Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

A Guide to Functional Methods Beyond One-Loop Order

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a master formula that computes the effective field theory action from the hard-momentum part of the full theory's effective action, valid to all loop orders, and uses it for a two-loop QED matching calculation.

desk verdict A solid two-loop functional toolbox with a genuine Euler–Heisenberg check; the all-order matching proof is plausible but Appendix D is a sketch, not a full proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12270 v2 pith:BJTZKX3L submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph hep-th

Javier Fuentes-Martín , Adrián Moreno-Sánchez , Ajdin Palavrić , Anders Eller Thomsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords effectivefieldtheoryfunctionalmethodsquantumactionhard-regionmatchingexpansionbyregionstwo-loopEuler-HeisenbergLagrangianbackground-fieldgauge
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

Functional (path-integral) methods have mostly been limited to one-loop calculations of effective actions and matching conditions. This paper extends them to two-loop order and beyond in gauge theories with both bosons and fermions, keeping background-gauge invariance manifest at every step. Its central result is a proof that the hard-region matching formula—identify the EFT action with the hard-momentum part of the full theory's effective action, with heavy fields on their equations of motion—holds to all loop orders. The proof rests on a general expansion-by-regions decomposition of loop integrals and a one-to-one match of symmetry factors between UV and EFT graphs. The machinery is demonstrated by computing the two-loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian obtained by decoupling the electron in QED, including the dimension-8 Wilson coefficients.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a covariant functional-supergraph calculus: functional derivatives are defined with a covariant delta function built from a straight Wilson line, the parallel displacement propagator, so every open covariant derivative can be pushed onto the Wilson line and evaluated at the coincidence limit, keeping background-gauge invariance manifest. This turns the two-loop effective-action topologies (counterterm insertion, sunset, and figure-8) into ordinary vacuum loop integrals. The matching proof runs on expansion by regions: each UV graph decomposes into hard sub-loops, which form 1PI subgraphs, and soft propagators; after block-diagonalizing the kinetic operator into heavy and EFT blocks, soft loops with only heavy propagators become scaleless and vanish, and the symmetry factors of the UV and EFT graphs coincide.

What would settle it

Compute a three-loop matching coefficient for a simple theory with a known diagrammatic answer (for example, a heavy scalar decoupled from a light scalar, or QED electron decoupling at three loops) and compare with the hard-region formula $S_{\rm EFT}=R_{\rm hard}\Gamma_{\rm UV}$; any mismatch in the finite part or in logarithms would falsify the all-order claim. A more direct test is to find a three-or-more-loop integral where the momentum-conserving region construction of Appendix D omits or double-counts a mixed region, or where a soft loop with only heavy propagators fails to vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the master formula for off-shell EFT matching, $S_{\rm EFT} = R_{\rm hard}\Gamma_{\rm UV}$ evaluated at heavy-field solutions to the hard effective-action equations of motion, is valid at every order in perturbation theory, not just one and two loops. In the proof, every 1LPI UV supergraph is decomposed by expansion by regions into hard sub-loops and soft propagators; after block-diagonalizing the kinetic operator into heavy and EFT blocks, soft loops containing only heavy propagators become scaleless integrals that vanish in dimensional regularization, and the remaining terms stand in one-to-one correspondence with EFT vacuum graphs with equal symmetry factors. The paper also derives manifestly gauge-covariant evaluation formulas for the two-loop counterterm, sunset, and figure-8 topologies in the background-field gauge, and applies them to QED, producing the two-loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian with scale-invariant dimension-8 Wilson coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The all-order proof stands on the assumption that every loop integral in the matching calculation can be split exactly into hard and soft momentum regions, with scaleless integrals set to zero in dimensional regularization and with background fields continued to Euclidean momenta ($q_0=0$) so that no physical thresholds obstruct the decomposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-loop EFT matching reduces to computing the hard region of the UV effective action; soft-region contributions cancel against the EFT side and do not need to be evaluated separately.
  • The two-loop covariant supergraph formulas reduce each topology to ordinary vacuum loop integrals, making available existing two- and three-loop vacuum integral technology.
  • In gauge theories with fermions, such as QED, two-loop matching can be performed with manifest gauge invariance, yielding the Euler-Heisenberg dimension-8 coefficients given in Eq. (5.17).
  • The diagrammatic rules of Section 3.5 give a systematic recipe for writing covariant evaluation formulas at any loop order, so the method is not limited to the topologies treated explicitly.
  • The all-order proof clears the way for systematic two-loop and higher matching combined with higher-loop running in standard-model-like effective field theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the all-order proof, combined with the covariant-supergraph rules, suggests that fully automated two-loop matching for arbitrary renormalizable gauge theories is within reach; the paper stops short of providing an implementation.
  • Inference: since the proof assumes Euclidean momenta with background fields at $q_0=0$, the off-shell matching statement is expected to hold for Wilson coefficients away from physical thresholds; extending it to threshold-crossing or on-shell kinematics would require a separate region analysis.
  • Inference: the new two-loop finite terms in the Euler-Heisenberg dimension-8 coefficients admit an independent check by conventional diagrammatic methods; a disagreement there would pinpoint the covariant sunset evaluation rather than the all-order formula.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops functional methods for multi-loop effective field theory computations. It generalizes the vacuum functional and effective action to superfields with mixed bosonic and fermionic statistics, keeping all Grassmann signs, and provides manifestly gauge-covariant evaluation formulas for the one- and two-loop supergraphs using parallel displacement propagators. It also gives diagrammatic rules for evaluating arbitrary-loop vacuum supergraphs. The central formal claim is the hard-region matching formula, S_EFT = R_hard Gamma_UV with heavy fields on their equations of motion, asserted to hold to all loop orders; the proof is based on an expansion-by-regions decomposition of arbitrary loop integrals developed in Appendix D. The methods are applied to the two-loop matching of QED onto the Euler-Heisenberg theory, reproducing the known dimension-4 two-loop coefficient and passing the scale-invariance check in Eq. (5.18).

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a significant methodological advance: it extends functional matching and renormalization techniques beyond one loop in a gauge-covariant way, provides explicit two-loop evaluation formulas, and offers an all-order proof of a matching formula that is widely used but previously justified only to low orders. The two-loop Euler-Heisenberg calculation is a nontrivial cross-check, and the comparison with the known dimension-4 term in Ref. [107] plus the scale-invariance check give credible evidence for the practical formulas. The paper is largely self-contained, with detailed derivations of the two-loop effective action, Grassmann signs, and the parallel-displacement-propagator formalism. The main weakness is that the all-order matching proof rests on an expansion-by-regions theorem whose proof in Appendix D is incomplete at several load-bearing points.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, Eqs. (D.24)-(D.40)] The all-order proof of the hard-region matching formula rests entirely on the expansion-by-regions decomposition (D.40), but the proof given in Appendix D is a sketch rather than a complete proof. In particular, the equality (D.26) for a single hard propagator entering a soft vertex is asserted without derivation, the cancellation of the overlap terms (D.24c) in case (b) relies on the commutation statement (D.35) and the scalelessness argument (D.36), which are not established, and the definition of the momentum-conserving regions in (D.37) is implicit. Because Eq. (4.23) and therefore Eq. (4.3) depend on this theorem, the authors should either complete the proof or replace it with a precise statement of an existing expansion-by-regions theorem (e.g., Ref. [102]) and verify its hypotheses for the off-shell matching integrals considered (Euclidean momenta, q0=0, no thresholds).
  2. [Section 4.2.2, Eqs. (4.21)-(4.25)] The cancellation of soft heavy-type propagators is not fully justified at arbitrary loop order. The text asserts that hard-region loop integrals are polynomial in the soft momenta flowing through them and that the remaining integrals are scaleless, but this is only argued for the sunset example. A generic soft loop can enter a hard subgraph through several legs, and the claim that all such terms vanish after the decomposition (4.24) needs a more systematic argument or a reference. This step is load-bearing for the induction step in Section 4.2.4.
  3. [Section 4.2.4, Eq. (4.38)] The combinatorial factor identity N(G)=K(G,\gamma)N(G\setminus\gamma)N(\gamma) is stated with a brief group-theoretic justification, but the identification of the index |H(G):H_{G,\gamma}| with K(G,\gamma) is not fully proved, and the notation G\setminus\gamma' = G\setminus\gamma in the definition of K is ambiguous (equality of sets gives K=1, so the intended meaning must be equivalence up to graph isomorphism). This needs to be made precise because the induction step equates the symmetry factors of the UV and EFT decompositions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D.23)] The phrase "the regions h,s are said to be commuting" is misleading, since the expansions on delta functions do not commute in general (cf. Eqs. (D.16)-(D.17)); clarify that the statement in (D.23) is the commutation of T_{x|h|y} and T_{x|s|y} with T_{x|r|y} on the specific integrand.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. (3.50)] The coincidence-limit master formula (B.23) in Note 1 is a key ingredient for evaluating the sunset formula, but it is presented with only a sketch of the combinatorial proof; a full proof or a precise reference would make the practical evaluation more self-contained.
  3. [Section 5.2.2, Eq. (5.15)] The sign arising from the charge-conjugation matrices in the sunset topology is stated to "effectively reverse the sign for the loop momentum", but the derivation is not shown; a short explanation or Feynman-rule cross-check would help the reader.
  4. [Appendix D, Eq. (D.37)] The set R' of momentum-conserving non-commuting regions is used without an explicit definition; define it in the text to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the hard-region matching formula is proven from the off-shell matching condition and expansion by regions, not assumed.

