Nucleon Decay in the Minimal Supersymmetric $SU(5)$ Grand Unification

H. Murayama; J. Hisano; T. Yanagida

REVIEW

Nucleon Decay in the Minimal Supersymmetric $SU(5)$ Grand Unification

J. Hisano, H. Murayama, T. Yanagida

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 1 Aug 1992 · 45 references

Pith's verdict: A careful, honest recalculation that reopens the sub-TeV SUSY window — but the abstract's M_HC ≥ 2×10^16 GeV condition is more conditional than it reads.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9207279 (version 2)

Pith ID2JEJCPDF, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationH. Murayama, J. Hisano, T. Yanagida. "Nucleon Decay in the Minimal Supersymmetric $SU(5)$ Grand Unification." arXiv:hep-ph/9207279 (1992). https://pith.science/paper/2JEJCPDF

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The thing worth your time here is Section 4, not the decay rates. Hisano, Murayama and Yanagida take the gauge-coupling unification requirement seriously and turn it into a two-sided window on the color-triplet Higgs mass, 2.2×10^13 to 2.3×10^17 GeV (Eq. 4.14), with one-loop threshold matching, two-loop running, and an explicit DR-to-MS conversion. That converts M_HC from a hand-picked number into something bounded by data, and it is the reason their conclusion differs from Nath–Arnowitt: they use M_HC near the top of the window rather than setting it equal to M_GUT. The second real contribution is the factor-of-2 correction to the dimension-five operator coefficients of Refs. [8,9], with the discrepancy traced to a normalization inconsistency in the earlier work rather than waved away. The decay-rate machinery is transparent, beta is scanned over its full order-of-magnitude range, and the y_tK ambiguity is treated as a free complex parameter instead of being tuned. That is honest bookkeeping, and it is why I trust the negative result about the no-scale model being constrained but alive (m_w > 70 GeV in the most conservative corner). Where I would push back is the abstract's framing of [abstract:s2]. The stress-test note is right that M_HC ≥ 2×10^16 GeV is reachable only in the upper part of the alpha_3 1-sigma range combined with a heavy Higgsino; at alpha_3 = 0.111 the ceiling drops well below what the claim needs. The authors do flag the 1-sigma truncation in footnote **, so this is not hidden, but they never state the joint alpha_3–m_h dependence, and the abstract reads as though the condition is generic. It is an existence statement and it survives, but it is more fragile than the phrasing suggests. Two smaller things: the perturbativity bound M_HC < 2.0 M_V (Eq. 4.20) leans on the unpublished companion TU-391, so I cannot check it from this text alone, and the top-Yukawa running in Fig. 11 is a plot with no stated numerical method. Neither is load-bearing for the main claim. This is a paper for anyone working on SUSY-GUT phenomenology or proton-decay signatures; it is the reference for the M_HC window and for the corrected operator normalization. Send it out. The referees should ask for the joint alpha_3–m_h condition to be stated in the abstract and for the Fig. 11 numerics to be spelled out.

Referee report

Major objections (3)

[Section 4, Eq. (4.14) and footnote **] The upper end of the M_HC window, which abstract:s2 needs, is attainable only with α_3 in the upper part of its 1σ range together with m̃_h near 1 TeV. The authors acknowledge the 1σ truncation in footnote **, but the abstract's phrasing 'if one adopts a relatively large value of M_HC (≥2×10^16 GeV)' does not convey the joint α_3–m̃_h dependence. At α_3 = 0.111 (lower 1σ) the maximum M_HC falls well below 2×10^16 GeV even with m̃_h = 1 TeV. The claim is an existence statement and does hold at central-to-upper α_3, so this is not a correctness problem, but the paper should state the joint condition explicitly, either in the abstract or in a sentence at the end of Section 4.
[Section 5, paragraph following Fig. 7] Taking M_HC = 2.3×10^17 GeV requires M_V > 1×10^17 GeV and hence M_Σ < 3×10^15 GeV, a two-order-of-magnitude splitting among the heavy multiplets. The authors call this 'completely acceptable phenomenologically,' but that is a judgment rather than a derivation, and it is load-bearing for the allowed region of Fig. 6 and for the no-scale-model claim of abstract:s4. The paper should either derive the splitting from a specific model or state the Fig. 6 and no-scale conclusions conditionally on it.
[Section 3, Eq. (3.12)] The factor-of-2 discrepancy with Refs. [8,9] is attributed to a normalization inconsistency in Ref. [8] Eqs. (1.5),(1.6). This is a claim about another paper's error, and it would strengthen the manuscript to show the explicit comparison of the two normalizations rather than only naming the source of the discrepancy. The point is not load-bearing for the central claim, which is conservative, but a short explicit demonstration would make the correction verifiable by the reader.

Minor objections (7)

[Abstract versus Eq. (4.14)] The abstract quotes 2×10^13 GeV to 2×10^17 GeV while Eq. (4.14) gives 2.2×10^13 GeV to 2.3×10^17 GeV; the rounding is harmless but the two should match.
[Section 3, Eqs. (3.15) and (3.17)] The ranges for |ytK| and |ytπ| are computed with a common f and mt = 100 GeV; the text should state explicitly that these ranges are illustrative and that the bounds in Section 5 scan the full range.
[Section 5, Eq. (5.5)] The bound tanβ_H ≤ 85 is much weaker than the tanβ_H < 40 from perturbativity of the bottom Yukawa coupling; the text says so, but a sentence on where the weaker bound would matter would help the reader.
[Table 4] The experimental limits are cited to PDG 1992; a note identifying the contributing experiments (KAMIOKANDE, IMB) would help the reader place the numbers.
[Appendix C, Eq. (C.14)] The ratio 1.8 for n→K⁰ν̄ versus p→K⁺ν̄ is a useful check; the text should note that this is the source of the neutron-dominance mentioned in Section 3.
[Fig. 11 caption] The caption should state the value of tanβ_H used in the plotted curves.
[Section 6, Eq. (6.1)] The lower limit on τ(p→π⁰e⁺) uses α = 0.03 GeV³; the text should note that with α = 0.003 GeV³ the limit is two orders of magnitude weaker, which affects the superKAMIOKANDE reach claim.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Requiring the three gauge couplings to unify caps the color-triplet Higgs mass at about 2.3e17 GeV, and with that mass the 1992 proton-decay limits still permit supersymmetric particles below 1 TeV.

The reading

Grand unified theories predict that protons eventually decay. In the supersymmetric SU(5) version, the dominant route is through a heavy colored partner of the Higgs boson, the color-triplet Higgs, whose mass sets the proton lifetime. Earlier papers had picked that mass by hand, around 1e16 GeV, and concluded that proton decay already ruled out supersymmetric partners lighter than about 1 TeV unless two competing contributions cancelled almost exactly. This paper does two things. First, it uses the measured strengths of the three Standard Model forces and the requirement that they meet at a single high energy to derive an allowed window for the color-triplet Higgs mass, roughly 2e13 to 2.3e17 GeV, including threshold corrections at both the weak and grand-unified scales. Second, it recomputes the proton-decay amplitudes, finding the earlier coefficients were too large by a factor of two, and scans the unknown relative phase between the second- and third-generation contributions. With the color-triplet Higgs near the top of its allowed window, the existing experimental limits leave supersymmetric particles below 1 TeV perfectly viable. The authors also check that the relevant Yukawa coupling stays perturbative up to the Planck scale, and that the no-scale supergravity model survives, though narrowly.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim in abstract:s2: given the gauge-coupling-unification window 2.2e13 GeV <= M_HC <= 2.3e17 GeV derived in Section 4, the then-current nucleon-decay limits are consistent with supersymmetric particles lighter than 1 TeV even without a cancellation between second- and third-generation matrix elements, provided M_HC is taken near the upper end (>= 2e16 GeV). The supporting numbers are the conservative lower bound M_HC >= 5.3e15 GeV from present data (Eq. 5.2) and the squark bound m_Q >= 150 GeV (Eq. 5.3).

Load-bearing premise

The upper end of the M_HC window, which the headline claim needs, comes entirely from imposing gauge-coupling unification at one standard deviation on alpha_3 = 0.118 +/- 0.007 (Section 4, Eq. 4.14). The authors state in footnote ** that allowing two standard deviations spreads the allowed M_HC by two orders of magnitude at both ends, which would remove the basis for the claim. The whole result therefore rests on truncating the alpha_3 error bar at 1 sigma, a choice made for convenience rather than derived.

