USTC-ICTS-18-13 Positivity bounds on vector boson scattering at the LHC

Cen Zhang Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Shuang-Yong Zhou Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China

Weak vector boson scattering (VBS) is a sensitive probe of new physics effects in the electroweak symmetry breaking. Currently, experimental results at the LHC are interpreted in the effective field theory approach, where possible deviations from the Standard Model in the quartic-gauge-boson couplings are often described by 18 dimension-8 operators. By assuming that a UV completion exists, we derive a new set of theoretical constraints on the coefficients of these operators, i.e. certain combinations of coefficients must be positive. These constraints imply that the current effective approach to VBS has a large redundancy: only about 2% of the full parameter space leads to a UV completion. By excluding the remaining unphysical region of the parameter space, these constraints provide guidance for future VBS studies and measurements.

Introduction.— After the discovery of the Higgs bo- values. Recently, a novel approach has been developed son [1, 2], the focus of has turned to the to set theoretical bounds on the Wilson coefficients of mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking and be- a generic EFT that can be UV completed. Going un- yond. At the (LHC), vector bo- der the name of positivity bounds, this approach only son scattering (VBS) is among the processes most sen- requires a minimum set of assumptions, which are noth- sitive to the electroweak and the Higgs sectors. In the ing but the cherished fundamental principles of quantum Standard Model (SM), Feynman amplitudes for longitu- field theory such as unitarity, Lorentz invariance, locality, dinally polarized weak bosons individually grow with en- and causality/analyticity of scattering amplitudes. Using ergy, but cancellations among diagrams involving quartic the dispersion relation of the amplitude and the opti- gauge boson couplings (QGC), trilinear gauge boson cou- cal theorem, Ref. [22] established a positivity bound in plings (TGC), and Higgs exchange occur, and lead to a the forward scattering limit of 2-to-2 scattering (see also total amplitude that does not grow at large energies. If [23–27] for earlier discussions and applications in QCD). modifications from physics beyond the Standard Model The bound can be computed completely within the low (BSM) exist, they are likely to spoil these cancellations energy EFT and implies that a certain combination of and lead to sizable cross section increases. Wilson coefficients must be positive. Moreover, thanks VBS processes at the LHC can be embedded in par- to the properties of the partial wave expansion, an infi- tonic processes qq → V V qq, where q is a light quark. nite series of non-forward t derivative positivity bounds Both ATLAS and CMS experiments have extensively are derived (t being the Mandelstam variable) [28, 29] studied this kind of signatures, and the effort will con- (see also [30–33] for earlier discussions on non-forward tinue with future runs of LHC. Absent clear hints for positivity bounds and [34] for earlier discussions on the BSM theories, these studies are based on a bottom-up forward positivity bound for particles with spin). These effective field theory (EFT) approach—the SMEFT [3– positivity bounds have been used to fruitfully constrain 5]. In this approach, deviations in QGC independent of various gravity and particle physics theories (see, e.g., TGC are captured by 18 dimension-8 effective operators, [34–46]). assuming that TGC and Higgs couplings are constrained In this work, we apply this approach to the SMEFT arXiv:1808.00010v3 [hep-ph] 20 Dec 2019 by other processes with better experimental accuracies, formalism for VBS processes, and derive a whole new set such as diboson and Higgs on-shell measurements. With of theoretical constraints on the VBS operators. While this assumption, VBS measurements at the LHC have no bounds can be derived at O(Λ−2) [74], we show that been conveniently interpreted as constraints on these op- at O(Λ−4) certain sums of a linear combination of the erator coefficients, see, for example, [6–10] for some re- dimension-8 QGC coefficients and a quadratic form of the cent results, and [11] for a compilation of existing exper- dimension-6 coefficients must be positive. Because the imental limits on QGC coefficients. These constraints latter is always negative-definite, a number of positivity in turn can be matched to a variety of BSM theories. constraints can be inferred solely on QGC operators. (See, for instance, [12–20] and references therein.) The These constraints have several features. First, based recent high-luminosity and high-energy LHC projection only on the most fundamental principles of quantum field has shown that future sensitivity on dimension-8 QGC theory, they are general and model-independent. In ad- operators at the LHC can go beyond the TeV scale [21]. dition, they have strong impacts: the currently allowed However, in order to admit an ultra-violet (UV) com- parameter space spanned by 18 dimension-8 coefficients pletion, QGC operator coefficients cannot take arbitrary will be drastically reduced, by almost two orders of mag- 2 nitude in volume. Finally, they constrain the possible dimension-8 QGC couplings as a first step. This is the directions in which SM deviations could occur, comple- assumptions that is used by the experimental collabora- mentary to the experimental limits. By revealing the tions to set limits on QGC couplings. Given that the goal physically viable region in the 18-dimensional QGC pa- of this work is to provide theory guidance to experimental rameter space, these constraints provide important guid- analysis, we will adopt the same assumption. We never- ance for future VBS studies. On the other hand, if the theless emphasize that our main conclusion, i.e. positivity experiments observed a parameter region that violates bounds on QGC couplings, are independent of the pres- the positivity bounds, it would be a very clear sign of vi- ence of dimension-6 operators, as we will explain later. olation of the cherished fundamental principles of modern Therefore they will continue to be useful for future global physics. fits including dimension-6 effects. Effective operators.— Before deriving the positivity Dimension-8 QGC couplings are described by 18 op- constraints, let us briefly describe the model-independent erators. Conventionally, they are divided into three cat- SMEFT approach to VBS processes. The approach is egories: S-type operators involve only covariant deriva- based on the following expansion of the Lagrangian tives of the Higgs, M-type operators include a mix of field strengths and covariant derivatives of the Higgs, and T- (d) X X f (d) type operators include only field strengths. We use the L = L + i O , (1) EFT SM Λd−4 i convention of [50] that has become standard in this com- d>4 i munity. The definition of these operators can be found in Eqs. (13)-(31) of [50] (O is redundant [59]), and we where Λ is the typical scale of new physics. f (d) are M,6 also list them in the Appendix. The 18 operator coeffi- the dimensionless coefficients of the dimension-d effec- cients are denoted as tive operators. If the underlying theory is known and weakly coupled, they can be determined by a matching fS,0, fS,1, fS,2, fM,0, fM,1, fM,2, fM,3, fM,4, fM,5, calculation. It can be shown that only even-dimensional operators conserve both baryon and lepton numbers [47], fM,7, fT,0, fT,1, fT,2, fT,5, fT,6, fT,7, fT,8, fT,9. so we focus on dimension-6 and dimension-8 operators. A summary of existing experimental constraints on these VBS processes can be affected by TGC, Higgs couplings, coefficients can be found in [11]. See also Ref. [60] for and QGC couplings. At dimension-6, modifications to a review of QGC measurements at the LHC and their TGC and HVV Higgs couplings could arise [48]. QGC interpretation in the SMEFT. couplings are also generated, but they are fully deter- Positivity bounds.