Experimental Particle Physics Priorities 2025: A String Phenomenology Perspective

Alon E. Faraggi; Jonathan DeMont; Marco Guzzi; Mark Goodsell

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Experimental Particle Physics Priorities 2025: A String Phenomenology Perspective

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 String phenomenology puts the Higgs first: build a 50-60 TeV collider

desk verdict A coherent string-phenomenology case that the Higgs sector should be the experimental top priority, but the paper's 50-60 TeV collider recommendation rests on an unproven 'established 10 T magnet' premise and cost/schedule numbers that are essentially inflation-adjusted SSC figures, not engineering estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12965 v1 pith:F4IFXK2G submitted 2025-05-19 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Jonathan DeMont , Alon E. Faraggi , Mark Goodsell , Marco Guzzi This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-th

keywords stringphenomenologyHiggsbosoncompositeelectroweaksymmetrybreakingfuturecolliderhadrontriplecouplingtop-Higgs

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 tries to establish that, from a string phenomenology perspective, the experimental particle physics priority is the nature of the Higgs boson and the electroweak symmetry-breaking mechanism. An ideal near-term facility for this question is a hadron collider at 50-60 TeV that uses contemporary magnet technology and can be built in 10-15 years from decision. The argument is that the quasi-realistic string models developed over thirty years assume a fundamental scalar Higgs doublet; if the Higgs turns out to be composite, those models cannot reproduce the Standard Model's flavour structure. The proposed collider would measure the Higgs self-coupling and the top-Higgs coupling with enough precision to distinguish a fundamental from a composite Higgs, something lepton colliders cannot do.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pair of alternatives 'fundamental vs composite Higgs' applied to the string-theoretic framework. The benchmark constructions are the free-fermionic $Z_2\times Z_2$ heterotic-string orbifolds, in which a fundamental electroweak Higgs doublet generates fermion masses and mixings through calculable superpotential terms; these models are the reason the Higgs-nature question is decisive for the approach. On the composite side, the potential $V(h)\simeq \alpha \cos((v+h)/f_\Pi)-\beta \sin^2((v+h)/f_\Pi)$ predicts coupling shifts $\kappa_W,\kappa_Z\simeq \cos(v/f_\Pi)$ and a triple-Higgs shift $\kappa_3\simeq \cos(v/f_\Pi)$, giving concrete observables that a high-energy hadron collider can target. The paper also uses the sharp rise of electroweak production cross sections between 13/14 TeV and 50 TeV as the quantitative argument for a new hadron collider.

What would settle it

A calculation of the maximum proton beam energy in a 91 km ring using the highest stable field demonstrated for existing niobium-titanium magnets: if it falls short of 25 TeV per beam, the proposed 50-60 TeV collider cannot be built as described, and the ideal-facility half of the central claim is invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that determining whether the discovered Higgs boson is a fundamental scalar or a composite state is the most urgent experimental question, because string phenomenology's benchmark vacua rest on a fundamental Higgs. In the free-fermionic $Z_2\times Z_2$ orbifold models, the Standard Model's flavour structure (including a pre-discovery prediction of the top-quark mass) follows from the couplings of a fundamental electroweak Higgs doublet, and there is no known composite-Higgs string model. The paper therefore urges that the next major facility be a 50-60 TeV proton-proton collider in a roughly 91 km tunnel using existing ~10 T superconducting magnet technology, rather than waiting for the 16 T Nb3Sn magnets or a muon collider. The machine would measure the triple-Higgs coupling and the $t\bar{t}h$ coupling, and together with percent-level precision on vector-boson couplings could confirm or exclude composite-Higgs explanations of the electroweak scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a 91 km tunnel with magnets operating at roughly 10 tesla can reach 50-60 TeV and be delivered in 10-15 years for about 25 billion dollars, even though the paper itself notes that this field strength is at the edge of what existing NbTi magnets can sustain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A measurement of the Higgs self-coupling to a few percent at a 50-60 TeV hadron collider would confirm or exclude the composite-Higgs predictions for the electroweak scale.
If the Higgs is composite, the class of quasi-realistic string vacua built on a fundamental scalar Higgs would no longer describe nature, and string model building would require a new direction.
Composite-Higgs coupling deviations in $\kappa_W$ and $\kappa_Z$ could be probed down to roughly 0.2%, pushing the compositeness scale $f_\Pi$ beyond 6 TeV.
Using existing ~10 T magnet technology, a 50-60 TeV hadron collider could start producing physics results in the late 2030s, well before the FCC-hh era.
Cross sections for electroweak-charged BSM states such as higgsinos and $Z'$ bosons rise by orders of magnitude between the LHC and 50 TeV, so the same machine would also be a discovery tool.

