1: % tcgg in MSSM

2: % v1 is hep-ph/0601253.v1 (dated Jan 30, 2006)

3: % v2 (this one) is an ``improved'' v1 as sent to them on March 2006

4: % v3 is the one revised as required by PRD

5: %  REVTeX Version 4

6: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,showkeys,aps,prd,amsfonts,eqsecnum,nofootinbib]

7: {revtex4}

8: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}

9: %\usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, graphics}

10: %\usepackage{ucs}

11: %\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}

12: %\newcommand{\mathsym}[1]{{}}

13: %\newcommand{\unicode}{{}}

14: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

15: 

16: \newenvironment{CoupVec}%

17:        {\left[\begin{array}{>{\displaystyle}c}}%

18:        {\end{array}\right]}

19: \newenvironment{PlusB}%

20:        {\left\{\begin{array}{l}}%

21:        {\end{array}\right\}}

22: 

23: %

24: \begin{document}

25: %

26: \preprint{CUMQ/HEP 139}

27: %

28: %

29: % Title of paper

30: \title{Single Top Production via Gluon Fusion at CERN LHC}

31: %%

32: %

33: %

34: \author{Gad Eilam}\email[]{eilam@physics.technion.ac.il}

35: \affiliation{Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, ISRAEL}

36: \author{Mariana Frank}\email[]{mfrank@vax2.concordia.ca}

37: \author{Ismail Turan}\email[]{ituran@physics.concordia.ca}

38: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Concordia University, 7141

39: Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H4B 1R6}

40: %

41: \date{\today}

42: %

43: 

44: \begin{abstract}

45: We calculate the one-loop flavor violating top quark decay

46: $t \to cgg$ in the  Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.  We

47: discuss the branching ratios obtained with minimal flavor violation,

48: as well as with soft-supersymmetry induced general flavor violation.

49: Based on this rate we calculate the cross section for the single top

50: quark production via gluon fusion, $gg \to t {\bar c}$, and evaluate

51: its contribution to the cross section for single top quark production

52: in $pp$ collisions at the Large Hadron Collider.

53: We calculate all contributions coming from the

54: standard model and  charged Higgs loops, as well as gluino (and

55: neutralino)-up-type squarks, and chargino-down-type squarks loops.

56: Our numerical results show that the gluino and the chargino contributions

57: are largest over the whole parameter range in

58: the unconstrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.

59: While in general the gluino contributions

60: dominate the cross section, this result depends on the supersymmetric

61: flavor violating parameters in the up and down squark sector, the

62: relative mass of the

63: gauginos, and whether or not the Grand Unified Theory relationships

64: between gaugino masses

65: are satisfied. In the

66: most promising scenarios, the $pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c +X $ cross section

67: at the Large Hadron Collider can

68: reach a few hundreds fb.

69: \pacs{12.60.Jv, 11.30.Hv, 14.65.Ha}

70: %

71: \keywords{Rare Top Decays, Single Top Production, MSSM, Higher-Order Dominance}

72: %

73: \end{abstract}

74: %\vskip -2.5cm

75: \maketitle

76: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

77: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

79: One of the main goals at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is to

80: study the production and decay of top quarks. The importance

81: of studying the physics of the top is obvious. It is the quark

82: which is closest to the scale

83: of electroweak symmetry breaking and is therefore most sensitive

84: to that scale, and thus to New Physics (NP) beyond the Standard Model (SM).

85: One of the important tests of the SM

86: is its predictions for the yield of single tops in

87: hadronic collisions. The measurement

88: of single top production cross sections has turned out to be a

89: challenging task so far \cite{Taffard:2005rk} and only upper

90: limits are obtained. For instance, the D0 experiment, at Tevatron

91: II with integrated luminosity of $230 {\rm fb}^{-1}$, obtained

92: the following upper limits on the $s~(t)$-channel processes

93: (as defined below):

94: 6.4 (5.0) pb, at $95\%$ C.L.

95: It is expected that increased luminosity and

96: improved methods of analysis will eventually lead to the detection of

97: single top events in Tevatron II and subsequently at the LHC.

98: 

99: Single top production in hadronic machines has been thoroughly

100: discussed within the SM where, at lowest order,

101: one has the tree level contributions of

102: $s$-channel ($q{\bar q}\to t{\bar b}$ through $W$ exchange),

103: $t$-channel ($u b\to t d$ via $W$ exchange) and $g b\to tW$

104: with a top quark exchanged. In \cite{Sullivan:2004ie,Cao:2004ap}

105: one finds the

106: most recent SM results, which include

107: Next to Leading Order (NLO) corrections. These are predicted  to be

108: approximately equal to (all

109: the following cross sections are in pb),

110: 6.6 (4.1) for a single

111: $t$ (${\bar t}$) production in the

112: $s$-channel, and 156 (91) for a single $t$ (${\bar t}$) production

113: in the $t$-channel at LHC \cite{Sullivan:2004ie}.

114: The background for single top production in the

115: SM was estimated in \cite{Sullivan:2005ar}.

116: 

117: At the same time, there has been an increased

118: interest in studying forbidden or highly suppressed processes as they

119: appear ideal for finding the physics lying beyond the SM.

120: As alluded to before,

121: top quark interactions, in particular, might provide a fertile ground

122: to searches for NP. It is expected that if NP

123: is associated with the mass generation mechanism, it may be

124: more apparent in top quark interactions, rather than in the light

125: fermion sector. Along these lines, there have been suggestions that the

126: Flavor Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) single top quark production

127: could be rather sensitive to non-SM

128: couplings such as $tcV~(V=g,~\gamma,~Z)$ and $tcH$ \cite{Han:1995pk}.

129: The advantage in looking for

130: FCNC processes in top physics is that although these

131: exist in the SM, they are minute,

132: leading to tiny, unmeasurable SM effects. In general, any

133: measurable FCNC process involving the top will indicate that one is witnessing

134: the effects of NP.  Note that here we are only interested in

135: processes that are driven by FCNC couplings, which are highly suppressed

136: in the SM by the GIM mechanism. Therefore we do not consider NP

137: corrections to SM couplings (like $tbW$ or $Zqq$)

138: or the contributions of new particles (either external or internal),

139: like $Z^\prime$ or $W^\prime$,

140: except those of the supersymmetric partners of SM particles.

141: 

142: FCNC effects in top production contribute to the following single top

143: production processes on the partonic level:

144: $cg\to t$,

145: $cg\to tg$,

146: $cq({\bar q})\to tq({\bar q})$,

147: $q{\bar q}\to t{\bar c}$ and

148: $gg\to t{\bar c}$,

149: as well as all the above with $c\longrightarrow u$.

150: These subprocesses have been investigated

151: in the presence of FCNC effective couplings and in the framework of various

152: NP models \cite{Han:1995pk}.

153: 

154: Of all scenarios of physics beyond the SM, supersymmetry

155: is the most popular. A characteristic feature of supersymmetry is

156: that, in addition to the SM FCNC generated by the

157: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix, it can provide large

158: soft supersymmetry-generated FCNC which would enhance rates and cross

159: sections beyond SM values.  The proton collider LHC can produce

160: supersymmetric particles, such as squarks and gluinos, with masses up

161: to 3 TeV; as well as potentially lighter ones, such as

162: charginos/neutralinos. Flavor-changing interactions appear in

163: supersymmetry in loops involving these particles, and thus

164: enhancements in FCNC signals are expected at the LHC.

165: 

166: Single top quark production generated through FCNC processes has

167: been discussed within the effective Lagrangian formalism  in a model

168: independent way \cite{Malkawi:1995dm}, as well as in model-dependent

169: scenarios \cite{Li:1999ms}. The purpose of this study is to analyze

170: one such class of rare single quark FCNC production: the gluon fusion

171: $gg \to t {\bar c}$ within the framework of low-energy supersymmetry.

172: This process was analyzed in \cite{Liu:2004bb} where QCD-only loops

173: (loops of gluino and squarks), were evaluated in the context of the

174: unconstrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

175: However it is known from analyses of $t\to cV$

176: that charginos, and sometimes neutralinos, can have a large effect on

177: FCNC.  Here we  first discuss the rare decay $t \to cgg$ and show it

178: to be larger than $t \to cg $ over most of the parameter space in

179: certain cases. Then

180: we perform a complete analysis of  $gg \to t {\bar c}$ in both the

181: constrained MSSM

182: (where FCNC decays and cross sections are driven by

183: chargino-down-like squark loops) and the unconstrained MSSM (where

184: gluino and neutralino loops contribute as well). We include the SM

185: and charged Higgs contributions, contributions from

186: chargino, neutralinos and gluino loops, as well as interference

187: effects between SM and non-SM effects, in the context of

188: the most general left-left, left-right and right-right

189: intergenerational squark mixings.  We also address the

190: observability of these channels at LHC.

191: 

192: 

193: Our paper is organized as follows: After a description of the FCNC

194: sources in the unconstrained MSSM (Section II),  we present  our

195: complete analysis of the branching ratio for the top quark $t \to

196: cgg$ in MSSM, and compare it to the SM case, where $t\to cgg$ was

197: shown to be larger than $t \to cg$ \cite{EFTSM} (Section III).

198: Section IV is devoted to the calculation of the gluon fusion cross

199: section $gg \to t{\bar c}$, as well as the

200:     evaluation of the cross section for $pp \to t{\bar c}+X$ at the LHC

201: through gluon fusion. We include a detailed numerical analysis of the

202: various relative supersymmetric contributions from gluino and

203: chargino loops with or without Grand Unified Theory (GUT) mass relations,

204: in addition to a comparison

205: of the constrained versus the unconstrained MSSM predictions, as well as

206:   observability of these channels. Our

207: conclusions and prospects for experimental observations are presented

208: in Section V.

209: 

210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

211: \section{FCNC in the unconstrained MSSM}\label{sec:fcnc}

212: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

213: In the unconstrained MSSM there are two sources of flavor

214: violation.  The first one arises from the  different mixing of quarks

215: in the $d$- and $u$-sectors

216: in the physical bases, and it is described by the CKM matrix

217: (inherited from the SM).  In the minimal version of MSSM (the

218: constrained MSSM) this is the only source of flavor violation.

219: The second source of flavor violation consists of a

220: possible misalignment between the rotations that

221: diagonalize the quark and squark sectors, and it is a characteristic of

222: soft supersymmetry breaking. We  work in the most general version of

223: the model and discuss the constrained version as a limit.

224: The superpotential of the MSSM Lagrangian is

225: %

226: \begin{equation}

227:       \label{eq:W} {\mathcal{W}} = \mu H^1 H^2 + Y_l^{ij} H^1

228: {L}^i {e}_R^j + Y_d^{ij} H^1 {Q}^i {d}_R^j

229: + Y_u^{ij} H^2 {Q}^i {u}_R^j.

230: \label{eq:superpot}

231: \end{equation}

232: 

233: The part of the soft-SUSY-breaking Lagrangian responsible for

234: the non-minimal squark family mixing is given by

235: \begin{eqnarray}

236: \label{eq:lagrangian}

237: \mathcal{L}^{\text{squark}}_{\text{soft}} &=&

238: -\tilde Q^{i\dagger} (M_{\tilde Q}^2)_{ij} \tilde Q^j

239: -\tilde u^{i\dagger} (M_{\tilde U}^2)_{ij} \tilde u^j

240: -\tilde d^{i\dagger} (M_{\tilde D}^2)_{ij} \tilde d^j \nonumber \\

241: &&\quad + Y_u^i A_u^{ij} \tilde Q_i H^2 \tilde u_j

242: + Y_d^i A_d^{ij} \tilde Q_i H^1 \tilde d_j\,.

