Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 120 references

Quantum gravity can fix the Fermi scale instead of leaving it a free parameter.

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

2026-08-03 08:30 UTC pith:7BQDNDM4

load-bearing objection A coherent in-principle argument for predicting φ0/Mp from an analytic UV scaling solution, but the key existence assumptions are unproved and the numerical section is a consistency check rather than the prediction the abstract claims. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.16731 v2 pith:7BQDNDM4 submitted 2026-01-23 hep-th

Fermi scale from quantum gravity scaling solution

Christof Wetterich This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords gauge hierarchyFermi scalequantum gravityscaling solutioncosmon-Higgs couplingfunctional renormalization groupself-organized criticalityfundamental scale invariance
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 asks why the Higgs field's vacuum expectation value—the Fermi scale, about 175 GeV—is so tiny compared with the Planck mass, about 2.4×10^18 GeV. It argues that in a scale-invariant standard model coupled to a cosmon field, both scales arise as field expectation values, and their ratio is set by a dimensionless cosmon-Higgs coupling. The central claim is that for an analytic scaling solution with an ultraviolet fixed point, this coupling becomes an irrelevant parameter, so its value is forced to a unique number rather than being adjustable. A numerical solution with plausible ultraviolet assumptions yields a tiny ratio close to the observed one, offering a first-principles route to the gauge hierarchy.

Core claim

The paper claims that the ratio of the Fermi scale to the Planck mass is a calculable output of quantum gravity, not a free input. In the scale-invariant standard model with a cosmon field, the ratio is controlled by the dimensionless cosmon-Higgs coupling λ_m. The paper argues that metric fluctuations induce a positive anomalous dimension for this coupling, making it irrelevant in the renormalization flow. Analyticity of the scaling solution at vanishing dimensionless fields then forces the integration constant for λ_m to vanish, leaving a unique value. Under the paper's assumptions, the numerical solution finds λ_m near 3.3×10^-5 in the Planck-scale region, corresponding to a tiny Fermi-to

What carries the argument

The central object is the cosmon-Higgs coupling λ_m, the dimensionless coefficient multiplying H†H χ² in the effective potential, which directly sets the ratio of the Fermi scale to the Planck mass. The argument runs through the scaling solution of the functional renormalization group equation for the effective scalar potential, combined with the gravity-induced anomalous dimension A_m^(gr) = (5/(12π²f))(1−2u/f)^(-2). This positive anomalous dimension renders λ_m irrelevant; analyticity at (ρ̃, h̃)→(0,0) then eliminates the integration constant and fixes λ_m. The machinery thereby converts the gauge hierarchy from a parameter to a prediction of the ultraviolet scaling solution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a global analytic scaling solution exists with the assumed ultraviolet fixed point, meaning all couplings approach finite values as the dimensionless fields go to zero and the gravity-induced anomalous dimension stays positive; the paper states plainly that this is assumed, not proven.

What would settle it

A concrete falsification would be an explicit construction of a non-analytic ultraviolet scaling solution, or a full numerical solution of the scaling equation in which two different boundary values at k = m_Z both extend to finite λ_m(0). Either result would show that the integration constant does not vanish and the Fermi scale remains a free parameter.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, the ratio φ0/Mp is no longer a free parameter for any short-distance model that remains valid to infinitely small distances; it is fixed by the scaling solution.
  • A realistic Fermi scale emerges naturally from proximity to a second-order quantum electroweak phase transition, so the small ratio is explained without tuning the Higgs mass parameter.
  • In principle, all standard-model couplings become predictable once the ultraviolet model is specified, so comparing such predictions with observation can falsify a given short-distance model.
  • The setting also draws a sharp line: if the largest intrinsic mass scale exceeds the Fermi scale, predictivity is lost and the Fermi scale reverts to a relevant parameter, making the framework a test of fundamental scale invariance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if analyticity fails in some concrete ultraviolet completion, the integration constant for λ_m reappears and the Fermi scale reverts to a free parameter; explicitly constructing such a non-analytic fixed point would be a direct test of the mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper: the numerical value near 3.3×10^-5 comes from a simplified one-loop beta-function set and a chosen ultraviolet fixed point; a systematic scan over short-distance models could sharpen the prediction or show that the result depends on the truncation.
  • Beyond the paper: the same mechanism—positive gravity-induced anomalous dimension plus analyticity—could fix other marginal-looking couplings in extensions of the standard model, potentially turning the Fermi/Planck ratio into one element of a larger predictive structure.
  • Beyond the paper: because the argument ties the hierarchy to self-organized criticality rather than to a particular high-energy scale, it suggests the observed ratio is a robust consequence of any analytic scaling solution, which could be tested by searching for global scaling solutions that do not share this property.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that, in a scale-invariant standard model coupled to quantum gravity with a field-dependent Planck mass, the dimensionless cosmon-Higgs coupling λ_m determines the ratio of the Fermi scale to the Planck mass. The central mechanism is that a gravity-induced anomalous dimension A_m^(gr) makes λ_m an irrelevant coupling near the UV fixed point, and analyticity of the scaling solution at zero field forces the integration constant of λ_m to vanish, leaving a unique value λ_m = -Δ_m(0) and hence a predicted φ0/Mp. The paper develops local scaling solutions, threshold functions, and a seven-coupling truncated numerical system, reporting λ_m(x=0) ≈ 3.3×10^-5 for two boundary values, with one boundary value compatible with an analytic UV extension. The authors repeatedly emphasise that the decisive global analytic scaling solution is assumed, not proven.

Significance. If the global analytic scaling solution with the assumed UV fixed point existed, the result would be of very high significance: the gauge hierarchy would become a computable consequence of the short-distance model, a genuinely new mechanism of self-organized criticality. The analytic derivation in §§VIII-IX is explicit and internally consistent within its truncation, and the paper is unusually candid in stating that the existence of the scaling solution is not proven. The numerical demonstration, however, does not currently establish the decisive uniqueness property, and the use of the observed m_Z as the matching scale weakens the claim that the numerical value is a prediction. The paper is therefore a well-formulated research proposal rather than a demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IX, eqs. (314), (336), (360)] The derivation of λ_m = -Δ_m(0) assumes a global analytic scaling solution with β_i ∼ c_i ρ̃ near ρ̃=0 (eqs. 327, 332). This is the load-bearing premise of the paper, and it is not established. The text itself concedes in §VI that the assumptions are 'not proven' and in §XI that it has 'not attempted to prove that a scaling solution with these properties exists.' Without such a proof, the local family parametrised by λ̄_m in eq. (68) is not shown to collapse to a discrete set, and the Fermi scale remains a free parameter. The abstract's statement that the ratio 'can then be predicted' should be made conditional on this existence result unless a proof is supplied.
  2. [§IX, eq. (301)] The positivity of A_m^(gr) for all ρ̃ is essential: it is what makes (ρ̃/ρ̃0)^(-A/2) vanish as ρ̃→0 in eq. (314). The paper asserts that v=2u/f<1, but no proof or numerical evidence is given that this holds along the actual scaling solution in the UV. If 1-2u/f crosses zero, A_m^(gr) changes sign, λ_m ceases to be irrelevant, and the integration constant d_m reappears. A concrete check would be to plot u/f along the numerical scaling solution for x∈(-∞,0] or to prove the bound from the fixed-point equations.
  3. [§X, Fig. 5 and eqs. (376)-(378)] The numerical evidence for uniqueness is not yet sufficient. Only two initial values σ_m(x_F)=-0.1 and 0.4 are shown; one is 'compatible' with an analytic extension and the other is not. This does not demonstrate that a continuum of δ_m(x_F) values selects a unique λ_m(0). In addition, the UV β-function parameters are chosen 'rather arbitrarily' and the fixed point is engineered to reproduce the observed gauge couplings. A scan over initial conditions and over parameter variations, showing that all but one value diverge as x→-∞, is needed to support the self-organized-criticality claim.
  4. [§X, eq. (376)] The numerical setup anchors the calculation to the observed electroweak scale: x_F = ln(M_p²/2m_Z²) is the matching point, and y_t(x_F) is adjusted to satisfy λ_h(0)=0. Thus the quoted λ_m(0) ≈ 3.3×10^-5 is not an independent prediction of φ0/Mp; it is a consistency check on a trajectory whose starting point already contains the target value. The UV β-functions are likewise adjusted to yield the observed couplings. This limitation should be stated whenever the numerical result is invoked, including in the abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§X] Typo: 'predictibility' should be 'predictability'.
  2. [§I] The symmetry 'χ− → −χ' should presumably read 'χ → −χ'.
  3. [Fig. 5] The horizontal axis is labelled only 'x'; give the definition x = ln ρ̃ and ensure the green/orange curves are distinguishable in grayscale (e.g. line styles, not only colours).
  4. [§II] The text refers to 'the scaling equations (16), (17)', but those equations are the flow equation and related expressions; the actual scaling equation appears later as eq. (26). The cross-reference should be corrected.
  5. [§IV] The sentence 'With our boundary condition m̄_c² = m̃_-² vanishes' is hard to parse; it should be clarified whether this is a condition, an output, or an approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Fermi-scale prediction rests on an explicit analyticity/irrelevance argument, with unproven existence assumptions acknowledged rather than smuggled.

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained. Eq. (301) gives a positive gravity-induced anomalous dimension A_m^(gr); eq. (314) shows that a free integration constant d_m would diverge as ρ̃^(-A_m/2) unless d_m=0; and eq. (360) then fixes λ̄_m = -Δ_m(0). This is a consistency argument from analyticity and irrelevance, not a tautology: the target ratio φ0/Mp enters only at the final formula eq. (324), which expresses φ0/Mp in terms of the already-determined couplings. The numerical section uses measured gauge and Yukawa couplings at a matching point x_F = ln(Mp²/(2m_Z²)) while explicitly varying λ_m(x_F); the near-independence of λ_m(0) from those two very different initial values is the advertised predictivity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper candidly states that the decisive existence assumptions are not proven ('While reasonable, our assumptions are not proven'; 'we have not attempted to prove that a scaling solution with these properties exists'). That is a gap in support, not a circular reduction. Self-citations to prior FRG work are used for standard techniques and for the form of the gravity contribution, but eq. (301) is re-derived in the text from c_U^(gr), so the citation is not load-bearing. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 3 invented entities

The ledger is leaner than a typical quantum-gravity hierarchy proposal because the paper reuses the cosmon and the full FRG standard-model machinery from the author's prior program rather than inventing new fields. The decisive postulates are all in the UV: existence of an analytic global scaling solution, positivity of the gravity-induced anomalous dimension A_m, and the specific (arbitrarily chosen) UV β-functions. The numerical section's inputs — y_t²(x_F), δµ(x_F), and the UV parameters — are fitted/chosen rather than derived, which is why the 'prediction' in the exact limit comes out zero rather than 10⁻³².

free parameters (5)
  • y_t²(x_F) (top Yukawa at matching scale) = 'slightly smaller than the observed top mass' (§X)
    Adjusted by hand to enforce λ_h(x=0)≈0, i.e. the quartic Higgs coupling's UV boundary condition; a fitted input that partly determines the Higgs-mass prediction.
  • UV β-function parameters (a_y, a_g, b_t, w₀, n_UV, ¯β_UV, c_F) = only v₀=0.2 and x_GUT≈11 are specified
    §X: 'we choose the parameters for the β-functions of gauge and Yukawa couplings rather arbitrarily' and 'adjust the particle content... so that these fixed point values are compatible with observation.' These determine whether the UV continuation admits analyticity.
  • δµ(x_F) (deviation from critical mass term at matching scale) = taken 'in the vicinity of µ_cr' (§X)
    Free input parameter for the numerical flow; the paper scans it, observes convergence, then uses the UV analyticity condition to select among values. The selection replaces a physical derivation of the initial condition.
  • Boundary function L(h) / ¯λ_m (local integration constant) = target of the prediction
    §III: 'For the local solution the couplings ¯λ_χ, ¯λ_m and ¯λ_h, as well as the ratio φ₀²/χ², are free parameters.' The entire paper is the attempt to eliminate this; where the prediction is actually carried out (numerics) it is chosen, not derived.
  • ξ (non-minimal coupling) and K∞ (cosmon kinetic normalization) = ξ=1 chosen as normalization
    Normalization choices affecting the numerical value of φ₀/M_p via eq. (324); treated as conventions.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Existence of an asymptotically safe UV fixed point for quantum gravity coupled to the standard model, with non-zero gauge and Yukawa fixed-point values.
    §VI and §X; the whole predictivity argument requires a UV-complete theory; the specific fixed point with non-flat scalar potential is presented as the paper's new scenario and is not proven to exist.
  • domain assumption Analyticity of the scaling solution at (˜ρ,˜h)=(0,0), with β_i ≈ c_i˜ρ for all couplings.
    §IX 'Analytic scaling solution': 'The property underlying the concept of irrelevant parameters is the analyticity of the scaling solution for ˜ρ→0 and ˜h→0.' This is the selection rule that kills the integration constant; it is assumed, with existence deferred.
  • domain assumption Gravity-induced anomalous dimension A_m^(gr) = (5/12π²f)(1−2u/f)⁻² > 0 persists to the UV.
    §IX eq. (301), from the simplified/gauge-invariant flow equation. The sign and constancy of A_m is what makes λ_m irrelevant and drives self-organized criticality; the text calls the flow equation 'an approximation' whose next orders are not computed.
  • standard math The simplified flow equation k∂_kU = Nk⁴/32π² with Litim-type threshold functions is a sufficient truncation.
    §II; one-loop exact with thresholds, but 'Two-loop exactness would require... an extension of the approximation (truncation) with additional resolution for the kinetic terms [90].' The paper asserts more extended truncations 'are not expected to change the general outcome.'
  • domain assumption Largest intrinsic mass scale (LIMS) much smaller than the Fermi scale / fundamental scale invariance.
    Introduction and §XI: 'Our basic assumption is... the largest intrinsic mass scale characterizing the flow away from the ultraviolet fixed point is much smaller than the Fermi scale.' If false, φ₀ becomes a relevant parameter and predictivity is lost (admitted in §XI).
  • domain assumption Below M_p, field-dependent gauge and Yukawa couplings follow one-loop perturbative β-functions.
    §V: 'We will infer the logarithmic field-dependence of the gauge and Yukawa couplings from perturbation theory.' This underpins λ_m^(cr) and the numerical flow; non-perturbative QCD is added only ad hoc via a common mass m_QCD ∼ Λ_QCD (eq. 152).
invented entities (3)
  • Cosmon χ (dilaton with field-dependent Planck mass) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the second scalar whose vev sets M_p, making the Planck mass field-dependent and enabling λ_m to control φ₀/M_p; also the dynamical dark-energy field.
    Not new to this paper — it is the author's quintessence/cosmon from refs. [61-84]. It has falsifiable handles from prior work (runaway cosmology, time-varying couplings discussed in §IV), and the paper argues scale invariance suppresses equivalence-principle violations.
  • Non-shift-invariant UV fixed point with non-flat scalar potential (generalization of dilaton quantum gravity scaling solution) no independent evidence
    purpose: The UV completion in which the Planck mass is field-dependent and λ_m is an irrelevant operator instead of a free coefficient in a flat potential.
    §I and §IX assume this fixed point; no falsifiable handle is given for it (no predicted spectrum, no criterion beyond self-consistency of the FRG equations). The paper says it 'discusses' it but does not establish existence.
  • 'Self-organized criticality' mechanism no independent evidence
    purpose: Explains why the flow sits on/near the electroweak critical surface without tuning: A_m>0 attracts all trajectories to λ_m^(cr).
    A mechanism, not an entity; its observable consequence is the predicted φ₀/M_p, which the paper has not yet computed to the observed value.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 65277 in / 28243 out tokens · 255911 ms · 2026-08-03T08:30:05.258931+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose that quantum gravity may predict the Fermi scale. Fundamental scale invariance implies the scale invariant standard model. Both the Fermi scale and the Planck mass are given by fields, and their ratio is dictated by a dimensionless cosmon-Higgs coupling. For an ultraviolet fixed point of quantum gravity this coupling is an irrelevant parameter of the renormalization flow and becomes predictable. An analytic scaling solution for quantum gravity admits no free parameter for the mass term of the Higgs boson. We discuss a new asymptotically safe quantum gravity fixed point for which the scalar potential is not flat. If the largest intrinsic mass scale generated by the renormalisation flow away from this fixed point is sufficiently below the Fermi scale, the couplings of the scale invariant standard model are determined by the scaling solution. For a given short distance model remaining valid to infinitely small distances the ratio Fermi scale over Planck mass can then be predicted. With reasonable assumptions for the ultraviolet fixed point a numerical solution finds a tiny value for the ratio between the Fermi and Planck scales, very close to a second order quantum electroweak phase transition. This could explain the observed gauge hierarchy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16731 by Christof Wetterich.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Critical trajectory. We plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Infrared flow of cosmon-Higgs coupling. We plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Flow of cosmon-Higgs coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Field-dependent couplings of the standard model. As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ultraviolet flow of cosmon-Higgs coupling. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 86 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    one- loop value

    The ratioλ h/y2 t is predicted for the scaling solution from the conditionλ h(x= 0)≈0, sinceλ h is an irrelevant coupling. We adapty 2 t (xF ) in order to realize this condition. This results in a “one- loop value” for the top quark mass slightly smaller than the observed top mass. (For a precise determination of the predicted ratiom t/mH one has to proce...

  2. [2]

    With reasonable accuracy we may only include the contributions of the gauge couplings in eq

    For smaller values ofµ h the contributions∼y 4 t are present forD, but the overall size of the term∼Dis small. With reasonable accuracy we may only include the contributions of the gauge couplings in eq. (A4). Electroweak crossover If for some ˜ρthe scaling solution deviates from the UV- fixed point ˜ϵt,UV with ˜ϵt >˜ϵt,UV, the value of ˜ϵt(˜ρ) will in- c...

  3. [3]

    Gildener, Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies, Phys

    E. Gildener, Gauge Symmetry Hierarchies, Phys. Rev. D14, 1667 (1976)

    1976

  4. [4]

    Weinberg, Gauge Hierarchies, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Gauge Hierarchies, Phys. Lett. B82, 387 (1979)

    1979

  5. [5]

    Wetterich, Fine Tuning Problem and the Renormal- ization Group, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Fine Tuning Problem and the Renormal- ization Group, Phys. Lett. B140, 215 (1984)

    1984

  6. [6]

    W. A. Bardeen, On naturalness in the standard model, inOntake Summer Institute on Particle Physics(1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Hempfling, The next-to-minimal coleman-weinberg model, Physics Letters B379, 153 (1996)

    R. Hempfling, The next-to-minimal coleman-weinberg model, Physics Letters B379, 153 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    R. D. Peccei, J. Sol` a, and C. Wetterich, Adjusting the cosmological constant dynamically: Cosmons and a new force weaker than gravity, Physics Letters B195, 183 (1987)

    1987

  9. [9]

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Conformal symmetry and the Standard Model, Physics Letters B648, 312 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0612165 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  10. [10]

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Effective action, con- formal anomaly and the issue of quadratic divergences, Physics Letters B660, 260 (2008), arXiv:0710.2840 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  11. [11]

    R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, and R. R. Volkas, Elec- troweak Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance, Physics Letters B655, 156 (2007), arXiv:0704.1165 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [13]

    Wetterich, Where to look for solving the gauge hierarchy problem?, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Where to look for solving the gauge hierarchy problem?, Phys. Lett. B718, 573 (2012), arXiv:1112.2910 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [14]

    Shaposhnikov and A

    M. Shaposhnikov and A. Shkerin, Gravity, scale invari- ance and the hierarchy problem, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 24 (2018), arXiv:1804.06376 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [15]

    G. K. Karananas, M. Shaposhnikov, and S. Zell, Weyl- invariant Einstein-Cartan gravity: unifying the strong CP and hierarchy puzzles, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 146 (2024), arXiv:2406.11956 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [16]

    de Boer, M

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner, and A. Trautner, Hid- den Sector Custodial Naturalness, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.22980 (2025), arXiv:2507.22980 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [17]

    Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the ef- fective potential, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Exact evolution equation for the ef- fective potential, Phys. Lett. B301, 90 (1993), arXiv:1710.05815 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  17. [18]

    Reuter and C

    M. Reuter and C. Wetterich, Effective average action for gauge theories and exact evolution equations, Nucl. Phys. B417, 181 (1994)

    1994

  18. [19]

    Tetradis and C

    N. Tetradis and C. Wetterich, Critical exponents from the effective average action, Nuclear Physics B422, 541–592 (1994)

    1994

  19. [20]

    Dupuis, L

    N. Dupuis, L. Canet, A. Eichhorn, W. Metzner, J. Pawlowski, M. Tissier, and N. Wschebor, The nonperturbative functional renormalization group and its applications, Physics Reports910, 1–114 (2021), arXiv:2006.04853 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [21]

    Ellwanger, Flow equations for N point functions and bound states, Zeitschrift fur Physik C Particles and Fields62, 503 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9308260 [hep-ph]

    U. Ellwanger, Flow equations for N point functions and bound states, Zeitschrift fur Physik C Particles and Fields62, 503 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9308260 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  21. [22]

    T. R. Morris, The Exact Renormalization Group and Approximate Solutions, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics A9, 2411 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9308265 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  22. [23]

    Wetterich, Quadratic Renormalization of the Aver- age Potential and the Naturalness of Quadratic Mass Relations for the Top Quark, Z

    C. Wetterich, Quadratic Renormalization of the Aver- age Potential and the Naturalness of Quadratic Mass Relations for the Top Quark, Z. Phys. C48, 693 (1990)

    1990

  23. [24]

    H. Gies, C. Gneiting, and R. Sondenheimer, Higgs Mass Bounds from Renormalization Flow for a sim- ple Yukawa model, Phys. Rev. D89, 045012 (2014), arXiv:1308.5075 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [25]

    Gies and R

    H. Gies and R. Sondenheimer, Higgs Mass Bounds from Renormalization Flow for a Higgs-top-bottom model, 55 Eur. Phys. J. C75, 68 (2015), arXiv:1407.8124 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [26]

    Krajewski and Z

    T. Krajewski and Z. Lalak, Fine-tuning and vacuum stability in the Wilsonian effective action, Phys. Rev. D 92, 075009 (2015), arXiv:1411.6435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [27]

    Krajewski and Z

    T. Krajewski and Z. Lalak, Naturalness of effec- tive theories in Wilsonian approach, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1510.02154 (2015), arXiv:1510.02154 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [28]

    Eichhorn, H

    A. Eichhorn, H. Gies, J. Jaeckel, T. Plehn, M. M. Scherer, and R. Sondenheimer, The Higgs Mass and the Scale of New Physics, JHEP04, 022, arXiv:1501.02812 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [29]

    Gies and R

    H. Gies and R. Sondenheimer, Renormalization Group Flow of the Higgs Potential, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376, 20170120 (2018), arXiv:1708.04305 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [30]

    Reichert, A

    M. Reichert, A. Eichhorn, H. Gies, J. M. Pawlowski, T. Plehn, and M. M. Scherer, Probing baryogenesis through the Higgs boson self-coupling, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075008 (2018), arXiv:1711.00019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [31]

    Sondenheimer, Nonpolynomial Higgs interactions and vacuum stability, Eur

    R. Sondenheimer, Nonpolynomial Higgs interactions and vacuum stability, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 10 (2019), arXiv:1711.00065 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [32]

    Held and R

    A. Held and R. Sondenheimer, Higgs stability- bound and fermionic dark matter, JHEP02, 166, arXiv:1811.07898 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [33]

    Pastor-Guti´ errez, J

    ´A. Pastor-Guti´ errez, J. M. Pawlowski, and M. Reichert, The Asymptotically Safe Standard Model: From quan- tum gravity to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, SciPost Physics15, 105 (2023), arXiv:2207.09817 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    H. Gies, R. Schmieden, and L. Zambelli, Interplay of chi- ral transitions in the standard model, European Physi- cal Journal C85, 56 (2025), arXiv:2306.05943 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    J. P. Garc´ es, F. Goertz, M. Lindner, and ´A. Pastor- Guti´ errez, The quantum criticality of the Stan- dard Model and the hierarchy problem, (2025), arXiv:2506.15919 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theo- ries of gravitation, inGeneral Relativity: an Einstein Centenary Survey(Cambridge University Press, 1980) p

    S. Weinberg, Ultraviolet divergences in quantum theo- ries of gravitation, inGeneral Relativity: an Einstein Centenary Survey(Cambridge University Press, 1980) p. 790

    1980

  36. [37]

    Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity, Phys

    M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D57, 971 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9605030 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  37. [38]

    K. S. Stelle, Renormalization of higher-derivative quan- tum gravity, Phys. Rev. D16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  38. [39]

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Renormalizable asymptotically free quantum theory of gravity, Nucl. Phys. B201, 469 (1982)

    1982

  39. [40]

    I. G. Avramidy and A. O. Barvinsky, Asymptotic free- dom in higher-derivative quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B159, 269 (1985)

    1985

  40. [41]

    S. Sen, C. Wetterich, and M. Yamada, Asymptotic free- dom and safety in quantum gravity, JHEP03, 130, arXiv:2111.04696 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [42]

    Shaposhnikov and C

    M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Asymptotic safety of gravity and the Higgs boson mass, Phys. Lett. B683, 196 (2010), arXiv:0912.0208 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [43]

    Eichhorn, Y

    A. Eichhorn, Y. Hamada, J. Lumma, and M. Ya- mada, Quantum gravity fluctuations flatten the planck- scale higgs potential, Physical Review D97(2018), arXiv:1712.00319 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [44]

    J. M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, C. Wetterich, and M. Yamada, Higgs scalar potential in asymptotically safe quantum gravity, Physical Review D99(2019), arXiv:1811.11706 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [45]

    Wetterich, Quantum scale symmetry (2019), arXiv:1901.04741 [hep-th]

    C. Wetterich, Quantum scale symmetry (2019), arXiv:1901.04741 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [46]

    Wetterich and M

    C. Wetterich and M. Yamada, Variable planck mass from the gauge invariant flow equation, Physical Review D100(2019), arXiv:1906.01721 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [47]

    Wetterich, Effective scalar potential in asymptot- ically safe quantum gravity, Universe7, 45 (2020), arXiv:1911.06100 [hep-th]

    C. Wetterich, Effective scalar potential in asymptot- ically safe quantum gravity, Universe7, 45 (2020), arXiv:1911.06100 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [48]

    Wetterich, Fundamental Scale Invariance, Nuclear Physics B964, 115326 (2021), arXiv:2007.08805 [hep- th]

    C. Wetterich, Fundamental Scale Invariance, Nuclear Physics B964, 115326 (2021), arXiv:2007.08805 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [49]

    Dou and R

    D. Dou and R. Percacci, The running gravitational cou- plings, Classical and Quantum Gravity15, 3449–3468 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9707239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  49. [50]

    Souma, Non-Trivial Ultraviolet Fixed Point in Quantum Gravity, Progress of Theoretical Physics102, 181 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9907027 [hep-th]

    W. Souma, Non-Trivial Ultraviolet Fixed Point in Quantum Gravity, Progress of Theoretical Physics102, 181 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9907027 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  50. [51]

    Lauscher and M

    O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, Ultraviolet fixed point and generalized flow equation of quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D65, 025013 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0108040 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  51. [52]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Renormalization group flow of quantum gravity in the Einstein-Hilbert trun- cation, Phys. Rev. D65, 065016 (2002), arXiv:hep- th/0110054 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2002

  52. [53]

    Narain and R

    G. Narain and R. Percacci, Renormalization group flow in scalar-tensor theories: I, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 075001 (2010), arXiv:0911.0386 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [54]

    Percacci and G

    R. Percacci and G. P. Vacca, Search of scaling solutions in scalar–tensor gravity, The European Physical Journal C75(2015), arXiv:1501.00888 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [55]

    Don` a, A

    P. Don` a, A. Eichhorn, P. Labus, and R. Percacci, Asymptotic safety in an interacting system of grav- ity and scalar matter, Physical Review D93(2016), arXiv:1512.01589 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [56]

    Eichhorn and M

    A. Eichhorn and M. Pauly, Constraining power of asymptotic safety for scalar fields, Physical Review D 103(2021), arXiv:2009.13543 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [57]

    Laporte, A

    C. Laporte, A. D. Pereira, F. Saueressig, and J. Wang, Scalar-tensor theories within asymptotic safety, Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021), arXiv:2110.09566 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [58]

    Wetterich and M

    C. Wetterich and M. Yamada, Gauge hierarchy prob- lem in asymptotically safe gravity - The resur- gence mechanism, Physics Letters B770, 268 (2017), arXiv:1612.03069 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [59]

    Bornholdt and C

    S. Bornholdt and C. Wetterich, Selforganizing critical- ity, large anomalous mass dimension and the gauge hi- erarchy problem, Phys. Lett. B282, 399 (1992)

    1992

  59. [60]

    Gies and M

    H. Gies and M. M. Scherer, Asymptotic safety of sim- ple Yukawa systems, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 387 (2010), arXiv:0901.2459 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [61]

    H. Gies, S. Rechenberger, and M. M. Scherer, Towards an Asymptotic-Safety Scenario for Chiral Yukawa Sys- tems, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 403 (2010), arXiv:0907.0327 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [62]

    Gies and M

    H. Gies and M. Picciau, Self-organized criticality in a relativistic Yukawa theory with Luttinger fermions, (2025), arXiv:2506.13441 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [63]

    Wetterich, Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry, Nuclear Physics B302, 668–696 (1988), 56 arXiv:1711.03844

    C. Wetterich, Cosmology and the fate of dilatation symmetry, Nuclear Physics B302, 668–696 (1988), 56 arXiv:1711.03844

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1988

  63. [64]

    Wetterich, The Quantum Gravity Connection be- tween Inflation and Quintessence, Galaxies10, 50 (2022), arXiv:2201.12213 [astro-ph.CO]

    C. Wetterich, The Quantum Gravity Connection be- tween Inflation and Quintessence, Galaxies10, 50 (2022), arXiv:2201.12213 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [65]

    Wetterich, Quantum gravity and scale symmetry in cosmology (2023), arXiv:2211.03596 [gr-qc]

    C. Wetterich, Quantum gravity and scale symmetry in cosmology (2023), arXiv:2211.03596 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [66]

    Wetterich, Dark energy evolution from quantum gravity, (2024), arXiv:2407.03465 [gr-qc]

    C. Wetterich, Dark energy evolution from quantum gravity, (2024), arXiv:2407.03465 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [67]

    T. Henz, J. Pawlowski, and C. Wetterich, Scaling so- lutions for dilaton quantum gravity, Physics Letters B 769, 105 (2017)

    2017

  67. [68]

    T. Henz, J. Pawlowski, A. Rodigast, and C. Wet- terich, Dilaton quantum gravity, Physics Letters B727, 298–302 (2013), arXiv:1304.7743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [69]

    Maitiniyazi, C

    Y. Maitiniyazi, C. Wetterich, and M. Yamada, Scaling solutions for gauge invariant flow equations in dilaton quantum gravity (2025), arXiv:2512.14009 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [70]

    con- stant

    C. Wetterich, Cosmologies with variable Newton’s “con- stant”, Nuclear Physics B302, 645 (1988)

    1988

  70. [71]

    Wetterich, Probing quintessence with time varia- tion of couplings, JCAP2003(10), 002, arXiv:hep- ph/0203266 [hep-ph]

    C. Wetterich, Probing quintessence with time varia- tion of couplings, JCAP2003(10), 002, arXiv:hep- ph/0203266 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  71. [72]

    C. M. M¨ uller, G. Sch¨ afer, and C. Wetterich, Nu- cleosynthesis and the variation of fundamental cou- plings, Phys. Rev. D70, 083504 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0405373 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2004

  72. [73]

    T. Dent, S. Stern, and C. Wetterich, Primordial nucle- osynthesis as a probe of fundamental physics parame- ters, Phys. Rev. D76, 063513 (2007), arXiv:0705.0696 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  73. [74]

    Meyer and U.-G

    H. Meyer and U.-G. Meißner, Improved constraints on the variation of the weak scale from Big Bang nucle- osynthesis, Journal of High Energy Physics2024, 74 (2024), arXiv:2403.09325 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [75]

    Uzan, Fundamental constants: from measure- ment to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology, Living Reviews in Relativity28, 6 (2025), arXiv:2410.07281 [astro-ph.CO]

    J.-P. Uzan, Fundamental constants: from measure- ment to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology, Living Reviews in Relativity28, 6 (2025), arXiv:2410.07281 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Shaposhnikov and D

    M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenh¨ ausern, Scale invariance, unimodular gravity and dark energy, Physics Letters B 671, 187–192 (2009), arXiv:0809.3395 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  76. [77]

    Shaposhnikov and D

    M. Shaposhnikov and D. Zenh¨ ausern, Quantum scale invariance, cosmological constant and hierarchy prob- lem, Physics Letters B671, 162 (2009), arXiv:0809.3406 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  77. [78]

    Shaposhnikov and I

    M. Shaposhnikov and I. Tkachev, Quantum scale invari- ance on the lattice, Physics Letters B675, 403 (2009), arXiv:0811.1967 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  78. [79]

    D. Blas, M. Shaposhnikov, and D. Zenh¨ ausern, Scale- invariant alternatives to general relativity, Physical Re- view D84(2011), arXiv:1104.1392 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  79. [80]

    G. K. Karananas and M. Shaposhnikov, Scale-invariant alternatives to general relativity. II. dilaton properties, Physical Review D93(2016), arXiv:1603.01274 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [81]

    Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J

    J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J. Rubio, M. Shaposhnikov, and D. Zenh¨ ausern, Higgs-dilaton cosmology: From the early to the late universe, Physical Review D84(2011), arXiv:1107.2163 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

Showing first 80 references.