Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

A Multiplicative Formulation of the Higgs Lagrangian and the Fermion Mass Hierarchy between the charged leptons and heavy quarks

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modified Higgs Lagrangian reduces six fermion Yukawa couplings to a single value near the Higgs self-coupling.

desk verdict The numerical coincidence is real but parameterization-dependent: physical Yukawa couplings remain m_f/v, so the universal-coupling claim overstates what the framework actually predicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17296 v4 pith:E64URMFD submitted 2025-04-24 hep-th

Suppanat Supanyo , Sikarin Yoo-Kong , Lunchakorn Tannukij This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords multiplicativeHiggsLagrangianfermionmasshierarchyYukawacouplingunificationinverseproblemincalculusofvariationsdiscretescalingfactorsself-couplingchargedleptonsandheavyquarksSMEFTWilsoncoefficients
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

The paper proposes a nonstandard 'multiplicative' Higgs Lagrangian, obtained from the inverse problem of the calculus of variations, and shows that it can generate the fermion mass hierarchy without introducing arbitrarily small Yukawa couplings. The trick is to embed each Standard Model gauge-invariant operator inside the exponential factors of the multiplicative Lagrangian with inclusion coefficients εi ∈ {0, ±1}; this discretizes the effective coupling of every fermion into one of nine mass levels. Using the measured pole masses of the charged leptons and heavy quarks, the framework identifies four parameter points consistent with the SU(2)L doublet structure, two of which make all six Yukawa couplings converge to ≈ 0.13, essentially equal to the Standard Model Higgs self-coupling $M_h^{2}$/($2v^{2}$). If true, this would collapse up to seven independent dimensionless parameters of the Yukawa and Higgs sectors into one. The same construction also makes the background-dependent Higgs self-interactions decrease at large field values, which the authors suggest improves the ultraviolet behaviour of the theory.

What carries the argument

The central object is the family of discrete scaling factors f(i,j)(n): the multiplicative coefficient that each gauge-invariant operator Og acquires when it is placed inside the exponential factors of the Lagrangian L = ε1 Og + ½(+$Λ^{4}$ + (Dφ)†Dφ + ε2 Og) $e^{{−(V+ε3Og)/Λ^4}}$ + ½(−$Λ^{4}$ + (Dφ)†Dφ + ε4 Og) $e^{{+(V+ε5Og)/Λ^4}}$ with εi ∈ {0, ±1}. Expanded to next-to-leading order, these factors are discrete numbers of order (M_h v/$Λ^{2}$)^{2n} or of order one, ranging from $M_h^{4}$ $v^{4}$/(128 $Λ^{8}$) up to 3, and they sit in the fermion mass formula m = (f_Y / √(f_L f_R)) λ v/√2. The machinery works because the observed mass hierarchy is carried by the discrete factors rather than by tuned continuous Yukawa couplings: a single λψ yields nine possible mass levels m(n), and the ε patterns select which level each fermion occupies.

What would settle it

Measure the dimensionless coefficient cHD of the operator |H†DμH|^2/$v^{2}$ to a precision of $10^{-5}$ at a future Higgs factory or 100 TeV collider: the p2 and p11 solutions predict cHD ≈ 2.67×$10^{-4}$ and 1.06×$10^{-4}$ respectively at Λ_EFT = 246 GeV, so a null result at that sensitivity would rule out the claimed universal-coupling points.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a Higgs Lagrangian of the form L = ε1 Og + ½(+$Λ^{4}$ + (Dφ)†Dφ + ε2 Og) $e^{{−(V+ε3Og)/Λ^4}}$ + ½(−$Λ^{4}$ + (Dφ)†Dφ + ε4 Og) $e^{{+(V+ε5Og)/Λ^4}}$, constructed so that every gauge-invariant operator Og carries an inclusion coefficient εi ∈ {0, ±1}, assigns to each operator a discrete scaling factor f. After canonical normalization the fermion mass reads m = (f_Y / √(f_L f_R)) λ v/√2, so the observed hierarchy is reproduced by choosing ε patterns that place e, μ, τ, c, b, t on six of the nine available mass levels. Scanning the ε configurations and comparing with the measured pole masses leaves four viable points; at p2 ≈ (318 GeV, 0.132) and p11 ≈ (357 GeV, 0.134) the original Yukawa parameters satisfy λ_e ≈ λ_μ ≈ λ_τ ≈ λ_c ≈ λ_b ≈ λ_t ≈ λ ≈ $M_h^{2}$/($2v^{2}$) ≈ 0.13, so up to seven couplings are replaced by a single effective parameter. The paper also claims that the trilinear and quartic Higgs self-interactions, evaluated in a large classical background field, fall off asymptotically rather than growing linearly as in the Standard Model, keeping the scalar sector perturbative at large field values.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the operator-embedding Ansatz of Eq. (50), which lets each gauge-invariant operator be placed in the exponential factors of the multiplicative Lagrangian with arbitrary inclusion coefficients εi ∈ {0, ±1}; no symmetry or dynamical principle fixes these coefficients, so the nine mass levels and the converged coupling ≈ 0.13 are properties of the particular ε patterns that are chosen rather than of the framework alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the p2 or p11 solution is physical, the charged-lepton and heavy-quark Yukawa couplings are all fixed by one number, the Higgs self-coupling λ ≈ 0.13, removing the fermion mass hierarchy from the free parameters of the Standard Model.
  • The framework predicts a specific set of Wilson coefficients for the dimension-5 and dimension-6 operators induced by the multiplicative structure; at p2 the matching-scale values are c5 ≈ 6.9×10^-5, cHD ≈ 2.7×10^-4, and c6 ≈ 5.8×10^-6 at Λ_EFT = 246 GeV, which future Higgs-precision measurements can test.
  • The background-dependent trilinear and quartic Higgs self-couplings decrease asymptotically at large field values, so the scalar sector stays perturbative and the effective cutoff rises rapidly with the field background, favouring models of Higgs-inflation-type dynamics.
  • The survival of the four viable points requires the new scale Λ to lie between about 300 and 360 GeV at the intersections, a narrow window that more precise measurements of the charm-quark pole mass can probe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same scaling-factor lattice probably applies to the light quarks and neutrinos if their pole or running masses are assigned to the remaining mass levels; one testable extension is to see whether the CKM mixing angles emerge from the same discrete factors that set the masses.
  • The universality λ ≈ M_h^2/(2v^2) looks like a fixed-point condition: if the scale Λ is allowed to run, the intersection points p2 and p11 may be infrared attractors of the renormalization group, which would explain why the hierarchy appears at a particular Λ; the paper does not study this running.
  • If the ε coefficients are really unconstrained, the mechanism is better read as a proof of possibility than as a prediction: it demonstrates that a discrete embedding can encode the hierarchy, but the observed masses select the ε patterns rather than being derived from them.
  • The close numerical relation M_h v/Λ ≈ θ_C at p11 suggests the same framework might generate the Cabibbo angle from the Higgs sector alone; extending the exponential-operator construction to four-fermion operators could connect it to quark mixing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multiplicative formulation of the Higgs Lagrangian, based on the inverse problem in the calculus of variations, and applies it to the electroweak sector. Starting from the exponential solutions L± of Eq. (13), the authors construct a combined Higgs Lagrangian, expand around the electroweak vacuum, and derive modified Higgs–gauge couplings κi, SMEFT Wilson coefficients, and the constraint Λ ≳ 294 GeV from the C̅HD operator. The central new ingredient is the embedding of gauge-invariant fermion operators Og into the exponential structure with arbitrary coefficients εi ∈ {0, ±1} (Eq. (50)), leading to discrete scaling factors f. Each charged lepton and heavy quark is assigned to one of nine mass levels, and the observed pole masses are used to define bare Yukawa parameters λα via Eq. (88). A numerical scan yields four SU(2)L-consistent intersection points, of which p2 ≃ (318 GeV, 0.132) and p11 ≃ (357 GeV, 0.134) are highlighted because the six λα nearly coincide with the Higgs self-coupling λ ≃ Mh²/(2v²) ≃ 0.13. The paper also presents Wilson-coefficient predictions at these points and argues that background-dependent Higgs self-interactions decrease asymptotically at large field values.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the model would offer a striking reduction of six fermion Yukawa parameters plus the Higgs self-coupling to a single effective parameter, together with falsifiable Wilson-coefficient predictions and an interesting large-field behavior. The manuscript is transparent in presenting its analytical expressions and numerical lists, and the explicit Wilson-coefficient predictions at the candidate points are a commendable feature. However, the load-bearing claim of a universal Yukawa coupling is not supported on physical grounds: as shown below, the quantities that meet at p2/p11 are bare coefficients defined by dividing observed masses by freely chosen scaling factors, while the physical Yukawa couplings remain yf = mf/v. The hierarchy is therefore re-encoded in the discrete assignment of mass levels rather than explained, and the claimed reduction of physical parameters is an artifact of parameterization. These issues affect the main conclusion of the paper, and the recommendation is reject.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VI, Eq. (88) and Eq. (139)] The claimed universal Yukawa coupling is a parameterization-dependent coincidence, not a physical prediction. After canonical normalization, the physical hffbar vertex is yf = mf/v, as stated explicitly in Eq. (86). The quantities λα in Eq. (88) are the coefficients of the non-canonical operators before the field redefinitions (70); they are obtained by dividing each observed pole mass by a fermion-specific combination of the scaling factors f. Since those f-factors are chosen independently for each species from the ε-embedding freedom of Eq. (50), the condition λe ≃ λμ ≃ λτ ≃ λc ≃ λb ≃ λt at p2/p11 is an imposed selection on discrete assignments, not a parameter-free output. At p2, the physical Yukawa couplings are ye ≃ 2.1×10⁻⁶, yμ ≃ 4.3×10⁻⁴, yτ ≃ 7.2×10⁻³, yc ≃ 6.8×10⁻³, yb ≃ 1.9×10⁻², and yt ≃ 0.70, spanning five orders of magnitude; none is equal to 0.132. Thus Eq. (139) does not reduce the number of physical parameters and the statement in the abstract that the Yukawa couplings converge to a universal value is an overstatement.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (50)] The operator-embedding Ansatz is ad hoc and carries the entire predictive load. No symmetry, consistency condition, or dynamical principle fixes the coefficients εi ∈ {0, ±1}; the 243 configurations are merely enumerated. All scaling factors f in Eqs. (56)–(64), and hence the mass-level structure of Section V, derive from this choice. The paper's own count of 2×10³² distinct Lagrangian configurations in Section VI shows that the hierarchy is encoded in the unconstrained discrete parameter space rather than derived from the multiplicative structure. Unless a principle is supplied that determines the ε assignments, the four 'feasible' points are fits to the observed masses, not predictions of the framework.
  3. [§V, Eq. (87)–(88)] The use of pole masses as tree-level Lagrangian masses is not a consistent scheme for heavy quarks. The values in Eq. (87) are pole masses, which for c, b, and t differ from the corresponding running masses by large perturbative QCD corrections; using them directly as tree-level inputs in Eq. (88) introduces shifts comparable to the intersection widths quoted in Eqs. (109)–(136). The intersections p2 and p11 are therefore not established at the claimed precision, and a proper treatment would require matching the Lagrangian parameters to observables at a specified renormalization scale rather than identifying them with pole masses.
  4. [§VI, Eqs. (96)–(108)] The selection of the four candidate points is a manual scan, not a statistical or predictive procedure. The search uses central values and small uncertainty ranges, but no goodness-of-fit measure, no total number of assignments tried, and no estimate of the expected number of intersections under a null hypothesis are provided. Given the enormous configuration multiplicity acknowledged by the authors, finding a few intersections is unsurprising; without a control, the claim that p2 and p11 are 'noteworthy' is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§VI, Eq. (119)] In the p7 block, the charm-quark mass formula (119) is written with λτ in place of λc; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'figures. 6–7' in Section VI, 'Repots' in reference [47], and 'the summation overall' in the Introduction. A careful proofread would improve readability.
  3. [§V, Eqs. (74)–(82)] The notation f(i,j)(n) is used rather densely, and the mapping from the ε configurations of Appendix A to the specific mass-level assignments used at the four feasible points is not given in one place. A consolidated table for p2, p7, p9, and p11 would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Universal λ at p2/p11 is a selected property of freely chosen scaling factors, not a physical Yukawa prediction; the observed hierarchy y_f = m_f/v is unchanged.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, Eqs. (88), (96), (138)-(139)]
    "Substituting Eq.(87) into Eq.(72), the original parameters of Yukawa couplings in the model are expressed as λα = sqrt(2 f_L f_R)/f_Y · Mα/v (88). ... Within these points, Yukawa couplings of the charged leptons and heavy quarks approximately converge to an universal value ... λe≃λμ≃λτ≃λc≃λb≃λt≃λ≃M_h^2/(2v^2)≃0.13. (139)"

    Eq. (88) is not a parameter-free prediction: it solves Eq. (72) for the bare coefficient λα by dividing each measured pole mass Mα by scaling factors f_L, f_R, f_Y that are freely selected from the ε-embedding of Eq. (50). The paper itself counts about 2×10^32 distinct configurations and then scans for curve intersections, so the equality in Eq. (139) is a selection condition imposed on the discrete assignments and on Λ, not a derived consequence of the framework. The same observed masses that define λα are also used to choose the configuration that makes the six curves meet.

  2. renaming known result [Section V.A, Eq. (86), versus Section VI, Eq. (139)]
    "Thus, the Yukawa couplings governing h→ψψ and h→χχ interactions are yψ = mψ/v, yχ = mχ/v. (86) ... At tree level, these coincide with the SM values, κY = y/ySM = 1."

    After canonical normalization, the physical hff Yukawa coupling is y_f = m_f/v with every f-dependence cancelling, as the paper states in Eq. (86). The six equal λα in Eq. (139) are therefore bare parameters before field redefinitions; the observable Yukawa vertices remain hierarchical. Claiming that the Yukawa couplings of charged leptons and heavy quarks converge to a universal value renames the chosen bare parameters, while the known empirical hierarchy encoded in y_f = m_f/v is left untouched.

full rationale

The derivation of the multiplicative Higgs Lagrangian and the κ_i/Wilson-coefficient analysis are not the circular part: the κ_i are checked against ATLAS Run-2 constraints and the SMEFT bound Λ ≳ 294 GeV is an external benchmark, so those sections retain independent content. The circularity is localized in Section VI. Eq. (88) defines the 'original Yukawa parameters' λα by taking the measured pole masses Mα and dividing by freely chosen scaling factors f_L, f_R, f_Y, which themselves are selected from the ε-embedding of Eq. (50). The paper acknowledges the enormous multiplicity of configurations and then searches for intersection points; the choice of p2 and p11 as the noteworthy solutions is the result of that search, not a unique prediction. Eq. (139) then equates these bare parameters at the selected point. But Eq. (86) states that the physical Yukawa couplings are exactly y_f = m_f/v, with all f dependence cancelling, so the observable hff couplings remain hierarchical. The claimed reduction of seven Yukawa couplings to one effective parameter is thus a property of the chosen parametrization rather than of the physical Higgs-fermion couplings. Because the framework still contains independent elements, the score is 6 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three pillars: the multiplicative Lagrangian solution (Eq. 13) taken from prior work, the operator-embedding Ansatz (Eq. 50) with arbitrary epsilon_i, and a tree-level matching of pole masses. The free parameters are the new scale Lambda, the discrete mass-level assignment for each fermion, the sub-branch indices, and the epsilon configurations. No new particle or mediator is introduced, but the model's predictive power is limited by the large number of discrete choices needed to reproduce the six masses.

free parameters (4)
  • Lambda (new mass scale) = 318, 337, 343, 357 GeV (points p2, p7, p9, p11)
    Introduced in Eq. (13); constrained to Lambda > 294 GeV by the SMEFT bound on c_HD (Eq. 48); final values chosen so that the six Yukawa curves intersect.
  • Mass-level assignment per fermion = e -> m(-8), mu -> m(-4), tau -> m(-4), c -> m(-4), b -> m(0), t -> m(0) for p2 (similar for p11)
    Each fermion's mass is placed on one of nine discrete levels from Eqs. (74)-(82); this assignment is chosen to match observed masses and is degenerate, with the paper reporting up to 2 x 10^32 distinct configurations.
  • Sub-branch indices (i,j) of f(i,j) = Specific sub-branches selected to reproduce mass central values within uncertainties
    The sub-leading corrections in Eqs. (56)-(64) carry integer indices i,j that are also free choices; they fine-tune the resulting masses and couplings.
  • Epsilon configurations epsilon_i = One of 243 vectors for each fermion's kinetic and Yukawa operators
    Eq. (50) introduces epsilon_i in {0, +/- 1}; the subset yielding the desired scaling factors is selected from Appendix A, and this choice is not dictated by any symmetry or principle.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The inverse problem of the calculus of variations allows Lagrangians of the form Eq. (12), and the solution is L+/- = (+/- Lambda^4 + d_mu phi^dagger d^mu phi) exp(-/+ V/Lambda^4).
    Stated in Section II and attributed to Ref. [22]; the derivation is not reproduced here, and this form underlies the whole construction.
  • ad hoc to paper Gauge-invariant operators can be inserted into the exponential structure as in Eq. (50) with arbitrary coefficients epsilon_i = {0, +/- 1} without breaking gauge invariance.
    This Ansatz is introduced in Section IV and has no independent justification; it is the main source of the model's flexibility and of the degeneracy in mass assignments.
  • domain assumption The expansions require Lambda^4 >> O_g and 8 Lambda^4 >> M_h^2 v^2 to truncate scaling factors at order Lambda^-8.
    Used throughout Sections IV and V; at the preferred point Lambda ~ 318 GeV, M_h^2 v^2 / Lambda^4 ~ 0.09, so the truncation is only marginally controlled.
  • domain assumption Pole masses from PDG are used directly as tree-level Lagrangian masses.
    Stated at the beginning of Section VI; no radiative correction or renormalization-group running is included, a strong simplification especially for heavy quarks.
  • standard math Negative scaling factors are excluded to avoid ghost-like kinetic terms.
    Section IV excludes f < 0 for kinetic operators; this is a standard stability requirement in field theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Multiplicative Formulation of the Higgs Lagrangian and the Fermion Mass Hierarchy between the charged leptons and heavy quarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E64URMFD

@misc{pith2026250417296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Multiplicative Formulation of the Higgs Lagrangian and the Fermion Mass Hierarchy between the charged leptons and heavy quarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E64URMFD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17296}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a multiplicative formulation of the Higgs Lagrangian, derived from the inverse problem in the calculus of variations, as an alternative framework to investigate the fermion mass hierarchy. In this setup, fermion masses emerge as discrete quantities determined by a finite set of scaling factors, thereby allowing the observed charged-lepton and heavy-quark masses to be accommodated without introducing arbitrarily small parameters. In addition, this framework admits specific solutions where the Yukawa couplings of the charged leptons and heavy quarks converge to a universal value, approximately coinciding with the Higgs self-coupling. This numerical coincidence provides a potential hint of an underlying dynamical structure that correlates the Higgs sector with the fermion masses. Furthermore, the background-dependent Higgs self-interactions are found to decrease asymptotically, ensuring perturbative consistency in the large-field regime and suggesting possible extensions toward ultraviolet completion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Contour plot of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Effective cutoff Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Yukawa couplings obtained from Eq.( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The plot of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The dependence of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Magnified views of the regimes displayed in figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Background-field dependence of the trilinear and quartic Higgs couplings in the multiplicative Lagrangian, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Background-field dependence of the effective cutoff Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

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. The emergence of the relativistic Lagrangian from the non-relativistic multiplicative Lagrangian

    gr-qc 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A chosen statistical average over the authors' multiplicative Lagrangians reproduces the known relativistic free-particle Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, but the averaging distribution is selected to force that outcome.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3529 (1994)

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    In the SM context, χ corresponds to νe,νµ,ντ,u,c, and t, while ψ corresponds to e,µ,τ,d, s, and b. The fermion Lagrangian coupled to the Higgs sector can be written in the compact form L =OΨ 1 + 1 2(+Λ4 + (Dµϕ)†Dµϕ +OΨ 2 )e− V +OΨ 3 Λ4 + 1 2(−Λ4 + (Dµϕ)†Dµϕ +OΨ 4 )e+ V +OΨ 5 Λ4 , (67) with Oψ i =ϵL iOL +ϵR,ψ i OR,ψ +ϵR,χ i OR,χ +ϵY,χ i OY,χ +ϵY,ψ i OY,ψ. ...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    (115) • Case p7≃ (337 GeV, 0.149): me ={ fY,(−8)q f(3,i) L,(0)f(6) R,(0) λev√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{{0.511,..., 0.515}, (L↔R)} MeV (116) mµ ={ fY,(−8)q fL,(−8)f(4,i) R,(0) λµv√ 2, f(1,i) Y,(−4)q f(5.j) L,(0)f(5,k) R,(0) λµv√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{106, {105,..., 107}, (L↔R)} MeV (117) mτ ={ f(1,i) Y,(−4)q f(2) L,(−4)f(2,j) R,(0) λτv√ 2, f(1,i) Y,(−4)q f(1,j) L,(−4)f(4,k) R,(0...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (122) • Case p9≃ (343 GeV, 0.113): me ={ fY,(−8)q f(2,i) L,(0)f(4,j) R,(0) λev√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{{0.501,..., 0.512}, (L↔R)} MeV (123) mµ ={ f(1,i) Y,(−4)q f(5,j) L,(0)f(2,k) R,(0) λµv√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{{105,..., 108}, (L↔R)} MeV (124) mτ ={ f(1,i) Y,(−4)q f(1,j) L,(−4)f(2,k) R,(0) λτv√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{{1.79,..., 1.84}, (L↔R)} GeV (125) mc ={ f(2) Y,(−4)q f(2) L,(−4)f(5...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (130) • Case p11≃ (357 GeV, 0.134): me ={ fY,(−8)q f(2,i) L,(0)f(3,j) R,(0) λev√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{{0.510,..., 0.521}, (L↔R)} MeV (131) mµ ={ f(1,i) Y,(−4)q f(5,j) L,(0)f(2,k) R,(0) λµv√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{{106,..., 109}, (L↔R)} MeV (132) mτ ={ f(2) Y,(−4)q f(2) L,(−4)f(5,i) R,(0) λτv√ 2, (L↔R)} ≃{1.78, (L↔R)} GeV (133) mc ={ f(2) Y,(−4)q f(2) L,(−4)f(6) R,(0) λτv√ 2,...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Among the four feasible points, there are two particularly noteworthy points, which are p2≃ (318 GeV, 0.132), p 11≃ (357 GeV, 0.134)

    (137) Then, we turn to the discussion of the results. Among the four feasible points, there are two particularly noteworthy points, which are p2≃ (318 GeV, 0.132), p 11≃ (357 GeV, 0.134). (138) Within these points, Yukawa couplings of the charged leptons and heavy quarks approximately converge to an universal value that is numerically close to the Higgs s...

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Yukawa coupling unification in non-supersymmetric SO(10) models with an intermediate scale

    A. Djouadi, R. Ouyang, and M. Raidal, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136788 (2022), arXiv:2106.15822 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1895 (1981)

    work page 1981

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    D. C. Terry, Phys. Rev. D 27, 600 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    Jungman, Phys

    G. Jungman, Phys. Rev. D 46, 4004 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    S. M. Barr and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4748 (1997)

    1997

  4. [12]

    Koide, Phys

    Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D 61, 035008 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    Hojman and L

    S. Hojman and L. F. Urrutia, Journal of Mathematical Physics 22, 1896 (1981). 24

    1981

  6. [14]

    Djouadi, R

    A. Djouadi, R. Fonseca, R. Ouyang, and M. Raidal, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 529 (2023), arXiv:2212.11315 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 277 (1979)

    1979

  8. [16]

    Huitu and N

    K. Huitu and N. Koivunen, Phys. Rev. D 98, 011701 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Wang and Y.-X

    F. Wang and Y.-X. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1803 (2011), arXiv:1103.6017 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Douglas, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 50, 71 (1941)

    J. Douglas, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 50, 71 (1941)

    1941

  11. [19]

    Y.-F. Cai, J. B. Dent, and D. A. Easson, Phys. Rev. D 83, 101301 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Sarlet, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, 1503 (1982)

    W. Sarlet, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, 1503 (1982)

    1982

  13. [21]

    Henneaux, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 17, 75 (1984)

    M. Henneaux, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 17, 75 (1984)

    1984

  14. [22]

    Armendariz-Picon, V

    C. Armendariz-Picon, V. Mukhanov, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 63, 103510 (2001)

    2001

  15. [23]

    G. Lara, M. Bezares, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064058 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    S. X. Tian and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043518 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  18. [26]

    Alishahiha, E

    M. Alishahiha, E. Silverstein, and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123505 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Huang, G

    M.-x. Huang, G. Shiu, and B. Underwood, Phys. Rev. D 77, 023511 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Supanyo, M

    S. Supanyo, M. Tanasittikosol, and S. Yoo-Kong, Phys. Rev. D 106, 035020 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C 790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yanagida, Prog

    T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64, 1103 (1980)

    1980

  23. [31]

    Deppisch and J

    F. Deppisch and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 72, 036001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406040

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mandal, R

    S. Mandal, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 101, 115030 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Cabrera, D

    E. Cabrera, D. Cogollo, and C. A. d. S. Pires, Nucl. Phys. B 996, 116372 (2023), arXiv:2304.14443 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    In the following section, we apply Eq

    demonstrates that, under certain assumptions, this framework can reduce the apparent hierarchy of Yukawa couplings fromO(10−6) toO(1). In the following section, we apply Eq. (13) to the electroweak sector. III. ELECTROWEAK MODEL WITH MULTIPLICATIVE HIGGS LAGRANGIAN The EW Lagr...

  27. [35]

    Centelles Chuli´ a, A

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, A. Herrero-Brocal, and A. Vicente, JHEP 07, 060 (2024), arXiv:2404.15415 [hep-ph]

    2024

  28. [36]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1642 (1986)

    1986

  29. [37]

    M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B 216, 360 (1989)

    1989

  30. [38]

    S. S. C. Law and K. L. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 87, 113003 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Surawuttinack, S

    K. Surawuttinack, S. Yoo-Kong, and M. Tanasittikosol, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 189, 1693 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Supanyo, M

    S. Supanyo, M. Tanasittikosol, and S. Yoo-Kong, Theor. Math. Phys. 221, 1695 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Supanyo, C

    S. Supanyo, C. Hasuwannakit, S. Yoo-Kong, and L. Tannukij, (2023), arXiv:2312.16587 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Erler and M

    J. Erler and M. Schott, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 68 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Chatrchyan, V

    S. Chatrchyan, V. Khachatryan, A. M. Sirunyan, A. Tumasyan, W. Adam, E. Aguilo, T. Bergauer, M. Dragicevic, J. Er¨ o, C. Fabjan, et al. , Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    G. Aad, T. Abajyan, B. Abbott, J. Abdallah, S. A. Khalek, A. A. Abdelalim, R. Aben, B. Abi, M. Abolins, O. AbouZeid, et al. , Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Atkinson, A

    Anisha, O. Atkinson, A. Bhardwaj, C. Englert, and P. Stylianou, JHEP 10, 172 (2022), arXiv:2208.09334 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Nature 607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rept. 1116, 4 (2025), arXiv:2404.05498 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ellis, C

    J. Ellis, C. W. Murphy, V. Sanz, and T. You, JHEP 06, 146 (2018), arXiv:1803.03252 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    H. N. Long, L. T. Hue, and D. V. Loi, Phys. Rev. D 94, 015007 (2016), arXiv:1605.07835 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Balaji, R

    S. Balaji, R. Foot, and M. A. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 99, 015029 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    CMS-PAS-FTR-18-019 (2018)

    The-CMS-Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-FTR-18-019 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-053 (2018)

    The-ATLAS-Collaboration, Repots No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2018-053 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Mastandrea, B

    R. Mastandrea, B. Nachman, and T. Plehn, Phys. Rev. D 110, 056004 (2024), arXiv:2405.15847 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Benedikt et al

    M. Benedikt et al. , (2022), arXiv:2203.07804 [physics.acc-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Coleman and E

    S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973)

    1973

  49. [57]

    Markkanen, S

    T. Markkanen, S. Nurmi, A. Rajantie, and S. Stopyra, JHEP 06, 040 (2018), arXiv:1804.02020 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 96, 096005 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Bezrukov and M

    F. Bezrukov and M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 659, 703 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Spokoiny, Phys

    B. Spokoiny, Phys. Lett. B 147, 39 (1984)

    1984

  53. [61]

    D. S. Salopek, J. R. Bond, and J. M. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1753 (1989)

    1989

  54. [62]

    D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D 52, 4295 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.