What is the Hierarchy Problem?

Michael E. Peskin

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

What is the Hierarchy Problem?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The hierarchy problem, the paper argues, is not a formal instability in the Standard Model but an unanswered physical question: what makes the Higgs field break electroweak symmetry, and what new short-distance interactions must exist to…

desk verdict A clear, honest statement of the Wilsonian case for treating the Hierarchy Problem as ignorance of the EWSB mechanism, not a formal inconsistency—valuable for the debate, but the load-bearing 'must' is a commitment, not a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00694 v3 pith:E676PYY7 submitted 2025-05-01 hep-ph hep-th

Michael E. Peskin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-th

keywords hierarchyproblemelectroweaksymmetrybreakingHiggsbosonnaturalnesseffectivefieldtheorydimensionalregularizationlittlefuturecolliders

topics Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Dark Matter The Hierarchy Problem

open problems Dark Matter The Hierarchy Problem Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry

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's answer to the question in its title is that the hierarchy problem is not a formal contradiction inside the Standard Model but an unexplained piece of physics: why the Higgs field breaks electroweak symmetry, with its mass parameter near $(100\,\mathrm{GeV})^2$, and what the Higgs boson actually is. The author argues that the usual statement in terms of quadratic divergences should be taken seriously under an effective-field-theory view in which the ultraviolet cutoff represents real high-energy fluctuations; from that view, dimensional regularization's removal of the divergences is a technical trick, not a solution. This perspective forces the conclusion that new fundamental interactions exist at shorter distances than those probed so far. The paper reorganizes the problem into three parts — the large hierarchy to the Planck scale, the proliferation of scalar parameters, and the little hierarchy between the Higgs mass and the masses of any new particles — and argues that the little hierarchy is the most promising target for near-term progress. The payoff is an argument that future higher-energy colliders, up to 10 TeV parton CM energies, are scientifically necessary to discover the mechanism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the effective-field-theory viewpoint that treats the ultraviolet cutoff as a real physical scale rather than an artifact to be removed. Under that view the terms proportional to $\Lambda^2$ in Eq. (2) are the imprint of all higher-energy physics on the Higgs mass parameter; removing a massless integral by dimensional regularization is therefore dismissed as ignoring physical fluctuations. The argument then surveys mechanisms that generate a naturally negative $\mu^2$ — the large top-quark Yukawa coupling driving radiative symmetry breaking, two-stage breaking through fermion condensation (Eq. (5)), and supersoft Dirac gaugino masses (Eq. (6)) — and organizes them under three distinct problems. The machinery's work is to convert a formal concern about divergences into a concrete experimental program: if the problem is ignorance of a mechanism, then discovering that mechanism's particles is what a future collider must do.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a matched calculation of the Higgs mass parameter across a heavy threshold, such as a seesaw neutrino of mass $M_R$, using both a cutoff scheme and dimensional regularization: if the physical low-energy $\mu^2$ is independent of $M_R$ after renormalization even though the cutoff-scheme expression contains an $M_R^2$ term, then the apparent instability is an artifact of how the calculation is set up, which would undercut the paper's central premise. Experimentally, a future 10 TeV parton-CM collider that finds only Standard Model processes, with no top partners, supersymmetric states, or composite-Higgs resonances, would undercut the further claim that new short-distance interactions are required at accessible scales.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the hierarchy problem is the absence of a physical mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking, not a numerical instability of $\mu^2$. The radiative-correction formula $\mu^2 = \mu^2_{\mathrm{bare}} - \frac{3y_t^2}{8\pi^2}\Lambda^2 + \cdots$ records that any heavier particles coupled to the Higgs shift its mass term by amounts of order their mass squared; dimensional regularization hides this by subtracting the massless integral $\int d^d k/(2\pi)^d\, 1/k^2 = 0$, but the paper argues that fluctuations of the $t$, $\Phi$, $W$, and $Z$ fields are physically real and must be counted. Consequently, the author asserts, a solution requires new interactions at shorter distances, and without it the major open questions of particle physics — fermion masses and flavor, baryogenesis, neutrino masses, dark matter — have no unique path. The paper further claims that the little hierarchy problem, the gap between the measured Higgs mass and the masses of particles required by dynamical models, is the component most likely to be solved next, with three candidate mechanisms: competing forces, two-stage symmetry breaking, and supersoft Dirac gauginos.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on treating the ultraviolet cutoffs in the loop corrections as physically real; if one instead accepts the dimensional-regularization subtraction as a legitimate definition of the Standard Model, the quadratic-divergence version of the hierarchy problem disappears and the paper's conclusion that new short-distance interactions must exist does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A direct corollary of the cutoff-as-real premise is that any physical completion of the Standard Model generates terms of the form in Eq. (2), so removing them by a choice of regulator is equivalent to giving up on explaining $\mu^2$.
The three-problem decomposition implies that the large hierarchy and the scalar-parameter problem cannot be properly posed until the new particles behind electroweak symmetry breaking are identified, making the little hierarchy the accessible first step.
The little-hierarchy solutions surveyed in the paper require new particles in the region of 1–3 TeV; pushing their masses higher demands added structure, so HL-LHC and future collider searches are direct tests of these mechanisms.
If the mechanistic view is correct, a 10 TeV parton-CM collider offers an opportunity to discover a new fundamental interaction, whereas anthropic or randomness-based alternatives do not require any discovery below the Planck scale.
Because each mechanism generates a different picture of the Higgs boson — supersymmetric partner, composite state, or higher-dimensional gauge field — the same experimental programme that solves the little hierarchy would inform every other major question in particle physics.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the Standard Model's vacuum-instability prediction, driven by the same high-momentum top and Higgs fluctuations, becomes positive supporting evidence for the cutoff-as-real premise: the fluctuations that dimensional regularization subtracts away are claimed to be visible through the running of $\lambda$.
A reader could extend the argument into a staged research programme: solve the little hierarchy first, then use the spins, couplings, and quantum numbers of the discovered states to choose among supersymmetric, composite, and extra-dimensional completions.
An equally consistent reading treats dimensional regularization as a definition of the Standard Model; under that reading the paper's requirement of new short-distance interactions is a philosophical preference, and a no-new-physics result up to 10 TeV would mean the cutoff is simply higher rather than that the mechanistic program failed.
The collider argument could be sharpened into a quantitative test: for each little-hierarchy mechanism, compute the maximum new-particle mass consistent with the observed Higgs mass and with a stated tolerance for tuning, then compare those upper bounds with the reach of a 10 TeV parton-CM machine.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The paper you asked about is not a research paper; it's Peskin's invited perspective on what the hierarchy problem is. If you read it as a review and a polemic, it's a good one. The useful contribution is the decomposition into three problems—Planck hierarchy, problem of scalars, little hierarchy—and the argument that the little hierarchy problem is the one with the best chance of a solution now. The historical narrative (Wilson, radiative EWSB, little Higgs, Dirac gauginos) is accurate and clearly explained. Credit also for being honest: Peskin says upfront that he is giving personal opinions and doesn't pretend the paper contains a new derivation.

The main soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test note identifies. In Section 3, the statement that the Wilsonian point of view 'requires that there must be new fundamental interactions working at shorter distances' is presented as a consequence, but it follows only if you adopt the cutoff picture and reject dimensional regularization as an acceptable definition of the SM. Peskin does argue for that rejection in Section 2, and his footnote about the d=2 pole is a real argument that ultraviolet fluctuations are not pure regulator artifacts. But it's still a philosophical commitment, not a formal theorem. A reader who treats the SM as a consistent EFT in dimensional regularization will not see the 'must' as following. The paper is honest about this—it says 'I find this explanation unacceptable'—so it's not a sleight of hand. But that means the policy conclusion (a 10 TeV collider is the way forward) rests on a taste judgment, not on an uncontestable result.

The citation pattern is fine: the self-citations (refs. 25 and 26) are concrete examples of mechanistic models, not padding. The equations quoted are standard. No new result and no data, so there is nothing to check in that sense.

Who is this for? People working on naturalness, model-builders, and anyone writing about the future collider program. It will be useful as a clear statement of one major position. It deserves serious peer review as a perspective piece—the kind of invited article that should be checked for accuracy and internal consistency, and it passes on both counts.

My recommendation: send it to review, with a referee asked to look closely at the logic in Sections 2–3 and perhaps push the author to soften 'requires' or make the philosophical dependence explicit. It should be published; the field benefits from hearing Peskin's position stated this clearly.

Best

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a personal perspective essay by Michael Peskin on the nature of the Higgs hierarchy problem. The paper argues that the hierarchy problem is not a formal calculational inconsistency of the Standard Model but rather our ignorance of the physical mechanism responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking, specifically the fundamental nature of the Higgs boson. It rejects dimensional regularization as an acceptable resolution of the quadratic-divergence issue (Section 2), adopts a Wilsonian effective-field-theory viewpoint (Section 3), and proposes a division of the problem into three parts: the traditional hierarchy problem, the problem of scalars, and the little hierarchy problem (Section 6). The manuscript then reviews classes of mechanistic models—supersymmetry, composite Higgs, little Higgs, gauge-Higgs unification, and Dirac gauginos—and argues that solving the little hierarchy problem is the most promising route forward (Sections 4 and 7). It concludes with a policy argument that the mechanistic viewpoint requires new fundamental interactions at shorter distances and therefore motivates a future 10 TeV parton-CM collider (Section 8). The paper is explicitly framed as the author's personal answer rather than a consensus view.

Significance. If judged as a research article, the paper would be significant mainly as a clearly written statement of a widely held but contested position; it contains no new derivation, data analysis, or falsifiable prediction. Its value lies in the historical narrative, the useful three-way taxonomy of the hierarchy problem, and the concrete references to mechanistic model-building strategies, including radiative electroweak symmetry breaking, composite Higgs models, and supersoft supersymmetry. The paper is honest about its personal character and about the current lack of experimental guidance. However, the central assertion that new short-distance fundamental interactions are required is not a formal consequence of the Standard Model; it rests on a methodological commitment to a Wilsonian, mechanism-based notion of explanation. As a contribution to a special issue on 'misconceptions', the paper has the merit of making that commitment explicit, but it needs to be framed more carefully so that the conditional nature of its central claim is not lost.

major comments (3)

[Section 2, Eq. (2)-(3); Section 3] The dismissal of dimensional regularization as a resolution of the hierarchy problem is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, but the argument is not conclusive. In a pure Standard Model defined as an effective field theory, the quadratic divergences in Eq. (2) are absorbed into the bare parameter and leave no observable trace; the vanishing of the scaleless integral in Eq. (3) is an algebraic property of the regulator, not a statement about the existence of massless particles. Consequently, the assertion in Section 3 that "this point of view requires that there must be new fundamental interactions working at shorter distances" does not follow from the Standard Model alone; it follows only after adopting the Wilsonian/mechanistic premise. Because the paper appears to present this as a necessary conclusion, and because this necessity is the basis for the collider advocacy in Section 8, the claim should be reframed as a conditional statement that depends on the author's methodological choice, or supported by a more direct argument against the EFT/dimensional-regularization reading.
[Section 6] The three-way division into the traditional hierarchy problem, the problem of scalars, and the little hierarchy problem is presented as a natural decomposition, but the classification embeds the mechanistic assumption that a solution requires a dynamical model with new particles. The paper does not provide an argument ruling out the possibility that the correct explanation is formal in character, for example a scale-invariant or asymptotic-safety boundary condition that requires no new states below the Planck scale. Since the title of the paper asks what the hierarchy problem is, the reader should be told explicitly that this taxonomy is a preference within a particular research program rather than an objective and exhaustive decomposition.
[Section 8] The claim that a 10 TeV pCM collider provides an "opportunity to discover and characterize a new fundamental interaction" depends entirely on the earlier contested claim that new short-distance interactions are necessary. If a reader accepts the EFT/dimensional-regularization dissolution of the quadratic-divergence version of the hierarchy problem, the collider argument loses its force. The paper acknowledges this tension in a general way, but it still frames the mechanistic view as the only responsible basis for planning. The policy argument should be presented explicitly as conditional on the Wilsonian premise, which should be identified as the author's philosophical commitment rather than a universally accepted physical necessity.

minor comments (6)

[Section 2, first paragraph] The sentence "The is the version of the problem that I feel is the most important" contains a typo; it should read "This is the version of the problem that I feel is the most important."
[Section 3, third paragraph] The phrase "condensed mater" should be "condensed matter."
[Section 6, first paragraph] The word "Hierarchly" in "Hierarchly Problem" should be "Hierarchy."
[Abstract and Introduction] The paper says it gives "my answers" and leaves the reader to judge; adding an explicit sentence that the arguments reflect a personal methodological preference rather than a consensus position would help prevent the central necessity claim from being misread as a theorem.
[Section 5] The sentence "Excuse me that I am very cool to these ideas" is too informal for a journal article; rephrasing, such as "I am skeptical of these ideas," would be more appropriate.
[Footnote 5] The argument that the d=2 pole in the Higgs propagator indicates physical short-distance fluctuations, in contrast to the QED vacuum polarization, is subtle and deserves a fuller explanation; the reference to Peskin and Schroeder is helpful, but the logic of the contrast is not self-evident in the footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly framed personal perspective, not a derivation whose conclusion is built into its inputs.

full rationale

This paper makes no pretense of deriving a new formal result; it is a perspective article that states its worldview in its abstract ('I give my answer') and repeatedly acknowledges its personal character ('my personal opinions', 'I leave to the reader to judge'). The central claim, that the Hierarchy Problem is an ignorance of the physics behind the Higgs boson and that a mechanistic explanation requires new short-distance interactions, is asserted from a Wilsonian viewpoint, not derived by an equation that is secretly equal to its own input. The only quantitative step, Eq. (2), is the standard one-loop expression for the Higgs mass-squared correction, and the paper's rejection of the dimensional-regularization subtraction in Eq. (3) is a physical interpretation of the regulator, not a circular reduction: it is a contested but substantive argument, and even if one disagrees with it, disagreement is not circularity. The two self-citations, refs. [25,26], are cited only as illustrative examples of 'competing forces' and 2-stage symmetry breaking in model-building; the paper does not rest its central conclusion on those references, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or fitted parameter is invoked. No equation is defined in terms of the conclusion, no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, and no known result is merely renamed. The paper is self-contained as an opinion/review piece and should receive the lowest circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new entities. The quantities mu^2, lambda, y_t, Lambda, M_R, M_1, and m_tilde_q are all taken from the Standard Model or from cited models. The argument rests on three stated assumptions: the single-Higgs renormalizable definition, the physical reality of the UV cutoff, and the preference for mechanistic scalar explanations.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The Standard Model is defined as a renormalizable theory with exactly one fundamental Higgs doublet, with potential V = mu^2 |Phi|^2 + lambda |Phi|^4.
Section 2, Eq. (1): this definition is needed to identify mu^2 as the sole source of electroweak symmetry breaking, but it is a modeling choice that excludes multi-Higgs or non-renormalizable alternatives from the framing.
domain assumption The UV cutoff in one-loop corrections corresponds to real higher-mass physics, and dimensional regularization's subtraction of the massless integral is physically unacceptable.
Section 2, Eq. (3): rejecting dimensional regularization as a dissolution of quadratic divergences is required for the Hierarchy Problem to survive in the form the paper discusses.
domain assumption Scalar fields in nature should have a physical purpose, with vacuum values tied to particle masses or to another dimensionful reference point.
Sections 3 and 5: this Wilsonian-inspired preference motivates the demand for a mechanistic explanation of electroweak symmetry breaking and is a philosophical premise rather than a mathematical result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is the Hierarchy Problem?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E676PYY7

@misc{pith2026250500694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is the Hierarchy Problem?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E676PYY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00694}
}

read the original abstract

Is there a Hierarchy Problem? If so, what, exactly, is the problem? Almost every theorist has a personal answer to these questions. In this article, I give my answers. I will explain that the Hierarchy Problem is not a formal problem but rather our ignorance of a crucial physics explanation -- the explanation of the nature of the Higgs boson. Without the solution to this problem, we cannot make progress on the major questions of our field.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Dark matter in scale-invariant gravity with hidden-sector condensation
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A scale-invariant quadratic gravity plus hidden QCD-like sector can generate the Planck and electroweak scales, realize Starobinsky inflation, and produce dark matter from scalaron decay, with candidate masses around ...
Gravity and the Higgs boson mass
hep-th 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

For a scalar field on a sphere, the Fradkin-Vilkovisky measure combined with an on-shell cutoff identification converts the famous quadratic mass divergence into a logarithmic one.
The LHC has ruled out Supersymmetry -- really?
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

LHC searches have not ruled out weak-scale supersymmetry: realistic MSSM spectra with light charginos and neutralinos still escape current bounds, and small excesses may hint at them.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Naturalness: Past, Present, and Future,

N. Craig, “Naturalness: Past, Present, and Future,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 825 (2023) [arXiv:2205.05708 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2023
[2]

Do experiments suggest a hierarchy problem?,

F. Vissani, “Do experiments suggest a hierarchy problem?,” Phys. Rev. D57, 7027 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9709409 [hep-ph]]. I thank Howard Baer for this ref- erence

arXiv 1998
[3]

On the Metastability of the Standard Model Vacuum,

G. Isidori, G. Ridolfi and A. Strumia, “On the Metastability of the Standard Model Vacuum,” Nucl. Phys. B609, 387-409 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0104016 [hep- ph]]

arXiv 2001
[4]

Higgs Mass and Vacuum Stability in the Standard Model at NNLO,

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,” JHEP08, 098 (2012) [arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2012
[5]

This contrasts with the situation of the electromagnetic vacuum polariza- tion

A way to see the presence of these fluctuations within dimensional regulariza- tion is to note that they create a nonzero pole in the Higgs field propagator at d= 2. This contrasts with the situation of the electromagnetic vacuum polariza- tion. In that case, the quadratic divergence is required to vanish by QED gauge invariance. Dimensional regularizatio...

work page 1995
[6]

SU(2)-L x U(1) Symmetry Breaking as a Radiative Effect of Supersymmetry Breaking in Guts,

L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, “SU(2)-L x U(1) Symmetry Breaking as a Radiative Effect of Supersymmetry Breaking in Guts,” Phys. Lett. B110, 215-220 (1982). 12

work page 1982
[7]

Aspects of Grand Unified Models with Softly Broken Supersymmetry,

K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, “Aspects of Grand Unified Models with Softly Broken Supersymmetry,” Prog. Theor. Phys.68, 927 (1982) [erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys.70, 330 (1983)]

work page 1982
[8]

Supersymmetric Grand Unification,

J. R. Ellis, L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, “Supersymmetric Grand Unification,” Nucl. Phys. B221, 29-67 (1983)

work page 1983

Show all 32 references

[9]

Minimal Low-Energy Super- gravity,

L. Alvarez-Gaume, J. Polchinski and M. B. Wise, “Minimal Low-Energy Super- gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B221, 495 (1983)

1983
[10]

The Renormalization Group and Strong Interactions,

K. G. Wilson, “The Renormalization Group and Strong Interactions,” Phys. Rev. D3, 1818 (1971)

1971
[11]

Model Hamiltonians for Local Quantum Field Theory,

K. G. Wilson, “Model Hamiltonians for Local Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rev.140, B445 (1965)

1965
[12]

P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky,Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

1995
[13]

Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. 1,

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, “Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. 1,” Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

1961
[14]

The Symmetry Group of Vector and Axial Vector Currents,

M. Gell-Mann, “The Symmetry Group of Vector and Axial Vector Currents,” Physics Physique Fizika1, 63-75 (1964)

1964
[15]

Supersymmetry in Elementary Particle Physics,

M. E. Peskin, “Supersymmetry in Elementary Particle Physics,” [arXiv:0801.1928 [hep-ph]]

1928 arXiv
[16]

SU(2) x U(1) Breaking by Vacuum Misalignment,

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, “SU(2) x U(1) Breaking by Vacuum Misalignment,” Phys. Lett. B136, 183 (1984)

1984
[17]

The Littlest Higgs,

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. G. Cohen, E. Katz and A. E. Nelson, “The Littlest Higgs,” JHEP07, 034 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206021 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[18]

Little Higgs review,

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

2005 arXiv
[19]

Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo Gold- stone Boson,

R. Contino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, “Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo Gold- stone Boson,” Nucl. Phys. B671, 148 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0306259 [hep-ph]]

2003 arXiv
[20]

Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses,

R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, “Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses,” Nucl. Phys. B306, 63 (1988)

1988
[21]

Naturalness and the Status of Supersymmetry,

J. L. Feng, “Naturalness and the Status of Supersymmetry,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 351 (2013) [arXiv:1302.6587 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[22]

New Solutions to the Gauge Hierarchy Problem,

A. Hook, “New Solutions to the Gauge Hierarchy Problem,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 23 (2023). 13

2023
[23]

The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era,

G. F. Giudice, “The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era,” [arXiv:1710.07663 [physics.hist-ph]]

arXiv
[24]

Calculating the Cabibbo Angle,

H. Fritzsch, “Calculating the Cabibbo Angle,” Phys. Lett. B70, 436-440 (1977)

1977
[25]

Competing Forces in Five-Dimensional Fermion Condensation,

J. Yoon and M. E. Peskin, “Competing Forces in Five-Dimensional Fermion Condensation,” Phys. Rev. D96, 115030 (2017) [arXiv:1709.07909 [hep-ph]]; “Dissection of anSO(5)×U(1) Gauge-Higgs Unification Model,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 015001 (2019) [arXiv:1810.12352 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[26]

Top Quarks and Electroweak Symme- try Breaking in Little Higgs Models,

M. Perelstein, M. E. Peskin and A. Pierce, “Top Quarks and Electroweak Symme- try Breaking in Little Higgs Models,” Phys. Rev. D69, 075002 (2004) [arXiv:hep- ph/0310039 [hep-ph]]

2004
[27]

Dirac Gaugino Masses and Supersoft Supersymmetry Breaking,

P. J. Fox, A. E. Nelson and N. Weiner, “Dirac Gaugino Masses and Supersoft Supersymmetry Breaking,” JHEP08, 035 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206096 [hep- ph]]

2002 arXiv
[28]

Upper Bounds on Sparticle Masses from Naturalness or How to Disprove Weak Scale Supersymmetry,

H. Baer, V. Barger and M. Savoy, “Upper Bounds on Sparticle Masses from Naturalness or How to Disprove Weak Scale Supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D93, 035016 (2016) [arXiv:1509.02929 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[29]

Charting Generalized Supersoft Su- persymmetry,

S. Chakraborty, A. Martin and T. S. Roy, “Charting Generalized Supersoft Su- persymmetry,” JHEP05, 176 (2018) [arXiv:1802.03411 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Supersoft Top Squarks,

T. Cohen, N. Craig, S. Koren, M. Mccullough and J. Tooby-Smith, “Supersoft Top Squarks,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 151801 (2020) [arXiv:2002.12630 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[31]

Report of the Topical Group on Higgs Physics for Snowmass 2021: The Case for Precision Higgs Physics,

S. Dawson,et al.“Report of the Topical Group on Higgs Physics for Snowmass 2021: The Case for Precision Higgs Physics,” [arXiv:2209.07510 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[32]

Exploring the Quantum Universe: Pathways to Inno- vation and Discovery in Particle Physics,

S. Asaiet al.[P5 Panel], “Exploring the Quantum Universe: Pathways to Inno- vation and Discovery in Particle Physics,” [arXiv:2407.19176 [hep-ex]]. 14

arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Naturalness: Past, Present, and Future,

N. Craig, “Naturalness: Past, Present, and Future,” Eur. Phys. J. C83, 825 (2023) [arXiv:2205.05708 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Do experiments suggest a hierarchy problem?,

F. Vissani, “Do experiments suggest a hierarchy problem?,” Phys. Rev. D57, 7027 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9709409 [hep-ph]]. I thank Howard Baer for this ref- erence

arXiv 1998

[3] [3]

On the Metastability of the Standard Model Vacuum,

G. Isidori, G. Ridolfi and A. Strumia, “On the Metastability of the Standard Model Vacuum,” Nucl. Phys. B609, 387-409 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0104016 [hep- ph]]

arXiv 2001

[4] [4]

Higgs Mass and Vacuum Stability in the Standard Model at NNLO,

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,” JHEP08, 098 (2012) [arXiv:1205.6497 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2012

[5] [5]

This contrasts with the situation of the electromagnetic vacuum polariza- tion

A way to see the presence of these fluctuations within dimensional regulariza- tion is to note that they create a nonzero pole in the Higgs field propagator at d= 2. This contrasts with the situation of the electromagnetic vacuum polariza- tion. In that case, the quadratic divergence is required to vanish by QED gauge invariance. Dimensional regularizatio...

work page 1995

[6] [6]

SU(2)-L x U(1) Symmetry Breaking as a Radiative Effect of Supersymmetry Breaking in Guts,

L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, “SU(2)-L x U(1) Symmetry Breaking as a Radiative Effect of Supersymmetry Breaking in Guts,” Phys. Lett. B110, 215-220 (1982). 12

work page 1982

[7] [7]

Aspects of Grand Unified Models with Softly Broken Supersymmetry,

K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, “Aspects of Grand Unified Models with Softly Broken Supersymmetry,” Prog. Theor. Phys.68, 927 (1982) [erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys.70, 330 (1983)]

work page 1982

[8] [8]

Supersymmetric Grand Unification,

J. R. Ellis, L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, “Supersymmetric Grand Unification,” Nucl. Phys. B221, 29-67 (1983)

work page 1983