- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

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
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Positivity bounds in the standard model effective field theory beyond tree level

Mikael Chala* and Jose Santiago†

  • Departamento de Física Teórica y del Cosmos, Universidad de Granada, E–18071 Granada, Spain

  • *mikael.chala@ugr.es
  • †jsantiago@ugr.es
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 105, L111901 – Published 16 June, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L111901

Abstract

Focusing on four-Higgs interactions, we analyze the robustness of tree-level-derived positivity bounds on standard model effective field theory (SMEFT) operators under quantum corrections. Among other results, we demonstrate that: (i) Even in the simplest extensions of the Standard Model, e.g., with one new scalar singlet or with a neutral triplet, some positivity bounds are strictly violated; (ii) the mixing of the dimension-eight operators under renormalization, which we compute here for the first time, can drive them out of their positivity region; (iii) the running of the dimension-eight interactions triggered by solely dimension-six terms respects the positivity bounds. Our results suggest, on one hand, that departures from positivity within the SMEFT, if ever found in the data, do not necessarily imply the breaking of unitarity or causality, nor the presence of new light degrees of freedom. On the other hand, they lead to strong constraints on the form of certain anomalous dimensions.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (39)

  1. I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rep. 793, 1 (2019).
  2. J. de Blas, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, S. Mishima, M. Pierini, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Proc. Sci., ICHEP2016 (2017) 690.
  3. A. Biekoetter, T. Corbett, and T. Plehn, SciPost Phys. 6, 064 (2019).
  4. J. Baglio, S. Dawson, S. Homiller, S. D. Lane, and I. M. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115004 (2020).
  5. J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 279.
  6. J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 089.
  7. B. Bellazzini, L. Martucci, and R. Torre, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2014) 100.
  8. B. Bellazzini and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D 98, 095021 (2018).
  9. C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 100, 095003 (2019).
  10. Q. Bi, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 137.
  11. G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2019) 032.
  12. J. Gu, L.-T. Wang, and C. Zhang, arXiv:2011.03055 [Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published)].
  13. Q. Bonnefoy, E. Gendy, and C. Grojean, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2021) 115.
  14. G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 081601 (2020).
  15. C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201601 (2020).
  16. J. Gu and L.-T. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2021) 149.
  17. B. Fuks, Y. Liu, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Chin. Phys. C 45, 023108 (2021).
  18. K. Yamashita, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2021) 095.
  19. G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. D 105, 036006 (2022).
  20. A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2006) 014.
  21. P. Baratella, D. Haslehner, M. Ruhdorfer, J. Serra, and A. Weiler, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2022) 156.
  22. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  23. C. W. Murphy, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2020) 174.
  24. H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 104, 015026 (2021).
  25. M. Froissart, Phys. Rev. 123, 1053 (1961).
  26. A. Martin, Phys. Rev. 129, 1432 (1963).
  27. N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-T. Huang, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 259.
  28. M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos, and J. Santiago, SciPost Phys. 11, 065 (2021).
  29. M. Chala et al. (to be published), 10.1007/JHEP05(2022)138.
  30. J. de Blas, M. Chala, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. Santiago, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2015) 078.
  31. U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, and A. M. Teixeira, Phys. Rep. 496, 1 (2010).
  32. S. Di Chiara and K. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. D 78, 055016 (2008).
  33. J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, and F. Riva, Nucl. Phys. B854, 592 (2012).
  34. S. Inoue, G. Ovanesyan, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D 93, 015013 (2016).
  35. V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123515 (2017).
  36. M. Chala, M. Ramos, and M. Spannowsky, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 156 (2019).
  37. J. Liu, C. E. M. Wagner, and X.-P. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2019) 008.
  38. B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Miró, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D 104, 036006 (2021).
  39. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSMPaTGC.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 105, L111901– Published 16 June, 2022
  • Received 15 October 2021
  • Revised 14 January 2022
  • Accepted 31 May 2022
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