Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Reproducing Standard Model Fermion Masses and Mixing in String Theory: A Heterotic Line Bundle Study

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

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

Pith's one-line read Two explicit heterotic string models reproduce the Standard Model quark and charged-lepton masses and CKM mixing.

desk verdict An honestly framed, checkable heterotic line-bundle proof-of-principle whose central existence claim still rests on uncomputed Yukawa coefficients and unverified Pfaffians. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03076 v1 pith:AST64YRP submitted 2025-07-03 hep-th hep-ph

Andrei Constantin , Lucas T.-Y. Leung , Andre Lukas , Luca A. Nutricati This is my paper
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords heteroticstringtheorylinebundlemodelsCalabi-YaucompactificationfermionmassesCKMmatrixFroggatt-NielsenmechanismMSSMspectrummu-problem
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 aims to show that string theory can reproduce the flavour sector of the Standard Model, not just its spectrum. The authors identify two explicit $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic compactifications on a Calabi-Yau threefold, with gauge bundles built from sums of line bundles, whose low-energy theories contain exactly the matter content of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), no exotic states, and a $\mu$-term at the electroweak scale. Under assumptions about the moduli, they demonstrate that both models reproduce the observed quark and charged-lepton masses and the CKM mixing matrix at some point in their moduli spaces. The result is presented as a proof of principle: choices of topology and bundle data exist in which the Standard Model flavour structure emerges from the compactification geometry rather than being put in by hand. If the construction holds up, it would move the goal of deriving Standard Model parameters from a fundamental theory from principle to practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the residual abelian flavour symmetry $G=S(U(1)^5)$ inherited from the internal line-bundle gauge background, together with the singlet moduli charged under it. Because matter multiplets carry distinct $G$ charges, Yukawa operators that are forbidden at the renormalisable level can be generated by inserting charged singlet moduli, in the manner of a Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism; once those moduli get vacuum expectation values, the insertions become suppression factors that build hierarchical Yukawa textures. Each operator also carries an order-one coefficient coming from overlap integrals of internal wavefunctions, and the paper's analysis treats these coefficients, within the range $0.1<|c|<9$, as the adjustable part of the construction.

What would settle it

Compute the internal wavefunction overlap integrals that determine the order-one coefficients for the specific operators in V1 and V2 on $X_{6770}/\mathbb{Z}_2$ at a point in the Kähler and complex-structure moduli space, evolve them to the infrared, and check whether any moduli choice reproduces the fitted values; if no such point exists, the claim that these models reproduce the flavour data would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that there exist explicit Calabi-Yau compactifications of the $E_8\times E_8$ heterotic string whose four-dimensional spectra match the MSSM and whose Yukawa couplings reproduce the measured quark and charged-lepton masses and the CKM matrix. The two models, V1 and V2, are built on the quotient threefold $X_{6770}/\mathbb{Z}_2$, with the internal gauge bundle a supersymmetry-preserving, poly-stable direct sum of five line bundles and a Wilson line that breaks the would-be grand unified group to the Standard Model gauge group. In both models the spectrum contains three chiral families, one Higgs pair, no exotic states, and singlet moduli whose vacuum expectation values generate the Yukawa hierarchies and an electroweak-scale $\mu$-term. The construction relies on a geometrically realised R-parity that forbids renormalisable baryon- and lepton-number-violating operators and remains unbroken after the $U(1)$ symmetries are spontaneously broken. The authors regard the numerical match as a proof of principle, explicitly leaving moduli stabilisation and supersymmetry breaking to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, acknowledged in the paper, is that the order-one coefficients multiplying each superpotential operator can be chosen freely in the range 0.1 to 9, with the assumption that infrared values in this range correspond to values actually realised at some point in the Calabi-Yau moduli space; these coefficients are not computed from the geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, reproducing the Standard Model flavour parameters is no longer a purely formal possibility within heterotic string theory: concrete geometries exist to serve as the starting point.
  • The same $U(1)$ selection-rule mechanism solves the $\mu$-problem in these models, since the bare $\mu$-term is absent and an electroweak-scale effective term is generated by the same singlet insertions that make the Yukawa couplings hierarchical.
  • The absence of exotic states in these spectra means the low-energy theory is exactly the MSSM matter content, so the flavour predictions can be compared directly with experiment without decoupling new light degrees of freedom first.
  • Because the search discarded the vast majority of three-generation models, the fit is presented as a non-trivial consequence of the compactification data rather than a generic outcome of many parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct computation of the order-one coefficients from the Calabi-Yau geometry would turn the numerical match into a genuine prediction; this is the natural next test and lies beyond what the paper itself carries out.
  • The mechanism should extend to the neutrino sector: adding right-handed neutrinos or Weinberg-type operators to the same superpotential would predict neutrino masses and PMNS mixing angles from the same $U(1)$ selection rules.
  • Scanning larger sets of three-generation heterotic models beyond the 202 studied here could reveal whether flavour-compatible compactifications are rare accidents or a recurring feature of line bundle constructions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims to identify two explicit E8×E8 heterotic line bundle models on the Calabi-Yau quotient X6770/Z2, each with an (MS)SM spectrum, no exotic fields, and a suppressed mu-term. Invoking residual U(1) flavour symmetries, the paper constructs effective Yukawa matrices Y^λ = c^λ ⊙ Λ^λ whose singlet-insertion textures Λ^λ are fixed by the compactification data, and then fits the order-one coefficients c^λ and selected VEVs to reproduce the observed quark and charged lepton masses and the CKM matrix. Two explicit models (V1 and V2) are presented with concrete numerical assignments for the coefficients and VEVs, together with a search strategy and a loss function in Appendix B. The paper frames the result as a proof of principle that a heterotic compactification can yield the correct flavour structure.

Significance. If the fitted order-one coefficients and VEVs were shown to correspond to an actual point in the compactification moduli space, this would be a notable step in string phenomenology: two explicit manifolds and bundle sums with the exact MSSM spectrum, no exotics, and a Froggatt-Nielsen-like mechanism generating hierarchical Yukawa couplings. The paper has several concrete strengths: the spectra and U(1) charge assignments are explicit, the parameter ranges and loss function in Appendix B are transparent, and the numerical assignments in Section III are given in enough detail for independent verification. The central limitation is equally clear: the Yukawa couplings are fitted in the infrared, not computed from the Calabi-Yau geometry, so the advertised existence claim is conditional on unverified assumptions about the order-one coefficients and non-vanishing Pfaffians. As it stands, the work is a well-documented consistency check of the effective field theory rather than a top-down derivation of the flavour parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Section IV] The central claim, stated in the abstract and in Section IV as 'there exist explicit choices of CY topology and vector bundle data in heterotic string theory that yield a fully realistic (MS)SM spectrum with the correct flavour structure', is stronger than what is demonstrated. The Yukawa matrices are given by Y^λ_IJ = c^λ_IJ · Λ^λ_IJ, and the c^λ_IJ are free parameters optimized in the range 0.1 < |c| < 9 (Appendix B). The paper itself states in Section III that connecting these infrared coefficients to a specific point in moduli space requires running up to the compactification scale and computing the map from geometry to coefficients, which is left to future work. Since no point in the moduli space is shown to realize the fitted coefficients, the existence claim should be explicitly qualified as conditional on the geometric realization of the order-one parameters.
  2. [Section III, Model 1 up-quark sector] In Model 1, columns 2 and 3 of Λu are identical by the U(1) selection rules: both columns are (1, φ, φ)^T with φ = ⟨φ1,2⟩ = 0.7. The small up-quark mass is then obtained by choosing the fitted coefficients so that c_u^12/c_u^13 ≈ 1.200, c_u^22/c_u^23 ≈ 1.206, and c_u^32/c_u^33 ≈ 1.206, making columns 2 and 3 of the up Yukawa matrix nearly proportional. This near-degeneracy is a tuned correlation among three independent pairs of order-one coefficients; it is not enforced by any symmetry. The statement in Section IV that the flavour structure 'arises non-trivially from the underlying compactification, rather than from arbitrary parameter tuning' is therefore not supported in this sector.
  3. [Section III, non-perturbative moduli and Pfaffians] The down-quark and charged lepton Yukawa textures depend on insertions of the non-perturbative moduli Φi, and the paper notes explicitly: 'we have not attempted to compute the corresponding Pfaffians and our implicit assumption is that these are non-vanishing.' This is a load-bearing assumption: if any leading Pfaffian vanishes, the corresponding entries in Λd (and hence Λe) lose their dominant terms, and the fitted mass and mixing results no longer follow. The result should be stated as conditional on these Pfaffians being non-vanishing, not merely as an implicit assumption in a side remark.
  4. [Appendix B and Section IV] The fit involves roughly 50–80 free parameters (order-one coefficients, unsuppressed singlet VEVs, the up-type Higgs VEV, and unconstrained Euler angles) while the number of fitted observables is about 13 (nine quark/lepton masses, four CKM magnitudes, and one phase, with the phase not actually fitted because all parameters are taken real). With this many parameters, achieving L < 10^-4 is unsurprising. The paper's claim that only a small fraction of models pass the criteria is not a quantitative measure of predictivity without specifying a prior over the parameter space and reporting the distribution over the 226 inequivalent models. The conclusions should frame the result as a consistency proof for the string-derived EFT, not as a prediction that singles out the observed flavour parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III] The text should state explicitly that all moduli VEVs are quoted in units of the compactification (or GUT) scale; otherwise the numerical values such as ⟨ϕ1,2⟩ = 0.7 and ⟨Φ2⟩ = 0.07 can be misread as dimensionful quantities.
  2. [Section III, Model 1 and Model 2] For the down and lepton Yukawa matrices, the paper assumes that all insertions contributing to a given entry are multiplied by a single common order-one coefficient. This is a strong simplification, since each term in a multi-term entry arises from a different operator with its own overlap integral; the manuscript would benefit from an explicit caveat that the geometric coefficients will generally differ.
  3. [Appendix B] The statement that 'fitting the CP-violating phase in the CKM matrix can be easily accomplished' is inconsistent with the subsequent choice to set all VEVs and order-one coefficients real; in the presented fits the CKM phase is therefore not actually reproduced or fitted, and this should be clarified.
  4. [Eq. (B1)] The Frobenius-norm loss function sums over mass matrices whose entries differ by many orders of magnitude (from the electron mass to the top mass), so the loss is dominated by the heaviest states; a relative or logarithmic loss would better reflect the accuracy of the light-fermion predictions.
  5. [Appendix B and Section III] The phrase 'order-one' is used for coefficients in the range 0.1 < |c| < 9, but |c| = 9 is not usually considered order one; the physical or geometric motivation for the upper bound 9 should be stated.
  6. [References] Reference [40] (Constantin et al., 'Fermion Masses and Mixing in String-Inspired Models') is given only as an arXiv number without a journal reference or publication status; please complete the citation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mass and CKM 'reproduction' is a least-squares fit: the observed values enter the loss function and the order-one coefficients are optimized against them; only the U(1)-induced textures are topology-determined.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (Yukawa definitions) and Appendix B, Eq. (B1)]
    "Each entry in these matrices—more precisely, each individual term contributing to an entry when it is a sum of multiple terms—is multiplied by an order-one coefficient to produce the effective Yukawa matrices ... We perform the optimisation of parameters using the trust-region reflective algorithm ... while minimising the loss function L = Σ_{λ=u,d,e} ||M^λ − U^λ M̂^λ(V^λ)^†||^2_F ... Models for which L < 10^{−4} are classified as 'viable.'"

    The observed quark and lepton masses M̂^λ are the targets in the loss function (B1), while the order-one coefficients c^λ_IJ and the VEVs are the free parameters being optimized. Since the model masses are M^λ = ⟨H^λ⟩ c^λ_IJ Λ^λ_IJ, matching them to the PDG values is a least-squares fit of those same numbers, not an independent derivation. The topology-determined part is the texture Λ^λ; the numerical mass values are forced by construction once the coefficients are optimized, so calling this a 'reproduction' of the flavour data overstates what is computed.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B, step 2]
    "The CKM matrix in Eq. (A4) is enforced by randomly generating orthogonal matrices U^u and U^d until the product (U^u)^† U^d matches the target CKM matrix within a 10% average deviation (in the absolute values of its entries)."

    The CKM matrix is not obtained from the compactification; it is directly imposed as a search target by random generation of the rotation matrices. The subsequent Yukawa optimization inherits this enforced CKM, so the quoted agreement with the measured quark mixing parameters is an input condition of the scan, not a prediction.

full rationale

The central numerical claim—that the two models reproduce quark and charged lepton masses and the CKM matrix—reduces in part to a fit. Appendix B explicitly optimizes the order-one Yukawa coefficients and VEVs against the observed mass matrices via the loss function (B1), and step 2 of the search randomly generates rotations until they match the target CKM within 10%. Thus the 'reproduction' of masses and mixings is by construction close to the input data. The non-circular ingredient is the texture Λ^λ, fixed by the U(1) selection rules and topology; this gives a genuine hierarchical structure, and the paper's scan over 226 inequivalent models is a real constraint. However, the load-bearing existence claim in Section IV ('there exist explicit choices of CY topology and vector bundle data ... that yield a fully realistic (MS)SM spectrum with the correct flavour structure') is conditional on the fitted coefficients being realized by actual geometric overlap integrals at some moduli point, which the paper does not compute ('A complete UV-realisation would require computing these coefficients explicitly at a stabilised point using, for example, the neural network approach developed in Ref. [37]'). Similarly, the down/lepton textures rely on the unverified assumption that Pfaffians do not vanish ('we have not attempted to compute the corresponding Pfaffians and our implicit assumption is that these are non-vanishing'). These are unverified assumptions rather than circular steps, but they reinforce that the numerical flavour match is a fit plus a plausibility argument, not a derivation. Self-citations such as Ref. [37] are used only to justify the order-one range and for computational methodology, not as a uniqueness theorem, so they do not independently raise the score. Overall: partial circularity—the fitted inputs are called predictions—while the U(1) texture content is independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claim rests on a large set of fitted parameters and on several unverified physical assumptions. The operator textures are constrained by U(1) selection rules from the compactification, but the numerical values are fit. The ledger records the fitted parameters and the assumptions that would need to be verified for the proof of principle to become a derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • Order-one Yukawa coefficients c^u_IJ, c^d_IJ, c^e_IJ = Model 1 examples: c^u_12=-0.2117, c^d_11=-1.5947, c^e_11=0.8238; constrained to |c|<9
    Chosen by optimization to match masses and CKM; not computed from geometry (Section III, Appendix B).
  • Perturbative singlet VEVs phi = e.g., <phi_{1,2}>=<phi_{2,5}>=0.7; range 0.1-0.7
    Set by hand to generate hierarchies; a subset set to O(M_EW/M_GUT) and effectively zero in fits.
  • Non-perturbative moduli VEVs Phi_i = e.g., <Phi_2>=0.07 (Model 1), <Phi_4>=0.01 (Model 2); range 0.01-0.07
    Chosen to suppress entries and set the mu-term scale; not dynamically derived.
  • Higgs VEVs (v_u, v_d) = Model 1: (48.930, 166.979) GeV; Model 2: (83.764, 152.511) GeV
    One parameter (tan beta) after fixing sqrt(v_u^2+v_d^2)=174 GeV; fitted.
  • Unconstrained rotation parameters (Euler angles) in SVD/CKM matching = Unlisted, varied during optimization
    Used in loss function B1 to match CKM and masses; largely unphysical degrees of freedom.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The low-energy theory is the MSSM with N=1 supersymmetry, and holomorphic superpotential Yukawa couplings are protected from large corrections.
    Justifies using tree-level superpotential and neglecting higher corrections; stated in Sections I and II.
  • domain assumption R-parity is geometrically realized by a discrete symmetry of X/Gamma and remains unbroken throughout moduli space.
    Needed to forbid R-parity violating operators; stated in Section II ('Crucially, we also assume...') and Discussion.
  • ad hoc to paper The Pfaffians for non-perturbative moduli are non-vanishing.
    Section III: 'we have not attempted to compute the corresponding Pfaffians and our implicit assumption is that these are non-vanishing.'
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen moduli VEVs correspond to a point in moduli space that can be dynamically realized with D-flatness and SUSY preserved.
    Moduli stabilization and SUSY breaking are not addressed; the fit assumes existence of such a point (Section IV).
  • ad hoc to paper The order-one coefficients can be treated as free IR parameters in the range 0.1 to 9 and correspond to actual geometric values.
    Central to the numerical fit; no geometric computation is provided (Appendix B).
  • standard math The cohomology and spectrum computations from cited line bundle literature are correct.
    The model spectra and U(1) charges are taken from the established framework (Refs [2,3,48]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reproducing Standard Model Fermion Masses and Mixing in String Theory: A Heterotic Line Bundle Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AST64YRP

@misc{pith2026250703076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reproducing Standard Model Fermion Masses and Mixing in String Theory: A Heterotic Line Bundle Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AST64YRP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03076}
}
abstract

Deriving the Yukawa couplings and the resulting fermion masses and mixing angles of the Standard Model (SM) from a more fundamental theory remains one of the central outstanding problems in theoretical high-energy physics. It has long been recognised that string theory provides a framework within which this question can, at least in principle, be addressed. While substantial progress has been made in studying flavour physics in string compactifications over the past few decades, a concrete string construction that reproduces the full set of observed SM flavour parameters remains unknown. Here, we take a significant step in this direction by identifying two explicit $E_8 \times E_8$ heterotic string models compactified on a Calabi-Yau threefold with abelian, holomorphic, and poly-stable vector bundles with an (MS)SM spectrum. Subject to reasonable assumptions about the moduli, we show that these models reproduce the correct values of the quark and charged lepton masses, as well as the quark mixing parameters, at some point in their moduli spaces. The resulting four-dimensional theories are $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric, contain no exotic fields and realise a $\mu$-term suppressed to the electroweak scale. While the issues of moduli stabilisation and supersymmetry breaking are not addressed here, our main result constitutes a proof of principle: there exist choices of topology and moduli within heterotic string compactifications which allow for an MSSM spectrum with the correct flavour parameters.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Warped Numerical Calabi-Yau Metrics

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First numerical GKP warped Type IIB flux background on a Dwork quintic, giving a 0.5% throat-volume estimate near the conifold and new metric/harmonic-form/warp-factor techniques.

  2. What to do with a Ricci-flat Calabi--Yau metric?

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Numerical Ricci-flat Calabi–Yau metrics turn string compactifications from topological existence statements into computable geometries, unlocking normalized couplings, spectra, and metric-level tests of mirror symmetry.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,

    P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, “Vacuum Configurations for Superstrings,” Nuclear Physics B258 (1985) 46–74

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    Two Hundred Heterotic Standard Models on Smooth Calabi-Yau Threefolds,

    L. B. Anderson, J. Gray, A. Lukas, and E. Palti, “Two Hundred Heterotic Standard Models on Smooth Calabi-Yau Threefolds,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 106005, 1106.4804

    arXiv 2011

  3. [3]

    Heterotic Line Bundle Standard Models,

    L. B. Anderson, J. Gray, A. Lukas, and E. Palti, “Heterotic Line Bundle Standard Models,” JHEP 06 (2012) 113, 1202.1757

    arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    A Comprehensive Scan for Heterotic SU(5) GUT models,

    L. B. Anderson, A. Constantin, J. Gray, A. Lukas, and E. Palti, “A Comprehensive Scan for Heterotic SU(5) GUT models,” JHEP 01 (2014) 047, 1307.4787

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Heterotic Model Building: 16 Special Manifolds,

    Y.-H. He, S.-J. Lee, A. Lukas, and C. Sun, “Heterotic Model Building: 16 Special Manifolds,” JHEP 06 (2014) 077, 1309.0223

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Heterotic Line Bundle Models on Elliptically Fibered Calabi-Yau Three-folds,

    A. P. Braun, C. R. Brodie, and A. Lukas, “Heterotic Line Bundle Models on Elliptically Fibered Calabi-Yau Three-folds,” JHEP 04 (2018) 087, 1706.07688

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Counting String Theory Standard Models,

    A. Constantin, Y.-H. He, and A. Lukas, “Counting String Theory Standard Models,” Phys. Lett. B792 (2019) 258–262, 1810.00444

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Explore and Exploit with Heterotic Line Bundle Models,

    M. Larfors and R. Schneider, “Explore and Exploit with Heterotic Line Bundle Models,” Fortsch. Phys.68 (2020), no. 5, 2000034, 2003.04817

    arXiv 2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Decoding Nature with Nature’s Tools: Heterotic Line Bundle Models of Particle Physics with Genetic Algorithms and Quantum Annealing,

    S. A. Abel, A. Constantin, T. R. Harvey, A. Lukas, and L. A. Nutricati, “Decoding Nature with Nature’s Tools: Heterotic Line Bundle Models of Particle Physics with Genetic Algorithms and Quantum Annealing,” 2306.03147

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hubsch, Calabi-Yau manifolds: A Bestiary for physicists

    T. Hubsch, Calabi-Yau manifolds: A Bestiary for physicists. World Scientific, Singapore, 1994

    1994

  3. [11]

    CICY package, based on methods described in arXiv:0911.1569, arXiv:0911.0865, arXiv:0805.2875, hep-th/0703249, hep-th/0702210,

    L. B. Anderson, J. Gray, Y.-H. He, S.-J. Lee, and A. Lukas, “CICY package, based on methods described in arXiv:0911.1569, arXiv:0911.0865, arXiv:0805.2875, hep-th/0703249, hep-th/0702210,”

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    cohomCalg package,

    “cohomCalg package,” 2010. High-performance line bundle cohomology computation based on methods described in arXiv:1003.5217, arXiv:1006.2392, arXiv:1006.0780. Download link: http://wwwth.mppmu.mpg.de/ members/blumenha/cohomcalg/

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    pyCICY - A python CICY toolkit, 10.5281/zenodo.3243914, [github-link], (2019),

    M. Larfors and R. Schneider, “pyCICY - A python CICY toolkit, 10.5281/zenodo.3243914, [github-link], (2019),”

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Formulae for Line Bundle Cohomology on Calabi-Yau Threefolds,

    A. Constantin and A. Lukas, “Formulae for Line Bundle Cohomology on Calabi-Yau Threefolds,” Fortsch. Phys. 67 (2019), no. 12, 1900084, 1808.09992

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Machine Learning Line Bundle Cohomologies of Hypersurfaces in Toric Varieties,

    D. Klaewer and L. Schlechter, “Machine Learning Line Bundle Cohomologies of Hypersurfaces in Toric Varieties,” Phys. Lett. B789 (2019) 438–443, 1809.02547

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Line bundle cohomologies on CICYs with Picard number two,

    M. Larfors and R. Schneider, “Line bundle cohomologies on CICYs with Picard number two,” Fortsch. Phys.67 (2019), no. 12, 1900083, 1906.00392

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Machine Learning Line Bundle Cohomology,

    C. R. Brodie, A. Constantin, R. Deen, and A. Lukas, “Machine Learning Line Bundle Cohomology,” Fortsch. Phys. 68 (2020), no. 1, 1900087, 1906.08730. 8

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cohomology Chambers on Complex Surfaces and Elliptically Fibered Calabi–Yau Three-Folds,

    C. R. Brodie and A. Constantin, “Cohomology Chambers on Complex Surfaces and Elliptically Fibered Calabi–Yau Three-Folds,” Commun. Math. Phys.405 (2024), no. 7, 151, 2009.01275

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Flops, Gromov-Witten invariants and symmetries of line bundle cohomology on Calabi-Yau three-folds,

    C. R. Brodie, A. Constantin, and A. Lukas, “Flops, Gromov-Witten invariants and symmetries of line bundle cohomology on Calabi-Yau three-folds,” J. Geom. Phys. 171 (2022) 104398, 2010.06597

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Geodesics in the extended K¨ ahler cone of Calabi-Yau threefolds,

    C. R. Brodie, A. Constantin, A. Lukas, and F. Ruehle, “Geodesics in the extended K¨ ahler cone of Calabi-Yau threefolds,” JHEP 03 (2022) 024, 2108.10323

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Generating Functions for Line Bundle Cohomology Dimensions on Complex Projective Varieties,

    A. Constantin, “Generating Functions for Line Bundle Cohomology Dimensions on Complex Projective Varieties,” Experimental Mathematics (1, 2024) 2401.14463

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Calabi-Yau Metrics for Quotients and Complete Intersections,

    V. Braun, T. Brelidze, M. R. Douglas, and B. A. Ovrut, “Calabi-Yau Metrics for Quotients and Complete Intersections,” JHEP 05 (2008) 080, 0712.3563

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Numerical Calabi-Yau metrics,

    M. R. Douglas, R. L. Karp, S. Lukic, and R. Reinbacher, “Numerical Calabi-Yau metrics,” J. Math. Phys. 49 (2008) 032302, hep-th/0612075

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Numerical solution to the hermitian Yang-Mills equation on the Fermat quintic,

    M. R. Douglas, R. L. Karp, S. Lukic, and R. Reinbacher, “Numerical solution to the hermitian Yang-Mills equation on the Fermat quintic,” JHEP 12 (2007) 083, hep-th/0606261

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Numerical Hermitian Yang-Mills Connections and Kahler Cone Substructure,

    L. B. Anderson, V. Braun, and B. A. Ovrut, “Numerical Hermitian Yang-Mills Connections and Kahler Cone Substructure,” JHEP 01 (2012) 014, 1103.3041

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Numerical Hermitian Yang-Mills Connections and Vector Bundle Stability in Heterotic Theories,

    L. B. Anderson, V. Braun, R. L. Karp, and B. A. Ovrut, “Numerical Hermitian Yang-Mills Connections and Vector Bundle Stability in Heterotic Theories,” JHEP 06 (2010) 107, 1004.4399

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Holomorphic Yukawa Couplings in Heterotic String Theory,

    S. Blesneag, E. I. Buchbinder, P. Candelas, and A. Lukas, “Holomorphic Yukawa Couplings in Heterotic String Theory,” JHEP 01 (2016) 152, 1512.05322

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Holomorphic Yukawa Couplings for Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,

    S. Blesneag, E. I. Buchbinder, and A. Lukas, “Holomorphic Yukawa Couplings for Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,” JHEP 01 (2017) 119, 1607.03461

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Machine Learning Calabi–Yau Metrics,

    A. Ashmore, Y.-H. He, and B. A. Ovrut, “Machine Learning Calabi–Yau Metrics,” Fortsch. Phys.68 (2020), no. 9, 2000068, 1910.08605

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Moduli-dependent Calabi-Yau and SU(3)-structure metrics from Machine Learning,

    L. B. Anderson, M. Gerdes, J. Gray, S. Krippendorf, N. Raghuram, and F. Ruehle, “Moduli-dependent Calabi-Yau and SU(3)-structure metrics from Machine Learning,” JHEP 05 (2021) 013, 2012.04656

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Neural network approximations for Calabi-Yau metrics,

    V. Jejjala, D. K. Mayorga Pena, and C. Mishra, “Neural network approximations for Calabi-Yau metrics,” JHEP 08 (2022) 105, 2012.15821

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Numerical Calabi-Yau metrics from holomorphic networks,

    M. R. Douglas, S. Lakshminarasimhan, and Y. Qi, “Numerical Calabi-Yau metrics from holomorphic networks,” 2012.04797

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Learning Size and Shape of Calabi-Yau Spaces,

    M. Larfors, A. Lukas, F. Ruehle, and R. Schneider, “Learning Size and Shape of Calabi-Yau Spaces,” 2111.01436

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Numerical metrics for complete intersection and Kreuzer–Skarke Calabi–Yau manifolds,

    M. Larfors, A. Lukas, F. Ruehle, and R. Schneider, “Numerical metrics for complete intersection and Kreuzer–Skarke Calabi–Yau manifolds,” Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.3 (2022), no. 3, 035014, 2205.13408

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Machine learning line bundle connections,

    A. Ashmore, R. Deen, Y.-H. He, and B. A. Ovrut, “Machine learning line bundle connections,” Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 136972, 2110.12483

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Numerical spectra of the Laplacian for line bundles on Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces,

    A. Ashmore, Y.-H. He, E. Heyes, and B. A. Ovrut, “Numerical spectra of the Laplacian for line bundles on Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces,” JHEP 07 (2023) 164, 2305.08901

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Computation of quark masses from string theory,

    A. Constantin, C. S. Fraser-Taliente, T. R. Harvey, A. Lukas, and B. Ovrut, “Computation of quark masses from string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B1010 (2025) 116778, 2402.01615

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Physical Yukawa Couplings in Heterotic String Compactifications,

    G. Butbaia, D. Mayorga Pe˜ na, J. Tan, P. Berglund, T. H¨ ubsch, V. Jejjala, and C. Mishra, “Physical Yukawa Couplings in Heterotic String Compactifications,” 2401.15078

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hierarchy of quark masses, cabibbo angles and CP violation,

    C. Froggatt and H. Nielsen, “Hierarchy of quark masses, cabibbo angles and CP violation,” Nuclear Physics B 147 (1979), no. 3, 277–298

    1979

  32. [40]

    Fermion Masses and Mixing in String-Inspired Models,

    A. Constantin, C. S. Fraser-Taliente, T. R. Harvey, L. T. Y. Leung, and A. Lukas, “Fermion Masses and Mixing in String-Inspired Models,” 2410.17704

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Yukawa Unification in Heterotic String Theory,

    E. I. Buchbinder, A. Constantin, J. Gray, and A. Lukas, “Yukawa Unification in Heterotic String Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016), no. 4, 046005, 1606.04032

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Heterotic QCD axion,

    E. I. Buchbinder, A. Constantin, and A. Lukas, “Heterotic QCD axion,” Phys. Rev. D91 (2015), no. 4, 046010, 1412.8696

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The Moduli Space of Heterotic Line Bundle Models: a Case Study for the Tetra-Quadric,

    E. I. Buchbinder, A. Constantin, and A. Lukas, “The Moduli Space of Heterotic Line Bundle Models: a Case Study for the Tetra-Quadric,” JHEP 03 (2014) 025, 1311.1941

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Non-generic Couplings in Supersymmetric Standard Models,

    E. I. Buchbinder, A. Constantin, and A. Lukas, “Non-generic Couplings in Supersymmetric Standard Models,” Phys. Lett. B748 (2015) 251–254, 1409.2412

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    On Free Quotients of Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,

    V. Braun, “On Free Quotients of Complete Intersection Calabi-Yau Manifolds,” JHEP 04 (2011) 005, 1003.3235

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The mu Problem and the Strong CP Problem,

    J. E. Kim and H. P. Nilles, “The mu Problem and the Strong CP Problem,” Phys. Lett. B138 (1984) 150–154

    1984

  39. [47]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024), no. 3, 030001

    2024

  40. [48]

    Hodge Numbers for All CICY Quotients,

    A. Constantin, J. Gray, and A. Lukas, “Hodge Numbers for All CICY Quotients,” JHEP 01 (2017) 001, 1607.01830. Appendix A: SM Y ukawa couplings The quark and charged lepton mass matrices are re- lated to the Yukawa matrices through the relations M u = ⟨H u⟩ Y u , Md = ⟨H d⟩ Y d...

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    This can reduce the rank of the Yukawa matrices

    Given the required suppression of certain singlet VEVs (by ∼ 10−14), these VEVs are set to zero when computing the flavour parameters. This can reduce the rank of the Yukawa matrices. If both up- and down-type Yukawa matrices become rank one under this restriction, the model i...

  42. [50]

    The CKM matrix in Eq. (A4) is enforced by ran- domly generating orthogonal matrices U u and U d until the product ( U u)†U d matches the target CKM matrix within a 10% average deviation (in the absolute values of its entries). Note that fit- ting the CP-violating phase in the ...

  43. [51]

    These include the Yukawa coefficients, the up-type Higgs VEV, the unsup- pressed singlet VEVs and the entries of V u, V d, U e and V e

    For each realisation of the CKM matrix and each choice of suppressed singlet VEVs, there remain approximately 50–80 additional parameters that must be optimised to reproduce realistic quark and charged lepton masses. These include the Yukawa coefficients, the up-type Higgs VEV...

Pith tools

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