- 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
  • Open Access

Effective field theory for a type II seesaw model: Symmetric phase vs broken phase

Yi Liao*, Xiao-Dong Ma†, and Yoshiki Uchida‡

  • State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Institute of Quantum Matter, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006, China and Guangdong Basic Research Center of Excellence for Structure and Fundamental Interactions of Matter, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Nuclear Science, Guangzhou 510006, China

  • *Contact author: liaoy@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • †Contact author: maxid@scnu.edu.cn
  • ‡Contact author: uchida.yoshiki@m.scnu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 035005 – Published 4 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/xhct-fcn4

Abstract

Effective field theory is an effective approach to parametrizing effects of high energy scale physics in low-energy measurements. The two popular frameworks for physics beyond the standard model are the so-called standard model effective field theory (SMEFT) and the Higgs effective field theory (HEFT). While the description by the SMEFT deteriorates when the scale of new physics is not so high or it participates in spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking, the HEFT makes use of nonlinear realization of spontaneously broken symmetry in which there are practically no restrictions on the Higgs field as a singlet. In this work we present another framework, called broken phase effective field theory (bEFT), in which we deal directly with mass eigenstate fields after spontaneous symmetry breaking without employing nonlinear realization. We take the type-II seesaw model as an example to demonstrate our approach. By matching the model to both the bEFT and the SMEFT at tree level, we compare the results for two processes, the Higgs pair production via vector boson fusion which appears as a subprocess at the LHC and the Higgs-strahlung process at a future electron-positron collider. We find that the bEFT reproduces the type-II seesaw model more accurately than the SMEFT in the regions where the bare mass of the Higgs triplet becomes close to the electroweak scale. Therefore, the bEFT serves as a useful framework that can compensate for the shortcomings in both the SMEFT and the HEFT when dealing with UV models that involve Higgs mixing or new particles with a mass close to the electroweak scale.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (61)