243: \end{eqnarray}

244: In the above expressions $ Q$ is the SU(2) scalar doublet, $ u$, $ d$ are

245: the up- and down-quark SU(2) singlets ($\tilde Q, \tilde u, \tilde d$

246: represent scalar quarks), respectively, $Y_{u,d}$ are the

247: Yukawa couplings and $i,j$ are generation indices.  The flavor-changing

248: effects come from the non-diagonal entries in the bilinear terms

249: $M_{\tilde Q}^2$, $M_{\tilde U}^2$, and $M_{\tilde D}^2$, and from the

250: trilinear terms $A_u$ and $A_d$. Here $H^{1,2}$ represent two $SU(2)$

251: Higgs doublets with vacuum expectation values

252: \begin{equation}

253:       \langle H^1 \rangle = \left( \begin{array}{c}

254: \frac{v_1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ 0 \end{array} \right) \equiv \left(

255: \begin{array}{c} \frac{v \cos \beta}{\sqrt{2}} \\ 0 \end{array}

256: \right), \hspace{2cm} \langle H^2 \rangle = \left(

257: \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \frac{v_2}{\sqrt{2}} \end{array} \right) \equiv

258: \left( \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ \frac{v \sin \beta}{\sqrt{2}}

259: \end{array} \right),

260: \end{equation}

261: where $v=(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{-1/2}=246$~GeV, and the angle $\beta$ is

262: defined by $\tan \beta\equiv v_2/v_1$, the ratio of the vacuum

263: expectation values of the two Higgs doublets and $\mu$ is the Higgs

264: mixing parameter.

265: 

266: Since we are concerned with top quark physics, we assume that the

267: non-CKM squark mixing is significant only for

268: transitions between the

269: squarks of the second and third generations.  These mixings are expected to be

270: the largest in Grand Unified Models  and are also experimentally the

271: least constrained.  The most stringent bounds on these transitions

272: come from $b \to s \gamma $.  In

273: contrast, there exist strong experimental bounds involving the first

274: squark generation, based on data from $K^0$--$\bar K^0$ and $D^0$--$\bar

275: D^0$ mixing~\cite{Gabbiani:1996hi}.

276: 

277: It is convenient to specify the squark mass matrices in the

278: super-CKM basis, in which the mass matrices of the quark fields

279: are diagonalized by rotating the superfields.

280: Our parameterization of the flavor-non-diagonal squark mass

281: matrices for the up- and down-type squarks, for the MSSM with real

282: parameters, reads as follows,

283: \begin{equation}

284: \label{eq:usquarkmass}

285: M^2_{\tilde u} =

286: \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}

287: M_{{\tilde L} u}^2 & 0 & 0 & m_u {\cal A}_u & 0 & 0  \\

288: 0 & M_{{\tilde L} c}^2 & (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LL} & 0 & m_c {\cal A}_c

289: &(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LR} \\

290: 0 & (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LL} & M_{{\tilde L} t}^2 & 0 &

291: (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RL} & m_t {\cal A}_t \\[.3ex]

292: m_u {\cal A}_u & 0 & 0 & M_{{\tilde R} u}^2 & 0 & 0 \\

293: 0 & m_c {\cal A}_c & (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RL} & 0 &M_{{\tilde R} c}^2 &

294: (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RR} \\

295: 0 & (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LR} & m_t {\cal A}_t & 0 &

296: (M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RR} &M_{{\tilde R} t}^2

297: \end{array}\right)\,,

298: \end{equation}

299: \begin{equation}

300: \label{eq:dsquarkmass}

301: M^2_{\tilde d} = \left(\begin{array}{cccccc}

302: M_{{\tilde L} d}^2 & 0 & 0 & m_d {\cal A}_d & 0 & 0 \\

303: 0 & M_{{\tilde L} s}^2 & (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LL} & 0 & m_s {\cal A}_s

304: &(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LR} \\

305: 0 & (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LL} & M_{{\tilde L} b}^2 & 0 &

306: (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{RL} & m_b {\cal A}_b \\[.3ex]

307: m_d {\cal A}_d & 0 & 0 & M_{{\tilde R} d}^2 & 0 & 0 \\

308: 0 & m_s {\cal A}_s &(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{RL} & 0 &M_{{\tilde R} s}^2 &

309: (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{RR} \\

310: 0 & (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LR} & m_b {\cal A}_b & 0 &

311: (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{RR} &M_{{\tilde R} b}^2

312: \end{array}\right)\,,

313: \end{equation}

314: where

315: \begin{eqnarray}

316: \label{eq:squarkparam}

317: M_{{\tilde L}q}^2 &=&

318:        M_{\tilde Q,q}^2 + m_q^2 + \cos2\beta (T_q - Q_q s_W^2) m_Z^2\,,

319: \nonumber \\

320: M_{{\tilde R}\{u,c,t\}}^2 &=&

321:        M_{\tilde U,\{u,c,t\}}^2 + m_{u,c,t}^2 + \cos2\beta Q_t s_W^2

322: m_Z^2\,, \nonumber \\

323: M_{{\tilde R}\{d,s,b\}}^2 &=&

324:        M_{\tilde D,\{d,s,b\}}^2 + m_{d,s,b}^2 + \cos2\beta Q_b s_W^2 m_Z^2\,, \\

325: {\cal A}_{u,c,t} &=& A_{u,c,t} - \mu\cot\beta\,, \nonumber \\

326: {\cal A}_{d,s,b} &= &A_{d,s,b} - \mu\tan\beta\,, \nonumber

327: \end{eqnarray}

328: with $m_q$, $T_q$, $Q_q$ the mass, isospin, and electric charge of the

329: quark $q$, $m_Z$ the $Z$-boson mass, $s_W \equiv \sin\theta_W$ and

330: $\theta_W$ the electroweak mixing angle. In the above matrices we

331: assumed that significant mixing occurs between the second and third

332: generations only.

333: 

334: We define the dimensionless flavor-changing parameters

335: $(\delta_{U,D}^{23})_{AB}$ $(AB = LL,\,LR,\,RL,\,RR)$ from the

336: flavor off-diagonal elements of the squark mass matrices Eqs.~

337: (\ref{eq:usquarkmass}) and (\ref{eq:dsquarkmass}) in the following

338: way. To simplify the calculation we assume

339: that all diagonal entries in $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LL}$,

340: $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LR}$, $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RL}$ and

341: $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RR}$ and similarly for

342: $(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{AB}$, are set equal to the common value

343: $M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}$, and then we normalize the off-diagonal elements

344: to $M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}$  \cite{Harnik:2002vs,Besmer:2001cj},

345: %

346: \begin{eqnarray}

347: && (\delta_{U}^{ij})_{LL} =

348: \frac{(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LL}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}}\,,\hspace{1.0truecm}(\delta_{D}^{ij})_{LL}

349: =

350: \frac{(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LL}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}} \nonumber \\

351: && (\delta_{U}^{ij})_{RR} =

352: \frac{(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RR}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}}\,,

353: \hspace{1.0truecm} (\delta_{D}^{ij})_{RR}

354: =\frac{(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{RR}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}}\nonumber \\

355: && (\delta_{U}^{ij})_{LR} =

356: \frac{(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LR}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}}\,,\hspace{1.0truecm}(\delta_{D}^{ij})_{LR}

357: =

358: \frac{(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LR}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}} \nonumber \\

359: && (\delta_{U}^{ij})_{RL} =

360: \frac{(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{RL}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}}\,,

361: \hspace{1.0truecm} (\delta_{D}^{ij})_{RL}

362: =\frac{(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{RL}^{ij}}{M^2_{\rm{SUSY}}}

363: \hspace{1.0truecm} (i \ne j,\;i,j=2,3). \label{deltadefb}

364: \end{eqnarray}

365: %

366:       The matrix ${\cal M}^2_{\tilde{u}}$ can

367: further be diagonalized by an additional $6\times 6$ unitary

368: matrix $\Gamma_U$ to give the up squark mass eigenvalues

369: %

370: \begin{eqnarray}

371: \left({\cal M}^2_{\tilde{u}}\right)^{\text{diag}} = \Gamma_U^{\dagger}

372: {\cal M}^2_{\tilde{u}} \Gamma_U

373:       \label{eq:gammaudef}.

374: \end{eqnarray}

375: %

376: For the down squark mass matrix, we also can define

377: ${\mathcal{M}}_{\tilde{d}}^2$ as the similar form of

378: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaudef}) with the replacement of

379: $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{AB}$ ($A,B=L,R$) by $(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{AB}$.

380: Note that while $SU(2)_L$ gauge invariance implies that

381: $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LL} = K_{CKM} (M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LL} K_{CKM}^\dagger$, the

382: matrices $(M^2_{\tilde{U}})_{LL}$ and $(M^2_{\tilde{D}})_{LL}$ are

383: correlated. Since the connecting equations are rather complicated and

384: contain several unknown parameters, we proceed by including the

385: flavor changing parameters $(\delta_{U,D}^{ij})_{AB} $ as independent

386: quantities, while restricting them using previously set bounds

387: \cite{Gabbiani:1996hi}.

388: 

389: Thus, in the super-CKM basis, there are potentially new sources of

390: flavor-changing neutral currents: Chargino-quark-squark couplings,

391: neutralino-quark-squark coupling

392: and gluino-quark-squark coupling, which arise from the

393: off-diagonal elements of $(M^2_{{\tilde U}, {\tilde D}})_{LL}$,

394: $(M^2_{{\tilde U},{\tilde D}})_{LR}$ and $(M^2_{{\tilde U}, {\tilde

395: D}})_{RR}$. Previous

396: considerations of flavor violating decays \cite{Lopez:1997xv}

397:       in the MSSM have shown that both up and down squarks contribute

398: significantly. Our analysis shows that this is the case here too, and

399: which one is dominant depends on the parameters of the model, and in

400: particular on the relative mass hierarchy between the chargino and

401: the gluino.

402: 

403: In the super-CKM basis, the quark-up squark-gluino ($\tilde g$)

404: interaction is given by

405: \begin{equation}

406: \mathcal{L}_{u \tilde{u} \tilde g}= \sum_{i=1}^{3}\sqrt{2}\, g_s \,

407: T^r_{st} \left[ \bar

408: u^{s}_i \,(\Gamma_U)^{ia}\,P_L\, \tilde g^r \,\tilde u^{t}_a - \bar

409: u^{s}_i \,(\Gamma_U)^{(i+3)a}\,P_R \,\tilde g^r \,\tilde u^{t}_a +

410: \text{H.c.} \right]\,,

411: \end{equation}

412: where $T^{r}$ are the $SU(3)_{c}$ generators,  $P_{L,R}\equiv (1\mp

413: \gamma_5)/2$, $i=1,2,3$ is the generation index, $a=1, \ldots, 6$ is

414: the scalar quark index, and $s,t$ are color indices. In the gluino

415: interaction, the flavor changing effects from soft broken

416: terms $M^2_{\tilde Q}$, $M^2_{\tilde U}$ and $A_{u}$ on the observables are

417: introduced through the matrix $\Gamma_U$.

418: 

419: The relevant Lagrangian terms for the

420:       quark-down squark-chargino ($\tilde {\chi}^{\pm}_\sigma$)

421: interaction are given by

422: \begin{eqnarray}

423: \mathcal{L}_{u\tilde{d}\tilde{\chi}^{+}}\!\!\!&=\!\!\!&\sum_{\sigma=1}^{2}\,

424: \sum_{i,j=1}^{3}\left\{ \bar{u}

425: _ {i}\,[V_{\sigma 2}^{*}\,(Y_{u}^{\text{diag}}\,K_{CKM})_{ij}]

426: \,P_L\,\tilde{\chi}

427: _{\sigma}^{+}\,(\Gamma_D)^{ja}\,\tilde{d}_{a}-\bar{u}_{i}\,[g\,U_{\sigma

428: 1}\,(K_{CKM})_{ij}]\, P_R\,

429: \tilde{\chi}_{\sigma}^{+}\,(\Gamma_D)^{ja} \,\tilde{d}_a\right.   \nonumber \\

430: & &  \left. +\,\bar{u}_{i}\,[U_{\sigma 2}\,(K_{CKM}\,Y_{d}^{%

431: \text{diag}})_{ij}]

432: \,P_R\,\tilde{\chi}_{\sigma}^{+}\,(\Gamma_D)^{(j+3)a}\,\tilde{d}_a

433: \right\} +\text{%

434: H.c.}

435: \end{eqnarray}

436: where the index $\sigma$ refers to chargino mass eigenstates.

