To be, or not to be finite? The Higgs potential in Gauge-Higgs Unification

Atsuyuki Yamada; Junji Hisano; Yutaro Shoji

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

To be, or not to be finite? The Higgs potential in Gauge-Higgs Unification

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-loop finite Higgs potential in gauge-Higgs unification, then a three-loop counterterm that makes the potential ultraviolet-sensitive

desk verdict A solid two-loop calculation of the Higgs potential in SU(N) gauge-Higgs unification, with a real finiteness caveat hiding in the regulator choice for F(0). read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09158 v2 pith:JR2THEDU submitted 2019-08-24 hep-ph

Junji Hisano , Yutaro Shoji , Atsuyuki Yamada This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords gauge-HiggsunificationHiggseffectivepotentialtwo-loopfinitenesscompactificationbysuperpositionfour-FermioperatorsWilsonlinephaseextra-dimensionalgaugetheorynon-renormalizable

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the effective potential for the Higgs field in gauge-Higgs unification stays free of ultraviolet sensitivity at every loop order, where the Higgs field is the Wilson-line phase of the higher-dimensional gauge field. In an $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ gauge theory on $M^4\times S^1$, the authors compute the two-loop effective potential and find it finite, extending the known one-loop result and matching earlier Abelian two-loop calculations. In an $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ model on $M^5\times S^1$, they find that a one-loop divergence in a four-Fermi operator enters the Higgs potential at three loops through its counterterm, so the potential depends on the ultraviolet theory. The conclusion is that the all-order finiteness conjecture fails in this model and that such counterterm dependence is expected generically at three or more loops.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is compactification by superposition: a Kaluza-Klein momentum sum on $M^4\times S^1$ is rewritten, via Poisson resummation, as a superposition of ordinary five-dimensional loop integrals labelled by a winding number $m$, with the Wilson-line phase $\theta$ entering only through factors $e^{i\theta m}$. The identity (18) lets every matrix-valued group factor be pulled out of the integrals, and the $\theta$ dependence of the final answer appears only in traces of these phases. Finiteness at two loops then reduces to properties of the master integral $F(m)=i\int d^5k/(2\pi)^5\, e^{-i2\pi R k_5 m}/(k_K k^K)$, which is nonzero only for $m\neq 0$; the Ward identity for the gauge-boson self-energy, analysed in Appendix B2, selects the branch $F(0)=0$ that is compatible with gauge invariance. This is the mechanism that removes the would-be two-loop divergence.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop potential in $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ on $M^4\times S^1$ using a gauge-invariant regulator for which the Ward identity selects a branch with $\Lambda_3\neq 0$, and look for a $1/\epsilon$ pole; alternatively, evaluate the three-loop potential in the $M^5\times S^1$ model with a finite four-Fermi counterterm $\delta^{\mathrm fin}_{4F}$ and see whether the $\theta$-dependent term can be cancelled for any fermion content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that finite Higgs potentials in gauge-Higgs unification do not survive beyond two loops. In the non-Abelian model on $M^4\times S^1$, the two-loop effective potential (Eq. 34) is finite: the divergent zero-winding contributions cancel because gauge invariance forces the master integral $F(0)$ to vanish. In the $M^5\times S^1$ model, the one-loop four-Fermi operator is log-divergent, and the finite part $\delta^{\mathrm fin}_{4F}$ of its counterterm produces a nonvanishing, $\theta$-dependent three-loop contribution to the Higgs potential (Eq. 38). For instance, in $\mathrm{SU}(2)$ with a fundamental fermion, this contribution is proportional to a cosine of the Wilson-line phase, so it cannot be removed by redefinition. The authors conclude that the all-order finiteness conjecture is false for this model and that divergences at three or higher loops are generic in non-renormalizable gauge-Higgs unification theories.

Load-bearing premise

The two-loop proof assumes that a gauge-invariant way of regulating the loop integrals can make the integral $F(0)$ exactly zero; if every legitimate regulator gives a nonzero $F(0)$, the two-loop Higgs potential would be divergent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The two-loop finite result in $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ on $M^4\times S^1$ means the Higgs mass from the Wilson-line phase is calculable from the compactification scale through two loops, with no unknown counterterm.
In the $M^5\times S^1$ model, the three-loop potential contains $\delta^{\mathrm fin}_{4F}$, so any prediction of the Higgs mass beyond two loops requires knowledge of the ultraviolet completion.
Because infinitely many local operators can be written down, the same four-Fermi mechanism is expected to operate in other non-renormalizable gauge-Higgs unification models, making all-order finiteness unlikely.
The counterterm contribution is suppressed by high powers of $1/R$, so the ultraviolet sensitivity appears only at three loops and may still permit a mild hierarchy between the compactification scale and the cutoff.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same pattern persists in the four-dimensional $\mathrm{SU}(N)$ model, precision Higgs predictions in gauge-Higgs unification are reliable only through two loops; a three-loop computation would need to specify the four-Fermi counterterm basis.
The superposition technique should apply to Wilson-line observables in orbifold or torus compactifications, where the same phase-factor bookkeeping can reduce multi-loop integrals to superpositions of flat-space integrals.
A direct three-loop calculation in $M^4\times S^1$ would settle whether the counterterm dependence shown in $M^5\times S^1$ is a universal feature or a special artifact of the higher dimension.
The mild three-loop suppression suggests a testable consequence: if the cutoff is within a decade of the compactification scale, the ultraviolet-sensitive term is naturally small, which could explain a little hierarchy without tuning.

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

Let me give you the short version. This paper does two things. It computes the two-loop effective Higgs potential for SU(N) gauge-Higgs unification on M4×S1 and shows it is finite. That is a genuine new result, extending the one-loop non-Abelian and two-loop Abelian calculations. It also gives an explicit example—SU(N) on M5×S1—where the three-loop potential picks up a term proportional to the finite part of a four-Fermi counterterm. That kills the all-order finiteness conjecture for that model. Both calculations are laid out carefully enough to check, and the two-loop result reduces to the known Abelian answer in the right limit.

The compactification-by-superposition method is adapted from earlier Abelian work, but the non-Abelian extension is nontrivial and well presented. The symmetries of the group factors are handled cleanly. I think the two-loop finiteness result is credible.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note says. The two-loop potential is finite only because F(0)=0. The proof in Appendix B2 derives that from gauge invariance of the gauge-boson self-energy, but it assumes a particular parametrization of the divergent part. The alternative solution Ξ(p)=Λ3/p^2 is dismissed for not regularizing p=0, and the x=-3/8 case is not discussed. A different gauge-invariant regulator could, as far as I can tell, produce F(0)≠0 without breaking the Ward identity. If that happens, Eq. (34) gets θ-dependent divergent terms. This is a genuine gap, not a nitpick, but it is also a standard kind of regulator-dependence issue in non-renormalizable theories. It doesn't invalidate the calculation of the diagrams; it limits the claim that the two-loop potential is finite in the full theory.

The higher-loop example is more robust. The one-loop log divergence in the four-Fermi operator is computed, the counterterm is written down, and the three-loop contribution to the Higgs potential is nonzero. The argument that no other diagram cancels it seems right at this order. The authors are appropriately modest about what it proves: it falsifies the conjecture for the 6D model, not for all models. The abstract's 'generically divergent' is an extrapolation, but the text is more careful.

The citation pattern looks fine. The earlier finiteness conjectures are cited, and the Abelian two-loop work is referenced and checked against. No sign of self-citation inflation.

Who should read this: people working on gauge-Higgs unification or Hosotani mechanisms, and anyone interested in whether finite Higgs potentials can survive beyond one loop in non-renormalizable theories. It deserves a serious referee. My own read is that it should be published after the regulator question is addressed head-on—either by finding an explicit gauge-invariant regulator that gives F(0)=0, or by weakening the finiteness claim to 'in the regularization class considered here.' I'd send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the ultraviolet behaviour of the Higgs effective potential in SU(N) gauge-Higgs unification on M4×S1. It introduces a 'compactification by superposition' technique that converts Kaluza-Klein sums into superpositions of five-dimensional loop integrals, and uses it to compute the one- and two-loop effective potentials. The two-loop result, Eq. (34), is claimed to be finite. The paper then considers SU(N) on M5×S1, where one-loop corrections to four-Fermi operators are divergent; the counterterm for this divergence, whose finite part is arbitrary, generates a non-vanishing θ-dependent three-loop contribution to the Higgs potential (Eqs. (38)-(39)). The authors conclude that the Higgs potential depends on UV theory in this model, falsifying the all-order finiteness conjecture for it.

Significance. If the two-loop calculation is correct, this is a valuable technical advance: it is the first non-Abelian two-loop Higgs potential in a gauge-Higgs unification model, and the superposition method is elegant and likely to be useful in future GHU computations. The two-loop result is cross-checked against the known Abelian limit and is presented with enough detail to be checked. The M5×S1 example is a concrete, self-contained demonstration that counterterms for irrelevant operators can feed into the Higgs potential at higher loops. No parameter is fitted, and the paper is candid about the limitations of its higher-loop argument (footnote 5). The central caveat is that the two-loop finiteness claim rests on the regulator-dependent statement F(0)=0, which is not proven for all gauge-invariant regularizations.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B2 and Eq. (34)] The two-loop finiteness claim in Eq. (34) relies on setting F(0)=0 in Eq. (33). The proof in Appendix B2 assumes that the regularized gauge-boson self-energy admits the specific tensor decomposition of Eq. (B13) with a single constant x, and derives Eq. (B15) from the Ward identity p^M Π_MN=0. This decomposition is not shown to hold for every gauge-invariant regulator; for a generic regulator the coefficient of η_MN could depend on p^2, in which case Eq. (B15) does not follow and nonzero F(0) is not excluded. The solution in Eq. (B17) is discarded because Ξ(p) is singular at p=0, but that discarding relies on an additional regularity assumption about the regulator. Since F(0) is a power-divergent integral in a non-renormalizable theory, a gauge-invariant scheme with F(0)≠0 would reintroduce θ-dependent divergences through terms such as F(0)F(m) in Eq. (34). The two-loop finiteness result is therefore conditional on the completeness of the regulator classification, and this condition should either be proven more generally or stated explicitly as a property of a specified regularization scheme.
[Section V and Abstract] The abstract and Section V state that the Higgs effective potential is 'generically divergent' at three or higher loops, but the explicit computation in Section V establishes UV sensitivity only for the specific model on M5×S1 with the four-Fermi counterterm. The extrapolation to other models, including the original M4×S1 model, is an expectation ('there seems to be no special mechanism') rather than a proof. This does not undermine the explicit counterexample, but the language in the abstract and conclusions should be qualified so that the proven statement (UV dependence in the M5×S1 example) is not presented as a general theorem.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (5)] The gauge-fixing term L_GF = -1/2 F^a F^a with F^a = ∂_M A^{aM} + f^{abc}/(2πR) A_b^5 θ^c has index placement in the second term that is not fully consistent as written; please clarify the contraction convention for A^5 and A_5.
[Eqs. (19) and (26)-(31)] The notation 'V^{...}_{...,eff}(θ) = i = ...' with missing diagram insets is confusing; the 'i =' fragments should be replaced by explicit expressions so the equations are readable without the original figures.
[Appendix B1] The sign conventions and branch choices in the master-integral evaluation, especially after Eq. (B4) and in the on-shell limit p^2+m^2=0, are hard to follow; please specify the branch of the square root and the iε prescription used in Eq. (B5).
[References] Reference [4] is incomplete (no title or collaboration is listed), and several entries would benefit from journal/page standardization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's derivations are self-contained and its two-loop and three-loop claims follow from explicit computations, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The load-bearing results are obtained by direct evaluation of Feynman diagrams using the paper's 'compactification by superposition' method, with all master integrals evaluated in the appendices. The one-loop result is checked against independent earlier work, and the two-loop result is a genuinely new non-Abelian computation. The finiteness of the two-loop potential depends on the identity F(0)=0, which is derived in Appendix B2 from stated assumptions about gauge-invariant regularization rather than assumed as the conclusion; even if that derivation were incomplete or regulator-dependent, that would be a technical correctness concern, not a circularity. The M5 x S1 example explicitly computes a three-loop contribution proportional to the finite part of the four-Fermi counterterm, and the paper's definition of 'divergent' as 'depends on UV-determined counterterms' is applied to an independently calculated quantity rather than being built into the result by construction. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, no central claim is justified solely by the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation has no fitted data points. The only free parameter relevant to the UV-sensitivity example is the finite part of the four-Fermi counterterm. The axioms are the stated finiteness criterion, the gauge-invariant regularization premise, the analytic continuation identities, and the absence of a symmetry protecting the four-Fermi operator.

free parameters (1)

delta_fin_4F
The finite part of the four-Fermi counterterm introduced in Eq. (37). The three-loop potential in Eq. (38) is proportional to it, so the paper's UV-sensitivity claim depends on this arbitrary renormalization parameter.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The tree-level Lagrangian is restricted to gauge interactions; counterterms for all other operators are assigned to the ultraviolet theory.
This is the paper's stated criterion of finiteness in Sec. I, and it determines what counts as a divergence of the Higgs potential.
domain assumption A regularization consistent with gauge invariance can be chosen such that the master integral F(0) vanishes.
Appendix B2 argues this from gauge invariance of the vacuum polarization; the two-loop potential's finiteness in Sec. IVB depends on it.
standard math The matrix identities (18) and (24) apply to the loop integrands after rearrangement.
Proven in Appendix A for analytic functions of the shifted KK momentum; the paper relies on the physical denominators being in this class.
domain assumption In M5 x S1 the four-Fermi operator is not forbidden by any symmetry and requires a counterterm.
Sec. V uses this to construct the three-loop UV-dependent contribution; if a symmetry forbade the operator, the example would collapse.
domain assumption Perturbative expansion in the gauge coupling is valid in the regime considered.
The entire loop calculation is perturbative; no non-perturbative or strong-coupling domain is analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of To be, or not to be finite? The Higgs potential in Gauge-Higgs Unification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JR2THEDU

@misc{pith2026190809158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: To be, or not to be finite? The Higgs potential in Gauge-Higgs Unification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JR2THEDU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09158}
}

abstract

In this paper, we investigate the finiteness of the Higgs effective potential in an ${\rm SU}(\mathcal N)$ Gauge-Higgs Unification (GHU) model defined on ${\bf M}^4\times S^1$. We obtain the Higgs effective potential at the two-loop level and find that it is finite. We also discuss that the Higgs effective potential is generically divergent for three- or higher-loop levels. As an example, we consider an ${\rm SU}(\mathcal N)$ gauge theory on ${\bf M}^5\times S^1$, where the one-loop corrections to the four-Fermi operators are divergent. We find that the Higgs effective potential depends on their counter terms at the three-loop level.

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

Models with rank-reducing discrete boundary conditions on $T^2/{\mathbb Z}_4$
hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An SU(6) gauge-Higgs unification model on T^2/Z4 with rank-reducing boundary conditions yields two Higgs doublets from the gauge field, quark unification in a 15, and a vacuum with small electroweak breaking via the H...
CKM matrix and FCNC suppression in $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In the SO(5) x U(1) x SU(3) gauge-Higgs unification model, gauge-invariant brane couplings can generate an approximately correct CKM matrix while suppressing FCNCs below 10^-6 of the weak interactions, at the cost of ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

(18) Let Θ be a Hermitian matrix

Proof of eq. (18) Let Θ be a Hermitian matrix. Then, for an arbitrary analytic function, S(... ), the following identity holds. 1 2πR ∞∑ n=−∞ S (n R + Θ 2πR ) = ∞∑ n=−∞ eiΘn ∫ ∞ −∞ dk5 2πS(k5)e−i2πRk5n. (A1) Proof We ﬁrst diagonalize Θ as U−1ΘU = diag (v1,v 2,··· ), (A2) with unitary matrix U. Since S(... ) is an analytic function, we have [ S (n R + Θ 2π...

work page
[2]

(24) Let τa’s be an arbitrary representation of SU( N ), λa’s be constants and S(

Proof of eq. (24) Let τa’s be an arbitrary representation of SU( N ), λa’s be constants and S(... ) be an arbitrary analytic function. Then, the following identity holds; S(λaτa)τb =τc [S (λaτa +λaTa)]cb, (A9) where the indices in the subscript are those for Ta, not for τa. Proof Since S(... ) can be expanded locally, it is enough to prove for the case wh...

work page
[3]

Symmetries of Gadj and G𝓁 Let τa’s be an arbitrary representation of SU(N ) and λa’s and ¯λa’s be constants. Then, the following identities hold; [ eiλcTc] ba tr [ ei¯λcτc τaτb ] = [ ei(¯λc−λc)Tc ] ba tr [ ei¯λcτc τaτb ] , (A12) [ eiλcTc] ba tr [ ei¯λcTc TaTb ] = [ e−i¯λcTc ] ba tr [ e−iλcTc TaTb] . (A13) Proof 16 The ﬁrst identity can be shown by using t...

work page
[4]

(B1) From the deﬁnition of the gamma function, we have W−s = is Γ(s) ∫ ∞ 0 dt e−iWtts−1, (B2) for Im(W )< 0 and Re(s)> 0

Momentum Integrals with a Spacial Shift Operator In this appendix, we calculate I = ∫ dDk (2π)D (−kMkM + 2pMkM +m2−iϵ)−se−i2kMxM. (B1) From the deﬁnition of the gamma function, we have W−s = is Γ(s) ∫ ∞ 0 dt e−iWtts−1, (B2) for Im(W )< 0 and Re(s)> 0. Using this, we have I = is Γ(s) ∫ ∞ 0 dt ts−1 ∫ dDk (2π)Dei(kMkM−2pMkM−m2+iϵ)t−i2kMxM = is Γ(s)e−i2pMxM ∫...

work page
[5]

• All the integrals become ﬁnite

Proof of F (0) = 0 We assume a regularization that has the following features. • All the integrals become ﬁnite. • Invariance under the shifts of loop momenta. • Independence of the signs of loop momenta. • Gauge invariance,pMΠMN (p) = 0. 18 Then, the following identity holds; F (0)≡i ∫ d5k (2π)5 1 kKkK = 0. (B9) Proof Let us deﬁne Λ3≡−iF (0) = ∫ d5k (2π)...

work page
[6]

(B20) Appendix C: Example of the Two-loop Calculation This appendix is dedicated to deduce eq

(B19) Notice that, if we use the dimensional regularization, Λ3,x and Ξ(p) are explicitly calculated as Λ3 = 0, x= 1 4, Ξ(p) =− i 128π √ −pMpM. (B20) Appendix C: Example of the Two-loop Calculation This appendix is dedicated to deduce eq. (26), the contribution from the two-loop diagram with a fermion loop; V 2L F,eﬀ(θ) =i . (C1) 20 First, we apply the Fe...

work page
[7]

The ATLAS collaboration (ATLAS), ATLAS-CONF-2018-031 (2018). 21

work page 2018
[8]

CMS Collaboration (CMS), CMS-PAS-HIG-17-031 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 38 references

[9]

M. J. G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Polon. B12, 437 (1981)

1981
[10]

Davier, L

M. Davier, L. Maiani, C. A. Savoy, and J. Scherk (1979)

1979
[11]

Dimopoulos and S

S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B192, 353 (1981)

1981
[12]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B188, 513 (1981)

1981
[13]

M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, GRAND UNIFICATION. PROCEEDINGS, 2ND WORKSHOP, ANN ARBOR, USA, APRIL 24-26, 1981 , Nucl. Phys. B189, 575 (1981)

1981
[14]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. 136B, 183 (1984)

1984
[15]

D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi, and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. 136B, 187 (1984)

1984
[16]

Georgi, D

H. Georgi, D. B. Kaplan, and P. Galison, Phys. Lett. 143B, 152 (1984)

1984
[17]

Banks, Nucl

T. Banks, Nucl. Phys. B243, 125 (1984)

1984
[18]

Georgi and D

H. Georgi and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. 145B, 216 (1984)

1984
[19]

M. J. Dugan, H. Georgi, and D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B254, 299 (1985)

1985
[20]

Georgi, Nucl

H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B266, 274 (1986)

1986
[21]

D. B. Fairlie, J. Phys. G5, L55 (1979)

1979
[22]

N. S. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B158, 141 (1979)

1979
[23]

Forgacs and N

P. Forgacs and N. S. Manton, Commun. Math. Phys. 72, 15 (1980)

1980
[24]

Hosotani, Phys

Y. Hosotani, Phys. Lett. 126B, 309 (1983)

1983
[25]

Hosotani, Phys

Y. Hosotani, Phys. Lett. 129B, 193 (1983)

1983
[26]

Hosotani, Annals Phys

Y. Hosotani, Annals Phys. 190, 233 (1989)

1989
[27]

von Gersdorﬀ, N

G. von Gersdorﬀ, N. Irges, and M. Quiros, in Proceedings, 37th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Uniﬁed Theories: Les Arcs, France, March 9-16, 2002 (2002) pp. 169–176, arXiv:hep-ph/0206029 [hep-ph]

2002 arXiv
[28]

Hosotani, in Dynamical symmetry breaking

Y. Hosotani, in Dynamical symmetry breaking. Proceedings, International Workshop, DSB’04, Nagoya, Japan, December 21-22, 2004 (2005) pp. 17–34, arXiv:hep-ph/0504272 [hep-ph]

2005 arXiv
[29]

Hosotani, (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607064 [hep-ph]

Y. Hosotani, (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607064 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[30]

A. T. Davies and A. McLachlan, 17th International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics (GROUP 17) Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada, June 27-July 2, 1988 , Nucl. Phys. B317, 237 (1989)

1989
[31]

Antoniadis, K

I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, and M. Quiros, New J. Phys. 3, 20 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0108005 [hep-th]. 22

2001 arXiv
[32]

Maru and T

N. Maru and T. Yamashita, Nucl. Phys. B754, 127 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603237 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[33]

Hosotani, N

Y. Hosotani, N. Maru, K. Takenaga, and T. Yamashita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 118, 1053 (2007), arXiv:0709.2844 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[34]

Heﬀner and H

J. Heﬀner and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. D91, 085022 (2015), arXiv:1501.05858 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[35]

Reinhardt, Phys

H. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. D94, 045016 (2016), arXiv:1604.06273 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[36]

M. M. Anber and T. Sulejmanpasic, JHEP 01, 139 (2015), arXiv:1410.0121 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[37]

Ishikawa, O

K. Ishikawa, O. Morikawa, A. Nakayama, K. Shibata, H. Suzuki, and H. Takaura, (2019), arXiv:1908.00373 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[38]

L. F. Abbott, Nucl. Phys. B185, 189 (1981). 23

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(18) Let Θ be a Hermitian matrix

Proof of eq. (18) Let Θ be a Hermitian matrix. Then, for an arbitrary analytic function, S(... ), the following identity holds. 1 2πR ∞∑ n=−∞ S (n R + Θ 2πR ) = ∞∑ n=−∞ eiΘn ∫ ∞ −∞ dk5 2πS(k5)e−i2πRk5n. (A1) Proof We ﬁrst diagonalize Θ as U−1ΘU = diag (v1,v 2,··· ), (A2) with unitary matrix U. Since S(... ) is an analytic function, we have [ S (n R + Θ 2π...

work page

[2] [2]

(24) Let τa’s be an arbitrary representation of SU( N ), λa’s be constants and S(

Proof of eq. (24) Let τa’s be an arbitrary representation of SU( N ), λa’s be constants and S(... ) be an arbitrary analytic function. Then, the following identity holds; S(λaτa)τb =τc [S (λaτa +λaTa)]cb, (A9) where the indices in the subscript are those for Ta, not for τa. Proof Since S(... ) can be expanded locally, it is enough to prove for the case wh...

work page

[3] [3]

Symmetries of Gadj and G𝓁 Let τa’s be an arbitrary representation of SU(N ) and λa’s and ¯λa’s be constants. Then, the following identities hold; [ eiλcTc] ba tr [ ei¯λcτc τaτb ] = [ ei(¯λc−λc)Tc ] ba tr [ ei¯λcτc τaτb ] , (A12) [ eiλcTc] ba tr [ ei¯λcTc TaTb ] = [ e−i¯λcTc ] ba tr [ e−iλcTc TaTb] . (A13) Proof 16 The ﬁrst identity can be shown by using t...

work page

[4] [4]

(B1) From the deﬁnition of the gamma function, we have W−s = is Γ(s) ∫ ∞ 0 dt e−iWtts−1, (B2) for Im(W )< 0 and Re(s)> 0

Momentum Integrals with a Spacial Shift Operator In this appendix, we calculate I = ∫ dDk (2π)D (−kMkM + 2pMkM +m2−iϵ)−se−i2kMxM. (B1) From the deﬁnition of the gamma function, we have W−s = is Γ(s) ∫ ∞ 0 dt e−iWtts−1, (B2) for Im(W )< 0 and Re(s)> 0. Using this, we have I = is Γ(s) ∫ ∞ 0 dt ts−1 ∫ dDk (2π)Dei(kMkM−2pMkM−m2+iϵ)t−i2kMxM = is Γ(s)e−i2pMxM ∫...

work page

[5] [5]

• All the integrals become ﬁnite

Proof of F (0) = 0 We assume a regularization that has the following features. • All the integrals become ﬁnite. • Invariance under the shifts of loop momenta. • Independence of the signs of loop momenta. • Gauge invariance,pMΠMN (p) = 0. 18 Then, the following identity holds; F (0)≡i ∫ d5k (2π)5 1 kKkK = 0. (B9) Proof Let us deﬁne Λ3≡−iF (0) = ∫ d5k (2π)...

work page

[6] [6]

(B20) Appendix C: Example of the Two-loop Calculation This appendix is dedicated to deduce eq

(B19) Notice that, if we use the dimensional regularization, Λ3,x and Ξ(p) are explicitly calculated as Λ3 = 0, x= 1 4, Ξ(p) =− i 128π √ −pMpM. (B20) Appendix C: Example of the Two-loop Calculation This appendix is dedicated to deduce eq. (26), the contribution from the two-loop diagram with a fermion loop; V 2L F,eﬀ(θ) =i . (C1) 20 First, we apply the Fe...

work page

[7] [7]

The ATLAS collaboration (ATLAS), ATLAS-CONF-2018-031 (2018). 21

work page 2018

[8] [8]

CMS Collaboration (CMS), CMS-PAS-HIG-17-031 (2018)

work page 2018