Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 65 references

A five-dimensional gauge remnant on a flat interval can quality-protect a Wilson-line QCD axion while leaving QCD, the Standard Model, and a KSVZ/DFSZ anomaly sector four-dimensional.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 06:29 UTC pith:EWBKGRF4

load-bearing objection Clean, usable flat-interval construction that really does keep QCD/SM four-dimensional while giving exponential quality; soft spots are the usual spurion/instanton assumptions, not a broken derivation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.08814 v1 pith:EWBKGRF4 submitted 2026-07-09 hep-ph hep-th

The Minimal High-Quality QCD Axion

Mario Fern\'andez Navarro This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords QCD axionaxion quality problemPeccei-Quinn symmetryWilson lineextra dimensionsKSVZDFSZstrong CP problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The usual QCD axion solves the strong-CP problem by promoting the unwanted CP phase to a dynamical field, but it relies on a fragile global symmetry that quantum gravity is expected to break. This paper argues that the same low-energy axion can be quality-protected without the usual tower of extra structure. The protective ingredient is five-dimensional U(1) gauge invariance on a flat interval: after boundary conditions are imposed, a global remnant survives on the branes as a selection rule, and the open Wilson-line phase of the extra-dimensional gauge field becomes the axion. QCD and the Standard Model stay four-dimensional; the anomaly is generated by an ordinary brane-localized KSVZ or DFSZ sector. Quality-violating operators then require non-local spurions that are exponentially suppressed by bulk messengers, or non-perturbative effects that the literature already estimates as exponentially small. The result is that high quality need not force the axion into a model-building labyrinth.

Core claim

Axion quality is compatible with minimality: the Peccei–Quinn symmetry can be realized as a gauge-origin boundary remnant of five-dimensional U(1) gauge invariance on a flat interval, the axion is the surviving open Wilson-line phase, and a familiar four-dimensional KSVZ/DFSZ anomaly sector still generates the QCD potential, without bulk QCD, warping, or a color Chern–Simons term, while exponential suppression protects against dangerous operators.

What carries the argument

The open Wilson-line phase θ(x) = ∫_0^L dy A_5 on a flat interval with Dirichlet A_μ and Neumann A_5 boundary conditions. Allowed gauge transformations leave a constant boundary remnant U(1)_0 imes U(1)_L that shifts θ by a physical amount, so θ is the axion and the Wilson line dresses the brane-localized anomaly operators while forbidding bare PQ-violating masses.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that the dimensionful brane sources needed for a pure Wilson-line potential are either absent or appear only near the five-dimensional cutoff, so the dangerous operator remains exponentially suppressed by a bulk mass times the interval length of order one hundred or more; if those sources are unsuppressed or if quantum-gravity instanton actions fall well below that scale, quality is lost.

What would settle it

Construct an explicit ultraviolet completion in which unsuppressed brane sources of opposite boundary charge generate a pure Wilson-line potential larger than about 10^{-10} times the QCD topological susceptibility, or show that Euclidean wormholes or other non-perturbative effects produce a bare KSVZ mass with instanton action much smaller than O(100).

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a minimal high-quality QCD axion in which a five-dimensional U(1) gauge theory on a flat interval supplies a gauge-origin global remnant at the boundaries (U(1)_0 imes U(1)_L). Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions project out the A_μ zero mode while retaining the open Wilson-line phase θ = ∫ A_5 dy as the axion, with f_a = 1/(g_5 √L). QCD and the SM remain four-dimensional on the y=0 brane; the QCD anomaly is generated by a conventional brane-localized KSVZ or DFSZ sector whose mass/bilinear parameters are Wilson-line dressed and not tied to f_a. Quality-violating pure Wilson-line potentials require non-local spurions transforming under both boundary remnants and are exponentially suppressed by bulk-messenger propagation (M_χ L ≳ O(100)); bare KSVZ/DFSZ operators are perturbatively forbidden by the gauge-origin selection rule and only non-perturbatively generated with large instanton action. An optional discrete Z_2 ⊂ U(1)_5 extension can forbid bare KSVZ masses even non-perturbatively. The construction claims exponential quality protection without bulk QCD, warping, or a color Chern–Simons term.

Significance. If the UV assumptions on brane spurions and instanton actions hold, the work shows that axion quality need not force elaborate ultraviolet structure: a flat-interval Wilson-line axion plus a familiar 4D KSVZ/DFSZ anomaly sector already supplies exponential protection while retaining the QCD relation m_a^{2} f_a^{2} = χ_QCD. The Appendix matching of bulk-messenger propagators to the Wilson-line-dressed operators (Eqs. (A4)–(A11)) is concrete and standard, and the observation that KSVZ fermion masses (or DFSZ bilinears) need not be tied to f_a opens a window for lighter, potentially observable vector-like states. The comparison table and the optional Z_2 extension further clarify the model’s place relative to the canonical axion and to other extra-dimensional constructions. These are useful, falsifiable contributions to the quality literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Quality and microscopic completions] Quality and microscopic completions, Eqs. (10)–(11) and the surrounding NDA discussion: the exponential protection of pure Wilson-line potentials rests on the assumption that the dimensionful brane spurions μ_0, μ_L (or s_L) are either absent or generated only at the 5D cutoff Λ_5 ∼ f_a^{2} L. This is stated as model-dependent rather than derived. Because the central claim is that quality is compatible with minimality, the manuscript should either (i) exhibit at least one fully local UV completion in which those spurions are demonstrably absent or further suppressed, or (ii) quantify how much the quality bound degrades if they appear at intermediate scales. Without that, the quality claim remains conditional on an extra UV assumption of the same character the paper seeks to minimize.
  2. [Quality and microscopic completions / Appendix] Eq. (12) and the paragraph on non-perturbative quantum gravity: the estimate m_0 ∼ M_* e^{-S_inst} with S_inst ∼ O(100) is taken from the literature on Euclidean wormholes and extra-dimensional axions. The paper does not demonstrate that the same instanton action applies to the open Wilson-line geometry or that the discrete Z_2 remnant (Appendix) is the only residual protection. A short discussion of whether the flat-interval boundary conditions alter the expected instanton suppression, or an explicit statement that the O(100) figure is an external assumption, would make the quality claim more precise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] Table I: the entry “PQ quality protection: exponential protection” is accurate only under the spurion assumptions of Eqs. (10)–(11). A footnote or parenthetical qualifier would prevent over-reading.
  2. [Appendix] Appendix, after Eq. (A4): the claim that closed messenger propagation cancels the Wilson line is clear, but a one-sentence contrast with the circle/orbifold case (already cited) would help readers unfamiliar with the distinction.
  3. [Anomaly sector / Quality] The notation for the spurions (M_Ψ, m_H^{2}, μ_0,L, s_L) is introduced gradually; a short glossary or consistent charge assignment table would improve readability.
  4. [References] References [41], [42], [43], [44] appear as arXiv preprints with 2026 dates; ensure final citation keys are stable before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: free theoretical construction whose quality protection follows from the bulk propagator and chosen boundary conditions, not from fitted inputs or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper proposes a 5D U(1) gauge theory on a flat interval with Dirichlet/Neumann boundary conditions that leave residual global U(1)_0 × U(1)_L selection rules and an open Wilson-line phase θ = ∫ A_5 dy as the axion. The QCD anomaly is supplied by a standard brane-localized KSVZ/DFSZ sector; the WZ term and m_a^{2} f_a^{2} = χ_QCD relation are the usual ones. Quality protection is argued via the requirement that a pure Wilson-line potential ΔV ∼ ε_n W^n needs non-local spurions transforming under both boundary remnants; integrating out a bulk messenger then yields the exponential factor e^{-M_χ L} (Eqs. (10)–(11) and Appendix). Bare masses are perturbatively forbidden by the gauge-origin remnant and only non-perturbatively generated with large instanton action. None of these steps reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter, a self-definition, or a load-bearing self-citation uniqueness theorem. Self-citations (e.g. [64]) are peripheral. The construction is therefore self-contained against its own stated assumptions; circularity score is zero.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard 5D gauge theory plus a small set of modeling choices (boundary conditions, absence or suppression of certain brane spurions, and the size of quantum-gravity instanton actions). Free parameters are the usual axion and compactification scales plus messenger masses chosen to satisfy quality. Invented entities are the 5D U(1) itself and the bulk messengers required for microscopic completions; none have independent experimental evidence yet.

free parameters (3)
  • f_a (axion decay constant) = ~10^11 GeV (illustrative)
    Set by g_5 and L; benchmark values ~10^11 GeV are chosen by hand to illustrate quality and phenomenology.
  • L^{-1} (compactification scale) = ~10^10 GeV (illustrative)
    Free scale of the interval; benchmarks ~10^10 GeV chosen to keep M_chi near the 5D cutoff while satisfying quality.
  • M_chi L or M_Phi L (messenger mass times length) = O(10–100)
    Must be O(10–100) for exponential quality or for light KSVZ masses; chosen by hand to meet the 10^{-10} bound or desired fermion mass.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Five-dimensional U(1) gauge invariance on a flat interval with Dirichlet A_mu and Neumann A_5 boundary conditions yields exact global U(1)_0 x U(1)_L remnants at the branes.
    Standard result of 5D gauge theory on an interval (Csaki et al., Hebecker-March-Russell); invoked throughout the Gauge-origin PQ section.
  • domain assumption Non-perturbative quantum-gravity effects that could generate a bare KSVZ mass are exponentially suppressed by an instanton action S_inst ~ O(100).
    Drawn from the wormhole/instanton literature (Giddings-Strominger, Kallosh et al.); used in Eq. (12) and the quality discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper Brane spurions mu_0, mu_L that would source a pure Wilson-line potential are either absent or generated only at the 5D cutoff Lambda_5.
    Required for the exponential suppression in Eq. (10); the paper notes this is model-dependent and may be avoided in specific UV completions.
invented entities (2)
  • 5D U(1)_5 gauge field on a flat interval whose open Wilson line is the QCD axion no independent evidence
    purpose: Replace the fragile global PQ symmetry by a gauge-origin remnant and supply the axion as A_5 zero mode.
    The entire construction is built around this field; no independent experimental handle is given beyond the usual axion phenomenology.
  • Bulk scalar messengers Phi or chi charged under U(1)_5 no independent evidence
    purpose: Generate the Wilson-line-dressed KSVZ/DFSZ operators (or the dangerous non-local potential) by tree-level propagation.
    Introduced in the Appendix for microscopic completions; masses are free parameters tuned for quality or light fermions.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 17338 in / 3101 out tokens · 27729 ms · 2026-07-13T06:29:27.952437+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The canonical QCD axion is minimal but not high quality. We identify a minimal high-quality QCD axion, in which the Peccei-Quinn symmetry emerges as a gauge-origin boundary remnant of five-dimensional $U(1)$ gauge invariance on a flat interval, and the axion is the surviving Wilson-line phase. QCD and the Standard Model remain four-dimensional, retaining much of the simplicity of KSVZ/DFSZ anomaly sectors. The construction requires no bulk QCD, warping, or color Chern-Simons term, yet retains exponential quality protection. Thus axion quality is compatible with minimality.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Abelet al., Phys

    C. Abelet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    D. E. Kaplan, T. Melia, and S. Rajendran, JHEP08 (2025), 050, arXiv:2505.08358 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    J. N. Benabou, A. Hook, C. A. Manzari, H. Murayama, and B. R. Safdi, arXiv:2510.18951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Vecchi, arXiv:2507.10680 [hep-ph]

    L. Vecchi, arXiv:2507.10680 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  6. [6]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  7. [7]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  8. [8]

    S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D46, 539 (1992)

    1992

  9. [9]

    Holman, S

    R. Holman, S. D. H. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins, and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Lett. B282, 132 (1992), arXiv:hep-ph/9203206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  10. [10]

    Kamionkowski and J

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, Phys. Lett. B 282, 137 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9202003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  11. [11]

    Harlow and H

    D. Harlow and H. Ooguri, Commun. Math. Phys.383, 1669 (2021), arXiv:1810.05338 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, and K. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 560, 214 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212339

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    Sheng and T

    J. Sheng and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D113, 055010 (2026), arXiv:2510.17370 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Darm´ e and E

    L. Darm´ e and E. Nardi, Phys. Rev. D104, 055013 (2021), arXiv:2102.05055 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    K. S. Babu, B. Dutta, and R. N. Mohapatra, JHEP03 (2026), 084, arXiv:2412.21157 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    K. S. Babu, B. Dutta, and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 111803 (2025), arXiv:2410.07323 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Di Luzio, G

    L. Di Luzio, G. Landini, F. Mescia, and V. Susiˇ c, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 5 (2026), arXiv:2503.16648 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    V. A. Rubakov, JETP Lett.65, 621 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9703409

    arXiv 1997

  19. [19]

    Berezhiani, L

    Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna, and M. Giannotti, Phys. Lett. B500, 286 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0009290

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  20. [20]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B84, 435 (1979)

    1979

  21. [21]

    Valenti, L

    A. Valenti, L. Vecchi, and L.-X. Xu, JHEP10(2022), 025, arXiv:2206.04077 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Agrawal and K

    P. Agrawal and K. Howe, JHEP12(2018), 029, arXiv:1710.04213 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Fuentes-Mart´ ın, M

    J. Fuentes-Mart´ ın, M. Reig, and A. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D100, 115028 (2019), arXiv:1907.02550 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Gherghetta, V

    T. Gherghetta, V. V. Khoze, A. Pomarol, and Y. Shir- man, JHEP03(2020), 063, arXiv:2001.05610 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. D31, 1733 (1985)

    1985

  26. [26]

    Choi and J

    K. Choi and J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. D32, 1828 (1985)

    1985

  27. [27]

    Randall, Phys

    L. Randall, Phys. Lett. B284, 77 (1992)

    1992

  28. [28]

    Gherghetta, H

    T. Gherghetta, H. Murayama, and P. Qu´ ılez, Phys. Rev. D112, 095036 (2025), arXiv:2505.08866 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Agrawal, A

    P. Agrawal, A. Hook, V. Loladze, and M. Reig, JHEP03 (2026), 041, arXiv:2510.07366 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    P. Cox, T. Gherghetta, and M. D. Nguyen, JHEP01 (2020), 188, arXiv:1911.09385 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Nakai and M

    Y. Nakai and M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B816, 136239 (2021), arXiv:2102.01329 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Choi, Phys

    K. Choi, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 101602 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0308024

    arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Flacke, B

    T. Flacke, B. Gripaios, J. March-Russell, and D. May- bury, JHEP01(2007), 061, arXiv:hep-ph/0611278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  34. [34]

    Adachi, C

    Y. Adachi, C. S. Lim, and N. Maru, PTEP2022, 053B06 (2022), arXiv:2108.07367 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Choi and N

    K. Choi and N. Righi, PoSCOSMICWISPers, 039 (2024), arXiv:2401.17354 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Reece, JHEP07(2025), 130, arXiv:2406.08543 [hep- ph]

    M. Reece, JHEP07(2025), 130, arXiv:2406.08543 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Craig and M

    N. Craig and M. Kongsore, Phys. Rev. D111, 015047 (2025), arXiv:2408.10295 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Loladze, A

    V. Loladze, A. Platschorre, and M. Reig, JHEP08 (2025), 182, arXiv:2503.18707 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Choi and T

    G. Choi and T. Gherghetta, JHEP03(2026), 169, arXiv:2512.15666 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Petrossian-Byrne and G

    R. Petrossian-Byrne and G. Villadoro, JHEP07(2025), 049, arXiv:2503.16387 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    K. Choi, C. H. Lee, and C. S. Shin, arXiv:2604.08700 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    S. Hor, Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, and J. Xu, arXiv:2606.02728 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    Craig and A

    N. Craig and A. Madden, arXiv:2606.16445 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  44. [44]

    Petrossian-Byrne and G

    R. Petrossian-Byrne and G. Villadoro, arXiv:2606.15957 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 103 (1979)

    1979

  46. [46]

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B166, 493 (1980)

    1980

  47. [47]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.31, 260 (1980)

    1980

  48. [48]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104, 199 (1981)

    1981

  49. [49]

    Csaki, C

    C. Csaki, C. Grojean, H. Murayama, L. Pilo, and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D69, 055006 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0305237

    arXiv 2004

  50. [50]

    Sakai and N

    N. Sakai and N. Uekusa, Prog. Theor. Phys.118, 315 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0604121

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Hebecker and J

    A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B625, 128 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  52. [52]

    L. E. Ibanez and F. Quevedo, JHEP10(1999), 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9908305

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    Antoniadis, E

    I. Antoniadis, E. Kiritsis, J. Rizos, and T. N. Tomaras, Nucl. Phys. B660, 81 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0210263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  54. [54]

    Montero, C

    M. Montero, C. Vafa, and I. Valenzuela, JHEP06(2026), 059, arXiv:2512.09052 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept.870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Harlow, B

    D. Harlow, B. Heidenreich, M. Reece, and T. Rudelius, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 035003 (2023), arXiv:2201.08380 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Palavri´ c, X

    A. Palavri´ c, X. Ponce D´ ıaz, and H. Tiblom, arXiv:2606.12298 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B306, 890 (1988)

    1988

  59. [59]

    L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B325, 687 (1989)

    1989

  60. [60]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde, and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D52, 912 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9502069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  61. [61]

    L. E. Ibanez and A. M. Uranga, JHEP03(2007), 052, arXiv:hep-th/0609213

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [62]

    Blumenhagen, M

    R. Blumenhagen, M. Cvetic, S. Kachru, and T. Weigand, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.59, 269 (2009), arXiv:0902.3251 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [63]

    Hebecker, T

    A. Hebecker, T. Mikhail, and P. Soler, Front. Astron. Space Sci.5, 35 (2018), arXiv:1807.00824 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  64. [64]

    Fern´ andez Navarro, M

    M. Fern´ andez Navarro, M. Fuentes Zamoro, M. Pesut, and X. Ponce D´ ıaz, arXiv:2605.06787 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [65]

    Berasaluce-Gonzalez, L

    M. Berasaluce-Gonzalez, L. E. Ibanez, P. Soler, and A. M. Uranga, JHEP12(2011), 113, arXiv:1106.4169 [hep-th]. 6 Appendix In this Appendix, we include technical details regard- ing the minimal microscopic and local 5D completions of the Wilson-line KSVZ/DFSZ effective theories presented in the main text, and we also comment on potential paths towards more...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011