Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

The BRS Cohomology of the Wess Zumino Chiral Scalar supersymmetric model with exotic pairs and exotic triplets (E2)

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Wess-Zumino model's BRS cohomology contains new 'exotic' invariants, anomalies, and changes built from pseudofields and a constant spinor.

desk verdict The paper's central exotic invariant fails its own cocycle check even at g=0; the spectral-sequence scaffolding is real, but the load-bearing result is unverified and likely wrong. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14174 v1 pith:PMIKZGQ2 submitted 2025-07-10 physics.gen-ph hep-th

John A. Dixon This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-phhep-th PACS 11.30.Pb
keywords BRScohomologysupersymmetryanomaliesWess-Zuminomodelspectralsequenceexoticpairstripletspseudofieldsconstantspinor
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

The paper claims that the massless interacting Wess-Zumino supersymmetric model has BRS cohomology classes that previous work missed, because previous work omitted the pseudofield sources for the field variations. When those sources are included and free spinor indices are saturated with a constant spinor, the spectral sequence produces an exotic pair $(E, \Omega)$: a ghost-charge-zero invariant $E$ and a ghost-charge-one anomaly $\Omega$, together with constraint equations that select the surviving coefficient tensors. At dimension one it also produces an exotic triplet $(C, E, \Omega)$, adding a ghost-charge-minus-one 'change' $C$. If correct, supersymmetry has its own anomalies unrelated to gauge anomalies, and the standard renormalization theorem that counterterms split into $\delta_{\mathrm{BRS}} F$ plus field-only invariants fails.

What carries the argument

The engine is the spectral sequence generated by the grading $N_{\mathrm{Grading}} = N_C + N_{\bar C} + 2N_\xi + N_m + N_A + N_\psi + N_F + N_\Gamma + N_Y + N_\Lambda$ plus complex conjugates; the paper calls the successive killing of terms by the differentials the 'Elizabethan drama.' The BRS operator splits into graded pieces $\delta = \delta_0 + \delta_1 + \delta_2$, and the spaces $E_{r+1} = \ker d_r \cap \ker d_r^\dagger$ inside $E_r$ converge to $E_\infty \cong H$. In the relevant sectors the differentials take the form $d_2 = \Pi_2 (g_{abc} A^b A^c C^\alpha)\psi^{a\dagger}_\alpha \Pi_2$ and a higher $d_3$, and the requirement that objects survive to $E_\infty$ produces constraint equations such as $e_a g_{abc} = 0$ and $g_{d(bc}e_{a)} = 0$. The constant spinor $\phi^\alpha$ (dimension $\tfrac12$) is introduced to saturate the unsaturated spinor indices so that spin-$\tfrac12$ cohomology classes become Lorentz scalars.

What would settle it

Solve the constraint equations for a concrete coupling and check whether the proposed representatives are coboundaries. For instance, take the three-field coupling to be the SU(2) structure constants, $g_{abc} = \varepsilon_{abc}$; then $e_{ab} \varepsilon_{abc} = 0$ forces $e_{ab} = 0$, so the Section 6.3 exotic pair would vanish for that model. A second check is to act on the explicit $E$ in (357) with $\delta_{\mathrm{BRS}}$ using the table (18) and verify whether the result is a total derivative for any nontrivial tensor; if the only solutions are $e_b^a = 0$, the central claim of a surviving exotic pair collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is the construction, via the spectral sequence, of explicit representatives in the BRS cohomology $H = \ker \delta_{\mathrm{BRS}} \cap \ker \delta_{\mathrm{BRS}}^\dagger$. Equation (357) gives the exotic invariant $E = e_b^a \phi^\alpha \int d^4x \, \{ C_\alpha(\bar\Gamma^a A_b + \bar Y^{a\dot\alpha} \psi_{b\dot\alpha} + \bar\Lambda^a F_b) + (A^a \partial_{\alpha\dot\alpha} \bar\psi^{\dot\alpha}_b + \psi^a_\alpha F_b) \} \in H$, with ghost charge zero; it is a sum of a pseudofield-dependent piece $E_1$ and a field-only piece $E_2$ whose separate variations cancel only up to the field equations. Equation (359) gives the exotic change $C = e^{[ab]} \int d^4x \, \{ \Gamma_a(\phi\psi_b) + Y_a^\alpha \bar\phi^{\dot\alpha}\partial_{\alpha\dot\alpha} A_b + (\Lambda_a\Gamma_b - \tfrac12 Y^\alpha_a Y_{b\alpha})(\phi C) \} \in H$, with ghost charge minus one. Each exotic pair obeys $d_2 E = 0$ and $d_2^\dagger \Omega = 0$, and each exotic triplet obeys the additional relations $d_3 C = 0$ and $d_3^\dagger E = 0$. The paper argues these objects are not superspace scalars and could not be guessed without the spectral sequence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that nonzero coefficient tensors solving the constraint equations (for example $e_a g_{abc} = 0$) exist; the paper assumes such tensors rather than exhibiting one, so for a generic coupling the new cohomology classes could all vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ghost-charge-one elements $\Omega$ are candidate supersymmetry anomalies, distinct from all gauge-type anomalies, whose coefficients still require a Feynman diagram calculation.
  • The standard decomposition of counterterms, $\delta_{\mathrm{BRS}} A_{\mathrm{counterterms}} = 0 \Rightarrow A_{\mathrm{counterterms}} = \delta_{\mathrm{BRS}} F + A_{\mathrm{invariants}}$ with field-only invariants, fails when invariants like (357) contain pseudofields and ghosts.
  • The new invariants depend on pseudofields, so their field-only parts are not supersymmetric; superspace methods would not find them because they are not superspace scalars.
  • The exotic triplets' ghost-charge-minus-one 'changes' $C$ are new objects that modify the theory, not just its anomalies.
  • Applying the same spectral sequence at higher dimension and higher spin is expected to produce still more exotic structures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: A decisive physical test is whether the constraint equations admit nonzero tensors for any realistic coupling; for couplings like the structure constants of a simple Lie algebra, analogous cohomology conditions can vanish, so the exotic classes may be absent in those models.
  • Inference: If nonzero solutions exist, the ghost-charge-minus-one changes $C$ could generate canonical transformations between actions, giving a new handle on field redefinitions and renormalization beyond [32].
  • Inference: Replacing the constant spinor by a chiral dotted spinor superfield, as the author plans, would turn these formal cohomology classes into propagating multiplets and may allow triangle-diagram computation of the anomaly coefficients.
  • Inference: The appearance of exotic classes only after including pseudofields suggests the physical content of BRS cohomology depends on the choice of field-source variables, which would affect how anomalies are defined in any supersymmetric theory.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the BRS cohomology of the massless interacting Wess–Zumino model contains new classes, called exotic pairs (E, Ω) and exotic triplets (C, E, Ω), which are invisible if pseudofield sources are omitted. The construction uses a spectral sequence graded by a 'NGrading' operator, and introduces a constant spinor φα to saturate free spinor indices. The central explicit results are the dimension-zero invariant E in Eq. (357) and the dimension-one object C in Eq. (359), together with constraint equations on coefficient tensors such as Eqs. (128) and (360). The paper argues that these objects lie in H = ker δBRS ∩ ker δ†BRS and represent cohomology classes that could correspond to new supersymmetry anomalies.

Significance. If the claimed exotic pairs and triplets were genuine BRS cohomology classes, the result would be significant: it would contradict the common expectation that supersymmetric anomalies reduce to supersymmetric extensions of ordinary gauge anomalies, and it would open a new direction for anomaly analysis in SUSY models. The paper also has strengths: it gives explicit candidate representatives rather than only existence statements, it uses no fitted parameters, and it builds on previously published spectral-sequence machinery [3,4,17] rather than introducing a new formalism ad hoc. The falsifiable character of the explicit cocycle candidates is a genuine virtue. However, the central candidate invariant fails a basic closure check, and the constraint-tensor existence is never demonstrated, so the significance is currently prospective rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 9, Eq. (357)] The displayed invariant E in Eq. (357) is not δBRS-closed. Using the massless part of the transformations (18), the term Cα Γa Ab in E produces, from δAb = ψbγ Cγ, a contribution Cα Γa ψbγ Cγ. The term Cα Y a β̇ ψbβ̇ produces, from δY a β̇ = −Γa C β̇ + ... , a contribution −Cα Γa C β̇ ψbβ̇. These two terms have different spinor and ghost index structures — one involves the undotted ghost Cγ contracted with ψγ, the other the dotted ghost Cβ̇ contracted with ψβ̇ — so they cannot cancel each other for any choice of signs or coefficients. No other term in (357) contains Γ ψ. This failure is present already at g = 0, where all constraint equations are vacuous. Therefore either table (18), Eq. (357), or the asserted E∞ → H isomorphism is misstated, and the central cohomology claim is unsupported.
  2. [Sections 6.3 and 7.8; Eqs. (128), (360)] The isomorphisms E∞ → H are conditional on coefficient tensors satisfying constraint equations such as eab gabc = 0 in Eq. (128) and gd(bc e a) = 0 in Eq. (360), but the paper never exhibits a single nonzero solution of these constraints. The text repeatedly says 'These are for tensors that satisfy the constraint equations, of course' (e.g., after Eqs. (263)–(266) and (351)), yet no example or dimensionality argument is given. For generic couplings, such as structure constants of a semisimple Lie algebra, the analogous constraint space can be trivial, in which case the exotic classes would vanish identically. This is a load-bearing premise: without a nontrivial solution, the claimed new cohomology classes have not been shown to exist at all.
  3. [Section 7.3, Eqs. (300)–(331)] The d1 analysis in Section 7.3 uses the symbol '⊕' to indicate that 'two different linear combinations are needed for the two mappings', but the actual linear combinations are never written. The survival of particular combinations to E2, such as the object in Eq. (319), is essential for the subsequent d2 and d3 maps and for the final exotic triplet C in Eq. (359). Without the explicit combinations, the computation cannot be independently checked. This gap is compounded by the manuscript's own admissions in the Glossary: under 'Missing Terms in the Elizabethan drama' it states 'This is a concern, certainly', and under 'dr Differential Operator' it states that denominators 1/Δ0 were ignored. Those admissions make an independent check mandatory rather than optional.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (18)] The transformation table (18) needs to be made precise before any explicit cocycle check can be trusted. There are apparent index inconsistencies, for example δF i = ∂αβ ψiα Cβ versus the surrounding notation in which dotted and undotted ghosts are distinguished, and the Glossary states that 'the spectral sequence is very forgiving' about signs and factors. For the claim that a specific polynomial is δBRS-closed, signs and index placements are not forgiving at all. The paper should provide a consistent version of table (18) and verify the closure of the displayed representatives (357) and (359) by direct computation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5] The constant spinor φα is introduced in Section 5 without stating its Grassmann parity; the Glossary later indicates it is Grassmann odd. This should be stated in the main text at first use.
  2. [Section 1.1, item 7] The word 'tripets' is a typo for 'triplets'.
  3. [Section 2.8] The word 'Eliabethan' should be 'Elizabethan'.
  4. [Section 1.1, item 4] The word 'isomophic' should be 'isomorphic'.
  5. [Glossary] The Glossary contains several typos: 'postive' should be 'positive', 'calulaation' should be 'calculation', and 'Fadeev Popov' should be 'Faddeev–Popov'.
  6. [References] Reference [2] is described as the first in a series of papers labelled (En), but the present paper is E2; this self-referential series structure should be explained or removed, since it is not standard for a standalone journal submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exotic cohomology classes are computed, not assumed; self-citations supply machinery but are not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that new BRS cohomology classes (exotic pairs and triplets) exist for the massless interacting Wess-Zumino model. Those classes are extracted from a spectral-sequence computation built on the BRS transformations in (18) and on the prior spectral-sequence formalism of refs. [3,4,17]. The target objects (357) and (359) are not used as inputs; they emerge as proposed representatives for E_infinity-to-H isomorphisms, and the constraint equations such as e_ab g_abc = 0 (128) and gd(bced a) = 0 (360) are derived conditions for survival to E_infinity, not fitted parameters. Self-citations to the author's earlier work are present, but they supply the general spectral-sequence framework and the form of E1, not the exotic cohomology result itself, so the dependence is method reuse rather than a circular reduction. The manuscript itself flags correctness gaps: the glossary admits 'Missing Terms in the Elizabethan drama: This is a concern, certainly' and notes that denominators 1/Delta0 in higher differentials were ignored, and the displayed invariant (357) is not explicitly shown to be delta_BRS-closed in the text. Those are falsifiability and completeness risks, not evidence that a prediction has been equated with its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on the spectral sequence machinery from the author's earlier work, on the unproven solvability of the constraint equations, and on the ad hoc constant spinor. No free parameters are fitted to data; the theory parameters (m, g_abc) are taken as inputs, with m set to zero.

free parameters (3)
  • constant spinor phi_alpha / phi_alphadot = not specified
    An arbitrary constant spinor with assigned dimension 1/2, introduced to saturate free spinor indices; the physical normalization and value are not given and do not enter the cohomology as a dynamical variable.
  • mass m = 0
    The paper sets m=0 to simplify the spectral sequence and claims the massive case can be restored without changing results, but this restoration is not demonstrated.
  • coupling tensors g_abc, g_ab, g_a = arbitrary
    Model parameters of the WZ action; the existence of solutions to the constraint equations depends on their values, and no non-zero solution is exhibited.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Spectral sequence convergence: the spaces E_r converge to a space E_infinity isomorphic to the BRS cohomology H = ker delta intersect ker delta-dagger for the chosen grading and positive definite metric.
    Invoked throughout (Sections 1.2, 2.2) and attributed to [3]; the paper takes the isomorphism E_infinity about equal to H as given.
  • domain assumption The cohomology of the structure operator delta_Structure = C_alpha C_betadot xi-dagger has the explicit form (61)-(63) with the stated C and Cbar sectors.
    Used in Sections 2.3 and 3 to construct E1; taken from the author's earlier paper [4], which is not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption The BRS variations (18) are nilpotent and satisfy the master equation (17), including the pseudofields.
    The entire spectral sequence starts from this operator; nilpotence is asserted but not proved in the paper (the paper notes signs and factors are 'roughly' correct).
  • domain assumption The mass parameter m can be set to zero without changing the structure of the cohomology; restoring m is 'not difficult'.
    Section 3 states this simplification; no computation with m non-zero is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The constant spinor phi (and conjugate) is spacetime constant, has assigned dimension 1/2, and does not transform under the symmetry.
    Introduced in Section 5 to saturate spinor indices; the dimension and normalization are chosen by hand with a view to future superfield work.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen grading NGrading in (21) generates a valid spectral sequence whose higher differentials d_r can be computed and truncated at low dimension.
    The paper asserts this choice is 'very important' and 'completely determines and generates the particular spectral sequence' (Section 1.2); the validity of the truncation is not proven.
invented entities (1)
  • constant spinor phi_alpha and conjugate phi_alphadot
    purpose: Probe spin-1/2 BRS cohomology by saturating free spinor indices with a Lorentz-invariant object
    A non-dynamical constant object with an ad hoc dimension assignment; no physical prediction or falsifiable consequence is attached.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The BRS Cohomology of the Wess Zumino Chiral Scalar supersymmetric model with exotic pairs and exotic triplets (E2)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PMIKZGQ2

@misc{pith2026250714174,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The BRS Cohomology of the Wess Zumino Chiral Scalar supersymmetric model with exotic pairs and exotic triplets (E2)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PMIKZGQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14174}
}
read the original abstract

Using the spectral sequence method, this paper advances some of the construction of the BRS cohomology of the Wess Zumino supersymmetric action. An important missing part was the inclusion of the sources for the variations of the fields. In this paper, these sources are called pseudofields. Since the most interesting part of the result contains unsaturated spinor indices, we include a constant spinor to saturate those indices. At dimension zero, this gives rise to a new set of invariants and a closely related new set of possible supersymmetry anomalies in the theory, and we call this an `exotic pair'. At dimension one, this becomes more complicated, and the theory adds a new ghost charge - 1 term, which we call a change, and we call this an `exotic triplet'. For higher dimension and higher spin, it appears that more complications are likely to occur. These exotic pairs and triplets are constrained by some simple equations which arise from the spectral sequence. The invariants of the exotic pairs are all dependent on the pseudofields, which means that the field parts of these invariants are not supersymmetric, though the invariants are in the cohomology space of supersymmetry. In this paper we examine the BRS cohomology for low spins and low dimensions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Supergauge Transformations in Four dimen- sions

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge Transformations in Four dimen- sions ”, Nucl. Phys. B 70, 39-50 (1974)

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Supersymmetry anomalies, exotic pairs and the supersym- metric standard model (E1)

    J. A. Dixon “ Supersymmetry anomalies, exotic pairs and the supersym- metric standard model (E1)”, May 2024, [arXiv:2407.13673]. This is the first of a series of papers labelled (En), n=1,2, ... and several of those will emerge at the same time as this paper. They show that the present re- sults can generate several modifications in the Supersymmetric Sta...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Calculation of BRS cohomology with spectral sequences

    J. A. Dixon, “Calculation of BRS cohomology with spectral sequences”, Commun. Math. Phys. 139, 495-526 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    BRS cohomology of the supertransla- tions in D = 4

    J. A. Dixon and R. Minasian, “BRS cohomology of the supertransla- tions in D = 4”, Commun. Math. Phys. 172, 1-12 (1995) [arXiv:hep- th/9304035 [hep-th]]. Some errors of notation have crept into the ap- pendix to this paper. They should be corrected

    work page arXiv 1995

  5. [5]

    A User’s Guide to spectral sequences

    J. McCleary, “A User’s Guide to spectral sequences”, Second Edition, Cambridge 2001. This introduces spectral sequence in their well known mathematical context. A transition to their use in local BRS cohomol- ogy for quantum field theory is made in [3]. The history of the spectral sequence is remarkable [6]

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Andler, Re: Jean Leray, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20461339

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    An early and pithy introduction 64 was in [10]

    The Master Equation goes back to [8] and Zinn-Justin’s early contribu- tion is set out in a later textbook [9]. An early and pithy introduction 64 was in [10]. A bit of history and Zinn Justin’s involvement is in [11]. A more recent treatment is in [12]

    work page

  8. [8]

    Renormalization of Gauge Theories,

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, “Renormalization of Gauge Theories,” Annals Phys. 98, 287 (1976)

    work page 1976

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena

    J. Zinn-Justin, “Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena”, Ox- ford Science Publications, Reprinted 1990

    1990

  2. [10]

    Gauge Theories of Weak Interactions

    J. C. Taylor, “Gauge Theories of Weak Interactions”, Cambridge 1976, 167p

    1976

  3. [11]

    From Slavnov-Taylor identities to the ZJ equation

    A summary and some history can be found in J. Zinn-Justin, “From Slavnov-Taylor identities to the ZJ equation”, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 272, 288 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Weinberg, “The quantum theory of fields volume 2, Cambridge 2005, Chapter 22 is a textbook treatment of gauge anomalies

    S. Weinberg, “The quantum theory of fields volume 2, Cambridge 2005, Chapter 22 is a textbook treatment of gauge anomalies. The text also introduces BRS symmetry and the master equation that we use here

    2005

  5. [13]

    Slavnov–Taylor and Ward identities in the electroweak the- ory,

    C. Becchi, “Slavnov–Taylor and Ward identities in the electroweak the- ory,” Theor. Math. Phys. 182, no. 1, 52 (2015) [Teor. Mat. Fiz. 182, no. 1, 65 (2014)] doi:10.1007/s11232-015-0244-8 [arXiv:1407.3960 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Becchi, http:// www.scholarpedia.org /article/Becchi-Rouet-Stora- Tyutin symmetry

    C. Becchi, http:// www.scholarpedia.org /article/Becchi-Rouet-Stora- Tyutin symmetry

  7. [15]

    Supersymmetry is full of holes

    J. A. Dixon, “Supersymmetry is full of holes”, Class. Quant. Grav. 7, 1511-1521 (1990) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/7/8/026

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    BRS cohomology of the chiral superfield

    J. A. Dixon, “BRS cohomology of the chiral superfield”, Commun. Math. Phys. 140, 169-201 (1991)

    1991

  9. [17]

    J. A. Dixon, R. Minasian and J. Rahmfeld, ”Higher spin BRS cohomol- ogy of supersymmetric chiral matter in D = 4”, Commun. Math. Phys. 171, 459-474 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9308013 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hamlet, Act V, Scene II, Last Lines, William Shakespeare

    Shakespeare, 65 Fortinbras: ...Take up the bodies: such a sight as this Becomes the field, but here shows much amiss Go, bid the soldiers shoot. Hamlet, Act V, Scene II, Last Lines, William Shakespeare

  11. [19]

    The Cosmological constant Problem

    S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological constant Problem”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989). This summarizes problems that are still outstanding after 35 years

    1989

  12. [20]

    P. C. West, The coupling of dotted chiral spinor superfields to super- gravity is discussed briefly on page 138 of the textbook ”Introduction to supersymmetry and supergravity”, Revised and Extended Second Edi- tion, World Scientific, https://doi.org/10.1142/1002, May 1990

    doi

  13. [21]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, ‘Supergravity’, Cambridge, UK (2012): ISBN: 9781139368063 (eBook), 9780521194013 (Print) (Cam- bridge University Press)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Supersymmetry

    Many of the original papers on SUSY and Supergravity are collected in “Supersymmetry”, Vols. 1 and 2, ed. Sergio Ferrara, North Holland, World Scientific, (1987)

    1987

  15. [23]

    Superspace

    S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, “Superspace”, Benjamin, 1983

    1983

  16. [24]

    Ideas and methods of supersym- metry and supergravity: Or a walk through superspace

    I. L. Buchbinder and S. M. Kuzenko, “Ideas and methods of supersym- metry and supergravity: Or a walk through superspace”, Bristol, UK: IOP (1998) 656 p

    1998

  17. [25]

    Weak scale supersymmetry: From superfields to scattering events

    H. Baer and X. Tata, “Weak scale supersymmetry: From superfields to scattering events”, Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    The Quantum Theory of fields

    Steven Weinberg: “The Quantum Theory of fields” Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052155002. This contains a readable brief history, a summary of the problems with SUSY, and a useful summary dealing with the renormalization group in the context of SUSY GUT. 66

  19. [27]

    Haber, The Review of Particle Physics (2017) C

    Howard E. Haber, The Review of Particle Physics (2017) C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), SUPERSYMMETRY, PART I (THEORY), Revised September 2015 http://pdg.lbl.gov/

    2017

  20. [28]

    Buchmueller and P

    O. Buchmueller and P. de Jong, The Review of Particle Physics (2017) C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), SUPERSYMMETRY, PART II (EXPERIMENT) Updated September 2015. http://pdg.lbl.gov/

    2017

  21. [29]

    Supersymmetry and Supergravity

    J. Wess and J. Bagger, “Supersymmetry and Supergravity”, Princeton University Press, 1992, ISBN 978-0-691-02530-8

    1992

  22. [30]

    Superstring Theory Vol. 1: 25th Anniversary Edition

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, “Superstring Theory Vol. 1: 25th Anniversary Edition”, Cambridge University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-1-139-53477-2, 978-1-107-02911-8

    2012

  23. [31]

    Supersymmetry, Supergravity, and Unification

    Pran Nath, “Supersymmetry, Supergravity, and Unification”, (Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics) ,Dec 15, 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Field Redefinition and Renormalization in Gauge Theo- ries

    J. A. Dixon, “Field Redefinition and Renormalization in Gauge Theo- ries”, Nucl. Phys. B 99, 420 (1975)

    1975

  25. [33]

    ( Frontiers In Physics, 60), (1985)

    Ross, Graham G., ‘GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES’, Reading, USA: Benjamin/Cummings ( 1984) 497 P. ( Frontiers In Physics, 60), (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    Hebecker and J

    A. Hebecker and J. Hisano, The Review of Particle Physics (2017) C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), 16. GRAND UNIFIED THEO- RIES Revised January 2016 by http://pdg.lbl.gov/

    2017

  27. [35]

    Gauge Algebra and Quantization

    I. A. Batalin and G.A. Vilkovisky, “Gauge Algebra and Quantization”, Physics Leters B 102.1 (1981): 27-31 Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Does SUSY have its own type of Anomalies? . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Plan of this paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1....

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.