Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 187 references

Asymptotically safe quantum gravity predicts that dimension-six four-fermion SMEFT coefficients split into a symmetry-protected set that is nonzero and Planck-suppressed, and a set that vanishes at the fixed point but may become relevant th

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:30 UTC pith:JZMI4EMV

load-bearing objection A solid, honest FRG computation; the claimed 'predictions' are partly symmetry inputs, and the categorization is conditional on an assumed fixed point. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18398 v1 pith:JZMI4EMV submitted 2026-07-20 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

The fermion sector of the SMEFT from asymptotically safe gravity

Astrid Eichhorn , Moritz Gessner , Shouryya Ray This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qchep-ph
keywords asymptotic safetyquantum gravitySMEFTfour-fermion operatorsfunctional renormalization groupfixed-point collisionWeyl fermionsPlanck-scale suppression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to turn asymptotically safe quantum gravity into a source of predictions for the dimension-six fermion operators of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT), rather than leaving their coefficients as free parameters. It claims that the pattern is set by the largest global symmetry of the fermion kinetic terms: operators compatible with that symmetry are unavoidably generated with nonzero coefficients, remain irrelevant under the renormalization group, and end up Planck-scale suppressed in the infrared. Operators that break the symmetry - in particular the mixed-chirality four-fermion channel - vanish at the most predictive fixed point, but a fixed-point collision can turn them relevant, making them free parameters instead. If the paper is right, asymptotic safety keeps the usual effective-field-theory ordering, predicts specific ratios among the nonzero SMEFT coefficients, and avoids Planck-mass fermion condensates, all of which are concrete, testable consequences.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the pattern of SMEFT coefficients at an asymptotically safe gravity-matter fixed point is dictated by the maximal global symmetry of the free kinetic terms. For the fermion sector, that is a U(N_W) symmetry rotating all Weyl fermions into each other. The single four-fermion interaction compatible with this symmetry - the axial current interaction - has a nonzero, irrelevant fixed point (the shifted Gaussian fixed point), and six of the seven studied couplings inherit nonzero values through this symmetry. The mixed-chirality coupling c+_quqd, which is incompatible with U(N_W), vanishes at the fixed point. The paper shows that this coupling can be promoted to

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the maximally symmetric shifted Gaussian fixed point (SGFP), defined by the U(N_W) symmetry of the fermion kinetic terms when gauge, Yukawa, and scalar-potential couplings are set to zero. The calculation tracks seven Fierz-complete four-fermion couplings under the functional renormalization group; gravitational fluctuations induce only the U(N_W)-singlet axial interaction, whose beta function is beta_cA = (2 + g L) c_A - g^2 I - 3 c_A^2/(8 pi^2). The absence of the induction term in beta_{c_quqd} is what makes that coupling vanish at the SGFP. Fixed-point collisions between the SGFP and two lower-symmetry fixed points transfer a relevant direction to c_quqd at a c

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the ultraviolet fixed point is the maximally symmetric shifted Gaussian fixed point, with all Standard Model gauge, Yukawa, and scalar-potential couplings vanishing there; if those couplings are actually nonzero at the fixed point, the symmetry is smaller and the classification of which SMEFT coefficients are forced to be nonzero changes.

What would settle it

Extend the same seven-coupling system to include a nonzero U(1)_Y hypercharge coupling at the fixed point. If c+_quqd or any other U(N_W)-violating operator develops a nonzero fixed-point value (an induced term), or if an eigenperturbation becomes relevant at g* below the paper's g*_crit(lambda), the symmetry-based categorization fails. A simpler observational check: a dimension-six four-fermion coefficient in the predicted 'zero' class measured well above Planck-scale suppression, without evidence for the large-coupling collision regime, would contradict the shifted-Gaussian-fixed-point predi

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • All underlined four-fermion operators in Table 1 are predicted to have nonzero coefficients with specific ratios at the Planck scale, then scale as M_Planck^-2 into the infrared.
  • The non-underlined operators, including the mixed-chirality c_quqd channel, are predicted to vanish at the most predictive fixed point; they become free parameters only if the gravitational coupling exceeds g*_crit, which the paper finds to be large.
  • Asymptotic safety does not trigger fermion condensation or Planck-mass bound states for credible couplings, so light Standard Model fermions remain compatible with the scenario.
  • The effective-field-theory ordering survives: canonical mass dimension remains a reliable guide, so dimension-eight and higher operators are even more suppressed and mass-dimension-based truncations are justified.
  • The U(N_W)-symmetry relations among the nonzero coefficients constitute tests of asymptotic safety that are independent of the overall Planck-scale suppression.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: If the symmetry criterion holds beyond four-fermion operators, the same dichotomy should organize dimension-eight fermion operators: only U(N_W)-singlet structures are unavoidable, while all others are candidates for fixed-point-collision-driven relevance. This is an extension, not demonstrated in the paper.
  • Editorial extension: Because the categorization assumes vanishing hypercharge and top Yukawa at the fixed point, the predicted 'zero' operators could be promoted to nonzero if the interacting hypercharge fixed point is realized; the paper's list is conditional, and the condition could be tested by including a nonzero U(1)_Y coupling in the functional RG flow.
  • Editorial extension: The axial-only induction result suggests that gravity's coupling to Weyl matter may leave parity-violating imprints in higher-curvature operators; the paper flags this as future work.
  • Editorial extension: Phenomenologically, the prediction of Planck-suppressed coefficients means current and near-future colliders should see null results in these channels; a confirmed nonzero coefficient orders of magnitude above M_Planck^-2 would point either to a realized fixed-point collision or to a different UV completion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using the functional renormalization group in an Einstein-Hilbert truncation for gravity and a Fierz-complete set of seven four-fermion operators for one generation of quarks (a left-handed SU(2)_L doublet q and two right-handed singlets u, d, with global charges), the paper computes the coupled beta functions, Eqs. (3.8)-(3.22), and studies their fixed-point structure. It identifies the shifted Gaussian fixed point (SGFP) in the maximally symmetric U(N_W)-invariant subspace, Eq. (3.24), shows that within this subspace the corresponding coupling is always irrelevant, Eq. (3.28), and analyzes a fixed-point collision with two lower-symmetry fixed points that can transfer a relevant direction to the SGFP at large gravitational coupling, Eq. (D.1). Based on symmetry considerations, the paper conjectures a categorization of dimension-six SMEFT four-fermion operators: operators compatible with the maximal global symmetries of the kinetic terms (underlined in Tab. 1) are non-zero at the fixed point and Planck-scale suppressed in the IR; all other operators vanish at the SGFP but can become relevant through stability trading. It also argues that gravity avoids fermionic condensation and thus light fermions.

Significance. Strengths: the beta functions are explicitly computed in a well-defined truncation using documented tensor-algebra methods; the fixed-point analysis is internally consistent; the use of Weyl fermions is a genuine step beyond Dirac-only studies and exposes the U(N_W) structure. The stability-trading mechanism, with a concrete g*_crit(λ), is a useful contribution. Weaknesses: the central categorization is conditional on an assumed maximally symmetric SGFP with vanishing SM marginal couplings, and the extension from seven operators to the full SMEFT is a conjecture. If the SGFP selection is not justified, the dichotomy of non-zero vs. vanishing operators in Tab. 1 is not a prediction. These issues are load-bearing but addressable; the paper's value would be much increased by an explicit robustness analysis of alternative fixed points and by labeling the full-SMEFT extension as a conjecture.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.24); Sec. 6] Eq. (3.24) is presented as a prediction of the fixed-point structure, and Sec. 6 states that the four-fermion fixed-point structure 'results in the prediction of precise relations ... namely Eq. (3.24)'. However, Eq. (3.24) defines the maximally symmetric U(N_W)-invariant subspace: it follows from the symmetry of the kinetic term (3.5), and the beta function (3.26) is the projection of the flow onto this subspace. The SGFP is tracked within this subspace, so the relations are an input ansatz, not an output of the RG dynamics. The paper should explicitly state that these ratios are conditional on the assumed SGFP and are not derived from the beta functions.
  2. [Sec. 5.1; Sec. 2.2.3] The zero/non-zero categorization of Tab. 1 assumes that the UV fixed point is the maximally symmetric SGFP with all marginal SM couplings vanishing. This is stated in Sec. 5.1 ('We assume that the couplings of all marginal and relevant interactions in the SM can be set to zero at the fixed point') but not derived. The cited literature finds interacting fixed points for U(1)_Y [53,54] and for Yukawa couplings [55,57]; if one of these is realized, the maximal global symmetry is reduced and operators currently categorized as vanishing may acquire non-zero fixed-point values. The footnotes acknowledge this but provide no quantitative estimate. The categorization is therefore conditional; the paper needs a derivation of the SGFP selection or a robustness analysis.
  3. [Sec. 5.1; Tab. 1] The explicit calculation covers seven four-fermion operators for one generation, with global SU(2)_L x U(1)_Y, no SU(3)_C, no Yukawa or gauge fields. The extension to all 38/2751 four-fermion operators and to the gauge/Higgs sectors is made by symmetry arguments alone. In particular, the absence of induction terms for non-underlined operators (octet/triplet currents, flavor-mixing structures) is not verified by explicit beta functions. The fact that c^+_quqd lacks the I(λ)g^2 term in Eq. (3.22) does not establish that all other non-underlined operators do as well. This extension should be stated as a conjecture and tested on representative operators where possible.
  4. [Sec. 3.3; Fig. 4; Abstract] The stability-trading mechanism that makes c^+_quqd relevant occurs only for g > g*_crit(λ), which the authors themselves describe as 'relatively high' and 'somewhat unlikely' to be realized by the gravitational fixed point. The abstract's statement that non-underlined operators 'may become free parameters of the theory at larger gravitational couplings' is therefore a possibility in a non-standard parameter region, not a prediction of the asymptotically safe SM. Please distinguish the generic SGFP statement from this large-g scenario in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, after Eq. (3.22)] 'for β_cquqd' should read 'for β_{c^+_quqd}' (the coupling is defined with a superscript).
  2. [Tab. 1 caption; Sec. 5.2] The caption says non-underlined operators 'may become relevant,' while Sec. 5.2 emphasizes zero at small g and only potentially relevant at large g. Align the wording.
  3. [App. C, Tab. 2] c_uu* and c_dd* are omitted; give their defining equations so all fixed points are fully specified.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eq. (4.1)] The symbol λ is used for the cosmological constant elsewhere; in Eq. (4.1) it appears as a four-fermion coupling in the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation. Please rename one of them.
  5. [Sec. 5.1, text after Eq. (5.3)] 'asymptotically safe' should read 'non-vanishing at the SGFP' to avoid implying a proof of global safety.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The claimed prediction of IR ratios (Eq. 3.24) and the zero/non-zero SMEFT categorization are the defining symmetry assumptions of the maximally symmetric SGFP, restated as outputs; the independent dynamical content is the existence/stability of the SGFP and its collision.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.24); Sec. 6, Conclusions]
    "The maximally symmetric theory space in our case is one-dimensional, spanned by a single coupling c_A, which is related to the seven four-fermion couplings that we consider by c_A = -c_qq = -c_uu = -c_dd = -c_ud/2 = c_qu/2 = c_qd/2, c+_quqd = 0. (3.24) These relations arise because the kinetic term in Eq. (3.5) is symmetric under a larger global symmetry group than SU(2)_L. ... We note that the fixed-point structure for the four-fermion interactions results in the prediction of precise relations between the irrelevant four-fermion couplings in the IR, namely Eq. (3.24)."

    Eq. (3.24) is not an output of the RG flow: it is the definition of the one-dimensional maximally symmetric subspace in which the shifted Gaussian fixed point is sought. The beta function (3.26) is computed only for the single coupling c_A after imposing Eq. (3.24), so the fixed-point value in that subspace automatically satisfies the ratios. Calling these ratios a prediction from the fixed-point structure replaces the input (the assumed U(N_W)-symmetric MSAS fixed point) with the output (the IR ratios). The nontrivial results are the existence, critical exponent, and collision of this fixed point, not the ratios themselves.

  2. self definitional [Tab. 1 caption; Sec. 5.1, UV regime: Vanishing and non-vanishing SMEFT coefficients]
    "The underlined four-fermion operators respect the symmetries of the free theory. They must be non-zero, but Planck-scale suppressed. ... We assume that the fixed-point properties are determined by the maximal symmetries of the kinetic terms ... Thus, any interaction which shares the maximal symmetry of the kinetic terms has a non-vanishing fixed-point value. All other interactions have vanishing fixed-point values."

    The abstract and Tab. 1 present the underlined/non-underlined categorization as the paper's prediction, but the caption defines underlined operators as exactly those that respect the free-theory symmetries. Sec. 5.1 then builds the categorization directly from the assumption that the fixed point is maximally symmetric; the sentence 'any interaction which shares the maximal symmetry ... has a non-vanishing fixed-point value. All other interactions have vanishing...' is the categorization restated as a consequence, with no fixed-point calculation determining which operators belong to which class. The paper itself concedes that realising an interacting U(1)_Y or top-Yukawa fixed point would reduce the symmetry and change the list, so the central zero/non-zero claim is conditional on an assume

full rationale

The paper contains a substantial, non-circular dynamical calculation: the full 7-coupling beta functions, the gravitational induction terms, the existence and negative critical exponent of the shifted Gaussian fixed point, and the fixed-point collision that can make c+_quqd relevant. These results do not reduce to their inputs. However, two of the paper's headline predictions do reduce by construction. First, Eq. (3.24) is introduced as the parametrization of the maximally symmetric subspace, and the beta function is then projected onto that subspace; the later statement that the fixed-point structure results in the prediction of precise relations, namely Eq. (3.24), presents the defining ansatz of the SGFP as a dynamical prediction. Second, the UV categorization of SMEFT operators into non-zero (underlined) and zero (non-underlined) is derived in Sec. 5.1 from the explicit assumption that the fixed-point properties are determined by the maximal symmetries of the kinetic terms and that all marginal/relevant SM couplings vanish at the fixed point; the prediction is therefore the assumed selection of the maximally symmetric SGFP restated as a conclusion. The paper is transparent about this conditionality, and its acknowledgement of alternative fixed points (U(1)_Y [53,54], Yukawa [55,57]) shows the dichotomy is not robust against a different UV fixed-point choice. Because the existence/stability analysis and the collision mechanism are independent dynamical content, the circularity is partial rather than total, giving a score of 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumed symmetry structure of the fixed point (with g and lambda left as free parameters), the vanishing of marginal SM couplings, and the reliability of the truncation. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • g (dimensionless Newton coupling at fixed point)
    Left as a free parameter to explore gravitational fixed-point space; the fixed-point collision threshold depends on it. Not fitted to data.
  • lambda (dimensionless cosmological constant at fixed point)
    Left free along with g; appears in I(lambda) and L(lambda) and in the collision boundary. Not fitted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The fixed-point properties are determined by the maximal symmetries of the kinetic terms (MSAS/SGFP).
    Sec. 5.1: 'We assume that the fixed-point properties are determined by the maximal symmetries of the kinetic terms.' This is the load-bearing assumption for the categorization.
  • domain assumption All marginal and relevant SM couplings (gauge, Yukawa, scalar quartic) vanish at the fixed point.
    Sec. 5.1: 'we assume that the couplings of all marginal and relevant interactions in the SM can be set to zero at the fixed point.' If not, the maximal symmetry is reduced and additional operators are induced.
  • domain assumption Gravitational fluctuations respect the global symmetries of the kinetic terms.
    Sec. 2.2.3 and Sec. 5.1; the regulator is chosen to preserve these symmetries. If broken, the fixed-point structure changes.
  • domain assumption The truncation to seven four-fermion operators plus Einstein-Hilbert is sufficient; neglected higher-order and non-minimal operators are irrelevant at the fixed point.
    Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 6; based on near-perturbative scaling, but not proven, especially at large g* where the collision occurs.
  • domain assumption The results are approximately independent of the regulator shape function and gauge fixing.
    The paper uses the Litim regulator and Landau-DeWitt gauge without a systematic dependence check; this is an unverified assumption.
  • standard math Standard functional RG identities (Wetterich equation, threshold functions) are valid in this Euclidean setting.
    Used throughout Sec. 2.3 and 3.1; this is the standard FRG framework.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40918 in / 12624 out tokens · 104603 ms · 2026-08-01T15:30:31.990993+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum gravity impacts Standard Model fields through effective interactions generated by renormalization. These appear as Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) operators, where the effects of new physics are parametrized by the values of the higher-order SMEFT coefficients. As a step towards predicting these SMEFT coefficients from the asymptotically safe Standard Model with quantum gravity, we investigate the flow of a representative set of four-fermion operators under gravitational fluctuations. We strengthen the evidence for the near-perturbative nature of asymptotic safety by finding that these dimension-six-interactions remain irrelevant, resulting in the prediction of specific values for the dimensionless ratios of SMEFT coefficients in the IR. We also find a mechanism that can make a specific subset of these operators relevant. This subset is determined by symmetry considerations. On this basis, we provide a categorization of dimension-six-SMEFT interactions into two categories. Interactions in the first category are predicted to be non-zero, but Planck-scale suppressed. Interactions in the second category are predicted to be zero at small gravitational coupling, but may become free parameters of the theory at larger gravitational couplings.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 159 linked inside Pith

  1. [3]

    Markkanen, A

    T. Markkanen, A. Rajantie and S. Stopyra,Cosmological Aspects of Higgs Vacuum Metastability,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5(2018) 40 [1809.06923]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [4]

    Weinberg,ULTRAVIOLET DIVERGENCES IN QUANTUM THEORIES OF GRAVITATION, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, pp

    S. Weinberg,ULTRAVIOLET DIVERGENCES IN QUANTUM THEORIES OF GRAVITATION, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey, pp. 790–831 (1980)

    1980

  3. [5]

    Reuter,Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity,Phys

    M. Reuter,Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity,Phys. Rev.D57(1998) 971 [hep-th/9605030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [6]

    Niedermaier and M

    M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter,The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity, Living Rev. Rel.9(2006) 5

    2006

  5. [7]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig,Quantum Einstein Gravity,New J. Phys.14(2012) 055022 [1202.2274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [8]

    Eichhorn,An asymptotically safe guide to quantum gravity and matter,Front

    A. Eichhorn,An asymptotically safe guide to quantum gravity and matter,Front. Astron. Space Sci.5(2019) 47 [1810.07615]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [9]

    A.D. Pereira,Quantum spacetime and the renormalization group: Progress and visions, in Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity: Bridging foundations of physics and mathematics, 4, 2019 [1904.07042]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [10]

    Pawlowski and M

    J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Quantum Gravity: A Fluctuating Point of View,Front. in Phys.8(2021) 551848 [2007.10353]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [11]

    Eichhorn,Status update: Asymptotically safe gravity-matter systems,Nuovo Cim

    A. Eichhorn,Status update: Asymptotically safe gravity-matter systems,Nuovo Cim. C45 (2022) 29 [2201.11543]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [12]

    Eichhorn and M

    A. Eichhorn and M. Schiffer,Asymptotic safety of gravity with matter, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity, C. Bambi, L. Modesto and I. Shapiro, eds., (Singapore), pp. 1–87, Springer Nature Singapore (2023), DOI [2212.07456]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [13]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held,Black holes in asymptotically safe gravity and beyond, 2212.09495

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [14]

    Wetterich,Quantum Gravity and Scale Symmetry in Cosmology, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity(2023), DOI [2211.03596]

    C. Wetterich,Quantum Gravity and Scale Symmetry in Cosmology, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity(2023), DOI [2211.03596]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [15]

    Knorr, C

    B. Knorr, C. Ripken and F. Saueressig,Form Factors in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity(2024), DOI [2210.16072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [16]

    Morris and D

    T.R. Morris and D. Stulga,The Functional f(R) Approximation, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity(2023), DOI [2210.11356]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [17]

    Martini, G.P

    R. Martini, G.P. Vacca and O. Zanusso,Perturbative Approaches to Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity, C. Bambi, L. Modesto and I. Shapiro, eds., pp. 1–46 (2024), DOI [2210.13910]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [18]

    Pawlowski and M

    J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Quantum gravity from dynamical metric fluctuations, in Handbook of Quantum Gravity, C. Bambi, L. Modesto and I. Shapiro, eds., (Singapore), pp. 1–70, Springer Nature Singapore (2023), DOI [2309.10785]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [19]

    Saueressig,The functional renormalization group in quantum gravity, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity, C

    F. Saueressig,The functional renormalization group in quantum gravity, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity, C. Bambi, L. Modesto and I. Shapiro, eds., (Singapore), pp. 1–44, Springer Nature Singapore (2023), DOI [2302.14152]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [20]

    Platania,Black Holes in Asymptotically Safe Gravity, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity (2023), DOI [2302.04272]

    A. Platania,Black Holes in Asymptotically Safe Gravity, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity (2023), DOI [2302.04272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [21]

    Bonanno,Asymptotic Safety and Cosmology, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity(2024), DOI

    A. Bonanno,Asymptotic Safety and Cosmology, inHandbook of Quantum Gravity(2024), DOI

    2024

  20. [22]

    Eichhorn,The microscopic structure of quantum space-time and matter from a renormalization group perspective,Nature Phys.19(2023) 1527

    A. Eichhorn,The microscopic structure of quantum space-time and matter from a renormalization group perspective,Nature Phys.19(2023) 1527

    2023

  21. [23]

    Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, vol

    R. Percacci,An Introduction to Covariant Quantum Gravity and Asymptotic Safety, vol. 3 of100 Years of General Relativity, World Scientific (2017), 10.1142/10369

    doi:10.1142/10369 2017

  22. [24]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig,Quantum Gravity and the Functional Renormalization Group, Cambridge University Press (2019)

    2019

  23. [25]

    Eichhorn,Asymptotically safe gravity, in57th International School of Subnuclear Physics: In Search for the Unexpected, 2, 2020 [2003.00044]

    A. Eichhorn,Asymptotically safe gravity, in57th International School of Subnuclear Physics: In Search for the Unexpected, 2, 2020 [2003.00044]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [26]

    Reichert,Lecture notes: Functional Renormalisation Group and Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity,PoS384(2020) 005

    M. Reichert,Lecture notes: Functional Renormalisation Group and Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity,PoS384(2020) 005

    2020

  25. [27]

    Basile, L

    I. Basile, L. Buoninfante, F. Di Filippo, B. Knorr, A. Platania and A. Tokareva,Lectures in quantum gravity,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes98(2025) 1 [2412.08690]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [28]

    Eichhorn,Asymptotically safe quantum gravity and its phenomenology – a review, 2606.21522

    A. Eichhorn,Asymptotically safe quantum gravity and its phenomenology – a review, 2606.21522

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [29]

    Fehre, D.F

    J. Fehre, D.F. Litim, J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Lorentzian Quantum Gravity and the Graviton Spectral Function,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 081501 [2111.13232]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [30]

    D’Angelo, N

    E. D’Angelo, N. Drago, N. Pinamonti and K. Rejzner,An Algebraic QFT Approach to the Wetterich Equation on Lorentzian Manifolds,Annales Henri Poincare25(2024) 2295 [2202.07580]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [31]

    D’Angelo and K

    E. D’Angelo and K. Rejzner,A Lorentzian Renormalization Group Equation for Gauge Theories,Annales Henri Poincare26(2025) 4411 [2303.01479]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [32]

    Pawlowski, M

    J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert and J. Wessely,Self-consistent graviton spectral function in Lorentzian quantum gravity,2507.22169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [33]

    V. Kher, B. King, D.F. Litim and M. Reichert,Matter Spectral Functions from Quantum Gravity,2507.17862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [34]

    Assant, D.F

    G. Assant, D.F. Litim and M. Reichert,Spectral Functions of Lorentzian Quantum Gravity, 2606.19321

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [35]

    Manrique, S

    E. Manrique, S. Rechenberger and F. Saueressig,Asymptotically Safe Lorentzian Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.106(2011) 251302 [1102.5012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [36]

    Rechenberger and F

    S. Rechenberger and F. Saueressig,A functional renormalization group equation for foliated spacetimes,JHEP03(2013) 010 [1212.5114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  35. [37]

    Biemans, A

    J. Biemans, A. Platania and F. Saueressig,Quantum gravity on foliated spacetimes: Asymptotically safe and sound,Phys. Rev.D95(2017) 086013 [1609.04813]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [38]

    Houthoff, A

    W.B. Houthoff, A. Kurov and F. Saueressig,Impact of topology in foliated Quantum Einstein Gravity,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 491 [1705.01848]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  37. [39]

    Biemans, A

    J. Biemans, A. Platania and F. Saueressig,Renormalization group fixed points of foliated gravity-matter systems,JHEP05(2017) 093 [1702.06539]. – 36 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  38. [40]

    Saueressig and J

    F. Saueressig and J. Wang,Foliated asymptotically safe gravity in the fluctuation approach, JHEP09(2023) 064 [2306.10408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [41]

    Korver, F

    G. Korver, F. Saueressig and J. Wang,Global flows of foliated gravity-matter systems,Phys. Lett. B855(2024) 138789 [2402.01260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    Saueressig and J

    F. Saueressig and J. Wang,Foliated asymptotically safe gravity: Lorentzian signature fluctuations from the Wick rotation,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 106007 [2501.03752]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [43]

    Bonanno, T

    A. Bonanno, T. Denz, J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Reconstructing the graviton, SciPost Phys.12(2022) 001 [2102.02217]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [44]

    Pastor-Gutiérrez, J.M

    Á. Pastor-Gutiérrez, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert and G. Ruisi,e+e-→µ+µ- in the asymptotically safe standard model,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 106005 [2412.13800]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [45]

    Chiesa, J.M

    A.P. Chiesa, J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Towards Two-to-Two Scattering of Scalars in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity,2603.10168

    arXiv

  44. [46]

    Knorr,The pole truth: an analytical graviton propagator from Asymptotic Safety, 2606.18343

    B. Knorr,The pole truth: an analytical graviton propagator from Asymptotic Safety, 2606.18343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [47]

    P. Donà, A. Eichhorn and R. Percacci,Matter matters in asymptotically safe quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 084035 [1311.2898]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [48]

    Meibohm, J.M

    J. Meibohm, J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,Asymptotic safety of gravity-matter systems, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 084035 [1510.07018]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [49]

    Alkofer and F

    N. Alkofer and F. Saueressig,Asymptotically safef(R)-gravity coupled to matter I: the polynomial case,Annals Phys.396(2018) 173 [1802.00498]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [50]

    Wetterich and M

    C. Wetterich and M. Yamada,Variable Planck mass from the gauge invariant flow equation, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 066017 [1906.01721]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [51]

    Pastor-Gutiérrez, J.M

    A. Pastor-Gutiérrez, J.M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert,The Asymptotically Safe Standard Model: From quantum gravity to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking,SciPost Phys.15 (2023) 105 [2207.09817]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [52]

    Shaposhnikov and C

    M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich,Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Lett.B683(2010) 196 [0912.0208]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  51. [53]

    Harst and M

    U. Harst and M. Reuter,QED coupled to QEG,JHEP05(2011) 119 [1101.6007]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [54]

    Eichhorn and F

    A. Eichhorn and F. Versteegen,Upper bound on the Abelian gauge coupling from asymptotic safety,JHEP01(2018) 030 [1709.07252]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [55]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held,Top mass from asymptotic safety,Phys. Lett.B777(2018) 217 [1707.01107]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [56]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held,Mass difference for charged quarks from asymptotically safe quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. Lett.121(2018) 151302 [1803.04027]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [57]

    Eichhorn, Z

    A. Eichhorn, Z. Gyftopoulos and A. Held,Quark and lepton mixing in the asymptotically safe Standard Model,2507.18304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [58]

    J.-E. Daum, U. Harst and M. Reuter,Running Gauge Coupling in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity,JHEP01(2010) 084 [0910.4938]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [59]

    Zanusso, L

    O. Zanusso, L. Zambelli, G.P. Vacca and R. Percacci,Gravitational corrections to Yukawa systems,Phys. Lett.B689(2010) 90 [0904.0938]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  58. [60]

    J.E. Daum, U. Harst and M. Reuter,Non-perturbative QEG Corrections to the Yang-Mills Beta Function,Gen. Rel. Grav.43(2011) 2393 [1005.1488]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [61]

    Vacca and O

    G.P. Vacca and O. Zanusso,Asymptotic Safety in Einstein Gravity and Scalar-Fermion Matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 231601 [1009.1735]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [62]

    Folkerts, D.F

    S. Folkerts, D.F. Litim and J.M. Pawlowski,Asymptotic freedom of Yang-Mills theory with gravity,Phys. Lett. B709(2012) 234 [1101.5552]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  61. [63]

    Eichhorn, A

    A. Eichhorn, A. Held and J.M. Pawlowski,Quantum-gravity effects on a Higgs-Yukawa model,Phys. Rev.D94(2016) 104027 [1604.02041]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  62. [64]

    Eichhorn, Y

    A. Eichhorn, Y. Hamada, J. Lumma and M. Yamada,Quantum gravity fluctuations flatten the Planck-scale Higgs potential,Phys. Rev.D97(2018) 086004 [1712.00319]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [65]

    Christiansen and A

    N. Christiansen and A. Eichhorn,An asymptotically safe solution to the U(1) triviality problem,Phys. Lett.B770(2017) 154 [1702.07724]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [66]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held,Viability of quantum-gravity induced ultraviolet completions for matter,Phys. Rev.D96(2017) 086025 [1705.02342]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [67]

    Pawlowski, M

    J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, C. Wetterich and M. Yamada,Higgs scalar potential in asymptotically safe quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 086010 [1811.11706]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [68]

    Eichhorn and M

    A. Eichhorn and M. Pauly,Constraining power of asymptotic safety for scalar fields,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 026006 [2009.13543]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [69]

    Alkofer, A

    R. Alkofer, A. Eichhorn, A. Held, C.M. Nieto, R. Percacci and M. Schröfl,Quark masses and mixings in minimally parameterized UV completions of the Standard Model,Annals Phys.421(2020) 168282 [2003.08401]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [70]

    Kowalska, S

    K. Kowalska, S. Pramanick and E.M. Sessolo,Naturally small Yukawa couplings from trans-Planckian asymptotic safety,JHEP08(2022) 262 [2204.00866]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [71]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held,Dynamically vanishing Dirac neutrino mass from quantum scale symmetry,Phys. Lett. B846(2023) 138196 [2204.09008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [72]

    de Brito, M

    G.P. de Brito, M. Reichert and M. Schiffer,Yukawa interactions in Quantum Gravity, 2510.09572

    arXiv

  71. [73]

    Riabokon, M

    M. Riabokon, M. Schiffer and F. Wagner,Regulator and gauge dependence of the Abelian gauge coupling in asymptotically safe quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 106003 [2508.03563]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [74]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation,Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621

    1986

  73. [75]

    Grzadkowski, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [76]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott,The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory,Phys. Rept.793 (2019) 1 [1706.08945]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [77]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler,The standard model effective field theory at work,Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) 015006 [2303.16922]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [78]

    Falkowski,Lectures on SMEFT,Eur

    A. Falkowski,Lectures on SMEFT,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 656

    2023

  77. [79]

    Ellis,SMEFT Constraints on New Physics beyond the Standard Model, inBeyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment, 5, 2021, DOI [2105.14942]

    J. Ellis,SMEFT Constraints on New Physics beyond the Standard Model, inBeyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment, 5, 2021, DOI [2105.14942]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [80]

    Cirigliano, M

    V. Cirigliano, M. Gonzalez-Alonso and M.L. Graesser,Non-standard Charged Current Interactions: beta decays versus the LHC,JHEP02(2013) 046 [1210.4553]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  79. [81]

    de Blas, M

    J. de Blas, M. Chala and J. Santiago,Global Constraints on Lepton-Quark Contact Interactions,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 095011 [1307.5068]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  80. [82]

    Falkowski, M

    A. Falkowski, M. Gonzalez-Alonso, A. Greljo and D. Marzocca,Global constraints on anomalous triple gauge couplings in effective field theory approach,Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 011801 [1508.00581]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

Showing first 80 references.