Sensitivity on Anomalous Neutral Triple Gauge Couplings via $ZZ$ Production at FCC-hh
A. Yilmaz, A. Senol, H. Denizli, I. Turk Cakir, O. Cakir

TL;DR
This study evaluates the sensitivity of future FCC-hh collider experiments to anomalous neutral triple gauge couplings via ZZ production in the four-lepton channel, providing projected bounds at 95% confidence level.
Contribution
It presents the first detailed sensitivity analysis of anomalous neutral triple gauge couplings at 100 TeV FCC-hh collider including realistic detector effects.
Findings
Projected bounds on CP-conserving couplings are approximately ±0.117 TeV^{-4}.
Projected bounds on CP-violating couplings range from about ±0.138 to ±0.380 TeV^{-4}.
Analysis demonstrates the potential of FCC-hh to probe new physics via ZZ production.
Abstract
We study the sensitivity of anomalous neutral triple gauge couplings () via production in the 4 channel at 100 TeV centre of mass energy of future circular hadron collider, \verb"FCC-hh". The analysis including the realistic detector effects is performed in the mode where both Z bosons decay into same flavor, oppositely charged lepton pairs. The sensitivities to the charge-parity (CP)-conserving and CP-violating , and couplings obtained at 95\% Confidence Level (C.L.) using the invariant mass distribution of 4 system reconstructing the leading and sub-leading Z boson candidates are , , , and in the unit of TeV, respectively.
| Cuts | Definition |
|---|---|
| Cut-0 | Preselection: 4 and |
| two same-flavor opposite-charge lepton pairs | |
| Cut-1 | Dileptons minimizing are taken as |
| Z boson pair candidates | |
| Cut-2 | Transverse momentum: 20 GeV, 12 GeV (10 GeV) |
| for and 5 GeV | |
| Cut-3 | Pseudo-rapidity: 2.5 |
| Cut-4 | 0.02 between all leptons |
| Cut-5 | Invariant mass: 80 (leading Z) 100 GeV and |
| 60 (subleading Z) 110 GeV |
| Channel | Signal | Background | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16308 | 13991 | 30299 | |
| 32477 | 26850 | 59327 | |
| 76404 | 71755 | 148159 |
| Couplings | Limits at 95% C.L. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
\floatsetup
[table]capposition=top
Sensitivity on Anomalous Neutral Triple Gauge Couplings via Production at FCC-hh
A. Yilmaz
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Giresun University, 28200, Giresun, Turkey
A. Senol
H. Denizli
Department of Physics, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, 14280 Bolu, Turkey
I. Turk Cakir
Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Giresun University, 28200 Giresun, Turkey
O. Cakir
Department of Physics, Ankara University, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
Abstract
We study the sensitivity of anomalous neutral triple gauge couplings () via production in the 4 channel at 100 TeV centre of mass energy of future circular hadron collider, FCC-hh. The analysis including the realistic detector effects is performed in the mode where both Z bosons decay into same flavor, oppositely charged lepton pairs. The sensitivities to the charge-parity (CP)-conserving and CP-violating , and couplings obtained at 95% Confidence Level (C.L.) using the invariant mass distribution of 4 system reconstructing the leading and sub-leading Z boson candidates are , , , and in the unit of TeV*-4*, respectively.
I Introduction
The studies on the diboson production at colliders play an important role in testing the non-Abelian SU (2) gauge group of the electroweak sector in the Standard Model (SM) and searching for new phenomena at the TeV-energy scale Neubauer (2011). Since there is no triple gauge couplings between the photon and boson ( and ) except and in the SM, pairs of bosons cannot be created at a single vertex in the SM. Therefore any deviations from SM predictions on neutral triple gauge couplings (including , and vertices) can give an indication about new physics beyond the SM. The new physics effects at high energy can be parametrized in the Effective Field Theory (EFT) approach. This theory is general enough to point the most probable places to observe these effects since it is renormalizable, includes the gauge symmetries of the standard model and can be used at both tree level and loop level. There is no concern on violating of the unitary of anomalous couplings in scattering processes at higher energies according to this theory. Anomalous NTG vertices can be added in an effective Lagrangian using EFT approach and parametrized by CP-conserving and CP-violating couplings, while no SM NTGC is present at tree-level Green, Meade, and Pleier (2017).
