Arxiv:2103.13396V2 [Hep-Ph] 21 May 2021 2 4Πmx 32Π Λa ≈ 2 , (2) Typically Non-Conservation of the Currents Comes from Gx G Either Anomalies Or Mass Terms

Bounds on Gauge Bosons Coupled to Non-conserved Currents

Majid Ekhterachian,1, ∗ Anson Hook,1, † Soubhik Kumar,2, 3, ‡ and Yuhsin Tsai4, § 1Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. 2Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 3Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 4Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA We discuss new bounds on vectors coupled to currents whose non-conservation is due to mass

terms, such as U(1)Lµ−Lτ . Due to the emission of many ﬁnal state longitudinally polarized gauge bosons, inclusive rates grow exponentially fast in energy, leading to constraints that are only log- arithmically dependent on the symmetry breaking mass term. This exponential growth is unique to Stueckelberg theories and reverts back to polynomial growth at energies above the mass of the radial mode. We present bounds coming from the high transverse mass tail of mono-lepton+missing transverse energy events at the LHC, which beat out cosmological bounds to place the strongest

limit on Stueckelberg U(1)Lµ−Lτ models for most masses below a keV. We also discuss a stronger, but much more uncertain, bound coming from the validity of perturbation theory at the LHC.

INTRODUCTION limit of gauge theories1 as including the radial mode ren- ders mass terms gauge invariant. A Stueckelberg theory coupled to a non-conserved current can have inclusive Recently, new light weakly coupled particles have in- rates that grow exponentially fast in energy due to multi- creasingly become a focus as either a mediator to a dark particle emission [31]. This exponential growth is unique sector [1–3], as dark matter itself [4–8], or to explain to the Stueckelberg limit and becomes polynomial at en- potential anomalies [9–14]. A particularly well moti- ergies above the mass of the radial mode. vated candidate is a vector boson. The currents that The exponential growth of amplitudes in these models these vector bosons couple to can either be conserved, gives extremely strong unitarity bounds [31]. Redoing e.g. U(1)B−L with Dirac neutrino masses, or they can the unitarity bound using our conventions, we find be non-conserved, e.g. U(1) or U(1) . L Lµ−Lτ 4πm m Λ ≈ √ X log3/2 X , (1) In this letter we will continue a long line of research 27gX gX m into the bounds that can be placed on vector bosons cou- where gX and mX are respectively the coupling and the pled to non-conserved currents, see e.g. Refs. [15–22]. As mass of the gauge boson, and m is the symmetry breaking is well known, these models are non-renormalizable field mass term. To show how strong this unitarity bound is, theories and as a result have amplitudes that grow with let us consider the Stueckelberg limit of U(1)Lµ . Typ- energy. Eventually these amplitudes grow so large that ically one assumes that the strongest unitarity bound tree level amplitudes violate unitarity at the energy scale on this model comes from the fact that this current is Λ, indicating that perturbation theory has broken down. anomalous. Redoing the unitarity bound (for details see Requiring that new physics appears below the scale Λ the Supplementary Material) using our conventions leads gives the unitarity bound. Unitarity bounds have a long to a slightly stronger result than the standard result [15] storied history, see e.g. Refs. [23–26], and the famous application to the Higgs boson [27–30]. √ arXiv:2103.13396v2 [hep-ph] 21 May 2021 2 4πmX 32π Λa ≈ 2 , (2) Typically non-conservation of the currents comes from gX g either anomalies or mass terms. In the first case, am- where g is the SU(2) gauge coupling. Comparing this plitudes involving longitudinal modes are enhanced [15]. W with Eq. (1) taking m /g ' 1 GeV, motivated by our Later, Ref. [19, 20] showed that this enhancement led to X X later results, and m ' 0.05 eV, as the mass of the neu- strong constraints on anomalous gauge theories. In the trino, we find that Λ ∼ Λ /10. This shows that despite second case, inclusive amplitudes were shown to exhibit a the extremely small neutrino mass, its non-zero value exponential growth [31]. We will show that this expo- still gives a unitarity bound almost an order of magni- nential growth leads to very strong constraints on these tude more stringent than the anomaly does! Thus before theories.

In this letter we will focus on the case of currents that are not conserved due to mass terms. Specifying this 1 The Stueckelberg limit is when the mass of the radial mode is starting point locks us into considering the Stueckelberg taken to be heavier than the energy scale under consideration. 2 considering moving to an anomaly free theory such as diﬀerent techniques3. In order to demonstrate the ex-

U(1)Lµ−Lτ , one should first UV complete the symmetry ponential growth of amplitudes, we will consider the toy breaking neutrino mass terms. In contrast, for a Hig- scenario of a gauge boson coupled to only the left handed gsed U(1)Lµ one can naturally have the exact opposite piece of a Dirac fermion ν, whose current is not conserved scenario where Λa Λ. due to explicit breaking by a small Dirac mass term mν . Unitarity in these models is restored by the inclusion of Namely we consider a theory with the radial mode. However in these UV completions, the 1 2 1 2 2 small fermion mass is the result of a higher dimensional L = − F + iν ∂/ − igX A/ PL ν − mν νν + m A , 4 X X 2 X X operator so that scattering of the radial mode has its own (4) unitarity bound. Constraints on the UV completion are where FX is the field strength of the gauge boson AX . fairly model dependent, however since it is likely that the In the limit of small mν , the scale at which perturbation UV completion only couples to the SM via the neutrino theory breaks down, Λ, is much larger than the mass of mass term, bounds on it are plausibly fairly weak. On the gauge bosons. In this limit, things simplify as the the other hand, for Stueckelberg gauge bosons we obtain high energy behavior of AX can be obtained from the robust, model-independent bounds that do not rely on Goldstone boson equivalence theorem. Namely, the ma- the dynamics of the radial mode. While these bounds can L trix element obeys M(AX + ··· ) ≈ M(φ + ··· ), where be evaded by going away from the Stueckelberg limit by L AX is a longitudinally polarized AX and φ is the Gold- including the radial mode at sufficiently low energies, the stone boson. radial mode should then be taken into account whenever We obtain the theory with Goldstone bosons by leav- processes at energies larger than its mass are studied. ing unitarity gauge via a chiral gauge transformation, In this letter we will focus on gauge bosons cou- νL → exp(igX φ/mX )νL. As the mass term is not gauge pled to the lepton number currents, which are only invariant, it transforms into non-conserved because of the extremely small neutrino n X mν igX PLφ masses. To find explicit bounds, we consider the total V = m νeigX PLφ/mX ν = ν ν. (5) ν n! m decay width of the W boson and the high transverse n X mass tail of mono-lepton+MET (missing transverse en- From this, it is clear that the theory is non- ergy) events at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The renormalizable and has a UV cutoff. The Goldstone bo- bounds we obtain are essentially independent of what son equivalence theorem lets us compute the probability the exact model under consideration is, thus in the intro- of emitting many longitudinal gauge bosons by calculat- duction we will only list our bounds on U(1) with Lµ−Lτ ing the much simpler process of emitting many φ particles Dirac neutrino masses. A somewhat uncertain bound of using the above interaction. m /g 24 GeV comes from requiring that physics is X X & As one can see, considering processes involving n φs perturbative at the LHC. We also find n gives a matrix element ∼ mν (gX E/mX ) that becomes mX mX more and more insensitive to the small mass parame- > 1.3 GeV; > 54 MeV (3) ter m as n becomes larger and larger. This causes the gX gX ν best unitarity bound to come from taking n larger and coming from mono-lepton+MET events at the LHC and larger. However, in the large n limit, the 1/n! coming the total decay width of the W boson respectively. In from dealing with identical final state particles penalizes the high mass limit, this is only a factor of ∼ 100 weaker taking n too large. Thus the optimal unitarity bound than the extremely precise measurements of the g − 2 comes from taking an intermediate value of the number of the muon [32, 33]. Meanwhile for mX . 1 keV, this of gauge bosons nopt. is the strongest constraint on these models beating out A calculation done in the Supplementary Materials even cosmological bounds2. shows that the amplitude Mˆ of the process ν + n φ → ν + n φ is |Mˆ (ν + n φ → ν + n φ)| = UNITARITY BOUND g m g E 2n−1 X ν X (6) 2m (n + 1)!n!(n − 1)! 4πm In this section, we derive the unitarity bound on these X X models, which was also done in Ref. [31] using slightly in the limit that E n mX . Unitarity requires that |Mˆ | < 1. In order to obtain the strongest bounds, we

2 3 If the gauge boson instead coupled to Le, the strongest bounds We use a slightly different definition of the unitarity bound and at low mass are from neutrino oscillations in the earth [34] and we consider the process ν+n φ → ν+n φ rather than ν+ν → n φ, −16 it is only for masses mX . 10 eV that our bounds win out. which leads to stronger unitarity bounds. 3 choose the n that maximizes Eq. (6) to obtain in the From this, we see that any 1-flavor process involving n large n limit high energy gauge bosons can be converted into the 3- flavor result by replacing g E 2/3 gX mν 3 X |Mˆ (ν + n φ → ν + n φ)| ∼ e 4πmX .(7) opt opt 2m 3 X 2 X 2 2 2 mν → |Uµj| + |Uτj| mj . (10) This maximum value of |Mˆ | is obtained for nopt ≈ j=1 (g E/4πm )2/3. Requiring unitarity holds for Eq. (7) X X The other gauge theory we will consider is U(1) with gives the leading logarithmic behavior L Majorana neutrino masses. In this case, after leaving 4πm m unitary gauge the mass term is E = Λ ≈ √ X log3/2 X . (8) 27g gX mν M 2igX φ/mX T X Lν mass = e νM MdνM + h.c. (11) From this calculation we see the behavior claimed From this, the 1-flavor results can be generalized using in the introduction. Amplitudes have an exponential the substitution growth in energy and the strongest growth comes from 3 emitting multiple gauge bosons. In this calculation, we 2 X X 2 2 gX → 2 gX , m → |Ulj| m . (12) made the approximation that the energy carried by each ν j l=e,µ,τ j=1 of the AX gauge bosons is much larger than the mass when we utilized the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem. Combining the expression for nopt with Eq. (8) CONSTRAINTS and the requirement that E nopt mX , we find that our massless approximation of the unitarity bound is p We now present exclusions coming from the emission valid when gX . 4π log(mX /gX mν )/3. In the large of many final state gauge bosons. We will consider three log limit, the massless limit is always a valid approxima- different constraints coming from the total decay width tion. of the W boson, the tail of high transverse mass mono- lepton+MET events, and a rough estimate of when perturbativity breaks down at the LHC. Our results will be MODELS presented in the simplified 1-flavor model. Eq. (10) and Eq. (12) can be used to convert the results into the two We now briefly describe the models under considera- specific models of interest. In particular, in Fig.1 and tion and set up some notation. The results in the next Fig.2 we show the results after incorporating the full section will be given in the 1-flavor approximation so we 3-flavor set-up. will also discuss how to easily take into account the stan- W Boson decay : We will consider the partial decay dard 3-flavor set up. For ease of expression, in this section width of the W boson into leptons and n gauge bosons we will use Weyl notation for fermions. − − As mentioned before, we will be considering the Γn(W → L + ν + n AX ). (13) Stueckelberg limit of different U(1) gauge theories. We The constraint we will impose is that the sum of these first consider U(1) . We assume Dirac neutrinos Lµ−Lτ decay widths is less than the total decay width and that the right-handed neutrinos are neutral under L − L . The flavor basis is related to the mass basis by ∞ µ τ X νF = UνM , where νF (νM ) are the flavor (mass) basis ΓBSM ≡ Γn < ΓW . (14) left handed neutrinos and U is the PMNS matrix. In the n=2 flavor basis the neutrino mass term is νcM U †ν where d F For simplicity we will take n ≥ 2 to avoid the soft diver- M is a diagonal matrix of the neutrino masses m . d 1,2,3 gence. To leave unitary gauge, the flavor-basis SM neutrinos are Using the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem, we rotated by, find the result to leading order in mν to be +igX φ/mX −igX φ/mX 2 2 νF → P νF P = diag 1, e , e . (9) g2mν 4 2 ΓBSM = x 2F4({1, 1}, {2, 3, 3, 5}, x ) (15) 1536πMW Thus the neutrino mass term involving the Goldstone gX MW where x = and pFq is the generalized hypergeo- bosons φ becomes 4πmX metric function. In the limit of large argument, it sim- D c † Lν mass = ν MdU P νF + h.c. plifies as n X 1 igX φ c † n † √ ⊃ ν M U ν + (−1) U ν . 16 3 2/3 n! m j d,j jµ µ jτ τ F ({1, 1}, {2, 3, 3, 5}, x2) ≈ e3x (16) n,j X 2 4 πx20/3 4

10-3 10-3 10-2 10-2

10-6 10-6

10-9 10-9

10-12 10-12

-3 -3 10-15 10-15 10 10

10-18 10-18

10-21 10-21

10-24 10-24

-4 -4 -22 -19 -16 -13 -10 -7 -4 -1 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10-2 10-1 100

Figure 1. Low mass constraints on a Stueckelberg U(1)Lµ−Lτ Figure 2. High mass constraints on a Stueckelberg U(1)Lµ−Lτ gauge boson with Dirac neutrino masses. The purple region gauge boson with Dirac neutrino masses. The solid and dot- shows the constraint derived in Eq. (19) coming from the high dashed purple lines are the same as in Fig.1. Other con- transverse mass tail of mono-lepton+MET events at the LHC. straints are from: ∆Neff during BBN due to thermalization The dot-dashed purple line denotes the constraint obtained of AX and entropy dump during its decay [35, 40, 41] (solid: from demanding the validity of perturbation theory at the TRH > 4 MeV, see e.g. [42, 43]; dashed: TRH > 10 MeV), neu- LHC, given by Eq. (20). Other constraints are from: ∆Neff trino trident process at the CCFR experiment [44, 45], and a + − + − + − during BBN through thermalized AX [35], black hole super- search for e e → µ µ AX ,AX → µ µ at BaBar [46]. In radiance (BHSR) instability [36], rare K decays [22], ∆Neff the shaded green region, the muon (g − 2) anomaly [47, 48] through νν → AX AX [22, 35], constraints on ν decay through can be explained by AX at 2σ [9, 49]. terrestrial experiments [22, 37, 38]. We also update the cosmological constraints on ν decay as discussed in the main text, based on the recent result of Ref. [39]. Given the ν de- ing the high transverse mass tail of mono-lepton+MET cay bounds from cosmology are model-dependent and can be 4 relaxed, we show it via dashed lines. events . We obtain a bound by requiring that this suppression is small enough that the suppression was not observed in Ref. [51]. showing the exponential growth of the amplitudes men- At high energies, the propagator of the W boson is tioned earlier. given by Bounds are obtained by requiring that this decay width i is smaller than the total decay width of the W boson. 2 Im(Σ(s)) = MW ΓW (s), (17) s − MW + Σ(s) For U(1)Lµ−Lτ (U(1)L) we find that mX /gX > 54 MeV (mX /gX > 108 MeV). Because of the exponential, our where the earlier calculation of the decay width of the W results are insensitive to the details with which we con- boson gives strain the model. For example, requiring that this decay −6 g2m2 width is smaller than 10 of the total decay width of M Γ (s) = 2 ν x4 F ({1, 1}, {2, 3, 3, 5}, x2) (18) the W boson (roughly 1 over the number of W bosons W W 1536π 2 4 produced at LEP) tightens the above U(1)L −L bound √ µ τ gX s with x = . When s MW ΓW (s), mono- to 76 MeV. 4πmX mono-lepton+MET events : In the next two sub- lepton+MET production is highly suppressed. sections, we will discuss bounds that stem from the Ref. [51] observes the high MT tail of the mono- 5 breaking of perturbativity at the LHC. From the decay lepton+MET events to be the√ expected SM result when of the W boson, we see that we are faced with a theory MT . 2 TeV. Given MT ≤ s by definition, it implies which is becoming dominated by a large number of fi- that at center of mass energies of at least 2 TeV, we do not nal state particles. For black holes [50], when the cross see any deviation from the SM expectation. The observed ? section becomes dominated by a large number of final events dominantly come from pp → W → lν. The off- states, the cross section for s-channel two-to-two scatter- shell W contribution would be suppressed by at least a ing becomes highly suppressed. The non-observation of this suppression leads to a constraint. As illustrated below, it is plausible that a similar feature exists in our case 4 Perturbation theory has broken down when this occurs, so that when perturbation theory breaks down our calculation is only really an estimate of what happens in the The case that we will consider is pp → W ? → lν via an full non-perturbative theory. 5 The transverse mass MT is defined as MT = off-shell W boson. At high enough energies, the tree level q 2pl pmiss(1 − cos ∆φ), where ∆φ is the azimuthal angle off-shell width of the W boson becomes larger than the T T l miss momentum flowing through the propagator, suppress- between ~pT and ~pT . 5 √ factor of 2 if 2s = MW ΓW (s) and would have been ∆Neff constraints, we take TRH < mµ. Additionally, in observed for√ any MT . 2 TeV. We obtain a bound by re- both figures we have neglected constraints coming from a quiring that 2s & MW ΓW (s) at 2 TeV. For U(1)Lµ−Lτ possible coupling to electrons as those bounds are model we find that dependent and can be avoided.

mX /gX > 1.3 GeV. (19) UV COMPLETION For U(1)L with Majorana masses we find mX /gX > 2.6 GeV. Unitarity in the emission of gauge bosons can be re- Calculability : The next bound we place is that per- stored by introducing the radial mode. To see the behav- turbation theory at the LHC is valid. This is necessarily a ior of a UV completion, we consider a complex scalar Φ somewhat fuzzy bound because the breakdown of pertur- with charge 1 and give the neutrinos a charge q = gX /g so bation theory is not very well defined. For example, the that the coupling of AX to neutrinos is given by gX while unitarity bound derived in Ref. [31] is weaker than ours the coupling of AX to Φ is given by g. The symmetry by a factor of ∼ 3 indicating that different techniques breaking mass term comes from the higher dimensional give O(1) different estimates of when perturbation the- operator ory breaks down. However, it is undeniable that we can calculate observables at the LHC and so perturbation yΦq y vf q V = HLνc m = , (21) theory must be valid. Λ0q ν Λ0q We will use the unitarity bounds given in Eq. (8) as which gives the standard neutrino mass term after Φ ob- an order of magnitude estimate for when perturbation tains a vev f. The radial mode can be partially decoupled theory breaks down. The highest center of mass energy by taking g → 0 and q, f → ∞ while holding m = gf collision at the LHC was one that had a center of mass X and gX = qg constant. This limit attempts to decouple energy of ∼ 8 TeV [52]. Requiring that LHC processes the radial mode m f but at the same time sends the are calculable at a center of mass energy of 8 TeV gives Φ . symmetry breaking mass term to zero, mν → 0. Thus, the constraint when the neutrino mass is non-zero, the radial mode can- m /g 24 GeV (20) not be decoupled. X X & Using Eq. (21), one can show that the unitarity bound Λ satisfies for U(1)Lµ−Lτ . As mentioned before, the breakdown of perturbation theory is a somewhat nebulous concept and 4πmX 3/2 mX thus this bound should be considered as only an esti- Λ ≈ √ log > mΦ (22) 27g gX mν mate of where the bound coming from the breakdown of X perturbation theory must lie. showing that unitarity did indeed predict the correct An astute reader will notice that the previous bounds scale of new physics in these models. In this UV the- are actually slightly weaker than the unitarity bound ory, one can easily show that scattering involving gauge found using their relevant energy scales. As our pre- bosons no longer grows. However, the price is that scat- vious bounds came from tree level calculations, they re- tering involving Φ does grow. Thus this UV completion quires that perturbation theory is valid. As such, strictly will itself require a UV completion at the scale Λ0. As speaking, they only apply if the stronger calculability this particular higher dimensional operator is identical to constraint has misestimated the breakdown of perturba- those seen in Froggatt–Nielsen models [56], its UV com- tion theory by a factor of few. pletion proceeds along a manner completely analogous to We show our constraints visually in Fig.1 and Fig.2 those models and will not be expounded upon here. for U(1)Lµ−Lτ . We take normal ordering of the neutrino It is worth mentioning that while the UV completion masses with the lightest neutrino being massless. As ex- presented above can easily obtain mΦ 4πmX /gX√, it plained in the text, the bounds are not sensitive to the cannot saturate Λ ∼ mΦ. In this model, mΦ ∼ λf precise value of the mass. For other neutrino mixing pa- which can satisfy mΦ > mX /gX ∼ f/q while perturba- rameters, we use the results from Table 3 of Ref. [53]. tion theory is still under control λq 1. However in this √ . In Fig.1 we have updated the cosmological bounds on limit Λ ∼ qf > mΦ, so that saturating the unitarity these models coming from the decay of the heavier neu- bound is not possible. Even when one allows λq > 1 and 5−6 5 trinos, which requires τ0 >∼ 4 × 10 sec(m3/50 meV) instead uses semi-classical methods [57], one still finds [39]. The two ν decay (cosmology) bounds represent the that it is impossible to saturate the unitarity bound in uncertainty in the bound on the ν lifetime. After refin- this model. ing the calculation of the damping of anisotropic stress The importance of multiparticle emission in Stueckel- due to neutrino decay and inverse decay, this new bound berg theories could have been anticipated from this UV was obtained and found to be several orders of magni- completion. In the UV completion, the symmetry break- tude weaker than previous work (e.g., [54, 55]). For the ing mass term arises from a higher dimensional operator 6 of dimension ∼ q, see Eq. (21). Discovering the bad high [2] Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, and Mikhail B. Voloshin, energy behavior of a higher dimensional operator of di- “Secluded WIMP Dark Matter,” Phys. Lett. B 662, 53– mension ∼ q requires ∼ q states. The IR Stueckelberg 61 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]. theory should match the UV Higgs theory at the scale [3] Nima Arkani-Hamed, Douglas P. Finkbeiner, Tracy R. Slatyer, and Neal Weiner, “A Theory of Dark Matter,” of the radial mode. However, the IR Stueckelberg theory Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009), arXiv:0810.0713 [hep- does not know which UV Higgs theory to match onto. ph]. Thus all it can do is at a given energy scale E, match [4] L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, “A Cosmological Bound on onto the UV Higgs theory which has mΦ = E + . As the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 133–136 (1983). the energy scale E increases, the IR theory has to match [5] Michael Dine and Willy Fischler, “The Not So Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 137–141 (1983). onto different UV theories with larger and larger mΦ and hence larger and larger q. Thus when scattering parti- [6] John Preskill, Mark B. Wise, and Frank Wilczek, “Cos- mology of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120, 127– cles at higher and higher energies, the dominant final 132 (1983). state involves an ever increasing number of particles. [7] Paola Arias, Davide Cadamuro, Mark Goodsell, Jo- erg Jaeckel, Javier Redondo, and Andreas Ringwald, “WISPy Cold Dark Matter,” JCAP 06, 013 (2012), arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]. [8] Peter W. Graham, Jeremy Mardon, and Surjeet Rajen- CONCLUSION dran, “Vector Dark Matter from Inflationary Fluctua- tions,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 103520 (2016), arXiv:1504.02102 In this letter, we considered Stueckelberg gauge bosons [hep-ph]. [9] S. N. Gninenko and N. V. Krasnikov, “The Muon anoma- coupled to non-conserved currents broken by mass terms lous magnetic moment and a new light gauge boson,” and calculated the bounds on these models coming from Phys. Lett. B 513, 119 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102222. mono-lepton+MET events at the LHC. For large gauge [10] Yonatan Kahn, Michael Schmitt, and Timothy M. P. boson masses, these constraints are only a bit weaker Tait, “Enhanced rare pion decays from a model of than even the strongest of bounds, such as g − 2 exper- MeV dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 115002 (2008), iments. For most masses below a keV, these constraints arXiv:0712.0007 [hep-ph]. are the strongest bounds on these models. [11] Maxim Pospelov, “Secluded U(1) below the weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009), arXiv:0811.1030 [hep- The strength of these bounds comes from the expo- ph]. nential growth of inclusive rates, a feature only present [12] David Tucker-Smith and Itay Yavin, “Muonic hydro- in the Stueckelberg limit [31]. This growth is a double gen and MeV forces,” Phys. Rev. D 83, 101702 (2011), edged sword. On one hand, it allows one to use very arXiv:1011.4922 [hep-ph]. crude measurements to place extremely stringent con- [13] Brian Batell, David McKeen, and Maxim Pospelov, “New Parity-Violating Muonic Forces and the Proton straints. On the other hand, it does not benefit from Charge Radius,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 011803 (2011), precision measurements so that it is not easy to improve arXiv:1103.0721 [hep-ph]. on the constraints without access to a higher energy envi- [14] Jonathan L. Feng, Bartosz Fornal, Iftah Galon, Su- ronment. For example, a 100 TeV collider would improve san Gardner, Jordan Smolinsky, Tim M. P. Tait, and upon the LHC bounds by about an order of magnitude. Philip Tanedo, “Particle physics models for the 17 MeV anomaly in beryllium nuclear decays,” Phys. Rev. D 95, Acknowledgments We thank Simon Knapen and 035017 (2017), arXiv:1608.03591 [hep-ph]. Maxim Pospelov for comments on the draft and Zhen [15] John Preskill, “Gauge anomalies in an effective field the- Liu for useful discussions. ME and AH were supported ory,” Annals Phys. 210, 323–379 (1991). in part by the NSF grants PHY-1914480, PHY-1914731, [16] Pierre Fayet, “Constraints on Light Dark Matter and U and by the Maryland Center for Fundamental Physics bosons, from psi, Upsilon, K+, pi0, eta and eta-prime (MCFP). SK was supported in part by the NSF grant decays,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 054034 (2006), arXiv:hep- PHY-1915314 and the U.S. DOE Contract DE-AC02- ph/0607318. [17] Vernon Barger, Cheng-Wei Chiang, Wai-Yee Keung, 05CH11231. YT was also supported in part by the NSF and Danny Marfatia, “Constraint on parity-violating grant PHY-2014165. muonic forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081802 (2012), arXiv:1109.6652 [hep-ph]. [18] Savely G. Karshenboim, David McKeen, and Maxim Pospelov, “Constraints on muon-specific dark forces,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 073004 (2014), [Addendum: ∗ [email protected] Phys.Rev.D 90, 079905 (2014)], arXiv:1401.6154 [hep- † [email protected] ph]. ‡ [email protected] [19] Jeff A. Dror, Robert Lasenby, and Maxim Pospelov, § [email protected] “New constraints on light vectors coupled to anoma- [1] C. Boehm and Pierre Fayet, “Scalar dark matter candi- lous currents,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141803 (2017), dates,” Nucl. Phys. B 683, 219–263 (2004), arXiv:hep- arXiv:1705.06726 [hep-ph]. ph/0305261. 7

[20] Jeff A. Dror, Robert Lasenby, and Maxim Pospelov, [39] Gabriela Barenboim, Joe Zhiyu Chen, Steen Hannestad, “Dark forces coupled to nonconserved currents,” Phys. Isabel M. Oldengott, Thomas Tram, and Yvonne Y. Y. Rev. D 96, 075036 (2017), arXiv:1707.01503 [hep-ph]. Wong, “Invisible neutrino decay in precision cosmology,” [21] Gordan Krnjaic, Gustavo Marques-Tavares, Diego (2020), arXiv:2011.01502 [astro-ph.CO]. Redigolo, and Kohsaku Tobioka, “Probing Muonphilic [40] Ayuki Kamada and Hai-Bo Yu, “Coherent Propagation Force Carriers and Dark Matter at Kaon Factories,” of PeV Neutrinos and the Dip in the Neutrino Spec- Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 041802 (2020), arXiv:1902.07715 trum at IceCube,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 113004 (2015), [hep-ph]. arXiv:1504.00711 [hep-ph]. [22] Jeff A. Dror, “Discovering leptonic forces using non- [41] Miguel Escudero, Dan Hooper, Gordan Krnjaic, and conserved currents,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 095013 (2020), Mathias Pierre, “Cosmology with A Very Light Lµ − Lτ arXiv:2004.04750 [hep-ph]. Gauge Boson,” JHEP 03, 071 (2019), arXiv:1901.02010 [23] C. H. Llewellyn Smith, “High-Energy Behavior and [hep-ph]. Gauge Symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 46, 233–236 (1973). [42] Steen Hannestad, “What is the lowest possible reheat- [24] John M. Cornwall, David N. Levin, and George Tik- ing temperature?” Phys. Rev. D 70, 043506 (2004), topoulos, “Uniqueness of spontaneously broken gauge arXiv:astro-ph/0403291. theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1268–1270 (1973), [Er- [43] P. F. de Salas, M. Lattanzi, G. Mangano, G. Miele, ratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 31, 572 (1973)]. S. Pastor, and O. Pisanti, “Bounds on very low reheating [25] Satish D. Joglekar, “S matrix derivation of the Weinberg scenarios after Planck,” Phys. Rev. D 92, 123534 (2015), model,” Annals Phys. 83, 427 (1974). arXiv:1511.00672 [astro-ph.CO]. [26] John M. Cornwall, David N. Levin, and George Tik- [44] S. R. Mishra, S. A. Rabinowitz, C. Arroyo, K. T. Bach- topoulos, “Derivation of Gauge Invariance from High- mann, R. E. Blair, C. Foudas, B. J. King, W. C. Lef- Energy Unitarity Bounds on the s Matrix,” Phys. Rev. D mann, W. C. Leung, E. Oltman, P. Z. Quintas, F. J. Sci- 10, 1145 (1974), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 972 (1975)]. ulli, B. G. Seligman, M. H. Shaevitz, F. S. Merritt, M. J. [27] Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “Weak Oreglia, B. A. Schumm, R. H. Bernstein, F. Borcherding, Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the H. E. Fisk, M. J. Lamm, W. Marsh, K. W. B. Merritt, Higgs Boson Mass,” Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977). H. Schellman, D. D. Yovanovitch, A. Bodek, H. S. Budd, [28] Benjamin W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “The P. de Barbaro, W. K. Sakumoto, P. H. Sandler, and Strength of Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies and W. H. Smith, “Neutrino tridents and w-z interference,” the Higgs Boson Mass,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 883–885 Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 3117–3120 (1991). (1977). [45] Wolfgang Altmannshofer, Stefania Gori, Maxim [29] Michael S. Chanowitz and Mary K. Gaillard, “The TeV Pospelov, and Itay Yavin, “Neutrino Trident Pro- Physics of Strongly Interacting W’s and Z’s,” Nucl. Phys. duction: A Powerful Probe of New Physics with B 261, 379–431 (1985). Neutrino Beams,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 091801 (2014), [30] T. Appelquist and Michael S. Chanowitz, “Unitarity arXiv:1406.2332 [hep-ph]. Bound on the Scale of Fermion Mass Generation,” Phys. [46] J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), “Search for a muonic dark Rev. Lett. 59, 2405 (1987), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 60, force at BABAR,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 011102 (2016), 1589 (1988)]. arXiv:1606.03501 [hep-ex]. [31] Nathaniel Craig, Isabel Garcia Garcia, and Graham D. [47] G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g-2), “Final Report of the Kribs, “The UV fate of anomalous U(1)s and the Swamp- Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement land,” JHEP 11, 063 (2020), arXiv:1912.10054 [hep-ph]. at BNL,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006), arXiv:hep- [32] Fred Jegerlehner and Andreas Nyffeler, “The Muon g-2,” ex/0602035. Phys. Rept. 477, 1–110 (2009), arXiv:0902.3360 [hep-ph]. [48] T. Aoyama et al., “The anomalous magnetic moment of [33] James P. Miller, Eduardo de Rafael, B. Lee Roberts, and the muon in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rept. 887, 1– Dominik Stöckinger, “Muon (g-2): Experiment and The- 166 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]. ory,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 237–264 (2012). [49] Seungwon Baek, N. G. Deshpande, X. G. He, and P. Ko, [34] Mark B. Wise and Yue Zhang, “Lepton Flavorful Fifth “Muon anomalous g-2 and gauged L(muon) - L(tau) Force and Depth-dependent Neutrino Matter Interac- models,” Phys. Rev. D 64, 055006 (2001), arXiv:hep- tions,” JHEP 06, 053 (2018), arXiv:1803.00591 [hep-ph]. ph/0104141. [35] Guo-yuan Huang, Tommy Ohlsson, and Shun Zhou, [50] Tom Banks and Willy Fischler, “A Model for high-energy “Observational Constraints on Secret Neutrino Interac- scattering in quantum gravity,” (1999), arXiv:hep- tions from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. D 97, th/9906038. 075009 (2018), arXiv:1712.04792 [hep-ph]. [51] Search for new physics in the lepton plus missing trans- [36] Masha Baryakhtar, Robert Lasenby, and Mae Teo, verse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions “Black Hole Superradiance Signatures of Ultralight Vec- at 13 TeV center-of-mass energy, Tech. Rep. (CERN, tors,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 Geneva, 2021). [hep-ph]. [52] Albert M Sirunyan et al. (CMS), “Search for high [37] John F. Beacom and Nicole F. Bell, “Do Solar Neutri- mass dijet resonances with a new background√ prediction nos Decay?” Phys. Rev. D 65, 113009 (2002), arXiv:hep- method in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV,” ph/0204111. JHEP 05, 033 (2020), arXiv:1911.03947 [hep-ex]. [38] Lena Funcke, Georg Raffelt, and Edoardo Vitagliano, [53] Ivan Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Michele Maltoni, “Distinguishing Dirac and Majorana neutrinos by their Thomas Schwetz, and Albert Zhou, “The fate of hints: decays via Nambu-Goldstone bosons in the gravitational- updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscilla- anomaly model of neutrino masses,” Phys. Rev. D 101, tions,” JHEP 09, 178 (2020), arXiv:2007.14792 [hep-ph]. 015025 (2020), arXiv:1905.01264 [hep-ph]. 8

[54] Maria Archidiacono and Steen Hannestad, “Updated constraints on non-standard neutrino interactions from Planck,” JCAP 07, 046 (2014), arXiv:1311.3873 [astro- ph.CO]. [55] Miguel Escudero and Malcolm Fairbairn, “Cosmologi- cal Constraints on Invisible Neutrino Decays Revisited,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 103531 (2019), arXiv:1907.05425 [hep- ph]. [56] C. D. Froggatt and Holger Bech Nielsen, “Hierarchy of Quark Masses, Cabibbo Angles and CP Violation,” Nucl. Phys. B 147, 277–298 (1979). [57] Gil Badel, Gabriel Cuomo, Alexander Monin, and Ric- cardo Rattazzi, “The Epsilon Expansion Meets Semiclas- sics,” JHEP 11, 110 (2019), arXiv:1909.01269 [hep-th]. [58] Spencer Chang and Markus A. Luty, “The Higgs Trilin- ear Coupling and the Scale of New Physics,” JHEP 03, 140 (2020), arXiv:1902.05556 [hep-ph]. [59] Fayez Abu-Ajamieh, Spencer Chang, Miranda Chen, and Markus A. Luty, “Higgs Coupling Measurements and the Scale of New Physics,” (2020), arXiv:2009.11293 [hep- ph]. 9

Bounds on Gauge Bosons Coupled to Non-conserved Currents Supplementary Material Majid Ekhterachian, Anson Hook, Soubhik Kumar, Yuhsin Tsai

This Supplementary Material contains additional calculations supporting the results in the main text.

UNITARITY BOUNDS - n-TO-n SCATTERING

When discussing our unitarity bounds, we will follow the conventions and discussions of Ref. [58, 59] and for simplicity we will be working in the limit of massless particles. Any S matrix can be decomposed into S = 1 + iT . The identity matrix describes the situation where particles pass by without interacting while the transition matrix T describes nontrivial processes. The states we will be considering have a continuous label P , the total momentum, and discrete labels α. These states are normalized as

0 0 4 4 0 hP , α | P, αi = (2π) δ (P − P )δαα0 . (S1)

The amplitude Mˆ is deﬁned by

0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 hP , α | T | P, αi = (2π) δ (P − P )Mˆ αα0 hP , α | S | P, αi = (2π) δ (P − P )Sαα0 . (S2)

0 0 The main result that we will use is that |Mˆ αα0 | ≤ 1 for all α and α at tree level. When α 6= α , this statement follows directly from the conservation of probability. For α = α0 we use unitarity

X † ˆ X ˆ 2 1 = δαα = Sαγ Sγα = 1 − 2 Im Mαα + |Mγα| . (S3) γ γ From this we have

X 2 2 2 Im Mˆ αα = |Mˆ γα| ≥ |Mˆ αα| (S4) γ

2 2 which can be massaged into the form 1 ≥ |Re Mˆ αα| + |Im Mˆ αα − 1| . From this we see that |Re Mˆ αα| ≤ 1. Since Mˆ αα is real at tree level, we have |Mˆ αα| ≤ 1. We now have the unitarity bound |Mˆ αα0 | ≤ 1 so we can apply it to the theory described in Eq. (4). We will be considering the initial and final states each with a neutrino ν and n Goldstone bosons φ. We define our states as Z 4 −iP x (−) n (−) | P, n, αi = Cn d xe φ (x) να (x) | 0i (S5) where Cn is a normalization constant, (−) are the part of the fields that contain the creation operators, and α is the spinor index of the fermion. These states are normalized as

αα˙ 0 0 4 4 0 P/ hP , n , α˙ | P, n, αi = (2π) δ (P − P )δ 0 (S6) nn E where E is the total energy. This normalization was chosen to reproduce Eq. (S1) in the center of mass frame, which we will be using from here on. From this, we have the normalization constant

1 1 E 2n−1 2 = . (S7) |Cn| 2(n + 1)(n − 1)! 4π We can ﬁnally calculate the amplitude of interest using Eq. (5) to give

Z m ig P φ(x)2n hP 0, n, α | (−i) d4xν(x) ν X L ν(x) | P, n, αi = (2π)4δ4(P − P 0)iMˆ (ν + nφ → ν + nφ) (S8) (2n)! mX g m g E 2n−1 |Mˆ (ν + nφ → ν + nφ)| = X ν X (S9) 2mX (n + 1)!n!(n − 1)! 4πmX 10

Imposing |Mˆ | ≤ 1 gives the results shown in the text. For reference, the amplitude Mˆ is related to the more familiar matrix element M by normalization constants and phase space integrals Z ˆ ? Mαα0 = CαCα0 dΦαdΦα0 Mαα0 . (S10)

The phase space diﬀerentials dΦα will be given below.

UNITARITY BOUNDS ON AN ANOMALOUS U(1)

In this section we calculate the unitarity bounds on an anomalous gauge theory in a manner analogous to what we did for n-to-n scattering. We leave unitarity gauge by a gauge transformation φ/mX . Because the theory is anomalous, an anomaly term is added to the Lagrangian

2 g A gX φ a ˜ a L ⊃ 2 W W , (S11) 32π mX

˜ µν 1 µνρσ a where W = 2 Wρσ and W are the gauge bosons with which U(1)X is anomalous and A is the anomaly coeﬃcient. We will consider 2-to-2 scattering of W 1 gauge bosons via the Goldstone boson φ, which contains all of the leading high energy behavior in Feynman-’t Hooft gauge. The largest amplitude occurs when all four gauge bosons have the same helicity. A short calculation gives the amplitude

2 2 ˆ 1 1 1 1 s gX g A |M(W + W → W + W )| = 2 (S12) 4π mX 32π

Requiring the unitarity bound |Mˆ | < 1 be saturated at the center of mass energy Λa, we arrive at the result √ 2 4πmX 32π Λa = 2 . (S13) gX g A

DECAY WIDTH OF THE W BOSON

Here we compute the decay width of the W boson into a lepton, a neutrino and n gauge bosons. The decay is dominated by the decay into longitudinal modes which we calculate using the Goldstone boson equivalence theorem. The relevant process is shown in Fig. S1. We denote the four momenta of the W boson, the outgoing lepton l,

Figure S1. The decay W → nφ + l + ν. the intermediate neutrino and the outgoing neutrino as pW , pl, q and pν , respectively. We also denote the collective momenta of the n Goldstone bosons φ as pφ = p1 + p2 + ··· + pn. We will ignore the masses of φ, ν and l throughout 11 our calculation, except those appearing in the neutrino-Goldstone boson coupling. We will consider a single neutrino ﬂavor, and later generalize to the standard three-ﬂavor structure. The matrix element is g2 α i/q iM = − √ u¯(pl)γα(1 − γ5) κnv(pν ), (S14) 2 2 q2 where κn denotes the coupling of neutrinos to n-Goldstone bosons, obtained from Eq. (5). We see that κn ∝ γ5 for odd values of n. However, it can be checked that iM is the same for both even and odd values of n. The amplitude can be squared to give

2 1 X 2 2 g2κn h β α i 1 |M| = √ Tr γ p/ γ /qp/ /q(1 + γ5) Παβ, (S15) 3 3 2 2 l ν q4

pW αpW β where Παβ = −gαβ + 2 . The factor of 1/3 comes from averaging over initial W polarizations. After some MW algebra this can be reduced to,

2 1 X 2 g2κn 1 αβ 2 α β 2 α β |M| = √ 8g q (pl · pν ) − 2(q · pν )(q · pl) + 32(q · pν )p q − 16q p p Παβ. (S16) 3 2 2 3q4 l l ν Let us now integrate over the phase space of the n φ and the outgoing neutrino. To this end, we will use the following identities involving k−body phase space of massless particles [59],

Z Z 3 3 2k−4 d p1 1 d pk 1 4 4 1 E Φk(P ) = dΦk(P ) ≡ 3 ··· 3 (2π) δ (p1 + ··· + pk − P ) = , (2π) 2E1 (2π) 2Ek 8π(k − 1)!(k − 2)! 4π (S17) Z 1 dΦ (P )pµ = Φ (P )P µ, (S18) k 1 k k Z 1 dΦ (P )p · p = Φ (P )P 2, (S19) k 1 2 k k 2 2 √ 2 with E = P being the center of mass energy. Utilizing the above identities and doing the contraction with Παβ we get, Z 2 1 X 8 g2κn 2(pW · q)(pl · pW ) Φn+1(q) 2 √ dΦn+1(q) |M| = 2 (pl · q) + 2 , 3 3q 2 2 MW (n + 1) g κ 2 q2n−4 1 2(p · p )2 2√n W l = 2n−2 3(pW · pl) − 2 . (S20) 2 2 3π(n + 1)!(n − 1)! (4π) MW As a ﬁnal step, we go to the rest frame of the W and integrate over the lepton momenta to get,

g2M 2n−1κ2 1 Γ(W → l + ν + nφ) = 2 W n for n > 1. (S21) (4π)2n 16π(n!)2(n + 2)!(n − 1)

Here we have also multiplied by a factor of 1/n! to account for the n identical φs in the ﬁnal state. The total decay width of the W -boson into a ﬁnal state containing an arbitrary number of φs is then obtained after summing over n,

2 2 4 2! X 1 g m MW gX MW gX Γ ≡ Γ(W → l + ν + nφ) = 2 ν F {1, 1}, {2, 3, 3, 5}, . (S22) BSM 16π × 96 M 4πm 2 4 4πm n>1 W X X

The n = 1 case is special as there is a soft divergence leading to a log enhancement of the form log (mW /mX ). As this log is only present for n = 1, we conservatively neglect the n = 1 contribution to the decay width.