text:
# Electronic Structure and Fermiology of Sr3Ru2O7

## I Introduction

Perovskite derived ruthenates, (Sr,Ca)n+1RunO3n+1 with nominally Ru4+ in an octahedral O environment display an extraordinarily varied set of physical properties. In the Sr series, the end members, SrRuO3 and Sr2RuO4 are, respectively, an itinerant ferromagnet  and an unconventional superconductor, widely thought to have triplet pariing symmetry,  possibly of magnetic origin.  The Fermi surface and momentum-dependent spin fluctuations play key roles in the pairing in such scenarios for superconductivity. The corresponding Ca end-points, CaRuO3 and Ca2RuO4, which differ structurally from the corresponding Sr compounds only by moderate lattice distortions, are a highly renormalized paramagnetic metal and an antiferromagnetic Mott insulator, respectively.  The multilayer Ruddlesden-Popper compounds in the series show a wide variety of magnetic orderings, metal insulator transitions and unusual transport properties, with sample dependence.  Not surprisingly, strong magnetoelastic effects are found and have been emphasized both theoretically  and experimentally.

Density functional calculations of the band structure and Fermi surfaces of superconducting Sr2RuO4 have been reported  and subsequently confirmed in detail by quantum oscillation experiments.  Angle resolved photoemission (ARPES) experiments  showed features very much like those in the band calculations and quantum oscillation measurements but with small shifts. However, because of van Hove singularities near the Fermi energy, these shifts drastically affect the topology. The Fermi surfaces predicted by band calculations arise from three bands, one each from the three Ru $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals hybridized with the in-plane and, to a lesser extent, apical O $`p`$ states. The Fermi surface structure, which is highly two dimensional, thus consists to zeroth order of planar sections perpendicular to $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$, coming from the $`yz`$ and $`xz`$ orbitals, and a round cylinder centered at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, derived from the $`xy`$ orbital. These hybridize and reconnect to form three sections, a circular cylinder around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and square cylinders around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and X. Strong nesting features remain from the $`xz`$ and $`yz`$ derived sheets, which lead to soft spin-fluctuations around $`𝐤=(2\pi /3a,2\pi /3a)`$, as observed in neutron scattering.  We have pointed out earlier that the interplay of these antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations and a broad Stoner background, related to the proximity to ferromagnetism, may lead to competing order parameter symmetries. However, the situation may be complicated by magnetoelastic effects, that is, mixing between spin and charge degrees of freedom, i.e. spin-fluctuations and phonons, which could modify the pairing interaction, perhaps favoring triplet symmetries though the physics of this is not well understood.

Perhaps the most similar compound to Sr2RuO4 is the bilayer compound Sr3Ru2O7.  It is closely related in structure, highly two dimensional and metallic. Cao and co-workers reported ferromagnetism at 104 K with additional lower temperature transitions,  while other samples were not ferromagnetic at these temperatures but exhibited transitions below 20 K.  Meanwhile, Huang and co-workers found no evidence for any long range magnetic order down to 1.6 K  and Perry, and Ikeda and co-workers report that single crystals grown by a floating zone technique are paramagnetic, with strongly enhanced susceptibility and high Wilson ratio, leading to the conclusion that the material is on the verge of ferromagnetism.  Initially, Sr3Ru2O7 was reported to be tetragonal, $`I4/mmm`$, like Sr2RuO4.  However, subsequent measurements revealed at least disordered rotations of the octahedra.  Recently, Shaked and co-workers  have shown that the distortions are ordered and refined the crystal structure into spacegroup $`Bbcb`$ with a rotation of approximately 7 degrees. In contrast, superconducting Sr2RuO4 is stable in the tetragonal $`I4/mmm`$ structure, but has a rotational phonon mode that softens steeply from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point to the zone boundary interacting with and crossing the acoustic branch ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3E_u,`$ corresponding at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ to the main instability that produces the orthorhombic structure in Sr3Ru2O7).

The electronic structure of Sr3Ru2O7 has been studied using ARPES  and density functional calculations  and reasonable agreement was obtained, although not all the predicted sheets were resolved experimentally. However, Perry and co-workers recently reported low temperature Hall measurements on high quality ($`\rho _{res}2\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm) single crystals that seem inconsistent with the calculated tetragonal Fermi surfaces.

The purpose of the present paper is to report density functional calculations of the electronic structure, fermiology and magnetic properties using the orthorhombic $`Bbcb`$ crystal structure.

## II Structure and Method

The calculations were done using the general potential linearized augmented planewave (LAPW) method including local orbital extensions to treat the upper core levels and relax linearization errors.  The calculations were done within the local density approximation using the Hedin-Lundqvist exchange correlation function. Spin polarized calculations used the same functional and the von Barth-Hedin spin scaling. Well converged basis sets and Brillouin zone samplings were used, similar to those described previously.  Calculations for the ideal tetragonal structure were based on the experimental structure of Ref.  which differs slightly from that used by Hase and Nishihara.  However, the calculated electronic structure is practically the same as obtained by them. The calculations for orthorhombic Sr3Ru2O7 are based on the neutron data of Shaked and co-workers obtained on samples that, like floating-zone grown single crystals, show a susceptibility peak around 20 K presumably due to magnetism (but see below).

## III Band Structure and Fermiology

The calculated band structure and Fermi surfaces of tetragonal $`I`$4/mmm Sr3Ru2O7 are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. As may be seen, they are very similar to those reported previously by Hase and Nishihara.  As mentioned, the three Fermi surfaces of Sr2RuO4, which has one RuO2 layer per cell, may be regarded as arising from the three Ru $`t_{2g}`$ orbitals. The the $`d_{xy}`$ orbital gives rise to a round cylindrical electron-like sheet centered at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (Z) and the $`d_{xz}`$ and $`d_{yz}`$ orbitals provide flat sheetlike sections perpendicular to $`k_y`$ and $`k_z`$, respectively, that after reconnection become square cylindrical sections around $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ along with strong nesting. To a first approximation, the Fermi surfaces of tetragonal Sr3Ru2O7 may be thought of as deriving from the six same bands (three from each RuO2 layer) with bonding – antibonding (odd – even) splittings due to the interaction between the RuO2 sheets comprising the bi-layer. However, as may be seen from the lack of four-fold symmetry around the $`X`$ point in Fig. 2, there is more $`k_z`$ dispersion in tetragonal Sr3Ru2O7 than in Sr2RuO4, particularly for the even bands.

There is an approximately square cylindrical hole pocket around $`X`$, deriving from the odd combinations of $`d_{xz}`$ and $`d_{yz}`$ orbitals. Another, cross-shaped, hole pocket arises from reconnected sections of the Fermi surfaces of the even and odd parity with the same orbital character. The even combination also provides the innermost cylinder around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which like the other three $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ centered cylinders is electron-like. The second $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ centered electron-like cylinder is also mainly $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ derived near the (10) directions, but is mixed with the $`d_{xy}`$ character near (11).The two remaining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/Z`$ centered cylinders are derived from the $`d_{xy}`$ orbitals, and have very little even-odd splitting, in accord with their strongly in-plane orbital character. The three outer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ centered cylinders change topology as the electron count is increased as they touch along the basal plane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Z`$ lines giving rise to the van Hove singularities seen above $`E_F`$ in the density of states, as in Sr2RuO4. It is noteworthy that even before considering the effects of orthorhombicity, the Fermi surface nesting is considerably reduced relative to Sr2RuO4. This is due to (i) the even–odd splittings, (ii) the $`k_z`$ dispersions, and (iii), the strong anticrossings of the even $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ and the odd $`d_{xy}`$ bands. The striking difference from Sr2RuO4 stems from the fact that nearest neighbor hopping between $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ and $`d_{xy}`$ orbitals is forbidden within a single layer, but allowed across the layers in a bi-layer. A $`d_{xz}(d_{yz})`$ orbital hybridizes with the $`d_{xy}`$ of the opposite parity, and this is the strongest at $`k=\{0,\pi /a\}`$ ($`\{\pi /a,0\}).`$ Correspondingly, the strongest distortion of the $`xz/yz`$ band occurs near the (1,1) directions. Note that additional hybridization between the $`xz/yz`$ band and the $`xy`$ band (and the only one existing in Sr2RuO$`{}_{4}{}^{})`$ happens due to hopping across the SrO layer. Depending on $`k_z`$, this hopping is of the same $`(k_z=0)`$ or of the opposite sign with respect to the intra-bi-layer hopping. This brings about an additional $`k_z`$ dispersion.

Given the reduced nesting in Sr3Ru2O$`_7,`$ one may conjecture that the incommensurate antiferromagnetic spin-fluctuations seen in neutron scattering experiments  on Sr2RuO4 may be considerably less prominent in Sr3Ru2O7. On the other hand, tetragonal Sr3Ru2O7 is much closer to a ferromagnetic instability. This is not surprising considering the high value of the calculated density of states (DOS) at the Fermi energy ($`E_F`$), $`N(E_F)`$ = 4.5 states/eV Ru, compared with 4.1 states/eV Ru for Sr2RuO4.

Non-spin-polarized local spin density approximation (LSDA) calculations for the orthorhombic structure yield a still slightly larger $`N(E_F`$) = 5.0 states/eV Ru and the structure of the density of states around $`E_F`$ is different (with larger magnitudes corresponding to slightly narrower $`t_{2g}`$ bands, as shown in Fig. 3). The result is a magnetic ground state. However, before turning to the magnetic properties, we discuss the electronic properties of the non-spin-polarized system. As the magnetism has substantially itinerant character (see below) the non-spin-polarized electronic structure is expected to be a reasonable approximation for the paramagnetic phase well above any ordering temperature.

As a reference point, we show in Fig. 4 the Fermi surfaces of the tetragonal structure, but folded into the $`Bbcb`$ orthorhombic zone. This zone is half the area of the tetragonal zone due to the cell doubling and is rotated by 45. The most striking feature of the folding is the development of cylindrical lens shaped Fermi surfaces centered at the mid-points of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Z`$ lines (the mid-points of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ and $`ZX`$ lines in the tetragonal zone). These come from the two $`d_{xy}`$ circular cylinders around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the outer (odd) $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ cylinder.

One may expect that such folded Fermi surfaces and particularly the lenses should become observable in quantum oscillation experiments in samples with ordered orthorhombic structures, and possibly in photoemission as shadow Fermi surfaces with strength related to the matrix elements produced by the orthorhombic distortion even in samples where the distortion is not fully long range ordered, as long as the in-plane coherence length is large enough (in analogy with some of the cuprate superconductors. ) However, the actual distortion is a rotation of approximately 7, which is not so small, and considerably changes the Fermi surfaces beyond the naive zone folding picture.

In fact, significant differences between the folded tetragonal and calculated orthorhombic Fermi surfaces are found, as shown in Fig. 5. Hybridization gaps open where folded bands cross. As a result, the square sections around the center of Fig. 4, which came from the overlap of the $`d_{xy}`$ derived bands, entirely disappear, while the larger square section derived from the odd $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ bands reconnects with the the outer lens derived from the $`d_{xy}`$ bands. One can see remnants of this square in the dents near the tips of the outer lenses in the orthorhombic structure. Also two small circular electron cylinders are introduced around the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Z`$ lines, with hardly any $`z`$ dispersion; these are the bottoms of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ bands, which in the tetragonal structure were located a few mRy above the Fermi level (Fig.1). The lenses are now considerably distorted, because of the above-mentioned interaction with the odd combination of $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ states, and because of the increased the $`k_z`$ dispersion (note the lack of reflection symmetry about the center line in Fig. 5). Interestingly, this dispersion is concentrated mostly in small and/or heavy sections, so the average (RMS) Fermi velocity remains quite two dimensional, i.e. $`v_xv_y=1.3\times 10^7`$ cm/s and $`v_z=0.16\times 10^7`$ cm/s. Within the constant scattering time approximation this implies a resistivity anisotropy $`\rho _c/\rho _a70`$ as compared to the LDA value for Sr2RuO4 of $`300`$, which is known to be an underestimate relative to experiment. Clearly, the bilayer compound is much more three-dimensional than the single layer one, and this, presumably, moves it still further from an antiferromagnetic instability in-plane.

Finally, it should be mentioned that, because of the hybridization gaps near the center of the Brillouin zone of Fig. 5, the Fermi surface in this region is highly sensitive to the band filling. This is illustrated in Fig. 6, where Fermi surfaces calculated with 5 meV upwards and downwards shifts of $`E_F`$ are shown, so that the thickness of the lines is inversely proportional to the local Fermi velocity. Considering the fact that LDA calculations are sensitive to structural details and in any case should not be relied on at the 5 meV level, the topology in this region cannot be decided based on the present calculations. Because of this uncertainty, we cannot unambiguously match our results with the Hall measurements of Perry and co-workers , but the possibility, suggested by them, that orthorhombicity provides a way of reconciling their measurements with band calculations seems plausible. If we restrict ourselves to the the “stable” sheets of the Fermi surface, we observe two electronic $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ derived cylinders, the hole pseudo-square and the hole pseudo-cross formed by the $`d_{xz}/d_{yz}`$ bands, and several sets of lenses, all electronic. The complicated shape and changing curvature of these surfaces prevents us from associating the volumes of these Fermi surface pockets with Hall numbers. The only conclusion we can draw is that there is no clear way to guess the Hall conductivity from the electronic structure of the corresponding tetragonal compound. Furthermore, as seen from Fig. 6, shifting the chemical potential by as little as 5 meV (corresponding to 55 K) drastically changes the topology of the paramagnetic Fermi surfaces. The message of this observation is that substantial and nontrivial temperature dependencies of the Hall coefficient may occur independent of any anomalous Hall contribution.

## IV Magnetism

As mentioned, in the idealized tetragonal structure, Sr3Ru2O7 is found to be paramagnetic in the LSDA, but with a very high susceptibility. In fixed spin moment calculations, moments up to 0.6 $`\mu _B`$/Ru are induced with an energy cost of less than 4 meV/Ru – a number almost indistinguishable from zero considering the accuracy of the present calculations. The orthorhombic distortion narrows the $`t_{2g}`$ manifold and increases the density of states leading to a magnetic ground state via the Stoner mechanism. Furthermore, the paramagnetic orthorhombic band structure shows extremely flat bands near the X point (cf. Fig. 6), which create a low-weight but extremely sharp peak within a few K from the Fermi level. Such a band structure is intrinsically unstable against any symmetry lowering splitting of this peak, including a magnetic instability. However, since the orthorhombic unit cell is already doubled, an antiferromagnetic instability would work just as well. There is nevertheless a strong reason for the system to prefer the ferromagnetic coupling in plane. Generally speaking, the electronic structure of Ru based perovskites shows strong Ru $`d`$ O $`p`$ hybridization and this favors ferromagnetic couplings (O $`p`$ states have rather large Hund rule coupling). Within a local picture, this tendency may be viewed as resulting from the fact that the density of states has substantial O weight around $`E_F`$ and all things being equal, this favors magnetic configurations where the O can polarize, i.e. ferromagnetism. Within a simple Stoner picture, this O contribution to the magnetic energy is proportional to the square of the O contribution to the density of states around $`E_F`$. Decomposing $`N(E_F)`$ onto the LAPW spheres,  we find 56 % Ru $`d`$, 20 % plane O $`p`$, 2 % apical (rocksalt) O $`p`$ and 3 % bridging (interlayer) O $`p,`$ with the remainder divided between other angular momentum characters (2 %), and the interstitial (17 %). Considering the ionic radii, the interstitial contribution is likely more O $`p`$ than Ru $`d`$ derived, but in any case, there is substantial O $`p`$ involvement in $`N(E_F)`$ and this contribution is dominated by the in-plane oxygen. Not surprisingly then, ferromagnetic in-plane configurations are favored. We find a self-consistent ferromagnetic (FM) solution with a spin magnetization of 0.80 $`\mu _B`$/Ru and an energy of -23 meV/Ru relative to the non-spin-polarized case. Calculations were also performed for antiferromagnetic configurations with a (2 $`\times `$ 2) in-plane ordering, and having adjacent Ru ions in the two planes of the bilayer polarized parallel. However, no self-consistent magnetic configuration was found. Thus it may be concluded that the magnetic character within each plane is itinerant. However, calculations in which the Ru ions in a layer were ferromagnetically aligned, but the layers were stacked antiferromagnetically (so each bi-layer had one spin up and one spin down RuO2 layer) did yield a stable magnetic solution (denoted AF-A in the following), in this case with an energy of -20 meV/Ru and a Ru moment (as measured by the moment in a Ru sphere) only 14% smaller than the ferromagnetic solution.

The energy difference between the FM and AF-A solutions contains two parts, within the most simple model. The first is the interaction between the two planes comprising the bi-layer. This, in turn, has a ferromagnetic part originating from the Hund rule energy on the bridging oxygen, and an antiferromagnetic superexchange. Based on the calculation, we conclude that the former is slightly stronger. In any case, it is likely larger than the inter bi-layer coupling through the rock-salt layers. This expectation is based on the geometry (hopping via two oxygens with unfavorable bond angles) and the fact that the $`k_z`$ dispersion is considerably less than the anti-symmetric, symmetric band splittings due to the interaction between the planes comprising the bi-layer. Supposing that the inter-bilayer interaction is anti-ferromagnetic (as expected for a superexchange coupling) and much weaker than the intra bi-layer coupling, one may conclude that the latter is ferromagnetic with a strength of order 3 meV/Ru. In this scenario, the ground state is antiferromagnetic, consisting of ferromagnetic bi-layers, stacked antiferromagnetically.

This represents a conceptually interesting case for the Kosterlitz-Thouless theory of quasi-2D magnetic phase transitions.  The difference from the textbook case is that the in-plane magnetism is itinerant; the same qualitative picture applies, still, and so the 3D long range order (LRO) transition temperature should be logarithmically suppressed compared to the ferromagnetic-paramagnetic energy difference. We can safely assume that the inter-bilayer coupling is less than 30 K (the interplane coupling within a bilayer), probably very much less, thus bringing about a substantial Kosterlitz-Thouless suppression. One would, however, expect strong itinerant spin fluctuations of ferromagnetic character in planes for temperatures well above the LRO transition temperature; these should manifest themselves, for instance, in specific heat and magnetic susceptibility. Very recently, Ikeda and co-workers reported a detailed study of single crystal floating-zone Sr3Ru2O7 including magnetic susceptibility, specific heat and resistivity plus magnetic measurements under pressure.  They report a susceptibility maximum at $`T_{max}=16`$K accompanied by structure in the resistivity, but conclude that long range antiferromagnetic order does not set in, based on the high nearly isotropic $`\chi (T)`$ below $`T_{max}`$ and thus that the ground state is a paramagnetic Fermi liquid on the verge of ferromagnetism. In fact, the measured $`\chi (T)`$ is $``$ 15 times larger than that of Sr2RuO4 (Ref. ) and at least as isotropic at low $`T`$. Certainly, this is not expected with simple local moment ordered magnetism, especially in a material with strong magnetocrystalline anisotropy as is the case for magnetic ruthenates.  However, things are less clear cut in the itinerant metallic scenario above. First of all, in the ordered itinerant case, there is a Stoner continuum that contributes to $`\chi (T)`$ along the direction of the moments (the low $`\chi (T)`$ direction); normally this is a very small effect, but here the magnetocrystalline anisotropy is expected to be very large  and the Fermi liquid very soft as evidenced by the strong Stoner renormalizations. Secondly, it should be noted that as long as the anisotropy is not in the trivial $`c`$-axis direction, the twinning of orthorhombic samples will mean that there will be no orientation where the applied field is aligned with the moments, again presumably lowering the anisotropy of $`\chi `$ in the magnetic state. However, both of these mechanisms for lowering the anisotropy in $`\chi `$ would require fortuitous strong numerical coincidences to explain the observed isotropy of the measured $`\chi `$ in a magnetically ordered state. On the other hand, the measured temperature dependence of the two components of $`\chi `$ is notably different, which is not simply anticipated for a standard enhanced paramagnet either. Another interesting possibility is to associate the peak in $`\chi (T)`$ not with LRO antiferromagnetic ordering, but with a Kosterlitz-Thouless type transition associated with the 2D bilayers. In this case, there would be no long range magnetic order below the peak, though the weak inter-bilayer interactions could still yield a 3D ordered magnetic state at very low temperatures. This scenario would also provide a convenient explanation of the so called magnetic metallic phase in the Ca2-xSrxRuO4 phase diagram between $`x=0.2`$ and $`x=0.5`$ where an unusual phase with a peak in $`\chi (T)`$ is entered just as the system reaches an incipient ferromagnetic instability with $`x`$ decreasing through 0.5.

