Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Analyzing tt¯Z-couplings at the future e−p collider

Katlego Machethe1,2,*, Pramod Sharma3,1,†, Mukesh Kumar1,‡, Rafiqul Rahaman4,§, and Bruce Mellado1,2,∥

  • *Contact author: kmi.machethe@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: pramodsharma.iiser@gmail.com
  • ‡Contact author: mukesh.kumar@cern.ch
  • §Contact author: rafiqul@if.usp.br
  • ∥Contact author: bmellado@cern.ch

Phys. Rev. D 112, 115008 – Published 2 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/fp7y-m31y

Abstract

The proposed Large Hadron electron Collider (LHeC), with a center-of-mass energy of s≈1.3  TeV, provides a clean and sensitive environment to probe the top quark’s neutral current interactions with the Z boson via e−p→e−tt¯. We investigate the precision with which the Standard Model (SM) tt¯Z couplings—the vector and axial-vector components (ΔC1V,ΔC1A) can be measured, along with possible new physics effects parametrized by higher-dimensional operators inducing weak electric and magnetic dipolelike interactions (C2V,C2A). Focusing on the semileptonic decay channel, where either the top quark decays leptonically to a positively charged lepton (ℓ+=e+,μ+) and the antitop hadronically, or vice versa, we utilize the azimuthal angle difference Δϕe−ℓ± between the scattered electron and the charged lepton ℓ± as the key observable to derive projected constraints. Using a one-parameter multibin χ2 analysis of the differential Δϕe−ℓ± distribution, the constraints on ΔC1A improve from O(10−1) at 50  fb−1 to O(10−2) at 1000  fb−1, while the improvement for ΔC1V remains within the same order of magnitude, O(10−1). These results correspond to average relative precisions of approximately 8% and 68%, respectively, with respect to their SM values. The anomalous tensor couplings C2V and C2A are constrained at the O(10−1) level even at low luminosity and improve moderately with increasing luminosity. While the two-parameter analysis broadens the allowed regions due to parameter correlations, it maintains competitive sensitivity, particularly for the SM-like couplings. Throughout, we assume a systematic uncertainty of δs=5% in all analyses, and all results are quoted at the 95% confidence level. These results demonstrate the LHeC’s potential to provide complementary and competitive sensitivity to top-Z couplings compared to current and future hadron and lepton collider capabilities.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (47)

  1. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Nucl. Phys. B812, 181 (2009).
  2. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, M. C. N. Fiolhais, and A. Onofre, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2012) 180.
  3. R. Röntsch and M. Schulze, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2014) 091; 09 (2015) 132(E).
  4. R. Röntsch and M. Schulze, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2015) 044.
  5. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99, 072009 (2019).
  6. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2020) 056.
  7. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 108, 032008 (2023).
  8. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2024) 163.
  9. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2022) 107.
  10. A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2025) 177.
  11. R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, R. Pittau, and P. Torrielli, Phys. Lett. B 701, 427 (2011).
  12. A. Lazopoulos, T. McElmurry, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, Phys. Lett. B 666, 62 (2008).
  13. J. Campbell, R. K. Ellis, and R. Röntsch, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114006 (2013).
  14. A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell, and C. D. White, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2016) 015.
  15. G. e. a. Durieux, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 168.
  16. Q.-H. Cao, B. Yan, C. P. Yuan, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 055010 (2020).
  17. Q.-H. Cao and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 92, 094018 (2015).
  18. C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034006 (2011).
  19. J. L. Abelleira Fernandez et al. (LHeC Study Group), J. Phys. G 39, 075001 (2012).
  20. F. Ahmadova et al., arXiv:2503.17727.
  21. U. Klein (LHeC, FCC-eh Study Groups), Proc. Sci., ICHEP2024 (2025) 094.
  22. S. Dutta, A. Goyal, M. Kumar, and B. Mellado, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 577 (2015).
  23. S. Behera, R. Islam, M. Kumar, P. Poulose, and R. Rahaman, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015006 (2019).
  24. D. Britzger, M. Klein, and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 831 (2020).
  25. S. S. Biswal, R. M. Godbole, B. Mellado, and S. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 261801 (2012).
  26. M. Kumar, X. Ruan, R. Islam, A. S. Cornell, M. Klein, U. Klein, and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B 764, 247 (2017).
  27. M. Kumar, X. Ruan, A. S. Cornell, R. Islam, and B. Mellado, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 623, 012017 (2015).
  28. K. D. J. André et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 40 (2022).
  29. C. Mosomane, M. Kumar, A. S. Cornell, and B. Mellado, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 889, 012004 (2017).
  30. B. Coleppa, M. Kumar, S. Kumar, and B. Mellado, Phys. Lett. B 770, 335 (2017).
  31. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  32. R. Rahaman, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2023) 077.
  33. A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014).
  34. O. Bessidskaia Bylund, F. Maltoni, I. Tsinikos, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 052.
  35. D. Barducci et al., arXiv:1802.07237.
  36. J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2011) 128.
  37. K. Mosala, P. Sharma, M. Kumar, and A. Goyal, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 44 (2024).
  38. K. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 96, 071501 (2017).
  39. A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094007 (2013).
  40. A. O. Bouzas and F. Larios, Phys. Rev. D 105, 115002 (2022).
  41. R. Rahaman and R. K. Singh, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2020) 075.
  42. B. Ravina, E. Simpson, and J. Howarth, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 809 (2021).
  43. J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 65, 014011 (2001).
  44. J. Pumplin, D. Stump, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Huston, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 65, 014013 (2001).
  45. R. Easther, A. H. Guth, and A. Masoumi, arXiv:1612.05224.
  46. A. Lewis, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2025) 025.
  47. R. Mammen Abraham and D. Gonçalves, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 965 (2023).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation