Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 37 references

A Pati-Salam model built on noncommutative geometry supplies a TeV-scale leptoquark that can explain B-decay anomalies without triggering proton decay.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 22:59 UTC pith:H7APIVPX

load-bearing objection Proceedings overview, not new physics: a transparent map of NCG-Pati-Salam, but the central S1 leptoquark claim is inherited from Ref. [8] and rests on a step the paper itself flags as unestablished. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.07672 v1 pith:H7APIVPX submitted 2025-11-10 hep-ph hep-th

Unified Pati-Salam from Noncommutative Geometry: Overview and Phenomenological Remarks

Ufuk Aydemir This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords Noncommutative geometryspectral actionPati-Salamgauge coupling unificationscalar leptoquarkR_D anomalyproton decayleft-right symmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Noncommutative geometry treats spacetime as an operator algebra rather than a set of points, and the spectral action principle turns this algebra into the actions of the Standard Model, gravity, and possible extensions. When the algebra is chosen to give the Pati-Salam gauge group, the models must unify gauge couplings and contain only a restricted set of scalars. The paper's central point is that in one such model, a particular scalar leptoquark has precisely the couplings needed to explain the R_D(*) B-decay anomaly while automatically lacking the diquark couplings that would make the proton decay. This is a structural consequence of the geometry, not an added assumption. If right, it gives a natural, testable origin for a TeV-scale leptoquark.

Core claim

The central claim is that in model C of the noncommutative Pati-Salam construction, one of the leptoquarks in a complexified H(6,1,1) representation—identified as H*_3L after decomposition to the Standard Model gauge group—possesses the required couplings to left-handed fermions to address the R_D(*) anomaly, while lacking the diquark couplings that would mediate proton decay. The paper states this can therefore provide a solution to the anomaly without destabilizing the proton. This property is presented as an automatic consequence of the underlying geometry, in contrast to ordinary Pati-Salam or grand unified models where such a leptoquark would be dangerous and must be made heavy.

What carries the argument

The spectral triple (A,H,D), consisting of an algebra, a Hilbert space, and a Dirac operator, with the finite algebra chosen as H_R ⊕ H_L ⊕ M4(C). Whether the order-one condition is satisfied yields three models (A, B, C) with different scalar contents. In model C, the scalar H_L(6,1,1) appears; when the Pati-Salam symmetry breaks to the Standard Model, this sextet decomposes into an S1 leptoquark H*_3L. The argument is carried by the restricted scalar content and the specific Yukawa structure generated by the Dirac operator, which automatically leaves the diquark couplings absent for H*_3L.

Load-bearing premise

The low-energy phenomenology rests on treating the truncated spectral action as an ordinary effective quantum field theory, a step the paper explicitly acknowledges is not yet fully justified because the action is not UV-complete and a faithful NCG-QFT formalism is still incomplete.

