Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 67 references

Experiment and the Pursuit of Ugly Models

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Experimental context strongly determines which models deserve pursuit: in today's particle physics, ugly models are rationally pursued when they are radically novel or immediately testable with existing apparatus.

desk verdict A clear, honest case that the current HEP context can make novelty and testability sufficient for rational pursuit, though the four case studies illustrate the claim more than they prove its generality. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03565 v1 pith:OUURYQQJ submitted 2025-07-04 physics.hist-ph hep-ph

Martin King This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phhep-ph
keywords pursuitworthinessphilosophyofexperimenttheoreticalvirtuesvaluesinscienceparticlephysicsradicalnoveltytestabilityuglymodels
topics The Hierarchy Problem
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

Scientists choose not only which theories to accept but also which models to work on before the evidence is in, and this paper argues that the choice of what to pursue is shaped decisively by the experimental situation. In contemporary high-energy physics, where no new particles have been found since the Higgs boson was discovered in 2012 and no higher-energy collider will arrive for decades, the traditional theoretical virtues have lost their grip: the surviving new-physics models are ad hoc, narrow in scope, complex, fine-tuned, and often inconsistent with neighbouring theories. The paper claims that these ugly models are nonetheless worth pursuing when they have at least one of two features: a radically novel class of solutions, or immediate testability with existing or cheaply modified apparatus. Four case studies—the next-to-minimal supersymmetric neutralino, the relaxion, repulsive gravity, and lepton-flavour-universality-violating models—show that novelty and testability can outweigh plausibility, elegance, and even consistency. If the paper is right, the standards that make a model worth working on are reset by the instruments and discoveries available at the time, so rational pursuit is a moving target rather than a fixed list of virtues.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a distinction between acceptance and pursuit: accepting a theory demands strong epistemic justification, while pursuing a model is a short-timescale decision about where to allocate work before the evidence is conclusive, so the two contexts legitimately use different criteria. The paper then installs its own positive machinery: a pair of context-sensitive desiderata distilled from the four cases. Radical novelty is a new class of solutions that reorients problem-solving tools and insights, deliberately distinguished from predictive novelty. Immediate testability is the property of making clear predictions at reachable energies, testable with existing apparatus or small, cheap modifications, building on the 'ease of test' criterion familiar from the pursuit literature. These two are presented as independently sufficient reasons for pursuit rather than goods to be maximized, and the paper argues that their weight relative to the standard list of pursuit criteria—interest, informativeness, plausibility, analogy to past successes, and problem-solving power—is set by the experimental situation. The machinery does the work of explaining how models that score poorly on all the traditional virtues can still be rational targets of work, and why the same model type can lose its pursuitworthiness when the experimental context changes.

What would settle it

A systematic check of the central claim would be to catalogue the beyond-Standard-Model model-building papers published between 2015 and 2025 and test whether the models actually pursued are predominantly of the two kinds the paper identifies: radically novel classes of solutions, or models making definite predictions testable with existing LHC, low-energy, or table-top apparatus. If the majority of pursued models are ordinary extensions of older frameworks with neither feature, the descriptive basis of the argument collapses. A second, temporal check: if a clear new-physics signal appeared at the LHC and publication patterns did not reweight away from novel-but-implausible and cheaply-testable models toward more plausible, beautiful ones, the context-dependence thesis would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that experimental context strongly determines pursuitworthiness, and it identifies the conditions under which experiment encourages the pursuit of ugly models: the absence of new physics discoveries combined with the absence of a new higher-energy experiment. That context makes two desiderata dominant in high-energy physics today. Radical novelty means a genuinely new class of theoretical solutions that lets physicists approach problems with new tools and insights, rather than merely new predictions from an old framework. Immediate testability means clear predictions at achievable energies and sensitivities, testable with existing facilities or small, cost-effective amendments. Because pursuit is a decision about where to allocate work before decisive evidence exists, these two desiderata can outweigh the traditional virtues and can even override minimal criteria such as consistency and empirical adequacy. The four case studies are presented as representative: the singlino-like neutralino of the next-to-minimal supersymmetric model is ad hoc and confined to a tiny surviving region of parameter space but can be probed with existing LHC data; the relaxion is a radically new solution to the Higgs naturalness problem that is not technically natural and needs roughly $10^{33}$ e-foldings; repulsive gravity is baroque, proposes multiple dark copies of the known matter content, and conflicts with general relativity but was cheaply and decisively testable with antiprotons already produced as a by-product of LHC operations; and lepton-flavour-universality-violating models were narrow in scope and heavily fine-tuned but made direct contact with anomalous LHCb data. The normative conclusion operates at the level of the discipline: it is rational for some physicists to pursue such models as part of a division of cognitive labour, even though no individual physicist is obliged to pursue any particular one.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is factual, set out in Section 3: that particle physics today is genuinely in the stalled state described, with no new physics found since the Higgs and no higher-energy collider for decades, and that the four case studies of Sections 3.1 and 3.2 fairly represent what physicists actually pursue; if the visible research programmes reflect sunk costs, fashion, or career incentives rather than rational division of labour, the inference from what is pursued to what should be pursued collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A model can be rationally pursued even when it is ad hoc, narrow in scope, complex, fine-tuned, or inconsistent with established theories, provided it is either radically novel or immediately testable with existing or cheaply modified apparatus.
  • Plausibility can play very little role in pursuit when testability is high: repulsive gravity was pursued and tested with the expectation of a negative result, because the antiprotons were already available and the test was decisive—it ruled the hypothesis out at a probability below $10^{-15}$.
  • The pursuit criteria are reweighted when the experimental context changes: a new discovery or the eventual arrival of a higher-energy collider would shift the balance back toward more beautiful, plausible models, and today's ugly models could lose their pursuitworthiness.
  • Rational pursuit operates at the scale of the discipline rather than the individual: the open-ended situation makes a division of cognitive labour rational, with some physicists working on untestable beautiful theories and others on ugly but testable or novel models.
  • The later disappearance of the lepton-flavour-universality anomaly does not retroactively show that pursuing those models was irrational, because narrow, fine-tuned models can still be worth working on when they make direct, cheap contact with existing data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The account predicts behaviour the paper does not test: in any research field with the same two conditions—no new discoveries and no new experimental frontier—the mix of pursued models should shift toward radically novel and cheaply testable hypotheses; stalled searches such as proton decay or fifth-force experiments would be natural places to look for the same pattern.
  • The context-dependence thesis could be checked against the record of the last decade: if the 2015 diphoton excess at $750$ GeV drew pursuit effort proportional to its statistical weakness rather than its cheap testability, that would actually strengthen the paper's account, since the response would show that tantalizing data and easy tests, not plausibility, drive pursuit.
  • The paper declines to formalize pursuit, but its two desiderata map naturally onto option value: testability buys information even on the pessimistic branch, while radical novelty supplies uncorrelated upside; a portfolio model of a scientific community allocating effort could make the 'division of cognitive labour' claim precise and testable.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. King argues that decisions about which models to pursue — as opposed to accept — are strongly shaped by the experimental context, and that contemporary high-energy physics (HEP) illustrates this dependence. Because no new physics has emerged at the LHC since the Higgs discovery and no higher-energy collider is expected soon, he claims that pursuit criteria in HEP have been reweighted toward two features: radical novelty of the class of solutions and immediate testability with existing apparatus. Models that exhibit at least one of these features can be rationally pursued even when they are 'ugly' by traditional standards: ad hoc, narrow in scope, complex, fine-tuned, or inconsistent with adjacent theories. Four case studies are presented — the NMSSM singlino-like neutralino, the relaxion, repulsive gravity, and models of lepton flavour universality violation — each said to be both ugly and pursuitworthy. The paper contrasts its context-sensitive, pluralistic picture with the fixed-criterion accounts of Laudan, Franklin, McKaughan, and Nyrup, and concludes that experimental context strongly determines pursuitworthiness.

Significance. If the thesis is accepted, the paper makes a genuine contribution to the pursuitworthiness literature: it identifies a concrete mechanism — the experimental situation — that reweights pursuit criteria, and it defends the rationality of pursuing models that fall short of traditional theoretical virtues. The paper's strengths are considerable. It is grounded in the current experimental literature (LHC exclusion limits, HL-LHC and FCC timelines, the ALPHA-g measurement, LHCb flavour results). It draws a useful distinction between radical novelty and predictive novelty. It engages fairly and seriously with recent work, including Nyrup (2015), Shaw (2022), Duerr and Fischer (2025), and Wolf and Duerr (2024). It is honest about its own limitations, repeatedly describing the account as a pluralistic sketch and conceding that a general account may be impossible. The four case studies are concrete and mostly well documented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1-3.2 (case selection and the 'strongly determines' thesis)] The four case studies instantiate precisely the two features the paper wants to promote — radical novelty and immediate testability — so they can illustrate those features but cannot by themselves establish that the experimental context, rather than other drivers of research activity (sunk costs, institutional inertia, citation incentives, or the mere elimination of alternatives), is what makes these models pursuitworthy. The paper says the cases are 'relatively popular models and are representative of the best and more pursuitworthy models particle physicists have to work on' (Sec. 3.2), but no comparative baseline is supplied: no pre-2012 context, no pursued models lacking both features, and no systematic ruling out of the alternative explanations just listed. Internal evidence even cuts against the author's reading in the first case, since the NMSSM is pursued in part because 'one only looks at this model because other models have been ruled out' (Sec. 3.1). Because the abstract's central claim is that experimental context 'strongly determines' pursuitworthiness, this underdetermination is load-bearing. The author should add a baseline comparison (for example, a short discussion of what was pursued before the LHC null results, or of a pursued model lacking both features) or narrow the thesis to what the cases actually support.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 (normative step from actual to rational pursuit)] The normative conclusion that ugly models 'should be worked on by some' rests on a division-of-cognitive-labour argument: 'Many avenues of research are rational to pursue... a reasonable division of labour at the level of the discipline.' As stated, that argument is so permissive that it establishes at most that pursuing these models is not irrational; it does not establish that the experimental context has strong determining force on what is pursuitworthy. The sentence 'It is more of a possibility than a plausibility that counts' gestures at a cost-benefit asymmetry (small probability, very large payoff, low marginal cost), but the paper does not develop a criterion that could be applied or tested, and it does not explain why that asymmetry is now strong enough to outweigh the model's failures on the traditional criteria. Either a more substantive account of low-probability, high-payoff pursuit (for example, in terms of risk diversification or expected epistemic value) is needed, or the normative conclusion should be explicitly lowered to a permissibility claim.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 3.2 (strength of the thesis versus stated limitations)] The abstract asserts that 'experimental context strongly determines pursuitworthiness,' and the conclusion says the context 'strongly determines in some cases what the dominant features of pursuitworthy models are.' These formulations are stronger than the body's own qualifications: the account is called a 'pluralistic sketch' (Sec. 3.2), the author is 'reluctant to offer anything more formal' (Sec. 3.2), and the paper agrees with Shaw that a general account of pursuitworthiness may not be possible (Sec. 1). The reader is left unsure whether the thesis is (a) that the experimental context determines the relative weights of pursuit criteria, or (b) that it determines which models are pursuitworthy. The evidence supports (a) more than (b). The paper should state its thesis at the level of generality that the supporting argument actually establishes, and the abstract and conclusion should match the qualifications the author already accepts in the body.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. 2] There is a duplicated word in 'would would always lose out' in the paragraph on Laudan; it should read 'would always lose out.'
  2. [Sec. 3] Two word-level errors appear: 'should be competed around 2028' should be 'should be completed around 2028,' and 'has provide constraints on dark photons' should be 'has provided constraints.'
  3. [Sec. 3.1, relaxion] The claim that the relaxion 'is not even technically natural (in the sense of 't Hooft, 1980), since it breaks a gauge symmetry' is imprecise as written; the standard objections concern the explicit breaking of the axion shift symmetry and the resulting axion quality problem, so the sentence should be rephrased and supported by a specific citation to that critique.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, neutralino dark matter] The statement that 'the MSSM parameter space combined with DM relic abundance and direct detection data from LUX and XENON1T, is effectively excluded' is too strong, since viable MSSM neutralino regions (for example the s-channel h and A funnels and stau coannihilation) survive these constraints; the argument only needs 'highly constrained,' which is also what the next sentence, with its 'tiny, but not excluded' parameter space, actually uses.
  5. [Sec. 3.2] The claim that the LFU models had a 'rate of problem solving effectively 0' is hyperbolic, since those models did accommodate the R_K anomaly within a narrow domain, at the price of tensions elsewhere; a phrase like 'no net problem-solving progress' would be more accurate.
  6. [Sec. 3] The timeline claim that the FCC feasibility study 'will be completed in 2025' can be updated: the study was delivered in March 2025, and a sentence on the subsequent CERN strategy discussion would make the description of the current experimental context more precise.
  7. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'These models I presented are not cherry-picked as the ugliest models on the market, since those I probably would not have heard of' is informal and the aside should be removed or rephrased; the representativeness claim that follows needs at least a one-sentence specification of the population the four cases are meant to sample (for instance, BSM models with active LHC and low-energy phenomenology).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Mild circularity: the two pursuit desiderata are distilled from the same four case studies they are then used to explain; no load-bearing self-citation or equation-level derivation.

  1. other [Section 3.2, 'Novelty, Testability, and Pursuit' (also announced in the Introduction: 'I will distil two desiderata (novelty and testability) from the actual cases')]
    "Let us distil our lessons as clearly as possible. A pursuitworthy model must represent a class of potential solutions to an existing problem. In addition to this, there currently seem to be two features of the models we have examined that contribute most to their pursuitworthiness: (i) the immediate and easy testability of the model or hypothesis (ii) the class of solutions represented by the model is radically novel"

    The paper explicitly says it will 'distil two desiderata (novelty and testability) from the actual cases', then identifies those same two features as 'the models we have examined' most pursuitworthy-making features, and finally presents the four cases as pursuitworthy because they possess those features. The case studies are thus the source of the criteria and also the evidence for their applicability; they illustrate the criteria rather than independently testing them. This is a mild justificatory circularity/underdetermination rather than an equation-level construction, because the criteria also receive independent motivation from the claimed absence of new physics and of a near-term higher-energy collider, but the case-selection loop remains.

full rationale

This is a conceptual and historical argument, not a formal derivation, so there is no equation-level circularity. The author's two self-citations (Martens and King 2023; Bechtle et al. 2022) are background and supporting descriptions of existing research programs and model properties, not load-bearing justifications of the central thesis. The only genuine circularity concern is structural: the paper distills novelty and testability from the four cases it then uses those criteria to explain. This is the mild circularity flagged above. The paper itself concedes that it offers only 'a pluralistic sketch' of pursuit and its experimental context dependence, which mitigates the force of the claim but does not remove the dependence of the normative conclusion on the selection of cases. The deeper worry about underdetermination by four examples and the is-ought gap between popularity and rational pursuit is a correctness/evidence concern rather than circularity.

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

This is a conceptual essay; the ledger contains no fitted parameters or new entities. The load-bearing input is a small set of background assumptions about the experimental context and the representativeness of four case studies.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Pursuitworthiness is a legitimate normative category, separate from theory acceptance.
    Used throughout, introduced via Laudan (1977) in Sec. 2; the paper does not defend this distinction against sceptics.
  • domain assumption The current experimental context of HEP is accurately described by 'no new physics since the Higgs' and 'no higher-energy collider in the near term'.
    Factual premise set out in Sec. 3, drawn from strategy documents and survey papers; if this context changes, the paper's own conclusion says the criteria would need to be reweighted.
  • domain assumption Visible, popular BSM research programs are a reliable sample of what is actually pursued and a reasonable basis for normative conclusions.
    The four case studies in Sec. 3.1 are the empirical base for the two desiderata in Sec. 3.2; no sampling or systematic survey is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experiment and the Pursuit of Ugly Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUURYQQJ

@misc{pith2026250703565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experiment and the Pursuit of Ugly Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUURYQQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03565}
}
read the original abstract

Scientists do not merely choose to accept fully formed theories, they also have to decide which models to work on before they are fully developed and tested. Since decisive empirical evidence in favour of a model will not yet have been gathered, other criteria must play determining roles. I examine the case of modern high-energy physics where the experimental context that once favoured the pursuit of beautiful, simple, and general theories now favours the pursuit of models that are ad hoc, narrow in scope, and complex; in short, ugly models. The lack of new discoveries since the Higgs boson, together with the lack of a new higher energy collider, has left searches for new physics conceptually and empirically wide open. Physicists must make use of the experiment at hand while also creatively exploring alternatives that have not yet been explored. This encourages the pursuit of models that have at least one of two key features: i) they take radically novel approaches, or ii) are easily testable. I present four cases, neutralino dark matter, the relaxion, repulsive gravity, and models of lepton flavour universality violation, and show that even if they do not exhibit traditional epistemic virtues, they are nonetheless pursuitworthy. I argue that experimental context strongly determines pursuitworthiness and I lay out the conditions under which experiment encourages the pursuit of ugly models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A 1-dimensional depiction of the relaxion’s rolling periodic potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aad, G. et al. (2023). Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the w-boson mass in s = 13 tev pp collisions with the atlas detector. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2023(6)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Aaij, R. et al. (2015). Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B ( b ^ 0 D ^ *+ ^ - _ )/ B ( b ^ 0 D ^ *+ ^ - _ ) . Physical Review Letters , 115(11)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Aaij, R. et al. (2021). Branching fraction measurements of the rare B _ s ^ 0 ^ + ^ - and B _ s ^ 0 f _ 2 ^ ' (1525) ^ + ^ - decays. Physical Review Letters , 127(15)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Aaij, R. et al. (2023). Measurement of lepton universality parameters in B ^ + K ^ + ^ + ^ - and B ^ 0 K ^ *0 ^ + ^ - decays. Physical Review D , 108(3)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    S., and et al

    Abada, A., Abbrescia, M., AbdusSalam, S. S., and et al. (2019). FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider . European Physical Journal Special Topics , 228:261--623

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    and Khalil, S

    Abdallah, W. and Khalil, S. (2016). MSSM dark matter in light of higgs and LUX results. Advances in High Energy Physics , 2016:1--10

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Abercrombie, D. et al. (2020). Dark matter benchmark models for early lhc run-2 searches: Report of the atlas/cms dark matter forum. Physics of the Dark Universe , 27:100371

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Abreu, H. et al. (2023). First direct observation of collider neutrinos with faser at the lhc. Physical Review Letters , 131(3)

    work page 2023

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    logic of pursuit

    Achinstein, P. (1993). How to defend a theory without testing it: Niels bohr and the "logic of pursuit". Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 18(1):90--120

    1993

  2. [10]

    Akerib, D. et al. (2017). Results from a search for dark matter in the complete lux exposure. Physical Review Letters , 118(2)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Anderson, E. et al. (2023). Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter. Nature , 621:716--722

    2023

  4. [12]

    Aprile, E. et al. (2018). Dark matter search results from a one ton-year exposure of xenon1t. Physical Review Letters , 121(11)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Barceló, C., Liberati, S., and Visser, M. (2005). Analogue gravity. Living Reviews in Relativity , 8(1)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Bechtle, P., Chall, C., King, M., Krämer, M., Mättig, P., and Stöltzner, M. (2022). Bottoms up: The standard model effective field theory from a model perspective. Studies in the History of Modern Science , 92:129--143

    2022

  7. [15]

    M., Klein, M., Schulte, D., Mangano, M., Milanese, A., Mertens, V., Oide, K., Osborne, J

    Benedikt, M., Blondel, A., Brunner, O., Capeans Garrido, M., Cerutti, F., Gutleber, J., Goddard, B., Janot, P., Jimenez, J. M., Klein, M., Schulte, D., Mangano, M., Milanese, A., Mertens, V., Oide, K., Osborne, J. A., Otto, T., Papaphilippou, Y., Poole, J., Riegler, W., Tavian...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Boyd, J. et al. (2023a). First Results from the Search for Dark Photons with the FASER Detector at the LHC . Technical report, CERN, Geneva

    2023

  9. [17]

    M., Baerdemaeker, S

    Boyd, N. M., Baerdemaeker, S. D., Heng, K., and Matarese, V., editors (2023b). Philosophy of Astrophysics: Stars, Simulations, and the Struggle to Determine What is Out There . Springer Verlag

    2023

  10. [18]

    H., and Sub Shin, C

    Choi, K., Im, S. H., and Sub Shin, C. (2021). Recent Progress in the Physics of Axions and Axion-Like Particles . Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. , 71:225--252

    2021

  11. [19]

    Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal . University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburgh, PA

    2009

  12. [20]

    Douglas, H. (2013). The value of cognitive values. Philosophy of Science , 80(5):796--806

    2013

  13. [21]

    Duerr, P. M. and Fischer, E. (2025). Rationally warranted promise: the virtue-economic account of pursuit-worthiness

    2025

  14. [22]

    Ellis, R. K. e. a. (2019). Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020 . Technical report, Geneva. 254 p

    2019

  15. [23]

    Ellwanger, U., Hugonie, C., and Teixeira, A. M. (2010). The next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model. Physics Reports , 496(1–2):1–77

    2010

  16. [24]

    Espinosa, J., Grojean, C., Panico, G., Pomarol, A., Pujolàs, O., and Servant, G. (2015). Cosmological higgs-axion interplay for a naturally small electroweak scale. Physical Review Letters , 115(25)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Franklin, A. (1993). Discovery, pursuit, and justification. Perspectives on Science , 1(2):252--284

    1993

  18. [26]

    Franklin, A. (2016). The Rise and Fall of the Fifth Force: Discovery, Pursuit, and Justification in Modern Physics . Imprint: Springer, Cham

    2016

  19. [27]

    Gabrielse, G. (1989). Trapped antihydrogen for spectroscopy and gravitation studies: Is it possible? Hyperfine Interact. , 44(1-4):349--355

    1989

  20. [28]

    Germán, G., Gonzalez Quaglia, R., and Moran Colorado, A. (2023). Model independent bounds for the number of e-folds during the evolution of the universe. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2023(03):004

    2023

  21. [29]

    W., Kaplan, D

    Graham, P. W., Kaplan, D. E., and Rajendran, S. (2015). Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale . Phys. Rev. Lett. , 115(22):221801

    2015

  22. [30]

    and Roy, A

    Guchait, M. and Roy, A. (2020). Light Singlino Dark Matter at the LHC . Phys. Rev. D , 102(7):075023

    2020

  23. [31]

    Hajdukovic, D. S. (2012). Quantum vacuum and virtual gravitational dipoles: the solution to the dark energy problem? Astrophysics and Space Science , 339(1):1–5

    2012

  24. [32]

    and Rosaler, J

    Harlander, R. and Rosaler, J. (2019). Higgs naturalness and renormalized parameters. Foundations of Physics , 49(9):879--897

    2019

  25. [33]

    Hayrapetyan, A. et al. (2024). Search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons A and H in the t t Z channel in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV

    2024

  26. [34]

    and Wohlfarth, M

    Hohmann, M. and Wohlfarth, M. N. R. (2010). Repulsive gravity model for dark energy. Physical Review D , 81(10)

    2010

  27. [35]

    and Marques-Tavares, G

    Hook, A. and Marques-Tavares, G. (2016). Relaxation from particle production. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2016(12)

    2016

  28. [36]

    and French, S., editors (2020)

    Ivanova, M. and French, S., editors (2020). The Aesthetics of Science: Beauty, Imagination and Understanding . Routledge, 1 edition

    2020

  29. [37]

    and Ringwald, A

    Jaeckel, J. and Ringwald, A. (2010). The low-energy frontier of particle physics. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science , 60(1):405–437

    2010

  30. [38]

    D., De Roeck, A., Hachler, H

    Joergensen, M. D., De Roeck, A., Hachler, H. P., Hirt, A., Katre, A., Mermod, P., Milstead, D., and Sloan, T. (2012). Searching for magnetic monopoles trapped in accelerator material at the Large Hadron Collider

    2012

  31. [39]

    Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolution . University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    1962

  32. [40]

    Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in the Scientific Tradition . University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    1974

  33. [41]

    Lacey, H. (1999). Is Science Value Free? Routledge, New York, NY

    1999

  34. [42]

    Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth . University of California Press

    1977

  35. [43]

    Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate . University of California Press, Berkely, CA

    1984

  36. [44]

    Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method, and Evidence . Westview Press

    1996

  37. [45]

    Longino, H. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Feminism and Science , 104(3):383--397

    1995

  38. [46]

    Martens, N. C. M. and King, M. (2023). Doing more with less: Dark matter & modified gravity. In Boyd, N. M., Baerdemaeker, S. D., Heng, K., and Matarese, V., editors, Philosophy of Astrophysics: Stars, Simulations, and the Struggle to Determine What is Out There , pages 91--11...

    2023

  39. [47]

    McKaughan, D. (2008). From ugly duckling to swan: C. s. peirce, abduction, and the pursuit of scientific theories. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society , 44:446--468

    2008

  40. [48]

    McMullin, E. (1976). The fertility of theory and the unit for appraisal in science. In Cohen, R. S., Feyerabend, P. K., and Wartofsky, M., editors, Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos , pages 395--432. Reidel

    1976

  41. [49]

    McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 16(3):26

    1985

  42. [50]

    Mou, Q., Wu, H., and Zheng, S. (2018). Light neutralino dark matter in the nmssm

    2018

  43. [51]

    and Prescod-Weinstein, C

    Nelson, A. and Prescod-Weinstein, C. (2017). Relaxion: A landscape without anthropics. Physical Review D , 96(11)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Noyes, H. P. and Starson, S. (1991). Discrete antigravity

    1991

  45. [53]

    Nyrup, R. (2015). How explanatory reasoning justifies pursuit: A peircean view of ibe. Philosophy of Science , 82(5):749--760

    2015

  46. [54]

    Nyrup, R. (2020). Of water drops and atomic nuclei: Analogies and pursuit worthiness in science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 71(3):881--903

    2020

  47. [55]

    Peccei, R. D. and Quinn, H. R. (1977). CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 38:1440--1443

    1977

  48. [56]

    Ritson, S. (2020). Probing novelty at the lhc: Heuristic appraisal of disruptive experimentation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 69:1--11

    2020

  49. [57]

    Rühr, F. (2016). Prospects for bsm searches at the high-luminosity lhc with the atlas detector. Nuclear and Particle Physics Proceedings , 273-275:625--630. 37th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP)

    2016

  50. [58]

    Schmidt, B. (2016). The high-luminosity upgrade of the lhc: Physics and technology challenges for the accelerator and the experiments. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , 706(2):022002

    2016

  51. [59]

    Shaw, J. (2022). On the very idea of pursuitworthiness. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 91(C):103--112

    2022

  52. [60]

    't Hooft, G. (1980). Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Spontaneous Chiral Symmetry Breaking , pages 135--157. Springer US, Boston, MA

    1980

  53. [61]

    Villata, M. (2011). Cpt symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity. Europhysics Letters , 94(2):20001

    2011

  54. [62]

    dark energy

    Villata, M. (2012). “dark energy” in the local void. Astrophysics and Space Science , 339(1):7–12

    2012

  55. [63]

    Wang, S.-J. (2019). Paper-boat relaxion. Physical Review D , 99(9)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Wilczek, F. (1978). Problem of strong p and t invariance in the presence of instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 40:279--282

    1978

  57. [65]

    Williams, S. L. (2024). Searches for supersymmetry and additional Higgses . Technical report, CERN, Geneva

    2024

  58. [66]

    Wolf, W. J. and Duerr, P. M. (2024). Promising stabs in the Dark: theory virtues and pursuit-worthiness in the Dark Energy problem . Synthese , 204:155

    2024

  59. [67]

    You, T. (2017). A dynamical weak scale from inflation. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics , 2017(09):019–019

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.