4.4 Article

Anomalous triple gauge couplings in the effective field theory approach at the LHC

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2017)115

关键词

Beyond Standard Model; Effective field theories

资金

  1. ERC Advanced Grant Higgs@LHC
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie [690575, 674896]
  3. LABEX Lyon Institute of Origins of the Universite de Lyon within the program of the French government [ANR-10-LABX-0066, ANR-11-IDEX-0007]
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021-159720]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We discuss how to perform consistent extractions of anomalous triple gauge couplings (aTGC) from electroweak boson pair production at the LHC in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). After recasting recent ATLAS and CMS searches in pp -> W Z (WW) -> l(1)vl(+)l(-)(v(l)) channels, we find that: (a) working consistently at order Lambda(-2) in the SMEFT expansion the existing aTGC bounds from Higgs and LEP-2 data are not improved, (b) the strong limits quoted by the experimental collaborations are due to the partial Lambda(-4) corrections (dimension-6 squared contributions). Using helicity selection rule arguments we are able to explain the suppression in some of the interference terms, and discuss conditions on New Physics (NP) models that can benefit from such LHC analyses. Furthermore, standard analyses assume implicitly a quite large NP scale, an assumption that can be relaxed by imposing cuts on the underlying scale of the process (root s). In practice, we find almost no correlation between root s and the experimentally accessible quantities, which complicates the SMEFT interpretation. Nevertheless, we provide a method to set (conservative) aTGC bounds in this situation, and recast the present searches accordingly. Finally, we introduce a simple NP model for aTGC to compare the bounds obtained directly in the model with those from the SMEFT analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据