# M. Trott

## Contact Details

NameM. Trott |
||

Affiliation |
||

Location |
||

## Pubs By Year |
||

## Pub CategoriesHigh Energy Physics - Phenomenology (47) High Energy Physics - Experiment (13) High Energy Physics - Theory (5) Mathematics - Information Theory (3) Computer Science - Information Theory (3) Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (2) General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (1) |

## Publications Authored By M. Trott

The interpretation of electroweak precision data in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory is discussed. One loop corrections $\propto y_t^2, \lambda$ to the partial $Z$ decay widths and ratios of partial widths in this theory are discussed. A reparameterization invariance and the non-minimal character of matching onto this theory is reviewed. Read More

**Category:**High Energy Physics - Phenomenology

The minimal seesaw scenario can radiatively generate the Higgs potential to induce electroweak symmetry breaking while supplying an origin of the Higgs vacuum expectation value from an underlying Majorana scale. If the Higgs potential and (derived) electroweak scale have this origin, the heavy $\rm SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)_Y$ singlet states are expected to reside at $m_N \sim 10-500 \, {\rm PeV} $ for couplings $|\omega| \sim 10^{-4.5}-10^{-6}$ between the Majorana sector and the Standard Model. Read More

We match the seesaw model for generating neutrino masses onto the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). We perform this matching at tree level up to dimension seven in the operator expansion. We explain how the perturbation of the neutrino mass matrix due to operators of mass dimension greater than five is tied to integrating out the heavy Majorana mass eigenstates in sequence. Read More

We explain a reparameterization invariance in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory present when considering $\bar{\psi} \psi \rightarrow \bar{\psi} \psi$ scatterings (with $\psi$ a fermion) and how this leads to unconstrained combinations of Wilson coefficients in global data analyses restricted to these measurements. We develop a $\{\hat{m}_W, \hat{m}_Z,\hat{G}_F\}$ input parameter scheme and compare results to the case when an input parameter set $\{\hat{\alpha}, \hat{m}_Z,\hat{G}_F\}$ is used to constrain this effective theory from the global data set, confirming the input parameter independence of the unconstrained combinations of Wilson coefficients, and supporting the reparameterization invariance explanation. We discuss some conceptual issues related to these degeneracies that are relevant for LHC data reporting and analysis. Read More

When integrating out unknown new physics sectors, what is the minimal character of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) that can result? In this paper we focus on a particular aspect of this question: "How can one obtain only one dimension six operator in the SMEFT from a consistent tree level matching onto an unknown new physics sector?" We show why this requires conditions on the ultraviolet field content that do not indicate a stand alone ultraviolet complete scenario. Further, we demonstrate how a dynamical origin of the ultraviolet scales assumed to exist in order to generate the masses of the heavy states integrated out generically induces more operators. Therefore, our analysis indicates that the infrared limit captured from a new sector in consistent matchings induces multiple operators in the SMEFT quite generically. Read More

We calculate one loop $y_t$ and $\lambda$ dependent corrections to $\bar{\Gamma}_Z,\bar{R}_f^0$ and the partial $Z$ widths due to dimension six operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), including finite terms. We assume $\rm CP$ symmetry and a $\rm U(3)^5$ symmetry in the UV matching onto the dimension six operators, dominantly broken by the Standard Model Yukawa matrices. Corrections to these observables are predicted using the input parameters $\{\hat{\alpha}_{ew}, \hat{M}_Z, \hat{G}_F, \hat{m}_t, \hat{m}_h\}$ extracted with one loop corrections in the same limit. Read More

We review the status of calculations in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) beyond leading order (LO). Improving the SMEFT beyond LO allows theoretical errors to be characterized and reduced when considering SMEFT interpretations of the data, which is essential considering the improving experimental precision at LHC. Next to leading order results also allow a more consistent analysis of measurements with different effective scales in the SMEFT. Read More

