text:
# SU(2) Gluon Propagator on a Coarse Anisotropic Lattice

## I. Introduction

The gluon propagator is well defined in the pure non-Abelian gauge theory and is thought of one of the most basic quantities of QCD. Due to the asymptotic freedom, the gluon propagator at small distances (or large momentum) can be described sufficiently by the perturbation theory in which the gluon is expected to propagate as a massless particle. However, any asymptotic gluon states and isolated quarks are absent, and this motivated the confinement mechanism that gluons and quarks are only confined inside hadrons. This physical structure may imply that the gluon propagator is quite different from those of stable particles. To understand the structure of the gluon propagator, especially its infrared behavior, a nonperturbative study of the gluon propagator is required.

Lattice simulation provides a powerful method to study the nonperturbative properties of QCD. The first lattice simulations of the gluon propagator were carried out by Mandula and Ogilvie and by Gupta et al in the late 1980s, in whose studies the gluon propagator in Landau gauge was interpreted in terms of a massive particle propagator. The simulations of Marenzoni et al gave the result that in terms of an anomalous dimension the propagator fell off quite differently from that in perturbation theory. The most recent simulation carried out on a very large lattice by Leinweber et al gave the implication that the gluon propagator should be interpreted in terms of neither a massless particle nor a free massive one. However, even though there has been substantial progress in the lattice simulation of gluon propagator in the last decade, a definitive picture of the gluon propagator has not been obtained yet. For reference see the overview of Mandula.

The development of the improved actions is an important progress in lattice QCD in last decade. If the lattice action is properly improved, the costs of the Monte Carlo simulation will be greatly reduced and the numerical study can be performed on much coarser lattice system. Ma simulated the SU(3) gluon propagator in Landau gauge on a coarse lattice using tadpole improved Symanzik’s action with substantially reduced lattice artifact. In his work the propagator was fitted using Marenzoni’s model and gave the result that the mass scale turns out good scaling behavior and the anomalous dimension can be well extrapolated to the continuum limit $`a0`$.

Since the anisotropic lattice has a lot of advantages in the Monte carlo simulation of lattice QCD on coarse lattice, it is meaningful to study the behavior of gluon propagator on anisotropic lattice and the effect of this temporal-spatial asymmetric lattice on the gluon propagator because the lattice definition of gluon propagtor is explicitly dependent on the anisotropy ratio $`\xi `$. Another goal of this work is to explore the efficiency of the improved guage fixing scheme introduced by Bonnet et al. This work is organized as follows. In section II we describe the lattice formulations used in this work. Section III is devoted to the simulation details where we give the mass scales and the anomalous dimensions extracted from the lattice propagator as well as their lattice spacing dependence. In Section IV we discuss the effects of the asymmetric lattice on the gloun propagator and extract the anisotropy ratio for various lattice spacings. Section V is the summary.

## II. Lattice Formulations

We use the naive steepest descent method to fix the Landau guage by maximising the usual Landau gauge fixing functional. There are many choices of the definition of the gauge fixing functional. The frequently used version (called standard one in this work) is

$$_1^G[\{U\}]=\underset{x,\mu }{}\frac{1}{2}Tr\left\{U_\mu ^G(x)+U_\mu ^G(x)^{}\right\},$$
(1)
where

$$U_\mu ^G(x)G(x)U_\mu (x)G(x+\widehat{\mu })^{}$$
(2)
and

$$G(x)=exp\left\{i\underset{a}{}\omega ^a(x)T^a\right\}.$$
(3)
Taking the extremum condition

$$\frac{\delta _1^G}{\delta \omega ^a(x)}\underset{\mu }{}\left[U_\mu ^G(x\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^G\left(U_\mu ^G(x\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^G\right)^{}\right]\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x)=0$$
(4)
and expanding the gauge links, $`U_\mu (x)=𝒫exp\left\{iag\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑tA_\mu (x+\widehat{\mu }at)\right\}`$, in the small lattice spacing, one obtains the Landau gauge condition on the lattice as

$$\underset{\mu }{}_\mu A_\mu (x)=\underset{\mu }{}\left\{\frac{a^2}{12}_\mu ^3A_\mu (x)+O(a^4)\right\}.$$
(5)
The lattice artifact to the gauge condition is of order $`O(a^2)`$. An alternative gauge fixing functional is introduced by Bonnet et al as follows,

$$_2^G[\{U\}]=\underset{x,\mu }{}\frac{1}{2}Tr\{U_\mu ^G(x)U_\mu ^G(x+\widehat{\mu })+h.c.\}.$$
(6)
Similarly the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _2^G}{\delta \omega ^a(x)}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Tr[U_\mu ^G(x2\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^G(x\widehat{\mu })U_\mu ^G(x)U_\mu ^G(x+\widehat{\mu })h.c.]`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0`$
gives another realization of lattice Landau gauge,

$$\underset{\mu }{}_\mu A_\mu (x)=\underset{\mu }{}\left\{\frac{a^2}{3}_\mu ^3A_\mu (x)+O(a^4)\right\}.$$
(8)
The $`O(a^2)`$ artifact can be removed by combining the two types of the gauge fixing functional to an improved one, $`_{Imp}^G\frac{4}{3}_1^G\frac{1}{12u_\mu }_2^G`$, where $`u_\mu `$ refers to the tadpole improved parameter of the gauge links in $`\mu `$ direction. The improved functional gives the following new function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{Imp}(x)=\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_1(x)\frac{1}{3u_\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_2(x).$$
(9)
The steepest descents approach is realized by defining the local gauge transformation as

$`G_i(x)`$ $`=`$ $`exp\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x)\right\}`$
$``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x),`$
where $`\alpha `$ is a tuneable step-size prameter. The lattice Landau gauge is fixed by decreasing the quantity,

$$\theta _i=\frac{1}{2V}\underset{x}{}Tr\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x)\mathrm{\Delta }_i(x)^{}\right\},$$
(11)
to a sufficiently small number. Here the suffix $`i`$ stands for 1, 2 and Imp.

In this work, the simulations are performed on an $`8^3\times 24`$ anisotropic lattice by using tadpole-improved Symanzik’s action. The lattice spacing in the temporal direction is smaller than that in the spatial direction with the bare anisotropy ratio $`\xi _0`$. The action we use is given as

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{x,s>s^{}}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{ss^{}}}{\xi _0u_s^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{ss^{}}}{\xi _0u_s^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{s^{}s}}{\xi _0u_s^6}}\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\beta {\displaystyle \underset{x,s}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{st}\xi _0}{u_s^2u_t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{st}\xi _0}{u_s^4u_t^2}}\right],`$
where $`\beta =\frac{4}{g^2}`$, $`g`$ is the gauge coupling. $`P_{\mu \nu }`$ is the plaquette operator and $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`2\times 1`$ rectangular operator, $`u_s`$ and $`u_t`$ are tadpole improvement parameters. $`u_s`$ is defined by $`u_s=<(1/2)TrW_{sp}>^{1/4}`$, while $`u_t`$ is set to be 1 because of $`u_t=1O(\xi _0^2)`$ ($`\xi _0`$ is much bigger than one).

The continuum gluon propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ in Landau gauge is characterized by a single function $`D(q^2)`$ as

$$D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(q)=\delta _{ab}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)D(q^2),$$
(13)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the color index. The structure of $`D(q^2)`$ is of physical interest. In the large momentum range $`D(q^2)`$ takes its perturbative form and is proportional to $`1/q^2`$, while its infrared behavior may be more complicated and should be reconciled with the confinement. The lattice simulation of the gluon propagator is to determine its structure nonperturbatively. The lattice version of $`D(q^2)`$ is denoted as $`D_L(q)`$, which can be constructed in terms of the Fourier transfromed vector potential $`A_\mu (q)`$. The vector potential of SU(2) gauge field is defined from the gauge links

$`A_\mu (x+a_\mu \widehat{\mu }/2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2iga_\mu }}(U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr(U_\mu (x)U_\mu ^{}(x)))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_\mu }}\widehat{A}_\mu (x+a_\mu \widehat{\mu }/2).`$
where $`a_\mu `$ is the lattice spacing in $`\mu `$ direction, and its Fourier transformation is defined as

$$A_\mu (q)=\left(\underset{\mu }{}a_\mu \right)\underset{x}{}e^{iq(x+a_\mu \widehat{\mu }/2)}A_\mu (x+a_\mu \widehat{\mu }/2)\frac{1}{a_\mu }\widehat{A}_\mu (q),$$
(15)
where $`q`$ is the momentum

$$q_\mu =\frac{2\pi }{L_\mu a_\mu }n_\mu ,n_\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},L_\mu 1.$$
(16)
Here the notation $`\widehat{A}`$ is adopted for the convenience of the future discussion. The function $`D_L(q)`$ is defiend as

$$D_L(q)=\frac{2}{9\underset{\mu }{}(L_\mu a_\mu )}\underset{\mu }{}0|Tr(A_\mu (q)A_\mu ^{}(q)|0,$$
(17)
which approaches to the function $`D(q^2)`$ in the limit of $`a_\mu 0`$.

## III. Lattice Simulation

We used the action defined in Eqn.(II. Lattice Formulations) to generate gluonic configurations at $`\beta =1.0,1.1,1.2`$ on an $`8^3\times 24`$ anisotropic lattice. The samples of configurations and the values of $`u_s`$ and $`a_s`$ for various $`\beta `$ are listed in Table 1. The configurations are separated by 50 Monte carlo sweeps, each of which is composed of 4 heatbath and a microcanonical iterations. We performed the standard gauge fixing and the improved gauge fixing for each configuration respectively and stopped the gauge transfromation at $`\theta _i<10^8`$. The Landau gauge is surely reached for each configuration, for it was observed that for any $`q=(𝐪,0)`$, $`trA_4(q)A_4^{}(q)`$ are of order $`10^6`$ and are about five order smaller than other components.

It is expected that the function $`D_L(q)`$ measured on the lattice approximately depend only on $`q^2=\underset{\mu }{}q_\mu ^2`$ for the small enough $`a_\mu q_\mu `$. Previous simulations, which were performed on large lattice with the Wilson action, gave the results that this is only true for a small range $`a^2q^2<1`$. By applying the improved action we find that the function $`D_L(q)`$ from our simulation behaves well as a function of $`q^2`$ in a much larger momentum range $`0<a^2q^2<9`$ which corresponds to almost the full first Brillouin zone (see Figure 1a, 1b, 1c, the data points are the averages of $`D_L(q)`$ with the same $`q^2`$). This range corresponds to almost the full first Brillouin zone. From now on we denote $`D_L(q)`$ as $`D_L(q^2)`$.

We use the model to fit the data points of $`D_L(q^2)`$,

$$D_L(q^2)=\frac{Z}{(M^2)^{1+\alpha }+(q^2)^{1+\alpha }},$$
(18)
where $`M`$ is a dimensional parameter, $`\alpha `$ the anomalous dimension and $`Z`$ a parameter related to $`g`$ and the renormalization constant of wave-function. We perform the fitting in two ways which use the data sets including (fit 1) and excluding (fit 2) the zero momentum point respectively, and the results are listed in Table 2 and Table 3. The quality of both fits are acceptable due to the very small $`\chi ^2/d.o.f`$. It is found that the effect of the improvement of gauge fixing is not apparent, for the fitting results of $`D_L(q^2)`$ through the standard and the improved gauge fixing procedures are almost the same. The mass scale $`M`$ in physical unit is listed in Table 4. In fit 2, the mass scale is approximately $`600MeV`$ within the errors and insensitive to the lattice spacing, while in fit 1 the differences of $`M`$ for various lattice spacing are significant.

The anomalous dimension $`\alpha `$ is extracted from both the fits. In fit 1 the value of $`\alpha `$ varies with $`\beta `$ and the $`a_s`$ dependence of $`\alpha `$ can be well described as

$$\alpha (a_s)=\alpha _0+\alpha _1a_s^4,$$
(19)
with

$$\alpha _0=0.309(10)\alpha _1=19.9(1.2)\chi ^2=0.097.$$

In fit 2, the values of $`\alpha `$ are averaged to be $`\overline{\alpha }=0.282(15)`$ and less related to the lattice spacing.

Even though the small discrepancy, both of the fits give the non-zero anomalous dimension $`\alpha 0.3`$. This value is compatible with the result of Ma’s simulation of SU(3) gluon propagator’($`\alpha =0.285(20)`$) but smaller than the results of Marenzoni ($`\alpha 0.40.6`$).

## IV. The Renormalized Anisotropy Ratio

Since the MC simulation is performed on an anisotropic lattice, there naturally arises a quesiton: what is the effect of this asymmetry of the temporal and the spatial direction on the physical observables and how differently the physical obsevables are affected the renormalized anisotropy ratio from the bare parameter $`\xi _0`$ ( here the bare parameter refers to the parameter in the action which justifies that the lattcie action would take the same form as that of the continuum action at the classical level when the continuum limit $`a0`$ is approached, while the renormalized one, $`\xi =\xi (\xi _0,\beta )`$ is defined by the ratio $`a_s/a_t`$ and is a funciton of the bare one and the coupling constant owing to the renormalization effects.) This question has been explored by Klassen et al. who extracted $`\xi `$ from the quark static potential. We propose here a new scheme to extract the renormalized anisotropy ratio from the gluon propagator measured on the anisotropic lattice.

The lattice version of the funciton $`D_L(q^2)`$ and the continuous momentum are explicitly related to $`\xi `$ as follows

$`D_L(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9\underset{\mu }{}(L_\mu a_\mu }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}0|Tr(A_\mu (q)A_\mu ^{}(q)|0`$
$``$ $`0\left|Tr\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\widehat{A}_i(q)\widehat{A}_i^{}+\xi ^2\widehat{A}_4(q)\widehat{A}_4^{}\right)\right|0`$
$``$ $`\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi ).`$
and

$$q^2=\left(\frac{2\pi }{L_sa_s}\right)^2\left(\underset{i}{}n_i^2+\frac{\xi ^2}{9}n_4^2\right).$$
(21)
In practice, the renormalized anisotropy $`\xi `$ is unknown at the beginning of the calculation and the measured quantity is $`D_L(q,\xi _0=3)`$. For convenience we introduce a notation $`\widehat{q}^2=\underset{\mu }{}n_\mu ^2`$ where $`n_\mu `$ is defined in the Eqn.(16). If the function $`D_L(q)`$ is a function of $`q^2`$ and $`\xi /\xi _0=1`$, the rotational invariance requires that $`D_L(q)`$ take the same value at all the momentum with the same $`\widehat{q}^2`$. From the analysis of our results we found that this is only correct for the momenuta with the same $`\widehat{q}^2`$ and the same $`n_4`$. For those momenta with the same $`\widehat{q}^2`$ but different $`n_4`$, the difference of $`D_L(q)`$ is significant. This discrepancy can be attributed to the fact that $`\xi /\xi _01`$, as can be found in the following.

With the conjecture that $`ϵ/\xi _0`$ is small, only the lowest order term of $`ϵ=\xi _0\xi `$ is relevant in the discussion, $`D_L(q,\xi _0=3)`$ is related to the expected $`D_L(q,\xi )`$ as follows,

$$\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )=\widehat{D}_L(q,3ϵ)=\widehat{D}_L(q,3)6ϵ0|Tr\widehat{A}_4(q)\widehat{A}_4^{}|0+O(ϵ^2).$$
(22)
For simplicity we define

$$\alpha (q)=0|TrA_4(q)A_4(q)^{}|0.$$
(23)
Another reason for the discrepancy is the $`\xi `$ dependence of the continuous momentum also introduces a small shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }q^2`$ of momentum square between two momenta $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ with the same $`\widehat{q}^2`$. With both the two factors in consideration and accepting the fact that $`D_L(q,\xi )`$ is well described by a function of $`q^2`$, this discrepancy, described by $`\eta =\frac{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},3)}{\widehat{D}_L(q,3)}`$, can be re-expressed in the lowest order of $`ϵ=\xi `$,

$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},3)}{\widehat{D}_L(q,3)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},\xi )+6ϵ\alpha (q^{})}{\widehat{D}_L(q,3)+6ϵ\alpha (q)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},\xi )}{\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )}}\left[1+6ϵ\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (q^{})}{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},\xi )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (q)}{\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }q^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dq^2}}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{D}_L(q^2,\xi )|_{q^2=q^2}\right)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{6ϵ}{\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )}{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},\xi )}}\alpha (q^{})\alpha (q)\right)\right].`$
Since only the lowest order of $`ϵ`$ is considered, after replacing approximately the ratio $`\frac{\widehat{D}_L(q^{},\xi )}{\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )}`$ with $`1/\eta `$ and rearranging the Eqn.(IV. The Renormalized Anisotropy Ratio), the quantity $`ϵ`$ can be expressed by the quantities which can be measured directly from the lattice simulation (see the following equation),

$$ϵ(q^2)=\frac{1\eta }{\frac{2}{3}\delta (q^2)\frac{d}{dq^2}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )+\frac{6}{\widehat{D}_L(q,\xi )}\left(\alpha (q)\frac{1}{\eta }\alpha (q^{})\right)}.$$
(25)
Here the momenta $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ satisfy $`\widehat{q}^2=\widehat{(q^{})}^2`$ with $`\delta (q^2)=\frac{2}{3}ϵ((q^{})_4^2q_4^2)`$. The results of $`ϵ(q^2)`$ for $`\beta =1.0,1.1,1.2`$ are listed in Table 5. Theoretically, $`\xi /\xi _0`$ should be independent of $`q^2`$. From the Table it is found that the measured $`\xi /\xi _0`$ are insensitive to $`q^2`$ for most momenta. However, a few irregular values such as $`q^2(\delta (q^2)=6(1)`$ for $`\beta =1.0`$, $`q^2(\delta (q^2)=4(1)`$ for $`\beta =1.1`$ and $`q^2(\delta (q^2)=4(1)`$ for $`\beta =1.2`$, are a bit larger than the others. We attribute it to the reason that the rotational invariance is violated to some extent so that the value of $`D_L(q)`$ with momenta directed along one of the four axes is different from those with momenta directed off-axis. Averaging the regular values we obtain

$$\xi /\xi _0=1.23for\beta =1.0$$

$$\xi /\xi _0=1.15for\beta =1.1$$

$$\xi /\xi _0=1.16for\beta =1.2.$$

These are raw results at the lowest order of $`ϵ`$ and we do not plan to extract the $`\beta `$ dependence of $`\xi /\xi _0`$ from only three data points. What we can conclude at present is that the renormalization effects for the anisotropy ratio is significant and our results is consistent with those from the study of static quark potential by Klassen et al. Morningstar et al have simulated the SU(3) glueball mass on the anisotropic lattice with the same action as that we use and reported that $`\xi /\xi _0`$ extracted from the static quark potential is apporximately one within few percents discrepancy. Work is underway to explain the reason why the anisotropy ratios extraceted from different quantities do not comply with each other.

## V. Summary

We studied the SU(2) gluon propagator in Landau gauge on an $`8^3\times 24`$ anisotropic lattice by using the tadpole improved Symanzik’s action. Although the improvement scheme is also used to fix the gauge, we found that its effect is not significant, while the lattice artifact is significantly suppressed by using the improved action. The function $`D_L(q)`$ in the propagator can be well described as a function of continuous momentum square $`q^2`$ even in the full first Brillouin zone. We used the model suggested by Marenzoni et al to fit the function $`D_L(q)`$ and extracted the mass scale and the anomalous dimension therein. It is found that the value of the mass scale is approximately independent of the lattice spacing and the anomalous dimension can be well extrapolated to the value about 0.3 in the continuum limit.

The effects of the asymmetric lattice on the gluon propagator are also explored in this work. Based on the fact that the lattice definition of the gluon propagator is related to the renormalized anisotropy ratio $`\xi =a_s/a_t`$, we deduced a formula to measure the $`\xi `$ nonperturbatively at various momentum. Even in the lowest order of $`ϵ=\xi _0\xi `$, the measured values of $`\xi `$ are insensitive to the momentum and are consistent with the results extracted from the static quark potential.

## Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No. 19677205 and No. 19991487, and by the National Research Center for Intelligent Computing System under the contract No. 99128.

## Tables and Figures


format: text

text:
# Electronic states in a quantum lens

## I Introduction

Quantum dots obtained by interrupted growth in strained semiconductor interfaces are currently under intense study by many experimental and theoretical groups.  These ‘self-assembled’ quantum dots are mostly dislocation free, coherent islands of deposited material on the surface of a different semiconductor. The lattice mismatch from one semiconductor to the other forces the segregation of material whenever the epitaxial growth exceeds a critical layer thickness, resulting in the growth of these so-called Stranski-Krastanov islands.  Deposition of material past a critical thickness, which depends on the two materials used, results in large arrays of small islands with a rather narrow size distribution (with size variations well under 10%), and typically arranged randomly on the plane (although avoiding overlapping islands, for the most part).  More recently, some groups are working at producing in-plane ordering of islands following different approaches, including ‘nucleation site engineering’ to favor certain locations for self-assembled dot growth.  These self-assembled quantum dots have, for the most part, a large area-to-height aspect ratio. In the case of InAs islands grown on a GaAs surface, the in-plane diameters are typically less than 30 nm, while their heights are below 10 nm.  Although not without some controversy, it is generally believed that the InAs quantum dots on GaAs are shaped like a ‘lens’, characterized by a spherical cap shape with circular cross section. Upon optical or other mechanisms of carrier injection, both electrons or holes have bound well-confined states inside these dots.

In fact, optical experiments on self-assembled dots demonstrate that these structures provide strong carrier confinement, as decreasing dot size produces strong blue-shift of the extremely-narrow luminescence peaks in isolated dots.  Confinement effects have also been shown to appear in magneto-capacitance and infrared absorption experiments by several groups.  Clear evidence of electronic shell states and their different degeneracies has been reported recently,  and novel applications such as storage of photoluminescence signals was demonstrated recently in gate-activated ‘optical memories.’

Simplifying the symmetry of the lens as a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator has been suggested to characterize the level structure for charge carriers in the dots, and this has proven useful in the interpretation of experiments.  Nevertheless, as we will show here, a lens geometry has quite a different level structure and wavefunctions with subtle symmetries which might be seen in experiments. For example, we find that as the height of the cap or lens decreases, there is a larger shift of the wavefunction towards the plane of the lens (in comparison with the situation in a semi-spherical geometry). This shift becomes stronger for ‘flatter’ lenses, and may even give rise to deconfinement of the state towards the substrate, for finite confinement potential, changing significantly the oscillator strength of electron-hole transitions, for example.  However, even before that occurs, the smaller height lens geometries exhibit a different level structure than the harmonic oscillator, as we show below. This structure may give rise to different Pauli blocking effects and transition rules, topics which are the subject of interest in recent experiments.

In this paper we rigorously show that a complete set of wavefunctions can be generated with the correct lens symmetry to describe the physical properties given by the differential equation of interest. For the sake of simplicity, we have applied our calculation here to the single-particle Schrödinger equation. The incorporation of non-parabolic band dispersion or many-particle interactions is straightforward (if only a bit cumbersome). Notice that while our calculation provides an analytical approach to the understanding of electronic states in these structures, it also provides an interesting example of a generalization of perturbation theory for the conformally-mapped differential operator arising from the Schrödinger equation in the material. Since the conformal transformation used to map the lens into the semi-spherical geometry is non-trivial, the resulting differential equation in the transformed space reflects that complexity. Fortunately, our perturbation approach is robust for the identified small parameter of the problem, as we will show.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: in section II we introduce the problem of the spherical cap geometry, its semi-spherical limit, and the conformal map which connects the two shapes. In that section, we also describe the perturbation approach needed to carry out the solution of the appropriately mapped Schrödinger operator, and explore the orthonormalization conditions of the basis used in the description of the general problem. In section III we present some examples of the eigenstates for varying lens size, and analyze their angular and radial distribution functions. Section IV presents some discussions and conclusions, while the appendix contains details of the expansion described in section II.

## II Dirichlet problem for a quantum lens: Conformal mapping

The shape of the quantum lens in real $`𝒓`$-space is shown in Fig. 1(a). $`R_3(a,b)`$ denotes the domain of the lens with boundary in $`𝒓`$-space given by a spherical cap of height $`b`$ and circular cross section with radius $`a`$. Assuming a carrier Hamiltonian model with isotropic band and effective mass $`m^{}`$, the eigenvalue problem for a particle confined in the lens is described by the operator

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}_𝒓^2;𝒓R_3(a,b),$$
(1)
obeying the Dirichlet boundary condition $`\psi =0`$ for $`𝒓L_3(a,b)`$. $`L_3(a,b)`$ is the boundary of the $`R_3(a,b)`$ domain. The operator (1) presents axial symmetry and all functions defined on $`R_3(a,b)`$ have the property $`\varphi (\phi )=\varphi (\phi +2\pi )`$, where $`\phi `$ is the axial angle. Hence, the solution of (1) can be written as

$$\psi (𝒓)=f(𝝆)\frac{\text{e}^{im\phi }}{\sqrt{2\pi }};m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where $`𝝆`$ is a 2D vector. Correspondingly, the operator (1) is transformed into an eigenvalue problem for $`f(𝝆)`$,

$$[_𝝆^2+(k_o^2\frac{m^21/4}{\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta })]f(𝝆)=0;𝝆R_2(a,b),$$
(3)
where $`k_o^2=2m^{}E/\mathrm{}^2`$, $`E`$ is the energy of the eigenfunction $`f(𝝆)`$, $`\theta `$ is the polar angle, and $`R_2(a,b)`$ is the 2D domain with boundary $`L_2(a,b)`$ in the $`𝝆`$-space shown in Fig. 1(b). The Hilbert space where the operator (3) is defined corresponds to the set of functions $`f(𝝆)R_2(a,b)`$ with boundary condition $`f(𝝆)=0`$ on $`L_2(a,b)`$.

### A Semi-spherical quantum dot

For the case of $`b=a`$, the lens shape of Fig. 1(a) has semi-spherical symmetry. Hence, the Dirichlet problem in (3) reduces to the conditions $`f(a,\theta )=0`$, and $`f(\rho ,\pi /2)=0`$. The set $`\{f_i\}`$ of eigenfunctions of (3) on the $`R_2`$ domain forms an orthonormal basis with functions which in polar coordinates are given by products of the associate Legendre polynomials and Bessel functions,

$$f_{n,l}^{(0)}(\rho ,\theta )=\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{P_l^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{N_{l,m}}\frac{J_{l+\frac{1}{2}}(\frac{\mu _n^{\left(l\right)}}{a}\rho )}{N_B},$$
(4)
with $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and the condition $`lml`$. The normalization constants $`N_{l,m}`$ and $`N_B`$ are as usual given by

$$N_{l,m}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2l+1}\frac{(l+|m|)!}{(l|m|)!}};N_B=\frac{a}{\sqrt{2}}J_{l+\frac{1}{2}}^{}(\mu _n^{(l)}),$$
(5)
where $`J_q^{}`$ is the derivative of the Bessel function $`J_q`$, and $`\mu _n^{(p)}`$ is the n-th zero, $`J_{p+\frac{1}{2}}(\mu _n^{(p)})=0`$. The eigenvalues are given by $`E_{n,l}=\mathrm{}^2\left(\mu _n^{(l)}\right)^2/(2m^{}a^2)`$, and the boundary condition $`f^{(0)}(\rho ,\theta =\pi /2)=0`$ restricts the values of the quantum numbers $`l`$ and $`m`$ to fulfill the condition $`|lm|=odd`$. According to this condition, the degeneracy of states $`f_{n,l}^{(0)}`$ for a given energy $`E_{n,l}`$ is equal to $`l`$ and the ground state corresponds to $`l=1`$, $`m=0,`$ and $`n=1`$.

### B Quantum lens

The quantum dot with lens shape corresponds to the more general case when $`b<a`$. Here, we need to fulfill Eq. (3) with the Dirichlet condition over the boundary $`L_2(a,b)`$. The wavefunctions $`f_{n,l}^{(0)}`$ given by (4) are not solution for the general case, because the problem has no longer the semi-circular symmetry in $`\theta `$. The energy number $`n`$ and angular momentum $`l`$ are clearly no longer good quantum numbers when $`ba`$ and the m-degeneracy is broken. To obtain an analytical solution of the problem (3) it is convenient to make a conformal mapping to the circular cap with domain $`R_2(a,a)`$ and boundary $`L_2(a,a)`$. The mapping enables us to solve the Dirichlet problem for the operator given by (3) in a Hilbert space where an orthonormal basis $`\{f_i\}`$ is known. We transform the quantum lens domain and boundary into a dot with semi-spherical shape, so that the circular cap defined by the domain $`𝒵=xizR_2(a,b)`$, transforms into the semi-circular domain $`𝒲=uivR_2(a,a)`$. This is accomplished by the transformation (see Fig. 1(b))

$$𝒲(𝒵)=\frac{2a}{1+\left(\frac{a𝒵}{a+𝒵}\right)^\alpha }a;\alpha =\frac{\pi /4}{\mathrm{arctan}(b/a)}.$$
(6)
In the complex plane $`𝒲`$, we have the parameter equations: $`u=\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$ $`v=\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ $`0<\rho <a,`$ $`0<\theta <\pi /2.`$ The eigenvalue problem (3) is thus transformed by this conformal mapping into the problem

$$_{(u,v)}^2F(u,v)+𝒥_\alpha (u,v)\left(k^2\frac{m^21/4}{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(u,v)}\right)F(u,v)=0;(u,v)R_2(a,a),$$
(7)
with the boundary condition,

$$F(u,v)|_{(u,v)L_2(a,a)}=0.$$
(8)
The functions $`𝒥_\alpha (u,v)=\left|\frac{\text{d}𝒵}{\text{d}𝒲}\right|^2`$ (the Jacobian) and $`𝒥_\alpha /𝒳_\alpha ^2`$ are given in the Appendix, and are mathematical objects which contain the information of the lens geometry, where the subscript $`\alpha `$ is given in (6). It should be noted that $`\alpha 1`$, since $`ba`$, and for $`\alpha =1`$ the Jacobian $`𝒥_\alpha `$ reduces to $`1`$, while $`𝒥_\alpha /𝒳_\alpha ^2`$ reduces to $`1/u^2=1/\left(\rho \mathrm{sin}\theta \right)^2`$.

The Hilbert space on which the operator (7) is defined must fulfill the Dirichlet boundary conditions indicated in (8). A set of functions that fulfill these boundary conditions are the functions $`f_{n,l}^{(0)}`$ given in (4), and represent a complete set of orthonormal eigenfunctions for the operator in (7). The solution $`F(u,v)`$ for a given $`m`$ can be expanded in term of the set $`\{f_{n,l}^{(0)}\}`$ such that

$$F=\underset{n,l}{}C_{n,l}f_{n,l}^{(0)}(𝝆),$$
(9)
where $`𝝆`$$`=(\rho ,\theta )`$ is here the parameterization of $`(u,v)`$, and the functions $`f_{n,l}^{(0)}`$ are restricted to the condition $`|lm|=odd`$. The coefficients $`C_{n,l}`$ have to be determined to satisfy the full operator; a perturbation procedure to accomplish this is described in section II D below.

### C Orthogonality and completeness

Equation (7) can be cast in operator form as

$$\widehat{𝑲}F=𝒥_\alpha k^2F,$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{𝑲}`$ involves the Laplace operator, $`_{(u,v)}^2`$, and the term $`(m^21/4)𝒥_\alpha /𝒳_\alpha ^2(u,v)`$. Equation (10) is an eigenvalue problem for the dimensionless energies $`k_N^2(m)`$, where $`N`$ is a generic label for the different eigenstates $`F_N`$ of (10). Let us now suppose that $`N`$ and $`M`$ correspond to different eigenvalues of (10). From the above equation it follows that

$$F_M^{}\widehat{𝑲}F_NF_N\widehat{𝑲}^{}F_M^{}=𝒥_\alpha (k_N^2k_M^2)F_M^{}F_N.$$
(11)
Making the integration over $`𝝆(u,v)`$ in the $`R_2(a,a)`$ domain, we obtain that

$$_{R_2(a,a)}\left[F_M^{}_{(u,v)}^2F_N+F_N_{(u,v)}^2F_M^{}\right]\text{d}^2\rho =(k_N^2k_M^2)_{R_2(a,a)}F_M^{}F_N𝒥_\alpha \text{d}^2\rho .$$
(12)
Integration by parts gives us

$$(k_N^2k_M^2)_{R_2(a,a)}𝒥_\alpha F_M^{}F_N\text{d}^2\rho =\left(F_NF_M^{}F_M^{}F_N\right)|_{(u,v)L_2(a,a)},$$
(13)
which due to the boundary condition (8), it is reduced to

$$(k_N^2k_M^2)_{R_2(a,a)}𝒥_\alpha F_M^{}F_N\text{d}^2\rho =0.$$
(14)
For $`NM`$, condition (14) represents the orthogonality property of the eigenfunction set $`\{F_N\}`$, where $`𝒥_\alpha `$ is clearly the weighting factor of the eigenproblem (7). Moreover, the operator $`\widehat{𝑲}`$ is Hermitian, ensuring that the solution of the present problem is described by means of a complete orthonormal basis of eigenfunctions $`\{F_N\}`$ obeying the condition

$$_{R_2(a,a)}𝒥_\alpha F_M^{}F_N\text{d}^2\rho =\delta _{N,M}.$$
(15)
### D Perturbation theory

The coefficients $`C_{n,l}`$ in (9) and the eigenvalues $`k^2`$ can be obtained by perturbation theory if $`ba(\alpha 1)`$. In this case, the lens cap represents a perturbation from the semi-spherical geometry. In other words, the operator (7) can be rewritten in the form

$$\left(H_o+H_p\right)F(u,v)=0,$$
(16)
with

$`H_o(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`_{(u,v)}^2+\left(k^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^21/4}{u^2}}\right),`$ (17)
$`H_p(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`k^2(𝒥_\alpha (u,v)1)(m^21/4)({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha (u,v)}{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(u,v)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^2}}).`$ (18)
The operator $`H_p`$ vanishes when $`\alpha 1(ba)`$ and it can be considered as a small perturbation operator, when the height $`b`$ is close to the radius $`a`$. The set $`\{f_{n,l}^{(0)}\}`$ given by Eq. (4) are the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`H_o`$ in the $`𝒲`$-space and form an orthonormal basis on the $`R_2(a,a)`$ domain. In order to find the solution of (16) as a function of the ratio $`b/a`$, we will develop a modified Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory. We note that the perturbation Hamiltonian $`H_p`$ depends on the eigenvalue $`k^2`$, and as such requires a somewhat different approach. Substituting Eq. (9) in (16) we obtain

$`[(k^2k_o^2)`$ $`+`$ $`n,l|H_p(k^2)|n,l]C_{n,l}+`$ (19)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n^{},l^{}n,l}{}}n,l|H_p(k^2)|n^{},l^{}C_{n^{},l^{}}=0.`$ (20)
The states of $`H_o`$ are degenerate on the quantum number $`m`$. Nevertheless, according to (2),

$$n,l,m|H_p|n^{},l^{},m^{}=n,l|H_p|n^{},l^{}\delta _{m,m^{}},$$
(21)
so that the matrix elements are diagonal on $`m`$ and we can develop a perturbation theory in the absence of degeneracy. We represent the coefficients $`C_{n,l}`$ and its eigenvalues $`k^2`$ in a power series of the small parameter $`\lambda =\alpha ^11`$ (which arises naturally from the expressions in the Appendix). We obtain up to first order in $`\lambda `$ an expression for the wavefunctions given by

$`F_{N,m}(\rho ,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`f_{n,l}^{(0)}(\rho ,\theta )+\lambda [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n,l\left|\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}\right|n,lf_{n,l}^{(0)}(\rho ,\theta )`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}n^{},l^{}& & n,l\end{array}}{}}f_{n^{},l^{}}^{(0)}(\rho ,\theta )\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_o^2(n^{},l^{})k_o^2(n,l)}}\times `$
$`n^{},l^{}|k_o^2(n,l)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}(m^21/4){\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)_{\lambda =0}|n,l].`$
We find for the eigenvalues up to second order, that

$$k^2(N,m)=k_o^2(n,l)+\lambda k_1^2(N,m)+\lambda ^2k_2^2(N,m),$$
(26)
where

$`k_1^2(N,m)`$ $`=`$ $`n,l\left|k_o^2(n,l)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}(m^21/4){\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)_{\lambda =0}\right|n,l,`$ (28)
$`k_2^2(N,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{ccc}n^{},l^{}& & n,l\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{},l^{}\left|k_o^2(n,l)\left(\frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }\right)_{\lambda =0}(m^21/4)\frac{}{\lambda }\left(\frac{𝒥_\alpha }{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)_{\lambda =0}\right|n,l^2}{k_o^2(n^{},l^{})k_o^2(n,l)}}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n,l|k_1^2(N,m)\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}+k_o^2(n,l)\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda ^2}}\right)_{\lambda =0}`$
$`(m^21/4){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right)_{\lambda =0}|n,l.`$
The different factors included in the geometric perturbation,

$$\left(\frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }\right)_{\lambda =0},\left(\frac{^2𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda ^2}\right)_{\lambda =0},\frac{}{\lambda }\left(\frac{𝒥_\alpha }{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)_{\lambda =0},\frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}\left(\frac{𝒥_\alpha }{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)_{\lambda =0}$$
(33)
are also given in the Appendix. In the framework of the infinite confinement model, the parameter dependence of Eqs. (25)-(32) is known, since the matrix elements play the role of constants and need to be evaluated only once. Note also that the above expressions are not the same as those found in a typical perturbation theory, as the difference arising in the $`k^2`$ term depends on the perturbation Hamiltonian $`H_p`$, which itself depends on the parameter $`\lambda `$.

## III The eigenvalues and wavefunctions

Figure 2(a) shows the first 13 energy levels in units of $`E_o=\mathrm{}^2/(2m^{}a^2)`$ for a quantum lens calculated by perturbation theory up to the second order in $`\lambda =\alpha ^11`$, as a function of the ratio $`b/a`$. The different eigenvalue curves are labeled by the quantum numbers $`(N,m)`$. The semi-sphere case $`(b/a=1)`$ is indicated by the limiting value on the right vertical axis in each panel. One can see the breaking of degeneracy in the quantum number $`m`$, and the strong deviation from the semi-spherical case, as the ratio $`b/a`$ decreases. The lower levels exhibit a weaker dependence on the decreasing $`b/a`$ ratio, while the upper levels are strongly deviated from the semi-spherical case. In Fig. 2(b) the first 5 energy levels calculated up to first (dotted lines) and second order (solid lines) perturbation on the parameter $`\lambda `$ are compared in the range $`0.4b/a1`$. It can be seen that a strong deviation is present for the higher excited levels ($`N=3`$ and 4), while for $`N=1`$ and 2 the obtained results using Eq. (28) (first order perturbation theory) give a deviation smaller than $`1\%`$ in comparison with those using Eq. (32) (second order perturbation results).

The radial and angular probability density function in a given state $`N,m`$ are defined as:

$$P_{N,m}(\rho )=\underset{0}{\overset{\pi /2}{}}\left|F_{N,m}(\rho ,\theta )\right|^2\rho d\theta ,\text{ }P_{N,m}(\theta )=\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}\left|F_{N,m}(\rho ,\theta )\right|^2\rho d\rho .$$
(34)
The functions $`P(\rho )`$ and $`P(\theta )`$ are obtained up to first order perturbation theory on $`\lambda `$ according to the equations

$`P_{N,m}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{J_{l+1/2}(\mu _n^{(l)}\rho /a)}{N_B}}\right)^2[1+\lambda (n,l\left|\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}\right|n,l+`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}\text{d}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_l^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{N_{l,m}}}\right)^2)];\rho (0,a)`$ (36)
and

$`P_{N,m}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{P_l^{|m|}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{N_{l,m}}}\right)^2[1+\lambda (n,l\left|\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}\right|n,l+`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^a}\text{d}\rho \rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{J_{l+1/2}(\mu _n^{(l)}\rho /a)}{N_B}}\right)^2)];\theta (0,\pi /2).`$ (38)
Figure 3(a) and (b) show the radial and angular probabilities given by Eqs. (36) and (38), respectively. In both cases the levels considered are ($`N,m)=`$ $`(1,0)`$, $`(4,0)`$, $`(8,0),`$ and $`(8,2)`$. Solid lines represent the semi-spherical case ($`b/a=1`$), while the quantum cap with $`b/a=0.509`$ is shown by dotted lines, and illustrates the departure from the semi-spherical case for decreasing $`b/a`$ ratio. In the case of the radial probability, the deviation observed when the ratio $`b/a`$ decreases is relatively small, in comparison with the semi-spherical cap. In contrast, the angular probability shows a rather strong deviation as a function of $`b/a`$, as the maximum probability is shifted towards $`\theta =\pi /2`$; that is, the carrier is located more towards the plane $`v=0`$, as the cap height decreases (see Fig. 1(b)). For all states, the maximum of $`P(\rho )`$ is smoothly shifted towards $`\rho =0`$, except for level $`(8,2)`$. The different behavior observed for the radial and angular probability densities can be seen as arising from the fact that the geometry of the quantum dot is essentially decreasing in radius and not in angle, as $`b/a`$ decreases. The radial probability is obtained by integration along the angle in all directions $`(0<\theta <\pi /2)`$, taking into account the angular contribution for a given $`\rho `$ and certain geometry. On the other hand, the angular probability is calculated by taking the integration along the radius where the change of geometry is more important. Hence, one can say that the angular probability density $`P(\theta )`$ contains more information about the changing cap geometry than the function $`P(\rho )`$, as function of $`b/a`$.

Finally, a test for the viability to obtain the wavefunctions and energies by the perturbation method, is given by the ratio between the matrix element of the perturbation Hamiltonian $`n,l|H_p(𝒥_\alpha ,m)|n,l`$ with respect to the non-perturbed dimensionless energy $`k_o^2,`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{N,m}\frac{\left|n,l|H_p(𝒥_\alpha ,m)|n,l\right|}{k_o^2(n,l)}.$$
(39)
The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{N,m}`$ was calculated for the levels of Fig. 2 and is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of $`b/a`$. A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the perturbation theory to be valid is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{N,m}`$ must be less than the unity, and this criterion is fulfilled for the range $`0.4<b/a<`$ $`1`$. Another more restrictive condition for the applicability of this method is that $`n,l|H_p(𝒥_\alpha ,m)|n^{},l^{}<\left|k_o^2(n,l)k_o^2(n^{},l^{})\right|`$, saying that the differences between non-perturbed dimensionless energy states need to be larger than the matrix elements of the perturbation. A more complete, non-perturbation, solution of Eq. (7) is needed to completely assess the validity of the perturbation approach. However, one can be confident that for small $`\lambda `$ values, the eigenstates and eigenfunctions found represent an accurate solution to the problem, as the perturbation and the small parameter is well defined, and the procedure robust.

## IV Conclusions

We have presented a formal and systematic conformal analytical map model to describe quantum dots with lens geometry and circular cross section arising in the growth of low dimensional semiconductor systems. The reported transformation can be extended straightforward to different physical-mathematical models as electronic states and phonon modes fulfilling a certain differential equation. The proposed conformal image maps the lens boundary into a dot with semi-spherical shape, allowing one to obtain a complete set of orthonormal functions to characterize the physical problem keeping the full lens symmetry. We have applied the formalism to the eigenvalue and eigenfunction of the Schrödinger problem in a spherical cap geometry. The conformal mapping of the equation allows a modified but well defined Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation approach, where the cap height to in-plane radius is used to define the small parameter of the theory.

We find that the wavefunctions are strongly shifted towards the flat face, as the height of the lens decreases, while the radial dependence is not affected as much. This change in the wavefunctions is interesting on its own, as it reflects the changes produced by the appropriate operator after the conformal mapping. Moreover, these changes may have important consequences for the different electronic and optical properties of self-assembled quantum dots. We are currently studying those properties and will report our findings in the future. The reported energy dependence on cap height to in-plane radius and semiconductors parameters can be useful to characterize the geometrical dimensions of these novel semiconductor nanostructures.

###### Acknowledgements.

SEU acknowledges partial support by the US DOE grant no. DE-FG02-91ER45334.

## appendix

The Jacobian of the transformation $`𝒲(𝒵)`$ is given by

$$𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )=\frac{16(1/\alpha )^2}{R^{11/\alpha }\left[f_+^{1/\alpha }+f_{}^{1/\alpha }+2R^{1/2\alpha }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /\alpha )\right]^2},$$
(40)
and the term $`𝒥_\alpha /𝒳_\alpha ^2`$ can be cast as

$$\frac{𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )}{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(r,\theta )}=\frac{16(1/\alpha )^2}{R^{11/\alpha }\left[f_+^{1/\alpha }f_{}^{1/\alpha }\right]^2}.$$
(40)
In the above equations we have defined

$$r=\rho /a;f_\pm =1+r^2\pm 2r\mathrm{sin}\theta ;R=f_+f_{},$$
(41)
and

$$\varphi =\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{arctg}\left(\frac{2r\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1r^2}\right)& ;r<1\\ \pi /2& ;r=1\text{ .}\end{array}$$
(42)
From Eqs. (40) and (40), it follows that

$$𝒥_{\alpha =1}(r,\theta )1\text{ };\left(\frac{𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )}{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(r,\theta )}\right)_{\alpha =1}\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta },$$
(43)
as one would expect.

Finally, the geometric perturbation factors in Eq. (33) are given by

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )}{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}`$ $`=`$ $`2r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{ln}(f_+/f_{})+2\varphi r\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ ()
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )}{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(r,\theta )}}\right)_{\lambda =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4r\mathrm{sin}\theta (1+r^2)\mathrm{ln}(f_+/f_{})}{2r^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta }},`$ ()
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )}{\lambda ^2}}\right)_{\lambda =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}\left[3\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha }{\lambda }}\right)_{\lambda =0}8\right]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+r^2)}{4}}\mathrm{ln}^2(f_+/f_{})`$ ()
$`+\varphi ^2(1r^2)+2\mathrm{ln}^2R,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒥_\alpha (r,\theta )}{𝒳_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(r,\theta )}}\right)_{\lambda =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4r\mathrm{sin}\theta )^216r\mathrm{sin}\theta (1+r^2)\mathrm{ln}(f_+/f_{})}{8r^4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}`$ ()
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(2(1+r^2)^2+R)\mathrm{ln}^2(f_+/f_{})}{8r^4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta }}.`$


text:
# References

Study of ATLAS Sensitivity to FCNC Top Quark Decay $`tZq`$

Leila Chikovani

Institute of Physics of the Georgian Academy of Sciencies,

Tamar Djobava

High Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University,

ABSTRACT

The sensitivity of ATLAS experiment to the top-quark rare decay via flavor-changing neutral currents $`tZq`$ ($`q`$ represents $`c`$ and $`u`$ quarks) have been studied at $`\sqrt{s}`$=14 TeV in two decay modes: 1.The pure leptonic decay of gauge bosons: $`t\overline{t}ZqWbl^+l^{}jl^\pm \nu j_b`$ , (l=e, $`\mu `$). 2.The leptonic decay of Z bosons and hadronic decay of W bosons: $`t\overline{t}ZqWbl^+l^{}jjjj_b`$ , (l=e, $`\mu `$). The dominant backgrounds Z+jets, ZW and $`t\overline{t}`$ has been analysed. The signal and backgrounds were ganarated via PYTHIA 5.7, simulated and analysed using ATLFAST 2.14. A branching ratio for $`tZq`$ as low as 1.1x10-4 for the leptonic mode and 2.3x10-4 for hadronic mode could be discovered at the 5$`\sigma `$ level with an integrated luminosity of 105 pb$`{}_{}{}^{}1`$.

1.Introduction

The existence of the top quark has been established at the Fermilab Tevatron by the CDF and DO Collaborations . Because the top quark is heavier than all other observed fermions and gauge bosons and has a mass of the order of the Fermi scale, it couples to electroweak symmetry breaking sector strongly. If anomalous top quark couplings beyond the Standard Model (SM) were to exist, they would affect top quark production and decay processes at hadron and $`e^+`$ $`e^{}`$ colliders . Therefore to study the flavour-changing neutral current top quark decay $`tZq`$ ($`q`$ represents either $`c`$ or $`u`$ quarks) is of great interest, as known  that LHC can be considered as ”top factory”, because about 80 000 $`t\overline{t}`$ events are expected to be produced per day at $`L=10^{33}cm^2s^1`$, that’s why the LHC with high integrated luminosity and energy have good potential to explore this rare decay.

We study the sensitivity of ATLAS experiment to the Branching ratio of top-quark rare decay mode $`tZq`$ ($`q=u,c`$). In the framework of the Standard Model the loop suppression and heaviness of gauge bosons makes this process rare being of an order of 10-13 . Meanwhile the other models predict significantly larger Branching ratios for this process. Two-Higgs-doublet model predicts for Br($`tZq`$)$`10^9`$  and Super symmetric (SUSY) model (without $`R`$-parity) - Br($`tZq`$)$`10^4`$ . The existing limit at 95 $`\%`$ CL from CDF  is Br($`tZq`$) $`<33\%`$ (RUN1 at the Tevatron). The observation of such a top-quark decay mode would signal to existance of new physics - the physics beyond the SM: new dynamical interactions of top quark, multi-Higgs doublets, exotic fermions and etc.  In addition this mode is of great interest since $`t\overline{t}ZZ+cc`$ decays would prove to be serious background to events containing $`Z`$ boson pairs and jets from cascade decays of squarks and gluinos .

The dominant mechanisms for top quarks production at LHC are $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ annihilation channels $`q\overline{q}`$, $`ggt\overline{t}`$. The final state topology of $`t\overline{t}ZqWb`$ has two decay mode of gauge bosons:
1. The pure leptonic decay of gauge bosons:
$`tZql^+l^{}j`$ , $`\overline{t}Wbl^\pm \nu j_b`$ (l=e, $`\mu `$)
2. The leptonic decay of Z bosons and hadronic decay of W bosons:
$`tZql^+l^{}j`$ , $`\overline{t}Wbjjj_b`$ (l=e, $`\mu `$)
The value of the Branching ratio of hadronic mode is three times more than the leptonic one, but it has enormous QCD-backgrounds at hadron collider while the pure leptonic has a very distinct experimental signature: three isolated charged leptons, two of which reconstruct a $`Z`$, a large missing transverse momentum ( $`P_T^{miss}`$ ) and two hard jets coming from the $`b`$ and $`q`$ ($`q=c,u`$) quarks.

The both channels are of great interest.

2.The Signal Generation

As was mentioned above the dominant source of top quark production at hadron colliders are $`q\overline{q}`$, $`ggt\overline{t}`$ processes. The PYTHIA 5.7 was set up to produce $`t\overline{t}`$ events at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV and $`m_{top}=174`$ GeV with proton structure functions CTEQ2L. Initial and final state QED and QCD (ISR, FSR) radiation, multiple interactions, fragmentations and decays of unstabled particles were enabled, but the underlying event (beam remnants, pile up etc) was switched off.

The generation of the channel $`tZq`$ is not implemented in the PYTHIA. This process had been included into PYTHIA in the following way: all individual decay channels of top quark had been switched off except of the $`tWb`$ and $`tWs`$ ones. In the channel $`tWs`$ the decay $`tZq`$ was included replacing $`W`$ by $`Z`$ and $`s`$ by $`c(u)`$.

3.The Leptonic Decay Mode

The signature for the pure leptonic decay mode as mentioned above is $`t\overline{t}ZqWbl^+l^{}jl^\pm j_b`$. Due to the requirement of three isolated charged leptons, two of which reconstruct a $`Z`$ and a large missing transverse energy the following SM backgrounds has been considered:
$``$ $`Z(ll)+jets`$
$``$ $`ppW^\pm Z+Xl^\pm \nu l^+l^{}+X`$
$``$ $`t\overline{t}W^+bW^{}\stackrel{~}{b}l^+\nu j_bl^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }j_b`$.

The main goal is to analyse fully generated events and select the isolated leptons, reconstruct jets, identify b-jets and estimate the missing transverse energy. A parametrization of electron, muon momentum energy resolution is included, as well as a parametrization of the hadronic calorimeter energy resolution (for jets) and the effect of the ATLAS magnetic field on jet reconstruction. For this purpose some subroutines from the fast simulation package ATLFAST 1.0 have been used . For the leptons isolation only tracking isolation method had been considered. The jets momenta had been recalibrated by the calibration factor $`K_{jet}=P_T^{parton}/P_T^{jet}`$ according to the algorithm of the ATLFAST package, where $`P_T^{parton}`$ denotes the transverse momentum $`P_T`$ of the parton which initiated the jet (before FSR).

Some preselection cuts were applied to signal and backgrounds before writing the events on DST:
1. The event contains at least 3 leptons (electrons with $`P_T>5`$ GeV and muons with $`P_T>6`$ GeV) within pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2.5`$.
2. The events must contain a pair of opposite sign and same flavour leptons compatible with them having come from Z bosons.
3. The number of jets in the event $`N_{jet}2`$ with $`P_T^{jet}>15`$ GeV.

The $`Z(ll)+jets`$ background in the final state also have a pair of isolated charged leptons, but $`P_T^{miss}`$ in such processes arises mainly from neutrinos produced in semileptonic decays of heavy quarks.

$`Z(ll)+jets`$ production at LHC has relatively large cross section dominated by $`qgZq`$ and $`q\overline{q}Zg`$ processes. To speed up the generation, the thresholds on invariant mass $`\widehat{m}=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ and transverse momentum $`\widehat{p_{}}`$ had been imposed: $`\widehat{m}=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}>130`$ GeV; $`\widehat{p_{}}>50`$ GeV. So we collect events mainly from the top peak (otherwise we would have additional large contribution from undesireble events). The cross section for this sample of events is $`\sigma _{Z+jets}`$=3186 pb. The demand of three isolated leptons and large P$`{}_{}{}^{miss}{}_{T}{}^{}`$ reduces this background significantly.

The $`ZW`$ background is the electroweak process $`ppW^\pm Z+Xl^\pm \nu l^+l^{}+X`$. $`\sigma _{ZW}`$=26.58 pb. Since the signal events naturally contain two energetic jets from heavy top quark decays, typically with a transverse momentum of order $`P_T(j)1/2m_t(1M_w^2/m_t^2)`$,  to demand of two observable jets in the events one of which is $`b`$-jet, reduces the $`WZ`$ background significantly.

In the selected $`t\overline{t}`$ background events sources of leptons are arising from the decays of $`W^\pm `$ and from cascade decays, where quarks initially decay hadronically, but produce leptons further in the decay chain. These cascade leptons have a softer $`P_T`$ spectrum than the leptons from $`W`$ and requirement of three isolated leptons with high $`P_T`$ reduce $`t\overline{t}`$ background significantly. We have to emphasize, that $`t\overline{t}`$ background suffers from the demand of the existence only one tagged $`b`$\- jet in the event.

The number of events collected over a given period of time is calculated by the formula:

$`N=\sigma L`$ (1)
where $`L`$ is the integrated luminosity ($`L=10^5pb^1`$). The expected number of events $`N_{exp}`$ are:
$``$ for the signal

$`N_{exp}^S=2\sigma _{t\overline{t}}Br(tZc)Br(tWb)Br(Wl\nu )Br(Zll)L`$ (2)
$`N_{exp}^S=22.8Br(tZc)L`$

the estimation has been done for $`\sigma _{t\overline{t}}`$=800 pb .
$``$ for $`Z(ll)+jets`$ background

$`N_{exp}^{Z+jets}=21400000`$

$``$ for $`ZW`$ background

$`N_{exp}^{ZW}=40000`$

$``$ for $`t\overline{t}`$ background

$`N_{exp}^{t\overline{t}}=\sigma _{t\overline{t}}(Br(Wl\nu ))^2(Br(tWb))^2L`$ (3)
$`N_{exp}^{t\overline{t}}=3720000`$

Two sets of kinematical cuts had been applied in sequence for the signal and backgrounds (see Tables 1$`÷`$9).

|  | S E T 1 | S E T 2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lepton isolation cut: | $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ |
| Lepton $`P_T`$ cut: | 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | |
| $`E_T`$ missing: | $`E_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | |
| jets $`\eta `$ cut: | jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | |
| 2 jets $`P_T`$ cut: | 2jets with $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ | |
|  | 2jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ | |
| jets isolation cut: | $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | |
| Lepton-jets isolation cut: | $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | |
| Z mass cut: | $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | |
| $`b`$ jets cut: | one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | |
| Top mass cut: | $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$, $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$, $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | |

For the lepton tracker (tracking) isolation it had been assumed that there be no track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2}`$. It have been considered two cones of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ : $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2).

The requirement of 3 leptons on the level of preselection cuts reduces significantly Z+jets and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds, meanwhile the requirement of two jets reduces significantly ZW and Z+jets backgrounds.

The efficiency of preselection cuts for signal is $`80\%`$, while for the large number expected events Z+jets background is $`1.7\%`$. After applying the preselection cuts other backgrounds are rejected (ZW background by $`90\%`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ by $`80\%`$) significantly.

In Tables 1$`÷`$8 three leptons identification efficiency ((0.9)3= 0.729) have not been taken into consideration, but for the estimation of the Branching ratios it have been done.

Three leptons isolation cut reduces signal by $``$ 15 $`\%`$ for SET1 and by $``$ 23 $`\%`$ for SET2. Thus for SET2 the signal reduction is more by $``$ 10 $`\%`$ than for SET1. The ZW background is not affected by lepton isolation cut. This background reduces only by $``$ 3$`÷`$4 $`\%`$ for both SETs. In Z+jets and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds two islolated leptons are present and the third lepton originates from the cascade decays. The requirement of three isolated leptons affects most significantly these backgrounds, about 90 $`÷`$ 95 $`\%`$ of events respectively for set1 and set2 are rejected.

The requirement of three leptons with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ reduces signal and ZW background by about 30 $`\%`$. In Z+jets and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds this cut remains about 4 $`\%`$ of events. This is well illustrated in Figs.1 and 2. Fig.1 presents the $`P_T`$ distribution of two leptons that reconstruct Z invariant mass for signal and backgrounds and Fig.2 shows the $`P_T`$ distribution of third lepton respectively. The arrows in Figs. 1 and 2 indicate the threshold $`P_T`$ for leptons $`P_T^l=20GeV`$.

After applying $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ cut in signal, ZW and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds remain 76 $`\%`$, 70 $`\%`$ and 90 $`\%`$ of events, which were accepted by the previous cut, whereas for Z+jets remain only $``$ 8 $`\%`$ of events. Thus the $`P_T^{miss}`$ cut reduces significantly Z+jets background (see Fig.3., arrow indicates the threshold $`P_T^{miss}=30GeV`$).

It have been demanded the presence of two jets in $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ satisfying to the following conditions of isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ (jet-jets isolation) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ (lepton-jets isolation). Two threshold values for $`P_T^{jet}`$ cut have been examined: $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ and $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ (see Tables 1$`÷`$9). Fig.4 presents the number of jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ in an event. One can see, that the cut requiring the presence of 2 and more jets in each event is a major rejector for the ZW background.

The kinamatic variable which can be used to seperate signal from backgrounds is the reconstructed Z mass (since there is no Z in the $`t\overline{t}`$ background). For the reconstruction of Z mass, have been required a pair of isolated leptons within $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ mass window. The choice of 6 GeV for this cut is motivated mainly by the resolution ($`2\sigma `$) on the reconstructed Z in the signal. Fig 5.a presents distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of $`ll`$ pairs $`m_{ll}`$, for all combinations of $`ll`$ for the signal. The Z mass cut does not affect strongly the ZW and Z+jets backgrounds . Meanwhile this cut is very effective tool for the suppression of $`t\overline{t}`$ background. After applying this cut only 10$`÷`$12 $`\%`$ of events accpeted by previous cut retain for SET1 and $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ and only 5$`÷`$7 $`\%`$ of events for SET2 and $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$.

The next demand is the presence in the event only one tagged $`b`$ jet. After this cut in signal survive 50 $`\%`$ of events accepted by Z mass cut for both SETs and $`P_T^{jet}`$ criteria whereas for $`t\overline{t}`$ background this value is smaller by about 10$`÷`$20 $`\%`$. For ZW background the one tagged $`b`$ jet cut is effective rejector, after applying this cut survive 7$`÷`$8 $`\%`$ of events in SET1 and $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ and 7$`÷`$15 $`\%`$ of events in SET2 and $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ and . The Z+jets background is less affected by $`b`$ jet cut, 60$`÷`$70 $`\%`$ of events are retained. (see Fig.6)

Since the Z+jets and ZW backgrounds do not contain top quark, applyment of $`tZq`$ mass cut is very useful for the rejection of Z+jets and ZW backgrounds. In Fig. 5.b the distribution of reconstructed invariant top mass $`m_{llj}`$ (in reconstruction $`b`$-jet does not participate) for all combinations of $`llj`$ for the signal is presented. The resolution $`\sigma `$ of $`m_{llj}`$ is $`\sigma `$=14. The reconstruction of top mass have been required within three mass windows: $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 8`$ GeV (narrow cut), $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 12`$ GeV ($`\sigma `$) $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 24`$ GeV ($`2\sigma `$). The top mass cut suppressed strongly Z+jets and ZW backgrounds, in $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 8`$ GeV mass window Z+jets have been vanished.

We suppose that new physics will be discovered if the signal significance is $`S/\sqrt{B}5`$. The $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ is computed as $`S/\sqrt{B}=N_S/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }N_B}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_B`$ is the sum over the all observed backgrounds events, $`N_S`$ – is the number of observed events for the signal

$`N_S=N_{exp}^Sϵ_lϵ^S`$

the lepton identification efficience is $`ϵ_l=90\%`$ and $`ϵ^S`$ is the signal efficiency.

The Branching ratio for the t $``$ Zq decay is expressed by the following formula:

$`Br(tZq)=K\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }N_B}/ϵ^S`$ (4)
where K=2.52 $``$ 10-6. The estimated Branching ratios for the leptonic mode for two sets of kinematical cuts and $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ and $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ are presented in Table 9. One can see from Table 9, that for the estimation of Branching ratios more optimal is $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ cut. In each mZq mass window the estimated Branching ratios for the both SETs are less for $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ than for $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$. In this channel, a value of Br(t $``$ Zq ) as low as 1.1x10-4 could be discovered at the 5$`\sigma `$ level with an integrated luminosity 105 pb-1.

The Branching ratio sensitivity for $`tZq`$ leptonic mode have been estimated by Columbia University group  for a small statistic at 104 pb-1 luminosity. Their results are in a good agreemnet with our ones.

2.The Hadronic Decay Mode

The hadronic decay mode of the channel $`tZc`$ had been studied by a fast simulation package ATLFAST 2.14. The basic information of the detector geometry is used by this package: the $`\eta `$ coverage for the calorimetry, the size of the barrel/endcap transition region for the electromagnetic calorimeter and the granularity of the calorimeters. No effects related for the detailed shapes of particle showers in the calorimeters, for the charged track multiplicity in jets, etc are taken into account. The main goal of the ATLFAST package is to simulate and analyse fully generated events and select isolated leptons, reconstructed jets, label $`b`$-jets, $`c`$-jets and estimate the missing transverse energy. A more or less accurate parametrization of leptons momentum resolution is included, as well as a parametrization of the hadronic calorimeter energy resolution and the effect of the ATLAS magnetic field on jet reconstruction. For the generation of a processes the ATLFAST uses the generator PYTHIA 5.7. The routines of ATLFAST-B rundomly simulate $`b,c`$ jets tagging and provide jet energy recalibration. In our case the events have been simulated with ATLFAST and analysed the results using the ATLFAST-B utilities whenever.

For recalibration of light jets momenta we have considered two calibration factors: 1) $`K_{jet}=P_T^{q(q=c,u)}/P_T^{jet}`$ 2) $`K_{jet}=P_T^{parton}/P_T^{jet}`$ where $`P_T^{parton}`$ represents transverse momenta of light quarks originated from $`Wqq`$ decay. The first factor is used for top invariant mass reconstruction $`m_{llj}`$ and the second one for $`W`$ invariant mass $`m_{jj}`$ calculation.

The $`t\overline{t}`$ events had been generated at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV and $`m_{top}=175`$ GeV with proton structure functions CTEQ2L. Initial and final state QED and QCD (ISR, FSR) radiation, multiple interactions, fragmentations and decays of unstabled particles were enabled as for leptonic mode.

The signal $`t\overline{t}ZcWbl^+l^{}jjjj_b`$ signature for hadronic mode is: two isolated charged leptons, which reconstruct $`Z`$ and 4 energetic jets.

This mode has the following backgrounds:
$``$ $`Z(ll)+jets`$
$``$ $`ppW^\pm Z+Xjjl^+l^{}+X`$
$``$ $`t\overline{t}W^+bW^{}\stackrel{~}{b}`$ final state topology:
a) $`l^+\nu j_bl^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }j_b`$
b) $`jjj_bjjjb`$
c) $`l^\pm \nu j_bjjj_b`$
In case of a) decay additional two jets are QCD jets and in b) and c) items the source of leptons is cascade decays. Therefore if we demand two isolated energetic leptons and four jets among which only one $`b`$-jet is required, $`t\overline{t}`$ background is significantly suppressed. A few survived events vanish on the level of $`m_{jj}`$ and $`m_{jjb}`$ invariant masses reconstructions.

To speed up the generation of Z+jets background the same thresholds as in the case of the leptonic mode, has been imposed on invariant mass $`\widehat{m}=\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ and transverse momentum $`\widehat{p_{}}`$.

The following preselection cuts were applied to signal and background before writing the events on DST:
1. The event contains at least 2 leptons (electrons with $`P_T>5`$ GeV within pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2.5`$ and muons with $`P_T>6`$ GeV within pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2.4`$).
2. The events must contain a pair of opposite sign and same flavour leptons compatible with them having come from Z bosons.
3. The number of jets in event $`N_{jet}4`$ with $`P_T^{jet}>15`$ GeV.

The expected number of events $`N_{exp}`$ for hadronic mode are:
$``$ for $`ZW`$ background

$`N_{exp}^{ZW}=121000`$

After preselection cuts the following kinematical cuts had been applied in sequence for the signal and backgrounds:

| Lepton $`P_T`$ cut: | 2l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ for e+,e- and |
| --- | --- |
|  | in $`|\eta ^l|<2.4`$ for $`\mu ^+`$, $`\mu ^{}`$ |
| jet $`P_T`$ cut: | 4 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ |
| jets isolation cut: | $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ |
| Lepton-jets isolation cut: | $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ |
| Z mass cut: | $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ |
| W mass cut: | $`M_W\pm 16GeV`$ |
| $`b`$ jets cut: | only one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event |
| t$``$W+b mass cut: | $`M_{Wb}\pm 8GeV`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass cut: | $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$, $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$, $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ |

The number of accepted events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of each of these cuts in sequence for signal and backgrounds are presented in Tables 10$`÷`$12. After preselection cuts 46 $`\%`$ of events are accepted for signal, while for Z+jets background – 3.5 $`\%`$ and for ZW – 4.1 $`\%`$. The requirement of two isolated leptons with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ does not affect the signal and backgrounds. After this cut 80 – 90 $`\%`$ of events are survived.

The demand of four jets with with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ strongly reduces Z+jets and ZW backgrounds. In Z+jets 11 $`\%`$ of events accepted by the previous cut are retained and in ZW – 9 $`\%`$. The jets isolation and lepton-jets isolation cuts does not reduce the signal and backgrounds, 98 –99 $`\%`$ of events are retained.

For the reconstruction of Z mass, have been required the same mass windows as for the leptonic mode. Fig.7.a presents the distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of $`ll`$ pairs $`m_{ll}`$ for the best combinations of $`ll`$ for the signal. The resolution of the reconstructed Z mass is $`\sigma `$=2.91 GeV. Thus mass window $`\pm `$6 GeV corresponds to $`2\sigma `$. After applying Z mass cut, in signal and Z+jets background 85 $`\%`$ of events accepted by the previous cut are retained. In ZW background survived 74 $`\%`$ of events from those accepted by the lepton-jets isolation cut.

In hadronic mode the additional kinematical variable which can be used to seperate signal from backgrounds is the reconstructed W mass. For the reconstruction of W mass, have been required a pair of jets within $`m_{jj}\pm 16GeV`$ mass window. The jets that reconstruct the best combinations of $`W`$ invariant mass, do not participate in further reconstructions. Fig.8.a shows the distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of jets pairs $`m_{jj}`$ for the best combinations of $`jj`$ for the signal. The resolution $`\sigma _{m_{jj}}`$ = 8 GeV. Thus the mass window $`\pm `$ 16 GeV corresponds to $`2\sigma `$ of the reconstructed W in the signal. The W mass cut strongly suppresses Z+jets background (since there is no W in this background). Only 28 $`\%`$ of events survive after W mass cut in this background.

The requirement of only one tagged $`b`$-jet in the event does not affect the signal, whereas suppresses the Z+jets (retained 6 $`\%`$ of events) and ZW backgrounds (survived 8 $`\%`$ of events).

The reconstructed top mass t$``$Wb cut is used to reduce Z+jets and ZW backgrounds. In Fig.8.b the distribution of the reconstructed invariant top mass (t$``$Wb) $`m_{jjj_b}`$ for the best combinations of $`jjj_b`$ for the signal is presented. The resolution of $`m_{jjj_b}`$ is $`\sigma _{m_{jjj_b}}`$ =18.5 GeV. For the reconstruction of t$``$Wb mass narrow cut window have been chosen $`m_{Wb}\pm 8GeV`$. After applying the t$``$Wb mass cut in signal survived 25 $`\%`$ of events accepted by the $`b`$ \- jet cut. This cut strongly suppresses Z+jets background, 6 $`\%`$ of events are retained after this cut and in ZW background accepts only one event.

For the reconstruction of top mass t$``$Zq have been chosen the same mass windows as for the leptonic mode: $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 8`$ GeV (narrow cut), $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 12`$ GeV ($`\sigma `$) $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 24`$ GeV ($`2\sigma `$). After applying this cut to the signal, in mass window $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 8`$ GeV are retained 43 $`\%`$ of events accepted by the t$``$Wb cut, in $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 12`$ GeV – 55 $`\%`$ and in $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 24`$ GeV – 70 $`\%`$. It is worth to mention, that in mass window $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 8`$ GeV 91 $`\%`$ of events are reconstructed by $`c`$ jets , t$`llj_c`$ and only 10 $`\%`$ of events are reconstructed by light jets. By the widening the mass window the mixture of events reconstructed by light jets increases from 10 $`\%`$ to 22 $`\%`$, but the number of events reconstructed by $`c`$-jets increases too. The Z+jets background in mass window $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 8`$ GeV vanishes and one event is accepted in $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 12`$ GeV and two events in $`m_{Zq}`$ $`\pm 24`$ GeV. This cut completely suppresses the ZW background in all mass windows. In Fig.7.b the distribution of reconstructed t$``$Zq invariant top mass $`m_{llj}`$ for the best combinations of $`llj`$ is presented for the signal. The resolution $`\sigma `$ of $`m_{llj}`$ distribution is $`\sigma _{m_{llj}}`$ = 9.9 GeV.

In Table 13 are presented relative efficiences in $`\%`$ of some important kinamatical cut for leptonic and hadronic modes of the signal for the comparison. One can see, that the relative efficiences of leptons, jets , Z mass , $`b`$ jet and top mass cuts for leptonic and hadronic modes coincide, as it was expected.

The Branching ratios for the hadronic mode have been estimated by the formula (4), where for hadronic mode K=6.87 $``$ 10-7. The results are presented in Table 14. In hadronic mode, a value of Br(t $``$ Zq ) as low as 2.2 $`÷`$ 2.3x10-4 could be discovered at the 5$`\sigma `$ level with an integrated luminosity 105 pb-1.

Combining the results from the leptonic and hadronic modes a Branching ratios have been estimated for t$``$Zq. For the estimation the following formula was used:

$`Br(tZq)=K\sqrt{\mathrm{\Sigma }N_B}/(0.216ϵ^L+0.676ϵ^H)`$ (5)
where $`ϵ^L`$ is the signal efficiency for the leptonic mode, $`ϵ^H`$ is the signal efficiency for the hadronic mode and K=4.65 $``$ 10-6. The results for the combined leptonic and hadronic modes are presented in Table 15. One can see from the Table, that a Branching ratio for t $``$ Zq as low as 0.9x10-4 could be discovered at the 5$`\sigma `$ level with an integrated luminosity 105 pb-1.

3. Conclusions

We have studied the sensitivity to the top quark rare decay via flavour-changing neutral currents $`tZq`$ ($`q=u,c`$) at LHC on the ATLAS experiment for the luminosity $`L=10^5pb^1`$. The Branching ratios of $`tZq`$ in pure leptonic and hadronic decay modes had been estimated. The results demonstrate, that in the leptonic mode a Branching ratio as low as 1.1x10-4 and in the hadronic mode as low as 2.2 $`÷`$ 2.3x10-4 could be discovered at the 5$`\sigma `$ level with an integrated luminosity 105 pb-1. Combining the results from the leptonic and hadronic modes, a Branching ratio for $`tZq`$ as low as 0.9x10-4 could be discovered at the 5$`\sigma `$ level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are very indebted to D.Froudevaux, J.Parsons, M.Cobal, E.Richter-Wass, S.Slabospitsky for very interesting and important discussions. We are very grateful to R.Mehdiyev for many valuable advices. We would like to thank P.Jenni and T.Grigalashvili for their continuous support and encouragement during our work, J.Khubua for providing the opportunity to proceed our work in future. The authors wish to thank Z. Menteshashvili for helping during the preparation of the article.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig.1. The $`P_T`$ distributions of leptons that recostruct $`Z`$ mass ,for leptonic mode signal and backgrounds, normalised to unity. The arrow indicates the threshold value $`P_T^l`$ for kinematical cut.

Fig.2. The third lepton $`P_T`$ distributions for leptonic mode signal and backgrounds, normalised to unity. The arrow indicates the threshold value $`P_T^l`$ for kinematical cut.

Fig.3. The reconstructed $`P_T^{miss}`$ distributions for leptonic mode signal and backgrounds, normalised to unity. The arrow indicates the threshold value $`P_T^{miss}`$ for kinematical cut.

Fig.4. Distribution of jet multiplicity (threshold at $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$) for signal and backgrounds, normalised to unity. The arrow indicates the threshold value of the number of jets for kinematical cut.

Fig.5. a) Distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of the lepton pairs, $`M_{ll}`$ for the leptonic mode. b) Distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of $`tllj`$ for the leptonic mode.

Fig.6. Distribution of $`b`$-jet multiplicity (threshold at $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$) for signal and backgrounds, normalised to unity.

Fig.7. a) Distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of the lepton pairs, $`M_{ll}`$ for the best combination (hadronic mode). b) Distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of $`tllj`$ for the best combination of $`llj`$ (hadronic mode).

Fig.8. a) Distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of the jet pairs, $`M_{jj}`$ for the best combination (hadronic mode). b) Distribution of reconstructed invariant mass of $`tjjj_b`$ for the best combination of $`jjj_b`$ (hadronic mode).

Table 1. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the signal (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>40`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 20565 |  | 20565 |  |
| Preselection cuts | 16497 | 80.2 | 16497 | 80.2 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 14071 | 68.4 | 12672 | 61.6 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 9844 | 47.9 | 8885 | 43.3 |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 7462 | 36.3 | 6730 | 32.7 |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 7021 | 34.1 | 6307 | 30.7 |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ | 6213 | 30.2 | 5552 | 27.0 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 6179 | 30.1 | 5522 | 26.8 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 5573 | 27.1 | 5138 | 24.9 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 4717 | 22.9 | 4347 | 22.1 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 2367 | 11.5 | 2193 | 10.7 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 1038 | 5.1 | 970 | 4.7 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 1389 | 6.8 | 1294 | 6.3 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 1879 | 9.1 | 1742 | 8.5 |

Table 2. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the signal (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 20565 |  | 20565 |  |
| Preselection cuts | 16497 | 80.2 | 16497 | 80.2 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 14071 | 68.4 | 12672 | 61.6 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 9844 | 47.9 | 8885 | 43.3 |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 7462 | 36.3 | 6730 | 32.7 |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 7021 | 34.1 | 6307 | 30.7 |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ | 4904 | 23.8 | 4341 | 21.1 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 4881 | 23.7 | 4322 | 21.0 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 4453 | 21.6 | 4063 | 19.8 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 3781 | 18.4 | 3450 | 16.8 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 1835 | 8.9 | 1678 | 8.2 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 787 | 3.8 | 728 | 3.5 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 1053 | 5.1 | 973 | 4.7 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 1383 | 6.7 | 1264 | 6.1 |