Reading between the lines

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

The Higgs-priority argument does not stand or fall with the 50-60 TeV cost and schedule estimate: even a later or less ambitious machine that can measure the triple-Higgs and top-Higgs couplings would still address the core question.
The same fundamental-or-composite Higgs logic would put pressure on any beyond-Standard-Model framework that relies on an elementary Higgs, not only string constructions.
A concrete extension would be to compute the triple-Higgs coupling in the specific free-fermionic models, where multiple Higgs doublets are present; deviations from the single-doublet Standard Model expectation could sharpen the experimental target.
If a string-motivated dark matter candidate were detected, the paper's ranking would likely change, but in the absence of a sharp experimental handle on dark matter, the Higgs sector remains the most decision-relevant measurement.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this is a self-declared string-phenomenology perspective, and within that frame it makes a coherent case that the fundamental-vs-composite Higgs question should be the experimental top priority. The soft spot is the concrete facility recommendation. The 50-60 TeV hadron collider they call USSC/FCC-LHC is presented as using 'established' or 'off-the-shelf' 10 T magnet technology, but the paper itself notes LHC NbTi operates at 8.3 T and only 'might be able to sustain' 10 T. That's a guess, not a demonstrated magnet. The $25B cost is the old SSC price tag adjusted for inflation, and the 10-15 year schedule is inferred from an SSC timeline that was never realized. Those are not engineering estimates. If the magnet field, tunnel cost, or schedule is off by standard large-project factors, the 'ideal near-term facility' claim collapses, although the Higgs-priority argument could survive independently.

What's genuinely useful: the explicit string-phenomenology framing is new, and the authors are honest about the self-referential stake — if the Higgs turns out composite, much of their 30+ year model-building program is moot. That is a legitimate reason to care, and they say so. The composite-Higgs discussion in Section 3.1 is a compact, fair summary of f_pi constraints, and the point that HL-LHC's ~50% sensitivity to the triple Higgs coupling is not enough is standard but well put. The cross-section plots for Z' and higgsino pair production are nice illustrative material.

The citation pattern is self-heavy but appropriate for a proceedings paper from a specific program; the physics references are standard. The circularity concern is minor because they don't hide the perspective — it's in the title.

Who should read it: anyone in the community strategy debate who wants the string-phenomenology argument in one place, and anyone thinking about collider options beyond FCC-hh and muon colliders. It's a position piece, not a technical result, and it shouldn't be taken as a costed proposal.

For peer review: yes, send it out. A referee can flag the unverified 10 T premise and the absent cost/schedule basis, and the paper would be better with those claims either substantiated or explicitly caveated. The physics reasoning itself holds up; the facility recommendation needs more support than it currently has.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a proceedings-style position paper arguing that, from the perspective of string phenomenology, the next priority for experimental particle physics should be the study of the Higgs sector: whether the Higgs is fundamental or composite, the Higgs self-coupling, and the top-Higgs coupling. It reviews the authors' free-fermionic Z2 x Z2 heterotic-string models, notes that a composite Higgs would invalidate the assumption of fundamental scalars underlying those models, and argues that dark-matter and Z' scenarios are too model-dependent to set priorities. It then recommends a 50-60 TeV proton-proton collider in a 91 km tunnel using roughly 10 T magnets, claimed to be buildable in 10-15 years for about $25B with 'established' magnet technology. The physics discussion is broadly consistent with the cited literature, but the facility recommendation rests on unsupported engineering, cost, and schedule estimates.

Significance. If the central recommendation were supported, the paper would provide a clear, falsifiable community-priority proposal: measure the triple-Higgs and top-Higgs couplings at a 50-60 TeV hadron collider and use them to decide whether the Higgs is a fundamental scalar. The physics arguments--HL-LHC sensitivity to kappa_W and kappa_Z, the resulting f_pi lower bounds, and the need for a high-energy hadron machine for the self-coupling--are standard and well grounded. The paper is also honest about the self-referential motivation: a composite Higgs would invalidate the string-vacua program at issue. Its strengths are the explicit benchmark models, reproducible NLO cross-section plots (Figs. 1, 6, 7), and a well-defined experimental question. The main weakness is that the 'ideal facility' claim is supported by an inflation-adjusted cost guess and an unrealized schedule analogy rather than by engineering estimates, so the central recommendation is currently conditional on unverified premises.

major comments (3)

[Section 5 (and abstract)] The claim that a 50-60 TeV hadron collider in a 91 km tunnel using 'contemporary', 'established', or 'off the shelf' roughly 10 T magnet technology can be built in 10-15 years for about $25B is not established by the manuscript. Section 1 itself states that LHC NbTi magnets operate at 8.3 T and that the Nb3Sn alloy technology for 16 T 'is yet to be developed'; no reference is given for a full-scale accelerator-quality 10 T NbTi dipole. Section 5 even says NbTi 'might be able to sustain magnetic fields of the order of 10 Tesla', which is not the same as off-the-shelf readiness. The $25B figure is obtained by inflation-adjusting the canceled SSC's $6B price tag, which is not an engineering cost estimate; with standard CPI inflation the result is closer to $13B, and a proper construction-cost deflator would need to be specified. The 10-15 year schedule is inferred from the uncompleted SSC timeline and from a site-selection date that is misstated (see minor comments). These numbers are load-bearing: the abstract's 'ideal facility in the near future' fails if field, cost, or schedule are off by the factors typical of large accelerator projects. The authors should either substantiate these premises with accelerator-frontier references and sensitivity studies, or soften the recommendation to a conditional physics-priority statement.
[Section 3.1] The statement that 'a new hadron collider could reach a precision of a few percent' for the triple-Higgs coupling is not tied to the proposed 50-60 TeV machine. High-precision projections for the Higgs self-coupling are usually quoted for 100 TeV FCC-hh with specific luminosity assumptions; the manuscript does not provide the corresponding study for 50-60 TeV, nor does it cite one. Since the paper argues that the 50-60 TeV option is the ideal near-term facility, the authors need to show that this energy, with a realistic luminosity profile, actually delivers the few-percent precision on kappa_3 and on the ttH coupling that the physics case requires. Otherwise the Higgs-priority argument and the specific collider recommendation are not connected.
[Section 5 / comparison of options] The word 'ideal' in the abstract requires a systematic comparison with the alternatives that the paper itself lists (FCC-ee, FCC-hh, CEPC/SPPC, ILC, muon collider). The manuscript compares cross sections at 50 TeV with the LHC (Figs. 6 and 7), but it does not compare physics reach, cost, schedule, and technical risk of the 50-60 TeV hadron collider with these options in a single framework. The paper should either provide such an integrated comparison or explicitly restrict the claim to 'a viable option' rather than 'the ideal facility.' This is a correctable framing issue, but it is load-bearing for the central abstract statement.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5] The date 'October 1999' for the site selection of the Original SSC is wrong (the SSC site was selected in 1988-1989); if this date is meant to anchor the schedule analogy, it must be corrected.
[Throughout] There are several typos and OCR-style errors: 'mesaured' (Section 1), 'oparators' (Section 3), 'Diagolnolising' (Section 3), 'Grant Unification' (Section 2), and 'An alternative route for Future Collider Facilities' (Section 5). These should be corrected.
[Figure 3] The figure caption and in-figure text pose two questions ('What is string theory?' and 'What is a vacuum?'), but the caption answers only the first; the second question should be addressed or removed for clarity.
[References [41, 42]] The two references carrying the earlier USSC proposal are arXiv preprints; if peer-reviewed versions exist, they should be cited to allow readers to trace the engineering parameters.
[Section 4] The dark-matter discussion is qualitative; the claim that dark-matter candidates are 'not pinned down from an experimental point of view' is reasonable, but the figure of 'more than eighty orders of magnitude' would benefit from a source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Higgs-priority argument and the 50–60 TeV recommendation rely on external physics arguments and independent calculations, not on definitions or fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central recommendation is an argued priority rather than a derived prediction, and its main justifications are external to the paper's own model-building. The Higgs-priority argument rests on the observed Higgs boson, the hierarchy problem, the limited HL-LHC sensitivity to the triple-Higgs coupling, and the inability of lepton colliders to directly measure the top-Higgs coupling; these are independent physics inputs, not outputs of the authors' string models. The 50–60 TeV collider recommendation is supported by an explicit cross-section calculation using MadGraph and CT18 PDFs (reproduced from the authors' prior work but externally reproducible) and by a model-independent discussion of composite-Higgs coupling deviations. The cost, schedule, and 10 T magnet feasibility claims are stated as assumptions or estimates, not as quantities predicted from fitted parameters; they may be questionable engineering premises, but that is a correctness risk rather than circularity. The self-citations to the authors' earlier USSC papers introduce a name and reproduce cross-section figures, but the underlying numerical content does not encode the paper's conclusion. The self-referential motivation—that the authors' string models assume a fundamental Higgs and would be invalidated if the Higgs is composite—does not make the proposed experiments circular: the experiments are framed as tests that could falsify that assumption, not as confirmations derived from it. No equation or parameter in the paper reduces by construction to the recommendation, so the circularity score is zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central recommendation rests on programmatic assumptions rather than on a new derivation: the relevance of string phenomenology as a priority-setting framework, the existence of fundamental Higgs doublets in quasi-realistic string vacua, and the asserted feasibility and cost of the USSC/FCC-LHC. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

