Searches for multi-Z boson productions and anomalous gauge boson couplings at a muon collider

  • Multi-boson productions can be exploited as novel probes either for standard model precision tests or new physics searches, and have become a popular research topic in ongoing LHC experiments and future collider studies, including those for electron–positron and muon–muon colliders. In this study, we focus on two examples, i.e., ZZZZZZ direct productions through μ+μ annihilation at a 1TeV muon collider, and ZZ productions through vector boson scattering (VBS) at a 10TeV muon collider, with an integrated luminosity of 10ab1. Various channels are considered, including ZZZ42ν and ZZZ4+2jets. The expected significance on these multi-Z boson production processes is reported based on a detailed Monte Carlo study and signal background analysis. Sensitivities on anomalous gauge boson couplings are also presented.
  • The Standard Model (SM) is based on the SU(3)CSU(2)LU(1)Y gauge symmetry group and describes the interactions among all elementary particles [1]. The discovery of the Higgs boson by the CMS and ATLAS experiments [2, 3] at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2012 marks a great success of SM physics. The high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC), together with other future colliders, such as muon colliders, will not only enable researchers to make more precise measurements on characteristic properties of SM physics but also to unravel undiscovered phenomena beyond SM physics.

    Recently, a muon collider working at a centre of mass (COM) energy at the TeV scale has received revived interest from the community of high-energy physics [4, 5]. Given that muons are approximately 200 times heavier than electrons, the energy loss caused by synchrotron radiation for muons is much less than that for electrons. Moreover, muon-muon collisions provide a cleaner environment than proton-proton collisions. These features make muon colliders attractive energy-efficient machines to explore high-energy physics.

    A muon collider offers numerous opportunities to study elementary particle physics [6, 7]. For instance, when the COM energy is around 1TeV, μ+μ annihilation acts as the dominant production mechanism. At the multi-TeV scale, muons have a high probability to emit electroweak (EW) radiation. Therefore, a high-energy muon collider can also serve as a vector boson collider. Both collision modes provide a spectacular playground for both the search for the origin of EW symmetry breaking (EWSB) and for EW interactions beyond the Standard Model, such as anomalous gauge boson interactions [814].

    For current and future colliders, multi-boson production is an interesting topic, sensitive to the non-abelian character of the SM [1, 15]. In particular, the presence of anomalous quartic gauge boson interactions [1618] can be probed through tri-boson production and through di-boson production via vector boson scattering. Many studies have been published on this topic at the LHC [19, 20]. In this study, we focussed on two examples, i.e., ZZZ direct productions through μ+μ annihilation at a 1TeV muon collider, and ZZ productions through the VBS process at a 10TeV muon collider, with an integrated luminosity of 10ab1.

    Precision measurements of multi-boson production allow a basic test of the SM and provide a model-independent method to search for BSM at the TeV scale [19]. In this study, we focussed on ZZZ direct productions and ZZ productions through vector boson scattering. Both processes are sensitive to non-abelian gauge boson interactions and the structure of EW symmetry breaking. These multi-boson processes represent an important avenue to test anomalous triple gauge couplings (aTGCs) and anomalous quartic gauge couplings (aQGCs) [1], as well as to search for possible modifications of these vertices from new physics [20].

    Anomalous modifications of gauge couplings can be parameterized through the effective field theory (EFT) by adding higher order modifications to the SM Lagrangian:

    LNP=L4(SM)+1ΛL5+1Λ2L6+1Λ3L7+1Λ4L8+...

    (1)

    The higher order terms are suppressed by mass scale Λ, which represents the scale of new physics beyond the SM. The terms featuring odd dimensions are not considered because they will not influence multi-boson production measurements. The dimension-6 operators are related to aTGCs, whereas the dimension-8 operators are related to aQGCs.

    Note that aQGCs can be realized by introducing new heavy bosons, which contribute to aQGCs at the tree level, while one loop is suppressed in aTGCs [16, 21, 22]. Furthermore, given that numerous experimental tests of aTGCs have shown good agreement with the SM, this study mainly focused on genuine aQGCs.

    To express the aQGC contributions in a model-independent manner, an EFT of the EW breaking sector [16, 2327] is utilized. When SU(2)LU(1)Y is represented linearly, the lowest order genuine aQGC operators parameterized in the EFT are dimension-8 (dim-8) [25, 2729]. The genuine aQGC operators can be expressed as follows [30]:

    OS,0=[(DμΦ)DνΦ]×[(DμΦ)DνΦ],OS,1=[(DμΦ)DμΦ]×[(DνΦ)DνΦ],OS,2=[(DμΦ)DνΦ]×[(DνΦ)DμΦ],OM,0=Tr[ˆWμνˆWμν]×[(DβΦ)DβΦ],OM,1=Tr[ˆWμνˆWνβ]×[(DβΦ)DμΦ],OM,2=[BμνBμν]×[(DβΦ)DβΦ]OM,3=[BμνBνβ]×[(DβΦ)DμΦ],OM,4=[(DμΦ)ˆWβνDμΦ]×Bβν,OM,5=[(DμΦ)ˆWβνDνΦ]×Bβμ+h.c.,

    OM,7=[(DμΦ)ˆWβνˆWβμDνΦ],OT,0=Tr[ˆWμνˆWμν]×Tr[ˆWαβˆWαβ],OT,1=Tr[ˆWανˆWμβ]×Tr[ˆWμβˆWαν],OT,2=Tr[ˆWαμˆWμβ]×Tr[ˆWβνˆWνα],OT,3=Tr[ˆWμνˆWαβ]×Tr[ˆWανˆWμβ],OT,4=Tr[ˆWμνˆWαβ]×BανBμβ,OT,5=Tr[ˆWμνˆWμν]×BαβBαβ,OT,6=Tr[ˆWανˆWμβ]×BμβBαν,OT,7=Tr[ˆWαμˆWμβ]×BβνBνα,OT,8=BμνBμνBαβBαβ,OT,9=BαμBμβBβνBνα.

    (2)

    Here, Φ denotes the Higgs doublet, the covariant derivative is given by DμΦ=(μ+igWjμσj2+igBμ12)Φ, σj (j=1,2,3) represents the Pauli matrices, ˆWμνWjμνσj2 is the SU(2)L field strength, and Bμν denotes the U(1)Y one. The effective Lagrangian with the contributions from genuine aQGC operators can be expressed as follows:

    Leff=LSM+Lanomalous=LSM+d>4if(d)iΛd4O(d)i=LSM+i[f(6)iΛ2O(6)i]+j[f(8)jΛ4O(8)i]+...,

    (3)

    where Λ is the characteristic scale and f(8)j/Λ4=fS,j/Λ4,fM,j/Λ4,fT,j/Λ4 represents the coefficients of the corresponding aQGC operators [27]. These coefficients are expected to be zero in the SM prediction.

    In this study, we are interested in multi-Z productions, which are rare processes yet to be observed. BSM may introduce measurable contributions and result in deviations from the SM prediction. Examples of processes related to ZZZ production in the SM and from the aQGC operator are depicted in Fig. 1, while those for VBS ZZ production are shown in Fig. 2.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  Examples of Feynman diagrams of ZZZ production processes at a muon collider: (a-c) are from the SM and (d) involves quartic gauge couplings.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  Examples of Feynman diagrams of VBS ZZ production processes at a muon collider: (a) and (b) are from the SM and (c) involves quartic gauge couplings.

    Both the signal and background events were generated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO [31, 32] at the parton level. Subsequently, they were showered and hadronized through PYTHIA 8.3 [33]. The effects of aQGC operators were simulated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO using the Universal FeynRules Output module [34, 35]. The SM processes were simulated with the default SM model. DELPHES [36] version 3.0 was used to simulate detector effects, with settings for a muon collider detector [37]. Jets were clustered from the reconstructed stable particles (except electrons and muons) using FASTJET [38], with the kT algorithm having a fixed cone size of Rjet=0.5.

    Two collider scenarios and benchmarks for multi-Z productions were considered: 1) a COM energy of s=1 TeV for ZZZ direct productions, and 2) a 10TeV scale muon collider, where VBS [39] is the dominant production should be replaced by "mechanism, of which the general VBS Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 3, which includes our VBS ZZ signal process. Both scenarios were studied at an integral luminosity of 10ab1.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  Example of diagram of VBS processes at a muon collider.

    In the study of the tri-Z boson production at a muon collider, we focused on either a pure leptonic decay, μ+μZZZ+11+22ν3ˉν3, or a semi-leptonic decay, μ+μZZZ+11+22jj, where denotes the electron or muon and j denotes the jet. In the study of the ZZ productions through VBS, we considered a pure-leptonic channel, μ+μZZνμˉνμ4+νμˉνμ, and a semi-leptonic channel, μ+μZZνμˉνμ22j+νμˉνμ. The interference effect was included in our simulations with MadGraph. Backgrounds were classified into several categories:

    • P1: s-channel processes:

    μ+μX=atˉt+bV+cH, with a, b, c as integers.

    • P2: VBS processes further divided into [40]:

    – P2.1: W+W fusion with two neutrinos in the final state, denoted as WW_VBS below.

    – P2.2 ZZ/Zγ/γγ fusion with two muons in the final state, denoted as ZZ_VBS below.

    – P2.3: W±Z/W±γ fusion with one muon and one neutrino in the final state, denoted as WZ_VBS below.

    We list all considered backgrounds in Table 1.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Summary of the backgrounds of the ZZZ process considered in this study.
    SM process type Selected backgrounds
    P1: s-channel Ht¯t,Zt¯t,WWt¯t,ZZH, ZHH,WWZ,HH,WWH,WWWW,WWZH,WWZZ
    P2.1: WW_VBS t¯t,WWH,ZHH,ZZH, ZZZ,WWZ,HH,ZZ,ZH
    P2.2: ZZ_VBS WW,ZH,ZZ,t¯t,Z,H,WWZ
    P2.3: WZ_VBS WZ,WZH,WH,WWW,WZZ
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Multi-Z signals studied herein have a very small cross section, whereas the backgrounds are extremely large. Therefore, it is necessary to apply selections to optimize signal yields, while suppressing backgrounds to a large extent. In this numerical analysis, we implemented the cut-based method. Some loose pre-selections were first applied to suppress events of no interest; subsequently, scans on each discriminating variable were performed to maximize signal sensitivity. In this numerical analysis, cut-based selections were optimized for each signal process.

    To first suppress events of no interest, several pre-selections were applied: the event must include exactly four leptons with transverse momentum pT,>20GeV, absolute pseudo-rapidity |η|<2.5, and lepton pair geometrical separation of ΔR >0.4, where ΔR=(Δϕ)2+(Δη)2; Δϕ and Δη are the azimuthal angle separation and pseudorapidity separation of two particles, respectivly. The four leptons were classified and clustered into two reconstructed bosons (Z1,Z2), with their mass denoted as M,1,M,2, according to the following clustering algorithm:

    • Construct all possible opposite sign lepton pair candidates: (12, 34) and (14,23).

    • Calculate the corresponding mass difference:

    ΔM4=|M,1MZ|+|M,2MZ|,

    (4)

    • Choose minimum ΔM4 as the targeted lepton pairs and define M,1>M,2.

    The selections for the further optimized signal over backgrounds are listed in Table 2, where variable M4 denotes the invariant mass of the four charged leptons decaying from two Z bosons; M,1 and M,2 are the invariant masses of two leptons decayed from reconstructed Z1 and Z2; pT,4 is the transverse momentum of four leptons decaying from two Z bosons; pT,,1 and pT,,2 are the transverse momentum of two leptons decayed from reconstructed Z1 and Z2; ΔR,1 and ΔR,2 are the geometrical separations of two leptons decayed from reconstructed Z1 and Z2; |η,1| and |η,2| are the absolute pseudorapidities of reconstructed Z1 and Z2; pleadingT, denotes the highest pT in the transverse momentum of the four charged leptons; ET is the missing transverse energy; and Mrecoil is the recoil mass of four leptons, which can be calculated as

    Table 2

    Table 2.  Event selections for ZZZ in the pure-leptonic channel.
    Variables Limits for SM Limits for aQGC
    M4 [200GeV,900GeV] [150GeV,910GeV]
    M,1 [80GeV,120GeV] [70GeV,130GeV]
    M,2 [60GeV,100GeV] [40GeV,100GeV]
    pT,4 [30GeV,480GeV] [30GeV,500GeV]
    pT,,1 <500GeV <500GeV
    pT,,2 <460GeV <500GeV
    ΔR,1 [0.4,3.3] [0.4,3.1]
    ΔR,2 [0.4,3.3] [0.4,3.1]
    |η,1| <2.5 <2.5
    |η,2| <2.5 <2.5
    pleadingT, [20GeV,380GeV] [25GeV,460GeV]
    ΔM4 <20GeV <50GeV
    ET [50GeV,460GeV] [100GeV,480GeV]
    Mrecoil <300GeV [35GeV,225GeV]
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Mrecoil=(sE)2P2.

    (5)

    Here,sis the COM energy and E and P are the sum of the energy and momentum of the detectable daughter particles. In these selections, the SM and aQGC signals were optimized separately. For the SM signal, the efficiencies of the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels were 0.75 and 0.34, respectively; for the aQGC signal, the efficiencies of the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels were 0.82 and 0.40, respectively.

    Figure 4 shows the typical distributions before all selections, including M4, M,1, ET, and Mrecoil. We found that both M,i(i=1,2) and Mrecoil can distinguish signals and backgrounds well. For the SM signal, we obtained a significance [41] given by 2((s+b)ln(1+s/b)s)=0.9σ, with S and B the denoting signal and background yields, respectively. The yield of the process was calculated by summing up the weights of the selected events, which were obtained from σ×LN, where σ is the cross-section of the sample, L is the luminosity, and N is the total number of generated events. In these plots, we added curves for non-zero aQGCs, setting fT,0/Λ4=100TeV4 as a benchmark. In general, aQGCs lead to excess at high energy tails.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Various distributions for the ZZZ direct productions in the pure-leptonic channel at a muon collider of s=1TeV and L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of four leptons, M4; (b) invariant mass of two leptons, M,1; (c) missing transverse energy, ET; and (d) recoil mass of four leptons, Mrecoil.

    A similar analysis was applied for the semi-leptonic channel, ZZZ4+2jets. Figure 5 shows the distributions of M4, M,1, the invariant mass of two jets decayed from the other Z boson, Mjj, and the transverse momentum of the jet pair, pT,jj.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) Various distributions for the ZZZ direct productions in the semi-leptonic channel at a muon collider of s=1TeV and L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of four leptons, M4 distribution; (b) invariant mass of two leptons, M,1; (c) invariant mass of two jets, Mjj; and (d) transverse momentum of two jets in final state, pT,jj distribution.

    The selections of semi-leptonic channel are listed in Table 3, where ΔRjj is the geometrical separation of two jets; |ηjj| is the absolute pseudorapidity of the Z boson reconstructed from two jets; and pleadingT,j denotes the highest value of pT in the transverse momentum of two jets.

    Table 3

    Table 3.  Event selections for ZZZ in the semi-leptonic channel.
    Variables Limits for SM Limits for aQGC
    M4 [200GeV,840GeV] [150GeV,930GeV]
    M,1 [80GeV,120GeV] [85GeV,130GeV]
    M,2 [60GeV,100GeV] [65GeV,115GeV]
    Mjj <150GeV [30GeV,150GeV]
    pT,4 [30GeV,450GeV] [30GeV,480GeV]
    pT,,1 <500GeV <480GeV
    pT,,2 <460GeV <480GeV
    pT,jj <420GeV <500GeV
    ΔR,1 [0.4,3.1] [0.4,3.3]
    ΔR,2 [0.4,3.1] [0.4,3.3]
    ΔRjj [0.4,4.0] [0.4,3.5]
    |η,1| <2.5 <2.5
    |η,2| <2.5 <2.5
    |ηjj| <5.0 <5.0
    pleadingT, [20GeV,400GeV] [20GeV,420GeV]
    pleadingT,j [30GeV,480GeV] [30GeV,510GeV]
    ΔM4 <20GeV <30GeV
    ET <100GeV <150GeV
    Mrecoil <300GeV [35GeV,225GeV]
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    The selections improve the significance of both SM and aQGC signals. With 10ab1 of integrated luminosity at s=1TeV, the expected yields of the SM signal and background after the selections are listed in Table 4; concerning the aQGC benchmark, with fT,0/Λ4=100TeV4, the expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections are listed in Table 5.

    Table 4

    Table 4.  Expected yields of the SM signal and background after the selections in the ZZZ direct productions.
    Channels (s=1TeV) Expected signal yield [events] Expected background yield [events]
    Pure-leptonic channel 5.18 31.72
    Semi-leptonic channel 4.48 5.46
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Table 5

    Table 5.  Expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections in the ZZZ direct productions.
    Channels (s=1TeV) Expected signal yield [events] Expected background yield [events]
    Pure-leptonic channel 5514.90 56.80
    Semi-leptonic channel 6271.79 9.16
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    After the selections, the significance for this semi-leptonic channel can reach 1.7σ for the SM signal process. We further combined the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels, resulting in a higher significance of 1.9σ for the SM signal. We also searched for aQGCs, obtaining the constraint range of all coefficients fS,M,T, listed in Table 10.

    Table 10

    Table 10.  Limits at the 95% CL on the aQGC coefficients for the ZZZ process.
    Coefficient Constraint /TeV4
    fS,0/Λ4 [211,366]
    fS,1/Λ4 [207,364]
    fS,2/Λ4 [213,364]
    fM,0/Λ4 [13.2,30.4]
    fM,1/Λ4 [36.7,22.9]
    fM,2/Λ4 [11.8,13.0]
    fM,3/Λ4 [23.1,20.6]
    fM,4/Λ4 [26.2,36.8]
    fM,5/Λ4 [22.5,31.5]
    fM,7/Λ4 [43.3,69.9]
    fT,0/Λ4 [4.63,3.28]
    fT,1/Λ4 [4.51,3.34]
    fT,2/Λ4 [9.38,5.84]
    fT,3/Λ4 [9.22,6.00]
    fT,4/Λ4 [14.8,11.5]
    fT,5/Λ4 [7.01,5.95]
    fT,6/Λ4 [7.00,6.06]
    fT,7/Λ4 [14.9,11.6]
    fT,8/Λ4 [5.25,5.04]
    fT,9/Λ4 [10.4,9.66]
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    For the VBS ZZprocess, we performed simulation studies similar to those for the ZZZ process. We considered both pure-leptonic (μ+μZZνμˉνμ4+νμˉνμ) and semi-leptonic (μ+μZZνμˉνμ22j+νμˉνμ) channels. The backgrounds were also divided into P1 (s-channel), P2.1 (WW_VBS), P2.2 (ZZ_VBS), and P2.3 (WZ_VBS). They are listed in Table 6.

    Table 6

    Table 6.  Summary of the backgrounds for the VBS ZZ process.
    SM process type Selected backgrounds
    P1: s-channel WW,ZZ,ZH,HH,ZHH, ZZZ,ZZH,WWH,WWZ,t¯t, Ht¯t,Zt¯t,WWt¯t,WWWW,WWZH,WWHH
    P2.1: WW_VBS WW,ZH,HH, WWH,WWZ,ZZZ,ZZH,ZHH,t¯t,Z,H
    P2.2: ZZ_VBS WW,ZH,ZZ,t¯t,Z,WWH,WWZ,H,HH,ZZZ,ZZH,ZHH
    P2.3: WZ_VBS WZ,WZH,WH,WWW,WZZ
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    We applied pre-selections on the channel of μ+μZZνμˉνμ4+νμˉνμ at a muon collider with s=10TeV and L=10ab1, as in theZZZ analysis. The selections of the pure-leptonic channel are listed in Table 7. The signal efficiency of the selections was 0.23.

    Table 7

    Table 7.  Event selections for VBS ZZ in the pure-leptonic channel.
    Variables Limits
    M4 [1900GeV,8800GeV]
    M,1 [70GeV,140GeV]
    M,2 [70GeV,140GeV]
    pT,4 [200GeV,4000GeV]
    pT,,1 [320GeV,2800GeV]
    pT,,2 [280GeV,2600GeV]
    ΔR,1 [0.4,1.7]
    ΔR,2 [0.4,1.7]
    |η,1| <2.5
    |η,2| <2.5
    pleadingT, [200GeV,3000GeV]
    ΔM4 <70GeV
    ET [30GeV,4000GeV]
    Mrecoli <8000GeV
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Figure 6 shows the distribution of the invariant mass of four leptons, denoted as M4, the invariant mass of two leptons, denoted as M,1, the transverse momentum of four leptons in final states, denoted as pT,4, and the transverse momentum of one lepton pair, denoted as pT,,1. In these plots, we also added curves for non-zero aQGCs, setting fT,0/Λ4=1TeV4 as a benchmark.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) Simulation results of VBS ZZ in the pure-leptonic channel fors=10TeV,L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of four leptons, M4 distribution; (b) invariant mass of two leptons, M,1; (c) transverse momentum of four leptons, pT,4 distribution; and (d) transverse momentum of two leptons, pTT,,1 distribution.

    The selections in the semi-leptonic channel are listed in Table 8, where M22j is the invariant mass of two leptons and two jets decaying from two Z bosons; ΔM22j is the mass difference, defined as follows:

    Table 8

    Table 8.  Event selections for VBS ZZ in the semi-leptonic channel.
    Variables Limits
    M22j [2000GeV,8000GeV]
    M [40GeV,140GeV]
    Mjj [30GeV,150GeV]
    pT,22j [500GeV,8000GeV]
    pT, [200GeV,3000GeV]
    pT,jj [400GeV,4000GeV]
    ΔR [0.4,1.7]
    ΔRjj >0.4
    |η| <2.5
    |ηj| <5.0
    pleadingT, [200GeV,2500GeV]
    pleadingT,j [200GeV,3000GeV]
    ΔM22j <200GeV
    ET [30GeV,3500GeV]
    Mrecoli [1000GeV,7000GeV]
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    ΔM22j=|MMZ|+|MjjMZ|,

    (6)

    The signal efficiency of the selections was 0.033.

    Figure 7 shows distributions of the invariant mass of jet pair, denoted as Mjj, lepton pair mass, denoted as M, together with the aQGC signal with coefficient fT,0/Λ4=1TeV4.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7.  (color online) Simulation results of VBS ZZin the semi-leptonic channel for s=10TeV,L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of two leptons, M distribution; and (b) invariant mass of two leptons, Mjj.

    After applying the above selections, the significance of the aQGC signal was improved. With 10ab1 of integrated luminosity at s=10TeV and aQGC benchmark with fT,0/Λ4=1TeV4, the expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections are listed in Table 9.

    Table 9

    Table 9.  Expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections in the VBS ZZ productions.
    Channels (s=10TeV) Expected signal yield [events] Expected background yield [events]
    Pure-leptonic channel 686.97 0.48
    Semi-leptonic channel 315.40 0.15
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    We also obtained the limits of all aQGC coefficients of the VBS ZZ process, which are listed in Table 11.

    Table 11

    Table 11.  Limits at the 95% CL on the aQGC coefficients for the VBS ZZ process.
    Coefficient Constraint /TeV4
    fS,0/Λ4 [14,13]
    fS,1/Λ4 [5.8,6.7]
    fS,2/Λ4 [15,16]
    fM,0/Λ4 [1.2,1.1]
    fM,1/Λ4 [3.9,3.7]
    fM,2/Λ4 [8.0,8.2]
    fM,3/Λ4 [3.9,3.8]
    fM,4/Λ4 [3.3,3.2]
    fM,5/Λ4 [2.9,3.0]
    fM,7/Λ4 [8.3,8.1]
    fT,0/Λ4 [0.11,0.082]
    fT,1/Λ4 [0.14,0.14]
    fT,2/Λ4 [0.27,0.21]
    fT,3/Λ4 [0.27,0.22]
    fT,4/Λ4 [1.1,0.67]
    fT,5/Λ4 [0.32,0.25]
    fT,6/Λ4 [0.47,0.42]
    fT,7/Λ4 [0.89,0.60]
    fT,8/Λ4 [0.47,0.48]
    fT,9/Λ4 [1.1,1.0]
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    We studied the multi-Z productions of ZZZ at a muon collider with s=1TeV and L=10ab1. Through detailed simulations and signal background analysis, we obtained a significance for the ZZZ direct production in the SM of 1.9σ after combining the results from the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels. We also set the constraints of the aQGC coefficients [42] at 95% CL. High-energy muon colliders are ideal to research VBS processes, such as the VBS ZZ production process. We presented the distribution of various variables and summarized the constraints of aQGC coefficients. For the ZZZ process, the constraints of coefficients at 95% CL are listed in Table 10, whereas for the VBS ZZ production process, the constraints of the aQGC coefficients at 95% CL are listed in Table 11; the unit is TeV4.

    In the ZZZ direct productions, some operators degenerate, such as fS0, fS1, and fS2; fT0 and fT1; and fT5 and fT6. However, we kept all the constraints in Table 10 for the completeness of the set of operator coefficients.

    In comparison with existing VBS ZZ aQGC constraints from the CMS experiment in LHC, which are based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at COM = 13 TeV with an integrated luminosity of L=137fb1:fT,0/Λ4:[0.24,0.22],fT,1/Λ4:[0.31,0.31], fT,2/Λ4:[0.63,0.59][43], our results establish stronger limits: fT,0/Λ4:[0.11,0.082],fT,1/Λ4:[0.14,0.11], fT,2/Λ4:[0.27,0.21].

    In this study, we investigated ZZZ productions at a muon collider with s=1TeV,L=10ab1 and VBS ZZ productions at s=10TeV,L=10ab1, together with their sensitivities on aQGC coefficients. For these two processes, we focused on pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels to find the kinematic features that help to increase the detection potential, such as the distribution of M in the pure-leptonic channel and Mjj in the semi-leptonic channel. We studied the constraints of all aQGC coefficients at 95% CL. For the ZZZ process, we supplemented the existing tri-boson aQGC results, and for some coefficients such as fT,0,fT,1,fT,2 in the VBS ZZ process, our results establish stronger limits than those from previous results. The results demonstrate a great potential to probe the anomalous interactions of gauge bosons at muon colliders owing to their higher effective collision energy, cleaner final states, and higher probability to emit EW radiation than LHC.

    [1] D. R. Green, P. Meade, and M. A. Pleier, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89(3), 035008 (2017), arXiv: 1610.07572 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035008
    [2] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020
    [3] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv: 1207.7235 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021
    [4] T. Roser, R. Brinkmann, S. Cousineau et al., JINST 18(05), P05018 (2023), arXiv: 2208.06030 [physics.acc-ph] doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05018
    [5] K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer et al., Nature Phys. 17(3), 289 (2021), arXiv: 2007.15684 [physics.acc-ph] doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-01130-x
    [6] J. de Blas et al. (International Muon Collider Collaboration), arXiv: 2203.07261 [hep-ph]
    [7] C. Accettura, D. Adams, R. Agarwal et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83 , 864(2023), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv: 2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]
    [8] H. Amarkhail, S. C. Inan, and A. V. Kisselev, arXiv: 2306.03653 [hep-ph]
    [9] J. C. Yang, X. Y. Han, Z. B. Qin et al., JHEP 09, 074 (2022), arXiv: 2204.10034 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2022)074
    [10] J. C. Yang, Z. B. Qing, X. Y. Han et al., JHEP 22, 053 (2020), arXiv: 2204.08195 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2022)053
    [11] Y. F. Dong, Y. C. Mao, i. C. Yang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83(7), 555 (2023), arXiv: 2304.01505 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11719-0
    [12] S. Zhang, J. C. Yang, and Y. C. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2), 142 (2024), arXiv: 2302.01274 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12494-2
    [13] S. Jahedi and J. Lahiri, JHEP 04, 085 (2023), arXiv: 2212.05121 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2023)085
    [14] S. Jahedi, JHEP 12, 031 (2023), arXiv: 2305.11266 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2023)031
    [15] P. Langacker, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 14, 883 (1995), arXiv: hep-ph/9412361 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1142/9789814503662_0022
    [16] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and S. M. Lietti, Phys. Rev. D 69, 095005 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0310141 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.095005
    [17] C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian et al., Annals Phys. 335, 21 (2013), arXiv: 1205.4231 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2013.04.016
    [18] C. Degrande, JHEP 02, 101 (2014), arXiv: 1308.6323 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)101
    [19] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 151802 (2020), arXiv: 2006.11191 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.151802
    [20] J. M. Kunkle, arXiv: 1511.00143 [hep-ex]
    [21] G. Belanger and F. Boudjema, Phys. Lett. B 288, 201 (1992) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)91978-I
    [22] C. Arzt, M. B. Einhorn, and J. Wudka, Nucl. Phys. B 433, 41 (1995), arXiv: hep-ph/9405214 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)00336-D
    [23] A. S. Belyaev, O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia et al., Phys. Rev. D 59, 015022 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/9805229 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.015022
    [24] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, S. M. Lietti et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 075008 (2001), arXiv: hep-ph/0009262 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.075008
    [25] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi, Phys. Rev. D 74, 073005 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0606118 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.073005
    [26] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, Y. Kurihara et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 13, 283 (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/9908254 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/s100520000305
    [27] O. J. P. Éboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 93(9), 093013 (2016), arXiv: 1604.03555 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.093013
    [28] C. Degrande, O. Eboli, B. Feigl et al., arXiv: 1309.7890[hep-ph]
    [29] M. Baak, A. Blondel, A. Bodek et al., arXiv: 1310.6708 [hep-ph]
    [30] E. d. Almeida, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 101(11), 113003 (2020), arXiv: 2004.05174 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.113003
    [31] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, JHEP 12, 061 (2012), arXiv: 1209.6215 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061
    [32] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione et al., JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv: 1405.0301 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079
    [33] C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), arXiv: 2203.11601 [hep-ph] doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8
    [34] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012
    [35] C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012) doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022
    [36] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP 02, 057 (2014) doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057
    [37] https://github.com/delphes/delphes/blob/master/cards/delphes_card_MuonColliderDet.tcl retrieved 3rd April 2024
    [38] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2
    [39] A. Costantini, F. De Lillo, F. Maltoni et al., JHEP 09, 080 (2020), arXiv: 2005.10289 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2020)080
    [40] T. Yang, S. Qian, Z. Guan et al., Phys. Rev. D 104(9), 093003 (2021), arXiv: 2107.13581 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.093003
    [41] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71 , 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)]
    [42] https://feynrules.irmp.ucl.ac.be/attachment/wiki/AnomalousGaugeCoupling/quarticCKM21v2.tgz retrieved 3rd April 2024
    [43] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 812, 135992 (2021), arXiv: 2008.07013 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135992
  • [1] D. R. Green, P. Meade, and M. A. Pleier, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89(3), 035008 (2017), arXiv: 1610.07572 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035008
    [2] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012) doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020
    [3] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv: 1207.7235 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021
    [4] T. Roser, R. Brinkmann, S. Cousineau et al., JINST 18(05), P05018 (2023), arXiv: 2208.06030 [physics.acc-ph] doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/18/05/P05018
    [5] K. Long, D. Lucchesi, M. Palmer et al., Nature Phys. 17(3), 289 (2021), arXiv: 2007.15684 [physics.acc-ph] doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-01130-x
    [6] J. de Blas et al. (International Muon Collider Collaboration), arXiv: 2203.07261 [hep-ph]
    [7] C. Accettura, D. Adams, R. Agarwal et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83 , 864(2023), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 36 (2024)], arXiv: 2303.08533 [physics.acc-ph]
    [8] H. Amarkhail, S. C. Inan, and A. V. Kisselev, arXiv: 2306.03653 [hep-ph]
    [9] J. C. Yang, X. Y. Han, Z. B. Qin et al., JHEP 09, 074 (2022), arXiv: 2204.10034 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2022)074
    [10] J. C. Yang, Z. B. Qing, X. Y. Han et al., JHEP 22, 053 (2020), arXiv: 2204.08195 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2022)053
    [11] Y. F. Dong, Y. C. Mao, i. C. Yang et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 83(7), 555 (2023), arXiv: 2304.01505 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11719-0
    [12] S. Zhang, J. C. Yang, and Y. C. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84(2), 142 (2024), arXiv: 2302.01274 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12494-2
    [13] S. Jahedi and J. Lahiri, JHEP 04, 085 (2023), arXiv: 2212.05121 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2023)085
    [14] S. Jahedi, JHEP 12, 031 (2023), arXiv: 2305.11266 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2023)031
    [15] P. Langacker, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 14, 883 (1995), arXiv: hep-ph/9412361 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1142/9789814503662_0022
    [16] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and S. M. Lietti, Phys. Rev. D 69, 095005 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0310141 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.095005
    [17] C. Degrande, N. Greiner, W. Kilian et al., Annals Phys. 335, 21 (2013), arXiv: 1205.4231 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2013.04.016
    [18] C. Degrande, JHEP 02, 101 (2014), arXiv: 1308.6323 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)101
    [19] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 151802 (2020), arXiv: 2006.11191 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.151802
    [20] J. M. Kunkle, arXiv: 1511.00143 [hep-ex]
    [21] G. Belanger and F. Boudjema, Phys. Lett. B 288, 201 (1992) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)91978-I
    [22] C. Arzt, M. B. Einhorn, and J. Wudka, Nucl. Phys. B 433, 41 (1995), arXiv: hep-ph/9405214 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)00336-D
    [23] A. S. Belyaev, O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia et al., Phys. Rev. D 59, 015022 (1999), arXiv: hep-ph/9805229 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.015022
    [24] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, S. M. Lietti et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 075008 (2001), arXiv: hep-ph/0009262 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.075008
    [25] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. Mizukoshi, Phys. Rev. D 74, 073005 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0606118 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.073005
    [26] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, Y. Kurihara et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 13, 283 (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/9908254 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/s100520000305
    [27] O. J. P. Éboli and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 93(9), 093013 (2016), arXiv: 1604.03555 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.093013
    [28] C. Degrande, O. Eboli, B. Feigl et al., arXiv: 1309.7890[hep-ph]
    [29] M. Baak, A. Blondel, A. Bodek et al., arXiv: 1310.6708 [hep-ph]
    [30] E. d. Almeida, O. J. P. Éboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Phys. Rev. D 101(11), 113003 (2020), arXiv: 2004.05174 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.113003
    [31] R. Frederix and S. Frixione, JHEP 12, 061 (2012), arXiv: 1209.6215 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061
    [32] J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione et al., JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv: 1405.0301 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079
    [33] C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), arXiv: 2203.11601 [hep-ph] doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8
    [34] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012
    [35] C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1201 (2012) doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.01.022
    [36] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), JHEP 02, 057 (2014) doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057
    [37] https://github.com/delphes/delphes/blob/master/cards/delphes_card_MuonColliderDet.tcl retrieved 3rd April 2024
    [38] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2
    [39] A. Costantini, F. De Lillo, F. Maltoni et al., JHEP 09, 080 (2020), arXiv: 2005.10289 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2020)080
    [40] T. Yang, S. Qian, Z. Guan et al., Phys. Rev. D 104(9), 093003 (2021), arXiv: 2107.13581 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.093003
    [41] G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71 , 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2501 (2013)]
    [42] https://feynrules.irmp.ucl.ac.be/attachment/wiki/AnomalousGaugeCoupling/quarticCKM21v2.tgz retrieved 3rd April 2024
    [43] A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 812, 135992 (2021), arXiv: 2008.07013 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135992
  • 加载中

Figures(7) / Tables(11)

Get Citation
Ruobing Jiang, Chuqiao Jiang, Alim Ruzi, Tianyi Yang, Yong Ban and Qiang Li. Searches for multi-Z boson productions and anomalous gauge boson couplings at a muon collider[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad5661
Ruobing Jiang, Chuqiao Jiang, Alim Ruzi, Tianyi Yang, Yong Ban and Qiang Li. Searches for multi-Z boson productions and anomalous gauge boson couplings at a muon collider[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad5661 shu
Milestone
Received: 2024-04-03
Article Metric

Article Views(1645)
PDF Downloads(13)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Searches for multi-Z boson productions and anomalous gauge boson couplings at a muon collider

  • School of Physics and State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

Abstract: Multi-boson productions can be exploited as novel probes either for standard model precision tests or new physics searches, and have become a popular research topic in ongoing LHC experiments and future collider studies, including those for electron–positron and muon–muon colliders. In this study, we focus on two examples, i.e., ZZZ direct productions through μ+μ annihilation at a 1TeV muon collider, and ZZ productions through vector boson scattering (VBS) at a 10TeV muon collider, with an integrated luminosity of 10ab1. Various channels are considered, including ZZZ42ν and ZZZ4+2jets. The expected significance on these multi-Z boson production processes is reported based on a detailed Monte Carlo study and signal background analysis. Sensitivities on anomalous gauge boson couplings are also presented.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • The Standard Model (SM) is based on the SU(3)CSU(2)LU(1)Y gauge symmetry group and describes the interactions among all elementary particles [1]. The discovery of the Higgs boson by the CMS and ATLAS experiments [2, 3] at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2012 marks a great success of SM physics. The high-luminosity LHC (HL-LHC), together with other future colliders, such as muon colliders, will not only enable researchers to make more precise measurements on characteristic properties of SM physics but also to unravel undiscovered phenomena beyond SM physics.

      Recently, a muon collider working at a centre of mass (COM) energy at the TeV scale has received revived interest from the community of high-energy physics [4, 5]. Given that muons are approximately 200 times heavier than electrons, the energy loss caused by synchrotron radiation for muons is much less than that for electrons. Moreover, muon-muon collisions provide a cleaner environment than proton-proton collisions. These features make muon colliders attractive energy-efficient machines to explore high-energy physics.

      A muon collider offers numerous opportunities to study elementary particle physics [6, 7]. For instance, when the COM energy is around 1TeV, μ+μ annihilation acts as the dominant production mechanism. At the multi-TeV scale, muons have a high probability to emit electroweak (EW) radiation. Therefore, a high-energy muon collider can also serve as a vector boson collider. Both collision modes provide a spectacular playground for both the search for the origin of EW symmetry breaking (EWSB) and for EW interactions beyond the Standard Model, such as anomalous gauge boson interactions [814].

      For current and future colliders, multi-boson production is an interesting topic, sensitive to the non-abelian character of the SM [1, 15]. In particular, the presence of anomalous quartic gauge boson interactions [1618] can be probed through tri-boson production and through di-boson production via vector boson scattering. Many studies have been published on this topic at the LHC [19, 20]. In this study, we focussed on two examples, i.e., ZZZ direct productions through μ+μ annihilation at a 1TeV muon collider, and ZZ productions through the VBS process at a 10TeV muon collider, with an integrated luminosity of 10ab1.

    II.   MULTI-BOSON AND ANOMALOUS QUARTIC GAUGE COUPLINGS
    • Precision measurements of multi-boson production allow a basic test of the SM and provide a model-independent method to search for BSM at the TeV scale [19]. In this study, we focussed on ZZZ direct productions and ZZ productions through vector boson scattering. Both processes are sensitive to non-abelian gauge boson interactions and the structure of EW symmetry breaking. These multi-boson processes represent an important avenue to test anomalous triple gauge couplings (aTGCs) and anomalous quartic gauge couplings (aQGCs) [1], as well as to search for possible modifications of these vertices from new physics [20].

      Anomalous modifications of gauge couplings can be parameterized through the effective field theory (EFT) by adding higher order modifications to the SM Lagrangian:

      LNP=L4(SM)+1ΛL5+1Λ2L6+1Λ3L7+1Λ4L8+...

      (1)

      The higher order terms are suppressed by mass scale Λ, which represents the scale of new physics beyond the SM. The terms featuring odd dimensions are not considered because they will not influence multi-boson production measurements. The dimension-6 operators are related to aTGCs, whereas the dimension-8 operators are related to aQGCs.

      Note that aQGCs can be realized by introducing new heavy bosons, which contribute to aQGCs at the tree level, while one loop is suppressed in aTGCs [16, 21, 22]. Furthermore, given that numerous experimental tests of aTGCs have shown good agreement with the SM, this study mainly focused on genuine aQGCs.

      To express the aQGC contributions in a model-independent manner, an EFT of the EW breaking sector [16, 2327] is utilized. When SU(2)LU(1)Y is represented linearly, the lowest order genuine aQGC operators parameterized in the EFT are dimension-8 (dim-8) [25, 2729]. The genuine aQGC operators can be expressed as follows [30]:

      OS,0=[(DμΦ)DνΦ]×[(DμΦ)DνΦ],OS,1=[(DμΦ)DμΦ]×[(DνΦ)DνΦ],OS,2=[(DμΦ)DνΦ]×[(DνΦ)DμΦ],OM,0=Tr[ˆWμνˆWμν]×[(DβΦ)DβΦ],OM,1=Tr[ˆWμνˆWνβ]×[(DβΦ)DμΦ],OM,2=[BμνBμν]×[(DβΦ)DβΦ]OM,3=[BμνBνβ]×[(DβΦ)DμΦ],OM,4=[(DμΦ)ˆWβνDμΦ]×Bβν,OM,5=[(DμΦ)ˆWβνDνΦ]×Bβμ+h.c.,

      OM,7=[(DμΦ)ˆWβνˆWβμDνΦ],OT,0=Tr[ˆWμνˆWμν]×Tr[ˆWαβˆWαβ],OT,1=Tr[ˆWανˆWμβ]×Tr[ˆWμβˆWαν],OT,2=Tr[ˆWαμˆWμβ]×Tr[ˆWβνˆWνα],OT,3=Tr[ˆWμνˆWαβ]×Tr[ˆWανˆWμβ],OT,4=Tr[ˆWμνˆWαβ]×BανBμβ,OT,5=Tr[ˆWμνˆWμν]×BαβBαβ,OT,6=Tr[ˆWανˆWμβ]×BμβBαν,OT,7=Tr[ˆWαμˆWμβ]×BβνBνα,OT,8=BμνBμνBαβBαβ,OT,9=BαμBμβBβνBνα.

      (2)

      Here, Φ denotes the Higgs doublet, the covariant derivative is given by DμΦ=(μ+igWjμσj2+igBμ12)Φ, σj (j=1,2,3) represents the Pauli matrices, ˆWμνWjμνσj2 is the SU(2)L field strength, and Bμν denotes the U(1)Y one. The effective Lagrangian with the contributions from genuine aQGC operators can be expressed as follows:

      Leff=LSM+Lanomalous=LSM+d>4if(d)iΛd4O(d)i=LSM+i[f(6)iΛ2O(6)i]+j[f(8)jΛ4O(8)i]+...,

      (3)

      where Λ is the characteristic scale and f(8)j/Λ4=fS,j/Λ4,fM,j/Λ4,fT,j/Λ4 represents the coefficients of the corresponding aQGC operators [27]. These coefficients are expected to be zero in the SM prediction.

      In this study, we are interested in multi-Z productions, which are rare processes yet to be observed. BSM may introduce measurable contributions and result in deviations from the SM prediction. Examples of processes related to ZZZ production in the SM and from the aQGC operator are depicted in Fig. 1, while those for VBS ZZ production are shown in Fig. 2.

      Figure 1.  Examples of Feynman diagrams of ZZZ production processes at a muon collider: (a-c) are from the SM and (d) involves quartic gauge couplings.

      Figure 2.  Examples of Feynman diagrams of VBS ZZ production processes at a muon collider: (a) and (b) are from the SM and (c) involves quartic gauge couplings.

    III.   SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
    • Both the signal and background events were generated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO [31, 32] at the parton level. Subsequently, they were showered and hadronized through PYTHIA 8.3 [33]. The effects of aQGC operators were simulated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO using the Universal FeynRules Output module [34, 35]. The SM processes were simulated with the default SM model. DELPHES [36] version 3.0 was used to simulate detector effects, with settings for a muon collider detector [37]. Jets were clustered from the reconstructed stable particles (except electrons and muons) using FASTJET [38], with the kT algorithm having a fixed cone size of Rjet=0.5.

      Two collider scenarios and benchmarks for multi-Z productions were considered: 1) a COM energy of s=1 TeV for ZZZ direct productions, and 2) a 10TeV scale muon collider, where VBS [39] is the dominant production should be replaced by "mechanism, of which the general VBS Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 3, which includes our VBS ZZ signal process. Both scenarios were studied at an integral luminosity of 10ab1.

      Figure 3.  Example of diagram of VBS processes at a muon collider.

      In the study of the tri-Z boson production at a muon collider, we focused on either a pure leptonic decay, μ+μZZZ+11+22ν3ˉν3, or a semi-leptonic decay, μ+μZZZ+11+22jj, where denotes the electron or muon and j denotes the jet. In the study of the ZZ productions through VBS, we considered a pure-leptonic channel, μ+μZZνμˉνμ4+νμˉνμ, and a semi-leptonic channel, μ+μZZνμˉνμ22j+νμˉνμ. The interference effect was included in our simulations with MadGraph. Backgrounds were classified into several categories:

      • P1: s-channel processes:

      μ+μX=atˉt+bV+cH, with a, b, c as integers.

      • P2: VBS processes further divided into [40]:

      – P2.1: W+W fusion with two neutrinos in the final state, denoted as WW_VBS below.

      – P2.2 ZZ/Zγ/γγ fusion with two muons in the final state, denoted as ZZ_VBS below.

      – P2.3: W±Z/W±γ fusion with one muon and one neutrino in the final state, denoted as WZ_VBS below.

      We list all considered backgrounds in Table 1.

      SM process type Selected backgrounds
      P1: s-channel Ht¯t,Zt¯t,WWt¯t,ZZH, ZHH,WWZ,HH,WWH,WWWW,WWZH,WWZZ
      P2.1: WW_VBS t¯t,WWH,ZHH,ZZH, ZZZ,WWZ,HH,ZZ,ZH
      P2.2: ZZ_VBS WW,ZH,ZZ,t¯t,Z,H,WWZ
      P2.3: WZ_VBS WZ,WZH,WH,WWW,WZZ

      Table 1.  Summary of the backgrounds of the ZZZ process considered in this study.

      Multi-Z signals studied herein have a very small cross section, whereas the backgrounds are extremely large. Therefore, it is necessary to apply selections to optimize signal yields, while suppressing backgrounds to a large extent. In this numerical analysis, we implemented the cut-based method. Some loose pre-selections were first applied to suppress events of no interest; subsequently, scans on each discriminating variable were performed to maximize signal sensitivity. In this numerical analysis, cut-based selections were optimized for each signal process.

    IV.   ZZZ DIRECT PRODUCTIONS AT A 1 TeV MUON COLLIDER

      A.   Pure-leptonic channel

    • To first suppress events of no interest, several pre-selections were applied: the event must include exactly four leptons with transverse momentum pT,>20GeV, absolute pseudo-rapidity |η|<2.5, and lepton pair geometrical separation of ΔR >0.4, where ΔR=(Δϕ)2+(Δη)2; Δϕ and Δη are the azimuthal angle separation and pseudorapidity separation of two particles, respectivly. The four leptons were classified and clustered into two reconstructed bosons (Z1,Z2), with their mass denoted as M,1,M,2, according to the following clustering algorithm:

      • Construct all possible opposite sign lepton pair candidates: (12, 34) and (14,23).

      • Calculate the corresponding mass difference:

      ΔM4=|M,1MZ|+|M,2MZ|,

      (4)

      • Choose minimum ΔM4 as the targeted lepton pairs and define M,1>M,2.

      The selections for the further optimized signal over backgrounds are listed in Table 2, where variable M4 denotes the invariant mass of the four charged leptons decaying from two Z bosons; M,1 and M,2 are the invariant masses of two leptons decayed from reconstructed Z1 and Z2; pT,4 is the transverse momentum of four leptons decaying from two Z bosons; pT,,1 and pT,,2 are the transverse momentum of two leptons decayed from reconstructed Z1 and Z2; ΔR,1 and ΔR,2 are the geometrical separations of two leptons decayed from reconstructed Z1 and Z2; |η,1| and |η,2| are the absolute pseudorapidities of reconstructed Z1 and Z2; pleadingT, denotes the highest pT in the transverse momentum of the four charged leptons; ET is the missing transverse energy; and Mrecoil is the recoil mass of four leptons, which can be calculated as

      Variables Limits for SM Limits for aQGC
      M4 [200GeV,900GeV] [150GeV,910GeV]
      M,1 [80GeV,120GeV] [70GeV,130GeV]
      M,2 [60GeV,100GeV] [40GeV,100GeV]
      pT,4 [30GeV,480GeV] [30GeV,500GeV]
      pT,,1 <500GeV <500GeV
      pT,,2 <460GeV <500GeV
      ΔR,1 [0.4,3.3] [0.4,3.1]
      ΔR,2 [0.4,3.3] [0.4,3.1]
      |η,1| <2.5 <2.5
      |η,2| <2.5 <2.5
      pleadingT, [20GeV,380GeV] [25GeV,460GeV]
      ΔM4 <20GeV <50GeV
      ET [50GeV,460GeV] [100GeV,480GeV]
      Mrecoil <300GeV [35GeV,225GeV]

      Table 2.  Event selections for ZZZ in the pure-leptonic channel.

      Mrecoil=(sE)2P2.

      (5)

      Here,sis the COM energy and E and P are the sum of the energy and momentum of the detectable daughter particles. In these selections, the SM and aQGC signals were optimized separately. For the SM signal, the efficiencies of the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels were 0.75 and 0.34, respectively; for the aQGC signal, the efficiencies of the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels were 0.82 and 0.40, respectively.

      Figure 4 shows the typical distributions before all selections, including M4, M,1, ET, and Mrecoil. We found that both M,i(i=1,2) and Mrecoil can distinguish signals and backgrounds well. For the SM signal, we obtained a significance [41] given by 2((s+b)ln(1+s/b)s)=0.9σ, with S and B the denoting signal and background yields, respectively. The yield of the process was calculated by summing up the weights of the selected events, which were obtained from σ×LN, where σ is the cross-section of the sample, L is the luminosity, and N is the total number of generated events. In these plots, we added curves for non-zero aQGCs, setting fT,0/Λ4=100TeV4 as a benchmark. In general, aQGCs lead to excess at high energy tails.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Various distributions for the ZZZ direct productions in the pure-leptonic channel at a muon collider of s=1TeV and L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of four leptons, M4; (b) invariant mass of two leptons, M,1; (c) missing transverse energy, ET; and (d) recoil mass of four leptons, Mrecoil.

    • B.   Semi-leptonic channel

    • A similar analysis was applied for the semi-leptonic channel, ZZZ4+2jets. Figure 5 shows the distributions of M4, M,1, the invariant mass of two jets decayed from the other Z boson, Mjj, and the transverse momentum of the jet pair, pT,jj.

      Figure 5.  (color online) Various distributions for the ZZZ direct productions in the semi-leptonic channel at a muon collider of s=1TeV and L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of four leptons, M4 distribution; (b) invariant mass of two leptons, M,1; (c) invariant mass of two jets, Mjj; and (d) transverse momentum of two jets in final state, pT,jj distribution.

      The selections of semi-leptonic channel are listed in Table 3, where ΔRjj is the geometrical separation of two jets; |ηjj| is the absolute pseudorapidity of the Z boson reconstructed from two jets; and pleadingT,j denotes the highest value of pT in the transverse momentum of two jets.

      Variables Limits for SM Limits for aQGC
      M4 [200GeV,840GeV] [150GeV,930GeV]
      M,1 [80GeV,120GeV] [85GeV,130GeV]
      M,2 [60GeV,100GeV] [65GeV,115GeV]
      Mjj <150GeV [30GeV,150GeV]
      pT,4 [30GeV,450GeV] [30GeV,480GeV]
      pT,,1 <500GeV <480GeV
      pT,,2 <460GeV <480GeV
      pT,jj <420GeV <500GeV
      ΔR,1 [0.4,3.1] [0.4,3.3]
      ΔR,2 [0.4,3.1] [0.4,3.3]
      ΔRjj [0.4,4.0] [0.4,3.5]
      |η,1| <2.5 <2.5
      |η,2| <2.5 <2.5
      |ηjj| <5.0 <5.0
      pleadingT, [20GeV,400GeV] [20GeV,420GeV]
      pleadingT,j [30GeV,480GeV] [30GeV,510GeV]
      ΔM4 <20GeV <30GeV
      ET <100GeV <150GeV
      Mrecoil <300GeV [35GeV,225GeV]

      Table 3.  Event selections for ZZZ in the semi-leptonic channel.

      The selections improve the significance of both SM and aQGC signals. With 10ab1 of integrated luminosity at s=1TeV, the expected yields of the SM signal and background after the selections are listed in Table 4; concerning the aQGC benchmark, with fT,0/Λ4=100TeV4, the expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections are listed in Table 5.

      Channels (s=1TeV) Expected signal yield [events] Expected background yield [events]
      Pure-leptonic channel 5.18 31.72
      Semi-leptonic channel 4.48 5.46

      Table 4.  Expected yields of the SM signal and background after the selections in the ZZZ direct productions.

      Channels (s=1TeV) Expected signal yield [events] Expected background yield [events]
      Pure-leptonic channel 5514.90 56.80
      Semi-leptonic channel 6271.79 9.16

      Table 5.  Expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections in the ZZZ direct productions.

      After the selections, the significance for this semi-leptonic channel can reach 1.7σ for the SM signal process. We further combined the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels, resulting in a higher significance of 1.9σ for the SM signal. We also searched for aQGCs, obtaining the constraint range of all coefficients fS,M,T, listed in Table 10.

      Coefficient Constraint /TeV4
      fS,0/Λ4 [211,366]
      fS,1/Λ4 [207,364]
      fS,2/Λ4 [213,364]
      fM,0/Λ4 [13.2,30.4]
      fM,1/Λ4 [36.7,22.9]
      fM,2/Λ4 [11.8,13.0]
      fM,3/Λ4 [23.1,20.6]
      fM,4/Λ4 [26.2,36.8]
      fM,5/Λ4 [22.5,31.5]
      fM,7/Λ4 [43.3,69.9]
      fT,0/Λ4 [4.63,3.28]
      fT,1/Λ4 [4.51,3.34]
      fT,2/Λ4 [9.38,5.84]
      fT,3/Λ4 [9.22,6.00]
      fT,4/Λ4 [14.8,11.5]
      fT,5/Λ4 [7.01,5.95]
      fT,6/Λ4 [7.00,6.06]
      fT,7/Λ4 [14.9,11.6]
      fT,8/Λ4 [5.25,5.04]
      fT,9/Λ4 [10.4,9.66]

      Table 10.  Limits at the 95% CL on the aQGC coefficients for the ZZZ process.

    V.   VBS ZZ PRODUCTIONS AT A 10 TeV MUON COLLIDER
    • For the VBS ZZprocess, we performed simulation studies similar to those for the ZZZ process. We considered both pure-leptonic (μ+μZZνμˉνμ4+νμˉνμ) and semi-leptonic (μ+μZZνμˉνμ22j+νμˉνμ) channels. The backgrounds were also divided into P1 (s-channel), P2.1 (WW_VBS), P2.2 (ZZ_VBS), and P2.3 (WZ_VBS). They are listed in Table 6.

      SM process type Selected backgrounds
      P1: s-channel WW,ZZ,ZH,HH,ZHH, ZZZ,ZZH,WWH,WWZ,t¯t, Ht¯t,Zt¯t,WWt¯t,WWWW,WWZH,WWHH
      P2.1: WW_VBS WW,ZH,HH, WWH,WWZ,ZZZ,ZZH,ZHH,t¯t,Z,H
      P2.2: ZZ_VBS WW,ZH,ZZ,t¯t,Z,WWH,WWZ,H,HH,ZZZ,ZZH,ZHH
      P2.3: WZ_VBS WZ,WZH,WH,WWW,WZZ

      Table 6.  Summary of the backgrounds for the VBS ZZ process.

    • A.   Pure-leptonic channel of VBS ZZ

    • We applied pre-selections on the channel of μ+μZZνμˉνμ4+νμˉνμ at a muon collider with s=10TeV and L=10ab1, as in theZZZ analysis. The selections of the pure-leptonic channel are listed in Table 7. The signal efficiency of the selections was 0.23.

      Variables Limits
      M4 [1900GeV,8800GeV]
      M,1 [70GeV,140GeV]
      M,2 [70GeV,140GeV]
      pT,4 [200GeV,4000GeV]
      pT,,1 [320GeV,2800GeV]
      pT,,2 [280GeV,2600GeV]
      ΔR,1 [0.4,1.7]
      ΔR,2 [0.4,1.7]
      |η,1| <2.5
      |η,2| <2.5
      pleadingT, [200GeV,3000GeV]
      ΔM4 <70GeV
      ET [30GeV,4000GeV]
      Mrecoli <8000GeV

      Table 7.  Event selections for VBS ZZ in the pure-leptonic channel.

      Figure 6 shows the distribution of the invariant mass of four leptons, denoted as M4, the invariant mass of two leptons, denoted as M,1, the transverse momentum of four leptons in final states, denoted as pT,4, and the transverse momentum of one lepton pair, denoted as pT,,1. In these plots, we also added curves for non-zero aQGCs, setting fT,0/Λ4=1TeV4 as a benchmark.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Simulation results of VBS ZZ in the pure-leptonic channel fors=10TeV,L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of four leptons, M4 distribution; (b) invariant mass of two leptons, M,1; (c) transverse momentum of four leptons, pT,4 distribution; and (d) transverse momentum of two leptons, pTT,,1 distribution.

    • B.   Semi-leptonic channels of VBS ZZ

    • The selections in the semi-leptonic channel are listed in Table 8, where M22j is the invariant mass of two leptons and two jets decaying from two Z bosons; ΔM22j is the mass difference, defined as follows:

      Variables Limits
      M22j [2000GeV,8000GeV]
      M [40GeV,140GeV]
      Mjj [30GeV,150GeV]
      pT,22j [500GeV,8000GeV]
      pT, [200GeV,3000GeV]
      pT,jj [400GeV,4000GeV]
      ΔR [0.4,1.7]
      ΔRjj >0.4
      |η| <2.5
      |ηj| <5.0
      pleadingT, [200GeV,2500GeV]
      pleadingT,j [200GeV,3000GeV]
      ΔM22j <200GeV
      ET [30GeV,3500GeV]
      Mrecoli [1000GeV,7000GeV]

      Table 8.  Event selections for VBS ZZ in the semi-leptonic channel.

      ΔM22j=|MMZ|+|MjjMZ|,

      (6)

      The signal efficiency of the selections was 0.033.

      Figure 7 shows distributions of the invariant mass of jet pair, denoted as Mjj, lepton pair mass, denoted as M, together with the aQGC signal with coefficient fT,0/Λ4=1TeV4.

      Figure 7.  (color online) Simulation results of VBS ZZin the semi-leptonic channel for s=10TeV,L=10ab1: (a) invariant mass of two leptons, M distribution; and (b) invariant mass of two leptons, Mjj.

      After applying the above selections, the significance of the aQGC signal was improved. With 10ab1 of integrated luminosity at s=10TeV and aQGC benchmark with fT,0/Λ4=1TeV4, the expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections are listed in Table 9.

      Channels (s=10TeV) Expected signal yield [events] Expected background yield [events]
      Pure-leptonic channel 686.97 0.48
      Semi-leptonic channel 315.40 0.15

      Table 9.  Expected yields of the aQGC signal and background after the selections in the VBS ZZ productions.

      We also obtained the limits of all aQGC coefficients of the VBS ZZ process, which are listed in Table 11.

      Coefficient Constraint /TeV4
      fS,0/Λ4 [14,13]
      fS,1/Λ4 [5.8,6.7]
      fS,2/Λ4 [15,16]
      fM,0/Λ4 [1.2,1.1]
      fM,1/Λ4 [3.9,3.7]
      fM,2/Λ4 [8.0,8.2]
      fM,3/Λ4 [3.9,3.8]
      fM,4/Λ4 [3.3,3.2]
      fM,5/Λ4 [2.9,3.0]
      fM,7/Λ4 [8.3,8.1]
      fT,0/Λ4 [0.11,0.082]
      fT,1/Λ4 [0.14,0.14]
      fT,2/Λ4 [0.27,0.21]
      fT,3/Λ4 [0.27,0.22]
      fT,4/Λ4 [1.1,0.67]
      fT,5/Λ4 [0.32,0.25]
      fT,6/Λ4 [0.47,0.42]
      fT,7/Λ4 [0.89,0.60]
      fT,8/Λ4 [0.47,0.48]
      fT,9/Λ4 [1.1,1.0]

      Table 11.  Limits at the 95% CL on the aQGC coefficients for the VBS ZZ process.

    VI.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
    • We studied the multi-Z productions of ZZZ at a muon collider with s=1TeV and L=10ab1. Through detailed simulations and signal background analysis, we obtained a significance for the ZZZ direct production in the SM of 1.9σ after combining the results from the pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels. We also set the constraints of the aQGC coefficients [42] at 95% CL. High-energy muon colliders are ideal to research VBS processes, such as the VBS ZZ production process. We presented the distribution of various variables and summarized the constraints of aQGC coefficients. For the ZZZ process, the constraints of coefficients at 95% CL are listed in Table 10, whereas for the VBS ZZ production process, the constraints of the aQGC coefficients at 95% CL are listed in Table 11; the unit is TeV4.

      In the ZZZ direct productions, some operators degenerate, such as fS0, fS1, and fS2; fT0 and fT1; and fT5 and fT6. However, we kept all the constraints in Table 10 for the completeness of the set of operator coefficients.

      In comparison with existing VBS ZZ aQGC constraints from the CMS experiment in LHC, which are based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at COM = 13 TeV with an integrated luminosity of L=137fb1:fT,0/Λ4:[0.24,0.22],fT,1/Λ4:[0.31,0.31], fT,2/Λ4:[0.63,0.59][43], our results establish stronger limits: fT,0/Λ4:[0.11,0.082],fT,1/Λ4:[0.14,0.11], fT,2/Λ4:[0.27,0.21].

    VII.   CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
    • In this study, we investigated ZZZ productions at a muon collider with s=1TeV,L=10ab1 and VBS ZZ productions at s=10TeV,L=10ab1, together with their sensitivities on aQGC coefficients. For these two processes, we focused on pure-leptonic and semi-leptonic channels to find the kinematic features that help to increase the detection potential, such as the distribution of M in the pure-leptonic channel and Mjj in the semi-leptonic channel. We studied the constraints of all aQGC coefficients at 95% CL. For the ZZZ process, we supplemented the existing tri-boson aQGC results, and for some coefficients such as fT,0,fT,1,fT,2 in the VBS ZZ process, our results establish stronger limits than those from previous results. The results demonstrate a great potential to probe the anomalous interactions of gauge bosons at muon colliders owing to their higher effective collision energy, cleaner final states, and higher probability to emit EW radiation than LHC.

Reference (43)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return