Original abstract

We make a detailed analysis on the nucleon decay in the minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ grand unified model. We find that a requirement of the unification of three gauge coupling constants leads to a constraint on a mass $M_{H_C}$ of color-triplet Higgs multiplet as $2 \times 10^{13}~\GeV \leq M_{H_C} \leq 2 \times 10^{17}~\GeV$, taking both weak- and GUT-scale threshold effects into account. Contrary to the results in the previous analyses, the present experimental limits on the nucleon decay turn out to be consistent with the SUSY particles lighter than 1~TeV even without a cancellation between matrix elements contributed from different generations, if one adopts a relatively large value of $M_{H_C}$ ($\ge2\times 10^{16}~\GeV$). We also show that the Yukawa coupling constant of color-triplet Higgs multiplet does not necessarily blow up below the gravitational scale ($2.4\times10^{18}~\GeV$) even with the largest possible value of $M_{H_C}$. We point out that the no-scale model is still viable, though it is strongly constrained.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,606 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.60 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.96 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We make a detailed analysis on the nucleon decay in the minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ grand unified model. We find that a requirement of the unification of three gauge coupling constants leads to a constraint on a mass $M_{H_C}$ of color-triplet Higgs multiplet as $2 \times 10^{13}~\GeV \leq M_{H_C} \leq 2 \times 10^{17}~\GeV$, taking both weak- and GUT-scale threshold effects into account. Contrary to the results in the previous analyses, the present experimental limits on the nucleon decay turn out to be consistent with the SUSY particles lighter than 1~TeV even without a cancellation between matrix elements contributed from different generations, if one adopts a relatively large value of $M_{H_C}$ ($\ge2\times 10^{16}~\GeV$). We also show that the Yukawa coupling constant of color-triplet Higgs multiplet does not necessarily blow up below the gravitational scale ($2.4\times10^{18}~\GeV$) even with the largest possible value of $M_{H_C}$. We point out that the no-scale model is still viable, though it is strongly constrained.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We make a detailed analysis on the nucleon decay in the minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ grand unified model.	contribution 1.00	0.93	0.04	asserted 0.79
s1	We find that a requirement of the unification of three gauge coupling constants leads to a constraint on a mass $M_{H_C}$ of color-triplet Higgs multiplet as $2 \times 10^{13}~\GeV \leq M_{H_C} \leq 2 \times 10^{17}~\GeV$, taking both weak- and GUT-scale threshold effects into account.	result 1.00	0.94	0.18	asserted 1.00
s2	Contrary to the results in the previous analyses, the present experimental limits on the nucleon decay turn out to be consistent with the SUSY particles lighter than 1~TeV even without a cancellation between matrix elements contributed from different generations, if one adopts a relatively large value of $M_{H_C}$ ($\ge2\times 10^{16}~\GeV$).	result 0.96	0.89	0.55	hedged possibility 0.55
s3	We also show that the Yukawa coupling constant of color-triplet Higgs multiplet does not necessarily blow up below the gravitational scale ($2.4\times10^{18}~\GeV$) even with the largest possible value of $M_{H_C}$.	result 1.00	0.91	0.09	asserted 0.96
s4	We point out that the no-scale model is still viable, though it is strongly constrained.	result 0.78	0.82	0.13	asserted 0.96

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.87.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (45)

[8]

P. Nath, A.H. Chamseddine, and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D32, 2348 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[1]

H. Georgi and L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974)

View on Pith 1974
[2]

M.J.G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Pol. B12, 437 (1981); L. Maiani, Gif-sur-Yvette Summer School on Particle Physics , 11th, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 1979 (Inst. Nat. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Particules, Pari s, 1979); S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B192, 353 (1981); E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B188, 513 (1981); M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B189...

View on Pith 1981
[3]

E. Witten, in Ref. [2]; S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D24, 1681 (1981); S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B193, 150 (1981); N. Sakai, Zeit. Phys. C11, 153 (1981)

View on Pith 1981
[4]

P. Langacker and M.-X. Luo, Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991); U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. F¨ urstenau, Phys. Lett. 260B, 447 (1991); W.J. Marciano, Brookhaven preprint, BNL-45999, April 1991

View on Pith 1991
[5]

LEP Collaborations, Phys. Lett. B276, 247 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[6]

N. Sakai and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B197, 533 (1982); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D26, 287 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[7]

J. Ellis, D.V. Nanopoulos, and S. Rudaz, Nucl. Phys. B202, 43 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[9]

P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D38, 1479 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[10]

J. Hisano, H. Murayama, and T. Yanagida, Tohoku Univers ity preprint, TU-391 (1992), submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. 37

View on Pith 1992
[11]

S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi in Ref. [2]; N. Sakai in Ref. [2]

View on Pith
[12]

J. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. 88B, 320 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[13]

