Skip to main content
Article

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

Adam FalkowskiLaboratoire de Physique Théorique, Bat. 210, Université Paris-Sud, 91405, Orsay, FranceMartín González‐AlonsoIPN de Lyon/CNRS, Universite Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, FranceAdmir GreljoFaculty of Science, University of Sarajevo, Zmaja od Bosne 33-35, 71000, Sarajevo, Bosnia and HerzegovinaDavid MarzoccaPhysik-Institut, Universität Zürich, CH-8057, Zürich, SwitzerlandMinho SonDepartment of Physics, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34141, Republic of Korea
2017en
ABI

Abstract

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(W W ) → ℓ′νℓ+ℓ−(νℓ) channels, we find that: (a) working consistently at order Λ−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 Λ−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 ( $$ \sqrt{\widehat{s}} $$ ). In practice, we find almost no correlation between $$ \sqrt{\widehat{s}} $$ 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.

Identifiers

Citations and references

Cited by 20 references