Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Are there minimal exceptional aGUTs from stable 5D orbifolds?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read There is no stable five-dimensional orbifold of an exceptional gauge group whose unbroken group is exactly the Standard Model gauge group.

desk verdict Useful completion of the exceptional-group orbifold stability analysis, but the no-go statement is only as solid as the unproven maximal-subgroup assumption; the potential computations themselves are careful. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13118 v1 pith:72IAQ6A5 submitted 2025-01-20 hep-ph hep-th

Giacomo Cacciapaglia , Alan S. Cornell , Aldo Deandrea , Wanda Isnard , Roman Pasechnik , Anca Preda , Zhi-Wei Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th PACS 11.10.Kk12.10.-g
keywords asymptoticgrandunificationexceptionalgaugegroupsorbifoldcompactificationgauge-Higgsgauge-scalareffectivepotentialE6modelbuildingE7orbifoldsUVfixedpoints
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 asks whether asymptotic grand unified theories (aGUTs) can be built from exceptional gauge groups on a five-dimensional $S^1/Z_2\times Z'_2$ orbifold. It establishes a no-go: every orbifold that fully embeds the Standard Model gauge group and satisfies the minimal aGUT requirements is radiatively unstable, because the one-loop gauge-scalar potential drives the vacuum to a configuration that reconstructs a larger unbroken symmetry. Among the exceptional groups, only $E_6$ and $E_7$ can contain the Standard Model; $G_2$ and $F_4$ cannot, and $E_8$ yields only real, non-chiral unbroken subgroups. The two surviving options are non-minimal $E_6$ models: one supersymmetric, one requiring a modification of the Coleman-Weinberg potential. A sympathetic reader would care because the result clears the list of possible minimal exceptional aGUTs and points concrete model-building attention at $E_6$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $S^1/Z_2\times Z'_2$ orbifold, defined by two $\mathbb{Z}_2$ parities $P_1$ and $P_2$ that break the bulk gauge group $G$ to subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$, leaving $H=H_1\cap H_2$ in four dimensions. Stability is controlled by the one-loop effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(a_i)$ of the gauge-scalars, the zero modes of the fifth gauge-field component, built from the template functions $F^+(a)$ and $F^-(a)$ whose minima sit at $a=0$ and $a=1/2$, respectively. The load-bearing selection rule is the maximal-subgroup criterion: the paper scans only alignments where $H$ is a maximal subgroup of both $H_1$ and $H_2$, a criterion it proves for $SU(N)$, $Sp(2N)$, and $SO(N)$ and assumes for exceptional groups. For the $E_6$ and $E_7$ candidates, the potential's global minima occur at maximal VEVs where the zero-mode spectrum reconstructs $SU(5)\times U(1)^2$ or $SO(10)\times U(1)^2$, which is the mechanism that kills the minimal models.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop gauge-scalar potential for a non-maximal common-subgroup alignment of two $E_6$ parities whose unbroken group is exactly $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ (up to extra $U(1)$ factors), including bulk fermion and scalar contributions: if the global minimum lies at non-extremal VEVs and leaves precisely that group unbroken, the paper's no-go is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that no minimal asymptotic grand unified theory can be built from a stable $S^1/Z_2\times Z'_2$ orbifold of an exceptional gauge group. It reaches this conclusion by classifying the maximal common subgroups obtained from all pairs of $\mathbb{Z}_2$ parities for $G_2$, $F_4$, $E_6$, $E_7$, and $E_8$, and by computing the one-loop effective potential for the gauge-scalar zero modes in the candidate $E_6$ and $E_7$ alignments. In every alignment that could in principle break directly to the Standard Model, the global minimum of the potential sits at a maximal vacuum expectation value, $(a,b) = (0,1/2)$ or $(1/2,0)$, at which additional zero modes appear and reconstruct a larger gauge group: $SU(5)\times U(1)^2$ for the $E_6$ case and $SO(10)\times U(1)^2$ for the $E_7$ case. Hence the desired unbroken group is never exactly the Standard Model one at a stable minimum, and the paper concludes that only non-minimal $E_6$ paths remain viable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the maximal-subgroup criterion: the paper assumes that the stable unbroken group of any $Z_2\times Z'_2$ orbifold is a maximal common subgroup of the two parity-breaking subgroups, proved for $SU(N)$, $Sp(2N)$, and $SO(N)$ but not for exceptional groups; if a stable non-maximal alignment exists, it could break directly to the Standard Model and invalidate the no-go result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No minimal exceptional aGUT exists: the $E_6$ and $E_7$ orbifold alignments that fully embed the Standard Model are all radiatively unstable.
  • The stable $E_6$ orbifold breaks $E_6$ to $SU(5)\times U(1)^2$, so any viable $E_6$ model must accept a non-minimal intermediate stage or a modified potential.
  • The stable $E_7$ orbifold breaks $E_7$ to $SO(10)\times U(1)^2$; the alternative $SU(6)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ alignment is unstable and cannot produce a feasible model even if destabilised.
  • $E_8$ cannot support chiral Standard Model fermions in this setup because its unbroken subgroups are real, while $G_2$ and $F_4$ cannot contain the Standard Model gauge group.
  • The viable non-minimal directions are the supersymmetric $E_6$ model, where the one-loop potential vanishes until supersymmetry breaks, and a non-supersymmetric $E_6$ model with additional interactions that shift the gauge-scalar potential's minimum to a non-extremal value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the no-go stands only under the maximal-subgroup criterion; if a non-maximal common subgroup of two exceptional parities leaves exactly the Standard Model unbroken, that alignment is not examined here, and its stability is an open question.
  • Editorial inference: the same pattern found in $E_6$ and $E_7$—global minima at the maximal VEV $1/2$ reconstructing a larger symmetry—suggests that direct breaking to the Standard Model by exceptional orbifolds is generically disfavoured by the one-loop potential, not just in the cases tabulated.
  • Editorial inference: a concrete next step implicit in the paper is to add bulk fermions and scalars to the unstable $E_6$ Pati-Salam alignment and search for parameter regions where the global minimum moves to a non-extremal point $(0,x)$; the paper notes the unbroken group there would be exactly the Standard Model.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes 5D S1/Z2×Z'2 orbifolds with exceptional gauge groups (G2, F4, E6, E7, E8) to determine whether any admit a stable vacuum whose unbroken 4D gauge group is the Standard Model (up to extra U(1) factors), which would form the basis of a minimal asymptotic grand unified theory (aGUT). The authors compute one-loop effective potentials for gauge-scalars in various parity alignments, using a maximal common subgroup criterion to classify candidate orbifolds. They find that for the only viable groups E6 and E7, the stable alignments lead to larger unbroken groups such as SU(5)×U(1)^2 or SO(10)×U(1)^2, while the alignments that would break directly to the SM are unstable. The paper concludes that no minimal exceptional aGUT can be built and points to non-minimal E6-based models as alternatives.

Significance. If fully established, the no-go result would be a useful classification result: it would close the possibility of minimal exceptional aGUTs from stable 5D orbifolds and sharpen the case for non-minimal E6 constructions (supersymmetric or with modified gauge-scalar potentials). The effective potential computations are detailed and self-contained, with explicit formulas in the appendices and consistent use of the reflection trick from Ref. [47]; the analysis also provides concrete falsifiable predictions in the form of fixed-point conditions and stability classifications. The main weakness is that the completeness of the maximal subgroup criterion for exceptional groups is assumed rather than proven, which limits the force of the universal no-go statement. With that issue addressed, the paper would be a valuable contribution to the aGUT literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Table 2] The 'maximal subgroup criterion' is introduced in Section 2 as a proposal ('we propose to only study cases where H is a maximal subgroup of both Hi and Hj') and is verified only for SU(N), Sp(2N), and SO(N) in Section 2.1. For the exceptional groups E6 and E7, however, the criterion is assumed without proof, and the stability classification in Table 2 is compiled under this assumption. Because the paper's central claim is a universal no-go statement, a stable parity alignment whose unbroken group is a non-maximal common subgroup equal to GSM × U(1)^n would invalidate the conclusion. The authors should either prove that all stable configurations are captured by maximal common subgroups for exceptional groups, or explicitly restrict the claim to maximal alignments and present completeness as a conjecture.
  2. [Section 4 and Abstract] The abstract states 'we show that no minimal asymptotic grand unified theory can be built', and Section 4 concludes 'we demonstrated that all minimal aGUT models one could build, which fully embed the SM, are based on unstable orbifolds'. This overstates the performed analysis: only maximal common subgroup alignments were studied, as the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 4 ('We only studied alignments of the parities leading to maximal unbroken subgroups'). In particular, Section 3.1 notes that for non-extreme gauge-scalar VEVs (0,x) with 0<x<1/2 the E6 orbifold breaks to the SM group, but the paper does not determine whether any such non-maximal alignment is a stable vacuum. The unconditional no-go claim is therefore not established by the results presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The proof that the maximal common subgroup criterion reproduces all stable orbifolds is sketched only for SU(N); the extension to Sp(2N) and SO(N) is asserted to be a 'trivial generalisation' without further detail. Since this is used to justify applying the criterion to exceptional groups, a brief outline or reference for these cases would strengthen the presentation.
  2. [Appendix A.3.2] Equations (A.34) and (A.35) use sums over index combinations ij and ijlk without defining the ranges; specify that these are sums over distinct index pairs and quadruples.
  3. [Section 3, Table 1] The table header 'Group Parity' is ambiguous because the entries list the parity label (P1, P2, etc.) on a separate line; reformatting the table so that each row contains the parity label and the unbroken group in the same line would improve readability.
  4. [Multiple locations] There are several typos and awkward phrasings: 'T able 1' at the start of Section 3, 'in function of the two VEVs' in the caption of Fig. 1, and 'the fundamental only contains bi-fundamentals' in Section 3.2, which should be clarified (e.g., by specifying the decomposition of the 56 of E7 under SU(4)×SU(4)).
  5. [References] Reference [32] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if it has been published, the journal reference should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the no-go result follows from explicit one-loop potential computations; the maximal-subgroup completeness caveat is a correctness gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The central claim is obtained by explicit one-loop effective-potential evaluations, Eqs. (3.1)-(3.3), using the functional templates F+ and F-; no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The orbifold parity inventory is imported from Ref. [36] (Hebecker-Ratz, external), while stability results for SU(N)/Sp/SO from the authors' Ref. [32] are independently derived and used only to motivate the maximal-subgroup strategy; the exceptional-group potentials for F4, E6, and E7 are computed in the paper itself (Appendix A) with explicit decompositions and resulting global minima. The conclusion that the only stable maximal alignments give SU(5)xU(1)^2 or SO(10)xU(1)^2, rather than the SM, is a direct consequence of those computations, not of a fitted constant or a self-citation. The main caveat is the unproven maximal-subgroup restriction for exceptional groups: the paper verifies it for ordinary groups and assumes it for E6/E7, so a stable non-maximal alignment breaking directly to the SM is not excluded. That is a completeness or correctness limitation, not a circular step, because the assumption is not derived from the conclusion and does not make the conclusion true by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central no-go result rests on three pillars: the standard one-loop effective potential for gauge-scalars, the classification of Z2 parities and their unbroken subgroups, and the maximal-subgroup completeness criterion for exceptional groups. The first two are established domain tools; the third is assumed for exceptional groups and only verified for ordinary groups. The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math The one-loop effective potential Veff = C(-3 VRG + 4 sum VRf - sum VRs) (Eq. 3.1) determines the stability of gauge-scalar vacua.
    Standard effective potential formula for 5D orbifold gauge theories, taken from prior literature [32] and used throughout Section 3 and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Every maximal regular subgroup of an exceptional group can be generated by a Z2 orbifold twist, and the listed parity breakings in Table 1 are exhaustive.
    Used from Ref. [36] to enumerate the parity actions and unbroken groups for G2, F4, E6, E7, E8.
  • ad hoc to paper For exceptional groups, the stable orbifold configurations are fully captured by considering only maximal common subgroups H of the two parity-breaking subgroups.
    Verified only for SU(N), Sp(2N), SO(N) in Section 2; applied to E6/E7/E8 without proof. If a stable non-maximal alignment exists, the no-go result could be invalidated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Are there minimal exceptional aGUTs from stable 5D orbifolds?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/72IAQ6A5

@misc{pith2026250113118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Are there minimal exceptional aGUTs from stable 5D orbifolds?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/72IAQ6A5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13118}
}
abstract

In analysing five dimensional orbifolds with exceptional gauge groups, we seek to find stable vacua configurations which satisfy the minimal requirements for asymptotic grand unified models. In this respect we show that no minimal asymptotic grand unified theory can be built. Our results point towards non-minimal models based on $E_6$: one featuring supersymmetry, and the other needing a modification of the Coleman-Weinberg potential to stabilise the breaking of $E_6$ to the standard model gauge group.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Double SU(4) model

    J. A. R. Cembranos and P. Diez-Valle, “Double SU(4) model,” arXiv:1903.03209 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1903

  2. [1]

    Status and perspectives of neutrino physics,

    M. S. Athar and et al., “Status and perspectives of neutrino physics,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 124 (May, 2022) 103947

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    A new era in the search for dark matter,

    G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, “A new era in the search for dark matter,” Nature 562 no. 7725, (Oct., 2018) 51–56

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC,

    G. F. Giudice, “Naturally Speaking: The Naturalness Criterion and Physics at the LHC,” arXiv:0801.2562 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Unity of all elementary-particle forces,

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of all elementary-particle forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (Feb, 1974) 438–441

    work page 1974

  6. [5]

    The State of the Art—Gauge Theories,

    H. Georgi, “The State of the Art—Gauge Theories,” AIP Conference Proceedings 23 no. 1, (11, 1975) 575–582

    work page 1975

  7. [6]

    Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons,

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, “Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons,” Annals of Physics 93 no. 1, (1975) 193–266

    work page 1975

  8. [7]

    Asymptotically safe grand unification,

    B. Bajc and F. Sannino, “Asymptotically safe grand unification,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2016 no. 12, (Dec., 2016) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)141

    doi:10.1007/jhep12(2016)141 2016

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Minimal SU(5) asymptotic grand unification,

    G. Cacciapaglia, A. S. Cornell, C. Cot, and A. Deandrea, “Minimal SU(5) asymptotic grand unification,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 7, (2021) 075012, arXiv:2012.14732 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    GUT precursors and nontrivial fixed points in higher dimensional gauge theories,

    K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas, and T. Gherghetta, “GUT precursors and nontrivial fixed points in higher dimensional gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 061601, arXiv:hep-th/0210294

    2003 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Renormalizability of gauge theories in extra dimensions,

    H. Gies, “Renormalizability of gauge theories in extra dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 085015, arXiv:hep-th/0305208

    2003 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Renormalizable extra-dimensional models,

    T. R. Morris, “Renormalizable extra-dimensional models,” JHEP 01 (2005) 002, arXiv:hep-ph/0410142

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Asymptotic ultraviolet-safe unification of gauge and Yukawa couplings: The exceptional case,

    G. Cacciapaglia, A. Deandrea, R. Pasechnik, and Z.-W. Wang, “Asymptotic ultraviolet-safe unification of gauge and Yukawa couplings: The exceptional case,” Phys. Lett. B 852 (2024) 138629, arXiv:2302.11671 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Systematic classification of aGUT models in five dimensions: the SU(N) kinship,

    G. Cacciapaglia, “Systematic classification of aGUT models in five dimensions: the SU(N) kinship,” JHEP 12 (2023) 162, arXiv:2309.10098 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability and an extra dimension,

    Y. Kawamura, “Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability and an extra dimension,” Progress of Theoretical Physics 105 no. 6, (June, 2001) 999–1006

    2001

  8. [15]

    Gauge unification in higher dimensions,

    L. Hall and Y. Nomura, “Gauge unification in higher dimensions,” Physical Review D 64 no. 5, (Aug., 2001)

    2001

  9. [16]

    Hebecker and J

    A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, “A minimal S1/(Z2 × Z′

  10. [17]

    1–2, (Oct., 2001) 3–16

    orbifold GUT,” Nuclear Physics B 613 no. 1–2, (Oct., 2001) 3–16

    2001

  11. [18]

    Strings on Orbifolds,

    L. J. Dixon, J. A. Harvey, C. Vafa, and E. Witten, “Strings on Orbifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 678–686. – 18 –

    1985

  12. [19]

    Gauge symmetry breaking from extra space S**1 / Z(2),

    Y. Kawamura, “Gauge symmetry breaking from extra space S**1 / Z(2),” Prog. Theor. Phys. 103 (2000) 613–619, arXiv:hep-ph/9902423

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    De Sitter vacua in string theory,

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 046005, arXiv:hep-th/0301240

    2003 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Searching for realistic 4d string models with a Pati-Salam symmetry: Orbifold grand unified theories from heterotic string compactification on a Z(6) orbifold,

    T. Kobayashi, S. Raby, and R.-J. Zhang, “Searching for realistic 4d string models with a Pati-Salam symmetry: Orbifold grand unified theories from heterotic string compactification on a Z(6) orbifold,” Nucl. Phys. B 704 (2005) 3–55, arXiv:hep-ph/0409098

    2005 arXiv

  15. [22]

    The gauge hierarchy problem and higher-dimensional gauge theories,

    H. Hatanaka, T. Inami, and C. S. Lim, “The gauge hierarchy problem and higher-dimensional gauge theories,” Modern Physics Letters A 13 no. 32, (Oct., 1998) 2601–2611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S021773239800276X

    1998 doi

  16. [23]

    Bulk and brane radiative effects in gauge theories on orbifolds,

    G. von Gersdorff, N. Irges, and M. Quir´ os, “Bulk and brane radiative effects in gauge theories on orbifolds,” Nuclear Physics B 635 no. 1–2, (July, 2002) 127–157

    2002

  17. [24]

    Dynamical rearrangement of gauge symmetry on the orbifold S1/Z2,

    N. Haba, M. Harada, Y. Hosotani, and Y. Kawamura, “Dynamical rearrangement of gauge symmetry on the orbifold S1/Z2,” Nuclear Physics B 657 (May, 2003) 169–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00142-1

    2003 doi

  18. [25]

    Dynamical symmetry breaking in gauge-higgs unification on an orbifold,

    N. Haba, Y. Hosotani, Y. Kawamura, and T. Yamashita, “Dynamical symmetry breaking in gauge-higgs unification on an orbifold,” Physical Review D 70 no. 1, (July, 2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    Finite higgs mass without supersymmetry,

    I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, and M. Quir´ os, “Finite higgs mass without supersymmetry,” New Journal of Physics 3 (Nov., 2001) 20–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/3/1/320

    2001 doi

  20. [27]

    Gauge-higgs unification in orbifold models,

    C. A. Scrucca, M. Serone, L. Silvestrini, and A. Wulzer, “Gauge-higgs unification in orbifold models,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2004 no. 02, (Feb., 2004) 049–049

    2004

  21. [28]

    Standard model Higgs boson from higher dimensional gauge fields,

    C. Cs´ aki, C. Grojean, and H. Murayama, “Standard model Higgs boson from higher dimensional gauge fields,” Physical Review D 67 no. 8, (Apr., 2003)

    2003

  22. [29]

    Dynamical Mass Generation by Compact Extra Dimensions,

    Y. Hosotani, “Dynamical Mass Generation by Compact Extra Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 126 (1983) 309–313

    1983

  23. [30]

    Dynamics of Nonintegrable Phases and Gauge Symmetry Breaking,

    Y. Hosotani, “Dynamics of Nonintegrable Phases and Gauge Symmetry Breaking,” Annals Phys. 190 (1989) 233

    1989

  24. [31]

    The Hosotani mechanism in bulk gauge theories with an orbifold extra space s1/z2,

    M. Kubo, C. S. Lim, and H. Yamashita, “The Hosotani mechanism in bulk gauge theories with an orbifold extra space s1/z2,” Modern Physics Letters A 17 no. 34, (Nov., 2002) 2249–2263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217732302008988

    2002 doi

  25. [32]

    Fully radiative electroweak symmetry breaking,

    G. Cacciapaglia, C. Cs´ aki, and S. C. Park, “Fully radiative electroweak symmetry breaking,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2006 no. 03, (Mar, 2006) 099–099. https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1126-6708%2F2006%2F03%2F099

    2006

  26. [33]

    General vacuum stability of orbifold gauge breaking and application to asymptotic grand unification,

    G. Cacciapaglia, A. S. Cornell, A. Deandrea, W. Isnard, R. Pasechnik, A. Preda, and Z.-W. Wang, “General vacuum stability of orbifold gauge breaking and application to asymptotic grand unification,” arXiv:2409.16137 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  27. [34]

    Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275–289. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)]

    1974

  28. [35]

    Asymptotic Grand Unification: The SO(10) case,

    M. O. Khojali, A. S. Cornell, A. Deandrea, G. Cacciapaglia, A. Abdalgabar, and C. Cot, “Asymptotic Grand Unification: The SO(10) case,” in 1st Pan-African Astro-Particle and Collider Physics Workshop. 10, 2022. arXiv:2210.03596 [hep-ph]. – 19 –

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Group Theory for Unified Model Building,

    R. Slansky, “Group Theory for Unified Model Building,” Phys. Rept. 79 (1981) 1–128

    1981

  30. [37]

    Group theoretical aspects of orbifold and conifold GUTs,

    A. Hebecker and M. Ratz, “Group theoretical aspects of orbifold and conifold GUTs,” Nucl. Phys. B 670 (2003) 3–26, arXiv:hep-ph/0306049

    2003 arXiv

  31. [38]

    A Universal Gauge Theory Model Based on E6,

    F. Gursey, P. Ramond, and P. Sikivie, “A Universal Gauge Theory Model Based on E6,” Phys. Lett. B 60 (1976) 177–180

    1976

  32. [39]

    Anomalies in orbifold field theories,

    C. A. Scrucca, M. Serone, L. Silvestrini, and F. Zwirner, “Anomalies in orbifold field theories,” Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 169–174, arXiv:hep-th/0110073

    2002 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Anomalies, Fayet-Iliopoulos terms and the consistency of orbifold field theories,

    R. Barbieri, R. Contino, P. Creminelli, R. Rattazzi, and C. A. Scrucca, “Anomalies, Fayet-Iliopoulos terms and the consistency of orbifold field theories,” Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 024025, arXiv:hep-th/0203039

    2002 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Anomalies in field theories with extra dimensions,

    C. A. Scrucca and M. Serone, “Anomalies in field theories with extra dimensions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 2579–2642, arXiv:hep-th/0403163

    2004 arXiv

  35. [42]

    SU (3)L × U (1)N and SU (4)L × U (1)N gauge models with right-handed neutrinos,

    R. Foot, H. N. Long, and T. A. Tran, “ SU (3)L × U (1)N and SU (4)L × U (1)N gauge models with right-handed neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D 50 no. 1, (1994) R34–R38, arXiv:hep-ph/9402243

    1994 arXiv

  36. [43]

    SU(4)-L x U(1)-N model for the electroweak interactions,

    F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, “SU(4)-L x U(1)-N model for the electroweak interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 3865–3869, arXiv:hep-ph/9401272

    1995 arXiv

  37. [44]

    SU (4)L × U (1) three-family model for the electroweak interaction,

    L. A. Sanchez, L. A. Wills-Toro, and J. I. Zuluaga, “ SU (4)L × U (1) three-family model for the electroweak interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 035008, arXiv:0801.4044 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [45]

    SU(L)(4) x U(1) model for electroweak unification and sterile neutrinos,

    Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin, “SU(L)(4) x U(1) model for electroweak unification and sterile neutrinos,” Eur. Phys. J. C 56 (2008) 389–394, arXiv:0803.4267 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [46]

    The Coupling constants for an electroweak model with a SU(4)(PS) x SU(4)(EW) unification symmetry,

    A. E. Bernardini, “The Coupling constants for an electroweak model with a SU(4)(PS) x SU(4)(EW) unification symmetry,” Commun. Theor. Phys. 47 (2007) 879, arXiv:0706.3931 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Vacuum structure in 5d so(10) gut on s1/z2,

    N. Haba and T. Yamashita, “Vacuum structure in 5d so(10) gut on s1/z2,” Physics Letters B 597 no. 2, (2004) 166–172. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269304010068

    2004

  41. [49]

    A general formula of the effective potential in 5d su(n) gauge theory on orbifold,

    N. Haba and T. Yamashita, “A general formula of the effective potential in 5d su(n) gauge theory on orbifold,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2004 no. 02, (Mar, 2004) 059. https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/02/059. – 20 –

    2004 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.