On the consistent use of constructed observables

Journal of High Energy Physics

Volumn 2015, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 1-23

  Trott, Michael ^a,b  

^a CERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Beyond Standard Model; Effective field theories; Higgs Physics

Indexed keywords

EID: 84934874546     PISSN: 11266708     EISSN: 10298479     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2015)046     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian, JHEP10 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884] [INSPIRE].
2. W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation, Nucl. Phys.B 268 (1986) 621 [INSPIRE].
3. S. Weinberg, Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry, Phys. Rev.166 (1968) 1568 [INSPIRE].
4. C.G. Callan Jr., S.R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2, Phys. Rev.177 (1969) 2247 [INSPIRE].
5. H.D. Politzer, Power corrections at short distances, Nucl. Phys.B 172 (1980) 349 [INSPIRE].
6. M. Gonzalez-Alonso, A. Greljo, G. Isidori and D. Marzocca, Pseudo-observables in Higgs decays, arXiv:1412.6038 [INSPIRE].
7. C. Grojean, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group scaling of Higgs operators and Γ(h → γγ), JHEP04 (2013) 016 [arXiv:1301.2588] [INSPIRE].
8. E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators I: formalism and λ dependence, JHEP10 (2013) 087 [arXiv:1308.2627] [INSPIRE].
9. E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators II: Yukawa dependence, JHEP01 (2014) 035 [arXiv:1310.4838] [INSPIRE].
10. R. Alonso, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the standard model dimension six operators III: gauge coupling dependence and phenomenology, JHEP04 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014] [INSPIRE].
11. R. Alonso, E.E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar, Holomorphy without supersymmetry in the standard model effective field theory, arXiv:1409.0868 [INSPIRE].
12. R. Alonso, H.-M. Chang, E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and B. Shotwell, Renormalization group evolution of dimension-six baryon number violating operators, Phys. Lett.B 734 (2014) 302 [arXiv:1405.0486] [INSPIRE].
13. A. Pomarol and F. Riva, Towards the ultimate SM fit to close in on Higgs physics, JHEP01 (2014) 151 [arXiv:1308.2803] [INSPIRE].
14. G. Sanchez-Colon and J. Wudka, Effective operator contributions to the oblique parameters, Phys. Lett.B 432 (1998) 383 [hep-ph/9805366] [INSPIRE].
15. W. Kilian and J. Reuter, The low-energy structure of little Higgs models, Phys. Rev.D 70 (2004) 015004 [hep-ph/0311095] [INSPIRE].
16. C. Grojean, W. Skiba and J. Terning, Disguising the oblique parameters, Phys. Rev.D 73 (2006) 075008 [hep-ph/0602154] [INSPIRE].
17. G. D’Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: an effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys.B 645 (2002) 155 [hep-ph/0207036] [INSPIRE].
18. Z. Han and W. Skiba, Effective theory analysis of precision electroweak data, Phys. Rev.D 71 (2005) 075009 [hep-ph/0412166] [INSPIRE].
19. R.S. Gupta, A. Pomarol and F. Riva, BSM primary effects, arXiv:1405.0181 [INSPIRE].
20. D.C. Kennedy and B.W. Lynn, Electroweak radiative corrections with an effective Lagrangian: four fermion processes, Nucl. Phys.B 322 (1989) 1 [INSPIRE].
21. M.E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, A new constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector, Phys. Rev. Lett.65 (1990) 964 [INSPIRE].
22. B. Holdom and J. Terning, Large corrections to electroweak parameters in technicolor theories, Phys. Lett.B 247 (1990) 88 [INSPIRE].
23. M. Golden and L. Randall, Radiative corrections to electroweak parameters in technicolor theories, Nucl. Phys.B 361 (1991) 3 [INSPIRE].
24. G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, Vacuum polarization effects of new physics on electroweak processes, Phys. Lett.B 253 (1991) 161 [INSPIRE].
25. M.E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections, Phys. Rev.D 46 (1992) 381 [INSPIRE].
26. Particle Data Group collaboration, J. Beringer et al., Review of particle physics (RPP), Phys. Rev.D 86 (2012) 010001 [INSPIRE].
27. B. Grinstein and M.B. Wise, Operator analysis for precision electroweak physics, Phys. Lett.B 265 (1991) 326 [INSPIRE].
28. Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of particle physics (RPP) — status of Higgs boson physics, http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf, November 2013.
29. −collisions at LEP2, Eur. Phys. J.C 66 (2010) 35 [arXiv:1002.0752] [INSPIRE].
30. ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group and SLD Heavy Flavour Group collaborations, S. Schael et al., Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rept.427 (2006) 257 [hep-ex/0509008] [INSPIRE].
31. −, Nucl. Phys.B 282 (1987) 253 [INSPIRE].
32. K. Hagiwara, S. Ishihara, R. Szalapski and D. Zeppenfeld, Low-energy constraints on electroweak three gauge boson couplings, Phys. Lett.B 283 (1992) 353 [INSPIRE].
33. −vertex at the Large Hadron Collider at 7 TeV, Phys. Lett.B 692 (2010) 20 [arXiv:1006.3562] [INSPIRE].
34. T. Corbett, O.J.P. Eboli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile and M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Robust determination of the Higgs couplings: power to the data, Phys. Rev.D 87 (2013) 015022 [arXiv:1211.4580] [INSPIRE].
35. T. Corbett, O.J.P. Éboli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile and M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Determining triple gauge boson couplings from Higgs data, Phys. Rev. Lett.111 (2013) 011801 [arXiv:1304.1151] [INSPIRE].
36. A. De Rujula, M.B. Gavela, P. Hernández and E. Masso, The selfcouplings of vector bosons: does LEP-1 obviate LEP-2?, Nucl. Phys.B 384 (1992) 3 [INSPIRE].
37. G. Brooijmans et al., Les Houches 2013 — physics at TeV colliders: new physics working group report, arXiv:1405.1617 [INSPIRE].
38. J. Ellis, V. Sanz and T. You, Complete Higgs sector constraints on dimension-6 operators, JHEP07 (2014) 036 [arXiv:1404.3667] [INSPIRE].
39. G. Isidori and M. Trott, Higgs form factors in associated production, JHEP02 (2014) 082 [arXiv:1307.4051] [INSPIRE].
40. I. Brivio et al., Disentangling a dynamical Higgs, JHEP03 (2014) 024 [arXiv:1311.1823] [INSPIRE].
41. A. De Rujula, J. Lykken, M. Pierini, C. Rogan and M. Spiropulu, Higgs look-alikes at the LHC, Phys. Rev.D 82 (2010) 013003 [arXiv:1001.5300] [INSPIRE].
42. J.S. Gainer, J. Lykken, K.T. Matchev, S. Mrenna and M. Park, Geolocating the Higgs boson candidate at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.111 (2013) 041801 [arXiv:1304.4936] [INSPIRE].
43. G. Isidori, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Probing the nature of the Higgs-like boson via h → Vℱ decays, Phys. Lett.B 728 (2014) 131 [arXiv:1305.0663] [INSPIRE].
44. B. Grinstein, C.W. Murphy and D. Pirtskhalava, Searching for new physics in the three-body decays of the Higgs-like particle, JHEP10 (2013) 077 [arXiv:1305.6938] [INSPIRE].
45. −, Eur. Phys. J.C 74 (2014) 2798 [arXiv:1310.2574] [INSPIRE].
46. − →HZ, JHEP11 (2014) 028 [arXiv:1406.1361] [INSPIRE].
47. 34: standard model vs. light new physics, Phys. Lett.B 733 (2014) 359 [arXiv:1403.2648] [INSPIRE].