**Authors:**D. de Florian

^{1}, C. Grojean

^{2}, F. Maltoni

^{3}, C. Mariotti

^{4}, A. Nikitenko

^{5}, M. Pieri

^{6}, P. Savard

^{7}, M. Schumacher

^{8}, R. Tanaka

^{9}, R. Aggleton

^{10}, M. Ahmad

^{11}, B. Allanach

^{12}, C. Anastasiou

^{13}, W. Astill

^{14}, S. Badger

^{15}, M. Badziak

^{16}, J. Baglio

^{17}, E. Bagnaschi

^{18}, A. Ballestrero

^{19}, A. Banfi

^{20}, D. Barducci

^{21}, M. Beckingham

^{22}, C. Becot

^{23}, G. Bélanger

^{24}, J. Bellm

^{25}, N. Belyaev

^{26}, F. U. Bernlochner

^{27}, C. Beskidt

^{28}, A. Biekötter

^{29}, F. Bishara

^{30}, W. Bizon

^{31}, N. E. Bomark

^{32}, M. Bonvini

^{33}, S. Borowka

^{34}, V. Bortolotto

^{35}, S. Boselli

^{36}, F. J. Botella

^{37}, R. Boughezal

^{38}, G. C. Branco

^{39}, J. Brehmer

^{40}, L. Brenner

^{41}, S. Bressler

^{42}, I. Brivio

^{43}, A. Broggio

^{44}, H. Brun

^{45}, G. Buchalla

^{46}, C. D. Burgard

^{47}, A. Calandri

^{48}, L. Caminada

^{49}, R. Caminal Armadans

^{50}, F. Campanario

^{51}, J. Campbell

^{52}, F. Caola

^{53}, C. M. Carloni Calame

^{54}, S. Carrazza

^{55}, A. Carvalho

^{56}, M. Casolino

^{57}, O. Cata

^{58}, A. Celis

^{59}, F. Cerutti

^{60}, N. Chanon

^{61}, M. Chen

^{62}, X. Chen

^{63}, B. Chokoufé Nejad

^{64}, N. Christensen

^{65}, M. Ciuchini

^{66}, R. Contino

^{67}, T. Corbett

^{68}, R. Costa

^{69}, D. Curtin

^{70}, M. Dall'Osso

^{71}, A. David

^{72}, S. Dawson

^{73}, J. de Blas

^{74}, W. de Boer

^{75}, P. de Castro Manzano

^{76}, C. Degrande

^{77}, R. L. Delgado

^{78}, F. Demartin

^{79}, A. Denner

^{80}, B. Di Micco

^{81}, R. Di Nardo

^{82}, S. Dittmaier

^{83}, A. Dobado

^{84}, T. Dorigo

^{85}, F. A. Dreyer

^{86}, M. Dührssen

^{87}, C. Duhr

^{88}, F. Dulat

^{89}, K. Ecker

^{90}, K. Ellis

^{91}, U. Ellwanger

^{92}, C. Englert

^{93}, D. Espriu

^{94}, A. Falkowski

^{95}, L. Fayard

^{96}, R. Feger

^{97}, G. Ferrera

^{98}, A. Ferroglia

^{99}, N. Fidanza

^{100}, T. Figy

^{101}, M. Flechl

^{102}, D. Fontes

^{103}, S. Forte

^{104}, P. Francavilla

^{105}, E. Franco

^{106}, R. Frederix

^{107}, A. Freitas

^{108}, F. F. Freitas

^{109}, F. Frensch

^{110}, S. Frixione

^{111}, B. Fuks

^{112}, E. Furlan

^{113}, S. Gadatsch

^{114}, J. Gao

^{115}, Y. Gao

^{116}, M. V. Garzelli

^{117}, T. Gehrmann

^{118}, R. Gerosa

^{119}, M. Ghezzi

^{120}, D. Ghosh

^{121}, S. Gieseke

^{122}, D. Gillberg

^{123}, G. F. Giudice

^{124}, E. W. N. Glover

^{125}, F. Goertz

^{126}, D. Gonçalves

^{127}, J. Gonzalez-Fraile

^{128}, M. Gorbahn

^{129}, S. Gori

^{130}, C. A. Gottardo

^{131}, M. Gouzevitch

^{132}, P. Govoni

^{133}, D. Gray

^{134}, M. Grazzini

^{135}, N. Greiner

^{136}, A. Greljo

^{137}, J. Grigo

^{138}, A. V. Gritsan

^{139}, R. Gröber

^{140}, S. Guindon

^{141}, H. E. Haber

^{142}, C. Han

^{143}, T. Han

^{144}, R. Harlander

^{145}, M. A. Harrendorf

^{146}, H. B. Hartanto

^{147}, C. Hays

^{148}, S. Heinemeyer

^{149}, G. Heinrich

^{150}, M. Herrero

^{151}, F. Herzog

^{152}, B. Hespel

^{153}, V. Hirschi

^{154}, S. Hoeche

^{155}, S. Honeywell

^{156}, S. J. Huber

^{157}, C. Hugonie

^{158}, J. Huston

^{159}, A. Ilnicka

^{160}, G. Isidori

^{161}, B. Jäger

^{162}, M. Jaquier

^{163}, S. P. Jones

^{164}, A. Juste

^{165}, S. Kallweit

^{166}, A. Kaluza

^{167}, A. Kardos

^{168}, A. Karlberg

^{169}, Z. Kassabov

^{170}, N. Kauer

^{171}, D. I. Kazakov

^{172}, M. Kerner

^{173}, W. Kilian

^{174}, F. Kling

^{175}, K. Köneke

^{176}, R. Kogler

^{177}, R. Konoplich

^{178}, S. Kortner

^{179}, S. Kraml

^{180}, C. Krause

^{181}, F. Krauss

^{182}, M. Krawczyk

^{183}, A. Kulesza

^{184}, S. Kuttimalai

^{185}, R. Lane

^{186}, A. Lazopoulos

^{187}, G. Lee

^{188}, P. Lenzi

^{189}, I. M. Lewis

^{190}, Y. Li

^{191}, S. Liebler

^{192}, J. Lindert

^{193}, X. Liu

^{194}, Z. Liu

^{195}, F. J. Llanes-Estrada

^{196}, H. E. Logan

^{197}, D. Lopez-Val

^{198}, I. Low

^{199}, G. Luisoni

^{200}, P. Maierhöfer

^{201}, E. Maina

^{202}, B. Mansoulié

^{203}, H. Mantler

^{204}, M. Mantoani

^{205}, A. C. Marini

^{206}, V. I. Martinez Outschoorn

^{207}, S. Marzani

^{208}, D. Marzocca

^{209}, A. Massironi

^{210}, K. Mawatari

^{211}, J. Mazzitelli

^{212}, A. McCarn

^{213}, B. Mellado

^{214}, K. Melnikov

^{215}, S. B. Menari

^{216}, L. Merlo

^{217}, C. Meyer

^{218}, P. Milenovic

^{219}, K. Mimasu

^{220}, S. Mishima

^{221}, B. Mistlberger

^{222}, S. -O. Moch

^{223}, A. Mohammadi

^{224}, P. F. Monni

^{225}, G. Montagna

^{226}, M. Moreno Llácer

^{227}, N. Moretti

^{228}, S. Moretti

^{229}, L. Motyka

^{230}, A. Mück

^{231}, M. Mühlleitner

^{232}, S. Munir

^{233}, P. Musella

^{234}, P. Nadolsky

^{235}, D. Napoletano

^{236}, M. Nebot

^{237}, C. Neu

^{238}, M. Neubert

^{239}, R. Nevzorov

^{240}, O. Nicrosini

^{241}, J. Nielsen

^{242}, K. Nikolopoulos

^{243}, J. M. No

^{244}, C. O'Brien

^{245}, T. Ohl

^{246}, C. Oleari

^{247}, T. Orimoto

^{248}, D. Pagani

^{249}, C. E. Pandini

^{250}, A. Papaefstathiou

^{251}, A. S. Papanastasiou

^{252}, G. Passarino

^{253}, B. D. Pecjak

^{254}, M. Pelliccioni

^{255}, G. Perez

^{256}, L. Perrozzi

^{257}, F. Petriello

^{258}, G. Petrucciani

^{259}, E. Pianori

^{260}, F. Piccinini

^{261}, M. Pierini

^{262}, A. Pilkington

^{263}, S. Plätzer

^{264}, T. Plehn

^{265}, R. Podskubka

^{266}, C. T. Potter

^{267}, S. Pozzorini

^{268}, K. Prokofiev

^{269}, A. Pukhov

^{270}, I. Puljak

^{271}, M. Queitsch-Maitland

^{272}, J. Quevillon

^{273}, D. Rathlev

^{274}, M. Rauch

^{275}, E. Re

^{276}, M. N. Rebelo

^{277}, D. Rebuzzi

^{278}, L. Reina

^{279}, C. Reuschle

^{280}, J. Reuter

^{281}, M. Riembau

^{282}, F. Riva

^{283}, A. Rizzi

^{284}, T. Robens

^{285}, R. Röntsch

^{286}, J. Rojo

^{287}, J. C. Romão

^{288}, N. Rompotis

^{289}, J. Roskes

^{290}, R. Roth

^{291}, G. P. Salam

^{292}, R. Salerno

^{293}, M. O. P. Sampaio

^{294}, R. Santos

^{295}, V. Sanz

^{296}, J. J. Sanz-Cillero

^{297}, H. Sargsyan

^{298}, U. Sarica

^{299}, P. Schichtel

^{300}, J. Schlenk

^{301}, T. Schmidt

^{302}, C. Schmitt

^{303}, M. Schönherr

^{304}, U. Schubert

^{305}, M. Schulze

^{306}, S. Sekula

^{307}, M. Sekulla

^{308}, E. Shabalina

^{309}, H. S. Shao

^{310}, J. Shelton

^{311}, C. H. Shepherd-Themistocleous

^{312}, S. Y. Shim

^{313}, F. Siegert

^{314}, A. Signer

^{315}, J. P. Silva

^{316}, L. Silvestrini

^{317}, M. Sjodahl

^{318}, P. Slavich

^{319}, M. Slawinska

^{320}, L. Soffi

^{321}, M. Spannowsky

^{322}, C. Speckner

^{323}, D. M. Sperka

^{324}, M. Spira

^{325}, O. Stål

^{326}, F. Staub

^{327}, T. Stebel

^{328}, T. Stefaniak

^{329}, M. Steinhauser

^{330}, I. W. Stewart

^{331}, M. J. Strassler

^{332}, J. Streicher

^{333}, D. M. Strom

^{334}, S. Su

^{335}, X. Sun

^{336}, F. J. Tackmann

^{337}, K. Tackmann

^{338}, A. M. Teixeira

^{339}, R. Teixeira de Lima

^{340}, V. Theeuwes

^{341}, R. Thorne

^{342}, D. Tommasini

^{343}, P. Torrielli

^{344}, M. Tosi

^{345}, F. Tramontano

^{346}, Z. Trócsányi

^{347}, M. Trott

^{348}, I. Tsinikos

^{349}, M. Ubiali

^{350}, P. Vanlaer

^{351}, W. Verkerke

^{352}, A. Vicini

^{353}, L. Viliani

^{354}, E. Vryonidou

^{355}, D. Wackeroth

^{356}, C. E. M. Wagner

^{357}, J. Wang

^{358}, S. Wayand

^{359}, G. Weiglein

^{360}, C. Weiss

^{361}, M. Wiesemann

^{362}, C. Williams

^{363}, J. Winter

^{364}, D. Winterbottom

^{365}, R. Wolf

^{366}, M. Xiao

^{367}, L. L. Yang

^{368}, R. Yohay

^{369}, S. P. Y. Yuen

^{370}, G. Zanderighi

^{371}, M. Zaro

^{372}, D. Zeppenfeld

^{373}, R. Ziegler

^{374}, T. Zirke

^{375}, J. Zupan

^{376}

**Affiliations:**

^{1}eds.,

^{2}eds.,

^{3}eds.,

^{4}eds.,

^{5}eds.,

^{6}eds.,

^{7}eds.,

^{8}eds.,

^{9}eds.,

^{10}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{11}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{12}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{13}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{14}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{15}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{16}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{17}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{18}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{19}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{20}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{21}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{22}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{23}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{24}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{25}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{26}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{27}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{28}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{29}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{30}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{31}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{32}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{33}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{34}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{35}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{36}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{37}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{38}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{39}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{40}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{41}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{42}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