Standard Model Meets Gravity: Electroweak Symmetry Breaking and Inflation

Mikhail Shaposhnikov,1, ∗ Andrey Shkerin,1, † and Sebastian Zell1, ‡ 1Institute of Physics, Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Ecole´ Polytechnique F´ed´erale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland We propose a model for combining the Standard Model (SM) with gravity. It relies on a non- minimal coupling of the Higgs field to the Ricci scalar and on the Palatini formulation of gravity. Without introducing any new degrees of freedom in addition to those of the SM and the graviton, this scenario achieves two goals. First, it generates the electroweak symmetry breaking by a non- perturbative gravitational effect. In this way, it does not only address the hierarchy problem but opens up the possibility to calculate the Higgs mass. Second, the model incorporates inflation at energies below the onset of strong-coupling of the theory. Provided that corrections due to new physics above the scale of inflation are not unnaturally large, we can relate inflationary parameters to data from collider experiments.

I. INTRODUCTION radiative corrections coming from loops with these su- perheavy states [11]. If there are no such particles all to- The results of LHC have been very exciting. First, it gether, the hierarchy problem as a concern about the sen- has found the last missing particle of the Standard Model sitivity of low-energy parameters to high-energy physics (SM), the Higgs boson [1, 2]. Secondly, it has significantly below the Planck scale disappears [3, 12, 13]. Another constrained physics beyond the SM. In many scenarios, aspect of the problem, however, remains, and it is cen- the existence of new particles close to the electroweak tered around the question why the electroweak scale is so scale is now excluded. This gives a significant motivation much smaller than the Planck scale. This is one of the to study the proposal that no new degrees of freedom issues that we shall address in the present work. 2 If we have only the SM (or νMSM) degrees of freedom exist anywhere above the weak scale MF ∼ 10 GeV (see e.g., [3]). Such a situation is self-consistent, since with all the way up to the Planck scale, the question arises: the measured values of its parameters, the SM is a valid “How does the SM merge with gravity?” In this paper quantum field theory until the Landau poles in the Higgs we show that the conformally-invariant (at the classical self-interaction and the hyper-charge gauge interaction, level) SM coupled to gravity in the Palatini formulation which appear at exponentially large energies, well above with non-minimal interaction between the Higgs field and another fundamental scale of Nature – the Planck mass the gravitational Ricci scalar has a number of remarkable 18 1 properties indicating, perhaps, that this is a step in the MP = 2.44 · 10 GeV. Other experimental and observational data that calls right direction. The Lagrangian of the model reads: for new physics, such as dark matter, neutrino oscilla- M 2 L = − P R − ξH†HR + L | , (1) tions and baryon asymmetry of the Universe, does not 2 SM mH,tree→0 require the presence of any new particle populating the desert between the Fermi and the Planck scales, either.2 where R is the Ricci scalar, H is the Higgs field, ξ > 0 is Moreover, the existence of new heavy particles (such as the strength of its non-minimal coupling to gravity, LSM leptoquarks of Grand Unified Theories) leads to the cele- is the SM Lagrangian, and mH,tree is the tree-level Higgs brated problem of the stability of the Higgs mass against mass. We start from the well known facts about different sec- tors of this theory. In the Palatini formulation of gravity [14, 15], the metric gµν and the symmetric affine connec- tion Γα are treated as independent variables. In spite arXiv:2001.09088v3 [hep-th] 28 May 2021 ∗ mikhail.shaposhnikov@epfl.ch βγ † andrey.shkerin@epfl.ch of the larger number of field components as compared ‡ sebastian.zell@epfl.ch to metric gravity, the number of physical propagating 1 Depending on the masses of the top quark and of the Higgs degrees of freedom – two of the massless graviton – is boson, the Higgs self-coupling can become negative at energy the same in both theories. In the absence of the non- 8 scales between 10 GeV and MP and thereby give rise to another, minimal coupling, ξ = 0, Palatini gravity is moreover deeper minimum of the Higgs potential [4, 5]. Whether this happens or not is an open question, given the uncertainties in exactly equivalent to the standard metric Einstein grav- the determination of the top quark Yukawa coupling; see [6] for ity. a review. But even if our current vacuum is metastable, the The particle physics sector of the theory is the SM validity of the SM is not spoiled, since its lifetime exceeds the with zero tree-level Higgs mass. It is well known that the age of the Universe by many orders of magnitude [7]. Lagrangian L | has an extra symmetry – it is 2 For example, the Neutrino Minimal Standard Model (νMSM) SM mH,tree→0 [8, 9], whose particle content is extended compared to that of invariant under the group of conformal transformations. the SM only by three Majorana neutrinos with masses below What is most important for us is that in this theory MF , may account for all these phenomena in a unified way (for the Higgs mass is predictable [16–18] (to be more pre- a review see [10]). cise, the ratio between the scalar and vector boson mass 2 is computable). The easiest way to see that is to use parameters of the theory, provided that corrections due the minimal subtraction scheme for removing the diver- to new physics are not unnaturally large. Moreover, no gencies. Here the counter-terms are polynomials in the strong coupling is expected to occur during preheating. coupling constants [19], and, if mH,tree = 0, no counter- It is important to recall that in our approach no new term is needed for the mass renormalization, meaning particles exist above the weak scale. Consequently, the that the Higgs mass can be expressed through other pa- violation of tree-level unitarity at the scale Λ is due to a rameters of the theory. This is true even in the presence strong-coupling regime of the low-energy degrees of free- of gravity, because perturbative quantum gravity correc- dom.6 tions can only contain inverse powers of MP [20]. To put it in different words, the renormalization group β- function for the Higgs mass is zero if m = 0 [19].3 H,tree II. THE MODEL First, we are going to argue that electroweak symme- try breaking in the theory (1) can be induced by the non-perturbative semiclassical effect related to a singu- We are interested in the Higgs-gravity sector of the lar gravitational-scalar instanton – a solution to classical model (1). The rest of the SM particles manifest them- equations of motion of Euclidean gravity.4 This effect has selves through RG running of the Higgs quartic coupling been already discussed in metric gravity [23], but there λ, which shapes the effective Higgs potential. We neglect it was difficult to implement and required ad-hoc ingre- the running of ξ (see appendix C). When we apply√ the dients. We will show that in the Palatini formulation, unitary gauge for the Higgs field, H = (0, h)T / 2, the the gravitational instanton can be realized significantly relevant part of the Lagrangian reads more simply and naturally. For large values of the non- minimal coupling ξ, we find that M ∝ M exp (−B), M 2 + ξh2 1 λ F P L = − P R + (∂ h)2 − h4 . (2) where B is the instanton action. The observed hierarchy 2 2 µ 4 of the Fermi and Planck scales requires B ∼ 30, which we can easily achieve. In order to make the kinetic term of h canonical, we Second, we will show that the very same choice of pa- perform a Weyl transformation of the metric, rameters leads to successful inflation. The role of the inflaton is played by the Higgs field [24]. Due to the ξh2 gˆ = Ω2g , Ω2 = 1 + , (3) non-minimal coupling of the Higgs field to gravity, pre- µν µν 2 MP dictions of Higgs inflation in the Palatini formulation of gravity are different from those in the metric case [25]. followed by the field redefinition [25] The prominent feature of this scenario is the increase √ of the energy scale Λ, at which tree-level unitarity is vio- M  ξχ lated.5 In the original Higgs inflation, Λ is of the order of h = √P sinh . (4) ξ MP MP /ξ and lies below inflationary scales [29, 30]. On the one hand, this makes it impossible to determine the in- flationary potential from the low-energy SM parameters Then Lagrangian (2) becomes unless the “jumps” of the coupling constants at the on- 2 set of the strong coupling regime happen to be very small MP 1 2 L = − Rˆ + (∂µχ) − U(χ) , (5) [26, 31]. On the other hand, the low value of Λ is expected 2 2 to lead to a breakdown of perturbation theory during and the scalar potential is given by preheating [32,√ 33]. In contrast, Palatini Higgs inflation gives Λ = MP / ξ [34], which lies above inflationary en- √ 4   4 ergies. As discussed in more detail in [35], this allows us λMP ξχ U(χ) = 2 tanh . (6) to establish a connection between low- and high-energy 4ξ MP

