Higgs Couplings and

Electroweak Phase
Transition
Maxim Perelstein, Cornell

BSM Higgs Workshop, LPC/Fermilab, November 3, 2014

[Based on: Andrey Katz, MP, 1401.1827, JHEP]

1.2 Coupling Measurements 13

Higgs: Discovery to Precision

ATLAS Total uncertainty -1
s = 7 TeV, L ≤ 5.1 fb
-1
s = 8 TeV, L ≤ 19.6 fb
mH = 125.5 GeV ± 1σ ± 2σ
CMS Preliminary 68% CL
2σ
κV 95% CL
Model: 1σ κV
κV, κF
2σ
κF
κb
1σ

Model:
λFV
2σ
κτ
λFV, κVV
1σ

Model: 2σ
κt
λWZ, λγ Z, λWZ
λFZ, κZZ 1σ
κg
2σ
κg
Model: 1σ
κγ
pSM = 0.78
κg, κγ
2σ
κγ BRBSM [ κV ≤ 1 ] pSM = 0.88
1σ

-1 0 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

s = 7 TeV ∫ Ldt = 4.6-4.8 fb-1 Parameter value
s = 8 TeV ∫ Ldt = 20.7 fb-1 Combined H → γ γ , ZZ*, WW*
parameter value

Figure 1-1. Left: summary of the ATLAS coupling scale factor measurements for di↵erent models. The
solid vertical lines are the best-fit values while the dark- and light-shaded band represent the total ±1 and

Current status: ~10-20% precision on

±2 uncertainties. The curves are distributions of the likelihood ratios. Right: summary of the CMS fits
for deviations in the coupling for the generic six-parameter model including e↵ective loop couplings. The
result of the fit when extending the model to allow for beyond-SM decays while restricting the coupling to

some couplings (V, g, gamma)

vector bosons to not exceed unity (V  1.0) is also shown.

the result in the table. These projections are based on the analysis of 7 and 8 TeV data, not all final states
have been explored. They are expected to improve once more final states are included. CMS has considered
two scenarios of systematic uncertainties:

• Scenario 1: all systematic uncertainties are left unchanged (note that uncertainty reductions from
Future: Higgs Precision Program
20 Higgs working group report

Measurement Precision

Measurement Precision
10-1 10-1

10-2
10-2

10-3
-3
10
LHC-8TeV

LHC-8TeV
LHC300

LHC300
HL-LHC

ILC500

HL-LHC

ILC500
CLIC1400

CLIC3000

CLIC1400

CLIC3000
ILC1000-up

ILC1000-up
ILC500-up

ILC500-up
TLEP

TLEP
ILC1000

ILC1000
Measurement Precision
Measurement Precision

10-1
-1
10

10-2

10-2

ILC500-up

ILC1000-up
HL-LHC
LHC300

ILC500

CLIC3000
ILC1000

TLEP

CLIC1400
LHC-8TeV
LHC-8TeV

LHC300

HL-LHC

ILC500

CLIC1400

CLIC3000
ILC1000-up
ILC500-up

TLEP
ILC1000

Snowmass Higgs Report

• 2-5% precision achievable at the HL-LHC Figure 1-3. Measurement precision on W , Z ,  , and g at di↵erent facilities.

• 0.1% precision on V, 1% on g and gamma at e+e- Higgs factories

A number of studies have presented results combining measurements from di↵erent facilities [88, 89]. A
general observation is that the precision in the measurement of many Higgs coupling at a new facility are
reasonably or significantly improved, and these quickly dominate the combined results and overall knowledge

• At or almost at precision electroweak levels!

of the relevant coupling parameters. Exceptions are the measurements of the branching fractions of rare
decays such as H ! and H ! µ+ µ where results from new lepton colliders would not significantly
improve the coupling precisions driving these decays. However, precision measurements of the ratio of Z /
at hadron colliders combined with the high-precision and model-independent measurements of Z at a lepton
 Electroweak Phase Transition

• At high temperatures (e.g. in the early Universe), electroweak

symmetry is restored:

• Electroweak Phase Transition into the current broken-EW phase

occurred about sec after the Big Bang ( )

• Baryon asymmetry may have been produced during this phase

transition - “electroweak baryogenesis”

• A strongly first-order transition is required for successful EWBG

• In the SM, transition is second order; BSM physics at the weak
scale can modify dynamics, inducing a 1st order transition
First-Order EWPT in Cartoons

• “Transition strength” ~ entropy release

• Numerical studies: EW Baryogenesis possible if

• Otherwise, sphelaron washout of the baryon number

 HC and EWPT
• No possibility of producing “plasma” with restored EW
symmetry (T-RHIC?) so no direct experimental probe

• However, hard to induce large modifications of the finite-T

potential without also modifying T=0 Higgs potential and
couplings

• Can precise measurements of Higgs couplings conclusively

probe the nature of EWPT?

• Two basic mechanisms for first-order EWPT: tree-level mixing

with other scalars; and loop-induced corrections (the famous
Th^3 term)

• We focused on loop-y models since they seem harder to

probe* [* a study of tree-y models is now in progress…]
 field boson mass
configuration withm = 2µ
a hconstant, = 126
spatially GeV determine
homogeneous Higgs field the coefficients of this potenti

HC and EWPT: Setup

'
Hbg = (0, p ) , (2.4)
2 µ ⇡ 90 GeV, ⇡ 0.13.
and all other fields set to zero. Including one-loop quantum corrections, the e↵ective
We has
potential assume
the formthat the dominant BSM correction to Higgs physics comes from
• The cubic term at high-T is induced by loops of scalars, not fermions

single non-SM scalar
Ve↵ ('; T ) = Vfield
0 (Hbg ) + ,
V1whose tree-level
(') + VT ('; T), contribution
(2.5) to the scalar pote
the
where V1 isform
the one-loop contribution to the zero-temperature e↵ective potential (also

• Add a single complex scalar , with

known as Coleman-Weinberg potential), and VT is the 2thermal
V = m0 | |2 + correction2 [? ? 2]. Both
| | |H| + ⌘| |4 .
V1 and VT receive contributions from all particles coupled to the Higgs. A particle’s
contribution to both V1 and VT is determined by its multiplicity gi , its fermion number
We do not fix the SM gauge quantum numbers of at this point; we wi
Fi , and its mass in the presence of a background Higgs field (or Higgs-dependent mass
• One-loop several
corrections
for short), possibilities
mi ('):
To study
as described
to the potential
the 
EWPT
at bothinT=0 Sec.and2.3.finite-T are well known:

gi ( 1) Fi
4 m2idynamics,
(') 3 4 consider
2 2
the e↵ective finite-temperature
V1 (') = 2
mi (') log 2 mi (') + 2mi (')mi (v) ; (2.6)
64⇡ m (v) 2
Ve↵ ('; T ), where T is temperature. Physically, this object is just the free ene
i
Z " r !#
!level. We focusfield configuration
onTthe
4 F
gi T ( 1) of the
i 1
with ato1constant,Fi and spatially
2
miAt (')homogeneous Higgs field
VT ('; ) = couplings dx Higgs
x2
log gluons
( 1) exp photons.
x 2+ the ,one-loop
(2.7) order,
level. We focus on the couplings 2⇡ 2 of the 2
0 Higgs to gluons and photons. TAt the one-loop order,
the contributions of particles with masses '
mh to these couplings are described by e↵ective
Hbg = are p ) , by e↵ective
(0,described
•
the contributions
operators, of particles with masses mh to these couplings
The key object is the Higgs-dependent
2↵ µ⌫
mass!
↵s But recall:

µ⌫
2
operators, L = C hF F , L
h µ⌫ – = 12⇡v Cg hGµ⌫ G .
– 5 hgg (10)
9⇡v
2↵ fields µ⌫ ↵Including
and L h
all= other C hFµ⌫ F set
, to
L zero.
hgg =
s
C g hG µ⌫ Gone-loop
µ⌫
. quantum corrections,
(10) th
The Wilson coefficients can9⇡v
be found using the well-known
12⇡v“low-energy theorems” [2]:
potential has the form
!
The Wilson coefficients can be found
Dirac
X using the well-known
f ermions 2 “low-energy
scalars
X theorems”
2 [2]:
3 @ ln mf (v) 3 @ ln ms (v)
C = 1+ Nc,f Q2f + Nc,s Q2s ,
8 f ermions
Dirac Ve↵@ (';
ln v T ) =
32 V 0 (H
scalars bg ) + V
@ ln(')
v
1 2 + VT ('; T ) ,
3 X f 2
@ ln mf (v) 3 X s
2 2 @ ln ms (v)
! C = 1+ Dirac f ermionsNc,f Qf
X @ ln m 2
(v)
+ scalars
X N Q
c,s s 2 ,
8 @ ln
f v 1 32 C(r @ ln m (v)
@ ln v
C where
= 1 + V is
g f the C(r
1 one-loop
)f contribution
+ s to
) the s zero-temperature
s , (11) e↵ective pote
@ ln v 4 s @ ln v
known as XColeman-Weinberg
f
Dirac f ermions
@ ln mf (v) 1potential),
2 scalars
X @ and
ln m2sV T is the thermal correction [?
(v)
• ExpectCdirect
g = 1correlation
+
V1 and Vf T receivebetween
C(rf )
@the
ln v size 4of the
contributions
+ cubic
C(r
from s ) coupling
all particles
@ ln v
, induced at(11)
coupled finite-T
to the Higgs. A
and non-SM
the firstcontributions to of theand
SM top loops,(unless
the sum runsisover
color and EM-neutral)
where term is the contribution s the top partners,
contribution to both V and V
and Nc,i and Qi are the dimension of the SU1(3)c representationT is determined by its multiplicity
and the electric charge (in units
gi , its fermio
whereofthe first term
electron Fiis, and
charge) the itsparticle
of the massi.in
contribution theSM
ofNote
the presence
thattop
theloops,
exact ofthea sum
background
same runs over
objects, Higgs
the field (or Higgs-depen
top partners,
the Higgs-dependent
 VT ('; T ) ⇡ + ... (3.1)
The critical temperature Tc for the first-order
24 transition
12⇡ is determined by the condition

Analytic Example
The mass in the presence of a background Higgs field is given by
V (0; T ) = V (' (T ); T ).
c m2 (') = m2++  '
c 2. c (3.2)
(3.6)
0
2

• A(3.5),
Solving Eqs. special
If m0 is case yields
can small,
sufficiently
(3.6) be studied analytically*:
the second
3


term in the thermal potential (3.1) is e↵ectively
cubic in '. Such a negative ' term can result in a stable EWSB minimum of the
potential at high temperature, 2as required for first-order EWPT. Motivated
3/2 by this, let
us consider2the case m0⇣=24µ gtreatment.
 Tc The e↵ective
• High-temperature
potential is
0, which allows
Tc = expansion of 2the
g 
for simple
⌘ , thermal analytic
'+ (Tpotential:

c) = p
12 2⇡
. (3.7)
g  1 24⇡ 2
✓ ◆
2
1 2 g T 2 g 3/2 T 3
Ve↵ ('; T ) = V0 (') + VT ('; T ) ⇡ µ + ' p ' + '4 . (3.3)
! 2 24 2 24 2⇡ 4
Requiring that a first-order transition occurs, Tc > 0, and is strongly first-order,
The unbroken symmetry point ' = 0 is a local minimum as long as
'+ (Tc )/Tc > 1, yields a range of acceptable values of :
• Location of the broken-symmetry
g Tminimum
2
µ2 > 0.
at finite T:
(3.4)
5.5 24 3.6
The location of the other minimum >  > the .larger root, '+, of the quadratic
1/2 is given by 2/3
(3.8)
•
Critical temperature:

equation g
Solving Eqs. (3.5), (3.6) yields g 3/2 T
g
g T 2
2 2
' p ' µ + = 0. (3.5)
As an example, consider a color-triplet, 8 22⇡weak-singlet 24 field, as in the “RH stop” or
•
3/2
24µ g  T
Solve
The together:

critical T 2
=
temperature
“Exotic Triplet” benchmark models c Tc for⇣ the ⌘ ,
first-order
of Table 2
' (T )
transition =is p c
determined
1. In this case, our
+ c . byestimate (3.7)
the condition
suggests that
g  1 g  12 2⇡
24⇡ 2
a strongly first-order transition occurs V (0;for values
Tc ) = V ('+ (Tof
c ); T
c ).between 1.1 and 2.2. (3.6) At the same
time, the • loop contribution to the Higgs-gluon coupling
2
Strongly
Requiring 1-st
that order
a if

first-order transition occurs, T c > 0, andisis strongly first-order,
'+ (Tc )/Tc > 1, yields a range of acceptable values of :
– 23.6
5.51 – 11v
• Gluon-Higgs coupling: Rg = 1/2 > 2 > v
g 8 m +g
2/32
. . (3.8) (3.9)
0 2
As an example, consider a color-triplet, weak-singlet field, as in the “RH stop” or
v 2
2
In the limit m 0 ⌧ Triplet”
“Exotic
2
, which
benchmark ⇠ 1 ofcorresponds
for models Table 1. In thisto a broad
case, range
our estimate of mthat
suggests 0 , we obtain
 Numerical Studies
• In general, no analytic solution for critical T and order parameter - solve
numerically

• Numerical code also includes SM contributions, “daisy resummations” etc.

where is electrically charged, this deviation can be easier to probe than deviation in
the h coupling, given the projected experimental sensitivities in the two channels at
• Analyzed
e+ e Higgsa factories.
few toy models, representative of the range of possibilities for
quantum numbers of the field
2.3 Benchmark Models

⇧W ⇧B ⇧h
Model (SU (3), SU (2))U (1) g C3 C2 g2 T 2 g 02 T 2 T 2
“RH stop” (3̄, 1) 2/3 6 4/3 0 11/6 107/54 1/4
Exotic triplet (3, 1) 4/3 6 4/3 0 11/6 131/54 1/4
Exotic sextet (6̄, 1)8/3 12 10/3 0 11/6 227/54 1/2
“LH stau” (1, 2) 1/2 4 0 3/4 2 23/12 1/6
“RH stau” (1, 1)1 2 0 0 11/6 13/6 1/12
Singlet (1, 1)0 2 0 0 11/6 11/6 1/12
Table 1. Benchmark models studied in this paper.

[* we treat as a free parameter, unlike SUSY]

To illustrate the connection between EWPT dynamics and Higgs couplings, we
will study several benchmark models, which di↵er in the SM gauge quantum numbers
assigned to the BSM scalar field . The models are summarized in Table 1. Note that
we label some of the models with the names of a SUSY particle with quantum numbers
 150 1.3 0.9 0.5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
300 300
0.9
k 0.9 k

m f HGeVL
m f HGeVL Results: “Sextet”
250 0.25 Figure 2. Same as Fig. 1,250for the Exotic Triplet model (see Table 1).
1.3 1.3

200 200 0.07

1.3
0.5
h=1,0.9f~H6,1.31L1ê3 , hgg 0.5
h=1,
0.9 f~H6, 1L1ê3 , hgg
0.37 1.3 0.1 1.3
450 0.9 0.7 0.6 450 0.9 0.015
0.6
1.3 0.5 1.3 0.9 0.90.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.9 0.90.5
1.3
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
150 0.9 0.5 150 0.9 0.5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.9 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.9
400 k 400 k

Figure 1. The350region of parameter space where a strongly first-order

350 EWPT occurs in the
“RH stop” benchmark model. Also shown are the fractional deviations of the hgg (left panel)
m f HGeVL

m f HGeVL
and h (right panel)
300 couplings from their SM values. Solid/black300lines: contours of constant
1.5
EWPT strength parameter ⇠ (see Eq. (2.9)). Dashed/orange lines: contours0.025 of constant
1
hgg/h corrections.
250 (For the case of h the correction is always
250 negative, and the plots
show its absolute value.) In the shaded region, phase transition into a color-breaking vacuum
occurs before the
200 EWPT. 200
21.3 1.3
1.3 0.9 0.045 1.3 0.9
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
0.6 1.3 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.9
150 0.9 1.3 1.3
0.6 150 0.9 1.3 1.3
0.6
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

k k
reported by the ATLAS collaboration [? ] are
Figure 3. Same as Fig. 1, for the Sextet model (see Table 1).
Rg = 1.08 ± 0.14,
ATLAS: R = 1.23+0.16
0.13 .
ruled out!*
(4.2)

These results already have interesting implications for the possibility of a strongly first-
[* usual
in precision expected caveat:
in future SM totalwill
experiments width
allowassumed]
these models to be probed. In
order EWPT. In particular, the Sextet model, where the deviations in the hgg coupling
both
in the region models,
with the minimal
first-order EWPT are deviation
predictedintothe
be hgg
70% coupling
or above, compatible
is completelywith a strongly
excluded.4 It is clear that models where is in even larger representations of SU (3)c ,
NOTE:
e.g. an octet, are Our
also ruled out.sextet
The RH can decay
Stop and toTriplet
Exotic 4 jetsmodels, no direct
on the other search!
hand, are still compatible with data at 68% CL. However, a dramatic improvement
A potential loophole that should be kept in mind is that–these
4
15 –bounds assume no sizable BSM
contributions to the Higgs width. If such a contribution is allowed, a 70% deviation in the hgg coupling
 Results: “RH Stop”
h=1, f~H3, 1L2ê3 , hgg h=1, f~H3, 1L2ê3 , hgg
0.5 0.5
0.17
350 350 0.05

300 300
0.9 0.9

m f HGeVL
m f HGeVL

250 0.25 250

1.3 1.3

200 200 0.07

1.3 1.3
0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9
0.37 1.3 0.1 1.3
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.90.5
1.3 0.5 1.3 0.9 0.90.5
1.3
1.3 0.5 1.3
1.3
150 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.5 150 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.5
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

k k

NOT ruled out if

Figure 1. The region of parameter space where a strongly first-order EWPT occurs in the
“RH stop” benchmark model. Also shown are the fractional deviations of the hgg (left panel)
!
and h (right panel) couplings from their SM values. Solid/black lines: contours of constant
MIN deviation ~17%, probed at 3-sigma at LHC-14
EWPT strength parameter ⇠ (see Eq. (2.9)). Dashed/orange lines: contours of constant
hgg/h corrections. (For the case of h the correction is always negative, and the plots
NOTE:
show its absoluteThe “RH
value.) stop”
In the can
shaded decay
region, to transition
phase 2 jets orintobea “stealthy/
color-breaking vacuum
compressed”
occurs before the EWPT. avoid direct searches!
 Higgs and a Singlet
• does not need to have SM gauge interactions to drive a first-order EWPT

• Obviously this scenario would not produce any deviation in or

• However, it does predict a (small) deviation in coupling [Craig, Englert,

McCullough, 1305.5251]

• Consider , integrate it out a dim-6 operator:

• After Higgs gets a vev:

• Canonically normalized Higgs shift in coupling

• Effect is small, but coupling can be determined very precisely from

Higgsstrahlung cross section: ~0.25% ILC, ~0.05% “TLEP” [Snowmass Higgs
report]
 Results: “LH Stau”
h=1, f~H1,2L-1ê2 , hgg h=1, f~H1,2L-1ê2 , hZZ
0.035 0.5 -0.008 0.5

-0.011

300 300
m f HGeVL 1.3 1.3

m f HGeVL
250 0.9 250 0.9
0.05

200 200
1.3 1.3
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.9 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5
0.09 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3
150 0.5 0.9 150-0.015 0.5 0.9
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

k k

Figure 5. Same as Fig. 1, for the “LH stau” model (see Table 1).

hZZ: MIN deviation 0.8%, probed at 3-sigma at ILC

electrically charged, and modifies the h coupling. The minimal shift in this coupling
compatible with a strongly first-order EWPT is about 4 5% in both models. This
is clearly too small to be constrained by the present data, but may be probed by
future experiments. The Snowmass study [? ] projects a precision of about 2% at an
p
upgraded ILC running at s = 1 TeV, and about 1.5% at TLEP, enabling the entire
region of parameter space with a first-order EWPT to be probed at a ⇠ 3 sigma level.
Interestingly, a precise measurement of the Higgsstrahlung cross section at a future e+ e
Higgs factory could provide an even more sensitive probe in these models. The minimal
shift in this cross section compatible with a first-order EWPT is about 0.8% in the LH
 Results: Singlet
h=2, Singlet, hZZ h=2, Singlet, h^3
0.9 0.9
-0.004

280 -0.007 280

260 260
0.1

240 240
m f HGeVL

mf HGeVL
220 220 0.2

200 0.9 200 0.9

0.7 0.7
180 180
0.7 0.7

160 160
-0.01 0.15
1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

k k

Figure 6. The region of parameter space where a strongly first-order EWPT occurs in the
hZZ: MIN deviation 0.5%, probed at ~2-sigma at ILC,

Singlet benchmark model. Also shown are the fractional deviations of the e+ e ! hZ
cross section (left panel) and Higgs cubic self-coupling (right panel) from their SM val-
10-sigma at “TLEP”
ues. Solid/black lines: contours of constant EWPT strength parameter ⇠ (see Eq. (2.9)).
Dashed/orange lines: contours of constant hZ / 3 corrections. In the shaded region, phase
transition into a color-breaking vacuum occurs before the EWPT.

are in the 10 20% range, making them difficult to test at the proposed facilities.
(The accuracy of the self-coupling measurement at an ILC-1T with luminosity upgrade
is estimated to be about 13% [? ], while at TLEP it can be measured with a preci-
sion of about 30% via its contribution to Higgsstrahlung [? ].) Thus, it appears that
the Higgsstrahlung cross section provides the most sensitive probe of this challenging
 Higgs Self-Coupling
[Noble, MP, 0711.3018]

Figure 1: SM with a single extra scalar. Models with a “bumpy” zero-temperature Higgs
same correlation for Higgs self-coupling: deviations of 20% or more in a broad
potential are shown by (blue) circles, and those without the bump by (red) crosses. (Left
panel) The strength of the first-order EWPT ⇠, defined in Eq. (15), vs. Higgs cubic self-
range of models with first-order EWPT
coupling. (Right panel) Higgs cubic self-coupling vs. Higgs mass for points exhibiting a
strong first-order EWPT, ⇠ > 1. In both plots, the Higgs self-coupling is normalized to the
Measure it at the ILC-1TeV? a 100 TeV collider?
one-loop SM expectation for the same mh .

zero-temperature potential essentially guarantees that the EWPT will be of the first order,
 Conclusions: EWPT
• Strongly first-order EWPT, and with it Electroweak Baryogenesis, remains a
viable possibility in a general BSM context

• We focused on the models where first-order EWPT is induced by loops of a

BSM scalar, with various SM quantum numbers

• In the case of colored scalar, LHC-14 measurement of will be able to

conclusively probe the full parameter space with a 1-st order EWPT

• For non-colored scalars, e+e- Higgs factories will be necessary

• Higgs factory may be able to conclusively probe the full parameter space with
1-st order EWPT in all models, even if induced by a SM-singlet scalar