1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
6: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
7:
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
12:
13: \let\jnfont=\rm
14: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ B }{\bf #1},}
15: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
16: \def\EPJC#1,{{\jnfont Eur.\ Phys.\ Jour.\ C }{\bf #1},}
17: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ D }{\bf #1},}
18: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
19: \def\MPLA#1,{{\jnfont Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A }{\bf #1},}
20: \def\JPG#1,{{\jnfont J.\ Phys.\ G}{\bf #1},}
21: \def\CTP#1,{{\jnfont Commun.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1},}
22: \def\JHEP#1,{{\jnfont JHEP}{\bf #1},}
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \preprint{hep-ph/0608223}
26:
27: \title{Probing R-parity Violating Interactions from Top Quark Polarization at LHC}
28:
29: \author{Peiying Li$^1$, Gongru Lu$^1$, Jin Min Yang$^{2,3}$, Huanjun Zhang$^{1,3}$ \\ ~~ \\}
30:
31: \affiliation{
32: $^1$ Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China\\
33: $^2$ CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\\
34: $^3$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China }
35:
36: \date{\today}
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: In minimal supersymmetric standard model the R-parity violating interactions
40: can induce anomalous top pair productions at the LHC through the
41: $t$-channel process $d_R\bar d_R \to t_L\bar t_L$ by exchanging a slepton
42: or $u$-channel process $d_R\bar d_R \to t_R\bar t_R$ by exchanging a squark.
43: Such top pair productions with certain chirality cause top quark polarization in the top
44: pair events. We found that at the LHC, due to the large statistics, the statistical
45: significance of the polarization observable and thus the probing ability for the
46: corresponding R-parity violating couplings are much higher than at the Tevatron upgrade.
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \pacs{14.65.Ha, 14.80.Ly}
50: \maketitle
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53: It has long been speculated that as the heaviest fermion in the Standard Model (SM), the top quark
54: may have a close connection to new physics \cite{review}. So far there remain plenty
55: of room for new physics in top quark sector due to the small statistics of the events
56: discovering the top quark at the Fermilab Tevatron collider. Since the LHC will produce
57: top quarks copiously and allow a precision test of top quark nature, it will
58: either uncover or stringently constrain the new physics related to the top
59: quark \cite{sensitive}.
60:
61: As a popular candidate for new physics, the TeV-scale supersymmetry can sizably
62: alter some of the top quark properties. For example, the minimal supersymmetric standard model
63: (MSSM) can significantly enhance the top quark flavor-changing neutral-current (FCNC) interactions
64: \cite{t-fcnc} and thus make the top quark FCNC processes possiblly observable at the
65: LHC.
66:
67: It is well known that in the MSSM, a discrete multiplicative symmetry of
68: $R$-parity, defined by $R=(-1)^{2S+3B+L}$ with spin $S$, baryon number $B$
69: and lepton number $L$, is often imposed on the Lagrangian to maintain the
70: separate conservation of $B$ and $L$. Since such a conservation requirement
71: is not dictated by any fundamental principle such as gauge invariance or renormalizability,
72: the phenomenology of $R$-parity violation has attracted much attention \cite{rv-review}.
73: So far as the top quark physics at the LHC, $R$-parity violation can cause some
74: exotic top quark processes like the $s$-channel single top production and the decays
75: via exchanging a squark or slepton \cite{rv-t-prod,rv-t-decay}
76:
77: Note that the R-parity violating interactions can also induce new mechanisms for top pair
78: productions
79: at the LHC through the $t$-channel process $d_R\bar d_R \to t_L\bar t_L$ by exchanging a slepton
80: or $u$-channel process $d_R\bar d_R \to t_R\bar t_R$ by exchanging a squark.
81: Although their contribution to the {\it total\/} $t\bar t$ cross section is
82: unobservably
83: as small as a few percent \cite{rv-tt}, they may induce a sizable asymmetry between the
84: left- and right-handed polarized top quarks due to the chiral nature of these couplings.
85: In \cite{hikasa} such induced polarization in the top pair events is studied
86: for the Tevatron collider and turns out to be a sensitive probe for
87: these couplings due to the fact that both the SM and $R$-conserving
88: MSSM contributions to the polarization are unobservably small \cite{pari-tt}.
89: Since the upcoming LHC will overwhelmingly outclass the Tevatron
90: for the study of top quark physics, in this work we extend the analysis of
91: \cite{hikasa} to the LHC.
92:
93: This work is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec-2} we briefly describe our calculations.
94: In Sec. \ref{sec-3} we present some numerical results and give some discussions. Finally,
95: in Sec. \ref{sec-4} we give our conclusions.
96:
97:
98: \section{Calculations} \label{sec-2}
99: The $R$-violating interactions in the superpotential of the MSSM are given by
100: \begin{eqnarray}\label{WR}
101: {\cal W}_{\not \! R}
102: =\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{ijk} L_i L_j E_k^c
103: +\lambda_{ijk}' \delta^{\alpha\beta} L_i Q_{j\alpha} D_{k\beta}^c
104: +\frac{1}{2} \lambda_{ijk}'' \epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}
105: U_{i\alpha}^c D_{j\beta}^c D_{k\gamma}^c +\mu_i L_i H_2 ,
106: \end{eqnarray}
107: where $H_{1,2}$ are the Higgs chiral superfields, and $L_i$ ($Q_i$)
108: and $E_i$ ($U_i$, $D_i$) are the left-handed lepton (quark) doublet
109: and singlet chiral superfields.
110: The indices $i$, $j$, $k$ denote generations and
111: $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the color indices.
112: For top pair productions at hadron colliders,
113: the lepton number violating couplings $\lambda'_{i31}$ can induce the
114: $t$-channel process $d_R\bar d_R \to t_L\bar t_L$ by exchanging a slepton
115: while the baryon number violating couplings $\lambda''_{31j}$ can induce the
116: $u$-channel process $d_R\bar d_R \to t_R\bar t_R$ by exchanging a squark,
117: as shown in Fig. 1.
118: The forms of these amplitudes are discussed in some detail in the
119: appendix of \cite{hikasa}.
120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
121: \begin{figure}[hbt]
122: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=10cm}
123: \caption{ Feynman diagrams for top pair productions
124: induced by $\lambda'_{i31}$ and $\lambda''_{31j}$, respectively.}
125: \end{figure}
126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
127: It is clear that due to the chiral nature of these couplings, the processes
128: they induced in Fig.1 will cause top quark polarization in the $t\bar t$ events,
129: i.e., an asymmetry between $N_+$ (the number of
130: $t\bar t$ events with positive helicity of $t$) and $N_-$ (the number of
131: $t\bar t$ events with negative helicity of $t$). The observables we will
132: examine are three polarizations: $P_t$ for all $t\bar t$ events and
133: $P_t^F$ ($P_t^B$) for the $t\bar t$ events with $t$ in the forward (backward)
134: hemisphere in the $t\bar t$ c.m. frame, defined by \cite{hikasa}
135: \begin{eqnarray} \label{pt}
136: P_t & =&\frac{N_+ - N_-}{N_+ + N_-}=\frac{\sigma_+ - \sigma_-}{\sigma_+ + \sigma_-}, \\
137: P_t^F& =&\frac{N_+ - N_-}{N_+ + N_-}\left\vert_{\cos\theta^*>0} \right.
138: =\frac{\sigma_+ - \sigma_-}{\sigma_+ + \sigma_-}\left\vert_{\cos\theta^*>0} \right. ,\\
139: P_t^B& =&\frac{N_+ - N_-}{N_+ + N_-}\left\vert_{\cos\theta^*<0} \right.
140: =\frac{\sigma_+ - \sigma_-}{\sigma_+ + \sigma_-}\left\vert_{\cos\theta^*<0} \right.,
141: \label{ptb}
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: Here $\theta^*$ is the top scattering angle in the $t\bar t$ c.m. frame,
144: and $\sigma_+$ ($\sigma_-$) is $t\bar t$ hadronic cross section with positive
145: (negative) helicity of $t$, which is obtained by convoluting the parton cross
146: section $\hat\sigma_+$ ($\hat\sigma_-$) with the parton distribution functions
147: ~\cite{cteq} (in our calculations we assume both the renormalization and factorization
148: scales to be $\mu=m_t$).
149:
150: Note that it may seem naive to define the polarization asymmetry as simply
151: $(N_+ - N_-)/(N_+ + N_-)$ since it would be sizable even when $N_+$ and
152: $N_-$ are very small (say below unity). However, since $N_+$ ($N_-$) is
153: the total number of $t\bar t$ events with positive (negative) helicity
154: and not the number contributed by new physics alone
155: (the R-violating contribution will become very small for small R-violating
156: couplings and heavy sfermions involved),
157: $N_+$ and $N_-$ are very large numbers at the LHC due to the large
158: QCD $t\bar t$ production cross section and high luminosity of the LHC.
159: Of course, as will be discussed when we consider the statistical sensitivity
160: in next section, $N_+$ and $N_-$ will be suppressed by the detection efficiency.
161: But even so, $N_+$ and $N_-$ are very large since the LHC can
162: produce $t\bar t$ copiously and can serve as a top-quark factory.
163: Also, as will be discussed at the end of this section, although
164: $N_+$ and $N_-$ are very large numbers, the asymmetry
165: $(N_+ - N_-)/(N_+ + N_-)$ is very small in the SM because
166: the SM $t\bar t$ production is dominated by QCD processes which
167: predict $N_+=N_-$. For this reason, this asymmetry will be
168: a sensitive probe for any new physics which can predict a sizable difference
169: between $N_+$ and $N_-$.
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172: \begin{figure}[hbt]
173: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=10cm}
174: \caption{ Feynman diagrams for top pair productions in the Standard Model.}
175: \end{figure}
176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
177:
178: The parton cross section $\hat\sigma$ contains the SM contribution $\hat\sigma^{\rm SM}$
179: and the $R$-violating contribution $\hat\sigma^{\rm new}$
180: \begin{eqnarray}
181: \hat\sigma= \hat\sigma^{\rm SM} + \hat\sigma^{\rm new}.
182: \end{eqnarray}
183: For $\hat\sigma^{\rm SM}$ the dominant contributions are from the QCD processes shown in
184: Fig. 2. It is well known that at the LHC (Tevatron) the gluon-gluon fusion process $gg\to t\bar t$
185: and quark-antiquark annihilation process $q\bar q\to t\bar t$ contribute about $90\%$ ($10\%$) and
186: $10\%$ ($90\%$), respectively.
187: We assume that the QCD correction factors (K-factor) to $\hat\sigma^{\rm new}$ and $\hat \sigma^0$
188: take the same value and thus the QCD correction effects cancel in the polarizations defined
189: above. Note that due to the separate $C$- and $P$-invariance of QCD, the QCD
190: cross section $\hat \sigma^0_+$ equals to $\hat \sigma^0_-$, which are given by
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: \frac{d\hat\sigma^0_{+}}{d\cos\theta^*}
193: =\frac{d\hat\sigma^0_{-}}{d\cos\theta^*}
194: = \frac{\pi\alpha_s^2 \beta}{18 \hat s} (1+\cos^2\theta^*)
195: +\frac{2\pi\alpha_s^2 \beta m_t^2}{9 \hat s^2} \sin^2\theta^*
196: \end{eqnarray}
197: for $q\bar q\to t\bar t$, and
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: \frac{d\hat\sigma^0_{+}}{d\cos\theta^*}
200: =\frac{d\hat\sigma^0_{-}}{d\cos\theta^*}
201: &=&\frac{\pi\beta\alpha^{2}_{s}}{32\hat{s}}
202: \left[12\frac{(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})}{\hat{s}^{2}}
203: -\frac{2}{3}\frac{m^{2}_{t}(\hat{s}-4m^{2}_{t})}
204: {(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})}\nonumber\right.\\
205: &&+\frac{8}{3}\frac{(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})-2m^{2}_{t}(\hat{t}+m^{2}_{t})}
206: {(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})^2}
207: +\frac{8}{3}\frac{(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})-2m^{2}_{t}(\hat{u}+m^{2}_{t})}
208: {(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})^2}\nonumber\\
209: &&\left.+6\frac{(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})-m^{2}_{t}(\hat{t}-\hat{u})}
210: {\hat{s}(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})}
211: +6\frac{(\hat{t}-m^{2}_{t})(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})+m^{2}_{t}(\hat{t}-\hat{u})}
212: {\hat{s}(\hat{u}-m^{2}_{t})}\right] ,
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: for $g\bar g\to t\bar t$.
215: Here $\beta=\sqrt{1-4m^{2}_{t}/\hat{s}}$,
216: $\hat{t}=m^{2}_{t}-\hat{s}(1-\beta\cos\theta^*)/2$ and
217: $\hat{u}=m^{2}_{t}-\hat{s}(1+\beta\cos\theta^*)/2$.
218:
219: The $R$-violating contribution $\hat\sigma^{\rm new}$ comes from the interference of
220: the diagrams in Fig.1 with the corresponding quark-antiquark annihilation QCD diagram in Fig. 2.
221: Due to the chiral nature of these $R$-violating couplings, the cross section with
222: positive helicity of top quark ($\hat\sigma^{\rm new}_+$) is
223: not equal to that with negative helicity ($\hat\sigma^{\rm new}_-$).
224: The detailed expressions for $d\hat\sigma^{\rm new}_+/d\cos\theta^*$ and
225: $d\hat\sigma^{\rm new}_-/d\cos\theta^*$ can be found in \cite{hikasa}.