The production of dibosons in the 4 final state have been studied by various collaborations such as the Large Electron-Positron (LEP) Barate et al. (1999); Acciarri et al. (1999); Abdallah et al. (2003); Abbiendi et al. (2003); Alcaraz et al. (2006); Schael et al. (2013) where the first bounds on anomalous neutral triple gauge couplings (aNTGCs) using e+e- collider was obtained, the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) Aaltonen et al. (2012, 2014) and Abazov et al. (2008, 2013) also searched the limits of aNTGC at Tevatron collider. Recently, ATLAS Aad et al. (2016); Aaboud, Aad et al. (2018) and CMS Aaboud et al. (2018); Sirunyan et al. (2018) collaborations published the improved limits of aNTGCs thanks to the center of mass energy of LHC in the range of 13 TeV at the LHC. This high center of mass energy leads to enhance the cross-section which would widen the range of triple gauge coupling studies. There are also some phenomenological studies for probing the sensitivities of aNTGCs at hadron colliders in the EFT framework Senol (2014); Mangano (2016); Frye et al. (2016); Dorigo (2018); Senol et al. (2018).
The dimension-eight (dim-8) effective Lagrangian for nTGC in the scope of EFT assuming the local U(1)EM and Lorentz symmetry can be written as Degrande (2014)
[TABLE]
where is the index of equations running over the operators given as
[TABLE]
where is dual strength tensor. We used the convention given below in the definitions of the operators
[TABLE]
with and
[TABLE]
The coefficients of these four dimension-eight operators describing aNTGC are CP-conserving and CP-violating , and couplings.
The current limits on , , and couplings of dim-8 operators converted from the couplings of dim-6 operators for the process Aaboud, Aad et al. (2018) where or and Collaboration (2018) at the center of mass energy TeV and integrated luminosity fb*-1* from the LHC are given in Table 1. In this table, all couplings other than the one under study are set to zero.
The future circular collider project, FCC FCC , proposed to have three collider options (FCC-ee, FCC-eh and FCC-hh) working at different center of mass energies. The hadron collider option of FCC (FCC-hh) is planned to reach an integrated luminosity of 20-30 ab*-1* at 100 TeV center mass energy. FCC-hh, comparing to LHC, has the energy scale by a factor about 7 depending on the process Benedikt et al. (2018).
Exploring the new physics effects in the production of diboson is a challenging task. In the literature ZZ diboson production has been examined in 2 decay channels such as “22” and “4” channel Green, Meade, and Pleier (2017). In the first channel 22, one of the Z decays into a neutrino while the other one decaying into a same flavor, oppositely-charged two leptons which leads to increase in the missing transfer energy in the final state. Therefore this channel exposes to a larger background contribution and it is not kinematically reconstructable completely. In the second decay channel 4, not only the first Z boson, but also the other Z boson decays into a same-flavor, oppositely charged two leptons. This process gives rise to include a very low background and kinematically reconstructable in the final state. On the other hand, one needs to take into account the process has small branching fractions results with a low statistics in the final state.
This paper will be organized as follows: In section II we will discuss the simulation environment of diboson production for signal and background at FCC-hh collider. Event selection procedures of our phenomenological study in the 4 final state will be given in section III. In section IV, we will give the collected results for 4 final state analysis. Conclusions on the sensitivities of each couplings will be summarized in section V.
