Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

In Pursuit of New Paradigms: TASI 2024

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The Higgs hierarchy problem is a sharp, concrete puzzle, and every solution class surveyed here leaves a testable imprint, most universally in modified Higgs couplings.

desk verdict Reliable, well-crafted TASI survey of hierarchy-problem paradigms—no new results, but a clean and honest map. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15744 v1 pith:CFIWDAX6 submitted 2024-12-20 hep-ph

Matthew McCullough This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Higgshierarchyproblemnaturalnesspseudo-Nambu-GoldstoneTwinrelaxionsupersymmetryHL-LHCeffectivefieldtheory
topics The Hierarchy Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

These lectures argue that the Standard Model is an effective field theory and that the lightness of the Higgs boson is a sharp, concrete puzzle rather than a vague worry. The paper surveys the main classes of answers—composite and pseudo-Goldstone Higgs models, Twin Higgs variants, warped extra dimensions, cosmological relaxation and self-organised criticality, and supersymmetry—and extracts what each predicts for near-future experiments. Its central message is that every pion-like Higgs scenario predicts modified Higgs couplings at some level, so precision Higgs measurements are the decisive probe of the Higgs's origin. The survey also shows that the absence of new coloured states at the LHC has not dissolved the problem; it has pushed attention toward neutral naturalness, exotic Higgs decays, and cosmology.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on effective field theory with spurions, and it repeatedly uses the Goldstone mechanism as the device that keeps a scalar light. For a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone Higgs the key identity is the universal suppression $\cos(v/f)$ of the Higgs couplings to gauge bosons, which ties the coupling modification directly to the fine-tuning measure $\Delta \gtrsim f^2/v^2$. The Twin Higgs variant uses an exchange symmetry to make quadratic divergences SO(8)-symmetric, protecting the pseudo-Goldstone mass while keeping the top partners uncoloured. The Gegenbauer construction shows that non-minimal sources of explicit symmetry breaking can relax the $v/f$ tuning. The relaxion instead uses a rolling scalar whose stopping point is set by the QCD barrier, and NNaturalness uses many SM copies with a reheaton that preferentially reheats the lightest sector. Supersymmetry enters through the non-renormalization of the superpotential, which removes quadratic divergences until SUSY breaks at the soft mass scale.

What would settle it

Measure the Higgs couplings with per-coupling precision near 1% at the HL-LHC and search for TeV-scale resonances and exotic Higgs decays: if every coupling is SM-like and no new states or exotic decays appear, minimal pion-like and Twin Higgs scenarios are driven to sub-percent fine-tuning, directly contradicting the paper's expectation that modified couplings must show up at some level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery claim is stated in Section 3.5: in all Pion-like Higgs scenarios we expect modified Higgs couplings to show up at some level. More broadly, the lectures maintain that the hierarchy problem is crisp: just as the charged-pion mass splitting demands a cutoff near 750 MeV unless it is fine-tuned, the measured Higgs mass demands new physics near the TeV scale unless the Standard Model is fine-tuned. Because no symmetry is restored when the Higgs mass goes to zero, the smallness must be explained either by a protecting symmetry, by dynamics that selects a critical point, or by accepting the mass as an input parameter. The paper's contribution is to lay out the theoretical menu and to show how each option connects to specific observables—modified couplings, vector and coloured resonances, exotic Higgs decays, and cosmological signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a light Higgs mass without new physics would be an unnatural fine-tuning; the paper itself notes that taking the Higgs mass as a free input is a logical possibility, calling it 'admitting defeat.' If naturalness is not a reliable guide to what nature must do, the entire framing of the hierarchy problem, and of the survey, weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Precision Higgs coupling measurements are the universal probe: in minimal pNGB models, current ~6–8% constraints already imply tuning at roughly the 10% level, and HL-LHC-level precision near 1.5% would either reveal new physics or push tuning to a few percent.
  • Vector-resonance searches in dilepton and diboson channels should extend from about 5 TeV to above 6.5 TeV at the HL-LHC, giving pion-like scenarios a concrete discovery channel.
  • Coloured top-partner reach improves only modestly, from ~1.5 TeV to ~1.8 TeV, because the production cross section falls steeply with mass; the present null search already puts vanilla pNGB models under tuning pressure.
  • Exotic Higgs decays into Twin glueballs improve much faster than $\sqrt{L}$, roughly like $L$, making displaced-vertex searches a leading route to neutral-naturalness models.
  • In supersymmetric models, stop and gluino mass limits around 1.2–2.2 TeV imply roughly 1% tuning, and HL-LHC exclusions near 1.8 and 3.2 TeV would make minimal MSSM naturalness severely strained without non-minimal structure.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If modified Higgs couplings are the universal diagnostic, then a future electron-positron Higgs factory, with sub-percent coupling precision, would be the most direct way to confirm or exclude the pion-like Higgs family, a step the paper does not itself take.
  • The paper's menu suggests a strategic reframing: searching for new physics only in traditional channels (colored partners, resonances) under-weights the cosmological and neutral-naturalness options, whose discovery signatures are low-background exotic decays.
  • The relaxion's tiny shift-symmetry-breaking parameter $g$ and its super-Planckian field excursion raise the same quality questions familiar from axions; the paper notes these as open, and a quantitative connection to axion-quality bounds would be a natural extension.
  • One can turn the paper's logic around: if the HL-LHC sees exactly SM-like Higgs couplings and no exotic decays, the surviving explanations would be non-symmetry ones such as NNaturalness or a cosmological multiverse selection, which are far harder to falsify—a consequence the author leaves implicit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript, based on the author's TASI 2024 lectures, offers a pedagogical survey of theoretical paradigms that address the origin of the Higgs sector and the lightness of the Higgs boson. It covers EFT foundations, pion-like (pNGB, composite, little, twin, Gegenbauer) Higgs models, extra-dimensional and deconstructed theories, less conventional alternatives (UV/IR mixing, swampland constraints, scale invariance), cosmological mechanisms (relaxion, self-organized criticality, NNaturalness), and supersymmetry. The overarching message is that the Standard Model is an EFT, the Higgs mass hierarchy is a well-posed puzzle if one adopts the naturalness criterion, and the HL-LHC provides concrete targets such as modified Higgs couplings, vector and colored resonances, and exotic Higgs decays. The lectures are explicitly a review, with the author flagging speculative sections and the conditional status of naturalness.

Significance. If the naturalness criterion is taken as a working hypothesis, the manuscript is a valuable and accurate review. The derivations of the Goldstone/CCWZ formalism, the Twin Higgs mechanism, Randall-Sundrum warping, relaxion dynamics, and the SUSY non-renormalization theorem are technically correct and pedagogically clear. A particular strength is the paper's honesty: Section 4.1 acknowledges the 'just input parameters' alternative, Section 5.2 includes a prominent caveat about the speculative dS calculations, and Section 5.4 states that none of the cosmological mechanisms is complete. The inclusion of the author's Gegenbauer Higgs work is accompanied by an explicit conflict-of-interest statement and a frank discussion of the open question whether non-minimal spurions can dominate. The paper also makes explicit the conditional nature of the naturalness argument, which is essential in a fair review. For these reasons, the manuscript is likely to be a useful reference for students and researchers.

minor comments (5)
  1. [3.5] The take-home message 'In all Pion-like Higgs scenarios we expect modified Higgs couplings to show up at some level' is potentially misleading in light of Section 3.3, where the Gegenbauer Higgs can make the v/f-suppressed couplings arbitrarily small while remaining natural; the text should add a qualifier that the expected magnitude is model-dependent and may be far below HL-LHC sensitivity.
  2. [3.3] Equation (3.51) introduces the spurion K_{2n} and identifies its potential contribution with a Gegenbauer polynomial G_3/2^n(cos 2h/f), but the normalization of K_{2n} and the definition of the polynomial are not given; a brief definition or a pointer to [11] would improve accessibility.
  3. [4.2] In the paragraph comparing QED and quark-mass sources of pion symmetry breaking, the labels 'the former' and 'the latter' appear to be misplaced: the QED interaction is the IR source and the quark masses are the UV source, contrary to the sentence as written.
  4. [3.1] The 'Collider Reach tool' is mentioned without a citation or URL; a reference to the tool's documentation would be useful for readers who wish to reproduce the reach estimates.
  5. [3.4] There is a typo, 'wheer' should be 'where', in the Linear Dilaton theory subsection.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's conclusions rest on standard EFT and naturalness reasoning, with a declared, non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

This is a pedagogical review (TASI lecture notes), not a paper that fits parameters or derives new predictions from inputs. The central message—that in pion-like Higgs scenarios modified Higgs couplings should appear at some level—is derived from the Goldstone/CCWZ structure and from the standard cos(v/f) coupling suppression in the reviewed model classes, not from an equation that defines the output in terms of the input. Section 3.3 discusses the author's own Gegenbauer Higgs proposal and explicitly declares a conflict of interest ('I should declare a conflict of interest here...'), citing [10, 11] as existing literature rather than as a theorem that forces the paper's conclusions. This self-citation is not load-bearing: Section 3.5's summary holds for the broad class of pion-like models and is independently supported by the QCD-pion analogy, composite Higgs, Twin Higgs, and extra-dimensional examples surveyed in Sections 3.1 through 3.4. The paper's naturalness premise is also transparent: Section 4.1 explicitly calls 'just input parameters' a logical possibility, so the motivation is not smuggled in as a derived result. Cosmological mechanisms in Section 5 are presented with their known limitations, including the strong-CP problem in the relaxion and the statement that self-organised localisation 'doesn't actually work' in its simplest form. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. The only self-reference is the declared Gegenbauer citation, which is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the paper rests on standard QFT/EFT machinery and the naturalness heuristic rather than on any new parameters or entities. No free parameters are fitted, and no new entities are introduced. The axioms listed are the background assumptions that the reviewed models rely on.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model is an effective field theory with a UV cutoff well above the weak scale, and the hierarchy problem is defined by the sensitivity of the Higgs mass-squared to that cutoff.
    Section 2 states that the SM must be an EFT due to the Landau pole and gravity, and that in the absence of a symmetry the only alternative to fine-tuning is new physics. This frames the entire review.
  • standard math Goldstone's theorem: spontaneous breaking of a global symmetry yields massless bosons, which can become massive pseudo-Goldstone bosons when the symmetry is explicitly broken.
    Used throughout Section 3 to motivate pNGB Higgs models, including the pion analogy and the CCWZ construction.
  • domain assumption The naturalness criterion: dimensionless parameters are expected to be of order one unless protected by a symmetry, and fine-tuning measures such as Delta quantify the plausibility of a theory.
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 6 to assess pNGB, Twin Higgs, and SUSY models, and to convert LHC mass limits into fine-tuning percentages.
  • standard math Supersymmetry non-renormalization theorems guarantee the absence of quadratic divergences in SUSY theories.
    Used in Section 6 to explain the SUSY solution to the hierarchy problem and the stability of the weak scale against UV corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of In Pursuit of New Paradigms: TASI 2024." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CFIWDAX6

@misc{pith2026241215744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: In Pursuit of New Paradigms: TASI 2024},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CFIWDAX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15744}
}
read the original abstract

These lectures discuss diverse theoretical approaches, old and new, towards understanding the origin of the Higgs sector of the Standard Model and the lightness of the Higgs boson.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15744 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Buckyball. Thanks Wikipedia. Intro to the ideas of EFT, by example. Consider a soccer ball, or, at least, its shape. This shape is a truncated icosahedron. Interest￾ingly, objects with this shape arise naturally, for instance Buckminsterfullerene (Buckyball) depicted in fig. 1. Buckyballs are molecules of 60 carbon atoms, with a roughly spherical shape. Suppose you hold a point charge a long way from the Buckyball, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Field around two charges, special point indicated with a star. distance 2m, both along the line of sight. You measure the nature of the electrostatic field with your own probe charge and find that the force on it vanishes at your location and is very weak in the nearby vicinity. You might first think that there is only either a very small charge nearby or a large one very far away. However you then move further away… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The cancellation between quadratic divergences from the top quark loop and fermionic top-partner loops. Top Quark Interactions We must also accommodate the top quark Yukawa. The simplest way to do this is to work in analogy with the gauge sector. With the gauge sector we start with a full SU(3) gauge multiplet, and set some fields to zero, which explicitly breaks the symmetry. Here we may do the same, by introducing… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CMS limits, taken from [15], on the heavy vector resonances expected in pNGB￾like Higgs scenarios. Coloured Resonances We saw in sect. 3.1 that we required coloured (QCD-charged) fermionic states to complete the multiplets in our example pNGB Higgs scenario. It turns o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CMS projection, taken from [18], of the HL-LHC reach for vector-like T quarks. Note the slope of the cross section with mass. 3.2 Twin Higgs We have seen that the non-observation of coloured resonances at the LHC pushes their mass upwards to a point at which a vanilla …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The structure of the Twin Higgs model. The SM and an entire copy are symmetric under a complete exchange of all fields. This ensures that the quadratic scalar action respects an accidental SO(8) symmetry, of which the SM Higgs is a pNGB. All interactions between the SM…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Twin glueball production and decay through the Higgs portal. Figure taken from [21]. Phenomenology Unlike in standard composite Higgs models, where the copious production of new coloured particles at the LHC is a generic prediction, the collider signatures of the Twin …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Expected collider limits on the parameter space of the Twin Higgs model (far right axes) from constraints on exotic Higgs decays, as a function of the Twin Glueball mass. Figure taken from [25]. A significant inprovement in reach is observed as one goes from the LHC to…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example Gegenbauer potential arising from explicit symmetry breaking by a 20-index irrep. where G (N−1)/2 n is a ‘Gegenbauer Polynomial’. This may sound exotic, but these are simply the spherical harmonics in N dimensions. For instance, you will be familiar with the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Na¨ıve fine-tuning in a Gegenbauer Twin model, as compared to a standard Twin Higgs model, in this case denoted ‘Y-Twin’. 3.4 Extra Dimensions I know what you’re thinking... What place do extra dimensions have in a chapter on Pion￾like Higgs models. It’s a good questi…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A schematic of dimensional deconstruction with a multi-site model. If some SM operator is coupled to the end of the chain it will inherit a suppressed coupling to the massless mode, scaling like 1/ √ N, as well as a coupling to the massive fields. To see the connectio…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of the relaxion field in the early Universe from a point where the effective Higgs mass-squared is postive (left), passing through zero (middle), and negative (right). anomalous at the quantum level, under QCD. This means that although in perturbation the￾or…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Vacuum structure in the Landau model, where ϕ plays an analogous role to an external magnetic field. Left panel: V as a function of ψ for different values of ϕ. Right panel: V as a function of ϕ with ψ fixed at its two possible minima. light, which controls the parame…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: SM vacuum stability as a function of the Higgs and top quark mass, taken from [105]. The red contours show the value of the Higgs field, in natural units, at which the Higgs potential turns over and becomes lower than our present vacuum at small field values. the natu…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Vacuum structure of the theory in eq. (5.122), where the Higgs mass is scanned by a scalar field up to, and beyond, the point at which the negative Higgs mass-squared surpasses the instability scale. the Higgs is in the SM-like vacuum at small field values, and the lo…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Depiction of the multiple sectors of an NNaturalness theory, taken from [114]. Now consider the various scalars in all these sectors. We will assume the exchange symmetry will be softly broken by allowing for different Higgs masses in the different sec￾tors. Typically…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Renormalization group evolution of gauge couplings up to high energies, taken from [124]. The Standard Model gauge couplings are shown in dashed black and the gauge couplings with superpartners added, with masses in the range 0.75 → 2.5 TeV, are shown in red and blue.…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Higgs mass predictions as a function of the supersymmetry breaking soft mass scale and the Higgs sector parameter tan β, taken from [155]. In the High-Scale scenario all soft masses µ, Mf1/2 , me 0 are varied together, whereas in the Split SUSY scenario µ, Mf1/2 are k…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Current experimental limits on a simplified model with stop squarks and a neutralino. These limits are already placing significant pressure on SUSY naturalness for this class of models. What is more interesting, I think, is that the projected discovery reach is 1.2 Te…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Experimental limits on a simplified model with gluinos and a neutralino. Alternatively, a re-evaluation of the fine-tuning in the infrared may be required if a spec￾trum with heavy squarks is made natural due to correlations between soft mass UV-boundary conditions an…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Light scalars in light of UV/IR mixing: classicalization via synergy between Vainshtein and chameleon screenings

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Classicalizing k-essence scalars need m << Λ* and, when potentials or fermion couplings are present, a chameleon-like screening layer to keep Vainshtein screening and classicalon stability intact.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T. Das, G. S. Guralnik, V. S. Mathur, F. E. Low, and J. E. Young, Electromagnetic mass difference of pions , Phys. Rev. Lett. 18 (1967) 759–761

    1967

  2. [2]

    Nambu, Quasiparticles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity , Phys

    Y. Nambu, Quasiparticles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity , Phys. Rev. 117 (1960) 648–663

    1960

  3. [3]

    Goldstone, Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions , Nuovo Cim

    J. Goldstone, Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions , Nuovo Cim. 19 (1961) 154–164

    1961

  4. [4]

    Contino, The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson , in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small , pp

    R. Contino, The Higgs as a Composite Nambu-Goldstone Boson , in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics of the Large and the Small , pp. 235–306, 2011. arXiv:1005.4269

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Schmaltz and D

    M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith, Little Higgs review , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005) 229–270, [ hep-ph/0502182]

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1., Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2239–2247. 75

    1969

  7. [7]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2., Phys. Rev. 177 (1969) 2247–2250

    1969

  8. [8]

    De Simone, O

    A. De Simone, O. Matsedonskyi, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, A First Top Partner Hunter’s Guide , JHEP 04 (2013) 004, [ arXiv:1211.5663]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 173 references
  1. [9]

    Panico and A

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs , vol. 913. Springer, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Durieux, M

    G. Durieux, M. McCullough, and E. Salvioni, Gegenbauer Goldstones, JHEP 01 (2022) 076, [ arXiv:2110.06941]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Durieux, M

    G. Durieux, M. McCullough, and E. Salvioni, Gegenbauer’s Twin, JHEP 05 (2022) 140, [arXiv:2202.01228]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et. al., A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery , Nature 607 (2022), no. 7917 52–59, [arXiv:2207.00092]. [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Tumasyan et

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et. al. , A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery. , Nature 607 (2022), no. 7917 60–68, [arXiv:2207.00043]. [Erratum: Nature 623, (2023)]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    de Blas et

    J. de Blas et. al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, [arXiv:1905.03764]

    2020

  7. [15]

    Tumasyan et

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et. al. , Search for new physics in the lepton plus missing transverse momentum final state in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, JHEP 07 (2022) 067, [ arXiv:2202.06075]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Thamm, R

    A. Thamm, R. Torre, and A. Wulzer, Future tests of Higgs compositeness: direct vs indirect, JHEP 07 (2015) 100, [ arXiv:1502.01701]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tumasyan et

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et. al. , Search for pair production of vector-like quarks in leptonic final states in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV , JHEP 07 (2023) 020, [ arXiv:2209.07327]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for a vector-like quark T decaying to bW, tZ, tH in the single lepton final state at the HL-LHC ,

  11. [19]

    Cid Vidal et

    X. Cid Vidal et. al., Report from Working Group 3: Beyond the Standard Model physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC , CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7 (2019) 585–865, [arXiv:1812.07831]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry , Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231802, [ hep-ph/0506256]

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Craig, A

    N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC, JHEP 07 (2015) 105, [ arXiv:1501.05310]. 76

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders , Phys. Lett. B 651 (2007) 374–379, [ hep-ph/0604261]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Discovering the Higgs through highly-displaced vertices, Phys. Lett. B 661 (2008) 263–267, [ hep-ph/0605193]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    T. Han, Z. Si, K. M. Zurek, and M. J. Strassler, Phenomenology of hidden valleys at hadron colliders, JHEP 07 (2008) 008, [ arXiv:0712.2041]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Curtin and C

    D. Curtin and C. B. Verhaaren, Discovering Uncolored Naturalness in Exotic Higgs Decays, JHEP 12 (2015) 072, [ arXiv:1506.06141]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. M. Maldacena, The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, [ hep-th/9711200]

    1998 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter , Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263–272, [ hep-ph/9803315]

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Antoniadis, N

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. R. Dvali, New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV , Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 257–263, [hep-ph/9804398]

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rattazzi, Cargese lectures on extra-dimensions , in Cargese School of Particle Physics and Cosmology: the Interface , pp

    R. Rattazzi, Cargese lectures on extra-dimensions , in Cargese School of Particle Physics and Cosmology: the Interface , pp. 461–517, 8, 2003. hep-ph/0607055

    2003 arXiv

  22. [30]

    C. Csaki, TASI lectures on extra dimensions and branes , in Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 2002): Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Quest for Physics Beyond the Standard Model(s) , pp. 605–698, 4,

    2002

  23. [31]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, Stabilization of submillimeter dimensions: The New guise of the hierarchy problem , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 064020, [ hep-th/9809124]

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension , Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370–3373, [ hep-ph/9905221]

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, and H. Georgi, (De)constructing dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4757–4761, [ hep-th/0104005]

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, The Renormalization group and the epsilon expansion , Phys. Rept. 12 (1974) 75–199

    1974

  27. [35]

    Jackiw, Ken Wilson – The Early Years , Int

    R. Jackiw, Ken Wilson – The Early Years , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430008, [arXiv:1312.6634]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Adams, N

    A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion , JHEP 10 (2006) 014, [hep-th/0602178]. 77

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and F. Serra, Wrong Signs are Alright , arXiv:2406.06681

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grinstein, D

    B. Grinstein, D. O’Connell, and M. B. Wise, The Lee-Wick standard model , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 025012, [ arXiv:0704.1845]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Craig and S

    N. Craig and S. Koren, IR Dynamics from UV Divergences: UV/IR Mixing, NCFT, and the Hierarchy Problem , JHEP 03 (2020) 037, [ arXiv:1909.01365]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Banks and N

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 084019, [ arXiv:1011.5120]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Vafa, The String landscape and the swampland , hep-th/0509212

    C. Vafa, The String landscape and the swampland , hep-th/0509212

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis, and C. Vafa, The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force , JHEP 06 (2007) 060, [ hep-th/0601001]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, On the Geometry of the String Landscape and the Swampland, Nucl. Phys. B 766 (2007) 21–33, [ hep-th/0605264]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ooguri and C

    H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Non-supersymmetric AdS and the Swampland , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 21 (2017) 1787–1801, [ arXiv:1610.01533]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L. E. Ibanez, V. Martin-Lozano, and I. Valenzuela, Constraining Neutrino Masses, the Cosmological Constant and BSM Physics from the Weak Gravity Conjecture , JHEP 11 (2017) 066, [ arXiv:1706.05392]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    L. E. Ibanez, V. Martin-Lozano, and I. Valenzuela, Constraining the EW Hierarchy from the Weak Gravity Conjecture , arXiv:1707.05811

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Hamada and G

    Y. Hamada and G. Shiu, Weak Gravity Conjecture, Multiple Point Principle and the Standard Model Landscape, JHEP 11 (2017) 043, [ arXiv:1707.06326]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Lust and E

    D. Lust and E. Palti, Scalar Fields, Hierarchical UV/IR Mixing and The Weak Gravity Conjecture, JHEP 02 (2018) 040, [ arXiv:1709.01790]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gonzalo, A

    E. Gonzalo, A. Herr´ aez, and L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez,AdS-phobia, the WGC, the Standard Model and Supersymmetry, JHEP 06 (2018) 051, [ arXiv:1803.08455]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Gonzalo and L

    E. Gonzalo and L. E. Ib´ a˜ nez,The Fundamental Need for a SM Higgs and the Weak Gravity Conjecture, Phys. Lett. B 786 (2018) 272–277, [ arXiv:1806.09647]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Craig, I

    N. Craig, I. Garcia Garcia, and S. Koren, Discrete Gauge Symmetries and the Weak Gravity Conjecture, JHEP 05 (2019) 140, [ arXiv:1812.08181]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Craig, I

    N. Craig, I. Garcia Garcia, and S. Koren, The Weak Scale from Weak Gravity , JHEP 09 (2019) 081, [ arXiv:1904.08426]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cheung and G

    C. Cheung and G. N. Remmen, Naturalness and the Weak Gravity Conjecture , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 051601, [ arXiv:1402.2287]. 78

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, Generalized Global Symmetries, JHEP 02 (2015) 172, [ arXiv:1412.5148]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    T. D. Brennan and S. Hong, Introduction to Generalized Global Symmetries in QFT and Particle Physics , arXiv:2306.00912

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bhardwaj, L

    L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. W. Gould, A. Platschorre, and H. Tillim, Lectures on generalized symmetries, Phys. Rept. 1051 (2024) 1–87, [ arXiv:2307.07547]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. R. S. Gomes, An introduction to higher-form symmetries , SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 74 (2023) 1, [ arXiv:2303.01817]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Luo, Q.-R

    R. Luo, Q.-R. Wang, and Y.-N. Wang, Lecture notes on generalized symmetries and applications, Phys. Rept. 1065 (2024) 1–43, [ arXiv:2307.09215]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Schafer-Nameki, ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries , Phys

    S. Schafer-Nameki, ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible generalized symmetries , Phys. Rept. 1063 (2024) 1–55, [ arXiv:2305.18296]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Shao, What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries, arXiv:2308.00747

    S.-H. Shao, What’s Done Cannot Be Undone: TASI Lectures on Non-Invertible Symmetries, arXiv:2308.00747

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    C´ ordova, T

    C. C´ ordova, T. T. Dumitrescu, and K. Intriligator,Exploring 2-Group Global Symmetries, JHEP 02 (2019) 184, [ arXiv:1802.04790]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Wan and J

    Z. Wan and J. Wang, Beyond Standard Models and Grand Unifications: Anomalies, Topological Terms, and Dynamical Constraints via Cobordisms , JHEP 07 (2020) 062, [arXiv:1910.14668]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Davighi, B

    J. Davighi, B. Gripaios, and N. Lohitsiri, Global anomalies in the Standard Model(s) and Beyond , JHEP 07 (2020) 232, [ arXiv:1910.11277]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Wang, Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond the Standard Model: Topological Force, arXiv:2006.16996

    J. Wang, Anomaly and Cobordism Constraints Beyond the Standard Model: Topological Force, arXiv:2006.16996

    2006 arXiv

  57. [65]

    T. D. Brennan and C. Cordova, Axions, higher-groups, and emergent symmetry , JHEP 02 (2022) 145, [ arXiv:2011.09600]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Hidaka, M

    Y. Hidaka, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, Global 3-group symmetry and ’t Hooft anomalies in axion electrodynamics , JHEP 01 (2021) 173, [ arXiv:2009.14368]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. Fan, K. Fraser, M. Reece, and J. Stout, Axion Mass from Magnetic Monopole Loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 13 131602, [ arXiv:2105.09950]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M. M. Anber and E. Poppitz, Nonperturbative effects in the Standard Model with gauged 1-form symmetry , JHEP 12 (2021) 055, [ arXiv:2110.02981]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. Wang, Z. Wan, and Y.-Z. You, Cobordism and deformation class of the standard model, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 4 L041701, [ arXiv:2112.14765]. 79

    2022 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Wang and Y.-Z

    J. Wang and Y.-Z. You, Gauge Enhanced Quantum Criticality Between Grand Unifications: Categorical Higher Symmetry Retraction , arXiv:2111.10369

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Wang and Y.-Z

    J. Wang and Y.-Z. You, Gauge enhanced quantum criticality beyond the standard model, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 2 025013, [ arXiv:2106.16248]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    McNamara and M

    J. McNamara and M. Reece, Reflections on Parity Breaking , arXiv:2212.00039

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, S. Koren, and K. Ohmori, Neutrino Masses from Generalized Symmetry Breaking, arXiv:2211.07639

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cordova and S

    C. Cordova and S. Koren, Higher Flavor Symmetries in the Standard Model , Annalen Phys. 535 (2023), no. 8 2300031, [ arXiv:2212.13193]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Noninvertible Time-Reversal Symmetry , Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023), no. 13 131602, [ arXiv:2208.04331]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    J. Wang, Z. Wan, and Y.-Z. You, Proton stability: From the standard model to beyond grand unification, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 2 025016, [ arXiv:2204.08393]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Yokokura, Non-invertible symmetries in axion electrodynamics , arXiv:2212.05001

    R. Yokokura, Non-invertible symmetries in axion electrodynamics , arXiv:2212.05001

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    T. D. Brennan, S. Hong, and L.-T. Wang, Coupling a Cosmic String to a TQFT , JHEP 03 (2024) 145, [ arXiv:2302.00777]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Cordova, S

    C. Cordova, S. Hong, and L.-T. Wang, Axion domain walls, small instantons, and non-invertible symmetry breaking , JHEP 05 (2024) 325, [ arXiv:2309.05636]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Y. Choi, M. Forslund, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Quantization of Axion-Gauge Couplings and Noninvertible Higher Symmetries , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 12 121601, [arXiv:2309.03937]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    van Beest, P

    M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, Z. Komargodski, and D. Tong, Monopoles, Scattering, and Generalized Symmetries , arXiv:2306.07318

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    T. D. Brennan, A New Solution to the Callan Rubakov Effect , arXiv:2309.00680

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Y. Choi, H. T. Lam, and S.-H. Shao, Non-invertible Gauss law and axions , JHEP 09 (2023) 067, [ arXiv:2212.04499]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cordova and K

    C. Cordova and K. Ohmori, Quantum duality in electromagnetism and the fine structure constant, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 10 105019, [ arXiv:2307.12927]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Reece, Axion-gauge coupling quantization with a twist , JHEP 10 (2023) 116, [arXiv:2309.03939]

    M. Reece, Axion-gauge coupling quantization with a twist , JHEP 10 (2023) 116, [arXiv:2309.03939]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Putrov and J

    P. Putrov and J. Wang, Categorical Symmetry of the Standard Model from Gravitational Anomaly, arXiv:2302.14862. 80

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    van Beest, P

    M. van Beest, P. Boyle Smith, D. Delmastro, R. Mouland, and D. Tong, Fermion-Monopole Scattering in the Standard Model , arXiv:2312.17746

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Aloni, E

    D. Aloni, E. Garc ´ ıa-Valdecasas, M. Reece, and M. Suzuki,Spontaneously Broken (−1)-Form U(1) Symmetries , arXiv:2402.00117

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Salvio and A

    A. Salvio and A. Strumia, Agravity, JHEP 06 (2014) 080, [ arXiv:1403.4226]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 22 221801, [ arXiv:1504.07551]

    2015 arXiv

  83. [91]

    L. F. Abbott, A Mechanism for Reducing the Value of the Cosmological Constant , Phys. Lett. B 150 (1985) 427–430

    1985

  84. [92]

    Dvali and A

    G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, Cosmic attractors and gauge hierarchy , Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 063501, [ hep-th/0304043]

    2004 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Dvali, Large hierarchies from attractor vacua , Phys

    G. Dvali, Large hierarchies from attractor vacua , Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 025018, [hep-th/0410286]

    2006 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Grilli di Cortona, E

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, The QCD axion, precisely, JHEP 01 (2016) 034, [ arXiv:1511.02867]

    2016 arXiv

  87. [95]

    L. E. Ibanez, M. Montero, A. Uranga, and I. Valenzuela, Relaxion Monodromy and the Weak Gravity Conjecture , JHEP 04 (2016) 020, [ arXiv:1512.00025]

    2016 arXiv

  88. [96]

    D. E. Kaplan and R. Rattazzi, Large field excursions and approximate discrete symmetries from a clockwork axion , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 8 085007, [arXiv:1511.01827]

    2016 arXiv

  89. [97]

    G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough, and T. You, Self-organised localisation, JHEP 10 (2021) 093, [ arXiv:2105.08617]

    2021 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Cabibbo, L

    N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio, Bounds on the Fermions and Higgs Boson Masses in Grand Unified Theories , Nucl. Phys. B 158 (1979) 295–305

    1979

  91. [99]

    P. Q. Hung, Vacuum Instability and New Constraints on Fermion Masses , Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 (1979) 873

    1979

  92. [100]

    Lindner, Implications of Triviality for the Standard Model , Z

    M. Lindner, Implications of Triviality for the Standard Model , Z. Phys. C 31 (1986) 295

    1986

  93. [101]

    Sher, Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability , Phys

    M. Sher, Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability , Phys. Rept. 179 (1989) 273–418

    1989

  94. [102]

    Schrempp and M

    B. Schrempp and M. Wimmer, Top quark and Higgs boson masses: Interplay between infrared and ultraviolet physics , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37 (1996) 1–90, [hep-ph/9606386]

    1996 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Isidori, Lower limit on the Higgs mass in the standard model: An Update, Phys. Lett. B 337 (1994) 141–144. 81

    1994

  96. [104]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Higgs mass and vacuum stability in the Standard Model at NNLO , JHEP 08 (2012) 098, [ arXiv:1205.6497]

    2012 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson , JHEP 12 (2013) 089, [arXiv:1307.3536]

    2013 arXiv

  98. [106]

    A. V. Bednyakov, B. A. Kniehl, A. F. Pikelner, and O. L. Veretin, Stability of the Electroweak Vacuum: Gauge Independence and Advanced Precision , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 20 201802, [ arXiv:1507.08833]

    2015 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Andreassen, W

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Scale Invariant Instantons and the Complete Lifetime of the Standard Model , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), no. 5 056006, [arXiv:1707.08124]

    2018 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Weinberg, A Model of Leptons , Phys

    S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1264–1266

    1967

  101. [109]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes , Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199–220. [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  102. [110]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2752–2756

    1977

  103. [111]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Multicomponent de Sitter (Inflationary) Stages and the Generation of Perturbations , JETP Lett. 42 (1985) 152–155

    1985

  104. [112]

    A. A. Starobinsky, STOCHASTIC DE SITTER (INFLATIONARY) STAGE IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE , Lect. Notes Phys. 246 (1986) 107–126

    1986

  105. [113]

    Rudelius, Conditions for (No) Eternal Inflation , JCAP 08 (2019) 009, [arXiv:1905.05198]

    T. Rudelius, Conditions for (No) Eternal Inflation , JCAP 08 (2019) 009, [arXiv:1905.05198]

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Arkani-Hamed, T

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Cohen, R. T. D’Agnolo, A. Hook, H. D. Kim, and D. Pinner, Solving the Hierarchy Problem at Reheating with a Large Number of Degrees of Freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 25 251801, [ arXiv:1607.06821]

    2016 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Dvali, Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem , Fortsch

    G. Dvali, Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem , Fortsch. Phys. 58 (2010) 528–536, [ arXiv:0706.2050]

    2010 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Dvali and M

    G. Dvali and M. Redi, Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC , Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 045027, [ arXiv:0710.4344]

    2008 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Geller, Y

    M. Geller, Y. Hochberg, and E. Kuflik, Inflating to the Weak Scale , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 19 191802, [ arXiv:1809.07338]

    2019 arXiv

  110. [118]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, The Selfish Higgs , JHEP 10 (2019) 199, [arXiv:1907.05370]. 82

    2019 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Strumia and D

    A. Strumia and D. Teresi, Relaxing the Higgs mass and its vacuum energy by living at the top of the potential , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 11 115002, [arXiv:2002.02463]

    2020 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Cs´ aki, R

    C. Cs´ aki, R. T. D’Agnolo, M. Geller, and A. Ismail, Crunching Dilaton, Hidden Naturalness, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 091801, [ arXiv:2007.14396]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Tito D’Agnolo and D

    R. Tito D’Agnolo and D. Teresi, Sliding Naturalness: New Solution to the Strong- CP and Electroweak-Hierarchy Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022), no. 2 021803, [arXiv:2106.04591]

    2022 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Khoury and T

    J. Khoury and T. Steingasser, Gauge hierarchy from electroweak vacuum metastability, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 5 055031, [ arXiv:2108.09315]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Tito D’Agnolo and D

    R. Tito D’Agnolo and D. Teresi, Sliding naturalness: cosmological selection of the weak scale, JHEP 02 (2022) 023, [ arXiv:2109.13249]

    2022 arXiv

  116. [124]

    S. P. Martin, A Supersymmetry primer , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18 (1998) 1–98, [ hep-ph/9709356]

    1998 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Baer and X

    H. Baer and X. Tata, Weak scale supersymmetry: From superfields to scattering events. Cambridge University Press, 5, 2006

    2006

  118. [126]

    Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 3: Supersymmetry . Cambridge University Press, 6, 2013

    2013

  119. [127]

    Amati, K

    D. Amati, K. Konishi, Y. Meurice, G. C. Rossi, and G. Veneziano, Nonperturbative Aspects in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories , Phys. Rept. 162 (1988) 169–248

    1988

  120. [128]

    M. A. Shifman and A. I. Vainshtein, Solution of the Anomaly Puzzle in SUSY Gauge Theories and the Wilson Operator Expansion , Nucl. Phys. B 277 (1986) 456

    1986

  121. [129]

    M. A. Shifman and A. I. Vainshtein, On holomorphic dependence and infrared effects in supersymmetric gauge theories , Nucl. Phys. B 359 (1991) 571–580

    1991

  122. [130]

    M. T. Grisaru, W. Siegel, and M. Rocek, Improved Methods for Supergraphs, Nucl. Phys. B 159 (1979) 429

    1979

  123. [131]

    Seiberg, Naturalness versus supersymmetric nonrenormalization theorems , Phys

    N. Seiberg, Naturalness versus supersymmetric nonrenormalization theorems , Phys. Lett. B 318 (1993) 469–475, [ hep-ph/9309335]

    1993 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Seiberg, The Power of holomorphy: Exact results in 4-D SUSY field theories , in Particles, Strings, and Cosmology (PASCOS 94) , pp

    N. Seiberg, The Power of holomorphy: Exact results in 4-D SUSY field theories , in Particles, Strings, and Cosmology (PASCOS 94) , pp. 0357–369, 5, 1994. hep-th/9408013

    1994 arXiv

  125. [133]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5, 2012

    2012

  126. [134]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Supersymmetry and the Scale of Unification, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1681–1683. 83

    1981

  127. [135]

    Dimopoulos and H

    S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5) , Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150–162

    1981

  128. [136]

    Georgi and S

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces , Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438–441

    1974

  129. [137]

    Arvanitaki, N

    A. Arvanitaki, N. Craig, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Villadoro, Mini-Split, JHEP 02 (2013) 126, [ arXiv:1210.0555]

    2013 arXiv

  130. [138]

    J. D. Wells, PeV-scale supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 015013, [hep-ph/0411041]

    2005 arXiv

  131. [139]

    Arkani-Hamed and S

    N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC , JHEP 06 (2005) 073, [hep-th/0405159]

    2005 arXiv

  132. [140]

    G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Split supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 65–89, [hep-ph/0406088]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 706, 487–487 (2005)]

    2004 arXiv

  133. [141]

    M. S. Chanowitz, J. R. Ellis, and M. K. Gaillard, The Price of Natural Flavor Conservation in Neutral Weak Interactions , Nucl. Phys. B 128 (1977) 506–536

    1977

  134. [142]

    D. V. Nanopoulos and D. A. Ross, Limits on the Number of Flavors in Grand Unified Theories from Higher Order Corrections to Fermion Masses , Nucl. Phys. B 157 (1979) 273–284

    1979

  135. [143]

    Georgi and C

    H. Georgi and C. Jarlskog, A New Lepton - Quark Mass Relation in a Unified Theory, Phys. Lett. B 86 (1979) 297–300

    1979

  136. [144]

    Antusch and M

    S. Antusch and M. Spinrath, New GUT predictions for quark and lepton mass ratios confronted with phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 095004, [ arXiv:0902.4644]

    2009 arXiv

  137. [145]

    Antusch, S

    S. Antusch, S. F. King, and M. Spinrath, GUT predictions for quark-lepton Yukawa coupling ratios with messenger masses from non-singlets , Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014), no. 5 055027, [ arXiv:1311.0877]

    2014 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Hempfling, Yukawa coupling unification with supersymmetric threshold corrections , Phys

    R. Hempfling, Yukawa coupling unification with supersymmetric threshold corrections , Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6168–6172

    1994

  139. [147]

    L. J. Hall, R. Rattazzi, and U. Sarid, The Top quark mass in supersymmetric SO(10) unification, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 7048–7065, [ hep-ph/9306309]

    1994 arXiv

  140. [148]

    Carena, M

    M. Carena, M. Olechowski, S. Pokorski, and C. E. M. Wagner, Electroweak symmetry breaking and bottom - top Yukawa unification , Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 269–300, [hep-ph/9402253]

    1994 arXiv

  141. [149]

    Blazek, S

    T. Blazek, S. Raby, and S. Pokorski, Finite supersymmetric threshold corrections to CKM matrix elements in the large tan Beta regime , Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 4151–4158, [hep-ph/9504364]. 84

    1995 arXiv

  142. [150]

    Antusch and M

    S. Antusch and M. Spinrath, Quark and lepton masses at the GUT scale including SUSY threshold corrections, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 075020, [ arXiv:0804.0717]

    2008 arXiv

  143. [151]

    Antusch and C

    S. Antusch and C. Sluka, Predicting the Sparticle Spectrum from GUTs via SUSY Threshold Corrections with SusyTC , JHEP 07 (2016) 108, [ arXiv:1512.06727]

    2016 arXiv

  144. [152]

    Antusch and C

    S. Antusch and C. Sluka, Testable SUSY Spectra from GUTs at a 100 TeV pp Collider, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (2016), no. 33 1644011, [ arXiv:1604.00212]

    2016 arXiv

  145. [153]

    J. R. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, and F. Zwirner, Radiative corrections to the masses of supersymmetric Higgs bosons , Phys. Lett. B 257 (1991) 83–91

    1991

  146. [154]

    J. R. Ellis, G. Ridolfi, and F. Zwirner, On radiative corrections to supersymmetric Higgs boson masses and their implications for LEP searches , Phys. Lett. B 262 (1991) 477–484

    1991

  147. [155]

    Bagnaschi, G

    E. Bagnaschi, G. F. Giudice, P. Slavich, and A. Strumia, Higgs Mass and Unnatural Supersymmetry, JHEP 09 (2014) 092, [ arXiv:1407.4081]

    2014 arXiv

  148. [156]

    L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, A Natural SUSY Higgs Near 126 GeV , JHEP 04 (2012) 131, [ arXiv:1112.2703]

    2012 arXiv

  149. [157]

    Arkani-Hamed, A

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Gupta, D. E. Kaplan, N. Weiner, and T. Zorawski, Simply Unnatural Supersymmetry, arXiv:1212.6971

    arXiv

  150. [158]

    J. R. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. V. Nanopoulos, and F. Zwirner, Observables in Low-Energy Superstring Models, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 1 (1986) 57

    1986

  151. [159]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses , Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63–76

    1988

  152. [160]

    Craig, The State of Supersymmetry after Run I of the LHC , in Beyond the Standard Model after the first run of the LHC , 9, 2013

    N. Craig, The State of Supersymmetry after Run I of the LHC , in Beyond the Standard Model after the first run of the LHC , 9, 2013. arXiv:1309.0528

    2013 arXiv

  153. [161]

    Batell, G

    B. Batell, G. F. Giudice, and M. McCullough, Natural Heavy Supersymmetry, JHEP 12 (2015) 162, [ arXiv:1509.00834]

    2015 arXiv

  154. [162]

    J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and T. Moroi, Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 075005, [ hep-ph/9909334]

    2000 arXiv

  155. [163]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, A. Mustafayev, and X. Tata, Radiative natural SUSY with a 125 GeV Higgs boson , Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 161802, [arXiv:1207.3343]

    2012 arXiv

  156. [164]

    T. J. LeCompte and S. P. Martin, Large Hadron Collider reach for supersymmetric models with compressed mass spectra, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 015004, [arXiv:1105.4304]

    2011 arXiv

  157. [165]

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman, Stealth Supersymmetry, JHEP 11 (2011) 012, [arXiv:1105.5135]. 85

    2011 arXiv

  158. [166]

    J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman, A Stealth Supersymmetry Sampler , JHEP 07 (2012) 196, [ arXiv:1201.4875]

    2012 arXiv

  159. [167]

    Barbier et

    R. Barbier et. al. , R-parity violating supersymmetry , Phys. Rept. 420 (2005) 1–202, [hep-ph/0406039]

    2005 arXiv

  160. [168]

    Csaki, Y

    C. Csaki, Y. Grossman, and B. Heidenreich, MFV SUSY: A Natural Theory for R-Parity Violation , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 095009, [ arXiv:1111.1239]

    2012 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Papucci, J

    M. Papucci, J. T. Ruderman, and A. Weiler, Natural SUSY Endures , JHEP 09 (2012) 035, [ arXiv:1110.6926]

    2012 arXiv

  162. [170]

    Dimopoulos and G

    S. Dimopoulos and G. F. Giudice, Naturalness constraints in supersymmetric theories with nonuniversal soft terms , Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 573–578, [ hep-ph/9507282]

    1995 arXiv

  163. [171]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, The More minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 588–598, [ hep-ph/9607394]

    1996 arXiv

  164. [172]

    P. J. Fox, A. E. Nelson, and N. Weiner, Dirac gaugino masses and supersoft supersymmetry breaking, JHEP 08 (2002) 035, [ hep-ph/0206096]

    2002 arXiv

  165. [173]

    G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Supersoft Supersymmetry is Super-Safe , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 115014, [ arXiv:1203.4821]. 86

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.