437: $Y_{u,d}^{\text{diag}}$ are the

438: diagonal up- and down-quark Yukawa couplings, and $V$, $U$ are the usual

439: chargino rotation matrices defined by $U^{*}M_{\tilde {\chi}

440: ^{+}}V^{-1}=\mathrm{diag}%

441: (m_{\tilde {\chi} _{1}^{+}},m_{\tilde {\chi} _{2}^{+}})$. The flavor

442: changing effects

443: arise from both the off-diagonal elements in the CKM matrix $K_{CKM}$

444: and from the soft supersymmetry breaking terms in $\Gamma_D$.

445: 

446: Finally, the relevant Lagrangian terms for the quark-up squark

447: neutralino ($\tilde {\chi}^{0}_n$) interaction are

448: \begin{eqnarray}

449: \mathcal{L}_{u\tilde{u}\tilde{\chi}^{0}}&=&\sum_{n=1}^{4}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left\{

450: \bar{u}

451: %

452: _{i}\,N_{n1}^{*}\,\frac{4}{3}\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\tan \theta _{W} \,P_L\,\tilde{%

453: \chi}_{n}^{0}\,(\Gamma_U)^{(i+3)a}\,\tilde{u}_a-\bar{u}_{i}\,N_{n4}^{*}\,Y_{u}^{\text{%

454: diag}}\,P_L\,\tilde{\chi}_{n}^{0}\,(\Gamma_U)^{ia}\,\tilde{u}_a

455: \right.   \nonumber \\

456: &-& \left.\bar{u}_{i}\,\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\left( N_{n2}+%

457: \frac{1}{3}N_{n1}\tan \theta _{W}\right)\,P_R

458: \,\tilde{\chi}_{n}^{0}\,(\Gamma_U)^{ia}\,\tilde{u}_a%

459: -\bar{u}_{i}\,N_{n4}\,Y_{u}^{\text{diag}}\,P_R\,\tilde{\chi}_{n}^{0}\,(\Gamma_U)^{(i+3)a}\,%

460: \tilde{u}_a\right\} \,,\nonumber \\

461: \end{eqnarray}

462: where $N$ is the $4\times 4$ rotation matrix which diagonalizes the

463: neutralino mass matrix $M_{\tilde \chi^0}$, $N^{*}M_{\tilde

464: \chi^0}N^{-1}=\mathrm{diag}(m_{%

465: \tilde {\chi}_{1}^{0}},\,m_{\tilde {\chi}_2^0}, \,m_{\tilde

466: {\chi}_3^0}, \,m_{\tilde {\chi}_4^0})$. As in

467: the gluino case, FCNC terms arise only from supersymmetric parameters

468: in $\Gamma_U$.

469: 

470: Most of the previous analyses of

471:     FCNC processes in the MSSM concentrated on the  mass insertion

472: approximation \cite{Hall:1985dx}. In this formalism,

473: the ($\delta$) terms represent mixing between chirality states of

474: different squarks, and it is possible to compute the contributions of

475: the first order flavor changing mass insertions perturbatively, if one

476: assumes smallness of the inter-generational mixing elements

477: ($\delta$'s) when compared with the diagonal elements. However, when

478: the off-diagonal elements

479: in the squark mass matrix become large, the mass insertion

480: approximation is no longer valid  \cite{Harnik:2002vs,Besmer:2001cj}.

481: In the general mass eigenstate formalism,  the mass matrix in

482: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gammaudef}) (and the similar one in the down-sector) is

483: diagonalized and the flavor changing parameters enter into our

484: expressions through the matrix $\Gamma_{U,D}$. So, in the rare top

485: decays $t\to cgg$, the new flavor changing neutral currents show

486: themselves in both gluino-squark-quark and neutralino-squark-quark

487: couplings in the up-type squark loops and in the

488: chargino-squark-quark coupling in the down-type squark loops.

489:       Therefore here, as in our previous work \cite{Frank:2005vd}, we use the

490: general mass eigenstate formalism as described above.

491: 

492: 

493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

494: \section{$t \to cgg$ versus $t \to cg$ in MSSM}\label{sec:decays}

495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

496: We present here the comparative analysis of the rare two and three body

497: top quark decays, $t \to

498: cgg$ and $t \to cg$,  closely following

499: the discussion in our earlier paper \cite{EFTSM}. There, we have

500:     shown that, within the SM framework, the branching

501: ratio of $t \to cgg$ is about two orders of magnitude larger than

502: that of $t \to cg$ in SM, a phenomenon which can be dubbed "higher

503: order dominance", and which was

504: revealed e.g., in $b$ and $c$-physics in

505: the past. For the detailed discussion, see

506: \cite{EFTSM} and the relevant references therein. Even though the branching

507: ratio for $t \to cgg$ dominates the one for the two body decay $t \to

508: cg$, it is of the order of $10^{-9}$ and still too small to be

509: detected in collider experiments. Any experimental signal for such

510: decay would indicate physics beyond the SM. So, our aim in this section

511: is to extend the discussion in \cite{EFTSM} to a favorable beyond SM

512: framework in which we would expect larger contributions due to extra

513: sources of FCNC -- the unconstrained MSSM. Note that we include the SM

514: contributions as well in our calculations.

515: 

516: The one-loop Feynman diagrams contributing to $t \to cgg$ in the MSSM are

517: given in a set of diagrams

518: Figs.~\ref{fig:gluino}, \ref{fig:chargino}, \ref{fig:neutralino},

519: \ref{fig:higgs}, and \ref{fig:ghost} in the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge ($\xi = 1$)

520: representing gluino, chargino, neutralino, Higgs, and ghost

521: contributions, respectively.\footnote{Note that we display the

522: one-loop diagrams for the process $gg \to t\bar{c}$.

523: The diagrams for the decay can be easily obtained by crossing.}

524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

525: \begin{figure}[htb]

526: \vspace*{-3.8in}

527:         \centerline{ \epsfxsize 9in {\epsfbox{gluino.ps}}}

528: \vspace*{-3.7in}

529: \caption

530:       {\texttt{The one-loop gluino contributions to $gg \to t\bar{c}$ in the

531: unconstrained MSSM in the

532: 't Hooft-Feynman gauge.}}

533: \label{fig:gluino}

534: \end{figure}

535: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

536: \begin{figure}[htb]

537: \vspace*{-3.8in}

538:         \centerline{ \epsfxsize 9in {\epsfbox{chargino.ps}}}

539: \vspace*{-5.9in}

540: \caption

541:       {\texttt{The one-loop chargino contributions to $gg \to t\bar{c}$ in the

542: unconstrained MSSM in the

543: 't Hooft-Feynman gauge.}}

544: \label{fig:chargino}

545: \end{figure}

546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

547: \begin{figure}[htb]

548: \vspace*{-3.8in}

549:         \centerline{ \epsfxsize 9in {\epsfbox{neutralino.ps}}}

550: \vspace*{-5.9in}

551: \caption

552:      {\texttt{The one-loop neutralino contributions to $gg \to

553: t\bar{c}$ in the

554: unconstrained MSSM in the

555: 't Hooft-Feynman

556: gauge.}}

557: \label{fig:neutralino}

558: \end{figure}

559: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

560: \begin{figure}[htb]

561: \vspace*{-3.8in}

562: 

563: \centerline{ \epsfxsize 9in

564: {\epsfbox{higgs.ps}}}

565: \vspace*{-5.9in}

566: \caption

567:      {\texttt{The

568: one-loop charged Higgs contributions to $gg \to t\bar{c}$ in

569: the unconstrained MSSM in the

570: 't Hooft-Feynman

571: gauge.}}

572: \label{fig:higgs}

573: \end{figure}

574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

575: \begin{figure}[h]

576: \vspace*{-5in}

577: 

578: \centerline{ \epsfxsize 9in

579: {\epsfbox{ghost.ps}}}

580: \vspace*{-4.8in}

581: \caption

582:      {\texttt{The

583: one-loop QCD ghost contributions to $gg \to t\bar{c}$ in the

584: unconstrained MSSM in the

585: 't Hooft-Feynman

586: gauge.}}

587: \label{fig:ghost}

588: \end{figure}

589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

590: We did not show the SM

591: diagrams here (since they appear in \cite{EFTSM}) but we took them into

592: account in the numerical

593: evaluation, for both the decays and the production mode.

594: 

595: As in \cite{EFTSM}, we choose to use the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge in which

596: the gluon polarization sum is

597: $\sum_{\lambda}\epsilon^*_{\mu}(k,\lambda)\epsilon_{\nu}(k,\lambda)=-g_{\mu\nu}$.

598: In order to obey unitarity, this simple choice results in the

599: existence of QCD ghost fields whose

600: contributions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ghost}.  We closely follow

601: the method outlined in \cite{EFTSM} and references therein for

602: handling  the ghost diagrams.

603: 

604: Divergences inherent in the $t \to cgg$ calculation are ultraviolet,

605: infrared, and collinear types \cite{EFTSM}.  In numerical

606: evaluations, we used the softwares

607: \texttt {FeynArts}, \texttt{FormCalc}, and \texttt{LoopTools}

608: \cite{Hahn:2000jm} to obtain our results. In addition to these, \texttt{

609: HadCalc} \cite{hadcalc} is used for deriving the $pp$ process

610: corresponding to the $gg$ fusion discussed in the next

611: section.

612: Using

613: utilities offered by \texttt{ FormCalc}, we checked ultraviolet

614: finiteness of our results numerically, and introduced phase space cuts

615: to avoid infrared and collinear singularities.\footnote{These

616: cuts lead to some uncertainties in our results. A more precise

617: approach requires full consideration of the next-to-leading

618: order corrections to $t \to c g$, similar to the ones

619: in $b$ decays \cite{Greub:2000sy}.}

620: 

621: Having mentioned some qualitative features of the decay $t \to cgg$,

622: we do not present here most of the analytical intermediate results. We do this

623: since the calculations are lengthy and uninspiring.

624: Furthermore,

625: we use well known programs.\footnote{The complete analytical results

626: can be obtained by contacting one of us (I.T.)}

627: We have also checked our calculations with similar ones, whenever

628: published, as we discuss in the next section.

629: 

630: We express the matrix element squared $\left|{\cal M}\right|^2$

631: as a sum over the various contributions. These include the SM

632: contribution as given in our

633: previous work \cite{EFTSM}. From Figs.~\ref{fig:gluino},

634: \ref{fig:chargino}, \ref{fig:neutralino}, \ref{fig:higgs}, and

635: \ref{fig:ghost}, we obtain expressions

636: for the following non-SM terms: the gluino contribution, chargino,

637: neutralino, charged Higgs and finally the contribution of the ghosts.

638: 

639: The results were expressed in terms of Passarino-Veltman

640: functions \cite{Passarino:1978jh}. Numerical evaluations of these

641: functions have been carried out with \texttt{

642: LoopTools}, which does not require reduction of Passarino-Veltman

643: functions to the scalars

644: $A_0, B_0, C_0$ and $D_0$. The analytical expressions are obtained

645: with the use of \texttt{

646: FeynCalc} \cite{Mertig:1990wm}.

