Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 9 cited by

Constraining four-heavy-quark operators with top-quark, Higgs, and electroweak precision data

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that direct LHC top and Higgs measurements combined with loop-level precision probes bound the five four-heavy-quark SMEFT operators, and that the gamma5 scheme choice changes the single-Higgs limits.

desk verdict A useful and careful SMEFT fit combining direct top and loop-induced probes; the c1_tt bound, however, leans on the A_b,FB discrepancy and needs a robustness test before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01137 v2 pith:SDL2NFBR submitted 2025-07-01 hep-ph

Stefano Di Noi , Hesham El Faham , Ramona Gröber , Marco Vitti , Eleni Vryonidou This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.60.-i14.65.Ha14.80.Bn
keywords SMEFTfour-heavy-quarkoperatorsfour-top-quarkproductionelectroweakprecisionobservablesgluon-fusionHiggsgamma5schemesWilsoncoefficientstop-quarkpair
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

The paper sets out to show that the five dimension-six four-heavy-quark operators of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, long considered among the least constrained new-physics interactions, can be pinned down by combining direct LHC production measurements with loop-level indirect probes. It combines four-top, top-pair, top-pair-plus-Higgs, and top-pair-bottom-pair cross sections with gluon-fusion Higgs production, Higgs decays, and electroweak precision observables, and it reports 95% confidence-level intervals for the five Wilson coefficients in both linear and quadratic fits. The paper also demonstrates that the way $\gamma_5$ is continued to $d=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions in the two-loop single-Higgs calculation changes the extracted bounds, so a fit restricted to four-quark operators must be interpreted scheme by scheme. If the claims hold, the four-heavy-quark sector is no longer a nearly flat direction of the SMEFT, and electroweak precision data become an indispensable complement to multi-top searches.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a $\chi^2$ fit whose theory inputs come from three layers: tree-level SMEFT matrix elements for $t\bar t t\bar t$ and $t\bar t b\bar b$; automated one-loop predictions for $t\bar t$ and $t\bar t H$; and two-loop analytic results for gluon-fusion Higgs production, $H\to gg$, $H\to\gamma\gamma$, and the $Z$-pole observables. The central objects are the five four-heavy-quark contact operators, colour-singlet and colour-octet combinations of third-generation quark currents. The load-bearing identities are the linear two-loop electroweak shifts of Eq. (3.1) and the renormalised $ggH$ matrix element of Eq. (3.2), whose $K_{tG}$ and $K_{t\varphi}$ terms vanish in the BMHV $\gamma_5$ continuation scheme (Breitenlohner--Maison--'t Hooft--Veltman) and are nonzero in the NDR scheme (naive dimensional regularisation); that difference creates the flat direction in a BMHV-only single-Higgs fit.

What would settle it

Re-run the combined fit with the $A_{b,FB}$ measurement either removed or shifted to its Standard Model prediction. If the 95% confidence-level interval on $c^1_{tt}$ (reported as $[-9.12,-0.89]$ in the linear individual fit) then no longer excludes zero, the claim that the combination of electroweak precision, top-pair, and four-top data constrains this operator is settled; a full global fit that adds $Z b\bar b$ vertex operators to absorb the $A_{b,FB}$ discrepancy would provide the same test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining electroweak precision observables with LHC top-quark and single-Higgs data substantially reduces the parameter space allowed for the dimension-six four-heavy-quark operators $O^1_{QQ}$, $O^8_{QQ}$, $O^1_{Qt}$, $O^8_{Qt}$, and $O^1_{tt}$. In the linear fit, the combination of electroweak precision data, top-quark pair production, and four-top-quark production is what shrinks the allowed region; in the quadratic fit, four-top production gives the dominant pull and electroweak precision observables are needed to lift degeneracies such as the near-blind direction in the $(c^8_{QQ}, c^1_{QQ})$ plane. The paper further claims that two-loop electroweak corrections are numerically significant for the asymmetry observables $A_b$ and $A_{b,FB}$, and that the choice of $\gamma_5$ scheme in the two-loop gluon-fusion Higgs calculation propagates into the Wilson-coefficient bounds: in the Breitenlohner--Maison--'t Hooft--Veltman scheme a flat direction $c^1_{Qt}+c_F c^8_{Qt}$ appears, whereas the naive dimensional regularisation scheme lifts it, so the two restricted fits correspond to different classes of ultraviolet models.

Load-bearing premise

The fit assumes the five four-heavy-quark operators are the only beyond-Standard-Model contributions to the measured observables, so the well-known discrepancy in the bottom-quark forward--backward asymmetry $A_{b,FB}$ is charged entirely to these operators; if additional SMEFT operators or unknown experimental systematics contribute, the quoted bounds, especially on $c^1_{tt}$, would not be the true constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The five four-heavy-quark operators move from being nearly unconstrained to having 95% confidence-level intervals of order one to a few tens in the linear fit; for example, the combined individual bound on $c^1_{tt}$ is $[-9.12,-0.89]$, and the quadratic fit tightens the four-top-driven bounds.
  • Electroweak precision observables are not marginal: in the linear fit they are part of the combination that shrinks the parameter space, and in the quadratic fit they lift the almost-blind direction in the $(c^8_{QQ}, c^1_{QQ})$ plane.
  • Two-loop electroweak corrections matter, particularly for $A_b$ and $A_{b,FB}$, so one-loop-only electroweak constraints on these operators are not numerically reliable.
  • Single-Higgs bounds inferred from the four-top operators are $\gamma_5$-scheme dependent; a scheme-independent bound requires including operators that enter at one loop, such as $O_{t\varphi}$, $O_{tG}$, and $O_{\varphi G}$.
  • A single-Higgs fit restricted to the four-top operators has different meaning in the two schemes: it probes two distinct classes of ultraviolet models, and a full global fit in the BMHV scheme is left for future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: taking the reported $c^1_{tt}$ interval at face value and using the convention $c/\Lambda^2$ with $\Lambda=1$ TeV, an order-one Wilson coefficient corresponds to a new-physics scale around $0.3$ TeV for this contact interaction; the exact number is not stated in the paper.
  • Inference: the $A_{b,FB}$ discrepancy is a sensitive lever arm, and the paper gives no robustness check against removing or reweighting that single observable; a future fit that does so would reveal how much of the $c^1_{tt}$ exclusion is carried by one dataset.
  • Inference: the scheme-shift relations in the appendix provide a dictionary between the NDR and BMHV results for the single-Higgs sector, so a future global fit could quote bounds in either scheme without recomputing the two-loop matrix elements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper derives constraints on the five dimension-six four-heavy-quark operators in the SMEFT by combining LHC measurements of four-top, top-pair, top-pair-plus-Higgs, and inclusive single-Higgs production with LEP electroweak precision observables. The theoretical predictions include tree-level contributions to four-top production, NLO contributions to t-tbar and t-tbar-H production, two-loop contributions to gluon-fusion Higgs production and Higgs decays, and one- and two-loop contributions to EWPO. The authors also study the dependence of the single-Higgs constraints on the gamma5 continuation scheme, finding that NDR and BMHV give different bounds on the two operators that contribute to gg->H. A combined chi-square fit yields 95% CL intervals for the five Wilson coefficients in both linear and quadratic EFT expansions, reported in Tables 5 and 6.

Significance. If the quoted constraints are robust, this is a useful step toward pinning down a class of SMEFT operators that is otherwise very weakly bounded. The paper provides detailed analytic expressions for the gg->H and gamma-gamma-H matrix elements and for the EWPO shifts, and it makes the numerical predictions available in tabulated form. The gamma5-scheme comparison for single-Higgs observables is a valuable methodological point for the SMEFT community. However, the main combined-fit result contains a load-bearing dependence on the A_b,FB observable, and the operator normalisation for the colour-octet four-heavy operator is not fully pinned down across all datasets, so the numerical bounds in Tables 5 and 6 should be treated with caution until these points are clarified.

major comments (2)
  1. [5.3, Table 6, Eq. (C.10)] The linear-order 95% CL interval for c1_tt in Table 6, [-9.12, -0.89], excludes the SM, and the corresponding EWPO-only interval in Table 5 is [-14.92, -1.68]. From Eq. (C.10), the contribution of c1_tt to delta A_b,FB / A_b,FB is 51.083e-4 c1_tt, whereas its contributions to the other EWPO in Eq. (3.1) are of order 1e-6 or smaller. The bound is therefore driven almost entirely by the well-known A_b,FB discrepancy, which the paper acknowledges in Section 5.3 but does not subject to any robustness test. Because the fit assumes that no other SMEFT operators or unknown systematics contribute to A_b,FB, the quoted exclusion of zero is not yet supported. Please add a leave-one-out analysis that drops or shifts A_b,FB, and/or a fit that includes the Zbb-vertex operators that are known to affect this observable. The quadratic-order interval [-1.66, 1.49] already includes the SM, which further motivates this test before the linear-order exclusion is presented as a central result.
  2. [2.1, 3.3, Eq. (2.4), Eq. (3.1)] The operator normalisation for the colour-octet four-heavy operator is not pinned down consistently across the datasets. Section 2.1 states that all computations use O8_QQ = Q_qq^(3)/8 + Q_qq^(1)/24, while Section 3.3 explains that the EWPO results in Eq. (3.1) are extracted in the original Warsaw basis and that the alternative definition with two colour-octet currents differs by an evanescent operator that can be numerically significant. Since Eq. (3.1) and the SMEFT@NLO predictions may therefore refer to different operator normalisations for c8_QQ, the combined bounds on c8_QQ in Tables 5 and 6 could be shifted. Please state unambiguously which operator definition is used for each dataset and quantify the size of the evanescent shift on the combined c8_QQ bounds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [4, Eqs. (4.3) and (4.4)] The text says the theoretical signal strengths are 'expanded to linear order in the WCs', but Eqs. (4.3) and (4.4) contain quadratic terms in the Wilson coefficients. Please clarify the intended expansion order and make the wording consistent with the displayed expressions.
  2. [4, Eq. (4.1)] The same K-factor is used for the SM and for the O(Lambda^-2) EFT contributions to the production cross section. This assumes that the higher-order QCD corrections factorise in the same way for the SM and interference terms; please state this approximation explicitly.
  3. [Table 1] In the rows for EWPO1 and EWPO2, the 'n dat' column lists '1' although each row contains multiple observables. Please clarify whether the column counts datasets or observables, and how the correlation between observables is implemented in the chi-square.
  4. [5.3, Figs. 4 and 5] The labels 'comb-2D' and 'comb-profiled' are used in the figure captions and text but are not defined in the captions themselves. Please define them there for clarity.
  5. [5.2, pp->t-tbar-b-bar] The SMEFT predictions for t-tbar-b-bar production are taken from Ref. [5] 'as in [5]' with no details of the exact process definition, scale choice, or PDF set used. Please provide a fuller specification of these inputs in the text or a table.
  6. [Abstract and Section 5.3] The abstract highlights the gamma5-scheme dependence as a main result, but the final combined fit is performed only in the NDR scheme and Section 5.3 states that inclusive Higgs production has no significant impact on the final combination. Please add a sentence noting that the quoted combined limits are NDR-specific and that the scheme dependence is demonstrated for the single-Higgs sector only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fit is a chi-square combination of public data with independently reproduced or externally cited predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central constraints are obtained from a chi-square fit (Eqs. 5.1-5.2) to public LHC and LEP measurements listed in Table 1, with theory predictions supplied by independent computations: SMEFT@NLO for top-quark processes, Eq. (3.1) extracted from the non-overlapping Ref. [20] for EWPO, and reproduced two-loop matrix elements in Appendix A for gg->H and gamma-gamma-H. Although the gg->H matrix element originates in the authors' Ref. [22], the present paper reproduces the complete renormalised matrix element and auxiliary quantities in Eqs. (A.2)-(A.11), with explicit NDR/BMHV assumptions, on-shell top-mass renormalisation, and MS renormalised Wilson coefficients; it is therefore parameter-free and externally checkable rather than a fitted input relabelled as a prediction. The ttbb SM and SMEFT predictions are taken from the SMEFiT database (Ref. [5]), which has author overlap, but the paper itself states that ttbb has the least constraining power among the datasets, so this self-citation is not load-bearing for the central claims. The strongest caveat is interpretive rather than circular: the EWPO-only c1_tt interval excludes the SM because of the well-known A_b,FB discrepancy, and Eq. (C.10) shows delta A_b,FB is dominated by 51.083e-4 * c1_tt while other EWPO sensitivities are O(1e-6). The paper does not test the robustness of the combined bound to dropping or shifting A_b,FB, and a more complete operator basis could change the quoted intervals. That is a modelling and robustness limitation, not a circular reduction: the c1_tt bound is a fit output, not an input defined in terms of itself or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing step in the derivation reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard SMEFT framework, a five-operator truncation, and external two-loop EWPO and ggH results. The paper provides analytic expressions for the new pieces but does not ship code or full datasets. The five fitted Wilson coefficients are the output of the fit, not ad hoc inputs. No new particles, forces, or other entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • c1_QQ = 95% CL [-0.99, 2.41] (linear); [-0.84, 3.03] (quadratic)
    Target of the fit; combined LHC and LEP dataset, from Table 6.
  • c8_QQ = 95% CL [-11.39, 11.46] (linear); [-8.60, 10.84] (quadratic)
    Target of the fit; EWPO help lift the c8_QQ-c1_QQ degeneracy, from Table 6.
  • c1_Qt = 95% CL [-1.74, 1.03] (linear); [-2.30, 1.17] (quadratic)
    Target of the fit; constraining power from ttbar, ttH, and EWPO, from Table 6.
  • c8_Qt = 95% CL [-7.93, 12.88] (linear); [-4.39, 6.63] (quadratic)
    Target of the fit; modest constraints from direct and indirect probes, from Table 6.
  • c1_tt = 95% CL [-9.12, -0.89] (linear); [-1.66, 1.49] (quadratic)
    Target of the fit; the linear bound is driven by the EWPO Ab,FB measurement, from Table 6.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The SMEFT dimension-six expansion with Lambda = 1 TeV is a valid description of new physics at the LHC and LEP scales.
    Section 2.1 sets the parametrisation in Eq (2.2) and fixes Lambda = 1 TeV.
  • domain assumption The five four-heavy-quark operators are the only relevant BSM contributions; all other SMEFT operators are neglected.
    Section 2.1 defines the operator set; Section 5 scans only these five WCs; Section 6 admits a full basis is required for a comprehensive assessment.
  • domain assumption Loop-order counting follows the weakly-interacting renormalisable UV assumption of Refs [65,66].
    Section 3.4: 'We adopt the loop-order definitions of Refs [65,66], which requires the assumption of weakly interacting and renormalisable UV models.'
  • domain assumption The NDR gamma5 scheme with a fixed reading point (KKS) is a valid prescription for the loop computations used in the final fit.
    Section 2.2 and Section 3.4; the paper notes NDR is algebraically inconsistent for traces with six or more gamma matrices, but uses it for the main results in Section 5.3.
  • domain assumption RGE running of the Wilson coefficients between the EW scale and the process scales can be neglected.
    Section 2.2: 'The effects of renormalisation group equations (RGEs) on the WCs are not considered... we interpret the WCs at a typical EW scale... scales within a factor of four of each other and thus expect RGE effects to be under control.'
  • domain assumption The two-loop EWPO results of Ref [20] are correct and the Warsaw-basis definition of O8_QQ is used consistently.
    Section 3.3: 'Our EWPO predictions are obtained at the two-loop level leveraging the work of Ref [20]'; the evanescent-operator convention is discussed after Eq (2.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining four-heavy-quark operators with top-quark, Higgs, and electroweak precision data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SDL2NFBR

@misc{pith2026250701137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining four-heavy-quark operators with top-quark, Higgs, and electroweak precision data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SDL2NFBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01137}
}
abstract

We establish constraints on the dimension-six four-heavy-quark operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) by synthesising LHC measurements of top-quark and single-Higgs production with electroweak precision observables. We scrutinise the choice of the $\gamma_5$ scheme in single-Higgs calculations, demonstrating its non-negligible impact on SMEFT fits.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. The inseparable three and four tops

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Full-NLO predictions for tttW production, combined with tttt through a new window-removal prescription, give a joint inclusive rate more than 10% above the on-shell four-top prediction.

  2. When Two Loops Matter: Electroweak Precision in the SMEFT

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A modification to the top-Higgs Yukawa coupling in SMEFT induces a two-loop shift in the W mass through a large anomalous dimension, providing a new indirect probe via electroweak precision observables.

  3. The effect of the two-loop SMEFT RGEs at future colliders

    hep-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Two-loop SMEFT RGEs induce non-negligible effects on the evolution of Wilson coefficients, leading to percent-level shifts in projected sensitivities for four-quark, top Yukawa, and Higgs-gluon operators in collider fits.

  4. Anomalous triple gauge couplings in the light of dimension-8 operators in $W^+W^-$

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bosonic dimension-8 operators in γγ-initiated WW production dominate over qqbar and set the practical EFT validity scale, yielding validity-aware constraints on dimension-6 Wilson coefficients.

  5. SMEFT everywhere: a NLO study of $\boldsymbol{pp \to t\bar{t}H}$ with decaying tops

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    NLO QCD corrections to pp to ttbar H in the di-lepton channel with SMEFT operators included in both production and top-quark decays.

  6. Complete two-loop Yukawa-induced running of the Higgs-gluon coupling in SMEFT

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For the first time, the two-loop Yukawa-induced renormalisation-group running of the Higgs-gluon coupling from D^2H^4 and D H^2 ψ^2 SMEFT operators is computed.

  7. Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Two-loop SMEFT corrections from third-generation four-quark operators to gg to h and h to gamma gamma are computed with full mass dependence, including new two-loop anomalous dimensions.

  8. The Art of Counting: a reappraisal of the HEFT expansion

    hep-ph 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    HEFT admits two consistent power counting schemes, one with a single low-energy scale v and one with two scales v < f, each allowing systematic truncation of operators and amplitudes for any normalization choice.

  9. SMEFT everywhere: a NLO study of $\boldsymbol{pp \to t\bar{t}H}$ with decaying tops

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    NLO QCD calculation of pp to ttH with decaying tops, including SMEFT operators O_tφ, O_φG, O_tG, O_tW in production and decays, with studies of linear/quadratic terms and RGE effects at 13.6 TeV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [22]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gröber, G. Heinrich, J. Lang and M. Vitti,γ5 schemes and the interplay of SMEFT operators in the Higgs-gluon coupling,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 095024 [2310.18221]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, S. Mishima, M. Pierini, L. Reina et al.,Electroweak precision observables and Higgs-boson signal strengths in the Standard Model and beyond: present and future,JHEP12(2016) 135 [1608.01509]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz and T. You,Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP04(2021) 279 [2012.02779]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, E. Geoffray, W. Killian, M. Krämer, M. Luchmann et al.,From models to SMEFT and back?,SciPost Phys.12(2022) 036 [2108.01094]. [4]SMEFiTcollaboration,Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC,JHEP11(2021) 089 [2105.00006]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Celada, T

    E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A.N. Rossia et al.,Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,JHEP09 (2024) 091 [2404.12809]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bartocci, A

    R. Bartocci, A. Biekötter and T. Hurth,Renormalisation group evolution effects on global SMEFT analyses,JHEP05(2025) 203 [2412.09674]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    ter Hoeve, L

    J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A.N. Rossia and E. Vryonidou,Connecting scales: RGE effects in the SMEFT at the LHC and future colliders,JHEP06(2025) 125 [2502.20453]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    de Blas, A

    J. de Blas, A. Goncalves, V. Miralles, L. Reina, L. Silvestrini and M. Valli,Constraining new physics effective interactions via a global fit of electroweak, Drell-Yan, Higgs, top, and flavour observables,2507.06191. [9]ATLAScollaboration,Observation of four-top-quark production in the multilepton final state with the ATLAS detector,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023...

    arXiv 2023

Show all 97 references
  1. [12]

    Lillie, J

    B. Lillie, J. Shu and T.M.P. Tait,Top Compositeness at the Tevatron and LHC,JHEP04 (2008) 087 [0712.3057]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [13]

    Kumar, T.M.P

    K. Kumar, T.M.P. Tait and R. Vega-Morales,Manifestations of Top Compositeness at Colliders,JHEP05(2009) 022 [0901.3808]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [14]

    Banelli, E

    G. Banelli, E. Salvioni, J. Serra, T. Theil and A. Weiler,The Present and Future of Four Top Operators,JHEP02(2021) 043 [2010.05915]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [15]

    Darmé, B

    L. Darmé, B. Fuks and F. Maltoni,Top-philic heavy resonances in four-top final states and their EFT interpretation,JHEP09(2021) 143 [2104.09512]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [16]

    Chung and F

    Y. Chung and F. Goertz,Third-generation-philic hidden naturalness,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 115019 [2311.17169]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [17]

    Choudhury, K

    D. Choudhury, K. Deka and L.K. Saini,Boosted four-top production at the LHC: A window to Randall-Sundrum or extended color symmetry,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 075020 [2404.04409]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [18]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Chala and J. Santiago,Renormalization Group Constraints on New Top Interactions from Electroweak Precision Data,JHEP09(2015) 189 [1507.00757]. – 25 –

    2015 arXiv

  8. [19]

    Dawson and P.P

    S. Dawson and P.P. Giardino,Electroweak and QCD corrections toZandWpole observables in the standard model EFT,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 013001 [1909.02000]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [20]

    Haisch and L

    U. Haisch and L. Schnell,Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: one- and two-loop matching,JHEP02(2025) 038 [2410.13304]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [21]

    Alasfar, J

    L. Alasfar, J. de Blas and R. Gröber,Higgs probes of top quark contact interactions and their interplay with the Higgs self-coupling,JHEP05(2022) 111 [2202.02333]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [23]

    Degrande, G

    C. Degrande, G. Durieux, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu, E. Vryonidou and C. Zhang,Automated one-loop computations in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 096024 [2008.11743]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [24]

    Degrande, R

    C. Degrande, R. Rosenfeld and A. Vasquez,Collider sensitivity to SMEFT heavy-quark operators at one-loop in top-quark processes,JHEP07(2024) 114 [2402.06528]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [25]

    Silvestrini and M

    L. Silvestrini and M. Valli,Model-independent Bounds on the Standard Model Effective Theory from Flavour Physics,Phys. Lett. B799(2019) 135062 [1812.10913]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [26]

    Chanowitz, M

    M. Chanowitz, M. Furman and I. Hinchliffe,The axial current in dimensional regularization,Nuclear Physics B159(1979) 225

    1979

  15. [27]

    ’t Hooft and M

    G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman,Regularization and renormalization of gauge fields,Nuclear Physics B44(1972) 189

    1972

  16. [28]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison,Dimensional Renormalization and the Action Principle, Commun. Math. Phys.52(1977) 11

    1977

  17. [29]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gröber and P. Olgoso,Mapping betweenγ5 schemes in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,2504.00112

    arXiv

  18. [30]

    Heinrich and J

    G. Heinrich and J. Lang,Combining chromomagnetic and four-fermion operators with leading SMEFT operators for gg→hh at NLO QCD,JHEP05(2024) 121 [2311.15004]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [31]

    Buras, M

    A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H. Weisz,Effective Hamiltonians for ∆S= 1and∆B= 1nonleptonic decays beyond the leading logarithmic approximation, Nucl. Phys. B370(1992) 69

    1992

  20. [32]

    Buras, M

    A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H. Weisz,Two loop anomalous dimension matrix for∆S= 1weak nonleptonic decays I:O(α 2 s),Nucl. Phys. B400(1993) 37 [hep-ph/9211304]

    1993 arXiv

  21. [33]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini,Scheme independence of the effective Hamiltonian for b —>s gamma and b —>s g decays,Phys. Lett. B316 (1993) 127 [hep-ph/9307364]

    1993 arXiv

  22. [34]

    Adel and Y.-P

    K. Adel and Y.-P. Yao,O(αs)calculation of the decaysb→s+γandb→s+g,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 4945 [hep-ph/9308349]

    1994 arXiv

  23. [35]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini,Leading order QCD corrections to b —>s gamma and b —>s g decays in three regularization schemes,Nucl. Phys. B421 (1994) 41 [hep-ph/9311357]

    1994 arXiv

  24. [36]

    Corbett, A

    T. Corbett, A. Martin and M. Trott,Consistent higher orderσ(GG →h),Γ (h→ GG)and Γ(h→γγ) in geoSMEFT,JHEP12(2021) 147 [2107.07470]. – 26 –

    2021 arXiv

  25. [37]

    Martin and M

    A. Martin and M. Trott,More accurateσ(GG →h),Γ h→ GG,AA,ΨΨ and Higgs width results via the geoSMEFT,JHEP01(2024) 170 [2305.05879]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [38]

    Biekötter, B.D

    A. Biekötter, B.D. Pecjak, D.J. Scott and T. Smith,Electroweak input schemes and universal corrections in SMEFT,JHEP07(2023) 115 [2305.03763]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [39]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085 [1008.4884]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [40]

    Barducci et al.,Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory,1802.07237

    D. Barducci et al.,Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory,1802.07237

    arXiv

  29. [41]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]. [42]NNPDFcollaboration,...

    2014 arXiv

  30. [43]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht et al.,LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 132 [1412.7420]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [44]

    Denner, S

    A. Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth and D. Wackeroth,Electroweak radiative corrections to e+ e- —>W W —>4 fermions in double pole approximation: The RACOONWW approach,Nucl. Phys. B587(2000) 67 [hep-ph/0006307]

    2000 arXiv

  32. [45]

    Dittmaier and M

    S. Dittmaier and M. Krämer,Electroweak radiative corrections to W boson production at hadron colliders,Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 073007 [hep-ph/0109062]

    2002 arXiv

  33. [46]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Dawson, J. de Blas, G. Durieux, P. Savard, A. Denner et al.,Electroweak input parameters,2111.12515

    arXiv

  34. [47]

    Korner, D

    J.G. Korner, D. Kreimer and K. Schilcher,A Practicable gamma(5) scheme in dimensional regularization,Z. Phys. C54(1992) 503

    1992

  35. [48]

    Aoude, F

    R. Aoude, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, C. Severi and E. Vryonidou,Renormalisation group effects on SMEFT interpretations of LHC data,JHEP09(2023) 191 [2212.05067]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [49]

    Maltoni, G

    F. Maltoni, G. Ventura and E. Vryonidou,Impact of SMEFT renormalisation group running on Higgs production at the LHC,JHEP12(2024) 183 [2406.06670]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [50]

    Di Noi and R

    S. Di Noi and R. Gröber,Renormalisation group running effects inpp→t¯thin the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 403 [2312.11327]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [51]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gröber and M.K. Mandal,Two-loop running effects in Higgs physics in Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP12(2025) 220 [2408.03252]

    2025

  39. [52]

    Aoude, H

    R. Aoude, H. El Faham, F. Maltoni and E. Vryonidou,Complete SMEFT predictions for four top quark production at hadron colliders,JHEP10(2022) 163 [2208.04962]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [53]

    Frederix, D

    R. Frederix, D. Pagani and M. Zaro,Large NLO corrections int¯tW ± andt ¯tt¯t hadroproduction from supposedly subleading EW contributions,JHEP02(2018) 031 [1711.02116]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [54]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou et al.,O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector,JHEP02(2020) 131 [1910.03606]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [55]

    Kreimer,The Role of gamma(5) in dimensional regularization,hep-ph/9401354

    D. Kreimer,The Role of gamma(5) in dimensional regularization,hep-ph/9401354. – 27 –

    arXiv

  43. [56]

    Chen,An observation on Feynman diagrams with axial anomalous subgraphs in dimensional regularization with an anticommutingγ5,JHEP2023(2023) 30 [2304.13814]

    L. Chen,An observation on Feynman diagrams with axial anomalous subgraphs in dimensional regularization with an anticommutingγ5,JHEP2023(2023) 30 [2304.13814]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [57]

    Chen,A procedure g5anchor to anchorγ5 in Feynman diagrams for the Standard Model, JHEP05(2025) 109 [2409.08099]

    L. Chen,A procedure g5anchor to anchorγ5 in Feynman diagrams for the Standard Model, JHEP05(2025) 109 [2409.08099]

    2025 arXiv

  45. [58]

    Bélusca-Maïto, A

    H. Bélusca-Maïto, A. Ilakovac, M. Mađor-Božinović and D. Stöckinger,Dimensional regularization and Breitenlohner-Maison/’t Hooft-Veltman scheme forγ5 applied to chiral YM theories: full one-loop counterterm and RGE structure,JHEP08(2020) 024 [2004.14398]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [59]

    Bélusca-Maïto, A

    H. Bélusca-Maïto, A. Ilakovac, P. Kühler, M. Mađor-Božinović and D. Stöckinger,Two-loop application of the Breitenlohner-Maison/’t Hooft-Veltman scheme with non-anticommuting γ5: full renormalization and symmetry-restoring counterterms in an abelian chiral gauge theory,JHEP11(...

    2021 arXiv

  47. [60]

    Cornella, F

    C. Cornella, F. Feruglio and L. Vecchi,Gauge invariance and finite counterterms in chiral gauge theories,JHEP02(2023) 244 [2205.10381]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [61]

    Bélusca-Maïto, A

    H. Bélusca-Maïto, A. Ilakovac, P. Kühler, M. Mađor-Božinović, D. Stöckinger and M. Weißwange,Introduction to Renormalization Theory and Chiral Gauge Theories in Dimensional Regularization with Non-Anticommutingγ5,Symmetry15(2023) 622 [2303.09120]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [62]

    Olgoso Ruiz and L

    P. Olgoso Ruiz and L. Vecchi,Spurious gauge-invariance andγ5 in dimensional regularization,JHEP12(2024) 080 [2406.17013]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [63]

    von Manteuffel, D

    A. von Manteuffel, D. Stöckinger and M. Weißwange,Four-Loop Renormalisation of Chiral Gauge Theories with Non-Anticommutingγ5 in the BMHV Scheme,2506.12253

    arXiv

  51. [64]

    Ebert, P

    P.L. Ebert, P. Kühler, D. Stöckinger and M. Weißwange,Shedding light on evanescent shadows — Exploration of non-anticommutingγ5 in Dimensional Regularisation,JHEP01 (2025) 114 [2411.02543]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [65]

    Arzt, M.B

    C. Arzt, M.B. Einhorn and J. Wudka,Patterns of deviation from the standard model,Nucl. Phys. B433(1995) 41 [hep-ph/9405214]

    1995 arXiv

  53. [66]

    Buchalla, G

    G. Buchalla, G. Heinrich, C. Müller-Salditt and F. Pandler,Loop counting matters in SMEFT,SciPost Phys.15(2023) 088 [2204.11808]. [67]CMScollaboration,A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.,Nature607(2022) 60 [2207.00043]. [68]LHC Hi...

    2023 arXiv

  54. [69]

    Inami, T

    T. Inami, T. Kubota and Y. Okada,Effective Gauge Theory and the Effect of Heavy Quarks in Higgs Boson Decays,Z. Phys. C18(1983) 69

    1983

  55. [70]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas,Production of Higgs bosons in proton colliders: QCD corrections,Phys. Lett. B264(1991) 440

    1991

  56. [71]

    Spira, A

    M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz and P.M. Zerwas,Higgs boson production at the LHC, Nucl. Phys. B453(1995) 17 [hep-ph/9504378]

    1995 arXiv

  57. [72]

    Chetyrkin, B.A

    K.G. Chetyrkin, B.A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser,Hadronic Higgs decay to order alpha-s**4,Phys. Rev. Lett.79(1997) 353 [hep-ph/9705240]. – 28 –

    1997 arXiv

  58. [73]

    Baikov and K.G

    P.A. Baikov and K.G. Chetyrkin,Top Quark Mediated Higgs Boson Decay into Hadrons to Orderα 5 s,Phys. Rev. Lett.97(2006) 061803 [hep-ph/0604194]

    2006 arXiv

  59. [74]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati,NNLO Computational Techniques: The Cases H —>gamma gamma and H —>g g,Nucl. Phys. B811(2009) 182 [0809.3667]

    2009 arXiv

  60. [75]

    Actis, G

    S. Actis, G. Passarino, C. Sturm and S. Uccirati,NLO Electroweak Corrections to Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders,Phys. Lett. B670(2008) 12 [0809.1301]

    2008 arXiv

  61. [76]

    Zheng and D.-D

    H.-Q. Zheng and D.-D. Wu,First order QCD corrections to the decay of the Higgs boson into two photons,Phys. Rev. D42(1990) 3760

    1990

  62. [77]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira, J.J. van der Bij and P.M. Zerwas,QCD corrections to gamma gamma decays of Higgs particles in the intermediate mass range,Phys. Lett. B257(1991) 187

    1991

  63. [78]

    Dawson and R.P

    S. Dawson and R.P. Kauffman,QCD corrections to H —>gamma gamma,Phys. Rev. D 47(1993) 1264

    1993

  64. [79]

    Djouadi, M

    A. Djouadi, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas,Two photon decay widths of Higgs particles,Phys. Lett. B311(1993) 255 [hep-ph/9305335]

    1993 arXiv

  65. [80]

    Melnikov and O.I

    K. Melnikov and O.I. Yakovlev,Higgs —>two photon decay: QCD radiative correction, Phys. Lett. B312(1993) 179 [hep-ph/9302281]

    1993 arXiv

  66. [81]

    Inoue, R

    M. Inoue, R. Najima, T. Oka and J. Saito,QCD corrections to two photon decay of the Higgs boson and its reverse process,Mod. Phys. Lett. A9(1994) 1189

    1994

  67. [82]

    Djouadi, J

    A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira,HDECAY: A Program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and its supersymmetric extension,Comput. Phys. Commun.108(1998) 56 [hep-ph/9704448]. [83]ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SL...

    1998 arXiv

  68. [88]

    van Beekveld, A

    M. van Beekveld, A. Kulesza and L.M. Valero,Threshold Resummation for the Production of Four Top Quarks at the LHC,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 211901 [2212.03259]. [89]ATLAScollaboration,Measurements of inclusive and differential fiducial cross-sections of ttproduction with addi...

    2023 arXiv

  69. [91]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,Scheming in the SMEFT... and a reparameterization invariance!, JHEP07(2017) 148 [1701.06424]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [92]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi,A Positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction,JHEP09(2007) 126 [0707.3088]

    2007 arXiv

  71. [93]

    Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146]

    P. Nason,A New method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms, JHEP11(2004) 040 [hep-ph/0409146]

    2004 arXiv

  72. [94]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and C. Oleari,Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method,JHEP11(2007) 070 [0709.2092]

    2007 arXiv

  73. [95]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX,JHEP06(2010) 043 [1002.2581]

    2010 arXiv

  74. [96]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands,A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,Comput. Phys. Commun.178(2008) 852 [0710.3820]

    2008 arXiv

  75. [97]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov,Top++: A Program for the Calculation of the Top-Pair Cross-Section at Hadron Colliders,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2930 [1112.5675]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [98]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein and C. Schwinn,Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation,Nucl. Phys. B855(2012) 695 [1109.1536]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [99]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Czakon, M. Mangano, A. Mitov and P. Nason,Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation,Phys. Lett. B710(2012) 612 [1111.5869]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [100]

    Bärnreuther, M

    P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon and A. Mitov,Percent Level Precision Physics at the Tevatron: First Genuine NNLO QCD Corrections toq¯q→t¯t+X,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 132001 [1204.5201]

    2012 arXiv

  79. [101]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov,NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels,JHEP12(2012) 054 [1207.0236]

    2012 arXiv

  80. [102]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov,NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction,JHEP01(2013) 080 [1210.6832]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [103]

    Czakon, P

    M. Czakon, P. Fiedler and A. Mitov,Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders ThroughO(α4 S),Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 252004 [1303.6254]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [104]

    Lindert, K

    J.M. Lindert, K. Kudashkin, K. Melnikov and C. Wever,Higgs bosons with large transverse momentum at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B782(2018) 210 [1801.08226]. [105]HDECAYcollaboration,HDECAY: Twenty ++ years after,Comput. Phys. Commun.238 (2019) 214 [1801.09506]

    2018 arXiv

  83. [106]

    Bonetti, K

    M. Bonetti, K. Melnikov and L. Tancredi,Higher order corrections to mixed QCD-EW contributions to Higgs boson production in gluon fusion,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 056017 [1801.10403]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [107]

    Dulat, A

    F. Dulat, A. Lazopoulos and B. Mistlberger,iHixs 2 — Inclusive Higgs cross sections, Comput. Phys. Commun.233(2018) 243 [1802.00827]

    2018 arXiv

  85. [108]

    Harlander, J

    R.V. Harlander, J. Klappert, S. Liebler and L. Simon,vh@nnlo-v2: New physics in Higgs Strahlung,JHEP05(2018) 089 [1802.04817]. – 30 –

    2018 arXiv

  86. [109]

    Cacciari, F.A

    M. Cacciari, F.A. Dreyer, A. Karlberg, G.P. Salam and G. Zanderighi,Fully Differential Vector-Boson-Fusion Higgs Production at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order,Phys. Rev. Lett. 115(2015) 082002 [1506.02660]

    2015 arXiv

  87. [110]

    Falkowski, B

    A. Falkowski, B. Fuks, K. Mawatari, K. Mimasu, F. Riva and V. Sanz,Rosetta: an operator basis translator for Standard Model effective field theory,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 583 [1508.05895]

    2015 arXiv

  88. [111]

    Falkowski,Higgs Basis: Proposal for an EFT basis choice for LHC HXSWG, 2015

    A. Falkowski,Higgs Basis: Proposal for an EFT basis choice for LHC HXSWG, 2015

    2015

  89. [112]

    Thomas Arun, K

    M. Thomas Arun, K. Deka and T. Srivastava,Constraining SMEFT BSM scenarios with EWPO and∆ CKM,2301.09273. – 31 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.