Dear Shih-Chieh,

the message from the plot I have shown should be more to be careful. It 
might turn out in the end that for the actual analysis no formfactor 
might be needed, because unitarity violation happens in a region where 
there are practically no events, or is even beyond the center-of-mass 
energy.
However, this does not happen automatically by the formulation of the 
theory, but needs to be checked explicitly.

Also, the example in my plot is a dimension-8 operator (T1, the 
definition is e.g. in Oscar's talk, p. 12) in contrast to the 
dimension-6 operators Celine has shown in her talk.

Celine, I'll have a detailed look at your conventions and write up our 
results in the same notation. At first glance, everything looks very 
similar if not identical, so this should not be too difficult.

Best regards,
Michael

Am 12.12.2012 22:41, schrieb Shih-Chieh Hsu:
> Dear Oscar, Celine and Michael,
>
> Thank you very much for your comprehensive introductions of your
> electroweak effective field theories.
> I learned more depth about different aspects of your EFT today.
>
> I have a couple of questions looking forward to your further comments.
>
> Q1. What is the appropriate approach to probe gauge couplings
> in a consistent way in inclusive diboson, VBS diboson+jj and triboton
> production at hadron colliders?
>
> Celine commented that we don't need energy dependence form factor
> to preserve unitary for WW production by considering all dimension 6
> operators.
> However, Michael use VBS WW+jj production as an example to show that we
> need to
> introduce s^hat dependent form factor in order to preserve unitarity.
> The TGC limit derived in inclusive WW might not be compared to the TGC
> limit
> derived in VBS WW+jet neither Triboson production.
>
> Q2. Could Oscar give us a summary of the coupling constants with
> necessary form factor for the Dimension 6  and Dimension8 operators?
> To my understanding, we only introduce Dimension 8 operators for neutral
> gauge couplings.
>
> Q3. It looks to me VBFNLO, MadGraph5 and Oscar's package all implement
> the same effective field theory.
>        Do I understand it correctly that we should be able to reproduce
> the same calculations
>        from each generator?
>
> Q4. In the end, the TGC/QGC operators are linear expansions of the
> effective Lagrangian.
>        Do I expect  the production cross-section can be represented as a
> quadratic dependent function
>       of each gauge coupling coefficients?
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Shih-Chieh
>
> ########################################################################
> Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
>
> To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following
> link:
> https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1
>


-- 
Michael Rauch                         Phone: +49 721 608 47028
Institut fuer Theoretische Physik     Fax:   +49 721 608 43582
Karlsruher Institut f. Technologie (KIT)
76128 Karlsruhe
Germany

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SNOWMASS-ELECTROWEAK&A=1