1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{axodraw}
5: \usepackage[includeall, letterpaper, body={7in, 9in}, left=.75in, top=1in]{geometry}
6: %body (w includeall) means width,length of text+head+foot; margins are margins around this body.
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
18: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mathop{\rm Tr}}
19: \newcommand{\und}{\underline}
20: \newcommand{\dalpha}{{\dot\alpha}}
21: \newcommand{\dbeta}{{\dot\beta}}
22: \newcommand{\drho}{{\dot\rho}}
23: \newcommand{\dsigma}{{\dot\sigma}}
24: \newcommand{\crbig}{\\\noalign{\vspace {3mm}}}
25: \newcommand{\bigint}{{\displaystyle\int}}
26: \newcommand{\Fcomp}{{\theta\theta}}
27: \newcommand{\Fbarcomp}{\ov{\theta\theta}}
28: \newcommand{\Dcomp}{{\theta\theta\ov{\theta\theta}}}
29: \newcommand{\Dint}{{\bigint d^2\theta d^2\ov\theta\,}}
30: \newcommand{\Fint}{{\bigint d^2\theta\,}}
31: \newcommand{\Fbarint}{{\bigint d^2\ov\theta\,}}
32: \newcommand{\ex}{{\rm exp}}
33: \newcommand{\draftnote}[1]{\marginpar{\bf \tiny {#1}}}
34: \def\simlt{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}
35: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}
36:
37:
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39: \begin{document}
40: \setcounter{page}{0}
41: \thispagestyle{empty}
42: \begin{flushright}
43: ANL-HEP-PR-06-47
44: \end{flushright}
45:
46: \vspace{1cm}
47:
48: \begin{center}
49:
50: {\Large \bf Measuring the $W$-$t$-$b$ Interaction at the ILC}\\[1 cm]
51: {\Large
52: Puneet Batra and Tim M.P. Tait\\[.5 cm]}
53:
54: {\small {\it
55: High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Lab, Argonne, IL 60439, USA}}
56: \end{center}
57:
58:
59: \vspace{.8cm}
60: \vspace{0.3cm} {\small \center \noindent \textbf{Abstract} \\[0.3cm]
61: \noindent }
62:
63: The large top quark mass suggests that the top plays a pivotal role in
64: Electroweak symmetry-breaking dynamics and, as a result, may have
65: modified couplings to Electroweak bosons. Hadron colliders can provide
66: measurements of these couplings at the $\sim 10\%$ level, and one of
67: the early expected triumphs of the International Linear Collider is to
68: reduce these uncertainties to the per cent level. In this article, we
69: propose the first direct measurement of the Standard Model $W$-$t$-$b$
70: coupling at the ILC, from measurements of $t \bar{t}$-like signals
71: {\em below} the $t \bar{t}$ production threshold. We estimate that the
72: ILC with $100~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ can measure a combination of the coupling
73: and top width to high precision, and when combined with a direct
74: measurement of the top width from the above-threshold scan, results in
75: a model-independent measurement of the $W$-$t$-$b$ interaction of the
76: order of $\sim 3 \%$. \vfill
77: \newpage
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: \pagestyle{plain}
81: \section{Introduction}
82: \label{sec:intro}
83:
84: The mystery of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB)
85: is the foremost problem in particle physics. Near-future colliders such as
86: the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the International Linear Collider (ILC)
87: are primarily motivated by their unique ability to make measurements
88: which will reveal the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. In the very
89: least, a light Higgs is expected to be discovered. However, it is generally
90: accepted that the physics at TeV energies will prove to be much richer than
91: the minimal standard model (SM), and that the new paradigm will tie
92: together many interesting puzzles, including the large hierarchy between the
93: Planck and the electroweak scales, the nature of dark matter
94: and dark energy, neutrino masses, and the puzzling pattern of flavor in
95: both the quark and lepton sectors of the Standard Model.
96:
97: At the center of many of these mysteries is the top quark. Its large
98: mass, itself a manifestation of the broken electroweak symmetry,
99: indicates that whatever the nature of the symmetry-breaking, it was
100: communicated strongly to the top. In the minimal Standard model, this
101: is represented by a large top Yukawa interaction and results in a
102: special role for the top in Higgs physics. In the SM, the
103: interactions with the gauge and Higgs bosons are predicted by the
104: gauge structure, top mass, and unitarity of the CKM matrix. In models
105: of physics beyond the Standard Model, the top often plays a special
106: role in driving the electroweak symmetry breaking dynamics. In order
107: to explore the possibility that the top plays a special role in EWSB,
108: precise measurements of all top couplings are needed. In this
109: article, we will explore how a future ILC can add to our knowledge of
110: the $W$-$t$-$b$ interaction strength by looking for off-shell top
111: quarks produced when the collider is running below the $t\bar{t}$
112: production threshold.
113:
114: The charged current interaction of the top with the bottom quark and $W$ boson
115: is predicted by the SM to be purely left-chiral with interaction strength,
116: \bea
117: g_{Wtb} & \sim & g V_{tb} \sim g ,
118: \eea
119: where $g = e / \sin \theta_W$ is the $SU(2)_W$ coupling of the SM and
120: $V_{tb}$ can be inferred from other elements using unitarity to be
121: $0.9990-0.9992$ at the $90\%$ CL\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.
122: This coupling is of great practical importance in top
123: physics, because it leads to the predominant decay mode $t \rightarrow W b$.
124: The observation of top in its expected channel (and lack of observation of
125: other channels) \cite{Erbacher:2005ig}
126: is an indication that this decay
127: is much larger than any competing decay mode. However, it does not allow for
128: a measurement of the interaction, because the branching ratio ($BR$) is
129: essentially unity, and thus does not depend sensitively on $g_{Wtb}$.
130:
131: In models
132: of physics beyond the Standard Model, the interaction may deviate from its
133: SM expectation due to new strong dynamics \cite{Carlson:1994bg,Agashe:2005vg},
134: mixing of the top
135: (and/or bottom) with a new vector-like family of quarks
136: \cite{Dobrescu:1997nm,Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}, or through mixing of
137: the $W$ boson with some heavier $W^\prime$
138: that prefers to couple to top \cite{Chivukula:1995gu}.
139: More generically, we can place bounds on the
140: gauge invariant operators which extend the SM, and use these bounds to obtain
141: information about the parameters of {\em any} theory which predicts a
142: modification of the $W$-$t$-$b$ interaction. If we choose to realize the
143: $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ of the SM non-linearly \cite{Peccei:1989kr},
144: as may be appropriate for
145: theories in which EWSB is through unspecified or incalculable strong dynamics,
146: the $W$-$t$-$b$ interaction is simply a free parameter corresponding to the
147: operator,
148: \bea
149: g_{Wtb} \: \bar{t} \gamma^\mu W^+_\mu P_L b + h.c. ,
150: \label{eq:dim4}
151: \eea
152: whose value is in principle
153: predicted by the underlying strongly coupled theory. For
154: extensions which realize the EW symmetry linearly, the coupling can be modified
155: by dimension six operators \cite{Buchmuller:1985jz},
156: an example of which is,
157: \bea
158: \frac{1}{\Lambda^2} \left( \bar{Q}_3 D_\mu H \right) \gamma^\mu
159: \left( H^\dagger Q_3 \right) ,
160: \label{eq:dim6}
161: \eea
162: where the parentheses denote contractions of $SU(2)$ indices and
163: $\Lambda$ represents the scale of new physics effects.
164: Clearly, replacing the Higgs by its vacuum expectation value reduces
165: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dim6}) to terms including Eq.~(\ref{eq:dim4}) with
166: $g_{Wtb} \sim v^2 / \Lambda^2$. In our analysis,
167: we focus on the lowest order (dimension 4) effects of Eq.~(\ref{eq:dim4}).
168: These are likely to be the first effects manifest in precision measurements.
169: It is worth noting that as one sees from the generic operator above,
170: most models will also modify other
171: properties of the top quark, including its couplings to the $Z$ boson and the
172: Higgs. In such cases, a precise measurement of $W$-$t$-$b$ can be combined
173: with other measurements to help unravel the nature of the underlying UV
174: physics. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to modifications of the
175: left-chiral interaction, though right-chiral modifications are
176: straight-forward to include in our analysis.
177:
178: Since top decays are ineffectual in measuring the $W$-$t$-$b$ interaction
179: strength, one should use electroweak production processes whose rates are
180: directly proportional to the coupling. Single top production at the
181: Tevatron and LHC will fill this role. Discovery at the Tevatron seems
182: likely by the end of its lifetime, and observation seems certain at the LHC.
183: The uncertainties in rate at the LHC will be entirely dominated by systematics,
184: and it is expected that a measurement of $\delta V_{tb} \sim 10\%$ is
185: possible \cite{Beneke:2000hk}. Given the SM prediction inferred from
186: unitarity at the better than percent level, it is important to consider other
187: processes from which information about $W$-$t$-$b$ can be extracted. In
188: particular, the International Linear Collider
189: (ILC) represents a clean environment and is expected to achieve
190: energies on the order of 500 GeV. It is an ideal place to learn about the
191: top quark.
192:
193: However, unlike many other top measurements, a direct test of the $W$-$t$-$b$
194: coupling is challenging at a $\sim$ 500 GeV $e^+ e^-$ collider. A scan over
195: the $t\bar{t}$ threshold region is expected to yield precise
196: measurements of many top parameters in the SM, including the top mass,
197: width, and Yukawa coupling (see \cite{Martinez:2002st,Juste:2006sv}
198: for projections), while above-threshold measurements may constrain
199: anomalous, non-SM Lorentz structures \cite{Boos:1999ca}.
200: Nevertheless, only an indirect measurement of the left-handed
201: $W$-$t$-$b$ coupling is offered from the $t\bar{t}$ threshold region,
202: by inferring its value from the SM relation and a precise value of the
203: top width. If, for example, there is a small non-standard decay mode
204: of top, it will alter the width and distort the inferred coupling. For
205: example, if there is a small non-standard decay mode, the top's total width
206: becomes,
207: \bea
208: \Gamma_t & = & \left( \frac{g_{Wtb}}{g} \right)^2
209: \frac{G_F m_t^3}{\sqrt{2} 8 \pi}
210: \left( 1 - \frac{M_W^2}{m_t^2} \right)^2
211: \left( 1 + 2 \frac{M_W^2}{m_t^2} \right)
212: + \Gamma_{new} ,
213: \eea
214: where $\Gamma_{new}$ represents some non-standard decay mode and we
215: have neglected corrections of order $(m_b/m_t)^2$. It may be
216: that this new decay mode can be observed in its own right, but if it is small
217: or difficult to detect, it may be over-looked. In that case, the measurement
218: of $g_{Wtb}$ is actually distorted by the presence of the new physics itself.
219:
220: Thus, it
221: would be more desirable to have a direct measurement of $W$-$t$-$b$,
222: by making use of a process which is directly proportional to it. Close
223: to the $t\bar{t}$ threshold, sensitivity to the coupling is quite
224: weak, because the rate is essentially the $t\bar{t}$ production cross
225: section times the branching ratios for $t \rightarrow W b$, which as explained
226: above is not sensitive to $g_{Wtb}$. A $e \gamma$ collider can measure the
227: rate of single-top production above threshold \cite{Boos:2001sj} to extract
228: $g_{Wtb}$, but it is also worthwhile to see if the $e^+ e^-$ running mode
229: can be used to extract useful information below the $t\bar{t}$ threshold.
230:
231: This article is outlined as follows. In Section \ref{sec:basics} we
232: explore $t \bar{t}$ below threshold and demonstrate the underlying dependence
233: on $g_{Wtb}$. In Section~\ref{sec:analysis} we examine how the signal may
234: be extracted from the backgrounds, and determine our sensitivity to
235: $g_{Wtb}$. We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
236:
237: \section{Leverage from Below the $t \bar{t}$ Threshold}
238: \label{sec:basics}
239: Above the $t\bar{t}$ threshold, final state $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$
240: events have an uncut cross section of order $500$ fb---
241: dominated by $t\bar{t}$'s produced from s-channel $\gamma$'s and $Z$'s (see Figure \ref{fig:diag}).
242: \begin{figure}[t]
243: \begin{center}
244: \begin{picture}(210,200)(0,0)
245: \SetColor{Black}
246: \ArrowLine(0,50)(50,100)
247: \Text(-2,50)[r]{$e^-$}
248: \ArrowLine(50,100)(0,150)
249: \Text(-2,150)[r]{$e^+$}
250: \Photon(50,100)(121,100){4}{4}
251: \Text(85,105)[b]{$\gamma , \ Z$}
252: \SetColor{Blue}
253: \ArrowLine(121,100)(171,150)
254: \Text(145,127)[rb]{$t$}
255: \ArrowLine(171,50)(121,100)
256: \Text(145,73)[rt]{$t$}
257: \SetColor{Black}
258: \Photon(171,150)(211,190){4}{4}
259: \Text(213,190)[l]{$W^+$}
260: \ArrowLine(171,150)(211,110)
261: \Text(213,110)[l]{$b$}
262: \Photon(171,50)(211,90){4}{4}
263: \Text(213,90)[l]{$W^-$}
264: \ArrowLine(211,10)(171,50)
265: \Text(213,10)[l]{$\bar{b}$}
266: \end{picture}
267: \caption{Main contribution to $t\bar{t}$ production at the ILC.}
268: \end{center}
269: \label{fig:diag}
270: \end{figure}
271: In the narrow top width approximation, the dominant
272: piece of the
273: cross section factors into a production cross section times the appropriate
274: branching ratios:
275: \be
276: \sigma = \sum_{s_1 s_2} \sigma\left( e^+ \ e^-
277: \rightarrow t(s_1) \bar{t}(s_2) \right) BR \left(t(s_1)
278: \rightarrow W^+ b \right) BR \left(\bar{t}(s_2) \rightarrow
279: W^- \bar{b} \right) , \nonumber
280: \ee
281: where $s_{1,2}$ label the spin state of the $t$ and $\bar{t}$.
282: Above threshold $\sigma$ has little
283: or no dependence on $g_{Wtb}$: The $t\bar{t}$ production cross
284: section is independent of $g_{Wtb}$, and the branching ratios are
285: almost exactly unity.
286:
287: Just below the $t\bar{t}$ threshold, the intermediate $ t \bar{t}$
288: diagrams still contribute, along with other non-resonant Feynman
289: diagrams, to the $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$ final state. At center-of-mass
290: energies below $2 m_t$ but still above $m_t$, the total rate is
291: dominated by contributions from the virtual $t \bar t$ diagrams in a
292: kinematic configuration where one top is on-shell and the other is
293: off-shell. The rate becomes very sensitive to the $W$-$t$-$b$
294: interaction, essentially because the narrow width approximation is no
295: longer valid when the top momentum is off-shell. The leading piece in
296: the narrow width approximation for the virtual top,
297: \be
298: \frac{1}{\left(q_{t*}^2-m_t^2 \right)^2 + m_t^2 \Gamma_t^2}
299: \simeq \frac{\pi}{m_t \Gamma_t} \delta\left(q_{t*}^2-m^2\right) ,
300: \ee
301: is zero, and one can no
302: longer simply disentangle the cross section into production and decay
303: rates.
