Flipped $SU(5)$ GUT with conformal gravity from a single supermultiplet

Alessio Marrani; David Chester; Klee Irwin; Michael Rios

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 71 references

Flipped $SU(5)$ GUT with conformal gravity from a single supermultiplet

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single exceptional Lie superalgebra, the Grassmann envelope of $e_{8(-24)}$, packages conformal gravity together with flipped $SU(5)\times U(1)$ grand unification, three generations of fermions, and a Higgs sector…

desk verdict Original E8-based construction with a concrete flipped SU(5)+conformal gravity action, but the headline gravity result is explicitly deferred to a future paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20191 v1 pith:MYPPUYX2 submitted 2024-12-28 hep-th

David Chester , Alessio Marrani , Michael Rios , Klee Irwin This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords Grassmannenvelopee8(-24)superquasiconformalalgebraflippedSU(5)GUTconformalgravityMacDowell-Mansouriactionthreegenerationsgrandunification

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 tries to establish that one Lie superalgebra can supply the entire observable field content: gauge bosons for conformal gravity and flipped $SU(5)\times U(1)$, three generations of standard-model-like fermions, and a Higgs sector, all without supersymmetric partner particles. The superalgebra is constructed as the Grassmann envelope of the minimally noncompact real form $e_{8(-24)}$, giving the $\mathcal{N}=1$ superquasiconformal algebra in $D=10+1$. The authors then write an action whose gauge sector combines Yang-Mills theory with MacDowell-Mansouri gravity over the conformal group and assert that this combination recovers Einstein-Hilbert gravity with a cosmological constant. A reader should care because a single multiplet would explain why fermions appear in three generations and why no superpartners have been observed, while still permitting a viable flipped GUT.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Grassmann envelope $\Gamma(g)=g_0\otimes G_0\oplus g_1\otimes G_1$ applied to the minimally noncompact real form $e_{8(-24)}$, whose $\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading by $so_{12,4}$ splits the 248 representation as $120\oplus 128$. This turns a Lie algebra into a Lie superalgebra, the $\mathcal{N}=1$ superquasiconformal algebra in $D=10+1$, with super-Lie brackets that satisfy the super-Jacobi identity. The argument then runs on branching rules, $e_{8(-24)}\to su_{3,2}\oplus su_5\to su_{2,2}\oplus u_1\oplus su_5$, which identify the gauge group and representation content, and on the action in Eq. (17), a linear combination of MacDowell-Mansouri and Yang-Mills terms over $SU(2,2)$ with $\alpha=3c^3/(16\pi G\Lambda)$ and $\beta=-3c^3/(64\pi G\Lambda)$, claimed to yield Einstein-Hilbert action with cosmological constant after a conformal transformation exposes a non-propagating scalar.

What would settle it

Perform the conformal transformation on the action in Eq. (17) with $\alpha=3c^3/(16\pi G\Lambda)$ and $\beta=-3c^3/(64\pi G\Lambda)$, expand the curvature-squared terms, and check whether the result is exactly the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological term plus a non-propagating scalar; if no such transformation exists, the central gravitational claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the adjoint representation of the Grassmann envelope of $e_{8(-24)}$, taken with the $\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading from $so_{12,4}$, contains the submaximal subalgebra $su_{2,2}\oplus u_1\oplus su_5$, so a single supermultiplet carries both the fields of conformal gravity and the gauge and matter fields of flipped $SU(5)\times U(1)$ GUT. The odd generators, organized by projection operators whose quaternionic structure comes from extra time dimensions, yield three copies of standard-model fermions from one 128-dimensional semispinor of $Spin(12,4)$. Because the superalgebra is used only as a multiplet bookkeeping device and the gauged group is the ordinary Lie group $SU(2,2)\times U(1)\times SU(5)$, no superpartners are introduced. The gravitational sector is claimed to be Einstein-Hilbert with a cosmological constant, obtained from a particular linear combination of MacDowell-Mansouri and Yang-Mills actions over the conformal group.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the conformal transformation together with the constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in Eq. (17) actually reduces the combined conformal-gauge action to Einstein-Hilbert gravity with a cosmological constant; the paper states this result but defers the proof to elsewhere.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The full multiplet provides gauge bosons for conformal gravity and flipped $SU(5)\times U(1)$ with three generations of fermions, so the model is a complete field-theoretic package assembled from one superalgebra.
Because the gauged algebra is non-supersymmetric, no superpartners appear at any scale, which would match the absence of supersymmetry in current collider searches.
The action includes a complex vector Higgs field $g$ alongside the usual Higgs fields, extending the scalar sector of flipped $SU(5)$ and altering unification-scale physics.
If Eq. (17) reduces to Einstein-Hilbert as claimed, conformal gauge gravity becomes a classical starting point for gravity with a cosmological constant and a non-propagating scalar.
The construction embeds the four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ superconformal algebra into the $10+1$-dimensional superquasiconformal algebra, linking a known spacetime symmetry to the larger GUT framework.

Reading between the lines

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

If the deferred proof of the conformal transformation works, the constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ tie the cosmological constant to Newton's constant, so measured values of $\Lambda$ and $G$ would overconstrain the model, a consequence the authors do not draw.
The three conformal charts defined by the quaternionic units suggest a mechanism for fermion mass and flavour oscillations; deriving a CKM-like or PMNS-like mixing matrix from the three charts would be a testable extension not attempted in the paper.
Applying the same Grassmann-envelope construction to other real forms of $e_8$ would produce different GUT spectra, and the chirality of matter would depend on the choice of maximal versus submaximal embedding, which could select the viable route.
The model's unique vector Higgs $g$ would mediate new flavour-changing processes, so computing its phenomenology could distinguish this theory from minimal flipped $SU(5)$, an extension the paper does not carry out.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

You should know two things about this paper before reading it. First, the construction is genuinely novel: the Grassmann envelope of e8(-24) as an N=1 superquasiconformal algebra, the embedding of su2,2⊕u1⊕su5, and the three-generation projection from the 128 spinor are all new ingredients. Second, the paper's central advertised result—that the action recovers Einstein-Hilbert gravity—is not actually proven in the manuscript. The authors explicitly say "It will be proven elsewhere." That gap is the heart of the paper.

What the paper does well: it lays out a concrete algebraic framework, gives explicit branching rules, writes a full action (gauge, kinetic, Higgs, Yukawa) with covariant derivatives and a new vector Higgs field. The three-generation mechanism using Cl(12,4) projections is checkable, and the authors engage with the literature, including Distler and Garibaldi's critique of E8 GUTs. This is not a crank paper; it's a serious, if incomplete, proposal.

The soft spots are proportional to the claims. The gravitational sector is load-bearing: without the reduction of Eq. (17) to Einstein-Hilbert, the theory is just a higher-curvature conformal gravity, not a viable gravity theory. The equation itself is typeset ambiguously ('R∧R−R∧R' literally looks like a placeholder), and the constants α and β are asserted without derivation. The three-generation projection is sketched but the independence of the three sectors and anomaly cancellation are not shown. The paper also leans heavily on the authors' own prior work for the super-Jacobi identity and other structural results; that's fine if the prior work is solid, but it means a referee needs to check those sources carefully.

In summary, this is a paper for readers interested in exceptional-algebra GUT constructions and conformal gravity. It is not a finished theory, and the main claim is deferred. But the algebraic construction is interesting enough that I would send it to a knowledgeable referee, with clear instructions that the missing gravity proof is a major issue, not a minor omission. If the authors can supply that proof or a detailed sketch, the paper would be worth publishing; as it stands, it is a promising working document.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to build a single unified field theory of conformal gravity and flipped SU(5) grand unification from the Grassmann envelope of the real form e8(−24). The first part constructs the resulting Lie superalgebra, gives branching rules down to su2,2 ⊕ u1 ⊕ su5, and proposes three generations of spin-1/2 fermions from a 128-dimensional spinor via three projection operators. The second part writes an action with gauge, kinetic, and Higgs/Yukawa terms. The abstract advertises that combining Yang-Mills theory with MacDowell-Mansouri gravity over the conformal group recovers the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant, but this derivation is explicitly deferred in the text.

Significance. If fully established, the construction would be a novel way to embed standard-model-like matter and gravity in a single supermultiplet without superpartners, and the claimed recovery of Einstein-Hilbert from a conformal-group action would be a significant result. The paper is also transparent about several limitations: it states that the crucial gravity reduction will be proven elsewhere and that a detailed treatment of the gravity theory is forthcoming. Those limitations, however, are not merely presentation details: they affect the central advertised claim. The paper does provide explicit branching rules, a concrete action, and a candidate Higgs sector, which are useful first steps, but the submitted manuscript does not contain the derivations needed to substantiate its main conclusions.

major comments (4)

[§3, Eq. (17)] The central claim that the action in Eq. (17) recovers the Einstein-Hilbert action with cosmological constant is not demonstrated in the manuscript. Immediately after Eq. (17) the authors write: 'It will be proven elsewhere that the combination of α and β in Eq. (17) leads to the Einstein-Hilbert action with cosmological constant when applying a conformal transformation to uncover a non-propagating scalar field.' No conformal transformation is exhibited, no equations of motion are varied, and no derivation of α = 3c^3/(16πGΛ) and β = −3c^3/(64πGΛ) is provided. Had this step been shown, S_gauge would be Einstein gravity; without it, S_gauge is a curvature-squared conformal-gravity-like action. This is load-bearing because the gravitational sector is the central advertised result, and the manuscript itself defers the proof.
[§3, Eq. (17)] Eq. (17) as typeset is ambiguous: it contains terms 'R∧R − R∧R' and 'tr(R∧∗R − R∧∗R)' in which the two occurrences of R are not distinguished, and the symbols |e| and ∗ are not defined in the text. Because the claimed reduction to Einstein-Hilbert form depends on the precise structure of the curvature terms, the action that is supposed to produce the central result is not sufficiently pinned down to be checked by the reader.
[§2, Eqs. (13)–(14)] The three-generation mechanism is asserted but not established. The three projected spinors ψ_i = P_i Ψ are claimed to contain 64 off-shell and 32 on-shell degrees of freedom each, and to be independent on-shell while overlapping off-shell, but no proof is given that the projection operators P_i commute with the kinetic operator, that the three kinetic terms in Eq. (14) are independent, or that the projected-out mirror fields decouple. The branching rules in Eqs. (15)–(16) explicitly contain mirror/conjugate fields such as ψ^M and χ^M, and the text says projection operators 'remove' them; however, no calculation shows that the remaining spectrum is free of chiral anomalies and that the counting of independent generations is consistent. This is load-bearing for the paper's claim of 'three generations of fermions in an efficient manner.'
[§3, Eqs. (18)–(37)] The action is presented as a complete theory, but several physical consequences that would be needed to support the unification claim are not derived. In particular, it is not shown that the Higgs potential has a vacuum that breaks SU(5)×U(1) to the standard-model gauge group, and the statement that the Yukawa terms contain masses for 'the three families of down quarks, up quarks, neutrinos, and electrons' is not backed by any computation of the mass matrices or of anomaly cancellation. These are substantial gaps rather than presentation issues.

minor comments (4)

[§2, Eq. (12)] The text alternates between Cl(12,4) and Cl(4,12) conventions without explaining the sign conventions; this makes the Clifford algebra basis and the projection operators harder to verify.
[§2, Eq. (14)] The fermionic kinetic operator contains the combination Γ0Γ−iΓ−3−2−1, which is not defined explicitly; the index structure should be clarified.
[§3, Eqs. (25)–(30)] The U(1) charges in the covariant derivatives are stated without derivation; a table of charges and a check of consistency with the branching rules would improve readability.
[Throughout] Several foundational algebraic ingredients are taken from the authors' previous papers and from Truini et al. without reproducing the relevant statements; at least the precise definitions of the super-Jacobi identity and the projection-operator construction should be restated to make the paper self-contained.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Deferred gravity reduction plus several load-bearing self-citations; central claim is incomplete rather than circular, but foundational inputs rest on the authors' own prior papers.

self citation load bearing [Section 2, after Eq. (3), paragraph on super-Jacobi identity]
"Recently, the super-Jacobi identity for the super-Lie brackets defined above has been proven to hold by Truini [51, 52]."

This is the sole justification that the Grassmann envelope Γ(e8(−24)) satisfies the super-Jacobi identity and therefore is a Lie superalgebra. Refs. [51,52] are prior works by three of the present authors (Marrani, Rios, Irwin) together with Truini, so the foundational algebraic premise is imported from the authors' own previous publications rather than derived or checked here. Without this premise, the 'new' superalgebra and the matter-sector construction made from it have no established algebraic structure. The citation is load-bearing, not merely bibliographic, though it is not a definitional equivalence.
self citation load bearing [Section 2, immediately before the branching rule in Eq. (7)]
"In this work, we will focus on su3,2⊕ su5 which is a maximal (non-symmetric) subalgebra of e8(−24), as three of the present authors (DC, AM and MR) previously showed that this provides phenomenologically relevant representations."

The choice of the subalgebra su3,2⊕su5 determines the entire gauge group and field content of the paper, including the claimed flipped-SU5 spectrum. The only cited justification for its 'phenomenologically relevant representations' is the authors' own prior work (Ref. [37]). No independent external classification or re-derivation is offered in this manuscript, so the central model-building choice rests on an appeal to the same authors' earlier results.

1 more flagged steps

self citation load bearing [Section 2, after the Clifford algebra basis in Eq. (12)]
"Generalizing from Ref. [37], each of the three conformal charts have a unique projection operator PN i for i = 1, 2, 3 to obtain normal matter and remove mirror fermions."

The advertised three-generation fermion spectrum is obtained by importing projection operators from Ref. [37], authored by three of the present authors. The operators are not rederived in this paper, and their 'unique' status is asserted by reference to that prior work. The fermionic action in Eq. (14) and the later claim of 'three generations of standard model fermions' are built on this self-cited construction, making the citation load-bearing for a headline result.

full rationale

The paper's headline gravitational claim—that the action in Eq. (17) recovers the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant—is not demonstrated in the manuscript; the proof is deferred with 'It will be proven elsewhere.' That is a serious completeness and correctness-risk gap, but it is not circularity in the technical sense: the coefficients α and β are stated rather than derived from the target, and no equation is exhibited that reduces to its own input by construction. The genuinely circularity-relevant elements are the repeated appeals to the authors' prior work for foundational ingredients: the super-Jacobi identity for Γ(e8(−24)) is justified only by Refs. [51,52] (Truini, Marrani, Rios, Irwin); the choice of su3,2⊕su5 as phenomenologically relevant is justified only by the authors' earlier paper [37]; and the projection operators giving three generations are imported from [37]. These are load-bearing self-citations because without them the superalgebra, the gauge-group choice, and the three-generation spectrum are unsupported by anything presented in this paper. However, they are not the central gravity claim, which retains independent content if the deferred proof is supplied. Some self-citation is normal; here it goes beyond minor, but the central reduction is not yet shown to collapse into a self-citation chain or into a definition. Hence a score of 4 is appropriate: some self-citation, with the central claim still arguably independent but heavily reliant on the authors' own prior results.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central gravity claim rests on an unproven conformal transformation and on specific values of alpha and beta that are chosen rather than derived. The algebraic foundation is largely cited from the authors' own previous papers. The model introduces a new superalgebra and a vector Higgs field without independent evidence.

free parameters (4)

alpha = 3c^3/(16*pi*G*Lambda) = 3c^3/(16*pi*G*Lambda)
Chosen so that the conformal gravity action reduces to Einstein-Hilbert with cosmological constant; the proof is deferred to a later paper.
beta = -3c^3/(64*pi*G*Lambda) = -3c^3/(64*pi*G*Lambda)
Chosen together with alpha to produce the Einstein-Hilbert action; not derived in this paper.
g5 and gX gauge couplings
Free gauge couplings for SU(5) and U(1), not predicted by the theory.
Scalar potential and Yukawa couplings (mu_H, lambda_H, mu_h, lambda_h, mu_g, lambda_g, lambda_Hh, lambda_Hg…
Generic parameters in the Higgs and Yukawa sector, not predicted by the theory.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Grassmann envelope Gamma(e8(-24)) satisfies the super-Jacobi identity.
Cited from refs [51,52] by Truini, Marrani, Rios, and Irwin, who overlap with the present authors. No proof is given in this paper.
domain assumption The branching rules in Eqs. (7) and (8) for e8(-24) under su3,2 + su5 and su2,2 + u1 + su5 are correct.
Stated as 'previously shown' by the authors in refs [62-64]; no derivation is provided here.
domain assumption su2,2 + u1 + su5 is a submaximal subalgebra of e8(-24).
Based on the classification of maximal subalgebras of e8(-24), cited without explicit proof.
domain assumption The projection operators PN_i in Eq. (13) yield three independent 4D chiral generations from a single 128-component spinor.
Generalized from ref [37] by the same authors; independence and unitarity are not demonstrated.
domain assumption The gauge fields of the coset SU2,2/SL2(C)R can be solved for, as in conformal gauge gravity.
Adopted from ref [14] (Kaku, Townsend, van Nieuwenhuizen), not proven in this paper.
ad hoc to paper There exists a conformal transformation that, together with the chosen alpha and beta, reduces the action in Eq. (17) to Einstein-Hilbert form.
This is the central unproven premise; the paper explicitly says 'It will be proven elsewhere'.

invented entities (3)

Gamma(e8(-24)) superalgebra
purpose: Unifying algebra containing both gravity and GUT generators, with matter in the odd sector.
New mathematical structure with no external falsifiable prediction yet.
Complex vector Higgs field g_a^i
purpose: New Higgs sector for SU(5) breaking, a Lorentz vector under SU(5).
Unobserved new field; no mass or coupling prediction, and potential Lorentz-violating VEV is not discussed.
Extra time dimensions / conformal charts
purpose: Housing three generations from a single 128 spinor and explaining mass/flavor oscillations.
Used as a mathematical bookkeeping device; no physical evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flipped $SU(5)$ GUT with conformal gravity from a single supermultiplet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYPPUYX2

@misc{pith2026241220191,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flipped $SU(5)$ GUT with conformal gravity from a single supermultiplet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYPPUYX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20191}
}

abstract

The Grassmann envelope is used to find the $\mathcal{N}=1$ `superquasiconformal' algebra in $D=10+1$. The adjoint representation of this algebra is found to contain $\mathfrak{su}_{2,2}\oplus \mathfrak{u}_{1}\oplus \mathfrak{su}_{5}$ as a submaximal subalgebra, giving a spectrum of conformal gravity with flipped $SU_{5}\times U_{1}$ GUT. Combining Yang-Mills theory with MacDowell-Mansouri gravity over the conformal group is found to recover the Einstein-Hilbert action with a cosmological constant. An action for the theory is presented, which contains the gauge bosons of gravity and GUT, three generations of fermions in an efficient manner, and a new Higgs sector. By using the superalgebra for the entire multiplet, the theory gauges a non-supersymmetric subalgebra without introducing superpartners.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

Georgi H and Glashow SL 1974 Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 438–441

work page 1974
[2]

Takhistov V 2016 51st Rencontres de Moriond on EW Interactions and Uniﬁed The ories pp 437–444

work page 2016
[3]

Bajc B, Hisano J, Kuwahara T and Omura Y 2016 Nucl. Phys. B 910 1–22 ( Preprint arXiv:1603.03568 [hep-ph])

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[4]

Barr SM 1982 Phys. Lett. B 112 219–222

work page 1982
[5]

Alles W 1983 Phys. Lett. B 127 423–425

work page 1983
[6]

Antoniadis I, Ellis J, Hagelin JS and Nanopoulos DV 1987 Phys. Lett. B 194 231–235

work page 1987
[7]

Ellis J, Garc ´ ıa MAG, Nagata N, Nanopoulos DV and Olive KA 2019 JCAP 1904(04) 009 ( Preprint arXiv:1812.08184 [hep-ph])

arXiv 2019
[8]

Antoniadis I, Ellis J, Hagelin JS and Nanopoulos DV 1988 Phys. Lett. B 205 459–465

work page 1988

Show all 71 references

[9]

Antoniadis I, Ellis JR, Hagelin JS and Nanopoulos DV 1989 Phys. Lett. B 231 65–74

1989
[10]

Faraggi AE, Garavuso R and Isidro JM 2002 Nucl. Phys. B 641 111–130 ( Preprint arXiv:hep- th/0204080)

2002
[11]

Chung Y-C 2011 JHEP 03 126 ( Preprint arXiv:1008.2506 [hep-th])

2011 arXiv
[12]

Chen C-M and Chung Y-C 2011 JHEP 03 049

2011
[13]

MacDowell SW and Mansouri F 1977 Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 739–742

1977
[14]

Kaku M, Townsend PK and Nieuwenhuizen P 1977 Phys. Lett. B 69 304–308

1977
[15]

Kaku M, Townsend PK and Nieuwenhuizen P 1977 Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 1109

1977
[16]

Ferrara S, Kaku M, Townsend PK and Nieuwenhuizen P 1977 Nucl. Phys. B 129 125–134

1977
[17]

Bars I and G¨ unaydin M 1980 Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 859–862

1980
[18]

Konshtein SE and Fradkin ES 1980 Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 32 575–578

1980
[19]

Olive D and West P 1983 Nucl. Phys. B 217 248–284

1983
[20]

Ong C-L 1985 Phys. Rev. D 31 3271

1985
[21]

Buchm¨ uller W and Napoly O 1985 Phys. Lett. B 163 161

1985
[22]

Barr SM 1988 Phys. Rev. D 37 204

1988
[23]

Mahapatra S and Deo BB 1988 Phys. Rev. D 38 3554

1988
[24]

Ellwanger U 1991 Nucl. Phys. B 356 46–68

1991
[25]

Diaconescu D-E, Moore GW and Witten E 2003 Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 6 1031–1134 ( Preprint hep-th/0005090)

2003 arXiv
[26]

Diaconescu D-E, Moore GW and Freed DS 2003 ( Preprint hep-th/0312069)

2003 arXiv
[27]

Adler SL 2002 Phys. Lett. B 533 121–125 ( Preprint hep-ph/0201009)

2002 arXiv
[28]

Adler SL 2004 ( Preprint hep-ph/0401212)

2004 arXiv
[29]

Lisi AG 2007 ( Preprint arXiv:0711.0770 [hep-th])

2007 arXiv
[30]

Distler J and Garibaldi S 2010 Commun. Math. Phys. 298 419–436 ( Preprint arXiv:0905.2658 [math.RT])

2010 arXiv
[31]

Pavˇ siˇ c M 2008J. Phys. A 41 332001 ( Preprint arXiv:0806.4365 [hep-th])

arXiv
[32]

Castro C 2009 Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 6 385–417

2009
[33]

Castro C 2014 Can. J. Phys. 92(12) 1501–1527

2014
[34]

Douglas A and Repka J 2014 SIGMA 10 072 ( Preprint arXiv:1305.6946 [math.RT])

2014 arXiv
[35]

Aranda A, de Anda FJ and King SF 2020 ( Preprint arXiv:2005.03048 [hep-ph])

2020 arXiv
[36]

Aranda A and de Anda FJ 2020 ( Preprint arXiv:2007.13248 [hep-ph])

2020 arXiv
[37]

Chester D, Marrani A and Rios M 2023 Particles 6(1) 144–172 (Preprint arXiv:2002.02391 [gen-ph])

2023 arXiv
[38]

Manogue CA, Dray T and Wilson RA 2022 J. Math. Phys. 63 081703 ( Preprint arXiv:2204.05310 [hep-ph])

2022 arXiv
[39]

Green MB and Schwarz JH 1984 Phys. Lett. B 149 117–122

1984
[40]

Dixon LJ, Harvey JA, Vafa C and Witten E 1985 Nucl. Phys. B 261 678–686

1985
[41]

Campbell BA, Ellis J, Hagelin JS, Nanopoulos DV and Ticciati R 1987 Phys. Lett. B 198 200–204

1987
[42]

Beasley C, Heckman JJ and Vafa C 2009 JHEP 01 058 ( Preprint arXiv:0802.3391 [hep-th])

2009 arXiv
[43]

Heckman JJ, Tavanfar A and Vafa C 2010 JHEP 08 040 ( Preprint arXiv:0906.0581 [hep-th])

2010 arXiv
[44]

Witten E 1996 Nucl. Phys. B 471 135–158 ( Preprint hep-th/9602070)

1996 arXiv
[45]

Horava P and Witten E 1996 Nucl. Phys. B 475 94–114 ( Preprint hep-th/9603142)

1996 arXiv
[46]

Kutasov D and Martinec EJ 1996 Nucl. Phys. B 477 652–674 ( Preprint hep-th/9602049)

1996 arXiv
[47]

Martinec EJ 1996 ( Preprint hep-th/9608017)

1996 arXiv
[48]

AMS 141 no

Repovs D and Zaicev M 2013 Proc. AMS 141 no. 12, 4139–4153

2013
[49]

Bars I and G¨ unaydin M 1979 J. Math. Phys. 20 1977–1993

1979
[50]

Shestakov IP 1993 Math. USSR-Sb. 74 101–110

1993
[51]

Truini P, Marrani A, Rios M and Irwin K 2021 Symmetry 13 2342 ( Preprint arXiv:2012.10227 [gr-qc])

2021 arXiv
[52]

Truini P, Marrani A, Rios M and Irwin K 2021 Symmetry 13 2289 ( Preprint arXiv:2012.10248 [gr-qc])

2021 arXiv
[53]

Gunaydin M, Koepsell K and Nicolai H 2001 Commun. Math. Phys. 221 57–76

2001
[54]

Gunaydin M and Pavlyk O 2005 JHEP 01 019 ( Preprint hep-th/0409272)

2005 arXiv
[55]

Bars I 1997 Phys. Lett. B 403 257–264 ( Preprint hep-th/9704054)

1997 arXiv
[56]

Sezgin E 1997 Phys. Lett. B 403 265–272 ( Preprint hep-th/9703123)

1997 arXiv
[57]

Rudychev I, Sezgin E and Sundell P 1998 Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 68 285–294 ( Preprint hep- th/9711127)

1998
[58]

Bars I 1997 Phys. Rev. D 55 2373–2381 ( Preprint hep-th/9607112)

1997 arXiv
[59]

Bars I and Kounnas C 1997 Phys. Rev. D 56 3664–3671 ( Preprint hep-th/9705205)

1997 arXiv
[60]

Bars I 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 085019 ( Preprint hep-th/0606045)

2006 arXiv
[61]

Bars I and Kuo Y-C 2010 ( Preprint arXiv:1008.4761 [hep-th])

2010 arXiv
[62]

Rios M, Marrani A and Chester D 2019 Phys. Rev. D 99 046004 ( Preprint arXiv:1811.06101 [hep- th])

2019 arXiv
[63]

Rios M, Marrani A and Chester D 2020 Phys. Lett. B 808 135674 ( Preprint arXiv:1906.10709 [hep-th])

2020 arXiv
[64]

Paduroiu S, Rios M, Marrani A and Chester D 2021 Universe 7 462 ( Preprint arXiv:2202.08459 [astro-ph.CO])

2021 arXiv
[65]

Floerchinger S 2021 Universe 7 168 ( Preprint arXiv:1908.02235 [hep-th])

2021 arXiv
[66]

D’Auria R, Ferrara S, Lled´ o MA and Varadarajan VS 2001 J. Geom. Phys. 40 101–128 ( Preprint hep-th/0010124)

2001 arXiv
[67]

Kostant B 1988 The Principle of Triality and A Distinguished Unitary Representation of SO(4,4) Diﬀerential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics (NATO ASI Series vol 250) ed K Bleuler and M Werner (Springer) pp 65–108

1988
[68]

Ivanov EA and Niederle J 1982 Phys. Rev. D 25 976–987

1982
[69]

Ivanov EA and Niederle J 1982 Phys. Rev. D 25 988

1982
[70]

Quantum Grav

Ivanov EA and Niederle J 1985 Class. Quantum Grav. 2 631

1985
[71]

Ellis JR, L´ opez JL, Nanopoulos DV and Olive KA 1993 Phys. Lett. B 308 70–78 ( Preprint hep- ph/9303307)

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Georgi H and Glashow SL 1974 Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 438–441

work page 1974

[2] [2]

Takhistov V 2016 51st Rencontres de Moriond on EW Interactions and Uniﬁed The ories pp 437–444

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Bajc B, Hisano J, Kuwahara T and Omura Y 2016 Nucl. Phys. B 910 1–22 ( Preprint arXiv:1603.03568 [hep-ph])

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[4] [4]

Barr SM 1982 Phys. Lett. B 112 219–222

work page 1982

[5] [5]

Alles W 1983 Phys. Lett. B 127 423–425

work page 1983

[6] [6]

Antoniadis I, Ellis J, Hagelin JS and Nanopoulos DV 1987 Phys. Lett. B 194 231–235

work page 1987

[7] [7]

Ellis J, Garc ´ ıa MAG, Nagata N, Nanopoulos DV and Olive KA 2019 JCAP 1904(04) 009 ( Preprint arXiv:1812.08184 [hep-ph])

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Antoniadis I, Ellis J, Hagelin JS and Nanopoulos DV 1988 Phys. Lett. B 205 459–465

work page 1988