text:
# 1 Introduction:

## 1  Introduction:

Assuming only $`W`$-polarimetry information, in Ref. we used the helicity formalism to derive stage-two spin-correlation functions for top quark decays. However, a complete determination of the decay amplitudes requires information from $`b`$-polarimetry, such as from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays. In this paper we accordingly generalize the earlier results to enable measurement of the relative phase of $`b_L`$ and $`b_R`$ amplitudes by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry \[3-6\]\[7-10\].

The significant point  is that by this technique a “complete measurement” of the four helicity amplitudes $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ in $`tW^+b`$ decay is possible: If only $`b_L`$ coupling’s existed, there would be only 2 amplitudes, so 3 quantities would determine $`tW^+b`$: measurement of the magnitude’s ratio $`r_a^L\frac{|A(1,\frac{1}{2})|}{|A(0,\frac{1}{2})|}`$, of the L-handed relative phase $`\beta _a^L`$, and of the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But, since $`m_b0`$, there are 2 more amplitudes, so to achieve an “almost” complete measurement , 3 additional quantities must be determined: e.g. $`r_a^R\frac{|A(1,\frac{1}{2})|}{|A(0,\frac{1}{2})|}`$, the R-handed relative phase $`\beta _a^R`$, and a L-R magnitude’s ratio $`r_a^1\frac{|A(1,\frac{1}{2})|}{|A(0,\frac{1}{2})|}`$. However, a further measurement is required to determine the relative phase of the $`b_L`$ and $`b_R`$ amplitudes, such as $`\gamma _+^a\varphi _1^a\varphi _o^a`$ which is between the two $`\lambda _b=\pm 1/2`$ amplitudes with the largest moduli in the standard model (SM). See the upper sketch in Fig. 1 for definition of these relative phases . By a combined use of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`W^+`$ polarimetry, it is possible to obtain this missing phase through a measurement of the interference between the $`b_L`$ and $`b_R`$ amplitudes in $`tW^+b`$ with $`bcl^{}\overline{\nu }`$ where the $`b`$-quark is required to occur in a bound state in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ mass region. For instance, the helicity parameters

$$ϵ_+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left|A(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|A(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _+,ϵ_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left|A(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|A(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _+$$
(1)
appear in the stage-two spin-correlation distributions (S2SC), such as (56,59) below, and in single-sided sequential-decay distributions, such as (62). Primed helicity parameters depend on “sine” functions of the relative phases and so can be used to test for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation .

At present, the available experimental and theoretical information regarding future application of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry is promising: The pre-measurement, heavy-quark-effective-theory predictions (HQET) \[14-16\] for $`Z^o`$ decays were $`<P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}>0.7\pm 0.1`$ with small QCD corrections. Initial LEP1 measurements in 1996-7 were significantly smaller but with large errors \[ALEPH reported $`(0.23\pm 0.25)`$  and DELPHI reported $`(0.08\pm 0.39)`$  \]. The later OPAL result  of $`<P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}>=0.56(+0.20/0.13)\pm 0.09`$ and the more recent DELPHI result  of $`<P_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}>=0.49(+0.32/0.30)\pm 0.17`$ are both consistent with a large polarization as in the HQET. The OPAL measurement of the product of branching ratios is $`B(b\mathrm{\Lambda }_bX)B(\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }X)=2.67\pm 0.38(+0.67/0.60)\%`$. There is no information on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ decays from CESR or from the on-going B-factory $`CP`$-violation experiments because of their choice of operating at an upsilon resonance, the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$, at too low an $`E_{cm}`$ energy so as to maximize B-meson production.

Throughout this S2SC analysis, we use the following notations: Per the $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ amplitudes, lowercase “a” or “1” subscripts denote quantities describing the $`t`$-decay side, whereas per the use of $`B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda _{\overline{b}})`$ amplitudes for the $`CP`$-conjugate $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$ decay, lowercase “b” or “2” subscripts similarly denote quantities for the $`\overline{t}`$-decay side. To be clear versus the notation for the fundamental $`tW^+b`$ process, we will use “barred” accents for helicity parameters and other quantities describing the $`CP`$-conjugate sequential-decay $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}(l^{}\overline{\nu _l})(l^+\nu \overline{c})`$, see Fig. 2 and (19-32). For the second-stage of $`tW^+b(l^+\nu _l)(l^{}\overline{\nu }c)`$, we use tilde accents to denote angles for $`W^+l^+\nu _l`$ \[ or $`W^+j\overline{_d}j_u`$ \] and for density matrices depending only on $`W`$-polarimetry. We use hat accents to denote angles for $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ and for density matrices depending on $`b`$-polarimetry. For the second-stage of the $`CP`$-conjugate sequence we correspondingly use these “tilde” and “hat” accents. Invariance under any fundamental discrete symmetry such as $`CP`$, $`T`$, or $`CPT`$ is not assumed in this analysis nor in the earlier papers because the framework is the helicity formalism. A brief introduction to this accent labeling can be obtained by inspection of the figures. We also use a slash notation for the “full” or double-sequential-decay density matrices which use both $`b`$-quark and $`W`$-polarimetry, e.g. (30).

Below, in Sec. 2, we construct the most general Lorentz-invariant decay density matrix for the decay sequence $`tW^+b`$ where $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ and also $`W^+l^+\nu _l`$ \[ or $`W^+j\overline{_d}j_u`$ \]. The corresponding quantities are also obtained for the $`CP`$-conjugate sequential-decay. For it and associated with Fig. 2, we list explicitly the “barred” formulas for its helicity parameters and relative phases. Simple $`CP`$ tests were treated in . In Sec. 3, we then generalize the derivation of the earlier stage-two spin-correlation functions in the case of both $`W`$-polarimetry and $`b`$-polarimetry. We similarly generalize the single-sided sequential-decay distributions.

In Sec. 4, the $`b`$-polarimetry helicity parameters $`ϵ_{},\kappa _1`$ involving the L-handed $`b`$-quark amplitude $`A(1,1/2)`$ are considered in detail regarding tests for single-additional Lorentz-invariant couplings. We also consider the analogous “primed parameters” regarding signatures for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation. Those involving $`A(0,1/2)`$ were treated in . In the SM and at the ($`S+P`$) and ($`f_M+f_E`$) ambiguous moduli points, the values of the four $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameters $`ϵ_\pm ,\kappa _{o,1}`$ are small$`1\%`$. However at low-effective mass scales ($`<320GeV`$), the values of these parameters can be large, $`0.1`$ to $`0.4`$ versus their unitarity limit of $`0.5`$, for single-additional Lorentz structures having sizable R-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes, c.f. Figs. 9-10 below and Figs. 8-9 in .

In the near future, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry could be used in top quark spin-correlation analyses at the Tevatron, at the LHC, and at a future linear collider . If the heavy-quark-effective theory prediction is correct, then depending on the dynamics occurring in top quark decay and on good detector/accelerator polarimetry capabilities, we think that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry could be a very important technique in studying fundamental electroweak physics through top quark decay processes.

## 2 Use of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ Polarimetry in Sequential-Decay <br>Density Matrices

In order to include $`b`$-polarimetry, we generalize the derivation of state-two-spin-correlation functions given in .

In the $`t`$ rest frame, the matrix element for $`tW^+b`$ is

$$\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t,\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b|\frac{1}{2},\lambda _1=D_{\lambda _1,\mu }^{(1/2)}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)$$
(2)
where $`\mu =\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b`$ in terms of the $`W^+`$ and $`b`$-quark helicities. The asterisk denotes complex conjugation. The final $`W^+`$ momentum is in the $`\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t`$ direction and the $`b`$-quark momentum is in the opposite direction. $`\lambda _1`$ gives the $`t`$-quark’s spin component quantized along the $`z_1^t`$ axis in Fig. 3. So, upon a boost back to the $`(t\overline{t})`$ center-of-mass frame, or on to the $`\overline{t}`$ rest frame, $`\lambda _1`$ also specifies the helicity of the $`t`$-quark. For the $`CP`$-conjugate process, $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$, in the $`\overline{t}`$ rest frame

$$\theta _2^t,\varphi _2^t,\lambda _W^{},\lambda _{\overline{b}}|\frac{1}{2},\lambda _2=D_{\lambda _2,\overline{\mu }}^{(1/2)}(\varphi _2^t,\theta _2^t,0)B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda _{\overline{b}})$$
(3)
with $`\overline{\mu }=\lambda _W^{}\lambda _{\overline{b}}`$ and by the analogous argument $`\lambda _2`$ is the $`\overline{t}`$ helicity.

To use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$-polarimetry in the S2SC functions, we consider the decay sequence $`tW^+b`$ followed by $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }X`$. In Figs. 3 and 4, the spherical angles $`\widehat{\theta _1^t}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi _1^t}`$ describe the $`b`$ momentum in the “first stage” $`tW^+b`$. Note that $`\widehat{\theta _1^t}=\pi \theta _1^t`$. Note that $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is the important opening-angle between the $`t`$-quark and $`\overline{t}`$-quark decay planes, and $`\widehat{\theta _2^t}=\pi \theta _2^t`$.

In Fig. 4, the angles $`\widehat{\theta _a}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi _a}`$ describe the $`l^{}`$ momentum in the “second stage” $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }X`$ when the boost is from the $`t_1`$ rest frame. In Fig. 5 the spherical angles $`\widehat{\theta _b}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _b}`$ similarly specify the $`l^+`$ momentum in the $`\overline{b}`$ rest frame when the boost is from the $`\overline{t}_2`$ rest frame.

As shown in Fig. 6, when the boost to these $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ rest frames is directly from the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ center-of-mass frame, we use respectively the subscripts “$`1,2`$” in place of the subscripts “$`a,b`$”. Physically these angles, $`\widehat{\theta }_a`$, $`\widehat{\varphi }_a`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }_1`$, $`\widehat{\varphi }_1`$, are simply related by a Wigner-rotation, see below following (58). For the $`CP`$-conjugate mode, one only needs to change the subscripts $`ab,12`$.

For $`W`$-polarimetry, we proceed as in  and use the angles shown in Figs. 7 and 8. In Fig. 7, the angles $`\theta _1^t`$, $`\varphi _1^t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}`$ describe the respective stages in the sequential decay $`tW^+b`$ followed by $`W^+j_{\overline{d}}j_u`$ \[ or $`W^+l^+\nu `$\]. For the hadronic $`W^+`$ decay mode, we use the notation that the momentum of the charge $`\frac{1}{3}e`$ jet is denoted by $`j_{\overline{d}}`$ and the momentum of the charge $`\frac{2}{3}e`$ jet by $`j_u`$. Similarly, in Fig. 8, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}`$ specify the $`j_d`$ jet (or the $`l^{}`$) momentum in the $`W^{}`$rest frame. When the boost to these $`W^\pm `$ rest frames is directly from the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ center-of-mass frame, we also use subscripts “$`1,2`$” in place of “$`a,b`$”. This is shown explicitly in Fig. 4 of ; we omit that figure here for it is exactly analogous to Fig. 6 of the present paper. The angles in the $`W^+`$ rest frame, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$, are simply related by a Wigner-rotation \[ see below following (58) \]. For the $`CP`$-conjugate mode’s $`W^{}`$ rest frame, one again only needs to change the subscripts $`ab,12`$.

In the $`W^+`$ rest frame, the matrix element for $`W^+l^+\nu `$ \[ or for $`W^+j_{\overline{d}}j_u`$ \] is

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }_a,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_a,\lambda _{l^+},\lambda _\nu |1,\lambda _{W^+}=D_{\lambda _{W^+},1}^1(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_a,\stackrel{~}{\theta }_a,0)c$$
(4)
since $`\lambda _\nu =\frac{1}{2},\lambda _{l^+}=\frac{1}{2}`$, neglecting $`(\frac{m_l}{m_W})`$ corrections \[ neglecting $`(\frac{m_{jet}}{m_W})`$ corrections\]. Since the amplitude “c” in this matrix element is then independent of the helicities, we will usually suppress it in the following formulas since it only effects the overall normalization. We will use below

$$\rho _{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}};\lambda _W\lambda _W^{^{}}}(tW^+b)=\underset{\lambda _b=1/2}{}D_{\lambda _1,\mu }^{(1/2)}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)D_{\lambda _1^{^{}},\mu ^{^{}}}^{(1/2)}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)A(\lambda _W,\lambda _b)A(\lambda _W^{^{}},\lambda _b)^{}$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\lambda _W\lambda _W^{^{}}}(W^+l^+\nu )=D_{\lambda _W,1}^1(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a},\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},0)D_{\lambda _W^{^{}},1}^1(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a},\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},0)|c|^2$$

where $`\mu =\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b`$ and $`\mu ^{^{}}=\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b^{^{}}`$.

### 2.1  Sequential-decay density matrices

Case: Only $`b`$-quark polarimetry:

The decay density matrix for the first stage of the decay sequence when the $`W`$ helicities are summed over is

$$\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}},\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(tW^+b)=\underset{\lambda _{W^+}=\pm 1,0}{}D_{\lambda _1\mu }^{1/2}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)D_{\lambda _1^{^{}}\mu ^{^{}}}^{1/2}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)A^{}(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b^{^{}})$$
(5)
where $`\mu =\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b`$ and $`\mu ^{^{}}=\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b^{^{}}`$.

Similarly for the second stage of the decay sequence, the decay density matrix is \[ c.f. Eqs.(3-9) in  \]

$`\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(b`$ $``$ $`l^{}\overline{\nu }c)=\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(\widehat{\theta _a},\widehat{\varphi _a},E_l)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pm \frac{1}{2}}{}}D_{\lambda _b\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi _a},\widehat{\theta _a},0)D_{\lambda _b^{^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi _a},\widehat{\theta _a},0)\left|R_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_l)\right|^2`$
As discussed in the Appendix, the two $`\left|R_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_l)\right|^2`$ factors can be expressed in terms of formulas for the final lepton energy spectra  in the $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ decay in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ mass region. Different methods to determine the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarization have been investigated and used for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$’s arising from $`Z^o`$ decays. These include spectra measures such as $`<E_l>/<E_{\overline{\nu }}>`$ and $`<E_l^n>/<E_{\overline{\nu }}^n>`$ \[3-6,8-10\], and spin-momentum correlation measures .

When the final $`\overline{\nu }`$ angles-and-energy-distribution are used, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry signatures in all the elements of the composite decay density matrix $`\widehat{𝐑}`$ of (13), and similarly for $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}`$ of (32), will not be suppressed by the ratio $`\frac{\left|R_+\right|^2\left|R_{}\right|^2}{\left|R_+\right|^2+\left|R_{}\right|^2}`$ since the $`\left|R_{}\right|^2`$ term then vanishes, see the Appendix. Thereby, $`\left|R_+\right|^2`$ can be completely factored out of $`\widehat{𝐑}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}`$. For the $`CP`$-conjugate mode when the final $`\nu `$ angles-and-energy-distribution are used, the analogous suppression factor is absent in all the elements of $`\overline{\widehat{𝐑}}`$ of (14), and of $`\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}}`$ of (45), and $`\left|\overline{R_{}}\right|^2`$ completely factors out of $`\overline{\widehat{𝐑}}`$ and $`\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}}`$. This same factorization occurs in the S2SC distributions, e.g. (60,61), and in the single-sided $`b`$-$`W`$-interference distributions, e.g. (63-67).

Using (4) and (6), we define the composite decay density matrix for $`tW^+bW^+(l^{}\overline{\nu }c)`$ by

$$\widehat{R}_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}(\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t;\widehat{\theta _a},\widehat{\varphi _a})=\underset{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}{}\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}},\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(tW^+b)\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(bl^{}\overline{\nu }c)$$
(7)
where the summation is understood to be over $`\lambda _b=\pm \frac{1}{2},\lambda _b^{^{}}=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$. This gives

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{R}_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}=e^{i(\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}})\varphi _1^t}_{\lambda _{W^+}=\pm 1,0}_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}\{d_{\lambda _1,\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1^t)d_{\lambda _1^{^{}},\lambda _{W^+}\lambda _b^{^{}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1^t)A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)A^{}(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b^{^{}})\\ e^{i(\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}})\widehat{\varphi _a}}\left[_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pm \frac{1}{2}}d_{\lambda _b,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\theta _a})d_{\lambda _b^{^{}},\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\theta _a})\right|R_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_l)|^2]\}\end{array}$$
(8)
In later equations, we will often use the simplifying notation that

$$\left|R_\pm \right|^2\left|R_{\pm \frac{1}{2}}^b(E_l)\right|^2$$
(9)
The two diagonal elements of the matrix $`\widehat{R}_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}`$, with $`\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{^{}}=\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ , are purely real. They can be written in terms of the angles in Fig. 4 and in terms of the helicity parameters defined in .

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝐑}_{\pm \pm }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4}\{\left[\right|R_+|^2+\left|R_{}|^2\right](1\pm \zeta \mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t)\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}\left[\right|R_+|^2\left|R_{}|^2\right](\xi \pm \sigma \mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t)\\ 2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t\left[\right|R_+|^2\left|R_{}|^2\right](\kappa _o\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _a}\kappa _o^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _a})\}\end{array}$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^+`$ is the partial width for $`tW^+b`$. The two off-diagonal elements are (read “upper”/“lower” lines)

$$\widehat{𝐑}_\pm =e^{\pm i\varphi _1^t}\widehat{𝐫}_\pm $$
(11)
with the complex-valued

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝐫}_+=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{4}\{\left[\right|R_+|^2+\left|R_{}|^2\right]\zeta \mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}\left[\right|R_+|^2\left|R_{}|^2\right]\sigma \mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t\\ +2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}\left[\right|R_+|^2\left|R_{}|^2\right](\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t[\kappa _o\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _a}\kappa _o^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _a}]i[\kappa _o\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _a}+\kappa _o^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _a}])\}\end{array}$$
(12)
and $`(\widehat{𝐫_+})^{}=\widehat{𝐫_+}`$ . Throughout this paper the symbol $`i\sqrt{1}`$. Thus we have

$`\widehat{𝐑}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{𝐑}_{++}& e^{i\varphi _1^t}\widehat{𝐫_+}\\ e^{i\varphi _1^t}\widehat{𝐫_+}& \widehat{𝐑}_{}\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
$`CP`$-conjugate decay sequence: Only $`\overline{b}`$-quark polarimetry:

For the $`CP`$-conjugate decay sequence $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}W^{}(l^+\nu \overline{c})`$, we obtain

$`\overline{\widehat{𝐑}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\widehat{𝐑}_{++}}& e^{i\varphi _2^t}\overline{\widehat{𝐫_+}}\\ e^{i\varphi _2^t}\overline{\widehat{𝐫_+}}& \overline{\widehat{𝐑}_{}}\end{array}\right)`$ (18)
where $`(\overline{\widehat{𝐫_+}})^{}=\overline{\widehat{𝐫_+}}`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{𝐑}_{\pm \pm }}=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{4}\{\left[\right|\overline{R_+}|^2+\left|\overline{R_{}}|^2\right](1\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t)\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _b}\left[\right|\overline{R_+}|^2\left|\overline{R_{}}|^2\right](\overline{\xi }\pm \overline{\sigma }\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t)\\ 2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t\left[\right|\overline{R_+}|^2\left|\overline{R_{}}|^2\right](\overline{\kappa _o}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _b}+\overline{\kappa _o^{^{}}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _b})\}\end{array}$$
(19)
$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{𝐫}_+}=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{4}\{\left[\right|\overline{R_+}|^2+\left|\overline{R_{}}|^2\right]\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _b}\left[\right|\overline{R_+}|^2\left|\overline{R_{}}|^2\right]\overline{\sigma }\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t\\ +2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}\left[\right|\overline{R_+}|^2\left|\overline{R_{}}|^2\right](\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t[\overline{\kappa _o}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _b}+\overline{\kappa _o^{^{}}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _b}]i[\overline{\kappa _o}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _b}\overline{\kappa _o^{^{}}}\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _b}])\}\end{array}$$
(20)
Here we are using the above mentioned “bar” notation for the $`CP`$ conjugate quantities such as the partial width $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L^++\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_T^+`$ for $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$. The fundamental $`CP`$ relation is

$$B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda _{\overline{b}})=A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)$$
(21)
This relationship is useful for constructing “substitution rules” for transcribing to the $`CP`$ conjugate quantities. The results, e.g. the composite decay-density matrices, do not themselves assume $`CP`$ and so the S2SC functions, etc. can be used to test for whether $`CP`$ holds or not.

The helicity parameters for the $`CP`$ conjugate mode, $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$ include, c.f. lower part of Fig. 2,

$$\overline{\xi }\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_T^{}),\overline{\zeta }\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_T^{})$$
(22)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L^++\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_T^+,\overline{\sigma }\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L^+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_T^+)$$
(23)
where

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_L^\pm \left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|^2\pm \left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|^2,\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_T^\pm \left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|^2\pm \left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|^2$$
(24)
This means that

$`\overline{\xi }=`$(Prob $`\overline{b}`$ is R-handed) $``$ (Prob $`\overline{b}`$ is L-handed)

$`\overline{\sigma }=`$(Prob $`W^{}`$ is Longitudinally-polarized) $``$ (Prob $`W^{}`$ is Transversely-polarized)

The $`W^{}`$ polarimetry interference parameters are given by

$$\overline{\omega }\frac{\overline{I_R^{}}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}},\overline{\eta }\frac{\overline{I_R^+}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}$$
(25)
$$\overline{\omega }^{^{}}\frac{\overline{I_I^{}}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}},\overline{\eta }^{^{}}\frac{\overline{I_I^+}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}$$
(26)
where

$$I_R^\pm \left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\overline{\beta _b^R}\pm \left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\overline{\beta _b^L}$$
(27)
$$I_I^\pm \left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\overline{\beta _b^R}\pm \left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\overline{\beta _b^L}$$
(28)
For $`B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda \overline{_b})=\left|B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda \overline{_b})\right|\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _{\lambda _W^{}}^{bR/L}`$, the relative phases are

$`\overline{\alpha _o}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0^{bL}\varphi _0^{bR}\overline{\alpha _1}=\varphi _1^b\varphi _1^b`$
$`\overline{\beta _b^L}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1^b\varphi _0^{bL}\overline{\beta _b^R}=\varphi _1^b\varphi _0^{bR}`$
$`\overline{\gamma _{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1^b\varphi _0^{bR}\overline{\gamma _+}=\varphi _1^b\varphi _0^{bL}`$ (29)
We suppress the “$`R/L`$” superscript for $`\lambda _b=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ when it is not needed.

The $`\overline{b}`$-polarimetry helicity parameters for the $`CP`$ conjugate decay then are

$$\overline{ϵ_{}}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\overline{\gamma _{}},\overline{ϵ_{}}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\overline{\gamma _{}}$$
(30)
$$\overline{ϵ_+}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\overline{\gamma _+},\overline{ϵ_+}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\overline{\gamma _+}$$
(31)
$$\overline{\kappa _o}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\overline{\alpha _o},\overline{\kappa _o}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(0,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\overline{\alpha _o}$$
(32)
$$\overline{\kappa _1}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{cos}\overline{\alpha _1},\overline{\kappa _1}^{^{}}\frac{1}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\left|B(1,\frac{1}{2})\right|\mathrm{sin}\overline{\alpha _1}$$
(33)
In the S2SC distributions and in the single-sided sequential-decay distributions, sometimes their linear-combinations

$$\overline{\delta }\overline{ϵ_+}+\overline{ϵ_{}},\overline{ϵ}\overline{ϵ_+}\overline{ϵ_{}},\overline{\lambda }\overline{\kappa _o}+\overline{\kappa _1},\overline{\kappa }\overline{\kappa _o}\overline{\kappa _1}$$

and the corresponding primed linear-combinations occur, see (59-67). Simple $`CP`$ tests were treated in .

Case: Both $`b`$-quark polarimetry and $`W`$-polarimetry:

We now consider both branches in the decay sequence $`tW^+b`$ so $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ and
also $`W^+l^+\nu _l`$ \[ or $`W^+j\overline{_d}j_u`$ \].

We define the “full” or double-sequential-decay density matrix for $`tW^+b(l^+\nu _l)(l^{}\overline{\nu }c)`$ by

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}(\theta _1^t,\varphi _1^t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a};\widehat{\theta _a},\widehat{\varphi _a})=_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}_{\mu _1\mu _1^{^{}}}D_{\lambda _1\mu _1\lambda _b}^{1/2}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)D_{\lambda _1^{^{}}\mu _1^{^{}}\lambda _b^{^{}}}^{1/2}(\varphi _1^t,\theta _1^t,0)\\ A(\mu _1,\lambda _b)A^{}(\mu _1^{^{}},\lambda _b^{^{}})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mu _1\mu _1^{^{}}}(W^+l^+\nu _l)\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(bl^{}\overline{\nu }c)\end{array}$$
(34)
where the summations are over $`\lambda _b=\pm \frac{1}{2},\lambda _b^{^{}}=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and the $`W^+`$ helicities $`\mu _1,\mu _1^{^{}}=\pm 1,0`$. For the “full” quantities we use a “slash” notation. Note that all possible $`A(\mu _1,\lambda _b)A^{}(\mu _1^{^{}},\lambda _b^{^{}})`$ interference terms occur in (30). $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{\mu _1\mu _1^{^{}}}`$ is given after (4) and $`\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}`$ is (6).

This gives the “full master-equation”

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}R_{\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}}}=e^{i(\lambda _1\lambda _1^{^{}})\varphi _1^t}_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}_{\mu _1\mu _1^{^{}}}\{d_{\lambda _1,\mu _1\lambda _b}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1^t)d_{\lambda _1^{^{}},\mu _1^{^{}}\lambda _b^{^{}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _1^t)A(\mu _1,\lambda _b)A^{}(\mu _1^{^{}},\lambda _b^{^{}})\\ e^{i(\mu _1\mu _1^{^{}})\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}}d_{\mu _11}^1(\stackrel{~}{\theta _a})d_{\mu _1^{^{}}1}^1(\stackrel{~}{\theta _a})e^{i(\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}})\widehat{\varphi _a}}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pm \frac{1}{2}}d_{\lambda _b,\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\theta _a})d_{\lambda _b^{^{}},\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\theta _a})|R_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_l)|^2\}\end{array}$$
(35)
It can be expressed in terms of the previously defined helicity parameters. In matrix form the result is

$$\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{++}& e^{i\varphi _1^t}\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}\\ e^{i\varphi _1^t}\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}& \widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{}\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
where $`(\widehat{\mathbf{}_+})^{}=\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}`$ . The elements of this matrix are each conveniently written as the sum of three contributions:

$$\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}=\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^W+\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^c+\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^s$$
(37)
where the first $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^W`$ is proportional to Eq.(12) in  which only makes use of $`W`$-polarimetry information, the second $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^c`$ is proportional to the $`b`$-polarimetry “$`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}`$”, and the third $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^s`$ is proportional to the $`b`$-polarimetry “$`\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}`$”.

The three contributions to the diagonal elements are:

$$\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^W=\frac{1}{8}[\left|R_+\right|^2+\left|R_{}\right|^2]𝐑_{\pm \pm }$$
(38)
where $`𝐑_{\pm \pm }`$ is Eq.(13) in . The second term in (33) is

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^c=\frac{1}{8}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}(𝐧_a^{()}[1\pm 𝐟_a^{()}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t\{\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}[\eta \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}\\ +\omega ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}]2\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}[\omega \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\eta ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}]\})\end{array}$$

where

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐧_a^{()}\\ 𝐧_a^{()}𝐟_a^{()}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{4}(3+\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\pm \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\pm }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$
(39)
with a superscript-tagging per the $`l^{}`$ tag of the decaying $`b`$-quark. Equivalently,

$`𝐧_a^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(4[1\sigma ]\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\xi [5\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}]+\zeta [1+3\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}])`$ (40)
$`𝐧_a^{()}𝐟_a^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(1+3\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\sigma [5\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}]4[\xi \zeta ]\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a})`$ (41)
The third term in (33) is

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^s=\frac{1}{8}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}\{\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t[\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1+2\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _o\\ \mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1^{^{}}2\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _o^{^{}}]\\ +\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[\delta (1\pm \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t)+ϵ(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[\delta ^{^{}}(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t)+ϵ^{^{}}(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t)])\}\end{array}$$
(42)
where $`\delta ϵ_++ϵ_{},ϵϵ_+ϵ_{}`$ and analogously for $`\delta ^{^{}}`$ and $`ϵ^{^{}}`$. Note from Fig. 1 that $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ are $`b`$-$`W`$-interference parameters. They only appear in the third term, i.e. in $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^s`$. The $`b`$-polarimetry helicity parameters $`\kappa _{o,1}`$ also appear only in this term. Note above in the case of only $`b`$-polarimetry the parameters $`\kappa _{o,1}`$ do appear, but $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$ do not. This is expected since the latter two helicity parameters only occur due to $`b`$-$`W`$-interference.

The three contributions to the off-diagonal elements are:

$$\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^W=\frac{1}{8}[\left|R_+\right|^2+\left|R_{}\right|^2]𝐫_+$$
(43)
where $`𝐫_+`$ is Eq.(14) in . The second contribution is

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^c=\frac{1}{8}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}\{(𝐧_a^{()}𝐟_a^{()}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t\\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t[\omega \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\eta ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}]+i[\omega \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}\eta ^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}])\\ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t[\eta \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\omega ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}]+i[\eta \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}\omega ^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}])\}\end{array}$$

and the third contribution is

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^s=\frac{1}{8}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}\{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})ϵ\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})ϵ^{^{}}\\ +\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}[\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\delta \mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\delta ^{^{}}])\\ +\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t[2\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _a}\kappa _o2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _a}\kappa _o^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1^{^{}}]\\ +i[2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _a}\kappa _o2\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _a}\kappa _o^{^{}}+\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1+\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1^{^{}}])\}\end{array}$$
(44)
Here also, $`\delta ,ϵ,\kappa _{o,1}`$ and $`\delta ^{^{}},ϵ^{^{}},\kappa _{o,1}^{^{}}`$ only appear in $`\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^s`$ and not in $`\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^c`$.

In summary, the $`\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}`$ dependence of the “s” superscript terms in $`\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}`$ of (32) must be used in order to measure the eight $`b`$-polarimetry helicity parameters.

CP-conjugate process: Both $`\overline{b}`$-quark polarimetry and $`W`$-polarimetry:

For both branches in the $`CP`$-conjugate decay sequence $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$ so $`\overline{b}l^+\nu \overline{c}`$ and
also $`W^{}l^{}\overline{\nu _l}`$ \[ or $`W^{}j_dj_{\overline{u}}`$ \], we define the “full” sequential-decay density matrix by

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\overline{)}R_{\lambda _2\lambda _2^{^{}}}}(\theta _2^t,\varphi _2^t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _b},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b};\widehat{\theta _b},\widehat{\varphi _b})=_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}_{\mu _2\mu _2^{^{}}}D_{\lambda _2\mu _2\lambda _{\overline{b}}}^{1/2}(\varphi _2^t,\theta _2^t,0)D_{\lambda _2^{^{}}\mu _2^{^{}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}^{1/2}(\varphi _2^t,\theta _2^t,0)\\ B(\mu _2,\lambda _{\overline{b}})B^{}(\mu _2^{^{}},\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}})\overline{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}_{\mu _2\mu _2^{^{}}}(W^{}l^{}\overline{\nu _l})\overline{\widehat{\rho }}_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(\overline{b}l^+\nu \overline{c})\end{array}$$
(45)
where the summations are over $`\lambda \overline{_b}=\pm \frac{1}{2},\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and the $`W^{}`$ helicities $`\mu _2,\mu _2^{^{}}=\pm 1,0`$. This gives the “full master-equation”

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\overline{)}R}_{\lambda _2\lambda _2^{^{}}}=e^{i(\lambda _2\lambda _2^{^{}})\varphi _2^t}_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}_{\mu _2\mu _2^{^{}}}\{d_{\lambda _2,\mu _2\lambda \overline{_b}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _2^t)d_{\lambda _2^{^{}},\mu _2^{^{}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\theta _2^t)B(\mu _2,\lambda \overline{_b})B^{}(\mu _2^{^{}},\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}})\\ e^{i(\mu _2\mu _2^{^{}})\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}}d_{\mu _2,1}^1(\stackrel{~}{\theta _b})d_{\mu _2^{^{}},1}^1(\stackrel{~}{\theta _b})e^{i(\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}})\widehat{\varphi _b}}_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\pm \frac{1}{2}}d_{\lambda \overline{_b},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\theta _b})d_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{\frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{\theta _b})|\overline{R_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{\overline{b}}}(E\overline{_l})|^2\}\end{array}$$
(46)
It can be expressed in terms of the previously defined “barred” helicity parameters. The result is

$$\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{++}}& e^{i\varphi _2^t}\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}}\\ e^{i\varphi _2^t}\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}}& \overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{}}\end{array}\right)$$
(47)
where $`(\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}})^{}=\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}_+}}`$ , and

$$\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}}=\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^W}+\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^c}+\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^s}$$
(48)
where $`\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^W}`$ is proportional to Eq.(17) in  , $`\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^c}`$ is proportional to the $`\overline{b}`$-polarimetry “$`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _b}`$”, and $`\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}^s}`$ is proportional to the $`\overline{b}`$-polarimetry “$`\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}`$”.

The diagonal elements are:

$$\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^W}=\frac{1}{8}[\left|\overline{R_+}\right|^2+\left|\overline{R_{}}\right|^2]\overline{𝐑_{\pm \pm }}$$
(49)
where $`\overline{𝐑_{\pm \pm }}`$ is Eq.(18) in ,

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^c}=\frac{1}{8}[|\overline{R_+}|^2|\overline{R_{}}|^2]\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _b}(𝐧_b^{(+)}[1𝐟_b^{(+)}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t\{\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}[\overline{\eta }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}\\ \overline{\omega }^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}]2\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}[\overline{\omega }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}\overline{\eta }^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}]\})\end{array}$$
(50)
where

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝐧_b^{(+)}\\ 𝐧_b^{(+)}𝐟_b^{(+)}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^{}}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\frac{1}{4}(3+\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b})\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^{}}}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\pm \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\pm }}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}$$
(51)
with a superscript-tagging per the $`l^+`$ tag of the decaying $`\overline{b}`$-quark, or

$`𝐧_b^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(4[1\overline{\sigma }]\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\overline{\xi }[5\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}]+\overline{\zeta }[1+3\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}])`$ (52)
$`𝐧_b^{(+)}𝐟_b^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(1+3\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\overline{\sigma }[5\mathrm{cos}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}]4[\overline{\xi }\overline{\zeta }]\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b})`$ (53)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}_{\pm \pm }^s}=\frac{1}{8}[|\overline{R_+}|^2|\overline{R_{}}|^2]\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}\{\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t[\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _1}+2\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _o}\\ +\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _1}^{^{}}+2\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _o}^{^{}}]\\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})[\overline{\delta }(1\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t)+\overline{ϵ}(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t)\\ +\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})[\overline{\delta }^{^{}}(1\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t)+\overline{ϵ}^{^{}}(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t)])\}\end{array}$$
(54)
The off-diagonal elements are:

$$\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^W}=\frac{1}{8}[\left|\overline{R_+}\right|^2+\left|\overline{R_{}}\right|^2]\overline{𝐫_+}$$
(55)
where $`\overline{𝐫_+}`$ is Eq.(19) in ,

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^c}=\frac{1}{8}[|\overline{R_+}|^2|\overline{R_{}}|^2]\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _b}\{(𝐧_b^{(+)}𝐟_b^{(+)}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t\\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t[\overline{\omega }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}\overline{\eta }^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}]+i[\overline{\omega }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\overline{\eta }^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}])\\ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t[\overline{\eta }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}\overline{\omega }^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}]+i[\overline{\eta }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\overline{\omega }^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}])\}\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{\mathbf{}}_+^s}=\frac{1}{8}[|\overline{R_+}|^2|\overline{R_{}}|^2]\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}\{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{ϵ}+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{ϵ}^{^{}}\\ +\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}[\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\delta }+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\delta }^{^{}}])\\ +\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t[2\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _b}\overline{\kappa _o}+2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _b}\overline{\kappa _o}^{^{}}+\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _1}+\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _1}^{^{}}]\\ +i[2\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\varphi _b}\overline{\kappa _o}+2\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\varphi _b}\overline{\kappa _o}^{^{}}+\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _1}\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa _1}^{^{}}])\}\end{array}$$
(56)
The $`\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}`$ dependence of the “s” superscript terms in $`\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}𝐑}}`$ of (45) must be used in order to measure the eight $`\overline{b}`$-polarimetry helicity parameters.

## 3 Stage-Two Spin-Correlation Functions <br>Including $`b`$-Polarimetry

We include both branches in the decay sequence $`tW^+b`$ so $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ and also $`W^+l^+\nu _l`$ \[ or $`W^+j\overline{_d}j_u`$ \]. We also include both branches for the CP-conjugate sequence.

### 3.1 The full S2SC function:

The complete S2SC function is relatively simple in structure even though it depends on “5+4+4” variables \[c.f. Eq.(66) of \]. Each of the last 4 variables $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a};\widehat{\theta _a},\widehat{\varphi _a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _b},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b};\widehat{\theta _b},\widehat{\varphi _b}`$ describe the two second-stage branches:

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}I(\mathrm{\Theta }_B,\mathrm{\Phi }_B;\varphi ;\theta _1^t,\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a};\widehat{\theta _a},\widehat{\varphi _a};\theta _2^t,\stackrel{~}{\theta _b},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b};\widehat{\theta _b},\widehat{\varphi _b})=_{h_1h_2}\{\rho _{h_1h_2,h_1h_2}^{prod}\overline{)}R_{h_1h_1}\overline{\overline{)}R_{h_2h_2}}\\ +(\rho _{++,}^{prod}\mathit{}_+\overline{\mathit{}_+}+\rho _{,++}^{prod}\mathit{}_+\overline{\mathit{}_+})\mathrm{cos}\varphi \\ +i(\rho _{++,}^{prod}\mathit{}_+\overline{\mathit{}_+}\rho _{,++}^{prod}\mathit{}_+\overline{\mathit{}_+})\mathrm{sin}\varphi \}\end{array}$$
(57)
The “slashed” composite density matrix elements have been discussed above. The production density matrix elements are given in .

The production density matrices $`\rho ^{prod}`$ in (56) depend on the angles $`\mathrm{\Theta }_B,\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ which give  the direction of the incident parton beam, i.e. the quark’s momentum or the gluon’s momentum, arising from the incident $`p`$ in the $`p\overline{p}`$, or $`pp`$, $`t\overline{t}X`$ production process:

$$\begin{array}{c}q\overline{q},orgg,t\overline{t}(W^+b)(W^{}\overline{b})\end{array}$$
(58)
The important angle between the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ decay planes is

$$\varphi =\varphi _1^t+\varphi _2^t=\widehat{\varphi }=\widehat{\varphi }_1^t+\widehat{\varphi }_2^t$$

The other angles have been discussed previously in consideration of the earlier figures in this paper. The $`\theta _1^t`$ angular dependence can be replaced by the $`W^+`$ energy in the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ and similarly $`\theta _2^t`$ by the $`W^{}`$ energy .

In the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ system where $`\theta _t`$ is the angle between the $`t`$-quark momentum and the incident parton-beam this simplifies to

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}I(\theta _t;\theta _1^t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a};\widehat{\theta _a},\widehat{\varphi _a};\theta _2^t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _b},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b};\widehat{\theta _b},\widehat{\varphi _b})=_{h_1h_2}\rho _{h_1h_2,h_1h_2}^{prod}(\theta _t)\overline{)}R_{h_1h_1}\overline{\overline{)}R_{h_2h_2}}\end{array}$$
(59)
which depends on only the diagonal elements of the “full” sequential-decay density matrices $`\widehat{𝐑}_{\pm \pm }`$ and $`\overline{\widehat{𝐑}_{\pm \pm }}`$ given respectively in (32) and (45). Note that $`\widehat{𝐑}_{\pm \pm }`$ depends on (i) all 8 of the $`W`$-polarimetry helicity parameters \[ the partial-width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the probablility that the emitted $`W`$ is longitudinally polarized $`P(W_L)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma )`$, the probability that the emitted $`b`$-quark is L-handed $`P(b_L)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\xi )`$, $`\zeta `$, $`\eta _{L,R},`$ and $`\eta _{L,R}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ \] see , and it also depends on (ii) all 8 of the new $`b`$-polarimetry parameters \[ $`ϵ_\pm ,\kappa _{o,1}`$ and $`ϵ_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$, $`\kappa _{o,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ \].

Remark: Use of Alternative-Angles: The alternative-angle-labeling of the final $`l^{}`$ as shown in Fig. 6 can be a significant issue in some circumstances, see  and references therein. These angles occur when the boosts to the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ rest frames are directly from the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ frame. Recall that this same choice arises for the labeling of the $`W^\pm `$ decays, see Fig. 4 in . At a hadron collider, this alternative-angle-labeling would be useful when both $`W^\pm `$ decay into hadrons. The necessary Wigner-rotation for Fig. 6 is exactly analogous to that given in  in (74,75) with respect to Fig.4 therein. For the $`t`$-decay-side, the explicit “transformation-equations” (involving the Wigner-rotations) are a simple relabeling of Eqs. (3.22a,b,c) in , see Fig. 1 therein, and for the $`\overline{t}`$-decay-side there is an exactly analogous relabeling of the transformation-Eqs.(3.31a,b,c). At a future linear collider, use of these alternative-angles for specifying the final stage-two momenta for some or all of the $`b,\overline{b},W^\pm `$ decays might also be preferable when $`W^+`$ and/or $`W^{}`$ decay leptonically.

In the derivation of S2SC distributions and of single-sided distributions, some care is needed as to at what step to use the explicit “transformation-equations” to the alternative-angles, see . Second, the sensitivity in regard to the measurement of a specific helicity parameter can vary significantly depending on which minimum variable choice is made. For instance at an $`e^+e^{}`$ collider, integrations over some of the $`\theta _{1,2},\varphi _{1,2}`$-type variables (which follow after using the “transformation-equations”) can yield minimum-variable-distributions which are significantly more sensitive to some parameters than are the analogous same-number-of-variable distributions in which the integrations are performed on the analogous $`\theta _{a,b},\varphi _{a,b}`$-type variables, see .

### 3.2 A simple two-sided $`b`$-$`W`$ spin-correlation function:

After integrating out the polar angles describing the second-stage branches, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\widehat{\theta _a};\stackrel{~}{\theta _b},\widehat{\theta _b}`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}I(\theta _t;\theta _1^t;\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a};\widehat{\varphi _a};\theta _2^t;\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b};\widehat{\varphi _b})=_{q_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}s,g_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}s}\{\rho _+^{prod}(\theta _t)[\widehat{\rho }_{++}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{}}+\widehat{\rho }_{}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{++}}]\\ +\rho _{++}^{prod}(\theta _t)[\widehat{\rho }_{++}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{++}}+\widehat{\rho }_{}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{}}]\}\end{array}$$
(60)
The production density matrix elements are given in .

The integrated composite decay density matrix elements are found to be: For the $`tW^+b(l^+\nu _l)(l^{}\overline{\nu }c)`$ decay sequence, we obtain $`\widehat{\rho }_{\pm \pm }(\theta _1^t,\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a},\widehat{\varphi _a})`$ which depends on the $`t`$-quark polar angle and the two second-stage azimuthal angles

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\rho }_{\pm \pm }=\frac{1}{8}[\left|R_+\right|^2+\left|R_{}\right|^2]\{\frac{2}{3}[1\pm \zeta \mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t]\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t[\eta \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\omega ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}]\}\\ +\frac{\pi }{32}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\{\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[\delta \pm ϵ\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t]\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[\delta ^{^{}}\pm ϵ^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1^t])\\ \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1^t[\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1+2\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _o\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _1^{^{}}2\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{\varphi _a})\kappa _o^{^{}}]\}\end{array}$$
(61)
For the $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}(l^{}\overline{\nu _l})(l^+\nu \overline{c})`$ decay sequence, we obtain $`\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{\pm \pm }}(\theta _2^t,\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b},\widehat{\varphi _b})`$ which depends on the $`\overline{t}`$-quark polar angle and the two second-stage azimuthal angles

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{\pm \pm }}=\frac{1}{8}[\left|\overline{R_+}\right|^2+\left|\overline{R_{}}\right|^2]\{\frac{2}{3}[1\overline{\zeta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t]\pm \frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t[\overline{\eta }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}\overline{\omega }^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}]\}\\ +\frac{\pi }{32}[|\overline{R_+}|^2|\overline{R_{}}|^2]\{\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})[\overline{\delta }\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t]+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})[\overline{\delta }^{^{}}\overline{ϵ}^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2^t])\\ \frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2^t[\mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa }_1+2\mathrm{cos}(\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa }_o+\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa }_1^{^{}}+2\mathrm{sin}(\widehat{\varphi _b})\overline{\kappa }_o^{^{}}]\}\end{array}$$
(62)
It is important to note that the helicity parameters discussed in the following section of this paper appear in the above two density matrices. The density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }_{\pm \pm }(\theta _1^t,\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a},\widehat{\varphi _a})`$ depends on (i) 3 of the helicity parameters measurable  with only $`W`$ -polarimetry: $`\zeta ,\eta `$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violating $`\omega ^{^{}}`$ parameter which is zero in the SM, and on (ii) 8 $`b`$-polarimetry helicity parameters: $`\delta ϵ_++ϵ_{},ϵϵ_+ϵ_{},\kappa _o,\kappa _1`$ and the corresponding primed quantities which are non-zero if there is $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation in $`tW^+b`$ .

### 3.3 Simple single-sided $`b`$-$`W`$ distributions:

Three simple single-sided distributions for $`tW^+b(l^+\nu _l)(l^{}\overline{\nu }c)`$ ( or $`W^+j\overline{_d}j_u`$ ), are the following:

$$\overline{)}I(\theta _t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\widehat{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})=\underset{q_i,g_i}{}(\rho _{++}^{prod}+\rho _{}^{prod})\{\widehat{\overline{)}R}_{++}+\widehat{\overline{)}R}_{}\}$$
(63)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\widehat{\overline{)}R}_{++}+\widehat{\overline{)}R}_{}\}=\frac{1}{4}[|R_+|^2+|R_{}|^2]𝐧_a+\frac{1}{4}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\{\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}𝐧_a^{()}\\ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[2\delta \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}+ϵ\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}]\\ \mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[2\delta ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}+ϵ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}])\}\end{array}$$
(64)
Note that this distribution depends on (i) the $`W`$-polarimetry parameters $`\sigma ,\xi ,\zeta `$ of  and on (ii) the $`b`$-polarimetry parameters $`\delta ϵ_++ϵ_{},ϵϵ_+ϵ_{}`$ and on $`\delta ^{^{}},ϵ^{^{}}`$, see Fig. 1.

