Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Custodial Naturalness

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Higgs could be a pseudo-Goldstone boson whose small mass is set by an SO(6) custodial symmetry at the Planck scale, with no fine-tuning.

desk verdict A solid systematic follow-up on the pNGB Higgs idea, with a real but checkable soft spot: the M_Pl SO(6) boundary condition is imposed, and the robustness scan does not probe tree-level quartic splittings. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09699 v2 pith:LYFAKB3K submitted 2025-02-13 hep-ph hep-ex

Thede de Boer , Manfred Lindner , Andreas Trautner This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords CustodialNaturalnesspseudo-Nambu-GoldstonebosonclassicalscaleinvarianceColeman-WeinbergmechanismlittlehierarchyproblemSO(6)symmetryU(1)Xgaugedilaton
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Custodial Naturalness is a proposed explanation for why the electroweak scale is so much smaller than the scale of new physics. The paper argues that if the scalar sector has an SO(6) custodial symmetry at the Planck scale, with the Higgs doublet and a new complex singlet treated on equal footing, then radiative symmetry breaking at an intermediate scale makes the Higgs a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson. Its mass then comes only from explicit custodial-symmetry violation, approximately $m_h^2 \approx 2(\lambda_\Phi-\lambda_p)\,v_\Phi^2$, instead of from quadratically divergent corrections. The authors show numerically that the resulting hierarchy $\langle H\rangle \sim 10^{-3}\langle\Phi\rangle$ requires little fine-tuning, and that the mechanism survives new sources of symmetry breaking, making the idea testable through a heavy $Z'$, a light dilaton, and a correlation between the top and Higgs masses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SO(6)-symmetric, classically scale-invariant scalar potential $V=\lambda(|H|^2+|\Phi|^2)^2$ imposed at the Planck scale, together with a gauged U(1)X under which $H$ and $\Phi$ have equal charges. The radiative breaking follows the Gildener-Weinberg flat-direction approximation: at the scale where one quartic coupling turns negative, the vacuum direction is mostly $\Phi$, so $\langle\Phi\rangle$ (the intermediate scale) is generated by dimensional transmutation while $\langle H\rangle$ is suppressed. Expanding the one-loop effective potential in $H_b/\Phi_0$ yields the Higgs mass-squared term $\approx 2\lambda_p\Phi_0^2 H_b^2$, and the physical Higgs mass $m_h^2 \approx 2(\lambda_\Phi-\lambda_p)v_\Phi^2$ is set by the custodial-symmetry-violating splitting between the quartic couplings, not by the large $\lambda_H$ driven by the top Yukawa. The other emerging field, the dilaton, is the pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance with mass set by the $\beta$ function.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the top quark pole mass and Higgs mass could falsify the mechanism: the paper finds no viable parameter points with $M_t \lesssim 171.5$ GeV and predicts an approximately linear $M_t$--$m_h$ correlation in the minimal model, so a top mass below that bound or a Higgs mass outside the predicted band would rule it out. A future 100 TeV collider search for a $Z'$ decaying to dileptons across the full predicted $m_{Z'}\sim 4$--$100$ TeV range, with no signal, would similarly exclude the minimal realization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the large hierarchy between the electroweak scale and the scale of ultraviolet completion can be generated from just two ingredients: classical scale invariance and an SO(6) custodial symmetry of the scalar potential at the Planck scale. The potential $V=\lambda(|H|^2+|\Phi|^2)^2$ is symmetric under rotations between the SM Higgs doublet $H$ and a complex singlet $\Phi$, and neither field has a tree-level mass. Quantum corrections drive the couplings so that the potential develops a flat direction, and the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism spontaneously breaks both scale and custodial symmetry at an intermediate scale, SO(6) $\to$ SO(5). Four of the five resulting Goldstone bosons are eaten, while the fifth is the physical Higgs, whose small mass is fixed by the amount of custodial symmetry violation: $m_h^2 \approx 2(\lambda_\Phi-\lambda_p)v_\Phi^2$ in the limit of small kinetic mixing and new Yukawas. Because the top Yukawa and electroweak gauge couplings break the custodial symmetry only in subleading order, the Higgs mass is protected without introducing top partners. The paper demonstrates stability of this picture under variations of high-scale boundary conditions and under new sources of custodial symmetry violation, and constructs minimal, neutrino-portal, and dark-matter realizations.

Load-bearing premise

At the Planck scale the scalar potential must be exactly scale-invariant and SO(6)-symmetric, meaning three quartic couplings are exactly equal; this equality is imposed as a boundary condition rather than derived, and even a small Planck-suppressed breaking of scale invariance or custodial symmetry would change the predicted hierarchy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electroweak symmetry breaking is naturally hierarchical: the scan yields $\langle H\rangle/\langle\Phi\rangle \sim 10^{-3}$ with fine-tuning measure $\Delta\lesssim 10$, so no top-partner mechanism is needed.
  • A heavy $Z'$ with mass roughly 4--100 TeV and a dilaton-like scalar with mass roughly 30--1000 GeV are generic predictions; future colliders and Higgs factories can probe them, and tiny Higgs-dilaton mixing opens displaced-vertex signatures.
  • The model predicts a correlation between the top quark and Higgs masses; measuring $M_t$ to about 0.1 GeV precision would sharpen the prediction of $m_{Z'}$.
  • The neutrino-portal extension predicts two massive Dirac neutrinos and one exactly massless active neutrino, while the dark-matter extension provides two stable WIMP candidates whose relic density can match observation near the $Z'$ resonance.
  • The cosmological history contains a strongly supercooled first-order phase transition, which could produce gravitational waves observable by future detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Taken at face value, the mechanism suggests that many existing scale-invariant models with a singlet scalar may be fine-tuned versions of a more symmetric setup; the SO(6) symmetry is the ingredient that removes the need to adjust $\lambda_p-\lambda_\Phi$.
  • The Planck-scale boundary condition is the least protected part of the construction; a future theory of quantum gravity that produces small explicit violations of scale or custodial symmetry at $M_{\rm Pl}$ would feed directly into the Higgs mass, and quantifying that sensitivity is a natural next step.
  • Non-universal flavor charge assignments are an obvious extension suggested by the paper's structure; if custodial symmetry survives such assignments, the same mechanism could tie the electroweak hierarchy to the flavor structure and the muon $g-2$ anomaly.
  • One can test the mechanism indirectly now by using the top-mass measurement to improve predictions for $m_{Z'}$ and the dilaton mixing angle, since the paper shows the top mass is the dominant source of theoretical uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops 'Custodial Naturalness,' a mechanism in which classical scale invariance at the Planck scale is combined with an exact SO(6) custodial symmetry of the scalar potential, V = λ(|H|²+|Φ|²)², for the SM Higgs doublet H and a complex singlet Φ. RG running generates an intermediate scale by dimensional transmutation, while the SM-like Higgs emerges as a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson of the spontaneous SO(6) → SO(5) breaking, with a mass controlled by the custodial-violating difference of quartic couplings. The manuscript analyzes the minimal model and two extensions (a neutrino-portal model and a two-component dark-matter model), provides approximate analytic formulas for the effective potential and scalar masses, reports numerical scans of the parameter space of each model using one- and two-loop RGEs, and assesses experimental constraints and future reach for the predicted Z′ and dilaton. The central claim is that the hierarchy ⟨H⟩/⟨Φ⟩ ≈ 10⁻³ is achieved with a fine-tuning measure Δ ≲ 10 and is stable under variations of high-scale boundary conditions and under new sources of custodial symmetry violation.

Significance. If the high-scale boundary assumption is granted, the mechanism is a genuinely new way to address the little hierarchy problem without top partners: the Higgs mass is an output of the RG flow, not an input, and the paper exhibits a concrete, falsifiable correlation between the top quark mass and the Higgs mass (Fig. 9). The numerical work is largely reproducible in structure: scans are described in enough detail, public tools (PyR@TE, MadGraph, micrOMEGAs, SARAH) are used, and LHC dilepton limits are recast. The extensions to neutrino masses and dark matter broaden the phenomenological relevance, and the predicted Z′ and dilaton provide concrete collider targets. The main weakness is that the robustness of the mechanism under the most direct boundary perturbation—a tree-level split among the quartic couplings at MPl—is asserted rather than quantitatively demonstrated; this is the load-bearing gap in the paper's naturalness claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 and Eq. (2.24)] The robustness claim that 'none of our mathematical results... are affected by small variations in the boundary conditions even if they slightly break custodial symmetry' is not demonstrated for the most direct perturbation of the boundary condition. The mechanism rests on Eq. (2.4), i.e. λH(MPl) = λp(MPl) = λΦ(MPl), and Eq. (2.24) shows that the low-scale Higgs mass term is set by (λp − λΦ)Φ₀² (in the limit of small g12 and yψ). A scale-invariant but SO(6)-violating marginal operator such as δλ|H|⁴ at MPl runs directly into this difference, and the search for an explanation of the mechanism is exactly the equality of the quartic couplings. The scans in Secs. 3.1–3.3 vary g12|MPl and yψ as proxies, but these are not the same perturbation: g12 enters through the gauge-kinetic RGEs, and the scan definition in Sec. 3.1 formally replaces λH, λp|MPl by λΦ|MPl, thereby removing the quartic splitting from the parameter set over which the fine-tuning measure in Eq. (3.1) is evaluated. I request a dedicated scan, or an analytic bound, that independently adds δλ|H|⁴ at MPl (or varies λp(MPl) − λΦ(MPl) and λH(MPl) − λΦ(MPl)) and reports the maximal |δλ/λ| for which Δ ≲ 10 and vH/vΦ ≈ 10⁻³ survive. Without this, the stability claim covers only a subset of boundary perturbations, not the perturbation that directly controls the pNGB mass formula.
  2. [Sec. 7 and Sec. 3.1] The Conclusions state that the mechanism 'naturally explains' the EW suppression, but the defining condition Eq. (2.4) is an exact SO(6) constraint whose origin is delegated to an unspecified high-scale mechanism. Since SO(6) is explicitly broken by the gauge and Yukawa interactions of the full Lagrangian, there is no symmetry-based reason for the quartic couplings to be exactly equal at MPl; a marginal SO(6)-violating operator is not forbidden by any principle used in the paper. I am not asking for a UV completion, but the conclusions should distinguish between (i) the radiative stability of the hierarchy once the boundary is imposed and (ii) the unexplained choice of the boundary itself. The present text conflates these two statements, and the phrase 'small variations' in Sec. 3.1 is never quantified for the quartic-splitting direction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6 heading] The heading 'V ariations and embeddings of Custodial Naturalness' contains a typo and should read 'Variations and embeddings of Custodial Naturalness'.
  2. [Fig. 9 caption] The caption lists the neutrino-portal panels as 'yψ ≠ 0, g12|MPl = 0 (top right)' and 'with yψ ≠ 0, g12|MPl = 0 (bottom left)'; the bottom-left panel appears to correspond to g12|MPl ≠ 0, ȳψ = 0, matching the layout of the other figures.
  3. [Sec. 5 and Abstract] The abstract and Sec. 5 state that the cosmological evolution features a strongly supercooled phase transition testable by gravitational-wave observatories, but no finite-temperature computation is performed for the models of this paper; the statements are based on analogous conformal B−L models. The text does say 'future work should investigate finite temperature effects,' but the abstract should be qualified so that the gravitational-wave statement is not read as a new result of this work.
  4. [Eq. (3.1)] In the definition of the fine-tuning measure, the set of parameters {g_i} over which the maximum is taken is not specified. For reproducibility, please state explicitly which couplings at MPl are varied and whether the derivatives are computed after the custodial replacement λH, λp → λΦ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Higgs mass and the top-Higgs correlation are RGE outputs of an assumed SO(6)-symmetric boundary condition, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation starts from an explicit, honest assumption rather than a hidden fit: at the Planck scale the scalar potential is taken to be scale invariant and SO(6)-symmetric, V = lambda(|H|^2 + |Phi|^2)^2 (Eq. (2.4)). From that boundary condition, the low-scale custodial splitting lambda_Phi - lambda_p is generated by renormalization-group running, and the Higgs mass formula (Eqs. (2.24), (2.31)) is derived from the one-loop effective potential rather than imposed. In the numerical scans, the sampled inputs are the top mass, g_X, g_12, and Yukawa couplings; the code then selects points that reproduce the measured electroweak VEV, while the Higgs mass is computed as an output. The reported top-Higgs correlation is therefore a genuine prediction of the scan pipeline and not a fitted constant. The self-citation to Ref. [32] is used for provenance of the original proposal and for reuse of the minimal-model data set, but it is not load-bearing: all equations and scans needed for the hierarchy claim are presented in this paper. The paper also explicitly labels the exact quartic equality at MPl as an assumption awaiting a high-scale explanation, which strengthens rather than conceals the model-building input. The robustness study varies g_12 and y_psi as proxies for custodial-symmetry-violating boundary perturbations; a direct tree-level splitting of the quartic couplings at MPl is not scanned, and this is a genuine limitation or missing check, but it is not circular in the sense of a prediction reducing by construction to its own input. Overall, no step in the derivation chain equates an output to a fitted parameter, defines X in terms of Y, or imports a forced uniqueness result from a self-citation, so the appropriate circularity score is zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 5 invented entities

The central mechanism relies on a set of high-scale boundary conditions (classical scale invariance and exact SO(6) custodial symmetry) that are assumed, not derived. The models then introduce several scanned parameters (gX, qΦ, g12, yψ, p) whose values are chosen to reproduce the observed electroweak scale and, in some regions, the dark matter relic density. The new particles, while motivated by the mechanism, are postulates with predicted masses and couplings that make them falsifiable.

free parameters (6)
  • gX = scanned in [0, 0.20] at µ0
    U(1)X gauge coupling; sets the intermediate scale and the Z' mass. Scanned over a range, not determined by the mechanism.
  • qΦ = chosen as -1/3 or -3/8
    B-L charge of Φ; controls the RG flow of gauge kinetic mixing and whether g12 can remain small. Chosen by hand for phenomenology.
  • g12|MPl = 0 for minimal model, otherwise scanned in [-0.1, 0.1]*gX
    Gauge kinetic mixing at the Planck scale; a source of custodial symmetry violation needed to trigger EWSB in some models.
  • yψ (neutrino portal) = scanned in [0, 0.9]*gX
    Yukawa coupling of the new vector-like fermion to Φ; provides custodial symmetry violation and connects to the neutrino sector.
  • yψ, yψ' (DM model) = scanned in [0, 0.8]*gX, set equal
    Yukawa couplings of the two dark matter fermions; determine DM phenomenology and the strength of custodial symmetry violation.
  • p = set to 1/2
    Free U(1)X charge parameter for the DM model; value chosen to forbid the coupling of the new fermions to right-handed neutrinos, making them stable.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Classical scale invariance at the Planck scale, with no tree-level mass terms or relevant higher-dimensional operators at MPl.
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.4). This is the foundational assumption of the mechanism and is not derived from a more fundamental principle.
  • ad hoc to paper SO(6) custodial symmetry of the scalar potential at MPl, i.e. λH = λp = λΦ.
    Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.1: 'The equality of quartic couplings by custodial symmetry is an assumption that we expect to be explained by some mechanism at the high scale.'
  • domain assumption The U(1)X charge assignment Q(X) = 2Q(Y) + (1/qΦ)Q(B-L) and the specific charge table for all models.
    Sec. 2.3, Table 1. Anomaly cancellation restricts the form of the charges, but the specific choices are model input.
  • domain assumption Perturbative validity of the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential and two-loop RGEs over the large running range from MPl to µ0.
    Sec. 2.5 uses the one-loop effective potential and two-loop RGEs; this assumes the couplings remain small and perturbation theory is reliable.
  • standard math The Gildener-Weinberg flat-direction analysis correctly identifies the vacuum structure of the scale-invariant potential.
    Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (2.6)-(2.8). A standard approximation for radiatively broken scale invariance, but its validity in the presence of the custodial symmetry breaking terms is assumed.
invented entities (5)
  • Z' gauge boson of U(1)X independent evidence
    purpose: Drives the RG flow that generates the intermediate scale and provides the dominant collider signature.
    Predicted mass in the 4 to 100 TeV range with dilepton final states; directly constrained by ATLAS and CMS, and prospects for FCC and other future colliders are computed.
  • Complex scalar singlet Φ and its radial excitation, the dilaton hΦ independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the pNGB/radial structure and generates the intermediate scale VEV via dimensional transmutation.
    Dilaton mass predicted around 30 to 1000 GeV with small Higgs mixing; signatures at Higgs factories via displaced vertices and rare decays are estimated.
  • Right-handed neutrinos νR independent evidence
    purpose: Needed for anomaly cancellation and for generating neutrino masses in the neutrino portal model.
    The neutrino portal model predicts two massive Dirac neutrinos and one exactly massless lightest active neutrino, which is testable with oscillation data and collider searches.
  • Vector-like fermion ψ (neutrino portal) independent evidence
    purpose: Enables a Yukawa coupling of Φ to the neutrino sector and provides custodial symmetry violation.
    Yields a heavy sterile Dirac neutrino with suppressed mixing to active neutrinos; affects the Z' width and decay patterns.
  • Vector-like fermions ψ and ψ' (dark matter model) independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a two-component WIMP dark matter candidate.
    Annihilation through the Z' resonance and spin-independent scattering are computed; relic density and direct detection constraints select a specific parameter region.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Custodial Naturalness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LYFAKB3K

@misc{pith2026250209699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Custodial Naturalness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LYFAKB3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09699}
}
abstract

Custodial Naturalness is a new symmetry-based idea to explain the large separation between the electroweak (EW) scale and ultraviolet completions of the Standard Model (SM). Classical scale invariance is combined with an enhanced scalar-sector custodial symmetry and both are spontaneously broken by dimensional transmutation at a new intermediate scale. The SM-like Higgs boson is an elementary pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone-Boson (pNGB) of the extended custodial symmetry, which naturally explains the suppression of the EW scale without a little hierarchy problem. We explain details of the general mechanism, its minimal realization and simplest extensions which populate Higgs-, gauge-, and neutrino portals and introduce candidates for particle Dark Matter (DM). We show the stability of the mechanism under inclusion of new sources of explicit custodial symmetry violation, as well as under variations of boundary conditions at the high scale. Custodial Naturalness is experimentally testable - including a specific correlation between the Higgs and top quark masses, as well as by the prediction of a new heavy $Z'$ gauge boson and a new dilaton-like scalar which are well-motivated targets for future colliders and Higgs factories. The cosmological evolution features a strongly supercooled phase transition implying that consequences of Custodial Naturalness may also be tested by gravitational wave observatories.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. S-matrix bootstrap bounds on self-interacting dark matter

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Weakly coupled scalar self-interacting dark matter cannot be heavier than ~0.3 GeV (generic) or ~MeV (derivative-coupled pNGB), much tighter than the 12 GeV unitarity bound.

  2. Hidden Sector Custodial Naturalness

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A minimal SO(5) custodial naturalness model with two scalar singlets dynamically generates the electroweak scale and supplies a freeze-in dark matter candidate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bardeen, On naturalness in the standard model , in Ontake Summer Institute on Particle Physics , 8, 1995

    W.A. Bardeen, On naturalness in the standard model , in Ontake Summer Institute on Particle Physics , 8, 1995

    1995

  2. [2]

    Coleman and E.J

    S.R. Coleman and E.J. Weinberg, Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888

    1973

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Mass of the Higgs Boson , Phys

    S. Weinberg, Mass of the Higgs Boson , Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 (1976) 294

    1976

  4. [4]

    Gildener and S

    E. Gildener and S. Weinberg, Symmetry Breaking and Scalar Bosons , Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 3333. – 28 –

    1976

  5. [5]

    Hempfling, The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model , Phys

    R. Hempfling, The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model , Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 153 [hep-ph/9604278]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    Meissner and H

    K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Conformal Symmetry and the Standard Model , Phys. Lett. B 648 (2007) 312 [ hep-th/0612165]

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Espinosa and M

    J.R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Novel Effects in Electroweak Breaking from a Hidden Sector , Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 076004 [ hep-ph/0701145]

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Chang, J.N

    W.-F. Chang, J.N. Ng and J.M.S. Wu, Shadow Higgs from a scale-invariant hidden U(1)(s) model, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 115016 [ hep-ph/0701254]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 135 references
  1. [9]

    R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze and R.R. Volkas, Electroweak Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance, Phys. Lett. B 655 (2007) 156 [ 0704.1165]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K.L. McDonald and R.R. Volkas, Neutrino mass in radiatively-broken scale-invariant models, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 075014 [ 0706.1829]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa, Classically conformal B− L extended Standard Model , Phys. Lett. B 676 (2009) 81 [ 0902.4050]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa, The minimal B-L model naturally realized at TeV scale , Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 115007 [ 0909.0128]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. Oda, N. Okada and D.-s. Takahashi, Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 015026 [ 1504.06291]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. Das, N. Okada and N. Papapietro, Electroweak vacuum stability in classically conformal B-L extension of the Standard Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 122 [ 1509.01466]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. Das, S. Oda, N. Okada and D.-s. Takahashi, Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model, electroweak vacuum stability, and LHC Run-2 bounds , Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 115038 [ 1605.01157]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kaplan and H

    D.B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, SU(2) x U(1) Breaking by Vacuum Misalignment , Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 183

    1984

  9. [17]

    Kaplan, H

    D.B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Composite Higgs Scalars , Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 187

    1984

  10. [18]

    Georgi and D.B

    H. Georgi and D.B. Kaplan, Composite Higgs and Custodial SU(2) , Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 216

    1984

  11. [19]

    Dugan, H

    M.J. Dugan, H. Georgi and D.B. Kaplan, Anatomy of a Composite Higgs Model , Nucl. Phys. B 254 (1985) 299

    1985

  12. [20]

    Arkani-Hamed, A.G

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen and H. Georgi, Electroweak symmetry breaking from dimensional deconstruction, Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001) 232 [ hep-ph/0105239]

    2001 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Arkani-Hamed, A.G

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, T. Gregoire and J.G. Wacker, Phenomenology of electroweak symmetry breaking from theory space, JHEP 08 (2002) 020 [ hep-ph/0202089]

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Arkani-Hamed, A.G

    N. Arkani-Hamed, A.G. Cohen, E. Katz and A.E. Nelson, The Littlest Higgs , JHEP 07 (2002) 034 [ hep-ph/0206021]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chacko, H.-S

    Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231802 [ hep-ph/0506256]

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Barbieri, T

    R. Barbieri, T. Gregoire and L.J. Hall, Mirror world at the large hadron collider , hep-ph/0509242. – 29 –

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chacko, Y

    Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura, M. Papucci and G. Perez, Natural little hierarchy from a partially goldstone twin Higgs , JHEP 01 (2006) 126 [ hep-ph/0510273]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Agashe, R

    K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, The Minimal composite Higgs model , Nucl. Phys. B 719 (2005) 165 [ hep-ph/0412089]

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cacciapaglia and F

    G. Cacciapaglia and F. Sannino, Fundamental Composite (Goldstone) Higgs Dynamics , JHEP 04 (2014) 111 [ 1402.0233]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Katz, A.E

    E. Katz, A.E. Nelson and D.G.E. Walker, The Intermediate Higgs , JHEP 08 (2005) 074 [hep-ph/0504252]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Galloway, J.A

    J. Galloway, J.A. Evans, M.A. Luty and R.A. Tacchi, Minimal Conformal Technicolor and Precision Electroweak Tests, JHEP 10 (2010) 086 [ 1001.1361]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Houtz, K

    R. Houtz, K. Colwell and J. Terning, Little Conformal Symmetry , JHEP 09 (2016) 149 [1603.00030]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ahmed, M

    A. Ahmed, M. Lindner and P. Saake, Conformal little Higgs models , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 075041 [ 2309.07845]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    de Boer, M

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner and A. Trautner, Electroweak hierarchy from conformal and custodial symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139241 [ 2407.15920]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alanne, H

    T. Alanne, H. Gertov, F. Sannino and K. Tuominen, Elementary Goldstone Higgs boson and dark matter , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 095021 [ 1411.6132]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gertov, A

    H. Gertov, A. Meroni, E. Molinaro and F. Sannino, Theory and phenomenology of the elementary Goldstone Higgs boson , Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 095003 [ 1507.06666]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Davidson, B − L as the fourth color within an SU(2)L × U(1)R × U(1) model, Phys

    A. Davidson, B − L as the fourth color within an SU(2)L × U(1)R × U(1) model, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 776

    1979

  28. [36]

    Marshak and R.N

    R.E. Marshak and R.N. Mohapatra, Quark - Lepton Symmetry and B − L as the U(1) Generator of the Electroweak Symmetry Group , Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 222

    1980

  29. [37]

    Mohapatra and R.E

    R.N. Mohapatra and R.E. Marshak, Local B − L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations , Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1316

    1980

  30. [38]

    Wetterich, Neutrino Masses and the Scale of B − L Violation, Nucl

    C. Wetterich, Neutrino Masses and the Scale of B − L Violation, Nucl. Phys. B 187 (1981) 343

    1981

  31. [39]

    Jenkins, Searching for a (B − L) Gauge Boson in pp Collisions, Phys

    E.E. Jenkins, Searching for a (B − L) Gauge Boson in pp Collisions, Phys. Lett. B 192 (1987) 219

    1987

  32. [40]

    Buchmuller, C

    W. Buchmuller, C. Greub and P. Minkowski, Neutrino masses, neutral vector bosons and the scale of B − L breaking, Phys. Lett. B 267 (1991) 395

    1991

  33. [41]

    Khalil, Low scale B − L extension of the Standard Model at the LHC , J

    S. Khalil, Low scale B − L extension of the Standard Model at the LHC , J. Phys. G 35 (2008) 055001 [ hep-ph/0611205]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sikivie, L

    P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M.B. Voloshin and V.I. Zakharov, Isospin Breaking in Technicolor Models, Nucl. Phys. B 173 (1980) 189

    1980

  35. [43]

    Sher, Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability , Phys

    M. Sher, Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability , Phys. Rept. 179 (1989) 273

    1989

  36. [44]

    Kannike, L

    K. Kannike, L. Marzola, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, Light Higgs boson from multi-phase criticality in dynamical symmetry breaking , Phys. Lett. B 816 (2021) 136241 [ 2102.01084]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Huitu, K

    K. Huitu, K. Kannike, N. Koivunen, L. Marzola, S. Mondal and M. Raidal, Multiphase critical Higgs boson at colliders , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 095036 [ 2201.00824]. – 30 –

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kannike, N

    K. Kannike, N. Koivunen, A. Kubarski, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Strumia et al., Dark matter-induced multi-phase dynamical symmetry breaking , Phys. Lett. B 832 (2022) 137214 [2204.01744]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Galison and A

    P. Galison and A. Manohar, TWO Z’s OR NOT TWO Z’s? , Phys. Lett. B 136 (1984) 279

    1984

  40. [48]

    Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys

    B. Holdom, Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts , Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196

    1986

  41. [49]

    J.-X. Pan, M. He, X.-G. He and G. Li, Scrutinizing a massless dark photon: basis independence, Nucl. Phys. B 953 (2020) 114968 [ 1807.11363]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Loinaz and T

    W. Loinaz and T. Takeuchi, Charge assignments in multiple U(1) gauge theories , Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 115008 [ hep-ph/9903362]

    1999 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Carone and H

    C.D. Carone and H. Murayama, Realistic models with a light U(1) gauge boson coupled to baryon number, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 484 [ hep-ph/9501220]

    1995 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chang, O

    L.N. Chang, O. Lebedev, W. Loinaz and T. Takeuchi, Constraints on gauged B - 3 L(tau) and related theories, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 074013 [ hep-ph/0010118]

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aranda and C.D

    A. Aranda and C.D. Carone, Orthogonal U(1) ’ s, proton stability and extra dimensions , Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 075012 [ hep-ph/0012092]

    2001 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory , Ann

    C.P. Burgess, Introduction to Effective Field Theory , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 329 [hep-th/0701053]

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Manohar and E

    A.V. Manohar and E. Nardoni, Renormalization Group Improvement of the Effective Potential: an EFT Approach , JHEP 04 (2021) 093 [ 2010.15806]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    ’t Hooft, A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions , Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, A Planar Diagram Theory for Strong Interactions , Nucl. Phys. B 72 (1974) 461

    1974

  49. [57]

    Veneziano, Some Aspects of a Unified Approach to Gauge, Dual and Gribov Theories , Nucl

    G. Veneziano, Some Aspects of a Unified Approach to Gauge, Dual and Gribov Theories , Nucl. Phys. B 117 (1976) 519

    1976

  50. [58]

    Martin, Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry, Phys

    S.P. Martin, Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 116003 [ hep-ph/0111209]

    2002 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Buttazzo, G

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, G.F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio et al., Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson , JHEP 12 (2013) 089 [ 1307.3536]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Sartore and I

    L. Sartore and I. Schienbein, PyR@TE 3 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 261 (2021) 107819 [2007.12700]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Barbieri and G.F

    R. Barbieri and G.F. Giudice, Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses , Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63

    1988

  54. [62]

    Anderson and D.J

    G.W. Anderson and D.J. Castano, Measures of fine tuning , Phys. Lett. B 347 (1995) 300 [hep-ph/9409419]

    1995 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Degrande, C

    C. Degrande, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, D. Grellscheid, O. Mattelaer and T. Reiter, UFO - The Universal FeynRules Output , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 1201 [ 1108.2040]

    2012 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Christensen and C

    N.D. Christensen and C. Duhr, FeynRules - Feynman rules made easy , Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1614 [ 0806.4194]. – 31 –

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    ATLAS collaboration, Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb −1 of pp collision data collected at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector , Phys. Lett. B 796 (2019) 68 [1903.06248]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    CMS collaboration, Search for resonant and nonresonant new phenomena in high-mass dilepton final states at √s = 13 TeV , JHEP 07 (2021) 208 [ 2103.02708]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    ATLAS collaboration, Prospects for searches for heavy Z ′ and W ′ bosons in fermionic final states with the ATLAS experiment at the HL-LHC ,

  61. [69]

    Konstandin and G

    T. Konstandin and G. Servant, Cosmological Consequences of Nearly Conformal Dynamics at the TeV scale , JCAP 12 (2011) 009 [ 1104.4791]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters , Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [ 1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml et al., micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter , Comput. Phys. Commun. 299 (2024) 109133 [2312.14894]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders , Comput

    F. Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders , Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773 [ 1309.7223]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    XENON collaboration, First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041003 [ 2303.14729]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    O’Hare, New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches , Phys

    C.A.J. O’Hare, New Definition of the Neutrino Floor for Direct Dark Matter Searches , Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 251802 [ 2109.03116]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    DAR WINcollaboration, DAR WIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector , JCAP 11 (2016) 017 [ 1606.07001]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Alves, S

    A. Alves, S. Profumo and F.S. Queiroz, The dark Z ′ portal: direct, indirect and collider searches, JHEP 04 (2014) 063 [ 1312.5281]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Alves, A

    A. Alves, A. Berlin, S. Profumo and F.S. Queiroz, Dark Matter Complementarity and the Z ′ Portal, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 083004 [ 1501.03490]

    2015 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Wang and Z.-L

    W. Wang and Z.-L. Han, Radiative linear seesaw model, dark matter, and U (1)B−L, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 095001 [ 1508.00706]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Alves, A

    A. Alves, A. Berlin, S. Profumo and F.S. Queiroz, Dirac-fermionic dark matter in U(1) X models, JHEP 10 (2015) 076 [ 1506.06767]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Jacques, A

    T. Jacques, A. Katz, E. Morgante, D. Racco, M. Rameez and A. Riotto, Complementarity of DM searches in a consistent simplified model: the case of Z ′, JHEP 10 (2016) 071 [1605.06513]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Okada, Z ′ Portal Dark Matter in the Minimal B − L Model, Adv

    S. Okada, Z ′ Portal Dark Matter in the Minimal B − L Model, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018 (2018) 5340935 [ 1803.06793]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [82]

    ATLAS collaboration, Constraints on new phenomena via Higgs boson couplings and invisible decays with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 11 (2015) 206 [ 1509.00672]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Robens and T

    T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model after LHC Run 1 , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 104 [ 1501.02234]

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Falkowski, C

    A. Falkowski, C. Gross and O. Lebedev, A second Higgs from the Higgs portal , JHEP 05 (2015) 057 [ 1502.01361]. – 32 –

    2015 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Goldberger, B

    W.D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein and W. Skiba, Distinguishing the Higgs boson from the dilaton at the Large Hadron Collider , Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 111802 [ 0708.1463]

    2008 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Chacko and R.K

    Z. Chacko and R.K. Mishra, Effective Theory of a Light Dilaton , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 115006 [1209.3022]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Bellazzini, C

    B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, J. Serra and J. Terning, A Higgslike Dilaton , Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2333 [ 1209.3299]

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ahmed, B.M

    A. Ahmed, B.M. Dillon, B. Grzadkowski, J.F. Gunion and Y. Jiang, Implications of the absence of high-mass radion signals , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 095019 [ 1512.05771]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ahmed, A

    A. Ahmed, A. Mariotti and S. Najjari, A light dilaton at the LHC , JHEP 05 (2020) 093 [1912.06645]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    ILD Concept Groupcollaboration, International Large Detector: Interim Design Report , 2003.01116

    2003 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Ripellino, M.V

    G. Ripellino, M.V. Voorde, A. Gall´ en and R. Gonzalez Suarez, Searching for long-lived dark scalars at the FCC-ee , 2412.10141

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Foster, R

    B. Foster, R. D’Arcy and C.A. Lindstrom, A hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory based on plasma-wakefield and radio-frequency acceleration , New J. Phys. 25 (2023) 093037 [2303.10150]

    2023 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Laudrain, T

    A. Laudrain, T. Behnke, C.M. Berggren, K. Buesser, F. Gaede, C. Grojean et al., Physics Performance and Detector Requirements at an Asymmetric Higgs Factory , PoS EPS-HEP2023 (2024) 556 [ 2411.14313]

    2024 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  87. [95]

    Ellis et al., Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020 , 1910.11775

    R.K. Ellis et al., Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020 , 1910.11775

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Linde, Dynamical Symmetry Restoration and Constraints on Masses and Coupling Constants in Gauge Theories , JETP Lett

    A.D. Linde, Dynamical Symmetry Restoration and Constraints on Masses and Coupling Constants in Gauge Theories , JETP Lett. 23 (1976) 64

    1976

  89. [97]

    Litim, C

    D. Litim, C. Wetterich and N. Tetradis, Nonperturbative analysis of the Coleman-Weinberg phase transition, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2287 [ hep-ph/9407267]

    1997 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Probing a classically conformal B-L model with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 015020 [ 1604.05035]

    2017 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Iso, P.D

    S. Iso, P.D. Serpico and K. Shimada, QCD-Electroweak First-Order Phase Transition in a Supercooled Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 141301 [ 1704.04955]

    2017 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Marzo, L

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola and V. Vaskonen, Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model , Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 601 [ 1811.11169]

    2019 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen, Updated predictions for gravitational waves produced in a strongly supercooled phase transition , JCAP 11 (2020) 020 [ 2007.15586]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Schmitt and L

    D. Schmitt and L. Sagunski, QCD-sourced tachyonic phase transition in a supercooled Universe, 2409.05851

    arXiv

  95. [103]

    S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa, Resonant Leptogenesis in the Minimal B-L Extended Standard Model at TeV , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 093011 [ 1011.4769]. – 33 –

    2011 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Khoze and G

    V.V. Khoze and G. Ro, Leptogenesis and Neutrino Oscillations in the Classically Conformal Standard Model with the Higgs Portal , JHEP 10 (2013) 075 [ 1307.3764]

    2013 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Hambye, A

    T. Hambye, A. Strumia and D. Teresi, Super-cool Dark Matter, JHEP 08 (2018) 188 [1805.01473]

    2018 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Huang and K.-P

    P. Huang and K.-P. Xie, Leptogenesis triggered by a first-order phase transition , JHEP 09 (2022) 052 [ 2206.04691]

    2022 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Dasgupta, P.S.B

    A. Dasgupta, P.S.B. Dev, A. Ghoshal and A. Mazumdar, Gravitational wave pathway to testable leptogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 075027 [ 2206.07032]

    2022 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Das and Y

    A. Das and Y. Orikasa, Resonant leptogenesis in minimal U (1)X extensions of the Standard Model, 2407.05644

    arXiv

  101. [109]

    Chauhan, Collider Tests of Flavored Resonant Leptogenesis in the U (1)X Model, 2407.09460

    G. Chauhan, Collider Tests of Flavored Resonant Leptogenesis in the U (1)X Model, 2407.09460

    arXiv

  102. [110]

    Braun and H

    J. Braun and H. Gies, Chiral phase boundary of QCD at finite temperature , JHEP 06 (2006) 024 [ hep-ph/0602226]

    2006 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Cuteri, O

    F. Cuteri, O. Philipsen and A. Sciarra, On the order of the QCD chiral phase transition for different numbers of quark flavours , JHEP 11 (2021) 141 [ 2107.12739]

    2021 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Marzola, A

    L. Marzola, A. Racioppi and V. Vaskonen, Phase transition and gravitational wave phenomenology of scalar conformal extensions of the Standard Model , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 484 [ 1704.01034]

    2017 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Prokopec, J

    T. Prokopec, J. Rezacek and B. ´Swie˙ zewska,Gravitational waves from conformal symmetry breaking, JCAP 02 (2019) 009 [ 1809.11129]

    2019 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Sagunski, P

    L. Sagunski, P. Schicho and D. Schmitt, Supercool exit: Gravitational waves from QCD-triggered conformal symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 123512 [2303.02450]

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Kawai and N

    S. Kawai and N. Okada, Reheating consistency condition on the classically conformal U(1)B–L Higgs inflation model , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 015013 [ 2303.00342]

    2023 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Heeck, Unbroken B – L symmetry , Phys

    J. Heeck, Unbroken B – L symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 739 (2014) 256 [ 1408.6845]

    2014 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Abazajian and J

    K.N. Abazajian and J. Heeck, Observing Dirac neutrinos in the cosmic microwave background, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 075027 [ 1908.03286]

    2019 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Adshead, P

    P. Adshead, P. Ralegankar and J. Shelton, Dark radiation constraints on portal interactions with hidden sectors , JCAP 09 (2022) 056 [ 2206.13530]

    2022 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Froggatt and H.B

    C.D. Froggatt and H.B. Nielsen, Standard model criticality prediction: Top mass 173 +- 5-GeV and Higgs mass 135 +- 9-GeV , Phys. Lett. B 368 (1996) 96 [ hep-ph/9511371]

    1996 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Litim and F

    D.F. Litim and F. Sannino, Asymptotic safety guaranteed, JHEP 12 (2014) 178 [1406.2337]

    2014 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Pati and A

    J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton Number as the Fourth Color , Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275

    1974

  114. [122]

    Montero and V

    J.C. Montero and V. Pleitez, Gauging U(1) symmetries and the number of right-handed neutrinos, Phys. Lett. B 675 (2009) 64 [ 0706.0473]

    2009 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Ma and R

    E. Ma and R. Srivastava, Dirac or inverse seesaw neutrino masses with B − L gauge symmetry and S3 flavor symmetry , Phys. Lett. B 741 (2015) 217 [ 1411.5042]. – 34 –

    2015 arXiv

  116. [124]

    E. Ma, N. Pollard, R. Srivastava and M. Zakeri, Gauge B − L Model with Residual Z3 Symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 750 (2015) 135 [ 1507.03943]

    2015 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Bonilla, S

    C. Bonilla, S. Centelles-Chuli´ a, R. Cepedello, E. Peinado and R. Srivastava, Dark matter stability and Dirac neutrinos using only Standard Model symmetries , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 033011 [ 1812.01599]

    2020 arXiv

  118. [126]

    X.G. He, G.C. Joshi, H. Lew and R.R. Volkas, NEW Z-prime PHENOMENOLOGY , Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 22

    1991

  119. [127]

    Baek, N.G

    S. Baek, N.G. Deshpande, X.G. He and P. Ko, Muon anomalous g-2 and gauged L(muon) - L(tau) models, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 055006 [ hep-ph/0104141]

    2001 arXiv

  120. [128]

    E. Ma, D.P. Roy and S. Roy, Gauged L(mu) - L(tau) with large muon anomalous magnetic moment and the bimaximal mixing of neutrinos , Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 101 [hep-ph/0110146]

    2002 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Heeck and W

    J. Heeck and W. Rodejohann, Gauged Lµ − Lτ Symmetry at the Electroweak Scale , Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 075007 [ 1107.5238]

    2011 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Altmannshofer, S

    W. Altmannshofer, S. Gori, M. Pospelov and I. Yavin, Neutrino Trident Production: A Powerful Probe of New Physics with Neutrino Beams , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 091801 [1406.2332]

    2014 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Altmannshofer, M

    W. Altmannshofer, M. Carena and A. Crivellin, Lµ − Lτ theory of Higgs flavor violation and (g − 2)µ, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 095026 [ 1604.08221]

    2016 arXiv

  124. [132]

    J. Kubo, J. Kuntz, M. Lindner, J. Rezacek, P. Saake and A. Trautner, Unified emergence of energy scales and cosmic inflation , JHEP 08 (2021) 016 [ 2012.09706]

    2021 arXiv

  125. [133]

    J. Kubo, M. Lindner, K. Schmitz and M. Yamada, Planck mass and inflation as consequences of dynamically broken scale invariance , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 015037 [1811.05950]

    2019 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Okada and Q

    N. Okada and Q. Shafi, Observable Gravity Waves From U(1) B − L Higgs and Coleman-Weinberg Inflation, 1311.0921

    arXiv

  127. [135]

    S. Oda, N. Okada, D. Raut and D.-s. Takahashi, Nonminimal quartic inflation in classically conformal U(1)X extended standard model, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 055001 [ 1711.09850]. – 35 –

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.