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

We construct models in which the SM Higgs mass scans in a landscape. This is achieved by coupling the SM to a monodromy axion field through Minkowski 3-forms. The Higgs mass scans with steps given by delta(m_H^2)= eta mu f, where mu and f are the axion mass and periodicity respectively, and eta measures the coupling of the Higgs to the associated 3-form. The observed Higgs mass scale could then be selected on anthropic grounds. The monodromy axion may have a mass mu in a very wide range depending on the value of eta, and the axion periodity f. For eta=1 and f = 10^10 GeV, one has 10^{-3}eV<mu<10^3 eV, but ultralight axions with e.g. mu = 10^{-17} eV are also possible. In a different realization we consider landscape models coupled to the MSSM. In the context of SUSY, 4-forms appear as being part of the auxiliary fields of SUSY multiplets. The scanning in the 4-forms thus translate into a landscape of vevs for the N=1 auxiliary fields and hence as a landscape for the soft terms. This could provide a rationale for the MSSM fine-tuning suggested by LHC data. In all these models there are 3-forms coupling to membranes which induce transitions between different vacua through bubble nucleation. The Weak Gravity Conjecture (WGC) set limits on the tension of these membranes and implies new physics thresholds well below the Planck scale. More generaly, we argue that in the case of string SUSY vacua in which the Goldstino multiplet contains a monodromy axion the WGC suggests a lower bound on the SUSY breaking scale m_{3/2}>M_s^2/M_p.


Introduction
There are a couple of very bizarre small mass scales in physics. One is the cosmological constant which, if identified with dark energy, is of order V 0 (10 −3 eV ) 4 , ridiculously small compared to any other scale in the theory. The other is the Electro-Weak(EW) scale which is of order m H 10 2 GeV, much smaller than any expected ultraviolet(UV) cut-off. Possibly the best solution to the first question was suggested by Weinberg [1], who pointed out thar if the c.c. V 0 scans in a large multiplicity of finely-grained values, galaxy formation requires V 0 to be positive and of order the presently observed values. This is a remarkable prediction, since it was pointed out before the existence of dark energy was confirmed.
A natural question is whether an analogous mechanism could be at work for the Higgs hierarchy problem. The EW scale is tied up to the mass parameter m 2 H of the Higgs boson, which is unstable under radiative corrections and would be expected to be of order the cut-off scale m 2 H Λ 2 U V . One way to stabilize the Higgs mass is low energy SUSY. However the observed relatively large Higgs mass suggests that SUSY, if present, is possibly beyond the reach of LHC or much heavier. So, even though SUSY still remains the most ellegant solution to the hierarchy problem it makes sense to look for alternative or complementary solutions.
In the present paper we study the generation of a landscape of Higgs mass parameters m 2 H to address the EW hierarchy problem. This landscape will contain a large number of possible values for m 2 H from large and negative (or positive) to small with m 2 H in the observed phenomenological range. For the observed value of the EW scale to be one of the possibilities in the landscape, we need m 2 H to scan with a fine-grain mass scale a fraction of the EW mass scale m W . In fact anthropic considerations require the EW vev not to be far from the measured value v 0 = 170 GeV. Defining v = v 0 + δv one finds constraints [2][3][4][5][6] 0. 39  These limits come essentially from the atomic principle, i.e. imposing that complex and stable nuclei can form. Note that it requires δv ≤ 0.6v 0 GeV and hence practically determine the weak scale to be what experimentally is. These constrains may be considered a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an anthropic solution to the hierarchy problem. Indeed, it is well known that the masses of the first generation quarks and leptons would also need to scan in an anthropic setting, see e.g. [2][3][4][5][6]. In this paper we will only address the issue of a landscape of Higgs mass parameters which is necessary for an antropic solution to work. Note in this connexion that we we will not try to look here for Higgs mass distributions which are peaked around the EW scale.
For an anthropic solution of the hierarchy problem it is enough to show that there is a landscape of Higgss masses which contains the observed Higgs mass, it does not need to be the most likely value. The purpose of this paper is to construct models in which indeed the Higgss mass scans and hence completes the above atomic principle into a possible solution to the hierarchy problem. For a discussion of some phenomenological scenarios from a field theory landscape see also [7].
We consider two classes of models, non-SUSY and SUSY, with some important differences between them. In both cases the important ingredient is the existence of of this axion-like field (or Hierarxion) is hence of order µ m 2 W /f , which is tipically very small.
In the SUSY case, the 4-forms are part of the auxiliary field system of the N = 1 multiplets. The coupling of the Higgs system to the 4-forms appear as in standard gravity mediation, so the Higgs fields get mass 2 of order F 2 4 /M 2 p . This suggests to identify the vev of F 4 with an intermediate scale, F 4 (10 10 ) 2 GeV 2 , so that one obtains Higgs masses of order the EW scale. Within string theory the 3-forms associated to these 4-forms couple to membranes whose tension would be typically of order the string The structure of the rest of this paper is as follows. In the next section we review a few facts about Minkowski 3-forms and their interaction with axions. In section 3 we construct a minimal (non-SUSY) model in which a Higgs mass landscape is generated in terms of quantized shifts of an axion. We also study the instability of the model against buble nucleation and constraints on the axion mass and scale of new physics from the WGC. Limits on the mass of these axions are given. In section four we address the construction of N = 1 SUSY models with a Higgs mass landscape. We discuss the mentioned lower bound on the SUSY breaking scale from the WGC in section five and leave the last section for some general comments and conclussions.

Axions and 3-forms
Before presenting the model let us briefly review a few facts about these Minkowski 3-forms (see e.g. [13-19, 26, 27]). The action for a 3-form C νρσ is given by where F = dC is the field-strength 4-form and L bound includes some boundary terms which, although necessary to get the right field equations (see e.g. the discussion in [17,27]), will not be relevant in our discussion. The equations of motion imply that the 4-form is a constant tensor in Minkowski, where f 0 is a real constant of mass dimension two. Note that f 0 behaves as a constant electric 4-form field permeating the whole Minkoski space and contributing (positively) to the vacuum energy in a way proportional to f 2 0 . We see that a 3-form has no propagating degrees of freedom. Still it may have interesting dynamics. In particular, 3-forms naturally couple to the worldvolume of membranes (or domain walls) through where the membrane charge q has dimensions of mass 2 and D 3 is the membrane world volume. Due to this coupling, regions of space separated by membranes change their Using the equations of motion for F one obtains a scalar potential where we have allowed for a 4-form vev f 0 . Note that, even though now the axion has mass µ, the axion shift symmetry is respected if the 4-form also transforms apropriately This equation relates the otherwise undetermined membrane charge q to the axion parameter product µf . This constraint will be interesting below, when we construct a specific model couple to the Higgs. In what follows we will assume take |q| = µf as the natural value for the 4-form quanta and briefly discuss the more general case below.
This process in which the axion gets mass may be understood as a generalized Higgs mechanism in which the 2-form B ρσ dual to the axion field is swallowed and gains a mass µ. Indeed after this duality the mass term becomes Here η is an adimensional coupling constant. Using the equations of motion for the 4-forms one finds the potential where we have set the Higgs to its physical neutral component |H| 2 = σ 2 . Note that this scalar potential is invariant under the axion shift symmetry The membranes coupling to these 3-forms will have charges q a , q h related to the axion parameters as The above shift symmetry guarantees that the mass parameters µ, µ h are stable under loop corrections, the form of the axion dependent potential above will remain even after these corrections. On the other hand the Higgs field couples to the full SM through gauge and Yukawa interactions which will induce masses and quartic coupling corrections. Thus the scalar potential will have really the form once corrections are taken into account. Here m 2 will typically be of order the UV scale, since the Higgss mass is unprotected. The minimization conditions require One then finds with the Higgs vev given by where (3.10) The mass 2 matrix of both scalars has the form The Higgs vev at the minimum can also be written in terms of M σσ , evaluated at the minimum Looking at eq.(3.12) and (3.13) we see that the Higgs vev scans in a landscape as we vary the 4-form vevs f h , f a . There are always potentials in which the Higgs vev obeys eq.(1.1) as long as the step of the 4-forms q h , q a are of order the observed m 2 H or smaller. In particular if we change the 4 forms by an amount then the Higgs vev changes by the amount 15) or, alternatively, in terms of the 4-form quanta via eq.(3.4) Note that if there is no coupling of the Higgs to the axion (η = 0) there is obviously no possibility of fine-tuning. Also the two 4-forms are required to couple to the axion so that both q a , q h = 0. Assuming both masses µ, µ h to be of the same order (in order not to introduce further hierarchies), which also implies 4-form quanta of the same order one can obtain a fine-tuning as small as required by imposing So the fine-tuning is directly connected to the 4-form quanta q a , q h and to the strength of the coupling of the 4-form to the Higgs. We thus have a large family of SM vacua with different Higgs masses, including a number of them consistent with what is observed.
Note however that the value of the 4-form values f a,h themselves are very large, of order the Higgs cut-off mass m 2 , whereas the membrane charges q a , q h are of order the EW scale. This is unlike the SUSY scenario discussed below, in which both are typically of the same order.

Stability and the Weak Gravity Conjecture
Given the large multiplicity of Higgs vacua, an interesting question is the stability of these against membrane nucleation. If these vacua where very short-lived, the solution to the hierarchy problem would be gone. We can make an estimation using the Coleman-De Lucia computation [29] of the transition rate in the thin wall approximation. The rate is proportional to where T is the tension of the bubbles (membranes) which can nucleate. We can estimate ∆V , which is the change in the vacuum energy induced by a change f 0 → f 0 + q in one of the 4-forms, as where m 2 is of order the Higgs cut-off scale, since the 4-form vevs have to cancel a large quadratically divergent Higgs mass. On the other hand actually we do not know what the tension of the membranes T is. In any event, from B > 1 , in order to have a supresed rate, assuming that for fine-tuning one also requires ηq m 2 H , the tension will be bounded below by where m is the UV cut-off of the Higgs mass. For e.g. η 1 one has M √ m H m 10 9 GeV for m 10 16 GeV.
To gain further insight into the mass scales involved we can try to impose further consistency conditions. In particular it has been argued that the Weak Gravity Conjecture extended to 3-forms give us an upper bound on the tension T of membranes coupling to 3-forms. One has [20] T ≤ 2πqM p , (3.22) where in our case the membrane charge is given by q = µf , so that we get where again we are assuming here ηµf m 2 H . Note that by making the coupling small, the tension of the membranes can be made large. For example one could have T (10 16 GeV ) 3 if η 10 −24 . However if e.g. η 1 a threshold of new physics should appear around or below 10 8 GeV.
Combining equations (3.20) and (3.23) one obtains an upper bound on the UV cut-off coming from imposing supresed nucleation and the WGC constraint given by Then in this scheme scalar cut-offs m as large as 10 14 GeV can be fine-tuned in a manner consistent with both the weak gravity conjecture and stability against nucleation.
However this scale m is reduced if the coupling η is reduced.
Let us make a couple of comments about possible slight modifications to the above results.
with ξ as small as we wish. Then the scales and bounds estimated in eqs (3.20), (3.23) and (3.24) remain applicable replacing in those equations m 2 H → ξm 2 H . In particular the lower bound on the membrane tension from stability becomes weaker whereas the upper bounds on the tension coming from the WGC becomes stronger, and so happens with the UV scale m. The dependence on ξ is however weak, due to the 1/3 power.
2) In the above estimations we consider the quantization constraints q a = µf , q h = µ h f . One can equally consider the more general case in which the membrane quanta is an integer fraction of the axion shift, as in eq.(2.9). All the results above still apply replacing q a → n a q a , q h → n h q h , with n a , n h ∈ Z.
Note that one can also obtain a finer tuning (at fixed µf )) by reducing the value of the coupling η and playing around with the integers n a , n h just mentioned.

The Hierarxion
One interesting feature of this approach is that there is a new particle, we may call it the Hierarxion, which could perhaps have testable properties depending on the masses where the latter inequality comes from the fine-tuning condition, assuming ξ

1.
There is also a lower bound on the axion mass if one applies the WGC argument, since if the quanta q a,h are too small, the interaction of the 3-form with the membranes would be weaker than the gravitation of the latter, i.e.
Combining it with the stability constraint M 2 ≥ (0.5)η −1 mm H one has a lower bound We thus see that there is a wide range The Hierarxion needs not couple to gluons or photons, but if it does, it could perhaps be identified with the QCD axion. However the axion potential discussed above can overwhelm the standard non-perturbative QCD axion potential and spoil the solution to the strong CP problem and render θ 1. To avoid that, one imposes the constraint where q stands for q a,h and the θ QCD is constrained to be θ QCD ≤ 10 −10 . This means 31) and the EW scale fine-tuning, which is of order q, would be much finer than just q m 2 H . Such small value for q however implies, if the WGC applies, that membranes should have a tension This tension is typically very small, well below the EW scale, and hence we should have observed the new physics associated to the membranes. Another possible objection to such small quanta q is that membrane nucleation could destabilize the minima through tunneling, as discussed above. It is easy to convince oneself using the equations above that the tunneling rate B would easily be B > 1 if the scalar mass cut-off obeys Let us finally emphasize that the example above, with a linear coupling to the axion ηφF 4 is minimal, but is not the only possibility. One could also consider e.g. quadratic couplings of the form F 2 4 |H| 2 /M 2 U V , with M U V some ultraviolet scale. This structure appears naturally in the SUSY case which we describe below.

A MSSM landscape
It is interesting to explore whether analogous landscapes could be constructed within N = 1 SUSY models like e.g. the MSSM. It sounds a bit redundant to introduce SUSY in theories in which the hierarchy problem is solved via a landscape of Higgss masses. However this may be interesting because of several reasons. For example, there are SUSY models in the literature, like Split SUSY [32] or Large Scale SUSY [33] in which the scale of SUSY breaking is very large, of order 10 5 − 10 11 GeV and the Higgs mass is small by fine-tuning. For those models a landscape of soft terms guaranteeing the possibility of a sufficiently light Higgs would be useful. Furthermore one can also consider this type of fine-tuning in order to understand or motivate the so called "little hierarchy problem".
For a SUSY version of a landscape we should start by asking whether there are SUSY multiplets incorporating 3-forms of the type discussed above. A hint to that is noticing that the Minkowski 4-forms do not propagate, but rather behave like auxiliary fields. So it is natural to think that the Minkowski 4-forms could appear as auxiliary fields of some known SUSY multiplets. Indeed, there are SUSY chiral multiplets in which the usual complex auxiliary field are totally or partially replaced by 4-forms [27,34,35]. Still these multiplets have not been much studied in the literature.
Interestingly enough it has been recently shown [21,36] that this kind of supergravity and supersymmetry multiplets are those which naturally appear in Type II string compatifications in the presence of fluxes . In string compactifications the geometric moduli and the dilaton come along with axion-like scalar fields. One can show that the dependence of the effective action on the axions comes always through Minkowski 4-forms, very much like in the non-SUSY example above. In the case of Type IIA and Type IIB orientifolds the effective actions contain 4-forms associated to the moduli and complex dilaton and the scalar potential dependence of the axions appears as a sum of squared 4-forms. These 4-forms may be identified as auxiliary fields of N = 1 multiplets.
Note that having 4-forms as auxiliary fields is not purely academic since there are a number of physical differences compared to a standard N = 1 sugra auxiliary field.
In particular the associated 3-forms couple to membranes, which should be present Consistency requires e 0 to be quantized in units of h 0 . In string theory models these numbers are in general integers (see e.g. [39] and references therein), corresponding to quanta of internal fluxes, and we assume so in what follows. This is a no-scale model and the associated potential may be obtained in the standard way yielding The potential is shift invariant and has minima at b = e 0 /h 0 in Minkowski, and the rest of the fields are undetermined at this level. Supersymmetry is broken and the gravitino mass is given by The standard N = 1 auxiliary fields are given by where t = ReT . With h 0 quantized we have a landscape of values for the gravitino mass (for fixed u, t). Note that the scalar potential of this system may be understood in terms of a Minkowski 4-form with an action Upon application of the equations one obtains and the scalar potential above is recovered. The N = 1 auxiliary field for the U field may be written in terms of this 4-form Still, since its vev is proportional to h 0 , which is quantized, the gravitino mass and soft terms are also quantized. This is an example of a N = 1 sugra model consistent with a formulation in terms of 3-forms. Other examples obtained from Type IIA and Type IIB orientifold vacua may be found in [21].
We can consider now the addition of matter fields like e.g. a MSSM Higgs sector H u,d and use the above toy model as a 'hidden sector" for it. If e.g. the Higgs fields had minimal canonical kinetic terms we will get for the Higgs mass (see e.g. [38]): Given that h 0 is quantized, the Higgs masses will scan in a landscape. This model is a 'toy" since the rest of the scalar fields are undetermined, but that is inessential to the point we want to make, that there will be in general a landscape of Higgs masses if the auxiliary fields relevant of the hidden sector contain quantized 4-forms, as indicated by string theory.
In general the full scalar potential in a fully realistic MSSM depends on a variety of soft terms plus a µ 0 -term for the Higgs. At the end of the day, assuming for simplicity flavour independence and universality, the mass of the weak scale gauge bosons can be written as an expansion in terms of soft-terms where c i = c i (y t , g i ) are coefficients depending only on the gauge and Yukawa couplings and including all the running between the UV scale and the EW scale. Here, in a standard notation, M is a universal gaugino mass, m the soft scalar masses, A is the trilinear soft coupling and µ 0 is the SUSY Higgs mass. In one such more complete setting all these soft terms M i sof t = m, M, A, B, µ 0 , .. will be quantized where the n i of different soft terms need not be directly correlated, and the h i 0 are of the same order. Thus we would have a grid of soft terms, with most of the points not giving appropriate EW symmetry breaking, but with some points consistent with correct EW breaking, with Higgs vevs consistent with anthropic considerations.
This built-in structure could perhaps explain the little hierarchy problem. Indeed, it could be that soft terms could be above a few TeV, with squark and gluinos perhaps above LHC reach. But for particular choices of the integers n i , cancellations could take place allowing for correct EW symmetry breaking with an apparently fine-tuned choice of SUSY parameters.
Let us comment about the connection between this SUSY landscape and the non-SUSY case considered in the previous section. In fact in the SUSY case, due to gravity mediation, the coupling of the 4-forms to the Higgs mass is quadratic and Planck supresed, rather than linear. One indeed has couplings of the form F 2 4 |H| 2 /M 2 p , rather than ηF |H| 2 . One gets a mass of order the EW scale for the axion in both cases if i.e., the strength of the 3-form coupling must be bigger than the gravitational coupling of the membrane. Applying these conditions to the axions φ α of some consistent string compactification one expects for all of them as long as they couple to a massive 3-form. This is interesting because it is telling us that all these axions cannot be arbitrarily light, since their mass corresponds to the coupling of 3-forms to membranes, which cannot be small in order not to violate the WGC. This should be preserved in any consitent compactification.
In principle one can go case by case and test in specific string compactifications whether the spectra of axion masses respects the bounds (5.3). That may give relevant constraints on specific moduli fixing vacua and provide explicit tests of the WGC. However one can draw some general expectations from the given structure. In particular, there are general classes of models in which axion masses are directly related to the SUSY-breaking scale. Those are models in which the Goldstino multiplet contains a monodromy axion. In that case the mass of the axion is of the order of the gravitino mass and hence the bound applies not only to the axion but to the gravitino itself, i.e.
Models in which the Goldstino contains a monodromy axion include Type IIA or Type IIB orientifolds with all moduli fixed by RR, NS and eventually additional geometric or non-geometric fluxes, see [46] and references therein. In these models SUSY is broken by the auxiliary fields of either Kahler, complex structure and/or complex dilaton. Thus some linear combination of axions will be SUSY partners of the Goldstino/gravitino, and the bound above would apply. More generally, in typical string compactifications with broken SUSY and stabilized moduli, either the Kahler, complex structure or complex dilaton auxiliary fields tipically dominate SUSY breaking. In these cases some linear combination of the axions in the moduli will be a SUSY partner of the Goldstino/gravitino. So at least the mass of that particular linear combination will be of order the gravitino mass, m a m 3/2 .
The bounds depend also on the membrane tensions and the periodicities. Concerning the axion periodicities f α , in string compactifications like these one typically has f α M s , although values as large as M p or slightly below M s are also possible, depending on volume factors. Concerning the tensions of the RR membranes, they are in principle proportional to the volume wrapped by the higher dimensional D-branes or NS-branes yielding membranes upon compactification. One may argue that one can make the tensions arbitrarily small by making the cycles of the volumes arbitrarily small, which would make the bounds (5.3) weaker. However we would have to do that simultaneously with all the 3-forms and membranes, which sounds artificial. Furthermore, as emphasized already in [15] , although the classical tensions can be vanishingly small, the effective tensions are only slightly smaller than M 3 s . This is because the Weil-Peterson metric in e.g. a conifold cycle scales logarithmically with the blowingup mode [15]. In any event, let us evaluate the bounds by setting the tensions T α M 3 s . One gets GeV and M s 10 15 GeV, consistent with the bound. The spectrum below m 3/2 is that of the minimal SM. This is interesting because it is known that, if one extrapolates the SM Higgs potential corresponding to a 126 GeV Higgs at high energies, the potential develops an instability at around 10 10 GeV [40]. If SUSY is restored above 10 10 GeV such instability disappears. This situation with an intermediate SUSY scale M SS has also been recently discussed both in the context of the observed SM Higgs mass [41,42] as well as in MSSM Higgs inflation [43].
In this situation no SUSY particles would be observed at LHC. GeV and low energy SUSY at a TeV, leading to succesful gauge coupling unification would be inconsistent with such a bound.
Let us close this section by noting that axions may get also a potential from instanton effects rather than directly from fluxes. This happens for example in Type IIB compactifications with standard NS and RR fluxes. The latter only induce monodromy to the complex structure and dilaton fields, but not to the axions in the Kahler multiplets. In the presence of gaugino condensation the role of the 3-forms is played by the composite CS 3-form of the condensing gauge group, see [16,25]. In this case the associated membrane tension is of order T Λ 3 , with Λ the condensate scale, and the bound above constraint Λ instead of the string scale. The origin of the composite 3-forms associated to non-gauge string instantons has been recently worked out in [25].

Comments and conclusions
In this paper we have studied how to generate a landscape of Higgs masses in order to address the gauge hierachy problem. Although anthropic considerations based on the viability of complex nuclei constrain the Higgs vev to be close to the observed value, we still need to have theories in which a landscape of Higgss masses, including viable ones, appear. This is what we tried to address in the present paper.
We put forward a general mechanism in which the landscape properties of an axion-3-form system is transmitted to the Higgs sector of the SM or the MSSM. Indeed, the 4-form field strengths associated to 3-forms are assumed to be quantized, as e.g. happens in string theory. On the other hand there is an axion-like field which 1) gives a mass to the 3-form and 2) couples to the Higgs field. Then the quantization properties of the axion/3-form system is transmitted to the Higgs sector via either a direct renormalizable coupling (as in a non-SUSY example discussed above) or mediated by gravity, as in the SUSY examples discussed in the previous section.
In the non-SUSY examples the mechanism suggests the existence of axion-like scalars with very weak couplings to the SM sector. Arguments based on the Weak Gravity Conjecture suggests masses for this Hierarxion not much below 10 −3 eV, although the possible range of values is very large. In order to generate the landscape it is not needed that this axion couples directly to the QCD or photon field strengths, as ordinary axions do. On the other hand it can contribute to dark matter, although the chances to detect this axion with standard techniques is model dependent. One can contemplate the possibility of this axion to be identified with an ordinary PQ axion, but the fact that it couples to the Higgs sector makes difficult to achieve that goal, since its potential dominates over the standard instanton-induced potential. It would be interesting to study different models in which different detection opportunities could be present. In both cases, SUSY and non-SUSY, the Weak Gravity Conjecture, as applied to 3-forms, suggests that there is a scale of new physics well below the Planck mass.
Indeed, we saw that in the non-SUSY class of models such an scale of order η −1/3 10 8 GeV or below should exist. In the SUSY case the string scale should typically be of order of the intermediate scale 10 10 GeV or so, to generate a landscape.
More generally, one can argue that in large classes of string compactifications with fluxes the WGC suggests a lower bound on the SUSY breaking scale with m 3/2 M 2 s /M p . This applies in particular to models in which the Goldstino multiplet contains a monodromy axion, but it could be more general. Although, admittedly, there are a number of loopholes in such a bound, it would be interesting to test it in specific compactifications.
Note that in here we have not addressed the problem of the cosmological constant.
We are tacitaly assuming that there is a different mechanism, like the Bousso-Polchinski (BP) mechanism [14] which addresses this issue. Note that the mechanism discussed here is not of the BP type, in which delicate cancellations of a large (on the hundreds) multiplicity of 4-forms with large values, allows for the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. One could think of the possibility of addressing the issue of the c.c. in a way analogous to the mechanism discussed in the present paper. However the scale of the cosmological constant is so small (of order 10 −48 GeV 4 ) that a threshold of new-physics associated to the required axion/3-form system should have been already detected experimentally. We think on the other hand that a landscape for the EW sector appears more naturally in the context of axion/3-form systems as here described.