# Top–antitop production from \(W^+_L W^-_L\) and \(Z_L Z_L\) scattering under a strongly interacting symmetry-breaking sector

## Abstract

By considering a non-linear electroweak chiral Lagrangian, including the Higgs, coupled to heavy quarks, and the equivalence theorem, we compute the one-loop scattering amplitudes \(W^+W^-\rightarrow t\bar{t}\), \(ZZ\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) and \(hh\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) (in the regime \(M_t^2/v^2\ll \sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\ll s/v^2\) and to NLO in the effective theory). We calculate the scalar partial-wave helicity amplitudes which allow us to check unitarity at the perturbative level in both \(M_t/v\) and *s*/*v*. As with growing energy perturbative unitarity deteriorates, we also introduce a new unitarization method with the right analytical behavior on the complex *s*-plane and that can support poles on the second Riemann sheet to describe resonances in terms of the Lagrangian couplings. Thus we have achieved a consistent phenomenological description of any resonant \(t\bar{t}\) production that may be enhanced by a possible strongly interacting electroweak symmetry breaking sector.

## 1 Introduction

The Higgs-like particle with a mass of \(125\,\mathrm{GeV}\) found at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [1, 2] completes a possible framework of the fundamental interactions, as this new boson has quantum numbers and couplings compatible with those expected for the Higgs of the Standard Model (SM) in its minimal version. In addition, new scalar-resonances associated to new-physics effects have been constrained roughly up to 600–700 GeV [3, 4]. For new vector bosons, the lowest energy for a possible resonance to lie at is even higher [5, 6, 7]. The discrepancy among the Higgs mass scale and that of any new-physics appearance is suggestive of a Goldstone-boson (GB) interpretation of the Higgs boson that (together with the Goldstone bosons associated with the \(W^{\pm }_L\) and \(Z_L\) components of vector bosons) may be related to some global spontaneous symmetry breaking that in turn prompts a breaking of the electroweak gauge symmetry \(SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\rightarrow U(1)_Q\).

To describe such pseudo-Goldstone behavior of the Higgs boson, some effective description of the Electroweak Symmetry-Breaking Sector (EWSBS) of the SM must be taken into account [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. These effective field theory (EFT) descriptions are useful even when the Higgs boson is not a GB. In consequence, EFTs are a convenient way of parametrizing the EWSBS.

The energy gap may also favor a non-linear Lagrangian description of the symmetry breaking, which is a very general approach to the EWSBS in the EFT. The old electroweak chiral Lagrangian (ECL) technique [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22], built up on standard chiral perturbation theory for hadron physics [23, 24, 25], can be extended to include the scalar Higgs-like particle *h* transforming as a singlet of custodial \(SU(2)_C\) to give the so-called Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT). Meanwhile, the longitudinal gauge bosons transform as a triplet. This pattern is analogous to low-energy hadron physics, where pions fall in a triplet and the \(\eta \) meson is embedded in a singlet representation of the strong \(SU(2)_V\) isospin group. The global symmetry-breaking scheme, \(SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\rightarrow SU(2)_C\), is common to both effective field theories of the strong and electroweak interactions.

As the HEFT theories are derivative expansions, for most of parameter space (saliently excluding that of the Standard Model and perhaps other very carefully tuned sets), the interactions will generically become strong at sufficiently high energy, and we have argued that a second, very broad scalar pole is expected [26, 27]. This motivates theoretical studies of new resonances with energies \(700\,\mathrm{GeV}<E<4\pi v\sim 3\,\mathrm{TeV}\), which require methods extending perturbation theory in the HEFT Lagrangian – which we exploit to next to leading order, (NLO). One strategy is extending the low-energy amplitudes through dispersion relations (DR) compatible with analyticity and unitarity. Resonances can then be found as poles in the second Riemann sheet due to the proper analytical behavior of the amplitudes.

Such unitarization methods introduce some level of arbitrariness, as unitarity, analyticity, and the low-energy behavior are not sufficient to determine a scattering amplitude with arbitrary accuracy. Nevertheless, in [28] we showed that the analytical and unitary description of higher energy dynamics provided by DRs extending the one-loop results is essentially unique qualitatively; at least so up to the first resonance in each spin–isospin channel. Other groups have recently pursued related unitarization methods in the context of the EWSBS [29, 30, 31, 32].

