Cosmological Relaxation of Higgs Mass Before and After LHC and Naturalness

Gia Dvali

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Cosmological Relaxation of Higgs Mass Before and After LHC and Naturalness

T0 review · 3 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 The paper argues that the smallness of the Higgs mass is natural because the observed vacuum has infinite entropy and is an attractor of eternal inflation; the absence of new physics at the LHC is the expected outcome.

desk verdict A clear and honest restatement of the Dvali-Vilenkin attractor idea with a post-LHC framing, but the 'unit probability' claim is asserted, not derived, and the measure problem is real. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05984 v1 pith:XMMUJVHE submitted 2019-08-16 hep-ph gr-qchep-th

Gia Dvali This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phgr-qchep-th

keywords Higgshierarchyproblemnaturalnesseternalinflationvacuumrelaxationattractor3-formgaugefield2-branemass

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

At stake is why the Higgs boson is so much lighter than the Planck mass. The paper argues that this is not a defect that must be cured by new particles near the LHC. It presents a notion of naturalness in which a value is natural when the theory has a sharply enhanced number of vacua with that value; the observed Higgs vacuum is such a point, with infinite degeneracy and infinite entropy. Eternal inflation drives the Universe to this highest-entropy vacuum, so a low-energy observer who sees no stabilizing physics at the LHC is misreading an attractor as a puzzle. If the argument holds, the hierarchy is explained by Planck-scale physics in a theory with gravity, not by TeV-scale states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is a back-controlled scanning of the Higgs mass. A massless 3-form gauge field (a higher-rank analogue of a photon, whose field strength is a 4-form $F$) is sourced by a 2-brane, a two-dimensional extended object whose charge $Q(\Phi)$ depends on the Higgs VEV. Each passage of the Universe through the brane changes $F$ by $Q(\Phi)$, which shifts the Higgs VEV through $\Phi\,\Delta\Phi=\lambda^{-1}(F/M^2)Q(\Phi)$; the new VEV then sets the size of the next jump. Because $Q(\Phi_*)=0$ at the attractor, the steps become infinitesimal and the number of vacua in any finite interval around $\Phi_*$ diverges as $n_V\sim \epsilon^{-(K-1)}$ (or logarithmically for $K=1$). This infinite accumulation of vacua is what defines the infinite entropy and is why the attractor wins the cosmological competition.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to compute the stationary-point density of the coupled Higgs-axion system for a generic charge $Q(\Phi)$ that has a simple zero: if the divergence in $n_V$ disappears beyond the linearized approximation or under radiative corrections, the infinite-entropy claim fails. On the observational side, a measurement of the Higgs potential that rules out a dense vacuum accumulation, or a demonstration that a concrete eternal-inflation measure assigns most probability to vacua away from $\Phi_*$, would settle the question against the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the observed Higgs vacuum is singular in the vacuum landscape: there are infinitely many vacua with Higgs VEVs infinitesimally close to $\Phi_*\sim 100$ GeV, so the vacuum entropy $S_V=\ln n_V$ diverges. This happens because the Higgs VEV acts as a feedback control on the scanning: the charge $Q(\Phi)$ of a 2-brane sourcing the 4-form field strength $F$ vanishes at $\Phi_*$, making the jumps $\Delta F=Q(\Phi)$ shrink to zero as the VEV approaches the attractor. Crossing the brane an infinite number of times is then required to reach $\Phi_*$, which is exactly what eternal inflation supplies. Consequently, the Universe is driven to the critical VEV with unit probability, and no stabilizing new physics need appear below the cutoff, which may be as high as the Planck mass. The paper adds that this is compatible with Wilsonian decoupling because the massless graviton, through eternal inflation, is the agent that realizes the maximal-entropy vacuum over arbitrarily long time scales.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing premise is that eternal inflation, with a suitable probability measure over the vacuum landscape, drives the Universe to the infinite-entropy Higgs vacuum with unit probability; the paper asserts this outcome but does not derive the measure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The absence of stabilizing new particles at the LHC is the expected signature of this scenario, not a mark against naturalness.
The scale of new physics $M$ that relaxes the Higgs mass can be arbitrarily high, up to the Planck mass, so the hierarchy is explained without new degrees of freedom at TeV energies.
Eternal inflation becomes a necessary part of the naturalness argument; the massless graviton is the agent that makes heavy physics effective at low energies over cosmological time scales.
The same entropy-based notion of naturalness can be applied to other parameters, such as the QCD $\vartheta$ angle, whose vanishing could also be an infinite-entropy vacuum.
Falsifying the scenario requires Planck-scale probes and an understanding of cosmology on eternal time scales, not just particle searches at high-energy colliders.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves open the measure question: the unit-probability claim depends on a specific eternal-inflation measure, and computing that measure in a concrete model is a necessary next step.
A natural extension, not pursued here, would apply the same attractor logic to the cosmological constant, whose scanning was the original function of the 3-form and brane machinery.
The quantitative reach of the mechanism could be tested by deriving $\Phi_*$ from the QCD condensate and the cutoff in a fully specified potential; the current paper takes $\Phi_*$ as input rather than deriving it.

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

You should know this paper: it is not new science, and it does not pretend to be. Dvali explicitly says the goal is to reiterate the earlier attractor mechanism in light of LHC null results. Every equation—the Lagrangian (5), the charge (7), the density of vacua (10)-(12), the infinite-entropy limit (13)—comes from the earlier Dvali-Vilenkin and Dvali papers. The only new element is the post-LHC commentary about naturalness and Wilsonian decoupling, plus the analogy between black holes and the attractor vacuum via the massless graviton.

What the paper does well: it is a very clean conceptual write-up. It separates the static part (infinite number of vacua near Phi*) from the dynamical part (eternal inflation populating the attractor). It is honest about taking Phi_star ~ 100 GeV as an input from earlier work, and it explicitly flags the dependence on eternal inflation. The toy-model math is internally consistent; the divergence in (10)-(12) follows given Q(Phi*) = 0.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test note is right: the unit-probability claim in Section V is load-bearing and unsupported. Infinite entropy does not by itself imply that an eternally inflating multiverse samples that vacuum with unit probability—that depends entirely on the measure, and no measure is supplied. Worse, because Q(Phi*) = 0, reaching the exact critical VEV requires an infinite number of brane nucleation steps, so the probability of exactly Phi* is not even well-defined without a regularized measure. This is not a minor technicality; it is the step that turns a landscape into an explanation.

The circularity is real but less damaging than it sounds. The charge Q(Phi) is chosen so that Q(Phi_star)=0, and Phi_star is chosen as the observed weak scale. That means the mechanism selects the value you put in. As a consistency argument—'here is a construction where the observed value is an attractor'—it works. As a prediction of the Higgs mass, it does not. The paper actually concedes this by taking Phi_star for granted.

Who is this for? Someone thinking about naturalness as a concept, or about the measure problem in eternal inflation, could get value from the clear statement of the idea. But the post-LHC framing adds no falsifiable content: 'not seeing new physics at LHC' is compatible with many naturalness solutions, including low-scale supersymmetry with slightly heavy superpartners. So as a research paper, it is a restatement with a debatable philosophical gloss.

My recommendation: if a journal publishes serious conceptual or perspective pieces, send it to peer review—the central claim is important and the measure problem deserves an explicit referee comment. If the venue expects original results, desk reject. I would not cite it as a new result, but I might use it as a starting point for discussing why infinite entropy alone does not solve the measure problem.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a solution to the Higgs hierarchy problem that does not require new physics near the TeV scale, based on an earlier cosmological relaxation mechanism. A real scalar field Phi (the Higgs prototype) is coupled to a massless 3-form field F sourced by a 2-brane whose charge Q(Phi) vanishes at a special value Phi_* . Because Q(Phi_*) = 0, approaching Phi_* requires an infinite number of brane-nucleation steps, so the vacuum at Phi_* has infinite degeneracy and infinite entropy. The paper argues that eternal inflation drives the Universe to this infinite-entropy vacuum with unit probability, making the observed weak scale a dynamical attractor. It contrasts this 'enhanced entropy' notion of naturalness with 't Hooft's technical naturalness and argues that the mechanism is compatible with Wilsonian decoupling because the massless graviton acts as a universal actualizer over eternal time scales. The explicit toy model and the divergence of the vacuum density near Phi_* are presented in Sections III and V, while the value of Phi_* and the unit-probability claim are imported from earlier publications.

Significance. If the dynamical selection claim were made rigorous, the paper would offer a conceptually distinct resolution of the hierarchy problem: the absence of stabilizing new physics at the LHC would be not a puzzle but an expected consequence of a vacuum with infinite entropy, and the only necessary low-energy messenger would be the massless graviton. The toy-model computation in Eqs. (7)-(12) is internally coherent: given Q(Phi_*)=0, the density of vacua diverges logarithmically or as a power law, and the vacuum entropy formally diverges. The paper also usefully separates the static existence of the attractor (the density of states) from the dynamical process that populates it, and it gives an explicit estimate for the zero-temperature stability of the attractor. Its principal weaknesses are that the attractor value Phi_* is put in by hand rather than derived in this manuscript, and that the eternal-inflation probability statement is asserted without a multiverse measure, leaving the central claim unsupported as written.

major comments (3)

[§III, Eq. (7)] The attractor value Phi_* is not derived in this manuscript. The charge Q(Phi) is chosen so that Q(Phi_*)=0, with Phi_* taken to be of order 100 GeV, and the subsequent calculation then finds a divergence exactly at this input value. As written, the argument exhibits a vacuum with many states near an assumed scale rather than predicting the observed weak scale. The paper explicitly says 'For the present discussion we take this value of Phi_* for granted' and refers to earlier work, but the central claim that the observed Higgs mass is explained hinges on this input. To make the argument load-bearing, the manuscript should either derive Phi_* from the dynamics (for example, from the QCD-condensate interplay cited to Ref. [8]) or clearly state that the mechanism explains the stability of an assumed value but not its magnitude.
[§V] The dynamical selection step is asserted rather than derived. Section V states: 'As a result of the eternal inflation, the Universe is driven to the critical value of the Higgs VEV with an unit probability.' No multiverse measure is defined or derived in the manuscript. The infinite vacuum entropy in Eq. (13) is a kinematic statement about the density of states; it does not by itself imply that an eternally inflating universe samples the Phi_* vacuum with probability one. Different eternal-inflation measures (proper time, scale-factor cutoff, causal diamond) can weight infinite volumes and worldlines differently, and reaching the exact critical VEV requires infinitely many brane-nucleation steps because Q(Phi_*)=0, so the probability of the exact Phi_* is not even well-defined without a specified regularization and a controlled removal of the regulator. The unit-probability claim is load-bearing for the paper's central conclusion and needs either a derivation or an explicit reference to a concrete measure calculation with the relevant equations reproduced.
[§III, Eq. (12)] The divergence n_V ~ 1/epsilon^{K-1} (or log(1/epsilon) for K=1) is formal: for any finite resolution scale epsilon > 0 the number of vacua in the interval is finite, and the 'infinite entropy' statement depends on taking the mathematical limit epsilon -> 0. The physical measure that determines which vacuum our Hubble patch occupies is not obtained from this limit. The paper should clarify how the limit is related to a physical observable, otherwise the infinite-entropy claim remains a formal property of the vacuum counting rather than a statement about the probability of observing Phi_*.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] There is a typo in 'naturanless' (should be 'naturalness'), and 'represents and attractor point' should read 'represents an attractor point'.
[§III, text before Eq. (6)] The sentence 'In above expressions the obvious combinatoric factors are assumed but not displayed' would be clearer as 'In the above expressions, obvious combinatoric factors are assumed but not displayed.'
[§III, Eq. (12)] The definition of the constant c is cramped and the notation 'NK' is ambiguous; using an explicit multiplication dot (N K) would avoid the impression of an exponent.
[§III, Footnote 1] The footnote on the Stückelberg field is too compressed; a reader cannot verify the transverse-current statement without going back to the cited paper, and the reference to 'Dvali, '04' should give the specific equation number.
[§V] The phrase 'We would like to mention few words about predictions' should be 'a few words about predictions.'
[References] The entries grouped under Ref. [8] are numerous and formatted inconsistently; splitting them into individual references would improve readability, as would supplying the missing arXiv numbers for some entries.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Attractor value is inserted via Q(Φ*)=0; unit-probability selection is imported from same-author prior work without a measure.

self definitional [Section III, Eq. (7) and the following paragraph]
"Q(Φ) = ± 1/M^{NK−2}(Φ^N − Φ^N_*)^K, where N and K are some positive integers and M is a cutoff scale that can be arbitrarily high and all the way up to MP. The quantity Φ_* is of order 100GeV. ... For the present discussion we take this value of Φ_* for granted."

The attractor point is not derived from the dynamics; it is inserted as the zero of Q(Φ). The paper explicitly says that reaching Φ* requires an infinite number of jumps whenever Q(Φ*)=0, and the later divergence of nV (Eqs. 10-12) and the 'infinite entropy vacuum' (Eq. 13) are immediate consequences of that choice. Since Φ* was set to the observed weak scale, the claimed correspondence between the observed Higgs mass and the infinite-entropy vacuum is true by construction, not by prediction.
self citation load bearing [Section V, Discussions]
"As a result of the eternal inflation, the Universe is driven to the critical value of the Higgs VEV with an unit probability."

This is the load-bearing dynamical selection step: without it, the paper only exhibits a landscape with many vacua near Φ*, not an explanation of why our Universe occupies one. The unit-probability statement is not derived in this manuscript; it is imported from [8] (Dvali & Vilenkin, prior work by the present author) and from the eternal-inflation literature, with no multiverse measure specified. The divergent density of vacua (Eqs. 10-12) by itself does not determine sampling probabilities under different eternal-inflation measures, so the conclusion that the observed value is selected rests on a self-citation and an unstated measure rather than on an independent derivation.

full rationale

The paper is largely a review/essay of the Dvali-Vilenkin relaxation mechanism, and it explicitly says 'we take this value of Φ* for granted.' However, the abstract's central claim—that the observed Higgs mass corresponds to an infinite-entropy attractor vacuum—is true only because the brane charge Q(Φ) was defined to vanish at Φ* ~ 100 GeV. The vacuum density divergence (Eqs. 10-12), the infinite vacuum entropy (Eq. 13), and the stated attractor property are all consequences of Q(Φ*)=0, so the target value is an input rather than an output of the construction. The dynamical half of the claim, that eternal inflation drives the Universe to this point with unit probability, is asserted in Section V and referred back to [8] and to eternal-inflation literature without defining a measure on the multiverse; a divergent count of vacua does not by itself fix the sampling probability under arbitrary measures. These two points make the central explanation partially circular: the one quantitative 'prediction'—the value of the weak scale being the attractor—reduces by construction, and the selection step relies on a same-author citation. There is some independent conceptual content, especially the discussion of Wilsonian decoupling via eternity and the possible application to the strong-CP problem, so a score of 6 (partial circularity) is appropriate rather than a full 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim depends on the full Dvali-Vilenkin construction, which is cited but not re-derived. The only parameter with a numerical value is the attractor scale Phi_star approximately 100 GeV, taken from earlier work; the remaining scales and exponents are chosen by hand to make Q(Phi_star) = 0.

free parameters (5)

Phi_star = ~100 GeV
The attractor scale is the observed weak scale, taken as given in Section III from earlier work, not derived in this paper.
M = up to M_P
The cutoff of the 3-form/brane sector is a free model scale, allowed to run up to the Planck mass.
m = order M
The bare Higgs mass parameter in Eq (5) is assumed to be naturally of order the cutoff M.
lambda = unspecified positive
The quartic coupling in Eq (5) is assumed positive so that Eq (8) has real solutions.
N, K = positive integers
The exponents in Eq (7) are chosen by hand and control the divergence rate of the vacuum counting in Eq (12).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Eternal inflation lasts forever and explores all vacuum sectors.
The dynamics of the mechanism require an eternally self-reproducing universe, citing Vilenkin 1983 and Linde 1986.
domain assumption The infinite-entropy vacuum is selected with unit probability.
Section V asserts this without deriving a measure; the measure problem in eternal inflation is unresolved.
ad hoc to paper A three-form field and 2-brane sector with the coupling of Eq (5) exists.
This sector is the engine of the mechanism and is imported from the earlier papers [8,9] without independent evidence.
domain assumption The attractor scale Phi_star emerges from the Planck scale and the QCD condensate.
The paper refers to Dvali 2004 in [8] for this derivation and takes the result for granted.
domain assumption Gravity is massless and universally coupled, enabling eternal inflation to act as an actualizer.
The decoupling argument in Section IV relies on the graviton as the long-range messenger connecting heavy physics to low energies.

invented entities (3)

Massless 3-form gauge field C with 4-form field strength F
purpose: Scans the Higgs mass through the F^2 coupling in Eq (5).
No observational handle is given in this paper; it is a model ingredient taken from [8].
2-brane with Higgs-dependent charge Q(Phi)
purpose: Produces discrete vacuum transitions; its zero at Phi_star creates the infinite accumulation of vacua.
The brane is a construction, and no external evidence for it is offered.
Axion-like field a (alternative to the brane)
purpose: Resolves the brane into a periodic domain-wall potential and reproduces the attractor in Eq (15).
The field is model-dependent; the paper mentions possible low-energy excitations but gives no quantitative prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmological Relaxation of Higgs Mass Before and After LHC and Naturalness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMMUJVHE

@misc{pith2026190805984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmological Relaxation of Higgs Mass Before and After LHC and Naturalness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMMUJVHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05984}
}

read the original abstract

In post LHC era the old idea of cosmological vacuum relaxation of the Higgs mass that does not require any new physics in the vicinity of LHC energies acquires a new meaning. I discuss how this concept of naturanless differs from the standard one by 't Hooft. Here the observed value of the Higgs mass corresponds to a vacuum of infinite degeneracy and infinite entropy. Therefore, it represents and attractor point of cosmic inflationary evolution. This information is unavailable for a low energy observer living in one of such vacua. By not seeing any stabilizing physics at LHC such an observer is puzzled and creates an artificial problem of naturalness which in reality does not exist. We explain why this solution is fully compatible with the concept of Wilsonian decoupling.

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

Spontaneous CP Violation and Flavor Changing Neutral Currents in Minimal SO(10)
hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In minimal SO(10) with spontaneous CP violation, flavor-changing neutral currents and proton decay branching ratios are correlated through one mixing matrix, yielding a testable relation among future low-energy measurements.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[8]

Dvali, A

G. Dvali, A. Vilenkin, Cosmic attractors and gauge hier- archy, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 063501, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063501, hep-th/0304043; G. Dvali, Large hierarchies from attractor vacua, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 025018 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.025018, hep-th/0410286; A. Nunez, S. Solganik, Vacua landscape attractor, hep- th/0506201 B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi...

arXiv 2004
[1]

Dvali, Strong Coupling and Classicalization, Sub- nucl.Ser

G. Dvali, Strong Coupling and Classicalization, Sub- nucl.Ser. 53 (2017) 189-200, DOI: 10.1142/9789813208292 0005, arXiv:1607.07422 [hep-th]

arXiv 2017
[2]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Quantum Exclusion of Positive Cosmological Constant? Annalen Phys. 528 (2016) 68-73 DOI: 10.1002/andp.201500216 arXiv:1412.8077 [hep-th]

arXiv 2016
[3]

Weinberg, Implications of dynamical symmetry break- ing, Phys

S. Weinberg, Implications of dynamical symmetry break- ing, Phys. Rev., D13 (1976) 974. L. Susskind, Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry break- ing in the Weinberg-Salam theory, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 2619

work page 1976
[4]

Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61,(1989), 1

work page 1989
[5]

’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Sponta- neous Chiral Symmetry Breaking, NATO Sci

G. ’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Sponta- neous Chiral Symmetry Breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980) 135

work page 1980
[6]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G.R. Dvali, The Hier- archy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 263-272, DOI: 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3, hep-ph/9803315

arXiv 1998
[7]

Randall, R

L. Randall, R. Sundrum, A Large mass hierar- chy from a small extra dimension, Phys.Rev.Lett. 83 (1999) 3370-3373 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370 hep-ph/9905221

arXiv 1999

Show all 20 references

[9]

Dvali, A

G.R. Dvali, A. Vilenkin, Field theory models for variabl e cosmological constant, Phys.Rev. D64 (2001) 063509. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.063509 hep-th/0102142

2001 arXiv
[10]

Vilenkin, Birth of inﬂationary universes, Phys

A. Vilenkin, Birth of inﬂationary universes, Phys. Rev . D27, 2848 (1983)

1983
[11]

Linde, Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaot ic Inﬂationary Universe, Phys

A.D. Linde, Eternally Existing Selfreproducing Chaot ic Inﬂationary Universe, Phys. Lett. B175 (1986) 395, DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(86)90611-8

1986 doi
[12]

Basu, A.H

R. Basu, A.H. Guth and A. Vilenkin, Quantum creation of topological defects during inﬂation, Phys. Rev. D44, 340 (1991)

1991
[13]

J. D. Bekenstein, Universal upper bound on the entropy- to-energy ratio for bounded systems , Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) no. 2, 287–298

1981
[14]

Brown, C

Dynamical Neutralization of the Cosmological Constan t J.D. Brown, C. Teitelboim, Phys. Lett. B195 (1987) 177- 182 DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91190-7

1987 doi
[15]

Abbott, A Mechanism for Reducing the Value of the Cosmological Constant, Phys.Lett

L.F. Abbott, A Mechanism for Reducing the Value of the Cosmological Constant, Phys.Lett. 150B (1985) 427-430

1985
[16]

Dvali, A Vacuum accumulation solution to the strong CP problem, Phys

G. Dvali, A Vacuum accumulation solution to the strong CP problem, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 025019 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.025019 e-Print: hep-th/0510053

2006 arXiv
[17]

Dvali, Three-form gauging of axion symmetries and gravity, hep-th/0507215

G. Dvali, Three-form gauging of axion symmetries and gravity, hep-th/0507215

arXiv
[18]

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

1977
[19]

Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys

S. Weinberg, A New Light Boson?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223; F. Wilczek, Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279

1978
[20]

Senjanovic, private communications

G. Senjanovic, private communications

Pith tools

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

[1] [8]

Dvali, A

G. Dvali, A. Vilenkin, Cosmic attractors and gauge hier- archy, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 063501, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.063501, hep-th/0304043; G. Dvali, Large hierarchies from attractor vacua, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 025018 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.025018, hep-th/0410286; A. Nunez, S. Solganik, Vacua landscape attractor, hep- th/0506201 B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi...

arXiv 2004

[2] [1]

Dvali, Strong Coupling and Classicalization, Sub- nucl.Ser

G. Dvali, Strong Coupling and Classicalization, Sub- nucl.Ser. 53 (2017) 189-200, DOI: 10.1142/9789813208292 0005, arXiv:1607.07422 [hep-th]

arXiv 2017

[3] [2]

Dvali and C

G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Quantum Exclusion of Positive Cosmological Constant? Annalen Phys. 528 (2016) 68-73 DOI: 10.1002/andp.201500216 arXiv:1412.8077 [hep-th]

arXiv 2016

[4] [3]

Weinberg, Implications of dynamical symmetry break- ing, Phys

S. Weinberg, Implications of dynamical symmetry break- ing, Phys. Rev., D13 (1976) 974. L. Susskind, Dynamics of spontaneous symmetry break- ing in the Weinberg-Salam theory, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 2619

work page 1976

[5] [4]

Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev

S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61,(1989), 1

work page 1989

[6] [5]

’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Sponta- neous Chiral Symmetry Breaking, NATO Sci

G. ’t Hooft, Naturalness, Chiral Symmetry, and Sponta- neous Chiral Symmetry Breaking, NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980) 135

work page 1980

[7] [6]

Arkani-Hamed, S

N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G.R. Dvali, The Hier- archy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter, Phys. Lett. B429 (1998) 263-272, DOI: 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00466-3, hep-ph/9803315

arXiv 1998

[8] [7]

Randall, R

L. Randall, R. Sundrum, A Large mass hierar- chy from a small extra dimension, Phys.Rev.Lett. 83 (1999) 3370-3373 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3370 hep-ph/9905221

arXiv 1999