# 1 Feynman graphs for the decay 𝑡→𝑐⁢𝐻in the unitary gauge (𝑚_𝑐=0 is assumed).

LC-TH-1999-012

ROME1-1281/99

December 1999

The $`tcH`$ decay width in the standard model. 

B. Mele $`^{a,b},`$ S. Petrarca $`^{b,a}`$ and A. Soddu <sup>a,c</sup> 

<sup>a</sup> INFN, Sezione di Roma 1, Rome, Italy   
<sup>b</sup> Rome University “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy   
<sup>c</sup> University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Abstract

The $`tcH`$decay width has been computed in the standard model with a light Higgs boson. The corresponding branching fraction has been found to be in the range $`B(tcH)10^{13}÷10^{14}`$ for $`M_Z<m_H<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}M_W`$. Our results correct the numerical evaluation usually quoted in the literature. 

The one-loop flavor-changing transitions, $`tcg`$, $`tc\gamma `$, $`tcZ`$and $`tcH`$, are particularly interesting, among the top quark rare decays. Indeed, new physics, such as supersymmetry, an extended Higgs sector and heavier-fermion families could conspicuosly affect the rates for this decays. In the standard model (SM), these processes are in general quite suppressed due to the Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani (GIM) mechanism, controlled by the light masses of the $`b,s,d`$ quarks circulating in the loop. The corresponding branching fractions $`B_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i/\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ are further decreased by the large total decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T`$ of the top quark. The complete calculations of the one-loop flavour-changing top decays have been performed, before the top quark experimental observation, in the paper by Eilam, Hewett and Soni  (also based on Eilam, Haeri and Soni ). Assuming $`m_t=175`$GeV, the value of the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbW)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T1.55`$ GeV, and one gets from ref. 

$$B(tcg)410^{11},B(tc\gamma )510^{13},B(tcZ)1.310^{13}.$$
(1)   
In the same ref. , a much larger branching fraction for the decay $`tcH`$is presented as function of the top and Higgs masses (in Fig. 1 the relevant Feynman graphs for this channel are shown).

For $`m_t175`$ GeV and 40 GeV$`<m_H<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}M_W`$, the value

$$B(tcH)10^7÷10^8$$
(2)   
is obtained, by means of the analytical formulae presented in ref.  for the fourth-generation quark decay $`b^{}bH`$, in a theoretical framework assuming four flavour families. Such relatively large values for $`B(tcH)`$ look surprising, since the topology of the Feynman graphs for the different one-loop channels is similar, and a GIM suppression, governed by the down-type quark masses, is acting in all the decays.

In order to clarify the situation, we recomputed from scratch the complete analytical decay width for $`tcH`$, as described in . The corresponding numerical results for $`B(tcH)`$, when $`m_t=175`$GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(tbW)1.55`$ GeV, are reported in Table 1. We used $`M_W=80.3`$GeV, $`m_b=5`$GeV, $`m_s=0.2`$GeV, and for the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements $`|V_{tb}^{}V_{cb}|=0.04`$. Furthermore, we assumed $`|V_{ts}^{}V_{cs}|=|V_{tb}^{}V_{cb}|`$. As a consequence, the $`m_d`$ dependence in the amplitude drops out.

Our results are several orders of magnitude smaller than the ones reported in the literature. In particular, for $`m_HM_Z`$ we obtain

$$B_{new}(tcH)1.210^{13}$$
(3)   
to be compared with the corresponding value presented in ref. 

$$B_{old}(tcH)610^8.$$
(4)   
In order to trace back the source of this inconsistency, we performed a thorough study of the analytical formula in eq. (3) of ref. , for the decay width of the fourth-family down-type quark $`b^{}bH`$, that is the basis for the numerical evaluation of $`B(tcH)`$ presented in ref. . The result of this study was that we agreed with the analytical computation in , but we disagreed with the numerical evaluation of $`B(tcH)`$ in .

The explanation for this situation can be ascribed to some error in the computer code used by the authors of ref.  to work out their Fig. 3. This explanation has been confirmed to us by one of the authors of ref.  (J.L.H.), and by the erratum appeared consequently , whose evaluation we now completely agree with.

In the following we give some euristic considerations useful in order to understand the correct order of magnitude of the rate for the decay $`tcH`$. The comparison between the rates for $`tcZ`$and $`tcH`$and the corresponding rates for the tree-level decays $`tbWZ`$and $`tbWH`$, when $`m_HM_Z`$ can give some hint on this order of magnitude. In fact, the latter channels can be considered a sort of lower-order parent processes for the one-loop decays, as can be seen in Fig. 2, where the relevant Feynman graphs are shown.

Indeed, the Feynman graphs for $`tcZ`$and $`tcH`$can be obtained by recombining the final $`b`$ quark and $`W`$ into a $`c`$ quark in the three-body decays $`tbWZ`$and $`tbWH`$, respectively, and by adding analogous contributions where the $`b`$ quark is replaced by the $`s`$ and $`d`$ quarks. Then, the depletion of the $`tcH`$rate with respect to the parent $`tbWH`$rate is expected to be of the same order of magnitude of the depletion of $`tcZ`$with respect to $`tbWZ`$, for $`m_HM_Z`$. In fact, the GIM mechanism acts in a similar way in the one-loop decays into $`H`$ and $`Z`$.

The $`tbWZ`$and $`tbWH`$decay rates have been computed, taking into account crucial $`W`$ and $`Z`$ finite-width effects, in ref. . For $`m_HM_Z`$, the two widths are comparable. In particular, for $`m_t175`$GeV, one has 

$$B(tbWZ)610^7B(tbWH)310^7.$$
(5)   
From , $`B(tcH)610^8`$ for $`m_HM_Z`$. Accordingly, the ratio of the one-loop and tree-level decay rates is

$$r_H\frac{B(tcH)}{B(tbWH)}0.2$$
(6)   
to be confronted with

$$r_Z\frac{B(tcZ)}{B(tbWZ)}210^7.$$
(7)   
On the other hand, $`r_H`$ and $`r_Z`$ are related to the quantity

$$\left(\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}|V_{tb}^{}V_{cb}|\frac{m_b^2}{M_W^2}\right)^210^8$$
(8)   
(where $`V_{ij}`$ are the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements) arising from the higher-order in the weak coupling and the GIM suppression mechanism of the one-loop decay width. The large discrepancy between the value of the ratio $`r_H`$ in eq. (6) and what was expected from the factor in eq. (8), which, on the other hand, is supported by the value of $`r_Z`$, was a further indication that the values for $`B(tcH)`$ reported in eq. (2) could be incorrect.

Indeed, the new value of $`B(tcH)`$ in eq. (3) gives $`r_H410^7`$.

In conclusion, we have pointed out that one of the numerical results of ref.  establishing a relatively large branching ratio for the decay $`tcH`$in the SM has been overestimated. The correct numerical estimates are shown in Table 1. We find $`B(tcH)110^{13}÷410^{15}`$ for $`M_Z<m_H<\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}M_W`$. Such a small rate will not be measurable even at the highest luminosity accelerators that are presently conceivable. An eventual experimental signal in the rare $`t`$ decays will definitely have to be ascribed to some new physics effect.

We thank V.A. Ilyin for discussions and suggestions.