Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

The Standard Model partial unification scale as a guide to new physics model building

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-18 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read New physics unifies at the Standard Model partial unification scale when corrections to non-Abelian couplings are equal.

desk verdict The parametrization shows that equal new-physics corrections to the non-Abelian couplings keep the unification scale near the SM partial scale, and the paper checks this on SUSY and string models. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.21420 v2 submitted 2025-10-24 hep-ph hep-th

Isabella Masina , Mariano Quiros This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords gaugecouplingunificationStandardModelnewphysicspartialscalesupersymmetrythresholdcorrectionsstring
checked against alexander_duality_circle_linking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes that the Standard Model achieves partial unification of its non-Abelian gauge couplings at a scale of roughly 2.8 times 10 to the 16 GeV. It provides a general parametrization of the corrections from new physics that complete the unification at a scale M_X. The central result is that whenever these corrections treat the two non-Abelian couplings equally or nearly so, the full unification scale M_X ends up at or very close to the partial unification scale. This relation serves as a guide for building new physics models, including supersymmetry and string-inspired scenarios, and highlights when lower unification scales become possible.

What carries the argument

Parametrization of new physics corrections to the gauge coupling evolution that separates effects on Abelian and non-Abelian sectors and ties equal non-Abelian shifts to the unification scale.

What would settle it

Discovery of a specific new physics model or threshold effects that alter the beta functions of SU(3) and SU(2) by substantially different amounts, pushing the unification scale far from 2.8 × 10^{16} GeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the Standard Model the non-Abelian gauge couplings partially unify at the scale μ^{SM}_{32} ≈ 2.8 × 10^{16} GeV. A simple general parametrization for new physics corrections that lead to full unification at M_X shows that for any model in which the corrections to the non-Abelian couplings are equal or nearly equal, M_X coincides with or lies close to μ^{SM}_{32}. The two scales can be disentangled only if the corrections to the non-Abelian couplings differ significantly.

Load-bearing premise

New physics produces equal or nearly equal corrections to the running of the two non-Abelian gauge couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Low energy supersymmetry leads to unification near the partial scale.
  • Split supersymmetry and similar models behave analogously under symmetric corrections.
  • String inspired corrections allow a phenomenologically interesting unification near 100 TeV.
  • Power law running links the unification pattern to the number of bulk fermion families.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Observing unification at a markedly different scale would point to asymmetric corrections from new physics.
  • The approach offers a way to organize model building around how new physics shifts the known partial scale.
  • Scenarios with unification at 100 TeV would require new physics effects at energies potentially reachable by future experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a general parametrization of new physics corrections to the Standard Model gauge couplings that produce full unification at a scale M_X. It shows that whenever the corrections to the two non-Abelian couplings are equal or nearly equal, M_X coincides with (or lies close to) the SM partial unification scale μ^{SM}_{32} ≈ 2.8 × 10^{16} GeV; the scales can be separated only if the corrections differ significantly. The framework is applied to low-energy SUSY, split SUSY, string-inspired threshold corrections, and power-law bulk running, with a highlighted scenario of unification near 100 TeV in string models.

Significance. If the result holds, the parametrization supplies a compact organizing principle for new-physics model building: the unification scale is largely fixed by the SM non-Abelian meeting point unless the corrections to α_2 and α_3 are markedly unequal. The work is credited for its explicit numerical checks across several model classes and for identifying a phenomenologically striking low-scale unification possibility tied to the number of bulk fermion families.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and one-loop matching discussion] Abstract and the one-loop matching discussion: the statement that M_X equals μ^{SM}_{32} when the new-physics corrections to the non-Abelian couplings are equal follows immediately from the definition of the parametrization and the one-loop beta-function matching condition. This makes the central claim conditional on an assumption that is built into the setup, raising the risk that the result is a re-expression of the input partial scale rather than an independent guide. A more explicit separation between the fitted reference scale and the derived M_X, together with a quantitative estimate of how unequal the corrections must be to produce a detectable shift, would clarify the non-trivial content of the claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Applications to SUSY and string models] The numerical examples for SUSY and string models would be easier to assess if a compact table listed the assumed correction sizes, the resulting M_X values, and the deviation from μ^{SM}_{32} for each case.
  2. [Introduction] The notation μ^{SM}_{32} is introduced without a brief reminder of its definition from the SM two-loop running; adding one sentence in the introduction would aid readers outside the immediate unification community.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive major comment. We address the point below and have made revisions to improve clarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the one-loop matching discussion: the statement that M_X equals μ^{SM}_{32} when the new-physics corrections to the non-Abelian couplings are equal follows immediately from the definition of the parametrization and the one-loop beta-function matching condition. This makes the central claim conditional on an assumption that is built into the setup, raising the risk that the result is a re-expression of the input partial scale rather than an independent guide. A more explicit separation between the fitted reference scale and the derived M_X, together with a quantitative estimate of how unequal the corrections must be to produce a detectable shift, would clarify the non-trivial content of the claim.

    Authors: We agree that when the new-physics corrections satisfy δ_2 = δ_3 the equality M_X = μ^{SM}_{32} follows directly from the one-loop matching condition and the definition of our parametrization. The manuscript's contribution is to demonstrate that this equal-correction condition is realized (or approximately realized) across a broad range of concrete new-physics models, thereby turning the SM partial-unification scale into a practical organizing principle for model building. To make this distinction explicit we have revised the abstract and the opening paragraphs of Section II. The revised text now defines μ^{SM}_{32} strictly as the scale obtained from SM running alone, while M_X is obtained only after the correction parameters δ_i are specified. We have also added a short quantitative subsection that solves the matching equation for the ratio M_X / μ^{SM}_{32} as a function of |δ_2 − δ_3|. For the one-loop beta-function coefficients used in the paper, a difference |δ_2 − δ_3| ≳ 0.15 (in the normalization of the manuscript) is required to move M_X by an order of magnitude; smaller differences keep M_X within a factor of a few of 2.8 × 10^{16} GeV. This estimate clarifies when the two scales can be disentangled and underscores the robustness of the guide for the models we examine. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained from one-loop RGEs

full rationale

The central result follows directly from the one-loop renormalization group equations for the gauge couplings and the matching condition at the unification scale M_X. When new-physics corrections to the non-Abelian couplings are equal, the relative evolution between α_2 and α_3 is unaltered, so M_X must coincide with the SM partial unification scale μ^{SM}_{32} by algebraic identity; this is shown analytically and checked numerically for concrete models (low-energy SUSY, split SUSY, string thresholds, power-law running). No parameter is fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation is invoked for a uniqueness theorem, and the parametrization is introduced as a general ansatz rather than smuggled from prior work. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the standard one-loop renormalization-group evolution of the SM gauge couplings up to the partial unification scale; the parametrization introduces correction terms whose equality is postulated rather than derived from a deeper principle.

free parameters (1)
  • correction terms to non-Abelian couplings
    The size and equality of the new-physics corrections to the SU(3) and SU(2) beta functions are introduced to shift the unification point; their values are chosen to match desired M_X.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption One-loop running of SM gauge couplings is accurate enough to define the partial unification scale μ^{SM}_{32}.
    The numerical value 2.8 × 10^16 GeV is taken as given from standard SM evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Standard Model partial unification scale as a guide to new physics model building." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2510.21420

@misc{pith2026251021420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Standard Model partial unification scale as a guide to new physics model building},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2510.21420}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.21420}
}
abstract

In the Standard Model, partial unification of the non-Abelian running gauge couplings is achieved at the scale $\mu^{SM}_{32} \approx 2.8 \times 10^{16}$ GeV. Elaborating on this fact, we discuss a simple general parametrization for the new physics corrections leading to full unification at some scale $M_X$. We show that for any new physics model such that the corrections to the non-Abelian couplings are equal (or nearly so), $M_X$ is equal (or close to) the partial unification scale $\mu^{SM}_{32}$; the latter scales could be disentangled only if the corrections to the non-Abelian couplings are significantly different. We explore how the parametrization works for some relevant models with new physics below $M_X$, as low energy supersymmetry, split supersymmetry, etc. As for models with a desert up to $M_X$, we explore in particular how the parametrization works for string inspired corrections; we find a phenomenologically remarkable possibility for unification at about 100 TeV, suggesting a low string scale, in addition to the more conservative possibility for unification at $\mu^{SM}_{32}$; for models with power-low running/threshold corrections, we also outline an interesting connection with the number of fermion families propagating in the bulk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.21420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Running gauge couplings in the SM at NNLO (dashed) and in the MSSM at LO (solid). The SUSY running starts at 10 TeV. The LO (one loop) approximation for the running is also of interest, since it allows for a quick comparison among models (as will be done in the following). In the SM, taking the central values for the experimental inputs, the partial unification scale at LO turns out to be µ (1) 32 ≃ 8.8 × 1016 GeV, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Running gauge couplings at LO (solid) in the MSSM, 2HDM and split-SUSY, in the upper left, upper right and lower panel, respectively, with respect to the SM ones (dashed). The new physics running starts at the mass threshold µS = 10 TeV. 3 Full unification It is straightforward to estimate the value of b1 − b3 which would ensure full unification at MX. Readapting Eq. (2.6), we have, at LO, b1 − b3 =  1 α1(µS) − 1 α… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The case of equal corrections to the non-Abelian gauge couplings. The dependence of ϵ1 (left) and αG (right) with respect to ϵ32. Fits are provided in Eq. (4.3). α3 α2 α1 ϵ32=0.68, ϵ1=0.35 (1+ϵ2 )α2 (μ) (1+ϵ1 )α1 (μ) (1+ϵ3 )α3 (μ) 10 12 14 16 18 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 μ32 SM Log10 μ(t) [GeV] (1+ ϵ3,2,1) α3,2,1(μ) α3 α2 α1 ϵ32=0.1, ϵ1=-0.116 (1+ϵ2 )α2 (μ) (1+ϵ1 )α1 (μ) (1+ϵ3 )α3 (μ) 10 12 14 16 18 0.020 0.022 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of models with unification at MX = µ SM 32 . Left panel: a model mimicking SUSY with ϵ32 = 0.68 and ϵ1 = 0.35, so that αG = α (S1) 32 ≈ 0.0364. Right panel: a model of the mirage SUSY type, obtained taking ϵ32 = 0.1 and ϵ1 = −0.116; in this case αG = 0.0238. W…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The case of unequal corrections to the non-Abelian gauge couplings. Top panels: Case ϵ2 = 0: the dependence of ϵ3,1 and αG on MX. Bottom panels: Case ϵ3 = 0: the dependence of ϵ2,1 and αG on MX. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contours of Log10MX/µSM 32 (solid black) and α32 (dashed blue). The circles (whose size is arbitrary) emphasize the values corresponding to selected models discussed in the text. The shaded (light blue) region is such that full unification would be achieved with ϵ1 < 0…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Solid lines represent the quantities (1+ϵi)αi(µ) in the case of string-inspired corrections leading to full GCU. Left panel: For k = 1, the corrections are given by ϵ2 = ϵ3 = 0, and ϵ1 = −0.197. Right panel: For k = 2, the corrections are ϵ2 = ϵ3 = 1 and ϵ1 = 0.607. Th…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: String inspired corrections to GCU for k2 = 2 and k3 = 1, that is ϵ2 = 1 and ϵ3 = 0. Left: Zoom on the low energy region for MX. Right: The quantities (1 + ϵi)αi(µ) unify at MX = 105 TeV when ϵ1 = 2.29. The dashed lines stands for the SM running couplings, αi(µ). of th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Gauge coupling unification and doublet-triplet splitting via GUT dynamical breaking

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Gauge coupling unification and doublet-triplet splitting in SU(5) can be related via dynamical breaking using fermion condensates in the 10 and 24 representations, while 5-representation condensates are ruled out by p...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Supersymmetry and the scale of unification

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, F. Wilczek, Supersymmetry and the Scale of Unification, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1681–1683.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1681

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.24.1681 1981

  2. [2]

    Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)

    S. Dimopoulos, H. Georgi, Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150–162.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8 1981

  3. [3]

    L. E. Ibanez, G. G. Ross, Low-Energy Predictions in Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theo- ries, Phys. Lett. B 105 (1981) 439–442.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)91200-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)91200-4 1981

  4. [4]

    Sakai, Naturalness in Supersymmetric Guts, Z

    N. Sakai, Naturalness in Supersymmetric Guts, Z. Phys. C 11 (1981) 153.doi:10.1007/ BF01573998. 17

    work page 1981

  5. [5]

    M. B. Einhorn, D. R. T. Jones, The Weak Mixing Angle and Unification Mass in Supersym- metric SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 475–488.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90502-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90502-8 1982

  6. [6]

    W. J. Marciano, G. Senjanovic, Predictions of Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories, Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 3092.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.3092

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.25.3092 1982

  7. [7]

    U.Amaldi, W.deBoer, H.Furstenau, Comparisonofgrandunifiedtheorieswithelectroweak and strong coupling constants measured at LEP, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 447–455.doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(91)91641-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91641-8 1991

  8. [8]

    J. R. Ellis, S. Kelley, D. V. Nanopoulos, Probing the desert using gauge coupling unification, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 131–137.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90980-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90980-5 1991

Show all 45 references
  1. [10]

    Giunti, C

    C. Giunti, C. W. Kim, U. W. Lee, Running coupling constants and grand unification models, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6 (1991) 1745–1755.doi:10.1142/S0217732391001883

    1991 doi

  2. [11]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  3. [12]

    Senjanović, M

    G. Senjanović, M. Zantedeschi, Grand unification, small vs large representations, hadron colliders and all that, PoS CORFU2022 (2023) 127.arXiv:2304.07932,doi:10.22323/1. 436.0127

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    K. R. Dienes, String theory and the path to unification: A Review of recent developments, Phys. Rept. 287 (1997) 447–525.arXiv:hep-th/9602045,doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97) 00009-4

    1997 doi arXiv

  5. [14]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, Supersymmetric unification without low energy su- persymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC, JHEP 06 (2005) 073.arXiv: hep-th/0405159,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/06/073

    2005 doi arXiv

  6. [15]

    G. F. Giudice, A. Romanino, Split supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 65–89, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 706, 487–487 (2005)].arXiv:hep-ph/0406088,doi:10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2004.08.001

    2004 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    T. D. Lee, A Theory of Spontaneous T Violation, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 1226–1239.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226

    1973 doi

  8. [17]

    G. C. Branco, P. M. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. N. Rebelo, M. Sher, J. P. Silva, Theory and phenomenology of two-Higgs-doublet models, Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1–102.arXiv: 1106.0034,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.02.002

    2012 doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    Langacker, N

    P. Langacker, N. Polonsky, Uncertainties in coupling constant unification, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4028–4045.arXiv:hep-ph/9210235,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4028

    1993 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Carena, S

    M. Carena, S. Pokorski, C. E. M. Wagner, On the unification of couplings in the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model, Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 59–89.arXiv:hep-ph/9303202, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90161-H

    1993 doi arXiv

  11. [20]

    Altarelli, F

    G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, I. Masina, From minimal to realistic supersymmetric SU(5) grand unification, JHEP 11 (2000) 040.arXiv:hep-ph/0007254,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/ 11/040. 18

    2000 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    Masina, The Problem of neutrino masses in extensions of the standard model, Int

    I. Masina, The Problem of neutrino masses in extensions of the standard model, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 5101–5200.arXiv:hep-ph/0107220,doi:10.1142/S0217751X01005456

    2001 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    Tracas, Standard andnon-standard extramatter for non-supersymmetric unification (6 2005).arXiv:hep-ph/0506144

    A.Kehagias, N.D. Tracas, Standard andnon-standard extramatter for non-supersymmetric unification (6 2005).arXiv:hep-ph/0506144

    2005 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Di Luzio, L

    L. Di Luzio, L. Mihaila, Unification scale vs. electroweak-triplet mass in theSU(5) + 24F model at three loops, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 115025.arXiv:1305.2850,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.87.115025

    2013 arXiv

  15. [24]

    S. A. R. Ellis, J. D. Wells, Visualizing gauge unification with high-scale thresholds, Phys. Rev. D 91 (7) (2015) 075016.arXiv:1502.01362,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.075016

    2015 doi arXiv

  16. [25]

    Schwichtenberg, Gauge Coupling Unification without Supersymmetry, Eur

    J. Schwichtenberg, Gauge Coupling Unification without Supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (4) (2019) 351.arXiv:1808.10329,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6878-1

    2019 doi arXiv

  17. [26]

    D.Meloni, T.Ohlsson, M.Pernow, ThresholdeffectsinSO(10)modelswithoneintermediate breaking scale, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (9) (2020) 840.arXiv:1911.11411,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-8308-9

    2020 doi

  18. [27]

    Djouadi, R

    A. Djouadi, R. Fonseca, R. Ouyang, M. Raidal, Non-supersymmetric SO(10) models with Gauge and Yukawa coupling unification, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (6) (2023) 529.arXiv:2212. 11315,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11696-4

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    N.Haba, K.Nagano, Y.Shimizu, T.Yamada, GaugeCouplingUnificationandProtonDecay via 45 Higgs Boson in SU(5) GUT, PTEP 2024 (5) (2024) 053B05.arXiv:2402.15124, doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae066

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    G.-C. Cho, K. Hagiwara, String unification scale and the hypercharge Kac-Moody level in the nonsupersymmetric standard model, Phys. Lett. B 419 (1998) 199–205.arXiv: hep-ph/9709279,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01488-3

    1998 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    C. T. Hill, Are There Significant Gravitational Corrections to the Unification Scale?, Phys. Lett. B 135 (1984) 47–51.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90451-9

    1984 doi

  22. [31]

    Shafi, C

    Q. Shafi, C. Wetterich, Modification of GUT Predictions in the Presence of Spontaneous Compactification, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 875.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.875

    1984 doi

  23. [32]

    C.Panagiotakopoulos, Q.Shafi, DimensionFiveInteractions, FermionMassesandHiggsMe- diatedProtonDecayinSU(5), Phys.Rev.Lett.52(1984)2336.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 52.2336

    1984 doi

  24. [33]

    L. J. Hall, U. Sarid, Gravitational smearing of minimal supersymmetric unification pre- dictions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 2673–2676.arXiv:hep-ph/9210240,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.70.2673

    1993 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Masina, M

    I. Masina, M. Quiros, Electroweak metastability and Higgs inflation, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (11) (2024) 1153.arXiv:2403.02461,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13522-x

    2024 doi

  26. [35]

    Z. Alam, S. P. Martin, Standard model at 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 107 (1) (2023) 013010. arXiv:2211.08576,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.013010

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    Arkani-Hamed, S

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali, The Hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263–272.arXiv:hep-ph/9803315,doi:10.1016/ S0370-2693(98)00466-3. 19

    1998 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Antoniadis, N

    I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali, New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV, Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 257–263. arXiv:hep-ph/9804398,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)00860-0

    1998 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    J. J. Heckman, C. Vafa, T. Weigand, F. Xu, Dark dimension and the grand unification of forces, Phys. Rev. D 111 (4) (2025) 046014.arXiv:2409.01405,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 111.046014

    2025 doi

  30. [39]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis, D. Lust, Two Micron-Size Dark Dimensions, Fortsch. Phys. 73 (8) (2025) e70015.arXiv:2501.11690,doi:10.1002/prop.70015

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Chatrabhuti, J. Cunat, H. Isono, Bispectrum from five-dimensional infla- tion, JHEP 08 (2025) 163.arXiv:2505.14225,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2025)163

    2025 doi

  32. [41]

    Ettengruber, F

    M. Ettengruber, F. Kuhnel, Micro Black Hole Dark Matter (6 2025).arXiv:2506.14871

    2025

  33. [42]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Chatrabhuti, H. Isono, Searching for a Dark Dimension Right-handed Neutrino in KATRIN (9 2025).arXiv:2509.05233

    2025

  34. [43]

    Kutasov, Introduction to little string theory, ICTP Lect

    D. Kutasov, Introduction to little string theory, ICTP Lect. Notes Ser. 7 (2002) 165–209

    2002

  35. [44]

    Helsens, D

    C. Helsens, D. Jamin, M. L. Mangano, T. G. Rizzo, M. Selvaggi, Heavy resonances at energy-frontier hadron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 569.arXiv:1902.11217,doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7062-3

    2019 doi arXiv

  36. [45]

    Antoniadis, S

    I. Antoniadis, S. Dimopoulos, A. Giveon, Little string theory at a TeV, JHEP 05 (2001) 055.arXiv:hep-th/0103033,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/05/055

    2001 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    Antoniadis, A

    I. Antoniadis, A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, A. Giveon, Phenomenology of TeV Little String Theory from Holography, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 081602.arXiv:1102.4043, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.081602. 20

    2012 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 18, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.