1: \documentclass[nofootinbib,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,letterpaper]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: 

6: \def\mysection#1{{\bf #1.} }

7: \def\mysections#1{{\bf #1.} }

8: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

9:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

10: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

11:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

12: \def\ttbar{t\bar t}

13: \def\qqbar{q\bar q}

14: \def\mttbar{m_{t\bar t}}

15: \def\PLR{P_{LR}}

16: \def\mbl{m_{bl}}

17: \def\mkkg{M_{KKG}}

18: 

19: \begin{document}

20: 

21: \begin{titlepage}

22:  

23: \hfill$\vcenter{

24: \hbox{\small BNL-HET-06/13,

25:       MSUHEP-060915, SU-4252-838, YITP-SB-06-43} }$ 

26: 

27: \begin{center}

28: {\Large \bf LHC Signals from Warped Extra Dimensions}

29: \vskip .1in

30: {\bf Kaustubh Agashe}$^1$,  

31: %\footnote{email: kagashe@phy.syr.edu}

32: {\bf Alexander Belyaev}$^2$,

33: %\footnote{email:}

34: {\bf  Tadas Krupovnickas}$^3$,

35: %\footnote{email:}

36: {\bf Gilad Perez}$^4$

37: %\footnote{email: perez@physics.sunysb.edu}

38: and {\bf Joseph Virzi}$^5$\\  

39: %\footnote{email:...}  

40: %\vskip .25in

41: {\em $^1$ Department of Physics,

42: Syracuse University, 

43: Syracuse, NY 13244}\\ 

44: %\vskip .1in

45: {\em $^2$ 

46: Department of Physics and Astronomy, 

47: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824} \\ 

48: %\vskip .1in

49: {\em $^3$ 

50: Brookhaven National Laboratory, 

51: Upton, NY 11973} \\ 

52: %\vskip .1in

53:  {\em $^4$

54: C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics,

55:          State University of New York,

56:          Stony Brook, NY 11794-3840}\\  

57: %\vskip .1in

58: {\em $^5$ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

59: Physics Division, 

60: 1 Cyclotron Road,

61: Berkeley, CA 94720}

62: 

63: \end{center}

64: %\vskip .05in

65: 

66: 

67: \begin{center} {\bf Abstract}\\\end{center}

68: 

69: We study production of Kaluza-Klein gluons (KKG) at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)

70: in the framework of a warped extra dimension with the Standard Model (SM) fields propagating in the bulk.

71: We show that the detection of KK gluon is challenging since

72: its production is suppressed by small couplings to the proton's constituents.

73: Moreover, the KK gluon decays mostly to top pairs due to an enhanced coupling and hence is broad.

74: Nevertheless, we demonstrate that for $M_{KKG} \lesssim$ 4 TeV, 100 fb$^{-1}$ of data at the LHC can provide discovery of the KK gluon. 

75: We utilize a sizeable left-right polarization asymmetry from the KK gluon resonance to maximize the signal significance, 

76: and we explore the novel feature of extremely highly energetic ``top-jets''.

77: We briefly discuss how the detection of electroweak gauge KK states ($Z/W$) faces a similar challenge 

78: since their leptonic decays (``golden'' modes) are suppressed.

79: Our analysis suggests that other frameworks, for example little Higgs, 

80: which rely on UV completion via strong dynamics might face similar challenges, namely

81: (1) Suppressed production rates for the new particles (such as $Z^{ \prime}$), due to their ``light-fermion-phobic'' nature, and

82: (2) Difficulties in detection since the new particles are broad and decay predominantly to third generation quarks and longitudinal gauge bosons.

83: \vskip .2in

84: 

85: \end{titlepage}

86: \newpage

87: \renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}

88: \setcounter{page}{1}

89: 

90: \section{Introduction}

91: Solutions to the Planck-weak hierarchy problem of the SM typically

92: invoke new particles charged under the SM at the TeV scale. The lore is

93: that such particles will be readily accessible at the LHC, especially

94: the strongly interacting ones. In this paper, we consider the solution

95: to the hierarchy problem based on the Randall-Sundrum I (RS1) framework of a warped extra dimension

96: \cite{rs1}.

97: %

98: Specifically, we consider this framework with the SM gauge and fermion

99: fields propagating

100: in the bulk of the warped extra dimension,

101: which provides a solution to the flavor puzzle of the SM as well.

102: %

103: We focus on detecting the Kaluza-Klein (KK) partner of the SM gluon

104: at the LHC -- as we explain, KK gluon is probably the best channel

105: to probe the  RS1 framework. We show that, despite it being strongly

106: interacting, it is quite challenging to see a signal from this

107: particle with a mass of several TeV at the LHC.  The reason is

108: related to the special (but well-motivated) nature of its couplings

109: which are non-universal and are ``proton-phobic''. The consequence

110: of such couplings is that our signal (an excess of top pairs) is

111: comparable in size to the SM background. With the techniques

112: developed herein, it should be possible to extract a signal for the

113: KK gluon (in this framework) at the LHC with $\simeq$ 100 fb$^{-1}$

114: of data.

115: 

116: The framework involves a slice of AdS$_5$~\cite{rs1}.  Due to the warped

117: geometry,

118: the relationship between the $5D$ mass scales (taken to be of order the $4D$

119: Planck scale) and those in an effective $4D$ description depends on the

120: location

121: in the extra dimension. The $4D$ (or zero-mode) graviton is localized near

122: the

123: ``UV/Planck'' brane which has a Planckian fundamental scale,  whereas the

124: Higgs

125: sector is localized near the ``IR/TeV'' brane where it is protected by a

126: warped-down fundamental scale of order TeV.  This large hierarchy of

127: scales can be

128: generated via a modest-size radius of the extra dimension.  Furthermore,

129: based on

130: the AdS/CFT correspondence \cite{Maldacena:1997re},  the RS1 model is

131: conjectured

132: to be dual to $4D$ composite Higgs models \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}. %

133: Hence, our

134: results might apply in general to $4D$ models with TeV-scale strong dynamics

135: driving electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB).

136: 

137: In the RS1 model, the entire SM (including the fermions and gauge bosons) is

138: assumed to be localized on the TeV brane. The higher-dimensional operators

139: in the

140: $5D$ effective field theory (from cut-off physics) are suppressed only by the

141: warped-down scale $\sim$ TeV,  giving too large contributions to FCNC

142: processes

143: and observables related to SM electroweak precision tests (EWPT).

144: Moreover, this

145: set-up provides no understanding of the flavor puzzle.

146: 

147: An attractive solution to this problem is to allow the SM fields to

148: propagate in

149: the extra dimension \cite{bulkgauge, gn, gp}. In this scenario, the SM

150: particles

151: are identified with the zero-modes of the $5D$ fields and the profile of a SM

152: fermion in the extra dimension depends on its $5D$ mass parameter. We can

153: then

154: choose to localize 1st and 2nd generation fermions near the Planck brane

155: so that

156: the FCNC's from higher-dimensional operators are suppressed by scales

157: $\gg$ TeV

158: which is the cut-off at the location of these fermions~\cite{gp, hs}.

159: Similarly,

160: contributions to EWPT are also suppressed.

161: 

162: As a bonus, we obtain a solution to the flavor puzzle in the sense that

163: hierarchies

164: in the SM Yukawa couplings arise without introducing hierarchies in the

165: fundamental

166: $5D$ theory~\cite{gn, gp, hs}. The 1st/2nd generation fermions have small

167: Yukawa

168: couplings to Higgs, which is localized near the TeV brane.  Similarly, the

169: top quark

170: can be localized near the TeV brane to account for its large Yukawa coupling.

171: 

172: In this scenario, there are new contributions to EWPT and FCNC's

173: calculable in the

174: $5D$ effective field theory (EFT) from KK modes. In particular, the

175: couplings of SM

176: fermions to gauge KK modes are non-universal due to the different profiles

177: for the

178: SM fermions, resulting in FCNC's. However, the gauge KK modes are

179: localized near the

180: TeV brane while the light fermions are near the Planck brane and hence  it

181: can be

182: shown that the non-universal part of these couplings are proportional to

183: the SM

184: Yukawa couplings~\cite{gp, hs}. Thus, most of the couplings to the new

185: degrees of

186: freedom are small and hierarchical, leading to the same symmetry structure

187: which

188: suppresses the SM flavor-violating contributions~\cite{aps}  (for recent

189: related

190: discussions and the experimental status see~\cite{NMFV}).   The gauge KK

191: modes also

192: give contributions to EWPT.  The constraints from the oblique ($S$ and $T$)

193: parameters can be satisfied with a KK mass scale as low as $\sim 3$ TeV  if a

194: custodial isospin symmetry is incorporated~\cite{custodial}.

195: 

196: Let us examine the top/bottom sector in detail since the associated

197: couplings will be relevant for the signals. It is clear that both

198: $t_{L,R}$ being near the Planck brane gives too small a top Yukawa

199: coupling. On the other hand, the fact that $(t,b)_L$ is close to the TeV

200: brane leads to its large coupling to KK $Z$ and, in turn,  results in a

201: non-universal shift in its coupling to the SM $Z$ via mixing of KK $Z$

202: with zero-mode $Z$~\cite{custodial}:

203: $

204: \delta g_Z^{ b_L }  \sim  g_{Z^{\rm KK }}^{ b_L }

205: \xi

206: \frac{ m^2_Z }{ M_{ KK Z }^2 }$

207: where $\xi\equiv\sqrt{ \log \left( M_{ Pl } / \hbox{ TeV } \right) }$

208: and $g_{Z^{\rm KK }}^{ b_L }$ is the corresponding non-universal KK $Z$

209: coupling.

210: The constraint from data is that $\delta g_Z^{ b_L } / g_Z \lsim 1/4 \%$.

211: 

212: Thus, for a KK scale $\simeq$ a few TeV, there is a tension between obtaining

213: large top mass and EWPT (i.e., $Z \bar b_L b_L$ coupling) which can be

214: relaxed

215: by the following setup: (i) $(t,b)_L$ quasi-localized near TeV brane so

216: that the

217: shift in coupling of $b_L$ to $Z$ is on the edge, (ii) $t_R$ localized very

218: close to TeV brane to obtain large top quark mass and (iii) largest

219: dimensionless $5D$ Yukawa consistent with perturbativity. Note that the

220: resulting coupling of $b_L$ to gauge KK modes (including gluon) is

221: comparable to

222: the SM couplings and thus is still larger than what is expected on the

223: basis of

224: $m_b$ alone, since it is dictated by the large top mass instead. Even with

225: these

226: choices, the KK scale is required to be rather high, $\lesssim~5$~TeV.  In

227: this

228: case, the couplings of $t_R$, which is localized very near the TeV brane,

229: to the

230: gauge KK modes are enhanced: $g^{ t_R }_{ \hbox{SM}^{ \rm KK } }  \sim  g_{

231: \hbox{SM} }  \xi \,.$

232: 

233: However, such corrections to $Z \bar{b}_L b_L$ coupling can be suppressed by

234: suitable choice of representation of top and bottom quarks under the

235: custodial

236: isospin symmetry \cite{Zbb}. In this case, we can have the other extreme

237: situation:

238: $(t,b)_L$ can be localized very close to the TeV brane with $t_R$ being

239: close to

240: flat. Also, there is an intermediate possibility with both $(t,b)_L$ and

241: $t_R$ being

242: localized close (but not too close) to the TeV brane. The KK scale can

243: then be as

244: low as $\sim 3$ TeV for certain choice of profiles for $t_R$ and $(t,b)_L$

245:  in the

246: extra dimension \cite{Carena:2006bn}.

247: 

248: In this paper we will consider models with the assignment of reference

249: \cite{custodial} for the quantum numbers of top and bottom quarks. Based

250: on the

251: above profiles, it can be shown that the couplings of KK gluon (and in

252: general all

253: gauge KK modes) to light fermions (including $b_R$) are suppressed by 

254: $\xi$ with

255: respect to the SM gauge couplings. The coupling to $t_L,b_L$ is neither

256: suppressed

257: nor enhanced and only the coupling to $t_R$  (which is practically on the

258: TeV brane

259: or composite in the dual $4D$ picture) is enhanced by $\xi$. It can also

260: be shown

261: that there is no coupling of single KK gauge field to two  SM gauge bosons at

262: leading order due to orthonormality of profiles of these particles. To

263: summarize

264: (see for example~\cite{aps} for more details) the relevant coupling to the

265: KK gauge

266: states can be described,  neglecting effects related to EWSB, via ratio of

267: RS1-to-SM

268: gauge coupling

269: 

270: \begin{eqnarray}

271: {g_{\rm RS}^{q\bar q,l\bar l\, G^{1}}\over g_{\rm SM}}&\simeq&

272: \xi^{-1}\approx {1\over5}\,, \, \, \, \,

273: {g_{\rm RS}^{Q3\bar Q3 G^{1}}\over g_{\rm

274:     SM}} \approx 1\,, \nonumber\\

275: {g_{\rm RS}^{t_R\bar t_R G^{1}}\over g_{\rm

276:     SM}} &\simeq& \xi \approx 5 \,, \,\, \, \,

277:   {g_{\rm RS}^{ GG G^{1}}\over g_{\rm

278:     SM}}\approx 0 \,, \label{couplings}

279: \end{eqnarray}

280: where $q=u,d,s,c,b_R$, $l =$ leptons, $Q^3= (t, b)_L$, $G,G^1$ correspond

281: to SM and first KK states of the gauge fields respectively and

282: $g_{\rm RS}^{xyz}, g_{\rm SM}$ stands for the RS1 and the three SM (i.e.,

283: $4D$) gauge couplings respectively.

284: 

285: It is straightforward to modify our analysis as to accomodate generic

286: couplings of

287: the KK gauge fields to the SM third generation quarks.  This will cover the

288: signals of models with custodial symmetry for $Zb\bar b$~\cite{Zbb}.

289: However, we

290: choose to show the explicit results within one scenario to make the steps

291: of our

292: analysis and our results more transparent.  A brief discussion of the

293: signals in

294: the case where the custodial symmetry for $Zb\bar b$~\cite{Zbb} is

295: realized is

296: given in section~\ref{SecZbb}.

297: 

298: 

299: We will mostly focus on LHC signals from KK gluons which have the largest

300: production rate.

301: The KK mass scale is assume to be $\simeq$ a few TeV.

302: In cases where a specific mass was required for our analysis a 3$\,$TeV

303: mass was used.

304: %

305: We also briefly discuss other interesting signals related to the

306: electroweak gauge KK sector whose detection might be more challenging than

307: KK gluon,

308: partly due to lower production rates than for KK gluons and also due to

309: suppression of decays to ``golden'' modes such as leptons.

310: In general, the EW sector is also more model dependent.

311: Earlier studies of KK gluon production at the

312: LHC~\cite{KKgttbar, Davoudiasl:2000wi} did not consider the effect of the

313: fermion profiles

314: which now is understood to be mandatory for the phenomenological viability

315: of the framework.

316: 

317: 

318: 

319: 

320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

321: 

322: \section{LHC signals}

323: 

324: The primary challenge in obtaining a signal at the LHC for gauge KK modes is that the  production is suppressed 

325: due to the small couplings to the proton constituents as seen in Eq.~\ref{couplings}.

326: 

327: We used both CalcHEP 2.42~\cite{Pukhov:2004ca} and Sherpa version 

328: 1.0.8~\cite{Sherpa}

329: \footnote{The authors are grateful to the Sherpa team, especially Tanju Gleisberg, for the help in embedding the RS1 KK gluon into Sherpa.}

330: for the numerical calculations.

331: The CTEQ6M parton distribution function (PDF) with the QCD renormalization and factorization scales equal to the KK gluon mass ($\mkkg$) was used in CalcHEP 2.42.

332: The CTEQ6L1 PDF set was used in Sherpa, employing a running scheme for $\alpha_S$ with $\alpha_S(M_Z)=0.118$.

333: We find that the results do not change significantly between the two 

334: PDF sets

335: \footnote{This should not be interpreted as indication of small uncertainties due to PDF's in the cross section since 

336: the two PDF sets might be correlated.

337: One of the main points of our study is to identify observables 

338: which depend rather weakly on the PDF's uncertainties.}. 

339: 

340: For KK gluons, CalcHEP yields a moderate cross-section of $\sim 100\,$fb for $\mkkg \sim 3\,$TeV as indicated in Fig.~\ref{kkg_1_signp}.

341: The cross section falls very quickly for higher KK masses, where for $\mkkg \sim 5$ TeV the cross-section drops to $\sim 10$ fb - 

342: probably beyond the reach of LHC (as discussed below). 

343: The dominant production mechanism is through $u\bar{u},d\bar{d}$ annihilation.

344: We note the production rate for the EW KK gauge fields is suppressed by $(g_Z/g_{ QCD })^2$  relative to KK gluon production.

345: %

346: \begin{figure}[htbp]

347: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{kkg_1_signp.eps}

348: \caption{\label{kkg_1_signp}

349: The total cross section of KK gluon production at the LHC as a

350: function of its mass ($M_{KKG}$).

351: }

352: \end{figure}

353: 

354: Another challenge is that, based again on the couplings in Eq.~\ref{couplings},

355: the fermionic decays of the gauge KK particles (in general) are expected to be dominated by the 3rd generation quarks, 

356: especially the top quark, due to enhancement of the corresponding couplings. 

357: For example, the branching ratios for KK gluon decay are shown in Fig.~\ref{kkg_3_br}.

358: \begin{figure}[htbp]

359: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{kkg_3_br.eps}

360: \caption{\label{kkg_3_br}

361: The branching ratios of the  KK gluon as a function of its mass.

362: }

363: \end{figure}

364: In the case of EW gauge KK modes ($W/Z$), decays to longitudinal weak gauge bosons and the Higgs field are also important due to similarly enhanced couplings.

365: In particular, the leptonic decay channel for KK $Z$ is highly suppressed. 

366: In the absence of golden decays modes for KK $Z/W$, we focus 

367: on signals for the KK gluon which has the larger production 

368: cross-section.

369: \footnote{For a related work on KK gluon but with universal couplings 

370: see~\cite{KKgttbar, Davoudiasl:2000wi}.}

371: 

372: A third challenge is related to the fact that due to the strong coupling to top pair (and in case of KK $W/Z$ to Higgs and longitudinal $W/Z$),

373: a heavy gauge KK mode is rather broad. 

374: For example, a KK gluon above 1 TeV (as required by precision tests) has decay width of about $M_{KKG}/6$ as presented in

375: Fig.~\ref{kkg_2_gtot}.

376: Decay widths of KK $Z/W$ are smaller by $\sim (g_Z/g_{ QCD })^2$.

377: This large width of KK gauge states creates additional problems for discriminating signal against the background.

378: \begin{figure}[htbp]

379: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{kkg_2_gtot.eps}

380: \caption{\label{kkg_2_gtot}

381: The total decay width of KK gluon  as a function of its mass}

382: \end{figure}

383: 

384: 

385: \subsection{KK gluons}

386: 

387: In the interesting region of $M_{ KK G }$, well above the $t\bar{t}$ threshold,

388: the KK gluon decays mainly to $t\bar{t}$ with the branching ratio of about $95\%$ (see Fig.~\ref{kkg_3_br}). 

389: Hence,

390: our main focus here will be on the (ultra-relativistic) 

391: $t\bar{t}$ pairs from decays of KK gluons.

392: \footnote{For the decays of KK gluon to light quarks (which has small BR in any case), 

393: the SM QCD background will also be very large.}

394: Within the SM there are two dominant production mechanisms for

395: $t \bar{t}$, namely $gg$ (gluon fusion) and $q \bar q$ (quark pair annihilation).

396: At the LHC, $\ttbar$ production proceeds primarily through gluon fusion~\cite{topLHC}.

397: \footnote{In the region of interest here, i.e., $\mttbar^2 \approx ( 3 \; \hbox{TeV} )^2$, 

398: the rate for gluon fusion into top pairs in SM is roughly $4$ times larger than the $q \bar{q}$ annihilation rate.}

399: $\ttbar$ (top pair) production near threshold has been extensively studied 

400: (see {\it e.g.} \cite{ttbar} and references therein).

401: Away from threshold, this simple picture is modified due to the presence of states of higher angular momentum. 

402: In the other extreme, ultra-relativistic case 

403: ($\mttbar^2\gg 4 m_t^2$) which is the focus of this paper, 

404: another rather simple and very interesting description emerges~\cite{KPV}.

405: We make use of the fact that in this limit the SM effects related to EWSB are small and also the top quark chirality is conserved 

406: (the relevant issues are discussed below when the polarization asymmetry is studied).

407: 

408: The crucial point is that we find, unlike the case in previous 

409: studies~\cite{KKgttbar, Davoudiasl:2000wi},

410: the cross-section for SM $t \bar{t}$ production

411: (in the region $\mttbar - \mkkg \sim \pm \Gamma$)

412: is {\em comparable} to $t \bar{t}$ production from KK gluons.

