pNGB Higgs Naturalness at a Tipping Point

Adriana Menkara; Ennio Salvioni; Matthew McCullough

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 32 references

pNGB Higgs Naturalness at a Tipping Point

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Even the maximally natural 'Kitchen Sink' Higgs model cannot avoid sub-percent fine-tuning when future colliders find nothing.

desk verdict An honest construction showing even a maximal naturalness stack gets cornered by precision Higgs measurements, with one scheme-dependence caveat worth pinning down. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06052 v1 pith:N457OOCW submitted 2025-05-09 hep-ph hep-ex

Matthew McCullough , Adriana Menkara , Ennio Salvioni This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-ex

keywords pNGBHiggsnaturalnessfine-tuningTwinsupersymmetryGegenbauerpotentialcouplingsfuturecolliders

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 argues that Higgs naturalness is at a 'tipping point': if the HL-LHC ends without new particles, precision Higgs coupling measurements will drive the fine-tuning problem more forcefully than direct searches. To make this concrete, the authors build the 'Kitchen Sink' model, a supersymmetric Twin Higgs with a Gegenbauer potential, designed to be as technically natural as possible. They find that even this model, which combines three symmetry-based naturalness mechanisms, has an IR fine-tuning of order one today and would be pushed to sub-percent fine-tuning by the combined FCC-ee and FCC-hh programme if nothing new appears. The result sharpens the stakes for future precision measurements: for pNGB Higgs scenarios, coupling deviations are the most likely first sign of naturalness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'Kitchen Sink' model: a supersymmetric Twin Higgs augmented by a spurion in a traceless symmetric representation of $SO(8) \to SO(4)_A \times SO(4)_B$ that generates a Gegenbauer polynomial potential for the pNGB Higgs. The decisive identity is Eq. (2.17): $\log a = \frac{3}{2} + \log\frac{2 m_S^2}{y_t^2 \sin^2\beta\, f^2} + \frac{g_Z^2 \cos^2 2\beta\, 2\pi^2}{N_c y_t^4 \sin^4\beta}$, which controls whether the top-sector potential can be minimised at $v \ll f$; SUSY fixes the interaction strength so this logarithm is too large, forcing the $Z_2$-breaking parameter $\delta m^2$. The fine-tuning measure $\Delta$ of Eq. (2.18) quantifies how sensitively $v^2$ and $m_h^2$ depend on the input parameters $\epsilon$, $m_S^2$, and $\delta m^2$.

What would settle it

Recompute the effective potential at two loops or with a different renormalisation scheme for the stop masses in the $Z_2$-symmetric Kitchen Sink model: if $\log a$ falls below $1$ at $\tan\beta = 1$, the paper's claim that $Z_2$-breaking is required for natural electroweak symmetry breaking would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that in the Kitchen Sink model, which interpolates between SUSY, Twin Higgs, and Gegenbauer pNGB mechanisms, the $Z_2$-symmetric version cannot realise a naturally small electroweak scale: the one-loop effective potential yields $\log a > 1$ (with the constant $3/2$ from retaining Higgs-dependent stop masses), violating the $\log a < 1$ condition needed for the Gegenbauer potential to produce $v/f \ll 1$. Viable electroweak symmetry breaking requires an explicit $Z_2$-breaking soft mass $\delta m^2$. With that addition, the present IR fine-tuning can still be $\mathcal{O}(1)$ (around $0.5$), but under SM-like outcomes it would grow by a factor $\sim 4$ to HL-LHC, $\sim 20$ to FCC-ee, and $\sim 50$ to FCC-hh, ultimately forcing the tuning below the percent level. The authors conclude that precision measurements, rather than direct searches, will dominate the naturalness question in the coming decades.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the $Z_2$-symmetric Kitchen Sink model cannot be natural rests on the one-loop effective potential and the criterion $\log a < 1$; the constant $3/2$ in $\log a$ is a scheme-dependent matching coefficient, and if a different subtraction made it smaller, the symmetric scenario could be viable without the ad hoc $Z_2$-breaking term.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If no new physics is found at the HL-LHC, precision Higgs coupling measurements will dominate the naturalness picture for pNGB Higgs models, increasing the fine-tuning by about a factor of 4.
FCC-ee would probe Higgs couplings an order of magnitude deeper, but would only push the Kitchen Sink tuning by another factor $\sim 5$, because for $f > 3\,\mathrm{TeV}$ the model reverts to a supersymmetric regime with light stops.
FCC-hh, with a stop reach around 10 TeV, would force the fine-tuning of the Kitchen Sink model to at least the sub-percent level, a factor $\sim 50$ worse than today.
The Gegenbauer mechanism requires all other contributions to the Higgs potential to be small, which selects $\tan\beta \approx 1$ and $\log a < 1$, pointing to a perturbative UV completion such as SUSY.
The $Z_2$-symmetric version of the model cannot realise natural electroweak symmetry breaking; a $Z_2$-breaking stop soft mass is necessary, and this breaking is itself a source of tuning.

Reading between the lines

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

The scheme-dependence of the $3/2$ constant in $\log a$ suggests the $Z_2$-symmetric obstruction may not hold under scheme changes; a full two-loop matching could restore the symmetric scenario, so the model-building conclusion deserves a more complete calculation.
If the fine-tuning projections are correct, then a null result at FCC-ee for $\delta h_{VV}$ and at FCC-hh for stops would simultaneously disfavour all three naturalness mechanisms, implying that any natural Higgs sector must involve states or couplings outside these symmetry-based recipes.
The Kitchen Sink construction illustrates that stacking naturalness mechanisms does not qualitatively change the outlook from precision; the 'naturalness frontier' may shift from inventing new symmetries to computing the effective potential at higher loop order.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Worth a look. The Kitchen Sink model—SUSY Twin Higgs plus a Gegenbauer spurion—is a real new construction, not a rebranding. The main technical content is the one-loop effective potential with the full h-dependence in the stops, which the earlier SUSY Twin literature dropped. That is where they get the distinct results: the Z2-symmetric limit fails to make log a small enough, and the soft-breaking δm^2 is needed for viable EWSB. The interpolation between pNGB, Twin, and SUSY regimes is clearly explained, and the fine-tuning evolution under HL-LHC, FCC-ee, and FCC-hh is transparently defined. They flag their own caveats about the tuning measure and the UV piece, which is honest.

The weaknesses are real but not fatal. The claim that the symmetric case is dead rests on Eq. (2.17), where the constant 3/2 and the log are scheme-dependent. The paper itself says log a should be treated as a guide, and the coefficient is not scrutinised against counterterms or the neglected A- and µ-terms. If that coefficient shrinks, the need for δm^2 weakens. Second, the expansion m_S^2 >> y_t^2 s_β^2 f^2/2 is used to get Eq. (2.16), but for m_S = 1.2 TeV and f above about 1.3 TeV that expansion is questionable; the b6 term may or may not block EWSB when the expansion fails, and they do not show a numerical check. Third, the tuning comparisons with the SUSY Twin baseline are not apples-to-apples because the stop masses differ, though they admit this. None of this undermines the central message: even this maximal stack ends up with fine-tuning pushed below the percent level by the combination of FCC-ee and FCC-hh. That message is robust, since it only needs the tuning to grow roughly as v^2/f^2, which is a general pNGB feature.

The citation pattern is fine; the self-citations to the Gegenbauer papers are to the actual mechanisms, and the new calculations stand apart. This is a paper for particle phenomenologists interested in naturalness and future colliders. It deserves a serious referee: the scheme-dependence check and the numerical verification of the b6 block should be requested, but the paper's core projection is solid.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that for pNGB Higgs scenarios the naturalness question is transitioning from being driven mainly by direct searches to being driven by precision Higgs coupling measurements. To make this concrete, the authors build a 'Kitchen Sink' model that combines supersymmetry, a Twin Higgs structure, and a Gegenbauer potential for the pNGB Higgs. They compute the one-loop effective potential of the pNGB Higgs, including the top/stop contributions in both the visible and twin sectors. They claim that the Z2-symmetric limit of this model cannot realize natural electroweak symmetry breaking because the matched parameter log a is too large, and they therefore introduce a Z2-breaking stop soft-mass splitting delta m^2. Using a Barbieri-Giudice log-derivative fine-tuning measure, they compute the IR tuning of the model and project how it would worsen under continued null results at the HL-LHC, FCC-ee, and FCC-hh, concluding that even this maximally natural construction would be forced to at least sub-percent fine-tuning. The paper is transparent about the quasi-quantitative nature of fine-tuning and lists several caveats, including the parameterization dependence of the tuning measure and the existence of additional UV tunings not captured by their IR measure.

Significance. If the central exclusion of the Z2-symmetric case is robust, the paper provides a useful and explicit illustration that combining the main symmetry-based naturalness mechanisms still leaves a severe tension with future precision measurements. The calculation is presented in sufficient detail to be followed, all input parameters are named, and the authors honestly flag the limitations of their IR tuning definition and the non-apples-to-apples comparison with the SUSY Twin baseline. The paper also makes a clean quantitative point about the relative reach of direct and indirect probes. However, the headline conclusion depends on a matching coefficient whose scheme dependence is not demonstrated, and the numerical tuning results require an unstated beta-dependent normalization for the Gegenbauer term; these issues need to be addressed before the quantitative claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.16)-(2.17)] The exclusion of the Z2-symmetric limit is load-bearing because it motivates introducing the Z2-breaking parameter delta m^2 that appears in the tuning parameter set and in Figs. 1-3. This exclusion rests on log a = 3/2 + log(2 m_S^2/(y_t^2 s_beta^2 f^2)) + ... together with the criterion log a < 1 taken from Ref. [12]. The constant 3/2 arises from the -1/2 subtraction in the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential (2.13) and from log 2, and it is a scheme-dependent matching coefficient. The authors themselves caution below Eq. (2.4) that log a should be treated as a guide rather than as a strict relation, so the same caution applies to the numerical criterion. I ask the authors to show robustness by repeating the matching in a different renormalization scheme, for example in MS-bar with the renormalization scale set to the stop mass, and by including at least approximately the A- and mu-terms that were dropped before Eq. (2.13). If an O(1) scheme change makes log a < 1, then the Z2-symmetric model is viable without delta m^2, and the benchmark behind the sub-percent fine-tuning forecast must be recomputed.
[Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.16)] The expansion leading to Eq. (2.16) assumes m_S^2 >> y_t^2 s_beta^2 f^2/2, but the parameter regime used in Figs. 1 and 2 includes m_S = 1.2 TeV and f ≳ 1.3 TeV, for which (y_t^2 s_beta^2 f^2)/(2 m_S^2) ≳ 0.5. In this regime the b_6 term is not parametrically suppressed, and the statement that the s_h^6 + c_h^6 term prevents natural electroweak symmetry breaking rests on an expansion whose validity is marginal. The authors should check by direct numerical minimization of the full one-loop potential in Eq. (2.15) whether the Z2-symmetric model can realize v << f in the region of f shown, and should report the result. This is a concrete, local test of the central model-building exclusion.
[Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.11)] The beta-dependence of the Gegenbauer contribution is encoded in the unspecified function H(beta). Since the total fine-tuning Delta is computed with respect to epsilon, the numerical results for tan beta = 2 and tan beta = 4 in Fig. 2 depend on the derivative of V_G with respect to epsilon and hence on H(beta). No expression or numerical choice for H(beta) is given in the text, so the tuning calculation for these panels is not reproducible as written. The authors should specify H(beta), or at least state the normalization used in the scans, and explain how it is derived from the spurion coupling in Eq. (2.10).

minor comments (3)

[Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.13)] The logarithms in Eq. (2.13) should be typeset with explicit parentheses so that the argument of each log is unambiguous, namely log((2 m_S,A^2 + y_t^2 s_beta^2 f^2 s_h^2)/(2 M^2)) and log((y_t^2 s_beta^2 f^2 s_h^2)/(2 M^2)), with the -1/2 outside the logarithm.
[Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 3 states that the tuning is computed with respect to {epsilon, m_S^2, delta m^2} and reports Delta_now ≈ 0.5, but it does not specify which value of delta m^2 (or equivalently which point in the plane) corresponds to 'now'. Please state explicitly the benchmark point used for the absolute normalization of Delta_now/Delta.
[Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.19)] The discussion of possible UV tunings is welcome, but it is somewhat buried after the numerical results. Since the title and abstract describe the model as maximizing naturalness, the sentence around Eq. (2.19) should appear earlier or be repeated in the summary so that readers do not overinterpret the IR tuning values as the total tuning of the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tuning forecasts follow from the explicit one-loop potential and external collider projections, while the self-cited Gegenbauer constraints are independent model inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing derivations are genuine forward calculations. The Z2-symmetric exclusion follows from the explicit one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential in Eqs. (2.13)–(2.17), where the log a expression is computed, not fitted. The criterion log a < 1 is imported from the authors' earlier work [12], but it is a parameter-free, model-independent condition that does not presuppose the present paper's SUSY result; the paper then performs the new SUSY matching that shows the criterion fails. The fine-tuning forecasts in Figs. 1–3 are computed from the fine-tuning measure in Eq. (2.18) with respect to specified input parameters, and the projected increases use external experimental sensitivities from [4] and [31] rather than any quantity fitted to the model. The scheme-dependence of the constant 3/2 in Eq. (2.17) and the paper's own caveat that Eq. (2.4) 'should be considered as a guide' are genuine robustness/correctness concerns, but they are not circularity: a scheme-dependent coefficient is not an input-output tautology. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction, and the self-citations to [11] and [12] provide independent group-theoretic and phenomenological constraints that the paper tests rather than assumes as conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The Kitchen Sink model depends on the Gegenbauer potential results from the authors' prior papers [11,12], the Barbieri-Giudice tuning measure, and the assumption that UV tunings factor out. These are listed as axioms and free parameters above.

free parameters (6)

epsilon (SO(8) breaking spurion coupling) = small, unspecified
The Gegenbauer potential in Eq. (2.11) is proportional to epsilon, introduced by hand; the v/f hierarchy is generated only for small epsilon.
m_S (visible stop soft mass) = 1.2-2 TeV in scans
Input soft mass parameter; the tuning is evaluated as a function of m_S, and lower values are excluded by LHC searches.
delta m^2 (Z2 breaking stop soft mass splitting) = not fixed, required non-zero
Introduced ad hoc to restore viable EWSB; its value is not predicted and the tuning is computed with respect to it.
tan beta = approximately 1 preferred
The Gegenbauer benefit requires a small D-term, so tan beta near 1 is necessary; achieving this may itself require UV tuning, which the paper does not implement.
n (Gegenbauer index) = n = 4, 6, 8, 10
The index of the SO(8) spurion representation; larger n improves the v/f tuning but is not derived from a more fundamental principle.
f (pNGB decay constant) = scanned 0.5-2.5 TeV
The scale of spontaneous SO(8) breaking; treated as an input scale for the EFT and scanned in the tuning plots.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Gegenbauer potential formula V_G^(n) = epsilon H(beta) lambda^2 f^4 G_n^{3/2}(cos 2h/f) for a traceless symmetric spurion
Taken from [11] and applied to the SUSY Twin Higgs context without re-derivation; the central model depends on this formula.
domain assumption Criterion log a < 1 for natural EWSB in the Gegenbauer's Twin
The Z2-symmetric Kitchen Sink is rejected because log a is too large, using the threshold from [12]; the criterion is assumed, not proven here.
domain assumption Barbieri-Giudice log-derivative fine-tuning measure Delta (Eq. 2.18)
The quantitative tuning claims use this measure, whose parameterisation dependence is acknowledged in footnote 3.
domain assumption Validity of the low-energy EFT with only the light pNGB, integrating out the heavy doublet and radial mode; UV tunings factor out and are neglected
Stated explicitly before Eq. (2.19): 'we do not consider these additional tuning aspects here'. If UV tunings are significant, the total fine-tuning could be larger.
domain assumption Single-scale stop soft masses and the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg form in Eqs. (2.13)-(2.14)
The obstruction to Z2-symmetric EWSB depends on this scheme and the resulting coefficient 3/2 in Eq. (2.17).

invented entities (1)

SO(8) to SO(4)_A x SO(4)_B breaking spurion F in a traceless symmetric irrep
purpose: To generate the Gegenbauer contribution to the pNGB Higgs potential within the SUSY Twin Higgs model
This is a new ad hoc structural element introduced in this paper; it has no observable independent of the model and is not motivated by experimental hints.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of pNGB Higgs Naturalness at a Tipping Point." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N457OOCW

@misc{pith2026250506052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: pNGB Higgs Naturalness at a Tipping Point},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N457OOCW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06052}
}

read the original abstract

In scenarios where the Higgs is viewed as a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson (pNGB) the question of naturalness finds itself, from a phenomenological perspective, at a tipping point between direct searches and precision. If, by the end of the High-Luminosity LHC operation, all experimental results were to remain consistent with the Standard Model, precision Higgs coupling measurements will begin to drive the naturalness tension. To illustrate this from a fresh perspective we construct a maximally natural `Kitchen Sink' model, throwing into the mix three approaches to symmetry-based naturalness: Supersymmetry, Twin Higgs, and pNGB Higgs models with a Gegenbauer potential. In other words, we build a `Supersymmetric Gegenbauer's Twin' model. This model not only maximises naturalness, at least from a technical perspective, but can also interpolate between all three ingredients smoothly, revealing the interplay between direct exploration and precision. Implications for FCC-ee and FCC-hh are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[12]

Gegenbauer's Twin

G. Durieux, M. McCullough, and E. Salvioni, Gegenbauer’s Twin, JHEP 05 (2022) 140, arXiv:2202.01228 [hep-ph]. – 18 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[1]

Collider Reach, http://collider-reach.cern.ch

work page
[2]

Glioti, R

A. Glioti, R. Rattazzi, L. Ricci, and L. Vecchi, Exploring the Flavor Symmetry Landscape, arXiv:2402.09503 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[3]

Panico and A

G. Panico and A. Wulzer, The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs (Springer,

work page
[4]

de Blas et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

J. de Blas et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2020
[5]

Fine-Tuning in the 2HDM

A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, Fine-tuning in the 2HDM , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 950, arXiv:2202.09103 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[6]

Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the Minimal Supersymmetric Model , Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1, arXiv:hep-ph/0503173

arXiv 2008
[7]

Davies, J

R. Davies, J. March-Russell, and M. McCullough, A Supersymmetric One Higgs Doublet Model, JHEP 04 (2011) 108, arXiv:1103.1647 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2011

Show all 32 references

[8]

G. F. Giudice, C. Grojean, A. Pomarol, and R. Rattazzi, The Strongly-Interacting Light Higgs, JHEP 06 (2007) 045, arXiv:hep-ph/0703164

2007 arXiv
[9]

ATLAS collaboration, Combined measurements of Higgs boson production and decay using up to 139 fb −1 of proton-proton collision data at √s = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment, ATLAS-CONF-2021-053 (2021)

2021
[10]

CMS collaboration, Combined Higgs boson production and decay measurements with up to 137 fb−1 of pp collision data at √s = 13 TeV, CMS-PAS-HIG-19-005 (2020)

2020
[11]

Durieux, M

G. Durieux, M. McCullough, and E. Salvioni, Gegenbauer Goldstones, JHEP 01 (2022) 076, arXiv:2110.06941 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[13]

Agashe, R

K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, The Minimal Composite Higgs model , Nucl. Phys. B 719 (2005) 165, arXiv:hep-ph/0412089

2005 arXiv
[14]

Chacko, H.-S

Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, The Twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 231802, arXiv:hep-ph/0506256

2006 arXiv
[15]

Barbieri, T

R. Barbieri, T. Gregoire, and L. J. Hall, Mirror World at the Large Hadron Collider , arXiv:hep-ph/0509242

arXiv
[16]

Chacko, Y

Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura, M. Papucci, and G. Perez, Natural little hierarchy from a partially Goldstone Twin Higgs , JHEP 01 (2006) 126, arXiv:hep-ph/0510273

2006 arXiv
[17]

Chacko, H.-S

Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, A Twin Higgs model from left-right symmetry , JHEP 01 (2006) 108, arXiv:hep-ph/0512088

2006 arXiv
[18]

Barbieri, D

R. Barbieri, D. Greco, R. Rattazzi, and A. Wulzer, The Composite Twin Higgs scenario, JHEP 08 (2015) 161, arXiv:1501.07803 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[19]

Contino, D

R. Contino, D. Greco, R. Mahbubani, R. Rattazzi, and R. Torre, Precision Tests and Fine Tuning in Twin Higgs Models , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 095036, arXiv:1702.00797 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[20]

Geller and O

M. Geller and O. Telem, Holographic Twin Higgs Model , Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191801, arXiv:1411.2974 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Craig, A

N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, Naturalness in the Dark at the LHC, JHEP 07 (2015) 105, arXiv:1501.05310 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[22]

M. Low, A. Tesi, and L.-T. Wang, Twin Higgs mechanism and a composite Higgs boson, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 095012, arXiv:1501.07890 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[23]

Falkowski, S

A. Falkowski, S. Pokorski, and M. Schmaltz, Twin SUSY, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 035003, arXiv:hep-ph/0604066

2006 arXiv
[24]

Chang, L

S. Chang, L. J. Hall, and N. Weiner, A Supersymmetric Twin Higgs , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 035009, arXiv:hep-ph/0604076

2007 arXiv
[25]

Craig and K

N. Craig and K. Howe, Doubling down on naturalness with a supersymmetric twin Higgs, JHEP 03 (2014) 140, arXiv:1312.1341 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[26]

A. Katz, A. Mariotti, S. Pokorski, D. Redigolo, and R. Ziegler, SUSY Meets Her Twin, JHEP 01 (2017) 142, arXiv:1611.08615 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[27]

Badziak and K

M. Badziak and K. Harigaya, Supersymmetric D-term Twin Higgs , JHEP 06 (2017) 065, arXiv:1703.02122 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[28]

Badziak and K

M. Badziak and K. Harigaya, Minimal Non-Abelian Supersymmetric Twin Higgs , JHEP 10 (2017) 109, arXiv:1707.09071 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Badziak and K

M. Badziak and K. Harigaya, Asymptotically Free Natural Supersymmetric Twin Higgs Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 211803, arXiv:1711.11040 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Barbieri and G

R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Upper Bounds on Supersymmetric Particle Masses , Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63. – 19 –

1988
[31]

R. K. Ellis et al., Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020 , arXiv:1910.11775 [hep-ex]. – 20 –

2020 arXiv
[2016]

arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

Gegenbauer's Twin

G. Durieux, M. McCullough, and E. Salvioni, Gegenbauer’s Twin, JHEP 05 (2022) 140, arXiv:2202.01228 [hep-ph]. – 18 –

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [1]

Collider Reach, http://collider-reach.cern.ch

work page

[3] [2]

Glioti, R

A. Glioti, R. Rattazzi, L. Ricci, and L. Vecchi, Exploring the Flavor Symmetry Landscape, arXiv:2402.09503 [hep-ph]

arXiv

[4] [3]

Panico and A

G. Panico and A. Wulzer, The Composite Nambu-Goldstone Higgs (Springer,

work page

[5] [4]

de Blas et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

J. de Blas et al., Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders , JHEP 01 (2020) 139, arXiv:1905.03764 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2020

[6] [5]

Fine-Tuning in the 2HDM

A. Bernal, J. A. Casas, and J. M. Moreno, Fine-tuning in the 2HDM , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 950, arXiv:2202.09103 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[7] [6]

Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking

A. Djouadi, The Anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. II. The Higgs bosons in the Minimal Supersymmetric Model , Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1, arXiv:hep-ph/0503173

arXiv 2008

[8] [7]

Davies, J

R. Davies, J. March-Russell, and M. McCullough, A Supersymmetric One Higgs Doublet Model, JHEP 04 (2011) 108, arXiv:1103.1647 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2011