Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

How to Falsify String Theory at a Collider

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 lone high-dimensional multiplet would falsify string theory

desk verdict A thoughtful, honest paper that turns a plausible string-landscape restriction into a concrete collider falsification test; the catch is that the restriction is a conjecture, not a theorem, and the title oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13192 v3 pith:PGWVTOKF submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph hep-exhep-th

Matthew Baumgart , Panagiotis Christeas , Jonathan J. Heckman , Rebecca J. Hicks This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-th
keywords stringlandscapejustn-pletscenarioSU(2)_LrepresentationsdisappearingtracksearchesminimaldarkmatterelectroweakmultipletsfalsifiabilityoftheoryLHCrecastanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that string theory's known landscape of vacuum constructions never produces a Standard-Model extension that contains only one new particle: a Majorana fermion in a real, $n$-dimensional representation of $SU(2)_L$ with $n \geq 5$, and no other new states. The reason is that every known way to engineer high-dimensional representations in string theory instead produces a tower of lighter states in lower-dimensional representations, so the authors conjecture that such a 'just $n$-plet' spectrum is impossible in string theory. If a collider discovered that isolated multiplet, the claim would immediately rule out the known string landscape. The paper supports the scenario as a search target by recasting the ATLAS disappearing-track search for winos to set mass limits on $n = 3,5,7,9$ multiplets, finding $M \gtrsim 400$--$735$ GeV depending on $n$, and projecting how high-luminosity LHC data would extend them. A null search never proves string theory right; only a positive detection of an isolated high-dimensional multiplet has falsifying power, and the authors state explicitly that the conjecture is not yet a no-go theorem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'just $n$-plet scenario': one Majorana field in a real, $n$-dimensional (spin $j = (n-1)/2$) representation of $SU(2)_L$, neutral under color and hypercharge, with $n$ odd, and with $n \geq 5$ being the case the conjecture forbids. Its collider signature is carried by two quantitative identities: the radiative mass splitting $\Delta M \simeq 166\,\text{MeV} \times (Q^2 - Q'^2)$ between multiplet components, and the rest-frame lifetime $\tau \simeq 44\,\text{cm}/(n^2-1)$ of the lightest charged state; together these send $\chi^{\pm}$ through the pixel detector before decaying to $\chi^0$, producing a disappearing track. The string-theory side rests on a survey of engineered representations: perturbative open strings give only one- and two-index representations, heterotic higher Kac-Moody level constructions give high-dimensional primaries only alongside lower-weight primaries, and strongly coupled composite models always produce a tower of lighter resonances, so none of the known constructions produces the multiplet in isolation.

What would settle it

The experiment that would settle it is a disappearing-track search for an isolated $n \geq 5$ multiplet: a confirmed discovery with lifetime $\tau \simeq 44\,\text{cm}/(n^2-1)$ and no lighter companion states would falsify the paper's conjecture; continued non-observation leaves it standing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the phenomenologically motivated 'just $n$-plet' scenario---the Standard Model plus a single Majorana fermion $\chi$ in a real, odd-dimensional representation of $SU(2)_L$ of dimension $n \ge 5$, with nothing else below the string scale---does not occur in any known string construction, and the paper conjectures that string theory in general cannot realize it. The supporting observation is that stringy Standard Models built from open strings, heterotic current algebras, F-theory, or strongly coupled bound states produce only low-dimensional representations in isolation; attempts to reach the 5-plet and higher always bring lighter states in smaller representations, such as triplets, that cannot be decoupled. A detection of such an isolated multiplet would therefore falsify the known string landscape. The paper also makes the scenario a concrete search target: radiative electroweak corrections split the multiplet by about $166$ MeV per unit of charge squared, the charged components cascade to the neutral $\chi^0$, the lightest charged state has lifetime $\tau \simeq 44\,\text{cm}/(n^2-1)$, and the resulting disappearing-track-plus-ISR-jet signature is recast from the ATLAS wino search to set 95% CL mass limits of $735$, $675$, $625$, and $400$ GeV for $n = 3,5,7,9$ respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the conjecture itself: the survey of known string constructions in Appendix B is representative, and every consistent string vacuum containing the Standard Model either avoids real $n \geq 5$ representations of $SU(2)_L$ or inevitably comes with lighter lower-dimensional states that cannot be decoupled; the paper states that it does not yet have a no-go theorem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The recast ATLAS analysis excludes an isolated $n = 5$ multiplet below about $675$ GeV, an $n = 7$ multiplet below about $625$ GeV, and an $n = 9$ multiplet below about $400$ GeV at 95% CL, with the $n = 3$ limit at $735$ GeV.
  • If a future collider or dark matter experiment discovers an isolated $n \geq 5$ multiplet, every known string construction of the Standard Model is falsified, because no surveyed construction realizes such a spectrum without a tower of lighter states.
  • At the high-luminosity LHC with $3\,\text{ab}^{-1}$, the projected mass reach rises to roughly $800$ GeV for $n = 3$ and $n = 5$, and to $650$ and $475$ GeV for $n = 7$ and $n = 9$, assuming backgrounds scale with luminosity.
  • The inverse problem is explicitly solvable: measuring the mass, decay length, and production rate of a discovered multiplet pins down $n$, because the decay length scales as $1/(n^2-1)$ and the production cross section scales as $n^2$.
  • The claim is framed as a conjecture, not a proven no-go theorem; the paper points to a no-go proof for perturbative string constructions as a near-term formal goal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The falsification logic is one-directional: a detected isolated $n \geq 5$ multiplet would falsify the known landscape, but a null result only tightens mass exclusions and does not test the conjecture about string theory itself.
  • The conjecture's reach depends on how representative the surveyed constructions are; if an explicit consistent string vacuum producing an isolated 5-plet were found, the falsification claim would no longer stand unless a no-go theorem replaced the survey.
  • The relatively weak $n = 9$ limit of $400$ GeV is set by track acceptance and the tail of the momentum distribution rather than by production rate, so a dedicated long-lived-particle trigger or wider lifetime acceptance could strengthen that bound considerably.
  • Extending the argument to bosonic high-dimensional multiplets, which the paper mentions but does not develop, would require its own survey because the tower argument for fermionic bound states does not automatically transfer to bosonic composites.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the Standard Model extended by a single Majorana fermion in a real n-dimensional representation of SU(2)_L with n ≥ 5 (the "just n-plet" scenario) is not realized in any known string construction, and conjectures that this is true of string theory in general. If such a state were detected at a collider, the authors argue, this would falsify the known string landscape. The paper supports the conjecture with a survey of string model-building methods (open strings, heterotic Kac-Moody constructions, F-theory, and composite/strongly coupled scenarios) and recasts the ATLAS disappearing-track search to set 95% CL mass limits for n = 3, 5, 7, 9 (735, 675, 625, and 400 GeV, respectively). It also projects limits for the high-luminosity LHC and mentions future dark matter and collider probes. The paper is explicit that no no-go theorem is known (Section 5).

