Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 72 references

Five dimensional $SU(5) \times U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ grand unification

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A five-dimensional $SU(5) \times U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ orbifold model uses boundary conditions to break the GUT group, produce a gauge-symmetry-protected QCD axion, unify gauge couplings, and predict observable proton decay.

desk verdict A coherent 5D GUT-axion construction with a real soft spot: the 'prediction' of observable proton decay is a parameter choice, not a consequence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15692 v3 pith:ES6EPRJ2 submitted 2024-12-20 hep-ph

Norimi Yokozaki , Junhao Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords five-dimensionalgrandunifiedtheoryQCDaxionqualityorbifoldcompactificationgaugecouplingunificationprotondecaydarkmatterone-formsymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes a five-dimensional grand unified model in which the same orbifold boundary conditions that break $SU(5)$ down to the Standard Model gauge group also give rise to the QCD axion. The axion is the zero mode of the fifth component of a $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ gauge field, and its quality is guaranteed by a one-form symmetry rather than by a global symmetry. New bulk fermion fields, whose parity assignments leave incomplete multiplets at intermediate scales, make the three gauge couplings meet near $10^{15}$ GeV. The model predicts a proton decay rate ($p \to e^+ \pi^0$) within the reach of upcoming experiments, a consequence of the trade-off between the unification scale and the reheating temperature. If correct, the QCD axion is a dark matter candidate with a GUT-scale decay constant, potentially detectable by proposed axion searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the orbifold's parity assignment. $Z_2$ with $P$ and $Z'_2$ with $P'$ act on the $SU(5)$ gauge fields so that only the Standard Model generators have $(+,+)$ parity; the $X/Y$ gauge bosons have $(+,-)$ parity and masses $(2n-1)/R$, giving the GUT gauge boson mass $M_X = R^{-1}$. The same parity rules give the $SU(2)_L$ doublet of the Higgs a zero mode while the color triplet gets KK masses, and give $C_\mu$ $(-,-)$ parity while $C_5$ has $(+,+)$ parity, so the axion is the $C_5$ zero mode. A bulk Chern-Simons term with integer coefficient $\kappa$ generates the axion-gluon coupling, and a one-form symmetry protects the axion potential. The unification calculation is carried by the zero-mode fermion content: $\Sigma_{24}$ contributes $\Delta_3 = 4/3$ and $\Delta_8 = 2$ corrections to the $SU(2)_L$ and $SU(3)_c$ $\beta$ functions, and the two doublets contribute $\Delta_{\tilde h} = 4/3$, with their masses $m_{\rm adj}$ and $m_2$ as free brane parameters.

What would settle it

Measure the partial lifetime of $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ to a limit above about $10^{35}$ years. Such a bound would force $M_X \gtrsim 4.5 \times 10^{15}$ GeV via Eq. (24), and with $m_{\rm adj} \lesssim 10^6$ GeV required for unification, the predicted rate in Figs. 1-2 would be excluded. Conversely, a discovery of proton decay at the predicted rate while detecting an axion with $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \approx 1.7 \times 10^{-19}$ GeV$^{-1}$ and $m_a \approx 10^{-9}$ eV would confirm the model's central scenario.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a single geometric ingredient, the $S^1/(\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}'_2)$ orbifold with parity matrices $P = {\rm diag}(1,1,1,1,1)$ and $P' = {\rm diag}(-1,-1,-1,1,1)$, solves the doublet-triplet splitting problem, produces a high-quality axion, and permits gauge coupling unification. The fifth component $C_5$ of the $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ gauge field has a zero mode identified as the axion via $a(x)/f = \frac12 \oint C_5 \, dy$; a Chern-Simons term $\frac{\kappa}{64\pi^2}\epsilon^{MNPQR} C_M \, {\rm tr}(F_{NP} F_{QR})$ gives it the QCD anomaly, while the residual one-form symmetry forbids dangerous PQ-violating operators. Unification is achieved by bulk fermions $\Sigma_{24}$, $\psi_{5,i}$, $\bar\psi_{\bar 5,i}$ whose zero modes are a $SU(2)_L$ triplet, a $SU(3)_c$ octet, and two $SU(2)_L$ doublets with brane masses $m_{\rm adj}$ and $m_2$; with $m_{\rm adj} \sim 10^5$-$10^7$ GeV the couplings unify at $M_X = R^{-1}$. Because the octet must not be thermally produced, the reheating temperature is bounded by $T_R \lesssim 10^5$-$10^6$ GeV, and the resulting trade-off puts the dimension-six proton decay rate just below the current experimental limit and within the sensitivity of next-generation experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction that gauge couplings unify at a scale low enough to give observable proton decay depends on the hand-chosen brane mass parameters $m_{\rm adj}$ and $m_2$ (taken as $m_{\rm adj} = 10^5$-$10^7$ GeV, $m_2 = m_{\rm adj}$ or $500\,m_{\rm adj}$); if threshold corrections from brane kinetic terms shift the unification scale above about $4.5 \times 10^{15}$ GeV, the proton decay signal falls out of reach.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, the axion decay constant is tied to the compactification scale, $f_a \sim R^{-1} \sim 10^{15}$ GeV, so the grand unification scale and the axion scale are naturally the same scale.
  • The axion quality problem is solved by gauge symmetry: no Planck-suppressed operators can spoil the strong CP solution because the relevant PQ shift is protected by a one-form symmetry.
  • The proton decay mode $p \to e^+ \pi^0$ has a predicted rate within the reach of next-generation experiments, since the unification scale must sit near the experimental lower bound to keep the reheating temperature high enough for baryogenesis.
  • The QCD axion can be all of the dark matter if the initial misalignment angle is $\theta_0 \sim 10^{-2}$; its predicted mass $m_a \sim 10^{-9}$ eV and photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \sim 1.7 \times 10^{-19}$ GeV$^{-1}$ are targets for proposed GUT-scale axion searches.
  • Reheating must occur below about $10^6$ GeV, so the observed baryon asymmetry requires non-thermal or resonant leptogenesis rather than the standard thermal leptogenesis scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proton-decay prediction is sensitive to the size of brane-localized kinetic terms mentioned in the paper: if these threshold corrections push $M_X$ well above $4.5\times10^{15}$ GeV, the decay rate drops below the claimed observable window, so the observable signal is a tunable feature rather than a rigid prediction.
  • The same orbifold mechanism could be applied to other unified groups; replacing $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ with a non-Abelian factor would preserve the one-form symmetry protection while changing the axion-photon coupling, offering a testable family of models.
  • The quasi-stable color-octet fermion is a cosmological hazard that is avoided only by keeping $T_R < m_8$; if the cutoff $M_*$ in the lifetime estimate is lower than $10^{17}$ GeV, the octet decays faster and the reheating bound could be relaxed, changing the predicted proton decay rate.
  • A sharper test would come from reducing the lattice uncertainty on the proton decay matrix element; the predicted rate then becomes a precise target, and a null result at the $10^{35}$ year level would exclude the model's central parameter window.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper constructs a five-dimensional grand unified model on S^1/(Z_2 × Z'_2) with gauge group SU(5) × U(1)_PQ. The boundary conditions that break SU(5) to the Standard Model gauge group also leave the fifth component of the U(1)_PQ gauge field with a massless zero mode, identified as the QCD axion, whose quality is argued to be protected by a one-form symmetry. To achieve gauge coupling unification, the authors add bulk fermions — an adjoint 24-plet whose zero modes are an SU(2) triplet and an SU(3) octet, and two vector-like 5 + 5-bar pairs whose zero modes are SU(2) doublets — with brane-localized masses madj and m2. Two-loop RGE running is shown to unify for benchmark masses madj = 10^5–10^7 GeV with m2 = madj or 500 madj, giving a unification scale MX ~ R^{-1}. The paper estimates the proton decay rate p → e+π0 via dimension-six gauge-boson exchange, the axion mass and couplings, and the axion dark matter abundance, concluding that the proton decay rate should be observable in upcoming experiments, that the GUT-scale axion could be detected by DMRadio-GUT if it constitutes the dark matter, and that the GUT scale and the axion decay constant are naturally unified.

Significance. The combination of the two well-known 5D mechanisms — orbifold SU(5) breaking with doublet-triplet splitting and the Choi mechanism for a gauge-field axion — is clean and appealing, and the observation that the same parity assignment that produces the required incomplete multiplets (triplet, octet, doublets) is consistent with SU(5) completeness is a genuine virtue of the model. The paper uses standard, reproducible tools (two-loop RGEs via PyR@TE, lattice proton decay matrix elements, updated BBN bounds on colored relics) and gives concrete falsifiable targets: p → e+π0 near the Super-K limit, a GUT-scale axion with E/N = 8/3, and a possible DMRadio-GUT signal. The axion-quality mechanism, if it survives the explicit model check requested below, would be a significant step toward a UV-complete high-quality axion. However, the significance of the claimed proton decay 'prediction' is undercut by its dependence on free brane parameters and on an unstated lower bound on the reheating temperature; as it stands, the paper establishes a viable and interesting scenario rather than an obligatory prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2 and Abstract] The central claim, repeated in the Abstract and Conclusion, that the model 'predicts a proton decay signal within the sensitivity of upcoming experiments' is not forced by the derivation. The chain of reasoning is: (i) unification with the added incomplete multiplets forces madj = m8 ≲ 10^5–10^6 GeV in order to keep MX above the Super-K bound MX ≳ 4.5 × 10^15 GeV (Eq. 24 and Figs. 1–2); (ii) BBN and CMB constraints require TR < m8 (Eq. 25). But no lower bound on TR is derived, and the paper itself states that non-thermal leptogenesis 'can be low and remain consistent with Eq. (25).' Choosing madj = 10^3 GeV, for example, would yield a higher MX through the same RGE machinery and a proton lifetime far beyond upcoming sensitivities, while TR < 10^3 GeV remains above the BBN scale. The observable decay rate therefore follows from selecting madj and m2 in a narrow window by hand, not from the framework. Either derive a quantitative lower bound on TR (or on madj) from a concrete leptogenesis model, or reframe the claim as a viable and testable parameter region rather than a prediction.
  2. [Footnote to Eq. (10) and §2.1] The brane kinetic terms with free coefficients κ1, κ2, κ3 in the footnote to Eq. (10) are introduced with the remark that they 'help unification,' but their quantitative effect on the extracted unification scale MX is never computed. This matters because the claimed detection window requires MX to lie just above 4.5 × 10^15 GeV (Eq. 24); O(1) threshold corrections from these terms could push MX above 10^16 GeV and erase the predicted proton signal. The paper should estimate the size of these corrections and show that the quoted range of madj — and hence the proton-decay and axion-mass predictions (Eqs. 23 and 26) — is robust to them, or state explicitly that the conclusions depend on these unknowns.
  3. [§1–§2, Eqs. (3)–(9)] The paper's second headline claim is that the axion quality is 'inherently ensured' by a one-form symmetry, but the argument is imported from Ref. [41] without verification for the present model. The model differs from the minimal construction in having a Chern-Simons term (Eq. 8) with integer κ coupled to the full SU(5) field strength, brane-localized mass terms at y = L for the new fermions, and a gauge group whose global structure (e.g., possible identifications of SU(5) and U(1)_PQ charges) is not specified; any of these ingredients could in principle affect the one-form symmetry and the allowed PQ-breaking operators. A short explicit demonstration, or a precise statement of why Ref. [41] applies unchanged, is needed to substantiate the quality claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table 1 and §2.1] Table 1 places the mass parameters m24 and m5 on the y = 0 brane, while §2.1 states that the mass terms for Σ24, ψ5,i and ψ'bar5,i are put on the y = L brane; this inconsistency should be resolved, since the brane location matters for possible mixing with the SM matter localized at y = 0.
  2. [§2.1, Eqs. (11)–(13)] The Z2 parities of the new bulk fermions are not specified; only the Z'_2 transformation is given, so the reader cannot reproduce the claimed zero-mode spectrum (triplet, octet, doublets) from the text.
  3. [Figs. 1–2 and §2.1] The figures do not report the numerical values of the unification scale MX for the benchmark points, although the bound in Eq. (24) is central to the argument; please quote MX (and α_G^{-1}) for each panel.
  4. [Eq. (18)] The Lorentz and color structure of the octet decay operator in Eq. (18) is ambiguous, in particular the contraction of the octet indices with the three fundamental indices; please write the operator in explicit component form.
  5. [§2.2, Eqs. (21)–(22)] For the case m2 ≠ madj shown in Fig. 2, the proton-decay renormalization factors should run through two distinct thresholds; the text mentions one-loop threshold corrections only for the RGE plot, not for the proton decay calculation, so please clarify which masses enter A_b^{(1,2)} and A_c^{(1,2)}.
  6. [§2.3, Eq. (27)] The statement that θ0 needs to be O(10^{-2}) is a retrospective choice to reproduce the observed dark matter abundance rather than a prediction; the surrounding text already says 'By assuming,' so this is only a wording request to make the status of θ0 explicit.
  7. [§2.3, Eq. (29)] The value E/N = 8/3 is quoted without derivation; since the axion couples to the full SU(5) gauge fields through the Chern-Simons term, a short derivation of the anomaly coefficients would make the predicted photon coupling checkable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed proton-decay 'prediction' reduces to a hand-picked range of the free brane masses madj and m2; the reheating-temperature argument supplies only an upper bound, so the observable signal is a tuned scenario, not a forced prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2, Eqs. (23)-(25), Figs. 1-2]
    "Requiring that the gauge couplings of the SM approximately unify at a scale larger than MX, the mass of the color octet fermion must be smaller than 10^5-10^6 GeV (see Fig. 1,2). To ensure that the octet fermions are never produced, we impose TR < m8. Consequently, the reheating temperature is bounded from above as TR ≤ 10^5-10^6 GeV. ... In these scenarios, the reheating temperature can be low and remain consistent with Eq. (25)."

    The abstract's central claim that the model 'predicts a proton decay signal within the sensitivity of upcoming experiments' is not forced by the framework. The brane mass parameters madj and m2 in Eq. (14) are free parameters chosen by hand (madj = 10^5-10^7 GeV, m2 = madj or 500 madj) to make the gauge couplings unify at MX just above the 4.5 x 10^15 GeV Super-K bound. The only derived constraint is the upper bound TR < m8, because the colored octet would otherwise spoil BBN/CMB. No lower bound on TR is derived, and the paper explicitly allows non-thermal leptogenesis with 'reheating temperature can be low and remain consistent with Eq.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circular step identified is the proton-decay 'prediction.' The unification scale MX = R^-1, and hence the proton decay rate in Eq. (23), is determined by the hand-chosen brane masses madj and m2. The paper itself notes that non-thermal leptogenesis permits a low reheating temperature, so the claimed trade-off between reheating temperature and unification scale does not force MX into the observable range. The same conclusion is reinforced by the unquantified brane kinetic terms in Eq. (10), which can shift MX above 4.5 x 10^15 GeV and erase the signal. The axion-quality mechanism is not circular: it relies on the gauge symmetry and one-form symmetry arguments from the literature, and the axion mass/coupling formulas are standard external results. The dark-matter abundance is not overclaimed as a prediction; Eq. (27) is used to infer the required initial angle theta0, not to predict it. Overall, the model is a viable scenario, but the headline observable proton-decay prediction reduces to a tuned choice of free parameters, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model has no unique prediction for the unification scale: madj and m2 are free inputs, theta0 is an initial condition, and the brane kinetic coefficients are unconstrained. The new matter fields are not independently motivated beyond unification. The axion quality rests on a cited one-form symmetry result rather than a self-contained proof in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • madj (mass of adjoint fermion zero modes) = 10^5 GeV (Fig. 1 left, Fig. 2); 10^7 GeV (Fig. 1 right); text quotes 10^5-10^6 GeV
    Chosen so the Standard Model gauge couplings meet near 10^15 GeV; also sets the upper bound on the reheating temperature through the octet lifetime constraint.
  • m2 (mass of new vector-like SU(2) doublets) = madj in Fig. 1; 500 madj in Fig. 2
    Chosen to improve gauge coupling unification; no independent determination is provided.
  • axion initial misalignment angle theta0 = O(10^-2) if the axion is all dark matter
    Selected to reproduce the observed dark matter abundance in Eq. (27), not derived from the model.
  • brane kinetic coefficients kappa1, kappa2, kappa3 = unspecified, assumed small
    Introduced in the footnote of Eq. (10) as a knob that helps unification; not constrained or included in the quoted predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption S1/(Z2 x Z'2) parities produce the stated zero-mode spectrum: SM gauge fields, a doublet Higgs, the C5 axion, and the triplet/octet/doublet fermions.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eqs. (1)-(3), following the orbifold GUT literature [44-47].
  • domain assumption The one-form symmetry protects the C5 axion from all PQ-violating operators, guaranteeing axion quality.
    Cited in Sections 1 and 3 to Ref. [41]; not proven in this paper for the full model including brane-localized Standard Model matter.
  • domain assumption The 5D Chern-Simons term with integer kappa is gauge invariant and gives the axion's anomalous coupling to QCD.
    Used in Eqs. (8) and (9) following Choi [40]; no anomaly cancellation check with the Standard Model brane fields is presented.
  • ad hoc to paper Brane mass terms on y = L do not destabilize the zero-mode spectrum or introduce unwanted mixings.
    Assumed in Section 2.1 below Eq. (14), with mixing with Standard Model fields declared absent for simplicity.
  • domain assumption All gauge and gravitational anomalies cancel in the full 5D theory.
    Not checked anywhere in the paper, yet needed for the model to be consistent.
invented entities (3)
  • Bulk adjoint fermion Sigma24 with zero-mode SU(2) triplet and SU(3) octet
    purpose: Modifies the RGE beta functions to achieve gauge coupling unification
    The octet is quasi-stable and may affect BBN, but no direct detection signal is predicted; its mass is fitted.
  • Two bulk vector-like pairs psi5,i and psi'bar5,i with zero-mode SU(2) doublets
    purpose: Provides additional running contributions to unify the gauge couplings
    No production or decay signature is specified beyond their effect on the RGEs; masses are fitted.
  • C5 zero mode as a QCD axion independent evidence
    purpose: Solves the strong CP problem
    Predicts ma ~ 10^-9 eV and gaγγ ~ 1.7 x 10^-19 GeV^-1, testable by DMRadio-GUT if this axion forms all dark matter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Five dimensional $SU(5) \times U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ grand unification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ES6EPRJ2

@misc{pith2026241215692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Five dimensional $SU(5) \times U(1)_\rm PQ$ grand unification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ES6EPRJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15692}
}
abstract

We propose a grand unified model in five dimensions that addresses the strong CP problem. In this framework, the boundary conditions that break the unified gauge group into the Standard Model gauge group simultaneously explain the mass splitting of the new matter content required for gauge coupling unification and the emergence of the QCD axion as the $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ gauge field. The quality of the axion solution is inherently ensured by the gauge symmetry of the model. We further investigate the implications of this setup, including its predictions for the proton decay rate, the detectability of axion dark matter, and its cosmological impact. Notably, the model predicts a proton decay signal within the sensitivity of upcoming experiments, a result driven by the trade-off between the unification scale and the reheating temperature. In our scenario, the scales of grand unification and the axion decay constant are naturally unified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The renormalization group running of gauge coupling constants, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The same figure as fig.1 except for m2 = 500 madj with madj = 105 GeV. The effects from the mass difference are included as one-loop threshold corrections. When the temperature larger than m8(= madj), the octet fermions are thermalized and its number density over the entropy density is ≈ 4 × 10−3 . As the remanent of quasi-stable col￾ored particles affects the predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and the co… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    High-quality axions from higher-form symmetries in extra dimensions,

    N. Craig and M. Kongsore, “High-quality axions from higher-form symmetries in extra dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D111 no. 1, (2025) 015047, arXiv:2408.10295 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,

    S. Weinberg, “Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett.59 (1987) 2607

    work page 1987

  3. [2]

    Anthropic considerations in multiple domain theories and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking,

    V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel, “Anthropic considerations in multiple domain theories and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 1822–1825, arXiv:hep-ph/9801253

    arXiv 1998

  4. [3]

    Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,

    V. Agrawal, S. M. Barr, J. F. Donoghue, and D. Seckel, “Viable range of the mass scale of the standard model,” Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 5480–5492, arXiv:hep-ph/9707380

    arXiv 1998

  5. [4]

    Axions and the Strong CP Problem,

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, “Axions and the Strong CP Problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82 (2010) 557–602, arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    Chiral Estimate of the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron in Quantum Chromodynamics,

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, “Chiral Estimate of the Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron in Quantum Chromodynamics,” Phys. Lett. B88 (1979) 123. [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 91, 487 (1980)]

    work page 1979

  7. [6]

    Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron,

    C. Abel et al., “Measurement of the Permanent Electric Dipole Moment of the Neutron,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124 no. 8, (2020) 081803, arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [7]

    Effects of theta on the deuteron binding energy and the triple-alpha process,

    L. Ubaldi, “Effects of theta on the deuteron binding energy and the triple-alpha process,” Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 025011, arXiv:0811.1599 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Dynamics of M theory vacua,

    J. F. Donoghue, “Dynamics of M theory vacua,” Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 106012, arXiv:hep-th/0310203. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 69, 129901 (2004)]

    2004 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Is there a string theory landscape?,

    T. Banks, M. Dine, and E. Gorbatov, “Is there a string theory landscape?,” JHEP 08 (2004) 058, arXiv:hep-th/0309170

    2004 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Dynamics of the Peccei Quinn Scale,

    L. M. Carpenter, M. Dine, and G. Festuccia, “Dynamics of the Peccei Quinn Scale,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 125017, arXiv:0906.1273 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Some Remarks on Anthropic Approaches to the Strong CP Problem,

    M. Dine, L. Stephenson Haskins, L. Ubaldi, and D. Xu, “Some Remarks on Anthropic Approaches to the Strong CP Problem,” JHEP 05 (2018) 171, arXiv:1801.03466 [hep-th]. 10

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    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

  6. [13]

    Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1791–1797

    1977

  7. [14]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 223–226

    1978

  8. [15]

    Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of Strong P and T Invariance in the Presence of Instantons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.40 (1978) 279–282

    1978

  9. [16]

    Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, “Cosmology of the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127–132

    1983

  10. [17]

    A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, “A Cosmological Bound on the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 133–136

    1983

  11. [18]

    The Not So Harmless Axion,

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, “The Not So Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 137–141

    1983

  12. [19]

    Planck scale corrections to axion models,

    S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, “Planck scale corrections to axion models,” Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 539–549

    1992

  13. [20]

    Planck scale physics and the Peccei-Quinn mechanism,

    M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, “Planck scale physics and the Peccei-Quinn mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B282 (1992) 137–141, arXiv:hep-th/9202003

    1992 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Solutions to the strong CP problem in a world with gravity,

    R. Holman, S. D. H. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins, and L. M. Widrow, “Solutions to the strong CP problem in a world with gravity,” Phys. Lett. B282 (1992) 132–136, arXiv:hep-ph/9203206

    1992 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Composite axion models and Planck scale physics,

    L. Randall, “Composite axion models and Planck scale physics,” Phys. Lett. B284 (1992) 77–80

    1992

  16. [23]

    Axions In String Theory,

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, “Axions In String Theory,” JHEP 06 (2006) 051, arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    2006 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Wormholes and masses for Goldstone bosons,

    R. Alonso and A. Urbano, “Wormholes and masses for Goldstone bosons,” JHEP 02 (2019) 136, arXiv:1706.07415 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [25]

    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

  19. [26]

    SU(5) and the Invisible Axion,

    M. B. Wise, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, “SU(5) and the Invisible Axion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 402

    1981

  20. [27]

    A Common Scale for the Invisible Axion, Local SUSY GUTs and Saxino Decay,

    J. E. Kim, “A Common Scale for the Invisible Axion, Local SUSY GUTs and Saxino Decay,” Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 378–382

    1984

  21. [28]

    Peccei-Quinn Symmetry as Flavor Symmetry and Grand Unification,

    A. Davidson, V. P. Nair, and K. C. Wali, “Peccei-Quinn Symmetry as Flavor Symmetry and Grand Unification,” Phys. Rev. D29 (1984) 1504

    1984

  22. [29]

    Axion and right-handed neutrino in the minimal SUSY SO(10) model,

    T. Fukuyama and T. Kikuchi, “Axion and right-handed neutrino in the minimal SUSY SO(10) model,” JHEP 05 (2005) 017, arXiv:hep-ph/0412373

    2005 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Yukawa sector in non-supersymmetric renormalizable SO(10),

    B. Bajc, A. Melfo, G. Senjanovic, and F. Vissani, “Yukawa sector in non-supersymmetric renormalizable SO(10),” Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 055001, arXiv:hep-ph/0510139

    2006 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Axion inflation, proton decay, and leptogenesis in SU (5) × U (1)P Q,

    S. M. Boucenna and Q. Shafi, “Axion inflation, proton decay, and leptogenesis in SU (5) × U (1)P Q,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 7, (2018) 075012, arXiv:1712.06526 [hep-ph]. 11

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Axion Predictions in SO(10) × U (1)PQ Models,

    A. Ernst, A. Ringwald, and C. Tamarit, “Axion Predictions in SO(10) × U (1)PQ Models,” JHEP 02 (2018) 103, arXiv:1801.04906 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Axion mass prediction from minimal grand unification,

    L. Di Luzio, A. Ringwald, and C. Tamarit, “Axion mass prediction from minimal grand unification,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 9, (2018) 095011, arXiv:1807.09769 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [34]

    The QCD Axion and Unification,

    P. Fileviez P´ erez, C. Murgui, and A. D. Plascencia, “The QCD Axion and Unification,” JHEP 11 (2019) 093, arXiv:1908.01772 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Accidental SO(10) axion from gauged flavour,

    L. Di Luzio, “Accidental SO(10) axion from gauged flavour,” JHEP 11 (2020) 074, arXiv:2008.09119 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Axion model with the SU(6) unification,

    N. Chen, Y. Liu, and Z. Teng, “Axion model with the SU(6) unification,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 11, (2021) 115011, arXiv:2106.00223 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Axion couplings in grand unified theories,

    P. Agrawal, M. Nee, and M. Reig, “Axion couplings in grand unified theories,” JHEP 10 (2022) 141, arXiv:2206.07053 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Fully testable axion dark matter within a minimal SU(5) GUT,

    S. Antusch, I. Dorˇ sner, K. Hinze, and S. Saad, “Fully testable axion dark matter within a minimal SU(5) GUT,” Phys. Rev. D108 no. 1, (2023) 015025, arXiv:2301.00809 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Hadrophobic axion from a GUT,

    F. Takahashi and W. Yin, “Hadrophobic axion from a GUT,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 3, (2024) 035024, arXiv:2301.10757 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    A QCD axion from higher dimensional gauge field,

    K.-w. Choi, “A QCD axion from higher dimensional gauge field,” Phys. Rev. Lett.92 (2004) 101602, arXiv:hep-ph/0308024

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    TASI Lectures: (No) Global Symmetries to Axion Physics,

    M. Reece, “TASI Lectures: (No) Global Symmetries to Axion Physics,” PoS T ASI2022 (2024) 008, arXiv:2304.08512 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Generalized Global Symmetries,

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, “Generalized Global Symmetries,” JHEP 02 (2015) 172, arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Triplet doublet splitting, proton stability and extra dimension,

    Y. Kawamura, “Triplet doublet splitting, proton stability and extra dimension,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 105 (2001) 999–1006, arXiv:hep-ph/0012125

    2001 arXiv

  37. [45]

    SU(5) grand unification in extra dimensions and proton decay,

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, “SU(5) grand unification in extra dimensions and proton decay,” Phys. Lett. B511 (2001) 257–264, arXiv:hep-ph/0102301

    2001 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gauge unification in higher dimensions,

    L. J. Hall and Y. Nomura, “Gauge unification in higher dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 055003, arXiv:hep-ph/0103125

    2001 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A Minimal S**1 / (Z(2) x Z-prime (2)) orbifold GUT,

    A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, “A Minimal S**1 / (Z(2) x Z-prime (2)) orbifold GUT,” Nucl. Phys. B613 (2001) 3–16, arXiv:hep-ph/0106166

    2001 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gauge symmetry breaking from extra space S**1 / Z(2),

    Y. Kawamura, “Gauge symmetry breaking from extra space S**1 / Z(2),” Prog. Theor. Phys. 103 (2000) 613–619, arXiv:hep-ph/9902423

    2000 arXiv

  41. [49]

    PyR@TE 3,

    L. Sartore and I. Schienbein, “PyR@TE 3,” Comput. Phys. Commun.261 (2021) 107819, arXiv:2007.12700 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive particles,

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and T. Moroi, “Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and hadronic decay of long-lived massive particles,” Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 083502, arXiv:astro-ph/0408426. 12

    2005 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles,

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, and Y. Takaesu, “Revisiting Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Long-Lived Decaying Particles,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 2, (2018) 023502, arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cosmological Abundance of Colored Relics,

    C. Gross, A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, and A. Strumia, “Cosmological Abundance of Colored Relics,” Phys. Rev. D99 no. 1, (2019) 016024, arXiv:1811.08418 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aspects of the Grand Unification of Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions,

    A. J. Buras, J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, “Aspects of the Grand Unification of Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions,” Nucl. Phys. B135 (1978) 66–92

    1978

  46. [54]

    Operator Analysis of Nucleon Decay,

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, “Operator Analysis of Nucleon Decay,” Phys. Rev. Lett.43 (1979) 1571–1573

    1979

  47. [55]

    Proton decay matrix elements on the lattice at physical pion mass,

    J.-S. Yoo, Y. Aoki, P. Boyle, T. Izubuchi, A. Soni, and S. Syritsyn, “Proton decay matrix elements on the lattice at physical pion mass,” Phys. Rev. D105 no. 7, (2022) 074501, arXiv:2111.01608 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Search for proton decay via p → e+π0 and p → µ+π0 with an enlarged fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I-IV,

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, A. Takenaka et al., “Search for proton decay via p → e+π0 and p → µ+π0 with an enlarged fiducial volume in Super-Kamiokande I-IV,” Phys. Rev. D102 no. 11, (2020) 112011, arXiv:2010.16098 [hep-ex]

    2020

  49. [57]

    Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, “Baryogenesis Without Grand Unification,” Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 45–47

    1986

  50. [58]

    Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,

    G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, “Towards a complete theory of thermal leptogenesis in the SM and MSSM,” Nucl. Phys. B685 (2004) 89–149, arXiv:hep-ph/0310123

    2004 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Origin of matter in the inflationary cosmology,

    G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, “Origin of matter in the inflationary cosmology,” Phys. Lett. B 258 (1991) 305–309

    1991

  52. [60]

    Production of massive fermions at preheating and leptogenesis,

    G. F. Giudice, M. Peloso, A. Riotto, and I. Tkachev, “Production of massive fermions at preheating and leptogenesis,” JHEP 08 (1999) 014, arXiv:hep-ph/9905242

    1999 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Leptogenesis in inflaton decay,

    T. Asaka, K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki, and T. Yanagida, “Leptogenesis in inflaton decay,” Phys. Lett. B464 (1999) 12–18, arXiv:hep-ph/9906366

    1999 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Nonthermal leptogenesis from the heavier Majorana neutrinos,

    T. Asaka, H. B. Nielsen, and Y. Takanishi, “Nonthermal leptogenesis from the heavier Majorana neutrinos,” Nucl. Phys. B647 (2002) 252–274, arXiv:hep-ph/0207023

    2002 arXiv

  55. [63]

    CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,

    A. Pilaftsis, “CP violation and baryogenesis due to heavy Majorana neutrinos,” Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 5431–5451, arXiv:hep-ph/9707235

    1997 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Resonant leptogenesis,

    A. Pilaftsis and T. E. J. Underwood, “Resonant leptogenesis,” Nucl. Phys. B692 (2004) 303–345, arXiv:hep-ph/0309342

    2004 arXiv

  57. [65]

    The QCD axion, precisely,

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, “The QCD axion, precisely,” JHEP 01 (2016) 034, arXiv:1511.02867 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Calculation of the axion mass based on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics,

    S. Borsanyi et al., “Calculation of the axion mass based on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics,” Nature 539 no. 7627, (2016) 69–71, arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,” Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A5, arXiv:1907.12875 [astro-ph.CO]. 13

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Axion Cosmology and the Energy Scale of Inflation,

    M. P. Hertzberg, M. Tegmark, and F. Wilczek, “Axion Cosmology and the Energy Scale of Inflation,” Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 083507, arXiv:0807.1726 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Cosmology of axion dark matter,

    C. A. J. O’Hare, “Cosmology of axion dark matter,” PoS COSMICWISPers (2024) 040, arXiv:2403.17697 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    ABRACADABRA, A Search for Low-Mass Axion Dark Matter,

    ABRACADABRA Collaboration, R. Henning et al., “ABRACADABRA, A Search for Low-Mass Axion Dark Matter,” in 13th Patras Workshop on Axions, WIMPs and WISPs, pp. 28–31. 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Search for Low-Mass Axion Dark Matter with ABRACADABRA-10 cm,

    C. P. Salemi et al., “Search for Low-Mass Axion Dark Matter with ABRACADABRA-10 cm,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127 no. 8, (2021) 081801, arXiv:2102.06722 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Proposal for a definitive search for GUT-scale QCD axions,

    DMRadio Collaboration, L. Brouwer et al., “Proposal for a definitive search for GUT-scale QCD axions,” Phys. Rev. D106 no. 11, (2022) 112003, arXiv:2203.11246 [hep-ex]. 14

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.