Skip to main content

Full text of "Zt and γt production via top flavour-changing neutral couplings at the Fermilab Tevatron"

See other formats


a\ 



< 



r- 



p. 



X 



UG-FT-98/99 
hep-ph 7990646^ 



June 1999 



Zt and 7f production via top flavour-changing 
neutral couplings at the Fermilab Tevatron 

Q^". F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra 

On I Departamento de Fisica Teorica y del Cosmos 

Universidad de Granada 
E- 18071 Granada, Spain 



LI. Ametller 
Dep. Fisica i Enginyeria Nuclear 
Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya 
'nI" \ E- 08034 Barcelona, Spain 

(N 

o 



Abstract 



Associated single top production with a Z boson or a photon at large hadron 
colliders provides a precise determination of top flavour-changing neutral cou- 
^\ , plings. The best way to measure these couplings with the up quark at Tevatron 

OS ' is to search for events with three jets and missing energy or events with a pho- 

ton, a charged lepton, a jet and missing energy. Other decay channels are also 
discussed. 



gni PACS: 12.15.Mm, 12.60.-i, 14.65.Ha, 14.70.-e 



Large hadron colliders will be top factories, allowing to measure its properties 
very precisely. In contrast with its mass, which is the best known quark mass, top 
couplings are very poorly known ^. In this Letter we point out that associated single 
a I top production with a Z boson or a photon is very sensitive to the flavour-changing 

neutral (FCN) couplings Vtq, with V a Z boson, a photon or a gluon and q a light 
quark u or c. These vertices are very small in the Standard Model (SM), being then 
an obvious place to look for new physics. Although top pair production gives large 
top samples, the leptonic Zt and jt signals become cleaner and statistically more 
significant with increasing energy and luminosity. At any rate, the determination 
of top FCN couplings from Zt and jt production has a comparable, if not a higher 
precision than from top decays as we will show here for Tevatron. On the other 
hand, both measurements have not only to be consistent but they will improve their 
statistical significance when combined together. In the following we concentrate on 
Runs I and II with integrated luminosities of 109 pb~^ and 2 fb~^, respectively. 
The charm contribution to associated top production with a Z boson or a photon is 



40 times smaller than the up contribution at Tevatron energies ^/s = 1.8 — 2 TeV. 
Hence, Tevatron is only sensitive in these production processes to top couplings 
with the up quark . This will not be the case at the CERN Large Hadron Collider 
(LHC), where the charm contribution becomes relevant. In any case there is no 
model-independent reason for the Vtu couplings to be small, and it is theoretically 
important to measure them precisely. 

The most significant decay channels depend on the collider and luminosity. For 
Zt production, the yvjjh decay channel, with Z ^ vv and W — > gg', gives the best 
determination of the Ztu couplings in both Tevatron runs. The jjli'b mode, with 
Z ^ qq and W ^ liy, has a similar branching ratio but a larger background. For 
higher luminosity at Tevatron Run III or at the LHC, the leptonic mode l^l^l'ub, 
with both Z and W decaying leptonically, and the bblvb mode are more significant. 
For ■jt production the 'yli'b channel, with W — > Iv, gives a cleaner signal than the 
"fjjb mode with W — > qq', allowing a better determination of the ■jtu vertex. This 
leptonic channel also gives the best limit on the gtu coupling. A detailed discussion 
of all these decay channels at LHC will be presented elsewhere Q . Throughout this 
Letter we consider that the top quark decays predominantly into Wb [Q], and we 
sum t and t production. 

The Lagrangian involving FCN couplings between the top, a light quark q = u,c 
and a Z boson, a photon ^ or a gluon G" can be written in standard notation as Q 

C = ^h^{X^,PL + X^^PR)qZ^^ 

2cw nit 

^ ^ mt 

+9si{d'^ - ^d?l,)^^^^^T\G^' + h.c. , (1) 

^ ^ rrit 

where Pr^l = (1 i 75)/2 and T" are the Gell-Mann matrices satisfying Tr (T'^T^) = 
6/2. The a^^ terms are dimension 5 and absent at tree level in renormalizable 
theories like the SM. Hence, they are suppressed by one-loop factors ~ a/vr. Be- 
sides, in the absence of tree level FCN couplings they are also suppressed by the 
GIM mechanism. Thus, these terms are typically small in renormalizable theories. 
However, in scenarios with new dynamics near the electroweak scale effective cou- 
plings involving the t quark may be large. On the other hand, the 7^ terms can 
be quite large in principle. Although rare processes require small FCN couplings 
between light quarks, the top can have relatively large couplings with the quarks u 
or c, but not with both simultaneously. In specific models FCN couplings scale with 



the quark masses, but this is not general. Simple well-defined models extending the 
SM with vector-like fermions can be written fulfilling all precise electroweak data 
and saturating the inequalities 

|X4|<0.28 , |X,^|<0.14, 

\Xt\<O.U , |X,^|<0.16 (2) 

at 90% C. L. Q. It is usually expected that new physics, and in particular the mass 
generation mechanism, will show up first in the third family and thus in the top 
quark, and large hadron colliders are the best place to perform a precise measurement 
of these couplings. The present 95% C. L. limits on the top branching ratios at 
Tevatron are Br(f -^ Zq) < 0.33, Br(i -^ -fq) < 0.032 [|], Br(t -^ gq) < 0.15 |], 
which imply 



Xt, ^ J|X,^,|2 + |x/J|2<o.84, 



(l)|2 , 1.(2): 



'^t<? = \^ Kg' \'' + K'\'< 0.778, 



h, ^ sl\\^l^\^ + \\f^\^<Q.2Q, 



Ct, = ^\Q,'\' + \Q;'\'<0.15. (3) 

Similar limits have been reported searching for tq production at LEP2 M. Relying 
on the same decays it has been estimated that LHC with a luminosity of 100 fb~^ and 
future linear colliders will eventually reduce these bounds to Xtg < 0.02, Ktq < 0.015, 



Xtg < 0.0035 g, |, Ig |1|]. In Ref. p| the limits on the strong top FCN couphngs 
have been studied looking at the production of a single top quark plus a jet at 
hadron colliders, obtaining (^tu ^ 0.029, Qc ^ 0.11 in Tevatron Run I. These will 
reduce to Qu ^ 0.0021, Qc < 0.0046 after the first LHC run with a luminosity of 10 
fb~^. In the following we investigate in detail what can be learned from Zt and ^t 
production at Tevatron. 

Zt production. In general this process manifests as a five fermion final state. 
The relatively low statistics available at Tevatron makes the vi^jjh channel the most 
interesting mode due to its branching ratio, 13%. The jjlvb channel with a branching 
ratio of 15% gives less precise results due to its larger background. We will only 
consider / = e, // throughout this Letter, but with an efficient r identification the 
total branching ratio increases by a factor ~ 3/2, improving the significance of 
this channel. The l~^l~jjb mode has a smaller branching ratio and the hadronic 
decay channel jjjjb a larger background, whereas the three-neutrino channel vulvb 



has both a smaher branching ratio and a larger background. On the other hand, 
the bbliyb and l'^l~luh modes have smaller branching ratios and backgrounds, and 
become the most interesting channels at Tevatron with very high luminosity and 
at the LHC. The three charged lepton signal is also characteristic of some gauge 
mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB) models |l^. However, if the origin of 
such a signal is a top FCN coupling, the other decay channels must show up in the 
ratio dictated by the Z and W decay rates. 

jjbJ^T signal. We discuss first the vi^jjb mode which is the best way of measuring 
the Ztu vertex. We will consider both 7^ and a^^ terms, but we will assume only one 
at a time to be nonzero]^. The samples are generated using the exact matrix element 
for the s- and t-channel diagrams gu ^ Zt ^ ZWb -^ vUqq'b. The SM diagrams 
contributing to gu — > ZWb are much smaller in the phase space region of interest 
and suppressed by small mixing angles, and we neglect them here. We assume 
all fermions massless except the top quark. In order to estimate the background 
we have evaluated four other processes: (i) Zjjj production using VECBOS [|lj] 
modified to include energy smearing and kinematical cuts; {ii) Zbbj production, 
which is much smaller and only important at Run II when we use b tagging; {in) 
the process gb -^ Wt -^ WWb -^ Wqq'b, where I is missed, and (iv) tt production 
with i{t) — > Ivb, with I and b missed and tit) -^ qq'b. We include throughout this 
Letter a K factor equal to 1.2 for all processes [^], except for tt production where 
we use K = 1.34 [^. We use MRST structure functions set A 0] with Q^ = s. The 
cross section for both 7^ or a^i, couplings is 235 fb at ^/s = 1.8 TeV, assuming the 
present upper limits, Xtu = 0.84 and Ktu = 0.78. For ^/s = 2 TeV, the cross sections 
increase to 358 and 370 fb, respectively. After generating signals and backgrounds 
we imitate the experimental conditions with a Gaussian smearing of the lepton (/), 
photon (7) and jet (j) energies. 



A^^'T 20% 














E^ VW 



2%, 

5 5% , (4) 



where the energies are in GeV and the two terms are added in quadrature. (For 
simplicity we assume that the energy smearing for muons is the same as for elec- 
trons.) We then apply detector cuts on transverse momenta px, pseudorapidities t] 
and distances in (r/, 0) space AR: 

pj.^>10GeY, pl>l6GeY, |r/''^'^| < 2 , ARjj^ij^^i^^j > OA . (5) 



^To be definite we fix the ratio Xt^/X^^ = 4/3. 



For the Wt and tt backgrounds, we estimate in how many events we miss the charged 
lepton and the b jet demanding that their momenta and pseudorapidities satisfy 
PT < 10 GeV or \r]\ > 3. 

For the events to be triggered, we require both the signal and background to 
fulfil at least one of the following trigger conditions: 

• one jet with pT > 100 GeV, 

• one charged lepton with px > 20 GeV and \r]\ < 1, 

• one photon with pt ^ 16 GeV and \ri\ < 1, 

• missing energy J^t^ 35 GeV and one jet with px > 50 GeV, 

• four jets (including leptons and photons) with pT > 15 GeV and J2pt > 125 
GeV. 

Finally, for the Tevatron Run II analysis we will take advantage of the good b tagging 



efficiency ~ 60% [18| to require a tagged 6 jet in the final state. There is also a small 
probability ~ 1% that a jet which does not result from the fragmentation of a 6 quark 
is misidentified as a 6 jet [p!9| ]. b tagging is then implemented in the Monte Carlo 
routines taking into account all possibilities of b (mis) identification and requiring 
only one 6 jet. This reduces the signal and the Wt and ti backgrounds by a factor of 
~ 0.6, the largest background Zjjj by ~ 0.03 and the Zbbj background by ~ 0.48. 
b tagging is not convenient at Run I because the number of signal events and the b- 
tagging efficiency are small. In Fig. || we plot the signal and background distributions 
for mf^^, the invariant mass of the three jets, which is the reconstructed mass of the 
top quark for the signal. Obviously in this case m]-'^^ is not exactly the top mass, 
because the t quark is not necessarily on-shell. Besides, we have also simulated the 
detector by smearing the energy. Both effects are in fact comparable. Obviously, the 
mp^ distribution for the Wt and ti backgrounds peaks also around rrit. In Fig. |^ we 
plot the cross section as a function of M^^, the reconstructed W boson mass. When 
we use b tagging, My^^ is the invariant mass of the other two jets. If the b is not 
tagged, M^^ is defined as the two-jet invariant mass closest to the W mass. In this 
case the third jet is indirectly assigned to a b. M^^ equals M\y for the signal and 
the Wt and ti backgrounds. Another useful variable to discriminate between signal 
and background is the total transverse energy Ht in Fig. |3|, which is defined as the 
scalar sum of the px^s of all jets plus I^t- In Fig- § we plot the ^t distribution to 
show that the possible trigger inefficiency will not change significantly our results. 

To enhance the signal to background ratio we apply different sets of cuts on 
ml^^, M^'^, Ht in Runs I and II, and also on p^, the transverse momentum of 



the b quark, p™™, the minimum transverse momentum of the jets and Ai?^™, the 
minimum AR between jets (see Table [l|). The total number of events for Runs I and 
II with integrated luminosities of 109 pb^^ and 2 fb~^, respectively, are collected 
in Table §, using for the signals Xtu = 0.84 and Ktu = 0.78. We observe that 
the kinematical cuts in Table Q are very efficient to reduce the Zjjj and Zbbj 
backgrounds, but they do not affect Wt and ti. These are in practice irreducible 
and limit the usefulness of this decay channel to moderate energies and luminosities. 
To derive upper bounds on the coupling constants we use the prescriptions in Ref. 
[pO| . These are more adequate than naive Poisson statistics when the number of 
background events is small, as happens in our case. (Notice that these prescriptions 
are similar to those applied in Ref. |^] to obtain the bounds Br(t — > Zq) < 0.33 and 
Br(f -^ 7g) < 0.032.) Unless otherwise stated, all bounds will be calculated at 95% 
C. L. This decay channel gives, if no signal is observed, Xtu < 0.690, Ktu < 0.596 
after Run I and Xtu < 0.180, ntu < 0.155 after Run II. The expected limit from top 
decay in Run II is Xtu ^ 0.225 [^. Scaling this value with the Run I limits in Eq. |3| 
we estimate ntu ^ 0.208 at Run II. 



v'ariable 


Run I 


Run II 


mr 


155-200 


155-200 


MW 


70-95 


65-95 


Ht 


> 180 


> 160 


Pt 




>20 


pmin 


>20 




AR^'' 


>0.6 





Table 1: Kinematical cuts for the wjjb decay channel. The masses, energies and 
momenta are in GeV. At Run II we also use b tagging. 



This process also constrains the strong anomalous top coupling Qtu- Again there 
are two s- and t-channel diagrams contributing to the signal and a similar analysis 
gives C,tu < 0.316 after Run I and Qtu < 0.0824 after Run II. These bounds are weaker 
than the top decay limits Qu ^ 0.15 and C,tu ^ 0.04, respectively g, and than the 
limits from jt production Qu <^ 0.029 and Qtu ^ 0.009 [|l2|. One may wonder if it 
is sensible to use the same cuts for the Z anomalous terms 7^ and a^y and for the 
strong a^y terms. The characteristic q^ behaviour differentiates the a^^ from the 
7^ terms and manifests differently if the vertex involves the initial gluon or the final 
Z boson. However, this makes little difference for Tevatron energies and we do not 
distinguish among the three cases. 



Run I Run II 





before 
cuts 


after 
cuts 


before 
cuts 


after 
cuts 


^^(Tm) 


16.0 


10.8 


261 


235 


Ztia,,^) 


18.1 


12.4 


306 


274 


Zjjj 


281 


7.2 


199 


5.2 


Zbbj 


4.0 


0.2 


74.1 


2.3 


Wt 


0.2 


0.1 


3.5 


3.4 


ti 


0.9 


0.6 


10.6 


9.9 



Table 2: Number of yvjjh events before and after the kinematical cuts in Table |l] 
for the Zt signal and backgrounds. We use Xm = 0.84 and Ktu = 0.78. 



Ijjbl^T signal. The jjlvb decay channel analysis is carried out in a completely 
analogous way. We consider Wjjj and Wbbj production, which we evaluate with 
VECBOS, and Wt and tt production, with a b quark missing in the latter, as 
backgrounds to our signal (for other single top production processes see Ref. |21]). 



To reconstruct the Z boson mass M^'^ we use in Run I the two-jet invariant mass 
closest to the Z mass, assigning the remaining jet to the b. In Run II we require 
only one tagged b defining M^'^ as the invariant mass of the other two jets0. We 
make the hypothesis that all missing energy comes from a single neutrino with 
p'^ = {E'^ , pT , p'£) , and pT the missing transverse momentum. Using (p'+p'^)^ = M^ 
we find two solutions for p'^ , and we choose that one making the reconstructed top 



mass TTip'^ = \/{p'' + p'^ + p^)'^ closest to mt- The complete set of cuts for Runs I 
and II is gathered in Table ^. In addition we require IjJt> 5 GeV to ensure that 
the top mass reconstruction is meaningful. The number of events before and after 
cuts is given in Table |^, taking again for the signals Xm = 0.84 and Km = 0.78. We 
observe that although the Wjjj background is one order of magnitude larger than 
the Zjjj background of the previous signal, the cuts are more effective. This is so 
in part because tti^*^ and M^^ depend on different momenta, whereas in the I'vjjb 
mode (mp'^)^ = (M^^)^ + 2p ■ p . In Run I without b tagging Wjjj is the main 
background, but at Run II all backgrounds are in practice comparable. As the only 
way to get rid of Wt and ti is distinguishing Z — > jj from W — > jj, we require 
M^^'^ > 90 GeV in this Run. The cuts in Table |3| are a compromise to reduce the 

^Requiring only one tagged h reduces the signal because the Z boson decays to bb 15% of the 
time. In this case we have then three fo's but we require only one tagged b. The case with more 
than one tagged b will be discussed in Ref. [0]. 



different backgrounds keeping at the same time the signal as large as possible. Thus 
if no signal is observed, we obtain from Table |^ Xtu < 0.838, Km < 0.705 after Run 
I and Xtu < 0.275, Km < 0.222 after Run II. 

The bounds on (^tu are again not competitive with those derived from top decays 
and jt production. In this channel we find Qu < 0.374 (0.119) after Run I (II). 



v'ariable 


Run I 


Run II 


M^ 


80-105 


90-110 


^rec 


155-200 


150-200 


Ht 


>240 


>240 


Pt 


>20 
>0.5 


>0.6 



Table 3: Kinematical cuts for the jjlvh decay channel. The masses, energies and 
momenta are in GeV. At Run II we also use b tagging. 



Run I Run II 





before 
cuts 


after 
cuts 


before 
cuts 


after 
cuts 


ztii^,) 


17.9 


9.9 


259 


77.2 


Zt{a^^) 


19.7 


12.0 


284 


101 


Wjjj 


1928 


13.3 


1282 


2.7 


Wbbj 


41.6 


0.2 


421 


1.0 


Wt 


4.6 


0.8 


86.6 


5.5 


tt 


15.2 


2.7 


226 


2.8 



Table 4: Number of jjlvb events before and after the kinematical cuts in Table |3| 
for the Zt signal and backgrounds. We use Xm = 0.84 and Km = 0.78. 



7t production. This process gives a final state of a photon and three fermions. 
In this case there are no 7^ terms as required by gauge invariance. Depending 
whether the W decays into leptons or hadrons, we have the signal ^Ivb or ^jjb. As 
in Zt production, we only consider I = e, fi, and again a good r identification will 
improve our results. Then the leptonic mode has a branching ratio of 21%, and the 
hadronic mode 67.9%. However, the leptonic mode has a small background from the 
SM jWj production, whereas the hadronic one has a huge background from jjjj 



production. 

jlbl^T signal. This signal is again generated using the exact matrix element for 
the two s- and t-channel diagrams gfu — > 7t — > 'jWb -^ ^Ivb and Xm = 0.26. Here 
we have also neglected the SM diagrams gu -^ jWb which are also negligible in the 
phase space of interest. The main SM background is jWj production. We consider 
gqu -^ iWqd, gqa -^ jWqu and quqd -^ jWg, with qu = u,c and qd = d,s (plus the 
charge conjugate processes), with the jet misidentified as a b. The true b production 
from initial u and c quarks is suppressed by the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix 
elements \Vub\'^ and |V"cfep, respectively, and is negligible. To evaluate the background 
we have first calculated the matrix element for gq^ — > jWqa, including the eight SM 
diagrams, decaying afterwards the W leptonically. The matrix elements for the other 
two processes can be obtained by crossing symmetry. Our result for jWj production 



at Tevatron Run I agrees with the cross-section obtained in Ref. |22|. We use the 
same detector and trigger cuts as for Zt production. We also take advantage of b 
tagging in Run II to reduce the background (in this process there is only one jet). 

To improve the signal to background ratio we perform kinematical cuts on mp*^, 
which is defined as in the jjlvb channel for Zt production (see Fig. P). We also 
require large Ht (Fig. |^, pj, (Fig. 0) and E"' . The complete set of cuts for Runs 
I and II is gathered in Table ^, where we have also required /S.R^w > 0.4, and the 
number of events in Table |6|. Notice that the cuts for Run II are less restrictive than 
for Run I. This is so because b tagging alone reduces drastically the background in 
Run II. In Run I the statistics is too low to improve the top decay bound, and we 
only get Xtu < 0.30. However with the increase in energy and luminosity in Run II 
the characteristic behaviour of the a^i, coupling starts to manifest and the bound 
obtained from this process, Xtu < 0.066, is better than the limit from top decays, 
Xtu < 0.09 §. 



ariable 


Run I 


Run II 


mr 


150-205 


140-210 


Hx 


> 180 


> 160 


Pt 


>40 


>30 


E-f 


>50 





Table 5: Kinematical cuts for the jli'b decay channel. The masses, energies and 
momenta are in GeV. At Run II we also use b tagging. 



This process also constrains the strong top FCN vertex. Two s- and t-channel 
diagrams contribute to gu -^ jt production. Evaluating the exact matrix element 



Run I Run II 





before 

cuts 


after 
cuts 


before 
cuts 


after 
cuts 


It 


4.2 


3.5 


68.4 


63.5 


iWqu 


10.3 


0.5 


2.5 


0.3 


iWqd 


10.3 


0.4 


2.6 


0.3 


jWg 


39.4 


1.3 


8.5 


0.7 



Table 6: Number of ^Ivb events before and after the kinematical cuts in Table g for 
the jt signal and backgrounds. We use Xtu = 0.26. 



and proceeding as before we obtain Qu < 0.11 after Run I and Ctu < 0.020 after Run 
II. These bounds are better than those obtained from top decay, but they are still 
weaker than the bounds from tj production. 

jjjb signal. This decay channel has a larger branching ratio than the previous 
one, but also a larger background. In order to evaluate it, we have modified VECBOS 
to produce photons instead of Z bosons. This is done introducing a 'photon' with a 
small mass m-y = 0.1 GeV and substituting the Z couplings by the photon couplings 
everywhere. The total width of such 'photon' is calculated to be F^ = 1.73 • 10^^ 
GeV, with an e^e~ branching ratio equal to 0.15. We have checked that the results 
are the same for a heavier 'photon' with m^ = 1 GeV and F^ = 1.73 • 10~^ GeV. 
After detector and trigger cuts, the total number of signal events is 12 at Run I, 
while the background is huge, 65705 events. However, with b tagging at Run II 
we still can derive a competitive bound on the electromagnetic anomalous coupling. 
The reconstruction of the top and the W mass proceeds as in the vvjjb signal. 
The cuts for ^jjb are summarized in Table 1^ with p^^^ the maximum transverse 
momentum of the three jets. The number of events before and after cuts can be 
read from Table |8| (for the signal we use Xtu = 0.26). In this case we derive a 
bound Xtu ^ 0.088 similar to that expected from top decays, but worse that the one 
obtained in the ^Ivb channel. 

This channel also allows to constrain the strong anomalous coupling C,tu- Pro- 
ceeding as before we derive the bound C,tu < 0.048 after Run II. 

In summary, we have shown that Zt and ^t production at large hadron colliders 
provides a sensitive probe for anomalous FCN top couplings. At Tevatron energies 
these processes are sensitive only to Vtu couplings. For Zt production the most 
interesting channels are those with Z ^> vv and W -^ qq', and Z ^ qq and W — > liy. 
For jt production, both channels W — > qq' and W ^ li^ are significant. The limits 



10 



Variable 


Run II 


^rec 


160-200 


M^^ 


65-95 


Hx 


>240 


Pt 


>75 


E-y 


> 100 


^max 


>50 


ARjf'' 


>0.6 



Table 7: Kinematical cuts for the jjjb decay channel. The masses, energies and 
momenta are in GeV. In this Run we use b tagging. 



Run II 





before 
cuts 


after 
cuts 


It 


192 


89.9 


1333 


54290 


19.1 



Table 8: Number of ijjh events before and after the kinematical cuts in Table for 
the 7t signal and background. We use Xm = 0.26 



which can be obtained from these signals are quoted in Table ^ together with present 
and future bounds from top decays and jt production. 

With the increase of the center of mass energy and luminosity at the LHC, the 
l^l^lub and bblvh channels will provide the most precise bounds on Xm and ntu-, 
while the 'ylvh channel will give the strongest bound on Xm and Qtu- At the same 
time, Zt and ^t production from sea c quarks becomes larger and similar bounds to 
those from top decays can be obtained. This is the subject of Ref. 0. 



Acknowledgements 

We thank W. Giele for helping us with VECBOS and J. Fernandez de Troconiz 
and I. Efthymiopoulos for discussions on Tevatron and LHC triggers. We have also 
benefited from discussions with F. Cornet, M. Mangano and R. Miquel. This work 
was partially supported by CICYT under contract AEN96-1672 and by the Junta 



11 



Run I Run II 



Signal 


Xtu 


I^tu 


AfM 


Ctu 


Xtu 


Htu 


\u 


Ctu 


ui>jjb 


0.69 


0.60 


— 


0.32 


0.18 


0.15 


— 


0.082 


jjlub 


0.84 


0.71 


— 


0.37 


0.28 


0.22 


— 


0.12 


^lub 


— 


— 


0.30 


0.11 


— 


— 


0.066 


0.020 


ijjb 


— 


— 






— 


— 


0.088 


0.048 


Top decay 


0.84 


0.78 


0.26 


0.15 


0.23 


0.21 


0.09 


0.04 


jt production 


— 


— 


— 


0.029 


— 


— 


— 


0.009 



Table 9: Summary of the bounds on the anomalous top couplings in Eqs. (||), (y) 
obtained from the main decay channels in single top production in association with 
a Z boson or a photon at Tevatron. For comparison we also quote the limits from 
top decay and single top production plus a jet existing in the literature. We use 
dashes to indicate that the process does not constrain the coupling at tree level. In 
Run I the ^jjb signal gives no significant bound. 



de Andalucia, FQMIOI. 

References 

[1] C. Caso et al, European Phys. Journal C3, 1 (1998) 

[2] F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, UG-FT-100/99 

[3] F. Abe et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2525 (1998) 

[4] C. Burgess and H. J. Schnitzer, Nucl Phys. B228, 464 (1983); W. Buchmiiller 
and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986); C. N. Leung, S. T. Love and 
S. Rao, Z. Phys. C31, 433 (1986); R. D. Peccei, S. Peris and X. Zhang, Nucl. 
Phys. B349, 305 (1991); R. Escribano and E. Masso, Nucl. Phys. B429, 19 
(1994) 

[5] F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. Miquel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 

1628 (1999); see also F. del Aguila and J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, UG-FT-99/99, 
hep-ph/9906461| 



[6] T. Han, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B385, 311 (1996) 
[7] DELPHI Collaboration, S. Andringa et a/., DELPHI 98-70 CONE 138 

12 



[8] T. Han, R. D. Peccei and X. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B454, 527 (1995) 
[9] T. Han, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D55, 7241 (1997) 
[10] T. Han and J. L. Hewett, |hep-ph/9811237| , Phys. Rev. D (in press) 



[11] S. Bar-Shalom and J. Wudka, |hep-ph/9905407 



[12] T. Han, M. Hosch, K. Whisnant, B.-L. Young and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D58, 
073008 (1998) 



[13] H. Baer, P. G. Mercadante, X. Tata and Y. Wang, hep-ph/9903333 and refer- 
ences there in 

[14] F. Berends, H. Kuijf, B. Tausk and W. Giele, Nucl. Phys. B357, 32 (1991) 

[15] R. Hamberg, W.L. van Neerven and T. Matsuura, Nucl. Phys. B359, 343 (1991) 



[16] S. Frixione, M. Mangano, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, |hep-ph/9702287] , to be 



published in Heavy Flavours II, eds. A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, World Scientific 

[17] A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. 
C4, 463 (1998) 

[18] F. Abe et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2779 (1998) 

[19] F. Abe et al, Phys. Rev. D50, 2966 (1994) 

[20] G. J. Feldman and R. D. Cousins, Phys. Rev. D57, 3873 (1998) 

[21] T. Stelzer, Z. Sullivan and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D58, 094021 (1998) 

[22] V. Barger, T. Han, J. Ohnemus and D. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. D41, 2782 
(1990); for LHC calculations see also U. Baur, E. W. N. Glover and J. J. van 
der Bij, Nucl. Phys. B318, 106 (1989) 



13 



30 



20 



> 

O 
in 



10 



Zt (Y,) 

--- Zt{a^J 

Zjjj+Zbbj 
Wt+tt 



100 
m7 (GeV) 



200 



Figure 1: Reconstructed top mass mp'^ distribution before kinematical cuts for the 
fyjjb signal and backgrounds in Tevatron Run II. 



14 




Figure 2: Reconstructed W mass M^^'^ distribution before kinematical cuts for the 
I'vjjh signal and backgrounds in Tevatron Run II. 



15 



20 



> 

o 

(M 



-10 





Zt (Y,) 
--- Zt(aJ 

Zjjj+Zbbj _ 
^ Wt+tt 






— [ ' 


_ 






■---; ' 


^ 1 











' 1 


- 




i 


' 1 









'-| 






: ' 1 ' 1 






-' ■--: .^^""-|_ 




^ 


---__ ^ "^^^ 



100 



200 300 

Hj (GeV) 



400 



500 



Figure 3: Total transverse energy Ht distribution before kinematical cuts for the 
uyjjh signal and backgrounds in Tevatron Run II. 



16 



20 



15 



> 

O 
o 
^ 10 

D 



Zt (Y,) 

Zjjj+Zbbj 
Wt+tt 




100 

e T (GeV) 



200 



Figure 4: Missing transverse energy I^t distribution before kinematical cuts for the 
fvjjb signal and backgrounds in Tevatron Run II. 



17 



0.8 



0.6 - 



Yt/10 
yWb 



> 

O 

in 
D 



0.4 - 



0.2 



50 



m. 



150 

'(GeV) 



250 



Figure 5: Reconstructed top mass mp'^ distribution before kinematical cuts for the 
^liyb signal and background in Tevatron Run II. For comparison the signal distribu- 
tion has been divided by 10. 



18 



> 

(D 
o 

CM 



Yt/10 
yWb 




200 300 

H^ (GeV) 



500 



Figure 6: Total transverse energy Ht distribution before kinematical cuts for the 
^liyb signal and background in Tevatron Run II. For comparison the signal distribu- 
tion has been divided by 10. 



19 



2 



> 

CD 

C5 






Yt/10 
yWb 




100 
p;(GeV) 



200 



Figure 7: Photon transverse momentum pj, distribution before kinematical cuts 
for the ^Ivh signal and background in Tevatron Run II. For comparison the signal 
distribution has been divided by 10. 



20