FERMILAB-PUB-19-083-T

Radiative contribution to the composite-Higgs potential in a

two-representation lattice model
Venkitesh Ayyar,1 Maarten Golterman,2 Daniel C. Hackett,3
William I. Jay,4, ∗ Ethan T. Neil,3, † Yigal Shamir,5 and Benjamin Svetitsky5
1
NERSC, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
2
Department of Physics and Astronomy,
San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA
3
Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
4
Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National
arXiv:1903.02535v1 [hep-lat] 4 Mar 2019

Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois, 60510, USA

5
Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy,
Tel Aviv University, 69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
(Dated: November 27, 2024)
Abstract
Working in a two-representation lattice gauge theory that is close to a composite Higgs model,
we calculate the low-energy constant CLR which controls the contribution of the electroweak gauge
bosons to the Higgs potential. In QCD, the corresponding low-energy constant governs the mass
splitting of the pion multiplet. Taking the continuum and chiral limits, we find that CLR , in units
of the pseudoscalar decay constant, is roughly of the same size as its QCD counterpart.

PACS numbers: 11.15.Ha, 12.60.Rc

∗
[email protected]
†
[email protected]

1
I. INTRODUCTION

Composite Higgs theories of the “Goldstone Higgs” variety [1, 2] use a weakly broken
global symmetry to protect the Higgs from large mass renormalizations. The models are
often written down as effective field theories in the form of non-linear sigma models [3–5].
The sigma model describes a set of exactly massless Nambu–Goldstone bosons that live in a
coset manifold G/H. This set contains the Higgs multiplet of the Standard Model (SM). The
Higgs potential then comes mainly from coupling to the electroweak gauge bosons and to
the top quark, via one-loop diagrams. This potential should induce the Higgs phenomenon
of the SM.
The sigma model is only an effective low-energy description with the correct symmetry
properties. The coupling of the Higgs multiplet to the SM fields, which in turn yields the
Higgs potential, is given by a number of low-energy constants. These are, in principle,
calculable if an ultraviolet completion of the theory is given. We continue here a study of
a model that is close to such an ultraviolet theory, one of a set catalogued by Ferretti and
Karateev [6–9] that accommodate both a composite Higgs and a partially composite top
quark [10]. For that theory, the Higgs potential was discussed in Refs. [8, 11, 12].
The model we study is an SU(4) gauge theory containing two multiplets of fermions. The
first consists of Nf = 2 Dirac fermions in the sextet representation of SU(4), which is the
antisymmetric two-index representation—a real representation. The second contains Dirac
fermions in the fundamental representation of SU(4), again with Nf = 2. A Goldstone mul-
tiplet arises when the global SU(4) symmetry carried by the sextet fermions is spontaneously
broken to SO(4). In Ferretti’s composite Higgs model [7], 5 flavors of Majorana fermions
in the sextet representation of SU(4) give rise to a composite Higgs within an SU(5)/SO(5)
coset. Ferretti’s model also contains fundamental Dirac fermions, but with Nf = 3, to allow
construction of a top partner.
When the fermions are weakly coupled to a gauge field outside this model, the Goldstone
fields acquire a potential. We present a lattice calculation of the low-energy constant CLR
that enters this potential. In Ferretti’s model and in similar theories, the latter is given by
[3, 11, 13] X
Veff (Σ) = CLR tr (QΣQ∗ Σ∗ ) , (1.1)
Q

where Σ is the non-linear field representing the multiplet of pseudo-Goldstone bosons. The
sum over Q runs over the SU (2)L generators gTLa and the hypercharge generator g 0 Y , with g
and g 0 the electroweak coupling constants of the SM. In accordance with vacuum alignment
[14], the low-energy constant CLR is positive [13, 15], and the minimum of Veff is attained
at hΣi = 1. The physics of Eq. (1.1) is analogous to the electromagnetic mass splitting
between pions in QCD, a point which we revisit in the discussion. Realization of the Higgs
phenomenon requires Veff to have a negative curvature at Σ = 1. This is expected to
arise from coupling to the top quark [7, 8, 11, 12, 16], which we do not treat here. For
phenomenological use of CLR , see for example Ref. [17].
We obtain CLR in terms of a correlation function of the ultraviolet theory [18],
d4 q
Z
2
CLR = 16π ΠLR (qµ ). (1.2)
(2π)4

2
Here ΠLR (q 2 ) is the transverse part of the current–current correlation function,
Z
1
δab Πµν (q) = − d4 x eiqx hJµa
L R
(x)Jνb (0)i, (1.3)
2

which defines ΠLR (q 2 ) via the decomposition

Πµν (q) = (q 2 δµν − qµ qν )ΠLR (q 2 ) + qµ qν Π0 (q 2 ). (1.4)

The chiral currents, constructed from the sextet fermions, are

L
Jµa = ψ̄γµ (1 − γ5 )Ta ψ = Vµa − Aµa ,
R
Jµa = ψ̄γµ (1 + γ5 )Ta ψ = Vµa + Aµa , (1.5)

where Ta are the isospin generators. In the chiral limit, where the low-energy constant in
Eq. (1.1) is defined, the current correlator (1.3) is automatically transverse.
In a previous exploratory study, we calculated CLR in the same theory but without the
fundamental fermions [19]. The present calculation differs from the earlier one in several
ways:

1. As noted, we have added fermions in the fundamental representation. This brings the
theory closer to Ferretti’s composite Higgs model [7]. We do not actually simulate
Ferretti’s model for technical reasons, namely, the well-known difficulty of simulating
lattice theories with anything other than an even number of Dirac flavors.