304:
305:
306: \begin{figure}[t]
307: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=5in]{wtb1.eps}}
308: \caption{Rates
309: for $e^+ \ e^- \rightarrow W^+ b W^- \bar{b}$ as a function
310: of the center-of-mass energy for $g_{Wtb} = g_{SM}$ (black solid),
311: $g_{Wtb} = 2 g_{SM}$ (blue dashed), and $g_{Wtb} = g_{SM} /2 $ (red dotted).
312: Also shown for reference is the SM single top rate,
313: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow t W b$ (violet dash-dot).}
314: \label{fig:wtb1}
315: \end{figure}
316:
317: This is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:wtb1}, which plots the cross
318: section as a function of energy for several values of $g_{Wtb}$,
319: assuming a $175$ GeV top mass and a $115$ GeV Higgs mass. All
320: analysis was performed using the MadEvent package
321: \cite{Maltoni:2002qb} at tree level. The cross-sections asymptote to the same
322: value at both ends of the energy spectrum, as on-shell $t\bar{t}$
323: production dominates close to threshold and graphs not involving top
324: dominate far below threshold. Both of these extremes are independent
325: of the $W$-$t$-$b$ coupling, while energies in between these two
326: extremes are suitable to measure $g_{Wtb}$. The inflection points in
327: the intermediate region are due to the turn on of single-top and
328: associated $W$ production (through graphs that do not contain a virtual top)
329: at their 255 GeV threshold, and large $t
330: t^{\star}$ contributions that dominate near
331: $\sim 350$ GeV.
332:
333: For our analysis, we assume a relatively large luminosity 100
334: fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at a single center of mass energy. We
335: avoid the region very close to $2 m_t$ (despite its large rate),
336: because the details of the transition from off-shell to on-shell do
337: depend sensitively on the top width, which could obscure $g_{Wtb}$ if
338: there are non-standard decay modes of the top. Instead, we focus on
339: the energy $\sqrt{s}= 340$ GeV, just a few GeV above the peak
340: statistical sensitivity to large deviations in $\delta g_{Wtb}$. Beam
341: spread effects will not erase our sensitivity, but will contribute
342: with a worse ratio of signal to background. The beam energy spread for
343: a TESLA-like machine is expected to be at the $.1\%$ level
344: \cite{Thomson:2004ah} and its effect could be compensated by a more highly
345: optimized choice of $\sqrt{s}$.
346:
347: At 340 GeV, the fully interfering electroweak $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$
348: signal contains contributions from diagrams without any top
349: propagators, that are reduced by requiring
350: that the invariant mass of one $W b$ system reconstruct to a top
351: mass. The inclusion of the $t \bar{t}$
352: diagrams enhances the cross section that passes an invariant
353: top-mass cut by about a factor of two. This is not to say that single-top
354: diagrams are unimportant; in fact, true single-top diagrams have maximum
355: sensitivity to $g_{Wtb}$, while $t \bar{t}$ diagrams have a sensitivity
356: that decreases as $t \bar{t}$ threshold is approached. From
357: Figure~\ref{fig:wtb1}, one can see that this sensitivity increases above
358: the single top threshold, indicating that the $t \bar{t}$
359: contribution is also important.
360:
361: \section{ILC Event Rates, Efficiencies and Backgrounds}
362: \label{sec:analysis}
363:
364: We focus on the semi-leptonic six-body final state where one of the W's
365: decays to a pair of jets and the other $W$ decays into an readily
366: tagged lepton: $e$, $\mu$ or $\tau$. To determine the variation of
367: the signal that passes our cuts as a function of $g_{Wtb}$ and
368: $\Gamma_t$, we calculate the variation in the rate of the
369: intermediate final state
370: $W^+ b W^- \bar{b}$ and multiply by an overall efficiency
371: factor. The efficiency is the Standard Model ratio of the
372: six-body final state divided by the four-body final state, and
373: intuitively is just the product of branching fractions and
374: $b$-tagging efficiencies.
375:
376: This efficiency factor oversimplifies the situation, as there can be
377: interference in the full six-body final state, as well as new
378: contributions from diagrams without the assumed $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$
379: intermediate state that manage to pass our cuts. These separate
380: effects may change the dependence on $g_{Wtb}$ and $\Gamma_t$, but for
381: small shifts of $g_{Wtb}$ are negligible and subdominant compared to
382: our predicted statistical uncertainties, and less important compared
383: to higher-order perturbative corrections. For example, shifting the
384: top width by $100$~MeV alters our efficiency from $14.5 \%$ to $14.4
385: \%$. The purity of our sample (the ratio formed from the cross section of the fully interfering six-body final state to the decayed, on-shell $W^+ W^- b \bar{b}$ state) is of order $\sim 90 \%$. Thus, while the full
386: six-body simulation will ultimately be important to extract the
387: correct value of $g_{Wtb}$, we do not expect that our use of the
388: four-body simulation leads to large changes in our estimation of the
389: sensitivity with which $g_{Wtb}$ can be extracted.
390:
391: In the four-body final state, we impose $|y| <2$ and $p_t > 10$ GeV
392: cuts on the $b$ jets and require that a single top mass is
393: reconstructed to within 10 GeV, without assuming charge identification
394: of the $b$ jets. In the six body final state with a negative sign
395: lepton, we model the detector acceptance by requiring
396: $p_t > 10$ GeV and $|y| < 2$ on all visible final state
397: particles. In order to remove the non-top initiated backgrounds, we
398: demand that both the untagged jets and the lepton/missing-energy
399: system have an invariant mass within $\pm 5$ GeV of the $W$ mass,
400: and that one top can be reconstructed from one of
401: these $W$'s with either sign $b$ jet. The widths of the invariant mass
402: acceptances are sufficiently broad for the few GeV jet energy
403: uncertainty expected at the ILC \cite{Thomson:2004ah}.
404: We also assume a particle flow analysis that eliminates the need for
405: strong lepton/jet isolation. We assume a $b$-tagging efficiency of
406: $70 \%$, and find that the SM is expected to produce
407: $\sim 220$ events passing the cuts for 100 fb$^{-1}$ of luminosity.
408:
409: The dominant background that is independent of the $W$-$t$-$b$
410: coupling comes from diagrams with an intermediate Higgs or $Z$
411: that decays to $b \bar{b}$, and could be
412: eliminated by subtracting events with $b \bar{b}$ that have an
413: invariant mass close to the (assumed known) Higgs and $Z$ masses.
414: Still, most of these events are already cut out by demanding a single
415: $t$ mass reconstruction (either leptonic or hadronic) as shown
416: in Figure~\ref{fig:cuts}, which shows the invariant mass of the
417: reconstructed hadronic ``top'', which is the
418: invariant mass of the $jjb$ system. The bump near 160 GeV represents the
419: contribution from $t \bar{t}$ diagrams where the leptonic top is on-shell.
420: We have considered the background from $4j + l + \nu$, where two of the
421: light jets are mistagged as $b$'s. We find that the number
422: of events that pass our cuts {\em before} applying the mis-tag probability
423: is slightly smaller than the number of expected signal events,
424: and thus the fake contribution after applying the double-mis-tagging
425: probability is negligible.
426:
427:
428: \begin{figure}[t]
429: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4in]{histogram_jjbbmunu_qcd.eps}}
430: \caption{The invariant mass of the hadronic ``top'' mass.
431: The ``No Cuts'' histogram shows the distribution of
432: the $jjb$ invariant mass, while
433: the ``After Cuts'' histogram shows the invariant mass
434: of the $jjb$ system after both $W$'s and a single top have been
435: reconstructed.}
436: \label{fig:cuts}
437: \end{figure}
438:
439:
440: The number of events observed will depend strongly on $g_{Wtb}$,
441: the top mass, the top width, and (to some extent) the Higgs mass.
442: It is expected that the ILC will determine the top and
443: Higgs masses to order 100 MeV or better, which is enough to render the
444: uncertainty in the rates from the uncertainty in
445: these parameters order 1/10th of our
446: expected statistical uncertainties, and thus are negligible.
447: The remaining dependence on the
448: width and $g_{Wtb}$ allows us to determine a combination of both these
449: quantities. In Figure~\ref{fig:wtb2} we
450: present the contours of constant event numbers in the plane of
451: $g_{Wtb}$ and $\Gamma_t$ which reproduce the expected SM event rate of
452: $\sim 220$ events (as the solid line).
453: Also shown as the solid bands are the contours corresponding to
454: 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ deviations from such a measurement (assuming
455: that the SM rate is observed and considering purely statistical
456: uncertainties since we expect these to dominate).
457: The result is the expected bound one would obtain on
458: $g_{Wtb}$ and $\Gamma_t$ if the SM rate is observed.
459: Combining the below threshold cross section measurement with the $\Gamma_t$
460: extracted from the above-threshold scan allows us to extract both
461: $g_{Wtb}$ and $\Gamma_t$ independently.
462: Alternately, one can go to lower energies where the sensitivity to
463: $\Gamma_t$ is less, though at the price of the loss of some
464: statistics.
465: We have made the conservative assumption that $\Gamma_t$ will be known to
466: order $\pm 100$ MeV from the above threshold scan \cite{Juste:2006sv}.
467: From Figure~\ref{fig:wtb2}, we see that given this assumption, $g_{Wtb}$
468: can be measured to the $ 3\%$ level, which would represent better than a
469: factor of 2 improvement compared to the LHC, and a major improvement
470: in our understanding of the $W$-$t$-$b$ interaction.
