Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Hidden Sector Custodial Naturalness

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A minimal hidden sector with two real scalar singlets and SO(5) custodial symmetry can radiatively generate the electroweak scale and supply a freeze-in dark matter candidate.

desk verdict SO(5) custodial naturalness is a coherent, honestly-scoped model-building paper whose central weakness is exactly what the authors admit: the UV boundary condition is assumed, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22980 v1 pith:X5HPMKCQ submitted 2025-07-30 hep-ph hep-ex

Thede de Boer , Manfred Lindner , Andreas Trautner This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords custodialnaturalnessColeman-WeinbergmechanismelectroweakscalegenerationSO(5)symmetryinvariancefreeze-indarkmatterdilatontype-Iseesaw
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

One of the open ways to solve the electroweak hierarchy problem is to make the weak scale itself a dynamical accident: no input mass, just radiative generation from a classically scale-invariant scalar potential. This paper claims that the most economical such setup needs only two real scalar singlets beyond the Standard Model, with no new gauge group, provided the scalar potential has an approximate SO(5) custodial symmetry at a high scale. The singlet that breaks scale invariance gets a large vacuum expectation value, while the custodial symmetry forces two quartic couplings to stay nearly equal; the Higgs mass is then proportional to their small difference, giving a technically natural suppression of the electroweak scale. The same construction automatically contains a stable scalar dark matter candidate produced by freeze-in, i.e. slowly accumulated from the hot plasma rather than by thermal freeze-out. If the mechanism works, a single minimal hidden sector simultaneously accounts for the size of the weak scale, the smallness of the Higgs mass, and a sizable part of dark matter, with a predicted ultraviolet-completion scale around $10^{11}\,\mathrm{GeV}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the SO(5) custodial symmetry of the scalar potential, together with classical scale invariance at the boundary scale. It forces $\lambda_\phi \approx \lambda_{H\phi}$ and $\lambda_{HS} \approx \lambda_{\phi S}$, so the Higgs mass formula $m_h^2 \approx 2(\lambda_\phi - \lambda_{H\phi}) v_\phi^2$ inherits a small number from the symmetry rather than from a tuned input. The custodial breaking needed to make the difference non-vanishing and of the right sign comes predominantly from the top Yukawa coupling in the differential running of $\lambda_{H\phi} - \lambda_\phi$, and can be augmented by a new Yukawa $y_N\,\phi\,NN$ in the neutrino extension; this differential running is what turns the symmetry protection into a quantitative prediction of the weak scale.

What would settle it

The sharpest single test is a precise measurement of the top pole mass: the minimal scenario correlates $M_t$ with $\Lambda_{\rm high}$, so a value of $M_t$ outside the predicted band—or, for the Planck-scale case, outside the low end of the current 1$\sigma$ interval—would rule out the central parameter region. Alternatively, a two-loop calculation showing that no choice of boundary couplings at $\Lambda_{\rm high}$ yields both a flat $\phi$ direction and $m_h^2 \approx 2(\lambda_\phi - \lambda_{H\phi}) v_\phi^2 = (125\,\mathrm{GeV})^2$ while keeping $\lambda_\phi$ small would falsify the radiative generation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In Custodial Naturalness, the scalar-sector custodial symmetry of the Standard Model is promoted from SO(4) to SO(5) at a high scale $\Lambda_{\rm high}$, with the Higgs doublet $H$ and a new real singlet $\phi$ together forming a 5-plet, and a second singlet $S$ included to supply the extra bosonic degrees of freedom needed for Coleman-Weinberg symmetry breaking. At $\Lambda_{\rm high}$ the potential is exactly scale invariant and SO(5) symmetric; quantum effects, dominated by the top Yukawa, explicitly break the custodial symmetry and drive $\lambda_\phi$ to a quantum-critical small value at low energies. The result is a flat direction mostly along $\phi$, so $\phi$ develops a large VEV $v_\phi$ while the electroweak VEV $v_H$ is much smaller; the Higgs mass is set by the custodially suppressed combination $m_h^2 \approx 2(\lambda_\phi - \lambda_{H\phi}) v_\phi^2$. The paper demonstrates numerically, with two-loop running and a one-loop effective potential, that this reproduces the observed electroweak scale, Higgs mass, and top mass in the minimal scenario only when $\Lambda_{\rm high}$ lies between $10^9$ and $10^{13}\,\mathrm{GeV}$. Adding three right-handed neutrinos gives a seesaw explanation of neutrino masses and lets the UV-completion scale be pushed to $M_{\rm Pl}$.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism assumes that at some high scale $\Lambda_{\rm high}$ the scalar potential is exactly scale invariant and SO(5) symmetric, and no known ultraviolet completion that realizes these boundary conditions is provided.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The minimal model predicts the scale of custodially symmetric boundary conditions is $10^9$-$10^{13}\,\mathrm{GeV}$, and a more precise top-quark mass measurement would pin down $\Lambda_{\rm high}$.
  • The spectrum contains a dilaton $h_\phi$, the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson of scale breaking, with mass roughly 1-10 TeV in the minimal case and 30 GeV-1 TeV in the neutrino case, mixing with the Higgs below current $\sin\theta \lesssim 0.1$ limits.
  • The $Z_2$-stable singlet $S$ is a freeze-in dark matter candidate with mass between about 1 TeV and 2 PeV; its direct-detection cross section is within current XENONnT and LZ bounds.
  • Including three right-handed neutrinos realizes the type-I seesaw and raises the allowed boundary scale to $M_{\rm Pl}$, with active neutrino masses obtained for $y_D \sim 10^{-5}$.
  • A strongly supercooled first-order phase transition is expected, making gravitational waves and direct dark-matter detection the most promising observational tests.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same custodial-suppression logic could generalize to other hierarchies: any dominant explicit breaker that splits the two quartic couplings with the right sign sets the ratio $v_H/v_\phi$, so replacing the top Yukawa with a different source could dial different intermediate scales.
  • Because the paper leaves the reheating temperature $T_{\rm RH}$ as a free parameter, the dark-matter claim is not yet a sharp prediction; computing $T_{\rm RH}$ from the phase transition would either confirm the freeze-in window or rule the scenario out.
  • The absence of a known UV completion is the decisive open front: if no grand-unified or Planck-scale embedding can produce exactly scale-invariant SO(5) boundary conditions, then the mechanism is a consistent effective story without an origin.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new realization of 'Custodial Naturalness' in which the SM is extended by two real scalar singlets, phi and S, with the scalar potential at a high scale Lambda_high assumed to be exactly SO(5)-symmetric and classically scale invariant. Below Lambda_high, SM gauge and Yukawa interactions explicitly break SO(5), and a Coleman-Weinberg mechanism dynamically generates a vacuum expectation value for phi that is much larger than the electroweak scale; the Higgs mass is then suppressed by the small custodial splitting |lambda_phi - lambda_Hphi|. Using a 1-loop effective potential, two-loop RGEs, and numerical scans, the authors identify viable parameter regions for the minimal model, with Lambda_high in the range about 10^9 to 10^13 GeV, and for an extension with three right-handed neutrinos that allows Lambda_high = M_Pl. The scalar S is a Z_2-stable dark matter candidate produced by freeze-in, and the paper discusses masses, mixing, collider constraints, direct detection, and gravitational-wave signatures.

Significance. If the assumed high-scale boundary condition can be UV-completed, this is a significantly simpler realization of Custodial Naturalness than the earlier SO(6) model, and it is phenomenologically interesting because it contains a natural dark matter candidate and gives correlated predictions for m_t, m_h, the dilaton mass, and the UV scale. The numerical analysis is extensive, using modern tools (PyR@TE, micrOMEGAs, SARAH) and the authors are transparent about several limitations, including the unknown reheating temperature and the open question of UV embeddings. However, the central quantitative results are conditional on an imposed exact SO(5) and conformal boundary condition whose radiative stability and origin are not demonstrated; the paper's own conclusions acknowledge this gap. The significance is therefore moderate: the model is a coherent proof-of-principle, but it does not yet explain why the boundary condition that drives the naturalness mechanism should hold.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections II and V] The custodial suppression of the electroweak scale rests entirely on the assumption that at mu = Lambda_high the scalar potential is exactly SO(5)-symmetric and classically scale invariant, Eq. (1). The paper explicitly states in Section V that 'how custodially symmetric boundary conditions can be obtained in UV embeddings' is an open question. Without such an embedding, generic UV thresholds at Lambda_high would generate dimensionful scalar masses and O(1) SO(5)-violating operators, and the quoted interval Lambda_high in [10^9, 10^13] GeV is a consistency constraint on an imposed boundary condition rather than an independent prediction of the mechanism. I recommend that the authors either provide (even schematically) a symmetry principle or UV model that protects the boundary condition, or clearly and repeatedly state that all quantitative results are conditional on this unproven ingredient.
  2. [Section III] The numerical scan is not described with enough detail to be reproducible. The paper does not specify how the high-scale SO(5) relations lambda_H = lambda_Hphi = lambda_phi/4 and lambda_HS = lambda_phiS at mu = Lambda_high are imposed when the low-scale inputs lambda_phiS(mu0), lambda_S(mu0), and Lambda_high are sampled. It is unclear whether points are rejected unless the RG running to Lambda_high satisfies these boundary conditions, or whether the low-scale couplings are solved as functions of the boundary values. Without this algorithmic information, the viable regions in Figs. 1-5 and the fine-tuning values in Fig. 2 cannot be independently checked. Please specify the matching procedure or make the scan code and parameter files available.
  3. [Section IV C] The dark matter analysis shows that a correct relic density is obtained only for a narrow window of the reheating temperature, roughly m_S/T_RH between 20 and 30 (Fig. 5, left), and T_RH is taken as a free parameter because the phase transition and reheating dynamics are not computed. The abstract's claim that S 'automatically is a good DM candidate' therefore overstates the result. The model is better described as containing a viable DM candidate for a tuned reheating temperature; the required tuning of T_RH/m_S should be reported alongside the other fine-tuning measures, since it is an additional assumption rather than a prediction.
  4. [Section IV A, Eq. (8)] The illustrative seesaw estimate 'yN v_phi ~ TeV, realistic active neutrino Majorana masses are obtained with yD ~ 10^-5' appears numerically inconsistent. For M_R = yN v_phi ~ 1 TeV and yD ~ 10^-5, the seesaw formula m_nu ~ yD^2 v_H^2/M_R gives m_nu of order a few eV, which is well above the observed neutrino mass scale. The quoted yD would be appropriate for M_R in the 10-100 TeV range, or the values of yN and v_phi from the actual scan should be used to derive the correct yD. This should be corrected or clarified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV C] There is a typo in 'first-oder phase transition'; it should be 'first-order phase transition'.
  2. [Figures 1 and 2] The notation 'Lambda_high = 10^7-15 GeV' in the legends is ambiguous; it should be written as '10^7-10^15 GeV' or with a clear range notation.
  3. [Section IV B and Fig. 4] The text refers to the constraint 'sin theta <= 0.1' while Fig. 4 plots sin^2 theta; please make the definition of the mixing angle and the plotted quantity consistent.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption and References] The caption mentions 'XENON1T' while the cited reference [38] is the XENONnT paper; please align the experiment names and citations.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (A6)] The approximation in Eq. (A6) is stated with an ellipsis in the denominator; please provide the full expression in a supplementary file or state explicitly which terms are dropped, as this expression is used for the analytic discussion in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the custodial suppression of the EW scale is derived from the stated SO(5) boundary assumption, and the quoted parameter ranges are explicit posterior selections rather than hidden fits.

full rationale

The central argument is self-contained given its stated assumption: at mu = Lambda_high the tree-level potential is taken to be SO(5)-symmetric and classically scale invariant (Eq. 1), which by construction sets lambda_H = lambda_Hphi = lambda_phi at that scale. The low-scale relation m_h^2 approx 2(lambda_phi - lambda_Hphi) v_phi^2 (Eq. 5) is then obtained from the 1-loop effective potential and RG running, so the smallness of lambda_phi - lambda_Hphi is a consequence of the assumed boundary symmetry, not an input that is later renamed as an output. The numerical scan does select points that reproduce m_h, m_t and v_EW, and the paper calls the resulting allowed range of Lambda_high a 'prediction of correct low energy phenomenology' (Sec. II). This is a posterior consistency constraint rather than a parameter-free prediction, but it is not circular: Lambda_high is a scanned input variable, the RG and effective-potential computation are independent of the selection, and the paper openly describes the selection in Sec. III. Similarly, the dark-matter discussion does not claim a first-principles prediction of Omega h^2; TRH is explicitly stated to be a free parameter because the phase-transition dynamics cannot yet be computed, and the paper only shows which values of TRH (with mS/TRH roughly 20-30) would reproduce the observed relic abundance. The citations to the authors' prior work [19,20] are attributional and procedural (numerical procedure, fine-tuning measure, previous SO(6) result), and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing result is imported from them. The paper also explicitly flags in Sec. V that obtaining custodially symmetric boundary conditions in UV embeddings is an open question, which is an honest limitation rather than a circular step. Overall, the derivation chain is coherent and the claimed mechanism is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model relies on several unpaid inputs: ad hoc high-scale boundary conditions, the validity of the CW effective potential, and the uncomputed reheating temperature. These are standard in model building but reduce the first-principles content of the claims.

free parameters (5)
  • Lambda_high = 10^9-10^13 GeV (minimal), M_Pl (with RH neutrinos)
    Scale at which SO(5) custodial symmetry and classical scale invariance are imposed; sampled and constrained by requiring correct EW observables.
  • lambda_phiS(mu0) = 0 to 0.2
    Initial portal coupling setting the flat direction and dilaton mass; chosen to reproduce the EW scale (Eq. 4).
  • lambda_S(mu0) = 0.5
    Quartic self-coupling of S fixed by hand; affects S mass and DM phenomenology.
  • yN(mu0) = 0 to 0.4*sqrt(lambda_phiS)
    RH neutrino Yukawa providing extra custodial breaking; allows Lambda_high = M_Pl; fitted to phenomenology.
  • T_RH = m_S/20 to m_S/30
    Reheating temperature after the phase transition; not computed from first principles (stated in Sec. IV C), tuned to reproduce the observed DM relic density.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper At the scale Lambda_high the scalar potential is exactly SO(5) symmetric and classically scale invariant.
    Boundary condition imposed by hand; no UV completion realizes it (Sec. II, V).
  • domain assumption SM gauge and Yukawa interactions, especially the top Yukawa, provide the dominant explicit custodial symmetry breaking.
    Used to compute the running splitting lambda_Hphi - lambda_phi (Eq. 6).
  • standard math The one-loop effective potential with the Gildener-Weinberg flat direction is a valid description of the symmetry breaking.
    Standard CW framework (Ref. [3], App. A).
  • standard math The beta functions are computed with PyR@TE at two-loop order in the MS scheme.
    Relies on external software; no independent derivation shown.
  • domain assumption The early universe undergoes a strongly supercooled first-order phase transition with reheating temperature T_RH << m_S, following Ref. [40].
    Not computed for this model; underpins the DM freeze-in scenario (Sec. IV C).
  • domain assumption The Z2 symmetry stabilizing S is exact (automatic in the minimal model, imposed in the RH neutrino extension).
    Ensures S is a stable DM candidate (Sec. II).
invented entities (3)
  • Scalar singlet S independent evidence
    purpose: Custodial singlet needed for Coleman-Weinberg scale generation; also the dark matter candidate.
    Predicted mass range 1 TeV to 2 PeV, Higgs-portal coupling, and direct detection cross section; testable by future DM and collider searches (Sec. IV).
  • Scalar singlet phi (dilaton h_phi) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the intermediate VEV v_phi that breaks scale and custodial symmetry; its radial mode is a dilaton/pNGB.
    Predicted mass 30 GeV-10 TeV and Higgs-dilaton mixing sin(theta) < 0.1, accessible at HL-LHC/Higgs factories (Sec. IV A, B).
  • Right-handed neutrinos N (optional) independent evidence
    purpose: Generate neutrino masses via type I seesaw and provide additional custodial breaking to raise Lambda_high to M_Pl.
    Yukawa yN and seesaw scale yN v_phi relate to neutrino mass generation, but no direct experimental handle on yN in the TeV-PeV range is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hidden Sector Custodial Naturalness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5HPMKCQ

@misc{pith2026250722980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hidden Sector Custodial Naturalness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5HPMKCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22980}
}
abstract

Custodial Naturalness is a recently introduced idea that combines conformal and scalar-sector custodial symmetry to address the electroweak (EW) scale hierarchy problem of the Standard Model (SM). We introduce a new model that realizes Custodial Naturalness without extension of the SM gauge group. The number of new dynamical degrees of freedom is minimized and the custodial symmetry is reduced to $\mathrm{SO}(5)$. This requires a new scalar singlet field that automatically is a good Dark Matter (DM) candidate, produced via freeze-in with moderate couplings. The most minimal scenario allows the quantum critical generation of the EW scale in a phenomenologically viable way requiring a UV completion at around $10^{11}\,\mathrm{GeV}$. Including ingredients for neutrino mass generation can push this scale to $M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22980 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Running of scalar couplings below a scale Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Correlation of the top pole mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Correlation of the dilaton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Left: DM relic density as a function of DM mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

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. Scale invariant radiative neutrino mass model

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A scale-invariant SO(5)-symmetric scotogenic model can generate the weak scale from a TeV singlet VEV, and then requires a sub-MeV right-handed neutrino as dark matter plus tuned resonant leptogenesis for the baryon a...

  2. Fermi scale from quantum gravity scaling solution

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The Fermi/Planck ratio is claimed to be predictable from the analyticity of the quantum-gravity scaling solution for the cosmon-Higgs coupling, with numerics showing the coupling flows to a tiny, near-critical value.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    The Intrinsic and Extrinsic Hierarchy Problems,

    J. D. Wells, “The Intrinsic and Extrinsic Hierarchy Problems,” arXiv:2506.05472 [hep-ph]. J. D. Wells, “Hierarchy Problem Redux.” presentation at LIO International Conference on New Approaches to Naturalness, Lyon, France, 21st May, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    On naturalness in the standard model,

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

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888–1910. 6

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. , “Measurement of tt normalised multi-differential cross sections in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strong coupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton distribution functions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80 no. 7, (2020) 658, arXiv:1904.05237 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Vacuum stability in the Standard Model and beyond,

    G. Hiller, T. H¨ ohne, D. F. Litim, and T. Steudtner, “Vacuum stability in the Standard Model and beyond,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 11, (2024) 115017, arXiv:2401.08811 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    The quantum criticality of the Standard Model and the hierarchy problem,

    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 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Mass of the Higgs Boson,

    S. Weinberg, “Mass of the Higgs Boson,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 36 (1976) 294–296

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    Symmetry Breaking and Scalar Bosons,

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

    work page 1976

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model,

    R. Hempfling, “The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model,” Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) 153–158, arXiv:hep-ph/9604278

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Conformal Symmetry and the Standard Model,

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, “Conformal Symmetry and the Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B 648 (2007) 312–317, arXiv:hep-th/0612165

    2007 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Novel Effects in Electroweak Breaking from a Hidden Sector,

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

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shadow Higgs from a scale-invariant hidden U(1)(s) model,

    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, arXiv:hep-ph/0701254

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Electroweak Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance,

    R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, and R. R. Volkas, “Electroweak Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance,” Phys. Lett. B 655 (2007) 156–161, arXiv:0704.1165 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Classically conformal B − L extended Standard Model,

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, “Classically conformal B − L extended Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B 676 (2009) 81–87, arXiv:0902.4050 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Radiative Symmetry Breaking of the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model,

    M. Holthausen, M. Lindner, and M. A. Schmidt, “Radiative Symmetry Breaking of the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model,” Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 055002, arXiv:0911.0710 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Natural Electroweak Symmetry Breaking from Scale Invariant Higgs Mechanism,

    A. Farzinnia, H.-J. He, and J. Ren, “Natural Electroweak Symmetry Breaking from Scale Invariant Higgs Mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 141–150, arXiv:1308.0295 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Is the Higgs Boson Associated with Coleman-Weinberg Dynamical Symmetry Breaking?,

    C. T. Hill, “Is the Higgs Boson Associated with Coleman-Weinberg Dynamical Symmetry Breaking?,” Phys. Rev. D 89 no. 7, (2014) 073003, arXiv:1401.4185 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Light Dark Matter, Naturalness, and the Radiative Origin of the Electroweak Scale,

    W. Altmannshofer, W. A. Bardeen, M. Bauer, M. Carena, and J. D. Lykken, “Light Dark Matter, Naturalness, and the Radiative Origin of the Electroweak Scale,” JHEP 01 (2015) 032, arXiv:1408.3429 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Electroweak hierarchy from conformal and custodial symmetry,

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner, and A. Trautner, “Electroweak hierarchy from conformal and custodial symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139241, arXiv:2407.15920 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Custodial Naturalness,

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner, and A. Trautner, “Custodial Naturalness,” JHEP 06 (2025) 047, arXiv:2502.09699 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dark Matter in Classically Scale-Invariant Two Singlets Standard Model,

    K. Ishiwata, “Dark Matter in Classically Scale-Invariant Two Singlets Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 134–138, arXiv:1112.2696 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dark matter-induced multi-phase dynamical symmetry breaking,

    K. Kannike, N. Koivunen, A. Kubarski, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Strumia, and V. Vipp, “Dark matter-induced multi-phase dynamical symmetry breaking,” Phys. Lett. B 832 (2022) 137214, arXiv:2204.01744 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Light Higgs boson from multi-phase criticality in dynamical symmetry breaking,

    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, arXiv:2102.01084 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Multiphase critical Higgs boson at colliders,

    K. Huitu, K. Kannike, N. Koivunen, L. Marzola, S. Mondal, and M. Raidal, “Multiphase critical Higgs boson at colliders,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 9, (2022) 095036, arXiv:2201.00824 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Isospin Breaking in Technicolor Models,

    P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M. B. Voloshin, and V. I. Zakharov, “Isospin Breaking in Technicolor Models,” Nucl. Phys. B 173 (1980) 189–207

    1980

  18. [26]

    µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “ µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,” Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421–428. R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912. T. Yanagida, “Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutri...

    1977 arXiv

  19. [27]

    PyR@TE 3,

    L. Sartore and I. Schienbein, “PyR@TE 3,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 261 (2021) 107819, arXiv:2007.12700 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson,

    D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, “Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson,” JHEP 12 (2013) 089, arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses,

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, “Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses,” Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63–76

    1988

  22. [30]

    Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model after LHC Run 1,

    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, arXiv:1501.02234 [hep-ph]. S. I. Godunov, A. N. Rozanov, M. I. Vysotsky, and E. V. Zhemchugov, “Extending the Higgs sector: an extra single...

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A short overview on low mass scalars at future lepton colliders,

    T. Robens, “A short overview on low mass scalars at future lepton colliders,” EPJ Web Conf. 315 (2024) 01025, arXiv:2409.19657 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Abidi et al

    H. Abidi et al. , ECF A Higgs, electroweak, and top Factory Study, vol. 5/2025 of CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs. 6, 2025. arXiv:2506.15390 [hep-ex]

    2025

  25. [33]

    Distinguishing the Higgs boson from the dilaton at the Large Hadron Collider,

    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) 7 111802, arXiv:0708.1463 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Effective Theory of a Light Dilaton,

    Z. Chacko and R. K. Mishra, “Effective Theory of a Light Dilaton,” Phys. Rev. D 87 no. 11, (2013) 115006, arXiv:1209.3022 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A Higgslike Dilaton,

    B. Bellazzini, C. Csaki, J. Hubisz, J. Serra, and J. Terning, “A Higgslike Dilaton,” Eur. Phys. J. C 73 no. 2, (2013) 2333, arXiv:1209.3299 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Implications of the absence of high-mass radion signals,

    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 no. 9, (2017) 095019, arXiv:1512.05771 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    A light dilaton at the LHC,

    A. Ahmed, A. Mariotti, and S. Najjari, “A light dilaton at the LHC,” JHEP 05 (2020) 093, arXiv:1912.06645 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 no. 4, (2023) 041003, arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al. , “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Probing radiative electroweak symmetry breaking with colliders and gravitational waves,

    W. Liu and K.-P. Xie, “Probing radiative electroweak symmetry breaking with colliders and gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 11, (2024) 115001, arXiv:2408.03649 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Freeze-in at stronger coupling,

    C. Cosme, F. Costa, and O. Lebedev, “Freeze-in at stronger coupling,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 7, (2024) 075038, arXiv:2306.13061 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Temperature evolution in the Early Universe and freeze-in at stronger coupling,

    C. Cosme, F. Costa, and O. Lebedev, “Temperature evolution in the Early Universe and freeze-in at stronger coupling,” JCAP 06 (2024) 031, arXiv:2402.04743 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Z’-mediated dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling,

    G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, and O. Lebedev, “Z’-mediated dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling,” Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025) 139268, arXiv:2409.02191 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Higgs portal dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling: observational benchmarks,

    G. Arcadi, F. Costa, A. Goudelis, and O. Lebedev, “Higgs portal dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling: observational benchmarks,” JHEP 07 (2024) 044, arXiv:2405.03760 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Invisible Higgs decay from dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling,

    O. Lebedev, A. P. Morais, V. Oliveira, and R. Pasechnik, “Invisible Higgs decay from dark matter freeze-in at stronger coupling,” JHEP 04 (2025) 136, arXiv:2410.21874 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, “micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 299 (2024) 109133, arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

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

    F. Staub, “SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773–1790, arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Theoretical uncertainties for primordial black holes from cosmological phase transitions,

    M. Kierkla, N. Ramberg, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt, “Theoretical uncertainties for primordial black holes from cosmological phase transitions,” arXiv:2506.15496 [hep-ph]. Appendix A: Supplemental Material The tree-level potential has already been stated in Eq. (2). The one-loo...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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