1: \documentclass[tbtags]{article}
2: %
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,mathrsfs,epsfig,subfigure}
4: \newcommand{\lagr}{\mathscr{L}}
5: \newcommand{\partialvob}{\partial\hspace{-6pt}\raisebox{9pt}[0pt]{$\scriptscriptstyle\leftrightarrow$}}
6: %
7: \newcommand{\msbar}{\hspace{0.4mm}\overline{\text{\hspace{-0.4mm}MS\hspace{-0.6mm}}}\hspace{0.6mm}}
8: \newcommand{\GeV}{\text{GeV}}
9: \newcommand{\fI}{f^{\Lambda}_{i}}
10: \newcommand{\fB}{f^{\Lambda}_{\scriptscriptstyle B}}
11: \newcommand{\fBW}{f^{\Lambda}_{\scriptscriptstyle BW}}
12: \newcommand{\fW}{f^{\Lambda}_{\scriptscriptstyle W}}
13: \newcommand{\fDW}{f^{\Lambda}_{\scriptscriptstyle DW}}
14: \newcommand{\fWW}{f^{\Lambda}_{\scriptscriptstyle WW}}
15: \newcommand{\fWWW}{f^{\Lambda}_{\scriptscriptstyle WWW}}
16: \newcommand{\fBB}{f^{\Lambda}_{BB}}
17: \begin{document}
18: \vspace*{2cm}
19: \begin{center}
20: {\Large {\bf Contribution of dimension-six bosonic operators to $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ at one-loop level}}\\[0.6cm]
21: %
22: Ji\v{r}\'{\i}
23: Ho\v{r}ej\v{s}\'\i\footnote{Jiri.Horejsi@mff.cuni.cz},
24: Karol Kampf\footnote{karol.kampf@mff.cuni.cz}\\[0.3cm]
25: %
26: Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics,\\ Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University\\
27: V Hole\v{s}ovi\v{c}k\'ach 2, CZ-18000 Prague, Czech Republic
28: \end{center}\vspace{1.5cm}
29: \begin{abstract}
30: The decay process $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ is examined in a
31: model-independent way within the effective Lagrangian approach.
32: Contribution of a set of irreducible one-loop diagrams involving
33: $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant dimension-six bosonic operators is
34: evaluated explicitly. The calculation is intended to fill a gap
35: that exists in the current literature on the subject.
36: \\[0.5cm]
37: {\it keywords\/}: electroweak interactions; effective Lagrangians;
38: Higgs decay into two photons.
39: \\[0.3cm]
40: PACS Nos.: 12.15.-y, 14.80.Bn, 12.60.-i
41: \end{abstract}
42: \newpage
43: \section{Introduction}
44: The standard model (SM) of fundamental interactions has so far
45: proved to be a very successful theory, at least from the point of
46: view of present-day phenomenology. The most prominent unsolved
47: issue is the mechanism of the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB)
48: and a possible existence of the related Higgs scalar sector.
49: Current precision tests of the SM seem to point towards a
50: relatively light Higgs boson, i.e. such that $m_H<200\,\text{GeV}$
51: or so (see e.g.~\cite{barate03}). Needless to say, such an
52: ``evidence" is only indirect, as it is based on a successful fit
53: of calculated effects of the relevant closed-loop Feynman graphs
54: to the precision electroweak data. Note also that there is another
55: message from the EWSB sector, which is more general and rather
56: spectacular. For the famous parameter
57: $\rho=m_W^2/m_Z^2\cos^2\theta_W$ (with $m_W$ and $m_Z$ denoting
58: the vector boson masses and $\theta_W$ being the weak mixing
59: angle) the experimental data show that, with great accuracy,
60: $\rho=1$. Such a value is naturally obtained from the Higgs sector
61: with doublet structure, or, more generally, from an EWSB mechanism
62: respecting the custodial $SU(2)$ symmetry~\cite{sikivie80}.
63:
64: On the other hand, a general opinion prevailing nowadays is that
65: SM cannot be, for various reasons, an ultimate model of particle
66: physics -- in other words, it should be understood as an effective
67: theory valid below the energy scale of the order
68: $O(1\,\text{TeV})$ and somewhere above that scale, some kind of
69: new physics is to be expected (for a review, see e.g.~\cite{bsm}).
70: A general framework for describing the effects of the physics
71: beyond SM is an appropriate effective Lagrangian. This
72: incorporates, besides the standard renormalizable interaction
73: terms with dimension four and three, also non-renormalizable
74: higher-dimensional terms involving negative powers of a $\Lambda$,
75: the relevant scale of new physics. Thus, the generic form of such
76: an effective electroweak Lagrangian reads
77: \begin{equation}\label{Leff}
78: \lagr_{\text{\it eff}} = \lagr_{SM} +
79: \sum_{n\geq5}\sum_{i=1}^{N_n} \frac{\alpha_i^{(n)}}
80: {\Lambda^{n-4}} \mathcal{O}_i^{(n)}.
81: \end{equation}
82: When constructing such an extension of the SM, gauge invariance
83: under $SU(2)\times U(1)$ is required and, in addition to that, one
84: can make a specific assumption concerning the $\Lambda$. We shall
85: assume that $\Lambda\gg v$, where $v\doteq 246\,\text{GeV}$ is the
86: usual electroweak scale. This corresponds to the so-called
87: ``decoupling scenario", in which the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry
88: is realized linearly (concerning the terminology, see
89: e.g.~\cite{wudka94}, \cite{ns} and references therein). In
90: particular, this means that the unphysical Goldstone bosons enter
91: via the standard complex $SU(2)$ doublet, along with the
92: elementary Higgs boson field and, generally, the low-energy
93: spectrum is supposed to be identical with that of SM. Explicit
94: representation of the non-renormalizable higher-order terms
95: invariant under $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge symmetry can be found in
96: the literature, see in particular~\cite{buchmuller85},
97: \cite{hagiwara93}. Contributions of the higher-dimensional terms
98: to the amplitudes of low-energy processes are then in fact
99: suppressed by powers of the ratio $v/\Lambda$.
100:
101: In future experimental searches for the Higgs scalars, the process
102: $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ might play an important role, since a
103: light scalar boson (i.e. that with $m_H<2m_W$) could be detected
104: through this decay mode at LHC (cf.~\cite{cranmer04} and
105: references therein). Of course, there is no tree-level coupling
106: $H\gamma\gamma$ within SM: the lowest-dimensional interaction term
107: of this type is necessarily proportional to
108: $HF_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}$ (where $F_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the
109: electromagnetic field strength) if one is to maintain the
110: electromagnetic gauge invariance. However, such a monomial has
111: obviously dimension five and is therefore non-renormalizable.
112: Consequently, SM yields a calculable (i.e. ultraviolet-finite)
113: result for $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ matrix element at one-loop
114: level and this was obtained long ago~\cite{ellis75}. It can also
115: be sensitive to possible effects of the new physics described
116: schematically by the expansion~(\ref{Leff}) and in current
117: literature there are several papers dealing with this issue (see
118: e.g.~\cite{konig91}, \cite{hgg}, \cite{ns}); let us remark that
119: contributions of higher-dimensional effective interactions to the
120: inverse process $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow H$ have also been
121: considered previously~\cite{banin98}. Nevertheless, what seems to
122: be still missing, is a one-loop calculation involving a complete
123: set of $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant operators that would yield the
124: leading correction (in powers of $1/\Lambda$) to the SM result.
125: Some important steps toward this goal have already been made
126: previously in the papers~\cite{konig91}, \cite{hgg} and~\cite{ns}.
127: In the present paper we would like to fill a gap that, in our
128: opinion, occurs in the existing treatments. In particular, our
129: effort is concentrated on the part of the calculation that is
130: perhaps most tedious from the technical point of view: we evaluate
131: one-particle irreducible purely bosonic one-loop graphs involving
132: just one insertion of a dimension-six effective interaction vertex
133: from~(\ref{Leff}), with other ingredients descending from SM. An
134: important consistency check of our computation is the transverse
135: tensor structure of the matrix element -- this is achieved,
136: similarly as in the SM case, only when a set of relevant graphs is
137: summed. Thus, the results presented in this paper are of rather
138: technical nature, but we believe that they may prove useful in a
139: future complete calculation based on the $SU(2)\times U(1)$
140: effective Lagrangian of the type~(\ref{Leff}).
141:
142: The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we give a
143: brief summary of the basic SM results for $H\rightarrow
144: \gamma\gamma$. In Section 3, the set of $SU(2)\times U(1)$ bosonic
145: operators with dimension six is shown explicitly and in Section 4
146: we display the main features of the whole calculation. The results
147: are described in some detail in Section 5 and Section 6 contains
148: their short summary and some concluding remarks. To make the paper
149: self-contained, we have added the Appendix containing the
150: definitions and explicit analytic formulae for the
151: Passarino-Veltman functions that are necessary for the evaluation
152: of loop integrals.
153: \newpage
154: \section{Standard Model Results}
155: \label{SMp} To begin with, let us reproduce here -- for reference
156: purposes -- the form of the electroweak SM Lagrangian. In the
157: $U$-gauge it reads (for a concise summary see
158: e.g.~\cite{horejsi02})
159: \begin{equation}\begin{split}
160: \lagr^{(GWS)}_{int} &= \sum_f Q_f e \bar{f} \gamma^\mu f A_\mu +
161: \lagr_{CC} + \lagr_{NC}\\ &+ig (W^0_\mu W^-_\nu \partialvob^\mu
162: W^{+\nu} + W^-_\mu W^+_\nu \partialvob^\mu W^{0\nu} + W^+_\mu
163: W^0_\nu \partialvob^\mu W^{-\nu})\\
164: &-g^2 \bigl[ \tfrac{1}{2}(W^-\cdot W^+)^2 - \tfrac{1}{2}(W^-)^2
165: (W^+)^2 + (W^0)^2 (W^-\cdot W^+) \\ &\hspace{5.7cm}- (W^-\cdot
166: W^0)(W^+\cdot W^0) \bigr]\\
167: &+gm_W W^-_\mu W^{+\mu} H + \frac{1}{2\cos\theta_W} g m_Z Z_\mu
168: Z^\mu H \\ &+\frac{1}{4} g^2 W^-_\mu W^{+\mu} H^2 +
169: \frac{1}{8}\frac{g^2}{\cos^2\theta_W} Z_\mu Z^\mu H^2 \\
170: &-\sum_f \frac{1}{2} g \frac{m_f}{m_W} \bar{f}f H - \frac{1}{4} g
171: \frac{m_H^2}{m_W} H^3 - \frac{1}{32} g^2 \frac{m_H^2}{m_W^2} H^4,
172: \end{split}\end{equation}
173: where we have denoted
174: \begin{equation} W^0_\mu = \cos\theta_W Z_\mu + \sin\theta_W
175: A_\mu.\label{Lin1}
176: \end{equation}
177: The $\lagr_{CC}$ and $\lagr_{NC}$ are the usual symbols for
178: charged and neutral current interactions of fermions with vector
179: fields; an explicit form of these terms will not be needed for our
180: calculations.
181:
182: As we have already stressed in the Introduction, for obvious
183: dimensional reasons there is no direct tree-level $H\gamma\gamma$
184: coupling within the SM Lagrangian. The one-loop SM graphs for the
185: decay process $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ are shown in
186: Fig.\ref{hgg1}.
