Searching for top FCNC decay t ch at future e + e colliders

Transcription

1 Searching for top FCNC decay t ch at future e + e colliders Aleksander Filip Żarnecki Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw June 12, 2015 A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

2 Outline 1 Introduction Projects Top measurements CLIC staging ILC running scenario 2 FCNC top decays SM predictions FCNC in 2HDM Model expectations 3 Simulation study WHIZARD simulation Event analysis Results 4 Conclusions A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

3 Top physics at future e + e colliders ( ) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 CLIC staging A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 ILC running scenario A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

20

21

22

23

24 FCNC top decays A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

25 Standard Model On the tree level only charged current top decays are allowed in the Standard Model t W + b dominant, BR = 91% t W + s/d CKM suppressed FCNC top decays are only possible on loop level. Four two-particle final states can be considered: t qγ, qz, qg, qh q = u, c RPP2014 experimental limits: BR(t γ q) < % CL BR(t Z q) < A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

26 Standard Model Leading order diagrams for FCNC decay t c γ When neglecting down quark masses, the decay amplitude is suppressed (GIM): M d i V td i V cdi = 0 A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

27 Standard Model Leading order diagrams for FCNC decay t c γ However, taking into account quark masses, GIM cancelation is not perfect M d i V td i V cdi F(x di ) x di = m2 d i M 2 W A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

28 Standard Model Leading order diagrams for FCNC decay t c γ Assuming m d = m s m b the leading contribution is: M V tb V cb [F(x b ) F(0)] Resulting decay width: ( ) 4 Γ(t c γ) V bc 2 αem 3 mb m t M W Double suppression due to CKM: V bc 0.04 m GIM: b M W 0.04 A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

29 Standard Model Standard Model expectations for the FCNC top decays (Snowmass 2013): BR(t c γ) BR(t c Z) BR(t c g) BR(t c H) Same suppression mechanism in all channels (CKM+GIM). A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

30 Standard Model Standard Model expectations for the FCNC top decays (Snowmass 2013): BR(t c γ) BR(t c Z) BR(t c g) BR(t c H) Same suppression mechanism in all channels (CKM+GIM). Only for t c H channel, GIM mechanism is not applicable (in one of the diagrams) due to Higgs coupling proportional to mass. But the contribution of this diagram is still suppressed by m b M W (Higgs coupling) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

31 Two Higgs Doublet Model Probably the simplest possible extension of the SM. Decay channel t c h is affected by modified Higgs couplings: hdd : g = g SM (sin(β α) tan β cos(β α)) possible enhancement at large tan β A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

32 Two Higgs Doublet Model Probably the simplest possible extension of the SM. Decay channel t c h is affected by modified Higgs couplings: hdd : g = g SM (sin(β α) tan β cos(β α)) possible enhancement at large tan β hww : g = g SM sin(β α) no enhancement possible A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

33 Two Higgs Doublet Model New contributions to t c h (as well as to t cγ, cz, cg) from diagrams with H ± in the loop (instead of W ± ). In case of 2HDM(II) (as an example): H + b t : ig 2 2M W V tb [m b (1 + γ 5 )tan β + m t (1 γ 5 )cot β] tan β in all 3 vertexes! A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

34 Two Higgs Doublet Model New contributions to t c h (as well as to t cγ, cz, cg) from diagrams with H ± in the loop (instead of W ± ). In case of 2HDM(II) (as an example): H + b t : ig 2 2M W V tb [m b (1 + γ 5 )tan β + m t (1 γ 5 )cot β] tan β in all 3 vertexes! H ± H ± h : [ ig M 2 h ( cos 3 β cos α sin 3 β sin α ) M W sin 2β Mh 2 ] sin 2β M2 H + sin(α β) enhancement possible for both large and small tan β A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

35 Two Higgs Doublet Model One also has to consider diagrams with both H ± and W ± : In the standard 2HDM scenarios, loop contributions can be enhanced significantly. However, FCNC remain suppressed at the tree level due to assumed flavour diagonal Higgs couplings. However, one can also consider non standard scenarios, as 2HDM(III) or Top 2HDM, where one of Higgs doublets couple to top quark only, where tree level FCNC couplings are possible!... A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

36 Expectations Expected maximal branching rations for different scenarios Significant differences between different papers - overall limit ranges given Model BR(t c h) BR(t c γ) BR(t c g) BR(t c Z) SM HDM A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

37 Expectations Expected maximal branching rations for different scenarios Significant differences between different papers - overall limit ranges given Model BR(t c h) BR(t c γ) BR(t c g) BR(t c Z) SM HDM HDM (FV) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

38 Expectations Expected maximal branching rations for different scenarios Significant differences between different papers - overall limit ranges given Model BR(t c h) BR(t c γ) BR(t c g) BR(t c Z) SM HDM HDM (FV) MSSM R/ SUSY A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

39 Expectations Expected maximal branching rations for different scenarios Significant differences between different papers - overall limit ranges given Model BR(t c h) BR(t c γ) BR(t c g) BR(t c Z) SM HDM HDM (FV) MSSM R/ SUSY Little Higgs Quark Singlet Randal-Sundrum A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

40 Model expectations Decay t c h in 2HDM is an interesting scenario: large enhancement both on tree and loop level well constrained kinematics seems to be most difficult for LHC Limits on top FCNC decays from LHC (Moriond 2015): BR(t qz) < 0.05% (CMS) BR(t cγ) < 0.18% (CMS) BR(t uγ) < 0.016% (CMS) BR(t cg) < 0.016% (ATLAS) BR(t ug) < % (ATLAS) BR(t ch) < 0.56% (CMS, 20 fb 1 ) BR(t ch) < 0.79% (ATLAS, 25 fb 1 ) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

41

42 WHIZARD Model Dedicated implementation of 2HDM(III) prepared by Florian Straub. Many thanks also due to Juergen Reuter and Wolfgang Kilian... Test configuration of the model: m h1 = 125 GeV BR(t ch 1 ) = 10 3 BR(h b b) = 100% Generated samples at s=500 GeV e + e t t (2HDM/SM) e + e ch 1 t, t ch 1 (2HDM) e + e cb b t, t cb b (SM) Assume that we can select high purity t t sample main background to FCNC decays from standard decay channels All events generated with CIRCE1 spectra + ISR Only t, W and h defined to be unstable. No hadronization/decays. No generator-level cuts imposed. A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

43 WHIZARD Very simplified detector description detector acceptance for leptons: cos θ l < detector acceptance for jets: cos θ j < jet energy smearing: S E for E < 100GeV σ E = E > 100GeV S 100 GeV with S = 30%, 50% and 80% [GeV 1/2 ] b tagging (misstagging) efficiencies: (LCFI+ package) Scenario b c uds Ideal 100% 0% 0% A 90% 30% 4% B 80% 8% 0.8% C 70% 2% 0.2% D 60% 0.4% 0.08% A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

44

45

46

47 Event selection t t final state selection Signal top: Spectator top: t ch 1 + higgs decay to b b 2 b tags SM top decay 1 b tag Considered final states (resulting from W ± decay channels): semileptonic: 4 jets + lepton + missing p t fully hadronic: 6 jets, no leptons, no missing p t A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

48 Event selection t t final state selection Signal top: Spectator top: t ch 1 + higgs decay to b b 2 b tags SM top decay 1 b tag Considered final states (resulting from W ± decay channels): semileptonic: 4 jets + lepton + missing p t fully hadronic: 6 jets, no leptons, no missing p t Event selection cuts for s = 500 GeV, 30%/ E jet energy resolution Semileptonic: Fully hadronic: Missing p t > 20 GeV Missing p t < 10 GeV Single lepton with p t > 15 GeV No lepton with p t > 10 GeV 4 jets with p t > 15 GeV 6 jets with p t > 15 GeV 3 jets b-tagged 3 jets b-tagged A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

49 Event analysis Top reconstruction Try to group final state objects into two tops Check invariant mass distributions for all considered combinations Semileptonic events (signal sample): Semileptonic spectator top decay Fully hadronic signal top decay A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

50 Event analysis Top reconstruction Try to group final state objects into two tops Check invariant mass distributions for all considered combinations Proper combination can be easily identified Semileptonic events Fully hadronic events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

51 Signal selection Cut based approach: W ± veto Irreducible SM background can be suppressed by reconstructing second W Invariant mass of two jets from signal top - all combinations e + e cb b bl + ν (SM) e + e ch 1 t, t ch 1 (2HDM) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

52 Signal selection Cut based approach: W ± veto Irreducible SM background can be suppressed by reconstructing second W Invariant mass of two jets from signal top - best background fit e + e cb b bl + ν (SM) e + e ch 1 t, t ch 1 (2HDM) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

53 Signal selection Cut based approach: Higgs candidate events W ± veto used: events with 73.5 < M bq < 87.3 GeV rejected (±3σ) Invariant mass of two b-jets jets after W ± veto: signal vs background Semileptonic events Fully hadronic events Look for events in the Higgs mass window... A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

54 Signal selection Alternative approach - compare two hypothesis: background hypothesis χ 2 bg ( ) = Mblν m 2 ( ) t Mlν m 2 W + + σ t,lep σ W,lep ( Mbbq m t σ t,had ) 2 ( ) Mbq m 2 W + σ W,had signal hypothesis χ 2 sig = ( Mblν m t σ t,lep ) 2 ( ) Mlν m 2 ( W Mbbq m t + + σ W,lep σ t,had ) 2 ( Mbb m h + σ h ) 2 Independent search for best background and signal combinations A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

55 Signal selection Hypothesis comparison Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis SM background (possible cut indicated) Signal events 80% b-tagging efficiency (scenario B) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

56 Signal selection Hypothesis comparison Difference of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis: signal vs background Semileptonic channel Fully hadronic channel Ideal b-tagging Very efficient background rejection possible A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

57 Signal selection Hypothesis comparison Difference of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis: signal vs background Semileptonic channel Fully hadronic channel 80% b-tagging efficiency (scenario B) Very efficient background rejection possible A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

58 Results Expected events For 500 fb 1, assuming BR(t ch) BR(h b b) 10 3 for signal Semileptonic Ideal b-tagging Scenario B t t (SM) Signal t t (SM) Signal All Single lepton + p/ t jets b-tags W veto h mass window χ 2 cut h mass window A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

59 Results Expected events For 500 fb 1, assuming BR(t ch) BR(h b b) 10 3 for signal Fully hadronic Ideal b-tagging Scenario B t t (SM) Signal t t (SM) Signal All No leptons, no p/ t jets b-tags W veto h mass window χ 2 cut h mass window A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

60 Results Expected limits Limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) expected for 500 fb 500 GeV from combined analysis (semileptonic+hadronic channels) Expected limit χ 2 cut ± W veto Ideal tagging b-tagging efficiency [%] A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

61 Jet energy resolution Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis for hadronic 500 GeV Jet energy resolution 30% SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

62 Jet energy resolution Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis for hadronic 500 GeV Jet energy resolution 50% SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

63 Jet energy resolution Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis for hadronic 500 GeV Jet energy resolution 80% SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

64 Jet energy resolution Difference of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis, for signal and background events Before (solid) and after (dashed) other selection cuts Jet energy resolution 30% Semi-leptonic events Fully hadronic events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

65 Jet energy resolution Difference of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis, for signal and background events Before (solid) and after (dashed) other selection cuts Jet energy resolution 50% Semi-leptonic events Fully hadronic events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

66 Jet energy resolution Difference of log 10 χ 2 for two hypothesis, for signal and background events Before (solid) and after (dashed) other selection cuts Jet energy resolution 80% Semi-leptonic events Fully hadronic events Signal - background separation still possible, but with decreasing efficiency A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

67 Jet energy resolution Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) for 500 fb 500 GeV and different jet energy resolutions assumed For b-tagging efficiency of 70% For optimized χ 2 cut ] -4 Expected limit [ %/ E 50%/ E 80%/ E ] -4 Expected limit [ %/ E %/ E 80%/ E Ideal tagging χ cut b-tagging efficiency [%] Worsening jet energy resolution tighter cuts & b-tagging required A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

68 Jet energy resolution and luminosity Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Collision energy 500 GeV Expected limit %/ 50%/ 80%/ E E E Integrated luminosity [fb ] A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

69 Collision energy Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for hadronic events, 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Collision energy 500 GeV SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

70 Collision energy Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for hadronic events, 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Collision energy 380 GeV SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

71 Collision energy Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for hadronic events, 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Collision energy 500 GeV SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

72 Collision energy Correlation of log 10 χ 2 for hadronic events, 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Collision energy 1000 GeV SM background Signal events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

73 Collision energy Difference of log 10 χ 2 (signal - background) 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Before (solid) and after (dashed) additional selection cuts Semi-leptonic events Collision energy 380 GeV Fully hadronic events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

74 Collision energy Difference of log 10 χ 2 (signal - background) 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Before (solid) and after (dashed) additional selection cuts Semi-leptonic events Collision energy 500 GeV Fully hadronic events A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

75 Collision energy Difference of log 10 χ 2 (signal - background) 50% resolution, 70% b-tagging Before (solid) and after (dashed) additional selection cuts Semi-leptonic events Collision energy 1000 GeV Fully hadronic events Signal - background separation improves slightly for hadronic events. Visible loss of efficiency in semi-leptonic channel. A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

76 Collision energy and luminosity Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 50% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Integrated luminosity [fb ] A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

77 Collision energy and statistics Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 50% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Top pairs produced A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

78 Reminder Sensitivity to BR(t ch) estimated with parton level simulation based on very simplified approach: only t t background considered no effects of hadronization/decays (τ, B...) very rough description of detector effects A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

79 Reminder Sensitivity to BR(t ch) estimated with parton level simulation based on very simplified approach: only t t background considered no effects of hadronization/decays (τ, B...) very rough description of detector effects final state reconstruction and b-tagging not optimized angurlar distributions not taken into account polarization not taken into account selection cuts not optizmized (except for χ 2 ) A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

80 Reminder Sensitivity to BR(t ch) estimated with parton level simulation based on very simplified approach: only t t background considered no effects of hadronization/decays (τ, B...) very rough description of detector effects final state reconstruction and b-tagging not optimized angurlar distributions not taken into account polarization not taken into account selection cuts not optizmized (except for χ 2 ) Results are just estimates! A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

81 Conclusions Measurement of FCNC top decays at ILC/CLIC studied at parton level. Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) from 10 4 to 10 5 depending on the energy, luminosity and detector parameters Limits scale with integrated luminosity approximately as L 0.8 A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

82 Conclusions Measurement of FCNC top decays at ILC/CLIC studied at parton level. Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) from 10 4 to 10 5 depending on the energy, luminosity and detector parameters Limits scale with integrated luminosity approximately as L 0.8 Similar sensitivity at different energies, measurement is statistics limitted. A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

83 Conclusions Measurement of FCNC top decays at ILC/CLIC studied at parton level. Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) from 10 4 to 10 5 depending on the energy, luminosity and detector parameters Limits scale with integrated luminosity approximately as L 0.8 Similar sensitivity at different energies, measurement is statistics limitted. Selection efficiency strongly depends on the jet energy resolution At 500 GeV, 30%/ E require 25% less luminosity than 50%/ E, 80%/ E require twice as much luminosity as 50%/ E A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

84 Conclusions Measurement of FCNC top decays at ILC/CLIC studied at parton level. Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) from 10 4 to 10 5 depending on the energy, luminosity and detector parameters Limits scale with integrated luminosity approximately as L 0.8 Similar sensitivity at different energies, measurement is statistics limitted. Selection efficiency strongly depends on the jet energy resolution At 500 GeV, 30%/ E require 25% less luminosity than 50%/ E, 80%/ E require twice as much luminosity as 50%/ E Flavour tagging preformance crucial for the analysis possible benchmark for optimization of detector design A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

85 Backup Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 30% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Integrated luminosity [fb ] A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

86 Backup Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 50% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Integrated luminosity [fb ] A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

87 Backup Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 80% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Integrated luminosity [fb ] A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

88 Backup Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 30% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Top pairs produced A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

89 Backup Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 50% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Top pairs produced A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

90 Backup Expected limits on BR(t ch) BR(h b b) Jet energy resolution 80% Expected limit GeV 500 GeV 1000 GeV Top pairs produced A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61

91 Backup Expected limit Expected 95% C.L. limit on the number of signal events calculated as an average limit from multiple background only experiments, with number of observed events generated from Poisson distribution. A.F.Żarnecki (University of Warsaw) Top FCNC decays June 12, / 61