Pseudoreal AMSB: Troubling Tensions with Tumbling

Bea Noether

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Pseudoreal AMSB: Troubling Tensions with Tumbling

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under the AMSB Conjecture, the non-supersymmetric pseudoreal confining theories of this class are gapped and contain no massless particles, contradicting tumbling predictions.

desk verdict Careful AMSB analysis of six pseudoreal theories finds no isolated U(1) and sharpens the contradiction with tumbling, but the non-SUSY extrapolation rests on an unproven conjecture the paper openly acknowledges. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06148 v1 pith:Z2XY3JF3 submitted 2026-08-06 hep-th

Bea Noether This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th

keywords anomaly-mediatedsupersymmetrybreakingpseudorealgaugetheoriestumblinghypothesismasslessspin-1compositeconformalwindowN=1isolatedU(1)factorgauginocondensation

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 tests the tumbling picture of pseudoreal confining gauge theories against anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB). For the six asymptotically free $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories whose non-supersymmetric limits were classified as outside the conformal window, the author finds that every AMSB vacuum leaves residual gauge symmetry with no isolated $U(1)$ factor: broken generators are Higgsed, and the remaining non-abelian factors confine. If the AMSB Conjecture holds, these non-supersymmetric theories are gapped and contain no massless particles at all, directly contradicting the tumbling prediction of massless spin-1 composites from [10]. Recasting the AMSB symmetry-breaking patterns as fermion condensates requires condensation in repulsive channels for three of the six theories and is impossible for a fourth, so the two pictures cannot be reconciled by standard tumbling. The four additional pseudoreal theories that may sit in the conformal window have supersymmetric versions consistent with flowing to interacting superconformal fixed points.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the isolated-$U(1)$ criterion: in a four-dimensional gauge theory, a genuinely massless spin-1 state can only come from an unbroken abelian factor that is not embedded in a remaining non-abelian factor, because pure non-abelian factors confine and are known to remain gapped under AMSB. The AMSB deformation supplies the mechanism that fixes the vacuum: it stabilizes the supersymmetric runaway of these ADS-like theories at large field values along D-flat directions, and the residual gauge symmetry is the stabilizer of that D-flat point. The second essential input is the AMSB Conjecture, which identifies the vacuum universality class of the AMSB-deformed theory with that of the non-supersymmetric $m/\Lambda\to\infty$ limit. Exact dynamical superpotentials from gaugino condensation determine the minima and the confinement scales; the paper computes the parametric spectra for all six cases and checks degree-of-freedom matching at each Higgs scale.

