Rebuttal of 'Note on "Vacuum stability of a general scalar potential of a few fields"'
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2401.15126
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage{geometry} % See geometry.pdf to learn the layout options. There are lots.
\geometry{letterpaper} % ... or a4paper or a5paper or ...
%\geometry{landscape} % Activate for for rotated page geometry
%\usepackage[parfill]{parskip} % Activate to begin paragraphs with an empty line rather than an indent
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left\lvert #1 \right\rvert}
\title{Rebuttal of `Note on ``Vacuum stability of a general scalar potential of a few fields'''}
\author{Kristjan Kannike
\\
\footnotesize
National Institute of Chemical Physics and Biophysics, R\"{a}vala 10, 10143 Estonia
}
%\date{} % Activate to display a given date or no date
\begin{document}
\maketitle
%\section{}
%\subsection{}
\begin{abstract}
We show that the recent `Note on ``Vacuum stability of a general scalar potential of a few fields''' [arXiv:2401.13863] erroneously misses the possibility that the Higgs portal term may have a different sign for different values of the two singlet fields. Due to this mistake, the derived vacuum stability conditions are sufficient, but not necessary.
\end{abstract}
Our paper \cite{Kannike:2016fmd} considered the vacuum stability or bounded-from-below conditions of the general scalar potential of the Higgs boson $H$ and two real scalars $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$. In order to find vacuum stability conditions, it is enough to consider the positivity of the quartic part of the potential, given by
\begin{equation}
V(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}, \abs{H}^{2}) = \lambda_{H} \abs{H}^{4} + M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) \abs{H}^{2} + V(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) &= \lambda_{H20} \phi_{1}^{2} + \lambda_{H11} \phi_{1} \phi_{2} + \lambda_{H02} \phi_{2}^{2},
\\
V(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) &= \lambda_{40} \phi_{1}^{4} + \lambda_{31} \phi_{1}^{3} \phi_{2} + \lambda_{22} \phi_{1}^{2} \phi_{2}^{2} + \lambda_{13} \phi_{1} \phi_{2}^{3} + \lambda_{04} \phi_{2}^{4}.
\label{eq:V:general:2:fields}
\end{align}
Considering the potential $V(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}, \abs{H}^{2})$ as a quadratic polynomial in $\abs{H}^{2}$, we see that it is positive for all field values if and only if
\begin{align}
\lambda_{H} &> 0, \quad V(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) > 0, \\
M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) &\geq 0 \; \lor \;4 \lambda_{H} V(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) - M^{4}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) > 0.
\label{eq:2:field:cond}
\end{align}
The coefficient matrix of the quadratic form $M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2})$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{M}^{2} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda_{H20} & \frac{1}{2} \lambda_{H11} \\
\frac{1}{2} \lambda_{H11} & \lambda_{H02}
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The mistake of the recent `Note on ``Vacuum stability of a general scalar potential of a few fields'''~\cite{Song:2024yio} is to not realise that the coefficient matrix $\mathbf{M}^{2}$ can be not only positive-definite or negative-definite, but also \emph{indefinite}. If $\mathbf{M}^{2}$ is positive-semidefinite, then $M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) \geq 0$ holds for all values of $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$. If $\mathbf{M}^{2}$ is negative-definite, then the second condition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2:field:cond} must hold for all values of $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$. For an indefinite $\mathbf{M}^{2}$, which has one negative and one positive eigenvalue, we have in a region of $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ that $M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) \geq 0$, while in another region with $M^{2}(\phi_{1}, \phi_{2}) < 0$ we must demand that the second, stronger condition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:2:field:cond} be satisfied.
The determinant of an indefinite $\mathbf{M}^{2}$ is negative, i.e. $4 \lambda_{H20} \lambda_{H02} - \lambda_{H11}^{2} < 0$. Unlike our work \cite{Kannike:2016fmd}, Ref.~\cite{Song:2024yio} erroneously does not take into account this possibility. Therefore the presented vacuum stability conditions, Eq.~(9) of Ref.~\cite{Song:2024yio}, are sufficient, but not necessary.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Estonian Research Council grants PRG803, RVTT3 and RVTT7, and by the EU through the European Regional Development Fund CoE program TK202 ``Fundamental Universe''.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
\bibliography{rebuttal}
\end{document}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{1}
\bibitem{Kannike:2016fmd}
K.~Kannike, \emph{{Vacuum Stability of a General Scalar Potential of a Few
Fields}}, \href{https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4160-3}{\emph{Eur.
Phys. J. C} {\bfseries 76} (2016) 324} [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 355 (2018)]
[\href{https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02680}{{\ttfamily 1603.02680}}].
\bibitem{Song:2024yio}
Y.~Song, \emph{{Note on ''Vacuum stability of a general scalar potential of a
few fields''}}, \href{https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13863}{{\ttfamily
2401.13863}}.
\end{thebibliography}\endgroup