Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Fermion masses and mixings in supersymmetric SO(10) with third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification

T0 review · 3 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 A supersymmetric SO(10) model with a minimal Higgs sector can fit all quark and lepton masses and mixings while predicting third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification and right-handed neutrino masses near $10^9$–$10^{13}$ GeV.

desk verdict A concrete SO(10) flavor fit with a genuinely new operator that deserves refereeing, but the quasi-Yukawa headline rests on an unquantified zero-threshold-correction assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11806 v2 pith:ERFGT3GF submitted 2025-06-13 hep-ph

Shaikh Saad , Qaisar Shafi This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords SO(10)grandunificationsupersymmetryquasi-Yukawafermionmassesandmixingsseesawmechanismright-handedneutrinoscosmicstringsgravitationalwaves
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 supersymmetric SO(10) grand unified model using only three Higgs multiplet types—the 10, the 45, and the 16 with its conjugate—can reproduce every measured charged fermion mass, the CKM mixing angles and phase, and the neutrino oscillation data. The authors add a few non-renormalizable Yukawa operators on top of the standard 10-plet coupling. Their preferred fit has $\tan\beta$ about 58.5 and realizes third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification in the form $y_t : y_b : y_\tau = 1+\zeta : 1+\zeta : 1+9\zeta$ with $\zeta \approx 0.038$, a new group-theoretical route to the bottom-tau splitting. The fit also predicts right-handed neutrino masses around $1.8 \times 10^9$ GeV, $8.9 \times 10^{12}$ GeV, and $9.3 \times 10^{12}$ GeV, and connects the same Higgs content to metastable and quasistable cosmic string scenarios relevant for pulsar timing array gravitational wave searches. Because only 19 input parameters (14 magnitudes and 5 phases) are used to fit 18 observables, the framework is highly constrained if it works.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a fixed Yukawa texture: a symmetric 10-plet contribution, an antisymmetric 45-plet contribution, a symmetric 16-plet contribution, and a $45_H^2$ correction that acts only on the $(3,3)$ entry through the coefficient 9. The VEV of the 45-plet lies in the $B-L$ direction, and the operator $(16_3 16_3 10_H 45_H^2)/\Lambda^2$ supplies the bottom-tau splitting, while the 16-plet VEV provides the up-down asymmetry that makes the CKM matrix nontrivial. Right-handed neutrino masses come from a non-renormalizable $16_i 16_j 16_H 16_H$ operator; the Dirac neutrino matrix is fixed by the charged-fermion fit, and the seesaw formula then converts measured neutrino oscillations into a prediction for the three right-handed neutrino masses.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop superpartner threshold corrections to the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings for a realistic 3 TeV spectrum, varying $\mu$, the trilinear $A$ terms, and gaugino masses, and check whether the GUT-scale ratio $y_\tau/y_b$ changes by more than about 5 percent; if it does, the preferred solution with $\tan\beta \approx 58.5$ and $\zeta \approx 0.038$ fails, and the quoted right-handed neutrino masses would shift accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed fermion spectrum follows from a supersymmetric SO(10) model with one 10-plet Yukawa coupling plus higher-dimensional operators built from the 45-plet and the 16/16-bar pair. The GUT-scale relation for the third generation is $y_t : y_b : y_\tau = 1+\zeta : 1+\zeta : 1+9\zeta$ with $\zeta \approx 0.0376$, coming from the operator $16_3 16_3 10_H 45_H^2 / \Lambda^2$, whose Clebsch-Gordan coefficient of 9 in the charged-lepton sector overcomes the $1/\Lambda^2$ suppression. The fit fixes the full mass matrix texture, including an asymmetric contribution from the 16-plet Higgs that generates the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing, and a seesaw sector whose right-handed neutrino masses emerge as $(1.84 \times 10^9, 8.87 \times 10^{12}, 9.32 \times 10^{12})$ GeV. The paper argues this is the first SO(10) construction to fit the full three-generation data while predicting third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification without invoking supersymmetric threshold corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that quantum corrections from the superpartner particles are tiny enough that taking the measured fermion masses, running them to the unification scale at a 3 TeV superpartner scale with zero such corrections, and then fitting the resulting Yukawas stays within the 5 percent tolerance the fit allows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification takes the form $y_t : y_b : y_\tau = 1+\zeta : 1+\zeta : 1+9\zeta$ in a supersymmetric SO(10) model with only the 10, 45, and 16 plus conjugate 16 Higgs multiplets, at $\tan\beta \approx 58.5$.
  • The model predicts specific right-handed neutrino masses, roughly $1.8 \times 10^9$, $8.9 \times 10^{12}$, and $9.3 \times 10^{12}$ GeV, which shape the seesaw mechanism and could be probed indirectly through lepton-flavor-violating processes or leptogenesis studies.
  • Lower $\tan\beta$ solutions also exist, with the paper providing a $\tan\beta = 10$ example that fits the data somewhat less well, showing the framework is not tied to a single large-$\tan\beta$ regime.
  • The same minimal Higgs content can implement metastable or quasistable cosmic string scenarios, whose stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds can be compared with pulsar timing array data.
  • The fitted cutoff scale, about $10^{17}$ GeV, is close to $M_P/\sqrt{N}$ with $N = 540$ propagating species, suggesting that higher-dimensional operators near the Planck scale could smear gauge coupling unification near the GUT scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the group-theoretical 'factor 9' mechanism is a general way to split third-generation Yukawas using $45_H^2$ operators, which might be transplanted to other grand unified groups or to second-generation fits.
  • Because the fit assumes negligible supersymmetric threshold corrections at a 3 TeV scale, the quoted $\zeta$ and right-handed neutrino masses are predictions of the GUT-scale texture only; a realistic superpartner spectrum could shift them by more than the 5 percent tolerance.
  • The predicted right-handed neutrino masses, with $M_2$ and $M_3$ near $9 \times 10^{12}$ GeV, sit in a range where thermal leptogenesis from the decays of the heavier right-handed neutrinos could be viable, a consequence the authors do not develop.
  • If the metastable string scenario is realized, the same model links fermion mass data to gravitational wave observables: variations in the fitted VEVs would change the string tension and hence the pulsar timing array signal amplitude.
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 manuscript constructs a supersymmetric SO(10) model with a minimal Higgs sector (10_H, 45_H, and 16_H + 16bar_H) and specific non-renormalizable Yukawa operators. It derives Dirac mass matrices for the up, down, charged-lepton, and neutrino sectors, together with a right-handed Majorana mass matrix containing a texture zero. A chi-squared fit to 18 low-energy observables (six quark masses, three charged-lepton masses, four CKM parameters, two neutrino mass-squared differences, and three PMNS mixing angles) yields a preferred solution at tan beta around 58.5 with chi-squared = 8.8, realizing third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification of the form y_t : y_b : y_tau = 1+zeta : 1+zeta : 1+9zeta with zeta about 0.0376, and predicting right-handed neutrino masses of about 1.84 x 10^9, 8.87 x 10^12, and 9.32 x 10^12 GeV. A second benchmark with tan beta = 10 is also presented, and the paper briefly discusses metastable and quasistable cosmic string scenarios arising from the SO(10) breaking chain.

Significance. The model is economical in its Higgs content, and the proposed group-theoretic factor of 9 in the tau-lepton sector is an elegant way to break the b-tau Yukawa equality. The paper provides complete fit parameter sets and pull tables for both benchmarks, which supports reproducibility. If the zero-threshold-correction assumption holds, the model successfully accommodates all fermion masses and mixings while satisfying a specific quasi-Yukawa boundary condition, and it yields concrete right-handed neutrino mass predictions that could be probed in leptogenesis or other indirect searches. However, the fit is underdetermined because the number of parameters slightly exceeds the number of observables, and the numerical results are conditional on the neglect of supersymmetric threshold corrections, so the predictive claims require careful qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, parameter count] The paper reports 14 magnitudes and 5 phases (19 parameters) fitted to 18 observables (17 magnitudes and one CKM phase), and with s33 fixed by hand the count is 18 parameters versus 18 observables. The reported chi-squared of 8.8 therefore has no positive number of degrees of freedom, meaning the fit is an interpolation rather than a genuine test of the model. The statement that the setup is 'minimal and predictive' (Sec. 3) is misleading without a discussion of this underdetermination; please state the effective number of degrees of freedom and how the quoted predictions (zeta and the right-handed neutrino masses) are affected by the degeneracy.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (3.7)] The GUT-scale Yukawa inputs are taken from Ref. [52] for a scenario with zero SUSY threshold corrections at M_S = 3 TeV, and the paper acknowledges in Sec. 3 that such corrections 'may, in some cases, introduce even larger deviations.' At tan beta around 58.5, the tan-beta-enhanced threshold corrections to y_b are generically of order tens of percent for a TeV-scale superpartner spectrum. Since zeta is determined from m_tau/m_b approximately equal to (1+9zeta)/(1+zeta) via Eq. (3.7), a shift in y_b propagates directly into zeta, the Dirac neutrino mass matrix (2.25), and the right-handed neutrino masses (3.10). The paper should quantify this sensitivity, for example by presenting a scan over representative threshold corrections or by explicitly framing the fit as conditional on the zero-threshold-correction input. Without such analysis, the headline tan beta = 58.5 solution and the neutrino mass predictions are not robust.
  3. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (2.31)] The right-handed Majorana mass matrix is introduced with a zero 22 entry and arbitrary complex ratios x, y, z, without deriving this texture from the operator (2.29) after symmetry breaking. The quoted right-handed neutrino masses in Eq. (3.10) are therefore as much a consequence of this ad hoc input as of the fit. Please clarify whether this texture is a prediction of the model or an assumption inherited from Ref. [21], and discuss the impact on the neutrino mass predictions if this zero entry is relaxed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction and Conclusions] The quasi-Yukawa relation is written as 1 - 9zeta in both the Introduction and Conclusions, which contradicts the abstract, Eq. (2.25), and Eq. (3.7), where 1 + 9zeta appears. The minus sign would give y_tau/y_b less than 1 and is inconsistent with the abstract's statement y_t approximately y_b approximately 0.73 y_tau; please correct the sign.
  2. [Sec. 3, error cap] The paper caps the error at 5% for observables with smaller uncertainties, which affects the chi-squared value; please state explicitly how much the chi-squared would increase if the true experimental uncertainties were used instead of the cap.
  3. [Eq. (2.27)] The notation eta'' is defined but used sparingly; consider making its role in the mass matrices clearer to avoid confusion with eta and eta'.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.5)] The origin of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient (-3)^2 for the tau lepton is stated only briefly; a short explanation in terms of B-L charges or a specific reference to the CG tables would improve readability.
  5. [Sec. 3 and Appendix A] The alternative fit with chi-squared = 5.4 obtained by allowing all phases is mentioned but its parameter values are not given; please include them in an appendix or explain why they are not shown.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two headline outputs—the quasi-Yukawa ratio and the right-handed neutrino masses—reduce, by the paper's own equations, to parameters fitted to the same low-energy observables.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (2.24)–(2.26); Sec. 3, Eq. (3.7)]
    "In writing these, we have defined the following quantities: ... ζ = ε2^2 s33/h33 ... mτ/mb ≈ (1 + 9ζ)/(1 + ζ) ≈ 1 + 9ζ = 1.338."

    The advertised third-generation quasi-Yukawa relation y_t : y_b : y_τ = 1+ζ : 1+ζ : 1+9ζ is not independently predicted; it is the 33-block of Eqs. (2.24)–(2.25) rewritten in terms of the free parameter ζ defined in Eq. (2.26). The numerical value ζ≈0.0376 is then obtained from a χ² fit to the measured fermion masses, in particular mτ/mb, which is itself an input observable. Therefore the 'realization' of quasi-Yukawa unification with this ζ is a restatement of the fit, not a derivation from SO(10) structure alone. The group-theoretic factor 9 fixes the coefficient, but the relation holds by construction once ζ is fitted.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.4, Eqs. (2.30)–(2.32); Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.2)–(3.5), (3.9)–(3.10)]
    "The Majorana neutrino mass matrix ... consists of four parameters, a mass scale M_R, and three Yukawa ratios x, z, y. ... Furthermore, the fit suggests (Yνc)33 = M_R Λ/c^2 ≃ 5M_R/M_GUT ≃ 1/400, and predicts the following mass spectrum of the right-handed neutrinos: (M1,M2,M3) = (1.84×10^9, 8.87×10^12, 9.32×10^12) GeV."

    The right-handed neutrino mass matrix (2.31) is parametrized by M_R, x, z, y, and these four parameters are determined by the same χ² fit, through the seesaw formula (2.30), to the light-neutrino masses and mixings that are listed as fitted observables. The quoted masses (M1, M2, M3) are simply the eigenvalues of the fitted matrix with the parameters in Eqs. (3.2)–(3.5). Equation (3.9) even reconstructs (Yνc)33 directly from the fitted M_R. Hence the 'prediction' of the right-handed neutrino spectrum is a repackaging of fitted parameters; it carries no independent content beyond the assumed ansatz (2.31).

full rationale

The paper is largely a genuine global fit: 19 input parameters (14 magnitudes and 5 phases) are fitted to 18 observables, and the resulting χ²=8.8 is a meaningful measure of consistency. The GUT-scale input data from Ref. [52], the zero-threshold-correction assumption, and the neutrino oscillation data from NuFit are external inputs, and the model is tested against them rather than derived from them. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [13,14] for metastable strings) are not load-bearing for the fermion-mass fit, and the operators from Ref. [21] are explicitly stated. However, two central advertised results are over-sold as predictions. First, the quasi-Yukawa unification relation is, by Eqs. (2.24)–(2.26) and (3.7), a definitional consequence of the free parameter ζ, whose fitted value is chosen to match mτ/mb; the SO(10) group-theoretic factor 9 fixes the coefficient but not the numerical relation. Second, the right-handed neutrino masses quoted in Eq. (3.10) are eigenvalues of the fitted matrix (2.31), with M_R, x, z, y all determined from the fit to low-energy neutrino observables; Eq. (3.9) makes this explicit by computing (Yνc)33 from the fitted M_R. Thus the 'predictions' reduce by construction to fitted parameters, which is partial circularity rather than independent derivation. The fragility of the zero-threshold-correction input at tanβ≈58.5 is a correctness risk and is acknowledged by the paper, but it is not itself a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 18 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Most structure comes from prior SO(10) literature: the 16x16 = 10 + 120 + 126 decomposition, the operator set of Ref. [21], the seesaw, and MSSM running. The new model-specific input is the chosen operator set in Eq. (2.14), the texture-zero ansatz, a hand-fixed s33, and the ad hoc right-handed neutrino matrix. The effective parameter count is 19 against 18 observables, so the ledger is dominated by fitted parameters rather than derived constants.

free parameters (18)
  • m_U = 92.6983 GeV (tan beta 58.5); 81.276 GeV (tan beta 10)
    Overall up-sector mass scale from h33 v sin beta; fitted to top and charm masses.
  • m_D = 1.57466 GeV; 0.900165 GeV
    Overall down-sector mass scale h33 v cos beta cos gamma; fitted to bottom and strange masses.
  • M_R = 1.01549e13 GeV; 7.38544e12 GeV
    Overall right-handed neutrino mass scale; fitted to neutrino mass splittings and mixing.
  • zeta = 0.0375575; 0.0329991
    Ratio epsilon2^2 s33/h33; controls b-tau splitting through Eq. (3.7); fitted to tau/bottom ratio.
  • epsilon = -0.117822; 0.132395
    a23/h33 epsilon2; controls 2-3 mixing in Dirac matrices; fitted.
  • epsilon' = 0.000679196 e^{1.72497 i}; 0.00078606 e^{1.76188 i}
    a12/h33 epsilon2; complex, controls 1-2 sector and CP violation; fitted.
  • eta = 0.171819; -0.191951
    Combination sigma minus g23/h33 epsilon3 tan gamma; shifts down-type and lepton 2-3 entries; fitted.
  • eta' = -0.00330325; -0.00423545
    Combination minus g12/h33 epsilon3 tan gamma; contributes to 1-2 sector of down quarks and leptons; fitted.
  • sigma = 0.129594; -0.144225
    h23/h33; symmetric 2-3 mixing; fitted.
  • r1 = -0.000104132; -0.000124312
    h11/h33; first-generation diagonal entry; fitted.
  • r2 = 0.000467822 e^{-1.17967 i}; 0.000559835 e^{-1.11871 i}
    h12/h33; complex 1-2 symmetric entry; fitted.
  • x = 0.000182238 e^{2.0599 i}; 0.000212585 e^{-1.16471 i}
    (Y_nu c)_11/(Y_nu c)_33; right-handed neutrino matrix ratio; fitted to neutrino data.
  • z = 0.0446069 e^{0.569925 i}; 0.0514103 e^{0.497272 i}
    (Y_nu c)_12/(Y_nu c)_33; ratio in Majorana mass matrix; fitted.
  • y = 0.894937 e^{-0.869456 i}; 1.21819 e^{-0.914608 i}
    (Y_nu c)_23/(Y_nu c)_33; ratio in Majorana mass matrix; fitted.
  • s33 = 0.5 (fixed by hand)
    Yukawa entry for the dimension-six operator; fixed to 0.5, not fitted, in both benchmarks (Appendix A).
  • epsilon2, epsilon3 = 0.199998, 0.199849; 0.175964, 0.0168925
    VEV ratios a/Lambda and c/Lambda; constrained to at most 0.2 by hand; fitted within that range.
  • tan beta = 58.499 (preferred); 10 (example)
    Ratio v_u/v_d; in the preferred solution it is effectively determined by top-bottom equality; also presented as fixed input for the second fit.
  • tan gamma = 0.112612; 8.97346
    Ratio of 10_d VEV to 16_d VEV; controls down and lepton mass normalization; fitted.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Standard SUSY SO(10) unification with M_GUT = 2e16 GeV and two-loop MSSM RGE running, using high-scale data from Ref. [52].
    All GUT-scale observables are taken from this external computation, including the zero-threshold-correction scenario and M_S = 3 TeV.
  • standard math SO(10) decompositions and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, in particular 16x16 = 10 + 120 + 126 and the factor (-3)^2 = 9 for leptons in Eq. (2.5).
    The factor 9 is asserted from systematic CG analyses [53,54] and is not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The minimal Higgs sector 10_H + 45_H + 16_H + 16bar_H and the specific non-renormalizable operator content of Eq. (2.14).
    This operator set is chosen to reproduce the desired textures; it is not derived from an underlying symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper Texture-zero ansatz in Eq. (2.19): the 22 and 13/31 entries vanish in the leading Yukawa matrices.
    The authors state they proceed along this direction for economy; no symmetry imposes all the zeros.
  • ad hoc to paper Right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix form of Eq. (2.31), with a zero 22 entry and ratios x, z, y.
    The form is introduced following Ref. [21] to make the seesaw fit work; it is not derived from the Yukawa sector.
  • domain assumption Zero SUSY threshold corrections for bottom and tau Yukawas at the high scale.
    The paper uses Ref. [52] with zero corrections and notes that thresholds may be larger than 5 percent at large tan beta.
  • ad hoc to paper UV completion by integrating out vectorlike 16 + 16bar fermions fixes the allowed contractions of the non-renormalizable operators.
    Used to justify the operator forms in Eqs. (2.5), (2.12), and (2.13); no explicit mass spectrum is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The additional 45'_H in Section 4 does not couple to ordinary fermions.
    Assumed to preserve the previous fermion fit while enabling the string symmetry-breaking chain.
invented entities (2)
  • Vectorlike 16 + 16bar fermion pairs (possible UV origin of the non-renormalizable operators)
    purpose: Justify the form and contractions of the operators in Eqs. (2.5), (2.12), and (2.13).
    Only mentioned as a possible ultraviolet completion; no masses or couplings are specified and there is no experimental handle.
  • Second adjoint Higgs 45'_H for the string-breaking chain
    purpose: Implement the two-step SO(10) breaking needed for metastable or quasistable cosmic strings.
    Assumed not to participate in Yukawa couplings; no direct observable handle beyond the gravitational wave consequences of the strings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fermion masses and mixings in supersymmetric SO(10) with third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERFGT3GF

@misc{pith2026250611806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fermion masses and mixings in supersymmetric SO(10) with third-generation quasi-Yukawa unification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERFGT3GF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11806}
}
abstract

We discuss the charged and neutral fermion masses and mixings in a supersymmetric SO(10) model with a minimal Higgs sector consisting of the multiplets $10_H$, $45_H$, and $16_H + \overline{16}_H$. In addition to the renormalizable Yukawa couplings involving the Higgs 10-plet, we include non-renormalizable Yukawa couplings, which are important for reproducing with good accuracy the observed masses and mixings in the quark and lepton sectors. We identify a preferred solution which is compatible with third family quasi-Yukawa unification, namely $y_t \approx y_b \approx 0.73 y_{\tau}$ at the unification scale, with the MSSM parameter $\tan\beta \sim 58$. Acceptable solutions with lower $\tan\beta$ values are also realized in our framework, and we provide an example with $\tan \beta =10$. Based on our fits, the masses for the three right-handed neutrinos turn out to be $\left(M_1,M_2,M_3\right)\sim \left(10^9, 8\cdot 10^{12}, 9\cdot 10^{12}\right) \mathrm{GeV}$. We briefly discuss the metastable and quasistable string scenarios that can be realized in this class of supersymmetric SO(10) models.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    Running quark and lepton parameters at various scales,

    S. Antusch and V. Maurer, “Running quark and lepton parameters at various scales,”JHEP11 (2013) 115,arXiv:1306.6879 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [21]

    Fermion masses, neutrino oscillations, and proton decay in the light of SuperKamiokande

    K. S. Babu, J. C. Pati, and F. Wilczek, “Fermion masses, neutrino oscillations, and proton decay in the light of Super-Kamiokande,”Nucl. Phys. B566(2000) 33–91,arXiv:hep-ph/9812538

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  3. [1]

    The State of the Art—Gauge Theories,

    H. Georgi, “The State of the Art—Gauge Theories,”AIP Conf. Proc.23(1975) 575–582

    1975

  4. [2]

    Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,

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

    work page 1975

  5. [3]

    Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,”Phys. Rev. D10(1974) 275–289. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)]

    1974

  6. [4]

    Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories,”Nucl. Phys. B79(1974) 276–284

    work page 1974

  7. [5]

    Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,

    A. M. Polyakov, “Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,”JETP Lett.20(1974) 194–195

    work page 1974

  8. [6]

    Strings in SO(10),

    T. W. B. Kibble, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, “Strings in SO(10),”Phys. Lett. B113(1982) 237–239

    work page 1982

Show all 67 references
  1. [7]

    Composite topological structures in SO(10),

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and A. Tiwari, “Composite topological structures in SO(10),”JHEP05 (2023) 119,arXiv:2303.15159 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Superheavy quasi-stable strings and walls bounded by strings in the light of NANOGrav 15 year data,

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji, and Q. Shafi, “Superheavy quasi-stable strings and walls bounded by strings in the light of NANOGrav 15 year data,”arXiv:2306.17788 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [9]

    Top mass prediction from supersymmetric guts,

    B. Ananthanarayan, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, “Top mass prediction from supersymmetric guts,”Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 1613–1615

    1991

  4. [10]

    Yukawa quasi-unification,

    M. E. Gomez, G. Lazarides, and C. Pallis, “Yukawa quasi-unification,”Nucl. Phys. B638(2002) 165–185,arXiv:hep-ph/0203131

    2002 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Sparticle Spectroscopy with Neutralino Dark matter from t-b-tau Quasi-Yukawa Unification,

    S. Dar, I. Gogoladze, Q. Shafi, and C. S. Un, “Sparticle Spectroscopy with Neutralino Dark matter from t-b-tau Quasi-Yukawa Unification,”Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 085015, arXiv:1105.5122 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Third family quasi-Yukawa unification: Higgsino dark matter, NLSP gluino, and all that,

    Q. Shafi, A. Tiwari, and C. S. Un, “Third family quasi-Yukawa unification: Higgsino dark matter, NLSP gluino, and all that,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 3, (2023) 035027,arXiv:2302.02905 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Singling out SO(10) GUT models using recent PTA results,

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, S. Saad, and J. Steiner, “Singling out SO(10) GUT models using recent PTA results,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 9, (2023) 095053,arXiv:2307.04595 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Explaining PTA results by metastable cosmic strings from SO(10) GUT,

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, and S. Saad, “Explaining PTA results by metastable cosmic strings from SO(10) GUT,”JCAP10(2024) 007,arXiv:2406.17014 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Testing realistic SO(10) SUSY GUTs with proton decay and gravitational waves,

    B. Fu, S. F. King, L. Marsili, S. Pascoli, J. Turner, and Y.-L. Zhou, “Testing realistic SO(10) SUSY GUTs with proton decay and gravitational waves,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 5, (2024) 055025, arXiv:2308.05799 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Stochastic gravitational-wave background from metastable cosmic strings,

    W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, and K. Schmitz, “Stochastic gravitational-wave background from metastable cosmic strings,”JCAP12no. 12, (2021) 006,arXiv:2107.04578 [hep-ph]. [17]NANOGravCollaboration, G. Agazieet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave B...

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,

    D. J. Reardonet al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,”Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L6,arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]. – 13 –

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,

    H. Xuet al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,”Res. Astron. Astrophys.23no. 7, (2023) 075024, arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Constraining Proton Lifetime in SO(10) with Stabilized Doublet-Triplet Splitting,

    K. S. Babu, J. C. Pati, and Z. Tavartkiladze, “Constraining Proton Lifetime in SO(10) with Stabilized Doublet-Triplet Splitting,”JHEP06(2010) 084,arXiv:1003.2625 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, “Proton Lifetime and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model,”Nucl. Phys. B181(1981) 287–300

    1981

  15. [24]

    Predictive neutrino spectrum in minimal SO(10) grand unification,

    K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, “Predictive neutrino spectrum in minimal SO(10) grand unification,”Phys. Rev. Lett.70(1993) 2845–2848,arXiv:hep-ph/9209215

    1993 arXiv

  16. [25]

    How neutrino and charged fermion masses are connected within minimal supersymmetric SO(10),

    B. Bajc, G. Senjanovic, and F. Vissani, “How neutrino and charged fermion masses are connected within minimal supersymmetric SO(10),”PoSHEP2001(2001) 198,arXiv:hep-ph/0110310

    2001 arXiv

  17. [26]

    b - tau unification and large atmospheric mixing: A Case for noncanonical seesaw,

    B. Bajc, G. Senjanovic, and F. Vissani, “b - tau unification and large atmospheric mixing: A Case for noncanonical seesaw,”Phys. Rev. Lett.90(2003) 051802,arXiv:hep-ph/0210207

    2003 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Neutrino oscillation data versus minimal supersymmetric SO(10) model,

    T. Fukuyama and N. Okada, “Neutrino oscillation data versus minimal supersymmetric SO(10) model,”JHEP11(2002) 011,arXiv:hep-ph/0205066

    2002 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Minimal SUSY SO(10), b tau unification and large neutrino mixings,

    H. S. Goh, R. N. Mohapatra, and S.-P. Ng, “Minimal SUSY SO(10), b tau unification and large neutrino mixings,”Phys. Lett. B570(2003) 215–221,arXiv:hep-ph/0303055

    2003 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Minimal SUSY SO(10) model and predictions for neutrino mixings and leptonic CP violation,

    H. S. Goh, R. N. Mohapatra, and S.-P. Ng, “Minimal SUSY SO(10) model and predictions for neutrino mixings and leptonic CP violation,”Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 115008, arXiv:hep-ph/0308197

    2003 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Fermion masses in SUSY SO(10) with type II seesaw: A Non-minimal predictive scenario,

    S. Bertolini, M. Frigerio, and M. Malinsky, “Fermion masses in SUSY SO(10) with type II seesaw: A Non-minimal predictive scenario,”Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 095002,arXiv:hep-ph/0406117

    2004 arXiv

  22. [31]

    On CP violation in minimal renormalizable SUSY SO(10) and beyond,

    S. Bertolini and M. Malinsky, “On CP violation in minimal renormalizable SUSY SO(10) and beyond,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 055021,arXiv:hep-ph/0504241

    2005 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Neutrino masses and mixings in a minimal SO(10) model,

    K. S. Babu and C. Macesanu, “Neutrino masses and mixings in a minimal SO(10) model,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 115003,arXiv:hep-ph/0505200

    2005 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Fermion masses and mixings in SO(10) models and the neutrino challenge to SUSY GUTs,

    S. Bertolini, T. Schwetz, and M. Malinsky, “Fermion masses and mixings in SO(10) models and the neutrino challenge to SUSY GUTs,”Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 115012,arXiv:hep-ph/0605006

    2006 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Minimal SO(10) splits supersymmetry,

    B. Bajc, I. Dorsner, and M. Nemevsek, “Minimal SO(10) splits supersymmetry,”JHEP11(2008) 007,arXiv:0809.1069 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Fermion Masses in SO(10) Models,

    A. S. Joshipura and K. M. Patel, “Fermion Masses in SO(10) Models,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 095002,arXiv:1102.5148 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [36]

    A non supersymmetric SO(10) grand unified model for all the physics belowM GU T,

    G. Altarelli and D. Meloni, “A non supersymmetric SO(10) grand unified model for all the physics belowM GU T,”JHEP08(2013) 021,arXiv:1305.1001 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Fits to SO(10) Grand Unified Models,

    A. Dueck and W. Rodejohann, “Fits to SO(10) Grand Unified Models,”JHEP09(2013) 024, arXiv:1306.4468 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Revisiting fermion mass and mixing fits in the minimal SUSYSO(10) GUT,

    T. Fukuyama, K. Ichikawa, and Y. Mimura, “Revisiting fermion mass and mixing fits in the minimal SUSYSO(10) GUT,”Phys. Rev. D94no. 7, (2016) 075018,arXiv:1508.07078 [hep-ph]. – 14 –

    2016 arXiv

  30. [39]

    New Class of SO(10) Models for Flavor,

    K. S. Babu, B. Bajc, and S. Saad, “New Class of SO(10) Models for Flavor,”Phys. Rev. D94 no. 1, (2016) 015030,arXiv:1605.05116 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Yukawa Sector of Minimal SO(10) Unification,

    K. S. Babu, B. Bajc, and S. Saad, “Yukawa Sector of Minimal SO(10) Unification,”JHEP02 (2017) 136,arXiv:1612.04329 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Resurrecting Minimal Yukawa Sector of SUSY SO(10),

    K. S. Babu, B. Bajc, and S. Saad, “Resurrecting Minimal Yukawa Sector of SUSY SO(10),”JHEP 10(2018) 135,arXiv:1805.10631 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Peccei-Quinn Symmetry and Nucleon Decay in Renormalizable SUSYSO(10),

    K. S. Babu, T. Fukuyama, S. Khan, and S. Saad, “Peccei-Quinn Symmetry and Nucleon Decay in Renormalizable SUSYSO(10),”JHEP06(2019) 045,arXiv:1812.11695 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Running of Fermion Observables in Non-Supersymmetric SO(10) Models,

    T. Ohlsson and M. Pernow, “Running of Fermion Observables in Non-Supersymmetric SO(10) Models,”JHEP11(2018) 028,arXiv:1804.04560 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Fits to Non-Supersymmetric SO(10) Models with Type I and II Seesaw Mechanisms Using Renormalization Group Evolution,

    T. Ohlsson and M. Pernow, “Fits to Non-Supersymmetric SO(10) Models with Type I and II Seesaw Mechanisms Using Renormalization Group Evolution,”JHEP06(2019) 085, arXiv:1903.08241 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Flavor Hierarchies from Clockwork in SO(10) GUT,

    K. S. Babu and S. Saad, “Flavor Hierarchies from Clockwork in SO(10) GUT,”Phys. Rev. D103 no. 1, (2021) 015009,arXiv:2007.16085 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Leptogenesis and fermion mass fit in a renormalizable SO(10) model,

    V. S. Mummidi and K. M. Patel, “Leptogenesis and fermion mass fit in a renormalizable SO(10) model,”JHEP12(2021) 042,arXiv:2109.04050 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Probing minimal grand unification through gravitational waves, proton decay, and fermion masses,

    S. Saad, “Probing minimal grand unification through gravitational waves, proton decay, and fermion masses,”JHEP04(2023) 058,arXiv:2212.05291 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Neutrino Mass in Non-SupersymmetricSO(10) GUT,

    N. Haba, Y. Shimizu, and T. Yamada, “Neutrino Mass in Non-SupersymmetricSO(10) GUT,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 9, (2023) 095005,arXiv:2304.06263 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Fermion mass, axion dark matter, and leptogenesis in SO(10) GUT,

    A. Kaladharan and S. Saad, “Fermion mass, axion dark matter, and leptogenesis in SO(10) GUT,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 5, (2024) 055010,arXiv:2308.04497 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Leptogenesis in SO(10) with minimal Yukawa sector,

    K. S. Babu, P. Di Bari, C. S. Fong, and S. Saad, “Leptogenesis in SO(10) with minimal Yukawa sector,”JHEP10(2024) 190,arXiv:2409.03840 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Electroweak Triplet Scalar Contribution toSO(10) Leptogenesis,

    C. S. Fong and K. M. Patel, “Electroweak Triplet Scalar Contribution toSO(10) Leptogenesis,” arXiv:2505.06391 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [53]

    A Systematic SO(10) operator analysis for fermion masses,

    G. Anderson, S. Raby, S. Dimopoulos, L. J. Hall, and G. D. Starkman, “A Systematic SO(10) operator analysis for fermion masses,”Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 3660–3690, arXiv:hep-ph/9308333

    1994 arXiv

  44. [54]

    Yukawa ratio predictions in non-renormalizable SO(10) GUT models,

    S. Antusch, C. Hohl, and V. Susiˇ c, “Yukawa ratio predictions in non-renormalizable SO(10) GUT models,”JHEP02(2020) 086,arXiv:1911.12807 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [55]

    µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,

    P. Minkowski, “µ→eγat a Rate of One Out of 10 9 Muon Decays?,”Phys. Lett.67B(1977) 421–428

    1977

  46. [56]

    Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, “Complex Spinors and Unified Theories,”Conf. Proc. C790927(1979) 315–321,arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    1979 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,

    T. Yanagida, “Horizontal gauge symmetry and masses of neutrinos,”Conf. Proc.C7902131 (1979) 95–99

    1979

  48. [58]

    The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,

    S. Glashow, “The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,”NATO Sci. Ser. B61(1980) 687. – 15 –

    1980

  49. [59]

    Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, “Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 912

    1980

  50. [60]

    Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories,”Phys. Rev.D22 (1980) 2227

    1980

  51. [61]

    Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number,

    J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, “Neutrino Decay and Spontaneous Violation of Lepton Number,” Phys. Rev.D25(1982) 774

    1982

  52. [62]

    NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, “NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,”JHEP12 (2024) 216,arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [63]

    Nufit webpage, available online:http://www.nu-fit.org(september 2024 data),

    “Nufit webpage, available online:http://www.nu-fit.org(september 2024 data),”

    2024

  54. [64]

    Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem,

    G. Dvali, “Black Holes and Large N Species Solution to the Hierarchy Problem,”Fortsch. Phys. 58(2010) 528–536,arXiv:0706.2050 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [65]

    Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC,

    G. Dvali and M. Redi, “Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC,”Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 045027,arXiv:0710.4344 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  56. [66]

    SU(5) Monopoles, Magnetic Symmetry and Confinement,

    M. Daniel, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, “SU(5) Monopoles, Magnetic Symmetry and Confinement,”Nucl. Phys. B170(1980) 156–164

    1980

  57. [67]

    Superheavy Metastable Strings in SO(10),

    R. Maji and Q. Shafi, “Superheavy Metastable Strings in SO(10),”arXiv:2504.09055 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  58. [68]

    Gravitational waves from quasi-stable strings,

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji, and Q. Shafi, “Gravitational waves from quasi-stable strings,”JCAP08 no. 08, (2022) 042,arXiv:2203.11204 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Kinetic mixing, proton decay and gravitational waves in SO(10),

    R. Maji and Q. Shafi, “Kinetic mixing, proton decay and gravitational waves in SO(10),”JHEP 10(2024) 157,arXiv:2408.14350 [hep-ph]. – 16 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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