- 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

Origin of neutrino masses on the convex cone of positivity bounds

Xu Li* and Shun Zhou†

  • Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China and School of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

  • *lixu96@ihep.ac.cn
  • †Corresponding author. zhoush@ihep.ac.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 107, L031902 – Published 13 February, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L031902

Abstract

We exhibit the geometric structure of the convex cone in the linear space of the Wilson coefficients for the dimension-eight operators involving the left-handed lepton doublet L and the Higgs doublet H in the Standard Model effective field theory (SMEFT). The boundary of the convex cone gives rise to the positivity bounds on the Wilson coefficients, while the extremal ray corresponds to the unique particle state in the theory of ultraviolet completion. Among three types of canonical seesaw models for neutrino masses, we discover that only right-handed neutrinos in the type-I seesaw model show up as one of the extremal rays, whereas the heavy particles in the type-II and type-III seesaw models live inside the cone. The experimental determination of the relevant Wilson coefficients close to the extremal ray of the type-I seesaw model will unambiguously pin down or rule out the latter as the origin of neutrino masses. This discovery offers a novel way to distinguish the most popular seesaw model from others, and it also strengthens the SMEFT as an especially powerful tool to probe new physics beyond the Standard Model.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (62)

  1. W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986).
  2. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  3. I. Brivio and M. Trott, The standard model as an effective field theory, Phys. Rep. 793, 1 (2019).
  4. S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979).
  5. P. Minkowski, μ→eγ at a rate of one out of 109 muon decays?, Phys. Lett. 67B, 421 (1977).
  6. T. Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, Conf. Proc. C 7902131, 95 (1979).
  7. M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Complex spinors and unified theories, Conf. Proc. C 790927, 315 (1979).
  8. S. L. Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics, NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980).
  9. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980).
  10. W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Nonconservation of total lepton number with scalar bosons, Phys. Lett. 70B, 433 (1977).
  11. M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Neutrino mass problem and gauge hierarchy, Phys. Lett. 94B, 61 (1980).
  12. J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino masses in SU(2)×U(1) theories, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980).
  13. T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Neutrino masses, mixings and oscillations in SU(2)×U(1) models of electroweak interactions, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980).
  14. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with spontaneous parity violation, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981).
  15. G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Proton lifetime and fermion masses in an SO(10) model, Nucl. Phys. B181, 287 (1981).
  16. R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He, and G. C. Joshi, Seesaw neutrino masses induced by a triplet of leptons, Z. Phys. C 44, 441 (1989).
  17. D. Zhang and S. Zhou, Complete one-loop matching of the type-I seesaw model onto the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2021) 163.
  18. T. Ohlsson and M. Pernow, One-loop matching conditions in neutrino effective theory, Nucl. Phys. B978, 115729 (2022).
  19. X. Li, D. Zhang, and S. Zhou, One-loop matching of the type-II seesaw model onto the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2022) 038.
  20. Y. Du, X.-X. Li, and J.-H. Yu, Neutrino seesaw models at one-loop matching: Discrimination by effective operators, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2022) 207.
  21. A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2006) 014.
  22. T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, Evaluation of the derivative quartic terms of the meson chiral Lagrangian from forward dispersion relation, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3027 (1985).
  23. B. Ananthanarayan, D. Toublan, and G. Wanders, Consistency of the chiral pion pion scattering amplitudes with axiomatic constraints, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1093 (1995).
  24. B. Bellazzini, Softness and amplitudes’ positivity for spinning particles, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2017) 034.
  25. C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity bounds on vector boson scattering at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 100, 095003 (2019).
  26. B. Bellazzini and F. Riva, New phenomenological and theoretical perspective on anomalous ZZ and Zγ processes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 095021 (2018).
  27. Q. Bi, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity constraints on aQGC: Carving out the physical parameter space, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 137.
  28. G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Consistency of the standard model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2019) 032.
  29. G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Flavor Constraints from Unitarity and Analyticity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 081601 (2020); 127, 149901(E) (2021).
  30. K. Yamashita, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Elastic positivity vs extremal positivity bounds in SMEFT: A case study in transversal electroweak gauge-boson scatterings, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2021) 095.
  31. C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Convex Geometry Perspective on the (Standard Model) Effective Field Theory Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201601 (2020).
  32. B. Fuks, Y. Liu, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity in electron-positron scattering: Testing the axiomatic quantum field theory principles and probing the existence of UV states, Chin. Phys. C 45, 023108 (2021).
  33. J. Gu, L.-T. Wang, and C. Zhang, Unambiguously Testing Positivity at Lepton Colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 011805 (2022).
  34. X. Li, H. Xu, C. Yang, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity in Multifield Effective Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 121601 (2021).
  35. Z.-Z. Du, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Triple crossing positivity bounds for multi-field theories, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2021) 115.
  36. T. Grall and S. Melville, Positivity bounds without boosts: New constraints on low energy effective field theories from the UV, Phys. Rev. D 105, L121301 (2022).
  37. M. Chala and J. Santiago, Positivity bounds in the Standard Model effective field theory beyond tree level, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111901 (2022).
  38. C. Zhang, SMEFTs living on the edge: Determining the UV theories from positivity and extremality, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2022) 096.
  39. C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity bounds for scalar field theories, Phys. Rev. D 96, 081702 (2017).
  40. C. de Rham, S. Melville, A. J. Tolley, and S.-Y. Zhou, UV complete me: Positivity bounds for particles with spin, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2018) 011.
  41. A. J. Tolley, Z.-Y. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, New positivity bounds from full crossing symmetry, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 255.
  42. N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-T. Huang, The EFT-Hedron, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 259.
  43. B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Miró, R. Rattazzi, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, Positive moments for scattering amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 036006 (2021).
  44. S. Caron-Huot and V. Van Duong, Extremal effective field theories, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 280.
  45. L.-Y. Chiang, Y.-t. Huang, W. Li, L. Rodina, and H.-C. Weng, Into the EFThedron and UV constraints from IR consistency, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2022) 063.
  46. B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, The IR-side of positivity bounds, Phys. Rev. D 106, 105008 (2022).
  47. L. Alberte, C. de Rham, S. Jaitly, and A. J. Tolley, Reverse Bootstrapping: IR Lessons for UV Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 051602 (2022).
  48. N. Arkani-Hamed, G. L. Kane, J. Thaler, and L.-T. Wang, Supersymmetry and the LHC inverse problem, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2006) 070.
  49. S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and S. D. Lane, Putting Standard Model EFT fits to work, Phys. Rev. D 102, 055012 (2020).
  50. J. Gu and L.-T. Wang, Sum rules in the standard model effective field theory from helicity amplitudes, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2021) 149.
  51. E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Neutrino Masses and Leptogenesis with Heavy Higgs Triplets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5716 (1998).
  52. 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).
  53. C. W. Murphy, Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2020) 174.
  54. D. Liu, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and F. Riva, Patterns of strong coupling for LHC searches, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2016) 141.
  55. A. Azatov, R. Contino, C. S. Machado, and F. Riva, Helicity selection rules and noninterference for BSM amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 95, 065014 (2017).
  56. J. Ellis and S.-F. Ge, Constraining Gluonic Quartic Gauge Coupling Operators with gg→γγ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 041801 (2018).
  57. 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.
  58. 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).
  59. J. Ellis, H.-J. He, and R.-Q. Xiao, Probing new physics in dimension-8 neutral gauge couplings at e+e− colliders, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 64, 221062 (2021).
  60. S. Alioli, R. Boughezal, E. Mereghetti, and F. Petriello, Novel angular dependence in Drell-Yan lepton production via dimension-8 operators, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135703 (2020).
  61. A. Vasquez, C. Degrande, A. Tonero, and R. Rosenfeld, New physics in double Higgs production at future e+e− colliders, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2019) 020.
  62. J. de Blas et al. (CLIC Collaboration), The CLIC potential for new physics, arXiv:1812.02093.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 107, L031902– Published 13 February, 2023
  • Received 7 March 2022
  • Accepted 19 January 2023
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