Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Electroweak Scalar Effects Beyond Dimension-6 in SMEFT

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Integrating out heavy scalars at one loop produces a complete set of dimension-eight SMEFT operators; the paper shows these are needed for GigaZ electroweak precision fits to match the full models.

desk verdict A detailed one-loop dim-8 SMEFT matching dictionary for complex triplet/doublet, with new fermionic operators, but the quoted universal action's normalization in the doubled scalar basis needs explicit checking before the GigaZ conclusions can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12160 v1 pith:KYL5RICB submitted 2025-01-21 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Nilabhra Adhikary , Tisa Biswas , Joydeep Chakrabortty , Christoph Englert , Michael Spannowsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-th
keywords SMEFTdimension-eightoperatorsone-loopmatchingheat-kerneleffectiveactioncomplexscalartriplettwo-Higgs-doubletmodelelectroweakprecisionobservablesGigaZ
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to extend one-loop matching from dimension six to dimension eight for two well-motivated extensions of the Standard Model: a complex scalar triplet and a complex scalar doublet, i.e. a two-Higgs-doublet model. Using a universal one-loop effective action built from heat-kernel methods, the authors integrate out the heavy fields and tabulate the resulting dimension-eight operators in the Green's basis, with Wilson coefficients expressed purely in terms of the ultraviolet parameters of each model. They also include the heavy scalar's Yukawa couplings to fermions, generating higher-dimensional fermionic operators, including lepton-number-violating and four-fermion structures. They then argue that these dimension-eight contributions are not optional for precision: at the projected GigaZ electroweak precision reach, a dimension-six-only EFT fit fails to reproduce the full model, while including the matched dimension-eight operators restores agreement over a broad range of masses and couplings. If correct, the tables provide a one-loop dimension-eight matching dictionary for these scalar extensions and a quantitative argument that future electroweak precision measurements will require such calculations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the universal one-loop effective action up to dimension eight, Eq. (2.2), taken from Ref. [72]. It is a heat-kernel / covariant-derivative-expansion formula expressing the log-determinant of the heavy-field quadratic operator in terms of traces of $U$ (the light-field-dependent mass matrix), the covariant derivative $P_\mu$, the field-strength tensor $G_{\mu\nu}$, and the gauge current $J_\mu$. The argument proceeds by solving the heavy-field equation of motion to the needed order, $\Phi_c = \frac{1}{M^2}B + \frac{1}{M^4}(P^2-U)B + \frac{1}{M^6}(P^2-U)^2 B + \cdots$, inserting this into the effective action, and reading off the coefficients of the dimension-eight operators in the Green's basis. This single formula carries the entire calculation: the model-specific content enters only through the functionals $B_s$ and $U_s$, so every Wilson coefficient in Tables 1-6 is a direct substitution into Eq. (2.2).

What would settle it

Compute one tabulated one-loop dimension-eight coefficient for the complex triplet, for example $c^{J U^4 K}_{\phi^8}$ in Eq. (A.14) or $c^{(1),J U (G_{\mu\nu})^2 K}_{W^2\phi^4}$ in Eq. (A.18), by an independent diagrammatic one-loop calculation to order $1/M^4$, and compare with the tables. A mismatch would show that Eq. (2.2) is missing or mis-evaluating a term; a match would confirm the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a complete one-loop integration of a complex triplet scalar and of a complex doublet scalar generates a definite, tabulated set of dimension-eight operators in the SMEFT Green's basis, with Wilson coefficients that depend only on the ultraviolet parameters ($\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3,\lambda_4,\mu_\Delta$ for the triplet; $\lambda_{H_2},\lambda_{H_2,1},\lambda_{H_2,2},\lambda_{H_2,3},\eta_H,\eta_{H_2},Y_{H_2}$ for the doublet) and on the renormalisation scale through logarithms of the heavy mass. The computation uses the universal one-loop effective action of Eq. (2.2), substituting the classical solution of the heavy field $\Phi_c = M^{-2}B + M^{-4}(P^2-U)B + \cdots$ and retaining terms up to $1/M^4$ in the light-field operators. The paper further claims that including these dimension-eight terms is necessary for the oblique electroweak precision observables $S$, $T$, $U$ to track the full ultraviolet models at the accuracy expected at a GigaZ run of a future lepton collider; in particular, $U$ receives its first non-negligible contribution only at dimension eight, and dimension-six-only matching visibly fails to approximate the full theory in the $\lambda_1$-$\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_{H_2,2}$-$\lambda_{H_2,3}$ planes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the universal one-loop effective action of Eq. (2.2), taken from Ref. [72], is correct and complete; every Wilson coefficient in the paper is computed by substituting the heavy-field solution into this formula, so any missing operator, wrong heat-kernel coefficient, or mishandled trace would propagate into all the tables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tables 1-4 give the complete one-loop dimension-eight Wilson coefficients for the complex triplet and complex doublet scalar extensions; any SMEFT fit to these models that stops at dimension six will systematically miss operators, including the $U$-parameter contribution $O^{(3)}_{W^2\phi^4}$ that first appears at dimension eight.
  • At GigaZ-level electroweak precision, dimension-six-only matching does not reproduce the full model; only the matched dimension-eight computation brings the EFT and the full theory into agreement over a broad range of heavy masses and couplings.
  • The fermionic tables (5-6) show that heavy-scalar Yukawa couplings generate a tower of effective operators, including a lepton-number-violating Weinberg operator, four-fermion operators, and lepton-flavor-violating structures, which can discriminate between the triplet and doublet ultraviolet completions.
  • Tables 8-9 convert the redundant Green's-basis results into a non-redundant (Murphy) basis, making the coefficients directly usable in global SMEFT fits.
  • Because Eq. (2.2) is model-independent, the same substitution procedure applies to other heavy scalar representations, giving a direct route to their dimension-eight matching without repeating the derivation of the effective action.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the universal one-loop formula is sound, the same procedure should produce dimension-eight coefficients for heavier representations (e.g., scalar singlets, other hypercharge triplets, or multiple doublets) with no new conceptual work; testing these predictions would also provide a cross-check of Eq. (2.2).
  • The paper's electroweak precision analysis uses only the oblique $S$, $T$, $U$ parameters; the fermionic operators of Tables 5-6 suggest that flavor observables such as $\mu\to e\gamma$ or $\mu\to 3e$ may be even more discriminating between the triplet and doublet models, but that is not studied here.
  • A natural next step would be to include dimension-eight renormalisation-group running between the matching scale and the weak scale; the paper's EWPO case study does not address this, but it could shift the projected GigaZ sensitivity.
  • The Green's-basis results could be independently verified by automated one-loop matching tools applied to the same two models; the paper does not provide such a cross-check, so the tables stand entirely on the correctness of Eq. (2.2) and the truncation in $B$ and $U$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper performs one-loop matching of two scalar extensions, a complex SU(2)L triplet and a complex doublet (2HDM), onto SMEFT operators up to dimension eight. The Wilson coefficients are obtained by inserting the model-dependent U matrices into the universal one-loop effective action of Eq. (2.2), which is quoted from Ref. [72]. Results are presented as tables of Green's-basis operators for the scalar sector and for fermionic operators induced by Yukawa couplings, together with translations to a non-redundant Murphy basis in Appendix B. The phenomenological section uses the matched coefficients to study electroweak precision observables at GigaZ and argues that dimension-eight contributions are numerically relevant for the projected sensitivity.

Significance. If the central formula and normalization are correct, the paper provides a useful dimension-eight one-loop matching dictionary for two well-motivated scalar extensions, with Wilson coefficients expressed directly in terms of UV parameters and without fitted constants. The detailed Appendix A is a genuine strength: the U matrices, classical solutions, and trace evaluations are spelled out, and the results pass dimensional checks. The stated agreement of dimension-six results with CoDEx [76] is reassuring but is not shown. Because every listed coefficient is a projection of Eq. (2.2), the unresolved trace-normalization question for complex scalars is load-bearing; the GigaZ conclusions in Sec. 4 inherit any uniform error in those coefficients.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.2), with Secs. 2.1 and 2.2] The normalization of the trace in Eq. (2.2) is not fixed. Eq. (2.2) states cs = 1 for a complex scalar, but in Sec. 2.1 the triplet fluctuation matrix U is 6 x 6 in the (Delta, Delta*) basis and in Sec. 2.2 the doublet matrix U is 4 x 4 in the (H2, H2*) basis. For N complex scalar degrees of freedom the one-loop determinant is (det O_N)^(-1), while the doubled basis has det M = (det O_N)^2, so evaluating the trace over the doubled matrix without a compensating factor of 1/2 would double all one-loop Wilson coefficients. The paper does not provide a test that distinguishes these conventions. Since every coefficient in Tables 1-6 and the GigaZ projections in Sec. 4 inherit this normalization, please demonstrate the convention explicitly, for example by computing the free complex-scalar vacuum polarization or the dimension-six coefficient in a simple limit, or by rederiving Eq. (2.2) in the doubled basis.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2.2), and Appendix A] The universal action in Eq. (2.2) is quoted from Ref. [72], which has overlapping authorship with the present paper, and is not rederived here. The only consistency check mentioned is agreement with CoDEx [76] for dimension-six operators, but no comparison is shown. Because all Tables 1-6 are obtained by substituting model-dependent U matrices into this single formula, an omitted operator or an incorrect heat-kernel coefficient in Eq. (2.2) would propagate into all results. Please provide at least one genuinely independent cross-check: show the dimension-six comparison explicitly, or compare a subset of the 2HDM dimension-eight coefficients with Refs. [88,89], or perform a direct Feynman-diagram calculation for one operator class.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Tables 3, 4, and 6 captions] The captions refer to the 'complex doublet model with the heavy triplet integrated up to one-loop'; this should read 'heavy doublet.' The same typo appears in Table 4 and Table 6 captions.
  2. [Section 4, paragraph on Fig. 3] There is a typo 'diemsnions' in the sentence discussing dimension-six and dimension-eight contributions; it should be 'dimensions.'
  3. [Table 1, O(3)phi4 row] The Wilson coefficient for O(3)phi4 is written as C(3)phi4 = (1/16 pi^2) c(3),JUKphi6 + ..., with the subscript phi6 instead of phi4; this should be corrected.
  4. [Appendix A and Tables 1-4] The notation for coefficients such as c(1),JUKphi6 and c(3),J(PmuU)2Kphi6 is overloaded and difficult to parse, especially where the same coefficient name is used with different operator subscripts. Defining each coefficient symbol once in the text or in a table of conventions would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Wilson coefficients are parameter-free evaluations of a general one-loop action; self-citations do not make the derivation circular.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a one-loop dimension-eight SMEFT matching dictionary for two scalar extensions. The Wilson coefficients in Tables 1-6 are obtained by inserting model-specific U matrices into Eq. (2.2), the universal one-loop effective action quoted from Ref. [72]. This is a derivation, not a fit: no Wilson coefficient is adjusted to data, and the GigaZ projections in Sec. 4 use the derived coefficients as inputs. The self-citation to Ref. [72] is real and load-bearing in the sense that Eq. (2.2) is not rederived here, but Ref. [72] is a parameter-free general result with stated assumptions (local expansion, slow background variation) that do not include the specific triplet or doublet matching results. The same-group consistency check via CoDEx [76] for dimension-six is also a check rather than a source of the dimension-eight Wilson coefficients. The trace/normalization concern for complex scalars is a potential correctness issue, not an input-output circularity: even if Eq. (2.2) were mis-normalized, the paper would be wrong rather than circular. No pattern of fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, self-definition, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors is present. The paper is therefore not circular, though the reliance on same-group prior work warrants a slightly elevated score of 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central outputs are parameter-free functions of UV couplings, so the free-parameter ledger is short. The load-bearing axioms are the quoted universal action (Eq. 2.2), the heavy-mass hierarchy, and the completeness of the external operator bases. No new particles, forces, or symmetries are introduced; the complex triplet and doublet are existing BSM scalar extensions.

free parameters (3)
  • mu_Delta/M_Delta benchmark ratio = 0.1
    Set by hand in Sec. 4 for the complex triplet exclusion plot (Fig. 3a); no direct derivation or independent constraint quoted.
  • lambda_2 = lambda_3 benchmark = 1.8
    Fixed by hand in Sec. 4 for the complex triplet plot; large couplings are part of the EFT-validity discussion.
  • 2HDM benchmark couplings = eta_H=1.2, eta_H2=0.2, lambda_H2,1=-1.4
    Benchmark values chosen in Sec. 4 for the 2HDM plot (Fig. 3b); not fitted, but the figure's conclusions depend on them.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The universal one-loop effective action up to dimension-eight, Eq. (2.2), from Ref. [72] is correct and complete for integrating out heavy scalars.
    This formula supplies every operator structure and coefficient used in Tables 1-6; if it is missing terms or has wrong heat-kernel coefficients, the central results inherit the error. It is quoted, not rederived, from a same-group paper.
  • domain assumption The heavy scalar masses are much larger than the weak scale and external momenta, so the SMEFT expansion and the local covariant-derivative expansion are valid.
    Stated in Sec. 2 ('An implicit assumption throughout is that the heavy-mass scales are much greater than the weak scale') and in the footnote to Eq. (2.7); the EFT interpretation collapses if this hierarchy fails, as the paper itself notes for M around 700 GeV in Sec. 4.
  • domain assumption The Green's basis [75] and Murphy basis [36] descriptions of dimension-eight operators, plus Fierz, IBP, and EOM identities used in Tables 8-9, are complete and consistent.
    The mapping of redundant Green's-basis operators onto non-redundant operators relies on external bases and identities, including Ref. [91] by overlapping authors; an error there would propagate to the final operator lists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroweak Scalar Effects Beyond Dimension-6 in SMEFT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYL5RICB

@misc{pith2026250112160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroweak Scalar Effects Beyond Dimension-6 in SMEFT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYL5RICB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12160}
}
read the original abstract

The Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) provides a robust framework for probing deviations in the couplings of Standard Model particles from their theoretical predictions. This framework relies on an expansion in higher-dimensional operators, often truncated at dimension-six. In this work, we compute the effective dimension-eight operators generated by integrating out heavy scalar fields at one-loop order in the Green's basis within two extended scalar sector models: the Two Higgs Doublet Model and the Complex Triplet Scalar Model. We also investigate the impact of heavy scalar fields on the fermion sector, deriving the fermionic effective operators up to dimension eight for these models, and detail how contributions can be mapped onto non-redundant bases. To assess the importance of higher-order contributions in the SMEFT expansion, we analyze the dimension-eight effects for electroweak precision observables at the next frontier of precision lepton machines such as GigaZ.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A HEFT Perspective on the Type-II Seesaw Model and the Complete Basis of Lepton-Number-Violating Operators

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    First complete tree-level HEFT matching of the type-II seesaw and a Hilbert-series-checked, flavor-complete basis of lepton-number-violating HEFT operators through O(p^4).

  2. On the Robustness of type-II Seesaw Collider Searches

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adding a single effective operator that makes the doubly charged Higgs decay into two leptons and a photon weakens current ATLAS limits from ~1.1 TeV to ~0.7 TeV, but requiring a hard photon in the final state restore...

  3. Gauge Choices, Infrared Pitfalls, and Thermal Effects in Effective Potentials

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Including a multiplicative anomaly or using the Heat Kernel method makes the one-loop effective potential in the Fermi gauge independent of the gauge parameter and improves its infrared behaviour, also at finite temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [72]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, S. U. Rahaman, and K. Ramkumar, One-loop effective action up to dimension eight: integrating out heavy scalar(s) , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024), no. 2 159, [arXiv:2306.09103]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [76]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty, and S. K. Patra, CoDEx: Wilson coefficient calculator connecting SMEFT to UV theory , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 1 21, [ arXiv:1808.04403]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [1]

    Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96 (1979), no

    S. Weinberg, Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A 96 (1979), no. 1-2 327–340

    1979

  4. [2]

    Georgi, On-shell effective field theory , Nucl

    H. Georgi, On-shell effective field theory , Nucl. Phys. B 361 (1991) 339–350

    1991

  5. [3]

    Buchm¨ uller and D

    W. Buchm¨ uller and D. Wyler,Effective lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavour conservation, Nuclear Physics B 268 (1986), no. 3 621 – 653

    1986

  6. [4]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [ arXiv:1008.4884]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [5]

    Dedes, M

    A. Dedes, M. Paraskevas, J. Rosiek, K. Suxho, and L. Trifyllis, SmeftFR – Feynman rules generator for the Standard Model Effective Field Theory , Comput. Phys. Commun. 247 (2020) 106931, [arXiv:1904.03204]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs , JHEP 06 (2007) 045, [ hep-ph/0703164]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 91 references
  1. [7]

    Englert, R

    C. Englert, R. Kogler, H. Schulz, and M. Spannowsky, Higgs coupling measurements at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016), no. 7 393, [ arXiv:1511.05170]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Ellis, C

    J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz, and T. You, Updated Global SMEFT Fit to Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Data, JHEP 06 (2018) 146, [ arXiv:1803.03252]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Banerjee, R

    S. Banerjee, R. S. Gupta, J. Y. Reiness, S. Seth, and M. Spannowsky, Towards the ultimate differential SMEFT analysis , JHEP 09 (2020) 170, [ arXiv:1912.07628]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Banerjee, C

    S. Banerjee, C. Englert, R. S. Gupta, and M. Spannowsky, Probing Electroweak Precision Physics via boosted Higgs-strahlung at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 9 095012, [arXiv:1807.01796]. – 41 –

    2018 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Pomarol and F

    A. Pomarol and F. Riva, Towards the Ultimate SM Fit to Close in on Higgs Physics , JHEP 01 (2014) 151, [ arXiv:1308.2803]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Butter, O

    A. Butter, O. J. P. ´Eboli, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, T. Plehn, and M. Rauch, The Gauge-Higgs Legacy of the LHC Run I , JHEP 07 (2016) 152, [ arXiv:1604.03105]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. Trott, Consistent constraints on the Standard Model Effective Field Theory , JHEP 02 (2016) 069, [ arXiv:1508.05060]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. Trott, Towards consistent Electroweak Precision Data constraints in the SMEFT, JHEP 05 (2015) 024, [ arXiv:1502.02570]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [15]

    de Blas et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, [arXiv:1905.03764]

    J. de Blas et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, [arXiv:1905.03764]

    2020

  10. [16]

    Buckley, C

    A. Buckley, C. Englert, J. Ferrando, D. J. Miller, L. Moore, M. Russell, and C. D. White, Constraining top quark effective theory in the LHC Run II era , JHEP 04 (2016) 015, [arXiv:1512.03360]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou, S. Westhoff, and C. Zhang, O new physics, where art thou? A global search in the top sector , JHEP 02 (2020) 131, [arXiv:1910.03606]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory , JHEP 04 (2021) 279, [ arXiv:2012.02779]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Durieux, A

    G. Durieux, A. Irles, V. Miralles, A. Pe˜ nuelas, R. P¨ oschl, M. Perell´ o, and M. Vos,The electro-weak couplings of the top and bottom quarks — Global fit and future prospects , JHEP 12 (2019) 98, [ arXiv:1907.10619]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 195 (2021)]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Biswas, A

    T. Biswas, A. Datta, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Following the trail of new physics via the vector boson fusion Higgs boson signal at the Large Hadron Collider , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 5 055028, [arXiv:2107.05503]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Biswas and A

    T. Biswas and A. Datta, Exploring Higgs-photon production at the LHC , JHEP 05 (2023) 104, [arXiv:2208.08432]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [22]

    SMEFiT Collaboration, J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, Combined SMEFT interpretation of Higgs, diboson, and top quark data from the LHC , JHEP 11 (2021) 089, [ arXiv:2105.00006]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    C. Hays, A. Martin, V. Sanz, and J. Setford, On the impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators on Higgs measurements , JHEP 02 (2019) 123, [ arXiv:1808.00442]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Degrande, A basis of dimension-eight operators for anomalous neutral triple gauge boson interactions, JHEP 02 (2014) 101, [ arXiv:1308.6323]

    C. Degrande, A basis of dimension-eight operators for anomalous neutral triple gauge boson interactions, JHEP 02 (2014) 101, [ arXiv:1308.6323]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and M. Sullivan, Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT contributions: A case study, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 11 115013, [ arXiv:2110.06929]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Dedes, J

    A. Dedes, J. Rosiek, M. Ryczkowski, K. Suxho, and L. Trifyllis, SmeftFR v3 – Feynman rules generator for the Standard Model Effective Field Theory , Comput. Phys. Commun. 294 (2024) 108943, [arXiv:2302.01353]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    S. D. Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, Z. Ren, and F. Vilches, Renormalization of the SMEFT to dimension eight: Fermionic interactions I , arXiv:2409.15408. – 42 –

    arXiv

  22. [28]

    Das Bakshi, M

    S. Das Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, and G. Guedes,Towards the renormalisation of the Standard Model effective field theory to dimension eight: bosonic interactions II , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022), no. 8 973, [ arXiv:2205.03301]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Li, Y.-H

    H.-L. Li, Y.-H. Ni, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu, Complete UV resonances of the dimension-8 SMEFT operators, JHEP 05 (2024) 238, [ arXiv:2309.15933]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Degrande and H.-L

    C. Degrande and H.-L. Li, Impact of dimension-8 SMEFT operators on diboson productions , JHEP 06 (2023) 149, [ arXiv:2303.10493]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Q. Chen, K. Mimasu, T. A. Wu, G.-D. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Capping the positivity cone: dimension-8 Higgs operators in the SMEFT , JHEP 03 (2024) 180, [ arXiv:2309.15922]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Ellis, K

    J. Ellis, K. Mimasu, and F. Zampedri, Dimension-8 SMEFT analysis of minimal scalar field extensions of the Standard Model , JHEP 10 (2023) 051, [ arXiv:2304.06663]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Dawson, M

    S. Dawson, M. Forslund, and M. Schnubel, SMEFT matching to Z’ models at dimension eight , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 1 015002, [ arXiv:2404.01375]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Adhikary, J

    N. Adhikary, J. Das, and D. Dey, Two-loop dimension Six Effective Action: Integrating Out Heavy Scalar, arXiv:2501.01313

  29. [35]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng, Complete Set of Dimension-8 Operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory , arXiv:2005.00008

    2005 arXiv

  30. [36]

    C. W. Murphy, Dimension-8 Operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory , arXiv:2005.00059

    2005 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, The Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory , Phys. Rept. 793 (2019) 1–98, [ arXiv:1706.08945]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Isidori, F

    G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work , Rev. Mod. Phys. 96 (2024), no. 1 015006, [ arXiv:2303.16922]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Das Bakshi, S

    Anisha, S. Das Bakshi, S. Banerjee, A. Biek¨ otter, J. Chakrabortty, S. Kumar Patra, and M. Spannowsky, Effective limits on single scalar extensions in the light of recent LHC data , arXiv:2111.05876

    arXiv

  34. [40]

    Gorbahn, J

    M. Gorbahn, J. M. No, and V. Sanz, Benchmarks for Higgs Effective Theory: Extended Higgs Sectors, JHEP 10 (2015) 036, [ arXiv:1502.07352]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [41]

    del Aguila, Z

    F. del Aguila, Z. Kunszt, and J. Santiago, One-loop effective lagrangians after matching , Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016), no. 5 244, [ arXiv:1602.00126]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [42]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, and J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models , Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1–102, [ arXiv:1106.0034]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [43]

    J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and S. Dawson, The Higgs Hunter’s Guide , vol. 80. 2000

    2000

  38. [44]

    del Aguila, J

    F. del Aguila, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. de Blas, and M. Perez-Victoria, Electroweak constraints on see-saw messengers and their implications for LHC , in 43rd Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories , pp. 45–52, 6, 2008. arXiv:0806.1023

    2008 arXiv

  39. [45]

    A. G. Akeroyd and M. Aoki, Single and pair production of doubly charged Higgs bosons at hadron colliders, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 035011, [ hep-ph/0506176]. – 43 –

    2005 arXiv

  40. [46]

    A. G. Akeroyd and C.-W. Chiang, Doubly charged Higgs bosons and three-lepton signatures in the Higgs Triplet Model , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 113010, [ arXiv:0909.4419]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Z.-L. Han, R. Ding, and Y. Liao, LHC phenomenology of the type II seesaw mechanism: Observability of neutral scalars in the nondegenerate case , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 3 033014, [arXiv:1506.08996]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [48]

    A. G. Akeroyd, M. Aoki, and H. Sugiyama, Lepton Flavour Violating Decays τ → ¯lll and µ → eγ in the Higgs Triplet Model , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 113010, [ arXiv:0904.3640]

    2009 arXiv

  43. [49]

    A. Dey, J. Lahiri, and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Extended scalar sectors, effective operators and observed data, JHEP 11 (2018) 127, [ arXiv:1808.04869]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [50]

    J. Cao, P. Wan, L. Wu, and J. M. Yang, Lepton-Specific Two-Higgs Doublet Model: Experimental Constraints and Implication on Higgs Phenomenology , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 071701, [arXiv:0909.5148]

    2009 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Bhattacharyya and D

    G. Bhattacharyya and D. Das, Scalar sector of two-Higgs-doublet models: A minireview , Pramana 87 (2016), no. 3 40, [ arXiv:1507.06424]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Bambhaniya, J

    G. Bambhaniya, J. Chakrabortty, S. Goswami, and P. Konar, Generation of neutrino mass from new physics at TeV scale and multilepton signatures at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), no. 7 075006, [ arXiv:1305.2795]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li, and R. Ruiz, Lepton Number Violation: Seesaw Models and Their Collider Tests, Front. in Phys. 6 (2018) 40, [ arXiv:1711.02180]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [54]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev and Y. Zhang, Displaced vertex signatures of doubly charged scalars in the type-II seesaw and its left-right extensions , JHEP 10 (2018) 199, [ arXiv:1808.00943]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [55]

    B. Fuks, M. Nemevˇ sek, and R. Ruiz,Doubly Charged Higgs Boson Production at Hadron Colliders, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 7 075022, [ arXiv:1912.08975]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Antusch, O

    S. Antusch, O. Fischer, A. Hammad, and C. Scherb, Low scale type II seesaw: Present constraints and prospects for displaced vertex searches , JHEP 02 (2019) 157, [arXiv:1811.03476]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [57]

    del ´Aguila and M

    F. del ´Aguila and M. Chala, LHC bounds on Lepton Number Violation mediated by doubly and singly-charged scalars, JHEP 03 (2014) 027, [ arXiv:1311.1510]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [58]

    CMS Collaboration, Prospects for a Search for Doubly Charged Higgs Bosons at the HL-LHC ,

  53. [59]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, and H. Murayama, How to use the Standard Model effective field theory , JHEP 01 (2016) 023, [ arXiv:1412.1837]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, and H. Murayama, One-loop Matching and Running with Covariant Derivative Expansion, JHEP 01 (2018) 123, [ arXiv:1604.01019]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [62]

    von Gersdorff and K

    G. von Gersdorff and K. Santos, New covariant Feynman rules for effective field theories , JHEP 04 (2023) 025, [ arXiv:2212.07451]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch,A Proof of Concept for Matchete: An Automated Tool for Matching Effective Theories , arXiv:2212.04510. – 44 –

    arXiv

  57. [64]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu, and Z. Zhang, STrEAMlining EFT Matching , SciPost Phys. 10 (2021), no. 5 098, [arXiv:2012.07851]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Carmona, A

    A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso, and J. Santiago, Matchmakereft: automated tree-level and one-loop matching , SciPost Phys. 12 (2022), no. 6 198, [ arXiv:2112.10787]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [66]

    J. C. Criado, MatchingTools: a Python library for symbolic effective field theory calculations , Comput. Phys. Commun. 227 (2018) 42–50, [ arXiv:1710.06445]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Celis, J

    A. Celis, J. Fuentes-Martin, A. Vicente, and J. Virto, DsixTools: The Standard Model Effective Field Theory Toolkit, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017), no. 6 405, [ arXiv:1704.04504]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Haisch, M

    U. Haisch, M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, E. Venturini, and A. Weiler, Singlet night in Feynman-ville: one-loop matching of a real scalar , JHEP 04 (2020) 164, [ arXiv:2003.05936]. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 066 (2020)]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Jiang, N

    M. Jiang, N. Craig, Y.-Y. Li, and D. Sutherland, Complete one-loop matching for a singlet scalar in the Standard Model EFT , JHEP 02 (2019) 031, [ arXiv:1811.08878]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 135 (2021)]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Gherardi, D

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca, and E. Venturini, Matching scalar leptoquarks to the SMEFT at one loop, JHEP 07 (2020) 225, [ arXiv:2003.12525]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 006 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Du, X.-X

    Y. Du, X.-X. Li, and J.-H. Yu, Neutrino seesaw models at one-loop matching: discrimination by effective operators, JHEP 09 (2022) 207, [ arXiv:2201.04646]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Chakrabortty, S

    J. Chakrabortty, S. U. Rahaman, and K. Ramkumar, One-loop effective action up to dimension eight: Integrating out heavy fermion(s) , Nucl. Phys. B 1000 (2024) 116488, [arXiv:2308.03849]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    N. D. Barrie, C. Han, and H. Murayama, Type II Seesaw leptogenesis, JHEP 05 (2022) 160, [arXiv:2204.08202]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chala, A

    M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, and G. Guedes,A Green ’s basis for the bosonic SMEFT to dimension 8 , JHEP 05 (2022) 138, [ arXiv:2112.12724]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Li, Type II Seesaw and tau lepton at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC-hh , JHEP 09 (2018) 079, [arXiv:1802.00945]

    T. Li, Type II Seesaw and tau lepton at the HL-LHC, HE-LHC and FCC-hh , JHEP 09 (2018) 079, [arXiv:1802.00945]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [78]

    P. D. Bolton and S. T. Petcov, Measurements of µ → 3e decay with polarised muons as a probe of new physics , Phys. Lett. B 833 (2022) 137296, [ arXiv:2204.03468]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Primulando, J

    R. Primulando, J. Julio, and P. Uttayarat, Scalar phenomenology in type-II seesaw model , JHEP 08 (2019) 024, [ arXiv:1903.02493]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [80]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections , Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 381–409

    1992

  72. [81]

    M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 964–967. – 45 –

    1990

  73. [82]

    Bagnaschi, J

    E. Bagnaschi, J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You, SMEFT Analysis of mW , arXiv:2204.05260

    arXiv

  74. [83]

    Asadi, C

    P. Asadi, C. Cesarotti, K. Fraser, S. Homiller, and A. Parikh, Oblique Lessons from the W Mass Measurement at CDF II , arXiv:2204.05283

    arXiv

  75. [84]

    Corbett, A

    T. Corbett, A. Helset, A. Martin, and M. Trott, EWPD in the SMEFT to dimension eight , JHEP 06 (2021) 076, [ arXiv:2102.02819]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Belvedere, C

    A. Belvedere, C. Englert, R. Kogler, and M. Spannowsky, Dispelling the √ L myth for the High-Luminosity LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), no. 7 715, [ arXiv:2402.07985]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Corbett, J

    T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. ´Eboli, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Martines, and P. Reimitz, Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators in the electroweak precision observables and triple gauge couplings analysis in universal SMEFT , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 11 115013, [arXiv...

    2023 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Hamoudou, J

    S. Hamoudou, J. Kumar, and D. London, Dimension-8 SMEFT matching conditions for the low-energy effective field theory , JHEP 03 (2023) 157, [ arXiv:2207.08856]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Dawson, D

    S. Dawson, D. Fontes, S. Homiller, and M. Sullivan, Role of dimension-eight operators in an EFT for the 2HDM , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 5 055012, [ arXiv:2205.01561]

    2022 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Das Bakshi, S

    S. Das Bakshi, S. Dawson, D. Fontes, and S. Homiller, Relevance of one-loop SMEFT matching in the 2HDM , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 7 075022, [ arXiv:2401.12279]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Gfitter Group Collaboration, M. Baak, J. C´ uth, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, R. Kogler, K. M¨ onig, M. Schott, and J. Stelzer, The global electroweak fit at NNLO and prospects for the LHC and ILC, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 3046, [ arXiv:1407.3792]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, C. Englert, S. U. Rahaman, and M. Spannowsky, Integrating out heavy scalars with modified equations of motion: Matching computation of dimension-eight SMEFT coefficients, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 5 055007, [ arXiv:2210.14761]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Corbett, J

    T. Corbett, J. Desai, O. J. P. Eboli, and M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Dimension-eight operator basis for universal standard model effective field theory , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 033003, [arXiv:2404.03720]. – 46 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.