Table 3. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the Z+jets background (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>40`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 21.4$`10^6`$ |  | 21.4$`10^6`$ |  |
| Preselection cuts | 366843 | 1.7 | 366843 | 1.7 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 40472 | 0.19 | 21539 | 0.10 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 1644 | 7.7$`10^3`$ | 945 | 4.4$`10^3`$ |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 129 | 6.0$`10^4`$ | 80 | 3.7$`10^4`$ |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 122 | 5.7$`10^4`$ | 80 | 3.7$`10^4`$ |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ | 97 | 4.5$`10^4`$ | 56 | 2.6$`10^4`$ |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 94 | 4.4$`10^4`$ | 56 | 2.6$`10^4`$ |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 59 | 2.8$`10^4`$ | 38 | 1.8$`10^4`$ |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 45 | 2.1$`10^4`$ | 28 | 1.3$`10^4`$ |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 28 | 1.3$`10^4`$ | 21 | 9.8$`10^5`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 1 | 4.8$`10^6`$ | 1 | 4.8$`10^6`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 2 | 9.3$`10^6`$ | 1 | 4.8$`10^6`$ |

Table 4. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the Z+jets background (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 21.4$`10^6`$ |  | 21.4$`10^6`$ |  |
| Preselection cuts | 366843 | 1.7 | 366843 | 1.7 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 40472 | 0.19 | 21539 | 0.10 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 1644 | 7.7$`10^3`$ | 945 | 4.4$`10^3`$ |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 129 | 6.0$`10^4`$ | 80 | 3.7$`10^4`$ |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 122 | 5.7$`10^4`$ | 80 | 3.7$`10^4`$ |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ | 63 | 2.9$`10^4`$ | 45 | 2.1$`10^4`$ |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 63 | 2.9$`10^4`$ | 45 | 2.1$`10^4`$ |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 42 | 1.9$`10^4`$ | 31 | 1.5$`10^4`$ |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 35 | 1.6$`10^4`$ | 24 | 1.1$`10^4`$ |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 24 | 1.1$`10^4`$ | 10 | 4.7$`10^5`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 1 | 4.8$`10^6`$ | 0 | 0 |

Table 5. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the Z+W background (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>40`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 35700 |  | 35700 |  |
| Preselection cuts | 2941 | 8.2 | 2941 | 8.2 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 2842 | 7.9 | 2630 | 7.4 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 1920 | 5.4 | 1778 | 5.0 |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 1326 | 3.7 | 1252 | 3.5 |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 997 | 2.8 | 938 | 2.6 |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ | 539 | 1.5 | 509 | 1.4 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 532 | 1.5 | 502 | 1.4 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 532 | 1.5 | 502 | 1.4 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 442 | 1.2 | 421 | 1.2 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 32 | 0.09 | 28 | 0.08 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 5 | 1.4$`10^2`$ | 5 | 1.4$`10^2`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 7 | 2.0$`10^2`$ | 6 | 1.7$`10^2`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 8 | 2.2$`10^2`$ | 7 | 2.0$`10^2`$ |

Table 6. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the Z+W background (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 35700 |  | 35700 |  |
| Preselection cuts | 2941 | 8.2 | 2941 | 8.2 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 2842 | 7.9 | 2630 | 7.4 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 1920 | 5.4 | 1778 | 5.0 |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 1326 | 3.7 | 1252 | 3.5 |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 997 | 2.8 | 938 | 2.6 |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ | 278 | 0.8 | 227 | 0.6 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 276 | 0.8 | 225 | 0.6 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 276 | 0.8 | 225 | 0.6 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 230 | 0.6 | 180 | 0.5 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 19 | 0.05 | 28 | 0.04 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 1 | 2.8$`10^3`$ | 1 | 2.8$`10^3`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 1 | 2.8$`10^3`$ | 1 | 2.8$`10^3`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 2 | 5.6$`10^3`$ | 2 | 5.6$`10^3`$ |

Table 7. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the $`t\overline{t}`$ background (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>40`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 3.72$`10^6`$ |  | 3.72$`10^6`$ |  |
| Preselection cuts | 848160 | 29.4 | 848160 | 29.4 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 93000 | 2.5 | 39432 | 1.1 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 3378 | 9.1$`10^2`$ | 1858 | 5.0$`10^2`$ |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 3036 | 8.2$`10^2`$ | 1600 | 4.3$`10^2`$ |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 2902 | 7.8$`10^2`$ | 1339 | 3.6$`10^2`$ |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>40GeV`$ | 2604 | 3.6$`10^2`$ | 1116 | 2.0$`10^2`$ |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 2604 | 3.6$`10^2`$ | 1116 | 2.0$`10^2`$ |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 1488 | 4.0$`10^2`$ | 744 | 1.4$`10^2`$ |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 186 | 5.0$`10^3`$ | 50 | 1.3$`10^3`$ |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 74 | 2.0$`10^3`$ | 20 | 5.4$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 10 | 2.7$`10^4`$ | 10 | 2.7$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 12 | 3.2$`10^4`$ | 11 | 3.0$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 14 | 3.8$`10^4`$ | 13 | 3.5$`10^4`$ |

Table 8. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the $`t\overline{t}`$ background (leptonic mode) for $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV

| C U T S | S E T 1 | | S E T 2 | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| Number of generated events | 3.72$`10^6`$ |  | 3.72$`10^6`$ |  |
| Preselection cuts | 848160 | 29.4 | 848160 | 29.4 |
| Lepton isolation cut: |  |  |  |  |
| No track with $`P_T>2GeV`$ in cone | 93000 | 2.5 | 39432 | 1.1 |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.2`$ (SET1); $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=0.3`$ (SET2) |  |  |  |  |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 3378 | 9.1$`10^2`$ | 1858 | 5.0$`10^2`$ |
| $`P_T^{miss}>30GeV`$ | 3036 | 8.2$`10^2`$ | 1600 | 4.3$`10^2`$ |
| 2 jets with $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 2902 | 7.8$`10^2`$ | 1339 | 3.6$`10^2`$ |
| 2 jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ | 1339 | 3.6$`10^2`$ | 740 | 2.0$`10^2`$ |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 1332 | 3.6$`10^2`$ | 736 | 2.0$`10^2`$ |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 1012 | 2.7$`10^{24}`$ | 596 | 1.6$`10^2`$ |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 104 | 2.8$`10^3`$ | 29 | 7.8$`10^4`$ |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 45 | 1.2$`10^3`$ | 10 | 2.7$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 3 | 8.1$`10^5`$ | 3 | 8.1$`10^5`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 5 | 1.3$`10^4`$ | 4 | 1.1$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 6 | 1.6$`10^4`$ | 5 | 1.3$`10^4`$ |

Table 9. The estimated Branching ratios $`tZq`$ ($`q=c,u`$) for leptonic mode

|  | | | S E T 1 | S E T 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 8`$ GeV | 1.91$`10^4`$ | 2.07$`10^4`$ |
|  | $`P_T^{jet}>40`$ GeV | $`m_{Zq}\pm 12`$ GeV | 1.65$`10^4`$ | 1.69$`10^4`$ |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 24`$ GeV | 1.35$`10^4`$ | 1.36$`10^4`$ |
| Br(t$``$Zq) |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 8`$ GeV | 1.32$`10^4`$ | 1.44$`10^4`$ |
|  | $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV | $`m_{Zq}\pm 12`$ GeV | 1.21$`10^4`$ | 1.20$`10^4`$ |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 24`$ GeV | 1.12$`10^4`$ | 1.11$`10^4`$ |

Table 10. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the signal (hadronic mode).

| C U T S | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of generated events | 19002 |  |
| Preselection cuts | 8742 | 46.0 |
| 2l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 7174 | 37.7 |
| 4 jets with $`P_T>50GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 2896 | 15.2 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 2828 | 14.9 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 2826 | 14.9 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 2426 | 12.8 |
| W mass $`M_W\pm 16GeV`$ | 1006 | 5.3 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 432 | 2.2 |
| t$``$Wb mass: $`M_{Wb}\pm 8GeV`$ | 106 | 0.6 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 46 | 0.2 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 58 | 0.3 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 74 | 0.4 |

Table 11. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the Z+jets background (hadronic mode).

| C U T S | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of generated events | 21.4$`10^6`$ |  |
| Preselection cuts | 746259 | 3.5 |
| 2l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 592627 | 2.8 |
| 4 jets with $`P_T>50GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 63478 | 0.29 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 60421 | 0.28 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 60394 | 0.28 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 50973 | 0.24 |
| W mass $`M_W\pm 16GeV`$ | 14170 | 6.6$`10^2`$ |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 1379 | 6.4$`10^3`$ |
| t$``$Wb mass: $`M_{Wb}\pm 8GeV`$ | 90 | 4.2$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 0 | 0 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 1 | 4.8$`10^6`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 2 | 9.3$`10^6`$ |

Table 12. The numbers of events and efficiencies ($`\%`$) of kinematical cuts applied in

sequence for the Z+W background (hadronic mode).

| C U T S | Events | Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of generated events | 121000 |  |
| Preselection cuts | 4970 | 4.1 |
| 2l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 4456 | 3.7 |
| 4 jets with $`P_T>50GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^{jet}|<2.5`$ | 400 | 0.3 |
| jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{jj}>0.4`$ | 390 | 0.3 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 361 | 0.3 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 268 | 0.2 |
| W mass $`M_W\pm 16GeV`$ | 139 | 0.1 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 11 | 9.1$`10^3`$ |
| t$``$Wb mass: $`M_{Wb}\pm 8GeV`$ | 1 | 8.3$`10^4`$ |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 0 | 0 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 0 | 0 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 0 | 0 |

Table 13. The relative efficiencies ($`\%`$) of some kinematical cuts

for leptonic and hadronic modes of the signal.

| C U T S | LEPTONIC MODE | HADRONIC MODE |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | Rel.Effic. ($`\%`$) | Rel.Effic. ($`\%`$) |
| 3l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ | 70.1 |  |
| 2l with $`P_T^l>20GeV`$ in $`|\eta ^l|<2.5`$ |  | 82.0 |
| 2 isolated jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ | 48.6 |  |
| 4 isolated jets with $`P_T^{jet}>50GeV`$ |  | 39.4 |
| Lepton-jets isolation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{lj}>0.4`$ | 94.0 | 99.0 |
| Z mass $`M_Z\pm 6GeV`$ | 84.9 | 85.8 |
| one tagged $`b`$ jet in the event | 48.6 | 42.9 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 8GeV`$ | 43.4 | 43.4 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 12GeV`$ | 49.2 | 54.7 |
| t$``$Zq mass : $`M_{Zq}\pm 24GeV`$ | 75.3 | 69.8 |

Table 14. The estimated Branching ratios $`tZq`$ ($`q=c,u`$) for for hadronic mode.

|  | | |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 8`$ GeV | 2.86$`10^4`$ |
| Br(t$``$Zq) | $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV | $`m_{Zq}\pm 12`$ GeV | 2.20$`10^4`$ |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 24`$ GeV | 2.30$`10^4`$ |

Table 15. The estimated Branching ratios $`tZq`$ ($`q=c,u`$) for combined leptonic and hadronic modes.

|  | | | S E T 1 | S E T 2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 8`$ GeV | 0.95$`10^4`$ | 1.01$`10^4`$ |
| Br(t$``$Zq) | $`P_T^{jet}>50`$ GeV | $`m_{Zq}\pm 12`$ GeV | 0.94$`10^4`$ | 0.93$`10^4`$ |
|  |  | $`m_{Zq}\pm 24`$ GeV | 0.90$`10^4`$ | 0.88$`10^4`$ |