Exploring the anomalous top–Higgs FCNC couplings at the electron proton colliders
 51 Downloads
Abstract
We perform an updated analysis on the searches for the anomalous FCNC Yukawa interactions between the top quark, the Higgs boson, and either an up or charm quark \({{tqh,\ q=u,\ c}}\)). We probe the observability of the FCNC top–Higgs couplings through the processes \({e^ p\rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} }\bar{{t}} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h \bar{{q}}\) signal I) and \(e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h b\) signal II) at the proposed electron proton ep colliders, where the Higgs boson decays to a \({b}\bar{{b}}\) pair. We find that at the highluminosity (\(1\;{ab}^{1}\)) ep colliders where the electrons have a polarization of \(80\%\) and electron energy is typical 60 GeV, the 2\(\sigma \) upper limits on \({ Br t\rightarrow uh)}\) are \(0.15\times 10^{2}\) \(2.9\times 10^{4}\)) at the 7TeV@LHeC 50TeV@FCCeh) for signal I and \(0.15\times 10^{2}\) \(2.2\times 10^{4}\)) for signal II. We also give an estimate on how the sensitivity (taking signal I as example) would change when we reduce the electron beam energy from 60 to 50 GeV or even 40 GeV due to the cost. The conclusion is that the discovery potential is reduced \(8.7\%\) (\(29.4\%\)) if the electron beam changes from 60 to 50 (40) GeV at the 7 TeV LHeC, and \(16.8\%\) (\(19.8\%\)) at the 50 TeV FCCeh.
1 Introduction
The discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider LHC) [1, 2] was a major step towards understanding the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) mechanism and marks a new era in particle physics. The precise measurement of the Higgs boson and the top quark properties would provide the possibility of searching for the anomalous flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) Yukawa interactions between them and either an up or charm quark (\({ tqh,\ q=u,\ c}\)). According to the Standard Model (SM), FCNC processes are forbidden at tree level and very much suppressed at higher orders due to the Glashow–Iliopoulos–Maiani (GIM) mechanism [3]. For instance, the \({t\rightarrow qh\ (q=u,c)}\) branching ratio is of the order of \(\sim 10^{10}\) or even below. In models beyond the SM (BSM), the GIM suppression can be relaxed, yielding effective tqh couplings many orders of magnitude larger than those of the SM and therefore being detectable using current experimental data. Observations of such anomalous top–Higgs couplings would provide a clear signal of new physics. Examples of such model extensions [4] are, for instance, the Minimal Supersymmetric Model (MSSM) with/without Rparity violation [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19], the two Higgs Doublet Model (2HDM) [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33], the warped extra dimensions model [34, 35], the Alternative Left–Right symmetric Model (ALRM)[36, 37], the Little Higgs with T parity Model (LHT) [38], the Quark Singlet model (QS) [39, 40, 41].
Searches for the anomalous FCNC top–Higgs couplings have been performed at the LHC, and the direct limits on the branching ratio are set from the collider experiments. The most stringent constraint through direct measurements was reported by the CMS and ATLAS collaborations. They have set upper limits on the FCNC couplings in the top sector through the top pair production, with one top decaying to wb and the other assumed to decay to hq. The w boson is considered decaying leptonically and the Higgs decaying either to two photons [42, 43, 44, 45] or to \({b}\bar{{b}}\) [46, 47]. Combining the analysis of the different Higgs decay channels, corresponding to 20.3 (19.7) \(\mathrm{fb}^{1}\) data at the centerofmass energy of 8 TeV for ATLAS (CMS), the 95\(\%\) confidence level (C.L.) upper limits have been found to be \({ Br t\rightarrow u) \le 4.5 5.5)\times 10^{3}}\) [42] and \({ Br t\rightarrow ch) \le 4.6 4.0)\times 10^{3}}\) [48]. In addition to the direct collider measurements, indirect constraints on the anomalous tqh vertex can be obtained from the lowenergy measurements in flavor mixing processes, like, for example, the neutral meson oscillations (\({K^0}\)–\(\bar{{K}}^0\), \({B^0}\)–\(\bar{{B}}^0\) and \({D^0}\)–\(\bar{{D}}^0\)) [49, 50, 51]. Typically, at oneloop level, the \({D^0}\)–\(\bar{{D^0}}\) mixing observable can receive sizable contributions with such an nonvanishing flavor violating tqh coupling [51]. Using data observed on \({D}^0\)–\(\bar{{D^0}}\) mixing, the upper limit of \({Br t\rightarrow qh)\le 5\times 10^{3}}\) can be obtained. The tqh coupling also affects the \({ Z\rightarrow c\bar{c}}\) decay at the loop level and is therefore constrained by the electroweak precision observables of the Z boson [52]. On the phenomenological side the sensitivity to these nonstandard flavor violating couplings in the top sector has been explored in great detail. A lot of work has been done at the LHC, through top pair production [28, 53, 54, 55, 56], single top plus Higgs production [4, 57, 58], and also single top plus W production[59]. Some have been done at the \({ e^+e^}\) colliders [60, 61, 62, 63, 64], and several at the ep colliders [65, 66]. Some other related studies include, for example, Ref. [67], which derives modelindependent constraints on the tqh couplings that arise from the bounds on hadronic electric dipole moments.
