\section{Introduction}
Despite its brilliant achievements in tackling perturbative problems, analytical investigations of QCD can not do much when it comes
to determining the structure of its phase diagram in the $(T,\mu)$ plane, with $T$ temperature and $\mu$ quark chemical potential.
In nonpertubative regimes, the answers numerical lattice QCD calculations can provide are mainly limited to $\mu\simeq 0$: the notoriuos
sign problem renders the traditional Monte Carlo sampling approach meaningless and one has to rely on alternative methods, whose efficiency
typically degrades about $\mu\sim T$: examples are using an imaginary chemical potential, performing a Taylor expansion around $\mu=0$ and
reweighting of ensembles generated at zero chemical potential.

Yet, the relevant physics for heavy-ion collisions, as well as for compact-star astrophysics, takes place at far-from-zero $\mu$:
it would then be desirable to devise strategies able somehow to circumvent the problems. In this category fall the many effective
approaches developed throughout the years, such as sigma models, (p)NJL models and so on.

In particular, in characterising the $T\to 0$ region of the $(T,\mu)$ phase diagram, the phenomenon of \textit{Silver Blaze} is expected
based on very general considerations: there, the partition function -- hence all interesting observables -- have to be independent of
the chemical potential, up to a critical value associated to the lightest baryonic state in the theory.
In the path-integral representation of QCD, the Dirac eigenvalues display an explicit dependence on $\mu$, therefore the Silver Blaze phenomenon
requires a highly non-trivial cancellation between them.
Due to the shortcomings of the numerical methods mentioned above, the phenomenon has not been reproduced successfully in lattice QCD so far;
also on the analytical side, an explicit proof exists only for the choice of an isospin chemical potential
$\mu_I = \mu_u = -\mu_d$, with a critical onset located at $\mu_I=m_\pi/2$ \cite{cohen_silverblaze}.

It is perhaps possible to avoid the sign problem altogether, thus exploring numerically the cold dense region $\mu \ll T$ of QCD, by
employing the so-called Langevin dynamics \cite{langevin}: recently, numerical results for a scalar complex field have been obtained \cite{aarts_silverblaze}
and later reproduced in the context of a flux representation for the same theory \cite{gattringer_silverblaze};
both techniques, however, are at the moment hardly applicable to QCD, and it is not at all guaranteed that they will ever be.

In this work we present an effective, dimensionally-reduced Polyakov-loop model obtained by applying systematically
strong-coupling and hopping-parameter expansions to the original QCD lattice formulation, valid as long as quarks are not too light
and the gauge coupling $\beta$ is not too large;
after briefly describing the theory (Section \ref{sec:efftheory}),
we apply it to the cold dense region (Section \ref{sec:silverblaze}) and show that the signature of the Silver Blaze phenomenon can be
read off the numerical results.
A more detailed presentation of the theory can be found in \cite{efftheo_gauge, efftheo_mu};
for the Silver Blaze property in this context, see also \cite{efftheo_silver}.

\section{The effective theory}
\label{sec:efftheory}
The model lives on a three-dimensional lattice, with complex scalars as per-site degrees of freedom, representing
the traced Polyakov loops $L_x\equiv \Trace(W_x), W_x\in SU(3)$.
The associated effective action consists of a pure-gauge term and a fermionic contribution; the former comes from
application of strong-coupling methods to the original four-dimensional Yang-Mills gauge action, and the latter is
obtained with a hopping-parameter expansion, starting from the standard Wilson expression for the fermionic
term in lattice QCD. In general, then, we have
\eq
	Z_\mathrm{eff}(\ldots) = \int \underbrace{\Big( \prod_x \de L_x e^{V(L_x)} \Big)}_{[\De L]} e^{-S_\mathrm{eff}[L]} \;\;,\;\;
		 \int \de L e^{V(L)} = \int_{-\pi}^{+\pi}\de \theta \int_{-\pi}^{+\pi}\de \phi \hspace{5pt} e^{2V\big(L(\theta,\phi)\big)}\;\;,
	\label{eq:z_eff_general}
\qe
where the parametrisation of the scalar $L$ is made explicit (see \cite{efftheo_gauge}).
The partition function $Z$ depends on effective couplings which are in turn some functions of the original couplings
appearing in the four-dimensional lattice QCD action.

Let us now sketch how the pure-gauge part of the effective action is obtained \cite{efftheo_gauge} starting from
the four-dimensional Euclidean Yang-Mills partition function
at finite temperature (with time extent $N_\tau$ lattice spacings)
\eq
	Z_{SU(3),4d} = \int[\mathcal{D}U_\ell] \exp\Big\{ \frac{\beta}{2N}
		\sum_{p} (\Trace U_{p}+\Trace U_{p}^\dagger) \Big\}
		\;,\;\; \beta=\frac{2N}{g^2} = 18 u + \ldots \;\;.
	\label{eq:original_ym}
\qe
By integrating out the spatial degrees of freedom
and subsequently applying a strong-coupling expansion,
one gets a tower of interactions in the effective theory,
the leading one of which is simply a ``spin-spin'' term
connecting nearest neighbours in the fundamental representation (the superscript ``$s$'' denotes the
compliance of the terms to the centre symmetry requirement):
\eq
	-S_\mathrm{eff}^s = \lambda_1 S_1^s + \lambda_2 S_2^s \cdots
		\;;\;
	\lambda_1 S_1^s = \lambda_1(\beta, N_\tau)\sum_{\avg{ij}}(L_iL_j^*+L_i^*L_j)
		\;;\;
	\lambda_{i>1} = o(\lambda_1)~\mbox{for}~\beta\to 0\;.
\qe
The precise form of the map $\lambda_1(\beta, N_\tau)$ comes from an order-by-order
enumeration of strong-coupling graphs having the two Polyakov lines as boundary: we calculated
the series up to order $u^{10}$ \cite{efftheo_gauge}.\footnote{When fermions are introduced, a shift in the gauge maps between couplings is induced \cite{efftheo_mu}.}
Moreover, one can resum higher powers of (certain classes of) graphs and improve the effective theory to
a ``nonlinear'' form
\eq
	Z_\mathrm{eff} = \int [\De L] \prod_\avg{ij}(1+2\lambda_1 \Real L_i L_j^*)\;\;;
\qe
the important point is that this model reproduces the deconfinement transition of the original
theory, Eq.~(\ref{eq:original_ym}), and once the critical point (that still falls within the range
of applicability of the strong-coupling methods) is known, it can be translated back to
a table $\beta_c(N_\tau)$ with a sufficient precision and in a wide enough range of $N_\tau$
to allow for a sensible continuum extrapolation of the physical deconfinement point $T_c$ \cite{efftheo_gauge}.

The next step is the inclusion of fermions in the theory: we perform an expansion in the hopping parameter $\kappa$,
therefore the masses (we consider $N_f$ degenerate quarks of mass $M = (1-8\kappa)/(2a\kappa)$) must be large enough to guarantee convergence.
The Wilson action for quarks is then written as
\eq
	-S_q = -N_f \sum_{\ell=1}^\infty \frac{\kappa^\ell}{\ell} \Trace (H[U]^\ell)
\qe
with $H$ is the hopping matrix. Its structure is such that the non-zero contributions after integration of the gauge fields
are given by various kinds of closed loops of length $\ell$; each of their links carries a factor $\kappa$
(and, if the chemical potential is turned on, an additional factor $e^{\pm a\mu}$ in the temporal direction):
the expression above is then also an expansion in powers of $\kappa$. The general form of the fermion contribution
to the effective action is analogous to an external field in a spin system (here $a$ denotes the explicit breaking
of centre symmetry):\footnote{The next term seems an ordinary nearest-neighbour
	interaction, but is actually non-centre-symmetric, Eq.~(\ref{eq:efftheo_full}).}
\eq
	-S_\mathrm{eff}^a = -2 N_f \sum_{i=1}^\infty \Big(
		h_i(u,\kappa,\mu,N_\tau)S_i^a + \overline{h}_i(u,\kappa,\mu,N_\tau)S_i^{a,\dagger}
	\Big) \;\; ; \;\;\overline{h}_i(-\mu)=h_i(+\mu)\;\;,
\qe
with the $i$-order reflecting increasingly subdominant terms.
A closer inspection of the leading term $S_1^a$ reveals that, once again, a partial resummation of higher powers
of the same graphs is possible: one finds that
\eq
	-S_\mathrm{eff}^a = \log\Big[\prod_x
		\det\Big(1 + h_1 W_x\Big)^{2N_f}
		\det\Big(1 + \overline{h}_1 W^\dagger_x\Big)^{2N_f}\Big] + \cdots
	\;\;;\;\; h_1=(2\kappa e^{a\mu})^{N_\tau}(1+\cdots)\;,
\qe

The expression for $h_1$ received also contributions from various types of higher-order graphs; including these, and the first
subleading fermionic term $S_2^a$, one can write the model as \cite{efftheo_mu, efftheo_silver}:
\eqa
	Z_\mathrm{eff} &=&
		\int [\De L]
		\prod_{<ij>}\Big(1+2\lambda \Real L_i L_j^*\Big)
		\prod_x \det\Big[(1+h_1 W_x)(1+\overline{h}_1 W^\dagger_x)\Big]^{2N_f} \nonumber \\
		& &\hspace{-0.5cm} \prod_{<ij>} \Big[ 1 - h_2 \Trace\frac{W_i}{1+CW_i} \Trace\frac{W_j}{1+CW_j} \Big]
			\Big[ 1 - \overline{h}_2 \Trace\frac{W^\dagger_i}{1+\overline{C}W^\dagger_i}
				\Trace\frac{W^\dagger_j}{1+\overline{C}W_j^\dagger} \Big] \;\;,
	\label{eq:efftheo_full}
\qea
(we rename $\lambda_1\to\lambda$ and ignore higher-order corrections).
Despite the appearance of $W_x$ and $W_x^\dagger$ in the above, $Z_\mathrm{eff}$
can still be expressed, in practice, in terms only of the $\theta,\phi$ parameterising $L_x$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:z_eff_general}).
The effective couplings are given by:
\eqa
	h_1 &=& C\Big( 1 + 6\kappa^2 N_\tau \frac{u-u^{N_\tau}}{1-u} + \cdots \Big) \;\; ; \\
	h_2 &=& C^2 \frac{\kappa^2}{3}\Big( 1 + 2\frac{u-u^{N_\tau}}{1-u} \Big) \;\; ; \\
	C   &=& (2\kappa e^{a\mu})^{N_\tau} \;\; .
\qea
The meson and baryon masses are also evaluated:
\eq
	am_M = -2\ln(2\kappa)-6\kappa^2-24\kappa^2\frac{u}{1-u}+\ldots\;;\;\;
	am_B = -3\ln (2\kappa)-18\kappa^2\frac{u}{1-u}+\ldots\;.
\qe

The model, as formulated in Eq.~(\ref{eq:efftheo_full}), is well suited to different simulational strategies: we
could confirm that the standard Metropolis approach, a flux-representation-based worm algorithm, and a complex-Langevin implementation
all agree with each other: however, one has to keep in mind that the first has to rely on a reweighting procedure for $\mu>0$
(which does not hinder its scope significantly for not too large spatial volumes)
and the second ceases to be of use if the $h_2$ term is included, while the third does not have a sign problem at all
and is thus the best choice to deal with large-volume, finite-$\mu$ ensembles.
All of these algorithms, when compared to traditional lattice QCD approaches,
are far less expensive in terms of required system resources and CPU time.

An important application of this effective approach concerns the mapping of the critical surface in the
$(M_{ud},M_s,\mu/T)$ space. Due to the heavy-quark validity of the model, the second-order surface that could
be located is the one associated to the upper-right corner of the Columbia plot: there, a nice agreement between the
findings at zero, real positive and imaginary $\mu$
was verified and the correct universality class of the transition was confirmed.
Moreover, the result at zero chemical potential for $N_f=1,2,3$
closely reproduces those found in ordinary QCD simulations e.g.~in \cite{deforcrand98, saito11}.
The shape of the critical surface at all chemical potentials can be summarised in the parametrisation \cite{efftheo_mu}:
\eq
	(N_f h_1 e^{-\mu/T})_\mathrm{crit} = \frac{0.00075(1)}{\cosh \mu/T}\;\;;\;\; \kappa_f \simeq e^{-aM_f}/2\;,\;M_f\to\infty\;\;;
\qe
the phase diagram for heavy-quark QCD can then be determined in $(\frac{\mu}{T}, \frac{M_\pi}{2T}, \frac{T}{T_0})$,
and, by taking slices of it, a ``heavy fermion'' version of the familiar $\mu$-$T$
phase diagram can be drawn (Fig.~\ref{fig:phasediagram}).

\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	\raisebox{0.022\textwidth}{\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{pics/Tc.eps}}
	\hspace{0.06\textwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=0.36\textwidth]{pics/t-mu_m-over-t_8-68.eps}
	\caption{\textit{Left:} $N_f=2$ phase diagram in the space of temperature, chemical potential and meson mass (here called $M_\pi$).
		$T_0$ is the pure-gauge transition point; the blue line is the critical line.
		\textit{Right:} $T$-$\mu$ phase diagram for the choice $N_f=2$, $M_{ud}/T\simeq 8.68$; the vertical axis is normalised to the $\mu=0$
		transition temperature for this mass choice.}
	\label{fig:phasediagram}
	\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Low-temperature regime}
\label{sec:silverblaze}
We now turn to investigate the cold and dense regime of QCD with this effective theory.
In the (analytically solvable) static strong-coupling limit, one finds
that the Silver Blaze property holds as $T \to 0$, with the quark number density approaching
a step function centred at $3\mu=m_B=-3\log(2\kappa)$ (the last equality is exact in this limit):
\eq
	a^3 n \stackrel{T\to0}{\longrightarrow} 2 N_c \hspace{2.5pt} \Theta(\mu_B - m_B
)\;\;;
\qe
one sees then also that a saturation phenomenon is expected
(this is connected to the resummations performed in deriving the form of $Z_\mathrm{eff}$).
The next step is to perform numerical computations with the full expression Eq.~(\ref{eq:efftheo_full}).
Taking advantage of the fact that $N_\tau$ is now merely a parameter in the effective couplings' maps,
we can tune it to very large values in the hundreds: this effectively realises $\lambda\to 0$ thus simplifying the
model; by keeping $\kappa \sim 10^{-3}$, moreover, we can still trust the pure-Yang-Mills
scale-setting prescription \cite{sommer_scale}.
In this way, we can measure numerically the baryon density as a function of the baryon chemical potential
with $m_B=30$ GeV and four different temperatures from $20$ MeV to $2.5$ MeV \cite{efftheo_silver}.

The baryon density $n_B$ can be expressed as a meaningful physical quantity after a careful
continuum limit is taken: we could generate data at nine different values of the
lattice spacings $a$ and perform a fit to the continuum limit;
$n_b$ is measured as
\eq
	a^3 n_b = \frac{a^3}{3} \Big( \frac{T}{V} \frac{\partial \log Z}{\partial \mu} \Big)
		=
		 - \frac{1}{3 N_s^3} \Big\langle \frac{\partial S_\mathrm{eff} }{\partial (\mu/T) } \Big\rangle\;\;.
\qe

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{pics/silverblaze_physical.eps}
	\caption{Continuum-extrapolated baryon density, in units of $m_B^3$, as a function of the baryon chemical potential
		(also measured in units of $m_B$) for various temperatures.}
	\label{fig:silver}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:silver}: the step-like shape of the density is less and less
smoothed-out as $T\to 0$ (and anyway the $\mu$-scale is extremely tiny); besides, as the baryonic
chemical potential hits the baryon mass the expected saturation to a common, roughly $T$-independent density is seen, and
this value, when expressed in appropriate units of $m_B$, is less than a factor two off the real-world
nuclear matter, despite this model being limited to extremely massive quarks.
This seems to suggest that the core features of nuclear condensation might be largely independent of
whether the fundamental constituents of the baryon are heavy or light.

\section*{References}


\section{Introduction}

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, with great success, is based on two cornerstones: gauge symmetry and
electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking mechanism(EWSB). The gauge group $SU(3)_{C}\times SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_{Y}$
of the SM has been confirmed by the discovery of $W/Z$ bosons and lots of precision measurements.
As the other cornerstone, the mechanism of EWSB is implemented by introducing only
one complex Higgs doublet $\Phi$ in
the SM and then triggering EWSB after the neutral component
of $\Phi$ developing a vacuum
expectation value (vev). In the meanwhile, the masses of weak gauge bosons and fermions are generated.
In the SM, there is
only one physical neutral Higgs boson $H$ after EWSB. The discovery of the Higgs boson will
help to unveil the mysteries
of EWSB and mass generation of SM particles. Recently, one Higgs-like particle around 126
GeV has been discovered at LHC
by ATLAS and CMS collaborations\cite{Higgs_ATLAS,Higgs_CMS}. It is important to further confirm the identity of this
particle. In the SM, only one complex scalar doublet is introduced based on the "minimal principle". It is natural to consider
more complex scalars, for example, the two Higgs doublet structure. Especially, there are many motivations to study
the two Higgs doublet model (2HDM). Such as, in the supersymmetric models, a single Higgs doublet is unable to give mass
simultaneously to the charge 2/3 and charge -1/3 quarks and the anomaly cancellation also require an additional Higgs doublet.
Another motivation for 2HDM is that it could generate a baryon asymmetry of the universe of sufficient size.
Interestingly, ATLAS and CMS announced that there is an enhancement in the di-photon channel of Higgs
decay $h\to \gamma\gamma$ \cite{Higgs_ATLAS, Higgs_CMS}.
This enhancement can also be explained by charged Higgs from 2HDM\cite{comprehensive}.

There are many scenarios in 2HDM structure \cite{higgs hunter's guide, 2hdm_review}. Without imposing any discrete symmetry,
the 2HDM suffers serious flavour changing
neutral currents (FCNC) at tree-level. For the suppression of leading order FCNC as well as CP violation in the Higgs sector,
we consider CP-conserving 2HDMs with extra discrete symmetry. Popular Type I and II 2HDMs belong to this kind. As one of the
minimal extensions of the SM, 2HDMs \cite{higgs hunter's guide, 2hdm_review},
has five physical Higgs scalars after the spontaneous symmetry breaking,
i.e., two neutral CP-even bosons $h_{0}$ and $H_{0}$,
one neutral CP-odd boson $A$, and two charged bosons $H^{\pm}$.
In diverse models, different scalar multiplets and singlets could generate neutral scalars and there exists mixing between
neutral scalars which makes it difficult to unentangle the Higgs properties and confirm the existence of extended Higgs
sector. However, the discovery of the charged Higgs boson could provide an unambiguous signature of the extended Higgs
sector and help to further distinguish from different models.

Motivated by above reasons, the charged Higgs $H^{\pm}$ has been searched for  at colliders in recent years.
One model-independent direct limit is from the LEP experiments gives $M>78.6$ GeV at 95\% C.L.,
where $M$ represents the mass of charged Higgs
by exclusive decay channels of $H^{+}\to c\bar{s}$ and $H^{+}\to\tau^{+}\nu$\cite{LEP Higgs}.
At hadron colliders, the search approaches for the charged Higgs are different in low mass range
$M<m_t$ and in large mass range $M>m_t$. In the low mass range $M<m_t-m_b$,
the search for the signal mainly focus on the top quark decay $t\to H^+b$ followed by decay mode $H^+\to \bar{\tau}\nu$.
On the other hand, for large mass range $M>m_t+m_b$, the signal is from the dominant production process,
the $gb$ fusion process $gb\to tH^-$, followed by dominant decay modes $H^- \to t\bar{b}$ and $H^-\to \tau \bar{\nu}$. The Tevatron
has put a constraint on 2HDM in the small $\tan \beta$ and large $\tan \beta$ regions for a charged Higgs boson with mass up
to $\sim 160$ GeV \cite{Tevatron}.
In addition, the indirect constraints can be
extracted from B-meson decays since the charged Higgs contributes to the FCNC at one loop level.
In Type II 2HDM, a limit on the charged Higgs mass $M>316~{\rm GeV}$ at $95\%$ C.L.
is obtained dominantly from $b\to s\gamma$ branching ratio measurement irrespective of the value of
$\tan\beta$ \cite{typeII_constraints}.
However, in Type III or general 2HDM the phases of the Yukawa couplings are free parameters so that
$M$ can be as low as 100 GeV\cite{btosgamma1}. For more detailed discussions on phenomenological constraints
on charged Higgs, we refer to Ref. \cite{PDG2012}.

