Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Dilaton effective field theory, fit to lattice spectra, can tell whether a gauge theory near the conformal window confines; the sign of a single fitted exponent, Δ−4, in the assumed dilaton potential decides.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 15:23 UTC pith:KQRIEEK3

load-bearing objection A plausible extension of the authors' dEFT program that reads lattice data sensibly, but the phase classification hinges on a fitted Δ that the paper itself admits is highly uncertain. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.16863 v3 pith:KQRIEEK3 submitted 2025-12-18 hep-lat hep-ph

Dilaton Effective Field Theory across the Conformal Edge

Thomas Appelquist , James Ingoldby , Maurizio Piai This is my paper
classification hep-lat hep-ph PACS 11.15.Ha
keywords dilaton effective field theoryconformal windowlattice gauge theoryconfinement vs conformalityinfrared fixed pointdilatonpseudo-Goldstone bosonswalking gauge theories
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that dilaton effective field theory (dEFT) — the low-energy description of a light dilaton plus pseudo-Goldstone pions that lattice studies see near the lower edge of the conformal window — can be used honestly on both sides of the edge, with no prior bias about confinement. Fitting the dilaton potential V(χ)=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ to published lattice spectra for two gauge theories, the authors find that the fitted scaling dimension Δ sits below 4 for the SU(3) theory with eight fundamental fermions (A>0, B<0), marking a confining theory just outside the window, and above 4 for the SU(2) theory with one adjoint fermion, marking an infrared-conformal theory just inside. The sign of Δ−4 in the assumed potential is therefore proposed as a spectroscopic diagnostic of which phase a near-edge theory belongs to. The results are presented as preliminary, with the authors explicitly flagging the large uncertainty in Δ and the leading-order-only treatment as limitations.

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading-order dEFT — with dilaton potential V(χ)=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ, the linear mass dependence R=B_f m, and the identification R=0 for the massless limit — remains a valid description as one crosses from the confining side to the conformal side of the window, and that the fitted values of A, B, and Δ thereby carry phase information. In a confining theory (Δ<4, B<0), V(χ) develops a symmetry-breaking minimum and the curve M_π^2 F_π ∝ V'(F_d) crosses zero at a nonzero F_d as m→0; in an infrared-conformal theory (Δ>4), V'(F_d) vanishes only at F_d=0 and all masses fall to zero with m. The paper demonstrates both behaviors in fits to two lattice data sets, yielding Δ=3.237

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the dilaton field χ, its potential V(χ)=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ (Δ is the fitted scaling dimension of the deformation that breaks conformality even at m=0), and the spurion-induced coupling R χ^y with R=B_f m that feeds the fermion mass into the dilaton sector. From these, the authors derive three fit equations for the pion decay constant F_π, the pion mass M_π, and the dilaton mass M_d, expressed in powers of F_π that eliminate the y dependence. The diagnostic quantity is M_π^2 F_π, which equals [1/2 x y N_f P^{1/2}] V'(F_d); its zero structure as a function of F_d distinguishes the confined phase (zero at nonzero F_d) from the conformal phase (zero only at F_d=0).

Load-bearing premise

The diagnostic stands or falls on the assumption that the leading-order dilaton potential V(χ)=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ, with its linear mass term R=B_f m, remains the correct description all the way across the conformal edge, so that a fitted Δ crossing 4 really tracks the phase transition; if subleading terms shift Δ across 4, or the conformal-side potential has qualitatively different structure, the sign of Δ−4 loses its meaning.

What would settle it

Measure the SU(2) one-adjoint theory at still smaller fermion masses (or at more β values, or with the heavier ensembles included): if the fitted Δ drops below 4, or M_π^2 F_π is seen to vanish at a nonzero F_π, the inside-the-window verdict is wrong. Symmetrically, if a next-to-leading-order refit of the SU(3) eight-flavor data moves Δ across 4, the leading-order separation between confinement and conformality fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For SU(3) with eight fundamental fermions, the fit places the theory just outside the conformal window — the massless limit confines, with a light dilaton.
  • For SU(2) with one adjoint fermion, the fit places the theory inside the window — an infrared fixed point governs the massless limit.
  • The same three fit equations can be applied to other near-edge theories (SU(3) with ten flavors, sextet models, Sp(4) gauge theories) once spectroscopic lattice data exist.
  • Precision lattice data at smaller fermion masses, especially for the SU(2) theory, should sharpen Δ and test whether the derived verdicts survive.
  • Subleading dEFT corrections and lattice systematic effects (correlations, finite volume) are the natural next checks of the leading-order separation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Δ−4 diagnostic proves robust, it turns ordinary mass spectra into a phase probe: any near-edge gauge theory can be classified by a handful of spectroscopic measurements, without needing a direct determination of the β-function or the mass anomalous dimension.
  • A sharper test would include the heavier SU(2) ensembles or a continuum extrapolation in β; whether Δ stays above 4 there is the most direct way to stress the leading-order diagnostic.
  • The same two-parameter potential might be read as a minimal effective phase diagram for walking theories: the sign of B ties the shape of V to which side of the edge the theory sits, which could inform composite-Higgs model building.
  • Both fits return y≈2, consistent with the expected near-edge scaling of the mass deformation; confirming this with higher statistics would support the whole dEFT picture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that dilaton effective field theory (dEFT) with a two-term potential V(χ)=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ and a linear fermion-mass term R=B_f m can be applied on both sides of the conformal edge, and that the fitted sign of Δ−4 distinguishes near-conformal, confining theories (Δ<4) from infrared-conformal theories (Δ>4). The model is fitted to published lattice spectra for SU(3) with N_f=8 fundamental fermions and SU(2) with one adjoint Dirac fermion, yielding Δ=3.237 and Δ=6.03, respectively. The authors interpret these results as evidence that the SU(3) theory is outside the conformal window and the SU(2) theory is inside it, and they discuss future lattice measurements and analysis refinements.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful and minimally biased diagnostic: it uses ordinary spectroscopic lattice data, does not presuppose the phase, and applies the same EFT formalism on both sides of the conformal edge. The derivation of the fitting equations in Section II is transparent, the lattice data are reproduced in the appendix, and a data release is provided. The conclusion is, however, only as strong as the leading-order potential ansatz and the statistical quality of the fits; the paper itself labels the result preliminary. The approach is appropriate for hep-lat and would benefit materially from the robustness analysis described in the major comments.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV; Eq. (3); Table II] The phase diagnostic is entirely the sign of Δ−4 in V=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ. For the SU(2) adjoint fit, Table II gives Δ=6.03 with B<0, so V is unbounded below. The paper states that the turn-down is beyond the dEFT range (Sec. IV), but that admission means the data constrain V only in a window around F_d; Δ is a local power-law exponent, not a robust global parameter. In an IR-conformal theory a Δ>4 operator is irrelevant and should be suppressed in the deep IR; its fitted size may be absorbing omitted higher-order terms or lattice artifacts. Since the text also says Δ has 'large uncertainty' (Sec. IV), the conclusion that Δ is on the conformal side needs at minimum a quantitative statement of whether Δ>4 is selected at the 1σ level.
  2. [Appendix A; Tables I–IV] The fits use 5 ensembles (15 data points) for SU(3) and 3 ensembles (9 data points) for SU(2), with six free parameters. The χ² is built with a diagonal covariance matrix, and correlations and systematic errors are neglected (Appendix A). For the SU(2) theory, the restriction to the three lightest β=2.1 ensembles is a post-selection that can bias Δ. Given that the central claim is a sharp sign of Δ−4, these limitations are load-bearing. Please provide: (i) uncertainties on all six parameters, especially Δ; (ii) stability of Δ under including heavier ensembles or changing the mass input; (iii) an estimate of the effect of correlations, e.g. by using the quoted total errors or a conservative covariance model.
  3. [Section IV; Eq. (3)] The statement 'We took the dEFT to apply smoothly through the transition between confinement and conformality' is an assumption, not a derivation. The two-term potential is the leading-order form in one EFT, but it is not shown to be uniformly valid across the phase boundary. If subleading terms (e.g. χ^4 log χ, an additional χ^δ, or derivative interactions) are non-negligible in the region probed by the lattice data, the fitted Δ can shift by O(1) and cross 4. The paper should either justify the truncation on physical grounds or demonstrate that adding a representative higher-order term does not change the sign of Δ−4.
  4. [Section III; Tables I–II] The classification is a post-fit interpretation: all six parameters, including Δ, are free in the same fit that is then used to read off the phase. There is no out-of-sample prediction or validation against a theory of known phase. This by itself does not invalidate the diagnostic, but it means the paper demonstrates consistency with the assumed phases rather than a predictive test. At least one falsifiable cross-check should be added, such as a prediction for an unmeasured quantity (e.g. M_d^2/F_π^2 at a smaller fermion mass) or a comparison with an independent determination of the conformal edge (e.g. Ref. [3]).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A; Table III] The caption of Table III says the errors include statistical and systematic effects, while Appendix A states that the diagonal covariance matrix uses only statistical errors. This discrepancy should be clarified.
  2. [Tables I–II; Figs. 1–5] The central values in Tables I and II are quoted without uncertainties. The text notes that Δ has large uncertainty but no numeric error is given. Please report 1σ intervals or profile-likelihood ranges for the parameters, especially Δ.
  3. [Figs. 3 and 6] The insets in Figs. 3 and 6 are very small and the axes are difficult to read. Provide zoomed panels with clearly labeled axes and scales.
  4. [Eqs. (2), (9)] The dimensions of B_f and of the fit parameter C in Eq. (9) are not stated. Please specify them explicitly to avoid ambiguity in reproducing the fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the phase classification follows from freely fitted parameters against external lattice data.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation fits six dEFT parameters (A, B, Δ, y, P, C) to measured Mπ, Md, Fπ, and fermion-mass data taken from independent lattice studies (Refs. [17,59] and [28,60,61]). The phase conclusion (confining vs. conformal) is a function of the fitted potential shape: for SU(3) Nf=8 the fit gives Δ=3.237<4, A>0, B<0, implying a symmetry-breaking minimum; for SU(2) adjoint the fit gives Δ=6.03>4, A>0, B<0, implying an IR-extremum at χ=0. These conclusions are not imposed as priors; the paper explicitly states it now proceeds 'more generally, allowing lattice fits to determine whether or not V(χ) has a symmetry-breaking minimum.' All six parameters are free in the same fit that yields the classification, but this is a fit-based diagnostic, not a tautology: the lattice data are external to the model and the classification is not fed back into the fit. No equation defines a fitted quantity in terms of the conclusion, and no prediction is made from a subset of data that is statistically forced. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [34,35,39,42]) support the dEFT framework and spurion analysis, but that framework is externally falsifiable against lattice data and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem. The main caveat, correctly flagged in the paper, is the assumption that 'the dEFT [applies] smoothly through the transition between confinement and conformality' (Sec. IV); this is a correctness risk and an unverified assumption, not circular reasoning. The 'large uncertainty' in Δ is also acknowledged, again a robustness concern rather than a logical circularity. No circular step can be identified by quoting an equation where an output is identical to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed dEFT potential and its uniform validity across the conformal edge, the linear mass dependence, and the treatment of lattice errors. No new particles or forces are introduced; the dilaton field itself is taken from prior dEFT literature. Six free parameters per fit are fitted to the same data used to infer the phase.

free parameters (6)
  • y (dilaton scaling dimension) = 2.081 (SU(3)); 2.19 (SU(2))
    Fit parameter controlling the χ^y mass term and the mass dependence in Eq. (9).
  • C (≡ B_f / P^{y/2}) = a^{3−y}C = 7.16 (SU(3)); 7.69 (SU(2))
    Combination of the linear mass coefficient and P, fit to data.
  • Δ (dilaton potential exponent) = 3.237 (SU(3)); 6.03 (SU(2))
    The key discriminant: Δ<4 is interpreted as confining, Δ>4 as infrared conformal.
  • P (pNGB kinetic normalization) = 0.1050 (SU(3)); 0.131 (SU(2))
    Determines F_π = √P F_d; fit to data.
  • A (potential coefficient) = 0.527 (SU(3)); 0.0683 (SU(2))
    Coefficient of χ^4 term; fit to data and enters phase interpretation.
  • B (potential coefficient) = a^{4−Δ}B = −0.0328 (SU(3)); −0.0090 (SU(2))
    Coefficient of χ^Δ term; sign and size enter the phase interpretation.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The dEFT Lagrangian Eq. (1) with potential V(χ)=Aχ^4+Bχ^Δ and χ^y mass couplings captures the leading-order physics of the light scalar and pNGBs near the conformal edge; heavier states and subleading interactions are negligible.
    Invoked in Section II; the entire analysis rests on this potential being the correct effective description at the measured energies.
  • domain assumption The mass parameter R is linear in the underlying fermion mass m: R=B_f m (Eq. 2).
    Used to derive the fit equation (9); if R depends nonlinearly on m, the fitted C would not be constant across the data.
  • domain assumption The dEFT applies smoothly through the transition between confinement and conformality, with the same leading-order form valid on both sides of the conformal edge.
    Stated in Section IV: 'We took the dEFT to apply smoothly through the transition between confinement and conformality.' The interpretation of Δ<4 vs Δ>4 as a phase diagnostic depends on this premise.
  • domain assumption Lattice measurements can be treated as independent (diagonal covariance) and free of significant correlations and systematic effects; finite-volume effects are negligible.
    Appendix A: 'we take C to be diagonal... We do not include systematic effects.' The reported χ²/dof and parameter uncertainties rely on this.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11263 in / 17304 out tokens · 164036 ms · 2026-08-03T15:23:51.571956+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dilaton effective field theory (dEFT) can be employed to analyze lattice data in gauge theories that lie in close proximity of the lower edge of the conformal window. Under special conditions, we show that it can be used as a diagnostic tool to distinguish near-conformal, yet confining, theories from infrared conformal ones. We demonstrate this efficacy by analyzing two sets of lattice measurements taken from the literature. For the $SU(3)$ theory coupled to $N_f=8$ Dirac fermions transforming in the fundamental representation, our analysis favors confinement. For the $SU(2)$ theory with $N_f=1$ adjoint fermion, our fits favor infrared conformal behavior. We discuss future lattice measurements, and analysis refinements, that can further test this framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.16863 by James Ingoldby, Maurizio Piai, Thomas Appelquist.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contours of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Light dilaton from top-down holographic confinement with magnetic fluxes

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a two-flux family of top-down holographic confining theories, the lightest scalar is an approximate dilaton with mass about one tenth of the lightest spin-2 confinement scale, over a wide, untuned region of paramet...

  2. Effective Field Theory Description of Light Dilaton

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0

    A scale-invariant regularization is used to build a dilaton EFT tower from SMEFT down to chiral perturbation theory, with experimental constraints on the dilaton scale fχ across MeV to sub-eV masses.

  3. Dilatonic states, phase transitions, and criticality in holography

    hep-th 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0

    A review of holographic examples indicating that a light dilaton appears near critical endpoints of first-order zero-temperature phase transitions, with explicit but lower-dimensional demonstrations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Banks and A

    T. Banks and A. Zaks,On the Phase Structure of Vector-Like Gauge Theories with Massless Fermions, Nucl. Phys. B196(1982) 189

    1982

  2. [2]

    Rummukainen and K

    K. Rummukainen and K. Tuominen,Lattice Computations for Beyond Standard Model Physics, Universe8(2022) 188

    2022

  3. [3]

    Chung and D

    H.S. Chung and D. Nogradi,fϱ/mϱand fπ/mϱratios and the conformal window,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 074039 [2302.06411]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Bennett et al.,Symplectic lattice gauge theories in the grid framework: Approaching the conformal window, Phys

    E. Bennett et al.,Symplectic lattice gauge theories in the grid framework: Approaching the conformal window, Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 094508 [2306.11649]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Nogradi and H.S

    D. Nogradi and H.S. Chung,Mesonic decay constant and mass ratios and the conformal window,PoS LA TTICE2023(2024) 084 [2311.08668]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bennett, D.K

    E. Bennett, D.K. Hong, H. Hsiao, J.-W. Lee, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Meson spectroscopy in the Sp(4) gauge theory with three antisymmetric fermions, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 074511 [2412.01170]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Athenodorou, E

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner, P. Butti, J. Lenz and B. Lucini,SU(2) gauge theory with one and two adjoint fermions towards the continuum limit, 2408.00171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    Appelquist, G.T

    T. Appelquist, G.T. Fleming and E.T. Neil,Lattice study of the conformal window in QCD-like theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 171607 [0712.0609]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Deuzeman, M.P

    A. Deuzeman, M.P. Lombardo and E. Pallante,The Physics of eight flavours,Phys. Lett. B670(2008) 41 [0804.2905]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, D. Nogradi and C. Schroeder,Nearly conformal gauge theories in finite volume,Phys. Lett. B681(2009) 353 [0907.4562]. [11]LatKMIcollaboration,Light flavor-singlet scalars and walking signals inNf = 8QCD on the lattice,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 014508 [1610.07011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [12]

    Appelquist et al.,Strongly interacting dynamics and the search for new physics at the LHC,Phys

    T. Appelquist et al.,Strongly interacting dynamics and the search for new physics at the LHC,Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 114514 [1601.04027]. [13]Lattice Strong Dynamicscollaboration, Nonperturbative investigations of SU(3) gauge theory with eight dynamical flavors,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 014509 [1807.08411]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [14]

    Kotov, D

    A.Y. Kotov, D. Nogradi, K.K. Szabo and L. Szikszai, More on the flavor dependence of mρ/fπ,JHEP07 (2021) 202 [2107.05996]. [15]Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)collaboration, Goldstone boson scattering with a light composite scalar, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 034505 [2106.13534]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [16]

    Hasenfratz,Emergent strongly coupled ultraviolet fixed point in four dimensions with eight Kähler-Dirac fermions,Phys

    A. Hasenfratz,Emergent strongly coupled ultraviolet fixed point in four dimensions with eight Kähler-Dirac fermions,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 014513 [2204.04801]. [17]Lattice Strong Dynamicscollaboration,Light scalar meson and decay constant in SU(3) gauge theory with eight dynamical flavors,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 054501 [2306.06095]. [18]LSDcollaboration,Hidd...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [20]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, D. Nogradi, C. Schroeder and C.H. Wong,Can the nearly conformal sextet gauge model hide the Higgs impostor?,Phys. Lett. B718 (2012) 657 [1209.0391]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [21]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi and C.H. Wong,Toward the minimal realization of a light composite Higgs,PoSLA TTICE2014(2015) 244 [1502.00028]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [22]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, S. Mondal, D. Nogradi and C.H. Wong,Status of a minimal composite Higgs theory,PoSLA TTICE2015(2016) 219 [1605.08750]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [23]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, D. Nogradi and C.H. Wong,The twelve-flavorβ-function and dilaton tests of the sextet scalar,EPJ Web Conf.175(2018) 08015 [1712.08594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [24]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti and C.H. Wong, Tantalizing dilaton tests from a near-conformal EFT, PoSLA TTICE2018(2019) 196 [1901.06324]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [25]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti and C.H. Wong,Dilaton EFT from p-regime to RMT in theϵ-regime,PoS LA TTICE2019(2020) 246 [2002.05163]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [26]

    Athenodorou, E

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner and B. Lucini, Infrared regime of SU(2) with one adjoint Dirac flavor, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 114508 [1412.5994]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [27]

    Athenodorou, E

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner, D. Elander, C.J.D. Lin, B. Lucini et al.,Large mass hierarchies from strongly-coupled dynamics,JHEP06(2016) 114 [1605.04258]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [28]

    Athenodorou, E

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner and B. Lucini, Investigating the conformal behavior of SU(2) with one adjoint Dirac flavor,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 074519 [2103.10485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [29]

    Matsuzaki and K

    S. Matsuzaki and K. Yamawaki,Dilaton Chiral Perturbation Theory: Determining the Mass and Decay Constant of the Technidilaton on the Lattice,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 082002 [1311.3784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [30]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Low-energy effective action for pions and a dilatonic meson,Phys. Rev. D 94(2016) 054502 [1603.04575]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [31]

    Kasai, K.-i

    A. Kasai, K.-i. Okumura and H. Suzuki,A dilaton-pion mass relation,1609.02264

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [32]

    Hansen, K

    M. Hansen, K. Langæble and F. Sannino,Extending Chiral Perturbation Theory with an Isosinglet Scalar, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 036005 [1610.02904]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [33]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Effective pion mass term and the trace anomaly,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 016003 [1611.04275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [34]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Dilaton EFT Framework For Lattice Data,JHEP07(2017) 035 [1702.04410]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [35]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Analysis of a Dilaton EFT for Lattice Data,JHEP03(2018) 039 [1711.00067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [36]

    Catà, R.J

    O. Catà, R.J. Crewther and L.C. Tunstall,Crawling technicolor,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 095007 [1803.08513]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [37]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Large-mass regime of the dilaton-pion low-energy effective theory,Phys. Rev. D 98(2018) 056025 [1805.00198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [38]

    Catà and C

    O. Catà and C. Müller,Chiral effective theories with a 7 light scalar at one loop,Nucl. Phys. B952(2020) 114938 [1906.01879]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [39]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Dilaton potential and lattice data,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 075025 [1908.00895]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [40]

    Golterman, E.T

    M. Golterman, E.T. Neil and Y. Shamir,Application of dilaton chiral perturbation theory toNf = 8,SU(3) spectral data,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 034515 [2003.00114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [41]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Explorations beyond dilaton chiral perturbation theory in the eight-flavor SU(3) gauge theory,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 114507 [2009.13846]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [42]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Dilaton Effective Field Theory,Universe9(2023) 10 [2209.14867]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [43]

    Migdal and M.A

    A.A. Migdal and M.A. Shifman,Dilaton Effective Lagrangian in Gluodynamics,Phys. Lett. B114(1982) 445

    1982

  38. [44]

    Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K

    S. Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry: Selected Erice Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1985), 10.1017/CBO9780511565045

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511565045 1985

  39. [45]

    Goldberger, B

    W.D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein and W. Skiba, Distinguishing the Higgs boson from the dilaton at the Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. Lett.100(2008) 111802 [0708.1463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  40. [46]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Nearly Conformal Composite Higgs Model,Phys. Rev. Lett. 126(2021) 191804 [2012.09698]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [47]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Composite two-Higgs doublet model from dilaton effective field theory,Nucl. Phys. B983(2022) 115930 [2205.03320]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [48]

    Cacciapaglia, D.Y

    G. Cacciapaglia, D.Y. Cheong, A. Deandrea, W. Isnard and S.C. Park,Composite hybrid inflation: dilaton and waterfall pions,JCAP10(2023) 063 [2307.01852]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [49]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Dilaton forbidden dark matter,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 035013 [2404.07601]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [50]

    Bruggisser, B

    S. Bruggisser, B. von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi and G. Servant,Dilaton at the LHC: complementary probe of composite Higgs,JHEP05(2023) 080 [2212.00056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [51]

    Alonso, S

    R. Alonso, S. Chattopadhyay and J. Ingoldby,The Potential of HEFT and the scale of New Physics, 2512.13612

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [52]

    Wu and Q.S

    J.E. Wu and Q.S. Yan,Confront a dilaton model with the LHC measurements,2501.07820

    arXiv

  47. [53]

    Zwicky,QCD with an infrared fixed point and a dilaton,Phys

    R. Zwicky,QCD with an infrared fixed point and a dilaton,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 014048 [2312.13761]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [54]

    Faedo, C

    A.F. Faedo, C. Hoyos, M. Piai, R. Rodgers and J.G. Subils,Light holographic dilatons near critical points,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 126017 [2406.04974]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [55]

    Elander, A.F

    D. Elander, A.F. Faedo, M. Piai, R. Rodgers and J.G. Subils,Light dilaton near critical points in top-down holography,2502.19226

    arXiv

  50. [56]

    Cresswell-Hogg, D.F

    C. Cresswell-Hogg, D.F. Litim and R. Zwicky,Dilaton Physics from Asymptotic Freedom,2502.00107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [57]

    Stegeman and R

    R. Stegeman and R. Zwicky,GravitationalD-Form Factor: Theσ-Meson as a Dilaton confronted with Lattice Data,2508.18537

    arXiv

  52. [58]

    Stegeman and R

    R. Stegeman and R. Zwicky,Gluon Gravitational D-Form Factor: Theσ-Meson as a Dilaton confronted with Lattice Data II,2512.12315

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [59]

    Dataset for

    G.T. Fleming and et al. (Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)), “Dataset for ”light scalar meson and decay constant in su(3) gauge theory with eight dynamical flavors”.” 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8007955

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8007955 2023

  54. [60]

    Investigating the conformal behaviour of su(2) with one adjoint dirac flavor — data release

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner and B. Lucini, “Investigating the conformal behaviour of su(2) with one adjoint dirac flavor — data release.” 2021. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5139618

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.5139618 2021

  55. [61]

    Su(2) gauge theory with one and two adjoint fermions towards the continuum limit — data release

    A. Athenodorou, E. Bennett, G. Bergner, J. Lenz and B. Lucini, “Su(2) gauge theory with one and two adjoint fermions towards the continuum limit — data release.” 2024.https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13128504

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.13128504 2024

  56. [62]

    Ryttov and R

    T.A. Ryttov and R. Shrock,Higher-order scheme-independent series expansions ofγ¯ψψ,IR and β′ IR in conformal field theories,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 105004 [1703.08558]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [63]

    Del Debbio, B

    L. Del Debbio, B. Lucini, A. Patella and C. Pica, Quenched mesonic spectrum at large N,JHEP03 (2008) 062 [0712.3036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [64]

    Cohen and H

    A.G. Cohen and H. Georgi,Walking Beyond the Rainbow,Nucl. Phys. B314(1989) 7

    1989

  59. [65]

    Dilaton effective field theory across the conformal edge — data release

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai, “Dilaton effective field theory across the conformal edge — data release.” 2025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17966696. 8

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17966696 2025