413: Moreover, the SM cross-section has a large uncertainty from gluon PDF's in the large $x$-region~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}.

414: Hence, even with $\mkkg$ lighter than 5 TeV obtaining a clear and robust signal is a non-trivial task.

415: In particular, a simple ``number-counting'' experiment is not enough.

416: We follow a multi-step strategy to get clear and significant results.

417: We first consider the differential top pair cross-section. 

418: Then we analyse a left-right polarization asymmetry, expected to have a clean and robust prediction

419: for ultra-relativistic top quarks~\cite{KPV} in the SM and our framework.

420: The combination of the two observables yields a powerful tool to probe our class of models.

421: 

422: \subsubsection{Event Generation and Jet Reconstruction}

423: Sherpa version 1.0.8, using a customized class to implement the appropriate vertices, was used to generate events, using LHC parameters. 

424: A cone jet algorithm with $\Delta R=0.4$~\cite{cone_jet_algorithm}, or

425: C4 for short, was used to reconstruct jets ($\Delta R=\sqrt{\Delta \eta^2+\Delta\phi^2}$). 

426: Events were generated with cross sections calculated to leading order. 

427: We do not analyze the effects of pile-up, 

428: nor characterize the underlying event.

429: In addition, we do not include detector effects.

430: 

431: \subsubsection{Details of analysis}

432: In this section, we discuss in more detail how we performed our analysis.

433: Our preferred reconstruction mode is $t\bar{t} \rightarrow b\bar{b}jjl\nu$ (semileptonic), whose signature we refer to simply as ``$lepton+jet$'' ($lj$).

434: We use the terms hadronic- and leptonic tops to refer to those quarks which decay into the hadronic mode and leptonic modes, respectively.

435: We focus primarily on the SM irreducible background from $\ttbar$ production 

436: and discuss several crucial aspects of the dominant reducible

437: background,

438: $W+$jets and single top production.

439: 

440: For the leptonic side reconstruction,

441: we searched for high $P_T$ leptons, presumably excluded from jets.

442: We will refer to this condition as isolation, 

443: and we will discuss this point in more detail below. 

444: We assumed that the $W$ from the decay of a top quark further decayed

445: leptonically,

446: inferring an (undetected) neutrino to 

447: account for the missing transverse energy. 

448: A $b$-jet was required to combine with the $W$ to form an on-mass-shell top quark, via an invariant mass condition ($m_{Wb} = M_{t}^{lep} = M_{t} \pm 50\,$GeV).

449: 

450: We now develop the methods of hadronic side reconstruction, but we must first place them in context.

451: The extremely energetic nature of the top quarks in our signal ($P_T >

452: 1\,$TeV) leads us to deviate from the hadronic top reconstruction

453: methods (see {\it e.g.}~\cite{ttbarspin}), 

454: where they studied $\ttbar$ production with $\mttbar \lesssim 600\,$GeV.

455: \footnote{The energy regime $P_{T} \gsim 600\ GeV$ for jet reconstruction has not been extensively studied.}

456: Top quarks with $P_T > 1.0\,$ TeV tend to produce highly collimated jets. 

457: We focused on the C4 algorithm, which will not resolve higher jet multiplicities in high $P_{T}\ \ttbar$ events.

458: Reducing the cone size to $R=0.2$, for example, only masks this issue, and we eventually succumb to the same problem. 

459: This renders the hadronic top quark ($t \rightarrow bjj$) reconstruction mode in~\cite{ttbarspin} far too inefficient for our purposes.

460: Note also that the $\Delta R$ lepton to $b$-jet isolation criterion

461: (from the leptonic top) falls into this trap for the same reasons.

462: We propose a different strategy as follows:

463: 

464: (1) In searching for an isolated lepton,  we modify the $(\Delta R)$ leptonic top

465: reconstruction mode (see {\it e.g.}~\cite{ttbarspin}),

466: augmenting the lepton to $b$-jet isolation criteria with an

467: energy scale-invariant cut. The lepton is considered isolated from a given jet

468: (light jet, $b$-jet, etc.) if they are separated by an angular distance $\Delta R >

469: 0.4$. If a lepton is found inside the cone of a $b$-jet, the lepton is removed from

470: the $b$-jet and the $b$-jet is reclustered, in which case the invariant mass of the

471: lepton and $b$-jet system must satisfy $\mbl>40\,$GeV. $\mbl$ provides a measure of

472: the relative transverse momentum between the lepton and the $b$-jet. 

473: So, for $b$-quark and lepton isolation

474: we apply $\Delta R >0.4$ {\it or} $\mbl>40\,$GeV cut,

475: while

476: $\Delta R=0.4$ isolation criterion between lepton and all other jets remains in effect.

477: 

478: (2) If the jet multiplicity allows (2 $b$-jets and $\ge2$ light jets), 

479: we require that the invariant mass of the light jets reconstruct a $W$

480: according to parameters in

481: Table~\ref{tab:sel_cuts}.

482: The invariant mass, $M_{t}^{had}$ of the ($W$ + hadronic $b$-jet)-system is required to reconstruct a top quark according to parameters is  Table~\ref{tab:sel_cuts}.

483: 

484: In a dijet event with 1 $b$-jet, if the other jet has $P_{T} > 800\,,$GeV, we tag it as 

485: ``top (or $t$)-jet'', 

486: keeping only $\phi$, $\eta$ and transverse energy information from the reconstruction.

487: \footnote{In principle, a more sophisticated analysis would consider substructure resolution within this jet. 

488: The authors thank Frank Paige for discussions on this issue.}

489: We {\em impose} a top-mass hypothesis on the jet, setting $M_{jet} \rightarrow M_{top} = 174.3\,$GeV.

490: \begin{center}

491: $P_{x} = P_{T} \cos ( \phi )$ \\

492: $P_{y} = P_{T} \sin ( \phi )$ \\

493: $P_{z} = P_{T} \sinh ( \eta )$ \\

494: $M = \sqrt{E^2-P^2} \rightarrow 174.3\,$GeV

495: \end{center}

496: 

497: The $t$-jet reconstructed mode dominates the reconstructed signal for

498: $\mttbar \gsim 2\,$ TeV ($\mttbar$ stands for the top pair invariant mass).

499: We recuperated a large sample of signal events that we otherwise would have lost via more conventional reconstruction methods.

500: It would appear the top jet approach would introduce a large

501: background from such processes as $W$+jets

502: ($Wjj$) and single top production,

503: especially since we relax the $b$-jet tagging on the hadronic side.

504: The $P_{T}$ cut is crucial in reducing this background to almost negligible levels. 

505: We examined the effect of the background by simulating the largest possible sources $Wjj$ (the dominant background), using both CalcHep and Sherpa.

506: We found that the cross section that satisfies our preselection cuts, 

507: $m_{Wj_1} = m_t \pm 50\,$GeV, $p_{T^{j_2}}>800\,$GeV and the relevant KKG mass window $2.5

508: \; \hbox{TeV} < m_{Wjj}<3.5\,$TeV is 25fb. 

509: Applying a $b$ mistag probability of $3$\% (see~\cite{KKgttbar}) 

510: and leptonic BR of $2/9$ for $W$ further reduced this cross section to about 0.2 fb.

511: We compare this to our top pair production cross section

512: (signal+background) satisfying these cuts 

513: of 80 fb which is reduced to about $5$ fb after applying $b$-tagging

514: and including BR's (see details below). 

515: Thus, we conclude the $Wjj$ background to be small.

516: We found that $Wb\bar{b}$ and single top production with these same cuts have even smaller

517: cross section than $Wjj$ after including BR and $b$-tagging efficiency.

518: The results of our particle level analysis can be seen in Fig.~\ref{kkg_4b_tt}.

519: 

520: Following the procedure in ~\cite{ttbarspin}, the neutrino is reconstructed using a zero transverse momentum hypothesis on the event, 

521: with the neutrino carrying away the missing momentum. 

522: We required the lepton and neutrino to reconstruct an on-mass-shell $W$ ($M_{ {\it l} \nu } = M_W = 81\,GeV$).

523: This information is sufficient to reconstruct the neutrino momentum, modulo a quadratic ambiguity. 

524: In the case where we obtain two solutions, we used the one which better reconstructs the top ($|M_{W}^{lep}-M_{top}|<50\,$GeV). 

525: Additional studies, beyond the scope of this work, are required to characterize the effects of $W$ reconstruction 

526: when the lepton and neutrino are nearly collinear at high energies. 

527: We address this issue by noting that in our data sample, 

528: we were able to impose a $\Delta R = 0.15$ separation 

529: between the lepton and neutrino with minimal loss of statistics.

530: The cuts and other kinematical constraints are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:sel_cuts}.

531:   

532: In the following sections, we present our results from both partonic- and particle-level analyses.

533: We shall see that these two analyses are consistent with each other, 

534: and that no significant bias was introduced due to our selection cuts or reconstruction procedures.

535: \footnote{The lepton $P_{T}$ and $\mbl$ cuts are particularly scrutinized. Their impact on phase space will directly affect our polarization analysis.}

536: We remind the reader that we did not perform detailed detector simulation and hence, have not included the resulting smearing effects. 

537: We expect that, due to the nature of our kinematical region, 

538: the dominant smearing will be of ${\cal O}(3\%)$ (see {\it e.g.}~\cite{TDR}) which will induce small corrections to our mass resolution. 

539: A study of how the detector effects will modify the polarization asymmetry (discussed below) is beyond the scope of this work and will discussed in~\cite{KPV}.

540:   

541: {\small

542: \begin{table}[htbp]

543: \begin{center}\hspace*{.1cm}

544: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|}

545: \hline

546:    {\bf Selection}  &  {\bf Variables}               & {\bf  Cuts}      \\

547: \hline

548: \hline\hline

549:                     &   lepton                 &  $p_T > 10 \,{\rm GeV},\,|\eta|<2.5$ \\ 

550:   Kinematic    &  $\ge$ 2 jets            &  $p_T > 30 \,{\rm GeV},\,|\eta|<2.5$ \\

551:     and     &  tagged $b$-jets         &  $\ge$ 1\\

552:   acceptance                    &  missing energy ($\nu$)  &  $p_T^{miss} 

553: > $ 20 GeV        \\

554:                     &  lepton isolation &  $\Delta R\geq$ 0.4 (non-$b$-jets)         \\                          

555:                     &  $b$-jet lepton isolation  &  $\Delta R\geq$ 0.4 {\em or} \\

556:  & & $m_{bl}

557: \geq$ 40 GeV        \\ 

558:                                

559: \hline \hline

560:  Reconstruction     &  $|M_W^{\rm had}-M_W|$ &  $ < $ 50 GeV  \\

561:     quality         &  $|M_t^{\rm had}-M_t|$ &  $ < $ 50 GeV  \\

562:      for \#jets$>2$,&  $|M_t^{\rm lep}-M_t|$ &  $ < $ 50 GeV  \\

563:  2 $b$-jets required   &        &    \\

564: \hline

565:  Reconstruction     &    &    \\

566:     quality         &  $|M_t^{\rm lep}-M_t|$ &  $ < $ 50 GeV  \\

567:     a $b$-jet+$t$-jet&    ``top-jet'' &    $p_{T^{t}}>$ 800 GeV     \\

568:  \hline

569: \end{tabular}

570: \vspace*{.2cm}

571: \caption{\it Selection cuts in the semileptonic $t\bar{t}$ channel.} 

572: \label{tab:sel_cuts}

573: \end{center}

574: \end{table}

575: }

576: 

577: 

578: \subsubsection{Differential cross section}

579: \label{diffcs}

580: 

581: %

582: %As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{kkg_1_signp}

583: %

584: The SM top pair production rate falls steeply as a function of the invariant mass. 

585: The uncertainty from PDF's in this {\em shape} is far less than that in the total cross-section. 

586: Hence we look for a signal from KK gluons in the {\em differential} $t\bar{t}$ cross-section as opposed to simply counting the total number of $t \bar{t}$ events. 

587: We do not expect a sharp resonance in this distribution due to the large width of the KK gluon, 

588: but we do obtain a statistically significant ``bump'' as discussed below.

589: 

590: The differential cross section as a function of $m_{t\bar{t}}$ is shown in 

591: Figs.~\ref{kkg_4a_tt}

592: and \ref{kkg_4b_tt} for $\mkkg = 3\,$TeV produced at the LHC. 

593: In Fig.~\ref{kkg_4a_tt} we compare the total (signal + background) distribution to the SM (background) distribution, based on a partonic-level analysis.

594: In Fig.~\ref{kkg_4b_tt}, we focus on the area near the peak and 

595: we consider contributions from the reducible background (from $Wjj$).

596: We show the particle level results and 

597: the corresponding statistical uncertainties of event reconstruction.

598: %

599: %We compare the partonic- vs. particle level results and show 

600: %the statistical uncertainties of event reconstruction. 

601: %

602: The predictions for the SM and SM+RS models, based on 

603: partonic-level analysis

604: (same as in Fig.~\ref{kkg_4a_tt}), are also shown 

605: for comparison.

606: %

607: We see that, since the partonic and particle level data are consistent 

608: with each other, we do not expect a large bias in the ability to 

609: reconstruct the KKG mass. 

610:                                 %

611: \begin{figure}[htbp]

612: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{mass_0.eps}

613: \caption{\label{kkg_4a_tt}

614: Invariant $t\bar{t}$ mass distribution for $\mkkg = 3\,$TeV production at the LHC. 

615: The solid curve presents signal+background distribution, while the dashed curve presents the $\ttbar$ SM background, based on partonic level analysis.}

616: \end{figure}

617: %

618: \begin{figure}[htbp]

619: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{mass.eps}

620: \caption{\label{kkg_4b_tt}

621: Invariant $t\bar{t}$ mass distribution for 3 TeV KKG, focusing on the area near the peak. 

622: The error bars correspond to statistical uncertainties and represent our particle level analysis. 

623: The dotted line stands for the SM prediction. 

624: The dashed-dotted line shows the $Wjj$ background. 

625: The dashed line shows the signal+background from Sherpa's partonic level analysis.

626: %

627: %The results of applying an $\eta^{*}$ cut (to reduce background) has virtually no 

628: %effect on the signal, as can be seen upon close examination}

629: %

630: }

631: \end{figure}

632: 

633: %

634: In the following we describe the

635: reconstruction efficiency and how we estimate our signal to background

636: ratio and the sensitivity to the KK gluon mass based on this analysis.

637: Following~\cite{KKgttbar}, we assume a 20\% efficiency for tagging $b$-jets

638: ($\epsilon_b$), independent of the $b$-jet energy. Our particle level study

639: shows that the efficiency of the additional cuts described, $\epsilon_{\rm

640: cut}$, in Table~\ref{tab:sel_cuts} for the reconstruction of $t\bar{t}$

641: system in the mass window around KKG

642: is about 20(21)\% for $\mttbar = 3(4) $TeV. We

643: find that for the SM the reconstruction efficiency is lower,   9(10)\% for

644: $\mttbar = 3(4)$ TeV.

645: The signal+background (BG+KKG) and background (BG) reconstruction efficiencies 

646: differ

647: because

648: the 

649: BG and BG+KKG events have different kinematics.

650: The background is

651: dominated by $gg$ fusion events which are more forwardly-peaked

652: in the top pair center of mass (cm) frame than the $q \bar{q}$ fusion 

653: events. 

654: %

655: %which are more more central. 

656: %

657: Hence, the $gg$ events have a 

658: smaller $P_T$\footnote{Note that, inside the mass window, 

659: %

660: %(or around the bump),

661: %

662: the total momentum/energy of each top quark

663: in cm frame is roughly fixed at $M_{ KK G} / 2$.}

664: than the $q \bar{q}$ events.

665: %

666: Since KK gluon signal comes only from $q \bar{q}$ fusion, the 

667: $p_T$ cut on the top-quark

668: reduces background more than the signal.

669: %

670: 

671: In addition, the branching ratio for the $lj$ decay is given by 

672: $BR_{lj}=2 \times 2/9 \times 2/3 \simeq 0.3$. 

673: The total efficiency is given by $BR_{lj}\times \epsilon_{\rm cut}\times \epsilon_b \sim 1\%$.

674: 

675: We estimate the statistical significance of our signal by looking at the bump.

676: An invariant $t\bar{t}$ mass window cut $0.85 M_{KKG} < M_{t\bar{t}} < 1.5 M_{KKG}$ is applied.

677: The lower bound corresponds roughly to the width. The upper bound is not particularly important due to the steep falloff in cross section.

678: Below the $\mkkg$ threshold, the signal+background distribution is actually below the background one due to destructive interference. 

679: Therefore, we choose an asymmetric mass window cut.

680: We estimate the ratio of the signal, $S$, to the statistical error in the the background, $\sqrt{B}$, via our particle level analysis in the mass window, 

681: for 100 fb$^{-1}$

682: We find

683: \begin{eqnarray}

684: S/\sqrt B &\approx& 11.0 \qquad {\rm for}\ \ \ \  M_{KKG}=3\,{\rm TeV}\,,\nonumber\\

685: S/\sqrt B &\approx& 4.2 \qquad {\rm for}\ \ \ \ M_{KKG}=4\,{\rm TeV}

686: \end{eqnarray}

687: In addition we find the following values for signal over background:

688: \begin{eqnarray}

689: S/B &\approx& 2.0\qquad {\rm for}\ \ \ \  M_{KKG}=3\,{\rm TeV}\,,\nonumber\\

690: S/B &\approx& 1.6\qquad {\rm for}\ \ \ \ M_{KKG}=4\,{\rm TeV}

691: \end{eqnarray}

692: where the total number of events inside the mass window for $\mkkg = 4\,$TeV 

693: that pass all cuts is ${\cal O}(10)$. 

694: Thus for 100fb$^{-1}$ we estimate the LHC reach to be below 4 TeV for the KK gluon mass.

695: We discuss below the use of discriminators which may improve this analysis.

696: %

697: One should stress

698: that Figs.~\ref{kkg_4a_tt} and \ref{kkg_4b_tt}

699: demonstrate a clear evidence for

700: a bump  in the differential cross-section.

701: Such a deviation in  shape from the background

702: distribution  as well as good $S/B \simeq 2$

703: ratio guarantee that the KKG signal will be

704: clearly seen for $M_{KKG}$ below about 4 TeV.

705: A more sophisticated analysis 

706: could possibly improve further the significance 

707: and signal-to-background ratio.

708: %

709: 

710: \subsubsection{Polarization asymmetry}

711: 

712: We now consider how measurement of the polarization of the ultra

713: relativistic top pairs provides us with an important tool for detection 

714: of the KK gluon.

715: The fact that the KK gluon decays mostly into two tops turns out to be

716: advantageous because the top quark decays before it hadronizes. 

717: Therefore, the top spin/chirality information is encoded in the distribution of its decay products. Moreover,

718: since we are dealing with very energetic top quarks, their masses can be neglected and their chirality is conserved.

719: The SM top pair production is dominated by parity invariant QCD processes, 

720: so we expect to generate an (almost) equal number of left- and right-handed pairs.

721: However, in the RS1 model that we are considering, 

722: we expect a strong bias towards RH tops (from KK gluon decays) so a {\em large} left-right (LR) asymmetry is expected.

723: 

724: We can include EW production processes in the SM.

725: Note that in the ultra-relativistic case we can neglect effects related to EWSB. In this case, the SM EW production processes can be characterized by the hyper-charge and 

726: weak coupling separately. The latter is stronger and couples only to LH particles~\cite{KPV}. 

727: Thus we get a sharp prediction that the deviation of $\PLR$ from zero

728: in the SM (due to EW processes)

729: carries the opposite sign compared to the above RS1 KK gluon signal 

730: (again, in the latter, the RH top dominates). 

731: The EW processes can only be mediated via $\qqbar$ annihiliation processes. 

732: To summarize, the SM $\PLR$ is suppressed by $g_2^2 / g_{ QCD }^2\sim 0.35$ and the ratio between the $\qqbar$ and $gg$ production rates\footnote{this is 

733: probably the only source of uncertainty for the value of this asymmety.}

734: and, hence is much smaller than the $O(1)$ asymmetry expected in the RS1 model from KK gluon decays, in addition to having the opposite sign to the RS1 signal.

735: 

736: The RS1 prediction can be tested via measurement of $\PLR$ of the top pairs sample as follows.

737: The angular distribution of the positron from a purely RH and LH top

738: quark decay is given by\cite{ttbarspin,ttbarspinmore}:

739: %

740: \begin{eqnarray}

741: \frac{ d N }{ d \cos \theta } & \sim& ( 1 \pm \cos \theta )

742: \end{eqnarray}

743: %,

744: where $\theta$ is angle between the positron direction in the {\em rest}

745: frame of the top and the direction of the top quark boost (in the

746: parton/$\ttbar$ center of mass frame).\footnote{the latter

747: is also the top spin quantization axis.} It is useful to define the {\em

748: polarization asymmetry} via a ``forward-backward'' asymmetry as

749: %

750: \begin{eqnarray}

751: \PLR & \equiv & 2 \times 

752: \frac{ N_+ - N_-}{ N_+ + N_-},

753: \end{eqnarray}

754: %

755: where $N_+ \equiv \int_{ 0 }^{ \pi / 2 } d \cos \theta d N /d \cos \theta$ is the number of positrons emitted (in the rest frame of the top) along the direction of the top quark boost 

756: (and similarly for $N_-$). 

757: For purely RH (LH) top quark, we get $\PLR = \pm 1$.

758: 

759: We used Sherpa, which supports spin/helicity amplitudes, to numerically analyze the signal and background. 

760: As mentioned above, the asymmetry is measured relative to the direction of the top quark boost in the center of mass frame of the top pair. 

761: The challenge here is to reconstruct the top rest frame from observables in the event.

762: %

763: %We reconstructed the $P_{LR}$ asymmetry by considering the angle between 

764: %the lepton and the top quark spin.

765: %The spin quantization axis is taken as the direction of the reconstructed 

766: %top quark in the $\ttbar$ rest frame.

767: %

768: The lepton is boosted into the cm frame, and subsequently reboosted 

769: into the top quark rest frame, using essentially the $P_T$ of the top quark.

770: %

771: %The variable in consideration is $cos \left( \theta \right)$, 

772: %simply the scalar product of the lepton 3-direction in the top 

773: %rest frame and the top quark spin quantization axis

774: %

775: 

776: The LR polarization asymmetry as a function of $m_{t\bar{t}}$ is shown

777: in Fig.~\ref{PLR} for $M_{KKG}=3\,$TeV with 100$\,$fb$^{-1}$ data.

778:  The error bars correspond to statistical uncertainties and represent

779:   our particle level analysis using Sherpa. 

780: %

781: %The dashed line 

782: %

783: We also show the

784:   signal+background from partonic level analysis using Sherpa.  

785: %

786: %where events

787: %are reconstructed looking at the final state particles and missing

788: %$E_T$ according to our discussion in the previous section.

789: %

790: 

791: % Note that the leptons from $t_R$ which are emitted in same (``forward'') direction as the

792: % boost of top quark in the top pair center of mass frame have larger $p_T$ (in the lab frame)

793: % than from those from $t_L$ (with backward emission of lepton).

794: % Therefore, a harder cut on $p_T$ of lepton will introduce bias towards $t_R$, creating

795: % a (artificially) larger positive $P_{ LR }$. Hence, we choose a relatively softer cut on lepton $p_T$ of $10$ GeV. 

796: Note that the leptons from $t_R$ tend to be emitted in the forward direction, whereas the opposite is true for leptons from $t_L$.

797: Therefore, the $P_T$ cut of the lepton will non-trivially impact the asymmetry, due to the kinematics and small masses of the leptons.

798: We chose a $P_T$ cut of 10 GeV, whose effects were manageable 

799: as we checked

800: via Monte Carlo simulations.

801: 

802: We see that the partonic and particle level data are consistent with each other. 

803: Therefore, we have not introduced any significant bias in the observed asymmetry as a result of the above cuts and reconstruction procedure.

804: We remind the reader that we do not characterize herein the detector

805: effects on the $\PLR$, which will add to the uncertainty in

806: reconstruction of the $\ttbar$ cms and top rest frame.

807: 

808: Note that for $\mttbar\ll M_{KKG}$ the asymmetry is negative and close to zero (for both curves) as expected since the SM production is dominant here~\cite{KPV}. 

809: On the other hand, for $\mttbar \sim M_{KKG}$, a sizable asymmetry is obtained for the 

810: signal+background curve with a {\em positive} sign which implies a 

811: significant excess of RH $\ttbar$ 

812: as expected in the RS1 model~\cite{custodial, aps}. 

813: %

814: Correlated observations of

815: such a sizable asymmetry and an excess in

816: the differential cross-section for the {\em same} $\mttbar$ (as in 

817: Figs.~\ref{kkg_4a_tt} and \ref{kkg_4b_tt})

818: will be a strong evidence for a KK gluon.

819: %

820: Also, the asymmetry for SM background increases (but still remains small) 

821: with $\mttbar$ 

822: since the ratio of $q \bar{q}$ fusion (which gives the asymmetry) to

823: $gg$ fusion (which is symmetric) increases with higher $\mttbar$.

824: %

825: \begin{figure}[htbp]

826: \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{plr.eps}

827: \caption{\label{PLR}

828: $\PLR(\mttbar)$ for $\mkkg = 3\,$TeV: The error bars correspond to statistical uncertainties and represent particle level analysis.

829: The dotted line stands for the SM prediction. The dashed line shows the signal+background from Sherpa's partonic level analysis.

830: %

831: %The dash-dotted line shows the SM prediction subject to the $\eta^{*}$ cuts.

832: %

833: }

834: \end{figure}

835: 

836: As already mentioned, we are in the relativistic limit for the tops produced from the KK gluon so that the spins of the top pair are correlated,

837: independent of RH or LH dominating in the KK gluon decay (this holds for any chiral theory). 

838: Therefore, 

839: an 

840: analysis similar to that

841: for the lepton from $t$ decay (mentioned above)

842: can be applied for the $b$ and light jets 

843: emitted from $\bar t$ decay on the other side

844: (although these decay products are not as powerful spin analysers as the lepton). 

845: This would further increase the statistics and the significance of our signal. 

846: The required analysis is more involved and beyond the scope of this work.

847: However, we expect that such an analysis, even though less precise, 

848: may allow us to eliminate some of the uncertainties due to biases and other systematic effects.

849: 

850: 

851: \subsubsection{Signal versus background optimization}

852: \label{optimize}

853: 

854: %

855: As we already indicated in section \ref{diffcs}, the

856: $P_T$ cut reduces background more as compared to signal.

857: %

858: In this section, we discuss possible

859: {\em additional} 

860: cuts which can be applied to the analyses of the differential 

861: cross-section and $P_{ LR }$ to improve the significance of our results.

862: 

863: A cut on the forwardness of the $\ttbar$ pairs 

864: %

865: in cm frame 

866: %

867: is useful for removal of the background. 

868: %

869: The reason is that (as already mentioned in section \ref{diffcs}) 

870: the top quarks produced from gluon fusion (via top $t$-channel exchange) 

871: tend to be more forwardly-peaked than the ones produced from $q\bar{q}$ annihilation.

872: KK gluons are produced only through $q \bar{q}$ annihilation, 

873: whereas the SM background is dominated by $gg$ fusion. 

874: Therefore, an appropriate cut on $\eta^*$ 

875: %

876: (rapidity in cm frame)

877: %

878: of each top quark will eliminate a substantially larger part of the SM QCD background, 

879: at the expense of a smaller fraction of the signal.

880: 

881: %

882: We applied the cut $|\eta|^*<1.8$ to find that

883: it has virtually no effect on the signal (as desired and as expected).

884: %

885: %see  

886: %Fig.~\ref{kkg_4b_tt}.

887: %

888: Whereas, 

889: we find that

890: the SM background reduced

891: (and hence our significance increased) by only 

892: $O( 10 \% )$, perhaps unlike the

893: expectation of a more significant reduction in background.

894: The reason is that we find the $P_T$ cut on hadronic top (the top jet),

895: which is part of our event selection cuts, and the $|\eta|^*<1.8$ cut to be 

896: correlated (as expected from the discussion in section \ref{diffcs}).

897: 

898: Note that the only

899: reason we included this $P_T$ cut as part of our event selection was

900: that we could not reconstruct the hadronic top in the conventional manner.

901: With a more sophisticated analysis for reconstruction

902: of the hadronic top (for example, 

903: resolving sub-structure in top-jet as mentioned before),

904: this $P_T$ cut might {\em not} be required as part of event selection.

905: In the absence of $P_T$ cut, the

906: $|\eta^*| <1.8$ cut might then reduce background more significantly.

907: %

908: However, given our $P_T$ cut, the only 

909: possibility for the $|\eta^*|$ cut to be useful in removing background

910: seems to be to cut on smaller values of $|\eta^*|$. 

911: Due to limited statistics for $M_{KKG}\sim3\,$TeV and $100\,$fb$^{-1}$,

912: we might not be able to apply such a stronger cut.

913: However, we note that

914: such a cut can be applied in case of higher luminosity or a lower KK mass.

915: %

916: We leave a more detailed study for the future.

917: %

918: %We found that the cut $|\eta|^*<1.8$ to be a useful choice since it 

919: %removes some of the $gg$ fusion events, 

920: %as can be seen by a larger negative asymmetry for the background (see later).

921: %

922: %Due to limited statistics for $m_{KKG}\sim3\,$TeV and $100\,$fb$^{-1}$, 

923: %it is not possible to apply a stronger $\eta^*$ cut, 

924: %but such a cut can be applied in case of higher luminosity or a lower KK mass.

925: %

926: %In Fig.~\ref{kkg_4b_tt}, we see the application of an $| \eta^* | <1.8$ cut has 

927: %virtually no effect on the signal.

928: %

929: 

930: Next, we apply the $| \eta^* | <1.8$ cut to the analysis of polarization asymmetry.

931: %

932: %In Fig.~\ref{PLR} we show $\PLR(\mttbar)$ for 

933: %$\mkkg = 3\,$TeV after this cut was applied.

934: %

935: We find that

936: %

937: %Note that  (as discussed above and seen in Fig.~\ref{PLR}), 

938: %

939: the (negative) asymmetry for the SM background increases 

940: by $O( 10 \% )$

941: after applying 

942: this cut. 

943: The reason is that these cuts increase the fraction of $q \bar{q}$ 

944: fusion events (compared to $gg$ fusion) in the sample 

945: -- again, only $q \bar{q}$ fusion contributes to the asymmetry.

946: %

947: %However, 

948: %this is only a 

949: %$O( 10 \% )$

950: %

951: %{\em marginal} 

952: %

953: %effect for SM background

954: %and 

955: %

956: Furthermore we find that signal+background 

957: $P_{ LR }$ is 

958: not significantly affected (within

959: the statistical errors). 

960: %

961: Again,

962: the reason for only a small effect of $| \eta^* |$

963: cut is the correlation between the 

964: $| \eta^* | <1.8$  and $P_T$ cuts (as mentioned

965: above in the case of differential cross-section).

966: 

967: %

968: Finally we want to comment about the possibility of using a cut on the boost to distinguish signal vs. background 

969: which may be useful for lower KK masses as follows.

970: The gluonic content of the protons is symmetric between the two incoming protons, 

971: implying that the $\ttbar$ pairs from the $gg$ fusion production will be mostly produced with a small boost.

972: The $\qqbar$ annihilation production, however, proceeds through the asymmetric $q \bar{q}$ content of the proton~\cite{Tau}.  

973: Thus, we expect the corresponding top pairs to exhibit a larger boost.  

974: This in principle implies that by applying suitable cuts on this boost 

975: ($\beta_{\rm cm}$) one can purify the (signal) sample,

976: obtaining a larger polarization asymmetry and a larger significance from the differential cross-section analysis.

977: However,

978: using a partonic level study, we find that this cut 

979: is effective only for rather low KK gluon masses (at or below the $1$ TeV scale).

980: 

981: \section{Electroweak sector \& alternative quark configuration}

982:  

983: We now discuss briefly the electroweak (EW) gauge KK modes. 

984: As mentioned before, the cross-section for KK $Z/W$ production (via $q \bar{q}$ fusion) is smaller than that of the KK gluon by $\sim g_Z^2 / g_{ QCD }^2$.

985: As for the KK gluon, fermionic decays of KK $Z$ are dominated by top quarks. 

986: Its leptonic decays are highly suppressed.

987: Thus, the KK $Z$ also contributes to the excess $t \bar{t}$, but is subdominant to the KK gluon signal in this channel.

988: 

989: However, there is a new feature in the excess $t \bar{t}$ sample due to the KK $Z$ contribution. 

990: The couplings of the KK $Z$ to the {\em initial} state are non vector-like, unlike in the case of the KK gluon. 

991: Combined with non vector-like couplings to the final state top quarks, 

992: we obtain the usual forward/backward asymmetry $A_{ FB }$ at the level of $\sim g_Z^2 / g_{ QCD }^2$ in the excess top pair sample. 

993: Note that an asymmetry of this size is present even in the SM due to $Z$ exchange. 

994: The crucial point is that sign of this asymmetry is different than in the SM since $t_R$ dominates in the final state as opposed to $t_L$ in the SM.

995: We can measure this asymmetry (both in the SM and in RS1 model) since we know the direction of $q$ or forward (vs. $\bar{q}$ or backward)

996: based on the direction of the boost \cite{KPV}.

997: 

998: As mentioned before, the KK $W/Z$ also have sizable decays to Higgs, including longitudinal $W/Z$. 

999: As a corollary, {\em production} of KK $Z/W$ via longitudinal $W/Z$ fusion can be important. We plan to study such signals in the future.

1000: 

1001: 

1002: \subsection{Effects of enhanced $b_L$ coupling to KK gluon}\label{SecZbb}

1003: 

1004: As indicated above, the $b_L$ coupling to the KK gluon is larger ($\sim g_{ QCD }$) than to light quarks (including $b_R$).  

1005: In fact, with the symmetry protection for $Z b_L b_L$ coupling \cite{Zbb}, 

1006: $(t,b)_L$ can be localized very close to  the TeV brane so that the $b_L$ coupling to the KK gluon can be as large as $\xi g_{ QCD }$. 

1007: Hence,  $b_L \bar{b}_L$ fusion might become the dominant production mechanism for KK gluon.

1008: 

1009: Since both $b$ and $\bar{b}$ are sea partons and have the same content

1010: inside a proton,  the excess top events from $b_L \bar{b}_L$ fusion into

1011: KK gluon are less boosted events, but are also less forward than from

1012: $gg$ fusion.  Recall that the excess from $q \bar{q}$ fusion is more

1013: boosted and less forward than $gg$ fusion. Hence, the $\eta^{*}$ cut might

1014: still be useful, as before, to enhance the signal over background,  but the

1015: $\beta_{ \rm cm }$ cut might be less useful in enhancing the signal.

1016: 

1017: A new feature from $b_L \bar{b_L}$ fusion into KK gluon is that, due to

1018: vector-like couplings in both initial (cf. coupling to light quarks) and

1019: final states, it will result in a $A_{ FB }$ in KK {\em gluon} top

1020: events (cf. $A_{ FB }$ in $q \bar{q}$ fusion events is only from SM or

1021: KK $Z$). However, we cannot measure this $A_{ FB }$ since  we do not

1022: know forward ($b$) vs. backward ($\bar{b}$) direction due to absence of

1023: sizable boost (cf. in $q \bar{q}$ fusion). 

1024: 

1025: The excess top events from $b_L \bar{b}_L$ fusion into KK gluon will

1026: have the same non-zero $P_{ LR }$ as the excess from $q \bar{q}$ fusion

1027: (again, the excess from $b_L$ fusion will be in less boosted  events

1028: compared to that from $q \bar{q}$ fusion into KK gluon).  In fact, in

1029: the extreme case of $(t,b)_L$ being very close to the TeV brane and

1030: $t_R$ having close to a flat profile, we see that the sign of $P_{ LR }$

1031: in signal will be reversed compared to what we discussed before (i.e.,

1032: will be $< 0$).  This sign is same as in the SM, but the crucial point

1033: is that the $O(1)$ size is much larger than that expected in the SM.

1034: 

1035: 

1036: \section{Conclusions}

1037: In summary, the framework of a warped extra dimension provides a novel and very interesting resolution to the Planck-weak {\em and} flavor hierarchy problem of the SM.

1038: %

1039: It tends to generically single out the top quark with enhanced couplings to the new states, 

1040: whereas couplings to light fermions, in particular to proton's constituents, are suppressed. 

1041: These features make it challenging to detect the new states.

1042: 

1043: In spite of this challenge, we have shown that the production of the KK gluon with subsequent decays to top pairs at the LHC is a very interesting channel, 

1044: which would be worthwhile to explore further. 

1045: %

1046: In particular, for $100$ fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity, we demonstrated that one can discover the KK gluon with the mass 

1047: $M_{KKG} 

1048: \lesssim $ 4 TeV 

1049: based on the {\em correlated} observations 

1050: of an excess in the top pair differential cross-section  and a sizable left-right polarization asymmetry ($P_{ LR }$). 

1051: This asymmetry is much larger than in the SM due to very different couplings of the KK gluon to RH and LH top quarks. 

1052: We discussed how 

1053: a cut on transverse momentum of top quarks reduces background

1054: compared to the signal and how 

1055: it might be possible to

1056: further improve the signal to background ratio by imposing cuts on 

1057: the boost of the top center of mass frame in the laboratory frame

1058: and forwardness of top pairs in the parton center of mass frame. 

1059: We briefly discussed the EW sector which requires more study. 

1060: Its detection is similarly challenging due to suppressed couplings to the proton's constituents  

1061: --

1062: in fact, it has lower production rate than for the KK gluon -- and suppression of decays to leptons (``golden'' decay modes). 

1063: 

1064: Finally, we emphasize that, via the AdS/CFT duality \cite{Maldacena:1997re}, the RS framework should be viewed as a tool to study $4D$ strong dynamics. 

1065: %

1066: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}

1067: % 

1068: In fact, the idea of a composite, pseudo-Goldstone boson (PGB), Higgs in $4D$ has been studied in the RS framework (called ``holographic'' PGB Higgs) \cite{Contino:2003ve}

1069: It is therefore likely that our results apply (in general) to $4D$ TeV-scale strong dynamics responsible for EWSB. 

1070: In particular, our analysis with regards to the LHC signals leads to the following observation about other frameworks 

1071: which address the little hierarchy problem and rely on UV completion via strong dynamics ({\it i.e.}, little Higgs and some flat extra dimensional models).  

1072: According to the belief that the RS1 framework can be used to obtain intuition about such models

1073: \footnote{In fact, see reference \cite{Thaler:2005en} for UV completion of the 

1074: Litte{\em st} Higgs model using RS framework.},

1075: our studies suggest that  these models might be characterized by LHC signals which are somewhat different from those usually emphasized in the literature. 

1076: The reason is that the couplings between the extended electroweak sector and the 

1077: light (heavy) {\em SM} particles may be actually highly suppressed (enhanced), 

1078: unlike what is typically assumed in other LHC studies.

1079: \footnote{References \cite{Perelstein:2003wd} do mention, in the context of LHC signals, 

1080: that suppressed couplings of light fermions to $Z^{ \prime }$, $W^{ \prime }$ are motivated in order to satisfy electroweak precison tests. 

1081: However, most of these studies still assume {\em universal} fermionic couplings so that couplings to top quark are also suppressed in this case.

1082: Whereas, we emphasize that top quark couplings to the new states are likely to be enhanced, leading to difficulties in detection of new states.}

1083: Generically, the new particles will be broad,  with small production rates and non-leptonic decay channels. 

1084: As such, these models may face similar challenges as that for the KK gluon, in the detection of new states.

1085: 

1086: 

1087: \mysection{Acknowledgements}

1088: K.~A.~ and G.~P.~ thank the Aspen Center for Physics for their hospitality.  We thank

1089: Marco Battaglia, Tao Han, Beate Heinemann, Ian Hinchliffe, Ayana Holloway,  Hitoshi Murayama, Frank Paige, Michele Papucci, Frank

1090: Petriello, Marjorie Shapiro and George Sterman  for discussions. 

1091: We thank the Sherpa team, especially Tanju Gleisberg, for implementing

1092: an RS1 model in the MC event generator.

1093: The work of A.B. was supported by the US National Science Foundation under award PHY-0555545.

1094: The work of T.K. was supported by DOE Grant No. DE-AC02-98CH10886.

1095: 

1096: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1097: 

1098: \bibitem{rs1}L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum, 

1099: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''

1100: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999)

1101: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905221].

1102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905221;%%

1103: 

1104: %AdS/CFT

1105: 

1106: %\cite{Maldacena:1997re}

1107: \bibitem{Maldacena:1997re}

1108:   J.~M.~Maldacena,

1109:   %``The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,''

1110:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 231 (1998)

1111:   [Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 38}, 1113 (1999)]

1112:   [arXiv:hep-th/9711200];

1113:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9711200;%%

1114: %

1115: %\cite{Gubser:1998bc}

1116: %\bibitem{Gubser:1998bc}

1117:   S.~S.~Gubser, I.~R.~Klebanov and A.~M.~Polyakov,

1118:   %``Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory,''

1119:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 428}, 105 (1998)

1120:   [arXiv:hep-th/9802109];

1121:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802109;%%

1122: %

1123: %\cite{Witten:1998qj}

1124: %\bibitem{Witten:1998qj}

1125:   E.~Witten,

1126:   %``Anti-de Sitter space and holography,''

1127:   Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 253 (1998)

1128:   [arXiv:hep-th/9802150].

1129:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9802150;%%

1130: 

1131: %RS/CFT

1132: 

1133: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}

1134: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2000ds}

1135:   N.~Arkani-Hamed, M.~Porrati and L.~Randall,

1136:   %``Holography and phenomenology,''

1137:   JHEP {\bf 0108}, 017 (2001)

1138:   [arXiv:hep-th/0012148];

1139:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012148;%%

1140: %

1141: %\cite{Rattazzi:2000hs}

1142: %\bibitem{Rattazzi:2000hs}

1143:   R.~Rattazzi and A.~Zaffaroni,

1144:   %``Comments on the holographic picture of the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1145:   JHEP {\bf 0104}, 021 (2001)

1146:   [arXiv:hep-th/0012248].

1147:   %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0012248;%%

1148: 

1149: %\cite{Davoudiasl:1999tf}

1150: \bibitem{bulkgauge}

1151:   H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1152:   %``Bulk gauge fields in the Randall-Sundrum model,''

1153:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 473}, 43 (2000)

1154:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9911262];

1155:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911262;%%

1156: %\cite{Pomarol:1999ad}

1157: %\bibitem{Pomarol:1999ad}

1158:   A.~Pomarol,

1159:   %``Gauge bosons in a five-dimensional theory with localized gravity,''

1160:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 486}, 153 (2000)

1161:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9911294].

1162:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911294;%%

1163: 

1164: \bibitem{gn}Y.~Grossman and M.~Neubert, 

1165: %``Neutrino masses and mixings in non-factorizable geometry,''

1166: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 474}, 361 (2000)

1167: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912408].

1168: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912408;%%

1169: 

1170: \bibitem{gp}T.~Gherghetta

1171: and A.~Pomarol,

1172: %``Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS,''

1173: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 141 (2000)

1174: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003129].

1175: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003129;%%

1176: 

1177: \bibitem{hs}

1178: S.~J.~Huber and Q.~Shafi, 

1179: %``Fermion masses, mixings and proton decay in a Randall-Sundrum model,''

1180: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 498}, 256 (2001)

1181: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010195].

1182: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010195;%%

1183: 

1184: \bibitem{aps}

1185: %\bibitem{aps1}

1186: K.~Agashe, G.~Perez and A.~Soni,

1187: %``B-factory signals for a warped extra dimension,''

1188: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 201804 (2004)

1189: arXiv:hep-ph/0406101];

1190: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406101;%%

1191: %\bibitem{aps2}

1192: %K.~Agashe, G.~Perez and A.~Soni,

1193: %``Flavor structure of warped extra dimension models,''

1194: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 016002 (2005)

1195: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408134].

1196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408134;%%

1197: 

1198: \bibitem{NMFV}

1199:   Z.~Ligeti, M.~Papucci and G.~Perez,

1200:   %``Implications of the measurement of the B/s0 - anti-B/s0 mass difference,''

1201:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97}, 101801 (2006)

1202:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0604112];

1203:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604112;%%

1204: K.~Agashe, M.~Papucci, G.~Perez and D.~Pirjol,

1205:   %``Next to minimal flavor violation,''

1206:   arXiv:hep-ph/0509117;

1207:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509117;%%

1208: K.~Agashe, G.~Perez and A.~Soni,

1209:   arXiv:hep-ph/0606293.

1210: 

1211: \bibitem{custodial}K.~Agashe {\it et. al},  

1212: %A.~Delgado, M.~J.~May and R.~Sundrum,^M

1213: %``RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests,''

1214: JHEP {\bf 0308}, 050 (2003)

1215: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308036].

1216: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308036;%%^M

1217: 

1218: %\cite{Agashe:2006at}

1219: \bibitem{Zbb}

1220:   K.~Agashe, R.~Contino, L.~Da Rold and A.~Pomarol,

1221:  %  ``A custodial symmetry for Z b anti-b,''

1222: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641}, 62 (2006)

1223:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0605341].

1224:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605341;%%

1225: 

1226: %\cite{Carena:2006bn}

1227: \bibitem{Carena:2006bn}

1228:   M.~Carena, E.~Ponton, J.~Santiago and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1229:   %``Light Kaluza-Klein states in Randall-Sundrum models with custodial SU(2),''

1230: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 759}, 202 (2006)

1231:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0607106].

1232:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607106;%%

1233: 

1234: 

1235: \bibitem{KKgttbar}

1236: See, for example, L.~March, E.~Ros and B.~Salvach\'ua, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2006-002,

1237:   ATL-COM-PHYS-2005-032;

1238:    L.~March, E.~Ros and S.G.d.l.~Hoz,

1239:   ATL-COM-PHYS-2006-031, ATL-PHYS-CONF-2006-007;

1240: 

1241: %\cite{Davoudiasl:2000wi}

1242: \bibitem{Davoudiasl:2000wi}

1243: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1244:   %``Experimental probes of localized gravity: On and off the wall,''

1245:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 075004 (2001)

1246:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0006041];

1247:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006041;%%

1248: D.~Dannheim,

1249:   %``Probing Extra Dimensions with ATLAS,''

1250:   arXiv:hep-ex/0611005;

1251:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0611005;%%

1252:   D.~A.~Dicus, C.~D.~McMullen and S.~Nandi,

1253:   %``Collider implications of Kaluza-Klein excitations of the gluons,''

1254:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 076007 (2002)

1255:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0012259];

1256:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012259;%%

1257: B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.}  [Beyond the Standard Model Working Group],

1258: %   ``Les Houches 'Physics at TeV Colliders 2003' Beyond the Standard Model

1259:   %Working Group: Summary report,''

1260:   arXiv:hep-ph/0402295.

1261:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402295;%%

1262:   

1263: 

1264: 

1265: %\cite{Pukhov:2004ca}

1266: \bibitem{Pukhov:2004ca}

1267:   A.~Pukhov,

1268: %   ``CalcHEP 3.2: MSSM, structure functions, event generation, batchs, and

1269:   %generation of matrix elements for other packages,''

1270:   arXiv:hep-ph/0412191.

1271:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412191;%%

1272: 

1273:   

1274: 

1275: \bibitem{Sherpa} T. Gleisberg et al., JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 056 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311263].

1276: 

1277: 

1278:   

1279: 

1280:   

1281:  

1282: 

1283: 

1284:  \bibitem{topLHC} See {\it e.g.}: I.~Borjanovic {\it et al.},

1285:   %``Investigation of top mass measurements with the ATLAS detector at LHC,''

1286:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 39S2}, 63 (2005)

1287:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0403021]; 

1288: A.~Gomes, M.~David, A.~Maio and A.~De Angelis,

1289:  %  ``Measurement of the top mass using the ATLAS detector - Comparison of

1290:   %several MC generators and reconstruction algorithms,''

1291: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4788117}{SPIRES entry}

1292:    {\it Prepared for 20th Physics in Collision Conference (PIC 00),

1293:      Lisbon, Portugal, 29 Jun - 1 Jul 2000};

1294:  S.~R.~Slabospitsky  [CMS Collaboration],

1295:   %``Top quark physics at CMS,''

1296:   Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\  {\bf 55} (2005) B569;

1297:   %%CITATION = CZYPA,55,B569;%%

1298: A.~Giammanco,

1299:   %``Top quark studies and perspectives with CMS,''

1300: CERN-CMS-CR-2005-026, 

1301: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=cern-cms-cr-2005-026}{SPIRES entry}

1302: {\it Prepared for Hadron Collider Physics Symposium 2005, Les

1303:   Diablerets, Switzerland, 4-9 Jul 2005};

1304:  G.~Davatz, A.~S.~Giolo-Nicollerat and M.~Zanetti,

1305:   % ``Top background to SM Higgs searches in the W- W+ --> l nu l anti-nu decay

1306:   %mode at CMS,''

1307:   PoS {\bf TOP2006}, 027 (2006)

1308:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0604041].

1309:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0604041;%%

1310: 

1311: 

1312: 

1313: \bibitem{ttbar}M.~Beneke {\it et al.},

1314:   %``Top quark physics,''

1315:   arXiv:hep-ph/0003033;

1316:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003033;%%

1317:   D.~Chakraborty, J.~Konigsberg and D.~L.~Rainwater,

1318:   %``Review of top quark physics,''

1319:   Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\  {\bf 53}, 301 (2003)

1320:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0303092];

1321:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303092;%%

1322:  I.~I.~Y.~Bigi, Y.~L.~Dokshitzer, V.~A.~Khoze, J.~H.~Kuhn and P.~M.~Zerwas,

1323:   %``PRODUCTION AND DECAY PROPERTIES OF ULTRAHEAVY QUARKS,''

1324:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 181}, 157 (1986);

1325:  E.~Malkawi and C.~P.~Yuan,

1326:   %``A Global Analysis Of The Top Quark Couplings To Gauge Bosons,''

1327:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 4462 (1994)

1328:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9405322];

1329:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405322;%%

1330: A.~H.~Hoang,

1331:   %``Top threshold physics,''

1332:   PoS {\bf TOP2006}, 032 (2006)

1333:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0604185];

1334:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604185;%%

1335:   I.~W.~Stewart,

1336:   %``Threshold top quark production,''

1337:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 618}, 395 (2002)

1338:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0201180];

1339:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 020

1340:   P.~Igo-Kemenes, M.~Martinez, R.~Miquel and S.~Orteu,

1341:   %``Top measurements at threshold,''

1342: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4832167}{SPIRES entry}1180;%%

1343: {\it Prepared for 2nd International Workshop on Physics and

1344:   Experiments with Linear $e^+ e^-$ Colliders, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 26-30

1345:   April (93)};

1346:  S.~f.~Su and M.~B.~Wise,

1347:   %``Supersymmetric correction to top quark pair production near threshold,''

1348:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 510}, 205 (2001)

1349:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0104169];

1350:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104169;%%

1351:  A.~H.~Hoang, A.~V.~Manohar, I.~W.~Stewart and T.~Teubner,

1352: %   ``A renormalization group improved calculation of top quark production  

1353: % near

1354:   %threshold,''

1355:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 1951 (2001)

1356:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0011254];

1357:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011254;%%

1358:  Y.~Kiyo,

1359:   %``Third order Coulomb correction to t anti-t threshold cross section,''

1360:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 157}, 221 (2006)

1361:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0602064];

1362:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602064;%%

1363:  A.~Pineda and J.~Soto,

1364:   %``Effective field theory for ultrasoft momenta in NRQCD and NRQED,''

1365:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 64}, 428 (1998)

1366:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9707481];

1367:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707481;%%

1368: M.~E.~Luke, A.~V.~Manohar and I.~Z.~Rothstein,

1369:   %``Renormalization group scaling in nonrelativistic QCD,''

1370:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 074025 (2000)

1371:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9910209];

1372: J.~H.~Kuhn, A.~Scharf and P.~Uwer,

1373:   %``Electroweak effects in top-quark pair production at hadron colliders,''

1374:   arXiv:hep-ph/0610335;

1375:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0610335;%%

1376: W.~Bernreuther, M.~Fuecker and Z.~G.~Si,

1377:   %``Weak interaction corrections to hadronic top quark pair production,''

1378:   arXiv:hep-ph/0610334;

1379:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0610334;%%

1380: 

1381: 

1382: 

1383: \bibitem{KPV} T.~Krupovnickas, G.~Perez and J.~Virzi, in progress.

1384: 

1385:   

1386: 

1387:   

1388: 

1389: 

1390: 

1391: %\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}

1392: \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw}

1393:   J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,

1394: %``New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global  QCD

1395:   %analysis,''

1396:   JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 012

1397:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195];

1398:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%

1399: W.~T.~Giele, S.~A.~Keller and D.~A.~Kosower,

1400:   %``Parton distribution function uncertainties,''

1401:   arXiv:hep-ph/0104052.

1402:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104052;%%

1403: M.~C.~Kumar, P.~Mathews and V.~Ravindran,

1404: %   ``PDF and scale uncertainties of various DY distributions in ADD and RS

1405:   %models at hadron colliders,''

1406:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604135;

1407:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604135;%%

1408: M.~Dittmar {\it et al.},

1409:   %``Parton distributions: Summary report for the HERA - LHC workshop,''

1410:   arXiv:hep-ph/0511119;

1411:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511119;%%

1412:  R.~S.~Thorne, A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts and W.~J.~Stirling,

1413:   %``Recent progress in parton distributions and implications for LHC physics,''

1414:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 792}, 365 (2005)

1415:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0507015].

1416:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507015;%%

1417: 

1418: 

1419: 

1420: \bibitem{cone_jet_algorithm}

1421: J.E. Huth {\em et al.}, 

1422: {\it Proceedings of Research Directions For The Decade: Snowmass Accord 1990}.

1423: 

1424: 

1425: 

1426: %\cite{Hubaut:2005er}

1427: \bibitem{ttbarspin}

1428: F.~Hubaut, E.~Monnier, P.~Pralavorio, K.~Smolek and V.~Simak,

1429: %   ``ATLAS sensitivity to top quark and W boson polarization in t anti-t

1430:   %events,''

1431:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 44S2}, 13 (2005)

1432:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0508061];

1433:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508061;%%

1434:  %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409273;%%

1435:   M.~Baarmand, H.~Mermerkaya and I.~Vodopianov,

1436: %   ``Measurement of spin correlation in top quark pair production in

1437:   %semi-leptonic final state,''

1438: CERN-CMS-NOTE-2006-111.

1439: 

1440: 

1441: 

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{TDR}

1444: ATLAS Detector and physics performance technical design 

1445: report, Volume 1 (1999), CERN-LHCC-99-14.

1446: 

1447: 

1448: 

1449: 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: 

1453: 

1454: 

1455: 

1456: 

1457: 

1458:  \bibitem{ttbarspinmore}W.~Bernreuther, J.~P.~Ma and T.~Schroder,

1459: %   ``Top quark polarization and T odd spin correlations as tools for testing

1460:   %(non)Standard Model predictions,''

1461:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 297}, 318 (1992); S.~Choi,

1462: %   ``Spin correlation in t anti-t production from proton anti-proton 

1463: % collisions

1464: % at s**(1/2) = 1.8-TeV,''

1465: FERMILAB-THESIS-1999-07;

1466:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B297,318;%%

1467: K.~A.~Johns  [D0 Collaboration],

1468: %   ``Spin Correlation In T Anti-T Production From P Anti-P Collisions At

1469:   %S**(1/2) = 1.8-Tev,''

1470:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16S1A } (2001) 366;

1471:   %%CITATION = IMPAE,A16S1A,366;%%

1472: W.~Bernreuther, A.~Brandenburg, Z.~G.~Si and P.~Uwer,

1473: %   ``Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to top quark spin 

1474: % correlations at

1475: %   hadron colliders: The reactions g g --> t anti-t (g) and 

1476: % g q (anti-q)  --> t

1477:   %anti-t q (anti-q),''

1478:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 509}, 53 (2001)

1479:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0104096];

1480:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104096;%%

1481:  B.~Abbott {\it et al.}  [D0 Collaboration],

1482: %   ``Spin correlation in $t\bar{t}$ production from $p\bar{p}$ collisions at

1483:   %$\sqrt{s} = 1.8$ TeV,''

1484:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 85}, 256 (2000)

1485:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0002058];

1486:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0002058;%%

1487: T.~Torma,

1488: %   ``A systematic analysis of new physics effects in spin correlations in q

1489:   %anti-q --> t anti-t,''

1490:   JHEP {\bf 0111}, 055 (2001)

1491:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9912281];

1492:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912281;%%

1493: V.~D.~Barger, J.~Ohnemus and R.~J.~N.~Phillips,

1494: %   ``SPIN CORRELATION EFFECTS IN THE HADROPRODUCTION AND DECAY OF VERY HEAVY TOP

1495:   %QUARK PAIRS,''

1496:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 4}, 617 (1989);

1497:   %%CITATION = IMPAE,A4,617;%%

1498:  G.~L.~Kane, G.~A.~Ladinsky and C.~P.~Yuan,

1499: %   ``Using the top quark for testing standard model polarization and CP

1500:   %predictions,''

1501:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45}, 124 (1992);

1502:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,124;%%

1503:   G.~Mahlon and S.~J.~Parke,

1504: %   ``Angular Correlations in Top Quark Pair Production and Decay at Hadron

1505:   %Colliders,''

1506:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 4886 (1996)

1507:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9512264];

1508:     D.~Atwood, A.~Aeppli and A.~Soni,

1509: %   ``Extracting anomalous gluon - top effective couplings at the

1510:   %supercolliders,''

1511:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 69}, 2754 (1992);

1512:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,2754;%%

1513: D.~Atwood, S.~Bar-Shalom, G.~Eilam and A.~Soni,

1514:   %``CP violation in top physics,''

1515:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 347}, 1 (2001)

1516:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0006032];

1517:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006032;%%

1518:  M.~Arai, N.~Okada, K.~Smolek and V.~Simak,

1519: %   ``Top spin correlations in theories with large extra-dimensions at the  Large

1520:   %Hadron Collider,''

1521:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 115015 (2004)

1522:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0409273].

1523:  

1524: 

1525: 

1526: 

1527: \bibitem{Tau}See {\it e.g.}: T.~Han,

1528:   %``Collider phenomenology: Basic knowledge and techniques,''

1529:   arXiv:hep-ph/0508097;

1530:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508097;%%

1531: P.~Langacker, R.~W.~Robinett and J.~L.~Rosner,

1532:   %``New Heavy Gauge Bosons In P P And P Anti-P Collisions,''

1533:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 1470 (1984);

1534:  V.~D.~Barger, N.~G.~Deshpande, J.~L.~Rosner and K.~Whisnant,

1535:  %  ``PRODUCTION, DECAYS AND FORWARD BACKWARD ASYMMETRIES OF EXTRA GAUGE BOSONS

1536:   %IN E(6),''

1537:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 2893 (1987);

1538: J.~L.~Rosner,

1539:   %``Forward-Backward Asymmetries in Hadronically Produced Lepton Pairs,''

1540:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 1078 (1996)

1541:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9512299];

1542:  T.~Han, H.~E.~Logan and L.~T.~Wang,

1543:   %``Smoking-gun signatures of little Higgs models,''

1544:   JHEP {\bf 0601}, 099 (2006)

1545:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0506313].

1546: 

1547: 

1548:   

1549: 

1550:   

1551: %\cite{Contino:2003ve}

1552: \bibitem{Contino:2003ve}

1553:   R.~Contino, Y.~Nomura and A.~Pomarol,

1554:   %``Higgs as a holographic pseudo-Goldstone boson,''

1555:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 671}, 148 (2003)

1556:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0306259];

1557:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306259;%%

1558: %

1559: %\cite{Agashe:2004rs}

1560: %\bibitem{Agashe:2004rs}

1561:   K.~Agashe, R.~Contino and A.~Pomarol,

1562:   %``The minimal composite Higgs model,''

1563:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 719}, 165 (2005)

1564:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0412089].

1565:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412089;%%

1566:   

1567: \bibitem{Thaler:2005en}

1568: J.~Thaler and I.~Yavin,

1569: %``The littlest Higgs in anti-de Sitter space,''

1570: JHEP {\bf 0508}, 022 (2005)

1571: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501036].

1572: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501036;%%

1573: 

1574: %\cite{Perelstein:2003wd}

1575: \bibitem{Perelstein:2003wd}

1576:   M.~Perelstein, M.~E.~Peskin and A.~Pierce,

1577:   %``Top quarks and electroweak symmetry breaking in little Higgs models,''

1578:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 075002 (2004)

1579:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0310039];

1580:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310039;%%

1581: %

1582: %\cite{Han:2005ru}

1583: %\bibitem{Han:2005ru}

1584:   T.~Han, H.~E.~Logan and L.~T.~Wang,

1585:   %``Smoking-gun signatures of little Higgs models,''

1586:   JHEP {\bf 0601}, 099 (2006)

1587:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0506313].

1588:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506313;%%

1589: %

1590: %\cite{Rattazzi:2005di}

1591: %\bibitem{Rattazzi:2005di}

1592:   R.~Rattazzi,

1593:   %``Physics Beyond the Standard Model,''

1594:   PoS {\bf HEP2005}, 399 (2006)

1595:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0607058].

1596:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607058;%%

1597: 

1598: %\bibitem{kt_jet_reconstruction}

1599: %S.~Ellis and D.~Soper

1600: %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf48}, 073160 (1993)

1601: 

1602: \end{thebibliography}

1603: 

1604: \end{document}

1605: 

1606: 

1607: 

1608: 

1609: 

1610: