| 1 | | == TopBSM == |
| | 1 | == Top Quark Decay to a Higgs and a Light Quark Operator == |
| | 2 | |
| | 3 | ### Motivation |
| | 4 | |
| | 5 | Neutral Flavor Changing couplings are absent in the Standard Model at tree |
| | 6 | level. Moreover, at next-to-leading order they are supressed by the GIM |
| | 7 | mechanism. Therefore a detection of such processes would be a strong hint at |
| | 8 | new physics. Here we focus Neutral Flavor Change mediated by the Higgs boson |
| | 9 | following [@zhang2013top]. |
| | 10 | |
| | 11 | The lowest dimensional operators compatible with the symmetries of the Standard |
| | 12 | Model are the following six-dimensional operators (for a comprehensive list of |
| | 13 | all six-dimensional operators compatible with Standard Model symmetries consult |
| | 14 | [@grzadkowski2010dimension]): |
| | 15 | |
| | 16 | - chromomagnetic operator $O_{uG}$ |
| | 17 | |
| | 18 | {{{ |
| | 19 | #!latex |
| | 20 | \begin{equation} |
| | 21 | \begin{matrix} |
| | 22 | O^{1,3}_{uG} = y_t g_s (\bar{q} \sigma^{\mu\nu} T^a t) \bar{\phi} G^a_{\mu\nu}; \\ |
| | 23 | \\ |
| | 24 | O^{3,1}_{uG} = y_t g_s (\bar{Q} \sigma^{\mu\nu} T^a u) \bar{\phi} G^a_{\mu\nu}; |
| | 25 | \end{matrix} |
| | 26 | \end{equation} |
| | 27 | }}} |
| | 28 | |
| | 29 | - dimension-six Yukawa interaction $O_{u\phi}$ |
| | 30 | |
| | 31 | {{{ |
| | 32 | #!latex |
| | 33 | \begin{equation} |
| | 34 | \begin{matrix} |
| | 35 | O^{1,3}_{u\phi} = - y_t^3 (\phi^\dagger \phi) (\bar{q} t) \bar{\phi}; \\ |
| | 36 | \\ |
| | 37 | O^{3,1}_{u\phi} = - y_t^3 (\phi^\dagger \phi) (\bar{Q} u) \bar{\phi}; |
| | 38 | \end{matrix} |
| | 39 | \end{equation} |
| | 40 | }}} |
| | 41 | |
| | 42 | - To each (1,3) operator corresponds a (3,1) operator where the flavors are |
| | 43 | reversed. |
| | 44 | |
| | 45 | - To each operator (e.g. (1,3)) corresponds another where the up quark is |
| | 46 | exchanged for a charm quark (e.g. (2,3)). |
| | 47 | |
| | 48 | - The hermitian conjugates of the above-mentioned operators contributing with |
| | 49 | the opposite chirality. |
| | 50 | |
| | 51 | Where we denoted: |
| | 52 | |
| | 53 | - $\phi$ is the Higgs doublet; |
| | 54 | - $Q$ and $q$ are respectively the 1st (or 2nd) and the 3th left-handed quark |
| | 55 | doublet; |
| | 56 | - $u$ (or $c$) and $t$ are the right-handed quarks; |
| | 57 | - $\bar{\phi} = i \sigma^2 \phi$ |
| | 58 | - $y_t = \sqrt{2}\frac{m_t}{v}$ the top quark Yukawa coupling. |
| | 59 | |
| | 60 | The complete Lagrangian takes the form: |
| | 61 | |
| | 62 | {{{ |
| | 63 | #!latex |
| | 64 | \begin{equation} |
| | 65 | \mathcal{L}_{eff} = \mathcal{L}_{SM} + \sum_i \frac{c_i O_i}{\Lambda^2}, |
| | 66 | \end{equation} |
| | 67 | }}} |
| | 68 | |
| | 69 | where $\Lambda$ is the new physics energy scale, $O_i$ is for the various |
| | 70 | six-dimensional operators in consideration and $c_i$ are relative couplings. |
| | 71 | |
| | 72 | The normalizations for the six-dimensional operators were chosen such that for |
| | 73 | any new SM-like vertices the ratio of the new couplings to the SM couplings is |
| | 74 | of the form $c_i\frac{m_t^2}{\Lambda^2}$. |
| | 75 | |
| | 76 | ### Implementation and Validation |
| | 77 | |
| | 78 | The implementation is a straightforward transcription of the Lagrangian into |
| | 79 | `FeynRules` format as no new fields need to be defined. |
| | 80 | |
| | 81 | The model was validated using the build-in checks in `FeynRules` and |
| | 82 | `MadGraph5`. Moreover the decay widths were confirmed through `MadGraph5` and |
| | 83 | compared to the analytical results. |
| | 84 | |
| | 85 | == Beyond-SM Operators with the Top Quark == |
| | 86 | |
| | 87 | ### Motivation |
| | 88 | |
| | 89 | This model is a reimplementation of the model behind the following paper: |
| | 90 | [@frederix2009top]. The paper looks at top pair invariant mass distribution as |
| | 91 | a window for new physics by studying the effects that various s-channel |
| | 92 | resonance would exert. The original model was implemented in `MadGraph4`. Here |
| | 93 | we provide a reimplementation in the `FeynRules`-`MadGraph5` toolset. |
| | 94 | |
| | 95 | The model is not restricted to use only for studying the top pair invariant |
| | 96 | mass distribution as will be seen below. For each newly implemented particle we |
| | 97 | will discuss how it couples to the Standard Model particles, how the model was |
| | 98 | validated against [@frederix2009top] and other previous studies, and whether |
| | 99 | there are any constraints on the versions of `FeynRules` and `MadGraph5` to be |
| | 100 | used. |
| | 101 | |
| | 102 | In addition, the new model files provide the width of the particles (there is |
| | 103 | no need for them to be computed separately). Also, the constraint on the |
| | 104 | particle masses were lifted (the previous version provided certain couplings |
| | 105 | only for certain mass ranges, and the couplings themselves were expressed only |
| | 106 | as series expansions). The new model provides the exact expressions for all |
| | 107 | masses. |
| | 108 | |
| | 109 | ### Spin Zero, Color Singlet Particle |
| | 110 | |
| | 111 | The name used in [@frederix2009top] for this resonance is `S0` for "color |
| | 112 | [S]inglet, spin [Zero]". It is coupled only to the top with different couplings |
| | 113 | for the left and for the right top. The effective vertex of gluon fusion through |
| | 114 | a top loop is explicitly given in the Lagrangian as well. |
| | 115 | |
| | 116 | The coupling to the top operator is |
| | 117 | |
| | 118 | {{{ |
| | 119 | #!latex |
| | 120 | \begin{equation} |
| | 121 | \mathcal{L}_{S_0 t}\; =\; |
| | 122 | c_{s0scalar}\, \frac{m_t}{v} S_0\, \bar{t}.t \; |
| | 123 | + \; i\, c_{s0axial}\, \frac{m_t}{v} S_0\, \bar{t}.\gamma^5.t. |
| | 124 | \end{equation} |
| | 125 | }}} |
| | 126 | |
| | 127 | The gluon fusion effective operator must be added explicitly because it is a |
| | 128 | beyond-tree-level effect. In general, such an operator takes the form |
| | 129 | |
| | 130 | {{{ |
| | 131 | #!latex |
| | 132 | \begin{equation} |
| | 133 | \mathcal{L}_{G\,fusion\,scalar\,S_0}\; =\; |
| | 134 | -\frac{1}{4} c_{s0fusion\,scalar} S_0 \; FS(G)_{\mu \nu}^a \; FS(G)^{\mu \nu a} |
| | 135 | \end{equation} |
| | 136 | }}} |
| | 137 | |
| | 138 | or |
| | 139 | |
| | 140 | {{{ |
| | 141 | #!latex |
| | 142 | \begin{equation} |
| | 143 | \mathcal{L}_{G\,fusion\,axial\,S_0}\; =\; |
| | 144 | -\frac{1}{4} c_{s0fusion\,axial} S_0 \; FS(G)_{\mu \nu}^a \; \widetilde{FS}(G)^{\mu \nu a} |
| | 145 | \end{equation} |
| | 146 | }}} |
| | 147 | |
| | 148 | where $FS(G)$ is the field strength for the gluon field and ~ denotes a dual field. |
| | 149 | |
| | 150 | By comparing the vertices produces by these operators to the result of the |
| | 151 | integrated top loop we get |
| | 152 | |
| | 153 | {{{ |
| | 154 | #!latex |
| | 155 | \begin{equation} |
| | 156 | c_{s0fuison\,scalar} = -c_{s0scalar} \frac{g_s^2}{12 \pi^2 v} \; |
| | 157 | f_S\left(\left(\frac{2 m_t}{m_{S_0}}\right)^2\right) |
| | 158 | \end{equation} |
| | 159 | \begin{equation} |
| | 160 | c_{s0fuison\,axial} = -c_{s0axial} \frac{g_s^2}{8 \pi^2 v} \; |
| | 161 | f_A\left(\left(\frac{2 m_t}{m_{S_0}}\right)^2\right) |
| | 162 | \end{equation} |
| | 163 | }}} |
| | 164 | |
| | 165 | with |
| | 166 | |
| | 167 | {{{ |
| | 168 | #!latex |
| | 169 | \begin{equation} |
| | 170 | f_S(t) = |
| | 171 | \begin{cases} |
| | 172 | \frac{3}{2} t \left(1 + \frac{1}{4} \left(t - 1\right) \left(\log{\left(\frac{\sqrt{1 - t} + 1}{1 - \sqrt{1 - t}}\right)} - i \pi\right)^2\right) & t \leq 1 \\ |
| | 173 | \frac{3}{2} t \left(1 + \left(1 - t\right) \arcsin{\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}^2\right) & 1 \leq t. |
| | 174 | \end{cases} |
| | 175 | \end{equation} |
| | 176 | }}} |
| | 177 | |
| | 178 | and |
| | 179 | |
| | 180 | {{{ |
| | 181 | #!latex |
| | 182 | \begin{equation} |
| | 183 | f_A(t) = |
| | 184 | \begin{cases} |
| | 185 | - \frac{t}{4} \left(\log{\left(\frac{\sqrt{1 - t} + 1}{1 - \sqrt{1 - t}}\right)} - i \pi\right)^2 & t \leq 1 \\ |
| | 186 | t \arcsin{\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\right)}^2 & 1 \leq t. |
| | 187 | \end{cases} |
| | 188 | \end{equation} |
| | 189 | }}} |
| | 190 | |
| | 191 | With appropriate branch cuts in the complex plane these expressions are |
| | 192 | actually the same when $\arcsin$ is expressed in terms of $\log$. The |
| | 193 | integration of the top loop was verified with the `FeynCalc` package and the |
| | 194 | notebook is provided together with the models. |
| | 195 | |
| | 196 | Finally, given this Lagrangian the width of the new particles is: |
| | 197 | |
| | 198 | {{{ |
| | 199 | #!latex |
| | 200 | \begin{equation} |
| | 201 | W_{S_0}\;=\; |
| | 202 | \frac{3 m_t^2 m_{S_0}}{8 \pi v^2} \sqrt{1 - \frac{4 m_t^2}{m_{S_0}^2}} \left(-\frac{4 m_t^2}{m_{S_0}} |
| | 203 | c_{s0scalar}^2 + \left(c_{s0axial}^2 + |
| | 204 | c_{s0scalar}^2\right)\right) |
| | 205 | \end{equation} |
| | 206 | }}} |
| | 207 | |
| | 208 | #### Validation of the Model |
| | 209 | |
| | 210 | The first step is to compare the old and the new implementations through the |
| | 211 | `standalone` mode. However this is complicated by the fact that certain |
| | 212 | parameters in the old model are to be evaluated at each point in phase space, |
| | 213 | which the `standalone` mode does not permit. A short patch is provided in the |
| | 214 | annex with an explanation of the necessary changes. |
| | 215 | |
| | 216 | After the application of the patch, the model was validated against the old |
| | 217 | implementation in `standalone` mode. The decay width and the cross-section in |
| | 218 | various processes was validated as well, after taking into account the |
| | 219 | differences at runtime between `MadGraph4` and `MadGraph5`. |
| | 220 | |
| | 221 | However the old model is only for heavy $S_0$ particles ($m_{S_0}>2m_t$). The |
| | 222 | changes permitting work with light $S_0$ particles: |
| | 223 | |
| | 224 | - correct calculation of the width when decay to top pair is impossible |
| | 225 | - correct expression for the effective gluon fusion vertex |
| | 226 | |
| | 227 | were not major and were validated using the build-in tools in `FeynRules` and |
| | 228 | `MadGraph5`. Moreover studies for such light particles are probably of minor |
| | 229 | interest. |
| | 230 | |
| | 231 | ### Spin Zero, Color Octet Particle |
| | 232 | |
| | 233 | The name for this resonance is `O0` for "color |
| | 234 | [O]ctet, spin [Zero]". Like `S0` it is coupled only to the top with different couplings |
| | 235 | for the left and for the right top and there is an effective vertex of gluon fusion through |
| | 236 | a top loop is explicitly given in the Lagrangian as well. |
| | 237 | |
| | 238 | The operators are: |
| | 239 | |
| | 240 | {{{ |
| | 241 | #!latex |
| | 242 | \begin{equation} |
| | 243 | \mathcal{L}_{O_0 t}\; =\; |
| | 244 | c_{o0scalar}\, \frac{m_t}{v} O_0^a\, \bar{t}.T^a.t \; |
| | 245 | + \; i\, c_{o0axial}\, \frac{m_t}{v} O_0^a\, \bar{t}.\gamma^5.T^a.t. |
| | 246 | \end{equation} |
| | 247 | |
| | 248 | \begin{equation} |
| | 249 | \mathcal{L}_{G\,fusion\,scalar\,O_0}\; =\; |
| | 250 | -\frac{1}{4} c_{o0fusion\,scalar} S_{SU3}^{abc} O_0^a \; FS(G)_{\mu \nu}^b \; FS(G)^{\mu \nu c} |
| | 251 | \end{equation} |
| | 252 | |
| | 253 | \begin{equation} |
| | 254 | \mathcal{L}_{G\,fusion\,axial\,O_0}\; =\; |
| | 255 | -\frac{1}{4} c_{o0fusion\,axial} S_{SU3}^{abc} O_0^a \; FS(G)_{\mu \nu}^b \; \widetilde{FS}(G)^{\mu \nu c} |
| | 256 | \end{equation} |
| | 257 | }}} |
| | 258 | |
| | 259 | where $S_{SU3}^{abc}$ is the completely symmetric tensor and where |
| | 260 | $c_{o0fusion\,scalar}$ and $c_{o0fusion\,axial}$ are the same as for `S0` with |
| | 261 | coupling and masses appropriately substituted. |
| | 262 | |
| | 263 | Again, given this Lagrangian the width of the new particles is: |
| | 264 | |
| | 265 | {{{ |
| | 266 | #!latex |
| | 267 | \begin{equation} |
| | 268 | W_{O_0}\;=\; |
| | 269 | \frac{m_t^2 m_{O_0}}{16 \pi v^2} \sqrt{1 - \frac{4 m_t^2}{m_{O_0}^2}} \left(-\frac{4 m_t^2}{m_{O_0}} |
| | 270 | c_{o0scalar}^2 + \left(c_{o0axial}^2 + |
| | 271 | c_{o0scalar}^2\right)\right) |
| | 272 | \end{equation} |
| | 273 | }}} |
| | 274 | |
| | 275 | which is $\frac{1}{6}$ times the expression for $W_{S_0}$ with appropriately |
| | 276 | substituted couplings and masses. |
| | 277 | |
| | 278 | #### Validation of the Model |
| | 279 | |
| | 280 | As with `S0` a patch is necessary before one can proceed with validation in the |
| | 281 | `standalone` mode. The model was validated against the old implementation in |
| | 282 | that mode, as well as in `MadEvent` mode: both the decay width and the |
| | 283 | cross-sections of various processes were checked. |
| | 284 | |
| | 285 | The new model permits the use of light `O0` unlike the old implementation for |
| | 286 | `MadGraph4`. As in the case of `S0` this part was validated only through the |
| | 287 | build-in tools in `FeynRules` and `MadGraph5`. |
| | 288 | |
| | 289 | ### Spin One, Color Singlet Particle |
| | 290 | |
| | 291 | The name for this resonance is `S1`. It has both vector and axial couplings to |
| | 292 | all quarks and leptons. It is used mostly for a "model-independent" vector |
| | 293 | boson ($Z^\prime$). For convenience the Lagrangian has exactly the same form as |
| | 294 | the part of the Standard Model Lagrangian that governs the coupling of the SM Z |
| | 295 | to the fermions. In addition to that each coupling is parametrized by coupling |
| | 296 | constant with default value of 1. |
| | 297 | |
| | 298 | - `s1uleft` for the coupling to up, charm and top left quarks; |
| | 299 | - `s1dleft` for the coupling to down, strange and bottom left quarks; |
| | 300 | - `s1uright` and `s1dright` for the corresponding right quarks; |
| | 301 | - `s1eleft` for the left electron, muon and tau-lepton; |
| | 302 | - `s1eright` for the right charged leptons; |
| | 303 | - `s1nu` for the neutrinos. |
| | 304 | |
| | 305 | For example the coupling to neutrinos is |
| | 306 | |
| | 307 | {{{ |
| | 308 | #!latex |
| | 309 | \begin{equation} |
| | 310 | \mathcal{L}_{S_{1}\nu}\;=\; |
| | 311 | c_{s1nu}\; |
| | 312 | \frac{e}{2\sin{\theta_W}\cos{\theta_W}}\; S_1^\mu\; |
| | 313 | \underset{f=e,mu,tau}{\sum}\bar{L}_2^f.\gamma_\mu.L_2^f |
| | 314 | \end{equation} |
| | 315 | }}} |
| | 316 | |
| | 317 | where $\theta_W$ is |
| | 318 | the Weinberg angle, $e$ is the electric coupling constant, $L$ is the leptonic |
| | 319 | doublet and $L_2$ is its second component. |
| | 320 | |
| | 321 | The width of the particle is calculated and provided in the model as well. |
| | 322 | |
| | 323 | #### Validation of the Model |
| | 324 | |
| | 325 | Besides the basic correctness tests provided by `FeynRules` and `MadGraph5` the |
| | 326 | `S1` model was verified against the original `MadGraph4` model. |
| | 327 | |
| | 328 | In `standalone` mode both models produce the same differential cross-section |
| | 329 | withing machine precision. In `MadEvent` mode the decay width is the same in |
| | 330 | both cases. When accounting for the differences at runtime in `MadGraph4` and |
| | 331 | `MadGraph5` the cross sections of the various tested processes are the same as |
| | 332 | well. |
| | 333 | |
| | 334 | ### Spin One, Color Octet Particle |
| | 335 | |
| | 336 | The name for this resonance is `O1`. The need for a `FeynRules` version of it |
| | 337 | is what originally caused the request for reimplementation of the whole model. |
| | 338 | This field lives in the same representation of the gauge group as the gluons. |
| | 339 | It is used to represent color vector particle (coloron) or an color axial |
| | 340 | particle (axigluon). |
| | 341 | |
| | 342 | The Lagrangian is of the form |
| | 343 | |
| | 344 | {{{ |
| | 345 | #!latex |
| | 346 | \begin{equation} |
| | 347 | \mathcal{L}_{O_1}\; =\; |
| | 348 | \sum_i c_i g_s O_1^{\mu a} \; \bar{q_i}.\gamma_\mu.T^a.q_i |
| | 349 | \end{equation} |
| | 350 | }}} |
| | 351 | where $i$ goes over right and left handedness of the up and down quarks of each |
| | 352 | generation. $T$ is the representation of the SU3 group generators and $g_s$ is |
| | 353 | the strong coupling constant. |
| | 354 | |
| | 355 | The width of the particles is calculated and provided in the model as well. |
| | 356 | |
| | 357 | #### Validation of the Model |
| | 358 | |
| | 359 | Similar models are discussed in [@choudhury2007top] and [@antunano2008top]. |
| | 360 | Their results confirm both the width and the differential cross-section |
| | 361 | calculated in the `FeynRules` model. |
| | 362 | |
| | 363 | Another `FeynRules` model is available that implements axigluons in |
| | 364 | [@falkowski2012axigluon]. It produces the same vertices, however it differs in |
| | 365 | that it provides for a mixing between the axigluons and the gluons. |
| | 366 | |
| | 367 | The original `MadGraph4` model gives the same results in the `standalone` |
| | 368 | configuration. Both the decay width and the cross section of top pair |
| | 369 | production were checked as well. Well accounting for the differences in the |
| | 370 | `MadGraph4` and `MadGraph5` runtime they produce the same results. Details are |
| | 371 | provided in the annex. |
| | 372 | |
| | 373 | |
| | 374 | #### Technical Constraints |
| | 375 | |
| | 376 | During the implementation of this model a bug in the canonicalization routines |
| | 377 | of `FeynRules` was encountered. Whenever a tensor contraction expression is |
| | 378 | passes through `FeynRules` it needs to get into a canonical form (in order to |
| | 379 | permit equality checks, pattern matching and simplifications) before the |
| | 380 | canonical quantization is executed. The symmetric tensor for the SU3 group was |
| | 381 | not taken into account in this canonicalization. Benjamin Fuks graciously and |
| | 382 | quickly fixed the issue, however for the model to work correctly at least |
| | 383 | `FeynRules 1.7.178` or later is necessary. |
| | 384 | |
| | 385 | ## General Technical Constraints |
| | 386 | |
| | 387 | ### Required Versions |
| | 388 | |
| | 389 | As was mentioned above, the minimal version of `FeynRules` in which the models |
| | 390 | are guaranteed to work is `1.7.178`. |
| | 391 | |
| | 392 | Moreover, there is a disaccord between the formats for saving models in the |
| | 393 | current versions of `MadGraph5` and `FeynRules`. It should be fixed in the next |
| | 394 | versions, however if a runtime error message concerning undefined Goldstone |
| | 395 | bosons is raised by `MadGraph` it can be quickly fixed by manually modifying |
| | 396 | the offending lines in `particles.py`. It can be done automatically with the |
| | 397 | following command: |
| | 398 | |
| | 399 | `perl -pi -e 's/goldstone/GoldstoneBoson/g' ./models/topBSM_UFO/particles.py`. |
| | 400 | |
| | 401 | ### Setting Mass Ranges |
| | 402 | |
| | 403 | The calculation of the widths of different particles (especially `S0` and `O0`) |
| | 404 | as well as the effective couplings for gluon fusion vertices changes |
| | 405 | qualitatively if the mass of the particle passes over or under two times the mass |
| | 406 | of the top. This is implemented in `FeynRules` with a delayed rewrite rule, |
| | 407 | however `MadGraph5` does not permit such branching. Hence if the need arises to |
| | 408 | change the mass of these particles it is important to change it from |
| | 409 | `FeynRules` and not from `MadGraph5`. |
| | 410 | |
| | 411 | # Annex |
| | 412 | |
| | 413 | ## Patching the `standalone` Mode |
| | 414 | |
| | 415 | In `standalone` mode couplings are evaluated only once, before generating a |
| | 416 | random phase space point at which to evaluate the matrix element. This does not |
| | 417 | permit testing some of the more complicated models like the original |
| | 418 | implementation of the `S0` and `O0` particles. |
| | 419 | |
| | 420 | As a workaround for this issue, one can modify the code so that `setparam` is |
| | 421 | called after each generation of random phase space points. A patch that does |
| | 422 | this automatically is provided with the models. |