Significance. If the conjecture were proven, the scenario would provide a concrete, falsifiable signature with the striking ability to rule out all known string vacua. The collider recast is useful: the paper validates its approximate simulation by reproducing the official ATLAS 3-plet limit to within ~70 GeV, and it extends the analysis to higher representations that are rarely studied. The paper is honest about the conjectural status of its central premise. However, this conditional nature substantially limits the strength of the headline claim: what is established is that the scenario is absent from known constructions, not that it is impossible in string theory. The main value of the paper is therefore a well-motivated phenomenological target and a plausibility argument, rather than a proof of falsifiability of string theory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Abstract, Title] The central claim is explicitly a conjecture: the paper states 'we do not (yet) have a no-go theorem' (Section 5). The title 'How to Falsify String Theory at a Collider' and parts of the introduction (e.g., 'immediately rule out all known string vacua, effectively falsifying string theory') overstate what is established. Detection of the n-plet would falsify the known landscape only if the conjecture in the abstract is true, and the paper does not prove it. The title, abstract, and introduction should be reworded to say 'falsify the known string landscape' and to clearly condition the statement on the conjecture; otherwise the reader may think string theory itself would be falsified, which is not supported.
  2. [Equation (2.2) and footnote 10] The one-loop running equation appears to have an incorrect coefficient. With standard normalization dα^{-1}/dt = b/(2π), a single Weyl (or Majorana) fermion in representation R contributes b = -(2/3)T(R). Since the paper's Ind_j, as defined in the footnote, equals 2T(R), the second term in equation (2.2) should be -Ind_j/(6π), not -Ind_j/(2π). The current form is three times too large; for the triplet (j=1) it would predict dα^{-1}/dt < 0 for the SM plus a wino, contrary to the known result. The numerical statements in footnote 10 about the Landau pole scale would change, and the 'Sequestered Landau Pole' list (equation 2.3) should be re-examined.
  3. [Appendix B] The evidence for the central conjecture is a survey, not a proof, and the survey itself contains acknowledged gaps. Appendix B.2 notes that higher Kac-Moody level constructions and maverick coset constructions are not fully controlled, and reference [62] reports recent progress on the 5 of SO(3). The 'tower of states' argument in Appendix B.3 is heuristic: QCD inequalities and large-N counting show that in vectorlike confining theories pions tend to be lighter than baryons, but the paper does not systematically rule out decoupling limits in which all lower-representation states are heavier than the n-plet. The authors should more sharply separate the established statement (no known construction realizes the scenario) from the conjecture (no string construction can), and explain why the known survey should be considered representative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4 / Table 3] The absolute mass limits for n = 5, 7, 9 inherit the systematic uncertainty of the approximate recast; the 3-plet validation shows a ~70 GeV (about 10%) offset relative to ATLAS. A sentence should be added in Section 4 stating that the quoted limits are indicative and carry an unquantified systematic error from the Delphes/SimpleAnalysis-based approximation.
  2. [Appendix B.3] There is a typo in the text: 'an n-pet of SU(2)L' should read 'an n-plet of SU(2)L'.
  3. [Footnote 26 / Reference [62]] Reference [62] is listed as 'To Appear' and is used for the global-form caveat about the 5 of SO(3); the paper should either update the reference or include a brief description of the construction so the caveat can be evaluated.
  4. [Equation (2.4)] The quantity in equation (2.4) is called a 'mean lifetime' but has units of length; the authors should specify whether this is cτ (decay length) or clarify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recast collider limits are benchmarked externally and the string-landscape claim is explicitly conjectural, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical results are a recast of the ATLAS disappearing-track search [26]: the mass limits for n=3,5,7,9 are obtained by simulating the model and applying the ATLAS signal-region criteria and efficiency maps, with the 3-plet limit (735 GeV) checked against the ATLAS quoted limit (660 GeV) as an external benchmark. Nothing is fitted to the target quantity; the 'just n-plet' limits are not inputs to the string-landscape claim. The string-landscape assertion is explicitly a conjecture: the paper states 'This scenario is not realized in any known string construction, and we conjecture that this is true of string theory in general' and later 'We do not (yet) have a no-go theorem.' Appendix B's survey cites prior constructions, including some co-authored by Heckman, but these are concrete model-building results (e.g., [7-11] for F-theory representations) rather than an unverified uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors; the conclusion is an inductive generalization, not a consequence of assuming the conclusion. The admitted absence of a no-go theorem means the falsification claim is conditional and could fail, but that is a correctness or epistemic limitation, not circular reasoning. No equation or prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces; it considers a known hypothetical state (the n-plet) studied in prior literature. The free parameters are scanned model parameters, not fitted constants. The main axioms are standard field theory inputs and the explicit conjecture, which is the load-bearing assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • Representation dimension n = 3, 5, 7, 9
    Model parameter scanned; the range is limited by requiring a perturbative Landau pole scale above the multiplet mass, as in Eq. (2.3).
  • Multiplet mass M = 200 GeV to 1 TeV
    Model parameter scanned in 25 GeV steps; the range is set by the sensitivity of the recast ATLAS wino search.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard Model gauge group and matter content are described by GSM = SU(3)_C × SU(2)_L × U(1)_Y
    Assumed throughout; the new state is neutral under SU(3)_C and U(1)_Y.
  • standard math One-loop running of the SU(2)_L gauge coupling follows Eq. (2.2), with the beta function coefficient for a spin-j multiplet
    Used to restrict n to 3, 5, 7, 9 to keep the Landau pole above the multiplet mass.
  • domain assumption Mass splitting and lifetime formulas of Cirelli, Fornengo, and Strumia (2006), Eqs. (A.4) and (A.5)
    Used to compute the decay chain and disappearing track length; external prior result.
  • ad hoc to paper Conjecture: no string construction realizes the 'just n-plet' scenario for n≥5
    Central claim of the paper; supported only by a survey of known constructions in Appendix B, not by a no-go theorem. The paper explicitly labels it a conjecture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How to Falsify String Theory at a Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGWVTOKF

@misc{pith2026241213192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How to Falsify String Theory at a Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGWVTOKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13192}
}
abstract

The string landscape accommodates a broad range of possible effective field theories. This poses a challenge for extracting verifiable predictions as well as falsifiable signatures of string theory. Motivated by these considerations, in this work we observe that all known stringy Standard Models support only low-dimensional representations of the gauge group. While it is in principle possible to produce contrived models with higher-dimensional representations, these generically appear in a tower of states with lighter ones in lower-dimensional representations, i.e., not in isolation. With this in mind, we consider the phenomenologically well-motivated scenario given by adding a single Majorana field in a real, $n$-dimensional representation of $SU(2)_L$ with $n \geq 5$ \textit{and nothing else}. This scenario is not realized in any known string construction, and we conjecture that this is true of string theory in general. Detection of this scenario would thus amount to falsifying the (known) string landscape. We recast existing LHC searches for new electroweak states to extract updated bounds on this class of scenarios. Improved limits from future colliders and dark matter detection experiments provide additional routes to potentially falsifying string theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Depiction of a production process for the 5-plet scenario. Constituent quark / [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Depiction of χ + leaving a disappearing track in the Pixel (four hits indicated by the purple stars). It decays into a soft π + (circular arc) which is not seen, and to a χ 0 (dashed line) which is also not detected. SCT is the microstrip semi-conductor tracker. The disappearing track search requires the χ ± to decay before reaching it. Signal Region Criteria Cuts Number of electrons and muons 0 Number of disappeari… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 95% CL limits on masses for four “just n-plet” scenarios at the LHC. The recast limits from the ATLAS disappearing track search [26] are in red, and our projected limits for a 3 ab−1 run of the high-luminosity LHC are in blue. The latter represent the column in table 4 that assumes the background scales exactly with luminosity. 5 Discussion In this work we have studied a class of phenomenological scenarios which is … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Depiction of a perturbative open string, as well as a strongly coupled bound state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Depiction of quiver / moose diagram where there is a strongly coupled gauge the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Minimal dark matter in $SU(5)$ grand unification

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A non-supersymmetric SU(5) GUT with a 200F quintuplet dark matter and two TeV-scale sextet fermion pairs can achieve gauge coupling unification near the Planck scale.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [62]

    Higgsing on the SU (N ) Symmetric Representation in F-theory,

    N. Raghuram and A. Turner, “Higgsing on the SU (N ) Symmetric Representation in F-theory,” To Appear

  2. [1]

    Flux compactification,

    M. R. Douglas and S. Kachru, “Flux compactification,” Rev. Mod. Phys.79 (2007) 733–796, arXiv:hep-th/0610102

    arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    Les Houches Lectures on Constructing String Vacua,

    F. Denef, “Les Houches Lectures on Constructing String Vacua,” Les Houches87 (2008) 483–610, arXiv:0803.1194 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [3]

    Quantization of four form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant,

    R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, “Quantization of four form fluxes and dynamical neutralization of the cosmological constant,” JHEP 06 (2000) 006, arXiv:hep-th/0004134

    arXiv 2000

  5. [4]

    Naturalness Under Stress

    M. Dine, “Naturalness Under Stress,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65 (2015) 43–62, arXiv:1501.01035 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  6. [5]

    A Finite landscape?,

    B. S. Acharya and M. R. Douglas, “A Finite landscape?,” arXiv:hep-th/0606212

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Fine Tuning, Sequestering, and the Swampland,

    J. J. Heckman and C. Vafa, “Fine Tuning, Sequestering, and the Swampland,” Phys. Lett. B798 (2019) 135004, arXiv:1905.06342 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    F-theory duals of singular heterotic K3 mode

    C. L¨ udeling and F. Ruehle, “F-theory duals of singular heterotic K3 models,” Phys. Rev. D91 no. 2, (2015) 026010, arXiv:1405.2928 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

Show all 95 references
  1. [8]

    Exotic matter on singular divisors in F-theory,

    D. Klevers, D. R. Morrison, N. Raghuram, and W. Taylor, “Exotic matter on singular divisors in F-theory,” JHEP 11 (2017) 124, arXiv:1706.08194 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Large U(1) charges in F-theory,

    N. Raghuram and W. Taylor, “Large U(1) charges in F-theory,” JHEP 10 (2018) 182, arXiv:1809.01666 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Towards Exotic Matter and Discrete Non-Abelian Symmetries in F-theory,

    M. Cvetiˇ c, J. J. Heckman, and L. Lin, “Towards Exotic Matter and Discrete Non-Abelian Symmetries in F-theory,” JHEP 11 (2018) 001, arXiv:1806.10594 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Generic matter representations in 6D supergravity theories,

    W. Taylor and A. P. Turner, “Generic matter representations in 6D supergravity theories,” JHEP 05 (2019) 081, arXiv:1901.02012 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    The Standard Model from String Theory: What Have We Learned?,

    F. Marchesano, G. Shiu, and T. Weigand, “The Standard Model from String Theory: What Have We Learned?,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74 (2024) 113–140, arXiv:2401.01939 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Minimal dark matter,

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, and A. Strumia, “Minimal dark matter,” Nucl. Phys. B753 (2006) 178–194, arXiv:hep-ph/0512090

    2006 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Minimal Matter at the Large Hadron Collider,

    E. Del Nobile, R. Franceschini, D. Pappadopulo, and A. Strumia, “Minimal Matter at the Large Hadron Collider,” Nucl. Phys. B826 (2010) 217–234, arXiv:0908.1567 [hep-ph]. 25

    2010 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Accidental matter at the LHC,

    L. Di Luzio, R. Gr¨ ober, J. F. Kamenik, and M. Nardecchia, “Accidental matter at the LHC,” JHEP 07 (2015) 074, arXiv:1504.00359 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Constraining the minimal dark matter fiveplet with LHC searches,

    B. Ostdiek, “Constraining the minimal dark matter fiveplet with LHC searches,” Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 055008, arXiv:1506.03445 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Probing new electroweak states via precision measurements at the LHC and future colliders,

    L. Di Luzio, R. Gr¨ ober, and G. Panico, “Probing new electroweak states via precision measurements at the LHC and future colliders,” JHEP 01 (2019) 011, arXiv:1810.10993 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Probing dark matter with disappearing tracks at the LHC,

    A. Belyaev, S. Prestel, F. Rojas-Abbate, and J. Zurita, “Probing dark matter with disappearing tracks at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D103 no. 9, (2021) 095006, arXiv:2008.08581 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Minimal Dark Matter bound states at future colliders,

    S. Bottaro, A. Strumia, and N. Vignaroli, “Minimal Dark Matter bound states at future colliders,” JHEP 06 (2021) 143, arXiv:2103.12766 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The Quintuplet Annihilation Spectrum,

    M. Baumgart, N. L. Rodd, T. R. Slatyer, and V. Vaidya, “The Quintuplet Annihilation Spectrum,” arXiv:2309.11562 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [21]

    Wino-like Minimal Dark Matter and future colliders,

    M. Cirelli, F. Sala, and M. Taoso, “Wino-like Minimal Dark Matter and future colliders,” JHEP 10 (2014) 033, arXiv:1407.7058 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: JHEP 01, 041 (2015)]

    2014 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Electroweak Dark Matter at Future Hadron Colliders,

    T. Han, S. Mukhopadhyay, and X. Wang, “Electroweak Dark Matter at Future Hadron Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D98 no. 3, (2018) 035026, arXiv:1805.00015 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Hunting wino and higgsino dark matter at the muon collider with disappearing tracks,

    R. Capdevilla, F. Meloni, R. Simoniello, and J. Zurita, “Hunting wino and higgsino dark matter at the muon collider with disappearing tracks,” JHEP 06 (2021) 133, arXiv:2102.11292 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Closing the window on WIMP Dark Matter,

    S. Bottaro, D. Buttazzo, M. Costa, R. Franceschini, P. Panci, D. Redigolo, and L. Vittorio, “Closing the window on WIMP Dark Matter,” Eur. Phys. J. C82 no. 1, (2022) 31, arXiv:2107.09688 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Testing Real WIMPs with CTAO,

    M. Baumgart, S. Bottaro, D. Redigolo, N. Rodd, and T. R. Slatyer, “Testing Real WIMPs with CTAO,” in preparation

  19. [26]

    Search for long-lived charginos based on a disappearing-track signature using 136 fb −1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for long-lived charginos based on a disappearing-track signature using 136 fb −1 of pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,” Eur. Phys. J. C82 no. 7, (2022) 606, arXiv:2201.02472 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Search for supersymmetry in final states with disappearing tracks in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV,

    CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al., “Search for supersymmetry in final states with disappearing tracks in proton-proton collisions at s=13 TeV,” Phys. Rev. D109 no. 7, (2024) 072007, arXiv:2309.16823 [hep-ex]. 26

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,

    A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, “FeynRules 2.0 - A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology,” Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2250–2300, arXiv:1310.1921 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation,

    J. Alwall, P. Demin, S. de Visscher, R. Frederix, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, T. Plehn, D. L. Rainwater, and T. Stelzer, “MadGraph/MadEvent v4: The New Web Generation,” JHEP 09 (2007) 028, arXiv:0706.2334 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [30]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, “LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,” Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 132, arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,” SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022 (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,

    M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,” JHEP 01 (2007) 013, arXiv:hep-ph/0611129

    2007 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions,

    J. Alwall et al., “Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions,” Eur. Phys. J. C53 (2008) 473–500, arXiv:0706.2569 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [34]

    FastJet User Manual,

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet User Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [35]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,

    DELPHES 3 Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lema ˆ ıtre, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi, “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment,” JHEP 02 (2014) 057, arXiv:1307.6346 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [36]

    SimpleAnalysis: Truth-level Analysis Framework

    ATLAS Collaboration, “SimpleAnalysis: Truth-level Analysis Framework.” ATL-PHYS-PUB-2022-017, 2022. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2805991

    2022

  30. [37]

    Presentation of search results: the CLs technique,

    A. L. Read, “Presentation of search results: the CLs technique,” Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics28 no. 10, (Sep, 2002) 2693

    2002

  31. [38]

    Statistical Techniques

    M. Fanti, “Statistical Techniques.” https://www0.mi.infn.it/~fanti/Particelle3/08-Statistics_2.pdf

  32. [39]

    Indirect Probe of Electroweakly Interacting Particles at the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider,

    S. Matsumoto, S. Shirai, and M. Takeuchi, “Indirect Probe of Electroweakly Interacting Particles at the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider,” JHEP 06 (2018) 049, arXiv:1711.05449 [hep-ph]. 27

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Running Electroweak Couplings as a Probe of New Physics,

    D. S. M. Alves, J. Galloway, J. T. Ruderman, and J. R. Walsh, “Running Electroweak Couplings as a Probe of New Physics,” JHEP 02 (2015) 007, arXiv:1410.6810 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Falsifying Models of New Physics via WW Scattering,

    J. Distler, B. Grinstein, R. A. Porto, and I. Z. Rothstein, “Falsifying Models of New Physics via WW Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98 (2007) 041601, arXiv:hep-ph/0604255

    2007 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 1: An introduction to the bosonic string. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2007

    2007

  36. [43]

    Polchinski, String theory

    J. Polchinski, String theory. Vol. 2: Superstring theory and beyond. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2007

    2007

  37. [44]

    C. V. Johnson, D-Branes. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  38. [45]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, and J. H. Schwarz, String theory and M-theory: A modern introduction. Cambridge University Press, 12, 2006

    2006

  39. [46]

    Exceptional groups from open strings,

    M. R. Gaberdiel and B. Zwiebach, “Exceptional groups from open strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 518 (1998) 151–172, arXiv:hep-th/9709013

    1998 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Open string-string junction transitions,

    M. R. Gaberdiel, T. Hauer, and B. Zwiebach, “Open string-string junction transitions,” Nucl. Phys. B525 (1998) 117–145, arXiv:hep-th/9801205

    1998 arXiv

  41. [48]

    T-Branes, String Junctions, and 6D SCFTs,

    F. Hassler, J. J. Heckman, T. B. Rochais, T. Rudelius, and H. Y. Zhang, “T-Branes, String Junctions, and 6D SCFTs,” Phys. Rev. D101 no. 8, (2020) 086018, arXiv:1907.11230 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Unity of superstring dualities,

    C. M. Hull and P. K. Townsend, “Unity of superstring dualities,” Nucl. Phys. B438 (1995) 109–137, arXiv:hep-th/9410167

    1995 arXiv

  43. [50]

    String theory dynamics in various dimensions,

    E. Witten, “String theory dynamics in various dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B443 (1995) 85–126, arXiv:hep-th/9503124

    1995 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Evidence for F theory,

    C. Vafa, “Evidence for F theory,” Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996) 403–418, arXiv:hep-th/9602022

    1996 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi-Yau Threefolds - I,

    D. R. Morrison and C. Vafa, “Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi-Yau Threefolds - I,” Nucl. Phys. B473 (1996) 74–92, arXiv:hep-th/9602114

    1996 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi-Yau Threefolds - II,

    D. R. Morrison and C. Vafa, “Compactifications of F-Theory on Calabi-Yau Threefolds - II,” Nucl. Phys. B476 (1996) 437–469, arXiv:hep-th/9603161

    1996 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Chiral fermions from manifolds of G2 holonomy,

    B. S. Acharya and E. Witten, “Chiral fermions from manifolds of G2 holonomy,” arXiv:hep-th/0109152. 28

    arXiv

  48. [55]

    GUTs and Exceptional Branes in F-theory - I,

    C. Beasley, J. J. Heckman, and C. Vafa, “GUTs and Exceptional Branes in F-theory - I,” JHEP 01 (2009) 058, arXiv:0802.3391 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [56]

    GUTs and Exceptional Branes in F-theory - II: Experimental Predictions,

    C. Beasley, J. J. Heckman, and C. Vafa, “GUTs and Exceptional Branes in F-theory - II: Experimental Predictions,” JHEP 01 (2009) 059, arXiv:0806.0102 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Model Building with F-Theory,

    R. Donagi and M. Wijnholt, “Model Building with F-Theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 15 no. 5, (2011) 1237–1317, arXiv:0802.2969 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Breaking GUT Groups in F-Theory,

    R. Donagi and M. Wijnholt, “Breaking GUT Groups in F-Theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 15 no. 6, (2011) 1523–1603, arXiv:0808.2223 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  52. [59]

    M theory and singularities of exceptional holonomy manifolds,

    B. S. Acharya and S. Gukov, “M theory and singularities of exceptional holonomy manifolds,” Phys. Rept.392 (2004) 121–189, arXiv:hep-th/0409191

    2004 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Particle Physics Implications of F-theory,

    J. J. Heckman, “Particle Physics Implications of F-theory,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 237–265, arXiv:1001.0577 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  54. [61]

    F-theory,

    T. Weigand, “F-theory,” PoS TASI2017 (2018) 016, arXiv:1806.01854 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    The Heterotic String,

    D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. J. Martinec, and R. Rohm, “The Heterotic String,” Phys. Rev. Lett.54 (1985) 502–505

    1985

  56. [64]

    Heterotic String Theory (I). The Free Heterotic String,

    D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. J. Martinec, and R. Rohm, “Heterotic String Theory (I). The Free Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B256 (1985) 253

    1985

  57. [65]

    Heterotic String Theory: (II). The Interacting Heterotic String,

    D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. J. Martinec, and R. Rohm, “Heterotic String Theory: (II). The Interacting Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B267 (1986) 75–124

    1986

  58. [66]

    Vacuum configurations for superstrings,

    P. Candelas, G. T. Horowitz, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, “Vacuum configurations for superstrings,” Nucl. Phys. B258 (1985) 46–74

    1985

  59. [67]

    String GUTs,

    G. Aldazabal, A. Font, L. E. Ibanez, and A. M. Uranga, “String GUTs,” Nucl. Phys. B 452 (1995) 3–44, arXiv:hep-th/9410206

    1995 arXiv

  60. [68]

    String unification, higher level gauge symmetries, and exotic hypercharge normalizations,

    K. R. Dienes, A. E. Faraggi, and J. March-Russell, “String unification, higher level gauge symmetries, and exotic hypercharge normalizations,” Nucl. Phys. B467 (1996) 44–99, arXiv:hep-th/9510223

    1996 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Realizing higher level gauge symmetries in string theory: New embeddings for string GUTs,

    K. R. Dienes and J. March-Russell, “Realizing higher level gauge symmetries in string theory: New embeddings for string GUTs,” Nucl. Phys. B479 (1996) 113–172, arXiv:hep-th/9604112. 29

    1996 arXiv

  62. [70]

    String theory and the path to unification: A Review of recent developments,

    K. R. Dienes, “String theory and the path to unification: A Review of recent developments,” Phys. Rept.287 (1997) 447–525, arXiv:hep-th/9602045

    1997 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Asymmetric Orbifolds,

    K. S. Narain, M. H. Sarmadi, and C. Vafa, “Asymmetric Orbifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B 288 (1987) 551

    1987

  64. [72]

    The Quasicrystalline String Landscape,

    Z. K. Baykara, H.-C. Tarazi, and C. Vafa, “The Quasicrystalline String Landscape,” arXiv:2406.00129 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Algebras in tensor categories and coset conformal field theories,

    J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel, and C. Schweigert, “Algebras in tensor categories and coset conformal field theories,” Fortsch. Phys.52 (2004) 672–677, arXiv:hep-th/0309269

    2004 arXiv

  66. [74]

    An Exceptional Sector for F-theory GUTs,

    J. J. Heckman and C. Vafa, “An Exceptional Sector for F-theory GUTs,” Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 026006, arXiv:1006.5459 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [75]

    The Conformal Sector of F-theory GUTs,

    J. J. Heckman, C. Vafa, and B. Wecht, “The Conformal Sector of F-theory GUTs,” JHEP 07 (2011) 075, arXiv:1103.3287 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  68. [76]

    750 GeV Diphotons from a D3-brane,

    J. J. Heckman, “750 GeV Diphotons from a D3-brane,” Nucl. Phys. B906 (2016) 231–240, arXiv:1512.06773 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Extra W-boson mass from a D3-brane,

    J. J. Heckman, “Extra W-boson mass from a D3-brane,” Phys. Lett. B833 (2022) 137387, arXiv:2204.05302 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Exact superpotentials, quantum vacua and duality in supersymmetric SP(N(c)) gauge theories,

    K. A. Intriligator and P. Pouliot, “Exact superpotentials, quantum vacua and duality in supersymmetric SP(N(c)) gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B353 (1995) 471–476, arXiv:hep-th/9505006

    1995 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Mass Inequalities for QCD,

    D. Weingarten, “Mass Inequalities for QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.51 (1983) 1830

    1983

  72. [80]

    Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Restrictions on Symmetry Breaking in Vector-Like Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 173–188

    1984

  73. [81]

    Parity Conservation in QCD,

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Parity Conservation in QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.53 (1984) 535

    1984

  74. [82]

    Eigenvalue Inequalities for Fermions in Gauge Theories,

    C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Eigenvalue Inequalities for Fermions in Gauge Theories,” Commun. Math. Phys.95 (1984) 257

    1984

  75. [83]

    Some Inequalities Among Hadron Masses,

    E. Witten, “Some Inequalities Among Hadron Masses,” Phys. Rev. Lett.51 (1983) 2351

    1983

  76. [84]

    QCD inequalities for hadron interactions,

    W. Detmold, “QCD inequalities for hadron interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114 no. 22, (2015) 222001, arXiv:1408.6919 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  77. [85]

    QCD inequalities,

    S. Nussinov and M. A. Lampert, “QCD inequalities,” Phys. Rept.362 (2002) 193–301, arXiv:hep-ph/9911532. 30

    2002 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Effective field theory for few nucleon systems,

    P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, “Effective field theory for few nucleon systems,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.52 (2002) 339–396, arXiv:nucl-th/0203055

    2002 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Efimov States in Nuclear and Particle Physics,

    H.-W. Hammer and L. Platter, “Efimov States in Nuclear and Particle Physics,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60 (2010) 207–236, arXiv:1001.1981 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Using effective field theory to analyse low-energy Compton scattering data from protons and light nuclei,

    H. W. Griesshammer, J. A. McGovern, D. R. Phillips, and G. Feldman, “Using effective field theory to analyse low-energy Compton scattering data from protons and light nuclei,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67 (2012) 841–897, arXiv:1203.6834 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Effective theory of 3H and 3He,

    S. K¨ onig, H. W. Grießhammer, H. W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, “Effective theory of 3H and 3He,” J. Phys. G43 no. 5, (2016) 055106, arXiv:1508.05085 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Baryons in the 1 /N Expansion,

    E. Witten, “Baryons in the 1 /N Expansion,” Nucl. Phys. B160 (1979) 57–115

    1979

  83. [91]

    Electric-Magnetic Duality in Supersymmetric Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,

    N. Seiberg, “Electric-Magnetic Duality in Supersymmetric Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 129–146, arXiv:hep-th/9411149

    1995 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Exotic nonsupersymmetric gauge dynamics from supersymmetric QCD,

    O. Aharony, J. Sonnenschein, M. E. Peskin, and S. Yankielowicz, “Exotic nonsupersymmetric gauge dynamics from supersymmetric QCD,” Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 6157–6174, arXiv:hep-th/9507013

    1995 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Exact results for nonholomorphic masses in softly broken supersymmetric gauge theories,

    N. Arkani-Hamed and R. Rattazzi, “Exact results for nonholomorphic masses in softly broken supersymmetric gauge theories,” Phys. Lett. B454 (1999) 290–296, arXiv:hep-th/9804068

    1999 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Monopoles, duality, and string theory,

    J. Polchinski, “Monopoles, duality, and string theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19S1 (2004) 145–156, arXiv:hep-th/0304042

    2004 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity,

    T. Banks and N. Seiberg, “Symmetries and Strings in Field Theory and Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 084019, arXiv:1011.5120 [hep-th]. 31

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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