The goofy-symmetric Standard Model and the Hierarchy Problem

Andrea Incrocci; Florian Goertz; Thede de Boer

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

The goofy-symmetric Standard Model and the Hierarchy Problem

T0 review · 3 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 argues that a goofy symmetry of the Standard Model with no Higgs mass term forbids that mass term while allowing every other Standard Model interaction, offering a new technical-naturalness solution to the hierarchy problem.

desk verdict A clever model-building idea whose central symmetry is never shown to be a real quantum symmetry; worth refereeing, but the hierarchy claim is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22111 v2 pith:4U4BPFQJ submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph

Thede de Boer , Florian Goertz , Andrea Incrocci This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords goofysymmetryhierarchyproblemHiggsmasstermtechnicalnaturalnesselectroweakbreakingscalarsingletdarkmatterStandardModel

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

This paper argues that a recently identified class of 'goofy' symmetries, previously studied in two-Higgs-doublet models, can be extended to the full Standard Model, including fermions. The central claim is that the Standard Model action is invariant under the goofy transformation if the Higgs mass term vanishes, while every other Standard Model interaction respects the symmetry. That makes a small Higgs mass technically natural in the 't Hooft sense, because the only operator that breaks the symmetry is the very mass term one wants to protect. The authors show that electroweak symmetry breaking can still proceed through a higher-dimensional $|H|^8$ operator or through a scalar singlet that spontaneously breaks goofy symmetry, yielding a viable Higgs mass and testable new states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the goofy transformation, a rotation of the real degrees of freedom of scalar fields by $90^\circ$ in the complex plane: $H \to iH$ and $H^\dagger \to iH^\dagger$, which sends the scalar kinetic term to minus itself. To make the whole action invariant, the same transformation is extended to the derivative and gauge fields via $\partial_\mu \to -i \partial_\mu$ and $A_\mu \to -i A_\mu$, and to fermions by multiplication with $\sqrt{i}$ (right-handed singlets pick up an extra minus sign), so that fermion kinetic terms and Yukawa interactions acquire compensating factors. The Higgs mass term $m_H^2 |H|^2$ is singled out because it flips sign under the transformation and is therefore the only Standard Model operator forbidden by the symmetry. This sign flip is the mechanism that protects the Higgs mass from radiative corrections.

What would settle it

A direct loop-level calculation settles the claim: compute the one-loop effective potential of the goofy-symmetric model with the $|H|^8$ operator. If the effective potential is not invariant under the transformation, or if a Higgs mass term $m_H^2 |H|^2$ appears at any order in perturbation theory, the protection fails. The unresolved dispute between Refs. [5] and [6] over exactly this invariance is the concrete calculation to perform.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the goofy symmetry — realized as $H \to iH$, $H^\dagger \to iH^\dagger$, together with $\partial_\mu \to -i \partial_\mu$, $A_\mu \to -i A_\mu$, and fermion phase factors $\sqrt{i}$ (with opposite sign for right-handed singlets) — leaves the Standard Model Lagrangian invariant provided the term $m_H^2 |H|^2$ is absent. The Higgs mass term is the unique Standard Model operator that flips sign under this transformation, so its absence is protected against radiative corrections. The paper then shows that a nonzero Higgs mass and electroweak symmetry breaking can arise spontaneously: either through the operator $|H|^8$ with a negative quartic, which gives $\kappa_{hhh}/\kappa^{\rm SM}_{hhh}=3$ and $\lambda_{hhhh}/\lambda^{\rm SM}_{hhhh}=17$, or through a portal coupling to a complex scalar singlet that acquires a vacuum expectation value and breaks goofy symmetry. In the singlet case the singlet's $Z_2$-odd component is stable and serves as a dark matter candidate, and vector-like quarks get masses only from spontaneous goofy breaking.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the rule that sends $\partial_\mu \to -i \partial_\mu$ and $A_\mu \to -i A_\mu$ being a genuine symmetry of the quantum theory, even though implementing it requires taking spacetime coordinates imaginary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Higgs mass term is forbidden at all loop orders, so the hierarchy problem is reduced to explaining the scale of spontaneous goofy symmetry breaking.
Electroweak symmetry breaking via the $|H|^8$ operator predicts modified Higgs self-couplings, $\kappa_{hhh}/\kappa^{\rm SM}_{hhh}=3$ and $\lambda_{hhhh}/\lambda^{\rm SM}_{hhhh}=17$, accessible at the HL-LHC and future colliders.
A complex scalar singlet extension produces a stable singlet component that is a dark matter candidate, with singlet masses tied to the goofy-breaking scale near the TeV region.
Vector-like quarks can get masses only through spontaneous goofy symmetry breaking, linking their masses to the same TeV scale and avoiding large radiative corrections to the Higgs mass.
The Weinberg operator violates goofy symmetry, so neutrino masses require spontaneous goofy breaking, connecting neutrino mass generation to the Higgs mass mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if goofy symmetry is a genuine quantum symmetry, its resemblance to PT transformations with imaginary coordinates may connect it to discrete spacetime symmetries, possibly constraining the strong CP problem; the paper only lists this as future work.
Editorial inference: the same mechanism could protect other scalar masses, such as relaxion or axion-like fields, where shift symmetry is explicitly broken by interactions, since goofy symmetry is not broken by Standard Model couplings.
Editorial inference: the unresolved effective-potential dispute could be settled by a lattice or functional computation of the path integral under the imaginary-coordinate transformation; a non-invariant result would disprove the paper's central claim.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Frankly, this is a paper whose central mechanism I do not believe, but it is a genuinely novel idea that deserves a proper airing. The new bit is the extension of goofy transformations to the fermion sector, so that all SM interactions—Yukawas, kinetic terms, gauge couplings—are invariant under a combined field, derivative, and gauge-field transformation while the Higgs mass term is forbidden. That is neat, and I am not aware of it in the earlier goofy literature, which focused on 2HDM potentials.

The good parts: the authors are honest about the weirdness. Footnote 1 concedes that the derivative and gauge-field transformation (∂_μ -> -i∂_μ, A_μ -> -iA_μ) requires imaginary spacetime coordinates. They also flag the unresolved dispute between Refs. [5] and [6] over the one-loop effective potential. And the concrete self-coupling ratios (κ_hhh = 3, λ_hhhh = 17) are testable at future colliders, even if they come from fitting λ and c8 to the observed Higgs vev and mass.

The soft spots are, however, load-bearing. The paper asserts, rather than proves, that goofy symmetry is a symmetry of the quantum effective action. Transforming fields and derivatives into imaginary directions is not shown to leave the path-integral measure, gauge fixing, or ghosts invariant, and no Ward identity is derived. The one-loop evidence cited—an SMEFT RGE computation in dimensional regularization—cannot see quadratic divergences, so it does not support the claim that the Higgs mass is radiatively stable in the hierarchy-problem sense. Without a regulator-independent argument, the statement that |H|^2 is never generated collapses.

There is also a clear internal inconsistency in the scalar-singlet extension. They state U_S = -iσ_2, which rotates S into iS, but Eq. (16) claims S -> -S, S* -> S*. The potential (17) is invariant under the latter, not the former. This is not a convention issue; the two transformations are different.

So: novel, clever, honestly presented, but not a demonstrated solution to the hierarchy problem. The paper is for model builders who want to explore this symmetry principle further. I would send it to a serious referee, with instructions to press hard on the quantum status of the transformation and to fix the singlet transformation. It should not be accepted as a derivation, but it deserves to be engaged with.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that the Standard Model action is invariant under a 'goofy' transformation acting on fields as H -> iH, with a matching transformation on fermions, provided the Higgs mass term is absent and provided one also transforms derivatives and gauge fields as ∂_μ -> -i∂_μ and A_μ -> -iA_μ. On this basis it argues that the Higgs mass operator |H|^2 is forbidden by the goofy symmetry and is not generated radiatively, offering a new technical-naturalness solution to the hierarchy problem. Electroweak symmetry breaking is then realized either through a higher-dimensional |H|^8 operator or through a complex scalar singlet, and the authors explore vector-like quarks, the Weinberg operator, dimensional transmutation, and a dark-matter candidate.

Significance. If the goofy symmetry were a genuine symmetry of the quantum effective action, the paper would present a novel and interesting alternative to conformal or shift symmetry, with explicit self-coupling ratios and a simple dark-matter candidate. The manuscript is transparent about several limitations, including an unresolved dispute on the one-loop effective potential and a deferred study of mathematical foundations. The central quantum-mechanical step, however, is not demonstrated, and the only cited loop-level confirmation is regulator-dependent in a way that cannot support the hierarchy-problem claim. As the result stands, the paper is an interesting speculative proposal rather than an established mechanism.

major comments (3)

[II, Eq. (5), footnote 1] The transformation (5) sends ∂_μ to -i∂_μ and A_μ to -iA_μ, which, as the authors concede in footnote 1, is equivalent to moving to imaginary spacetime coordinates and makes gauge fields anti-Hermitian. The paper asserts that this is a symmetry of the SM action with m_H=0, but it does not define the transformation on the path-integral measure, gauge-fixing terms, or ghosts, and no Ward identity is derived. Because the central claim—that |H|^2 is never generated radiatively—depends entirely on goofy symmetry being a genuine symmetry of the regularized quantum effective action, this is a load-bearing gap. The unresolved dispute between Refs. [5] and [6] is acknowledged but not resolved; as written, the symmetry is a formal classical statement rather than an established quantum symmetry.
[II, Ref. [15]] The one-loop confirmation cited for the absence of |H|^2 generation is a computation in the SMEFT in dimensional regularization. In that scheme quadratic divergences are absent by construction, so the calculation cannot discriminate between a genuine goofy symmetry and a regulator artifact. The standard hard-cutoff estimate δm_H^2 ~ (y_t^2/16π^2) Λ^2 is not addressed. A regulator-independent argument, such as an explicit symmetry of the regulated theory or a Ward identity, is required before the hierarchy-problem claim is supported.
[III A and III B] The spontaneous-breaking scenarios generate the Higgs mass and vector-like fermion masses from the singlet vev. The paper does not show that the radiatively corrected effective potential respects the goofy symmetry after spontaneous breaking, nor that a would-be Goldstone-like mode does not reintroduce a quadratically sensitive contribution to m_H^2. Since these extensions are presented as viable completions of the goofy-symmetric SM, the same quantum-invariance issue resurfaces at loop level unless explicitly addressed.

minor comments (4)

[II, Eq. (15)] The self-coupling ratios κ_hhh=3 and λ_hhhh=17 are obtained after fixing λ and c8 to the observed v and m_h; the text should state that these are derived predictions of the particular potential, not parameter-free predictions of goofy symmetry.
[III A, Eq. (17)] The statement that m_1^2 can be taken real 'without loss of generality' should be justified, since a phase redefinition of S may not commute with the chosen goofy transformation (16).
[Abstract] The abstract states that goofy-symmetric extensions are 'strongly constrained', but no quantitative constraints are presented in the text; a summary of the bounds would be useful.
[II, Eq. (8)] The notation √i appears without a branch specification, which could matter for the fermion phases; the sign choices in Eq. (8) are part of the definition of the transformation and should be stated unambiguously.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the goofy-symmetry argument is a standard symmetry selection rule, and the model parameters are used in a legitimate constrained-fit manner.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a conventional symmetry argument rather than a circular one. It defines goofy transformations independently of the Higgs mass term (Eqs. (2), (3), (5), (8)) and then explicitly checks the transformation properties of the SM kinetic, Yukawa, and scalar-potential terms (Eqs. (4), (6), (9)). The conclusion that the |H|^2 term is forbidden follows directly from Eq. (6), where the mass term changes sign under the transformation; this is a symmetry selection rule, not an input restated as a prediction. The radiative-stability claim is explicitly conditional ('if the rest of the SM (and new physics) is respecting goofy symmetry') and is supported by an external SMEFT RGE computation [15], not by a self-citation chain. The unresolved question of whether Eq. (5), requiring imaginary spacetime coordinates, defines a legitimate quantum symmetry (footnote 1 and the dispute between Refs. [5] and [6]) is a physical-validity and correctness risk, not a circularity. The EWSB potential in Eq. (14) is an explicit construction ('similar to Ref. [11]'); Ref. [11] is a coauthor's earlier work, but it is not load-bearing for the central goofy-symmetry claim. The couplings in Eq. (15) are chosen to reproduce the observed Higgs vev and mass, and the quoted self-couplings kappa_hhh/kappa_SM = 3 and lambda_hhhh/lambda_SM = 17 are genuine constrained predictions of that two-parameter potential rather than refitted versions of the same observables. No load-bearing premise reduces to its own input by construction, and no equation is equivalent to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the formal goofy symmetry, which is introduced ad hoc and not shown to be a genuine quantum symmetry. Several free parameters are fitted or left unspecified: the |H|^4 and |H|^8 coefficients are set to reproduce the Higgs sector, and the singlet and Yukawa couplings are undetermined. The paper also invokes an unproven application of Ref [15] and relies on a transformation rule for the singlet that is internally inconsistent.

free parameters (5)

λ (Higgs quartic in |H|^4 term) = -0.065
Chosen so that the potential in Eq. (14) yields the observed Higgs vev and mass; derivation not shown.
Λ (scale of |H|^8 operator, equivalently c8) = c8 = 4π (Λ/773 GeV)^4, so Λ/773 GeV is the fitted ratio
Together with λ, fixed to reproduce a realistic Higgs vev and m_h as stated in Eq. (15).
m1^2 (singlet mass parameter) = not specified (sign selects which component gets a vev)
Free parameter of the singlet extension; taken real without loss of generality; controls spontaneous goofy breaking.
λ_p, λ_S, λ1 (singlet portal and self-couplings) = not specified
Free parameters of the singlet potential (Eq. (17)); λ_p sets the Higgs mass after breaking via m_H^2 = λ_p v_S^2/2.
y_S (singlet-vectorlike Yukawa) = not specified
Free coupling; generates vector-like quark mass m_T ≈ |y_S| v_S/√2 after goofy breaking.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper The goofy transformations including ∂_μ -> -i∂_μ and A_μ -> -iA_μ form a valid symmetry of the SM action (with m_H=0) that constrains the quantum effective action.
Invoked in Sec. II (Eq. (5)) to make kinetic terms invariant; requires transforming spacetime to imaginary values (footnote 1). Whether radiative corrections respect this is not proven and is disputed by Ref [6].
ad hoc to paper Fermion kinetic terms transform as i L_ferm_kin under the fermion goofy transformations (Eq. (8)), combining with (5) to leave the action invariant.
Assumed in Sec. II; the transformation rules are chosen to produce this behavior, but invariance of the full Lagrangian is not demonstrated.
ad hoc to paper The transformation S -> -S, S* -> S* is a legitimate goofy transformation of a complex scalar field.
Stated in Sec. III A (Eq. (16)); it is inconsistent with any real linear transformation on (S_R, S_I), under which S* transforms jointly with S, not independently.
domain assumption The SMEFT renormalization results of Ref [15] imply no |H|^2 operator is generated at one loop in the presence of |H|^8.
Relied on in Sec. II; Ref [15] is a general SMEFT paper and does not analyze a goofy-symmetric model, so the application is an unsupported assumption.

invented entities (2)

Complex scalar singlet S
purpose: Spontaneously breaks goofy symmetry, generates the Higgs mass via the portal term, and provides a dark matter candidate (S_R for m1^2>0).
No direct experimental evidence; it is a model-building extension with predicted TeV-scale mass, but no collider or DM signal is analyzed quantitatively.
Vector-like quark T (T_L, T_R)
purpose: Illustrates how fermion masses can arise from spontaneous goofy breaking; its mass m_T ≈ |y_S| v_S/√2 is tied to the goofy breaking scale.
No experimental evidence; no production or decay phenomenology is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The goofy-symmetric Standard Model and the Hierarchy Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4U4BPFQJ

@misc{pith2026250722111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The goofy-symmetric Standard Model and the Hierarchy Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4U4BPFQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22111}
}

read the original abstract

A new class of so-called "goofy" symmetries has been shown to lead to renormalization-group stable relations between parameters in two-Higgs-Doublet Models, not known before. In this work we investigate goofy transformations in the Standard Model (SM), extending them to the fermion sector. We show that the SM action is goofy "symmetric", if the Higgs mass term vanishes, while other SM interactions are allowed. Goofy symmetry could thus add another option to the very few means to successfully forbid the Higgs mass term, providing an alternative to conformal symmetry or shift symmetry. We further consider how electroweak symmetry breaking can be realized in the goofy symmetric SM via higher dimensional operators or an extended scalar sector. A viable Higgs mass can be obtained via spontaneous breaking of goofy symmetry, which can be realized via operators that would not be allowed by shift symmetry or conformal symmetry. We find that goofy-symmetric extensions of the SM are strongly constrained, but offer for example a straightforward dark matter candidate.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

Renormalisation Group Invariants from Scaling and Non-overlapping Symmetries
hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A spurion-field formalism uses scaling and non-overlapping symmetries to construct RGIs for bilinear operators in scalar potentials to all loops, demonstrated in non-SUSY models and the 2HDM.
Renormalisation Group Invariants from Scaling and Non-overlapping Symmetries
hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A spurion-field approach using scale-invariant directions and non-overlapping symmetries constructs all-loop RGIs for bilinear operators in multi-scalar potentials.
GOOFy fermions
hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

New fermion transformations and all-order renormalization-invariant parameter regions are identified for two-Higgs-doublet models including scalar-fermion interactions.
GOOFy -- a systematic approach
hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

GOOFy symmetry imposes parameter relations on scalar and fermion Lagrangians that stay fixed under renormalization-group running up to two and three loops.
Systematic analysis of 3HDM symmetries
hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A systematic catalogue of realisable Higgs-family, general-CP, and GOOFy/T-GOOFy symmetries in three-Higgs-doublet models, with new invariant potentials and a corrected U(1)◦V4 group structure.
Renormalisation Group Invariants from Scaling and Non-overlapping Symmetries
hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Scaling and non-overlapping global symmetries produce RGIs for bilinear operators to all loops via scale-invariant field directions, demonstrated in non-SUSY models including the 2HDM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[5]

Imaginary scaling,

P. M. Ferreira, B. Grzadkowski, and O. M. Ogreid, “Imaginary scaling,”arXiv:2506.21145 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[6]

Dirac algebra formalism for Two Higgs Doublet Models: The one-loop effective potential,

A. Pilaftsis, “Dirac algebra formalism for Two Higgs Doublet Models: The one-loop effective potential,” Phys. Lett. B860(2025) 139147,arXiv:2408.04511 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025
[1]

P. M. Ferreira, B. Grzadkowski, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, “New symmetries of the two-Higgs-doublet 9 Since goofy symmetry tends to forbid scalar mass terms, an al- ternative [3] could be a Coleman Weinberg mechanism [18] in an extended massless scalar sector. model,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 3, (2024) 234, arXiv:2306.02410 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024
[2]

New Symmetries of the Two Higgs Doublet Model

P. M. Ferreira, “New Symmetries of the Two Higgs Doublet Model.” Presentation atHiggs as a Probe of New Physics 2023. Osaka, Japan, 5th June, 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Goofy is the new Normal,

A. Trautner, “Goofy is the new Normal,” arXiv:2505.00099 [hep-ph]. 5

arXiv
[4]

RG-stable parameter relations of a scalar field theory in absence of a symmetry,

H. E. Haber and P. M. Ferreira, “RG-stable parameter relations of a scalar field theory in absence of a symmetry,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 5, (2025) 541, arXiv:2502.11011 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025
[7]

Little Higgs review,

M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith, “Little Higgs review,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55(2005) 229–270, arXiv:hep-ph/0502182

arXiv 2005
[8]

The Hierarchy Problem and the Top Yukawa: An Alternative to Top Partner Solutions

A. Bally, Y. Chung, and F. Goertz, “Hierarchy problem and the top Yukawa coupling: An alternative to top partner solutions,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 5, (2023) 055008,arXiv:2211.17254 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 16 references

[9]

Looking for the solution to the Hierarchy Problem in Top physics,

Y. Chung, A. Bally, and F. Goertz, “Looking for the solution to the Hierarchy Problem in Top physics,”PoS ICHEP2024(2025) 343

2025
[10]

Third-generation-philic hidden naturalness,

Y. Chung and F. Goertz, “Third-generation-philic hidden naturalness,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 11, (2024) 115019,arXiv:2311.17169 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Electroweak Symmetry Breaking without theµ 2 Term,

F. Goertz, “Electroweak Symmetry Breaking without theµ 2 Term,”Phys. Rev. D94no. 1, (2016) 015013, arXiv:1504.00355 [hep-ph]. [12]A TLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., “Constraints on the Higgs boson self-coupling from single- and double-Higgs production with the ATLAS detector u...

2016 arXiv
[14]

Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives,

J. Alisonet al., “Higgs boson potential at colliders: Status and perspectives,”Rev. Phys.5(2020) 100045, arXiv:1910.00012 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[15]

Renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory from geometry,

A. Helset, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, “Renormalization of the Standard Model Effective Field Theory from geometry,”JHEP02(2023) 063, arXiv:2212.03253 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[16]

PyR@TE 3,

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

2021 arXiv
[17]

Strong Dynamics and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking,

C. T. Hill and E. H. Simmons, “Strong Dynamics and Electroweak Symmetry Breaking,”Phys. Rept.381 (2003) 235–402,arXiv:hep-ph/0203079. [Erratum: Phys.Rept. 390, 553–554 (2004)]

2003 arXiv
[18]

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. D7(1973) 1888–1910

1973

Pith tools

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

[1] [5]

Imaginary scaling,

P. M. Ferreira, B. Grzadkowski, and O. M. Ogreid, “Imaginary scaling,”arXiv:2506.21145 [hep-ph]

arXiv

[2] [6]

Dirac algebra formalism for Two Higgs Doublet Models: The one-loop effective potential,

A. Pilaftsis, “Dirac algebra formalism for Two Higgs Doublet Models: The one-loop effective potential,” Phys. Lett. B860(2025) 139147,arXiv:2408.04511 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025

[3] [1]

P. M. Ferreira, B. Grzadkowski, O. M. Ogreid, and P. Osland, “New symmetries of the two-Higgs-doublet 9 Since goofy symmetry tends to forbid scalar mass terms, an al- ternative [3] could be a Coleman Weinberg mechanism [18] in an extended massless scalar sector. model,”Eur. Phys. J. C84no. 3, (2024) 234, arXiv:2306.02410 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2024

[4] [2]

New Symmetries of the Two Higgs Doublet Model

P. M. Ferreira, “New Symmetries of the Two Higgs Doublet Model.” Presentation atHiggs as a Probe of New Physics 2023. Osaka, Japan, 5th June, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [3]

Goofy is the new Normal,

A. Trautner, “Goofy is the new Normal,” arXiv:2505.00099 [hep-ph]. 5

arXiv

[6] [4]

RG-stable parameter relations of a scalar field theory in absence of a symmetry,

H. E. Haber and P. M. Ferreira, “RG-stable parameter relations of a scalar field theory in absence of a symmetry,”Eur. Phys. J. C85no. 5, (2025) 541, arXiv:2502.11011 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

Little Higgs review,

M. Schmaltz and D. Tucker-Smith, “Little Higgs review,”Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.55(2005) 229–270, arXiv:hep-ph/0502182

arXiv 2005

[8] [8]

The Hierarchy Problem and the Top Yukawa: An Alternative to Top Partner Solutions

A. Bally, Y. Chung, and F. Goertz, “Hierarchy problem and the top Yukawa coupling: An alternative to top partner solutions,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 5, (2023) 055008,arXiv:2211.17254 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023