Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

CKM matrix and FCNC suppression in $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Gauge-invariant brane interactions in the B-model of $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification reproduce the CKM quark mixing matrix and, by the same gauge invariance, suppress flavor-changing neutral currents to about…

desk verdict The FCNC suppression mechanism is real and worth taking seriously; the claimed CKM reproduction is not supported even on the paper's own numbers, and the m_u = 20 MeV input is load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00190 v3 pith:3ASAHYJC submitted 2019-08-31 hep-ph

Shuichiro Funatsu , Hisaki Hatanaka , Yutaka Hosotani , Yuta Orikasa , Naoki Yamatsu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords gauge-HiggsunificationCKMmatrixflavor-changingneutralcurrentswarpedextradimensionAharonov-BohmphasebraneinteractionsquarkflavormixingSO(5)xU(1)SU(3)
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 sets out to show that quark flavor mixing need not be put in by hand in gauge-Higgs unification: in the GUT-inspired B-model, a single class of gauge-invariant interactions on the UV brane generates both the mass splitting between up- and down-type quarks and the CKM mixing matrix in charged-current weak interactions. The central result is that the flavor-changing neutral currents that inevitably accompany such mixing are automatically suppressed by about one part in a million, as a direct consequence of gauge invariance and the orbifold structure, with no extra symmetry or GIM-type mechanism. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete step toward a complete theory of flavor in a framework that already explains the Higgs boson as the Aharonov-Bohm phase of a fifth dimension. The paper is explicit about its main caveat: reproducing the CKM matrix requires taking the up quark mass as roughly 20 MeV, an order of magnitude above the observed value, and the resulting mixing matrix is only approximately correct.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the six-by-six down-type quark mass matrix $M_{\rm down} = [[M_{\rm up}, 0], [\check{\mu}, \check{m}_D]]$, written in the basis of light doublets $(d,s,b; d',s',b')$ and heavy SO(5)-singlet fermions $D^{\pm}$. Here $M_{\rm up}$ is the diagonal mass generated by the Aharonov-Bohm phase of the fifth-dimensional gauge field, $\check{\mu}$ is the brane-interaction mass matrix induced by the gauge-invariant coupling (2.12), and $\check{m}_D$ are the large Dirac masses of the singlet fields. Because $m_D \sim m_{KK}$ is far larger than the down-type quark masses, the unitary rotation that diagonalizes $M_{\rm down}$ has a light-heavy block $\Omega_b$ of order $m_q/m_D$; that single small ratio simultaneously makes the CKM matrix ($\Omega_q \approx V_{\rm CKM}$) nearly unitary and suppresses FCNC Z couplings through $\Omega_a^\dagger \Omega_a = O(m_q^2/m_D^2)$. The technical machinery is the twisted gauge, which eliminates the AB-phase background from the bulk equations of motion, together with the warped-space basis functions (A.1)-(A.4) that encode the bulk-mass parameter dependence.

What would settle it

Set the up quark mass to its measured value (about 2.2 MeV) while keeping the model's minimal matter content and repeat the fit of the brane couplings to the observed CKM matrix; the bound (4.16) for the 11 element becomes $m_d/m_u |V_{ud}| \approx 2$, contradicting unitarity, so no solution should exist. An independent lattice determination of $m_u$ that firmly excludes 20 MeV would settle the claim, as would a measurement of tree-level $Z$-mediated flavor-changing couplings in $B_s$-$\bar{B}_s$ mixing or rare kaon decays at levels far above the predicted $10^{-6} g_w$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the B-model of the $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification, the paper argues, the observed pattern of quark mixing is not an accident but a consequence of the symmetries already present. The brane interaction, which couples the quark spinor multiplets to the brane scalar and the SO(5)-singlet fields, is invariant under the full gauge group; once the scalar develops its vacuum expectation value, this interaction generates the off-diagonal block $\check{\mu}$ of the down-type quark mass matrix $M_{\rm down} = [[M_{\rm up}, 0], [\check{\mu}, \check{m}_D]]$, with the heavy singlet masses $m_D$ of order the Kaluza-Klein scale. Diagonalizing this six-by-six mass matrix, the light-block rotation $\Omega_q$ gives the CKM matrix: numerically, for $\theta_H = 0.15$ and the parameter set (b), $|V_{us}| \approx 0.226$, $|V_{cb}| \approx 0.019$, and $g_W^L \approx 0.995 g_w$, close to the observed values (though $|V_{31}|$ comes out near $10^{-5}$, far too small). The same diagonalization forces the light-heavy mixing block $\Omega_b$ to be of order $m_q/m_D$, so the flavor-changing Z couplings of down-type quarks are of order $(m_q/m_D)^2 \lesssim 10^{-6}$; the paper confirms this both in an effective 4D theory and in the exact 5D wave functions. It also verifies that induced flavor-changing Yukawa couplings are extremely small, keeping Higgs phenomenology close to the standard model.

Load-bearing premise

The construction only works if the up quark mass is set to about 20 MeV, ten times its measured value; with the real value, the required inequality $m_u > m_d$ fails and the CKM matrix cannot be reproduced.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, quark mixing in gauge-Higgs unification requires no flavor symmetries or tree-level Yukawa textures: the CKM matrix emerges from one gauge-invariant brane coupling and the hierarchy between light quark masses and the Kaluza-Klein scale.
  • Tree-level flavor-changing Z couplings exist but are automatically below about $10^{-6}$ of the weak coupling, so the model is safely consistent with measured neutral-meson mass splittings such as $\Delta m_K$, $\Delta m_{B_d}$, and $\Delta m_{B_s}$.
  • Right-handed W couplings are tiny (below about $10^{-9} g_w$ for light quarks), so the W boson couples to quarks almost purely left-handedly, as in the standard model, even though the right-handed down quarks are largely composites of SO(5)-singlet fields.
  • The diagonal quark Z couplings and Yukawa couplings stay very close to standard-model values (deviations of order $\cos \theta_H$ or $\cos^2(\theta_H/2)$), preserving the standard-model-like Higgs phenomenology found in earlier gauge-Higgs unification models.
  • The model's Kaluza-Klein scale, $m_{KK} \approx 8$-$12$ TeV for $\theta_H = 0.10$-$0.15$, remains consistent with current LHC bounds, so the mechanism is not in tension with collider searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to compute lepton-flavor-violating Z couplings in the same B-model; the parametric suppression $(m_\ell/m_{KK})^2$ would predict rates far below current limits but could be tested at a future lepton collider.
  • The $m_u \approx 20$ MeV obstruction looks like a signal that the minimal B-model matter content is incomplete; the paper's relation (4.16) gives a concrete target for a completion: it must raise $m_u$ or invert the $m_d < m_u$ ordering without destroying the near-unitarity of $\Omega_q$.
  • The too-small $V_{31}$ (and somewhat small $V_{32}$) suggests that the one-parameter texture for the brane matrix used in the paper is too restrictive; allowing complex phases in $\mu$, which the paper notes can supply CP violation, is a natural next step to improve the fit while keeping the FCNC suppression intact.
  • If the suppression factor really scales as $(m_b/m_{KK})^2$, future precision measurements of $\Delta m_{B_s}$ and rare kaon decays translate directly into lower bounds on $m_{KK}$, giving flavor physics a role in testing gauge-Higgs unification complementary to Z' searches at colliders.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quark flavor mixing in the B-model of SO(5) × U(1) × SU(3) gauge-Higgs unification in a warped extra dimension. It introduces UV-brane interactions that respect the full bulk gauge symmetry and mix the three down-type quark generations with SO(5)-singlet fermions. The authors derive the bulk equations of motion, the down-quark mass spectrum via det K(λ) = 0, an effective 4D mass matrix, and the exact W, Z, and Yukawa couplings of quarks. They report a CKM matrix that is 'reasonably close' to the observed one, obtained with the unconventional input m_u = 20 MeV, and argue that flavor-changing neutral currents in Z couplings are naturally suppressed by a factor of order 10^-6 as a consequence of gauge invariance. They also compute flavor-changing Yukawa couplings and find them extremely small.

Significance. If the CKM claim were sound, the paper would provide a useful mechanism for generating quark mixing within gauge-Higgs unification without introducing extra symmetries. The derivation of the mass spectrum and couplings is systematic, and the FCNC suppression argument in Secs. 4.3 and 5.2 is a genuine and interesting result that appears robust independent of the CKM details: the numerical Z-coupling matrices in Eq. (5.24) show off-diagonal entries of order 10^-7, and the effective-theory argument in Eq. (4.21) explains the suppression. However, the paper's central CKM claim is not supported by its own numerical results. The input m_u = 20 MeV is physically unmotivated and load-bearing, and even with this input the derived |V_cb| and |V_31| differ from the observed values by factors of 2-3 and about three orders of magnitude, respectively. The paper therefore has significant value in its FCNC analysis but does not establish the claimed reproduction of the CKM matrix.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.16)] The inequality (4.16), derived from the exact relation Ω_q M_down = M_up Ω̃_q^† and unitarity, implies that m_dk/m_uj |V_jk| ≤ 1. With the observed m_u ≈ 2.2 MeV this condition fails by factors of roughly 2, 10, and 8 for the 11, 12, and 13 entries. The paper's response is to set m_u = 20 MeV in Table 3 and Sec. 4.2. This is not a running-mass value: in the standard model the up-quark mass decreases with scale, so no RG running from about 2.2 MeV yields 20 MeV at the KK scale, and the paper proposes no new physics mechanism for such an enhancement. Because Eq. (4.16) depends only on m_u and CKM entries, not on μ, c_D, or ω, no scan of the model parameters can remove this obstruction. This is a load-bearing failure of the central claim rather than a harmless parameter choice.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.16)] Even with the chosen m_u = 20 MeV, the numerical CKM matrices do not match the observed one. For θ_H = 0.10 the output has |V_cb| = 0.0134 and |V_31| = 9 × 10^-6; for θ_H = 0.15 it has |V_cb| = 0.0185 and |V_31| = 1 × 10^-5. The corresponding PDG magnitudes are about 0.042 and 0.008. Thus |V_cb| is low by a factor of 2-3 and |V_31| is low by roughly three orders of magnitude. The paper's own sentence, 'the resultant V_CKM is reasonably close to the observed CKM matrix, although the 31 element is still too small,' accurately describes the body, but the abstract's statement that 'the CKM matrix is reproduced' is not supported by the results. Because CKM generation is one of the two main claims of the paper, this numerical discrepancy is a central issue, not a cosmetic one.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.1) and Table 4] The apparent agreement of the Cabibbo angle is in large part an input rather than a prediction. The brane interaction matrix μ is parametrized by rotation angles ω12 and ω23, and the text states that 'ω12 is most responsible for the Cabibbo angle.' The bulk masses c_Dd, c_Ds, c_Db are then fitted to reproduce the down-type masses. Consequently the genuine output of the calculation is the pattern of the smaller CKM elements, and it is precisely those elements, |V_cb| and |V_31|, that disagree sharply with experiment. This makes the claim of CKM reproduction weaker than a predictive test, since the dominant entry is adjusted to match data while the entries that are not adjusted fail.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Sec. 5.1] The abstract says the CKM matrix 'is reproduced,' but Sec. 5.1 concludes it is 'reasonably close' with the 31 element 'still too small.' The abstract should be aligned with the body's more cautious statement.
  2. [Eq. (5.22)] In the definition of the Z-boson couplings, the term written as gW_Rdj dk in the sum should be gZ_Rdj dk; the superscript W appears to be a typographical error.
  3. [Sec. 2, p. 4] The sentence 'The y are listed in Table 1' should read 'They are listed in Table 1' or similar; the phrase appears incomplete.
  4. [Table 3] The unusual choice m_u = 0.020 GeV appears in Table 3 without a footnote; because it is a crucial nonstandard input, it should be flagged immediately in the table caption as well as in the text.
  5. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.17)] The quoted observed CKM matrix includes entries above 1 (e.g., V_tb = 1.019) because it lists magnitudes; this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion with a unitary matrix.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

CKM 'reproduction' is a parameter fit: the brane-interaction angles are tuned to the observed CKM matrix and m_u is reset to 20 MeV; the FCNC suppression is independent and non-circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5, parametrization of µ in Eq. (5.1) and results in Eq. (5.16); V_CKM defined in Eq. (4.10)]
    "Given the parameters µαβ of the brane interaction (2.14) and the Dirac masses mDα for the D± α fields, the bulk mass parameters cDα are chosen such that the mass spectrum of down-type quarks are reproduced by the condition (3.25). Then the wave functions of all quarks are unambiguously determined. The parametersµαβ need be chosen such that the observed CKM mixing matrix is reproduced."

    By Eq. (4.10), V_CKM ≃ Ω_q, where Ω_q is the low-energy block of the unitary matrix diagonalizing the down-type mass matrix. Ω_q is determined by the brane-interaction matrix µ (and the fitted bulk masses cDα). The paper states that µαβ 'need be chosen such that the observed CKM mixing matrix is reproduced,' and then explores only (ω12, ω23) with 'ω12 most responsible for the Cabibbo angle.' The output V_CKM in (5.16) is therefore imposed by the input choice, and comparing that output to the same PDG matrix is not an independent test. The admitted residual mismatch (|V31| too small) further confirms this is a fit rather than a derivation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.2, constraint Eq. (4.16); input m_u in Table 3 and abstract]
    "The observed mu ∼ 1.3 MeV is too small, and the inequality (4.16) is not satisfied for the 11, 12 and 13 elements. Rigorous treatment presented in the previous and next sections also confirms this behavior. In the present paper we tentatively suppose that mu ∼ 20 MeV."

    Equation (4.16), (mdk/muj)|V^CKM_jk| ≤ 1, is derived from the exact mass-matrix relation (r1), Ω_q M_down = M_up Ω̃_q†, plus unitarity. The model is incompatible with the measured m_u, so the paper changes the input to m_u = 20 MeV, with no mechanism offered ('The issue of small mu is left for future investigation'). Because the CKM entries used in (4.16) are themselves products of the fitted µ, the consistency is forced by adjusting a second input to the fitted output; the claimed CKM reproduction is conditional on an ad hoc input and is not a prediction.

full rationale

The FCNC suppression claim is non-circular. Equation (4.21), Ω_a†Ω_a = O(m_q^2/m_D^2) ≲ 10^-6, follows algebraically from the mass-matrix identities (4.11)–(4.13) together with the gauge-invariant form (2.12)/(2.14), and it is confirmed by the explicit numerical wave-function computation in (5.23)–(5.24). This part does not depend on the fitted angles (ω12, ω23) or on the value of m_u. The CKM claim, however, is a fitted-input-called-prediction: the brane-interaction matrix µ is explicitly chosen to reproduce the observed CKM matrix (Sec. 5), and the constraint (4.16) is satisfied only after raising m_u from ~1.3 MeV to 20 MeV. The paper is honest about both limitations, but the abstract's 'CKM matrix is reproduced' overstates a fit that leaves |V31| too small and requires an unexplained mass input. This is not a self-citation or uniqueness-importation problem; it is a partial circularity concentrated in the flavor-mixing sector, while the FCNC suppression remains an independent and self-contained result.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on roughly ten numbers chosen or fitted to data: the up quark mass is moved to 20 MeV, the brane coupling matrix mu is fitted to CKM data, and the down-type bulk masses are fitted to down quark masses. These are not predicted by the model, so they count as free parameters. No new particles are invented in this paper; the D fields, brane scalar, and Z' bosons come from the B-model of ref. [13]. The axioms are the standard RS/ghU structure plus a few simplifying choices.

free parameters (9)
  • theta_H (AB phase) = 0.10 or 0.15
    Chosen input that sets the KK scale and electroweak scale; not predicted in this paper, though bounded by Z' searches.
  • z_L (RS warp factor) = 10^10
    Standard choice for the RS hierarchy; sets the KK mass scale together with theta_H.
  • m_u (up quark mass) = 0.020 GeV (observed ~0.002 GeV)
    Adjusted to satisfy the md < mu constraint from eq. (4.16); this is an order-of-magnitude deviation from data.
  • mu_1, mu_2, mu_3 (brane coupling eigenvalues) = (0.1, 0.1, 1)
    Reference values suggested in ref. [13]; the shape of the CKM matrix depends on these.
  • omega_12, omega_23 (rotation angles in mu) = (0.1055, 0.0018) for theta_H=0.10; (0.1055, 0.00198) for theta_H=0.15
    Scanned to make the CKM matrix match data; omega_12 is 'most responsible for the Cabibbo angle'.
  • c_Dd, c_Ds, c_Db (down-singlet bulk masses) = e.g., (0.520074, 0.751360, 0.951239) for theta_H=0.10
    Determined by requiring the down, strange, and bottom masses to be (0.0029, 0.055, 2.89) GeV via eq. (3.25).
  • m_D tilde (Dirac masses of D fields) = 1 (i.e., m_D = k)
    Set by hand; the FCNC suppression scale and the heavy mass spectrum depend on this choice.
  • sin^2 theta_W^0 (bare Weinberg angle) = 0.2306 for theta_H=0.10; 0.2299 for theta_H=0.15
    Determined to fit LEP1 data for e+e- -> mu+mu- at the Z pole.
  • c_u, c_c, c_t (up-type bulk masses) = (-0.9169, -0.7545, -0.2274) for theta_H=0.10
    Chosen to reproduce the up, charm, and top masses through the Hosotani mechanism.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The RS warped background with metric (2.1) is an acceptable description of the extra dimension.
    The entire calculation takes place in this background without deriving it from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption The orbifold boundary conditions (2.3)-(2.5) break SO(5) to SO(4) and produce the Higgs zero mode.
    This is the defining structure of the gauge-Higgs unification framework.
  • domain assumption The brane scalar Phi(1,4) develops a VEV with w >> m_KK, making broken generators effectively Dirichlet at the UV brane.
    This is required for the low-energy gauge structure to reduce to the SM.
  • domain assumption Gauge invariance under G = SU(3)_C x SO(5) x U(1)_X restricts the brane interactions to the form (2.12), forcing kappa^(1) = kappa^(2).
    The mechanism of flavor mixing and FCNC suppression depends on this restricted form.
  • ad hoc to paper The bulk mass parameters of the singlet fields satisfy c_D+ = c_D-.
    The paper explicitly considers this choice and notes an alternative is possible; the spectrum formulas depend on it.
  • domain assumption The heavy D fields have masses of order m_KK, much larger than light quark masses.
    The effective-theory argument for FCNC suppression uses the separation m_q/m_D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CKM matrix and FCNC suppression in $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ASAHYJC

@misc{pith2026190900190,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CKM matrix and FCNC suppression in $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ASAHYJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00190}
}
abstract

The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix and flavor-changing neutral currents (FCNC's) in the quark sector are examined in the GUT inspired $SO(5) \times U(1) \times SU(3)$ gauge-Higgs unification in which the 4D Higgs boson is identified with the Aharonov-Bohm phase in the fifth dimension. Gauge invariant brane interactions play an important role for the flavor mixing in the charged-current weak interactions. The CKM matrix is reproduced except that the up quark mass needs to be larger than the observed one. FCNC's are naturally suppressed as a consequence of the gauge invariance, with a factor of order $10^{-6}$. It is also shown that induced flavor-changing Yukawa couplings are extremely small.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y.\ Hosotani, ``Dynamical mass generation by compact extra dimensions'' , 126 309 1983

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    Y.\ Hosotani, ``Dynamics of nonintegrable phases and gauge symmetry breaking'' , 190 233 1989

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    A. T. Davies and A. McLachlan, ``Gauge group breaking by Wilson loops'' , 200 305 1988 ; ``Congruency class effects in the Hosotani model'' , 317 237 1989

    work page 1988

  4. [4]

    H.\ Hatanaka, T.\ Inami, C.S.\ Lim, ``The gauge hierarchy problem and higher dimensional gauge theories'' , 13 2601 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    H.\ Hatanaka, ``Matter representations and gauge symmetry breaking via compactified space'' , 102 407 1999

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    M.\ Kubo, C.S.\ Lim and H.\ Yamashita, ``The Hosotani mechanism in bulk gauge theories with an orbifold extra space S^1/Z_2 '' , 17 2249 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Agashe, R

    K. Agashe, R. Contino and A. Pomarol, ``The minimal composite Higgs model'' , 719 165 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    A. D. Medina, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner, ``Gauge-Higgs unification and radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in warped extra dimensions'' , 76 095010 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Hosotani, K

    Y. Hosotani, K. Oda, T. Ohnuma and Y. Sakamura, ``Dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking in SO(5) U(1) gauge-Higgs unification with top and bottom quarks'' , 78 096002 2008 ; Erratum - D 79 079902 2009

    2008

  2. [10]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani, Y. Orikasa and T. Shimotani, ``Novel universality and Higgs decay H , gg in the SO(5) U(1) gauge-Higgs unification'' , 722 94 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani, Y. Orikasa, and T. Shimotani, ``LHC signals of the SO(5) U(1) gauge-Higgs unification'' , 89 095019 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani and Y. Orikasa, ``Collider signals of W' and Z' bosons in the gauge-Higgs unification'' , 95 035032 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani, Y. Orikasa and N. Yamatsu, ``GUT inspired SO(5) U(1) SU(3) gauge-Higgs unification'' , 99 095010 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hosotani and N

    Y. Hosotani and N. Yamatsu, ``Gauge-Higgs grand unification'' , 2015 111B01 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Furui, Y

    A. Furui, Y. Hosotani, and N. Yamatsu, ``Toward realistic gauge-Higgs grand unification'' , 2016 093B01 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Hosotani and N

    Y. Hosotani and N. Yamatsu, ``Electroweak symmetry breaking and mass spectra in six-dimensional gauge-Higgs grand unification'' , 2018 023B05 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    J.\ Yoon and M.E.\ Peskin, ``Dissection of an SO(5) U(1) gauge-Higgs unification model'' , 100 015001 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani and Y. Orikasa, ``Distinct signals of the gauge-Higgs unification in e^+e^- collider experiments'' , 775 297 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    J.\ Yoon and M.E.\ Peskin, ``Fermion pair production in SO(5) U(1) gauge-Higgs unification models'' , arXiv:1811.07877 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Funatsu, ``Forward-backward asymmetry in the gauge-Higgs unification at the International Linear Collider'' , arXiv:1905.10007 [hep-ph]

    S. Funatsu, ``Forward-backward asymmetry in the gauge-Higgs unification at the International Linear Collider'' , arXiv:1905.10007 [hep-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hosotani, ``Gauge-Higgs unification at e^+ e^- linear colliders'' , arXiv:1904.10156 [hep-ph]

    Y. Hosotani, ``Gauge-Higgs unification at e^+ e^- linear colliders'' , arXiv:1904.10156 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S.\ Bilokin, R.\ P\" o schl and F.\ Richard, ``Measurement of b quark EW couplings at ILC'' , arXiv:1709.04289 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    F.\ Richard, ``Bhabha scattering at ILC250'' , arXiv:1804.02846 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Irles, R

    A. Irles, R. P\" o schl, F. Richard and H. Yamamoto, ``Complementarity between ILC250 and ILC-GigaZ'' , arXiv:1905.00220 [hep-ex]

    1905 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Fujii et al., ``Physics case for the 250 GeV stage of the International Linear Collider'' , arXiv:1710.07621 [hep-ex]

    K. Fujii et al., ``Physics case for the 250 GeV stage of the International Linear Collider'' , arXiv:1710.07621 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    A Global Project'' , arXiv:1901.09829 [hep-ex]; Philip Bambade et al

    ILC Collaboration (H.\ Aihara et al.), ``The International Linear Collider. A Global Project'' , arXiv:1901.09829 [hep-ex]; Philip Bambade et al.. ``The International Linear Collider. A Global Project'' , arXiv:1903.01629 [hep-ex]

    1901 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Adachi, N

    Y. Adachi, N. Kurahashi, C.S. Lim and N. Maru, ``Flavor mixing in gauge-Higgs unification'' , 1011 150 2010 ; Y. Adachi, N. Kurahashi and N. Maru, `` D^0 - D^0 mixing in gauge-Higgs unification'' , 1201 047 2012 ; Y. Adachi, N. Kurahashi, N. Maru and K. Tanabe, `` B^0 - B^0 mi...

    2010

  20. [28]

    Adachi, N

    Y. Adachi, N. Kurahashi, C.S. Lim, N. Maru and K. Tanabe, ``Flavor mixing in the gauge-Higgs unification'' , AIP Conf.Proc. 1467 258 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Cacciapaglia, C

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Csaki, J. Galloway, G. Marandella, J. Terning and A. Weiler, ``A GIM mechanism from extra dimensions'' , 0804 006 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Gherghetta and A

    T. Gherghetta and A. Pomarol, ``Bulk fields and supersymmetry in a slice of AdS'' , 586 141 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Falkowski, ``Holographic pseudo-Goldstone boson'' , 75 025017 2007

    A. Falkowski, ``Holographic pseudo-Goldstone boson'' , 75 025017 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Y.\ Hosotani and Y.\ Sakamura, ``Anomalous Higgs couplings in the SO(5) U(1)_ B-L gauge-Higgs unification in warped spacetime'' , 118 935 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), ``Review of Particle Physics'' , 98 030001 2018 , Chap.\ 10.\ ``Electroweak Model and Constraints on New Physics''

    2018

  26. [34]

    [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Chin.\ Phys

    K.A.\ Olive et al. [Particle Data Group], Review of Particle Physics, Chin.\ Phys. C 38 090001 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    A.\ Crivellin, G.\ D’Ambrosio, M.\ Hoferichter, and L.C.\ Tunstall, ``Violation of lepton flavor and lepton flavor universality in rare kaon decays , 93 074038 2016 ; F.\ Gabbiani, E.\ Gabrielli, A.\ Masiero, and L.\ Silvestrini, `` A complete analysis of FCNC and CP constrain...

    2016

  28. [36]

    Y.\ Hosotani and Y.\ Kobayashi, ``Yukawa couplings and effective interactions in gauge-Higgs unification'' , 674 192 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    N.\ Yamatsu, ``Gauge coupling unification in gauge-Higgs grand unification'' , 2016 043B02 2016 ; A.\ Abdalgabar, M.O.\ Khojali, A.S.\ Cornell, G.\ Cacciapaglia, A.\ Deandrea, ``Unification of gauge and Yukawa couplings'' , 776 231 2018

    2016

  30. [38]

    G.\ Burdman and Y.\ Nomura, ``Unification of Higgs and gauge fields in five ddimensions'' , 656 3 2003

    2003

  31. [39]

    N.\ Haba, Masatomi Harada, Y.\ Hosotani and Y.\ Kawamura, ``Dynamical rearrangement of gauge symmetry on the orbifold S^1/Z_2 '' , 657 169 2003 ; Erratum - B 669 381 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    N.\ Haba, Y.\ Hosotani, Y.\ Kawamura and T.\ Yamashita, ``Dynamical symmetry breaking in gauge Higgs unification on orbifold'' , 70 015010 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    Lim and N.\ Maru, ``Towards a realistic grand gauge-Higgs unification'' , 653 320 2007

    C.S. Lim and N.\ Maru, ``Towards a realistic grand gauge-Higgs unification'' , 653 320 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    K.\ Kojima, K.\ Takenaga and T.\ Yamashita, ``Grand gauge-Higgs unification'' , 84 051701(R) 2011 ; ``Gauge symmetry breaking patterns in an SU(5) grand gauge-Higgs unification'' , 95 015021 2017

    2011

  35. [43]

    M.\ Frigerio, J.\ Serra and A.\ Varagnolo, ``Composite GUTs: Models and expectations at the LHC'' , 1106 029 2011

    2011

  36. [44]

    Funatsu, H

    S. Funatsu, H. Hatanaka, Y. Hosotani, Y. Orikasa and T. Shimotani, ``Dark matter in the SO(5) U(1) gauge-Higgs unification'' , 2014 113B01 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    N.\ Maru, N.\ Okada and S.\ Okada, `` SU(2)_L doublet vector dark matter from gauge-Higgs unification'' , 98 075021 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Cacciapaglia, H

    G. Cacciapaglia, H. Cai, A. Deandrea, A. Kushwaha, ``Composite Higgs and dark matter model in SU(6)/SO(6) '' , arXiv:1904.09301 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y.\ Adachi and N.\ Maru, ``Revisiting electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs boson mass in gauge-Higgs unification'' , 98 015022 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    K.\ Hasegawa and C.S.\ Lim, ``Majorana neutrino masses in the scenario of gauge-Higgs unification'' , 2018 073B01 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    C.S.\ Lim, ``The implication of gauge-Higgs unification for the hierarchical fermion masses'' , 2018 093B02 2018

    2018

  42. [50]

    Maru and Y

    N. Maru and Y. Yatagai, ``Fermion mass hierarchy in grand gauge-Higgs unification'' , arXiv:1903.08359 [hep-ph]

    1903 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hasegawa and C.S.\ Lim, ``'t Hooft-Polyakov monopole and instanton-like topological solution in gauge-Higgs unification'' , arXiv:1908.07156 [hep-ph]

    K. Hasegawa and C.S.\ Lim, ``'t Hooft-Polyakov monopole and instanton-like topological solution in gauge-Higgs unification'' , arXiv:1908.07156 [hep-ph]

    1908 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hisano, Y

    J. Hisano, Y. Shoji and A. Yamada, ``To be, or not to be finite? The Higgs potential in gauge Higgs unification'' , arXiv:1908.09158 [hep-ph]; Y. Hosotani, N. Maru, K. Takenaga and T. Yamashita, ``Two loop finiteness of Higgs mass and potential in the gauge-Higgs unification''...

    1908 arXiv

Pith tools

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