In the present paper, we perform an update study of the anomalous FCNC Yukawa interactions at the ep colliders. An earlier study was performed in Ref. [65]. There we briefly reviewed the search of this anomalous couplings at the basic parton level. A comparison between different charge current (CC) and neutral current (NC) production channels was provided. We came to the conclusion that the CC induced \({e^ p\rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}}} \bar{{t}} {\rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h} \bar{{q}}\) (signal I) production with \(\gamma \gamma \), \({b}\bar{{b}}\) pair and \(\tau ^+\tau ^\) decays are the favored candidate channels. The \({H}\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) channel was chosen because of its demonstrated high importance for inclusive Higgs boson studies, with a rather clean signature at the normal LHC. However, for a Higgs boson mass around 125 GeV, \({ e^ p\rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} }\bar{{t}} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h \bar{{q}}\) production with \( h\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) decay at the ep collider, it suffers from its small branching ratio (0.23\(\%\)); thus it is not the one most favored. For the \({h}\rightarrow \tau ^+\tau ^\) channel, the \(\tau \) event reconstruction is not easy, thus we have not concentrated on this issue at this moment. In this paper we choose the \({ h\rightarrow b}\bar{{b}}\) mode which is more interesting than the other channels. In addition to signal I, we consider a second production \({ e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h b}\) (signal II). Different from signal I, the tqh couplings mainly come from the single top decays; in signal II, the couplings are induced through light quarks that are directly emitted from the protons. We present the discovery potentials from both channels and compare them with each other.
Our paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 presents a short description of the anomalous top–Higgs FCNC couplings. Section 3 presents the analysis and numerical results in detail. The subsections include signal and background analysis, simulation and the discovery potential, etc. The discovery potentials are compared with the LHC limits and the other studies. Typically, its dependence on the electron beam energy is also presented due to the cost reason. Finally, we summarize and present our conclusion in the last section.
2 The anomalous top–Higgs FCNC couplings
3 Process analysis and numerical calculations
3.1 The signal and background analysis
3.2 The simulation
3.3 The cross sections and distributions

(I) \(\kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}= \kappa _{\mathrm{tuh}}, \kappa _{\mathrm{tch}} =0 \),

(II) \(\kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}= \kappa _{\mathrm{tch}}, \kappa _{\mathrm{tuh}} =0 \),

(III) \(\kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}= \kappa _{\mathrm{tuh}} = \kappa _{\mathrm{tch}} \).
Cross sections (in units of fb) and significance depending on the cut flows for signal I \(\ e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} \bar{t} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h \bar{q} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} b\bar{b} \bar{q}\) (\(\kappa _{tuh}=0.1\)) and backgrounds at the 7 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @LHeC and 50 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @FCCeh. \({\mathcal {SS}}\) is evaluated with \(1\ ab^{1}\) integrated luminosity. Polarization effects and systematic uncertainty are not considered yet
7 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @LHeC unpol  \(\sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  \(\ge \)3 jets with 2 tagged Bjets  \(M_{\mathrm{j}_1 \mathrm{j}_2 \mathrm{j}_3}\in \) [110, 180]  \(M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [105, 130]  HT \(\in [60, 185]\) 

signal I [\(\kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  7.96  1.05  0.87  0.48  0.4 
bakt  1321  60.9  33.82  6.4  3.33 
bakh  92.27  15.8  3.27  1.32  0.82 
bakz  70.73  10.0  2.88  0.08  0.03 
bakjjj  21,730  14.7  6.87  0.70  0.22 
Total BG  –  101.4  46.84  8.5  4.4 
\(\mathcal {SS}[1 ab^{1}\)]  –  3.28  4.0  5.19  5.9 
50 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @FCCeh unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  \(\ge \)3 jets with 2 tagged Bjets  HT \(\in \) [60, 175]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [90, 125]  \( M_{\mathrm{j}_1 \mathrm{j}_2 \mathrm{j}_3}\in \) [125, 170] 

signal I [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  64.24  18.06  11.92  7.9  6.24 
bakt  10660  1296.45  328.2  74.2  34.24 
bakh  507.9  168.36  54.15  35.3  5.58 
bakz  357  104.88  25.97  1.33  0.32 
bakjjj  90,070  203.20  41.79  1.98  1.08 
Total BG  –  1772.89  450.11  112.81  41.22 
\(\mathcal {SS}\,[ 1\ ab^{1}\)]  –  13.54  17.7  23.3  30.0 
Cross sections (in units of fb) and significance depending on the cut flows for signal II \( \ e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h b \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} b\bar{b} b\) (\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tuh}}=0.1\)) and backgrounds at the 7 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @LHeC and 50 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @FCCeh. \( {\mathcal {SS}}\) is evaluated with \( 1\ ab^{1}\) integrated luminosity. Polarization effects and systematic uncertainty are not considered yet
7 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @LHeC unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  3 tagged Bjets  \(p_{{\mathrm{T}}}^{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{j}_3}} \in \) [200, 480]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [100, 140]  \( p_{\mathrm{T}}^{B_{\mathrm{j}_2}} \in \) [40, 140] 

signal II [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  0.64  0.055  \(6.5 \times 10^{3}\)  \(5.28\times 10^{3}\)  \(3.68\times 10^{3}\) 
bakt  1320  1.806  0  0  0 
bakh  92.27  0.175  \(0.55\times 10^{3}\)  \(0.554 \times 10^{3}\)  \(0.185 \times 10^{3}\) 
bakz  70.73  0.086  \(2.12 \times 10^{3}\)  \(0.283 \times 10^{3}\)  0 
bakjjj  21,730  0.261  0  0  0 
Total BG  –  2.33  \(2.67 \times 10^{3}\)  \(0.837 \times 10^{3} \)  \(0.185 \times 10^{3}\) 
\(\mathcal {SS}[1 ab^{1}\)]  –  1.14  3.1  3.71  4.02 
50 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @FCCeh unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  3 tagged Bjets  \( p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{j}_3}} \in \) [265, 455]  \( \Delta R^{\mathrm{hB}_{\mathrm{j}_3}}\) \(\in \) [2.8, 3.5]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [95, 120] 

signal II [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  3.085  0.54  0.083  0.071  0.044 
bakt  10660.0  101.1  0  0  0 
bakh  507.9  8.82  0.005  0.002  0.0007 
bakz  357.0  3.9  0.035  0.010  0 
bakjjj  90,070.0  12.61  0  0  0 
Total BG  –  126.4  0.04  0.012  0.0007 
\(\mathcal {SS}\,[ 1\ ab^{1}\)]  –  1.51  10.5  13.3  16.70 
Cross sections (in units of fb) and significance depending on the cut flows for signal I \( \ e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} \bar{t} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h \bar{q} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} b\bar{b} \bar{q}\) (\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tuh}}=0.1\)) and backgrounds at the 7 TeV \(\oplus \) 40 GeV @LHeC and 7 TeV \(\oplus \) 50 GeV @FCCeh. \( {\mathcal {SS}}\) is evaluated with \( 1\ ab^{1}\) integrated luminosity. Polarization effects and systematic uncertainty are not considered yet
7 TeV \(\oplus \) 40 GeV @LHeC unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  \(\ge \) 3 jets with 2 tagged Bjets  \( M_{\mathrm{top}}\in \) [110, 180]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [100, 130]  ht \(\in \) [85, 190] 

signal I [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  4.52  0.55  0.46  0.30  0.24 
bakt  749.7  28.0  16.8  3.95  1.92 
bakh  57.68  9.1  2.1  1.07  0.59 
bakz  45.84  6.06  1.94  0.073  0.03 
bakjjj  15,510  9.3  4.6  0.47  0.09 
Total BG  –  52.5  25.42  5.55  2.64 
\(\mathcal {SS}\,[ 1 ab^{1}\)]  –  2.4  2.9  4.0  4.52 
7 TeV \(\oplus \) 50 GeV @LHeC unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  \(\ge \) 3 jets with 2 tagged Bjets  \( M_{\mathrm{top}}\in \) [115, 180]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [105, 130]  ht \(\in \) [75, 180] 

signal I [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  6.22  0.79  0.68  0.37  0.31 
bakt  1.032  43.8  25.7  4.6  2.42 
bakh  75.25  12.5  2.8  1.1  0.66 
bakz  58.54  8.1  2.5  0.06  0.026 
bakjjj  18,730  10.5  5.4  0.34  0.075 
Total BG  –  74.8  36.3  6.1  3.2 
\(\mathcal {SS}\,[ 1 ab^{1}\)]  –  2.88  3.54  4.74  5.37 
Cross sections (in units of fb) and significance depending on the cut flows for signal I \( \ e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} \bar{t} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h \bar{q} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} b\bar{b} \bar{q}\) (\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tuh}}=0.1\)) and backgrounds at the 50 TeV \(\oplus \) 40 GeV @FCCeh and 50 TeV \(\oplus \) 50 GeV @FCCeh. \( {\mathcal {SS}}\) is evaluated with \( 100\ fb^{1}\) integrated luminosity. Polarization effects and systematic uncertainty are not considered yet
50 TeV \(\oplus \) 40 GeV @FCCeh unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  \(\ge \)3 jets with 2 tagged Bjets  ht \(\in \) [75, 165]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [90, 125]  \( M_{\mathrm{top}}\in \) [120, 170] 

signal I [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  44.57  11.9  8.2  5.41  4.56 
bakt  7393  762.9  207.8  45.9  25.0 
bakh  377.4  114.0  39.3  25.3  5.2 
bakz  267.8  71.9  19.4  0.9  0.26 
bakjjj  68,370  127.6  32.7  2.3  0.96 
Total BG  –  1076.4  299.2  74.4  31.42 
\(\mathcal {SS}[1\ ab^{1}\)]  –  11.5  15.0  19.6  25.1 
50 TeV \(\oplus \) 50 GeV @FCCeh unpol  \( \sigma _{\mathrm{ini}}\) Basic cuts  \(\ge \)3 jets with 2 tagged Bjets  ht \(\in \) [80, 185]  \( M_{\mathrm{h}}\in \) [90, 125]  \( M_{\mathrm{top}}\in [125, 170]\) 

signal [\( \kappa _{\mathrm{tqh}}=0.1\)]  54.67  15.18  10.4  6.8  6.0 
bakt  9074  1028.6  311.8  72.1  43.2 
bakh  445.5  141.9  52.0  34.3  7.43 
bakz  314.3  89.0  24.9  1.2  0.43 
bakjjj  79,610  170.5  42.2  2.2  1.1 
Total BG  –  1430.0  430.9  109.8  52.16 
\(\mathcal {SS}\,[ 1\ ab^{1}\)]  –  12.7  15.8  20.4  25.8 
3.4 The selections and discovery potential at the ep colliders
3.4.1 The comparison between the two signal channels
The optimized selections for signal II include \( p_\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{j}_{ (2,3)}}}\), \( \Delta R^{\mathrm{hB}_{\mathrm{j}_{3}}}\) and mass windows of \( M_\mathrm{h}\). The cut flow dependence is shown in Table 2. Compared with signal I, signal II has one clear advantage, say, the three tagged Bjets selection can reduce the backgrounds strongly. However, its small production rate indicates its disadvantage, only 0.64 (3.085) fb at the LHeC FCCeh) after the basic sample selections. Considering \( 1\ ab^{1}\) luminosity, the significance is calculated to be 4.02 (16.7), not small, showing good potential in the measurement of the anomalous tqh couplings. Actually, soon we may find its discovery potential is already comparable to (at the LHeC) or even better than (at the FCCeh) signal I.
In Fig. 6, the upper limit on \( Br t\rightarrow uh)\) at 99.99, 99.73, 95.40, 68.27\(\%\) C.L. as a function of the integrated luminosity at the 7 (50) TeV LHeC (FCCeh) with 60 GeV electron beam are plotted. The dashed blue, solid black, dotted violet and dashdotted red curves present 1\(\sigma \), 2\(\sigma \), 3\(\sigma \) and 5\(\sigma \) significance, respectively. The first two figures are for signal I and the second two are for signal II. Our conclusion is that, for signal I, at the high luminosity (up to 1\( ab^{1}\)) ep colliders where the electrons have a polarization of \(80\%\) and the electron energy is typical 60 GeV, the 1\(\sigma \), 2\(\sigma \), 3\(\sigma \) and 5\(\sigma \) upper limits on \( Br t\rightarrow uh)\) are \(0.075\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.14\times 10^{3}\)), \(0.15\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.29\times 10^{3}\)), \(0.22\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.43\times 10^{3}\)) and \(0.38\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.72\times 10^{3}\)) at the LHeC (FCCeh). For signal II, the boundaries become \(0.064\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.097\times 10^{3}\)), \(0.15\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.22\times 10^{3}\)), \(0.26\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.35\times 10^{3}\)) and \(0.53\times 10^{2}\) (\(0.68\times 10^{3}\)) at the LHeC (FCCeh), respectively. We can see that signal II can even have better potential than signal I at the FCCeh due to its clean environment. Notice here we use \(5\%\) systematic uncertainty for background yields only at both ep colliders.
3.4.2 The comparison with the other limits
Here we compare our discovery potential with the other studies. Some references present limit on \( Br(t\rightarrow qh)\). For example, Ref. [63] probe the observability of the topHiggs FCNC couplings through the process \( e^e^+\rightarrow t(\rightarrow \ell \nu \ell b)\bar{t}(\rightarrow qh)\). It is shown that the branching ratio can be probed down to \(1.12\times 10^{3}\) at \(95\%\) C.L. at the centerofmass energy of 500 GeV with the integrated luminosity of 3000 \( fb^{1}\). This limit can be further improved when the polarizations of both lepton beams are included [64]. Reference [59], present the study through the process \(pp \rightarrow W^(\rightarrow \ell ^ \bar{\nu }\ell )h(\rightarrow \gamma \gamma )j\), and show that the branching ratios \( Br(t\rightarrow qh)\) can be probed to \(0.16\%\) at \(3\sigma \) level at 14 TeV LHC with an integrated luminosity of 3000 \( fb^{1}\). Through some other channels, this limit can actually be pushed to even lower values. As proposed in [100], at the Highluminosity(HL)LHC, the \(95\%\) CL upper limit \( Br(t\rightarrow qh)\) can be estimated up to the order of \(2\sim 5\times 10^{4}\) by a scaling with the luminosity, based on the studies in Ref. [54].
Some references present the limits on \( Br(t\rightarrow uh)\), which we can easily compare with. As shown in Ref. [56], through \( t\bar{t}\rightarrow W^{+}b + qh \rightarrow \ell ^+\nu b + \gamma \gamma q \) channel at the LHC, the branching ratios \( Br(t\rightarrow uh)\) can be respectively probed to \(0.23\%\) at \(3\sigma \) level at 14 TeV LHC with \( L=3000\ fb^{1}\). This limits can be improved in Ref. [57] where the authors apply a development version of HEPTopTagger algorithm. They found that, through multilepton searches (\( th\rightarrow \ell ^+\nu b+\ell ^+\ell ^ X\)), vector boson plus Higgs search (\( th\rightarrow \ell ^+\nu b + \tau ^+\tau ^\)) and fully hadronic search (\( th\rightarrow jjb+b\bar{b}\)), the limits are found to be \(0.22\%\), \(0.15\%\) and \(0.36\%\) by using \( 100\ fb^{1}\) of 13 TeV data.
3.4.3 The sensitivity dependence on the electron beam energy change
In the above analysis we explore the potentials at the high luminosity up to 1 \(ab^{1}\)) ep colliders where the electrons have a polarization of \(80\%\). The electron energy is typical 60 GeV, but lower energies are interesting due to the cost. Therefore, we give an estimate of how our sensitivity (taking signal I as an example) would change when we reduce the electron beam energy from 60 to 50 GeV or even 40 GeV. In Table 3 we present the results at the 40 and 50 GeV LHeC. Compared with the 60 GeV LHeC, the significance is reduced from 5.9 to 5.37 (4.52) for 50 (40) GeV.
The same comparison is done in Table 4 for the 40 and 50 GeV FCCeh. Compared with the 60 GeV FCCeh, the significance is reduced from 30.0 to 25.8 (25.1) for 50 (40) GeV FCCeh with 1 \( ab^{1}\)). A similar ratio is plotted in Fig. 8. It is found that when the energy of electron beam is reduced from 60 to 50 (40) GeV, the discovery potential is reduced about 16.8 (19.8)% correspondingly.
4 Conclusion
In this paper we present an updated analysis on searches for the anomalous flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) Yukawa interactions between the top quark, the Higgs boson, and either an up or charm quark (\( tqh, q=u, c\)). We probe the observability of the FCNC top–Higgs couplings through the process \( e^ p\rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} \bar{t} \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h \bar{q}\) (signal I) and \( \ e^ p \rightarrow \nu _{\mathrm{e}} h b\) (signal II) at the ep colliders where the Higgs boson decays to a \( b\bar{b}\) pair. We perform the results from the cutandcount based method. Our results show that with \(80\%\) electron polarization, 1 \( ab^{1}\) integrated luminosity, and \( 5\%\) system uncertainty from background yields only, the \(3\sigma \) limits are \(0.22\times 10^{2}\) at the 7 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @LHeC and \(3.5\times 10^{4}\) at the 50 TeV \(\oplus \) 60 GeV @FCCeh. These limits are, on one hand, better than the current limits for the experiments; on the other hand, comparable to or even better than some phenomenological studies at the other colliders. We also give an estimate of how our sensitivity (taking signal I as an example) would change when we reduce the electron beam energy from 60 to 50 GeV or even 40 GeV due to the cost. The conclusion is that the discovery potential is reduced to \(8.7\%\) (\(29.4\%\)) if the electron beam changes from 60 to 50 (40) GeV at the 7 TeV LHeC, and \(16.8\%\) (\(19.8\%\)) at the 50 TeV FCCeh. In summary, we give a detailed overview on the search potential for the anomalous top–Higgs couplings at the ep colliders including the LHeC as well as the FCCeh.
Notes
Acknowledgements
The author H. Sun would like to express gratitude for the comments and encouragements from the LHeC/FCCeh (Top and Higgs and BSM) working Group. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 11675033), by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant no. DUT15LK22 and Grant no. DUT18LK27).
References
 1.G. Aad et al., [ATLAS Collaboration], Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 1–29 (2012). arXiv:1207.7214
 2.S. Chatrchyan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012). arXiv:1207.7235
 3.S. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, L. Maiani, Weak interactions with Lepton–Hadron symmetry. Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285 (1970)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 4.AguilarSaavedra, Top flavorchanging neutral interactions: theoretical expectations and experimental detection. Acta Phys. Polon. B 35, 2695 (2004). arXiv:hepph/0409342
 5.C.S. Li, R.J. Oakes, J.M. Yang, Rare decay of the top quark in the minimal supersymmetric model. Phys. Rev. D 49, 293 (1994) (erratumibid. D56, 3156, 1997)Google Scholar
 6.G.M. de Divitiis, R. Petronzio, L. Silvestrini, Flavourchanging top decays in supersymmetric extensions of the standard model. Nucl. Phys. B 504, 45 (1997). arXiv:hepph/9704244 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 7.J.L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos, R. Rangarajan, New supersymmetric contributions to \(t\rightarrow cV\). Phys. Rev. D 56, 3100 (1997). arXiv:hepph/9702350 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.J.M. Yang, B.L. Young, X. Zhang, Flavorchanging top quark decays in Rparity violating SUSY. Phys. Rev. D 58, 055001 (1998). arXiv:hepph/9705341 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 9.J. Guasch, J. Sola, FCNC top quark decays: a door to SUSY physics in high luminosity colliders? Nucl. Phys. B 562, 3 (1999). arXiv:hepph/9906268 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 10.G. Eilam, A. Gemintern, T. Han, J.M. Yang, X. Zhang, Topquark rare decay \(t\rightarrow c h\) in Rparityviolating SUSY. Phys. Lett. B 510, 227–235 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0102037 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 11.D. Delepine, S. Khalil, Top flavour violating decays in general supersymmetric models. Phys. Lett. B 599, 62 (2004). arXiv:hepph/0406264 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 12.J.J. Liu, C.S. Li, L.L. Yang, L.G. Jin, \(t\rightarrow cV\) via SUSY FCNC couplings in the unconstrained MSSM. Phys. Lett. B 599, 92 (2004). arXiv:hepph/0406155 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 13.J.J. Cao, G. Eilam, M. Frank, K. Hikasa, G.L. Liu, I. Turan, J.M. Yang, SUSYinduced FCNC topquark processes at the Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. D 75, 075021 (2007). arXiv:hepph/0702264 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.D. LopezVal, J. Guasch, J. Sola, Single topquark production by strong and electroweak supersymmetric flavorchanging interactions at the LHC. JHEP 0712, 054 (2007). arXiv:0710.0587 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 15.J. Cao, Z. Heng, L. Wu, J.M. Yang, Rparity violating effects in top quark FCNC productions at LHC. Phys. Rev. D 79, 054003 (2009). arXiv:0812.1698 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 16.A. Dedes, M. Paraskevas, J. Rosiek, K. Suxho, K. Tamvakis, Rare topquark decays to Higgs boson in MSSM. JHEP 1411, 137 (2014). arXiv:1409.6546 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 17.C. Junjie, C. Han, L. Wu, J.M. Yang, M. Zhang, SUSY induced top quark FCNC decay \(t\rightarrow cH\) after Run I of LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 74(9), 3058 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.T.J. Gao, T.F. Feng, F. Sun, H.B. Zhang, S.M. Zhao, Top quark decay to a 125GeV Higgs in BLMSSM. Chin. Phys. C 39(7), 073101 (2015). arXiv:1404.3289 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.J.L. DiazCruz, H.J. He, C.P. Yuan, Soft supersymmetry breaking, scalar topcharm mixing and Higgs signatures. Phys. Lett. B 530, 179 (2002). arXiv:hepph/0103178 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 20.B. Grzadkowski, J.F. Gunion, P. Krawczyk, Neutral current flavor changing decays for the \(Z\) boson and the top quark in two Higgs doublet models. Phys. Lett. B 268, 106 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 21.G. Eilam, J.L. Hewett, A. Soni, Rare decays of the top quark in the standard and two Higgs doublet models. Phys. Rev. D 44, 1473–1484 (1991) (erratumibid. D59, 039901, 1999)Google Scholar
 22.D. Atwood, L. Reina, A. Soni, Phenomenology of two Higgs doublet models with flavor changing neutral currents. Phys. Rev. D 55, 3156 (1997). arXiv:hepph/9609279 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 23.S. Bejar, J. Guasch, J. Sola, Loop induced flavor changing neutral decays of the top quark in a general twoHiggsdoublet model. Nucl. Phys. B 600, 21 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0011091 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 24.S. Bejar, J. Guasch, J. Sola, Higgs boson flavorchanging neutral decays into top quark in a general twoHiggsdoublet model. Nucl. Phys. B 675, 270–288 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0307144 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 25.I. Baum, G. Eilam, S. BarShalom, Scalar FCNC and rare top decays in a two Higgs doublet model for the top. Phys. Rev. D 77, 113008 (2008). arXiv:hepph/0802.2622 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.C. Kao, H.Y. Cheng, W.S. Hou, J. Sayre, Top decays with flavor changing neutral Higgs interactions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 716, 225–230 (2012). arXiv:1112.1707 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 27.K.F. Chen, W.S. Hou, C. Kao, M. Kohda, When the Higgs meets the top: search for \(t\rightarrow ch^0\) at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 725, 378 (2013). arXiv:1304.8037 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 28.D. Atwood, S.K. Gupta, A. Soni, Constraining the flavor changing Higgs couplings to the topquark at the LHC. JHEP 1410, 57 (2014). arXiv:1305.2427 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 29.K.F. Chen, W.S. Hou, C. Kao, M. Kohda, When the Higgs meets the top: search for \(t\rightarrow ch^0\) at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 725, 378–381 (2013). arXiv:1304.8037 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 30.H.J. He, S. Kanemura, C.P. Yuan, Determining the chirality of Yukawa couplings via single charged Higgs boson production in polarized photon collision. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 101803 (2002). arXiv:hepph/0203090 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.H.J. He, S. Kanemura, C.P. Yuan, Single charged Higgs boson production in polarized photon collision and the probe of new physics. Phys. Rev. D 68, 075010 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0209376 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 32.B. Altunkaynak, H. WeiShu, C. Kao, M. Kohda, B. McCoy, Flavor changing heavy Higgs interactions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 751, 135–142 (2015). arXiv:1506.00651 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 33.H.J. He, C.P. Yuan, New method for detecting charged (pseudo)scalars at colliders. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 28 (1999). arXiv:hepph/9810367 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 34.A. Azatov, M. Toharia, L. Zhu, Higgs mediated FCNC’s in warped extra dimensions. Phys. Rev. D 80, 035016 (2009). arXiv:0906.1990 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 35.S. Casagrande, F. Goertz, U. Haisch, M. Neubert, T. Pfoh, The custodial Randall–Sundrum model: from precision tests to Higgs physics. JHEP 1009, 014 (2010). arXiv:1005.4315 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 36.R. Gaitan, O. Miranda, L. CabralRosetti, Rare top quark and Higgs boson decays in alternative leftright symmetric models. Phys. Rev. D 72, 034018 (2005). arXiv:hepph/0410268 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 37.R. Gaitan, O. Miranda, L. CabralRosetti, Rare top quark decays in extended models. AIP Conf. Proc. 857, 179 (2006). arXiv:hepph/0604170 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 38.B. Yang, N. Liu, J. Han, Top quark FCNC decay to 125GeV Higgs boson in the littlest Higgs model with Tparity. Phys. Rev. D 89(3), 034020 (2014). arXiv:1308.4852 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 39.F. del Aguila, J.A. AguilarSaavedra, R. Miquel, Constraints on top couplings in models with exotic quarks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1628 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 40.J.A. AguilarSaavedra, B.M. Nobre, Rare top decays \(t\rightarrow c\gamma \), \(t\rightarrow cg\) and CKM unitarity. Phys. Lett. B 553, 251 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0210360 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 41.J. AguilarSaavedra, Effects of mixing with quark singlets. Phys. Rev. D 67, 035003 (2003). arXiv:hepph/0210112 (erratumibid. D69, 099901, 2004)
 42.G. Aad et al., [ATLAS Collaboration], Search for top quark decays \(t\rightarrow qH\) with \(H\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) using the ATLAS detector. JHEP 06, 008 (2014). CERNPHEP2014036, arXiv:1403.6293
 43.[ATLAS Collaboration], Search for top quark decays \(t\rightarrow qH\) with \(H\rightarrow \gamma \gamma \), in \(\sqrt{13}=13\ TeV\) pp collisions using the ATLAS detector. CERNEP2017118, arXiv:1707.01404
 44.[CMS Collaboration], Searches for heavy Higgs bosons in twoHiggsdoublet models and for \(t\rightarrow ch\) decay using multilepton and diphoton final states in pp collisions at 8 TeV. Phys. Rev. D 90, 112013 (2014). CMSHIG13025, CERNPHEP2014239, arXiv:1410.2751
 45.[CMS Collaboration], Combined multilepton and diphoton limit on t to cH. CMSPASHIG13034Google Scholar
 46.G. Aad et al., [ATLAS Collaboration], Search for flavourchanging neutral current top quark decays \(t\rightarrow Hq\) in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=8\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 1512, 061 (2015)Google Scholar
 47.CMS Collaboration, [CMS Collaboration], Search for the flavorchanging neutral current decay \(t\rightarrow qH\) where the Higgs decays to b\(\bar{b}\) pairs at \(\sqrt{s}=8\) TeV. CMSPASTOP14020Google Scholar
 48.V. Khachatryan et al., [CMS Collaboration], Search for top quark decays via Higgsbosonmediated flavorchanging neutral currents in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=8\) TeV. JHEP 02, 079 (2017). CMSTOP13017, CERNEP2016208. arXiv:1610.04857
 49.M. Bona et al., [UTfit Collaboration], Modelindependent constraints on \(\Delta F\)=2 operators and the scale of new physics. JHEP 0803, 049 (2008). arXiv:0707.0636
 50.G. Blankenburg, J. Ellis, G. Isidori, Flavourchanging decays of a 125 GeV Higgslike particle. Phys. Lett. B 712, 386 (2012). arXiv:1202.5704 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 51.J.I. Aranda, A. CorderoCid, F. RamirezZavaleta, J.J. Toscano, E.S. Tututi, Higgs mediated flavor violating top quark decays \(t\rightarrow u_i H\), \(u_i \gamma \), \(u_i\gamma \gamma \), and the process \(\gamma \gamma \rightarrow tc\) in effective theories. Phys. Rev. D 81, 077701 (2010). arXiv:0911.2304 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 52.F. Larios, R. Martinez, M.A. Perez, Constraints on top quark FCNC from electroweak precision measurements. Phys. Rev. D 72, 057504 (2005). arXiv:hepph/0412222 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 53.J.A. AguilarSaavedra, G.C. Branco, Probing top flavor changing neutral scalar couplings at the CERN LHC. Phys. Lett. B 495, 347 (2000). arXiv:hepph/0004190 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 54.N. Craig, J.A. Evans, R. Gray, M. Park, S. Somalwar, S. Thomas, M. Walker, Searching for \(t\rightarrow ch\) with multileptons. Phys. Rev. D 86, 075002 (2012). arXiv:1207.6794 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 55.A. Kobakhidze, L. Wu, J. Yue, Anomalous topHiggs couplings and top polarisation in single top and higgs associated production at the LHC. JHEP 1410, 100 (2014). arXiv:1406.1961 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 56.L. Wu, Enhancing thj production from topHiggs FCNC couplings. JHEP 1502, 061 (2015). arXiv:1407.6113 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 57.A. Greljo, J.F. Kamenik, J. Kopp, Disentangling flavor violation in the tophiggs sector at the LHC. JHEP 1407, 046 (2014). arXiv:1404.1278 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 58.S. Khatibi, M.M. Najafabadi, Probing the anomalous FCNC interactions in topHiggs final state and charge ratio approach. Phys. Rev. D 89, 054011 (2014). arXiv:1402.3073
 59.Y.B. Liu, Z.J. Xiao, Searches for topHiggs FCNC couplings via Whj signal with \(h \rightarrow \gamma \gamma \) at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 94, 054018 (2016). arXiv:1605.01179 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 60.T. Han, J. Jiang, M. Sher, Search for \(t\rightarrow ch\) at \(e^+e^\) linear colliders. Phys. Lett. B 516, 337 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0106277 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 61.T. Behnke et al., The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report—Volume 1: Executive Summary, ILCREPORT2013040. arXiv:1306.6327
 62.M. Aicheler et al., A MultiTeV Linear Collider Based on CLIC Technology: CLIC Conceptual Design Report, CERN2012007. https://doi.org/10.5170/CERN2012007
 63.H. Hesari, H. Khanpour, M.M. Najafabadi, Direct and indirect searches for topHiggs FCNC couplings. Phys. Rev. D 92(11), 113012 (2015). arXiv:1508.07579 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 64.B. Melić, M. Patra, Exploring the topHiggs FCNC couplings at polarized linear colliders with top spin observables. JHEP 01, 048 (2017). arXiv:1610.02983 ADSGoogle Scholar
 65.W. Liu, H. Sun, X.J. Wang, X. Luo, Probing the anomalous FCNC topHiggs Yukawa couplings at the large hadron electron collider. Phys. Rev. D 92, 074015 (2015). arXiv:1507.03264 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 66.X.J. Wang, H. Sun, X. Luo, Searches for the anomalous FCNC topHiggs couplings with polarized electron beam at the LHeC. Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017, 4693213 (2017). arXiv:1703.02691 Google Scholar
 67.M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, Searching for \(t\rightarrow c(u)h\) with dipole moments. JHEP 1406, 033 (2014). arXiv:1404.4873 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 68.C.S. Li, R.J. Oakes, T.C. Yuan, QCD corrections to \(t\rightarrow W^+b\). Phys. Rev. D 43, 3759–3762 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 69.W.S. Hou, Tree level \(t \rightarrow ch\) or \(h\rightarrow t{\bar{c}}\) decays. Phys. Lett. B 296, 179–184 (1992)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 70.T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes with FeynArts 3. Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418–431 (2001). arXiv:hepph/0012260 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 71.T. Hahn, Automatic loop calculations with FeynArts, FormCalc, and LoopTools. Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 89, 231–236 (2000). arXiv:hepph/0005029 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 72.S. Agrawal, T. Hahn, E. Mirabella, FormCalc 7. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 368, 012054 (2012). arXiv:1112.0124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 73.T. Hahn, M. PerezVictoria, Automatized one loop calculations in fourdimensions and Ddimensions. Comput. Phys. Commun. 118, 153–165 (1999). arXiv:hepph/9807565 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 74.C. Zhang, F. Maltoni, Topquark decay into Higgs boson and a light quark at nexttoleading order in QCD. Phys. Rev. D 88, 054005 (2013). arXiv:1305.7386 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 75.J. Drobnak, S. Fajfer, J.F. Kamenik, Flavor changing neutral coupling mediated radiative top quark decays at nexttoleading order in QCD. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 252001 (2010). arXiv:1004.0620 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 76.J.J. Zhang, C.S. Li, J. Gao, H. Zhang, Z. Li, C.P. Yuan, T.C. Yuan, Nexttoleading order QCD corrections to the top quark decay via modelindependent FCNC couplings. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 072001 (2009). arXiv:0810.3889 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 77.M. Klein, The large hadron electron collider project. Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on DeepInelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (DIS 2009), Madrid, 26–30 April 2009. arXiv:0908.2877
 78.J.L. Abelleira Fernandez, et al., [LHeC Study Group Collaboration], A large hadron electron collider at CERN: report on the physics and design concepts for machine and detector. J. Phys. G 39, 075001 (2012). arXiv:1206.2913
 79.O. Bruening, M. Klein, The large hadron electron collider. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28(16), 1330011 (2013). arXiv:1305.2090 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 80.M. Klein, LHeC Detector Design, 25th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering, Birmingham (2017). https://indico.cern.ch/event/568360/contributions/2523637/
 81.F. Zimmermann, M. Benedikt, D. Schulte, J. Wenninger, Challenges for highest energy circular colliders, IPAC2014MOXAA01. Proceedings of the 5th International Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC 2014), Dresden, 15–20 June 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
 82.M. Klein, Deep inelastic scattering at the energy frontier. Ann. Phys. 528, 138–144 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 83.M. Lindner, F.S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, C.E. Yaguna, Left–right symmetry and lepton number violation at the large hadron electron collider. JHEP 06, 140 (2016). arXiv:1604.08596
 84.S. Antusch, E. Cazzato, O. Fischer, Sterile neutrino searches at future \(e^e^+\), pp, and \(e^p\) colliders. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32(14), 1750078 (2017). arXiv:1612.02728 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 85.S. Mondal, S.K. Rai, Probing the heavy neutrinos of inverse seesaw model at the LHeC. Phys. Rev. D 94, 033008 (2016). arXiv:1605.04508 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 86.Y.L. Tang, C. Zhang, S. Zhu, Invisible Higgs decay at the LHeC. Phys. Rev. D94(1), 011702 (2016). arXiv:1508.01095 ADSGoogle Scholar
 87.B. Coleppa, M. Kumar, S. Kumar, B. Mellado, Measuring CP nature of topHiggs couplings at the future large hadron electron collider. Phys. Lett. B770, 335–335 (2017). arXiv:1702.03426 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 88.H. Sun, X. Luo, W. Wei, T. Liu, Searching for the doublycharged Higgs bosons in the Georgi–Machacek model at the electron–proton colliders. Phys. Rev. D 96, 095003 (2017). arXiv:1710.06284 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 89.H. Denizli, A. Senol, A. Yilmaz, I.T. Cakir, H. Karadeniz, O. Cakir, Top quark FCNC couplings at future circular hadron electron colliders. Phys. Rev. D 96, 015024 (2017). arXiv:1701.06932 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 90.[ATLAS Collaboration], Performance and Calibration of the JetFitterCharm Algorithm for cJet Identification, ATLPHYSPUB2015001Google Scholar
 91.A. Alloul, N.D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, FeynRules 2.0—a complete toolbox for treelevel phenomenology. Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250–2300 (2014). arXiv:1310.1921 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 92.C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, T. Reiter, UFO the universal FeynRules output. Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201–1214 (2012). arXiv:1108.2040 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 93.J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, M. Zaro, The automated computation of treelevel and nexttoleading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP 1407, 079 (2014). arXiv:1405.0301 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 94.T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. JHEP 0605, 026 (2006). arXiv:hepph/0603175
 95.J. de Favereau et al., [DELPHES 3 Collaboration], DELPHES 3. A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment. JHEP 1402, 057 (2014). arXiv:1307.6346
 96.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012). arXiv:1111.6097 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 97.M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The anti\(k(t)\) jet clustering algorithm. JHEP 0804, 063 (2008). arXiv:0802.1189 ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 98.R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data. Nucl. Phys. B 867, 244–289 (2013). arXiv:1207.1303 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 99.C.S. Deans, Progress in the NNPDF global analysis. Proceedings of the 48th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions: La Thuile, Italy, 9–16 March 2013, pp. 353–356 (2013). arXiv:1304.2781
 100.K. Agashe et al. [Top Quark Working Group Collaboration], arXiv:1311.2028
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP^{3}