Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 67 references

Gauge symmetry breaking with $S^2$ extra dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 paper establishes that the background gauge field $A_\varphi = \mu\cdot H \cos\theta$ on an $S^2$ extra dimension breaks a gauge group down to the subgroup that commutes with it.

desk verdict A clean, general spectral calculation for gauge fields on M4 x S2 around a Cartan-valued background, but the physical symmetry-breaking story rests on a stability assumption the paper defers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19829 v1 pith:EEBKFAYL submitted 2025-05-26 hep-ph hep-th

Kento Asai , Yuki Honda , Hiroki Ishikawa , Joe Sato , Yasutaka Takanishi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th PACS 11.15.-q11.25.Mj12.10.-g
keywords gaugesymmetrybreakingextradimensionsS^2compactificationKaluza-KleinmodesYang-Millstheorygrandunifiedtheoriesgauge-Higgsunificationmonopoleharmonics
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 tries to show that a purely geometric background on a two-sphere extra dimension can break an arbitrary gauge group in four dimensions. The background is the nontrivial solution $A_\varphi = \mu\cdot H\cos\theta$ that is special to $S^2$; gauge fields along root directions carry a charge $k_\alpha = g\,\alpha\cdot\mu$ and acquire Kaluza-Klein masses $(j(j+1)-k_\alpha^2)/R^2$. Only directions with $k_\alpha = 0$ keep a massless mode, so the surviving symmetry is precisely the subgroup that commutes with $\mu\cdot H$. This matters because it offers a way to break grand-unified gauge symmetries without introducing an elementary scalar field.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the background $\langle A_\varphi\rangle = \mu\cdot H\cos\theta$ together with the root-dependent angular momentum operator $J^{(\alpha)}$, whose third component is shifted by the charge $k_\alpha = g\,\alpha\cdot\mu$. Its eigenfunctions $Y_{k_\alpha j m}$ are monopole-type harmonics on the sphere with eigenvalues $j(j+1)-k_\alpha^2$, and the quantization condition $j\ge|k_\alpha|$ turns the geometric mode expansion into the mass formula. The operator thus converts the algebraic question of which roots commute with the background into the spectral question of which modes are massless.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop effective potential for a non-Abelian group, say $SU(3)$ with $\mu=\mu_1-\mu_2$, coupled to fermions, and check whether the $\cos\theta$ background is a local minimum; a negative-mode direction would mean the spectrum is computed around an unstable configuration. Alternatively, verify whether the Jacobi-polynomial regularity conditions allow any non-integer $k_\alpha$ with finite surface terms; if they do, the integrality restriction in the mass formula would be wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On $M^4\times S^2$, the Yang-Mills equations admit the background $\langle A_\varphi\rangle = \mu\cdot H\cos\theta$. Expanding around it in a Cartan-Weyl basis, the quadratic action splits into Cartan-sector modes with Kaluza-Klein masses $l(l+1)/R^2$ and root-sector modes governed by the shifted angular operator $\tilde{J}^{(\alpha)2} = J^{(\alpha)2} - k_\alpha^2$, where $k_\alpha = g\,\alpha\cdot\mu$ is the background charge of the root $\alpha$. Because the allowed angular momenta start at $j=|k_\alpha|$, the lightest root-component mode has mass squared $(j(j+1)-k_\alpha^2)/R^2$, which vanishes only for $j=k_\alpha=0$. Every root with $k_\alpha\neq 0$ is therefore either a massive Kaluza-Klein vector boson when $k_\alpha$ is an integer or projected out entirely when $k_\alpha$ is not. The extra-dimensional components likewise reorganize into a physical scalar $\phi$ and a Nambu-Goldstone mode $\chi$. The paper demonstrates the pattern with $SU(3)\to SU(2)\times U(1)$ and $SU(5)\to SU(4)\times U(1)$ or $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction assumes the nontrivial background $\langle A_\varphi\rangle = \mu\cdot H\cos\theta$ is the true vacuum even though it raises gauge-field energy; the paper relies on an unproved extension of the $U(1)$ result that massless fermions stabilize such backgrounds for arbitrary gauge groups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any model on $M^4\times S^2$, the unbroken gauge group in four dimensions is the centralizer of $\mu\cdot H$; choosing $\mu$ selects the surviving subgroup.
  • Root gauge fields with $k_\alpha\neq 0$ become massive Kaluza-Klein vector bosons when $k_\alpha$ is an integer and disappear from the low-energy spectrum when it is not, so the quantization of $k_\alpha$ controls the particle content.
  • The extra-dimensional components yield a physical scalar $\phi$ whose massless modes must be stabilized by radiative corrections and fermion couplings, which the paper identifies as the necessary next step.
  • Applied to unification, the mechanism breaks $SU(5)$ to $SU(4)\times U(1)$ for $\mu=\mu_1$ and to $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ for $\mu=\mu_2$, and breaks $SU(3)$ to $SU(2)\times U(1)$ for $\mu=\mu_1-\mu_2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the stabilization argument for the background extends from $U(1)$ to non-Abelian groups, then $k_\alpha$ behaves like a quantized monopole charge, and the menu of allowed symmetry-breaking patterns becomes a weight-lattice integrality question.
  • Editorial extension: the physical scalar $\phi$ found in the extra-dimensional components is a natural Higgs candidate, but because its tree-level mass vanishes, one-loop effects would likely set the scale of symmetry breaking and give a concrete prediction for the Kaluza-Klein spectrum.
  • Editorial extension: the same shifted-angular-momentum machinery should apply to other coset-space compactifications, replacing the sphere harmonics with generalized monopole harmonics and connecting this construction to coset-space dimensional reduction.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a 6D pure Yang-Mills theory on M4 × S2 with a nontrivial background A_φ = μ·H cos θ. Using a Cartan-Weyl basis, it expands the fluctuation fields in eigenfunctions of an SU(2)-type operator J^(α), derives the KK mass spectrum j(j+1) − k_α^2 over R^2 for root-component gauge fields, and concludes that only generators commuting with the background (k_α = 0) survive as massless gauge symmetries in four dimensions. It then performs a field redefinition of the extra-dimensional components into fields ϕ and χ, claims ϕ is a physical scalar and χ a Nambu-Goldstone boson, and applies the mechanism to SU(3) → SU(2)×U(1) and SU(5) → SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). The technical derivation is explicit, and Appendix A gives a Jacobi-polynomial proof of the quantization condition j ≥ |k_α|.

Significance. If the background is stable, the paper provides a clean, parameter-free (given μ, R, g) derivation of the KK spectrum and a simple criterion for gauge-symmetry breaking: root generators with k_α = 0 remain massless, those with integer k_α ≠ 0 become massive, and those with non-integer k_α are projected out. The construction is a useful formal tool for GUT/Gauge-Higgs unification model building. The main strengths are the explicit operator formalism, the careful eigenfunction analysis in the appendix, and the absence of any data fitting. The significance is, however, conditional on two unproven steps: the vacuum stability of the energy-raising background for non-Abelian groups, and the diagonalization/decoupling of the ϕ–χ cross terms. Both are acknowledged in the text but not resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (after Eq. (8)) and Section 5] The background ⟨A_φ⟩ = μ·H cos θ is a solution of the pure Yang-Mills equations, but it raises the field energy; the configuration A = 0 has lower energy for pure YM. The paper asserts, by analogy to the U(1) case, that massless fermions stabilize the model and explicitly defers the fermionic analysis to future work. This is load-bearing: unless a fermion-induced effective potential with a nontrivial minimum is demonstrated (or at least a concrete model is given in which quantum corrections select μ ≠ 0), the KK expansion is performed around an unstable saddle point and the claimed symmetry-breaking patterns in Section 4 are not established. The statement in Section 5 that 'we could obtain massless fermions and stabilize the entire model' overstates what is shown.
  2. [Section 3.3, Eq. (47)] The quadratic Lagrangian for the root components contains a tree-level cross kinetic term of the form 2 i k_α [j(j+1) − k_α^2]^{-1} ϕ □ χ. The text states, without proof, that because χ is a Nambu-Goldstone mode the cross kinetic terms are treated perturbatively. This is not a valid tree-level procedure: the physical scalar mass eigenstates require diagonalization of the ϕ–χ system, or a unitary-gauge/decoupling argument showing that χ can be eliminated without changing the ϕ masses. The existence of massless ϕ modes, which the paper highlights as phenomenologically relevant, depends on this issue.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Section 4.2] With the normalization μ_i·α_j = (1/2)δ_ij used in Figure 1 and the applications, the choices μ = μ1 − μ2 (SU(3)) and μ = μ2 (SU(5)) give non-zero k_α values of 1/2 when g = 1. According to Eq. (21) and Appendix A, non-integer k_α admits no normalizable modes, so the corresponding gauge fields are projected out rather than acquiring the massive KK towers described in the text. The examples should either set g (or rescale μ) so that all non-zero k_α are integers, or explicitly present the breaking as due to projection. As written, the claimed massive vector-boson spectrum in the SU(3) and SU(5) applications does not follow from the stated μ vectors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction and Summary] There are typos: 'geuge fields' in the Introduction and 'cuvature' in the Summary.
  2. [Eq. (10)] In the first line of the quadratic Lagrangian, the term '(∂φAµi(∂φAµi)' is missing a closing parenthesis; it should read '(∂φAµi)(∂φAµi)'.
  3. [Eqs. (43)–(46)] The inner summation limits are written as 'jX m=−j' for the Cartan components, but they should be 'lX m=−l'; this appears to be a typographical error.
  4. [Eq. (47)] The subscript 'ϕ(α)r1,jm' is awkward and inconsistent with the notation used elsewhere; it should be clarified.
  5. [General notation] The eigenfunctions are written as Y_kαjm(θ, φ) in Section 3.2 but as Y_kαjm(z, φ) (with z = cos θ) in the same section and in Appendix A; the notation should be made uniform.
  6. [Section 3.1 and gauge fixing] The gauge-fixing procedure introduces a Faddeev-Popov ghost sector, which is not discussed. For a tree-level mass spectrum this may be innocuous, but a sentence explaining that ghosts do not affect the masses would improve completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained: KK masses (j(j+1)-k_α²)/R² and the unbroken condition k_α=0 are genuinely computed, not fitted or defined into existence. The flagged instability/stabilization caveat for the energy-raising S² background is an acknowledged assumption with external U(1) support — a validity caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

Verdict: no significant circularity. The chain is: input background ⟨A_φ⟩ = μ·H cos θ (Eq. 8), quadratic action (Eqs. 10, 28), root-sector operator J̃^(α)² = J^(α)² − k_α² (Eq. 17), spectrum (Eqs. 35, 37), and the massless condition j = k_α = 0, hence broken iff k_α = α·μ ≠ 0. Each step is computed from the paper's own equations, with the bound j ≥ |k_α| proved in Appendix A from the vanishing of surface terms; no target quantity is inserted into the definitions and no parameter is fitted to data. The background (8) is an honest classical solution of Eq. (3): its field strength is proportional to the S² volume form, and because the configuration is Cartan-valued the non-Abelian commutator term vanishes, so this is not an ansatz smuggled in via citation — the cos θ form is verifiable from the stated equations even though [7, 42] are cited for it. The residual-symmetry result (unbroken generators commute with the background) is the standard Hosotani/centralizer outcome, but here it is derived from the computed spectrum rather than assumed, so it is not a renaming of a known result. Flagged limitation: the paper itself concedes 'This background fields excite the gauge field energy and hence at first glance they must not be taken' and, in Sec. 2 after Eq. (8), transfers the U(1) fermion-stabilization argument to arbitrary gauge groups by analogy ('accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that a similar discussion holds in general'), citing [7, 39, 42, 50]; Sec. 5 reiterates that fermions are needed and 'We leave this study for future work.' This is an unproven physical premise (a correctness risk if the true vacuum of pure Yang-Mills on S² sits at μ = 0), not a circular step. The cited stabilization results are external classics ([39] Randjbar-Daemi–Salam–Strathdee, [50] Randjbar-Daemi–Percacci, [7] Manton); the self-reference [42] (with coauthor Sato) is bundled with these, is not load-bearing, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation depends on the classical background being a legitimate vacuum, on the completeness and boundary conditions of the monopole harmonics, and on the perturbative treatment of kinetic mixing. The applications add hand-picked background vectors as free inputs. No new particles are introduced; ϕ and χ are components of the higher-dimensional gauge field.

free parameters (3)
  • background vector μ = chosen per model; e.g. μ=μ1-μ2 for SU(3), μ=μ2 for SU(5)
    Sets which roots have kα=0 and hence which gauge symmetry survives; it is the main dial for the breaking pattern.
  • radius R of S2 = unspecified
    Sets the overall KK mass scale l(l+1)/R^2; a free geometric input not determined by the theory.
  • gauge coupling g = unspecified
    Standard coupling; appears in kα and in interactions, not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The background field <A_φ> = μ·H cos θ satisfies the classical Yang-Mills equation and is a legitimate vacuum to expand around.
    Entered in Sec. 2, Eq. (8); the solution is classical, but its stability for general gauge groups is assumed by analogy with U(1).
  • standard math The KK expansion is valid using complete sets of L^2 and J^(α)2 eigenfunctions with vanishing surface terms.
    Used throughout Sec. 3; the surface-term conditions and the j ≥ |kα| quantization are derived in Appendix A.
  • ad hoc to paper The transformation (11)-(14) from Aθ, Aφ to ϕ, χ is invertible and the cross kinetic term between ϕ and χ can be treated perturbatively.
    Defined in Sec. 3.1 and applied in Sec. 3.3; the paper sets the cross term aside without diagonalizing the full mass matrix.
  • ad hoc to paper The fermionic stabilization mechanism known for U(1) on S2 extends to arbitrary non-Abelian gauge groups.
    Stated in Sec. 2 after Eq. (8) and again in Sec. 5; not proven in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauge symmetry breaking with $S^2$ extra dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEBKFAYL

@misc{pith2026250519829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauge symmetry breaking with $S^2$ extra dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEBKFAYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19829}
}
abstract

We consider symmetry breaking of arbitrary gauge groups on a six-dimensional space-time which consists of a four-dimensional Minkowski space-time $M^4$ and a two-dimensional sphere $S^2$. We expand the gauge fields in the presence of a non-trivial background unique to $S^2$. We analyze Kaluza-Klein(KK) modes of the gauge fields and derive the mass spectrum of the KK modes. We found that the gauge fields (not) commuting with the background fields (do not) remain symmetry operators in four dimensions. We also discuss the mass spectrum of the extra-dimensional components of the gauge fields and identify a physical scalar $\phi$ and a Nambu-Goldstone mode $\chi$. As a result, we obtain a method to break gauge symmetry due to the nontrivial solution for gauge fields which is a unique feature of $S^2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19829 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the simple roots α 1 , α 2 of SU(3) and the fundamental weights µ 1 , µ 2 . Here, T3 and T8 are the Cartan generators of SU(3). the other hand, when µ = µ 2 , µ is orthogonal to α 1 , α 3 and α 4 . Therefore, the gauge group is broken to SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) in four dimensions. To discuss gauge symmetry breaking of larger groups, it is convenient to expand µ with fundamental weights µ i . 5 Summary In this pa… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

    A TLASCollaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1– 29 [arXiv:1207.7214]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61 [arXiv:1207.7235]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438–441

    1974

  4. [4]

    Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, “Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,” Annals Phys. 93 (1975) 193–266

    1975

  5. [5]

    The State of the Art — Gauge Theories,

    H. C. C. E. W. Carlson, ed., “The State of the Art — Gauge Theories,” AIP Conf. Proc. 23 (1975) 575–582

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    Unified Gauge Theories,

    A. Perlmutter and S. M. Widmayer, eds., “Unified Gauge Theories,” Stud. Nat. Sci. 9 (1975) 329–339

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    A New Six-Dimensional Approach to the Weinberg-Salam Model,

    N. S. Manton, “A New Six-Dimensional Approach to the Weinberg-Salam Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 158 (1979) 141–153

    work page 1979

  8. [8]

    Higgs’ Fields and the Determination of the Weinberg Angle,

    D. B. Fairlie, “Higgs’ Fields and the Determination of the Weinberg Angle,” Phys. Lett. B 82 (1979) 97–100

    work page 1979

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Two Consistent Calculations of the Weinberg Angle,

    D. B. Fairlie, “Two Consistent Calculations of the Weinberg Angle,” J. Phys. G 5 (1979) L55

    1979

  2. [10]

    Space-Time Symmetries in Gauge Theories,

    P. Forgacs and N. S. Manton, “Space-Time Symmetries in Gauge Theories,” Commun. Math. Phys. 72 (1980) 15

    1980

  3. [11]

    Dynamical Mass Generation by Compact Extra Dimensions,

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

    1983

  4. [12]

    Dimensional Reduction of Gauge Theories Yielding Unified Models Spontaneously Broken to SU (3) × U (1),

    F. A. Bais, K. J. Barnes, P. Forgacs, and G. Zoupanos, “Dimensional Reduction of Gauge Theories Yielding Unified Models Spontaneously Broken to SU (3) × U (1),” Nucl. Phys. B 263 (1986) 557–590. 16

    1986

  5. [13]

    Gauge Group Breaking By Wilson Loops,

    A. T. Davies and A. McLachlan, “Gauge Group Breaking By Wilson Loops,” Phys. Lett. B 200 (1988) 305–311

    1988

  6. [14]

    Dynamics of Nonintegrable Phases and Gauge Symmetry Breaking,

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

    1989

  7. [15]

    Congruency Class Effects in the Hosotani Model,

    A. T. Davies and A. McLachlan, “Congruency Class Effects in the Hosotani Model,” Nucl. Phys. B 317 (1989) 237

    1989

  8. [16]

    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,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13 (1998) 2601–2612 [hep-th/9805067]

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Finite Higgs mass without supersymmetry,

    I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, and M. Quiros, “Finite Higgs mass without supersymmetry,” New J. Phys. 3 (2001) 20 [hep-th/0108005]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bulk and brane radiative effects in gauge theories on orbifolds,

    G. von Gersdorff, N. Irges, and M. Quiros, “Bulk and brane radiative effects in gauge theories on orbifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 635 (2002) 127–157 [hep-th/0204223]

    2002 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Predictions of the Higgs mass and the weak mixing angle in the 6D gauge-Higgs unification,

    K. Hasegawa, C. S. Lim, and N. Maru, “Predictions of the Higgs mass and the weak mixing angle in the 6D gauge-Higgs unification,” J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 85 (2016) 074101 [arXiv:1509.04818]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The Hosotani mechanism in bulk gauge the- ories with an orbifold extra space S1/Z2,

    M. Kubo, C. S. Lim, and H. Yamashita, “The Hosotani mechanism in bulk gauge the- ories with an orbifold extra space S1/Z2,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17 (2002) 2249–2264 [hep-ph/0111327]

    2002 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Unification of Higgs and Gauge Fields in Five Dimensions,

    G. Burdman and Y. Nomura, “Unification of Higgs and Gauge Fields in Five Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 656 (2003) 3–22 [hep-ph/0210257]

    2003 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dynamical rearrangement of gauge symmetry on the orbifold S1 / Z(2),

    N. Haba, M. Harada, Y. Hosotani, and Y. Kawamura, “Dynamical rearrangement of gauge symmetry on the orbifold S1 / Z(2),” Nucl. Phys. B 657 (2003) 169–213 [hep-ph/0212035]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 669, 381–382 (2003)]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dynamical symmetry breaking in gauge Higgs unification on orbifold,

    N. Haba, Y. Hosotani, Y. Kawamura, and T. Yamashita, “Dynamical symmetry breaking in gauge Higgs unification on orbifold,” Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 015010 [hep-ph/0401183]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Towards a realistic grand gauge-Higgs unification,

    C. S. Lim and N. Maru, “Towards a realistic grand gauge-Higgs unification,” Phys. Lett. B 653 (2007) 320–324 [arXiv:0706.1397]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Model building by Coset space dimensional reduction scheme using ten-dimensional coset spaces,

    T. Jittoh, M. Koike, T. Nomura, J. Sato, and T. Shimomura, “Model building by Coset space dimensional reduction scheme using ten-dimensional coset spaces,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 120 (2008) 1041–1063 [arXiv:0803.0641]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Model building by coset space dimensional reduction in ten-dimensions with direct product gauge symmetry,

    T. Jittoh, M. Koike, T. Nomura, J. Sato, and T. Shimomura, “Model building by coset space dimensional reduction in ten-dimensions with direct product gauge symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 056004 [arXiv:0812.0910]. 17

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Model building by coset space dimensional reduction in eight-dimensions,

    T. Jittoh, M. Koike, T. Nomura, J. Sato, and Y. Toyama, “Model building by coset space dimensional reduction in eight-dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 675 (2009) 450–454 [arXiv:0903.2164]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Grand Gauge-Higgs Unification,

    K. Kojima, K. Takenaga, and T. Yamashita, “Grand Gauge-Higgs Unification,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 051701 [arXiv:1103.1234]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gauge–Higgs grand unification,

    Y. Hosotani and N. Yamatsu, “Gauge–Higgs grand unification,” PTEP 2015 (2015) 111B01 [arXiv:1504.03817]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gauge coupling unification in gauge–Higgs grand unification,

    N. Yamatsu, “Gauge coupling unification in gauge–Higgs grand unification,” PTEP 2016 (2016) 043B02 [arXiv:1512.05559]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Toward Realistic Gauge-Higgs Grand Unification,

    A. Furui, Y. Hosotani, and N. Yamatsu, “Toward Realistic Gauge-Higgs Grand Unification,” PTEP 2016 (2016) 093B01 [arXiv:1606.07222]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Electroweak symmetry breaking and mass spec- tra in six-dimensional gauge–Higgs grand unification,

    Y. Hosotani and N. Yamatsu, “Electroweak symmetry breaking and mass spec- tra in six-dimensional gauge–Higgs grand unification,” PTEP 2018 (2018) 023B05 [arXiv:1710.04811]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fermion Mass Hierarchy in Grand Gauge-Higgs Unification,

    N. Maru and Y. Yatagai, “Fermion Mass Hierarchy in Grand Gauge-Higgs Unification,” PTEP 2019 (2019) 083B03 [arXiv:1903.08359]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Minimal SU(6) gauge-Higgs grand unifica- tion,

    A. Angelescu, A. Bally, S. Blasi, and F. Goertz, “Minimal SU(6) gauge-Higgs grand unifica- tion,” Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 035026 [arXiv:2104.07366]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Model building by coset space dimensional reduction scheme using eight-dimensional coset spaces,

    K. Asai, J. Sato, R. Suda, Y. Takanishi, and M. J. S. Yang, “Model building by coset space dimensional reduction scheme using eight-dimensional coset spaces,” JHEP 11 (2023) 213 [arXiv:2305.01421]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    New models of SU(6) grand gauge-Higgs unification,

    N. Maru and R. Nago, “New models of SU(6) grand gauge-Higgs unification,” JHEP 11 (2024) 035 [arXiv:2405.07463]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    SU(7) Grand Gauge-Higgs Unification

    Y. Komori and N. Maru, “SU(7) Grand Gauge-Higgs Unification.” arXiv:2503.04090

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Grand Unified Schemes and Spontaneous Compactification,

    Z. Horvath, L. Palla, E. Cremmer, and J. Scherk, “Grand Unified Schemes and Spontaneous Compactification,” Nucl. Phys. B 127 (1977) 57–65

    1977

  31. [39]

    Spontaneous Compactification in Six- Dimensional Einstein-Maxwell Theory,

    S. Randjbar-Daemi, A. Salam, and J. A. Strathdee, “Spontaneous Compactification in Six- Dimensional Einstein-Maxwell Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 214 (1983) 491–512

    1983

  32. [40]

    Six Dimensional Gauge-Higgs Unification with an Extra Space S2 and the Hierarchy Problem,

    C. S. Lim, N. Maru, and K. Hasegawa, “Six Dimensional Gauge-Higgs Unification with an Extra Space S2 and the Hierarchy Problem,” J. Phys. Soc. Jap. 77 (2008) 074101 [hep-th/0605180]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Standard(-like) Model from an SO(12) Grand Unified Theory in six-dimensions with S2 extra-space,

    T. Nomura and J. Sato, “Standard(-like) Model from an SO(12) Grand Unified Theory in six-dimensions with S2 extra-space,” Nucl. Phys. B 811 (2009) 109–122 [arXiv:0810.0898]. 18

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The Universal Extra Dimensional Model with S2/Z2 extra-space,

    N. Maru, T. Nomura, J. Sato, and M. Yamanaka, “The Universal Extra Dimensional Model with S2/Z2 extra-space,” Nucl. Phys. B 830 (2010) 414–433 [arXiv:0904.1909]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Higgs Production via Gluon Fusion in a Six Dimensional Universal Extra Dimension Model on S2/Z2,

    N. Maru, T. Nomura, J. Sato, and M. Yamanaka, “Higgs Production via Gluon Fusion in a Six Dimensional Universal Extra Dimension Model on S2/Z2,” Eur. Phys. J. C 66 (2010) 283–287 [arXiv:0905.4554]

    2010 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A Six-dimensional gauge-Higgs unification model based on E6 gauge symmetry,

    C.-W. Chiang and T. Nomura, “A Six-dimensional gauge-Higgs unification model based on E6 gauge symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 842 (2011) 362–382 [arXiv:1006.4446]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gauge-Higgs unification models in six dimensions with S2/Z2 extra space and GUT gauge symmetry,

    C.-W. Chiang, T. Nomura, and J. Sato, “Gauge-Higgs unification models in six dimensions with S2/Z2 extra space and GUT gauge symmetry,” Adv. High Energy Phys. 2012 (2012) 260848 [arXiv:1109.5835]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    One-loop radiative correction to Kaluza-Klein masses in S2/Z2 universal extra-dimensional model,

    N. Maru, T. Nomura, and J. Sato, “One-loop radiative correction to Kaluza-Klein masses in S2/Z2 universal extra-dimensional model,” PTEP 2014 (2014) 083B04 [arXiv:1401.7204]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Notes on sphere-based uni- versal extra dimensions,

    H. Dohi, T. Kakuda, K. Nishiwaki, K.-y. Oda, and N. Okuda, “Notes on sphere-based uni- versal extra dimensions,” Afr. Rev. Phys. 9 (2014) 0069 [arXiv:1406.1954]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Extended supersymmetry with central charges in Dirac action with curved extra dimensions,

    I. Ueba, “Extended supersymmetry with central charges in Dirac action with curved extra dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 105001 [arXiv:1905.11673]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Gauge symmetry restoration by Higgs conden- sation in flux compactifications on coset spaces,

    S. Iso, N. Kitazawa, and T. Suyama, “Gauge symmetry restoration by Higgs conden- sation in flux compactifications on coset spaces,” Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 045008 [arXiv:2111.06508]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Spontaneous Compactification of a (4+ d)-dimensional Kaluza-Klein Theory Into M4 × G/H for Arbitrary G and H,

    S. Randjbar-Daemi and R. Percacci, “Spontaneous Compactification of a (4+ d)-dimensional Kaluza-Klein Theory Into M4 × G/H for Arbitrary G and H,” Phys. Lett. B 117 (1982) 41

    1982

  43. [51]

    Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888–1910

    1973

  44. [52]

    Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,

    M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, “Two Loop Renormalization Group Equations in a General Quantum Field Theory. 1. Wave Function Renormalization,” Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 83–103

    1983

  45. [53]

    Renormalization group study of the standard model and its extensions. 1. The Standard model,

    H. Arason, D. J. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, et al., “Renormalization group study of the standard model and its extensions. 1. The Standard model,” Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 3945–3965

    1992

  46. [54]

    Classically conformal B − L extended Standard Model,

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, “Classically conformal B − L extended Standard Model,” Phys. Lett. B 676 (2009) 81–87 [arXiv:0902.4050]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The minimal B − L model naturally realized at TeV scale,

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, “The minimal B − L model naturally realized at TeV scale,” Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 115007 [arXiv:0909.0128]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Natural Electroweak Symmetry Breaking from Scale Invariant Higgs Mechanism,

    A. Farzinnia, H.-J. He, and J. Ren, “Natural Electroweak Symmetry Breaking from Scale Invariant Higgs Mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 141–150 [arXiv:1308.0295]. 19

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Classical scale-invariance, the electroweak scale and vector dark matter,

    C. D. Carone and R. Ramos, “Classical scale-invariance, the electroweak scale and vector dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 055020 [arXiv:1307.8428]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Inflation and Dark Matter in the Higgs Portal of Classically Scale Invariant Standard Model,

    V. V. Khoze, “Inflation and Dark Matter in the Higgs Portal of Classically Scale Invariant Standard Model,” JHEP 11 (2013) 215 [arXiv:1308.6338]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Radiative symmetry breaking at the Fermi scale and flat potential at the Planck scale,

    M. Hashimoto, S. Iso, and Y. Orikasa, “Radiative symmetry breaking at the Fermi scale and flat potential at the Planck scale,” Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 016019 [arXiv:1310.4304]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability,

    S. Oda, N. Okada, and D.-s. Takahashi, “Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 015026 [arXiv:1504.06291]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    On gauge dependence of gravitational waves from a first-order phase transition in classical scale-invariant U (1)′ models,

    C.-W. Chiang and E. Senaha, “On gauge dependence of gravitational waves from a first-order phase transition in classical scale-invariant U (1)′ models,” Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 489–493 [arXiv:1707.06765]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model,

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and V. Vaskonen, “Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 601 [arXiv:1811.11169]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Conformal invariance and singlet fermionic dark matter,

    Y. G. Kim, K. Y. Lee, and S.-H. Nam, “Conformal invariance and singlet fermionic dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 075038 [arXiv:1906.03390]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Conformal model for gravitational waves and dark matter: a status update,

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. Swiezewska, “Conformal model for gravitational waves and dark matter: a status update,” JHEP 03 (2023) 007 [arXiv:2210.07075]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    An introduction to effective potential methods in field theory

    I. Masina and M. Quiros, “An introduction to effective potential methods in field theory.” arXiv:2501.12713

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Dirac Monopole Without Strings: Monopole Harmonics,

    T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, “Dirac Monopole Without Strings: Monopole Harmonics,” Nucl. Phys. B 107 (1976) 365

    1976

  59. [67]

    Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere

    A. A. Abrikosov, Jr., “Dirac operator on the Riemann sphere.” hep-th/0212134. 20

    arXiv

Pith tools

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