USSC/FCC-LHC centre-of-mass energy = 50-60 TeV
Design point chosen by the authors as achievable with a ~91 km tunnel and ~10 T magnets; no optimization or cost-benefit scan is provided.
Magnetic field strength = ~10 Tesla
Assumed achievable with 'existing LHC magnet technology', although Section 5 notes NbTi operates at 8.3 T and Nb3Sn technology is not yet developed.
Construction cost estimate = 25 billion US dollars
Scaled from the cancelled SSC price tag with inflation; no engineering cost study is cited.
Construction timeline = 10-15 years from decision
Asserted in the abstract and Section 5; no project schedule or risk analysis is provided.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption String theory provides a consistent and relevant framework for quantum gravity that can reproduce Standard Model structures.
Background premise of the whole perspective, asserted in the abstract and Section 1 rather than proven here.
domain assumption The heterotic E8 x E8 string is the only perturbative string construction giving spinorial 16 representations of SO(10).
Used in Section 2 to select the string framework; standard in the string literature but not established in this paper.
domain assumption Quasi-realistic string vacua contain fundamental scalar Higgs doublets, so a composite Higgs would invalidate them.
Section 3 states that a composite Higgs would cause 'a whole slew of phenomenological string vacua' to be cast away; this is the authors' own characterization of their model-building program.
ad hoc to paper Experimental priorities should be assessed from a string phenomenology perspective.
The paper's title and thesis adopt this viewpoint without arguing why it should outrank other criteria for setting community priorities.
ad hoc to paper A 91 km tunnel with ~10 T magnets yields 50-60 TeV and can be built in 10-15 years for 25 billion dollars.
Cost and schedule figures in Section 5 are asserted with no supporting feasibility study.
domain assumption The particle dark matter problem is too model-vague to be a high-priority experimental target.
Section 4 concludes that 'the particle characteristics of the dark matter candidates are not pinned down from an experimental point of view', which supports deprioritizing dark matter searches but is a judgment rather than a result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Particle Physics Priorities 2025: A String Phenomenology Perspective." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4IFXK2G

@misc{pith2026250512965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Particle Physics Priorities 2025: A String Phenomenology Perspective},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4IFXK2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12965}
}

read the original abstract

With the SNOWMASS 2021 process in the US and the on--going European Strategy Report 2025, the field of elementary particle physics is undergoing detailed community evaluation, and the experimental particle physics program, which requires substantial public investment, is under scrutiny. We offer an assessment of the current experimental particle physics priorities from a string phenomenology point of view. String theory provides a perturbatively consistent framework for quantum gravity. String phenomenology aims to connect between string theory and observational data. String theory is a consistent theory of quantum gravity that contains the other fundamental constituents of matter and interactions. As all forms of energy couple to gravity, string theory provides a framework that reproduces the structures of the Standard Model of particle physics and gives rise to detailed physics scenarios beyond the Standard Model, {\it e.g.} dark matter candidates, axions, additional gauge symmetries, etc. Given this breadth, we propose that from a string phenomenology perspective, the experimental particle physics priority is the nature of the Higgs boson and the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism. An ideal facility in the near future to study this sector is a hadron collider at 50--60 TeV that utilises contemporary magnet technology and can be built in 10--15 years from decision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12965 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Total inclusive cross section for Higgs boson production in association with a top-antitop quark pair in proton-proton collisions as a function of the collision energy. The cross section calculation is obtained with Madgraph [3] at next-to-leading order (NLO) in QCD using the CT18NLO PDFs [4]. examples for physics beyond the Standard Model, they do not present a well defined proposition from an experimental point of… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The Standard Model (SM) matter states strongly favours their embedding in Grand Unified Theory (GUT) structures. Particularly compelling is that of 𝑆𝑂(10) in which each Standard Model family fits into a single spinorial 16 representation of 𝑆𝑂(10). Additional evidence for high–scale unification stems from: logarithmic running of the SM parameters; proton lifetime; suppression of left–handed neutrino masses. f… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** What is string theory? A well defined perturbative particle theory with well defined physical attributes. a segment with two orbifold fixed points at the end points of the segment. Generalising to the 𝑇 6 /(𝑍2 × 𝑍2) produces the 𝑍2 × 𝑍2 orbifolds of the heterotic-string in four dimensions. This class of string compactifications have been mostly studied by using the free fermionic formulation [8], which provides a … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The fermionic 𝑍2 × 𝑍2 orbifolds produce an abundance of three generation models with the canonical GUT embedding of the weak hypercharge 𝑈(1)𝑌 . matter states were constructed in the Free Fermionic Formulation (FFF) [8] of the heterotic-string in four dimensions. Thes…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Dark matter candidates vary from ultra–light to ultra–massive, spanning more than eighty orders of magnitude in mass scale. While the evidence for dark matter is compelling, searching for dark matter candidates is a vague proposition from an experimental point of vi…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: 𝑍 ′ production and leptonic decay at 14TeV and 50TeV (figure taken from arXiv:2309.15707 [41]) An alternative route for Future Collider Facilities (FCF) is a hadronic collider that utilises established magnet technology. In [41, 42] we dubbed this proposal as Upgraded …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: NLO cross-sections for degenerate higgsino pair production (left) varying the Higgsino mass and (right) varying collider centre-of-mass energy. new physics is not guaranteed. In regions where the basic technological know–how already exists, it makes sense, given the pr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

Aadet al.[ATLAS],Phys

G. Aadet al.[ATLAS],Phys. Lett.B716(2012) 1

2012
[2]

Chatrchyanet al.[CMS],Phys

S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS],Phys. Lett.B716(2012) 30

2012
[3]

Alwallet al

[MadGraph], J. Alwallet al. JHEP07(2014) 079

work page 2014
[4]

Houet al

[CT18 PDFs], T.-J. Houet al. Phys. Rev.D103 (2021) 014013

work page 2021
[5]

Hewett and T.G

J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo,Phys. Rep.183 (1989) 193; A. Leike,Phys. Rep.317 (1999) 143; P. Langacker,rev. Mod. Phys.81 (2009) 1199

work page 1989
[6]

Faraggi and J

A.E. Faraggi and J. Rizos,Nucl. Phys.B895(2015) 233

2015
[7]

Faraggi,Nucl

A.E. Faraggi,Nucl. Phys.B428(1994) 111;Phys. Lett.B520(2001) 337

1994
[8]

Antoniadis, C

I. Antoniadis, C. Bachas and C. Kounnas,Nucl. Phys.B289 (1987) 87; H. Kawai, D.C. Lewellen and S.H.H. Tye,Nucl. Phys.B288(1987) 1

work page 1987

Show all 44 references

[9]

Faraggi and Nanopoulos D VPhys

A.E. Faraggi and Nanopoulos D VPhys. Rev.D48 (1993) 3288; A.E. Faraggi Int. J. Mod. Phys.A14 (1999) 1663

1993
[10]

Faraggi,Phys

A.E. Faraggi,Phys. Lett.B274(1992) 47;Phys. Lett.B377(1996) 43;Phys. Rev.D47(1993) 5021

1992
[11]

Abeet al[CDF Collaboration],Phys

F. Abeet al[CDF Collaboration],Phys. Rev. Lett.74 (1995) 2626; S. Abachiet al[D0 Collaboration],Phys. Rev. Lett.74(1995) 2422

1995
[12]

Faraggi,Nucl

A.E. Faraggi,Nucl. Phys.B403(1993) 101;Nucl. Phys.B407(1993) 57; A.E. Faraggi and E. Halyo,Phys. Lett.B307(1993) 305;Nucl. Phys.B416(1994) 63

1993
[13]

Faraggi and E

A.E. Faraggi and E. Halyo,Phys. Lett.B307(1993) 311; C. Coriano and A.E. Faraggi,Phys. Lett.B581(2004) 99; A.E. Faraggi,Eur. Phys. Jour.C78 (2018) 867

1993
[14]

Faraggi;Phys

A.E. Faraggi;Phys. Lett.B302(1993) 202; K.R.DienesandA.E.Faraggi, Phys.Rev.Lett. 75(1995)2646; Nucl.Phys. B457(1995)409

1993
[15]

Faraggi and J

A.E. Faraggi and J. Pati,Nucl. Phys.B526(1998) 21

1998
[16]

Faraggi,Nucl

A.E. Faraggi,Nucl. Phys.B728 (2005) 83

2005
[17]

Faraggi, D.V

A.E. Faraggi, D.V. Nanopoulos and K. Yuan,Nucl. Phys.B335(1990) 347; A.E. Faraggi,Phys. Lett.B278(1992) 131;Nucl. Phys.B387(1992) 239; G.B. Cleaver, A.E. Faraggi and D.V. Nanopoulos,Phys. Lett.B455(1999) 135; A.E. Faraggi, E. Manno and C.M. Timirgaziu,Eur. Phys. Jour.C50(2007)...

1990
[18]

Faraggi,Phys

A.E. Faraggi,Phys. Lett.B326(1994) 62;Phys. Lett.B544(2002) 207; E. Kiritsis and C. Kounnas,Nucl. Phys.B503 (1997) 117; A.E. Faraggi, S. Forste and C. Timirgaziu,JHEP 0608(2006) 057; P. Athanasopouloset al, JHEP 1604 (2016) 038

1994
[19]

Antoniadis, J

I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, J. Hagelin and D.V. Nanopolous,Phys. Lett.B231 (1989) 65

1989
[20]

Antoniadis, J

I. Antoniadis, J. Rizos and G. Leontaris,Phys. Lett.B245(1990) 161

1990
[21]

Cleaver, A.E

G. Cleaver, A.E. Faraggi and C. Savage,Phys. Rev.D63 (2001) 066001

2001
[22]

Faraggi, C

A.E. Faraggi, C. Kounnas, S.E.M Nooĳ and J. Rizos,Nucl. Phys.B695 (2004) 41

2004
[23]

Asselet al Phys

B. Asselet al Phys. Lett.B683(2010) 306;Nucl. Phys.B844(2011) 365

2010
[24]

Faraggi, J

A.E. Faraggi, J. Rizos and H. Sonmez,Nucl. Phys.B886(2014) 202

2014
[25]

Faraggi, J

A.E. Faraggi, J. Rizos and H. Sonmez,Nucl. Phys.B927(2018) 1

2018
[26]

Faraggi, G

A.E. Faraggi, G. Harries and J. Rizos,Nucl. Phys.B936(2018) 472; A.E. Faraggi, G. Harries, B. Percival and J .Rizos,Nucl. Phys.B953(2020) 114969

2018
[27]

B961(2020)115231; Phys.Rev

A.E.Faraggi,V.G.MatyasandB.Percival, Nucl.Phys. B961(2020)115231; Phys.Rev. D104 (2021) 046002;Phys. Rev.D106(2022) 026001

2020
[28]

Faraggi, C

A.E. Faraggi, C. Kounnas and J. Rizos,Phys. Lett.B648 (2007) 84;Nucl. Phys.B774 (2007) 208

2007
[29]

Faraggi,Phys

A.E. Faraggi,Phys. Rev.D46 (1992) 3204

1992
[30]

Kalara, J.L

S. Kalara, J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos,Nucl. Phys.B353(1991) 650; J. Rizos and K. Tamvakis,Phys. Lett.B262(1991) 227; A.E. Faraggi,Nucl. Phys.B487(1997) 55

1991
[31]

Contino, doi:10.1142/9789814327183_0005 [arXiv:1005.4269 [hep-ph]]

R. Contino, doi:10.1142/9789814327183_0005 [arXiv:1005.4269 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[32]

de Blas, M

J. de Blas, M. Cepeda, J. D’Hondt, R. K. Ellis, C. Grojean, B. Heinemann, F. Maltoni, A. Nisati, E. Petit and R. Rattazzi,et al.JHEP 01 (2020), 139

2020
[33]

Chang, C

S. Chang, C. Coriano and A.E. Faraggi,Nucl. Phys.B477(1996) 65

1996
[34]

Cleaver, A.E

G.B. Cleaver, A.E. Faraggi,Int. J. Mod. Phys.A14(1999) 2335

1999
[35]

Delle Rose, A.E

L. Delle Rose, A.E. Faraggi, C. Marzo and J. Rizos,Phys. Rev.D96 (2017) 055025

2017
[36]

Faraggi and M

A.E. Faraggi and M. Pospelov,Astropart. Phys.16(2002) 451

2002
[37]

Reportofthe2021U.S.CommunityStudyontheFutureofParticlePhysics (Snowmass 2021) Summary Chapter,

J.N.Butler, etal.,“Reportofthe2021U.S.CommunityStudyontheFutureofParticlePhysics (Snowmass 2021) Summary Chapter,” arXiv:2301.06581

2021
[38]

Snowmass’21 Accelerator Frontier Report,

S. Gourlay,et al.“Snowmass’21 Accelerator Frontier Report,” arXiv:2209.14136. 20 Experimental Particle Physics Priorities 2025: A String Phenomenology Perspective Alon E. Faraggi

2025 arXiv
[39]

Proposal to the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory: an international muon ionization cooling experiment (MICE),

G. Gregoire,et al.“Proposal to the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory: an international muon ionization cooling experiment (MICE),” (2003) MICE-NOTE-21

2003
[40]

Bogomilovet al.[MICE],Nature 578 (2020) 53

M. Bogomilovet al.[MICE],Nature 578 (2020) 53

2020
[41]

String Derived Z ’ Model at an Upgraded Superconducting Super Collider,

A.E. Faraggi, M. Guzzi and A. McEntaggart, “String Derived Z ’ Model at an Upgraded Superconducting Super Collider,” arXiv:2309.15707

arXiv
[42]

The Quest for Understanding: The Case of the Upgraded Superconducting Super Collider,

A.E. Faraggi, “The Quest for Understanding: The Case of the Upgraded Superconducting Super Collider,” arXiv:2411.00595

arXiv
[43]

D. Agin, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell and T. Murphy, Phys. Lett. B853 (2024), 138597

2024
[44]

D. Agin, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell and T. Murphy, Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no.11, 1218 21

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Aadet al.[ATLAS],Phys

G. Aadet al.[ATLAS],Phys. Lett.B716(2012) 1

2012

[2] [2]

Chatrchyanet al.[CMS],Phys

S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS],Phys. Lett.B716(2012) 30

2012

[3] [3]

Alwallet al

[MadGraph], J. Alwallet al. JHEP07(2014) 079

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Houet al

[CT18 PDFs], T.-J. Houet al. Phys. Rev.D103 (2021) 014013

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Hewett and T.G

J.L. Hewett and T.G. Rizzo,Phys. Rep.183 (1989) 193; A. Leike,Phys. Rep.317 (1999) 143; P. Langacker,rev. Mod. Phys.81 (2009) 1199

work page 1989

[6] [6]

Faraggi and J

A.E. Faraggi and J. Rizos,Nucl. Phys.B895(2015) 233

2015

[7] [7]

Faraggi,Nucl

A.E. Faraggi,Nucl. Phys.B428(1994) 111;Phys. Lett.B520(2001) 337

1994

[8] [8]

Antoniadis, C

I. Antoniadis, C. Bachas and C. Kounnas,Nucl. Phys.B289 (1987) 87; H. Kawai, D.C. Lewellen and S.H.H. Tye,Nucl. Phys.B288(1987) 1

work page 1987