226:
227: Finally, we stress the reasons to consider the polarization asymmetry
228: in Eq.(\ref{pt}) rather than
229: the {\it total\/} $t\bar t$ cross section in probing
230: the R-violating couplings:
231: \begin{itemize}
232: \item[(i)] This polarization asymmetry will be a sensitive probe for new physics
233: due to the fact that the SM contribution to this polarization asymmetry is very small
234: (below $1\%$) \cite{pari-tt}.
235: The $t\bar t$ productions at the LHC are dominated by the QCD processes shown in Fig. 2.
236: Of course, if we only consider the QCD interactions in the $t\bar t$ productions, the
237: polarization asymmetry in Eq.(\ref{pt}) is zero due to the separate $C$- and $P$-invariance
238: of QCD. The SM electroweak process $q\bar{q} \to Z^* \to t\bar{t}$
239: can cause a non-zero polarization asymmetry. But the polarization
240: caused by this process is very small~\cite{pari-tt} since it does not interfere with
241: the QCD amplitude because of the orthogonal color structure. Furthermore, the polarization
242: caused by the SM electroweak loop corrections to the QCD $t\bar t$ production
243: processes is also very small~\cite{pari-tt}. Therefore, the observation of a sizable
244: polarization asymmetry (say $P_t >1\%$) will serve as a robust evidence for new
245: physics.
246: \item[(ii)] The R-conserving supersymmetric contribution to this polarization asymmetry
247: is also very small \cite{pari-tt}. So, if supersymmetry is the true story,
248: only R-violating couplings can cause a sizable value for the polarization asymmetry,
249: which makes it a unique probe for R-violating couplings.
250: \item[(iii)] Although the R-violating couplings can
251: contribute to the {\it total\/} $t\bar t$ cross section by a few percent \cite{rv-tt},
252: such correction effects of a few percent are hard to be disentangled from
253: the measurement of the $t\bar t$ cross section
254: because of the uncertainties in the SM predictions of the $t\bar{t}$
255: production cross section and the possible loop contributions
256: from the R-conserving MSSM interactions~\cite{loop}.
257: \end{itemize}
258:
259: \section{Results and Discussions} \label{sec-3}
260: In our numerical calculations the top quark mass $m_{t}=175$ GeV,
261: and the center-of-mass energy for the LHC (Tevatron) $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV (2 TeV).
262: We assume that only one of the involved $R$-violating couplings dominates.
263: For the $L$-violating couplings $\lambda'_{i31}$, we consider the
264: existence of $\lambda'_{331}$, in which case the stau is exchanged
265: in the process, since $\lambda'_{131}$ and
266: $\lambda'_{231}$ are already strongly constrained by atomic parity
267: violation and $\nu_{\mu}$ deep-inelastic scattering~\cite{apv}.
268: For the $B$-violating interactions $\lambda''_{31j}$,
269: none of them have been well constrained by other processes.
270: So we may interpret our result as that on any one of $\lambda''_{31j}$,
271: in which case the squark $\tilde d^j$ is exchanged in the process.
272:
273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
274: \begin{figure}[hbt]
275: \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,width=10cm}
276: \caption{ Top quark polarizations $P_t$, $P_t^F$ and $P_t^B$ normalized
277: to $|\lambda'_{331}|^2$ at the LHC ($\sqrt s=14$ TeV)
278: and the Tevatron upgrade ($\sqrt s=2$ TeV)
279: versus the exchanged stau mass.
280: The figure can be also read as $-P_t$, $-P_t^F$ and $-P_t^B$
281: normalized to $|\lambda''_{31j}|^2$ versus the exchanged squark mass
282: with $P_t^F$ and $P_t^B$ interchanged. }
283: \end{figure}
284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
285: In Fig.~3 we show the polarizations $P_t$, $P_t^F$ and $P_t^B$
286: normalized to $|\lambda'_{331}|^2$ versus the stau mass.
287: This figure can be also read as $-P_t$,
288: $-P_t^F$ and $-P_t^B$ normalized to $|\lambda''_{31j}|^2$
289: versus the mass of the squark $\tilde d^j$ with $P_t^F$ and $P_t^B$
290: interchanged.
291: The total polarization is smaller than hemisphere polarizations because
292: of the cancellation between the two hemispheres.
293: For the coupling $\lambda'_{331}$ ($\lambda''_{31j}$),
294: the backward (forward) polarization has the largest magnitude of the three.
295: Comparing the LHC results with the Tevatron results, we see that the polarizations
296: at the LHC are smaller. This can be understood as follows:
297: Compared with the Tevatron, at the LHC both the difference
298: $\sigma_+ - \sigma_-$ (= $\sigma^{\rm new}_+ - \sigma^{\rm new}_-$) and
299: the total cross section $\sigma_+ + \sigma_-$ increase, but the
300: total cross section increase more significantly since it is dominated
301: by gluon-gluon fusion process.
302:
303: Now we estimate the statistical sensitivity.
304: The statistical error for the top polarization asymmetry defined in Eq.(\ref{pt})
305: is given by
306: \begin{eqnarray}
307: \delta P_t=\frac{[2(N_+^2 + N_-^2)]^{1/2}}{(N_+ + N_-)^{3/2}}
308: \simeq \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_+ + N_-}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: while $\delta P_t^F$ ($\delta P_t^B$) is obtained by replacing the
311: above events numbers with those in forward (backward) hemisphere.
312: For the $t\bar t$ event number in estimating the statistical error
313: we take the assumption
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: N= \epsilon \left[ N^{\rm SM}+N^{\rm new} \right]
316: \simeq \epsilon N^{\rm SM}
317: =\epsilon {\cal L} \sigma^{\rm SM}_{t\bar t}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: with $\sigma^{\rm SM}_{t\bar t}
320: =873$ pb (6.77 pb) for the LHC (Tevatron upgrade) \cite{tt-rate},
321: ${\cal L}$ being the intergrated luminosity
322: and $\epsilon$ being the efficiency factor in events counting.
323: The efficiency factor $\epsilon$ can be writen as
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: \epsilon=\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon_3
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: with $\epsilon_{1,2,3}$ coming respectively from three aspects:
328: \begin{itemize}
329: \item[(1)] Firstly, as discussed in many previous works \cite{pola1,pola2,pola3},
330: the helicity states of the top quark may have to be determined from the kinematic
331: distribution of its decay particles $t \to W^+ b \to \ell^+\nu_\ell b$
332: ($\ell=e$ or $\mu$) after reconstructing the top and anti-top quarks in the
333: signal events. This will immediately lead to a suppression factor
334: $\epsilon_1=2/9$.
335:
336: \item[(2)] Secondly, as is well known,
337: considering both the detector acceptance and the suppression of
338: the QCD background, some kinematic cuts on the top and anti-top decay
339: particles as well as $b$-tagging are necessary.
340: Depending on the detailed kinematic cuts and the $b$-tagging efficiency,
341: the events number is further suppressed by an
342: efficiency factor $\epsilon_2$.
343:
344: For example, if we impose the kinematic selection cuts as
345: $p_T^{\ell}, p_T^{jet} \ge 20$ GeV, $ \eta_{jet},~\eta_{\ell} \le 3.0$,
346: $p_T^{\rm miss}\ge 30$ GeV and $\Delta R_{jj},~\Delta R_{j\ell} \ge 0.4$,
347: where $p_{T}$ denotes the transverse momentum, $\eta$ is the pseudo-rapidity,
348: and $\Delta R$ is the separation in the azimuthal angle-pseudo rapidity plane
349: $(~\Delta R= \sqrt{(\Delta \phi)^2 + (\Delta \eta)^2}~ )$ between
350: a jet and a lepton or between two jets, then the efficiency from such
351: kinematic cuts is about $30\%$ \cite{stop}. Combined with the b-tagging efficiency
352: of about $50\%$, the efficiency factor $\epsilon_2 \simeq 15\%$.
353: (Currently at Tevatron CDF, the efficiency for tagging at least one b-jet in a $t\bar t$ event
354: is $(53\pm 4)\%$ \cite{tt-CDF}. At the LHC we expect an efficiency better than
355: $50\%$ for tagging at least one b-jet in a $t\bar t$ event.)
356:
357: Note that in theoretical analyses we usually impose $\Delta
358: R_{jj},~\Delta R_{j\ell} \ge 0.4$ \cite{stop}. But for the
359: separation of jets at the LHC, $\Delta R_{jj} \ge 0.4$ may be
360: over-optimistic and the realistic cut may be $\Delta R_{jj} \ge
361: 0.7$. As a result of such a stronger cut, the efficiency factor
362: $\epsilon_2 $ may drop below $10\%$.
363:
364: Further, in theoretical analyses we usually imposed $\eta\le 3$ \cite{stop}
365: and did not consider the difference of detector efficiency in the different
366: regions of $\eta\le 3$.
367: In practice, the detector efficiency will certainly be quite different in
368: the barrel $\eta < 1$ and endcap $1 < \eta < 3$ regions.
369: Therefore, the realistic value of $\epsilon_2$ can only be obtained
370: from detector-dependent full Monte Carlo simulation.
371:
372: \item[(3)] Thirdly, from analysing the distribution of the leptonic decays of a
373: top quark, we in practice can only know its helicity with some probability
374: $\epsilon_3$. A recent analysis \cite{pola2} gives $\epsilon_3 \simeq 75\%$.
375: But this figure may be over-optimistic since the analysis \cite{pola2} is
376: a theoretical work making rather optimistic assumptions.
377: As pointed in \cite{pola3},
378: the principal difficulty in measuring top quark
379: polarization comes from the ambiguities in reconstructing its momentum
380: from the decay products, when both top and anti-top decay
381: semileptonically. The realistic value of $\epsilon_3$ may also have to be
382: obtained from detector-dependent full Monte Carlo simulation.
383: For the ATLAS detector an analysis was given in \cite{atlas} based on
384: leading-order Monte Carlo generators and on a fast simulation of the detector.
385: \end{itemize}
386:
387: Since $\epsilon_{2,3}$ are detector-dependent and their realistic
388: values can only be obtained from detector-dependent full Monte Carlo simulations,
389: in our numerical calculations for statistical significance and statistical limits
390: we only incorporate the suppression factor $\epsilon_1$ while leave $\epsilon_{2,3}$
391: as variables. Of course, it is straitforward to reinterpret our results once
392: $\epsilon_{2,3}$ are determined. We will explicitly point out how to
393: reinterpret our results once $\epsilon_{2,3}$ are known.
394:
395: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
396: \begin{figure}[hbt]
397: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=10cm}
398: \caption{ Statistical significance at the LHC ($\sqrt s=14$ TeV)
399: and the Tevatron upgrade ($\sqrt s=2$ TeV), normalized
400: to $|\lambda'_{331}|^2$
401: (or to $|\lambda'_{331}|^2 \sqrt{\epsilon_2 \epsilon_3}$ if
402: we consider the efficiency factors $\epsilon_{2,3}$).
403: The figure can be also read as the statistical significance
404: normalized to $|\lambda''_{31j}|^2$
405: versus the exchanged squark mass with $P_t^F$ and $P_t^B$ interchanged.}
406: \end{figure}
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: The statistical significances $P_t/\delta P_t$, $P_t^F/\delta P_t^F$ and
409: $P_t^B/\delta P_t^B$ normalized to $|\lambda'_{331}|^2$ versus stau mass
410: are shown in Fig. 4.
411: The figure can be also read as the statistical significances
412: normalized to $|\lambda''_{31j}|^2$ versus the exchanged squark mass
413: with $P_t^F$ and $P_t^B$ interchanged.
414: We see that in case of $\lambda'_{331}$ ($\lambda''_{31j}$)
415: the sensitivity of the backward (forward) polarization is the best.
416: Comparing Fig. 3 with Fig. 4, we see that although the polarizations at the LHC
417: are smaller than at the Tevatron upgrade, the LHC gives much larger statistical
418: significances due to its much larger $t\bar t$ sample.
419:
420: The statistical limits for $\lambda'_{331}$
421: ($\lambda''_{31j}$) versus stau (squark) mass are shown in Fig.~5.
422: Here for the LHC we show the limits at $5\sigma$ (discovery), $3\sigma$ (evidence)
423: and $2\sigma$ (exclusion).
424: The current $2\sigma$ exclusion limits from $Z$ decay at LEP~\cite{Zdecay}
425: are also shown for comparison. We see that the LHC may be quite powerful in
426: probing these $R$-violating couplings.
427:
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: \begin{figure}[hbt]
430: \epsfig{file=fig5.ps,width=12cm,angle=0}
431: \caption{ The statistical limits for $\lambda'_{331}$
432: (or for $\lambda'_{331} (\epsilon_2 \epsilon_3)^{1/4}$
433: if we consider the efficiency factors $\epsilon_{2,3}$)
434: versus stau mass.
435: The figure can be also read as the statistical limits for
436: $\lambda''_{31j}$ versus squark mass.}
437: \end{figure}
438: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
439:
440: Finally, we stress that our above analyses are almost solely
441: theoretical. We only demonstrated the statistical sensitivity and
442: statistical limits. As is well known, in experiments some
443: systematic errors are inevitable. Such systematic errors are
444: detector-dependent and will certainly worsen the probing limits
445: for the R-violating couplings. For example, as an artifact of the
446: measurement problems, an apparent polarization asymmetry may
447: arise. The analysis for the ATLAS detector showed \cite{atlas}
448: that the systematic uncertainties will dominate over the
449: statistical errors after one LHC year at low luminosity (10
450: fb$^{-1}$). The analysis in \cite{atlas} gives a quite encouraging
451: result, which shows that a percent-level precision on the
452: measurement of the polarization asymmetry between like-spin versus
453: unlike-spin $t\bar t$ events is possible even with 10 fb$^{-1}$.
454: Of course, a higher luminosity (say 100 fb$^{-1}$) will further
455: enhance the measurement precision. Although the analysis in
456: \cite{atlas} did not show the possible measurement precision on
457: our polarization asymmetry $(N_+ - N_-)/(N_+ + N_-)$, we can
458: expect a similar or even better precision because here we sum over
459: the helicities of the $\bar{t}$ and consider an integrated
460: asymmetry in the numbers of $t_+$ and $t_-$ produced.
461:
462: \section{Conclusions} \label{sec-4}
463: In summary, the R-parity violating interactions of the top quark, which have not been well
464: constrained by current experiments, can induce anomalous top pair productions
465: at hadron colliders. Although such induced processes only contribute to the
466: total $t\bar t$ cross section at the percent level, they can cause top quark polarization
467: in the top pair events due to the chiral nature of these interactions.
468: The polarization can be a useful observable for probing these interactions at
469: the LHC and the upgraded Fermilab Tevatron collider because the polarization is expected
470: to be very small in the Standard Model.
471: We found that at the LHC, due to the large statistics, the statistical
472: significance of the polarization observable and thus the probing ability for the
473: corresponding R-parity violating couplings are much higher than at the Tevatron
474: upgrade.
475: Finally, we stress that for the purpose of probing these R-vioalting couplings,
476: there may exist other processes which are complementary to our analyses.
477: For example, $\lambda''_{3ij}$ couplings can induce $s$-channel top-squark
478: productions at the LHC and Tevatron
479: and, as studied in \cite{one-stop}, such productions can be used to
480: probe the parameter space of $\lambda''_{3ij}$ versus top-squark mass.
481:
482: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
483:
484: \bibitem{review} For some reviews on top quark physics, see, e.g.,
485: D. Chakraborty, J. Konigsberg, D. Rainwater, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.
486: {\bf 53}, 301 (2003);
487: E.~H.~Simmons, hep-ph/0211335;
488: C.-P. Yuan, hep-ph/0203088;
489: S. Willenbrock, hep-ph/0211067.
490: M. Beneke {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0003033.
491: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303092;%%
492: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211335;%%
493: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203088;%%
494: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211067;%%
495: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%
496: \bibitem{sensitive} For model-independent studies of new physics in top quark physics,
497: see, e.g.,
498: C. T. Hill and S. J. Parke, \PRD49, 4454 (1994);
499: K. Whisnant, et al., \PRD56, 467 (1997);
500: K. Hikasa, et al., \PRD58, 114003 (1998).
501: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,4454;%%
502: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,467;%%
503: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,114003;%%
504: \bibitem{t-fcnc} C.~S.~Li, R.~J.~Oakes and J.~M.~Yang, \PRD49, 293 (1994);
505: G.~Couture, C.~Hamzaoui and H.~Konig, \PRD52, 1713 (1995);
506: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan, \PRD56, 3100 (1997);
507: G.~M.~de Divitiis, R.~Petronzio and L.~Silvestrini, \NPB504, 45 (1997).
508: J.~M.~Yang, B.-L.~Young and X.~Zhang, \PRD58, 055001 (1998);
509: J.~M.~Yang and C.~S.~Li, \PRD49, 3412 (1994);
510: J.~Guasch, and J.~Sola, \NPB562, 3 (1999);
511: G. Eilam, {\it et al.}, \PLB510, 227 (2001);
512: J. Cao, {\it et al.}, \NPB651, 87 (2003);
513: J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang, L. G. Jin, \PLB599, 92 (2004);
514: J. Cao, {\it et al.}, \PRD74, 031701 (2006);
515: G. Eilam, M. Frank, I. Turan, hep-ph/0601253.
516: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
517: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,1713;%%
518: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3100;%%
519: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B504,45;%%
520: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,055001;%%
521: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3412;%%
522: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B562,3;%%
523: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B510,227;%%
524: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B651,87;%%
525: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B599,92;%%
526: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,031701;%%
527: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601253;%%
528: \bibitem{rv-review} For some reviews, see
529: R. Barbier, et al., Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 420}, 1 (2005);
530: H. Dreiner, hep-ph/9707435;
531: G. Bhattacharyya, hep-ph/9709395;
532: P. Roy, hep-ph/9712520.
533: %%CITATION = PRPLC,420,1;%%
534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707435;%%
535: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709395;%%
536: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712520;%%
537: \bibitem{rv-t-prod} A. Datta, {\it et al.}, \PRD56, 3107 (1997);
538: R. J. Oakes, {\it et al.}, \PRD57, 534 (1998);
539: P. Chiappetta, {\it et al.}, \PRD61, 115008 (2000).
540: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3107;%%
541: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,534;%%
542: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D61,115008;%%
543: \bibitem{rv-t-decay} K.J. Abraham, {\it et al.}, \PRD63, 034011 (2001); \PLB514, 72 (2001).
544: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D63,034011;%%
545: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B514,72;%%
546: \bibitem{rv-tt} D.~K. Ghosh, S.~Raychaudhuri and K.~Sridhar, \PLB396, 177 (1997).
547: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B396,177;%%
548: \bibitem{hikasa} K. Hikasa, J. M. Yang and B.-L. Young, \PRD60, 114041 (1999).
549: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60,114041;%%
550: \bibitem{pari-tt}
551: C.~Kao, G.~A. Ladinsky and C.-P. Yuan, FSU-HEP-930508, 1993 (unpublished);
552: C.~Kao, \PLB348, 155 (1995);
553: C.~S. Li, {\it et. al.}, \PLB398, 298 (1997);
554: C.~S. Li, C.-P. Yuan and H.-Y. Zhou, \PLB424, 76 (1998).
555: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B348,155;%%
556: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B398,298;%%
557: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B424,76;%%
558: \bibitem{cteq} J.~Pumplin, {\it et. al.}, JHEP {\bf 0207}, 012 (2002);
559: D.~Stump, {\it et. al.}, JHEP {\bf 0310}, 046 (2003).
560: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303013;%%
561: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
562: \bibitem{loop} C.~S. Li, {\it et al.}, \PRD52, 5014 (1995);
563: J. Kim, J.~L. Lopez, D.~V. Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan, \PRD54, 4364 (1996);
564: J.~M. Yang and C.~S. Li, \PRD52, 1541 (1995); {\bf 54}, 4380 (1996);
565: C.~S. Li, {\it et al.}, \PLB379, 135 (1996);
566: S.~Alam, K.~Hagiwara and S.~Matsumoto, \PRD55, 1307 (1997);
567: Z.~Sullivan, \PRD56, 451 (1997);
568: W.~Hollik, W.~M. Mosle and D.~Wackeroth, \NPB516, 29 (1998).
569:
570: \bibitem{apv} V.~Barger, G.~F. Giudice and T.~Han, \PRD40, 2978 (1989).
571: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D40,2978;%%
572: \bibitem{pola1} G.~L. Kane, G.~A. Ladinsky and C.-P. Yuan, \PRD45, 124 (1992);
573: M.~Jezabek and J.~H. K\"uhn, \PLB329, 317 (1994);
574: S.~Parke and Y.~Shadmi, \PLB387, 199 (1996);
575: \bibitem{pola2} Y. Sumino and S. Tsuno, \PLB633, 715 (2006).
576: \bibitem{pola3} R. M. Godbole, S. D. Rindani, R. K. Singh, \JHEP0612, 021 (2006).
577: \bibitem{atlas} F. Hubaut, E. Monnier, P. Pralavorio, V. Simak, K. Smolek, hep-ex/0508061.
578: \bibitem{tt-rate} See, e.g., N. Kidonakis and R. Vogt, \PRD68, 114014 (2003);
579: \EPJC33, s466 (2004).
580: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308222;%%
581: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309045;%%
582: \bibitem{Zdecay} J.~M. Yang, \EPJC20, 553 (2001);
583: G.~Bhattacharyya, J.~Ellis and K.~Sridhar, \MPLA10, 1583 (1995);
584: G.~Bhattacharyya, D.~Choudhury and K.~Sridhar, \PLB355, 193 (1995).
585: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905486;%%
586: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9503264;%%
587: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B355,193;%%
588: \bibitem{stop} See, e.g., J. M. Yang, B.-L. Young, \PRD62, 115002 (2000);
589: M. Hosch, et al., \PRD58, 034002 (1998);
590: R. J. Oakes, et al., \PRD57, 534 (1998).
591: \bibitem{tt-CDF} See, e.g., H. Bachacou, hep-ex/0501007.
592: \bibitem{one-stop} E. L. Berger, B. W. Harris, Z. Sullivan,
593: \PRL 83, 4472 (1999); \PRD 63, 115001 (2001).
594:
595: \end{thebibliography}
596:
597: \end{document}
598: