The infrared regime of SU(2) with one adjoint Dirac Fermion Ed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The infrared regime of SU(2) with one adjoint Dirac Fermion

Ed Bennett

with Andreas Athenodorou, Georg Bergner, and Biagio Lucini

Outline

Introduction

Motivation and background Chiral symmetry breaking Aims and predictions

Results

Phase diagram Spectrum Mass anomalous dimension

Conclusions and outlook

Motivation

• SU(2)+ 2 adjoint Dirac flavours known to be in the conformal

window

• Can we pin down the end of the conformal window?
• Look at SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour

Motivation

• SU(2)+ 2 adjoint Dirac flavours known to be in the conformal

window

• Can we pin down the end of the conformal window?
• Look at SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour

Motivation

• SU(2)+ 2 adjoint Dirac flavours known to be in the conformal

window

• Can we pin down the end of the conformal window?
• Look at SU(2)+ 1 adjoint Dirac flavour

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• N = 2 SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• N = 2 SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• N = 2 SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Analytic prediction

Model is widely predicted to be confining. Why?

• Large-N volume reduction: 1 adjoint flavour is confining

– IR behaviour unclear – N dependence uncertain

• N = 2 SYM is confining; take large scalar mass limit

– But confinement requires SUSY, which requires massless scalars. – Fate of confinement when SUSY is broken is unclear Strong assertions of confinement are not justified.

Chiral symmetry breaking

• One flavour—surely no chiral structure?
• 1 Dirac flavour = 2 Majorana/Weyl d.o.f.
• SU(2) symmetry between two chiral flavours
• Breaks to SO(2): 2 Goldstones
• Insufficient for EWSB; not a WT candidate

Chiral symmetry breaking

• One flavour—surely no chiral structure?
• 1 Dirac flavour = 2 Majorana/Weyl d.o.f.
• SU(2) symmetry between two chiral flavours
• Breaks to SO(2): 2 Goldstones
• Insufficient for EWSB; not a WT candidate

Chiral symmetry breaking

• One flavour—surely no chiral structure?
• 1 Dirac flavour = 2 Majorana/Weyl d.o.f.
• SU(2) symmetry between two chiral flavours
• Breaks to SO(2): 2 Goldstones
• Insufficient for EWSB; not a WT candidate

Chiral symmetry breaking

• One flavour—surely no chiral structure?
• 1 Dirac flavour = 2 Majorana/Weyl d.o.f.
• SU(2) symmetry between two chiral flavours
• Breaks to SO(2): 2 Goldstones
• Insufficient for EWSB; not a WT candidate

Chiral symmetry breaking

• One flavour—surely no chiral structure?
• 1 Dirac flavour = 2 Majorana/Weyl d.o.f.
• SU(2) symmetry between two chiral flavours
• Breaks to SO(2): 2 Goldstones
• Insufficient for EWSB; not a WT candidate

Aims

• First-principles confirmation of IR conformality/confinement
• Spectroscopy
• Anomalous dimension
• Topological charge, susceptibility
• Static potential

Aims

• First-principles confirmation of IR conformality/confinement
• Spectroscopy
• Anomalous dimension
• Topological charge, susceptibility
• Static potential

Aims

• First-principles confirmation of IR conformality/confinement
• Spectroscopy
• Anomalous dimension
• Topological charge, susceptibility
• Static potential

Aims

• First-principles confirmation of IR conformality/confinement
• Spectroscopy
• Anomalous dimension
• Topological charge, susceptibility
• Static potential

Aims

• First-principles confirmation of IR conformality/confinement
• Spectroscopy
• Anomalous dimension
• Topological charge, susceptibility
• Static potential

Predictions

• Confinement: mPS → 0, mV ̸→ 0 as mPCAC → 0.
• Conformal: Locking at scale mlock:

– mPCAC mlock mstate m

.

– Ratios of spectral quantities in this regime constant.

• Near-conformal: Intermediary conformal-like region, IR confining

region – Not clearly identifiable, for limited range of masses

Predictions

• Confinement: mPS → 0, mV ̸→ 0 as mPCAC → 0.
• Conformal: Locking at scale mlock:

– mPCAC mlock mstate m

.

– Ratios of spectral quantities in this regime constant.

• Near-conformal: Intermediary conformal-like region, IR confining

region – Not clearly identifiable, for limited range of masses

Predictions

• Confinement: mPS → 0, mV ̸→ 0 as mPCAC → 0.
• Conformal: Locking at scale mlock:

– mPCAC < mlock ⇒ mstate ∼ m1/(1+γ∗) → 0. – Ratios of spectral quantities in this regime constant.

• Near-conformal: Intermediary conformal-like region, IR confining

region – Not clearly identifiable, for limited range of masses

Predictions

• Confinement: mPS → 0, mV ̸→ 0 as mPCAC → 0.
• Conformal: Locking at scale mlock:

– mPCAC < mlock ⇒ mstate ∼ m1/(1+γ∗) → 0. – Ratios of spectral quantities in this regime constant.

• Near-conformal: Intermediary conformal-like region, IR confining

region – Not clearly identifiable, for limited range of masses

Predictions

• Confinement: mPS → 0, mV ̸→ 0 as mPCAC → 0.
• Conformal: Locking at scale mlock:

– mPCAC < mlock ⇒ mstate ∼ m1/(1+γ∗) → 0. – Ratios of spectral quantities in this regime constant.

• Near-conformal: Intermediary conformal-like region, IR confining

region – Not clearly identifiable, for limited range of masses

Predictions

• Confinement: mPS → 0, mV ̸→ 0 as mPCAC → 0.
• Conformal: Locking at scale mlock:

– mPCAC < mlock ⇒ mstate ∼ m1/(1+γ∗) → 0. – Ratios of spectral quantities in this regime constant.

• Near-conformal: Intermediary conformal-like region, IR confining

region – Not clearly identifiable, for limited range of masses

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of

–

and :

Baryon spectroscopy, Static potential Topological charge

–

• nly:

Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) Mesonic spectoscopy Spin- state mass ( gluion-glue) Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V

L L , L

• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Phase diagram

0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75

• 1.6
• 1.4
• 1.2
• 1
• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

Plaquette a m  1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2.0 2.05 2.1 2.15 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

–

and :

Baryon spectroscopy, Static potential Topological charge

–

• nly:

Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) Mesonic spectoscopy Spin- state mass ( gluion-glue) Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V

L L , L

• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

Baryon spectroscopy, Static potential Topological charge

–

• nly:

Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) Mesonic spectoscopy Spin- state mass ( gluion-glue) Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V

L L , L

• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

–

• nly:

Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) Mesonic spectoscopy Spin- state mass ( gluion-glue) Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V

L L , L

• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

– β = 2.05 only:

Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) Mesonic spectoscopy Spin- state mass ( gluion-glue) Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V

L L , L

• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

– β = 2.05 only:

▶ Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) ▶ Mesonic spectoscopy ▶ Spin- 1 2 state mass (∼gluion-glue) ▶ Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V

L L , L

• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

– β = 2.05 only:

▶ Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) ▶ Mesonic spectoscopy ▶ Spin- 1 2 state mass (∼gluion-glue) ▶ Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V = 2L × L3, L = 8, 12, 16, 24, 32
• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

β = 2.05 spectrum

0.5 1 1.5 2 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 a mState a mPCAC 0⁺ scalar meson 2⁺ scalar baryon 0⁻ pseudoscalar meson 0⁺ glueball Spin-½ state σ

β = 2.05 spectral ratios

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 mState / σ a mPCAC 0⁺ scalar meson 0⁻ pseudoscalar meson 0⁺ axial vector meson 0⁻ vector meson 0⁺ glueball

β = 2.05 spectral ratios

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 mState / σ a mPCAC 2⁺ scalar baryon 2⁻ pseudoscalar baryon 2⁻ vector baryon Spin-½ state

β = 2.2 spectrum—provisional

0.5 1 1.5 2 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 a mState a mPCAC 2⁺ scalar baryon 0⁻ vector meson σ

β = 2.2 spectral ratios—provisional

1 2 3 4 5 6 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 mState / σ a mPCAC 2⁺ scalar baryon 0⁻ vector meson

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

– β = 2.05 only:

▶ Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) ▶ Mesonic spectoscopy ▶ Spin- 1 2 state mass (∼gluion-glue) ▶ Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V = 2L × L3, L = 8, 12, 16, 24, 32
• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop

torelon

• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Center symmetry

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

• 0.06
• 0.04
• 0.02

0.02 0.04 0.06 Count x  1 2 3

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

– β = 2.05 only:

▶ Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) ▶ Mesonic spectoscopy ▶ Spin- 1 2 state mass (∼gluion-glue) ▶ Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V = 2L × L3, L = 8, 12, 16, 24, 32
• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop σ ≡ torelon σ
• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Sample topological charge histories

β = 2.05, m = −1.475, L = 32 β = 2.05, m = −1.510, L = 32

• 20
• 15
• 10
• 5

5 10 15 20 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Q Configuration #

• 15
• 10
• 5

5 10 15 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Q Configuration #

β = 2.05, m = −1.523, L = 48

• 20
• 10

10 20 500 1000 1500 2000 Q Configuration #

Lattice results

• Phase diagram: plaquette on 44 lattice; 1.4 ≤ β ≤ 2.8,

−1.7 ≤ am ≤ −0.1

• Full set of simulations at two values of β

– β = 2.05 and 2.2:

▶ Baryon spectroscopy, ▶ Static potential ▶ Topological charge

– β = 2.05 only:

▶ Gluonic spectroscopy (glueballs and torelon mass) ▶ Mesonic spectoscopy ▶ Spin- 1 2 state mass (∼gluion-glue) ▶ Anomalous dimension (mode number)

• V = 2L × L3, L = 8, 12, 16, 24, 32
• Spectral ratios roughly constant—consistent with conformality
• Wilson loop σ ≡ torelon σ
• Center unbroken
• Good sampling of topological sectors

Mass anomalous dimension

• Mass anomalous dimension γ∗ ∼ 1 important for WTC
• Observing large

here indicates viability for other WTC candidates

• By inspection, fitting Lam

L amPCAC

–

• Fitting the Dirac mode number per unit volume

a a m A a am

from Patella [arxiv:1204.4432] –

Mass anomalous dimension

• Mass anomalous dimension γ∗ ∼ 1 important for WTC
• Observing large γ∗ here indicates viability for other WTC

candidates

• By inspection, fitting Lam

L amPCAC

–

• Fitting the Dirac mode number per unit volume

a a m A a am

from Patella [arxiv:1204.4432] –

Mass anomalous dimension

• Mass anomalous dimension γ∗ ∼ 1 important for WTC
• Observing large γ∗ here indicates viability for other WTC

candidates

• By inspection, fitting Lamγ5 ∼ L(amPCAC)

1 1+γ∗

–

• Fitting the Dirac mode number per unit volume

a a m A a am

from Patella [arxiv:1204.4432] –

γ∗ inspection fit

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 L a m5 L (amPCAC)1/(1 + *) * = 0.8 16 × 83 24 × 123 32 × 163 48 × 243

γ∗ inspection fit

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 L a m5 L (amPCAC)1/(1 + *) * = 0.9 16 × 83 24 × 123 32 × 163 48 × 243

γ∗ inspection fit

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 L a m5 L (amPCAC)1/(1 + *) * = 1.0 16 × 83 24 × 123 32 × 163 48 × 243

Mass anomalous dimension

• Mass anomalous dimension γ∗ ∼ 1 important for WTC
• Observing large γ∗ here indicates viability for other WTC

candidates

• By inspection, fitting Lamγ5 ∼ L(amPCAC)

1 1+γ∗

– ⇒ 0.9 ≲ γ∗ ≲ 1.1

• Fitting the Dirac mode number per unit volume

a a m A a am

from Patella [arxiv:1204.4432] –

Mass anomalous dimension

• Mass anomalous dimension γ∗ ∼ 1 important for WTC
• Observing large γ∗ here indicates viability for other WTC

candidates

• By inspection, fitting Lamγ5 ∼ L(amPCAC)

1 1+γ∗

– ⇒ 0.9 ≲ γ∗ ≲ 1.1

• Fitting the Dirac mode number per unit volume ν(Ω)

a−4ν(Ω) ≈ a−4ν0(m) + A [ (aΩ)2 − (am)2]

2 1+γ∗

from Patella [arxiv:1204.4432] –

Mode number results

• 8
• 7
• 6
• 5
• 4
• 3
• 2
• 3.5
• 3
• 2.5
• 2
• 1.5
• 1

ln() ln( / V) B1 B2 B3 C5 C6 D2

Mode number results

• 7.5
• 7
• 6.5
• 6
• 5.5
• 5
• 4.5
• 4
• 3.5
• 3
• 2.5
• 2
• 3.5
• 3
• 2.5
• 2
• 1.5
• 1

ln( / V) ln() D2 numerical results (645000, 0.00124, 0.899, 291) (714000, 0.00273, 0.912, 14700)

γ∗ mode number fit

400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 1x106 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

A

Upper end of window 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

a2M

2

Upper end of window 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

γ∗

Upper end of window 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

ν0

Upper end of window

Lower end of window:

Mass anomalous dimension

• Mass anomalous dimension γ∗ ∼ 1 important for WTC
• Observing large γ∗ here indicates viability for other WTC

candidates

• By inspection, fitting Lamγ5 ∼ L(amPCAC)

1 1+γ∗

– ⇒ 0.9 ≲ γ∗ ≲ 1.1

• Fitting the Dirac mode number per unit volume ν(Ω)

a−4ν(Ω) ≈ a−4ν0(m) + A [ (aΩ)2 − (am)2]

2 1+γ∗

from Patella [arxiv:1204.4432] – ⇒ 0.9 ≲ γ∗ ≲ 0.95

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large,

Results tentatively suggest

• SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like

• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large,

Results tentatively suggest

• SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like

• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large,

Results tentatively suggest

• SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like

• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large, ∼ 1

Results tentatively suggest

• SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like

• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large, ∼ 1

Results tentatively suggest

• SU

1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like

• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large, ∼ 1

Results tentatively suggest

• SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like
• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large, ∼ 1

Results tentatively suggest

• SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like
• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU

1 adjoint 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Conclusions

• First lattice study of SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour
• Constant mass ratios
• Light scalar present in spectrum
• Mass anomalous dimension is large, ∼ 1

Results tentatively suggest

• SU(2) + 1 adjoint Dirac flavour is not QCD-like
• Potentially walking or conformal
• Could form part of a slightly larger technicolor sector (e.g.

SU(2) + 1 adjoint + 1 fundamental Dirac flavour)

Ongoing work

• Complete data for β = 2.2
• Larger volumes (more data at V

)

• Lower m (towards chiral limit, look for signs of

SB)

• Look to running of coupling via Wilson flow

Ongoing work

• Complete data for β = 2.2
• Larger volumes (more data at V = 64 × 323, 96 × 483)
• Lower m (towards chiral limit, look for signs of

SB)

• Look to running of coupling via Wilson flow

Ongoing work

• Complete data for β = 2.2
• Larger volumes (more data at V = 64 × 323, 96 × 483)
• Lower m (towards chiral limit, look for signs of χSB)
• Look to running of coupling via Wilson flow

Ongoing work

• Complete data for β = 2.2
• Larger volumes (more data at V = 64 × 323, 96 × 483)
• Lower m (towards chiral limit, look for signs of χSB)
• Look to running of coupling via Wilson flow