1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,graphicx} %use drftcite in draftmode

4: \usepackage[usenames]{color}

5: %\usepackage{epsf}

6: %\usepackage{drftcite}

7: \usepackage{multicol}

8: %\usepackage{axodraw}

9: %\usepackage{srcltx}

10: \usepackage{cite}

11: %\usepackage{showkeys}

12: 

13: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4} 

14: \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined

15: \usepackage[dvips,bookmarks]{hyperref}	% This is for arXiv.org

16: \else

17: \usepackage{hyperref}	% This is for pdftex

18: \fi

19: \hypersetup{colorlinks,bookmarksopen,bookmarksnumbered,citecolor=verdes,

20: linkcolor=blus,pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=rossos}

21: \def\hhref#1{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{#1}} % in bibliography

22: \def\mhref#1{\href{mailto:#1}{#1}}		% email on title page

23: 

24: \newcommand{\SU}{{\rm SU}}

25: 

26: \def\baselinestretch{1.08}

27: 

28: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 12pt

29: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

30: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

31: \newfam\rsfsfam

32: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

33: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

34: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

35: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

36: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

37: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}

38: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}

39: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}

40: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}

41: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,{\rm MeV}}

42: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}

43: \newcommand{\Jhep}{{\sc J.hep}}

44: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

45: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}

46: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}

47: \newcommand{\CL}{\,\hbox{\rm CL}}

48: \newcommand{\ourpar}{$\hat{S}$, $\hat{T}$, $W$, $Y$, $X$, $\hat U$, $V$, $C_q$ and $\delta g_q$}

49: 

50: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

51: 

52: \newcommand{\sW}{s_{\rm W}}

53: \newcommand{\cW}{c_{\rm W}}

54: 

55: \makeatletter

56: %

57: % formato bibliografico standard

58: %

59: %\art[hep-ph/0604111]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

60: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}

61: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {#3 \rm #4} {\rm (#6) #5 [#1]}}

62: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, #1}}

63: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {\em #2 \rm #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

64: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }

65: %

66: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

67: %

68: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

69: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}

70: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to

71: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

72: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA

73: \def\eqnsystem#1{

74: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}

75: %

76: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or

77:   \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa

78:   \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi

79: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}

80: %

81: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}

82: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi

83: %

84: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

85: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

86: %

87: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr

88: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering

89: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne

90: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

91: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil

92: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}

93: %

94: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother

95: 

96: 

97: 

98: \newcommand{\BL}{}

99: \newcommand{\add}[1]{{\bf #1}}

100: \newcommand{\old}[1]{{\it #1}}

101: 

102: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{eqnarray}}% can be used as {equation} or  {eqnarray}

103: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{eqnarray}}

104: 

105: %  \gsim and \lsim provide >= and <= signs.

106: \newcommand{\centeron}[2]{{\setbox0=\hbox{#1}\setbox1=\hbox{#2}\ifdim

107: 

108: \wd1>\wd0\kern.5\wd1\kern-.5\wd0\fi

109: \copy0

110: 

111: \kern-.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\copy1\ifdim\wd0>\wd1

112:                                        \kern.5\wd0\kern-.5\wd1\fi}}

113: \newcommand{\ltap}{\>\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$<$}}

114:                                {\lower.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\>}

115: \newcommand{\gtap}{\>\centeron{\raise.35ex\hbox{$>$}}

116:                                {\lower.65ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\>}

117: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathrel{\gtap}}

118: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathrel{\ltap}}

119: \newcommand{\PSbox}[3]{\mbox{\rule{0in}{#3}\special{psfile=#1}\hspace{#2}}}

120: \newcommand\ZZ{\hbox{\zfont Z\kern-.4emZ}}

121: \font\zfont = cmss10 %scaled \magstep1

122: \newcommand{\sfrac}[2]{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}

123: \newcommand{\oo}{0}

124: \def\tv#1{\vrule height #1pt depth 5pt width 0pt}

125: \def\tvbas#1{\vrule height 0pt depth #1pt width 0pt}

126: \newcommand{\sz}{\scriptstyle}

127: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

128: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

129: \textwidth 6.5in

130: \oddsidemargin 0in

131: \evensidemargin 0in

132: \textheight 8.6in

133: \topmargin -0.5in

134: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}

135: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

136: 

137: \begin{document}

138: %\begin{titlepage}

139: %\begin{flushright}

140: %{\tt hep-ph/yymmnn}

141: %\end{flushright}

142: \phantom{X}

143: \vspace{1cm}

144: \begin{center}

145: 

146: 

147: 

148: {\huge\color{rossos} \bf   The Minimal Set of\\[3mm]

149:  Electroweak Precision Parameters}

150: %\\

151: %for Model Building}

152: %Ideas for titles:

153: % A Simple analysis of electroweak precision data

154: % A simple general method for analyzing electroweak precision constraints

155: % The minimal set of electroweak precision parameters

156: % An efficient method for electroweak precision constraints

157: % An efficient analysis of electroweak precision constraints

158: % An efficient parametrization of electroweak precision constraints

159: 

160: % Unveiling electroweak precision constraints: an efficient parametrization of non-universal new physics

161: 

162: \vspace{1cm}\bigskip

163: 

164: {

165: {\large\bf G. Cacciapaglia$^a$, C. Cs\'aki$^a$, G. Marandella$^b$,  and A. Strumia$^{c}$}

166: }

167: 

168: \bigskip\bigskip

169: 

170: {\it $^a$ Institute for High Energy Phenomenology \\ Newman Laboratory of Elementary Particle Physics \\ Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA}\\[3mm]

171: {\it $^b$ Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA}\\[3mm]

172: {\it $^c$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit{\`a} di Pisa and INFN, Italia}\\[1cm]

173: 

174: 

175: 

176: \vspace{1cm}

177: 

178: {\bf\large Abstract}

179: \begin{quote}

180: \large We present a simple method for analyzing the impact of precision electroweak data above and

181: below the $Z$-peak on  flavour-conserving heavy new physics. 

182: We find that experiments have probed about ten combinations of new physics effects, 

183: which to a good approximation can be condensed into the effective oblique parameters

184:  $\hat{S},\hat{T},\hat{U},V,X,W,Y$

185: (we prove positivity constraints  $W,Y\ge 0$)

186: and three combinations of quark couplings (including a distinct parameter for the bottom).

187: We apply our method to generic extra $Z'$ vectors.

188: \end{quote}

189: \end{center}

190: 

191: \normalsize

192: 

193: %\end{titlepage}

194: \thispagestyle{empty}

195: 

196: 

197: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{(\arabic{footnote})}

198: 

199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

201: 

202: \newpage

203: 

204: 

205: \section{Introduction}

206: \label{sec:intro}

207: \setcounter{equation}{0}

208: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

209: 

210: The successes of the Standard Model (SM) became so boring that various physicists

211: wonder if they contain an important message:

212: the lack of evidence for new physics pushes many proposed solutions

213: of the higgs mass hierarchy problem into more-or-less unnatural

214: corners of their parameter space.

215: 

216:  

217: Global fits do not provide much intuition into the origin of the strongest constraints, or

218: even on the number of new-physics parameters that are strongly constrained.

219: Here we present an efficient and simple general analysis of 

220: electroweak precision data using an

221: effective-theory description. Assuming that  new physics is somewhat

222: above the weak scale, its low-energy effects can be described by an

223: effective Lagrangian that contains leading non-renormalizable terms.

224: Even assuming that the new physics is generation independent (i.e.\

225: no new flavour physics), previous analyses identified an irreducible

226: set of 10 gauge-invariant operators~\cite{BS} contributing to precision

227: measurements at and below the $Z$-pole. This list of operators has

228: grown to about 20~\cite{skiba}, after that the relevance of LEP2 precision

229: measurements above the $Z$-pole was pointed out~\cite{STWY}.

230: 

231: We here show that experiments have so far precisely probed only

232: about 10 combinations of the 20 operators. However, if one 

233: follows the traditional route of  constraining new physics one must

234: compute all operators and then perform a global fit to

235: all 20 parameters: otherwise one cannot know if the new physics

236: corresponds to a strongly or weakly constrained combination of

237: higher dimensional operators.

238: 

239: 

240: The main aim of this paper is to develop a simpler strategy: we

241: identify a minimal set of parameters that are strongly constrained,

242: extending the $Z$-pole parameters of~\cite{PT}. In this way,

243: cancellations between the various operators, like the ones pointed

244: out in~\cite{GST}, are already built-in to this formalism. 

245: The data

246: requires almost all of these parameters to be compatible with the SM at the

247: {\em per mille} level.

248: Moreover, we want our minimal set to catch the

249: main features of the measurements: a reasonably accurate bound on

250: the scale of new physics can be extracted by just considering our

251: minimal set of parameters and without the necessity of a complete

252: analysis.

253: 

254: 

255: We start by identifying the sub-set of most precise measurements, mostly

256: performed at

257: $e^+e^-$ colliders (LEP1, LEP2, SLD).

258: Those experiments studied all $f\bar{f}$

259: final states, but could measure leptonic final states more

260: precisely than hadronic final states. We will show that the

261: corrections to all leptonic data can be converted into oblique

262: corrections to the vector boson propagators, and condensed into the

263: seven parameters $\hat{S}$, $\hat{T}$, $W$, $Y$, $X$, $\hat U$ and

264: $V$ defined in~\cite{STWY}. (Unlike in~\cite{STWY} we do not

265: restrict our attention to oblique new physics). Indeed, starting

266: with a generic set of higher-dimensional operators, one can use the

267: three equations of motion for $W^+,Z,\gamma$ to eliminate the three

268: currents involving charged leptons from the higher dimensional

269: operators:

270: 

271: \beq\label{eq:currents}

272: \bar{e}_L \gamma_\mu e_L,\qquad \bar{e}_R \gamma_\mu e_R,\qquad \bar{e}_L\gamma_\mu

273: \nu_L+\hbox{h.c.}\,.\eeq

274: Parameterizing the new physics in terms of

275: corrections to vector boson propagators is convenient because: i) in

276: many models the oblique parameters can be calculated

277: directly~\cite{arabic,STWY,LHSTWY}, without having to first

278: calculate the general set of induced higher dimensional operators;

279: ii) it is also easier to compute how the observables are affected by

280: oblique corrections;

281: iii) it allows one to unambiguously identify the most relevant corrections

282: to electroweak precision measurements in any generic model.

283: 

284: 

285: We will show that already this subset of parameters is enough to

286: establish the correct bound on generic models within a `typical'

287: 20\% accuracy. Thus for most models it suffices to calculate the

288: seven generalized oblique parameters to establish a reasonably

289: accurate bound on the scale of new physics, with the caveat that the

290: approximation fails spectacularly if, for some reason,  new physics

291: is leptophobic (i.e.\ if quarks are much more strongly affected than

292: leptons).

293: 

294: 

295: 

296: A more accurate approximation is obtained by adding more parameters

297: in the quark sector. Basically, we keep the oblique approximation

298: in the ${\rm U}(1)_Y$ sector but not in the $\SU(2)_L$ sector. In

299: practice, this amounts to adding 2 more parameters that describe the

300: coupling of the left-handed quarks (which is better measured

301: because the larger SM coupling to the $Z$ enhances the interference

302: term with respect to the right-handed components). Finally, we allow

303: the third-generation of quarks to behave differently from lighter

304: quarks, and describe this possibility by adding one extra parameter:

305: the traditional $\varepsilon_b$~\cite{epsb}. This choice is motivated by

306: theoretical considerations (in many models of electroweak symmetry

307: breaking the top sector is special), by experimental considerations

308: ($b$-tagging allows to probe $b$-quarks more precisely than lighter

309: quarks) and by phenomenological considerations (flavor universality

310: can be significantly violated only in the third generation).

311: 

312: We finally present numerical fits for our $7+2+1$ new-physics parameters,

313: $$\hat{S},\hat{T},\hat{U},V,X,W, Y, C_q, \delta \varepsilon_q,\delta\varepsilon_b$$

314: emphasizing their combinations that are most strongly constrained.

315: Furthermore, in section~\ref{sec:WX} we show that first principles imply

316: positivity constraints on $W,Y \ge 0$.

317: 

318: \medskip

319: 

320: The paper is organized as follows: in section~\ref{sec:parameters}

321: we introduce our formalism and identify the relevant parameters. In

322: section~\ref{sec:fit} we fit these parameters and compare the

323: results with the complete analysis, showing how accurate our

324: approximation typically is. In sec~\ref{sec:example} we apply the

325: formalism to the specific case of various extra $Z'$ bosons,

326: compiling present constraints. In section~\ref{sec:WX} we

327: demonstrate the positivity constraint on the oblique parameters $W$

328: and $Y$. In the appendix, we explicitly write the relation between

329: our parameters and a general basis of gauge-invariant operators.

330: 

331: 

332: 

333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

335: \section{The minimal set of constrained parameters}

336: \label{sec:parameters}

337: \setcounter{equation}{0}

338: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}

339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

340: 

341: The effects of heavy new physics on precision electroweak

342: observables can be described by adding to the SM Lagrangian

343: dimension 6 operators that depend on the SM fields: the gauge bosons

344: $W^\pm$, $Z$ and the photon $A$, the Higgs vev $v$, the fermionic

345: currents $J_{ff'} = \bar f \gamma^\mu f'$, and their derivatives:

346: \begin{equation}

347:  \Lag_{\rm BSM}\, \big( W^\pm_\mu, Z_\mu, A_\mu,

348: \partial_\mu, v, J_{ff'} \big)\,.

349: \label{LBSM}

350: \end{equation}

351: We are interested here in terms that do not violate flavor and CP

352: (and, of course, electric charge and  color should also be

353: conserved). The electroweak gauge symmetry $\SU(2)_L\otimes{\rm

354: U}(1)_Y$, spontaneously broken by the Higgs vev, implies some

355: relations among the coefficients of the dimension-6 terms. There are

356: many such operators~\cite{BW}. After eliminating the operators that

357: do not affect precision data and the operators that on-shell are

358: equivalent to combinations of other operators, one still has to deal

359: with many operators: 10 if LEP2 is not included~\cite{BS}, and, including LEP2,

360: 20 operators were considered in~\cite{skiba}.

361: In agreement with~\cite{GST} (where it was pointed out that two combinations

362: can be expressed in terms of unconstrained operators) 

363: we find that precision data are affected by 18 independent operators,

364:  listed in Appendix~\ref{app}.

365: 

366: 

367: 

368: 

369: 

370: 

371: \begin{figure}

372: $$\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{sigmas}$$

373: \caption{\em \label{fig:sigmas} The red dots are the ordered eigenvalues of the full error matrix, that describe the sensitivity of present data (upper dots correspond to more precise combinations).

374: Precision data significantly constrain only about 10 new-physics effects.

375: The blue circles show the same eigenvalues recomputed making our simplifying approximation.}

376: \end{figure}

377: 

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: 

382: In practice, however,  many combinations of different operators are poorly constrained. 

383: A global analysis contains this information: one can obtain electroweak precision

384: bounds on a model by computing all induced higher dimensional operators. 

385: Our aim is to simplify this program by finding the suitable variables where

386: possible cancellations are manifest, and drop the unnecessary information.

387: 

388: In order to find the number of parameters that are strongly

389: constrained by the electroweak precision data we first perform the

390: traditional global analysis including all relevant higher dimensional

391: operators. In Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmas} we plot the {\em eigenvalues} of

392: the error matrix, computed in the uniformly-normalized basis

393: described in Appendix~\ref{app}.\footnote{We use the $\chi^2$ code

394: employed in~\cite{BS, STWY}, updating to the most recent value of

395: the top mass~\cite{mtop}. It agrees reasonably well with the

396: equivalent $\chi^2$ published in~\cite{skiba}.

397: We however emphasize that  the Higgs mass dependence

398: is not correctly approximated by keeping only the leading logarithm

399: analytically computed in the heavy Higgs limit, see also~\cite{STWY}.} This automatically identifies

400: all correlations of theoretical, experimental and accidental nature.

401: For example: i)  if one measurement constrains one combination of

402: many operators, it will appear here as one constraint; ii) if a

403: combination of operators does not affect any observable, it

404: will appear here as a zero eigenvalue. Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmas} shows

405: that precision data really constrain about 10

406: new-physics effects, and that a few constraints often dominate the global fit.

407: We want to find a simple

408: physically motivated basis for the electroweak parameters that

409: automatically separates the strongly constrained combinations from

410: the weakly constrained ones.

411: 

412: 

413: \medskip

414: 

415: 

416: We will therefore use a different approach: once a

417: specific set of higher dimensional operators of the form

418: (\ref{LBSM}) is given, we can use the equations of motion of the 3

419: gauge bosons $W^\pm,Z,\gamma$ to eliminate 3 fermionic currents: we

420: choose to eliminate the currents involving charged leptons listed in

421: eq.~(\ref{eq:currents}). The reason is that most of the precision

422: measurements have been perfomed at $e^+e^-$ colliders (LEP1, LEP2

423: and SLD), strongly constraining operators involving charged leptons. Neutrinos

424: on the other hand are experimentally more difficult to deal with than 

425: charged leptons. This is the reason why we have chosen to use the

426: equations of motion in a way that is not explicitly

427: $\SU(2)_L$ invariant. Muon-decay, which gives the most precise test of neutrino

428: couplings, is fully described by oblique couplings because it

429: involves charged currents and we eliminated all new physics

430: involving the $\bar{e}_L\gamma_\mu \nu_L$ current.

431: 

432: In our formalism, the most general effective Lagrangian describing new physics can be

433: split into two parts:

434: \begin{equation} \label{eq:lagrour}

435: \Lag_{\rm BSM} = \Lag_{\rm oblique} + \Lag_{\rm couplings} + \dots

436: \end{equation}

437: where the dots stand for terms that do not affect precision

438: measurements. Note again that, due to our choice for the use of the equations of

439: motion, $\Lag_{\rm couplings}$ will not contain any currents

440: involving the charged leptons. Therefore the oblique terms in

441: $\Lag_{\rm oblique}$ fully encode corrections to the most precisely

442: measured precision observables involving charged lepton final

443: states:

444: $$\alpha_{\rm em},  ~\Gamma(\mu), ~

445: M_Z,  ~M_W, ~ \Gamma(Z\to \ell\bar\ell),~ A^\ell_{FB}, ~A^\ell_{LR},

446: ~ A_{\rm pol}^\tau, ~\sigma_{\rm LEP2}(e\bar e\to \ell\bar\ell), ~ee\to

447: ee.$$ $\Lag_{\rm couplings}$, on the  other hand, contains

448: corrections to the couplings of quark and neutrino currents: it

449: affects observables involving neutrinos and quarks~\footnote{We do

450: not include in the fit precision measurements of $\sigma(\nu\, {\rm

451: Fe})$ because they are  limited by the unprecisely known nucleon

452: structure: e.g.\ a strange momentum asymmetry or an isospin breaking

453: can account for the discrepancy with respect to the SM claimed

454: by~\cite{NuTeV}. Although at this stage $\Gamma(Z\to\nu \bar\nu)$ is

455: listed among the effects not fully described by the oblique

456: approximation, a detailed analysis will show that it actually is. }:

457: $$\Gamma(Z\to\nu \bar\nu), ~

458: \Gamma(Z\to q\bar q),~

459: A^b_{FB}, ~ A^b_{LR},~ A^c_{LR},~A^c_{FB},

460: \sigma_{\rm LEP2}(e\bar{e}\to q\bar{q}),~ Q_W\,.

461: %,~\sigma(\nu {\rm Fe})

462: $$

463: This formalism therefore allows one to clearly distinguish which

464: parameters are more constrained than others. This approach has

465: already been used in the case of models with universal new

466: physics~\cite{STWY} (e.g.\ gauge bosons in extra dimensions, most

467: little Higgs models~\cite{littlehiggs}, Higgsless models~\cite{hless}), where all corrections

468: involving fermions only appear in combinations proportional

469: to SM gauge currents. As a consequence, all fermion operators can be

470: completely transformed into oblique operators by using the equations

471: of motion for vectors. More importantly, in various concrete models

472: one can bypass the step of identifying the set of induced dimension

473: six operators: by integrating out the combinations of new-physics

474: vectors not coupled to fermions (rather than the heavy mass

475: eigenstates) directly gives the Lagrangian in terms of the oblique

476: parameters. Thus this method simplifies both the intermediate

477: computations and the final result. Here we show that this formalism

478: is also useful in the case of generic non-universal models (e.g.

479: fermions that live in different places in extra dimensions, some

480: Little Higgs models~\cite{simplest}, models with extra $Z'$ bosons).

481: 

482: In the next part of this section, we review the standard

483: parametrization of oblique new physics. We later present the generic

484: form for $\Lag_{\rm couplings}$, emphasizing the (weak) restrictions

485: imposed by $\SU(2)_L$-invariance, and discuss to which extent

486: $\Lag_{\rm couplings}$ can be neglected. In Appendix~\ref{app} we

487: also explicitly show how the equations of motion allow us to relate

488: the standard basis of $\SU(2)_L$-invariant dimension 6 operators to

489: our parametrization. These operators are assumed to have generic

490: coefficients, such that Appendix~\ref{app} applies to generic new

491: physics. More importantly, in section~\ref{sec:example} we show, in

492: a specific example of new physics (a heavy $Z'$), how one can

493: directly compute the full set of oblique parameters without having

494: to pass trough the standard basis.

495: 

496: 

497: \subsection{The oblique parameters}

498: 

499: 

500: Here we review how generic heavy new physics can affect the kinetic

501: terms of vector bosons, $\Pi_{33}(p^2)$, $\Pi_{30}(p^2)$,

502: $\Pi_{30}(p^2)$, $\Pi_{WW}(p^2)$, defined by the effective

503: Lagrangian

504: \begin{equation}

505: \Lag_{\rm oblique} = -\frac{1}{2} W^3_\mu \Pi_{33} (p^2) W^{3\mu}

506: -\frac{1}{2} B_\mu \Pi_{00} (p^2) B^\mu - W^3_\mu \Pi_{30} (p^2) B^\mu

507: - W_\mu^+ \Pi_{WW} (p^2) W^\mu_-\,.

508: \end{equation}

509: Since new physics is assumed to be heavy, we can

510:  expand the $\Pi$'s in powers of $p^2$:

511: \begin{equation}

512: \Pi (p^2) = \Pi(0) + p^2\, \Pi'(0) + \frac{(p^2)^2}{2}\, \Pi''(0) + \dots

513: \end{equation}

514: neglecting higher order terms,  that for dimensional reasons

515: correspond to operators of dimension higher than 6. This expansion

516: contains 12 parameters: 3 can be reabsorbed in the definitions of

517: the SM parameters $g$, $g'$ and $v$ and 2 vanish because of

518: electro-magnetic gauge invariance: the photon is massless and

519: couples to $Q= T_3+Y$. New physics is described by 7 dimensionless

520: oblique parameters, defined as (contrary to~\cite{STWY} we use

521: canonically normalized kinetic terms)

522: \begin{equation}

523: \begin{array}{c}\displaystyle

524: \hat S = \frac{g}{g'} \Pi_{30}'\,, \quad \hat T = \frac{\Pi_{33} - \Pi_{WW}}{M_W^2}\,, \quad W = \frac{M_W^2}{2} \; \Pi''_{33}\,, \quad Y = \frac{M_W^2}{2} \; \Pi''_{00}\,,\\ \displaystyle

525: \hat U =\Pi'_{WW} -  \Pi'_{33} \,, \qquad V = \frac{M_W^2}{2} \;

526: (\Pi''_{33} - \Pi''_{WW})\,, \qquad X = \frac{M_W^2}{2} \;

527: \Pi''_{30}\,,

528: \end{array}

529: \end{equation}

530: where all $\Pi$'s are computed at $p^2=0$. These parameters correct

531: the propagators of the gauge bosons, affecting the precision

532: observables. Only 6 combinations actually enter observables

533: involving charged leptons: in particular, only the combination $\hat

534: U - V$. $Z$-pole precision data can be encoded in the

535: $\varepsilon$'s of~\cite{eps}. Low energy data do not depend on

536: $\hat{U}, V$. The $e\bar{e}\to f\bar{f}$ cross sections measured at

537: LEP2  are dominantly affected by  $Y$, $W$ and $X$~\cite{STWY}.

538: 

539: Using $\SU(2)_L$-invariance one can show that $V\ll \hat{U}\ll

540: \hat{T}$ and $X\ll \hat{S}$: in the case of universal new physics,

541: the sub-leading form factors  $\hat{U},V,X$ can therefore be

542: neglected and new physics is fully described by $\hat{S},\hat{T},W,

543: Y$~\cite{STWY}. This argument however does not apply in our case,

544: where the same parameters are applied in  a different context: to

545: describe how generic heavy new physics (not necessarily universal)

546: affects observables that only involve charged leptons and vectors. To reach the

547: basis in which charged-leptonic data are condensed into vector

548: propagators we made a transformation which is not

549: $\SU(2)_L$-invariant. As a consequence all oblique parameters

550: generically arise at leading order.

551: 

552: 

553: 

554: 

555: 

556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

557: \subsection{Vertex corrections} \label{sec:vertex}

558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

559: 

560: Here we present the effective Lagrangian that describes new-physics

561: corrections to $Z,\gamma$ couplings, taking into account a) that we

562: eliminated currents involving charged leptons; b) that new physics

563: is heavy, allowing a low-energy expansion in momenta; c)

564: electromagnetic gauge invariance. A convenient parametrization is:

565: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vert}

566: \Lag_{\rm couplings} = \sum_f (\bar f \gamma^\mu f) \left[ e\, A_\mu\, \frac{C^\gamma_f}{M_W^2}\, p^2

567: + \sqrt{g^2+{g'}^2}\, Z_\mu \left( \frac{C^Z_f}{M_W^2}\, (p^2 -

568: M_Z^2) + \delta g_{f} \right) \right]\,, 

569: \end{equation}

570: %Here the currents are defined as $J_{f,\mu} =\bar{f} \gamma_\mu f$ for

571: where $f={u_L,d_L, u_R,d_R,\nu_L}$, and higher orders in the

572: momentum again correspond to subleading effects due to operators

573: with dimensions greater than 6. The $\delta g$'s are corrections to

574: on-shell $Z$ couplings, tested by measurements at the $Z$-pole. The

575: $C^\gamma$ and $C^Z$ are equivalent to 4-fermion contributions to

576: $e^+ e^- \rightarrow q \bar q$: the $p$-dependence cancels the

577: propagator of the gauge boson, and we are left with a constant

578: ($p$-independent) contribution. They affect LEP2, atomic parity

579: violation, etc. For the neutrinos only $\delta g_{\nu_L}$ is

580: measured via the invisible decay ratio of the $Z$.

581: 

582: $\SU(2)_L$ invariance implies some mild restrictions on these vertex parameters:

583: \begin{enumerate}

584: \item  As shown in Appendix~\ref{app}, $\delta g_{L\nu}$ is fixed in terms of oblique parameters as:

585: \begin{equation}

586: \delta g_{L \nu}= V - \frac{1}{2} \hat{U} - \tan \theta_W X\,.

587: \end{equation}

588: Notice that it depends on a different combination of $\hat U$ and

589: $V$ than the one  entering corrections to the gauge boson

590: propagators. This means that considering all the 7 oblique

591: parameters defined in the previous subsection is enough to include

592: the relevant neutrino measurements.

593: 

594: 

595: \item

596: In the quark sector we apparently have 12 new parameters: $\delta

597: g_{L,R \, u,d}$ and $C^{Z,\gamma}_{L,R \, u,d}$. However only 11 of

598: them are independent, and correspond to the 11 quark operators

599: of~\cite{skiba}. Indeed, as explicitly shown in Appendix~\ref{app},

600: the following relation holds between the 4-fermion coefficients of

601: the left-handed quarks:

602: \begin{equation}

603: (C^\gamma_{dL}-C^\gamma_{uL}) = \cos^2 \theta_W (C^Z_{d L}-C^Z_{u L}) + \frac{X}{\tan \theta_W}.

604: \label{relations}

605: \end{equation}

606: 

607: \end{enumerate}

608: 

609: 

610: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

611: \subsection{A simple approximation}

612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

613: 

614: 

615: We can now proceed with the final counting.

616: We have 18 independent coefficients: the 7 oblique parameters

617: $\hat{S},\hat{T},\hat{U}, V,X,Y,W$, 4 $\delta g$'s for the

618: quarks, 4 quark $C^Z_q$'s and 3 independent $C^\gamma_q$'s.

619: The counting agrees with the results of~\cite{GST},

620: that shows how 2 combinations of the 21 operators of~\cite{skiba}

621: can be eliminated. (18 arises as $21-2-1$:

622: one further operator, that only affects $e^- e^+\to W^+ W^-$,

623: is ignored here because we do not view this as a `precision' measurement.

624: This view is corroborated by the numerical results of~\cite{skiba,GST}.)

625: In other words, the unconstrained combinations pointed out in~\cite{GST}

626: are automatically eliminated in our formalism.

627: 

628: Our basis makes a clear separation of which parameters contribute to

629: which measurements. Corrections to  observables involving leptons

630: only  are expressed in terms of the seven oblique parameters (which

631: as we have seen also include neutrinos). Observables involving

632: quarks in the final state at the $Z$-pole  involve in addition only

633: the four $\delta g$'s. The $C^{\gamma,Z}_q$'s are only necessary for

634: $\sigma(e\bar{e}\to q\bar{q})$ at LEP2 and atomic parity violation.

635: 

636: 

637: As leptonic final states are generically better measured than

638: hadronic ones, this separation already suggests that describing the

639: precision measurements in terms of only the 7 oblique parameters

640: could be a reasonable approximation (oblique approximation). In the

641: next section we will check numerically that this indeed happens.

642: This approximation also includes the constraints on neutrinos.

643: 

644: 

645: In order to be more accurate, we want to add a minimal set of parameters

646: describing corrections in the hadronic sector. In fact, not all the

647: quark observables are well measured, so that only a small subset of

648: parameters  will actually contribute most strongly to the bound. At

649: the $Z$-pole, the better measured quantity is the hadronic branching

650: ratio of the $Z$. It depends on the combination:

651: $$

652: g^{\rm SM}_{qL}\, \delta g_{qL} + g^{\rm SM}_{qR}\, \delta g_{qR}\,.

653: $$

654: Due to the fact that the couplings of the right-handed components to

655: the $Z$ are generically smaller than the couplings of the

656: left-handed component (by a factor of 0.18 for the down type quarks,

657: and 0.44 for the up type), we expect in general that only the

658: corrections involving left-handed quarks will be relevant. Moreover,

659: when the contribution of up and down quarks are summed, the result

660: is proportional to:

661: $$

662: \delta g_{uL} - \delta g_{dL} -  \frac{\tan^2 \theta_W}{3}\, (\delta g_{uL} +

663: \delta g_{dL})\,,

664: $$

665: so that the difference between the two parameters seems to be more

666: relevant than the sum.

667: 

668: Similar arguments apply for the hadronic cross section measured at

669: LEP2. The main difference is the presence of interference with the

670: SM diagram with a photon exchange,  and the presence of 4-fermion

671: operators. We first notice that the interference with the photon is

672: generically suppressed by the gauge coupling $e$ versus $\sqrt{g^2 +

673: {g'}^2}$: this results in a suppression of order $\sin \theta_W$. The

674: contribution of the $\delta g$'s will therefore enter in the same

675: way as in the hadronic branching ratio. A very similar argument can

676: be applied to the 4-fermion contribution, so that only the

677: combinations $C^Z_{Lu} - C^Z_{Ld}$ and $C^\gamma_{Lu} -

678: C^\gamma_{Ld}$ are constrained: as already mentioned in

679: (\ref{relations}) these two parameters are related to each other, so

680: that they correspond to a single parameter. From this rough argument

681: we can thus infer that 2 parameters will be most relevant in the

682: quark sector:

683: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:sss}

684: \delta \varepsilon_q & = & \delta g_{uL} - \delta g_{dL}\,, \\

685: \delta C_q  & = & C^Z_{uL} - C^Z_{dL}\,.

686: \end{eqnsystem}

687: Again, in the next section we will numerically show that this is indeed the case.

688: 

689: Until now we have assumed flavor universality including the third

690: generation, and in particular the bottom quark. However, in many

691: models of electroweak symmetry breaking the third generation of

692: quarks is special due to the heavyness of the top quark, and it is

693: differently affected by new physics. For this reason, we will relax

694: the flavor universality for the bottom quark, and deal with it

695: separately. This is also necessary since the bottom final state is

696: well measured.

697: At LEP1, only $\delta g_{bL}$ is

698: well measured, because the SM coupling of the right-handed component

699: is smaller, thus we can define:

700: 

701: \beq \delta g_{bL} = -\frac{1}{2} \delta \varepsilon_b\,; \eeq

702: here the parameter $\delta \varepsilon_b$ coincides with the standard

703: definition given in~\cite{epsb}. Notice that the anomalous $A_{FB}^b$

704: measurement gives a subleading contribution to the determination of

705: $\delta\varepsilon_b$.

706: The cross section $\sigma (e\bar e \to b\bar

707: b)$ at LEP2 also depends on a combination of 4-fermion operators.

708: In general an extra parameter should also be added to the fit: however, in model of electroweak symmetry breaking involving the top quark, we expect corrections to $\delta \varepsilon_b$ to be more important.

709: The reason is that the 4-fermion operators with the bottom will also involve couplings of new physics with the electron, already tightly constrained by the oblique parameters.

710: This is the case, for example, in models with dynamical symmetry breaking~\cite{contino}, gauge-Higgs unification~\cite{ghu} or Higgsless models~\cite{hless}.

711: Thus, in order to simplify the analysis, we will approximate a flavour-universal contribution to the bottom 4-fermion operators.

712: In this way, only one parameter is sufficient to describe the bottom.

713: 

714: 

715: 

716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

717: \section{Global fit}

718: \label{sec:fit}

719: \setcounter{equation}{0}

720: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}

721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

722: 

723: In this section we study the fit of the precision electroweak

724: measurements, and show that the approximations proposed in the

725: previous section are actually sensible, and give a sufficiently

726: reliable bound on generic models of new physics.

727: One can express all the

728: observables in terms of the following 18 parameters:

729: the 7 oblique parameters $\hat S$, $\hat T$,

730: $\hat U$, $W$, $Y$, $V$ and $X$, 4 corrections to the couplings of

731: the $Z$ with quarks $\delta g_{uR}$, $\delta g_{dR}$, $\delta

732: g_{uL}$, $\delta g_{dL}$, and 7 4-fermion parameters

733: (4 involving

734: right-handed quarks $C^\gamma_{uR}$, $C^\gamma_{dR}$, $C^Z_{uR}$,

735: $C^Z_{dR}$, and 3 involving left-handed quarks $C^Z_{uL}$,

736: $C^Z_{dL}$, and $C^\gamma_{uL} + C^\gamma_{dL}$). Note that in doing

737: this we are not yet introducing any approximation: we are just

738: choosing a  particular basis for the dimension 6 operators affecting

739: electroweak precision observables.

740: 

741: The two approximations  we want to pursue are the following:  first

742: we consider only the 7 oblique parameters $\hat S$, $\hat T$, $\hat

743: U$, $W$, $Y$, $V$ and $X$ (oblique approximation) and set all the

744: others to zero: this allows us to exactly describe the observables

745: only  involving vectors and leptons (charged and neutrinos),

746: but, in general, does not correctly describe  corrections to quark observables.

747: Next, as argued in the previous section, in the quark sector two parameters should

748: have the strongest effect on the bound on new physics. They are

749: related to corrections to the couplings to the $Z$ and 4-fermion

750: operators involving left-handed components, $\delta \varepsilon_q$

751: and $\delta C_q$.

752: 

753: \medskip

754: 

755: We now check how good our approximations are for guessing

756: the bound on the scale $\Lambda$ of new physics in generic models. To do

757: that, we generated many random models

758: by writing each parameter as $r/\Lambda^2$, where

759: $-1\le r \le 1$ are random numbers.

760: This is an reasonably arbitrary procedure.

761: We then extract the bound on $\Lambda$ both from the exact fit and the approximate

762: fits. The result is graphically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:histo}: in

763: case (a) we show the  oblique approximation; in (b) we add the

764: two parameters $\delta C_q$ and $\delta \varepsilon_q$ for the

765: quarks to the oblique parameters; in (c) we include all the

766: parameters except $\delta C_q$ and $\delta \varepsilon_q$. In the

767: following table we report, for the same cases, the average value and the variance of

768: $\Lambda_{\rm approx}/\Lambda_{\rm true}$.

769: \begin{figure}[tb]

770: \begin{center}$$\hspace{-0.06\textwidth}

771: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{his1}

772: \hspace{-1cm}

773: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{his2}

774: \hspace{-1cm}

775: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{his3}$$

776: %\includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{histograms}$$

777: \caption{\em Distibutions of the ratios between the approximate over

778: true  bound in various approximations. In the first {\it ``oblique''} panel

779: we include in the fit only $\hat S$, $\hat T$,

780: $\hat U$, $W$, $Y$, $V$ and $X$. In the second panel we add the two parameters

781: $\delta C_q$ and $\delta \varepsilon_q$ for the quarks. Finally we include all the parameters except $\delta C_q$ and $\delta \varepsilon_q$.}

782: \label{fig:histo}

783: \end{center}

784: \end{figure}

785: 

786: \vspace{0.3cm} \begin{center}

787: \begin{tabular}{c|c}

788: Approximation &  $\Lambda_{\rm approx}/\Lambda_{\rm true}$ \\

789: \hline

790: Oblique & $0.95 \pm 0.16$ \\

791: Oblique plus $C_q$, $\delta \varepsilon_q$   & $0.98 \pm 0.06$ \\

792: All but $C_q$, $\delta \varepsilon_q$  & $0.98 \pm 0.15$

793: \end{tabular}

794: \end{center} \vspace{0.3cm}

795: We see that the oblique approximation is already

796: reasonable:  in most of the cases the approximate bound is less than

797: $25 \%$ away from the correct one. Adding the two parameters $\delta

798: C_q, \delta \varepsilon_q$ improves the approximation significantly:

799: in more than $90 \%$ of the cases the approximate bound reproduces

800: the exact one within $10 \%$. Furthermore, it is important to notice

801: that considering a fit where all the parameters except $\delta C_q ,

802: \delta \varepsilon_q$ are added does not improve much the

803: approximation with respect to the oblique case. This is telling

804: us that in the quark sector it is indeed $\delta C_q$ and $ \delta

805: \varepsilon_q$ which are the most constrained parameters, while all

806: the others are much less constrained (and mostly negligible for

807: establishing a reliable bound on the scale of new physics). The

808: arguments we have discussed in section \ref{sec:vertex} thus find a

809: quantitative verification here. Out of the 18 initial parameters

810: only 9 are truly constrained. The remaining 9 can be safely

811: neglected.

812: 

813: Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmas} compares the eigenvalues of the full error

814: matrix with the eigenvalues recomputed using our simplified approximation

815: (using of course the same normalization in the two cases).

816: We see that the approximation catches the main constraints,

817: ignoring the remaining weakly constrained combinations.

818: We do not show the full eigenvalues extracted from the global fit of~\cite{skiba},

819: that show a similar level of agreement.

820: 

821: \bigskip

822: 

823: 

824: 

825: We now present how data determine our 10 parameters by

826: presenting  the `eigenvectors' of the global  $\chi^2$,

827: i.e.\ we show the orthogonal combinations 

828: that have been determined

829: with no statistical correlation with the other combinations, such that

830: a model is excluded if any one of these combinations contradicts experimental data.

831: We order them starting from the most precise ones.

832: They are:

833: \beq R \cdot \left(\begin{array}{c} \hat{S}\\ \hat{T} \\ \hat{U} \\ V \\ W \\ X \\ Y  \\ \delta C_q \\ \delta \varepsilon_b \\ \delta\varepsilon_q

834: \end{array}\right)= 10^{-3}

835: \left(\begin{array}{c}

836: -0.04 + 0.54 \ell \pm 0.21\\ 

837: +0.13 + 0.08 \ell \pm 0.43\\ 

838: +0.41 + 0.21 \ell \pm 0.50\\ 

839: +0.16 + 0.72 \ell \pm 0.54\\ 

840: -0.36 - 0.33 \ell \pm 0.75\\ 

841: 0 + 0.16 \ell \pm 1.2\\ 

842: -0.9 - 0.12 \ell \pm 1.5\\ 

843: -5.6 - 0.31 \ell \pm 2.0\\ 

844: -0.4 + 0.18 \ell \pm 8.7\\ 

845: -26 + 0.66 \ell \pm 18

846: \end{array}\right)

847: \eeq

848: where

849: the factor $\ell = \ln (m_h/M_Z)$ encodes the approximate dependence on the Higgs mass

850: and the orthogonal matrix $R$ equals

851: $$R = 10^{-3} \left(

852: \begin{array}{cccccccccc}

853:  -404 & 353 & -133 & 173 & 137 & -753 & 276 & 4 & 18 & 27 \\

854:  -245 & -19 & 492 & -747 & 30 & -37 & 280 & 15 & -40 & -235 \\

855:  -16 & 208 & 146 & -152 & -724 & -224 & -407 & 319 & 33 & 260 \\

856:  -222 & 691 & -76 & 5 & -120 & 550 & 285 & -129 & 55 & 216 \\

857:  -17 & -330 & 177 & -36 & 114 & -31 & 273 & -12 & 1 & 876 \\

858:  3 & 232 & -7 & -283 & 303 & -118 & -589 & -581 & -175 & 209 \\

859:  -42 & -68 & 132 & 31 & -44 & -37 & -66 & -288 & 939 & -33 \\

860:  -203 & -200 & 350 & 375 & -445 & -9 & 126 & -587 & -282 & -124 \\

861:  -642 & -381 & -575 & -219 & -161 & 147 & -112 & -41 & 9 & 11 \\

862:  519 & 0 & -458 & -341 & -329 & -199 & 376 & -337 & -1 & 2

863: \end{array}

864: \right).

865: $$

866: The two last combinations have large uncertainties and can be ignored.

867: The flavour-universal limit is obtained by setting $\delta \varepsilon_b = \delta \varepsilon_q$.

868: 

869: 

870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

872: 

873: 

874: 

875: 

876: \section{Example: a generic $Z'$}

877: \label{sec:example}

878: \setcounter{equation}{0}

879: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}

880: 

881: 

882: We now apply our results to  a specific concrete example: a generic

883: heavy non-universal $Z'$ vector boson, with mass $M_{Z'}$, gauge

884: coupling $g_{Z'}$ and gauge charges $Z_X$ under the various SM

885: fields $X=\{ H,E,L,Q,U,D\}$.

886: The

887: parameters

888: defined in section \ref{sec:parameters}  can be computed in various ways.

889: One can integrate out the heavy mass

890: eigenstate, obtaining a set of effective operators that can be converted into

891: our parameters using the expressions in Appendix \ref{app}.

892: A  simpler technique~\cite{arabic} allows to directly compute our parameters.

893: In the specific case of a $Z'$ this technique was described in  section~7 of \cite{LHSTWY}:

894: it consists of integrating out the combination of $Z'$ and $Z$

895: (which, in general, is not a mass eigenstate)

896: that does not couple to charged leptons.

897: Operatively, one rewrites the Lagrangian in terms of

898: \begin{equation}

899:   \tilde B_\mu = B_\mu - \frac{g_{Z'}Z_E}{g' Y_E} Z'_\mu, \;\;\;\;\;\;\; \tilde W_\mu^3 = W_\mu^3

900:    - \frac{2 g_{Z'}}{g Y_E} (Z_E Y_L-Z_L Y_E) Z'_\mu

901: \end{equation}

902: such that in the new basis $Z'$ no longer couples to charged leptons and can be

903: integrated out without generating any operator involving charged leptons. 

904: One can then directly  extract our 9 parameters from the effective Lagrangian, since it

905: already is in the form of eq.~(\ref{eq:lagrour}).

906: The explicit result is:

907: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:Z'}

908: \hat S &=& \frac{2 M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g^2 g'^2 M_{Z'}^2} (Z_E-Z_H+Z_L)(g^2 Z_E +g'^2 (Z_E+2Z_L)) \,,\\

909: \hat T &=& \frac{4 M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g^2 M_{Z'}^2} (Z_E-Z_H+Z_L)^2 \,,\\

910: \hat U & = & \frac{4 M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g^2 M_{Z'}^2} (Z_E-Z_H+Z_L)(Z_E+2Z_L) \,,\\

911: W &=& \frac{M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g^2 M_{Z'}^2} (Z_E+2Z_L)^2 \,,\\

912: Y &=&  \frac{M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g'^2 M_{Z'}^2} Z_E^2 \,,\\

913: V &=&  \frac{M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g^2 M_{Z'}^2} (Z_E+2Z_L)^2 \,,\\

914: X &=& - \frac{M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g g' M_{Z'}^2} Z_E (Z_E+2Z_L) \,, \\

915: \delta \varepsilon_q &=& \frac{2 M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{g^2 M_{Z'}^2} Z_H (Z_E+2 Z_L)\,, \\

916: \delta C_q &=& \frac{2 M_W^2 g_{Z'}^2}{(g^2+g'^2) M_{Z'}^2} (Z_E+2Z_L) (Z_E+Z_L) \,.

917: \end{eqnsystem}

918: It is important to notice a point missed  in section~7 of \cite{LHSTWY}:

919:  $\hat U$, $V$ and $X$ are not subdominant with respect to $\hat{S}$, $\hat{T}$, $W$, $Y$.

920: (The bounds presented here numerically differ from the ones in  \cite{LHSTWY} also because

921: we here updated the measurement of the top mass~\cite{mtop}).

922: One can check that only with the correct full expressions of eq.~(\ref{sys:Z'})

923: the corrections to the parameters $\delta \varepsilon_{1,2,3}$

924: that summarize LEP1 observables are all proportional to $Z_H$ and

925: therefore all vanish if the Higgs is neutral under the heavy $Z'$.

926: This must happen because  $Z_H=0$ means no $Z/Z'$ mixing

927: and the $Z'$ manifests itself only  as 4-fermion operators invisible at LEP1

928: and dominantly constrained by LEP2.

929: 

930: 

931: \begin{table}[t]

932: $$

933:   \begin{array}{cc|cccccc|ccc}

934: \hbox{U(1)}& \hbox{universal?}& Z_H & Z_L & Z_D & Z_U & Z_Q & Z_E & \hbox{full} &\hbox{approx} & \hbox{oblique} \\ \hline

935: H & \hbox{yes} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 6.7 & 6.7 & 6.7\\ 

936: B' & \hbox{yes} & \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{3} & -\frac{2}{3} & 

937: \frac{1}{6} & 1 & 6.7 & 6.7 & 6.7\\ 

938: B'_F & \hbox{yes} & 0 & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{3} & -\frac{2}{3} & 

939: \frac{1}{6} & 1 & 4.8 & 4.8 & 4.8\\ 

940: B-L & \hbox{no} & 0 & -1 & -\frac{1}{3} & -\frac{1}{3} & \frac{1}{3} & 1 & 

941: 6.7 & 7.1 & 7.1\\ 

942: L & \hbox{no} & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 6.3 & 7.1 & 7.1\\ 

943: 10 & \hbox{no} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2.5 & 2.9 & 3.4\\ 

944: 5 & \hbox{no} & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 3.8 & 3.2 & 5.6\\ 

945: Y & \hbox{no} & \frac{2}{3} & 1 & 1 & -\frac{1}{3} & -\frac{1}{3} & 

946: -\frac{1}{3} & 4.8 & 5.0 & 6.0\\ 

947: 16 & \hbox{no} & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 4.4 & 4.7 & 6.5\\ 

948: \hbox{SLH} & \hbox{no} &  \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\hbox{Simplest little Higgs~\cite{simplest}}} & 2.7 & 

949: 2.5 & 2.7\\ 

950: \hbox{SU6} & \hbox{no} &  \multicolumn{6}{c|}{\hbox{Super little Higgs~\cite{superlittle}}} & 3.1 & 3.3 

951: & 3.3\\  \end{array}$$

952:   \caption{\em $99\%$\CL\ bounds on the ratio $M_{Z'}/g_{Z'}$ in {\rm TeV} for a set of frequently studied $Z'$.}

953:   \label{tab:famZprimes}

954: \end{table}

955: 

956: \begin{figure}[tb]

957: \begin{center}$$\hspace{-0.03\textwidth}

958: \includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{Zbounds}$$

959: \caption{\em Bounds on $M_{Z'}/g_{Z'}$ in $\TeV$ at $99\%$\CL\ for

960: different $Z'$ models. Their effect dominantly depends on the charge

961: of the Higgs and the leptons: we here assume the normalization

962: $Z_L^2 + Z_E^2 + Z_H^2 = 2$ such that $Z_H=0$ at the boundary of the

963: circles. The three plots, done assuming different sets of quark

964: charges (zero, universal-like and SU(5)-unified) are almost

965: identical, confirming the validity of an approximate analysis. The

966: dashed line corresponds to a universal $Z'$, and the dashed ellipse

967: to a $Z'$ compatible with SM Yukawa couplings. The dots show some

968: well-known $Z'$s.} \label{fig:Z'}

969: \end{center}

970: \end{figure}

971: 

972: In table \ref{tab:famZprimes} we report the $99\%$\CL\ bounds on  $M_{Z'}/g_{Z'}$ for a set of  $Z'$s,

973: theoretically motivated by extra dimensions, unification models, little Higgs models.\footnote{We

974: presented the results hiding a  technical problem. 

975: We performed two different global fits: in the operator basis, and

976: in the oblique basis. The simpler  oblique analysis naturally

977: allows to include minor effects.

978: The minor difference between the two $\chi^2$ is comparable to

979: the accuracy of our approximation, such that in the table we

980: compensated for this.}

981: We compare the bound obtained by performing an exact fit, that

982: includes the effects of all the 18 relevant parameters, an

983: approximate fit including the 9 parameters, and the purely oblique

984: approximation. It is interesting to notice that the approximate

985: bounds reproduce the exact one accurately in almost all the cases.

986: There are few exceptions where the effect of quarks is relevant, and

987: the oblique bound is overestimated. On the other hand, the

988: 9-parameter approximation is always successful.

989: 

990: 

991: 

992: 

993: 

994: Fig.~\ref{fig:Z'} shows iso-contours of bounds on $M_{Z'}/g_{Z'}$ (computed assuming a light Higgs)

995: that approximately apply to

996: all $Z'$.  Indeed the constraint dominantly depends only on the leptonic and Higgs $Z'$ charges:

997: $Z_H,Z_L,Z_E$. We here fixed their arbitrary overall normalization by assuming

998: $Z_H^2 + Z_L^2 +Z_E^2=2$. Without loss of generality we can choose $Z_H\ge 0$, such

999: that all the information lies on the surface of a half-sphere, and is plotted in fig.~\ref{fig:Z'}.

1000: The different panels show three different arbitrary choices for the quark $Z'$ charges:

1001: vanishing (left panel), universal (middle panel), SU(5)-unified (right panel).

1002: Each panel shows the exact bound on $M_{Z'}/g_{Z'}$:

1003: one sees that there are very minor differences between the bounds in the three panels,

1004: confirming that leptonic data dominate the present global fit.

1005: The dots show the locations of the theoretically-motivated $Z'$ listed in table~\ref{tab:famZprimes}.

1006: The dashed lines show special sub-classes of $Z'$: universal $Z'$ (oblique line)

1007: and $Z'$s that do not forbid the SM Yukawa couplings (ellipse).

1008: For example, only two $Z'$ have both these properties:

1009: a) the one denoted as $B'$: a duplicate of the SM hypercharge;

1010: b) the one denoted as  `SU6' $Z'$, that arises in little-Higgs models~\cite{LHSTWY}.

1011: 

1012: 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: 

1016: 

1017: 

1018: 

1019: \section{Proof for $W,Y\ge 0$}\label{sec:WX}

1020: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1021: %\setcounter{footnote}{0}

1022: 

1023: 

1024: So far, the oblique parameters $W,Y$ have been computed in various

1025: models (in extra dimensions, Higgsless models, and litte Higgs at

1026: tree level~\cite{STWY, LHSTWY}, and in supersymmetry~\cite{SUSYSTWY}

1027: and Minimal Dark Matter~\cite{MDM} at one-loop level). In all of

1028: these cases it has been found that $W,Y\ge 0$. Next we discuss the

1029: general reason behind this result. The K\"allen--Lehmann

1030: representation implied by unitarity~\cite{book} tells us that propagators can be

1031: written as \beq \frac{1}{\Pi(p^2)} =\int_0^\infty d m^2

1032: \frac{\rho(m^2)}{p^2 - m^2 - i\varepsilon}\qquad\hbox{with} \qquad

1033: \rho(m^2)\ge 0.\eeq One can compute $\Pi''(0)$ and write in an

1034: appropriate form such that positivity is manifest:

1035: $$ \Pi''(0)=

1036: \frac{\int\!\int dm_1^2 dm_2^2\,\rho(m_1^2)\rho(m_2^2)

1037: (m_1^2-m_2^2)^2/m_1^6 m_2^6}{[\int dm^2 \,\rho(m^2)/m^2]^3}

1038: \ge 0.$$

1039: 

1040: We could similarly prove that $\Pi'(0)\ge 0$, and this indicates a

1041: potential caveat. The K\"allen--Lehmann representations applies to

1042: correlators of gauge invariant operators. In models where  the SM

1043: gauge group is a subgroup of some larger non-abelian gauge group the

1044: relevant propagators are not gauge-invariant quantities: they can

1045: have matrix elements with unphysical negative-norm states, possibly

1046: giving $\Pi''(0)<0$. As well known, this is indeed what happens in

1047: the case of $\Pi'(0)$, that contributes to the $\beta$-function of

1048: gauge couplings: non-abelian vectors negatively contribute to the

1049: $\beta$-function. Littlest-Higgs models with $T$-parity~\cite{Tparity} might

1050: realize this caveat: the one-loop corrections to physical

1051: observables must be computed including the full gauge-invariant set

1052: of oblique, vertex and box diagrams.

1053: 

1054: 

1055: 

1056: 

1057: 

1058: 

1059: \section{Conclusions}

1060: 

1061: We presented a simple and efficient general analysis of the

1062: constraints on heavy new physics from electroweak precision data measured below, at

1063: and above the $Z$-peak. 

1064: We found that, out of a complete basis of 18 independent operators,

1065: precision data significantly constrain only about 10 combinations of

1066: new-physics parameters, see fig.~\ref{fig:sigmas}.

1067: We have condensed the dominant precision data into 7

1068: generalized oblique parameters $\hat{S},\hat{T},\hat{U},V,X,Y,W$

1069: (that fully describe how new physics affects vectors and leptons),

1070: plus two parameters that describe the main corrections involving quarks:

1071: $\delta \varepsilon_q$, that describes corrections to the on-shell $q\bar{q}Z$ vertex,

1072: and $C_q$, that describes the size of $e\bar{e}q\bar{q}$ four fermion operators. 

1073: A 10th parameter, the traditional $\delta \varepsilon_b$, is necessary if (as in

1074: most models) third generation quarks have unique properties. 

1075: 

1076: We have shown that in most cases the simple oblique

1077: approximation (where only the seven oblique parameters are turned

1078: on) reasonably estimates  the constraints on new physics,

1079: and that adding all 9 (or 10) parameters gives a bound that typically is within

1080: 10\% of the exact bound. We have shown how to calculate these

1081: parameters from a generic set of higher dimensional operators, and

1082: emphasized that an added advantage of our parameters is that in many

1083: cases they can be directly computed via integrating out proper

1084: combinations of heavy new physics. We applied our

1085: methods giving approximate bounds on generic $Z'$s (see fig.~\ref{fig:Z'}), 

1086: and compared them with exact results in the specific cases of frequently-studied $Z'$

1087: (see table~\ref{tab:famZprimes}).

1088: 

1089: Finally, we have shown that first principles demand 

1090: positivity constraints $W,Y\ge 0$ on these oblique parameters.

1091: 

1092: 

1093: \footnotesize

1094: 

1095: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1096: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1097: We thank R.\ Rattazzi for very useful discussions.

1098: G.C. also thanks Graham Kribs for the organization of the UltraMini Workshop at the University of Oregon (Eugene), where part of this work was completed.

1099: The research of G.C. and C.C. is supported in part by the DOE OJI grant DE-FG02-01ER41206

1100: and in part by the NSF grants PHY-0139738  and PHY-0098631.

1101: The work of G.M. is supported in part 

1102: by the Department of Energy grant

1103: DE-FG02-91ER40674.

1104: The research of A.S.\ is supported in part by the European Programme

1105: `The Quest For Unification', contract MRTN-CT-2004-503369.

1106: 

1107: \normalsize

1108: 

1109: \appendix

1110: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1112: \section{The minimal parameters for a general Lagrangian}

1113: \label{app} \setcounter{equation}{0} \setcounter{footnote}{0}

1114: 

1115: 

1116: 

1117: In this appendix

1118: we explicitly show how to transform a Lagrangian with generic $\SU(2)_L$-covariant

1119: dimension 6 operators to the parametrization advocated here.

1120: To start, we fix the notations for the dimension 6 operators. We define the Higgs and fermion

1121:  currents as

1122: 

1123: \begin{equation}

1124: J_{\mu H} =  H^\dagger i \mathcal{D}_\mu H,\qquad

1125: J_{\mu H}^a = H^\dagger  \tau^a i\mathcal{D}_\mu H,\qquad

1126: J_{\mu F} = \sum \bar{F} \gamma_\mu F,\qquad

1127: J_{\mu D}^a = \sum \bar{D}\gamma_\mu \tau^a D

1128: \end{equation}

1129: where $\tau^a$ are the Pauli matrices (normalized such that $\mbox{Tr}\, (\tau^a \tau^b) = 2 \delta^{ab}$), %with eigenvalues $\pm 1$),

1130: $F = \{E,L,Q,U,D\}$ and $D=\{L,Q\}$ and the currents are summed over

1131: the three flavors. In our notation the hypercharges are $Y_E=1$,

1132: $Y_L=-1/2$, $Y_U = -2/3$, $Y_D = 1/3$, $Y_Q = 1/6$, $Y_H = 1/2$ and $\langle H\rangle = (0,v)$. As discussed

1133: in section~\ref{sec:parameters}, we  split doublets $D=(u,d)$ in

1134: components and define

1135: $$J_{\mu D} = J_\mu^{u_L} + J_\mu^{d_L} = \bar{u}_L \gamma_\mu u_L + \bar{d}_L \gamma_\mu d_L

1136: ,\qquad

1137: J^-_{\mu D} = \bar{u}_L \gamma_\mu d_L,\qquad

1138: J^+_{\mu D} = \bar{d}_L\gamma_\mu u_L

1139: $$

1140: To shorten the notation, we define $s = \sin \theta_W$, $c = \cos \theta_W$ and $t=\tan \theta_W$.

1141: 

1142: We start from a complete list of dimension 6 operators that are relevant for the precision measurements at LEP:

1143: following the notation of~\cite{BS,skiba}, the operators are

1144: \begin{itemize}

1145: \item 7 operators involving one fermion current (vertex operators):

1146: \begin{equation}

1147: \mathcal{O}_{HF} =  J_{\mu H} J_{\mu F}+ \hbox{h.c.} =

1148:  - 2 \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} (g W^3_\mu - g' B_\mu) J_f^\mu \, + \cdots \\

1149: \end{equation}

1150:  where $F=\{L,E,Q,U,D\}$ and

1151: \begin{equation}

1152: \mathcal{O}'_{HD} =   J_{\mu H}^a J^a_{\mu D}+ \hbox{h.c.} =

1153: 2 \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} (g W^3_\mu - g' B_\mu) (J_\mu^{u_L} - J_\mu^{d_L} ) + 4 \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \left( W^+_\mu J^-_{D\mu} + \hbox{h.c.} \right) +\cdots

1154: \end{equation}

1155: where $D=\{L,Q\}$.

1156: 

1157: \item 11 operators involving two fermion currents (4-fermion operators):

1158: \begin{eqnarray}

1159: \mathcal{O}_{FF'} &=& \frac{J_{\mu F} J_{\mu F'}}{1+\delta_{FF'}}\\

1160: \mathcal{O}'_{DD'} &=&

1161:  \frac{J^a_{\mu D} J^a_{\mu D'}}{1+\delta_{DD'}}=

1162:   \frac{(J^{u_L} - J^{d_L})\cdot (J^{u'_L}-J^{d'_L})+

1163:   2 (J^+_D\cdot J^-_{D'} + J^-_D \cdot J^+_{D'}) }{1+\delta_{DD'}} .

1164: \end{eqnarray}

1165:  Precision data at and below the $Z$-peak are affected only by

1166: $\mathcal{O}'_{LL}$~\cite{BS}. To study also LEP2 data above the

1167: $Z$-peak, \cite{skiba} added 10 more 4-fermion operators. The full

1168: list of the 11 4-fermion operators involving leptons is then given

1169: by:

1170: $$\mathcal{O}_{EE},

1171: \mathcal{O}_{LL},\mathcal{O}_{EL},

1172: \mathcal{O}_{EU},\mathcal{O}_{ED},\mathcal{O}_{EQ},

1173: \mathcal{O}_{LU},\mathcal{O}_{LD},\mathcal{O}_{LQ},

1174: \mathcal{O}'_{LL},\mathcal{O}'_{LQ}$$

1175: \end{itemize}

1176: In total this makes 18 operators. We here also consider 4 more oblique operators

1177: (i.e.\  operators that do not involve fermions):

1178: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:O0}

1179: \mathcal{O}_{WB} &=& \left( H^\dagger \tau^a H \right)\, W^a_{\mu \nu} B^{\mu \nu}

1180:  = -2 \frac{M_W^2}{g^2}\, W^3_{\mu \nu} B^{\mu \nu} +\cdots\,;\\

1181: \mathcal{O}_{HH} &=& |J_{\mu H}|^2

1182:  =  \left( \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \right)^2 (g W^3_\mu - g' B_\mu)^2 +\cdots\,;\\

1183:  \mathcal{O}_{WW} &=&  \frac{(\mathcal{D}_\rho W^a_{\mu\nu})^2}{2}\\

1184:  \mathcal{O}_{BB} &=& \frac{(\mathcal{D}_\rho B_{\mu\nu})^2}{2}

1185: \end{eqnsystem}

1186: Using the equations of motion for

1187: the two neutral gauge bosons (see~\cite{GST} for a recent discussion),

1188: these oblique operators can be reduced to combinations of the previous 18,

1189: up to poorly constrained operators, e.g.\ operators that affect

1190: couplings among vectors:

1191: \beq

1192:  i B_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{D}^\mu H^\dagger \mathcal{D}^\nu H,\qquad

1193:  i W^a_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{D}^\mu H^\dagger \tau^a \mathcal{D}^\nu

1194: H.

1195: \eeq

1196: This operator basis can be converted into the basis discussed in the main text

1197: by using the equations of motion for

1198: the gauge bosons $W^{\pm},W^3,B$ to eliminate all the

1199: charged lepton currents from  $\Lag_{\rm BSM}$. At leading order in the

1200: operator coefficients, we only need the equations of motion  that follow from $\Lag_{\rm SM}$:

1201: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:eqs}

1202: \partial^\nu B_{\nu \mu} + \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} g' (g' B_\mu - g W^3_\mu) + g' \sum_F Y_F J^f_{\mu} & =&  0 +\ldots \\

1203: \partial^\nu W^3_{\nu \mu} + \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} g (g W^3_\mu - g' B_\mu) + g \sum_f T_3 J^f_\mu & =&  0 +\ldots \\

1204: \partial^\nu W^{\pm}_{\nu \mu} + M_W^2 W^+_\mu + \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_F J^{\pm}_{\mu F} & =&  0 + \ldots

1205: \end{eqnsystem}

1206: where we neglected on the r.h.s.\ operators that are poorly

1207: measured. We now  solve the equations of motion in terms of

1208: \begin{equation}

1209: J^{e_R}_\mu \equiv J_{\mu E}= \bar e_R \gamma_\mu e_R ,\qquad

1210: J^{e_L}_\mu\equiv \bar e_L \gamma_\mu e_L ,\qquad

1211: J^{+}_{L\mu} \equiv \bar e_L \gamma_\mu \nu_L

1212: \end{equation}

1213: and plug the result into the Lagrangian generated by the new

1214: physics. In this way we replace $\Lag_{\rm BSM}$ with an equivalent

1215: version that does not contain corrections to $Z e^+ e^-$ and $W^+ e^- \nu$ vertices

1216: nor 4-fermion operators involving charged leptons.  The effects of

1217: new physics have been completely recast on the propagators of the

1218: gauge bosons and in the couplings of the gauge bosons to quarks and

1219: neutrinos, and we obtain a Lagrangian in the form of eq.~(\ref{eq:lagrour}).

1220: Thus, we can read off the parameters of

1221: section~\ref{sec:parameters} in terms of the coefficients of the operators we listed above.

1222: 

1223: 

1224: 

1225: \subsection{Oblique corrections and neutrinos}

1226: 

1227: 

1228: For

1229: the oblique parameters we find:

1230: 

1231: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:obliqueops}

1232: \hat S &=& \frac{M_W^2}{g g'}\bigg[4c_{WB} + 4 t\, (c'_{HL}- c'_{LL}) + \frac{2}{t}\, (c_{HE}-c_{EE}- c_{EL} )

1233: + \nonumber \\

1234:   && +2t\, (c_{HE} + 2 c_{HL} - c_{EE} - 2 c_{LL} - 3 c_{EL}) \bigg] \,,\\

1235:   %

1236: \hat T &=&\frac{M_W^2}{g^2}\bigg[-2c_{HH} + 8 (c_{HL} + c_{HE}) - 4 (c_{LL} + c_{EE} + 2 c_{EL}) \bigg] \,,\\

1237: %

1238: \hat U & = & \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \bigg[ 4 (c_{HE} + 2 c_{HL} ) - 4 (c_{EE} + 2 c_{LL} + 3 c_{EL})\bigg] \,,\\

1239: %

1240: V &=&  -\frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \bigg[c_{EE} + 4 c_{LL} + 4 c_{EL} \bigg] \,,\\

1241: %

1242: X & = & \frac{M_W^2}{g g'} \bigg[ c_{EE} + 2 c_{EL} \bigg] \, ,   \\

1243: %

1244: Y & = &  \frac{M_W^2}{g'^2} \bigg[2c_{BB} {g'}^2 - c_{EE} \bigg]   \,,\\

1245: %

1246: W &=& \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \bigg[ 2c_{WW}g^2 -4 c'_{LL} - (c_{EE} + 4 c_{LL} + 4 c_{EL}) \bigg].

1247: \end{eqnsystem}

1248: Next, we give the expressions for the non-oblique terms defined in eq.~(\ref{eq:vert}).

1249: The correction to the on-shell neutrino/$Z$ couplings is

1250: 

1251: \begin{eqnarray}

1252: \delta g_{L\nu} & = & - \frac{2 M_W^2}{g^2} \Big[ c_{HE} +2 c_{HL} \Big]\, = V - \frac{1}{2} \hat U - t X \,.

1253: \end{eqnarray}

1254: We see that it can be re-expressed in terms of the oblique parameters.

1255: This is true also for the corrections to the off-shell couplings

1256: $C^\gamma_{L\nu}$ and $C^Z_{L \nu}$: we do not give their explicit expressions because

1257: experiments negligibly constrain them.

1258: This shows that the 7 oblique parameters fully describe charged leptons {\em and} neutrinos.

1259: 

1260: 

1261: 

1262: \subsection{Vertex corrections}

1263: 

1264: 

1265: As discussed in the text, in the quark sector our approximation includes only

1266: two more important combinations of effects. They are:

1267: 

1268: \begin{eqnarray}

1269: \delta \varepsilon_q & = & \frac{2 M_W^2}{g^2} \Big[ 2 ( c'_{HQ} - c'_{HL} ) - (c_{HE} + 2 c_{HL} ) \Big]\, = \\

1270:  & = &  \frac{4 M_W^2}{g^2}  ( c'_{HQ} - c'_{HL} ) + V - \frac{1}{2} \hat U - t X\,, \nonumber \\

1271: \delta C_q & = & \frac{2 M_W^2}{g^2+{g'}^2} \Big[ 2 ( c'_{LQ}-c'_{LL}) - (  c_{EE} + 3  c_{LE} + 2 c_{LL})  \Big] \, =\\

1272: & = & \frac{4 M_W^2}{g^2+{g'}^2} ( c'_{LQ}-c'_{LL}) + c^2 V - c s X\,. \nonumber

1273: \end{eqnarray}

1274: Besides oblique terms, they only depend on the operators involving SU(2)$_L$ currents.

1275: The oblique approximation, therefore, fails only in the SU(2) sector.

1276: 

1277: For completeness, we also list the other parameters in the quark sector that we neglect: the 6 parameters involving left-handed quarks are

1278: \begin{eqnarray}

1279: \delta g_{Lq} & = & -2 \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \Big[ (c_{HQ}-Y_Q c_{HE}) \pm ( c'_{HL} - c'_{HQ}) \pm \frac{1}{2} \,( c_{HE} + 2 c_{HL} ) \Big]\,, \label{eq:deltagLq}\\

1280: C^\gamma_{Lq} & = & \frac{M_W^2}{e^2} \Big[ (c_{EQ}-Y_Q c_{EE}) (c^2-s^2) - 2 (c_{LQ} - Y_Q c_{LE} ) s^2  \pm 2 (c'_{LQ}-c'_{LL}) s^2  +\nonumber \\

1281: && \pm \frac{c^2}{2} (c_{EE} + 2 c_{EL} ) \mp \frac{s^2}{2} (c_{EE} + 4 c_{LL} + 4 c_{EL} ) \Big]\,,\\

1282: C^Z_{Lq} & = & -\frac{2 M_W^2}{g^2+{g'}^2} \Big[ (c_{EQ}+c_{LQ}) - Y_Q (c_{EE} + c_{LE} ) \pm  ( c'_{LL}-c'_{LQ}) +\nonumber\\  & &\pm \frac{1}{2} ( c_{EE} + 3  c_{LE} + 2 c_{LL})  \Big]\,,

1283: \end{eqnarray}

1284: where $q$ stands for $u$ and $d$ and the signs refer to the up/down component of the doublet.

1285: They depend on 5 coefficients $c_{HQ}$, $c'_{HQ}$, $c_{EQ}$, $c_{LQ}$, $c'_{LQ}$:

1286: only the differences $C^Z_{Lu} - C^Z_{Ld}$ and $C^\gamma_{Lu} - C^\gamma_{Ld}$ depend on $c'_{LQ}$, and are related by

1287: \begin{equation}

1288: (C^\gamma_{uL}-C^\gamma_{dL}) = c^2 (C^Z_{u L}-C^Z_{d L}) - \frac{1}{t} X\,.

1289: \label{relations2}

1290: \end{equation}

1291: In practice, we neglect $C^Z_{Lu} + C^Z_{Ld}$ and $C^\gamma_{Lu} + C^\gamma_{Ld}$, and $C^\gamma_{Lu} - C^\gamma_{Ld}$ is determined in terms of $\delta C_q$ and oblique parameters.

1292: 

1293: 

1294: The corrections to the right-handed quark couplings are described by the following 6 parameters:

1295: \begin{eqnarray}

1296: \delta g_{Rq} & = & -2 \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \Big[ c_{Hq} - Y_q c_{HE} \Big]\,,\\

1297: C^\gamma_{Rq} & = & \frac{M_W^2}{e^2} \Big[ (c_{Eq} - Y_q c_{EE} ) (c^2- s^2) -2 (c_{Lq} - Y_q c_{EL}) s^2 \Big]\,,\\

1298: C^Z_{Rq} & = & -\frac{2 M_W^2}{g^2+{g'}^2} \Big[ c_{Eq} + c_{Lq} - Y_q (c_{EE} + c_{EL}) \Big]\,,

1299: \end{eqnarray}

1300: where $q$ stands for $U$ and $D$.

1301: They depend on the 6 coefficients $c_{HU}$, $c_{HD}$, $c_{EU}$, $c_{ED}$, $c_{LU}$, $c_{LD}$,

1302: and are independent.

1303: Their effect on precisio measurements is negligible.

1304: 

1305: Corrections to the quark/$W$ couplings are determined in terms of our parameters:

1306: we do not give explicit expressions as experiments negligibly constrain these couplings.

1307: 

1308: 

1309: For the bottom, $\delta \varepsilon_b$ can be read off from eq.~(\ref{eq:deltagLq}):

1310: 

1311: \beq

1312: \delta \varepsilon_b  =  \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \Big[ ( c'_{HQ_3} - c'_{HL}) + c_{HQ_3} - c_{HL} - \frac{2}{3} c_{HE} \Big]\,.

1313: \eeq

1314: In the flavour universal limit, it can be written in terms of the light quark parameters in the following way:

1315: 

1316: \beq

1317: \delta \varepsilon_b &=& \delta \varepsilon_q  - (\delta g_{uL} + \delta g_{dL} )\,.

1318: \eeq

1319: 

1320: 

1321: 

1322: 

1323: \subsection{The universal limit}

1324: 

1325: 

1326: One can verify that in the limit of heavy universal

1327: new physics, our expressions reduce to the $\hat{S},\hat{T},W,Y$

1328: parameters only, with all other parameters vanishing. Indeed in the

1329: `universal' case only the following combinations of currents can

1330: appear in $\Lag_{\rm BSM}$: \beq J_Y^\mu = \sum_f Y_F J_F^\mu,

1331: \;\;\;\;\; J^a = \sum_D J_D^{\mu,a}. \eeq This restricts the

1332: coefficients of the operators to be of the form \beq c_{HF} = Y_F\,

1333: c_v\,, \quad c'_{HF} = c'_v\,, \quad c_{FF'} = Y_F Y_{F'}\, c_{4f}

1334: \,, \quad c'_{FF'} = c'_{4f}\, , \eeq

1335: such that the non-vanishing  $\hat S,\hat T,W,Y$ parameters are

1336: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:STWY}

1337: \hat S &=& \frac{M_W^2}{g g'}\bigg[4 c_{WB} + 4 t\, (c'_{v} - c'_{4f}) + \frac{2}{t}\, c_v - \frac{1}{t}\, c_{4f} \bigg] \,,\\

1338:  %

1339: \hat T &=&\frac{M_W^2}{g^2}\bigg[-2 c_{HH} + 4 c_v + c_{4f} \bigg] \,,\\

1340: %

1341: Y & = &  \frac{M_W^2}{g'^2} \bigg[2 c_{BB} {g'}^2 - c_{4f} \bigg]   \,,\\

1342: %

1343: W &=& \frac{M_W^2}{g^2} \bigg[ 2 c_{WW}g^2 - c'_{4f} \bigg].

1344: \end{eqnsystem}

1345: These expressions explicitly show how the 4 oblique operators in eq.~(\ref{sys:O0})

1346: are equivalent to appropriate universal combinations of non-oblique operators.

1347: 

1348: 

1349: \small

1350: \begin{multicols}{2}

1351: 

1352: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{BS}

1355: R.~Barbieri and A.~Strumia,

1356:   %``What is the limit on the Higgs mass?,''

1357:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {462} (1999) 144

1358:   [hep-ph/9905281].

1359: 

1360: 

1361: \bibitem{skiba}

1362:   Z.~Han and W.~Skiba,

1363: %``Effective theory analysis of precision electroweak data,''

1364: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {71} (2005) 075009

1365: [hep-ph/0412166].

1366: 

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{STWY}

1369: R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol, R.~Rattazzi and A.~Strumia,

1370:   %``Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP1 and LEP2,''

1371:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {703} (2004) 127

1372:   [hep-ph/0405040].

1373: 

1374: 

1375: \bibitem{PT}

1376: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

1377:   %``A New Constraint On A Strongly Interacting Higgs Sector,''

1378:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {65}, 964 (1990).

1379:   %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,964;%%

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{GST}

1382:   C.~Grojean, W.~Skiba and J.~Terning,

1383: %``Disguising the oblique parameters,''

1384: hep-ph/0602154.

1385: 

1386: 

1387:   \bibitem{LHSTWY}

1388:  G.~Marandella, C.~Schappacher and A.~Strumia,

1389:   %``Little-Higgs corrections to precision data after LEP2,''

1390:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {72} (2005) 035014

1391:   [hep-ph/0502096].

1392: 

1393: 

1394: \bibitem{arabic}

1395:   R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol and R.~Rattazzi,

1396:   %``Weakly coupled Higgsless theories and precision electroweak tests,''

1397:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {591} (2004) 141

1398:   [hep-ph/0310285].

1399: 

1400: 

1401: \bibitem{epsb}

1402:  G.~Altarelli, R.~Barbieri and F.~Caravaglios,

1403:   %``Nonstandard analysis of electroweak precision data,''

1404:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {405} (1993) 3.

1405: 

1406: 

1407: \bibitem{BW} \art{W. Buchm\"uller, D. Wyler}{\NP}{B268}{621}{1986}.

1408: 

1409: 

1410: %\cite{Group:2006qt}

1411: \bibitem{mtop}

1412:   T.~E.~W.~Group,

1413:   %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark,''

1414:   hep-ex/0603039.

1415:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603039;%%

1416: 

1417: 

1418: \bibitem{NuTeV} NuTeV collaboration,

1419:   %``A precise determination of electroweak parameters in neutrino nucleon

1420:   %scattering,''

1421:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {88} (2002) 091802

1422:   [Erratum-ibid.\  {90} (2003) 239902]

1423:   [hep-ex/0110059].

1424: 

1425: 

1426: \bibitem{littlehiggs}

1427: for a review, see

1428: M.~Schmaltz and D.~Tucker-Smith,

1429:   %``Little Higgs review,''

1430:   hep-ph/0502182.

1431:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502182;%%

1432: 

1433: 

1434: \bibitem{hless}

1435: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning,

1436:   %``Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,''

1437:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {92}, 101802 (2004)

1438:   [hep-ph/0308038];

1439:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308038;%%

1440: G.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean and J.~Terning,

1441:   %``Curing the ills of Higgsless models: The S parameter and unitarity,''

1442:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {71}, 035015 (2005)

1443:   [hep-ph/0409126].

1444:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409126;%%

1445: 

1446: 

1447: 

1448: 

1449: %\cite{Schmaltz:2004de}

1450: \bibitem{simplest}

1451:   M.~Schmaltz,

1452:   %``The simplest little Higgs,''

1453:   JHEP {0408}, 056 (2004)

1454:   [hep-ph/0407143].

1455:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407143;%%

1456: 

1457: 

1458: %\cite{Altarelli:1990zd}

1459: \bibitem{eps}

1460:   G.~Altarelli and R.~Barbieri,

1461:   %``Vacuum Polarization Effects Of New Physics On Electroweak Processes,''

1462:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {253}, 161 (1991).

1463:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B253,161;%%

1464: 

1465: 

1466: 

1467: \bibitem{contino}

1468: K.~Agashe, R.~Contino and A.~Pomarol,

1469:   %``The minimal composite Higgs model,''

1470:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {719}, 165 (2005)

1471:   [hep-ph/0412089];

1472:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412089;%%

1473: K.~Agashe and R.~Contino,

1474:   %``The minimal composite Higgs model and electroweak precision tests,''

1475:   hep-ph/0510164.

1476:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510164;%%

1477: 

1478: 

1479: 

1480: 

1481: \bibitem{ghu}

1482: G.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki and S.~C.~Park,

1483:   %``Fully radiative electroweak symmetry breaking,''

1484:   JHEP {0603}, 099 (2006)

1485:   [hep-ph/0510366];

1486:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510366;%%

1487: G.~Panico, M.~Serone and A.~Wulzer,

1488:   %``A model of electroweak symmetry breaking from a fifth dimension,''

1489:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {739}, 186 (2006)

1490:   [hep-ph/0510373].

1491:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510373;%%

1492: 

1493: 

1494: 

1495: \bibitem{superlittle}

1496: C.~Csaki, G.~Marandella, Y.~Shirman and A.~Strumia,

1497:   %``The super-little Higgs,''

1498:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {73}, 035006 (2006)

1499:   [hep-ph/0510294].

1500:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510294;%%

1501: 

1502: 

1503:   \bibitem{SUSYSTWY}

1504:    G.~Marandella, C.~Schappacher and A.~Strumia,

1505:   %``Supersymmetry and precision data after LEP2,''

1506:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {715} (2005) 173

1507:   [hep-ph/0502095].

1508: 

1509: 

1510:   \bibitem{MDM}

1511:    M.~Cirelli, N.~Fornengo and A.~Strumia,

1512:   %``Minimal dark matter,''

1513:   hep-ph/0512090.

1514: 

1515: 

1516: 

1517:   \bibitem{book}

1518:   See e.g.\ the book by

1519:   M.E. Peskin, D.V. Schroeder, {\em `An introduction to Quantum Field Theory'}.

1520: 

1521: 

1522: \bibitem{Tparity}

1523: I.~Low,

1524:   %``T parity and the littlest Higgs,''

1525:   JHEP {0410}, 067 (2004)

1526:   [hep-ph/0409025];

1527:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409025;%%

1528: J.~Hubisz, P.~Meade, A.~Noble and M.~Perelstein,

1529:   %``Electroweak precision constraints on the littlest Higgs model with T

1530:   %parity,''

1531:   JHEP {0601}, 135 (2006)

1532:   [hep-ph/0506042].

1533:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506042;%%

1534: 

1535: 

1536: 

1537: 

1538: 

1539: \end{thebibliography}

1540: \end{multicols}

1541: \end{document}

1542: