Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Novel Phases of a Baryon-Dense QCD-like Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For s-confining SQCD with three colors and four flavors, positive higher-order Kähler corrections stabilize the finite-baryon-density vacuum and yield phases with spontaneously broken baryon number and/or parity, connected by first- and…

desk verdict A careful conditional EFT study: positive dimension-six Kähler terms can stabilize finite-density s-confining AMSB SQCD and produce baryon/parity-breaking phases, but the sign assumption is the whole ballgame. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18964 v2 pith:OOW54GK5 submitted 2025-06-23 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Yang Bai , Carlos Henrique de Lima , Daniel Stolarski This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords baryonchemicalpotentials-confiningsupersymmetricQCDanomaly-mediatedsupersymmetrybreakingphasediagramspontaneousnumberparitydimension-sixKählercorrectionsfinite-densitystronglycoupledgaugetheory
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

At finite baryon chemical potential, the low-energy meson/baryon description of s-confining supersymmetric QCD would normally run away to the ultraviolet, so the theory has no equilibrium ground state. This paper argues that once supersymmetry is broken by anomaly mediation, the higher-order Kähler corrections generated near the confinement scale—assumed positive—stabilize the runaway and make the hadronic phase calculable. Specializing to three colors and four massless flavors, the stabilized potential has several competing minima, including phases that spontaneously break baryon number and/or parity while preserving smaller remnant symmetries. As the chemical potential grows, the global minimum passes through these phases, with both first- and second-order transitions; whenever the small-density vacuum is the ordinary QCD-like one, the theory always exits it before the effective description breaks down at $\mu_B \sim \Lambda$. A sympathetic reader should care because this is a rare controlled window into strongly coupled gauge theory at intermediate baryon density, the regime relevant to dense QCD and neutron-star matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of dimension-six Kähler-potential operators in Eq. (3.5), generated by the strong dynamics and suppressed by $\Lambda^2$. Their scalar-potential contribution includes a quartic term $c_B m_{3/2}^2 b^4/((N_c+1)\Lambda^2)$ along the sbaryon direction, which, for positive $c_B$, converts the tachyonic runaway induced by the chemical potential into a quartic-stabilized equilibrium—see Eq. (3.6). The argument also relies on anomaly mediation's UV insensitivity, which fixes all soft masses and A-terms in terms of $m_{3/2}$, and on the s-confining dynamical superpotential $W = \lambda \, \det M / \Lambda^{N_c-2} - \kappa \, \widetilde B M B$, which provides the leading F-term potential and the coupling structure. Together these give a scalar potential whose minima in the reduced field space $(x, v, b, \bar b)$ are the phases classified in the paper's Table I; positivity of the kinetic metric is enforced throughout the scans.

What would settle it

A first-principles computation of the coefficient $c_B$ in Eq. (3.5)—for instance from a lattice simulation of the $N_c=3,N_f=4$ s-confining theory or from a UV completion—would settle the claim: if $c_B < 0$ at the matching scale, Eq. (3.6) has a runaway direction at this order and the finite-density hadronic equilibrium described here does not exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the specific case $N_c=3$, $N_f=4$, the paper's central discovery is that the low-energy theory defined by the dynamical superpotential $W = \lambda \, \det M / \Lambda^{N_c-2} - \kappa \, \widetilde B M B$ together with anomaly-mediated soft terms and the dimension-six Kähler operators of Eq. (3.5) possesses stable, perturbatively controlled vacua at baryon chemical potentials $0 < \mu_B < \Lambda$. With all six Wilson coefficients in Eq. (3.5) taken positive, the quartic terms lift the tachyonic sbaryon direction that would otherwise drive the theory out of the hadronic phase. The resulting global minima carry remnant symmetries $\mathrm{SU}(3)_V \times U(1)_{\rm res}$, $\mathrm{SU}(3)_{L/R} \times \mathrm{SU}(4)_{R/L} \times U(1)_{\rm res}$, or $\mathrm{SU}(3)_L \times \mathrm{SU}(3)_R$ in addition to the standard s-confining and QCD-like vacua; the middle pattern spontaneously breaks parity, and the last may break or preserve it depending on couplings, while the first breaks baryon number. Transitions among the global minima as $\mu_B$ increases can be first or second order, and the authors find that a QCD-like vacuum at small $\mu_B$ always gives way to one of the exotic phases before the $1/\Lambda$ expansion loses control. The qualitative prediction they extract is that a four-flavor QCD-like confining theory cannot remain in its ordinary chiral-symmetry-broken hadronic phase all the way up to the confinement scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the six coefficients of the higher-order Kähler corrections, especially $c_B$, are all positive and large enough to stabilize the runaway but small enough that the $1/\Lambda$ expansion is still controlled at field values near the confinement scale; the paper adopts this as an assumption rather than deriving it from a UV calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $0 < \mu_B < \Lambda$, the hadronic phase of this theory has a stable equilibrium instead of the runaway found in the supersymmetric limit, because the positive $c_B$ term bounds the sbaryon direction.
  • If the vacuum at small $\mu_B$ is the ordinary QCD-like one, the global minimum always changes to one of the exotic phases before the effective theory breaks down, so a hadron-to-other-phase transition occurs inside $0 < \mu_B < \Lambda$.
  • Spontaneous baryon-number breaking can occur while the theory is still confined and weakly coupled, with a residual $U(1)_{\rm res}$ that is a mixture of baryon number and a flavor generator.
  • Parity can be spontaneously broken at finite baryon density, with two degenerate vacua exchanged by parity.
  • The transitions can be first or second order depending on the low-energy couplings, meaning the same model accommodates both a discontinuous jump and a continuous softening as $\mu_B$ increases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete UV matching of the dimension-six Kähler coefficients would upgrade the phase diagram from a survey over free parameters to a prediction; until then, the relative sizes of $c_B$ and the other coefficients determine which exotic phase dominates, and the NDA-based scans in the paper should be read as illustrating possibilities rather than as a unique phase diagram.
  • The same stabilization mechanism—anomaly-mediated soft terms plus positive higher-order Kähler corrections—should apply to other s-confining or chiral gauge theories at finite density, giving a general calculable route to dense strongly coupled sectors such as composite dark matter.
  • If real QCD with nearly massless quarks follows the same pattern, a transition out of the ordinary hadronic phase at intermediate density could show up as a softened or discontinuous equation of state in neutron-star mergers; the parity-breaking vacuum would also imply parity-violating transport in dense matter.
  • The claim that a QCD-like vacuum always exits before $\mu_B \sim \Lambda$ is the most robust qualitative output and can be tested independently of the exotic details: a future lattice calculation at finite density should see the hadronic order parameters change before the description becomes nonperturbative.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the phase structure of SU(3) s-confining supersymmetric QCD with four flavors, deformed by anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB) and coupled to a finite baryon chemical potential mu_B. The low-energy hadronic description is analyzed in terms of meson and baryon superfields, with the scalar potential including dimension-six Kähler operators. The authors show that a positive coefficient c_B for the operator (B†B)^2 stabilizes the runaway direction encountered at finite mu_B, and they scan the global minima of the potential in the m_{3/2}–mu_B plane under different assumptions for the low-energy constants. They report vacua with remnant symmetries SU(3)_V×U(1)_res, SU(3)_L/R×SU(4)_R/L×U(1)_res, and SU(3)_L×SU(3)_R, including spontaneous baryon-number and/or parity breaking, and find examples of both first- and second-order phase transitions. The central qualitative prediction is that a QCD-like vacuum at small mu_B always exits to another phase before the effective description breaks down for 0<mu_B<Lambda.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, this is one of the few calculable finite-density phase diagrams in a strongly coupled QCD-like theory, and the use of AMSB's UV insensitivity to jump directly to the low-energy composites is a genuine strength. The authors are also appropriately conservative in classifying parameter points with VEVs above the cutoff as non-perturbative, and they explicitly flag their main assumptions. The positive-sign assumption for the dimension-six Kähler coefficients is clearly identified, and the qualitative prediction that a QCD-like vacuum must be left before the EFT breaks down is falsifiable within the model. The main value of the paper is as a controlled model calculation, not yet as a direct quantitative statement about real QCD, and the manuscript would be more useful if the conditional status of the central claims were made more prominent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, after Eq. (3.6)] The stabilization mechanism that underlies every subsequent result depends on the sign of c_B and, by extension, the other Wilson coefficients in Eq. (3.5). The text states that perturbativity of the deep IR 'implies' that these coefficients are positive, but this implication is not established. Perturbativity of the Kähler metric at the origin constrains only the second derivatives of K at the origin, not the signs of the leading anharmonic coefficients. If c_B<0, Eq. (3.6) is unbounded below at this order and the hadronic EFT has no equilibrium ground state; such parameter points are then classified as non-perturbative rather than as phases. Because the existence of all three new phases and the 'always exits before Λ' prediction rest on this stabilization, the central claim is conditional on an unverified sign choice. Please either derive the sign from a UV-matching or positivity argument, or state the main results explicitly as contingent on c_i>0 and remove the 'implies' wording.
  2. [Section IV, Table I and Eq. (4.4)] The claimed remnant symmetry SU(3)_V×U(1)_res for the vacuum (x,v,b,b) appears inconsistent with the charge assignments used in the paper. From Eq. (2.16) and the superpotential in Eq. (2.8), B carries baryon number +1 while \bar B carries baryon number −1. To leave both nonzero VEVs invariant, any unbroken U(1) must act on B and \bar B with opposite phases. For the nondegenerate meson VEV diag(x,v,v,v) that defines this vacuum, the stabilizer in SU(4)_L×SU(4)_R forces the left and right transformations to be equal, so a common diagonal generator contributes the same phase to B and \bar B, and the two conditions α+θ=0 and α−θ=0 have only the trivial solution. The residual symmetry should therefore be SU(3)_V alone, with 23 Goldstone bosons, not SU(3)_V×U(1)_res with 22. A similar counting issue affects the SU(3)_L×SU(3)_R row: the stabilizer is 16-dimensional, giving 15 Goldstone bosons rather than the listed 14. The symmetry classification in Table I and the associated discussion in Section IV should be re-examined.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (6.1)] The classification of phase-transition order using the straight-line path d12(t) is only a proxy, as the authors acknowledge, but the manuscript goes on to infer first- and second-order transitions globally from the presence or absence of coexistence lines. A straight-line path can miss barriers or saddle points that exist off the line, so the absence of a barrier along d12(t) does not by itself establish a second-order transition in the full field space. Conversely, coexistence of two minima is a reliable indicator of a first-order transition only when no additional stationary points intervene. If the claim is restricted to the specific examples displayed in Fig. 4, this should be stated; if the claim is meant to apply to all boundaries in Figs. 2, 3, and 5, a more complete justification of the order classification is needed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B] The claim that field redefinitions cannot change the symmetry-breaking pattern is too strong as stated: a nonlinear field redefinition that is not a symmetry of the theory can change which fields acquire VEVs, even though the unbroken symmetry group itself is invariant. The argument would be cleaner if formulated directly in terms of the unbroken group rather than the mass-matrix rank.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'vacuua' should be 'vacua'.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (5.1)] The NDA normalization in Eq. (5.1) is used to define the phase diagrams, but the singularity in κ(μRG) near μRG=Λ and the strong dependence of the phase diagrams on the choice of μRG deserve a short comment in the main text, since Figs. 2 and 3 use different prescriptions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite-density phase structure is obtained by explicit minimization of a written-down EFT potential, with the positivity of Kähler coefficients stated as an assumption rather than hidden as a prediction.

full rationale

The central finite-density analysis is a self-contained calculation: the scalar potential is written down explicitly for Nc=3, Nf=4 in Eqs. (4.2)-(4.3) with the Kähler corrections in Appendix A, and the claimed vacua are obtained by minimizing that potential (with Kähler-metric positivity enforced in Appendix B), not by fitting data or by importing the target symmetry-breaking patterns. The dimension-six Kähler coefficients are explicitly treated as free low-energy constants ('we here treat them as free parameters'), and the stabilization condition is stated as an assumption ('We here assume that the deep IR is perturbative, which implies that the Wilson coefficients in Eq. (3.5) are positive'); an explicit assumption is not a disguised fit. The 'always exits to another phase before Lambda' claim is a numerical observation across several low-energy-constant schemes (Figs. 2, 3, 5, and Appendix C), not a tautology. Self-citations to Refs. [17, 23, 24] supply zero-chemical-potential and AMSB results; these are prior, checkable calculations with stated assumptions that do not include the finite-mu_B target result, and the paper re-derives the leading potential terms it uses. The explicit caveat that negative c_i would make Eq. (3.6) unbounded is an admitted limitation of the 1/Lambda expansion, not circular reasoning. No derivation step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the exact low-energy description of s-confining SQCD, on AMSB soft terms, on a dimension-six truncation of the Kähler potential, and on a positivity assumption for all Wilson coefficients. The low-energy couplings κ, λ and six c_i are free inputs marginalized with NDA or fixed-scale schemes. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced beyond the effective operators.

free parameters (8)
  • low-energy superpotential coupling κ
    Appears in W = -κ barB M B in Eq. (2.8); not predicted by the theory, varied and marginalized via NDA or fixed-scale schemes.
  • low-energy superpotential coupling λ
    Appears in W = λ det M / Λ in Eq. (2.8); not predicted, varied and marginalized; small λ pushes VEVs above Λ and is classified non-perturbative.
  • Kähler Wilson coefficient c_M1
    Coefficient of (Tr M†M)^2 in Eq. (3.5); treated as free and assumed positive.
  • Kähler Wilson coefficient c_M2
    Coefficient of Tr(M†M M†M) in Eq. (3.5); treated as free and assumed positive.
  • Kähler Wilson coefficient c_B
    Coefficient of (B†B)^2 + (barB†barB)^2 in Eq. (3.5); its positivity is what stabilizes the runaway in Eq. (3.6).
  • Kähler Wilson coefficient c_BbarB
    Coefficient of (B†B)(barB†barB) in Eq. (3.5); treated as free and assumed positive.
  • Kähler Wilson coefficient c_MB
    Coefficient of Tr(M†M)(B†B + barB†barB) in Eq. (3.5); treated as free and assumed positive.
  • Kähler Wilson coefficient c_BMMB
    Coefficient of B†M†M B + barB M M† barB† in Eq. (3.5); treated as free and assumed positive.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math For Nf = Nc + 1, SQCD is s-confining and the low-energy theory is described by mesons and baryons with superpotential Eq. (2.7).
    Standard exact result from Seiberg duality; the paper uses it as the starting low-energy EFT.
  • domain assumption AMSB soft terms are UV insensitive and are given by Eqs. (2.9)-(2.13).
    Taken from the AMSB literature [13-17]; the loop-induced positive soft masses compete with the chemical-potential tachyonic mass.
  • domain assumption The Kähler potential correction can be truncated at dimension six with the operators of Eq. (3.5).
    Assumes higher-order operators are subleading down to the confinement scale; App. B argues kinetic corrections do not alter the vacuum energy.
  • ad hoc to paper All dimension-six Kähler coefficients are positive.
    Required for stabilization; Section III states that if the c_i are negative the potential has runaway directions at this fixed order.
  • ad hoc to paper The straight-line path d12(t) in Eq. (6.1) is a valid proxy for classifying transition order.
    The paper acknowledges this is not the physical tunneling path; a straight-line proxy can miss energy barriers away from the line connecting the two minima.
  • ad hoc to paper Low-energy constants follow NDA or fixed-RG-scale normalization in Eq. (5.1).
    Because κ, λ and the c_i are unknown, the phase diagrams marginalize them with these schemes; results are scheme-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Novel Phases of a Baryon-Dense QCD-like Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OOW54GK5

@misc{pith2026250618964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Novel Phases of a Baryon-Dense QCD-like Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OOW54GK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18964}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the phases of a strongly coupled QCD-like theory at finite baryon chemical potential using s-confining supersymmetric QCD deformed by anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking. Focusing on the case of three colors and four flavors, we identify novel phases including spontaneous breaking of baryon number and/or parity. Both first-order and second-order phase transitions are observed as the baryon chemical potential is varied. These findings may offer insights into possible phases of real QCD at intermediate baryon densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18964 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase diagram with K¨ahler corrections at zero chemical potential for a specific parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Phase diagram in the plane of SUSY breaking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Phase diagram in the plane of SUSY breaking ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Highlight of the types of phase transitions that can occur. If there is no line at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Phase diagram in the plane of the Wilson coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. To Break or Not to Break: A Review of a No-Go Theorem on Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD-like Theories

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review showing that if a QCD-like theory with enough massless flavors is fully color-screened in the infrared, then chiral symmetry must be spontaneously broken.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [12]

    Supersymmetric color superconductivity,

    R. Harnik, D. T. Larson, and H. Murayama, “Supersymmetric color superconductivity,” JHEP 03, 049 (2004), hep-ph/0309224

    arXiv 2004

  2. [1]

    Rajagopal and F

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, The Condensed matter physics of QCD (2000), pp. 2061–2151, hep-ph/0011333

    arXiv 2000

  3. [2]

    Color superconducting quark matter,

    M. G. Alford, “Color superconducting quark matter,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, 131 (2001), hep-ph/0102047. 21

    arXiv 2001

  4. [3]

    Quark hadron continuity in QCD with one flavor,

    T. Sch¨ afer, “Quark hadron continuity in QCD with one flavor,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 094007 (2000), hep-ph/0006034

    arXiv 2000

  5. [4]

    Crystalline color superconductivity,

    M. G. Alford, J. A. Bowers, and K. Rajagopal, “Crystalline color superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 074016 (2001), hep-ph/0008208

    arXiv 2001

  6. [5]

    Lattice-based QCD equation of state at finite baryon density: Cluster Expansion Model,

    V. Vovchenko, J. Steinheimer, O. Philipsen, A. Pasztor, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and H. Stoecker, “Lattice-based QCD equation of state at finite baryon density: Cluster Expansion Model,” Nucl. Phys. A 982, 859 (2019), 1807.06472

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Finite density QCD via imaginary chemical potential,

    M. D’Elia and M.-P. Lombardo, “Finite density QCD via imaginary chemical potential,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 014505 (2003), hep-lat/0209146

    arXiv 2003

  8. [7]

    Finite density QCD with a canonical approach

    P. de Forcrand and S. Kratochvila, “Finite density QCD with a canonical approach,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 153, 62 (2006), hep-lat/0602024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review,

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, “From hadrons to quarks in neutron stars: a review,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018), 1707.04966

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    QCD phase diagram at finite isospin and baryon chemical potentials with the self-consistent mean field approximation,

    Z.-Q. Wu, J.-L. Ping, and H.-S. Zong, “QCD phase diagram at finite isospin and baryon chemical potentials with the self-consistent mean field approximation,” Chin. Phys. C 45, 064102 (2021), 2009.13070

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,

    N. Seiberg, “Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 6857 (1994), hep-th/9402044

    1994 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,

    N. Seiberg, “Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 435, 129 (1995), hep-th/9411149

    1995 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, “Out of this world supersymmetry breaking,” Nucl. Phys. B 557, 79 (1999), hep-th/9810155

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gaugino mass without singlets,

    G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, and R. Rattazzi, “Gaugino mass without singlets,” JHEP 12, 027 (1998), hep-ph/9810442

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sparticle masses from the superconformal anomaly,

    A. Pomarol and R. Rattazzi, “Sparticle masses from the superconformal anomaly,” JHEP 05, 013 (1999), hep-ph/9903448

    1999 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Anomaly-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking Demystified,

    D.-W. Jung and J. Y. Lee, “Anomaly-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking Demystified,” JHEP 03, 123 (2009), 0902.0464

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,

    H. Murayama, “Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 251601 (2021), 2104.01179

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    More exact results on chiral gauge theories: The case of the symmetric tensor,

    C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama, and O. Telem, “More exact results on chiral gauge theories: The case of the symmetric tensor,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 045007 (2022), 2105.03444

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Demonstration of Confinement and Chi- ral Symmetry Breaking in SO(Nc) Gauge Theories,

    C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, and O. Telem, “Demonstration of Confinement and Chi- ral Symmetry Breaking in SO(Nc) Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 251602 (2021), 2106.10288

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Phases of confining SU(5) chiral gauge theory with three genera- tions,

    Y. Bai and D. Stolarski, “Phases of confining SU(5) chiral gauge theory with three genera- tions,” JHEP 03, 113 (2022), 2111.11214

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    On the derivation of chiral symmetry breaking in QCD-like theories and S-confining theories,

    A. Luzio and L.-X. Xu, “On the derivation of chiral symmetry breaking in QCD-like theories and S-confining theories,” JHEP 08, 016 (2022), 2202.01239

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dynamics of Simplest Chiral Gauge Theories,

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama, and C. Sylber, “Dynamics of Simplest Chiral Gauge Theories,” (2022), 2209.09287

    2022

  15. [23]

    A Guide to AMSB QCD,

    C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, B. Noether, D. R. Varier, and O. Telem, “A Guide to AMSB QCD,” (2022), 2212.03260

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On s-confining SUSY-QCD with anomaly mediation,

    C. H. de Lima and D. Stolarski, “On s-confining SUSY-QCD with anomaly mediation,” JHEP 22 10, 020 (2023), 2307.13154

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Spontaneous CP breaking in a QCD-like theory,

    C. Cs´ aki, M. Ruhdorfer, and T. Youn, “Spontaneous CP breaking in a QCD-like theory,” JHEP 12, 066 (2024), 2407.06252

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Exact Results in Chiral Gauge Theories with Flavor,

    J. M. Leedom, H. Murayama, G. Singh, B. Suter, and J. Wong, “Exact Results in Chiral Gauge Theories with Flavor,” (2025), 2503.08772

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Dynamics of E6 Chiral Gauge Theories,

    A. Goh, H. Murayama, G. Singh, B. Suter, and J. Wong, “Dynamics of E6 Chiral Gauge Theories,” (2025), 2505.07931

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Near-SUSY to Non-SUSY Crossover,

    D. Kondo, H. Murayama, and B. Noether, “Near-SUSY to Non-SUSY Crossover,” (2025), 2505.18138

    2025

  21. [29]

    Spin-Triplet Pairing in Heavy Nuclei Is Stable against Deformation,

    G. Palkanoglou, M. Stuck, and A. Gezerlis, “Spin-Triplet Pairing in Heavy Nuclei Is Stable against Deformation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 032501 (2025), 2402.13313

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Symmetry properties of pair correlations in heavy deformed nuclei,

    G. Palkanoglou and A. Gezerlis, “Symmetry properties of pair correlations in heavy deformed nuclei,” (2025), 2505.08879

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Overview of neutron–proton pairing,

    S. Frauendorf and A. O. Macchiavelli, “Overview of neutron–proton pairing,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 78, 24 (2014), 1405.1652

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Pairing in nuclear systems: From neutron stars to finite nuclei,

    D. J. Dean and M. Hjorth-Jensen, “Pairing in nuclear systems: From neutron stars to finite nuclei,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 607 (2003), nucl-th/0210033

    2003 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Superfluidity in nuclear systems and neutron stars,

    A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, “Superfluidity in nuclear systems and neutron stars,” Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 167 (2019), 1802.00017

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Spin-triplet pairing in large nuclei,

    G. F. Bertsch and Y. Luo, “Spin-triplet pairing in large nuclei,” Phys. Rev. C 81, 064320 (2010), 0912.2533

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. Bai, C. H. de Lima, and D. Stolarski , to appear (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Searching for Fermi Surfaces in Super-QED,

    A. Cherman, S. Grozdanov, and E. Hardy, “Searching for Fermi Surfaces in Super-QED,” JHEP 06, 046 (2014), 1308.0335

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symme- try breaking,

    S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, “Radiative corrections as the origin of spontaneous symme- try breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 7, 1888 (1973), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.7.1888

    1973

  30. [38]

    Functional evaluation of the effective potential,

    R. Jackiw, “Functional evaluation of the effective potential,” Phys. Rev. D 9, 1686 (1974), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1686

    1974 doi

  31. [39]

    Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,

    S. P. Martin, “Two Loop Effective Potential for a General Renormalizable Theory and Softly Broken Supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 65, 116003 (2002), hep-ph/0111209

    2002 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Effective potential at three loops,

    S. P. Martin, “Effective potential at three loops,” Phys. Rev. D 96, 096005 (2017), 1709.02397

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Effective K¨ ahler and auxiliary field potentials for chiral superfield models at three loops,

    S. P. Martin, “Effective K¨ ahler and auxiliary field potentials for chiral superfield models at three loops,” (2024), 2408.04589

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    The One loop effective superpotential and nonholomorphicity,

    A. Pickering and P. C. West, “The One loop effective superpotential and nonholomorphicity,” Phys. Lett. B 383, 54 (1996), hep-th/9604147

    1996 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Effective Kahler potentials,

    M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek, and R. von Unge, “Effective Kahler potentials,” Phys. Lett. B 383, 415 (1996), hep-th/9605149

    1996 arXiv

  36. [44]

    One loop Kahler potential in non renormalizable theories,

    A. Brignole, “One loop Kahler potential in non renormalizable theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 579, 101 (2000), hep-th/0001121

    2000 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Two Loop effective Kahler potential of (non- )renormalizable supersymmetric models,

    S. Groot Nibbelink and T. S. Nyawelo, “Two Loop effective Kahler potential of (non- )renormalizable supersymmetric models,” JHEP 01, 034 (2006), hep-th/0511004

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The one-loop effective potential of the Wess-Zumino model revisited,

    S. M. Kuzenko and S. J. Tyler, “The one-loop effective potential of the Wess-Zumino model revisited,” JHEP 09, 135 (2014), 1407.5270

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Supersymmetric effective potential: su- perfield approach,

    I. Buchbinder, S. Kuzenko, and J. Yarevskaya, “Supersymmetric effective potential: su- perfield approach,” Nuclear Physics B 411, 665 (1994), ISSN 0550-3213, URL https: 23 //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0550321394904669

    1994

  40. [48]

    The SUSY-QCD beta function to three loops,

    R. V. Harlander, L. Mihaila, and M. Steinhauser, “The SUSY-QCD beta function to three loops,” Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 383 (2009), 0905.4807

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    N=1 supersymmetry and the three loop gauge Beta function,

    I. Jack, D. R. T. Jones, and C. G. North, “N=1 supersymmetry and the three loop gauge Beta function,” Phys. Lett. B 386, 138 (1996), hep-ph/9606323

    1996 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Three loop gauge beta function for the most general single gauge coupling theory,

    A. G. M. Pickering, J. A. Gracey, and D. R. T. Jones, “Three loop gauge beta function for the most general single gauge coupling theory,” Phys. Lett. B 510, 347 (2001), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 535, 377 (2002)], hep-ph/0104247

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Phenomenological Lagrangians,

    S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A 96, 327 (1979)

    1979

  44. [52]

    Naive dimensional analysis and supersymmetry,

    M. A. Luty, “Naive dimensional analysis and supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 1531 (1998), hep-ph/9706235

    1998 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Counting 4 pis in strongly coupled supersym- metry,

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, “Counting 4 pis in strongly coupled supersym- metry,” Phys. Lett. B 412, 301 (1997), hep-ph/9706275

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.