Finally, under applied pressures of 1 GPa Ikeda and co-workers  report evidence for ferromagnetism though with small moments ($`M0.08\mu _B`$/Ru) starting at 70 K based on magnetization measurements. While low moment ferromagnetism with this Curie temperature cannot be excluded, such a high ratio of $`T_C/M`$ is unusual in traditional materials. Weak ferromagnetism due to canting seems to be more likely and also fits better with our calculations. We note that the ordering temperature in such a scenario would be sensitive to the out-of-plane superexchange coupling, which in turn is expected to increase strongly under pressure.

## V Summary and Conclusions

Density functional studies of Sr3Ru2O7 show a substantial coupling of the electronic and magnetic properties with the octahedral rotations associated with the orthorhombic distortion. In particular, the Fermi surface nesting (already lower than in Sr2RuO4) is further reduced and the $`t_{2g}`$ manifold is narrowed leading to magnetic tendencies. Using the experimental crystal structure  we find that the 2D RuO2 planes form an itinerant system with ferromagnetic ordering tendencies, and additionally that the coupling between the two such planes comprising a bilayer is weak, but also ferromagnetic. We argue that the $`c`$-axis coupling between bilayers is weaker still and based on speculate that the magnetic character should be highly two dimensional, perhaps exhibiting Kosterlitz-Thouless physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful for helpful discussions with C.S. Hellberg, J.D. Jorgensen, J.W. Lynn, A.P. Mackenzie, S. Nakatsuji and M. Sigrist. We thank J.D. Jorgensen for a preprint of Ref. . Computations were performed using facilities of the DoD HPCMO ASC center. Work at the Naval Research Laboratory is supported by the Office of the Naval Research.


format: text

text:
# Probing Neutral Gauge Boson Self-interactions in 𝑍𝑍 Production at Hadron Colliders

## I Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of electroweak interactions makes precise predictions for the couplings between gauge bosons due to the non-abelian gauge symmetry of $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$. These self-interactions are described by the triple gauge boson (trilinear) $`WWV`$, $`Z\gamma V`$, and $`ZZV`$ ($`V=\gamma ,Z`$) couplings and the quartic couplings. Vector boson pair production provides a sensitive ground for direct tests of the trilinear couplings. Deviations of the couplings from the expected values would indicate the presence of new physics beyond the SM.

To date the SM has passed this rigorous test with no observed deviations from the SM values. The $`WWV`$ couplings have been measured with an accuracy of $`1015\%`$ in $`W^+W^{}`$, single photon and single $`W`$ production at LEP2 , and with $`2040\%`$ accuracy in $`W\gamma `$, $`WZ`$ and $`W^+W^{}`$ production at the Fermilab Tevatron collider . The $`Z\gamma V`$ couplings can be probed in $`Z\gamma `$ production in $`e^+e^{}`$ and in hadronic collisions. The LEP2  and Tevatron  experiments find the $`Z\gamma V`$ couplings to be smaller than $`0.050.4`$, depending on the specific coupling considered. The $`ZZV`$ couplings, on the other hand, are only loosely constrained at the moment through $`ZZ`$ production at LEP2 . Due to low event rates after branching ratios, or large backgrounds, $`ZZ`$ production was not observed by the Tevatron experiments in Run I.

In Run II of the Tevatron which will begin in 2001, an integrated luminosity of $`215`$ fb-1 is envisioned , and a sufficient number of $`ZZ`$ events should be available to commence a detailed investigation of the $`ZZV`$ couplings. At the CERN Large Hadron Collider \[(LHC), $`pp`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV \], one can imagine that the measurement of these couplings reaches the $`0.1\%`$ level of current precision electroweak data. In this paper we study the capabilities of future hadron collider experiments to test the $`ZZV`$ vertices via $`ZZ`$ production. In the past, the reaction $`pp{}_{}{}^{^{()}}ZZ`$ for non-zero $`ZZV`$ couplings has only been studied in the approximation where the $`Z`$ bosons are considered as stable final state particles . We go a step further and include $`Z`$ decays with full decay correlations, finite $`Z`$ width effects and time-like virtual photon exchange in our analysis.

Two $`ZZZ`$ couplings, and two $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings, are allowed by electromagnetic gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance  for on-shell $`Z`$ bosons. We discuss the properties of these couplings in Section II, where we also derive unitarity bounds for the form factors associated with the $`ZZV`$ vertices. The SM is assumed to be valid in our calculations except for the $`ZZV`$ anomalous couplings; $`Vf\overline{f}`$ couplings and strong interactions of SM particles remain unchanged.

Our analysis examines the observable final state signatures at hadron colliders, $`ZZ\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2^+\mathrm{}_2^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ ($`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2=e,\mu `$) and $`\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$. In Section III we provide details of the signal and various backgrounds and discuss the signatures of anomalous $`ZZZ`$ and $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings. Besides the $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distribution and the $`Z`$ boson transverse momentum distributions, the azimuthal angle between the $`Z`$ boson decay fermions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and their separation in the pseudo-rapidity – azimuthal angle plane, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, are sensitive indicators of anomalous couplings. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ distribution may be useful in discriminating different types of $`ZZV`$ couplings, and in determining their sign. In Section IV we derive sensitivity limits for anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings for various integrated luminosities at the Tevatron and LHC and discuss the results. Finally, in Section V we compare the expectations for Tevatron Run II and the LHC with the current LEP2 limits and expectations for an $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider. In Section V we also present our conclusions.

## II $`ZZZ`$ and $`ZZ\gamma `$ anomalous couplings

In the SM, at the parton level, the reaction $`pp{}_{}{}^{^{()}}ZZ`$ proceeds by the Feynman diagrams of Fig. 1. Including the anomalous couplings under discussion requires the addition of the graphs of Fig. 2. In the massless fermion limit, a reasonable approximation for hadron collider processes, the most general form of the $`Z^\alpha (q_1)Z^\beta (q_2)V^\mu (P)`$ ($`V=Z,\gamma `$) vertex function (see Fig. 3 for notation) for on-shell $`Z`$’s which respects Lorentz invariance and electromagnetic gauge invariance may be written as

$$g_{ZZV}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ZZV}^{\alpha \beta \mu }=e\frac{P^2M_V^2}{M_Z^2}\left[if_4^V\left(P^\alpha g^{\mu \beta }+P^\beta g^{\mu \alpha }\right)+if_5^Vϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta \rho }\left(q_1q_2\right)_\rho \right],$$
(1)
where $`M_Z`$ is the $`Z`$-boson mass and $`e`$ is the proton charge. The overall factor $`(P^2M_V^2)`$ in Eq. (1) is a consequence of Bose symmetry for $`ZZZ`$ couplings, while it is due to electromagnetic gauge invariance for the $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings. The couplings $`f_i^V`$ ($`i=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$) are dimensionless complex functions of $`q_1^2`$, $`q_2^2`$ and $`P^2`$. All couplings are $`C`$ odd; $`CP`$ invariance forbids $`f_4^V`$ and parity conservation requires that $`f_5^V`$ vanishes. Because $`f_4^Z`$ and $`f_4^\gamma `$ are $`CP`$-odd, contributions to the helicity amplitudes proportional to these couplings will not interfere with the SM terms. In the static limit, $`f_5^\gamma `$ corresponds to the anapole moment of the $`Z`$ boson . In the SM, at tree level, $`f_4^V=f_5^V=0`$. At the one-loop level, only the $`CP`$ conserving couplings $`f_5^V`$ receive contributions. Numerically, these contributions are of $`𝒪(10^4)`$ . Loop contributions from supersymmetric particles and additional heavy fermions produce $`ZZV`$ couplings of a similar magnitude . If the $`Z`$ bosons are allowed to be off-shell, five additional $`ZZZ`$ couplings, and five additional $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings contribute . For these couplings, the factor $`(P^2M_V^2)`$ in the vertex function is replaced by $`(q_1^2q_2^2)`$. The effect of these couplings thus is strongly suppressed and we shall ignore them in our discussion.

It should be noted that the two $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings contributing to $`ZZ`$ production are completely independent of the four $`Z\gamma Z`$ couplings which appear in $`Z\gamma `$ production (assuming that the $`Z`$-boson is on-shell). If all three vector bosons in the vertex function are off-shell, there are seven couplings altogether. Four of them survive in $`Z\gamma `$ production, and two in $`f\overline{f}ZZ`$.

The parton level di-boson production cross sections with non-SM couplings manifestly grow with the parton center of mass energy $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$. $`S`$-matrix unitarity restricts the $`ZZV`$ couplings uniquely to their SM values at asymptotically high energies . This requires that the couplings $`f_i^V`$ possess a momentum dependence which ensures that the $`f_i^V(q_1^2,q_2^2,P^2)`$ vanish for any momenta much larger than $`M_Z`$. For $`ZZ`$ production, $`q_1^2,q_2^2M_Z^2`$ even considering finite $`Z`$ width effects, but $`P^2=\widehat{s}`$ may be quite large at the hadron colliders under consideration. In order to avoid unphysical results that would violate unitarity, the $`\widehat{s}`$ dependence thus has to be taken into account. To parameterize the $`\widehat{s}`$ dependence of the form factor, we will use a generalized dipole form factor ,

$$f_i^V(\widehat{s})=\frac{f_{i0}^V}{(1+\widehat{s}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}^2)^n}(i=4,5),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}`$ is the form factor scale which is related to the scale of the new physics which is generating the anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings.

The values $`f_{i0}^V=f_i^V(M_Z^2,M_Z^2,0)`$ of the form factors at low energy ($`\widehat{s}=0`$) and the power of the form factor, $`n`$, are constrained by partial wave unitarity of the inelastic $`ZZ`$ production amplitude in fermion antifermion annihilation at arbitrary center-of-mass energies. In deriving unitarity limits for the $`f_{i0}^V`$’s, we follow the strategy employed in Ref. . The anomalous contribution to the

$$f(\sigma )\overline{f}(\overline{\sigma })Z(\lambda _1)Z(\lambda _2)$$
(3)
helicity amplitudes may be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^V(\sigma \overline{\sigma },\lambda _1\lambda _2)=\sqrt{2}e^2g_{2\sigma }^{Vf_1f_2}\frac{\widehat{s}}{M_Z^2}\beta \delta _{\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }}A_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^V\times d_{\sigma +\overline{\sigma },\lambda _1\lambda _2}^1(\mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(4)
where $`d^1`$ are the conventional $`d`$-functions , $`\beta =(14M_Z^2/\widehat{s})^{1/2}`$, $`\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }`$ and $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ are the helicities of the incoming fermion pair and outgoing $`Z`$ pair, respectively. $`g_{2\sigma }^{Vf_1f_2}`$ is the coupling of the $`s`$-channel vector boson to the incoming fermion pair, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the center of mass scattering angle, and the $`A^V`$’s are the reduced amplitudes given by (see also Ref. )

$`A_{0\pm }^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2M_Z}}\left[if_4^V\pm \beta f_5^V\right],`$ (5)
$`A_{\pm 0}^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\widehat{s}}}{2M_Z}}\left[if_4^V\beta f_5^V\right],`$ (6)
$`A_{\pm \pm }^V`$ $`=`$ $`A_{00}^V=A_\pm ^V=0.`$ (7)
Examination of the $`J=1`$ partial wave amplitude produces the desired unitarity bounds,

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{}}|A_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^\gamma |^2\right)^{1/2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \beta ^{3/2}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\left(36\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+8\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\right)\right]^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\widehat{s}}},`$ (8)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{}}|A_{\lambda _1\lambda _2}^Z|^2\right)^{1/2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha \beta ^{3/2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{\widehat{s}}},`$ (9)
where $`\theta _W`$ is the weak mixing angle and $`\alpha `$ the QED fine structure constant.

By substituting Eq. (2) and assuming that only one coupling is nonzero at a time, we find the following unitarity bounds for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}M_Z`$:

$`|f_{40,50}^\gamma |`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\left(36\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+8\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\right)\right]^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{2}{3}n\right)^n}{\left(\frac{2}{3}n1\right)^{(n3/2)}}},`$ (10)
$`|f_{40,50}^Z|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{10}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_Z}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{2}{3}n\right)^n}{\left(\frac{2}{3}n1\right)^{(n3/2)}}}.`$ (11)
Tree level unitarity is satisfied throughout the entire $`\widehat{s}`$ range when these limits are observed. For the more likely case that several anomalous couplings contribute, cancellations may occur and the bounds are weaker than those listed in Eqs. (10) and (11). From the $`n`$ dependent factors in (10) and (11) one observes that $`n>3/2`$ is necessary in order to satisfy unitarity. This is a direct consequence of the high energy behavior of the anomalous contributions to the $`ZZ`$ helicity amplitudes, which grow like $`(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}/M_Z)^3`$. In the following we shall assume that $`n=3`$. Selecting an exponent sufficiently above the minimum value of $`3/2`$ ensures that the $`ZZ`$ differential cross section stays well below the unitarity limit at energies $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}M_Z`$, where novel phenomena such as resonance production, or multiple weak boson production, are expected to dominate. For the form factor scale we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=750`$ GeV at the Tevatron and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=2`$ TeV at the LHC in our numerical simulations.

## III Signatures of Anomalous $`ZZV`$ Couplings

In this section we discuss characteristics of the signal and backgrounds of anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings. For simplicity, we consider only real $`ZZV`$ couplings. We consider four signatures of $`ZZ`$ production: decays to four leptons; two leptons and missing energy; two leptons and two jets; and two jets plus missing energy. Due to the overwhelming four jet QCD background, decays where both $`Z`$ bosons decay hadronically are not considered here. We calculate the SM signal, the signal with anomalous couplings, and the significant backgrounds via full tree level matrix elements for the subprocess in question, each of which is discussed in detail below.

### A General considerations

Our calculation is carried out at the tree level. We compute the $`q\overline{q}ZZ4`$ fermion helicity amplitudes in the double pole approximation which ignores contributions from non-resonant diagrams except for contributions from time-like photon exchange diagrams, using the method described in Ref. . Decay correlations, finite $`Z`$ width effects and contributions from time-like photon exchange are taken into account. Cross sections and dynamical distributions are evaluated using a parton level Monte Carlo program.

To simulate the effect of next-to-leading-log (NLL) QCD corrections we multiply the differential cross section with a simple $`K`$-factor which depends on the final state considered. A more detailed discussion of how NLL QCD corrections affect the four different final states is presented in the following sections, where we discuss each final state in turn. Gluon fusion, $`ggZZ`$, contributes about $`1\%`$ ($`15\%`$) to the cross section at the Tevatron (LHC) . We do not include the contribution from gluon fusion into our analysis.

To examine the effects of anomalous couplings on observables we simulate $`p\overline{p}`$ ($`pp`$) collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV ($`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV) for the Tevatron (LHC). For all our numerical results we have chosen the set of SM input parameters to be: $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2310`$, $`M_Z=91.187`$ GeV, and $`\alpha (M_Z)=1/128.93`$ . For all processes which depend on the QCD coupling constant, we choose the value of the strong coupling constant to be $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.118`$. We employ CTEQ4L parton distribution functions  for all calculations, selecting the value of the factorization scale to be $`\mu _f=M_Z`$.

As finite detector resolution can have a sizable effect on cross sections and thus the number of events accepted into the data set, to make our calculations realistic we must take into account some minimal detector response. We accomplish this via Gaussian smearing of the four momenta of the outgoing particles according to detector expectations. For Gaussian smearing at the Tevatron we use the expected values of the upgraded CDF detector :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\mathrm{had})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.75}{\sqrt{E_T}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.03}(|\eta |<1.1)`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.80}{\sqrt{E}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.05}(|\eta |>1.1)`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\mathrm{lep})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.14}{\sqrt{E_T}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.02}(|\eta |<1.1)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.16}{\sqrt{E}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.01}(|\eta |>1.1)`$ (15)
For the LHC we take the expected values for the ATLAS detector :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\mathrm{had})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.5}{\sqrt{E}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.03}(|\eta |<3.0)`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}}(\mathrm{lep})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{0.095}{\sqrt{E}}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.005}(|\eta |<2.5)`$ (17)
Here, $`\eta `$ is the pseudo-rapidity, $`E`$ ($`E_T`$) is the energy (transverse energy) measured in GeV, and the $``$ sign symbolizes that the two terms are added in quadrature.

In all cases, the missing momentum in an event is taken as the negative vector sum of the smeared four momenta of all observable final state particles. This does ignore the effects of additional soft activity that will affect this distribution in experiment, but for our purposes here may be safely neglected.

The geometric and kinematic acceptance of detectors, i.e. the ability to observe and properly identify final states particles, is simulated in our calculations by cuts imposed on observable particles in the final state. At the Tevatron (LHC) we require ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$):

where $`p_T`$ is the transverse momentum and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R=\left[\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \right)^2\right]^{1/2}$$
(18)
is the separation in the pseudorapidity – azimuthal angle plane. $`p\text{/}_T`$ is the missing transverse momentum resulting from the nonobservation of the neutrino pair.

In addition, we require the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and two jet invariant masses to be within $`\pm 15`$ GeV of the $`Z`$ boson mass :

$`76\mathrm{GeV}`$ $`<m(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`<106\mathrm{GeV},`$ (19)
$`76\mathrm{GeV}`$ $`<m(jj)`$ $`<106\mathrm{GeV}.`$ (20)
These cuts help suppress contributions from non-resonant Feynman diagrams and, in the jet case, the background from $`Z+2`$ jet production. Additional cuts which are imposed to reduce backgrounds for individual final states will be discussed when we consider the specific final state to which they apply.

### B The $`\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2^+\mathrm{}_2^{}`$ channel

The first $`ZZ`$ decay channel we consider, $`ZZ\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2^+\mathrm{}_2^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2=e,\mu `$) is observationally the cleanest as it is essentially background-free. However, it does suffer from a small event rate due to a tiny branching ratio of $`B(ZZ\mathrm{}_1^+\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2^+\mathrm{}_2^{})=0.0045`$ if both electron and muon final states are considered. In the following we concentrate on the $`ZZe^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ channel. Results for the $`e^+e^{}e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ final states can be obtained by dividing all cross section results by two. However, for these final states one has to take into account the combinatorial background originating from not being able experimentally to distinguish identical charged leptons. All results presented in this section include a $`K`$-factor of 1.28 (1.34) at Tevatron (LHC) energies to approximate the effect of NLL QCD corrections . Inclusive NLL QCD corrections to $`ZZ`$ production are known to modify the shape of distributions only insignificantly. As mentioned in Sec. III A, we do not include the non-resonant Feynman diagrams which contribute to $`q\overline{q}e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in our calculation. Requiring the invariant mass of the lepton pairs to be in the vicinity of the $`Z`$ mass, (see Eq. (19)), these diagrams contribute less than a few percent to the differential cross section. Imposing the cuts listed in Sec. III A, one obtains a $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$) cross section of 3.85 fb (22.5 fb) at the Tevatron (LHC). For 2 fb-1 in Run II, only a few $`ZZ4`$ lepton events are therefore expected within the framework of the SM.

Similar to the $`WWV`$ and $`Z\gamma V`$ couplings , the effects of anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings are enhanced at large energies. A typical signal of nonstandard $`ZZZ`$ and $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings thus will be a broad increase in the $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distribution, the $`Z`$ transverse momentum distribution and the $`p_T`$ distribution of the $`Z`$ decay products. The $`p_T(Z)`$ and $`p_T(\mu )`$ distributions for the Tevatron ($`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV) and the LHC are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Results are shown for the SM and two $`ZZV`$ couplings, $`f_{40}^Z=0.3(0.02)`$ and $`f_{50}^\gamma =0.3(0.02)`$ at the Tevatron (LHC). Here, and in all subsequent figures, only one $`ZZV`$ coupling is allowed to be non-zero at a time.

Terms proportional to $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$ in the matrix elements have identical high energy behavior. Differences in the differential cross sections at high energies between $`ZZZ`$ and $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings are thus controlled by the $`Zf\overline{f}`$ and $`\gamma f\overline{f}`$ couplings, and by the parton distribution functions. At the Tevatron these result in differential cross sections which differ by only a few percent for $`\widehat{s}M_Z^2`$ if $`|f_{i0}^Z|=|f_{i0}^\gamma |`$ ($`i=4,5`$). Slightly larger differences are observed at intermediate energies and transverse momenta. Since $`f_4^V`$ violate $`CP`$ conservation, terms in the helicity amplitudes proportional to those couplings do not interfere with the SM terms. Cross sections thus are independent of the sign of $`f_4^V`$. Interference effects between the anomalous and SM contributions to the helicity amplitudes, however, do occur for $`f_5^V`$. The magnitude of the interference effects in the transverse momentum and $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distributions unfortunately is small.

While it would be difficult to discriminate between the various $`ZZV`$ couplings in the $`m_{ZZ}`$ or $`p_T`$ distributions, it should be easy to distinguish between the SM Higgs boson which decays in a pair of $`Z`$ bosons, $`HZZ`$, and anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings. This will be important at the LHC, where final states resulting from $`ppZZ`$ are prime Higgs boson search channels. Anomalous gauge boson couplings lead to a broad increase in the differential cross section at large energies and transverse momenta, whereas a scalar resonance produces a Breit-Wigner resonance in the $`m_{ZZ}`$ distribution and a Jacobian peak in the $`p_T(Z)`$ spectrum. In addition, the correlation of the angular distributions of the $`Z`$ decay leptons in the $`Z`$ boson rest frames may be used to discriminate between a Higgs boson and $`ZZV`$ couplings. $`Z`$ bosons originating from Higgs boson decay are mostly longitudinally polarized , whereas anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings lead to one transversely polarized and one longitudinally polarized $`Z`$ boson (see Eqs. (5) and (6)). Since the $`Z`$ boson coupling to charged leptons is almost purely axial vector like, transversely polarized $`Z`$ bosons lead to a angular distribution for the $`Z`$ decay leptons which is proportional to $`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{})`$, where $`\theta ^{}`$ is the polar angle in the $`Z`$ boson rest frame with respect to the flight direction of the $`Z`$ boson in the $`ZZ`$ rest frame. On the other hand, the angular distribution for longitudinal $`Z`$’s is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{}`$.

In order to distinguish $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$, and to determine the sign of $`f_5^V`$, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ distribution and the distribution of the opening angle in the transverse plane, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, of the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ pair originating from the decay of a $`Z`$ boson may be helpful, if deviations from the SM predictions are found in the $`m_{ZZ}`$ and the transverse momentum differential cross sections. Figure 6 shows the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distributions for $`ZZe^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ at the Tevatron in the SM and for non-standard $`ZZZ`$ couplings. Similar results are obtained for the corresponding distributions of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair, and for the $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings $`f_{4,5}^\gamma `$. The SM $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ differential cross sections are dominated by the threshold region, $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}2M_Z`$, where the $`Z`$ boson momenta are small and the decay leptons tend to be back-to-back, i.e. the distributions are strongly peaked at $`\mathrm{\Delta }R3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=180^{}`$. Anomalous couplings affect the cross section mostly at large $`Z`$-boson transverse momentum. Due to the Lorentz boost, the relative opening angle between the leptons originating from $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decreases with increasing $`p_T`$. The deviations due to non-standard $`ZZV`$ couplings in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distributions are therefore concentrated at rather small values. Figure 6 demonstrates that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distribution would be particularly useful in separating the individual $`ZZV`$ couplings. The shapes of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distributions for $`f_{40}^Z=0.3`$, $`f_{50}^Z=0.3`$ and $`f_{50}^Z=0.3`$ differ considerably, and for a sufficient number of events it should be possible to distinguish $`f_4^V`$ from $`f_5^V`$, and to determine the sign of $`f_5^V`$. Unfortunately, both the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ differential cross sections are useless in distinguishing $`f_i^Z`$ from $`f_i^\gamma `$ ($`i=4,5`$). As for the $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distribution and the transverse momentum distributions, the differential cross sections for $`f_i^Z=f_i^\gamma `$ differ very little in shape and magnitude.

At the Tevatron, the small number of $`ZZ4`$ leptons events will limit the usefulness of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ distributions. At the LHC, the expected number of events is much larger; however, the magnitude of the interference effects between the SM and the anomalous contributions to the helicity amplitudes is significantly smaller than at the Tevatron. This can be easily understood from the high energy behavior of the anomalous contributions to the differential cross section. The differential cross section is proportional to the squared amplitude, which contains the SM terms, terms linear in the anomalous couplings and terms which are quadratic in the $`ZZV`$ couplings. The terms linear in the anomalous couplings originate from the interference between the SM amplitude and the anomalous contributions, and are proportional to $`(\sqrt{\widehat{s}}/M_Z)^3`$. Terms quadratic in the $`ZZV`$ couplings on the other hand are proportional to $`(\widehat{s}/M_Z^2)^3`$ and thus grow much faster with $`\widehat{s}`$. Due to the much higher parton center of mass energies accessible at the LHC, interference effects thus play a smaller role than at the Tevatron. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distributions at the LHC for the SM, $`f_{40}^Z=0.02`$, $`f_{50}^Z=0.02`$, and $`f_{50}^Z=0.02`$ are shown in Fig. 7. Both distributions are very insensitive to the sign of $`f_{50}^Z`$. The shape of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distribution differs for $`f_{40}^Z`$ and $`f_{50}^Z`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu ^+\mu ^{})<20^{}`$, whereas the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ distributions for $`f_{40}^Z`$ and $`f_{50}^Z`$ values of equal magnitude are almost identical. It would thus be challenging to discriminate between $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$, and to determine the sign of $`f_5^V`$, using the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ distributions in the $`ZZ4`$ leptons mode at the LHC. Since events in regions where anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings have a significant effect originate from higher values of $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$, the typical separation and the opening angle in the transverse plane are significantly smaller than at the Tevatron.

### C The $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ channel

In contrast to the $`ZZ4`$ leptons mode which is almost background free, there are several potentially important background processes if one of the two $`Z`$ bosons decays into neutrinos. The advantage of the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ channel, observable as $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}p\text{/}_T`$, is its larger branching fraction. Summing over the three neutrino species, the raw number of $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ signal events before cuts are implemented is about a factor 6 larger than the number of $`ZZ4`$ leptons events.

Calculation of the signal is similar to that for the four lepton channel, with the change of one $`Z`$ coupling from $`g_Z\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ to $`g_{Z\nu \nu }`$. There is no photon interference for the $`Z`$ that decays to neutrinos. Since it is not possible to restrict the invariant mass of the neutrino pair to be in the vicinity of the $`Z`$ resonance, one has to verify that the non-resonant Feynman diagrams ignored in our calculation do not significantly change the differential cross section. There are 10 Feynman diagrams contributing to $`q\overline{q}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}^{}}\nu _{\mathrm{}^{}}`$, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}`$, and 19 contributing to $`q\overline{q}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ in the SM. The graphs of the $`q\overline{q}W^+W^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ background, which is described in more detail below, are contained in this set. Using madgraph  and the helas  library, we have calculated the SM cross section for $`p\overline{p}e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ including the full set of contributing Feynman diagrams and summing over the three neutrino species. In Fig. 8 we compare the transverse momentum distribution of the $`e^+e^{}`$ system for $`p\overline{p}e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ at the Tevatron resulting from the full set of tree level Feynman diagrams with the distribution obtained using the subset of diagrams contributing to $`q\overline{q}ZZe^+e^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ and $`q\overline{q}W^+W^{}e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _e`$ in the double pole approximation. Figure 8a displays the individual $`p_T`$ distributions, whereas part b) of the figure shows the ratio of the differential cross sections. In addition to the cuts listed in Sec. III A we have imposed a $`p\text{/}_T>20`$ GeV cut in Fig. 8. The non-resonant diagrams are seen to reduce (enhance) the rate by about $`5\%`$ for $`p_T(e^+e^{})<80`$ GeV ($`p_T(e^+e^{})>80`$ GeV). This is significantly smaller than other theoretical uncertainties such as the factorization scale uncertainty in our calculation. In the following we shall therefore ignore effects of the non-resonant diagrams in channels where one of the $`Z`$ bosons decays into neutrinos.

The most important background processes to $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ production are $`t\overline{t}W^+W^{}b\overline{b}`$, standard electroweak $`W^+W^{}+X`$ production with $`W^+W^{}\mathrm{}^+\nu \mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }`$, and $`Z(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})+1`$ jet production with the jet rapidity outside the range covered by the detector, thus faking missing $`p_T`$. We will call this last process the “$`Z+1`$ jet” background. We have calculated the $`t\overline{t}`$ background using standard helicity amplitude techniques, fully including the subsequent decays $`tWb`$ and $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ and all decay correlations. Finite width effects for the top quarks and $`W`$’s are included. Jets (partons) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(jj)<0.4`$ are merged into a single jet. We do not decay the bottom quarks explicitly, but do include a parameterized energy loss distribution to make a more realistic simulation of observed final state momenta and overall missing momentum. For $`W^+W^{}+X`$ production we make use of the calculation described in Ref. . For a realistic assessment of the $`Z+1`$ jet background, a full-fledged Monte Carlo simulation is required. Here, for a first rough estimate, we use a simple parton level calculation. For a jet, i.e., a quark or gluon, to be misidentified as $`p\text{/}_T`$ at the Tevatron (LHC), we shall require that the jet pseudorapidity be $`|\eta (j)|>3.5`$ ($`|\eta (j)|>5`$).

Additional backgrounds originate from $`b\overline{b}`$ production and $`Z\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decays. These backgrounds can be suppressed to a negligible level by requiring the angle in the transverse plane between a charged lepton and the missing transverse momentum to be between $`20^{}`$ and $`160^{}`$, if $`p\text{/}_T<50`$ GeV.

Subsequently, in this section we shall focus on the $`e^+e^{}p\text{/}_T`$ final state. Virtually identical results are obtained for $`ZZ\mu ^+\mu ^{}p\text{/}_T`$. For reasons which will become clear shortly, we do not include a $`K`$-factor for the signal cross sections in the figures shown in this section. In addition to the cuts specified in Sec. III A, we impose a $`p\text{/}_T>20`$ GeV ($`p\text{/}_T>50`$ GeV) cut at the Tevatron (LHC), and the cut on the angle in the transverse plane between a charged lepton and the missing transverse momentum discussed above.

In Fig. 9a we show the transverse momentum distribution of the $`e^+e^{}`$ pair for $`ZZe^+e^{}p\text{/}_T`$ in the SM (solid curve) and for $`f_{40}^Z=0.3`$ (dashed line) at the Tevatron, together with the differential cross sections of the $`t\overline{t}`$ (dotted line), $`W^+W^{}`$ (dot-dashed line) and $`Z+1`$ jet (long-dashed line) backgrounds. The cut on the angle in the transverse plane between a charged lepton and the missing transverse momentum is responsible for the slight dip in the $`ZZ`$ differential cross section curves at $`p_T(e^+e^{})50`$ GeV in Fig. 9a.

One observes that all backgrounds shown in Fig. 9a are significantly larger than the $`ZZ`$ signal at small values of $`p_T(e^+e^{})`$. Because of kinematical constraints, however, the $`Z+1`$ jet background drops very rapidly with $`p_T`$. In a more complete treatment in which soft gluon and/or quark radiation and hadronization effects are included, one expects that the $`p_T(e^+e^{})`$ distribution will be somewhat harder for the $`Z+1`$ jet background, especially at high transverse momentum. The $`Z+1`$ jet background sensitively depends on the rapidity cut above which a jet is assumed to be misidentified as $`p\text{/}_T`$. Our assumption that jets with $`|\eta (j)|>3.5`$ will fake missing transverse momentum is probably conservative, and the $`Z+1`$ jet background may well be significantly lower than shown in Fig. 9.

The $`W^+W^{}`$ background exceeds the $`ZZ`$ signal cross section for $`p_T(e^+e^{})<80`$ GeV. Since the tail of the $`p_T(e^+e^{})`$ distribution for $`W^+W^{}`$ production is very sensitive to NLL QCD corrections, we show the NLL $`p_T(e^+e^{})`$ distribution in Fig. 9a. The differential cross section of the $`t\overline{t}`$ background is larger than the SM signal for $`e^+e^{}`$ transverse momenta as large as 200 GeV, and may thus reduce the sensitivity to anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings. We do not show the distributions for the $`b\overline{b}`$ or $`Z\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ backgrounds, as they are negligible after the aforementioned angular cut.

The $`t\overline{t}`$ background can be virtually eliminated by requiring that no jets with $`p_T(j)>20`$ GeV and $`|\eta (j)|<3.5`$ are present. Such a jet veto also reduces the $`W^+W^{}+X`$ background at large transverse momenta. This is shown in Fig. 9b. The remaining $`W^+W^{}`$ background will only marginally affect the sensitivity to $`ZZV`$ couplings. The jet veto also significantly reduces the size of the NLL QCD corrections for the $`ZZ`$ signal, justifying our procedure of not including a $`K`$-factor in the signal cross section in this section.

The $`p_T(e^+e^{})`$ distributions for signal and background processes at the LHC, requiring that no jets with $`p_T(j)>50`$ GeV and $`|\eta (j)|<5`$ are present, are shown in Fig. 10. Since the $`t\overline{t}`$ production cross section is more than two orders of magnitude larger than at the Tevatron, the $`t\overline{t}`$ background is significant even when a jet veto is required. For the cuts imposed, the $`t\overline{t}`$ background (dotted line) exceeds the signal for $`p_T(e^+e^{})<140`$ GeV but is negligible for large transverse momenta. Both the $`W^+W^{}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds could be reduced somewhat by choosing a smaller $`e^+e^{}`$ invariant mass window. Due to the more severe missing transverse momentum cut and the improved rapidity coverage of the hadronic calorimeters of the LHC experiments, the $`Z+1`$ jet background is very small.

As in the $`ZZ4`$ leptons channel, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$ distributions would be useful at the Tevatron in distinguishing between $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$, and in determining the sign of $`f_5^V`$. As shown in Fig. 11, the $`W^+W^{}`$ background is negligible in those regions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$ where the contributions from anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings are most pronounced. The jet veto imposed in Fig. 11 renders the $`t\overline{t}`$ background negligible (see Fig. 9b). The $`p\text{/}_T`$ cut removes events where the $`Z`$ bosons are produced right at threshold and thus causes the peak in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$) distribution to shift from $`3`$ ($`180^{}`$) to $`2.6`$ ($`140^{}`$). It has a similar effect on the $`W^+W^{}+0`$ jet background. Note that the $`W`$ pair production background vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})<1.4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})<90^{}`$. The $`Z+1`$ jet background is not shown in Fig. 11 to avoid overburdening the figure. Qualitatively, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$ distributions of the $`Z+1`$ jet background are similar to those of the $`W^+W^{}+0`$ jet background.

For completeness, we show the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$ distributions at the LHC in Fig. 12, imposing the same jet veto requirements as in Fig. 10. Due to the higher missing transverse momentum cut, the peak in the SM $`ZZ`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$) distribution is shifted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})100^{}`$). The $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})`$ distributions of the $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`W^+W^{}+0`$ jet background peak at similar values. Both backgrounds are negligible for $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(e^+e^{})<1.4`$. In the SM, the dominant $`W^\pm `$ helicity at high energies in $`u\overline{u}W^+W^{}`$ ($`d\overline{d}W^+W^{}`$) is $`\lambda _{W^\pm }=1`$ ($`\lambda _{W^\pm }=\pm 1`$. Because of the $`VA`$ nature of the $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ coupling, the charged leptons in $`W^+W^{}e^+e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _e`$ tend to be emitted either both into ($`d\overline{d}`$ annihilation), or both against the flight direction of their parent $`W`$ boson ($`u\overline{u}`$ annihilation). If a jet veto is imposed, the $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ in $`W`$ pair production are almost back to back in the transverse plane, and so are the $`W`$ decay leptons. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})`$ distribution of the $`W^+W^{}+0`$ jet background thus peaks at a significantly larger angle than that of the $`ZZ`$ signal and of the $`t\overline{t}`$ background (see Fig. 12b). While the $`t\overline{t}`$ background is smaller than the SM $`ZZ`$ signal for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(e^+e^{})<50^{}`$, it is not negligible in this region.

### D The semi-hadronic channels

The decay modes where one of the two $`Z`$ bosons decays hadronically have much larger branching fractions than the $`ZZ4`$ leptons and the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ channels, but also much higher backgrounds. Nevertheless, these channels may be useful in searching for $`ZZV`$ couplings: both CDF  and DØ  have successfully used the $`WW,WZ\mathrm{}\nu jj`$ channels to constrain anomalous $`WWV`$ couplings in the past.

The main background sources are QCD $`Z+2`$ jet (“$`Zjj`$”) production and $`WZ`$ production where the $`W`$ decays hadronically into a pair of jets. In both cases the jet pair invariant mass is constrained to be near the $`Z`$ pole, Eq. (20). The range of $`jj`$ invariant masses considered here roughly corresponds to $`M_Z\pm 2\sigma _{jj}`$ where $`\sigma _{jj}`$ is the two jet invariant mass resolution of the detector, which typically is $`\sigma _{jj}=59`$ GeV . The $`Z`$ boson decays to either $`e^+e^{},\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ or invisibly to neutrinos.

The $`Zjj`$ background consists of QCD real-emission corrections to $`Z`$ production. These subprocesses include

$$qgqg\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},qq^{}qq^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},$$
(21)
which are dominated by $`t`$-channel gluon exchange, and all crossing-related processes, such as

$$q\overline{q}gg\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},ggq\overline{q}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}.$$
(22)
Similar to the treatment of the signal processes, we use a parton-level Monte-Carlo program based on the work of Ref.  to model the QCD $`Zjj`$ background. All interference effects between virtual photon and $`Z`$-exchange are included for charged lepton final states; for final state neutrino pairs there is no photon contribution. $`\alpha _s`$ running at one loop order is included, correcting the contribution from each phase space point from the input value of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.118`$. To compute the $`WZ`$ background we make use of the calculation presented in Ref. .

Other potentially dangerous background sources are $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`Wjj`$ production. The $`Wjj`$ background contributes only to the $`\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ final state. For $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$, the $`t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}b`$ background can be reduced by requiring that the missing transverse momentum is $`p\text{/}_T<20`$ GeV at the Tevatron, and $`p\text{/}_T<40`$ GeV at the LHC. The higher value for the LHC is motivated by pile-up effects due to the large number of interactions per beam crossing at the LHC design luminosity of $`=10^{34}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Pile-up effects amplify small momentum imbalance effects due to mismeasurements in the underlying event structure and can lead to a significant fake missing transverse momentum. Backgrounds from $`W^+W^{}jj`$ production are significantly smaller than those from $`t\overline{t}`$ production after imposing a $`p\text{/}_T`$ veto, and are ignored in the following.

For $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$, suppression of the $`t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\overline{b}b`$ and $`W(\mathrm{}\nu )jj`$ backgrounds is possible by requiring that there are no charged leptons with $`p_T(\mathrm{})>10`$ GeV and $`|\eta (\mathrm{})|<2.5`$ present in the event. The $`t\overline{t}\mathrm{}\nu jj\overline{b}b`$ background can be further reduced by imposing the constraint that the event does not contain more than two jets satisfying the $`p_T`$ and pseudo-rapidity cuts described in Sec. III A. The $`Wjj`$ background is calculated using the results of Ref. .

In the following, for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$, we shall sum over electrons and muons in the final state and impose a $`p\text{/}_T<20`$ GeV ($`p\text{/}_T<40`$ GeV) cut at the Tevatron (LHC) in addition to the charged lepton and jet $`p_T`$, pseudorapidity and invariant mass cuts specified in Sec. III A. For $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$, we require a missing transverse momentum of $`p\text{/}_T>60`$ GeV and no charged leptons with $`p_T(\mathrm{})>10`$ GeV and $`|\eta (\mathrm{})|<2.5`$. In addition, the number of jets which satisfy the cuts detailed in Sec. III A, $`n_j`$, has to be $`n_j=2`$. The rather high $`p\text{/}_T`$ cut ensures that backgrounds from heavy quark production and three jet production, where the rapidity of one of the jets is outside the range covered by the detector, are sufficiently suppressed. At the LHC, a $`p\text{/}_T>60`$ GeV cut may well be too low to trigger on $`jjp\text{/}_T`$ events, especially at high luminosities. However, since anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings lead to deviations only at large transverse momenta, raising the $`p\text{/}_T`$ cut to 100 GeV or even 200 GeV at the LHC will have very little impact on the sensitivity of the $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ mode to $`ZZV`$ couplings. Finally, all signal and background cross sections presented in this section are calculated at leading order.

The $`p_T(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ distribution for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ is shown in Fig. 13a for the Tevatron, while Fig. 13b illustrates the Tevatron $`p_T(jj)`$ distribution for $`\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ events. We display the SM cross section (solid line) together with the main backgrounds. We also show the $`ZZ`$ cross section for $`f_{40}^Z=0.3`$ (dashed line). The “kink” in the $`WZ`$ and $`ZZ`$ differential cross sections at $`p_T250`$ GeV is due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(jj)>0.6`$ cut which becomes effective only at sufficiently high transverse momenta. Because of the missing transverse momentum (charged lepton) veto for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ ($`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$), the $`t\overline{t}`$ background is negligible at the Tevatron. The $`Wjj`$ background, which contributes only to the $`\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ final state, is considerably larger than the SM $`ZZ`$ signal only for small values of $`p_T(jj)`$, thus it will not affect the sensitivity to anomalous couplings significantly. The $`WZ`$ differential cross section (dotted line) is very similar to that of the SM signal over most of the $`p_T`$ range considered, whereas the $`Zjj`$ background dominates, overwhelming the signal even at very high transverse momenta. Its size is uniformly about one order of magnitude larger than the SM $`ZZ`$ signal. It will therefore be very difficult to observe $`ZZ`$ production in the semi-hadronic channels, if the SM prediction is correct. However, for sufficiently large anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings, the $`ZZ`$ cross section exceeds the background at large transverse momenta. The semi-hadronic channels therefore may still be useful in obtaining limits on the $`ZZV`$ couplings at the Tevatron.

The case is much worse for the LHC, as shown in Fig. 14. There the rate for $`Zjj`$ events is almost two orders of magnitude greater than the SM signal, and approximately one order of magnitude greater than that for $`ZZ`$ events for moderate values of $`f_{i0}^V`$ ($`i=4,5`$). The $`Wjj`$ background is a factor 3 to 10 larger than the SM $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ signal. Although the $`t\overline{t}`$ background is significantly larger than at the Tevatron, it has almost no effect on the sensitivity of the $`jjp\text{/}_T`$ final state to $`ZZV`$ couplings.

It should be noted that NLL QCD corrections could worsen the signal to background ratio. QCD corrections enhance the $`ZZ`$ signal cross section by about a factor 1.3 . The full NLL QCD corrections to $`Zjj`$ and $`Wjj`$ production are currently not known. However, the QCD corrections to $`Z\overline{b}b`$ production in the limit of massless $`b`$-quarks increase the cross section by about a factor 2 . If the QCD corrections to $`Zjj`$ and $`Wjj`$ production are of similar size, they will weaken the signal to background ratio by about a factor 1.5.

In the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ distributions of the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ system and the jet pair, the $`Zjj`$ background overwhelms the $`ZZ`$ signal even for rather large $`ZZV`$ couplings. For the semi-hadronic $`ZZ`$ final states it will therefore be very difficult to utilize these distributions in distinguishing the various neutral gauge boson couplings.

In our discussion of semi-hadronic final states in $`ZZ`$ production, we have considered only inclusive jet rates. With the excellent $`b`$-tagging capabilities of the Tevatron  and LHC  experiments, one may also be able to search for anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings using $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{b}b`$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu \overline{b}b`$ decays. The $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{b}b`$ ($`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu \overline{b}b`$) cross section is about a factor 10 smaller than the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ ($`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$) rate if one requires that both $`b`$-quarks are tagged. The main backgrounds in these channels are $`Z(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})\overline{b}b`$, $`Z(\overline{\nu }\nu )\overline{b}b`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ production. The $`Z\overline{b}b`$ background is about a factor 3 larger than the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{b}b`$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu \overline{b}b`$ signals . The signal to background ratio thus is considerably better than in the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ and $`\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ cases. However, due to the smaller signal rate, one expects that the sensitivity limits obtained from $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{b}b`$ ($`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu \overline{b}b`$ ) will be about a factor 2 to 3 weaker than those derived from $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ ($`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$).

## IV Sensitivity Limits

In this section we discuss the method to extract sensitivity bounds on anomalous couplings, and then determine the bounds on $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$ which one expects to achieve with 2 fb-1 and 10 fb-1 of data at the Tevatron in Run II, and 10 fb-1 and 100 fb-1 at the LHC. For simplicity, we consider only real $`ZZV`$ couplings.

We calculate $`95\%`$ confidence level (CL) limits performing a $`\chi ^2`$ test. The statistical significance is calculated by splitting the selected $`p_T`$ distribution into a number of bins, each with typically more than five events. We use the $`p_T(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ distribution for all final states except $`\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ for which we use the $`p_T(jj)`$ differential cross section. Other distributions, such as the $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distribution (useful only for $`ZZ4`$ leptons), or the maximum or minimum transverse momenta of the charged leptons or jets, yield similar results. In deriving our sensitivity limits, we combine channels with electrons and muons in the final state. In each bin the Poisson statistics is approximated by a Gaussian distribution. Since we selected bins containing at least five events, the error introduced by this approximation is very small. The same method has been used in the past to estimate limits on anomalous $`WW\gamma `$ and $`Z\gamma V`$ couplings for Run I of the Tevatron . The actual limits obtained from experimental data  agree well with the predicted bounds.

In order to derive realistic limits, we allow for a normalization uncertainty of $`30\%`$ of the SM cross section. Backgrounds in the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$, $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ channels are included in our calculation. We impose the cuts described in detail in Sec. III A. In the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ case we assume that a jet veto has been imposed to reduce the $`t\overline{t}`$ background and require $`p_T(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})>40`$ GeV to eliminate the $`Zj`$ background. For $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ we require that events do not contain missing transverse momentum of more than 20 GeV (40 GeV) at the Tevatron (LHC). Finally, for $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ we impose a charged lepton veto ($`p_T(\mathrm{})<10`$ GeV if $`|\eta (\mathrm{})|<2.5`$) and require exactly two jets to reduce the $`Wjj`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds. As before, we use a form factor of the form of Eq. (2) with $`n=3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=750`$ GeV ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=2`$ TeV) for the Tevatron (LHC).

Non-negligible interference effects between the various $`ZZV`$ couplings are found only between $`f_4^Z`$ and $`f_4^\gamma `$, and between $`f_5^Z`$ and $`f_5^\gamma `$. The $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$ couplings do not interfere, as expected from the CP-odd nature of $`f_4^V`$ and CP-even nature of $`f_5^V`$. This result is demonstrated in Fig. 15, where we show the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ limit contours for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ events in 2 fb-1 of data at the Tevatron Run II. In each graph, only those couplings plotted against each other are assumed to be different from their SM values. Plots similar to those shown in Fig. 15 can be obtained for the LHC, other final states, and different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}`$. As a result of the correlations between $`f_4^Z`$ and $`f_4^\gamma `$, and between $`f_5^Z`$ and $`f_5^\gamma `$, different anomalous coupling contributions to the helicity amplitudes may cancel partially, resulting in weaker bounds than if only one coupling at a time is allowed to deviate from its SM value.

In Table II we display $`95\%`$ confidence level (CL) sensitivity limits expected from the Tevatron Run II for integrated luminosities of 2 fb-1 and 10 fb-1, taking into account the correlations between different anomalous couplings. Due to the small branching ratio for $`p\overline{p}ZZ4`$ leptons, the number of expected events in that channel for 2 fb-1 is too low to allow for an analysis of the $`p_T(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ distribution using the method chosen here. The bounds obtained from $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ are quite similar. The cross section for $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ is about a factor 10 larger than that for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$; however, the large background from $`Zjj`$ production considerably limits the sensitivity to $`ZZV`$ couplings for $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$. The limits from the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ and $`ZZ4`$ leptons channels are about a factor 1.5 and 2 weaker than those from $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$. We do not attempt to combine limits from different channels. From Table II it is clear that this could result in a significant improvement of the bounds.

In Table III we display $`95\%`$ CL sensitivity limits expected from the LHC for integrated luminosities of 10 fb-1 and 100 fb-1. The most stringent bounds are obtained from the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ channel. The $`ZZ4`$ leptons channel yields sensitivity limits which are a factor 1.6 to 2 weaker; while, due to the increased $`Zjj`$ and $`Wjj`$ backgrounds, the limits which can be achieved from analyzing the semi-hadronic channels are a factor 2.5 to 4 worse than those found for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$.

The sensitivity bounds on the $`ZZZ`$ couplings at the Tevatron (LHC) are up to $`10\%`$ ($`20\%`$) better than those on the corresponding $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings. The sensitivities achievable for an integrated luminosity of 10 fb-1 at the Tevatron are about a factor 1.5 to 1.7 more stringent than those found with 2 fb-1. At the LHC, increasing the integrated luminosity by a factor 10 improves the limits by approximately a factor 2. These numbers are in good agreement with the naive scaling law which predicts that sensitivity limits on anomalous couplings improve roughly with $`(𝑑t)^{1/4}`$ . Due to interference with the SM helicity amplitudes, the limits on $`f_{50}^V`$ are somewhat sign dependent. In contrast, because of their $`CP`$–violating nature, contributions to the helicity amplitudes proportional to $`f_{40}^V`$ do not interfere with the SM terms, and the bounds on these couplings do not depend on the sign of the coupling.

The $`W^+W^{}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds only marginally influence the sensitivity limits obtained in the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ case. The limits derived from $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ production, on the other hand, are significantly degraded by the $`Zjj`$ and $`Wjj`$ backgrounds and thus depend on an accurate knowledge of the signal to background ratio. The signal to background ratio is affected by QCD corrections which are not yet fully known, by the factorization scale uncertainty, and by uncertainties originating from the parton distribution functions. Changing the signal to background ratio by a factor 1.5 alters the sensitivity limits by $`1015\%`$.

The sensitivity limits depend significantly on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}`$. For example, at the Tevatron, increasing (decreasing) the form factor scale to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=1000`$ GeV ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=500`$ GeV) improves (weakens) the bounds which can be achieved by a factor 1.5 (2). To a lesser degree, the limits also depend on the power $`n`$ in the form factor, which we have assumed to be $`n=3`$. A smaller value of $`n`$ allows for additional high $`p_T`$ events and therefore leads to a somewhat increased sensitivity to the low energy values of the $`ZZV`$ couplings.

Limits on the anomalous couplings depend on the power, $`n`$, and the scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}`$, of the form factor. These parameters are a priori unknown, as they represent our ignorance of the scale and the nature of new physics beyond the SM. In Ref.  it was pointed out that in final states without missing transverse momentum one can in principle determine the form factor by fitting the $`\sqrt{\widehat{s}}`$ distribution simultaneously to $`f_{i0}^V`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}`$ and $`n`$. However, a study  carried out for $`WW\gamma `$ couplings demonstrated that the method will not produce competitive limits. One expects that a similar result is obtained for $`ZZV`$ couplings. Alternatively, if non-zero anomalous couplings are observed, the method may be useful in determining the shape of the form factor which provides indirect information on the dynamics of the underlying new physics.

## V Summary and Conclusions

$`ZZ`$ production in hadronic collisions provides an opportunity to probe neutral gauge boson self-interactions in a direct way. In this paper we presented a detailed investigation of how well future experiments at the Tevatron and LHC will be able to measure the $`ZZV`$ couplings. Our calculation has been carried out in the double pole approximation, using the most general $`ZZV`$ vertex function which respects Lorentz and electromagnetic gauge invariance. If both $`Z`$ bosons are on-shell, there are two independent $`ZZZ`$ ($`f_4^Z`$ and $`f_5^Z`$) and two $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings ($`f_4^\gamma `$ and $`f_5^\gamma `$). $`Z`$ decays with full decay correlations and finite $`Z`$ width effects are included in our calculation. Non-resonant Feynman diagrams, except for time-like photon exchange diagrams, and contributions from $`ggZZ`$ are not taken into account. The non-resonant Feynman diagrams change the differential cross section by at most $`5\%`$. The contribution from gluon fusion enhances the cross section by about $`1\%`$ ($`15\%`$) at the Tevatron (LHC). NLL QCD corrections are approximated in our calculation where appropriate by a simple $`K`$-factor.

$`S`$-matrix unitarity requires that the $`ZZV`$ couplings are momentum dependent form factors. We derived constraints on the low energy values of the $`ZZV`$ form factors and the shape of the form factor from a partial wave analysis of the inelastic $`ZZ`$ production amplitude in fermion antifermion annihilation (see Eqs. (10) and (11)).

The effects of anomalous $`ZZV`$ couplings are enhanced at large energies. They lead to a broad increase in the $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distribution and in various transverse momentum distributions. We considered four signatures of $`ZZ`$ production: $`ZZ4`$ leptons, $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$, $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$, and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$. The $`ZZ4`$ leptons channel is almost background free but suffers from a small event rate due to the small branching ratio for a $`Z`$ pair decaying into four charged leptons. The rate for $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ is approximately a factor six larger than that for $`ZZ4`$ leptons; however, $`W^+W^{}`$ and $`t\overline{t}`$ production constitute non-negligible backgrounds at small values of $`p_T(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$. The $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ modes have larger branching ratios than the $`ZZ4`$ leptons and $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ channels, but also much higher backgrounds. The main background source for the semi-hadronic final states is QCD $`Z+2`$ jet production. The $`Z+2`$ jet cross section is about a factor 20 (50) larger than the $`ZZ`$ signal at the Tevatron (LHC). Nevertheless, we found that these channels may be useful in searching for $`ZZV`$ couplings.

All $`ZZV`$ couplings have similar high energy behavior. This makes it difficult to distinguish the various $`ZZV`$ couplings in the transverse momentum and $`ZZ`$ invariant mass distributions. We found that in the $`ZZ4`$ leptons and $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ channels, the distributions of the lego plot separation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$, and the angle in the transverse plane between the charged leptons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$, may be useful to distinguish $`f_4^V`$ from $`f_5^V`$ and to determine the sign of $`f_5^V`$. Since $`f_4^V`$ violate $`CP`$ conservation, terms in the helicity amplitudes proportional to $`f_4^V`$ do not interfere with the SM helicity amplitudes, thus it is impossible to determine the sign of $`f_4^V`$ using the $`\mathrm{\Delta }R(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ distributions. In the semi-hadronic modes, the $`ZZ`$ signal is overwhelmed by the $`Zjj`$ background in these distributions, even for rather large anomalous couplings. Unfortunately, the two distributions will not be useful in distinguishing between $`f_i^Z`$ and $`f_i^\gamma `$ as they differ very little in shape for $`ZZZ`$ and $`ZZ\gamma `$ couplings.

In order to determine the bounds on the $`ZZV`$ couplings which one can hope to achieve in future Tevatron and LHC experiments, we have performed a $`\chi ^2`$ test for the four different final states, using the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and dijet transverse momentum distributions. At the Tevatron, with an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1, one will be able to measure $`f_4^V`$ and $`f_5^V`$ with a precision of $`1520\%`$ ($`95\%`$ CL) in the $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ and $`ZZ\overline{\nu }\nu jj`$ channels for a form factor scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=750`$ GeV. The limits obtained from the $`ZZ4`$ leptons and $`ZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}jj`$ channels are a about a factor 2 and 1.5 weaker than those which can be achieved in the other two channels (see Table II). At the LHC with 100 fb-1, the $`ZZV`$ couplings can be measured with an accuracy of $`3\times 10^34\times 10^3`$ ($`95\%`$ CL) in $`ppZZ\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }\nu `$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{FF}=2`$ TeV. The limits obtained from the other three channels are a factor 1.6 to 4 weaker (see Table III).

The sensitivity limits which can be achieved at the Tevatron in Run II and the LHC should be compared with the bounds from recent measurements at LEP2 and expectations for a future linear collider, as well as predictions from theory. The combined $`95\%`$ CL limits from the LEP2 experiments presently are

$`0.66<f_4^Z<0.68,`$ $`0.40<f_4^\gamma <0.38,`$ (23)
$`1.06<f_5^Z<0.69,`$ $`0.89<f_5^\gamma <0.86.`$ (24)
It should be noted that the LEP2 limits do not contain any form factor effects. For the form and scale chosen here, these effects weaken the limits by about $`20\%`$. In Run II, CDF and DØ will be able to improve these bounds by at least a factor 3 to 6. At a $`e^+e^{}`$ Linear Collider (LC) with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV and an integrated luminosity of $`𝑑t=100`$ fb-1, one expects to measure the $`ZZV`$ couplings with a precision of  $`4\times 10^36\times 10^3`$ ($`95\%`$ CL). This is comparable to the bounds which one hopes to achieve at the LHC. One loop corrections in the SM, in supersymmetric models, and in models with heavy fermions, induce $`ZZV`$ couplings which are of $`𝒪(10^4)`$ or less.

In view of our present poor knowledge of the $`ZZV`$ couplings, the direct measurement of these couplings in Run II and at the LHC will constitute major progress. However, it will be very difficult to achieve a precision which will make it possible to test the SM one loop prediction for the $`ZZV`$ couplings.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank S. Dasu, D. Denegri and J. Womersley for useful and stimulating discussions. One of us (UB) would like to thank the Fermilab Theory Group, where part of this work was carried out, for its generous hospitality. This work has been supported in part by Department of Energy contract No. DE-AC02-76CH03000 and NSF grant PHY-9970703.