Composite Higgs models

Juan Pablo Hoyos Daza

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Composite Higgs models

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 If the Higgs is composite, its couplings to W, Z, and fermions deviate from the Standard Model by symmetry-determined factors built from a single parameter $\xi = v^2/f^2$.

desk verdict Careful but unoriginal re-derivation of the MCHM5 and NMCHM6 composite Higgs models: useful pedagogy, no new physics, and an honest but real tuning limitation in the potential. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10204 v1 pith:VYDK5335 submitted 2019-08-25 hep-ph

Juan Pablo Hoyos Daza This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords CompositeHiggsmodelpseudo-Nambu-GoldstonebosonvacuummisalignmentCCWZconstructionpartialcompositenessSO(5)/SO(4)cosetSO(6)/SO(5)darkmatterscalar

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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's central claim is that if the Higgs boson is a composite pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson, its couplings to W, Z, and fermions are forced by symmetry to deviate from the Standard Model in a specific, calculable way controlled by the single number $\xi = v^2/f^2$. Building two effective field theories, one for the coset $SO(5)/SO(4)$ and one for $SO(6)/SO(5)$, the dissertation derives the deviation factors and shows they collapse to the Standard Model in the limit $\xi\to 0$. A reader should care because these factors are testable at colliders: they are the sharpest fingerprint of the composite-Higgs mechanism and of the scale $f$ of the new strong dynamics. The work also estimates the composite Higgs potential using spurions and finds that the required small value $\xi\ll 1$ can only be obtained by tuning the potential's two coefficients.

What carries the argument

The CCWZ construction is the load-bearing tool: every Goldstone fluctuation is packaged in the matrix $U[\Pi] = \exp(i\sqrt{2}\,\Pi^{\hat a} \hat T_{\hat a}/f)$, and the Maurer-Cartan form $i U^{-1}\partial_\mu U$ is decomposed into $d_\mu$ (covariant Goldstone derivatives) and $e_\mu$ (auxiliary gauge connection). The $d_\mu$ symbols provide the kinetic term ${\cal L}^{(2)} = \frac{f^2}{4}d_{\mu}^{\hat a} d^{\mu}_{\hat a}$, and the shift symmetry forbids non-derivative terms at leading order. The same matrix $U$ is used to 'dress' elementary fermion sources into $SO(4)$- or $SO(5)$-multiplets, implementing partial compositeness and producing the modified Yukawa couplings. Finally, spurions promote the symmetry-breaking couplings to formal fields transforming under the global group, which lets the paper enumerate the invariant operators that generate the Higgs potential.

What would settle it

Measure the ratios of $hVV$ and $hhVV$ couplings at a high-luminosity collider: in the minimal $SO(5)/SO(4)$ model the two ratios are fixed functions of one number $\xi$, so a measured pair $(\sqrt{1-\xi},\,1-2\xi)$ that cannot be fitted by a single $\xi$ rules the model out. Separately, observing a stable singlet scalar with the predicted $\xi$-dependent couplings would support the $SO(6)/SO(5)$ dark-matter scenario, while a measurement $\xi\approx 1$ would contradict the small-misalignment assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is the explicit construction of the non-linear Lagrangians and the extraction of the modified vertices. For the minimal $SO(5)/SO(4)$ model, the gauge-boson vertices deviate as $g^{\rm CH}_{hVV}/g^{\rm SM}_{hVV} = \sqrt{1-\xi}$ and $g^{\rm CH}_{hhVV}/g^{\rm SM}_{hhVV} = 1-2\xi$, while the top and bottom Yukawa couplings carry the factor $k^5 = (1-2\xi)/\sqrt{1-\xi}$, with a new five-dimensional $h^2 t\bar{t}$ vertex whose coefficient is $c_2^5 = -2\xi$. The non-minimal $SO(6)/SO(5)$ model contains an extra gauge-singlet scalar $\zeta$ that, if its vacuum expectation value vanishes, is protected by a parity symmetry and is stable, making it a dark-matter candidate; its couplings depend on $\xi$ and on the two VEVs. The estimated Higgs potential, $V(H) = -\alpha f^2 \sin^2(\sqrt{2}H/f) + \beta f^2 \sin^4(\sqrt{2}H/f)$, has a nontrivial minimum at $\xi = \alpha/(2\beta)$, which in the minimal model fixes the Higgs mass as $m_H^2 = 8\xi(1-\xi)\beta$. In both cosets the paper emphasizes that a phenomenologically acceptable $\xi\ll 1$ requires $\alpha\ll\beta$, i.e. a tuned cancellation between unknown coefficients from the gauge and top sectors.

Load-bearing premise

The electroweak vacuum is not derived from the strong dynamics; the potential is assumed to have the form $V(H) = -\alpha f^2 \sin^2(\sqrt{2}H/f) + \beta f^2 \sin^4(\sqrt{2}H/f)$ with unknown coefficients, and the required small misalignment $\xi = v^2/f^2 = \alpha/(2\beta)\ll 1$ comes from assuming $\alpha\ll\beta$ rather than from a computed dynamical origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the composite-Higgs picture is correct, the LHC's measured $hVV$ coupling ratio must equal $\sqrt{1-\xi}$, so a 20% allowed deviation translates into $\xi\lesssim 0.4$ in the minimal model.
At a high-energy future collider, measuring both $hVV$ and $hhVV$ couplings provides an internal consistency check: the two factors $\sqrt{1-\xi}$ and $1-2\xi$ must come from the same $\xi$.
The five-dimensional $h^2 t\bar{t}$ vertex, absent in the Standard Model, appears with strength $c_2^5 = -2\xi$, giving a new handle on $\xi$ through double-Higgs plus top production.
In the $SO(6)/SO(5)$ model with vanishing singlet VEV, the extra singlet is stabilised by a parity and survives as a dark-matter candidate with couplings tied to $\xi$.
In the $\xi\to 0$ limit all deviations vanish and the composite Higgs becomes effectively elementary, so any observed coupling shift directly measures $v^2/f^2$.

Reading between the lines

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

The dissertation leaves the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ undetermined; if a UV completion produced a different ratio, the small misalignment could be natural rather than tuned, a possibility not explored here.
The same CCWZ machinery would yield the leading $\sqrt{1-\xi}$ gauge-coupling shift for any coset containing the same Higgs doublet, while the fermion couplings would depend on the representation chosen for partial compositeness.
If future measurements of $hVV$ and $hhVV$ couplings each infer a different value of $\xi$, that mismatch would signal additional light states mixing with the Higgs rather than a single pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson.

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

Colleague,

The paper is an MSc dissertation that re-derives, step by step, the MCHM5 and NMCHM6 composite Higgs Lagrangians. There is no new physics: the coupling modifications in Eqs. (3.25) and (3.54), the kinetic mixing in Chapter 4, and the spurion-based potential forms are all in Panico–Wulzer, Agashe–Contino–Pomarol, and Gripaios et al. If you are looking for a citable research result, this is not it.

What the paper does well: the CCWZ machinery is applied carefully, the fermion embeddings in the 5 and 6 are worked out explicitly, and the appendices give the Goldstone matrix computation in detail. The spurion chapter correctly obtains the sin^2/sin^4 structure and, importantly, it does not pretend to predict the vacuum misalignment: Eq. (5.21) states plainly that α ≪ β requires tuning. The stress-test note is right that ξ is parametrized rather than derived, but the manuscript is honest about that.

The soft spots: a handful of typos in the gauge sector—for instance, the coefficient of the W/Z mass term in Eq. (3.20) looks like g^2/(4f^2) sin^2, which should be g^2 f^2/4 sin^2 or a redefinition of v; the same typo carries into Eq. (3.24). Also, the F2 notation in Chapter 4 could be clearer. These are minor and fixable. The deeper limitation is the potential: α and β are free parameters, so any prediction is conditional on an unexplained cancellation. That limits the phenomenological value, but it is a known feature of the spurion method, not a derivational error.

Who gets value from this: a graduate student who wants a self-contained, notational walkthrough of the standard models. It is not a paper that advances the field.

For peer review: as a research submission, I would desk-reject on novelty. As a review/lecture note, it could be accepted after a typo-fixing round. I would not send it to a referee expecting a substantive new claim.

Best.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript, an MSc dissertation posted on arXiv, presents a pedagogical derivation of two composite Higgs models based on the cosets SO(5)/SO(4) (MCHM5) and SO(6)/SO(5) (NMCHM6). It constructs the CCWZ effective Lagrangians, derives the modified couplings of the Higgs to gauge bosons and fermions, and attempts to estimate the composite Higgs potential using spurions. The central quantitative results are the ξ-dependent coupling modifiers, e.g., Eq. (3.25), g_CH_hVV/g_SM = sqrt(1−ξ) and g_CH_hhVV/g_SM = 1−2ξ, and Eq. (3.54), k_t^5 = (1−2ξ)/sqrt(1−ξ), which reduce to the Standard Model in the limit ξ→0. Chapter 5 parametrizes the potential as V(H) = −α f^2 sin^2(√2 H/f) + β f^2 sin^4(√2 H/f) for MCHM5 and a two-field analogue for NMCHM6, leaving the coefficients α, β (and analogous α_i, β_i) as free parameters.

Significance. The CCWZ constructions in Chapters 2–4 are standard, internally consistent, and carefully documented, with explicit generators, Goldstone matrices, dressing procedures, and Taylor expansions in the appendices. The derived coupling-modification formulas are explicit and falsifiable at the HL-LHC, and the emphasis on custodial symmetry and the tree-level ρ=1 relation is correct. The main limitation is that Chapter 5 does not predict the smallness of the vacuum misalignment parameter ξ; rather, ξ is introduced through unknown potential coefficients. Thus the paper is a reliable review of known material rather than a derivation of new predictions, and its stated goal of “estimating” the potential needs to be qualified.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.1, Eqs. (5.15)–(5.21)] The potential “estimate” leaves ξ as a free parameter rather than deriving it. The coefficients α and β in Eq. (5.15) absorb the unknown spurion coefficients cL, cR, c′LL, etc., introduced in Eqs. (5.12)–(5.14). The minimum condition (5.18) gives ξ = α/(2β), and Eq. (5.21) explicitly requires α ≪ β. This means the smallness of ξ, which controls every coupling deviation in Eq. (3.25) and Eq. (3.54), is assumed rather than predicted. Since the paper aims to “estimate” the composite Higgs potential, this is a load-bearing gap: the chapter should be reframed as a parametrization of the potential, or supplemented with a dynamical argument that fixes α ≪ β.
[Section 5.2, Eqs. (5.38)–(5.45)] The same underdetermination appears in the NMCHM6 case: Eq. (5.43) imposes ξ = α1/(2β1) with α1 ≪ β1, again without a dynamical origin. In addition, the mass formula (5.45), m_ζ^2 = 2 f^2 ξ/⟨H⟩^2 (ξ β3 − α2), requires ξ β3 > α2 for the ⟨ζ⟩ = 0 vacuum to be a local minimum, but no condition ensuring this is derived or discussed. Since the stability of the ⟨ζ⟩ = 0 direction is essential for the claim that ζ can serve as a dark matter candidate, this omission should be addressed explicitly.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.2, Eqs. (4.19)–(4.21)] The notation F1, F2, F3 for the kinetic-coefficient functions conflicts with the Fermi constant GF and with the F used for the vacuum field configuration in Chapter 2; a less overloaded notation (e.g., K1, K2, K3) would improve readability.
[Section 3.2, Eq. (3.15)] The coefficient in front of the D_mu H-dagger D_mu H term in Eq. (3.15) may appear non-canonical at finite |H|; the text should state explicitly that the small-|H| expansion reproduces the canonical kinetic term, to avoid an apparent mismatch.
[Section 4.1, heading] The heading “From NBG's to Higgs doublet” contains a typo; it should read “From NGB's to Higgs doublet.”
[Section 5.2, text after Eq. (5.45)] The sentence “to ensure α1 ≪ β2” appears to contain a typo: the condition from Eq. (5.43) is α1 ≪ β1, not β2.
[Section 3.2, text before Eq. (3.16)] The cross-reference “a sketch of the properties of the Higgs potential will be presented in Chapter 6” is incorrect; the potential is discussed in Chapter 5, so the reference should be updated.
[Appendix C, Eqs. (C.9) and (C.11)] Several terms in the Taylor expansions, such as the (V^2−N^2)/(N (V^2+N^2)^(1/2)) coefficient in Eq. (4.51), appear singular in the N→0 limit, which is the limit relevant for the dark-matter case; the validity of these expansions for N=0 should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ξ-dependent coupling modifications are derived from the CCWZ geometry, and the potential chapter explicitly identifies the required α≪β tuning rather than presenting it as a prediction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step where an output is fed back as an input by construction. The central coupling modifications are obtained from the CCWZ Lagrangian of Eq. (3.8), the unitary-gauge replacement H=(0,(V+h)/√2)^T, and Taylor expansion around h=0; Eq. (3.25), g_CH_hVV/g_SM=sqrt(1−ξ) and g_CH_hhVV/g_SM=1−2ξ, follows from f² sin²((V+h)/f) with ξ=v²/f² defined through the gauge-boson mass relation m_W=c_W m_Z=(1/2) g f sin(V/f)≡(1/2) g v in Eq. (3.21). The SM limit is obtained by sending ξ→0; it is not imposed as an input. Similarly, the fermionic coupling k_t^5=(1−2ξ)/sqrt(1−ξ) follows from the dressed Yukawa operators in Eqs. (3.48)–(3.54), with the top mass used only to normalize the Lagrangian, not to fix the coupling deviation. The one place that might look like an input-output inversion is Chapter 5: the spurion estimate reduces the potential to V(H)=−α f² sin²(√2 H/f)+β f² sin⁴(√2 H/f), with α and β left as free coefficients, and the minimum condition gives ξ=α/(2β). But the thesis explicitly flags the required hierarchy at Eq. (5.21): 'so that some tuning between the parameters is needed to ensure α≪β.' It therefore does not claim to predict ξ≪1 from strong dynamics; it parametrizes the potential and identifies the tuning. That is underdetermination, not circularity. The cited items [14], [15], [17], and [19] are standard external literature, not self-citations of the author or advisor, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work. Against the external anchors used in the thesis (GF fixing v, and the 20% LHC deviation bound leading to ξ≤0.4), the derivation is self-contained and non-circular.

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

No new entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the assumed symmetry-breaking patterns and partial compositeness ansatz, plus unconstrained potential coefficients. The CCWZ machinery is standard math.

free parameters (4)

ξ (or f) = not fitted; constrained to ≤0.4 from LHC Higgs coupling measurements
Dimensionless ratio v^2/f^2 controlling all deviations; treated as a free parameter in the model.
α and β (MCHM5) = unknown
Coefficients of the spurion potential in Eq. (5.15); the paper states they encode unknown contributions from gauge and fermion sectors.
α1, α2, β1, β2, β3 (NMCHM6) = unknown
Coefficients of the two-field potential in Eq. (5.38); similarly unconstrained.
ct, λtL, λtR, g*, m* = unknown
Parameters of the partial compositeness interactions in Eqs. (3.48) and (4.46).

assumptions (4)

standard math Goldstone theorem and CCWZ construction for non-linear realizations
Used throughout to construct effective Lagrangians for the cosets.
domain assumption The strong sector has global symmetry SO(5) (or SO(6)) spontaneously broken to SO(4) (or SO(5))
The entire framework assumes these symmetry breaking patterns and that the Higgs is a pNGB.
domain assumption Partial compositeness: SM fermions couple linearly to composite fermionic operators in the fundamental representation
Fermion embeddings in Sections 3.3 and 4.3 rely on this ansatz; the paper notes in Chapter 6 that phenomenology depends on the representation chosen.
domain assumption The top quark sector dominates the Higgs potential
Used in Chapter 5 to justify keeping only top-related spurion operators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Composite Higgs models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VYDK5335

@misc{pith2026190810204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Composite Higgs models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VYDK5335}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10204}
}

abstract

One of the solutions to the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model is the composite Higgs scenario, where the Higgs emerges as a composite pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson. In this work we present and study the basic characteristics of the composite Higgs scenario, based on the $SO(5)/SO(4)$ and $SO(6)/SO(5)$ cosets. We construct their effective Lagrangians through the Callan-Coleman-Wess-Zumino construction. The first coset does not differ much from the Standard Model and the second contains a singlet scalar in addition to the Higgs doublet. In these models we study the gauge sector, the fermion sector and we estimate the composite Higgs potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10204 by the authors.

**Figure 2.1.** Composite Higgs scenario, with its main ingredients. Taken from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.2.** EWSB by means of vacuum misalignment, in the case SO (3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 49 arXiv:1202.1408 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012
[2]

Chatrchyan et al

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1202.1488 [hep-ex]

arXiv
[3]

Review of Particle Physics,

Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Olive et al ., “Review of Particle Physics,” Chin.Phys. C, 40, 100001 (2016) and 2017 update

work page 2016
[4]

Ten Lectures on the ElectroWeak Interactions

R. Barbieri, “Ten Lectures on the ElectroWeak Interactions” arXiv:0706.0684 [hep- ph]. Cambridge, (2013)

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[5]

Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry break- ing,

G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry break- ing,”, in Proceedings of the 1979 Cargese Institute on Recent Developments in Gauge Theories (Plenum Press, New York, 1980), p. 135

work page 1979
[6]

Mass without scalars,

S. Dimopoulos, L. Susskind, “Mass without scalars,” Nucl. Phys . B155, 237–252 (1979)

work page 1979
[7]

Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory,

L. Susskind, “Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory,” Phys. Rev. D20, 2619–2625 (1979)

work page 1979
[8]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 136, 187 (1984)

work page 1984

Show all 26 references

[9]

D. B. Kaplan, H. Georgi and S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 136, 187 (1984)

1984
[10]

Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,

S. R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,” Phys.Rev. 177 (1969) 2239-2247

1969
[11]

Two lectures on technicolor,

K. Lane, “Two lectures on technicolor,” arXiv:hep-ph/0202255 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[12]

Structure of phe- nomenological Lagrangians. 2.,

J. Callan, Curtis G., S.R. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, “Structure of phe- nomenological Lagrangians. 2.,” Phys.Rev. 177 (1969) 2247-2250

1969
[13]

Contino, arXiv: 1005.4269 [hep-ph]

R. Contino, arXiv: 1005.4269 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[14]

Panico and A

G. Panico and A. Wulzer, Lect. Notes Phys. 913, 1 (2016) arXiv:1506.01961 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[15]

Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses,

D. B. Kaplan, “Flavor at SSC energies: A New mechanism for dynamically generated fermion masses,” Nucl.Phys. B365 (1991) 259-278

1991
[16]

Composite scalar Dark matter,

M. Frigerio, A. Pomarol, F. Riva and A. Urbano “Composite scalar Dark matter,” JHEP 07(2012)015, arXiv: 1204.2808v3 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[17]

Beyond the Minimal Composite Higgs Model,

B. Gripaios, A. Pomarol, F. Riva, and J. Serra, “Beyond the Minimal Composite Higgs Model,” JHEP 0904 (2009) 070, arXiv: 0902.1483 [hep-ph]. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 62

2009 arXiv
[18]

The Minimal composite Higgs model,

K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A. Pomarol, “The Minimal composite Higgs model,” Nucl. Phys . B719 (2005) 165-187, arXiv: hep-ph/0412089 [hep-ph]

2005 arXiv
[19]

The Dynamical Composite Higgs,

G. von Gersdorﬀ, E. Ponton and R. Rosenfeld, “The Dynamical Composite Higgs,” JHEP 1506 (2015) 119 arXiv:1502.07340 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Weinberg, A model of leptons, Phys

S. Weinberg, A model of leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264-1266 (1967)

1967
[21]

S. L. Glashow, Partial-Symmetries of weak interactions, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579-588 (1961)

1961
[22]

Salam, Weak and electromagnetic interaction, In N

A. Salam, Weak and electromagnetic interaction, In N. Svatholm, Elementary Par- ticle Theory, Almqvist and Wiksell, 1968

1968
[23]

M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2013)

2013
[24]

Fukuda et al., Measurements of the Solar Neutrino Flux from Super-Kamiokande’s First 300 Days, Phys

Y. Fukuda et al., Measurements of the Solar Neutrino Flux from Super-Kamiokande’s First 300 Days, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1158-1162 (1998)

1998
[25]

Q. R. Ahmad et al. [SNO Collaboration], Phys. REV. Lett. 89,011301 (2002)

2002
[26]

Sikivie, L

P. Sikivie, L. Susskind, M.B. Voloshin, V.I. Zakharov, Isospin breaking in technicolor models. Nucl. Phys. B173, 189 (1980)

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 49 arXiv:1202.1408 [hep-ex]

arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

Chatrchyan et al

S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arXiv:1202.1488 [hep-ex]

arXiv

[3] [3]

Review of Particle Physics,

Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Olive et al ., “Review of Particle Physics,” Chin.Phys. C, 40, 100001 (2016) and 2017 update

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Ten Lectures on the ElectroWeak Interactions

R. Barbieri, “Ten Lectures on the ElectroWeak Interactions” arXiv:0706.0684 [hep- ph]. Cambridge, (2013)

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[5] [5]

Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry break- ing,

G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry break- ing,”, in Proceedings of the 1979 Cargese Institute on Recent Developments in Gauge Theories (Plenum Press, New York, 1980), p. 135

work page 1979

[6] [6]

Mass without scalars,

S. Dimopoulos, L. Susskind, “Mass without scalars,” Nucl. Phys . B155, 237–252 (1979)

work page 1979

[7] [7]

Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory,

L. Susskind, “Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the Weinberg-Salam theory,” Phys. Rev. D20, 2619–2625 (1979)

work page 1979

[8] [8]

D. B. Kaplan and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 136, 187 (1984)

work page 1984