UCSD/PTH 13-06

Searching for New Physics in the Three-Body Decays of the

Higgs-like Particle

Benjamı́n Grinstein,∗ Christopher W. Murphy,† and David Pirtskhalava‡

Department of Physics, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA

Abstract
We show that the three-body decays of the resonance recently discovered at the LHC are
arXiv:1305.6938v2 [hep-ph] 14 Nov 2013

potentially sensitive to effects of new physics. Even if the fully integrated partial decay widths are
consistent with the minimal Standard Model there is information that is lost upon integration,
¯
which can be uncovered in the differential decay widths. Concentrating on the decay h → Z``,
we identify the regions in the three-body phase space in which these effects become especially
pronounced and could be detected in future experiments.

∗
Electronic address: bgrinstein@ucsd.edu
†
Electronic address: cmurphy@physics.ucsd.edu
‡
Electronic address: pirtskhalava@physics.ucsd.edu

1
I. INTRODUCTION

The first and simplest realization of the electroweak symmetry breaking sector of the
Standard Model (SM) consists of a single, self-interacting, electroweak-doublet complex
scalar field. The longitudinal components of the W ± and Z gauge bosons are in fact
three of the four real components of the complex scalar doublet. The remaining physical
excitation of the doublet is the “Higgs particle.” There is compelling evidence for the
assumption that the Higgs particle is the 125 GeV resonance observed at LHC experi-
ments [1, 2]. Not only are the production rates and partial widths of the resonance very
close to what this model predicts [3–6], but there is no evidence for other resonances
despite extensive searches.
Other, more involved models can equally well or better reproduce the production and
decay widths of the new resonance. They come with additional states that may have
somehow escaped detection. For example, the simplest extensions of the one doublet
model are models with two Higgs doublets. These models have been shown to reproduce
the LHC 125 GeV-resonance data [7–13], analyses have been presented with the rates of
production and decay of the additional resonances, and strategies have been delineated
to search for them [14]. However, direct detection of new states may be impossible given
the limited energy and performance of LHC experiments.
In the absence of direct evidence for new states one may resort to precision measure-
ments of the properties of the 125 GeV resonance to falsify or strengthen the minimal
model assumption. Here we have in mind a variety of colliders that have been pro-
posed [15–17] that could serve as “Higgs factories,” which we presume allow for precision
measurements of the type we discuss below. Experience with hadronic physics would
suggest that the nature of the 125 GeV resonance can be explored by measuring form
factors. Here instead we settle for a less ambitious program, namely to study the effects
of new physics that can be characterized by an effective Hamiltonian through the spec-
trum in its three-body decays, see Fig. 1. We assume that the production rates and the
decay branching fractions are well measured, or will be well measured by the end of the
2015 run of the LHC experiments, and furthermore that they are in good agreement with
the predictions of the minimal SM. We will show that there is information that is lost in
the fully integrated partial decay widths that can be uncovered in the differential decay

2
 f¯(p3)

h f (p2)

Z(p1)

FIG. 1: Three-body decay h → Zf f¯; the main focus of the present work is for the case
that the final fermion pair is comprised of charged leptons, f f¯ = ``.
¯

widths.
Recently, the use of differential distributions to confirm or reject various hypotheses
about the underlying physical processes has been successful. Specifically, the differential
decay rate for h → 4` [18–33] has been used to determine the spin and parity [34–36] of
the recently discovered resonance at the LHC, zero and even respectively.1 The error bars
on the differential measurements are currently large, of order 100% of the central values,
which is large enough to hide new physics that doesn’t modify the total rate significantly,
but whose shapes may differ wildly from the SM prediction. We will show in Sec. III B
that this can occur in realistic extensions of the SM.

II. GENERALITIES

Ignoring the effects of binding and confinement it is easy to classify and list the possible
channels for three-body decays of the Higgs. The three particle state has either three
gauge bosons or one gauge boson and two fermions, either two quarks or two leptons.
In this work we study decays into two fermions and a gauge boson. We further restrict
the state to the case that the two fermions are charged leptons since these offer the
best prospect for high precision measurements. Then the accompanying gauge boson is

1
The tensor structure of this new scalar’s couplings gauge bosons can be determined in the same man-
ner [37].

3
neutral and we concentrate primarily on the case that it is a Z-boson, that is, on decays
¯ The decay h → γ``¯ arises in the SM from h → γZ ∗ → γ``¯ and
of the form h → Z``.
h → γγ ∗ → γ``¯ at one loop. Because it is suppressed in the SM it may be interesting to
study this process, since new physics may produce large deviations from the SM prediction.
However, h → γZ ∗ → γ``¯ is primarily a 2-body decay of h and does not have the non-
trivial kinematic information that is the focus of our investigation, while h → γγ ∗ → γ``¯
is constrained by the h → γγ branching fraction.
Consider supplementing the Standard Model with the following operators which can
contribute to h → Z ` `¯ at tree level

e  c`Z ¯ µν ¯ µ (cL PL + cR PR )`Zµ h


LN P = `σ `Zµν + `γ (1)
sW cW 4πv v
 
α cZZ cZγ h
+ 2 2
Zµν Z µν + Zµν F µν .
4π sW cW s W cW v

We will refer to the second operator of the first line as “the current interaction,” labeling
it by OZJ . The peculiar normalization of the various terms was chosen such that all
coefficients, c, are of order one according to naive dimensional analysis [38, 39] when the
cutoff of the effect theory is taken to be Λ = 4πv. The Lagrangian (1) is a parametrization
of possible interactions beyond those in the SM, regardless of the details of underlying
new dynamics about which we remain agnostic. The dimension-3 operator hZ µ Zµ has
not been included. This operator would renormalize the already existing tree-level SM
coupling. We will briefly discuss the effects of such a renormalization below. The dipole
terms in (1) can not arise from the flavor SU (3)5 -invariant UV theory that we assume in
the present work. Nevertheless, we include their contributions for completeness.2
While we do not assume a particular UV-completion of the low energy theory, let us
discuss how the interactions in (1) may be properly embedded in a model in which the
Z/W bosons acquire mass through spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry. This
is necessary because while only Higgs data provide constraints on the coefficients of the
operators in Eq. (1), additional indirect constraints arise when these operators are related
to others by electroweak symmetry.
There are two approaches to an effective Lagrangian for beyond the SM interactions of

2
In any case, the effects of these operators for the processes we are considering should be expected to
be rather weak since they do not interfere with the leading SM diagram.

4
the Higgs particle, with the electroweak gauge symmetry linearly or non-linearly realized.
In the linear realization, the above mentioned effective Lagrangian consists of a sum
of operators of dimension higher than four, including the scalar doublet that can be
constructed in terms of the fields in the SM. This can be done systematically by assuming
diminishing effects of operators of increasing dimensions. We will therefore concentrate
on operators of dimension no bigger than six. In the linear realization such operators were
first classified in Ref. [40]. The minimal set, which excludes a few redundant operators,
is presented in Ref. [41]. The strength of each operator is characterized by its coefficient
in the effective Lagrangian. Some of these coefficients are severely constrained both by
flavor physics, e.g., neutral meson mixing, and by electroweak precision data (EWPD).
We assume the new physics is CP conserving and flavor symmetric, that is, the operators
in LN P are invariant under SU (3)5 transformations of the quark and lepton doublet
and singlet fields of the SM. Hence the constraints from flavor physics are immediately
alleviated. The effective theory analysis of precision electroweak data has a long history
[40, 42], one particular example being the so-called oblique corrections [43–47] (see [48, 49]
for extensions of the latter formalism). More generally, the constraints from electroweak
precision measurements on the resulting effective Lagrangian have been studied in [50, 51].
Of particular interest for our work is the analysis by Han and Skiba [51] (henceforth
HS). They consider a basis of 21 dimension-six operators and determine the simultaneous
constraints on the corresponding 21-dimensional space of coefficients of these operators.
Of these 21 operators, 11 are four-fermion operators and play no role in Higgs decays
(in low orders in perturbations theory). Of the remaining operators, 9 are bi-linear in
the scalar-doublet field H and one is cubic in the field strength tensor of the weak-SU(2)
gauge field. HS give an expression for χ2 as a function of the 21 parameters, so one can
find the constraints on the coefficients even after assuming that some vanish, say, by some
theoretical argument (or prejudice). The simultaneous fit to all 21 parameters gives very
loose bounds on any one of the parameters (which however are highly correlated). For
example, the familiar oblique parameters are found to be S = 53 ± 250 and T = 36 ± 223.3
By contrast, the same fit assuming all but S and T vanish yields S = 0.05 ± 0.10 and

3
The HS fit assumes Mh = 113 GeV. We have used their fit without the modifications required to
account for the observed value of Mh ∼ 125 GeV. The correction is insignificant. For example, the
change in the central value of S is δS = 0.005.

5
T = −0.04 ± 0.10. More generally, the same situation occurs for any fit only including
a particular subset of the parameter space. Assuming vanishing of the coefficients of the
operators that complete it to the full set, implies constraints on the given subset that are
more severe than they would be for the simultaneous fit including all of the independent
operators.
The very loose HS bounds are in fact in conflict with recent LHC bounds on contact
interactions from lepton pair production [52, 53]. Being conservative we set the coefficient
of all four-fermion operators in the HS basis to zero. The remaining operators are

OW B = H † σ a HWµν
a
B µν , Oh = |H † Dµ H|2 ,
s
Ohl = H † iDµ H ¯lγ µ l + h.c., t
Ohl = H † σ a iDµ H ¯lσ a γ µ l + h.c.,
s
Ohq = H † iDµ H q̄γ µ q + h.c., t
Ohq = H † σ a iDµ H q̄σ a γ µ q + h.c.,

Ohu = H † iDµ H ūγ µ u + h.c., ¯ µ d + h.c.,

Ohd = H † iDµ H dγ
λ µ
Ohe = H † iDµ H ēγ µ e + h.c. and OW = abc Wµa ν Wνb Wλb .

Here l and q are left-handed electroweak doublets while u, d and e are right handed
electroweak singlets. The resulting best fit values of the coefficients ai of these operators
P
in the Lagrangian, ∆Leff = i ai Oi , are given in Table I. The HS basis excludes operators
that while being CP invariant and flavor symmetric, do not contribute to the processes
considered in electroweak precision tests.
¯ according to the way in which they
The operators that may contribute to h → Z``,
are constrained, can roughly be divided into two types: a) the ones that are mostly
constrained by the current Higgs data (such as the h → γγ rate), and b) those that are
mostly constrained by EWPD. Examples of dimension-6 operators from category a), are

OBB = H † HBµν B µν , OW W = H † H Tr[W µν Wµν ] .

The coefficients of these operators are not constrained by electroweak data, since their sole
contribution to EW precision observables is to rescale the gauge kinetic terms. However,
one combination of these does contribute to the h → γγ rate and is therefore tightly
constrained by LHC measurements. Operators from the category b) are those in the HS
basis. Finally, there are dimension-6 operators involving only quark and/or gluon fields,
that are constrained neither by the current Higgs data, nor by electroweak precision
experiments. The latter are irrelevant for the present work.

6
 aW B ah ashl athl ashq athq ahu ahd ahe aW

4.6 ± 7.5 0.0 ± 26. 2.8 ± 6.7 0.9 ± 21. −0.9 ± 2.2 0.9 ± 21. −3.6 ± 8.9 1.7 ± 4.4 5.6 ± 13. −3.9 ± 32.

TABLE I: Best fit values and 1σ errors, in units of TeV−2 , of the coefficients of
dimension 6 operators in the HS basis when the coefficient of four-fermion operators are
assumed to vanish.

Expanding the operators from the HS basis about the electroweak symmetry breaking
vacuum, one obtains various contributions to the couplings shown in (1). For example,
the coefficients cL , cR and cZγ are given in terms of the coefficients of the dimension-6
operators from the HS basis as follows

αcZγ
cL = −v 2 (ash` + ath` ), cR = −v 2 ahe , = −v 2 (c2W − s2W )aW B . (2)
4πsW cW

As already emphasized, a simultaneous fit of all relevant flavor-preserving operators to

the electroweak data yields relatively weak constraints on the Higgs couplings in (1).
A question naturally arises as to whether it is possible, let alone reasonable, to have UV
completions of the SM that result in large coefficients of the effective interactions in (1)
without automatically (without fine tuning) producing conflicts with EWPD. Manohar
has shown, in a simple extension of the SM with a self-interacting set of SO(N)-symmetric
scalar SU(2)-doublets, that this is indeed the case [54]; see also [55]. While we do not
review Manohar’s model here, we do summarize his findings: (i) A renormalizable model
extension of the SM produces only four dimension-6 operators in its low-energy EFT,
namely OW B , OW W , OBB , and OW ; (ii) The coefficients of these operators in the EFT
are independent, except for the relation aBB = tan2 (θw )Y 2 aW W , with Y a free parameter;
(iii) At strong coupling the coefficients in the EFT are not suppressed by the loop factor
1/16π 2 . The coefficients aW W and aBB are not constrained by electroweak precision data
(EWPD). In Manohar’s model there are only two entries in the Han-Skiba EWPD fit, and
for them we obtain aW B = (−0.1±2.0)×10−2 TeV−2 (corresponding to Peskin-Takeuchi’s
S = 0.0 ± 0.3) and aW = (−0.2 ± 3.8) TeV−2 . The unconstrained coefficients aW W and
aBB can modify the rates for h → γγ and h → Zγ independently and with significant
enhancements in one or the other or both. Hence consistent models of NP can produce
the effects we explore here without recourse to fine-tuning.

7
 A situation in which EWPD constraints can be even weaker occurs when the UV theory
realizes the electroweak symmetry nonlinearly. The non-linear realization is appropriate
for models in which the symmetry is spontaneously broken dynamically, which can occur
for example by a new hyper-strong interaction with characteristic scale Λ . 4πv [56]. The
Higgs particle in this setup is an accidentally light (mh  Λ) CP-even scalar. That the
properties of this scalar resemble those of the SM Higgs particle in the first approximation
arises naturally if the scalar is in fact a pseudo-dilaton of the nearly conformal hyper-strong
interaction [57]. In this case, the effective Lagrangian is constructed from SM fields, as
well as a field h for the Higgs-like particle, and a triplet of would-be-Goldstone bosons π a
from electroweak symmetry breaking that are eaten by the W and Z fields via the Higgs
mechanism. While the electroweak transformation of the triplet is non-linear, the effective
Lagrangian is easily constructed [58] using the Callan-Coleman-Wess-Zumino prescription
[59] for a field Σ = exp iσ a π a /v that transforms linearly.
One can readily see how the effective Lagrangian (1) can arise from a UV theory
with a non-linear realization of SU (2)W × U (1)Y . Gauge invariant operators can be
constructed from objects such as the singlet Higgs field h, the nonlinear sigma model field
0
Σ, its covariant derivative, Dµ Σ = ∂µ Σ − i g2 Wµa σ a Σ − i g2 Σσ 3 Bµ , gauge field strengths
a
Wµν , Bµν , etc. Under the electroweak group, the Σ field transforms as Σ → UL ΣUY† ,
where UL is the SU (2)W transformation matrix, while UY = exp(iαY σ 3 /2) corresponds
to the hypercharge transformation. Taking into account the transformation property of
the SU (2) field strength, Wµν → UL Wµν UL† , one can easily construct gauge invariant
operators that in the unitary gauge (Σ = 1) reproduce the terms in the Lagrangian
(1). For example, the operators OZγ and OZZ can be obtained from the following gauge
invariant operators

hTr[Wµν W µν ], hBµν B µν , hBµν Tr[W µν Σσ 3 Σ† ] . (3)

One can easily check that these operators are independent, hence they are in one-to-
one correspondence with OZγ , OZZ and the hFµν F µν interaction (omitted from the La-
grangian (1)) in the unitary gauge. The dimension-3 operator hZ µ Zµ can be obtained
from hTr[Dµ Σ† Dµ Σ]. In the linear realization the operator Oh produces the dimension-3
operator but only in combination with a Z-mass term, so that the hZZ coupling is still
given in terms of the physical Z mass as in the SM. It is because in the linear realiza-

8
tion this dimension-3 operator is effectively absent that we omitted it from the effective
Lagrangian (1).
Likewise, one can obtain the OZJ = hZµ J µ interactions from (1) in the nonlinear
realization of electroweak symmetry. For this, one can form the following doublets from
the SM fermions,
       
uL uR νL 0
qL =   , qR =   , `L =   , `R =   . (4)
dL dR eL eR

Note, that under U (1)Y , the right handed doublets transform as

3 /2 3 /2
qR → eiαY /6 eiαY σ qR , `R → eiαY /2 eiαY σ `R .

Using the latter transformation property, one can straightforwardly check that the follow-
ing (independent) operators

ihψ̄L Σγ µ (Dµ Σ)† ψL + h.c. , ihψ̄L Σσ 3 γ µ (Dµ Σ)† ψL + h.c. ,

ihψ̄R Σ† γ µ Dµ ΣψR + h.c. , ihψ̄R σ3 Σ† γ µ Dµ ΣψR + h.c. , (5)

where ψ stands for either quark or lepton fields, are invariant under SU (2)W × U (1)Y .
Moreover, in the unitary gauge they lead precisely to the current interactions, given in (1),
with the coefficients cL and cR independent of each other.
Since the operators in (3)-(5) only contribute to interactions that involve the Higgs
field, their coefficients are not constrained by EWPD. Moreover, the only appreciable
constraint on these coefficients comes from the current bounds on the h → γγ rate, which
constrains only one combination of the operators in (3). The Lagrangian (1) on the other
hand arises from the remaining two combinations in (3), as well as the operators in (5).
These operators are unconstrained by current data.

III. THREE-BODY DECAYS

A. Kinematics and Decay Rates

In the present subsection we collect analytic expressions for the spin-averaged squared
amplitudes |M|2 , for various NP contributions to the h → Z``¯ decay. Consider the three-
¯ 3 ) illustrated in Fig. 1. Following [60], we define pij ≡ pi +pj
body decay h → Z(p1 )`(p2 )`(p

9
and m2ij ≡ p2ij , so that m212 +m213 +m223 = Mh2 +MZ2 . Since the recently discovered resonance
has spin-0, the phase space integrals over angular variables are trivial and the maximum
amount of information is contained in the doubly-differential decay rate,

d2 Γ |M|2
= . (6)
dm212 dm223 256π 3 Mh3

For a given value of m23 , the limits on m212 become

2 2 2
p
M + M Z − m 23 ∓ m423 − 2m223 (Mh2 + MZ2 ) + (Mh2 − MZ2 )2
(m212 )min, max = h , (7)
2

with Mh − MZ ≥ m23 ≥ 0. Similarly, keeping m12 fixed, m23 can range from 0 to
(MH2 − m212 )(m212 − MZ )/m212 with Mh ≥ m12 ≥ MZ .
In order to identify the relative importance of the NP operators from (1) for the decays
at hand, we will treat them one at a time. For the case of the SM supplemented by a NP
operator O, the full squared amplitude |M|2 is defined as

|M|2 = |M|2 SM + |M|2 SM −O + |M|2 O , (8)

with the last two terms representing the contributions from the interference with the
standard model and pure new physics respectively. At the leading order in the SM, three-
body decays h → Z``¯ proceed through the tree-level h → ZZ ∗ → Z``¯ diagram. The
spin-averaged squared amplitude for this process is given by the following expression

e4 (gL2 + gR2 ) MZ2 (2m223 − Mh2 ) + m212 (Mh2 + MZ2 − m223 ) − m412
|M|2 SM = , (9)
s4W c4W (m223 − MZ2 )2

where gL = −1/2 + s2W and gR = s2W are the SM couplings of charged leptons to the Z
boson.
The contributions of the operators given in (1) to the h → Z``¯ decays with the final
state leptons having electric charge Q, are given as follows (again, we include the dipole
term only for completeness)

1. hZµν F µν
cZγ Q8πα3 (gL + gR ) m223 + MZ2 − Mh2
|M|2 SM −Zγ = ,
s4W c4W m223 − MZ2
c2Zγ Q2 α4 2m412 + 2m212 (m223 − MZ2 − Mh2 ) + (m223 − Mh2 )2 + 2m223 MZ2 + MZ4
|M|2 Zγ = 4 4 .
s W cW m223 MZ2

10
 2. hZµ J µ
e4 (cL gL + cR gR ) MZ2 (2m223 − Mh2 ) + m212 (Mh2 + MZ2 − m223 ) − m412
|M|2SM −ZJ = ,
s4W c4W (m223 − MZ2 )MZ2
e4 (c2L + c2R ) MZ2 (2m223 − Mh2 ) + m212 (Mh2 + MZ2 − m223 ) − m412
|M|2ZJ = .
4s4W c4W MZ4
3. hZµν Z µν
cZZ 16πα3 (gL2 + gR2 ) m223 (m223 + MZ2 − Mh2 )
|M|2 SM −ZZ = ,
s6W c6W (m223 − MZ2 )2

c2 4α4 (g 2 + gR2 )

|M|2 ZZ = ZZ 8 L8 m223 (2m412 + 2m212 (m223 − MZ2 − Mh2 )
s W cW

+(m23 − Mh ) + 2m23 MZ + MZ /MZ2 (m223 − MZ2 )2 .
2 2 2 2 2 4

¯ µν `Zµν
4. h`σ
|M|2SM −Dipole = 0 ,
c2`Z e6 −2m212 + 2m212 (Mh2 − m223 − MZ2 ) + MZ2 (m223 − 2Mh2 )
|M|2Dipole = .
2s6W c6W MZ4
Integrating the SM doubly-differential rate with respect to m212 , yields
dΓSM e4 (gL2 + gR2 )2m23 |p1 | m423 − 2m223 (Mh2 − 5MZ2 ) + (Mh2 − MZ2 )2
= , (10)
dm223 1536π 3 Mh3 s4W c4W (m223 − MZ2 )2

where p1 is the momentum of the Z in the ``¯ center-of-mass frame, 2m23 |p1 | =
p
m423 − 2m223 (Mh2 + MZ2 ) + (Mh2 − MZ2 )2 . The corresponding quantities in the presence
of the operators OγZ and OZJ , including interference with the SM, are respectively given
as follows
cZγ Qα3 2m23 |p1 |
 2
m23 − Mh2 + MZ2
 
dΓZγ
= (gL + gR ) (11)
dm223 32π 2 Mh3 s4W c4W m223 − MZ2
cZγ Qα m23 − 2m223 (Mh2 − 2MZ2 ) + (Mh2 − MZ2 )2
 4 
+ ,
12π m223 MZ2
dΓSM cL gL + cR gR m223 − MZ2 1 c2L + c2R (m223 − MZ2 )2
 
dΓZJ
= + .
dm223 dm223 gL2 + gR2 MZ2 4 gL2 + gR2 MZ4
The complete differential decay rate is obtained by summing over the individual pieces
(as well as including interference between the various NP contributions),
dΓh→Z``¯ dΓSM dΓZJ dΓZγ
2
= 2
+ + + ··· . (12)
dm23 dm23 dm23 dm223
2

11
 B. Discussion

In this subsection, we have identified the regions in the three-body phase space where
the effects of new physics can become especially pronounced and could be detectable by
future experiments. We define signal strength in the standard way,

σSM +N P × BrSM +N P
µ= . (13)
σSM × BrSM

None of the models we consider modify the Higgs-like production rate significantly. In
addition, OZJ does not affect the total width of the new resonance for the parameters
chosen, while modifications of the total width due to OZγ are loop suppressed. Therefore,
to a good approximation, the signal strength is given by µ = ΓSM +N P /ΓSM . We generalize
this concept to that of the differential signal strength with the following definition,

µ(m223 ) = (dΓSM +N P /dm223 )/(dΓSM /dm223 ).

Fig. 2 shows differential decay rate (left) and differential signal strength (right) as a
function of m223 for the current interaction OZJ . The values of the coefficients in Fig. 2
are all within the 1σ bounds from EWPD in Table I. All of these curves do not add
or subtract from the total SM decay rate, µ = 1, and yet can differ from the leading
order (LO) SM prediction by as much as 30% in the differential decay rate. We do not
expect next-to-leading order (NLO) SM corrections to significantly affect this result for
the values of m23 above a few GeV, see Fig. 4. Allowing the total signal strength to be as
large as the 1σ bound on h → ZZ ? in [6], µ = 1.00 ± 0.13, the effect can become as large
as 50%. Searching for this effect in h → Zq q̄ (q = b, c) at a linear collider may provide
an even better window to observe the effects of NP. The reason being that the bounds
from Z-pole experiments are weaker on heavy quarks than they are on leptons, and at
least currently, the bounds from Higgs data are weaker on heavy quarks than they are
EW gauge bosons.
In order to fully demonstrate that three-body decays of the higgs bosons are good probe
of physics beyond the SM, a semi-realistic detector simulation should be performed. We
consider that to be beyond the scope of this proof of principle work. However, as a first
step towards that goal we use FeynRules [61] to implement OZJ in MadGraph 5 [62] to
simulate pp → h → 4` at LHC8. 1.1 · 105 events are generated for a given benchmark

12
 1.3
3.0
1.2
dGdm23 2 @eVGeV2 D

2.5
1.1

ΜHm23 2 L
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0 0.9

0.5 0.8

0.0 0.7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
m23 @GeV D
2 2
m23 @GeV D
2 2

FIG. 2: Contributions to h → Z``¯ from OZJ . The differential decay rate and differential
signal strength as a function of m223 are shown on the left and right respectively. The
curves correspond to the SM (blue); cR = 0.99, cL = 0 (red); cL = −1.15, cR = 0
(yellow); and cR = −cL = 1.07 (green). µ = 1 in each of these cases.

point from Fig. 2 with the renormalization and factorization scales set to mh . MSTW2008
LO PDFs [63] are used, and no cuts are placed on the final state leptons.
The results of our simulation are shown in Fig. 3. The differential production rate and
differential signal strength as a function of m223 are shown on the left and right respectively.
The curves correspond to the SM (blue); cR = 0.92, cL = 0 (red); cL = −1.09, cR =
0 (yellow); and cR = −cL = 0.92 (green). µ = 1 within statistical uncertainty in each of
these cases.
There are effects captured in the MadGraph simulation that are not present in the
analytic calculation. Most noticeably, the distribution of events with respect to m23 does
not end at mh − mZ , but instead at mh since there is a tail due to the both Z’s being off-
shell. The fractional deviation from the SM in the tail of the distribution is significantly
larger than in the body of the distribution, but the rate is smaller. In addition, there are
interference effects in the four-body final state that are not present in the three-body final
state. These effects shift the values of the couplings needed to keep the signal strength
for h → 4` at the SM value, µ(h → ZZ) = 1. The magnitude of the couplings required
in this analysis are smaller than those used in Figure 2.
A particularly interesting operator in the context of three-body Higgs decays is OZγ .
In the massless fermion limit, the decay rate for h → Zγ ? → Z``¯ diverges logarithmically

13
 1.8
6000
1.6
N  50 GeV2 @Arb. UnitsD

5000
1.4
4000

ΜHm23 2 L
1.2
3000
1.0
2000
0.8
1000
0.6
0 0.4
0 1000 2000 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
m23 2 @GeV2 D m23 2 @GeV2 D

FIG. 3: Contributions to pp → h → 4` at LHC8 from OZJ . The differential production

rate and differential signal strength as a function of m223 are shown on the left and right
respectively. The curves correspond to the SM (blue); cR = 0.92, cL = 0 (red);
cL = −1.09, cR = 0 (yellow); and cR = −cL = 0.92 (green). µ = 1 within statistical
uncertainty in each of these cases.

as m23 → 0, due to the integration over phase space.4 This formal divergence cancels
against the IR divergence arising due to the interference between tree level diagram for
the decay h → Zγ and its one-loop photon self-energy correction. The two processes are
indistinguishable for m23 below detector resolution. For low values of m23 this results
in a large enhancement of the effects of the given operator. An experiment with enough
resolution, perhaps around a few GeV, can therefore become extremely sensitive to the
differential decay rate. The enhancement can be clearly seen in Fig. 4, where we plot the
approximate NLO SM (blue), and LO SM (red) differential rates, in the presence of the
SM loop-induced h → Zγ ? → Z``¯ decay in addition to the tree-level SM diagram. The
current analyses [35, 36] of h → 4` only consider (m23 )min above 12 GeV, and are less
sensitive to this effect. A dedicated experiment, either at the LHC or at a future precision
facility, with lower m23 threshold could easily capture this physics.
As emphasized above, the process h → Zγ ? → Zf f¯ occurs in the SM as well as in NP
scenarios. The SM contributes to OZγ with the coefficient cZγ, SM ≈ −4.82. In addition,
the SM loop also contributes to dimension-8 operators, such as vhZµν ∂ 2 F µν . These terms

4
Upon inclusion of the final-state fermion masses, the divergence is removed due to the lower bound on
the kinematic variable (m223 )min = 4m2f .

14
 2.9 4.0
dGdm23 2 @eVGeV2 D

dGdm23 2 @eVGeV2 D
3.5
2.8
3.0
2.7
2.5

2.6 2.0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

m23 @GeV D
2 2
m23 @GeV D
2 2

FIG. 4: Differential rates for h → Z``¯ in the SM. Shown is red is the LO process, which
has a tree-level ZZ ? intermediate state. The blue curve includes the dominant NLO
corrections, which come from the loop-induced Zγ ? intermediate state.

are finite as m23 → 0, or to put it differently, these terms are suppressed by powers of
m2 /M 2 , so we may neglect them. We also neglect loop-corrections to h → ZZ ? → Zf f¯.
23 Z

Even though these corrections are formally the same order as h → Zγ ? → Zf f¯, they are
sub-leading in the kinematic region of interest, i.e., low values of m23 .
Inspecting Fig. 4 of Ref. [64], the current bound on h → Zγ is roughly 9 times the
SM rate at 95% CL, which translates into −10 ∼ < c <
Zγ, N P ∼ 20. Using Eq. (2) and the 1σ

bounds in Table I, yields −267 ≤ cZγ, N P ≤ 64. Taking only these weak constraints into
account, the effect on the differential rate for h → Z``¯ can be rather dramatic, as can be
seen in Fig. 4.
It is natural to wonder if the values chosen for cZγ modify other observables since they
seem rather large. Even for the largest value of the coefficient, cZγ = 20, the integrated
signal strength for h → Z``¯ is quite close to the SM prediction: µ = 1.06 with the cut
m23 > 12 GeV (which is what the current analyses employ [35, 36]), and becomes µ = 1.13
if the cut is taken to be m23 > 1 GeV. Both of these values are within the 1σ bound on
h → ZZ ? from Ref. [6].
Furthermore, in UV completions of the effective theory the coefficient cZγ is a
combination of coefficients in the Han and Skiba basis. For example, in Manohar’s
model [54] it is given in terms of aW W and aBB . Therefore it is reasonable to expect

15
 5.0 3.0
dGdm23 2 @eVGeV2 D

dGdm23 2 @eVGeV2 D
4.5
2.5
4.0

3.5 2.0

3.0
1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
m23 @GeV D
2 2
m23 @GeV D
2 2

1.8
1.08

1.6 1.06
ΜHm23 2 L

ΜHm23 2 L
1.4 1.04

1.2 1.02

1.0 1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
m23 @GeV D
2 2
m23 @GeV D
2 2

FIG. 5: The differential rates and signal strengths in the SM, supplemented by a NP
contribution to the operator OZγ . The curves correspond to: SM including cZγ, SM
(blue); cZγ, N P = 20 (red); cZγ, N P = 10 (yellow); cZγ, N P = −10 (green). In order to
emphasize the enhancement of NP effects for the lower values of m23 , we restrict m23 to
be less than 12 GeV in the plots on the left, while m23 > 12 GeV is considered for the
plots on the right.

the UV completion will generate cZZ and cW W of comparable magnitude to cZγ .5 For
cZZ = {−10, 10, 20} we find the signal strength for h → Z``¯ is {1.03, 0.97, 0.94}. Similarly,
for cW W = {−10, 10, 20} we find the signal strength for h → W f f¯0 is {1.05, 0.95, 0.91}.
These signal strengths were computed using only the tree level piece of the SM contri-
bution, and it is likely that the NLO SM contributions are of the same order as the NP

5
cW W is defined through  
α 2cW W + −µν h
∆LN P = Wµν W
4π s2W v

16
contributions. For example, in the SM the effective coefficients (that reproduce the SM
amplitude as if it resulted from the EFT operators) are cγγ = −6.98 and cZγ = −4.82 [24],
indeed comparable to the NP contributions.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The 125 GeV resonance, observed at the LHC closely resembles the Higgs of the min-
imal standard model. If the production rates and the partial widths of the resonance
continue to converge towards their SM values, and no direct evidence for additional de-
grees of freedom is found within the LHC range, the identification of indirect probes of
new physics will become increasingly important.
In the present work we have concentrated on one possible such probe, the three-body
decays of the Higgs boson, h → Z``.¯ We have shown that these processes represent a

promising avenue towards capturing the effects of new physics. Moreover, we have iden-
tified the regions in the three-body phase space in which these effects become especially
pronounced and could be detected at precision facilities, or even via dedicated experiments
at the LHC.
Many interesting questions remain. In particular, it would be important to understand
implications of concrete NP models in the context of the above analysis, as well as study
ways in which form factors of the Higgs can be probed via various interactions in the
standard model or its extensions. These questions represent the subject of our ongoing
investigation [65].
Note Added: As this work was being completed, Ref. [66] appeared with some overlap
with our work. Our work in progress was mentioned by one of us at a presentation at
the Higgs Factory Muon Collider Workshop, UCLA on March 21, 2013; see pp.17–21 in
https://hepconf.physics.ucla.edu/higgs2013/talks/grinstein.pdf.

Acknowledgments

We thank W. Skiba for helpful discussions regarding the analysis in [51], and P. Utta-
yarat useful comments. This work has been supported in part by the U.S. Department of

17
Energy under contract No. DE-SC0009919.

[1] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B716, 1 (2012), 1207.7214.

[2] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys.Lett. B716, 30 (2012), 1207.7235.
[3] J. Espinosa, C. Grojean, M. Muhlleitner, and M. Trott, JHEP 1205, 097 (2012), 1202.3697.
[4] D. Carmi, A. Falkowski, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. Zupan, JHEP 1210, 196 (2012),
1207.1718.
[5] J. Ellis and T. You (2013), 1303.3879.
[6] P. P. Giardino, K. Kannike, I. Masina, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia (2013), 1303.3570.
[7] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, and G. D. Kribs, Phys.Rev. D86, 115009 (2012), 1210.2465.
[8] Y. Bai, V. Barger, L. L. Everett, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys.Rev. D87, 115013 (2013),
1210.4922.
[9] A. Drozd, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, and Y. Jiang, JHEP 1305, 072 (2013), 1211.3580.
[10] J. Chang, K. Cheung, P.-Y. Tseng, and T.-C. Yuan, Phys.Rev. D87, 035008 (2013),
1211.3849.
[11] A. Celis, V. Ilisie, and A. Pich, JHEP 1307, 053 (2013), 1302.4022.
[12] C.-W. Chiang and K. Yagyu, JHEP 1307, 160 (2013), 1303.0168.
[13] A. Barroso, P. Ferreira, I. Ivanov, and R. Santos, JHEP 1306, 045 (2013), 1303.5098.
[14] B. Grinstein and P. Uttayarat, JHEP 1306, 094 (2013), 1304.0028.
[15] M. M. Alsharoa et al. (Muon Collider/Neutrino Factory Collaboration), Phys.Rev.ST Ac-
cel.Beams 6, 081001 (2003), hep-ex/0207031.
[16] G. Aarons et al. (ILC) (2007), 0709.1893.
[17] L. Linssen, A. Miyamoto, M. Stanitzki, and H. Weerts (2012), 1202.5940.
[18] D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung, and I. Phillips, Phys.Rev. D48, 3225 (1993), hep-ph/9303226.
[19] A. Skjold and P. Osland, Phys.Lett. B329, 305 (1994), hep-ph/9402358.
[20] T. Arens and L. Sehgal, Z.Phys. C66, 89 (1995), hep-ph/9409396.
[21] B. Grzadkowski and J. Gunion, Phys.Lett. B350, 218 (1995), hep-ph/9501339.
[22] C. Buszello, I. Fleck, P. Marquard, and J. van der Bij, Eur.Phys.J. C32, 209 (2004), hep-
ph/0212396.
[23] S. Choi, . Miller, D.J., M. Muhlleitner, and P. Zerwas, Phys.Lett. B553, 61 (2003), hep-

18
 ph/0210077.
[24] A. Djouadi, Phys.Rept. 457, 1 (2008), hep-ph/0503172.
[25] A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. Weber, Phys.Rev. D74, 013004 (2006),
hep-ph/0604011.
[26] A. Bredenstein, A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, and M. Weber, JHEP 0702, 080 (2007), hep-
ph/0611234.
[27] R. M. Godbole, . Miller, D.J., and M. M. Muhlleitner, JHEP 0712, 031 (2007), 0708.0458.
[28] Q.-H. Cao, C. Jackson, W.-Y. Keung, I. Low, and J. Shu, Phys.Rev. D81, 015010 (2010),
0911.3398.
[29] N. D. Christensen, T. Han, and Y. Li, Phys.Lett. B693, 28 (2010), 1005.5393.
[30] A. De Rujula, J. Lykken, M. Pierini, C. Rogan, and M. Spiropulu, Phys.Rev. D82, 013003
(2010), 1001.5300.
[31] P. Avery, D. Bourilkov, M. Chen, T. Cheng, A. Drozdetskiy, et al., Phys.Rev. D87, 055006
(2013), 1210.0896.
[32] S. Choi, M. Muhlleitner, and P. Zerwas, Phys.Lett. B718, 1031 (2013), 1209.5268.
[33] S. Bolognesi, Y. Gao, A. V. Gritsan, K. Melnikov, M. Schulze, et al., Phys.Rev. D86,
095031 (2012), 1208.4018.
[34] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 081803 (2013), 1212.6639.
[35] Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-002, CERN, Geneva (2013).
[36] Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2013-013, CERN, Geneva (2013).
[37] D. Stolarski and R. Vega-Morales, Phys.Rev. D86, 117504 (2012), 1208.4840.
[38] A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl.Phys. B234, 189 (1984).
[39] E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott (2013), 1309.0819.
[40] W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl.Phys. B268, 621 (1986).
[41] B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP 1010, 085 (2010),
1008.4884.
[42] B. Grinstein and M. B. Wise, Phys.Lett. B265, 326 (1991).
[43] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys.Rev.Lett. 65, 964 (1990).
[44] B. Holdom and J. Terning, Phys.Lett. B247, 88 (1990).
[45] G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, Phys.Lett. B253, 161 (1991).
[46] M. Golden and L. Randall, Nucl.Phys. B361, 3 (1991).

19
[47] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys.Rev. D46, 381 (1992).
[48] I. Maksymyk, C. Burgess, and D. London, Phys.Rev. D50, 529 (1994), hep-ph/9306267.
[49] R. Barbieri, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and A. Strumia, Nucl.Phys. B703, 127 (2004), hep-
ph/0405040.
[50] R. Barbieri and A. Strumia, Phys.Lett. B462, 144 (1999), hep-ph/9905281.
[51] Z. Han and W. Skiba, Phys.Rev. D71, 075009 (2005), hep-ph/0412166.
[52] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys.Rev. D87, 032001 (2013), 1212.4563.
[53] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys.Rev. D87, 015010 (2013), 1211.1150.
[54] A. V. Manohar (2013), 1305.3927.
[55] E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott (2013), 1305.0017.
[56] T. Appelquist and G.-H. Wu, Phys.Rev. D48, 3235 (1993), hep-ph/9304240.
[57] W. D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein, and W. Skiba, Phys.Rev.Lett. 100, 111802 (2008),
0708.1463.
[58] B. Grinstein and M. Trott, Phys.Rev. D76, 073002 (2007), 0704.1505.
[59] J. Callan, Curtis G., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Phys.Rev. 177, 2247 (1969).
[60] J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys.Rev. D86, 010001 (2012).
[61] N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr, Comput.Phys.Commun. 180, 1614 (2009), 0806.4194.
[62] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, JHEP 1106, 128 (2011),
1106.0522.
[63] A. Martin, W. Stirling, R. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur.Phys.J. C63, 189 (2009), 0901.0002.
[64] Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-006, CERN, Geneva (2013).
[65] B. Grinstein, C. W. Murphy, and D. Pirtskhalava, In progress (2013).
[66] G. Isidori, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott (2013), 1305.0663.

20