Abstract
In previous works [1, 2], we have performed the one-loop matching of both type-I and type-II seesaw models for neutrino masses onto the Standard Model Effective Field Theories (SMEFT). In the present paper, by matching the type-III seesaw model onto the SMEFT at the one-loop level, we complete this series of studies on the construction of low-energy effective field theories (EFTs) for the canonical seesaw models. After integrating out the heavy fermionic triplets in the type-III seesaw model via both functional and diagrammatic approaches, we find 33 dimension-six (dim-6) operators in the Warsaw basis and their Wilson coefficients, while the number of dim-6 operators is 31 (or 41) for the EFT of type-I (or type-II) seesaw model. Furthermore, we calculate the branching ratios of radiative decays of charged leptons in the EFT. Then, the relationship between the beta function of the quartic Higgs coupling λ in the full theory and that of λEFT in the EFT is clarified. Finally, we briefly discuss the phenomenological implications of three types of seesaw EFTs and propose working observables that are sensitive to the four-fermion operators, which could be used to distinguish among different seesaw models in collider experiments.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
D. Zhang and S. Zhou, Complete one-loop matching of the type-I seesaw model onto the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 09 (2021) 163 [arXiv:2107.12133] [INSPIRE].
X. Li, D. Zhang and S. Zhou, One-loop matching of the type-II seesaw model onto the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 04 (2022) 038 [arXiv:2201.05082] [INSPIRE].
Z.-Z. Xing, Flavor structures of charged fermions and massive neutrinos, Phys. Rept. 854 (2020) 1 [arXiv:1909.09610] [INSPIRE].
P. Minkowski, μ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon Decays?, Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421 [INSPIRE].
T. Yanagida, Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos, Conf. Proc. C 7902131 (1979) 95 [INSPIRE].
M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Complex Spinors and Unified Theories, Conf. Proc. C 790927 (1979) 315 [arXiv:1306.4669] [INSPIRE].
S.L. Glashow, The Future of Elementary Particle Physics, NATO Sci. Ser. B 61 (1980) 687 [INSPIRE].
R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912 [INSPIRE].
W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Nonconservation of Total Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons, Phys. Lett. B 70 (1977) 433 [INSPIRE].
M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Neutrino Mass Problem and Gauge Hierarchy, Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 61 [INSPIRE].
J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) × U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227 [INSPIRE].
T.P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Neutrino Masses, Mixings and Oscillations in SU(2) × U(1) Models of Electroweak Interactions, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2860 [INSPIRE].
R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Masses and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Violation, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 165 [INSPIRE].
G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model, Nucl. Phys. B 181 (1981) 287 [INSPIRE].
R. Foot, H. Lew, X.G. He and G.C. Joshi, Seesaw Neutrino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 441 [INSPIRE].
W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621 [INSPIRE].
I. Brivio and M. Trott, The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rept. 793 (2019) 1 [arXiv:1706.08945] [INSPIRE].
G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96 (2024) 015006 [arXiv:2303.16922] [INSPIRE].
S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1566 [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].
L. Lehman, Extending the Standard Model Effective Field Theory with the Complete Set of Dimension-7 Operators, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 125023 [arXiv:1410.4193] [INSPIRE].
H.-L. Li et al., Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 015026 [arXiv:2005.00008] [INSPIRE].
C.W. Murphy, Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Eective Field Theory, JHEP 10 (2020) 174 [arXiv:2005.00059] [INSPIRE].
Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, An explicit construction of the dimension-9 operator basis in the standard model effective field theory, JHEP 11 (2020) 152 [arXiv:2007.08125] [INSPIRE].
H.-L. Li et al., Complete set of dimension-nine operators in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 015025 [arXiv:2007.07899] [INSPIRE].
R.V. Harlander, T. Kempkens and M.C. Schaaf, Standard model effective field theory up to mass dimension 12, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 055020 [arXiv:2305.06832] [INSPIRE].
B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama, 2, 84, 30, 993, 560, 15456, 11962, 261485, . . . : Higher dimension operators in the SM EFT, JHEP 08 (2017) 016 [Erratum ibid. 09 (2019) 019] [arXiv:1512.03433] [INSPIRE].
S. Weinberg, Effective Gauge Theories, Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 51 [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].
B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama, How to use the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 01 (2016) 023 [arXiv:1412.1837] [INSPIRE].
A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon and T. You, The Universal One-Loop Effective Action, JHEP 03 (2016) 180 [arXiv:1512.03003] [INSPIRE].
S.A.R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang, Mixed heavy-light matching in the Universal One-Loop Effective Action, Phys. Lett. B 762 (2016) 166 [arXiv:1604.02445] [INSPIRE].
B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama, One-loop Matching and Running with Covariant Derivative Expansion, JHEP 01 (2018) 123 [arXiv:1604.01019] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martin, J. Portoles and P. Ruiz-Femenia, Integrating out heavy particles with functional methods: a simplified framework, JHEP 09 (2016) 156 [arXiv:1607.02142] [INSPIRE].
Z. Zhang, Covariant diagrams for one-loop matching, JHEP 05 (2017) 152 [arXiv:1610.00710] [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].
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].
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].
T. Cohen, M. Freytsis and X. Lu, Functional Methods for Heavy Quark Effective Theory, JHEP 06 (2020) 164 [arXiv:1912.08814] [INSPIRE].
T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, Functional Prescription for EFT Matching, JHEP 02 (2021) 228 [arXiv:2011.02484] [INSPIRE].
T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, STrEAMlining EFT Matching, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 098 [arXiv:2012.07851] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martin et al., SuperTracer: A Calculator of Functional Supertraces for One-Loop EFT Matching, JHEP 04 (2021) 281 [arXiv:2012.08506] [INSPIRE].
S. Dittmaier, S. Schuhmacher and M. Stahlhofen, Integrating out heavy fields in the path integral using the background-field method: general formalism, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 826 [arXiv:2102.12020] [INSPIRE].
I. Brivio et al., From models to SMEFT and back?, SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 036 [arXiv:2108.01094] [INSPIRE].
A. Dedes and K. Mantzaropoulos, Universal scalar leptoquark action for matching, JHEP 11 (2021) 166 [arXiv:2108.10055] [INSPIRE].
R. Coy and M. Frigerio, Effective comparison of neutrino-mass models, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 115041 [arXiv:2110.09126] [INSPIRE].
T. Ohlsson and M. Pernow, One-loop matching conditions in neutrino effective theory, Nucl. Phys. B 978 (2022) 115729 [arXiv:2201.00840] [INSPIRE].
Y. Du, X.-X. Li and J.-H. Yu, Neutrino seesaw models at one-loop matching: discrimination by effective operators, JHEP 09 (2022) 207 [arXiv:2201.04646] [INSPIRE].
D. Zhang, Complete one-loop structure of the type-(I+II) seesaw effective field theory, JHEP 03 (2023) 217 [arXiv:2208.07869] [INSPIRE].
Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma, One-loop matching of scotogenic model onto standard model effective field theory up to dimension 7, JHEP 12 (2022) 053 [arXiv:2210.04270] [INSPIRE].
A. Abada et al., Low energy effects of neutrino masses, JHEP 12 (2007) 061 [arXiv:0707.4058] [INSPIRE].
M. Beneke and V.A. Smirnov, Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold, Nucl. Phys. B 522 (1998) 321 [hep-ph/9711391] [INSPIRE].
B. Jantzen, Foundation and generalization of the expansion by regions, JHEP 12 (2011) 076 [arXiv:1111.2589] [INSPIRE].
M. Jiang, N. Craig, Y.-Y. Li and D. Sutherland, Complete one-loop matching for a singlet scalar in the Standard Model EFT, JHEP 02 (2019) 031 [Erratum ibid. 01 (2021) 135] [arXiv:1811.08878] [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., A proof of concept for matchete: an automated tool for matching effective theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 662 [arXiv:2212.04510] [INSPIRE].
E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence, JHEP 10 (2013) 087 [arXiv:1308.2627] [INSPIRE].
J. Aebischer, A. Crivellin, M. Fael and C. Greub, Matching of gauge invariant dimension-six operators for b → s and b → c transitions, JHEP 05 (2016) 037 [arXiv:1512.02830] [INSPIRE].
T. Hurth, S. Renner and W. Shepherd, Matching for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT, JHEP 06 (2019) 029 [arXiv:1903.00500] [INSPIRE].
W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: matching at one loop, JHEP 10 (2019) 197 [Erratum ibid. 11 (2022) 148] [arXiv:1908.05295] [INSPIRE].
J. Fuentes-Martín et al., Evanescent operators in one-loop matching computations, JHEP 02 (2023) 031 [arXiv:2211.09144] [INSPIRE].
A. Abada et al., mu → e gamma and tau → l gamma decays in the fermion triplet seesaw model, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 033007 [arXiv:0803.0481] [INSPIRE].
D. Zhang and S. Zhou, Radiative decays of charged leptons in the seesaw effective field theory with one-loop matching, Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021) 136463 [arXiv:2102.04954] [INSPIRE].
J. Aebischer et al., Effective field theory interpretation of lepton magnetic and electric dipole moments, JHEP 07 (2021) 107 [arXiv:2102.08954] [INSPIRE].
J. Elias-Miro et al., Higgs mass implications on the stability of the electroweak vacuum, Phys. Lett. B 709 (2012) 222 [arXiv:1112.3022] [INSPIRE].
Z.-Z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Impacts of the Higgs mass on vacuum stability, running fermion masses and two-body Higgs decays, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 013013 [arXiv:1112.3112] [INSPIRE].
S. Goswami, K.N. Vishnudath and N. Khan, Constraining the minimal type-III seesaw model with naturalness, lepton flavor violation, and electroweak vacuum stability, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 075012 [arXiv:1810.11687] [INSPIRE].
Y. Wang, D. Zhang and S. Zhou, Complete one-loop renormalization-group equations in the seesaw effective field theories, JHEP 05 (2023) 044 [arXiv:2302.08140] [INSPIRE].
R. Penco, An Introduction to Effective Field Theories, arXiv:2006.16285 [INSPIRE].
A. de Gouvea and J. Jenkins, A Survey of Lepton Number Violation Via Effective Operators, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 013008 [arXiv:0708.1344] [INSPIRE].
R. Coy and M. Frigerio, Effective approach to lepton observables: the seesaw case, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 095040 [arXiv:1812.03165] [INSPIRE].
S. Davidson, Completeness and complementarity for μ → eγμ → \(e\overline{e }e\) and μA → eA, JHEP 02 (2021) 172 [arXiv:2010.00317] [INSPIRE].
M. Ardu, S. Davidson and S. Lavignac, Distinguishing models with μ → e observables, JHEP 11 (2023) 101 [arXiv:2308.16897] [INSPIRE].
G. Durieux et al., Snowmass White Paper: prospects for the measurement of top-quark couplings, in the proceedings of the Snowmass 2021, Seattle, U.S.A., July 17–26 (2022) [arXiv:2205.02140] [INSPIRE].
J. de Blas et al., Global SMEFT Fits at Future Colliders, in the proceedings of the Snowmass 2021, Seattle, U.S.A., July 17–26 (2022) [arXiv:2206.08326] [INSPIRE].
I. Brivio et al., O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector, JHEP 02 (2020) 131 [arXiv:1910.03606] [INSPIRE].
C. Zhang and S. Willenbrock, Effective-Field-Theory Approach to Top-Quark Production and Decay, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 034006 [arXiv:1008.3869] [INSPIRE].
ATLAS and CMS collaborations, Combinations of single-top-quark production cross-section measurements and |fLV Vtb| determinations at \(\sqrt{s}\) = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments, JHEP 05 (2019) 088 [arXiv:1902.07158] [INSPIRE].
NNPDF collaboration, Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF analysis, SciPost Phys. 5 (2018) 008 [arXiv:1712.07053] [INSPIRE].
N. Kidonakis, NNLL threshold resummation for top-pair and single-top production, Phys. Part. Nucl. 45 (2014) 714 [arXiv:1210.7813] [INSPIRE].
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 11835013.
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: 2309.14702
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
Li, X., Zhou, S. One-loop matching of the type-III seesaw model onto the Standard Model Effective Field Theory. J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 169 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)169
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2024)169