Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The unification in an $\widehat {\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{u}}(8)_{ k_U = 1}$ affine Lie algebra

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An N=1 supersymmetric extension of the SU(8) flavor-unified theory achieves gauge coupling unification at $v_U \approx 8 \times 10^{17}$ GeV, with the U(1) coupling exactly one quarter of the non-Abelian couplings at that scale.

desk verdict Solid conformal-embedding math under a conditional SUSY unification claim; worth refereeing but the central result is not robust as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12979 v2 pith:IOHDFCCH submitted 2024-11-20 hep-ph hep-th

Ning Chen , Zhanpeng Hou , Zhaolong Teng This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords SU(8)grandunificationaffineLiealgebraconformalembeddinggaugecouplingN=1supersymmetryflavorrenormalizationgroupequationsKac-Moody
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 promoting the $\mathfrak{su}(8)$ flavor-unified theory to an $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric theory between the intermediate scale $v_{441}$ and the unification scale $v_U$ makes the three gauge couplings meet at a single point, which the minimal non-supersymmetric theory fails to do. The unification point sits at about $8 \times 10^{17}$ GeV, close to the Planck scale, and the affine-level-1 structure fixes the Abelian coupling to be one quarter of the two non-Abelian couplings at the GUT scale. If true, this removes the main obstruction to an $\mathfrak{su}(8)$ framework that already generates the Standard Model fermion mass hierarchies and CKM mixing, and it connects the GUT scale to quantum-gravity-scale physics.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the conformal embedding of affine Lie algebras, a subclass of affine embeddings in which the central charges of the subalgebras add up to the central charge of the parent. For $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(8)_1$, the equal-central-charge condition fixes both non-Abelian sublevels to $(k_s,k_W)=(1,1)$, and matching conformal dimensions of all fields through the branching rules fixes the physical $\mathfrak{u}(1)$ level to $k_{0,\mathrm{phys}}=1/4$. This relation is then turned into a coupling-constant statement, Eq. (37), and the $\mathcal{N}=1$ SUSY RGEs with a specific massless chiral-superfield spectrum, plus one DR-MS threshold correction at $v_{441}$ and one gravitational HSW operator, carry the numerical unification.

What would settle it

Re-run the two-loop RGEs with the SUSY threshold placed at $10^{16}$ GeV instead of $v_{441} \approx 1.4 \times 10^{17}$ GeV, or lift any one multiplet from Eq. (46) to a mass near $v_U$, and check whether the three couplings still meet at a single point satisfying Eq. (37); the benchmark point would fail if the intersection dissolves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the level-1 affine Lie algebra $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(8)_{k_U=1}$ admits a conformal embedding $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(4)_1 \oplus \widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(4)_1 \oplus \hat{\mathfrak{u}}(1)_{k_{0,\mathrm{phys}}=1/4} \subset \widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(8)_{k_U=1}$, and that with $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry the two-loop running of the gauge couplings satisfies $\alpha_U = \alpha_{4s} = \alpha_{4W} = \frac{1}{4}\alpha_{X_0}$ at $v_U \approx 8.0 \times 10^{17}$ GeV, with a gravitational threshold coefficient $c_{\mathrm{HSW}} \approx 0.72$. The non-supersymmetric version fails precisely because the $\mathfrak{u}(1)$ coupling ends up too small to satisfy this relation; the SUSY extension changes the $\beta$-function coefficients in the interval $v_{441} \leq \mu \leq v_U$ enough to close the gap. The paper also proves a more general statement: any conformal embedding of the form $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(n_s)_1 \oplus \widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(n_W)_1 \oplus \hat{\mathfrak{u}}(1)_{k_{1,\mathrm{phys}}=1/4} \subset \widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(N)_1$, with $n_s + n_W = N$, leads to the same unification relation regardless of the breaking pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that N=1 supersymmetry is fully present only between the intermediate scale and the unification scale, that every chiral superfield listed in Eq. (46) is massless in that window, and that the transition to the non-supersymmetric regime is a single small scheme-change correction; if supersymmetry breaks at a different scale, or if some of those fields are actually heavy, the unification point is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The flavor-unified SU(8) model becomes a complete grand unified theory with a single unification scale near $10^{18}$ GeV, consistent with the fermion mass and CKM analysis that motivated the framework.
  • The unification relation $\alpha_U = \alpha_s = \alpha_W = \frac{1}{4}\alpha_1$ is shown to hold for any $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(N)_1$ conformal embedding of this type, independent of the intermediate breaking pattern.
  • The non-minimal flavor-unified extensions based on SU(9) and SU(11) are ruled out for this type of unification because their antisymmetric representations violate the unitarity bound $h(R) \leq 1$.
  • The model predicts a SUSY threshold at $v_{441} \approx 1.4 \times 10^{17}$ GeV rather than at the weak scale, with non-SUSY Standard Model running below that scale.
  • The required gravitational operator coefficient $c_{\mathrm{HSW}} \approx 0.72$ is naturally $O(1)$, suggesting that Planck-scale physics plays a direct role in fixing the unification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's threshold assumptions are the main degree of freedom: if actual SUSY-breaking mass splittings spread the effective threshold over a wide range around $v_{441}$, the sharp unification point could smear, so a dedicated multi-scale threshold scan would test whether the result is robust.
  • The same conformal-embedding logic, applied to the non-maximal breakings $g_{531}/g_{351}$ and $g_{621}$, predicts the same $1/4$ U(1) relation; checking those chains with the identical spectrum would tell whether the unification is specific to the maximal pattern or a universal property of $\widehat{\mathfrak{su}}(8)_1$.
  • Because $v_U$ is within a factor of about two of the reduced Planck scale, Planck-suppressed operators beyond the single HSW term could shift the couplings by amounts comparable to the threshold corrections; quantifying the full set of such operators is a natural next step.
  • A low-energy consequence of the GUT-scale value is that proton decay via dimension-6 gauge-boson exchange would be near the boundary of current experimental sensitivity, so improved proton-decay limits could either support or exclude this specific unification scale.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an N=1 supersymmetric extension of a previously constructed SU(8) flavor-unified theory and claims to achieve gauge coupling unification through the conformal embedding b̂su(4)_1 ⊕ b̂su(4)_1 ⊕ û(1)_{k0,phys=1/4} ⊂ b̂su(8)_{kU=1}. Section 2 derives this embedding from central-charge and conformal-dimension matching and obtains the boundary condition α_U = α_{4s} = α_{4W} = (1/4)α_{X0} at the unification scale. Section 3 then assumes N=1 SUSY RGEs only in the interval v441 ≤ μ ≤ vU, with all chiral superfields of Eq. (46) massless there and non-SUSY RGEs below v441, supplemented by a DR-MS threshold correction. With a Wilson coefficient c_HSW ≈ 0.72 for the Hill–Shafi–Wetterich operator, the numerical RGEs yield α^{-1}_{4s}(vU) = α^{-1}_{4W}(vU) ≈ 30.9 and α^{-1}_{X0}(vU) ≈ 7.71 at vU ≈ 8.0×10^17 GeV, satisfying Eq. (37). The paper also generalizes the embedding to b̂su(n_s)_1 ⊕ b̂su(n_W)_1 ⊕ û(1)_{phys=1/4} ⊂ b̂su(N)_1 and discusses unitarity constraints on non-minimal extensions.

Significance. If the assumptions of the SUSY window and the massless spectrum are accepted, the paper provides a novel way to fix the normalization of a U(1) gauge coupling from affine-level data and connects an SU(8) flavor-unified model to an apparent high-scale unification near the Planck scale. The conformal-embedding analysis in Section 2 is self-contained and rigorous: the central-charge equality in Eq. (20) and the conformal-dimension matches in Eq. (34) are checked explicitly, and the generalization in Eqs. (57)–(59) is a clean algebraic result. This part is a genuine contribution independent of the RGE outcome. However, the field-theory bridge in Section 3 rests on two hand-assumed conditions: the restriction of N=1 SUSY to v441 ≤ μ ≤ vU and the masslessness of the entire chiral-superfield set in Eq. (46) within that window. The benchmark point of Eq. (56) is a single tuned choice with no sensitivity analysis, so the phenomenological unification claim is conditional rather than demonstrated robustly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, between Eqs. (45) and (47)] The unification claim depends critically on the assumption that N=1 SUSY is active only for v441 ≤ μ ≤ vU and that all chiral superfields listed in Eq. (46) are massless in that interval. The manuscript states 'We will always assume a set of SUSY RGEs between the v441 ≤ μ ≤ vU' and then uses the full spectrum of Tabs. 2–4 together with the Higgs chiral superfields in Eq. (46) to compute the beta coefficients in Eq. (47). However, no dynamical mechanism ties the SUSY-breaking scale to v441, and the survival hypothesis does not determine the masses of the vectorlike components such as the (4,4,0) pieces of 28_H and 70_H. If even one such component receives a mass at an intermediate threshold, the coefficients b^{(1)}_{4s}, b^{(1)}_{4W}, b^{(1)}_{X0} in Eq. (47) change and the U(1) running is shifted. Because the HSW operator of Eq. (12) modifies only the non-Abelian kinetic terms, as shown in Eq. (13), the relation α^{-1}_{X0}(vU) = (1/4)α^{-1}_{4s}(vU) is unprotected against such spectral variations. This is the load-bearing step for the numerical unification, and it needs either a concrete symmetry-breaking/supergravity mechanism or a systematic scan over threshold assignments.
  2. [Eq. (56) and Fig. 2] The reported unification is a single benchmark point with c_HSW ≈ 0.72, and no sensitivity analysis is provided. The value of c_HSW is explicitly tuned so that the two non-Abelian couplings meet at vU, and the intermediate scales v441, v341, v331 in Eq. (10a) are quoted from previous fits without quoted uncertainties. The paper should quantify how the agreement in Eq. (37) degrades when c_HSW, the SUSY-window endpoints, and the DR-MS threshold corrections ΔΥ in Eq. (45) are varied within plausible ranges. Without such a robustness check, the statement that the theory 'achieves gauge coupling unification' is demonstrated only for one hand-picked parameter set rather than as a genuine prediction needing only O(1) coefficients.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (37) and Sec. 3, Eq. (56)] I want to be clear that the conformal-embedding derivation itself is not circular: Eq. (37) is a boundary condition derived from central-charge and conformal-dimension equalities, independent of the RGE run. The circularity concern is elsewhere: the SUSY-window spectrum and the choice of c_HSW are adjusted so that the RGE solution lands on this boundary condition. The paper should separate these aspects explicitly in the text, acknowledging that the affine-algebra input is fixed while the field-theory input contains the tuned parameters. This would help readers distinguish the rigorous algebraic result from the phenomenological construction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (34c)] The displayed conformal-dimension equality for the (4,6,+1) component of the 56 contains ambiguous parentheses: the term '15/8 / (1+4) + 5/2/(1+4) + (±1/4)^2/(2 × (1/2))' is not grouped in a way that makes the grade and normalization clear. Please rewrite it with explicit brackets or split it into separate lines, as done for the other components.
  2. [Eq. (10a) and Sec. 1.2] The intermediate scales v441 ≈ 1.4×10^17 GeV, v341 ≈ 4.8×10^15 GeV, and v331 ≈ 4.8×10^13 GeV are stated to two significant figures, but nowhere in this paper are their uncertainties or their derivation from the fermion-mass fits of Ref. [10] explained. A brief sentence indicating the expected range from those fits would be useful, especially because the SUSY window boundary v441 is a key input.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 3 opening] The abstract states that the affine Lie algebra 'is found to unify three gauge couplings,' but the unification is achieved only under the explicit SUSY-window and massless-spectrum assumptions introduced in Sec. 3. The abstract should be qualified, e.g., 'under the stated SUSY-window assumption,' so that the conditional nature of the result is visible to a casual reader.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (61a)–(61b)] The discussion of non-maximal symmetry breaking patterns is interesting, but it is not connected to the RGE analysis of Sec. 3, which is restricted to the SWW pattern. The authors should state explicitly whether the unification condition in Eq. (60) is assumed to hold for those patterns or whether a full RGE check is left for future work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conformal-embedding boundary condition is derived from independent affine-algebra identities, and the SUSY RGE benchmark is a consistency check with explicitly assumed spectra and a fitted HSW coefficient, not a disguised restatement of inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The conformal embedding bsu(4)_1 ⊕ bsu(4)_1 ⊕ û(1)_{k0,phys=1/4} ⊂ bsu(8)_{kU=1} is derived in Sec. 2 from central-charge equality (Eq. 20), which fixes (ks,kW)=(1,1) in Eq. (24), and from conformal-dimension matching (Eqs. 32-34), which fixes k0,alg=4 and hence k0,phys=1/4 in Eq. (36). These are algebraic identities independent of the RGE outcome; the resulting boundary condition Eq. (37) is therefore imposed by the affine structure rather than extracted from the running. In Sec. 3, the SUSY RGEs are computed with a fixed, anomaly-free spectrum (Eqs. 40a and 46) and known SM low-energy inputs, and the benchmark in Eq. (56) is obtained by adjusting the O(1) Wilson coefficient c_HSW in Eq. (12), which affects only the non-Abelian kinetic terms. The paper does not present c_HSW ≈ 0.72 as a prediction; it explicitly says the coefficient 'compensates for the small discrepancy between two non-Abelian gauge couplings.' Importantly, the Abelian condition α^{-1}_{X0}(vU) = 4 α^{-1}_{4s}(vU) is not adjustable by c_HSW, so the final equality in Eq. (37) receives a nontrivial check from the RGE evolution. The intermediate scales in Eq. (10a) are taken from prior work by the same authors, but that work determined them from SM quark/lepton masses and CKM data, which is external to the gauge-coupling unification claim; thus the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. The SUSY-window assumption and the massless-spectrum assumption in Sec. 3 are genuine model-building limitations and potential correctness risks, but they are not reductions of the claimed result to its own inputs. Under the standard that circularity requires exhibiting an equation that is equivalent to its inputs by construction, no such step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard CFT tools plus a series of model-building choices: the level-one SU(8) parent, the specific SUSY spectrum, the SUSY-only window, and the tuned c_HSW. No fundamentally new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • c_HSW = 0.72
    Wilson coefficient of the gravity-induced operator O_HSW in Eq. (12); tuned in Eq. (56) to make the two non-Abelian gauge couplings meet the conformal embedding relation.
  • v441 = 1.4e17 GeV
    Lower boundary of the SUSY window and first intermediate symmetry breaking scale from prior flavor fits in Eq. (10a); if shifted, the RGE result changes.
  • v341 = 4.8e15 GeV
    Intermediate symmetry breaking scale from Eq. (10a), inherited from previous fits to fermion masses and CKM.
  • v331 = 4.8e13 GeV
    Intermediate symmetry breaking scale from Eq. (10a), inherited from previous fits to fermion masses and CKM.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The parent affine Lie algebra is bsu(8) at level kU = 1 (Eq. 17 and title).
    The whole construction assumes the level-one affine theory; higher levels would change the conformal embedding and the boundary condition.
  • standard math Central charge equality and unitarity constraints c(gk) ≤ 22 and h(R) ≤ 1 determine admissible affine embeddings (Eqs. 18, 20, 27).
    Background results from conformal field theory used in Sec. 2 to fix ks = kW = 1 and k0 = 1/4.
  • standard math The conformal dimension formula h(û(1)) = X0^2 / (4 k0) with the given normalization (Eq. 33) is the correct u(1) contribution.
    Used in Eqs. (34) to match conformal dimensions; depends on the chosen convention for the u(1) level and charge normalization.
  • domain assumption The N=1 SUSY extension with additional chiral superfields {H}_I = 8Hω ⊕ 28H˙ω (Eq. 40a) is the anomaly-free, unitarity-allowed spectrum.
    The RGE calculation uses this spectrum; the alternative with 36H superfields is excluded by a unitarity argument in App. A.
  • ad hoc to paper All chiral superfields besides the GUT-breaking 63H are massless in the SUSY window v441 ≤ μ ≤ vU (Eq. 46).
    This mass-spectrum assumption is required for the beta coefficients in Eq. (47); no dynamical reason is given for the survival hypothesis.
  • ad hoc to paper N=1 SUSY is present only between v441 and vU, switching to non-SUSY below v441 with the DR-MS threshold correction of Eq. (45).
    The SUSY-breaking scale is identified with the intermediate scale v441 without a mechanism; this choice is load-bearing for the unification shown in Fig. 2.
  • domain assumption The Hill-Shafi-Wetterich gravitational operator O_HSW in Eq. (12) is present with a natural O(1) Wilson coefficient.
    The tuned value c_HSW ≈ 0.72 is used to adjust the non-Abelian matching at vU; if such operators were suppressed or absent, the benchmark unification fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The unification in an $\widehat {\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{u}}(8)_{ k_U = 1}$ affine Lie algebra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOHDFCCH

@misc{pith2026241112979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The unification in an $\widehat \mathfraks\mathfraku(8)_ k_U = 1$ affine Lie algebra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOHDFCCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12979}
}
abstract

A flavor-unified theory based on the simple Lie algebra of ${\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{u}}(8)$ was previously proposed to generate the observed Standard Model quark/lepton mass hierarchies and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing pattern due to their non-universal symmetry properties. A level-$1$ affine Lie algebra of $\widehat{ \mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{u} }(8)_{ k_U =1}$ with the ${\cal N}=1$ supersymmetric extension is found to unify three gauge couplings through the maximally symmetry breaking pattern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The RGEs of the minimal non-SUSY su(8) setup through the SWW symmetry breaking pattern in Eq. (10a). The dashed lines and the solid lines represent the one-loop and two-loop RGEs, respectively. The interval of 103 GeV ≲ µ ≲ 1013 GeV is zoomed out in order to highlight the behaviors in three intermediate symmetry breaking scales. suggested by Hill-Shafi-Wetterich [19, 20] taken into account. Here, the Uµν represents … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The RGEs of the SUSY sub (8)kU =1 setup. The gauge couplings between 103 GeV ≲ µ ≲ 1013 GeV evolve according to the SM β coefficients in Eq. (55) and are zoomed out in order to highlight the behaviors in three intermediate symmetry breaking scales. Between the vEW ≤ µ ≤ v331, the massless fields include three-generational SM fermions together with one SM Higgs doublet of (1 , 2 , + 1 2 ) ′′′ H ⊂ (1 , 3 , + 2 3 ) ′′′… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The unitarity allowed region (green shaded) to the rank- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

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. The non-topological $Z^\prime$ string in the 331 model and its classical stability

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Numerical perturbation analysis shows non-topological Z' strings in the minimal 331 model remain stable only near the semilocal limit θ_S ≈ π/2 even after tuning Higgs self-couplings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,

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

    1974

  2. [2]

    Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,

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

    1975

  3. [3]

    Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,

    N. Cabibbo, “Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531–533

    1963

  4. [4]

    CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652–657

    1973

  5. [5]

    Towards a Grand Unified Theory of Flavor,

    H. Georgi, “Towards a Grand Unified Theory of Flavor,” Nucl. Phys. B 156 (1979) 126–134

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.,

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al. , “A portrait of the Higgs boson by the CMS experiment ten years after the discovery.,” Nature 607 no. 7917, (2022) 60–68, arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al. , “A detailed map of Higgs boson interactions by the ATLAS experiment ten years after the discovery,” Nature 607 no. 7917, (2022) 52–59, arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]. [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    The global B − L symmetry in the flavor-unified SU(N) theories,

    N. Chen, Y.-n. Mao, and Z. Teng, “The global B − L symmetry in the flavor-unified SU(N) theories,” JHEP 04 (2024) 046, arXiv:2307.07921 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Doubly Lopsided Mass Matrices from Unitary Unification,

    S. M. Barr, “Doubly Lopsided Mass Matrices from Unitary Unification,” Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 075001, arXiv:0804.1356 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The Standard Model quark/lepton masses and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing in an SU(8) theory,

    N. Chen, Y.-n. Mao, and Z. Teng, “The Standard Model quark/lepton masses and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing in an SU(8) theory,” arXiv:2402.10471 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  4. [12]

    Group Theory of the Spontaneously Broken Gauge Symmetries,

    L.-F. Li, “Group Theory of the Spontaneously Broken Gauge Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 1723–1739

    1974

  5. [13]

    The gauge coupling evolutions of an SU(8) theory with the maximally symmetry breaking pattern,

    N. Chen, Z. Hou, Y.-n. Mao, and Z. Teng, “The gauge coupling evolutions of an SU(8) theory with the maximally symmetry breaking pattern,” JHEP 10 (2024) 149, arXiv:2406.09970 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Further study of the maximally symmetry breaking patterns in an SU(8) theory,

    N. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Hou, Z. Teng, and B. Wang, “Further study of the maximally symmetry breaking patterns in an SU(8) theory,” arXiv:2409.03172 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hierarchy of Interactions in Unified Gauge Theories,

    H. Georgi, H. R. Quinn, and S. Weinberg, “Hierarchy of Interactions in Unified Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 (1974) 451–454

    1974

  8. [16]

    Grand Unification of Effective Gauge Theories,

    L. J. Hall, “Grand Unification of Effective Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 178 (1981) 75–124

    1981

  9. [17]

    Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5),

    S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, “Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5),” Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150–162

    1981

  10. [18]

    Effective Gauge Theories,

    S. Weinberg, “Effective Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 51–55. 25

    1980

  11. [19]

    Are There Significant Gravitational Corrections to the Unification Scale?,

    C. T. Hill, “Are There Significant Gravitational Corrections to the Unification Scale?,” Phys. Lett. B 135 (1984) 47–51

    1984

  12. [20]

    Modification of GUT Predictions in the Presence of Spontaneous Compactification,

    Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich, “Modification of GUT Predictions in the Presence of Spontaneous Compactification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 875

    1984

  13. [21]

    The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,

    S. L. Glashow, “The Future of Elementary Particle Physics,” NATO Sci. Ser. B 61 (1980) 687

    1980

  14. [22]

    Neutrino Masses in Grand Unified Theories,

    R. Barbieri, D. V. Nanopoulos, G. Morchio, and F. Strocchi, “Neutrino Masses in Grand Unified Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 90 (1980) 91–97

    1980

  15. [23]

    An Exceptional Model for Grand Unification,

    R. Barbieri and D. V. Nanopoulos, “An Exceptional Model for Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 91 (1980) 369–375

    1980

  16. [24]

    Hierarchical Fermion Masses From Grand Unification,

    R. Barbieri and D. V. Nanopoulos, “Hierarchical Fermion Masses From Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 95 (1980) 43–46

    1980

  17. [25]

    Higgs Bosons in SO(10) and Partial Unification,

    F. del Aguila and L. E. Ibanez, “Higgs Bosons in SO(10) and Partial Unification,” Nucl. Phys. B 177 (1981) 60–86

    1981

  18. [26]

    Gauge and Gravitational Couplings in Four-Dimensional String Theories,

    P. H. Ginsparg, “Gauge and Gravitational Couplings in Four-Dimensional String Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 197 (1987) 139–143

    1987

  19. [27]

    Higher Level Kac-Moody String Models and Their Phenomenological Implications,

    A. Font, L. E. Ibanez, and F. Quevedo, “Higher Level Kac-Moody String Models and Their Phenomenological Implications,” Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 389–430

    1990

  20. [28]

    String theory and the path to unification: A Review of recent developments,

    K. R. Dienes, “String theory and the path to unification: A Review of recent developments,” Phys. Rept. 287 (1997) 447–525, arXiv:hep-th/9602045

    1997 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kac-Moody and Virasoro Algebras in Relation to Quantum Physics,

    P. Goddard and D. I. Olive, “Kac-Moody and Virasoro Algebras in Relation to Quantum Physics,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 1 (1986) 303

    1986

  22. [30]

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

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

    1983

  23. [31]

    Simple Treatment of Threshold Effects,

    I. Antoniadis, C. Kounnas, and K. Tamvakis, “Simple Treatment of Threshold Effects,” Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 377–380

    1982

  24. [32]

    Uncertainties in coupling constant unification,

    P. Langacker and N. Polonsky, “Uncertainties in coupling constant unification,” Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4028–4045, arXiv:hep-ph/9210235

    1993 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Two loop renormalization group equations for soft supersymmetry breaking couplings,

    S. P. Martin and M. T. Vaughn, “Two loop renormalization group equations for soft supersymmetry breaking couplings,” Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2282, arXiv:hep-ph/9311340. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 039903 (2008)]

    1994 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry,

    E. Witten, “Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513

    1981

  27. [35]

    Di Francesco, P

    P. Di Francesco, P. Mathieu, and D. Senechal, Conformal Field Theory . Graduate Texts in Contemporary Physics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. 26

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.