{43}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{44}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{45}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{46}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{47}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{48}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{49}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{50}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{51}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{52}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{53}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{54}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{55}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{56}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{57}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{58}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{59}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{60}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{61}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{62}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{63}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{64}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{65}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{66}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{67}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{68}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{69}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{70}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{71}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{72}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{73}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{74}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{75}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{76}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{77}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{78}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{79}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{80}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{81}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{82}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{83}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{84}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{85}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{86}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{87}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{88}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{89}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{90}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{91}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{92}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{93}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{94}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{95}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{96}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{97}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{98}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{99}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{100}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{101}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{102}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{103}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{104}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{105}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{106}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{107}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{108}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{109}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{110}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{111}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{112}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{113}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{114}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{115}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{116}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{117}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{118}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{119}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{120}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{121}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{122}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{123}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{124}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{125}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{126}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{127}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{128}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{129}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{130}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{131}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{132}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{133}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{134}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{135}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{136}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{137}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{138}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{139}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{140}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{141}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{142}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{143}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{144}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{145}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{146}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{147}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{148}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{149}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{150}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{151}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{152}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{153}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{154}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{155}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{156}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{157}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{158}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{159}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{160}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{161}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{162}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{163}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{164}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{165}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{166}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{167}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{168}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{169}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{170}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{171}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{172}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{173}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{174}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{175}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{176}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{177}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{178}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{179}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{180}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{181}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{182}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{183}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{184}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{185}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{186}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{187}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{188}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{189}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{190}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{191}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{192}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{193}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{194}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{195}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{196}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{197}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{198}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{199}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{200}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{201}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{202}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{203}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{204}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{205}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{206}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{207}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{208}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{209}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{210