Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

More on 8d non-supersymmetric branes and heterotic strings

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The E8 heterotic string on $T^2$ has exactly 22 maximal gauge groups, with massless spectra for each.

desk verdict The 22-entry classification is a real result worth referee time, but the completeness claim rests on an unproven surjectivity step inherited from [17]. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15144 v2 pith:WLSTTH76 submitted 2025-05-21 hep-th

Yuta Hamada , Arata Ishige , Yuichi Koga This is my paper
classification hep-th PACS 11.25.-w11.25.Mj
keywords non-supersymmetricheteroticstringsmaximalgaugeenhancementE8stringT^2compactificationasymmetricorbifoldDynkindiagramfolding8dbranescobordismconjecture
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

This paper determines all maximal gauge groups that can arise in the $E_8$ heterotic string theory compactified on a two-torus $T^2$. The authors obtain the same list by two independent routes: orbifolding the supersymmetric $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic string at points of maximal gauge enhancement by a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ outer automorphism combined with spacetime fermion parity, and directly compactifying the ten-dimensional $E_8$ string on $T^2$. Both approaches give the same 22 maximal gauge groups, with the complete massless spectrum for each case. If correct, this completes the classification of maximal gauge enhancements for the $E_8$ string in eight dimensions and, via the no global symmetry/cobordism conjecture, provides a classification of non-supersymmetric codimension-two branes in 8d supersymmetric heterotic theories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the asymmetric orbifold of the Narain lattice $\Gamma_{18,2}$ by the combined operation $g(-1)^F$, where $g$ is a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ outer automorphism of the charge lattice that acts by folding an ADE Dynkin diagram ($A_{2n-1}\to C_n$, $D_4\to B_3$, $E_6\to F_4$) and $F$ is the spacetime fermion number. The invariant sublattice and its dual carry the untwisted and twisted sectors; massless vectors and matters are read off from states with $P_L^2=1$ or $2$ and $p_R=0$. In the direct construction, the same data are organized by a generalized Dynkin diagram for $T^2$ whose nodes are the simple roots of $E_8$ plus affine and 'C' nodes encoding the torus moduli, so that maximal enhancements are identified by deleting nodes.

What would settle it

An independent scan of the $E_8$ string moduli space on $T^2$, unrestricted to the symmetric Wilson-line locus, should reproduce exactly the 22 groups of Table 2; finding a maximal gauge group of rank 16 at a configuration with $A_1\neq A_2$, or any 23rd group, would falsify the classification. Alternatively, a direct evaluation of the orbifold partition function for each candidate should show no extra massless vectors beyond the stated spectra.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $E_8$ heterotic string on $T^2$ has exactly 22 maximal gauge groups, listed in Table 2 together with their twisted-sector massless spectra. Each group is obtained from a point of maximal gauge enhancement of the supersymmetric $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic string on $T^2$ by an asymmetric $\mathbb{Z}_2$ orbifold that folds part of the Dynkin diagram and includes the spacetime fermion parity, breaking supersymmetry and halving the rank. The paper shows that the same 22 groups are found by direct compactification of the 10d $E_8$ string, with Wilson lines restricted to the symmetric locus $A=(a,a)$ required by orbifold consistency, and it develops a generalized Dynkin diagram for $T^2$ that reproduces the classification by deleting nodes. The 22 entries include cases where the fold produces non-simply laced factors (C-type groups, $B_3$, $F_4$), and the massless fermions are identified as quasi-minuscule representations of the folded groups.

Load-bearing premise

The complete list depends on the classification of maximal enhancements of the supersymmetric $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic string on $T^2$ being complete, and on every maximal enhancement of the $E_8$ string sitting at a Wilson line of the symmetric form $A=(a,a)$; the paper assumes both rather than proving them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $E_8$ non-supersymmetric heterotic string on $T^2$ has exactly the 22 maximal gauge groups of Table 2, each with the massless spectrum listed there.
  • Every one of these groups is realized constructively by an asymmetric $\mathbb{Z}_2$ orbifold that folds a Dynkin diagram of a supersymmetric maximal enhancement, not merely by enumeration.
  • Under the no global symmetry/cobordism conjecture, each entry yields a codimension-two non-supersymmetric brane in an 8d supersymmetric heterotic theory, with the monodromy given by the corresponding Dynkin diagram folding.
  • The generalized Dynkin diagram for $T^2$ provides a quick node-deletion rule that identifies maximal enhancements, extending the 9d diagram to 8d and reproducing all 22 cases from the SUSY diagram.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 22-entry list is derived under the symmetric Wilson-line restriction $A=(a,a)$; if that restriction is not exhaustive for the $E_8$ string on $T^2$, the full moduli space could contain additional maximal enhancements outside this locus, making 22 a lower bound rather than the full count.
  • The same folding machinery should apply to the other non-supersymmetric heterotic strings (for example $SO(16)\times SO(16)$) on $T^2$, potentially yielding analogous classifications, though the paper does not perform that analysis.
  • The brane interpretation is contingent on the cobordism conjecture; if that conjecture fails, the massless-spectrum classification would still stand as a statement about the worldsheet CFTs, but the brane count would not follow.
  • The node-deletion rule suggests an algorithmic shortcut: maximal enhancements of the $E_8$ string on $T^d$ might be enumerated by iterated node deletion, which could be automated for higher torus dimension.
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 studies the maximal gauge groups of the non-supersymmetric rank-reduced E8 heterotic string compactified on T^2. Two approaches are used. First, starting from the 8d supersymmetric E8 x E8 heterotic string at points of maximal gauge enhancement from [17], the authors orbifold by a Z2 outer automorphism combined with spacetime fermion parity and compute the resulting massless spectra. Second, they compactify the 10d E8 heterotic string directly on T^2 and solve the massless vector and matter conditions (5.17). Both approaches yield the same list of 22 maximal gauge groups, summarized in Table 2, with moduli listed in Table 5. A generalized-Dynkin-diagram method is proposed in Section 5.5, and in Section 4.15 the results are interpreted, conditional on the no global symmetry/cobordism conjecture, as a classification of codimension-two non-supersymmetric branes in 8d supersymmetric heterotic theories.

Significance. If the classification is complete, the paper provides the first exhaustive list of maximal rank-10 gauge enhancements of the E8 heterotic string on T^2, with explicit massless spectra and moduli. The explicit lattice constructions in Section 4, the modular-invariant partition functions of Section 2, and the agreement between two independent computational approaches are genuine strengths that make the arithmetic results highly plausible. The brane interpretation in Section 4.15 is conditional on a quantum-gravity conjecture but is clearly flagged as such. The main gap is that the exhaustiveness of the 22-entry list is inherited from the parent classification in [17] rather than proven directly for the E8 string; this affects the central claim and requires additional work.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.4.1 and §1] The central claim that Table 2 classifies all 22 maximal gauge groups of the E8 string on T^2 is not proven. In Approach 2, Eq. (5.17) is solved only at the moduli listed in Table 12 of [17] that satisfy the symmetric Wilson-line condition A=(a,a); in Approach 1, the same Table-12 points are folded. The agreement of the two approaches therefore verifies the arithmetic at a common set of input points but does not exclude a maximal enhancement of the E8 string at a point where the parent E8 x E8 theory is not maximally enhanced. The symmetric-locus restriction is automatic for the orbifold construction and does not by itself supply exhaustiveness. I ask for either a direct scan of the E8-string moduli solving (5.17) without restricting to parent maximal-enhancement points, or a proof that any solution maximizing the invariant long-root sector is already a maximal enhancement of the parent theory.
  2. [§5.5] The generalized Dynkin diagram method is presented as the mechanism that yields the maximal enhancements, but its completeness is asserted rather than demonstrated. Figures 9-11 show only three representative choices of (E, a1, a2), and the text states that the six cases #5, 6, 25, 28, 54, 87 'can also be obtained by the above procedures' without displaying the deletion chains or the resulting diagrams; cases #1 and #2 are not covered by the method at all. Since the exhaustiveness of the classification rests on this enumeration, the paper should either provide the full list of diagrams and deletion sequences for all 22 cases or state explicitly which part of the completeness argument is inherited from [17].
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2.3, Eq. (2.15)] The invariant sublattice displayed in Eq. (2.15) has inconsistent normalizations: from Eq. (2.14), one has alpha_4 = sqrt(2) alpha(F4)_3 and alpha_2 = sqrt(2) alpha(F4)_4, so the coefficients 1/sqrt(2) in the third and fourth terms appear to be typos, and the last term should presumably involve alpha(F4)_4 rather than alpha(F4)_1.
  2. [§5.2.1] The phrase 'non-simply raced' should read 'non-simply laced'.
  3. [§4.15] The word 'brnae' should read 'branes'.
  4. [Table 5] For rows #1 and #2, several entries in the E11, E12, E21, E22 columns are left blank; please indicate explicitly that these entries are zero.
  5. [Table 2 and text after Eq. (4.5)] The paper freely switches between the covering groups and the quotient gauge groups appearing in equations such as (4.5), (4.10), and (4.15); a sentence clarifying that the classification is by the global form of the gauge group and that the fermion representations are written in the covering groups would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 22 gauge groups are obtained by explicit lattice folding and massless-condition calculations; completeness is inherited from the external [17] classification and from an unproven locus restriction, which is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Approach 1 (Section 4) folds the charge lattices of 8d SUSY maximal enhancements, and Approach 2 (Sections 5.4–5.5) solves the E8-string massless conditions (5.17) at the same Table-12 moduli of [17]. Both are concrete computations: the resulting groups (e.g., 2C2+2A3 from 6A3) are not identical to the input, and no parameter is fitted to the output. The agreement of the two approaches is an internal consistency check; it does not by itself prove exhaustiveness, because the paper does not show that every E8-string maximal enhancement occurs at a point where the parent SUSY theory is maximally enhanced (the short-root branch of (5.17a) with π_−^2 = 1 is projected out of the orbifold, so an E8-maximal point could in principle sit at a non-maximal parent point). This is a gap in the completeness argument, but not a circular reduction: the derivation is not equivalent to its input by definition. The eight cases carried from the authors' previous paper [38] in Section 4 are independently re-derived in Section 5 (Table 5 and the EDD examples, e.g., #57, 81, 106, 111, 121, 222, 257, 296 from deleting nodes i = 0,...,7), so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the final list. The brane interpretation invokes the external cobordism conjecture [39], which is an application rather than a circular premise. Overall the central derivation is self-contained modulo the external SUSY classification and the unproven locus assumption, so circularity is minor at most.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the external completeness of the SUSY classification and on the symmetric Wilson line restriction; no free parameters are fitted. The brane interpretation adds the cobordism conjecture as an explicit assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The classification of maximal gauge enhancements of the 8d supersymmetric heterotic string on T^2 given in Table 12 of [17] is complete.
    Used in Section 5.4.1 as the starting point for the direct approach; the paper's 22-group list inherits completeness from this external classification.
  • domain assumption Every maximal enhancement point of the E8 string on T^2 lies on the symmetric Wilson line locus A=(a,a), which is required for consistency with the orbifold construction.
    Invoked in footnote 3 and Section 5.4.1. If an enhancement existed outside this locus, the classification would be incomplete; the paper does not prove exhaustiveness.
  • domain assumption The no global symmetry / cobordism conjecture of quantum gravity holds, so the classified symmetry points imply the existence of codimension-two non-supersymmetric branes.
    Used in Section 4.15 and the abstract to turn the gauge group classification into a brane classification; the conjecture is cited as [39] and is not proven in this paper.
  • standard math Standard facts about root and weight lattices and theta function modular transformations (Appendix A and B).
    Used throughout Sections 2, 4 and 5 for lattice computations and partition functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of More on 8d non-supersymmetric branes and heterotic strings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WLSTTH76

@misc{pith2026250515144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: More on 8d non-supersymmetric branes and heterotic strings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WLSTTH76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15144}
}
abstract

We determine the maximal gauge groups arising in $E_8$ heterotic string theory on $T^2$. Our analysis proceeds along two approaches. First, we start the moduli space of the supersymmetric heterotic string theory on $T^2$ focusing on points of maximal gauge enhancement. At these special points, the charge lattice can exhibit a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ outer automorphism corresponding to the bulk gauge symmetry. By orbifolding the worldsheet theory by it with the fermion parity, we obtain the maximal gauge group of the $E_8$ theory. Second, we directly study the toroidal compactification of 10d $E_8$ heterotic string. Both approaches agree, yielding a classification of $22$ maximal gauge groups. For each case, we present the corresponding massless spectrum. In light of the no global symmetry/cobordism conjecture in quantum gravity, our result also offer a classification of non-supersymmetric branes in 8d supersymmetric heterotic string theories.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    A. Font, B. Fraiman, M. Graña, C.A. Núñez and H.P. De Freitas,Exploring the landscape of heterotic strings onT d,JHEP 10(2020) 194 [2007.10358]. (pages 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 24, 28)

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Gross, J.A

    D.J. Gross, J.A. Harvey, E.J. Martinec and R. Rohm,The Heterotic String,Phys. Rev. Lett.54(1985)

    work page 1985

  3. [2]

    Harvey,Magnetic Monopoles, Duality and Supersymmetry, inIctp Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology, 3, 1996 [hep-th/9603086]

    J.A. Harvey,Magnetic Monopoles, Duality and Supersymmetry, inIctp Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology, 3, 1996 [hep-th/9603086]. (page 1)

    arXiv 1996

  4. [3]

    L.Alvarez-Gaume, P.H.Ginsparg, G.W.MooreandC.Vafa, AnO(16)xO(16)HeteroticString ,Phys. Lett. B171(1986) 155

    work page 1986

  5. [4]

    Kawai, D.C

    H. Kawai, D.C. Lewellen and S.H.H. Tye,Classification of Closed Fermionic String Models, Phys. Rev. D34(1986) 3794.(pages 1, 2)

    work page 1986

  6. [5]

    Boyle Smith, Y.-H

    P. Boyle Smith, Y.-H. Lin, Y. Tachikawa and Y. Zheng,Classification of chiral fermionic CFTs of central charge≤ 16, SciPost Phys.16(2024) 058 [2303.16917]. (page 1)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Rayhaun,Bosonic rational conformal field theories in small genera, chiral fermionization, and symmetry/subalgebra duality, J

    B.C. Rayhaun,Bosonic rational conformal field theories in small genera, chiral fermionization, and symmetry/subalgebra duality, J. Math. Phys.65(2024) 052301 [2303.16921]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    Höhn and S

    G. Höhn and S. Möller,Classification of Self-Dual Vertex Operator Superalgebras of Central Charge at Most 24, 2303.17190. (page 1). – 34 –

    arXiv

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Vafa,The String landscape and the swampland, hep-th/0509212

    C. Vafa,The String landscape and the swampland, hep-th/0509212. (page 1)

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Adams, O

    A. Adams, O. DeWolfe and W. Taylor,String universality in ten dimensions,Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (2010) 071601 [1006.1352]. (page 1)

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    H.-C. Kim, G. Shiu and C. Vafa,Branes and the Swampland,Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 066006 [1905.08261]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Kim, H.-C

    H.-C. Kim, H.-C. Tarazi and C. Vafa,Four-dimensional N = 4SYM theory and the swampland, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 026003 [1912.06144]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cvetič, M

    M. Cvetič, M. Dierigl, L. Lin and H.Y. Zhang,String Universality and Non-Simply-Connected Gauge Groups in 8d,Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 211602 [2008.10605]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Montero and C

    M. Montero and C. Vafa,Cobordism Conjecture, Anomalies, and the String Lamppost Principle, JHEP 01(2021) 063 [2008.11729]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hamada and C

    Y. Hamada and C. Vafa,8d supergravity, reconstruction of internal geometry and the Swampland, JHEP 06(2021) 178 [2104.05724]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Bedroya, Y

    A. Bedroya, Y. Hamada, M. Montero and C. Vafa,Compactness of brane moduli and the String Lamppost Principle in d> 6,JHEP 02(2022) 082 [2110.10157]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Cvetič, M

    M. Cvetič, M. Dierigl, L. Lin and H.Y. Zhang,All eight- and nine-dimensional string vacua from junctions, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 026007 [2203.03644]. (page 1)

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. Font, B. Fraiman, M. Graña, C.A. Núñez and H. Parra De Freitas,Exploring the landscape of CHL strings on Td,JHEP 08 (2021) 095 [2104.07131]. (pages 1, 19, 20)

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fraiman and H.P

    B. Fraiman and H.P. De Freitas,Symmetry enhancements in 7d heterotic strings,JHEP 10(2021) 002 [2106.08189]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fraiman and H.P

    B. Fraiman and H.P. de Freitas,Freezing of gauge symmetries in the heterotic string on T4,JHEP 04 (2022) 007 [2111.09966]. (page 1)

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fraiman, M

    B. Fraiman, M. Graña, H. Parra De Freitas and S. Sethi,Non-Supersymmetric Heterotic Strings on a Circle, 2307.13745. (page 1)

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Blaszczyk, S

    M. Blaszczyk, S. Groot Nibbelink, O. Loukas and S. Ramos-Sanchez,Non-supersymmetric heterotic model building,JHEP 10(2014) 119 [1407.6362]. (page 1)

    2014 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hamada, H

    Y. Hamada, H. Kawai and K.-y. Oda,Eternal Higgs inflation and the cosmological constant problem, Phys. Rev. D92(2015) 045009 [1501.04455]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ashfaque, P

    J.M. Ashfaque, P. Athanasopoulos, A.E. Faraggi and H. Sonmez,Non-Tachyonic Semi-Realistic Non-Supersymmetric Heterotic String Vacua,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 208 [1506.03114]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Blaszczyk, S

    M. Blaszczyk, S. Groot Nibbelink, O. Loukas and F. Ruehle,Calabi-Yau compactifications of non-supersymmetric heterotic string theory,JHEP 10(2015) 166 [1507.06147]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Itoyama and S

    H. Itoyama and S. Nakajima,Exponentially suppressed cosmological constant with enhanced gauge symmetry in heterotic interpolating models,PTEP 2019 (2019) 123B01 [1905.10745]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Itoyama and S

    H. Itoyama and S. Nakajima,Stability, enhanced gauge symmetry and suppressed cosmological constant in 9D heterotic interpolating models, Nucl. Phys. B958(2020) 115111 [2003.11217]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    H.ItoyamaandS.Nakajima, Marginaldeformationsofheteroticinterpolatingmodelsandexponential suppression of the cosmological constant,Phys. Lett. B816 (2021) 136195 [2101.10619]. – 35 –

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Itoyama, Y

    H. Itoyama, Y. Koga and S. Nakajima,Target space duality of non-supersymmetric string theory, Nucl. Phys. B975 (2022) 115667 [2110.09762]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Koga,Interpolation and exponentially suppressed cosmological constant in non-supersymmetric heterotic strings with general Z2 twists, Nucl

    Y. Koga,Interpolation and exponentially suppressed cosmological constant in non-supersymmetric heterotic strings with general Z2 twists, Nucl. Phys. B990 (2023) 116160 [2212.14572]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nakajima,New non-supersymmetric heterotic string theory with reduced rank and exponential suppression of the cosmological constant, 2303.04489

    S. Nakajima,New non-supersymmetric heterotic string theory with reduced rank and exponential suppression of the cosmological constant, 2303.04489. (page 18)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Saxena,A T-Duality of Non-Supersymmetric Heterotic Strings and an implication for Topological Modular Forms, 2405.19409

    V. Saxena,A T-Duality of Non-Supersymmetric Heterotic Strings and an implication for Topological Modular Forms, 2405.19409

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Baykara, H.-C

    Z.K. Baykara, H.-C. Tarazi and C. Vafa,New Non-Supersymmetric Tachyon-Free Strings, 2406.00185

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Detraux, A.R.D

    L.A. Detraux, A.R.D. Avalos, A.E. Faraggi and B. Percival,Vacuum Energy of Non-Supersymmetric ˜S Heterotic String Models,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 086006 [2407.19980]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    S. Abel, I. Basile and V.G. Matyas,Banks-Zaks stabilisation of non-SUSY strings,JHEP 04 (2025) 107 [2412.01914]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Escalante-Notario, R

    E. Escalante-Notario, R. Perez-Martinez, S. Ramos-Sanchez and P.K.S. Vaudrevange,The Non-SUSY Orbifolder: a tool to build promising non-supersymmetric string models, 2504.20137

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Funakoshi, Y

    S. Funakoshi, Y. Koga and H. Otsuka,Classification of Modular Symmetries in Non-Supersymmetric Heterotic String theories, 2503.23741. (page 1)

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hamada and A

    Y. Hamada and A. Ishige,Investigating 9d/8d non-supersymmetric branes and theories from supersymmetric heterotic strings,Journal of High Energy Physics2025 (2025) 141.(pages 1, 2, 5, 6, 17, 22)

    2025

  31. [39]

    McNamara and C

    J. McNamara and C. Vafa,Cobordism Classes and the Swampland, 1909.10355. (page 1)

    1909 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cachazo and C

    F.A. Cachazo and C. Vafa,Type I’ and real algebraic geometry, hep-th/0001029. (page 2)

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    K.S.Narain, M.H.SarmadiandC.Vafa, AsymmetricOrbifolds,Nucl.Phys.B 288(1987)551. (page3)

    1987

  34. [42]

    Kaidi, K

    J. Kaidi, K. Ohmori, Y. Tachikawa and K. Yonekura,Nonsupersymmetric Heterotic Branes,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 121601 [2303.17623]. (page 17)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    De Freitas,Non-supersymmetric heterotic strings and chiral CFTs, 2402.15562

    H.P. De Freitas,Non-supersymmetric heterotic strings and chiral CFTs, 2402.15562. (page 17)

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bourbaki,Lie Groups and Lie Algebras Chapters 4-6, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2002).(page 28)

    N. Bourbaki,Lie Groups and Lie Algebras Chapters 4-6, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2002).(page 28). – 36 –

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.