471:
472:
473:
474: \begin{figure}[t]
475: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4in]{wtb2.eps}}
476: \caption{Curve corresponding to the region of the plane
477: of $g_{Wtb}$ and $\Gamma_t$ which is degenerate with the SM event
478: rate and its 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ deviations as the solid bands.
479: Also overlaid is an
480: expected measurement of $\Gamma_t$ from the on-shell threshold scan with
481: an uncertainty of $100$ MeV as the cross-hatched bands.}
482: \label{fig:wtb2}
483: \end{figure}
484:
485:
486:
487: \section{Conclusions}
488: \label{sec:conclusions}
489:
490: The mass of the top quark is a strong indication that the top may play
491: a fundamental role in the mechanics behind EWSB, or, if not, magnify
492: the effects of any new physics through the lens of the large top
493: Yukawa. If this new physics is sufficiently decoupled, shifts in the
494: SM-like top couplings may be the only evidence left behind; it is no
495: surprise that measuring the properties of the top quark will remain a
496: collider focus for the next few decades.
497:
498: Although single top production is usually ignored in $e^+ e^-$
499: collisions, a measurement of $g_{Wtb}$ is not out of reach at the
500: ILC. A significant amount of leverage is, counter-intuitively,
501: provided by $t \bar{t}$ production {\it below} threshold. The results
502: of our analysis are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:limits}: we compute a
503: 1$\sigma$ error in the $W$-$t$-$b$ coupling of order a few
504: percent. This constraint is on par with the indirect bound on
505: $g_{Wtb}$ coming from the threshold measurement of the top-width,
506: though the direct bound we present does not depend on a detailed
507: understanding of all top decay modes and branching fractions, and thus
508: is complementary to the measurement of the top width.
509:
510: Figure~\ref{fig:limits} shows the new expected bounds on the
511: SM-like top axial $Z$-$t$-$\bar{t}$ and left-handed $W$-$t$-$b$ interactions
512: and the discriminating power the new bounds can place on new physics
513: models. We include our results with the 1$\sigma$ constraints on the
514: independently varied axial $Z$-$t$-$\bar{t}$ coupling from the LHC
515: \cite{Baur:2005wi} and ILC \cite{Abe:2001nq}, and the direct
516: constraints on the left-handed $W$-$t$-$b$ coupling from the LHC
517: \cite{Beneke:2000hk}. Predicted deviations from a few representative
518: models are also superimposed: a Little Higgs model with T-parity, a
519: model of topflavor, and a model with a sequential fourth generation whose
520: quarks mix substantially with the third family. The Little
521: Higgs $T$-parity model has a heavy top-partner, $T$, with mass 500 GeV
522: (the numbers on the plot indicate the strength of the $h$-$T$-$t$ interaction)
523: \cite{Berger:2005ht}; the topflavor model has a mixing angle
524: $\sin{\phi} = .9$ (numbers indicate the mass of the heavy $Z^\prime$)
525: \cite{Chivukula:1995gu}.
526: Top-seesaw models have the same mixing effect as the
527: Little Higgs model, and thus trace out the same line in the plane of
528: deviations in the $Z$-$t$-$\bar{t}$ and $W$-$t$-$b$ as the seesaw model
529: parameters are varied.
530:
531: Many improvements on our approximate results are possible. In particular,
532: higher order QCD and EW corrections to the signal will be essential to
533: include in a realistic analysis in order to obtain the desired
534: accuracy in $g_{Wtb}$, particularly effects from initial state
535: radiation and beamstrahlung, which will likely require stronger
536: $\theta$ dependent cuts to cut down the resultant
537: backgrounds. However, a consideration of the $4 j b \bar{b}$ final
538: state could add a comparable amount of statistics to the semileptonic
539: sample we've considered.
540: Further, one could avoid the need for a large set of data at a single
541: energy by performing several measurements of smaller integrated luminosities
542: at a range of energies. This could allow one to use the energy dependent
543: shape of the cross section as well as the normalization, and could potentially
544: allow one to achieve comparable accuracy with much less integrated luminosity.
545: We leave such refinements for future work.
546:
547: \begin{figure}[t]
548: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4in]{models2.eps}}
549: \caption{Expected bounds on SM-like couplings, axial $Z$-$t$-$\bar{t}$
550: and left-handed $W$-$t$-$b$, from direct LHC and ILC measurements. LHC
551: bounds are shown in olive, ILC bounds in red. Superimposed are
552: predicted deviations from representative models described in the text.}
553: \label{fig:limits}
554: \end{figure}
555:
556: \vspace*{1cm}
557:
558: \noindent
559: {\bf \large Acknowledgements}\\[0.2cm]
560: It is a pleasure to acknowledge conversations with A. Juste, T. LeCompte,
561: S. Magill, F. Petriello, Z. Sullivan, and especially F. Maltoni.
562: Work at ANL is supported in part by the US DOE, Division of HEP,
563: Contract W-31-109-ENG-38.
