Paper detail

Naturalness of the relaxion mechanism

The relaxion mechanism is a novel solution to the hierarchy problem. In this first statistical analysis of the relaxion mechanism, we quantify the relative plausibility of a QCD and a non-QCD relaxion model versus the Standard Model with Bayesian statistics, which includes an automatic penalty for fine-tuning. We find that in light of the hierarchy between the weak and Planck scales, relaxion models are favoured by colossal Bayes-factors. Constraints upon \eg the vacuum energy during relaxation, however, shrink the Bayes-factors such that relaxion models are only slightly favoured. Including the bounds on $\left|θ_\text{QCD}\right|$ shatters the plausibility of the QCD relaxion model as it typically yields $\left|θ_\text{QCD}\right| \gg 0$. Finally, we augment our models with scalar-field inflation and consider measurements of inflationary observables from BICEP/Planck. We find that, all told, the Standard Model is favoured by huge Bayes-factors as the relaxion models require fine-tuning such that the Hubble parameter is less than the height of the periodic barriers. Thus, whilst we confirm that relaxion models could solve the hierarchy problem, we find that their unconventional cosmology demolishes their plausibility.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.