Along with the experimental search for the charged Higgs boson, extensive phenomenological studies on charged Higgs
boson production have been carried out
\cite{collider higgs,collider higgs2,dominate process,tripleb,fourb,pt,dominate process3,Kidonakis:2004ib}.
Especially, the $gb$ fusion process $gb\rightarrow tH^{-}$
for $M>m_{t}+m_{b}$ \cite{dominate process,tripleb,fourb,pt,dominate process3,Kidonakis:2004ib,H+Jetsub}
has drawn more attentions due to the large couplings of $Htb$ interaction.
The next-to-leading QCD corrections to this process has also been performed in order to make the
theoretical predictions more reliable\cite{NLO}.

In this work, we revisit this process at the LHC and take a method similar to
Ref. \cite{Gopalakrishna:2010xm} to
distinguish the signal from backgrounds. As demonstrated in Ref. \cite{Gopalakrishna:2010xm},
the angular distribution related to top quark spin is efficient to
disentangle the chiral coupling of the $W'$ boson to SM fermions.
The left-right asymmetry induced by top
quark spin for $pp\to tH^-$ process has been analyzed in  Ref.\cite{Baglio:2011ap}.
Here we further investigate this kind of effects after including the decay information
of charged Higgs and top quark, and we employ the angular distributions of the top
 quark and the lepton resulting from top and
charged Higgs decay to disentangle $Htb$ couplings at LHC.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{secii}., the corresponding
theoretical framework is briefly introduced. Section \ref{seciii}.
is devoted to the numerical analysis of top quark and charged Higgs
associated production. Specifically, the correlated angular distributions are
investigated to identify the interaction of top-bottom quark and charged
Higgs. Finally, a short summary is given.

\section{Theoretical Framework}

\label{secii}

\subsection{Lagrangian related to the interaction of Higgs and quarks }

We start with a brief introduction to the two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) which is  one of the minimal
extensions of SM. Different from SM, 2HDM involves two complex ${SU(2)_{L}}$ doublet scalar fields.
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{i}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
H_{i}^{+}\\
(H_{i}^{0}+iA_{i}^{0})/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),\end{equation}
 where $i=1, 2$. Imposing CP invariance and ${\rm U(1)_{EM}}$ gauge
symmetry, the minimization of potential gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \Phi_{i}\rangle=\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
v_{i}\end{array}\right),\end{eqnarray}
with $v_{i}~(i=1, 2)$ is non-zero vev. One important parameter
in 2HDM ${\displaystyle {\tan\beta\equiv{v_{2}}/{v_{1}}}}$ is defined accordingly, which determines
the interactions of the various Higgs fields with the vector bosons
and fermions, it has substantial meaning in discussing
phenomenology. The most severe constraints on $\tan\beta$ and $M$ come from flavour physics including $B$ and $D$ mesons, $\Delta M_{B_d}$, $b\to s\gamma$ and $Z\to b\bar{b}$\cite{typeII_constraints, 2HDM_constraints}. Large $\tan\beta$ is favored by $B$ meson rare decays\cite{Hewett:1992is,Barger:1992dy,Bertolini:1990if}. Specifically, for the Type II model, the upper bound on $\tan\beta$ from $D_s\to\tau\nu_\tau$ is $\tan\beta \leq 50$ with charged Higgs mass $M=600$ GeV \cite{comprehensive}.

In this work we aim to study the charged Higgs phenomenology with large $\tan\beta$ and choose
the Type II Yukawa couplings as the working model
\begin{eqnarray}
-\mathcal{L} & = & -\cot\beta\frac{m_{u}}{v}\bar{u}_{L}(H+iA)u_{R}\nonumber \\
 &  & +\tan\beta\frac{m_{d}}{v}\bar{d}_{L}(H-iA)d_{R}\nonumber \\
 &  & -\sqrt{2}\cot\beta\frac{m_{u}}{v}V_{ud}^{\dag}\bar{d}_{L}H^{-}u_{R}\nonumber \\
 &  & -\sqrt{2}\tan\beta\frac{m_{d}}{v}V_{ud}\bar{u}_{L}H^{+}d_{R}+{\rm h.c.}.\label{lagrangian}\end{eqnarray
The vev of SM Higgs is related as $v=\sqrt{v_{1}^{2}+v_{2}^{2}}$. $t\bar{b}H^{-}$ vertex given in Ref.\cite{higgs hunter's guide}
can be written as
 \begin{eqnarray}
g_{H^{-}t\bar{b}}
&=&g_{a}+g_{b}\gamma_{5}.
\end{eqnarray}
Within the type II 2HDM,
$$g_{a,b}=g({\rm cot}\beta m_{t}\pm {\rm tan}\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}}).$$
In the specific discussions below in Sec. III, we will investigate various
combinations of $(g_ag_b)$ accordingly not limited in type II 2HDM.

\subsection{Charged Higgs production associated with single top quark at hadron
colliders}

We begin to consider the following process(Fig.~\ref{fig:com1})
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
g(p_{1})+b(p_{2})&\to& t(p_{3},s_{t})+H^{-}(p_{4})\\
&\to& t(p_{3},s_{t})+b(p_{5})+\bar{t}(p_{6},s_{\bar{t}}),\label{pp2th2ttb}\end{eqnarray}
 where $p_{i}$ denotes the 4-momentum of the corresponding particle.
$s_{t}$($s_{\bar{t}}$) is the top(antitop) quark spin in 4-dimension
and $s_{t}^{2}=s_{\bar{t}}^{2}=-1$, $p_{3}\cdot s_{t}=p_{6}\cdot s_{\bar{t}}=0$.

\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{th}
\caption{Feynman diagrams for $gb\to tH^{-}\to t\bar{t}b$ process. }

\label{fig:com1}
\end{figure}

Under the narrow width approximation of the charged Higgs, i.e., the
charged Higgs is produced on-shell, \begin{equation}
\lim_{\Gamma\to0}\frac{1}{(p_{4}^{2}-M^{2})^{2}+\Gamma^{2}M^{2}}
\longrightarrow\frac{\pi}{\Gamma M}\,\delta(p_{4}^{2}-M^{2}),\end{equation}
 where $\Gamma$ and $M$ respectively denote
the decay width and mass of the charged Higgs boson. The matrix element
squared including top quark spin information for the process (\ref{pp2th2ttb})
can be written as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
|{\cal M}(s_{t},s_{\bar t})|^{2}=&&|{\cal M}_{gb\to tH^{-}}(s_{t})|^{2}
|{\cal M}_{H^{-}\to b\bar{t}}(s_{\bar{t}})|^{2}\\
&&\times\frac{\pi}{\Gamma M}\delta(p_{4}^{2}-M^{2}),\end{eqnarray}

 where\begin{equation}
|{\cal M}_{gb\to tH^{-}}(s_{t})|^{2}=\frac{g_{s}^{2}}{2N_{c}}\Big\{{\cal A}+
{\cal B}_{1}(p_{1}\cdot s_{t})+{\cal B}_{2}(p_{2}\cdot s_{\bar{t}})\Big\},\label{eqst2}\end{equation}
and \begin{eqnarray}
|{\cal M}_{H^{-}\to b\bar{t}}(s_{\bar{t}})|^{2}&=&(g_{a}^{2}+g_{b}^{2})(M^{2}-m_{b}^{2}
-m_{t}^{2})\nonumber \\
&&-2(g_{a}^{2}-g_{b}^{2})m_{b}m_{t}\nonumber \\
&&-4g_{a}g_{b}m_{t}(p_{5}
\cdot s_{\bar{t}}).\label{eqst1}\end{eqnarray}
 The formula for ${\cal A}$, ${\cal B}_{1}$ and ${\cal B}_{2}$
are listed in the following

\begin{equation}
{\cal A}=(g_{a}^{2}+g_{b}^{2})\, A_{1}\,+\, m_{b}m_{t}(g_{b}^{2}-g_{a}^{2})\, A_{2},\end{equation}
 with
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
A_{1}&=&\displaystyle{\frac{\hat{s}(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})-m_{b}^{2}(4p_{1}\cdot p_{3}+3p_{2}\cdot p_{3})}
{(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})^{2}}}\\
&&+\frac{\hat{s}(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})+m_{t}^{2}(\hat{s}-2p_{2}\cdot
p_{3})}{4(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})^{2}}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{2(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})}\big\{m_{t}^{2}(\hat{s}-2m_{b}^{2})-2(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})m_{b}^{2}\nonumber\\
&&+2(\hat{s}-2p_{2}\cdot
p_{3})(p_{1}\cdot p_{3}+p_{2}\cdot p_{3})\big\},\\
A_{2}&=&\frac{(\hat{s}+2m_{b}^{2})}{(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})^{2}}+\frac{m_{t}^{2}-p_{1}\cdot p_{3}}{2(p_{1}
\cdot p_{3})^{2}}\nonumber\\&&-\frac{2p_{1}\cdot p_{3}+4p_{2}\cdot p_{3}-\hat{s}}{2(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})},
\end{eqnarray}

and
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{1}&=&2g_{a}g_{b}m_{t}[\frac{4m_{b}^{2}-\hat{s}}{(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})^{2}}+\frac{2p_{2}\cdot p_{3}-\hat{s}}{4(p_{1}
\cdot p_{3})^{2}}+\frac{1}{p_{1}\cdot p_{3}}\nonumber\\&&
-\frac{p_{2}\cdot p_{3}}{(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})}],\\
B_{2}&=&2g_{a}g_{b}m_{t}[\frac{3m_{b}^{2}}{(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})^{2}}+
\frac{m_{t}^{2}-p_{1}\cdot p_{3}}{2(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})^{2}}\nonumber\\&&+
\frac{\hat{s}-p_{1}\cdot p_{3}-2p_{2}\cdot p_{3}}{(p_{1}\cdot p_{3})(\hat{s}-m_{b}^{2})}].
\end{eqnarray}
 The matrix element squared for
the process $g\bar{b}\to\bar{t}H^{+}\to t\bar{t}\bar{b}$ can be obtained
from the above equations by using CP-invariance.
Obviously, the top quark spin effects are related to
the product $(g_ag_b)$ and disappear for a pure scalar
or pseudo-scalar charged Higgs boson. In particular,
for $pp\to tH^-\to t\bar{t}b$ process,
 this feature can be reflected by the following spin observable
\begin{equation}
\label{double}
<{\cal {O}}_{t}> =2<\bf {{S_{t}}}\cdot  {\bf \hat a}>= {\sigma(\uparrow) - \sigma(\downarrow)\over
\sigma(\uparrow) + \sigma(\downarrow)},\\
\end{equation}
where $\bf{{S_{t}}}$ is top quark spin vector in its rest frame,
and the arrows on the right-hand side refer to the spin state of the top quark  with respect to
the  quantization axis ${\bf \hat a}$. At LHC, the helicity basis is a better choice, i.e.,
${\bf\hat a}={\bf {\hat{p}}}_t^*$ with the unit 3-momentum ${\bf {\hat{p}}}_t^*$ in the
$tH^-$ center-of-mass frame.
Similarly, we can also define the spin observable with respect to
antitop quark
\begin{equation}
<{\cal {O}}_{\bar t}> =2<\bf {{S}_{\bar t}}\cdot {\bf \hat b}>,
\end{equation}
where $\bf{\hat b}$ is the spin quantization axis related to antitop quark. At LHC, we can choose
${\bf\hat b}={\bf {\hat{p}}}_{\bar {t}}^*$ with the unit 3-momentum
${\bf {\hat{p}}}_{\bar{t}}^*$ in the
charged Higgs rest frame.

For the subsequent polarized top quark decay
$$
t({\bf{S_t}}) \to c(p_c)+X,
$$
where $c$ represents a final state particle or jet
and $p_c$ is its momentum,
the corresponding differential distribution is obtained as follows\cite{Brandenburg:2002xr}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{power}
\frac{1}{\Gamma_t}\frac{d\Gamma_t}{d\cos\vartheta}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\kappa_c\cos\vartheta\right),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\vartheta$ is the angle between the top quark spin and the moving direction of
$c$ in top quark rest frame. $\kappa_c$ is the so-called
spin analysing power of the corresponding particle or jet $c$.
For the charged lepton in the semileptonic top quark decay within SM,
$\kappa_{l^+}=1$ at the tree level.

\section{Numerical Results and discussion}

\label{seciii}

\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{cs_8tev} \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{cs_14tev}
\caption{The total cross section as a function of $M$ for $pp\to tH^{-}$
process at LHC for (a) 8 TeV and (b) 14 TeV.}

\label{fig:com3}
\end{figure}

For the processes $pp\to tH^{-}$, the total cross section can be
expressed as \begin{equation}
\sigma=\int f_{g}(x_{1})f_{b}(x_{2})\hat{\sigma}_{gb\to tH^{-}}(x_{1}x_{2}s)dx_{1}dx_{2},\end{equation}
 where $f_{g}(x_{1})(f_{b}(x_{2}))$ is the parton distribution function(PDF)
of gluon(quark), $\sqrt{s}$ is the center of mass energy ($c.m.$) of parton-parton collision,
and $\hat{\sigma}$ is the partonic level cross section for $gb\to tH^{-}$
process. In our numerical calculations we set $V_{tb}=1$, $m_{W}=80.399$
GeV, $m_b=4.70$ GeV and $m_{t}=173.1$ GeV. For PDF, we use CTEQ6L1\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:com3}, the total cross sections for the process
$pp\to tH^{-}$ are shown as a function of charged Higgs mass for
$\tan\beta=10$, 30, and 50 in 2HDM at the LHC with 8 TeV and 14 TeV. Obviously, the
$tH^-$ production rate at 14 TeV is much higher than that at 8 TeV.
In the following, we
investigate the processes
\begin{equation}
pp\to tH^{-}\,\to\, t\bar{t}b\,\to\, bl^{+}\,+\, b\bar{b}jj\,+\,\displaystyle{\not}E_T,
\label{tlhj}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
pp\to tH^{-}\,\to\, t\bar{t}b\,\to\, bjj\,+\, b\bar{b}l^{-}\,+\,\displaystyle{\not}E_T.
\label{tjhl}\end{equation}
In process (\ref{tlhj}), the top quark produced associated with
$H^{-}$ decays semi-leptonically, and the anti-top quark from charged
Higgs decays hadronically, i.e., $t\to bl^{+}\nu_{l}$ and $\bar{t}\to\bar{b}jj$.
While in process (\ref{tjhl}), ${t}\to{b}jj$ and $\bar{t}\to\bar{b}l^{-}\bar{\nu}_{l}$.
The charged lepton can be used to trigger the event.
The dominant background for the above processes is $pp\to t\bar{t}j$
events.

To be more realistic, the simulation at the detector is performed
by smearing the leptons and jets energies according to the assumption
of the Gaussian resolution parameterization \begin{equation}
\frac{\delta(E)}{E}=\frac{a}{\sqrt{E}}\oplus b,\end{equation}
 where $\delta(E)/E$ is the energy resolution, $a$ is a sampling
term, $b$ is a constant term, and $\oplus$ denotes a sum in quadrature.
We take $a=5\%$, $b=0.55\%$ for leptons and $a=100\%$, $b=5\%$
for jets respectively\cite{atlas0901}.

For our signal process, one top quark which decays hadronically can
be reconstructed from the three jets by demanding $|M_{jjj}-m_{t}|\leq30$GeV,
while to reconstruct another top that is leptonical decay, the 4-momentum
of the neutrino should be known. But the neutrino is an unobservable
particle, so we have to utilize kinematical constraints to reconstruct
its 4-momentum. Its transverse momentum can be obtained by momentum
conservation from the observed particles \begin{equation}
{\bf p}_{\nu T}=-({\bf p}_{lT}+\sum_{j=1}^{5}{\bf p}_{jT}),\end{equation}
 while its longitudinal momentum can not be determined in this way
due to the unknown boost of the partonic $c.m.$ system. Alternatively,
it can be solved with twofold ambiguity through the on shell condition
for the W-boson \begin{equation}
m_{W}^{2}=(p_{\nu}+p_{l})^{2}.\end{equation}
 Furthermore one can remove the ambiguity through the reconstruction
of another top quark. For each possibility we evaluate the invariant
mass \begin{equation}
M_{jl\nu}^{2}=(p_{l}+p_{\nu}+p_{j})^{2},\end{equation}
 where $j$ refers to the any one of the two left jets and pick up
the solution which is closest to the top quark mass. With such a solution,
one can reconstruct the 4-momentum of the neutrino and that of another
top quark.

In our following numerical calculations, we apply the basic acceptance
cuts(refered to as cut I)
\begin{eqnarray}
 &  & p_{lT}>20~{\rm GeV},~~~~p_{jT}>20~{\rm GeV},~~~~\displaystyle{\not}E_T>20~{\rm GeV},\nonumber \\
 &  & |\eta_{l}|<2.5,~~~~|\eta_{j}|<2.5,~~~~\Delta R_{jj(lj)}>0.4,\nonumber \\
 &  & |M_{j_{a}l\nu}-m_{t}|\leq30~{\rm GeV},~~~~|M_{j_{b}j_{c}j_{d}}-m_{t}|\leq30~{\rm GeV},\nonumber\\
&&|M_{j_{b}j_{c}}-m_{W}|<10~{\rm GeV}.
\label{cut1}\end{eqnarray}
Once the events were fully reconstructed after smearing and including the cut I,
we can further reconstruct the invariant mass between the reconstructed top (antitop)
and the remaining jet. We display the distributions
$1/\sigma(d\sigma/dM_{tb}+d\sigma/dM_{\bar{t}b})$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:mtb},
where the resonance peak can easily be seen for different charged Higgs masses.
Due to the existence of the resonance peak, we further employ another cut(refered to as cut II)
\begin{itemize}
\item Cut II: $|M_{jj_{b}j_{c}j_{d}}-M|\leq10\%\, M$
or $|M_{jj_{a}l\nu}-M|\leq10\%\, M$.
\end{itemize}
Comparing our signal process with the dominant background process $pp\to t\bar{t}j$,
it is easy to notice that, after reconstructing the top and antitop quarks,
the remaining jet is a b-jet for our signal while it is  a light jet for the background
with  large probability.
Therefore to further purify the signal, we adopt the following cut(refered to as cut III)
\begin{itemize}
\item Cut III: We demand the remaining jet that cannot be used to reconstruct
top quarks to be a b-jet.
\end{itemize}
The $b$-tagging efficiency is assumed to be 60\% while the miss-tagging efficiency of a light jet as
a $b$ jet is taken as transverse momentum dependent \cite{atlas0901}:
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_l =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{150}}, &P_T< 100\, {\rm GeV},\\
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{450}}\,[\frac{P_T}{25\,{\rm GeV}}-1], &100 \,{\rm GeV}\leq P_T<250\, {\rm GeV},\\
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{50}}, & P_T\geq 250\, {\rm GeV}.
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

The cross sections for the signal processes (\ref{tlhj}) and (\ref{tjhl})
with different charged Higgs mass after each cuts at
LHC 8 and 14 TeV are respectively listed in Table.~\ref{tab:csa}
and \ref{tab:csb}.
The dominant SM background related to the signal is
$pp\to t\bar{t}j\to l^\pm+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$
process. We employ  MadEvent\cite{Madevent}
to simulate the background processes.  The other SM background processes, e.g., $Wjjjjj$,
$WWjjj$ and $WZjjj$, etc. are dramatically reduced by the acceptance cuts we adopt
and therefore we neglected them here.
Supposing the integral luminosity to be 20 $fb^{-1}$ at
$\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV, one can notice that it is difficult for the charged
Higgs associated with a top quark to be detected when its
mass is above 500 GeV. While with $300 fb^{-1}$ integral luminosity at 14 TeV, the $tH^-$ production is easier
to be observed. Detailed analysis
shows that for  $pp\to tH^- \to t\bar{t}b\to l^+ (or~ l^-)+bb\bar{b}jj+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$ process at 14 TeV ,
the significance of signal to background can also be above three sigma
for the charged Higgs mass $M\leq 1$ TeV. Therefore, in the following,
we will focus on the $tH^-$ production
at  $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV.

From Eqs. (\ref{eqst2}) and (\ref{eqst1}), one can notice  that top
quark spin effect is related to the product $(g_{a}g_{b})$.
Using the same method as in Ref.\cite{bbsu}, we find that this kind of top quark spin effects
can be translated into the angular distributions of the charged lepton.
Corresponding to the process (\ref{tlhj}) and (\ref{tjhl}), we obtain
two kinds of angular distributions
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{\sigma}\,\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta^{*}}\,=\,\frac{1}{2}\,[1\,+\, A_{FB}\cos\theta^{*}],\nonumber\\
&  & \frac{1}{\sigma}\,\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\bar{\theta}^{*}}\,=\,\frac{1}{2}\,[1\,+\,
\bar{A}_{FB}\cos\bar{\theta}^{*}],
\label{eqfbeq}\end{eqnarray}
 with
\begin{equation}
\cos\theta^{*}={{\bf\hat{p}}_{l^{+}}^{*}\cdot{\bf \hat{p}}_{t}^{*}},
~~~~~\cos\bar{\theta}^{*}={{\bf \hat{p}}_{l^{-}}^{*}\cdot{\bf \hat{p}}_{\bar{t}}^{*}},
\end{equation}
where ${\bf \hat{p}}_{l^{+}}^{*}$ is the unit 3-momentum of charged lepton in
the top quark rest frame, and ${\bf \hat{p}}_{l^{-}}^{*}$
is the unit 3-momentum of charged lepton in the anti-top quark rest frame.
Without smearing effect and any acceptance cuts,
$A_{FB}$($\bar{A}_{FB}$) can be related to
the top quark spin observables ${\cal{O}}_t$(${\cal{O}}_{\bar{t}}$), i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A_{FB}=\kappa_c <{\cal O}_t>=2\kappa_c<\bf {{S_{t}}}\cdot  {\bf \hat p}_t^*>,\\
&&\bar{A}_{FB}=\kappa_c <{\cal O}_{\bar{t}}>=2\kappa_c<\bf {{S}_{\bar t}}\cdot {\bf \hat p}_{\bar{t}}^*>.
\end{eqnarray}
Obviously for the charged lepton in semileptonic top quark decay,
$A_{FB}=<{\cal O}_t>$ and $\bar{A}_{FB}= <{\cal O}_{\bar{t}}>$ before smearing effect and cuts.

According to Eq.(\ref{eqfbeq}), $A_{FB}$ and $\bar{A}_{FB}$ can also be determined as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A_{FB}=\frac{\sigma(\cos\theta^{*}>0)-\sigma(\cos\theta^{*}<0)}
{\sigma(\cos\theta^{*}>0)+\sigma(\cos\theta^{*}<0)},\nonumber\\
&&\bar{A}_{FB}=\frac{\sigma(\cos\bar{\theta}^{*}>0)-\sigma(\cos\bar{\theta}^{*}<0)}
{\sigma(\cos\bar{\theta^{*}}>0)+\sigma(\cos\bar{\theta}^{*}<0)}.
\end{eqnarray}
As discussed above, these observables can be used to discriminate different
$Htb$ interactions.
Within the framework of type II 2HDM, the form of the Yukawa coupling is fixed with
only one free parameter $\tan \beta$. As displayed in Fig. \ref{fig:afb}, we calculate the
values of $A_{FB}$ before any acceptance cuts with respect to
$\tan\beta$ for M=300, 500 and 800 GeV at LHC 14TeV. The results for $\bar{A}_{FB}$ before
any acceptance cuts are
also shown in Fig. \ref{fig:abarfb}. $\bar{A}_{FB}$ is related to the charged Higgs boson decay and we find
it does not depend on the charged Higgs mass. Combining the results of the $tH^-$ production cross section
together with the forward-backward asymmetry  $A_{FB}$  and $\bar{A}_{FB}$, one can abstract the useful information of
$\tan\beta$ related to the $Htb$ coupling.
 Next, we  extend our discussions beyond 2HDM and
investigate the $Htb$ coupling in a
general model where the Yukawa coupling of the charged Higgs bosons to fermions is
a free parameter and so one can regard
the scalar and pseudo-scalar parts of the Yukawa coupling as
completely independent and free parameters.
In the following, as an example,  we choose  $\tan\beta=30$ and
investigate the charged lepton angular distributions for three different
combinations of $(g_{a} g_{b})$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(g_ag_b)>0$,   e.g.,\\
$g_{a}=\pm g({\rm cot}\beta m_{t}+{\rm tan}\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}})$, \\
$g_{b}=\pm g(\cot\beta m_{t}-\tan\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}})$.
\item $(g_ag_b)=0$,  e.g.,\\
$g_{a}=0$, $g_{b}=g(\cot\beta m_{t}-\tan\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}})$ or
$g_{a}=g({\rm cot}\beta m_{t}+{\rm tan}\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}})$, $g_b=0$.
\item $(g_ag_b)<0$, e.g.,\\
$g_{a}=\pm g({\rm cot}\beta m_{t}+{\rm tan}\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}})$,\\
$g_{b}=\mp g(\cot\beta m_{t}-\tan\beta m_{b})/(2\sqrt{2}m_{{\rm W}})$.
\end{itemize}
The charged lepton angular distributions with respect to
$\cos\theta^*$ and $\cos\bar{\theta}^*$  before and after all cuts are respectively
shown in Figs. \ref{fig:cos-1} and \ref{fig:cos-2}. The related
predictions for $A_{FB}$ and $\bar{A}_{FB}$ are listed in Table \ref{tab:asy}.
Due to the fact that the contribution from the $s$-channel(Fig.\ref{fig:com1}(a))
decreases as the charged Higgs mass increases, before all the acceptance cuts,
the $\cos\theta^*$ distribution and
the related results for $A_{FB}$ which are related to $tH^-$ production
 also depend on $M$; while the $\cos\bar{\theta}^*$ distribution and
the related results for $\bar{A}_{FB}$ which are related to the charged Higgs decay
do not depend on $M$.
The $\cos\theta^*=-1$($\cos\bar{\theta}^*=-1$) region
corresponds to lepton that is emitted into the hemisphere
opposite to the top(antitop) direction
of flight in the $tH^-$ $c.m.$ frame. These leptons are
therefore less energetic on average and thus more strongly
affected by the acceptance cuts than those in the remaining region\cite{breuthersi}. Therefore
the presence of the acceptance cuts severely distort these distributions
in the vicinity of $\cos\theta^*=-1$($\cos\bar{\theta}^*=-1$) region
as shown in Figs. \ref{fig:cos-1} and \ref{fig:cos-2}. Therefore for $A_{FB}$ and $\bar{A}_{FB}$
after all acceptance cuts,
we choose $\cos\theta$ ranging from $-0.5$ to $0.5$. It seems that after the acceptance cuts,
the angular distribution with respect to $\cos\theta^*$($\cos\bar{\theta}^*$) and $A_{FB}$($\bar{A}_{FB}$) is
more helpful to investigate the $Htb$ interaction for light(heavy) charged Higgs production associated with
top quark at LHC.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{mtb-8}
\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{mtb-14}
\caption{The distributions $1/\sigma(d\sigma/dM_{tb}+d\sigma/dM_{\bar{t}b})$ with respect to
the invariant mass between the reconstructed top (antitop) and the remaining jet
for the process of $pp\to tH^{-}\to l^{+}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$ after cut I at LHC
for (a) 8 TeV and (b) 14 TeV.}

\label{fig:mtb}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{afb_nocut_14tev}
\caption{The $A_{FB}$ before any acceptance cuts with respect to
$\tan\beta$ at LHC 14TeV.}
\label{fig:afb}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth]{abarfb_nocut_14tev}
\caption{The $\bar{A}_{FB}$ before any acceptance cuts with respect to
$\tan\beta$.}
\label{fig:abarfb}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{costheta_300GeV}
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{cutcostheta_300GeV}
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{costheta_800GeV}
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{cutcostheta_800GeV}
\caption{The angle distribution of the
charged lepton for $M=$ 300,~800 GeV with nocut and all cuts
at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV respectively
for the process of $pp\to tH^{-}\to l^{+}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$.The solid line
represents $(g_{a}g_{b})>0$. The dashed line represents
$(g_{a}g_{b})=0$. The dotted line represents $(g_{a}g_{b})<0$.}

\label{fig:cos-1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{costheta_300GeV-2}
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{cutcostheta_300GeV_hcm}
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{costheta_800GeV-2}
\includegraphics[width=0.30\textwidth]{cutcostheta_800GeV_hcm}
\caption{The angle distribution  of charged lepton for
$M=$ 300,~800 GeV with nocut and all cuts at
$\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV respectively
for the process of $pp\to tH^{-}\to l^{-}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$.The solid line
represents $ (g_{a}g_{b})>0$. The  dashed line represents
$ (g_{a}g_{b})=0$. The dotted line represents $(g_{a}g_{b})<0$.}

\label{fig:cos-2}
\end{figure}

\begin{table}
\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
~Signal & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\sigma(pp\to tH^{-}\to t\bar{t}b\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T)$ (fb)}\tabularnewline
\hline
$M$(TeV) & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.8 & 1.0\tabularnewline
\hline
No cuts  &  45.18 &  8.62 &  1.02 &  0.30 \tabularnewline
\hline
Cut I   &   11.72 &  2.20 &  0.25 &  0.07  \tabularnewline
\hline
+Cut II &   9.59 &  1.73 &  0.20 &  0.05  \tabularnewline
\hline
+Cut III &    5.76 &  1.04 &  0.12 &  0.03\tabularnewline
\hline  \hline
Background & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\sigma(pp\to t\bar{t}j\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T)$ (fb)} \tabularnewline
\hline
Cuts I+II+III &  10.25 &  3.85 &  0.97 &  0.46\tabularnewline
\hline  \hline
$S/B$         &  0.56 &  0.27 &  0.12 &  0.07    \tabularnewline
\hline
$S/\sqrt{B}$ &   8.05 &  2.37 &  0.54 &  0.20\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\caption{The cross section of the signal process $pp\to tH^{-}\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$
and the background process of $pp\to t\bar{t}j\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$
at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV after each cut.}

\label{tab:csa}
\par\end{centering}

\centering{}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
~Signal & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\sigma(pp\to tH^{-}\to t\bar{t}b\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T)$ (fb)}
\tabularnewline
\hline
$M$(TeV) & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.8 & 1.0 \tabularnewline
\hline
No cuts  &   262.82  & 65.96  & 11.56  &  4.28 \tabularnewline
\hline
Cut I    &    65.79  & 16.41  &  2.75  &  0.95\tabularnewline
\hline
+Cut II  &   54.12  & 13.00  &  2.20  &  0.77\tabularnewline
\hline
+Cut III  &   32.47  &  7.80  &  1.32  &  0.46\tabularnewline
\hline  \hline
Background & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$\sigma(pp\to t\bar{t}j\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T)$ (fb)} \tabularnewline
\hline
Cuts I+II+III &   43.54  & 18.97  &  5.95  &  3.22 \tabularnewline
\hline  \hline
$S/B$        &     0.75 &  0.41 &  0.22 &   0.14\tabularnewline
\hline
$S/\sqrt{B}$ &   85.23 & 31.02 &  9.37 &   4.44\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}\caption{The cross section of the signal process $pp\to tH^{-}\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$
and the background process of $pp\to t\bar{t}j\to l^{\pm}+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$
at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV after each cut.}

\label{tab:csb}
\par\end{centering}

\centering{}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{centering}\scalebox{0.9}{$
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|}
\hline
 & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{$A_{FB}$}
 & \multicolumn{4}{c|} {$\bar{A}_{FB}$}\tabularnewline
\hline \hline
 \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{without cuts and smearing effect} \tabularnewline
\hline \hline
$M$(TeV) & 0.3 &0.5 & 0.8 & 1.0 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.8 & 1.0 \tabularnewline
\hline
$(g_ag_b)>0$  & 0.124  & 0.075  & 0.023  & -0.003  & -0.173  & -0.173 & -0.172  & -0.173\tabularnewline
\hline
$(g_ag_b)=0$  & 0.0 & 0.0  & 0.0  & 0.0  & 0.0  & 0.0  & 0.0  & 0.0   \tabularnewline
\hline
$(g_ag_b)<0$  & -0.125  & -0.076 & -0.024 & 0.001  & 0.172  & 0.173 & 0.174  & 0.173\tabularnewline
\hline  \hline
 \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{with cuts and smearing effect} \tabularnewline
\hline \hline
$(g_ag_b)>0$   & 0.002 & -0.015  & -0.031  & -0.041  & -0.014  & -0.050 & -0.054  & -0.061\tabularnewline
\hline
$(g_ag_b)=0$   & -0.028  & -0.030 & -0.033  & -0.041  & -0.022  & 0.007 & 0.006 & -0.006\tabularnewline
\hline
$(g_ag_b)<0$   & -0.056  & -0.048 & -0.037 & -0.040  & -0.033  & 0.081& 0.077  & 0.065\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}$}\caption{The forward-backward asymmetry $A_{FB}$($\bar{A}_{FB}$)
for $pp\to tH^{-}\to l^{+}(l^-)+5jets+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$ at LHC $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV before
and after all cuts.}

\label{tab:asy}
\par\end{centering}

\centering{}
\end{table}

\section{Summary}

The observation of charged Higgs would be an unambiguous signal for the existence
of new physics beyond SM. Therefore it is important to study the related
phenomena both at theory and experiments. In this paper, we study
the $tH^{-}$ associated production via $pp\to tH^{-}\to t\bar{t}b\to l^\pm +bb\bar{b}jj+\displaystyle{\not}E_T$
process at LHC. It is found that with 300 $fb^{-1}$ integral luminosity at
 $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV, the signal
can be distinguished from the backgrounds for the charged
Higgs mass up to  1 TeV or  even larger. If the $tH^-$ production
is observed at LHC, one of the key questions is to identify
the $Htb$ interaction. For this aim, we investigate the angular
distributions of the charged leptons and the related forward-backward
asymmetry induced by top quark spin. It is found that these distributions and
observables are sensitive to the product $(g_{a}g_{b})$, so that they can be
used to identify the $Htb$ interaction.
Though further studies
are still necessary both at theory and experiments, the $Htb$ interaction can be studied
by the help of the charged
lepton angular distribution and the related forward-backward asymmetry
in the charged Higgs and top quark associated production at LHC.
Our analyses are helpful to discriminate the $Htb$ interaction in the
2HDM or the other new physics models including the charged Higgs.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

This work was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation of China (NSFC), Natural Science Foundation
of Shandong Province (JQ200902) (Z.S.), NSFC (No.11175251 and 11205023) (S.Y.) and NSC (Y.Z.). The authors would like to
thank Dr. S. Bao, Profs. S. Li and X. He for
their helpful discussions.


\section{Introduction}

Few years ago, P. Horava proposed \cite{Horava:2008jf, Horava:2008ih, Horava:2009uw} a new class of quantum field theory as an UV complete theory of gravity, which is non-relativistic and exhibit anisotropic
scaling between space and time. The Horava theory is power-counting renormalizable. However, the Lorentz symmetry  is broken at short distances. Moreover, the theory can be reduced to Einstein's gravity theory with a cosmological constant in the infrared (IR) limit. A lot of attention has been focused on this gravity theory. The Lifshitz-type black holes may provide a way to generalize $AdS/CFT$ correspondence to non-relativistic condensed matter physics, \cite{Horava:2009uw,Lu:2009em,Cai:2009pe,Kehagias:2009is,Ghodsi:2009zi,Balasubramanian:2009rx,Taylor:2008tg,Matulich:2011ct, Koutsoumbas:2010pt}.
Horava-Lifshitz with dynamical exponent $z=4$ \cite{Horava:2009uw} has acquired a growing interest,  in Ref. \cite {Horava:2009if} was shown using the numerical Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT) approach \cite{Ambjorn:2005db} for quantum gravity in $3+1$ dimensions that the definition of "spectral dimension" can be extended to theories on smooth spacetimes with anisotropic scaling.
Therefore, CDT approach to lattice gravity may in fact be a lattice version of the quantum gravity at $z=4$ Lifshitz point.

In this paper, we  focus our investigation in the$z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity, in the $IR$ region obtained via detailed balance condition by \cite{Cai:2009ar}, these black holes are similar to the topological black hole solution in the five-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity \cite{Cai:1998vy}, or in the five-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet gravity with a special Gauss-Bonnet coefficient \cite{Cai:2001dz}. The lagrangian for this theory is given by \cite{Cai:2009ar}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_0+\mathcal{L}_1~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_0=\sqrt{g}N\left\{\frac{2}{\kappa^{2}}(K^{ij}K_{ij}-\lambda K^{2})+\frac{
\kappa^{2}\mu^{2}(\Lambda_{W}R-2\Lambda^{2}_W)}{4(1-4\lambda)}\right\}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_1=-\sqrt{g}N\frac{\kappa^{2}}{8}\left\{\mu^{2}G_{ij}G^{ij}+\frac{2\mu}{M}
G^{ij}L_{ij}+\frac{2\mu}{M}\Lambda_{W}L+\frac{1}{M^{2}}L^{ij}L_{ij}-\tilde{
\lambda}\left(\frac{L^{2}}{M^{2}}-\frac{2\mu L}{M}(R-4\Lambda_{W})+
\mu^{2}R^{2}\right)\right\}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L=2(1+3\beta)\nabla^{2}R~,
\end{equation}
the expressions $G^{ij}$ and $L^{ij}$ are given by
\begin{equation}
G^{ij}=R^{ij}-\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}R~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
L^{ij}=(1+2\beta)(g^{ij}\nabla^2-\nabla^i\nabla^j)R+\nabla^2G^{ij}+2\beta R(R^{ij}-\frac{1}{4}g^{ij}R)+2(R^{imjn}-\frac{1}{4}g^{ij}R^{mn})R_{mn}~.
\end{equation}
and the term  $K^{ij}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}(\dot{g}_{ij}-\nabla_iN_j-\nabla_jN_i)~,
\end{equation}
for a $D+1$ dimensional metric written in the following form
\begin{equation}
ds^2=-N^2c^2dt^2+g_{ij}(dx^i-N^idt)(dx^j-N^jdt)~,
\end{equation}
where $i=1,..., D$ and c is the speed of light.
Here, we focus our investigation in the $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity, in the $IR$ region, \cite{Cai:2009ar}. Which, for
$\beta=-\frac{1}{3}$, \cite{Cai:2009ar}, is given by the metric
\begin{equation}  \label{metric}
\ ds=-\tilde{N}^{2}f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{f(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}_{k},
\end{equation}
where $f(r)=-\frac{\Lambda_W r^{2}}{3}+k \pm\sqrt{c_{0}}$, $\tilde{N}(r)=1$, $c_0\geq0$ and
$d\Omega^{2}_{k}$ is the three-dimensional Einstein manifold with constant
scalar curvature $6k$, which we may choose to be $k=0$,$\pm1$, corresponding to a spherical, plane or hyperbolic section, respectively. Which, is similar to the topological black hole solution in the five-dimensional Chern-Simons gravity \cite{Cai:1998vy}, or in the five-dimensional Gauss-Bonnet gravity with a special Gauss-Bonnet coefficient \cite{Cai:2001dz}.

According to the AdS/CFT correspondence~\cite{Maldacena:1997re}, the quasinormal modes (QNMs)  \cite{Regge:1957td, Zerilli:1971wd, Zerilli:1970se, Kokkotas:1999bd, Nollert:1999ji, Berti:2009kk, Konoplya:2011qq}  allow us to obtain the relaxation time of a thermal state of the conformal theory at the boundary, which is
proportional to the inverse of imaginary part of the QNMs of the dual
gravity background ~\cite{Horowitz:1999jd}. In this work we investigate scalar perturbations in the background of $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity, see Refs. \cite{Chan:1999sc, Wang:2001tk, Aros:2002te, Gonzalez:2010vv, Gonzalez:2012de, Gonzalez:2012xc} for scalar perturbations in the background of a Topological black hole, and we present the exact QNMs, considering Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. Then, we study the stability of this black hole analyzing the imaginary part of the QNMs.

The plan of the work is as follows: In section II we calculate the exact QNMs of
the scalar perturbations in the background of $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity and we study the stability of
this black hole from QNMs. Then, in section III, we discuss our results and conclude.

\section{Quasinormal Modes}
The behavior of the scalar field in the background of $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is given by the Klein-Gordon equation
 \begin{equation}  \label{KG}
\Box \psi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}\left(\sqrt{-g}
g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\nu}\right)\psi=m^2\psi~,
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the mass of the scalar field, $\psi$. In order to obtain exact QNMs, we consider the change of
variables $v=1-\frac{3p}{\Lambda_{\omega}r^2}$, where $p=k\pm \sqrt{c_0}$. So, the metric Eq.~(\ref{metric})
can be written as
\begin{equation}  \label{metric2}
ds^2=\frac{pvc^2}{1-v}dt^2-\frac{3}{4\Lambda_{\omega}v\left(1-v\right)^2}%
dv^2+\frac{3p}{\Lambda_{\omega}\left(1-v\right)}d\Omega_{k}^2~.
\end{equation}
Then, we adopt the ansatz $\psi=R(y)Y(\sum)e^{-i\omega t}$, where $Y$ is a
normalizable harmonic function on $\sum_{D-1}$ which satisfies $\nabla^2Y=-QY
$, with $\nabla^2$ the Laplace operator on $\sum_{D-1}$ and
\begin{equation}
Q=\left(\frac{d-3}{2}\right)^2+\xi^2~,
\end{equation}
are the eigenvalues
for the hyperbolic manifold. Thus, Eq.~(\ref{KG}) can be written as
\begin{equation}  \label{radial1}
v\left(1-v\right)\partial_{v}^2R(v)+\partial_{v}R(v)+ \left(\frac{3\omega^2}{%
4pvc^2\Lambda_{\omega}}+\frac{Q}{4p}+\frac{3m^2}{4\Lambda_{\omega}\left(1-v%
\right)}\right)R(v)=0~.
\end{equation}
Which, can be written as a hypergeometric equation for K
\begin{equation}  \label{hypergeometric}
\ v(1-v)K^{\prime \prime }(v)+\left[c-(1+a+b)v\right]K^{\prime }(v)-ab
K(v)=0~,
\end{equation}
where the coefficients are given by
\begin{equation}  \label{a}
\ a=-\frac{1}{2}+\alpha+\beta\pm\frac{1}{2p}\sqrt{p\left(p+Q\right)}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
b=-\frac{1}{2}+\alpha+\beta\mp\frac{1}{2p}\sqrt{p\left(p+Q\right)}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
c=2\alpha+1~,
\end{equation}
if we perform the decomposition $R(v)=v^\alpha(1-v)^\beta K(v)$, with
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\pm}= \pm \frac{i\omega}{2c}\sqrt{\frac{3}{p\Lambda_{\omega}}}~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}  \label{omega2}
\ \beta_{\pm}=1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{3m^2}{4\Lambda_{\omega}}}~,
\end{equation}
The general solution of Eq.~(\ref{hypergeometric}) takes the form
\begin{equation}
K=D_{1}F_{1}(a,b,c;v)+D_2v^{1-c}F_{1}(a-c+1,b-c+1,2-c;v)~,
\end{equation}
which has three regular singular points at $v=0$, $v=1$ and $v=\infty$. Here,
$F_{1}(a,b,c;v)$ is a hypergeometric function and $D_{1}$, $D_{2}$ are
constants. Then, the solution for the radial function $R(v)$ is
\begin{equation}  \label{RV}
\ R(y)=D_{1}v^\alpha(1-v)^\beta F_{1}(a,b,c;v)+D_2v^{-\alpha}(1-v)^\beta
F_{1}(a-c+1,b-c+1,2-c;v)~.
\end{equation}

According to our change of variables, when $r\rightarrow
r_{+}$, then $v\rightarrow 0$ and when $r\rightarrow \infty$, then $v\rightarrow 1$. In the vicinity of the horizon, the function $R(v)$ behaves as
\begin{equation}
R(y)=D_1 e^{\alpha \ln v}+D_2 e^{-\alpha \ln v}~,
\end{equation}
where we have used the
property $F(a,b,c,0)=1$. Thus, the scalar field $\varphi$ can be written in the following way
\begin{equation}
\psi\sim D_1 e^{-i\omega(t+ \chi\ln v)}+D_2 e^{-i\omega(t- \chi\ln v)}~,
\end{equation}
where, we have chosen, without loss of generality, the negative signs for $\alpha$,   and
\begin{equation}
\chi=\frac{1}{2c}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda_{\omega} p}}~.
\end{equation}

The first term represents an ingoing wave and the second one an outgoing
wave on the black hole background. For computing the QNMs, we have to impose that there exist only ingoing waves on the horizon.
This fixes $D_2=0$. Then the radial solution becomes
\begin{equation}  \label{horizonsolutiond}
R(y)=D_1 e^{\alpha \ln v}(1-v)^\beta F_{1}(a,b,c;v)=D_1 e^{-i\omega \chi \ln
v}(1-v)^\beta F_{1}(a,b,c;v)~.
\end{equation}
At infinity ($v=1$), the radial function reads
\begin{eqnarray}  \label{R}
\ R(v) &=& D_1 e^{-i\omega\chi \ln v}(1-v)^\beta\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(c-a-b)%
}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(c-b)} F_1(a,b,a+b-c,1-v)  \notag \\
&& +D_1 e^{-i\omega\chi\ln v}(1-v)^{c-a-b+\beta}\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(a+b-c)%
}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}F_1(c-a,c-b,c-a-b+1,1-v)~,
\end{eqnarray}
we have applied in Eq. (\ref{horizonsolutiond}) the Kummer's formula for the
hypergeometric function \cite{M. Abramowitz},
\begin{equation}
F_{1}(a,b,c;v)=\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(c-a-b)}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(c-b)}
F_1(a,b,a+b-c,1-v)+(1-v)^{c-a-b}\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(a+b-c)}{%
\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}F_1(c-a,c-b,c-a-b+1,1-v)~.
\end{equation}

For, $\beta_+>2$ the field at infinity is regular if the gamma function $%
\Gamma(x)$ has the poles at $x=-n$ for $n=0,1,2,...$. Which, yields
\begin{equation}\label{1w1}
\omega_1 =ic\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_{\omega}}{3p}}\left[ \left(1+\sqrt{4-\frac{%
3m^2}{\Lambda_{\omega}}}+2n\right)p+\sqrt{p\left(p+Q\right)} \right]~.
\end{equation}

Let us now investigate the stability of $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity, for the positive branch, $p=-1+\sqrt{c_0}$, $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is stable due to the imaginary part of the QNMs is negative, because $p<0$. Then, for the negative branch, $p=-1-\sqrt{c_0}$. There are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$p+Q>0$. The QNMs are given by Eq. (\ref{1w1}) with $p=-1-\sqrt{c_0}$, which can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{w1}
\omega_1 =-c\sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda_{\omega}(p+Q)}{3}}+ic\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_{\omega}}{3p}}\left(1+\sqrt{4-\frac{%
3m^2}{\Lambda_{\omega}}}+2n\right)p ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $z=4$ Topological Horava-Lifshitz black hole in $4+1$ dimensions is stable.
\item
$p+Q<0$. The QNMs, given by Eq. (\ref{w1}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\omega_1 =-ic\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_{\omega}p}{3}}\left(1+\sqrt{4-\frac{%
3m^2}{\Lambda_{\omega}}}+2n-\sqrt{1+\frac{Q}{p}} \right)~.
\end{equation}
which is purely imaginary and the stability is guaranteed due to $1+\frac{Q}{p}<1$.
\end{itemize}

Such as we have showed, the quasinormal modes for scalar perturbations                                                                                can be found by imposing the vanishing Dirichlet boundary condition at infinity. Adittionally, we can consider that the flux vanishes at infinity or vanishing Neumann boundary condition at infinity. It is due to that in
asymptotically anti-de Sitter, a negative mass square for a scalar field is consistent, in agree with the analogue to the Breitenlohner-Freedman condition that any effective mass must satisfy in order to have a stable propagation, \cite{Breitenlohner:1982bm, Breitenlohner:1982jf}. That is, Dirichlet boundary condition leads to the same quasinormal modes for $m^2 > 0$ but does not lead to any quasinormal modes for $m^2 < 0$. So, quasinormal modes can be obtained by considering vanishing Neumann boundary conditions and in the context of conformal field theory, due to the correspondence AdS/CFT \cite{Maldacena:1997re}, the quasinormal modes match with the dual operators, \cite{Birmingham:2001pj}. So, in order to consider Neumann boundary condition at infinity, $v\rightarrow 1$, the flux
\begin{equation}
F=\frac{\sqrt{-g}g^{rr}}{2i}\left( R^{\ast }\partial _{r}R-R\partial
_{r}R^{\ast }\right)~,
\end{equation}
at infinity, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F\left( v\rightarrow 1\right)  &=&-\frac{6\gamma p^{2}}{\Lambda _{\omega }}%
\left\vert D_{1}\right\vert ^{2} Im (2\left( 1-\beta \right)
B_{1}^{\ast }B_{2}+\left( -i\omega \chi -\frac{ab}{a+b-c}\right) \left\vert
B_{1}\right\vert ^{2}\left( 1-v\right) ^{2\beta -1}~, \\
&&+\left( -i\omega \chi -\frac{\left( c-a\right) \left( c-b\right) }{c-a-b+1}%
\right) \left\vert B_{2}\right\vert ^{2}\left( 1-v\right) ^{3-2\beta })~,
\end{eqnarray}
where,
\begin{equation}
B_{1}=\frac{\Gamma \left( c\right) \Gamma \left( c-a-b\right) }{\Gamma
\left( c-a\right) \Gamma \left( c-b\right) }~,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B_{2}=\frac{\Gamma \left( c\right) \Gamma \left( a+b-c\right) }{\Gamma
\left( a\right) \Gamma \left( b\right) }~.
\end{equation}
For, $\frac{4}{3}\Lambda _{\omega }<m^{2}<0$,
$1<\beta _{+}<2$ and $0<\beta _{-}<1$. So, if $B_{1}=0$, the flux vanishes at infinity
if $3-2\beta >0$.  For, $\beta =\beta _{+}$
is possible to obtain a new set of quasinormal modes.
Note that, the condition $3-2\beta _{+}>0$ implies that
$\sqrt{-\Lambda _{\omega }}<Im\left(m\right) < \sqrt{-\frac{4}{3}\Lambda _{\omega }}$. Therefore, the QNMs are given by
\begin{equation}\label{2w2}
\omega_2 =ic\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda _{\omega }}{3p}}\left[ \left( 1-\sqrt{4-\frac{%
3m^{2}}{\Lambda _{\omega }}}+2n\right) p-\sqrt{p\left( p+Q\right) }\right] ~,
\end{equation}
where, we have considered $c-a|_{\beta _{+}}=-n$ o $c-b|_{\beta _{+}}=-n$. The condition $B_{2}=0$ leads to the same quasinormal modes that we have found by imposing Dirichlet boundary condition.

Let us now investigate the stability of $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity and let us consider the positive branch, $p=-1+\sqrt{c_0}$. In this case, $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is stable due to the imaginary part is negative, in the range $\sqrt{-\Lambda _{\omega }}<Im\left(
m\right) <\sqrt{-\frac{4}{3}\Lambda _{\omega }}$. On the hand, for the negative branch, $p=-1-\sqrt{c_0}$. There are two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$p+Q>0$. The QNMs are given by Eq. (\ref{2w2}) with $p=-1-\sqrt{c_0}$, that is
\begin{equation}\label{w2}
\omega_2 =c\sqrt{\frac{-\Lambda_{\omega}(p+Q)}{3}}+ic\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_{\omega}}{3p}}\left(1-\sqrt{4-\frac{3m^2}{\Lambda_{\omega}}}+2n\right)p ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is stable.
\item
$p+Q<0$. The QNMs, given by Eq. (\ref{w2}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\omega_2 =-ic\sqrt{\frac{\Lambda_{\omega}p}{3}}\left(1-\sqrt{4-\frac{3m^2}{\Lambda_{\omega}}}+2n+\sqrt{1+\frac{Q}{p}} \right)~.
\end{equation}
which is purely imaginary and the stability of $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is guaranteed in the range $\sqrt{-\Lambda _{\omega }}<Im\left(
m\right) <\sqrt{-\frac{4}{3}\Lambda _{\omega }}$.
\end{itemize}

\section{Conclusions}

In this work we have studied scalar perturbations in the background of a $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity and we have found the quasinormal modes using the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions. The QNMs that we have found, generally are complex but for a certain range of parameters they are purely imaginary. Then, from these QNMs we
have analyzed the stability of this black hole and we have found that  $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is stable and the relaxation time $\tau$ for a thermal state to reach thermal equilibrium in the boundary conformal field theory is finite, according to the AdS/CFT correspondence. Is interesting note that from a thermodynamics point of view the $z=4$ Topological black hole in $4+1$ dimensional Horava-Lifshitz gravity is stable \cite{Cai:2009ar}, which agree with the QNMs point of view.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

Y. V. is supported by FONDECYT grant 11121148, and by Direcci\'{o}n de Investigaci\'{o}n y Desarrollo, Universidad de La Frontera, DIUFRO DI11-0071.


\section{Introduction}

Due to its super-massive black hole and its close proximity of $16.7 \,
\rm{Mpc}$ structures of the relativistic plasma jet in M\,87 can be
resolved in radio to X-ray observations \cite{Wil02}. This makes M\,87 a
unique AGN that potentially allows to spatially constrain the location
of the TeV $\gamma$-ray emission (radio/X-ray vs.~TeV flux correlation
studies). Such a result would provide important input for AGN
unification theories and plasma jet physics.

M\,87 is now a well established TeV $\gamma$-ray source
\cite{Aha03,Goe06,Aha06,Acc08} with observed TeV flux variability on
time scales of days \cite{Aha06,Alb08,Acc09}. The variability strongly
constrains the size of the emission region to the order of ten
Schwarzschild radii. This rules out interpretations related to large
scale emission from dark matter annihilation in M\,87 \cite{Bal99} or
cosmic ray interaction \cite{Pfr03}. Leptonic \cite{Geo05,Len08,Cui12}
and hadronic \cite{Rei04} jet emission models are discussed in the
literature as well as different potential locations of the TeV
$\gamma$-ray emission: the nucleus \cite{Ner07}, the inner jet
\cite{Geo05,Rei04} or the (large scale) jet \cite{Che07,Tav08,Hrd11}.

Since 2007 teV $\gamma$-ray observations of M\,87 have been closely
coordinated between VERITAS, MAGIC, and H.E.S.S. This drastically
improved the chances of detecting active flux states and substantially
increased the scientific outcome of the observations.
Target-of-opportunity (ToO) observations were proposed at radio (VLBA)
to X-ray (Chandra) energies. So far, three TeV $\gamma$-ray flares have
been detected in the past 13 years of M\,87 observations:

{\bf 2005:} H.E.S.S. observations in 2004/2005 confirmed M\,87 as a TeV
$\gamma$-ray source. Surprisingly, flux variability was found on time
scales of days \cite{Aha06}. The year 2005 also marked the maximum of an
radio/optical/X-ray high state of the innermost knot in the jet, HST-1,
located roughly $60 \, \rm{pc}$ away from the core \cite{Har06}. Since
this high state lasted for almost one year~-- with correspondingly slow
time scales of flux changes~-- it is not clear whether it was related to
the TeV flare.

{\bf 2008:} A strong TeV $\gamma$-ray flare was detected in joint
VERITAS, MAGIC, and H.E.S.S. observations in 2008 confirming the
day-scale flux variability \cite{Acc10,Aha06,Alb08}. The flare marked
the onset of a rise in the $43 \, \rm{GHz}$ radio flux (VLBA) from the
nucleus. The VLBA observations resolve the nucleus with very high
precision of $30 \times 60$ Schwarzschild radii; the radio nucleus is
believed to be coincident with the black hole position \cite{Had11}.
Combining the radio and TeV data therefore gave first experimental
evidence that the TeV emission actually originates from the close
vicinity of the black hole \cite{Acc09}.

{\bf 2010:} The strongest TeV $\gamma$-ray flare so far was detected by
VERITAS and MAGIC in 2010 (Fig.~\ref{fig:General}, left), also
triggering follow-up observations by H.E.S.S.~\cite{Ali12,Abr12}. Radio,
optical, and X-ray observations were triggered in addition to the
accompanying Fermi/LAT observations of the source. Although the flux of
the radio nucleus remained at the base level the weeks following the TeV
flare~-- not confirming the 2008 finding~-- two interesting observations
were made in the contemporaneous multi-wavelengths (MWL) monitoring: (i)
the Chandra observations (starting $\sim$$4 \, \rm{d}$ after the peak of
the TeV flare) showed the second highest flux measured from the nucleus
so far \cite{Har11} (Fig.~\ref{fig:General}, left); (ii) a new radio
feature was identified in the knot HST-1 following the flare
\cite{Gir12}.

\begin{figure}[t]

\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{HDGS_M87_2011_SkyMap.eps}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{HDGS_M87_2012_SkyMap.eps}

\caption{\label{fig:Skymap} M\,87 sky maps (smoothed excess
significances, ring background) measured by VERITAS in 2011 (left) and
2012 (right).}

\end{figure}

\section{VERITAS observations of M\,87 in 2011/2012}

VERITAS continued monitoring M\,87 in 2011/2012. The observations were
coordinated with MAGIC, H.E.S.S., and the MWL partners of the previous
campaigns. A total of $17 \, \rm{hrs}$ of good quality data were
accumulated by VERITAS in 2011. Only a weak signal at the level of 5
std.~dev.~was detected, see Fig.~\ref{fig:Skymap}, left. The 2012
observations resulted in a total of $29 \, \rm{hrs}$ of data. M\,87 is
detected at the level of 9 std.~dev., see Fig.~\ref{fig:Skymap}, right.
The light curve of the two years is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:SED}, left,
and indicates variability on time scales of weeks (but not days) in
2012: two months (M\,2 and M\,3) with clearly elevated flux are
identified. The energy spectra derived for these two months are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:SED}, right, and are found to be compatible with each
other. Figure~\ref{fig:General} shows the photon index $\Gamma$ vs.~the
TeV flux normalization of these spectra as well as for archival data.
Nightly flux levels that would allow to trigger the MWL observations
were not reached in 2011/2012.

\begin{figure}[t]

\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{HDGS_M87_2012_LC.eps}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{HDGS_M87_2012_Spectrum.eps}

\caption{\label{fig:SED} {\bf Left:} VERITAS light curve of M\,87 in
2011/2012 (gray: nightly fluxes; black: monthly fluxes). Elevated flux
levels were measured in 2012 during the months M\,2 and M\,3. {\bf
Right:} Energy spectra derived for data sets M\,2 and M\,3. The spectra
were fitted by power laws.}

\end{figure}

\section{Summary and conclusion}

M\,87 was monitored by VERITAS in 2011/12 for $36 \, \rm{hrs}$ in
coordination with MAGIC and H.E.S.S. While the VERITAS data of 2011 and
2012 did not show bright flares, the monthly variation in TeV flux hint
that the underlying quiescent emission also evolves over much longer
time scales than the day-scale rapid flares seen in 2008 and 2010. This
makes long term monitoring of M 87 in TeV and other wavebands
scientifically very fruitful.

Although promising indications were found in TeV/MWL observation of
previous years the location and mechanisms of the TeV $\gamma$-ray
emission are still uncertain. However, due to its proximity and jet
viewing angle, M\,87 remains a unique laboratory to study the connection
between jet formation physics and TeV $\gamma$-ray emission
\cite{Bro11,Dex12,Lev11}. Coordinated TeV $\gamma$-ray observations
accompanied by contemporaneous observations at radio (high-resolution),
X-ray and Fermi energies remain one of the most promising approach to
unravel the location and mechanism of TeV $\gamma$-ray emission in AGN.

\begin{figure}[t]

\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{M87_2010_LC.eps}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{HDGS_FluxVsIndex.eps}

\caption{\label{fig:General} {\bf Left:} The night-by-night light curve
of the 2010 TeV $\gamma$-ray flare (VERITAS, MAGIC and H.E.S.S.; data
taken from \cite{Abr12}). Also shown is the Chandra X-ray light curve
(arbitrary units) taken from \cite{Har11}. {\bf Right:} TeV flux
normalization vs. photon index $\Gamma$. A spectral hardening for high
fluxes is not yet significant.  Data are taken from
\cite{Aha03,Aha06,Acc08,Alb08,Acc10} as well as the data set presented
in this paper.}

\end{figure}

\begin{theacknowledgments}

This research is supported by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the
Smithsonian Institution, by NSERC in Canada, by Science Foundation
Ireland (SFI 10/RFP/AST2748) and by STFC in the U.K. We acknowledge the
excellent work of the technical support staff at the Fred Lawrence
Whipple Observatory and at the collaborating institutions in the
construction and operation of the instrument.

\end{theacknowledgments}

\bibliographystyle{aipproc}