Abstract
The ongoing Effective Field Theory (EFT) program at the LHC and elsewhere is motivated by streamlining the connection between experimental data and UV-complete scenarios of heavy new physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM). This connection is provided by matching relations mapping the Wilson coefficients of the EFT to the couplings and masses of UV-complete models. Building upon recent work on the automation of tree-level and one-loop matching in the SMEFT, we present a novel strategy automating the constraint-setting procedure on the parameter space of general heavy UV-models matched to dimension-six SMEFT operators. A new Mathematica package, match2fit, interfaces MatchMakerEFT, which derives the matching relations for a given UV model, and SMEFiT, which provides bounds on the Wilson coefficients by comparing with data. By means of this pipeline and using both tree-level and one-loop matching, we derive bounds on a wide range of single- and multi-particle extensions of the SM from a global dataset composed by LHC and LEP measurements. Whenever possible, we benchmark our results with existing studies. Our framework realises one of the main objectives of the EFT program in particle physics: deploying the SMEFT to bypass the need of directly comparing the predictions of heavy UV models with experimental data.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work, arXiv:2303.16922 [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martín, J. Portoles and P. Ruiz-Femenia, Integrating out heavy particles with functional methods: a simplified framework, JHEP 09 (2016) 156 [arXiv:1607.02142] [INSPIRE].
J. de Blas, J.C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago, Effective description of general extensions of the standard model: the complete tree-level dictionary, JHEP 03 (2018) 109 [arXiv:1711.10391] [INSPIRE].
S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty and S.K. Patra, CoDEx: Wilson coefficient calculator connecting SMEFT to UV theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 21 [arXiv:1808.04403] [INSPIRE].
M. Krämer, B. Summ and A. Voigt, Completing the scalar and fermionic universal one-loop effective action, JHEP 01 (2020) 079 [arXiv:1908.04798] [INSPIRE].
V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca and E. Venturini, Matching scalar leptoquarks to the SMEFT at one loop, JHEP 07 (2020) 225 [Erratum ibid. 01 (2021) 006] [arXiv:2003.12525] [INSPIRE].
A. Angelescu and P. Huang, Integrating out new fermions at one loop, JHEP 01 (2021) 049 [arXiv:2006.16532] [INSPIRE].
S.A.R. Ellis et al., The fermionic universal one-loop effective action, JHEP 11 (2020) 078 [arXiv:2006.16260] [INSPIRE].
T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, STrEAMlining EFT matching, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 098 [arXiv:2012.07851] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martín et al., SuperTracer: a calculator of functional supertraces for one-loop EFT matching, JHEP 04 (2021) 281 [arXiv:2012.08506] [INSPIRE].
B. Summ, One formula to match them all: the bispinor universal one-loop effective action, Ph.D. thesis, RWTH Aachen U., Aachen, Germany (2020) [arXiv:2103.02487] [INSPIRE].
A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso and J. Santiago, Matchmakereft: automated tree-level and one-loop matching, SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 198 [arXiv:2112.10787] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martín et al., Evanescent operators in one-loop matching computations, JHEP 02 (2023) 031 [arXiv:2211.09144] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martín et al., A proof of concept for matchete: an automated tool for matching effective theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 662 [arXiv:2212.04510] [INSPIRE].
S. De Angelis and G. Durieux, EFT matching from analyticity and unitarity, arXiv:2308.00035 [INSPIRE].
U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, S.U. Rahaman and K. Ramkumar, One-loop effective action up to dimension eight: integrating out heavy scalar(s), arXiv:2306.09103 [INSPIRE].
J. Chakrabortty, S.U. Rahaman and K. Ramkumar, One-loop effective action up to dimension eight: integrating out heavy fermion(s), arXiv:2308.03849 [INSPIRE].
J. Ellis et al., Top, Higgs, diboson and electroweak fit to the standard model effective field theory, JHEP 04 (2021) 279 [arXiv:2012.02779] [INSPIRE].
I. Brivio et al., From models to SMEFT and back?, SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 036 [arXiv:2108.01094] [INSPIRE].
Anisha et al., Effective limits on single scalar extensions in the light of recent LHC data, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 055028 [arXiv:2111.05876] [INSPIRE].
A. Greljo and A. Palavrić, Leading directions in the SMEFT, JHEP 09 (2023) 009 [arXiv:2305.08898] [INSPIRE].
N.P. Hartland et al., A Monte Carlo global analysis of the standard model effective field theory: the top quark sector, JHEP 04 (2019) 100 [arXiv:1901.05965] [INSPIRE].
S. van Beek, E.R. Nocera, J. Rojo and E. Slade, Constraining the SMEFT with Bayesian reweighting, SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 070 [arXiv:1906.05296] [INSPIRE].
J.J. Ethier, R. Gomez-Ambrosio, G. Magni and J. Rojo, SMEFT analysis of vector boson scattering and diboson data from the LHC run II, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 560 [arXiv:2101.03180] [INSPIRE].
SMEFiT collaboration, Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC, JHEP 11 (2021) 089 [arXiv:2105.00006] [INSPIRE].
T. Giani, G. Magni and J. Rojo, SMEFiT: a flexible toolbox for global interpretations of particle physics data with effective field theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 393 [arXiv:2302.06660] [INSPIRE].
I. Brivio and M. Trott, The standard model as an effective field theory, Phys. Rept. 793 (2019) 1 [arXiv:1706.08945] [INSPIRE].
S.A.R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang, Extending the universal one-loop effective action: heavy-light coefficients, JHEP 08 (2017) 054 [arXiv:1706.07765] [INSPIRE].
J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber, The CP conserving two Higgs doublet model: the approach to the decoupling limit, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 075019 [hep-ph/0207010] [INSPIRE].
J. Bernon et al., Scrutinizing the alignment limit in two-Higgs-doublet models: mh = 125 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 075004 [arXiv:1507.00933] [INSPIRE].
J.C. Criado, MatchingTools: a python library for symbolic effective field theory calculations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 227 (2018) 42 [arXiv:1710.06445] [INSPIRE].
B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884] [INSPIRE].
M. Chala, Á. Díaz-Carmona and G. Guedes, A Green’s basis for the bosonic SMEFT to dimension 8, JHEP 05 (2022) 138 [arXiv:2112.12724] [INSPIRE].
Z. Ren and J.-H. Yu, A complete set of the dimension-8 Green’s basis operators in the standard model effective field theory, arXiv:2211.01420 [INSPIRE].
R. Aoude et al., Renormalisation group effects on SMEFT interpretations of LHC data, JHEP 09 (2023) 191 [arXiv:2212.05067] [INSPIRE].
Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics, PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01 [INSPIRE].
C. Zhang, SMEFTs living on the edge: determining the UV theories from positivity and extremality, JHEP 12 (2022) 096 [arXiv:2112.11665] [INSPIRE].
ALEPH et al. collaborations, Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257 [hep-ex/0509008] [INSPIRE].
ATLAS collaboration, Combined effective field theory interpretation of Higgs boson and weak boson production and decay with ATLAS data and electroweak precision observables, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-037, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland (2022).
J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [arXiv:1405.0301] [INSPIRE].
C. Degrande et al., Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 096024 [arXiv:2008.11743] [INSPIRE].
SMEFiT collaboration, Electroweak precision observables in the SMEFT from LEP to future colliders, in preparation (2023).
D. Marzocca et al., BSM benchmarks for effective field theories in Higgs and electroweak physics, arXiv:2009.01249 [INSPIRE].
G.E. Box and G.C. Tiao, Standard normal theory inference problems, in Bayesian inference in statistical analysis, chapter 2, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., U.S.A. (1992), p. 76 [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118033197.ch2].
L. Di Luzio, J.F. Kamenik and M. Nardecchia, Implications of perturbative unitarity for scalar di-boson resonance searches at LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 30 [arXiv:1604.05746] [INSPIRE].
D. Barducci, M. Nardecchia and C. Toni, Perturbative unitarity constraints on generic vector interactions, JHEP 09 (2023) 134 [arXiv:2306.11533] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martín, P. Ruiz-Femenia, A. Vicente and J. Virto, DsixTools 2.0: the effective field theory toolkit, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 167 [arXiv:2010.16341] [INSPIRE].
S. Di Noi and L. Silvestrini, RGESolver: a C++ library to perform renormalization group evolution in the standard model effective theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 200 [arXiv:2210.06838] [INSPIRE].
F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson, E. Cameron and A.N. Pettitt, Importance nested sampling and the MultiNest algorithm, Open J. Astrophys. 2 (2019) 10 [arXiv:1306.2144] [INSPIRE].
F. Feroz and M.P. Hobson, Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to MCMC methods for astronomical data analysis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 384 (2008) 449 [arXiv:0704.3704] [INSPIRE].
I. Brivio and M. Trott, Scheming in the SMEFT. . . And a reparameterization invariance!, JHEP 07 (2017) 148 [Addendum ibid. 05 (2018) 136] [arXiv:1701.06424] [INSPIRE].
Z. Kassabov et al., The top quark legacy of the LHC run II for PDF and SMEFT analyses, JHEP 05 (2023) 205 [arXiv:2303.06159] [INSPIRE].
A. Greljo et al., Parton distributions in the SMEFT from high-energy Drell-Yan tails, JHEP 07 (2021) 122 [arXiv:2104.02723] [INSPIRE].
NNPDF collaboration, The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 428 [arXiv:2109.02653] [INSPIRE].
J. Aebischer et al., WCxf: an exchange format for Wilson coefficients beyond the standard model, Comput. Phys. Commun. 232 (2018) 71 [arXiv:1712.05298] [INSPIRE].
R. Alonso, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators. Part III. Gauge coupling dependence and phenomenology, JHEP 04 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014] [INSPIRE].
A.E. Thomsen, Introducing RGBeta: a Mathematica package for the evaluation of renormalization group β-functions, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 408 [arXiv:2101.08265] [INSPIRE].
P. Ferreira, H.E. Haber and E. Santos, Preserving the validity of the two-Higgs doublet model up to the Planck scale, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 033003 [Erratum ibid. 94 (2016) 059903] [arXiv:1505.04001] [INSPIRE].
S. Dawson, S. Homiller and S.D. Lane, Putting standard model EFT fits to work, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 055012 [arXiv:2007.01296] [INSPIRE].
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge useful discussions with J. Santiago, M. Chala, K. Mimasu, C. Severi, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, T. Giani, J. Pagès, A. Thomsen, and Y. Oda. A. R. thanks the High Energy Theory Group of Universidad de Granada and Theory Group of Nikhef for their hospitality during early stages of this work. The work of A. R. and E. V. is supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 949451) and by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship through grant URF/R1/201553. The work of J. t. H. and G. M is supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO). The work of J. R. is supported by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and by the Netherlands eScience Center.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ArXiv ePrint: 2309.04523
Rights and permissions
Open Access . This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
ter Hoeve, J., Magni, G., Rojo, J. et al. The automation of SMEFT-assisted constraints on UV-complete models. J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 179 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2024)179
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2024)179