What would settle it

A lattice or functional-RG computation of, say, $SU(6)$ with one $20$ $A_3$ fermion could settle the claim: observing a massless spin-1 composite, or any massless fermion, in the deep IR would falsify the gapped-spectrum prediction, while a fully massive spectrum would support it. Separately, proving a genuine phase transition in the AMSB-deformed $\mathcal{N}=1$ theory between $m\ll\Lambda$ and $m\gg\Lambda$ would break the AMSB Conjecture bridge and remove the contradiction with tumbling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the AMSB-deformed $\mathcal{N}=1$ pseudoreal theories in this class never leave an isolated $U(1)$ factor in the residual gauge symmetry: in every vacuum of the six theories, the UV gauge bosons are either Higgsed into massive vector multiplets or belong to non-abelian factors that confine, and no spin-1 composites remain massless. Under the AMSB Conjecture, the non-supersymmetric $m/\Lambda\to\infty$ limit therefore has a gapped, massless-free spectrum, in direct contradiction with [10]'s tumbling-based prediction of emerging massless spin-1 bosons. The residual stabilizers are $SU(3)\times SU(3)$ for $SU(6)$ with $20$ $A_3$, $E_6$ for $E_7$ with $56$ $F$, $SU(5)$ for $Spin(11)$ with $32$ spinor, $SU(6)$ for $Spin(12)$ with $32$ spinor, $SU(3)\times SU(3)$ for $Spin(13)$ with $64$ spinor, and $SU(2)$ for $Sp(6)$ with $6\,F + 14'\,A_3$; in each case the residual non-abelian sector is pure supersymmetric Yang-Mills and confines, leaving only stabilized moduli and massive singlet composites. The author also initiates the SUSY analysis of the four possibly-conformal pseudoreal theories, finding no dynamical superpotential and anomaly-free R-symmetries consistent with $a$-maximization, the NSVZ $\beta$ function, unitarity, and conformal collider bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the AMSB Conjecture: the AMSB-deformed $\mathcal{N}=1$ theory and the non-supersymmetric $m/\Lambda\to\infty$ limit belong to the same vacuum universality class, with no phase transition at intermediate $m\sim\Lambda$; if that fails, the AMSB spectra cannot predict the non-supersymmetric massless spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the AMSB Conjecture holds for this class, the six non-supersymmetric pseudoreal confining theories are completely gapped, with no massless spin-1 states and no other massless particles, directly contradicting the tumbling spectra proposed in [10].
Matching the AMSB vacuum to a tumbling condensate would require condensation in repulsive channels for $SU(6)+20\,A_3$, $E_7+56\,F$, and $Spin(11)+32$ spin, a qualitatively new dynamical input beyond the usual attractive-channel ranking.
For $Spin(12)+32$ spin no bilinear, quadrilinear, or hexalinear condensate can break to the AMSB stabilizer $SU(6)$, so standard tumbling cannot reproduce the AMSB picture in this case at all.
For $Spin(13)+64$ spin and $Sp(6)+6F+14'\,A_3$, the AMSB stabilizers can be reached only through non-maximal next-most-attractive channels, again stretching the standard tumbling rules.
The four possibly-conformal pseudoreal theories pass basic SCFT consistency checks, including no dynamical superpotential, an anomaly-free R-symmetry, a vanishing NSVZ beta function, the $a$-theorem, and conformal collider bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the isolated-$U(1)$ criterion looks like a transferable diagnostic: any pseudoreal or chiral theory whose AMSB stabilizer keeps only non-abelian factors is predicted to be gapped, so applying the same check to the indeterminate pseudoreal theories in [10] would sharpen the boundary of the disagreement.
Beyond the paper, the three repulsive-channel cases suggest that if tumbling is to survive it needs a dynamical input beyond Casimir-based attractiveness, such as four-fermion operator flow; this is testable in functional-RG or gap-equation studies of the specific channels listed in the appendix.
Beyond the paper, a lattice finding of a massless vector in one of these theories would not just refute the paper's spectrum but would specifically point to an intermediate-scale phase transition in ADS-like AMSB theories, extending the known classically conformal counterexamples.
Beyond the paper, the four SCFT-consistent SUSY theories are natural candidates for non-perturbative conformal-window studies, since the paper establishes that nothing in their known SUSY dynamics obstructs a superconformal IR fixed point.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a genuinely new application of the AMSB program to pseudoreal confining theories, and the first-stage result—the AMSB vacua never leave an isolated U(1)—is well supported by the cited exact superpotentials and stabilizer analysis. The tumbling contradiction is real but conditional, and the paper says so plainly.

What it does well: the case-by-case stabilizer computations are careful, the group theory in the appendix is concrete enough to check, and the finding that reproducing the AMSB pattern would require repulsive-channel condensation in three cases, and is impossible for Spin(12) even with higher-order condensates, is a sharp and useful statement. The paper also honestly flags the AMSB Conjecture as the load-bearing assumption and notes the known counterexamples with classically conformal superpotentials. That is the right level of candor.

The soft spots are real but mostly minor. The D-flat approximation is imposed after the fact (footnote 6); the paper's defense—that VD is positive-definite and deviations vanish as m goes to zero—is plausible, but it is not a derivation. The SU(6) W=0 branch relies on a plausible but non-rigorous Kähler potential assumption; the Spin(13) numerical step is asserted rather than shown; and the exhaustiveness of the D-flat direction scan is stated, not proven. None of these break the central AMSB-side claim, which is that in the calculable regime no isolated U(1) survives. The weakness is the bridge from m << Λ to the non-SUSY limit: if a phase transition occurs at m ~ Λ, the contradiction with tumbling dissolves. The stress-test note is right about this, and the paper does not pretend otherwise.

The citation pattern looks normal; the heavy use of Murayama-group references reflects a genuine research program, not padding. The four conformal-window candidates are a side dish: consistency checks, not proof, and the paper says so.

Who is this for? Anyone working on AMSB as a probe of non-SUSY dynamics, or on tumbling and strongly coupled gauge theories. It deserves serious refereeing: the central computation is novel, the logic is transparent, and the identified tensions are worth having on the record even if the conjecture later fails. I would accept it for review and ask for the missing numerical and scan details in revision, but not desk-reject it.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes six asymptotically free N=1 pseudoreal gauge theories (SU(6) with 20, E7 with 56, Spin(11) with 32, Spin(12) with 32, Spin(13) with 64, and Sp(6) with 6 F + 14' A3) deformed by anomaly-mediated supersymmetry breaking (AMSB). It argues that in each case the AMSB-stabilized vacuum lies on a D-flat direction whose stabilizer contains no isolated U(1) factor; the residual non-abelian factors confine, leaving no massless spin-1 states. Under the 'AMSB Conjecture' that the AMSB-deformed theory and the non-SUSY m/Lambda -> infinity limit share the same vacuum universality class, the paper concludes that the corresponding non-SUSY pseudoreal theories are gapped, contradicting the tumbling-based predictions of [10]. The paper also performs SCFT consistency checks for four possible conformal-window candidates and examines whether non-standard tumbling (including repulsive channels) could reproduce the AMSB stabilizers.

Significance. If the AMSB Conjecture holds, this work provides a sharp and potentially important test of the tumbling hypothesis in a class of theories where exact SUSY results are available. The central group-theoretic observation (no isolated U(1) in the stabilizers) is robust: it depends only on the quantum-allowed D-flat directions and not on the detailed AMSB potential coefficients. The paper is transparent about the conjectural nature of the bridge to non-SUSY and explicitly spells out the alternative conclusions. The group-theoretic decompositions and the appendix on tumbling channels are useful reference material. The SCFT checks for the conformal candidates, while not proofs, are a reasonable first step. The main weaknesses are internal algebra errors in the 'exact' AMSB potentials and the relatively thin support for applying the AMSB Conjecture to ADS-like theories.

major comments (2)

[Secs. 3.2-3.4, Eqs. (3.14)-(3.15), (3.23), (3.33)] The AMSB potentials written in these sections are inconsistent with the stated superpotentials. For E7, W = 12(Λ^48/I_4^3)^{1/12} with I_4 = v^4 gives W = 12Λ^4/v, so with K = 2|v|^2 the F-term contribution is 72Λ^8/|v|^4 and the m-term is -48mΛ^4 Re(1/v), not Λ^8/(2|v|^4) and -13mΛ^4 Re(1/v) as in Eqs. (3.14)-(3.15). Similarly, for Spin(11) the m-term coefficient in Eq. (3.23) is -13 instead of -23, and for Spin(12) the m-term coefficient in Eq. (3.33) is -12 instead of -26. Since these sections claim to give exact AMSB minimizations and mass spectra, the potentials and all numerical coefficients that follow should be corrected, or a consistent normalization for W and K should be stated.
[Sec. 3, paragraph on the AMSB Conjecture] The paper's headline conclusion about the non-SUSY spectra (no massless particles, contradiction with tumbling) is logically equivalent to the AMSB Conjecture, which is unproven. The paper cites two known exceptions [20,24] but gives no argument that the present ADS-like theories avoid an intermediate-scale phase transition. I recommend expanding this discussion: what distinguishes these theories from the conformal counterexamples, what observable would settle the conjecture (e.g., lattice or functional RG), and a clear statement in the abstract and conclusion that the 'tension' is conditional on this conjecture. Without this, the title and abstract may overstate the strength of the contradiction.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (3.13)] The symbol 'I_3' in the E7 superpotential appears to be a typo for the quartic invariant 'I_4'; please correct it.
[Sec. 3.4, second paragraph] The word 'represnetative' is a typo and should read 'representative'.
[Sec. 5, first paragraph] The sentence 'One as biased to the AMSB conjecture as myself' should read 'One as biased toward the AMSB conjecture as myself'.
[Sec. 2] The statement that D-flat vevs leave 'no remaining massless charged matter' would be clearer if it mentioned that the charged components of the chiral superfields are eaten by the broken vector multiplets via the super-Higgs mechanism.
[Sec. 4.3] The notation '16 (1,1)' for the Sp(4) matter representation is not defined; please specify the Sp(4) representation clearly.
[Sec. 3, introduction] The phrase 'summarize the the residual symmetries' contains a duplicated 'the'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AMSB spectra are derived from independent exact SUSY results, and the non-SUSY conclusion is explicitly conditional on a labeled external conjecture rather than being re-derived from its own conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation has two separable stages, and neither stage reduces to its own inputs. The first stage computes the AMSB vacuum structure for each of the six theories. The dynamical superpotentials are taken from independent exact SUSY literature: Dotti-Manohar [28] for SU(6), Cho [29] for Spin(11), Maru [30] for Spin(12), and Dotti-Manohar-Skiba [31] for Spin(13) and Sp(6). The AMSB potential is then obtained by applying the standard AMSB formulas of refs. [13,14] to these exact superpotentials, followed by explicit minimization. The residual gauge symmetry and the absence of an isolated U(1) factor are read off from the D-flat stabilizers, which are group-theoretic facts about the exact moduli spaces; no parameter is fitted to the desired 'gapped' outcome. The claim that pure SYM confines and gaps is standard and is not borrowed from the conclusion. The second stage, which extends the AMSB spectra to the non-SUSY theory, rests on the 'AMSB Conjecture' attributed to [2]. The paper explicitly labels this as a conjecture, states that it concerns whether a phase transition occurs at intermediate m ~ Lambda, and even lists known counterexamples with classically conformal superpotentials [20,24]. A conditional statement of the form 'if the AMSB conjecture holds, then the non-SUSY spectrum is the AMSB spectrum' is not circular: the conjecture is an external, unproven assumption, not an equivalent restatement of the paper's conclusion. The paper also acknowledges the limitation explicitly, saying that if the conjecture fails the contradiction with tumbling disappears. Self-citations appear in the paper, notably to the author's own prior AMSB applications [1,3,16,23], but these are used as background or precedent, not to establish the central vacuum computations, which rest on the independent exact SUSY results listed above. The one citation from the same research circle used as a classification label, [27], is used only to note that SU(6) is 't-confining' and does not carry the argument. Section 4's SCFT consistency checks are auxiliary and do not enter the central claim. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained given its stated assumptions, and the main weakness is an openly acknowledged conjecture, not a circular step.

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

The central claim rests on the AMSB conjecture, the D-flat approximation, the mass gap of pure SYM, and the cited dynamical superpotentials. No free parameters are fitted to data: the scales m and Lambda are physical inputs, and the numerical solutions for Spin(13) are obtained from the equations, not tuned. No new particles or entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The AMSB-deformed N=1 theory and the non-SUSY m/Lambda -> infinity limit are in the same universality class, with no phase transition at m ~ Lambda.
Introduced in Section 3 as the 'AMSB Conjecture' [2]; the paper's translation of AMSB spectra into non-SUSY predictions, and the resulting contradiction with tumbling, rests entirely on this.
domain assumption The AMSB minimum lies parametrically on the D-flat locus; deviations vanish as m -> 0.
Used throughout Section 3 and explicitly imposed after-the-fact in Section 3.6 (footnote 6) by setting V_D = 0.
domain assumption Pure N=1 SYM confines and produces only massive singlet composites under the AMSB deformation.
Section 2: used to argue residual non-abelian factors cannot produce massless spin-1 states.
domain assumption The cited exact dynamical superpotentials for each theory (refs. [28-31]) are correct.
Section 3: the AMSB potentials, e.g. eqs. (3.6), (3.14), (3.23), (3.33), (3.40), (3.61), are derived from these external results.
ad hoc to paper The Kahler potential along the SU(6) W=0 branch interpolates smoothly without a 'sudden drop' at A ~ Lambda, with O(1) coefficient a.
Section 3.1: the author calls this 'plausible but non-rigorous'; it is used to argue the W != 0 branch is the global minimum.
domain assumption The index criterion (iota > 2) rules out s-confinement, quantum-modified moduli spaces, and dynamically generated superpotentials.
Section 4: used to argue the four conformal-window candidates do not have known confining phases.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pseudoreal AMSB: Troubling Tensions with Tumbling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2XY3JF3

@misc{pith2026260806148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pseudoreal AMSB: Troubling Tensions with Tumbling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2XY3JF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06148}
}

abstract

I analyze the pseudoreal confining $\mathcal{N}=1$ SUSY gauge theories deformed by anomaly mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB). Taking the conjecture that the AMSB and non-SUSY limits are in the same universality class, I find broadly that the non-SUSY confining pseudoreal gauge theories of this class have no massless particles in their spectra. This contradicts recent expectations from tumbling. I explore whether or not non-standard tumbling could reconcile the two pictures, and find that it would require condensation in repulsive channels in three of the cases, and that in one case it does not appear possible regardless of attractiveness/repulsiveness. I briefly comment on the additional theories that may be in the conformal window, and find that their SUSY versions are consistent with flowing to superconformal fixed points.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[10]

Perusing confining pseudoreal theories: a story of emerging massless spin-1 bosons

G. Cacciapaglia and K. Kollias,Perusing confining pseudoreal theories: a story of emerging massless spin-1 bosons,2607.09531

work page Pith review arXiv
[1]

Kondo, H

D. Kondo, H. Murayama and B. Noether,Near-SUSY to non-SUSY crossover,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 114021

work page 2025
[2]

Murayama,Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,Phys

H. Murayama,Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 251601

work page 2021
[3]

Kondo, H

D. Kondo, H. Murayama, B. Noether and D.R. Varier,Broken conformal window,JHEP04(2025) 152

work page 2025
[4]

Leedom, H

J.M. Leedom, H. Murayama, G. Singh, B. Suter and J. Wong,Exact results in softly broken supersymmetric chiral gauge theories with flavor,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 025001

work page 2025
[5]

Cs´ aki, H

C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Some exact results in chiral gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 065018

work page 2021
[6]

Cs´ aki, H

C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama and O. Telem,More exact results on chiral gauge theories: The case of the symmetric tensor,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 045007

work page 2022
[7]

Gherghetta, H

T. Gherghetta, H. Murayama, B. Noether and P. Qu ´ ılez,High-quality axion from exact SUSY chiral dynamics,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 115064 [2508.21813]

arXiv 2026

Show all 41 references

[8]

S. Raby, S. Dimopoulos and L. Susskind,Tumbling Gauge Theories,Nucl. Phys. B169(1980) 373

1980
[9]

Cacciapaglia, K

G. Cacciapaglia, K. Kollias, A. Deandrea and F. Sannino,Selection toolkit for standard and non-standard GUTs,Physical Review D113(2026) 075043

2026
[11]

Kondo, H

D. Kondo, H. Murayama and C. Sylber,Dynamics of the simplest chiral gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D 113(2026) L051502

2026
[12]

A. Goh, H. Murayama, G. Singh, B. Suter and J. Wong,Dynamics of E6 chiral gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 045001

2025
[13]

Giudice, M.A

G.F. Giudice, M.A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi,Gaugino mass without singlets,JHEP12 (1998) 027

1998
[14]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum,Out Of This World Supersymmetry Breaking,Nuclear Physics B557 (1999) 79

1999
[15]

Seiberg,Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,Nucl

N. Seiberg,Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,Nucl. Phys. B435 (1995) 129

1995
[16]

Roy Varier, Z

D. Roy Varier, Z. Gu, B. Noether and H. Murayama,AMSB in Sp(N c) gauge theories,JHEP02(2026) 113

2026
[17]

Cs´ aki, T

C. Cs´ aki, T. Kawano, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Phase transitions at unusual values ofθ,JHEP12 (2025) 004

2025
[18]

Cs´ aki, A

C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Phases of nonsupersymmetric gauge theories: The SO(Nc) case study,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 114018

2021
[19]

Cs´ aki, A

C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Demonstration of Confinement and Chiral Symmetry Breaking in SO(Nc) Gauge Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 251602

2021
[20]

de Lima and D

C.H. de Lima and D. Stolarski,On s-confining SUSY-QCD with anomaly mediation,JHEP10(2023) 020

2023
[21]

Bai, C.H

Y. Bai, C.H. de Lima and D. Stolarski,Novel phases of a baryon-dense QCD-like theory,JHEP12 (2025) 177. – 28 –

2025
[22]

Tearlach Robertson Orkish and D

C. Tearlach Robertson Orkish and D. Stolarski,Anomaly mediation in Seiberg-Witten theories, 2607.08903

arXiv
[23]

Cs´ aki, A

C. Cs´ aki, A. Gomes, H. Murayama, B. Noether, D.R. Varier and O. Telem,Guide to anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking QCD,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 054015

2023
[24]

Bai and D

Y. Bai and D. Stolarski,Phases of confining SU(5) chiral gauge theory with three generations,JHEP03 (2022) 113

2022
[25]

Dine and Y

M. Dine and Y. Yu,Challenges to Obtaining Results for Real QCD from SUSY QCD,2205.00115

arXiv
[26]

Dine,On the Possibility of Demonstrating Confinement in Non-Supersymmetric Theories by Deforming Confining Supersymmetric Theories,2211.17134

M. Dine,On the Possibility of Demonstrating Confinement in Non-Supersymmetric Theories by Deforming Confining Supersymmetric Theories,2211.17134

arXiv
[27]

Ishikawa, H

R. Ishikawa, H. Murayama and S. Saito,Truly Confining Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,2505.11354

arXiv
[28]

Dotti and A.V

G. Dotti and A.V. Manohar,Supersymmetric Gauge Theories with an Affine Quantum Moduli Space, Physical Review Letters80(1998) 2758

1998
[29]

Cho,Exact results in SO(11) SUSY gauge theories with spinor and vector matter,Phys

P.L. Cho,Exact results in SO(11) SUSY gauge theories with spinor and vector matter,Phys. Lett. B 400(1997) 101

1997
[30]

Maru,Confining phase in SUSY SO(12) gauge theory with one spinor and several vectors,Mod

N. Maru,Confining phase in SUSY SO(12) gauge theory with one spinor and several vectors,Mod. Phys. Lett. A13(1998) 1361

1998
[31]

Dotti, A.V

G. Dotti, A.V. Manohar and W. Skiba,Supersymmetric gauge theories with a free algebra of invariants, Nucl. Phys. B531(1998) 507

1998
[32]

Grinstein and D.R

B. Grinstein and D.R. Nolte,Systematic Study of Theories with Quantum Modified Moduli,Physical Review D57(1998) 6471

1998
[33]

Grinstein and D.R

B. Grinstein and D.R. Nolte,Systematic study of theories with quantum modified moduli. 2.,Phys. Rev. D58(1998) 045012

1998
[34]

Csaki, M

C. Csaki, M. Schmaltz and W. Skiba,A Systematic Approach to Confinement in N=1 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,Physical Review Letters78(1997) 799

1997
[35]

Andreev, E.B

E.M. Andreev, E.B. Vinberg and A.G. Elashvili,Orbits of greatest dimension in semi-simple linear Lie groups,Functional Analysis and Its Applications1(1967) 257

1967
[36]

Intriligator and B

K. Intriligator and B. Wecht,The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Maximizes a,Nuclear Physics B 667(2003) 183

2003
[37]

Komargodski and A

Z. Komargodski and A. Schwimmer,On Renormalization Group Flows in Four Dimensions,JHEP12 (2011) 099

2011
[38]

Novikov, M.A

V.A. Novikov, M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,Exact Gell-Mann-Low function of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories from instanton calculus,Nuclear Physics B229(1983) 381

1983
[39]

Hofman and J

D.M. Hofman and J. Maldacena,Conformal collider physics: Energy and charge correlations,JHEP05 (2008) 012

2008
[40]

Feger, T.W

R. Feger, T.W. Kephart and R.J. Saskowski,LieART 2.0 – A Mathematica application for Lie Algebras and Representation Theory,Computer Physics Communications257(2020) 107490

2020
[41]

Fonseca,GroupMath: A Mathematica package for group theory calculations,Computer Physics Communications267(2021) 108085

R.M. Fonseca,GroupMath: A Mathematica package for group theory calculations,Computer Physics Communications267(2021) 108085. – 29 –

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

Perusing confining pseudoreal theories: a story of emerging massless spin-1 bosons

G. Cacciapaglia and K. Kollias,Perusing confining pseudoreal theories: a story of emerging massless spin-1 bosons,2607.09531

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

Kondo, H

D. Kondo, H. Murayama and B. Noether,Near-SUSY to non-SUSY crossover,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 114021

work page 2025

[3] [2]

Murayama,Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,Phys

H. Murayama,Some Exact Results in QCD-like Theories,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 251601

work page 2021

[4] [3]

Kondo, H

D. Kondo, H. Murayama, B. Noether and D.R. Varier,Broken conformal window,JHEP04(2025) 152

work page 2025

[5] [4]

Leedom, H

J.M. Leedom, H. Murayama, G. Singh, B. Suter and J. Wong,Exact results in softly broken supersymmetric chiral gauge theories with flavor,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 025001

work page 2025

[6] [5]

Cs´ aki, H

C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama and O. Telem,Some exact results in chiral gauge theories,Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) 065018

work page 2021

[7] [6]

Cs´ aki, H

C. Cs´ aki, H. Murayama and O. Telem,More exact results on chiral gauge theories: The case of the symmetric tensor,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 045007

work page 2022

[8] [7]

Gherghetta, H

T. Gherghetta, H. Murayama, B. Noether and P. Qu ´ ılez,High-quality axion from exact SUSY chiral dynamics,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 115064 [2508.21813]

arXiv 2026