The top quark is quite strongly coupled to the EWSBS and offers an opportunity for numerous analysis [33, 34, 35, 36]. Current experimental efforts have been made to study in detail processes where heavy quarks are produced as intermediate (subsequently decaying into jets) or final states [37, 38, 39, 40]. It is then reasonable to introduce fermions in the theory for energy scales compatible with those where resonances may appear at the LHC and may be described within the EFT framework. Our work analyzes the coupling of the pure Goldstone sector to top quarks. New-physics fermionic couplings in the HEFT entitle us to flexibly describe the amplitudes \( W^+_L W^-_L \rightarrow t\bar{t}\), \(Z_L Z_L\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) and \(hh\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) in the regime \(M_t^2/v^2\ll \sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\ll s/v^2\). In the high-energy limit \(s\gg M_{Z,W}^2\sim M_h^2\) and by means of the equivalence theorem (ET) [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47], we can compute all amplitudes \(V_L V_L\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) substituting the \(V_L\) longitudinal vector bosons by GBs (denoted \(\omega \) in what follows). Therefore, in this article we will take \(0=M_W^2=M_Z^2=M_h^2\) consistently. The last equality, for \(M_h\), can also be a consequence of a new symmetry-breaking pattern (such as in Composite Higgs Models) and is within the philosophy of EFT, but it holds (approximately) anyway because of the experimental Higgs mass value, which is close to that of the electroweak gauge bosons, below the TeV scale that we explore.

Watson’s final state interaction theorem, implemented in our unitarization method, guarantees that amplitudes with final \(t\bar{t}\) pairs feature poles in the second Riemann sheet in the same position as the elastic GB amplitudes. Dynamical resonances are thus linked to the parameter space of chiral couplings in the DR-unitarized HEFT.

We have organized the presentation as follows: Sect. 2 discusses the introduction of a heavy fermion in the effective Lagrangian for electroweak-chiral interactions. The amplitudes for \(\omega ^i\omega ^j\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) and \(hh\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) processes at tree and one-loop levels are computed and summarized in Sects. 3 and 4, respectively. We dedicate Sects. 5 and 6 to the helicity amplitudes and to the scalar partial-wave computation. Section 7 is dedicated to the study of unitarity and the inverse amplitude method (IAM [48, 49, 50, 51]) implementation, both for single and coupled channels (while a derivation of the later is deferred to an appendix). Section 8 offers our final remarks and discussion.

## 2 The electroweak chiral Lagrangian with massive fermions

*V*(

*h*) is negligible and we set it to zero below.

*Q*entries are made of the different up and down quark sectors

*t*and

*b*quark masses.

*h*, which are usually parametrized as

## 3 Tree level and one-loop contributions for \(\omega ^{a}\omega ^{b}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\)

In this section we address the process \(V_LV_L \rightarrow t\bar{t}\) (where \(V=W,Z\)) at energies that are high when compared with \(M_Z\), \(M_W\) and \(M_h\); then we can use the ET and concentrate only in the GB \(\omega ^i\), *h* and the *b* and *t* quarks. More specifically, we will consider the regime \(M_t^2/v^2\ll \sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\ll s/v^2\). In earlier work we have set all masses to zero from the start, \(M_h=M_Z=M_W=M_t=0\) since we were interested in the high-energy regime, appropriate for LHC resonance searches. However, in this work we deal with \(t\bar{t}\) production and in that strict limit the amplitude vanishes and the minimal non-vanishing contribution must be at least linear in \(M_t\). More precisely, the lowest order (tree level) \(V_LV_L \rightarrow t\bar{t}\) is of the order of \(\sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\). At the one-loop level one should in principle include diagrams with \(\omega \), *h* and *t* loops. However, diagrams with *t* loops are higher order in \(M_t/v\). Thus, if one is interested in the region \(M_t^2/v^2\ll \sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\), diagrams with *t* loops can safely be ignored, even if \(M_t/v\) is not a very small parameter. On the other hand, one-loop diagrams with \(\omega \) and *h* loops are order \(\sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\), as the tree level ones, and must consistently be taken into account. Consequently, we will ignore diagrams as those in Fig. 3. This will not only make the computation manageable (because of the significantly smaller number of Feynman diagrams to be taken into account) but also it will make the renormalization of the amplitudes much simpler, so that only two new counter-terms must be introduced and the corresponding two couplings renormalized. We consider this a very sensible approximation to the \(V_LV_L \rightarrow t\bar{t}\) reaction in the \(M_t^2/v^2\ll \sqrt{s}M_t/v^2\ll s/v^2\) regime and, in any case, a necessary first step to a more complete future computation that should be performed if more accuracy was ever needed.

*i*,

*j*are the custodial isospin indices of the incoming GB; \(p_1\), \(p_2\) and \(\lambda _1\), \(\lambda _2\) are top, antitop momenta and helicities, respectively. The \(\sqrt{3}\) factor is a color factor since the \(t\bar{t}\) pair is produced in a color singlet state.

## 4 \(hh\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) process

## 5 Helicity amplitudes

*hh*and \(t\bar{t}\) processes it is quite convenient to consider partial waves of the corresponding helicity amplitudes, as the unitarity relations do not couple different

*J*nor custodial isospin

*I*. For example, for elastic Goldstone-boson scattering \(\omega \omega \rightarrow \omega \omega \) there are three custodial isospin \(A_I\) amplitudes \(\left( I=0,1,2\right) \), analogous to those in pion–pion scattering in hadron physics,

*K*,

*D*and

*E*and the function \(B(\mu )\) depend on the different channels \(IJ=00;11;20;02;22\), as is shown in [26, 28]. We will use the notation of that paper for the inelastic and pure-

*h*scattering reactions too. As \(A_{IJ}\left( s\right) \) must be scale independent we have

*a*,

*b*, \(a_4\), \(a_5\), etc.) and from now on we omit the superindices

*r*on the renormalized coupling constants for simplicity.

*hh*may couple to the \(t\bar{t}\) state. The

*hh*pair is always produced in an \(I=0\) state as

*h*is a custodial symmetry singlet. On the other hand, as

*t*is a member of a custodial isospin doublet \((t,b)^T\), a \(t\bar{t}\) doublet can be projected to both \(I=0\) and \(I=1\), with

*t*and

*b*quarks interact proportionally to their masses which are so different, the reactions involving fermions considered here are not custodial invariant (and in fact we are neglecting all the time \(b \bar{b}\) pair production since \(M_t \gg M_b \simeq 0\)). The initial \(I=0\) \(\omega \omega \) or

*hh*states couple to \(|{t\bar{t}}\rangle \) in a superposition of \(|{I=0, I_z=0}\rangle \) and \(|{I=1, I_z=0}\rangle \).

If we concentrate in the \(J=0\) case, the parity of the \(I=J=0\) \(\omega \omega \) or *hh* pairs is positive; so must be that of the \(t\bar{t}\) state. The reason is that, though Eq. (14) contains parity-violating terms, the Feynman diagrams in Figs. 2 and 5 only employ the parity-conserving pieces of that equation.

*hh*states. Putting it in a p-wave would entail one more order in the chiral \((M_t,\sqrt{s})\) counting (depicted in Fig. 6).

## 6 Partial waves in perturbation theory

*Q*have the form

*hh*production. But, according to [53], \(c_1\in (1.0,\,1.7)\) at 2-\(\sigma \) confidence level. For comparison, we also give the line corresponding to \(c_1=1\), \(g_t=0\) (at \(\mu =3\)TeV) and with \(a=1\), so that the coupling to the \(\omega \omega \) sector is as in the Standard Model. As visible, the amplitude may grow with \(\sqrt{s}\) and may eventually violate perturbative unitarity (see Sect. 7 below for an extensive discussion). The parameters from the top sector can easily enhance this behavior: for example, a value \(g_t=0.03-0.05\) will already cause trouble with unitarity below \(3\,\mathrm{TeV}\), as the amplitude is seen to approach 1 rapidly. Likewise, example imaginary parts of this partial wave are shown in Fig. 8 (as this is not an elastic amplitude, the imaginary part can actually be negative depending on the parameter set).

*hh*and \(t \bar{t}\) states. We collect them all in a partial-wave amplitude-matrix, in the order just quoted,

*S*is the appropriate \(t \bar{t} \rightarrow t \bar{t} \) partial wave. This partial wave is of order \(M_t^2/v^2\), one order higher than we have retained, so we may consistently set it to zero against others that are \(M_t\sqrt{s}/(v^2)\). As the interactions considered here are

*T*-reversal invariant, this matrix is symmetric. Each of the elements has a right unitary cut starting at \(s=0\) associated with the threshold for producing \(\omega \omega \),

*hh*and \(t \bar{t}\) (which are all considered massless here in accordance with the use of the equivalence theorem in the mid- to high-energy region). The physical partial waves have support on this cut along \(s=E^2+i\epsilon \), where

*E*is the reaction’s center of mass energy. For these physical values, the unitarity condition for the

*F*matrix reads

*A*(

*s*),

*M*(

*s*) and

*T*(

*s*); and those of this work for

*Q*(

*s*) and

*N*(

*s*), are unitary only in the perturbative sense. We expand the matrix

*F*, using an obvious notation, as

*M*amplitude.

## 7 Partial-wave unitarization

*hh*decouples from \(\omega \omega \) elastic scattering. Thus, the reaction matrix can be written in \(2\times 2\) form as

*A*,

*Q*and

*S*amplitudes can be expanded as

*A*. As shown in [26, 27], Eq. (78d) can be satisfied by using the inverse amplitude method (IAM), which introduces the unitarized amplitude

*Q*we introduce

The unitarity condition for the *Q* amplitude linking \(\omega \omega \) and \(t\bar{t}\) introduced in Eq. (84) can now be checked numerically, and we have done so (not shown). Our numeric precision is, for the entire energy interval of interest up to \(3\,\mathrm{TeV}\), of order \(10^{-5}\) without any particular effort (and this small error probably stems from our setting *b* not quite equal to \(a^2\) to avoid numerical problems elsewhere, so that a tiny leak to the *hh* channel may be present), so that Watson’s final state theorem is well satisfied and the phase of the *Q* amplitude is correctly set to that of the strongly interacting \(A(\omega \omega \rightarrow \omega \omega )\).

*Q*amplitude, where we have set the parameter \(c_1\) to \(\pm 1\), differently from zero.

As can be seen in the figure, the resonance, a textbook Breit–Wigner resonance in the *A* elastic channel (EWSBS) appears as a dip due to its interference with the background in the \(Q(\omega \omega \rightarrow t\bar{t})\) amplitude. Of course, such dips will appear broadened and lessened after convolution with the parton distribution functions producing the top–antitop system, the hard kernels, and the reconstruction efficiency (and detector acceptance) of the final product decays. Though a full simulation is beyond the scope of this work, it is possible that they are observable, providing a signal that is not so often expected (as practitioners often seek excess cross sections). A similar phenomenon has been observed by [34] in interference between perturbative SM production \(WW\rightarrow t\bar{t}\) (the equivalent of our *Q* amplitude) and the s-channel production of \(t\bar{t}\) via a new resonance of \(\mathscr {O}\)(TeV) mass. The coincidence suggests that this may be a robust result. These interference phenomena of backgrounds and narrow resonances are well known in hadron physics [54, 55] and it would be interesting to discover them in the EWSBS.

*Q*,

*N*and

*S*are suppressed by \(M_t/v\) factors. In particular,

*M*or

*T*. On the RC, the unitarity relation \(\mathrm {Im}F = F F^\dagger \) applies, which leads to the set of Eq. (75), where we omit terms suppressed by higher powers of \(M_t/v\) in such a way that all equations are correct up to \(\mathscr {O}(M_t^2/v^2)\). This is essential to be able to decouple the unitarization of the WBGBs sector (the

*A*,

*M*and

*T*partial waves) from the \(t\bar{t}\) amplitudes. For the unitarization of the WBGBs sector we can use again the (coupled) IAM method. For this purpose, we first define the \(2\times 2\) matrix

*s*, and exact two-channel unitarity on the RC), that generalizes Eq. (83)

## 8 Discussion

The possibility of coupling of the top–antitop quark pair to the longitudinal gauge bosons has long been considered [56]. We have here carried out a study that, while keeping perturbation theory relatively simple , proceeds beyond it by implementing unitarity in the spirit of the final state interaction theorem. Here we neglect masses and transverse gauge couplings as well as lighter quarks, that is, we concentrate on the electroweak symmetry-breaking sector where new strong interactions appear.

In this article we have adopted an effective field theory approach extending the ECL to incorporate a light Higgs boson, namely the HEFT, and coupled the resulting system to the top–antitop sector at NLO in a double expansion in \(M_t/v\) and \(\sqrt{s}/v\).

We see in the figure that, for values of \(c_1\) further than one and half units from its SM value (\(c_1=1\)) or values of \(g_t\) of order 0.01, the interactions coupling \(\omega \omega \) and \(t\bar{t}\) become about 1/2 of the elastic \(\omega \omega \) ones, and more care is required in studying the amplitudes.

As long as the top-sector parameters are smaller, we may use the natural counting represented above in Fig. 6. Then we have obtained the NLO amplitudes and studied their perturbative unitarity in Eqs. (78a)–(78f) up to \(M_t^2/v^2\) terms. The satisfaction of these unitarity relation deteriorates with increasing energy.

We have also shown the effect of employing those NLO scattering amplitudes from perturbation theory as the low-energy information for a dispersive analysis that can reach the resonance region (\(E\sim 0.5\)–3 TeV) as encoded in the inverse amplitude method. This may prove useful if the LHC finds new resonances in the TeV region that it is exploring. It would be natural to take as starting point that any such resonances are related to electroweak symmetry breaking (otherwise why would they lie in this energy range), and their coupling to \(t\bar{t}\) would be a promising alley of experimental investigation.

The IAM can reproduce broad, \(\sigma \)-like resonances as that depicted in Fig. 11, driven by the LO parameter *a*, or narrow resonances such as that in Fig. 10. We look forward to good-statistics LHC data to guide theory in the choice of HEFT parameters.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

The authors thank useful conversations with D.Espriu, M.J. Herrero and J.J.Sanz-Cillero, and the very constructive and useful comments of an anonymous referee. A.Dobado thanks the CERN TH-Unit for its hospitality during the time some important parts of this work were done. R.L. Delgado thanks the SLAC Theory Group for its hospitality and encouragement. The work has been supported by the Spanish Grants No. UCM: 910309, MINECO:FPA2014-53375-C2-1-P and FPA2016-75654-C2-1-P, and by the grant MINECO:BES-2012- 056054 (R.L. Delgado). A. Castillo is indebted to the *Programa Nacional Doctoral of Colciencias-567* for its academic and financial support and also thanks kind hospitality and encouragement of the Group of Effective Theories in Modern Physics at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

## References

- 1.G. Aad et al., ATLAS Collaboration. Phys. Lett. B
**716**, 1 (2012)Google Scholar - 2.S. Chatrchyan et al., CMS Collaboration. Phys. Lett. B
**716**, 30 (2012)Google Scholar - 3.G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2012-168Google Scholar
- 4.S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration] Report No. CMS-HIG-12-015Google Scholar
- 5.S. Chatrchyan et al., CMS Collaboration. Phys. Lett. B
**704**, 123 (2011)Google Scholar - 6.G. Aad et al., ATLAS Collaboration. Phys. Lett. B
**712**, 22 (2012)Google Scholar - 7.G. Aad et al., ATLAS Collaboration. Phys. Lett. B
**722**, 305 (2013)Google Scholar - 8.D. Espriu, F. Mescia, B. Yencho, Phys. Rev. D
**88**, 055002 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.A. Azatov, R. Contino, J. Galloway, JHEP
**1204**, 127 (2012) [Erratum-ibid.**1304**, 140 (2013)]Google Scholar - 10.I. Brivio, T. Corbett, O.J.P. Éboli, M.B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, JHEP
**1403**, 024 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.R. Alonso et al., Phys. Lett. B
**722**, 330 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.A. Pich, I. Rosell, J.J. Sanz-Cillero, EPJ Web Conf.
**60**, 19009 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, M. Trott, JHEP
**1310**, 087 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian, O. Mattelaer, H. Mebane, T. Stelzer, S. Willenbrock, C. Zhang, Ann. Phys.
**335**, 21 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.G. Buchalla, O. Catà, C. Krause, Nucl. Phys. B
**880**, 552 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.G. Buchalla, O. Cata, JHEP
**1207**, 101 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.T. Appelquist, C. Bernard, Phys. Rev. D
**22**, 200 (1980)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.A. Longhitano, Phys. Rev. D
**22**, 1166 (1980)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.A. Longhitano, Nucl. Phys. B
**188**, 118 (1981)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.A. Dobado, D. Espriu, M.J. Herrero, Phys. Lett. B
**255**, 405 (1991)Google Scholar - 21.B. Holdom, J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B
**247**, 88 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.M. Golden, L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B
**361**, 3 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.S. Weinberg, Phys. A
**96**, 327 (1979)Google Scholar - 24.J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys.
**158**, 142 (1984)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B
**250**, 465–517 (1985)Google Scholar - 26.R.L. Delgado, A. Dobado, F.J. Llanes-Estrada, JHEP
**1402**, 121 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.R.L. Delgado, A. Dobado, F.J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**114**(22), 221803 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.R.L. Delgado, A. Dobado, F.J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Rev. D
**91**(7), 075017 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.W. Kilian, T. Ohl, J. Reuter, M. Sekulla, Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 096007 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.M. Sekulla, W. Kilian, T. Ohl, J. Reuter, PoS LHCP
**2016**, 052 (2016)Google Scholar - 31.P. Arnan, D. Espriu, F. Mescia, Phys. Rev. D
**93**(1), 015020 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.T. Corbett, O.J.P. Éboli, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D
**93**(1), 015005 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.R. Franceschini, Nuovo Cim. C
**39**(4), 340 (2017)ADSGoogle Scholar - 34.A. Djouadi, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon, JHEP
**1607**, 105 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 35.B. Hespel, F. Maltoni, E. Vryonidou, JHEP
**1610**, 016 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.M. Czakon, D. Heymes, A. Mitov, D. Pagani, I. Tsinikos, M. Zaro, (2017). arXiv:1705.04105 [hep-ph]
- 37.G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Coll.], JHEP
**1605**, 160 (2016)Google Scholar - 38.F. Fabbri [ATLAS Collaboration], Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.
**282–284**, 63 (2017)Google Scholar - 39.V. Khachatryan et al., CMS Collaboration. Phys. Rev. D
**94**(7), 072002 (2016)Google Scholar - 40.D. Jeon [CMS Collaboration], EPJ Web Conf.
**141**, 08011 (2017)Google Scholar - 41.J.M. Cornwall, D.N. Levin, G. Tiktopoulos, Phys. Rev. D
**10**, 1145 (1974)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.C.E. Vayonakis, Lett. Nuovo Cim.
**17**, 383 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.B.W. Lee, C. Quigg, H. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D
**16**, 1519 (1977)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.M.S. Chanowitz, M.K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys.
**261**, 379 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 45.M.S. Chanowitz, M. Golden, H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. D
**36**, 1490 (1987)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 46.A. Dobado, J.R. Peláez, Nucl. Phys. B
**425**, 110 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 47.A. Dobado, J.R. Peláez, Phys. Lett. B
**329**, 469 (1994) [Addendum, ibid, B**335**, 554 (1994)]Google Scholar - 48.A. Dobado, M.J. Herrero, T.N. Truong, Phys. Lett. B
**235**, 129 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 49.A. Dobado, M.J. Herrero, T.N. Truong, Phys. Lett. B
**235**, 134 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 50.A. Dobado, J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D
**47**, 4883 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 51.A. Dobado, J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. D
**56**, 3057 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 52.R.L. Delgado, A. Dobado, F.J. Llanes-Estrada, J. Phys. G
**41**, 025002 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 53.G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis, C. Krause, Eur. Phys. J. C
**76**(5), 233 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 54.M. Harada, F. Sannino, J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D
**54**, 1991 (1996)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 55.J.A. Oller, E. Oset, J.R. Pelaez, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**80**, 3452 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 56.H.G.J. Veltman, Phys. Rev. D
**43**, 2236 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}