $\bar q' b \to \bar q T$
79: (here and throughout this Letter $q=u,c$, $q'=d,s$),
80: provided their mixing with the bottom quark is sizeable. New interactions may
81: also bring about further production mechanisms.
82: The prospects for heavy quark detection depend on the production processes (with
83: their respective cross sections) as well as on the decay modes (and their
84: relevant backgrounds), which are
85: distinctive of the Standard Model (SM) extension considered.
86:
87: The presence of a fourth sequential generation is disfavoured by
88: naturalness arguments\footnote{For a fourth quark generation, anomaly
89: cancellation requires the simultaneous presence of a lepton doublet. LEP
90: measurement of the $Z$ invisible width sets the number of light neutrino
91: species to three, and additional neutrinos must be heavier than 45 GeV
92: \cite{pdb}, in sharp contrast with the smallness of the light neutrino masses
93: $m_\nu \lesssim 1$ eV.}
94: and precision electroweak data, which leave a small window for the new quark
95: masses consistent with the experimental measurement of the $\mathrm{S}$,
96: $\mathrm{T}$, $\mathrm{U}$
97: parameters \cite{pdb}. On the other hand, heavy $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ quark
98: singlets with charges $Q=2/3$ or $Q=-1/3$ can exist with a moderate mixing of
99: order $10^{-2}-10^{-1}$
100: with the SM quarks. Here we are concerned with the first possibility.
101: Models with large extra dimensions with for
102: example $t_R$ in the bulk predict the existence of a tower of $Q=2/3$ singlets
103: $T_{L,R}^{(n)}$. If there is multilocalisation the lightest one, $T_{L,R}^{(1)}$
104: can have a mass of 300 GeV or larger, and a sizeable mixing with the top quark
105: \cite{jose}. (The class of extra-dimensional models having a light $Q=2/3$
106: singlet mixing with the top quark is enlarged when corrections localised on the
107: branes to the kinetic terms of fermions and bosons are taken into account
108: \cite{bkt}.) Little Higgs models \cite{lhiggs} include in their additional
109: spectrum an up-type singlet, which is expected to have a mass of 1 TeV or
110: larger. Quark singlets also appear in some grand unified theories
111: \cite{frampton,barger}. Their effects in low energy and top physics have
112: already been studied \cite{largo}. In this Letter we address their direct
113: observation at LHC through pair production $gg,qq \to T \bar T$ \cite{paco2}.
114:
115: We note that for heavy quark masses $m_T \gtrsim 800$ GeV and a coupling to the
116: bottom quark $V_{Tb}$ of the size suggested by the experimental measurement of
117: the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter, single $T$ production $pp \to Tj$ has a
118: larger cross section than pair production and can then explore larger mass
119: scales \cite{azuelos,costanzo}. Therefore,
120: $Tj$ production will eventually set more stringent limits (albeit
121: dependent on $V_{Tb}$) on heavy quark
122: masses if a positive signal is not observed. However, two important points have
123: to be remarked: ({\em i\/}) the $Tj$ cross section is proportional
124: to $|V_{Tb}|^2$, hence for small mixings this process becomes less relevant;
125: ({\em ii\/}) pair production has the best sensitivity to the
126: presence of new quarks having masses of several hundreds of GeV. If new quarks
127: exist in this mass range, $T \bar T$ production would allow to observe a signal
128: in a rather short time.
129:
130: In the following we briefly review the mixing of the new quark, its interactions
131: and decay modes. After summarising the relevant aspects of the signal and
132: background generation, we will
133: present our results for quark masses of 500 GeV and 1 TeV. Finally,
134: the relation between $T \bar T$, $Tj$ production and indirect constraints from
135: the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter will be discussed.
136:
137:
138:
139: \section{SM extensions with $\boldsymbol{Q=2/3}$ singlets}
140: \label{sec:2}
141:
142: The addition of two $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ singlet fields $T^0_{L,R}$ to the quark
143: spectrum modifies the weak and scalar interactions involving $Q=2/3$ quarks.
144: (We denote weak eigenstates with a zero superscript, to distinguish them from
145: mass eigenstates which do not bear superscripts.)
146: Using standard notation, these interactions read
147: \begin{eqnarray}
148: \mathcal{L}_W & = & - \frac{g}{\sqrt 2} \left[ \bar u \gamma^\mu V P_L d
149: \; W_\mu^+ + \bar d \gamma^\mu V^\dagger P_L u \; W_\mu^- \right] \,,
150: \nonumber \\
151: \mathcal{L}_Z & = & - \frac{g}{2 c_W} \bar u \gamma^\mu \left[ X P_L
152: - \frac{4}{3} s_W^2 \openone_{4 \times 4} \right] u \; Z_\mu \,, \nonumber \\
153: \mathcal{L}_H & = & \frac{g}{2 M_W} \,
154: \bar u \left[ \mathcal{M}^u X P_L + X \mathcal{M}^u P_R \right] u
155: \; H \,,
156: \label{ec:1}
157: \end{eqnarray}
158: where $u=(u,c,t,T)$, $d=(d,s,b)$ and $P_{R,L} = (1 \pm \gamma_5)/2$.
159: The extended Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix $V$ is of dimension
160: $4 \times 3$, $X = V V^\dagger$ is a non-diagonal $4 \times 4$ matrix and
161: $\mathcal{M}^u$ is the $4 \times 4$ diagonal up-type quark mass matrix.
162: The new mass eigenstate $T$ is expected to couple mostly with third
163: generation quarks $t$, $b$, because $T_L^0$, $T_R^0$ preferrably mix with
164: $t_L^0$, $t_R^0$, respectively, due to the large top quark mass. $V_{Tb}$ is
165: mainly constrained by the contribution of the new quark to the $\mathrm{T}$
166: parameter \cite{silva,largo},
167: \begin{equation}
168: \mathrm{T} = \frac{N_c}{16\pi s_W^2 c_W^2} \left\{ |V_{Tb}|^2 \left[
169: \theta_+(y_T,y_b) - \theta_+(y_t,y_b) \right]
170: - |X_{tT}|^2 \theta_+(y_T,y_t) \right\} \,,
171: \label{ec:T}
172: \end{equation}
173: where $N_c=3$ is the number of colours, $y_i = (\overline{m_i}/M_Z)^2$,
174: $\overline{m_i}$ being the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ mass of the quark $i$ at the
175: scale $M_Z$, $|X_{tT}|^2 \simeq |V_{Tb}|^2 (1-|V_{Tb}|^2)$ and \cite{silva}
176: \begin{equation}
177: \theta_+(y_1,y_2) = y_1 + y_2 -\frac{2 y_1 y_2}{y_1-y_2} \log
178: \frac{y_1}{y_2} \,.
179: \end{equation}
180: The experimental measurement $\mathrm{T} = 0.12 \pm 0.10$ \cite{lepewwg},
181: obtained setting $\mathrm{U}=0$, implies $\mathrm{T} \leq 0.28$ with a 95\%
182: confidence level (CL), and the corresponding limit $|V_{Tb}| \leq 0.26-0.18$
183: for $m_T = 500-1000$ GeV (see also Ref.~\cite{roberto}).\footnote{The
184: new quark contribution to $\mathrm{U}$ is much smaller, of order $10^{-2}$
185: \cite{largo}, thus it makes sense using this value for $\mathrm{T}$. If we
186: take $\mathrm{T} = -0.17 \pm 0.12$ \cite{pdb} the limits obtained
187: are much stronger, $\mathrm{T} \leq 0.027$ and thus $|V_{Tb}| \leq 0.08-0.06$
188: for $m_T = 500-1000$ GeV. We will consider both possibilities in our analysis.}
189: Mixing of $T_L^0$ with $u_L^0$, $c_L^0$, especially with the latter, is very
190: constrained by parity violation experiments and the measurement of $R_c$ and
191: $A_\mathrm{FB}^{0,c}$ at LEP, respectively \cite{london,prl},
192: implying small $X_{uT}$, $X_{cT}$.
193: The charged current couplings with $d,s$ must be small as well,
194: $|V_{Td}|, |V_{ts}| \sim 0.05$, because otherwise the new quark would
195: give large loop contributions to kaon and $B$ physics observables \cite{largo}.
196: Therefore,
197: $|V_{Td}|,|V_{Ts}| \ll |V_{Tb}|$ and
198: $|X_{uT}|, |X_{cT}| \ll |X_{tT}|$. In specific models there may be additional
199: interactions, {\em e.g.} mediated by new gauge bosons, giving further
200: contributions to experimental observables. These extra terms
201: might (partially) cancel the
202: ones from the new quark, loosening the constraints on its
203: couplings. Although new interactions may modify the allowed range for $V_{Tb}$,
204: it is unlikely that they alter the above hierarchy. Then, the relevant decays
205: of the new
206: quark are $T \to W^+ b ,\, Zt ,\, Ht$, with partial widths
207: \begin{eqnarray}
208: \Gamma(T \to W^+ b) & = & \frac{\alpha}{16 \, s_W^2} |V_{Tb}|^2
209: \frac{m_T^3}{M_W^2} \left[ 1-3 \frac{M_W^4}{m_T^4} + 2 \frac{M_W^6}{m_T^6}
210: \right] \,, \nonumber \\
211: \Gamma(T \to Z t) & = & \frac{\alpha}{16 s_W^2 c_W^2} |X_{tT}|^2
212: \frac{m_T^2}{M_Z^2} f(m_T,m_t,M_Z) \nonumber \\
213: & & \times \left[ 1 + \frac{M_Z^2}{m_T^2}
214: - 2 \frac{m_t^2}{m_T^2} - 2 \frac{M_Z^4}{m_T^4} + \frac{m_t^4}{m_T^4}
215: + \frac{M_Z^2 m_t^2}{m_T^4} \right] \,, \nonumber \\
216: \Gamma(T \to H t) & = & \frac{\alpha}{16 s_W^2} |X_{tT}|^2
217: \frac{m_T^2}{M_W^2} f(m_T,m_t,M_H) \nonumber \\
218: & & \times \left[ 1 + \frac{3}{4} \frac{m_t}{m_T} - \frac{1}{2}
219: \frac{m_t^2}{m_T^2} - \frac{M_H^2}{m_T^2} + \frac{3}{4} \frac{m_t^3}{m_T^3}
220: + \frac{m_t^4}{m_T^4} - \frac{m_t^2 M_H^2}{m_T^4} \right] \,.
221: \label{ec:3}
222: \end{eqnarray}
223: The kinematical function
224: \begin{equation}
225: f(m_T,m_t,M) \equiv \frac{1}{2 m_T} (m_T^4 + m_t^4 + M^4 - 2 m_T^2 m_t^2
226: - 2 m_T^2 M^2 - 2 m_t^2 M^2)^{1/2}
227: \end{equation}
228: approximately equals $m_T/2$ for $m_T \gg m_t,M$. For a heavy $T$ and a light
229: Higgs, we have
230: $\mathrm{Br}(T \to W^+ b) \simeq 0.5$,
231: $\mathrm{Br}(T \to Z t) \simeq 0.25$, $\mathrm{Br}(T \to H t) \simeq 0.25$.
232: To our knowledge, there are not experimental searches for new $Q=2/3$ quarks
233: giving lower bounds for their masses. However, for the expected production cross
234: sections and decay branching ratios, it seems that quarks with masses around 200
235: GeV ought to be visible with present Tevatron Run II data \cite{tev2}.
236:
237: The decays $T \to Zt \to \ell^+ \ell^- W^+ b$,
238: $\ell=e,\mu$ give
239: a cleaner final state than $T \to W^+ b$, but with a branching ratio 30 times
240: smaller. It has already been found that the channel $T \to W^+ b$
241: ($\bar T \to W^- \bar b$), with $W \to \ell \nu$, gives the best discovery
242: potential in single $T$ production \cite{azuelos}. In $T \bar T$ production
243: we select the final states $T \bar T \to W^+ b \, W^- \bar b$, with one $W$
244: boson decaying leptonically and the other one hadronically.
245: The larger cross section in this decay
246: mode allows to obtain a better statistical significance for the signal, while
247: the backgrounds can be greatly reduced with kinematical cuts.
248:
249:
250:
251:
252: \section{Signal and background simulation}
253: \label{sec:3}
254:
255:
256: The main backgrounds for the $T \bar T$ signal
257: \begin{equation}
258: gg,qq \to T \bar T \to W^+ b \, W^- \bar b \to \ell^+ \nu b \, \bar q q' \bar b
259: \;, \quad \quad \ell=e,\mu
260: \label{ec:sig}
261: \end{equation}
262: are given by $t \bar t$, $W b \bar b jj$, $Z b \bar b jj$ and $t \bar b j$
263: production,
264: \begin{align}
265: & gg,qq \to t \bar t \to W^+ b \, W^- \bar b \to \ell^+ \nu b \, \bar q q'
266: \bar b \,, \nonumber \\
267: & pp \to W b \bar b jj \to \ell \nu b \bar b jj \,, \nonumber \\
268: & pp \to Z b \bar b jj \to \ell^+ \ell^- b \bar b jj \,, \nonumber \\
269: & pp \to t \bar b j \to W^+ b \bar b j \to \ell^+ \nu b \bar b j \,.
270: \label{ec:bkg}
271: \end{align}
272: The charge conjugate processes are understood to be summed in all cases.
273: In the background evaluation we do not consider final states with $\tau$ leptons
274: (which can decay leptonically $\tau \to e \nu_\tau \bar \nu_e$,
275: $\tau \to \mu \nu_\tau \bar \nu_\mu$) because the electrons and muons produced
276: in $\tau$ decays are softer, and in our analysis we eventually
277: require $e,\mu$ with high transverse momenta. $Wjjjj$ and $Zjjjj$ production are
278: reduced to negligible levels with the requirement of two $b$ tags, which
279: suppresses their contributions by a factor $\sim 10^{-4}$. The signal
280: and the $t \bar t$, $t \bar b j$ backgrounds are evaluated with
281: our own Monte Carlo generators, including
282: all finite width and spin effects. We calculate the matrix elements using {\tt
283: HELAS} \cite{helas} with running coupling constants evaluated at the scale of
284: the heavy quark $T$ or $t$. $W b \bar b jj$ and $Z b \bar b jj$ are calculated
285: with {\tt ALPGEN} \cite{alpgen}. The bottom quark mass $m_b=4.8$ GeV is kept
286: in all cases, and we take $M_H = 115$ GeV. We use structure functions CTEQ5L
287: \cite{cteq}, with $Q^2 = \hat s$ for $T \bar T$, $t \bar t$ and $t \bar b j$,
288: and $Q^2 = M_{W,Z}^2 + p_{T_{W,Z}}^2$ for $W b \bar b jj$, $Z b \bar b jj$,
289: being $\sqrt{\hat s}$ the partonic centre of mass energy, and $p_{T_{W,Z}}$ the
290: transverse momentum of the gauge boson.\footnote{We find that $T \bar T$ cross
291: sections are $16-18$\% larger (for $m_T = 500-1000$ GeV) when evaluated with
292: MRST 2004 structure functions \cite{mrst} and their corresponding value of
293: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$. Assuming that background cross sections in the kinematical
294: region of
295: interest (large transverse momenta and invariant masses) scale by the same
296: rate, this would amount to a $8-9$\% increase in the statistical significance.}
297:
298:
299: The events are passed through {\tt PYTHIA 6.228} \cite{pythia} as external
300: processes to perform hadronisation and include initial and final state radiation
301: (ISR, FSR) and multiple interactions. We use the standard {\tt PYTHIA} settings
302: except for $b$ fragmentation, in which we use the Peterson parameterisation with
303: $\epsilon_b=-0.0035$ \cite{epsb}. A fast detector simulation {\tt ATLFAST 2.60}
304: \cite{atlfast}, with standard settings, is used for the modelling of the ATLAS
305: detector. We reconstruct jets using a standard cone algorithm with
306: $\Delta R \equiv \sqrt{(\Delta \eta)^2 + (\Delta \phi)^2} = 0.4$, where $\eta$
307: is the pseudorapidity and $\phi$ the azimuthal angle. We do not apply trigger
308: inefficiencies and assume a perfect
309: charged lepton identification.
310: The package {\tt ATLFASTB} is used to recalibrate jet energies
311: and perform $b$ tagging, for which we select efficiencies of 60\%, 50\% for the
312: low and high luminosity LHC phases, respectively.
313:
314:
315:
316: \section{Numerical results}
317: \label{sec:4}
318:
319:
320: The hadronised events are required to fulfill these two criteria: (a) the
321: presence of one (and only one) isolated charged lepton, which must have
322: transverse momentum $p_t \geq 20$ GeV and $|\eta| \leq 2.5$; (b)
323: at least four jets with $p_t \geq 20$ GeV, $|\eta| \leq 2.5$, with exactly two
324: $b$ tags. The cross sections times efficiency of the five processes after these
325: pre-selection cuts are collected in Table~\ref{tab:1}, using a 60\% $b$
326: tagging rate. The events are produced without kinematical cuts at the
327: generator level in the case of $T \bar T$, $t \bar t$, while for the other
328: processes we set some loose cuts,
329: less restrictive than the ones used after hadronisation, which do not
330: bias the calculation. For $t \bar b j$
331: we only require pseudorapidities $|\eta| \leq 3$ for $b$, $j$. For
332: $W b \bar b jj$ we set
333: $p_t \geq 15$ GeV and $|\eta| \leq 3$ for the charged lepton, the $b$
334: quarks and the jets, and lego-plot separations $\Delta R_{jj},\Delta R_{bj},
335: \Delta R_{bb} \geq 0.4$, $\Delta R_{\ell b},\Delta R_{\ell j} \geq 0.2$. For
336: $Z b \bar b jj$ we require $p_t \geq 15$ GeV, $|\eta| \leq 3$ for $b$ quarks
337: and jets, $|\eta| \leq 10$ for the charged leptons, and
338: $\Delta R_{jj},\Delta R_{bj},\Delta R_{bb} \geq 0.4$.
339:
340:
341: \begin{table}[htb]
342: \begin{center}
343: \begin{tabular}{cc}
344: Process & $\sigma \times \mathrm{eff}$ \\
345: \hline
346: $T \bar T$ (500) & 44.9 fb \\
347: $T \bar T$ (1000) & 0.638 fb \\
348: $t \bar t$ & 18.8 pb \\
349: $W b \bar b jj$ & 1.23 pb \\
350: $Z b \bar b jj$ & 246 fb \\
351: $t \bar b j$ & 710 fb
352: \end{tabular}
353: \caption{Cross sections of the $T \bar T$ signal (with $m_T = 500,1000$ GeV)
354: and its backgrounds after pre-selection cuts.}
355: \label{tab:1}
356: \end{center}
357: \end{table}
358:
359:
360:
361: The SM backgrounds are much larger than the signal, but
362: they concentrate in the low transverse momenta region. To reduce
363: them, it is useful to examine their dependence on the transverse momenta
364: of the charged lepton $\ptlep$, the fastest jet $\ptmax$ and the fastest $b$
365: jet $\ptbmax$, as well as the missing transverse momentum $\ptmiss$ and the
366: total transverse energy $H_t = \sum_{j,\ell,\gamma} p_t+\ptmiss$.
367: The kinematical distributions of these variables
368: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}. We display a weighted sum of the $W b \bar b jj$
369: and $Z b \bar b jj$ processes so as to reduce the number of histograms,
370: while the other backgrounds are shown separately.
371:
372:
373: \begin{figure}[p]
374: \begin{center}
375: \begin{tabular}{cc}
376: \epsfig{file=Figs/PTmax.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} &
377: \epsfig{file=Figs/PTbmax.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} \\
378: (a) & (b) \\[0.5cm]
379: \epsfig{file=Figs/PTlep.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} &
380: \epsfig{file=Figs/PTmiss.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} \\
381: (c) & (d) \\[0.5cm]
382: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\epsfig{file=Figs/HT.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=}} \\
383: \multicolumn{2}{c}{(e)}
384: \end{tabular}
385: \caption{Transverse momentum of: (a) the fastest jet; (b) the fastest $b$ jet;
386: (c) the charged lepton. Missing transverse momentum (d); total transverse
387: energy (e). The histograms are normalised to a
388: total number of 2000 events.}
389: \label{fig:1}
390: \end{center}
391: \end{figure}
392:
393:
394: The $T \bar T$ signal can be discovered by the presence of peaks in the
395: invariant mass distributions corresponding to the two decaying quarks. In order
396: to reconstruct their momenta we first identify the two jets $j_1$,
397: $j_2$ from the $W$ decaying hadronically. The first one $j_1$ is chosen to be
398: the highest $p_t$ non-$b$ jet, and the second one $j_2$ as the non-$b$ jet
399: having with $j_1$ an invariant mass closest to $M_W$. The missing transverse
400: momentum is assigned to the undetected neutrino, and its longitudinal momentum
401: and energy are found requiring that the invariant mass of the charged lepton
402: and the neutrino is the $W$ mass, $(p_\ell+p_\nu)^2 = M_W^2$. This equation
403: yields two possible solutions. In addition, there are two different pairings of
404: the two $b$ jets to the $W$ bosons decaying hadronically and leptonically,
405: giving four possibilities for the reconstruction of the heavy quark momenta.
406: We select the one giving closest invariant masses $\mthad$, $\mtlep$ for the
407: quarks decaying hadronically and semileptonically. Their kinematical
408: distributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}. In our calculations we have set
409: $V_{Tb} = 0.2,\, 0.1$ for $m_T = 500, \,1000$ GeV, respectively, yielding the
410: total widths $\Gamma_T = 2.80,\,6.16$ GeV . The cross
411: sections are independent of $V_{Tb}$ and for $\Gamma_T$ of these sizes the
412: broadness of the mass distributions too.
413:
414:
415: \begin{figure}[htb]
416: \begin{center}
417: \begin{tabular}{cc}
418: \epsfig{file=Figs/mT-had.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} &
419: \epsfig{file=Figs/mT-lep.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} \\
420: (a) & (b)
421: \end{tabular}
422: \caption{Reconstructed masses of the heavy quarks decaying hadronically (a) and
423: semileptonically (b). The histograms are normalised to a
424: total number of 2000 events.}
425: \label{fig:2}
426: \end{center}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429: We point out that in our signal calculation we have not included other $T$
430: production processes giving the same experimental signature of one charged
431: lepton, four jets (with two $b$ tags) plus missing energy. Such processes do not
432: constitute a background (they are absent in the SM)
433: but instead increase the signal cross section.
434: One example is $T \bar T$ production in the decay channel
435: $T \bar T \to Z t \, W^- \bar b \to \nu \bar \nu W^+ b \, W^- \bar b$, with one
436: $W$ boson decaying hadronically and the other one leptonically. This process
437: has a cross section 10 times smaller than the one in Eq.~(\ref{ec:sig}).
438: Other possible $T \bar T$ decay channels are
439: $T \bar T \to Z t \, W^- \bar b \to b \bar b W^+ b \, W^- \bar b$,
440: $T \bar T \to H t \, W^- \bar b \to b \bar b W^+ b \, W^- \bar b$ (assuming a
441: light Higgs boson) with two $b$ quarks mistagged. Their contributions
442: represent a $\sim 7$\% and $\sim 40$\% increase, respectively, in the total
443: cross section. Nevertheless, neither of the three processes mentioned yields
444: peaks in the $\mthad$, $\mtlep$ invariant mass
445: distributions, as reconstructed here for the $T \bar T \to W^+ b \, W^- \bar b$
446: signal, and their contributions are not likely
447: to be detectable due to the uncertainty in the SM background normalisation.
448: The same comments apply to $T \bar b j$ production with
449: radiation of an extra hard jet.
450:
451:
452: \subsection{Results for $\boldsymbol{m_T=500}$ GeV}
453:
454:
455: The large background cross sections make it convenient to introduce further
456: kinematical cuts at the generator level to reduce the number of events
457: processed with {\tt PYTHIA} and {\tt ATLFAST}. We require the presence of a
458: charged lepton with $p_t \geq 30$ GeV,
459: a jet with $p_t \geq 200$ GeV and, for $W b \bar b jj$ and $Z b \bar b jj$,
460: one $b$ quark with $p_t \geq 100$ GeV. This last cut does not bias the sample
461: because in these two processes the two non-$b$ jets mostly originate from light
462: quarks and gluons, for which the $b$ mistag probability is very low. Thus, the
463: $b$-tagged jets correspond to the $b$ quarks most of the time.
464: The kinematical cuts used to reduce backgrounds are
465: \begin{align}
466: & \ptmax \geq 250 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \quad
467: \ptbmax \geq 150 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \nonumber \\
468: & \ptlep \geq 50 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \quad
469: 50 ~\mathrm{GeV} \leq \ptmiss \leq 600 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \nonumber \\
470: & H_t \geq 1000 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,.
471: \label{ec:cut500}
472: \end{align}
473: The cut $\ptmiss \leq 600$ GeV is useful because $t \bar t$ production with
474: large invariant masses is sometimes associated to very large $\ptmiss$, in
475: contrast with the signal. We also note that
476: with these requirements the charged lepton and the hardest jet provide a
477: trigger in the low luminosity LHC phase. The cross sections at the generator
478: level are listed in the first column of Table \ref{tab:500}, mainly for
479: informative purposes. The second column represents the number of events
480: $N_0 = K \sigma \mathcal{L}$ simulated, taking a luminosity of
481: 10 fb$^{-1}$ and including the rescaling factors $K$ as explained in the
482: appendix. The figures in these two columns corresponding to different
483: processes should not be compared, since they are obtained with different initial
484: cuts in the event generation.
485: Instead, the number of events $N_\mathrm{cut}$ surviving the selection criteria
486: in Eq.~(\ref{ec:cut500}) reflect the relative size of the processes after cuts.
487: They are shown in the third column. (The size of the signals and backgrounds
488: before cuts can be read from Table~\ref{tab:1}.)
489:
490:
491: \begin{table}[htb]
492: \begin{center}
493: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
494: Process & $\tilde \sigma$ & $N_0$ & $N_\mathrm{cut}$ & $N_\mathrm{peak}$ \\
495: \hline
496: $T \bar T$ (500) & 204 fb & 2700 & 272 & 173 \\
497: $t \bar t$ & 5590 fb & 70000 & 1609 & 240 \\
498: $W b \bar b jj$ & 928 fb & 16000 & 287 & 65 \\
499: $Z b \bar b jj$ & 364 fb & 7200 & 39 & 10 \\
500: $t \bar b j$ & 626 fb & 8300 & 70 & 11 \\
501: \end{tabular}
502: \caption{For each process: cross sections $\tilde \sigma$ including cuts at the
503: generator level; number of events simulated $N_0$; number of events
504: $N_\mathrm{cut}$ passing the selection criteria in Eq.~(\ref{ec:cut500});
505: number of events $N_\mathrm{peak}$ passing the selection cuts which are in
506: the peak regions.}
507: \label{tab:500}
508: \end{center}
509: \end{table}
510:
511:
512: These kinematical cuts allow to detect the presence of the new quark in the
513: invariant mass distributions $\mthad$, $\mtlep$ as can be
514: observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mT500}. The number of events in the peak regions
515: \begin{equation}
516: 340 ~\mathrm{GeV} \leq \mthad \leq 660 ~\mathrm{GeV} \;, \quad
517: 340 ~\mathrm{GeV} \leq \mtlep \leq 660 ~\mathrm{GeV}
518: \label{ec:peak500}
519: \end{equation}
520: are displayed in the fourth column of Table~\ref{tab:500}. They give a
521: statistical significance $S/\sqrt B = 9.6$. A $5\sigma$ significance, needed to
522: claim discovery, can be achieved with a luminosity $\mathcal{L} \simeq 2.7
523: ~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. These numbers only consider statistical uncertainties,
524: assuming that the SM background can be normalised with the cross section
525: measurements ouside the peak region in Eq.~(\ref{ec:peak500}). Additionally, the
526: trigger and charged lepton detection efficiencies must be taken into account,
527: what reduces the statistical significance by a factor $\sim 0.95$.
528:
529:
530: \begin{figure}[htb]
531: \begin{center}
532: \begin{tabular}{cc}
533: \epsfig{file=Figs/mT500-had.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} &
534: \epsfig{file=Figs/mT500-lep.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} \\
535: (a) & (b)
536: \end{tabular}
537: \caption{Reconstructed masses of the heavy quarks decaying hadronically (a) and
538: semileptonically (b), after the selection cuts in Eq.~(\ref{ec:cut500}). The
539: dashed lines correspond to the SM predictions, while the full lines represent
540: the SM plus a new 500 GeV quark.}
541: \label{fig:mT500}
542: \end{center}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545:
546:
547:
548: \subsection{Results for $\boldsymbol{m_T=1}$ TeV}
549:
550:
551: We repeat the same analysis for a heavy quark with $m_T=1$ TeV, in this case
552: choosing a $b$ tagging rate of 50\% at the high luminosity phase. The generator
553: cuts are raised to $p_t \geq 150$ GeV for the charged lepton, $p_t \geq 250$
554: GeV for the hardest jet and $p_t \geq 150$ GeV for the hardest $b$ quark, the
555: latter cut only for $W b \bar b jj$ and $Z b \bar b jj$ production. The
556: parton-level
557: cross sections for the five processes are listed in Table~\ref{tab:1000},
558: together with the number of simulated events $N_0$, corresponding to an
559: integrated luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$. The selection criteria
560: used to reduce backgrounds are
561: \begin{align}
562: & \ptmax \geq 400 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \quad
563: \ptbmax \geq 300 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \nonumber \\
564: & \ptlep \geq 200 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \quad
565: 50 ~\mathrm{GeV} \leq \ptmiss \leq 400 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,, \nonumber \\
566: & H_t \geq 1800 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,.
567: \label{ec:cut1000}
568: \end{align}
569: With these cuts the charged lepton and hardest jet provide a trigger for the
570: event. The peak regions in this case are defined as
571: \begin{equation}
572: 800 ~\mathrm{GeV} \leq \mthad \leq 1200 ~\mathrm{GeV} \;, \quad
573: 800 ~\mathrm{GeV} \leq \mtlep \leq 1200 ~\mathrm{GeV} \,.
574: \end{equation}
575: The invariant mass distributions $\mthad$, $\mtlep$ after the cuts in
576: Eq.~(\ref{ec:cut1000}) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mT1000}. The excess of events
577: in the peak regions amounts to $9.4$ standard deviations of the expected SM
578: background. A $5\sigma$ significance would be achieved with an integrated
579: luminosity $\mathcal{L} \simeq 85~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. With a simple rescaling it
580: can be estimated that masses up to $m_T = 1.1$ TeV can be discovered with
581: $5\sigma$ significance for $\mathcal{L} = 300 ~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ and, if no
582: signal is found, the 95\% CL limit $m_T \geq 1.3$ TeV can be set.
583:
584: \begin{table}[htb]
585: \begin{center}
586: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
587: Process & $\tilde \sigma$ & $N_0$ & $N_\mathrm{cut}$ & $N_\mathrm{peak}$ \\
588: \hline
589: $T \bar T$ (1000) & 2.89 fb & 1330 & 70 & 48 \\
590: $t \bar t$ & 778 fb & 294000 & 208 & 10 \\
591: $W b \bar b jj$ & 66.8 fb & 34000 & 132 & 15 \\
592: $Z b \bar b jj$ & 48.0 fb & 28500 & 19 & 1 \\
593: $t \bar b j$ & 44.1 fb & 17500 & 3 & 0 \\
594: \end{tabular}
595: \caption{For each process: cross sections $\tilde \sigma$ including cuts at the
596: generator level; number of events simulated $N_0$; number of events
597: $N_\mathrm{cut}$ passing the selection criteria in Eq.~(\ref{ec:cut1000});
598: number of events $N_\mathrm{peak}$ passing the selection cuts which are in the
599: peak regions.}
600: \label{tab:1000}
601: \end{center}
602: \end{table}
603:
604: \begin{figure}[htb]
605: \begin{center}
606: \begin{tabular}{cc}
607: \epsfig{file=Figs/mT1000-had.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} &
608: \epsfig{file=Figs/mT1000-lep.eps,height=5.2cm,clip=} \\
609: (a) & (b)
610: \end{tabular}
611: \caption{Reconstructed masses of the heavy quarks decaying hadronically (a) and
612: semileptonically (b), after the selection cuts in Eq.~(\ref{ec:cut1000}). The
613: dashed lines correspond to the SM predictions, while the full lines represent
614: the SM plus a new 1 TeV quark.}
615: \label{fig:mT1000}
616: \end{center}
617: \end{figure}
618:
619:
620:
621:
622: \section{Summary and discussion}
623: \label{sec:5}
624:
625:
626: Up-type quark singlets with charge $Q=2/3$ are predicted in some SM
627: extensions, with masses ranging from few hundreds of GeV to several TeV.
628: Their observation would represent not only a clear new physics signal but also
629: an important confirmation for these models. We have shown that for $m_T =
630: 500$ GeV a $5\sigma$ statistical significance would be attained already with
631: 3 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, which can be collected after few months of
632: LHC operation in its first phase. For new quarks in this mass range, $T \bar T$
633: production provides the best signal of their presence, allowing a prompt
634: discovery if they exist. With an integrated luminosity of 300 fb$^{-1}$,
635: $T \bar T$ production may discover a new quark with $m_T \leq 1.1$ TeV, or set
636: a 95\% CL bound $m_T > 1.3$ TeV, independent of $V_{Tb}$, if no signal is
637: observed.
638:
639: We point out that if a fourth quark generation $(T,B)$ exists with
640: $m_T < m_B$ the dominant decay of the up-type quark is $T \to W b$, giving the
641: same signal studied here. ($T \to Zt ,\, Ht$ are forbiden at the tree
642: level by the vanishing of the flavour-changing neutral coupling $X_{tT}$.)
643: The results obtained for an up-type singlet can then be straightforwardly
644: applied to a fourth generation quark, multiplying the statistical significances
645: in section \ref{sec:4} by a factor of four. If $m_T < m_B$, a fourth
646: generation quark $T$ with $m_T \leq 1.3$ TeV could be discovered with 300
647: fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, and the 95\% CL bound $m_T > 1.5$ TeV could
648: be set if they are not observed. If $B$ is lighter than $T$,
649: the decay $T \to W^+ B$, with $W$ on its mass shell if $m_T > m_B+M_W$, is open.
650: Hence, the branching ratio of $T \to W b$ depends on $V_{Tb}$, and
651: model-independent predictions cannot be made. We also remark that
652: in case that a new quark $T$ is discovered without a $Q=-1/3$
653: partner, the experimental search for the decays $T \to Zt ,\, Ht$ can
654: determine if $T$ is a $\mathrm{SU}(2)_L$ singlet or belongs to a doublet (in
655: which case its partner $B$ should be heavier and undetected).
656:
657:
658: New $Q=2/3$ quark singlets can be produced in association with light jets as
659: well, mainly in the processes $u b \to d T$, $d \bar b \to u \bar T$. The cross
660: sections for $Tj$ production are quadratic in $|V_{tb}|$, but on the other hand
661: they do not decrease with $m_T$ as quickly as
662: for $T \bar T$. We plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:cs} (a) the cross sections for
663: $T \bar T$ and $Tj$ production for different heavy quark masses.
664: For $Tj$ we select a fixed coupling $V_{Tb} = 0.1$ as well as an $m_T$-dependent
665: coupling suggested by the experimental central value $\mathrm{T} = 0.12$
666: (obtained for $\mathrm{U}=0$) and Eq.~(\ref{ec:T}). The $V_{Tb}$ values derived
667: from
668: $\mathrm{T} = 0.12$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cs} (b). Of course, in models
669: beyond the SM there may be additional contributions to oblique corrections,
670: thus we take the experimental measurement of $\mathrm{T}$ only as a hint on
671: the size of $V_{Tb}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:cs} (b) we also plot the Little Higgs
672: model relation $V_{Tb} = m_t/m_T$ and the two 95\% CL upper limits on
673: $|V_{Tb}|$ obtained from
674: \begin{align}
675: & \mathrm{T} \leq 0.28 & & (95\% ~\mathrm{CL}\,, ~ \mathrm{U}=0) \,,
676: \nonumber \\
677: & \mathrm{T} \leq 0.027 & & (95\% ~\mathrm{CL}\,, ~ \mathrm{U~arbitrary}) \,,
678: \label{ec:Tlim}
679: \end{align}
680: respectively.
681: We note that that the assumption $V_{Tb} = m_t/m_T$ potentially conflicts
682: with the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter measurement for $m_T < 900$ GeV, even using the
683: less restrictive bound $T \leq 0.28$.
