4.4 Article

Renormalization group evolution of the Standard Model dimension six operators III: gauge coupling dependence and phenomenology

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2014)159

关键词

Renormalization Group; Standard Model; Beyond Standard Model

资金

  1. DOE [DE-SC0009919]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We calculate the gauge terms of the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix for the dimension-six operators of the Standard Model effective field theory (SM EFT). Combining these results with our previous results for the lambda and Yukawa coupling terms completes the calculation of the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix for the dimension-six operators. There are 1350 CP-even and 1149 CP-odd parameters in the dimension-six Lagrangian for 3 generations, and our results give the entire 2499 x 2499 anomalous dimension matrix. We discuss how the renormalization of the dimension-six operators, and the additional renormalization of the dimension d <= 4 terms of the SM Lagrangian due to dimension-six operators, lays the groundwork for future precision studies of the SM EFT aimed at constraining the effects of new physics through precision measurements at the electroweak scale. As some sample applications, we discuss some aspects of the full RGE improved result for essential processes such as gg -> h, h -> gamma gamma and h -> Z gamma, for Higgs couplings to fermions, for the precision electroweak parameters S and T, and for the operators that modify important processes in precision electroweak phenomenology, such as the three-body Higgs boson decay h -> Z l(+) l-and triple gauge boson couplings. We discuss how the renormalization group improved results can be used to study the flavor problem in the SM EFT, and to test the minimal flavor violation (MFV) hypothesis. We briefly discuss the renormalization effects on the dipole coefficient C-e gamma which contributes to mu -> e gamma and to the muon and electron magnetic and electric dipole moments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据