Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 62 references

Revisiting the Realistic Intersecting D6-Brane Model with positive and negative {\mu} Terms

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Both signs of the Higgsino mass parameter survive LHC, B-physics, and dark matter constraints in a string-derived Pati-Salam model.

desk verdict A plausible but internally inconsistent scan: the existence claim likely survives, but the tables and quoted ranges need correction before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12907 v1 pith:73FTF22N submitted 2025-06-15 hep-ph

Imtiaz Khan , Ali Muhammad , Tianjun Li , Shabbar Raza This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords intersectingD6-branesPati-SalammodelsupersymmetrydarkmatterrelicdensityneutralinoLSPcoannihilationmuonanomalousmagneticmomentLHCconstraints
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 checks whether a specific string-theory construction—a three-family Pati-Salam model built from intersecting D6-branes—can still fit current particle physics constraints for either sign of the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$. It claims that both $\mu < 0$ and $\mu > 0$ have viable regions, with gravitino masses typically above 1.5 TeV, gluinos between 2 and 18 TeV, and a light stop that can generate the observed dark matter relic density through coannihilation. The reason to care: a string-derived model with concrete boundary conditions makes sharp, testable predictions for the LHC and for dark matter experiments, and the sign of $\mu$ turns out to matter for which dark matter mechanism works.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of soft supersymmetry-breaking boundary conditions in Eq. (3), taken from Ref. [27]: the gaugino masses $M_1, M_2, M_3$, the scalar masses, and $A_0$ are expressed in terms of four angular parameters $\Theta_1, \Theta_2, \Theta_3, \Theta_4$ and the gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$, subject to the normalization $\sum_{i=1}^4 \Theta_i^2 = 1$. These angles encode the $F$-terms of the dilaton and the three complex-structure moduli of the $T^6/(\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2)$ orientifold. This maps the string compactification to a low-energy MSSM parameter space, which is then scanned with a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm implemented in the ISAJET spectrum generator, evolving the parameters to the weak scale and imposing LEP, LHC, B-physics, Higgs-mass, and relic-density constraints.

What would settle it

A concrete check: compute the soft terms directly from the moduli $F$-terms of the D6-brane compactification (or from a different compactification of the same model). If the resulting gaugino-mass ratios and scalar-mass relations differ from Eq. (3), the benchmark points in Tables I and II are not realizable. On the experimental side, an LHC search excluding a stop below about 1.2 TeV with a neutralino mass gap within roughly 10% would remove the stop-coannihilation solutions, a main source of the viable relic density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the intersecting D6-brane Pati-Salam model of Ref. [8], with the revised moduli-mediated soft supersymmetry-breaking terms of Ref. [27], has experimentally allowed solutions for both signs of the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$. The viable parameter space requires a gravitino mass $m_{3/2}$ typically above 1.5 TeV, yields gluino masses of 2–18 TeV, first- and second-generation squarks of 3–16 TeV, sleptons of 1–6 TeV, and a lightest stop that can be as light as 0.15–1.2 TeV across the scans. The observed relic density is obtained through stop, stau, or chargino coannihilation with the neutralino LSP, and—only for $\mu > 0$—through s-channel annihilation via the heavy Higgs bosons $H$ and $A$. With the lattice-QCD-based Standard Model prediction for $(g-2)_\mu$ now consistent with experiment, the $\mu < 0$ scenario regains phenomenological relevance, and the paper finds its SUSY contribution to $(g-2)_\mu$ agrees within $1\sigma$ for lightest neutralino masses up to 500 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scan stands on the formulas in Eq. (3): if those soft-breaking boundary conditions, taken from Ref. [27], are not the correct low-energy imprint of the D6-brane compactification, then all of the reported mass spectra and dark matter mechanisms shift, even though the scanning method itself is sound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both signs of $\mu$ survive current constraints, so the negative-$\mu$ region—long disfavored by the old muon $g-2$ discrepancy—is a legitimate target for LHC and dark matter searches.
  • The model predicts heavy first- and second-generation scalars (up to 16 TeV) while allowing a light stop; a compressed stop in the 0.5–1.2 TeV range with a nearly degenerate neutralino would match the model's coannihilation scenario.
  • The $A/H$ resonance dark matter mechanism exists only for $\mu > 0$; observing a heavy Higgs funnel would point toward positive $\mu$ in this construction.
  • Almost all viable points sit below current LUX-ZEPLIN and XENONnT limits, but many are within the projected LZ-1000-day reach, so the model is testable in the near future.
  • The $\mu < 0$ scenario allows a heavier neutralino LSP (up to 2.9 TeV) and a somewhat richer spectrum, giving a distinct target for future searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same scan strategy could be applied to other string-derived models, with different orientifolds or gauge groups, to test whether the survival of both signs of $\mu$ is a generic feature or specific to these Pati-Salam boundary conditions.
  • The dark matter mechanism's sharp dependence on the sign of $\mu$ means a future measurement of the neutralino's bino/wino/higgsino composition could indirectly fix the sign of $\mu$, a parameter that is otherwise hard to determine.
  • If the upcoming muon $g-2$ dataset shifts the central value back toward a larger discrepancy, the $\mu < 0$ region favored here would need to be re-examined, since the SUSY contribution to $(g-2)_\mu$ is negative in that regime.
  • Precision measurements of gaugino mass ratios, should superpartners be discovered, could be used to reverse-engineer the angles $\Theta_i$ and thereby probe the moduli $F$-terms of the string compactification.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper revisits a three-family Pati–Salam model from intersecting D6-branes on the T^6/(Z2×Z2) orientifold, using the soft SUSY-breaking terms derived in Ref. [27]. It runs a Metropolis-Hastings scan with ISAJET over γ1, γ2, Θ4, m3/2, and tan β, for both signs of the Higgsino mass parameter μ. The scan is filtered by LEP and LHC sparticle bounds, Higgs mass, B-physics observables, and Planck 2018 relic density, and the authors report viable regions for both μ<0 and μ>0, with gravitino masses typically above 1.5 TeV, gluinos from 2 to 18 TeV, stops as low as a few hundred GeV, and several coannihilation and heavy-Higgs resonance mechanisms. The paper's central claim is the existence of these experimentally allowed regions and the associated benchmark spectra.

Significance. If the quantitative results are correct, the paper demonstrates that a concrete string-derived Pati–Salam model remains viable under current LHC and direct-detection constraints for both signs of μ, with specific mass ranges and identifiable dark matter annihilation mechanisms. The scanning method is standard, and the paper includes benchmark tables intended to support the claims. However, the internal inconsistencies in the benchmark tables—reversed sign labels, negative spin-dependent cross sections, and mutually incompatible resonance masses—mean that the central numerical claim is not yet supported by the manuscript as written. The significance of the contribution is therefore contingent on correcting these issues and making the scan inputs reproducible.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Tables I and II] The text introducing the benchmark tables states that 'Table I summarizes representative solutions ... for the µ < 0 case' and 'Table II presents ... for the µ > 0 case', while the captions label Table I as the 'µ > 0 scenario' and Table II as the 'µ < 0 scenario'. These two assignments are mutually exclusive. Since the tables contain sign-sensitive quantities (μ, M1, M2, M3, and Δaμ), the reader cannot determine which benchmark points belong to which sign scenario, directly undermining the central claim of viable regions for both signs of μ.
  2. [Table II, Points 5–6] The spin-dependent neutralino-proton cross sections are listed as σSD = −2.1×10−10 pb and −1.4×10−10 pb for Points 5 and 6 of Table II. Cross sections are non-negative by definition, so these entries are unphysical. Either the tabulated values are not the direct outputs of the stated computation or a sign/formatting error has occurred. Because these are benchmark points claimed to satisfy all constraints, this error puts the reliability of the benchmark presentation in question.
  3. [Abstract, Sec. IV, and Table I] The A-resonance mass is quoted inconsistently in three places: the abstract and conclusion state 'mA/H ≈ 2 TeV', the Sec. IV text states that 'viable A-resonance solutions predominantly lie in the mass interval of 1.2 TeV to 1.7 TeV', and Table I Points 7–8 list mA = 2988 GeV and 2900 GeV. These cannot all describe the same μ>0 resonance mechanism. The paper must either reconcile these values or clarify which quantity is being reported in each place.
  4. [Sec. III and Abstract] The abstract's headline range 'gluinos lie in the range 2–18 TeV' conflicts with the constraint m~g ≳ 2.2 TeV applied in Sec. III: under the paper's own cut, no viable point with m~g = 2 TeV can survive. The stop mass ranges are also inconsistent across the paper (0.5–1.2 TeV in the abstract, 0.15–1.2 TeV in the conclusion and mechanism list, and 0.2–1.2 TeV in Sec. IV). These ranges are the paper's main quantitative deliverable and must be harmonized.
  5. [Secs. III–IV and Tables I–II] The central existence claim rests on the numerical scan, but the paper does not provide the scanned input parameters for the benchmark points (the Θ_i and m3/2 values from which the listed mL, mR, M1, M2, M3, and A0 are derived), nor the scan code or full output data. Without these, the benchmark spectra cannot be independently reproduced or checked against Eq. (3). Given the sign-label and negative-cross-section errors in the same tables, the numerical results are not verifiable as presented.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I] Section I states 'gluino masses in the range [2,18] GeV, first-generation squark masses between [3,16] GeV, and slepton masses from [1,6] GeV'. The units should almost certainly be TeV, as in the abstract; as printed, the values are inconsistent with the LHC bounds cited in Section III.
  2. [References] Some bibliographic entries are incomplete or informal; for example, Refs. [45] and [47] lack full author lists and journal details. Please complete the references in the journal's required format.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (3)] The soft-term formulas in Eq. (3) are taken from Ref. [27] without a derivation or even a brief summary of the underlying F-term assignments. Since these boundary conditions are the sole input to the scan, a short self-contained description would help the reader assess the model dependence of the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the scan outputs are filters, not fitted inputs; the only overlapping-author dependence is the Eq. (3) soft terms, which are stated assumptions rather than results of the scan.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this paper is a boundary-condition-to-spectrum scan: the D6-brane Pati-Salam construction of Ref. [8] defines the model, Eq. (3) from Ref. [27] provides the GUT-scale soft terms as explicit functions of the angular parameters Theta_i and m_{3/2}, and the Metropolis-Hastings scan over gamma1, gamma2, Theta4, m_{3/2}, and tan(beta) generates spectra with ISAJET. The LHC mass bounds, B-physics observables, Higgs mass window, and relic-density interval are then applied as filters. None of the reported outputs, including gluino, squark, slepton, stop, stau, and neutralino masses, direct-detection cross sections, Delta a_mu, or Omega h^2, is fed back into the sampled parameterization, so no output is equivalent to an input by construction. The relic-density condition 0.114 <= Omega h^2 <= 0.126 is used as a selection window, not as a fitted target, so this is not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The main overlapping-author input is Eq. (3), attributed to Ref. [27], where T. Li is a coauthor of both papers; in the present work these formulas are quoted as the model's stated boundary conditions, and the paper's central claim that viable regions exist for both signs of mu is a numerical consequence of scanning those conditions, not an assumption contained in them. Ref. [48], also by overlapping authors, is used only as a comparison point for the stop mass reach, not as a proof of the current result. The skeptical observations about Table I/II sign mislabeling, negative sigma_SD entries, and the gluino range starting at 2 TeV despite the 2.2 TeV bound are internal-consistency and reproducibility concerns; they do not demonstrate that any predicted quantity reduces to an input by definition. Circularity is therefore low: score 2 accounts for the heavy but non-circular reliance on overlapping-author prior work for the boundary conditions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The predictions rest on the string model and soft terms from the authors' prior work and on the numerical accuracy of ISAJET, not on new independent entities or measurements.

free parameters (4)
  • m3/2 (gravitino mass) = 0 to 15 TeV (scanned)
    Sets the overall SUSY breaking scale; scanned over this range in Section III.
  • tan beta = 2 to 60 (scanned)
    Ratio of Higgs VEVs; scanned in Section III and affects Yukawa couplings and the Higgs sector.
  • Theta4 (dilaton angle) = 0 to 1 (scanned)
    One of the four angles in Eq. (2) parameterizing moduli F-terms; scanned in Section III.
  • gamma1, gamma2 = 0 to 1 (scanned)
    Angular parameters used to parameterize the Theta_i subject to the normalization condition Eq. (2), as described in Section III.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The three-family Pati-Salam D6-brane model of Ref. [8] is a valid string vacuum with the MSSM as its low-energy limit.
    The entire scan is conducted within this model; the model is introduced in Section II.
  • domain assumption The soft SUSY-breaking terms in Eq. (3), imported from Ref. [27], correctly describe the moduli-mediated breaking for this model.
    These formulas define the GUT-scale inputs for the scan; Section II, Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption ISAJET 7.85 accurately computes sparticle spectra, Higgs masses, and relic densities for masses up to 15 TeV.
    All numerical results rely on ISAJET; Section III.
  • domain assumption Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking occurs and the lightest neutralino is the LSP for retained solutions.
    Only such solutions are kept, as stated in Section III.
  • domain assumption The simplified LHC mass cuts (gluino above 2.2 TeV, squarks above 2 TeV) adequately capture current exclusions.
    Used in place of full LHC likelihoods; constraints listed in Section III.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the Realistic Intersecting D6-Brane Model with positive and negative {\mu} Terms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73FTF22N

@misc{pith2026250612907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the Realistic Intersecting D6-Brane Model with positive and negative \mu Terms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73FTF22N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12907}
}
abstract

In light of current constraints from supersymmetry (SUSY) searches within the LHC, as well as findings from direct dark matter detection experiments such as LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ), we revisit the three-family Pati-Salam model derived from intersecting D6-branes in Type IIA string theory compactified on the $T^6/(\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2)$ orientifold, known for its realistic low-energy phenomenology. Since the muon anomalous magnetic moment might be in accordance with the Standard Model prediction, we conduct a comprehensive scan over the model's parameter space for each sign of the Higgsino mass parameter, $\mu < 0$ and $\mu > 0$. We find that the gravitino mass is typically greater than 1.5 TeV in both scenarios while simultaneously satisfying the LHC SUSY bounds, B-physics observables, and the Higgs mass constraint. Within the experimentally viable region of the parameter space, the sparticle mass spectra fall within the following ranges: gluinos lie in the range 2-18 TeV; first- and second-generation squarks and sleptons span 3-16 TeV and 1-6 TeV, respectively. For third-generation sfermions, the lightest stop, which can satisfy the dark matter relic density via neutralino-stop coannihilation consistent with the \textit{Planck} 5$\sigma$ bounds, has a mass in the range 0.5-1.2 TeV. The lightest neutralino can be as heavy as 2.9 TeV. Additionally, the lightest stau can be as light as 200 GeV or as heavy as 5.2 TeV. We identify several viable mechanisms, including multiple coannihilation channels and resonance mechanisms, by which the observed dark matter relic abundance is successfully realized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots in Θ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plots in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Rescaled spin-independent neutralino-proton scattering cross-section vs. the neutralino mass at the top and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Dimopoulos, S., Raby, S., Wilczek, F. (1981). Supersym- metry and the scale of unification. Physical Review D, 24(6), 1681. Ellis, J., Kelley, S., Nanopoulos, D. V. (1991). Probing the desert using gauge coupling unification. Physics Let- ters B, 260(1-2), 131-137. Amaldi, U., de Boer, W., F¨ urstenau, H. (1991). Compar- ison of grand unified theories wit...

    work page 1981

  2. [48]

    Vami, T. A. (2019). Searches for gluinos and squarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11753

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  3. [27]

    Khalil, S., & Moretti, S. (2017). Supersymmetry beyond minimality: from theory to experiment. CRC Press

    work page 2017

  4. [1]

    LEP bounds [34]: • m˜t1 , m˜b1 > 100 GeV • m˜τ1 > 105 GeV • m ˜χ± 1 > 103 GeV

    work page

  5. [2]

    Higgs mass [35]: 122 ≤ mh ≤ 128 GeV (allowing for theoretical uncertainties [36, 37])

    work page

  6. [3]

    (3) All the above results are subject to the constraint in Eq

    − (1.5Θ2 4)), M1 = m3/2(0.519615Θ1 + 0.34641Θ2 + 0.866025Θ3), M2 = m3/2(0.866025Θ2 − 0.866025Θ4), M3 = m3/2(0.866025Θ2 + 0.866025Θ3), em2 R = m3/2 2 1 − 0.0880932Θ1 2 − 1.5Θ1Θ2 + 0.75Θ1Θ3 + 0.75Θ1Θ4 − 0.0880932Θ2 2 + 0.75Θ2Θ3 + 0.75Θ2Θ4 − 0.419047Θ3 2 − 1.5Θ3Θ4 − 2.40477Θ4 2 , em2 L = m3/2 2 1 − 2.02977Θ1 2 + 0.75Θ1Θ2 − 1.5Θ1Θ4 − 0.0440466Θ2 2 − 1.5Θ2Θ3 +...

    work page

  7. [4]

    B-physics [38, 39]: • 1.6 × 10−9 ≤ BR(Bs → µ+µ−) ≤ 4.2 × 10−9 • 2.99 × 10−4 ≤ BR(b → sγ) ≤ 3.87 × 10−4 • 0.70 × 10−4 ≤ BR(Bu → τ ν) ≤ 1.5 × 10−4

    work page

  8. [5]

    LHC sparticle limits[40–42]: m˜g ≳ 2.2 TeV and m˜q ≳ 2 TeV

    work page

Show all 62 references
  1. [6]

    Compatibility with DM observations and collider phe- nomenology is given priority in the parameter space ex- ploration

    Dark matter relic density [43]: 0 .114 ≤ ΩCDMh2 ≤ 0.126 Only solutions with neutralino LSP that satisfy radia- tive electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB) are kept. Compatibility with DM observations and collider phe- nomenology is given priority in the parameter space ex- plor...

    2018

  2. [7]

    [49, 50]

    Conversely, in the compressed mass spectrum regime, where these decay channels are kine- matically inaccessible, the loop-induced two-body decay ˜t1 → c ˜χ0 1 typically turns into the dominating mode, as discussed in Refs. [49, 50]. Furthermore, even in scenar- ios with a smal...

    2020

  3. [9]

    S., Nanopoulos, D

    Ellis, J., Hagelin, J. S., Nanopoulos, D. V., Olive, K., Srednicki, M. (1984). Supersymmetric relics from the big bang. Nuclear Physics B, 238(2), 453-476

    1984

  4. [10]

    R., Leigh, R

    Berkooz, M., Douglas, M. R., Leigh, R. G. (1996). Branes intersecting at angles. Nuclear Physics B, 480(1-2), 265- 278

    1996

  5. [11]

    E., Marchesano, F., Rabad´ an, R

    Ibanez, L. E., Marchesano, F., Rabad´ an, R. (2001). Get- ting just the standard model at intersecting branes. Jour- nal of High Energy Physics, 2001(11), 002

    2001

  6. [12]

    Blumenhagen, R., K¨ ors, B., L¨ ust, D., Ott, T. (2001). The standard model from stable intersecting brane world 15 orbifolds. Nuclear Physics B, 616(1-2), 3-33

    2001

  7. [13]

    Cvetiˇ c, M., Shiu, G., Uranga, A. M. (2001). Three-family supersymmetric standardlike models from intersecting brane worlds. Physical Review Letters, 87(20), 201801

    2001

  8. [14]

    Cvetiˇ c, M., Papadimitriou, I., Shiu, G. (2003). Super- symmetric three family SU (5) grand unified models from type IIA orientifolds with intersecting D6-branes. Nu- clear physics B, 659(1-2), 193-223

    2003

  9. [15]

    Cvetiˇ c, M., Li, T., Liu, T. (2004). Supersymmetric Pati–Salam models from intersecting D6-branes: a road to the standard model. Nuclear Physics B, 698(1-2), 163- 201

    2004

  10. [16]

    Cvetiˇ c, M., Langacker, P., Li, T., Liu, T. (2005). D6- brane splitting on type IIA orientifolds. Nuclear Physics B, 709(1-2), 241-266

    2005

  11. [17]

    Cvetiˇ c, M., Li, T., Liu, T. (2005). Standardlike models as type IIB flux vacua. Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, 71(10), 106008

    2005

  12. [18]

    M., Kraniotis, G

    Chen, C. M., Kraniotis, G. V., Mayes, V. E., Nanopoulos, D. V., Walker, J. W. (2005). A supersymmetric flipped SU (5) intersecting brane world. Physics Letters B, 611(1- 2), 156-166

    2005

  13. [19]

    M., Li, T., Nanopoulos, D

    Chen, C. M., Li, T., Nanopoulos, D. V. (2006). Standard- like model building on type II orientifolds. Nuclear Physics B, 732(1-2), 224-242

    2006

  14. [20]

    Blumenhagen, R., Cvetiˇ c, M., Langacker, P., Shiu, G. (2005). Toward realistic intersecting D-brane models. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 55(1), 71-139

    2005

  15. [21]

    C., Salam, A

    Pati, J. C., Salam, A. (1974). Lepton number as the fourth” color”. Physical Review D, 10(1), 275

    1974

  16. [22]

    M., Li, T., Mayes, V

    Chen, C. M., Li, T., Mayes, V. E., Nanopoulos, D. V. (2008). A realistic world from intersecting D6-branes. Physics Letters B, 665(4), 267-270

    2008

  17. [23]

    M., Li, T., Mayes, V

    Chen, C. M., Li, T., Mayes, V. E., Nanopoulos, D. V. (2007). Realistic yukawa textures and SUSY spectra from intersecting branes. arXiv preprint arXiv:0711.0396

    2007 arXiv

  18. [24]

    V., Raza, S., Wang, X

    Li, T., Nanopoulos, D. V., Raza, S., Wang, X. C. (2014). A realistic intersecting D6-brane model after the first LHC run. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2014(8), 1- 40

    2014

  19. [25]

    Gogoladze, I., Khalid, R., Raza, S., Shafi, Q. (2010). t−b−τ Yukawa unification forµ <0 with a sub-TeV spar- ticle spectrum. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2010(12), 1-19

    2010

  20. [26]

    Ahmed, W., Khan, I., Li, J., Li, T., Raza, S., Zhang, W. (2022). The natural explanation of the muon anoma- lous magnetic moment via the electroweak supersymme- try from the GmSUGRA in the MSSM. Physics Letters B, 827, 136879

    2022

  21. [28]

    D. P. Aguillard et al. [Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.16, 161802 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.161802 [arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  22. [29]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. [Muon g-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.14, 141801 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141801 [arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex]]

    2021

  23. [30]

    D. P. Aguillard et al.[Muon g-2], [arXiv:2506.03069 [hep- ex]]

  24. [31]

    Aliberti, T

    R. Aliberti, T. Aoyama, E. Balzani, A. Bashir, G. Ben- ton, J. Bijnens, V. Biloshytskyi, T. Blum, D. Boito and M. Bruno, et al. [arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  25. [32]

    Khan, I., Ahmed, W., Li, T., Raza, S., Muhammad, A. (2025). The Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA). arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12039

    2025 arXiv

  26. [33]

    K., B´ elanger, G., Bhattacherjee, B., God- bole, R

    Barman, R. K., B´ elanger, G., Bhattacherjee, B., God- bole, R. M., Sengupta, R. (2023). Is light neutralino ther- mal dark matter in the phenomenological minimal super- symmetric standard model ruled out?. Physical Review Letters, 131(1), 011802

    2023

  27. [34]

    Sabir, M., Li, T., Mansha, A., Wang, X. C. (2022). The supersymmetry breaking soft terms, and fermion masses and mixings in the supersymmetric Pati-Salam model from intersecting D6-branes. Journal of High En- ergy Physics, 2022(4), 1-41

    2022

  28. [35]

    S., Akerlof, C

    Aalbers, J., Akerib, D. S., Akerlof, C. W., Al Musalhi, A. K., Alder, F., Alqahtani, A., ... Kras, J. (2023). First dark matter search results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment. Physical review letters, 131(4), 041002

    2023

  29. [36]

    S., Akerlof, C

    Akerib, D. S., Akerlof, C. W., Alsum, S. K., Ara´ ujo, H. M., Arthurs, M., Bai, X., ... Taylor, D. J. (2020). Projected WIMP sensitivity of the LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter experiment. Physical Review D, 101(5), 052002

    2020

  30. [37]

    Weinheimer, C

    Aprile, E., Abe, K., Agostini, F., Ahmed Maouloud, S., Althueser, L., Andrieu, B., ... Weinheimer, C. (2023). First dark matter search with nuclear recoils from the XENONnT experiment. Physical Review Letters, 131(4), 041003

    2023

  31. [38]

    E., Protopopescu, S

    Baer, H., Paige, F. E., Protopopescu, S. D., Tata, X. (2000). ISAJET 7.48: A Monte Carlo Event Generator for pp, ¯pp, and e+e− Interactions. arXiv preprint hep- ph/0001086

    2000

  32. [39]

    Belanger, G., Boudjema, F., Pukhov, A., Singh, R. K. (2009). Constraining the MSSM with universal gaugino masses and implication for searches at the LHC. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2009(11), 026

    2009

  33. [40]

    Baer, H., Kraml, S., Sekmen, S., Summy, H. (2008). Dark matter allowed scenarios for Yukawa-unified SO (10) SUSY GUTs. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2008(03), 056

    2008

  34. [41]

    Patrignani, C., Agashe, K., Aielli, G., Amsler, C., An- tonelli, M., Asner, D. M., ... Ringwald, A. (2016). Review of particle physics

    2016

  35. [42]

    Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abdallah, J., Abeloos, B., Aben, R., AbouZeid, O. S., ... Barranco Navarro, L. (2016). Measurements of the Higgs boson production and decay rates and constraints on its couplings from a combined ATLAS and CMS analysis of the LHC pp collision data at √s = 7...

    2016

  36. [43]

    Slavich, P., Heinemeyer, S., Bagnaschi, E., Bahl, H., Goodsell, M., Haber, H. E., ... Staub, F. (2021). Higgs- mass predictions in the MSSM and beyond. The Euro- pean Physical Journal C, 81(5), 450

    2021

  37. [44]

    C., Djouadi, A., Kneur, J

    Allanach, B. C., Djouadi, A., Kneur, J. L., Porod, W., Slavich, P. (2004). Precise determination of the neutral Higgs boson masses in theMSSM. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2004(09), 044

    2004

  38. [45]

    M., Tumasyan, A., Adam, W.,

    CMS, T., Collaborations, L., Khachatryan, V., Sirunyan, A. M., Tumasyan, A., Adam, W., ... Da Silva, W. L. (2014). Observation of the rare B0 s → µ+µ− decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4413

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    W., Ben-Haim, E., Blyth, S., Bozek, A., Bozzi, C.,

    Amhis, Y., Banerjee, S. W., Ben-Haim, E., Blyth, S., Bozek, A., Bozzi, C., ... Heavy Flavor Averaging 16 Group. (2014). Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and τ - lepton properties as of summer 2014. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7515

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Aaboud, M., Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abdinov, O., Abe- loos, B., Abidi, S. H., ... Barnes, S. L. (2018). Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 36 fb-1 of s= 13 TeV pp col- lision data with the ATLAS detector. Physical Review...

    2018

  41. [49]

    CMS collaboration. (2017). Search for new phenomena with the MT2 variable in the all-hadronic final state pro- duced in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    2017

  42. [50]

    Pettorino, V

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Arroja, F., Ashdown, M., Au- mont, J., Baccigalupi, C., ... Pettorino, V. (2020). Planck 2018 results-I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. Astronomy Astrophysics, 641, A1

    2020

  43. [51]

    E., Shafi, Q., ¨Un, C

    G´ omez, M. E., Shafi, Q., ¨Un, C. S. (2020). Testing Yukawa unification at LHC Run-3 and HL-LHC. Jour- nal of High Energy Physics, 2020(7), 1-16

    2020

  44. [52]

    SUSY Summary Plots June 2021,(2021)

    ATLAS collaboration. SUSY Summary Plots June 2021,(2021). ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-019 [IN SPIRE]

    2021

  45. [53]

    Raza, S., Shafi, Q., ¨Un, C. S. (2019). b − τ Yukawa uni- fication in SUSY SU (5) with mirage mediation: LHC and dark matter implications. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2019(5), 1-25

    2019

  46. [54]

    CMS collaboration. (2022). Search for direct pair produc- tion of supersymmetric partners of τ leptons in the final state with two hadronically decaying τ leptons and miss- ing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02254

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Khan, I., Ahmed, W., Li, T., Raza, S. (2024). Revisit- ing a Realistic Intersecting D6-Brane with Modified Soft SUSY Terms. Universe, 10(4), 176

    2024

  48. [56]

    I., Kobayashi, M

    Hikasa, K. I., Kobayashi, M. (1987). Light scalar top quark at e+e− colliders. Physical Review D, 36(3), 724

    1987

  49. [57]

    M¨ uhlleitner, M., Popenda, E. (2011). Light stop decay in the MSSM with minimal flavour violation. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2011(4), 1-33

    2011

  50. [58]

    C., Abed Abud, A., Abeling, K., Abhayasinghe, D

    Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abbott, D. C., Abed Abud, A., Abeling, K., Abhayasinghe, D. K., ... Balz, J. (2021). Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Physical Review D, 103(11), 112006

    2021

  51. [59]

    W., Bergauer, T., Chatterjee, S., Damanakis, K.,

    Tumasyan, A., Adam, W., Andrejkovic, J. W., Bergauer, T., Chatterjee, S., Damanakis, K., ... Jiang, C. H. (2023). Searches for additional Higgs bosons and for vector lep- toquarks in τ τfinal states in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV. Journal of High Energy Physics, 202...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Baer, H., Barger, V., Tata, X., Zhang, K. (2022). Prospects for heavy neutral SUSY Higgs scalars in the hMSSM and natural SUSY at LHC upgrades. Symme- try, 14(10), 2061

    2022

  53. [61]

    Baer, H., Barger, V., Tata, X., Zhang, K. (2023). De- tecting heavy neutral SUSY Higgs bosons decaying to sparticles at the high-luminosity LHC. Symmetry, 15(2), 548

    2023

  54. [62]

    Aoyama, N

    T. Aoyama, N. Asmussen, M. Benayoun, J. Bij- nens, T. Blum, M. Bruno, I. Caprini, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. C` e and G. Colangelo, et al. Phys. Rept. 887, 1-166 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.07.006 [arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.