EFT Validity and Truncation Uncertainty from few Nuisance Parameters

Adam Martin; Beno\^it Assi; William Shepherd

EFT Validity and Truncation Uncertainty from few Nuisance Parameters

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A few nuisance parameters, built from the calculable dim-6 squared piece alone, cover the full next-order truncation uncertainty in SMEFT and automatically enforce EFT validity.

desk verdict Practical, code-backed method that compresses SMEFT truncation error to a handful of nuisances and covers full O(Λ^{-4}) in three processes; the only real caveat is that α=√2 shape coverage is empirical, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02649 v1 pith:YVJR525X submitted 2026-07-02 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Benoît Assi , Adam Martin , William Shepherd This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-th

keywords SMEFTtruncationuncertaintyEFTvaliditynuisanceparametersdim-6squaredSVDPCAcolliderphenomenology

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

When an SMEFT analysis is truncated at linear order in 1/Λ², the first neglected correction of order 1/Λ⁴ is only partly calculable with existing tools. The calculable part is the square of the dimension-6 amplitude; everything else (SM interference with dimension-8 operators and double insertions) is not. This paper shows that the calculable piece already lives in a low-rank space of kinematic shapes, so a handful of representative Wilson coefficients selected by singular-value decomposition can reproduce it. Those representatives are then turned into a still-smaller set of uncorrelated nuisance parameters by a principal-component step and a global √2 inflation that accounts for the uncalculable remainder. The resulting uncertainty band is attached to the signal model itself. Because the band grows with energy exactly like the truncation error, high-energy bins where the expansion is breaking down automatically lose statistical weight. Bounds therefore come only from the region where the effective theory is trustworthy. In three standard LHC processes the method collapses O(N²) monomials down to a few nuisance parameters while still covering the full O(1/Λ⁴) residual at the 90–95 percent level.

What carries the argument

The decorrelated-monomial prescription: after an SVD-plus-R²-ladder selection of K representative Wilson coefficients that span the dim-6² shape space, the fitted monomials are recentered, subjected to PCA, and each principal score is independently bootstrapped and scaled by α = √2; the reconstructed band becomes the truncation nuisance.

What would settle it

Take any of the three example processes, recompute the full O(Λ^{-4}) distribution with an independent dimension-8 basis and simulation, and check whether the α = √2 nuisance band still covers at least 90 percent of the throws in every kinematic bin; failure in even one high-energy bin would falsify the coverage claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The kinematic shapes produced by the dim-6² kernel for a given process and binning span a space whose dimension is far smaller than the number of Wilson-coefficient products. An automation-friendly algorithm that selects K representative coefficients by SVD and an R² ladder, then decorrelates their monomials by PCA and inflates the scores by √2, yields only D = K(K+1)/2 nuisance parameters whose envelope covers the complete O(Λ^{-4}) residual, including SM imes dim-8 interference and double insertions, at ≥90 percent per-bin coverage in the Drell-Yan, Zh and vector-boson-fusion examples examined.

Load-bearing premise

That a single global factor of √2 applied to shapes already present in the dim-6 squared kernel is enough to cover the uncalculable dimension-8 and double-insertion pieces for the processes of interest.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful takeaway is simple: for a fixed process and binning the dim-6² kernel is low-rank, so you can replace O(N²) correlated truncation nuisances with K=2–5 representatives (D=K(K+1)/2 PCA scores after decorrelation and √2 inflation) and still cover the full O(Λ^{-4}) residual, including dim-8 pieces the algorithm never sees. That is new relative to bin-dropping, overall scale factors, uncorrelated bin errors, or the explicit dim-8 nuisance operators of Ref. [18].

What they do well is make the claim checkable. SVD of the monomial matrix plus an R² ladder selects the representatives; the joint non-Gaussian distributions come from an independent NDA ensemble; PCA + α=√2 turns them into uncorrelated mean-zero nuisances. They validate per-bin C95 against independent full-Λ^{-4} simulations (DY, Zh, VBF, multiple observables), show the bin-correlation eigenvalues match (Fig. 12), scan α and put √2 at the knee (Fig. 14), and ship code. The rank reductions are large (105 monomials → 3 nuisances for DY; similar for the others). Putting the positive-definite dim-6² term into the signal and letting the residual kill invalid high-energy bins is a clean way to bake validity into the likelihood.

The soft spot is exactly the one the reader flagged and the stress-test confirmed: the claim that SM×dim-8 and double insertions live in the same shape space after only a global √2 variance inflation is NDA + empirical coverage, not a general theorem. VBF’s five-point contact already produces residual R² tails that the inflation has to cover (Fig. 9). That is a scope caveat for new processes, not a hole in the three worked examples. Free parameters (α, NDA prior, Λ=3 TeV reference, tiny λ_reg) are stated and scanned where it matters. Citations look normal; no circularity in the validation.

This is for people who actually run SMEFT collider fits or global analyses and need a practical, automatable truncation error. It deserves a serious referee. I would engage with it and expect to cite the method when I next need a truncation band.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a practical method for estimating SMEFT truncation uncertainty at O(Λ^{-4}) when the signal is truncated at linear dim-6. The calculable dim-6² piece is moved into the signal model; residual SM×dim-8 and double-insertion contributions are covered by a small set of mean-zero nuisance parameters. An automation-friendly algorithm (SVD of the monomial feature matrix M, R²-ladder selection of K representative Wilson coefficients, PCA decorrelation of their monomials, and α=√2 inflation) reduces the naïve O(N²) nuisance count to D=K(K+1)/2 ≪ N(N+1)/2. The method is demonstrated on high-p_T Drell-Yan, Zh, and VBF Higgs production, with per-bin coverage against independently simulated full Λ^{-4} truth (including dim-8) typically ≥90–95% and K ranging from 2 to 5.

Significance. If the empirical coverage continues to hold for other processes, the work supplies a concrete, low-dimensional, and code-released prescription for the EFT-validity / truncation-uncertainty problem that experimental SMEFT analyses currently handle inconsistently. Strengths include a fully specified algorithm (Secs. 3.1–3.2, Apps. A–B), an explicit rank diagnostic via bin-correlation eigenvalue spectra (Fig. 12), validation against full Λ^{-4} simulations that the algorithm never sees, and a public reference implementation. The reduction from O(N²) to a handful of uncorrelated PCA scores is practically important for detector-level profiling.

major comments (2)

Sec. 3.2 and the NDA argument for α=√2: the claim that uncalculable SM×dim-8 and double-insertion residuals are adequately spanned by dim-6² shapes after only a global √2 variance inflation is the load-bearing soft spot. It is validated empirically for DY/Zh/VBF (C95 values in Table 5, Figs. 4, 6, 7, 11) and the α scan (Fig. 14) places √2 at the knee, but it is not derived from a general theorem. VBF’s five-point dim-8 contact already produces residual R² tails that the inflation must cover (Fig. 9). The manuscript should state more explicitly that for processes with qualitatively new dim-8 topologies the coverage must be re-checked, and that α=√2 is a calibrated default rather than a universal constant.
Sec. 4 and Table 5: all three examples are tree-level, U(3)⁵-flavour-symmetric processes with existing full Λ^{-4} tools. The rank-reduction claim is process- and binning-dependent (K varies from 2 to 5 even within VBF). A short discussion of expected behaviour for loop-induced or flavour-non-universal processes, or a fourth example where dim-8 opens more new shapes, would strengthen the claim that the method is generically automation-friendly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: independent NDA draws of c' calibrate the nuisance shapes from the dim-6^{2} kernel, which is then validated against full O(Λ^{-4}) simulations that include dim-8 operators never seen by the algorithm.

other [Sec. 2.1, eq. (2.4) and surrounding paragraph]
"A word on what looks at first like a circularity. The dim-62 piece is built from the same ci that appear linearly in the dim-6 signal, so at the fitted c it is fully calculable. We include it in the signal model. … where εb is the error distribution we construct below, dependent on the nuisance parameters s … by the use of an artificial independent draw of Wilson coefficients c′"

The same Ab kernel supplies both the deterministic positive dim-6^{2} term in the signal and the kinematic shapes used to build the nuisance. This is only a mild shared-input observation; the paper explicitly breaks any tautology by drawing an independent c′ for calibration and by validating coverage against full simulations that contain dim-8 operators absent from Ab.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-tautological. The low-rank claim (DM ≪ P) is an empirical statement obtained by SVD of the monomial matrix M built from the calculable Ab kernel (eqs. 2.1–2.5, Sec. 3.1.1); the R^{2}-ladder then selects K representatives whose ensemble fits under an independent NDA prior c' ∼ U[−p,p] (distinct from the signal fit c) produce the joint distribution of those representatives (Sec. 3.1.2). The subsequent PCA decorrelation of the K(K+1)/2 monomials plus α=√2 inflation (Sec. 3.2) is an explicit modelling choice motivated by NDA variance addition of the two uncalculable same-order pieces; it is not forced by definition. Coverage is checked against independent full-Λ^{-4} Monte Carlo that includes SM×dim-8 and double insertions (Sec. 4.1, Figs. 4,6,7,11, etc.), which the algorithm never receives as input. The paper itself flags the superficial appearance of circularity in Sec. 2.1 and resolves it by the independent draw of c'. Self-citations (e.g. to the authors’ λ-counting papers) are used only for post-hoc physical interpretation of the selected representatives, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems. The shared use of Ab for both the deterministic signal quadratic and the nuisance shape basis is acknowledged and does not reduce the coverage claim to a tautology. Score 1 reflects only this minor shared-kernel observation; the central results stand on independent validation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard EFT power counting, an NDA prior, one free scale factor α, and the empirical assertion that dim-6² shapes plus mild inflation cover uncalculable same-order pieces. No new particles or forces are postulated; the ‘representative operators’ and ‘PCA scores’ are methodological constructs, not physical entities.

free parameters (4)

α (decorrelation inflation)
Set to √2 by NDA variance-addition argument (two uncalculable pieces each comparable to dim-6²) and confirmed as the knee of a coverage-vs-α scan (Fig. 14). Directly controls the width of the reported uncertainty band.
NDA prior bound p = 4π on |c_i|
Sets the support of the calibration ensemble that defines the nuisance marginals. Standard NDA choice, but still a free modeling input that scales the absolute size of the error.
Λ = 3 TeV (reference cutoff used in examples)
Fixes the relative size of linear signal vs 1/Λ⁴ error in the numerical examples; coefficient-space distributions themselves are Λ-independent under the stated NDA prior.
λ_reg = 10^{-6} (fit regularisation)
Stabilises the quartic representative fit when Ã is near-singular (App. A). Small enough not to bias R² in the reported examples, but is a hand-set numerical parameter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SMEFT is a valid local EFT ordered by 1/Λ with leading B/L-conserving effects at dimension 6.
Stated in the introduction and used throughout; standard for the target analyses.
domain assumption Naive dimensional analysis (NDA) bounds |c_i| ≤ 4π and assigns comparable variance to dim-6², SM×dim-8, and double-insertion pieces at the same order in 1/Λ.
Sec. 3.1.2 and 3.2; supplies both the calibration prior and the motivation for α=√2.
ad hoc to paper The column space of the dim-6² monomial matrix M spans (after mild inflation) the kinematic shapes of the uncalculable O(Λ^{-4}) remainder for the processes considered.
Core modeling hypothesis of Sec. 3.2; checked empirically for DY/Zh/VBF but not proved in general, and already strained by VBF’s five-point dim-8 contact (Fig. 9).
domain assumption Large-statistics Monte Carlo shapes in the experimental binning are reliable; bins below a 1% (or 5% for 2D) event fraction may be discarded.
Stated at the opening of Sec. 3 and App. A; standard simulation assumption.

invented entities (2)

Decorrelated monomial prescription (PCA scores s_i with α inflation as the residual nuisance)
purpose: Compress and broaden the dim-6² ensemble into a small set of uncorrelated mean-zero nuisances that cover uncalculable same-order terms.
Methodological construct defined in Sec. 3.2; not a new physical degree of freedom. independent_evidence is false because its adequacy is demonstrated only inside this paper’s coverage tests.
Representative Wilson coefficients selected by SVD score + R² ladder
purpose: Span the independent kinematic shapes of the quadratic correction with K ≪ N operators.
Algorithmic objects (Sec. 3.1); they are ordinary SMEFT coefficients chosen as a basis, not new operators. independent_evidence false in the sense that the selection rule is internal to the method.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EFT Validity and Truncation Uncertainty from few Nuisance Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVJR525X

@misc{pith2026260702649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EFT Validity and Truncation Uncertainty from few Nuisance Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVJR525X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02649}
}

abstract

An observable in an Effective Field Theory (EFT) is an expansion in a set of small parameters, no different than any other perturbation series. Truncating such a series expansion leaves the leading dropped term as the dominant source of error, and that term itself contains a calculable portion. We explore the partial calculation of this next-order error, available at dim-6$^2$ in SMEFT with no additional tools needed to simulate it, and explore how to efficiently use that partial calculation to model the next-order uncertainty in full using a minimal number of nuisance parameters. This estimate of the uncertainty of the EFT signal rate naturally imposes EFT validity by ensuring that bounds are driven by kinematic regions where truncation uncertainties are parametrically smaller than the signal. We incorporate the calculable dim-6$^2$ piece into the signal and cover the remaining higher-dimension uncertainty with a small set of nuisance parameters derived from a scan over Wilson-coefficient values. Our algorithm to determine the relevant nuisance parameters and distributions is automation-friendly and applies to arbitrary truncation choices. We then provide multiple examples of its implementation in high-energy collider processes focused on SMEFT truncated at $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda^{-2})$, where the dim-6$^2$ piece is used to estimate the full $\mathcal O(\Lambda^{-4})$ dependence. In the examples considered here the reduction of nuisance parameters is appreciable, generically reducing the nuisance parameter count by an order of magnitude compared to na\"ive estimates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith

[18]

Chang, M

S. Chang, M. A. Luty, T. Ma, F. Montagno, and A. Wulzer,Quantifying EFT uncertainties in LHC searches,JHEP01(2026) 094, [2507.15954]

arXiv 2026
[1]

Buchmuller and D

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

1986
[2]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

arXiv 2010
[3]

Brivio and M

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

arXiv 2019
[4]

Brivio, Y

I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott,The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools,JHEP12 (2017) 070, [1709.06492]

arXiv 2017
[5]

Barducciet al.,Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory,1802.07237

D. Barducciet al.,Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory,1802.07237

arXiv
[6]

Corbett,The Feynman rules for the SMEFT in the background field gauge,JHEP03 (2021) 001, [2010.15852]

T. Corbett,The Feynman rules for the SMEFT in the background field gauge,JHEP03 (2021) 001, [2010.15852]

arXiv 2021
[7]

Alwall, R

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]

arXiv 2014

Show all 43 references

[8]

Degrande, C

C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer, and T. Reiter,UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output,Comput. Phys. Commun.183(2012) 1201–1214, [1108.2040]

2012 arXiv
[9]

H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, J. Shu, M.-L. Xiao, J.-H. Yu, and Y.-H. Zheng,Complete set of dimension-eight operators in the standard model effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021), no. 1 015026, [2005.00008]

2021 arXiv
[10]

C. W. Murphy,Dimension-8 operators in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP 10(2020) 174, [2005.00059]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Contino, A

R. Contino, A. Falkowski, F. Goertz, C. Grojean, and F. Riva,On the Validity of the Effective Field Theory Approach to SM Precision Tests,JHEP07(2016) 144, [1604.06444]

2016 arXiv
[12]

Brivioet al.,Truncation, validity, uncertainties,2201.04974

I. Brivioet al.,Truncation, validity, uncertainties,2201.04974

arXiv
[13]

Trott,Methodology for theory uncertainties in the standard model effective field theory, Phys

M. Trott,Methodology for theory uncertainties in the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 9 095023, [2106.13794]. – 34 –

2021 arXiv
[14]

S. Alte, M. König, and W. Shepherd,Consistent Searches for SMEFT Effects in Non-Resonant Dijet Events,JHEP01(2018) 094, [1711.07484]

2018 arXiv
[15]

S. Alte, M. König, and W. Shepherd,Consistent Searches for SMEFT Effects in Non-Resonant Dilepton Events,JHEP07(2019) 144, [1812.07575]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Keilmann and W

E. Keilmann and W. Shepherd,Dijets at Tevatron Cannot Constrain SMEFT Four-Quark Operators,JHEP09(2019) 086, [1907.13160]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Horne, J

A. Horne, J. Pittman, M. Snedeker, W. Shepherd, and J. W. Walker,Shift-Type SMEFT Effects in Dileptons at the LHC,JHEP03(2021) 118, [2007.12698]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Georgi,On-shell effective field theory,Nucl

H. Georgi,On-shell effective field theory,Nucl. Phys. B361(1991) 339–350

1991
[20]

Alonso, C

R. Alonso, C. Englert, W. Naskar, and S. U. Rahaman,Assessing (H)EFT theory errors by pitting EoM against field redefinitions,JHEP03(2026) 199, [2511.15609]

2026
[21]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Madigan, K. Mimasu, V. Sanz, and T. You,Top, Higgs, Diboson and Electroweak Fit to the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP04(2021) 279, [2012.02779]

2021 arXiv
[22]

Giani, G

T. Giani, G. Magni, and J. Rojo,SMEFiT: a flexible toolbox for global interpretations of particle physics data with effective field theories,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023), no. 5 393, [2302.06660]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Celada, T

E. Celada, T. Giani, J. ter Hoeve, L. Mantani, J. Rojo, A. N. Rossia, M. O. A. Thomas, and E. Vryonidou,Mapping the SMEFT at high-energy colliders: from LEP and the (HL-)LHC to the FCC-ee,JHEP09(2024) 091, [2404.12809]

2024 arXiv
[24]

I. T. Jolliffe,Principal Component Analysis. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, 2nd ed., 2002

2002
[25]

G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan,Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins University Press, 4th ed., 2013

2013
[26]

Manohar and H

A. Manohar and H. Georgi,Chiral Quarks and the Nonrelativistic Quark Model,Nucl. Phys. B234(1984) 189–212

1984
[27]

B. M. Gavela, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and L. Merlo,Analysis of General Power Counting Rules in Effective Field Theory,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016), no. 9 485, [1601.07551]. [28]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al.,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024),...

2016 arXiv
[28]

C. Hays, A. Martin, V. Sanz, and J. Setford,On the impact of dimension-eight SMEFT operators on Higgs measurements,JHEP02(2019) 123, [1808.00442]

2019 arXiv
[29]

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, [2110.06929]

2021 arXiv
[30]

Boughezal, E

R. Boughezal, E. Mereghetti, and F. Petriello,Dilepton production in the SMEFT at O(1/Λ4), Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 9 095022, [2106.05337]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Kim and A

T. Kim and A. Martin,Monolepton production in SMEFT toO(1/Λ4) and beyond,JHEP09 (2022) 124, [2203.11976]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Corbett and A

T. Corbett and A. Martin,Higgs associated production with a vector decaying to two fermions in the geoSMEFT,SciPost Phys.16(2024), no. 1 019, [2306.00053]. – 35 –

2024 arXiv
[33]

Assi and A

B. Assi and A. Martin,Energy-enhanced dimension eight SMEFT effects in VBF Higgs production,JHEP02(2025) 029, [2410.21563]

2025 arXiv
[34]

J. Y. Araz, S. Banerjee, R. S. Gupta, and M. Spannowsky,Precision SMEFT bounds from the VBF Higgs at high transverse momentum,JHEP04(2021) 125, [2011.03555]

2021 arXiv
[35]

Helset, A

A. Helset, A. Martin, and M. Trott,The Geometric Standard Model Effective Field Theory, JHEP03(2020) 163, [2001.01453]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Allwicher, D

L. Allwicher, D. A. Faroughy, F. Jaffredo, O. Sumensari, and F. Wilsch,Drell-Yan tails beyond the Standard Model,JHEP03(2023) 064, [2207.10714]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Boughezal, Y

R. Boughezal, Y. Huang, and F. Petriello,Exploring the SMEFT at dimension eight with Drell-Yan transverse momentum measurements,Phys. Rev. D106(2022), no. 3 036020, [2207.01703]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Alioli, R

S. Alioli, R. Boughezal, E. Mereghetti, and F. Petriello,Novel angular dependence in Drell-Yan lepton production via dimension-8 operators,Phys. Lett. B809(2020) 135703, [2003.11615]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Assi and A

B. Assi and A. Martin,Energy-enhanced expansion of the standard model effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D112(2025), no. 1 015024, [2504.10617]

2025 arXiv
[40]

Bishara, P

F. Bishara, P. Englert, C. Grojean, G. Panico, and A. N. Rossia,Revisiting Vh(→bb) at the LHC and FCC-hh,JHEP06(2023) 077, [2208.11134]

2023 arXiv
[41]

N. D. Christensen and C. Duhr,FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy,Comput. Phys. Commun.180(2009) 1614–1641, [0806.4194]

2009 arXiv
[42]

shape space

A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks,FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,Comput. Phys. Commun.185(2014) 2250–2300, [1310.1921]. A Implementation details Optimiser and regularisation.The optimisation in eq. (3.3) works dire...

2014 arXiv
[43]

truth ensemble

In a more involved case the third monomial direction could carry genuine variance while K= 2representatives still suffice for the fit. Thus, our algorithm still provides only two nontrivial nuisance parameters, despite the intermediate investigation of a third potential direct...

Pith tools

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

[1] [18]

Chang, M

S. Chang, M. A. Luty, T. Ma, F. Montagno, and A. Wulzer,Quantifying EFT uncertainties in LHC searches,JHEP01(2026) 094, [2507.15954]

arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

Buchmuller and D

W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler,Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B268(1986) 621–653

1986

[3] [2]

Grzadkowski, M

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek,Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,JHEP10(2010) 085, [1008.4884]

arXiv 2010

[4] [3]

Brivio and M

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

arXiv 2019

[5] [4]

Brivio, Y

I. Brivio, Y. Jiang, and M. Trott,The SMEFTsim package, theory and tools,JHEP12 (2017) 070, [1709.06492]

arXiv 2017

[6] [5]

Barducciet al.,Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory,1802.07237

D. Barducciet al.,Interpreting top-quark LHC measurements in the standard-model effective field theory,1802.07237

arXiv

[7] [6]

Corbett,The Feynman rules for the SMEFT in the background field gauge,JHEP03 (2021) 001, [2010.15852]

T. Corbett,The Feynman rules for the SMEFT in the background field gauge,JHEP03 (2021) 001, [2010.15852]

arXiv 2021

[8] [7]

Alwall, R

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP07(2014) 079, [1405.0301]

arXiv 2014