}}$$ Therefore, one might be tempted to conclude that, at least at the leading logarithmic level, the alternative picture of Refs.[@Consoli:1994jr; @Consoli:1997ra; @Consoli:1999ni], is equivalent to the CW.

However, there is one notable difference: the quadratic shape of the ‘trivial’ effective potential Eq.(\[vtriv\]) at its absolute minima, namely the inverse susceptibility $V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)$, is [*not*]{} given by $m^2_H=\Omega^2(v^2_B)$. Rather, one finds $$\label{shape}
V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)\sim
 \lambda_{\text{eff}} m^2_H \sim \frac{m^2_H}{ \ln \Lambda }$$ thus leading to Eq.(\[z2phi\]).

Eq. (\[z2phi\]) has substantial phenomenological implications. In fact, using Eq. (\[vR\]) with a logarithmically divergent $Z_\varphi$ as in Eq. (\[z2phi\]), one finds $$\label{vrvb}
v^2_R \sim \frac{ v^2_B }{ \ln \Lambda }$$ instead of the conventional relation obtained for a trivial unit rescaling $$\label{vrvbpt}
\left[ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW}} \sim v^2_B$$ Now, whatever the $v_R-v_B$ relation, the Higgs boson mass squared goes like $$\label{stable}
m^2_H  \sim  \frac{ v^2_B }{ \ln \Lambda }$$ This becomes $$\label{usual}
m^2_H \sim \frac{ \left[ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW}} }{ \ln \Lambda }$$ by using Eq.(\[vrvbpt\]) but becomes $$\label{golden}
                     m^2_H \sim v^2_R$$ if one defines $v_R$ through Eq.(\[vrvb\]). In the latter case, $m_H$ and $v_R$ scale uniformly in the continuum limit.

Therefore, assuming to relate the $v_R$ of Eq.(\[vrvb\]) (and [*not*]{} the conventional $\left[ v_R \right]_{\text{CW}} \
} } $ $ Therefore, one might be tempted to conclude that, at least at the leading logarithmic degree, the alternate picture of Refs.[@Consoli:1994jr; @Consoli:1997ra; @Consoli:1999ni ], is equivalent to the CW. 

 However, there is one noteworthy dispute: the quadratic shape of the ‘ trivial ’ effective likely Eq.(\[vtriv\ ]) at its absolute minima, namely the inverse susceptibility $ V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)$, is [ * not * ] { } given by $ m^2_H=\Omega^2(v^2_B)$. Rather, one finds $ $ \label{shape } 
 V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)\sim 
  \lambda_{\text{eff } } m^2_H \sim \frac{m^2_H } { \ln \Lambda } $ $ therefore go to Eq.(\[z2phi\ ]). 

 Eq.   (\[z2phi\ ]) has solid phenomenological implications. In fact, using Eq.   (\[vR\ ]) with a logarithmically divergent $ Z_\varphi$ as in Eq.   (\[z2phi\ ]), one line up $ $ \label{vrvb } 
 v^2_R \sim \frac { v^2_B } { \ln \Lambda } $ $ instead of the conventional relation obtained for a trivial unit of measurement rescaling $ $ \label{vrvbpt } 
 \left [ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW } } \sim v^2_B$$ Now, whatever the $ v_R - v_B$ relation, the Higgs boson mass squared start like $ $ \label{stable } 
 m^2_H   \sim   \frac { v^2_B } { \ln \Lambda } $ $ This becomes $ $ \label{usual } 
 m^2_H \sim \frac { \left [ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW } } } { \ln \Lambda } $ $ by using Eq.(\[vrvbpt\ ]) but becomes $ $ \label{golden } 
                      m^2_H \sim v^2_R$$ if one defines $ v_R$ through Eq.(\[vrvb\ ]). In the latter event, $ m_H$ and $ v_R$ scale uniformly in the continuum limit. 

 Therefore, assuming to relate the $ v_R$ of Eq.(\[vrvb\ ]) (and [ * not * ] { } the ceremonious $ \left [ v_R \right]_{\text{CW } } \
}}$$ Thfrefore, one might be temkted to conclude jhqt, at neast zt the ldading logarithmic level, the aoternqtive picture of Refs.[@Cunsoli:1994jr; @Bonsoli:1997ra; @Conwili:1999ni], is equivalenb to fme CW.

Koxever, there is pne notabla difference: tve qbadratic shape of the ‘trivial’ effectyve potrnhial Eq.(\[vtriv\]) aj its wbsomltt minima, namely the inverse susceltibiliuy $V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)$, is [*mot*]{} given by $m^2_H=\Omega^2(v^2_B)$. Ratjer, lne finds $$\label{shaoe}
V''_{\text{triv}}(c_B)\sii
 \lambda_{\text{ewf}} m^2_H \sim \frac{m^2_H}{ \ln \Lajbda }$$ thus leading to Eq.(\[z2phi\]).

Eq. (\[z2ohi\]) hcs substantuao pjgnomenologicel impjications. In fact, ushng Eq. (\[vT\]) with a logarlthmirallt divergent $Z_\varphi$ av in Eq. (\[z2phi\]), one figds $$\label{errb}
v^2_R \sim \frac{ v^2_B }{ \ln \Oanbda }$$ insdead if ghe cpnbentiojal relation kbtained foe a trivial unit rexcwoing $$\label{vrvgpt}
\lefe[ d^2_R \right]_{\text{CW}} \sim v^2_B$$ Now, whatever the $n_R-v_B$ relation, the Higgs bosin mass squared goes pike $$\labej{stable}
m^2_H  \sim  \frac{ v^2_B }{ \ln \Lambda }$$ This becomes $$\nabel{nsjal}
n^2_H \rum \frac{ \left[ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW}} }{ \ln \Lambda }$$ by usind Ea.(\[vgvbpt\]) but becomes $$\label{goldem}
                     m^2_H \sij v^2_R$$ if one defined $v_R$ thtough Wq.(\[vrvb\]). In the latter case, $m_H$ and $v_R$ scalw uniformly pn tye continuum limit.

Cherefore, asrumimg to relate the $v_R$ of Eq.(\[vrvy\]) (and [*hot*]{} the congentional $\ueft[ v_R \right]_{\texg{CW}} \
}}$$ Therefore, one might be tempted to at at the logarithmic level, the @Consoli:1999ni], equivalent to the However, there is notable difference: the quadratic shape of ‘trivial’ effective potential Eq.(\[vtriv\]) at its absolute minima, namely the inverse susceptibility $V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)$, [*not*]{} given by $m^2_H=\Omega^2(v^2_B)$. Rather, one finds $$\label{shape} V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)\sim \lambda_{\text{eff}} m^2_H \sim \frac{m^2_H}{ \Lambda thus to Eq. (\[z2phi\]) has substantial phenomenological implications. In fact, using Eq. (\[vR\]) with a logarithmically divergent $Z_\varphi$ in Eq. (\[z2phi\]), one finds $$\label{vrvb} v^2_R \sim v^2_B }{ \ln \Lambda instead of the conventional relation for trivial unit $$\label{vrvbpt} v^2_R \sim v^2_B$$ Now, the $v_R-v_B$ relation, the Higgs boson mass squared goes like $$\label{stable} m^2_H \sim \frac{ v^2_B }{ \ln }$$ This m^2_H \sim \left[ \right]_{\text{CW}} \ln \Lambda }$$ Eq.(\[vrvbpt\]) but becomes $$\label{golden} m^2_H \sim defines $v_R$ through Eq.(\[vrvb\]). In the latter case, and $v_R$ uniformly in the continuum limit. Therefore, to relate the $v_R$ of Eq.(\[vrvb\]) (and [*not*]{} conventional $\left[ v_R \right]_{\text{CW}} \
}}$$ Therefore, one might be tempteD to concludE that, At lEasT aT the LeadIng logarithmic LEvel, The alternative picture oF Refs.[@coNSoli:1994JR; @COnsolI:1997ra; @ConsOLi:1999NI], Is eQuIvAleNt TO tHe CW.

HOweVer, therE is one notaBle DiFference: the qUAdRatic shape Of tHe ‘trivial’ effEctIve potEnTiaL eq.(\[vtrIv\]) aT its aBsolutE Minima, Namely the InVErse suSCeptibiLITy $v''_{\texT{triv}}(v_B)$, is [*not*]{} given BY $m^2_h=\omega^2(v^2_B)$. Rather, oNe findS $$\lABeL{SHapE}
V''_{\tExt{triv}}(v_B)\sIm
 \LambdA_{\Text{eff}} M^2_h \sIM \FRac{M^2_h}{ \ln \Lambda }$$ thus Leading to Eq.(\[Z2Phi\]).

eq. (\[z2phi\]) HaS suBStantiAl pheNoMEnoLogical implIcatIons. In facT, using eQ. (\[vR\]) with A LogaritHmicalLy dIveRgenT $z_\vArPhi$ As IN Eq. (\[Z2PhI\]), onE FinDs $$\label{vRvB}
v^2_r \sim \fRac{ v^2_b }{ \LN \lAmbdA }$$ inSteaD of thE conventional RelAtioN ObtAined For a tRiviAl Unit rEscaliNg $$\labEl{Vrvbpt}
\left[ v^2_R \rigHt]_{\teXt{CW}} \sim v^2_B$$ now, WhAteVeR the $v_r-V_B$ relaTioN, thE Higgs bOson masS SquArED GOeS like $$\label{stable}
m^2_H  \SiM  \FRaC{ v^2_B }{ \ln \LamBda }$$ ThiS BeCoMEs $$\label{uSuAl}
m^2_h \sim \FRAc{ \lefT[ v^2_R \rIGhT]_{\text{CW}} }{ \lN \LambdA }$$ By UsIng Eq.(\[vrVbPt\]) but bEcOmeS $$\laBel{goLDen}
                     m^2_h \sim v^2_R$$ If one defInes $v_r$ Through Eq.(\[vrvb\]). IN The latter case, $M_h$ aND $V_R$ SCale UniFormly in the ContINuum LimiT.

thEreFOre, asSuminG tO ReLAte the $v_R$ of Eq.(\[vrvb\]) (and [*NoT*]{} the coNventIonal $\left[ v_R \riGht]_{\text{CW}} \
}}$$ Therefore, one mightbe tempted  to c onc lud ethat , at  least at thel eadi ng logarithmic level,the a lt e rnat i ve  pict ure ofR ef s . [@C on so li: 19 9 4j r; @C ons oli:199 7ra; @Cons oli :1 999ni], is e q ui valent tothe  CW.

Howeve r,thereis  on e  nota ble  diff erence :  the q uadraticsh a pe oft he ‘tri v i al ’ ef fective potential Eq . (\[vtriv\]) at  its a bs o lu t e  mi nim a, namelyth e inv e rse sus c ep t i b ili t y $V''_{\text {triv}}(v_B ) $,is [*n ot *]{ }  given  by $ m^ 2 _H= \Omega^2(v^ 2_B) $. Rather , onef inds $$ \ label{s hape}V'' _{\ text { tr iv }}( v_ B )\s i m \l a mbd a_{\text {e ff }} m^ 2_H\ s i m  \fr ac{ m^2_ H}{ \ ln \Lambda }$ $ t husl ead ing t o Eq. (\[z 2p hi\]) .

Eq.  (\[z 2p hi\]) has subst anti al phenom eno lo gic al  impl i cation s.Infact, u sing Eq .  (\ [v R \ ] )with a logarithmic al l y  d ivergent  $Z_\v a rp hi $  as in E q.  (\ [z2p h i \]),onef in ds $$\la bel{vr v b} 
v ^2_R \s im  \frac {v^2 _B}{ \l n  \La mbda } $$ inste ad of the convention a l relation ob t ai n e df or a  tr ivial unitresc a ling  $$\ l ab el{ v rvbpt }
\le ft [  v ^ 2_R \right]_{\text{ CW }} \si m v^2 _B$$ Now, wha tever the$ v _ R-v_B$ r elat i on ,  the Higgs bos on ma ss squared goes lik e $$\ label{st able}
m^2 _ H   \sim \fr ac{  v^ 2_B } {\ln \Lambda } $ $  Thi sbecomes  $$ \label{ usu al} 
m^ 2_H  \ sim \frac { \left[  v ^2 _R  \ rig ht]_{ \ text{CW} }}{\l n \ Lambd a  }$$ b y usi ng E q. (\ [ vrv bpt\])b ut b ecom es  $ $\la bel {g olden }
                 m ^2_ H  \si mv^ 2_R$$ i f one defines  $ v_R$ throu gh  Eq .(\[vr v b \]). Inthe latter case, $m_H$a nd $v_R $ s caleunif ormly inthe  conti nuu m  limit .

The refor e,  as s u mingt o  r ela te  the $v_R$ o f E q.(\[ vr vb\] ) (and[*not*]{} the conv e nti onal $\left[v_R  \ri g h t] _{\ t ex t {CW }} \
}}$$ Therefore,_one might_be tempted to conclude_that, at_least_at the_leading_logarithmic level, the_alternative picture of_Refs.[@Consoli:1994jr; @Consoli:1997ra; @Consoli:1999ni], is_equivalent to the_CW.

However,_there is one notable difference: the quadratic shape of the ‘trivial’ effective potential Eq.(\[vtriv\])_at_its absolute_minima,_namely_the inverse susceptibility $V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)$, is_[*not*]{} given by $m^2_H=\Omega^2(v^2_B)$. Rather,_one finds_$$\label{shape}
V''_{\text{triv}}(v_B)\sim
 \lambda_{\text{eff}} m^2_H \sim \frac{m^2_H}{ \ln \Lambda }$$_thus_leading to Eq.(\[z2phi\]).

Eq. (\[z2phi\])_has substantial phenomenological implications. In fact, using Eq. (\[vR\]) with_a logarithmically divergent $Z_\varphi$ as in_Eq. (\[z2phi\]), one finds_$$\label{vrvb}
v^2_R_\sim_\frac{ v^2_B }{ \ln_\Lambda }$$ instead of the conventional_relation obtained for a trivial unit_rescaling $$\label{vrvbpt}
\left[ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW}} \sim v^2_B$$ Now,_whatever the $v_R-v_B$ relation, the Higgs_boson mass squared goes like_$$\label{stable}
m^2_H _\sim  \frac{ v^2_B }{_\ln \Lambda }$$_This becomes_$$\label{usual}
m^2_H \sim \frac{_\left[ v^2_R \right]_{\text{CW}} }{ \ln \Lambda_}$$ by using_Eq.(\[vrvbpt\]) but becomes $$\label{golden}
  __  ___ _  __ __   m^2_H \sim v^2_R$$_if_one defines $v_R$ through Eq.(\[vrvb\]). In the_latter case, $m_H$ and_$v_R$_scale uniformly in the_continuum limit.

Therefore, assuming to relate_the $v_R$ of Eq.(\[vrvb\]) (and [*not*]{}_the conventional_$\left[ v_R_\right]_{\text{CW}} \