2. Exact chirality is important when constructing the currents (1.5) (see Sec. II). In
Ref. [19] we calculated the current correlators with valence overlap fermions. Here we
use a more economical prescription, constructing the correlators with valence staggered
fermions. The limited chiral symmetry of the latter is enough to guarantee the desired
properties of the correlators. (Other calculations of ΠLR (q) in QCD and beyond [20–
22] have used overlap or domain-wall fermions. For calculations of the vector current
two-point function using staggered fermions, see Refs. [23–27].)

3. Our previous work used only two ensembles, generated with different lattice actions
(both based on improved Wilson fermions) but with roughly equal lattice spacings
and similar physical properties. While we took a chiral limit for the valence fermions,
we did not attempt to take a continuum limit or to extrapolate to the chiral limit of
the sea fermions. In this work we measure CLR in ten ensembles with a range of sea
masses and lattice spacings. We have studied these ensembles at length [28–30]. For
each ensemble we have set a scale via the flow variable t0 and measured the meson
spectrum. Hence we are now able to fit CLR as a function of lattice spacing and sea
masses, and to take the continuum and chiral limits in the dynamical theory.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review properties of the current correlation
function ΠLR , the importance of chiral symmetry in its calculation, and its definition on the
lattice with staggered fermions. In Sec. III we present the calculation of ΠLR and its integral
CLR on each ensemble, along with the extrapolation to massless valence fermions. In Sec. IV
we take all the ensembles together in order to fit CLR and extrapolate it to the continuum
and chiral limits. We conclude with discussion of our results in Sec. V.

3
II. CHIRAL SYMMETRY AND STAGGERED FERMIONS

A. Chiral symmetry

In infinite volume, the value of CLR depends a priori on the dynamical infrared scale Λ
of the theory, on the fermion mass m, and on an ultraviolet cutoff M . Chiral symmetry is
essential in removing the effects of the ultraviolet cutoff from CLR . To see this, we recall
[19] the operator product expansion for the two-current correlator, which is, schematically,
m2 g 2 hGµν Gµν i + m ψ̄ψ Λ6
ΠXX (q 2 ; m) ∼ 1 + + + + ··· , (2.1)
q2 q4 q6
where XX = V V or AA. Each term is to be multiplied by a coefficient function that depends
logarithmically on q 2 . In the difference ΠV V − ΠAA , the identity term drops out, as do all
purely gluonic condensates, and we have
m2 mΛ3 Λ6
ΠLR (q 2 ; m) ∼ + 4 + 6 + ··· , (2.2)
q2 q q
where, for each power of 1/q 2 , we show only the leading dependence on the fermion mass.
We introduce the ultraviolet cutoff M into Eq. (1.2) via
Z M2
CLR (m; M ) = dq 2 q 2 ΠLR (q 2 ; m) . (2.3)
0

Inserting the expansion (2.2) we obtain

CLR (m; M ) ∼ m2 M 2 + mΛ3 log(M ) + Λ4 + O(1/M 2 ), (2.4)
where Λ4 comes from the infrared part of the integral. Hence CLR (m; M ) is quadratically
divergent for m 6= 0. Nonetheless, CLR (0; M ) is finite in the M → ∞ limit, giving the
desired low-energy constant CLR . In other words, we must take the (valence) chiral limit
before the continuum limit. This result could have been anticipated by noting that CLR is
an order parameter for the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry.
If the cutoff procedure breaks chiral symmetry, on the other hand, the constant term
in Eq. (2.1) does not cancel between V V and AA, and CLR (m → 0) remains (quartically)
divergent. Thus it is important to use chiral valence fermions in defining the currents on the
lattice. In our numerical calculation we use a discretized version of Eq. (1.2). We impose an
upper limit M in the summation over momenta, along the lines of Eq. (2.3), with M < π/a.
For non-zero valence mass mv , one expects the dependence of CLR (mv ; M ) to contain a
quadratically divergent term ∼ m2v /a2 ; this dependence should vanish when mv → 0.

B. Lattice

We have seen that we require an axial current that is exactly conserved in the chiral
limit. In our previous work [19], we chose to use overlap fermions for this purpose. Here, for
reasons of economy, we work with staggered fermions. The conserved U(1) vector current is
(see for example Ref. [31])
ηµ (x)
χ̄(x)Uµ (x)χ(x + µ̂) + χ̄(x + µ̂)Uµ† (x)χ(x) ,


Vµ (x) = (2.5)
2

4
while the partially conserved U(1) axial current is

ηµ (x)(x)
χ̄(x)Uµ (x)χ(x + µ̂) − χ̄(x + µ̂)Uµ† (x)χ(x) .


Aµ (x) = (2.6)
2

The sign factors are, as usual,

η1 (x) = 1 , η2 (x) = (−1)x1 , η3 (x) = (−1)x1 +x2 , η4 (x) = (−1)x1 +x2 +x3 , (2.7)

and (x) = (−1)x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 . These currents correspond to the nearest-neighbor staggered
action. The vector current satisfies the continuity equation
X X 
∂µ− Vµ (x) = Vµ (x) − Vµ (x − µ̂) = 0 , (2.8)
µ µ

and the axial current satisfies a similar continuity equation in the massless limit.
We calculate the current–current correlation function ΠLR (q) with the staggered currents
(2.5), (2.6) exactly as was done with the overlap currents in Ref. [19]. Writing the chiral
currents,

L
Jµa = Vµa − Aµa ,
R
Jµa = Vµa + Aµa , (2.9)

we define the lattice correlator,

1 1 4 X iqx L
δab Πlat
µν (q) = − a e R
Jµa (x)Jνb (0) . (2.10)
2 4 x

The factor of 41 corrects for the summation over the four tastes inherent in the staggered field.
The 12 is the normalization of isospin generators, tr Ta Tb = 12 δab . As usual,1 qµ = (2π/Lµ )nµ
for periodic boundary conditions with period Lµ , where −Nµ /2 < nµ ≤ Nµ /2. The desired
ΠLR (q) is the transverse piece of the correlation function. We use a lattice definition,

T
(q)Πlat
P
µν Pµν µν (q)
ΠLR (q) = , (2.11)
3(q̂ 2 )2

that uses the lattice projector,

T
Pµν (q) = q̂ 2 δµν − q̂µ q̂ν , (2.12)

where q̂µ = (2/a) sin(qµ a/2) and q̂ 2 ≡ µ q̂µ2 . Any lattice projector of course introduces
P
lattice artifacts. Their effects will vanish when we take the continuum limit.

1
Our lattice has Ns3 × Nt sites and we define Lµ = Nµ a.

5
III. LATTICE CALCULATIONS

Our results are based on the measurement of ΠLR (q) on ten ensembles, to be described
below. In this section we give the methods applied to each ensemble separately, using one
ensemble for illustration. First we present our smearing procedure and describe its effect
on the taste spectrum, as a function of the valence mass mv . Then we present ΠLR (q) and
compare it to a physical model, the minimal hadron approximation. Finally, using values
of fπ obtained from valence spectroscopy, we calculate CLR (mv ) from ΠLR and take the
chiral limit, mv → 0, for the staggered valence fermions on each ensemble. We combine the
ensemble results in Sec. IV, giving a fit for CLR where the independent variables are the
lattice spacing and the masses of the two sea fermions, measured in each ensemble; this fit
produces continuum and chiral limits for CLR .

A. Overview of the ensembles

We base this study on 10 ensembles created for previous work. They were generated with
a lattice action containing an SU(4) gauge field coupled to dynamical fermions in both the
fundamental 4 and the two-index antisymmetric 6 representation of SU(4), with two Dirac
flavors of each. For the fermions we use a Wilson-clover action, with normalized hypercubic
(nHYP) smeared gauge links [32, 33]. The clover coefficient is set equal to unity for both
fermion species [34, 35]. The pure gauge part of the action is the usual plaquette term plus an
nHYP dislocation-suppressing (NDS) term, a smeared action designed to reduce gauge-field
roughness that would create large fermion forces in the molecular dynamics evolution [36].
The ensembles have lattice volumes of Ns3 × Nt = 163 × 32 and 243 × 48. They were gen-
erated and first used to calculate the meson spectrum of this model [28]. Twelve ensembles
with volume 163 × 32 were then used to calculate the baryon spectrum, including mixed-
representation “chimera” baryons [29]; a subset of these was used in calculating matrix
elements of baryonic currents, in connection with partial compositeness [30]. In the present
calculation of CLR we use nine of the 163 ×32 ensembles and one ensemble of volume 243 ×48.
Details relating to the ensembles appear in Appendix A. Table II gives the values of the
bare parameters used to generate the ensembles: the gauge coupling β and the two hopping
parameters, κ4 and κ6 , for the two fermion types. We connect them to physics by the
calculated values of the flow parameter t0 /a2 and the fermion masses m4 a and m6 a, obtained
from the axial Ward identities (AWI). We use t0 for setting the scale [28] (for example, √
t0 ' (1.4 GeV)−2 in QCD), whence we define the dimensionless √ lattice spacing√â = a/ t0
for each ensemble and the dimensionless AWI masses m̂4 = m4 t0 and m̂6 = m6 t0 , as well
as ĈLR = CLR t20 . We will use these quantities in taking continuum and chiral limits. The
measured values for these quantities appear in Table III. We refer the reader to Refs. [28, 29]
for more information about the ensembles.

B. Staggered valence fermions: smearing and the taste spectrum

As discussed above, in order to maintain an exact chiral symmetry, we calculate valence

propagators with a staggered fermion action. We use a nearest-neighbor action, improved by
smearing the SU(4) gauge field before promoting it to the sextet representation. As in the
Wilson action of the sea fermions, the smearing is an nHYP scheme; the smearing parameters

6
 0.20 0.20

s =1 s =2
0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0.20 0.20

s =3 s =4
0.15 0.15

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

FIG. 1. Squared mass (mπ a)2 of the valence Goldstone pion and the seven additional pion mul-
tiplets, constructed from the staggered valence fermions, in ensemble 2. The abscissa is mv a, the
valence fermion mass. The four plots correspond to s = 1, 2, 3, and 4 levels of smearing, carried
out on the gauge field configurations before calculating the fermion propagators. The lines connect
points of each multiplet. The Goldstone pion is always the bottom curve.

are the same for the valence and the sea fermions. In an effort to reduce lattice artifacts, we
smear more than once to derive the valence action. We calculate the valence propagators
for seven values of the valence mass for all the ensembles, with 0.01 ≤ mv a ≤ 0.05.
Figure 1 shows the splitting of the eight pion multiplets (that differ in their internal taste
structure [37, 38]) in ensemble 2, calculated with one to four levels of smearing. Going
from one to two levels of smearing dramatically reduces the taste splittings, while additional
smearing produces only marginal improvement. The slope of the Goldstone pion’s mass
squared, which is a low energy constant, also changes only slightly after two smearings. For
production, we stop at two smearing levels, for two reasons.
1. We eventually combine the ensembles to arrive at a continuum extrapolation. There
is no reason to eliminate lattice artifacts before then; we only require them to be small
enough that they do not hamper the extrapolation.

7
 0.10

0.08

0.06
LR
q2

0.04

0.02

0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
q2

FIG. 2. The transverse part ΠLR of the current–current correlation function, plotted against
q̂ 2 = µ q̂µ2 , in ensemble 2. We plot the data and the fit to the MHA for the seven values of the
P

valence mass mv = 0.05, 0.035, 0.03, 0.025, 0.02, 0.015, 0.01, top to bottom.

2. Repeated smearing increases the range of the action. This may introduce a sensitivity
to the finite volume.

C. Minimal hadron approximation and fπ

The minimal hadron approximation (MHA) provides a physically appealing interpretation

of ΠLR (q) at low momentum. The MHA supposes that ΠLR (q) may be modeled by retaining
poles from the pion and the lightest states in the axial and vector channels (the analogues
of the a1 and ρ mesons in QCD, respectively):

fπ2 fa21 fρ2

ΠLR (q) ≈ + − . (3.1)
q2 q 2 + m2a1 q 2 + m2ρ

The first term comes from applying the transverse projection to the fπ -dependent term in
the current correlator and does not depend the pion mass (see Ref. [19]). We conducted fits
to this function on each ensemble. For illustration, Fig. 2 shows q̂ 2 ΠLR (q̂) calculated and
fit for each valence mass mv for ensemble 2. We fit to data in the range q̂ 2 < 0.5, since the
MHA is only expected to hold at low momentum. The figure shows that the fit works well
at least up to q̂ 2 = 1.
We can compare the value of fπ emerging from the fit to Eq. (3.1) to the spectroscopic

8
value of fπ , which we calculate from the correlation function of the pseudoscalar density,
X fπ2 m3π ab −mπ t
− a3 P a (x, t)P b (0, 0) = 4 δ e , (3.2)
x
8m2q

where a, b are isospin indices and (again) the factor of 4 is for the four staggered tastes. In our
previous work [19], we found that these two values for fπ match closely, for both ensembles
studied there. We compare the two determinations of fπ in Fig. 3, which is typical of all our
ensembles. The discrepancies are a combination of the limitations of the three-pole ansatz
and scaling violations. We also show fP 6 , the decay constant of the dynamical sextet Wilson
pions, calculated in Ref. [28]. Its rough agreement with the valence values suggests that the
added discretization error due to the use of a mixed action, coming from the difference in
the finite parts of renormalization constants, is not large.
In Ref. [19] we calculated CLR by integrating the MHA fit as well as by direct summation
of ΠLR in momentum space. The MHA fits worked surprisingly well even in the UV regime,
allowing us to use them for the complete momentum integral. In the current work, we find
that the fits do not work well at momenta outside the plot in Fig. 2, perhaps because of
large discretization effects in the staggered formalism. Hence, in Sec. III D below, we discard
the MHA fits in favor of direct summation. Moreover, we use the spectroscopic value of fπ
rather than that which emerges from the MHA fit.

D. CLR (mv ) and the valence chiral limit

To calculate CLR (mv ) on each ensemble, we follow the method of Ref. [19]. We com-
pute the four-dimensional integral in Eq. (1.2) as direct summation of ΠLR (qµ ) in discrete
momentum space. The discrete version of Eq. (1.2) is
16π 2 X
CLR = ΠLR (qµ ), (3.3)
V q
µ

where V = L3s Lt . A sum over the entire Brillouin zone of the lattice would run over momenta
|qµ a| < π, in steps of ∆qµ a = 2π/Nµ . In the present analysis with staggered fermions, such
a sum would include contributions from the Brillouin zone face that represent currents
with various (adjoint) taste structures in the continuum limit. We limit the summation in
Eq. (3.3) to the “reduced Brillouin zone,”
|qµ a| ≤ qmax a = π/2, (3.4)
or to a subset thereof (see below). This retains only the taste-singlet vector current and
the partially conserved axial current, which contains γ5 ξ5 in Dirac-taste space. With any
prescription for the momentum sum, the lattice defines the divergent part of CLR (mv ) when
mv is nonzero, proportional to m2v /a2 .
Equation (3.3) requires special care at the origin of momentum space. In the first place,
the transverse projection (2.11) is undefined at q = 0; in the second place, ΠLR in the
continuum contains a kinematical pole at q = 0 (as is seen, for instance, in the MHA). Near
zero, then, we approximate the continuum function as
fπ2
ΠLR (qµ ) ' + p, (3.5)
q2

9
 0.16 f from staggered valence
f from LR
fP6 from Wilson sea
0.15

fa 0.14

0.13

0.12
10
15
20
25
30
35

50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
mva

FIG. 3. Comparison of fπ , the decay constant of the sextet valence pions, calculated from the
MHA fit to ΠLR (q), to that calculated directly from Eq. (3.2) in ensemble 2. The abscissa is the
mass of the valence fermions. The error bars of the green circles are smaller than the symbols.
Also shown is fP 6 , the decay constant of the sextet pions in the Wilson sea. For this, the abscissa
is the sextet AWI mass measured in the ensemble.

where we take the value of fπ from the spectroscopic data and estimate the pedestal p from
m neighboring momenta (see Ref. [19]),
m 
fπ2

1 X a
p= ΠLR (q ) − a 2 . (3.6)
m a=1 (q )

That is, p is the average of the discrete ΠLR in the neighboring cells, minus the pole term
on those cells. The contribution of q = 0 to the discrete summation (3.3) is then

L2s 2 16π 2
A f + p, (3.7)
V π V
where A $ 22.5095963 is a geometric factor calculated for the aspect ratio of our lattices,
Lt /Ls = 2.
Figure 4 shows the results for CLR (mv ) for ensemble 2, together with a cubic fit extrapo-
lating to mv = 0. The top set of points corresponds to the summation (3.3) over the entire
reduced Brillouin zone, Eq. (3.4). The extrapolation reaches mv = 0 at the point plotted
slightly to the left of zero. To examine the effect of the UV cutoff, we drop the highest mo-
menta in the reduced Brillouin zone. Because ensemble 2 has volume 163 × 32, this amounts

10
 0.10

0.08

0.06

CLR
0.04

0.02

0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
mv

FIG. 4. The low-energy constant CLR plotted against the valence mass mv (both in lattice units)
in ensemble 2. The three sets of data and the corresponding curves come from three different
high-momentum cutoffs in the summation (3.3). The points plotted at mv = 0 (slightly shifted)
are the cubic extrapolations of the data to zero. The correlated errors are calculated from single-
elimination jackknife.

to decreasing
π 2π 3π
qmax a → − = . (3.8)
2 Ns 8

The resulting values for CLR (mv ) give the middle data set and curve in Fig. 4, extrapolated
to the point plotted exactly at mv = 0. As a third variation, we decrease the cutoff further,
qmax a → π/4, which gives the bottom data set and curve, extrapolated to the point plotted
slightly to the right of zero. The result of varying the UV cutoff is as expected: There is a
marked change for nonzero valence mass, while CLR (0) is unchanged given the error bar.
The corresponding results for all the ensembles are quite similar. The χ2 /dof of each fit
is in the neighborhood of 0.3 for all ensembles. We list the extrapolated CLR (0) in Table I.
The use of a cubic for this fit, though arbitrary, gives an extrapolation that is stable under
changes in the fitting polynomial. Chiral perturbation theory, which gives formulas for many
quantities, is not helpful here. It can only treat ΠLR (q) at low q 2 , and hence it does not give
a useful formula for CLR (mv ).
The extrapolation to mv = 0 also offers a means to test for sensitivity to finite-volume
effects in CLR . Regarding mesonic quantities based on the sea fermions, the possibility of
finite-volume contamination was addressed at length in Ref. [28] and dismissed. The new
ingredient in this work is the light valence fermions. Finite-volume effects would of course

11
 Ensemble CLR a4
2 0.0103(11)
3 0.0081(10)
4 0.0120(8)
5 0.0057(6)
6 0.0217(16)
8 0.0037(6)
9 0.0096(7)
11 0.0028(6)
12 0.0027(6)
40 0.0036(3)

TABLE I. The low-energy constant CLR , calculated via summation over the entire reduced Bril-
louin zone, extrapolated to zero valence mass.

be strongest for the smallest values of mv . A simple test is thus to drop the smallest values
and examine anew the extrapolation of CLR to mv = 0. We find that dropping the two
smallest masses, mv = 0.01 and 0.015, shifts each extrapolation by less than its error bar.
Given the small χ2 of each fit, this is not
√ surprising. Moreover, the fits show no sign of
requiring a term proportional to 1/(mv V ), an expected consequence of zero modes in a
partially quenched theory. See Ref. [19] for more discussion.
While chiral perturbation theory is not directly applicable to CLR itself, one could argue
that it can be used to understand the finite-volume correction to CLR , which is a large-
distance quantity [39]. In our mixed-action setup, finite-volume corrections are controlled
by the mass Mvs of the mixed (valence-sea) pion. The latter satisfies the bound2 [40]
2 2 2
Mvs ≥ (Mss + Mvv )/2 . (3.9)

where Mss and Mvv are respectively the masses of the pure sea and valence pions. For
ensemble 2 we can read Mvv off Fig. 1 and Mss from Table III (the sextet pion mass MP 6 ).
We find that Mvs Ls ≥ 3.9 when the smallest valence mass is 0.01, and Mvs Ls ≥ 4.4 when
it is 0.02. In all other ensembles Mvs Ls satisfies more stringent bounds. The increase of
Mvs Ls from (at least) 3.9 to (at least) 4.4 thus lends further support to our conclusion that
finite-volume effects are negligible, within the precision of our calculation.

IV. CLR IN THE CHIRAL AND CONTINUUM LIMIT

The ultimate goal of this study is the value of the low-energy constant CLR in the contin-
uum limit. As discussed above, CLR is finite and therefore physical only in the chiral limit of
the sextet fermion. In the present partially quenched lattice calculation, unitarity requires
a simultaneous chiral limit for the sea and valence sextet fermions. Therefore, the sole free
parameter in the continuum limit is the mass of the fundamental fermions. In Sec. III D
we took the chiral limit for the valence sextet fermions. We now turn our attention to the
continuum limit and chiral limit for the sextet sea fermions.

2
While Ref. [40] considered a different mixed-action setup, the proof extends to all mixed-action theories.

12
 0.04

CLR = CLRt02
0.02

0.00

0.02
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
m6

FIG. 5. Fit of ĈLR to Eq. (4.1). The data appear in blue. The best fit is in hollow black points.
The lattice artifact term pa â from Eq. (4.1) identified by the fit appears in red. The green points
show the data minus the lattice artifact. The smooth green band shows the continuum prediction,
i.e., Eq. (4.1) minus the pa â term.

To conduct this joint limit, we consider the dimensionless product ĈLR = CLR t20 . We
model our data with a simple linear function,
ĈLR = p0 + pa â + p6 m̂6 , (4.1)
which neglects dependence on the fundamental fermion mass m̂4 . Later we test the stability
of the fit parameters against alternative models, e.g., including dependence on the funda-
mental fermion mass. First, we construct jackknife correlation matrices among the lattice
quantities CLR , m4 , and m6 on √ each ensemble. We do not include correlations with the
flow scale t0 /a2 (i.e., with â ≡ a/ t0 [28]), which has negligible error compared to the other
quantities we extract. We then conduct a correlated fit to Eq. (4.1), obtaining p0 = 0.028(4),
pa = −0.021(4), and p6 = 0.16(3), for χ2 = 9.2/7 dof.
Figure 5 displays the result of the fit. The hollow black points show the fit at the values
of â and m̂6 of the individual ensembles; they follow the solid blue data points closely. The
lattice artifacts [(pa â) from Eq. (4.1)] identified by the fit appear in red. The green points
show the data minus the lattice artifact. According to the model, subtracting the artifacts
from the full fit yields a linear function of m̂6 , which is displayed as a green band. This
band represents the continuum limit.
It is significant that the fit, Eq. (4.1), works so well without including any dependence
on m̂4 , the mass of the fundamental fermions. We have found before that the fundamental
fermions have only a weak influence on quantities constructed from the sextet fermions [28,
29]. We can test the stability of our fit against the inclusion of an m̂4 term, as well as
higher-order terms in m̂6 and â:
ĈLR = p0 + pa â + p6 m̂6 + p4 m̂4 + p66 m̂26 + pa6 âm̂6 + paa â2 . (4.2)
Figure 6 shows the stability of the best-fit result p0 under the inclusion of these addi-
tional terms. No significant discrepancy is seen; the largest deviation comes from the fit

13
 p0

Base + pa6

Base + p66

Base - pa + paa

Base + p4

Base
0.0

0.0
2

FIG. 6. Stability of the fit parameter p0 under model variations. The shaded band corresponds
to the fit to the base model of Eq. (4.1), shown in the bottom row. The alternative models include
additional terms shown in Eq. (4.2).

“Base − pa + paa ,” which models the lattice-spacing dependence as quadratic instead of lin-
ear. As can be seen from Fig. 5, although the lattice-artifact contributions are significant,
they vary little over the set of ensembles considered, which makes it difficult to determine
whether linear or quadratic dependence on â is a more appropriate description of our results.
The fit including the quadratic paa yields a best-fit value of p0 = 0.020(2), as compared
to the result p0 = 0.028(4) from the base fit. Since we cannot reject either hypothesis,
we conservatively adopt half of the difference in central values between these two fits as a
systematic error, giving our final result

ĈLR = 0.024(4)stat (4)sys . (4.3)

This is the chiral limit mv = m6 = 0 in both valence and sea-sextet masses, as well as the
continuum limit, of ĈLR .

V. DISCUSSION

In this paper we computed the low-energy constant CLR for the sextet representation.
We used staggered valence fermions to define the currents, instead of overlap fermions as in
our previous work. We indeed found this to be an economical way to impose exact chiral
symmetry. On the other hand, we find a strong dependence of CLR (mv , M ) on the cutoff
momentum M , when the valence mass mv is nonzero. When using overlap fermions, we

14
could not resolve any dependence at all on M . In any case, the divergent cutoff dependence
disappears in the valence chiral limit, as expected for the quadratic divergence m2v M 2 ∼
m2v /a2 .
Taking the continuum limit as well as the chiral limit for both sea and valence sextet
fermions we find ĈLR = CLR t20 = 0.024(4)(4). Within error, this result turns out to be
independent of the mass of the fundamental fermions, for the mass range covered by our
ensembles. To simplify the lattice calculation we have considered a fermion content that
is slightly different from Ferretti’s model, so that our result is not directly applicable. We
expect, however, that our result for CLR will be numerically similar to that in Ferretti’s
actual model.
In Ferretti’s model, the ratio CLR /fP4 6 , where fP 6 is the sextet pseudoscalar decay con-
stant, controls the contribution of the electroweak gauge
√ bosons to the Higgs potential. From
[28], the value of fP 6 in the sextet chiral limit is t0 fP 6 = 0.17(1). Our determinations of
CLR and fP 6 are found to be weakly correlated, so we can take the ratio and combine the
errors in quadrature, finding the result
CLR
= 29(8)(5) . (5.1)
fP4 6

In the notation of [17], this result translates to ĉLR = 21 (3g 2 + g 02 )(CLR /fP4 6 ) = 19(5)(3).
Certain combinations of ĉLR with other low-energy constants in the theory must be of order
10−2 to reproduce the observed properties of the Higgs boson, so this result implies some
amount of fine-tuning in the theory.
It is interesting to compare our result with QCD. Das et al. [18] showed long ago that
the electromagnetic mass splitting among pions is given by
3α CLR
m2π± − m2π0 = . (5.2)
4π fπ2

Solving for CLR in terms of the experimental values gives, for QCD, CLR ≈ 0.012 GeV4 , and
CLR /fπ4 ≈ 42, where our convention for the decay constant is fπ ' 130 MeV. Our result in
the present model is thus comparable with the QCD value. Expectations from large-Nc [28]
are that CLR should scale as the dimension of the representation, i.e., similar to fP2 6 . The
dimension of the antisymmetric representation is Nc (Nc − 1)/2, and so our smaller value for
CLR /fP4 6 is in rough agreement with such scaling, too.
We have recently computed the top-quark mass induced via partial compositeness in this
model, finding it to be too small by several orders of magnitude. This makes it extremely
unlikely that Ferretti’s model could generate a realistic top mass [30]. However, the model
might be rescued by introducing additional fermion species which are inert under all Stan-
dard Model interactions. These will slow down the running, ultimately producing a nearly
conformal but confining theory, which, in principle, might allow for large enhancement of
the induced top mass. Other models from the Ferretti-Karateev list [6] might give a more
realistic top mass as well [41, 42].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our calculations of staggered fermion propagators and currents were carried out with
code derived from version 7.8 of the publicly available code of the MILC collaboration [43].

15
 Ensemble β κ4 κ6 Configurations
2 7.25 0.13147 0.13395 71
3 7.30 0.13117 0.13363 61
4 7.30 0.13162 0.1334 71
5 7.55 0.13 0.1325 85
6 7.65 0.129 0.1308 50
8 7.65 0.13 0.132 85
9 7.75 0.128 0.131 85
11 7.75 0.1295 0.1315 34
12 7.85 0.129 0.1308 45
40 7.51 0.1307 0.1328 133

TABLE II. The ensembles used in this study. The lattice volumes are 163 × 32 (ensembles 2–12)
and 243 × 48 (ensemble 40).

We thank Doug Toussaint for helpful correspondence and Thomas DeGrand for fruitful
discussions.
Computations for this work were carried out with resources provided by the USQCD
Collaboration, which is funded by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy.
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grants DE-
SC0010005 (Colorado) and DE-SC0013682 (SFSU) and by the Israel Science Foundation
under grants no. 449/13 and no. 491/17 (Tel Aviv). This manuscript has been authored
by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U. S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics.

Appendix A: The ensembles

Table II lists the ensembles used in this study. The nine ensembles labelled 2–12 are
lattices with volume 163 × 32, numbered as in Ref. [29] for easy reference; ensemble 40
has volume 243 × 48 (see Ref. [28]). We have excluded ensembles (1, 7, 10) because large
fluctuations in the observable CLR (mv ) indicate that the simulations are much too short. Of
our 243 × 48 ensembles, only ensemble 40 avoids this problem.
Table III presents some physical properties of the ensembles. These are the flow parameter
t0 ; √
the fermion masses √ from the axial Ward identities, rendered dimensionless
√ as m̂4 =
m4 √ t0 , and m̂6 = m6 t0 ; and the pseudoscalar meson masses, M̂P 4 = MP 4 t0 and M̂P 6 =
MP 6 t0 .

[1] H. Georgi and D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. 145B, 216 (1984).

[2] M. J. Dugan, H. Georgi, and D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B254, 299 (1985).
[3] R. Contino, in Physics of the large and the small, TASI 09, proceedings of the Theoretical
Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 1-26 June
2009 (2011) pp. 235–306, arXiv:1005.4269 [hep-ph].

16
 Ensemble t0 /a2 m̂4 m̂6 M̂P 4 M̂P 6
2 1.135(9) 0.028(1) 0.025(1) 0.305(9) 0.303(8)
3 1.13(1) 0.0345(8) 0.032(1) 0.340(5) 0.340(9)
4 1.111(9) 0.0228(6) 0.0381(8) 0.279(7) 0.368(11)
5 1.85(2) 0.050(1) 0.034(1) 0.429(10) 0.375(9)
6 1.068(5) 0.082(1) 0.0896(8) 0.514(8) 0.576(9)
8 2.29(2) 0.038(1) 0.036(2) 0.400(9) 0.408(10)
9 1.56(1) 0.108(1) 0.071(1) 0.636(7) 0.538(8)
11 2.62(2) 0.047(1) 0.040(1) 0.443(14) 0.428(15)
12 2.67(2) 0.060(1) 0.060(1) 0.505(13) 0.529(17)
40 2.26(2) 0.0196(4) 0.0194(9) 0.278(4) 0.291(10)

√
TABLE III. Physical properties of the ensembles: Flow variable t0 , AWI masses m̂r = mr t0 , and
√
pseudoscalar meson masses M̂P r = MP r t0 for dynamical fermions in representations r = 4, 6.

[4] B. Bellazzini, C. Csáki, and J. Serra, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2766 (2014), arXiv:1401.2457 [hep-
ph].
[5] G. Panico and A. Wulzer, Lect. Notes Phys. 913 (2016), arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph].
[6] G. Ferretti and D. Karateev, JHEP 03, 077 (2014), arXiv:1312.5330 [hep-ph].
[7] G. Ferretti, JHEP 06, 142 (2014), arXiv:1404.7137 [hep-ph].
[8] G. Ferretti, JHEP 06, 107 (2016), arXiv:1604.06467 [hep-ph].
[9] G. Cacciapaglia, G. Ferretti, T. Flacke, and H. Serôdio, Front. Phys. 7, 22 (2019),
arXiv:1902.06890 [hep-ph].
[10] D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B365, 259 (1991).
[11] M. Golterman and Y. Shamir, Phys. Rev. D91, 094506 (2015), arXiv:1502.00390 [hep-ph].
[12] M. Golterman and Y. Shamir, Phys. Rev. D97, 095005 (2018), arXiv:1707.06033 [hep-ph].
[13] M. Golterman and Y. Shamir, Phys. Rev. D89, 054501 (2014), arXiv:1401.0356 [hep-lat].
[14] M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B175, 197 (1980).
[15] E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 2351 (1983).
[16] K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B719, 165 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412089
[hep-ph].
[17] L. Del Debbio, C. Englert, and R. Zwicky, JHEP 08, 142 (2017), arXiv:1703.06064 [hep-ph].
[18] T. Das, G. S. Guralnik, V. S. Mathur, F. E. Low, and J. E. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 759
(1967).
[19] T. A. DeGrand, M. Golterman, W. I. Jay, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, and B. Svetitsky, Phys.
Rev. D94, 054501 (2016), arXiv:1606.02695 [hep-lat].
[20] E. Shintani, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, H. Matsufuru, T. Onogi, and
N. Yamada (JLQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 242001 (2008), arXiv:0806.4222 [hep-lat].
[21] P. A. Boyle, L. Del Debbio, J. Wennekers, and J. M. Zanotti (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev.
D81, 014504 (2010), arXiv:0909.4931 [hep-lat].
[22] T. Appelquist et al. (LSD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231601 (2011), arXiv:1009.5967 [hep-ph].
[23] C. Aubin and T. Blum, Phys. Rev. D75, 114502 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0608011 [hep-lat].
[24] B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, G. C. Donald, R. J. Dowdall, J. Koponen, G. P. Lepage,
and T. Teubner (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D89, 114501 (2014), arXiv:1403.1778 [hep-lat].

17
[25] B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, P. G. de Oliviera, J. Koponen, G. P. Lepage, and R. S.
Van de Water, Phys. Rev. D96, 034516 (2017), arXiv:1601.03071 [hep-lat].
[26] S. Borsanyi et al. (Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022002 (2018),
arXiv:1711.04980 [hep-lat].
[27] C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman, C. Jung, S. Peris, and C. Tu, in 36th International
Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2018) East Lansing, MI, United States, July
22-28, 2018 (2018) arXiv:1812.03334 [hep-lat].
[28] V. Ayyar, T. DeGrand, M. Golterman, D. C. Hackett, W. I. Jay, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, and
B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D97, 074505 (2018), arXiv:1710.00806 [hep-lat].
[29] V. Ayyar, T. Degrand, D. C. Hackett, W. I. Jay, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, and B. Svetitsky,
Phys. Rev. D97, 114505 (2018), arXiv:1801.05809 [hep-ph].
[30] V. Ayyar, T. DeGrand, D. C. Hackett, W. I. Jay, E. T. Neil, Y. Shamir, and B. Svetitsky,
(2018), arXiv:1812.02727 [hep-ph].
[31] T. DeGrand and C. E. DeTar, Lattice methods for quantum chromodynamics (2006).
[32] A. Hasenfratz and F. Knechtli, Phys. Rev. D64, 034504 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0103029 [hep-
lat].
[33] A. Hasenfratz, R. Hoffmann, and S. Schaefer, JHEP 05, 029 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0702028
[hep-lat].
[34] C. W. Bernard and T. A. DeGrand, Lattice field theory. Proceedings, 17th International Sym-
posium, Lattice’99, Pisa, Italy, June 29-July 3, 1999, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 83, 845 (2000),
arXiv:hep-lat/9909083 [hep-lat].
[35] Y. Shamir, B. Svetitsky, and E. Yurkovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 097502 (2011), arXiv:1012.2819
[hep-lat].
[36] T. DeGrand, Y. Shamir, and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D90, 054501 (2014), arXiv:1407.4201
[hep-lat].
[37] M. F. L. Golterman, Nucl. Phys. B273, 663 (1986).
[38] W.-J. Lee and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D60, 114503 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9905023 [hep-lat].
[39] C. Aubin, T. Blum, P. Chau, M. Golterman, S. Peris, and C. Tu, Phys. Rev. D93, 054508
(2016), arXiv:1512.07555 [hep-lat].
[40] O. Bär, M. Golterman, and Y. Shamir, Phys. Rev. D83, 054501 (2011), arXiv:1012.0987
[hep-lat].
[41] E. Bennett, D. K. Hong, J.-W. Lee, C. J. D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai, and D. Vadacchino,
JHEP 03, 185 (2018), arXiv:1712.04220 [hep-lat].
[42] J.-W. Lee, Bennett, D. K. Hong, C. J. D. Lin, B. Lucini, M. Piai, and D. Vadacchino, 36th
International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2018) East Lansing, MI, United
States, July 22-28, 2018, PoS LATTICE2018, 192 (2018), arXiv:1811.00276 [hep-lat].
[43] MILC Collaboration, http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/milc/.

18