647: 

648: The partial width $d\Gamma$ for the decay

649: $t\to cgg$ is given as

650: \begin{eqnarray}

651: d\Gamma(t\to cgg) &=& \frac{1}{2m_t}\sum_{\rm{spins}}|{\cal M}|^2

652: d\Phi_3(k_1;k_2,k_3,

653: k_4)\nonumber\\

654: d\Phi_3(k_1;k_2,k_3,k_4) &=& \frac{d^3k_2}{(2\pi)^3 2k_2^0} \frac{d^3k_3}

655: {(2\pi)^3 2k_3^0} \frac{d^3k_4}{(2\pi)^3 2k_4^0} (2\pi)^4

656: \delta^{(4)}(k_1-k_2-k_3-k_4),

657: \end{eqnarray}

658: where $k_1(k_2)$ is the momentum of the top( charm) quark and

659: $k_3,k_4$ the momenta of the

660: gluon pair. The volume element can further be expressed as

661: \begin{eqnarray}

662: d\Phi_3(k_1;k_2,k_3,k_4) = \frac{1}{32\pi^3}\int_{(k_3^0)^{\rm min}}^{(k_3^0)

663: ^{\rm max}}dk_3^0\int_{(k_2^0)^{\rm min}}^{(k_2^0)^{\rm max}}dk_2^0,

664: \end{eqnarray}

665: where the limits are

666: \begin{eqnarray}

667: (k_2^0)^{\rm min} &=& {\rm Max}\left[C m_t,\frac{\sigma-|{\bf

668: k}_3|}{2}\right],\nonumber\\

669: (k_2^0)^{\rm max} &=& \frac{\sigma+|{\bf

670: k}_3|}{2}(1-2C),\nonumber\\

671: (k_3^0)^{\rm min} &=& C m_t,\nonumber\\

672: (k_3^0)^{\rm max} &=& \frac{m_t}{2}(1-2C),

673:      \end{eqnarray}

674:       with $\sigma = m_t -k_3^0$. In addition, $C$ is the cutoff parameter,

675:     chosen nonzero to avoid infrared and collinear singularities

676:     \cite{EFTSM}.  For the numerical calculations in the rest of our study

677: we fix  $C= 0.1$, which is large enough to be able to reach the jet

678: energy  resolution sensitivity of the LHC detector. The results are sensitive to the choice of the $C$ parameter; we find that by decreasing $C$ to $0.01$, $BR(t \to cgg)$ can increase by a factor of 2-4. 

679: 

680: The total decay width of the top quark is taken to be $\Gamma_t=1.55$ GeV. The

681: parameters  used in our numerical evaluation are given in

682: Table~\ref{parameters}.

683: \begin{table}[htb]

684: 	\caption{\texttt{The parameters used in the numerical

685: calculation.}}\label{parameters}

686: \begin{center}

687:         \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c}

688: %   \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Parameters} &

689: %              \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Value}

690:         \hline\hline

691: $\alpha_s(m_t)$ &\hspace*{1cm} $\alpha(m_t)$ &\hspace*{1cm}

692: $\sin\theta_W(m_t)$ &\hspace*{1cm} $m_c(m_t)$ &\hspace*{1cm}

693: $m_b(m_t)$ &\hspace*{1cm} $m_t(m_t)$\\

694: \hline

695:       0.106829  &\hspace*{1cm}   0.007544    &\hspace*{1cm}  0.22

696: &\hspace*{1cm}  0.63 GeV  &\hspace*{1cm}  2.85 GeV &\hspace*{1cm}

697: 174.3 GeV  \\

698: \hline \hline

699: \end{tabular}

700: \end{center}

701: \end{table}

702: 

703: The MSSM parameters $M_{\rm {SUSY}},\, M_2,\, m_{A^0},\, \mu, A$, and

704: $\tan\beta$ are chosen as

705: free for the constrained MSSM and

706: the SUSY-GUT mass relations are assumed.\footnote{The existence of a

707: GUT theory at Planck

708: scale leads to relations among

709: gaugino mass parameters of the form $$M_1=(5s_W^2/3c_W^2)M_2 =

710: (5\alpha/3c_W^2\alpha_s)m_{\tilde{g}}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\alpha_s$

711: are running coupling

712: constants.} (This is the first scenario we consider). Inclusion of

713: the flavor violating parameters $\delta$'s among second and third

714: generation squarks (the unconstrained MSSM) adds eight more free

715: parameters. Imposing SUSY-GUT

716: relations favors a heavy gluino, which decreases the gluino

717: contributions for both

718: processes under consideration, $t\to cg(g)$ and $gg\to t\bar{c}$, and

719: which enhances chargino

720: contributions, since the lightest chargino becomes much lighter than gluino.

721: 

722: As a second scenario we consider the constrained and unconstrained MSSM

723: without imposing SUSY-GUT relations. In this case,

724: we run the $U(1)$ gaugino mass parameter $M_1$ and the gluino mass

725: $M_{\tilde{g}}$

726: separately.\footnote{We still keep the relation between $M_1$

727: and $M_2$, rather than fixing them independently, since this

728: does not affect significantly the final results.} Thus the two

729: scenarios we

730:     concentrate on are MSSM with, and MSSM without, SUSY-GUT relations.

731: 

732: Given the still large number of parameters in either of these

733: scenarios, the parameter space

734: needs to be reduced by making further assumptions. So, for

735: simplicity, we assume

736: that the soft SUSY-breaking parameters in the squark sector are set to the

737: common value

738: $M_{\rm {SUSY}}$. In addition to this, the trilinear linear terms

739: $A_{u_i}$ and $A_{d_i}$ are

740: chosen to be real and equal to each other and $\mu$ is also taken to

741: be real and positive.

742: 

743: In the case of flavor violating MSSM, only the mixing between the second and

744: the third

745: generations is turned on, and the dimensionless parameters

746: $\delta$'s run over as much of  the interval

747: (0,1) as allowed.\footnote{Even though $\delta$'s are allowed to be

748: negative, we run them in the

749: positive region.} The allowed upper limits of $\delta$'s are

750: constrained by the requirement that

751: $m_{\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{d}_i}>0$ and  consistent with the experimental

752: lower bounds (depending on the chosen values of

753: $M_{\rm {SUSY}},

754: A, \tan\beta$, and $\mu$).  We

755: assume a lower bound of $96$ GeV for all up squark masses and $90$ GeV

756: for the down squark masses \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. The Higgs

757: masses are calculated with

758: \texttt{FeynHiggs} \cite{feynhiggs}, with the requirement

759: that the lightest neutral

760: Higgs mass is larger than $114$ GeV.  Other experimental bounds

761: included are  \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}: $96$ GeV for the

762: lightest chargino,

763: $46$ GeV the lightest neutralino, and $195$ GeV for the gluino.

764: Throughout the paper, only

765: $m_{A^0}$ and $A$ are fixed globally in the decay and production

766: separately, $m_{A^0}=400$

767: GeV and $A=620$ GeV  in the decay process $t\to cgg$ (and $t\to cg$

768: as well) and

769: $m_{A^0}=500$ GeV and $A=400$ GeV, respectively, in the single top

770: production process $gg\to

771: t\bar{c}$.

772: %%%%%%% FIG. 6: %%%%%%%

773: \begin{figure}[htb]

774: \vspace{0.05in}

775:          \centerline{\hspace*{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

776: {\epsfbox{tc23GUT_DLL.eps}} \hspace{-0.01cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

777: {\epsfbox{tc23GUT_DLRRL.eps}} }

778: \vskip -0.2in

779:         \caption{\texttt{Left panel: Branching ratios of

780: $t\to cgg$ and $t\to cg$ decays as

781: functions of $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LL}$ with the assumption that GUT

782: relations hold. Right panel:

783: Branching ratios as functions of

784: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LR}=(\delta^{23}_D)_{RL}$

785: under the same conditions. The parameters are chosen as

786: $\tan\beta=10$, $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=300$

787: GeV, $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV.}}\label{fig:tcggD}

788: \end{figure}

789: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

790: 

791: The rest of the section is devoted to the presentation of our results

792: for the three body decay $t\to cgg$

793: and the comparison with the two body channel $t\to cg$, both within the

794: MSSM framework.

795: Since the flavor violating parameters $\delta$'s play very

796: important role in both

797: decays (both are flavor-violating rare top decay

798: channels), we vary them by keeping

799: only a single flavor off-diagonal element non-zero unless otherwise stated. In

800: this section,

801: $\tan\beta = 10$ is chosen in all figures except for

802: Fig.~\ref{fig:tcggTB}, where

803: the dependence of the $\rm BR$'s on $\tan\beta$ are shown.

804: Furthermore, the common SUSY

805: scale $M_{\rm {SUSY}} = 300$ GeV; $M_2=200$ GeV, and $\mu=200$ GeV

806: are chosen and fixed

807: globally in this section. Since we are only interested in the relative

808: size of the $ BR(t\to

809: cgg)$ with respect to $ BR(t\to cg)$, we consider the scenario of

810: MSSM with GUT

811: gaugino mass relations for illustration purposes, and present the

812: case without GUT mass relations in one figure at

813: the end of the section, namely Fig.~\ref{fig:tcggNoGUT}.

814: 

815: Fig.~\ref{fig:tcggD} shows the branching ratios  of the

816: decays $t\to cgg$ and $t\to cg$ as functions of

817: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LL}$ on the left panel, and as functions of

818: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LR}=(\delta^{23}_D)_{RL}$ on the right panel. Since

819: the flavor off-diagonal $\delta$'s in the up sector are switched off,

820: these figures

821: show chargino-only contributions. As seen from the panels, $

822: BR(t\to cgg)$ is  almost

823: two orders of magnitude larger than

824: $ BR(t\to cg)$ in most of the parameter space, and especially for

825: small $\delta^{23}_D$, up to

826: $\delta^{23}_D\sim 0.4$. As

827: $\delta^{23}_D$'s become larger, $ BR(t\to cg)$ increases rapidly

828: and  becomes larger than $ BR(t\to cgg)$ for $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LL}\ge

829: 0.6$

830:   for left-panel and  for $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LR}\ge 0.8$ for the right

831: panel.

832:   The maximum value reached is around $10^{-7}$

833: for non-zero

834: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LL}$ and $10^{-8}$ for the special case

835: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{LR}=(\delta^{23}_D)_{RL}$. (Note that $t\to cg$ can get

836: even larger in this part of the phase space).

837:    These two figures

838: demonstrate explicitly

839: that $t\to cgg$ is larger than $t\to cg$ over most of the parameter

840: space. We have checked the

841: dependence of $ BR(t\to cgg)$  and $ BR(t\to cg)$ on

842: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{RR}$ and

843: observed that $ BR(t\to cgg)$ remains two orders of magnitude

844: larger than $ BR(t\to

845: cg)$ for the most part of the interval, while the sensitivity to

846: $(\delta^{23}_D)_{RR}$ variations is not as pronounced as in the

847: (depicted) $LL$ and

848: $LR,~RL$ cases. In this case,

849: $ BR(t\to cg)$ can reach a few times $10^{{-9}}$.

850: %%%%% FIG. 7: %%%%%%%

851: \begin{figure}[htb]

852: \vspace{0.05in}

853:          \centerline{\hspace*{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

854: {\epsfbox{tc23GUT_ULL.eps}} \hspace{-0.01cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

855: {\epsfbox{tc23GUT_URR.eps}} }

856: \vskip -0.2in

857:           \caption{\texttt{Left panel: Branching ratios of

858: $t\to cgg$ and $t\to cg$ decays as

859: functions of $(\delta^{23}_U)_{LL}$ with the assumption that GUT

860: relations hold. Right panel:

861: Branching ratios as functions of $(\delta^{23}_U)_{RR}$

862: under the same

863: conditions. The parameters are chosen as $\tan\beta=10$, $M_{\rm

864: {SUSY}}=300$ GeV,

865: $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV.}}\label{fig:tcggU}

866: \end{figure}

867: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

868: 

869: In Fig.~\ref{fig:tcggU}, the $(\delta^{23}_U)_{LL}$ and $(\delta^{23}_U)_{RR}$

870: dependence of the branching ratios of $t\to cgg$ and $t\to cg$ decays

871: are

872: shown on the left and right panels, respectively. Since the GUT

873: relations are assumed to hold,

874: the gluino mass is rather heavy, about $600$ GeV, when $M_2$ is chosen as

875: $200$ GeV. The two

876: orders of magnitude difference between the $\rm BR$'s for the flavor conserving

877: MSSM disappear once we

878: introduce a small flavor violation ($\sim 0.1$) between the second and

879: third generations in

880: the up squark sector, which holds for either  $LL$ or $RR$ case.  The

881: branching ratio of

882: $t\to cg$  exceeds that of $t\to cgg$ for $\delta^{23}_U\ge 0.1$. The

883: maximum attainable branching ratio for

884: $t\to cg$ is around $10^{-7}$, and for $t\to cgg$, $10^{-8}-10^{-7}$  

885: which represents two orders of

886: magnitude enhancement for

887: $t\to cgg$, and more than $4$ orders of magnitude enhancement for

888: $t\to cg$, with respect to the

889: constrained case. The case of

890: $(\delta^{23}_U)_{LR}=(\delta^{23}_U)_{RL}$ is very similar to the case

891: with non-zero $(\delta^{23}_U)_{LL}$ (left panel) or

892: $(\delta^{23}_U)_{RR}$ (right panel).

893: %%%%% FIG. 8: %%%%%

894: \begin{figure}[htb]

895: \vspace{0.05in}

896:          \centerline{\hspace*{-1.3cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

897: {\epsfbox{tc23GUT_TB.eps}} }

898: \vskip -0.2in

899:          \caption{\texttt{The branching ratios of $t\to cgg$ and $t\to

900: cg$ decays as functions of

901: $\tan\beta$ with the assumption that GUT relations hold. It is

902: further assumed that all

903: flavor off-diagonal parameters $\delta$'s are zero in both the up and down

904: sectors (constrained MSSM). The other

905: parameters are chosen as $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=300$ GeV, $M_2=\mu=200$

906: GeV.}}\label{fig:tcggTB}

907: \end{figure}

908: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

909: 

910: Fig.~\ref{fig:tcggTB} shows the $\tan\beta$ dependence of the decays with

911: zero flavor off-diagonal parameters $\delta=0$ for $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=300$ GeV,

912: $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV. For the decay $t\to cgg$, the SUSY contribution

913: comes from the chargino sector in the

914:    MSSM (there are no gluino or neutralino contributions.)

915:      Overall the  SM contribution dominates over the MSSM one and the 

916: $\tan\beta$

917: dependence is insignificant, as

918: expected, since the constrained MSSM gives smaller contributions

919: than the SM to FCNC decays

920: at one-loop level. There is a mild dependence on $\tan\beta$ for $t\to cg$

921: decay in the very large $\tan\beta$ region ($\ge 25$). In addition to

922: that, we analyzed the case

923: with non-zero

924: $\delta$'s as well and, for example, for $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL}=0.4$,

925: we obtain $ BR(t\to

926: cgg)$ almost two orders of magnitude larger than $ BR(t\to cg)$ in the entire

927: $\tan\beta$ interval

928: considered.

929: %%%%% FIG. 9: %%%%%

930: \begin{figure}[htb]

931: \vspace{0.05in}

932:          \centerline{\hspace*{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

933: {\epsfbox{tc23NoGUT200_ULL.eps}} \hspace{-0.01cm} \epsfxsize 3.1in

934: {\epsfbox{tc23NoGUT300_ULL.eps}} }

935: \vskip -0.2in

936:          \caption{\texttt{The branching ratios of $t\to cgg$ and $t\to

937: cg$ decays as functions of

938: $(\delta^{23}_U)_{LL}$ without GUT relations for $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$

939: GeV, on the left panel,

940: and  $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV, on the right panel. The parameters are

941: chosen as $\tan\beta=10$,

942: $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=300$ GeV, $M_2=\mu=200$ GeV.}}\label{fig:tcggNoGUT}

943: \end{figure}

944: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

945: 

946: The last figure of the section, Fig.~\ref{fig:tcggNoGUT}, presents

947: the dependence of the branching ratios on the SUSY flavor-violating

948: parameters in the MSSM without

949: SUSY-GUT relations. For illustration, we present the

950: $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL}$ dependence of the

951: $BR$'s for the gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV on the left panel,

952: and for $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$

953: GeV on the right panel. The other parameters are chosen the same as

954: before, $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=300$

955: GeV, $M_2=\mu=200$. As seen from the figure, the relative difference

956: between the decays

957: not only disappears immediately after switching $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL}$ on

958: (more precisely, for $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL}\ge 0.01$) but

959: also $t\to cg$ exceeds $t\to cgg$ with a constant factor of 5. This is a

960: gluino dominated case which favors the two-body decay $t\to cg$ over the

961: three body decay.  The decay $t\to cg$ can get as large as

962: $10^{-5}$ for $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV and $10^{-6}$ for

963: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV.

964: 

965:   From the analysis in this section, it is fair to say that the

966: branching ratio for the three

967: body $t\to cgg$ decay dominates largely over the one for the two body

968: $t\to cg$ mode for the flavor

969: conserving MSSM scenario with

970: SUSY-GUT relations, and remains larger even if non-zero

971: flavor off-diagonal parameters in the

972:   down squark sector are turned on.  Such dominance is

973:   valid only for

974: relatively small flavor violating parameter in the up

975: squark sector ($(\delta_U^{23})_{LL} < 0.1$).

976:   Our

977: results here show that the $t\to

978: cgg$ channel gives a larger contribution (and may be easier to

979: access) than $t\to cg$

980: channel over most of the parameter space if the flavor

981: violation originated from the down squark sector.

982: 

983: The predictions of the constrained MSSM

984: (without intergenerational squark mixings)  are similar to the

985: SM ones. Thus the existence of such SUSY FCNC mixings, directly related

986: to the  SUSY breaking mechanism, is crucial for the enhancement of the

987: branching ratios.

988: 

989: Another motivation for

990: considering $t\to cgg$ is the issue of single top quark production,

991: which is one of today's

992: challenging task at colliders. If $t\to cgg$ is a promising channel

993: with respect to

994: $t\to cg$ \footnote{The observability of $t\to cgg$ at LHC will be

995: briefly discussed at the end of the Section \ref{sec:production}. }, the next

996: question  would be what are the consequences of this for the single

997: top quark searches at colliders. For this purpose,

998: $gg\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c$ needs to be considered.

999:    Gluons will become very important and abundant at the

1000: LHC, which reaches very

1001: high energies. Therefore, the rest of the paper is devoted to the

1002: consideration of the $pp\to

1003: t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X$ cross section at LHC, within the flavor-violating MSSM, by

1004: assuming only the gluon fusion contribution at partonic level.

1005: 

1006: 

1007: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1008: \section{$pp \to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X$ at LHC}\label{sec:production}

1009: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1010: 

1011: Having discussed the decay mode $t \to cgg$ and shown that it is a

1012: more promising signal than $t \to cg$ in the previous section,

1013: we consider here the top-charm associated production  via

1014: gluon fusion $gg\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c$ at the partonic level. Since, at

1015: the LHC, TeV or even higher-scale energies are going to be probed,

1016: gluons inside the proton will become very important. This process, as

1017: well as other channels involving light quarks,  has been considered

1018: by Liu et. al \cite{Liu:2004bb} in the unconstrained MSSM driven by

1019: SUSY-QCD contributions only. Their results show clearly

1020: that $t\bar{c}$ production through gluon fusion is the dominant

1021: channel over the ones involving light quarks

1022: $q\bar{q}^{\prime},\,\,q,q^{\prime}=u,c,d,s$. For example, $87\%$ of

1023: the total hadronic cross section $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$

1024: comes from the partonic channel $gg\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c$ for

1025: $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL,RR}=0.7$ \cite{Liu:2004bb}. We

1026: agree with their results presented in \cite{Liu:2004bb} once we make

1027: the required

1028: modifications to the input parameters.

1029: 

1030: Here, we present the complete calculation of the hadronic cross

1031: section $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ at LHC by including all

1032: one-loop contributions. In addition to the gluino, the chargino,

1033: neutralino, and charged Higgs loops as well as the SM part is

1034: included. The full set of Feynman diagrams contributing to the

1035: process at one-loop level through gluino, chargino, neutralino, and

1036: Higgs loops is given respectively in

1037: Figs.~\ref{fig:gluino},~\ref{fig:chargino},~\ref{fig:neutralino}, and

1038: \ref{fig:higgs} in the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge. As mentioned in the

1039: previous section, we did not display here the SM diagrams available in our

1040: previous paper \cite{EFTSM} for the $t \to cgg$ decay case. Note that, as

1041: mentioned before, working in

1042: the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge for this process requires the inclusion of

1043: QCD ghost diagrams,  represented  in Fig.~\ref{fig:ghost}.

1044: 

1045: The partonic level

1046: differential cross section for $gg\to t\bar{c}$  can be

1047: expressed as

1048: \begin{eqnarray}

1049: d{\hat{\sigma}} &=&

1050: \frac{1}{32\pi^2\hat{s}^{3/2}}|p|_{\rm {out}}|{\cal M}|^2

1051: d\Omega_3,\nonumber\\

1052: |p|_{\rm {out}}^2 &=&

1053: \frac{(\hat{s}+m_t^2)^2}{4\hat{s}}-m_t^2

1054: \end{eqnarray}

1055: where $\Omega_3$ is

1056: the angular volume of the third particle and $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ is the

1057: partonic center of mass energy.\footnote{For simplicity we assumed

1058: $m_c$ zero in our analytical, but not in numerical, estimates.} The

1059: matrix squared $|{\cal M}|^2$ can be

1060: calculated by using the expressions,  for $t\to cgg$

1061: by simply using the {\it crossing symmetry} (see

1062: for example \cite{peskin}). Then, the hadronic cross section is

1063: obtained by convoluting the partonic cross section with the parton

1064: distribution functions (PDF's), $f_{g/p}$. So, the total hadronic cross

1065: section reads

1066: \begin{eqnarray}

1067: \sigma =\int_{\xi_0}^1\,d\xi

1068: \frac{d{\cal L}}{d\xi}\hat{\sigma}(\xi s,

1069: \alpha_s\left(\mu_R\right))

1070: \end{eqnarray}

1071: where $\hat{\sigma}(\xi

1072: {s}, \alpha_s\left(\mu_R\right))$ is the total partonic cross section

1073: at the center of mass energy $\sqrt{\hat{s}}=\sqrt{\xi s}$

1074: ($\sqrt{s}$ is the hadronic center of mass energy) depending on the

1075: renormalization scale $\mu_R$. Here $\xi_0$ defines the production

1076: threshold of the process. The parton luminosity is defined as

1077: 

1078: \begin{eqnarray}

1079: \label{limunosity}

1080: \frac{d{\cal

1081: L}}{d\xi}=\int_{\xi}^1\frac{dx}{x}f_{g/p}(x,\mu_F)f_{g/p}(\xi/x,\mu_F)

1082: \end{eqnarray}

1083: where

1084: $\mu_F$ is the factorization scale, which is assumed to be equal to

1085: the renormalization scale $\mu_R$ in our numerical analysis. If one

1086: needs to sum over all

1087: possible partonic subprocesses contributing to the particular final

1088: state, there will be a sum over PDF's in  Eq.~(\ref{limunosity}).

1089: 

1090: We

1091: assume that the top quark in the final state will be reconstructed

1092: from events and thus it is a physical observable. Of course, to

1093: identify the hadronic final state requires making a series of cuts on

1094: the transverse momentum $p_T$ of the top and charm quarks, the

1095: rapidity $\eta$,  and the jet separation $\Delta R_{34}$. The

1096: following set is used for the

1097: cuts

1098: \begin{eqnarray}

1099: p_{T_c},p_{T_t}\ge 15\, {\rm

1100: GeV}\;\;\;\;\eta_c,\eta_t\le 2.5\;\;\;\;\Delta R_{34} \ge 0.4.

1101: \end{eqnarray}

1102: Their

1103: effect is  translated into cuts on the limits of $\xi$ in

1104: the calculation of the partonic cross section. For the transformation

1105: of the initial partons to initial hadrons,

1106: the program \texttt{HadCalc} \cite{hadcalc} was used, incorporating the

1107: Les Houche Accord Parton Density Function library (LHAPDF) version

1108: 4.2 \cite{Giele:2002hx} with the recent data set CTEQ6AB

1109: \cite{Pumplin:2005rh}.

1110: 

1111: For the numerical calculations, we have

1112: chosen as input parameter the values  $m_{A^0}=500$ GeV, $A=400$ GeV.

1113: In addition the hadronic

1114: center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}=14$ GeV is taken for the LHC. The factorization

1115: and renormalization scales  are chosen as the production threshold of

1116: the process

1117: ($\mu_F=\mu_R=174.93$ GeV).

1118: 

1119: We

1120: discuss the dependence of the total hadronic cross section of $gg\to

1121: t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c$ process, $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$, on

1122: various MSSM parameters for certain $\delta$ values in scenarios with

1123: and without GUT relations. Note that for simplicity we assume a

1124: common $\delta$ parameter in the up and down sector $(\delta_{U,

1125: D}^{23})_{LL}=(\delta_{U, D}^{23})_{RR}=(\delta_{U,

1126: D}^{23})_{LR}=(\delta_{U, D}^{23})_{RL}$ and only one (U {\it or} D)

1127: non-zero at a time.  At the end of this section we discuss the relative

1128: magnitude of the contributions coming from the gluino, chargino, and

1129: the rest.

1130: \begin{figure}[htb]

1131: \vspace{0.05in}

1132: \centerline{\hspace*{-0.9cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1133: {\epsfbox{ggtcMSSM_U_MSusy.eps}} \hspace{-1.2cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1134: {\epsfbox{ggtcMSSM_D_MSusy.eps}} }

1135: \vskip -0.2in

1136: \caption{\texttt{The total hadronic cross section $\sigma(pp\to

1137: t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ via gluon fusion as a function of $M_{\rm

1138: {SUSY}}$ for $\tan\beta=5$, $\mu=250$ GeV, $M_2=200$ GeV, and

1139: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV. On the left panel, $\delta_U^{23}=0.4$ is

1140: chosen and compared with the constrained MSSM case $\delta_U^{23}=0$.

1141: The same is

1142: shown on the right panel for $\delta_D^{23}=0.5$.}}

1143: \label{fig:ggtcMsusy}

1144: \end{figure}

1145: \begin{figure}[htb]

1146: \vspace{0.05in}

1147: \centerline{\hspace*{-0.9cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1148: {\epsfbox{ggtcMSSM_U_MGl.eps}} \hspace{-1.2cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1149: {\epsfbox{ggtcMSSM_UD_TB.eps}} }

1150: \vskip -0.2in

1151: \caption{\texttt{On the left panel, the total hadronic cross section

1152: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ via gluon fusion as a function of

1153: $m_{\tilde{g}}$ for $\tan\beta=5$, $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=\mu=250$ GeV, and

1154: $M_2=200$ GeV at various $\rm (\delta_U^{23})_{AB}, ~A,B =L,R$. On

1155: the right panel, $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ as a function of

1156: $\tan\beta$ at various $\delta_{U,D}^{23}$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}$

1157: values.}}\label{fig:ggtcMGlTB}

1158: \end{figure}

1159: \begin{figure}[htb]

1160: \vspace{-0.1in}

1161: \centerline{\hspace*{-0.9cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1162: {\epsfbox{ggtcMSSM_U_MUE.eps}} \hspace{-1.2cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1163: {\epsfbox{ggtcMSSMGUT_UD_M2.eps}} }

1164: \vskip -0.2in

1165: \caption{\texttt{On the left panel, the total hadronic cross section

1166: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ via gluon fusion as a function of

1167: $\mu$ for $\tan\beta=5$, $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=250$ GeV, $M_2=200$ GeV,

1168: and $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV at various $\rm (\delta_U^{23})_{AB}, A,B

1169: =L,R$. On the right panel, $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ as a

1170: function of $M_2$ at various $(\delta_{U,D}^{23})_{AB}$ with GUT

1171: mass relations.}}\label{fig:ggMUEM2}

1172: \end{figure}

1173: 

1174: Fig.~\ref{fig:ggtcMsusy} shows

1175: the $M_{\rm {SUSY}}$ dependence of the total hadronic cross section

1176: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$  for  $\tan\beta=5$,

1177: $\mu=250$ GeV, $M_2=200$ GeV, and $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV. On the

1178: left panel, there are two curves, for $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0$, and

1179: $0.4$. The cross section depends very weakly on $M_{\rm {SUSY}}$ and,

1180: for the constrained MSSM case, the SM contribution is the dominant

1181: one. There is an enhancement of more than 6

1182: orders of magnitude in the unconstrained MSSM over the

1183: constrained one, and the cross section can be as large  as $15$ fb

1184: for $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0.4$. In the down sector, shown on the

1185: right panel, the sensitivity of $\sigma$ to $M_{\rm {SUSY}}$ is quite

1186: strong, and there is an enhancement of about two orders of magnitude

1187: in the interval $250-1000$

1188: GeV. There are still $2-4$ orders of magnitude difference between the

1189: constrained MSSM  versus the unconstrained MSSM scenarios at

1190: $(\delta_D^{23})_{AB}=0.5$. The maximum cross section is around $0.1$

1191: fb at around $M_{\rm {SUSY}}\sim 250$ GeV.

1192: 

1193: In

1194: Fig.~\ref{fig:ggtcMGlTB}, on the left panel, the total cross section

1195: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ is shown as a function of the

1196: gluino mass for various $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}$ values. Again the

1197: constrained MSSM case is dominated by the SM contribution, while for

1198: the unconstrained MSSM,  $\sigma\sim 45$ fb for $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$

1199: GeV and $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0.4$, which is more than 7 orders of

1200: magnitude larger than for the case with $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0$. On the

1201: right panel, the $\tan\beta$ dependence of the total cross section is

1202: shown for $\mu=250$ GeV, $M_2=200$ GeV, and $m_{\tilde{g}}=200,300$,

1203: $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0, 0.4$, and $(\delta_D^{23})_{AB}=0.5$. For

1204: very large $\tan\beta$ values, the cross section reaches 0.001 fb in

1205: the constrained MSSM, while in the unconstrained case, for

1206: $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0.4$ and $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV, a cross

1207: section of $60$ fb is obtained. For $(\delta_U^{23})_{AB}=0.5$ and

1208: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV, the cross section under these conditions

1209: reaches a few fb.

1210: 

1211:    Fig.~\ref{fig:ggMUEM2} illustrates the $\mu$ (on the left

1212: panel) and $M_2$ (on the right panel) dependences of the total

1213: hadronic cross section $\sigma$ for representative values of

1214: $(\delta_{U,D}^{23})_{AB}$. The parameters are $\tan\beta=5$, $M_{\rm

1215: {SUSY}}=250$ GeV, $M_2=200$ GeV, and $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV for the

1216: left panel, and

1217: $\tan\beta=5$, $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=\mu=250$ GeV, and

1218: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV for the right panel.

1219: For non-zero

1220: $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}$,

1221: the cross-section $\sigma$ is not sensitive to $\mu$ and

1222: remains around $15$ fb,

1223: but it decreases significantly with $M_2$ in

1224: the interval $M_2 \in [150-1000]$ GeV, if there is a non-zero $\delta$

1225: in either the up or down sector. The cross section ranges between 10 fb

1226: to 0.1 fb for $M_2=150$ GeV and $1000$ GeV, respectively, for

1227: $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}=0.4$, and between $0.1$ fb to $0.001$ fb for

1228: $(\delta_{D}^{23})_{AB}=0.5$.

1229: \begin{table}[htb]

1230: 	\caption{\texttt{Relative contributions to the total cross

1231: section $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$, in fb, with and without GUT

1232: mass relations.

1233: $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}=(\delta_{D}^{23})_{AB}=0,\,0.2,\,0.4,\,\,A,B=L,R$

1234: is considered. The rest of the parameters are $A=400$ GeV,

1235: $\tan\beta=10$, $M_{\rm

1236: {SUSY}}=\mu=250$ GeV and $M_2=200$ GeV. For the case without GUT,

1237: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV is used and $(\delta_{U,D}^{23})_{AB}$ are

1238: given in brackets.}}

1239: 	\label{compare}

1240: \begin{center}

1241:     \begin{tabular*}{1\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} l l l l}

1242: % \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Parameters} &

1243: % \multicolumn{7}{|c|}{Value}

1244: \hline\hline

1245: $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}=(\delta_{D}^{23})_{AB}\;\;$  & 0

1246: & 0.2 (No GUT) &  0.4 (No GUT)\\

1247: \hline\hline

1248:     Gluino loop &  0  &

1249: 1.09 (4.05)    & 3.07 (14.13)  \\

1250: Chargino loop &    $1.77 10^{-5}$

1251: &      0.0052                        &         0.034 \\

1252: The rest

1253: &     $6.10 10^{-6}$      &      0.0025                       &

1254: 0.017  \\

1255: \hline

1256: \hline

1257: \end{tabular*}

1258: \end{center}

1259: \end{table}

1260: 

1261: Before concluding, we comment on the relative contributions of the gluino,

1262: chargino, and the rest (namely, neutralino, charged Higgs, and SM

1263: contributions) to the total cross section. In Table~\ref{compare}, we

1264:    show the relative contributions to $\sigma(pp\to

1265: t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ from gluino, chargino, and the rest, in the MSSM

1266: with GUT mass relations (the case without GUT mass relations is shown for

1267: $m_{\tilde{g}}=300$ GeV in brackets if different). For simplicity we

1268: set  $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}=(\delta_{D}^{23})_{AB},\, A,B=L,R$ and

1269: the values $0,~ 0.2,$ and $0.4$ are considered. The other parameters

1270: are $A=400$ GeV, $\tan\beta=10$, $M_{\rm {SUSY}}=\mu=250$ GeV and

1271: $M_2=200$ GeV. The case in which no GUT relations between gaugino

1272: masses are imposed corresponds (in our analysis) to the case in which

1273: the gluino mass is allowed to be smaller. This is the reason why only the

1274: gluino contributions  are enhanced in this scenario. The gluino

1275: contributions are also dominant for the case in which GUT relations

1276: are imposed, and the chargino contributions are two orders of

1277: magnitude smaller.

1278: However, one could envisage a case in which the

1279: SUSY FCNC parameters $(\delta_{D}^{23})_{AB}$ are allowed to be

1280: large, while the ones in the up sector restricted to be small or

1281: zero, in which the chargino contribution could be

1282: dominant. In the case of the constrained MSSM only chargino loops contribute.

1283: \begin{figure}[htb]

1284: \vspace{-0.1in}

1285: \centerline{\hspace*{-0.9cm} \epsfxsize 3.5in

1286: {\epsfbox{best_gl_u00.out.eps}}}

1287: \vskip -0.2in

1288: \caption{\texttt{The total hadronic cross section

1289: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ via gluon fusion as a function of

1290: $(\delta_U^{23})_{LR}$ (other flavor violating parameters are assumed zero)

1291: for $\tan\beta=30$, $m_{A^0}=500$ GeV,

1292: $A=300$ GeV, $\mu=M_{\rm {SUSY}}=400$ GeV, $M_2=200$ GeV,

1293: and $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV.}}\label{fig:best}

1294: \end{figure}

1295: 

1296: 

1297:    So far, we have considered a common flavor

1298: violation in the LL, LR, RL, and RR sectors of sfermion matrix.

