Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

A dilaton HEFT can look like a smooth decoupling limit to the Standard Model, but every UV-complete model studied exposes that backdoor as fake, with electroweak-tied resonances.

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 16:24 UTC pith:ZQTA7ZAT

load-bearing objection Solid, honest HEFT unitarity paper: genuinely new technical tools and a clear dilaton 'backdoor' claim, but the quantitative backdoor prediction rests on a contact-term approximation whose error is asserted, not estimated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.13612 v2 pith:ZQTA7ZAT submitted 2025-12-15 hep-ph hep-th

The Potential of HEFT and the scale of New Physics

Rodrigo Alonso , Susobhan Chattopadhyay , James Ingoldby This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords Higgs Effective Field TheorySMEFTunitarity boundsfield-space geometrydilatondecoupling limitscattering amplitudeselectroweak symmetry breaking
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.

This paper builds a geometric, field-redefinition-invariant way to compute the leading high-energy tree amplitudes for any number of Goldstone bosons and one Higgs-like scalar, and turns those amplitudes into unitarity constraints that sum over infinitely many intermediate states. Applied to the Standard Model scalar sector, the machinery reproduces why ordinary singlet-extension models decouple through SMEFT and electroweak-multiplet models do not. The new case is the dilaton effective theory: as its explicit scale-breaking exponent approaches 2 from above, the unitarity cut-off diverges in every channel while the field-space singularity distance stays finite, so the theory appears to decouple from HEFT directly to the Standard Model without ever passing through SMEFT. The paper's central result is that this 'backdoor' is a conflict: infrared unitarity alone would certify it, but all UV-complete or semi-complete models studied contain extra resonances with finite electroweak-tied masses, making the backdoor a fake rather than a true decoupling limit. This matters because it determines whether unitarity can distinguish HEFT from SMEFT and whether any UV-consistent road to the Standard Model can stay inside HEFT.

Core claim

The paper derives the leading high-energy amplitudes for arbitrary Goldstone and Higgs multiplicities, sums them into unitarity constraints, and extracts a cut-off E*. For the dilaton EFT with V ∝ I² − (4/Δ)I^{Δ/2}, the singularity stays at fixed ℓ² = 1 while the non-analytic coupling vanishes as Δ → 2⁺; unitarity then gives E* → ∞ in every channel—a decoupling path that stays in HEFT and reaches the SM only at Δ = 2, bypassing SMEFT. Singlet and multiplet UV models oppose this: E* grows with ℓ² or is bounded by the extra state's mass. Every UV-complete or semi-complete model studied turns this backdoor into a fake, with extra electroweak-tied resonances near 4πv.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the geometric formulation of scalar EFTs: amplitudes are tensors built from covariant derivatives of the potential in Riemann normal coordinates, and the leading high-energy amplitude is a generalised covariant derivative D_{a,b}V with a Higgs-like and b Goldstone indices, the derivative operator converting Goldstone emissions into ordinary derivatives in the field-space variable J (or I). These amplitudes feed an infinite set of unitarity constraints κ ≤ 1 that sum over all intermediate multi-particle states; for non-analytic potentials the sums close into hypergeometric functions whose high-energy limit gives a product-log (Lambert W) formula for the cut-off E

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, at the energies where the cut-off is extracted (w = s/(4πv)² of order one), the potential-generated contact term dominates the amplitude, the s-channel pole-exchange ('factorisable') graphs and field-space curvature terms being subleading; if those dropped pieces shift the unitarity bound by an O(1) factor, the divergence of E* as Δ → 2⁺ need not survive.

What would settle it

Recompute the dilaton unitarity bound κ with the factorisable s-channel pole-exchange graphs and field-space curvature terms included at w ≈ 1: the backdoor is real only if E* still diverges as Δ → 2⁺, and any finite E* at fixed Δ > 2 would falsify the claimed conflict. Equivalently, a lattice calculation of a near-conformal gauge theory that finds a light dilaton with no accompanying scalar near 4πv would contradict the paper's finding that all UV completions fake the backdoor.

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

If this is right

  • If the central conflict is right, a bottom-up EFT cannot certify a decoupling limit from unitarity alone: HEFT-minus-SMEFT can display E* → ∞ without entering SMEFT, while UV consistency demands extra electroweak-tied resonances.
  • The identification of HEFT with non-decoupling models is not one-to-one; HEFT would also encompass theories that admit a decoupling limit, changing how an SM-like Higgs is interpreted.
  • SMEFT is a subset of HEFT, yet the dilaton example shows a HEFT-minus-SMEFT trajectory to the Standard Model that never crosses SMEFT, so proving a theory is non-linear does not prove it cannot reach the Standard Model.
  • Summing over all intermediate states rather than Goldstones alone lowers the unitarity cut-off by about √2 for non-analytic potentials, so partial sums overestimate the EFT's range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the backdoor conflict is generic, a UV-consistency condition beyond unitarity is required to certify any decoupling limit; the geometric distance criterion may encode part of that condition.
  • A decisive test: constructing or simulating a near-conformal gauge-fermion theory tuned to the Δ → 2⁺ limit; a light dilaton with no partner state near 4πv would overturn the paper's claim that all UV completions fake the backdoor.
  • The same ℓ² versus ℓ²⊙ criterion could be applied to fermionic or vector sectors; if unitarity bounds there obey the same geometry, the HEFT/SMEFT distinction would be sharpened beyond scalar amplitudes.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a geometric (field-space covariant) framework for the leading high-energy behaviour of tree-level amplitudes in a theory of N Nambu–Goldstone bosons plus one Higgs-like scalar with arbitrary potential V. It derives closed-form expressions for the leading contact amplitudes (Eqs. (2.20)–(2.21)), constructs infinite sums over intermediate states (‘κ functions’), and uses κ ≤ 1 to define the perturbative-unitarity cut-off E*. It also obtains analytic/asymptotic results for potentials of the form V = λ [J/ℓ² + 1]^{Δ/2}, including product-log cut-off estimates, and applies the formalism to three benchmark models: an EW singlet (decoupling), an EW multiplet (non-decoupling), and a dilaton EFT with V ∝ I² − (4/Δ) I^{Δ/2}. The paper’s central claim is that as Δ → 2⁺ the dilaton EFT admits a smooth HEFT→SM decoupling limit with E* → ∞ without passing through a SMEFT regime — a ‘backdoor’ — while the two UV benchmarks are presented as evidence that such backdoors are fake because they contain extra resonances of finite, electroweak-tied masses.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper supplies a valuable technical toolkit — covariant multi-particle amplitudes, summed unitarity constraints, closed-form κ functions — and identifies a qualitatively new possibility in EFT classification: a continuous trajectory from HEFT to the SM that is not visible through SMEFT. The analytic results reproduce known behaviours (the SM quartic bound, the exponential cut-off growth of Refs. [26,28]), and the numerical convergence checks in Figs. 9–11 support the internal consistency of the formalism. The dilaton model is a concrete and useful benchmark. However, the quantitative ‘backdoor’ prediction rests on an uncontrolled truncation of the amplitudes, and the statement that the UV models studied reveal backdoors as fake goes beyond what the evidence presented can establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Eqs. (5.26)–(5.28)] The logarithmic law E* ∝ [log(2/(Δ−2))]^{1/2} is obtained from Eq. (4.36), whose derivation retains only the potential-generated contact terms of Eq. (2.21) and drops ‘factorisable pieces’ with the assertion that their s-dependence is subleading (p. 6). This hierarchy is not controlled in the Δ = 2 + 2ε limit used for the backdoor: the retained non-analytic contact amplitudes are O(ε), while the omitted factorisable pieces from the same non-analytic term are of the same order in ε and are not parametrically suppressed. At the resulting w* ∼ 2 log(1/ε), the ratio of retained to omitted contributions is not large. The divergence E* → ∞ may well survive, but the quantitative prediction (5.28) and the claim that the backdoor is a controlled EFT statement require an explicit error estimate or a bound on the factorisable pieces. Figure 10 only compares the truncated numerical sum with the same
  2. [§5.3, p. 35 (closing paragraph)] The sentence ‘all UV complete or semi-complete models here studied reveal such candidate backdoors as a fake’ is stronger than the evidence. The singlet and multiplet models are two specific UV benchmarks with potentials and metrics different from the dilaton trajectory; neither is a UV completion of the dilaton EFT along the Δ → 2⁺ path. The paper therefore does not demonstrate that backdoors are fake in general, and the conclusion already acknowledges this by posing the question of UV consistency. The closing paragraph should be reworded to distinguish the two-model observation from a general result, or the claim should be weakened.
  3. [§3.1, Eq. (3.25) and Fig. 11] The infinite-sum unitarity constraints are evaluated by truncating at P_max internal particles, and Fig. 11 shows convergence for Δ = 3. However, in the Δ → 2⁺ backdoor region w* grows like 2 log(1/ε), and the number of kinematically accessible channels also grows with w*. A demonstration that the truncation error remains small in the ε → 0 limit (e.g. convergence checks at several ε values approaching 2⁺) would strengthen the numerical basis for the divergent-bound claim. As it stands, the convergence evidence is at a single reference point.
minor comments (4)
  1. [p. 3] Typo: ‘does have no effect’ should be ‘has no effect’.
  2. [p. 3, footnote and §6] The notation ‘HEFT-minus-SMEFT’ is an abuse that is used throughout. Please define a single symbol (e.g. HEFT\SMEFT) at first use and keep it consistently.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption is incomplete: ‘four and grey lines the six Goldstone’ should read ‘green lines correspond to the four-Goldstone channel and grey lines to the six-Goldstone channel’.
  4. [§4.3.1, after Eq. (4.36)] The statement ‘the growth of the cut-off with decreasing coupling λ̂ is, for positive n_{\bar P}, slower than a logarithm’ is misleading because the product-log itself grows slightly faster than a logarithm; consider rephrasing.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central unitarity derivations are self-contained; only minor, disclosed self-citations, none load-bearing for the Delta->2 divergence.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5.2 Eq. (5.14); Sections 5.3 and 6 (backdoor attribution); Ref. [29]]
    "Given that the input on the lower bound on beta in Eq. (5.14) comes from the UV and hence is external to the EFT approach, let us withhold this information temporarily ... In physical terms, approaching this limit would not yield the SM but will instead produce an ever lighter extra Higgs boson. ... We have termed this possibility a backdoor, a concept originally identified in [29]."

    The verdict that the EW-multiplet model's HEFT-side decoupling is a fake backdoor (the claimed 'central result' that candidate backdoors are not true decoupling limits) rests on Eq. (5.14), which is imported from Ref. [29], whose authors overlap with the present paper (R. Alonso). The paper does disclose this as UV input external to the EFT approach, and [29] is a concrete, independently checkable model relation rather than an unverified theorem, so the dilaton computation itself does not reduce to it. Severity is minor: the backdoor concept attribution and the UV roadblock borrow from prior work with author overlap, but the present paper's own derivations (kappa functions, closed forms, Delta->2 log-divergence) are not fitted to or imported from those references.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain: Eq. (2.21) gives leading high-energy amplitudes from covariant derivatives of the defining potential V (with the subleading factorisable and O(R) pieces identified, not buried); Eqs. (3.18)-(3.19) build the positive-definite kappa functions from sums over these D-terms; Eq. (3.28) defines E* by kappa(w*)=1; Eqs. (4.29)-(4.36) evaluate kappa analytically for the branch-cut potential (4.26), giving the exponential (Lambert-W) behaviour; Section 5.3 substitutes the standard dilaton potential (5.23), and the Delta=2+2epsilon analysis (5.25)-(5.28) obtains the E* ~ (4 pi v) sqrt(log(1/epsilon)) divergence. Every step follows from the defining potential; no parameter is fitted to produce the divergence, and the Delta->2 limit returning the SM is a designed property of the literature's dilaton potential, which the paper takes as an explicit input rather than as a prediction. The two UV benchmark models (Sections 5.1, 5.2) are external, checkable constructions ([28], [29]) and serve as consistency checks, reproducing known behaviours ([26], [28], [31]) acknowledged as prior art. The main caveat - dropping factorisable pieces and O(R) terms when extracting E* - is an approximation-validity/robustness concern, not circularity: a constant offset in kappa would shift but not remove the log-divergence, and the paper checks the approximation against the numerical sum (Fig. 10). Self-citations ([29], [33], [55]) are either routine attributions or disclosed external inputs; none imports a uniqueness theorem or unverified ansatz, and the central claim retains independent computational content. Overall: no significant circularity, minor self-citation only.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The formulas are parametric in the arbitrary potential V and metric F; no numbers are fitted to data. The load-bearing inputs are structural: the SO(N+1)-symmetric single-singlet geometry, the small-curvature/contact-term approximation, the massless-channel summation, and for the dilaton backdoor, confinement to the f_d=v, R=0 slice with the standard dilaton potential. All are stated in the paper; they are modeling assumptions, not fitted parameters.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The theory has an SO(N+1) symmetry with N NGBs and one singlet; the Lagrangian is restricted to the metric form F(h)² ĝ(π) and potential V(h) (Eqs 2.5-2.6).
    §2 Eqs (2.5)-(2.6): central for the recursion relations. SM application assumes gauging subgroups and the equivalence theorem.
  • domain assumption Small field-space curvature: O(R) and O(R²) terms in the covariant expansion are dropped; potential terms dominate over curvature-generated interactions.
    §2 before and after Eqs (2.20)-(2.21): the amplitude formula and all unitarity sums are derived in this limit.
  • domain assumption Leading high-energy amplitudes are dominated by the contact term; factorizable pole pieces are subleading and excluded from the unitarity sums.
    §2, 'for our purposes their relevant property is that in the high energy limit their sdependence is subleading'; the momentum-independent amplitudes are the basis of the unitarity analysis.
  • domain assumption Mass terms are neglected (s ≫ m_i²); the infinite sums run over all intermediate multiplicities, with Heaviside threshold functions added as a correction (Eq 3.25).
    §3.1: the paper argues the error from summing kinematically closed channels is small, but does not bound it in general.
  • ad hoc to paper For the dilaton model, the decay constant is set to f_d = v so that the field-space curvature vanishes identically (R=0).
    §5.3, 'a condition we now impose to ensure that the metric curvature vanishes identically'; the backdoor decoupling is demonstrated only on this zero-curvature slice.
  • domain assumption The dilaton potential has the form V = m_h²/(4(4-Δ)v²) (I² − 4/Δ I^{Δ/2}), with Δ→2 giving the SM potential.
    §5.3 Eq (5.23), taken from dilaton EFT literature [55]; the backdoor endpoint being the SM is a property of this chosen benchmark.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31516 in / 19230 out tokens · 165662 ms · 2026-08-03T16:24:23.400830+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We employ a geometric framework to compute the leading high-energy behaviour of tree-level scattering amplitudes in theories containing $N$ Nambu-Goldstone bosons and a single Higgs-like scalar with an arbitrary potential $V$. Using these methods, we obtain closed-form expressions for the leading contribution to the full infinite set of tree amplitudes involving any number of Goldstone and Higgs-like external states. These results are then used to derive total cross sections, decay rates, and perturbative unitarity bounds. We then apply our general formalism to the Standard Model scalar sector using the equivalence theorem, working in the regime of small field-space curvature, and use it to characterise the relation between Higgs Effective Field Theory (HEFT) and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT). We analyse three representative classes of models. Two reproduce previously known behaviours, while the third, based on a dilaton effective theory, exhibits a noteworthy feature within the HEFT framework: a smooth decoupling limit that connects HEFT directly to the Standard Model without passing through a SMEFT regime, providing a possible backdoor to the Standard Model.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Consistent Scattering Amplitudes, Yang-Mills, the Higgs Mechanism and the EFTs Beyond

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    S-matrix consistency forces the complete gluon amplitude structure and requires Yang-Mills Lie algebra plus Higgs mechanism for unitarised massive vector boson scattering.

  2. Supersymmetric geometry in non-supersymmetric effective field theory

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Authors construct supersymmetric embeddings for non-SUSY gauge theory operators up to dimension six and use vector bundles to reveal an underlying complex geometry that organizes operators under field redefinitions ac...

  3. Dilaton Effective Field Theory across the Conformal Edge

    hep-lat 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    Fitting a dilaton EFT with a free exponent Δ to lattice spectra indicates SU(3) N_f=8 is confining (Δ<4) and SU(2) adjoint is infrared conformal (Δ>4).

  4. 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

64 extracted references · 58 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Banta,A strongly first-order electroweak phase transition from Loryons,JHEP06(2022) 099 [2202.04608]

    I. Banta,A strongly first-order electroweak phase transition from Loryons,JHEP06(2022) 099 [2202.04608]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Alonso, J.C

    R. Alonso, J.C. Criado, R. Houtz and M. West,Walls, bubbles and doom — the cosmology of HEFT,JHEP05(2024) 049 [2312.00881]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Kanemura and R

    S. Kanemura and R. Nagai,A new Higgs effective field theory and the new no-lose theorem, JHEP03(2022) 194 [2111.12585]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Callan, Jr., S.R

    C.G. Callan, Jr., S.R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2247. – 38 –

    1969

  5. [5]

    Coleman, J

    S.R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino,Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,Phys. Rev.177(1969) 2239

    1969

  6. [6]

    Gr´ af, B

    L. Gr´ af, B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama,Hilbert series, the Higgs mechanism, and HEFT,JHEP02(2023) 064 [2211.06275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Alonso and S.U

    R. Alonso and S.U. Rahaman,Counting and building operators in theories with hidden symmetries and application to HEFT,JHEP08(2025) 071 [2412.09463]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Helset and J. Parra-Martinez,Geometric soft theorems,JHEP04(2022) 011 [2111.03045]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Derda, A

    M. Derda, A. Helset and J. Parra-Martinez,Soft scalars in effective field theory,JHEP06 (2024) 133 [2403.12142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Cohen, I

    T. Cohen, I. Fadakar, A. Helset and F. Nardi,Geometry of soft scalars at one loop,JHEP 08(2025) 140 [2504.12371]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Alonso, K

    R. Alonso, K. Kanshin and S. Saa,Renormalization group evolution of Higgs effective field theory,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 035010 [1710.06848]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Alonso and M

    R. Alonso and M. West,On the effective action for scalars in a general manifold to any loop order,Phys. Lett. B841(2023) 137937 [2207.02050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Helset, E.E

    A. Helset, E.E. Jenkins and A.V. Manohar,Renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory from geometry,JHEP02(2023) 063 [2212.03253]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    B. Assi, A. Helset, A.V. Manohar, J. Pag` es and C.-H. Shen,Fermion geometry and the renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,JHEP11(2023) 201 [2307.03187]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es,An algebraic formula for two loop renormalization of scalar quantum field theory,JHEP12(2023) 165 [2308.06315]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es,Two loop renormalization of scalar theories using a geometric approach,JHEP02(2024) 131 [2310.19883]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    X.-X. Li, X. Lu and Z. Zhang,The geometric universal one-loop effective action,JHEP08 (2025) 102 [2411.04173]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Aigner, L

    P. Aigner, L. Bellafronte, E. Gendy, D. Haslehner and A. Weiler,Renormalising the field-space geometry,JHEP07(2025) 167 [2503.09785]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    B. Assi, A. Helset, J. Pag` es and C.-H. Shen,Renormalizing Two-Fermion Operators in the SMEFT via Supergeometry,2504.18537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    K. Finn, S. Karamitsos and A. Pilaftsis,Frame covariant formalism for fermionic theories, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 572 [2006.05831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Gattus and A

    V. Gattus and A. Pilaftsis,Minimal supergeometric quantum field theories,Phys. Lett. B 846(2023) 138234 [2307.01126]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Gattus and A

    V. Gattus and A. Pilaftsis,Supergeometric quantum effective action,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 105006 [2406.13594]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Craig, I.-K

    N. Craig, I.-K. Lee and Y.-T. Lee,Fermi Geometry of the Higgs Sector,2509.07101

    arXiv

  24. [24]

    Remmen and N.L

    G.N. Remmen and N.L. Rodd,Positively Identifying HEFT or SMEFT,2412.07827

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    Chakraborty, S

    D. Chakraborty, S. Chattopadhyay and R.S. Gupta,Towards the HEFT-hedron: the complete set of positivity constraints at NLO,2412.14155. – 39 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Falkowski and R

    A. Falkowski and R. Rattazzi,Which EFT,JHEP10(2019) 255 [1902.05936]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Chang and M.A

    S. Chang and M.A. Luty,The Higgs Trilinear Coupling and the Scale of New Physics,JHEP 03(2020) 140 [1902.05556]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu and D. Sutherland,Is SMEFT Enough?,JHEP03(2021) 237 [2008.08597]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Alonso and M

    R. Alonso and M. West,Roads to the Standard Model,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 096028 [2109.13290]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Hatzinikitas,A Note on Riemann normal coordinates,hep-th/0001078

    A. Hatzinikitas,A Note on Riemann normal coordinates,hep-th/0001078

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Cohen, N

    T. Cohen, N. Craig, X. Lu and D. Sutherland,Unitarity violation and the geometry of Higgs EFTs,JHEP12(2021) 003 [2108.03240]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann and G. Heinrich,Four particle phase space integrals in massless QCD,Nucl. Phys. B682(2004) 265 [hep-ph/0311276]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Alonso,A particle physicist lacing their shoes,2503.18935

    R. Alonso,A particle physicist lacing their shoes,2503.18935

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    Hochberg, E

    Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J.G. Wacker,Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 171301 [1402.5143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    B.W. Lee, C. Quigg and H.B. Thacker,Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass,Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1519

    1977

  36. [36]

    Alonso,A primer on Higgs Effective Field Theory with Geometry,2307.14301

    R. Alonso,A primer on Higgs Effective Field Theory with Geometry,2307.14301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Vecchi,Phenomenology of a light scalar: the dilaton,Phys

    L. Vecchi,Phenomenology of a light scalar: the dilaton,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 076009 [1002.1721]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  40. [40]

    Chacko and R.K

    Z. Chacko and R.K. Mishra,Effective Theory of a Light Dilaton,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 115006 [1209.3022]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    T. Abe, R. Kitano, Y. Konishi, K.-y. Oda, J. Sato and S. Sugiyama,Minimal Dilaton Model, Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 115016 [1209.4544]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    Eichten, K

    E. Eichten, K. Lane and A. Martin,A Higgs Impostor in Low-Scale Technicolor,1210.5462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Bellazzini, C

    B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, J. Serra and J. Terning,A Naturally Light Dilaton and a Small Cosmological Constant,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2790 [1305.3919]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Hernandez-Leon and L

    P. Hernandez-Leon and L. Merlo,Distinguishing A Higgs-Like Dilaton Scenario With A Complete Bosonic Effective Field Theory Basis,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 075008 [1703.02064]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    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]. – 40 – [47]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]. [48]LatKMIcollaboration,N...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [49]

    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

  48. [50]

    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

  49. [51]

    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

  50. [52]

    Appelquist, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [53]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby and M. Piai,Dilaton potential and lattice data,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 075025 [1908.00895]. [54]Lattice Strong Dynamics (LSD)collaboration,Goldstone boson scattering with a light composite scalar,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 034505 [2106.13534]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [55]

    Appelquist, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [56]

    Golterman, E.T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [57]

    Fodor, K

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [58]

    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

  56. [59]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Low-energy effective action for pions and a dilatonic meson, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 054502 [1603.04575]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [60]

    Kasai, K.-i

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [61]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Effective pion mass term and the trace anomaly,Phys. Rev. D 95(2017) 016003 [1611.04275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [62]

    Golterman and Y

    M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Large-mass regime of the dilaton-pion low-energy effective theory,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 056025 [1805.00198]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  60. [63]

    Cat` a, R.J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [64]

    Freeman, M

    A. Freeman, M. Golterman and Y. Shamir,Dilaton chiral perturbation theory at next-to-leading order,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 074506 [2307.00940]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [65]

    Zwicky,QCD with an infrared fixed point: The pion sector,Phys

    R. Zwicky,QCD with an infrared fixed point: The pion sector,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 034009 [2306.06752]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [66]

    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]. – 41 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [67]

    Zwicky,Soft Theorems and Dilaton Effective Theory,PoSLA TTICE2024(2025) 151 [2508.16501]

    R. Zwicky,Soft Theorems and Dilaton Effective Theory,PoSLA TTICE2024(2025) 151 [2508.16501]. – 42 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025