Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$

Marco Niggetiedt; Ulrich Haisch

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the complete two-loop SMEFT corrections to gg→h and h→γγ from third-generation four-quark operators, keeping the full Higgs and quark mass dependence, and extracts the associated two-loop anomalous dimensions.

desk verdict A technically solid two-loop SMEFT calculation with genuinely new RG and matching results, despite mostly non-competitive bounds and one unverified UV-finiteness step. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20803 v1 pith:W3J4XY2A submitted 2025-07-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Ulrich Haisch , Marco Niggetiedt This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords SMEFTthird-generationfour-quarkoperatorstwo-loopcorrectionsggtohgammaanomalousdimensionsNDRschemeHiggssignalstrengths

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 works out the two-loop corrections to Higgs production by gluon fusion and to Higgs decay into two photons that are induced by the four-quark operators involving only top and bottom quarks in the Standard Model effective field theory. It keeps the full dependence on the Higgs and heavy-quark masses, which had been truncated or approximated in earlier studies, and it presents analytic expressions for the form factors and for the new two-loop beta functions that the calculation requires. If the results are correct, global SMEFT fits can now use these analytic coefficients to constrain third-generation four-quark operators from Higgs observables, and the scheme-dependence discussion clarifies why some previous computations disagreed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two-loop form factors $G^{(2)}_{ij}$ (for $gg \to h$) and $A^{(2)}_{ij}$ (for $h \to \gamma\gamma$), Eqs. (5.4) and (5.8), expressed through one-loop massive bubble and triangle integrals with exact $\tau_i = 4m_i^2/m_h^2$ dependence, together with the two-loop $\beta$ functions (4.2) that are extracted from the remaining local $1/\epsilon$ poles. The renormalization structure has three topology classes: heavy-quark mass counterterms cancel the propagator-insertion graphs, one-loop anomalous dimensions from [39, 40] and [47] remove the subdivergences of the Yukawa-type and dipole-type graphs, and the local leftovers define the new anomalous dimensions. The NDR treatment of $\gamma_5$ is what makes the $\beta$ functions in (4.2) nonzero and the $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma\gamma$ channels sensitive to different combinations of $C^{(1)}_{qt}$ and $C^{(8)}_{qt}$.

What would settle it

An independent calculation of the third-topology two-loop graphs with mixed top and bottom quarks, keeping the external Higgs momentum off-shell, that checks whether the $1/\epsilon^2$ pole is exactly the product of the one-loop anomalous dimensions $\gamma(Q_{qtqb}\to Q_{tG})\,\gamma(Q_{tG}\to Q_{HG})$ and whether any $1/\epsilon$ pole remains; a leftover pole would signal a missing two-loop counterterm and shift the $\beta$ functions (4.2) and the form factors (5.4) and (5.8).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the broken phase of the SMEFT, with a mixed on-shell scheme for heavy-quark masses and Yukawa couplings and a naive anti-commuting $\gamma_5$ (NDR) regularization, the two-loop $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma\gamma$ amplitudes from insertions of the operators in (2.2) are exactly described by the form factors $G^{(2)}_{ij}$ and $A^{(2)}_{ij}$ in Eqs. (5.4) and (5.8), and that the leftover ultraviolet poles yield the two-loop $\beta$ functions in Eq. (4.2), including the previously unknown $\beta_{HB}$, $\beta_{HW}$, and $\beta_{HWB}$. The paper further claims that the mixed top-bottom contributions are renormalized without an additional two-loop counterterm proportional to $y_t y_b$, and that the resulting numerical coefficients in Eq. (6.5) give the leading shift of the Higgs signal strengths in terms of the low-scale Wilson coefficients. The authors are careful to state that all these results are scheme-dependent: in the HV scheme the new $\beta$ functions vanish and the flat-direction-lifting terms disappear.

Load-bearing premise

The renormalization prescription is complete, in particular that no two-loop counterterm proportional to $y_t y_b$ is needed for the mixing of $Q^{(1/8)}_{qtqb}$ into $Q_{HG}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The analytic form factors in Eqs. (5.4) and (5.8) can be inserted directly into global SMEFT fits, turning $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma\gamma$ into two-loop probes of the third-generation four-quark Wilson coefficients.
Combining the two channels lifts the flat direction between $C^{(1)}_{qt}$ and $C^{(8)}_{qt}$, but only in the NDR scheme; in the HV scheme both signal strengths are proportional to $C^{(1)}_{qt} + C_F C^{(8)}_{qt}$ and the degeneracy persists.
The new two-loop beta functions $\beta_{HB}$, $\beta_{HW}$, and $\beta_{HWB}$ must be included in any SMEFT global fit that runs the Higgs-gauge operators to two-loop accuracy.
The numerical coefficients in Eq. (6.5) imply $gg \to h$ is the more sensitive channel, with the $m_t/m_b$-enhanced mixed top-bottom terms offering a handle on $C^{(1)}_{qtqb}$ and $C^{(8)}_{qtqb}$ in models without minimal flavor violation.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that part of the disagreement with the earlier computation in [25] is likely a $\gamma_5$-scheme artifact, since the two schemes considered here differ precisely in the terms that the earlier work appears to omit; a scheme-matched re-analysis would settle this.
We infer that the vanishing of the new beta functions in the HV scheme means future two-loop SMEFT comparisons should always state the $\gamma_5$ scheme, otherwise apparent running effects may be regularization artifacts.
We infer that $C^{(8)}_{qb}$, being the least constrained of the eight operators, is where the weak $gg \to h$ bound could still add nontrivial information in a global fit, even though it is not competitive on its own.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a serious two-loop SMEFT calculation that delivers more than the modest title suggests. The genuinely new pieces are the two-loop anomalous dimensions for C_qt and C_qb mixing into Q_HB, Q_HW, Q_HWB in Eq. (4.2), and the mass-dependent bottom-quark and mixed top-bottom contributions to gg->h and h->gamma gamma in Eqs. (5.4)/(5.8). The top-quark vector-operator parts overlap with earlier work, and the agreement with [26,27,29,53] on those pieces is a good sanity check. The paper is also honest about scheme dependence: it gives both NDR and HV results and notes that the new beta functions vanish in HV. The discussion of the MFV caveat on the mt/mb enhancement in C_qtqb is a nice touch.

The main soft spot is the UV-finiteness argument for the mixed top-bottom topology. The claim that no two-loop yt yb counterterm is needed is load-bearing for the new beta functions and the C_qtqb form factors, but it is not shown in detail. The text says that after subtracting products of one-loop mixings the 1/epsilon pole drops out, but a reader cannot verify that cancellation from the paper alone. That would be my first question to a referee: can they display the cancellation, or point to an independent check? The unresolved discrepancy with [25] is also uncomfortable, though the paper's suggestion that [25] may have missed the third topology seems plausible. No code or numerical tables are provided, so the two-loop algebra is not independently reproducible from the text, but that is common for papers of this type.

The phenomenological bounds are mostly weaker than existing constraints, as the authors acknowledge; the exception is a weak first limit on C_qb8. I would not call that a flaw; it is an honest statement of where this calculation stands.

Overall, this is a useful paper for the SMEFT/Higgs community. The new beta functions and the compact form factors should feed into global fits. I would send it to peer review with a request for one targeted check: the mixed t-b cancellation, or at least a more explicit demonstration that no yt yb counterterm is required.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the two-loop SMEFT corrections to gg->h and h->gamma gamma induced by third-generation four-quark operators, working in the broken phase and retaining full dependence on the Higgs and heavy-quark masses. The authors derive the two-loop form factors G^(2)_ij and A^(2)_ij in Eqs. (5.4) and (5.8), extract the two-loop anomalous dimensions in Eq. (4.2), and provide the numerical signal-strength coefficients in Eq. (6.5) together with illustrative LHC constraints. The calculation uses dimensional regularization with NDR gamma5 and a mixed MS-OS renormalization scheme, and the paper documents partial consistency with the existing literature [26,27,29,53] as well as an unresolved disagreement with [25].

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides valuable analytic two-loop matching conditions for two important Higgs observables in the SMEFT, with exact mass dependence and with explicit logarithms from RG running. The partial cross-checks against [26,27,29,53] are a genuine strength, as is the reported independent verification of the reduction and master integrals using a separate in-house package. The new NDR-scheme beta functions for Q_HB, Q_HW, and Q_HWB, together with the mixed top-bottom contributions, would be useful input for global SMEFT fits. However, the central claim rests on a technical UV-finiteness assertion that is not demonstrated in the text, and the paper leaves an unexplained discrepancy with a published calculation for the same processes.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, paragraph after Figure 1] The conclusion that 'no additional two-loop counterterm proportional to ytyb is needed' is load-bearing but is asserted rather than demonstrated. The cancellation of the 1/epsilon^2 pole by products of one-loop subdivergences does not by itself guarantee that the coefficient of the surviving local 1/epsilon pole vanishes; that coefficient must be shown explicitly. Because the new beta functions in Eq. (4.2) and the mixed top-bottom terms in Eqs. (5.4) and (5.8) depend on this step, please provide the explicit pole structure before and after subtraction of the one-loop counterterm contributions, or an independent check of the mixed top-bottom sector.
[Section 5, sentence after Eq. (5.4)] The unresolved disagreement with Ref. [25] is a direct challenge to the precision claim of the paper. The statement that the authors are 'unable to provide further clarification' leaves readers with two published contradictory results for the same processes. Please provide a term-by-term comparison with Ref. [25], specifying normalization, operator basis, and gamma5 scheme, and state which terms in Eq. (14) of that work are missing or different; if this is not possible, the manuscript should be explicit about what independent check would settle the disagreement.
[Section 4, Eq. (4.2) and Appendix B] The new beta functions beta_HB, beta_HW, and beta_HWB are NDR-scheme quantities that vanish in the HV scheme, as the paper acknowledges. This scheme dependence is not itself an error, but the numerical coefficients in Eq. (6.5) and the constraints in Eq. (6.7) inherit the NDR choice. To avoid misuse by readers who work in other schemes, the paper should state unambiguously that the numerical results are NDR-scheme results and that comparisons with HV-scheme fits require conversion of the Wilson coefficients.

minor comments (4)

[References] Reference [2] lists an erratum with an incomplete entry ('Nature623, (2023)'); the missing article number or DOI should be supplied.
[Appendix B] The notation 'i¯i → g' and 'i¯i → gamma' is awkward; it should be written as 'q_i \bar q_i → g' or similar to avoid confusion with the index i used for flavor.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.2)] For the scalar operators Q_qtqb^(1) and Q_qtqb^(8), the spinor and color contractions are not fully specified; the text should state the standard convention explicitly, since the two contractions differ by a color factor that matters at two loops.
[Section 6, Eq. (6.7)] The constraints on C_qtqb^(1) and C_qtqb^(8) are derived from a single ATLAS measurement without including theory uncertainties in the SM prediction; the paper should clarify that these are illustrative single-parameter bounds and not a global fit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-loop form factors and beta functions are derived from an explicit amplitude calculation, with only a non-load-bearing self-citation presence and one UV-completeness assertion that is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no circular step that reduces the predictions to their inputs. The central objects — the two-loop form factors (5.4)/(5.8) and the two-loop beta functions (4.2) — are obtained from an explicit amplitude computation in the broken phase; the beta functions are extracted from the local 1/epsilon UV poles after one-loop renormalization, which is the standard definition of the anomalous dimension rather than a fit or a self-referential input. The numerical constraints in Section 6 use measured signal strengths (6.6) as data to be constrained, not as inputs that determine the Wilson coefficients, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The self-citations, notably [28] and the package-chain references [37,38], provide context, tooling, or an analogy; they do not carry the central claim, and the key parts of the result are cross-checked against the external papers [26,27,29,53]. The one passage that merits flagging is the Section 3 assertion that 'no additional two-loop counterterm proportional to ytyb is needed' for the mixing of Q_qtqb into QHG; the paper states that the 1/epsilon^2 pole is accounted for by products of one-loop mixings from [47] and that after subtraction no 1/epsilon pole remains, but it does not display the explicit cancellation. That is an omitted-support / UV-completeness correctness risk, not circularity: the claim is a conclusion of the calculation, and the one-loop anomalous dimensions it relies on are external. The NDR-versus-HV scheme dependence is explicitly acknowledged and is the expected SMEFT scheme dependence, not a renaming of a known result. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external checks; score 1 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It relies on the SMEFT dimension-six operator basis, real Wilson coefficients, the NDR scheme plus mixed MS-OS renormalization, and the correctness of previously published one-loop anomalous dimensions. These are standard inputs or cited background, not fitted quantities.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SMEFT is truncated at dimension six and amplitudes are computed to first order in real Wilson coefficients (Section 2)
The entire calculation uses the Warsaw-basis operators (2.2) and assumes real C_i; if additional operator classes or complex coefficients contributed at this order, the formulas would be incomplete.
domain assumption Dimensional regularization with NDR gamma5 and a mixed MS-OS renormalization is a valid scheme for these two-loop amplitudes (Section 3, Appendices A and B)
The scheme-dependent beta functions and matching conditions are unphysical in isolation; the paper assumes that physical observables are scheme independent and that NDR introduces no unsuppressed gamma5 traces.
standard math The one-loop anomalous dimensions from [39, 40, 47] are correct and complete for the required operator mixing (Section 3)
The cancellation of 1/epsilon subdivergences in topologies 2 and 3 is checked only against these published results, not rederived here.
domain assumption The operator set (2.2) to (2.4) is complete for the two-loop renormalization of gg to h and h to gamma gamma (Sections 2 and 3)
If a missing operator mixes at two-loop into Q_HG, Q_HB, Q_HW, or Q_HWB, the beta functions and matching conditions would be incomplete.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3J4XY2A

@misc{pith2026250720803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: $gg \to h$ and $h \to \gamma \gamma$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3J4XY2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20803}
}

abstract

We compute the two-loop contributions to Higgs production via gluon-gluon fusion ($gg \to h$) and Higgs decay into two photons ($h \to \gamma\gamma$), arising from third-generation four-quark operators in the Standard Model effective field theory (SMEFT). Our analysis is performed in the broken phase of the theory, retaining the full dependence on the Higgs and heavy-quark masses. This includes both finite matching corrections and logarithmic effects stemming from the renormalization group evolution within the SMEFT. As a byproduct, new two-loop anomalous dimensions in the SMEFT are obtained. We also briefly discuss the phenomenological implications of our two-loop calculations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

The effect of the two-loop SMEFT RGEs at future colliders
hep-ph 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Two-loop SMEFT RGEs induce non-negligible effects on the evolution of Wilson coefficients, leading to percent-level shifts in projected sensitivities for four-quark, top Yukawa, and Higgs-gluon operators in collider fits.
One-loop matching of the LEFT to the QCD gradient flow
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

All one-loop matching coefficients connecting the full baryon- and lepton-number-conserving low-energy effective field theory up to dimension six to the QCD gradient flow are computed.
Renormalization of the SMEFT to Dimension Eight: Fermionic Interactions II
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Computes one-loop mixing of bosonic and two-fermion interactions into two-fermion operators in dim-8 SMEFT, leaving only four-fermion to two-fermion mixing to finish the renormalization program.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

[25]

Alasfar, J

L. Alasfar, J. de Blas, and R. Gröber, JHEP05, 111 (2022), arXiv:2202.02333 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2022
[1]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Nature607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022
[2]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Nature 607, 60 (2022), [Erratum: Nature623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022
[3]

Buchmüller and D

W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

1986
[4]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010
[5]

Brivio and M

I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rept.793, 1 (2019), arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2019
[6]

Isidori, F

G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015006 (2024), arXiv:2303.16922 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[7]

A. M. Sirunyanet al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 75 (2020), arXiv:1908.06463 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Show all 74 references

[8]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1085 (2020), arXiv:2007.14858 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[9]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP11, 118 (2021), arXiv:2106.11683 [hep-ex]

2021 arXiv
[10]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B844, 138076 (2023), arXiv:2303.03864 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[11]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C83, 496 (2023), arXiv:2303.15061 [hep-ex]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Aaboud et al

M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), JHEP04, 046 (2019), arXiv:1811.12113 [hep-ex]

2019 arXiv
[13]

A. M. Sirunyanet al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B803, 135285 (2020), arXiv:1909.05306 [hep-ex]

2020 arXiv
[14]

J. J. Ethier, G. Magni, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang (SMEFiT), JHEP11, 089 (2021), arXiv:2105.00006 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[15]

N. P. Hartland, F. Maltoni, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, E. Slade, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, JHEP 04, 100 (2019), arXiv:1901.05965 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Degrande, R

C. Degrande, R. Rosenfeld, and A. Vasquez, JHEP07, 114 (2024), arXiv:2402.06528 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Celada, T

E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, M. O. A. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou, JHEP09, 091 (2024), arXiv:2404.12809 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[18]

de Blas, M

J. de Blas, M. Chala, and J. Santiago, JHEP09, 189 (2015), arXiv:1507.00757 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[19]

Gauld, B

R. Gauld, B. D. Pecjak, and D. J. Scott, JHEP05, 080 (2016), arXiv:1512.02508 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[20]

Hartmann, W

C. Hartmann, W. Shepherd, and M. Trott, JHEP03, 060 (2017), arXiv:1611.09879 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[21]

Boughezal, C.-Y

R. Boughezal, C.-Y. Chen, F. Petriello, and D. Wiegand, Phys. Rev. D100, 056023 (2019), arXiv:1907.00997 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Brivio, S

I. Brivio, S. Bruggisser, F. Maltoni, R. Moutafis, T. Plehn, E. Vryonidou, S. Westhoff, and C. Zhang, JHEP02, 131 (2020), arXiv:1910.03606 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Degrande, G

C. Degrande, G. Durieux, F. Maltoni, K. Mimasu, E. Vryonidou, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 096024 (2021), arXiv:2008.11743 [hep-ph]. – 15 –

2021 arXiv
[24]

Dawson and P

S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Phys. Rev. D105, 073006 (2022), arXiv:2201.09887 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[26]

Di Noi, R

S. Di Noi, R. Gröber, G. Heinrich, J. Lang, and M. Vitti, Phys. Rev. D109, 095024 (2024), arXiv:2310.18221 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Heinrich and J

G. Heinrich and J. Lang, JHEP05, 121 (2024), arXiv:2311.15004 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Haisch and L

U. Haisch and L. Schnell, JHEP02, 038 (2025), arXiv:2410.13304 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Di Noi, H

S. Di Noi, H. El Faham, R. Gröber, M. Vitti, and E. Vryonidou, (2025), arXiv:2507.01137 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[30]

M. S. Chanowitz, M. Furman, and I. Hinchliffe, Nucl. Phys. B159, 225 (1979)

1979
[31]

Alloul, N

A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014), arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[32]

Hahn, Comput

T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun.140, 418 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012260

2001 arXiv
[33]

T. Hahn, S. Paßehr, and C. Schappacher, PoSLL2016, 068 (2016), arXiv:1604.04611 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[34]

R. N. Lee, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.523, 012059 (2014), arXiv:1310.1145 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[35]

Steinhauser, Phys

M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rept.364, 247 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0201075

2002 arXiv
[36]

Anastasiou, S

C. Anastasiou, S. Beerli, S. Bucherer, A. Daleo, and Z. Kunszt, JHEP01, 082 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611236

2007 arXiv
[37]

Haisch, JHEP06, 004 (2025), arXiv:2503.06249 [hep-ph]

U. Haisch, JHEP06, 004 (2025), arXiv:2503.06249 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Haisch, A

U. Haisch, A. Sankar, and G. Zanderighi, (2025), arXiv:2505.20463 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[39]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP10, 087 (2013), arXiv:1308.2627 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[40]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP01, 035 (2014), arXiv:1310.4838 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[41]

Gauld, B

R. Gauld, B. D. Pecjak, and D. J. Scott, Phys. Rev. D94, 074045 (2016), arXiv:1607.06354 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[42]

Dawson and P

S. Dawson and P. P. Giardino, Phys. Rev. D97, 093003 (2018), arXiv:1801.01136 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[43]

J. M. Cullen, B. D. Pecjak, and D. J. Scott, JHEP08, 173 (2019), arXiv:1904.06358 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[44]

J. M. Cullen and B. D. Pecjak, JHEP11, 079 (2020), arXiv:2007.15238 [hep-ph]

2020
[45]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Münz, Nucl. Phys. B518, 473 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711266

1998 arXiv
[46]

Gambino, M

P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B673, 238 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306079

2003 arXiv
[47]

Alonso, E

R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, JHEP04, 159 (2014), arXiv:1312.2014 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[48]

Gorbahn and U

M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, JHEP10, 094 (2016), arXiv:1607.03773 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[49]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, and E. Sawyer, JHEP10, 211 (2020), arXiv:2005.12917 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[50]

Q. Jin, K. Ren, and G. Yang, JHEP04, 180 (2021), arXiv:2011.02494 [hep-ph]. – 16 –

2021 arXiv
[51]

Haisch, D

U. Haisch, D. J. Scott, M. Wiesemann, G. Zanderighi, and S. Zanoli, JHEP07, 054 (2022), arXiv:2204.00663 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[52]

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop, and J. Pagès, JHEP02, 131 (2024), arXiv:2310.19883 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[53]

Di Noi, R

S. Di Noi, R. Gröber, and M. K. Mandal, JHEP12, 220 (2025), arXiv:2408.03252 [hep-ph]

2025
[54]

L. Born, J. Fuentes-Martín, S. Kvedarait˙ e, and A. E. Thomsen, JHEP05, 121 (2025), arXiv:2410.07320 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[55]

Naterop and P

L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, JHEP06, 007 (2025), arXiv:2412.13251 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[56]

C. Duhr, A. Vasquez, G. Ventura, and E. Vryonidou, (2025), arXiv:2503.01954 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[57]

Zhang, JHEP06, 106 (2025), arXiv:2504.00792 [hep-ph]

D. Zhang, JHEP06, 106 (2025), arXiv:2504.00792 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[58]

B. Assi, A. Helset, J. Pagès, and C.-H. Shen, (2025), arXiv:2504.18537 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[59]

Naterop and P

L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, (2025), arXiv:2507.08926 [hep-ph]

2025
[60]

Di Noi and R

S. Di Noi and R. Gröber, (2025), arXiv:2507.10295 [hep-ph]

2025
[61]

’t Hooft and M

G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B44, 189 (1972)

1972
[62]

Breitenlohner and D

P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, Commun. Math. Phys.52, 11 (1977)

1977
[63]

Ciuchini, E

M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B316, 127 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9307364

1993 arXiv
[64]

A. J. Buras, M. Misiak, M. Münz, and S. Pokorski, Nucl. Phys. B424, 374 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9311345

1994 arXiv
[65]

Ciuchini, E

M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Reina, and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B421, 41 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9311357

1994 arXiv
[66]

K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Münz, Nucl. Phys. B520, 279 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711280

1998 arXiv
[67]

Gorbahn and U

M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B713, 291 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411071

2005 arXiv
[68]

Czakon, U

M. Czakon, U. Haisch, and M. Misiak, JHEP03, 008 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612329

2007 arXiv
[69]

Navas et al

S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

2024
[70]

D’Ambrosio, G

G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B645, 155 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0207036

2002 arXiv
[71]

Schael et al

S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Phys. Rept.427, 257 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0509008

2006 arXiv
[72]

Barducci et al., (2018), arXiv:1802.07237 [hep-ph]

D. Barducci et al., (2018), arXiv:1802.07237 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[73]

Wess and B

J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B37, 95 (1971)

1971
[74]

Di Noi, R

S. Di Noi, R. Gröber, and P. Olgoso, (2025), arXiv:2504.00112 [hep-ph]. – 17 –

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Alasfar, J

L. Alasfar, J. de Blas, and R. Gröber, JHEP05, 111 (2022), arXiv:2202.02333 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2022

[2] [1]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Nature607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022

[3] [2]

Tumasyan et al

A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Nature 607, 60 (2022), [Erratum: Nature623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2022

[4] [3]

Buchmüller and D

W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

1986

[5] [4]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010), arXiv:1008.4884 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2010

[6] [5]

Brivio and M

I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rept.793, 1 (2019), arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2019

[7] [6]

Isidori, F

G. Isidori, F. Wilsch, and D. Wyler, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015006 (2024), arXiv:2303.16922 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[8] [7]

A. M. Sirunyanet al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 75 (2020), arXiv:1908.06463 [hep-ex]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020