Physics Letters B 265 ( 1991 ) 326-334

North-Holland PHYSICS LETTERS B

Operator analysis for precision electroweak physics

Benjamin Grinstein
Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

and

Mark B. Wise
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

Received 23 March 1991; revised manuscript received 3 June 1991

The impact of new physics associated with the Higgs sector on precision electroweak physics is examined. We assume that at
low energies the degrees of freedom are those of the standard model with minimal particle content (i.e., three generations of
quarks and leptons and one Higgs doublet), and that the new physics is very weakly coupled to the quarks and leptons. With these
assumptions a general operator analysis reveals that the new physics leaves a characteristic signature in the pattern of corrections
to the standard model's contribution to precision electroweak measurements.

1. Introduction

The s t a n d a r d m o d e l o f electroweak interactions has p r o v e d to be very successful in describing a large array o f

p h e n o m e n a over a wide range o f energies. It has come to be accepted as essentially correct. I f deviations from
its predictions a p p e a r in future experiments, the new correct theory must include most features o f the s t a n d a r d
model. This extension o f the s t a n d a r d m o d e l could come in the form of, for example, an extended gauge group,
or an e x t e n d e d s y m m e t r y breaking sector.
There is, o f course, no evidence for a neutral Higgs boson, and the top quark remains to be found. But, if the
Higgs sector is not strongly coupled, it will be possible to discover these last two particles in the near future (at
L H C or SSC, or perhaps event at the T e v a t r o n ) .
W i t h the possibility o f these discoveries in mind, it is i m p o r t a n t to investigate means o f establishing the
existence and nature o f deviations from the s t a n d a r d model. One cannot rely solely on the direct observation o f
new resonances in collider experiments, if only because the energies accessible are limited. The alternative is, o f
course, to collect indirect evidence form a variety o f sources, such as rare decays or precision m e a s u r e m e n t s o f
weak interaction parameters.
The effects o f new physics on weak interaction p a r a m e t e r s have been studied for a variety o f models before
[ 1 ]. Specific m o d e l s with a d d i t i o n a l heavy scalars or fermions were analyzed in ref. [ 2 ]. The effects o f models
with d y n a m i c a l s y m m e t r y breaking have also been considered in refs. [ 3-5 ], a n d those o f models with an ex-
t e n d e d gauge sector in ref. [ 6 ].
We will discover that, for the wide class o f m o d e l s outlined below, the deviations from the s t a n d a r d m o d e l
predictions follow a surprising pattern. M o r e specifically, we find that naive d i m e n s i o n a l analysis gives that the
electroweak gauge bosons' p r o p a g a t o r corrections (the so-called "oblique c o r r e c t i o n s " ) are parameterized, in
general, by ten parameters. O f these, three are already present in the s t a n d a r d model, while the r e m a i n i n g seven
could arise from new physics. O u r o p e r a t o r analysis indicates that only four new p a r a m e t e r s (in a d d i t i o n to

326 0370-2693/91/$ 03.50 © 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICSLETTERSB 15 August 1991

those of the standard model) arise in these models, provided the new physics is associated with a mass scale M
much larger than the weak scale v~ 250 GeV. In some ways, our analysis is similar to that of Golden and Randall
[3 ], Peskin and Takeuchi [4], Holdom and Terning [5 ], and Altarelli and Barbieri [7], who also consider
oblique corrections. In ref. [ 4 ] the oblique corrections are parameterized in terms of (in their notation)

a S = - 4 e 2 ~q2 [H33(q 2) -H3Q(q 2) ] q 2=0 ( 1.1 )

and
e2
a T = s2M-----~w[ H t i (0) -/'/33(0) ] . (1.2)

From our perspective, the parameter

e52 dq---
a U = s- d 5 [Hll(q2)_l133(qZ)] o2=o (1.3)

ignored in refs. [4,5 ], will turn out to be negligible because it is suppressed, relative to a S and aT, by vZ/M z.
Note that this is not a consequence of naive dimensional analysis, but follows from the operator analysis de-
scribed below. The parameter a U was included in the analysis of refs. [ 3,7 ]. In addition to aS, a T and a U, we
find that, for the class of models we consider, naive dimensional analysis gives four more parameters associated
with second derivatives with respect to q2 of self-energies. Our operator analysis shows that two of these are
negligible.
In this letter we consider the effects on electroweak parameters from extensions to the standard model with
minimal particle content, i.e. three generations and one Higgs doublet. If the new physics is characterized by an
energy scale M, assumed larger than the weak scale, then its effects can be completely accounted for by including
in the standard model lagrangian a set of local operators. These are gauge invariant and constructed out of the
fields in the standard model. Moreover, the dimensionful couplings associated with them have their scale set by
M.
We further assume that direct, i.e., tree level, couplings of the new physics to quarks and leptons are very
small. This technical assumption, which we call "generalized universality", is not too restrictive. It allows any
extension to the symmetry breaking sector, provided the new fields' direct couplings to quarks and leptons are
very weak. The local operators that characterize the new physics are generated when the degrees of freedom
associated with the energy scale M are integrated out. Even though these degrees of freedom couple very weakly
to quarks and leptons, because of their couplings to the SU (2) × U ( 1 ) gauge bosons, integrating them out gen-
erates local operators involving the quarks and leptons. However, the coefficients of these operators will be
suppressed not only by powers of M, as dictated by dimensional analysis, but also by a weak coupling suppres-
sion factor ~ a/4n. We shall neglect these operators. Moreover, our assumption is self-consistent. Under renor-
malization the local operators without quarks and leptons, will generate new ones involving quarks and leptons,
but necessarily suppressed by a weak coupling ~ a/4n. One example of a model in this class consists of adding
of heavy Higgs triplet to the standard model. At energies well below the mass of the triplet, assumed much larger
than the weak scale, its effects can be incorporated as higher dimension operators involving the gauge fields and
the Higgs doublet. A less trivial example is furnished by composite Higgs [8] models, which have a strongly
interaction sector at some large scale M. The spectrum of these theories at energies well below M is precisely
that of the standard model.
Even small couplings of the new physics to the quarks and leptons can give rise to disastrously large flavour
changing neutral currents. Avoiding these puts strong constraints on possible extensions to the Higgs sector (see
refs. [9,10]).
A general analysis of dimension-6 operators of the standard model, and of their effects, can be found in ref.

327
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICS LETTERSB 15 August 1991

[ 11 ]. The work presented here differs from that of ref. [ 11 ] in that we assume generalized universality and we
focus on effects that cannot be reabsorbed in redefinitions of standard models' coupling constants, i.e., g, g',
and v. We find that, including up to dimension-6 operators, there are only seven independent parameters in the
lagrangian relevant to precision electroweak physics. On the other hand, naive dimensional analysis leads one
to believe that, with generalized universality, the lagrangian contains ten independent parameters. It follows
that the class of models under consideration produce a specific "non-generic" pattern of corrections to the stan-
dard model's contribution to precision electroweak measurements.
A brief outline of this letter is as follows. In section 2 we review the general analysis of the oblique corrections,
using the effective lagrangian language, as introduced by Golden and Randall [ 3 ]. In section 3 we classify the
operators of dimension 5 and 6 that give rise to the corrections. We close, in section 4, by giving explicit formulae
for the corrections to some of the relations between measurable quantities.

2. General framework

Consider the sector of the standard model that can be tested through precision electroweak measurements.
We start by focusing on renormalizable terms in the lagrangian. This consists of 5:(2) and 5:is), those parts of
the lagrangian which describe the propagation of gauge bosons and the interactions with particles into which
they can decay, respectively. Since SU (2) × U ( 1 ) is spontaneously broken, 5:t2) and 5 :(3) are restricted to re-
spect an electromagnetic gauge invariance only. The most general form of the propagation lagrangian is
5:(2)= __1 Wu~
+ W u--~ - ~ 1 W u3 . W ~ - ~I B u . B ~ , . - ~
I (.W u . B
3 u.+MwW2 u+ W ; + ]1M 23 W u3 W u3 + ~MaBuB
I 2 u
+ M2B3 W~,B,, , (2.1)
where 5f, M ~ , M:3 and M 2 are free parameters, and
M~3 = M 3 M a (2.2)
is required for a massless photon. At tree level, the standard model has
cj=0 and M3=Mw, (2.3)
leaving two free parameters, e.g., Ma and M3.
The standard model lagrangian in (2.1)-(2.3) has a global SU(2) custodial symmetry [12] in the limit
Ma--*O, with the W~, fields transforming as a triplet. This approximate symmetry holds even after couplings to
the Higgs field H are included, provided H transforms as a singlet plus a triplet. In the standard model, the
custodial symmetry is broken only by the coupling to hyperchange (g') and by quark and lepton doublets mass
splittings.
In terms of the fields A u and Zu, where

Au/ B, '

the lagrangian 5:(2) in (2. l ) is diagonalized and properly normalized:

5:(2)=..___½ W u+. W u--. +MZw W .+ W~- - ~Zu.Z~,
' ~ + ~ M 2z Z u Z u - ~Al,~Au..
, (2.5)
The matrix X is easily expressed as a product of a rotation, a rescaling and second rotation,
1 (1l -l~(1/x/l+~ 0 )1 (1 l~(cosq~ -sinq~] (2.6)
X=~ llk 0 1 / ~ ~ -1 1/\sintp cosqv'
where

328
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICS LETTERS B 15 August 1991

(M3 + M B ) / x / ~ 5:-- (M3 - - M B ) / x / l -- 5: (2.7)

tan tp= (M3 + M s ) / x / l + 5 : + (M3 - - M B ) / x / I _SP

and the Z-mass parameter in eq. (2.5) is given by

M ~ = M2 + M ~ - 26fM3MB
1-6:2 (2.8)

We turn to the analysis of the fermion-fermion-gauge-boson interactions. The most general form of Lf(3) is
not relevant for our analysis, since, as explained in section 1, we assume generalized universality. Then the
fermion-fermion-vector interactions arise solely from the kinetic terms for the quarks and leptons, which in-
volve the covariant derivative
D u =0 u + igc(r + W u + r - Wu+ ) +igz3 W 3 + i g ' YB u . (2.9)
In terms of the Z , and Au fields the covariant derivative is
Du =0/, +ig¢(r + W ~ + r - W-~ ) + i Z u ( g X l l r3 +g'X21 Y) +iAu(gX12"t3 +g'X22 Y ) . (2.10)
Note that we have allowed for a different coupling constant for W -+ and W 3, since the renormalization required
for their corresponding kinetic terms, to cast the propagation lagrangian in the form (2.1), need not be the same.
In the standard model gc=g.
Since the photon field A u couples to electric charge
Q=r3+y, (2.11)

the unbroken electromagnetic U ( 1 ) gauge invariance insures that

gX12 =g' X22 . (2.12)
Therefore we have
D u =O~ + ig¢ (r + W u + r - W + ) + i g z ( z 3 - g Z Q ) Z u +ieQA u , (2.13)
where the coupling constant gz, g2 and e are given by

det X g2= XI2 X2 I

gz=g :(22 ' detX ' e=gXt2 , (2.14)

So, assuming generalized universality, the renormalizable terms give rise to six independent parameters in the
lagrangian ~(2) _{_,~(3) which we can take to be g, &, 5e, M3, M w an d MB. These are the six parameters of Golden
and Randall [ 3] and Altarelli and Barbieri [ 7]. However, in the class of models we consider, the effects of new
physics associated with the large mass scale M than cannot be reabsorbed into a redefinition of g, g' and v, is
necessarily suppressed by a power of M z. So we should also consider the contribution of nonrenormalizable
dimension-six operators in the propagation lagrangian. The most general terms of this type are
.c(,(4) =0~+ - W +
uvl---]WuvWla33W3u[
- -] WuvTlot3BW3u[..qB,uu_t
3 _ i OtBnBu,, r"lBu, . (2.15 )

L#(4) introduces four more independent parameters. Reexpressing eq. (2.1 5 ) in terms of the Z and A fields gives
+
if(4) =or+_ Wu~E] -- + ~1 (0~33X~2~+ ot38X~ ~X21 +O~BBXz~
Wu~ 2 )Zu~[~Z.~

.~ 1 (0~33X22 dl_O13BXi2 X22 .~_OgBBX22)Au,[]Auu

..1_/ [ 20~33 Xl iX12 _{_Ol3B(XllX22 _{_X l 2 X z l ) +20tBBXzIX22]Z,uv[]Auv " (2.16)

The physical effects o f ~ (4) are taken into account by treating it as a perturbation. ~e(4) has the effect of shifting

329
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICS LETTERSB 15 August 1991

the physical W and Z masses away from the mass parameters M w and M z in eq. (2.5). Explicitly, the contri-
bution o f Y t4) to the physical masses is
2 phys= - 2 a + _ M 4 ,
AMw, / ~ r Z ,2 phys ~. __ 2 (OL33X21 _~oL3BXIIX21 ..~ ot88X21
2 ) M z4 . (2.17)
The remaining effects of LP~4) can be absorbed in qZ-dependent coupling constants gz(q2), e(q 2) and y2(q2)
[1].
It is straightforward to consider the effect of the ten parameters in LPt2), Lpt3) and LPt4~ on measurable quan-
tities, say, G~, OLem, Mz, phys, Mw,phys,P, gz(q2), e(q 2) and .~2(q2). Here G~ is the Fermi constant as measured
through muon lifetime, and the p-parameter is defined as the ratio of charged to neutral current interactions at
low energies:

gc/Mw M~
p= ( g d e t X / X 2 2 ) 2 / M ~ = Mew . (2.18)

In the standard model, for known m t and m/~, there are only three independent parameters (which, for this
section, it is convenient to take to be g, MB, and M3). As we will see, given our general assumptions and including
only operators of dimension 6 or lower, there are only seven independent parameters in this class of extensions
of the standard model. The other parameters does not arise until dimension-8 operators are included. Using the
general formalism of this section it is straightforward to compute the pattern of deviations from standard mod-
el's predictions for precision electroweak experiments.

3. Operator analysis

Integrating out new physics at a scale M will give rise to corrections to the standard model lagrangian in the
form of operators of dimension 5 or higher, with explicit suppression factors of 1/M in the coefficients. In this
section we investigate systematically the collection of operators that, in leading order in 1/M, give rise to the
corrections.
The operators must be invariant under Lorentz transformations, invariant under the SU ( 2 ) × U (1) gauge
group, and constructed out of the Higgs field and the gauge boson fields. We first consider operators with no
Higgs doublets. They give contributions to LPt4). At dimension 6 there are only two operators ~,
1 a
C, = ~ s Dx W u~D~ W~u,, (3.1)

1
C2= ~ 0~Bu, 0aBu, • (3.2)

Actually, there are other dimension-six operators. However, they have the same effect as these because they
differ by terms containing 0~W~ or 0uB~, which are negligible since they produce a factor of a fermion mass
when inserted in a Feynman diagram.
Next, consider operators containing Higgs fields. In order to give a contribution to Lf~2) + L,°t3) that cannot be
absorbed into redefinitions of g, g' or v, these operators must break the custodial SU (2) symmetry.
There is no operator of dimension 5 that satisfies the above condition. This is easy to see, as it must be bilinear
in H and H* for gauge invariance, and it must contain even powers of D~, for Lorentz invariance. In dimension
6 the operator can be either bilinear in H t and H, or quartic in those fields. In the former case, the operator
contains four factors of D u or two of W~, or Bu,. The H t - H bilinear transforms as a 2 × 2 = 1 + 3 under weak

~1 For this paper we are not interested in corrections to the three gauge boson couplings. If we were, then dimension-6 operators with
three field strength tensors (and no Higgsdoublets) wouldbe relevant.

330
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICS LETTERS B 15 August 1991

SU (2) gauge group. Putting aside the Bu field for now, we see that all gauge SU (2) invariants are also custodial
SU (2) invariants: the symmetric product of two triplets contains a 5 + 1, so, in order to construct a gauge invar-
iant operator, we must have the gauge bosons in a singlet combination, and the Higgs field in a singlet combi-
nation too. We must involve B~, in order to break the custodial SU (2) symmetry. The only possibility is

1
C3= ~ H*r" W u,,HB~,,, . (3.3)

Operators involving four covariant derivatives, such as H t D~DuD~D~H also violate the custodial SU (2) sym-
metry. Nevertheless, after giving the Higgs field its vacuum expectation value, they give a correction to the gauge
fixing term, namely ½v2(OuZu)2. If this correction is regarded as an interaction, it always yields factors of fer-
mion masses in the coupling of Z to the fermions, so it can be safely neglected.
Operators containing H 2( H t) 2 can at most involve two derivatives. A factor of HtH in the operator would
automatically render it custodial SU (2) symmetric, according to the above discussion. Again there is only one
possibility, namely
1
(94= -~-i H* D~HH* Dull. (3.4)

Actually, there are other operators that violate the custodial SU (2) symmetry and involve H 2(H*)2. One ex-
ample is
1
M 2 ~'t D~,HH* DMQ,

where/~= it2/-/*. Nevertheless, after giving the Higgs its vacuum expectation value, the sum of these operators
is invariant under custodial SU (2) transformations (in the g' - 0 limit), and therefore gives a common shift to
the W -+ and W 3 masses. This could be absorbed into a redefinition of v. For examining the pattern of correc-
tions to the minimal standard model, any other linear combination, which we take to be simply (94,can be used.
The relevant correction 8 ~ to the standard model lagrangian is
8Zp=g2C, Cq + g ' 2~'2 ~c~+gg'~3 (93+ C4 6•, ( 3.5 )

where Ct, C2, C'3 and C4 are numerical coefficients which are, a priori, of order one ~2. We have included an
explicit factor of coupling constants in the coefficient of (gt, ~ and 6%, because any interaction that generates
this operator necessarily involves coupling the corresponding gauge bosons to some other field. We will include
this factor into a redefinition of the coefficients,
C,=g2~l, C2=g'2~2, C3=gg'd3, C4=~',,
but one should keep in mind that it is natural for CI, C2 and C3 to be an order of magnitude smaller than 6"4.

4. The pattern of deviations from standard model predictions

It is now a straightforward exercise to incorporate the results of section 3 into the general formalism of section
2. After giving the Higgs field its vacuum expectation value

.1,

~2 This is if the new physics is strongly coupled. If it is weakly coupled then C'~,~2 and C'3are expected to be of order 1/ 16n2.

331
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICSLETTERSB 15 August 1991

where v~ 250 GeV, the lagrangian correction ( 3 . 3 ) - (3.5) to ~(2) is

V2 V4
~Lf(2) = C3 ~ 5 W/,~Bu. 3 -- C4 ~ ( g W 3 - g ' B u ) ( g W 3 -g'B~,) (4.2)

We can now read off

V2
:-f = - C3 2M 2 , (4.3)

M2w=M~
( 1+C4~5
v2) , (4.4)

gc=g. (4.5)

It is the equality of gc and g that is peculiar to the dimension-6 operators. This relation will be violated, for
example, by the dimension-8 operator

1
_ _
M4 H t z a W a, , H H t r b W b~,,H . (4.6)

l'he operators Ci and (52 in ~5¢ give

,~j9(4)= 2Cl CI W ~ , . D W 3 + C2
M2 W u+[-] W ~v "+ - ~ - ~ B u, [--qB u~ . (4.7)

From this we read off

2Cl 2C2
0(33--M2, 0(BB= M 2 , O~3B=0, 0(+-=0(33- (4.8)

It is the vanishing of 0(3B and the equality of 0(33 and or+_ that is peculiar to dimension-six operators. The
relation (4.8c) will be violated, for example, by the dimension-eight operator

1
M--~ H*z~(D~ W"u,)H O~Bu~ , (4.9)

while to violate (4.8d) one must consider dimension-ten operators.

It is customary to write independent observables, for example, Mw.phys
2 (the physical W-mass), p, y2(qZ),
e2(q2) and gz(q2), in terms of the three well measured observables m2,phys, G~ and 0(era. In the standard model
the former are given in terms of the latter, modulo dependence on additional standard model parameters such
as the top quark and Higgs masses ~3. In the case at hand, they will depend, in addition on the four new param-
eters G , C2, C3 and Ca. Defining a "weak angle", 00, by

l( ~/ 47~0(em "~
cos20o= ~ 1 + 1-- ~ , (4.10)
../5 G~Mz.p,ys}
we have

2 __ 2 2 f, ~ M z2, phys sin220o v 2 sin 200 co:0o)

mw, phys--Mz, physCOS O0 l ' k - ( C l q - ~ 2 / "~ - - +C3 - - +(74 (4.11)
cos 20o 2 M z cos 20o M z cos 20o,I '

~3 In the minimal standard model precision electroweak physicsrestricts the values of these parameters. See e.g. ref. [ 13].

332
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICS LETTERS B 15 August 1991

o2
p= l-C4 ~-i, (4.12)

y2(q:) =sin20o [ 1 + 4 ~-~q2 ( C t - C 2 ) M2"phy'(COS40°

cos2Oo-4------MT-\cos 20° Cl + 41 sin220°
COS 20o C2)

v 2 tan20o - C 4 v 2 cos20o ] , (4.13)

- C3 4 M 2 sin20o M 2 cos 20oJ

e2(q2)=4nOtem(l--4-~2 (Cisin2Oo+C2cos20o)), (4.14)

8 ( q2 V2 )
g2z(q2)= ~ G~M2z.phys 1 - 4 ~ 5 ( G cos2Oo+ C2 sin20o) + C4 -~5 • (4.15)

This is one of our results. It is understood that the one-loop corrections to eqs. (4.11 ) - ( 4 . 1 5 ) from the stan-
dard model [ l, 14 ] should be added, but we have focused here on the new corrections proportional to Ct ..... C4,
which, because they are small, need only be considered at tree level.
Neglecting Ct and C2, these relations correspond to those given by Peskin and Takeuchi in their general dia-
grammatic analysis of oblique corrections, since they omitted the q2 dependence of the custodial symmetry
violating combination of self-energies [4 ]. Our analysis applies when the standard model with minimal particle
content is left as a low energy effective theory. This is not the case in technicolour models. The smallness of U
occurs naturally in technicolour models because the custodial symmetry violating combination of self-energies
often has the form 22M2f(q2/M2), where 2 is a small dimensionless coupling constant and M i s the technicolor
scale [ 3-5 ].
There are models where C~ and C2 dominate over C3 and C4. This occurs, for example, if the new heavy
particles have SU (2) × U ( 1 ) quantum numbers, but no tree level couplings to the Higgs doublet.

Acknowledgement

B.G. would like to thank the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation grant PHY-
87-145654 for their support of this project. The work of M.B.W. is supported by the D e p a r t m e n t of Energy
under contract number DE-AC038 I-ER40050.

References

[ 1] D.C. Kennedy and B.W. Lynn, Nucl. Phys. B 322 (1989) 1.

[2] M.B. Einhorn, D.R.T. Jones and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 191 ( 1981 ) 146.
[3] M. Golden and L. Randall, preprint FERMILAB-PUB-90/83-T.
[4] M.E. Peskin and T. Takeuehi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 964.
[ 5 ] B. Holdom and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B 247 (1990) 88.
[ 61 G. Altarelli, R. Casalbuoni, F. Feruglio and R. Gatto, Phys. Len. B 245 (1990) 669.
[7] G. Altarelli and R. Barbieri, Phys. Lett B 253 ( 1991 ) 161.
[8] H. Georgi and D.B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 183;
D.B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 187;
H. Georgi, D.B. Kaplan and P. Galison, Phys. Len. B 143 (1984) 152;
H. Georgi and D.B. Kaplan, Phys. Left. B 145 (1984) 216;
M.J. Dugan, H. Georgi and D.B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B 254 ( 1985 ) 299.
[ 9 ] S.L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977 ) 1958.

333
Volume 265, number 3,4 PHYSICS LETTERS B 15 August 1991

[ 10 ] R.S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 188 ( 1987 ) 99;

R.S. Chivukula, H. Georgi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 292 (1987) 93.
[ 11 ] W. Buchmiiller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621.
[ 12] S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 1277;
L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 2619;
P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M. Voloshin and V. Sakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 173 (1980) 189.
[ 13 ] J. Ellis and G.L. Fogli, Phys. Lett. B 249 (1990) 543.
[ 14] A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B 71 (1974) 29; B 100 ( 1975 ) 291; Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 971;
M. Veltman, Acta Phys. Pol. B 8 ( 1977 ) 475; Nucl. Phys. B 123 ( 1977 ) 89;
W. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2695; D 31 (1980) 213 (E);
B.W. Lynn, M.E. Peskin and R.G. Stuart, SLAC-PUB-3725 (1985), in: Physics at LEP, Vol. 1 (Geneva, 1986) eds. J. Ellis and R.
Peccei.

334