Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Non-linear Representation of General Scalar Extensions of the Standard Model for HEFT Matching

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under a non-linear U representation, any scalar multiplet is rewritten as a Goldstone matrix times physical heavy fields, reducing HEFT matching to kinetic-mixing cancellation and polynomial equations of motion.

desk verdict Worth a referee's time: the general tensor-form U representation is the real contribution, but the advertised O(ξ²) real-triplet matching is not checkable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00355 v1 pith:PRPAUEHL submitted 2024-11-30 hep-ph

Huayang Song , Xia Wan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords HEFTmatchingUrepresentationscalarmultipletextensionrealtripletGoldstonebosonseffectivefieldtheorytree-levelcustodialsymmetry
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

This paper introduces a way of rewriting any scalar multiplet extension of the Standard Model so that the electroweak Goldstone bosons are pulled out into a single unitary matrix $U$, leaving the physical heavy scalars in a rotated multiplet. The point is to make matching the ultraviolet model onto the Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT) a direct calculation: one separates $U$ at the start, cancels Goldstone-heavy kinetic mixings by linear proportionality, then solves the heavy-field equations of motion order by order in the small ratio $\xi = v_\Sigma/v_H$. The authors demonstrate the full tree-level matching of the real triplet extension at $O(\xi^2)$, giving explicit HEFT coefficient functions, and derive general formulas for the physical doublet components for arbitrary scalar multiplets. If correct, this gives a systematic and largely mechanical route from UV scalar extensions to HEFT operators.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $U$ matrix, defined as the exponential of the three Goldstone fields times the Pauli matrices, $U \equiv \exp(i\pi^i\sigma^i/v)$, interpreted both as the HEFT Goldstone matrix and as a special $SU(2)_L$ rotation. The method factors $U$ out of every scalar multiplet, leaving physical fields $\phi$; this moves all Goldstone dependence into kinetic terms, and the requirement that Goldstones remain massless fixes the physical heavy components inside the rotated doublet through linear proportionality conditions. In tensor notation the same factorization is applied index by index, and the combinatorial factors from symmetrized indices produce the general formulas for $\chi^0$ and $\chi^+$.

What would settle it

Take the Georgi-Machacek model, which adds two scalar multiplets, write each in the U representation, and solve the kinetic-mixing cancellation conditions; if no linear proportionality of the doublet fields to the heavy fields removes every $(U^\dagger D_\mu U)(D^\mu \phi)$ term, the asserted generality for multi-multiplet extensions breaks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: every scalar multiplet of a UV extension can be written as $\Phi_{i_1\cdots i_{2j}} = U_{i_1}^{\,i_1'} \cdots U_{i_{2j}}^{\,i_{2j}'} \phi_{i_1'\cdots i_{2j}'}$, with $U = \exp(i \pi^i \sigma^i / v)$ being at once the HEFT Goldstone matrix and a special $SU(2)_L$ rotation. Because the scalar potential is $U$-independent, the only $U$-dependent terms are kinetic; the Goldstone-heavy kinetic mixing is then cancelled by choosing the heavy components inside the rotated doublet to be linear proportionalities of the heavy multiplet fields. For the real triplet extension the matching is completed at $O(\xi^2)$ with $\xi = v_\Sigma/v_H$, giving the HEFT coefficient functions in Table 1; at $O(\xi^3)$ four-derivative operators appear. The generalization to one arbitrary multiplet yields the closed formulas $\chi^0 = -2y (v_\phi/v_H)\eta_0$ and $\chi^+ = (v_\phi/v_H)(\sqrt{(j-y)(j+y+1)}\,\phi^{-*} - \sqrt{(j+y)(j-y+1)}\,\phi^+)$, with $\chi^+ = \sqrt{2j(j+1)}(v_\phi/v_H)\phi^+$ in the real case.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction assumes that one and the same Goldstone matrix $U$ can be pulled out of every new scalar multiplet and that all unwanted Goldstone-heavy kinetic mixings can be removed by simple proportional relations between fields; this is proved for one extra multiplet and only asserted for several.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the real triplet extension, the complete tree-level HEFT matching at $O(\xi^2)$ gives explicit coefficient functions: $\Delta_a = 4\xi^2$, $\Delta_b = 16\xi^2$, $\Delta_\alpha = 2\xi^2$, $\Delta_{a/C} = 8\xi^2$, $\Delta_{b/C} = 12\xi^2$, $c^k_1 = 0$, $c^k_2 = 2\xi^2$, and $\Delta\kappa_3$, $\Delta\kappa_4$ proportional to $(2 - Z_3/Z_1)\xi^2$.
  • At the next order, $O(\xi^3)$, the representation generates four-derivative operators such as $\langle D_\mu U^\dagger D^\mu U\rangle\langle D_\nu U^\dagger D^\nu U\rangle$ in the matched HEFT.
  • For any single scalar multiplet with weak isospin $j$ and hypercharge $y$, the physical charged and CP-odd states inside the rotated doublet are fixed by the closed-form relations for $\chi^+$ and $\chi^0$, so the matching reduces to solving polynomial heavy-field equations of motion.
  • In the real multiplet case ($y=0$, integer $j$), there is no neutral-sector mixing, $\chi^0 = 0$, and the charged proportionality is $\chi^+ = \sqrt{2j(j+1)}(v_\phi/v_H)\phi^+$.
  • Because the potential is $U$-independent by construction, the same representation should carry the heavy-sector renormalization structure based on gauge-invariant vacuum expectation values of non-linear Higgs representations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the construction holds for one multiplet at a time, the entire tree-level HEFT matching for arbitrary scalar extensions could be automated as a small tensor-algebra routine, since the mixing cancellation is purely combinatorial.
  • The closed formulas for $\chi^+$ and $\chi^0$ could serve as a cross-check for HEFT matching results obtained in a Higgs basis or by diagrammatic methods, where the Goldstones are not separated from the start.
  • The claimed extension to models with two or more scalar multiplets, such as the Georgi-Machacek model, is only asserted in the paper and not demonstrated; if the cancellation conditions cannot be satisfied there, the method would apply only to single-multiplet extensions.
  • If the U factorization survives loop-level matching, the Goldstone dependence would remain confined to the U matrix while heavy propagators depend only on the physical $\phi$ fields, which would simplify higher-order matching considerably.
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. The manuscript proposes a "U representation" for scalar extensions of the Standard Model, in which each scalar multiplet is rewritten as a Goldstone matrix U (the usual HEFT chiral field) multiplied by a tensor of physical heavy fields. The stated advantage is that tree-level matching to HEFT becomes straightforward because the Goldstone bosons are already packaged in U. The paper works out the real triplet extension in detail, presenting the resulting HEFT Lagrangian at O(ξ²), with ξ = vΣ/vH, in Eqs. (3.28)–(3.30) and Table 1, and then uses tensor notation to give general formulas for the heavy doublet components χ0 and χ+ for complex and real multiplets, Eqs. (4.23), (4.28), and (4.32), with complex triplet and two quadruplet examples.

Significance. The algebraic formulas in Sect. 4 are explicit, and the paper cross-checks them against the real triplet, complex triplet, and quadruplet cases, including the real-triplet coefficient √(2j(j+1)) in Eq. (4.32). If the U-representation procedure is valid, it gives a practical, systematic way to obtain HEFT operators from single-multiplet scalar extensions, complementing existing SMEFT-first approaches. The main limitation is that the one complete matching demonstration (RHTE) is not reproducible from the provided material, and the claimed generality to multi-multiplet models is asserted rather than shown. These gaps are correctable and do not appear to indicate circularity: the HEFT coefficients are obtained from the UV Lagrangian by field redefinition and solving equations of motion, not fitted to the target operators.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.2, Eqs. (3.15), (3.27)–(3.30), Table 1] The claimed complete O(ξ²) matching of the real triplet extension is not reproducible from the manuscript. The text states that the heavy fields K0, H± are expanded and the EoMs solved order by order, but neither the EoMs, their solutions, nor the kinetic normalization of the heavy fields is given. In particular, the terms hidden in the ellipsis of Eq. (3.15), such as ⟨U†DµU (R DµR† − DµR R†)⟩ and ⟨(R R†) DµU† DµU⟩, are of order ξ and can contribute at O(ξ²) after solving the heavy-field EoMs. Without showing that these terms were retained and handled consistently, Table 1 cannot be independently verified. The authors should include the full calculation in an appendix or explicitly state which terms are dropped and why.
  2. [§5, Conclusion; §4.4] The claim that the U representation is "easily available" for models with two or more scalar multiplets, such as the Georgi-Machacek model, is not supported by the derivations in the paper. The general formulas in §4.4 assume a single multiplet with a single VEV direction, and the kinetic-mixing cancellation is achieved by linear proportionality relations between the doublet heavy modes and that multiplet's heavy modes (Eqs. (4.23), (4.28), (4.32)). For multiple multiplets with different VEVs, the cancellation conditions generally become a larger linear system, and the paper does not demonstrate that a solution exists. Since the title and abstract advertise "general scalar extensions," this is a load-bearing omission; the authors should either provide a worked multi-multiplet example or restrict the stated scope to single-multiplet extensions.
  3. [§3.2.1, Eqs. (3.18)–(3.23)] The proportionality relation ρ̂ = −2(vΣ/vH)[σ3, Φ] is chosen to cancel the kinetic mixing, but the paper does not verify that the resulting heavy sector remains canonically normalized after this field redefinition. In particular, Eq. (3.18) sets ρ3 = 0, and the kinetic Lagrangian for ρ and Φ after substitution is not displayed. If the heavy kinetic terms are not canonically normalized before solving the EoMs, the O(ξ²) coefficients in Table 1 could be shifted by field-rescaling factors. This point is closely related to the missing matching steps in §3.2.2 and should be addressed together with them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4.13)] The tensor formula contains a duplicated dummy index: U^k_{k1} appears twice, so the expression is not a valid tensor contraction as written. The intended formula is clear, but it should be corrected before the general construction is used.
  2. [§3.2.2, text below Eq. (3.30)] The text says that explicit expressions for ∆κ3 and ∆κ4 are not given "due to its long polynomials," but Table 1 does list expressions for them; the wording should be clarified so that the reader knows the table entries are the final results.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including "Golstone" in Sect. 3.2.1, "Quatruplet" in the heading of Sect. 4.2, "T able 1" in the table caption, and "MatchingT ools" in the introduction. These should be fixed in a final proofreading pass.
  4. [§3.2.1, Eqs. (3.35)–(3.37)] The tensor notation in Sect. 3.3 introduces upper and lower indices for (U†DµU) components without an explicit statement of the index convention; defining the convention (e.g., which index is the SU(2)L row and which is the U(1)Y column) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the U-representation matching derives HEFT coefficients from the UV Lagrangian via field redefinitions and EoM solving, with no fitted target quantities or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that matching the RHTE to HEFT becomes straightforward in the U representation. The derivation chain is: define SR=UR and Sigma_Phi=U Phi U-dagger (Eqs. 3.11-3.12); fix the proportionality between rho and phi by requiring the Goldstone-heavy kinetic mixing to cancel (Eqs. 3.16-3.18); solve the heavy-field equations of motion order by order in xi (Eq. 3.27); and read off the HEFT functions (Eqs. 3.28-3.30 and Table 1). At no point are the HEFT coefficients fit to the UV parameters, nor is the target HEFT Lagrangian used to define U, R, or Phi. The kinetic-mixing cancellation is a field-redefinition condition, not an input taken from the HEFT side. The paper contains no self-citations by the present authors that carry any analytical load, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors. The main caveats are completeness and correctness risks rather than circularity: the O(xi^2) EoM calculation is not displayed, and the extension to multiple scalar multiplets is asserted only in Section 5. These concern whether the advertised matching was fully carried out, not whether the result is equivalent to its inputs. The representation of U as exp(i pi sigma / v) is the standard CCWZ input of HEFT matching, a premise of the calculation rather than a consequence derived from the matching target. Therefore no circular step is identified under the rubric.

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

The U representation introduces new field variables such as R, Phi, chi^+, and chi^0, but these are field redefinitions of the existing scalar degrees of freedom, not new physical particles or forces.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math CCWZ construction: Goldstone bosons can be encoded in a unitary matrix U with U transforming as U to g_L U g_Y^dagger, and every scalar multiplet can be rotated by U.
    Used in Section 2 to define HEFT and throughout the paper to define the U representation.
  • ad hoc to paper A single universal U can be factored out of all scalar multiplets, and the residual heavy fields transform only under U(1)_Y, so kinetic mixing can be diagonalized by linear relations.
    Appears in Eqs. (3.11) and (4.13); the multi-multiplet case is asserted in Section 5 without proof.
  • domain assumption The heavy fields can be expanded in integer powers of xi = v_Sigma divided by v_H, without negative powers, and integrated out order by order.
    Stated around Eq. (3.27) and the footnote on Laurent series; excludes a potentially singular limit xi to 0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Non-linear Representation of General Scalar Extensions of the Standard Model for HEFT Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PRPAUEHL

@misc{pith2026241200355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Non-linear Representation of General Scalar Extensions of the Standard Model for HEFT Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PRPAUEHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00355}
}
abstract

We introduce a non-linear representation of ultraviolet~(UV) complete model, $U$ representation, under which matching HEFT to general scalar extensions of the standard model is straightforward. The main idea is to express a scalar multiplet in its linear form rotated by $U$ matrices, where $U$ matrix is exponential form of Goldstones based on Pauli matrices and meanwhile is a special $SU(2)_L$ rotation. All together the doublet is expressed in $U$ matrix multiplying a doublet column or bidoublet matrix, which is composed of physical Higgs. We show a complete matching between HEFT and real triplet extension. Meanwhile, under tensor notation, we give $U$ representation for general scalar extensions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al.,Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, [arXiv:1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, [arXiv:1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    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]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Appelquist and C

    T. Appelquist and C. W. Bernard,Strongly Interacting Higgs Bosons, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 200. – 15 –

    1980

  5. [5]

    A. C. Longhitano,Heavy Higgs Bosons in the Weinberg-Salam Model, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 1166

    1980

  6. [6]

    A. C. Longhitano,Low-Energy Impact of a Heavy Higgs Boson Sector, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 118–154

    1981

  7. [7]

    Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, Int

    F. Feruglio,The Chiral approach to the electroweak interactions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A8 (1993) 4937–4972, [hep-ph/9301281]

    arXiv 1993

  8. [8]

    M. J. Herrero and E. Ruiz Morales,The Electroweak chiral Lagrangian for the Standard Model with a heavy Higgs, Nucl. Phys. B418 (1994) 431–455, [hep-ph/9308276]

    arXiv 1994

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Herrero and E. Ruiz Morales,Nondecoupling effects of the SM higgs boson to one loop, Nucl. Phys. B437 (1995) 319–355, [hep-ph/9411207]

    1995 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Grinstein and M

    B. Grinstein and M. Trott,A Higgs-Higgs bound state due to new physics at a TeV, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 073002, [arXiv:0704.1505]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Buchalla and O

    G. Buchalla and O. Cata,Effective Theory of a Dynamically Broken Electroweak Standard Model at NLO, JHEP 07 (2012) 101, [arXiv:1203.6510]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Alonso, M

    R. Alonso, M. B. Gavela, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, and J. Yepes,The Effective Chiral Lagrangian for a Light Dynamical ”Higgs Particle”, Phys. Lett. B722 (2013) 330–335, [arXiv:1212.3305]. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 726, 926 (2013)]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Catà, and C. Krause,Complete Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian with a Light Higgs at NLO, Nucl. Phys. B880 (2014) 552–573, [arXiv:1307.5017]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 913, 475–478 (2016)]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Brivio, T

    I. Brivio, T. Corbett, O. J. P. Éboli, M. B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin,Disentangling a dynamical Higgs, JHEP 03 (2014) 024, [arXiv:1311.1823]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Catá, and C. Krause,On the Power Counting in Effective Field Theories, Phys. Lett. B731 (2014) 80–86, [arXiv:1312.5624]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    M. B. Gavela, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, L. Merlo, S. Rigolin, and J. Yepes, CP violation with a dynamical Higgs, JHEP 10 (2014) 044, [arXiv:1406.6367]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. Pich, I. Rosell, J. Santos, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,Low-energy signals of strongly-coupled electroweak symmetry-breaking scenarios, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016), no. 5 055041, [arXiv:1510.03114]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar,A Geometric Formulation of Higgs Effective Field Theory: Measuring the Curvature of Scalar Field Space, Phys. Lett. B754 (2016) 335–342, [arXiv:1511.00724]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Brivio, J

    I. Brivio, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and L. Merlo,The complete HEFT Lagrangian after the LHC Run I, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016), no. 7 416, [arXiv:1604.06801]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar,Geometry of the Scalar Sector, JHEP 08 (2016) 101, [arXiv:1605.03602]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. Pich, I. Rosell, J. Santos, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,Fingerprints of heavy scales in electroweak effective Lagrangians, JHEP 04 (2017) 012, [arXiv:1609.06659]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Merlo, S

    L. Merlo, S. Saa, and M. Sacristán-Barbero,Baryon Non-Invariant Couplings in Higgs Effective Field Theory, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017), no. 3 185, [arXiv:1612.04832]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Pich,Effective Field Theory with Nambu-Goldstone Modes, arXiv:1804.05664

    A. Pich,Effective Field Theory with Nambu-Goldstone Modes, arXiv:1804.05664. – 16 –

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Krause, A

    C. Krause, A. Pich, I. Rosell, J. Santos, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,Colorful Imprints of Heavy States in the Electroweak Effective Theory, JHEP 05 (2019) 092, [arXiv:1810.10544]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Sun, M.-L

    H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu,Complete NLO operators in the Higgs effective field theory, JHEP 05 (2023) 043, [arXiv:2206.07722]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Sun, M.-L

    H. Sun, M.-L. Xiao, and J.-H. Yu,Complete NNLO operator bases in Higgs effective field theory, JHEP 04 (2023) 086, [arXiv:2210.14939]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. Gráf, B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia, and H. Murayama,Hilbert series, the Higgs mechanism, and HEFT, JHEP 02 (2023) 064, [arXiv:2211.06275]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gómez-Ambrosio, F

    R. Gómez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, SMEFT is falsifiable through multi-Higgs measurements (even in the absence of new light particles), Commun. Theor. Phys.75 (2023), no. 9 095202, [arXiv:2207.09848]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gómez-Ambrosio, F

    R. Gómez-Ambrosio, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, A. Salas-Bernárdez, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero, Distinguishing electroweak EFTs with WLWL→n×h, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 5 053004, [arXiv:2204.01763]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Alonso and M

    R. Alonso and M. West,Roads to the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022), no. 9 096028, [arXiv:2109.13290]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    I. n. Asiáin, D. Espriu, and F. Mescia,Introducing tools to test Higgs boson interactions via WW scattering: One-loop calculations and renormalization in the Higgs effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022), no. 1 015009, [arXiv:2109.02673]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland,Unitarity violation and the geometry of Higgs EFTs, JHEP 12 (2021) 003, [arXiv:2108.03240]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales,One-loop renormalization of vector boson scattering with the electroweak chiral Lagrangian in covariant gauges, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 7 075013, [arXiv:2107.07890]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. J. Herrero and R. A. Morales,One-loop corrections for WW to HH in Higgs EFT with the electroweak chiral Lagrangian, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 7 073008, [arXiv:2208.05900]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    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

  28. [36]

    Drozd, J

    A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and T. You,Comparing EFT and Exact One-Loop Analyses of Non-Degenerate Stops, JHEP 06 (2015) 028, [arXiv:1504.02409]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chiang and R

    C.-W. Chiang and R. Huo,Standard Model Effective Field Theory: Integrating out a Generic Scalar, JHEP 09 (2015) 152, [arXiv:1505.06334]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Huo,Standard Model Effective Field Theory: Integrating out Vector-Like Fermions, JHEP 09 (2015) 037, [arXiv:1506.00840]

    R. Huo,Standard Model Effective Field Theory: Integrating out Vector-Like Fermions, JHEP 09 (2015) 037, [arXiv:1506.00840]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Huo,Effective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis, Phys

    R. Huo,Effective Field Theory of Integrating out Sfermions in the MSSM: Complete One-Loop Analysis, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 7 075013, [arXiv:1509.05942]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Brehmer, A

    J. Brehmer, A. Freitas, D. Lopez-Val, and T. Plehn,Pushing Higgs Effective Theory to its Limits, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016), no. 7 075014, [arXiv:1510.03443]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Ghezzi, and M. Procura,Effective Field Theory with Two Higgs Doublets, JHEP 09 (2016) 160, [arXiv:1608.00975]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bélusca-Maïto, A

    H. Bélusca-Maïto, A. Falkowski, D. Fontes, J. C. Romão, and J. a. P. Silva,Higgs EFT for 2HDM and beyond, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017), no. 3 176, [arXiv:1611.01112]. – 17 –

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dawson and C

    S. Dawson and C. W. Murphy,Standard Model EFT and Extended Scalar Sectors, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 1 015041, [arXiv:1704.07851]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Corbett, A

    T. Corbett, A. Joglekar, H.-L. Li, and J.-H. Yu,Exploring Extended Scalar Sectors with Di-Higgs Signals: A Higgs EFT Perspective, JHEP 05 (2018) 061, [arXiv:1705.02551]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    de Blas, J

    J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. Santiago,Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary, JHEP 03 (2018) 109, [arXiv:1711.10391]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    H. Han, R. Huo, M. Jiang, and J. Shu,Standard Model Effective Field Theory: Integrating out Neutralinos and Charginos in the MSSM, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 9 095003, [arXiv:1712.07825]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    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

  40. [48]

    Craig, M

    N. Craig, M. Jiang, Y.-Y. Li, and D. Sutherland,Loops and Trees in Generic EFTs, JHEP 08 (2020) 086, [arXiv:2001.00017]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    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

  43. [51]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and S. D. Lane,Putting standard model EFT fits to work, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 5 055012, [arXiv:2007.01296]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Marzocca et al.,BSM Benchmarks for Effective Field Theories in Higgs and Electroweak Physics, arXiv:2009.01249

    D. Marzocca et al.,BSM Benchmarks for Effective Field Theories in Higgs and Electroweak Physics, arXiv:2009.01249

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    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

  46. [54]

    Zhang and S

    D. Zhang and S. Zhou,Radiative decays of charged leptons in the seesaw effective field theory with one-loop matching, Phys. Lett. B819 (2021) 136463, [arXiv:2102.04954]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Zhang and S

    D. Zhang and S. Zhou,Complete one-loop matching of the type-I seesaw model onto the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 09 (2021) 163, [arXiv:2107.12133]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Brivio, S

    I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, E. Geoffray, W. Killian, M. Krämer, M. Luchmann, T. Plehn, and B. Summ,From models to SMEFT and back?, SciPost Phys. 12 (2022), no. 1 036, [arXiv:2108.01094]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dedes and K

    A. Dedes and K. Mantzaropoulos,Universal scalar leptoquark action for matching, JHEP 11 (2021) 166, [arXiv:2108.10055]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Dawson, S

    S. Dawson, S. Homiller, and M. Sullivan,Impact of dimension-eight SMEFT contributions: A case study, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 11 115013, [arXiv:2110.06929]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    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

  52. [60]

    X. Li, D. Zhang, and S. Zhou,One-loop matching of the type-II seesaw model onto the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 04 (2022) 038, [arXiv:2201.05082]. – 18 –

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Dawson, D

    S. Dawson, D. Fontes, S. Homiller, and M. Sullivan,Role of dimension-eight operators in an EFT for the 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022), no. 5 055012, [arXiv:2205.01561]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Zhang,Complete one-loop structure of the type-(I+II) seesaw effective field theory, JHEP 03 (2023) 217, [arXiv:2208.07869]

    D. Zhang,Complete one-loop structure of the type-(I+II) seesaw effective field theory, JHEP 03 (2023) 217, [arXiv:2208.07869]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Liao and X.-D

    Y. Liao and X.-D. Ma,One-loop matching of scotogenic model onto standard model effective field theory up to dimension 7, JHEP 12 (2022) 053, [arXiv:2210.04270]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    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

  57. [65]

    Dawson, D

    S. Dawson, D. Fontes, C. Quezada-Calonge, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,Matching the 2HDM to the HEFT and the SMEFT: Decoupling and perturbativity, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 5 055034, [arXiv:2305.07689]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    X.-X. Li, Z. Ren, and J.-H. Yub,Complete tree-level dictionary between simplified BSM models and SMEFT d≤7 operators, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 9 095041, [arXiv:2307.10380]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Li and S

    X. Li and S. Zhou,One-loop matching of the type-III seesaw model onto the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP 05 (2024) 169, [arXiv:2309.14702]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Das Bakshi, S

    S. Das Bakshi, S. Dawson, D. Fontes, and S. Homiller,Relevance of one-loop SMEFT matching in the 2HDM, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 7 075022, [arXiv:2401.12279]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Dawson, M

    S. Dawson, M. Forslund, and M. Schnubel,SMEFT matching to Z’ models at dimension eight, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 1 015002, [arXiv:2404.01375]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    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

  63. [71]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty, and S. K. Patra,CoDEx: Wilson coefficient calculator connecting SMEFT to UV theory, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019), no. 1 21, [arXiv:1808.04403]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Fuentes-Martín, M

    J. Fuentes-Martín, M. König, J. Pagès, A. E. Thomsen, and F. Wilsch,A proof of concept for matchete: an automated tool for matching effective theories, Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023), no. 7 662, [arXiv:2212.04510]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    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

  66. [74]

    Grojean, O

    C. Grojean, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. Panico,Light top partners and precision physics, JHEP 10 (2013) 160, [arXiv:1306.4655]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Alonso, I

    R. Alonso, I. Brivio, B. Gavela, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin,Sigma Decomposition, JHEP 12 (2014) 034, [arXiv:1409.1589]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    I. M. Hierro, L. Merlo, and S. Rigolin,Sigma Decomposition: The CP-Odd Lagrangian, JHEP 04 (2016) 016, [arXiv:1510.07899]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. B. Gavela, K. Kanshin, P. A. N. Machado, and S. Saa,The linear–non-linear frontier for the Goldstone Higgs, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016), no. 12 690, [arXiv:1610.08083]

    2016 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Qi, J.-H

    Y.-H. Qi, J.-H. Yu, and S.-H. Zhu,Effective field theory perspective on next-to-minimal composite Higgs models, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021), no. 1 015013, [arXiv:1912.13058]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Lindner and K

    A. Lindner and K. F. Muzakka,Matching to Higgs-Compositeness and Renormalization of the Higgs-Electroweak Chiral Lagrangian extended by a Scalar Singlet, arXiv:2201.05122. – 19 –

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Buchalla, O

    G. Buchalla, O. Cata, A. Celis, and C. Krause,Standard Model Extended by a Heavy Singlet: Linear vs. Nonlinear EFT, Nucl. Phys. B917 (2017) 209–233, [arXiv:1608.03564]

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Dawson, D

    S. Dawson, D. Fontes, C. Quezada-Calonge, and J. J. Sanz-Cillero,Is the HEFT matching unique?, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 5 055037, [arXiv:2311.16897]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Banta, T

    I. Banta, T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu, and D. Sutherland,Effective field theory of the two Higgs doublet model, JHEP 06 (2023) 150, [arXiv:2304.09884]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    F. Arco, D. Domenech, M. J. Herrero, and R. A. Morales,Nondecoupling effects from heavy Higgs bosons by matching 2HDM to HEFT amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023), no. 9 095013, [arXiv:2307.15693]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Buchalla, F

    G. Buchalla, F. König, C. Müller-Salditt, and F. Pandler,Two-Higgs-doublet model matched to nonlinear effective theory, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 1 016015, [arXiv:2312.13885]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1., Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2239–2247

    1969

  78. [86]

    Englert, R

    Anisha, C. Englert, R. Kogler, and M. Spannowsky,Higgs boson off-shell measurements probe nonlinearities, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 9 095033, [arXiv:2402.06746]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Cheng, X.-G

    Y. Cheng, X.-G. He, F. Huang, J. Sun, and Z.-P. Xing,Electroweak precision tests for triplet scalars, Nucl. Phys. B989 (2023) 116118, [arXiv:2208.06760]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Y. Du, A. Dunbrack, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J.-H. Yu,Type-II Seesaw Scalar Triplet Model at a 100 TeVpp Collider: Discovery and Higgs Portal Coupling Determination, JHEP 01 (2019) 101, [arXiv:1810.09450]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Dittmaier and H

    S. Dittmaier and H. Rzehak,Electroweak renormalization based on gauge-invariant vacuum expectation values of non-linear Higgs representations. Part II. Extended Higgs sectors, JHEP 08 (2022) 245, [arXiv:2206.01479]. – 20 –

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.