CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-TOP-22-005 ; CERN-EP-2023-258
Search for charged-lepton flavor violation in the production and decay of top quarks using trilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
Submitted to Phys. Rev. D
Abstract: A search is performed for charged-lepton flavor violating processes in top quark (t) production and decay. The data were collected by the CMS experiment from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. The selected events are required to contain one opposite-sign electron-muon pair, a third charged lepton (electron or muon), and at least one jet of which no more than one is associated with a bottom quark. Boosted decision trees are used to distinguish signal from background, exploiting differences in the kinematics of the final states particles. The data are consistent with the standard model expectation. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are placed in the context of effective field theory on the Wilson coefficients, which range between 0.024-0.424 TeV$^{-2}$ depending on the flavor of the associated light quark and the Lorentz structure of the interaction. These limits are converted to upper limits on branching fractions involving up (charm) quarks, $ \mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{u} $ ($ \mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{c} $), of 0.032 (0.498) $\times$10$^{-6} $, 0.022 (0.369) $\times$10$^{-6} $, and 0.012 (0.216) $\times$10$^{-6} $ for tensor-like, vector-like, and scalar-like interactions, respectively.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagrams for the signal processes that are targeted by this analysis. Both top quark decay (left) and production (middle and right) CLFV processes are shown. The CLFV interaction vertex is shown as a solid red circle to indicate that it is not allowed in the SM.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams for the signal processes that are targeted by this analysis. Both top quark decay (left) and production (middle and right) CLFV processes are shown. The CLFV interaction vertex is shown as a solid red circle to indicate that it is not allowed in the SM.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams for the signal processes that are targeted by this analysis. Both top quark decay (left) and production (middle and right) CLFV processes are shown. The CLFV interaction vertex is shown as a solid red circle to indicate that it is not allowed in the SM.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Representative Feynman diagrams for the signal processes that are targeted by this analysis. Both top quark decay (left) and production (middle and right) CLFV processes are shown. The CLFV interaction vertex is shown as a solid red circle to indicate that it is not allowed in the SM.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-e:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-f:
Distributions of the leading lepton $ \eta $ (left column) and the jet multiplicity (right column) in the nonprompt VRs. Events in the $ \mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e} $, $ \mathrm{e}\mu\ell $, and $ \mu\mu\mu $ nonprompt VRs are shown in the upper, middle, and lower row, respectively. The data are shown as filled points and the SM background predictions as histograms. The VV(V) background includes ZZ and triboson production, while the $ \mathrm{t}(\bar{\mathrm{t}})+\mathrm{X(X)} $ component includes $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{W} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{Z} $, $ {\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} \mathrm{H} $, $ \mathrm{t}\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{q} $, and smaller backgrounds containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The nonprompt background is estimated using control samples in data, while other backgrounds are estimated using MC simulation. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of the right column histograms includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3-e:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3-f:
Distributions of kinematic variables in the SR: LFV electron $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper left), LFV muon $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ (upper right), LFV $ \mathrm{e}\mu $ mass (middle left), LFV top quark mass (middle right), OSSF lepton pair mass (lower left), and b jet multiplicity (lower right). The CLFV top quark decay and production signals are shown as dotted red and solid purple lines, respectively. The original signal normalization, corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions. The last bin of all but the lower-right histogram includes the overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Distributions of the BDT discriminant targeting the CLFV top quark decay (left) and production (right) signal. Contributions from the two signal modes (production and decay) are combined within each SR and are shown as the solid red line. The pre-fit signal strength ($ \mu_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}= $ 1), corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Distributions of the BDT discriminant targeting the CLFV top quark decay (left) and production (right) signal. Contributions from the two signal modes (production and decay) are combined within each SR and are shown as the solid red line. The pre-fit signal strength ($ \mu_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}= $ 1), corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Distributions of the BDT discriminant targeting the CLFV top quark decay (left) and production (right) signal. Contributions from the two signal modes (production and decay) are combined within each SR and are shown as the solid red line. The pre-fit signal strength ($ \mu_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}= $ 1), corresponding to $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is scaled up (down) by a factor of 3 (20) for the CLFV top quark decay (production) signal for better visualization. The hatched bands indicate statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Distributions of the post-fit BDT discriminant targeting the CLFV top quark decay (left) and production (right) signal. Contributions from the two signal modes (production and decay) are combined within each SR and are shown as the solid red line. The post-fit signal strength ($ \mu_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}=\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}} $) is used to normalize the signal cross sections. The hatched bands indicate post-fit uncertainties (statistical and systematic) for the SM background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Distributions of the post-fit BDT discriminant targeting the CLFV top quark decay (left) and production (right) signal. Contributions from the two signal modes (production and decay) are combined within each SR and are shown as the solid red line. The post-fit signal strength ($ \mu_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}=\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}} $) is used to normalize the signal cross sections. The hatched bands indicate post-fit uncertainties (statistical and systematic) for the SM background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Distributions of the post-fit BDT discriminant targeting the CLFV top quark decay (left) and production (right) signal. Contributions from the two signal modes (production and decay) are combined within each SR and are shown as the solid red line. The post-fit signal strength ($ \mu_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}=\hat{\mu}_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}} $) is used to normalize the signal cross sections. The hatched bands indicate post-fit uncertainties (statistical and systematic) for the SM background predictions.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Two-dimensional 95% CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients (left) and the branching fractions (right). The observed (expected) upper limits for tensor-, vector-, and scalar-like CLFV interactions are shown in red, blue, and black solid (dotted) lines, respectively. The shaded bands contain 68% of the distribution of the expected upper limits.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Two-dimensional 95% CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients (left) and the branching fractions (right). The observed (expected) upper limits for tensor-, vector-, and scalar-like CLFV interactions are shown in red, blue, and black solid (dotted) lines, respectively. The shaded bands contain 68% of the distribution of the expected upper limits.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Two-dimensional 95% CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients (left) and the branching fractions (right). The observed (expected) upper limits for tensor-, vector-, and scalar-like CLFV interactions are shown in red, blue, and black solid (dotted) lines, respectively. The shaded bands contain 68% of the distribution of the expected upper limits.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Summary of relevant dimension-6 operators considered in this analysis. Here, $ \varepsilon $ is the two-dimensional Levi-Civita symbol, $ \gamma^\mu $ the Dirac gamma matrices, and $ \sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu] $. The $ \mathrm{q} $ and $ \mathrm{l} $ denote left-handed doublets for leptons and quarks, respectively, whereas u and e denote right-handed singlets for quarks and leptons, respectively. The indices $ i $ and $ j $ are lepton flavor indices that run from 1 to 2 with $ i \neq j $; $ k $ and $ l $ are quark flavor indices with the condition that one of them is 3 and the other one is 1 or 2. The four vector-like operators are merged in this analysis because the final-state particles produced by these operators have very similar kinematics.

png pdf
Table 2:
Theoretical cross sections for top quark production and decay for each CLFV coupling. The cross sections are calculated with $ C_{a}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, $ m_{\mathrm{t}} = $ 172.5 GeV, $ \Gamma_{\mathrm{t}}^{\text{SM}} = $ 1.33 GeV. The cross section for the top quark decay process is the same for $ \mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u} $ and $ \mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{c} $ couplings, therefore, only one cross section is quoted for each Lorentz structure. The first uncertainty represents the effect of QCD renormalization and factorization scales. The second uncertainty is the PDF uncertainty.

png pdf
Table 3:
Summary of the selection criteria used to define different event regions.

png pdf
Table 4:
Expected background contributions and the number of events observed in data collected during 2016-2018. The quoted uncertainties include statistical and systematic sources, which are added in quadrature. The category ``Other" includes smaller background contributions containing one or two top quarks plus a boson or quark. The CLFV signal, generated with $ C_{\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{t}\mathrm{u}}^{\text{vector}}/\Lambda^2=$ 1 TeV$^{-2}$, is also listed for reference and includes contributions from both top quark production and decay modes.

png pdf
Table 5:
Summary of systematic uncertainties and the average change in signal and overall background yields in the SRs. Uncertainties that only contain normalization effects, such as luminosity uncertainties and uncertainties in theoretical cross sections, are not included in this table.

png pdf
Table 6:
Upper limits at 95% CL on Wilson coefficients and the branching fractions for tensor-, vector-, and scalar-like CLFV interactions. The expected and observed upper limits are shown in regular and bold fonts, respectively. The intervals that contain 68% of the distribution of the expected upper limits are shown in parentheses.
Summary
This paper presents results from a search for charged-lepton flavor violation in both top quark production and decay processes. The data used were collected by the CMS experiment during 2016-2018 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. Events were selected for analysis if they contain exactly three charged leptons--one electron and one muon of opposite electric charge as well as one additional electron or muon. Events must also contain at least one jet of which no more than one is associated with a bottom quark. An effective field theory approach is used for parametrizing the charged-lepton flavor violating interactions. Boosted decision trees are used to distinguish a possible signal from the background. No significant excess is observed over the prediction from the standard model. Upper limits at the 95% confidence level are set on the branching fractions involving up (charm) quarks, $ \mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{u} $ ($ \mathrm{t}\to\mathrm{e}\mu\mathrm{c} $), of 0.032 (0.498) \times $10$^{-6} $, 0.022 (0.369) $\times $10$^{-6} $, and 0.012 (0.216) $\times $10$^{-6} $ for tensor, vector, and scalar interactions, respectively. These limits constitute the most stringent ones to date on these processes, improving the existing limits by roughly one order of magnitude.
References
1 Super-Kamiokande Collaboration Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos PRL 81 (1998) 1562 hep-ex/9807003
2 SNO Collaboration Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory PRL 89 (2002) 011301 nucl-ex/0204008
3 S. Davidson, S. Lacroix, and P. Verdier LHC sensitivity to lepton flavour violating Z boson decays JHEP 09 (2012) 092 1207.4894
4 S. Davidson, M. L. Mangano, S. Perries, and V. Sordini Lepton flavour violating top decays at the LHC EPJC 75 (2015) 450 1507.07163
5 LHCb Collaboration Measurement of the ratios of branching fractions $ \mathcal{R}(D^{*}) $ and $ \mathcal{R}(D^{0}) $ PRL 131 (2023) 111802 2302.02886
6 T. J. Kim et al. Correlation between $ {R}_{D^{\left(\ast \right)}} $ and top quark FCNC decays in leptoquark models JHEP 07 (2019) 025 1812.08484
7 CMS Collaboration Search for charged-lepton flavor violation in top quark production and decay in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 06 (2022) 082 CMS-TOP-19-006
2201.07859
8 B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzyński, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek Dimension-six terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian JHEP 10 (2010) 85 1008.4884
9 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
10 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P10017 CMS-TRG-17-001
2006.10165
11 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
12 J. Alwall et al. The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations JHEP 07 (2014) 079 1405.0301
13 I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools JHEP 12 (2017) 070 1709.06492
14 A. Dedes et al. SmeftFR---Feynman rules generator for the Standard Model Effective Field Theory Comput. Phys. Commun. 247 (2020) 106931 1904.03204
15 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
16 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
17 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
18 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, P. Nason, and E. Re Top-pair production and decay at NLO matched with parton showers JHEP 04 (2015) 114 1412.1828
19 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
20 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
21 P. Skands, S. Carrazza, and J. Rojo Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 tune EPJC 74 (2014) 3024 1404.5630
22 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
23 CMS Collaboration Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements EPJC 80 (2020) 4 CMS-GEN-17-001
1903.12179
24 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
25 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
26 CMS Collaboration Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015
CDS
27 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
28 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
29 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Dispelling the $ N^{3} $ myth for the $ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet-finder PLB 641 (2006) 57 hep-ph/0512210
30 CMS Collaboration Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV JINST 12 (2017) P02014 CMS-JME-13-004
1607.03663
31 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
32 CMS Collaboration Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the CMS detector JINST 14 (2019) P07004 CMS-JME-17-001
1903.06078
33 CMS Collaboration Inclusive and differential cross section measurements of single top quark production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 02 (2022) 107 CMS-TOP-20-010
2111.02860
34 CMS Collaboration Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P05011 CMS-BTV-16-002
1712.07158
35 E. Bols et al. Jet flavour classification using DeepJet JINST 15 (2020) P12012 2008.10519
36 CMS Collaboration Performance of the DeepJet b tagging algorithm using 41.9 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with Phase 1 CMS detector CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2018-058, 2018
CDS
37 T. P. S. Gillam and C. G. Lester Improving estimates of the number of `fake' leptons and other mis-reconstructed objects in hadron collider events: BoB's your UNCLE JHEP 11 (2014) 031 1407.5624
38 T. Chen and C. Guestrin XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system in 22nd ACM SIGKDD Intern. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, 2016
link
1603.02754
39 CMS Collaboration Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS EPJC 81 (2021) 800 CMS-LUM-17-003
2104.01927
40 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018
link
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
41 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019
link
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
42 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2018) 161 CMS-FSQ-15-005
1802.02613
43 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
44 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P06015 CMS-MUO-16-001
1804.04528
45 CMS Collaboration Measurements of inclusive W and Z cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 7 TeV JHEP 01 (2011) 080 CMS-EWK-10-002
1012.2466
46 CMS Collaboration Observation of single top quark production in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt {s} = $ 13 TeV PRL 122 (2019) 132003 CMS-TOP-18-008
1812.05900
47 CMS Collaboration Measurement of the Higgs boson production rate in association with top quarks in final states with electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying tau leptons at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 81 (2021) 378 CMS-HIG-19-008
2011.03652
48 J. M. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and C. Williams Vector boson pair production at the LHC JHEP 07 (2011) 018 1105.0020
49 R. Frederix and I. Tsinikos On improving NLO merging for $ \mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}\mathrm{W} $ production JHEP 11 (2021) 029 2108.07826
50 A. Kulesza et al. Associated top quark pair production with a heavy boson: differential cross sections at NLO+NNLL accuracy EPJC 80 (2020) 428 2001.03031
51 J. Butterworth et al. PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II JPG 43 (2016) 023001 1510.03865
52 R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples Comput. Phys. Commun. 77 (1993) 219
53 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
54 A. Read Presentation of search results: The CL$ _s $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
55 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
56 J. Kile and A. Soni Model-independent constraints on lepton-flavor-violating decays of the top quark PRD 78 (2008) 094008 0807.4199
57 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN