Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Gravity and the Higgs boson mass

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the quadratic sensitivity of a scalar (Higgs-like) mass to the ultimate energy scale disappears when the calculation is done on a curved spacetime with a diffeomorphism-invariant path-integral measure, leaving only…

desk verdict The paper's main claim—that the scalar mass has no quadratic cutoff sensitivity—is an artifact of the self-cited cutoff convention Λ = N/a_m; the calculation is careful, but the conclusion is not robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13832 v2 pith:E4NJY7GH submitted 2025-07-18 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Carlo Branchina , Vincenzo Branchina , Filippo Contino , Riccardo Gandolfo , Arcangelo Pernace This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords scalarmassnaturalnessquadraticdivergencepathintegralmeasureFradkin-Vilkoviskyultravioletcutoffone-loopeffectiveactionnon-minimalcouplingcurvedspacetime
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

The paper takes on one facet of the Higgs naturalness problem: the claim that a fundamental scalar mass must be quadratically sensitive to the ultimate physical energy scale $\Lambda$, forcing fine-tuning. It computes the one-loop effective action for a single scalar field non-minimally coupled to gravity on a spherical background, using a path-integral measure (the Fradkin\textendash Vilkovisky measure) that keeps the result diffeomorphism invariant and defining the physical cutoff through the radius that minimizes the classical action. The one-loop mass correction is then logarithmic in $\Lambda$, not quadratic: $m^2_{1l} = m^2 [1 - \lambda/(32\pi^2) \log(a_m^2\Lambda^2)]$ (Eq. 3.10). If correct, this removes the physical-cutoff version of the Higgs naturalness problem without supersymmetry or regularization schemes that erase power divergences by construction. The authors also argue that the familiar $\Lambda^2$ result comes from replacing the on-shell radius $a_m$ by the off-shell background radius $a$ in the cutoff relation, and they suggest flat-spacetime results should be recovered only as a limit from curved backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the diffeomorphism-invariant Fradkin\textendash Vilkovisky path-integral measure (2.5), which contains factors $\sqrt{g^{00}}\,\sqrt[4]{g}$ that compensate the rescaling $\hat\eta = a\eta$; the dimensionless fluctuation operator $-\hat\Box + 12\xi + a^2 V''(\Phi)$; and the cutoff relation $\Lambda = N/a_m$ (3.6), where $N$ is a numerical cut on the dimensionless eigenvalues $n^2+3n$ and $a_m$ is the on-shell radius that minimizes the classical action. Because the measure makes the determinant dimensionless, the proper-time regulator can be a pure number $1/N^2$, and the physical cutoff enters only through $a_m$, so the mass correction inherits only a logarithm. When the cutoff is instead tied to the off-shell radius $a$, the same algebra generates the familiar power divergences.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop scalar effective action on a sphere with the Fradkin\textendash Vilkovisky measure and a regularization that defines the physical cutoff from first principles, such as a lattice with coordinate-invariant mode counting, without assuming $\Lambda = N/a_m$; if a term $\sim \Lambda^2$ survives in $\delta m^2$, the claim fails. A simpler numerical check is to evaluate the truncated sum (2.17) for several pairs $(N, a_m)$ at fixed $\Lambda = N/a_m$ and verify that $m^2_{1l}$ is $a_m$-independent up to the logarithm; a residual $a_m^2\Lambda^2$ dependence would falsify Eq. (3.10).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, with the diffeomorphism-invariant Fradkin\textendash Vilkovisky measure (2.5), the one-loop effective action on a sphere of radius $a$ has no quadratic or quartic divergence in the scalar mass or vacuum energy. The mass renormalizes as in Eq. (3.10), $m^2_{1l} = m^2 [1 - \lambda/(32\pi^2)\log(a_m^2 \Lambda^2)]$; the $N^2$ term that appears in the raw eigenvalue sum is absorbed into the non-minimal coupling $\xi$ and the inverse Newton constant $1/G$, not into $m^2$. The authors trace the standard $\delta m^2 \sim \Lambda^2$ result to an improper cutoff identification: standard proper-time/heat-kernel calculations effectively impose $\Lambda = N/a$ with the off-shell background radius $a$, which converts the term renormalizing $\xi$ into a quadratic mass correction (Section 4). With the physical cutoff $\Lambda = N/a_m$, where $a_m$ minimizes the classical action, that conversion does not happen. They also find that the one-loop vacuum-energy correction is logarithmic and proportional to $m^4$, while $\xi$ receives a quadratic correction, inverting the usual UV behaviour of $m^2$ and $\xi$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the cutoff relation $\Lambda = N/a_m$ (Eq. 3.6), where $a_m$ is the on-shell radius that minimizes the classical action; if the physical cutoff is instead tied to the off-shell background radius $a$, the usual quadratic divergence reappears, as the paper itself shows in Section 4.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The physical-cutoff aspect of the Higgs naturalness problem does not arise: the bare mass can satisfy $m^2(\Lambda) \ll \Lambda^2$ without fine-tuning, because the one-loop correction is $\sim m^2 \log(a_m^2\Lambda^2)$.
  • The large-masses problem remains: heavy fields coupled to the Higgs still generate corrections of order $M^2$, so the boundary value of the running Higgs mass at the UV scale must still be supplied by the UV completion (the paper calls this physical tuning).
  • The one-loop vacuum energy is only logarithmically sensitive to $\Lambda$, but the coefficient is $m^4$; the observed small cosmological constant would still require a physical mechanism or tuning to remove $m^4$ contributions.
  • The non-minimal coupling $\xi$ absorbs the quadratic sensitivity instead of the mass; since $\xi$ is weakly constrained, the paper presents this as a benign relocation of the divergence.
  • Flat-spacetime calculations should be reinterpreted as limits of curved-background calculations; taken directly, they misidentify the cutoff and reintroduce spurious power divergences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because $a_m$ is set by the classical solution, the predicted finite part of the mass correction depends on the background curvature; on a larger de Sitter radius the logarithm $\log(a_m^2\Lambda^2)$ grows, so the effective mass runs with curvature in a way that could be checked if this framework is embedded in the Standard Model.
  • Inference: The same measure-and-cutoff mechanism, if general, should also soften quadratic divergences for other scalar operators and possibly for the vacuum energy in non-spherical backgrounds; testing it on an anisotropic background or on a black-hole spacetime would show whether the logarithmic behaviour is tied to maximal symmetry.
  • Inference: A lattice or numerical evaluation of the path integral with the Fradkin\textendash Vilkovisky measure, at fixed physical $\Lambda$ and varying $a_m$, would distinguish this scenario from the heat-kernel result; the paper itself does not perform such a computation.
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 computes the one-loop effective action for a real scalar field non-minimally coupled to gravity on a Euclidean four-sphere of radius a, using the Fradkin-Vilkovisky measure and a mode-number cutoff N. The central result is that the coefficient of Φ^2 contains no N^2 or Λ^2 term, so that when the physical UV cutoff is defined by Eq. (3.6), Λ=N/a_m, the one-loop mass correction is only logarithmic in Λ, Eq. (3.10). The paper argues that the standard heat-kernel calculation implicitly uses the relation Λ=N/a, Eq. (4.1), and that this improper identification generates the usual quadratic divergences. It concludes that the physical-cutoff aspect of the Higgs naturalness problem does not arise on a gravitational background, and speculates that flat-space QFT should be approached as a limit from curved space.

Significance. If correct, the result would be striking: it would remove the quadratic cutoff sensitivity of scalar masses without supersymmetry or regularization schemes that erase power divergences by construction. The mode-sum and proper-time calculations in Section 2 are explicit and internally consistent, and the paper carefully separates the mass operator from the curvature-coupled operator by their different powers of a. However, the significance is entirely conditional on the cutoff relation (3.6), which is not derived in this paper; Section 4 shows that the standard identification restores δm²∼Λ². The central claim is therefore a consequence of a cutoff convention unless Eq. (3.6) is justified from first principles, and the paper does not provide such a justification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.6)] The relation Λ=N/a_m is asserted from Refs. [21–23] and is not derived or justified in this paper. On a sphere of radius a, the n-th eigenvalue of the dimensionful Laplacian is ∼n²/a², so a local physical-momentum cutoff Λ selects modes with n≲aΛ, i.e., Λ=N/a. Replacing the background radius a by the on-shell radius a_m changes which modes lie below the nominal cutoff whenever a_m≠a, so Eq. (3.6) is not the standard relation between a mode cutoff and a local UV cutoff. The paper's own Eq. (4.3) shows that with the standard identification Λ=N/a the quadratic divergence δm²∼λΛ²/(32π²) is recovered. Therefore the absence of δm²∼Λ² in Eq. (3.10) is built into the choice (3.6), and the central claim that the physical-cutoff problem does not arise is a consequence of that convention rather than a result of the Fradkin–Vilkovisky measure or of the mode sum.
  2. [§2, after Eq. (2.15)] The cancellation of the non-invariant term C is described only in words. The text states that a distributional treatment of the trace produces the opposite term δ^(4)(0)/2 ∫ d⁴x log(g̃^00) and that the two cancel, citing Refs. [18,29,30,24], but no calculation or intermediate step is shown. This cancellation is load-bearing because the diffeomorphism invariance of Γ^1l is used to justify the operator identification by powers of a in Section 3, and the Fradkin–Vilkovisky measure is presented as the key ingredient of the paper. The derivation should be included in full rather than delegated to previous papers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, Introduction] The phrase "sixthies/early seventhies" should be "sixties/early seventies".
  2. [§2, after Eq. (2.25)] The sentence "Apart from irrelevanta and Φ independent terms" should read "Apart from irrelevant a- and Φ-independent terms".
  3. [§3, after Eq. (3.5)] The notation for the renormalized cosmological and Newton constants is inconsistent: "Λ1l_cc/G1l" should be typeset as "Λ_cc^1l/G^1l" to match Eqs. (3.8) and (3.9).
  4. [§4, Eq. (4.8)] In the flat limit a→∞, the logarithm still contains a_m^2Λ^2; the paper should specify how Λ_cc (and hence a_m) is scaled in this limit, otherwise the limiting procedure is not well defined.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed absence of quadratic mass divergence is built into the cutoff convention Lambda=N/a_m (Eq. 3.6), which is imported solely from the authors' own Refs. [21-23]; using the standard off-shell relation Lambda=N/a restores delta m^2 ~ Lambda^2 in the paper's own Eq. (4.3).

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 3, Eq. (3.6)]
    "Let us consider now the relation between the numerical cut N and the UV physical cutoff Λ to which we referred in the previous section. As discussed in [21–23], the connection between N and Λ is given by Λ = N/am, where am is the radius that minimizes the action S(a)[Φ] in (2.2)."

    The headline result, Eq. (3.10), is obtained from the eigenvalue-sum result (2.25) by substituting N^2 = a_m^2 Λ^2. That substitution is the only step that removes the N^2 terms from the mass sector, leaving m^2_1l with only log(a_m^2 Λ^2) sensitivity. The relation itself is not derived in this paper; it is introduced with the words 'As discussed in [21–23]', where those references are the authors' own previous work. The paper's central claim that the physical-cutoff problem does not arise therefore rests entirely on a self-cited cutoff convention rather than on an independent derivation from the measure and the trace calculation.

  2. self definitional [Section 4, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.3)]
    "we temporarily realize the connection between the numerical cut N and the UV physical cutoff Λ via the relation ( a is the radius of the off-shell background) Λ = N/a, (4.1) rather than through Λ = N/am given in (3.6). ... Eq. (4.3) reproduces the well-known result found in the literature when the calculation is performed within the heat-kernel formalism. We immediately note the presence of the (in)famous quadratically divergent correction to m2."

    The paper itself demonstrates that the presence or absence of the quadratic divergence is entirely decided by which radius is used in the relation between N and Λ. Inserting the standard off-shell relation Λ = N/a into the very same action (2.25) converts the N^2 terms that renormalize ξ and 1/G into a quadratically divergent correction to m^2, exactly as in Eq. (4.3). Thus the logarithmic-only result (3.10) is not an output of the Fradkin-Vilkovisky measure or of the eigenvalue sum; it is a definitional consequence of choosing Λ = N/a_m in place of Λ = N/a. Since (3.6) is assumed rather than proven here, the conclusion 'no quadratic sensitivity to the physical cutoff' is equivalent to the chosen cutoff convention.

full rationale

The paper's technical calculation of the one-loop effective action on the sphere is explicit and internally consistent: the eigenvalue sum (2.17) and the proper-time variant (2.20) both yield no N^2 term in the mass sector, and the comparison with the heat-kernel literature via Eq. (4.3) is a genuine diagnostic. However, the central physical claim—that the physical-cutoff problem does not arise—depends on translating the numerical cutoff N into the physical cutoff Λ through Eq. (3.6), Λ = N/a_m. That relation is not derived in this paper; its only cited support is the authors' own Refs. [21–23]. The paper's own Eq. (4.3) shows that replacing a_m by the off-shell background radius a restores the familiar δm^2 ∝ Λ^2. Therefore the absence of quadratic sensitivity is not a consequence of the measure or of the regularization scheme; it is built into the choice of cutoff normalization. This is a load-bearing self-citation: the conclusion that the PCP does not arise reduces to the assumed relation (3.6). The calculation is not circular in its arithmetic, and the comparison with Eq. (4.3) is useful, but the central claim is forced by the adopted convention rather than independently established.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three main assumptions: the Fradkin-Vilkovisky measure, the cancellation of C, and the on-shell cutoff relation Lambda = N/a_m. The first two are sourced to the literature, including the authors' own Ref. [24]; the third is sourced exclusively to the authors' Refs. [21-23]. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Fradkin-Vilkovisky measure (2.5), including the (g00)^(1/2) g^(1/4) factors, is the correct diffeomorphism-invariant path-integral measure.
    Load-bearing: it makes the determinant dimensionless and a-independent. Ref. [28] disagrees; the rebuttal is deferred to self-cited Ref. [24].
  • domain assumption The non-invariant term C in Eq. (2.15) is exactly cancelled by a non-invariant contribution from Tr log due to distributional subtleties.
    The cancellation is asserted below Eq. (2.15) with references to Refs. [18,29,30,24], but is not demonstrated in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The UV physical cutoff is related to the numerical mode cutoff by Lambda = N/a_m, with a_m the on-shell radius that minimizes the action S(a).
    Eq. (3.6). If the off-shell relation Lambda = N/a is used instead, Eq. (4.3) reproduces the standard quadratic divergence in m^2. The choice is justified only by self-cited Refs. [21-23].
  • domain assumption Flat spacetime quantities should be obtained by computing on a smooth curved background and then taking g to delta, not by computing directly in flat space.
    Section 4, final paragraph. The limit is called delicate and is not derived; it is needed for the claim that the result applies to the Higgs in nearly flat spacetime.
  • domain assumption A single real scalar with V = (m^2/2) phi^2 + (lambda/4!) phi^4 on a Euclidean sphere is a sufficient proxy for the Standard Model Higgs sector.
    Stated in the Introduction; gauge and fermion contributions are omitted, and the large-masses problem is explicitly left open.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravity and the Higgs boson mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4NJY7GH

@misc{pith2026250713832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravity and the Higgs boson mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4NJY7GH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13832}
}
abstract

According to usual calculations in quantum field theory, both in flat and curved spacetime, the mass $m^2$ of a scalar particle is quadratically sensitive to the ultimate scale of the theory, the UV physical cutoff $\Lambda$. In the present work, paying attention to the path integral measure and to the way $\Lambda$ is introduced, we calculate the one-loop effective action $\Gamma^{1l}$ for a scalar field on a non-trivial gravitational background. We find that $m^2$ presents only a (mild) logarithmic sensitivity to $\Lambda$. This is obtained without resorting to a supersymmetric embedding of the theory, nor to regularization schemes (as dimensional or zeta-function regularization) where power-like divergences are absent by construction. In view of the results of the present work, we finally speculate on the way the Minkowski limit should be approached.

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.

  1. Hard cutoff and gauge theories

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A hard-cutoff scheme for scalar and fermionic QED is constructed that preserves gauge invariance and reproduces the standard Euler-Heisenberg effective action up to cutoff-suppressed periodic corrections.

  2. Quantum Spacetime, Quantum Gravity and Gravitized Quantum Theory

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Quantum spacetime with a non-commutative dual explains the fixed Born rule of quantum theory and leads to gravitized quantum mechanics featuring dynamical probabilities and higher-order interference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1-29 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS], “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30-61 (2012). 14

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino and N. Darvishi, Dimensional regularization, Wilso- nian RG, and the naturalness and hierarchy problem , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.6, 065007, arXiv:2204.10582

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Georgi, H

    H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Hierarchy of Interactions in Unified Gauge Theories , Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974), 451-454

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

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

    G. ’t Hooft, Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking , NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980), 135-157

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

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

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

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

    work page

  8. [8]

    G. F. Giudice, Naturalness after LHC8 , PoS EPS-HEP2013 (2013), 163, arXiv:1307.7879

    arXiv 2013

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Aoki and S

    H. Aoki and S. Iso, Revisiting the Naturalness Problem – Who is afraid of quadratic divergences? –, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 013001, arXiv:1201.0857

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yamada, Gauge hierarchy problem and scalegenesis , PoS CORFU2019 (2020), 077, arXiv:2004.00142

    M. Yamada, Gauge hierarchy problem and scalegenesis , PoS CORFU2019 (2020), 077, arXiv:2004.00142

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina and F. Contino, Physical tuning and naturalness , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.9, 096012, arXiv:2208.05431

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hariharakrishnan, U

    S. Hariharakrishnan, U. D. Jentschura, I. G. Marian, K. Szabo and I. Nandori, Perturbative versus non-perturbative renormalization, J. Phys. G 51 (2024) no.8, 085005, arXiv:2406.15167

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    I. G. M´ ari´ an, A. Trombettoni and I. N´ andori,Thermal and Quantum Phase Transitions of the ϕ4 Model, arXiv:2407.20704

  6. [14]

    M. E. Peskin, What is the Hierarchy Problem? , Nucl. Phys. B 1018 (2025), 116971, arXiv:2505.00694

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

  8. [16]

    Gies and M

    H. Gies and M. Picciau, Self-organized criticality in a relativistic Yukawa theory with Luttinger fermions, arXiv:2506.13441

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. D. Wells, The Intrinsic and Extrinsic Hierarchy Problems , arXiv:2506.05472

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, S matrix for gravitational field. ii. local measure, general relations, elements of renormalization theory , Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973), 4241

    1973

  11. [19]

    E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, Unitarity of S Matrix in Gravidynamics and General Covariance in Quantum Domain , Lett. Nuovo Cim. 13 (1975), 187

    1975

  12. [20]

    R. K. Unz, Path Integration and the Functional Measure , Nuovo Cim. A 92 (1986), 397

    1986

  13. [21]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pernace, Path integral measure and the cos- mological constant, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no.10, 105018, arXiv:2412.10194. 15

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pernace, Path integral measure and RG equa- tions for gravity , arXiv:2412.14108

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino, R. Gandolfo and A. Pernace, On the RG flow of the Newton and cosmological constant , arXiv:2505.07628

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino, R. Gandolfo and A. Pernace, Diffeomorphism invari- ance of the effective gravitational action , arXiv:2506.05100

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time , Phys. Rept. 19 (1975), 295

    1975

  18. [26]

    L. F. Abbott, The Background Field Method Beyond One Loop, Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981), 189

    1981

  19. [27]

    L. F. Abbott, Introduction to the Background Field Method , Acta Phys. Polon. B 13 (1982), 33 CERN-TH-3113

    1982

  20. [28]

    Bonanno, K

    A. Bonanno, K. Falls and R. Ferrero, Path integral measures and diffeomorphism invariance , JHEP 05, 164 (2025), arXiv:2503.02941

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    E. S. Fradkin and G. A. Vilkovisky, On Renormalization of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 19 (1977), 47

    1977

  22. [30]

    A. O. Barvinsky and G. A. Vilkovisky, The Generalized Schwinger-Dewitt Technique in Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity , Phys. Rept. 119 (1985), 1

    1985

  23. [31]

    Becker and M

    M. Becker and M. Reuter, Background Independent Field Quantization with Sequences of Gravity-Coupled Approximants, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.12, 125001, arXiv:2008.09430

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Becker and M

    M. Becker and M. Reuter, Background independent field quantization with sequences of gravity-coupled approximants. II. Metric fluctuations , Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.12, 125008, arXiv:2109.09496

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ferrero and R

    R. Ferrero and R. Percacci, The cosmological constant problem and the effective potential of a gravity-coupled scalar, JHEP 09 (2024), 074, arXiv:2404.12357

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ferrero, V

    R. Ferrero, V. Naso and R. Percacci, Quantum Fields and the Cosmological Constant , Universe 11 (2025) no.6, 173, arXiv:2503.17203

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    I. L. Buchbinder, S. D. Odintsov and I. L. Shapiro, Effective Action in Quantum Gravity , Routledge, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    I. L. Buchbinder and S. D. Odintsov, Effective Potential and Phase Transitions Induced by Curvature in Gauge Theories in Curved Space-time , Class. Quant. Grav. 2 (1985), 721

    1985

  29. [37]

    Elizalde and S

    E. Elizalde and S. D. Odintsov, Renormalization group improved effective Lagrangian for interacting theories in curved space-time , Phys. Lett. B 321 (1994), 199; E. Elizalde and S. D. Odintsov, Renormalization group improved effective potential for interacting theories with s...

    1994

  30. [38]

    H. P. Nilles, Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Particle Physics , Phys. Rept. 110 (1984), 1

    1984

  31. [39]

    M. F. Sohnius, Introducing Supersymmetry, Phys. Rept. 128 (1985), 39

    1985

  32. [40]

    S. P. Martin, A Supersymmetry primer , Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18 (1998), 1, arXiv:hep-ph/9709356

    1998 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Weinberg, Implications of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking , Phys

    S. Weinberg, Implications of Dynamical Symmetry Breaking , Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976), 974

    1976

  34. [42]

    Susskind, Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in the Weinberg-Salam Theory , Phys

    L. Susskind, Dynamics of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in the Weinberg-Salam Theory , Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979), 2619

    1979

  35. [43]

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

    1984

  36. [44]

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

    1984

  37. [45]

    Cacciapaglia and F

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

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Antoniadis, S

    I. Antoniadis, S. Dimopoulos, A. Pomarol and M. Quiros, Soft masses in theories with super- symmetry breaking by TeV compactification , Nucl. Phys. B 544, 503-519 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9810410

    1999

  39. [47]

    Delgado, A

    A. Delgado, A. Pomarol and M. Quiros, Supersymmetry and electroweak breaking from extra dimensions at the TeV scale , Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999), 095008, arXiv:hep-ph/9812489

    1999 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Barbieri, L

    R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and Y. Nomura, A Constrained standard model from a compact extra dimension, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 105007, arXiv:hep-ph/0011311

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Arkani-Hamed, L

    N. Arkani-Hamed, L. J. Hall, Y. Nomura, D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Finite radiative electroweak symmetry breaking from the bulk , Nucl. Phys. B 605 (2001), 81-115, arXiv:hep- ph/0102090

    2001

  42. [50]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina and F. Contino, Naturalness and UV sensitivity in Kaluza-Klein theories, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.4, 045007, arXiv:2304.08040

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pernace, Does the cosmological constant really indicate the existence of a dark dimension? , Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 22 (2025) no.04, 2450305, arXiv:2308.16548

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Branchina, V

    C. Branchina, V. Branchina, F. Contino and A. Pernace, Dark dimension and the effective field theory limit, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 22 (2025) no.04, 2450303, arXiv:2404.10068

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Alexandre, V

    J. Alexandre, V. Branchina and J. Polonyi, Global renormalization group , Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998), 016002, arXiv:hep-th/9712147

    1998 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Montero, C

    M. Montero, C. Vafa and I. Valenzuela, The dark dimension and the Swampland , JHEP 02 (2023), 022, arXiv:2205.12293

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    V. S. Adamchik, Polygamma functions of negative order, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 100 (1998) no.2, 191. 17

    1998

Pith tools

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