Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 93 references

Bare effective potential and Goldstone boson anti-resummation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By treating the Goldstone-boson squared mass as a two-point vertex rather than a propagator mass, the paper removes the infrared singularities and spurious imaginary parts that plague multi-loop effective-potential calculations and…

desk verdict A genuinely useful bookkeeping reorganization that kills the Goldstone IR problem in the bare effective potential; the three-loop check is solid, but the general-observable equivalence is asserted, not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04182 v1 pith:7UPAG6E4 submitted 2026-08-04 hep-ph

Stephen P. Martin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords effectivepotentialGoldstonebosonanti-resummationtadpole-freeschemeMSrenormalizationStandardModelthree-looporderpolemass
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a reorganization of perturbation theory, called Goldstone boson anti-resummation, in which the squared mass of every Goldstone boson is removed from its propagator and treated as a two-point interaction vertex. Each power of the Goldstone squared mass is counted as one additional loop order, and the infinite series is deliberately not resummed. In this organization every intermediate expression contains only non-negative integer powers of the Goldstone mass, so the logarithms, inverse powers, and spurious imaginary parts that characterize the usual Goldstone catastrophe never appear. The paper shows that the resulting bare effective-potential minimization condition, after $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization, reproduces the previously known resummed tadpole-free condition through three-loop order, while also supplying the positive-$\epsilon$ terms needed for upcoming three-loop calculations of the Higgs, $W$, and $Z$ pole masses. Explicit rules and Standard Model results are given through three loops, with an extension to two-Higgs-doublet models such as the MSSM.

What carries the argument

The central object is the anti-resummation replacement rule of eq. (1.23): a Goldstone propagator $1/(p^2+G_B)$ is expanded as an alternating power series in $G_B/(p^2)^k$, with each factor of $G_B$ counted as one loop order and the series cut off at the target order. This turns one resummed diagram into many diagrams whose Goldstone propagators are exactly massless. The machinery that carries the calculation is a set of replacement rules for the master vacuum integrals $A$, $I$, $F$, $G$, $H$ (and the derived $H'$) when one or more mass arguments are Goldstones, together with integration-by-parts identities that keep the master-integral basis $\epsilon$-finite. For the Standard Model, the bare two-loop potential is given explicitly as $V_B^{(2,0)} + G_B V_B^{(2,1)} + G_B^2 V_B^{(2,2)} + \cdots$, and the minimization condition is solved by matching powers of $\kappa$ to obtain $\Delta_B^{(n)}$.

What would settle it

Compute the three-loop pole mass of the $W$ or $Z$ boson (or the scalar) both with the anti-resummation rules and with a conventional resummation of Goldstone diagrams, renormalizing in $\overline{\rm MS}$ and imposing the tadpole-free condition; the central claim is false if the two results differ by any term proportional to a positive or negative power of the Goldstone squared mass, or by a nonzero finite remainder, at order $\kappa^3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing every Goldstone-boson propagator according to $1/(p^2+G_B) \to 1/p^2 - G_B/(p^2)^2 + G_B^2/(p^2)^3 - \cdots$, with each power of $G_B$ assigned an extra loop factor and the series truncated rather than summed, defines a consistent alternative organization of perturbation theory. The arrow is a prescription, not a diagram-by-diagram equality. In this scheme the one-loop Goldstone diagrams drop out, and the bare effective potential is a double series in the loop-counting parameter $\kappa$ and in non-negative integer powers of $G_B$. The minimization condition $G_B = -\sum_{n\ge 1} \kappa^n \Delta_B^{(n)}$ then determines $G_B$ order by order with $\Delta_B^{(n)}$ independent of $G_B$. After $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization of the Standard Model, this reproduces the resummed tadpole-free condition of previous work through three loops; the difference is that the bare quantities retain positive powers of $\epsilon$ that the renormalized condition discards, and these are exactly the terms needed when $G_B$ is substituted into bare three-loop calculations of pole masses.

Load-bearing premise

The method's load-bearing premise, introduced at the replacement rule of eq. (1.23), is that truncating the expanded Goldstone propagator series at a fixed loop order, counting each extra power of the Goldstone squared mass as one loop, gives the same physical predictions as the standard resummation; this equivalence is verified for the effective-potential minimum through three loops, but for pole masses and scattering amplitudes it is asserted rather than proved to all orders.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the effective potential, all intermediate expressions contain only non-negative integer powers of the Goldstone squared mass, so no spurious imaginary parts or $1/G$ singularities appear at any loop order.
  • The bare tadpole-free condition through three-loop order is provided as an explicit expansion in $\epsilon$, and it reduces to the known resummed renormalized condition in the $\epsilon\to 0$ limit, validating the reorganization for the effective-potential minimum.
  • The positive-$\epsilon$ terms in $\widetilde{\Delta}_B^{(n,k)}$ that drop out of the renormalized condition are the ingredient needed to complete the three-loop pole masses of the Higgs, $W$, and $Z$ bosons in the tadpole-free scheme.
  • The paper states that the same anti-resummation rules apply to pole masses, decay rates, and scattering amplitudes, so those quantities should also be free of Goldstone logarithms and negative powers.
  • For theories with several VEVs, such as the MSSM, the Goldstone masses are expanded in the tree-level tadpole quantities $G_u$ and $G_d$, and the same double-series structure with only non-negative integer powers holds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • In my reading, an implication the paper leaves implicit is that if the fixed-order equivalence extends beyond the effective potential, three-loop pole-mass calculations should become purely rational in the Goldstone sector, with the only transcendental functions coming from the non-Goldstone master integrals; this is a testable organizational simplification.
  • A natural next test is a four-loop Standard Model effective-potential calculation, where the original resummation problem first exhibits $1/G$ behavior in the untransformed series; reproducing the resummed minimum at that order would extend the check beyond the three-loop verification in Section V.
  • The comparison in Section III with the hard/soft Goldstone split suggests that the soft-Goldstone logarithms of that approach are an artifact of its organization, since anti-resummation obtains the same renormalized results with no such logarithms; my inference is that any equivalent scheme must absorb those logarithms into the renormalized scale dependence rather than into physical observables.
  • Because the replacement rule is a prescription and not an equality, its application to off-shell quantities such as self-energies may depend on how external momentum is routed through the massless Goldstone lines; checking the one-loop Goldstone self-energy against the standard result would isolate whether any routing-dependent subtlety exists.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reorganization of perturbation theory for the Standard Model and related theories, in which the bare squared mass of every Goldstone boson is removed from the propagator and treated as a two-point interaction vertex, with each power of the Goldstone mass counted as an additional loop order. The bare effective potential is then a power series in non-negative integer powers of the bare Goldstone mass, avoiding the intermediate logarithms, imaginary parts, and inverse powers that appear in conventional Goldstone resummation. The paper gives general two-loop bare effective-potential formulas, replacement rules for the relevant master integrals through three loops, and explicit Standard Model results for the bare tadpole-free minimization condition, including the epsilon-dependent coefficients needed for future three-loop pole-mass calculations. After MS renormalization, the finite part of this condition is stated to reproduce the previously known resummed Delta^(n) of ref. [8] through three loops. A sketch for the MSSM with two VEVs is also provided.

Significance. If the fixed-order equivalence underlying the method is correct, this is a practically useful reorganization for the ongoing program of three-loop Standard Model calculations in the tadpole-free scheme. The paper contains substantial explicit material: printed two-loop expressions, a complete set of Goldstone replacement rules in ancillary files, and a nontrivial pole-cancellation structure in eqs. (5.30)-(5.35). The recovery of the previously known minimization condition through three loops is a strong consistency check and gives the result in a form that is more directly usable for observables. However, the central limitation is that this equivalence is verified only for the effective-potential minimization condition; the extension to general observables such as pole masses is asserted rather than proved, and the announced application to three-loop pole masses depends on that unproven step.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, eqs. (3.2)-(3.5), and Section VII] The fixed-order equivalence of the anti-resummation prescription for observables beyond the effective-potential minimum is asserted but not established. The replacement rules A(G_B)->0 and I(0,0,G_B)->0 discard non-analytic dependence that, in the conventional organization, is not a power series in G_B. For the effective-potential minimization problem, Section V shows through three loops that the discarded information is reorganized into the G-independent Delta^(n), but no analogous check is given for an on-shell self-energy at nonzero external momentum, where a dropped non-analytic contribution is not automatically reproduced by the two-point vertices plus the solution (1.30). Since the announced purpose of the method is three-loop pole-mass calculations, this is a load-bearing gap. Please either give a proof (for example, an inductive argument showing that, after substituting eq. (1.30) and expanding to fixed order in kappa, the difference from the conventional resummed result is beyond the working order for any Green function), or provide a nontrivial cross-check such as a complete three-loop pole-mass comparison with an independent method, or restrict the claims and state the extension as conjectural.
  2. [Section I, eqs. (1.23) and (1.29)] The power counting that assigns one additional factor of kappa to each power of G_B implicitly assumes G_B = O(kappa). This is true near the tree-level minimum, where G_B vanishes at zeroth order, but it is not true for arbitrary field configurations. The Introduction lists applications such as tunneling and phase transitions, where the effective potential is needed away from the minimum, and the text does not state the validity regime of the expansion. Please specify that the anti-resummation series is an expansion about the tree-level minimum and discuss its domain of validity, or justify the truncation for large G_B if that is intended.
  3. [Section V, eqs. (5.19)-(5.38)] The central three-loop consistency check is presented largely through ancillary files. The printed text gives the structural pole-cancellation equalities (5.30)-(5.35), but the actual recovery of the finite Delta^(n) of ref. [8] from the eDelta^(n,k) coefficients is not exhibited. Since this is the main nontrivial validation of the method, please include at least one representative three-loop term, for example a non-trivial contribution to eDelta^(3,0) and its combination in eq. (5.38) that illustrates the cancellation of A_epsilon and I_epsilon functions, so that a reader can verify the claim without re-deriving the entire ancillary files.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.8)] In Section II the two-loop bare effective potential is written as V^(2) without the subscript B, although all quantities in that section are bare; eqs. (2.9)-(2.26) similarly use unsubscripted functions. Please make the notation consistent.
  2. [Footnotes in Sections I and II] The footnote about seeking legal advice after learning only counterterm diagrams, and the footnote calling f_F F V(x,y,0)=0 an amusing fact, are not appropriate for a journal article and should be removed or rewritten in a neutral style.
  3. [Section III, eqs. (3.17)-(3.19)] The variable s=-p^2 is used in the self-energy replacement rules before it is defined. Please define s when the Passarino-Veltman function B(x,y) is introduced in eq. (3.16).
  4. [Section V, eqs. (5.11)-(5.16)] The omission of the B subscript in six displayed equations, with a parenthetical remark, is understandable but could confuse readers; a boxed statement or a consistently primed notation would be clearer.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The text uses 'MS' where the modified minimal subtraction scheme is meant; in a journal with a broad readership, \(\overline{\rm MS}\) should be used at least at first occurrence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the anti-resummation results are derived from the stated prescription and cross-checked, not fitted or assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The anti-resummation prescription in eq. (1.23) is an explicit reorganization of perturbation theory, and all subsequent quantities — V_B^(n), δ_B^(n,j), Δ_B^(n), and the ϵ-expanded eΔ^(n,k) — are computed from that prescription by fixed-order substitution and diagrammatic master-integral rules, not by fitting to any target observable. The recovery of the previously known Δ^(n) from ref. [8] in eqs. (5.36)-(5.38) is presented as a consistency check after independent derivation, not as an input used to define the method; the positive-ϵ pieces eΔ^(1,1), eΔ^(1,2), and eΔ^(2,1) are new output of the present calculation. Self-citations for beta functions, master integrals, and the 3VIL code are background tools with independent derivations or public code, and none of them is used to force the central claim. The feature that only non-negative integer powers of the Goldstone mass appear is a direct consequence of the defining replacement (1.23), so it is a property of the proposed scheme rather than a disguised prediction. The skeptical concern that the equivalence for general observables such as pole masses and amplitudes is asserted for future work rather than proved in this paper is a completeness or correctness risk, not a circularity, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger contains no numerical fits. The central assumption is the organizational rule that G_B powers are loop-suppressed, plus standard tooling assumptions such as dimensional regularization, MS renormalization, Landau gauge, known beta functions, and master integrals. The only invented bookkeeping object is the G_B two-point vertex, which is not a physical entity.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Dimensional regularization in d = 4 - 2 epsilon and MS renormalization via parameter redefinitions are valid for the Standard Model and MSSM calculations.
    Used throughout, beginning in Section I and formalized in eqs. (1.14)-(1.18).
  • domain assumption Landau gauge is used for all explicit Standard Model results.
    The method's validity in other gauges is not demonstrated; the paper cites refs. [30,31] for gauge dependence of the effective potential.
  • ad hoc to paper Goldstone-boson squared masses are effectively loop-suppressed, so each power of G_B can be assigned an additional factor of kappa and the geometric series in eq. (1.23) can be truncated order-by-order.
    This is the defining premise of anti-resummation. It is motivated by eq. (1.6) near the tree-level minimum, but the fixed-order equivalence to standard resummation for general observables is not proved to all orders.
  • domain assumption The counterterm coefficients c^X_{n,k} derived from the known beta functions are correct through three-loop order.
    Used to convert bare to MS parameters; provided in SMcounters.txt and taken from prior literature, much of it self-cited.
  • standard math The master vacuum integrals A, I, F, G, H and their epsilon expansions from ref. [85] are correct, and the integration-by-parts identities are valid.
    Underpins all three-loop replacement rules and the epsilon-finite basis; the author used the public program KIRA to derive or check many results.
  • domain assumption In the Standard Model application, all Yukawa couplings except the top quark are neglected.
    Stated in Section V; this is an approximation for the explicit results, not a limitation of the method.
invented entities (1)
  • Goldstone-boson two-point interaction vertex proportional to G_B
    purpose: Repackages the Goldstone squared mass as an interaction insertion so Goldstone propagators are exactly massless in the anti-resummation scheme.
    This is a bookkeeping device rather than a new physical degree of freedom. It has no falsifiable signature of its own; its validity is judged by the consistency of the reorganized perturbation theory with conventional resummation results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bare effective potential and Goldstone boson anti-resummation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UPAG6E4

@misc{pith2026260804182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bare effective potential and Goldstone boson anti-resummation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UPAG6E4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04182}
}
abstract

I discuss the evaluation of the effective potential and related quantities starting from bare perturbation theory followed by $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ renormalization. The advantages of this method include a simple new way of avoiding infrared problems associated with Goldstone bosons, by treating their bare masses as two-point interaction vertices instead of incorporating them into the propagators. Thus, only positive integer powers of the Goldstone-boson masses appear at every stage of calculation, completely avoiding the imaginary parts and singularities encountered in intermediate steps of previous resummation methods. This Goldstone boson anti-resummation approach is implemented using simple rules provided through three-loop order in terms of the master vacuum integrals. Explicit results are given for the Standard Model at three-loop order. The method is shown to give effective potential minimization conditions that are consistent with previous resummation methods, but in a form more directly useful for related future multi-loop calculations of observables in the tadpole-free scheme.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Resummation of Goldstone Infrared Divergences: A Proof to All Orders

    J. R. Espinosa and T. Konstandin, “Resummation of Goldstone Infrared Divergences: A Proof to All Orders,” Phys. Rev. D97, no.5, 056020 (2018) [arXiv:1712.08068 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [8]

    Effective potential at three loops,

    S. P. Martin, “Effective potential at three loops,” Phys. Rev. D96, no.9, 096005 (2017) [arXiv:1709.02397 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [1]

    Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D7, 1888-1910 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 1973

  4. [2]

    Functional evaluation of the effective potential,

    R. Jackiw, “Functional evaluation of the effective potential,” Phys. Rev. D9, 1686 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1686

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.1686 1974

  5. [3]

    Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability,

    M. Sher, “Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability,” Phys. Rept.179, 273-418 (1989) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90061-6

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90061-6 1989

  6. [4]

    Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions,

    M. Quiros, “Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions,” [arXiv:hep-ph/9901312 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  7. [5]

    An introduction to effective potential methods in field theory,

    I. Masina and M. Quiros, “An introduction to effective potential methods in field theory,” [arXiv:2501.12713 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  8. [6]

    The Standard model effective potential at two loops,

    C. Ford, I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, “The Standard model effective potential at two loops,” Nucl. Phys. B387, 373-390 (1992) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B504, 551-552 (1997)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0111190 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1992

Show all 93 references
  1. [7]

    Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,

    S. P. Martin, “Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D65, 116003 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0111209 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Three-loop effective potential for softly broken supersymmetry,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-loop effective potential for softly broken supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D109, no.1, 015019 (2024) [arXiv:2311.09372 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Two-loop effective potential for generalized gauge fixing,

    S. P. Martin and H. H. Patel, “Two-loop effective potential for generalized gauge fixing,” Phys. Rev. D98, no.7, 076008 (2018) [arXiv:1808.07615 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Three-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in Strong and Top Yukawa Couplings,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in Strong and Top Yukawa Couplings,” Phys. Rev. D89, no.1, 013003 (2014) [arXiv:1310.7553 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Four-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in QCD,

    S. P. Martin, “Four-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in QCD,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.5, 054029 (2015) [arXiv:1508.00912 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Dimensional Renormalization: The Number of Dimensions as a Regularizing Parameter,

    C. G. Bollini and J. J. Giambiagi, “Dimensional Renormalization: The Number of Dimensions as a Regularizing Parameter,” Nuovo Cim. B12, 20-26 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF02895558

    1972 doi

  7. [14]

    Lowest order divergent graphs in nu-dimensional space,

    C. G. Bollini and J. J. Giambiagi, “Lowest order divergent graphs in nu-dimensional space,” Phys. Lett. B40, 566-568 (1972) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(72)90483-2

    1972 doi

  8. [15]

    A Method of Gauge Invariant Regularization,

    J. F. Ashmore, “A Method of Gauge Invariant Regularization,” Lett. Nuovo Cim.4, 289-290 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF02824407

    1972 doi

  9. [16]

    Analytic renormalization via continuous space dimension,

    G. M. Cicuta and E. Montaldi, “Analytic renormalization via continuous space dimension,” Lett. Nuovo Cim.4, 329-332 (1972) doi:10.1007/BF02756527

    1972 doi

  10. [17]

    Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields,

    G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, “Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B44, 189-213 (1972) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(72)90279-9

    1972 doi

  11. [18]

    Dimensional regularization and the renormalization group,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional regularization and the renormalization group,” Nucl. Phys. B61, 455-468 (1973) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90376-3

    1973 doi

  12. [19]

    Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization via Dimensional Reduction,

    W. Siegel, “Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization via Dimensional Reduction,” Phys. Lett. B 84, 193-196 (1979) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(79)90282-X 35

    1979 doi

  13. [20]

    Regularization by Dimensional Reduc- tion of Supersymmetric and Nonsupersymmetric Gauge Theories,

    D. M. Capper, D. R. T. Jones and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Regularization by Dimensional Reduc- tion of Supersymmetric and Nonsupersymmetric Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B167, 479-499 (1980) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(80)90244-8

    1980 doi

  14. [21]

    Regularization of supersymmetric theories,

    I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, “Regularization of supersymmetric theories,” Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.21, 494-513 (2010) [arXiv:hep-ph/9707278 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Inconsistency of Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization,

    W. Siegel, “Inconsistency of Supersymmetric Dimensional Regularization,” Phys. Lett. B94, 37-40 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90819-9

    1980 doi

  16. [23]

    Dimensional Regularization and Supersymmetry,

    L. V. Avdeev and A. A. Vladimirov, “Dimensional Regularization and Supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B219, 262-276 (1983) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90437-6

    1983 doi

  17. [24]

    Decoupling of the epsilon scalar mass in softly broken supersymmetry,

    I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, S. P. Martin, M. T. Vaughn and Y. Yamada, “Decoupling of the epsilon scalar mass in softly broken supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D50, R5481-R5483 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9407291 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Regularization by dimensional reduction: consistency, quantum action principle, and supersymmetry,

    D. Stockinger, “Regularization by dimensional reduction: consistency, quantum action principle, and supersymmetry,” JHEP03, 076 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0503129 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Deep Inelastic Scattering Beyond the Leading Order in Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories,

    W. A. Bardeen, A. J. Buras, D. W. Duke and T. Muta, “Deep Inelastic Scattering Beyond the Leading Order in Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. D18, 3998 (1978) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3998

    1978 doi

  20. [27]

    Minimal Subtraction and Momentum Subtraction in QCD at Two Loop Order,

    E. Braaten and J. P. Leveille, “Minimal Subtraction and Momentum Subtraction in QCD at Two Loop Order,” Phys. Rev. D24, 1369 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1369

    1981 doi

  21. [28]

    Taming the Goldstone contributions to the effective potential,

    S. P. Martin, “Taming the Goldstone contributions to the effective potential,” Phys. Rev. D90, no.1, 016013 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2355 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Taming Infrared Divergences in the Effective Po- tential,

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa and T. Konstandin, “Taming Infrared Divergences in the Effective Po- tential,” JHEP08, 034 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2652 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Consistent Use of Effective Potentials,

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost and M. D. Schwartz, “Consistent Use of Effective Potentials,” Phys. Rev. D 91, no.1, 016009 (2015) [arXiv:1408.0287 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Interplay of Infrared Divergences and Gauge-Dependence of the Effective Potential,

    J. R. Espinosa, M. Garny and T. Konstandin, “Interplay of Infrared Divergences and Gauge-Dependence of the Effective Potential,” Phys. Rev. D94, no.5, 055026 (2016) [arXiv:1607.08432 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Symmetry-Improved 2PI Approach to the Goldstone-Boson IR Problem of the SM Effective Potential,

    A. Pilaftsis and D. Teresi, “Symmetry-Improved 2PI Approach to the Goldstone-Boson IR Problem of the SM Effective Potential,” Nucl. Phys. B906, 381-407 (2016) [arXiv:1511.05347 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Resummation of Goldstone boson contributions to the MSSM effective potential,

    N. Kumar and S. P. Martin, “Resummation of Goldstone boson contributions to the MSSM effective potential,” Phys. Rev. D94, no.1, 014013 (2016) [arXiv:1605.02059 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Avoiding the Goldstone Boson Catastrophe in general renormalisable field theories at two loops,

    J. Braathen and M. D. Goodsell, “Avoiding the Goldstone Boson Catastrophe in general renormalisable field theories at two loops,” JHEP12, 056 (2016) [arXiv:1609.06977 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Exact RG Invariance and Symmetry Improved 2PI Effective Potential,

    A. Pilaftsis and D. Teresi, “Exact RG Invariance and Symmetry Improved 2PI Effective Potential,” Nucl. Phys. B920, 298-318 (2017) [arXiv:1703.02079 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric models without catastrophic Goldstone bosons,

    J. Braathen, M. D. Goodsell and F. Staub, “Supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric models without catastrophic Goldstone bosons,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.11, 757 (2017) [arXiv:1706.05372 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    On the relationship between gauge dependence and IR divergences in the ¯h-expansion of the effective potential,

    A. Ekstedt and J. L¨ ofgren, “On the relationship between gauge dependence and IR divergences in the ¯h-expansion of the effective potential,” JHEP01, 226 (2019) [arXiv:1810.01416 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Standard model parameters in the tadpole-free pure MS scheme,

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, “Standard model parameters in the tadpole-free pure MS scheme,” Phys. Rev. D100, no.7, 073004 (2019) [arXiv:1907.02500 [hep-ph]]. The latest version of theSMDRcode can be obtained from https://github.com/davidgrobertson/SMDRorhttps://www.niu.e...

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Standard model at 200 GeV,

    Z. Alam and S. P. Martin, “Standard model at 200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. D107, no.1, 013010 (2023) [arXiv:2211.08576 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Higgs boson mass in the Standard Model at two-loop order and beyond,

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, “Higgs boson mass in the Standard Model at two-loop order and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D90, no.7, 073010 (2014) [arXiv:1407.4336 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Pole Mass of the W Boson at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M SScheme,

    S. P. Martin, “Pole Mass of the W Boson at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M SScheme,” Phys. Rev. D 91, no.11, 114003 (2015) [arXiv:1503.03782 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Z-Boson Pole Mass at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M SScheme,

    S. P. Martin, “Z-Boson Pole Mass at Two-Loop Order in the Pure M SScheme,” Phys. Rev. D92, no.1, 014026 (2015) [arXiv:1505.04833 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Three-loop QCD corrections to the electroweak boson masses,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-loop QCD corrections to the electroweak boson masses,” Phys. Rev. D106, no.1, 013007 (2022) [arXiv:2203.05042 [hep-ph]]. 36

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The Pole Mass in Perturbative QCD,

    R. Tarrach, “The Pole Mass in Perturbative QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B183, 384-396 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90140-1

    1981 doi

  38. [46]

    Three Loop Relation of Quark (Modified) Ms and Pole Masses,

    N. Gray, D. J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe and K. Schilcher, “Three Loop Relation of Quark (Modified) Ms and Pole Masses,” Z. Phys. C48, 673-680 (1990) doi:10.1007/BF01614703

    1990 doi

  39. [47]

    The Three loop relation between the MS-bar and the pole quark masses,

    K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, “The Three loop relation between the MS-bar and the pole quark masses,” Phys. Lett. B482, 99-108 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9912391 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Quark Mass Relations to Four-Loop Order in Perturbative QCD,

    P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and M. Steinhauser, “Quark Mass Relations to Four-Loop Order in Perturbative QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114, no.14, 142002 (2015) [arXiv:1502.01030 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Top-quark pole mass in the tadpole-free M Sscheme,

    S. P. Martin, “Top-quark pole mass in the tadpole-free M Sscheme,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.9, 094017 (2016) [arXiv:1604.01134 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Two Loop Diagrams in Yang-Mills Theory,

    D. R. T. Jones, “Two Loop Diagrams in Yang-Mills Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B75, 531 (1974) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90093-5

    1974 doi

  43. [51]

    Asymptotic Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories to Two Loop Order,

    W. E. Caswell, “Asymptotic Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories to Two Loop Order,” Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 244 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.244

    1974 doi

  44. [52]

    The Two Loop beta Function for a G(1) x G(2) Gauge Theory,

    D. R. T. Jones, “The Two Loop beta Function for a G(1) x G(2) Gauge Theory,” Phys. Rev. D25, 581 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.581

    1982 doi

  45. [53]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,” Nucl. Phys. B222, 83-103 (1983) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90610-7

    1983 doi

  46. [55]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quan- tum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quan- tum Field Theory. 3. Scalar Quartic Couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B249, 70-92 (1985) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(85)90040-9

    1985 doi

  47. [56]

    Two loop renormalization group equations in the standard model,

    M. x. Luo and Y. Xiao, “Two loop renormalization group equations in the standard model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 011601 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0207271 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  48. [57]

    The Gell-Mann-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation,

    O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, “The Gell-Mann-Low Function of QCD in the Three Loop Approximation,” Phys. Lett. B93, 429-432 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90358-5

    1980 doi

  49. [58]

    The Three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous dimensions,

    S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, “The Three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B303, 334-336 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9302208 [hep-ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Gauge Coupling Beta Functions in the Standard Model to Three Loops,

    L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, “Gauge Coupling Beta Functions in the Standard Model to Three Loops,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 151602 (2012) [arXiv:1201.5868 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Renormalization constants and beta functions for the gauge couplings of the Standard Model to three-loop order,

    L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon and M. Steinhauser, “Renormalization constants and beta functions for the gauge couplings of the Standard Model to three-loop order,” Phys. Rev. D86, 096008 (2012) [arXiv:1208.3357 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Anomalous dimensions of gauge fields and gauge coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Anomalous dimensions of gauge fields and gauge coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,” JHEP01, 017 (2013) [arXiv:1210.6873 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [62]

    The Four loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,

    T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, “The Four loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Lett. B400, 379-384 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9701390 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  54. [63]

    The Four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous dimensions,

    M. Czakon, “The Four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B710, 485- 498 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0411261 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the Standard Model,

    A. V. Bednyakov and A. F. Pikelner, “Four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B762, 151-156 (2016) [arXiv:1508.02680 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [65]

    On the four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the SM,

    A. V. Bednyakov and A. F. Pikelner, “On the four-loop strong coupling beta-function in the SM,” EPJ Web Conf.125, 04008 (2016) [arXiv:1609.02597 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Top-Yukawa effects on theβ-function of the strong coupling in the SM at four-loop level,

    M. F. Zoller, “Top-Yukawa effects on theβ-function of the strong coupling in the SM at four-loop level,” JHEP02, 095 (2016) [arXiv:1508.03624 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Weyl Consistency Conditions andγ 5,

    C. Poole and A. E. Thomsen, “Weyl Consistency Conditions andγ 5,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.4, 041602 (2019) [arXiv:1901.02749 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Gauge CouplingβFunctions to Four-Loop Order in the Standard Model,

    J. Davies, F. Herren, C. Poole, M. Steinhauser and A. E. Thomsen, “Gauge CouplingβFunctions to Four-Loop Order in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124, no.7, 071803 (2020) [arXiv:1912.07624 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Five-Loop Running of the QCD Coupling Constant,

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, “Five-Loop Running of the QCD Coupling Constant,” 37 Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no.8, 082002 (2017) [arXiv:1606.08659 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [70]

    The five-loop beta function of Yang-Mills theory with fermions,

    F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, “The five-loop beta function of Yang-Mills theory with fermions,” JHEP02, 090 (2017) [arXiv:1701.01404 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [71]

    The five-loop Beta function for a general gauge group and anomalous dimensions beyond Feynman gauge,

    T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard and Y. Schr¨ oder, “The five-loop Beta function for a general gauge group and anomalous dimensions beyond Feynman gauge,” JHEP10, 166 (2017) [arXiv:1709.07718 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Three-loop\beta-functions for top-Yukawa and the Higgs self- interaction in the Standard Model,

    K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “Three-loop\beta-functions for top-Yukawa and the Higgs self- interaction in the Standard Model,” JHEP06, 033 (2012) [arXiv:1205.2892 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Yukawa coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Yukawa coupling beta-functions in the Standard Model at three loops,” Phys. Lett. B722, 336-340 (2013) [arXiv:1212.6829 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Three-loop SM beta-functions for matrix Yukawa couplings,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Three-loop SM beta-functions for matrix Yukawa couplings,” Phys. Lett. B737, 129-134 (2014) [arXiv:1406.7171 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Quark mass anomalous dimension to O(alpha-s**4),

    K. G. Chetyrkin, “Quark mass anomalous dimension to O(alpha-s**4),” Phys. Lett. B404, 161-165 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9703278 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  67. [76]

    The 4-loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass,

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, “The 4-loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark mass,” Phys. Lett. B405, 327-333 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9703284 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Quark Mass and Field Anomalous Dimensions to O(α5 s),

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. K¨ uhn, “Quark Mass and Field Anomalous Dimensions to O(α5 s),” JHEP10, 076 (2014) [arXiv:1402.6611 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [78]

    β-function for the Higgs self-interaction in the Standard Model at three-loop level,

    K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “β-function for the Higgs self-interaction in the Standard Model at three-loop level,” JHEP04, 091 (2013) [erratum: JHEP09, 155 (2013)] [arXiv:1303.2890 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Higgs self-coupling beta-function in the Stan- dard Model at three loops,

    A. V. Bednyakov, A. F. Pikelner and V. N. Velizhanin, “Higgs self-coupling beta-function in the Stan- dard Model at three loops,” Nucl. Phys. B875, 552-565 (2013) [arXiv:1303.4364 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Leading QCD-induced four-loop contributions to theβ-function of the Higgs self-coupling in the SM and vacuum stability,

    K. G. Chetyrkin and M. F. Zoller, “Leading QCD-induced four-loop contributions to theβ-function of the Higgs self-coupling in the SM and vacuum stability,” JHEP06, 175 (2016) [arXiv:1604.00853 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Matching relations for decoupling in the Standard Model at two loops and beyond,

    S. P. Martin, “Matching relations for decoupling in the Standard Model at two loops and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D99, no.3, 033007 (2019) [arXiv:1812.04100 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the MS scheme,

    S. P. Martin, “Three-loop corrections to the Fermi decay constant in the MS scheme,” Phys. Rev. D 112, no.7, 073002 (2025) [arXiv:2507.15946 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Dimensional reduction in nonsupersymmetric theories,

    I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones and K. L. Roberts, “Dimensional reduction in nonsupersymmetric theories,” Z. Phys. C62, 161-166 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9310301 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Equivalence of dimensional reduction and dimensional regularization,

    I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones and K. L. Roberts, “Equivalence of dimensional reduction and dimensional regularization,” Z. Phys. C63, 151-160 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9401349 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Evaluation of the general 3-loop vacuum Feynman integral,

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, “Evaluation of the general 3-loop vacuum Feynman integral,” Phys. Rev. D95, no.1, 016008 (2017) [arXiv:1610.07720 [hep-ph]]. The latest version of the3VILcode can be obtained from https://github.com/davidgrobertson/3VILorhttps://www.niu.edu/sp...

    2017 arXiv

  77. [86]

    One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model,

    G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, “One Loop Corrections for e+ e- Annihilation Into mu+ mu- in the Weinberg Model,” Nucl. Phys. B160, 151-207 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90234-7

    1979 doi

  78. [87]

    Kira—A Feynman integral reduction program,

    P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Usovitsch and P. Uwer, “Kira—A Feynman integral reduction program,” Comput. Phys. Commun.230, 99-112 (2018) [arXiv:1705.05610 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Kira 1.2 Release Notes,

    P. Maierh¨ ofer and J. Usovitsch, “Kira 1.2 Release Notes,” [arXiv:1812.01491 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  80. [89]

    Integral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer and J. Usovitsch, “Integral reduction with Kira 2.0 and finite field methods,” Comput. Phys. Commun.266, 108024 (2021) [arXiv:2008.06494 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Kira 3: integral reduction with efficient seeding and optimized equation selection,

    F. Lange, J. Usovitsch and Z. Wu, “Kira 3: integral reduction with efficient seeding and optimized equation selection,” Comput. Phys. Commun.322, 109999 (2026) [arXiv:2505.20197 [hep-ph]]

    2026 arXiv

  82. [91]

    epsilon-finite basis of master integrals for the integration-by-parts method,

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Faisst, C. Sturm and M. Tentyukov, “epsilon-finite basis of master integrals for the integration-by-parts method,” Nucl. Phys. B742, 208-229 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601165 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Renormalizedε-finite master integrals and their virtues: The three-loop self-energy case,

    S. P. Martin, “Renormalizedε-finite master integrals and their virtues: The three-loop self-energy case,” Phys. Rev. D105, no.5, 056014 (2022) [arXiv:2112.07694 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  84. [93]

    A Supersymmetry primer,

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

    1998 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Two Loop Effective Potential for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model,

    S. P. Martin, “Two Loop Effective Potential for the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D66, 096001 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206136 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.