Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Running soft theorems in effective field theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that, at one loop, subleading soft theorems in two effective field theories split into universal logarithmic terms, untouched by higher-dimensional operators, and finite local terms whose scale dependence is set by…

desk verdict New one-loop soft-theorem computations with a clean RG-running story, but the pion sector's 'one-loop exact' claim is asserted rather than proven and should be tightened before the paper is relied on. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08792 v1 pith:6JB24VV4 submitted 2026-08-09 hep-th

classification hep-th
keywords softtheoremseffectivefieldtheorysubleadingphotontheoremdouble-softpionrenormalizationgroupWilsoncoefficientschiralperturbationmassiveQED
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

Soft theorems tell us how amplitudes simplify when an external photon or pion momentum is taken to zero. The paper asks what happens to the subleading part of those theorems when the theory is an effective field theory with higher-dimensional operators, and it finds a clean split at one loop. The logarithmic soft terms stay universal—they are not changed by the higher-dimensional operators—while the finite local terms carry the operator dependence and run with the renormalization scale according to the Wilson coefficients' RG equations. The claim is demonstrated in two settings: massive QED with a Pauli operator, and the massless chiral EFT of SU(N) pions, where the one-loop double-soft pion theorem is computed here. If right, the pattern gives an organizing principle for subleading soft behavior: symmetry protects the logarithms, and the EFT dictates everything else.

What carries the argument

The central mechanisms are the Ward-Takahashi identity for the photon vertex and the current-algebra derivation of the pion soft factors, combined with a method-of-regions split of loop integrals into a soft region, where the loop momentum scales with the soft momentum and produces the universal $\log\tau$ terms, and a hard region, which produces analytic terms and, in the presence of the Pauli operator, UV-divergent contributions that renormalize the Wilson coefficients. The non-universal local structure is packaged in scalar coefficients—$F_M$ for the photon and $F(p_L,q_a;\tau)$ for the pion—and the requirement that the whole soft factor be $\mu$-independent converts into the RG equations for $C(\mu)$ and $L_i(\mu)$.

What would settle it

Compute the subleading double-soft pion factor at two loops in chiral EFT. If the coefficient of $\log\tau$ changes, or if a new structure appears that cannot be absorbed into the RG running of $L_3+2L_4$, the claimed one-loop exactness fails. A more direct check is an independent two-loop calculation of the six-pion amplitude's double-soft limit confirming or contradicting the $\beta$ function $-N/(192\pi^2)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In massive QED supplemented by the dimension-five Pauli operator, one-loop hard-region corrections make the finite part of the subleading soft photon factor $F_M = \frac{e}{2} - \frac{2 C m_p}{\Lambda} + \eta(e,C)\frac{m_p}{\Lambda}\log\frac{\mu^2}{m_p^2} + \xi$ in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, with $\eta(e,C) = \frac{C}{24\pi^2}(60 C^2 m_p^2/\Lambda^2 - 66 e C m_p/\Lambda + 17 e^2)$. The $\log\tau$ terms remain exactly those of minimal QED, and scale invariance of the soft factor requires $\mu\,dC/d\mu = \eta(e,C)$. In the chiral EFT, the corresponding double-soft factor is $F(p_L,q_a;\tau) = \alpha + \frac{N}{48\pi^2}\log\left(-\frac{f^2}{2 p_L\cdot q_a}\tau\right)$, with $\alpha = 8(L_3^r+2L_4^r) + \frac{N}{48\pi^2}\left(\frac{13}{6}+\log\frac{\mu^2}{f^2}\right)$; the coefficient of $\tau\log\tau$ is fixed by the NLSM alone, and $\mu\,\frac{d}{d\mu}(L_3^r+2L_4^r) = -\frac{N}{192\pi^2}$. The paper also derives the full flavor-dressed loop-level double-soft theorem and checks it against the six-pion amplitude at one loop, and it argues by chiral power counting that the pion result is one-loop exact.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that contributions from two-loop and higher pion diagrams cannot change the subleading soft factor, so the one-loop formula is exact; if that fails, the split between universal logarithms and running finite terms could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In QED with a Pauli operator, the $O(\log\tau)$ subleading soft photon terms remain universal at one loop; only the finite part of the subleading factor depends on $C(\mu)$, and it runs via $\mu\,dC/d\mu = \eta(e,C)$.
  • In chiral EFT, the $O(\tau\log\tau)$ double-soft pion logarithms are controlled entirely by the NLSM, while the finite term $\alpha$ is set by $L_3+2L_4$ and scales according to $\mu\,\frac{d}{d\mu}(L_3^r+2L_4^r) = -\frac{N}{192\pi^2}$.
  • Soft theorems can be evaluated at a natural scale—$\mu\approx m_p$ in QED and $\mu^2\sim\tau|2p\cdot q|$ for pions—so the logarithms are minimized and the finite terms absorb the running.
  • By chiral power counting, the one-loop double-soft pion theorem is exact: two-loop and higher contributions do not modify the subleading soft factor.
  • In massless QED, no EFT deformation can modify the subleading soft photon theorem without breaking the non-invertible axial symmetry, so the running structure described here is specific to massive theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same split holds more generally, subleading soft theorems in other symmetry-protected EFTs—graviton, gluon, or dilaton—could be classified by which terms are fixed by symmetry, which are universal logarithms, and which are running local data; the paper gestures at this possibility but does not prove it.
  • The claimed one-loop exactness of the pion result is a strong constraint that could be checked by an explicit two-loop computation of the double-soft limit; a nonzero two-loop contribution would not necessarily destroy the log/finite split but would require a modified power-counting story.
  • The RG equations for the finite coefficients give an amplitude-level window onto Wilson coefficients such as $L_3+L_4$: matching calculations performed at different scales should see the logarithms predicted here.
  • The suggested connection to field-space geometry raises the possibility that these finite coefficients will eventually be recognized as curvature invariants of the scalar field space; that interpretation is speculative and left for future work.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies one-loop corrections to subleading soft theorems in two EFTs: massive QED deformed by a dimension-five Pauli operator, and massless chiral EFT for SU(N) pions. In the photon case, the authors argue that hard-region loop corrections renormalize the local (finite) part of the subleading soft factor while leaving the logarithmic soft terms universal, and they identify the resulting RG equation for the Pauli coefficient with the known beta function. In the pion case, they propose that the subleading double-soft pion theorem separates into a universal τ log τ term, fixed by the NLSM, and a finite part controlled by the four-derivative Wilson coefficients L3 and L4, with the scale dependence of the finite part dictated by the one-loop RG equations. A flavor-dressed version of the pion theorem is given in Appendix B, and the authors report a check on the six-pion amplitude at one loop.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper offers a useful unifying perspective: subleading soft theorems in EFT admit a decomposition into universal non-analytic logarithms and running local terms, with the RG equations of the EFT controlling the latter. The QED part matches the known Pauli beta function, and the pion computation appears new. The paper is strongest where it provides explicit consistency checks—the cancellation of the μ-dependence in Eq. (35) via Eq. (34), and the matching of Eq. (18) with the literature. However, the pion result rests on an unproved one-loop exactness claim, and the actual one-loop computations are not shown.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, before Eq. (30)] The statement that 'employing power-counting arguments as in [9] for loops in the Chiral EFT, we can deduce that contributions from two loops and higher will not modify the subleading soft factor, thus Eq. (29) is one loop exact' is the load-bearing step for Eqs. (30)-(35) and the claimed RG separation. Reference [9] is a tree-level analysis, and no power-counting argument for loops is given. Two-loop integrals in a massless chiral EFT can in principle produce τ log^2 τ or τ log τ terms at the same soft order, so the vanishing of these contributions is a dynamical statement, not a trivial consequence of power counting. Please provide the proof, or qualify the claim as valid only up to the order explicitly computed.
  2. [Section II and Appendix B] The one-loop computation that yields Eqs. (30)-(31) and (B4)-(B5) is not presented. The text states that the authors 'compute the relevant soft form factors with current insertions' and 'verified the double-soft theorem explicitly for the six pion amplitude at one loop order,' but no integrals, integrands, or intermediate soft expansions are shown. Without these details the reader cannot independently verify the coefficients in the central formulas. Please include the calculation in the appendix or in a supplementary file.
  3. [Section I and Appendix A] The hard-region result for QED, Eq. (17) with η from Eq. (18), is stated to follow from 'explicit calculation,' but the one-loop integrals and counterterm structure are not displayed. Since this is the main new QED claim, the derivation should be sketched in enough detail to be checked, or the relevant integrals should be listed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction and Section I] The notation for the subleading soft factor changes between Eq. (1), where it is S^(1)_log and S^(1)_finite, and the displayed equation after Eq. (20), where the same objects are called S^(0)_log and S^(0)_finite. Please use a single convention.
  2. [Eq. (31)] The statement that α is a 'physical parameter defined at the scale f' is correct only because the log(µ^2/f^2) term is cancelled by the running of L3^r+2L4^r in Eq. (34); this should be said explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section II] The restriction to adjacent soft legs for flavor-ordered amplitudes is stated without derivation; a short explanation of how it follows from the flavor-dressed theorem in Appendix B would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix B] The trace notation T^{abcd} = ⟨t^a t^b t^c t^d⟩ is used in Eq. (B4) but the normalization ⟨t^a t^b⟩ = δ^{ab} is defined only in Section II; please restate it in the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the one-loop soft factors are computed against known beta functions and checked on the six-pion amplitude; the only self-citation, Ref. [42], is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivations do not reduce to their inputs. In Section I, F_M is obtained by explicit one-loop calculation in the MS scheme (Eqs. 16-18), and RG invariance (Eq. 20) then yields the Pauli beta function (Eq. 21), which is merely stated to be consistent with Ref. [33], not imported as the input that fixes F_M. In Section II, the universal first two lines of Eq. (29) follow the current-algebra framework of Ref. [42], which is co-authored by two of the present authors; this is a self-citation, but the new content of the paper, the one-loop function F(p_L,q_a;tau) in Eqs. (30)-(35), is computed from the chiral Lagrangian and checked against the six-pion amplitude at one loop and against the known Gasser-Leutwyler RG equation (Eq. 34). The log(tau) coefficient and the finite local terms are outputs of a calculation, not re-labeled inputs. The one point that warrants a correctness flag rather than a circularity charge is the assertion before Eq. (30) that power counting 'as in [9]' makes Eq. (29) one-loop exact; that non-renormalization statement is not demonstrated in the text and could affect the claimed separation if two-loop log corrections appeared. It is an unsupported premise, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard soft-limit and current-algebra technology, on the cited loop-level universality results for QED soft-region contributions, and on the chiral power-counting assumption that one-loop terms complete the subleading double-soft factor. No free parameters are fitted; the only undetermined quantity is the scheme-dependent constant xi in the QED soft factor.

free parameters (1)
  • xi
    UV-finite scheme-dependent constant in the one-loop soft photon factor F_M (Eq. 17). Its value is not fixed in the MS prescription used, so the displayed soft factor is not fully explicit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Soft-region contributions do not receive corrections from higher-dimensional operators at subleading order (QED).
    Used to isolate the hard-region contribution; taken from refs [12,14,15], not derived in this paper.
  • standard math The Ward-Takahashi identity fixes the longitudinal vertex and the leading soft factor is universal.
    Used in Appendix A (Eqs. A5-A7) to relate the longitudinal vertex to the inverse propagator.
  • domain assumption Two-loop and higher contributions do not modify the subleading double-soft pion factor (one-loop exactness).
    Invoked via power counting 'as in [9]' before Eq. (30); not demonstrated in the text.
  • domain assumption The axial current one-pion matrix element is fixed by symmetry to ⟨Ω|J^a_μ(0)|π^b(q)⟩ = i f q_μ δ^{ab}.
    Used in Appendix A (Eq. A20) to argue that f is unrenormalized and does not contribute to the L_i running.
  • domain assumption The RG equations for the O(p^4) Wilson coefficients L_i are those of Gasser-Leutwyler [22].
    Used in Eq. (34); taken as input from the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Running soft theorems in effective field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6JB24VV4

@misc{pith2026260808792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Running soft theorems in effective field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6JB24VV4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08792}
}
read the original abstract

We study soft theorems for photons and pions with local effective field theory (EFT) corrections up to one loop order. In massive QED with a dimension-five Pauli operator, the local analytic part of the subleading soft photon theorem is renormalized by the hard integration region. On the other hand, as was previously known, the logarithmic soft terms do not receive corrections from higher-dimensional operators. We find that analogous structure appears in the double-soft pion theorem: the coefficients of logarithmic contributions are controlled entirely by the Nonlinear Sigma Model (NLSM) Lagrangian, while the Wilson coefficients of four-derivative operators in Chiral EFT appear in local subleading terms, in a form that is dictated by their RG equations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08792 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Classification of radiative amplitudes into external [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The double-soft theorem of Eq. (27) corresponds to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Exploring the Landscape for Soft Theorems of Nonlinear Sigma Models

    L. Rodina and Z. Yin, Exploring the landscape for soft theorems of nonlinear sigma models, JHEP08, 096, arXiv:2102.08396 [hep-th]

  2. [1]

    Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Infrared photons and gravitons, Phys. Rev. 140, B516 (1965)

  3. [2]

    T. H. Burnett and N. M. Kroll, Extension of the low soft photon theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 86 (1968)

  4. [3]

    S. L. Adler, Consistency conditions on the strong inter- actions implied by a partially conserved axial vector cur- rent, Phys. Rev.137, B1022 (1965)

  5. [4]

    Weinberg, Current-Commutator Theory of Multiple Pion Production, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Current-Commutator Theory of Multiple Pion Production, Phys. Rev. Lett.16, 879 (1966)

  6. [5]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo, and J. Kaplan, What is the Simplest Quantum Field Theory?, JHEP09, 016, arXiv:0808.1446 [hep-th]

  7. [6]

    Kampf, J

    K. Kampf, J. Novotny, and J. Trnka, Tree-level Am- plitudes in the Nonlinear Sigma Model, JHEP05, 032, arXiv:1304.3048 [hep-th]

  8. [7]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan, New Double Soft Emission Theorems, Phys. Rev. D92, 065030 (2015), arXiv:1503.04816 [hep-th]

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Du and H

    Y.-J. Du and H. Luo, On single and double soft behaviors in NLSM, JHEP08, 058, arXiv:1505.04411 [hep-th]

  2. [10]

    Elvang, C

    H. Elvang, C. R. T. Jones, and S. G. Naculich, Soft Pho- ton and Graviton Theorems in Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 231601 (2017), arXiv:1611.07534 [hep-th]

  3. [11]

    Engel, A

    T. Engel, A. Signer, and Y. Ulrich, Universal structure of radiative QED amplitudes at one loop, JHEP04, 097, arXiv:2112.07570 [hep-ph]

  4. [12]

    Krishna and B

    H. Krishna and B. Sahoo, Universality of loop corrected soft theorems in 4d, JHEP11, 233, arXiv:2308.16807 [hep-th]

  5. [13]

    Laddha and A

    A. Laddha and A. Sen, Logarithmic Terms in the Soft Expansion in Four Dimensions, JHEP10, 056, arXiv:1804.09193 [hep-th]

  6. [14]

    Sahoo and A

    B. Sahoo and A. Sen, Classical and Quantum Results on Logarithmic Terms in the Soft Theorem in Four Dimen- sions, JHEP02, 086, arXiv:1808.03288 [hep-th]

  7. [15]

    Atul Bhatkar and B

    S. Atul Bhatkar and B. Sahoo, Subleading Soft Theo- rem for arbitrary number of external soft photons and gravitons, JHEP01, 153, arXiv:1809.01675 [hep-th]

  8. [16]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, P. Di Vecchia, and J. Nohle, Low-Energy Behavior of Gluons and Gravitons from Gauge Invariance, Phys. Rev. D90, 084035 (2014), arXiv:1406.6987 [hep-th]

  9. [17]

    F. E. Low, Bremsstrahlung of very low-energy quanta in elementary particle collisions, Phys. Rev.110, 974 (1958)

  10. [18]

    D. R. Yennie, S. C. Frautschi, and H. Suura, The in- frared divergence phenomena and high-energy processes, Annals Phys.13, 379 (1961)

  11. [19]

    Engel, The LBK theorem to all orders, JHEP07, 177, arXiv:2304.11689 [hep-ph]

    T. Engel, The LBK theorem to all orders, JHEP07, 177, arXiv:2304.11689 [hep-ph]. 11

  12. [20]

    Engel, Multiple soft-photon emission at next- to-leading power to all orders, JHEP03, 004, arXiv:2311.17612 [hep-ph]

    T. Engel, Multiple soft-photon emission at next- to-leading power to all orders, JHEP03, 004, arXiv:2311.17612 [hep-ph]

  13. [21]

    Del Duca, High-energy Bremsstrahlung Theorems for Soft Photons, Nucl

    V. Del Duca, High-energy Bremsstrahlung Theorems for Soft Photons, Nucl. Phys. B345, 369 (1990)

  14. [22]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop, Annals Phys.158, 142 (1984)

  15. [23]

    H. H. Patel, Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.197, 276 (2015), arXiv:1503.01469 [hep-ph]

  16. [24]

    H. H. Patel, Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun.218, 66 (2017), arXiv:1612.00009 [hep- ph]

  17. [25]

    Z. Bern, S. Davies, and J. Nohle, On Loop Corrections to Subleading Soft Behavior of Gluons and Gravitons, Phys. Rev. D90, 085015 (2014), arXiv:1405.1015 [hep-th]

  18. [26]

    Broedel, M

    J. Broedel, M. de Leeuw, J. Plefka, and M. Rosso, Local contributions to factorized soft graviton theorems at loop level, Phys. Lett. B746, 293 (2015), arXiv:1411.2230 [hep-th]

  19. [27]

    Bonocore, E

    D. Bonocore, E. Laenen, L. Magnea, L. Vernazza, and C. D. White, The method of regions and next-to-soft cor- rections in Drell–Yan production, Phys. Lett. B742, 375 (2015), arXiv:1410.6406 [hep-ph]

  20. [28]

    Aebischer, W

    J. Aebischer, W. Dekens, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, D. Sengupta, and P. Stoffer, Effective field theory inter- pretation of lepton magnetic and electric dipole moments, JHEP07, 107, arXiv:2102.08954 [hep-ph]

  21. [29]

    A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill, and I. W. Stewart, Soft The- orems from Effective Field Theory, JHEP06, 077, arXiv:1412.3108 [hep-th]

  22. [30]

    N. N. Bogolyubov and D. V. Shirkov, Charge renormal- ization group in quantum field theory, Nuovo Cim.3, 845 (1956)

  23. [31]

    Weinberg, Photons and Gravitons inS-Matrix The- ory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Photons and Gravitons inS-Matrix The- ory: Derivation of Charge Conservation and Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass, Phys. Rev.135, B1049 (1964)

  24. [32]

    Laddha and P

    A. Laddha and P. Mitra, Asymptotic Symmetries and Subleading Soft Photon Theorem in Effective Field The- ories, JHEP05, 132, arXiv:1709.03850 [hep-th]

  25. [33]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, Low- Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Anomalous Dimensions, JHEP01, 084, [Erratum: JHEP 12, 042 (2023)], arXiv:1711.05270 [hep-ph]

  26. [34]

    Y. Ma, G. Sterman, and A. Venkata, Soft Photon Theo- rem in QCD with Massless Quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091902 (2024), arXiv:2311.06912 [hep-ph]

  27. [35]

    Vernazza, Factorization and resummation at next- to-leading-power, PoSRADCOR2023, 050 (2024), arXiv:2312.05553 [hep-ph]

    L. Vernazza, Factorization and resummation at next- to-leading-power, PoSRADCOR2023, 050 (2024), arXiv:2312.05553 [hep-ph]

  28. [36]

    Laenen, J

    E. Laenen, J. Sinninghe Damst´ e, L. Vernazza, W. Waalewijn, and L. Zoppi, Towards all-order factoriza- tion of QED amplitudes at next-to-leading power, Phys. Rev. D103, 034022 (2021), arXiv:2008.01736 [hep-ph]

  29. [37]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, Infrared singularities of scattering amplitudes in perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 162001 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 199905 (2013)], arXiv:0901.0722 [hep-ph]

  30. [38]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Noninvertible Global Symmetries in the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 161601 (2022), arXiv:2205.05086 [hep-th]

  31. [39]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Noninvertible Chiral Sym- metry and Exponential Hierarchies, Phys. Rev. X13, 011034 (2023), arXiv:2205.06243 [hep-th]

  32. [40]

    Bartsch, K

    C. Bartsch, K. Kampf, and J. Trnka, Recursion relations for one-loop Goldstone boson amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 076008 (2022), arXiv:2206.04694 [hep-th]

  33. [41]

    Bartsch, K

    C. Bartsch, K. Kampf, J. Novotny, and J. Trnka, All-loop soft theorem for pions, Phys. Rev. D110, 045009 (2024), arXiv:2401.04731 [hep-th]

  34. [42]

    Berean-Dutcher, M

    J. Berean-Dutcher, M. Derda, and J. Parra-Martinez, Soft theorems from higher symmetries, JHEP03, 193, arXiv:2505.03566 [hep-th]

  35. [43]

    Low, Double Soft Theorems and Shift Symmetry in Nonlinear Sigma Models, Phys

    I. Low, Double Soft Theorems and Shift Symmetry in Nonlinear Sigma Models, Phys. Rev. D93, 045032 (2016), arXiv:1512.01232 [hep-th]

  36. [44]

    Cohen, I

    T. Cohen, I. Fadakar, A. Helset, and F. Nardi, Ge- ometry of soft scalars at one loop, JHEP08, 140, arXiv:2504.12371 [hep-th]

  37. [45]

    A. L. Guerrieri, J. Penedones, and P. Vieira, S-matrix bootstrap for effective field theories: massless pions, JHEP06, 088, arXiv:2011.02802 [hep-th]

  38. [46]

    Cohen, P

    T. Cohen, P. Hager, and A. Helset, geoSCET: Soft The- orems from Power Counting, (2026), arXiv:2607.27322 [hep-th]

  39. [47]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Geometry of the Scalar Sector, JHEP08, 101, arXiv:1605.03602 [hep-ph]

  40. [48]

    Alonso, K

    R. Alonso, K. Kanshin, and S. Saa, Renormalization group evolution of Higgs effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D97, 035010 (2018), arXiv:1710.06848 [hep-ph]

  41. [49]

    Helset, E

    A. Helset, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Renor- malization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory from geometry, JHEP02, 063, arXiv:2212.03253 [hep- ph]. 12

  42. [50]

    B. Assi, A. Helset, A. V. Manohar, J. Pag` es, and C.-H. Shen, Fermion geometry and the renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP11, 201, arXiv:2307.03187 [hep-ph]

  43. [51]

    Aigner, L

    P. Aigner, L. Bellafronte, E. Gendy, D. Haslehner, and A. Weiler, Renormalising the field-space geometry, JHEP 07, 167, arXiv:2503.09785 [hep-th]

  44. [52]

    B. Assi, A. Helset, J. Pag` es, and C.-H. Shen, Renormal- izing two-fermion operators in the SMEFT via superge- ometry, JHEP12, 082, arXiv:2504.18537 [hep-ph]

Pith tools

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