Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Perturbative, Non-Supersymmetric Completions of the Little Higgs

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 20 Dec 2004

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We find evidence that at least this toy model could successfully generate light scalars with an exponentially large cutoff in the absence of supersymmetry or strong dynamics.

how it is stated · hedged possibility 0.94 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDhep-ph/0412267 (version 1)
Pith IDD6PUXMBO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationDavid E. Kaplan, Puneet Batra. "Perturbative, Non-Supersymmetric Completions of the Little Higgs." arXiv:hep-ph/0412267 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/D6PUXMBO
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 8,388 input tokens, $0.0004 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.96 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.94 · compares with prior results 0.63 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

The little Higgs mechanism produces a light 100 GeV Higgs while raising the natural cutoff from 1 TeV to 10 TeV. We attempt an iterative little Higgs mechanism to produce multiple factors of 10 between the cutoff and the 100 GeV Higgs mass in a perturbative theory. In the renormalizable sector of the theory, all quantum corrections to the Higgs mass proportional to mass scales greater than 1 TeV are absent -- this includes quadratically divergent, log-divergent, and finite loops at all orders. However, even loops proportional to scales just a factor of 10 above the Higgs (or any other scalar) mass come with large numerical factors that reintroduce fine-tuning. Top loops, for example, produce an expansion parameter of not 1/(4 pi) but 1/5. The geometric increase in the number of fields at higher energies simply exacerbates this problem. We build a complete two-stage model up to 100 TeV, show that direct sensitivity of the electroweak scale to the cutoff is erased, and estimate the tuning due to large numerical factors. We then discuss the possibility, in a toy model with only scalar and gauge fields, of generating a tower of little Higgs theories and show that the theory quickly becomes a large-N gauge theory with ~ N fundamental scalars. We find evidence that at least this toy model could successfully generate light scalars with an exponentially large cutoff in the absence of supersymmetry or strong dynamics. The fine-tuning is not completely eliminated, but evidence suggests that this result is model dependent. We then speculate as to how one might marry a working tower of fields of this type at high scales to a realistic theory at the weak scale.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 The little Higgs mechanism produces a light 100 GeV Higgs while raising the natural cutoff from 1 TeV to 10 TeV. background 1.00 0.10 0.06 asserted 1.00
s1 We attempt an iterative little Higgs mechanism to produce multiple factors of 10 between the cutoff and the 100 GeV Higgs mass in a perturbative theory. contribution 0.90 0.76 0.07 asserted 0.35
s2 In the renormalizable sector of the theory, all quantum corrections to the Higgs mass proportional to mass scales greater than 1 TeV are absent -- this includes quadratically divergent, log-divergent, and finite loops at all orders. result 0.85 0.67 0.11 asserted 1.00
s3 However, even loops proportional to scales just a factor of 10 above the Higgs (or any other scalar) mass come with large numerical factors that reintroduce fine-tuning. limitation 0.60 0.73 0.18 asserted 0.99
s4 Top loops, for example, produce an expansion parameter of not 1/(4 pi) but 1/5. result 0.79 0.72 0.04 asserted 1.00
s5 The geometric increase in the number of fields at higher energies simply exacerbates this problem. interpretation 0.52 0.40 0.06 asserted 1.00
s6 We build a complete two-stage model up to 100 TeV, show that direct sensitivity of the electroweak scale to the cutoff is erased, and estimate the tuning due to large numerical factors. contribution 0.77 0.96 0.22 asserted 1.00
s7 We then discuss the possibility, in a toy model with only scalar and gauge fields, of generating a tower of little Higgs theories and show that the theory quickly becomes a large-N gauge theory with ~ N fundamental scalars. contribution 0.90 0.92 0.05 hedged possibility 0.62
s8 We find evidence that at least this toy model could successfully generate light scalars with an exponentially large cutoff in the absence of supersymmetry or strong dynamics. result 0.98 0.94 0.52 hedged possibility 0.94
s9 The fine-tuning is not completely eliminated, but evidence suggests that this result is model dependent. limitation 0.59 0.86 0.25 hedged possibility 0.92
s10 We then speculate as to how one might marry a working tower of fields of this type at high scales to a realistic theory at the weak scale. future work 1.00 0.33 0.04 speculative 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.87.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

The little Higgs mechanism produces a light 100 GeV Higgs while raising the natural cutoff from 1 TeV to 10 TeV. We attempt an iterative little Higgs mechanism to produce multiple factors of 10 between the cutoff and the 100 GeV Higgs mass in a perturbative theory. In the renormalizable sector of the theory, all quantum corrections to the Higgs mass proportional to mass scales greater than 1 TeV are absent -- this includes quadratically divergent, log-divergent, and finite loops at all orders. However, even loops proportional to scales just a factor of 10 above the Higgs (or any other scalar) mass come with large numerical factors that reintroduce fine-tuning. Top loops, for example, produce an expansion parameter of not 1/(4 pi) but 1/5. The geometric increase in the number of fields at higher energies simply exacerbates this problem. We build a complete two-stage model up to 100 TeV, show that direct sensitivity of the electroweak scale to the cutoff is erased, and estimate the tuning due to large numerical factors. We then discuss the possibility, in a toy model with only scalar and gauge fields, of generating a tower of little Higgs theories and show that the theory quickly becomes a large-N gauge theory with ~ N fundamental scalars. We find evidence that at least this toy model could successfully generate light scalars with an exponentially large cutoff in the absence of supersymmetry or strong dynamics. The fine-tuning is not completely eliminated, but evidence suggests that this result is model dependent. We then speculate as to how one might marry a working tower of fields of this type at high scales to a realistic theory at the weak scale.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

5 arXiv papers cite this in 5 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 4 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 1 paper
  • NC also thanks Nima Arkani-Hamed for reminding him of [ref] in the first place, and Tim Cohen for enlightening conversations about TMNTs in general.

    Twin Turtles · Conclusions · 0.89

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.