论文标题
SMEFT足够吗？
Is SMEFT Enough?
论文作者
论文摘要
有两种规范的方法将标准模型视为有效的场理论（EFT）：标准模型EFT（SMEFT），在Electroweak对称阶段中使用Higgs Doublet和Higgs EFT（heft）表示，在损坏的相中，利用了物理Higgs Boson和独立的金石Bosons of Goldstone Bosons。重量包括SMEFT，因此了解SMEFT是否足够激励，可以识别需要重量为低能量限制的紫外线理论。这种区别因掩盖了两个EFT之间的天真差异而变得复杂。通过以几何语言重新提出这个问题，我们得出了可以用来将SMEFT与独立于所选领域的基础区分开的具体标准。我们强调了两种情况，必须将扰动的新物理学匹配到重量上：（i）新粒子从electroweak对称性破裂中得出所有质量，并且（ii）还有其他electroweak对称性破坏的来源。此外，HEFT具有更广泛的实际应用：当新物理学位于弱尺度附近时，它可以提供更收敛的参数化。需要重量的模型的无处不在表明SMEFT还不够。
There are two canonical approaches to treating the Standard Model as an Effective Field Theory (EFT): Standard Model EFT (SMEFT), expressed in the electroweak symmetric phase utilizing the Higgs doublet, and Higgs EFT (HEFT), expressed in the broken phase utilizing the physical Higgs boson and an independent set of Goldstone bosons. HEFT encompasses SMEFT, so understanding whether SMEFT is sufficient motivates identifying UV theories that require HEFT as their low energy limit. This distinction is complicated by field redefinitions that obscure the naive differences between the two EFTs. By reformulating the question in a geometric language, we derive concrete criteria that can be used to distinguish SMEFT from HEFT independent of the chosen field basis. We highlight two cases where perturbative new physics must be matched onto HEFT: (i) the new particles derive all of their mass from electroweak symmetry breaking, and (ii) there are additional sources of electroweak symmetry breaking. Additionally, HEFT has a broader practical application: it can provide a more convergent parametrization when new physics lies near the weak scale. The ubiquity of models requiring HEFT suggests that SMEFT is not enough.
