Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Completing the scalar and fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims to complete the universal one-loop effective action for scalars and fermions up to dimension six, so matching heavy scalar or fermion sectors to a low-energy theory reduces to differentiating the Lagrangian and reading…

desk verdict A genuinely useful completion of the UOLEA for scalar–fermion loops, with a real verifiability gap: the full operator list lives only in the ancillary file. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04798 v3 pith:I5PEVUVN submitted 2019-08-13 hep-ph

Michael Krämer , Benjamin Summ , Alexander Voigt This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords universalone-loopeffectiveactionmatchingWilsoncoefficientsdimension-sixoperatorsfunctionalmethodscovariantderivativeexpansionMSSMfieldtheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the Universal One-Loop Effective Action (UOLEA) can be extended to cover every one-loop operator, up to dimension six, that mixes scalar and fermion fields, with the caveat that interactions may not contain open covariant derivatives. If correct, matching a renormalizable heavy scalar or fermion sector to a low-energy effective theory no longer requires Feynman-diagram loop calculations: one differentiates the ultraviolet Lagrangian twice, inserts the results into a published list of operator templates, and reads off the Wilson coefficients. The paper demonstrates the method by reproducing known threshold corrections in supersymmetric models, including the integration of the top quark, the Higgs quartic threshold from the MSSM, and the integration of stops and the gluino. The generic results are published as a machine-readable ancillary file meant for implementation in automatic matching and spectrum tools.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the universal one-loop effective action itself, produced by functional matching: the one-loop effective Lagrangian is written as the hard part of (i/2)Tr log of the scalar-fermion fluctuation operator, with the covariant momentum Pμ kept intact so gauge invariance is manifest. The calculation is organized by expanding the functional trace with the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula to bring every Pμ into commutators, constructing a basis of the resulting commutator structures, and solving a linear system for the coefficients. This machinery turns matching into algebra with the second-derivative matrices XAB as the only model-dependent input.

What would settle it

Take a simple renormalizable model with known diagrammatic one-loop matching, for example the Standard Model extended by a heavy neutral scalar singlet with a portal coupling and a Yukawa coupling to a light fermion, and compute the dimension-six Wilson coefficients both by Feynman diagrams and by differentiating the Lagrangian and substituting into the published operator list; any discrepancy in an operator class without open covariant derivatives would disprove the completeness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a complete set of generic one-loop Wilson coefficients, up to dimension six, for effective operators built from light scalars and fermions after heavy scalars and fermions are integrated out. The result covers mixed scalar-fermion loops and purely fermionic loops with arbitrary gamma-matrix dependence, treating Dirac and Majorana fermions on the same footing in a single multiplet so that no spin-structure assumptions are needed. It excludes only operators that would arise from open covariant derivatives in the UV Lagrangian. The final expression is a sum of coefficient functions Fα(Mi,Mj,...) multiplying operator structures written in terms of second derivatives XAB of the UV interaction Lagrangian with respect to the fields; evaluating the Wilson coefficients for a given model therefore reduces to computing these derivatives and substituting them into the published list.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the basis of commutator structures built in Section 2.2 is complete, so the published operator list captures every dimension-six operator; because the full list is not printed in the text, this completeness is only checkable through the ancillary file and the worked examples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any renormalizable UV theory of scalars and fermions without open covariant derivatives, one-loop matching to dimension six becomes a substitution exercise: compute XAB from the Lagrangian and insert into the published coefficient list.
  • The UOLEA now covers mixed heavy-light loops and purely fermionic loops with arbitrary gamma structure, removing the need to square fermion traces or rely on scalar results alone.
  • The same coefficients can be reused to extract one-loop beta functions of dimension-six operators by reinterpreting all fields as heavy, as the paper explains.
  • The paper reproduces known results in the top-quark, MSSM Higgs-quartic, and stop-gluino matching examples, which serves as a direct check of the generic expressions.
  • The ancillary implementation allows automation of matching in effective-theory and spectrum-generator codes, which the paper notes as a direct target for the results.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the completeness claim holds, the limiting step for one-loop matching shifts from loop computation to the choice of operator basis and the treatment of open covariant derivatives; those are the natural next targets for the same functional method.
  • The same formalism provides an implicit checkable consistency condition: the dimension-five and dimension-six Wilson coefficients of any tested model must be independent of the matching scale, so a scan over simple models could validate the published list.
  • Automatic matching tools that adopt this list may cover a wider class of new-physics models than diagrammatic matching, especially where many scalars and fermions mix with nontrivial gamma-matrix structure.
  • The paper's own discussion of massive vectors in Feynman gauge suggests the scalar-fermion UOLEA can also be applied to models with heavy gauge bosons, as long as the no-open-covariant-derivative condition is respected.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Universal One-Loop Effective Action (UOLEA) to generic theories with both scalars and fermions, presenting one-loop Wilson coefficients for all effective operators up to dimension six that do not arise from open covariant derivatives. The functional-matching derivation is performed with a multiplet formalism that treats Dirac and Majorana fermions on equal footing, and the resulting operator list is published as a Mathematica ancillary file (UOLEA.m) together with loop-function reduction code (LoopFunctions.m). The paper also derives DRED–DREG conversion contributions and applies the formalism to integrate out the top quark, to the MSSM quartic Higgs threshold correction, and to stops/gluino matching, reproducing known results from the literature.

Significance. If the completeness claim holds, this paper provides a highly useful tool: one-loop matching of any renormalizable scalar–fermion UV theory reduces to differentiating the Lagrangian and substituting into the published operator list, and the machine-readable ancillary files make the result directly usable. The derivation is presented from first principles, with explicit field shifts and a consistency proof in Appendix A, and the sample applications independently confirm several known Wilson coefficients. The main novelty relative to Ref. [9] is the inclusion of fermionic loops with general gamma-matrix structure and mixed scalar–fermion loops, which is genuinely important for modern EFT matching. The central caveat is that the exhaustiveness of the operator basis is asserted rather than proved, and the full operator list is not printed in the manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.2 (after Eq. 2.51) and §3.1] The exhaustiveness of the dimension-six operator list is the central claim of the paper, but it is not demonstrated. The manuscript states that a basis for the commutator structures was constructed and a linear system solved, yet it does not give the number of independent basis elements, the structure of the linear system, or any counting argument. Since the authors explicitly abstain from writing out the result ('we abstain from writing out the result explicitly', after Eq. 2.51), the only complete statement of the result is the ancillary file. A reader cannot verify that every possible contraction of gamma matrices and commutator structure is included. Please provide a completeness proof or at least a counting of the independent operator structures, and state it in the paper rather than relying solely on the ancillary file.
  2. [§4.1–§4.4] The applications reproduce known results from the literature, which is an important sanity check, but they exercise only a small subspace of the operator space: the explicit matrices X_AB in the examples have simple (mostly Yukawa-like or gauge-like) gamma-matrix structures, and the covariant-derivative terms are kept only in a few combinations. These tests cannot certify that the full basis in UOLEA.m contains all possible operator structures. A stronger check would be to apply the generic list to a model with a non-trivial gamma-matrix texture (e.g., scalar–pseudo-scalar couplings, multiple fermion multiplets with different chiralities) and compare against an independent Feynman-diagram computation for all resulting Wilson coefficients, not just a subset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] There is a typographical issue: 'Itappearsthattheoperatorcoefficientshaveinfrareddivergences' is missing spaces. Please fix the formatting throughout this passage.
  2. [§3.1] The statement 'there are no cs or cF factors appearing in the final result' is confusing because cF appears later in Eq. (4.146) for the DRED–DREG conversion terms. Please clarify that the statement refers only to the UOLEA operators themselves, not to the regularization-scheme conversion operators.
  3. [§4.2 around Eq. (4.52)] In Eq. (4.52) some subscripts are hard to parse (e.g., 'M 2 2 ˜I31 2µ'); please verify the typesetting of all loop-function labels and mass subscripts in this long expression.
  4. [§3.3] The discussion of massive vector fields and of missing open-covariant-derivative operators is clear and appropriately qualifies the scope. It would be helpful to add a sentence in the conclusions explicitly restating that the UOLEA is not the complete one-loop matching for non-renormalizable UV theories with derivative couplings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained functional matching; no fitted input is relabeled as prediction. Only a completeness-verifiability gap remains, not circularity.

full rationale

The central claim, the dimension-six scalar-fermion UOLEA, is obtained by expanding the one-loop functional determinant (2.13) in a covariant derivative expansion and evaluating the traces; no parameter is fitted to the operator coefficients and no target Wilson coefficient is inserted into the derivation. The coefficients are fixed by solving a linear system for basis elements built from commutators, as described after Eq. (2.51), and the result is published in UOLEA.m. The paper explicitly states 'we abstain from writing out the result explicitly' after Eq. (2.51), so the exhaustive list is not printed in the manuscript; this is a verifiability gap, not a circular step, because nothing in the derivation presumes the completeness it claims. The applications in Sections 4.1-4.4 reproduce known results from the external literature [8, 32, 40, 41, 42]; these benchmarks are checks, not inputs. The only self-citation used in the applications is Ref. [10] by two of the present authors, for the DRED-DREG conversion terms in the MSSM examples; it does not enter the derivation of the generic scalar-fermion operators and therefore is not load-bearing for the central claim. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no known result is renamed as a new prediction. The completeness of the operator basis is asserted through the internal basis-construction method rather than proven with an explicit counting argument, but that is a matter of evidence and reproducibility, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are introduced: the generic coefficients depend only on masses, couplings, and the loop integrals defined in Appendix B, and no numbers are fit. The axioms above are the standard functional matching framework plus the explicit restriction to Lagrangians without open covariant derivatives. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The one-loop matched action equals (i/2) log det of the fluctuation operator after separating soft and hard momentum regions, Eqs. (2.9)-(2.13).
    This is the standard functional matching and expansion-by-regions framework used in the UOLEA program; the paper relies on it to define the matched effective action.
  • domain assumption The UV Lagrangian is such that second derivatives X_AB do not contain open covariant derivatives.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract and in Section 3.3; the derivation and the resulting operator list do not cover derivative couplings of this type.
  • domain assumption Gamma algebra is performed in d=4-epsilon dimensions, and 1/epsilon poles are subtracted in the MS scheme after combining with epsilon terms.
    This regularization and subtraction prescription is central to the finite coefficients; it is described in Section 3.2 and Appendix D.
  • domain assumption The scalar-sector UOLEA results of Refs. [8,9] are correct and are used as input for the scalar pieces in the applications.
    The paper extends rather than rederives all scalar-only operators; correctness of the full list assumes those earlier coefficients.
  • standard math The path integral measure is invariant under the fermionic field shifts of Eqs. (2.33)-(2.34), with consistency proven in Appendix A.
    Grassmann shift invariance is a standard result, and the paper supplies a proof specific to its multiplet setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Completing the scalar and fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5PEVUVN

@misc{pith2026190804798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Completing the scalar and fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5PEVUVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04798}
}
read the original abstract

We extend the known Universal One-Loop Effective Action (UOLEA) by all operators which involve scalars and fermions, not including contributions arising from open covariant derivatives. Our generic analytic expressions for the one-loop Wilson coefficients of effective operators up to dimension six allow for an application of the UOLEA to a broader class of UV-complete models. We apply our generic results to various effective theories of supersymmetric models, where different supersymmetric particles are integrated out at a high mass scale.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Guide to Functional Methods Beyond One-Loop Order

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Functional methods are generalized to two-loop EFT matching and running with manifest gauge covariance, and the hard-region matching formula is proven to all loop orders.

  2. On the Robustness of type-II Seesaw Collider Searches

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding a single effective operator that makes the doubly charged Higgs decay into two leptons and a photon weakens current ATLAS limits from ~1.1 TeV to ~0.7 TeV, but requiring a hard photon in the final state restore...

  3. Effective field theory and scalar extensions of the top quark sector

    hep-ph 2019-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    For a heavy scalar coupled to top quarks, only an NLO-matched effective field theory reproduces the full model across the LHC energy range, while a leading-order fit overestimates the high-mass tail and LHC constraints.

  4. Fingerprinting New Physics with Effective Field Theories

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A thesis compiling published SMEFT global fits, automated UV-model constraints, and ML-based unbinned observables, with projections for HL-LHC, FCC-ee, and CEPC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [42]

    The MSSM without Gluinos; an Effective Field Theory for the Stop Sector

    J. Aebischer, A. Crivellin, C. Greub and Y. Yamada,The MSSM without Gluinos; an Effective Field Theory for the Stop Sector, Eur. Phys. J.C77 (2017) 740 [1703.08061]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  2. [10]

    Summ and A

    B. Summ and A. Voigt,Extending the Universal One-Loop Effective Action by Regularization Scheme Translating Operators, JHEP 08 (2018) 026 [1806.05171]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [9]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang,Extending the Universal One-Loop Effective Action: Heavy-Light Coefficients, JHEP 08 (2017) 054 [1706.07765]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [1]

    Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys

    ATLAScollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1 [1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [2]

    Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys

    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30 [1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [3]

    Muon g-2 collaboration, G. W. Bennett et al.,Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 072003 [hep-ex/0602035]

    arXiv 2006

  7. [4]

    Jegerlehner,The Muon g-2 in Progress, Acta Phys

    F. Jegerlehner,The Muon g-2 in Progress, Acta Phys. Polon.B49 (2018) 1157 [1804.07409]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [5]

    H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane,The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 117 (1985) 75

    work page 1985

Show all 46 references
  1. [6]

    B. C. Allanach and A. Voigt,Uncertainties in the LightestCP Even Higgs Boson Mass Prediction in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model: Fixed Order Versus Effective Field Theory Prediction, Eur. Phys. J.C78 (2018) 573 [1804.09410]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Bagnaschi et al.,MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios for Run 2 and Beyond, Eur

    E. Bagnaschi et al.,MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios for Run 2 and Beyond, Eur. Phys. J.C79 (2019) 617 [1808.07542]. – 37 –

    2019 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Drozd, J

    A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon and T. You,The Universal One-Loop Effective Action, JHEP 03 (2016) 180 [1512.03003]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. K. Gaillard,The Effective One Loop Lagrangian With Derivative Couplings, Nucl. Phys. B268 (1986) 669

    1986

  5. [12]

    Cheyette,Effective Action for the Standard Model With Large Higgs Mass, Nucl

    O. Cheyette,Effective Action for the Standard Model With Large Higgs Mass, Nucl. Phys. B297 (1988) 183

    1988

  6. [13]

    N. Haba, K. Kaneta, S. Matsumoto and T. Nabeshima,A Simple Method of Calculating Effective Operators, Acta Phys. Polon.B43 (2012) 405 [1106.6106]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama,How to use the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 01 (2016) 023 [1412.1837]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama,One-loop Matching and Running with Covariant Derivative Expansion, JHEP 01 (2018) 123 [1604.01019]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang,Mixed heavy–light matching in the Universal One-Loop Effective Action, Phys. Lett. B762 (2016) 166 [1604.02445]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Fuentes-Martin, J

    J. Fuentes-Martin, J. Portoles and P. Ruiz-Femenia,Integrating out heavy particles with functional methods: a simplified framework, JHEP 09 (2016) 156 [1607.02142]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Zhang,Covariant diagrams for one-loop matching, JHEP 05 (2017) 152 [1610.00710]

    Z. Zhang,Covariant diagrams for one-loop matching, JHEP 05 (2017) 152 [1610.00710]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Staub,From Superpotential to Model Files for FeynArts and CalcHep/CompHep, Comput

    F. Staub,From Superpotential to Model Files for FeynArts and CalcHep/CompHep, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 1077 [0909.2863]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Staub,Automatic Calculation of supersymmetric Renormalization Group Equations and Self Energies, Comput

    F. Staub,Automatic Calculation of supersymmetric Renormalization Group Equations and Self Energies, Comput. Phys. Commun.182 (2011) 808 [1002.0840]

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Staub,SARAH 3.2: Dirac Gauginos, UFO output, and more, Comput

    F. Staub,SARAH 3.2: Dirac Gauginos, UFO output, and more, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1792 [1207.0906]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Staub,SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput

    F. Staub,SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773 [1309.7223]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Athron, J.-h

    P. Athron, J.-h. Park, D. Stöckinger and A. Voigt,FlexibleSUSY—A spectrum generator generator for supersymmetric models, Comput. Phys. Commun.190 (2015) 139 [1406.2319]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Athron, M

    P. Athron, M. Bach, D. Harries, T. Kwasnitza, J.-h. Park, D. Stöckinger et al.,FlexibleSUSY 2.0: Extensions to investigate the phenomenology of SUSY and non-SUSY models, Comput. Phys. Commun. 230 (2018) 145 [1710.03760]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty and S. K. Patra,CoDEx: Wilson coefficient calculator connecting SMEFT to UV theory, Eur. Phys. J.C79 (2019) 21 [1808.04403]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty and S. K. Patra,CoDEx : BSM physics being realised as an SMEFT, inTheory report on the 11th FCC-ee workshop, pp. 223–232, 2019

    2019

  20. [27]

    R. D. Ball,Chiral Gauge Theory, Phys. Rept. 182 (1989) 1

    1989

  21. [28]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov,Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold, Nucl. Phys. B522 (1998) 321 [hep-ph/9711391]. – 38 –

    1998 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Jantzen,Foundation and generalization of the expansion by regions, JHEP 12 (2011) 076 [1111.2589]

    B. Jantzen,Foundation and generalization of the expansion by regions, JHEP 12 (2011) 076 [1111.2589]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [30]

    C. G. Callan, Jr.,Broken scale invariance in scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. D2 (1970) 1541

    1970

  24. [31]

    Symanzik,Small distance behavior in field theory and power counting, Commun

    K. Symanzik,Small distance behavior in field theory and power counting, Commun. Math. Phys. 18 (1970) 227

    1970

  25. [32]

    Bagnaschi, G

    E. Bagnaschi, G. F. Giudice, P. Slavich and A. Strumia,Higgs Mass and Unnatural Supersymmetry, JHEP 09 (2014) 092 [1407.4081]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Siegel,Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization via Dimensional Reduction, Phys

    W. Siegel,Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization via Dimensional Reduction, Phys. Lett. 84B (1979) 193

    1979

  27. [34]

    C. G. Bollini and J. J. Giambiagi,Dimensional Renormalization: The Number of Dimensions as a Regularizing Parameter, Nuovo Cim. B12 (1972) 20

    1972

  28. [35]

    J. F. Ashmore,A Method of Gauge Invariant Regularization, Lett. Nuovo Cim.4 (1972) 289

    1972

  29. [36]

    G. M. Cicuta and E. Montaldi,Analytic renormalization via continuous space dimension, Lett. Nuovo Cim.4 (1972) 329

    1972

  30. [37]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman,Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields, Nucl. Phys. B44 (1972) 189

    1972

  31. [38]

    ’t Hooft,Dimensional regularization and the renormalization group, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft,Dimensional regularization and the renormalization group, Nucl. Phys. B61 (1973) 455

    1973

  32. [39]

    Stockinger,Regularization by dimensional reduction: consistency, quantum action principle, and supersymmetry, JHEP 03 (2005) 076 [hep-ph/0503129]

    D. Stockinger,Regularization by dimensional reduction: consistency, quantum action principle, and supersymmetry, JHEP 03 (2005) 076 [hep-ph/0503129]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Bagnaschi, J

    E. Bagnaschi, J. Pardo Vega and P. Slavich,Improved determination of the Higgs mass in the MSSM with heavy superpartners, Eur. Phys. J.C77 (2017) 334 [1703.08166]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Huo,Effective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis, Phys

    R. Huo,Effective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 075013 [1509.05942]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, S. P. Martin, M. T. Vaughn and Y. Yamada,Decoupling of the epsilon scalar mass in softly broken supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) R5481 [hep-ph/9407291]

    1994 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Delbourgo and V

    R. Delbourgo and V. B. Prasad,Supersymmetry in the Four-Dimensional Limit, J. Phys. G1 (1975) 377

    1975

  37. [45]

    D. M. Capper, D. R. T. Jones and P. van Nieuwenhuizen,Regularization by Dimensional Reduction of Supersymmetric and Nonsupersymmetric Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B167 (1980) 479

    1980

  38. [46]

    Stöckinger and J

    D. Stöckinger and J. Unger,Three-loop MSSM Higgs-boson mass predictions and regularization by dimensional reduction, Nucl. Phys. B935 (2018) 1 [1804.05619]. – 39 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.