Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Positivity in the Renormalization of Effective Field Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-loop EFT running has a fixed sign in the forward limit.

desk verdict A likely true general sign rule for one-loop EFT running, but the t-channel vanishing proof is a sketch and must be the referee's focus. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02910 v2 pith:SWGNFSWW submitted 2025-05-05 hep-ph hep-th

You-Peng Liao , Jasper Roosmale Nepveu , Chia-Hsien Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th PACS 11.10.Hi11.55.-m12.15.-y
keywords renormalizationgroupeffectivefieldtheorypositivityboundsforwardlimitunitaritycutson-shellmethodsSMEFTchiralperturbation
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 establishes an EFT a-theorem: in the forward limit, the one-loop running of a dimension-4n coupling induced by two insertions of operators of the same even mass dimension has a fixed sign, with the coupling larger in the infrared than at the matching scale. The proof is meant to follow from unitarity, analyticity, and Lorentz invariance alone, with no assumption about the ultraviolet completion, so the theorem applies across chiral perturbation theory, the Standard Model EFT, and gravitational EFTs. The authors use it to determine which tree-level positivity bounds survive renormalization effects and which can be violated, and they derive new non-renormalization theorems as corollaries. A sympathetic reader should care because it extracts a general monotonicity statement out of a notoriously sign-dependent calculation.

What carries the argument

The on-shell one-loop RG formula (4), obtained from $dA_{\mathrm{full}}/d\ln\mu=0$ and the optical theorem, is the engine: it writes $dA^{(0)}/d\ln\mu$ as $-1/\pi$ times the sum of phase-space integrals of tree amplitudes over s, u, and t discontinuities. Its sign structure is analyzed in the forward limit, where the s and u integrands are non-negative by unitarity and $s=-u$ makes the combination sign-definite for even equal dimensions. The t channel is eliminated by the counting in (6): in a bubble diagram, Lorentz invariance forces the loop-momentum dependence into powers of $(p_1-p_4)$, so only massless scalars without extra derivatives survive, and those terms vanish in the forward limit for any higher-dimensional operator. Together these pieces yield the inequality (7).

What would settle it

Compute $\mathrm{Disc}_t A^{(1)}$ directly in the forward limit for a one-loop four-point amplitude built from two equal-dimension higher-dimensional operators in a theory with a massless scalar plus a cubic or higher-spin interaction; the counting in (6) predicts exactly zero, so any nonzero result, or any positive contribution to $dc_{4n}/d\ln\mu$ from the t channel, would disprove inequality (7).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is inequality (7): restricted to the contribution from a pair of dimension-(2n+2) operators, the one-loop $\beta$ function of a dimension-4n forward-limit coupling satisfies $dc_{4n}/d\ln\mu \le 0$, so integrating from the cutoff to the infrared gives $c_{4n,\mathrm{IR}} - c_{4n,\mathrm{UV}} \ge 0$. The argument begins from the on-shell renormalization-group formula, which equates the scale derivative of the tree amplitude with the sum of the s-, u-, and t-channel unitarity cuts of the one-loop amplitude. In the forward limit the s and u channels contribute positive-definite integrands, and because $u=-s$ the sum is sign-definite exactly when both inserted operators have equal even mass dimension; the t channel is shown to vanish for any higher-dimensional operator by helicity and derivative counting on a single-scale bubble. For $n\ge 2$ the theorem therefore fixes the sign of the square of dimension-$(2n+2)$ insertions into dimension-$4n$ couplings, regardless of spin and ultraviolet completion.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem assumes that the sideways (t-channel) cut of the one-loop amplitude contributes nothing in the forward limit for any higher-dimensional operator; if any such cut survives, the fixed-sign conclusion can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the SMEFT, the dimension-8 H4D4 couplings receive a negative beta-function contribution from double insertions of dimension-6 operators; combinations that can be probed in the forward limit, such as $c^{(1)}_{H^4D^4}+c^{(2)}_{H^4D^4}$, run to larger values in the IR, as shown explicitly in the supplemental material.
  • In chiral perturbation theory, the $O(p^4)$ couplings $c_1+c_2$ and $c_2$ satisfy the predicted negative running, matching the explicit one-loop beta functions.
  • Tree-level positivity bounds $c_{4n}\ge 0$ are preserved by this sector of the RG when the dimension-$(2n+2)$ pair dominates, and apparent infrared violation of the bounds points to weakly coupled ultraviolet completions.
  • Operators that survive in the forward limit are not renormalized by operators that vanish there when only the t-channel cut exists, yielding non-renormalization of $H^2F^2D^2$ from $H^4D^2$ and $H^2F^2$ insertions and explaining zero entries in the dimension-6 SMEFT anomalous-dimension matrix.
  • At dimension six, sign-definite RG still follows when only one channel is present, as in the mixing of two Weinberg operators into $H^4D^2$, $LLH^2D$, and $LLLL$ operators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the sign-definite sector could be used as a model-selection prior in global SMEFT fits, with data showing dimension-8 coefficients growing toward the IR in the fixed combinations favoring strongly coupled ultraviolet completions and the opposite pattern favoring weakly coupled completions.
  • Editorial inference: if the t-channel vanishing argument survives the addition of cubic interactions, it would expose a monotone structure at the S-matrix level that may connect to quantum-information formulations of RG irreversibility; the authors mention this as a future direction but do not prove it.
  • Editorial inference: the theorem's mechanism suggests the sign-definite sector is special to the one-loop forward limit, so probing the same coefficients at nonzero momentum transfer or at two loops could reveal sign cancellations the present proof does not control.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 proves, or claims to prove, an 'EFT a-theorem': in the forward limit, the one-loop running of a dimension-4n coupling c_{4n} induced by double insertions of two operators of equal even mass dimension is sign-definite, dc_{4n}/d ln mu <= 0 (Eq. (7)). The proof starts from the on-shell unitarity-cut formula (4), combines the s and u cuts using positivity of the forward elastic integrand and the relation u = -s, and argues that the t cut vanishes for any insertion of a higher-dimensional operator via the Lorentz-covariance estimate in Eq. (6). Applications are given in chiral perturbation theory (Eq. (8)), in the SMEFT dimension-8 H4D4 sector including new F^3 contributions (Eq. (10)), and at dimension six for mixing of the Weinberg operator (Eq. (12)); the supplemental material adds an R^2 phi^2 gravity example, explicit RG expressions, a toy-model and an extended-Higgs-sector demonstration of RG-induced violation of tree-level positivity, and a dispersion-relation check. A corollary gives non-renormalization of forward-probed operators when only the t channel exists.

Significance. The claimed theorem, if fully established, would be a genuinely useful structural result: it extracts a sign-definite sector of the one-loop RG purely from unitarity, analyticity, and Lorentz invariance, without dispersion relations and without assumptions about the UV completion. It also provides a practical criterion (11) for when loop corrections can preserve or violate tree-level positivity bounds, and it supplies new explicit SMEFT RG results, the F^3 contributions to H4D4 mixing, that are of independent value. The consistency checks in the manuscript and supplement (chiPT, Weinberg-operator mixing, the R^2 phi^2 example, and the dispersion-relation consistency of the positivity-violating toy models) are credit to the paper and make the sign claim very plausible. The main limitation is that two load-bearing steps of the general proof are sketched rather than proved, so the paper is currently stronger as a collection of verified examples plus a promising general argument than as a theorem with the stated level of generality.

major comments (3)
  1. [Proof of the EFT a-theorem, Eq. (6)] The vanishing of Disc_t A^(1) in the forward limit is the decisive step that turns the s/u-channel positivity into the sign-definite claim (7), and the argument in Eq. (6) is not a complete proof. A bubble integral over internal momenta ell_1, ell_2 produces a Lorentz tensor containing both q^mu q^nu and g^{mu nu} q^2 terms with q = p1 - p4; only the former is captured by the replacement ell_i -> q. The text explicitly says that it 'does not assume any details on index contractions,' but those contractions are exactly what must be checked: contributions in which the g^{mu nu} terms contract with external spinor or Lorentz structures of a dimension-(2n+2) operator could survive even at q^2 = 0, and for spinning internal lines spinor products such as <ell_1 ell_2> and [ell_1 ell_2] are not represented by (|ell>[ell|)^{2|h|+n}. Please supply a proof that every non-scalar numerator factor is proportional to q^mu (or q^2) after the phase-space integration, or state and prove the equivalent angular-momentum selection rule. As written, a nonzero t-channel cut of either sign would invalidate Eq. (7).
  2. [Proof of the EFT a-theorem, around Eq. (5)] The non-negativity of the integrated two-insertion coefficient d_{i,m} is imposed rather than derived: the text says 'we impose ... such that each integrand is always non-negative ... for a non-negative coefficient d_{i,m}.' Unitarity gives positivity of the forward imaginary part, but the step from that to a non-negative coefficient of the single power s_i^m after summing over intermediate helicities and after the s/u combination is nontrivial. Since this is the entire content of the sign in Eq. (7), it should be formulated as a lemma with a proof, for example from the optical theorem together with the power-counting of a single insertion, rather than as an input condition.
  3. [Phenomenological Implications, Eq. (10); Supplemental Sec. I.C] The stated scope of the theorem is 'massless particles without cubic interactions' (Proof section), but the SMEFT application includes F^3 insertions and the supplement includes the gravitational R^2 phi^2 example, both of which involve theories with cubic interactions. The text argues that for F^3 only bubble diagrams contribute and therefore the single-scale t-channel counting of Eq. (6) applies; this is a new claim, because the derivation of Eq. (4) and of the t-channel vanishing used the no-cubic-interaction and no-IR-divergence assumptions. The explicit RG computation in the supplement is a welcome check, and it does verify the sign for the F^3 sector, but the paper should either extend the proof to cover these sectors or present them as explicit examples rather than as corollaries of the general theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proof of the EFT a-theorem, after Eq. (5)] The notation in the proof is confusing: the text speaks of operators of 'mass dimension (2m+4)' and a coefficient d_{i,m} s_i^m, while the theorem is stated in terms of dimension-(2n+2) insertions and c_{4n}; please define m unambiguously and align it with n.
  2. [Proof of the EFT a-theorem, after Eq. (6)] The sentence that 'This singles out phi^4-theory as the only case where Disc_t A^(1) != 0 in the forward limit' is too quick: even if the counting is correct, one should state which four-point operator is renormalized in that case, since phi^4 alone has no higher-dimensional operator in the game.
  3. [Phenomenological Implications, Eq. (10)] The display after Eq. (10) contains a corrupted inline figure ('xit>') and should be cleaned up.
  4. [Phenomenological Implications, after Eq. (8)] The estimate that electromagnetic corrections to the chiPT running are O(alpha_em/4 pi) x O(c_i) <= 10^-5 would benefit from a one-line derivation or a reference, since it carries the phenomenological claim about the direction of the flow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sign theorem follows from unitarity, analyticity, and Lorentz invariance through an independent on-shell RG formula, with explicit RG results used only as checks.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The one-loop RG is obtained from Eq. (4), which is taken from the independent on-shell formalism of Caron-Huot and Wilhelm [49]; the paper's own inputs are scale independence of the full amplitude, Eq. (3), and the optical theorem, with no fitted parameter involved. The sign-definite statement, Eq. (7), follows from two structural facts: (i) in the forward limit the s- and u-channel unitarity integrands for two equal even-dimension insertions are non-negative, and since s = -u the sum is sign-definite only for even power m; and (ii) the t-channel discontinuity is argued to vanish by the Lorentz/counting argument in Eq. (6). Explicit RG results in chiral perturbation theory, Eq. (8), in SMEFT, Eqs. (10) and (12), and in the supplemental material are presented as checks or verifications, not as inputs. The cited prior examples [33, 83] are explicitly described as special cases that the proof generalizes, so no result is being imported as its own conclusion. Defining c_m through the on-shell forward amplitude is a basis choice, not a circular reduction: the coefficient so defined is exactly the object whose RG sign is claimed. The load-bearing soft spot is the t-channel-vanishing argument around Eq. (6), where the Lorentz-tensor structure and higher-spin cases are sketched rather than fully demonstrated; this is a correctness or completeness concern, not circularity. Similarly, the F^3 SMEFT application lies outside the stated 'without cubic interactions' proof scope and is justified by a bubble-counting extension; this is a scope gap, not a circular step. No self-citation chain carries the central argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem rests on standard QFT axioms and two technical lemmas, not on fitted parameters or invented entities. The on-shell RG formula is taken from the literature; the paper's contribution is the forward-limit channel analysis on top of it. No free parameters are introduced beyond the EFT couplings themselves.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Unitarity of the S-matrix, used via the optical theorem to replace channel discontinuities by positive phase-space integrals of tree amplitudes in Eq. (4).
    Standard QFT axiom; the sign-definiteness of the theorem inherits its positivity from this assumption.
  • domain assumption Analyticity and locality: the one-loop RG coefficient is a local polynomial in Mandelstam invariants, so channel cuts can be combined by analytic continuation.
    Invoked in footnote 1 and around Eq. (4); needed to extract the RG from discontinuities.
  • domain assumption Lorentz invariance in the t-channel bubble integral: internal momentum integrals reduce to powers of the external momentum p1-p4.
    Load-bearing for the t-channel vanishing in Eq. (6); if higher-spin tensor structures survive the integration, the proof requires revision.
  • standard math Spinor-helicity scaling: a local amplitude with a particle of helicity h carries factors |p>^{2h} or |p]^{2h}, and each derivative adds |p>[p|.
    Used to count powers in Eq. (6) for the t-channel discontinuity.
  • domain assumption Massless particles and no cubic interactions, stated as a restriction to avoid IR divergences and tadpole diagrams.
    Defines the class of EFTs for which the proof is given; the abstract's broad wording should be read with this restriction.
  • standard math Validity of the Caron-Huot-Wilhelm on-shell RG formula, Eq. (4).
    Borrowed from the cited literature; the paper's derivation starts from this formula and does not prove it.
  • ad hoc to paper F^3 insertions in the SMEFT only produce bubble diagrams in the H4D4 mixing sector, so the no-cubic-interaction restriction can be relaxed there.
    Used to include F^3 operators in Eq. (10) despite the proof's restriction; the absence of IR complications is asserted but not demonstrated in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Positivity in the Renormalization of Effective Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWGNFSWW

@misc{pith2026250502910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Positivity in the Renormalization of Effective Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWGNFSWW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02910}
}
abstract

We show that the direction of renormalization in effective field theory is constrained by fundamental principles in the infrared$\unicode{x2014}$unitarity, analyticity, and Lorentz invariance. Our theorem, in the spirit of the $a$-theorem in conformal field theory, determines the sign of the one-loop running of couplings in the forward limit, when one inserts two operators whose mass dimensions are identical and even. The theorem holds for a broad class of effective field theories with arbitrary ultraviolet completions. The constraint directly applies to linear positivity bounds derived using tree-level amplitudes in the infrared, providing a criterion for whether renormalization effects can preserve the positivity bounds, or lead to their apparent violation. We discuss the phenomenological implications of our theorem in chiral perturbation theory and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory, where our theorem is particularly constraining for the running at dimension eight. We provide several examples and show various extensions and applications even at dimension six.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic plot for the RG of a dimension-8 cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The only non-zero channel in the RG formula ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Geometry of effective field theory positivity cones

    math-ph 2025-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For three particle flavors, the positivity cone C_W has exactly three families of extremal rays, one of which yields genuinely new inelastic constraints not implied by elastic bounds.

  2. Positivity and partial wave unitarity bounds on ALP theories via amplitude methods

    hep-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Complete partial-wave unitarity and positivity bounds are derived for ALP effective interactions up to dimension 8, with new SMEFT positivity constraints as a byproduct.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Ultraviolet behavior of non- abelian gauge theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 1343 (1973)

    1973

  2. [2]

    H. D. Politzer, Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1346 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    A. B. Zamolodchikov, Irreversibility of the Flux of the Renormalization Group in a 2D Field Theory, JETP Lett. 43, 730 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    J. L. Cardy, Is There a c Theorem in Four-Dimensions?, Phys. Lett. B 215, 749 (1988)

    1988

  5. [5]

    We also ana- lyze the full mixing of the Weinberg operators into other dimension-6 operators in the supplemental material

    , d (cHD + 2cH□) d lnµ =− 8 16π2 tr(c5c∗ 5), (12) where the trace sums over the flavor space. We also ana- lyze the full mixing of the Weinberg operators into other dimension-6 operators in the supplemental material. A corollary of (6) is the non-renormalization of a higher-dimensional operator that can be probed in the FL if thet-channel cut is the only ...

  6. [6]

    (8) Moreover, the loop corrections induced by the O(p2) La- grangian are naturally comparable to the tree-levelO(p4) terms [90], leading to O(ci)∼ 0.01. Crucially, the scale dependence would exhibit the same qualitative behavior in the presence of electromagnetic interactions between charged pions, whose effects on (8) are negligible because O(αem 4π )×O ...

  7. [7]

    Komargodski and A

    Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, On Renormaliza- tion Group Flows in Four Dimensions, JHEP 12, 099, arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Komargodski, The Constraints of Conformal Sym- metry on RG Flows, JHEP 07, 069, arXiv:1112.4538 [hep-th]

    Z. Komargodski, The Constraints of Conformal Sym- metry on RG Flows, JHEP 07, 069, arXiv:1112.4538 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    M. A. Luty, J. Polchinski, and R. Rattazzi, The a- theorem and the Asymptotics of 4D Quantum Field Theory, JHEP 01, 152, arXiv:1204.5221 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Weinberg, Pion scattering lengths, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Pion scattering lengths, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 616 (1966)

    1966

  3. [11]

    J. A. Cronin, Phenomenological model of strong and weak interactions in chiral U(3) x U(3), Phys. Rev.161, 1483 (1967)

    1967

  4. [12]

    Weinberg, Dynamical approach to current algebra, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Dynamical approach to current algebra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 188 (1967)

    1967

  5. [13]

    Weinberg, Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry, Phys. Rev. 166, 1568 (1968)

    1968

  6. [14]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, The standard model as an effec- tive field theory, Physics Reports 793, 1–98 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Panico, A

    G. Panico, A. Pomarol, and M. Riembau, EFT approach to the electron Electric Dipole Moment at the two-loop level, JHEP 04, 090, arXiv:1810.09413 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Degrande, G

    C. Degrande, G. Durieux, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, Automated one-loop com- putations in the Standard Model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 103, 096024 (2021), arXiv:2008.11743 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Heinrich, J

    G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and L. Scyboz, Beyond dimension six in SM Effective Field Theory: a case study in Higgs pair production at NLO QCD, PoSLL2022, 009 (2022), arXiv:2207.08790 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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, 075022 (2024), arXiv:2401.12279 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Biek¨ otter and B

    A. Biek¨ otter and B. D. Pecjak, Analytic results for electroweak precision observables at NLO in SMEFT, (2025), arXiv:2503.07724 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Azatov, R

    A. Azatov, R. Contino, C. S. Machado, and F. Riva, Positivity constraints on aQGC for BSM amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 95, 065014 (2017), arXiv:1607.05236 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Q. Bi, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity constraints on aQGC: carving out the physical parameter space, JHEP 06, 137, arXiv:1902.08977 [hep-ph]

    1902 arXiv

  14. [22]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Consistency of the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 12, 032, arXiv:1908.09845 [hep-ph]

    1908 arXiv

  15. [23]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Flavor constraints from unitarity and analyticity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 081601 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 127, 149901 (2021)], arXiv:2004.02885 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alioli, R

    S. Alioli, R. Boughezal, E. Mereghetti, and F. Petriello, Novel angular dependence in Drell-Yan lepton produc- tion via dimension-8 operators, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135703 (2020), arXiv:2003.11615 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gu, L.-T

    J. Gu, L.-T. Wang, and C. Zhang, Unambiguously test- ing positivity at lepton colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 011805 (2022), arXiv:2011.03055 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Boughezal, Y

    R. Boughezal, Y. Huang, and F. Petriello, Exploring the SMEFT at dimension eight with Drell-Yan transverse momentum measurements, Phys. Rev. D 106, 036020 (2022), arXiv:2207.01703 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Grojean, G

    C. Grojean, G. Guedes, J. Roosmale Nepveu, and G. M. Salla, A log story short: running contributions to ra- diative Higgs decays in the SMEFT, JHEP 12, 065, arXiv:2405.20371 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Assi and A

    B. Assi and A. Martin, Energy-enhanced dimension eight SMEFT effects in VBF Higgs production, JHEP 02, 029, arXiv:2410.21563 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Liao, X.-D

    Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, and H.-L. Wang, Probing dimension- 8 SMEFT operators through neutral meson mixing, JHEP 03, 133, arXiv:2409.10305 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormal- ization group evolution of the Standard Model dimen- sion six operators I: formalism and lambda dependence, JHEP 10, 087, arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormal- ization group evolution of the Standard Model dimen- sion six operators II: Yukawa dependence, JHEP 01, 035, arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Renormalization group evolution of the Standard Model dimension six operators III: gauge coupling dependence and phenomenology, JHEP 04, 159, arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alonso, H.-M

    R. Alonso, H.-M. Chang, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and B. Shotwell, Renormalization group evolution of dimension-six baryon number violating operators, Phys. Lett. B 734, 302 (2014), arXiv:1405.0486 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Accettulli Huber and S

    M. Accettulli Huber and S. De Angelis, Standard Model EFTs via on-shell methods, JHEP 11, 221, arXiv:2108.03669 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Chala, G

    M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos, and J. Santiago, To- wards the renormalisation of the Standard Model effec- tive field theory to dimension eight: bosonic interactions I, SciPost Phys. 11, 065 (2021), arXiv:2106.05291 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Helset, E

    A. Helset, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Renormal- ization of the Standard Model effective field theory from geometry, JHEP 02, 063, arXiv:2212.03253 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Das Bakshi, M

    S. Das Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D´ ıaz-Carmona, and G. Guedes, Towards the renormalisation of the Stan- dard Model effective field theory to dimension eight: bosonic interactions II, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 973 (2022), arXiv:2205.03301 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Das Bakshi and A

    S. Das Bakshi and A. D´ ıaz-Carmona, Renormalisation of SMEFT bosonic interactions up to dimension eight by LNV operators, JHEP 06, 123, arXiv:2301.07151 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    B. Assi, A. Helset, A. V. Manohar, J. Pag` es, and C.-H. Shen, Fermion geometry and the renormalization of the 7 Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP 11, 201, arXiv:2307.03187 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Boughezal, Y

    R. Boughezal, Y. Huang, and F. Petriello, Renormalization-group running of dimension-8 four- fermion operators in the SMEFT, Phys. Rev. D 110, 116015 (2024), arXiv:2408.15378 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    S. D. Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D´ ıaz-Carmona, Z. Ren, and F. Vilches, Renormalization of the SMEFT to di- mension eight: fermionic interactions I, JHEP 12, 214, arXiv:2409.15408 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. Assi, A. Helset, J. Pag` es, and C.-H. Shen, Renormal- izing two-fermion operators in the SMEFT via superge- ometry, (2025), arXiv:2504.18537 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia, and H. Murayama, 2, 84, 30, 993, 560, 15456, 11962, 261485, ...: higher dimension operators in the SM EFT, JHEP 08, 016, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 019 (2019)], arXiv:1512.03433 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Holo- morphy without supersymmetry in the Standard Model effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B 739, 95 (2014), arXiv:1409.0868 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Elias-Miro, J

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, and A. Pomarol, One-loop non-renormalization results in EFTs, Phys. Lett. B747, 272 (2015), arXiv:1412.7151 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Cheung and C.-H

    C. Cheung and C.-H. Shen, Nonrenormalization the- orems without supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 071601 (2015), arXiv:1505.01844 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer, Nonrenor- malization and operator mixing via on-shell methods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 051601 (2020), arXiv:1910.05831 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Jiang, J

    M. Jiang, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, and Y.-H. Zheng, Par- tial wave amplitude basis and selection rules in effec- tive field theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011601 (2021), arXiv:2001.04481 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. S. Machado, S. Renner, and D. Sutherland, Building blocks of the flavourful SMEFT RG, JHEP 03, 226, arXiv:2210.09316 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    W. Cao, F. Herzog, T. Melia, and J. Roosmale Nepveu, Non-linear non-renormalization theorems, JHEP 08, 080, arXiv:2303.07391 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Caron-Huot and M

    S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm, Renormalization group coefficients and the S-matrix, JHEP 12, 010, arXiv:1607.06448 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer, Structure of two-loop SMEFT anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods, JHEP 10, 211, arXiv:2005.12917 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Elias Mir´ o, J

    J. Elias Mir´ o, J. Ingoldby, and M. Riembau, EFT anomalous dimensions from the S-matrix, JHEP 09, 163, arXiv:2005.06983 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez, and A. Pomarol, Renor- malization of higher-dimensional operators from on- shell amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B 959, 115155 (2020), arXiv:2005.07129 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Baratella, C

    P. Baratella, C. Fernandez, B. von Harling, and A. Po- marol, Anomalous dimensions of dffective theories from partial waves, JHEP 03, 287, arXiv:2010.13809 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Jiang, T

    M. Jiang, T. Ma, and J. Shu, Renormalization group evolution from on-shell SMEFT, JHEP 01, 101, arXiv:2005.10261 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Elias Miro, C

    J. Elias Miro, C. Fernandez, M. A. Gumus, and A. Po- marol, Gearing up for the next generation of LFV experiments, via on-shell methods, JHEP 06, 126, arXiv:2112.12131 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Baratella, D

    P. Baratella, D. Haslehner, M. Ruhdorfer, J. Serra, and A. Weiler, RG of GR from on-shell amplitudes, JHEP 03, 156, arXiv:2109.06191 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Baratella, S

    P. Baratella, S. Maggio, M. Stadlbauer, and T. Theil, Two-loop infrared renormalization with on-shell meth- ods, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 751 (2023), arXiv:2207.08831 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Brunello, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia, and P. Paradisi, Renormalization of effective field the- ories via on-shell methods: the case of axion-like parti- cles, (2024), arXiv:2412.04160 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    L. C. Bresciani, G. Levati, P. Mastrolia, and P. Para- disi, Anomalous dimensions via on-shell methods: op- erator mixing and leading mass effects, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056041 (2024), arXiv:2312.05206 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    T. N. Pham and T. N. Truong, Evaluation of the deriva- tive quartic terms of the meson chiral Lagrangian from forward dispersion relation, Phys. Rev. D 31, 3027 (1985)

    1985

  55. [63]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR ob- struction to UV completion, JHEP 10, 014, arXiv:hep- th/0602178

  56. [64]

    I. Low, R. Rattazzi, and A. Vichi, Theoretical con- straints on the Higgs effective couplings, JHEP 04, 126, arXiv:0907.5413 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Positivity bounds on vector boson scattering at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 100, 095003 (2019), arXiv:1808.00010 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Convex geometry perspective on the (Standard Model) effective field theory space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 201601 (2020), arXiv:2005.03047 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Signs, spin, SMEFT: sum rules at dimension six, Phys. Rev. D 105, 036006 (2022), arXiv:2010.04723 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Spinning sum rules for the dimension-six SMEFT, JHEP 09, 030, arXiv:2206.13524 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Yamashita, C

    K. Yamashita, C. Zhang, and S.-Y. Zhou, Elastic posi- tivity vs extremal positivity bounds in SMEFT: a case study in transversal electroweak gauge-boson scatter- ings, JHEP 01, 095, arXiv:2009.04490 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  62. [70]

    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, 180, arXiv:2309.15922 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Hong, Z.-H

    D.-Y. Hong, Z.-H. Wang, and S.-Y. Zhou, On Capped Higgs positivity cone (2024) arXiv:2404.04479 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    G. N. Remmen and N. L. Rodd, Positively identifying HEFT or SMEFT, (2024), arXiv:2412.07827 [hep-ph]

    2024

  65. [73]

    M. R. Pennington and J. Portoles, The Chiral La- grangian parameters, l1, l2, are determined by the rho resonance, Phys. Lett. B 344, 399 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9409426

    1995

  66. [74]

    Ananthanarayan, D

    B. Ananthanarayan, D. Toublan, and G. Wanders, Con- sistency of the chiral pion pion scattering amplitudes with axiomatic constraints, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1093 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9410302

    1995 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Dita, Positivity constraints on chiral perturbation theory pion pion scattering amplitudes, Phys

    P. Dita, Positivity constraints on chiral perturbation theory pion pion scattering amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 59, 094007 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809568

    1999 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Distler, B

    J. Distler, B. Grinstein, R. A. Porto, and I. Z. Roth- 8 stein, Falsifying Models of New Physics via WW Scat- tering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 041601 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0604255

    2007

  69. [77]

    A. V. Manohar and V. Mateu, Dispersion Relation Bounds for pi pi Scattering, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094019 (2008), arXiv:0801.3222 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, The EFT-Hedron, JHEP 05, 259, arXiv:2012.15849 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Bellazzini, J

    B. Bellazzini, J. Elias Mir´ o, R. Rattazzi, M. Riem- bau, and F. Riva, Positive moments for scatter- ing amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 036006 (2021), arXiv:2011.00037 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Bellazzini, M

    B. Bellazzini, M. Riembau, and F. Riva, IR side of positivity bounds, Phys. Rev. D 106, 105008 (2022), arXiv:2112.12561 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Beadle, G

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, Non-Forward UV/IR Relations, (2024), arXiv:2407.02346 [hep-th]

    2024

  74. [82]

    Beadle, G

    C. Beadle, G. Isabella, D. Perrone, S. Ricossa, F. Riva, and F. Serra, The EFT bootstrap at finiteMPL , (2025), arXiv:2501.18465 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Chang and J

    C.-H. Chang and J. Parra-Martinez, Graviton loops and negativity, (2025), arXiv:2501.17949 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Desai and D

    J. Desai and D. Ghosh, Positivity at 1-Loop: Bounds on Photon and Gluon EFTs, (2025), arXiv:2503.21864 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Chala and J

    M. Chala and J. Santiago, Positivity bounds in the Standard Model effective field theory beyond tree level, Phys. Rev. D 105, L111901 (2022), arXiv:2110.01624 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Li, Positivity bounds at one-loop level: the Higgs sector, JHEP 05, 230, arXiv:2212.12227 [hep-ph]

    X. Li, Positivity bounds at one-loop level: the Higgs sector, JHEP 05, 230, arXiv:2212.12227 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Y. Ye, B. He, and J. Gu, Positivity bounds in scalar effective field theories at one-loop level, JHEP 12, 046, arXiv:2408.10318 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Chala, Constraints on anomalous dimensions from the positivity of the S matrix, Phys

    M. Chala, Constraints on anomalous dimensions from the positivity of the S matrix, Phys. Rev. D108, 015031 (2023), arXiv:2301.09995 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Chala and X

    M. Chala and X. Li, Positivity restrictions on the mix- ing of dimension-eight SMEFT operators, Phys. Rev. D 109, 065015 (2024), arXiv:2309.16611 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Caron-Huot and M

    S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm, Renormalization group coefficients and the s-matrix, Journal of High Energy Physics 2016, 10.1007/jhep12(2016)010 (2016)

    2016 doi

  83. [91]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Chiral perturbation theory to one loop, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984)

    1984

  84. [92]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Chiral quarks and the non- relativistic quark model, Nucl. Phys. B 234, 189 (1984)

    1984

  85. [93]

    C. W. Murphy, Dimension-8 operators in the Stan- dard Model effective field theory, JHEP 10, 174, arXiv:2005.00059 [hep-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Grzadkowski, M

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

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, Naive dimensional analysis counting of gauge theory ampli- tudes and anomalous dimensions, Phys. Lett. B 726, 697 (2013), arXiv:1309.0819 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs, JHEP 06, 045, arXiv:hep-ph/0703164

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Biek¨ otter, A

    A. Biek¨ otter, A. Knochel, M. Kr¨ amer, D. Liu, and F. Riva, Vices and virtues of Higgs effective field the- ories at large energy, Phys. Rev. D 91, 055029 (2015), arXiv:1406.7320 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  90. [98]

    D. Liu, A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, and F. Riva, Patterns of Strong Coupling for LHC Searches, JHEP 11, 141, arXiv:1603.03064 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    Contino, A

    R. Contino, A. Falkowski, F. Goertz, C. Grojean, and F. Riva, On the validity of the effective field the- ory approach to SM precision tests, JHEP 07, 144, arXiv:1604.06444 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    B. A. Stefanek, Non-universal probes of composite Higgs models: new bounds and prospects for FCC-ee, JHEP 09, 103, arXiv:2407.09593 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  93. [101]

    Weinberg, Baryon and lepton nonconserving pro- cesses, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Baryon and lepton nonconserving pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979)

    1979

  94. [102]

    Broncano, M

    A. Broncano, M. B. Gavela, and E. E. Jenkins, Renor- malization of lepton mixing for Majorana neutrinos, Nucl. Phys. B 705, 269 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406019

    2005 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Davidson, M

    S. Davidson, M. Gorbahn, and M. Leak, Majorana neu- trino masses in the renormalization group equations for lepton flavor violation, Phys. Rev. D 98, 095014 (2018), arXiv:1807.04283 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, J.-Y. Liu, and G. N. Remmen, Causality, unitarity, and the weak gravity conjecture, JHEP 03, 083, arXiv:2109.13937 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  97. [105]

    De Angelis and G

    S. De Angelis and G. Durieux, EFT matching from an- alyticity and unitarity, SciPost Phys. 16, 071 (2024), arXiv:2308.00035 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, A geo- metric formulation of Higgs effective field theory: mea- suring the curvature of scalar field space, Phys. Lett. B 754, 335 (2016), arXiv:1511.00724 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Geometry of the scalar sector, JHEP 08, 101, arXiv:1605.03602 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  100. [108]

    Helset, E

    A. Helset, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Geome- try in scattering amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 106, 116018 (2022), arXiv:2210.08000 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  101. [109]

    X.-X. Li, X. Lu, and Z. Zhang, The geometric univer- sal one-Loop effective action, (2024), arXiv:2411.04173 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Aigner, L

    P. Aigner, L. Bellafronte, E. Gendy, D. Haslehner, and A. Weiler, Renormalising the field-space geometry, (2025), arXiv:2503.09785 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Aoude, G

    R. Aoude, G. Elor, G. N. Remmen, and O. Sumensari, Positivity in amplitudes from quantum entanglement, (2024), arXiv:2402.16956 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, An area law for entanglement entropy in particle scattering, (2024), arXiv:2405.08056 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Low and Z

    I. Low and Z. Yin, Elastic cross section is entan- glement entropy, Phys. Rev. D 111, 065027 (2025), arXiv:2410.22414 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  106. [114]

    /SdU72gH0KjYI2Uqb0XCs9zuTKk=

    C. D. Pueyo, H. Goodhew, C. McCulloch, and E. Pajer, Perturbative unitarity bounds from momentum-space entanglement, (2024), arXiv:2410.23709 [hep-th]. S1 Supplemental Material I. EXAMPLES OF RG EQUA TIONS WITH DEFINITE SIGNS We demonstrate the predictions of the EFT a-theorem...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.