Relaxation of Higgs mass and cosmological constant with four-form fluxes and reheating

Hyun Min Lee

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Relaxation of Higgs mass and cosmological constant with four-form fluxes and reheating

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a single four-form flux parameter can relax the Higgs mass, the cosmological constant, and the Planck mass to their observed values, and then reheat the Universe through the decay of a new scalar inflaton.

desk verdict The paper extends the four-form relaxation mechanism with a new gravity coupling and a reheating scenario, but the reheating-during-last-nucleation branch is internally inconsistent because it requires the same membrane tension to be both fast and slow. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04252 v3 pith:SWBF5OTU submitted 2019-08-12 hep-ph hep-th

Hyun Min Lee This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-th

keywords four-formfluxHiggsmassrelaxationcosmologicalconstantmembranenucleationinflationreheatingnon-minimalgravitycouplingscalar-tensortheory

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 one four-form flux parameter can simultaneously relax the Higgs mass parameter, the cosmological constant, and the Planck mass to their observed values, and that the same mechanism provides the inflaton and reheats the Universe at the end of the relaxation. It constructs the most general effective action for four-form fluxes coupled to the Standard Model and gravity, adding a non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity that earlier relaxation proposals did not contain. The flux parameter scans the effective Higgs mass and cosmological constant through membrane nucleation, and the scan stops because the last tunneling from a de Sitter phase to AdS is exponentially suppressed. The paper then identifies conditions under which a new scalar field, dual to the quadratic-curvature term induced by the non-minimal coupling, drives inflation and decays to Higgs pairs, yielding a concrete reheating temperature. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a single mechanism that addresses two long-standing fine-tuning problems and supplies a dynamical, non-empty Universe afterwards.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-form flux $q$, obtained by integrating out the four-form field strength $F_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$; it is quantized in units of the membrane charge $e$ and can be lowered by one unit whenever a membrane nucleates. The identity that carries the argument is the dependence of all three effective parameters on $q$: $M_{\rm eff}^2 = M^2 - c_2 q$, $\Lambda_{\rm eff} = \Lambda + \frac12 q^2$, and $f(H,q) = 1 + c_1(c_2|H|^2+q)$, the coefficient of the Ricci scalar. A Weyl rescaling converts the $R + R^2$ sector into a scalar-tensor theory with a canonically normalized field $\bar\sigma$ whose potential minimum depends on $q$; every membrane nucleation shifts that minimum, releasing energy that drives oscillations. The bounce action of the last tunneling determines the transition rate and hence when the flux stops changing.

What would settle it

Using an independently determined membrane tension $T$ and flux jump $e$, compute the last-step tunneling rate $\gamma = \bar r_0^{-4} e^{-B}$ from eqs. (16)-(19); if $\gamma$ is not exponentially below $H^4$ at $q = q_c$, the Universe tunnels into AdS before reheating, so the claimed stopping at the observed phase fails. Alternatively, if the predicted reheating temperature in eq. (55) falls below about 1 MeV for order-one $c_1,c_2$ with $m_{\bar\sigma} > 380$ TeV, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis would rule the scenario out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the four-form flux parameter $q$ scans not only the effective Higgs mass squared $M_{\rm eff}^2 = M^2 - c_2 q$ and the effective cosmological constant $\Lambda_{\rm eff} = \Lambda + \frac12 q^2$, but also the effective Planck mass through the field-dependent gravitational coupling $f(H,q) = 1 + c_1(c_2|H|^2+q)$. The flux changes by one unit of the membrane charge $e$ each time a membrane nucleates, and the scanning stops at the observed phase because the semiclassical membrane-nucleation tunneling probability from the last de Sitter configuration to AdS is exponentially small. The paper further claims that the new scalar field arising from the non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity, after the tachyonic $R^2$ instability is cured by a compensating $R^2$ term, acts as the inflaton; the shift of its potential minimum after each membrane nucleation provides the vacuum energy for reheating. For natural choices $e \sim (1\,{\rm TeV})^2$ and $q_c \sim M_P^2$, the inflaton mass is around the TeV scale or above and its decay to Higgs pairs sets the reheating temperature. The paper notes that the light-scalar regime requires a large coefficient of the compensating $R^2$ term, so higher-curvature terms must be controlled for the effective theory to be complete.

Load-bearing premise

The relaxation stops at the observed de Sitter phase because the last membrane-nucleation tunneling from that de Sitter vacuum to AdS is extremely suppressed, together with an anthropic condition on the final cosmological constant; this suppression is adopted from semiclassical gravity rather than derived in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, the weak scale and the cosmological constant share one origin: both are set by the same flux parameter $q$ and stop at the same last membrane nucleation.
The observed vacuum is not exactly stable; it is a metastable de Sitter phase whose decay to AdS is exponentially suppressed, so the Universe can persist in the observed phase for longer than a Hubble time.
The new scalar from the non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity can be the inflaton, with a mass around the TeV scale for the natural flux parameters, and its decay through the Higgs portal reheats the Universe.
The reheating temperature is computable from the couplings $c_1,c_2$ and the inflaton mass; for $m_{\bar\sigma} > 380$ TeV and order-one couplings it can exceed Big Bang Nucleosynthesis bounds.
The parameter space with $q_c\sim M_P^2$ and $\sqrt{e}\sim 1$ TeV gives a concrete target: an inflaton mass near a TeV with a large $R^2$ coefficient $\zeta \sim 10^{15}$.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, coupling the four-form to additional singlet scalars would let the same flux scan other mass parameters, so the mechanism generalizes from the Higgs to any weakly coupled modulus.
The flux-dependent Planck mass implies that gravity was stronger or weaker during earlier high-flux stages; remnants of that epoch, if any survive, would distinguish this mechanism from axion-like relaxation.
A concrete test: combining a measured inflationary scale with the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis lower bound on reheating temperature constrains the combination $c_1 c_2$ and the inflaton mass, the two couplings that set $T_{\rm RH}$.
Computing the scalar perturbation spectrum from the sigma-field potential would turn the low-scale inflation scenario into a CMB-testable model; the paper leaves the e-folding count and inflationary observables open.

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

Quick take: this is an extension of the four-form flux relaxation idea from Giudice–Kehagias–Riotto and Kaloper–Westphal, adding a non-minimal four-form–gravity coupling that dualizes to an R^2 scalar. The first sections are a clean review; the algebraic dualization and potential minimization check out. The genuinely new content is the proposal that this scalar can be the inflaton and reheat after relaxation. That is a sensible question and worth asking.

The problem sits in the reheating section. The stress-test you sent is right: Sec. 5.1 requires the last membrane nucleation (q=qc → qc−e) to be fast, which forces M_* < 10^10 GeV via eq. (20). That is the weak-gravity regime T^2/M_P^2 << ΔΛ, where the bounce action is small and the rate is huge. But the paper's stop condition for the observed dS phase relies on eq. (15), which only applies in the opposite regime T^2/M_P^2 >> ΔΛ. With the same membrane tension, the next transition (qc−e → qc−2e) would also be fast, so the Universe tunnels to AdS almost immediately. The mechanism does not stop at the observed cosmological constant in the parameter region used for reheating during the last nucleation, and the paper does not flag the regime switch.

There are smaller issues. Eq. (46) sets H = V_i/√3, which is dimensionally inconsistent—V_i has mass^4. The requirement m_σ ~ H needs ζ ~ 10^15, which the paper admits strains perturbativity. Sec. 5.2 avoids the fast/long-lived clash by going to the long-lived branch, but then the paper itself says the required efoldings and inflationary observables have not been computed. So neither branch gives a complete, self-consistent reheating picture.

Credit where due: the paper is candid about several caveats (open universe problem, large coupling, missing efoldings), and it properly credits the prior relaxation papers—the relaxation core is not claimed as new. The dualization math is standard and mostly consistent.

Verdict: this is not ready as a complete solution, but it is a substantial, competent extension in an active line, and the tension here is exactly what a referee should catch. Send it to peer review with the expectation of major revision or rejection; reviewers should focus on whether any self-consistent parameter region can satisfy both the stop condition and reheating.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers an effective action in which a four-form flux couples both to the Standard Model Higgs field and, in a new non-minimal way, to gravity. It argues that the flux parameter q scans the effective Higgs mass, the cosmological constant, and the effective Planck mass, and that the dual scalar sigma originating from the curvature-squared term can act as the inflaton. The paper presents two reheating scenarios—one during the last membrane nucleation and one after it—and derives expressions for the inflaton mass and reheating temperature. The relaxation mechanism itself is imported from earlier work, while the sigma-field dynamics and reheating analysis are the new elements.

Significance. If the central proposal were correct, it would unite the relaxation of the Higgs mass and the cosmological constant with an inflaton candidate emerging from the same four-form flux sector, and it would provide a concrete reheating temperature in terms of the flux and curvature couplings. The paper is clearly organized and the formal dualization from the R^2 term to the sigma field is carried out explicitly, which is a useful feature. However, the new reheating claims are not substantiated: the small-tension branch used for reheating during the last nucleation is inconsistent with the required metastability of the observed cosmological constant, and the large-tension branch is explicitly acknowledged by the authors to lack an efoldings and inflationary-observables analysis. These are load-bearing deficiencies, not presentation issues.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 3, Eq. (15) and Sec. 5.1] There is a regime-of-validity error in the stop condition. The paper invokes Eq. (15), P ~ exp(-24 pi^2 M_P^4 / Lambda_{n+1}), to argue that the transition out of the observed dS phase at q = qc - e is extremely suppressed. That formula is the curvature-dominated limit of the bounce action, which requires r0 >~ 2 H^{-1}, i.e. T^2/M_P^2 >~ (4/3) Lambda. In Sec. 5.1, however, the fast last nucleation from q = qc to q = qc - e is realized with small tension M_* < 10^10 GeV, for which T^2/M_P^2 << Lambda with Lambda ~ e qc ~ 10^40-10^42 GeV^4. In this flat-space regime the relevant bounce action is B ~ 27 pi^2 T^4 / (2 (Delta Lambda)^3), and for M_* < 10^10 GeV this B is of order unity or smaller, giving a decay rate gamma ~ r0^{-4} e^{-B} that is enormously larger than H^4 of the near-zero dS phase. The transition q = qc - e -> q = qc - 2e has the same Delta Lambda ~ e qc, so the flux does not stop at the observed phase; Eq. (15) is applied outside its valid regime. This undermines the Sec. 5.1 reheating scenario and the central claim that the same flux mechanism yields both the observed weak scale and a stable small cosmological constant.
[Eq. (46)] Equation (46) is dimensionally inconsistent: H(qc) = V_i / sqrt(3) = m_sigma,eff equates a quantity of mass dimension 4 with one of mass dimension 1. The Friedmann relation requires H^2 = V_i/(3 M_P^2), or in Planck units still H = sqrt(V_i/3), not V_i/sqrt(3). This error enters the condition m_sigma^2 ~ 2 e qc and propagates to the reheating temperature estimate in Eq. (49), so the numerical relations between m_sigma, zeta, and T_RH are not reliable as written.
[Sec. 5.2, last paragraph] The alternative reheating-after-last-nucleation branch is not a complete inflationary model. The paper itself states that 'we still need to see the details of the sufficient number of efoldings and the inflationary observables in a low-scale inflation.' Without a slow-roll analysis showing at least 50-60 efoldings and a viable perturbation spectrum, the identification of the sigma field as the inflaton is unsupported. Since this branch is the only one that avoids the Sec. 5.1 contradiction, this missing analysis is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
[Eqs. (3), (11), and text after Eq. (3)] The statement that c1 is dimensionless is internally inconsistent. In Eq. (11), f(H,q) = 1 + c1(c2 |H|^2 + q) must be dimensionless, but c2 |H|^2 and q have mass dimension 2, so c1 must have mass dimension -2 unless one is working in units with M_P = 1. The paper later reintroduces M_P explicitly in Eqs. (48)-(55), so the dimensional bookkeeping is not consistent. This affects the canonical normalization of the sigma field in Eq. (28) and the decay rate formula in Eq. (48).

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 5.1, first paragraph] The sentence 'we assume that the last dS phase decays within the Hubble spacetime volume during the last dS phase, that is, gamma < H^4' appears to have the inequality reversed; decaying within a Hubble time requires gamma > H^4, as stated in Sec. 3.
[Eqs. (17)-(19)] The Hubble radius H^{-1} used after Eq. (17) is defined through Delta Lambda rather than through the actual initial cosmological constant of the dS phase. This is confusing and is part of the regime-of-validity problem; the paper should define H through the initial Lambda_i throughout.
[General notation] The symbol M_P is used for the reduced Planck mass while M is used for the bare Higgs mass parameter; this is a common but potentially confusing choice, especially in equations like Eq. (49) where both appear.
[Eq. (15)] The condition stated for Eq. (15), 'when Lambda_{n+1} << T^2/M_P^2', is not the correct criterion for the curvature-dominated regime; the correct condition involves the ratio r0 H, as in Eq. (17). The text should be corrected to avoid this misleading statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the four-form relaxation and reheating derivation is self-contained; the Sec. 5.1 caveats are physical consistency issues, not input-output equivalence.

full rationale

The central relaxation mechanism is imported from the independent works [16,17], which are not by this author, and the paper's new contribution—the non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity c1 and the dual sigma field—is derived from the stated Lagrangian. The reheating temperature in Eq. (49) is obtained by imposing the oscillation condition H(qc)=m_sigma,eff in Eq. (46); this is a parametric consistency condition that determines the R^2 coupling zeta, not a fit of the predicted quantity. The mass m_sigma and couplings c1,c2 remain free inputs, so the resulting TRH is a conditional prediction. The Brown-Teitelboim tunneling rate in Eq. (15) is an externally established semiclassical result, not a self-citation. The paper's self-citations [14,22] are contextual and not load-bearing: [22] merely points to a companion generalization, and [14] concerns unrelated self-tuning solutions. The skeptical concern that the fast last-nucleation regime of Sec. 5.1 may make the final dS phase short-lived is a real physical consistency question, but it is not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The paper also explicitly acknowledges open issues at the end of Sec. 5: 'we still need to see the details of the sufficient number of efoldings and the inflationary observables in a low-scale inflation.' These are limitations, not circularity. No quoted equation is equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model introduces free couplings c1, c2, zeta (or m_sigma), membrane charge e, ending flux qc, and bare Lambda; the relaxation mechanism itself is borrowed from [16,17]. The reheating condition is set by imposing m_sigma ~ H at q=qc, so the scale of the inflaton is chosen rather than predicted. No new entity beyond the R^2 dual scalar is postulated, and the paper provides no independent experimental handle for it.

free parameters (6)

c1 (non-minimal four-form-gravity coupling) = c1 >= 10^3 for TRH >= 10 MeV in Sec. 5.1; c1 = O(1) in Sec. 5.2
Dimensionless coupling in L_int (eq. 3); controls inflaton-Higgs decay and reheating temperature; not determined by the model.
c2 (four-form-Higgs coupling) = O(1)
Dimensionless coupling in L_int (eq. 3); sets qc = M^2/c2 for electroweak symmetry breaking; taken O(1).
zeta (R^2 coefficient) or m_sigma (inflaton mass) = zeta ~ 10^15 (m~TeV) in Sec. 5.1; zeta < 5.2 x 10^12 (m > 380 TeV) in Sec. 5.2
Chosen so that m_sigma ~ H at q=qc; determines when the sigma field oscillates and reheats. This is a tuning to make reheating work.
e (membrane charge) = e ~ (100 GeV)^2 or (1 TeV)^2
Quantized flux step; chosen at weak scale to relax the Higgs mass to the observed value.
q (ending flux parameter qc) = qc ~ M_P^2
The stopping value q=qc-e gives the observed Higgs mass and CC; chosen to solve the hierarchy.
bare Lambda (cosmological constant) = Lambda ~ -1/2(qc-e)^2
Negative bare CC tuned so that Lambda_eff(qc-e) approximately 0 plus observed CC via anthropic argument; not predicted.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Brown-Teitelboim tunneling formula (eqs. 16-19) gives the flux-changing nucleation rate.
Used to conclude the flux stops and to estimate gamma < H^4; semi-classical Euclidean gravity is assumed.
domain assumption Four-form flux is quantized, q = e n, and changes only via membrane nucleation (eq. 10).
Standard flux-compactification quantization from membrane charge; imported from prior literature.
domain assumption The anthropic principle selects the observed cosmological constant at the last transition (Weinberg [18]).
No dynamical selection of the final CC value; the paper explicitly relies on an anthropic argument.
domain assumption Quadratic gravity with positive zeta^2 R^2 is a valid effective theory; the spin-2 ghost decouples (Stelle [19]).
Needed to cure the tachyonic instability from the c1 coupling and to treat sigma as a quantum field; the paper acknowledges perturbativity concerns.
domain assumption The Higgs VEV is stabilized at <H> = v/sqrt(2) in each dS phase during scanning.
Used to derive the sigma potential in eq. (34) and to compare minima before and after membrane nucleation.
standard math Weyl rescaling and scalar-tensor dualization of R^2 are standard.
The transformation from Jordan frame to Einstein frame and the dualization of R^2 to a scalar are standard procedures in gravity.

invented entities (2)

dynamical scalar sigma (dual to the R^2 term)
purpose: Inflaton and reheating after flux relaxation
It arises from the R^2 term needed to stabilize the c1 four-form coupling; the paper assigns it a mass and couplings but provides no independent observational handle.
non-minimal four-form-gravity coupling c1
purpose: Couples flux to curvature, generates the dynamical scalar, and scans the Planck mass
New interaction introduced in eq. (3); no independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relaxation of Higgs mass and cosmological constant with four-form fluxes and reheating." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWBF5OTU

@misc{pith2026190804252,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relaxation of Higgs mass and cosmological constant with four-form fluxes and reheating},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWBF5OTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04252}
}

read the original abstract

We consider the most general effective action for the four-form fluxes in the Standard Model coupled to gravity. The Higgs mass parameter can be relaxed to a correct value due to the four-form coupling to the Higgs field and it stops changing due to an extremely suppressed transition probability from the observed cosmological constant to AdS space. We first introduce a non-minimal four-form coupling to gravity and discuss the role of a new scalar field as the inflaton and the conditions for a successful reheating at the end of relaxation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Vacuum Metastability from Axion-Higgs Criticality
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An ALP-Higgs coupling can lower the vacuum instability scale to near the weak scale, predicting an axion-like particle between 1 MeV and 20 GeV that future experiments can fully probe.
Chaotic inflation with four-form couplings
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A four-form flux that couples both to a pseudo-scalar inflaton and to gravity produces a plateau inflaton potential whose spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio agree with current CMB data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989
[3]

Witten, Conf

E. Witten, Conf. Proc. C 8306011 (1983) 227

work page 1983
[5]

M. J. Duncan and L. G. Jensen, Nucl. Phys. B 336 (1990) 100. doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(90)90344-D

doi:10.1016/0550- 1990
[6]

Baum, Phys

E. Baum, Phys. Lett. 133B (1983) 185. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90556-7; S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 134B (1984) 403. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91370-4; M. J. Duﬀ, Phys. Lett. B 226 (1989) 36 [Conf. Proc. C 8903131 (1989) 403]. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90284-0

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90556-7 1983
[7]

Bousso and J

R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, JHEP 0006 (2000) 006 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2000/06/006 [hep-th/0004134]

arXiv 2000
[8]

J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 177. doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(87)91190-7; J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Nucl. Phys. B 297 (1988) 787. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90559-7

doi:10.1016/0370- 1987
[9]

Dvali and A

G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 063501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063501 [hep-th/0304043]

arXiv 2004
[10]

An Axion-induced SM/MSSM Higgs Landscape and the Weak Gravity Conjecture

A. Herraez and L. E. Ibanez, JHEP 1702 (2017) 109 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)109 [arXiv:1610.08836 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017

Show all 20 references

[11]

Kaloper and L

N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 121301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.121301 [arXiv:0811.1989 [hep-th]]. 12

2009 arXiv
[12]

Kaloper and L

N. Kaloper and L. Sorbo, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 043528 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.043528 [arXiv:0810.5346 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[13]

Dvali, hep-th/0507215; G

G. Dvali, hep-th/0507215; G. Dvali, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 025019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.025019 [hep-th/0510053]

2006 arXiv
[14]

J. E. Kim, B. Kyae and H. M. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4223 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4223 [hep-th/0011118]; J. E. Kim, B. Kyae and H. M. Lee, Nucl. Phys. B 613 (2001) 306 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00397-2 [hep-th/0101027]; J. E. Kim and H. M. Lee, JHEP 0209 (2002) 052 ...

2001 arXiv
[15]

P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no.22, 221801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.221801 [arXiv:1504.07551 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[16]

G. F. Giudice, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, arXiv:1907.05370 [hep-ph]

1907 arXiv
[17]

Kaloper and A

N. Kaloper and A. Westphal, arXiv:1907.05837 [hep-th]

1907 arXiv
[18]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 2607. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607

1987 doi
[19]

K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 953. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.953

1977 doi
[20]

S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 3305. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305

1980 doi
[21]

S. W. Hawking and N. Turok, Phys. Lett. B 425 (1998) 25 doi:10.1016/S0370- 2693(98)00234-2 [hep-th/9802030]

1998 arXiv
[22]

H. M. Lee, arXiv:1910.09171 [hep-ph]. 13

1910 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Weinberg, Rev

S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989) 1. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.61.1

doi:10.1103/revmodphys.61.1 1989

[2] [3]

Witten, Conf

E. Witten, Conf. Proc. C 8306011 (1983) 227

work page 1983

[3] [5]

M. J. Duncan and L. G. Jensen, Nucl. Phys. B 336 (1990) 100. doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(90)90344-D

doi:10.1016/0550- 1990

[4] [6]

Baum, Phys

E. Baum, Phys. Lett. 133B (1983) 185. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90556-7; S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. 134B (1984) 403. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91370-4; M. J. Duﬀ, Phys. Lett. B 226 (1989) 36 [Conf. Proc. C 8903131 (1989) 403]. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90284-0

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90556-7 1983

[5] [7]

Bousso and J

R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, JHEP 0006 (2000) 006 doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2000/06/006 [hep-th/0004134]

arXiv 2000

[6] [8]

J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B 195 (1987) 177. doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(87)91190-7; J. D. Brown and C. Teitelboim, Nucl. Phys. B 297 (1988) 787. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90559-7

doi:10.1016/0370- 1987

[7] [9]

Dvali and A

G. Dvali and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 063501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063501 [hep-th/0304043]

arXiv 2004

[8] [10]

An Axion-induced SM/MSSM Higgs Landscape and the Weak Gravity Conjecture

A. Herraez and L. E. Ibanez, JHEP 1702 (2017) 109 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2017)109 [arXiv:1610.08836 [hep-th]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2017