full rationale

I walked the central derivation chain. The master formula S_EFT = R_hard Gamma_UV (Eq. 4.3) is not assumed as an input: Section 4.2 begins from the standard off-shell matching condition (4.2)/(4.5) and derives the formula by decomposing UV graphs via expansion by regions, establishing a one-to-one correspondence between soft UV contributions and EFT loop graphs and matching the combinatorial factors (Eqs. 4.26-4.41). The expansion-by-regions result, Eq. (D.40), is derived in Appendix D from propagator expansions and the vanishing of scaleless integrals in dimensional regularization, with external mathematical support cited to Ref. [102] rather than to the authors' own prior work. The induction base at one loop is cited to Refs. [56,57] -- a standard result with external corroboration -- and the induction step is proven in this paper. The Euler-Heisenberg two-loop matching is a direct evaluation of the QED path integral using the covariant functional formulas developed in Section 3; the Wilson coefficients in Eq. (5.17) are computed, not fitted, and the two-loop dimension-8 finite parts are presented as new. The author-overlapping citations ([81], [41]) supply the starting formalism and R* conventions but are not load-bearing for the central all-loop proof. Any concern that the Appendix D expansion-by-regions proof is a sketch is a correctness/rigor risk, not circularity.

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

No parameters are fitted to data. The calculations use standard scheme choices (MS-bar, Feynman gauge xi=1) and truncate the EFT expansion at dimension 8, which are choices rather than fitted values. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the parallel displacement propagator is a standard mathematical tool.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Dimensional regularization with scaleless integrals set to zero
    Used throughout for loop integrals, e.g., Eq. (D.18).
  • domain assumption Validity of analytic continuation to Euclidean momenta with q0=0
    Required for expansion by regions, Appendix D: background fields are taken with q0=0 so no physical thresholds appear and Wick rotation is justified.
  • domain assumption Expansion by regions into momentum-conserving hard/soft regions at arbitrary loop order
    Core of the all-order matching proof; argued in Appendix D under stated assumptions about convergence and scaleless integrals.
  • domain assumption Locality of functional tensors and convergence or truncation of the series expansion of propagators
    Used in Sections 3 and 4 to justify expanding Q^{-1} in powers of X and in derivatives; EFT power counting ensures truncation.
  • domain assumption Off-shell matching condition equating 1LPI Green's functions of UV and EFT
    Eq. (4.2): the EFT should reproduce all low-energy Green's functions of the full theory off shell.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Guide to Functional Methods Beyond One-Loop Order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJTZKX3L

@misc{pith2026241212270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Guide to Functional Methods Beyond One-Loop Order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJTZKX3L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12270}
}
read the original abstract

Functional methods can be applied to the quantum effective action to efficiently determine counterterms and matching conditions for effective field theories. We extend the toolbox to two-loop order and beyond and show how to evaluate the expansion of the path integral in a manifestly gauge-covariant manner. We also generalize the method to theories with mixed spin statistics and prove the validity of the hard-region matching formula to all loop orders. The methods are exemplified with a two-loop matching calculation of the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian resulting from decoupling the electron in QED.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-loop contributions to the vacuum functional. All vertices and propagators are dressed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-loop sunset supergraph contributing to the quantum effective action (left). The graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The three-loop tetrahedron supergraph. The left side shows vertex labels, loop momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Non-exhaustive examples of some soft and heavy regions in a 3-loop supergraph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Region decomposition of the momenta entering the two adjacent vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. One-loop matching of the LEFT to the QCD gradient flow

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    All one-loop matching coefficients connecting the full baryon- and lepton-number-conserving low-energy effective field theory up to dimension six to the QCD gradient flow are computed.

  2. Renormalization of general Effective Field Theories: Formalism and renormalization of bosonic operators

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors compute, for the first time, the one-loop renormalization group equations of the bosonic operators of a completely general EFT up to mass dimension 6.

  3. Renormalization-group equations of the LEFT at two loops: dimension-five effects

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The complete two-loop renormalization-group equations for the dimension-five LEFT sector, derived in a chirally symmetric scheme, with two methods that avoid gauge-variant nuisance operators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [107]

    Decoupling in QED and QCD

    A. Grozin, Decoupling in QED and QCD , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1350015, [1212.5144]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  2. [102]

    Jantzen, Foundation and generalization of the expansion by regions , JHEP 12 (2011) 076, [1111.2589]

    B. Jantzen, Foundation and generalization of the expansion by regions , JHEP 12 (2011) 076, [1111.2589]

    arXiv 2011

  3. [1]

    Feruglio, P

    F. Feruglio, P. Paradisi and A. Pattori, Revisiting Lepton Flavor Universality in B Decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 011801, [ 1606.00524]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [2]

    Aoude, T

    R. Aoude, T. Hurth, S. Renner and W. Shepherd, The impact of flavour data on global fits of the MFV SMEFT , JHEP 12 (2020) 113, [ 2003.05432]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [3]

    C. S. Machado, S. Renner and D. Sutherland, Building blocks of the flavourful SMEFT RG, JHEP 03 (2023) 226, [ 2210.09316]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Allwicher, C

    L. Allwicher, C. Cornella, G. Isidori and B. A. Stefanek, New physics in the third generation. A comprehensive SMEFT analysis and future prospects , JHEP 03 (2024) 049, [2311.00020]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    Greljo, A

    A. Greljo, A. Palavri´ c and A. Smolkoviˇ c, Leading directions in the SMEFT: Renormalization effects, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 075033, [ 2312.09179]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    Palavri´ c,Discrete Leptonic Flavor Symmetries: UV Mediators and Phenomenology , 2408.16044

    A. Palavri´ c,Discrete Leptonic Flavor Symmetries: UV Mediators and Phenomenology , 2408.16044

    arXiv

Show all 117 references
  1. [7]

    Allwicher, M

    L. Allwicher, M. McCullough and S. Renner, New Physics at Tera- Z: Precision Renormalised, 2408.03992

    arXiv

  2. [8]

    Boughezal, Y

    R. Boughezal, Y. Huang and F. Petriello, Renormalization-group running of dimension-8 four-fermion operators in the SMEFT , 2408.15378

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    Grojean, G

    C. Grojean, G. Guedes, J. Roosmale Nepveu and G. M. Salla, A log story short: running contributions to radiative Higgs decays in the SMEFT , 2405.20371

    arXiv

  4. [10]

    Ardu and S

    M. Ardu and S. Davidson, What is Leading Order for LFV in SMEFT? , JHEP 08 (2021) 002, [ 2103.07212]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [11]

    J. Kley, T. Theil, E. Venturini and A. Weiler, Electric dipole moments at one-loop in the dimension-6 SMEFT , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 926, [ 2109.15085]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Fajfer, J

    S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, N. Koˇ snik, A. Smolkoviˇ c and M. Tammaro,New Physics in CP violating and flavour changing quark dipole transitions , JHEP 10 (2023) 133, [2306.16471]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Bonnefoy, J

    Q. Bonnefoy, J. Kley, D. Liu, A. N. Rossia and C.-Y. Yao, Aligned yet large dipoles: a SMEFT study , JHEP 11 (2024) 046, [ 2403.13065]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Hurth, S

    T. Hurth, S. Renner and W. Shepherd, Matching for FCNC effects in the flavour-symmetric SMEFT , JHEP 06 (2019) 029, [ 1903.00500]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Gherardi, D

    V. Gherardi, D. Marzocca and E. Venturini, Low-energy phenomenology of scalar leptoquarks at one-loop accuracy , JHEP 01 (2021) 138, [ 2008.09548]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Mantzaropoulos, Disentangling SMEFT and UV contributions in h →Zγ and h →γγ decays, Phys

    K. Mantzaropoulos, Disentangling SMEFT and UV contributions in h →Zγ and h →γγ decays, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 055041, [ 2407.09145]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Loisa and J

    E. Loisa and J. Talbert, Froggatt-Nielsen meets the SMEFT, JHEP 10 (2024) 017, [2402.16940]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [18]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence , JHEP 10 (2013) 087, [ 1308.2627]. – 62 –

    2013 arXiv

  13. [19]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence , JHEP 01 (2014) 035, [1310.4838]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Alonso, E

    R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. Trott, Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling Dependence and Phenomenology, JHEP 04 (2014) 159, [ 1312.2014]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [21]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and P. Stoffer, Low-Energy Effective Field Theory below the Electroweak Scale: Anomalous Dimensions , JHEP 01 (2018) 084, [ 1711.05270]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Naterop and P

    L. Naterop and P. Stoffer, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: one-loop renormalization in the ’t Hooft-Veltman scheme , JHEP 02 (2024) 068, [2310.13051]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Dekens and P

    W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, Low-energy effective field theory below the electroweak scale: matching at one loop , JHEP 10 (2019) 197, [ 1908.05295]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Chala, G

    M. Chala, G. Guedes, M. Ramos and J. Santiago, Towards the renormalisation of the Standard Model effective field theory to dimension eight: Bosonic interactions I , SciPost Phys. 11 (2021) 065, [ 2106.05291]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Das Bakshi, M

    S. Das Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona and G. Guedes, Towards the renormalisation of the Standard Model effective field theory to dimension eight: bosonic interactions II, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 (2022) 973, [ 2205.03301]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Das Bakshi and A

    S. Das Bakshi and A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona,Renormalisation of SMEFT bosonic interactions up to dimension eight by LNV operators , JHEP 06 (2023) 123, [ 2301.07151]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Chala and X

    M. Chala and X. Li, Positivity restrictions on the mixing of dimension-eight SMEFT operators, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 065015, [ 2309.16611]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    S. D. Bakshi, M. Chala, A. D ´ ıaz-Carmona, Z. Ren and F. Vilches,Renormalization of the SMEFT to dimension eight: Fermionic interactions I , 2409.15408

    arXiv

  23. [29]

    Liao, X.-D

    Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma and H.-L. Wang, Probing dimension-8 SMEFT operators through neutral meson mixing , 2409.10305

    arXiv

  24. [30]

    de Blas, J

    J. de Blas, J. C. Criado, M. Perez-Victoria and J. Santiago, Effective description of general extensions of the Standard Model: the complete tree-level dictionary , JHEP 03 (2018) 109, [ 1711.10391]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Greljo and A

    A. Greljo and A. Palavri´ c, Leading directions in the SMEFT , JHEP 09 (2023) 009, [2305.08898]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Carmona, A

    A. Carmona, A. Lazopoulos, P. Olgoso and J. Santiago, Matchmakereft: automated tree-level and one-loop matching , SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 198, [ 2112.10787]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,A proof of concept for matchete: an automated tool for matching effective theories , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 662, [ 2212.04510]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Guedes, P

    G. Guedes, P. Olgoso and J. Santiago, Towards the one loop IR/UV dictionary in the SMEFT: One loop generated operators from new scalars and fermions , SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 143, [ 2303.16965]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Gargalionis, J

    J. Gargalionis, J. Quevillon, P. N. H. Vuong and T. You, Linear Standard Model – 63 – extensions in the SMEFT at one loop and Tera-Z , 2412.01759

  30. [36]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini, Scheme independence of the effective Hamiltonian for b → sγ and b → sg decays, Phys. Lett. B 316 (1993) 127–136, [hep-ph/9307364]

    1993 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Ciuchini, E

    M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Reina and L. Silvestrini, Leading order QCD corrections to b → sγ and b → sg decays in three regularization schemes , Nucl. Phys. B 421 (1994) 41–64, [hep-ph/9311357]

    1994 arXiv

  32. [38]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, L. Naterop and J. Pag` es, Two loop renormalization of scalar theories using a geometric approach , JHEP 02 (2024) 131, [ 2310.19883]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Di Noi, R

    S. Di Noi, R. Gr¨ ober and M. K. Mandal, Two-loop running effects in Higgs physics in Standard Model Effective Field Theory , 2408.03252

  34. [40]

    Haisch and L

    U. Haisch and L. Schnell, Precision tests of third-generation four-quark operators: one- and two-loop matching , JHEP 02 (2025) 038, [ 2410.13304]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [41]

    L. Born, J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, S. Kvedarait˙ e and A. E. Thomsen,Two-Loop Running in the Bosonic SMEFT Using Functional Methods , 2410.07320

    arXiv

  36. [42]

    I. J. R. Aitchison and C. M. Fraser, Fermion Loop Contribution to Skyrmion Stability , Phys. Lett. B 146 (1984) 63–66

    1984

  37. [43]

    C. M. Fraser, Calculation of Higher Derivative Terms in the One Loop Effective Lagrangian, Z. Phys. C 28 (1985) 101

    1985

  38. [44]

    I. J. R. Aitchison and C. M. Fraser, Derivative Expansions of Fermion Determinants: Anomaly Induced Vertices, Goldstone-Wilczek Currents and Skyrme Terms , Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 2605

    1985

  39. [45]

    M. K. Gaillard, The Effective One Loop Lagrangian With Derivative Couplings , Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 669–692

    1986

  40. [46]

    Cheyette, Derivative Expansion of the Effective Action , Phys

    O. Cheyette, Derivative Expansion of the Effective Action , Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 2394

    1985

  41. [47]

    L. H. Chan, Effective Action Expansion in Perturbation Theory , Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 1222–1225

    1985

  42. [48]

    Chan, Derivative Expansion for the One Loop Effective Actions With Internal Symmetry, Phys

    L.-H. Chan, Derivative Expansion for the One Loop Effective Actions With Internal Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 1199

    1986

  43. [49]

    Cheyette, Effective Action for the Standard Model With Large Higgs Mass , Nucl

    O. Cheyette, Effective Action for the Standard Model With Large Higgs Mass , Nucl. Phys. B 297 (1988) 183–204

    1988

  44. [50]

    Dittmaier and C

    S. Dittmaier and C. Grosse-Knetter, Deriving nondecoupling effects of heavy fields from the path integral: A Heavy Higgs field in an SU(2) gauge theory , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 7276–7293, [ hep-ph/9501285]

    1995 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama, How to use the Standard Model effective field theory, JHEP 01 (2016) 023, [ 1412.1837]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Drozd, J

    A. Drozd, J. Ellis, J. Quevillon and T. You, The Universal One-Loop Effective Action , JHEP 03 (2016) 180, [ 1512.03003]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [53]

    del Aguila, Z

    F. del Aguila, Z. Kunszt and J. Santiago, One-loop effective lagrangians after matching , Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 244, [ 1602.00126]. – 64 –

    2016 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Boggia, R

    M. Boggia, R. Gomez-Ambrosio and G. Passarino, Low energy behaviour of standard model extensions, JHEP 05 (2016) 162, [ 1603.03660]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [55]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang, Mixed heavy–light matching in the Universal One-Loop Effective Action , Phys. Lett. B 762 (2016) 166–176, [ 1604.02445]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Fuentes-Martin, J

    J. Fuentes-Martin, J. Portoles and P. Ruiz-Femenia, Integrating out heavy particles with functional methods: a simplified framework , JHEP 09 (2016) 156, [ 1607.02142]

    2016 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Zhang, Covariant diagrams for one-loop matching , JHEP 05 (2017) 152, [1610.00710]

    Z. Zhang, Covariant diagrams for one-loop matching , JHEP 05 (2017) 152, [1610.00710]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [58]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, T. You and Z. Zhang, Extending the Universal One-Loop Effective Action: Heavy-Light Coefficients , JHEP 08 (2017) 054, [ 1706.07765]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Summ and A

    B. Summ and A. Voigt, Extending the Universal One-Loop Effective Action by Regularization Scheme Translating Operators, JHEP 08 (2018) 026, [ 1806.05171]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Cohen, M

    T. Cohen, M. Freytsis and X. Lu, Functional Methods for Heavy Quark Effective Theory, JHEP 06 (2020) 164, [ 1912.08814]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Kr¨ amer, B

    M. Kr¨ amer, B. Summ and A. Voigt, Completing the scalar and fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action, JHEP 01 (2020) 079, [ 1908.04798]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Angelescu and P

    A. Angelescu and P. Huang, Integrating Out New Fermions at One Loop , JHEP 01 (2021) 049, [ 2006.16532]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [63]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, P. N. H. Vuong, T. You and Z. Zhang, The Fermionic Universal One-Loop Effective Action , JHEP 11 (2020) 078, [ 2006.16260]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, Functional Prescription for EFT Matching , JHEP 02 (2021) 228, [ 2011.02484]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Dedes and K

    A. Dedes and K. Mantzaropoulos, Universal scalar leptoquark action for matching , JHEP 11 (2021) 166, [ 2108.10055]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Dittmaier, S

    S. Dittmaier, S. Schuhmacher and M. Stahlhofen, Integrating out heavy fields in the path integral using the background-field method: general formalism , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 826, [ 2102.12020]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Larue and J

    R. Larue and J. Quevillon, The universal one-loop effective action with gravity , JHEP 11 (2023) 045, [ 2303.10203]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty, S. U. Rahaman and K. Ramkumar, One-loop effective action up to any mass-dimension for non-degenerate scalars and fermions including light–heavy mixing, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024) 169, [ 2311.12757]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [69]

    X.-X. Li, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, The Geometric Universal One-Loop Effective Action , 2411.04173

    arXiv

  64. [70]

    Henning, X

    B. Henning, X. Lu and H. Murayama, One-loop Matching and Running with Covariant Derivative Expansion, JHEP 01 (2018) 123, [ 1604.01019]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,Evanescent operators in one-loop matching computations , JHEP 02 (2023) 031, [ 2211.09144]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Quevillon, C

    J. Quevillon, C. Smith and P. N. H. Vuong, Axion effective action , JHEP 08 (2022) 137, [2112.00553]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Filoche, R

    B. Filoche, R. Larue, J. Quevillon and P. N. H. Vuong, Anomalies from an effective – 65 – field theory perspective, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 025017, [ 2205.02248]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, Anomaly cancellation in effective field theories from the covariant derivative expansion , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 056027, [ 2301.00827]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, Anomalies from the covariant derivative expansion , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 116015, [ 2301.00821]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Das Bakshi, J

    S. Das Bakshi, J. Chakrabortty and S. K. Patra, CoDEx: Wilson coefficient calculator connecting SMEFT to UV theory , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 21, [ 1808.04403]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [77]

    Cohen, X

    T. Cohen, X. Lu and Z. Zhang, STrEAMlining EFT Matching , SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 098, [2012.07851]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [78]

    Fuentes-Martin, M

    J. Fuentes-Martin, M. K¨ onig, J. Pag` es, A. E. Thomsen and F. Wilsch,SuperTracer: A Calculator of Functional Supertraces for One-Loop EFT Matching , JHEP 04 (2021) 281, [2012.08506]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [79]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888–1910

    1973

  74. [80]

    Jackiw, Functional evaluation of the effective potential , Phys

    R. Jackiw, Functional evaluation of the effective potential , Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 1686

    1974

  75. [81]

    Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A

    J. Fuentes-Mart ´ ın, A. Palavri´ c and A. E. Thomsen,Functional Matching and Renormalization Group Equations at Two-Loop Order , 2311.13630

    arXiv

  76. [82]

    Jack and H

    I. Jack and H. Osborn, Two Loop Background Field Calculations for Arbitrary Background Fields, Nucl. Phys. B 207 (1982) 474–504

    1982

  77. [83]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and G. Ecker, Renormalization of chiral perturbation theory to order p**6, Annals Phys. 280 (2000) 100–139, [ hep-ph/9907333]

    2000 arXiv

  78. [84]

    von Gersdorff and K

    G. von Gersdorff and K. Santos, New covariant Feynman rules for effective field theories, JHEP 04 (2023) 025, [ 2212.07451]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [85]

    Banerjee, J

    U. Banerjee, J. Chakrabortty and K. Ramkumar, Renormalization of scalar and fermion interacting field theory for arbitrary loop: Heat–Kernel approach , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024) 714, [ 2404.02734]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [86]

    C. Ford, I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones, The Standard model effective potential at two loops, Nucl. Phys. B 387 (1992) 373–390, [ hep-ph/0111190]

    1992 arXiv

  81. [87]

    S. P. Martin, Three-Loop Standard Model Effective Potential at Leading Order in Strong and Top Yukawa Couplings , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 013003, [ 1310.7553]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [88]

    S. P. Martin, Effective potential at three loops , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 096005, [1709.02397]

    2017 arXiv

  83. [89]

    A. V. Manohar, The HQET / NRQCD Lagrangian to order alpha / m-3 , Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 230–237, [ hep-ph/9701294]

    1997 arXiv

  84. [90]

    Chala, J

    M. Chala, J. L´ opez Miras, J. Santiago and F. Vilches, Efficient on-shell matching , 2411.12798

    arXiv

  85. [91]

    Iliopoulos, C

    J. Iliopoulos, C. Itzykson and A. Martin, Functional Methods and Perturbation Theory , Rev. Mod. Phys. 47 (1975) 165

    1975

  86. [92]

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum Theory of Gravity. 2. The Manifestly Covariant Theory , Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1195–1239

    1967

  87. [93]

    L. F. Abbott, The Background Field Method Beyond One Loop , Nucl. Phys. B185 – 66 – (1981) 189–203

    1981

  88. [94]

    L. F. Abbott, Introduction to the Background Field Method , Acta Phys. Polon. B13 (1982) 33

    1982

  89. [95]

    A. E. Thomsen, A Partially Fixed Background Field Gauge , 2404.11640

    arXiv

  90. [96]

    A. O. Barvinsky and G. A. Vilkovisky, The Generalized Schwinger-Dewitt Technique in Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity , Phys. Rept. 119 (1985) 1–74

    1985

  91. [97]

    S. M. Kuzenko and I. N. McArthur, On the background field method beyond one loop: A Manifestly covariant derivative expansion in superYang-Mills theories , JHEP 05 (2003) 015, [hep-th/0302205]

    2003 arXiv

  92. [98]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. Munz, Beta functions and anomalous dimensions up to three loops , Nucl. Phys. B 518 (1998) 473–494, [ hep-ph/9711266]

    1998 arXiv

  93. [99]

    S. P. Martin and D. G. Robertson, Evaluation of the general 3-loop vacuum Feynman integral, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 016008, [ 1610.07720]

    2017 arXiv

  94. [100]

    Herzog and B

    F. Herzog and B. Ruijl, The R ∗-operation for Feynman graphs with generic numerators , JHEP 05 (2017) 037, [ 1703.03776]

    2017 arXiv

  95. [101]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov, Asymptotic expansion of Feynman integrals near threshold, Nucl. Phys. B 522 (1998) 321–344, [ hep-ph/9711391]

    1998 arXiv

  96. [103]

    Dittmaier and C

    S. Dittmaier and C. Grosse-Knetter, Integrating out the standard Higgs field in the path integral, Nucl. Phys. B 459 (1996) 497–536, [ hep-ph/9505266]

    1996 arXiv

  97. [104]

    J. C. Collins, Renormalization, vol. 26 of Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 7, 2023, 10.1017/9781009401807

    2023 doi

  98. [105]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons , Z. Phys. 98 (1936) 714–732, [ physics/0605038]

    1936 arXiv

  99. [106]

    A. E. Thomsen, Introducing RGBeta: a Mathematica package for the evaluation of renormalization group β-functions, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 408, [ 2101.08265]

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Fliegner, M

    D. Fliegner, M. Reuter, M. G. Schmidt and C. Schubert, The Two loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian in dimensional renormalization , Theor. Math. Phys. 113 (1997) 1442–1451, [ hep-th/9704194]

    1997 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Kors and M

    B. Kors and M. G. Schmidt, The Effective two loop Euler-Heisenberg action for scalar and spinor QED in a general constant background field , Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999) 175–182, [hep-th/9803144]

    1999 arXiv

  102. [110]

    G. V. Dunne and C. Schubert, Closed form two loop Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian in a selfdual background, Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 55–60, [ hep-th/0111134]

    2002 arXiv

  103. [111]

    I. Huet, D. G. C. McKeon and C. Schubert, Euler-Heisenberg lagrangians and asymptotic analysis in 1+1 QED, part 1: Two-loop , JHEP 12 (2010) 036, [ 1010.5315]

    2010 arXiv

  104. [112]

    I. Huet, M. Rausch de Traubenberg and C. Schubert, The Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian Beyond One Loop , Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 14 (2012) 383–393, [ 1112.1049]. – 67 –

    2012 arXiv

  105. [113]

    G. V. Dunne, The Heisenberg-Euler Effective Action: 75 years on , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27 (2012) 1260004, [ 1202.1557]

    2012 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Gies and F

    H. Gies and F. Karbstein, An Addendum to the Heisenberg-Euler effective action beyond one loop , 1612.07251

    arXiv

  107. [115]

    Witten, Notes On Supermanifolds and Integration , Pure Appl

    E. Witten, Notes On Supermanifolds and Integration , Pure Appl. Math. Quart. 15 (2019) 3–56, [ 1209.2199]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    B. S. DeWitt, Supermanifolds. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5, 2012, 10.1017/CBO9780511564000

    2012 doi

  109. [117]

    Wegner, Supermathematics and its Applications in Statistical Physics: Grassmann Variables and the Method of Supersymmetry

    F. Wegner, Supermathematics and its Applications in Statistical Physics: Grassmann Variables and the Method of Supersymmetry . Springer, 2016, 10.1007/978-3-662-49170-6. – 68 –

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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