684:
685: \begin{figure}[htb]
686: \begin{center}
687: \begin{tabular}{cc}
688: \epsfig{file=Figs/mass-cross.eps,height=5.12cm,clip=} &
689: \epsfig{file=Figs/Vguess.eps,height=5.12cm,clip=} \\
690: (a) & (b)
691: \end{tabular}
692: \caption{(a) Cross sections for $T \bar T$ production (full line) and $Tj$
693: production, in the latter case for $V_{Tb}=0.1$ (dotted line), and for $V_{Tb}$
694: derived from the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter (dashed line). (b) Upper bounds on
695: $|V_{Tb}|$ and values suggested by the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter (black line) and
696: the Little Higgs relation $V_{Tb} = m_t/m_T$ (grey line).}
697: \label{fig:cs}
698: \end{center}
699: \end{figure}
700:
701: The discovery potential of $Tj$ production can be estimated from existing
702: analyses. This process, with $T \to Wb \to \ell \nu b$, gives a $21.5\sigma$
703: significance for $m_T = 1$ TeV and $V_{Tb} = m_t/m_T \simeq 0.175$
704: \cite{costanzo}. We make the reasonable assumption that for different $T$
705: masses the signal to background ratio $S/B$ in the kinematical region of
706: interest (with high $p_t$ and invariant masses $\sim m_T$) remains approximately
707: constant (obviously keeping equal CKM factors $|V_{Tb}|^2$ for the
708: signal).\footnote{This assumption is justified by the decrease of the
709: tails in the transverse momenta and invariant mass distributions of the SM
710: background. More optimistic extrapolations of the SM background cross
711: section, {\em e.g.} assuming that it decreases faster than the $Tj$ signal,
712: would lead to higher discovery limits on $T$ masses, as the ones given in
713: Ref.\cite{azuelos}.}
714: Requiring a statistical significance $S/\sqrt B = 5$
715: sets a lower limit on the coupling $V_{Tb}$ for each $m_T$ value. These limits
716: are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:limits} (a), together with the discovery
717: limit $m_T \leq 1.1$ TeV for $T$ pair production. We also include the 95\% CL
718: bounds from the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter in Eq.~(\ref{ec:Tlim}). We point out that
719: if $\mathrm{T} \leq 0.027$ is enforced the discovery reach of $T \bar T$
720: production is higher than for $Tj$, since for $m_T \gtrsim 700$ GeV
721: the $V_{Tb}$ values needed for $5\sigma$ discovery in $Tj$ production are
722: not allowed. Assuming the less restrictive limit $\mathrm{T} \leq 0.28$, there
723: is a region (light shaded area in the figure) where the new
724: quark can be discovered in single $T$ but not in $T$ pair production.
725: Conversely, in the dark shaded area the new quark can be discovered in $T \bar
726: T$ production but not in single $T$ processes.
727:
728: \begin{figure}[htb]
729: \begin{center}
730: \begin{tabular}{cc}
731: \epsfig{file=Figs/V5s.eps,height=5.09cm,clip=} &
732: \epsfig{file=Figs/V2s.eps,height=5.09cm,clip=} \\
733: (a) & (b)
734: \end{tabular}
735: \caption{(a) $5 \sigma$ discovery limits for the new quark (full lines), and
736: indirect bounds from the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter, explained in the text.
737: (b) Combined 95\% CL bounds on $m_T$, $|V_{Tb}|$ (shaded area) from
738: $T \bar T$, $Tj$ production and the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter, if $Q=2/3$ quark
739: singlets are not observed at LHC.}
740: \label{fig:limits}
741: \end{center}
742: \end{figure}
743:
744: The discovery of a new $Q=2/3$ quark singlet would certainly be a rather
745: important achievement towards the understanding of the flavour structure of the
746: SM, and might help explain the largeness of the top quark mass
747: \cite{paco,lhiggs}. On the other hand,
748: the non-observation of new quarks at LHC would also be interesting
749: on its own. In such case, the combined bounds obtained from single and $T$ pair
750: production and the $\mathrm{T}$ parameter would restrict $m_T$, $|V_{Tb}|$ to
751: lie in the shaded area in Fig.~\ref{fig:limits} (b). (If we use the more
752: restrictive bound in Eq.~(\ref{ec:Tlim})
753: the allowed region is somewhat smaller, as can be seen in the figure.) In this
754: area we have $m_T \geq 1.3$ TeV and $|V_{Tb}| \leq 0.13$, the latter implying
755: $|V_{tb}| \geq 0.991$. For $m_T \geq
756: 600$ GeV, the couplings $V_{Td}$, $V_{Ts}$ are already very constrained by kaon
757: and $B$ physics measurements \cite{largo}. Therefore, the non-observation of a
758: new quark would significantly improve the indirect limits on CKM matrix
759: elements $V_{td}$, $V_{ts}$, $V_{tb}$ within this class of models.
760:
761:
762:
763:
764: \vspace{1cm}
765: %\newpage
766: \noindent
767: {\Large \bf Acknowledgements}
768:
769: \vspace{0.4cm} \noindent
770: I thank F. del Aguila and R. Pittau for useful discussions and a critical
771: reading of the manuscript. This work has been supported by FCT through project
772: CFTP-FCT UNIT 777 and grant SFRH/BPD/12603/2003.
773:
774:
775:
776: \appendix
777: \section{Appendix: signal and background normalisation}
778: \label{sec:a}
779:
780: In addition to the processes listed in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:sig}),(\ref{ec:bkg}) there
781: are other higher order processes contributing to the signal and backgrounds,
782: namely final states including extra jets from QCD radiation. Indeed,
783: $t \bar b j$ production only
784: yields three jets at the partonic level, and the fourth one required to pass our
785: pre-selection criteria must be originated by radiation.
786: These higher-order processes are approximately accounted for by {\tt PYTHIA}
787: showering, which generates hard extra jets by FSR. For example,
788: in $W b \bar b jj$ production some fraction of the
789: events, when passed through {\tt PYTHIA} showering, are converted into
790: $W b \bar b jjj$ or $W b \bar b jjjj$
791: events, the additional jets with a high ($\gtrsim 50$ GeV) transverse momentum.
792:
793: One possible method to take higher order processes into account is to
794: generate them at the parton level, forbidding {\tt PYTHIA} to radiate hard extra
795: jets to avoid double counting \cite{presc} but allowing the soft and collinear
796: ones. Instead, our approach is to normalise the numbers of events simulated
797: $N_0$
798: by approximate correction factors $K$ so that these figures correspond to the
799: processes in Eqs.~(\ref{ec:sig}),(\ref{ec:bkg}) plus higher order ones.
800: The number of events simulated for a given process is then
801: $N_0 = K \sigma \mathcal{L}$, being $\sigma$ the cross section of the process
802: and $\mathcal{L}$ the luminosity. The correction factor $K$ is calculated in
803: the $W b \bar b jj$ example as follows:
804: \begin{enumerate}
805: \item We generate $W b \bar b jj$ events requiring high
806: transverse momenta $p_t \geq 100$ GeV for jets at the generator level,
807: and a large separation $\Delta R \geq 0.6$ among all partons.
808: \item These events are passed twice through {\tt PYTHIA} and {\tt ATLFAST},
809: including FSR and without including it. In both cases ISR, multiple interactions
810: and energy smearing are turned off, because we want to isolate the effect of
811: FSR.
812: \item We examine the number of events with four-jets (corresponding to the four
813: initial partons) with $p_t \geq 80$ GeV in both samples. Let us call these
814: numbers $n_4^{0}$, $n_4^{\mathrm{FSR}}$, respectively. $K$ is then defined as
815: the ratio between them, $K = n_4^{0} / n_4^{\mathrm{FSR}}$.
816: \end{enumerate}
817: With this rescaling factor definition, the number of four-jet events after FSR
818: corresponds to the one present at the parton level.
819: The value of $K$ depends on the cut values for the event generation (100 GeV)
820: and the jet counting (80 GeV), and therefore this procedure is approximate.
821: However, for our purposes this simple and fast $K$-factor prescription seems
822: sufficient. For the
823: $T \bar T$ signal we obtain $K(T \bar T) \simeq 1.3$, $K(T \bar T) \simeq 1.5$
824: for heavy masses of 500 GeV and 1 TeV, respectively, and for the backgrounds
825: $K(t \bar t) \simeq 1.3$, $K(t \bar b j) \simeq 1.3$,
826: $K(W b \bar b jj) \simeq 1.7$, $K(Z b \bar b jj) \simeq 2.0$.
827:
828:
829:
830:
831: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
832:
833: \bibitem{atlascms}
834: ATLAS collaboration, Technical Design Report, CERN-LHCC-99-15;
835: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
836: CMS Collaboration, Technical Proposal, CERN-LHCC-94-38
837: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
838:
839: \bibitem{lhcilc}
840: G.~Weiglein {\it et al.} [LHC/LC Study Group], hep-ph/0410364
841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410364;%%
842:
843: \bibitem{eichten}
844: E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. D. Lane and C. Quigg, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 56}
845: (1984) 579 [Addendum-ibid.\ {\bf 58} (1986) 1065]
846: %%CITATION = RMPHA,56,579;%%
847:
848: \bibitem{frampton}
849: P. H. Frampton, P. Q. Hung and M. Sher, Phys. Rept. {\bf 330} (2000) 263
850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903387;%%
851:
852: \bibitem{pdb}
853: S. Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group], Phys. Lett. B {\bf 592}
854: (2004) 1
855: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
856:
857: \bibitem{jose}
858: F. del Aguila and J. Santiago, JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 010
859: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111047;%%
860:
861: \bibitem{bkt}
862: F. del Aguila, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago, hep-ph/0305119;
863: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305119;%%
864: Acta Phys. Polon. B {\bf 34} (2003) 5511
865: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310353;%%
866:
867: \bibitem{lhiggs}
868: N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G.~Cohen and H. Georgi,
869: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 513} (2001) 232
870: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105239;%%
871:
872: \bibitem{barger}
873: V. D. Barger, M. S. Berger and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52} (1995)
874: 1663
875: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503204;%%
876:
877: \bibitem{largo}
878: J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 035003
879: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 099901]
880: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210112;%%
881:
882: \bibitem{paco2}
883: F. del Aguila, L. Ametller, G. L. Kane and J. Vidal, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 334}
884: (1990) 1
885: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B334,1;%%
886:
887: \bibitem{azuelos}
888: G. Azuelos {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 39S2} (2005) 13
889: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402037;%%
890:
891: \bibitem{costanzo}
892: D. Costanzo, ATLAS note ATL-PHYS-2004-004
893: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
894:
895: \bibitem{silva}
896: L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 47} (1993) 2046
897: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,2046;%%
898:
899: \bibitem{lepewwg}
900: LEP Electroweak Working Group, Results Summer 2004: M. Gr\"unewald, \\
901: {\tt http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/stanmod/summer2004\_results}
902: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
903:
904: \bibitem{roberto}
905: F. del Aguila and R. Pittau, Acta Phys. Polon. B {\bf 35} (2004) 2767
906: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410256;%%
907:
908: \bibitem{london}
909: P. Langacker and D. London, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 38} (1988) 886
910: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D38,886;%%
911:
912: \bibitem{prl}
913: F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}
914: (1999) 1628
915: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808400;%%
916:
917: \bibitem{tev2}
918: See for instance
919: G. Gomez [CDF - Run II Collaboration], hep-ex/0505095
920: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0505095;%%
921:
922:
923: \bibitem{helas}
924: E. Murayama, I. Watanabe and K. Hagiwara, KEK report 91-11, January 1992
925: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
926:
927: \bibitem{alpgen}
928: M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. D. Polosa,
929: JHEP {\bf 0307} (2003) 001;
930: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206293;%%
931: See also {\tt http://mlm.home.cern.ch/m/mlm/www/alpgen/}
932:
933: \bibitem{cteq}
934: H. L. Lai {\it et al.} [CTEQ Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 12} (2000)
935: 375
936: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903282;%%
937:
938: \bibitem{mrst}
939: A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling and R. S. Thorne,
940: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 604} (2004) 61
941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410230;%%
942:
943: \bibitem{pythia}
944: T. Sjostrand, P. Eden, C. Friberg, L. Lonnblad, G. Miu, S. Mrenna and E.
945: Norrbin, Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 135} (2001) 238
946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010017;%%
947:
948: \bibitem{epsb}
949: R. Barate {\em et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Rept. {\bf 294} (1998) 1
950: %%CITATION = PRPLC,294,1;%%
951:
952: \bibitem{atlfast}
953: E. Richter-Was, D. Froidevaux and L. Poggioli, ATL-PHYS-98-131
954: %%CITATION = NONE;%%
955:
956: \bibitem{paco}
957: F. del Aguila and M. J. Bowick, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 224} (1983) 107
958: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B224,107;%%
959:
960: \bibitem{presc}
961: M. Mangano, talk at the workshop {\em ``Monte Carlo for Run 2''}, FNAL, June
962: 2004,
963: {\tt http://cepa.fnal.gov/patriot/mc4run2/MCTuning/061104/mlm.pdf}
964:
965: \end{thebibliography}
966:
967: \end{document}
968:
969: