pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.05472 · v3 · submitted 2025-06-05 · ✦ hep-ph

The Intrinsic and Extrinsic Hierarchy Problems

James D. Wells This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 10:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords hierarchy problemintrinsic hierarchy problemextrinsic hierarchy problemfine tuningelectroweak scaleultraviolet completionrenormalization group
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

The Hierarchy Problem splits into an Intrinsic part from cutoff dependence in renormalization and an Extrinsic part from assumed extra ultraviolet states.

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

This paper divides the Hierarchy Problem of particle physics into two separate issues. The Intrinsic Hierarchy Problem arises directly from the Wilsonian renormalization group flow, where a high cutoff scale induces a large quadratic dependence that forces fine-tuning to keep a scalar light. The Extrinsic Hierarchy Problem appears when the low-energy theory is extended by the extra states and interactions that are generically expected in any ultraviolet completion, which then make the low-energy effective theory look finely tuned. The work treats the Extrinsic version as a formal paradox with explicit premises and shows that many proposed solutions resolve only the intrinsic issue while leaving the extrinsic one intact.

Core claim

The Hierarchy Problem separates into the Intrinsic Hierarchy Problem (IHP), caused by Wilsonian renormalization group inducing large Λ_UV² cutoff dependence on lighter scalar masses creating fine-tuning, and the Extrinsic Hierarchy Problem (EHP), which occurs when the IR theory is augmented with generically assumed extra states and interactions in the UV, making the resulting IR effective theory appear highly fine-tuned. The EHP is analyzed as a formal paradox whose premises can be identified and violated by solutions.

What carries the argument

The separation of the Hierarchy Problem into Intrinsic (IHP) and Extrinsic (EHP) components, with the EHP formalized as a paradox whose resolution requires violating one of its stated premises about generic ultraviolet extensions.

Load-bearing premise

The ultraviolet completion of the theory includes generic extra states and interactions that are not specially arranged to protect the light scalar mass from large corrections.

What would settle it

A concrete ultraviolet completion that adds the expected extra states yet produces no large fine-tuning in the infrared scalar mass, or an experimental discovery of new states whose couplings demonstrably cancel the quadratic divergences without additional tuning.

read the original abstract

The Hierarchy Problem of elementary particle physics can be divided into two separate problems: the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Hierarchy Problems. The Intrinsic Hierarchy Problem (IHP) arises when the Wilsonian renormalization group induces a large $\Lambda_{\rm UV}^2$ cutoff dependence on a much lighter scalar mass, creating a large finetuning. The Extrinsic Hierarchy Problem (EHP) arises when the IR theory is augmented with generically assumed extra states and interactions in the UV, making the resulting IR effective theory appear highly finetuned. The IHP is straightforward to analyze within a theory, but has suspicious regulator dependence, which has been suggested by some to be indication of a faux problem. The EHP is less straightforward to analyze, but has strength of physical intuition. We analyze EHP as a formal paradox, spelling out its premises and reasoning. From this we classify solutions to the EHP in terms of premise violations, and we articulate why some purported solutions to the Hierarchy Problem only partially solve the IHP and leave the EHP unaddressed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript divides the hierarchy problem into the Intrinsic Hierarchy Problem (IHP), defined via Wilsonian RG quadratic sensitivity of a light scalar mass to a UV cutoff, and the Extrinsic Hierarchy Problem (EHP), which appears when an IR effective theory is augmented by generic extra UV states and interactions. It formalizes the EHP as a paradox by spelling out its premises and reasoning, classifies solutions according to which premise is violated, and argues that some existing proposals address only the IHP while leaving the EHP unaddressed.

Significance. If the premise-based classification is robust, the work supplies a systematic framework for assessing the completeness of hierarchy-problem solutions in BSM model building. It explicitly credits the physical intuition behind the EHP and isolates the regulator dependence of the IHP, which could help clarify why proposals such as supersymmetry or composite Higgs models may resolve only part of the fine-tuning issue when generic UV completions are considered.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 (formalization of EHP paradox): the premises of the EHP are spelled out, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the 'generic extra states and interactions' assumption is independent of the fine-tuning measure itself; without an explicit derivation or counter-example showing how a non-generic UV completion evades the paradox while preserving the IR theory, the claim that the EHP is a distinct load-bearing problem remains under-supported.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'suspicious regulator dependence' is used for the IHP but never quantified; a brief comparison to a concrete regulator (e.g., hard cutoff vs. dimensional regularization) would clarify whether this suspicion carries over to the EHP analysis.
  2. [§2] Notation: the symbol Λ_UV is introduced without an explicit definition of the matching scale between IR and UV regimes; this should be stated once in §2 to avoid ambiguity when discussing effective-theory fine-tuning.
  3. References: the discussion of existing solutions would benefit from citing at least one concrete example (e.g., a specific supersymmetric model) when claiming that it 'only partially solves the IHP'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (formalization of EHP paradox): the premises of the EHP are spelled out, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that the 'generic extra states and interactions' assumption is independent of the fine-tuning measure itself; without an explicit derivation or counter-example showing how a non-generic UV completion evades the paradox while preserving the IR theory, the claim that the EHP is a distinct load-bearing problem remains under-supported.

    Authors: The genericity assumption concerns the statistical expectation that UV parameters lack special correlations or cancellations, which is logically prior to and independent of any particular fine-tuning measure (e.g., Barbieri-Giudice sensitivity) computed on the IR Lagrangian parameters. The fine-tuning measure quantifies IR sensitivity to parameter variations, while genericity is an assumption about the UV prior. A non-generic UV completion evades the paradox by introducing special relations (such as symmetry-enforced cancellations between bosonic and fermionic contributions) that remove quadratic sensitivity while leaving the IR spectrum and couplings unchanged. We will insert a brief derivation of this independence together with the indicated counter-example into §3 of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; classification is self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines the Intrinsic Hierarchy Problem via standard Wilsonian quadratic sensitivity of a light scalar to a UV cutoff and introduces the Extrinsic Hierarchy Problem as the apparent fine-tuning that emerges once generic extra UV states and interactions are added to an IR theory. It then treats the EHP as a formal paradox whose premises can be violated by different classes of solutions. The central claim—that some existing proposals solve only the IHP while leaving the EHP untouched—follows directly from this premise-based classification. No internal equations reduce outputs to inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted and then relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation chain whose validity is assumed rather than independently verified. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks of Wilsonian EFT and generic UV completions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard domain assumptions of quantum field theory regarding renormalization-group flow and the generic presence of UV states; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Wilsonian renormalization group induces a large Λ_UV² cutoff dependence on a much lighter scalar mass, creating a large finetuning.
    This is the stated basis for the Intrinsic Hierarchy Problem.
  • domain assumption The IR theory is augmented with generically assumed extra states and interactions in the UV.
    This is the stated basis for the Extrinsic Hierarchy Problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5699 in / 1329 out tokens · 37231 ms · 2026-05-19T10:31:58.640298+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. It's all in your head -- fine-tuning arguments do not require aleatoric uncertainty

    physics.hist-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Bayesian statistics supplies an automatic Occam's razor that penalizes unnatural models needing precise fine-tuning to agree with data, justifying naturalness arguments without aleatoric uncertainty.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 29 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC

    G. F. Giudice, “Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC,” doi:10.1142/9789812779762 0010 [arXiv:0801.2562 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/9789812779762

  2. [2]

    Naturalness: past, present, and future,

    N. Craig, “Naturalness: past, present, and future,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 825 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11928-7 [arXiv:2205.05708 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11928-7 2023

  3. [3]

    The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era

    G. F. Giudice, “The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era,” doi:10.1142/9789813238053 0013 [arXiv:1710.07663 [physics.hist-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/9789813238053

  4. [4]

    Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in the Weinberg-Salam The- ory,

    L. Susskind, “Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in the Weinberg-Salam The- ory,” Phys. Rev. D 20, 2619-2625 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2619

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.20.2619 1979

  5. [5]

    Mass Without Scalars,

    S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind, “Mass Without Scalars,” Nucl. Phys. B 155, 237-252 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90364-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90364-x 1979

  6. [6]

    Peskin, D

    M.E. Peskin, D. Schroeder. Quantum Field Theory . 1996

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    What is the Hierarchy Problem?,

    See also, M. E. Peskin, “What is the Hierarchy Problem?,” Nucl. Phys. B 1018, 116971 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116971 [arXiv:2505.00694 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.116971 2025

  8. [8]

    The quantum criticality of the Standard Model and the hierarchy problem,

    J. P. Garc´ es, F. Goertz, M. Lindner and ´A. Pastor-Guti´ errez, “The quantum criticality of the Standard Model and the hierarchy problem,” [arXiv:2506.15919 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    A Supersymmetry Primer

    S. P. Martin, “A Supersymmetry primer,” Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18, 1-98 (1998) doi:10.1142/9789812839657 0001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/9789812839657 1998

  10. [11]

    Little Higgs review,

    M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith, “Little Higgs review,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 229-270 (2005) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151502 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502182 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.55.090704.151502 2005

  11. [12]

    The Twin Higgs: Natural Electroweak Breaking from Mirror Symmetry

    Z. Chacko, H. S. Goh and R. Harnik, “The Twin Higgs: Natural elec- troweak breaking from mirror symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 231802 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.231802 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506256 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.231802 2006

  12. [13]

    The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, “The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,” Phys. Lett. B 429, 263-272 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(98)00466-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370- 1998

  13. [14]

    A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “A Large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370-3373 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370 [arXiv:hep- ph/9905221 [hep-ph]]. 21

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.3370 1999

  14. [15]

    The Origins of Lattice Gauge Theory

    K. G. Wilson, “The Origins of lattice gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140, 3-19 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.11.271 [arXiv:hep-lat/0412043 [hep-lat]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.11.271 2005

  15. [16]

    The Infrared - Ultraviolet Connection,

    M. J. G. Veltman, “The Infrared - Ultraviolet Connection,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 12, 437 (1981) Print-80-0851 (MICHIGAN)

    work page 1981

  16. [17]

    On naturalness in the standard model,

    W. A. Bardeen, “On naturalness in the standard model,” FERMILAB-CONF-95-391-T

    work page

  17. [18]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino and N. Darvishi, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.6, 065007 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.065007 [arXiv:2204.10582 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.065007 2022

  18. [19]

    Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies,

    E. Gildener, “Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies,” Phys. Rev. D 14, 1667 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1667

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.1667 1976

  19. [20]

    Evaluation and Utility of Wilsonian Naturalness,

    J. D. Wells, “Evaluation and Utility of Wilsonian Naturalness,” Lect. Notes Phys. 1000, 41-62 (2023) doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32469-7 2 [arXiv:2107.06082 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32469-7 2023

  20. [21]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 59, 135-157 (1980) doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5 9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5 1980

  21. [22]

    Higgs naturalness and the scalar boson proliferation instability problem

    J. D. Wells, “Higgs naturalness and the scalar boson proliferation instability problem,” Synthese 194, no.2, 477-490 (2017) doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0618-8 [arXiv:1603.06131 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0618-8 2017

  22. [23]

    Finetuned Cancellations and Improbable Theories

    J. D. Wells, “Finetuned Cancellations and Improbable Theories,” Found. Phys. 49, no.5, 428-443 (2019) doi:10.1007/s10701-019-00254-2 [arXiv:1809.03374 [physics.hist-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s10701-019-00254-2 2019

  23. [24]

    Supersymmetric Standard Model Spectra from RCFT orientifolds

    See, for example, T. P. T. Dijkstra, L. R. Huiszoon and A. N. Schellekens, “Supersym- metric standard model spectra from RCFT orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 710, 3-57 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.12.032 [arXiv:hep-th/0411129 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.12.032 2005

  24. [25]

    The current status of fine-tuning in supersymmetry,

    M. van Beekveld, S. Caron and R. Ruiz de Austri, “The current status of fine-tuning in supersymmetry,” JHEP 01, 147 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)147 [arXiv:1906.10706 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2020)147 2020

  25. [26]

    Status of weak scale su- persymmetry after LHC Run 2 and ton-scale noble liquid WIMP searches,

    H. Baer, V. Barger, S. Salam, D. Sengupta and K. Sinha, “Status of weak scale su- persymmetry after LHC Run 2 and ton-scale noble liquid WIMP searches,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 229, no.21, 3085-3141 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjst/e2020-000020-x [arXiv:2002.03013 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjst/e2020-000020-x 2020

  26. [27]

    Natural supersymmetry: status and prospects,

    X. Tata, “Natural supersymmetry: status and prospects,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 229, no.21, 3061-3083 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjst/e2020-000016-5 [arXiv:2002.04429 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjst/e2020-000016-5 2020

  27. [28]

    Conformal Approach to Particle Phenomenology

    P. H. Frampton and C. Vafa, “Conformal approach to particle phenomenology,” [arXiv:hep-th/9903226 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [29]

    Higgs mass naturalness and scale invariance in the UV

    G. Marques Tavares, M. Schmaltz and W. Skiba, “Higgs mass naturalness and scale invari- ance in the UV,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no.1, 015009 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.015009 [arXiv:1308.0025 [hep-ph]]. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.015009 2014

  29. [30]

    Electroweak hierarchy from conformal and cus- todial symmetry,

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner and A. Trautner, “Electroweak hierarchy from conformal and cus- todial symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 861, 139241 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139241 [arXiv:2407.15920 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139241 2025

  30. [31]

    Holography and Phenomenology

    N. Arkani-Hamed, M. Porrati and L. Randall, “Holography and phenomenology,” JHEP 08, 017 (2001) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/08/017 [arXiv:hep-th/0012148 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/08/017 2001

  31. [32]

    Holographic composite Higgs model building: soft breaking, maximal symmetry, and the Higgs mass,

    See, for example, S. Blasi, J. Bollig and F. Goertz, “Holographic composite Higgs model building: soft breaking, maximal symmetry, and the Higgs mass,” JHEP 07, 048 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)048 [arXiv:2212.11007 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2023)048 2023

  32. [33]

    Poincare Protection for a Natural Electroweak Scale

    R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K. L. McDonald and R. R. Volkas, “Poincar´ e protec- tion for a natural electroweak scale,” Phys. Rev. D 89, no.11, 115018 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.115018 [arXiv:1310.0223 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.115018 2014

  33. [34]

    $\nu$DFSZ: a technically natural non-supersymmetric model of neutrino masses, baryogenesis, the strong CP problem, and dark matter

    J. D. Clarke and R. R. Volkas, “Technically natural nonsupersymmetric model of neutrino masses, baryogenesis, the strong CP problem, and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 93, no.3, 035001 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.035001 [arXiv:1509.07243 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.035001 2016

  34. [35]

    Revisiting the Naturalness Problem -- Who is afraid of quadratic divergences? --

    H. Aoki and S. Iso, “Revisiting the Naturalness Problem – Who is afraid of quadratic divergences?” Phys. Rev. D 86, 013001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.013001 [arXiv:1201.0857 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.013001 2012

  35. [36]

    The statistics of string/M theory vacua

    M. R. Douglas, “The Statistics of string / M theory vacua,” JHEP 05, 046 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/046 [arXiv:hep-th/0303194 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/046 2003

  36. [37]

    The Birth of Inflationary Universes,

    A. Vilenkin, “The Birth of Inflationary Universes,” Phys. Rev. D 27, 2848 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2848

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.27.2848 1983

  37. [38]

    Observational Consequences of a Landscape

    B. Freivogel, M. Kleban, M. Rodriguez Martinez and L. Susskind, “Observational con- sequences of a landscape,” JHEP 03, 039 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/039 [arXiv:hep-th/0505232 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/03/039 2006

  38. [39]

    How many universes are in the multiverse?

    A. Linde and V. Vanchurin, “How many universes are in the multiverse?,” Phys. Rev. D 81, 083525 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083525 [arXiv:0910.1589 [hep-th]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.083525 2010

  39. [40]

    Barrow, F.J

    J.D. Barrow, F.J. Tippler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . Oxford University Press, 1988

    work page 1988

  40. [41]

    Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,

    S. Weinberg, “Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2607 1987

  41. [42]

    The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others,

    F. C. Adams, “The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others,” Phys. Rept. 807, 1-111 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.02.001 [arXiv:1902.03928 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.02.001 2019

  42. [43]

    The Cosmological Constant Problems (Talk given at Dark Matter 2000, February, 2000)

    S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological constant problems,” doi:10.1007/978-3-662-04587-9 2 [arXiv:astro-ph/0005265 [astro-ph]]. 23

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-3-662-04587-9

  43. [44]

    New nonrenormalization theorem from UV/IR mixing,

    S. Abel, K. R. Dienes and L. A. Nutricati, “New nonrenormalization theorem from UV/IR mixing,” Phys. Rev. D 110, no.12, 126021 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.126021 [arXiv:2407.11160 [hep-th]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.126021 2024

  44. [45]

    Resilience of the Spectral Standard Model

    A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes, “Resilience of the Spectral Standard Model,” JHEP 09, 104 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)104 [arXiv:1208.1030 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep09(2012)104 2012

  45. [46]

    IR Dynamics from UV Divergences: UV/IR Mixing, NCFT, and the Hierarchy Problem,

    N. Craig and S. Koren, “IR Dynamics from UV Divergences: UV/IR Mixing, NCFT, and the Hierarchy Problem,” JHEP 03, 037 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2020)037 [arXiv:1909.01365 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2020)037 2020

  46. [47]

    Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, “Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 355-394 (2020) doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 [arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 2020

  47. [48]

    Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, “Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G 48, no.4, 043001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 2021

  48. [49]

    Phenomenology of 10^32 Dark Sectors

    G. Dvali and M. Redi, “Phenomenology of 10 32 Dark Sectors,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 055001 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.055001 [arXiv:0905.1709 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.055001 2009

  49. [50]

    Nnaturalness

    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 Free- dom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no.25, 251801 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.251801 [arXiv:1607.06821 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.251801 2016

  50. [51]

    Towards a Realistic Model of Higgsless Electroweak Symmetry Breaking

    C. Csaki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo and J. Terning, “Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 101802 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.101802 [arXiv:hep-ph/0308038 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.101802 2004

  51. [52]

    The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs

    G. Panico and A. Wulzer, “The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs,” Lect. Notes Phys. 913, pp.1-316 (2016) Springer, 2016, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22617-0 [arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22617-0 2016

  52. [53]

    Status of Higgs Boson Physics

    M. Carena, C. Grojean, M. Kado, V. Sharma. “Status of Higgs Boson Physics.” Chapter 11 of R.L. Worksmanet al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022, 083C01 (2022), updated December 1, 2023

    work page 2022

  53. [54]

    A Composite Little Higgs Model

    E. Katz, J. y. Lee, A. E. Nelson and D. G. E. Walker, “A Composite little Higgs model,” JHEP 10, 088 (2005) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/10/088 [arXiv:hep-ph/0312287 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/10/088 2005

  54. [55]

    pNGB Higgs Naturalness at a Tipping Point,

    M. McCullough, A. Menkara and E. Salvioni, “pNGB Higgs Naturalness at a Tipping Point,” [arXiv:2505.06052 [hep-ph]]. 24

    work page arXiv

  55. [56]

    Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo Goldstone Bo- son,

    R. Contino, Y. Nomura and A. Pomarol, “Higgs as a Holographic Pseudo Goldstone Bo- son,” Nucl. Phys. B 671, 148-174 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.08.027 [arXiv:hep- ph/0306259 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.08.027 2003

  56. [57]

    The Littlest Higgs in Anti-de Sitter Space

    J. Thaler and I. Yavin, “The Littlest Higgs in Anti-de Sitter space,” JHEP 08, 022 (2005) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/08/022 [arXiv:hep-ph/0501036 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/08/022 2005

  57. [58]

    Hierarchy Problem Redux,

    J.D. Wells, “Hierarchy Problem Redux,” Presented at the LIO International Conference 2025, New Approaches to Naturalness , 21 May 2025, IP2I, Lyon, France. https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/34886/contributions/153921/ 25

    work page 2025