arxiv: 2512.11026 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-11 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-th

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Weak Scale Triggers in the SMEFT

Pier Giuseppe Catinari , Raffaele Tito D'Agnolo , Pablo Sesma

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 22:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-th

keywords SMEFThierarchy problemweak scale triggersHiggs mass squaredcosmological solutionsdimension-6 operatorseffective field theorynew physics signatures

0 comments

The pith

No weak scale triggers exist in the SMEFT up to dimension eight that solve the hierarchy problem far above the weak scale.

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

The paper shows that the SMEFT lacks any local operators up to dimension six capable of acting as weak scale triggers for cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem. This absence persists at dimension eight by the same logic. These triggers are operators that respond directly to the value of the Higgs mass squared and appear in many different proposed cosmological resolutions of the hierarchy issue. A reader should care because the result directs attention to the experimental signatures of the three known trigger operators as the way to test or rule out this broad class of solutions.

Core claim

There are no weak scale triggers in the SMEFT up to dimension six that can solve the hierarchy problem far above the weak scale. Our arguments can be used to show that the same is true at dimension eight. Weak scale triggers are local operators sensitive to the Higgs mass squared and they are needed in a large number of qualitatively different cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem. These solutions have little in common besides the use of a trigger operator. Focusing on the signatures of the three already-known trigger operators can lead to discovering or excluding this class of solutions to the hierarchy problem.

What carries the argument

Weak scale triggers, defined as local operators in the SMEFT that are sensitive to the Higgs mass squared parameter.

If this is right

Many cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem that rely on such triggers are not viable within the SMEFT up to dimension eight.
The experimental search should concentrate on the signatures produced by the three known trigger operators.
Any viable cosmological solution using a trigger must either invoke operators of dimension higher than eight or effects that are non-local.
Classification of operators can be extended to higher dimensions to further constrain possible solutions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the claim holds, then non-local effects or physics above dimension eight become necessary for trigger-based solutions to the hierarchy problem.
The approach of classifying operators by sensitivity to the Higgs mass squared could be applied to other effective theories or to the full UV completion.
Bounds from colliders on the known triggers would directly impact the allowed parameter space for cosmological hierarchy resolutions.
Absence of triggers might point toward different mechanisms for the hierarchy problem that do not rely on cosmological triggers at all.

Load-bearing premise

All relevant cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem rely on local operators in the SMEFT that are sensitive to the Higgs mass squared, without evasion through non-local effects or dimensions higher than eight.

What would settle it

Observation or construction of a local operator in the SMEFT at dimension six or eight that is sensitive to the Higgs mass squared and enables a viable cosmological solution to the hierarchy problem at scales far above the weak scale.

read the original abstract

There are no weak scale triggers in the SMEFT up to dimension six that can solve the hierarchy problem far above the weak scale. Our arguments can be used to show that the same is true at dimension eight. Weak scale triggers are local operators sensitive to the Higgs mass squared and they are needed in a large number of qualitatively different cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem. These solutions have little in common besides the use of a trigger operator. We argue that focusing on the signatures of the three already-known trigger operators can lead to discover or exclude this class of solutions to the hierarchy problem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper claims only three weak scale trigger operators exist in the SMEFT up to dimension eight, which would narrow cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem.

read the letter

The paper's core result is that weak scale triggers—local operators sensitive to the Higgs mass squared—are limited to the three already known ones in the SMEFT up to dimension six, with the same logic extending to dimension eight. This rules out a broad class of cosmological fixes for the hierarchy problem that rely on such operators far above the weak scale. The work does a clean job framing why many otherwise different cosmological models end up needing one of these triggers, so ruling them out gives a practical way to test the whole category by focusing on the signatures of those three operators. It builds directly on the standard SMEFT basis and avoids extra assumptions beyond the usual effective field theory setup. The main soft spot is the dim-eight extension. The abstract says the existing arguments can be reused, but dim eight has hundreds of operators and the claim needs an explicit check that none of them couple to m_H^2 in a trigger-like way. If the enumeration or general proof is incomplete there, the no-go weakens. The paper also assumes local operators up to that dimension cover the relevant cosmological cases, which leaves non-local or cutoff effects as possible loopholes. This is aimed at theorists working on the hierarchy problem through cosmology and SMEFT model building. A reader looking for constraints on new physics or experimental targets would find it useful. I would send it to peer review so referees can verify the operator classification and the dim-eight step.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims there are no weak scale triggers in the SMEFT up to dimension six that can solve the hierarchy problem far above the weak scale, with the same holding at dimension eight. Weak scale triggers are defined as local operators sensitive to the Higgs mass squared parameter, which the authors argue are required in a broad class of cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem. The manuscript identifies three known such operators and suggests that experimental focus on their signatures can discover or exclude this class of solutions.

Significance. If the central no-go result holds after verification of the operator classification, the paper would be significant for narrowing the landscape of cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem within the SMEFT framework. It provides a concrete way to test a large family of models by targeting the signatures of the three known trigger operators rather than searching for unknown ones, which could guide both theoretical model-building and experimental searches at colliders or in cosmology.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the arguments extend to show there are no triggers at dimension eight is made without a separate proof, explicit operator enumeration, or dedicated section. Given that the dim-8 SMEFT basis contains several hundred operators, this extension is load-bearing for the full claim and requires at least an appendix or subsection detailing why no additional m_H^2-sensitive operators appear.
[Main text] Main text (operator classification section): The central no-go relies on the exhaustiveness of identifying only three trigger operators sensitive to m_H^2 among the 59 (or 76 with B/L violation) dim-6 operators. The manuscript must provide the explicit enumeration or proof of completeness (e.g., using the Warsaw basis) showing no others can act as cosmological triggers; without this, the claim that all relevant local operators have been covered cannot be verified.

minor comments (2)

[Introduction] Clarify the precise definition of 'trigger operator' early in the introduction, including how sensitivity to m_H^2 is quantified in the effective potential or equation of state.
Ensure consistent notation for the Higgs mass parameter (m_H^2 vs. other conventions) throughout and define all acronyms (SMEFT, etc.) on first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for identifying points where additional detail will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the text accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the arguments extend to show there are no triggers at dimension eight is made without a separate proof, explicit operator enumeration, or dedicated section. Given that the dim-8 SMEFT basis contains several hundred operators, this extension is load-bearing for the full claim and requires at least an appendix or subsection detailing why no additional m_H^2-sensitive operators appear.

Authors: We agree that the dimension-eight claim requires more explicit support than the brief statement in the original abstract. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated appendix that applies the same selection criteria used at dimension six (local operators whose leading contribution to the effective potential is linear in the Higgs mass-squared parameter and can therefore act as a cosmological trigger) to the structure of the dimension-eight SMEFT. The appendix shows that any candidate operator must contain an even number of Higgs fields and must not be removable by field redefinitions or equations of motion; under these constraints no new trigger operators appear. While a complete listing of all several hundred dimension-eight operators is impractical, the argument is structural and does not rely on exhaustive enumeration. revision: yes
Referee: [Main text] Main text (operator classification section): The central no-go relies on the exhaustiveness of identifying only three trigger operators sensitive to m_H^2 among the 59 (or 76 with B/L violation) dim-6 operators. The manuscript must provide the explicit enumeration or proof of completeness (e.g., using the Warsaw basis) showing no others can act as cosmological triggers; without this, the claim that all relevant local operators have been covered cannot be verified.

Authors: We have expanded the operator classification section to include an explicit table that lists every dimension-six operator in the Warsaw basis (both the 59 CP-even operators and the additional B/L-violating operators). For each operator we indicate whether it contains a term linear in the Higgs mass-squared parameter after electroweak symmetry breaking and whether that term can source a cosmological trigger. Only the three operators already identified in the original text satisfy both conditions; all others either lack the requisite m_H^2 dependence, are redundant under the equations of motion, or produce higher-order corrections that cannot serve as triggers. This table makes the completeness argument directly verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in SMEFT operator classification

full rationale

The paper enumerates local SMEFT operators up to dimension 6 (extendable to 8) that couple to the Higgs mass squared parameter and identifies only three known trigger operators. This rests on the standard, externally established SMEFT basis rather than any fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation. The claim that no additional triggers exist follows directly from the completeness of that classification and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. The derivation is self-contained against the external benchmark of the SMEFT operator catalog.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the standard SMEFT operator classification and the assumption that cosmological solutions require local trigger operators sensitive to the Higgs mass squared. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The SMEFT provides a complete basis for local operators up to a given dimension below the new physics scale.
Invoked when classifying all possible operators that could act as triggers.
domain assumption Cosmological solutions to the hierarchy problem must employ local operators sensitive to the Higgs mass squared.
Central premise that allows the no-go result to constrain those solutions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5386 in / 1420 out tokens · 33472 ms · 2026-05-16T22:51:57.410955+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages · 23 internal anchors

[1]

Arkani-Hamed, R

N. Arkani-Hamed, R. T. D’Agnolo, and H. D. Kim,Weak scale as a trigger,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 9 095014, [arXiv:2012.04652]

work page arXiv 2021
[2]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran,Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015), no. 22 221801, [arXiv:1504.07551]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[3]

J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, O. Pujolàs, and G. Servant,Cosmological Higgs-Axion Interplay for a Naturally Small Electroweak Scale,Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015), no. 25 251803, [arXiv:1506.09217]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[4]

A small weak scale from a small cosmological constant

A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, V. Gorbenko, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg,A small weak scale from a small cosmological constant,JHEP05(2017) 071, [arXiv:1609.06320]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[5]

Inflating to the Weak Scale

M. Geller, Y. Hochberg, and E. Kuflik,Inflating to the Weak Scale,Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(2019), no. 19 191802, [arXiv:1809.07338]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[6]

Mass Hierarchy and Vacuum Energy

C. Cheung and P. Saraswat,Mass Hierarchy and Vacuum Energy,arXiv:1811.12390

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[7]

G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto,The Selfish Higgs,arXiv:1907.05370

work page arXiv 1907
[8]

Strumia and D

A. Strumia and D. Teresi,Relaxing the Higgs mass and its vacuum energy by living at the top of the potential,Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 11 115002, [arXiv:2002.02463]

work page arXiv 2020
[9]

Csáki, R

C. Csáki, R. T. D’Agnolo, M. Geller, and A. Ismail,Crunching Dilaton, Hidden Naturalness, Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 091801, [arXiv:2007.14396]

work page arXiv 2021
[10]

Tito D’Agnolo and D

R. Tito D’Agnolo and D. Teresi,Sliding Naturalness: New Solution to the Strong-CPand Electroweak-Hierarchy Problems,Phys. Rev. Lett. 128(2022), no. 2 021803, [arXiv:2106.04591]

work page arXiv 2022
[11]

Tito D’Agnolo and D

R. Tito D’Agnolo and D. Teresi,Sliding naturalness: cosmological selection of the weak scale, JHEP02(2022) 023, [arXiv:2109.13249]

work page arXiv 2022
[12]

Khoury and T

J. Khoury and T. Steingasser,Gauge hierarchy from electroweak vacuum metastability,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 5 055031, [arXiv:2108.09315]. ρmax∼0.35fm= 1.77GeV−1andΛ QCD∼0.33GeV. – 31 –

work page arXiv 2022
[13]

Chatrchyan and G

A. Chatrchyan and G. Servant,The stochastic relaxion,JHEP06(2023) 107, [arXiv:2210.01148]

work page arXiv 2023
[14]

Trifinopoulos and M

S. Trifinopoulos and M. Vanvlasselaer,Attracting the electroweak scale to a tachyonic trap,Phys. Rev. D107(2023), no. 7 L071701, [arXiv:2210.13484]

work page arXiv 2023
[15]

Csaki, A

C. Csaki, A. Ismail, M. Ruhdorfer, and J. Tooby-Smith,Higgs squared,JHEP04(2023) 082, [arXiv:2210.02456]

work page arXiv 2023
[16]

Matsedonskyi,Hierarchies from landscape probability gradients and critical boundaries,JHEP 08(2024) 170, [arXiv:2311.10139]

O. Matsedonskyi,Hierarchies from landscape probability gradients and critical boundaries,JHEP 08(2024) 170, [arXiv:2311.10139]

work page arXiv 2024
[17]

Hook,New Solutions to the Gauge Hierarchy Problem,Ann

A. Hook,New Solutions to the Gauge Hierarchy Problem,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023), no. 1 23–39

work page 2023
[18]

Chattopadhyay, D

S. Chattopadhyay, D. S. Chattopadhyay, and R. S. Gupta,Cosmological Selection of a Small Weak Scale from Large Vacuum Energy: A Minimal Approach,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025), no. 24 241803, [arXiv:2407.15935]

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

Csaki, R

C. Csaki, R. Tito D’Agnolo, E. Kuflik, and P. Sesma,A Cosmological Solution to the Doublet-Triplet Splitting Problem,arXiv:2411.03438

work page arXiv
[20]

Chatrchyan and G

A. Chatrchyan and G. Servant,Relaxion dark matter from stochastic misalignment,JCAP06 (2023) 036, [arXiv:2211.15694]

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 1 015026, [arXiv:2005.00008]

work page arXiv 2021
[22]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov,Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,Nucl. Phys. B166(1980) 493–506

work page 1980
[23]

G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough, and T. You,Self-organised localisation,JHEP10(2021) 093, [arXiv:2105.08617]

work page arXiv 2021
[24]

Constraints on the relaxion mechanism with strongly interacting vector-fermions

H. Beauchesne, E. Bertuzzo, and G. Grilli di Cortona,Constraints on the relaxion mechanism with strongly interacting vector-fermions,JHEP08(2017) 093, [arXiv:1705.06325]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[25]

S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg,Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 1888–1910

work page 1973
[26]

Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[27]

Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys

S. Weinberg,Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,Phys. Rev. Lett. 43(1979) 1566–1570

work page 1979
[28]

S. P. Martin,A Supersymmetry primer,Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18(1998) 1–98, [hep-ph/9709356]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[29]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov,QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations, Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 385–447

work page 1979
[30]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov,QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications, Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 448–518

work page 1979
[31]

Tasi 2009 lectures: The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson

R. Contino,The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson, pp. 235–306, 2011. arXiv:1005.4269. – 32 –

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[32]

QCD Sum Rules, a Modern Perspective

P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian,QCD sum rules, a modern perspective,hep-ph/0010175

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[33]

An Introduction to Sum Rules in QCD

E. de Rafael,An Introduction to sum rules in QCD: Course, pp. 1171–1218, 7, 1997. hep-ph/9802448

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997
[34]

Vafa and E

C. Vafa and E. Witten,Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 173–188

work page 1984
[35]

The Electroweak Vacuum Angle

P. Fileviez Perez and H. H. Patel,The Electroweak Vacuum Angle,Phys. Lett. B732(2014) 241–243, [arXiv:1402.6340]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[36]

Csáki, R

C. Csáki, R. T. D’Agnolo, E. Kuflik, and M. Ruhdorfer,Instanton NDA and applications to axion models, JHEP04(2024) 074, [arXiv:2311.09285]

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

Affleck,On Constrained Instantons,Nucl

I. Affleck,On Constrained Instantons,Nucl. Phys. B191(1981) 429

work page 1981
[38]

Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry:Selected Erice Lectures

S. Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry:Selected Erice Lectures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1985

work page 1985
[39]

Espinosa,High-Energy Behavior of Baryon and Lepton Number Violating Scattering Amplitudes and Breakdown of Unitarity in the Standard Model,Nucl

O. Espinosa,High-Energy Behavior of Baryon and Lepton Number Violating Scattering Amplitudes and Breakdown of Unitarity in the Standard Model,Nucl. Phys. B343(1990) 310–340

work page 1990
[40]

D. E. Morrissey, T. M. P. Tait, and C. E. M. Wagner,Proton lifetime and baryon number violating signatures at the CERN LHC in gauge extended models,Phys. Rev. D 72(2005) 095003, [hep-ph/0508123]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[41]

Csáki, M

C. Csáki, M. Ruhdorfer, and Y. Shirman,UV Sensitivity of the Axion Mass from Instantons in Partially Broken Gauge Groups,JHEP04(2020) 031, [arXiv:1912.02197]

work page arXiv 2020
[42]

Sesma,A functional treatment of small instanton-induced axion potentials,JHEP03(2025) 026, [arXiv:2411.00101]

P. Sesma,A functional treatment of small instanton-induced axion potentials,JHEP03(2025) 026, [arXiv:2411.00101]

work page arXiv 2025
[43]

Weinberg,Larger higgs-boson-exchange terms in the neutron electric dipole moment,Phys

S. Weinberg,Larger higgs-boson-exchange terms in the neutron electric dipole moment,Phys. Rev. Lett.63(Nov, 1989) 2333–2336

work page 1989
[44]

Cabibbo,Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,Phys

N. Cabibbo,Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 531–533

work page 1963
[45]

M. E. Pospelov,CP odd effective gluonic Lagrangian in the Kobayashi-Maskawa model,Phys. Lett. B328(1994) 441–449, [hep-ph/9402317]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994
[46]

Khriplovich and A

I. Khriplovich and A. Vainshtein,Infinite renormalization of theθ-term and the Jarlskog invariant for CP violation,Nuclear Physics B414(1994), no. 1 27–32

work page 1994
[47]

J. R. Ellis and M. K. Gaillard,Strong and Weak CP Violation,Nucl. Phys. B 150(1979) 141–162

work page 1979
[48]

Valenti and L

A. Valenti and L. Vecchi,Perturbative running of the topological angles,JHEP01(2023) 131, [arXiv:2210.09328]

work page arXiv 2023
[49]

Benevedes, A

S. Benevedes, A. Ismail, and T. Steingasser,Gauge hierarchy and metastability from Higgs-driven crunching, JHEP06(2025) 228, [arXiv:2502.07876]

work page arXiv 2025
[50]

Cosmic Attractors and Gauge Hierarchy

G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin,Cosmic attractors and gauge hierarchy,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 063501, [hep-th/0304043]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004
[51]

Large Hierarchies from Attractor Vacua

G. Dvali,Large hierarchies from attractor vacua,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 025018, [hep-th/0410286]. – 33 –

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[52]

Jung and T

S. Jung and T. Kim,Hubble selection of the weak scale from QCD quantum critical point,Phys. Rev. Res.4(2022), no. 2 L022048, [arXiv:2107.02801]

work page arXiv 2022
[53]

The anthropic principle and the mass scale of the Standard Model

V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel,Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 5480–5492, [hep-ph/9707380]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[54]

L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman,The Weak Scale from BBN,JHEP12(2014) 134, [arXiv:1409.0551]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[55]

D’Amico, A

G. D’Amico, A. Strumia, A. Urbano, and W. Xue,Direct anthropic bound on the weak scale from supernovæ explosions,Phys. Rev. D100(2019), no. 8 083013, [arXiv:1906.00986]

work page arXiv 2019
[56]

Supersymmetric Unification Without Low Energy Supersymmetry And Signatures for Fine-Tuning at the LHC

N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos,Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC,JHEP06(2005) 073, [hep-th/0405159]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005
[57]

A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz, and Y. S. Tyupkin,Pseudoparticle Solutions of the Yang-Mills Equations,Phys. Lett. B59(1975) 85–87

work page 1975
[58]

Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.:A lecture course

M. Shifman,Advanced topics in quantum field theory.:A lecture course. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2, 2012

work page 2012
[59]

R. S. Bedi, T. Gherghetta, and M. Pospelov,Enhanced EDMs from small instantons,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 1 015030, [arXiv:2205.07948]

work page arXiv 2022
[60]

’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys

G. ’t Hooft,Symmetry Breaking Through Bell-Jackiw Anomalies,Phys. Rev. Lett.37(1976) 8–11

work page 1976
[61]

’t Hooft,Computation of the Quantum Effects Due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle, Phys

G. ’t Hooft,Computation of the Quantum Effects Due to a Four-Dimensional Pseudoparticle, Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 3432–3450. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]

work page 1976
[62]

C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross,Toward a Theory of the Strong Interactions, Phys. Rev. D17(1978) 2717

work page 1978
[63]

Witten,Instantons, the Quark Model, and the1/NExpansion, Nucl

E. Witten,Instantons, the Quark Model, and the1/NExpansion, Nucl. Phys. B149(1979) 285–320

work page 1979
[64]

Witten,Large N Chiral Dynamics,Annals Phys.128(1980) 363

E. Witten,Large N Chiral Dynamics,Annals Phys.128(1980) 363

work page 1980
[65]

A. I. Vainshtein, V. I. Zakharov, V. A. Novikov, and M. A. Shifman,ABC’s of Instantons,Sov. Phys. Usp.25(1982) 195

work page 1982
[66]

Di Vecchia and G

P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano,Chiral Dynamics in the Large n Limit,Nucl. Phys. B171 (1980) 253–272

work page 1980
[67]

Lattice QCD for Cosmology

S. Borsanyi et al.,Calculation of the axion mass based on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics,Nature539(2016), no. 7627 69–71, [arXiv:1606.07494]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[68]

Instantons in QCD

T. Schäfer and E. V. Shuryak,Instantons in QCD,Rev. Mod. Phys.70(1998) 323–426, [hep-ph/9610451]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[69]

Instanton Content of the SU(3) Vacuum

A. Hasenfratz and C. Nieter,Instanton content of the SU(3) vacuum,Phys. Lett. B439(1998) 366–372, [hep-lat/9806026]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998
[70]

J. W. Negele,Instantons, the QCD vacuum, and hadronic physics,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 73 (1999) 92–104, [hep-lat/9810053]. – 34 – [71]UKQCDCollaboration, D. A. Smith and M. J. Teper,Topological structure of the SU(3) vacuum, Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 014505, [hep-lat/9801008]. – 35 –

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999