  1. ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012).
  2. CMS Collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012).
  3. P. Minkowski, μ→eγ at a rate of one out of 109 muon decays?, Phys. Lett. 67B, 421 (1977).
  4. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, Conf. Proc. C 7902131, 95 (1979).
  5. M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Complex spinors and unified theories, Conf. Proc. C 790927, 315 (1979).
  6. S. L. Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics, NATO Sci. Ser. B 61, 687 (1980).
  7. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980).
  8. R. E. Shrock, General theory of weak leptonic and semileptonic decays. 1. Leptonic pseudoscalar meson decays, with associated tests for, and bounds on, neutrino masses and lepton mixing, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1232 (1981).
  9. J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino masses in SU(2)×U(1) theories, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (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. 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).
  13. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with spontaneous parity violation, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981).
  14. G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Proton lifetime and fermion masses in an SO(10) model, Nucl. Phys. B181, 287 (1981).
  15. 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).
  16. Z.-j. Tao, Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale, Phys. Rev. D 54, 5693 (1996).
  17. E. Ma, Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 73, 077301 (2006).
  18. Y. Cai, J. Herrero-García, M. A. Schmidt, A. Vicente, and R. R. Volkas, From the trees to the forest: A review of radiative neutrino mass models, Front. Phys. 5, 63 (2017).
  19. S. Weinberg, Baryon and lepton nonconserving processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979).
  20. W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986).
  21. C. N. Leung, S. T. Love, and S. Rao, Low-energy manifestations of a new interaction scale: Operator analysis, Z. Phys. C 31, 433 (1986).
  22. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2010) 085.
  23. F. Feruglio, The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 08, 4937 (1993).
  24. J. Bagger et al., The strongly interacting WW system: Gold plated modes, Phys. Rev. D 49, 1246 (1994).
  25. V. Koulovassilopoulos and R. S. Chivukula, The phenomenology of a nonstandard Higgs Boson in WLWL scattering, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3218 (1994).
  26. C. P. Burgess, J. Matias, and M. Pospelov, A Higgs or not a Higgs? What to do if you discover a new scalar particle, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17, 1841 (2002).
  27. B. Grinstein and M. Trott, A Higgs-Higgs bound state due to new physics at a TeV, Phys. Rev. D 76, 073002 (2007).
  28. R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, and J. Yepes, The effective Chiral Lagrangian for a light dynamical ”Higgs particle”, Phys. Lett. B 722, 330 (2013); 726, 926(E) (2013).
  29. D. Espriu, F. Mescia, and B. Yencho, Radiative corrections to WLWL scattering in composite Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D 88, 055002 (2013).
  30. G. Buchalla, O. Catà, and C. Krause, Complete electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a light Higgs at NLO, Nucl. Phys. B880, 552 (2014); B913, 475(E) (2016).
  31. I. Brivio, T. Corbett, O. J. P. Éboli, M. B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin, Disentangling a dynamical Higgs, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2014) 024.
  32. R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, A geometric formulation of Higgs effective field theory: Measuring the curvature of scalar field space, Phys. Lett. B 754, 335 (2016).
  33. R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Geometry of the scalar sector, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2016) 101.
  34. G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis, M. Knecht, and C. Krause, Complete one-loop renormalization of the Higgs-electroweak Chiral Lagrangian, Nucl. Phys. B928, 93 (2018).
  35. R. Alonso, K. Kanshin, and S. Saa, Renormalization group evolution of Higgs effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 97, 035010 (2018).
  36. J. de Blas, O. Eberhardt, and C. Krause, Current and future constraints on Higgs couplings in the nonlinear effective theory, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2018) 048.
  37. A. Falkowski and R. Rattazzi, Which EFT, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2019) 255.
  38. G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis, and C. Krause, Standard model extended by a heavy singlet: Linear vs. nonlinear EFT, Nucl. Phys. B917, 209 (2017).
  39. S. Dawson, D. Fontes, C. Quezada-Calonge, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Matching the 2HDM to the HEFT and the SMEFT: Decoupling and perturbativity, Phys. Rev. D 108, 055034 (2023).
  40. S. Dawson, D. Fontes, C. Quezada-Calonge, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Is the HEFT matching unique?, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055037 (2024).
  41. G. Buchalla, F. König, C. Müller-Salditt, and F. Pandler, Two-Higgs doublet model matched to nonlinear effective theory, Phys. Rev. D 110, 016015 (2024).
  42. H. Song and X. Wan, A non-linear representation of general scalar extensions of the standard model for HEFT matching, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2025) 021.
  43. H. Song and X. Wan, Matching the real Higgs triplet extension of standard model to HEFT, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2025) 249.
  44. T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland, Is SMEFT enough?, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2021) 237.
  45. R. Gómez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Distinguishing electroweak EFTs with WLWL→n×h, Phys. Rev. D 106, 053004 (2022).
  46. R. Gómez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, SMEFT is falsifiable through multi-Higgs measurements (even in the absence of new light particles), Commun. Theor. Phys. 75, 095202 (2023).
  47. A. Salas-Bernardez, J. J. Sanz-Cillero, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, and R. Gomez-Ambrosio, SMEFT as a slice of HEFT’s parameter space, EPJ Web Conf. 274, 08013 (2022).
  48. R. L. Delgado, R. Gómez-Ambrosio, J. Martínez-Martín, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Production of two, three, and four Higgs bosons: Where SMEFT and HEFT depart, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2024) 037.
  49. S. Mahmud and K. Tobioka, Energy growth in VLVL→VLVL,VLVLh scattering to probe Higgs cubic and HEFT interactions, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2024) 073.
  50. 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.
  51. M. A. Schmidt, Renormalization group evolution in the type I+II seesaw model, Phys. Rev. D 76, 073010 (2007); 85, 099903(E) (2012).
  52. P. S. Bhupal Dev, D. K. Ghosh, N. Okada, and I. Saha, 125 GeV Higgs boson and the type-II seesaw model, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2013) 150; 05 (2013) 49.
  53. Particle Data Group, Review of particle physics, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2022, 083C01 (2022).
  54. J. Fuentes-Martín, M. König, J. Pagès, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch, A proof of concept for Matchete: An automated tool for matching effective theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 662 (2023).
  55. V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, New developments in FeynCalc9.0, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016).
  56. R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, FeynCalc: Computer algebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991).
  57. ATLAS Collaboration, Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector using pp collisions at s=13 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 843, 137745 (2023).
  58. CMS Collaboration, A portrait of the Higgs Boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery, Nature (London) 607, 60 (2022); CMS Collaboration 623, E4 (2023).
  59. C.-W. Chiang, T. Nomura, and K. Tsumura, Search for doubly charged Higgs bosons using the same-sign diboson mode at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 85, 095023 (2012).
  60. S. Ashanujjaman and K. Ghosh, Revisiting type-II see-saw: Present limits and future prospects at LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2022) 195.
  61. J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton number as the fourth color, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974); 11, 703(E) (1975).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 035005– Published 4 August, 2025
  • Received 11 April 2025
  • Accepted 1 July 2025
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