Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 60 references

The Vacuum Moduli Space of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MSSM vacuum moduli space splits into a line and two rational varieties.

desk verdict A landmark computation of the full MSSM vacuum moduli space, but the key birationality claims live in unshipped Macaulay2 code. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13868 v1 pith:BQIYGVOZ submitted 2025-06-16 hep-th hep-phmath.AG

Yang-Hui He , Vishnu Jejjala , Brent D. Nelson , Hal Schenck , Michael Stillman This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-phmath.AG MSC 81T6014M1213P1014Q10 PACS 11.30.Pb12.60.Jv
keywords vacuummodulispaceMSSMmasterF-termequationsgaugeinvariantoperatorsGröbnerbasisSegrevarietybirationalmodel
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

With the minimal renormalizable superpotential and generic complex couplings, the paper computes the full classical vacuum moduli space of the MSSM: the set of zero-energy field configurations modulo gauge transformations. It proves that the master space, the F-flat variety cut out by the superpotential derivatives, splits into three irreducible components, and that their images under gauge-invariant operators are a line, a rational 15-dimensional variety, and a rational 29-dimensional variety. When neutrino terms are added to the superpotential, the vacuum moduli space collapses to a single irreducible component, whose ideal is the ideal of the largest component together with the neutrino variables. The result matters because the vacuum moduli space is a stable, quantum-protected feature of a supersymmetric theory, so explicit birational descriptions of its components give a rigorous geometric picture of where the MSSM's flat directions lie and how the gauge-invariant operators organize them.

What carries the argument

The central object is the master space X⊂C49, the common zero locus of all 49 partial derivatives of the superpotential; the vacuum moduli space is the symplectic quotient of X by the complexified gauge group, realized by mapping through the 976 gauge-invariant operators. The mechanism that makes the problem tractable is a change of variables that absorbs the Yukawa coupling matrices into the quark and lepton fields, leaving F-term equations that are mostly 2×2 minors, together with a tower of projections. Starting from the thirteen types of gauge-invariant operators that do not vanish on the largest component X3, the paper adds one operator type at a time and proves each projection is birational, ending at an explicit base variety Y⊂C63 defined by the equations listed in its Computation 5.2. Since every step of the tower is birational, the equations of Y serve as a birational model of M3, and an analogous incidence construction describes M2 through the Segre varieties.

What would settle it

Replace C1, C2, and C3 by the observed Standard Model Yukawa matrices (nearly diagonal, entries set by quark and lepton masses, with C0 the µ-term) and recompute the primary decomposition of the Jacobian ideal of Wminimal and the dimensions of the images of its components; if the component count, the dimensions 1, 15, 29, or the rationality statement changes, the theorem does not extend to physical parameters, and the paper's own Section 3.1 assumption shows why.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For either superpotential, the paper proves that the Jacobian ideal of W decomposes as the intersection of three prime ideals, defining three reduced irreducible components X1, X2, and X3 of the master space in C49, of dimensions 23, 27, and 41. Under the map to gauge-invariant operator coordinates in C973, these components have images M1, M2, and M3 of dimensions 1, 15, and 29; the paper shows M1 is a line, M2 and M3 are rational, and it supplies explicit defining equations for birational models of all three. For M2 the birational model is a 15-dimensional cone over an incidence correspondence between Segre varieties in C39, and restricting to the electroweak sector recovers the previously known cone over P2×P2. For WMSSM, the added neutrino variables vanish on every component of the master space, two of the images collapse, and the vacuum moduli space becomes the single irreducible component whose ideal is the ideal of M3 together with the neutrino variables.

Load-bearing premise

The entire decomposition assumes the three Yukawa coupling matrices are invertible generic complex numbers, so the proved component structure applies to generic couplings, not to the observed nearly diagonal, hierarchical Standard Model couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full vacuum moduli space of the neutrino-less MSSM is now explicitly understood as three rational components, so questions such as counting flat directions or deciding which gauge-invariant operators are independent can be answered on low-dimensional birational models instead of in C973.
  • Adding right-handed neutrinos removes the small components: for WMSSM the entire vacuum moduli space is one irreducible component, with no independent neutrino coordinates.
  • The new component analysis is consistent with the electroweak-sector result: setting Q=u=d=0 recovers the cone over P2×P2, confirming that the full-space geometry extends the earlier restricted computation.
  • Because each projection in the tower is birational, the explicit equations in C39 and C63 faithfully encode the dimension and rationality of the full components, not just approximations to them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theorem is proved for generic invertible coupling matrices; a natural extension is to run the same primary decomposition with the measured, hierarchical Standard Model Yukawa matrices, since the near-diagonal structure is not covered by the generic assumption.
  • The birational tower implies that most of the 783 nonvanishing gauge-invariant operators on the largest component are redundant as coordinates; this suggests a minimal set of composite operators could be extracted for phenomenological scans of MSSM flat directions.
  • The incidence-correspondence description of M2 suggests that the simpler geometric structures seen in restricted sectors are slices of the full moduli space, and one can test whether the 29-dimensional M3 model exhibits a similar slice structure when only quark and lepton number operators are retained.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the classical vacuum moduli space of the MSSM with the minimal renormalizable superpotential, both without neutrinos (W_minimal) and with them (W_MSSM). The authors compute the master space X as the F-term variety in C^49 and the vacuum moduli space M as the image of X under the ring map defined by 976 gauge-invariant operators into C^973. Their main results are: for W_minimal, X and M each have three irreducible components, with M_1 a line, M_2 rational of dimension 15, and M_3 rational of dimension 29; for W_MSSM, the vacuum moduli space is a single irreducible component described by the ideal of M_3 together with the neutrino variables. The proofs combine a linear change of variables that sets the Yukawa coupling matrices to identity, an explicit description of the master space as the zero set of minors of five matrices (Computation 3.4), and a tower of projections from M_3 to an explicit base variety Y in C^63 whose birationality is verified computationally (Section 5.3, Table 5). The paper also recovers the known electroweak-sector results and gives geometric interpretations of M_2 as a cone over an incidence correspondence involving Segre varieties (Theorem 4.7).

Significance. If the computational claims are correct and reproducible, this is a substantial contribution: it completes the program initiated in [1] by giving the first explicit description of the full vacuum moduli space of the MSSM with a renormalizable superpotential, including explicit defining equations and geometric models for each component. The paper does not fit parameters to data; the coupling matrices are generic and set to identity by an invertible linear change of variables, so the main results are mathematical statements about the vacuum moduli space for generic complex couplings. The paper contains genuine structural results, such as the description of M_2 as an incidence correspondence, and it recovers previous electroweak results as a consistency check. However, the central claims about M_3 depend on a chain of Macaulay2 computations whose code is not shipped, and the genericity assumption on the Yukawa couplings is not reflected in the paper's title or abstract. These issues make the paper's strongest conclusions conditional until the computational evidence is made available and the scope is stated precisely.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1 and Theorem 1.1] The change of variables that reduces the superpotential to the tilde basis assumes that the coupling matrices C1, C2, C3 are all invertible and that C0 can be scaled to 1. This is an explicit assumption, also made in [50], but it is not satisfied by the observed MSSM parameters: the physical Yukawa couplings are hierarchical, with small or vanishing entries, and the top Yukawa is much larger than the others. The paper's title and abstract claim to describe the vacuum moduli space of the MSSM, yet the proof only establishes the component structure and dimensions for generic complex invertible couplings. The component structure, dimensions, and rationality statements in Theorem 1.1 could all change on the non-generic locus. The authors should either restrict their claims to generic couplings throughout and in the title, or add a concrete analysis of how the decomposition behaves when some C_i are singular or have non-generic rank.
  2. [§5.3, Table 5, Figure 3] The proof that M_3 is rational of dimension 29 rests on the claim that each of the ten projections in the tower from M_3 down to the base variety Y is birational. The paper states that these birationality checks were performed with a 'fast probabilistic algorithm' in Macaulay2, and Table 5 lists relations expressed as rational functions (e.g., 'gc = hh' in Computation 5.3), but the actual computations are not reproducible: the package MSSM.m2 is not shipped, and no certificates are provided that specify the denominators, degrees, or birational inverses for each map. A probabilistic dimension computation can certify dimension only with a controlled error probability, and the paper does not describe the algorithm or its error bound. Without the code or explicit certificates, the central theorem about M_3 cannot be independently verified. The authors should include the Macaulay2 code as an ancillary file, or at minimum provide the elimination certificates and the precise probability statement for each dimension and birationality computation.
  3. [§3.2, Theorem 3.5] The decomposition of the master space as JW = I1 ∩ I2 ∩ I3, the primality of the three ideals, and their dimensions are also asserted by direct computation. These facts are load-bearing for every subsequent result in the paper, since the components X1, X2, X3 and their images M1, M2, M3 are defined from them. The paper states that 'A direct computation shows' the decomposition and that 'Primality may also be verified computationally,' but no code or output is provided. If the package is not available, the reader cannot check even the first step of the argument. Please provide the exact Macaulay2 commands and outputs, or a mathematically written certificate, for the primary decomposition and primality assertions in Theorem 3.5.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.1] The 'fast probabilistic algorithm' used to determine the dimension of M_3 is not described; please specify the algorithm (for example, whether it is based on a Bertini-type homotopy, monodromy, or a randomized Gr"obner method) and state the probability of error or the deterministic nature of the computation.
  2. [Table 5] Several entries in Table 5 such as 'k = k', 'p = p', 'n = n', and 'b = a' are tautological or confusing at first glance; please explain in the text that these denote linear relations among the GIOs after restriction to X3, rather than identities of single variables.
  3. [§5.2, Computation 5.3] The rational expressions for the uuuee GIOs in Computation 5.3 involve division by c8; the text should state explicitly that these identities hold on the open subset where c8 ≠ 0, and that birationality is a generic statement. Without this clarification, the displayed equations are not literally valid on all of X3.
  4. [§6.2] The sentence 'the primary decomposition of the Jacobian ideal of WMSSM is more complicated, however, the radical of this ideal is still an intersection of three prime ideals' should be made precise: the vacuum moduli space is determined by the radical, so please state that radical(J_WMSSM) = J1 ∩ J2 ∩ J3 with J2 of dimension 25, and clarify the relationship between this and the one-component statement for the image.
  5. [§4.3, Theorem 4.7] The proof of Theorem 4.7 says 'A computation confirms that the ideal generated by these five quadrics has codimension four'; since this is a short explicit ideal, it would be helpful to include the Macaulay2 command or a hand-checkable argument for this codimension claim, especially because it is used to establish the dimension and smoothness of the incidence variety Y.
  6. [Throughout] There are typographical and formatting issues that should be corrected in a revision: 'T able' in the header of Table 1, 'K¨ ahler' in Section 2.1, and inconsistent notation for the matrices in Section 5.2 (Ma1, Ma3, Mh1, Mh2, Mh3), which are used in the description of the type (6) equations in a way that is hard to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation is a direct Gröbner-basis computation against the mathematical definition of the vacuum moduli space; the caveats are genericity assumptions and unshipped computational certificates, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that the master space X for W_minimal has three irreducible components and that the images M_i have dimensions 1, 15, 29 and are rational — is obtained by computing the Jacobian ideal of the superpotential and eliminating gauge-invariant operator variables, not by fitting parameters or importing a conclusion from the same authors. The change of variables in Section 3.1 is a linear field redefinition using assumed-invertible Yukawa matrices; it is a WLOG transformation, not a tuned fit, and Proposition 3.1 verifies that the linear span of each GIO type is preserved. The electroweak-sector comparisons to [1] are used only as consistency checks (Computation 4.8 and §6.1.1) and are not load-bearing for the new claims. The tower of projections in Section 5 is asserted through explicit rational-function relations in Computation 5.3 and Table 5; while the paper does not ship the Macaulay2 certificates, so the birationality computations are not independently reproducible, that is a verification gap rather than a circular reduction. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

The central claim rests on standard gauge-theory facts (the Luty-Taylor quotient description, the GIO basis), a stated genericity assumption on the superpotential couplings (invertible Yukawa matrices), and the correctness of heavy Macaulay2 computations performed with a package that is not yet released. There are no fitted free parameters and no invented entities. The main audit question is tooling: the unreleased MSSM.m2 package carries the load of the primality, dimension, and birationality verifications.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Classical vacuum moduli space equals the symplectic quotient of the F-flat master space by the complexified gauge group, with GIOs as coordinates (Luty-Taylor theorem, Section 2.1, equation (2.8))
    Load-bearing: the computed images M_i under the GIO map are identified with the vacuum moduli space of the theory. Cited to references [38-41].
  • domain assumption Yukawa coupling matrices C1, C2, C3 are invertible and C0 is nonzero, so the superpotential can be normalized to identity couplings by a linear change of variables (Section 3.1)
    The master space equations and all subsequent computations are performed in the tilde variables. Non-generic couplings are outside the theorem's scope.
  • domain assumption The 976 gauge invariant operators listed in Table 6 form a minimal generating set of the ring of invariants (from [1, 29, 50])
    The map to C973 is defined by this set; if the set were incomplete or not minimal, the image would change.
  • ad hoc to paper The Macaulay2 computations (elimination, primary decomposition, primality, dimensions, birationality checks) are correct, including a fast probabilistic algorithm for dimension (Sections 2.2, 3.2, 5.1, 5.3)
    The theorems are computational; the package MSSM.m2 is announced but not shipped, so this assumption cannot be checked from the preprint alone.
  • standard math Standard algebraic geometry facts about Segre varieties, 2x2 minors, and incidence correspondences (Lemma 4.6, Theorem 4.7)
    Textbook background from Harris [59] and Eisenbud [60], used for the geometric interpretation of V2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Vacuum Moduli Space of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQIYGVOZ

@misc{pith2026250613868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Vacuum Moduli Space of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQIYGVOZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13868}
}
abstract

A starting point in the study of the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) is the vacuum moduli space, which is a highly complicated algebraic variety: it is the image of an affine variety $X \subset \mathbb{C}^{49}$ under a symplectic quotient map $\phi$ to $\mathbb{C}^{973}$. Previous work computed the vacuum moduli space of the electroweak sector; geometrically this corresponds to studying a restriction of $\phi$: $\mathbb{C}^{13} \stackrel{\phi^{\texttt{res}}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{C}^{22}$. We analyze the geometry of the full vacuum moduli space for superpotentials $W_{\rm minimal}$ (without neutrinos) and $W_{\rm MSSM}$ (with neutrinos) in $\mathbb{C}^{973}$. In both cases, we prove that $X$ consists of three irreducible components $X_1$, $X_2$, and $X_3$, and determine the images $M_i$ of the $X_i$ under $\phi$. For $W_{\rm minimal}$ we show they have, respectively, dimensions $1$, $15$, and $29$, and prove that each of the $M_i$ is a rational variety, while for $W_{\rm MSSM}$ we show that $M_3$ is the only component. Restricting the $M_i$ to the electroweak sector, we recover known results. We describe the components of the vacuum moduli space geometrically in terms of incidence varieties to a product of Segre varieties.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y.-H. He, V. Jejjala, C. Matti, B. D. Nelson, and M. Stillman, The geometry of generations, Commun. Math. Phys. 339 (2015), no. 1 149–190, [ arXiv:1408.6841]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [50]

    Gherghetta, C

    T. Gherghetta, C. F. Kolda, and S. P. Martin, Flat directions in the scalar potential of the supersymmetric standard model , Nucl. Phys. B 468 (1996) 37–58, [hep-ph/9510370]

    arXiv 1996

  3. [2]

    S. L. Glashow, Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions , Nucl. Phys. 22 (1961) 579–588

    work page 1961

  4. [3]

    Weinberg, A Model of Leptons , Phys

    S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 19 (1967) 1264–1266

    work page 1967

  5. [4]

    Salam, Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions, Conf

    A. Salam, Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions, Conf. Proc. C 680519 (1968) 367–377

    1968

  6. [5]

    S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Weak Interactions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 2 (1970) 1285–1292

    work page 1970

  7. [6]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa,Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion , Nature 588 (2020), no. 7836 61–65

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    C. P. Burgess and G. D. Moore, The standard model: A primer . Cambridge University Press, 12, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model . Cambridge University Press, 3, 2014

    2014

  2. [9]

    H¨ ubsch,Advanced Concepts in Particle and Field Theory

    T. H¨ ubsch,Advanced Concepts in Particle and Field Theory . Oxford University Press, 2016

    2016

  3. [10]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 3 030001

    2024

  4. [11]

    Ellis, Physics Beyond the Standard Model , Nucl

    J. Ellis, Physics Beyond the Standard Model , Nucl. Phys. A 827 (2009) 187C–198C, [arXiv:0902.0357]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Langacker, The Standard Model and Beyond

    P. Langacker, The Standard Model and Beyond . Taylor & Francis, 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. 7, 1988

    1988

  7. [14]

    Candelas, G

    P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, Vacuum configurations for superstrings, Nuclear Physics B 258 (1985) 46–74

    1985

  8. [15]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 2: LOOP AMPLITUDES, ANOMALIES AND PHENOMENOLOGY . 7, 1988

    1988

  9. [16]

    Bailin and A

    D. Bailin and A. Love, Supersymmetric Gauge Field Theory and String Theory . Taylor & Francis, 1994

    1994

  10. [17]

    Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 3: Supersymmetry . Cambridge University Press, 6, 2013. – 36 –

    2013

  11. [18]

    Canepa, Searches for Supersymmetry at the Large Hadron Collider , Rev

    A. Canepa, Searches for Supersymmetry at the Large Hadron Collider , Rev. Phys. 4 (2019) 100033

    2019

  12. [19]

    Dimopoulos and H

    S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5) , Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150–162

    1981

  13. [20]

    Supernova Search T eam Collaboration, A. G. Riess et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant , Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038, [ astro-ph/9805201]

    1998 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae , Astrophys

    Supernova Cosmology Project Collaboration, S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 High Redshift Supernovae , Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) 565–586, [astro-ph/9812133]

    1999 arXiv

  15. [22]

    G. W. Gibbons and C. M. Hull, A Bogomolny Bound for General Relativity and Solitons in N=2 Supergravity , Phys. Lett. B 109 (1982) 190–194

    1982

  16. [23]

    D. Z. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 5, 2012

    2012

  17. [24]

    Georgi and S

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces , Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438–441

    1974

  18. [25]

    Witten, Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry, Nucl

    E. Witten, Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513

    1981

  19. [26]

    K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, Lectures on supersymmetric gauge theories and electric-magnetic duality, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 45BC (1996) 1–28, [hep-th/9509066]

    1996 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Seiberg, Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories, Phys

    N. Seiberg, Exact results on the space of vacua of four-dimensional SUSY gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6857–6863, [ hep-th/9402044]

    1994 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Gray, Y.-H

    J. Gray, Y.-H. He, V. Jejjala, and B. D. Nelson, Vacuum geometry and the search for new physics, Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006) 253–257, [ hep-th/0511062]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Gray, Y.-H

    J. Gray, Y.-H. He, V. Jejjala, and B. D. Nelson, Exploring the vacuum geometry of N=1 gauge theories , Nucl. Phys. B 750 (2006) 1–27, [ hep-th/0604208]

    2006 arXiv

  23. [30]

    J. Gray, A. Hanany, Y.-H. He, V. Jejjala, and N. Mekareeya, SQCD: A geometric aper¸ cu, JHEP 05 (2008) 099, [ arXiv:0803.4257]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Wess and J

    J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry and supergravity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1992

    1992

  25. [32]

    P. C. Argyres, An Introduction to Global Supersymmetry ,

  26. [33]

    Terning, Modern supersymmetry: Dynamics and duality

    J. Terning, Modern supersymmetry: Dynamics and duality . 2006. – 37 –

    2006

  27. [34]

    Fayet and J

    P. Fayet and J. Iliopoulos, Spontaneously Broken Supergauge Symmetries and Goldstone Spinors, Phys. Lett. B 51 (1974) 461–464

    1974

  28. [35]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321–323

    1964

  29. [36]

    P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons , Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508–509

    1964

  30. [37]

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 585–587

    1964

  31. [38]

    Buccella, J

    F. Buccella, J. P. Derendinger, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy, Patterns of symmetry breaking in supersymmetric gauge theories , Phys. Lett. B 115 (1982) 375–379

    1982

  32. [39]

    Procesi and G

    C. Procesi and G. W. Schwarz, The geometry of orbit spaces and gauge symmetry breaking in supersymmetric gauge theories , Phys. Lett. B 161 (1985) 117–121

    1985

  33. [40]

    Gatto and G

    R. Gatto and G. Sartori, Consequences of the complex character of the internal symmetry in supersymmetric theories , Commun. Math. Phys. 109 (1987) 327

    1987

  34. [41]

    M. A. Luty and W. Taylor, Varieties of vacua in classical supersymmetric gauge theories, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 3399–3405, [ hep-th/9506098]

    1996 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Forcella, A

    D. Forcella, A. Hanany, Y.-H. He, and A. Zaffaroni, The master space of N=1 gauge theories, JHEP 08 (2008) 012, [ arXiv:0801.1585]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Forcella, A

    D. Forcella, A. Hanany, Y.-H. He, and A. Zaffaroni, Mastering the master space , Lett. Math. Phys. 85 (2008) 163–171, [ arXiv:0801.3477]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Gray, A simple introduction to Grobner basis methods in string phenomenology , Adv

    J. Gray, A simple introduction to Grobner basis methods in string phenomenology , Adv. High Energy Phys. 2011 (2011) 217035, [ arXiv:0901.1662]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Hauenstein, Y.-H

    J. Hauenstein, Y.-H. He, and D. Mehta, Numerical elimination and moduli space of vacua, JHEP 09 (2013) 083, [ arXiv:1210.6038]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [46]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Superconformal field theory on three-branes at a Calabi-Yau singularity, Nucl. Phys. B 536 (1998) 199–218, [ hep-th/9807080]

    1998 arXiv

  40. [47]

    M. R. Douglas and G. W. Moore, D-branes, quivers, and ALE instantons , hep-th/9603167

    arXiv

  41. [48]

    Aldazabal, L

    G. Aldazabal, L. E. Ibanez, F. Quevedo, and A. M. Uranga, D-branes at singularities: A Bottom up approach to the string embedding of the standard model , JHEP 08 (2000) 002, [hep-th/0005067]

    2000 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Berenstein, V

    D. Berenstein, V. Jejjala, and R. G. Leigh, The Standard model on a D-brane , Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 071602, [ hep-ph/0105042]. – 38 –

    2002 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Alvarez-Gaume and D

    L. Alvarez-Gaume and D. Z. Freedman, Geometrical Structure and Ultraviolet Finiteness in the Supersymmetric Sigma Model , Commun. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 443

    1981

  44. [52]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory , Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 19–52, [hep-th/9407087]. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 430, 485–486 (1994)]

    1994 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hanany and E

    A. Hanany and E. Witten, Type IIB superstrings, BPS monopoles, and three-dimensional gauge dynamics, Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 152–190, [hep-th/9611230]

    1997 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y.-H. He, V. Jejjala, C. Matti, and B. D. Nelson, Veronese geometry and the electroweak vacuum moduli space, Phys. Lett. B 736 (2014) 20–25, [ arXiv:1402.3312]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y.-H. He, V. Jejjala, C. Matti, and B. D. Nelson, Testing R-parity with geometry , JHEP 03 (2016) 079, [ arXiv:1512.00854]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Xiao, Y.-H

    Y. Xiao, Y.-H. He, and C. Matti, Standard Model plethystics, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 7 076001, [ arXiv:1902.10550]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    B. Feng, A. Hanany, and Y.-H. He, Counting gauge invariants: The plethystic program , JHEP 03 (2007) 090, [ hep-th/0701063]

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Hanany, E

    A. Hanany, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and G. Torri, Hilbert Series for Flavor Invariants of the Standard Model , JHEP 03 (2011) 096, [ arXiv:1010.3161]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Harris, Algebraic geometry, a first course , vol

    J. Harris, Algebraic geometry, a first course , vol. 133 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

    1995

  52. [60]

    Eisenbud, Commutative algebra with a view towards algebraic geometry , vol

    D. Eisenbud, Commutative algebra with a view towards algebraic geometry , vol. 150 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. – 39 –

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.