}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{211}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{212}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{213}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{214}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{215}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{216}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{217}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{218}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{219}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{220}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{221}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{222}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{223}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{224}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{225}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{226}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{227}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{228}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{229}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{230}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{231}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{232}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{233}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{234}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{235}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{236}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{237}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{238}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{239}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{240}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{241}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{242}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{243}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{244}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{245}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{246}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{247}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{248}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{249}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{250}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{251}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{252}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{253}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{254}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{255}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{256}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{257}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{258}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{259}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{260}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{261}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{262}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{263}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{264}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{265}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{266}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{267}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{268}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{269}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{270}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{271}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{272}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{273}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{274}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{275}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{276}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{277}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{278}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{279}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{280}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{281}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{282}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{283}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{284}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{285}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{286}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{287}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{288}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{289}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{290}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{291}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{292}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{293}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{294}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{295}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{296}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{297}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{298}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{299}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{300}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{301}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{302}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{303}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{304}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{305}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{306}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{307}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{308}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{309}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{310}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{311}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{312}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{313}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{314}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{315}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{316}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{317}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{318}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{319}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{320}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{321}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{322}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{323}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{324}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{325}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{326}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{327}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{328}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{329}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{330}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{331}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{332}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{333}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{334}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{335}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{336}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{337}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{338}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{339}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{340}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{341}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{342}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{343}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{344}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{345}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{346}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{347}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{348}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{349}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{350}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{351}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{352}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{353}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{354}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{355}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{356}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{357}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{358}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{359}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{360}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{361}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{362}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{363}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{364}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{365}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{366}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{367}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{368}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{369}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{370}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{371}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{372}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{373}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{374}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{375}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group,

^{376}The LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group

This Report summarizes the results of the activities of the LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group in the period 2014-2016. The main goal of the working group was to present the state-of-the-art of Higgs physics at the LHC, integrating all new results that have appeared in the last few years. The first part compiles the most up-to-date predictions of Higgs boson production cross sections and decay branching ratios, parton distribution functions, and off-shell Higgs boson production and interference effects. Read More

Measurements of the $W^\pm$ mass ($m_W$) provide an important consistency check of the Standard Model (SM) and constrain the possibility of physics beyond the SM. Precision measurements of $m_W$ at hadron colliders are inferred from kinematic distributions of transverse variables. We examine how this inference is modified when considering the presence of physics beyond the SM expressed in terms of local contact operators. Read More

We calculate the double pole contribution to two to four fermion scattering through $W^{\pm}$ currents at tree level in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). We assume all fermions to be massless, $\rm U(3)^5$ flavour and $\rm CP$ symmetry. Using this result, we update the global constraint picture on SMEFT parameters including LEPII data on these charged current processes, and also include modifications to our fit procedure motivated by a companion paper focused on $W^{\pm}$ mass extractions. Read More

We discuss some consistency tests that must be passed for a successful explanation of a diphoton excess at larger mass scales, generated by a scalar or pseudoscalar state, possibly of a composite nature, decaying to two photons. Scalar states at mass scales above the electroweak scale decaying significantly into photon final states generically lead to modifications of Standard Model Higgs phenomenology. We characterise this effect using the formalism of Effective Field Theory (EFT) and study the modification of the effective couplings to photons and gluons of the Higgs. Read More

We develop the global constraint picture in the (linear) effective field theory generalisation of the Standard Model, incorporating data from detectors that operated at PEP, PETRA, TRISTAN, SpS, Tevatron, SLAC, LEPI and LEP II, as well as low energy precision data. We fit one hundred and three observables. We develop a theory error metric for this effective field theory, which is required when constraints on parameters at leading order in the power counting are to be pushed to the percent level, or beyond, unless the cut off scale is assumed to be large, $\Lambda \gtrsim \, 3 \, {\rm TeV}$. Read More

We present the calculation of the $\rm CP$ conserving contributions to $\Gamma(h \rightarrow \gamma \gamma)$, from dimension six operators at one-loop order, in the linear Standard Model Effective Field Theory. We discuss the impact of these corrections on interpreting current and future experimental bounds on this decay. Read More

We calculate one loop contributions to $\Gamma(h \rightarrow \gamma \, \gamma)$ from higher dimensional operators, in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). Some technical challenges related to determining Electroweak one loop "finite terms" are discussed and overcome. Although we restrict our attention to $\Gamma(h \rightarrow \gamma \, \gamma)$, several developments we report have broad implications. Read More

We discuss the impact of many previously neglected effects of higher dimensional operators when fitting to Electroweak Precision data (EWPD) in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). We calculate the general case of $2 \rightarrow 2$ fermion scattering in the SMEFT to order $\mathcal{O}(\bar{v}_T^2/\Lambda^2)$ valid on and off the $Z$ pole, in the massless fermion limit. We demonstrate that previously neglected corrections scale as $\Gamma_Z M_Z/\bar{v}_T^2$ in the partial widths extracted from measured cross sections at LEPI, compared to the leading effect of dimension six operators in anomalous $Z$ couplings. Read More

A setup involving zero-delay sequential transmission of a vector Markov source over a burst erasure channel is studied. A sequence of source vectors is compressed in a causal fashion at the encoder, and the resulting output is transmitted over a burst erasure channel. The destination is required to reconstruct each source vector with zero-delay, but those source sequences that are observed either during the burst erasure, or in the interval of length $W$ following the burst erasure need not be reconstructed. Read More

We define "constructed observables" as relating experimental measurements to terms in a Lagrangian while simultaneously making assumptions about possible deviations from the Standard Model (SM), in other Lagrangian terms. Ensuring that the SM effective field theory (EFT) is constrained correctly when using constructed observables requires that their defining conditions are imposed on the EFT in a manner that is consistent with the equations of motion. Failing to do so can result in a "functionally redundant" operator basis and the wrong expectation as to how experimental quantities are related in the EFT. Read More

We re-examine the predictiveness of single-field inflationary models and discuss how an unknown UV completion can complicate determining inflationary model parameters from observations, even from precision measurements. Besides the usual naturalness issues associated with having a shallow inflationary potential, we describe another issue for inflation, namely, unknown UV physics modifies the running of Standard Model (SM) parameters and thereby introduces uncertainty into the potential inflationary predictions. We illustrate this point using the minimal Higgs Inflationary scenario, which is arguably the most predictive single-field model on the market, because its predictions for $A_s$, $r$ and $n_s$ are made using only one new free parameter beyond those measured in particle physics experiments, and run up to the inflationary regime. Read More

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 $2499 \times 2499$ anomalous dimension matrix. Read More

We calculate the complete order y^2 and y^4 terms of the 59 x 59 one-loop anomalous dimension matrix for the dimension-six operators of the Standard Model effective field theory, where y is a generic Yukawa coupling. These terms, together with the terms of order lambda, lambda^2 and lambda y^2 depending on the Standard Model Higgs self-coupling lambda which were calculated in a previous work, yield the complete one-loop anomalous dimension matrix in the limit of vanishing gauge couplings. The Yukawa contributions result in non-trivial flavor mixing in the various operator sectors of the Standard Model effective theory. Read More

We show that naive dimensional analysis (NDA) is equivalent to the result that L-loop scattering amplitudes have perturbative order N=L+Delta, with a shift Delta that depends on the NDA-weight of operator insertions. The NDA weight of an operator is defined in this paper, and the general NDA formula for perturbative order N is derived. The formula is used to explain why the one-loop anomalous dimension matrix for dimension-six operators in the Standard Model effective field theory has entries with perturbative order ranging from 0 to 4. Read More

We calculate the order \lambda, \lambda^2 and \lambda y^2 terms of the 59 x 59 one-loop anomalous dimension matrix of dimension-six operators, where \lambda and y are the Standard Model Higgs self-coupling and a generic Yukawa coupling, respectively. The dimension-six operators modify the running of the Standard Model parameters themselves, and we compute the complete one-loop result for this. We discuss how there is mixing between operators for which no direct one-particle-irreducible diagram exists, due to operator replacements by the equations of motion. Read More

We further develop a form factor formalism characterizing anomalous interactions of the Higgs-like boson (h) to massive electroweak vector bosons (V) and generic bilinear fermion states (F). Employing this approach, we examine the sensitivity of pp -> F ->Vh associated production to physics beyond the Standard Model, and compare it to the corresponding sensitivity of h -> V F decays. We discuss how determining the Vh invariant-mass distribution in associated production at LHC is a key ingredient for model-independent determinations of h V F interactions. Read More

We give a general decomposition of the h -> VF amplitude where V={W,Z} and F is a generic leptonic or hadronic final state, in the standard model (SM), and in the context of a general effective field theory. The differential distributions for F=l^+l^-, l nu (l =e, mu) are reported, and we show how such distributions can be used to determine modified Higgs couplings that cannot be directly extracted from a global fit to Higgs signal strengths. We also demonstrate how rare h -> VP decays, where P is a single hadron, with SM rates in the 10^{-5} range, can be used to provide complementary information on the couplings of the newly discovered Higgs-like scalar and are an interesting probe of the vacuum structure of the theory. Read More

The principle of minimal coupling has been used in the study of Higgs boson interactions to argue that certain higher dimensional operators in the low-energy effective theory generalization of the Standard Model are suppressed by loop factors, and thus smaller than others. It also has been extensively used to analyze beyond-the-standard-model theories. We show that in field theory, and even in quantum mechanics, the concept of minimal coupling is ill-defined and inapplicable as a general principle, and give many pedagogical examples which illustrate this fact. Read More

We compute the renormalization of dimension six Higgs-gauge boson operators that can modify \Gamma(h -> \gamma \gamma) at tree-level. Operator mixing is shown to lead to an important modification of new physics effects which has been neglected in past calculations. We also find that the usual formula for the S oblique parameter contribution of these Higgs-gauge boson operators needs additional terms to be consistent with renormalization group evolution. Read More

We perform a global fit to Higgs signal-strength data in the context of light stops in Natural SUSY. In this case, the Wilson coefficients of the higher dimensional operators mediating g g -> h and h -> \gamma \gamma, given by c_g, c_\gamma, are related by c_g = 3 (1 + 3 \alpha_s/(2 \pi)) c_\gamma/8. We examine this predictive scenario in detail, combining Higgs signal-strength constraints with recent precision measurements of m_W, b-> s \gamma constraints and direct collider bounds on weak scale SUSY, finding regions of parameter space that are consistent with all of these constraints. Read More

The 8 TeV LHC Higgs search data just released indicates the existence of a scalar resonance with mass ~ 125 GeV. We examine the implications of the data reported by ATLAS, CMS and the Tevatron collaborations on understanding the properties of this scalar by performing joint fits on its couplings to other Standard Model particles. We discuss and characterize to what degree this resonance has the properties of the Standard Model (SM) Higgs, and consider what implications can be extracted for New Physics in a (mostly) model-independent fashion. Read More

We demonstrate by performing a global fit on Higgs signal strength data that large invisible branching ratios Br_{inv} for a Standard Model (SM) Higgs particle are currently consistent with the experimental hints of a scalar resonance at the mass scale m_h ~ 124 GeV. For this mass scale, we find Br_{inv} < 0.64 (95 % CL) from a global fit to individual channel signal strengths supplied by ATLAS, CMS and the Tevatron collaborations. Read More

We compare the experimental prospects of direct stop and sbottom pair production searches at the LHC. Such searches for stops are of great interest as they directly probe for states that are motivated by the SUSY solution to the hierarchy problem of the Higgs mass parameter - leading to a "Natural" SUSY spectrum. Noting that sbottom searches are less experimentally challenging and scale up in reach directly with the improvement on b-tagging algorithms, we discuss the interplay of small TeV scale custodial symmetry violation with sbottom direct pair production searches as a path to obtaining strong sub-TeV constraints on stops in a natural SUSY scenario. Read More

We develop a formalism for constructing the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix and neutrino masses using an expansion that originates when a sequence of heavy right handed neutrinos are integrated out, assuming a seesaw mechanism for the origin of neutrino masses. The expansion establishes relationships between the structure of the PMNS matrix and the mass differences of neutrinos, and allows symmetry implications for measured deviations from tri-bimaximal form to be studied systematically. Our approach does not depend on choosing the rotation between the weak and mass eigenstates of the charged lepton fields to be diagonal. Read More

We study sequential coding of Markov sources under an error propagation constraint. An encoder sequentially compresses a sequence of vector-sources that are spatially i.i. Read More

We outline a method for characterizing deviations from the properties of a Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson. We apply it to current data in order to characterize up to which degree the SM Higgs boson interpretation is consistent with experiment. We find that the SM Higgs boson is consistent with the current data set at the 82 % confidence level, based on data of excess events reported by CMS and ATLAS, which are interpreted to be related to the mass scale mh = 124-126 GeV, and on published CL_s exclusion regions. Read More

The Standard Model (SM) prediction of the top quark forward backward asymmetry is shown to be slightly enhanced by a correction factor of 1.05 due to electroweak Sudakov (EWS) logarithms of the form (\alpha/sin^2 \theta_W)^n log^{m< 2n} (s/M_{W,Z}^2). The EWS effect on the dijet and t \bar{t} invariant mass spectra is significant, reducing the SM prediction by ~20, 10 % respectively for the highest invariant masses measured at the LHC, and changing the shape of the high-mass tail of the spectrum. Read More

Electroweak precision data constraints on flavor symmetric vector fields are determined. The flavor multiplets of spin one that we examine are the complete set of fields that couple to quark bi-linears at tree level while not initially breaking the quark global flavor symmetry group. Flavor safe vector masses proximate to, and in some cases below, the electroweak symmetry breaking scale are found to be allowed. Read More

We discuss the phenomenology of effective field theories with new scalar or vector representations of the Standard Model quark flavor symmetry group, allowing for large flavor breaking involving the third generation. Such field content can have a relatively low mass scale \lesssim TeV and O(1) couplings to quarks, while being naturally consistent with both flavor violating and flavor diagonal constraints. These theories therefore have the potential for early discovery at LHC, and provide a flavor safe "tool box" for addressing anomalies at colliders and low energy experiments. Read More

Motivated by 3.9 sigma evidence of a CP-violating phase beyond the standard model in the like-sign dimuon asymmetry reported by DO, we examine the potential for two Higgs doublet models (2HDMs) to achieve successful electroweak baryogenesis (EWBG) while explaining the dimuon anomaly. Our emphasis is on the minimal flavour violating 2HDM, but our numerical scans of model parameter space include type I and type II models as special cases. Read More

We show that the forward-backward asymmetry in top quark pair production can be enhanced by fields that transform nontrivially under the flavour group and satisfy Minimal Flavour Violation, while at the same time the constraints from associated effects on the d \sigma(t anti-t)/d M_{t anti-t} distribution, dijet resonance searches, same sign top pair production and other phenomenology are satisfied. We work out two examples in detail, one where a scalar colour anti-sextet field, that is also an anti-sextet of SU(3)_U, enhances the forward-backward asymmetry, and one where the enhancement arises from a vector colour octet field that is also an octet of SU(3)_U. Read More

The DO collaboration has measured a deviation from the standard model (SM) prediction in the like sign dimuon asymmetry in semileptonic b decay with a significance of 3.2 sigma. We discuss how minimal flavour violating (MFV) models with multiple scalar representations can lead to this deviation through tree level exchanges of new MFV scalars. Read More

We examine the prospects for LHC discovery of SU(2)_L singlet vector-like quarks that obey Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV) and are consistent with lower energy phenomenology. We study models where the vector-like quarks have the same quantum numbers as u_R or d_R, allowing mixing, which generally leads to significant low energy constraints. We find that there are two naturally phenomenologically viable MFV models of this type when the Weyl spinor components of the vector-like quarks are flavour triplets. Read More

We rebut the recent claim (arXiv:0912.5463) that Einstein-frame scattering in the Higgs inflation model is unitary above the cut-off energy Lambda ~ Mp/xi. We show explicitly how unitarity problems arise in both the Einstein and Jordan frames of the theory. Read More

We discuss the potential of measurements of \sigma(p p -> b\bar{b}) to constrain new bosonic degrees of freedom at the LHC when pT > \sqrt{s}/11 TeV for a pseudorapidity cut |\eta| < 2.4. By suppressing the NLO QCD production of b\bar{b} pairs through simple kinematic constraints we show how to more efficiently exploit CMS's reach out to 1. Read More

We discuss the representations that new scalar degrees of freedom (beyond those in the minimal standard model) can have if they couple to quarks in a way that is consistent with minimal flavor violation. If the new scalars are singlets under the flavor group then they must be color singlets or color octets. In this paper we discuss the allowed representations and renormalizable couplings when the new scalars also transform under the flavor group. Read More

It is widely believed that existing electroweak data requires a Standard Model Higgs to be light while electroweak and flavour physics constraints require other scalars charged under the Standard Model gauge couplings to be heavy. We analyze the robustness of these beliefs within a general scalar sector and find both to be incorrect, provided that the scalar sector approximately preserves custodial symmetry and minimal flavour violation (MFV). We demonstrate this by considering the phenomenology of the Standard Model supplemented by a scalar having SU(3)_c x SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y quantum numbers (8,2)_(1/2) which has been argued to be the only kind of exotic flavour singlet scalar allowed by MFV that couples to quarks. Read More

We use the power-counting formalism of effective field theory to study the size of loop corrections in theories of slow-roll inflation, with the aim of more precisely identifying the limits of validity of the usual classical inflationary treatments. We keep our analysis as general as possible in order to systematically identify the most important corrections to the classical inflaton dynamics. Although most slow-roll models lie within the semiclassical domain, we find the consistency of the Higgs-Inflaton scenario to be more delicate due to the proximity between the Hubble scale during inflation and the upper bound allowed by unitarity on the new-physics scale associated with the breakdown of the semiclassical approximation within the effective theory. Read More

We point out that when the decay of one electroweak scale super-WIMP state to another occurs at second order in a super-weak coupling constant, this can naturally lead to decay lifetimes that are much larger than the age of the Universe, and create observable consequences for the indirect detection of dark matter. We demonstrate this in a supersymmetric model with Dirac neutrinos, where the right-handed scalar neutrinos are the lightest and next-to-lightest supersymmetric partners. We show that this model produces a super-WIMP decay rate scaling as m_nu^4/(weak scale)^3, and may significantly enhance the fraction of energetic electrons and positrons over anti-protons in the decay products. Read More

We show that the effect of the top quark can dominate over the effect of the gauge sector in determining the vacuum alignment in little higgs (LH) models. We demonstrate that in the littlest LH model and the SU(2)xSU(2)xU(1) LH model, ensuring that the correct vacuum alignment is chosen requires that a subset of the gauge sector couplings be large to overcome the effect of the top quark. We quantify this effect by deriving bounds on the couplings in the gauge sector and demonstrate that these bounds provide a compelling theoretical reason for the gauge coupling constant hierarchy in the SU(2)xSU(2)xU(1) model that reduces the Goldstone decay constant scale to a TeV. Read More

We examine the nature of electroweak Baryogenesis when the Higgs boson's properties are modified by the effects of new physics. We utilize the effective potential to one loop (ring improving the finite temperature perturbative expansion) while retaining parametrically enhanced dimension six operators of O(v^2/f^2) in the Higgs sector. These parametrically enhanced operators would be present if the Higgs is a pseudo-goldstone boson of a new physics sector with a characteristic mass scale Lambda ~ TeV, a coupling constant (4 pi) > g > 1 and a strong decay constant scale f = Lambda/g. Read More

We show that there are regions of parameter space in multi-scalar doublet models where, in the first few hundred inverse femtobarns of data, the new charged and neutral scalars are not directly observable at the LHC and yet the Higgs decay rate to b bbar is changed significantly from its standard model value. For a light Higgs with a mass less than 140 GeV, this can cause a large change in the number of two photon and tau tau Higgs decay events expected at the LHC compared to the minimal standard model. In the models we consider, the principle of minimal flavor violation is used to suppress flavor changing neutral currents. Read More

A rateless code-i.e., a rate-compatible family of codes-has the property that codewords of the higher rate codes are prefixes of those of the lower rate ones. Read More