Analyticity Constraints and Trace Anomaly Matching

Adam Schwimmer; Stefan Theisen

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Analyticity Constraints and Trace Anomaly Matching

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A general proof that type A and type B trace anomalies match in spontaneously broken CFTs.

desk verdict A serious attempt to prove trace anomaly matching with a real one-loop check, but the general proof rests on an unproven deep-Euclidean decoupling assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16987 v1 pith:RGN753AT submitted 2024-12-22 hep-th

Adam Schwimmer , Stefan Theisen This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th MSC 81T4081T50

keywords traceanomalymatchingspontaneousconformalsymmetrybreakingdilatontypeAandBanomaliesdispersionsumrulesWeylfieldtheory

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 gives a general proof that trace anomalies are matched between a four-dimensional conformal field theory and its spontaneously broken phase, for both type A and type B anomalies. The proof uses an unambiguous characterization of trace anomalies: after the diffeomorphism Ward identities are imposed, each anomaly is encoded in a universal equation for dimension $-2$ invariant amplitudes, $\sum_i s_i E_i = c$. The same equation holds in the broken phase, $\sum_i s_i \tilde E_i(s_1,s_2,s_3;f)=\tilde c$, and because the amplitudes have the same power-like short-distance behaviour the ratio of the two equations forces $c=\tilde c$ in the deep Euclidean limit. The paper also shows that in the broken phase the action of dilations on correlators gains a model-dependent dilaton term, so the type B anomaly is no longer tied to explicit UV breaking of dilations. The matching then controls dispersive sum rules that constrain dilaton--energy-momentum correlators and the massive spectrum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the universal anomaly equation $\sum_{i=1}^3 s_i E_i(s_1,s_2,s_3)=c$, in which the invariant amplitudes $E_i$ have dimension $-2$ and are free of regularization ambiguity, and $c$ is the anomaly coefficient for type A or type B. Diffeo Ward identities eliminate the positive- and zero-dimension amplitudes, leaving this equation as the single expression of the anomaly. The same equation, with amplitudes depending also on the breaking scale $f$, is imposed in the broken phase. Matching follows by taking the ratio of the two equations and using the deep-Euclidean equality of the amplitudes; the discontinuities of the $E_i$ then obey the sum rule $\int ds\,\mathrm{Im}_j E_j = -\pi c$, which is the analyticity-based formulation of the anomaly. In the broken phase the dilation Ward identity is modified by the dilaton's zero-momentum coupling, which adds the model-dependent term $f\langle \phi(0)| T_{\nu_1\rho_1}\cdots |0\rangle$ to the transformation law.

What would settle it

Evaluate the broken-phase dimension $-2$ amplitudes $B,C,D$ of the one-dilaton/two-energy-momentum three-point function in a model of the circular-quiver type at finite external momenta; anomaly matching predicts that the anomalous combination $-3q^2B-2q\cdot r\,C+r^2D$ equals the unbroken anomaly $N$ for every value of the breaking scale $v$, and any $v$- or momentum-dependent correction surviving the large-$q^2$ limit would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spontaneously broken phase of a CFT carries the same trace anomalies as the unbroken phase: the broken-phase anomaly coefficient $\tilde c$ in $\sum_i s_i \tilde E_i(s_1,s_2,s_3;f)=\tilde c$ equals the unbroken coefficient $c$ in $\sum_i s_i E_i(s_1,s_2,s_3)=c$. The argument compares the two universal anomaly equations in the deep Euclidean limit, where every invariant $s_i$ is much larger than the breaking scale $f$, so the broken-phase amplitudes coincide with the unbroken ones and the ratio of the equations forces $c=\tilde c$. This is stated uniformly for type A and type B anomalies. For type B, the relation between the anomaly and the explicit violation of dilations by the UV cutoff is special to the unbroken phase; in the broken phase the dilation Ward identity acquires a nonlocal term from the massless dilaton, so the type B coefficient is no longer tied to that UV violation. The paper then derives the general structure of dilaton--energy-momentum correlators in the deep infrared and, with anomaly matching as input, obtains dispersion sum rules for the invariant amplitudes.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes feature (d) of the broken phase: at momenta large compared with the breaking scale $f$, the correlators—including their dimension $-2$ amplitudes—are the same as in the unbroken phase, so the deep Euclidean limit of the ratio of anomaly equations forces equality of the coefficients; if dilaton-mediated corrections did not decouple as the invariants go to infinity, the ratio argument would not force $\tilde c=c$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Type A and type B anomaly coefficients are equal in every spontaneously broken phase of a given CFT, for each breaking pattern, so a single dimensionless coefficient characterizes the trace anomaly across all phases.
In the broken phase the type B anomaly coefficient is no longer fixed by the UV logarithm; the dilaton sector contributes an independent, model-dependent breaking of dilations.
The matched generating functional yields concrete dispersive sum rules, such as $\frac{1}{\pi}\int \frac{dt'}{t'^3}\,\mathrm{Im}\,A_1(s=0,t')=\frac{a-1}{2f^2}$, that constrain the couplings of the dilaton to the massive spectrum.
At one loop, each massive field matches its anomaly diagram by diagram, with the dilaton coupling fixed by $\gamma f^2+M^2=0$.
The circular-quiver example previously presented as a type B counterexample is shown to match once the dilaton and massless-scalar contributions are included.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same unambiguous dimension $-2$ amplitude decomposition can be constructed in higher even dimensions, the paper's deep-Euclidean ratio argument would predict the same matching there; that extension is not carried out in this paper.
The same line of reasoning suggests that any apparent failure of type B matching in a specific model will be traceable to a missing massless or dilaton-mediated contribution, rather than to a change in the anomaly coefficient.
For massive, non-conformal flows the role of the dilaton may be played by the trace of the energy-momentum tensor or by beta-function terms; the sum rules derived here would then become constraints on the flow, as the authors note as an open question.
A testable extension would be to compute the large-momentum discontinuity of the dimension $-2$ amplitudes in a strongly coupled realization of spontaneous breaking; matching predicts it must equal the unbroken anomaly coefficient with no $f$-dependent correction.

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

Colleague,

The short version: this paper attempts a general proof of trace anomaly matching in spontaneously broken CFTs for both type A and type B, and it includes a real one-loop verification in the N=2 quiver models that were previously claimed to violate matching. The proof strategy is interesting, but the claim of a general proof overstates what is shown: the key deep-Euclidean equality is assumed, not derived.

What is genuinely new: the sum rule formulation of anomalies via dimension −2 amplitudes; the matching argument comparing the universal anomaly equations (2.8) and (3.3) in the deep Euclidean limit; the deep IR expansion of the dilaton–e-m generating functional with the new sum rules (4.23), (4.33), (4.34); and the explicit one-loop computation in Appendix B giving c(α)=N for all α, resolving the contested counterexample of [23,24]. The observation that type B matching does not imply the same relation to explicit dilation breaking in the broken phase is also valuable.

What the paper does well: it is careful about distinguishing unambiguous dimension −2 amplitudes from subtraction polynomials, and the one-loop check is explicit and credible. Appendix A gives a clean diagram-by-diagram argument at one loop. The paper is honest about its assumptions.

The soft spot is the step from (3.4) to (3.5). The paper asserts that in the deep Euclidean limit the broken-phase amplitudes agree with the unbroken ones because all invariants are much larger than f. That is plausible but it is not derived from the Ward identities, nor is there a bound on dilaton-mediated terms. A non-decoupling term of order f²/s_i in the Ẽi would shift the ratio and break the conclusion. The one-loop checks are supportive but not an all-orders proof. The deep IR factorization assumption in Section 4 is also an input, though it is explicitly flagged.

On balance, the central claim is likely correct, but the paper needs to either prove the decoupling or present it as a conjecture with evidence. A serious referee should focus on that step and on the analyticity assumptions behind the dispersion relations.

This is for CFT/anomaly specialists. I would send it to peer review; the sum rules and the one-loop check deserve a referee, and the authors should be asked to clarify the status of the deep-Euclidean equality.

Recommended verdict: major revision with the missing derivation (or an explicit conjecture) addressed.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops analyticity-based sum rules for trace anomalies in four-dimensional CFTs and uses them to argue that type A and type B trace anomalies match between the unbroken phase and the spontaneously broken phase. It then derives low-energy constraints and dispersive sum rules for dilaton–energy-momentum correlators in the deep infrared limit. The matching argument in Section 3 compares the universal anomaly equations (2.8) and (3.3) in the deep Euclidean limit and concludes c = c̃; the sum rules for dilaton amplitudes in Section 4 rest on an explicitly assumed factorized deep IR structure. Appendix A gives a one-loop argument for matching, and Appendix B verifies matching in the N=2 circular quiver example previously claimed to be a counterexample.

Significance. If the matching result holds, it establishes a general 't Hooft-like matching for trace anomalies in broken CFTs and provides parameter-free sum rules such as (2.12), (4.23), (4.33), and (4.34). The paper also clarifies an important conceptual point: in the broken phase the type B anomaly is matched even though the relation between the anomaly and the explicit UV breaking of dilations is modified by the dilaton term in (3.7). Credit should be given for the explicit one-loop verification in Appendix B, which resolves the Niarchos–Papageorgakis–Pomoni counterexample claim, and for the systematic enumeration of the deep IR local terms in (4.22). The main limitation is that the central proof of matching depends on an unproven deep-Euclidean equality of broken-phase and unbroken-phase amplitudes, which the paper states as feature (d) rather than derives.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, feature (d) and Eqs. (3.4)–(3.5)] The matching conclusion c = c̃ follows only if the combination Σ_i s_i(Ẽ_i − E_i) vanishes in the deep Euclidean limit s_i → ∞ at fixed ratios. The paper asserts this in feature (d) and in the sentence preceding (3.5), but does not derive it from the Ward identities or from any decoupling estimate for the dilaton-mediated diagrams generated by the Goldstone coupling (3.2). A non-decoupling contribution of order f²/s_i in Ẽ_i would leave a finite f-dependent shift and invalidate (3.5). The one-loop checks in Appendices A and B are supportive evidence but not an all-orders proof. Since this step is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, the authors should either provide a proof of the deep-Euclidean equality or explicitly state it as an additional hypothesis and qualify the 'general proof' language accordingly.
[End of Section 3, after Eq. (3.7)] The deep IR factorization into a normal CFT and a single dilaton sector is explicitly assumed, not derived. This assumption underlies the derivation of the sum rules in Section 4, e.g. (4.23), (4.33), and (4.34). Since these are presented as general consequences of anomaly matching, the paper should either prove the factorization or clearly state that the sum rules are conditional on this additional hypothesis. The current text acknowledges the assumption but does not indicate its scope in the abstract or introduction, so the reader may overestimate the universality of the derived constraints.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'general proof' is used for the matching result, but the proof in Section 3 depends on the unproven deep-Euclidean equality; please qualify the claim in the abstract and introduction.
[Eq. (4.37)] The term '−φ̄c' inside the parentheses appears to be a typographical error; with the solution (4.36) it would generate a term linear in J, contradicting the stated O(J²) result. Please check the expression.
[Table 2] The table is very dense; consider adding a sentence explaining the role of the 'Schouten' column and the normalization convention for the invariant amplitudes.
[Eq. (2.13)] The distribution δ(s_j) is written without a dimensionful prefactor; clarify that this is a formal statement obtained by extrapolating to s_i = 0.
[Eq. (3.7)] The normalization of the dilaton state |φ(0)⟩ is not specified; state the convention used so that the second term on the right-hand side is unambiguous.
[Section 4, after Eq. (4.22a)] The coefficients (a−1) and (c−1) are explained as subtracting the one-loop dilaton contribution, but this becomes clear only after reading the following paragraph; consider adding a parenthetical remark at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: matching (3.5) follows from an explicit deep-Euclidean equality assumption, not from assuming the result; the only self-citation is to the authors' earlier derivation of the universal anomaly equation (2.8) and is not used to smuggle in the conclusion.

full rationale

The central claim, equality of type A and B trace anomaly coefficients between unbroken and spontaneously broken phases, is not obtained by assuming the conclusion. Equation (3.5) is derived from the ratio (3.4) of the two anomaly equations, evaluated in the deep Euclidean limit, together with the explicitly stated premise, feature (d) at the start of Section 3, that the UV structure of broken-phase correlators is the same as in the unbroken phase. That premise is asserted rather than derived, so the 'general proof' is conditional on a decoupling assumption; this is a limitation and a correctness risk, but not a circular reduction, because the premise is not the matching statement and the one-loop checks in Appendices A and B provide independent (though not all-orders) support. The universal anomaly equation (2.8), on which the argument is built, is imported from the authors' prior paper [5]: the text says 'In [5] we presented a detailed kinematical analysis for the aforementioned set-up which we will not repeat. We will however stress its general features and refer to [5] for explicit checks.' This is a self-citation, but it is a citation to a published derivation of the dimension-minus-two amplitude decomposition, and it does not by itself predict anomaly matching. The sum rules (2.12), (4.23), (4.33) and (4.34) are parameter-free constraints obtained from the assumed factorized deep-IR structure together with the previously established matching; they are predictions/constraints, not fits, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. Overall, the derivation is self-contained in its main logical chain apart from the normal citation of [5], and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central matching claim rests on: (i) the standard cohomological classification of trace anomalies and the scheme choice with non-anomalous diffeos, imported from [3,4]; (ii) the reduction of the anomalous WI to the universal dimension -2 amplitude equation (2.8), imported from the authors' own [5]; (iii) analyticity and dispersion assumptions used to turn (2.8) into sum rules; (iv) the asserted deep Euclidean limit equality that yields c = c̃; and (v), for the Section 4 sum rules, the explicitly assumed factorized deep IR structure. No genuine free parameters are fitted to data: the anomaly coefficients a and c are inputs fixed by the unbroken CFT, the breaking scale f is a physical input, and the local counterterm coefficient b2 is a legitimate model-dependent parameter that the paper cannot fix from symmetry alone; the paper carefully identifies amplitude combinations on which it cancels. No new entities are postulated; the dilaton is the standard Goldstone boson of broken conformal symmetry.

free parameters (1)

b2, coefficient of the local counterterm ∫ √ĝ R̂² in the deep IR expansion (4.22a)
The symmetry argument fixes the Wess-Zumino terms but leaves an arbitrary coefficient multiplying ∫ √ĝ R̂² (Section 4). Its normalization is 'in principle calculable' and model dependent; the universal sum rules are restricted to amplitudes like A1 and 3B4 + 5B5 where this term drops out.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Trace anomalies are classified by cohomology into type A (Euler density) and type B (Weyl invariants), and a scheme exists with diffeos non-anomalous and all anomalies in the Weyl variation
Standard; cited to [3,4] and stated in Section 2 after eq. (2.19). Excludes schemes where diffeos are anomalous.
domain assumption The anomalous Weyl WI reduces, after eliminating positive and zero dimension amplitudes, to the universal form (2.8) with a constant c on the r.h.s.
Imported from the authors' previous paper [5]; the present paper refers there for the kinematical analysis and explicit checks (Section 2).
domain assumption Dimension -2 invariant amplitudes obey dispersion relations with high energy behavior Imj Ej ~ 1/sj², and extrapolation to si = 0 is nonsingular
Used to derive the sum rules (2.11)-(2.13); the si = 0 step is explicitly flagged as an assumption ('assuming that the point is nonsingular').
ad hoc to paper Broken-phase amplitudes coincide with unbroken ones in the deep Euclidean limit (si >> f²)
Load-bearing for the matching conclusion c = c̃ in (3.4)-(3.5); asserted as feature (d) of the broken phase without derivation.
ad hoc to paper In the f → ∞ limit the broken phase factorizes into a normal CFT of massless states plus a single dilaton sector
Explicitly assumed at the end of Section 3: 'We will assume the validity of this structure in the following'; underlies expansion (4.22) and all Section 4 sum rules.
domain assumption Goldstone theorem: a massless dilaton with linear coupling ⟨0|Tµν|ϕ⟩ = -(f/3) qµqν exists in the broken phase, and its deep IR action is free of potential terms
Standard spontaneous breaking input, Section 3 features (a)-(c) and Section 4.
standard math Pauli-Villars regularization is consistent, and the regulated operatorial trace identities (A.5), (A.7), (A.8) hold
Appendix A one-loop argument; also uses the Weyl-WI relation γf² + M² = 0 (A.4).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analyticity Constraints and Trace Anomaly Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RGN753AT

@misc{pith2026241216987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analyticity Constraints and Trace Anomaly Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RGN753AT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16987}
}

read the original abstract

Using an unambiguous characterization of Trace Anomalies a general proof of matching for Type A and B anomalies in the broken phases of Conformal Field Theories is given. The general constraints on amplitudes of energy-momentum tensors and dilatons in the broken phase, which follow from matching, are analyzed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

Twenty years of the Weyl anomaly,

M. J. Duﬀ, “Twenty years of the Weyl anomaly,” Class. Quant. Gr av. 11 (1994), 1387-1404 [arXiv:hep-th/9308075 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1994
[2]

Nonlocal Conformal Anom alies,

S. Deser, M. J. Duﬀ and C. J. Isham, “Nonlocal Conformal Anom alies,” Nucl. Phys. B 111 (1976), 45-55

work page 1976
[3]

WEYL COCYCLES,

L. Bonora, P. Pasti and M. Bregola, “WEYL COCYCLES,” Class. Qu ant. Grav. 3 (1986), 635

work page 1986
[4]

Geometric classiﬁcation of conform al anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,

S. Deser and A. Schwimmer, “Geometric classiﬁcation of conform al anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993), 279-284 [arXiv:hep-th/9302047 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1993
[5]

Comments on Trace Anomaly Matching

A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Comments on trace anomaly match ing,” J. Phys. A 56 (2023) no.46, 465402 [arXiv:2307.14957 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[6]

On Conservation of the axial c urrent in massless electrodynamics,

A. D. Dolgov and V. I. Zakharov, “On Conservation of the axial c urrent in massless electrodynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 27 (1971), 525-540 33

work page 1971
[7]

The Ax ial Anomaly and the Bound State Spectrum in Conﬁning Theories,

Y. Frishman, A. Schwimmer, T. Banks and S. Yankielowicz, “The Ax ial Anomaly and the Bound State Spectrum in Conﬁning Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 177 (1981), 157-171 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90268-6

doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90268-6 1981
[8]

’t Hooft’s Consistency Condition as a Consequence of Analyticity and Unitarity,

S. R. Coleman and B. Grossman, “’t Hooft’s Consistency Condition as a Consequence of Analyticity and Unitarity,” Nucl. Phys. B 203 (1982), 205-220 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(82)90028-1

doi:10.1016/0550- 1982

Show all 26 references

[9]

Implications of conformal invarian ce in ﬁeld theories for general dimensions,

H. Osborn and A. C. Petkou, “Implications of conformal invarian ce in ﬁeld theories for general dimensions,” Annals Phys. 231 (1994), 311-362 [arXiv:hep-th/9307010 [hep-th]]

1994 arXiv
[10]

Exact consequences of the trace anomaly in four-dimensions,

A. Cappelli, R. Guida and N. Magnoli, “Exact consequences of the trace anomaly in four-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 618 (2001), 371-406 [arXiv:hep-th/0103237 [hep- th]]

2001 arXiv
[11]

Implications of con formal invari- ance in momentum space,

A. Bzowski, P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, “Implications of con formal invari- ance in momentum space,” JHEP 03 (2014), 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2014)111 [arXiv:1304.7760 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[12]

A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,

R. J. Riegert, “A Nonlocal Action for the Trace Anomaly,” Phys. Lett. B 134 (1984), 56-60

1984
[13]

Conformal anomalies: Recent progress,

S. Deser, “Conformal anomalies: Recent progress,” Helv. Phy s. Acta 69 (1996) no.4, 570-581 [arXiv:hep-th/9609138 [hep-th]]

1996 arXiv
[14]

Recent progress and problems in the geometrical r epresentation of confor- mal anomalies,

S. Deser, “Recent progress and problems in the geometrical r epresentation of confor- mal anomalies,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 57 (1997), 3-6

1997
[15]

Conserved currents and the e nergy momentum tensor in conformally invariant theories for general dimensions,

J. Erdmenger and H. Osborn, “Conserved currents and the e nergy momentum tensor in conformally invariant theories for general dimensions,” Nucl. Phys . B 483 (1997), 431-474 [arXiv:hep-th/9605009 [hep-th]]

1997 arXiv
[16]

The a-theorem and the Asymptotics of 4D Quantum Field Theory,

M. A. Luty, J. Polchinski and R. Rattazzi, “The a-theorem and the Asymptotics of 4D Quantum Field Theory,” JHEP 01 (2013), 152 [arXiv:1204.5221 [hep-th]]

2013 arXiv
[17]

T race Anomalies and the Graviton-Dilaton Amplitude,

D. Karateev, Z. Komargodski, J. Penedones and B. Sahoo, “T race Anomalies and the Graviton-Dilaton Amplitude,” [arXiv:2312.09308 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[18]

On Renormalization Group F lows in Four Dimensions,

Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer, “On Renormalization Group F lows in Four Dimensions,” JHEP 12 (2011), 099 [arXiv:1107.3987 [hep-th]]

2011 arXiv
[19]

On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin,

M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, “On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin,” Annals Phys. 7 (1959), 404-428

1959
[20]

Komargodski, A

Z. Komargodski, A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, unpublished 34
[21]

Averaged null energy and the ren ormalization group,

T. Hartman and G. Mathys, “Averaged null energy and the ren ormalization group,” JHEP 12 (2023), 139 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)139 [arXiv:2309.14409 [hep- th]]

2023 arXiv
[22]

Weyl consistency conditions and a local renormaliz ation group equation for general renormalizable ﬁeld theories,

H. Osborn, “Weyl consistency conditions and a local renormaliz ation group equation for general renormalizable ﬁeld theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 363 (1991), 486-526

1991
[23]

Type-B Anomaly Matching and the 6D (2,0) Theory,

V. Niarchos, C. Papageorgakis and E. Pomoni, “Type-B Anomaly Matching and the 6D (2,0) Theory,” JHEP 04 (2020), 048 [arXiv:1911.05827 [hep-th]]

2020 arXiv
[24]

(Mis-)M atching Type-B Anomalies on the Higgs Branch,

V. Niarchos, C. Papageorgakis, A. Pini and E. Pomoni, “(Mis-)M atching Type-B Anomalies on the Higgs Branch,” JHEP 01 (2021), 106 [arXiv:2009.08375 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[25]

One Loop Corrections for e+e− Annihilation Intoµ+µ− in the Weinberg Model,

G. Passarino and M. J. G. Veltman, “One Loop Corrections for e+e− Annihilation Intoµ+µ− in the Weinberg Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979), 151-207

1979
[26]

One-loop ca lculations in quantum ﬁeld theory: from Feynman diagrams to unitarity cuts,

R. K. Ellis, Z. Kunszt, K. Melnikov and G. Zanderighi, “One-loop ca lculations in quantum ﬁeld theory: from Feynman diagrams to unitarity cuts,” Ph ys. Rept. 518 (2012), 141-250 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.01.008 [arXiv:1105.431 9 [hep-ph]]. 35

2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Twenty years of the Weyl anomaly,

M. J. Duﬀ, “Twenty years of the Weyl anomaly,” Class. Quant. Gr av. 11 (1994), 1387-1404 [arXiv:hep-th/9308075 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1994

[2] [2]

Nonlocal Conformal Anom alies,

S. Deser, M. J. Duﬀ and C. J. Isham, “Nonlocal Conformal Anom alies,” Nucl. Phys. B 111 (1976), 45-55

work page 1976

[3] [3]

WEYL COCYCLES,

L. Bonora, P. Pasti and M. Bregola, “WEYL COCYCLES,” Class. Qu ant. Grav. 3 (1986), 635

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Geometric classiﬁcation of conform al anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,

S. Deser and A. Schwimmer, “Geometric classiﬁcation of conform al anomalies in arbitrary dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993), 279-284 [arXiv:hep-th/9302047 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1993

[5] [5]

Comments on Trace Anomaly Matching

A. Schwimmer and S. Theisen, “Comments on trace anomaly match ing,” J. Phys. A 56 (2023) no.46, 465402 [arXiv:2307.14957 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

On Conservation of the axial c urrent in massless electrodynamics,

A. D. Dolgov and V. I. Zakharov, “On Conservation of the axial c urrent in massless electrodynamics,” Nucl. Phys. B 27 (1971), 525-540 33

work page 1971

[7] [7]

The Ax ial Anomaly and the Bound State Spectrum in Conﬁning Theories,

Y. Frishman, A. Schwimmer, T. Banks and S. Yankielowicz, “The Ax ial Anomaly and the Bound State Spectrum in Conﬁning Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 177 (1981), 157-171 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90268-6

doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90268-6 1981

[8] [8]

’t Hooft’s Consistency Condition as a Consequence of Analyticity and Unitarity,

S. R. Coleman and B. Grossman, “’t Hooft’s Consistency Condition as a Consequence of Analyticity and Unitarity,” Nucl. Phys. B 203 (1982), 205-220 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(82)90028-1

doi:10.1016/0550- 1982