# Anomalous dimensions of potential top-partners

### Submission summary

 As Contributors: Diogo Buarque Franzosi · Gabriele Ferretti Arxiv Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08273v2 (pdf) Date accepted: 2019-08-27 Date submitted: 2019-08-07 02:00 Submitted by: Ferretti, Gabriele Submitted to: SciPost Physics Academic field: Physics Specialties: High-Energy Physics - Theory High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology Approach: Theoretical

### Abstract

We discuss anomalous dimensions of top-partner candidates in theories of Partial Compositeness. First, we revisit, confirm and extend the computation by DeGrand and Shamir of anomalous dimensions of fermionic trilinears. We present general results applicable to all matter representations and to composite operators of any allowed spin. We then ask the question of whether it is reasonable to expect some models to have composite operators of sufficiently large anomalous dimension to serve as top-partners. While this question can be answered conclusively only by lattice gauge theory, within perturbation theory we find that such values could well occur for some specific models. In the Appendix we collect a number of practical group theory results for fourth-order invariants of general interest in gauge theories with many irreducible representations of fermions.

### Ontology / Topics

See full Ontology or Topics database.

Published as SciPost Phys. 7, 027 (2019)

Sorry it took so long, I though I had already resubmitted, but something went wrong.

### List of changes

All the changes are listed and discussed in the replies to the Referees.
Structural changes: Added Table 3,4,5, equation (9) and two references.

### Submission & Refereeing History

Resubmission 1905.08273v2 on 7 August 2019
Submission 1905.08273v1 on 27 May 2019

## Reports on this Submission

### Report

The authors have addressed all my comments and I recommend the paper for publication in SciPost.

There appears to be a typo in footnote 6:
if $N_f$ is the number of Dirac fermions and $N_F$ of Weyl fermions then $N_f=N_F/2$ (and not the other way around,
as the footnote now has).

• validity: -
• significance: -
• originality: -
• clarity: -
• formatting: -
• grammar: -