Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A light scalar that self-completes through classicalization must keep its mass far below the interaction scale, and acquire a chameleon-like screening layer the moment it couples to a potential or to matter.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:14 UTC pith:DGXNWXAG

load-bearing objection A competent, honest extension of classicalization; the new chameleon-necessity claim is plausible but rests on an unverified background assumption that should be either proven or softened before publication. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.01739 v3 pith:DGXNWXAG submitted 2025-11-03 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th

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

Florian Nortier This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qchep-th
keywords classicalizationUV/IR mixingVainshtein screeningchameleon screeningk-essencehierarchy problemlight scalarsclassicalons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that a scalar field whose ultraviolet completion proceeds by classicalization — forming extended semi-classical objects out of many soft quanta instead of adding new heavy particles — can only work if the scalar is much lighter than the classicalization scale. It then shows that adding a scalar potential or a Yukawa coupling to fermions destabilizes the Vainshtein screening that underpins classicalization. To restore stability, the paper introduces a chameleon-like mechanism: a potential that flattens at large field values and a conformal coupling that suppresses the Yukawa interaction inside the classicalon. The result is a concrete recipe for consistent classicalizing theories, and it offers a new perspective on why light scalars with a little hierarchy might exist.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that UV/IR mixing via classicalization forces a little hierarchy m << Λ* and, once a potential or Yukawa coupling is present, forces a chameleon screening layer to envelop the Vainshtein core. In the quadratic-potential case the classicalon radius saturates at the Compton wavelength, so a classicalon with N >> 1 weakly interacting constituents never forms unless the mass is well below the interaction scale. A quartic potential or a direct Yukawa coupling would otherwise inject large radiative corrections into the core; the paper shows that a tanh-flattened potential and a conformal factor e^{-(φ/Λ)²} suppress these terms exponentially inside

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the k-essence kinetic function K(X) = X - X², with X = (∂φ)²/(2Λ*⁴), whose derivative self-interaction generates the Vainshtein solution φ'(r) ~ (R_V/r)^{2/3} inside a core of radius R_V = ℓ* sqrt(E/(4πΛ*)). Quantum fluctuations on this background are screened by field-strength renormalization, which blueshifts the effective interaction scale to Λ*(r0) = sqrt(Z_φ(r0)) Λ*. For a self-sourced wavepacket, the same nonlinearity gives the classicalon radius R⊛ = ℓ* (M⊛/(4πΛ*))^{1/3}. The new ingredient is the chameleon radius R_C = ℓ_φ (R_V/ℓ*)², the outer boundary of the region where the flattening of the potential or the conformal suppression of the Yukawa coupling be

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the massless k-essence background solution remains the correct field configuration once a potential and a Yukawa coupling are added; it checks that the new terms are subdominant in each regime but never solves the full equation of motion including potential and fermion backreaction.

What would settle it

Solve the full static, spherically symmetric equation of motion for massive k-essence with a Yukawa-coupled fermion, including fermion backreaction on the scalar profile, and look for a classicalon-like solution that survives without any flattening or conformal suppression; finding such a solution would falsify the claimed necessity of chameleon screening.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Classicalizing scalar theories with a mass term are inconsistent unless m << Λ*, because the classicalon radius cannot exceed the Compton wavelength and the constituent bosons must remain weakly interacting.
  • A quartic potential with order-one coupling destroys the Vainshtein core; flattening the potential at large field values restores it and creates a chameleon halo of radius R_C surrounding the core.
  • A direct Yukawa coupling generates fermion-loop corrections that grow inside the Vainshtein core; a conformal coupling exponentially suppresses the effective Yukawa coupling there, protecting the classicalon.
  • A kinetic coupling between the scalar and the fermion preserves shift symmetry and unitarizes hard scattering at the same classicalization scale, extending the classicalization picture to fermionic constituents.
  • Any phenomenological application of classicalizing scalars — in inflation, dark matter, or modified gravity — must include both screening layers in its action to be consistent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the specific tanh-flattened potentials and conformal couplings are illustrative rather than unique; any potential or matter coupling that fails to flatten or suppress at large field values would fail the same consistency test, making the screening condition robust but its explicit realization model-dependent.
  • Editorial inference: the nested structure of a Vainshtein core and an outer chameleon halo suggests a generic two-scale phenomenology — derivative interactions dominating inside, potential-shape effects dominating outside — that could be probed in short-range force experiments or precision measurements of Yukawa couplings in dense environments.
  • Editorial inference: because radiative corrections are exponentially suppressed inside the classicalon, the framework points toward a general mechanism for stabilizing scalar potential plateaus against quantum corrections; this could be tested by non-perturbative lattice simulations of the full theory including fermion backreaction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reviews the classicalization mechanism for a k-essence scalar with derivative self-interactions and extends it to models with a scalar potential and couplings to fermions. Its central claims are (i) self-UV-completion by classicalization requires a little hierarchy m ≪ Λ* between the scalar mass and the classicalization scale, and (ii) once a potential or a Yukawa-type matter coupling is added, Vainshtein screening must be supplemented by a chameleon-like screening mechanism to keep classicalon solutions intact. The argument in Section 3 is based on order-of-magnitude estimates: energy-density ratios are compared in different radial regimes, the potential is modified to a tanh form, and conformal and kinetic fermion couplings are introduced to suppress radiative corrections. The paper also contains a long review of critiques of classicalization and their proposed resolutions.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a concrete field-theoretic argument for why light classicalizing scalars should exhibit both Vainshtein and chameleon screening, and it connects the hierarchy problem to UV/IR mixing in a non-Wilsonian way. The little-hierarchy condition m ≪ Λ* is a falsifiable, parameter-dependent prediction, and the proposed tanh potentials and conformal/kinetic couplings are explicit illustrative constructions. The review portions are balanced and cite both supporting and critical literature. The main weakness is that the original Section 3 is built on scaling estimates rather than controlled derivations or numerical solutions; no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code are provided. The paper is therefore best read as a plausibility argument with illustrative examples rather than a theorem, and the strength of the conclusions should be calibrated accordingly.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1–3.3, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.16), (3.28)] The entire original analysis keeps using the massless k-essence background profile (2.16) after a potential V(ϕ) and a Yukawa coupling are added. The justification is only that the new terms are subdominant in the Lagrangian density in each regime, cf. Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5) and (3.11)–(3.13). Subdominance of these ratios does not imply that the solution of the full second-order equation (3.1) is close to (2.16): the mass term prevents the first integral (2.14) from becoming an algebraic equation for ϕ′, and the Vainshtein transition radius can shift nonlinearly. Consequently the saturation formulas (3.7), (3.9), the chameleon radius (3.16), and the loop estimate (3.28) are all conditional on an unverified background. Section 4 itself concedes that the potentials and couplings are “illustrative examples,” so the abstract’s “must” is stronger than what is established. A numerical solution or a
  2. [Eq. (3.28)] The fermion-loop mass correction is stated as δm²/Λ*² ∼ y⁴/Ω² (r/ℓ*)² without showing the loop calculation. The background-dependent fermion mass MΨ(r) = y φ̄(r) is introduced in Eq. (3.27), but the displayed scaling is not derived from any explicit integral, regulator, or renormalization scheme. Higher-order terms in the fluctuation δϕ from the Yukawa interaction are also dropped. Since this estimate is the central reason for declaring the minimal Yukawa model unstable and for introducing chameleon screening in §3.3.2, the calculation should be shown or at least a precise reference to an analogous computation should be given. As written, Eq. (3.28) is an asserted scaling, not a demonstrated one-loop effect.
  3. [Abstract and §3.2–3.3] The paper concludes that chameleon screening “must” accompany Vainshtein screening whenever a potential or matter coupling is present. What is actually demonstrated is sufficiency: the tanh potential (3.14)/(3.19) and the conformal coupling (3.29) are constructed to suppress the offending contributions. No no-go argument or general classification shows that all viable potentials/couplings that preserve classicalization require chameleon screening. Given the paper’s own caveat in Section 4 that these are illustrative examples, the necessity claim should be weakened, or a proof of necessity should be supplied.
  4. [Eqs. (3.7) and (3.9)] The step-function expressions for R_V and R_⊛, with saturation at λ_C, are written as exact formulas although no derivation from the massive k-essence equation is given. They appear to be interpolations motivated by Fig. 6. This is acceptable as a parametric estimate, but the sharp Heaviside form is misleading: the transition should be smooth, and the validity of the saturation condition is precisely what needs to be checked against the full background equation. Please state explicitly that these are interpolating estimates or derive them from the massive solution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.8)] After field-strength renormalization the fluctuation kinetic term is anisotropic, with B(r)→3 in the Vainshtein core. Defining a single effective mass m(r0) = m/√Z_φ(r0) is therefore an approximation; the radial and angular dispersion relations differ. A sentence justifying this simplification would be useful.
  2. [§3.2.3, Eq. (3.23)] The estimate δm² ∼ Λ*² from fuzzyon threshold corrections is presented as a scaling relation, but no explicit threshold calculation is shown. It would be helpful to label it as a dimensional estimate and to state the assumptions about the fuzzyon spectrum.
  3. [§3.2.1, Fig. 6] The text refers to panels (a) and (c) of Fig. 6 but not to panel (b), and the relation between the three panels is not described. Please align the text with the figure panels.
  4. [General notation] The paper uses “∼” both for order-of-magnitude scaling and for approximate equality in several equations. In places such as Eqs. (3.7), (3.9), and (3.28) a more precise notation, or an explicit statement that these are parametric estimates, would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the main consistency conditions are derived from the model's own equations rather than fitted or imported from the authors' prior work.

full rationale

I find no load-bearing circular step. The paper's two headline conclusions are consistency conditions obtained from the model's own approximate equations. The little hierarchy m << Lambda* follows from requiring the classicalon radius to remain below the Compton wavelength and the constituent bosons to be weakly coupled (Sec. 2.1; Eqs. 3.7-3.9, 2.42-2.43); m is not fitted and then 'predicted' back. The claimed need for chameleon-like screening is supported by an explicit failure mode: Eq. (3.13) shows a quartic potential gives lambda (r/ell*)^4 >> 1 inside the Vainshtein core, while the tanh-flattened potentials in (3.14) and (3.19) are constructed to restore subdominance. The conclusion is conditional on the massless profile (2.16) remaining a valid background, a point the paper does not prove by solving the full EOM; but that is a rigor/validity gap, not an input-output identity. The paper itself limits its claims: footnote 14 says dimensional analysis alone cannot confirm that classicalization occurs, and Sec. 4 states that the specific potentials and conformal couplings are 'merely illustrative examples.' The only self-citations ([128], [129], [236]) appear in side remarks about nonlocal tachyon condensation and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. No parameter is fit to data, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation and the unverified background assumption, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its free parameters are the coupling constants and scales of the model; the most load-bearing ad hoc choices are the tanh potentials and the conformal coupling, which are engineered to exhibit chameleon screening. The background solution of massless k-essence is assumed to persist in the presence of these terms.

free parameters (9)
  • c_2 (sign of kinetic self-interaction) = -1
    Chosen by hand; c_2=-1 is required for a real Vainshtein core and for ghost-free fluctuations (Eqs (2.8), (2.25)). Positivity-violating.
  • Λ_* (classicalization scale) = input scale
    The interaction scale of the k-essence model; free input, not derived.
  • m (scalar mass) = m << Λ_*
    Free parameter; the paper derives the little-hierarchy condition m << Λ* from classicalization consistency.
  • λ (quartic coupling) = ~0.1-1 in examples
    Coupling in the potentials (3.10), (3.17); chosen moderately weak in the examples.
  • v (VEV) = model parameter
    VEV in the tachyon-condensation potential (3.17); free parameter.
  • Λ_φ (tanh potential scale) = ~Λ_*
    Introduced in (3.14) and (3.19); set ~Λ_* by Dirac naturalness so that chameleon screening operates near the Vainshtein core.
  • Λ_Ψ (conformal coupling scale) = ~Λ_*
    Scale in the conformal factor (3.29); chosen ~Λ_* to avoid strong coupling below Λ_*.
  • c'_2 (sign of kinetic fermion coupling) = -1
    Chosen in (3.36) to avoid ghost-like renormalization of the fermion kinetic term.
  • y (Yukawa coupling) = free
    Coupling in (3.24); free parameter; the analysis requires moderately weak values for the scaling arguments.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Classicalization framework: 2→2 unitarity is restored by formation of coherent classicalon states with exponential suppression e^{-N_*}
    The whole analysis assumes the classicalization picture (Refs [67,108]); this is a contested paradigm, not standard math.
  • ad hoc to paper The massless k-essence background solution (2.16) remains valid when potential/Yukawa terms are added
    Used throughout §3; only subdominance of the added terms is checked, not full backreaction.
  • domain assumption Vainshtein screening is the only way to non-Wilsonian UV-completion; positivity-bound violation is acceptable because the fields are non-localizable
    Invoked in §2.3.3 to justify c_2=-1; relies on the Jaffe/non-localizable QFT literature (Refs [134,135,195]).
  • ad hoc to paper The potentials (3.14) and (3.19) with Λ_φ~Λ_* are viable illustrative examples
    These tanh potentials are engineered to flatten for |φ|>>Λ_φ; no UV completion is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The conformal coupling (3.29) and kinetic coupling (3.34) with scales ~Λ_* are natural
    Dirac naturalness choices; not derived.
  • standard math Standard QFT perturbation theory and scaling arguments (dimensional analysis) are valid in the regimes considered
    Used for the loop estimates and the classicalon radius derivations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 37247 in / 13714 out tokens · 124205 ms · 2026-08-04T00:14:59.622848+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Effective field theories featuring light scalar fields play a pivotal role in addressing fundamental questions in (astro)particle physics and cosmology. However, such theories often confront hierarchy problems in the absence of a symmetry. Self-completion via classicalization offers a non-Wilsonian approach to ultraviolet (UV) completion, wherein new scalar self-interactions involving derivatives give rise to Vainshtein-like screening around energy-momentum sources. Rather than introducing new UV degrees of freedom to restore unitarity at high energies, these theories reshuffle their infrared (IR) degrees of freedom by generating extended semi-classical objects -- referred to as classicalons -- which decay into a multitude of soft particles. This mechanism incorporates non-localizable fields, thereby realizing a form of UV/IR mixing that is analogous to the dynamics of black holes in gravitational theories. In this article, having reviewed the fundamental principles of classicalization with a simple k-essence model, we then argue the necessity of maintaining a little hierarchy between the scalar mass and the scale of the first new resonances, thereby illustrating the impact of UV/IR mixing on hierarchy problems. Additionally, we investigate the effects of a scalar potential and couplings to fermions on the Vainshtein screening mechanism. We discuss that a chameleon-like screening mechanism must accompany the Vainshtein screening to preserve the integrity of classicalon solutions.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. When Renormalisation Remembers: UV/IR Mixing as an Entanglement Bridge

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Introduces the Born-Reciprocal Tensor Network to realize UV/IR mixing as an entanglement bridge in renormalization geometry, with a large-volume limit restoring standard Wilsonian decoupling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

238 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Peskin and D.V

    M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory, CRC Press (1995), 10.1201/9780429503559

    doi:10.1201/9780429503559 1995

  2. [2]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and J. Zupan,Dark Matter,2406.01705. 31In scenarios involving extra spatial dimensions, the gravitational scaleΛG can be significantly lower than the Planck scaleΛP (see, e.g., Ref. [171]). – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury and M. Trodden,Beyond the cosmological standard model, Phys. Rept.568(2015) 1 [1407.0059]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Martin, C

    J. Martin, C. Ringeval and V. Vennin,Encyclopædia Inflationaris: Opiparous Edition, Phys. Dark Univ.5-6(2014) 75 [1303.3787]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Burgess,Introduction to Effective Field Theory: Thinking Effectively about Hierarchies of Scale, Cambridge University Press (2020), 10.1017/9781139048040

    C.P. Burgess,Introduction to Effective Field Theory: Thinking Effectively about Hierarchies of Scale, Cambridge University Press (2020), 10.1017/9781139048040

    doi:10.1017/9781139048040 2020

  6. [6]

    Hebecker,Naturalness, String Landscape and Multiverse: A Modern Introduction with Exercises,Lect

    A. Hebecker,Naturalness, String Landscape and Multiverse: A Modern Introduction with Exercises,Lect. Notes Phys.979(2021) 1 [2008.10625]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci

    G. ’t Hooft,Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B59(1980) 135

    1980

  8. [8]

    Cho,Physicists’ Nightmare Scenario: The Higgs and Nothing Else,Science315(2007) 1657

    A. Cho,Physicists’ Nightmare Scenario: The Higgs and Nothing Else,Science315(2007) 1657

    2007

  9. [9]

    Giudice,The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era, inFrom My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A

    G.F. Giudice,The Dawn of the Post-Naturalness Era, inFrom My Vast Repertoire ...: Guido Altarelli’s Legacy, A. Levy, S. Forte and G. Ridolfi, eds., pp. 267–292 (2019), DOI [1710.07663]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Craig,Naturalness Hits a Snag with Higgs,APS Physics13(2020) 174

    N. Craig,Naturalness Hits a Snag with Higgs,APS Physics13(2020) 174

    2020

  11. [11]

    Craig,Naturalness: past, present, and future,Eur

    N. Craig,Naturalness: past, present, and future,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 825 [2205.05708]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    McCullough,In Pursuit of New Paradigms: TASI 2024,2412.15744

    M. McCullough,In Pursuit of New Paradigms: TASI 2024,2412.15744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    D’Agnolo,The Higgs boson mass and cosmology, HDR thesis, Paris-Saclay University, 2022, https://cea.hal.science/tel-04444180

    R.T. D’Agnolo,The Higgs boson mass and cosmology, HDR thesis, Paris-Saclay University, 2022, https://cea.hal.science/tel-04444180

    2022

  14. [14]

    Brümmer, G

    F. Brümmer, G. Ferrante, M. Frigerio and T. Hambye,Accidentally light scalars from large representations,JHEP01(2024) 075 [2307.10092]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Brümmer, G

    F. Brümmer, G. Ferrante and M. Frigerio,Hybrid inflation and gravitational waves from accidentally light scalars,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 103506 [2406.02531]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Wilson,Renormalization Group and Strong Interactions,Phys

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

    1971

  17. [17]

    Duncan,The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory, Oxford University Press (2012), 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573264.001.0001

    A. Duncan,The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory, Oxford University Press (2012), 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573264.001.0001

    arXiv 2012

  18. [18]

    Giddings and M

    S.B. Giddings and M. Lippert,Precursors, black holes, and a locality bound,Phys. Rev. D 65(2002) 024006 [hep-th/0103231]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    Giddings and M

    S.B. Giddings and M. Lippert,The information paradox and the locality bound,Phys. Rev. D69(2004) 124019 [hep-th/0402073]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  20. [20]

    Giddings, D

    S.B. Giddings, D. Marolf and J.B. Hartle,Observables in effective gravity,Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 064018 [hep-th/0512200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  21. [21]

    Giddings,Locality in quantum gravity and string theory,Phys

    S.B. Giddings,Locality in quantum gravity and string theory,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 106006 [hep-th/0604072]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Giddings,Black hole information, unitarity, and nonlocality,Phys

    S.B. Giddings,Black hole information, unitarity, and nonlocality,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 106005 [hep-th/0605196]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  23. [23]

    Giddings,(Non)perturbative gravity, nonlocality, and nice slices,Phys

    S.B. Giddings,(Non)perturbative gravity, nonlocality, and nice slices,Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 106009 [hep-th/0606146]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    Giddings and R.A

    S.B. Giddings and R.A. Porto,The gravitationalSmatrix,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 025002 [0908.0004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Giddings,The gravitational S-matrix: Erice lectures,Subnucl

    S.B. Giddings,The gravitational S-matrix: Erice lectures,Subnucl. Ser.48(2013) 93 [1105.2036]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Cohen, D.B

    A.G. Cohen, D.B. Kaplan and A.E. Nelson,Effective Field Theory, Black Holes, and the Cosmological Constant,Phys. Rev. Lett.82(1999) 4971 [hep-th/9803132]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  27. [27]

    Dienes,Solving the hierarchy problem without supersymmetry or extra dimensions: an alternative approach,Nucl

    K.R. Dienes,Solving the hierarchy problem without supersymmetry or extra dimensions: an alternative approach,Nucl. Phys. B611(2001) 146 [hep-ph/0104274]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  28. [28]

    Cheung and G.N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Ibanez, V

    L.E. Ibanez, V. Martin-Lozano and I. Valenzuela,Constraining neutrino masses, the cosmological constant and BSM physics from the weak gravity conjecture,JHEP11(2017) 066 [1706.05392]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Ibanez, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    Lust and E

    D. Lust and E. Palti,Scalar fields, hierarchical UV/IR mixing and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,JHEP02(2018) 040 [1709.01790]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Craig, I

    N. Craig, I. Garcia Garcia and S. Koren,The weak scale from weak gravity,JHEP09 (2019) 081 [1904.08426]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Craig and S

    N. Craig and S. Koren,IR dynamics from UV divergences: UV/IR mixing, NCFT, and the hierarchy problem,JHEP03(2020) 037 [1909.01365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Castellano, A

    A. Castellano, A. Herráez and L.E. Ibáñez,IR/UV mixing, towers of species and swampland conjectures,JHEP08(2022) 217 [2112.10796]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Cribiori and F

    N. Cribiori and F. Tonioni,Cosmological constraints from UV/IR mixing,2507.02738

    arXiv

  36. [36]

    Abel and K.R

    S. Abel and K.R. Dienes,Calculating the Higgs mass in string theory,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 126032 [2106.04622]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Abel, K.R

    S. Abel, K.R. Dienes and L.A. Nutricati,Running of gauge couplings in string theory,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 126019 [2303.08534]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Abel, K.R

    S. Abel, K.R. Dienes and L.A. Nutricati,New nonrenormalization theorem from UV/IR mixing,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 126021 [2407.11160]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Aharony and T

    O. Aharony and T. Banks,Note on the quantum mechanics of M theory,JHEP03(1999) 016 [hep-th/9812237]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  40. [40]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Self-Completeness of Einstein Gravity,1005.3497

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Dvali, S

    G. Dvali, S. Folkerts and C. Germani,Physics of trans-Planckian gravity,Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 024039 [1006.0984]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  42. [42]

    Hawking,Black hole explosions?,Nature248(1974) 30

    S.W. Hawking,Black hole explosions?,Nature248(1974) 30

    1974

  43. [43]

    Hawking,Particle creation by black holes,Commun

    S.W. Hawking,Particle creation by black holes,Commun. Math. Phys.43(1975) 199

    1975

  44. [44]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano,Superstring collisions at planckian energies, Phys. Lett. B197(1987) 81. – 39 –

    1987

  45. [45]

    Gross and P.F

    D.J. Gross and P.F. Mende,The high-energy behavior of string scattering amplitudes,Phys. Lett. B197(1987) 129

    1987

  46. [46]

    ’t Hooft,Graviton dominance in ultra-high-energy scattering,Phys

    G. ’t Hooft,Graviton dominance in ultra-high-energy scattering,Phys. Lett. B198(1987) 61

    1987

  47. [47]

    Gross and P.F

    D.J. Gross and P.F. Mende,String theory beyond the Planck scale,Nucl. Phys. B303 (1988) 407

    1988

  48. [48]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano,Classical and Quantum Gravity Effects from Planckian Energy Superstring Collisions,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A3(1988) 1615

    1988

  49. [49]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano,Can spacetime be probed below the string size?, Phys. Lett. B216(1989) 41

    1989

  50. [50]

    Mende and H

    P.F. Mende and H. Ooguri,Borel summation of string theory for Planck scale scattering, Nucl. Phys. B339(1990) 641

    1990

  51. [51]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano,Higher-order gravitational deflection and soft bremsstrahlung in planckian energy superstring collisions,Nucl. Phys. B347(1990) 550

    1990

  52. [52]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni and G. Veneziano,Effective action and all-order gravitational eikonal at planckian energies,Nucl. Phys. B403(1993) 707

    1993

  53. [53]

    Banks and W

    T. Banks and W. Fischler,A Model for high-energy scattering in quantum gravity, hep-th/9906038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Eardley and S.B

    D.M. Eardley and S.B. Giddings,Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions, Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 044011 [gr-qc/0201034]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  55. [55]

    Kohlprath and G

    E. Kohlprath and G. Veneziano,Black holes from high-energy beam-beam collisions,JHEP 06(2002) 057 [gr-qc/0203093]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  56. [56]

    Giddings and V.S

    S.B. Giddings and V.S. Rychkov,Black holes from colliding wavepackets,Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 104026 [hep-th/0409131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  57. [57]

    Giddings, D.J

    S.B. Giddings, D.J. Gross and A. Maharana,Gravitational effects in ultrahigh-energy string scattering,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 046001 [0705.1816]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Giddings and M

    S.B. Giddings and M. Srednicki,High-energy gravitational scattering and black hole resonances,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 085025 [0711.5012]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Dvali, C

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez, R.S. Isermann, D. Lüst and S. Stieberger,Black hole formation and classicalization in ultra-Planckian 2→N scattering,Nucl. Phys. B893(2015) 187 [1409.7405]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  60. [60]

    Addazi, M

    A. Addazi, M. Bianchi and G. Veneziano,Glimpses of black hole formation/evaporation in highly inelastic, ultra-planckian string collisions,JHEP02(2017) 111 [1611.03643]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Hossenfelder,Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity,Living Rev

    S. Hossenfelder,Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for Quantum Gravity,Living Rev. Rel.16 (2013) 2 [1203.6191]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    Marshakov,String theory or field theory?,Phys

    A. Marshakov,String theory or field theory?,Phys. Usp.45(2002) 915 [hep-th/0212114]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  63. [63]

    Boos,Effects of Non-locality in Gravity and Quantum Theory, Springer Theses, University of Alberta (2020), 10.1007/978-3-030-82910-0, [2009.10856]

    J. Boos,Effects of Non-locality in Gravity and Quantum Theory, Springer Theses, University of Alberta (2020), 10.1007/978-3-030-82910-0, [2009.10856]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Donoghue,General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,Phys

    J.F. Donoghue,General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 3874 [gr-qc/9405057]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  65. [65]

    Burgess,Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory,Living Rev

    C.P. Burgess,Quantum Gravity in Everyday Life: General Relativity as an Effective Field Theory,Living Rev. Rel.7(2004) 5 [gr-qc/0311082]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  66. [66]

    Donoghue, M.M

    J.F. Donoghue, M.M. Ivanov and A. Shkerin,EPFL Lectures on General Relativity as a Quantum Field Theory,1702.00319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  67. [67]

    Dvali, C

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez and A. Kehagias,Classicalization of gravitons and Goldstones,JHEP 11(2011) 070 [1103.5963]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  68. [68]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Black hole’s quantum N-portrait,Fortsch. Phys.61(2013) 742 [1112.3359]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [69]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Black hole’s1/Nhair,Phys. Lett. B719(2013) 419 [1203.6575]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Landau–Ginzburg limit of black hole’s quantum portrait: Self-similarity and critical exponent,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 240 [1203.3372]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  71. [71]

    Dvali, C

    G. Dvali, C. Gomez and D. Lust,Black hole quantum mechanics in the presence of species, Fortsch. Phys.61(2013) 768 [1206.2365]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [72]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez,Black Hole Macro-Quantumness,1212.0765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [73]

    Dvali, D

    G. Dvali, D. Flassig, C. Gomez, A. Pritzel and N. Wintergerst,Scrambling in the black hole portrait,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 124041 [1307.3458]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  74. [74]

    Casadio, A

    R. Casadio, A. Giugno, O. Micu and A. Orlandi,Thermal BEC Black Holes,Entropy17 (2015) 6893 [1511.01279]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  75. [75]

    Giusti,On the corpuscular theory of gravity,Int

    A. Giusti,On the corpuscular theory of gravity,Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.16(2019) 1930001

    2019

  76. [76]

    Buoninfante and A

    L. Buoninfante and A. Mazumdar,Nonlocal star as a blackhole mimicker,Phys. Rev. D 100(2019) 024031 [1903.01542]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Dvali, L

    G. Dvali, L. Eisemann, M. Michel and S. Zell,Black hole metamorphosis and stabilization by memory burden,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 103523 [2006.00011]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Casadio,Geometry and thermodynamics of coherent quantum black holes,Int

    R. Casadio,Geometry and thermodynamics of coherent quantum black holes,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31(2022) 2250128 [2103.00183]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Dvali and R

    G. Dvali and R. Venugopalan,Classicalization and unitarization of wee partons in QCD and gravity: The CGC-black hole correspondence,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 056026 [2106.11989]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    Dvali, O

    G. Dvali, O. Kaikov and J.S.V. Bermúdez,How special are black holes? Correspondence with objects saturating unitarity bounds in generic theories,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 056013 [2112.00551]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.