What would settle it

A one-loop renormalization-group computation that generates a diquark coupling for H*_3L would restore the proton-decay problem and disprove the central claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A TeV-scale S1 leptoquark can come from a unified framework without the doublet-triplet splitting problem that forces leptoquarks to be heavy in grand unified theories.
  • The leptoquark's exclusive left-handed couplings reduce the viable parameter space for R_D(*) explanations, making the scenario more predictive and testable.
  • The same construction contains a right-handed counterpart H*_3R that could address observables requiring right-handed couplings, such as the muon anomalous magnetic moment.
  • The restricted scalar content of the noncommutative Pati-Salam models defines specific collider targets, focusing searches on the states listed in the three models.
  • If the R_D(*) deviation is confirmed, this framework would supply a geometric origin for the new physics, rather than a purpose-built model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The proton-stability argument is a tree-level statement; radiative corrections might regenerate diquark couplings, so a one-loop computation would be the natural next check.
  • Because the S1 in model C couples only to left-handed fermions, measurements of tau polarization or angular distributions in B→D(*)τν could distinguish this scenario from leptoquarks with right-handed couplings.
  • The same geometric mechanism that forbids diquark couplings might also suppress other dangerous operators, an extension the paper does not explore.
  • If the spectral action is truncated at higher orders, additional scalar self-couplings or Yukawa structures could alter the leptoquark's mass and couplings; the robustness of the low-energy picture to such corrections is an open question.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This proceedings-style paper reviews Pati-Salam models derived from noncommutative geometry (NCG-PS), emphasizing that these models require gauge coupling unification and have restricted scalar content. The main phenomenological focus is the scalar leptoquark S1. The author argues that in one version of the model (model C), a component of the H_L(6,1,1) multiplet, denoted H*_3L, has the left-handed couplings needed to address the R_D(*) anomalies while lacking diquark couplings, and therefore does not mediate proton decay. The paper also reviews the minimal spectral standard model and explicitly lists limitations of the NCG approach, including the non-UV-completeness of the truncated spectral action and the lack of an established QFT formalism faithful to the NCG structure.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper identifies a nontrivial phenomenological consequence of a specific unified framework: a TeV-scale S1 leptoquark with the right couplings for B-anomalies and with automatic proton stability, without ad hoc symmetries. This would be a significant result and would strengthen the case for studying NCG-PS models. However, the claim is not established in this manuscript. The key assertion about the absence of diquark couplings is inherited from earlier work (Ref. [8]) and is not re-derived here. More importantly, the entire extraction of low-energy operators from the truncated spectral action rests on an assumption that the paper itself flags as unproven. The manuscript also contains a direct textual contradiction about whether H*_3L has diquark couplings. These issues make the paper unsuitable for acceptance in its current form, though the underlying idea may be salvageable with clarifications and additional justification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (17) and following paragraph] There is a direct internal contradiction in the central claim. The text states that 'H*_3L can be identified as the "good" leptoquark that has left-handed couplings while lacking diquark couplings,' and then in the next sentence says 'H*_3L couples to diquarks, thus mediating proton decay.' As printed, these two statements are mutually exclusive. If both terms in Eq. (17) involve the same field, then the claimed absence of diquark couplings is false. If the second sentence refers to the conjugate component H_3L (without the star), the notation must be clarified. This is not a cosmetic issue: the paper's advertised result is that one specific leptoquark simultaneously has the required left-handed couplings and no diquark couplings. Please correct the notation and the surrounding text so that the reader can unambiguously identify which field has which couplings.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (5) and Sec. 3.2, Eq. (17)] The paper states in Sec. 2 that the spectral action in Eq. (5) is truncated at order 1/Λ^2, is 'clearly not UV-complete in the common sense,' and that 'a QFT formalism that is faithful to the NCG structure has not been completely established.' Nevertheless, the couplings displayed in Eq. (17) and the claim that diquark couplings are absent are derived by treating this truncated action as an ordinary low-energy QFT. This step is load-bearing: if the truncated action cannot be matched to a renormalizable local QFT, or if neglected higher-order terms modify the Yukawa sector, then the specific operator content of Eq. (17) is not physically meaningful. The paper does not provide any consistency check (e.g., decoupling of higher-order terms, matching calculation, or renormalizability) to support this interpretation. The caveat mentioned in Sec. 2 should be repeated and made an explicit condit
  3. [Sec. 3.2, central claim] The statement that in model C the leptoquark H*_3L can explain R_D(*) without mediating proton decay is attributed to Ref. [8] but is not derived or independently verified in this manuscript. For a review article, citing prior work is acceptable, but the prose presents this as a definitive property of the NCG construction ('automatically absent due to the geometric construction'). Given that the underlying QFT interpretation is itself not established (see previous comment), the strength of this assertion is disproportionate. Please either include a concise derivation of the missing diquark couplings from the spectral data, or explicitly mark the claim as inherited from Ref. [8] and conditional on the effective-QFT assumption.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (16)] The two components of H_L(6,1,1) are both denoted H_3L in Eq. (16), differing only by hypercharge. This is confusing, especially since Eq. (17) uses H*_3L. Please introduce distinct symbols (e.g., H_3L and \bar{H}_3L) and define them explicitly.
  2. [Ref. [29] and Sec. 3.2] The paper states the R_D(*) deviation is greater than 3σ based on the HFLAV 2023 average. Given the date of this manuscript, the experimental situation may have evolved; please update or qualify the anomaly claim.
  3. [References] Reference [28] contains a typo: 'Physcis' should be 'Physics'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central S1-leptoquark identification follows from the external NCG-PS model construction and group-theoretic expansion; the admitted effective-QFT limitation is a correctness risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular under the specified patterns. The NCG-PS models, their scalar content (Table 1, Eq. (12)), and the G422D invariant Yukawa structure (Eq. (13)) come from Refs. [6,7], which are external to the present author, and the R_D(*) data are external (Refs. [25-29]). The central claim—that in Model C a component of H(6,1,1)_422 has left-handed quark-lepton couplings and no diquark couplings—is a group-theoretic consequence of expanding the antisymmetric contraction in Eq. (13) into SM components (Eqs. (15)-(17)). Although the expansion is cited to Ref. [8], which includes the present author, that prior work is a parameter-free, stated-assumption calculation whose assumptions (the G422D NCG-PS model of [6,7]) do not include the target result, so under the reviewing rules it is independent support rather than circularity. The paper fits no parameter to R_D(*) and does not define the leptoquark by the anomaly; it explicitly frames Model C as a sample ('I have selected the above model just as a sample'). The strongest limitation is admitted in Sec. 2: the spectral action is truncated and 'clearly not UV-complete,' and 'a QFT formalism that is faithful to the NCG structure has not been completely established.' The low-energy interpretation of Eq. (17) therefore rests on an unproven effective-QFT assumption, and Sec. 2 also notes the wrong-Higgs-mass issue; these are correctness risks, not circularity, because the S1 couplings are not assumed in order to justify that premise.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a review; all model-building inputs are pulled from earlier literature [6,7,8]. Key load-bearing inputs are the existence of the NCG-PS models with unification, the validity of QFT over the spectral action below the cutoff, and the experimental reality of the R_D(*) anomaly.

free parameters (3)
  • TeV-scale S1 leptoquark mass (m_S1) = ~TeV (assumed)
    To address R_D(*), S1 must be light; no mass prediction or collider bound is derived in this review.
  • Unification scale M_U / unified coupling g_U = not specified
    The review assumes the NCG-PS model has gauge coupling unification at some M_U; exact values are not quoted or computed here.
  • Symmetry-breaking scale M_C (⟨∆R⟩ VEV) = not specified
    The breakdown G422D -> G321 proceeds via the ∆R VEV (Eq. 8); the scale is assumed, not computed.
axioms (6)
  • standard math The spectral action expansion Tr[χ(D_A/Λ)] is valid and yields the bosonic action in Eq. (5) to leading order in 1/Λ^2.
    Standard heat-kernel/Seeley-deWitt expansion used in NCG; the paper reviews it and gives the final action without derivation.
  • domain assumption There exists a finite algebra A_F = H_R ⊕ H_L ⊕ M_4(C) and spectral data that yield the three Pati-Salam models A, B, C with scalar content of Table 1.
    Construction from Refs. [6,7]; the paper does not prove existence, it cites.
  • domain assumption Gauge-coupling unification condition g3^2 = g2^2 = (5/3) g1^2 holds at the scale M_U in the NCG-PS models.
    Eq. (6) in Sec. 2 is asserted from the spectral action; the RG analysis for the PS models is cited from [6,7].
  • domain assumption The usual QFT framework is valid as an initial approximation on top of the spectral action below the cutoff, despite the absence of a faithful NCG-QFT formalism.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. 2: 'we assume that the usual QFT framework is valid as an initial approximation.' Load-bearing for all low-energy phenomenology.
  • domain assumption The R_D(*) anomaly (HFLAV average deviates >3σ from SM) is real.
    Motivates the whole S1 discussion; cited from [29]. If the anomaly disappears, the phenomenological centerpiece loses its target.
  • domain assumption In Model C, the leptoquark from H_L(6,1,1)_422 has left-handed couplings and no diquark couplings automatically due to the NCG construction.
    Central inherited result from [8]; not re-derived here. Eqs. (16-17) show left-handed couplings, but the automatic absence of diquark couplings is only asserted.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9354 in / 14023 out tokens · 134523 ms · 2026-08-03T22:59:41.543539+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unified Pati-Salam from Noncommutative Geometry: Overview and Phenomenological Remarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H7APIVPX

@misc{pith2026251107672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unified Pati-Salam from Noncommutative Geometry: Overview and Phenomenological Remarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H7APIVPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.07672}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The lack of clear new-physics signals at the LHC searches motivates models that can guide current and future collider searches. The spectral action principle within the noncommutative geometry (NCG) framework yields such models with distinctive phenomenology. This formalism derives the actions of the Standard Model, General Relativity, and beyond from the underlying algebra, putting them on a common geometric footing. Certain versions of Pati-Salam (PS) models with gauge coupling unification and limited scalar content can be derived from an appropriate noncommutative algebra. In this paper, I review these gauge-coupling-unified Pati-Salam models and discuss their phenomenological aspects, focusing on the $S_1$ scalar leptoquark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07672 by Ufuk Aydemir.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) SM and (b) S1 leptoquark contribution to B0 → D(∗)+τ −ντL. Adapted from Ref. [8]. The existence of such a scalar leptoquark at the TeV scale would prompt important questions. The immediate one is its UV origin. Leptoquarks [33, 34] appear in supersym￾metric extensions of the SM, composite (strongly-coupled) models, grand unified theories, and Pati-Salam-type partially unified models, and finally our NC… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Leading order contribution to aµ from a S1 leptoquark. = 2 d C RjνR − u C RjeR  H ∗j 3R + ε ijku C RidRjH∗ 3Rk + h.c. , (18) with H ∗j 3R being the "good" leptoquark with no diquark couplings. Besides aµ and RD(∗) , one can analyze RK(∗) ≡ BR B → K(∗)µ +µ −  BR B → K(∗)e+e−  and R ν K ≡ BR(B → Kνν) BR(B → Kνν)SM , along with observables, such as BR(τ → µγ), BR(τ → 3µ), BR (Bc → τν), among oth￾ers [16… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Connes,Noncommutative geometry

    A. Connes,Noncommutative geometry. 1994

    1994

  2. [2]

    Connes and M

    A. Connes and M. Marcolli,Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Fields and Motives. American Mathematical Society, 2007

    2007

  3. [3]

    A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes,Universal formula for noncommutative geometry actions: Unification of gravity and the standard model,Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996) 4868–4871, [hep-th/9606056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes,The Spectral action principle,Commun. Math. Phys.186(1997) 731–750, [hep-th/9606001]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    W. D. van Suijlekom,Noncommutative Geometry and Particle Physics. Springer, 12, 2024, 10.1007/978-3-031-59120-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59120-4 2024

  6. [6]

    A. H. Chamseddine, A. Connes and W. D. van Suijlekom,Beyond the Spectral Standard Model: Emergence of Pati-Salam Unification,JHEP11(2013) 132, [1304.8050]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    A. H. Chamseddine, A. Connes and W. D. van Suijlekom,Grand Unification in the Spectral Pati-Salam Model,JHEP11(2015) 011, [1507.08161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Aydemir, D

    U. Aydemir, D. Minic, C. Sun and T. Takeuchi,B-decay anomalies and scalar lepto- quarks in unified Pati-Salam models from noncommutative geometry,JHEP09(2018) 117, [1804.05844]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam,Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,Phys. Rev.D10(1974) 275–289

    1974

  10. [10]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati,A Natural Left-Right Symmetry,Phys. Rev.D11 (1975) 2558. 11

    1975

  11. [11]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati,Left-Right Gauge Symmetry and an Isoconjugate Model of CP Violation,Phys. Rev.D11(1975) 566–571

    1975

  12. [12]

    Chang, R

    D. Chang, R. N. Mohapatra, J. Gipson, R. E. Marshak and M. K. Parida,Experimental Tests of New SO(10) Grand Unification,Phys. Rev. D31(1985) 1718

    1985

  13. [13]

    Bertolini, L

    S. Bertolini, L. Di Luzio and M. Malinsky,Intermediate mass scales in the non- supersymmetric SO(10) grand unification: A Reappraisal,Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 015013, [0903.4049]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Aydemir and T

    U. Aydemir and T. Mandal,LHC probes of TeV-scale scalars inSO(10)grand unifica- tion,Adv. High Energy Phys.2017(2017) 7498795, [1601.06761]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Aydemir, T

    U. Aydemir, T. Mandal and S. Mitra,Addressing theRD(∗) anomalies with anS1 lepto- quark fromSO(10)grand unification,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 015011, [1902.08108]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Aydemir, T

    U. Aydemir, T. Mandal, S. Mitra and S. Munir,An economical model forB-flavour anda µ anomalies from SO(10) grand unification,2209.04705

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    A. H. Chamseddine, A. Connes and W. D. van Suijlekom,Inner Fluctuations in Non- commutative Geometry without the first order condition,J. Geom. Phys.73(2013) 222–234, [1304.7583]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    T. D. H. van Nuland and W. D. van Suijlekom,One-loop corrections to the spectral action,JHEP05(2022) 078, [2107.08485]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    A. H. Chamseddine and A. Connes,Resilience of the Spectral Standard Model,JHEP 09(2012) 104, [1208.1030]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  20. [20]

    M. A. Kurkov and F. Lizzi,Clifford Structures in Noncommutative Geometry and the Extended Scalar Sector,Phys. Rev.D97(2018) 085024, [1801.00260]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Aydemir,Clifford-based spectral action and renormalization group analysis of the gauge couplings,Eur

    U. Aydemir,Clifford-based spectral action and renormalization group analysis of the gauge couplings,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 325, [1902.08090]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Aydemir, D

    U. Aydemir, D. Minic, C. Sun and T. Takeuchi,Pati-Salam unification from non- commutative geometry and the TeV-scaleWR boson,Int. J. Mod. Phys.A31(2016) 1550223, [1509.01606]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Aydemir, D

    U. Aydemir, D. Minic, C. Sun and T. Takeuchi,The 750 GeV diphoton excess in unified SU(2) L ×SU(2) R ×SU(4)models from noncommutative geometry,Mod. Phys. Lett. A31(2016) 1650101, [1603.01756]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    A. H. Chamseddine and W. D. Van Suijlekom,A survey of spectral models of gravity coupled to matter.1904.12392. 12

    arXiv 1904

  25. [25]

    BaBar collaboration, J. P. Lees et al.,Evidence for an excess of¯B→D (∗)τ − ¯ντ decays, Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 101802, [1205.5442]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  26. [26]

    Aaij et al.,Measurement of the ratio of branching frac- tionsB( ¯B0 →D ∗+τ − ¯ντ )/B( ¯B0 →D ∗+µ− ¯νµ),Phys

    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al.,Measurement of the ratio of branching frac- tionsB( ¯B0 →D ∗+τ − ¯ντ )/B( ¯B0 →D ∗+µ− ¯νµ),Phys. Rev. Lett.115(2015) 111803, [1506.08614]

    arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Hirose et al.,Measurement of theτlepton polarization and R(D∗)in the decay ¯B→D ∗τ − ¯ντ with one-prong hadronicτdecays at Belle,Phys

    Belle collaboration, S. Hirose et al.,Measurement of theτlepton polarization and R(D∗)in the decay ¯B→D ∗τ − ¯ντ with one-prong hadronicτdecays at Belle,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 012004, [1709.00129]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Crivellin and B

    A. Crivellin and B. Mellado,Anomalies in Particle Physcis,PoSDIS2024(2025) 007

    2025

  29. [29]

    Banerjee et al.,Averages ofb-hadron,c-hadron, andτ-lepton properties as of 2023,2411.18639

    Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFLAV) collaboration, S. Banerjee et al.,Averages ofb-hadron,c-hadron, andτ-lepton properties as of 2023,2411.18639

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Bauer and M

    M. Bauer and M. Neubert,Minimal Leptoquark Explanation for theRD(∗),R K, and (g−2) µ Anomalies,Phys. Rev. Lett.116(2016) 141802, [1511.01900]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    Angelescu, D

    A. Angelescu, D. Be?irevi?, D. A. Faroughy and O. Sumensari,Closing the win- dow on single leptoquark solutions to theB-physics anomalies,JHEP10(2018) 183, [1808.08179]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Aydemir,B-flavour anda µ anomalies withS 1 leptoquark in SO(10) Grand Unifi- cation, inBeyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment, 2023, DOI

    U. Aydemir,B-flavour anda µ anomalies withS 1 leptoquark in SO(10) Grand Unifi- cation, inBeyond Standard Model: From Theory to Experiment, 2023, DOI

    2023

  33. [33]

    Buchmuller, R

    W. Buchmuller, R. Ruckl and D. Wyler,Leptoquarks in Lepton - Quark Collisions, Phys. Lett. B191(1987) 442–448

    1987

  34. [34]

    Doršner, S

    I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo, J. F. Kamenik and N. Košnik,Physics of lepto- quarks in precision experiments and at particle colliders,Phys. Rept.641(2016) 1–68, [1603.04993]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Nath and P

    P. Nath and P. Fileviez Perez,Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings and in branes,Phys. Rept.441(2007) 191–317, [hep-ph/0601023]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  36. [36]

    R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak,Local B-L Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations,Phys. Rev. Lett.44(1980) 1316–1319

    1980

  37. [37]

    Bhaskar, A

    A. Bhaskar, A. A. Madathil, T. Mandal and S. Mitra,Combined explanation of W- mass, muon g-2, RK(*) and RD(*) anomalies in a singlet-triplet scalar leptoquark model,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 115009, [2204.09031]. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022