564:
565: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
566:
567: %\cite{Eidelman:2004wy}
568: \bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
569: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
570: %``Review of particle physics,''
571: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
572: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
573:
574: %\cite{Erbacher:2005ig}
575: \bibitem{Erbacher:2005ig}
576: For a recent review,
577: R.~D.~Erbacher [CDF Collaboration],
578: %``Top quark physics,''
579: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 815}, 39 (2006).
580: %%CITATION = APCPC,815,39;%%
581:
582: %\cite{Carlson:1994bg}
583: \bibitem{Carlson:1994bg}
584: D.~O.~Carlson, E.~Malkawi and C.~P.~Yuan,
585: %``Probing the couplings of the top quark to gauge bosons,''
586: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 337}, 145 (1994)
587: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405277];
588: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405277;%%
589: %\cite{Malkawi:1994tg}
590: %\bibitem{Malkawi:1994tg}
591: E.~Malkawi and C.~P.~Yuan,
592: %``A Global analysis of the top quark couplings to gauge bosons,''
593: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 4462 (1994)
594: [arXiv:hep-ph/9405322];
595: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405322;%%
596: %\cite{Malkawi:1995sh}
597: %\bibitem{Malkawi:1995sh}
598: E.~Malkawi and C.~P.~Yuan,
599: %``Heavy top quark effects to low-energy data in the EW chiral Lagrangian,''
600: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52}, 472 (1995)
601: [arXiv:hep-ph/9502225].
602: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502225;%%
603:
604: %\cite{Agashe:2005vg}
605: \bibitem{Agashe:2005vg}
606: K.~Agashe, R.~Contino and R.~Sundrum,
607: %``Top compositeness and precision unification,''
608: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 171804 (2005)
609: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502222].
610: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502222;%%
611:
612: %\cite{Dobrescu:1997nm}
613: \bibitem{Dobrescu:1997nm}
614: B.~A.~Dobrescu and C.~T.~Hill,
615: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking via top condensation seesaw,''
616: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 2634 (1998)
617: [arXiv:hep-ph/9712319];
618: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712319;%%
619: %\cite{Chivukula:1998wd}
620: %\bibitem{Chivukula:1998wd}
621: R.~S.~Chivukula, B.~A.~Dobrescu, H.~Georgi and C.~T.~Hill,
622: %``Top quark seesaw theory of electroweak symmetry breaking,''
623: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 075003 (1999)
624: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809470];
625: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809470;%%
626: %\cite{He:1999vp}
627: %\bibitem{He:1999vp}
628: H.~J.~P.~He, T.~Tait and C.~P.~Yuan,
629: %``New topflavor models with seesaw mechanism,''
630: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 011702 (2000)
631: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911266];
632: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911266;%%
633: %\cite{He:2001fz}
634: %\bibitem{He:2001fz}
635: H.~J.~He, C.~T.~Hill and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
636: %``Top quark seesaw, vacuum structure and electroweak precision
637: %constraints,''
638: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055006 (2002)
639: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108041];
640: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108041;%%
641: %\cite{Choudhury:2001hs}
642: %\bibitem{Choudhury:2001hs}
643: D.~Choudhury, T.~M.~P.~Tait and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
644: %``Beautiful mirrors and precision electroweak data,''
645: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 053002 (2002)
646: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109097].
647: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109097;%%
648:
649: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}
650: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002qy}
651: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz and A.~E.~Nelson,
652: %``The littlest Higgs,''
653: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 034 (2002)
654: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206021];
655: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206021;%%
656: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002qx}
657: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002qx}
658: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz, A.~E.~Nelson, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,
659: %``The minimal moose for a little Higgs,''
660: JHEP {\bf 0208}, 021 (2002)
661: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206020];
662: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206020;%%
663: %\cite{Low:2002ws}
664: %\bibitem{Low:2002ws}
665: I.~Low, W.~Skiba and D.~Smith,
666: %``Little Higgses from an antisymmetric condensate,''
667: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 072001 (2002)
668: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207243];
669: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207243;%%
670: %\cite{Kaplan:2003uc}
671: %\bibitem{Kaplan:2003uc}
672: D.~E.~Kaplan and M.~Schmaltz,
673: %``The little Higgs from a simple group,''
674: JHEP {\bf 0310}, 039 (2003)
675: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302049].
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302049;%%
677:
678: %\cite{Chivukula:1995gu}
679: \bibitem{Chivukula:1995gu}
680: R.~S.~Chivukula, E.~H.~Simmons and J.~Terning,
681: %``Limits on noncommuting extended technicolor,''
682: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 5258 (1996)
683: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506427];
684: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506427;%%
685: %\cite{Malkawi:1996fs}
686: %\bibitem{Malkawi:1996fs}
687: E.~Malkawi, T.~Tait and C.~P.~Yuan,
688: %``A Model of Strong Flavor Dynamics for the Top Quark,''
689: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 385}, 304 (1996)
690: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603349];
691: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603349;%%
692: %\cite{Muller:1996dj}
693: %\bibitem{Muller:1996dj}
694: D.~J.~Muller and S.~Nandi,
695: %``Topflavor: A Separate SU(2) for the Third Family,''
696: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 383}, 345 (1996)
697: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602390];
698: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602390;%%
699: %\cite{Batra:2003nj}
700: %\bibitem{Batra:2003nj}
701: P.~Batra, A.~Delgado, D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
702: %``The Higgs mass bound in gauge extensions of the minimal supersymmetric
703: %standard model,''
704: JHEP {\bf 0402}, 043 (2004)
705: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309149].
