Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Vacuum Metastability from Axion-Higgs Criticality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coupling an axion-like particle to the Higgs lowers the vacuum instability scale to within two orders of magnitude of the observed Higgs mass, making self-organised criticality a testable explanation of the hierarchy problem.

desk verdict A clear, honest map of a testable ALP parameter space for axion-Higgs criticality; the main caveat is that the prediction rests on an unexamined assumption about the scanning dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03542 v2 pith:S53P5KAC submitted 2024-12-04 hep-ph

Maximilian Detering , Tevong You This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords axion-likeparticleelectroweakhierarchyproblemvacuummetastabilityboundself-organisedcriticalityHiggsnaturalnesscosmologicalselectionexoticdecays
topics The Hierarchy Problem
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

Self-organised criticality is a cosmological alternative to symmetry-based solutions of the electroweak hierarchy problem: early-universe dynamics drive the Higgs mass to sit near the edge of vacuum instability, where a metastable electroweak vacuum exists only if the Higgs bilinear is below a critical value set by the vacuum instability scale. This paper shows that an axion-like particle (ALP) coupled to the Higgs through the operator $\frac{1}{2} A' S H^2$ can lower that critical value to within two orders of magnitude of the observed Higgs bilinear, a task previously assigned to vector-like fermions. The model predicts an ALP of mass in the MeV to 20 GeV range with mixing angle $\sin\theta$ between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-1}$, a "natural" region where no fine-tuning beyond two orders of magnitude is needed. The authors find that this entire region can be explored by future colliders, flavour experiments and cosmic microwave background observatories, giving the mechanism concrete signatures that could discover it or rule it out.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the fixed-order one-loop effective potential of the Higgs–axion system, together with the Lambert $W$-function solution of the stationary condition. The key object is the reduced effective quartic $\tilde\lambda_{\rm eff}\equiv \lambda_{\rm eff}-\frac12 A'^2/m_S^2$: the axion trilinear coupling $A'SH^2$ subtracts a positive constant from the Higgs quartic, so the potential becomes unstable at a much lower scale. The instability scale $\mu_I$ is defined by $\tilde\lambda_{\rm eff}(\mu_I)=0$, and the leading-log expansion of the stationary equation around $\mu_I$ reduces to $\tilde\rho=\tilde\xi e^{\tilde\xi}$, whose extremum gives the closed-form critical bilinear of Eq. (3.11). This identity is what carries the argument: it converts the two-field vacuum-structure question into a one-parameter bound on $m_H^2$ that depends directly on the ALP mass and mixing angle.

What would settle it

A calculation that would settle the formula: solve the full one-loop stationary conditions in the Axion-Higgs model with NNLO running and compare the saddle point with Eq. (3.11) — a disagreement by more than the claimed two orders of magnitude would falsify the bound; a combined null result across the natural region (no $h\to SS$ at FCC-ee/HL-LHC, no $K^+\to\pi^+S$ at HIKE, no $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ shift at CMB-S4) would exclude the parameter space the model claims to be testable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the vacuum metastability bound of the Standard Model — the upper limit on the Higgs bilinear set by the scale where the effective quartic turns negative — can be drastically lowered by a light axion-like particle mixing with the Higgs. In the Standard Model this bound is $m_{\rm crit}^2 \sim (10^{10}\,\mathrm{GeV})^2$, far above the observed value; the axion shifts the effective quartic to $\tilde\lambda_{\rm eff}=\lambda_{\rm eff}-\frac12 A'^2/m_S^2$, so the instability scale $\mu_I$ (where $\tilde\lambda_{\rm eff}=0$) drops from $\sim 10^{11}$ GeV to the TeV scale. Solving the stationary conditions in the two-field potential then gives the critical bilinear of Eq. (3.11), $m_{\rm crit}^2 = -\frac12 \beta_\lambda|_{\mu_I} e^{-3/2}\mu_I^2 + \frac12 A'^2 v^2/m_S^2$, in which the first term is the Standard Model result evaluated at the new, much lower $\mu_I$ and the second term is the axion shift; together they place $m_{\rm crit}^2$ near the weak scale. The outcome is a predictively large region of ALP parameter space — $M_S$ from a few MeV to about 20 GeV with $\sin\theta$ between $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-1}$ — where the ratio $m_H^2/m_{\rm crit}^2$ lies within two orders of magnitude of unity, meaning the smallness of the Higgs mass is no longer accidental if a cosmological criticality mechanism selects the near-critical vacuum.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the cosmological dynamics that scans the Higgs mass leaves the axion mass, its Higgs coupling, and all other parameters essentially fixed, so the predicted natural region of ALP parameters could shift if the scanning also changes the axion sector.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, an axion-like particle alone — no vector-like fermions — is enough to make the electroweak vacuum critical at a scale close to the weak scale.
  • The model predicts a concrete natural window, roughly $M_S\in[1\,\mathrm{MeV},\,20\,\mathrm{GeV}]$ and $\sin\theta\in[10^{-4},\,10^{-1}]$, which is not an open-ended parameter space but a bounded region that experiments can fully cover.
  • Existing LEP, LHC, and CMB data already exclude part of that window, and future sensitivity from $h\to SS$ at FCC-ee/HL-LHC, rare kaon decays at HIKE, and CMB-S4 on $N_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is expected to cover the rest, so a discovery or an exclusion of the model is decidable in the near term.
  • The mechanism generalises: any naturally light scalar linearly coupled to $|H|^2$ can play the destabilising role, so the conclusion is not specific to the axion but to the class of shift-symmetric or pseudo-Goldstone particles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same scanning dynamics that selects the Higgs mass also scans the ALP mass or its mixing angle, the computed natural region could shift or broaden; the paper's Section 5 assumption fixes everything except $m_H^2$, and this is an inference about the robustness of the Figure 5 exclusion plot, not part of the paper's own derivation.
  • Because the destabilising axion and the scanning field are decoupled in this construction, the same ALP-Higgs signature could be realised in competing criticality mechanisms, so the ALP sector is not a distinctive feature of one specific cosmological model; the entire experimental program outlined here directly tests the whole vacuum-metastability paradigm.
  • A two-loop calculation of the effective potential in the scalar sector, including the momentum-dependent self-energies neglected in Appendix A, could shift $m_{\rm crit}^2$ by more than the claimed precision and alter the boundaries of the natural region, providing a sharper theoretical discriminator than the current leading-log result.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an ALP-Higgs model of vacuum metastability criticality as a solution to the electroweak hierarchy problem. The authors compute the fixed-order effective potential of the SM and of the ALP-Higgs model, deriving an analytic leading-log expression for the critical Higgs bilinear m_crit^2 (Eq. 3.11) in terms of the ALP mass and Higgs-ALP trilinear coupling. They show that for ALP masses in the MeV to O(10) GeV range with mixing angles sin theta in 10^-4 to 10^-1, the ratio m_H^2/m_crit^2 is within two orders of magnitude, i.e. the observed Higgs mass is natural in this framework. They then survey existing constraints and future sensitivities from Higgs exotic decays, direct scalar production at LEP, rare meson decays, and CMB bounds on Neff, concluding that the entire natural region can be probed by future experiments. The paper is explicit that the cosmological selection mechanism is not specified beyond the assumption that only the Higgs bilinear is scanned while the ALP parameters remain fixed (Section 5).

Significance. The paper has a clear and testable central claim: if self-organised criticality is realised and only the Higgs bilinear is dynamically scanned, then the ALP parameter space that makes the weak scale natural is in a specific, experimentally accessible region. The derivation of Eq. (3.11) is a clean forward calculation, and the paper is explicit about the fixed-order scheme and the leading-log approximation, which is a strength relative to less controlled RG-improved treatments. The phenomenological survey is useful and the conclusion that future colliders, flavour experiments, and CMB observatories can cover the entire natural region is falsifiable in principle. The significance is conditional on the scanning assumption and on the size of the SM instability-scale uncertainty, but if the mechanism is taken as given the paper provides a concrete target for a motivated BSM signature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (3.11)] The central prediction of an MeV-to-20 GeV ALP with sin theta in 10^-4 to 10^-1 depends on the assumption stated in Section 5 that "only the Higgs mass parameter varies significantly while the other parameters can be essentially fixed" during the cosmological scan. Eq. (3.11) maps out, for fixed m_S and A', the maximum m_H^2 compatible with an IR vacuum; it does not establish that any concrete scanning dynamics stops at m_H^2 close to m_crit^2 while leaving m_S and A' unchanged. If the scanning field couples to S (through Planck-suppressed or loop-induced operators), m_S and A' will generically acquire field dependence, shifting the selected value of m_H^2/m_crit^2. The paper acknowledges that "some model-dependent considerations may arise" but provides no worked example of a scanning realisation in which the assumption is satisfied. The conclusion would be strengthened by at least one explicit example (e.g. the SOL model [56] or a landscape argument) showing that the scanning dynamics preserves the fixed-parameter approximation; without it, the predicted natural region is conditional on an unspecified selection mechanism.
  2. [Eq. (2.12) and Fig. 5] The calculation inherits the four-orders-of-magnitude uncertainty of the SM instability scale quoted in Eq. (2.12): mu_I = 10^{11.8 +2.7/-1.4} GeV. Since m_crit^2 scales as mu_I^2, this uncertainty directly translates into an uncertainty in the ratio m_H^2/m_crit^2 plotted in Fig. 5, yet Fig. 5 shows no error bands on the contours. The stated natural region is claimed with sharp boundaries (masses MeV-20 GeV, mixing angles 10^-4 to 10^-1), but the underlying input uncertainty could shift the contours by orders of magnitude. The authors should quantify, at least in a dedicated paragraph, how the instability-scale uncertainty propagates into the natural region (for example by showing the 1-sigma band on one representative contour), and distinguish the experimental uncertainty in the inputs from the theory uncertainty of the fixed-order calculation.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.6)] The paper defines the Axion-Higgs instability scale through the vanishing of the reduced effective quartic lambda_tilde_eff = lambda_eff - (1/2)(A'^2/m_S^2), and then expands around that scale to obtain Eq. (3.11). However, the effective quartic in Eq. (3.3) is evaluated along the S-direction determined by the stationary condition (3.4), and the reduced quartic is introduced as a bookkeeping device rather than derived from an explicit resummation of the potential along the flat direction. The leading-log expansion leading to Eq. (3.7) assumes beta_lambda is evaluated at mu_I and that the A'^2/m_S^2 term is scale-independent. The reader should be told whether the subtraction in Eq. (3.6) is exact at leading log or only an approximation, and what error is introduced by neglecting the running of A' and m_S between the weak scale and mu_I. This is a technical point in an otherwise self-consistent derivation, but it is load-bearing for the quantitative contours in Fig. 5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The notation A for the trilinear coupling in Eq. (3.1) and A' in Eq. (3.2) is slightly confusing: A' is defined as A sin delta, but the text says "with A' ≡ A sin delta and a redefinition of the Higgs bilinear" without displaying the redefinition explicitly; writing the shifted bilinear explicitly would help.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.24)] In the sentence after Eq. (2.24), "56" appears to be a stray citation marker or footnote remnant; the authors should fix this typo.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The effective coupling g_hSS is given without a derivation; citing the origin of the expression (or providing a brief derivation in an appendix) would help the reader verify that the sin^3 theta term is complete at this order.
  4. [Section 4, Fig. 5] The caption does not explain the difference between the solid, dashed, and dotted contours for the current and future constraints in the left panel; in particular the grey dash-dotted line is described in the text but not in the caption, and the black solid line for LEP is hard to distinguish from the LHC excluded region in the left panel.
  5. [Section 4.4] The sentence on CMB bounds says that "we take the most conservative constraints, which come from low reheating temperatures but not too low to be in conflict with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis"; the dependence of the excluded region on the reheating temperature is not shown in Fig. 5, so the reader cannot gauge the robustness of the claimed MeV-region coverage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the critical bilinear is a forward calculation and the SOL self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, Eq. (3.11), is obtained by solving the stationary conditions (3.4) of the two-field effective potential (3.3), eliminating S, and expanding around the instability scale defined by the vanishing of the reduced effective quartic (3.6). This is a forward one-loop calculation from the ALP-Higgs Lagrangian to the critical bilinear; no parameter is fitted to the 'predicted' ALP region. The natural region in Fig. 5 is the set of input points (M_S, sin theta) for which the computed ratio m_H^2/m_crit^2 is below an arbitrarily chosen naturalness threshold of two orders of magnitude; it is a conditional map, not a fit or an inverse-engineered result. The only self-citation is Ref. [56] (SOL, co-authored by T. You), used to support the statement that 'only the Higgs mass parameter varies significantly.' The paper explicitly says it 'remains agnostic regarding the underlying self-organised critical mechanism' and that the selection dynamics 'factorizes from the sector responsible for lowering the instability scale,' and it acknowledges that 'some model-dependent considerations may arise' in how parameters are scanned. Thus the SOL citation is motivational rather than load-bearing: the m_crit^2 calculation does not import any SOL-specific equation, and the assumption that only m_H^2 scans is stated as a simplifying condition rather than derived from or equated to the conclusion. The phenomenological constraints in Sec. 4 are external. No equation in the paper reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows that the central claim rests on the imported ALP-Higgs potential, the imported SOL/criticality framework, and chosen naturalness thresholds. No new entities are invented; the ALP is a standard BSM construct.

free parameters (4)
  • A' (axion-Higgs trilinear coupling, equivalent to sin theta)
    Input coupling of the model; varied over the scan to map the natural region.
  • m_S (ALP mass)
    Input mass of the new scalar; varied over the scan.
  • Naturalness threshold (m_H^2/m_crit^2 < 100) = 100
    Chosen by hand to define the 'natural region'; not derived from the model.
  • CP-violating phase delta
    Assumed O(1); only the combination A' = A sin delta enters the potential.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scalar potential of the ALP-Higgs model is given by Eq. (3.1) with a single cosine and the CP-violating phase delta.
    Taken from Refs. [63,64]; the UV completion is not specified.
  • domain assumption The cosmological selection mechanism scans the Higgs mass parameter while keeping the ALP parameters fixed.
    Stated in Section 5; if the ALP parameters also vary, the predicted region changes.
  • standard math The fixed-order effective potential with power counting lambda ~ hbar is a valid perturbative expansion.
    For small quartic couplings, loop corrections are comparable to tree level; the paper adopts the consistent fixed-order prescription of Refs. [66,67].
  • domain assumption The axion does not correct the running of the Higgs quartic because its coupling is super-renormalizable.
    Used in Section 3.2 to keep lambda_eff unchanged; standard for such EFTs.
  • domain assumption Gravitational corrections are negligible assuming conformal coupling of the Higgs to gravity.
    Mentioned below Eq. (2.11) following Ref. [60].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum Metastability from Axion-Higgs Criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S53P5KAC

@misc{pith2026241203542,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum Metastability from Axion-Higgs Criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S53P5KAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03542}
}
abstract

Self-organised criticality, realised through cosmological dynamics in the early universe, is an alternative paradigm for addressing the electroweak hierarchy problem. In this scenario, an unnaturally light Higgs boson is the result of dynamics driving the electroweak vacuum towards a near-critical metastable point where the Higgs mass is bounded from above by the vacuum instability scale. To lower the vacuum instability scale close to the weak scale, previous realisations of this mechanism introduced new vector-like fermions coupled to the Higgs. Here we show that an Axion-Like Particle (ALP) coupling to the Higgs is an alternative possibility for achieving criticality with another well-motivated and naturally light candidate for new physics, thus leading to an entirely different set of testable phenomenological signatures. Our Axion-Higgs criticality model predicts an ALP in the MeV to $\mathcal{O}(10)$ GeV range. The entire natural region of parameter space can be thoroughly explored by a combination of future colliders, flavour experiments, and cosmological observatories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03542 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Standard Model phase diagram in the plane spanned by the top Yukawa cou￾pling and Higgs quartic coupling, renormalised at the top mass scale. The measured SM values are shown with a 3-σ ellipse on the left and with 1-, 2-, and 3-σ contours on the right. The uncertainties are given in Eq. (B.2) and include the experimental uncertainty only. The SM values for the top Yukawa and gauge couplings are given in Eq. (B.2). … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 3-loop RG evolution of the quartic coupling λ and effective quartic coupling λeff as a function of the MS renormalisation scale µ with 1-σ uncertainty bands. The used values of the couplings at the top mass scale are given in Eq. (B.2). The plot is similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sketch of the effective Higgs potential for different values of the Higgs bilin￾ear corresponding to different phases of the theory. A subcritical value of the bilinear parameter corresponds to the metastable phase (yellow) admitting IR+UV vacuum. The supercritical bilinear results in the unstable phase (red) only admitting a UV vacuum. The critical value of the bilinear corresponds to the transition point between t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective scalar potential in the Axion-Higgs model. The first row shows the leading-order effective potential for sub-, super- and near-critical values of the Higgs bilinear. The second row shows the effective potential along the dashed line (cf. first row plots) corr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contours of the ratio of the observed Higgs bilinear, m2 H, to the critical value of the Higgs bilinear, m2 crit, in the plane of the scalar mass MS and the sine of the mixing angle sin θ. Here, the Higgs mass parameter is calculated for the given parameter point in th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Precision Unitarity Calculations in Inflationary Models

    hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Full S-matrix unitarity calculations show the cut-off in single-field nonminimal inflation rises to about 20 M_Pl/ξ for small couplings, while multifield kinetic interactions keep the cut-off near M_Pl/ξ.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [65]

    J. Ke, M. Li, and P. He, Principle of multi-critical-points in the ALP-Higgs model and the corresponding phase transition , Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138546, [arXiv:2402.12085]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [56]

    G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough, and T. You, Self-organised localisation, JHEP 10 (2021) 093, [ arXiv:2105.08617]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [1]

    G. F. Giudice, Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC, arXiv:0801.2562

    arXiv

  4. [2]

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

    arXiv 2013

  5. [3]

    Craig, Naturalness: past, present, and future , Eur

    N. Craig, Naturalness: past, present, and future , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 9 825, [arXiv:2205.05708]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1–29, [ arXiv:1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [5]

    Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , Phys

    CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61, [arXiv:1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [6]

    Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev

    S. Weinberg, The Cosmological Constant Problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1–23

    1989

Show all 93 references
  1. [7]

    S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological Constant , Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 1, [astro-ph/0004075]

    2001 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Bousso, TASI Lectures on the Cosmological Constant , Gen

    R. Bousso, TASI Lectures on the Cosmological Constant , Gen. Rel. Grav. 40 (2008) 607–637, [ arXiv:0708.4231]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Weinberg, Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant , Phys

    S. Weinberg, Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant , Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 2607

    1987

  4. [10]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  5. [11]

    Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys

    S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223–226

    1978

  6. [12]

    Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys

    F. Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279–282

    1978

  7. [13]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. (In Russian), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31 (1980) 260

    1980

  8. [14]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion , Phys. Lett. B 104 (1981) 199–202

    1981

  9. [15]

    Asadi et al., Early-Universe Model Building , arXiv:2203.06680

    P. Asadi et al., Early-Universe Model Building , arXiv:2203.06680

    arXiv

  10. [16]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 22 221801, [arXiv:1504.07551]. 23

    2015 arXiv

  11. [17]

    J. R. Espinosa, C. Grojean, G. Panico, A. Pomarol, O. Pujol` as, and G. Servant, Cosmological Higgs-Axion Interplay for a Naturally Small Electroweak Scale , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 25 251803, [ arXiv:1506.09217]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Hardy, Electroweak relaxation from finite temperature, JHEP 11 (2015) 077, [arXiv:1507.07525]

    E. Hardy, Electroweak relaxation from finite temperature, JHEP 11 (2015) 077, [arXiv:1507.07525]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Batell, G

    B. Batell, G. F. Giudice, and M. McCullough, Natural Heavy Supersymmetry, JHEP 12 (2015) 162, [ arXiv:1509.00834]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Marzola and M

    L. Marzola and M. Raidal, Natural relaxation, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 31 (2016) 1650215, [arXiv:1510.00710]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [21]

    J. L. Evans, T. Gherghetta, N. Nagata, and Z. Thomas, Naturalizing Supersymmetry with a Two-Field Relaxion Mechanism , JHEP 09 (2016) 150, [arXiv:1602.04812]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Hook and G

    A. Hook and G. Marques-Tavares, Relaxation from particle production, JHEP 12 (2016) 101, [ arXiv:1607.01786]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [23]

    You, A Dynamical Weak Scale from Inflation , JCAP 09 (2017) 019, [arXiv:1701.09167]

    T. You, A Dynamical Weak Scale from Inflation , JCAP 09 (2017) 019, [arXiv:1701.09167]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [24]

    J. L. Evans, T. Gherghetta, N. Nagata, and M. Peloso, Low-scale D -term inflation and the relaxion mechanism , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 11 115027, [arXiv:1704.03695]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. A. Fedderke, and L.-T. Wang, Relaxation of the Composite Higgs Little Hierarchy, JHEP 12 (2017) 139, [ arXiv:1705.09666]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [26]

    R. Z. Ferreira and A. Notari, Thermalized Axion Inflation , JCAP 09 (2017) 007, [arXiv:1706.00373]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Tangarife, K

    W. Tangarife, K. Tobioka, L. Ubaldi, and T. Volansky, Dynamics of Relaxed Inflation, JHEP 02 (2018) 084, [ arXiv:1706.03072]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Davidi, R

    O. Davidi, R. S. Gupta, G. Perez, D. Redigolo, and A. Shalit, Nelson-Barr relaxion, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 3 035014, [ arXiv:1711.00858]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Fonseca, B

    N. Fonseca, B. Von Harling, L. De Lima, and C. S. Machado, A warped relaxion, JHEP 07 (2018) 033, [ arXiv:1712.07635]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [30]

    M. Son, F. Ye, and T. You, Leptogenesis in Cosmological Relaxation with Particle Production, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 9 095016, [ arXiv:1804.06599]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Fonseca, E

    N. Fonseca, E. Morgante, and G. Servant, Higgs relaxation after inflation , JHEP 10 (2018) 020, [ arXiv:1805.04543]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Davidi, R

    O. Davidi, R. S. Gupta, G. Perez, D. Redigolo, and A. Shalit, The hierarchion, a relaxion addressing the Standard Model’s hierarchies , JHEP 08 (2018) 153, [arXiv:1806.08791]. 24

    2018 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Wang, Paper-boat relaxion, Phys

    S.-J. Wang, Paper-boat relaxion, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 9 095026, [arXiv:1811.06520]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [34]

    R. S. Gupta, J. Y. Reiness, and M. Spannowsky, All-in-one relaxion: A unified solution to five particle-physics puzzles , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 5 055003, [arXiv:1902.08633]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Fonseca, B

    N. Fonseca, B. von Harling, L. de Lima, and C. S. Machado, Super-Planckian axions from near-conformality, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 10 105019, [arXiv:1906.10193]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [36]

    M. Ibe, Y. Shoji, and M. Suzuki, Fast-Rolling Relaxion, JHEP 11 (2019) 140, [arXiv:1904.02545]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Kadota, U

    K. Kadota, U. Min, M. Son, and F. Ye, Cosmological Relaxation from Dark Fermion Production, JHEP 02 (2020) 135, [ arXiv:1909.07706]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Fonseca, E

    N. Fonseca, E. Morgante, R. Sato, and G. Servant, Relaxion Fluctuations (Self-stopping Relaxion) and Overview of Relaxion Stopping Mechanisms , JHEP 05 (2020) 080, [ arXiv:1911.08473]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 012 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Schmitz, and T. You, Cosmological relaxation through the dark axion portal, JHEP 07 (2022) 126, [ arXiv:2108.11295]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Matsedonskyi, Hierarchies from landscape probability gradients and critical boundaries, JHEP 08 (2024) 170, [ arXiv:2311.10139]

    O. Matsedonskyi, Hierarchies from landscape probability gradients and critical boundaries, JHEP 08 (2024) 170, [ arXiv:2311.10139]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [41]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, The Selfish Higgs , JHEP 10 (2019) 199, [arXiv:1907.05370]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [42]

    H. M. Lee, Relaxation of Higgs mass and cosmological constant with four-form fluxes and reheating , JHEP 01 (2020) 045, [ arXiv:1908.04252]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Moretti and F

    M. Moretti and F. Gil Pedro, Environmental selection of the cosmological constant and electroweak scales, JHEP 08 (2022) 287, [ arXiv:2202.07004]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Kaloper, Hidden variables of gravity and geometry and the cosmological constant problem, Phys

    N. Kaloper, Hidden variables of gravity and geometry and the cosmological constant problem, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 6 065009, [ arXiv:2202.06977]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Arkani-Hamed, T

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Cohen, R. T. D’Agnolo, A. Hook, H. D. Kim, and D. Pinner, Solving the Hierarchy Problem at Reheating with a Large Number of Degrees of Freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 25 251801, [ arXiv:1607.06821]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Geller, Y

    M. Geller, Y. Hochberg, and E. Kuflik, Inflating to the Weak Scale , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 19 191802, [ arXiv:1809.07338]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Cheung and P

    C. Cheung and P. Saraswat, Mass Hierarchy and Vacuum Energy , arXiv:1811.12390. 25

    arXiv

  42. [48]

    Chattopadhyay, D

    S. Chattopadhyay, D. S. Chattopadhyay, and R. S. Gupta, Cosmological selection of a small weak scale from large vacuum energy: a minimal approach , arXiv:2407.15935

    arXiv

  43. [49]

    Tito D’Agnolo and D

    R. Tito D’Agnolo and D. Teresi, Sliding Naturalness: New Solution to the Strong-CP and Electroweak-Hierarchy Problems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022), no. 2 021803, [arXiv:2106.04591]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Tito D’Agnolo and D

    R. Tito D’Agnolo and D. Teresi, Sliding naturalness: cosmological selection of the weak scale, JHEP 02 (2022) 023, [ arXiv:2109.13249]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Csaki, R

    C. Csaki, R. Tito D’Agnolo, E. Kuflik, and P. Sesma, A Cosmological Solution to the Doublet-Triplet Splitting Problem , arXiv:2411.03438

    arXiv

  46. [52]

    Khoury and O

    J. Khoury and O. Parrikar, Search Optimization, Funnel Topography, and Dynamical Criticality on the String Landscape , JCAP 12 (2019) 014, [arXiv:1907.07693]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Khoury, Accessibility Measure for Eternal Inflation: Dynamical Criticality and Higgs Metastability , JCAP 06 (2021) 009, [ arXiv:1912.06706]

    J. Khoury, Accessibility Measure for Eternal Inflation: Dynamical Criticality and Higgs Metastability , JCAP 06 (2021) 009, [ arXiv:1912.06706]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Kartvelishvili, J

    G. Kartvelishvili, J. Khoury, and A. Sharma, The Self-Organized Critical Multiverse, JCAP 02 (2021) 028, [ arXiv:2003.12594]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Khoury and S

    J. Khoury and S. S. C. Wong, Early-time measure in eternal inflation , JCAP 05 (2022), no. 05 031, [ arXiv:2106.12590]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Steingasser, Higgs criticality in and beyond the SM , PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 150, [arXiv:2405.02415]

    T. Steingasser, Higgs criticality in and beyond the SM , PoS CORFU2023 (2024) 150, [arXiv:2405.02415]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Steingasser and D

    T. Steingasser and D. I. Kaiser, Higgs potential criticality beyond the Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 9 095035, [ arXiv:2307.10361]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Chauhan and T

    G. Chauhan and T. Steingasser, Gravity-improved metastability bounds for the Type-I seesaw mechanism, JHEP 09 (2023) 151, [ arXiv:2304.08542]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Benevedes, T

    S. Benevedes, T. Steingasser, and S. Trifinopoulos, Spontaneous symmetry breaking, gauge hierarchy, and electroweak vacuum metastability , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 7 075019, [ arXiv:2408.10297]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, String Axiverse , Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 123530, [ arXiv:0905.4720]. 26

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Harigaya and I

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis from a Naturally Light Singlet Scalar , arXiv:2207.02867

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Harigaya and I

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, ALP-Assisted Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and Baryogenesis, JHEP 04 (Apr., 2024) 108, [ arXiv:2309.00587]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Andreassen, W

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Consistent Use of Effective Potentials, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2014), no. 1 016009, [ arXiv:1408.0287]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Andreassen, W

    A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Consistent Use of the Standard Model Effective Potential , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (Dec., 2014) 241801, [arXiv:1408.0292]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Buttazzo, G

    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 2013 (Dec., 2013) 89, [ arXiv:1307.3536]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Franceschini, A

    R. Franceschini, A. Strumia, and A. Wulzer, The collider landscape: Which collider for establishing the SM instability? , JHEP 08 (Mar., 2023) 229, [arXiv:2203.17197]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Dunsky, L

    D. Dunsky, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, Snowmass2021 - Letter of Interest ,

  62. [71]

    Degrassi, S

    G. Degrassi, S. Di Vita, J. Elias-Mir´ o, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori, and A. Strumia, Higgs Mass and Vacuum Stability in the Standard Model at NNLO, JHEP 2012 (Aug., 2012) 98, [ arXiv:1205.6497]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Khoury and T

    J. Khoury and T. Steingasser, Gauge hierarchy from electroweak vacuum metastability, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2021), no. 5 055031, [ arXiv:2108.09315]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Elias-Miro, J

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, H. M. Lee, and A. Strumia, Stabilization of the Electroweak Vacuum by a Scalar Threshold Effect , JHEP 06 (2012) 031, [ arXiv:1203.0237]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [74]

    K. S. Jeong, T. H. Jung, and C. S. Shin, Axionic Electroweak Baryogenesis, Phys. Lett. B 790 (Mar., 2019) 326–331, [ arXiv:1806.02591]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [75]

    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 ,

  67. [76]

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

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

    2020

  68. [77]

    Antel et al., Feebly Interacting Particles: FIPs 2022 workshop report , Eur

    C. Antel et al., Feebly Interacting Particles: FIPs 2022 workshop report , Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (Dec., 2023) 1122, [ arXiv:2305.01715]. 27

    2022 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Carena, J

    M. Carena, J. Kozaczuk, Z. Liu, T. Ou, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, J. Shelton, Y. Wang, and K.-P. Xie, Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition with Exotic Higgs Decays, LHEP 2023 (May, 2023) 432, [arXiv:2203.08206]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Acciarri et al., Search for neutral Higgs boson production through the process e+e− → Z ∗H 0, Phys

    L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., Search for neutral Higgs boson production through the process e+e− → Z ∗H 0, Phys. Lett. B 385 (Sept., 1996) 454–470

    1996

  71. [80]

    Barate et al., Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP , Phys

    LEP Working Group for Higgs boson searches, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL Collaboration, R. Barate et al., Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP , Phys. Lett. B 565 (2003) 61–75, [ hep-ex/0306033]

    2003 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Abbiendi et al., Decay-mode independent searches for new scalar bosons with the OPAL detector at LEP , Eur

    OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Decay-mode independent searches for new scalar bosons with the OPAL detector at LEP , Eur. Phys. J. C 27 (Apr., 2003) 311–329

    2003

  73. [82]

    Fuchs, O

    E. Fuchs, O. Matsedonskyi, I. Savoray, and M. Schlaffer, Collider searches of scalar singlets across lifetimes , JHEP 04 (Apr., 2021) 019, [ arXiv:2008.12773]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Beacham et al., Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report, J

    J. Beacham et al., Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report, J. Phys. G 47 (Dec., 2019) 010501, [ arXiv:1901.09966]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Cortina Gil et al., Search for a feebly interacting particle X in the decay K + → π+X, Jan., 2021

    NA62 Collaboration, E. Cortina Gil et al., Search for a feebly interacting particle X in the decay K + → π+X, Jan., 2021

    2021

  76. [85]

    Cortina Gil et al., HIKE, High Intensity Kaon Experiments at the CERN SPS , arXiv:2211.16586

    HIKE Collaboration, E. Cortina Gil et al., HIKE, High Intensity Kaon Experiments at the CERN SPS , arXiv:2211.16586

    arXiv

  77. [86]

    M. W. Winkler, Decay and detection of a light scalar boson mixing with the Higgs boson, Phys. Rev. D 99 (Jan., 2019) 015018, [ arXiv:1809.01876]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [87]

    J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, FCNC portals to the dark sector , JHEP 03 (2012), no. 3 090, [ arXiv:1111.6402]

    2012 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Batell, M

    B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Multi-lepton Signatures of a Hidden Sector in Rare B Decays, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), no. 5 054005, [ arXiv:0911.4938]

    2011 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Ball and R

    P. Ball and R. Zwicky, New results on B → π, K, ηdecay formfactors from light-cone sum rules , Phys. Rev. D 71 (06, 2005) 014015, [ hep-ph/0406232]

    2005 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Navas et al., Review of Particle Physics , Phys

    Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of Particle Physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (Aug., 2024) 030001

    2024

  82. [91]

    M. Ibe, S. Kobayashi, Y. Nakayama, and S. Shirai, Cosmological Constraints on Dark Scalar, JHEP 03 (Mar., 2022) 198, [ arXiv:2112.11096]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (Sept., 2020) A6, [ arXiv:1807.06209]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [93]

    CMB-S4 Collaboration, K. N. Abazajian et al., CMB-S4 Science Book, First Edition, arXiv:1610.02743. 28

    arXiv

  85. [94]

    A. E. Thomsen, RGBeta: A Mathematica Package for the Evaluation of Renormalization Group Beta-Functions, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (May, 2021) 408, [arXiv:2101.08265]. 29

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.