By integrating out “ $`\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a}\mathrm{"}`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}I(\theta _t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})=\frac{1}{2}d(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a})I(\theta _t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\widehat{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\\ =_{q_i,g_i}(\rho _{++}^{prod}+\rho _{}^{prod})\\ \{\frac{1}{4}[|R_+|^2+|R_{}|^2]𝐧_a+\frac{\pi }{8\sqrt{2}}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2]\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[\delta +ϵ\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}]\\ \mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})[\delta ^{^{}}+ϵ^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}])\}\end{array}$$
(65)
which displays the difference between $`ϵ,ϵ^{^{}}`$ and $`\delta ,\delta ^{^{}}`$ in the $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}`$ dependence. Next, by also integrating out “ $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}\mathrm{"}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{)}I(\theta _t;\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})=\frac{1}{2}d(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta _a})\frac{1}{2}d(\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _a})I(\theta _t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _a},\widehat{\theta _a},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\\ =_{q_i,g_i}(\rho _{++}^{prod}+\rho _{}^{prod})\\ \{\frac{1}{6}[|R_+|^2+|R_{}|^2]𝐧_a+\frac{\pi ^2}{32\sqrt{2}}[|R_+|^2|R_{}|^2](\delta \mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a})\\ \delta ^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}+\widehat{\varphi _a}))\}\end{array}$$
(66)
which only depends on $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{^{}}`$.

For the $`CP`$-conjugate sequential-decay $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}(l^{}\overline{\nu }_l)(l^+\nu \overline{c})`$ , or $`W^{}j_dj_{\overline{u}}`$, the distribution analogous to (62) is:

$$\overline{\overline{)}I}(\theta _t;\stackrel{~}{\theta _b},\widehat{\theta _b},\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})=\underset{q_i,g_i}{}(\rho _{++}^{prod}+\rho _{}^{prod})\{\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}R}}_{++}+\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}R}}_{}\}$$
(67)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}R}}_{++}+\overline{\widehat{\overline{)}R}}_{}\}=\frac{1}{4}[|\overline{R}_+|^2+|\overline{R}_{}|^2]𝐧_b+\frac{1}{4}[|\overline{R}_+|^2|\overline{R}_{}|^2]\{\mathrm{cos}\widehat{\theta _b}𝐧_b^{(+)}\\ +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\widehat{\theta _b}(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})[2\overline{\delta }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}+\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}]\\ \mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}+\widehat{\varphi _b})[2\overline{\delta }^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}+\overline{ϵ}^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}2\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}])\}\end{array}$$
(68)
where $`𝐧_b`$ is Eq.(20-21) in , $`𝐧_b^{(+)}`$ is (49-51) above, and $`\overline{\delta }\overline{ϵ}_++\overline{ϵ}_{},\overline{ϵ}\overline{ϵ}_+\overline{ϵ}_{}`$.

Remark: Use of Single-Sided $`b`$-$`W`$ Sequential-Decay Distributions: In the context of $`b`$-polarimetry and of joint $`b`$-$`W`$-polarimetry, especially at a linear collider, it is important to note what information can be garnered from simpler single-sided sequential-decay distributions versus S2SC distributions: Both the “full” $`11`$-angle-variable S2SC distribution (58) and the $`7`$-angle-variable S2SC distribution (59) depend on all four $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameters, $`ϵ_\pm ,\kappa _{o,1}`$ and on the analogous primed parameters. The $`4`$ and $`3`$-angle-variable single-sided distributions, (62) and (64), both depend on all of $`ϵ_\pm ,ϵ_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ but not on any of $`\kappa _{o,1},\kappa _{o,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$. However, the $`2`$-angle-variable single-sided distribution (65) only depends on the sum $`\delta =ϵ_++ϵ_{}`$ and on $`\delta ^{^{}}`$.

These differences can be considered versus single-additional Lorentz structures where the presence or absence of in signatures occur similarly for $`ϵ_{}`$ and $`\kappa _o`$ (and for $`ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ and $`\kappa _{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$), and for $`ϵ_+`$ and $`\kappa _1`$ (and for $`ϵ_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ and $`\kappa _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$). With respect to measurement of only $`\delta `$ and/or $`\delta ^{^{}}`$ by the simplest $`2`$-angle-variable distribution (65), there is almost complete cancellations in $`\delta `$ and $`\delta ^{^{}}`$ in the case of single-additional $`V+A,V`$ or $`A`$ couplings, and some cancellation in $`\delta ^{^{}}`$ for $`f_Mf_E,f_M`$ or $`f_E`$ couplings. This means that the $`2`$-angle-variable single-sided distribution (65) should not be solely used because the other linear-combinations $`ϵ=ϵ_+ϵ_{}`$ and $`ϵ^{^{}}`$ need also to be measured. Also, if $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{^{}}`$ are not measured, then the simple “ $`SP,S`$, or $`P`$ coupling’s signature” of a presence/absence of effects in ($`ϵ_{}`$ and $`\kappa _o`$)/($`ϵ_+`$ and $`\kappa _1`$) and likewise for the primed quantities would not be available.

Obviously, a sensitivity analysis of the “ideal statistical errors” and of the systematic errors in regard to the various helicity parameters in the case of $`b`$-polarimetry and of joint $`b`$-$`W`$-polarimetry distributions would be useful in the context of different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry methods, the expected number of events, the details of specific experiments/detectors, and available experimental information on the dynamics occurring/not-occurring in top quark decay.

## 4 $`b`$-Polarimetry Interference Parameters <br>involving $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$

Case: In Standard Model and at Ambiguous Moduli Points

The two $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameters $`ϵ_+`$ and $`\kappa _o`$ involving the standard model’s largest amplitude, $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ were considered in . Plots for these parameters were given therein for the case of a single-additional, real coupling $`g_i`$. For the other L-handed b-quark amplitude, $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$, the two analogous helicity parameters are

$$\begin{array}{c}ϵ_{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{cos}\gamma _{}\\ =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}Re\left\{A(1,\frac{1}{2})A^{}(0,\frac{1}{2})\right\}\\ \kappa _1\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(1,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{cos}\alpha _1\\ =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}Re\left\{A(1,\frac{1}{2})A^{}(1,\frac{1}{2})\right\}\end{array}$$
(69)
where $`\gamma _{}=\varphi _1^L\varphi _0^R`$ and $`\alpha _1=\varphi _1^R\varphi _1^L`$, see Fig. 1.

In the SM, the two $`𝒪(LR)`$ helicity parameters which are between the amplitudes with the largest moduli product are $`ϵ_+`$ and $`\kappa _1`$, which respective depend on $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})338`$ and
$`A(1,\frac{1}{2})220`$ in $`g_L=1`$ units. The R-handed amplitudes are $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})7.16`$ and $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})2.33`$. Unfortunately, as shown in Table 1, the tree-level values of the four $`b`$-interference parameters are only about $`1\%`$ in the SM, and also at the $`(S+P)`$ and $`(f_M+f_E)`$ ambiguous moduli points .

Case: “(V-A) + Single Additional Lorentz Structure”

Some single-additional Lorentz structures can produce sizable effects in these four $`b`$-interference parameters: In , this was shown to occur in $`ϵ_+`$ for additional non-chiral $`V,f_M`$ or $`A,f_E`$ couplings, and for the chiral combinations $`V+A,f_Mf_E`$ in Figs. 9, and in $`\kappa _o`$ for additional $`V,S,f_M`$ or $`A,P,f_E`$ couplings, and for $`V+A,SP,f_Mf_E`$ in Figs. 10.

In the present paper, analogous plots are given for the $`b`$-interference parameters involving the $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ amplitude. In Fig. 9 are plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameter $`ϵ_{}`$ versus $`\eta _L`$ for the case of a single-additional, real coupling. By $`W`$-polarimetry, the $`\eta _L`$ parameter can be measured since

$$\begin{array}{c}\eta _L=\frac{1}{2}(\eta +\omega )\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{cos}\beta _L\end{array}$$
(70)
where $`\beta _L=\varphi _1^L\varphi _0^L`$ is the relative phase difference the two helicity amplitudes in (69). Similarly, in Fig. 10 are plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameter $`\kappa _1`$ versus $`\eta _L`$. In both sets of plots, Figs. 9 and 10, the upper(lower) figures are for the case of an additional chiral (non-chiral) coupling.

Note that an additional $`(VA)`$ coupling only effects the overall magnitude or phase of the $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ amplitudes and so an additional $`(VA)`$ coupling will only effect the overall normalization of the spin-correlation functions. Note also that due to their L-handed $`b`$-quark structure, an additional $`f_M+f_E`$ or $`S+P`$ coupling does not significantly effect any of the four $`ϵ_\pm ,\kappa _{o,1}`$ interference parameters. For the same reason, these couplings do not significantly effect the four $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation $`ϵ_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}},\kappa _{o,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ parameters, see Figs. 11 and 12 below and see Figs. 1 and 2 of .

An additional $`SP`$ coupling effects significantly only $`\kappa _o`$ and $`ϵ_{}`$. In the non-chiral case, an additional $`S`$ or $`P`$ coupling effects significantly only $`\kappa _o`$ and $`ϵ_{}`$. As in , the “oval shapes” of the curves in Figs. 9 and 10 as the coupling strength varies is due to the non-zero value of the $`m_b`$ mass, $`m_b=4.5GeV`$.

Case: Explicit $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$ Violation from a Single-Additional Lorentz Structure

By “explicit $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$ violation”, we mean an additional complex-coupling, $`g_i/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ or $`g_i`$, associated with a specific single-additional Lorentz structure, $`i=S,P,S\pm P,\mathrm{}`$. For a single-additional gauge-type coupling $`V,A,`$ or $`V+A`$, there is not a significant signature in $`\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ due to the $`T`$-violation “masking mechanism” associated with gauge-type couplings . For example: for an additional pure imaginary $`g_R`$ coupling plus a purely real $`g_L`$, $`\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}m_b/m_t`$. In , we considered the effects on the $`ϵ_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ and $`\kappa _{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ helicity parameters of pure-imaginary couplings. These two parameters involve the $`A(0,\frac{1}{2})`$ amplitude. Here we consider the analogous effects on $`ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ and $`\kappa _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ which involve the $`A(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ amplitude.

However, as in , there are large indirect effects on other helicity parameters in the case of explicit $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation due to a single-additional pure-imaginary coupling. Therefore, while the following plots do show that sizable $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation signatures can occur due to pure-imaginary additional couplings, such additional couplings can usually be more simply excluded by $`10\%`$ precision measurement of the probabilities $`P(W_L)`$ and $`P(b_L)`$, and of the $`W`$-polarimetry interference parameters $`\eta `$ and $`\omega `$.

Figs. 11 and 12 display plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameters $`ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ and $`\kappa _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ versus the coupling strength for the case of a single-additional, pure-imaginary coupling. These helicity parameters are defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}ϵ_{}^{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(0,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _{}\\ \kappa _1^{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}|A(1,\frac{1}{2})||A(1,\frac{1}{2})|\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1\end{array}$$
(71)
The “cosine’s” of $`\gamma _{}`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ occurred above in (68).

In Figs. 11 and 12 the upper plots (lower plots) are respectively for the case of an additional non-gauge (gauge) type coupling. The SM limits are correspondingly at the “wings” where $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|\mathrm{}`$ ( “origin” where $`g_i0`$ ). As in the case of a purely real additional coupling, an additional $`SP,S`$ or $`P`$ coupling effects significantly only $`\kappa _o^{}`$ and $`ϵ_{}^{}`$. In Figs. 11 and 12, the peaks in the curves usually do correspond to where $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1|1`$ and $`|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _{}|1`$. The exceptions are: in Fig. 11 for $`ϵ_{}^{}`$ for $`f_M,f_E`$ where respectively $`|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _{}|0.52,0.48`$ at $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|=70GeV`$ and for $`V,A`$ where $`|\mathrm{sin}\gamma _{}|0.81`$ at $`|g_i|=0.75`$; and in Fig. 12 for $`\kappa _1^{}`$ for $`f_M,f_E`$ where respectively $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1|0.52,0.48`$ at $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|=70GeV`$ and for $`V,A`$ where $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha _1|0.86`$ at $`|g_i|=0.75`$. The drops in the curves for small $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i|`$’s is due to the vanishing of the “sine” of the corresponding relative phase.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

The implications and directions for further development of many of the results in this paper will have to deduced as data accumulates from model-independent top quark spin-correlation analyses. However, even if the standard model predictions are correct to better than the $`10\%`$ level, top quark decay will still be uniquely sensitive to “new” short-distance physics at nearby-but-not-yet-explored distance scales because of the absence of hadronization effects and the large $`m_t`$ mass.

(1) From analyses only using $`W`$-polarimetry, it will important to ascertain the magnitude of the two R-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes for $`tW^+b`$. If these are indeed $`30`$ to $`100`$ times smaller than the L-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes as occurs in the SM and occurs at the ($`S+P`$) and ($`f_M+f_E`$) ambiguous moduli points, then the data should show that $`[P(b_L)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma )]1`$, that $`[2P(W_L)P(b_L)=\frac{1}{2}(1+2\sigma \xi )]\zeta `$, and that $`\omega \eta `$. Consequently, the $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameters $`ϵ_\pm ,\kappa _{o,1}`$, and their primed analogues, must be small versus their unitarity limit of $`0.5`$. In the SM and for the very interesting $`(f_M+f_E)`$ dynamical ambiguity $`\frac{ϵ_+}{0.5}3\%`$, $`\frac{\kappa _1}{0.5}2\%`$, $`\frac{\kappa _o}{0.5}1\%`$ and $`\frac{ϵ_{}}{0.5}0.6\%`$. In this case, both a large and clean sample of $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ decays and mature $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry methods will be required for a “complete measurement” of the $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)`$ and the $`B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda _{\overline{b}})`$ amplitudes.

However, as shown by the last 4 figures in this paper and by the analogous ones in , the situation is very different it there are sizable R-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes. Such amplitudes can occur in the case of single-additional Lorentz structures. In this case, the use of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry in top quark spin-correlation analyses could be uniquely sensitive and useful in disentangling new physics at the Tevatron and LHC.

(2) Being able to neglect R-handed amplitudes is also important with respect to searching for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation signatures. If R-handed amplitudes are negligible, then from analyses only using $`W`$-polarimetry, the data can show that $`0[\omega ^{^{}}\eta ^{^{}}]`$ or that
$`0[(\eta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}})^2\frac{1}{4}[P(b_L)+\zeta ][P(b_L)\zeta ](\eta _L)^2]`$ as signatures for $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation. With respect to $`b`$-polarimetry information the situation is as discussed in remark (1) above: If the R-handed amplitudes are $`1\%`$ then the four “primed” $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation $`b`$-polarimetry parameters will have magnitudes at most of $`1\%`$, c.f. the lower parts of Figs. 1 and 2. However, if R-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes are sizable, then $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation signatures can be much larger as shown by the “primed” helicity-parameter figures in this paper and in .

(3) When final $`\overline{\nu }`$ angles-and-energy variables are used in top quark analyses for $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ decay in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ mass region, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry signatures will not be suppressed. This is shown above by a simple argument in the paragraph following (6), and see Appendix. Similarly, $`\nu `$ angles-and-energy variables will not suppress signatures from $`\overline{b}l^+\nu \overline{c}`$ decay.

(4) At the time of a future linear collider, it will be important to reconsider what information about top quark decays can be better obtained from (i) the use of the alternative-angles of Fig.6, and from (ii) the simpler single-sided $`b`$-$`W`$-interference distributions versus S2SC distributions. These issues are briefly discussed in the “remarks” following (58) and (67). The single-sided distributions considered above (62-67) depend on $`ϵ_\pm ,ϵ_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ but not on $`\kappa _{o,1},\kappa _{o,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$.

Acknowledgments

We thank L.J. Adler, Jr. for his assistance in preparation of the helicity parameter plots. We thank experimentalists and theorists for discussions regarding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry and HQET. This work was partially supported by U.S. Dept. of Energy Contract No. DE-FG 02-86ER40291.

## Appendix A Appendix: Formulas for $`\left|R_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_l)\right|^2`$ type factors <br>when $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$, and $`\overline{b}l^+\nu \overline{c}`$ :

In this appendix are listed explicit formulas for the $`\left|R_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_l)\right|^2`$ and $`\left|\overline{R_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^b}(E_{\overline{l}})\right|^2`$ factors, assuming the SM’s pure $`VA`$ $`(V+A)`$ couplings respectively for $`b`$ $`(\overline{b})`$ decay. These formulas follow by use of , the second paper in  and its references.

For the decay $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$ , in (6)

$$\left|R_\pm ^b\right|^2=R(x_l)S(x_l)$$
(72)
where

$$R(x_l)=\frac{1}{f(\epsilon _c)}\frac{x_l^2(1\epsilon _cx_l)^2}{(1x_l)^2}\left[32x_l+\epsilon _c\left(\frac{3x_l}{1x_l}\right)\right]$$
(73)
$$S(x_l)=\frac{1}{f(\epsilon _c)}\frac{x_l^2(1\epsilon _cx_l)^2}{(1x_l)^2}\left[1+2x_l+\epsilon _c\left(\frac{1+x_l}{1x_l}\right)\right]$$
(74)
with $`x_l=2E_l/m_b`$, $`\epsilon _c=m_c^2/m_b^2`$, and $`f(\epsilon _c)=18`$ $`\epsilon _c+8\epsilon _c^2\epsilon _c^412\epsilon _c^2\mathrm{log}\epsilon _c`$. For the $`CP`$-conjugate mode $`\overline{b}l^+\nu \overline{c}`$ , in (15-16, 48-55)

$$\left|\overline{R_\pm ^b}\right|^2=R(\overline{x_l})\pm S(\overline{x_l})$$
(75)
with

$`\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}}(\overline{b}`$ $``$ $`l^+\nu \overline{c})=\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}}(\widehat{\varphi _b},\widehat{\theta _b},E\overline{_l})`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\pm \frac{1}{2}}{}}D_{\lambda \overline{_b}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi _b},\widehat{\theta _b},0)D_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi _b},\widehat{\theta _b},0)\left|\overline{R_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^b(E\overline{_l})}\right|^2`$
The $`\overline{\nu }`$ (or $`\nu `$) angle-energy-spectra is very useful in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ polarimetry methods, see \[3-6, 8-10\] and remarks above in paragraph after (6). Only simple changes are needed in the present formalism to use $`\overline{\nu }`$ (or $`\nu `$) angles-and-energy variables: For describing $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }c`$, the angles $`\widehat{\phi }_a^{^{}}`$, $`\widehat{\theta }_a^{^{}}`$ can be used to label the anti-neutrino momentum direction in place of the $`l^{}`$ angles $`\widehat{\phi }_a`$, $`\widehat{\theta }_a`$. This is only a matter of adding “primes” to these angles in the various expressions. In place of (6) one has

$`\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(b`$ $``$ $`l^{}\overline{\nu }c)=\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _b\lambda _b^{^{}}}(\widehat{\varphi }_a^{^{}},\widehat{\theta }_a^{^{}},E_{\overline{\nu }})`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }=\pm \frac{1}{2}}{}}D_{\lambda _b\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi }_a^{^{}},\widehat{\theta }_a^{^{}},0)D_{\lambda _b^{^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi }_a^{^{}},\widehat{\theta }_a^{^{}},0)\left|N_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_{\overline{\nu }})\right|^2`$
where

$$\left|N_\pm ^b\right|^2=U(y_\nu )V(y_\nu )$$
(78)
where $`V(y_\nu )=U(y_\nu )`$ and

$$U(x_l)=\frac{1}{f(\epsilon _c)}\frac{6y_\nu ^2(1\epsilon _cy_\nu )^2}{(1y_\nu )}$$
(79)
with $`y_\nu =2E_{\overline{\nu }}/m_b`$. Therefore, in the expressions in the text, when the $`\overline{\nu }`$ variables are used, $`\left|R_+\right|^2`$ of (9) is replaced by $`2U(y_\nu )`$ and $`\left|R_{}\right|^2`$ is set equal to zero. This vanishing is occurring because in the $`b`$-quark rest frame, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`\left|N_\mathrm{\Lambda }^b(E_{\overline{\nu }})\right|^2`$ is the eigenvalue of $`𝐉\widehat{𝐩}_{\overline{\nu }}`$ where $`𝐉`$ is the angular momentum operator. Therefore, for $`m_\nu =0`$ , the final $`\overline{\nu }`$ is purely R-handed so $`\left|N_{}^b\right|^2=0`$. See paragraph after (5) in .

Similarly for the neutrino in $`\overline{b}l^+\nu \overline{c}`$ : In place of the angles $`\widehat{\phi }_b`$, $`\widehat{\theta }_b`$ , the angles $`\widehat{\phi }_b^{^{}}`$, $`\widehat{\theta }_b^{^{}}`$ can be used to label the neutrino momentum direction. Then in place of (75) one has

$`\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}}(\overline{b}`$ $``$ $`l^+\nu \overline{c})=\overline{\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}}}(\widehat{\varphi }_b^{^{}},\widehat{\theta }_b^{^{}},E_\nu )`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\pm \frac{1}{2}}{}}D_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi }_b^{^{}},\widehat{\theta }_b^{^{}},0)D_{\lambda _{\overline{b}}^{^{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{1/2}(\widehat{\varphi }_b^{^{}},\widehat{\theta }_b^{^{}},0)\left|\overline{N_{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^b}(E_\nu )\right|^2`$
where

$$\left|\overline{N_\pm ^b}\right|^2=U(\overline{y_\nu })\pm V(\overline{y_\nu })$$
(81)
When the $`\nu `$ variables are used, $`\left|\overline{R_{}}\right|^2`$ is replaced by $`2U(\overline{y_\nu })`$ and $`\left|\overline{R_+}\right|^2=0`$ because the final $`\overline{\nu }`$ is purely L-handed.

Table Captions

Table 1: For the standard model and at the ($`S+P`$) and ($`f_M+f_E`$) ambiguous moduli points, numerical values of $`\eta _L`$ and of the four $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameters, $`ϵ_\pm ,\kappa _{o,1}`$ which are defined by the lower sketch in Fig. 1. \[$`m_t=175GeV,m_W=80.35GeV,m_b=4.5GeV`$ \]

Figure Captions

FIG. 1: For $`tW^+b`$ decay, a display of the four helicity amplitudes $`A(\lambda _{W^+},\lambda _b)=`$
$`|A|\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _{\lambda _{W^+}}^{L/R})`$ relative to the $`W^+`$ and $`b`$ helicities. The upper sketch defines the measurable relative phases and the lower sketch defines their corresponding real-part and imaginary-part (primed) helicity parameters. Throughout this paper the symbol $`i\sqrt{1}`$. For a pure $`VA`$ coupling, the $`\beta `$’s vanish and all the $`\alpha `$’s and $`\gamma `$’s equal $`+\pi `$ (or $`\pi `$) to give the overall minus sign in each of the standard model’s R-handed $`b`$-quark amplitudes, see .

FIG. 2: For $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$ decay (the $`CP`$-conjugate process), the relative phases and associated helicity parameters are defined as in Fig. 1 but now with “barred” accents. Compare (18-29). Now the R-handed $`\overline{b}`$ amplitudes, $`B(\lambda _W^{},\frac{1}{2})`$ reference the $`\overline{\alpha }_0,\overline{\alpha }_1`$ relative-phase-directions, $`B(\lambda _W^{},\lambda \overline{_b})=\left|B\right|\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _{\lambda _W^{}}^{bR/L}`$.

FIG. 3: The three angles $`\theta _1^t`$, $`\theta _2^t`$ and $`\varphi `$ describe the first stage in the sequential-decays of the $`(t\overline{t})`$ system in which $`tW^+b`$ and $`\overline{t}W^{}\overline{b}`$.

FIG. 4: For the sequential decay $`tW^+b`$ followed by $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }X`$, the two pairs of spherical angles $`\widehat{\theta _1^t}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _1^t}`$ and $`\widehat{\theta _a}`$,$`\widehat{\varphi _a}`$ describe respectively the $`b`$ momentum in the “first stage” $`tW^+b`$ and the $`l^{}`$ momentum in the “second stage” $`bl^{}\overline{\nu }X`$. Angles associated with the $`b`$, or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, branching’s momenta directions have “hat” accents whereas those associated with the $`W^+`$ branching have “tilde” accents, as in Fig. 7 below. The spherical angles $`\widehat{\theta _a}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _a}`$ specify the $`l^{}`$ momentum in the $`b`$ rest frame when the boost is from the $`t_1`$ rest frame. In this figure, $`\widehat{\varphi _1^t}`$ is shown equal to zero for simplicity of illustration. The positive $`\widehat{x_a}`$ direction is specified by the $`\overline{t}`$ momentum direction.

FIG. 5: This figure is symmetric versus Fig. 4. The spherical angles $`\widehat{\theta _b}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _b}`$ specify the $`l^+`$ momentum in the $`\overline{b}`$ rest frame when the boost is from the $`\overline{t}_2`$ rest frame.

FIG. 6: The spherical angles $`\widehat{\theta _1}`$,$`\widehat{\varphi _1}`$ specify the $`l^{}`$ momentum in the $`b`$ rest frame when the boost is directly from the $`(t\overline{t})_{cm}`$ frame. Similarly, $`\widehat{\theta _2}`$, $`\widehat{\varphi _2}`$ specify the $`l^+`$ momentum in the $`\overline{b}`$ rest frame. The $`b\overline{b}`$ production half-plane specifies the positive $`\widehat{x_1}`$ and $`\widehat{x_2}`$ axes.

FIG. 7: This figure labels the $`W^+`$ branch analogous to the labels in Fig. 4 for the $`b`$ branch. The two pairs of spherical angles $`\theta _1^t`$, $`\varphi _1^t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}`$ describe the respective stages in the sequential decay $`tW^+b`$ followed by $`W^+j_{\overline{d}}j_u`$ \[ or $`W^+l^+\nu `$ \]. The spherical angles $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _a}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _a}`$ specify the $`j_{\overline{d}}`$ jet \[or the $`l^+`$\] momentum in the $`W^+`$rest frame.

FIG. 8: The labels are as in Fig. 7 but here for the $`W^{}`$ branch. The spherical angles $`\stackrel{~}{\theta _b}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _b}`$ specify the $`j_d`$ jet \[or the $`l^{}`$\] momentum in the $`W^{}`$rest frame.

FIG. 9: Plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameter $`ϵ_{}`$ versus $`\eta _L`$ for the case of a single-additional, real coupling. The SM prediction is shown by the solid rectangle. The upper plot is for a single-additional, real chiral coupling. The value of $`ϵ_{}0`$ for the other couplings $`S+P,f_M+f_E`$. The lower plot is for a single-additional, real non-chiral coupling. The omitted curves for $`A,P,f_E`$ are respectively almost mirror images about the $`\eta _L`$ axis. Coupling strengths at representative points are given in the table associated with the respective plot. The unitarity limit is a circle of radius $`0.5`$, centered at the origin, in each of these plots and in those in Fig. 10.

FIG. 10: Plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry interference parameter $`\kappa _1`$ versus $`\eta _L`$ for the case of a single-additional, real coupling. The upper plot is for a single-additional, real chiral coupling; the value of $`\kappa _10`$ for the omitted couplings $`S\pm P,f_M+f_E`$. The lower plot is for a single-additional, real non-chiral coupling; the omitted curves for $`A,f_E`$ are respectively almost mirror images about the $`\eta _L`$ axis. The value of $`\kappa _10`$ for the omitted couplings $`S,P`$.

FIG. 11: Plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation, interference parameter $`ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ versus coupling strength for the case of a single-additional pure-imaginary coupling. Curves are for non-gauge-type couplings (upper plot), gauge-type couplings (lower plot), versus respectively the effective-mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, or coupling strength $`g_i`$ in $`g_L=1`$ units. Curves are omitted in these plots and in the following Fig. 12 when the couplings produce approximately zero deviations in the helicity parameter of interest.

FIG. 12: Plots of the $`b`$-polarimetry, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{FS}`$-violation, interference parameter $`\kappa _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}`$ versus coupling strength for the case of a single-additional pure-imaginary coupling. Curves are for non-gauge-type coupling (upper plot), gauge-type coupling (lower plot), versus respectively the effective-mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, or coupling strength $`g_i`$ in $`g_L=1`$ units.