pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05330 · v1 · pith:M4RAAMYYnew · submitted 2019-07-11 · ✦ hep-th · gr-qc· hep-ph

Towards implications of asymptotically safe gravity for particle physics

Astrid Eichhorn , Aaron Held This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 22:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-th gr-qchep-ph
keywords asymptotically safe gravityStandard Modelfixed pointultraviolet completionquantum gravityYukawa couplingstop-bottom mass differencepredictive power
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quantum-gravity fluctuations might induce an asymptotically safe fixed point that renders the Standard Model ultraviolet complete and predicts some of its couplings, including the top-bottom quark mass difference.

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

The paper reviews how an interacting fixed point in the renormalization-group flow of the Standard Model, generated by quantum-gravity fluctuations, could make the theory ultraviolet complete without new physics. It argues that the same fixed point would fix the values of certain Standard-Model couplings at low energies, turning some free parameters into predictions. In particular, the authors highlight that the fixed-point structure could naturally produce the observed hierarchy between the top and bottom quark masses. A sympathetic reader would care because this mechanism offers a concrete way to derive parts of the Standard Model from first principles rather than inputting them by hand.

Core claim

An asymptotically safe fixed point for the Standard Model, induced by quantum-gravity fluctuations, might render the Standard Model ultraviolet complete and allow us to calculate the values of some of the Standard-Model couplings. In particular, such a fixed point might explain the mass-difference between the top and bottom quark.

What carries the argument

The asymptotically safe fixed point for the Standard Model matter content induced by quantum-gravity fluctuations, which controls the running of couplings via quantum scale symmetry.

If this is right

  • The Standard Model becomes ultraviolet complete without additional degrees of freedom.
  • The values of some Yukawa couplings and possibly the Higgs quartic become calculable rather than free parameters.
  • The observed top-bottom mass splitting emerges as a consequence of the fixed-point structure rather than an input.
  • Quantum scale symmetry at the fixed point constrains the high-energy behavior of all Standard-Model interactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fixed point is confirmed, collider searches could target deviations in running couplings at energies where gravity effects become visible.
  • The same mechanism might be applied to extensions of the Standard Model to predict additional particle masses or couplings.
  • Lattice simulations or functional renormalization-group studies could test whether the fixed point persists beyond the current truncation.

Load-bearing premise

Quantum-gravity fluctuations induce an interacting fixed point that governs the renormalization-group flow of the entire Standard Model matter sector.

What would settle it

A explicit calculation showing that no interacting fixed point exists for the Standard Model plus gravity at the relevant truncation order, or a precision measurement of a predicted coupling (such as the bottom Yukawa) that deviates from the fixed-point value by more than the truncation uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05330 by Aaron Held, Astrid Eichhorn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We illustrate IR-repulsive, i.e., relevant (left panel) and IR-attractive, i.e., irrelevant (central panel) directions of a fixed point. The underlying beta functions are given by βg = ±g(g − g∗), with the negative (positive) sign applying to the left (central) panel. In the right panel we illustrate a UV critical hypersurface (magenta) with curvature in the space of the couplings g1,g2: On the surface whi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gravitationally induced UV-completions of the Abelian gauge coupling gY , governed by the asymptotically free (∗AF) and the IR-attractive, asymptotically safe fixed point (∗AS), shown for fg = 10−2 , see also [3]. the link works most directly if there are no new-physics scales between the electroweak scale and the Planck scale but can be extended to cases with new physics. We point out the non-universality… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Transplanckian flow lines (arrows pointing towards the IR) and fixed point structure of Yukawa couplings in absence (left panel) and presence (right panel) of Abelian gauge interactions. We present the flows, cf. Eq. 5.1 for fy = 1.188×10−4 as well as gY = 0 (left panel) and gY = 0.45. Large red and small blue points indicate the respective IR-attractive and the less predictive fixed points, respectively. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Bands of IR values of the couplings gY,IR, yt,IR and yb,IR at the top-mass scale kIR = 173GeV, as a function of asymptotically safe gravity contributions fg and fy, see also [4]. Right panel: The same bands in the plane spanned by the dimensionless Newton coupling GN and the dimensionless cosmological constant Λ, cf. [1, 3]. region in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We review aspects of the interplay of asymptotically safe gravity with matter, focusing on the potential predictive power of the quantum scale-symmetry underlying the asymptotically safe fixed point. We explain how an asymptotically safe fixed point for the Standard Model, induced by quantum-gravity fluctuations, might i) render the Standard Model ultraviolet complete and ii) allow us to calculate the values of some of the Standard-Model couplings. In particular, we highlight that such a fixed point might explain the mass-difference between the top and bottom quark.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review of the interplay between asymptotically safe gravity and matter. It discusses how quantum-gravity fluctuations might induce an asymptotically safe fixed point for the Standard Model that would render the SM ultraviolet complete and permit calculation of some of its couplings, with particular emphasis on a possible explanation for the top-bottom quark mass difference.

Significance. If an asymptotically safe gravity-matter fixed point exists and governs the running of Standard Model couplings, the framework would supply a UV completion of the SM together with predictions for some of its parameters. The review usefully collects and contextualizes existing literature on gravity-induced fixed points and their potential phenomenological consequences.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The repeated use of 'might' in the abstract and introduction appropriately signals the conditional character of the claims; this framing could be reinforced by a short dedicated paragraph in the conclusions that lists the key open questions (existence of the fixed point, its stability under SM matter content, and quantitative matching to low-energy data).
  2. Notation for the gravity-induced beta functions and the resulting fixed-point values is introduced without a compact summary table; adding such a table (listing the relevant operators, their scaling dimensions, and the fixed-point coordinates reported in the cited works) would improve readability for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the manuscript and the recommendation to accept.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; review uses conditional 'might' framing without load-bearing derivations

full rationale

The paper is structured as a review of potential implications, with all central claims explicitly qualified by 'might' (e.g., an asymptotically safe fixed point 'might' render the SM UV complete or explain the top-bottom mass difference). No derivation chain, equations, or predictions are asserted as established results within the paper; instead, statements review existing literature on gravity-induced fixed points and discuss hypothetical consequences if such a fixed point controls SM running. This conditional structure contains no self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains that reduce the claims to their own inputs by construction. The argument is self-contained as exploratory discussion rather than a closed derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The central idea rests on the domain assumption of an asymptotically safe gravity-matter fixed point.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Existence of an asymptotically safe fixed point in gravity coupled to Standard Model matter that induces a fixed point for SM couplings
    The reviewed predictive power depends on this fixed point existing and controlling the SM running.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5599 in / 1121 out tokens · 22838 ms · 2026-05-24T22:53:34.803526+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held, Phys. Lett. B 777, 217 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Shaposhnikov and C

    M. Shaposhnikov and C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 683, 196 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Eichhorn and F

    A. Eichhorn and F. Versteegen, JHEP 1801, 030 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no. 15, 151302 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Reuter and F

    M. Reuter and F. Saueressig, Cambridge University Press (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Percacci, World Scientific, (2017), doi:10.1142/10369

    R. Percacci, World Scientific, (2017), doi:10.1142/10369

    work page doi:10.1142/10369 2017

  7. [7]

    Eichhorn, Front

    A. Eichhorn, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5, 47 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Wetterich, Phys

    C. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B 301, 90 (1993)

    work page 1993

  9. [9]

    Balog, H

    I. Balog, H. Chaté, B. Delamotte, M. Marohni ´c and N. Wschebor, arXiv:1907.01829

    work page arXiv 1907

  10. [10]

    Reuter, Phys

    M. Reuter, Phys. Rev. D 57, 971 (1998)

    work page 1998

  11. [11]

    Eichhorn and H

    A. Eichhorn and H. Gies, New J. Phys. 13, 125012 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    J. E. Daum, U. Harst and M. Reuter, JHEP 1001, 084 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Harst and M

    U. Harst and M. Reuter, JHEP 1105, 119 (2011)

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Folkerts, D

    S. Folkerts, D. F. Litim and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B 709, 234 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Christiansen et al

    N. Christiansen et al. Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 10, 106012 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Carlip, Class

    S. Carlip, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no. 19, 193001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    P. Donà, A. Eichhorn and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 8, 084035 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Meibohm, J

    J. Meibohm, J. M. Pawlowski and M. Reichert, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 8, 084035 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Biemans, A

    J. Biemans, A. Platania and F. Saueressig, JHEP 1705, 093 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Wetterich and M

    C. Wetterich and M. Yamada, arXiv:1906.01721 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 1906

  21. [21]

    Zanusso, L

    O. Zanusso, L. Zambelli, G. P. Vacca and R. Percacci, Phys. Lett. B 689, 90 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    K. y. Oda and M. Yamada, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, no. 12, 125011 (2016)

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Eichhorn, A

    A. Eichhorn, A. Held and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 10, 104027 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Eichhorn and A

    A. Eichhorn and A. Held, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 8, 086025 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Eichhorn and M

    A. Eichhorn and M. Schiffer, Phys. Lett. B 793, 383 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Fischer and D

    P. Fischer and D. F. Litim, Phys. Lett. B 638, 497 (2006)

    work page 2006

  27. [27]

    Eichhorn, Y

    A. Eichhorn, Y . Hamada, J. Lumma and M. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D97, no. 8, 086004 (2018). 8

    work page 2018