— The simplest positivity bound mined by dimension-6 TGC couplings. At dimension- can be obtained by considering an elastic scattering am- 8, QGC couplings could arise independent of TGC cou- plitude in the forward limit A(s) = A(s, t = 0) [22]. plings. They are parameterized by 18 dimension-8 oper- Thanks to the dispersion relations, optical theorem and ators [49–51]. Froissart bound [61], it can be shown that the second The unique feature of VBS processes is that they are derivative of A(s) w.r.t. s is positive, after subtracting sensitive to BSM effects that manifest as anomalous QGC contributions from the low energy poles. In the follow- couplings. One may worry that this sensitivity is masked ing we shall briefly review the forward limit positivity by possible contamination from anomalous TGC and/or bound, adapted to the context of VBS. We assume that Higgs couplings. However, if these couplings are present, the contributions from the higher dimensional operators we may expect to first probe them elsewhere, e.g. in dibo- are well approximated by the tree level, which is a rea- son production, vector boson fusion, or Higgs production sonable assumption given that perturbativity in EFT is and decay measurements, which are in general measured always needed for a valid analysis. with a much better accuracy than VBS. For example, If the UV completion is weakly coupled, the BSM am- TGC couplings are constrained by WW production at plitude is usually well approximated by its leading tree LEP2, which has been measured at the percent level level contribution A , which is analytic and satisfies the accuracy [52]. These constraints are further improved tr Froissart bound. Its BSM part simply comes from one by the LHC data [53–57]. Higgs coupling measurements particle exchange between SM currents. We can derive a at the LHC have reached O(10%) level precision, and dispersion relation for A : will continue to improve with the high-luminosity up- tr grade [21]. While there might still be non-negligible I 1 Atr(s) dimension-6 effects in VBS [58], the projected sensitiv- ftr(sp) ≡ ds (2) 2πi (s − s )3 ity to dimension-8 QGC couplings at high-luminosity and C p Z ∞ Z ∞ high-energy LHC beyond the TeV scale [21] suggests that ds ImAtr(s) ds ImAtr(s) = 2 3 + 3 , (3) VBS will continue to be an important channel to look for 2 2 π (s + sp −M ) 2 π (s − sp) Λth+M Λth possible BSM deviations in QGC. While a global SMEFT 2 2 2 approach including both dimension-6 and dimension-8 where M ≡ 2m1 + 2m2, m1 and m2 being the masses of operators would be the most reliable, given the current the interacting particles, and Λth( M) is the mass of accuracy level one could assume that dimension-6 ef- the lightest heavy state. C is a contour that encircles all fects are well-constrained by other channels, and focus on the poles in the low energy EFT and, by analyticity of 3 the s complex plane, can be deformed to run around the fΛ(sp) can be evaluated within the EFT with the sub- 2 2 s > Λth and s < −Λth parts of the real axis and along the traction term in Eq. (4) taken into account. This term infinite semi-circles; the infinite semi-circle contributions does not contain any tree level contribution from the vanish due to the Froissart bound, and the discontinu- higher dimensional operators, but it removes the dom- ities along the real axis give rise to ImAtr(s, 0) which is inant impact from the SM loop contribution. The re- nonzero due to the heavy particle poles. Also we have re- maining contribution from the SM is then suppressed by stricted to crossing symmetric amplitudes for simplicity, (Λ)−2, and can be computed explicitly. The reason be- and to obtain the first term of Eq. (3) we have made a hind is that the SM contribution mostly comes from the variable change s → M 2 − s and used the crossing sym- discontinuity below Λ, while the BSM contribution is 2 metry ImAtr(M − s) = ImAtr(s). By the cutting rules, from above this scale, so one can choose a Λ to subtract ImAtr(s) can be written as a sum of complete squares of the dominant SM contribution without losing positivity. 2-to-1 amplitudes, and thus ImAtr(s) > 0. Therefore we In the Appendix we compute the remaining SM contri- 2 2 infer that ftr(sp) > 0 for −Λth < sp < Λth. Due to ana- bution in the γγ channel and show that it is negligible lyticity of the amplitude in complex s plane, ftr(sp) can even comparing with the best experimental sensitivity be calculated within the SMEFT as the second deriva- currently available. tive of the effective amplitude Atr(s) with the poles sub- Applications.— Let us first focus on dimension-8 op- tracted. Since the SM at tree level makes no contribution erators. Applying this approach to the scattering ampli- to the r.h.s. of Eq. (3), ftr(s) > 0 directly gives positivity tudes of VBS in the forward limit yields a set of positiv- constraints on the Wilson coefficients. ity constraints on QGC coefficients. As an example, we The above argument can be easily generalized to cases present here the constraint from ZZ → ZZ scattering: where the leading EFT amplitude is matched to the loop 2 2 4  2 2 2 amplitude in the full theory, and one can derive posi- 8a3b3tW (FS,0 + FS,1 + FS,2) + a3 b1 + b2 2 2 2 2 4 2  tivity for the lowest order n-loop BSM contribution to + a1 + a2 b3 tW −tW FM,3 + tW FM,5 − 2FM,1 + FM,7 VBS, with the SM contribution removed. In this case,  2 2 2 2 2 8 + (a1b1 + a2b2) + a1 + a2 b1 + b2 2tW FT,9 the discontinuity above Λth must come from unitarity 4  2  4 4 cuts that only cut the BSM particles, otherwise this am- +4tW FT,7 + 8FT,2 + 8 (a1b1 + a2b2) tW tW FT,8 plitude would match to both tree and loop diagrams in +2FT,5 + 2FT,6) + 4FT,0 + 4FT,1] ≥ 0, (6) EFT with similar sizes, violating the perturbativity as- sumption. Using the cutting rules, the discontinuity can where tW ≡ tan θW is the tangent of the weak angle. We be written as a sum of complete squares, thus proving have rewritten the coefficients as positivity. 2 4 For a generic UV completion, consider the full ampli- FS,i ≡ fS,i,FM,i ≡ e fM,i,FT,i ≡ e fT,i. (7) tude including the SM contribution. The latter could ai and bi parametrize the polarization vectors of the two give a constant contribution to the dispersion relation at Z bosons respectively: one loop. To minimize its impact, we subtract out the 2 < µ branch cuts within |s| < (Λ) ( ∼ 1), where the domi- 1 = (a3p1/mZ , a1, a2, a3E1/mZ ) (8) nant SM contribution resides. This is done by following µ  = (b3p2/mZ , b1, b2, b3E2/mZ ) , (9) the improved positivity [34, 40, 62] and defining: 2 where real polarizations are used for simplicity. Eq. (6) 2 Z +(Λ) ds DiscA(s) must hold for all real values of ai and bi. Other VBS BΛ(sp) = A(sp) − , (4) processes yield similar but independent constraints. The 2 2πi s − s −(Λ) p full set of results are given in the Appendix. Interestingly, including dimension-6 operators does not with M± < Λ < Λ, M± ≡ m1 ± m2. This subtracted amplitude has the same discontinuity as A(s) above (Λ)2 change our conclusion. If one follows the same approach and also satisfies the Froissart bound [75]. It is free of and considers dimension-6 contributions, it turns out 2 that nontrivial constraints on them can be obtained only branch cuts for |s| < (Λ) , and thus one can analogously (6) 2 2 obtain a dispersion relation: at the (f /Λ ) level, i.e. from diagrams involving two insertions of operators. They always take the following 2 "Z −(Λ)2 Z ∞ # form: d BΛ(sp) ds DiscA(s) 2 fΛ(sp) ≡ 2 = + 3   2 ds −∞ (Λ)2 2πi (s − sp) X X (6) (−x ) y f ≥ 0, x > 0, (10) Z ∞ ds ImA(s) Z ∞ ds ImA(s) i  j j  i i j = 2 3 + 3 . (5) (Λ)2+M 2 π (s + sp −M ) (Λ)2 π (s − sp) i.e. the sum of a set of complete square terms need Making use of the optical theorem, ImA(s) = [(s − to be negative. We have checked this for all relevant 2 2 1/2 2 M−)(s − M+)] σt > 0 for s > M+, where σt is dimension-6 operators in the Warsaw basis [63]. Explicit the total cross section. So we have fΛ(sp) > 0 for results are given in the Appendix. Of course, these con- 2 2 −(Λ) < sp < (Λ) . Again, by contour deformation, ditions cannot be satisfied with dimension-6 operators 4

fS,0 fS,1 fS,2 fM,0 fM,1 fM,2 fM,3 fM,4 fM,5 + + + X − O − OX

fM,7 fT,0 fT,1 fT,2 fT,5 fT,6 fT,7 fT,8 fT,9 + + + + X + X + +

TABLE I: Positivity constraints on individual VBS operator coefficients. +/− means the coefficient must be non-negative or non-positive. X means only f = 0 is allowed, and O means no constraints. alone. Instead, it tells us that at O(Λ−4) the dimension- 8 contribution has to come in, with a positive value large enough to flip the sign of the dimension-6 contri- bution. Therefore, the presence of dimension-6 contri- butions will only make the dimension-8 positivity con- straints stronger. Our conclusion thus holds regardless FIG. 1: Positivity constraints on FS,0 ≡ fS,0 and FS,1 ≡ fS,0, of the presence of dimension-6 operators. compared with the CMS results [66]. The green shaded area is allowed by positivity. A specific combination of F and It is worth mentioning that these constraints are dif- S,0 FS,1 roughly rescales the Standard Model distribution, and so ferent from bounds derived from partial-wave unitarity the measurement is insensitive to this direction. [64, 65], in that they require unitarity of the UV the- ory, not the low energy effective theory, and additionally require other fundamental principles such as analyticity of the amplitude. In VBS, partial-wave unitarity leads to bounds on the sizes of f (6)/Λ2 or f (8)/Λ4, while the positivity bounds are on the dimensionless coefficients, and lead to constraints on possible directions of SM de- viations. These constraints are always complementary to the unitarity bounds and experimental limits. Physics implication.— We now describe the physics implications of our positivity constraints on VBS pro- cesses. First, let us turn on one operator at a time. Most experimental results are presented as limits on individ- ual operators, assuming all others vanish. As shown in [11], these limits are symmetric or nearly symmetric. In Table I we list our positivity constraints on individual FIG. 2: Positivity constraints on α and α , compared with operators. We can see that, while fM,2 and fM,4 are free 4 5 of such constraints, all other coefficients are bounded at the ATLAS results [67–69]. The green shaded area is allowed least from one side. This implies that half of the experi- by positivity. The difference between the expected limits and the observed ones are due to fluctuations in the observed mentally allowed regions do not lead to a UV completion. events. In addition, fM,0, fM,5, fT,5 and fT,7 cannot individually take any nonzero values. fM,0 is forbidden because the same-sign and opposite-sign WW scattering amplitudes LAS on α4 and α5. The latter parameters are defined give inconsistent constraints, while fM,5 is forbidden be- in the nonlinear formulation, but the conversion to the cause WW and WZ scattering amplitudes give incon- linear case is straightforward [48]: sistent constraints. Similar situations occur for fT,5 and fT,7. This implies that no UV theory could generate any of the four coefficients alone. We will show that these v4 f + f v4 f α = S,0 S,2 , α = S,1 , (11) conditions can be relaxed once other coefficients are al- 4 16 Λ4 5 16 Λ4 lowed to take nonzero values. However, the one-operator- with fS,0 = fS,2. (12) at-a-time scenario already illustrates that the positivity constraints have drastic impacts on the presentation and In Figures 1 and 2, we overlay our corresponding posi- interpretation of experimental results. tivity constraints on top of the two-dimensional contour Now let us turn on two operators simultaneously. Two- plots obtained by both experimental groups. We can see operator constraints have been presented by CMS, on that most of the currently allowed areas are excluded. coefficients FS,0 ≡ fS,0 and FS,1 ≡ fS,0 (see Eq. (7) for In other words, only a very small fraction of the allowed relations between the F and f coefficients), and by AT- parameter space could lead to a UV completion. 5

the relative precision achieved on each operator, but we do not expect changes of order of magnitude. Therefore 0 we conclude that our positivity constraints reduce the allowed parameter space by almost two orders of magni- tude. fM,1 -1 Summary.— VBS processes at the LHC and fu- -5 ture colliders are among the most important measure- 0 f ments that probe the mechanism of electroweak symme- -2 M,5 try breaking. We have derived a new set of constraints -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 5 on the 18 QGC coefficients in the SMEFT approach to fM,0 1.0 VBS processes, by requiring that the EFT has a UV com- pletion. These constraints show that the current SMEFT formalism for the VBS processes have a huge redundancy: FIG. 3: Positivity constraints on fM,0, fM,1, and fM,5. ∼ 98% of the entire parameter space spanned by 18 co- efficients are unphysical and do not lead to a UV com- pletion. We are not aware of any constraints assuming three operators are present simultaneously. Nevertheless, for This observation provides guidance to future VBS illustration, in Figure 3 we present our constraints on studies. Theoretical studies, in particular those which employ a bottom-up approach, are advised to keep the three coefficients, fM,0, fM,1, and fM,5. We can see that the allowed region has the shape of a pyramid. Mani- positivity constraints satisfied and avoid choosing un- festly, f and f cannot take nonzero values alone, physical benchmark parameters. Experimental strategies M,0 M,5 can be further optimized towards the remaining ∼ 2% of but this is relaxed once fM,1 takes a negative value. This is consistent with our previous observation. the QGC parameter space. According to the positivity Finally, a model-independent SMEFT should always constraints, most existing limits that are symmetric can take into account all operators. An interesting question really be presented as one-sided limits; also, individual to ask in this case is the following. Suppose future ex- limits on fM,0, fM,5, fT,5 and fT,7 do not have a clear periments at the LHC and even future colliders will col- physical meaning. It is worthwhile for future VBS mea- lect sufficient data to derive the global constraints on 18 surements to take into account the positivity constraints, operators. How large is the impact of the positivity con- as they significantly modify the prior probability densi- straints? ties of the QGC coefficients by excluding unphysical val- To simplify the problem, assume that all 18 operators ues, and therefore could also affect the resulting limits. are constrained in the interval −δ < fi < δ without any correlations. The allowed region in the 18-dimensional parameter space will be approximately a 18-ball with ra- dius δ. The fraction of its volume that satisfies all posi- I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tivity constraints is independent of δ, because all the pos- itivity constraints are linear inequalities (see Eqs. (19)- We would like to thank Minxin Huang, Ken Mimasu, (25)). As we showed previously, once the dim-6 contribu- Andrew Tolley, Eleni Vryonidou and Zhi-Guang Xiao tions are included, they merely provide stronger bounds, for helpful discussions. CZ is supported by IHEP under as those additional terms are all negative on the left hand Contract No. Y7515540U1. SYZ acknowledges support side of the inequalities. from the starting grant from University of Science and Using a Monte Carlo integration, we find that this frac- Technology of China under grant No. KY2030000089 tion is ∼ 2.3%. Using more generic complex polarization and is also supported by National Natural Science vectors, this fraction can be further reduced to ∼ 2.1% Foundation of China under grant No. GG2030040375. [71]. In practice, this specific number will depend on 6

APPENDIX

A. QGC operators and positivity bounds

The 18 dimension-8 QGC operators discussed in this work are defined as follows:

† µ † ν OS,0 = [(DµΦ) Dν Φ] × [(D Φ) D Φ] † µ † ν h i h i OS,1 = [(DµΦ) D Φ] × [(Dν Φ) D Φ] µν αβ OT,0 = Tr Wˆ µν Wˆ × Tr Wˆ αβWˆ † ν † µ OS,2 = [(DµΦ) Dν Φ] × [(D Φ) D Φ] h i h i h i O = Tr Wˆ Wˆ µβ × Tr Wˆ Wˆ αν ˆ ˆ µν  † β  T,1 αν µβ OM,0 = Tr Wµν W × (DβΦ) D Φ h i h i h i O = Tr Wˆ Wˆ µβ × Tr Wˆ Wˆ να ˆ ˆ νβ  † µ  T,2 αµ βν OM,1 = Tr Wµν W × (DβΦ) D Φ h i h i O = Tr Wˆ Wˆ µν × Bˆ Bˆαβ ˆ ˆµν  † β  T,5 µν αβ (13) OM,2 = Bµν B × (DβΦ) D Φ h i h i O = Tr Wˆ Wˆ µβ × Bˆ Bˆαν ˆ ˆνβ  † µ  T,6 αν µβ OM,3 = Bµν B × (DβΦ) D Φ h i ˆ ˆ µβ ˆ ˆνα h † µ i βν OT,7 = Tr WαµW × Bβν B OM,4 = (DµΦ) Wˆ βν D Φ × Bˆ ˆ ˆµν ˆ ˆαβ h i OT,8 = Bµν B × BαβB † ˆ ν ˆβµ OM,5 = (DµΦ) Wβν D Φ × B µβ να OT,9 = BˆαµBˆ × Bˆβν Bˆ , h † βµ ν i OM,7 = (DµΦ) Wˆ βν Wˆ D Φ where σI 1 Wˆ µν ≡ ig W I,µν , Bˆµν ≡ ig0 Bµν . (14) 2 2 The Lagrangian is

X fiOi L = L + (15) EFT SM Λ4 and we redefine the coefficients:

2 4 FS,i ≡ fS,i,FM,i ≡ e fM,i,FT,i ≡ e fT,i. (16)

The positivity constraints are derived from the crossing symmetric, forward scattering amplitude V1V2 → V1V2, ± where Vi = Z,W , γ, with real polarization vectors:   µ p1 E1  (V1) = a3 , a1, a2, a3 , (17) mV1 mV1   µ p2 E2  (V2) = b3 , b1, b2, b3 , (18) mV2 mV2 where ai, bi are arbitrary real numbers (a3, b3 only for massive vectors). We list below the positivity bounds from each scattering amplitude.

ZZ : 4 2 4 2  8AtW (FS,0 + FS,1 + FS,2) + DtW −tW FM,3 + tW FM,5 − 2FM,1 + FM,7 8 4   4 4   + (B + C) 2tW FT,9 + 4tW FT,7 + 8FT,2 + 8B tW tW FT,8 + 2FT,5 + 2FT,6 + 4FT,0 + 4FT,1 ≥ 0 (19)

W ±W ± : 4 2 2 2 4AsW (2FS,0 + FS,1 + FS,2) − 8EsW FM,0 − 2(E + F )sW FM,1 + F sW FM,7 + (4B + 6C)FT,2 + 16BFT,0 + 24BFT,1 ≥ 0 (20)

W ±W ∓ : 7

4 2 2 2 4AsW (2FS,0 + FS,1 + FS,2) − 2(G − E)sW FM,1 + 8EsW FM,0 + GsW FM,7 + (4B + 6C)FT,2 + 16BFT,0 + 24BFT,1 ≥ 0 (21)

W ±Z : 2 4 2 2  2 4 2  4AcW tW (FS,0 + FS,2) + tW D − HsW (FM,7 − 2FM,1) − HcW tW tW FM,3 + FM,5 4  4  + 4B tW FT,6 + 4FT,1 + C tW FT,7 + 4FT,2 ≥ 0 (22)

Zγ :  4 2 2 2 2 2 4  B 32cW (FT,0 + FT,1) − 16cW sW FT,5 + 4(cW − sW ) FT,6 − FT,7 + 8sW FT,8  2 2 2 4 4  2 2 + (B + C) (cW − sW ) FT,7 + 8cW FT,2 + 2sW FT,9 − HcW sW (2FM,1 + FM,3 + FM,5 − FM,7) ≥ 0 (23)

W ±γ : 2 4B (4FT,1 + FT,6) + C (4FT,2 + FT,7) − HsW (2FM,1 + FM,3 − FM,5 − FM,7) ≥ 0 (24)

γγ :

(B + C) (4FT,2 + 2FT,7 + FT,9) + 4B (4FT,0 + 4FT,1 + 2FT,5 + 2FT,6 + FT,8) ≥ 0, (25) where

sW ≡ sin θW , cW ≡ cos θW , tW ≡ tan θW , (26)

θW being the weak angle and we have defined

2 2 A ≡ a3b3, E ≡ a3b3 (a1b1 + a2b2) , 2 2 2 B ≡ (a1b1 + a2b2) , F ≡ (a1b3 − a3b1) + (a2b3 − a3b2) , (27) 2 2 2 2 2 2 C ≡ a1 + a2 b1 + b2 , G ≡ (a3b1 + a1b3) + (a3b2 + a2b3) , 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 D ≡ a3 b1 + b2 + a1 + a2 b3, H ≡ a3 b1 + b2 .

The above constraints must hold for arbitrary real values of ai and bi. More general positivity bounds can be obtained by considering generic complex polarizations [71]. For completeness, we also give the dimension-6 contributions to the positivity inequalities in the Warsaw basis:

WZ : 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 − a3b3sW cW (cW CϕD + 4sW CϕW B) − 36(a1b1 + a2b2) e sW cW CW + dim-8 terms ≥ 0 (28) WW : 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 − a3b3sW cW CϕD − e cW 36sW (a1b1 + a2b2) CW + dim-8 terms ≥ 0 (29) W γ : 2 2 − (a1b1 + a2b2) CW + dim-8 terms ≥ 0 (30)

Other channels do not lead to dimension-6 contributions in the results. As we can see, the dimension-6 contributions to the left-hand side of the positivity conditions are negative definite.

B. SM loop contribution

Here, we compute explicitly the SM loop contribution in the γγ channel as an example, and show that it is negligible once the low energy discontinuities are subtracted out, as in the r.h.s. of the dispersion relation in Eq. (4). This is most easily done using Eq. (5), where one can see that the remaining contribution of the SM loops comes from the discontinuities at energies scales higher than Λ, where the integrand of the dispersion relation decays as either 1/s2 3 or 1/s . More explicitly, the one loop SM contribution to fΛ can be computed via the optical theorem using the tree 8 level total cross section γγ → X: Z ∞ sm,γγ sm,γγ 2ds ImAab (s) fab,Λ (0) = 3 (Λ)2 π s Z ∞ q 2ds 2 2 X sm = 3 (s − M+)(s − M−) σab (γγ → X)(s), (31) 2 πs (Λ) X where we have restricted to the crossing symmetric amplitudes with a = (a1, a2, a3) and b = (b1, b2, b3) denoting the polarizations. X stands for possible final states in the SM, which at the tree level includes γγ → ff¯ (fermion and anti-fermion) and γγ → W +W −. To leading order in (Λ)−2 they are given respectively by

2 W W,γγ 16α  2 2 2 2  −4 fab,Λ (0) = 2 2 a1 + a2 b1 + b2 + O (Λ) (32) (Λ) mW and

2 " 2 # ff,γγ 4 2α 2 2 2 2 (Λ) 2 2 2 2 2  −6 fab,Λ (0) =NcQ 4 2 a1 + a2 b1 + b2 log 2 + (a1 + a2)(b1 + b2) − 4(a1b1 − a2b2) + O (Λ) . (33) (Λ) mf The energy scales that are probed at the LHC for the most constraining high mass VV pairs are around 1.5-2 TeV [8, 70], so we expect the EFT to be valid up to this scale and take Λ = 2 TeV. Therefore the dominant contribution + − W W,γγ −4 comes from the γγ → W W scattering, which gives fab,Λ (0) = 0.038 TeV with |a| and |b| normalized to 1. In comparison, the typical contributions to fΛ from the dim-8 EFT operators are much larger. In the convention 4 of [49, 51] which is often used in experimental analyses, their typical contributions are of order fi/Λ . The current 4 limits on fi span a few orders of magnitude, but even the most constraining ones are around O(1)(Λ/TeV) . So the EFT contribution from each operator is expected to be around O(1) TeV−4, which means the SM contribution to γγ −4 fab,Λ is negligible. For example, in the γγ(a k b) channel the largest contribution is from fT,8, which gives 9.7 TeV , −4 and the smallest one comes from fT,2, which gives 0.10 TeV . All other contributions vary within this range.

C. t-channel poles

In the derivation of the improved positivity bounds, the photon t-channel poles, which blow up in the forward limit, are subtracted along with other low energy poles. Here we explain why this is justified despite of the forward limit blow-ups. Consider BΛ(sp) defined in Eq. (4). The WW → WW channels (and only the WW → WW channels) contain a tree level t-channel photon exchange diagram, which leads to a t-channel pole in the forward limit. However, extended analyticity and other arguments allow one to derive the positivity bound away from the forward limit for t = δ and we can take δ to be small, as a regulator. (Technically speaking, the non-forward positivity bounds will generically have additional terms away from definite transversity scatterings; however, these terms are suppressed by at least δ1/2 as δ → 0.) In the SMEFT, the residue of the t-channel pole has up to linear s dependence. Thus the tree level t-channel 2 2 pole will vanish after twice subtractions, i.e., after taking d BΛ(sp)/ds , and would not affect the positivity bounds as we take the δ → 0 limit. The remaining t-pole contribution may show up in loop diagrams and can also be subtracted via the cutting rules, again not affecting the positivity bounds. Consider the optical theorem for the WW → WW channels 2 2 1/2 ImA(s) = [(s − M−)(s − M+)] σt(s) > 0. (34)

The r.h.s. can hit a t-channel pole only when σt(s) contains the elastic scattering σWW →WW (s) channels, which receives contribution from one or more t-channel photons. If the BSM theory is weakly coupled, according to the Cutkosky rules, these channels correspond to the sum of all diagrams with a WW cut on the l.h.s., which we denote WW by A (s) and σWW (s), that is, WW 2 2 1/2 ImA (s) = [(s − M−)(s − M+)] σWW (s) > 0. (35) AWW (s) corresponds to at least one-loop diagrams, so away from the forward limit it is a higher-order effect. We want to make sure that AWW (s) does not spoil the analyticity or become larger than the tree level, as t → 0. To this end, we subtract the WW → WW channels from both sides of the optical theorem: WW  2 2 1/2 Im A(s) − A (s) = [(s − M−)(s − M+)] σWW(s) > 0, (36) 9

WW where σWW(s) is the sum of cross sections of all channels but WW → WW . Note that A (s) also generates additional contributions to the l.h.s. from non WW cut in addition to the WW cut, which need to be removed from the l.h.s., but this does not affect the final result as these contributions are higher-order effects without a t pole. WW We can then define BΛ(s) using A(s) − A (s) instead of A(s), and arrive at formally the same positivity bound. 2 2 With the t-channel poles canceled out, the calculation of d BΛ(sp)/ ds at the tree level is not affected, because the non-singular parts of AWW (s) are at least one loop suppressed. Therefore, the t-channel poles can all be canceled out and our results are unchanged to leading order. In fact, for a weakly coupled UV completion, effective operators are matched on to the leading-order BSM amplitude. This is because this leading-order BSM amplitude can only involve heavy particle exchanges or heavy particle loops, and therefore cannot have a t-channel pole. One can derive a dispersion relation for this leading order BSM amplitude directly via the cutting rules (see the discussion around Eq. (3) or for more details see [71]). For example, if the leading order BSM amplitude is at the tree level, given that it satisfies the Froissart bound, we can run the dispersion relation argument with it and use the cutting rules to infer that the imaginary part of it is positive. The same argument applies if the leading order is at a certain loop level. If the BSM theory is strongly coupled, one can circumvent the t-channel pole by taking the g0 → 0 limit, where g0 is the SM hyper-charge coupling. Since g0 is much smaller than the BSM strong coupling, it is expected that the Wilson coefficients, which encode the effects of BSM heavy states, are not significantly altered by this scaling.

[1] Georges Aad et al. Observation of a new particle in the Marco Sekulla. Scattering of W and Z Bosons at High- search for the Standard Model with the AT- Energy Lepton Colliders. Eur. Phys. J., C77(2):120, LAS detector at the LHC. Phys. Lett., B716:1–29, 2012. 2017. [2] Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of a new boson [13] Simon Brass, Christian Fleper, Wolfgang Kilian, Jrgen at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the Reuter, and Marco Sekulla. Transversal Modes and Higgs LHC. Phys. Lett., B716:30–61, 2012. Bosons in Electroweak Vector-Boson Scattering at the [3] Steven Weinberg. Phenomenological Lagrangians. Phys- LHC. 2018. ica, A96(1-2):327–340, 1979. [14] and . Con- [4] W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler. Effective Lagrangian Anal- straints on extra dimensional theories from virtual gravi- ysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation. Nucl. ton exchange. Nucl. Phys., B663:377–393, 2003. Phys., B268:621–653, 1986. [15] Gian F. Giudice, Riccardo Rattazzi, and James D. Wells. [5] Chung Ngoc Leung, S. T. Love, and S. Rao. Low-Energy Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy Manifestations of a New Interaction Scale: Operator colliders. Nucl. Phys., B544:3–38, 1999. Analysis. Z. Phys., C31:433, 1986. [16] Tao Han, Joseph D. Lykken, and Ren-Jie Zhang. On [6] Albert M Sirunyan et al. Observation of electroweak pro- Kaluza-Klein states from . Phys. duction of same-sign W boson pairs in the two jet and Rev., D59:105006, 1999. two same-sign√ lepton final state in proton-proton colli- [17] JoAnne L. Hewett. Indirect collider signals for extra di- sions at s = 13 TeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120(8):081801, mensions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:4765–4768, 1999. 2018. [18] Da Liu, Alex Pomarol, Riccardo Rattazzi, and Francesco [7] Albert M Sirunyan et al. Measurement of electroweak Riva. Patterns of Strong Coupling for LHC Searches. WZ boson production and search for√ new physics in WZ JHEP, 11:141, 2016. + two jets events in pp collisions at s = 13TeV. Phys. [19] John Ellis, Nick E. Mavromatos, and Tevong You. Light- Lett., B795:281–307, 2019. by-Light Scattering Constraint on Born-Infeld Theory. [8] Albert M Sirunyan et al. Measurement of vector bo- Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(26):261802, 2017. son scattering and constraints on anomalous quartic cou- [20] Jose Manuel Davila, Christian Schubert, and Maria An- plings from events with four√ leptons and two jets in abel Trejo. Photonic processes in Born-Infeld theory. protonproton collisions at s = 13 TeV. Phys. Lett., 2013. [Int. J. Mod. Phys.A29,1450174(2014)]. B774:682–705, 2017. [21] P. Azzi et al. Standard Model Physics at the HL-LHC [9] Albert M Sirunyan et al. Search for anomalous elec- and HE-LHC. 2019. troweak production of vector boson pairs in association [22] , Nima Arkani-Hamed, Sergei Dubovsky, Al- with two jets in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. 2019. berto Nicolis, and Riccardo Rattazzi. Causality, analyt- [10] CMS Collaboration. Measurement of electroweak pro- icity and an IR obstruction to UV completion. JHEP, duction of Z gamma in association with two jets in 10:014, 2006. proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV. 2019. [23] T. N. Pham and Tran N. Truong. Evaluation of [11] https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/ the Derivative Quartic Terms of the Meson Chiral La- PhysicsResultsSMPaTGC. grangian From Forward Dispersion Relation. Phys. Rev., [12] Christian Fleper, Wolfgang Kilian, Jurgen Reuter, and D31:3027, 1985. 10

[24] M. R. Pennington and J. Portoles. The Chiral Lagrangian via WW Scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:041601, 2007. parameters, l1, l2, are determined by the rho resonance. [46] Brando Bellazzini, Matthew Lewandowski, and Javi Phys. Lett., B344:399–406, 1995. Serra. Amplitudes’ Positivity, Weak Gravity Conjecture, [25] B. Ananthanarayan, D. Toublan, and G. Wanders. Con- and Modified Gravity. 2019. sistency of the chiral pion pion scattering amplitudes [47] Celine Degrande, Nicolas Greiner, Wolfgang Kilian, with axiomatic constraints. Phys. Rev., D51:1093–1100, Olivier Mattelaer, Harrison Mebane, Tim Stelzer, Scott 1995. Willenbrock, and Cen Zhang. Effective Field Theory: [26] Jordi Comellas, Jose Ignacio Latorre, and Josep Taron. A Modern Approach to Anomalous Couplings. Annals Constraints on chiral perturbation theory parameters Phys., 335:21–32, 2013. from QCD inequalities. Phys. Lett., B360:109–116, 1995. [48] Michael Rauch. Vector-Boson Fusion and Vector-Boson [27] Petre Dita. Positivity constraints on chiral perturba- Scattering. 2016. tion theory pion pion scattering amplitudes. Phys. Rev., [49] O. J. P. Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J. K. D59:094007, 1999. Mizukoshi. p p → j j e+- mu+- nu nu and j j e+- mu- [28] Claudia de Rham, Scott Melville, Andrew J. Tolley, and + nu nu at O( alpha(em)**6) and O(alpha(em)**4 al- Shuang-Yong Zhou. Positivity bounds for scalar field the- pha(s)**2) for the study of the quartic electroweak gauge ories. Phys. Rev., D96(8):081702, 2017. boson vertex at CERN LHC. Phys. Rev., D74:073005, [29] Claudia de Rham, Scott Melville, Andrew J. Tolley, and 2006. Shuang-Yong Zhou. UV complete me: Positivity Bounds [50] Celine Degrande, Oscar Eboli, Bastian Feigl, Barbara for Particles with Spin. JHEP, 03:011, 2018. Jger, Wolfgang Kilian, Olivier Mattelaer, Michael Rauch, [30] Alberto Nicolis, Riccardo Rattazzi, and Enrico Jrgen Reuter, Marco Sekulla, and Doreen Wackeroth. Trincherini. Energy’s and amplitudes’ positivity. Monte Carlo tools for studies of non-standard elec- JHEP, 05:095, 2010. [Erratum: JHEP11,128(2011)]. troweak gauge boson interactions in multi-boson pro- [31] Luca Vecchi. Causal versus analytic constraints on cesses: A Snowmass White Paper. In Proceedings, 2013 anomalous quartic gauge couplings. JHEP, 11:054, 2007. Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Par- [32] Aneesh V. Manohar and Vicent Mateu. Dispersion Rela- ticle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013): tion Bounds for pi pi Scattering. Phys. Rev., D77:094019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29-August 6, 2013, 2013. 2008. [51] O. J. P. boli and M. C. GonzalezGarcia. Classifying the [33] Brando Bellazzini, Luca Martucci, and Riccardo Torre. bosonic quartic couplings. Phys. Rev., D93(9):093013, Symmetries, Sum Rules and Constraints on Effective 2016. Field Theories. JHEP, 09:100, 2014. [52] S. Schael et al. Electroweak Measurements in Electron- [34] Brando Bellazzini. Softness and amplitudes positivity for Positron Collisions at W-Boson-Pair Energies at LEP. spinning particles. JHEP, 02:034, 2017. Phys. Rept., 532:119–244, 2013. [35] Brando Bellazzini, Clifford Cheung, and Grant N. Rem- [53] Anja Butter, Oscar J. P. boli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. men. Quantum Gravity Constraints from Unitarity and Gonzalez-Garcia, Tilman Plehn, and Michael Rauch. The Analyticity. Phys. Rev., D93(6):064076, 2016. Gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I. JHEP, 07:152, [36] Clifford Cheung and Grant N. Remmen. Positive Signs 2016. in Massive Gravity. JHEP, 04:002, 2016. [54] Anke Biektter, Tyler Corbett, and Tilman Plehn. The [37] Clifford Cheung and Grant N. Remmen. Positivity of Gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run II. SciPost Phys., Curvature-Squared Corrections in Gravity. Phys. Rev. 6:064, 2019. Lett., 118(5):051601, 2017. [55] John Ellis, Veronica Sanz, and Tevong You. The Effective [38] Brando Bellazzini, Francesco Riva, Javi Serra, and Standard Model after LHC Run I. JHEP, 03:157, 2015. Francesco Sgarlata. Beyond Positivity Bounds and [56] John Ellis, Christopher W. Murphy, Vernica Sanz, and the Fate of Massive Gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., Tevong You. Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Di- 120(16):161101, 2018. boson and Electroweak Data. JHEP, 06:146, 2018. [39] James Bonifacio, Kurt Hinterbichler, and Rachel A. [57] Christophe Grojean, Marc Montull, and Marc Riembau. Rosen. Positivity constraints for pseudolinear massive Diboson at the LHC vs LEP. JHEP, 03:020, 2019. spin-2 and vector Galileons. Phys. Rev., D94(10):104001, [58] Raquel Gomez-Ambrosio. Studies of Dimension-Six EFT 2016. effects in Vector Boson Scattering. Eur. Phys. J., [40] Claudia de Rham, Scott Melville, Andrew J. Tolley, and C79(5):389, 2019. Shuang-Yong Zhou. Massive Galileon Positivity Bounds. [59] M Sekulla. Anomalous couplings, resonances and unitar- JHEP, 09:072, 2017. ity in vector boson scattering. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Siegen, [41] Brando Bellazzini, Francesco Riva, Javi Serra, and 2015. Francesco Sgarlata. The other effective fermion compos- [60] Daniel R. Green, Patrick Meade, and Marc-Andre Pleier. iteness. JHEP, 11:020, 2017. Multiboson interactions at the LHC. Rev. Mod. Phys., [42] Claudia de Rham, Scott Melville, Andrew J. Tolley, and 89(3):035008, 2017. Shuang-Yong Zhou. Positivity Bounds for Massive Spin-1 [61] Marcel Froissart. Asymptotic behavior and subtractions and Spin-2 Fields. 2018. in the Mandelstam representation. Phys. Rev., 123:1053– [43] James Bonifacio and Kurt Hinterbichler. Bounds on Am- 1057, 1961. plitudes in Effective Theories with Massive Spinning Par- [62] Claudia de Rham, Scott Melville, and Andrew J. Tolley. ticles. 2018. Improved Positivity Bounds and Massive Gravity. JHEP, [44] Brando Bellazzini and Francesco Riva. ZZ and Zγ still 04:083, 2018. haven’t found what they are looking for. 2018. [63] B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek. [45] Jacques Distler, Benjamin Grinstein, Rafael A. Porto, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian. and Ira Z. Rothstein. Falsifying Models of New Physics JHEP, 10:085, 2010. 11

[64] Tyler Corbett, O. J. P. boli, and M. C. Gonzalez- production and search for new physics in pp collisions at Garcia. Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-Six Oper- sqrt(s) = 13 TeV. 2018. ators. Phys. Rev., D91(3):035014, 2015. [71] Qi Bi, Cen Zhang, and Shuang-Yong Zhou. Positivity [65] Tyler Corbett, O. J. P. boli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia. constraints on aQGC: carving out the physical parameter Unitarity Constraints on Dimension-six Operators II: In- space. 2019. cluding Fermionic Operators. Phys. Rev., D96(3):035006, [72] Adam Falkowski, Slava Rychkov, and Alfredo Urbano. 2017. What if the Higgs couplings to W and Z bosons are larger [66] Vardan Khachatryan et al. Study of vector boson than in the Standard Model? JHEP, 04:073, 2012. scattering and search for new physics in events with [73] Ian Low, Riccardo Rattazzi, and Alessandro Vichi. The- two same-sign leptons and two jets. Phys. Rev. Lett., oretical Constraints on the Higgs Effective Couplings. 114(5):051801, 2015. JHEP, 04:126, 2010. [67] Morad Aaboud et al. Search for anomalous electroweak [74] Under certain model-dependent assumptions, this ap- production of W W/W Z in association√ with a high-mass proach can have implications on Higgs operators at dijet system in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV with the dimension-6 [33, 72, 73]. ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev., D95(3):032001, 2017. [75] Strictly speaking, the Froissart bound applies to scat- [68] Morad Aaboud et al. Measurement of W ±W ± vector- terings where the external states are massive. Here we boson scattering and limits on anomalous quartic gauge assume that this bound also applies to cases where exter- couplings with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev., nal states are all massless such as the photon scattering. D96(1):012007, 2017. One may take the view that the photon has a very small ± [69] Georges Aad et al. Measurements√ of W Z production mass. Since the extra degree of freedom associated with cross sections in pp collisions at s = 8 TeV with the the mass can smoothly decouple as we take the mass- ATLAS detector and limits on anomalous gauge boson less limit, this procedure does not actually affect the γγ self-couplings. Phys. Rev., D93(9):092004, 2016. positivity bounds. [70] CMS Collaboration. Measurement of electroweak WZ