CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-14-007 ; CERN-EP-2016-207
Search for anomalous Wtb couplings and flavour-changing neutral currents in $t$-channel single top quark production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}= $ 7 and 8 TeV
JHEP 02 (2017) 028
Abstract: Single top quark events produced in the $t$ channel are used to set limits on anomalous Wtb couplings and to search for top quark flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) interactions. The data taken with the CMS detector at the LHC in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV correspond to integrated luminosities of 5.0 and 19.7 fb$^{-1}$, respectively. The analysis is performed using events with one muon and two or three jets. A Bayesian neural network technique, used to discriminate between the signal and backgrounds, is found to be consistent with the standard model prediction. The 95% confidence level (CL) exclusion limits on anomalous right-handed vector, and left- and right-handed tensor Wtb couplings are measured to be $ |f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}| < 0.16$, $|f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}| < 0.05 $, and $ -0.049 < f_{\rm T}^{\rm R} < 0.048 $, respectively. For the FCNC couplings $\kappa_{\rm tug}$ and $\kappa_{\rm tcg}$, the 95% CL upper limits on coupling strengths are $|\kappa_{\rm tug}|/\Lambda < 4.1 \times 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{TeV^{-1}}$ and $|\kappa_{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda < 1.8 \times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{TeV^{-1}}$, where $\Lambda$ is the scale for new physics, and correspond to upper limits on the branching fractions of $ 2.0\times10^{-5} $ and $ 4.1\times10^{-4} $ for the decays $ \rm t\rightarrow ug $ and $ \rm t\rightarrow cg $, respectively.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The distributions of the multijet BNN discriminant used for the QCD multijet background rejection (left) and the reconstructed transverse W boson mass (right) from data (points) and the predicted backgrounds from simulation (filled histograms) for $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
The distributions of the multijet BNN discriminant used for the QCD multijet background rejection from data (points) and the predicted backgrounds from simulation (filled histograms) for $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
The distributions of the multijet BNN discriminant used for the reconstructed transverse W boson mass from data (points) and the predicted backgrounds from simulation (filled histograms) for $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Comparison of experimental with simulated data of the BNNs input variables $\cos(\theta _{\mu ,\rm {\rm j_L}})|_{\rm top}$, $\eta (\rm j_L)$, $H_{\rm T}(\rm j_1, j_2)$, and $M(\rm W,\rm {b_1})$. The variables are described in Table 2. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties. Plots are for the $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV data set.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Comparison of experimental with simulated data of the BNNs input variable $\cos(\theta _{\mu ,\rm {\rm j_L}})|_{\rm top}$. The variable is described in Table 2. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties. Plots are for the $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV data set.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Comparison of experimental with simulated data of the BNNs input variable $\eta (\rm j_L)$. The variable is described in Table 2. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties. Plots are for the $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV data set.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Comparison of experimental with simulated data of the BNNs input variable $H_{\rm T}(\rm j_1, j_2)$. The variable is described in Table 2. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties. Plots are for the $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV data set.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Comparison of experimental with simulated data of the BNNs input variable $M(\rm W,\rm {b_1})$. The variable is described in Table 2. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties. Plots are for the $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV data set.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Comparison of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data and simulation using the SM BNN discriminant in three separate signal regions of two jets with one b-tagged (2 jets, 1 tag) (upper), three jets with one of them b-tagged (3 jets, 1 tag) (middle left), and three jets with two of them b-tagged (3 jets, 2 tags) (middle right), and in ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ (4 jets, 2 tags) (lower left) and W+jets (no b-tagged jets) (lower right) background control regions (CR). The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Comparison of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data and simulation using the SM BNN discriminant in the two jets with one b-tagged (2 jets, 1 tag) background control region (CR). The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Comparison of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data and simulation using the SM BNN discriminant in the three jets with one of them b-tagged (3 jets, 1 tag) background control region (CR). The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Comparison of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data and simulation using the SM BNN discriminant in the three jets with two of them b-tagged (3 jets, 2 tags) (middle right) background control region (CR). The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Comparison of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data and simulation using the SM BNN discriminant in the ${\mathrm{ t } {}\mathrm{ \bar{t} } }$ (4 jets, 2 tags) background control region (CR). The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-e:
Comparison of $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8 TeV data and simulation using the SM BNN discriminant in the W+jets (no b-tagged jets) background control region (CR). The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4:
The SM BNN discriminant distributions after the statistical analysis and evaluation of all the uncertainties. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The left (right) plot corresponds to $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 (8) TeV .

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
The SM BNN discriminant distribution at $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 TeV after the statistical analysis and evaluation of all the uncertainties. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
The SM BNN discriminant distribution at $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV after the statistical analysis and evaluation of all the uncertainties. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Distributions of the Wtb BNN discriminants from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenarios $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm V}^{\rm R})$ (top), $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm L})$ (middle), and $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$ (bottom). The plots on the left (right) correspond to $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 (8) TeV. The Wtb BNNs are trained to separate SM left-handed interactions from one of the anomalous interactions. In each plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Distribution of the Wtb BNN discriminant at $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 TeV from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenario $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm V}^{\rm R})$. In the plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Distribution of the Wtb BNN discriminant at $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenario $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm V}^{\rm R})$. In the plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Distribution of the Wtb BNN discriminant at $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 TeV from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenario $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm L})$. In the plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Distribution of the Wtb BNN discriminant at $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenario $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm L})$. In the plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-e:
Distribution of the Wtb BNN discriminant at $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 TeV from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenario$(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$. In the plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-f:
Distribution of the Wtb BNN discriminant at $\sqrt {s}=$ 8 TeV from data (points) and simulation (filled histograms) for the scenario$(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$. In the plot, the expected distribution with the corresponding anomalous coupling set to 1.0 is shown by the solid curve. The lower part of the plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV observed and expected exclusion limits in the two-dimensional planes $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $| f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}| )$ (top-left), $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $| f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}| )$ (top-right), and $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$ (bottom) at 68% and 95% CL.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV observed and expected exclusion limits in the two-dimensional plane $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $| f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}| )$ at 68% and 95% CL.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV observed and expected exclusion limits in the two-dimensional plane $(f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $| f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}| )$ at 68% and 95% CL.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV observed and expected exclusion limits in the two-dimensional plane $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$ at 68% and 95% CL.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV results from the three-dimensional variation of the couplings of $f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R}$ (left), and $f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R}$ (right) in the form of observed and expected exclusion limits at 68% and 95% CL in the two-dimension planes $(| f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}| $, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$ (left) and $(| f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}| $, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$ (right).

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV result from the three-dimensional variation of the couplings of $f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R}$ in the form of observed and expected exclusion limits at 68% and 95% CL in the two-dimension plane $(| f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}| $, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Combined $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 and 8 TeV result from the three-dimensional variation of the couplings of $f_{\rm V}^{\rm L}$, $f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}$, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R}$ in the form of observed and expected exclusion limits at 68% and 95% CL in the two-dimension plane $(| f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}| $, $f_{\rm T}^{\rm R})$.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Representative Feynman diagrams for the FCNC processes.

png pdf
Figure 9:
The FCNC BNN discriminant distributions when the BNN is trained to distinguish $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ (upper) or $\rm t\rightarrow cg$ (lower) processes as signal from the SM processes as background. The results from data are shown as points and the predicted distributions from the background simulations by the filled histograms. The plots on the left (right) correspond to the $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 (8) TeV data. The solid and dashed lines give the expected distributions for $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ and $\rm t\rightarrow cg$, respectively, assuming a coupling of $| \kappa _{\rm tug}| /\Lambda = 0.04\ (0.06)$ and $| \kappa _{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda = $ 0.08 (0.12) TeV$ ^{-1}$ on the left (right) plots. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
The FCNC BNN discriminant distributions when the BNN is trained to distinguish $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ (upper) or $\rm t\rightarrow cg$ (lower) processes as signal from the SM processes as background. The results from data are shown as points and the predicted distributions from the background simulations by the filled histograms. The plots on the left (right) correspond to the $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 (8) TeV data. The solid and dashed lines give the expected distributions for $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ and $\rm t\rightarrow cg$, respectively, assuming a coupling of $| \kappa _{\rm tug}| /\Lambda = 0.04\ (0.06)$ and $| \kappa _{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda = $ 0.08 (0.12) TeV$ ^{-1}$ on the left (right) plots. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
The FCNC BNN discriminant distributions when the BNN is trained to distinguish $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ (upper) or $\rm t\rightarrow cg$ (lower) processes as signal from the SM processes as background. The results from data are shown as points and the predicted distributions from the background simulations by the filled histograms. The plots on the left (right) correspond to the $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 (8) TeV data. The solid and dashed lines give the expected distributions for $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ and $\rm t\rightarrow cg$, respectively, assuming a coupling of $| \kappa _{\rm tug}| /\Lambda = 0.04\ (0.06)$ and $| \kappa _{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda = $ 0.08 (0.12) TeV$ ^{-1}$ on the left (right) plots. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
The FCNC BNN discriminant distributions when the BNN is trained to distinguish $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ (upper) or $\rm t\rightarrow cg$ (lower) processes as signal from the SM processes as background. The results from data are shown as points and the predicted distributions from the background simulations by the filled histograms. The plots on the left (right) correspond to the $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 (8) TeV data. The solid and dashed lines give the expected distributions for $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ and $\rm t\rightarrow cg$, respectively, assuming a coupling of $| \kappa _{\rm tug}| /\Lambda = 0.04\ (0.06)$ and $| \kappa _{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda = $ 0.08 (0.12) TeV$ ^{-1}$ on the left (right) plots. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
The FCNC BNN discriminant distributions when the BNN is trained to distinguish $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ (upper) or $\rm t\rightarrow cg$ (lower) processes as signal from the SM processes as background. The results from data are shown as points and the predicted distributions from the background simulations by the filled histograms. The plots on the left (right) correspond to the $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 (8) TeV data. The solid and dashed lines give the expected distributions for $\rm t\rightarrow ug$ and $\rm t\rightarrow cg$, respectively, assuming a coupling of $| \kappa _{\rm tug}| /\Lambda = 0.04\ (0.06)$ and $| \kappa _{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda = $ 0.08 (0.12) TeV$ ^{-1}$ on the left (right) plots. The lower part of each plot shows the relative difference between the data and the total predicted background. The hatched band corresponds to the total simulation uncertainty. The vertical bars represent the statistical uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Combined $\sqrt {s} =$ 7 and 8 TeV observed and expected limits for the 68% and 95% CL on the $| \kappa _{\rm tug}| /\Lambda $ and $| \kappa _{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda $ couplings.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
The predicted and observed events yields before and after the multijet BNN selection for the two data sets. The uncertainties include the estimation of the scale and parton distribution function uncertainties.

png pdf
Table 2:
Input variables for the BNNs used in the analysis. The symbol $\times $ represents the variables used for each particular BNN. The number 7 or 8 marks the variables used in just the $\sqrt {s}=$ 7 or 8 TeV analysis. The symbol "tug" marks the variables used just in the training of the tug FCNC BNN. The notations "leading" and "next-to-leading" refer to the highest-$ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ and second-highest-$ {p_{\mathrm {T}}}$ jet, respectively. The notation "best" jet is used for the jet that gives a reconstructed mass of the top quark closest to the value of 172.5 GeV , which is used in the MC simulation.

png pdf
Table 3:
One-dimensional exclusion limits obtained in different two- and three-dimensional fit scenarios. The first column shows the couplings allowed to vary in the fit, with the remaining couplings set to the SM values. The observed (expected) 95% CL limits for each of the two data sets and their combination are given in the following columns.

png pdf
Table 4:
Observed (expected) upper limits at 95% CL for the FCNC couplings and branching fractions obtained using the $\sqrt {s} = $ 7 and 8 TeV data, and their combination.
Summary
A direct search for model-independent anomalous operators in the Wtb vertex and FCNC couplings has been performed using single top quark $t$-channel production in data collected by the CMS experiment in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 7 and 8 TeV. Different possible anomalous contributions are investigated. The observed event rates are consistent with the SM prediction, and exclusion limits are extracted at 95% CL. The combined limits in three-dimensional scenarios on possible Wtb anomalous couplings are $f_{\rm V}^{\rm L} > 0.98$ for the left-handed vector coupling, $| f_{\rm V}^{\rm R}| < 0.16 $ for the right-handed vector coupling, $| f_{\rm T}^{\rm L}| <0.05$ 7 for the left-handed tensor coupling, and $ -0.049 < f_{\rm T}^{\rm R} < 0.048 $ for the right-handed tensor coupling. For FCNC couplings of the gluon to top and up quarks (tug) or top and charm quarks (tcg), the 95% CL exclusion limits on the coupling strengths are $|\kappa_{\rm tug}| /\Lambda < 4.1 \times 10^{-3}\,\mathrm{TeV^{ -1}}$ and $|\kappa_{\rm tcg}| /\Lambda < 1.8 \times 10^{-2}\,\mathrm{TeV^{ -1}}$ or, in terms of branching fractions, $\mathcal{B}(\rm t\rightarrow ug) < 2.0\times 10^{-5}$ and $\mathcal{B}(\rm t \rightarrow cg) < 4.1\times10^{-4}$.
References
1 M. Beneke et al. Top quark physics hep-ph/0003033
2 S. S. D. Willenbrock and D. A. Dicus Production of heavy quarks from W gluon fusion PRD 34 (1986) 155
3 S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani Weak interactions with lepton-hadron symmetry PRD 2 (1970) 1285
4 Particle Data Group, K. A. Olive et al. Review of Particle Physics CPC 38 (2014) 090001
5 G. Eilam, J. L. Hewett, and A. Soni Rare decays of the top quark in the standard and two Higgs doublet models PRD 44 (1991) 1473, .[Erratum: \DOI10.1103/PhysRevD.59.039901
6 D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni Probing flavor changing top-charm-scalar interactions in $ {\rm e^{+} e^{-}} $ collisions PRD 53 (1996) 1199 hep-ph/9506243
7 J. M. Yang, B.-L. Young, and X. Zhang Flavor-changing top quark decays in R-parity-violating SUSY PRD 58 (1998) 055001 hep-ph/9705341
8 Y. Grossman Phenomenology of models with more than two Higgs doublets Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 355 hep-ph/9401311
9 A. Pich and P. Tuzon Yukawa alignment in the two-Higgs-doublet model PRD 80 (2009) 091702 0908.1554
10 V. Keus, S. F. King, and S. Moretti Three-Higgs-doublet models: symmetries, potentials and Higgs boson masses JHEP 01 (2014) 052 1310.8253
11 J. L. Diaz-Cruz, R. Martinez, M. A. Perez, and A. Rosado Flavor changing radiative decay of the $ t $ quark PRD 41 (1990) 891
12 A. Arhrib and W.-S. Hou Flavor changing neutral currents involving heavy quarks with four generations JHEP 07 (2006) 009 hep-ph/0602035
13 G. C. Branco and M. N. Rebelo New physics in the flavour sector in the presence of flavour changing neutral currents PoS Corfu2012 (2013) 024 1308.4639
14 H. Georgi, L. Kaplan, D. Morin, and A. Schenk Effects of top compositeness PRD 51 (1995) 3888 hep-ph/9410307
15 G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi The strongly-interacting light Higgs JHEP 06 (2007) 045 hep-ph/0703164
16 M. K\"onig, M. Neubert, and D. M. Straub Dipole operator constraints on composite Higgs models EPJC 74 (2014) 2945 1403.2756
17 K. Agashe et al. Warped dipole completed, with a tower of Higgs bosons JHEP 06 (2015) 196 1412.6468
18 R. Contino, Y. Nomura, and A. Pomarol Higgs as a holographic pseudo-Goldstone boson Nucl. Phys. B 671 (2003) 148 hep-ph/0306259
19 J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra A minimal set of top anomalous couplings Nucl. Phys. B 812 (2009) 181 0811.3842
20 S. Willenbrock and C. Zhang Effective field theory beyond the Standard Model Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 64 (2014) 83 1401.0470
21 CDF Collaboration Search for top-quark production via flavor-changing neutral currents in $ \mathrm{W} $+1 jet events at CDF PRL 102 (2009) 151801 0812.3400
22 D0 Collaboration Search for flavor changing neutral currents via quark-gluon couplings in single top quark production using 2.3$ fb$^{-1}$ $ of $ \rm {p\bar{p}} $ collisions PLB 693 (2010) 81 1006.3575
23 ATLAS Collaboration Search for single top-quark production via flavour-changing neutral currents at 8$ TeV $ with the ATLAS detector EPJC 76 (2016) 55 1509.00294
24 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the $ t $-channel single-top-quark production cross section and of the $ |V_{\mathrm{tb}}| $ CKM matrix element in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8$ TeV $ JHEP 06 (2014) 090 CMS-TOP-12-038
1403.7366
25 CMS Collaboration Measurement of top quark polarisation in $ t $-channel single top quark production JHEP 04 (2016) 073 CMS-TOP-13-001
1511.02138
26 ATLAS Collaboration Comprehensive measurements of $ t $-channel single top-quark production cross sections at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ with the ATLAS detector PRD 90 (2014) 112006 1406.7844
27 E. Boos et al. CompHEP 4.4: automatic computations from Lagrangians to events NIMA 534 (2004) 250 hep-ph/0403113
28 R. M. N. Bayesian learning for neural networks Technical Report ISBN 0-387-94724-8, Dept. of Statistics and Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto
29 P. C. Bhat and H. B. Prosper Bayesian neural networks
30 R. M. Neal Software for flexible Bayesian modeling and Markov chain sampling Technical Report 2004-11-10, Dept. of Statistics and Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto
31 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
32 CMS Collaboration Particle--flow event reconstruction in CMS and performance for jets, taus, and $ E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\text{miss}} $ CDS
33 CMS Collaboration Commissioning of the particle--flow event reconstruction with the first LHC collisions recorded in the CMS detector CDS
34 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
35 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
36 E. E. Boos et al. Method for simulating electroweak top-quark production events in the NLO approximation: SingleTop event generator Phys. Atom. Nucl. 69 (2006) 1317
37 N. Kidonakis Next-to-next-to-leading-order collinear and soft gluon corrections for $ t $-channel single top quark production PRD 83 (2011) 091503 1103.2792
38 U. L. M. Aliev, H. Lacker et al. HATHOR: a HAdronic Top and Heavy quarks crOss section calculatoR CPC 182 (2011) 1034 1007.1327
39 P. Kant et al. HatHor for single top-quark production: Updated predictions and uncertainty estimates for single top-quark production in hadronic collisions CPC 191 (2015) 74 1406.4403
40 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX JHEP 06 (2010) 043 1002.2581
41 J. Alwall et al. MadGraph 5: going beyond JHEP 06 (2011) 128 1106.0522
42 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $ \mathcal{O}(\alpha^4_S) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
43 M. Czakon and A. Mitov Top++: a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders CPC 185 (2014) 2930 1112.5675
44 R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order CPC 182 (2011) 2388 1011.3540
45 J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis MCFM for the Tevatron and the LHC NPPS 205-206 (2010) 10 1007.3492
46 T. Sj\"ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual JHEP 05 (2006) 026 hep-ph/0603175
47 N. Kidonakis Top quark production 1311.0283
48 CMS Collaboration Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7$ TeV $ JINST 7 (2012) P10002 CMS-MUO-10-004
1206.4071
49 CMS Collaboration Single muon efficiencies in 2012 Data CDS
50 CMS Collaboration Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment JINST 8 (2013) P04013 CMS-BTV-12-001
1211.4462
51 G. Mahlon and S. J. Parke Improved spin basis for angular correlation studies in single top quark production at the Tevatron PRD 55 (1997) 7249 hep-ph/9611367
52 J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra and R. V. Herrero-Hahn Model-independent measurement of the top quark polarisation PLB 718 (2012) 983 1208.6006
53 V. D. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips Collider physics Redwood City, USA: Addison-Wesley (1987) (Frontiers In Physics, 71)(1987)
54 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the $ t $-channel single top quark production cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ PRL 107 (2011) 091802 CMS-TOP-10-008
1106.3052
55 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the single-top-quark $ t $-channel cross section in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ JHEP 12 (2012) 035 CMS-TOP-11-021
1209.4533
56 CMS Collaboration Determination of jet energy calibration and transverse momentum resolution in CMS JINST 6 (2011) P11002 CMS-JME-10-011
1107.4277
57 CMS Collaboration Jet energy resolution in CMS at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ CDS
58 CMS Collaboration Absolute calibration of the luminosity measurement at CMS: winter 2012 update CDS
59 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity based on pixel cluster counting --- Summer 2013 update
60 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ PLB 722 (2013) 5 CMS-FWD-11-001
1210.6718
61 J. Alwall, S. de Visscher, and F. Maltoni QCD radiation in the production of heavy colored particles at the LHC JHEP 02 (2009) 017 0810.5350
62 J. Gao et al. CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD PRD 89 (2014) 033009 1302.6246
63 S. Alekhin et al. The PDF4LHC Working Group interim report 1101.0536
64 CMS Collaboration Measurement of differential top-quark pair production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ EPJC 73 (2013) 2339 CMS-TOP-11-013
1211.2220
65 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the differential cross section for top quark pair production in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 8$ TeV $ EPJC 75 (2015) 542 CMS-TOP-12-028
1505.04480
66 R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples CPC 77 (1993) 219
67 W. Buchm\"uller and D. Wyler Effective lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621
68 G. L. Kane, G. A. Ladinsky, and C. P. Yuan Using the top quark for testing Standard Model polarization and CP predictions PRD 45 (1992) 124
69 D0 Collaboration Search for anomalous Wtb couplings in single top quark production PRL 101 (2008) 221801 0807.1692
70 D0 Collaboration Search for anomalous Wtb couplings in single top quark production in $ \rm {p\bar{p}} $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1.96$ TeV $ PLB 708 (2012) 21 1110.4592
71 E. Boos, V. Bunichev, L. Dudko, and M. Perfilov Modeling of anomalous Wtb interactions in single top quark events using auxiliary fields 1607.00505
72 ATLAS Collaboration Measurement of the W boson polarization in top quark decays with the ATLAS detector JHEP 06 (2012) 088 1205.2484
73 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the W-boson helicity in top-quark decays from $ t\bar{t} $ production in lepton+jets events in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7$ TeV $ JHEP 10 (2013) 167 CMS-TOP-11-020
1308.3879
74 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the W boson helicity in events with a single reconstructed top quark in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 8$ TeV $ JHEP 01 (2015) 053 CMS-TOP-12-020
1410.1154
75 J. J. Liu, C. S. Li, L. L. Yang, and L. G. Jin Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the direct top quark production via model-independent FCNC couplings at hadron colliders PRD 72 (2005) 074018 hep-ph/0508016
76 J. J. Zhang et al. Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the top quark decay via model-independent FCNC couplings PRL 102 (2009) 072001 0810.3889
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN