REVIEW 2 cited by
Spurious gauge-invariance and $\gamma_5$ in Dimensional Regularization
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Dimensional regularization is arguably the most popular and efficient scheme for multi-loop calculations. Yet, when applied to chiral (gauge) theories like the Standard Model and its extensions, one is forced to deal with the infamous "$\gamma_5$ problem". The only formulation that has been demonstrated to be consistent at all orders in perturbation theory, known as Breiteinlhoner-Maison-'t Hooft-Veltman scheme, is rather cumbersome because of the lack of manifest chiral gauge-invariance. In this paper we point out that this drawback can be alleviated by the introduction of auxiliary fields that restore a spurious version of gauge-invariance. If combined with the background field method, all 1PI amplitudes and the associated counterterms are formally covariant and thus severely constrained by the symmetries. As an illustration we evaluate the symmetry-restoring counterterms at 1-loop in the most general renormalizable gauge theory with Dirac fermions and scalar fields, the Standard Model representing a particular example.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Four-Loop Renormalisation of Chiral Gauge Theories with Non-Anticommuting $\gamma_5$ in the BMHV Scheme
First 4-loop BMHV renormalization of an Abelian chiral gauge theory, with explicit finite symmetry-restoring counterterms and an application to the SM fermionic sector.
-
Constraining four-heavy-quark operators with top-quark, Higgs, and electroweak precision data
A combined fit of LHC and LEP data constrains the five four-heavy-quark Wilson coefficients, and shows that gamma5-scheme choices can shift the resulting bounds.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.