1299: However, one could

1300: analyze  the relative effects of flavor violation in each sector and determine

1301: how large their contribution to the  cross section could be. If the

1302: flavor violation comes only from the up sector,

1303: then $(\delta_U^{23})_{LR}$ is the most sensitive parameter, as shown in

1304: Fig.~\ref{fig:best}

1305:    where we took the parameter values $m_{A^0}=500$ GeV, $\mu=M_{\rm

1306: SUSY}=400$ GeV, $A=300$ GeV,

1307: $m_{\tilde{g}}=200$ GeV, and $\tan\beta=30$. Of course this is only

1308: one of the best possible scenarios. As seen from the figure, the

1309: total cross section can be

1310: as big as $630$ fb and the gluino contribution becomes dominant if

1311: there exist a large flavor

1312: violation in the up LR sector between the second and third

1313: generations. If the flavor

1314: violation comes only from the down sector, $(\delta_D^{23})_{LL}$

1315: gives the largest contributions.

1316: In this case the cross section is dominated by chargino contribution

1317: and  can be as large as $0.4$ fb

1318: with the same parameter values.

1319: 

1320: 

1321:   Finally, we would like to qualitatively comment on the observability

1322: of both the decay and the production channels of the top quark considered here.

1323: The rare decay $t\to cgg$ can in general be treated twofold way: one can either

1324: treat it inclusively  with $t\to cg$ or consider it as a separate channel.

1325: The former means that $t\to cgg$ is taken as QCD-correction to $t\to cg$ by

1326:   assuring that two of three final state jets are collinear so that

1327: only two can be resolved in the detector. The latter can be a

1328: competitive possibility if $BR(t\to cgg)$ is significantly larger than that

1329: of $t\to cg$.  In here, and in our previous work \cite{EFTSM},

1330: we conclude that $t\to cgg$ could be potentially more significant than the

1331: two-body decay channel in the SM \cite{EFTSM} and in some

1332: part of the MSSM  parameter space. However, this should be

1333: taken with a dose of caution. Collinearity should be

1334: avoided by applying certain cuts.  The unphysical C-parameter introduced in

1335: the phase space  here plays an

1336: essential role to distinguish $t\to cg$ from $t\to cgg$. Even though in our

1337: explorations we considered several values of C, C must be taken

1338:   in the range  of jet energy

1339: resolution of the upcoming LHC detector. For $C\ll 0.1$,  $t\to cgg$

1340: dominates over  $t\to cg$ for a larger parameter space, thus availability of

1341: better jet resolution would give an opportunity to detect $t\to cgg$ before

1342: $t\to cg$.

1343: 

1344: At LHC, predominantly $t\bar{t}$ pairs are produced. If we consider 

1345: one of the top quarks

1346: decay mainly as

1347:   $t\to bW$ and the other one exotically as $t\to cgg$, then  the 

1348: signal would be

1349: $pp\to t\bar{t}\to (l\nu)ggc{\bar b}$ (4-jets, a lepton and missing energy), 

1350: where $l=e,\mu$.\footnote

1351: {Considering the W decay hadronically would produce a 6 jet final 

1352: state, requiring

1353: determination of the multi-jet trigger threshold.} For the single 

1354: lepton plus jet topology,

1355: it is possible to reconstruct the final state fully, and the b-quark can be

1356: tagged to obtain  a cleaner signal, which introduces extra selection 

1357: efficiency. We assume $\sigma(pp\to t{\bar t})=800$ pb at LHC and also that the W boson decays leptonically, not hadronically. Under this conditions, one can calculate roughly the total expected(raw) number of events as

1358: $$N=\sigma(pp \to t{\bar t})\times BR({\bar t}\to{\bar b} W)\times BR(W\to l\nu)\times L\times BR(t\to cgg)\,,$$

1359: where $L$ is the integrated luminosity which we take as 100 fb$^{-1}$. Therefore we have

1360: $N = 800\times 10^3\times 1 \times (2/9)\times 100\times BR(t \to cgg)

1361:   = (1.77\times10^7)\times BR(t\to cgg)$.   So, one expects around $(1.8\times 10^7)\times{BR}(t\to cgg)$ lepton+4 jets events

1362: for an integrated

1363:   luminosity $100 fb^{-1}$. However, counting a total efficiency including

1364: trigger efficiency,  selection efficiency, as well as detector geometrical

1365: acceptance, one would approximate a  total efficiency around 1\% \cite{brigitte}. Thus, the

1366: number reduces to $(1.8\times 10^5)\times{BR}(t\to cgg)$.  So, if the flavor

1367: violation comes from the down squark sector, then for  most part of the

1368: parameter  space $t\to cgg$ would dominate over $t\to cg$ by around 

1369: two orders of

1370: magnitude, but both will remain unobserved because lepton+jets events are

1371: less than a single event. If the flavor violation comes from up-squark sector, then

1372: $t\to cg$ dominates and can reach $10^{-5}$ level for light gluino scenarios,

1373: which might lead an observable  event rate around 1.8. Should the integrated luminosity increase at later runs of LHC, one could obtain larger event rates (up to 10 events) if the flavor violation is driven by the up squark sector. If the flavor violation comes from the down sector of the unconstrained MSSM, the event rate remains below the observable level.

1374: 

1375: For the single top production case $pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+ X$, we

1376: already included  cuts for the  transverse momentum and rapidity of the

1377: charm and top quarks in the final state, as well as a lower cut for  jet

1378: separation. In this case, if assume that the top quark is going to be

1379: reconstructed in the final state  one can predict for example 50,000 events for

1380: an integrated luminosity $\rm 100\,fb^{-1}$ and

1381: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+X)=0.5$ pb. A similar total efficiency 

1382: consideration will

1383: going to  reduce this further but there exist enough events to find

1384: a signal under the best-case scenario.  Anything beyond the above qualitative

1385: discussion about the observability of the decay and production  channels will

1386: be considered in more detail in our future paper \cite{ongoing}.

1387: 

1388: 

1389: 

1390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1391: \section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}

1392: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1393: In

1394: this study we analyzed two related issues in top quark physics.

1395: In the first part of the paper, we concentrated on the

1396: comparison of two rare top quark decays, $t\to cgg$ versus $t\to cg$,

1397: within the unconstrained MSSM,  driven by mixing between the second

1398: and third generations only. To the best of our

1399: knowledge, $t\to cgg$ decay has been considered only in our recent

1400: study \cite{EFTSM} within the SM framework, where

1401: $ BR(t\to cgg)$ was found to be two orders of magnitude larger than $

1402: BR(t\to cg)$. However, in the SM,  $ BR(t\to cgg)$ remains at $10^{-9}$

1403: level, and thus too small to be detectable. Any

1404: experimental signature of such channel would require the existence of

1405: physics beyond the SM which justifies further analyses.

1406: Here we studied this decay in the MSSM framework by allowing

1407: non-zero flavor off-diagonal

1408: parameters. Our conclusion of the dominance of the branching ratio of

1409: $t \to cgg$ over $t \to cg$ in the SM paper remains mostly valid in the

1410: MSSM framework,

1411:      but now the $ BR$'s can become as large as 

1412: $10^{-6}-10^{-5}$.\footnote{The cutoff parameter C=0.1 is 

1413: being used.}  For the

1414: cases in which

1415: we impose the GUT relation between gaugino masses {bf and assume a 

1416: flavor violation

1417: in down squark sector},  the {\large large}

1418: difference in

1419: ratio between the $t\to cgg$ and $t\to cg$ modes disappears only in the

1420: case of very large intergenerational flavor-violating parameters

1421: (close to 1, or to their maximally allowed upper values).  In that case, $t\to

1422: cg$  exceeds $t\to cgg$. In the case of non-zero 

1423: $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}$, $t\to

1424: cg$ dominates

1425:   $t\to cgg$, except in regions of small flavor violation.

1426: Once we relax the GUT constraints, there is no longer

1427: such a large difference between the two and three body decays, as long

1428: as a small flavor violation

1429: is turned on.  Once the

1430: flavor off-diagonal parameters, $(\delta_{U,D}^{23})_{AB}$, are

1431: introduced, the difference in branching ratios disappears as the

1432: parameters are minute and  $ BR(t\to cg)$ becomes around 5 times 

1433: larger than $ BR(t\to cgg)$.

1434: As expected, if the SUSY-GUT

1435: relations hold, both modes cannot exceed $10^{-7}$ level (except for

1436:   flavor violating parameters near their maximum allowed values for $t\to cg$

1437: decay), because the gluino mass is large. Once we relax this condition, both $t

1438: \to cgg$ and $t \to cg$  have branching ratios of the order $10^{-6}-10^{-5}$

1439: and $10^{-5}$,  respectively.

1440: 

1441: Having shown that the three body rare decay $t\to cgg$ is

1442: indeed important (comparable with, or larger than, the two body decay $t\to

1443: cg$), we carried out a complete calculation of the single

1444: top-charm associated production at LHC via gluon fusion at partonic

1445: level within the same scenarios discussed above. This production

1446: cross section has been considered before including only the SUSY-QCD

1447: contributions \cite{Liu:2004bb}. We performed a complete analysis by

1448: including all the

1449: electro-weak contributions: the chargino-down-type

1450: squark, neutralino-up-type squark, charged Higgs, as well as the SM

1451: contributions. For simplification, a common SUSY FCNC parameter

1452: $\delta$ is assumed, $(\delta_{U, D}^{23})_{LL}=(\delta_{U,

1453: D}^{23})_{RR}=(\delta_{U, D}^{23})_{LR}=(\delta_{U, D}^{23})_{RL}$

1454: (in the up and down squark sectors), but most often only one common $\delta$

1455: parameter in either sector is allowed to be non-zero each  time.  We

1456: have shown that,

1457: in the most promising scenarios (if a common SUSY FCNC parameter

1458: $\delta$ is assumed), the total hadronic cross section

1459: $\sigma(pp\to t\bar{c}+\bar{t}c+X)$ can become as large as $50-60$ fb and

1460: could reach a few hindered fb, especially if we relax the GUT

1461: relations between the gaugino masses and assume a flavor violation

1462: from one sector only

1463:    (LL, LR, RL, or RR). We have  shown that the cross section could be

1464: as large as $600-700$

1465:    fb if  a large flavor violation coming from only

1466: $(\delta_U^{23})_{LR}$ is allowed.

1467: 

1468: The comparative gluino,

1469: chargino and other contributions to the process have been

1470: estimated. The gluino contributions dominate over most of the

1471: parameter space, when allowing flavor violation in both up and down

1472: squark mass matrices to be of the same order of magnitude. However,

1473: the chargino contribution is non-negligible and would be dominant in

1474: either the constrained MSSM, or if the flavor violation was allowed

1475: to be much larger in the down than in the up squark sector. While the

1476: chargino loop is two orders of magnitude smaller than the gluino for

1477: $(\delta_{U}^{23})_{AB}=(\delta_{ D}^{23})_{AB}$, the contribution of

1478: the ``rest" (neutralino, charged Higgs and SM) is around half of the chargino

1479: contribution, for all of the SUSY FCNC parameters

1480: chosen.

1481: 

1482: Gluon fusion could be more promising than $cg\to t$, $q

1483: {\bar q}\to t {\bar c}$, or $cg\to gt$, which we leave for a further

1484: study  \cite{ongoing}.

1485: 

1486: The huge differences in prediction between the constrained

1487: and the unconstrained MSSM scenarios  make LHC a fertile testing

1488: ground for the study of SUSY FCNC processes.  Any significant rate

1489: for the top-charm associated production would be a signal of physics

1490: beyond the SM, and in particular, of new flavor physics.

1491: 

1492: 

1493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1494: \section{Acknowledgments}

1495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1496: The

1497: work of M.F. was funded by NSERC of Canada (SAP0105354).

1498: The work of G.E. was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation

1499: and by the Fund for the Promotion of Research at the Technion.

1500: G.E would like to thank J.J. Cao for helpful discussions.

1501: I.T. would like to thank Micheal Rauch for

1502: his help and suggestions about the use of the \texttt{HadCalc}

1503: program.

1504: 

1505: {\it Note added.} After submitting the first version of the present

1506: paper to the active

1507: (hep-ph/0601253.v1)  we became aware of an

1508: analysis similar to ours \cite{Guasch:2006hf}. They analyze  the QCD SUSY

1509: contribution,

1510: and take as flavor

1511: violation only $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL}\ne 0$, while we switched all

1512: flavor violating

1513: parameters on between the second and third generations. In our

1514: analysis a non-zero

1515: $(\delta_U^{23})_{LR}$ parameter is dominant (by one order of

1516: magnitude over $(\delta_U^{23})_{LL}$), which makes a comparison of

1517: our results to theirs difficult.

1518: 

1519: 

1520: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1522: %  1. REVIEW OF EXP SEARCH FOR SINGLE t PRODUCTION:

1523: \bibitem{Taffard:2005rk} For a recent review, see:

1524:     A.~Taffard  [CDF and D0 Collaborations],

1525: % ``Single top at the Tevatron,''

1526: FERMILAB-CONF-05-494-E

1527: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=fermilab-conf-05-494-e}

1528: {\it Presented at Hadron Collider Physics Symposium 2005,

1529: Les Diablerets, Switzerland, 4-9 Jul 2005}.

1530: 

1531: %  2. NLO CALCULATION OF SINGLE t PRODUCTION IN THE SM:

1532: \bibitem{Sullivan:2004ie} See e.g.:

1533:     Z.~Sullivan,

1534:     %``Understanding single-top-quark production and jets at hadron colliders,''

1535:     Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 114012 (2004) and references therein.

1536: 

1537: %  3. OTHER WHO'VE ALSO DONE NLO CALCULATION OF SINGLE t PRODUCTION IN THE SM:

1538: \bibitem{Cao:2004ap}

1539:      Q.~H.~Cao, R.~Schwienhorst and C.~P.~Yuan,

1540:     %``Next-to-leading order corrections to single top quark production and decay

1541:     %at Tevatron. I: s-channel process,''

1542:     Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 054023 (2005)

1543:       Q.~H.~Cao, R.~Schwienhorst, J.~A.~Benitez, R.~Brock and C.~P.~Yuan,

1544:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094027 (2005);

1545:     J.~Campbell and F.~Tramontano,

1546:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 726}, 109 (2005);

1547:       J.~Campbell, R.~K.~Ellis and F.~Tramontano,

1548:       %``Single top production and decay at next-to-leading order,''

1549:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 094012 (2004);

1550:       Q.~H.~Cao and C.~P.~Yuan,

1551:     %``Single top quark production and decay at next-to-leading order in  hadron

1552:     %collision,''

1553:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 054022 (2005)

1554:       and references therein.

1555: 

1556: % 4. BACKGROUND TO SM:

1557: \bibitem{Sullivan:2005ar}

1558:     Z.~Sullivan,

1559:     %``Angular correlations in single-top-quark and W j j production at

1560:     %next-to-leading order,''

1561:     Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094034 (2005);

1562:     %[arXiv:hep-ph/0510224].

1563:       O.~Cakir and S.~A.~Cetin,

1564:       J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 31}, N1 (2005);

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{Han:1995pk}

1567:       T.~Han, R.~D.~Peccei and X.~Zhang,

1568:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 454}, 527 (1995);

1569:       T.~Tait and C.~P.~Yuan,

1570:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 7300 (1997);

1571:   J.~Cao, G.~Eilam, K.~i.~Hikasa and J.~M.~Yang,

1572:   %``Experimental constraints on stop-scharm flavor mixing and implications  in

1573:   %top-quark FCNC processes,''

1574:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 031701 (2006).

1575: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0604163].

1576:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604163;%%

1577: %      J.~Cao, G.~Eilam, K.~i.~Hikasa and J.~M.~Yang,

1578:     %``Experimental constraints on stop-scharm flavor mixing and implications in

1579:    %top-quark FCNC processes,''

1580: %      arXiv:hep-ph/0604163.

1581: 

1582: \bibitem{Malkawi:1995dm}

1583:       E.~Malkawi and T.~Tait,

1584:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 5758 (1996);

1585:       T.~Han, M.~Hosch, K.~Whisnant, B.~L.~Young and X.~Zhang,

1586:        Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 073008 (1998);

1587:       Y.~P.~Gouz and S.~R.~Slabospitsky,

1588:       Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 457}, 177 (1999);

1589:        A.~Belyaev and N.~Kidonakis,

1590:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 037501 (2002);

1591:       P.M. Ferreira, O. Oliveira and R. Santos, Phys. Rev. {\bf D73},

1592:       034011 (2006).

1593:       P.M. Ferreira and R. Santos,

1594: %  ``Strong flavor changing effective operator cntributions to single top

1595: %  quark production,''

1596:       hep-ph/0601078.

1597: 

1598: 

1599: \bibitem{Li:1999ms}

1600:       C.~S.~Li, X.~Zhang and S.~H.~Zhu,

1601:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 077702 (1999);

1602:       H.~Zhou, W.~G.~Ma, Y.~Jiang, R.~Y.~Zhang and L.~H.~Wan,

1603:        Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 095006 (2001);

1604:       H.~Zhou, W.~G.~Ma and R.~Y.~Zhang,

1605:        arXiv:hep-ph/0208170;

1606:       C.~X.~Yue, Y.~B.~Dai, Q.~J.~Xu and G.~L.~Liu,

1607:        Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 525}, 301 (2002);

1608:       J.~J.~Cao, Z.~H.~Xiong and J.~M.~Yang,

1609:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 071701(R) (2003);

1610:         {\it ibid} Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 651}, 87 (2003).

1611: 

1612: \bibitem{Liu:2004bb}

1613:       J.~J.~Liu, C.~S.~Li, L.~L.~Yang and L.~G.~Jin,

1614:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 705}, 3 (2005).

1615: 

1616: \bibitem{EFTSM}

1617:       G. Eilam, M. Frank and I. Turan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 053011 (2006).

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{Frank:2005vd}

1620:       M.~Frank and I.~Turan,

1621:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 035008 (2005).

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{Gabbiani:1996hi}

1624:       F.~Gabbiani, E.~Gabrielli,

1625:       A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,

1626:        Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 477}, 321 (1996);

1627:       M.~Misiak, S.~Pokorski and J.~Rosiek,

1628:       Adv.\ Ser.\ Direct.\ High Energy Phys.\  {\bf 15}, 795 (1998);

1629:       M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, A.~Masiero, L.~Silvestrini,

1630:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 075016 (2003) [Erratum ibid.\ D {\bf68},

1631: 079901 (2003).

1632: 

1633: \bibitem{Harnik:2002vs}

1634:       R.~Harnik, D.~T.~Larson, H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,

1635:       Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 094024 (2004).

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{Besmer:2001cj}

1638:       T.~Besmer, C.~Greub and T.~Hurth,

1639:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 609}, 359 (2001);

1640:        D.~A.~Demir,

1641:       Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 571}, 193 (2003);

1642:        A.~M.~Curiel, M.~J.~Herrero and D.~Temes,

1643:        Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 075008 (2003);

1644:       J.~J.~Liu, C.~S.~Li, L.~L.~Yang and L.~G.~Jin,

1645:         Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 705}, 3 (2005).

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{Lopez:1997xv}

1648:       J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan,

1649:        Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 3100 (1997);

1650:       G. M. de Divitiis, R. Petronzio and L. Silvestrini,

1651:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 504}, 45 (1997);

1652:       S.~Bejar, J.~Guasch and J.~Sola,

1653:       ``FCNC top quark decays beyond the standard model,''

1654:       in {\it Proc. of the 5th International Symposium on Radiative 

1655:       Corrections (RADCOR 2000) } ed. Howard E. Haber,

1656:       arXiv:hep-ph/0101294;

1657:        J.~J.~Cao, Z.~H.~Xiong and J.~M.~Yang,

1658:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 651}, 87 (2003).

1659: 

1660: \bibitem{Hall:1985dx}

1661:       L.~J.~Hall, V.~A.~Kostelecky and S.~Raby,

1662:        Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 267}, 415 (1986);

1663:       A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini, in

1664:       {\it Perspectives on Supersymmetry}, edited by G. Kane (World

1665:       Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{Hahn:2000jm}

1668:       T.~Hahn and M.~Perez-Victoria,

1669:        Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 118}, 153 (1999);

1670:         T.~Hahn,

1671:        Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 89}, 231 (2000);

1672:        T.~Hahn, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 140, 418 (2001);

1673:        T.~ Hahn, C.~Schappacher, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ 143, 54 (2002);

1674:        T.~Hahn,

1675:          arXiv:hep-ph/0506201.

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{hadcalc}

1678:        M.~Rauch, {\it HadCalc} (unpublished).

1679: 

1680: \bibitem{Greub:2000sy}

1681:      C.~Greub and P.~Liniger,

1682:      Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054025 (2001)

1683:      [arXiv:hep-ph/0009144].

1684: 

1685: 

1686: \bibitem{Passarino:1978jh}

1687:       G.~Passarino and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,

1688:       Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 160}, 151 (1979).

1689: 

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{Mertig:1990wm}

1692:       R.~Mertig and J.~Kublbeck,

1693:         {\it Prepared for International Workshop on Software Engineering,

1694:       Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems for

1695:       High-energy and Nuclear Physics, Lyon, France, 19-24 Mar 1990};

1696:       J.~Kublbeck, H.~Eck and R.~Mertig,

1697:        Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 29A}, 204 (1992).

1698: 

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{feynhiggs}

1701:       S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1702:       {\em Comput. Phys. Comm.} {\bf 124}

1703:       (2000) 76,   hep-ph/9812320;

1704:        S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1705:       {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 9} (1999) 343,

1706:       hep-ph/9812472.

1707:       G.~Degrassi, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, P.~Slavich and G.~Weiglein,

1708:       {\em Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C 28} (2003) 133,

1709:       hep-ph/0212020.

1710:       T.~Hahn, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,

1711:       hep-ph/0507009.

1712: 

1713: 

1714:    \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}

1715:    S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

1716:    %``Review of particle physics,''

1717:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

1718:    %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%

1719: 

1720: 

1721: \bibitem{peskin}

1722:       M.~Peskin and D.~Schroeder, {\it An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory},

1723: Addison-Wesley, 1995.

1724: 

1725: \bibitem{Giele:2002hx}

1726:     W.~Giele {\it et al.},

1727:      arXiv:hep-ph/0204316.

1728: 

1729: %\cite{Pumplin:2005rh}

1730: \bibitem{Pumplin:2005rh}

1731:   J.~Pumplin, A.~Belyaev, J.~Huston, D.~Stump and W.~K.~Tung,

1732:   %``Parton distributions and the strong coupling: CTEQ6AB PDFs,''

1733:   J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 0602}, 032 (2006).

1734: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0512167].

1735:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512167;%%

1736: %\bibitem{Pumplin:2005rh}

1737: %J.~Pumplin, A.~Belyaev, J.~Huston, D.~Stump and W.~K.~Tung,

1738: %arXiv:hep-ph/0512167.

1739: 

1740: \bibitem{brigitte}

1741: Brigitte Vachon, private communication.

1742: 

1743: \bibitem{ongoing}

1744: J. Cao, G. Eilam, M. Frank, I. Turan and J. M. Yang, in preparation.

1745: 

1746: %\cite{Guasch:2006hf}

1747: %\bibitem{Guasch:2006hf}

1748: %    J.~Guasch, W.~Hollik, S.~Penaranda and J.~Sola,

1749: %    %``Single top-quark production by direct supersymmetric flavor-changing

1750: %    %neutral-current interactions at the LHC,''

1751: %    arXiv:hep-ph/0601218.

1752: %    %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601218;%%

1753: %\cite{Guasch:2006hf}

1754: \bibitem{Guasch:2006hf}

1755:   J.~Guasch, W.~Hollik, S.~Penaranda and J.~Sola,

1756:   %``Single top-quark production by direct supersymmetric flavor-changing

1757:   %neutral-current interactions at the LHC,''

1758:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 157}, 152 (2006).

1759: %  [arXiv:hep-ph/0601218].

1760:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601218;%%

1761: 

1762: 

1763: \end{thebibliography}

1764: \end{document}

1765: