Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/MathOperators.js

Muon g − 2 with SU(2)L multiplets

  • We propose a simple model to obtain a sizable muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment (muon g2) that introduces several SU(2)L multiplet fields without any additional symmetries. The neutrino mass matrix is simply induced via a type-II seesaw scenario in terms of SU(2)L triplet Higgs with U(1)Y hypercharge 1. In addition, we introduce an SU(2)L quartet vector-like fermion with hypercharge 1/2 and scalar with hypercharge 3/2. The quartet fermion plays a crucial role in explaining muon g2 causing the chiral flip inside a loop diagram with the mixing of triplet and quartet scalar bosons via the standard model Higgs. We conduct a numerical analysis and search for the allowed region in our parameter space and demonstrate the collider physics.
  • Even after the discovery of the standard model (SM) Higgs, we must resolve several challenges such as non-zero neutrino masses and a muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment (muon g2) that would indicate the necessity for physics beyond the SM. New results on muon g2 are reported by the E989 collaboration at Fermilab [1, 2]:

    aFNALμ=116592055(24)×1011.

    (1)

    Furthermore, the combined results of the previous Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) measurement suggests that muon g2 deviates from the SM prediction by 5.1σ [123]:

    Δanewμ=(24.9±4.9)×1010.

    (2)

    Although results of the hadron vacuum polarization (HVP) estimated by recent lattice calculations [2426] may weaken the necessity of a new physics effect, Refs. [2729] 1 show that the lattice results imply new tensions with the HVP extracted from e+e data and the global fits to the electroweak precision observables. However, we note that such tensions occur only in the large q2 region, whereas a shift in the e+e hadronic cross section for a momentum transfer below 1 GeV (e.g. from e+eπ+π) does not exhibit this problem. In addition, the CMD-3 collaboration [30] released results on the cross section of e+eπ+π that disagree at the (2.55)σ level with all previous measurements that weaken the deviation of muon g2. Thus, the origin of the anomaly is controversial, and further experimental/theoretical explorations are required. If muon g2 suggests new physics, we expect new particles and interactions. To explain the sizable muon g2 in a natural manner using Yukawa couplings, 2 we would require one-loop contributions with a chiral flip by a heavy fermion mass inside a loop diagram [3336]. Otherwise, the Yukawa couplings would exceed the perturbation limit, or mediator masses that are too light are required.

    A simple method to extend the SM to resolve these problem is the introduction of new fields that are SU(2)L multiplets [3648]. For example, neutrino masses can be induced by adding a Higgs triplet with hypercharge 1, which is known as a type-II seesaw mechanism [4954]. We can also expect that a sizable contribution to muon g2 is obtained by adding a vector-like fermion multiplet in addition to a scalar multiplet in which a chiral flip occurs inside a loop picking up a vector-like fermion mass. Additionally, multiple electric charges of components in large multiplets can enhance the muon g2 value. In addition to explaining the muon g2 anomaly and neutrino masses, large SU(2)L multiplet fields would induce interesting signatures at collider experiments as they contain multiply-charged particles.

    In this paper, we explain the sizable muon g2 via SU(2)L multiplet fields without any additional symmetries. More concretely, we add an SU(2)L quartet vector-like fermion ψ with hypercharge 1/2, one triplet Higgs Δ with hypercharge 1, and one quartet scalar H4 with hypercharge 3/2. The quartet fermion plays an crucial role in explaining the sizable muon g2 causing the chiral flip in terms of its mass term and through mixing of triplet and quartet bosons. In addition, the neutrino mass matrix is simply induced via a type-II scenario via the Yukawa interactions between the lepton doublet and triplet Higgs field. The choice of the SU(2)L quartet vector-like fermion ψ is suitable for obtaining Yukawa interactions of ˉLLΔψR for muon g2; we can have a similar term with a SU(2)L doublet vector-like fermion, but we would also have an undesired term of ˉLLψcL inducing unnecessary mixing between the SM lepton and vector-like fermion. Subsequently, we require H4 to make the Yukawa term ˉψLh4eR have a chiral flip in the loop diagram inducing muon g2. Additionally, note that we should consider constraints on the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of SU(2)L multiplet scalar fields because they deviate the ρ-parameter from 1. After formulating our model, we conduct a numerical analysis and search for the allowed region in our parameter space, and we discuss the collider physics, focusing on productions of multiply-charged particles in the model.

    The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce our model and formulate the Yukawa and Higgs sectors, oblique ρ parameter, neutral fermion masses including the active neutrino masses, lepton flavor violations (LFVs), and muon g2. In Sec. III, we present a numerical analysis of muon g2 and discuss collider physics. Finally, we provide the summary of our results and the conclusion in Sec. IV.

    In this section, we introduce our model. For the fermion sector, we introduce one family of vector-like fermions ψ with (4,1/2), where each content in parentheses represents the charge assignment of the SM gauge groups (SU(2)L,U(1)Y). For the scalar sector, we add a triplet scalar field Δ with (3,1), which achieves a type-II seesaw mechanism and a quartet scalar field H4 with (4,3/2), where the SM-like Higgs field is denoted as H. Here, we express the components of multiplets as

    H=(h+,˜h0)

    (3)

    Δ=(δ+2δ++δ0δ+2),

    (4)

    H4=(ϕ+++4,ϕ++4,ϕ+4,ϕ04)T,

    (5)

    ψL(R)=(ψ++,ψ+,ψ0,ψ)TL(R),

    (6)

    where ˜h0=12(h0+vh+iG0), and the triplet can be expressed as H3=(δ0,δ+,δ++)T. Neutral components of scalar fields develop VEVs denoted by {H,Δ,H4}{vh,vΔ,v4}/2, which induce the spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking. All the field contents and their assignments are summarized in Table 1, where the quark sector is exactly the same as in the SM. The renormalizable lepton Yukawa Lagrangian under these symmetries is given by

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Charge assignments of the our lepton and scalar fields under SU(2)L×U(1)Y, where the lower index i is the number of family that runs over 13, all of them are singlets under SU(3)C, and the quark sector is the same as the SM one.
    LLieRiψHΔH4
    SU(2)L214234
    U(1)Y1211212132
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    L=yii¯LLiHeRi+yνij¯LLiΔLcLj+yDi[¯LLiΔψR]+fi[¯ψLH4eRi]+gL[¯ψcLΔψL]+gR[¯ψcRΔψR]+Mψ¯ψLψR+h.c.,

    (7)

    hereafter, we implicitly symbolize the gauge invariant contracts of SU(2)L index in brackets [], indices (i,j)=1-3 are the family numbers, and y is assumed to be diagonal matrix with real parameters without loss of generality. Subsequently, the mass eigenvalues of charged-leptons are defined by m=yvh/2=Diag(me,mμ,mτ). In our model, the scalar potential is given by

    V=μ2HHH+μ2ΔTr[ΔΔ]+μ2H4H4H4+λH(HH)2+(trivial quartet terms including Δ and H4)+Vnontrivial,

    (8)

    where we omit details of trivial quartet terms with Δ and H4 for simplicity and assume their couplings are small. The non-trivial scalar potential is given by

    Vnontrivial=μ1[HΔH4+h.c.]+μ2[HTΔH]+iλiH4H[H4HHH]i+h.c.,

    (9)

    where μ1 plays a crucial role in inducing muon g2, as we show later.

    Here, we discuss the advantage of selecting a SU(2) quartet for the scalar and fermion. First, we would like to have interaction terms of ¯LLΔψR, ¯ψLH4eR, and HΔH4 to obtain chirality flip enhancement for muon g2 while achiving the neutrino mass via a type-II seesaw. We can generalize the SU(2)L representation of ψ and H4 to be N if it satisfies N×3×21 to obtain these terms. The minimal choice is an N=2 writhing new scalar and fermion as H2 and ψ, but this case induces non-desired terms such as ¯LLψcL and ¯ψcRH2eR. These terms would induce non-negligible mixing of the SM charged leptons and exotic charged fermions. Thus, we select N=4 to avoid these unnecessary terms. The choice of a larger multiplet also enhances muon g2 as we have more contributions from components in multiplets. In addition, the choice of N=4 induces interesting phenomenology at the collider experiments as it provides multiply-charged particles inside a multiplet.

    Non-zero VEVs of scalar fields are obtained by solving the stationary conditions

    Vvh=VvΔ=Vv4=0.

    (10)

    Here, we explicitly express the first two terms of Eq. (9) as

    μ132(vh+h0)(3ϕ04δ0+6ϕ+4δ+3ϕ++δ)12μ2δ0(h0+vh)2+c.c. ,

    (11)

    where we consider them in unitary gauge. Assuming v4,vΔvh and small couplings for trivial quartet couplings, we obtain the VEVs approximately as

    vhμ2HλH,vΔ1μ2Δ(1332μ1v4vh+μ2v2h),

    v41332μ1vΔvhμ2H4.

    (12)

    Thus, small values of vΔ and v4 are naturally obtained when mass parameters μΔ and μH4 are larger than the electroweak scale.

    The electroweak ρ parameter deviates from unity owing to the nonzero values of vΔ and v4 at the tree level as follows:

    ρ=v2h+2v2Δ+6v24v2h+4v2Δ+9v24,

    (13)

    where the VEVs satisfy the relation vv2h+v2Δ+v24246 GeV. Here, we consider the current constraint on parameter ρ; ρ=1.00038±0.00020 [55]. If we take vXvΔ=v4, the upper bound of vX is

    vX

    (14)

    when we require ρ to be within the 2σ level. In our analysis, we select v_\Delta \sim v_4 \sim 1 GeV for simplicity 3. Note that ther smallness of VEVs of triplet and quartet scalars in the model can be obtained using large values of \mu_\Delta and \mu_4 , as in Eq. (12). The smallness of VEVs can be maintained as long as these parameters are larger than cubic coupling \mu_{1,2} even under radiative correction. Although higher order radiative correction would affect the VEVs, we can tune these free parameters to make VEVs small in general.

    Finally, we briefly discuss the vacuum stability of the scalar potential. In the model, we select scales of \mu_\Delta and \mu_{H_4} that are much larger than the VEVs of scalar fields. Thus, we obtain

    \begin{aligned}[b]& \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \delta^{0} \partial \delta^0} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \delta^+ \partial \delta^+} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \delta^{++} \partial \delta^{++}} \simeq \mu^2_\Delta, \\& \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^{0} \partial \phi_4^{0}} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^+ \partial \phi_4^+} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^{++} \partial \phi_4^{++}} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^{+++} \partial \phi_4^{+++}} \simeq \mu_{H_4}^2, \end{aligned}

    (15)

    and the other second derivatives of the potential are much smaller. This condition will be maintained after diagonalizing mass matrices of scalar bosons, and the original components are approximately mass eigenstates because the off-diagonal components of mass matrices are much smaller than the diagonal components. Thus, the stability of the vacuum can be guaranteed by the positive values of \mu_\Delta^2 and \mu_{H_4}^2 in the model. Additionally, we assume all the coupling constants associated with quartic terms in the potential to be positive to require the absence of directions in the scalar field space for which the potential is not bounded from below.

    The scalars and fermions with large S U(2)_L multiplets provide exotic charged particles. The mass terms of H_4 , Δ, and ψ are approximately given by

    \begin{aligned}[b] \mathcal{L}_M =\;& \mu_\Delta^2 {\rm{Tr}}[\Delta^\dagger \Delta] + \mu_{H_4}^2 H^\dagger_4 H_4 + \frac{\mu_1 v_h}{3} \big(\sqrt{3} \phi^0_4 \delta^{0*} \\&+ \sqrt{6} \phi^+_4 \delta^- + 3 \phi^{++} \delta^{--} + c.c.\big) + M_\psi \bar \psi \psi,\end{aligned}

    (16)

    where we have ignored contributions from quartet terms in the scalar potential assuming they are sufficiently small. Thus, components in ψ have a degenerate mass M_\psi , where a small mass shift appears at the loop level [56], but we ignore it in the following analysis. The triply charged scalar mass is given by m_{H^{+++}} = \mu_{H_4} , whereas we have \delta^\pm-\phi^\pm_4 , \delta^{\pm\pm}-\phi^{\pm\pm}_4 , and \delta^0-\phi^0_4 mixings through the \mu_1 term that lead to a sizable muon g-2 , as we discuss in the following. We express the mass eigenstates and mixings as follows:

    \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\delta ^ \pm }}\\ {\phi _4^ \pm } \end{array}} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{c_\alpha }}&{{s_\alpha }}\\ { - {s_\alpha }}&{{c_\alpha }} \end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {H_1^ \pm }\\ {H_2^ \pm } \end{array}} \right),

    (17)

    \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\delta ^{ \pm \pm }}}\\ {\phi _4^{ \pm \pm }} \end{array}} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{c_\beta }}&{{s_\beta }}\\ { - {s_\beta }}&{{c_\beta }} \end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {H_1^{ \pm \pm }}\\ {H_2^{ \pm \pm }} \end{array}} \right),

    (18)

    \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\delta ^0}}\\ {\phi _4^0} \end{array}} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{c_\gamma }}&{{s_\gamma }}\\ { - {s_\gamma }}&{{c_\gamma }} \end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {H_1^0}\\ {H_2^0} \end{array}} \right),

    (19)

    where c_{a},s_{a} are the short-hand notations of \cos a,\sin a , respectively, with a\equiv(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) . The mass eigenvalues and mixing angles are given by

    \begin{aligned}[b] m^2_{\{H_1^+, H_1^{++}, H_1^{0} \}} =\;& \frac12 (\mu_{H_4}^2 + \mu_\Delta^2) \\-& \frac12 \sqrt{(\mu_{H_4}^2 - \mu_\Delta^2)^2 + 4 \Delta M^4_{\{+, ++, 0\}} },\end{aligned}

    (20)

    \begin{aligned}[b] m^2_{\{H_2^+, H_2^{++}, H_2^{0} \}} =\;& \frac12 (\mu_{H_4}^2 + \mu_\Delta^2)\\ + &\frac12 \sqrt{(\mu_{H_4}^2 - \mu_\Delta^2)^2 + 4 \Delta M^4_{\{+, ++, 0 \} }} ,\end{aligned}

    (21)

    \tan (2 \{\alpha, \beta, \gamma \}) = \frac{2 \Delta M^2_{\{+, ++, 0 \} }}{ \mu_{\Delta}^2 - \mu_{H_4}^2},

    (22)

    \Delta M^2_{\{+, ++, 0 \} } = \left\{ \frac{\sqrt{3} \mu_1 v_h}{3}, \frac{\sqrt{6} \mu_1 v_h}{3}, \mu_1 v_h \right\}.

    (23)

    Notice here that we neglect the mixing between the SM Higgs and other neutral scalar bosons by selecting related parameters to be sufficiently small, and we do not discuss experimental constraints related to the SM Higgs boson assuming its couplings are SM like. For example, the mixing between \delta^0 and h^0 is estimated using \mu_1 v_4/\mu_\Delta^2 . The mixing angle is approximately 2 \times 10^{-3} if v_\Delta = 1 GeV, \mu_1 = \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi , \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi , and M_\psi = 1 TeV, which is the maximal angle in our numerical analysis. The mixing angle 2 \times 10^{-3} is sufficiently small to satisfy experimental constraints regarding Higgs boson measurement.

    After the spontaneous symmetry breaking, the neutral fermion mass matrix in the basis of \Psi^0_L\equiv (\nu_L^c, \psi_R,\psi_L^{c})^T is given by

    {M_N} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {m_\nu ^{(II)}}&{{m_D}}&0\\ {m_D^T}&{{m_R}}&{{M_\psi }}\\ 0&{{M_\psi }}&{{m_L}} \end{array}} \right],

    (24)

    where m_\nu^{(II)}\equiv y_\nu v_\Delta , m_D\equiv {y_D v_\Delta}/\sqrt3 , m_R\equiv {2 g_R v_\Delta}/3 , and m_L\equiv {2 g_L v_\Delta}/3 . Achieving the block diagonalizing, we determine the active neutrino mass matrix:

    m_{\nu_{}}\approx m_{\nu_{}}^{(II)} + \frac{m_D m_D^T m_L}{M^2_\psi}.

    (25)

    The second term in the above equation corresponds to inverse seesaw, but its matrix rank is one. Thus, we simply expect that the neutrino oscillation data are dominantly described by the first term m_{\nu_{}}^{(II)} . Notice here that we require the following constraint to achieve m_{\nu_{}}\approx m_{\nu_{}}^{(II)} :

    \frac{m_D m_D^T m_L}{M^2_\psi} \ll 0.1\ {\rm{eV}}.

    (26)

    It can be obtained by requiring m_L to be small; for example, if m_D \sim 1 Gev and M_\psi = 1 TeV, we select m_L \ll 10^{-3} GeV. We can make m_L small because g_L is a free parameter. Here, we also assume m_D to be negligibly small compared with M_\psi to evade the mixing between the SM charged-leptons and exotic charged fermions. In this case, no mixing occurs between the active neutrinos and heavier neutral fermions. Thus, the heavier neutral mass eigenvalues diag[ D_1,D_2 ] are given by unitary matrix V_N as D = V_N M_N V_N^T , where

    {M_N} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} m&{{M_\psi }}\\ {{M_\psi }}&m \end{array}} \right],

    (27)

    D_1 = M_\psi-m,\ D_2 = M_\psi+m,

    (28)

    {V_N} = \frac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\rm i} &0\\ 0&1 \end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 1&{ - 1}\\ 1&1 \end{array}} \right].

    (29)

    Here, we assume m\equiv m_R = m_L for simplicity.

    The active neutrino mass matrix is diagonalized using D_\nu = U_{\rm{MNS}} m_\nu U_{\rm{MNS}}^T , where U_{\rm{MNS}} is the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata mixing matrix [55]. This suggests that we simply parametrize y_\nu as follows:

    y_\nu = \frac1{v_\Delta} U_{\rm{MNS}}^\dagger D_\nu U_{\rm{MNS}}^T.

    (30)

    Basically, we can achieve neutrino mass and mixing tuning Yukawa couplings y_{\nu_{ij}} that are the same as the type-II seesaw mechanism. Thus, we do not discuss neutrino masses further in this paper.

    In our model, LFV processes and muon g-2 are induced from Yukawa interactions associated with couplings \{ y_D,\ f \} . The relevant terms are explicitly given by

    \begin{aligned}[b]& f_i [\overline{\psi_L} H_4 e_{R_i}] + y_{D_i} [\overline{L_{L_i}} \Delta^\dagger \psi_R] + {\rm h.c.} \\ &=\; f_i [\overline{\psi^0_L} \phi^+_4 + \overline{\psi^{++}_L} \phi^{+++}_4 + \overline{\psi^+_L} \phi^{++}_4 + \overline{\psi^-_L} \phi^0_4 ] e_{R_i} \\ & + \frac{y_{D_i}}{3} [ \overline{e_{L_i}} (\sqrt3 \delta^{0*} \psi^-_R + 3 \delta^{-} \psi^+_R + \sqrt6 \delta^- \psi^0_R) \\ &+ \overline{\nu_{L_i}} (\sqrt3 \delta^{0*} \psi_R^0 + 3 \delta^{-} \psi^{++}_R + \sqrt6 \delta^- \psi^+_R) ]. \end{aligned}

    (31)

    Considering scalar mixing in Eqs. (17)−(19), contributions to \ell \to \ell' \gamma and muon g-2 are given by the one-loop diagram in Fig. 1. Branching ratios (BRs) of LFV processes are expressed as follows:

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  Feynman diagram to generate muon g-2 and \ell \to \ell' \gamma processes.

    {\rm{BR}}(\ell_i\to\ell_j\gamma) = \frac{48\pi^3\alpha_{\rm{em}} C_{ij} }{(4\pi)^4{ {\rm{G}}_{\rm{F}}^2} m_{\ell_i}^2}\left(|a_{R_{ij}}|^2+|a_{L_{ij}}|^2\right).

    (32)

    Dominant contributions to amplitudes a_L and a_R are given by

    \begin{aligned}[b] a_{R_{ji}} =\;& - y_{D_j} f_i (-1)^{k-1} \Bigg[ \frac{\sqrt6 s_\alpha c_\alpha}3 D_a F(m_{c_k},D_a)\ \\&+ M_{\psi} \Bigg(s_\beta c_\beta\left(F(m_{d_k},M_{\psi}) - G(m_{d_k},M_{\psi})\right)\\& + \frac{s_\gamma c_\gamma}{\sqrt{3}} G(m_{h_k},M_{\psi}) \Bigg)\Bigg] , \end{aligned}

    (33)

    \begin{aligned}[b] a_{L_{ji}} =\;& - f^\dagger_{j} y^\dagger_{D_i} (-1)^{k-1} \Bigg[ \frac{\sqrt6 s_\alpha c_\alpha}3 D_a F(m_{c_k},D_a) \\ & + M_{\psi} \Bigg(s_\beta c_\beta\left(F(m_{d_k},M_{\psi}) - G(m_{d_k},M_{\psi})\right) \\&+ \frac{s_\gamma c_\gamma}{\sqrt{3}} G(m_{h_k},M_{\psi}) \Bigg)\Bigg] , \end{aligned}

    (34)

    where a,k run over 1,2 . m_{d_k},m_{c_k},m_{h_k} are respectively the mass eigenvalues for singly-charged bosons H_{1,2}^{\pm} in Eq. (17), doubly-charged ones H_{1,2}^{\pm\pm} in Eq. (18), and neutral ones H_{1,2}^{0} in Eq. (19); the loop functions are given by

    F(m_a,m_b)\approx \frac{m_a^4 -m_b^4 + 2 m_a^2 m_b^2\ln\left(\dfrac{m_b^2}{m_a^2}\right) }{2(m_a^2 - m_b^2)^3},

    (35)

    G(m_a,m_b)\approx -\frac{3m_a^4 +m_b^4 -4 m_a^2 m_b^2+2m_a^4\ln\left(\dfrac{m_b^2}{m_a^2}\right) }{2(m_a^2 - m_b^2)^3}.

    (36)

    The current experimental upper bounds on BRs of LFV processes are given by [58, 59]

    \begin{aligned}[b]& {\rm{BR}}(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma) \leq4.2\times10^{-13},\quad {\rm{BR}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\gamma)\leq4.4\times10^{-8}, \\& {\rm{BR}}(\tau\rightarrow e\gamma) \leq3.3\times10^{-8}\; . \end{aligned}

    (37)

    We impose these constraints in our numerical analysis below. Moreover, note that trilepton decay modes \mu(\tau) \to \bar eee and \tau \to \{\bar\mu \mu \mu, \bar\mu \mu e, \mu \mu\bar e, \bar\mu e e,\mu\bar e e \} can be mediated by doubly charged Higgs via the Yukawa interaction of \overline{L^c} \Delta L . However, the corresponding Yukawa coupling in our case is too small to achieve the neutrino mass because we have selected v_\Delta \sim 1 GeV. Thus, we can simply neglect these trilepton decays of μ and τ.

    Muon g-2 ; \Delta a_\mu results from the same diagram as LFVs, and it is formulated by the following expression:

    \Delta a_\mu \approx -\frac{m_\mu}{(4\pi)^2} [{a_{L_{22}}+a_{R_{22}}}] .

    (38)

    The recent data informs us thet \Delta a_\mu = (24.9\pm4.9)\times 10^{-10} [1, 2] at the 1σ C.L. Note that a_{L,R} does not have chiral suppression because the vector-like lepton mass M_\psi is picked inside the loop. The simplest method to obtain the sizable muon g-2 is to set f_{1,3} = y_{D_{1,3}} = 0 , taking f_2 and y_{D_2} to be of order one. Thus, we need not consider the constraints of LFVs. In the next subsection, we will demonstrate this through a numerical analysis.

    Note that one-loop level vertex corrections for Z \bar{\mu} \mu and h \bar{\mu} \mu interactions can be associated with Yukawa coupling y_{D_2} and f_2 achieving a sizable muon g-2 that modify Z(h) \to \bar\mu \mu decay modes. Typically, we can satisfy experimental constraints when we have chiral enhancement for muon g-2 . We would have a strong constraint from Z \to \bar\mu \mu if we do not have chirality flip enhancement, and such an enhancement is one advantage of our model.

    Here, we briefly discuss the renormalization group evolution of gauge coupling under the existence of new particles. For illustration, we consider U(1)_Y gauge coupling g_Y and check the scale in which it becomes strong. We determine the energy evolution of g_Y , including contributions from \{ \psi, H_4, \Delta \} , such that

    \begin{aligned}[b]\frac{1}{g^2_Y(\mu)} =\;& \frac{1}{g^2_Y(m_{in})} - \frac{b_Y^{\rm{SM}}}{(4\pi)^2} \ln \left[\frac{\mu^2}{m_{in}^2} \right]\\& - \theta(\mu - M) \frac{\Delta b_Y^{\psi} + \Delta b_Y^{H_4} + \Delta b_Y^{\Delta}}{(4 \pi)^2} \ln \left[\frac{\mu^2}{M^2} \right], \end{aligned}

    (39)

    \Delta b_Y^{\psi} = \frac{1}{10}, \ \ \Delta b_Y^{H_4} = \frac{9}{20}, \ \ \Delta b_Y^{\Delta} = \frac{3}{20},

    (40)

    where μ is a reference energy scale, and we select m_{in} = m_Z and M = 1 TeV; m_{in} and M are the initial and threshold mass scales, respectively. Thus, we observe that g_Y becomes \mathcal{O}(1) at approximately \mu = 10^{32} GeV, which is much larger than the Planck scale. The evolution of S U(2)_L gauge coupling does not change significantly, and electroweak gauge couplings do not exhibit strong interaction below the Planck scale in the model.

    In this section, we perform a numerical analysis using scanning free parameters and explore the region to explain muon g-2 , considering LFV constraints. Thereafter, we consider collider physics focusing on the production of multiply-charged fermions and scalar bosons.

    Now that the formalulations have been presented, we perform a numerical analysis considering LFV constraints and muon g-2 . First, we randomly select the following input parameters:

    \begin{aligned}[b]& M_\psi \supset [10^3,10^5] \ {\rm{GeV}},\quad m \supset [0.01,10] \ {\rm{GeV}},\\& \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi, \quad \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi, \\& \mu_1 \supset [100,\mu_{H_4}] \ {\rm{GeV}}, \quad \{ |f_{2}|, |y_{D_{2}}| \} \supset [0.1,2.0],\\& \{ |f_{1,3}|, |y_{D_{1,3}}| \} \supset [10^{-5},0.1], \end{aligned}

    (41)

    where we select |f_2| and |y_{D_2}| to be larger than other Yukawa couplings to obtain a sizable muon g-2 . Note that splittings of masses of components in the same scalar multiplets are small and we can evade the constraints from oblique parameters [57]. Additionally, we take \mu_2 = 0 for simplicity.

    Figure 2 represents the values of muon g-2 in terms of the mass parameter M_\psi , where each point corresponds to one parameter set within the range of Eq. (41) allowed by LFV constraints that satisfy a value of muon g-2 in 3 \sigma . The black dashed line shows the best fit value of muon g-2 , the blue points are within 1σ, the yellow ones are within 2σ, and the red ones are within 3σ of the experimental value. Thus, we find that M_\psi \lesssim 15(8.5) TeV is preferred for obtaining muon g-2 within the 3(1) \sigma C.L. in our scenario. In addition, we show branching ratios of LFV processes for the same parameter sets in Fig. 3, where the left and right plots represent {\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma) and {\rm BR}(\tau \to \mu \gamma) as functions of Max [|f_1|, |y_{D_1}|] and Max [|f_3|, |y_{D_3}|] , respectively, and the colors of the points are the same as in Fig. 2. We find that |f_{1}|(|y_{D_1}|) should be smaller than \sim 10^{-4} to avoid a stringent constraint from {\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma), whereas the constraint on f_3 (y_{D_3}) is much looser. Here, we omit a plot for {\rm BR}(\tau \to e \gamma) because it is not correlated to muon g-2 and it tends to be much smaller than the experimental limit.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Random plot of muon g-2 in terms of the mass parameter M_\psi within the range of Eq. (41), where we impose LFV constraints. The black dashed line represents the best fit value of muon g-2, the blue points are within 1σ, the yellow ones are within 2σ, and the red ones are within 3σ of the experimental value.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Left and right plots show {\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma) and {\rm BR}(\tau \to \mu \gamma) as functions of Max[|f_1|, |y_{D_1}|] and Max[|f_3|, |y_{D_3}|] for parameter sets satisfying muon g-2 within 3 \sigma; the colors of points are the same as in Fig. 2. The horizontal dashed line indicates the current upper bound of the BRs.

    Next, we also demonstrate a simple analysis to obtain a sizable muon g-2 setting f_{1,3} = y_{D_{1,3}} = 0 , taking f_2 and y_{D_2} to be free parameters. This is because we can enhance muon g-2 without inducing LFVs. Figure 4 represents the region achieving muon g-2 within the 3 \sigma C.L. on the parameter space of the valid Yukawa coupling y_{D_2} and f_2 , fixing the other input parameters as follows: M_\psi = \{1, 3, 5\} TeV as indicated on the plots, \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi , \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi , m = 10 GeV, and \mu_1 = \mu_{H_4} . The black solid curves represent the parameter region providing the best fit value of muon g-2 . We find that less than order one Yukawa couplings are sufficient to determine the best fit value of muon g-2 even when the fermion mass is of the order 3 TeV.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Region achieving muon g-2 within the 3σ C.L. for M_\psi = \{1, 3, 5\} TeV on \{y_{D_2}, f_2 \} plane, where we select \mu_1=\mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi, \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi, m = 10 GeV, and y_{D_{1,3}} = f_{1,3} =0. The parameters on the black curve provide the best fit value of muon g-2.

    Here, we briefly discuss the collider signature of the model, focusing on the pair productions of new particles with the highest electrical charge in H_4 and ψ. They can be produced via electroweak gauge interactions that are given by

    \begin{aligned}[b]& (D_\mu H_4)^\dagger (D^\mu H_4) \supset {\rm i} \left[ \frac{g}{c_W} \left( \frac32 - 3 s^2_W \right) Z_\mu + 3 e A_\mu \right]\\&\quad \times(\partial^\mu H^{+++} H^{---} - \partial^\mu H^{---} H^{+++}), \end{aligned}

    (42)

    \bar{\psi} {\rm i} \gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi \supset \overline{\psi^{++}} \gamma^\mu \left[ \frac{g}{c_W} \left( \frac32 - 2 s^2_W \right) Z_\mu + 2 e A_\mu \right] \psi^{++},

    (43)

    where we omit other terms that are irrelevant in our calculation below. We consider the production processes

    pp \to Z/\gamma \to H^{+++} H^{---},

    (44)

    pp \to Z/\gamma \to \overline{\psi^{++}} \psi^{++},

    (45)

    in a hadron collider experiment. Here, we estimate the production cross sections using the CalcHEP 3.8 [60] package, implementing the relevant interactions applying the CTEQ6 parton distribution functions (PDFs) [61]. In Fig. 5, the cross sections are shown as functions of exotic charged particle masses for the center of mass energies of \sqrt{s} = 14, 27 and 100 TeV as reference values. We find that the \overline{\psi^{++}} \psi^{++} production cross section is larger than that of H^{+++}H^{---} by one order.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) Cross sections for pp \to H^{+++}H^{---} and pp \to \psi^{++} \psi^{--} with center of mass energies of 14, 27, and 100 TeV.

    Exotic charged particles can decay via Yukawa couplings in Eq. (7). Here, we assume the relation among mass parameters as \mu_\Delta < M_\psi < \mu_{H_4} for illustration. Thus, the dominant decay modes of H^{+++} and \psi^{++} are H^{+++} \to \ell^+ \psi^{++} and \psi^{++} \to \nu_\ell \delta^{++} , respectively, where the decay widths are given by

    \Gamma(H^{+++} \to \ell^+ \psi^{++}) = \frac{f_\ell^2}{16 \pi} m_{H^{+++}} \left( 1 - \frac{M_\psi^2}{m^2_{H^{+++}}} \right)^2,

    (46)

    \Gamma(\psi^{++} \to \nu_\ell \delta^{++}) = \frac{y_\ell^2}{32 \pi } M_\psi \left(1 - \frac{m^2_{\delta^{++}}}{M^2_\psi} \right)^2.

    (47)

    Note that here we consider \delta^{++} \simeq H_1^{++} , assuming a small mixing angle for simplicity. The mixing angle β between doubly charged scalars is estimated using |\beta| \simeq \Delta M^2_{++}/\mu^2_{H_4} \sim \mu_1 v_h/\mu^2_{H_4}, and it can be small; |\beta | < 0.1 is achieved through \mu_1 \lesssim \mu_{H_4}/2 for \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 TeV, and the approximation above is reasonable. Note that the branching ratio of these processes are 1 when the mass difference between components in the multiplets is sufficiently small. In addition, \delta^{++} dominantly decays into the W^+ W^+ mode considering v_\Delta \sim \mathcal{O}(1) GeV. Thus, the decay chains provide signatures from H^{+++}H^{---} and \psi^{++} \psi^{-} such that

    \psi^{++} \overline{\psi^{++}} \to \nu \bar{\nu} \delta^{++} \delta^{--} \to \nu \bar{\nu} W^+ W^+ W^- W^-,

    (48)

    \begin{aligned}[b]& H^{+++}H^{---} \to \ell^+ \ell^- \psi^{++} \overline{\psi^{++}} \to \ell^+ \ell^- \nu \bar{\nu} \delta^{++} \delta^{--} \\&\to \ell^+ \ell^- \nu \bar{\nu} W^+ W^+ W^- W^-, \end{aligned}

    (49)

    where \nu (\bar \nu) indicates any neutrino (anti-neutrino) flavor. For signals, we consider a pair of the same sign W bosons decays into leptons, whereas a pair of the other same sign decays into jets. The signals at the detectors are

    \text{Signal 1:} \quad \ell^\pm \ell^\pm 4 j {\not {E}}_T,

    (50)

    \text{Signal 2:} \quad \ell^\pm \ell^\pm \ell^\pm \ell^\mp 4 j {\not {E}}_T,

    (51)

    where j and {\not {E}}_T indicate jet and missing transverse momentum, respectively. In Table 2, we provide the expected number of events given by the products of luminosity L, production cross section σ, and BRs for the corresponding final state for some benchmark points (BPs) of M_\psi (m_{H^{+++}}) assuming an integrated luminosity of L = 1 ab–1 and m_{\delta^{++}} < M_\psi to enable the decay mode of \psi^{++} \to \delta^{++} \nu . Thus, we find that the mass scale of approximately 1 TeV can be explored using \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV with sufficient integrated luminosity that will be achieved by the High-Luminosity-LHC experiment. In particular, the signal from \overline{\psi^{++}} \psi^{++} is promising as the cross section is larger than that of H^{+++} H^{---} .

    Table 2

    Table 2.  Expected numbers of events for our signals in some BPs of M_\psi (m_{H^{+++}}) with an integrated luminosity of L = 1 ab^{-1}.
    \sqrt{s}/TeV 14 27 100
    M_\psi (m_{H^{+++}})/GeV 1000 1250 1500 1750 1000 1500 2000 2500 2000 3000 4000 6000
    L \cdot \sigma \cdot {\rm BR} [Signal 1] 324. 82. 23. 7. 2221. 319. 65. 16. 1954. 373. 103. 14.
    L \cdot \sigma \cdot {\rm BR} [Signal 2] 22. 5. 1. 0. 188. 24. 4. 1. 181. 33. 8. 1.
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Next, we perform a simple numerical simulation study to examine the possibility of testing our signal at the LHC 14 TeV including the detector effect. For illustration, signal 1 in Eq. (50) is considered because the expected number of events is larger than the other signal. We also fix a doubly charged scalar mass to m_\delta \equiv m_{\delta^{\pm \pm}} = 500 GeV and H^{\pm \pm \pm} mass as 2000 GeV for simplicity. The possible SM background (BG) processes for the signal are expressed as follows:

    \begin{array}{l} pp \to \large\{ ZZZ, \ ZW^+W^-, \ ZZW^\pm, \ ZZZZ, \ W^+W^-W^+W^-, \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ZZW^+W^-, \ ZZZW^\pm, \ W^\pm W^\pm q q \large\}, \end{array}

    (52)

    where q indicates any quarks and these processes provides charged leptons, missing transverse momentum, and jets after the decay of gauge bosons. Note that it is more straightforward and even precise to directly generate charged leptons, jets, and missing transverse energy events as BG in the simulation study. However, generating final states containing many particles such as 8 particle states \ell^\pm \ell^\pm 4j \nu \nu is difficult. Thus, we generate the final states in Eq. (52) in our simulation study; note that, in this case, the number of BG events would be slightly underestimated. We estimate the cross sections of these BG processes and find

    \begin{aligned}[b]& \sigma(pp \to ZZZ) = 10.3 \ {\rm{fb}}, \quad \sigma(pp \to ZW^+W^-) = 9.44 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZW^+) = 19.9 \ {\rm{fb}},\quad \sigma(pp \to ZZW^-) = 10.4 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZZZ) = 1.95 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to W^+W^-W^+W^-) = 0.571 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZW^+W^-) = 0.436 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZZW^+) = 4.21 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZZW^-) = 1.87 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to W^+W^+ q q) = 215 \ {\rm{fb}}, \ \sigma(pp \to W^- W^- q q) = 93.4 \ {\rm{fb}}, \end{aligned}

    (53)

    which are estimated using {\mathrm{MADGRAPH5}} [63]. Subsequently, we perform a numerical simulation to generate events for the signal and BG using {\mathrm{MADGRAPH5}} by implementing the model using FeynRules 2.0 [64]. The events are passed to {\mathrm{PYTHIA}} {\mathrm{8}} [65] to manage hadronization, initial-state radiation (ISR), and final-state radiation (FSR) effects and the decays of SM particles, and we apply {\mathrm{Delphes}} [66] to simulate the detector level. We apply the selection of events at the detector level such that

    \ell^\pm \ell^\pm + \text{at least 3 jets}.

    (54)

    Here, we consider the minimum number of jets as 3 to avoid reducing signal events significantly.

    Fig. 6 shows kinetic distributions for signal and BG events, where we apply integrated luminosity L = 1 ab–1 and consider the \ell^- \ell^- case in the event section Eq. (54) (results for \ell^+ \ell^+ are almost the same); the left-hand plot shows the distribution of the transverse momentum of \ell^-_1 ( \ell_{1(2)} is the charged lepton with the (second) highest transverse momentum), the center plot shows the distribution of the transverse momentum of \ell^-_2 , and the right-hand plot shows the distribution of the missing transverse momentum. The solid black histogram indicates the signal, whereas the gray filled histogram is for BG events where all BG events are summed. Here, the number of events is estimated as N_{\rm{event}} = L \sigma N_{\rm{Selected}}/N_{\rm{Generated}} , where N_{\rm{Select}} is the number of events after the selection, N_{\rm{Generated}} is the number of originally generated events using {\mathrm{MADEVENT5}}, σ is a cross section for each process, and L is the integrated luminosity. We find that P_T(\ell^-) and the missing transverse momentum of signal tend to be larger than those of the BG. We also show distributions for invariant masses of the same sign leptons and three jets in Fig. 7, where we consider three jets because we have selected the minimal number of jets as three. We find that the signal distribution of the three-jet invariant mass is centered around the mass of \delta^{\pm \pm} because the jets in the signal events primarily result from the decay chain \delta^{\pm \pm} \to W^\pm W^\pm \to jjjj .

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  Left: Distribution of transverse momentum of \ell^-_1. Center: Distribution of transverse momentum of \ell^-_2. Right: Distribution of missing transverse momentum. The solid black histogram indicates signal, and the gray filled histogram is for BG events. Here, \ell_{1(2)} is the charged lepton with the (second) highest transverse momentum. The applied luminosity and masses of new particles are given in the plots.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7.  Left: Distribution of invariant mass of same sign charged lepton. Right: Distribution of invariant mass of three jets. The indication of histograms is the same as Fig. 6.

    Based on the kinetic distributions, we apply kinematical cuts

    p_T(\ell^\pm_1) > 150 \ {\rm{GeV}}, \quad {\not {E}}_T > 250 \ {\rm{GeV}},

    (55)

    where {\not {E}}_T is the missing transverse energy (momentum) that is the same as the missing p_T in Fig. 6. For illustration, we show the number of signal events before and after the cut in Eq. (55) for the \ell^- \ell^- case and estimate the discovery significance using the formula

    S = \sqrt{2 \left[ (N_S + N_{\rm BG} ) \ln \left( 1 + \frac{N_S}{N_{\rm BG}} \right) - N_S\right]},

    (56)

    where N_S and N_{\rm BG} are the number of signal and total BG events, respectively. We find that the kinematical cuts can significantly reduce the number of backgrounds, whereas the number of signal events does not reduce significantly. In particular, we find the cut of missing transverse energy improves signal to background ratio effectively. Subsequently, we can obtain a larger significance S after imposing cuts as shown in Table 3. Finally, in Fig. 8, we show the required integrated luminosity to achieve the discovery significance S = 1, 3, 5, where kinematical cuts Eq. (55) are applied and both \ell^+ \ell^+ and \ell^- \ell^- cases are summed. We find that the M_\psi \lesssim 1060 GeV region can be in reach of discovery at the high-luminosity LHC with L = 3000 fb–1. We expect that more mass regions explaining muon g-2 can be tested if we perform a higher energy experiment like 100 TeV collider in the future [62].

    Table 3

    Table 3.  Number of events before and after kinematical cuts for the event selection of \ell^- \ell^- +jets.
    N_{\rm signal}N_{ZZZ}N_{ZW^+W^-}N_{ZZW^\pm}N_{4Z}N_{2W^+W^-}N_{ZZW^+W^-}N_{ZZZW^\pm}N_{W^\pm W^\pm qq}S
    Before cuts33.47.8313.653.50.081910.33.020.3137471.15
    With cuts15.40.0010.3780.8320.002340.4580.1920.005243.745.67
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Figure 8

    Figure 8.  (color online) Integrated luminosity to achieve the discovery significance S=1,3,5 where kinematical cuts Eq. (54) are applied and both \ell^+ \ell^+ and \ell^- \ell^- cases are summed. The center of mass energy is \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV.

    In this paper, we have proposed a simple extension of the SM without additional symmetry by introducing large S U(2)_L multiplet fields such as a quartet vector-like fermion and quartet and triplet scalar fields. These multiplet fields can induce a sizable muon g-2 owing to new Yukawa couplings at the one-loop level, where we do not have chiral suppression by light lepton mass as we select a heavy fermion mass term changing chirality inside a loop diagram. The triplet scalar field can induce neutrino masses after developing its VEV by type-II seesaw mechanism.

    We have performed a numerical analysis searching for a parameter space that explains muon g-2 and allowed by LFV constraints. We find that muon g-2 can be explained when the new multiplets mass scale are less than approximately \mathcal{O}(10) TeV. We also discuss collider physics focusing on the production of multiply-charged fermions/scalars via proton-proton collisions. We have performed a simulation study for \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV fixing some parameters for illustration. The signal/background events are generated, and we find relevant kinematical cuts to reduce the background via kinematical distributions. Subsequently, we have investigated the effect of cuts and shown discovery significance after imposing the cuts. A mass scale of 1 TeV can be explored using \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV with sufficient integrated luminosity that will be achieved by the High-Luminosity-LHC experiment. Additionally, most of mass region explaining muon g-2 can be tested if we achieve a higher energy experiment such as that at the 100 TeV collider.

    1The effect in modifying HVP for muon \begin{document}$ g-2 $\end{document} and electroweak precision test are also discussed previously in Ref. [31].

    2If one explains it via new gauge sector such as \begin{document}$ U(1)_{L_\mu-L_\tau} $\end{document}, chiral flip is not needed but narrow region as for the gauge coupling and its mass [32].

    3Here we just choose the value around the upper limit from \begin{document}$ \rho $\end{document}-parameter. In this case we should require tiny Yukawa coupling (\begin{document}$ y_\nu < 10^{-9} $\end{document}) for neutrino mass generated by type-II seesaw mechanism. We can get smaller \begin{document}$ v_\Delta $\end{document} by adjusting the parameters in the scalar potential.

    [1] B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126(14), 141801 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03281[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801
    [2] D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(16), 161802 (2023), arXiv: 2308.06230[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802
    [3] K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin et al., J. Phys. G 38, 085003 (2011), arXiv: 1105.3149 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/38/8/085003
    [4] T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111808 (2012), arXiv: 1205.5370[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.111808
    [5] T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7(1), 28 (2019) doi: 10.3390/atoms7010028
    [6] A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 073006 (2003) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 73 , 119901 (2006)], arXiv: 0212229[hep-ph]
    [7] C. Gnendiger, D. Stöckinger, and H. Stöckinger-Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 053005 (2013), arXiv: 1306.5546[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.053005
    [8] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97(11), 114025 (2018), arXiv: 1802.02995[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.114025
    [9] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 02, 006 (2019), arXiv: 1810.00007[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2019)006
    [10] M. Hoferichter, B. L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, JHEP 08, 137 (2019), arXiv: 1907.01556[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2019)137
    [11] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 101(1), 014029 (2020), arXiv: 1911.00367[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.014029
    [12] A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard et al., Phys. Lett. B 734, 144 (2014), arXiv: 1403.6400[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.043
    [13] K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 113006 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0312226[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.113006
    [14] P. Masjuan and P. Sanchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D 95(5), 054026 (2017), arXiv: 1701.05829[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.054026
    [15] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura et al., JHEP 04, 161 (2017), arXiv: 1702.07347[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)161
    [16] M. Hoferichter, B. L. Hoid, B. Kubis et al., JHEP 10, 141 (2018), arXiv: 1808.04823[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)141
    [17] A. Gérardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 100(3), 034520 (2019), arXiv: 1903.09471[hep-lat] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034520
    [18] J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134994 (2019), arXiv: 1908.03331 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134994
    [19] G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter et al., JHEP 03, 101 (2020), arXiv: 1910.13432[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2020)101
    [20] T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(13), 132002 (2020), arXiv: 1911.08123[hep-lat] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.132002
    [21] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler et al., Phys. Lett. B 735, 90 (2014), arXiv: 1403.7512[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.012
    [22] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77(12), 827 (2017), arXiv: 1706.09436[hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5161-6
    [23] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (3), 241 (2020) [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (5), 410 (2020)], arXiv: 1908.00921[hep-ph]
    [24] S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther et al., Nature 593(7857), 51 (2021), arXiv: 2002.12347[hep-lat] doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1
    [25] C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, P. Dimopoulos et al., arXiv: 2206.15084 [hep-lat]
    [26] M. Cè, A. Gérardin, G. von Hippel et al., arXiv: 2206.06582 [hep-lat]
    [27] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari et al., arXiv: 2003.04886[hep-ph]
    [28] E. de Rafael, Phys. Rev. D 102(5), 056025 (2020), arXiv: 2006.13880[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.056025
    [29] A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera et al., Phys. Rev. D 102(3), 033002 (2020), arXiv: 2006.12666[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.033002
    [30] F. V. Ignatov et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. D 109(11), 112002 (2024), arXiv: 2302.08834[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112002
    [31] M. Passera, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013009 (2008), arXiv: 0804.1142[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013009
    [32] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 091801 (2014), arXiv: 1406.2332[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.091801
    [33] P. Athron, C. Balázs, D. H. J. Jacob et al., JHEP 09, 080 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03691[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2021)080
    [34] M. Lindner, M. Platscher, and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Rept. 731, 1 (2018), arXiv: 1610.06587[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.001
    [35] A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, JHEP 07, 135 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03202[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2021)135
    [36] G. Guedes and P. Olgoso, arXiv: 2205.04480 [hep-ph]
    [37] S. Baek, T. Nomura, and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 759, 91 (2016), arXiv: 1604.03738[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.055
    [38] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Dark Univ. 26, 100359 (2019), arXiv: 1808.05476[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2019.100359
    [39] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 99(5), 055027 (2019), arXiv: 1807.04555[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.055027
    [40] G. Anamiati, O. Castillo-Felisola, R. M. Fonseca et al., JHEP 12, 066 (2018), arXiv: 1806.07264[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)066
    [41] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 99(5), 055033 (2019), arXiv: 1806.07182[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.055033
    [42] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 783, 381 (2018), arXiv: 1805.03942 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.011
    [43] L. Calibbi, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, JHEP 07, 046 (2018), arXiv: 1804.00009[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)046
    [44] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 96(9), 095017 (2017), arXiv: 1708.03204 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.095017
    [45] Y. Cai, J. Herrero-García, M. A. Schmidt et al., Front. in Phys. 5, 63 (2017), arXiv: 1706.08524[hep-ph] doi: 10.3389/fphy.2017.00063
    [46] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D 94(5), 055012 (2016), arXiv: 1605.02601[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.055012
    [47] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D 94(11), 115018 (2016), arXiv: 1610.04729[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.115018
    [48] C. H. Chen and T. Nomura, Nucl. Phys. B 964, 115314 (2021), arXiv: 2003.07638[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115314
    [49] M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 94, 61 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90825-4
    [50] G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 181, 287 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90354-0
    [51] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227
    [52] T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2860
    [53] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.23.165
    [54] S. M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 94, 495 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90927-2
    [55] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020(8), 083C01 (2020) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [56] M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 753, 178 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0512090 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.07.012
    [57] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.964
    [58] A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG), Eur. Phys. J. C 76(8), 434 (2016), arXiv: 1605.05081[hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4271-x
    [59] J. Adam et al. (MEG), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 201801 (2013), arXiv: 1303.0754[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.201801
    [60] A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729 (2013), arXiv: 1207.6082[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.01.014
    [61] P. M. Nadolsky, H. L. Lai, Q. H. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008), arXiv: 0802.0007[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004
    [62] A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C 79(6), 474 (2019) doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3
    [63] J. Alwall et al., JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv: 1405.0301[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079
    [64] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014), arXiv: 1310.1921[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012
    [65] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv: 1410.3012[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024
    [66] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv: 1307.6346[hep-ex] doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057
  • [1] B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126(14), 141801 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03281[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801
    [2] D. P. Aguillard et al. (Muon g-2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(16), 161802 (2023), arXiv: 2308.06230[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802
    [3] K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin et al., J. Phys. G 38, 085003 (2011), arXiv: 1105.3149 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/38/8/085003
    [4] T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111808 (2012), arXiv: 1205.5370[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.111808
    [5] T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7(1), 28 (2019) doi: 10.3390/atoms7010028
    [6] A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 67 , 073006 (2003) [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 73 , 119901 (2006)], arXiv: 0212229[hep-ph]
    [7] C. Gnendiger, D. Stöckinger, and H. Stöckinger-Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 053005 (2013), arXiv: 1306.5546[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.053005
    [8] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97(11), 114025 (2018), arXiv: 1802.02995[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.114025
    [9] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 02, 006 (2019), arXiv: 1810.00007[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2019)006
    [10] M. Hoferichter, B. L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, JHEP 08, 137 (2019), arXiv: 1907.01556[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2019)137
    [11] A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 101(1), 014029 (2020), arXiv: 1911.00367[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.014029
    [12] A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard et al., Phys. Lett. B 734, 144 (2014), arXiv: 1403.6400[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.043
    [13] K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 113006 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0312226[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.113006
    [14] P. Masjuan and P. Sanchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D 95(5), 054026 (2017), arXiv: 1701.05829[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.054026
    [15] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura et al., JHEP 04, 161 (2017), arXiv: 1702.07347[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2017)161
    [16] M. Hoferichter, B. L. Hoid, B. Kubis et al., JHEP 10, 141 (2018), arXiv: 1808.04823[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2018)141
    [17] A. Gérardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 100(3), 034520 (2019), arXiv: 1903.09471[hep-lat] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034520
    [18] J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134994 (2019), arXiv: 1908.03331 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134994
    [19] G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter et al., JHEP 03, 101 (2020), arXiv: 1910.13432[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP03(2020)101
    [20] T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(13), 132002 (2020), arXiv: 1911.08123[hep-lat] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.132002
    [21] G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler et al., Phys. Lett. B 735, 90 (2014), arXiv: 1403.7512[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.012
    [22] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77(12), 827 (2017), arXiv: 1706.09436[hep-ph] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5161-6
    [23] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (3), 241 (2020) [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (5), 410 (2020)], arXiv: 1908.00921[hep-ph]
    [24] S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther et al., Nature 593(7857), 51 (2021), arXiv: 2002.12347[hep-lat] doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03418-1
    [25] C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, P. Dimopoulos et al., arXiv: 2206.15084 [hep-lat]
    [26] M. Cè, A. Gérardin, G. von Hippel et al., arXiv: 2206.06582 [hep-lat]
    [27] A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari et al., arXiv: 2003.04886[hep-ph]
    [28] E. de Rafael, Phys. Rev. D 102(5), 056025 (2020), arXiv: 2006.13880[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.056025
    [29] A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera et al., Phys. Rev. D 102(3), 033002 (2020), arXiv: 2006.12666[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.033002
    [30] F. V. Ignatov et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. D 109(11), 112002 (2024), arXiv: 2302.08834[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.112002
    [31] M. Passera, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013009 (2008), arXiv: 0804.1142[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013009
    [32] W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 091801 (2014), arXiv: 1406.2332[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.091801
    [33] P. Athron, C. Balázs, D. H. J. Jacob et al., JHEP 09, 080 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03691[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2021)080
    [34] M. Lindner, M. Platscher, and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Rept. 731, 1 (2018), arXiv: 1610.06587[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.12.001
    [35] A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, JHEP 07, 135 (2021), arXiv: 2104.03202[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2021)135
    [36] G. Guedes and P. Olgoso, arXiv: 2205.04480 [hep-ph]
    [37] S. Baek, T. Nomura, and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 759, 91 (2016), arXiv: 1604.03738[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.055
    [38] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Dark Univ. 26, 100359 (2019), arXiv: 1808.05476[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2019.100359
    [39] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 99(5), 055027 (2019), arXiv: 1807.04555[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.055027
    [40] G. Anamiati, O. Castillo-Felisola, R. M. Fonseca et al., JHEP 12, 066 (2018), arXiv: 1806.07264[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)066
    [41] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 99(5), 055033 (2019), arXiv: 1806.07182[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.055033
    [42] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Lett. B 783, 381 (2018), arXiv: 1805.03942 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.07.011
    [43] L. Calibbi, R. Ziegler, and J. Zupan, JHEP 07, 046 (2018), arXiv: 1804.00009[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2018)046
    [44] T. Nomura and H. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 96(9), 095017 (2017), arXiv: 1708.03204 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.095017
    [45] Y. Cai, J. Herrero-García, M. A. Schmidt et al., Front. in Phys. 5, 63 (2017), arXiv: 1706.08524[hep-ph] doi: 10.3389/fphy.2017.00063
    [46] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D 94(5), 055012 (2016), arXiv: 1605.02601[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.055012
    [47] T. Nomura, H. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D 94(11), 115018 (2016), arXiv: 1610.04729[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.115018
    [48] C. H. Chen and T. Nomura, Nucl. Phys. B 964, 115314 (2021), arXiv: 2003.07638[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115314
    [49] M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 94, 61 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90825-4
    [50] G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 181, 287 (1981) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(81)90354-0
    [51] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227
    [52] T. P. Cheng and L. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2860
    [53] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.23.165
    [54] S. M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 94, 495 (1980) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(80)90927-2
    [55] P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020(8), 083C01 (2020) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [56] M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 753, 178 (2006), arXiv: hep-ph/0512090 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.07.012
    [57] M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.964
    [58] A. M. Baldini et al. (MEG), Eur. Phys. J. C 76(8), 434 (2016), arXiv: 1605.05081[hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4271-x
    [59] J. Adam et al. (MEG), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 201801 (2013), arXiv: 1303.0754[hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.201801
    [60] A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729 (2013), arXiv: 1207.6082[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2013.01.014
    [61] P. M. Nadolsky, H. L. Lai, Q. H. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008), arXiv: 0802.0007[hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.013004
    [62] A. Abada et al. (FCC), Eur. Phys. J. C 79(6), 474 (2019) doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3
    [63] J. Alwall et al., JHEP 07, 079 (2014), arXiv: 1405.0301[hep-ph] doi: 10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079
    [64] A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014), arXiv: 1310.1921[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.04.012
    [65] T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv: 1410.3012[hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024
    [66] J. de Favereau et al. (DELPHES 3), JHEP 02, 057 (2014), arXiv: 1307.6346[hep-ex] doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057
  • 加载中

Figures(8) / Tables(3)

Get Citation
Takaaki Nomura and Hiroshi Okada. Muon g − 2 with SU(2)L multiplets[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/adabcf
Takaaki Nomura and Hiroshi Okada. Muon g − 2 with SU(2)L multiplets[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/adabcf shu
Milestone
Received: 2024-06-08
Article Metric

Article Views(1455)
PDF Downloads(18)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

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

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Muon g − 2 with SU(2)L multiplets

    Corresponding author: Takaaki Nomura, nomura@scu.edu.cn
    Corresponding author: Hiroshi Okada, hiroshi3okada@htu.edu.cn
  • 1. College of Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China
  • 2. Department of Physics, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
  • 3. Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (APCTP), Pohang 790-784, Korea
  • 4. Department of Physics, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang 37673, Korea

Abstract: We propose a simple model to obtain a sizable muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment (muon g-2 ) that introduces several S U(2)_L multiplet fields without any additional symmetries. The neutrino mass matrix is simply induced via a type-II seesaw scenario in terms of S U(2)_L triplet Higgs with U(1)_Y hypercharge 1. In addition, we introduce an S U(2)_L quartet vector-like fermion with hypercharge 1/2 and scalar with hypercharge 3/2 . The quartet fermion plays a crucial role in explaining muon g-2 causing the chiral flip inside a loop diagram with the mixing of triplet and quartet scalar bosons via the standard model Higgs. We conduct a numerical analysis and search for the allowed region in our parameter space and demonstrate the collider physics.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • Even after the discovery of the standard model (SM) Higgs, we must resolve several challenges such as non-zero neutrino masses and a muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment (muon g-2 ) that would indicate the necessity for physics beyond the SM. New results on muon g-2 are reported by the E989 collaboration at Fermilab [1, 2]:

      a^{\rm{FNAL}}_\mu = 116592055(24) \times 10^{-11}.

      (1)

      Furthermore, the combined results of the previous Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) measurement suggests that muon g-2 deviates from the SM prediction by 5.1σ [123]:

      \Delta a^{\rm{new}}_\mu = (24.9\pm 4.9)\times 10^{-10}.

      (2)

      Although results of the hadron vacuum polarization (HVP) estimated by recent lattice calculations [2426] may weaken the necessity of a new physics effect, Refs. [2729] 1 show that the lattice results imply new tensions with the HVP extracted from e^+ e^- data and the global fits to the electroweak precision observables. However, we note that such tensions occur only in the large q^2 region, whereas a shift in the e^+e^- hadronic cross section for a momentum transfer below 1 GeV (e.g. from e^+e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- ) does not exhibit this problem. In addition, the CMD-3 collaboration [30] released results on the cross section of e^+ e^- \to \pi^+ \pi^- that disagree at the (2.5-5) \sigma level with all previous measurements that weaken the deviation of muon g-2 . Thus, the origin of the anomaly is controversial, and further experimental/theoretical explorations are required. If muon g-2 suggests new physics, we expect new particles and interactions. To explain the sizable muon g-2 in a natural manner using Yukawa couplings, 2 we would require one-loop contributions with a chiral flip by a heavy fermion mass inside a loop diagram [3336]. Otherwise, the Yukawa couplings would exceed the perturbation limit, or mediator masses that are too light are required.

      A simple method to extend the SM to resolve these problem is the introduction of new fields that are S U(2)_L multiplets [3648]. For example, neutrino masses can be induced by adding a Higgs triplet with hypercharge 1, which is known as a type-II seesaw mechanism [4954]. We can also expect that a sizable contribution to muon g-2 is obtained by adding a vector-like fermion multiplet in addition to a scalar multiplet in which a chiral flip occurs inside a loop picking up a vector-like fermion mass. Additionally, multiple electric charges of components in large multiplets can enhance the muon g-2 value. In addition to explaining the muon g-2 anomaly and neutrino masses, large S U(2)_L multiplet fields would induce interesting signatures at collider experiments as they contain multiply-charged particles.

      In this paper, we explain the sizable muon g-2 via S U(2)_L multiplet fields without any additional symmetries. More concretely, we add an S U(2)_L quartet vector-like fermion ψ with hypercharge 1/2 , one triplet Higgs Δ with hypercharge 1, and one quartet scalar H_4 with hypercharge 3/2 . The quartet fermion plays an crucial role in explaining the sizable muon g-2 causing the chiral flip in terms of its mass term and through mixing of triplet and quartet bosons. In addition, the neutrino mass matrix is simply induced via a type-II scenario via the Yukawa interactions between the lepton doublet and triplet Higgs field. The choice of the S U(2)_L quartet vector-like fermion ψ is suitable for obtaining Yukawa interactions of \bar L_L \Delta^\dagger \psi_R for muon g-2 ; we can have a similar term with a S U(2)_L doublet vector-like fermion, but we would also have an undesired term of \bar L_L \psi_L^c inducing unnecessary mixing between the SM lepton and vector-like fermion. Subsequently, we require H_4 to make the Yukawa term \bar \psi_L h_4 e_R have a chiral flip in the loop diagram inducing muon g-2 . Additionally, note that we should consider constraints on the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of S U(2)_L multiplet scalar fields because they deviate the ρ-parameter from 1. After formulating our model, we conduct a numerical analysis and search for the allowed region in our parameter space, and we discuss the collider physics, focusing on productions of multiply-charged particles in the model.

      The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we introduce our model and formulate the Yukawa and Higgs sectors, oblique ρ parameter, neutral fermion masses including the active neutrino masses, lepton flavor violations (LFVs), and muon g-2 . In Sec. III, we present a numerical analysis of muon g-2 and discuss collider physics. Finally, we provide the summary of our results and the conclusion in Sec. IV.

    II.   MODEL SETUP AND CONSTRAINTS
    • In this section, we introduce our model. For the fermion sector, we introduce one family of vector-like fermions ψ with (4,{1/2}) , where each content in parentheses represents the charge assignment of the SM gauge groups ( S U(2)_L, U(1)_Y ). For the scalar sector, we add a triplet scalar field Δ with (3,1) , which achieves a type-II seesaw mechanism and a quartet scalar field H_4 with (4,{3/2}) , where the SM-like Higgs field is denoted as H. Here, we express the components of multiplets as

      H = (h^+, \tilde h^0)

      (3)

      \Delta = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\dfrac{{{\delta ^ + }}}{{\sqrt 2 }}}&{{\delta ^{ + + }}}\\ {{\delta ^0}}&{ - \dfrac{{{\delta ^ + }}}{{\sqrt 2 }}} \end{array}} \right),

      (4)

      H_4 = ( \phi^{+++}_4,\phi_4^{++}, \phi_4^+, \phi_4^{0})^T,

      (5)

      \psi_{L(R)} = ( \psi^{++}, \psi^+,\psi^{0}, \psi^-)^T_{L(R)} ,

      (6)

      where \tilde h^0 = \dfrac 1{\sqrt2} (h^0 + v_h + {\rm i} G^0) , and the triplet can be expressed as H_3 = ( \delta^{0}, \delta^{+}, \delta^{++})^T . Neutral components of scalar fields develop VEVs denoted by \{ \langle H\rangle, \langle \Delta \rangle, \langle H_4 \rangle \} \equiv \{v_h, v_\Delta, v_4 \}/\sqrt2 , which induce the spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking. All the field contents and their assignments are summarized in Table 1, where the quark sector is exactly the same as in the SM. The renormalizable lepton Yukawa Lagrangian under these symmetries is given by

      L_{L_i}e_{R_i}ψHΔH_4
      S U(2)_L{\bf{2}}{\bf{1}}{\bf{4}}{\bf{2}}{\bf{3}}{\bf{4}}
      U(1)_Y-\dfrac12-1\dfrac12{\dfrac12}1\dfrac32

      Table 1.  Charge assignments of the our lepton and scalar fields under S U(2)_L\times U(1)_Y, where the lower index i is the number of family that runs over 1-3, all of them are singlets under S U(3)_C, and the quark sector is the same as the SM one.

      \begin{aligned}[b] -{{\cal{L}}_\ell} =\;& y_{\ell_{ii}} \overline{L_{L_i}} H e_{R_i} + y_{\nu_{ij}} \overline{L_{L_i}} \Delta^\dagger L^c_{L_j} + y_{D_{i}} [ \overline{L_{L_i}} \Delta^\dagger \psi_{R} ] + f_{i} [\overline{\psi_{L}} H_4 e_{R_i}] \\ & + g_{L} [\overline{\psi^{c}_{L}} \Delta^\dagger \psi_{L}] + g_{R} [\overline{ \psi^{c}_{R}} \Delta^\dagger \psi_{R}] +M_{\psi_{}} \overline{ \psi_{L}} \psi_{R} + {\rm{h.c.}}, \end{aligned}

      (7)

      hereafter, we implicitly symbolize the gauge invariant contracts of S U(2)_L index in brackets [ \cdots ], indices (i,j) = 1 - 3 are the family numbers, and y_\ell is assumed to be diagonal matrix with real parameters without loss of generality. Subsequently, the mass eigenvalues of charged-leptons are defined by m_\ell = y_\ell v_h/\sqrt2 = {\rm{Diag}}(m_e, m_\mu, m_\tau). In our model, the scalar potential is given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] V =\;& - \mu_H^2 H^\dagger H + \mu_\Delta^2 {\rm{Tr}}[\Delta^\dagger \Delta] + \mu_{H_4}^2 H^\dagger_4 H_4 + \lambda_H (H^\dagger H)^2 \\& + (\text{trivial quartet terms including Δ and $H_4$}) + V_{\rm{non-trivial}}, \end{aligned}

      (8)

      where we omit details of trivial quartet terms with Δ and H_4 for simplicity and assume their couplings are small. The non-trivial scalar potential is given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] V_{\rm{non-trivial}} =\;& \mu_1 [H^\dagger \Delta^\dagger H_4+{\rm{h.c.}}] +\mu_2 [H^T \Delta^\dagger H] \\&+ \sum\limits_i \lambda_{H_4 H}^i [H_4^\dagger H H H]_i + {\rm{h.c.}},\end{aligned}

      (9)

      where \mu_1 plays a crucial role in inducing muon g-2 , as we show later.

      Here, we discuss the advantage of selecting a S U(2) quartet for the scalar and fermion. First, we would like to have interaction terms of \overline{L_L} \Delta^\dagger \psi_R , \overline{\psi_L} H_4 e_R , and H^\dagger \Delta^\dagger H_4 to obtain chirality flip enhancement for muon g-2 while achiving the neutrino mass via a type-II seesaw. We can generalize the S U(2)_L representation of ψ and H_4 to be {\bf{N}} if it satisfies {\bf{N}} \times {\bf{3}} \times {\bf{2}} \supset {\bf{1}} to obtain these terms. The minimal choice is an {\bf{N}} = 2 writhing new scalar and fermion as H_2 and \psi' , but this case induces non-desired terms such as \overline{L_L} \psi'^c_L and \overline{\psi'^c_R} H_2 e_R . These terms would induce non-negligible mixing of the SM charged leptons and exotic charged fermions. Thus, we select {\bf{N}} = {\bf{4}} to avoid these unnecessary terms. The choice of a larger multiplet also enhances muon g-2 as we have more contributions from components in multiplets. In addition, the choice of {\bf{N}} = {\bf{4}} induces interesting phenomenology at the collider experiments as it provides multiply-charged particles inside a multiplet.

    • A.   VEVs of scalar fields and ρ-parameter

    • Non-zero VEVs of scalar fields are obtained by solving the stationary conditions

      \frac{\partial V}{\partial v_h} = \frac{\partial V}{\partial v_\Delta} = \frac{\partial V}{\partial v_4} = 0.

      (10)

      Here, we explicitly express the first two terms of Eq. (9) as

      \begin{aligned}[b]& \frac{\mu_1 }{3 \sqrt{2}} (v_h+h_0) (\sqrt{3} \phi^0_4 \delta^{0*} + \sqrt{6} \phi^+_4 \delta^- + 3 \phi^{++} \delta^{--})\\& - \frac{1}{\sqrt2} \mu_2 \delta^{0*} (h^0 + v_h)^2 +c.c. \ ,\end{aligned}

      (11)

      where we consider them in unitary gauge. Assuming v_4, v_\Delta \ll v_h and small couplings for trivial quartet couplings, we obtain the VEVs approximately as

      \begin{aligned}[b] v_h \simeq \sqrt{\frac{\mu_H^2}{\lambda_H}}, \quad v_\Delta \simeq \frac{1}{\mu_\Delta^2} \left( \frac13 \sqrt{\frac32} \mu_1 v_4 v_h + \mu_2 v_h^2 \right),\end{aligned}

      \begin{aligned}[b] v_4 \simeq \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\frac32} \frac{\mu_1 v_\Delta v_h}{\mu_{H_4}^2}.\end{aligned}

      (12)

      Thus, small values of v_\Delta and v_4 are naturally obtained when mass parameters \mu_\Delta and \mu_{H_4} are larger than the electroweak scale.

      The electroweak ρ parameter deviates from unity owing to the nonzero values of v_\Delta and v_4 at the tree level as follows:

      \rho = \frac{v_h^2+2 v_\Delta^2 + 6 v_4^2}{v_h^2+4 v_\Delta^2 + 9 v_4^2},

      (13)

      where the VEVs satisfy the relation v \equiv \sqrt{v_h^2+v_\Delta^2+v_4^2} \simeq 246 GeV. Here, we consider the current constraint on parameter ρ; \rho = 1.00038 \pm 0.00020 [55]. If we take v_X \equiv v_\Delta = v_4 , the upper bound of v_X is

      v_X \lesssim 1.55 \ {\rm{GeV}},

      (14)

      when we require ρ to be within the 2σ level. In our analysis, we select v_\Delta \sim v_4 \sim 1 GeV for simplicity 3. Note that ther smallness of VEVs of triplet and quartet scalars in the model can be obtained using large values of \mu_\Delta and \mu_4 , as in Eq. (12). The smallness of VEVs can be maintained as long as these parameters are larger than cubic coupling \mu_{1,2} even under radiative correction. Although higher order radiative correction would affect the VEVs, we can tune these free parameters to make VEVs small in general.

      Finally, we briefly discuss the vacuum stability of the scalar potential. In the model, we select scales of \mu_\Delta and \mu_{H_4} that are much larger than the VEVs of scalar fields. Thus, we obtain

      \begin{aligned}[b]& \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \delta^{0} \partial \delta^0} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \delta^+ \partial \delta^+} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \delta^{++} \partial \delta^{++}} \simeq \mu^2_\Delta, \\& \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^{0} \partial \phi_4^{0}} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^+ \partial \phi_4^+} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^{++} \partial \phi_4^{++}} \simeq \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial \phi_4^{+++} \partial \phi_4^{+++}} \simeq \mu_{H_4}^2, \end{aligned}

      (15)

      and the other second derivatives of the potential are much smaller. This condition will be maintained after diagonalizing mass matrices of scalar bosons, and the original components are approximately mass eigenstates because the off-diagonal components of mass matrices are much smaller than the diagonal components. Thus, the stability of the vacuum can be guaranteed by the positive values of \mu_\Delta^2 and \mu_{H_4}^2 in the model. Additionally, we assume all the coupling constants associated with quartic terms in the potential to be positive to require the absence of directions in the scalar field space for which the potential is not bounded from below.

    • B.   Masses of new particles

    • The scalars and fermions with large S U(2)_L multiplets provide exotic charged particles. The mass terms of H_4 , Δ, and ψ are approximately given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] \mathcal{L}_M =\;& \mu_\Delta^2 {\rm{Tr}}[\Delta^\dagger \Delta] + \mu_{H_4}^2 H^\dagger_4 H_4 + \frac{\mu_1 v_h}{3} \big(\sqrt{3} \phi^0_4 \delta^{0*} \\&+ \sqrt{6} \phi^+_4 \delta^- + 3 \phi^{++} \delta^{--} + c.c.\big) + M_\psi \bar \psi \psi,\end{aligned}

      (16)

      where we have ignored contributions from quartet terms in the scalar potential assuming they are sufficiently small. Thus, components in ψ have a degenerate mass M_\psi , where a small mass shift appears at the loop level [56], but we ignore it in the following analysis. The triply charged scalar mass is given by m_{H^{+++}} = \mu_{H_4} , whereas we have \delta^\pm-\phi^\pm_4 , \delta^{\pm\pm}-\phi^{\pm\pm}_4 , and \delta^0-\phi^0_4 mixings through the \mu_1 term that lead to a sizable muon g-2 , as we discuss in the following. We express the mass eigenstates and mixings as follows:

      \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\delta ^ \pm }}\\ {\phi _4^ \pm } \end{array}} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{c_\alpha }}&{{s_\alpha }}\\ { - {s_\alpha }}&{{c_\alpha }} \end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {H_1^ \pm }\\ {H_2^ \pm } \end{array}} \right),

      (17)

      \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\delta ^{ \pm \pm }}}\\ {\phi _4^{ \pm \pm }} \end{array}} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{c_\beta }}&{{s_\beta }}\\ { - {s_\beta }}&{{c_\beta }} \end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {H_1^{ \pm \pm }}\\ {H_2^{ \pm \pm }} \end{array}} \right),

      (18)

      \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{\delta ^0}}\\ {\phi _4^0} \end{array}} \right) = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {{c_\gamma }}&{{s_\gamma }}\\ { - {s_\gamma }}&{{c_\gamma }} \end{array}} \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {H_1^0}\\ {H_2^0} \end{array}} \right),

      (19)

      where c_{a},s_{a} are the short-hand notations of \cos a,\sin a , respectively, with a\equiv(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) . The mass eigenvalues and mixing angles are given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] m^2_{\{H_1^+, H_1^{++}, H_1^{0} \}} =\;& \frac12 (\mu_{H_4}^2 + \mu_\Delta^2) \\-& \frac12 \sqrt{(\mu_{H_4}^2 - \mu_\Delta^2)^2 + 4 \Delta M^4_{\{+, ++, 0\}} },\end{aligned}

      (20)

      \begin{aligned}[b] m^2_{\{H_2^+, H_2^{++}, H_2^{0} \}} =\;& \frac12 (\mu_{H_4}^2 + \mu_\Delta^2)\\ + &\frac12 \sqrt{(\mu_{H_4}^2 - \mu_\Delta^2)^2 + 4 \Delta M^4_{\{+, ++, 0 \} }} ,\end{aligned}

      (21)

      \tan (2 \{\alpha, \beta, \gamma \}) = \frac{2 \Delta M^2_{\{+, ++, 0 \} }}{ \mu_{\Delta}^2 - \mu_{H_4}^2},

      (22)

      \Delta M^2_{\{+, ++, 0 \} } = \left\{ \frac{\sqrt{3} \mu_1 v_h}{3}, \frac{\sqrt{6} \mu_1 v_h}{3}, \mu_1 v_h \right\}.

      (23)

      Notice here that we neglect the mixing between the SM Higgs and other neutral scalar bosons by selecting related parameters to be sufficiently small, and we do not discuss experimental constraints related to the SM Higgs boson assuming its couplings are SM like. For example, the mixing between \delta^0 and h^0 is estimated using \mu_1 v_4/\mu_\Delta^2 . The mixing angle is approximately 2 \times 10^{-3} if v_\Delta = 1 GeV, \mu_1 = \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi , \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi , and M_\psi = 1 TeV, which is the maximal angle in our numerical analysis. The mixing angle 2 \times 10^{-3} is sufficiently small to satisfy experimental constraints regarding Higgs boson measurement.

    • C.   Neutral fermion masses

    • After the spontaneous symmetry breaking, the neutral fermion mass matrix in the basis of \Psi^0_L\equiv (\nu_L^c, \psi_R,\psi_L^{c})^T is given by

      {M_N} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {m_\nu ^{(II)}}&{{m_D}}&0\\ {m_D^T}&{{m_R}}&{{M_\psi }}\\ 0&{{M_\psi }}&{{m_L}} \end{array}} \right],

      (24)

      where m_\nu^{(II)}\equiv y_\nu v_\Delta , m_D\equiv {y_D v_\Delta}/\sqrt3 , m_R\equiv {2 g_R v_\Delta}/3 , and m_L\equiv {2 g_L v_\Delta}/3 . Achieving the block diagonalizing, we determine the active neutrino mass matrix:

      m_{\nu_{}}\approx m_{\nu_{}}^{(II)} + \frac{m_D m_D^T m_L}{M^2_\psi}.

      (25)

      The second term in the above equation corresponds to inverse seesaw, but its matrix rank is one. Thus, we simply expect that the neutrino oscillation data are dominantly described by the first term m_{\nu_{}}^{(II)} . Notice here that we require the following constraint to achieve m_{\nu_{}}\approx m_{\nu_{}}^{(II)} :

      \frac{m_D m_D^T m_L}{M^2_\psi} \ll 0.1\ {\rm{eV}}.

      (26)

      It can be obtained by requiring m_L to be small; for example, if m_D \sim 1 Gev and M_\psi = 1 TeV, we select m_L \ll 10^{-3} GeV. We can make m_L small because g_L is a free parameter. Here, we also assume m_D to be negligibly small compared with M_\psi to evade the mixing between the SM charged-leptons and exotic charged fermions. In this case, no mixing occurs between the active neutrinos and heavier neutral fermions. Thus, the heavier neutral mass eigenvalues diag[ D_1,D_2 ] are given by unitary matrix V_N as D = V_N M_N V_N^T , where

      {M_N} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} m&{{M_\psi }}\\ {{M_\psi }}&m \end{array}} \right],

      (27)

      D_1 = M_\psi-m,\ D_2 = M_\psi+m,

      (28)

      {V_N} = \frac{1}{{\sqrt 2 }}\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} {\rm i} &0\\ 0&1 \end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 1&{ - 1}\\ 1&1 \end{array}} \right].

      (29)

      Here, we assume m\equiv m_R = m_L for simplicity.

      The active neutrino mass matrix is diagonalized using D_\nu = U_{\rm{MNS}} m_\nu U_{\rm{MNS}}^T , where U_{\rm{MNS}} is the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata mixing matrix [55]. This suggests that we simply parametrize y_\nu as follows:

      y_\nu = \frac1{v_\Delta} U_{\rm{MNS}}^\dagger D_\nu U_{\rm{MNS}}^T.

      (30)

      Basically, we can achieve neutrino mass and mixing tuning Yukawa couplings y_{\nu_{ij}} that are the same as the type-II seesaw mechanism. Thus, we do not discuss neutrino masses further in this paper.

    • D.   Lepton flavor violations (LFVs) and muon g-2

    • In our model, LFV processes and muon g-2 are induced from Yukawa interactions associated with couplings \{ y_D,\ f \} . The relevant terms are explicitly given by

      \begin{aligned}[b]& f_i [\overline{\psi_L} H_4 e_{R_i}] + y_{D_i} [\overline{L_{L_i}} \Delta^\dagger \psi_R] + {\rm h.c.} \\ &=\; f_i [\overline{\psi^0_L} \phi^+_4 + \overline{\psi^{++}_L} \phi^{+++}_4 + \overline{\psi^+_L} \phi^{++}_4 + \overline{\psi^-_L} \phi^0_4 ] e_{R_i} \\ & + \frac{y_{D_i}}{3} [ \overline{e_{L_i}} (\sqrt3 \delta^{0*} \psi^-_R + 3 \delta^{-} \psi^+_R + \sqrt6 \delta^- \psi^0_R) \\ &+ \overline{\nu_{L_i}} (\sqrt3 \delta^{0*} \psi_R^0 + 3 \delta^{-} \psi^{++}_R + \sqrt6 \delta^- \psi^+_R) ]. \end{aligned}

      (31)

      Considering scalar mixing in Eqs. (17)−(19), contributions to \ell \to \ell' \gamma and muon g-2 are given by the one-loop diagram in Fig. 1. Branching ratios (BRs) of LFV processes are expressed as follows:

      Figure 1.  Feynman diagram to generate muon g-2 and \ell \to \ell' \gamma processes.

      {\rm{BR}}(\ell_i\to\ell_j\gamma) = \frac{48\pi^3\alpha_{\rm{em}} C_{ij} }{(4\pi)^4{ {\rm{G}}_{\rm{F}}^2} m_{\ell_i}^2}\left(|a_{R_{ij}}|^2+|a_{L_{ij}}|^2\right).

      (32)

      Dominant contributions to amplitudes a_L and a_R are given by

      \begin{aligned}[b] a_{R_{ji}} =\;& - y_{D_j} f_i (-1)^{k-1} \Bigg[ \frac{\sqrt6 s_\alpha c_\alpha}3 D_a F(m_{c_k},D_a)\ \\&+ M_{\psi} \Bigg(s_\beta c_\beta\left(F(m_{d_k},M_{\psi}) - G(m_{d_k},M_{\psi})\right)\\& + \frac{s_\gamma c_\gamma}{\sqrt{3}} G(m_{h_k},M_{\psi}) \Bigg)\Bigg] , \end{aligned}

      (33)

      \begin{aligned}[b] a_{L_{ji}} =\;& - f^\dagger_{j} y^\dagger_{D_i} (-1)^{k-1} \Bigg[ \frac{\sqrt6 s_\alpha c_\alpha}3 D_a F(m_{c_k},D_a) \\ & + M_{\psi} \Bigg(s_\beta c_\beta\left(F(m_{d_k},M_{\psi}) - G(m_{d_k},M_{\psi})\right) \\&+ \frac{s_\gamma c_\gamma}{\sqrt{3}} G(m_{h_k},M_{\psi}) \Bigg)\Bigg] , \end{aligned}

      (34)

      where a,k run over 1,2 . m_{d_k},m_{c_k},m_{h_k} are respectively the mass eigenvalues for singly-charged bosons H_{1,2}^{\pm} in Eq. (17), doubly-charged ones H_{1,2}^{\pm\pm} in Eq. (18), and neutral ones H_{1,2}^{0} in Eq. (19); the loop functions are given by

      F(m_a,m_b)\approx \frac{m_a^4 -m_b^4 + 2 m_a^2 m_b^2\ln\left(\dfrac{m_b^2}{m_a^2}\right) }{2(m_a^2 - m_b^2)^3},

      (35)

      G(m_a,m_b)\approx -\frac{3m_a^4 +m_b^4 -4 m_a^2 m_b^2+2m_a^4\ln\left(\dfrac{m_b^2}{m_a^2}\right) }{2(m_a^2 - m_b^2)^3}.

      (36)

      The current experimental upper bounds on BRs of LFV processes are given by [58, 59]

      \begin{aligned}[b]& {\rm{BR}}(\mu\rightarrow e\gamma) \leq4.2\times10^{-13},\quad {\rm{BR}}(\tau\rightarrow \mu\gamma)\leq4.4\times10^{-8}, \\& {\rm{BR}}(\tau\rightarrow e\gamma) \leq3.3\times10^{-8}\; . \end{aligned}

      (37)

      We impose these constraints in our numerical analysis below. Moreover, note that trilepton decay modes \mu(\tau) \to \bar eee and \tau \to \{\bar\mu \mu \mu, \bar\mu \mu e, \mu \mu\bar e, \bar\mu e e,\mu\bar e e \} can be mediated by doubly charged Higgs via the Yukawa interaction of \overline{L^c} \Delta L . However, the corresponding Yukawa coupling in our case is too small to achieve the neutrino mass because we have selected v_\Delta \sim 1 GeV. Thus, we can simply neglect these trilepton decays of μ and τ.

      Muon g-2 ; \Delta a_\mu results from the same diagram as LFVs, and it is formulated by the following expression:

      \Delta a_\mu \approx -\frac{m_\mu}{(4\pi)^2} [{a_{L_{22}}+a_{R_{22}}}] .

      (38)

      The recent data informs us thet \Delta a_\mu = (24.9\pm4.9)\times 10^{-10} [1, 2] at the 1σ C.L. Note that a_{L,R} does not have chiral suppression because the vector-like lepton mass M_\psi is picked inside the loop. The simplest method to obtain the sizable muon g-2 is to set f_{1,3} = y_{D_{1,3}} = 0 , taking f_2 and y_{D_2} to be of order one. Thus, we need not consider the constraints of LFVs. In the next subsection, we will demonstrate this through a numerical analysis.

      Note that one-loop level vertex corrections for Z \bar{\mu} \mu and h \bar{\mu} \mu interactions can be associated with Yukawa coupling y_{D_2} and f_2 achieving a sizable muon g-2 that modify Z(h) \to \bar\mu \mu decay modes. Typically, we can satisfy experimental constraints when we have chiral enhancement for muon g-2 . We would have a strong constraint from Z \to \bar\mu \mu if we do not have chirality flip enhancement, and such an enhancement is one advantage of our model.

    • E.   RG evolution of gauge couplings

    • Here, we briefly discuss the renormalization group evolution of gauge coupling under the existence of new particles. For illustration, we consider U(1)_Y gauge coupling g_Y and check the scale in which it becomes strong. We determine the energy evolution of g_Y , including contributions from \{ \psi, H_4, \Delta \} , such that

      \begin{aligned}[b]\frac{1}{g^2_Y(\mu)} =\;& \frac{1}{g^2_Y(m_{in})} - \frac{b_Y^{\rm{SM}}}{(4\pi)^2} \ln \left[\frac{\mu^2}{m_{in}^2} \right]\\& - \theta(\mu - M) \frac{\Delta b_Y^{\psi} + \Delta b_Y^{H_4} + \Delta b_Y^{\Delta}}{(4 \pi)^2} \ln \left[\frac{\mu^2}{M^2} \right], \end{aligned}

      (39)

      \Delta b_Y^{\psi} = \frac{1}{10}, \ \ \Delta b_Y^{H_4} = \frac{9}{20}, \ \ \Delta b_Y^{\Delta} = \frac{3}{20},

      (40)

      where μ is a reference energy scale, and we select m_{in} = m_Z and M = 1 TeV; m_{in} and M are the initial and threshold mass scales, respectively. Thus, we observe that g_Y becomes \mathcal{O}(1) at approximately \mu = 10^{32} GeV, which is much larger than the Planck scale. The evolution of S U(2)_L gauge coupling does not change significantly, and electroweak gauge couplings do not exhibit strong interaction below the Planck scale in the model.

    III.   NUMERICAL ANALYSIS AND PHENOMENOLOGY
    • In this section, we perform a numerical analysis using scanning free parameters and explore the region to explain muon g-2 , considering LFV constraints. Thereafter, we consider collider physics focusing on the production of multiply-charged fermions and scalar bosons.

    • A.   Numerical analyses on muon {\boldsymbol{g-2}}

    • Now that the formalulations have been presented, we perform a numerical analysis considering LFV constraints and muon g-2 . First, we randomly select the following input parameters:

      \begin{aligned}[b]& M_\psi \supset [10^3,10^5] \ {\rm{GeV}},\quad m \supset [0.01,10] \ {\rm{GeV}},\\& \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi, \quad \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi, \\& \mu_1 \supset [100,\mu_{H_4}] \ {\rm{GeV}}, \quad \{ |f_{2}|, |y_{D_{2}}| \} \supset [0.1,2.0],\\& \{ |f_{1,3}|, |y_{D_{1,3}}| \} \supset [10^{-5},0.1], \end{aligned}

      (41)

      where we select |f_2| and |y_{D_2}| to be larger than other Yukawa couplings to obtain a sizable muon g-2 . Note that splittings of masses of components in the same scalar multiplets are small and we can evade the constraints from oblique parameters [57]. Additionally, we take \mu_2 = 0 for simplicity.

      Figure 2 represents the values of muon g-2 in terms of the mass parameter M_\psi , where each point corresponds to one parameter set within the range of Eq. (41) allowed by LFV constraints that satisfy a value of muon g-2 in 3 \sigma . The black dashed line shows the best fit value of muon g-2 , the blue points are within 1σ, the yellow ones are within 2σ, and the red ones are within 3σ of the experimental value. Thus, we find that M_\psi \lesssim 15(8.5) TeV is preferred for obtaining muon g-2 within the 3(1) \sigma C.L. in our scenario. In addition, we show branching ratios of LFV processes for the same parameter sets in Fig. 3, where the left and right plots represent {\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma) and {\rm BR}(\tau \to \mu \gamma) as functions of Max [|f_1|, |y_{D_1}|] and Max [|f_3|, |y_{D_3}|] , respectively, and the colors of the points are the same as in Fig. 2. We find that |f_{1}|(|y_{D_1}|) should be smaller than \sim 10^{-4} to avoid a stringent constraint from {\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma), whereas the constraint on f_3 (y_{D_3}) is much looser. Here, we omit a plot for {\rm BR}(\tau \to e \gamma) because it is not correlated to muon g-2 and it tends to be much smaller than the experimental limit.

      Figure 2.  (color online) Random plot of muon g-2 in terms of the mass parameter M_\psi within the range of Eq. (41), where we impose LFV constraints. The black dashed line represents the best fit value of muon g-2, the blue points are within 1σ, the yellow ones are within 2σ, and the red ones are within 3σ of the experimental value.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Left and right plots show {\rm BR}(\mu \to e \gamma) and {\rm BR}(\tau \to \mu \gamma) as functions of Max[|f_1|, |y_{D_1}|] and Max[|f_3|, |y_{D_3}|] for parameter sets satisfying muon g-2 within 3 \sigma; the colors of points are the same as in Fig. 2. The horizontal dashed line indicates the current upper bound of the BRs.

      Next, we also demonstrate a simple analysis to obtain a sizable muon g-2 setting f_{1,3} = y_{D_{1,3}} = 0 , taking f_2 and y_{D_2} to be free parameters. This is because we can enhance muon g-2 without inducing LFVs. Figure 4 represents the region achieving muon g-2 within the 3 \sigma C.L. on the parameter space of the valid Yukawa coupling y_{D_2} and f_2 , fixing the other input parameters as follows: M_\psi = \{1, 3, 5\} TeV as indicated on the plots, \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi , \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi , m = 10 GeV, and \mu_1 = \mu_{H_4} . The black solid curves represent the parameter region providing the best fit value of muon g-2 . We find that less than order one Yukawa couplings are sufficient to determine the best fit value of muon g-2 even when the fermion mass is of the order 3 TeV.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Region achieving muon g-2 within the 3σ C.L. for M_\psi = \{1, 3, 5\} TeV on \{y_{D_2}, f_2 \} plane, where we select \mu_1=\mu_{H_4} = 1.2 M_\psi, \mu_\Delta = 0.8 M_\psi, m = 10 GeV, and y_{D_{1,3}} = f_{1,3} =0. The parameters on the black curve provide the best fit value of muon g-2.

    • B.   Collider physics

    • Here, we briefly discuss the collider signature of the model, focusing on the pair productions of new particles with the highest electrical charge in H_4 and ψ. They can be produced via electroweak gauge interactions that are given by

      \begin{aligned}[b]& (D_\mu H_4)^\dagger (D^\mu H_4) \supset {\rm i} \left[ \frac{g}{c_W} \left( \frac32 - 3 s^2_W \right) Z_\mu + 3 e A_\mu \right]\\&\quad \times(\partial^\mu H^{+++} H^{---} - \partial^\mu H^{---} H^{+++}), \end{aligned}

      (42)

      \bar{\psi} {\rm i} \gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi \supset \overline{\psi^{++}} \gamma^\mu \left[ \frac{g}{c_W} \left( \frac32 - 2 s^2_W \right) Z_\mu + 2 e A_\mu \right] \psi^{++},

      (43)

      where we omit other terms that are irrelevant in our calculation below. We consider the production processes

      pp \to Z/\gamma \to H^{+++} H^{---},

      (44)

      pp \to Z/\gamma \to \overline{\psi^{++}} \psi^{++},

      (45)

      in a hadron collider experiment. Here, we estimate the production cross sections using the CalcHEP 3.8 [60] package, implementing the relevant interactions applying the CTEQ6 parton distribution functions (PDFs) [61]. In Fig. 5, the cross sections are shown as functions of exotic charged particle masses for the center of mass energies of \sqrt{s} = 14, 27 and 100 TeV as reference values. We find that the \overline{\psi^{++}} \psi^{++} production cross section is larger than that of H^{+++}H^{---} by one order.

      Figure 5.  (color online) Cross sections for pp \to H^{+++}H^{---} and pp \to \psi^{++} \psi^{--} with center of mass energies of 14, 27, and 100 TeV.

      Exotic charged particles can decay via Yukawa couplings in Eq. (7). Here, we assume the relation among mass parameters as \mu_\Delta < M_\psi < \mu_{H_4} for illustration. Thus, the dominant decay modes of H^{+++} and \psi^{++} are H^{+++} \to \ell^+ \psi^{++} and \psi^{++} \to \nu_\ell \delta^{++} , respectively, where the decay widths are given by

      \Gamma(H^{+++} \to \ell^+ \psi^{++}) = \frac{f_\ell^2}{16 \pi} m_{H^{+++}} \left( 1 - \frac{M_\psi^2}{m^2_{H^{+++}}} \right)^2,

      (46)

      \Gamma(\psi^{++} \to \nu_\ell \delta^{++}) = \frac{y_\ell^2}{32 \pi } M_\psi \left(1 - \frac{m^2_{\delta^{++}}}{M^2_\psi} \right)^2.

      (47)

      Note that here we consider \delta^{++} \simeq H_1^{++} , assuming a small mixing angle for simplicity. The mixing angle β between doubly charged scalars is estimated using |\beta| \simeq \Delta M^2_{++}/\mu^2_{H_4} \sim \mu_1 v_h/\mu^2_{H_4}, and it can be small; |\beta | < 0.1 is achieved through \mu_1 \lesssim \mu_{H_4}/2 for \mu_{H_4} = 1.2 TeV, and the approximation above is reasonable. Note that the branching ratio of these processes are 1 when the mass difference between components in the multiplets is sufficiently small. In addition, \delta^{++} dominantly decays into the W^+ W^+ mode considering v_\Delta \sim \mathcal{O}(1) GeV. Thus, the decay chains provide signatures from H^{+++}H^{---} and \psi^{++} \psi^{-} such that

      \psi^{++} \overline{\psi^{++}} \to \nu \bar{\nu} \delta^{++} \delta^{--} \to \nu \bar{\nu} W^+ W^+ W^- W^-,

      (48)

      \begin{aligned}[b]& H^{+++}H^{---} \to \ell^+ \ell^- \psi^{++} \overline{\psi^{++}} \to \ell^+ \ell^- \nu \bar{\nu} \delta^{++} \delta^{--} \\&\to \ell^+ \ell^- \nu \bar{\nu} W^+ W^+ W^- W^-, \end{aligned}

      (49)

      where \nu (\bar \nu) indicates any neutrino (anti-neutrino) flavor. For signals, we consider a pair of the same sign W bosons decays into leptons, whereas a pair of the other same sign decays into jets. The signals at the detectors are

      \text{Signal 1:} \quad \ell^\pm \ell^\pm 4 j {\not {E}}_T,

      (50)

      \text{Signal 2:} \quad \ell^\pm \ell^\pm \ell^\pm \ell^\mp 4 j {\not {E}}_T,

      (51)

      where j and {\not {E}}_T indicate jet and missing transverse momentum, respectively. In Table 2, we provide the expected number of events given by the products of luminosity L, production cross section σ, and BRs for the corresponding final state for some benchmark points (BPs) of M_\psi (m_{H^{+++}}) assuming an integrated luminosity of L = 1 ab–1 and m_{\delta^{++}} < M_\psi to enable the decay mode of \psi^{++} \to \delta^{++} \nu . Thus, we find that the mass scale of approximately 1 TeV can be explored using \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV with sufficient integrated luminosity that will be achieved by the High-Luminosity-LHC experiment. In particular, the signal from \overline{\psi^{++}} \psi^{++} is promising as the cross section is larger than that of H^{+++} H^{---} .

      \sqrt{s}/TeV 14 27 100
      M_\psi (m_{H^{+++}})/GeV 1000 1250 1500 1750 1000 1500 2000 2500 2000 3000 4000 6000
      L \cdot \sigma \cdot {\rm BR} [Signal 1] 324. 82. 23. 7. 2221. 319. 65. 16. 1954. 373. 103. 14.
      L \cdot \sigma \cdot {\rm BR} [Signal 2] 22. 5. 1. 0. 188. 24. 4. 1. 181. 33. 8. 1.

      Table 2.  Expected numbers of events for our signals in some BPs of M_\psi (m_{H^{+++}}) with an integrated luminosity of L = 1 ab^{-1}.

      Next, we perform a simple numerical simulation study to examine the possibility of testing our signal at the LHC 14 TeV including the detector effect. For illustration, signal 1 in Eq. (50) is considered because the expected number of events is larger than the other signal. We also fix a doubly charged scalar mass to m_\delta \equiv m_{\delta^{\pm \pm}} = 500 GeV and H^{\pm \pm \pm} mass as 2000 GeV for simplicity. The possible SM background (BG) processes for the signal are expressed as follows:

      \begin{array}{l} pp \to \large\{ ZZZ, \ ZW^+W^-, \ ZZW^\pm, \ ZZZZ, \ W^+W^-W^+W^-, \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ZZW^+W^-, \ ZZZW^\pm, \ W^\pm W^\pm q q \large\}, \end{array}

      (52)

      where q indicates any quarks and these processes provides charged leptons, missing transverse momentum, and jets after the decay of gauge bosons. Note that it is more straightforward and even precise to directly generate charged leptons, jets, and missing transverse energy events as BG in the simulation study. However, generating final states containing many particles such as 8 particle states \ell^\pm \ell^\pm 4j \nu \nu is difficult. Thus, we generate the final states in Eq. (52) in our simulation study; note that, in this case, the number of BG events would be slightly underestimated. We estimate the cross sections of these BG processes and find

      \begin{aligned}[b]& \sigma(pp \to ZZZ) = 10.3 \ {\rm{fb}}, \quad \sigma(pp \to ZW^+W^-) = 9.44 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZW^+) = 19.9 \ {\rm{fb}},\quad \sigma(pp \to ZZW^-) = 10.4 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZZZ) = 1.95 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to W^+W^-W^+W^-) = 0.571 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZW^+W^-) = 0.436 \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZZW^+) = 4.21 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to ZZZW^-) = 1.87 \times 10^{-2} \ {\rm{fb}}, \\& \sigma(pp \to W^+W^+ q q) = 215 \ {\rm{fb}}, \ \sigma(pp \to W^- W^- q q) = 93.4 \ {\rm{fb}}, \end{aligned}

      (53)

      which are estimated using {\mathrm{MADGRAPH5}} [63]. Subsequently, we perform a numerical simulation to generate events for the signal and BG using {\mathrm{MADGRAPH5}} by implementing the model using FeynRules 2.0 [64]. The events are passed to {\mathrm{PYTHIA}} {\mathrm{8}} [65] to manage hadronization, initial-state radiation (ISR), and final-state radiation (FSR) effects and the decays of SM particles, and we apply {\mathrm{Delphes}} [66] to simulate the detector level. We apply the selection of events at the detector level such that

      \ell^\pm \ell^\pm + \text{at least 3 jets}.

      (54)

      Here, we consider the minimum number of jets as 3 to avoid reducing signal events significantly.

      Fig. 6 shows kinetic distributions for signal and BG events, where we apply integrated luminosity L = 1 ab–1 and consider the \ell^- \ell^- case in the event section Eq. (54) (results for \ell^+ \ell^+ are almost the same); the left-hand plot shows the distribution of the transverse momentum of \ell^-_1 ( \ell_{1(2)} is the charged lepton with the (second) highest transverse momentum), the center plot shows the distribution of the transverse momentum of \ell^-_2 , and the right-hand plot shows the distribution of the missing transverse momentum. The solid black histogram indicates the signal, whereas the gray filled histogram is for BG events where all BG events are summed. Here, the number of events is estimated as N_{\rm{event}} = L \sigma N_{\rm{Selected}}/N_{\rm{Generated}} , where N_{\rm{Select}} is the number of events after the selection, N_{\rm{Generated}} is the number of originally generated events using {\mathrm{MADEVENT5}}, σ is a cross section for each process, and L is the integrated luminosity. We find that P_T(\ell^-) and the missing transverse momentum of signal tend to be larger than those of the BG. We also show distributions for invariant masses of the same sign leptons and three jets in Fig. 7, where we consider three jets because we have selected the minimal number of jets as three. We find that the signal distribution of the three-jet invariant mass is centered around the mass of \delta^{\pm \pm} because the jets in the signal events primarily result from the decay chain \delta^{\pm \pm} \to W^\pm W^\pm \to jjjj .

      Figure 6.  Left: Distribution of transverse momentum of \ell^-_1. Center: Distribution of transverse momentum of \ell^-_2. Right: Distribution of missing transverse momentum. The solid black histogram indicates signal, and the gray filled histogram is for BG events. Here, \ell_{1(2)} is the charged lepton with the (second) highest transverse momentum. The applied luminosity and masses of new particles are given in the plots.

      Figure 7.  Left: Distribution of invariant mass of same sign charged lepton. Right: Distribution of invariant mass of three jets. The indication of histograms is the same as Fig. 6.

      Based on the kinetic distributions, we apply kinematical cuts

      p_T(\ell^\pm_1) > 150 \ {\rm{GeV}}, \quad {\not {E}}_T > 250 \ {\rm{GeV}},

      (55)

      where {\not {E}}_T is the missing transverse energy (momentum) that is the same as the missing p_T in Fig. 6. For illustration, we show the number of signal events before and after the cut in Eq. (55) for the \ell^- \ell^- case and estimate the discovery significance using the formula

      S = \sqrt{2 \left[ (N_S + N_{\rm BG} ) \ln \left( 1 + \frac{N_S}{N_{\rm BG}} \right) - N_S\right]},

      (56)

      where N_S and N_{\rm BG} are the number of signal and total BG events, respectively. We find that the kinematical cuts can significantly reduce the number of backgrounds, whereas the number of signal events does not reduce significantly. In particular, we find the cut of missing transverse energy improves signal to background ratio effectively. Subsequently, we can obtain a larger significance S after imposing cuts as shown in Table 3. Finally, in Fig. 8, we show the required integrated luminosity to achieve the discovery significance S = 1, 3, 5, where kinematical cuts Eq. (55) are applied and both \ell^+ \ell^+ and \ell^- \ell^- cases are summed. We find that the M_\psi \lesssim 1060 GeV region can be in reach of discovery at the high-luminosity LHC with L = 3000 fb–1. We expect that more mass regions explaining muon g-2 can be tested if we perform a higher energy experiment like 100 TeV collider in the future [62].

      N_{\rm signal}N_{ZZZ}N_{ZW^+W^-}N_{ZZW^\pm}N_{4Z}N_{2W^+W^-}N_{ZZW^+W^-}N_{ZZZW^\pm}N_{W^\pm W^\pm qq}S
      Before cuts33.47.8313.653.50.081910.33.020.3137471.15
      With cuts15.40.0010.3780.8320.002340.4580.1920.005243.745.67

      Table 3.  Number of events before and after kinematical cuts for the event selection of \ell^- \ell^- +jets.

      Figure 8.  (color online) Integrated luminosity to achieve the discovery significance S=1,3,5 where kinematical cuts Eq. (54) are applied and both \ell^+ \ell^+ and \ell^- \ell^- cases are summed. The center of mass energy is \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV.

    IV.   SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
    • In this paper, we have proposed a simple extension of the SM without additional symmetry by introducing large S U(2)_L multiplet fields such as a quartet vector-like fermion and quartet and triplet scalar fields. These multiplet fields can induce a sizable muon g-2 owing to new Yukawa couplings at the one-loop level, where we do not have chiral suppression by light lepton mass as we select a heavy fermion mass term changing chirality inside a loop diagram. The triplet scalar field can induce neutrino masses after developing its VEV by type-II seesaw mechanism.

      We have performed a numerical analysis searching for a parameter space that explains muon g-2 and allowed by LFV constraints. We find that muon g-2 can be explained when the new multiplets mass scale are less than approximately \mathcal{O}(10) TeV. We also discuss collider physics focusing on the production of multiply-charged fermions/scalars via proton-proton collisions. We have performed a simulation study for \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV fixing some parameters for illustration. The signal/background events are generated, and we find relevant kinematical cuts to reduce the background via kinematical distributions. Subsequently, we have investigated the effect of cuts and shown discovery significance after imposing the cuts. A mass scale of 1 TeV can be explored using \sqrt{s} = 14 TeV with sufficient integrated luminosity that will be achieved by the High-Luminosity-LHC experiment. Additionally, most of mass region explaining muon g-2 can be tested if we achieve a higher energy experiment such as that at the 100 TeV collider.

Reference (66)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return