1205 2893

Prepared for submission to JHEP
Higgs boson mass and new physics
Fedor Bezrukov,a,b Mikhail Yu. Kalmykov,c Bernd A. Kniehlc and Mikhail

Shaposhnikovd
a
Physics Department, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, CT 06269-3046, USA
arXiv:1205.2893v2 [hep-ph] 27 Sep 2012
b
RIKEN-BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Upton, NY 11973, USA
c
II. Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg,
Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761, Hamburg, Germany
d
Institut de Théorie des Phénomènes Physiques,
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
E-mail: Fedor.Bezrukov@uconn.edu, mikhail.kalmykov@desy.de,
kniehl@desy.de, Mikhail.Shaposhnikov@epfl.ch
Abstract: We discuss the lower Higgs boson mass bounds which come from the absolute
stability of the Standard Model (SM) vacuum and from the Higgs inflation, as well as the
prediction of the Higgs boson mass coming from asymptotic safety of the SM. We account
for the 3-loop renormalization group evolution of the couplings of the Standard Model and
for a part of two-loop corrections that involve the QCD coupling αs to initial conditions
for their running. This is one step above the current state of the art procedure (“one-loop
matching–two-loop running”). This results in reduction of the theoretical uncertainties
in the Higgs boson mass bounds and predictions, associated with the Standard Model
physics, to 1–2 GeV. We find that with the account of existing experimental uncertainties
in the mass of the top quark and αs (taken at 2σ level) the bound reads MH ≥ Mmin
(equality corresponds to the asymptotic safety prediction), where Mmin = 129 ± 6 GeV.
We argue that the discovery of the SM Higgs boson in this range would be in agreement
with the hypothesis of the absence of new energy scales between the Fermi and Planck
scales, whereas the coincidence of MH with Mmin would suggest that the electroweak scale
is determined by Planck physics. In order to clarify the relation between the Fermi and
Planck scale a construction of an electron-positron or muon collider with a center of mass
energy ∼ 200 + 200 GeV (Higgs and t-quark factory) would be needed.
Keywords: Higgs Physics, Standard Model, Renormalization Group
ArXiv ePrint: 1205.2893

Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 The stability bound 4

2.1 The benchmark mass 4
2.2 Value of Mmin 5
3 Mmin and BSM physics 9

3.1 Asymptotic safety 10
3.2 Mmin and cosmology 12
3.3 Higgs inflation 13
4 Conclusions 14
4.1 Note added 16
A O(ααs ) electroweak corrections to the top Yukawa and Higgs self cou-
plings in Standard Model 18
A.1 O(ααs ) corrections to the relation between on-shell and MS Fermi constant 18
A.2 O(ααs ) corrections to the relation between the MS and pole masses of the
top quark 21
Higgs boson 21
A.4 O(ααs ) corrections to the top Yukawa and Higgs self couplings 24
B Beta functions 26
1 Introduction
The mass MH of the Higgs boson in the Standard Model is an important indicator of the
presence of new energy scales in particle physics. It is well known that if Mminmeta < M <
H
Landau
Mmax then the SM is a consistent effective field theory all the way from the Fermi scale
up to the (reduced) Planck scale MP = 2.44 × 1018 GeV. The upper limit comes from the
requirement that the Landau pole in the scalar self-coupling1 must not appear at energies
below MP [1–3]. The lower limit comes from the requirement of the stability of the SM
vacuum against tunneling to the states with the Higgs field φ exceeding substantially the
electroweak value 250 GeV [4–6] (see Fig. 1).
Landau give a number around 175 GeV [1–3, 7] which is in the M
The estimates of Mmax H
range excluded (at least in the range 129 − 525 GeV) by the searches for the SM Higgs
1
To be more precise, the scalar self-coupling is infinite in the one-loop approximation only. If higher
order terms are included, it may not become infinite, but move away from the region of the weak coupling.
–1–
boson at the LHC and Tevatron [8, 9]. In other words, we already know that the SM is a
weakly coupled theory up to the Planck scale.
stability
One can distinguish between two types of the stability bounds. If MH > Mmin ,
meta < M stability
the electroweak vacuum is absolutely stable, whereas if Mmin H < M min , then
it is metastable with the life-time exceeding that of the Universe. Numerically, Mmin meta '
111 GeV [10]. The existence of the Higgs boson with the mass smaller than Mmin meta would
provide an undisputed argument in favor of existence of new physics between the Fermi
and Planck scale. However, already since LEP we know that this is not the case.
stability
The Higgs mass Mmin is not at all special from the point of view of the validity
stability
of the SM up to the Planck scale. The value of Mmin , however, plays a crucial role
if the Standard Model is embedded to a bigger picture which includes gravity. First,
stability
only if MH > Mmin , the Higgs boson of the SM can play the role of the inflaton and
make the Universe flat, homogeneous and isotropic, and produce a necessary spectrum
stability
of perturbations needed for structure formation [11, 12]. Second, MH = Mmin is a
prediction of asymptotically safe scenario for the SM [13], making it consistent up to
arbitrary large scale.
stability
Thus, we will focus on the upgrade of existing computations of Mmin and on the
discussion of the significance of the relation between the Higgs boson (to be discovered yet)
stability
mass MH and Mmin for beyond the SM (BSM) physics.
stability
The computation of Mmin has been already done in a large number of papers
[10, 12, 14–17]. It is divided into two parts. The first one is the determination of the
MS parameters from the physical observables and the second one is the renormalization
group running of the MS constants from the electroweak to a high energy scale. The
most advanced recent works [10, 12, 17, 18] use the so-called “one-loop-matching–two-loop-
running” procedure. It can determine the Higgs boson mass bounds with the theoretical
accuracy of 2 − 5 GeV (see the discussion of uncertainties in [12] and below). Meanwhile,
the most important terms in the 3-loop running of the gauge and Higgs coupling constants
were computed in [19, 20] (we thank K. Chetyrkin and M. Zoller for sharing these results
with us prior to publication). The present work accounts for O(ααs ) corrections in the
MS-pole matching procedure, which were not known previously. This allows us to decrease
the theoretical uncertainties in the Higgs boson mass prediction/bounds, associated with
the SM physics down to 1–2 GeV. This is a new result, based on a superior partial “two-
loop-matching–three-loop-running” procedure. These findings are described in Section 2.2.
We will see that the experimental errors in the mass of the top-quark and in the value
of the strong coupling constant are too large to settle up the question of the stability of
the electroweak vacuum, even if the LHC will confirm the evidence for the Higgs signal
presented by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations [8, 9] in the region MH = 124 − 126 GeV.
In Section 3 we will discuss the significance of the relationship between the true Higgs
stability stability
boson mass MH and Mmin for BSM physics. We will argue that if MH = Mmin then
the electroweak symmetry breaking is likely to be determined by Planck physics and that
this would indicate an absence of new energy scales between the Fermi and gravitational
stability
scales. We will also address here the significance of Mmin for the SM with gravity
included. Of course, this can only be done under certain assumptions. Specifically, we
–2–
signHΛL Λ Strong coupling
Mh =mmax
Mh =mmin
Zero
Scale Μ
MFermi MPlanck
Higgs mass Mh =124 GeV Higgs mass Mh =127 GeV

0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
Λ
0.00 0.00
-0.02 -0.02
5 8 11 14 17 20 100 105
100 10 10 10 10 10 10 108 1011 1014 1017 1020
Scale Μ, GeV Scale Μ, GeV
Figure 1. Higgs self-coupling in the SM as a function of the energy scale. The top plot depicts
possible behaviors for the whole Higgs boson mass range—Landau pole, stable, or unstable elec-
troweak vacuum. The lower plots show detailed behavior for low Higgs boson masses, with dashed
(dotted) line corresponding to the experimental uncertainty in the top mass Mt (strong coupling
constant αs ), and the shaded yellow (pink) regions correspond to the total experimental error and
theoretical uncertainty, with the latter estimated as 1.2 GeV (2.5 GeV), see section 2 for detailed
discussion.
will discuss the non-minimal coupling of the Higgs field to the Ricci scalar (relevant for
Higgs-inflation [11, 12, 21]) and the asymptotic safety scenario for the SM [13].
In Section 4 we present our conclusions. We will argue that if only the Higgs boson with
stability
the mass around Mmin and nothing else will be found at the LHC, the next step in high
energy physics should be the construction a new electron-positron (or muon) collider—the
Higgs and t-factory. It will not only be able to investigate in detail the Higgs and top
physics, but also elucidate the possible connection of the Fermi and Planck scales.
Appendix A contains a full set of formulas required for the determination of the MS
coupling constants from the pole masses of the SM particles, including the corrections of
the orders of up to O(αs3 ), O(α), and O(ααs ). The computer code for the matching is
made publicly available at http://www.inr.ac.ru/~fedor/SM/.
–3–
V V
φ φ
Fermi Planck Fermi Planck

Figure 2. Schematic depiction of the SM effective potential V for the Higgs field for MH >
stability stability
Mmin (left) and MH < Mmin (right).
2 The stability bound
The stability bound will be found in the “canonical” SM, without any new degrees of
freedom or any extra higher dimensional operators added, see Fig. 2.
2.1 The benchmark mass

It will be convenient for computations to introduce yet another parameter, “benchmark
mass”, which we will call Mmin (without any superscript). Suppose that all parameters of
the SM, except for the Higgs boson mass, are exactly known. Then Mmin , together with
the normalisation point µ0 , are found from the solution of two equations:
λ(µ0 ) = 0, βλ (λ(µ0 )) = 0, (2.1)
where βλ is the β-function governing the renormalisation group (RG) running of λ. Here
we define all the couplings of the SM in the MS renormalisation scheme which is used
de-facto in the most of the higher-loop computations. Clearly, if any other renormalization
scheme is used, the equations λ = βλ = 0 will give another benchmark mass, since the
definition of all the couplings are scheme dependent.
The procedure of computing Mmin is very clean and transparent. Take the standard
MS definition of all coupling constants of the SM, fix all of them at the Fermi scale given
the experimentally known parameters such as the mass of the top quark, QCD coupling,
etc., and consider the running Higgs self-coupling λ(µ) depending on the standard t’Hooft-
Veltman parameter µ. Then, adjust Mmin in such a way that equations (2.1) are satisfied
at some µ0 .
For the stability bound one should find the effective potential V (φ) and solve the
equations
V (φSM ) = V (φ1 ), V 0 (φSM ) = V 0 (φ1 ) = 0, (2.2)
where φSM corresponds to the SM Higgs vacuum, and φ1 correspond to the extra vacuum
states at large values of the scalar field. Though the effective potential and the field φ
–4–
are both gauge and scheme dependent, the solution for the Higgs boson mass to these
equations is gauge and scheme invariant.
stability
In fact, Mmin is very close to Mmin . Numerically, the difference between them
is much smaller, than the current theoretical and experimental precisions for Mmin , see
below. The following well known argument explains why this is the case. The RG improved
effective potential for large φ can be written as [15, 16, 22]
h a i
V (φ) ∝ λ(φ)φ4 1 + O log(Mi /Mj ) , (2.3)
4π
where a is here the common name for all the SM coupling constants (which are rather
small at Planck scale), and Mi are the masses of different particles in the background of
the Higgs field. If O(α) corrections are neglected, the equations (2.2) coincide with (2.1),
stability
meaning that Mmin ' Mmin . The numerical evaluation for one loop effective potential
stability stability
gives ∆m ≡ Mmin − Mmin ' −0.15 GeV, which can be neglected in view of
uncertainties discussed below.
Note that in many papers the stability bound is shown as a function of the cutoff scale
Λ (the energy scale up to which the SM can be considered as a valid effective field theory).
It is required that V (φ) > V (φSM ) for all φ < Λ. This can be reformulated as λ(µ) > 0
for all µ < Λ with pretty good accuracy. Interestingly, if Λ = MP , this bound is very
close to the stability bound following from eq. (2.2), having nothing to do with the Planck
scale (see also below). Note also that the uncertainties in experimental determinations of
Mt and αs together with theoretical uncertainties, described in the next section, lead to
significant changes in the scale Λ. Fig. 1 illustrates that for Higgs boson masses 124 − 127
GeV this scale may vary from 108 GeV up to infinity within currently available precisions.
2.2 Value of Mmin

The state of art computation of Mmin contained up to now the so called one-loop MS-pole
matching, relating the experimentally measured physical parameters to the parameters of
the SM in the MS subtraction scheme (to be more precise, the two-loop αs corrections to
the top pole mass–MS mass relation has been included [10]). Then the results of the first
step are plugged into two-loop RG equations and solved numerically.
Before discussing the upgrade of the one-loop-matching–two-loop-running procedure,
we will remind of the results already known and their uncertainties. We will make use of
our computations of Mmin presented in [12].2 A somewhat later papers [17, 18, 23] contains
stability
exactly the same numbers for Mmin (note, however, that the theoretical uncertainties
were not discussed in [23]). See also earlier computations in [7, 10, 14–16, 18].
In [12] we found:

Mt − 171.2 GeV αs − 0.1176
Mmin = 126.3 + × 4.1 − × 1.5 GeV, (2.4)
2.1 GeV 0.002
2
The main interest in this paper was the lower bound on the Higgs boson mass in the Higgs-inflation,
see below. However, Mmin has been estimated as well as a by-product of the computation.
–5–
Source of uncertainty Nature of estimate ∆theor Mmin , GeV
2-loop matching λ Sensitivity to µ 1.7
2-loop matching yt Sensitivity to µ 0.6
3-loop αs to yt known 1.4
4-loop αs to yt educated guess [27, 28] 0.4
confinement, yt educated guess ∼ ΛQCD 0.5
3-loop running MW → MP educated guess 0.8
total uncertainty sum of squares 2.5
total uncertainty linear sum 5.4
Corrections to [12] ∆Mmin , GeV

Typos in the code used in [12] error +0.2
Extra δtQED in (A.5) of [10] error +0.4
“Exact” formula instead of
approximation (2.20) in [32] clarification +0.1
Total correction to (7.1) of [12] +0.7
Total shift to be applied to (7.1) of [12] for comparison +0.7
Table 1. Theoretical uncertainties and mistakes in the Mmin evaluation in [12].
and estimated the theoretical uncertainties as summarized in Table 1 (see also [17]).3 While
repeating this analysis we found some numerical errors which are given at the bottom
section of this table (see a detailed discussion below). In total, they shift the value given
in eq. (2.4) up by 0.7 GeV. As for uncertainties, they were estimated as follows. The
one-loop matching formulas can be used directly at µ = mt , or at some other energy
scale, e.g. at µ = MZ , and then the coupling constants at mt can be derived with the
use of RG running. The difference in procedures gives an estimate of two-loop effects in
the matching procedure. This is presented by the first two lines in Table 1 (in fact, we
underestimated before the uncertainty from λ matching—previously we had here 1.2 GeV
and now 1.7 GeV). The next two lines are associated with 3 and 4-loop corrections to
the top Yukawa yt . The 3-loop corrections were computed in [24–26] and the four-loop
αs contribution to the top mass was guessed to be of the order δyt (mt )/yt (mt ) ' 0.001 in
[27, 28]. The non-perturbative QCD effects in the top pole mass–MS mass matching are
expected to be at the same level [29–31]. For 3-loop running we put the typical coefficients
in front of the largest couplings αs and yt . If these uncertainties are not correlated and
can be summed up in squares, the theoretical uncertainty is 2.5 GeV. If they are summed
up linearly, then the theoretical error can be as large as ∼ 5 GeV.
Now, this computation can be considerably improved. First, in [19] the 3-loop cor-
3
The reader not interested in details of the comparison with the previous results can skip this discussion
and restart at the following paragraph.
–6–
Contribution ∆Mmin , GeV
Three loop beta functions -0.23
δyt ∝ O(αs3 ) -1.15
δyt ∝ O(ααs ) -0.13
δλ ∝ O(ααs ) 0.62
Table 2. Contributions to the value of the Mmin .
rections to the running of all gauge couplings has been calculated. Second, in [20] the
leading contributions (containing the top Yukawa and αs ) to the running of the top quark
Yukawa and the Higgs boson self coupling have been determined. This removes the uncer-
tainty related to 3-loop RG running. In addition, in the present paper, we determine the
two-loop corrections of the order of O(ααs ) to the matching of the pole masses and the
top quark Yukawa and Higgs boson self coupling constants. Also, the known [24–26] three
loop QCD correction to the top quark mass relation of the order O(αs3 ) can be included
(previously it had been used for estimates of uncertainties). All this considerably decreases
the theoretical uncertainties in Mmin .
The individual contributions of the various new corrections on top of the previous
result are summarized in the Table 2. It is clearly seen that there are two new significant
contributions—one is the three-loop pure QCD correction to the top quark mass [24–26],
and another is the two loop correction O(ααs ) to the Higgs boson mass, found in the
present paper. Together the new contributions sum to the overall shift of the previous
prediction [12] by −0.89 GeV, giving the result4

Mt − 172.9 GeV αs − 0.1184
Mmin = 128.95 + × 2.2 − × 0.56 GeV. (2.5)
1.1 GeV 0.0007
The new result (2.5) is less than 0.2 GeV away from the old one (2.4) if the same central
values for Mt and αs are inserted. This coincidence is the result of some magic. In the old
evaluation several mistakes were present, summarized in Table 1. The largest one was the
double counting of δtQED in (A.5) of [10], as compared to the original result [32]. Also, there
were minor typos in the computer code for the matching of the Higgs coupling constant,
and finally there was a small correction coming from the use of an approximate rather
than exact one loop formula for O(α) corrections from [32]. These corrections add 0.7 GeV
to the original number in [12]. By chance this almost exactly canceled the −0.89 GeV
contribution from the higher loops, Table 2, nearly leading to a coincidence of (2.5) and
(2.4).
Table 3 summarizes the uncertainties in the new computation. It contains fewer lines.
Now we can ignore safely the error from higher order (4-loop) RG corrections for the
running up to the Planck scale. The first two lines were derived in the same manner as
4
Note, that this value is the benchmark mass defined by eq. (2.1). The mass, corresponding to the
metastability bound (2.2) is ∼ 0.1–0.2 GeV smaller.
–7–
Source of uncertainty Nature of estimate ∆theor Mmin , GeV
3-loop matching λ Sensitivity to µ 1.0
3-loop matching yt Sensitivity to µ 0.2
4-loop αs to yt educated guess [27, 28] 0.4
confinement, yt educated guess ∼ ΛQCD 0.5
4-loop running MW → MP educated guess < 0.2
total uncertainty sum of squares 1.2
total uncertainty linear sum 2.3
Table 3. Theoretical uncertainties in the present Mmin evaluation.
previously. For the Higgs boson self-coupling we can use the matching formulas (A.35)
to get the value of λ(µ) at scale µ = Mt directly, or to get the value λ(MZ ) and then
evolve the constants to the scale µ = Mt with the RG equations. The obtained difference
δλ(Mt )/λ(Mt ) ' 0.016 corresponds to the error δm ∼ 1.0 GeV. A similar procedure of
comparing evolution between Mt and MZ using RG equations and direct matching formulas
to the order O(αs3 , α, ααs ) leads for the chang in the top quark Yukawa δyt /yt ∼ 0.0005,
leading to δM ∼ 0.2 GeV. Note, however, that strictly speaking this test verifies the error of
the µ dependent terms in the matching formulas, while the constant ones may lead to larger
contributions. We also do not estimate now the contributions of the order O(α2 ), where
formal order in α may correspond to yt4 . Thus, this estimate should be better considered
as a lower estimate of the error. The 4-loop matching and confinement contributions are
the same as before.
As an indication of the dependence on the matching point we present Fig. 3, where the
reference Higgs boson mass Mmin was obtained using the matching formulas at scale µ0
varying between the Z-boson and top quark masses. One can see that the overall change
of the Higgs boson mass is about GeV.
If we assume that these uncertainties are not correlated and symmetric we get a the-
oretical error in the determination of the critical Higgs boson mass δmtheor ' 1.2 GeV. If
they are summed up linearly, we get an error of 2.4 GeV. We leave it to the reader to de-
cide which estimate of the uncertainties is more adequate. The precision of the theoretical
value of Mmin can be further increased by computing the O(α2 ) two-loop corrections to the
matching procedure. Numerically, the most important terms are those when α corresponds
to yt2 and λ.
The result (2.5) is visualized by Fig. 4. The experimentally allowed regions for the
top mass Mt and strong coupling αs are adopted PDG 2010 edition [33].5 On top of these
allowed regions the bands corresponding to the reference values of the Higgs boson mass
Mmin being equal to 124, 125, 126, 127 GeV are shown, with the dashed and dotted lines
5
Note however, that the current experimental error estimate is based on averaging over different exper-
imental approaches. In some methods quite a different central values are obtained. See e.g. [34–36] about
αs determination and [37–39] about Mt .
–8–
Minimal Higgs mass Mmin , GeV
130.0
Λ~OHΑ,ΑΑs ,y4t L, yt ~OHΑ,ΑΑs ,Α3s L
129.5
129.0 Λ~OHΑ,ΑΑs L, yt ~OHΑ,ΑΑs ,Α3s L
128.5 Λ~OHΑ,ΑΑs L, yt ~OHΑ,Α3s L
128.0 Λ~OHΑL, yt ~OHΑ,Α3s L
127.5 Λ~OHΑL, yt ~OHΑ,Α2s L

127.0
100 150 200 300
Matching scale Μ0 , GeV
Figure 3. The dependence of the reference Higgs boson mass Mmin on the matching scale µ0 (the
MS constants are obtained by matching formulas at scale µ0 and then used for the solution of the
equations (2.1)). The thick solid line corresponds to the full matching formulas λ ∼ O(α, ααs ),
yt ∼ O(αs3 , α, ααs ); the thin lines correspond to using matching formulas of lower order. The thick
dashed line corresponds to using additionally the two loop electroweak contributions to the higgs
coupling constant in the gauge-less limit, eq. (48) of [112], see discussion in “Note added”. Here
Mt = 172.9 GeV and αs = 0.1184.
corresponding to quadratically or linearly added estimates of theoretical uncertainties.

One can see that the accuracy of theoretical computations and of the experimental
measurements of the top and the Higgs boson masses does not allow yet to conclude with
confidence whether the discovery of the Higgs boson with the mass 124 − 127 GeV would
indicate stability or metastability of the SM vacuum. All these reference values of Higgs
masses are compatible within 2σ with current observations.
3 Mmin and BSM physics
Our definition of the “benchmark” Higgs boson mass consists of the solution of the two
equations (2.1) and gives, in addition to Mmin , the value of the scale µ0 at which the
scalar self-coupling and its β-function vanish simultaneously. The central value for µ0 is
2.9 × 1018 GeV and is quite stable if mt and αs are varied in their confidence intervals
(see Fig. 5). One can see that there is a remarkable coincidence between µ0 and the
(reduced) Planck scale MP = 2.44 × 1018 GeV. The physics input in the computation
of µ0 includes the parameters of the SM only, while the result gives the gravity scale.
A possible explanation may be related to the asymptotic safety of the SM, see [13] and
below.6 It remains to be seen if this is just the random play of the numbers or a profound
indication that the electroweak symmetry breaking is related to Planck physics. If real,
this coincidence indicates that there should be no new energy scales between the Planck
and Fermi scales, as they would remove this coincidence unless some conspiracy is taking
place.
6
Of course, this is not the only way to predict the Higgs boson mass close to Mmin . Cf. the “multiple
point principle” of [40, 41], requiring the degeneracy between the SM vacuum and an extra one appearing
at the Planck scale, the inflation from false vacuum decay [42–45], etc.
–9–
0.121 0.121
Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L

0.120 0.120
0.119 0.119
0.118 0.118
0.117 0.117
0.116 0.116
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Pole top mass Mt , GeV Pole top mass Mt , GeV

0.121 0.121

0.120 0.120
0.119 0.119
0.118 0.118
0.117 0.117
0.116 0.116
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Figure 4. The values of the strong coupling constant αs and top mass Mt corresponding to several
minimal Higgs boson mass Mmin . The 68% and 95% experimentally allowed regions for αs and Mt
are given by shaded areas. The dashed (dotted) lines correspond to 1.2 GeV (2.45 GeV) uncertainty
in the Mmin theoretical determination.
We will discuss below two possible minimal embeddings of the SM to the theory of
gravity and discuss the significance of Mmin in them.
3.1 Asymptotic safety

The asymptotic safety of the SM [13], associated with the asymptotic safety of gravity [46],
is strongly related to the value of the Higgs boson mass. Though General Relativity is non-
renormalizable by perturbative methods, it may exist as a field theory non-perturbatively,
exhibiting a non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point (for a review see [47]). If true, all other
coupling of the SM (including the Higgs self-interaction) should exhibit an asymptotically
safe behaviors with the gravity contribution to the renormalisation group running included.
The prediction of the Higgs boson mass from the requirement of asymptotic safety
of the SM is found as follows [13]. Consider the SM running of the coupling constants
– 10 –
10.0
5.0
2.0
Scale Μ0 MP
1.0
0.5
0.2
170 171 172 173 174 175 176

Pole top mass Mt , GeV
Figure 5. The scale µ0 (solution of (2.1)) depending on the top mass Mt . The dashed lines
correspond to 1σ uncertainty in the αs . The yellow shaded region corresponds to adding the αs
experimental error and the theoretical uncertainty in the matching of the top Yukawa yt and top
pole mass.
and add to the β-functions extra terms coming from gravity, deriving their structure from
dimensional analysis:
a h µ2
βhgrav = h, (3.1)
8π MP2 (µ)
where a1 , a2 , a3 , ay , and aλ are some constants (anomalous dimensions) corresponding
to the gauge couplings of the SM g, g 0 , gs , the top Yukawa coupling yt , and the Higgs
self-coupling λ. In addition,
MP2 (µ) ' MP2 + 2ξ0 µ2 (3.2)
is the running Planck mass with ξ0 ≈ 0.024 following from numerical solutions of functional
RG equations [48–50]. Now, require that the solution for all coupling constants is finite for
all µ and that λ is always positive. The SM can only be asymptotically safe if a1 , a2 , a3 , ay
are all negative, leading to asymptotically safe behavior of the gauge and Yukawa couplings.
safety
For aλ < 0 we are getting the interval of admissible Higgs boson masses, Mmin < MH <
safety
Mmax . However, if aλ > 0, as follows from computations of [49, 50], only one value of
safety
the Higgs boson mass MH = Mmin leads to asymptotically safe behavior of λ. As is
explained in [13], this behavior is only possible provided λ(MP ) ≈ 0 and βλ (λ(MP )) ≈ 0.
safety
And, due to miraculous coincidence of µ0 and MP , the difference ∆msafety ≡ Mmin −Mmin
is extremely small, of the order 0.1 GeV. The evolution of the Higgs self-coupling for the
case of ah < 0 is shown in Fig. 6, and for the case ah > 0 in Fig. 7.
In fact, in the discussion of the asymptotic safety of the SM one can consider a more
general situation, replacing the Planck mass in eq. (3.2) by some cutoff scale Λ = κMP .
– 11 –
λ λ
µ µ

safety
Figure 6. Schematic depiction of the behavior of the scalar self-coupling if ah < 0 for Mmin <
safety safety
MH < Mmax (left) and MH < Mmin (right). In both cases gravity leads to asymptotically free
behavior of the scalar self-coupling. Negative λ lead to instability and thus excluded.
λ λ
µ µ
Fermi Planck
Figure 7. Schematic depiction of the behavior of the scalar self-coupling if ah > 0 for MH >
safety safety
Mmin , leading to Landau-pole behavior (left), MH > Mmin , leading to instability (right) and
safety
MH = Mmin , asymptotically safe behavior (middle). Only this choice is admissible.
Indeed, if the Higgs field has non-minimal coupling with gravity (see below), the behavior
of the SM coupling may start to change at energies smaller than MP by a factor 1/ξ,
leading to an expectation for the range of κ as 1/ξ . κ . 1. Still, the difference between
safety safety
Mmin and Mmin remains small even for κ ∼ 10−4 , where Mmin ' 128.4 GeV, making the
prediction MH ' Mmin sufficiently stable against specific details of Planck physics within
the asymptotic safety scenario.
3.2 Mmin and cosmology

It is important to note that if the mass of the Higgs boson is smaller than the stability
bound Mmin , this does not invalidate the SM. Indeed, if the life-time of the metastable
SM vacuum exceeds the age of the Universe (this is the case when MH > Mmeta , with
– 12 –
Mmeta ' 111 GeV [10]) then finding a Higgs boson in the mass interval Mmeta < MH <
Mmin would simply mean that we live in the metastable state with a very long lifetime.
Of course, if the Higgs boson were discovered with a mass below Mmeta , this would prove
that there must be new physics between the Fermi and Planck scales, stabilizing the SM
vacuum state. However, the latest LEP results, confirmed recently by LHC, tell us that in
fact MH > Mmeta , and, therefore, that the presence of a new energy scale is not required,
if only the metastability argument is used.
The bound MH > Mmeta can be strengthened if thermal cosmological evolution is con-
sidered [10]. After inflation the universe should find itself in the vicinity of the SM vacuum
and stay there till present. As the probability of the vacuum decay is temperature depen-
dent, the improved Higgs boson mass bound is controlled by the reheating temperature
after inflation (or maximal temperature of the Big Bang). The latter is model dependent,
leading to the impossibility to get a robust bound much better than Mmeta . For example,
in R2 inflation [51, 52] the reheating temperature is rather low, T ∼ 109 GeV [52], leading
to the lower bound 116 GeV [53] on the Higgs boson mass, which exceeds Mmeta only by
4 GeV.
However, if no new degrees of freedom besides those already present in the SM are
introduced and the Higgs boson plays the role of inflaton, the bound MH & Mmin reappears,
as is discussed below.
3.3 Higgs inflation

The inclusion of a non-minimal interaction of the Higgs field with gravity, given by the
Lagrangian ξ|φ|2 R, where R is the Ricci scalar, changes drastically the behavior of the
√
Higgs potential in the region of large Higgs fields φ > Minflation ' MP / ξ [11]. Basically,
√
the potential becomes flat at φ > Minflation , keeping the value it acquired at φ ' MP / ξ.
This feature leads to a possibility of Higgs-inflation: if the parameter ξ is sufficiently large,
700 < ξ < 105 , [12] the Higgs boson of the SM can make the Universe flat, homogeneous
and isotropic, and can produce the necessary spectrum of primordial fluctuations. The
possibility of the Higgs inflation is also strongly related to the value of the Higgs boson
mass: the successful inflation can only occur if Mmin inflation < M inflation . The upper
H < Mmax
inflation comes from the requirement of the validity of the SM up to the inflation
limit Mmax
inflation the behavior of the effective potential in the Einstein frame
scale Minflation . Near Mmin
changes as shown in Fig. 8: if MH < Mmin inflation the “bump” in the Higgs potential prevents
the system to go to the SM vacuum state. As in the previous case, these bounds can be
formulated with the use of the Higgs self-coupling λ. Basically, it must be perturbative
and positive for all energy scales below Minflation . Though any Higgs boson mass in the
interval Mmininflation < M inflation can lead to successful inflation, the value M inflation
H < Mmax min
is somewhat special. For the lower part of the admitted interval the value of the non-
minimal coupling ξ reaches its minimal value ξ ' 700, extending the region of applicability
of perturbation theory [12, 54, 55].
The computation of the lower bound on the Higgs boson mass from inflation is more
complicated. It is described in detail in [12, 21]. Basically, one has to compute the Higgs
potential in the chiral electroweak theory associated with large values of the Higgs field
– 13 –
V V
φ φ

Figure 8. Schematic depiction of the effective potential V for the Higgs field in the Higgs-
inflationary theory in the Einstein frame for MH > minflation
min (left) and MH < minflation
min (right).
and find when the slow-roll inflation in this potential can give the large-scale perturbations
observed by the COBE satellite. The outcome of these computations, however, can be
formulated in quite simple terms: for inflationary bound find Mmin inflation from the condition
λ(µ) > 0 for all µ < Minflation [12]. A priori, the inflationary bound could have been very
stability stability
different from Mmin and thus from Mmin . Indeed, both Mmin and Mmin know nothing
about the Planck scale and are defined entirely within the SM, whereas the inflationary
bound does use MP . However, the remarkable numerical coincidence, between µ0 and MP ,
makes Mmin and Mmin inflation practically the same. The coupling constant λ evolves very
slowly near the Planck scale, so that the regions for the Higgs boson mass following from
the conditions λ(µ) > 0 for µ < MP and µ < Minflation are almost identical. This leads to
the result that ∆minflation ≡ Mmin inflation − M
min ' −0.1 − 0.2 GeV. This number is derived
within the SM without addition of any higher dimensional operators.
One must note, that simple scale analysis leads to the unitarity violation in the Higgs
inflation below the Planck energy scale [56–59]. This means, that calculations in the
Higgs inflationary models should be done with some additional assumptions about the high
energy physics, formulated in [54], specifically the approximate scale invariance at high field
backgrounds. As is explained in [54], adding to the SM higher-dimensional operators with
a Higgs-field dependent cutoff modifies the lower bound on the Higgs boson mass in Higgs
inflation. If these operators are coming with “natural” power counting coefficients (for
exact definition see [54]) the sensitivity of the Higgs boson mass bound to unknown details
of ultraviolet physics is rather small ∆Mmin inflation ' 0.6 GeV [54]. At the same time, it is
certainly not excluded that the change of Mmin inflation can be larger.
4 Conclusions
If the SM Higgs boson will be discovered at LHC in the remaining mass interval 115.5 <
MH < 127 GeV not excluded at 95% [8, 9], there is no necessity for a new energy scale
between the Fermi and Planck scales. The EW theory remains in a weakly coupled region
– 14 –
all the way up to MP , whereas the SM vacuum state lives longer than the age of the
Universe. If the SM Higgs boson mass will be found to coincide with Mmin given by (2.5),
this would put a strong argument in favor of the absence of such a scale and indicate that
the electroweak symmetry breaking may be associated with the physics at the Planck scale.
The experimental precision in the Higgs boson mass measurements at the LHC can
eventually reach 200 MeV and thus be much smaller than the present theoretical (∼
1–2 GeV) and experimental (∼ 5 GeV, 2σ) uncertainties in determination of Mmin . The
largest uncertainty comes from the measurement of the mass of the top quark. It does
not look likely that the LHC will substantially reduce the error in the top quark mass
determination. Therefore, to clarify the relation between the Fermi and Planck scales
a construction of an electron-positron or muon collider with a center-of-mass energy of
∼ 200 + 200 GeV (Higgs and t-quark factory) would be needed. This would be decisive
for setting up the question about the necessity for a new energy scale besides the two ones
already known—the Fermi and the Planck scales. In addition, this will allow to study in
detail the properties of the two heaviest particles of the Standard Model, potentially most
sensitive to any types on new physics.
Surely, even if the SM is a valid effective field theory all the way up the the Planck
scale, it cannot be complete as it contradicts to a number of observations. We would like
to use this opportunity to underline once more that the confirmed observational signals
in favor of physics beyond the Standard Model which were not discussed in this paper
(neutrino masses and oscillations, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the Universe) can
be associated with new physics below the electroweak scale, for reviews see [60, 61] and
references therein.7 The minimal model—νMSM, contains, in addition to the SM particles,
three relatively light singlet Majorana fermions. These fermions could be responsible for
neutrino masses, dark matter and baryon asymmetry of the Universe. The νMSM predicts
that the LHC will continue to confirm the Standard Model and see no deviations from it.
At the same time, new experiments at the high-intensity frontier, discussed in [64], may be
needed to uncover the new physics below the Fermi scale. In addition, new observations
in astrophysics, discussed in [61], may shed light to the nature of Dark Matter. As the
running of couplings in the νMSM coincides with that in the SM, all results of the present
paper are equally applicable to the νMSM.
Acknowledgements
The work of M.S. has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The
work of M.Yu.K. and B.A.K. was supported in part by the German Federal Ministry for
Education and Research BMBF through Grants No. 05 HT6GUA, 05 HT4GUA/4 by the
German Research Foundation DFG through the Collaborative Research Centre No. 676
Particles, Strings and the Early Universe—The Structure of Matter and Space Time, and
by the Helmholtz Association HGF through the Helmholtz Alliance Ha 101 Physics at the
Terascale. We thank A. Boyarsky, K. Chetyrkin, D. Gorbunov, F. Jegerlehner, G. Pas-
sarino, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Zoller for helpful discussions, collaboration and interest to
7
As for the dark energy, it may be related to a massless dilaton realizing spontaneously broken scale
invariance [62, 63].
– 15 –
our work. M.Yu.K. is indebted to Fred Jegerlehner for a fruitful long time collaboration
on developing and study MS scheme beyond one-loop order in framework of quantum field
models with spontaneously symmetry breaking, and in particular for collaboration on [65],
the results and methods of which were heavily used in the present work.
4.1 Note added

After our paper was submitted to the electronic preprint archive arXiv (on May 13) a
number of events happened, which require its update. First, extra corrections to the
matching procedure at low energy scale, not computed in our work, were found in [112]
(May 29).8 Ref. [112] finds agreement with our results on the ααs order in the Higgs self-
coupling constant. In addition, this paper computed a part of the O(α2 ) corrections to the
top Yukawa and Higgs coupling constants in the “gauge-less” limit of the Standard model,
i.e. the two-loop terms containing the top Yukawa and scalar self-coupling were accounted
for. The overall effect of these terms happened to be quite small. The corrections shift
the benchmark Higgs mass up by 0.2 GeV, and reduce the sensitivity of the results to the
normalisation point from 1.2 GeV to 0.8 GeV, decreasing somewhat the theoretical error-
bars, see Fig. 3.
Second, the discovery of the Higgs-like resonance was announced at CERN by ATLAS
and CMS collaborations [66, 67]. According to CMS,
MH = 125.3 ± 0.4(stat) ± 0.5(syst) GeV, (4.1)
while ATLAS gives a slightly higher value
MH = 126 ± 0.4(stat) ± 0.4(syst) GeV. (4.2)
And, finally, an updated results on the mass of the top quark were announced at
ICHEP 2012 (July 9), see [38, 68]. The combination of the Tevatron results reads:
mt = 173.2 ± 0.6(stat) ± 0.8(syst) GeV = 173.2 ± 1.0 GeV, (4.3)
whereas the present LHC value is
mt = 173.3 ± 0.5(stat) ± 1.3(syst) GeV = 173.3 ± 1.4 GeV. (4.4)
The central values of the top mass are somewhat higher (by 0.3–0.4 GeV) than those which
were given by the Particle Data Group at the time we were writing our paper.
In Fig. 9, which is an update of Fig. 4, we show the changes due to the experimental
shift of the top mass (we take the Tevatron result as having smaller errors) and due to the
additional two-loop corrections found in [112] for the ATLAS and CMS values of the Higgs
mass. The value of the benchmark Higgs mass is inside 2σ contours on the mt , αs plane
for the Atlas and CMS values of MH , entering the 1σ contours if theoretical uncertainties
8
Preliminary results of Ref. [112] were presented in Ref. [111]. However, the O(ααs ) threshold correction
to the Higgs self-coupling is not specified in Ref. [111], but is presented here for the first time. Moreover,
the conclusions reached in Ref. [111] disagree with ours.
– 16 –
Higgs mass Mh =124.7 GeV Higgs mass Mh =125.3 GeV
0.121 0.121

0.120 0.120
0.119 0.119
0.118 0.118
0.117 0.117
0.116 0.116
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Higgs mass Mh =126. GeV Higgs mass Mh =126.6 GeV
0.121 0.121
0.120 Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L 0.120
0.119 0.119
0.118 0.118
0.117 0.117
0.116 0.116
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 170 171 172 173 174 175 176
Figure 9. Update of Fig. 4. The values of the strong coupling constant αs and top mass Mt
corresponding to a minimal Higgs boson mass Mmin coinciding with the recent CMS and ATLAS
values 125.3 GeV and 126 GeV, and to the Higgs mass values shifted by approximately 1σ ∼ 0.6 GeV.
The latest Tevatron 68% and 95% experimentally allowed regions for αs and Mt are given by shaded
areas. The dashed (dotted) lines correspond to 1 GeV (2 GeV) uncertainty in the Mmin theoretical
determination. The red lines in the center correspond to the expected precision from a e+ e− collider.
are incorporated. The red curves show the shrinking the size of uncertainties in mt and αs
(1 and 2σ) which can be achieved with an e+ e− collider operated as a in tt̄ factory on a
lepton collider (this estimate is taken from [69] and [70] discussing the ILC physics).
It is important also to note, that it is difficult to determine which renormalization
scheme corresponds to the numerical value of mt quoted by experiments. The mt determi-
nations by the Tevatron and LHC collaborations [68, 71] are based on Monte Carlo event
generators implemented with LO hard-scattering matrix elements. Although it is plausible
and likely that the experimental mt values thus extracted are close to the pole mass of
the top quark, this is by no means guaranteed with the due theoretical rigor [72]. In fact,
rigorous determinations of the top-quark pole mass from total production cross sections
yield somewhat smaller values, albeit with larger errors [30, 31, 113]. For the time being,
– 17 –
we adopt the working hypothesis that the experimental values of mt [68, 71] correspond to
the pole mass, bearing in mind that this is probably subject to change once a proper NLO
treatment of the resonating top-quark propagators is implemented.
Thus, all our considerations remain in force and call for further improvement of the
theoretical computations, which should account for all O(α2 ) corrections to the mapping
procedure, and for a construction of a tt̄ factory to pin down αs and mt . A recent paper
[113], where uncertainties in determination mt and αs have been analyzed, reached exactly
the same conclusion.
A O(ααs ) electroweak corrections to the top Yukawa and Higgs self cou-
plings in Standard Model
The evaluation of radiative corrections to the relations between MS parameters (coupling

constants) and masses of particles includes two steps: evaluation of radiative corrections
between the Fermi constant GF and its MS counterpart [73] (see [74–76] for recent reviews)
and the evaluation of the radiative corrections between MS and pole masses.
The one-loop electroweak corrections O(α) to the relation between the self-coupling
2
λ(µ ) and the pole mass of the Higgs boson was obtained in [77] and to the relation between
the Yukawa coupling yt and the pole mass of top quark was found in [32]. The corresponding
ingredients for the 2-loop mixed electroweak-QCD corrections were evaluated in [65, 78–
82], but has never been assembled. We performed independent (re)calculations of all O(α)
and O(ααs ) contributions. In the following we will denote the on-shell masses by capital
M and the MS masses by lowercase m.
A.1 O(ααs ) corrections to the relation between on-shell and MS Fermi con-
stant
The relation between the Fermi coupling constant and the bare parameters is as follows
[73]:
GF g02
√ = {1 + ∆R0 } , (A.1)
2 8m2W,0
where ∆R0 includes unrenormalized electroweak corrections and g0 , m2W,o are the SU(2)
coupling constant and the bare W boson mass (see for details [74–76]). After performing
MS renormalization this relation has the following form:
GF G (µ2 )
√ = F√ (1 + ∆GF ,α + ∆GF ,ααs + · · · ). (A.2)
2 2
where on the r.h.s. all masses and coupling constants are taken in the MS renormalization
scheme. The one-loop coefficient, ∆GF ,α , is known from [73] and for Nc = 3, CF = 4/3
– 18 –
and mb = 0 has the following form:
(
g2 m4t m2t m2t 3 3 m2t m2H 7 3 m2H

∆GF ,α = 6 − 6 ln 2 + 2 − + ln 2 + 2 − + ln 2
16π 2 m2W m2H µ mW 4 2 µ mW 8 4 µ
m 4 2 2 2 2 2
1 3 m m m 3 mW mW
+ 2 Z2 − + ln 2Z + W 2 −1 + 3 ln W − 2 2 ln
mH mW 2 2 µ mH µ 2 4 mH − mW m2H
m2 5 17 m2W m2 3 m2 3 m2H

+ 2Z + ln 2 − 5 ln 2Z − ln W − ln 2
mW 8 4 µ µ 4 µ2 4 µ
)
m2Z m2W m2W

17 5 7
− ln + + ln , (A.3)
4 m2W sin2 θW m2Z 4 2 sin2 θW m2Z
Here, sin2 θW is defined in the MS scheme as

g 02 (µ2 ) m2W (µ2 )
MS 2
sin2 θW ≡ sin2 θW (µ ) = = 1 − , (A.4)
g 2 (µ2 ) + g 02 (µ2 ) m2Z (µ2 )
where g 0 (µ2 ) and g(µ2 ) are the U(1) and SU(2) MS gauge coupling constants, respectively.
The matching conditions between the MS parameter, defined by Eq. (A.4), and its on-shell
version, [73], follows from identification
2
MW
sin2 θW
OS
=1− , (A.5)
MZ2
where MZ and MW are the pole masses of the gauge bosons (see detailed discussion in
[83–85]). The evaluation of the mixed QCD-EW coefficient, ∆GF ,ααs , is reduced to the
evaluation of the O(ααs ) corrections to the W boson self-energy at zero momenta transfer
and may be written in the following way [86–90]:

2 2 ∂ ΠW W,α (0) ΠW W,ααs (0)
∆GF ,ααs ≡ 2gR Zg,ααs − ZW,ααs − Zm2t ,αs mt − (A.6)
∂m2t m2W (µ2 ) m2W (µ2 )
"
g 2 gs2 m2t m2t 13
= Cf Nc 2 2 2 20 2 − + ζ2
(16π ) mW mH 8
2 #
m2t
2
m2t

mt 3 2 mt
+ 1−20 2 ln − −12 2 ln ,
mH µ2 2 mH µ2
where for Zg,ααs , Zg,ααs and ZW,ααs we used the results9 of [85] and nF is the number of
fermion families (nF is equal to 3 in the SM).
αs
9
There are typos in Eq. (4.41) of [85]: in all MS renormalization constants, ZW and ZZαs , “m2t /m2W ”
2 2
should be replaced by “mt /mH ”
" #
g 2 αs m4t 5 m2t m4t 3 m2t

αs 1 1 1
ZW = 1 + Nc Cf 4 2 2 − + nF + 2 −12 2 2 +
(16π 2 ) 4π ε mH mW 4 m2W 2 ε mH mW 2 m2W
"
g 2 αs m4t 5 m2t m2W m2Z

1 10 11 11
ZZαs = 1 + N c C f 4 2 2
− 2
+ nF 2
+ nF 2
− nF
(16π 2 ) 4π ε mH mW 4 mW 9 mZ 18 mW 9
#
m4 3 m2t

1
+ 2 −12 2 t 2 + ,
ε mH mW 2 m2W
– 19 –
Using the fact, that GF is RG invariant, i.e. µ2 dµd 2 GF = 0, the µ-dependent terms in
Eq. (A.6) can be evaluated explicitly from the one-loop correction and explicit knowledge of
anomalous dimension γGF . As was shown in [83–85, 91, 92], the anomalous dimension γGF
can be extracted (i) via the beta-function βλ of the scalar self-coupling and the anomalous
dimension of the mass parameter m2 (in unbroken phase) or (ii) via the β-function of the
SU(2) gauge coupling g and the anomalous dimension of the W boson (in broken phase):
∂ βλ βg
γGF ≡ µ2 2
ln GF (µ2 ) = − γm 2 = 2 − γW . (A.7)
∂µ λ g
Eq. (A.2) can be written as
GF g2 h (1)
i
= 1 − γ G ,α L−∆X G ,α
GF (µ2 ) 16π 2 F F
2
g gs2 h i
(2) (2,2) 2 (2,1)
+ ∆X GF ,ααs +C GF ,ααs L −C GF ,ααs L , (A.8)
(16π)2
µ 2 (2,2) (2,1)
where L = ln m 2 and the coefficients CG ,ααs and CG ,ααs are defined via the RG equations:
F F
t
3 m2t m4t

(2,2) ∂
2CGF ,ααs = Zm2t ,αs γG ,α = −6Cf − 12 , (A.9)
∂m2t F 2 m2W m2W m2H Nc =3
(2,1) ∂ (1)
CGF ,ααs = γGF ,ααs + Zm2t ,αs m2t ∆XGF ,α + Zm2t ,αs γGF ,α , (A.10)
∂m2t
with
m2t m4t

βg,ααs 1
γGF ,ααs = 2 − 2ZW,ααs = Nc Cf 5 2 − 16 2 2 . (A.11)
g 2 mW mW mH
Collecting all terms in Eq. (A.10) we get
(2,1)
m2t m4t
CGF ,ααs =4 − 80 . (A.12)

4
Nc =3,Cf = 3 m2W m2W m2H
At the end of this section we again point out that the anomalous dimension of the
√
vacuum expectation value v 2 (µ2 ) = 1/( 2GF (µ2 )) within the diagram technique is defined
by Eq. (A.7) and it is not equal to the anomalous dimension of the scalar field as in
the effective potential approach [93]. Another important property of Eq. (A.7) is the
appearance of an inverse power of the coupling constant λ due to the explicit inclusion of
the tadpole contribution. As consequence, the limit of zero Higgs mass, m2H = 0, does not
exist within the perturbative approach. The importance of the inclusion of the tadpole
contribution to restore gauge invariance of on-shell counterterms was recognized a long
time ago [94] and was explicitly included in the one-loop electroweak corrections to the
matching conditions [32, 77]. The RG equations for the mass parameters were discussed
in [83–85, 91, 92].
– 20 –
top quark
The detailed discussion and explicit evaluation10 have been presented in [82] (the results of
[82] were also used for analysis of convergence of series representation of the set of Feynman
Diagrams evaluated in [96, 97]). For our analysis is enough to write the following symbolic
relation between the MS and pole masses of the top quark:
mt (µ2 )
= 1 + σα + σαs + σα2s + σα3s + σααs + · · · , (A.13)
Mt
where σα and σααs are defined by Eq.(5.54) or Eq.(5.57) of [82].
The pure QCD corrections can be found in [24–26] (only the value of σαs (Mt ) is given
there, but the expression for other µ values can be readily reconstructed from the beta
functions).
Higgs boson
At the two-loop level the relation between the pole and MS masses is defined as follows:
" #
(1) (2) (1) (1)
X ∂ X ∂ (1)
sP = m20 −Π0 −Π0 −Π0 Π0 0 − (δm2j,0 )(1) 2 + (δgj,0 )(1) Π0
∂m j,0 ∂gj,0
j j
n o n o
(1) (1) 0
= m2a − Π(1)
a − Π(2)a +Πa Πa , (A.14)
MS MS
where the sum runs over all species of particles, gj = α, gs , (δgj,0 )(1) and (δm2j,0 )(1) are
the one-loop counterterms for the charges and physical masses in the MS scheme and after
differentiation we put all parameters equal to their on-shell values. The derivatives in
Eq. (A.14) correspond to the subtraction of sub-divergences. The genuine two-loop mass
counterterm comes from the shift of the m20 term. The relation between the bare and MS
masses of the Higgs boson has the form
"
B 2
R 2 2
g2
mH = mH (µ ) 1+ ZH,α
16π 2 ε
#
g4 gs2 g 2

1 (2,1) 1 (2,2) 1 (2,1) 1 (2,2)
+ Z 2+ Z 2 + Z + Z , (A.15)
(16π 2 )2 ε H,α ε2 H,α (16π 2 )2 ε H,ααs ε2 H,ααs
where g is the SU(2) MS renormalized coupling constant.

10
There is typo in Eq. (4.46) of [82]: the common factor Cf was lost. The correct result is
e2 1 (2,2) 2 m2t 1 (2,1) m2t

αs
= Cf Cααs ln + Cααs ln 2 + without modifications .
4π 16π 2 sin2 θW Cf µ2 Cf µ
However, all plots, the Eq. (5.57) and the Maple program [95] are correct.
– 21 –
The exact analytical result for the O(ααs ) two-loop quark contribution to the Higgs-
boson self-energy was calculated in [81, 88]. The bare two loop mixed QCD-EW contribu-
tion (with explicit inclusion of the tadpole) for the quark with mass mq reads:
(
(2) g 2 gs2 m2q
Π0,m2 ,αα ,q = Nc Cf 2 −J0qq (1, 1, 1; m2H )(n − 3)
H s (16π 2 )2 mW
(n2 − 5n + 8)
+J0qq (1, 1, 2; m2H ) m2H −4m2q

(n − 4)(n − 3)
(n − 2)
+A0 (m2q )B0 (m2q , m2q ; m2H )
(n − 3)(n − 4)
m2H 2

3 2
× (n − 8n + 19n − 16) + (n − 5n + 8)
2m2q
2 2

2 (n − 2) 2 2(n − 4n + 2)
2 2 2
2
+ B0 (mq , mq ; mH ) mH − mq
2(n − 4) (n − 4)
)
2 (n − 2)(n2 − 5n + 8) 2 2 3 (n − 1)(n − 2)
2
A0 (m2q )

+ + A0 (mq ) , (A.16)
2m2q (n − 4)(n − 3) 2 m2q (n − 3)
where the last terms come from the tadpole, n is the dimension of space-time [98] and

Z
dn (k k )
1 2
J0qq (a, b, c; m2 ) = ,

[(k1 + k2 − p)2 ]a [k12 + m2q ]b [k22 + m2q ]c 2

p =−m2
nk
Z
d 1
B0 (m21 , m22 , m2 ) =

,
[k12 + m21 ][(k1 − p)2 + m22 ] p2 =−m2
n
dn k1 4(m2 ) 2 −1
Z
2
A0 (m ) = ≡ . (A.17)
k12 + m2 (n − 2)(n − 4)
In accordance with Eq. (A.14), the coefficient ∆m2 ,αs α,q of order O(ααs ) relating the pole
H
and MS masses of the Higgs boson, sp − m2H , can be written as
∆m2 ,ααs ,q = (A.18)

H
!
g 2 gs2 gs2 1

1 (2,1) 1 (2,2) ∂ (1) (2)
lim Z H,ααs ,q + Z H,ααs ,q − Zm2q ,αs m2q Π −Π0,m2 ,αα ,q ,
ε→0 2
(16π ) ε 2 ε 2 2
16π ε ∂m2q 0,H,α H s
where
( " # )
∂ (1) Nc g 2 2 2 2
m2H −2m2q (n+1) (3n − 2) 2
Π = 2 B0 (mq , mq , mH ) − A0 (mq ) .
∂m2q 0,H,α mW 16π 2 2 2
(A.19)
As result of our calculation we find:
(2,1) g 2 gs2 5 m2q (2,2) g 2 gs2 3 m2q

ZH,ααs ,q = Nc Cf , ZH,ααs ,q =− Nc Cf . (A.20)
(16π 2 )2 4 m2W (16π 2 )2 2 m2W
– 22 –
The contributions of other quarks with non-zero mass are additive. Exploring the ε expan-
sion for the master integral J0qq from [99], we have for t-quark contribution (q = t):
(
gs2 g 2 m4t 4(z−2)(z−4) 4(1+y)3
∆m2 ,αs α ≡ ∆m2 ,αs α,t = Nc C f F (y) − G(y)
H H (16π 2 )2 m2W z y(1−y)
3 + 20y + 16y 2 − 4y 3 − 9y 4 2 (1 + y) (17 + 88y + 17y 2 )
+ ln y + ln y
2y(1 − y)2 (1 − y) 2y
)
(131 + 258y + 131y 2 ) (1 + y)2 (1 + y 2 )
+ − 6ζ3
8y y(1 − y)2
2 2
(2,2) mt (2,1) mt
+CH,ααs ln2 2
+ CH,ααs ln , (A.21)
µ µ2
where
q
z
m2H 1− z−4 (1 − y)2 (1 + y)2
z= , y= , z=− , 4m2t − m2H = m2t , (A.22)
m2t
q
1+ z y y
z−4
and we have introduced the two functions F (y) and G(y) (see also [80, 81]) defined as11
F (y) = 3 [Li3 (y)+2Li3 (−y)] − 2 ln y [Li2 (y)+2Li2 (−y)]

1
− ln2 y [ln(1 − y)+2 ln(1 + y)] ,
2
G(y) = [Li2 (y)+2Li2 (−y)] + ln y [ln(1 − y)+2 ln(1 + y)] , (A.24)
and
m2H

ln = 2 ln(1 − y) − ln y + iπ. (A.25)
m2t
(2,2) (2,1)
In Eq. (A.21) we explicitly factorized the RG logarithms, CH,ααs and CH,ααs , which may be
calculated also from the one-loop result and the mass anomalous dimensions (see [91, 92]
for the general case). From the parametrization
2 g2 h (1) (1)
i g 2 gs2 h (2) (2,2) (2,1)
i
MH = m2H + ∆X H,α − C H,α L + ∆XH,ααs +C H,ααs L2
−C H,ααs L
16π 2 (16π 2 )2
= m2H + ∆m2 ,α + ∆m2 ,ααs , (A.26)
H H
11
We cross checked, that Eq. (A.21) minus tadpole contribution coincides with results of Ref. [80, 88–90]
after the following substitutions:
z (1 + y)2 √ √
r= , 1−r = , r+ = 1/ y, r− = y,
4 4y
1
f = − ln y, g = ln(1 − y) − 1/2 ln y, h = ln(1 + y) − 1/2 ln y. (A.23)
2
– 23 –
µ 2
where L = ln m 2 , and using the fact that pole mass is RG invariant, we have:
t
(1)
CH,α = m2H ZH,α , γm2t ,αs = Zm2t ,αs = −6Cf , (A.27)
(2,2) ∂ m2
2CH,ααs = Zm2t ,αs m2t 2 m2H ZH,α = −3m2H Cf Nc 2t , (A.28)
∂mt mW
(2,1) (1) ∂ (1)
CH,ααs = m2H γH,ααs + Zm2t ,αs CH,α + Zm2t ,αs m2t ∆XH,α , (A.29)
∂m2t
where
3 3 m2Z 3 m2H X 1 m2 X 1 m2 X 1 m2
l u d
ZH,α = − − + + + Nc + Nc 2 . (A.30)
2 4 m2W 4 m2W 2 m2W u 2 m2
W 2 mW
lepton d
In terms of the variable y, defined by Eq. (A.22), the final result reads:
m4t (1 + y)(1 + 8y + y 2 ) (17 + 38y + 17y 2 )

(2,1)
CH,ααs = −Cf Nc 2 3 ln y + . (A.31)
mW y(1 − y) 2y
A.4 O(ααs ) corrections to the top Yukawa and Higgs self couplings
The relation between the top Yukawa (Higgs) coupling and the Fermi constant GF is
obtained from Eqs. (A.2), (A.13) and (A.26) as:
y 2 (µ2 ) m2t (µ2 ) GF (µ2 )

√t = , (A.32)
2 2GF Mt2 Mt2 GF
λ(µ2 ) m2H (µ2 ) GF (µ2 )
√ 2
= 2 , (A.33)
2GF MH MH GF
and the relation between the Higgs coupling constant λ ≡ hSirlin used in [77] and the
parametrization of [82–85] follows from the comparison of the RG functions: hSirlin =
λJegerlehner (µ2 )/6.
The O(ααs ) result for the top-Yukawa coupling reads (see Eq. (21) in [65] and [100])
s
y 2 (µ2 )
√t − 1 = (1 + σα + σαs + σααs )
2 2GF Mt2
  1
2
X
2 2
∂
× 1 − ∆GF ,α − ∆GF ,ααs − mf −Mf α ∆ −1

GF ,α 
s ∂m2

f

f 2 2 2 2
mj =MJ .e =eOS

1
= σα − ∆GF ,α +σαs (A.34)
2 m2j =MJ2 .e2 =e2OS
 

1 1 1 X 2 2
∂ 2 

+ σααs − ∆GF ,ααs − σαs ∆GF ,α −
 mf −Mf α ∆ G ,α (mt )
2 2 2 s ∂m2 F
f f
m2j =MJ2 .e2 =e2OS
– 24 –
where σX are defined in Eq. (A.13). The O(ααs ) result for the Higgs coupling is
!
λ(µ2 ) ∆m2 ,α
√ 2
− 1 = + −∆GF ,α − H
2 (A.35)
2GF MH MH 2 2 2 2
mj =MJ .e =eOS
" #!
∆m2 ,ααs 2 2
∂ ∆m 2 ,α
H H
+ −∆GF ,ααs − − m −M ∆ + ,

2 t t αs 2 G F ,α 2
MH ∂mt MH 2 2 2 2
mj =MJ .e =eOS
where
g2 Mt2

mt −Mt2 αs = −2Mt2 Cf s 2
2
4 − 3 ln 2 ,
16π µ
and the sum runs over all quarks.
For completeness, we present also the explicit expressions for the derivatives (for Nc =
3, CF = 4/3 and mb = 0):
g2 3m4t 1+4y+y 2 (1+y)(1+8y+y 2 ) 1 m2H

2
∂ mt
m2t ∆ 2 = + ln y+ ln ,
∂m2t mH ,α 16π 2 m2H m2W y 2y(1−y) 2 m2t µ2
(A.36)
( )
g2 m4t m2t m2t 3 3 m2t

∂
m2t ∆ G ,α = 6 − 12 ln + + ln 2 . (A.37)
∂m2t F
16π 2 m2W m2H µ2 m2W 4 2 µ
Terms of the order O(α), O(αs ) in Eq. (A.34) and Eq. (A.35) correspond to [32] and
[77], respectively. Terms of the order O(ααs ) in Eq. (A.34) and Eq. (A.35) are the
mixed electroweak-QCD corrections and ∆GF ,ααs , σααs , ∆m2 ,ααs are defined by Eq. (A.6),
H
Eq. (A.21), and Eq.(5.54) or Eq.(5.57) of [82].
For completeness we present also the the coefficient ∆m2 ,α . We divide all corrections
H
into bosonic (diagrams without any
fermions) and fermionic (diagrams
exhibiting a fermion
g2 2
loop) ones: ∆m2 ,α = 16π2 mH ∆m2 ,α,boson + ∆m2 ,α,fermion . Using the notations of
H H H
[83–85] we may write the one-loop corrections in the following form
1 1 m2W
∆m2 ,α,boson = − ln 2 − B(m2W , m2W ; m2H )
H 2 2 µ
m2H 3 m2H

3 9 π 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
+ 2 − + √ + ln 2 + B(mW , mW ; mH ) + B(mZ , mZ ; mH )
mW 2 8 3 8 µ 4 8
m 2 2
1 1 mZ 1
+ 2Z − ln 2 − B(m2Z , mZ ; m2H )
mW 4 4 µ 2
2
mW
2
mW

2 2
+ 2 3 − 3 ln 2 + 3B(mW , mW ; mH )
mH µ
4
3 3 MZ2

mZ 3 2 2
+ 2 2 − ln 2 + B(mZ , mZ ; mH ) , (A.38)
mW mH 2 2 µ 2
– 25 –
" #
1 m2l X m2l m2l m2l

2 2 2
∆m2 ,α,fermion = B0 (ml , ml ; mH ) 1 − 4 2 − 4 2 1 − ln 2
H 2 m2W mH mH µ
lepton
" ! !#
1 m2q X
2 2 2
m2q m2q m2q
+ Nc B0 (mq , mq ; mH ) 1 − 4 2 − 4 2 1 − ln 2 ,
2 m2W mH mH µ
quark
(A.39)
where (see Eq. (E.6) in [99])

Z1 !
2 2 m2 m2 m2H
B(m , m ; m2H ) = dx ln x + 2 (1 − x) − 2 x(1 − x) − i0
µ2 µ µ
0
m2 1+Y
= ln 2
−2− ln Y, (A.40)
µ 1−Y
with q
r
1− r−4 m2H
Y = , r= .
m2
q
r
1+ r−4
All results are collected in the Maple code of Ref. [95].
B Beta functions
Two loop SM beta functions above the top mass are collected in [10] (see [101–110] for
original works). The three loop beta functions can be read off [19, 20].
Below the top mass the one loop beta functions for the gauge couplings were used to
evolve the PDG values from MZ to Mt . For example, for the α(µ)
α(MZ )
α(µ) = 11 µ . (B.1)
1+ 6π α(MZ ) log( mZ )
The higher loop corrections are not important numerically for the electroweak constants
for the small energy range between MZ and Mt .
For the strong coupling αs ≡ gS2 /(4π) the RG equation up to order O(αs 3 ) is used
dαs 2 αs 2 19 αs 3 5033 325 2 αs 4

= −(11 − Nf ) − (51 − Nf ) 2 − (2857 − Nf + N ) , (B.2)
d log µ 3 2π 3 4π 9 27 f 64π 3
and Nf = 5 is the number of flavors below the top quark. Strictly speaking, the value of
αs (Mt ) obtained from this equation should be also shifted to the 6-quark value by
11 3
αS,Nf =6 (Mt ) = αS,Nf =5 (Mt ) − α (Mt ), (B.3)
72π 2 S,Nf =5
but this introduces a negligible effect (< 0.1 GeV) for the Higgs mass.
In all the formulas of the Appendix A we use the values of α and αs at the matching
scale µ.
– 26 –
QCD 2-loop
-0.0570
232 GF Mt L-1
-0.0575
-0.0580 QCD 3-loop+OHΑL
-0.0585
yt HMt LH
-0.0590
QCD 3-loop+OHΑL+OHΑΑS L
-0.0595
QCD 3-loop
110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Mh , GeV
-0.0565
-0.0570 -0.056
-0.0575 -0.057
-0.0580 -0.058
-0.0585 -0.059
-0.0590 -0.060
-0.0595 -0.061
-0.0600 -0.062
170 171 172 173 174 175 0.1160.1170.1180.1190.1200.1210.122
Mt , GeV ΑS HMZ L
Figure 10. Contributions to the top Yukawa constant from QCD up to 2 loops, up to 3 loops,
QCD and 1 loop EW corrections O(α), and QCD with O(α) + O(ααs ) corrections. One parameter
is vrying, the two others are chosen from Mt = 172.9 GeV, αs = 0.1184, Mh = 125 GeV.
References
[1] L. Maiani, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio, Bounds on the Number and Masses of Quarks and
Leptons, Nucl. Phys. B136 (1978) 115.
[2] N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio, Bounds on the Fermions and Higgs
Boson Masses in Grand Unified Theories, Nucl. Phys. B158 (1979) 295–305.
[3] M. Lindner, Implications of Triviality for the Standard Model, Zeit. Phys. C31 (1986) 295.
[4] N. V. Krasnikov, Restriction of the fermion mass in gauge theories of weak and
electromagnetic interactions, Yad. Fiz. 28 (1978) 549–551.
[5] P. Q. Hung, Vacuum Instability and New Constraints on Fermion Masses, Phys. Rev. Lett.
42 (1979) 873.
[6] H. D. Politzer and S. Wolfram, Bounds on Particle Masses in the Weinberg-Salam Model,
Phys. Lett. B82 (1979) 242–246.
[7] T. Hambye and K. Riesselmann, Matching conditions and Higgs mass upper bounds
revisited, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 7255–7262, [hep-ph/9610272].
– 27 –
0.000
ΛHMt LHGF Mh2 2 L-1 -0.005
-0.010
OHΑL correction
-0.015
-0.020
OHΑL+OHΑΑS L correction
-0.025
110 115 120 125 130 135 140

Mh , GeV
-0.012 -0.012
-0.014 -0.014
-0.016 -0.016
-0.018 -0.018
-0.020 -0.020
-0.022 -0.022
170 171 172 173 174 175 0.1160.1170.1180.1190.1200.1210.122
Mt , GeV Mt , GeV
Figure 11. Contributions to the Higgs self coupling constant of the order O(α) and O(α)+O(ααs ).
One parameter is vrying, the two others are chosen from Mt = 172.9 GeV, αs = 0.1184, Mh =
125 GeV.
Higgs self coupling ΛHMt L
0.142
0.938
top Yukawa yt HMt L
0.141
0.937 0.140
0.936 0.139
0.138
0.935
0.137
100 120 140 160 100 120 140 160

Matching scale Μ0 , GeV Matching scale Μ0 , GeV
Figure 12. Top Yukawa (left) and Higgs coupling (right) at scale Mt . The constants are extracted
by using matching formulas at scale µ and then evolving to the scale Mt by RG equations. Blue
solid line corresponds to using full O(α, ααs , αs 3 ) matching formulas, dashed line is matching with
O(α, αs 3 ), dotted is matching with O(α, αs 2 ).
[8] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Combined results of searches for
√
the standard model Higgs boson in pp collisions at s = 7 TeV, Phys.Lett. B710 (2012)
– 28 –
26–48, [arXiv:1202.1488].
[9] ATLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Combined search for the Standard
√
Model Higgs boson using up to 4.9 fb−1 of pp collision data at s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS
detector at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B710 (2012) 49–66, [arXiv:1202.1408].
[10] J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, and A. Riotto, Cosmological implications of the Higgs mass
measurement, JCAP 0805 (2008) 002, [arXiv:0710.2484].
[11] F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton,
Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 703–706, [arXiv:0710.3755].
[12] F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Standard Model Higgs boson mass from inflation: two
loop analysis, JHEP 07 (2009) 089, [arXiv:0904.1537].
[13] M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass,
Phys. Lett. B683 (2010) 196–200, [arXiv:0912.0208].
[14] G. Altarelli and G. Isidori, Lower limit on the Higgs mass in the standard model: An
Update, Phys. Lett. B337 (1994) 141–144.
[15] J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, and M. Quiros, Improved Higgs mass stability bound in the
standard model and implications for supersymmetry, Phys. Lett. B342 (1995) 171–179,
[hep-ph/9409458].
[16] J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, and M. Quiros, Standard Model stability bounds for new
physics within LHC reach, Phys. Lett. B382 (1996) 374–382, [hep-ph/9603227].
[17] M. Holthausen, K. S. Lim, and M. Lindner, Planck scale Boundary Conditions and the
Higgs Mass, JHEP 1202 (2012) 037, [arXiv:1112.2415].
[18] J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, A. Riotto, et al., Higgs mass
implications on the stability of the electroweak vacuum, Phys.Lett. B709 (2012) 222–228,
[arXiv:1112.3022].
[19] L. N. Mihaila, J. Salomon, and M. Steinhauser, Gauge coupling beta functions in the
standard model to three loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 151602, [arXiv:1201.5868].
[20] K. Chetyrkin and M. Zoller, Three-loop β-functions for top-Yukawa and the Higgs
self-interaction in the Standard Model, JHEP 1206 (2012) 033, [arXiv:1205.2892].
[21] F. L. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, and M. Shaposhnikov, Standard Model Higgs boson mass from
inflation, Phys. Lett. B675 (2009) 88–92, [arXiv:0812.4950].
[22] S. R. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous
symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 1888–1910.
[23] J. Ellis, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, A. Hoecker, and A. Riotto, The Probable Fate of the
Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B679 (2009) 369–375, [arXiv:0906.0954].
[24] K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Short distance mass of a heavy quark at order αs3 ,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4001–4004, [hep-ph/9907509].
[25] K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, The relation between the MS and the on-shell quark
mass at order αs3 , Nucl. Phys. B573 (2000) 617–651, [hep-ph/9911434].
[26] K. Melnikov and T. van Ritbergen, The three-loop relation between the MS and the pole
quark masses, Phys. Lett. B482 (2000) 99–108, [hep-ph/9912391].
– 29 –
[27] A. Kataev and V. Kim, Uncertainties of QCD predictions for Higgs boson decay into bottom
quarks at NNLO and beyond, PoS ACAT08 (2008) 004, [arXiv:0902.1442].
[28] A. Kataev and V. Kim, Peculiar features of the relations between pole and running heavy
quark masses and estimates of the O(αs4 ) contributions, Phys.Part.Nucl. 41 (2010) 946–950,
[arXiv:1001.4207].
[29] M. C. Smith and S. S. Willenbrock, Top quark pole mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997)
3825–3828, [hep-ph/9612329].
[30] A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi, and I. W. Stewart, Infrared Renormalization Group Flow
for Heavy Quark Masses, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 151602, [arXiv:0803.4214].
[31] A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi, and I. W. Stewart, R-evolution: Improving perturbative
QCD, Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 011501, [arXiv:0908.3189].
[32] R. Hempfling and B. A. Kniehl, On the relation between the fermion pole mass and MS
Yukawa coupling in the standard model, Phys.Rev. D51 (1995) 1386–1394,
[hep-ph/9408313].
[33] Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Nakamura et al., Review of particle physics,
J.Phys.G G37 (2010) 075021.
[34] S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, and S. Moch, Parton distribution functions and benchmark cross
sections at NNLO, arXiv:1202.2281.
[35] G. Watt, Parton distribution function dependence of benchmark Standard Model total cross
sections at the 7 TeV LHC, JHEP 1109 (2011) 069, [arXiv:1106.5788].
[36] G. Watt, MSTW PDFs and impact of PDFs on cross sections at Tevatron and LHC,
arXiv:1201.1295.
[37] U. Langenfeld, S. Moch, and P. Uwer, Measuring the running top-quark mass, Phys.Rev.
D80 (2009) 054009, [arXiv:0906.5273].
[38] Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, for the CDF and D0 Collaborations
Collaboration, Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark using up
to 5.8 fb−1 of data, arXiv:1107.5255.
[39] D0 Collaboration Collaboration, V. M. Abazov et al., Determination of the pole and MS
masses of the top quark from the tt̄ cross section, Phys.Lett. B703 (2011) 422–427,
[arXiv:1104.2887].
[40] D. Bennett and H. B. Nielsen, Predictions for nonAbelian fine structure constants from
multicriticality, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A9 (1994) 5155–5200, [hep-ph/9311321].
[41] C. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Standard model criticality prediction: Top mass 173 ± 5 GeV
and Higgs mass 135 ± 9 GeV, Phys.Lett. B368 (1996) 96–102, [hep-ph/9511371].
[42] G. Isidori, V. S. Rychkov, A. Strumia, and N. Tetradis, Gravitational corrections to
standard model vacuum decay, Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 025034, [arXiv:0712.0242].
[43] I. Masina and A. Notari, The Higgs mass range from Standard Model false vacuum Inflation
in scalar-tensor gravity, arXiv:1112.2659.
[44] I. Masina and A. Notari, Standard Model False Vacuum Inflation: Correlating the
Tensor-to-Scalar Ratio to the Top Quark and Higgs Boson masses, Phys.Rev.Lett. 108
(2012) 191302, [arXiv:1112.5430].
– 30 –
[45] I. Masina and A. Notari, Inflation from the Higgs field false vacuum with hybrid potential,
arXiv:1204.4155.
[46] S. Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories of gravity, in General Relativity:
An Einstein centenary survey, edited by S. W.Hawking and W.Israel (Cambridge University
Press) (1979) 790.
[47] M. Niedermaier and M. Reuter, The Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity,
Living Rev.Rel. 9 (2006) 5.
[48] M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity, Phys.Rev. D57 (1998)
971–985, [hep-th/9605030].
[49] R. Percacci and D. Perini, Asymptotic safety of gravity coupled to matter, Phys.Rev. D68
(2003) 044018, [hep-th/0304222].
[50] G. Narain and R. Percacci, Renormalization Group Flow in Scalar-Tensor Theories. I,
Class.Quant.Grav. 27 (2010) 075001, [arXiv:0911.0386].
[51] A. A. Starobinsky, A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity, Phys.
Lett. B91 (1980) 99–102.
[52] D. Gorbunov and A. Panin, Scalaron the mighty: producing dark matter and baryon
asymmetry at reheating, Phys.Lett. B700 (2011) 157–162, [arXiv:1009.2448].
[53] F. Bezrukov and D. Gorbunov, Distinguishing between R2 -inflation and Higgs-inflation,
Phys. Lett. B713 (2011) 365, [arXiv:1111.4397].
[54] F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Sibiryakov, Higgs inflation: consistency
and generalisations, JHEP 1101 (2011) 016, [arXiv:1008.5157].
[55] A. Barvinsky, A. Kamenshchik, C. Kiefer, A. Starobinsky, and C. Steinwachs, Asymptotic
freedom in inflationary cosmology with a non-minimally coupled Higgs field, JCAP 0912
(2009) 003, [arXiv:0904.1698].
[56] C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical
Approximation During Inflation, JHEP 09 (2009) 103, [arXiv:0902.4465].
[57] J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, On the Naturalness of Higgs Inflation, Phys. Rev. D79
(2009) 081302, [arXiv:0903.0355].
[58] C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, Comment on Higgs Inflation and Naturalness,
JHEP 07 (2010) 007, [arXiv:1002.2730].
[59] M. P. Hertzberg, On Inflation with Non-minimal Coupling, JHEP 11 (2010) 023,
[arXiv:1002.2995].
[60] M. Shaposhnikov, Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scales?,
arXiv:0708.3550.
[61] A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Shaposhnikov, The role of sterile neutrinos in
cosmology and astrophysics, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci. 59 (2009) 191–214, [arXiv:0901.0011].
[62] M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy,
Phys. Lett. B671 (2009) 187–192, [arXiv:0809.3395].
[63] M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenhausern, Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and
hierarchy problem, Phys. Lett. B671 (2009) 162–166, [arXiv:0809.3406].
– 31 –
[64] D. Gorbunov and M. Shaposhnikov, How to find neutral leptons of the νMSM?, JHEP 10
(2007) 015, [arXiv:0705.1729].
[65] F. Jegerlehner and M. Kalmykov, O(ααs ) relation between pole- and MS mass of the t
quark, Acta Phys.Polon. B34 (2003) 5335–5344, [hep-ph/0310361].
[66] ATLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the
search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,
arXiv:1207.7214.
[67] CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a
mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.Lett.B (2012)
[arXiv:1207.7235].
[68] T. Muller, New results from the top quark, in ICHEP 2012 Conference, Melbourne, 2012.
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=7&sessionId=17&resId=
1&materialId=slides&confId=181298.
[69] ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration, E. Accomando et al.,
Physics with e+ e− linear colliders, Phys.Rept. 299 (1998) 1–78, [hep-ph/9705442].
ECFA/DESY LC Physics Working Group Collaboration, J. Aguilar-Saavedra et al.,
TESLA: The superconducting electron positron linear collider with an integrated x-ray laser
laboratory. technical design report. part 3. physics at an e+ e− linear collider,
hep-ph/0106315.
American Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration, T. Abe et al., Linear
collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. Part 1. Introduction, hep-ex/0106055.
collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. Part 2. Higgs and supersymmetry
studies, hep-ex/0106056.
collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. Part 3. Studies of exotic and standard
model physics., hep-ex/0106057.
collider physics resource book for Snowmass 2001. Part 4. Theoretical, accelerator, and
experimental options, hep-ex/0106058.
ACFA Linear Collider Working Group Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Particle physics
experiments at JLC, hep-ph/0109166.
ILC Collaboration, G. Aarons et al., International Linear Collider Reference Design Report
Volume 2: PHYSICS AT THE ILC, arXiv:0709.1893.
[70] M. Winter, “ILC note PHSM-2001-016.”
http://www-flc.desy.de/lcnotes/notes/LC-PHSM-2001-016.ps.gz.
[71] ATLAS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Blyweert, Top-quark
mass measurements at the LHC, arXiv:1205.2175.
[72] C. Schwanenberger, Measurements of the inclusive cross section and of differential
distributions in top quark pair production (D0), in ICHEP 2012 Conference, Melbourne,
2012. https://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=534&sessionId=
67&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=181298.
[73] A. Sirlin, Radiative corrections in the SU(2)L ×U(1) theory: A simple renormalization
framework, Phys.Rev. D22 (1980) 971–981.
– 32 –
[74] W. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Radiative corrections to neutrino induced neutral current
phenomena in the SU(2)L ×U(1) theory, Phys.Rev. D22 (1980) 2695. [Erratum-ibid. D 31
(1985) 213].
[75] G. Burgers and F. Jegerlehner, ∆r or the relation between the electroweak couplings and the
weak vector boson masses, Conf.Proc. C8902201 (1989) 55–88.
[76] S. Actis and G. Passarino, Two-loop renormalization in the Standard Model part III:
Renormalization equations and their solutions, Nucl.Phys. B777 (2007) 100–156,
[hep-ph/0612124].
[77] A. Sirlin and R. Zucchini, Dependence of the quartic coupling h̄MS (M ) on mH and the
possible onset of new physics in the higgs sector of the standard model, Nucl.Phys. B266
(1986) 389.
[78] T. Chang, K. Gaemers, and W. van Neerven, QCD Corrections to the Mass and Width of
the Intermediate Vector Bosons, Nucl.Phys. B202 (1982) 407.
[79] A. Djouadi, O(ααs ) vacuum polarization functions of the standard model gauge bosons,
Nuovo Cim. A100 (1988) 357.
[80] B. A. Kniehl, Two Loop Corrections to the Vacuum Polarizations in Perturbative QCD,
Nucl.Phys. B347 (1990) 86–104.
[81] A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, QCD corrections to Higgs boson selfenergies and fermionic
decay widths, Phys.Rev. D51 (1995) 218–228, [hep-ph/9406431].
[82] F. Jegerlehner and M. Kalmykov, O(ααs ) correction to the pole mass of the t quark within
the standard model, Nucl.Phys. B676 (2004) 365–389, [hep-ph/0308216].
[83] F. Jegerlehner, M. Kalmykov, and O. Veretin, MS versus pole masses of gauge bosons:
Electroweak bosonic two loop corrections, Nucl.Phys. B641 (2002) 285–326,
[hep-ph/0105304].
[84] F. Jegerlehner, M. Y. Kalmykov, and O. Veretin, Full two loop electroweak corrections to the
pole masses of gauge bosons, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 116 (2003) 382–386, [hep-ph/0212003].
[85] F. Jegerlehner, M. Y. Kalmykov, and O. Veretin, MS versus pole masses of gauge bosons. 2.
Two loop electroweak fermion corrections, Nucl.Phys. B658 (2003) 49–112,
[hep-ph/0212319].
[86] F. Halzen and B. A. Kniehl, ∆r beyond one loop, Nucl.Phys. B353 (1991) 567–590.
[87] S. Fanchiotti, B. A. Kniehl, and A. Sirlin, Incorporation of QCD effects in basic corrections
of the electroweak theory, Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 307–331, [hep-ph/9212285].
[88] B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin, Comparative analysis of three methods to evaluate vacuum
polarization functions, Phys.Lett. B318 (1993) 367–370.
[89] B. A. Kniehl, Two loop O(αs GF Mt2 ) corrections to the fermionic decay rates of the
standard model Higgs boson, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 3314–3322, [hep-ph/9405299].
[90] A. Djouadi and P. Gambino, Electroweak gauge bosons selfenergies: Complete QCD
corrections, Phys.Rev. D49 (1994) 3499–3511, [hep-ph/9309298].
[91] F. Jegerlehner, M. Y. Kalmykov, and O. Veretin, Pole masses of gauge bosons: 2 loop
electroweak corrections, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A502 (2003) 618–620.
– 33 –
[92] F. Jegerlehner and M. Y. Kalmykov, Steps towards full two-loop calculations for 2 fermion
to 2 fermion processes: Running versus pole masses schemes, Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A534
(2004) 299–303, [hep-ph/0404213].
[93] H. Arason, D. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, E. Piard, et al., Renormalization group
study of the standard model and its extensions. 1. The Standard model, Phys.Rev. D46
(1992) 3945–3965.
[94] J. Fleischer and F. Jegerlehner, Radiative Corrections to Higgs Decays in the Extended
Weinberg-Salam Model, Phys.Rev. D23 (1981) 2001–2026.
[95] M. Y. Kalmykov. http://theor.jinr.ru/~kalmykov/pole/pole.html.
[96] M. Faisst, J. H. Kuhn, and O. Veretin, Pole versus MS mass definitions in the electroweak
theory, Phys.Lett. B589 (2004) 35–38, [hep-ph/0403026].
[97] D. Eiras and M. Steinhauser, Two-loop O(alpha alpha(s)) corrections to the on-shell
fermion propagator in the standard model, JHEP 0602 (2006) 010, [hep-ph/0512099].
[98] G. ’t Hooft and M. Veltman, Regularization and Renormalization of Gauge Fields,
Nucl.Phys. B44 (1972) 189–213.
[99] A. I. Davydychev and M. Y. Kalmykov, Massive Feynman diagrams and inverse binomial
sums, Nucl.Phys. B699 (2004) 3–64, [hep-th/0303162].
[100] B. A. Kniehl, J. H. Piclum, and M. Steinhauser, Relation between bottom-quark MS Yukawa
coupling and pole mass, Nucl.Phys. B695 (2004) 199–216, [hep-ph/0406254].
[101] M. Fischler and J. Oliensis, Two Loop Corrections to the Evolution of the Higgs-Yukawa
Coupling Constant, Phys. Lett. B119 (1982) 385.
[102] M. Fischler and J. Oliensis, Detailed Calculation of the Complete Two Loop Higgs-Yukawa
beta Function in an Arbitrary alpha Gauge, Phys.Rev. D28 (1983) 2027.
[103] C. Ford, D. R. T. Jones, P. W. Stephenson, and M. B. Einhorn, The Effective potential and
the renormalization group, Nucl. Phys. B395 (1993) 17–34, [hep-lat/9210033].
[104] I. Jack, Two loop background field calculations for gauge theories with scalar fields, J. Phys.
A16 (1983) 1083.
[105] I. Jack and H. Osborn, General two loop beta functions for gauge theories with arbitrary
scalar fields, J. Phys. A16 (1983) 1101.
[106] I. Jack, Two loop beta functions for supersymmetric gauge theories, Phys. Lett. B147
(1984) 405.
[107] I. Jack and H. Osborn, General background field calculations with fermion fields, Nucl.
Phys. B249 (1985) 472.
[108] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a
General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization, Nucl.Phys. B222
(1983) 83.
[109] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Two-loop renormalization group equations in a general
quantum field theory (II). Yukawa couplings, Nuclear Physics B 236 (1984) 221–232.
[110] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Two-loop renormalization group equations in a general
quantum field theory : (III). Scalar quartic couplings, Nuclear Physics B 249 (1985) 70–92.
– 34 –
[111] A. Strumia, Higgs weights 125 GeV! Now what?, in Implications of LHC results for
TeV-scale physics, (CERN), March 28, 2012. https://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/
access?contribId=47&sessionId=20&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=162621.
[112] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, et al., Higgs mass and
vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP 1208 (2012) 098,
[arXiv:1205.6497].
[113] S. Alekhin, A. Djouadi, and S. Moch, The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the
stability of the electroweak vacuum, arXiv:1207.0980.
– 35 –

1205 2893

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1205 2893

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Prepared for submission to JHEP

Higgs boson mass and new physics

Fedor Bezrukov,a,b Mikhail Yu. Kalmykov,c Bernd A. Kniehlc and Mikhail

Keywords: Higgs Physics, Standard Model, Renormalization Group

ArXiv ePrint: 1205.2893

2 The stability bound 4

3 Mmin and BSM physics 9

Higgs mass Mh =124 GeV Higgs mass Mh =127 GeV

Fermi Planck Fermi Planck

2 The stability bound

2.1 The benchmark mass

λ(µ0 ) = 0, βλ (λ(µ0 )) = 0, (2.1)

2.2 Value of Mmin

Corrections to [12] ∆Mmin , GeV

Table 1. Theoretical uncertainties and mistakes in the Mmin evaluation in [12].

Table 2. Contributions to the value of the Mmin .

Table 3. Theoretical uncertainties in the present Mmin evaluation.

128.5 Λ~OHΑ,ΑΑs L, yt ~OHΑ,Α3s L

128.0 Λ~OHΑL, yt ~OHΑ,Α3s L

127.5 Λ~OHΑL, yt ~OHΑ,Α2s L

corresponding to quadratically or linearly added estimates of theoretical uncertainties.

3 Mmin and BSM physics

Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L

Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L

Higgs mass Mh =126 GeV Higgs mass Mh =127 GeV

Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L

3.1 Asymptotic safety

170 171 172 173 174 175 176

Fermi Planck Fermi Planck

Fermi Planck Fermi Planck

3.2 Mmin and cosmology

3.3 Higgs inflation

Fermi Planck Fermi Planck

4.1 Note added

MH = 125.3 ± 0.4(stat) ± 0.5(syst) GeV, (4.1)

while ATLAS gives a slightly higher value

MH = 126 ± 0.4(stat) ± 0.4(syst) GeV. (4.2)

mt = 173.2 ± 0.6(stat) ± 0.8(syst) GeV = 173.2 ± 1.0 GeV, (4.3)

whereas the present LHC value is

mt = 173.3 ± 0.5(stat) ± 1.3(syst) GeV = 173.3 ± 1.4 GeV. (4.4)

Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L

Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L

0.120 Strong coupling ΑS HMZ L 0.120

The evaluation of radiative corrections to the relations between MS parameters (coupling

Here, sin2 θW is defined in the MS scheme as

Eq. (A.2) can be written as

where g is the SU(2) MS renormalized coupling constant.

e2 1 (2,2) 2 m2t 1 (2,1) m2t

∆m2 ,ααs ,q = (A.18)

As result of our calculation we find:

(2,1) g 2 gs2 5 m2q (2,2) g 2 gs2 3 m2q

F (y) = 3 [Li3 (y)+2Li3 (−y)] − 2 ln y [Li2 (y)+2Li2 (−y)]

m4t (1 + y)(1 + 8y + y 2 ) (17 + 38y + 17y 2 )

y 2 (µ2 ) m2t (µ2 ) GF (µ2 )

g2 3m4t 1+4y+y 2 (1+y)(1+8y+y 2 ) 1 m2H

where (see Eq. (E.6) in [99])

All results are collected in the Maple code of Ref. [95].

dαs 2 αs 2 19 αs 3 5033 325 2 αs 4

-0.0580 QCD 3-loop+OHΑL

110 115 120 125 130 135 140

ΛHMt LHGF Mh2  2 L-1 -0.005

110 115 120 125 130 135 140

100 120 140 160 100 120 140 160

ΛHMt LHGF Mh2 2 L-1 -0.005