187: \begin{figure}[ht]
188: \begin{center}
189: \subfigure[]{\scalebox{0.88}{\epsfig{file=graf1.eps}}}
190: \subfigure[]{\scalebox{0.88}{\epsfig{file=graf2.eps}}}\subfigure[]{\scalebox{0.88}{\epsfig{file=graf1t.eps}}}
191: \end{center}
192: \caption{SM one-loop diagrams for $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$.
193: Crossing of the external photon lines is implicit in contributions
194: of the graphs (a) and (c).} \label{hgg1}
195: \end{figure}
196: Note that at this level, the fermionic part is dominated by the
197: contribution of the heaviest fermion species. Therefore we
198: consider here the top quark loop only.
199:
200: A straightforward calculation yields the following result for the
201: decay matrix element:
202: \begin{equation}\label{MSM}
203: {\cal M} = (F_\text{VB}+F_\text{top}) \Bigl(g^{\alpha\beta} -
204: \frac{2 k^\alpha p^\beta}{m_H^2} \Bigr) \varepsilon^*_\alpha(p)
205: \varepsilon^*_\beta(k),
206: \end{equation}
207: where the ``formfactors" $F_\text{VB}$ and $F_\text{top}$
208: represent the contributions of the vector boson and top quark loop
209: respectively. These are expressed through
210: \begin{align}
211: F_\text{VB} &= \frac{3 i m_W}{8\pi^2}\bigl[1 + \frac{m_H^2}{6
212: m_W^2} + (2 m_W^2 - m_H^2)
213: C_0(m_H^2,0,0,m_W^2,m_W^2,m_W^2)\bigr]\,, \label{Fbos}\\
214: F_\text{top} &= \frac{-i}{6\pi^2} \frac{m_t^2}{m_W} \bigl[ 2 + (4
215: m_t^2-m_H^2) C_0(m_H^2,0,0,m_t^2,m_t^2,m_t^2)\bigr]\,,\label{Ffer}
216: \end{align}
217: with $C_0$ denoting the relevant Passarino-Veltman function (see
218: e.g.~\cite{bardin99}); the definitions and explicit analytic
219: formulae for a set of these functions are summarized in the
220: Appendix.
221:
222: Notice also that in writing the result~(\ref{MSM}), we have
223: pinpointed the tensorial factor
224: \begin{equation}\label{Tmn}
225: T^{\mu\nu} = g^{\mu\nu} - 2 m_H^{-2}k^\mu p^\nu,
226: \end{equation}
227: which is transverse with respect to the external photon momenta,
228: i.e.
229: \begin{equation}
230: p_\mu T^{\mu\nu} = 0,\qquad k_\nu T^{\mu\nu}=0 \label{T0}
231: \end{equation}
232: as anticipated on the basis of the electromagnetic gauge
233: invariance. The appearance of the transverse tensor
234: structure~(\ref{Tmn}) will serve as an important consistency check
235: also in our subsequent calculations with the effective
236: Lagrangian~(\ref{Leff}).
237:
238: Finally, let us add that from the matrix element~(\ref{MSM}) one
239: obtains the decay width
240: \begin{equation}
241: \label{GSM} \Gamma_\text{SM}(H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) =
242: \frac{8\pi\alpha^2 G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{m_W^2}{m_H} | F_\text{top}
243: + F_\text{VB} |^2 \, ,
244: \end{equation}
245: (cf.~\cite{bardin99}).
246:
247: \section{Dimension-Six Effective Operators}\label{Section3}
248: Let us now proceed to examine in more detail the effective
249: interaction terms with dimension greater than four, described
250: schematically by the second part of the Lagrangian~(\ref{Leff}).
251: As noted in the Introduction, we shall restrict ourselves to the
252: dimension-six bosonic operators. Thus, the effective Lagrangian we
253: are going to work with has a general form
254: \begin{equation}\label{Le6}
255: \lagr_{\text{\it eff}} = \lagr_{SM} + \sum_i
256: \frac{f_i^{(6)}}{\Lambda^2} \mathcal{O}_i^{(6)}.
257: \end{equation}
258: For the moment, let us leave aside any discussion of possible
259: ``realistic" values of the mass scale $\Lambda$ and coupling
260: constants $f_i^{(6)}$ that parameterize the effects of a new
261: physics beyond SM. Here we only give a full list of the operators
262: $O_i^{(6)}$ that will be utilized in our calculation. An explicit
263: construction of such a set was studied systematically e.g.
264: in~\cite{hagiwara93}. Assuming that the bosonic sector of our
265: effective low-energy theory contains only the particles $W^\pm$,
266: $Z$, $\gamma$ and $H$, and imposing the requirement of
267: $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge symmetry together with separate
268: invariance under charge conjugation and parity, one arrives at
269: eleven independent dimension-6 monomials in the relevant field
270: variables, namely
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: && {\cal O}_{WWW}=\text{Tr}[\hat{W}_{\mu
273: \nu}\hat{W}^{\nu\rho}\hat{W}_{\rho}^{\mu}]
274: , \nonumber \\
275: && {\cal O}_{WW} = \Phi^{\dagger} \hat{W}_{\mu \nu}
276: \hat{W}^{\mu \nu} \Phi , \nonumber \\
277: &&{\cal O}_{BW} = \Phi^{\dagger} \hat{B}_{\mu \nu}
278: \hat{W}^{\mu \nu} \Phi, \nonumber \\
279: && {\cal O}_{DW} = \text{Tr}\bigl([ D_\mu ,\hat{W}_{\nu \rho}]
280: [ D^\mu ,\hat{W}^{\nu\rho} ]\bigr), \nonumber \\
281: &&{\cal O}_{DB}=-\frac{{g^\prime}^2}{2} \left(\partial_\mu
282: B_{\nu\rho}\right) \left(\partial^\mu
283: B^{\nu\rho}\right),\nonumber \\
284: &&{\cal O}_{BB} = \Phi^{\dagger} \hat{B}_{\mu \nu} \hat{B}^{\mu
285: \nu} \Phi , \nonumber \\
286: &&{\cal O}_W = (D_{\mu} \Phi)^{\dagger}
287: \hat{W}^{\mu \nu} (D_{\nu} \Phi), \nonumber \\
288: &&{\cal O}_B = (D_{\mu} \Phi)^{\dagger} \hat{B}^{\mu \nu}
289: (D_{\nu} \Phi), \nonumber \\
290: &&{\cal O}_{\Phi,1} = \left ( D_\mu \Phi \right)^\dagger
291: \Phi^\dagger \Phi
292: \left ( D^\mu \Phi \right ), \nonumber \\
293: &&{\cal O}_{\Phi,2} =\frac{1}{2}
294: \partial^\mu\left ( \Phi^\dagger \Phi \right)
295: \partial_\mu\left ( \Phi^\dagger \Phi \right), \nonumber \\
296: &&{\cal O}_{\Phi,3} =\frac{1}{3} \left(\Phi^\dagger \Phi
297: \right)^3. \label{c6}
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: Some explanatory remarks concerning the notation employed
300: in~(\ref{c6}) are in order here. For convenience, we have
301: introduced the symbols $\hat{B}$ and $\hat{W}$ for vector field
302: variables including the gauge coupling constants:
303: \begin{equation}
304: \hat{B}_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{2}ig' B_{\mu \nu},\hspace{1cm}
305: \hat{W}_{\mu\nu} = i g \frac{\sigma^a}{2} W^a_{\mu \nu},
306: \end{equation}
307: with $\sigma^a$ being the standard Pauli matrices and
308: \begin{align}
309: B_\mu &= -\sin\theta_W Z_\mu + \cos\theta_W A_\mu\\
310: W^\mp_\mu &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(W^1_\mu \pm i W^2_\mu).
311: \end{align}
312: The covariant derivative acting on the isospin doublet $\Phi$ has
313: the form
314: \begin{equation}
315: D_\mu = \partial_\mu + \frac{i}{2}g' B_\mu + i
316: g\frac{\sigma^a}{2}W^a_\mu.
317: \end{equation}
318: The Higgs boson field is introduced by means of the $\Phi$ in the usual way; in the $U$-gauge this becomes
319: \begin{equation}
320: \Phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}0\\ v + H \end{pmatrix}.
321: \label{PhiU}
322: \end{equation}
323:
324: \section{Contribution to $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ from $\lagr^{(6)}_\text{boson}$}
325:
326: With the basic SM results for the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ decay
327: amplitude at hand (see (\ref{MSM})-(\ref{Ffer})), a natural next
328: goal is to calculate the corresponding leading correction due to
329: the $O(1/\Lambda^2)$ terms in the effective Lagrangian
330: (\ref{Le6}). To this end, we shall consider tree-level and
331: one-loop diagrams, in which a vertex originating in the
332: $\mathcal{L}_\text{boson}^{(6)}$ appears exactly once. As we have
333: stated in the Introduction, we are primarily interested in a
334: complete evaluation of the one-particle irreducible one-loop
335: bosonic graphs. Note that for this type of contributions, the
336: transversality expressed by eq.~(\ref{T0}) represents a
337: non-trivial criterion of correctness of the whole calculation, as
338: it is achieved only in the sum of all relevant diagrams (in
339: contrast to that, a contribution of any individual reducible
340: diagram is transverse by itself).
341:
342: Two remarks are in order here. First, the complete calculation
343: would have to include an appropriate renormalization procedure: UV
344: divergent parts of one-loop graphs, evaluated by means of
345: dimensional regularization, should be absorbed into a redefinition
346: of the tree-level coefficients of the effective Lagrangian -- in
347: other words, they are to be cancelled by appropriate counterterms,
348: whose structure is determined by the considered
349: Lagrangian~(\ref{Le6}). In the present paper, we do not implement
350: such a full-fledged renormalization procedure, since we
351: temporarily ignore some contributions that have been studied
352: previously by other authors (for example, contributions due to
353: dimension-six fermionic operators and, in general, contributions
354: of various reducible graphs). We prefer to give here just a
355: separate treatment of the above-mentioned irreducible graphs (as
356: far as we know, these have not been calculated before) and a more
357: complete discussion will be presented elsewhere. For practical
358: purposes, when displaying the results obtained for the diagrams in
359: question (see the next section), we remove the UV divergent parts
360: according to the $\msbar$ scheme.
361:
362: The second remark concerns the structure of the
363: operators~(\ref{c6}). Taking into account the $U$-gauge
364: representation of the Higgs doublet~(\ref{PhiU}), one can notice
365: that e.g. the $O_{WW}$ and $O_{BB}$ contain, among other things,
366: also parts proportional to the vector boson kinetic terms (of
367: course, these are obtained simply by replacing the $\Phi$ with its
368: vacuum expectation value). In our calculation, contribution of
369: such bilinear terms will be included in the considered Feynman
370: graphs in a straightforward manner, i.e. as any other
371: dimension-six effective coupling. An alternative approach would
372: consist in incorporating such effects into the renormalization
373: constants of the SM (cf. e.g.~\cite{hagiwara93}). Note that
374: bilinear interaction terms arise also from the other
375: operators~(\ref{c6}).
376:
377: Now, let us describe in more detail the set of Feynman graphs that
378: we are going to calculate. As indicated above, we first take the
379: graphs in Fig.~\ref{hgg1} and in each of them replace
380: consecutively a SM vertex with one of those stemming from the
381: $\lagr_\text{boson}^{(6)}$. Similarly, one can make insertions of
382: the $O(1/\Lambda^2)$ terms into propagators within the SM graphs.
383: In this way, one gets 16 diagrams, including the crossing of
384: external legs. Next, there are several graphs with a new (i.e. not
385: SM-like) topology. These are depicted in Fig.~\ref{hggeff}
386: (addition of the crossed diagram to Fig.~\ref{hggeff}b is tacitly
387: assumed).\vspace{-8pt}
388: \begin{figure}[ht]
389: \begin{center}
390: \subfigure[]{\epsfig{file=graf3.eps}}\qquad\qquad
391: \subfigure[]{\epsfig{file=graf4.eps}}\\[-12pt]
392: \subfigure[]{\epsfig{file=graf5.eps}}\qquad\quad
393: \subfigure[]{\epsfig{file=graf6.eps}}\vspace{-12pt}
394: \end{center}
395: \caption{Irreducible graphs with other than SM-like topologies.
396: The heavy dot stands for a dimension-six effective vertex}
397: \label{hggeff}
398: \end{figure}
399:
400: Finally, just for an illustration let us give some examples of
401: reducible graphs. Two such contributions are shown in
402: Fig.~\ref{hggeff2}.
403: \begin{figure}[ht]
404: \begin{center}
405: \epsfig{file=graf1_1.eps}\quad \epsfig{file=graf1_2.eps}
406: \end{center}
407: \caption{$H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$: tadpole-type vertex
408: corrections} \label{hggeff2}
409: \end{figure}
410: As we have stated before, we will not evaluate them explicitly
411: (though it would be relatively easy). Let us only make the
412: following remark: Closed loops appearing in Fig.~\ref{hggeff2}
413: belong to the tadpole-type SM subgraphs, which are known to
414: produce corrections to the Higgs vacuum expectation value $v$. In
415: general, such effects can be described in terms of appropriate
416: running value $v(\mu)$ depending on the relevant renormalization
417: scale. It turns out (cf.~\cite{arason91}) that corrections due to
418: running of the $v$ are rather small and thus, in a complete
419: calculation, one would not make a significant error when using
420: everywhere the basic value $v(m_W)=246.22\,\text{GeV}$ obtained
421: from the Fermi constant (measured precisely in muon decay).
422:
423: \section{Results and Discussion}
424: Let us now describe the results of our calculation. As we noted
425: above, the matrix element obtained from the considered Feynman
426: diagrams exhibits the desired transverse tensor structure:
427: \begin{equation}\label{MX}
428: {\cal M}(H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma) = X \Bigl(g^{\alpha\beta} -
429: \frac{2 k^\alpha p^\beta}{m_H^2} \Bigr) \varepsilon^*_\alpha(p)
430: \varepsilon^*_\beta(k),
431: \end{equation}
432: where $X$ stands for the relevant formfactor. This can be written,
433: in an obvious notation, as
434: \begin{equation}
435: X = e^2 g F_{\text{SM}} + e^2 F^{\text{tree}}_{\text{eff}} + e^2 g
436: F^{\text{loop}}_{\text{eff}}
437: \end{equation}
438: and the corresponding decay rate is then given by
439: \begin{equation}
440: \Gamma(H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma) = \frac{8\pi\alpha^2
441: G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{m_W^2}{m_H} |F_{\text{SM}} + \frac{1}{g}
442: F^{\text{tree}}_{\text{eff}} + F^{\text{loop}}_{\text{eff}}|^2 \,.
443: \end{equation}
444:
445: Since we take into account only bosonic operators in our
446: evaluation of the leading $O(1/\Lambda^2)$ correction to the SM
447: result, from now on we will also consider only the contribution of
448: bosonic loops within SM -- in other words, for the moment we will
449: ignore fermions altogether. Thus, we will set
450: \begin{equation}
451: \label{Floop} F_\text{SM} = F_\text{VB}
452: \end{equation}
453: henceforth (cf. (\ref{Fbos})). The contribution of dimension-six
454: operators~(\ref{c6}) at the tree level has the following simple
455: form:
456: \begin{equation}
457: \label{Ftree} F^\text{tree}_\text{eff} = \frac{i}{2}
458: (\frac{f_{BB}}{\Lambda^2}-\frac{f_{BW}}{\Lambda^2}+\frac{f_{WW}}{\Lambda^2})
459: m_H^2 v\,.
460: \end{equation}
461: The non-trivial part of our calculation is represented by the
462: closed-loop contribution. We have five basic topologies (plus two
463: crossings); in the corresponding diagrams we consider insertions
464: of effective dimension-six operators -- both in vertices and as
465: propagator corrections. In total, there are 23 one-loop tensor
466: integrals to be calculated. Obviously, such a calculation is huge:
467: a simple counting indicates that one has to expect tensors made of
468: loop momentum with up to ten indices, schematically
469: $$
470: \sim \int d^4 l\; l^{\mu_1}\ldots l^{\mu_{10}} \times
471: [\text{denominators}]^{-1},
472: $$
473: where six $(3\times 2)$ $l^\mu$'s come from propagators, one
474: $l^\mu$ from SM vertices and three loop momenta descend from an
475: effective vertex. Thus, the algebraic reduction of these
476: expressions to the standard scalar integrals is rather long and
477: tedious. Let us also emphasize that the transversality displayed
478: in eq.(\ref{MX}) is achieved only when all relevant irreducible
479: graphs are summed; among those, only Fig.~\ref{hggeff}c is
480: transverse by itself.
481:
482: The main result of this paper is the following formula for the
483: $F^\text{loop}_\text{eff}$:
484: \begin{multline}
485: 128 m_W \pi^2 F^\text{loop}_\text{eff} = \\ - 8i\Bigl(\fB - 2 \fBW
486: + \fW + 3 g^2 ( -4 \fDW + \fWWW )\Bigr) m_H^2
487: m_W^2 B_0(0, m_W^2, m_W^2)\\
488: - 3 (\fBB - \fBW + \fWW ) m_H^4 B_0(m_H^2, m_H^2, m_H^2)\\
489: +2\Bigl\{m_H^2 \Bigl((\fB - 2 \fBW + \fW ) m_H^2 - 2 (\fB - 2
490: \fBW + \fW \\+ 12 g^2 (-4 \fDW + \fWWW )) m_W^2\Bigr) B_0(m_H^2,
491: m_W^2,
492: m_W^2)\\
493: + 4 m_W^2 \Bigl[\Bigl(\fB - 2 (\fBW + 7 g^2 \fDW ) + 3 g^2 \fWWW
494: \Bigr) m_H^2 - 24 ( g^2 \fDW + \fWW ) m_W^2\\ + 2 \Bigl((\fW -
495: 2 \fWW ) m_H^4 - (\fB - 2 \fBW + 2 (\fW - 7 \fWW ) + 3 g^2 (-8
496: \fDW + \fWWW )) m_H^2 m_W^2 \\- 36 (g^2 \fDW + \fWW ) m_W^4\Bigr)
497: C_0(m_H^2, 0, 0; m_W^2)\\ + 4 (g^2 \fDW + \fWW ) m_W^2
498: \Bigl(-(m_H^2 + 6 m_W^2) C_0(m_H^2, m_H^2, 0; m_W^2)\\ - 2 m_W^2
499: (-m_H^2 + 6 m_W^2) (D_0(m_H^2; m_W^2) + 2 D_0(m_H^2, m_H^2;
500: m_W^2))\Bigr)\Bigr]\Bigr\}. \label{fted}
501: \end{multline}
502: The $B_0$, $C_0$ and $D_0$ denote the relevant Passarino-Veltman
503: functions (see Appendix) and we have used a shorthand notation
504: $\fI = f_i/\Lambda^2$. Note that UV divergences reside only in the
505: $B_0$ and can be removed by means of the $\msbar$ prescription
506: which amounts to the replacement
507: \begin{equation}
508: f_i = f_i^r + \xi_i \frac{1}{\tilde \varepsilon}\,
509: \end{equation}
510: (for the definition of the $1/\tilde\varepsilon$ see Appendix).
511: Then it is not difficult to realize that the following relation
512: holds
513: \begin{multline}
514: \xi_{BB}-\xi_{BW}+\xi_{WW} = \frac{g^2}{32\pi^2}\bigl(72
515: f^r_{DW}g^2 -18 f^r_{WWW}g^2 -3 f^r_B + 6 f^r_{BW} -3 f^r_W\\ +
516: \frac{m_H^2}{4 m_W^2} ( 2 f^r_B - 3 f^r_{BB} -3 f^r_{BW} + 2 f^r_W
517: -3 f^r_{WW} ) \bigr).
518: \end{multline}
519: (at least at the level of the considered irreducible graphs).
520:
521: Clearly, the result~(\ref{fted}) contains a lot of essentially
522: unknown free parameters, so it is rather difficult to make any
523: specific physical prediction for a correction to the SM decay
524: rate. Anyway, for illustration of our general formula let us
525: display at least some numerical examples. First, we discuss
526: briefly the behaviour of the $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ decay
527: width as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
528: \begin{figure}[th]
529: \begin{center}
530: \epsfig{file=grafhgg1.eps} \caption{Bosonic contributions to
531: $\Gamma(H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$ for $\Lambda = 1\,\text{TeV}$
532: and (I): all $f_i = 1$ (II): $f_{WW}=1.8$, $f_{BB}=-6.5$,
533: $f_{BW}=-3$, $f_{DW}=5.4$, $f_{WWW}=5.5$, $f_B=-4$ and $f_W=8$.}
534: \label{gr1}
535: \end{center}
536: \end{figure}
537: In Fig.~\ref{gr1} we have shown two examples of such a dependence,
538: corresponding to different choices of the $f_i$'s and with
539: $\Lambda=1\,\text{TeV}$. In the first option, we set all $f_i$'s
540: equal to 1. The second (more or less random) choice is designed to
541: demonstrate a possible reduction of the $\Gamma$ in contrast to
542: the otherwise typical enhancement of the SM result.\footnote{In
543: fact, the second choice has been set so as to reduce considerably
544: the SM result (for $m_H\doteq 120\,\text{GeV}$) by means of the
545: tree-level contribution of dimension-six operators.}
546:
547:
548: One could also wonder how much is this process dependent upon the
549: individual constants $f_i$. We could expect that the leading
550: contribution comes from the tree level (cf. (\ref{Ftree})). It is
551: of course true, but we can imagine a situation where the
552: tree-level contribution is suppressed and the one-loop graphs
553: dominate.
554: \begin{figure}[th]
555: \begin{center}
556: \epsfig{file=grafhgg2.eps} \caption{Bosonic contributions to
557: $\Gamma(H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$: dependence on a given
558: coefficient $f_i$ with all other being set to zero.
559: $m_H=120\,\GeV$ and $\Lambda = 1\,\text{TeV}$.} \label{gr2}
560: \end{center}
561: \end{figure}
562: From Fig.~\ref{gr2} we can see that apart from $f_{BB}$, $f_{BW}$
563: and $f_{WW}$ (which are not considered in this plot because of
564: their substantial contribution at the tree level), the $f_{DW}$
565: can give a rather large contribution.
566:
567: In the previous discussion we have always set $\Lambda=1\,
568: \text{TeV}$, which is a generic estimate of the new physics scale.
569: \begin{figure}[th]
570: \begin{center}
571: \epsfig{file=grafhgg3.eps} \caption{Bosonic contributions to
572: $\Gamma(H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$: the dependence on $\Lambda$.}
573: \label{gr3}
574: \end{center}
575: \end{figure}
576: In Fig.~\ref{gr3} we have depicted the dependence of the
577: calculated width $\Gamma$ on the $\Lambda$. As we would expect,
578: effects of the new physics are, roughly speaking, the more
579: important the smaller the scale $\Lambda$ is.
580: \section{Conclusion}
581: Using the effective Lagrangian approach, we have examined the
582: potentially interesting rare decay of the SM-like Higgs boson into
583: two photons. We have considered the ``decoupling scenario", in
584: which the onset of a new physics beyond SM is supposed to be
585: characterized by a mass scale $\Lambda\gg v$. Within such a rather
586: general framework, we have employed a full set of $SU(2)\times
587: U(1)$ invariant dimension-six bosonic effective operators and
588: evaluated, at the one-loop level, the leading $O(1/\Lambda^2)$
589: correction to the well-known SM result. Such a calculation seems
590: to be missing in the earlier papers dealing with the $H\rightarrow
591: \gamma\gamma$ process. We have found out that the one-loop
592: contribution involving dimension-six bosonic operators can be very
593: important if there is an accidental suppression of the tree-level
594: effective interaction (i.e. when the combination
595: $f_{BB}-f_{BW}+f_{WW}$ is close to zero). More generally, it is
596: remarkable that the inclusion of dimension-six bosonic operators
597: can change dramatically the bosonic SM contribution; usually it is
598: expected that the effects of new physics beyond SM would enhance
599: the $H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay rate, but Fig.~\ref{gr1}
600: shows that the effects of the operator~(\ref{c6}) could also
601: reduce it significantly.
602:
603:
604: In our calculation we have ignored completely the effect of
605: fermions. Note that within SM the fermionic contribution to
606: $H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ is rather small for the light Higgs (at
607: least at one-loop level) in comparison with bosonic contribution
608: (this follows from straightforward evaluation of~(\ref{Fbos})
609: and~(\ref{Ffer})). Within effective Lagrangian approach, the
610: effects of higher-dimensional fermionic operators were studied
611: previously in the paper~\cite{hgg}. Needless to say, a complete
612: realistic calculation would have to take into account an educated
613: guess of the values of the coefficients $f_i$ (based on an
614: independent analysis of an appropriate set of other physical
615: processes); in this context see e.g.~\cite{zhang03} and references
616: therein. Further work in this direction is in progress.
617:
618:
619:
620: \section*{Acknowledgments}
621: We are grateful to Ji\v{r}\'{\i} Novotn\'y for discussions. This
622: work was supported by Centre for Particle Physics, project No.
623: LN00A006 of the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic.
624: \appendix
625: \section{Loop Functions}
626: In evaluating loop integrals we have used the so-called
627: Passarino-Veltman reduction~\cite{passarino79}, i.e. the reduction
628: of tensor one-loop integrals to the special scalar integrals which
629: can be further expressed by means of some standard analytical
630: functions. In the text we have employed the scalar integrals
631: $B_0$, $C_0$ and $D_0$ defined within dimensional regularization
632: scheme as
633: \begin{equation}
634: i\pi^2 B_0 (p_1^2,m_1^2,m_2^2) = \int\frac{d^d l}{(2\pi\mu)^{d-4}}
635: \frac{1}{[l^2-m_1^2][(l+p_1)^2-m_2^2]}\,,
636: \end{equation}
637: \begin{multline}
638: i\pi^2 C_0 (p_1^2,(p_1-p_2)^2,p_3^2;m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2)=\\
639: \int\frac{d^d l}{(2\pi\mu)^{d-4}}
640: \frac{1}{[l^2-m_1^2][(l+p_1)^2-m_2^2][(l+p_2)^2-m_3^2]}\,,
641: \end{multline}
642: \begin{multline}
643: i\pi^2 D_0 (p_1^2,(p_1-p_2)^2,(p_2-p_3)^2,p_3^2,p_2^2,(p_1-p_3)^2;m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2,m_4^2)=\\
644: \int\frac{d^d l}{(2\pi\mu)^{d-4}}
645: \frac{1}{[l^2-m_1^2][(l+p_1)^2-m_2^2][(l+p_2)^2-m_3^2][(l+p_3)^2-m_4^2]}\,.
646: \end{multline}
647: The $C_0$ and $D_0$ are UV finite while $B_0$ is UV divergent for
648: $d=4$. Defining
649: $$\frac{1}{\tilde\varepsilon} = \frac{2}{4-d} -
650: \gamma_E + \log 4\pi,
651: $$
652: we have
653: \begin{equation}
654: B_0(p^2,m^2,m^2) = \frac{1}{\tilde\varepsilon} -
655: \log\frac{m^2}{\mu^2} + 2 +{\scriptstyle\sqrt{1-4
656: \frac{m^2}{p^2}}} \log \frac{{\scriptstyle\sqrt{1-4
657: \frac{m^2}{p^2}}}-1}{{\scriptstyle\sqrt{1-4 \frac{m^2}{p^2}}}+1}.
658: \end{equation}
659: One of the three-point functions used in (\ref{fted}) is given by
660: \begin{multline}
661: C_0 (m_H^2,0,0;m_W^2) \equiv C_0 (m_H^2,0,0;m_W^2,m_W^2,m_W^2) =\\
662: -\frac{1}{m_H^2} \Bigl[ \text{Li}_2 \Bigl(\frac{2}{1-\sqrt{1- 4
663: m_W^2/{m_H^2}}}\Bigr) + \text{Li}_2 \Bigl(\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1- 4
664: m_W^2/{m_H^2}}}\Bigr) \Bigr]\,,
665: \end{multline}
666: where $\text{Li}_2(x)$ is the standard dilogarithm defined through
667: the Spence's integral:
668: \begin{equation}
669: \text{Li}_2 (x) = -\int_0^x \frac{\log(1-t)}{t} dt.
670: \end{equation}
671: Further, let us denote
672: \begin{align*}
673: C_0 (m_H^2, m_H^2, 0;m_W^2) &\equiv C_0 (m_H^2,m_H^2,0; m_W^2,
674: m_W^2, m_W^2)\,,\\
675: D_0 (m_H^2; m_W^2) &\equiv D_0 (m_H^2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0;
676: m_W^2,m_W^2,m_W^2,m_W^2)\,,\\
677: D_0 (m_H^2,m_H^2; m_W^2) &\equiv D_0 (m_H^2, m_H^2, 0, 0, 0, 0;
678: m_W^2,m_W^2,m_W^2,m_W^2)\,.
679: \end{align*}
680: A particular linear combination of these quantities appears in the
681: last two lines of eq.~(\ref{fted}). The resulting expression comes
682: out to be quite simple, namely
683: \begin{multline}
684: 2m_W^2\bigl(D_0 (m_H^2;m_W^2) + 2 D_0(m_H^2,m_H^2;m_W^2)\bigr)
685: (m_H^2-6 m_W^2) - C_0(\ldots) (m_H^2+6 m_W^2)\\ = \frac{6(m_H^2 -
686: 2 m_W^2)}{m_H\sqrt{4 m_W^2-m_H^2}} \text{arctan} \Bigl(
687: \frac{m_H}{\sqrt{4 m_W^2-m_H^2}}\Bigr)\,.
688: \end{multline}
689: Note finally that the proper analytic continuation of the above
690: functions is obtained by means of the prescription $m^2
691: \rightarrow m^2 - i \varepsilon$ wherever it is necessary.
692:
693:
694:
695: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
696: \bibitem{barate03} R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH
697: Collaboration], %``Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,''
698: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565} (2003) 61 [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].
699: \bibitem{sikivie80}
700: P.~Sikivie, L.~Susskind, M.~B.~Voloshin and V.~I.~Zakharov,
701: %``Isospin Breaking In Technicolor Models,''
702: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 173} (1980) 189.
703: \bibitem{bsm}
704: L.~J.~Hall, {\it Beyond the standard model\/}, ICHEP 2000, Osaka,
705: Japan, 27 Jul - 2 Aug 2000.
706: \bibitem{wudka94}
707: J.~Wudka,
708: %``Electroweak effective Lagrangians,''
709: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 9} (1994) 2301
710: [arXiv:hep-ph/9406205].
711: \bibitem{ns}
712: J.~Novotn\'y and M.~St\"ohr,
713: %``Anomalous couplings of vector bosons and the decay H $\to$ gamma gamma: Dimensional regularization versus momentum cutoff,''
714: Czech.\ J.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49} (1999) 1471 [arXiv:hep-ph/9904401].
715: \bibitem{buchmuller85}
716: W.~Buchm\"uller and D.~Wyler,
717: %``Effective Lagrangian Analysis Of New Interactions And Flavor Conservation,''
718: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 268} (1986) 621.
719: \bibitem{hagiwara93}
720: K.~Hagiwara, S.~Ishihara, R.~Szalapski and D.~Zeppenfeld,
721: %``Low-energy effects of new interactions in the electroweak boson sector,''
722: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 2182.
723: \bibitem{cranmer04}
724: K.~Cranmer, B.~Mellado, W.~Quayle and S.~L.~Wu,
725: %``Search for Higgs bosons decay H $\to$ gamma gamma using vector boson
726: %fusion,''
727: arXiv:hep-ph/0401088.
728: \bibitem{ellis75}
729: J.~R.~Ellis, M.~K.~Gaillard and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
730: %``A Phenomenological Profile Of The Higgs Boson,''
731: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 106} (1976) 292; M.~A.~Shifman,
732: A.~I.~Vainshtein, M.~B.~Voloshin and V.~I.~Zakharov,
733: %``Low-Energy Theorems For Higgs Boson Couplings To Photons,''
734: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 30} (1979) 711 [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf
735: 30} (1979) 1368].
736: \bibitem{konig91}
737: H.~K\"onig,
738: %``Higgs decay into two photons as a probe of anomalous gauge couplings,''
739: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 45} (1992) 1575.
740: \bibitem{hgg}
741: J.~M.~Hernandez, M.~A.~Perez and J.~J.~Toscano,
742: %``Decays H0 $\to$ Gamma Gamma, Gamma Z, And Z $\to$ Gamma H0 In The Effective Lagrangian Approach,''
743: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 2044; M.~A.~Perez, J.~J.~Toscano
744: and J.~Wudka,
745: %``Two photon processes and effective Lagrangians with an extended scalar sector,''
746: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 494 [arXiv:hep-ph/9506457].
747: \bibitem{banin98}
748: A.~T.~Banin, I.~F.~Ginzburg and I.~P.~Ivanov,
749: %``Anomalous interactions in Higgs boson production at photon colliders,''
750: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 115001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806515].
751: \bibitem{horejsi02}
752: J.~Ho\v{r}ej\v{s}\'\i: {\it Fundamentals of Electroweak Theory\/}
753: (Karolinum Press, Prague 2002).
754: \bibitem{bardin99}
755: D.~Y.~Bardin and G.~Passarino: {\it The Standard Model In The
756: Making: Precision Study Of The Electroweak Interactions\/}
757: (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1999).
758: \bibitem{arason91}
759: H.~Arason, D.~J.~Castano, B.~Keszthelyi, S.~Mikaelian,
760: E.~J.~Piard, P.~Ramond and B.~D.~Wright,
761: %``Renormalization group study of the standard model and its extensions. 1. The Standard model,''
762: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 3945.
763: \bibitem{zhang03}
764: B.~Zhang, Y.~P.~Kuang, H.~J.~He and C.~P.~Yuan,
765: %``Testing anomalous gauge couplings of the Higgs boson via weak-boson scatterings at the LHC,''
766: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 114024 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303048].
767: \bibitem{passarino79}
768: G.~Passarino and M.~J.~Veltman,
769: %``One Loop Corrections For E+ E- Annihilation Into Mu+ Mu- In The Weinberg Model,''
770: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 160} (1979) 151.
771: \end{thebibliography}
772: \end{document}
773: