1: %\documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
8:
9: \let\jnfont=\rm
10: \def\NPB#1,{{\jnfont Nucl.\ Phys.\ B }{\bf #1},}
11: \def\PLB#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Lett.\ B }{\bf #1},}
12: \def\EPJC#1,{{\jnfont Eur.\ Phys.\ Jour.\ C }{\bf #1},}
13: \def\PRD#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ D }{\bf #1},}
14: \def\PRL#1,{{\jnfont Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }{\bf #1},}
15: \def\MPLA#1,{{\jnfont Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A }{\bf #1},}
16: \def\JPG#1,{{\jnfont J.\ Phys.\ G}{\bf #1},}
17: \def\CTP#1,{{\jnfont Commun.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ }{\bf #1},}
18: \def\ZPC#1,{{\jnfont Z.\ Phys.\ C }{\bf #1},}
19: \def\JHEP#1,{{\jnfont JHEP \ }{\bf #1},}
20: \def\q_slash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.1pt $q$}}}
21: \def\p_slash{\not{\hbox{\kern-4.0pt $p$}}}
22: \def\k_slash{\not{\hbox{\kern-2.1pt $k$}}}
23: \def\no{\normalsize}
24: \def\un{\underline}
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \preprint{\parbox{1.2in}{\noindent hep-ph/0703??? }}
28:
29: \title{\ \\[10mm] Top-quark FCNC Productions at LHC
30: in Topcolor-assisted Technicolor Model}
31:
32: \author{ Junjie Cao$^{1,2}$, Guoli Liu$^3$, Jin Min Yang$^4$, Huanjun Zhang$^{1,4}$ \\~~ }
33: \affiliation{ $^1$ Department of Physics, Henan Normal
34: University, Xinxiang 453007, China \\
35: $^2$ Physics Department, Technion, 32000 Haifa, Israel\\
36: $^3$ Service de Physique Theorique CP225, Universite Libre de
37: Bruxelles, 1050 Brussels, Belgium \\
38: $^4$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, Beijing 100080, China
39: }
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: We evaluate the top-quark FCNC productions induced by the
43: topcolor assisted technicolor (TC2) model at the LHC. These
44: productions proceed respectively through the parton-level
45: processes $ g g \to t \bar{c}$, $c g \to t$, $c g \to t g$, $c g
46: \to t Z$ and $c g \to t \gamma$. We show the
47: dependence of the production rates on the relevant TC2 parameters
48: and compare the results with the predictions in the minimal
49: supersymmetric model. We find that for each channel the TC2 model
50: predicts a much larger production rate than the supersymmetric
51: model. All these rare productions in the TC2 model can
52: be enhanced above the $3\sigma$ sensitivity of the LHC. Since in
53: the minimal supersymmetric model only $c g \to t $ is slightly
54: larger than the corresponding LHC sensitivity, the observation of
55: these processes will favor the TC2 model over the supersymmetric
56: model. In case of unobservation, the LHC can set meaningful
57: constraints on the TC2 parameters.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60: \pacs{14.65.Ha, 12.60.Fr, 12.60.Jv}
61:
62: \maketitle
63:
64: {\bf Introduction:~~} It is well known that flavor-changing
65: neutral-current (FCNC) processes have been a crucial test of the
66: Standard Model (SM) and a good probe for new physics beyond the
67: SM. As the heaviest fermion in the SM, the top quark may play a
68: special role in such FCNC phenomenology. In the SM the top quark
69: FCNC interactions are extremely suppressed
70: \cite{tcvh-sm} and impossible to be detected in
71: current and foreseeable colliders. In contrast to the SM, the new
72: physics models often predict much larger FCNC top quark
73: interactions \cite{Larios:2006pb}. Such large FCNC top quark
74: interactions are so far allowed by current experiments since the
75: Tevatron collider only gave some rather loose bounds on the FCNC
76: top quark decays due to the small statistics \cite{cdfd0}. The
77: future colliders like the LHC will allow a precision test for the
78: top quark properties including the FCNC interactions
79: \cite{Aguilar-Saavedra:2004wm}.
80:
81: Once the measurement of the FCNC top quark processes is performed at
82: the LHC, some new physics models can be immediately tested. For
83: example, the FCNC top quark decays and top-charm associated
84: productions were found to be significantly enhanced in the minimal
85: supersymmetric model \cite{tcv-mssm,pptc-mssm} and technicolor
86: models \cite{tc-TC2,tcv-TC2}.
87:
88: Although so far in the literature there are many papers
89: devoting to the new physics predictions for the FCNC top quark productions
90: at the LHC, usually different processes are treated in different papers.
91: Since these FCNC processes are correlated in a given new physics model,
92: it is necessary to give a comprehensive study of all these processes in
93: one paper. Recently, such an effort was given for the popular supersymmetric
94: models \cite{cao-pp2tc}. In this work we perform a comprehensive analysis
95: for the FCNC top quark productions in TC2 model.
96: We will consider the production channels
97: \begin{eqnarray}
98: g g \to t \bar{c}, ~c g \to t, ~c g \to t g,
99: ~c g \to t Z, ~c g \to t \gamma \label{pro-6}
100: \end{eqnarray}
101: Some of these processes have been studied in the literature: $gg
102: \to t\bar c$ was studied in the second and third papers in
103: \cite{tc-TC2}, but only the $s$-channel contributions were
104: considered; $cg\to tV$ ($V$ is a vector boson) were studied in
105: \cite{tztrtg}, but all box diagrams were ignored. The other
106: process $cg \to t$ in TC2 model has not been studied in the
107: literature. In this work we consider all these productions and
108: compare their rates. Also, we will compare the TC2 results with
109: the predictions of supersymmetric models. Note that in our studies
110: the parton-level processes will be used to label the corresponding
111: hadronic productions and the charge-conjugate channel for each
112: production is also included. \vspace*{0.5cm}
113:
114: {\bf About TC2 Model:} Before our calculations we recapitulate
115: the basics of TC2 model. As is well known, the fancy idea of
116: technicolor tries to provide an elegant dynamical mechanism for
117: electroweak symmetry breaking, but it encounters great difficulty
118: when trying to generate fermion masses, especially the heavy top
119: quark mass. The TC2 model \cite{TC2} combines technicolor
120: interaction with topcolor interaction, with the former being
121: responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking and the latter for
122: generating large top quark mass. This model so far survives current
123: experimental constraints and remains one of the candidates of new
124: physics.
125:
126: The TC2 model predicts a number of pseudo-Goldstone bosons like
127: the top-pions ($ \pi^0_t$ and $ \pi^\pm_t$) at the weak scale
128: \cite{TC2}. The top quark
129: interactions are altered with respect to the SM predictions since
130: it is treated differently from other fermions in TC2 model. For
131: example, the TC2 model predicts some anomalous couplings for the
132: top quark, such as the tree-level FCNC coupling $t \bar c \pi^0_t$
133: and the charged-current $t \bar b \pi^-_t$ coupling given by
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: & &\frac{(1 - \epsilon ) m_{t}}{\sqrt{2}F_{t}}
136: \frac{\sqrt{v^2-F_{t}^{2}}}{v} \left (
137: i K_{UL}^{tt}K_{UR}^{tt } \bar{t}_L t_{R} \pi_t^0 \right . \nonumber \\
138: && + \sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tt} K_{DL}^{bb}\bar{t}_R b_{L} \pi_t^-
139: + i K_{UL}^{tt} K_{UR}^{tc} \bar{t}_L c_{R} \pi_t^0 \nonumber \\
140: && + \sqrt{2} K_{UR}^{tc} K_{DL}^{bb} \bar{c}_R b_{L}\pi_t^-
141: + K_{UL}^{tt} K_{UR}^{tt } \bar{t}_L t_{R} h_t^0 \nonumber \\
142: && \left. + K_{UL}^{tt} K_{UR}^{tc} \bar{t}_L c_{R} h_t^0 + h.c. \right ) ,
143: \label{FCNH}
144: \end{eqnarray}
145: where the factor $\sqrt{v^2-F_t^2}/v$ ( $v \simeq 174$ GeV )
146: reflects the effect of the mixing between the top-pions and the
147: would-be Goldstone bosons \cite{9702265}. $K_{UL}$, $K_{DL}$ and
148: $K_{UR}$ are the rotation matrices that transform respectively the
149: weak eigenstates of left-handed up-type, down-type and right-handed
150: up-type quarks to their mass eigenstates, whose values can be
151: parameterized as \cite{tc-TC2}
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: && K_{UL}^{tt} \simeq K_{DL}^{bb} \simeq 1,
154: ~~K_{UR}^{tt}\simeq \frac{m_t^\prime}{m_t} = 1-\epsilon, \\
155: && K_{UR}^{tc}\leq \sqrt{1-(K_{UR}^{tt})^2}
156: =\sqrt{2\epsilon-\epsilon^{2}}, \label{FCSI}
157: \end{eqnarray}
158: with $m_t^\prime$ denoting the topcolor contribution to the top
159: quark mass. In Eq.(\ref{FCNH}) we neglected the mixing between up
160: quark and top quark. Note that in TC2 model a CP-even scalar called
161: top-Higgs ($h^0_t$) may also exist, whose couplings are similar to
162: the neutral top-pion\cite{tc-TC2}.
163:
164: The parameters involved in our calculations are: the masses of the
165: top-pions and top-Higgs, the parameter $K_{UR}^{tc}$, the top-pion
166: decay constant $F_t$ and the parameter $\epsilon$, which
167: parameterizes the portion of the extended-technicolor contribution
168: to the top quark mass. In our study we take $m_t=180.7$ GeV
169: \cite{0612061} and $F_t=50$ GeV. Since the mass splitting between
170: neutral and charged top-pion is very small, we assume
171: $m_{\pi}^0=m_{\pi}^{\pm}$. The top-pions mass is model-dependent and
172: is usually of a few hundred GeV \cite{TC2}. About the top-Higgs
173: mass, ref. \cite{tc-TC2} gave a lower bound of about $2m_t$, but it
174: is an approximate analysis and the mass below $t\bar t$ threshold is
175: also possible \cite{9809470}. In our analysis we assume
176: \begin{equation}
177: m_{\pi^0_t}=m_{\pi^\pm_t}=m_{h^0_t}\equiv M_{TC}.
178: \end{equation}
179: \vspace*{0.5cm}
180:
181: {\bf Calculations:~~} For the parton-level processes
182: in eq.(\ref{pro-6}) we only plot the Feynman diagrams in
183: Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} for $gg \to t \bar c$ and $cg \to
184: tZ$, respectively. Other processes have similar Feynman diagrams
185: which can be easily obtained from Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}.
186: For example, $cg \to tg $ can be straightforwardly obtained from
187: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, and $cg \to t\gamma$ can be obtained from
188: Fig.\ref{fig2} by removing some diagrams with non-exist vertices.
189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
190: \begin{figure}[bt]
191: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,width=8cm} \caption{Feynman diagrams for $g g
192: \to t \bar{c}$ in TC2 model. The boson in each loop denotes a
193: neutral top-pion, top-Higgs or a charged top-pion, while the
194: fermion in each loop can be a top or bottom quark depending on the
195: involved boson being neutral or charged. } \label{fig1}
196: \end{figure}
197: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
199: \begin{figure}[bt]
200: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,width=8cm}
201: \caption{Feynman diagrams for $c g \to t Z$ in TC2 model.
202: The boson in each loop denotes a neutral top-pion, top-Higgs or
203: a charged top-pion, while the fermion in each loop can be a top
204: or bottom quark depending on the involved boson being neutral or
205: charged.} \label{fig2}
206: \end{figure}
207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
208: The calculations for these production processes are
209: straightforward. Here we take the calculation of $gg\to t\bar c$
210: as an example. Its amplitude takes the form
211: \begin{eqnarray}
212: && \frac{g_s^2m_t^2}{2
213: F_t^2}\frac{v^2-F_t^2}{v^2}K_{UR}^{tt}K_{UR}^{tc}
214: \epsilon_\mu(k_1)\epsilon_\nu(k_2) \nonumber \\
215: && \times \sum_iT^i{\bar{u}(p_t) \Gamma_i^{\mu\nu} P_R v(p_c)},
216: \label{amp}
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: where the sum is over all the Feynman diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig1},
219: $T_i$ are color factors, $P_R=(1+\gamma_{5})/2$,
220: $k_{1,2}$ denote the momentum of two incoming gluons and
221: $p_{t,c}$ the momentum of outgoing top and anti-charm quarks,
222: and $\Gamma_i^{\mu\nu}$ is given by
223: \begin{eqnarray}
224: && c^i_1
225: p_t^{\mu}p_t^{\nu}+c^i_2p_c^{\mu}p_c^{\nu}+c^i_3p_t^{\mu}p_c^{\nu}
226: +c^i_4p_t^{\nu}p_c^{\mu} +c^i_5p_t^{\mu}\gamma^\nu
227: +c^i_6p_c^{\mu}\gamma^\nu \nonumber\\
228: &&
229: +c^i_7p_c^{\nu}\gamma^\mu
230: +c^i_8p_t^{\nu}\gamma^\mu
231: +c^i_9g^{\mu\nu}
232: +c^i_{10}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\nu}
233: +c^i_{11}p_t^{\mu}p_t^{\nu}{\not{k}}_2 \nonumber\\
234: &&
235: +c^i_{12}p_c^{\mu}p_c^{\nu}{\not{k}}_2
236: +c^i_{13}p_t^{\mu}p_c^{\nu} {\not{k}}_2
237: +c^i_{14}p_t^{\nu}p_c^{\mu}{\not{k}}_2
238: \nonumber\\
239: && +c^i_{15}p_t^{\mu}\gamma^\nu{\not{k}}_2
240: +c^i_{16}p_c^{\mu}\gamma^\nu{\not{k}}_2
241: +c^i_{17}p_c^{\nu}\gamma^\mu {\not{k}}_2 \nonumber\\
242: &&
243: +c^i_{18}p_t^{\nu}\gamma^\mu {\not{k}}_2
244: +c^i_{19}g^{\mu\nu} {\not{k}}_2
245: +c^i_{20}i\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\gamma_\alpha k_{2\beta}.
246: \label{m-e}
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: Here the coefficients $c^i_j$ are obtained by the straightforward
249: calculation of each Feynman diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, which are
250: composed of scalar loop functions \cite{Hooft} and can be calculated
251: by using LoopTools \cite{Hahn}. The calculations of the loop
252: diagrams are tedious and the analytical expressions for the
253: coefficients $c^i_j$ are lengthy, so we do not present the explicit
254: expressions of $c_i$s here.
255:
256: The hadronic cross section at the LHC is obtained by convoluting the
257: parton cross section with the parton distribution functions. In our
258: calculations we use CTEQ6L \cite{cteq} to generate the parton
259: distributions with the renormalization scale $\mu_R $ and the
260: factorization scale $\mu_F$ chosen to be $\mu_R = \mu_F = m_t$. To
261: make our predictions more realistic, we applied some kinematic cuts.
262: For example, we require that the transverse momentum of each
263: produced particle larger than 15 GeV and its pseudo rapidity less
264: than 2.5 in the laboratory frame. For $c g \to t$ followed by $t\to
265: W b$, we do not require the top quark exactly on mass shell and
266: instead we require the invariant mass of bottom quark and $W$-boson
267: in a region of $m_t - 3 \Gamma_t \leq M_{b W} \leq m_t + 3 \Gamma_t
268: $ ($\Gamma_t$ is the top quark width). This requirement was used in
269: \cite{Hosch} to investigate the observability of this channel at
270: hadron colliders in the effective Lagrangian framework.
271: \vspace*{0.5cm}
272:
273: {\bf Numerical results:~~} Since the cross section for each
274: channel is simply proportional to $K_{UR}^{tc}$ as shown in
275: eq.(\ref{amp}), here we do not show the dependence on
276: $K_{UR}^{tc}$. We will fix $K_{UR}^{tc} = 0.4$ and show the
277: dependence on $M_{TC}$. In Fig. \ref{fig3} we show the hadronic
278: cross section of the production proceeding by the parton-level
279: process $gg\to t \bar c$ versus $M_{TC}$, where the $s$-channel
280: and non-$s$-channel contributions are shown separately.
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282: \begin{figure}[bt]
283: \epsfig{file=fig3.ps,width=8cm}
284: \caption{ The hadronic cross section of the production proceeding
285: through $g g \to t \bar{c}$ versus $M_{TC}$.}
286: \label{fig3}
287: \end{figure}
288: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
289: >From Fig. \ref{fig3} we see that the contributions are dominated by
290: the $s$-channel process for a heavy top-pion and
291: there exist three regions of $M_{TC}$.
292: In the range $m_t < M_{TC} < 2 m_t$, the cross section is maximal
293: and can reach about $30$ pb.
294: The reason is that in this region $t\bar{c}$ is the dominant decay mode
295: of $\pi^0_t$ and $h^0_t$ which can be produced on-shell through the
296: $s$-channel. When $M_{TC}$ passes the threshold of $2 m_t$ and
297: keeps increasing, the cross section drops quickly since
298: the $t\bar t$ is becoming the dominant decay mode of $\pi^0_t$
299: and $h^0_t$. In the light mass region $M_{TC} < m_t$, which is
300: disfavored by $R_b$ \cite{kuang}, the non-$s$-channel
301: contributions are dominant and the $s$-channel contributions are
302: suppressed since the top-pion and the top-Higgs in the $s$-channel
303: cannot be produced on-shell.
304:
305: The total hadronic cross sections for all these processes
306: are plotted in Fig.\ref{fig4} for comparison.
307: We see that the production proceeding through
308: $gg\to t\bar c $ has the largest rate for a heavy top-pion.
309: Of course, the productions in the two channels of $gg\to t\bar c $
310: and $cg\to tg $ cannot be distinguished from each other since
311: the charm quark jet cannot be distinguished from the gluon jet.
312: Therefore, the cross sections of these two channels should be
313: summed, which gives a signal of an energetic lepton (electron or muon)
314: plus two jets (one of them is $b$-jet) plus missing energy.
315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
316: \begin{figure}[hbt]
317: \epsfig{file=fig4.ps,width=8cm} \caption{ The hadronic cross
318: sections of the productions proceeding through the parton-level
319: processes labelled on each curve.} \label{fig4}
320: \end{figure}
321: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
322:
323: Now we compare the TC2 predictions with the predictions in
324: supersymmetric model in Table 1. The TC2 predictions are taken
325: from Fig.\ref{fig4} for $M_{TC}=300$ GeV and $K_{UR}^{tc}=0.4$,
326: while the predictions of the minimal supersymmetric model are the
327: maximal values taken from \cite{cao-pp2tc}. The parameters
328: $\delta_{LL}$ and $\delta_{LR}$ parameterize the mixing between
329: top-squarks and charm-squarks and their definitions can be found
330: in \cite{cao-pp2tc}. We see that for each channel the TC2 predicts
331: a much larger production rate than the minimal supersymmetric
332: model. \vspace*{0.2cm}
333:
334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
335: \noindent {\small Table 1: The hadronic cross sections of
336: top-quark FCNC productions in TC2 and the minimal supersymmetric
337: model. The TC2 predictions are taken from Fig.\ref{fig4}
338: for $M_{TC}=300$ GeV and $K_{UR}^{tc}=0.4$, while the
339: predictions of the minimal supersymmetric model are the maximal
340: values taken from \cite{cao-pp2tc}.
341: The corresponding charge-conjugate channels are also
342: included. The LHC sensitivities in the last column are for 100
343: fb$^{-1}$ integrated luminosity.} \vspace*{-0.3cm}
344:
345: \begin{center}
346: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|} \hline
347: & \multicolumn{2}{c|} {SUSY} & ~~TC2~~ & ~~LHC sensitivity~~ \\ \cline{2-3}
348: & $\delta_{LL}\neq 0$ & $\delta_{LR}\neq 0$ & & ~~~~~~~~~~$3 \sigma$ \\ \hline
349: $gg \to t\bar{c}$ & 240 fb & 700 fb & 30 pb& 1500 fb
350: \cite{pptc-Han,pptc-background}\\ \hline $cg \to t$ & 225 fb
351: & 950 fb & 1.5 pb & 800 fb \cite{Hosch} \\\hline $ c g \to tg$ &
352: 85 fb & 520 fb & 3 pb & 1500 fb \cite{pptc-Han,pptc-background}\\
353: \hline $cg \to t \gamma$ & 0.4 fb & 1.8 fb & 20 fb & 5 fb
354: \cite{zt-Aguilar} \\ \hline $cg \to tZ$ & 1.5 fb & 5.7 fb &
355: 100 fb & 35 fb \cite{zt-Aguilar} \\ \hline
356: \end{tabular}
357: \end{center}
358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
359: \vspace*{0.2cm}
360:
361: In Table 1 we also list the LHC sensitivity with 100 fb$^{-1}$
362: integrated luminosity. Such sensitivity for each production channel
363: has been intensively investigated in the literature listed in Table
364: 1. Although these sensitivities are based on the effective
365: Lagrangian approach and may be not perfectly applicable to a
366: specified model, we can take them as a rough criteria to estimate
367: the observability of these channels. Comparing these sensitivities
368: with the TC2 predictions, we see that all the productions can be
369: above the $3\sigma$ sensitivity of the LHC for the chosen TC
370: parameters. But for the minimal supersymmetric model, only the
371: prediction for $c g \to t $ is slightly larger than the
372: corresponding LHC sensitivity. Therefore, if these rare processes
373: are observed at the LHC, the TC2 model, rather than supersymmetry,
374: will be favored. Of course, in case of unobservation of these rare
375: productions, the LHC can set meaningful constraints on TC2
376: parameters.
377:
378: Note that in Table 1 we did not list the SM predictions, which have
379: not been calculated in the literature since they must be far below
380: the observable level due to the extremely suppressed top quark FCNC
381: interactions \cite{tcvh-sm}. Also, we did not list the comparison of
382: TC2 and supersymmetry predictions for various top quark FCNC decays,
383: which can be found in the last reference of \cite{tc-TC2}. From
384: there we wee that for top quark FCNC decays the TC2 predictions are
385: also much larger than supersymmetry predictions. So the potentially
386: large top quark FCNC interaction is one characteristic of TC2 model
387: and will serve as a crucial test for this model at future collider
388: experiments.
389: \vspace*{0.4cm}
390:
391: {\bf Conclusions:~~} We evaluated the top-quark FCNC productions
392: in the top-color assisted technicolor model at the LHC. These
393: productions proceed respectively by the parton-level processes $ g
394: g \to t \bar{c}$, $c g \to t$, $c g \to t g$, $c g \to t Z$ and $c
395: g \to t \gamma$. We found that the predictions of the production
396: rates in this model are much larger than in the supersymmetric
397: model and all the productions can be enhanced above the $3\sigma$
398: sensitivity of the LHC. Since in the minimal supersymmetric model
399: only $c g \to t $ is slightly larger than the corresponding LHC
400: sensitivity, the observation of these processes will imply that
401: the TC2 model is more favored than the supersymmetric model. In
402: case of unobservation of these rare productions, the LHC can set
403: meaningful constraints on TC2 parameters. \vspace*{0.2cm}
404:
405:
406: {\bf Acknowledgment:} JMY thanks K. Hikasa for helpful discussions
407: and acknowledges the COE program of Japan for supporting a visit
408: in Tohoku University where part of this work is done.
409: This work is supported in part by a
410: fellowship from the Lady Davis Foundation at the Technion, by the
411: Israel Science Foundation (ISF), the National Natural Science
412: Foundation of China under Grant No. 10475107 and 10505007, and by
413: the IISN and the Belgian science policy office (IAP V/27).
414:
415: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
416: \bibitem{tcvh-sm} For the FCNC top quark decays in the SM, see,
417: G.~Eilam, J.~L.~Hewett and A.~Soni, \PRD44, 1473 (1991);
418: B.~Mele, S.~Petrarca and A.~Soddu, \PLB435, 401 (1998);
419: A.~Cordero-Cid, {\it et al.}, \PRD73, 094005 (2006).
420: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411188;%%
421: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,1473;%%
422: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B435,401;%%
423:
424: \bibitem{Larios:2006pb} For a recent review, see, e.g.,
425: F.~Larios, R.~Martinez, M.~A.~Perez,
426: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 21}, 3473 (2006).
427: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605003;%%
428:
429: \bibitem{cdfd0} M.~Paulini, hep-ex/9701019;
430: J.~Incandela, FERMILAB-CONF-95/237-E(1995);
431: D.~Gerdes, hep-ex/9706001;
432: T.~J.~Lecompte, FERMILAB-CONF-96/021-E (1996);
433: A.~P.~Heinson, hep-ex/9605010.
434: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9701019;%%
435: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9706001;%%
436: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9605010;%%
437:
438: \bibitem{Aguilar-Saavedra:2004wm}
439: J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra, Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 35}, 2695 (2004).
440: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409342;%%
441:
442: \bibitem{tcv-mssm} For FCNC top quark decays in the MSSM, see,
443: C.~S.~Li, R.~J.~Oakes and J.~M.~Yang, \PRD49, 293 (1994);
444: G.~Couture, C.~Hamzaoui and H.~Konig, \PRD52, 1713 (1995);
445: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and R.~Rangarajan, \PRD56, 3100 (1997);
446: G.~M.~de Divitiis, R.~Petronzio and L.~Silvestrini, \NPB504, 45 (1997);
447: J.~M.~Yang, B.-L.~Young and X.~Zhang, \PRD58, 055001 (1998);
448: C.~S.~Li, L.~L.~Yang and L.~G.~Jin, \PLB599, 92 (2004);
449: M.~Frank and I.~Turan, \PRD74, 073014 (2006);
450: %%
451: J.~M.~Yang and C.~S.~Li, \PRD49, 3412 (1994);
452: J.~Guasch and J.~Sola, \NPB562, 3 (1999);
453: G. Eilam, {\it et al.}, \PLB510, 227 (2001).
454: %%
455: J.L. Diaz-Cruz, H.-J. He, C.-P. Yuan \PLB179,530 (2002);
456: D. Delepine and S. Khalil, \PLB599, 62 (2004).
457: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,293;%%
458: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,1713;%%
459: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,3100;%%
460: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B504,45;%%
461: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,055001;%%
462: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B599,92;%%
463: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,073014;%%
464: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3412;%%
465: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B562,3;%%
466: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B510,227;%%
467: %%CITATION = PHLTA, B179, 530;%%
468: %%CITATION = PHLTA, B599, 62;%%
469:
470: \bibitem{pptc-mssm} For top-charm associated productions in the MSSM , see,
471: G.~Eilam, M.~Frank and I.~Turan, \PRD74, 035012 (2006).
472: J.~J.~Liu, C.~S.~Li, L.~L.~Yang and L.~G.~Jin, \NPB705, 3 (2005);
473: J. Guasch, {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0601218;
474: J. M. Yang, Annals Phys. {\bf 316}, 529 (2005);
475: J. Cao, Z. Xiong and J. M. Yang, \NPB651, 87 (2003).
476: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,035012;%%
477: %%CITATION = NUPHA, B705,3;%%
478: %%CITATION = HEP-PH, 0601218;%%
479: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409351;%%
480: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B651,87;%%
481:
482: \bibitem{tc-TC2} For exotic top production processes in TC2 models, see,
483: H. J. He and C. P. Yuan, \PRL83, 28(1999);
484: G. Burdman, \PRL83,2888(1999);
485: J. Cao, Z. Xiong, J. M. Yang, \PRD67, 071701 (2003);
486: C.~Yue, {\it et al.}, \PLB 496, 93 (2000);
487: J. Cao, {\it et al.}, \PRD70, 114035 (2004);
488: F. Larios and F. Penunuri, \JPG30, 895(2004);
489: J. Cao, {\it et al.} \EPJC41, 381 (2005).
490: %%CITATION = PRLTA,83,28;%%
491: %%CITATION = PRLTA,83,2888%%
492: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,071701;%%
493: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B496,301;%%
494: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D70,114035;%%
495: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311056;%%
496: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311166;%%
497:
498: \bibitem{tcv-TC2} For FCNC top quark decays in TC2 theory, see,
499: X.~L. Wang {\it et al.}, \PRD50, 5781 (1994);
500: C.~Yue, {\it et al.}, \PRD64, 095004 (2001);
501: G.~Lu, F.~Yin, X.~Wang and L.~Wan, \PRD68, 015002 (2003).
502: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,5781;%%
503: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,095004;%%
504: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D68,015002;%%
505:
506: \bibitem{cao-pp2tc} J.~Cao, {\it et al.}, \PRD74, 031701 (2006); hep-ph/0702264.
507: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604163;%%
508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0702264;%%
509:
510: \bibitem{tztrtg} C. Yue, Z. Zong, \JPG33, 401(2005);
511: W. Xu, X. Wang, Z. Xiao, hep-ph/0612063.
512: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0612063;%%
513:
514: \bibitem{TC2} C. T. Hill, \PLB345, 483 (1995);
515: K. Lane and E. Eichten, \PLB352, 382 (1995);
516: K. Lane and E. Eichten, \PLB433, 96 (1998);
517: W.~A.~Bardeen, C.~T.~Hill, M.~Lindner, \PRD41, 1647 (1990);
518: G. Cvetic, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 71}, 513 (1999).
519: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B345,483;%%
520: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B352,382;%%
521: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B433,96;%%
522:
523: \bibitem{9702265} G. Burdman, D. Kominis, \PLB403, 107 (1997);
524: W. Loniaz, T. Takuch, \PRD62, 055005 (1999).
525: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B403,107;%%
526: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,055005;%%
527:
528: \bibitem{0612061} CDF Collaboration, hep-ph/0612061.
529: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0612061;%%
530:
531: \bibitem{9809470} R. S. Chivukula, B. Dobrescu, H. Georgi, C. T. Hill, \PRD59, 075003 (1999).
532: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D59,075003;%%
533:
534: \bibitem{Hooft} G.~'t Hooft and M.~J.~G.~Veltman, \NPB153, 365 (1979).
535: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,365;%%
536:
537: \bibitem{Hahn} T.~Hahn, M.~Perez-Victoria, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 118}, 153 (1999);
538: T.~Hahn, Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 135}, 333 (2004).
539: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406288;%%
540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807565;%%
541:
542: \bibitem{cteq} J.~Pumplin, {\it et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0602}, 032 (2006).
543: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512167;%%
544:
545: \bibitem{Hosch} M.~Hosch, K.~Whisnant, B.~L.~Young, \PRD56, 5725 (1997).
546: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56, 5725 ;%%
547:
548: \bibitem{kuang} C.~T.~Hill, X.~Zhang, \PRD51, 3563 (1995);
549: C.~Yue, Y.~P.~Kuang, X.~Wang, W.~Li, \PRD62, 055005 (2000).
550: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,3563;%%
551: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,055005;%%
552:
553: \bibitem{pptc-Han} T.~Han, {\it et al.}, \PRD58, 073008 (1998).
554: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,073008;%%
555:
556: \bibitem{pptc-background} T.~Stelzer, Z.~Sullivan, S.~Willenbrock, \PRD58, 094021 (1998).
557: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58, 094021;%%
558:
559: \bibitem{zt-Aguilar} F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, \NPB576, 56 (2000).
560: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B576,56;%%
561:
562: \bibitem{tch-Aguilar} J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, \PLB495, 347 (2000).
563: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B495,347;%%
564: \end{thebibliography}
565:
566: \end{document}
567: )
568: