Probing tqZ anomalous couplings in the trilepton signal at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC-hh

  • We investigate the prospect of discovering the Flavour Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) tqZ couplings via two production processes yielding trilepton signals: top quark pair production pptˉt with one top quark decaying to the Z boson and one light jet and the anomalous single top quark plus Z boson production process pptZ. We study these channels at various successors of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), i.e., the approved High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) as well as the proposed High-Energy LHC (HE-LHC) and Future Circular Collider in hadron-hadron mode (FCC-hh). We perform a full simulation for the signals and the relevant Standard Model (SM) backgrounds and obtain limits on the Branching Ratios (BRs) of tqZ(q=u,c), eventually yielding a trilepton final state through the decay modes tbW+b+ν and Z+. The upper limits on these FCNC BRs at 95% Confidence Level (CL) are obtained at the HL-LHC with s=14 TeV and 3 ab−1, at the HE-LHC with s=27 TeV and 15 ab−1, and at the FCC-hh with s=100 TeV and 30 ab−1.
  • In this paper, tables with numerical values and graphs derived from the evaluation of the input data given in Part I [1] are presented.

    Firstly, we present a table that contains the values of atomic masses and their uncertainties (Table I), followed by a table containing the influences for primary nuclides (Table II) and a table of twelve reaction and decay energies (Table III).

    The tabular information is followed by a series of graphs that include the two-neutron separation energies and total α-decay energies as a function of the neutron number, and the two-proton separation energies as a function of the proton number.

    Finally, references of the input data used in the Ame 2020 [1] and the Nubase 2020 [2] evaluations are given at the end of this article.

    Table I presents the atomic masses expressed as mass excess in keV, together with the binding energy per nucleon, the beta-decay energy and the total atomic mass in the unified atomic mass unit, similar to those published in the earlier AME editions [3-9]. Traditionally, the masses of nuclides are measured for electrically neutral atoms or single-charged ions. At present, the highest precision masses are measured using Penning traps for a single-charged ion. This is the main reason why atomic masses, rather than nuclear masses, are presented in the Ame.

    In general, the nuclear masses MN can be calculated from the atomic ones MA as:

    MN(A,Z)=MA(A,Z)Z×me+Be(Z),

    (1)

    where Be(Z) is the electron binding energy. The ionization energy is generally (much) smaller than the uncertainty of the mass and, for a small number of very precise mass measurements, corrections for the first- and second-ionization potentials can be applied without much loss of accuracy. The same is true for the electron mass, me; see Table A in Part I [1].

    Nowadays, several mass measurements are conducted with fully or almost fully ionized atoms. In such cases, a correction must be made for the total binding energy of all the removed electrons Be(Z). Unfortunately, the precision of the calculated Be(Z) values is not well established, since this quantity (approximately 760 keV for 92U) cannot be easily measured. However, we can state with a high confidence that the precision for 92U is better compared to that for the best known masses of the uranium isotopes, which is about 1.1 keV. An approximate formula for Be can be found in the review of Lunney, Pearson and Thibault [10]:

    Be(Z)=14.4381Z2.39+1.55468×106Z5.35eV.

    (2)

    The atomic masses are given in mass units and the derived quantities in energy units. For the atomic mass unit we use the “unified atomic mass unit”, symbol “u”, defined as 1/12 of the atomic mass of one 12C atom in its electronic and nuclear ground states and in its rest coordinate system. The energy values are expressed as electron-volt, using the international volt V (see discussion in Part I, Section 2).

    Due to the dramatic increase in the mass accuracy for some light nuclides, the printing format of the mass table is not adequate for the most precisely known masses, which require additional digits. Table A gives mass excess and atomic mass values for 16 nuclides, whose masses are known with the highest precision, with an uncertainty below 1 eV.

    Table II lists all primary nuclides, together with the main data that contribute to their mass determination (up to the three most important ones) and the influences of these data on their masses. It complements the information given in the main table (Part I, Table I) where the significance (total flux) and the main flux of each datum are displayed. In other words, the flow-of-information matrix F, defined in Part I, Section 4.3, is (partly) displayed once along lines and once along columns.

    The linear combinations involving neighboring nuclides with small differences in atomic number and mass number, and particles such as n, p, d, t, 3He and α, are important for studies of the trends in the nuclear energy surface and for Q-values of frequently used reactions and decays. In Table III, values for 12 such combinations and their uncertainties are presented.

    With the help of the instructions given in the explanation of Table III, values for 28 additional reactions and their uncertainties can be derived. The derived values will be correct, but in a few cases (when reactions involving light nuclei measured with very high precision) the uncertainties will be slightly larger than those obtained when correlations are taken into account.

    In cases where any combination of the most precise mass values are involved, the uncertainties can be obtained with the help of the correlation coefficients given in Table B, where the variances and covariances for the most precisely known light nuclei are listed. As an example, if one considers the mass difference between 3H and 3He, it can be easily obtained from the values listed in Table A. However, the corresponding uncertainty cannot be simply determined from the square root of the quadratic sum of the individual uncertainties, which would be:

    0.0812+0.0602=0.10nu.

    (3)

    Since there is a strong correlation between these two nuclides, the uncertainty of the mass difference should be calculated using the correlation information provided in Table B. Thus, its uncertainty can be obtained from the square root of the sum of the variances minus twice the covariance:

    0.006483+0.0036562×0.003050=0.064nu.

    (4)

    As a result, the final uncertainty is smaller when the correlations are taken into account.

    For all other cases, the correlation coefficients are made available at the AMDC websites [11].

    All the information contained in the mass table (Table I) and in the nuclear reaction and separation energy table (Table III) can be displayed in plots of the binding energy (or mass) versus Z, N, or A. The atomic mass surface as a function of Z and N splits into four sheets due to the pairing energy, as discussed in Ref. [3]. The even-even sheet lies lowest, the odd-odd highest, and the other two nearly halfway in-between. These sheets are nearly parallel almost everywhere in this three-dimensional space and have remarkably regular trends, as one may convince oneself by making various cuts (e.g. Z or N or A constant). Any derivative of the binding energies also defines four sheets. In this context, derivative means a specified difference between the masses of two nearby nuclides. For a derivative specified in such a way where the differences are between nuclides in the same mass sheet, the nearly parallelism of these sheets leads to an almost unified surface for the derivative, thus allowing a single display. The derivatives are also smooth and have the advantage of displaying much smaller variations in data. Therefore, in order to illustrate the regular trends in the mass surface, three derivatives of this last type were chosen:

    1. the two-neutron separation energies versus N, with lines connecting the isotopes of a given element (Figs. 1–9);

    2. the two-proton separation energies versus Z, with lines connecting the isotones (nuclides with the same number of neutrons) (Figs. 10–17);

    3. the Qα values versus N, with lines connecting the isotopes of a given element (Figs. 18–26).

    Clearly showing the trends from the mass surface (TMS), these graphs can be quite useful for checking the quality of any interpolation or extrapolation (if not too far). When some masses deviate from the regular TMS in a specific mass region, there could be a serious physical cause, like a shell or subshell closure or an onset of deformation. However, if only one mass exhibits an irregular pattern, thus violating the general smooth trends, then one may seriously question the correctness of the related input data.

    A complete list of references related to the input data used in the AME2020 and the NUBASE2020 evaluations are presented at the end of this paper. The individual references are given using the “Nuclear Science Reference” (NSR) database [12] keynumbers and identified by the corresponding CODEN style [12]. There is only one exception for the Eur. Phys. A journal, where instead of the ‘ZAANE’ identifier [12], we have used ‘EPJAA’.

    This work is supported in part by the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS, Grant No. XDB34000000), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No.2016YFA0400504), the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics, under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. W.J.H. acknowledges financial support by the Max-Planck-Society. S.N. acknowledges the support of the RIKEN Pioneering Project Funding.

    [1] T. M. P. Tait and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014018 (2000 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.014018
    [2] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Acta Phys. Polon. B 35, 2695 (2004
    [3] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B 821, 215 (2009 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.06.022
    [4] K. Agashe et al. (Top Quark Working Group), arXiv: 1311.2028 [hep-ph]
    [5] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D 67, 035003 (2003) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 69, 099901 (2004)]
    [6] D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.3156
    [7] J. J. Cao, G. Eilam, M. Frank et al., Phys. Rev. D 75, 075021 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.075021
    [8] J. M. Yang, B. L. Young, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 58, 055001 (1998 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.055001
    [9] K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 75, 015002 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.015002
    [10] P. Q. Hung, Y. X. Lin, C. S. Nugroho et al., Nucl. Phys. B 927, 166 (2018 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.12.014
    [11] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, Phys. Lett. B 495, 347 (2000 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01259-4
    [12] CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-17-017
    [13] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 1807, 176 (2018
    [14] The ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-001
    [15] P. Mandrik et al. (FCC study Group), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1390, 012044 (2019 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1390/1/012044
    [16] M. Benedikt and F. Zimmermann, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 907, 200 (2018 doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2018.03.021
    [17] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Han, M. Mangano et al., Phys. Rept. 652, 1 (2016 doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.07.004
    [18] J. L. Agram, J. Andrea, E. Conte et al., Phys. Lett. B 725, 123-126 (2013 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.06.052
    [19] J. F. Shen, Y. Q. Li, and Y. B. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 776, 391 (2018 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.055
    [20] Y. B. Liu and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D 101(7), 075029 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.075029
    [21] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B 812, 181 (2009 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.12.012
    [22] C. S. Li, R. J. Oakes, and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3759 (1991 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3759
    [23] J. J. Zhang, C. S. Li, J. Gao et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 072001 (2009 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.072001
    [24] J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer, and J. F. Kamenik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 252001 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.252001
    [25] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012
    [26] C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022
    [27] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione et al., JHEP 1407, 079 (2014
    [28] R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), JHEP 1504, 040 (2015
    [29] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018
    [30] M. Barros, N. F. Castro, J. Erdmann et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(3), 339 (2020 doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00346-3
    [31] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 74(9), 3060 (2014 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3060-7
    [32] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024
    [33] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2
    [34] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008
    [35] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP 1402, 057 (2014
    [36] E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.009
    [37] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, JHEP 1212, 061 (2012
    [38] B. H. Li, Y. Zhang, C. S. Li et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 114049 (2011 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114049
    [39] C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034006 (2011 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034006
    [40] C. Degrande, F. Maltoni, J. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 034024 (2015 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.034024
    [41] A. Lazopoulos, T. McElmurry, K. Melnikov et al., Phys. Lett. B 666, 62 (2008 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.073
    [42] A. Kardos, Z. Trocsanyi, and C. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054015 (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.054015
    [43] M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004
    [44] M. L. Mangano et al., arXiv: 1607.01831 [hep-ph]
    [45] F. Campanario, C. Englert, S. Kallweit et al., JHEP 1007, 076 (2010
    [46] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, JHEP 1207, 052 (2012
    [47] R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro, JHEP 1802, 031 (2018
    [48] S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani et al., JHEP 1506, 184 (2015
    [49] D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP 2008, 082 (2020
    [50] P. Azzi et al., arXiv: 1902.04070 [hep-ph]
    [51] E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74(10), 3103 (2014 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3103-0
    [52] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011) [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)]
    [53] F. Kling, H. Li, A. Pyarelal et al., JHEP 1906, 031 (2019
    [54] L. Basso and J. Andrea, JHEP 1502, 032 (2015
    [55] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(11), 769 (2017 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5375-7
    [56] H. Khanpour, Nucl. Phys. B 958, 115141 (2020 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115141
    [57] S. Behera, R. Islam, M. Kumar et al., Phys. Rev. D 100(1), 015006 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.015006
    [58] O. Cakir, A. Yilmaz, I. Turk Cakir et al., Nucl. Phys. B 944, 114640 (2019 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114640
    [59] H. Khanpour, S. Khatibi, M. K. Yanehsari et al., Phys. Lett. B 775, 25 (2017 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.047
    [60] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and T. Riemann, hep-ph/0102197
    [61] J. de Blas et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. Vol. 3 (2018)
    [62] L. Shi and C. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 43(11), 113104 (2019 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/43/11/113104
    [63] W. Liu and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 100(1), 015011 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.015011
  • [1] T. M. P. Tait and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014018 (2000 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.014018
    [2] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Acta Phys. Polon. B 35, 2695 (2004
    [3] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B 821, 215 (2009 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2009.06.022
    [4] K. Agashe et al. (Top Quark Working Group), arXiv: 1311.2028 [hep-ph]
    [5] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Phys. Rev. D 67, 035003 (2003) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 69, 099901 (2004)]
    [6] D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.3156
    [7] J. J. Cao, G. Eilam, M. Frank et al., Phys. Rev. D 75, 075021 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.075021
    [8] J. M. Yang, B. L. Young, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 58, 055001 (1998 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.055001
    [9] K. Agashe, G. Perez, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 75, 015002 (2007 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.015002
    [10] P. Q. Hung, Y. X. Lin, C. S. Nugroho et al., Nucl. Phys. B 927, 166 (2018 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.12.014
    [11] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and G. C. Branco, Phys. Lett. B 495, 347 (2000 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01259-4
    [12] CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-17-017
    [13] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 1807, 176 (2018
    [14] The ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-001
    [15] P. Mandrik et al. (FCC study Group), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1390, 012044 (2019 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1390/1/012044
    [16] M. Benedikt and F. Zimmermann, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 907, 200 (2018 doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2018.03.021
    [17] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Han, M. Mangano et al., Phys. Rept. 652, 1 (2016 doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2016.07.004
    [18] J. L. Agram, J. Andrea, E. Conte et al., Phys. Lett. B 725, 123-126 (2013 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.06.052
    [19] J. F. Shen, Y. Q. Li, and Y. B. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 776, 391 (2018 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.055
    [20] Y. B. Liu and S. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D 101(7), 075029 (2020 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.075029
    [21] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B 812, 181 (2009 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.12.012
    [22] C. S. Li, R. J. Oakes, and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3759 (1991 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3759
    [23] J. J. Zhang, C. S. Li, J. Gao et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 072001 (2009 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.072001
    [24] J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer, and J. F. Kamenik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 252001 (2010 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.252001
    [25] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012
    [26] C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022
    [27] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione et al., JHEP 1407, 079 (2014
    [28] R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF Collaboration), JHEP 1504, 040 (2015
    [29] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018
    [30] M. Barros, N. F. Castro, J. Erdmann et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135(3), 339 (2020 doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00346-3
    [31] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 74(9), 3060 (2014 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3060-7
    [32] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024
    [33] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2
    [34] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008
    [35] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP 1402, 057 (2014
    [36] E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 222 (2013 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.009
    [37] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, JHEP 1212, 061 (2012
    [38] B. H. Li, Y. Zhang, C. S. Li et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 114049 (2011 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114049
    [39] C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034006 (2011 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.034006
    [40] C. Degrande, F. Maltoni, J. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 034024 (2015 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.034024
    [41] A. Lazopoulos, T. McElmurry, K. Melnikov et al., Phys. Lett. B 666, 62 (2008 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.073
    [42] A. Kardos, Z. Trocsanyi, and C. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054015 (2012 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.054015
    [43] M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 252004 (2013 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.252004
    [44] M. L. Mangano et al., arXiv: 1607.01831 [hep-ph]
    [45] F. Campanario, C. Englert, S. Kallweit et al., JHEP 1007, 076 (2010
    [46] J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, JHEP 1207, 052 (2012
    [47] R. Frederix, D. Pagani, and M. Zaro, JHEP 1802, 031 (2018
    [48] S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, D. Pagani et al., JHEP 1506, 184 (2015
    [49] D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP 2008, 082 (2020
    [50] P. Azzi et al., arXiv: 1902.04070 [hep-ph]
    [51] E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74(10), 3103 (2014 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3103-0
    [52] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011) [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)]
    [53] F. Kling, H. Li, A. Pyarelal et al., JHEP 1906, 031 (2019
    [54] L. Basso and J. Andrea, JHEP 1502, 032 (2015
    [55] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Eur. Phys. J. C 77(11), 769 (2017 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5375-7
    [56] H. Khanpour, Nucl. Phys. B 958, 115141 (2020 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115141
    [57] S. Behera, R. Islam, M. Kumar et al., Phys. Rev. D 100(1), 015006 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.015006
    [58] O. Cakir, A. Yilmaz, I. Turk Cakir et al., Nucl. Phys. B 944, 114640 (2019 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.114640
    [59] H. Khanpour, S. Khatibi, M. K. Yanehsari et al., Phys. Lett. B 775, 25 (2017 doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2017.10.047
    [60] J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and T. Riemann, hep-ph/0102197
    [61] J. de Blas et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. Vol. 3 (2018)
    [62] L. Shi and C. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 43(11), 113104 (2019 doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/43/11/113104
    [63] W. Liu and H. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 100(1), 015011 (2019 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.015011
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Mehana, P., Rajeswari, N.S. Two-proton emission within a deformed Yukawa-plus-exponential model[J]. Pramana - Journal of Physics, 2024, 98(4): 136. doi: 10.1007/s12043-024-02817-z
2. Belfatto, B., Trifinopoulos, S. Cabibbo angle anomalies and oblique corrections: The remarkable role of the vectorlike quark doublet[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 108(3): 035022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.035022
3. Mehana, P., Rajeswari, N.S. Two-proton and one-proton emission of two-proton emitters[J]. European Physical Journal A, 2023, 59(5): 104. doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-023-01004-9
4. Kidonakis, N., Yamanaka, N. Soft-gluon corrections for tqZ production[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137708
5. Denner, A., Pelliccioli, G., Schwan, C. NLO QCD and EW corrections to off-shell tZj production at the LHC[J]. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022, 2022(10): 125. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2022)125
6. Ghinescu, S.A., Delion, D.S. Semimicroscopic model of two-proton emission[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 106(3): 034602. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.106.034602
7. Crivellin, A., Kirk, M., Kitahara, T. et al. Large t →cZ as a sign of vectorlike quarks in light of the W mass[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(3): L031704. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.L031704
8. Delion, D.S., Ghinescu, S.A. Two-proton emission systematics[J]. Physical Review C, 2022, 105(3): L031301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.105.L031301
9. Darmé, L., Fuks, B., Maltoni, F. Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation[J]. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2021, 2021(9): 143. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2021)143
10. Afik, Y., Bar-Shalom, S., Soni, A. et al. New flavor physics in di- And trilepton events from single-top production at the LHC and beyond[J]. Physical Review D, 2021, 103(7): 075031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.075031

Figures(6) / Tables(9)

Get Citation
Yao-Bei Liu and Stefano Moretti. Probing tqZ anomalous couplings in the trilepton signal at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC-hh[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe0c0
Yao-Bei Liu and Stefano Moretti. Probing tqZ anomalous couplings in the trilepton signal at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC-hh[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/abe0c0 shu
Milestone
Received: 2020-10-13
Article Metric

Article Views(1910)
PDF Downloads(30)
Cited by(10)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Probing tqZ anomalous couplings in the trilepton signal at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC-hh

  • 1. Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang 453003, China
  • 2. School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Abstract: We investigate the prospect of discovering the Flavour Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) tqZ couplings via two production processes yielding trilepton signals: top quark pair production pptˉt with one top quark decaying to the Z boson and one light jet and the anomalous single top quark plus Z boson production process pptZ. We study these channels at various successors of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), i.e., the approved High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) as well as the proposed High-Energy LHC (HE-LHC) and Future Circular Collider in hadron-hadron mode (FCC-hh). We perform a full simulation for the signals and the relevant Standard Model (SM) backgrounds and obtain limits on the Branching Ratios (BRs) of tqZ(q=u,c), eventually yielding a trilepton final state through the decay modes tbW+b+ν and Z+. The upper limits on these FCNC BRs at 95% Confidence Level (CL) are obtained at the HL-LHC with s=14 TeV and 3 ab−1, at the HE-LHC with s=27 TeV and 15 ab−1, and at the FCC-hh with s=100 TeV and 30 ab−1.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Being the most massive elementary particle in the Standard Model (SM), the top quark is generally considered to be an excellent probe for New Physics (NP) Beyond the SM (BSM) [1]. In particular, its Flavour Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) interactions are forbidden in the SM at tree-level and are strongly suppressed at loop-level by the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani (GIM) mechanism [2, 3]. For instance, the Branching Ratios (BRs) of tqZ (q=u,c) are predicted to be at the level of 1014 in the SM [4], which is notably out of range of the current Large Hadron Collider (LHC) sensitivities. In contrast, several NP scenarios predict the maximum values for BR(tqZ) (q=u,c) to be at the level of 107104, such as the quark-singlet model [5], the 2-Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) with or without flavor conservation [6], the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [7], the MSSM with R-parity violation [8], models with warped extra dimensions [9], or extended mirror fermion models [10]. Thus, searches for such FCNC processes are critical because they would be considered as a clear signal for BSM physics [11].

      Using data collected at the center-of-mass (c.m.) energy of 13 TeV, the latest experimental limits on the top quark FCNC BR(tqZ) were established by the CMS and ATLAS collaborations from Run 2 data [12, 13]. The 95% Confidence Level (CL) upper limits are summarised in Table 1. As a more promising prospect, it is also worth mentioning here the scope of the approved High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC), which is expected to reach the level of 4 to 5×105 with an integrated luminosity Lint = 3 ab1 at s=14 TeV, using a full simulation of the upgraded ATLAS detector, in which the three charged lepton (trilepton) final state of top quark pair events is considered, i.e., pptˉtbW+qZbνq, where =e,μ [14].

      Detector BR(tuZ) BR(tcZ) Ref.
      CMS, 13 TeV, 35.9 fb1 2.4×104 4.5×104 [12]
      ATLAS, 13 Tev, 36.1 fb1 1.7×104 2.4×104 [13]

      Table 1.  Current experimental upper limits on BR (tqZ) at 95% CL.

      At present, there is no experimental evidence of such top quark FCNC anomalous couplings. One can, however, improve these limits or indeed make discoveries at future higher luminosity and/or higher energy hadron colliders [15], such as the aforementioned HL-LHC and/or the proposed High-Energy LHC (HE-LHC), with 27 TeV of c.m. energy and 15 ab1 of integrated luminosity [16] as well as the Future Circular Collider in hadron-hadron mode (FCC-hh), with 100 TeV of c.m. energy and 30 ab1 of integrated luminosity [17].

      The aim of this study was to investigate the limits on the discussed tqZ anomalous couplings that can be placed at these future hadron colliders using a trilepton signature. In fact, in addition to the latter being generated via tˉt production followed by the FCNC tqZ decay mode (hereafter, tˉt-FCNC), single top quark production in association with a Z boson (hereafter, tZ-FCNC) leads to a trilepton signature [18, 19], albeit with no hard jets stemming from the hard scattering, as shown in Fig. 1. Following the approach described in Ref. [20] for the case of FCNC tqh (q=u,c) anomalous couplings (wherein h is the SM-like Higgs boson discovered at the LHC in 2012), we also searched in this study for FCNC tqZ anomalous couplings by combining the above two processes in the trilepton final state, where both the W± boson from the top quark and the Z boson decay into either electrons or muons. Thus, we considered two different trilepton signal selections, one where at least two jets with at least one b-tag are required (corresponding to the tˉt-FCNC channel) and another where exactly one b-tagged jet is required (corresponding to the tZ-FCNC channel). Realistic detector effects are included in both signal and background processes, so that the emerging results can be compared to experimental predictions.

      Figure 1.  Representative Feynman diagrams for tˉttˉqZ production and decay (a)-(b) and tZ associated production (c)(d), both of which proceed via FCNC tZq anomalous couplings (q=u,c).

      This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the cross sections of the two signal processes are calculated at the discussed hadron colliders. Then, Sec. III includes estimates for the signal and background event rates alongside 95% CL limits on the advocated trilepton signals. Finally, we summarize our main results and conclude in Sec. IV.

    II.   PRODUCTION AND DECAY PROCESSES WITH TOP QUARK FCNC INTERACTIONS
    • In this section, we describe the structure of the tqZ interactions and quantify the cross sections of the production and decay processes of interest.

    • A.   The FCNC tqZ anomalous couplings

    • In the search for FCNC tqZ anomalous interactions, the top quark FCNC coupling is explored in a model-independent way by considering the most general effective Lagrangian approach [21]. The Lagrangian involving FCNC tqZ interactions can be written as [21]

      Leff=q=u,c[g4cWmZκtqZˉqσμν(κLPL+κRPR)tZμν+g2cWλtqZˉqγμ(λLPL+λRPR)tZμ]+h.c.,

      (1)

      where cW=cosθW and θW is the Weinberg angle, PL,R are the left- and right-handed chirality projector operators, and κtqZ and λtqZ are effective couplings for the corresponding vertices. The Electro-Weak (EW) interaction is parameterized by the coupling constant g and the mixing angle θW. The complex chiral parameters κL,R and λL,R are normalized as |κL|2+|κR|2=|λL|2+|λR|2=1.

      The partial widths for the FCNC decays, wherein we separate the contributions of the two tensor structures entering the above equation, are given by

      Γ(tqZ)(σμν)=α128s2Wc2W|κtqZ|2m3tm2Z[1m2Zm2t]2[2+m2Zm2t],Γ(tqZ)(γμ)=α32s2Wc2W|λtqZ|2m3tm2Z[1m2Zm2t]2[1+2m2Zm2t].

      (2)

      After neglecting all the light quark masses and assuming the dominant top decay partial width to be that of tbW [22]

      Γ(tbW+)=α16s2W|Vtb|2m3tm2W[13m4Wm4t+2m6Wm6t],

      (3)

      then the BR(tqZ) can be approximated by [2]

      BR(tqZ)(σμν)=0.172|κtqZ|2,BR(tqZ)(γμ)=0.471|λtqZ|2.

      (4)

      Here, the Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) QCD corrections to the top quark decay via model-independent FCNC couplings are also included and the k-factor is taken as 1.02 [23, 24].

    • B.   Cross sections

    • For the simulations of the ensuing collider phenomenology, we first used the FeynRules package [25] to generate the Universal FeynRules Output (UFO) files [26]. The LO cross sections are obtained by using MadGraph5-aMC@NLO [27] with NNPDF23L01 Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) [28] taking the renormalization and factorization scales to be μR=μF=μ0/2=(mt+mZ)/2. The numerical values of the input parameters are taken as follows [29]:

      mt=173.1GeV,mZ=91.1876GeV,mW=80.379GeV,αs(mZ)=0.1181,GF=1.16637×105 GeV2.

      (5)

      In Fig. 2, we show the total cross sections σ in pb versus the two types of coupling parameters, κtqZ and λtqZ, at LO. Note that the dipole σμν terms lead to larger cross sections with the same coupling values. For the two types of couplings, the cross sections of ˉugˉtZ are overwhelmed by ugtZ owing to the difference between the u-quark and ˉu-quark PDF of the proton. Thus, if we consider the leptonic top decay modes, more leptons than anti-leptons will be observed for a given c.m. energy and integrated luminosity. Owing to the similarly small PDFs of the c-quark and ˉc-quark, the cross section of ˉcgˉtZis essentially the same as that of cgtZ and much smaller than the cross section of ugtZ for the same values of the coupling parameter. This implies that the sensitivity to the FCNC coupling parameter κtuZ(λtuZ) will be better than that to κtcZ(λtcZ).

      Figure 2.  (color online) Dependence of the cross section σ on the FCNC coupling parameters κtqZ (upper) and λtqZ (lower) at the HL-LHC (left), HE-LHC (middle), and FCC-hh (right) with the basic cuts: pjT>40 GeV and |ηj|<2.5. Note that the charge conjugated processes are also included in the calculation.

    III.   SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
    • In this section, we describe the numerical treatment of our signal and background events.

    • A.   Signal and background analysis

    • The signal is produced through the following processes (herein, all charge conjugated channels are included)

      ppt(bW+b+ν)Z(+),

      (6)

      ppt(bW+b+ν)ˉt(ˉqZ(+)),

      (7)

      where =e,μ and q=u,c, the latter eventually generating a jet j.

      The final state for the signal is characterized by three leptons (electrons and/or muons) and one b-tagged jet plus missing transverse energy from the escaping undetected neutrino in the tZ-FCNC case. In the final state from the tˉt-FCNC process, there is an additional jet arising from the hadronization of the quark q. Furthermore, note that the interference between the tZ-FCNC (with an additional q emission) and tˉt-FCNC processes can be neglected [30].

      The main backgrounds that yield identical final states to the signal ones are W±Z production in association with jets, tˉtV (V=W±,Z), and the irreducible tZj process, where j denotes a non-b-quark jet. Besides, in the top pair production case (where the top quark pairs decay semi-leptonically), a third lepton can come from a semi-leptonic B-hadron decay inside the b-jet. Here, we do not consider multijet backgrounds where jets can fake electrons, given that they are generally negligible in multilepton analyses [31]. Other processes, such as the tˉth, tri-boson events, or W± + jets are not included in the analysis owing to the very small cross sections resulting from applying the cuts.

      The signal and background samples are generated at LO by interfacing MadGraph5-aMC@NLO to the the Monte Carlo (MC) event generator Pythia 8.20 [32] for the parton showering. All produced jets were forced to be clustered using FASTJET 3.2 [33] assuming the anti-kt algorithm with a cone radius of R=0.4 [34]. All event samples were fed into the Delphes 3.4.2 package [35] with the default HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC-hh detector cards. Finally, the event analysis was performed by using MadAnalysis5 [36]. To take into account inclusive QCD contributions, we generated the hard scatterings of signal and backgrounds with up to one additional jet in the final state, followed by matrix element and parton shower merging with the MLM matching scheme [37]. Furthermore, we renormalized the LO cross sections for the signals to the corresponding higher order QCD results of Refs. [38-40]. For the SM backgrounds, we generated LO samples renormalized to the NLO or next-NLO (NNLO) order cross sections, where available, taken from Refs. [41-50]. For instance, the LO cross section for the W±Z + jets background (one of the most relevant ones overall) was renormalized to the NLO one through a k-factor of 1.3 [45] at 14 TeV LHC and, as an estimate, we assumed the same correction factor at the HE-LHC and FCC-hh. The LO cross section for the tˉt process was renormalized to the NNLO one by a k-factor of 1.6 [50] at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC and 1.43 [44] at the FCC-hh.

      To identify objects, we impose the following basic or generation (parton level) cuts for the signals and SM backgrounds:

      pT>25GeV,pj/bT>30GeV,|ηi|<2.5,ΔRij>0.4(i,j=,b,j),

      (8)

      where j and b denote light-flavour jets and a b-tagged jet, respectively. Here, ΔR=ΔΦ2+Δη2 denotes the separation in the rapidity-azimuth plane. Next, we discuss the selection of events by focusing on two cases: the pptˉttZj (henceforth referred to as ‘Case A’) process and the pptZ (henceforth referred to as ‘Case B’) process, respectively. As previously mentioned, the main difference is whether there is a light jet in the final state. We first discuss the selection cuts for Case A and then for Case B.

    • B.   Selection cuts for Case A

    • For Case A, the trilepton analysis aimed to select tˉt events where one of the top quarks decays via the FCNC process (tqZq12) while the other top quark decays leptonically (tWb3νb). Here, the leptons 1 and 2 are the two Opposite-Sign and Same-Flavour (OSSF) leptons that are assumed to be the product of the Z-boson decay, whereas the third lepton, 3, is assumed to originate from the leptonically decaying top quark, with the b-tagged jet emerging from the tbW+ decay and the light jet j being the non-b-tagged one. Therefore, the following preselection was used for Case A (Cut 1):

      ● exactly three isolated leptons with pT>30GeV, in which at least one OSSF lepton pair is present;

      ● at least two jets with pT>40GeV, with exactly one of them being b-tagged;

      ● the missing transverse energy EmissT>30GeV.

      In Fig. 3, we plot some differential distributions for signals and SM backgrounds at the HL-LHC, such as the invariant mass distributions of the two leptons, M12, the transverse mass distribution for MT(3) and MT(b3), and the triple invariant mass, M12j. Furthermore, the top quark transverse cluster mass can be defined as [51]

      Figure 3.  (color online) Normalized (to 1) distributions for the signals and SM backgrounds at the HL-LHC for Case A.

      M2T((p3+pb)2+|pT,3+pT,b|2+|\notpT|)2|pT,3+pT,b+\notpT|2,

      (9)

      where pT,3 and pT,b are the transverse momenta of the third charged lepton and b-quark, respectively, and \notpT is the missing transverse momentum determined by the negative sum of the visible momenta in the transverse direction.

      According to the above analysis, we can impose the following set of cuts:

      ● (Cut 2) Two of the same-flavour leptons in each event are required to have opposite electric charge and an invariant mass, M12, compatible with the Z boson mass, i.e., |M(12)mZ|<15GeV.

      ● (Cut 3) The transverse mass of the W± candidate is required to be 50GeV<M3T<100GeV, whereas the transverse mass of the top quark is required to be 100GeV<Mb3T<200GeV.

      ● (Cut 4) The triple invariant mass M12j cut is such that 140GeV<M12j<200GeV.

      We used the same selection cuts for the HE-LHC and FCC-hh analysis because the distributions are very similar to the case of the HL-LHC. The effects of the described cuts on the signal and SM background processes are illustrated in Tables 2-4. Owing to the different b-tagging rates for u- and c-quarks, we give the events separately for q=u,c for the signals. Note that, at the end of the cut flow, the largest SM background is the pptZj process, which is approximately 0.048 fb, 0.144 fb, and 1.45 fb at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC-hh, respectively. Moreover, the W±Z + jets and tˉtZ processes can also generate significant contributions to the SM background. Evidently, the dominant signal contribution comes from the tˉt-FCNC process, but the contribution from the tZ-FCNC production process cannot be ignored, especially for the tuZ couplings.

      Cuts Signals Backgrounds
      tˉttZj pptZ WZ tˉt tˉtZ tˉtW tZj
      tZq(σμν) tZq(γμ) tZq(σμν) tZq(γμ)
      Basic 31.8 (33.4) 23.1 (24.3) 44 (7.6) 10.1 (2.2) 5.22 24618 8.32 1.36 4.23
      Cut 1 5.9 (5.6) 4.3 (4.2) 7.18 (1.15) 1.34 (0.28) 0.86 1.36 0.49 0.097 0.55
      Cut 2 4.5 (4.3) 3.41 (3.25) 5.94 (0.95) 1.09 (0.23) 0.64 0.25 0.37 0.012 0.43
      Cut 3 1.93 (1.8) 1.46 (1.36) 2.39 (0.41) 0.47 (0.1) 0.14 0.085 0.12 0.0034 0.18
      Cut 4 0.91 (0.81) 0.68 (0.61) 0.2 (0.046) 0.077 (0.018) 0.031 0.027 0.028 0.0015 0.048

      Table 2.  Cut flow of the cross sections (in fb) for the signals and SM backgrounds at the HL-LHC with κtuZ=λtuZ=0.1 and κtcZ=λtcZ=0.1 (in the brackets) for Case A.

      Cuts Signals Backgrounds
      tˉttZj pptZ WZ tˉt tˉtZ tˉtW tZj
      tZq(σμν) tZq(γμ) tZq(σμν) tZq(γμ)
      Basic 179 (188) 129 (135) 170 (39) 35 (10) 13.5 71187 42 4.8 15.4
      Cut 1 29 (28) 22 (21) 27 (5.8) 4.6 (1.26) 2.73 4.88 2.67 0.35 1.93
      Cut 2 22 (21) 17 (16) 22.5 (4.8) 3.7 (1.0) 2.04 0.92 1.97 0.038 1.51
      Cut 3 9.1 (8.64) 7.0 (6.5) 8.16 (1.86) 1.49 (0.42) 0.41 0.31 0.58 0.011 0.59
      Cut 4 4.1 (3.9) 3.11 (2.75) 0.63 (0.18) 0.21 (0.072) 0.087 0.043 0.12 0.0048 0.144

      Table 3.  Cut flow of the cross sections (in fb) for the signals and SM backgrounds at the HE-LHC with κtuZ=λtuZ=0.1 and κtcZ=λtcZ=0.1 (in the brackets) for Case A.

      Cuts Signals Backgrounds
      tˉttZj pptZ WZ tˉt tˉtZ tˉtW tZj
      tZq(σμν) tZq(γμ) tZq(σμν) tZq(γμ)
      Basic 2135 (2315) 1532 (1662) 1122 (455) 290 (127) 267 764935 351 46 155
      Cut 1 440 (377) 335 (279) 276 (98) 56 (21) 61 60 22 5.6 31
      Cut 2 330 (280) 102 (86) 224 (80) 44 (17) 45 9.5 17 0.53 24
      Cut 3 134 (109) 102 (86) 85.2 (31.2) 17.6 (7.3) 8.7 3.7 4.9 0.14 8.7
      Cut 4 70 (57) 54.4 (43.5) 9.03 (4.01) 3.32 (1.53) 2.01 1.07 0.82 0.07 1.83

      Table 4.  Cut flow of the cross sections (in fb) for the signals and SM backgrounds at the FCC-hh with κtuZ=λtuZ=0.1 and κtcZ=λtcZ=0.1 (in the brackets) for Case A.

    • C.   Selection cuts for Case B

    • For this case, we mainly focused on the signal from the ugtZ process owing to the relative large cross section. Extra jets are vetoed in the following analysis. However, the final signals for Case A could also be considered as a source for Case B if the light quark is missed by the detector. Hence, we combine these processes into the complete signal events.

      The process ugtZ should include two leptons with positive charge, one coming from the decay Z+ and the other from the top quark decay tW+b+νb. Given that the distributions for the signal and backgrounds are similar for the invariant mass M12 as well as the transverse masses MT(3) and MT(b3), we only plot the distributions for the distance of the OSSF lepton pair, ΔR(1,2), and the rapidity of the OSSF lepton pair, y12, in Fig. 4 (here, the distributions are obtained at the HL-LHC, but the pattern is very similar to those at the HE-LHC and FCC-hh). Note that, for Case B, the Z boson from the ugtZ process concentrates in the forward and backward regions given that the partonic c.m. frame is highly boosted along the direction of the u-quark.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Normalized (to 1) distributions for the signals and SM backgrounds at the HL-LHC for Case B.

      Thus, we can impose the following set of cuts for Case B:

      ● (Cut 1) There are three leptons, among which at least two have positive charge and pT>30GeV, and there is exactly one b-tagged jet with pT>40GeV; the event is rejected if the pT of the subleading jet is greater than 25 GeV.

      ● (Cut 2) The distance between the OSSF lepton pair should lie within ΔR(1,2)[0.4,1.2] while the corresponding invariant mass is required to be |M(12)mZ|<15GeV.

      ● (Cut 3) The transverse masses of the reconstructed W± boson and top quark masses are required to satisfy 50GeV<M3T<100GeV and 100GeV<Mb3T<200GeV, respectively.

      ● (Cut 4) The rapidity of the OSSF lepton pair is required to be |y12|>1.0.

      The effects of these cuts on the signal and background processes for Case B are illustrated in Tables 5-7. Note that all the backgrounds can be suppressed efficiently after imposing such a selection. At the end of the cut flow, the W±Z + jets and tˉt production processes are the dominant SM backgrounds mainly owing to the initially large cross sections.

      Cuts Signals Backgrounds
      ugtZ tˉttZj WZ tˉt tˉtZ tˉtW tZj
      Basic 3365 (856) 2664 (1926) 474 2.2×106 602 233 367
      Cut 1 319 (61) 23 (18) 14 38 1.2 4.5 1.3
      Cut 2 184 (23) 5.6 (4.3) 3.5 1.0 0.29 0.005 0.26
      Cut 3 108 (13.2) 3 (2.66) 0.9 0.43 0.07 0.01 0.14
      Cut 4 57 (7.2) 1.2 (1.1) 0.39 0.19 0.02 0.005 0.073

      Table 5.  Cut flow of the cross sections (in ×102 fb) for the signals and SM backgrounds at the HL-LHC with κtuZ=0.1 and λtuZ=0.1 (in the brackets) for Case B.

      Cuts Signals Backgrounds
      ugtZ tˉttZj WZ tˉt tˉtZ tˉtW tZj
      Basic 123 (30) 153 (11) 14.2 64628 31.6 7.7 13.5
      Cut 1 7.9 (1.38) 1.0 (0.075) 0.31 1.05 0.04 0.12 0.043
      Cut 2 4.63 (0.54) 0.27 (0.018) 0.075 0.043 0.009 0.0014 0.0087
      Cut 3 2.68 (0.32) 0.18 (0.01) 0.016 0.037 0.0021 0.0004 0.0046
      Cut 4 1.68 (0.203) 0.07 (0.003) 0.0064 0.018 0.0007 0.0002 0.0024

      Table 6.  Cut flow of the cross sections (in fb) for the signals and SM backgrounds at the HE-LHC with κtuZ=0.1 and λtuZ=0.1 (in the brackets) for Case B.

      Cuts Signals Backgrounds
      ugtZ tˉttZj WZ tˉt tˉtZ tˉtW tZj
      Basic 727 (224) 1518 (1219) 313 697297 242 43 132
      Cut 1 24 (5.1) 2.4 (2.0) 4.1 4.3 0.035 0.33 0.144
      Cut 2 13.5 (1.67) 0.66 (0.39) 0.85 0.098 0.007 0.003 0.025
      Cut 3 8.12 (1.0) 0.35 (0.27) 0.12 0.049 0.0006 0.0007 0.011
      Cut 4 5.94 (0.73) 0.23 (0.13) 0.071 0.025 0.0003 0.0004 0.0077

      Table 7.  Cut flow of the cross sections (in fb) for the signals and SM backgrounds at the FCC-hh with κtuZ=0.1 and λtuZ=0.1 (in the brackets) for Case B.

    • D.   95% CL exclusion limits

    • To estimate the exclusion significance, we use the following expression [52]:

      Zexcl=2[SBln(B+S+x2B)1δ2ln(BS+x2B)](B+Sx)(1+1δ2B),

      (10)

      with

      x=(S+B)24δ2SB2/(1+δ2B).

      (11)

      Here, S and B represent the total signal and SM background events, respectively. Furthermore, δ is the percentage systematic error on the SM background estimate. Following Refs. [52, 53], we define the regions with Zexcl1.645 as those that can be excluded at 95% CL. In the case of δ0, the above expressions are simplified as

      Zexcl=2[SBln(1+S/B)].

      (12)

      Using the results from Case A and Case B, we combine the significance for BR(tuZ) with two types of couplings,

      Zcomb=Z2A+Z2B

      (13)

      while, for BR(tcZ), we only use the results from Case A.

      In Figs. 5 and 6, the 90% CL lines are plotted as a function of the integrated luminosity and BR (tqZ) for the two types of couplings with three typical values of systematic uncertainties: δ=0, 5%, and 10%. Note from Fig. 5 that, for the tensor (vector) terms, the combined 90% CL limits without systematic error on BR(tuZ) are 2.3(5.3)×106 and 0.76(1.2)×106 at the HE-LHC and FCC-hh, respectively, with an integrated luminosity of 10 ab1. For this value of integrated luminosity and assuming a 5% systematic error, the obtained limits are approximately 0.34(1.47)×105 and 0.27(1.21)×105, respectively, while, for the case δ=10%, the 90% CL limits on BR(tuZ) change to 0.51(2.53)×105 and 0.48(2.2)×105, respectively. Note from Fig. 6 that, for Case A, the 90% CL limits without systematic error on BR(tcZ) are 0.45(0.64)×105 and 1.13(1.54)×106 at the HE-LHC and FCC-hh, respectively, with an integrated luminosity of 10 ab1. Assuming a 5% systematic error, the obtained limits are approximately 1.43(2.06)×105 and 1.35(1.82)×105, respectively.

      Figure 5.  (color online) Combined 95% CL contour plots in LintBR(tuZ) planes for the tensor terms (upper) and the vector terms (below) at the HL-LHC (left), HE-LHC (middle), and FCC-hh (right). Three typical values for the systematic uncertainties, i.e., δ=0, 5%, 10%, are set.

      Figure 6.  (color online) For Case A, 95% CL contour plots in LintBR(tcZ) planes for the tensor terms (upper) and the vector terms (below) at the HL-LHC (left), HE-LHC (middle), and FCC-hh (right). Three typical values for the systematic uncertainties, i.e., δ=0, 5%, 10%, are set.

      In Table 8, we list the exclusion limits at 95% CL at the future HL-LHC with 3 ab1, at the HE-LHC with 15 ab1, and at the FCC-hh with 30 ab1, respectively, with two systematic errors: δ=0% and δ=10%. From Table 8, the following observations can be made:

      Branching fraction HL-LHC, 3 ab−1 HE-LHC, 15 ab−1 FCC-hh, 30 ab−1
      δ=0 δ=10% δ=0 δ=10% δ=0 δ=10%
      BR(tuZ)(σμν) 0.73×105 0.85×105 1.83×106 4.8×106 4.35×107 4.6×106
      BR(tcZ)(σμν) 2.3×105 4.9×105 3.64×106 2.67×105 6.54×107 2.61×105
      BR(tuZ)(γμ) 2.34×105 4.08×105 4.28×106 2.47×105 6.86×107 2.17×105
      BR(tcZ)(γμ) 3.13×105 6.65×105 5.22×106 3.84×105 8.87×107 3.54×105

      Table 8.  Upper limits on BR (tu(c)Z) at 95% CL obtained at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC-hh. We consider systematic errors of 0% and 10% on the SM background events.

      ● More stringent limits are obtained on the tuZ coupling compared to the tcZ coupling owing to the larger cross section in the corresponding signal.

      ● For the tuZ coupling, the sensitivities of the tensor couplings are smaller than those of the vector terms, being of the order of 106 at the 95% CL assuming a 10% systematic uncertainty.

      ● For both channels, the sensitivities are weaker than those without any systematic error. This means that those searches will be dominated by systematic uncertainties and will not benefit further from the energy and luminosity upgrades.

      Many recent phenomenological studies available in literature extensively investigated the top FCNC anomalous couplings at various future high energy colliders, including e+e and ep machines: see Refs. [54-61] as examples of the most recent reviews. Besides, the expected limits of the four-fermion coefficients at the LHeC and CEPC are obtained in Refs. [62, 63]. Therefore, it is worth comparing the limits on BR(tqZ) obtained in this study with those obtained by other groups, which are summarised in Table 9. Note that the limits on the BRs are expected to be of O(104106). Therefore, we expect our advocated signatures to provide competitive complementary information to that from the above studies in detecting tqZ (q=u,c) anomalous couplings at future hadronic colliders.

      Channels Data set Limits
      tZW(ν)bZ(+) [54] HL-LHC, 100 fb1 BR(tuZ)<1.6×104 (σμν)
      @ 14 TeV BR(tcZ)<1.0×103 (σμν)
      Ultra-boosted tZ production [55] HL-LHC, 3 ab1 BR(tuZ)<4.1×105 (σμν)
      @ 14 TeV BR(tcZ)<1.6×103 (σμν)
      FCC-hh, 10 ab1 BR(tuZ)<2.7×106 (σμν)
      @ 100 TeV BR(tcZ)<5.0×105 (σμν)
      ppttˉt(ˉtˉtt) [56] HE-LHC, 15 ab1@ 27 TeV BR(tuZ)<2.4×104 (σμν)
      BR(tcZ)<1.56×103 (σμν)
      BR(tuZ)<8.36×104 (γμ)
      BR(tcZ)<4.19×103 (γμ)
      FCC-hh, 10 ab1@ 100 TeV BR(tuZ)<8.65×105 (σμν)
      BR(tcZ)<2.33×104 (σμν)
      BR(tuZ)<2.76×104 (γμ)
      BR(tcZ)<6.52×104 (γμ)
      epet [57] LHeC, 2 ab1@ 60 GeV 7 TeV BR(tuZ)<4×105 (σμν)
      BR(tcZ)<6.8×104 (σμν)
      BR(tuZ)<9×105 (γμ)
      BR(tcZ)<9.5×104 (γμ)
      epeWq + X [58] LHeC, 3 ab1, 2σ BR(tqZ)<3.3×105 (σμν)
      FCC-he, 3 ab1, 2σ BR(tqZ)<4.5×106 (σμν)
      e+etq [59] FCC-ee, 300 fb1 BR(tqZ)<3.12×105 (σμν)
      @ 350 GeV BR(tqZ)<1.22×104 (γμ)
      e+etq [60] ILC, 300 fb1 BR(tqZ)<1.9×103 (σμν)
      @ 500 GeV BR(tqZ)<1.8×103 (γμ)

      Table 9.  Projected 95% CL limits on BR(tqZ) (q=u,c) from different channels at various future colliders.

    IV.   CONCLUSIONS
    • In this study, we analyzed FCNC tZq anomalous couplings (q=u,c) at the future HL-LHC, HE-LHC, and FCC-hh by performing a full simulation via two processes yielding trilepton signals: top quark pair production pptˉt with tqZ and the associated tZ production process pptZ. We performed a full simulation for the signals and the relevant SM backgrounds based on two separate cut selections, obtaining 95% CL limits on BR(tqZ) (q=u,c), by exploiting trilepton final states obtained via the decay modes tbW+b+ν and Z+. Altogether, these limits are nearly one or two orders of magnitude better than the current experimental results obtained from the LHC runs at 13 TeV. We therefore expect that the signatures studied here will provide competitive complementary information for detecting such FCNC tqZ anomalous couplings in future hadronic colliders at CERN.

Reference (63)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return