706: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309149;%%
707:
708: %\cite{Peccei:1989kr}
709: \bibitem{Peccei:1989kr}
710: R.~D.~Peccei and X.~Zhang,
711: %``Dynamical Symmetry Breaking And Universality Breakdown,''
712: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 337}, 269 (1990).
713: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B337,269;%%
714:
715: %\cite{Buchmuller:1985jz}
716: \bibitem{Buchmuller:1985jz}
717: W.~Buchmuller and D.~Wyler,
718: %``Effective Lagrangian Analysis Of New Interactions And Flavor
719: %Conservation,''
720: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 268}, 621 (1986).
721: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B268,621;%%
722:
723: %\cite{Beneke:2000hk}
724: \bibitem{Beneke:2000hk}
725: M.~Beneke {\it et al.},
726: %``Top quark physics,''
727: arXiv:hep-ph/0003033.
728: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
729:
730: %\cite{Martinez:2002st}
731: \bibitem{Martinez:2002st}
732: M.~Martinez and R.~Miquel,
733: %``Multi-parameter fits to the t anti-t threshold observables at a future e+
734: %e- linear collider,''
735: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 27}, 49 (2003)
736: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207315].
737: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207315;%%
738:
739: %\cite{Juste:2006sv}
740: \bibitem{Juste:2006sv}
741: A.~Juste {\it et al.},
742: %``Report of the 2005 Snowmass top / QCD working group,''
743: arXiv:hep-ph/0601112.
744: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601112;%%
745:
746: %\cite{Boos:1999ca}
747: \bibitem{Boos:1999ca}
748: E.~Boos, M.~Dubinin, M.~Sachwitz and H.~J.~Schreiber,
749: %``Probe of the W t b coupling in t anti-t pair production at linear
750: %colliders,''
751: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 16}, 269 (2000)
752: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001048].
753: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001048;%%
754: %%Cited 7 times in SPIRES-HEP
755:
756: %\cite{Boos:2001sj}
757: \bibitem{Boos:2001sj}
758: E.~Boos, M.~Dubinin, A.~Pukhov, M.~Sachwitz and H.~J.~Schreiber,
759: %``Single top production in e+ e-, e- e-, gamma e and gamma gamma
760: %collisions,''
761: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 81 (2001)
762: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104279].
763: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104279;%%
764: %%Cited 11 time in SPIRES-HEP
765:
766:
767:
768:
769:
770:
771:
772:
773: %\cite{Maltoni:2002qb}
774: \bibitem{Maltoni:2002qb}
775: F.~Maltoni and T.~Stelzer,
776: %``MadEvent: Automatic event generation with MadGraph,''
777: JHEP {\bf 0302}, 027 (2003)
778: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208156].
779: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208156;%%
780:
781: %\cite{Thomson:2004ah}
782: \bibitem{Thomson:2004ah}
783: M.~A.~Thomson,
784: %``The TESLA detector concept,''
785: DESY-PROC-2004-01G
786: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=desy-proc-2004-01g}{SPIRES entry}
787: {\it Prepared for 4th ECFA / DESY Workshop on Physics and Detectors for a 90-GeV to 800-GeV Linear e+ e- Collider, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1-
788: 4 Apr 2003}
789: %\cite{Heinemeyer:2005gs}
790: %\bibitem{Heinemeyer:2005gs}
791: S.~Heinemeyer {\it et al.},
792: %``Toward high precision Higgs-boson measurements at the international linear
793: %e+ e- collider,''
794: arXiv:hep-ph/0511332.
795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511332;%%
796:
797: %\cite{Baur:2005wi}
798: \bibitem{Baur:2005wi}
799: U.~Baur, A.~Juste, D.~Rainwater and L.~H.~Orr,
800: %``Improved measurement of t t Z couplings at the LHC,''
801: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 034016 (2006)
802: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512262].
803: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512262;%%
804:
805: %\cite{Abe:2001nq}
806: \bibitem{Abe:2001nq}
807: T.~Abe {\it et al.} [American Linear Collider Working Group],
808: %``Linear collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. 3: Studies of
809: %exotic and standard model physics,''
810: in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,
811: arXiv:hep-ex/0106057.
812: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106057;%%
813:
814:
815: %\cite{Berger:2005ht}
816: \bibitem{Berger:2005ht}
817: C.~F.~Berger, M.~Perelstein and F.~Petriello,
818: %``Top quark properties in little Higgs models,''
819: arXiv:hep-ph/0512053.
820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512053;%%
821:
822: \end{thebibliography}
823:
824:
825: \end{document}
826:
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: