Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The paper derives a manifestly scale-invariant effective field theory in which all leading dilaton couplings to Standard Model fields are fixed by the dilaton VEV through the trace anomaly.

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 08:32 UTC pith:ULXEBV7K

load-bearing objection Valuable EFT synthesis and constraint map for the light dilaton, but the rare-decay bounds rest on a quoted one-loop coefficient and the abstract overstates the UV-IR connection. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16534 v2 pith:ULXEBV7K submitted 2026-01-23 hep-ph

Effective Field Theory Description of Light Dilaton

Qing-Hong Cao , Jian-Nan Ding , Bing-Hui Ge , Hao Sun , Jiang-Hao Yu This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords dilatontrace anomalyscale invarianceeffective field theoryrenormalization groupdark matterchiral perturbation theorylow-energy phenomenology
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 tries to show that a light dilaton, the pseudo-Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale invariance, has its interactions with all Standard Model fields fixed by a single number, the dilaton VEV fχ, through the trace anomaly. Using a manifestly scale-invariant regularization scheme, the authors derive the universal coupling L_int = −(χ/fχ) T^μ_μ and prove that the renormalization-group running of all dilaton couplings matches, at one loop, the ordinary running of the Standard Model once the renormalization scale is identified with fχ in the broken phase. This yields a tower of effective field theories—dilaton-extended SMEFT, low-energy EFT up to dimension 7, and chiral perturbation theory—that connects a UV conformal sector to MeV and sub-eV physics. The authors then use this framework to derive constraints on fχ from collider production, rare B and K decays, supernova cooling, and projected sensitivities for atomic clocks and atom interferometers. A sympathetic reader would care because, if correct, the framework turns dilaton searches into a single-parameter problem across a huge range of masses.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a spontaneously broken scale-invariant theory, regularized by replacing the renormalization scale with a field-dependent μ(Φ)=zΦ^{1/(1−ε)}, yields linear dilaton couplings to the trace of the energy-momentum tensor, L_int = −(χ/fχ) T^μ_μ. In the broken phase, μ0=zfχ, and the fluctuation χ couples exactly through the trace anomaly. Because the extra evanescent operator is O(ε) and dilaton-mediated terms vanish in the decoupling limit y→0 with m=yfχ fixed, the one-loop beta functions and anomalous dimensions of the scale-invariant theory coincide with those of the Standard Model. Hence the running of every dilaton coupling can be read from ordinary Standard Mo

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the manifestly scale-invariant regularization scheme, in which the constant renormalization scale of dimensional regularization is replaced by a field-dependent μ(Φ)=zΦ^{1/(1−ε)}. This preserves scale invariance at every intermediate step and, after expanding Φ=fχ+χ, generates exactly the dilaton coupling −χ/fχ T^μ_μ, with T^μ_μ given by the trace anomaly. The equivalence with the conformal compensator method is shown by the spurion substitution g_i(μ) → g_i(μ fχ/Φ)(Φ/fχ)^{4−d_i}. The RG-equivalence proof then uses the decoupling limit y→0 to drop the dilaton insertion term in the scaling equation, so the scale-dependence equation of the scale-invariant theory redu

Load-bearing premise

The proof that dilaton couplings run exactly like Standard Model couplings assumes the dilaton's Yukawa coupling y can be taken to zero while the fermion mass m=y fχ stays fixed, making the dilaton non-propagating so that its insertions can be dropped from the scaling equation.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop beta functions and anomalous dimensions directly in the manifestly scale-invariant theory with the dynamical scale μ(Φ)=zΦ^{1/(1−ε)}; if the evanescent O(ε) operator contributes a finite 1/ε pole that alters the running in the decoupling limit, or if the y→0 limit does not commute with renormalization, the equality with Standard Model running fails and the universal couplings built on it would need revision.

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

If this is right

  • At leading order, all dilaton couplings to Standard Model fields are fixed by a single parameter fχ; no separate coupling constants are needed for collider, meson-decay, or supernova signatures.
  • The one-loop renormalization-group running of dilaton couplings is identical to Standard Model running with μ replaced by zfχ, so dilaton EFT computations can recycle standard beta functions and anomalous dimensions.
  • The dilaton-nucleon coupling is predicted to be m_N/fχ, which makes stellar and supernova cooling a dominant probe for dilaton masses around the pion scale, excluding fχ up to about 10^6 TeV.
  • In the ultralight regime, the same fχ fixes the amplitude of time-varying fundamental constants, so atomic-clock and atom-interferometer experiments can reach fχ values up to roughly 10^27–10^32 TeV.
  • The operator basis of the dilaton LEFT up to dimension 7 and the chiral Lagrangian for mesons and baryons give a complete dictionary for matching UV conformal sectors to low-energy observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A two-loop calculation in the scale-invariant theory would show whether the claimed one-loop equality with Standard Model running is the first term of a systematic 1/fχ expansion; if not, the universal couplings would need correction at high precision.
  • If the framework is right, measurements of dilaton-induced oscillations in α and in the proton-to-electron mass ratio should yield the same fχ; a mismatch would signal additional sources of scale-symmetry breaking beyond the trace anomaly.
  • The same field-dependent renormalization-scale construction could be applied to other pseudo-Goldstone bosons, such as composite Higgs scalars or other dilaton-like states, giving a general recipe for universal low-energy couplings.
  • A reported excess in a rare B-meson decay with missing energy can be interpreted as a dilaton signal only for fχ in a narrow window around tens of TeV; an independent rare kaon-decay search with comparable sensitivity would confirm or exclude that interpretation.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an EFT framework for a light dilaton as the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson of spontaneously broken scale invariance. Its central claims are that a manifestly scale-invariant regularization scheme derives the universal linear coupling L_int = -(χ/fχ) T^μ_μ, that the one-loop RG running in the broken phase coincides with that of the Standard Model without the dilaton, and that this justifies a connected tower of dilaton EFTs: dilaton-extended SMEFT, LEFT up to dimension 7, and a chiral Lagrangian for mesons and baryons. The authors then use this framework to derive phenomenological bounds for MeV-scale dilatons from LHC mono-jet searches, B→K+invisible and K→π+invisible decays, and SN1987A cooling, and for ultralight dilatons from atomic clocks and atom interferometers.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper would provide a valuable model-independent tool: dilaton couplings fixed by fχ and SM beta functions/anomalous dimensions, complete operator bases, and a wide range of constraints from collider to sub-eV scales. The paper also contains useful concrete contributions: an explicit LEFT operator basis up to dimension 7, NLO chiral Lagrangian operators, a detailed LHC cutflow, and sensitivity projections for clocks and interferometers. However, several load-bearing steps are asserted rather than demonstrated, and the claimed 'connected tower' is not actually matched at the chiral scale. The framework is promising but the paper as written overstates its completeness.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3.22)] The formula L_LEFT,χ = Σ_d (4−d)c_a^{(d)}/fχ^{d−4} (χ/fχ) O_a^{(d)} gives zero for every dimension-4 operator, yet the list immediately following contains χG^2, χψ̄ψ, χ(νν), etc., whose coefficients are set by the trace-anomaly beta functions. Equation (3.22) captures only the classical (4−d) part of Eq. (2.13) and omits the −β(c_a) contribution. As written it is incomplete and cannot support the claim that the dilaton interacts 'in a universal way' for every dimension d. This affects the completeness of the claimed LEFT basis and the coefficients used in phenomenology.
  2. [Section 4, final paragraph (p. 24)] The text states 'The systematic matching deserves more investigation in the future,' but the abstract and conclusions claim a 'hierarchical EFT tower connecting the ultraviolet conformal sector to the infrared' and that the χPT operators 'can be matched to each other by the chiral symmetry.' No matching calculation from the LEFT to the chiral Lagrangian is shown. In particular, the LO nucleon coupling mN/fχ used for the SN1987A bound in Section 5.4 is assumed, not derived from the LEFT operators. This is a load-bearing disconnect between the stated unified framework and the derived constraints.
  3. [Section 5.3, Eq. (5.7)] The one-loop coefficient for b→sχ, Lχbs = (γmb+1) mb/fχ [3√2 GF mt^2 Vts*Vtb/(16π^2)] χ b̄R sL, is asserted without derivation or a precise reference. The Belle II and NA62 bounds (fχ ≈ 35–70 TeV and ≈ 2×10^3 TeV) are among the strongest constraints in the paper, so this coefficient is load-bearing. It is not a simple substitution from the tree-level fermion coupling in Eq. (3.8); the loop functions, CKM factors, and chiral structure must be verified by an explicit computation. Please provide the derivation or a precise reference and quantify how the quoted bounds shift under the coefficient's uncertainty.
  4. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (2.24)–(2.28)] The proof that the scale-invariant theory with the dilaton reproduces standard one-loop RG running relies on the decoupling limit y→0 with m=y fχ fixed, and on neglecting the insertion term on the RHS of Eq. (2.27) and O(ϵ) evanescent operators. This limit sends fχ→∞ and the dilaton interactions to zero; the statement that the neglected terms do not contribute at one loop is asserted rather than demonstrated. Because the subsequent construction (e.g., Eq. (3.6)) uses SM beta functions for dilaton couplings, this equivalence is load-bearing and needs a rigorous derivation or a much more detailed proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4, after Eq. (2.27)] The phrase 'the dilaton becomes non-propagating' in the y→0 limit is misleading: y is a Yukawa coupling, not the dilaton kinetic term. The dilaton remains a propagating field; its interactions to fermions vanish in that limit.
  2. [Section 3.2, after Eq. (3.7)] After redefining h and χ as mass eigenstates and dropping the tildes, the paper should state explicitly that all couplings in Eq. (3.8) are in the mass basis and that corrections involving sin α ∼ v^2/fχ^2 are neglected. Otherwise the absence of cos α factors in the fermion and gauge-boson couplings is confusing.
  3. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract and conclusions claim a connected EFT tower, but Section 4 explicitly defers the LEFT-to-χPT matching to future work. The wording should be softened to describe the operator bases and the matching program as a framework, not a completed connected tower.
  4. [Section 5.4, Eq. (5.17)–(5.21)] The SN1987A constraint is presented as an approximate exclusion, but the sensitivity of the bound to the benchmark inputs in Table 5 (pF, TSN, RSN) should be quantified. The gray dashed region in Fig. 4 would be more informative with an uncertainty band or a short discussion of the dominant systematic.
  5. [Section 5.5, Eq. (5.26)] The phase amplitude formula for atom interferometry would benefit from a defining reference for the parameters n, L, and T in the text; the current reliance on Refs. [45–47] is acceptable but the notation should be made self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dilaton coupling is a standard Goldstone-boson low-energy theorem; the RG and FCNC steps are assumptions/missing derivations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central coupling L_int = -(chi/f_chi) T^mu_mu is derived via the conformal compensator substitution (Eqs. 2.12-2.13) and the manifestly scale-invariant regularization (Eqs. 2.14-2.18). This is a symmetry-consistency construction: the linear chi term is the coefficient of the scale variation of the Lagrangian (Eq. 2.9) by construction, with f_chi a free order parameter. That is a low-energy theorem in the standard EFT sense, not a circular prediction: the paper does not fit f_chi to the data it later constrains, and the operator basis and phenomenology do not presuppose Eq. 5.7 or the beta-function identities. The RG-equivalence claim (Sec. 2.4) rests on the asserted decoupling limit y->0 and neglect of evanescent O(epsilon) operators at one loop; this is a plausibility assumption, not a demonstrated theorem, and is a correctness/rigor risk rather than circularity. The FCNC Lagrangian in Eq. 5.7 is quoted without derivation or citation and is load-bearing for the Belle II/NA62 bounds; this is a missing-support/omitted-proof issue to be verified by an independent loop computation, but it is not a reduction to the paper's own inputs. Self-citations (Refs. [93], [96]) are used for operator listings and a proposed matching method, and are not the sole justification for the central claims; they are therefore not load-bearing circularity under the stated rules. Sections 4 and 6 explicitly acknowledge that systematic high-order matching is deferred, consistent with a non-circular but incomplete analysis. Overall, no step of the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central framework depends on the postulate of a strongly coupled conformal sector that produces a single light dilaton, plus a specific scale-invariant embedding of the SM. The most fragile technical input is the decoupling-limit argument used to identify dilaton RG running with standard SM running. The main phenomenological constraints also depend on hand-chosen representative energies and externally fitted form factors. The dilaton itself is a prior hypothesis, not invented here.

free parameters (5)
  • fχ (dilaton VEV) = Not fitted; constrained in Sec. 5 (e.g., fχ ~ 35–70 TeV for Belle II interpretation; fχ ≲ 2000 TeV from NA62; fχ ~ 10^4–
    The universal coupling scale for all dilaton interactions; every phenomenological bound in the paper is a statement about fχ.
  • Eχ,LHC = 120 GeV = 120 GeV (with detector size 10 m)
    Hand-chosen representative dilaton energy in the mono-jet analysis used to compute the survival factor; directly affects the LHC exclusion boundary.
  • Eχ,BelleII and Eχ,NA62 = 3 GeV / 8 m and 30 GeV / 150 m
    Representative laboratory-frame dilaton energies and detector sizes chosen to evaluate survival factors in B→Kχ and K→πχ analyses.
  • B→K form factor coefficients a0, a1, a2 = 0.3233(67), 0.214(57), −0.12(13)
    Adopted from lattice + LCSR fits in Ref. [113]; inputs to the B→Kχ branching ratio, not fitted by this paper.
  • SN1987A benchmark inputs (pF, TSN, mπ, RSN) = 200 MeV, 30 MeV, 140 MeV, 10 km
    Taken from Ref. [128]; the supernova bound is stated to be within order-of-magnitude uncertainty.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption There exists a UV conformal sector whose spontaneous breaking yields one light dilaton Goldstone and no other light states at the breaking scale.
    Used throughout Sections 2–3; all other BSM states are assumed heavy and integrated out at Λ ~ fχ.
  • domain assumption The SM can be embedded in a scale-invariant theory with a flat-direction potential (λφλχ = 9λm²) and no Coleman-Weinberg breaking; breaking occurs by an external mechanism such as inertial breaking.
    Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5) and surrounding discussion; the hierarchy v ≪ fχ requires the quoted coupling hierarchy.
  • domain assumption In the decoupling limit y→0 with m = y fχ fixed, the dilaton insertion term in Eq. (2.27) and γχ can be neglected, and O(ϵ) evanescent terms do not affect the one-loop beta functions.
    Section 2.4, Eqs. (2.24)–(2.28); this is the load-bearing step for identifying dilaton RG running with standard SM running.
  • domain assumption Exact scale invariance leaves the dilaton massless at the quantum level; a small deformation by a nearly marginal operator generates mχ with O(mχ²/fχ²) corrections neglected.
    Section 3.2, Eq. (3.10) and following; the pheno scans assume this mass-generation mechanism.
  • domain assumption The completeness of the listed LEFT and χPT operator bases is as claimed.
    Section 3.4 and Section 4 present operator lists without a closed-form completeness proof; the basis construction relies on standard chiral/EFT power counting.
invented entities (3)
  • Light dilaton χ with VEV fχ independent evidence
    purpose: Goldstone boson of spontaneous scale-symmetry breaking; mediates universal trace-anomaly couplings to SM fields; in the ultralight regime, a coherent dark-matter field.
    Not introduced by this paper (see refs. [15–19, 33]), but central. The paper provides falsifiable couplings and constraints that would show up in collider, flavor, supernova, and precision-atomic searches.
  • Nearly marginal operator λO O(x) of dimension 4−ϵ no independent evidence
    purpose: Generates a small dilaton mass mχ ∝ √ϵ fχ.
    Introduced ad hoc to give the dilaton a mass; no independent handle is specified.
  • External vacuum-selection ('inertial' breaking) mechanism no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains how the flat direction selects the electroweak and dilaton VEVs without Coleman-Weinberg breaking.
    Invoked from Ref. [58]; no independent evidence is provided in this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30847 in / 17471 out tokens · 179252 ms · 2026-08-03T08:32:45.295117+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Dilatons, the CP-even pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons arising from spontaneous scale symmetry breaking, offer a compelling alternative to axion-like particles (ALPs) yet lack a comprehensive low-energy framework. We address this by constructing a systematic effective field theory (EFT) for the dilaton based on a manifestly scale-invariant regularization scheme. This approach derives universal linear couplings to the trace anomaly while preserving consistent renormalization group evolution. We establish a hierarchical EFT tower connecting the ultraviolet conformal sector to the infrared, encompassing the dilaton-extended SMEFT, low-energy EFT up to dimension-7, and a chiral Lagrangian describing meson and baryon interactions. We perform a comprehensive phenomenological analysis across two distinct mass regimes, where dilaton manifests as either conventional particle or wave-like particle. For MeV-scale dilatons behaving as conventional particles, we obtain constraints from LHC production, semi-invisible $B$- and $K$-meson decays, and supernova cooling. For ultralight dilatons acting as dark matter, we project sensitivities for atomic clocks and atom interferometers. This unified EFT framework would pave the way for extended phenomenological studies across the full mass spectrum of the light dilaton.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 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. 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

138 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J.E. Kim, G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82: 557–602 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, et al. , Phys. Rept., 870: 1–117 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Peccei, Lect

    R.D. Peccei, Lect. Notes Phys., 741: 3–17 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Turner, Phys

    M.S. Turner, Phys. Rept., 197: 67–97 (1990)

    1990

  5. [5]

    Brivio, M.B

    I. Brivio, M.B. Gavela, L. Merlo, et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C, 77 (8): 572 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Galda, M

    A.M. Galda, M. Neubert, S. Renner, JHEP, 06: 135 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Bauer, M

    M. Bauer, M. Neubert, S. Renner, et al. , JHEP, 04: 063 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Chala, G

    M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos, et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C, 81 (2): 181 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    Bonilla, I

    J. Bonilla, I. Brivio, M.B. Gavela, et al. , JHEP, 11: 168 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Graham, I.G

    P.W. Graham, I.G. Irastorza, S.K. Lamoreaux, et al. , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 65: 485–514 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Irastorza, J

    I.G. Irastorza, J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 102: 89–159 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Ertas, F

    F. Ertas, F. Kahlhoefer, JHEP, 07: 050 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Abel, N.J

    C. Abel, N.J. Ayres, G. Ban, et al. , Phys. Rev. X, 7 (4): 041034 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Du et al (ADMX Collaboration), Phys

    N. Du et al (ADMX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett., 120 (15): 151301 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Salam, J.A

    A. Salam, J.A. Strathdee, Phys. Rev., 184: 1760–1768 (1969)

    1969

  16. [16]

    Isham, A

    C.J. Isham, A. Salam, J.A. Strathdee, Phys. Lett. B, 31: 300–302 (1970)

    1970

  17. [17]

    Isham, A

    C.J. Isham, A. Salam, J.A. Strathdee, Annals Phys., 62: 98–119 (1971)

    1971

  18. [18]

    Ellis, Nucl

    J.R. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B, 22: 478–492 (1970). – 37 –

    1970

  19. [19]

    Ellis, Nucl

    J.R. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B, 26: 536–546 (1971)

    1971

  20. [20]

    Appelquist, R.C

    T. Appelquist, R.C. Brower, G.T. Fleming, et al. , Phys. Rev. D, 93 (11): 114514 (2016)

    2016

  21. [21]

    Aoki et al (LatKMI Collaboration), Phys

    Y. Aoki et al (LatKMI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 96 (1): 014508 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Aoki et al (LatKMI Collaboration), Phys

    Y. Aoki et al (LatKMI Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D, 89: 111502 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, et al. , PoS, LA TTICE2015: 219 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    Fodor, K

    Z. Fodor, K. Holland, J. Kuti, et al. , Phys. Lett. B, 718: 657–666 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, JHEP, 07: 035 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, JHEP, 03: 039 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, Phys. Rev. D, 101 (7): 075025 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, Universe, 9 (1): 10 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, arXiv:2512.16863

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126 (19): 191804 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, Nucl. Phys. B, 983: 115930 (2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    Appelquist, J

    T. Appelquist, J. Ingoldby, M. Piai, Phys. Rev. D, 110 (3): 035013 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Goldberger, B

    W.D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein, W. Skiba, Phys. Rev. Lett., 100: 111802 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    Appelquist, Y

    T. Appelquist, Y. Bai, Phys. Rev. D, 82: 071701 (2010)

    2010

  35. [35]

    Vecchi, Phys

    L. Vecchi, Phys. Rev. D, 82: 076009 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Chacko, R.K

    Z. Chacko, R.K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D, 87: 115006 (2013)

    2013

  37. [37]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D, 91 (1): 015015 (2015)

    2015

  38. [38]

    Van Tilburg, N

    K. Van Tilburg, N. Leefer, L. Bougas, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett., 115 (1): 011802 (2015)

    2015

  39. [39]

    A. Hees, J. Guéna, M. Abgrall, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett., 117 (6): 061301 (2016)

    2016

  40. [40]

    Bergé, P

    J. Bergé, P. Brax, G. Métris, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett., 120 (14): 141101 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, et al. , Phys. Rev. D, 98 (6): 064051 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    Kennedy, E

    C.J. Kennedy, E. Oelker, J.M. Robinson, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett., 125 (20): 201302 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    Filzinger, S

    M. Filzinger, S. Dörscher, R. Lange, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett., 130 (25): 253001 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    Geraci, A

    A.A. Geraci, A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117 (26): 261301 (2016)

    2016

  45. [45]

    Arvanitaki, P.W

    A. Arvanitaki, P.W. Graham, J.M. Hogan, et al. , Phys. Rev. D, 97 (7): 075020 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    Badurina, E

    L. Badurina, E. Bentine, D. Blas, et al. , JCAP, 05: 011 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    Buchmueller, J

    O. Buchmueller, J. Ellis, U. Schneider, Contemp. Phys., 64 (2): 93–110 (2023)

    2023

  48. [48]

    Damour, J.F

    T. Damour, J.F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D, 82: 084033 (2010)

    2010

  49. [49]

    Nitti, F

    F. Nitti, F. Piazza, Phys. Rev. D, 86: 122002 (2012)

    2012

  50. [50]

    Low, A.V

    I. Low, A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett., 88: 101602 (2002)

    2002

  51. [51]

    Callan, Jr., S.R

    C.G. Callan, Jr., S.R. Coleman, R. Jackiw, Annals Phys., 59: 42–73 (1970)

    1970

  52. [52]

    Tarrach, Nucl

    R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B, 196: 45–61 (1982)

    1982

  53. [53]

    Tamarit, JHEP, 12: 098 (2013)

    C. Tamarit, JHEP, 12: 098 (2013). – 38 –

    2013

  54. [54]

    Ghilencea, Phys

    D.M. Ghilencea, Phys. Rev. D, 93 (10): 105006 (2016)

    2016

  55. [55]

    Collins, Renormalization, vol

    J.C. Collins, Renormalization, vol. 26 of Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Ghilencea, Z

    D.M. Ghilencea, Z. Lalak, P. Olszewski, Phys. Rev. D, 96 (5): 055034 (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    Coleman, E.J

    S.R. Coleman, E.J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D, 7: 1888–1910 (1973)

    1910

  58. [58]

    Ferreira, C.T

    P.G. Ferreira, C.T. Hill, G.G. Ross, Phys. Rev. D, 98 (11): 116012 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Oda, arXiv:2110.15408

    I. Oda, arXiv:2110.15408

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  60. [60]

    Nogradi, B

    D. Nogradi, B. Ozsvath, SciPost Phys., 12 (5): 169 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett., 43: 1566–1570 (1979)

    1979

  62. [62]

    Abdullahi, P

    A.M. Abdullahi, P. Barham Alzás, B. Brian, et al. , J. Phys. G, 50 (2): 020501 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, P. Stoffer, JHEP, 03: 016 (2018)

    2018

  64. [64]

    Jenkins, A.V

    E.E. Jenkins, A.V. Manohar, P. Stoffer, JHEP, 01: 084 (2018)

    2018

  65. [65]

    Liao, X.-D

    Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, Q.-Y. Wang, JHEP, 08: 162 (2020)

    2020

  66. [66]

    H.-L. Li, Z. Ren, M.-L. Xiao, et al. , JHEP, 06: 138 (2021)

    2021

  67. [67]

    Murphy, JHEP, 04: 101 (2021)

    C.W. Murphy, JHEP, 04: 101 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Goldstone, Nuovo Cim., 19: 154–164 (1961)

    J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cim., 19: 154–164 (1961)

    1961

  69. [69]

    Goldstone, A

    J. Goldstone, A. Salam, S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev., 127: 965–970 (1962)

    1962

  70. [70]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev., 166: 1568–1577 (1968)

    1968

  71. [71]

    Coleman, J

    S.R. Coleman, J. Wess, B. Zumino, Phys. Rev., 177: 2239–2247 (1969)

    1969

  72. [72]

    Callan, Jr., S.R

    C.G. Callan, Jr., S.R. Coleman, J. Wess, et al. , Phys. Rev., 177: 2247–2250 (1969)

    1969

  73. [73]

    J. Wess, B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B, 37: 95–97 (1971)

    1971

  74. [74]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B, 223: 422–432 (1983)

    1983

  75. [75]

    Gasser, H

    J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys., 158: 142 (1984)

    1984

  76. [76]

    Gasser, H

    J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B, 250: 465–516 (1985)

    1985

  77. [77]

    Fearing, S

    H.W. Fearing, S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D, 53: 315–348 (1996)

    1996

  78. [78]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, G. Ecker, Annals Phys., 280: 100–139 (2000)

    2000

  79. [79]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, G. Ecker, JHEP, 02: 020 (1999)

    1999

  80. [80]

    Ebertshauser, H.W

    T. Ebertshauser, H.W. Fearing, S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D, 65: 054033 (2002)

    2002

Showing first 80 references.