Assessing (H)EFT theory errors by pitting EoM against Field Redefinitions

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.15609
• Title: Assessing (H)EFT theory errors by pitting EoM against Field Redefinitions
• Authors: Rodrigo Alonso, Christoph Englert, Wrishik Naskar, Shakeel Ur Rahaman
• Institutions: Durham University (IPPP), University of Manchester, DESY
• Classification: hep-ph (High Energy Physics - Phenomenology), hep-ex (High Energy Physics - Experiment)
• Submission Date: November 19, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.15609

Abstract

The truncation of effective field theory (EFT) expansions is technically necessary but inherently intertwined with the redundancy of field redefinitions. This can be viewed as a contrast between power counting and theoretical uncertainty, the latter attempting to estimate neglected high-dimensional interactions through community consensus-based approaches. One can understand physical invariance under field redefinitions as a data-driven validation of different power counting schemes, or as a means of allocating theoretical errors compared to algebraic substitutions based on equations of motion (EoM). This approach generalizes the widely accepted theoretical uncertainty estimation procedures in the Standard Model to non-renormalizable interactions. The paper presents case studies of representative operators in Higgs effective field theory (HEFT), focusing on tensions between universal Higgs properties and process-dependent sensitivity expectations.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Problem

This paper addresses a fundamental yet critical issue in effective field theory (particularly Higgs effective field theory, HEFT): How to quantify theoretical uncertainties introduced by truncating EFT expansions. Specifically, what degree of theoretical error is introduced when using equations of motion (EoM) to simplify the operator basis compared to complete field redefinitions.

Problem Importance

1. Improved experimental precision: Measurements at the LHC and future High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) demand increasingly reliable theoretical predictions with quantified uncertainties
2. Necessity of EFT truncation: In practical calculations, EFT expansions must be truncated at some order, but the impact of this truncation is difficult to assess systematically
3. Non-uniqueness of operator bases: Different operator bases can be constructed through EoM or field redefinitions; they are equivalent at leading order but diverge at higher orders
4. BSM physics interpretation: Accurate theoretical uncertainties are crucial for extracting new physics signals from data

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Ambiguity in power counting schemes: Unlike SMEFT with its clear 1/Λ expansion, power counting in HEFT remains controversial
2. Arbitrariness in EoM usage: EoM is widely used in the literature to simplify operator bases, but the high-order errors it introduces have not been systematically studied
3. Lack of data-driven error estimation: Existing theoretical uncertainty estimates are mostly based on theoretical assumptions (e.g., NDA), lacking direct connection to experimental precision

Research Motivation

This paper proposes a data-driven theoretical uncertainty assessment method by comparing predictions from field redefinitions (which exactly preserve physics) with EoM substitutions (equivalent only at leading order), thereby quantifying EFT truncation errors. This approach parallels the Standard Model practice of estimating theoretical uncertainties by varying renormalization schemes or scales.

Core Contributions

1. Systematic definition of theoretical errors: Introduces the quantitative metric $\Delta_{TH} = |\sigma - \sigma_{EoM}|/|\sigma - \sigma_{SM}|$, using the difference between field redefinitions and EoM substitutions as a measure of theoretical uncertainty
2. Establishes connection between EoM and field redefinitions: Proves that using EoM is equivalent to first-order field redefinition, with errors given by the second variation of the action: $S_{\Delta TH} = \int d^4x d^4y \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \delta\phi(y) \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta\phi(x)\delta\phi(y)} \delta\phi(y)$
3. Complete case study of HEFT operator O₂₂: Detailed analysis of the momentum-dependent Higgs operator $O_{22} = \Box h \Box h$, including:
   • Complete derivation of three Lagrangian formulations (vanilla, field redefinition, EoM)
   • Global fit of Higgs signal strengths
   • Analysis of off-shell effects in four-top production
4. Correlation between data precision and theoretical error: Reveals the mechanism by which experimental precision determines the importance of theoretical uncertainty:
   • On-shell Higgs processes (e.g., gg→h→γγ): theoretical error ~1%, negligible
   • Off-shell processes (e.g., four-top production): theoretical error can reach 50-100%, non-negligible
5. Complementarity of unitarity and power counting: Demonstrates that unitarity constraints and NDA power counting give consistent upper bounds on parameter space in this case

Methodology Details

Theoretical Framework

Mathematical Relationship between Field Redefinitions and EoM

Consider a simple scalar field theory: $\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu h \partial^\mu h + A(h/v)J, \quad A(\zeta) = (1+\zeta)^2 + \epsilon\zeta^2$

Field redefinition method (exact): $h = \bar{h} - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon \bar{h}^2/v$ yields a new Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}(\bar{h})$ that produces identical physical amplitudes.

EoM method (approximate): Using the equation of motion $\Box h = \frac{A'(\zeta)}{v}J$ for algebraic substitution yields $\mathcal{L}_{EoM}$.

Key difference: The difference between the two can be written as: $\mathcal{L}_{EoM} = \mathcal{L}(\bar{h}) + \left(-\epsilon\frac{h^2}{2v}\right)\frac{\delta S}{\delta h}$

This shows that EoM is equivalent to first-order field redefinition, omitting second and higher-order terms.

The O₂₂ Operator in HEFT

Operator Definition

$O_{22} = \Box h \Box h$ appears in the chiral dimension-4 HEFT Lagrangian: $\mathcal{L}_{h,2pt} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_\mu h \partial^\mu h - m_h^2 h^2 - \frac{2a_{22}}{v^2}O_{22}\right)$

Three Treatment Schemes

1. Vanilla HEFT: Retain O₂₂ and directly compute the modified propagator $iG_h^{-1}(p^2) = p^2 - m_h^2 - \frac{2a_{22}}{v^2}p^4$

After field renormalization: $G_R(p^2) = \frac{i}{p^2-m_{ph}^2}\left(1 + \frac{2a_{22}}{v^2}(p^2+m_{ph}^2) + \frac{4a_{22}^2}{v^4}(p^2+m_{ph}^2)^2\right)$

2. Field redefinition: Remove O₂₂ through $h = h' - \frac{a_{22}}{v^2}\Box h'$ generating new interaction terms while maintaining physical equivalence: $G'_R(p^2) = \frac{i}{p^2-m_{ph}^2}\left(1 + \frac{a_{22}^2}{v^4}(3p^4 + 4p^2m_{ph}^2 - 7m_{ph}^4)\right)$

3. EoM substitution: Use $\Box h = -m_h^2 h + \ldots$ to algebraically eliminate O₂₂ $G''_R(p^2) = \frac{i}{p^2-m_{ph}^2}\left(1 + \frac{4a_{22}^2}{v^4}(p^4 + p^2m_{ph}^2 - 2m_{ph}^4)\right)$

Quantification of Theoretical Uncertainty

For physical process cross sections, define: $\Delta_{TH} = \left|\frac{\sigma - \sigma_{EoM}}{\sigma - \sigma_{SM}}\right|$

Key properties:

• Numerator is $O(\epsilon^2)$ (higher-order correction)
• Denominator is $O(\epsilon)$ (leading-order correction)
• When $\Delta_{TH} \sim 1$, indicates EFT expansion failure

Amplitude Calculations

For fermion scattering process $f\bar{f} \to h \to f'\bar{f}'$:

Vanilla & field redefinition: $\frac{M}{M_{SM}} = 1 + \frac{2a_{22}}{v^2}(s+m_{ph}^2) + \frac{4a_{22}^2}{v^4}(s+m_{ph}^2)^2$

EoM: $\frac{M_{EoM}}{M_{SM}} = 1 + \frac{2a_{22}}{v^2}(s+m_{ph}^2) + \frac{4a_{22}^2}{v^4}(s+m_{ph}^2)^2 + \frac{a_{22}^2}{v^4}s^2$

The additional $s^2$ term becomes significant in high-energy off-shell processes.

Experimental Setup

Analyzed Physical Processes

1. Higgs Signal Strength Measurements

• Processes: gg→h→γγ and other single Higgs production-decay channels
• Data: ATLAS 139 fb⁻¹ @ 13 TeV Nature 607, 52 (2022)
• Future projections: HL-LHC 3 ab⁻¹
• Characteristics: On-shell Higgs, high-precision measurements

2. Four-Top Quark Production

• Process: pp→t̄tt̄t @ 13 TeV
• SM cross section: ~13 fb (rare process)
• Experimental sensitivity:
  • Current LHC: ~30% uncertainty
  • HL-LHC projection: ~15% uncertainty
• Characteristics: Off-shell Higgs exchange, momentum-dependent effects significant

Computational Toolchain

1. Amplitude calculations: FeynArts 3.0 + FormCalc + Package-X
2. Cross section generation: MadGraph5_aMC@NLO
   • Manual modification of HELAS subroutines to implement corrected propagators
   • Includes linear and quadratic a₂₂ contributions
3. Statistical analysis:
   • χ² fitting using ATLAS experimental correlation matrices
   • 95% CL constraint extraction

Evaluation Metrics

1. Signal strength: $\mu = \sigma/\sigma_{SM}$
2. Theoretical error: $\Delta_{TH}$ (as defined above)
3. χ² statistic: Multi-channel joint fit
4. Differential distributions: $d\sigma/dm_{4t}$, $d\sigma/dm_{t\bar{t}}$

Experimental Results

Higgs Signal Strength Constraints

Single-channel gg→h→γγ Analysis

• Current LHC constraint (139 fb⁻¹): $|a_{22}/v^2| < 1.5 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV⁻² @ 95% CL
• HL-LHC projection (3 ab⁻¹): $|a_{22}/v^2| < 0.7 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV⁻² @ 95% CL
• Theoretical error: Within allowed parameter region $\Delta_{TH} < 0.01$ (1%)

Key finding: All three theoretical frameworks (vanilla, field redefinition, EoM) yield nearly identical constraints because:

1. On-shell kinematics: $s = m_{ph}^2$
2. Quadratic term differences are suppressed
3. Despite high experimental precision, sensitivity to quadratic effects remains limited

Global Signal Strength Fit

Joint analysis including all major production and decay channels:

• Current: $-1.5 < a_{22}/v^2 < 1.8 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV⁻² @ 95% CL
• HL-LHC: $-0.8 < a_{22}/v^2 < 0.9 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV⁻² @ 95% CL

The χ² curve shows differences between the three schemes within statistical fluctuations, validating the validity of the EoM approximation for on-shell processes.

Off-Shell Effects in Four-Top Production

Total Cross Section Dependence

For $a_{22}/v^2 = 5 \times 10^{-7}$ GeV⁻²:

• Linear approximation: $\sigma/\sigma_{SM} \approx 1.15$
• Quadratic correction (vanilla/FR): $\sigma/\sigma_{SM} \approx 1.22$
• EoM: $\sigma/\sigma_{SM} \approx 1.35$
• Theoretical error: $\Delta_{TH} \approx 0.5$ (50%)

For $a_{22}/v^2 = 8 \times 10^{-7}$ GeV⁻²:

• Theoretical error: $\Delta_{TH} \approx 0.8-1.0$ (approaching or exceeding 100%)

Physical interpretation:

1. Four-top production probes high-energy regions (m₄ₜ can reach several TeV)
2. In off-shell Higgs exchange $s \gg m_{ph}^2$
3. The $s^2$ term omitted by EoM becomes important
4. Current experimental precision is insufficient to distinguish different theoretical predictions

Differential Distribution Analysis

Four-top invariant mass distribution (Figure 4):

• For $m_{4t} < 2$ TeV: three schemes essentially agree
• For $m_{4t} > 3$ TeV:
  • Quadratic corrections enhance high-mass tail by 50-100%
  • Significant difference between EoM and field redefinition
  • However, event rates are extremely low with limited statistics

t̄t invariant mass distribution (Figure 5):

• Traces internal momentum of off-shell Higgs
• Most events in $m_{t\bar{t}} < 1$ TeV region
• Validates analysis within unitarity constraint bounds

Ablation Analysis

Linear vs Quadratic Truncation

Comparison of retaining only $O(a_{22})$ versus including $O(a_{22}^2)$:

• On-shell processes: difference <5%
• Off-shell processes: difference reaches 50-100%

This validates the sensitivity of off-shell processes to higher-order effects.

Multiple EoM Applications

Appendix A analyzes the case of using EoM multiple times:

• Using EoM twice → equivalent to second-order field redefinition
• Error still controlled by second variation of action
• Does not change the definition and magnitude of $\Delta_{TH}$

Theoretical Consistency Checks

Unitarity Constraints

Using partial wave expansion analysis for $tW \to tW$ and $tZ \to tZ$ scattering: $|{\rm Re}\, a_{J=1/2}^{\lambda=1/2,\lambda'=1/2}(s)| < \frac{1}{2}$

Results:

• $a_{22}/v^2 = 5 \times 10^{-7}$ GeV⁻²: unitarity preserved up to $\sqrt{s} \lesssim 4.2$ TeV
• $a_{22}/v^2 = 8 \times 10^{-7}$ GeV⁻²: unitarity preserved up to $\sqrt{s} \lesssim 3.3$ TeV

From the $m_{t\bar{t}}$ distribution in Figure 5, most events fall within unitarity constraint bounds, ensuring self-consistency of the EFT description.

Power Counting Analysis

Using the Naive Dimensional Analysis (NDA) framework: $\frac{a_{22}}{v^2} = \frac{\hat{a}_{22}}{\Lambda^2} = \frac{\hat{a}_{22}}{(4\pi f)^2}$

Requiring $\hat{a}_{22} \lesssim 1$ (perturbativity) yields:

• $a_{22}/v^2 = 5 \times 10^{-7}$ GeV⁻²: $\Lambda \gtrsim 3$ TeV
• $a_{22}/v^2 = 8 \times 10^{-7}$ GeV⁻²: $\Lambda \gtrsim 2.5$ TeV

Consistency: NDA and unitarity constraints agree in order of magnitude, though power counting only provides upper bounds and cannot quantify theoretical errors.

Related Work

Field Redefinitions in EFT

1. Criado & Pérez-Victoria (2019) JHEP 03, 038: First systematic study of field redefinition effects at higher orders in EFT, providing the theoretical foundation for this work
2. This paper's contribution: Applies these formal results to concrete physical processes, proposing an operational error estimation method

HEFT vs SMEFT

1. Alonso, Jenkins, Manohar (2016) PLB 756, 358; JHEP 08, 101: Establishes geometric formulation of HEFT, introduces curvature tensor description
2. Cohen et al. (2021) JHEP 03, 237: Discusses the question "Is SMEFT sufficient?"
3. This paper's contribution: Focuses on momentum-dependent operators unique to HEFT, quantifying their theoretical uncertainties

Higher-Dimensional Operators and Theoretical Errors

1. Dawson et al. (2021-2024): Series of works studying dimension-8 operator effects in SMEFT
2. Ellis et al. (2023): Dimension-8 analysis in minimal scalar extensions
3. This paper's distinction: Rather than comparing relative sizes of different-dimensional operators, compares different treatment methods of the same operator

Four-Top Quarks and Higgs Physics

1. Englert et al. (2019) JHEP 09, 041: Ĥ parameter and tilted Higgs observables
2. Banelli et al. (2021) JHEP 02, 043: Four-top operators present and future
3. This paper's contribution: First systematic study of O₂₂ theoretical uncertainty in four-top production

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Data-driven definition of theoretical error: Proposes $\Delta_{TH}$ as a practical metric for quantifying EFT truncation errors, directly linking experimental precision to reliability of theoretical predictions
2. Process-dependent uncertainties:
   • On-shell processes: theoretical error ~O(1%), negligible, EoM approximation sufficient
   • Off-shell processes: theoretical error ~O(50-100%), non-negligible, requires complete field redefinition
3. Constraints on O₂₂ operator in HEFT:
   • Current data: $|a_{22}/v^2| \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV⁻²
   • HL-LHC potential: $|a_{22}/v^2| \lesssim 1 \times 10^{-6}$ GeV⁻²
   • However, theoretical uncertainty in four-top production limits reliability of constraints
4. Theoretical consistency: Unitarity and power counting provide consistent upper bounds on parameter space (Λ~few TeV) in this case, but cannot substitute for quantitative error analysis

Methodological Significance

This paper generalizes mature theoretical uncertainty estimation methods from the Standard Model (varying renormalization scheme/scale) to non-renormalizable EFT:

• Standard Model: vary renormalization scheme → estimate omitted higher-loop corrections
• EFT: compare field redefinition vs EoM → estimate omitted higher-order operators

This provides a framework for direct dialogue with experimental precision in theoretical error assessment.

Limitations

1. Single-operator analysis: Only O₂₂ studied; multi-operator interference effects not considered
2. Tree-level only: Loop corrections not included; may be necessary for precision measurements
3. Process-specific: Analysis focuses on Higgs-related processes; other electroweak processes (e.g., VBS) not covered
4. HEFT-specific: Method applies to momentum-dependent operators; may be less relevant for SMEFT dimension-6 operators

Practical Application Recommendations

For experimental collaborations:

1. On-shell Higgs measurements: can safely use EoM-simplified operator bases
2. Off-shell/rare processes: should report theoretical uncertainties or use field-redefinition-complete frameworks
3. Monte Carlo generation: linear approximation may be insufficient for propagator corrections

For theorists:

1. When constructing operator bases: clearly specify number and order of EoM applications
2. In phenomenological analyses: assess whether $\Delta_{TH}$ is comparable to experimental uncertainty
3. Future collider studies: improved precision may require re-examining operator basis choices

Future Directions

1. Extension to other operators:
   • Other momentum-dependent operators in HEFT (e.g., $O_T = (\partial_\mu F^2)^2$)
   • Similar analysis of SMEFT dimension-8 operators
2. Multi-operator global fits:
   • Include operator interference
   • Marginalize over theoretical uncertainties
3. NLO precision:
   • Theoretical error evolution including loop corrections
   • Comparison with renormalization group improvement
4. Other processes:
   • Vector boson scattering (VBS)
   • Triple Higgs production
   • Electroweak precision measurements
5. Machine learning approaches:
   • Automatic identification of phase space regions sensitive to theoretical errors
   • Optimization of measurement strategies to minimize theoretical uncertainty

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Conceptual Innovation

• First systematization: Transforms formal differences between field redefinitions and EoM into an operational error estimation method
• Data-driven: Theoretical uncertainty directly linked to experimental precision, avoiding subjective pure-theory assumptions
• High practicality: The $\Delta_{TH}$ metric is simple and clear, easily applicable in phenomenological analyses

2. Technical Rigor

• Complete derivations: Propagators and vertex corrections for all three Lagrangian frameworks explicitly provided (Equations 3.5-3.31)
• Numerical verification: Numerical consistency between field redefinition and vanilla frameworks serves as cross-check
• Consistency checks: Independent verification through unitarity and power counting

3. Physical Insights

• Process classification: Clear distinction between on-shell vs off-shell process sensitivity to theoretical errors
• Momentum dependence: Reveals special behavior of O₂₂-type operators at high energy
• Experimental guidance: Provides important caution for theoretical interpretation of rare processes like four-top production

4. Clear Presentation

• Pedagogical derivations: Gradual progression from simple scalar model (Section 2.1) to complete HEFT
• Sufficient visualization: Eight figures clearly show theoretical predictions, experimental constraints, and error evolution
• Balance of math and physics: Combines rigorous field theory derivations with intuitive physical explanations

Weaknesses

1. Method Limitations

• Single-operator assumption: In actual global fits, multiple operators coexist; interference effects may alter conclusions
• Tree-level approximation: For HL-LHC precision, loop corrections may be comparable to $\Delta_{TH}$
• Linearization issues: How to handle nonlinear effects in Monte Carlo implementation not thoroughly discussed

2. Experimental Analysis

• Simplified statistical treatment: χ² fitting does not fully account for systematic error treatment
• Projection uncertainty: HL-LHC sensitivity projections based on simplified assumptions
• Lack of actual data: Four-top analysis based on simulation; actual measurements may differ

3. Theory Coverage

• HEFT-specific: Applicability to SMEFT not thoroughly explored
• Other uncertainties: Comparison with traditional uncertainties (PDF, QCD scale) lacking
• UV completeness: Connection to specific UV models (e.g., composite Higgs) not established

4. Technical Details

• Unitarity analysis: Only J=1/2 partial wave considered; higher partial wave contributions not evaluated
• NDA parameters: Relationship between f and v ambiguous in HEFT, affecting power counting conclusions
• Numerical precision: Whether small differences in quadratic coefficients (e.g., 16 vs 17) are within numerical error not clarified

Impact Assessment

Academic Impact

• Theoretical method: Provides EFT community with new tool for assessing truncation errors, potentially becoming standard procedure
• Phenomenology: Direct guidance for HEFT analyses at HL-LHC and future colliders
• Controversy resolution: Offers data-driven perspective on HEFT power counting disputes

Practical Value

• Experimental collaborations: Helps understand when theoretical uncertainties must be considered
• Monte Carlo development: Suggests need for improved event generator treatment of non-standard propagators
• Future planning: Provides reference for physics cases at FCC-ee/hh, CLIC, and other future colliders

Reproducibility

• Strengths: Uses standard tools (MadGraph, FeynArts), in principle reproducible
• Weaknesses: Details of manual HELAS subroutine modifications not publicly available; complete reproduction difficult
• Recommendation: Public release of modified code would greatly enhance impact

Applicable Scenarios

Most Suitable For

1. HEFT phenomenological analyses: Especially studies involving momentum-dependent operators
2. Rare processes: Where experimental precision is lower and theoretical error may dominate
3. High-energy tails: Searches for new physics in high-energy regions
4. Future colliders: Where improved precision requires re-evaluation of theoretical framework

Requires Caution

1. SMEFT analyses: Dimension-6 operators typically lack momentum dependence; method may be less relevant
2. Precision measurements: When experimental precision far exceeds $\Delta_{TH}$, other systematic errors more important
3. Multi-operator fits: Interference effects may alter error estimates
4. Strong coupling regions: When $\hat{a}_{22} \gtrsim 1$, EFT itself breaks down

Relationship to Field Frontiers

This paper sits at the intersection of several research frontiers:

1. EFT formal theory: Fundamental questions about field redefinitions and operator basis construction
2. Precision Higgs physics: Theoretical challenges in the HL-LHC era
3. Model-independent new physics searches: Theoretical foundations of model-independent methods
4. Uncertainty quantification: Systematic assessment of theoretical prediction reliability

It provides concrete, operational tools for these fields, expected to stimulate subsequent research.

Reference Highlights

Foundational Theory

• 52 Criado & Pérez-Victoria (2019): Higher-order field redefinition effects, theoretical foundation of this work
• 22,31 Alonso et al. (2016): Geometric formulation of HEFT, curvature tensor methods

Methodology

• 49 Gavela et al. (2016): NDA power counting, contrasting theoretical framework
• 78-80 Unitarity literature: Logan lectures, Jacob-Wick formalism, unitarity constraint methods

Phenomenological Applications

• 69 ATLAS (2022), Nature: Detailed Higgs coupling measurements, data source
• 71,72 ATLAS & CMS (2023): Four-top quark observation, experimental context

Related Research

• 5-9 Dawson et al.: SMEFT dimension-8 operators, contrasting theoretical direction
• 61 Anisha et al. (2024): Higgs off-shell measurements probing nonlinearity, complementary study

Overall Assessment: This is an excellent theoretical work with clear concepts, solid technical execution, and practical value. It transforms abstract field theory questions into operational error estimation methods, providing important tools for HEFT phenomenology. Main limitations lie in single-operator and tree-level analysis, but as a concept demonstration and method establishment, it is highly successful. Expected to become an important reference in the field, particularly for HL-LHC data analysis.