II Generation of signal and background events
To obtain the bounds on aNTGC parameters of diboson production in the framework of the EFT at the FCC-hh. We generated signal and background events for the process by importing the signal aTGC implemented through UFO model file into MadGraph5_aMC@NLO v2.6.4 Alwall et al. (2014). The PYTHIA v8.2 Sjöstrand et al. (2015) package is used for parton showering and hadronization. LHAPDF v6.1.6 Buckley et al. (2015) library and its NNPDF v2.3 Ball et al. (2013) set is used as the default set of parton distribution functions (PDFs) for all simulated MC samples. events of the signal and the background were generated for each dim-8 couplings. The detector response is simulated using a detailed description of the FCC-hh detector card implemented in the Delphes v3.4.1 de Favereau et al. (2014). All events are analyzed by using the ExRootAnalysis Demin package with ROOT v6.16 Brun and Rademakers (1997). The kinematical distributions are normalized to the number of expected events which is defined to be the cross section of each processes including the branchings times integrated luminosity of = 10 ab*-1*.
Feynman diagrams that contribute to the signal and its main-background processes are shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b), respectively. The red dot represents the aNTGC vertex in the production of .
The cross section is calculated with a set of generator level cuts; a lepton is declared to be isolated if the -sum of all particles within the isolation cone size Riso = 0.3, minimum = 10 GeV and 2.5 for the charged leptons. In the calculations, default mass of the boson is used as 91.187 GeV.
The cross sections of the process as a function of mentioned four dim-8 couplings are shown in Fig. 2. In this figure, only one coupling at a time is varied from its SM value and plotted as a function of couplings in the range of limits reported by CMS Collaboration Sirunyan et al. (2018). One can clearly see the deviation from the SM.
III Event selection
We consider 4 final state in our analysis based on Ref. Sirunyan et al. (2018) including three possible options; , , and . The preselection for this analysis require the presence of a pair of leptons of the same or different flavors Khachatryan et al. (2017). All permutations of leptons giving a pair of candidates are considered within each event. The pairing ambiguity is resolved by ordering the pair of dilepton candidates based on the differences between the reconstructed invariant mass of dilepton canditate () and nominal boson mass . Therefore, the dilepton candidate with an invariant mass closest to the nominal boson mass Tanabashi et al. (2018), is denoted while the second closest is defined as .
In order to see the region where the signal can be enhanced we plotted the transverse momentum of leptons (, ) versus the reconstructed invariant mass of the and as shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 for 4, 4 and 22 channels, respectively. is labelled as the highest- lepton in both and . The cut for highest lepton is greater than 20 GeV, and for the subleading lepton is 12 GeV (10 GeV) in the , while the remaining leptons in the must have 5 GeV for electrons (muons).
The pseudo-rapidity cuts of all leptons are applied as 2.5. The distance between leptons in - plane is evaluated by the function
[TABLE]
and plotted in Fig. 6. This figure shows distributions between two leptons of leading and subleading Z in the first and second column. Each row corresponds to different decay channel aligned for 4, 4 and 22, respectively. In order to meet the detector requirement, we applied a cut for all leptons are separated from each others by imposing 0.02.
The sensitivity is estimated by using events where a further cut is applied for both invariant mass of and bosons must be within the range 80 100 GeV and 60 110 GeV, respectively. This ranges were chosen to keep most of the decays in the resonance while removing mostly other processes with 4 final states. Decays of the bosons to leptons with subsequent decays to electrons and muons are heavily suppressed by requirements on lepton .The cut flow steps in the analysis for selecting the events are summarized in Table 2.
After applying the kinematical cuts discussed above, the reconstructed invariant mass of the boson candidates, and a scatter plot showing the correlation between boson versus boson in simulated events, are shown in Fig. 7.
IV Results
To obtain 95% C.L. limits on the couplings, we apply criterion without and with a systematic error. The function is defined as follows
[TABLE]
where is the total number of events in the existence of effective couplings, is total number of events of the corresponding SM backgrounds in th bin of the invariant mass of the quartet-leptons distribution, is the combined systematic () and statistical errors in each bin.
The existence of aTGCs will lead to enhance the yield of events at quadruplet-lepton masses. The distribution of the quadruplet-lepton reconstructed mass of events with both leading and subleading bosons in the mass range 60–120 GeV for the unified 4, 4, and 22 channels are depicted in Fig. 9. The limits on probable contributions from aNTGCs are extracted by using this distributions.
For the analysis of production with in the final state, the number of signal events and one-parameter results for each couplings varied with integrated luminosity from 1 ab*-1* to 30 ab*-1*. In the analysis, only one coupling at a time is varied from its SM value. The results from analysis of the couplings describing aTGC interactions of neutral gauge bosons. The coefficients of the operators denoted as , , and are given in Fig. 10.
We present the results of one-dimensional 95% C.L. confidence intervals at = 10 ab*-1* under the assumption that any excess in signal over background due exclusively to , , or are given in Table 4. We also include the effects of systematic errors on the limits. The obtained limits without systematic errosr are one order better than the current limits on these couplings of dim-8 operators converted from the couplings of dim-6 operators for the process Aaboud, Aad et al. (2018) at the center of mass energy TeV and integrated luminosity fb*-1* from the LHC.
V Conclusion and Discussion
In this paper we present a phenomenological cut based study for probing the limits on the CP-conserving and CP-violating , and dim-8 aNTG couplings via (where = or ) production at the FCC-hh.
The obtained limits of dim-8 aNTG couplings at 95% C.L. for , , and with an = 10 ab*-1* are one order better than those available prior to this study without systematic error. When we compare these results with the latest search for production Collaboration (2018) from the LHC, we have better results on , couplings and improved results on and couplings.
Even with systematic errors, the obtained bounds for FCC-hh are better than the LHC results on all couplings studied in this paper. The limits of aNTG couplings would benefit from high luminosity and the high energy when the systematic uncertainties are well reduced below .
VI Acknowledgement
This work was partially supported by Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) under the project grant no. 2018TAEK(CERN)A5.H6.F2-20.
References
- Neubauer (2011) M. S. Neubauer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 61, 223 (2011).
- Green, Meade, and Pleier (2017) D. R. Green, P. Meade, and M.-A. Pleier, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035008 (2017), arXiv:1610.07572 [hep-ex] .
- Barate et al. (1999) R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B469, 287 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9911003 [hep-ex] .
- Acciarri et al. (1999) M. Acciarri et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B465, 363 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9909043 [hep-ex] .
- Abdallah et al. (2003) J. Abdallah et al. (DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C30, 447 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0307050 [hep-ex] .
- Abbiendi et al. (2003) G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), Eur. Phys. J. C32, 303 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0310013 [hep-ex] .
- Alcaraz et al. (2006) J. Alcaraz et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Working Group), (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0612034 [hep-ex] .
- Schael et al. (2013) S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak), Phys. Rept. 532, 119 (2013), arXiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex] .
- Aaltonen et al. (2012) T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 101801 (2012), arXiv:1112.2978 [hep-ex] .
- Aaltonen et al. (2014) T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 89, 112001 (2014).
- Abazov et al. (2008) V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 131801 (2008), arXiv:0712.0599 [hep-ex] .
- Abazov et al. (2013) V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. D88, 032008 (2013), arXiv:1304.5422 [hep-ex] .
- Aad et al. (2016) G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 101801 (2016), arXiv:1512.05314 [hep-ex] .
- Aaboud, Aad et al. (2018) M. Aaboud, G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 97, 032005 (2018).
- Aaboud et al. (2018) M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D97, 032005 (2018), arXiv:1709.07703 [hep-ex] .
- Sirunyan et al. (2018) A. M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, F. Ambrogi, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Dragicevic, and et al., The European Physical Journal C 78 (2018), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5567-9.
- Senol (2014) A. Senol, International Journal of Modern Physics A 29, 1450148 (2014).
- Mangano (2016) M. L. Mangano, The Standard Theory of Particle Physics , 231 (2016).
- Frye et al. (2016) C. Frye, M. Freytsis, J. Scholtz, and M. J. Strassler, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 (2016), 10.1007/jhep03(2016)171.
- Dorigo (2018) T. Dorigo, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 100, 211 (2018).
- Senol et al. (2018) A. Senol, H. Denizli, A. Yilmaz, I. T. Cakir, K. Oyulmaz, O. Karadeniz, and O. Cakir, Nuclear Physics B 935, 365 (2018).
- Degrande (2014) C. Degrande, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014), 10.1007/jhep02(2014)101.
- Collaboration (2018) T. A. Collaboration (The ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS-CONF 2018, 035 (2018).
- (24) “https://fcc.web.cern.ch/pages/default.aspx,” .
- Benedikt et al. (2018) M. Benedikt, M. Capeans Garrido, F. Cerutti, B. Goddard, J. Gutleber, J. M. Jimenez, M. Mangano, V. Mertens, J. A. Osborne, T. Otto, J. Poole, W. Riegler, D. Schulte, L. J. Tavian, D. Tommasini, and F. Zimmermann, “Future Circular Collider,” Tech. Rep. CERN-ACC-2018-0058 (CERN, Geneva, 2018) submitted for publication to Eur. Phys. J. ST.
- Alwall et al. (2014) J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014), 10.1007/jhep07(2014)079.
- Sjöstrand et al. (2015) T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Computer Physics Communications 191, 159 (2015).
- Buckley et al. (2015) A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr, and G. Watt, The European Physical Journal C 75 (2015), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3318-8.
- Ball et al. (2013) R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, C. S. Deans, L. D. Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N. P. Hartland, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and M. Ubiali, Nuclear Physics B 867, 244 (2013).
- de Favereau et al. (2014) J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014 (2014), 10.1007/jhep02(2014)057.
- (31) P. Demin, “https://cp3.irmp.ucl.ac.be/projects/exrootanalysis,” .
- Brun and Rademakers (1997) R. Brun and F. Rademakers, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 389, 81 (1997), new Computing Techniques in Physics Research V.
- Khachatryan et al. (2017) V. Khachatryan, A. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, E. Asilar, T. Bergauer, J. Brandstetter, E. Brondolin, M. Dragicevic, J. Erö, and et al., Journal of Instrumentation 12, P01020 (2017).
- Tanabashi et al. (2018) M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Neubauer (2011) M. S. Neubauer, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 61 , 223 (2011) . · doi ↗
- 2Green, Meade, and Pleier (2017) D. R. Green, P. Meade, and M.-A. Pleier, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 , 035008 (2017) , ar Xiv:1610.07572 [hep-ex] . · doi ↗
- 3Barate et al. (1999) R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B 469 , 287 (1999) , ar Xiv:hep-ex/9911003 [hep-ex] . · doi ↗
- 4Acciarri et al. (1999) M. Acciarri et al. (L 3), Phys. Lett. B 465 , 363 (1999) , ar Xiv:hep-ex/9909043 [hep-ex] . · doi ↗
- 5Abdallah et al. (2003) J. Abdallah et al. (DELPHI), Eur. Phys. J. C 30 , 447 (2003) , ar Xiv:hep-ex/0307050 [hep-ex] . · doi ↗
- 6Abbiendi et al. (2003) G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), Eur. Phys. J. C 32 , 303 (2003) , ar Xiv:hep-ex/0310013 [hep-ex] . · doi ↗
- 7Alcaraz et al. (2006) J. Alcaraz et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L 3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak Working Group), (2006), ar Xiv:hep-ex/0612034 [hep-ex] .
- 8Schael et al. (2013) S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L 3, OPAL, LEP Electroweak), Phys. Rept. 532 , 119 (2013) , ar Xiv:1302.3415 [hep-ex] . · doi ↗
