Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

From the Unification of Conformal and Fuzzy Gravities with Internal Interactions to the $SO(10)$ GUT and the Particle Physics Standard Model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A gauge theory of the $SO(2,16)$ tangent group can descend all the way to the Standard Model, with every breaking scale fixed by one-loop running.

desk verdict Competent RGE analysis of the SO(2,16) unification's breaking scales, with an honest but under-supported high-scale section that should be read as conditional until the SO(18) coefficients are actually computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02786 v1 pith:DWPG2QB5 submitted 2024-12-03 hep-th hep-ph

Gregory Patellis , Nicholas Tracas , George Zoupanos This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords conformalgravityfuzzySO(10)grandunificationtangentspacesymmetrybreakingscalesone-looprenormalizationgroupSO(216)gaugePati-Salam
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 argues that a previously proposed unification of conformal gravity with the particle interactions is physically viable: starting from a gauge theory of the higher-dimensional tangent group $SO(2,16)$ (written $SO(18)$ in Euclidean signature), the model breaks spontaneously to a conformal-gravity sector plus an $SO(12)$ internal gauge sector, then to Einstein gravity plus an $SO(10)$ grand unified theory, and finally to the Standard Model. Its new contribution is a one-loop renormalization-group study of the four possible $SO(10)$ breaking paths — Pati–Salam with and without left-right symmetry, and the left-right group with and without D-parity — which fixes the intermediate scale and the GUT scale for each path. The paper also estimates the high-scale $SO(18)$ breaking at $M_X ∼ 10^{18}$ GeV and finds that the two scenaria in which the high-scale breakings occur at different scales remain perturbative up to the Planck scale. If the picture is right, a single gauge principle can tie gravity and the matter interactions together without extra physical dimensions, and the whole chain is open to test through its predicted scales and coupling evolution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the higher-dimensional tangent gauge group $SO(2,16) ∼ SO(18)$, whose 256-dimensional spinor accommodates three generations of chiral fermions after Weyl and Majorana conditions are imposed; its spontaneous breaking through scalars in the 170 and 153 representations produces the $SO(6)$ conformal-gravity sector and the $SO(12)$ internal sector. The descent to the Standard Model is carried by scalars in the $SO(10)$ representations 210, 54, 45, 126 and 10, and the computational engine is the set of one-loop beta-functions for every gauge factor, run from the $Z$ mass up to the Planck scale, with the non-compact $SO(2,4)$ running approximated by its compact isomorph $SO(6)$.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop renormalization of a non-compact $SO(2,4)$ gauge theory directly, for example by a heat-kernel or lattice method, and compare the coefficients with the compact $SO(6)$ values used in the paper; a material difference would shift $M_X$ and could push the $SO(18)$ coupling to a Landau pole before the Planck scale, ruling out scenaria B and C as presented.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $SO(2,16)$ tangent-group unification of conformal gravity and internal interactions, after spontaneous symmetry breaking to Einstein gravity and $SO(10)$, reproduces the Standard Model through any of four intermediate gauge chains, and that the consecutive breaking scales are computable at one loop. The paper concludes that the scheme is realistic and can be examined perturbatively for the two high-scale scenaria B and C, with a common high breaking scale $M_X ∼ 10^{18}$ GeV, GUT scales between about $1.4×10^{15}$ and $2.1×10^{16}$ GeV, and intermediate scales between about $1.0×10^{10}$ and $5.2×10^{13}$ GeV depending on the chain. Scenario A, where all high-scale breakings coincide, drives the $SO(18)$ coupling into a non-perturbative regime below the Planck scale.

Load-bearing premise

All results above the GUT scale rest on the paper's explicit speculation that the one-loop $\beta$-functions of a non-compact gauge group such as $SO(2,4)$ can be well approximated by those of the corresponding compact group $SO(6)$; if that approximation fails, the estimated $M_X ∼ 10^{18}$ GeV and the perturbativity of scenaria B and C would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each of the four chains 422, 422D, 3221 and 3221D achieves gauge-coupling unification, with intermediate scales from about $10^{10}$ to $5×10^{13}$ GeV and GUT scales from about $1.4×10^{15}$ to $2.1×10^{16}$ GeV.
  • The high-scale $SO(18)$ breaking sits near $M_X ∼ 10^{18}$ GeV, and in scenaria B and C both the $SO(12)$ and $SO(18)$ couplings stay perturbative up to the Planck scale.
  • Scenario A, with all high-scale breakings at the same scale, is disfavoured because the $SO(18)$ coupling develops a Landau pole below the Planck scale.
  • The fuzzy-gravity version of the unification behaves like scenario C, with no $SO(18)$ running below the Planck scale, so the same scale predictions apply to it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct computation of the one-loop beta-function for a non-compact gauge group would settle the paper's main uncertainty: if $SO(2,4)$ running differs materially from $SO(6)$ running, the estimated $M_X$ and the perturbativity of scenaria B and C would have to be revised.
  • The predicted GUT scales in the $10^{15}$–$10^{16}$ GeV range are within reach of proton-decay and low-energy precision tests; a precise match would discriminate among the four chains.
  • The model's global $U(1)$ surviving $SO(12)$ breaking could manifest as an axion-like degree of freedom, which would connect the unification scheme to dark-matter and strong-CP experiments.
  • Because the four chains predict intermediate scales spread over more than three orders of magnitude, cosmic-string and gravitational-wave signatures from the intermediate breaking could distinguish the chains observationally.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the phenomenological consequences of a unified gauge theory based on SO(2,16), whose compact version SO(18) contains the conformal group SO(2,4) ~ SO(6) and an internal SO(12) sector that breaks to the SO(10) GUT and eventually to the Standard Model. After setting the field content and the symmetry-breaking patterns, the authors perform a one-loop renormalization-group analysis for four SO(10) breaking chains (422, 422D, 3221, 3221D), obtaining intermediate scales and GUT scales reported in Table 2. Above the GUT scale, three scenarios (A, B, C) are considered for the breaking of SO(18) into SO(6) x SO(12) at scales MB and MX; the paper claims that scenarios B and C remain perturbative up to the Planck scale and estimates MX ~ 10^18 GeV by requiring cancellation of cosmological-constant contributions. The conclusion states that the unification scheme of Ref. [33] is realistic and can be examined perturbatively in scenarios B and C.

Significance. The below-GUT part of the paper is a standard and apparently correct one-loop RGE exercise, giving quantitative estimates for the intermediate and GUT scales in four realistic SO(10) breaking chains. The explicit matching conditions and beta-function coefficients for the intermediate groups are useful and reproducible. The paper is also transparent in flagging the speculative nature of the non-compact beta-function calculation and the fine-tuning involved in the MX estimate, which is a strength. If the high-scale assumptions were justified, the framework would provide a concrete unified theory including gravity, with falsifiable scale predictions. The main value of the paper lies in organizing the field content and running analysis for the four chains, but the high-scale perturbativity claim is not backed by the calculation as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix, SO(18) block] The central conclusion that scenarios B and C can be examined perturbatively up to the Planck scale depends directly on the one-loop beta-function coefficients of SO(18), but the Appendix leaves all four coefficients blank (the entries appear as 'b422_18 = -', 'b422D_18 = -', 'b3221_18 = -', and 'b3221D_18 = -'). The text states that 'with this information at hand, we can now calculate their respective bi coefficients', but the displayed calculation does not contain those numbers, so the claimed Landau-pole-free running is not verifiable from the manuscript. Please provide the missing coefficients and the explicit field content (numbers of 18, 153, 170, 3060, and 8568 representations) used for each scenario.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, paragraph beginning 'It is important to note'] All running above the GUT scale, and in particular the perturbativity conclusions for scenarios B and C, relies on the assumption that the one-loop beta-function of a non-compact gauge group is well approximated by that of the corresponding compact group. The authors state this explicitly: 'strictly speaking the calculation of the beta-function of a gauge theory based on a non-compact group has not been done. We speculate though that at least at one-loop level, the beta-functions of gauge theories of non-compact groups could be well approximated by the corresponding ones of the compact ones.' Because the Killing form of SO(2,16) is indefinite, the one-loop coefficient need not coincide with the compact SO(18) value; the cited support from Refs. [77-79] is not spelled out as an argument for this specific equivalence. Since the high-scale claim is load-bearing, the paper should either provide a concrete justification (for example, a direct one-loop computation in the non-compact algebra) or present the perturbativity conclusion as conditional on this unverified approximation.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, estimate of MX] The scale MX ~ 10^18 GeV is not obtained from the renormalization-group running but from imposing that the positive contribution to the cosmological constant from the SO(18) breaking cancels the negative contribution from the conformal-gravity breaking. The authors acknowledge that 'the precise value depends on various parameters,' but the conclusions present MX as one of the 'estimates of all the symmetry breaking scales.' Since this equality is a fine-tuning constraint rather than an independent prediction, the paper should clearly label it as such and avoid implying that the model predicts MX. This distinction matters for assessing the claim that the proposed unification scheme is 'a realistic one.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'In the present study' is used twice in the same paragraph; the second occurrence should be rephrased.
  2. [Sec. 2.2.2] The text contains the typo 'Eistein Gravity'; it should read 'Einstein Gravity'.
  3. [Sec. 4] The sentence 'The runnings for scenaria B and C are can be found in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively' contains a typo ('are can'), and later in the same section 'Panck' should be 'Planck'.
  4. [Sec. 4] The plural 'scenaria' is nonstandard English; use 'scenarios' throughout the manuscript.
  5. [Appendix, after Eq. (43)] The phrase 'where the b1 ocoefficient is given' should read 'where the b1 coefficient is given'.
  6. [Table 1] The row for the Higgs field reads '18 (1, 12) 1818 scalar, breaks SM'; this appears to contain a formatting error (the SO(18) representation should be '18'), and the intended role should be stated more clearly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Self-cited SO(2,16) framework is load-bearing, but below-GUT scale running is independent; high-scale claims rest on explicit assumptions and missing coefficients.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 3.1 (Unification and Field Content) and Sec. 4 (Conclusions and Discussion)]
    "In [33] was suggested that the unification of the CG with internal interactions based on a framework that results in the GUT SO(10) could be achieved using the SO(2, 16) as unifying gauge group. ... The result is that the proposed in [33] unification scheme of all interactions, including gravity in the form of CG, which subsequently was broken to EG is a realistic one and can be examined perturbatively for scenaria B and C, while we provide an estimate of all the symmetry breaking scales for each case."

    The paper's central conclusion is a verdict on the scheme of ref. [33], whose authors overlap with the present paper. The gauge group SO(2,16), the 256 spinor representation, the SO(18) -> SO(6)xSO(12) breaking, and the Majorana-Weyl fermion mechanism are all imported from [33] rather than derived here. The RGE calculation below the GUT scale is new and uses external SM data, so the paper is not wholly circular; but the claim that the scheme is 'realistic' inherits the correctness of the self-cited construction without independent verification.

full rationale

The paper's below-GUT analysis is a standard one-loop RGE exercise: it starts from measured SM couplings at MZ, runs through the 422/422D/3221/3221D chains, and solves for MI and MGUT. This part is self-contained and not circular; Table 2 is an honest consequence of the input couplings and beta functions. The high-scale part is less secure but not definitionally circular: the non-compact SO(2,4)/SO(2,16) beta functions are explicitly assumed to equal compact SO(6)/SO(18) ones ('strictly speaking the calculation ... has not been done'), and the SO(18) coefficients needed to verify perturbativity are left blank in the Appendix. These are support gaps, not equations that reduce to their inputs. The main circularity burden is the self-citation: the model whose 'realistic' status is asserted in the conclusion — SO(2,16) gauge group, 256 fermions, spontaneous breaking pattern — is imported from ref. [33] by the same group, so the verdict on the scheme is not independent of that citation. The scale MX is also set by demanding cosmological-constant cancellation, so it is a consistency constraint rather than a prediction; this lowers confidence but is not a separate definitional circle. Overall: partial self-citation load-bearing, with an independent core calculation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The below-GUT scale estimates use measured SM couplings as boundary conditions, so they are not circular. The high-scale estimate MX is fixed by a fine-tuning condition on the cosmological constant. The entire construction imports the SO(2,16) unification and representation content from earlier papers by the same group, and the high-scale running relies on an explicitly speculative approximation for non-compact group beta functions.

free parameters (2)
  • MX (SO(6) x SO(12) breaking scale) = ~10^18 GeV
    Estimated by equating the negative conformal-gravity contribution to the cosmological constant with the positive SO(18) contribution so they cancel (Sec. 3.2). The paper states the precise value depends on parameters, so this is a chosen constraint rather than an independent prediction.
  • a (coefficient in b_mu^a = a e_mu^a solution) = not numerically fixed; sign taken a < 0
    Appears in the EH action with cosmological constant (Eq. 16). Its magnitude affects the fine-tuning that fixes MX, but the paper never specifies it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The beta function of a gauge theory based on a non-compact group can be approximated by that of the corresponding compact group at one loop.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2 as a speculation supported by Donoghue; all high-scale running above MGUT depends on it.
  • domain assumption The SO(2,16)-based unification construction of ref. [33] is correct, including fermion content, chirality, and breaking patterns.
    The present paper starts from that construction and does not re-derive it; Table 1 imports the field content from [33].
  • domain assumption The SO(10) breaking chains and scalar assignments of ref. [67] can be embedded as stated in Table 1.
    Representation assignments (45 from 66, 54 from 77, 210 from 792, etc.) are asserted without derivation here.
  • domain assumption One-loop RGEs with no threshold corrections accurately determine the unification scales.
    The calculation uses one-loop beta functions and matching conditions at MI and MGUT, with no threshold corrections or higher-loop terms, which is standard but an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From the Unification of Conformal and Fuzzy Gravities with Internal Interactions to the $SO(10)$ GUT and the Particle Physics Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWPG2QB5

@misc{pith2026241202786,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From the Unification of Conformal and Fuzzy Gravities with Internal Interactions to the $SO(10)$ GUT and the Particle Physics Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWPG2QB5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02786}
}
read the original abstract

In the present study, the unification of the Conformal and Fuzzy Gravities with the Internal Interactions is based on the observation that the tangent space of a curved space and the space itself do not have necessarily the same dimensions. Moreover, the construction is based on the fact that the gravitational theories can be formulated in a gauge-theoretical way. In the present work we study the various consecutive breakings through which these unified theories can ultimately result into the Standard Model. We estimate the scales of the breakings in each case using one-loop RGEs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02786 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The RG evolution of gauge couplings from the Electroweak scale to the limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The hierarchy among the various symmetry breaking scales of the models and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The RG evolution of gauge couplings from the GUT scale up to the Planck [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The RG evolution of gauge couplings from the GUT scale up to the Planck [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Unification of Conformal Gravity and Internal Interactions

    D. Roumelioti, S. Stefas, and G. Zoupanos, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 577 (2024), arXiv:2403.17511

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Kaluza, Sitzungsber

    T. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) , 966 (1921)

    1921

  3. [2]

    Klein, Z

    O. Klein, Z. Phys. 37, 895 (1926)

    1926

  4. [3]

    Kerner, Ann

    R. Kerner, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. 9, 143 (1968). 18

    1968

  5. [4]

    Y. Cho, J. Math. Phys. 16, 2029 (1975)

    1975

  6. [5]

    Cho and P

    Y. Cho and P. Freund, Phys. Rev. D 12, 1711 (1975)

    work page 1975

  7. [6]

    Witten, Conf

    E. Witten, Conf. Proc. C 8306011, 227 (1983)

    work page 1983

  8. [7]

    Georgi, Lie Algebras In Particle Physics: from Isospin To Unified Theories (1999)

    H. Georgi, Lie Algebras In Particle Physics: from Isospin To Unified Theories (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Fritzsch and P

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Ann. Phys. 93, 193 (1975)

    1975

  2. [9]

    Chapline and R

    G. Chapline and R. Slansky, Nucl. Phys. B 209, 461 (1982)

    1982

  3. [10]

    Green, J

    M. Green, J. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory, Vol 1 & 2 (1988)

    1988

  4. [11]

    Polchinski, String theory, Vol 1 & 2 (1998)

    J. Polchinski, String theory, Vol 1 & 2 (1998)

    1998

  5. [12]

    Lust and S

    D. Lust and S. Theisen, Lectures on String Theory, Vol 346 (1989)

    1989

  6. [13]

    Gross, J

    D. Gross, J. Harvey, E. Martinec, and R. Rohm, Nucl. Phys. B 256, 253 (1985)

    1985

  7. [14]

    Forg ˚ acs and N

    P. Forg ˚ acs and N. Manton, Commun. Math. Phys.72, 15 (1980)

    1980

  8. [15]

    Manton, Nucl

    N. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 502 (1981)

    1981

  9. [16]

    Kubyshin, I

    Y. Kubyshin, I. Volobuev, J. Mourao, and G. Rudolph, Dimensional Reduction of Gauge Theories, Spontaneous Compactification and Model Building, Vol 349 (1989)

    1989

  10. [17]

    Kapetanakis and G

    D. Kapetanakis and G. Zoupanos, Phys. Rept. 219, 4 (1992)

    1992

  11. [18]

    Lust and G

    D. Lust and G. Zoupanos, Phys. Lett. B 165, 309 (1985)

    1985

  12. [19]

    Scherk and J

    J. Scherk and J. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 153, 61 (1979)

    1979

  13. [20]

    Manousselis and G

    P. Manousselis and G. Zoupanos, JHEP 2004, 025 (2004)

    2004

  14. [21]

    Chatzistavrakidis and G

    A. Chatzistavrakidis and G. Zoupanos, JHEP 09, 077 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Irges and G

    N. Irges and G. Zoupanos, Phys. Lett. B 698, 146 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Manolakos, G

    G. Manolakos, G. Patellis, and G. Zoupanos, Phys. Lett. B 813, 136031 (2021), arXiv:2009.07059

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Patellis, W

    G. Patellis, W. Porod, and G. Zoupanos, JHEP 01, 021 (2024), arXiv:2307.10014

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Utiyama, Phys

    R. Utiyama, Phys. Rev. 101, 1597 (1956)

    1956

  19. [26]

    Kibble, J

    T. Kibble, J. Math. Phys. 2, 212 (1961)

    1961

  20. [27]

    MacDowell and F

    S. MacDowell and F. Mansouri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 739 (1977). 19

    1977

  21. [28]

    E. A. Ivanov and J. Niederle, On Gauge Formulations Of Gravitation Theories., in 9th International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics , pp. 545–551, 1980

    1980

  22. [29]

    Ivanov and J

    E. Ivanov and J. Niederle, Phys. Rev. D 25, 976 (1982)

    1982

  23. [30]

    Stelle and P

    K. Stelle and P. West, Phys. Rev. D 21, 1466 (1980)

    1980

  24. [31]

    Kibble and K

    T. Kibble and K. Stelle, Progress In Quantum Field Theory (1985), Report number: Imperial-TP-84-85-13

    1985

  25. [32]

    M. Kaku, P. Townsend, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D 17, 3179 (1978)

    1978

  26. [34]

    Fradkin and A

    E. Fradkin and A. Tseytlin, Phys. Rept. 119, 233 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Maldacena, (2011), arXiv:1105.5632, e-Print: 1105.5632 [hep-th]

    J. Maldacena, (2011), arXiv:1105.5632, e-Print: 1105.5632 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    P. D. Mannheim, Found. Phys. 42, 388 (2012), arXiv:1101.2186

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Anastasiou and R

    G. Anastasiou and R. Olea, Phys. Rev. D 94, 086008 (2016), arXiv:1608.07826

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. M. Ghilencea, JHEP 03, 049 (2019), arXiv:1812.08613

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. Hell, D. Lust, and G. Zoupanos, JHEP 08, 168 (2023), arXiv:2306.13714

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. M. Ghilencea, JHEP 10, 113 (2023), arXiv:2309.11372

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Freedman and A

    D. Freedman and A. Van Proeyen, Supergravity (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Ortin, Gravity and Strings, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 2nd ed

    T. Ortin, Gravity and Strings, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 2nd ed. ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Castellani, Phys

    L. Castellani, Phys. Rev. D 88, 025022 (2013), arXiv:1301.1642

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Chatzistavrakidis et al

    A. Chatzistavrakidis et al. , Fortsch. Phys. 66, 1800047 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Manolakos, P

    G. Manolakos, P. Manousselis, and G. Zoupanos, JHEP 08, 001 (2020), arXiv:1902.10922

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Manolakos, P

    G. Manolakos, P. Manousselis, and G. Zoupanos, Fortsch. Phys. 69, 2100085 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Manolakos, P

    G. Manolakos, P. Manousselis, D. Roumelioti, S. Stefas, and G. Zoupanos, Universe 8, 215 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Manolakos, P

    G. Manolakos, P. Manousselis, D. Roumelioti, S. Stefas, and G. Zoupanos, Eur.Phys.J.ST 232, 3607 (2023), arXiv:2305.11785. 20

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Roumelioti, S

    D. Roumelioti, S. Stefas, and G. Zoupanos, Fortsch. Phys. 72, 2400126 (2024), arXiv:2407.07044

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Percacci, Phys

    R. Percacci, Phys. Lett. B 144, 37 (1984)

    1984

  43. [51]

    Percacci, Nucl

    R. Percacci, Nucl. Phys. B 353, 271 (1991)

    1991

  44. [52]

    Nesti and R

    F. Nesti and R. Percacci, J.Phys.A 41, 075405 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Nesti and R

    F. Nesti and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. D 81, 025010 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Krasnov and R

    K. Krasnov and R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 143001 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Chamseddine and V

    A. Chamseddine and V. Mukhanov, JHEP 03, 033 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Chamseddine and V

    A. Chamseddine and V. Mukhanov, JHEP 03, 020 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Schupp, K

    P. Schupp, K. Anagnostopoulos, and G. Zoupanos, Eur.Phys.J.ST 232, 1 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Konitopoulos, D

    S. Konitopoulos, D. Roumelioti, and G. Zoupanos, Fortsch. Phys. 2023, 2300226 (2023), arXiv:2309.15892

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Weinberg, Generalized Theories Of Gravity And Supergravity In Higher Dimen- sions, in Fifth Workshop on Grand Unification , 1984

    S. Weinberg, Generalized Theories Of Gravity And Supergravity In Higher Dimen- sions, in Fifth Workshop on Grand Unification , 1984

    1984

  52. [60]

    Manolakos, Construction of gravitational models as noncommutative gauge theo- ries, PhD thesis, Natl

    G. Manolakos, Construction of gravitational models as noncommutative gauge theo- ries, PhD thesis, Natl. Tech. U., Athens, 2019

    2019

  53. [61]

    Slansky, Phys

    R. Slansky, Phys. Rept. 79, 1 (1981)

    1981

  54. [62]

    Feger, T

    R. Feger, T. W. Kephart, and R. J. Saskowski, Comput. Phys. Commun.257, 107490 (2020), arXiv:1912.10969

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Li, Phys

    L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1723 (1974)

    1974

  56. [64]

    Chamseddine, J

    A. Chamseddine, J. Math. Phys. 44, 2534 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0202137

    2003 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D’Auria, S

    R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, M. Lled´ o, and V. Varadarajan, J. Geom. Phys. 40, 101 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    Figueroa-O’Farrill, Majorana spinors, https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/ jmf/Teaching/ Lectures/Majorana.pdf

    J. Figueroa-O’Farrill, Majorana spinors, https://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/ jmf/Teaching/ Lectures/Majorana.pdf

  59. [67]

    Djouadi, R

    A. Djouadi, R. Fonseca, R. Ouyang, and M. Raidal, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 529 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Particle Data Group, R. L. Workman et al., PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    K. S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D 16, 953 (1977)

    1977

  62. [70]

    K. S. Stelle, Gen. Rel. Grav. 9, 353 (1978). 21

    1978

  63. [71]

    E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B 201, 469 (1982)

    1982

  64. [72]

    I. G. Avramidi and A. O. Barvinsky, Phys. Lett. B 159, 269 (1985)

    1985

  65. [73]

    Codello and R

    A. Codello and R. Percacci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 221301 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0607128

    2006

  66. [74]

    M. R. Niedermaier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 101303 (2009)

    2009

  67. [75]

    Niedermaier, Nucl

    M. Niedermaier, Nucl. Phys. B 833, 226 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    Ohta and R

    N. Ohta and R. Percacci, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 015024 (2014), arXiv:1308.3398

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044006 (2017), arXiv:1609.03524

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044003 (2017), arXiv:1609.03523

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    J. F. Donoghue, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044007 (2017), arXiv:1704.01533

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Hassan, A

    S. Hassan, A. Schmidt-May, and M. von Strauss, Universe 1, 92 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    E. Kolb, S. Ling, A. Long, and R. Rosen, JHEP 05, 181 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    S. F. King, S. Pascoli, J. Turner, and Y.-L. Zhou, JHEP 10, 225 (2021), arXiv:2106.15634

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Coleman and J

    S. Coleman and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. 159, 1251 (1967)

    1967

  76. [84]

    D. R. T. Jones, Phys. Rev. D 25, 581 (1982). 22

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.