Note that if we had worked in the metric formulation of the theory (1), we would have arrived at the same 3 That this remains true in the presence of a non-minimal coupling form (5) of the Lagrangian but with a different poten- ξ is discussed in appendix A. tial U(χ). Thus, the non-equivalence of the Palatini and 4 Note that the Coleman-Weinberg effective potential [16] in the metric formalisms manifests itself as the difference in the SM cannot lead to electroweak symmetry breaking with the experimental values of the Higgs self-coupling and top quark self-interaction of the canonically normalized scalar field. Yukawa coupling (see, e.g., [21, 22]). 5 The scale Λ only applies to scattering in a vacuum background. In metric Higgs inflation, the scale of unitarity violation is background-dependent and during inflation it lies above infla- tionary energies [26] (see also [27, 28]). In contrast, we expect 6 Further discussions of this idea of “self-healing” [26, 36] can be in the Palatini case that the scale of unitarity violation does not found in [35]. In the context of gravity, such a scenario was, e.g., increase in a non-trivial background (see appendix B). suggested in [37–41]. 3

III. FERMI SCALE inessential for our purposes as long as we are interested in the leading-order exponential contribution to√ eq. (10). Let us discuss how the model (1) can elegantly accom- In eq. (10), it is natural to expect the term ξχ/MP 8 modate the non-perturbative mechanism of generation of to be included in the determination of the saddle point. the Fermi scale proposed in [23] and developed further in As in [23, 42, 43], our subsequent analysis is based on this [42, 43]. Our starting point is the expectation value of h assumption. If it holds, then the dominant contribution in the path integral formalism: to the path integral is provided by extrema of √ Z Z  ξχ(x)  α −SE 4 (4) p hhi ∼ DhDgµν DΓβγ h e , (7) B = d x − δ (x) + gˆE LE . (11) MP

7 where SE is the Euclidean action of the theory. We The subscript E refers to the Euclidean signature. We see disregarded the rest of the SM degrees of freedom since that the Lagrangian is supplemented by an instantaneous they can only change the prefactor but not the exponen- source and we used translational invariance of the theory tial dependence in our subsequent result (12). to evaluate the latter at the origin. The corresponding Our goal is to study if the path integral (7) possesses saddle-point approximation gives saddle points besides the trivial one at hhi = 0. To this M end, we notice that by making the change of variable hhi ∼ √P e−B , (12) according to eqs. (3), (4), the expectation value can be ξ written as where B is the value of B, evaluated at a suitable Eu- √ Z ξχ MP α −SE clidean classical configuration of the fields χ andg ˆµν . hhi ∼ √ DχDgˆ DΓ e MP . (8) ξ µν βγ The approximation (12) only holds if B is large, since solely in this case fluctuations above the classical back- Here we used that h > 0 (and, correspondingly, χ > 0) in ground are suppressed. Clearly, the same requirement the unitary gauge. Next, we integrate out the connection naturally leads to a hierarchy between the scales MP and α field. To this end, we split Γβγ into the Levi-Civita part MF . One must show that B possesses extrema such that α and the contorsion tensor Cβγ . This does not change the the resulting action is large but finite. integration measure in (8): R DΓ = R DC. The contor- The extremum points of B are found by varying it with sion enters only the gravitational part of the action SE respect to χ andg ˆµν . This yields Euclidean equations of and reads (see, e.g., [46]): motion supplemented by the instantaneous source of χ. Since the point source preserves the O(4)-symmetry of Z Z 4 √ µν 4 √ µν the theory, we specialize to spherically-symmetric solu- d x gg Rµν (Γ) = d x gg (Rµν (g) tions. The assumption that solutions of maximal sym- (9) ρ ρ λ ρ λ ρ  metry minimize an Euclidean action is commonly used −∇µCρν + ∇ρCµν + Cµν Cρλ − Cρν Cµλ . in studies of Euclidean gravity [49] (see also [50–53]), al- though the proof of it is only known for scalar field theo- We see that the path integral over the contorsion is Gaus- ries in flat space [54, 55]. Thus, we choose the following sian. Hence it can be evaluated exactly by solving the ansatz for the metric: α equations of motion for Cβγ and plugging the result back α 2 2 2 2 2 in the action. Varying (9) with respect to Cβγ gives the ds = f(r) dr + r dΩ3 , (13) α condition of vanishing contorsion: Cβγ = 0, where we used that in Palatini gravity the connection is assumed where dΩ3 is the line element on a unit 3-sphere and f α α is a function of the radial coordinate r. The total action to be symmetric: Γβγ = Γγβ. Thus, the metric and Pala- tini formulations are equivalent in the absence of non- (11) becomes minimal coupling and eq. (8) becomes √ Z ∞  0  ξχ (r) 2 3 √ Z ξχ B = dr + 2π r f LE . (14) MP −SE MP hhi ∼ √ DχDgˆ e MP , (10) 0 ξ µν Before determining extrema of B, let us discuss why where the Levi-Civita connection is now used in SE. Note we expect subleading contribution, e.g., from non-trivial that both integration measures Dχ and Dgˆµν can con- measure factors in the path integral, to be small as com- tain non-trivial factors, which we show and discuss in pared to the saddle-point result. For this purpose, we appendix D. We will argue shortly that all of them are implement a scaling argument to extract explicitly the

7 Note that because of the presence of gravity, the Euclidean path 8 The same approach is used, e.g., in the discussion of confinement integral in eq. (7) must be taken with caution [44, 45]. in gauge theories [47] and of multiparticle production [48]. 4 large parameter in the total action (14). We shall re- its high-energy behavior is sensitive to the existence of strict ourselves to the spherically-symmetric ansatz (13). higher-dimensional operators. We can use those to re- Moreover, we assume that f → 0 as r → 0;9 the actual move the unphysical UV-divergence of χ(0). As we shall solution fulfills this property: see subsequent discussion show, it suffices to supplement Lagrangian (2) by the op- below eqs. (17), (18). With these simplifications, the erator (in the Lorentz signature)10 change of variables   δ δ 6 1/6 −1/6 δLδ = 1 + (∂µh) , (22) r → ξ r/MP , χ → MP χ , f → ξ f (15) 8 8 2 MP Ω Ω brings the total action to the form where δ > 0 and Ω is defined in eq. (3). Clearly, δLδ p ¯ does not introduce any new degrees of freedom. Hence, B = ξB , (16) it fulfills our assumption about the absence of new parti- ¯ cles above the weak scale. Moreover, the operator (22) is where B is a dimensionless action in which all terms are √ 2 of the order of one. Thus, the instanton action B is large suppressed below the scale ∼ MP / ξ as long as δ . ξ . as long as the non-minimal coupling ξ is large. Moreover, Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that our goal all terms in the quadratic action for fluctuations are man- is not to discuss a possible UV-completion of the the- ifestly of the order of one, which gives us an argument ory connected to the specific choice of the operator (22). that the corrections to the saddle-point result (12) are Instead, we want to demonstrate on a simple example subleading. how regularization at high energies can be achieved. The It turns out, however, that evaluating B in the theory operator (22) is not a unique option; other derivative op- (5) leads to an infinite action, caused by a divergent value erators produce the same effect on the instanton [23]. of χ(0). Indeed, the equations of motion take the form After including the operator (22), the Euclidean equa- tions of motion become √ r3χ0 ξ = − , (17) r3χ0 6δr3χ05G(χ) δr3χ06G0(χ) f 2π2M ∂r + − P f M 8 f 5 M 8 f 5 r2χ02 P P √ 6 − 6f 2 − = 0 , (18) ξ 2 3 0 (23) MP −r fU (χ) = − 2 δ(r) , 2π MP where for the moment we switched off the potential. One 2r2f 2U(χ) r2χ02 10δr2χ06G(χ) 6 − 6f 2 + − − = 0 , boundary condition for the instanton comes from asymp- 2 2 10 4 MP MP MP f totic flatness: χ → 0, f → 1 at r → ∞; another one is 2 √
due to the source: f → 0 as r → 0. Together, they select where we defined G(χ) = 1 + δ/ cosh ξχ/MP . We a unique solution of eqs. (17),(18). Its exact form is shall solve these equations numerically with the bound- s ary conditions discussed above. Close to the origin, how- 1 ever, they reduce to f(r) = ξ , (19) 1 + 24π4M 4 r4 √ √ P 6δr3χ05 ξ Z ∞ 0 0 ξ f(r )dr 8 5 = − 2 , (24) χ(r) = . (20) M f 2π MP 2π2M r03 P P r 10δr2χ06 6 − 10 4 = 0 , (25) We see that at r → 0 MP f √ 2 6π2M 2 r2 √ f ≈ √ P , χ ≈ − 6M log r . (21) and this again can be solved analytically, yielding the ξ P short-distance asymptotics of the instanton:

Thus, the scalar field diverges at the origin: χ(0) = ∞ 1 − 3 4 f(r) ∼ δ 10 ξ 10 (MP r) 5 , (26) and the solution is not viable. It is easy to check that 1 1 11 1 0 − 10 − 5 5 5 allowing for non-zero potential U(χ) does not change χ (r) ∼ δ ξ MP r . (27) the above results. Indeed, since on the solution both r3fU 0(χ) and r2f 2U(χ) tend to 0 at r → 0, the short- We see that χ(0) is finite now. It remains to check that distance asymptotics of the instanton are still given by one can achieve B = O(10). To this end, we use eq. eqs. (21). (23) to determine δ as a function of ξ in such a way that At this point, we must remember that our theory en- hhi = MF . The method for computing the instanton ters strong coupling at a finite energy scale. Therefore, and the corresponding action is described in appendix

9 10 4 This allows us to neglect the second term in the scalar curvature We choose this operator since the simplest option ∝ −δ(∂µh) R ∼ (−f + f 3 + rf 0)/(r2f 3). (with positive δ) would violate positivity bounds [56, 57]. 5

δ/ξ2 where N is the number of e-foldings. In what follows, we take N = 50.9 corresponding to ξ ∼ 107 [58]. The 1.5 prediction for ns is essentially identical to the original scenario of Higgs inflation [24], but r is suppressed by an additional power of ξ [25]. One can use the normaliza- 1.0 tion of the inflationary potential, extracted e.g., from the Planck data [59], to relate ξ and λ: 0.5 ξ = 1.1 · 1010λ . (29)

log10ξ At this point, the question arises if the high-energy value 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 of λ, which appears in eq. (29), can be derived from the Figure 1. Values of the non-minimal coupling ξ and the cou- parameters of the SM measured at collider experiments. pling δ of the higher-order operator (22), for which B = The relevant energy for the evaluation of the correspond- √ ing RG evolution is of the order of the top quark mass, ln(MP /( ξMF )). Admissible values of ξ are within the blue √ area, the left bound coming from inflation and the right bound µ = ytMP / ξ, where yt is the top Yukawa coupling and coming from top quark measurements. yt ≈ 0.43 at inflationary√ energies [35]. It lies below the scale Λ = Mp/ ξ, at which perturbation theory (defined on top of the low-energy vacuum) breaks down [34].11 E, and the result is shown in fig. 1. For the values of ξ However, the separation of µ and Λ is small and, more- admissible for inflation (see below), δ is of the same order over, λ, as evaluated within the SM, is close to zero and, of magnitude as ξ2. therefore, susceptible to corrections. For this reason, the As discussed above, a necessary condition for the valid- connection of low- and high-energy physics may break ity of the saddle-point result (12) is B  1. In the theory down if contributions of strongly-coupled physics at Λ are without the higher-dimensional operator, the scaling ar- unnaturally large [35]. But if this is not the case, infla- gument (15) shows that the strength of the source term, tionary parameters can be deduced from the low-energy controlled by the non-minimal coupling ξ, determines the data using the SM running of the relevant couplings. instanton profile and appears as a common factor in B. To a good accuracy the running of λ within the SM Therefore, a value ξ  1 automatically gives a large B, can be presented as unlike in the scenario considered in [23]. In the theory   2 µ with the operator (22), the scaling argument remains λ(µ) = λ0 + b ln . (30) applicable although it becomes more complicated. For qMP completeness, we discuss it in appendix E. We postpone Here q 1, b ∼ 10−5, and λ  1 are functions of the a more detailed study of subleading corrections to the . 0 parameters of the SM. Today, the largest uncertainty in instanton solution to future work. their determination comes from measurements of y [6]. Finally, one may wonder whether the instanton mecha- t Plugging in λ(µ) in eq. (29), we can determine ξ as a nism can also be realized in a simpler setup. For example, function of y measured at the weak scale. For example, consider the theory with the same Lagrangian for χ but t taking the conservative bound m 170 GeV [63–66] on without gravity, in the flat background, i.e., set f = 1. t & the top pole mass as an input, we get [35] In this case, it follows from eq. (24) that χ0 ∼ r−3/5 at small r, hence χ(0) is still finite. Furthermore, one ξ < 6.8 · 107 . (31) can show that the instanton action is also finite. How- √ever, the strength of the source now is of order 1, i.e., Thus, barring the above remark about corrections due to ξ disappears from the r.h.s. of the first line of eq. (23). strong coupling at Λ, the lower bound on the top mass in- Consequently, the instanton action is also of order 1 and ferred from collider experiments leads to an upper bound the semiclassical approximation is no longer valid. Dy- on ξ. Improving precision in top quark measurements namical gravity and a large non-minimal coupling ξ are, narrows down the window of admissible values of ξ. therefore, essential to make the action large. The same Inflation itself provides a lower bound on ξ, as was conclusion was reached in metric gravity [23, 42, 43]. already noticed in [67]. It is given by [35]: ξ > 1.0 · 106 . (32) IV. INFLATION Essentially, this constraint comes from the requirement that after plugging in λ(µ) from eq. (30), the potential (6) The potential√ (6) gives rise to inflation at field values χ & MP / ξ [25]. The spectral tilt and tensor-to-scalar ratio are readily computed: 11 Also in the metric formalism, it is possible to increase Λ by 2 2 adding higher dimensional operators [60, 61] or new degrees of n = 1 − , r = , (28) s N ξN 2 freedom [62]. 6 does not develop a stationary point below µ. If we take the Einstein frame, this leads to 7 the intermediate value ξ = 10 in between the bounds √ 2   ξχ  (31) and (32), we obtain from eqs. (28) that ns = 0.961 2 2 tanh mH MP MP and r = 7.7·10−11. Both values are consistent with recent δL = −   √   2ξ cosh ξχ measurements of the cosmic microwave background [59]. MP (33) 2 1 2 2 5mH ξ 4 ≈ − mH χ + 2 χ , 2 6MP where we expanded up to 4th order in χ in the second V. CONCLUSIONS step.√ Higher-order terms are suppressed by powers of MP / ξ and therefore are subleading. Since all kinetic We have considered the Standard Model with a terms are canonical in the Einstein frame, we can apply conformally-invariant Higgs potential and proposed a the standard RG equations of a massive self-interacting model for how it can be merged with General Relativ- scalar field. We conclude that the leading contribution ity. The two key ingredients are the non-minimal cou- of the non-minimal coupling to the βm-function of the pling of the Higgs field to the Ricci scalar and the Pala- Higgs mass is tini formulation of gravity. No new degrees of freedom −5m2 ξ δβ = H m2 . (34) are introduced beyond those of the SM and the gravi- m 4π2M 2 H ton. We have shown that after regulating the theory P with an exemplary higher-dimensional operator, elec- The novelty of this term consists in the fact that it is no troweak symmetry breaking can take place due to a sin- longer suppressed by any coupling constant. However, gular gravitational-scalar instanton. In this way, an ex- it still vanishes for mH → 0. Thus, the Higgs mass is ponential suppression of the weak scale as compared to predictable in the theory (1). the Planck mass is naturally achieved. Moreover, such a setup offers the possibility to calculate the value of the former. Finally, the same theory leads to success- APPENDIX B: SCALE OF UNITARITY VIOLATION IN PALATINI SCENARIO. ful inflation with the Higgs boson as inflaton. Since the scale of violation of tree-level unitarity lies above infla- tionary energies, the Higgs potential during inflation can In the metric scenario, we know that the scale of uni- be determined from the low-energy parameters of the tarity violation increases in a non-trivial background [26]. Standard Model, provided that corrections due to the We want to investigate if the same happens in the Pala- strong-coupling regime at higher scales are not unnatu- tini case. To this end, we follow the analysis of [26] and rally large. This makes it possible to test inflationary study the scattering of gauge bosons. In unitary gauge, physics at collider experiments and vice versa. the Higgs boson interacts with a gauge boson Aµ via the term h2 g02 (A )2 , (35) Ω2 µ 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS where g is the weak coupling constant. We observe that at high energies, the coupling of the Higgs with gauge bosons is weaker than without non-minimal coupling. We thank Fedor Bezrukov, Georgios Karananas, Therefore, the growth of the amplitudes involving lon- Marco Michel and Javier Rubio for useful discussions gitudinal gauge bosons can no longer be compensated and comments. This work was supported by ERC-AdG- by scattering with Higgs particles. The compensation 2015 grant 694896 and by the Swiss National Science starts to√ fail as soon as Ω deviates√ from 1, i.e., when Foundation Excellence grant 200020B 182864. h & MP / ξ (equivalently χ & MP / ξ). At this point, the amplitudes M of the longitudinal gauge bosons grow as M ∼ E/ma, where E is the characteristic energy of the process and ma is the mass of gauge bosons. Using 0 √ √ that ma ≈ g MP / ξ for h & MP / ξ, we obtain the amplitude APPENDIX A: RG RUNNING OF THE HIGGS √ MASS. ξE M ∼ 0 . (36) g MP 0 The goal of this appendix is to study the influence of Up to the factor g , which is of order 1, the√ scale of unitar- the non-minimal coupling ξ on the running of the Higgs ity violation therefore remains at MP / ξ even at large mass. Unlike in the rest of our work, we will first be background field values. We emphasize, however, that more general and allow for a non-zero Higgs mass mH , a more detailed study of the background-dependence of 2 2 i.e., we add to Lagrangian (2) the term −mH /2 h . In the scale of unitarity violation remains to be done. 7

APPENDIX C: RG RUNNING OF THE First, we do not take into account the higher- NON-MINIMAL COUPLING ξ. dimensional operator (22) and only consider a fundamen- tal scalar field h with the Lagrangian In our analysis, we have neglected the RG running of 1 the non-minimal coupling ξ. We want to study if this ap- L = (∂ h)2 − V. (39) 2Ω2 µ proximation is justified.√ Since at high energies the Higgs mass scales as MP / ξ both in the metric and Palatini This corresponds to the Higgs part of the action (2), after scenario, ξ obeys the same RG equation in both cases, performing the conformal transformation (3). For the namely [68, 69] present discussion, Ω and V could be arbitrary functions α of h and other fields, but they must be independent of µ ∂ ξ = − ξ , (37) ∂ h. The corresponding conjugate momentum is µ 16π2 µ 2 02 2 2 0 Π = 1/Ω ∂0h . (40) where α = 3/2g + 3g − 6yt . Here g and g are the SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings of the Standard Model, Consequently, the Hamiltonian density reads respectively. In the approximation of constant α, eq. (37) is solved by Ω2   H = Π2 + (∂h~ )2 + V. (41) α 2 µ  16π2 ξ(µ) = ξ 0 , (38) 0 µ In terms of field variable and its conjugate, the path integral (in Lorentzian signature) is where µ0 represents a reference energy scale. ! Y Z  Z  As derived in [35], the high-energy value of the top P = dh(x)dΠ(x) exp i d4x Π∂ h − H Yukawa coupling is y ≈ 0.43. Using the same method, 0 t x we deduce that g0 ≈ 0.44 and g ≈ 0.53.12 It turns out that the contributions of the different couplings largely cancel, α ≈ 0.03. Both for the computation of (42a) the gravitational instanton and inflation, only field val- ! √ Y Z  Z  ues χ & MP / ξ are relevant. In this region of pa- = dh(x) exp i d4x L (42b) rameter space,√ the renormalization scale is bounded as x µ & ytMP / ξ tanh(1). Thus, the non-minimal coupling ( 2  2)! α −5 Y Ω 1 can at most vary by ∆ξ/ξ ≈ 1 − tanh(1) 16π2 ≈ 5 · 10 . · dΠ(x) exp −i Π − ∂ h . (42c) 2 Ω2 0 Nevertheless, one can wonder if such a change of ξ, albeit x small, can affect the flatness of the inflationary potential. Numerical analysis analogous to the one performed [35] Performing the Gaussian integral in the last line, we ob- shows that this is not the case, i.e., all predictions re- tain, up to constant factors: main invariant. It is interesting to note, however, that ! Y Z dh(x)  Z  for α ∼ 1 small values of ξ near the lower bound (32) are P = exp i d4x L . (43) Ω no longer viable. x In this way, we have derived the path integral measure 13 APPENDIX D: PATH INTEGRAL MEASURE. of h in the presence of a non-canonical kinetic term. Finally, we perform the transformation to the canonical field χ. Since dh = Ωdχ according to eq. (4), we obtain As explained in the main text, we neglect any non- trivial factors in the measure of the path integral in eq. ! Y Z  Z  (10). The reason is that they do not change the leading- P = dχ(x) exp i d4x L . (44) order result of the saddle point-solution. In order to go x beyond the leading order, one would have to compute all subleading contributions. They arise not only from Thus, there is no additional contribution to the measure. the measure factors, but e.g., also from the integration Any field with a canonical kinetic term should exhibit this property [72]. over the fields χ andg ˆµν . For completeness, and in order to illustrate these points, here we discuss the different contributions to the measure.

13 The measure in eq. (43) is scale-invariant for h → ∞. That a theory of Higgs inflation should obey this property has already been proposed long ago [70] (this corresponds to “prescription I” 12 We thank Fedor Bezrukov for kindly providing us with a script in the language of [70]). Further discussion of the choice of path to do so. integral measure can be found in [71]. 8

Next we take into account the higher-order operator where c initially is an arbitrary value. Using these bound- (22). The conjugate momentum becomes ary conditions, we solve the coupled differential equations (23). Subsequently, we check if the boundary condition     1 6δ δ 4 at the origin, i.e., eq. (24), is fulfilled. We change c ac- Π = 2 ∂0h 1 + 8 6 1 + 2 (∂µh) . (45) Ω MP Ω Ω cordingly until the discrepancy between the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of eq. (24) is tolerably small. The left panel of fig. Consequently, the integral over Π is no longer Gaussian 2 shows the solutions f(r) and χ(r) for exemplary values and we cannot perform it explicitly. However, we can of the parameters of the theory. evaluate it in the saddle point approximation (see e.g., The full instanton action is given by [73]). It turns out that to leading order, the stationary Z ∞ point of Π is still given by eq. (45). Repeating the same p 2 B = − ξχ(0) + 2π dr (Lδ + LU ) , (50) steps as above, we obtain 0 ! with Y Z  Z  P ≈ dχ(x) m(x) exp i d4x L (46a) 2δr3G(χ)χ06 x L = , L = −fr3U(χ) . (51) ! δ f 5 U Y Z  Z   = dχ(x) exp i d4x L − iδ(4)(0) ln m(x) , x The right panel of fig. 2 shows Lδ and LU as functions of r (46b) for the exemplary solution. We see that the contribution to the action from the potential term is negligible. The where total value of B results from the balance between the negative source term and the positive higher-dimensional s 6δ  δ  term. m(x) = 1 + 1 + (∂ h)4 + 4(∂ h)2(∂ h)2
. M 8 Ω6 Ω2 µ µ 0 Let us now discuss the validity of the semiclassical ap- P proximation in eq. (12) with the above instanton solu- (47) tion. We would like to use a scaling argument similar We see that the additional contribution to the measure to eq. (15) to show that a large parameter can always is singular. Such factors have long been known [74], and be extracted from the action (50). As before, we make they cancel in a consistent theory (see e.g., also [75, 76]). use of the spherical symmetry of the solution and of the This makes it evident that only after a complete study fact that f → 0 as r → 0. The analysis is complicated of fluctuations around the saddle-point solution, a finite by the presence of the higher-dimensional term (22). We correction can be obtained. will consider separately the inner region of the instanton, Finally, we briefly refer to results that are relevant for where G(χ) ≈ 1, and the outer region, where G(χ)  1. the gravitational part of the path integral. First, the in- From the right panel of fig. 2 we see that both regions tegration over the connection in Palatini gravity leads to contribute to the instanton action. From the left panel the same measure as in the metric theory [77]. However, of fig. 2 it is evident that in the inner region f  1 while the measure in metric gravity is non-trivial. It leads to in the outer region f ≈ 1. the same singular factor as displayed in eq. (46), where Our goal is to factor out the leading-order ξ- now (see e.g., [77]) dependence of the action B, as in eq. (16). For√ a given value of ξ, we choose δ such that B = ln(M /( ξM )) m(x) = (det G )−1/2 , (48) P F αβγδ (see fig. 1). Numerical analysis shows that δ ∼ ξσ where with σ ≈ 2.24. Our argument, however, does not depend on a particular value of σ, and we shall keep it arbitrary. √ Gαβγδ(g) = g gαγ gβδ + gαδgβγ − 2gαβgγδ
. (49) Next, we make the following rescaling of the variables entering the action: As in the case of the scalar field, the non-trivial con- tribution of the measure only becomes meaningful after r → α r/MP , χ → β MP χ , f → γ f . (52) taking into account other corrections to the saddle-point To fix α, β and γ as functions of ξ, we study the con- solution. tributions to B from the source term Bχ, the curvature term BR and the higher-dimensional operator Bδ. Con- sider first the inner region of the instanton, G(χ) ≈ 1. APPENDIX E: INSTANTON SOLUTION. Then, the three contributions scale as

In order to solve the full equations of motion (23) nu- α2 ξσβ6 B ∼ ξ1/2β , B ∼ ,B ∼ . (53) merically, we implement a shooting method. It relies on χ R γ δ α2γ5 the fact that f(r) = 1 and χ(r) ∼ r−2 for large r. There- fore, we can choose a sufficiently large value of r and Now we demand that all three terms exhibit the same 2 then demand that f(r) = 1 and r χ(r) = c at this point, scaling, Bχ ∼ BR ∼ Bδ ∼ S. Here S is a function of 9

1 0.25

0.100 0.20

0.010 0.15

0.001 0.10

10-4 0.05

0.01 1 100 4 10 0.01 1 100 104 (a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) The field χ (blue) and the metric function f (red) of the instanton solution corresponding to ξ = 107, δ = 0.887ξ2 −3 6 (chosen so that B = B0), and λ = 10 . (b) Contributions Lδ (blue) and LU (red, scaled up 10 times) to the Lagrangian for the same solution. All dimensionful quantities are in the units of MP .

ξ, which is fixed by the solution. We shall also keep it as arbitrary since the argument is insensitive to the choice ξ2σβ6 of S. Then, we obtain B ∼ . (55) δ α2 Demanding that this contribution also yields S leads to

−1/2 (2σ−3)/2 − 1 α = S ξ , β = ξ 2 , (56) α = S5/6 ξ(σ−3)/12 , β = S ξ−1/2 , γ = S2/3 ξ(σ−3)/6 . (54) where β is fixed by the requirement that the argument of Consider now the outer region of the instanton, G(χ)  cosh in G(χ) no longer depends on ξ. With the scalings 1. In this case f ≈ 1, hence the only contribution to the (54) and (56) we have achieved our goal of extracting all action comes from the higher-dimensional term. It scales large numbers from the integrals in the action.

[1] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of a new particle Fiz.147,389(2015)], arXiv:1411.1923 [hep-ph]. in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with [7] A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Scale the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 1 Invariant Instantons and the Complete Lifetime of (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D97, 056006 (2018), [2] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Observation of a New Boson arXiv:1707.08124 [hep-ph]. at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the [8] T. Asaka, S. Blanchet, and M. Shaposhnikov, The LHC, Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 [hep- νMSM, dark matter and neutrino masses, Phys. Lett. ex]. B631, 151 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503065 [hep-ph]. [3] M. Shaposhnikov, Is there a new physics between elec- [9] T. Asaka and M. Shaposhnikov, The νMSM, dark mat- troweak and Planck scales?, in Astroparticle Physics: ter and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Phys. Lett. Current Issues, 2007 (APCI07) Budapest, Hungary, B620, 17 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505013 [hep-ph]. June 21-23, 2007 (2007) arXiv:0708.3550 [hep-th]. [10] A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Shaposhnikov, [4] G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, The Role of sterile neutrinos in cosmology and astro- G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Higgs mass physics, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 59, 191 (2009), and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, arXiv:0901.0011 [hep-ph]. JHEP 08, 098, arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]. [11] E. Gildener, Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies, Phys. Rev. [5] D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giu- D14, 1667 (1976). dice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, Investigating [12] F. Vissani, Do experiments suggest a hierarchy problem?, the near-criticality of the Higgs boson, JHEP 12, 089, Phys. Rev. D57, 7027 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709409 arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph]. [6] F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Why should we [13] M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo, and A. Strumia, A modified care about the top quark Yukawa coupling?, J. Exp. naturalness principle and its experimental tests, JHEP Theor. Phys. 120, 335 (2015), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. 08, 022, arXiv:1303.7244 [hep-ph]. 10

[14] A. Palatini, Deduzione invariantiva delle equazioni gravi- Effects in Palatini Higgs Inflation, JCAP 07, 064, tazionali dal principio di hamilton, Rendiconti del Circolo arXiv:2002.07105 [hep-ph]. Matematico di Palermo 43, 203 (1919). [36] U. Aydemir, M. M. Anber, and J. F. Donoghue, Self- [15] A. Einstein, Einheitliche Feldtheorie von Gravitation und healing of unitarity in effective field theories and the Elektrizit¨at,Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss 414 (1925). onset of new physics, Phys. Rev. D86, 014025 (2012), [16] S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections arXiv:1203.5153 [hep-ph]. as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. [37] S. Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theories Rev. D7, 1888 (1973). of gravitation, in General Relativity: An Einstein Cente- [17] S. Weinberg, Mass of the Higgs Boson, Phys. Rev. Lett. nary Survey (1979) pp. 790–831. 36, 294 (1976). [38] M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quan- [18] A. D. Linde, On the Vacuum Instability and the Higgs tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 57, 971 (1998), arXiv:hep- Meson Mass, Phys. Lett. 70B, 306 (1977). th/9605030. [19] G. ’t Hooft, Dimensional regularization and the renor- [39] G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Self-Completeness of Einstein malization group, Nucl. Phys. B61, 455 (1973). Gravity, (2010), arXiv:1005.3497 [hep-th]. [20] G. ’t Hooft and M. J. G. Veltman, One loop divergencies [40] G. Dvali, G. F. Giudice, C. Gomez, and A. Keha- in the theory of gravitation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. gias, UV-Completion by Classicalization, JHEP 08, 108, Theor. A20, 69 (1974). arXiv:1010.1415 [hep-ph]. [21] E. Witten, Cosmological Consequences of a Light Higgs [41] G. Dvali, C. Gomez, and A. Kehagias, Classicaliza- Boson, Nucl. Phys. B177, 477 (1981). tion of Gravitons and Goldstones, JHEP 11, 070, [22] C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Standard model crit- arXiv:1103.5963 [hep-th]. icality prediction: Top mass 173 +- 5-GeV and Higgs [42] M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin, Gravity, Scale In- mass 135 +- 9-GeV, Phys. Lett. B368, 96 (1996), variance and the Hierarchy Problem, JHEP 10, 024, arXiv:hep-ph/9511371 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1804.06376 [hep-th]. [23] M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin, Conformal symmetry: [43] A. Shkerin, Dilaton-assisted generation of the Fermi scale towards the link between the Fermi and the Planck scales, from the Planck scale, Phys. Rev. D99, 115018 (2019), Phys. Lett. B783, 253 (2018), arXiv:1803.08907 [hep-th]. arXiv:1903.11317 [hep-th]. [24] F. L. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, The Standard [44] G. W. Gibbons, The Einstein Action of Riemannian Met- Model Higgs boson as the inflaton, Phys. Lett. B659, rics and Its Relation to Quantum Gravity and Thermo- 703 (2008), arXiv:0710.3755 [hep-th]. dynamics, Phys. Lett. A61, 3 (1977). [25] F. Bauer and D. A. Demir, Inflation with Non-Minimal [45] S. Gratton and N. Turok, Cosmological perturbations Coupling: Metric versus Palatini Formulations, Phys. from the no boundary Euclidean path integral, Phys. Lett. B665, 222 (2008), arXiv:0803.2664 [hep-ph]. Rev. D60, 123507 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9902265 [astro- [26] F. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, M. Shaposhnikov, and ph]. S. Sibiryakov, Higgs inflation: consistency and generali- [46] N. Dadhich and J. M. Pons, On the equivalence of the sations, JHEP 01, 016, arXiv:1008.5157 [hep-ph]. Einstein-Hilbert and the Einstein-Palatini formulations [27] A. Escriv`aand C. Germani, Beyond dimensional analy- of general relativity for an arbitrary connection, Gen. Rel. sis: Higgs and new Higgs inflations do not violate unitar- Grav. 44, 2337 (2012), arXiv:1010.0869 [gr-qc]. ity, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123526 (2017), arXiv:1612.06253 [47] A. M. Polyakov, Thermal Properties of Gauge Fields and [hep-ph]. Quark Liberation, Phys. Lett. 72B, 477 (1978). [28] J. Fumagalli, S. Mooij, and M. Postma, Unitarity and [48] S. Yu. Khlebnikov, V. A. Rubakov, and P. G. Tinyakov, predictiveness in new Higgs inflation, JHEP 03, 038, Instanton induced cross-sections below the sphaleron, arXiv:1711.08761 [hep-ph]. Nucl. Phys. B350, 441 (1991). [29] J. L. F. Barbon and J. R. Espinosa, On the Natural- [49] S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Gravitational Effects ness of Higgs Inflation, Phys. Rev. D79, 081302 (2009), on and of Vacuum Decay, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3305 (1980). arXiv:0903.0355 [hep-ph]. [50] S. Hawking and N. Turok, Open inflation without [30] C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee, and M. Trott, Power-counting false vacua, Phys. Lett. B 425, 25 (1998), arXiv:hep- and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During th/9802030. Inflation, JHEP 09, 103, arXiv:0902.4465 [hep-ph]. [51] J. Garriga, Open inflation and the singular boundary, [31] F. Bezrukov, J. Rubio, and M. Shaposhnikov, Living be- Phys. Rev. D 61, 047301 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9803210. yond the edge: Higgs inflation and vacuum metastability, [52] A. Vilenkin, Singular instantons and creation of open Phys. Rev. D92, 083512 (2015), arXiv:1412.3811 [hep- universes, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7069 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph]. th/9803084. [32] Y. Ema, R. Jinno, K. Mukaida, and K. Nakayama, Vio- [53] S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Axion Induced Topol- lent Preheating in Inflation with Nonminimal Coupling, ogy Change in Quantum Gravity and String Theory, JCAP 1702 (02), 045, arXiv:1609.05209 [hep-ph]. Nucl. Phys. B 306, 890 (1988). [33] M. P. DeCross, D. I. Kaiser, A. Prabhu, C. Prescod- [54] S. R. Coleman, V. Glaser, and A. Martin, Action Minima Weinstein, and E. I. Sfakianakis, Preheating after mul- Among Solutions to a Class of Euclidean Scalar Field tifield inflation with nonminimal couplings, III: Dynam- Equations, Commun. Math. Phys. 58, 211 (1978). ical spacetime results, Phys. Rev. D97, 023528 (2018), [55] K. Blum, M. Honda, R. Sato, M. Takimoto, and arXiv:1610.08916 [astro-ph.CO]. K. Tobioka, O(N) Invariance of the Multi-Field [34] F. Bauer and D. A. Demir, Higgs-Palatini Inflation and Bounce, JHEP 05, 109, [Erratum: JHEP06,060(2017)], Unitarity, Phys. Lett. B698, 425 (2011), arXiv:1012.2900 arXiv:1611.04570 [hep-th]. [hep-ph]. [56] A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, [35] M. Shaposhnikov, A. Shkerin, and S. Zell, Quantum and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR ob- 11

√ struction to UV completion, JHEP 10, 014, arXiv:hep- quark mass in the tt¯→ lepton+jets channel from s = 8 th/0602178 [hep-th]. TeV ATLAS data and combination with previous results, [57] M. Herrero-Valea, I. Timiryasov, and A. Tokareva, To Eur. Phys. J. C79, 290 (2019), arXiv:1810.01772 [hep- Positivity and Beyond, where Higgs-Dilaton Inflation ex]. has never gone before 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/042, [67] S. Rasanen and P. Wahlman, Higgs inflation with loop arXiv:1905.08816 [hep-ph]. corrections in the Palatini formulation, JCAP 1711 (11), [58] J. Rubio and E. S. Tomberg, Preheating in Palatini Higgs 047, arXiv:1709.07853 [astro-ph.CO]. inflation, JCAP 1904 (04), 021, arXiv:1902.10148 [hep- [68] F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Standard Model ph]. Higgs boson mass from inflation: Two loop analysis, [59] Y. Akrami et al. (Planck), Planck 2018 results. X. Con- JHEP 07, 089, arXiv:0904.1537 [hep-ph]. straints on inflation, arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]. [69] F. Bezrukov, M. Pauly, and J. Rubio, On the robustness [60] C. Germani and A. Kehagias, New Model of Infla- of the primordial power spectrum in renormalized Higgs tion with Non-minimal Derivative Coupling of Standard inflation, JCAP 02, 040, arXiv:1706.05007 [hep-ph]. Model Higgs Boson to Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, [70] F. L. Bezrukov, A. Magnin, and M. Shaposhnikov, Stan- 011302 (2010), arXiv:1003.2635 [hep-ph]. dard model higgs boson mass from inflation, Physics Let- [61] R. N. Lerner and J. McDonald, A Unitarity-Conserving ters B 675, 88?92 (2009). Higgs Inflation Model, Phys. Rev. D82, 103525 (2010), [71] K. Falls and M. Herrero-Valea, Frame (In)equivalence in arXiv:1005.2978 [hep-ph]. Quantum Field Theory and Cosmology, Eur. Phys. J. C [62] G. F. Giudice and H. M. Lee, Unitarizing Higgs Inflation, 79, 595 (2019), arXiv:1812.08187 [hep-th]. Phys. Lett. B694, 294 (2011), arXiv:1010.1417 [hep-ph]. [72] E. Fradkin and G. Vilkovisky, S matrix for gravitational [63] A. H. Hoang, The Top Mass: Interpretation and field. ii. local measure, general relations, elements of Theoretical Uncertainties, in Proceedings, 7th Interna- renormalization theory, Phys. Rev. D 8, 4241 (1973). tional Workshop on Top Quark Physics (TOP2014): [73] M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, Quantization of gauge Cannes, France, September 28-October 3, 2014 (2014) systems (1992). arXiv:1412.3649 [hep-ph]. [74] T. Lee and C.-N. Yang, Theory of Charged Vector [64] V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Measurement of the top Mesons Interacting with the Electromagnetic Field, quark mass using proton-proton data at p(s) = 7 and 8 Phys. Rev. 128, 885 (1962). TeV, Phys. Rev. D93, 072004 (2016), arXiv:1509.04044 [75] A. Salam and J. Strathdee, Equivalent formulations of [hep-ex]. massive vector field theories, Phys. Rev. D 2, 2869 (1970). [65] S. Ferrario Ravasio, T. Jeˇzo,P. Nason, and C. Oleari, A [76] I. Gerstein, R. Jackiw, S. Weinberg, and B. Lee, Chiral theoretical study of top-mass measurements at the LHC loops, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2486 (1971). using NLO+PS generators of increasing accuracy, Eur. [77] R. Aros, M. Contreras, and J. Zanelli, Path integral mea- Phys. J. C78, 458 (2018), arXiv:1801.03944 [hep-ph]. sure for first order and metric gravities, Class. Quant. [66] M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Measurement of the top Grav. 20, 2937 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0303113.