S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi in Ref. [2]

View on Pith
[14]

W.J. Marciano, Fourth Workshop on Grand Uniﬁcation , Pennsylvania, USA, 1983 (Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1983)

View on Pith 1983
[15]

S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 112B, 133 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[16]

S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero, and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B353, 591 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[17]

H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. 110, 1 (1984)

View on Pith 1984
[18]

K. Hikasa et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D45, 1 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[19]

M. Claudson, M.B. Wise, and L.J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B195, 297 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[20]

S. Chadha and M. Daniels, Nucl. Phys. B229, 105 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[21]

S.J. Brodsky, J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, and C. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B238, 561 (1984)

View on Pith 1984
[22]

M.B. Gavela et al. , Nucl.Phys. B312, 269 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[23]

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rept. 87, 77 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[24]

M.B. Einhorn and D.R.T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. 196, 475 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[25]

I. Antoniadis, C. Kounnas, and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. 119B, 377 (1982)

View on Pith 1982
[26]

W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. 94B, 37(1980). 38

View on Pith 1980
[27]

R. Barbieri and L.J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 752 (1992); J. Ellis, S. Kelley, and D.V. Nanopoulos, CERN preprint, CER N-TH-6481-92 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[28]

M. Drees and M. Nojiri, Nucl. Phys. B369, 54 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[29]

A.B. Lahanas and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rept. 145, 1 (1987)

View on Pith 1987
[30]

P. Langacker, Pennsilvania University preprint, UPR- 0492T, (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[31]

I. Antoniadis, C. Kounnas, and R. Lacaze, Nucl. Phys. B221, 377 (1983)

View on Pith 1983
[32]

D. Decamp et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 236B (1990) 86; P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 247B (1990) 157; B. Adeva et al. (L3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 233B (1989) 530; M.Z. Akrawy et al. (OPAL Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 240B (1990) 250

View on Pith 1990
[33]

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1825; J. Alitti et al. (UA2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 235B (1990) 363

View on Pith 1989
[34]

M.T. Grisaru, W. Siegel, and M. Roˇ cek, Nucl. Phys. B159, 429 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[35]

K. Inoue, M. Kawasaki, M. Yamaguchi, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D45, 328 (1992); S. Kelley, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos, H. Pois, and K. Yuan, Phys. Lett. 273B, 423 (1991); G. G. Ross and R. G. Roberts, Rutherford preprint, RAL-92-00 5 (1991)

View on Pith 1992
[36]

Y. Totsuka, Proc. of Intern. Symposium on Underground Physics Experime nts, In- stitute for Cosmic Ray Research report, ICRR-227-90-20, p. 129 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[37]

H. Arason, D. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, E. P iard, P. Ramond, and E. Wright, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2933 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[38]

H. Georgi and C. Jarlskog, Phys. Lett. B86, 297 (1979). 39

View on Pith 1979
[39]

J. E. Kim and M. ¨Ozer, Phys. Lett. 134B, 425 (1984); H. Murayama, Y. Okada, and T. Yanagida, Tohoku University pr eprint, TU-383 (1991), to be published in Prog. Theor. Phys. 88 (1992)

View on Pith 1984
[40]

J. Hisano, H. Murayama, and T. Yanagida, Tohoku Univers ity preprint, TU-399 (1992), to be published in Phys. Lett. B

View on Pith 1992
[41]

M. B. Green, L. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory Vol. 1,2 (Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987)

View on Pith 1987
[42]

P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Northeastern University prepr ints, NUB-TH-3041-92 and NUB-TH-3046-92 (1992); R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Northeastern University preprint, NUB-TH-3045-92 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[43]

L.E. Ib´ a˜ nez and F.J. Yndur´ ain,Phys. Lett. 113B, 367 (1982) L.E. Ib´ a˜ nez and C. Mu˜ noz,Nucl. Phys. B245, 425 (1984)

View on Pith 1982
[44]

K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu, and S. Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 68, 927 (1982), erratum ibid. 70, 330 (1983)

View on Pith 1982
[45]

Y. Hara, S. Itoh, Y. Iwasaki, and T. Yoshie, Phys. Rev. D34, 3399 (1986); K.C. Bowler, D. Daniel, T.D. Kieu, D.G. Richards, and C.J. Sc ott, Nucl. Phys. B296, 431 (1988). 40 Table 1 The prediction of the nucleon partial lifetimes for the domi nant decay modes, arising from the dimension-ﬁve operators (QcQc)(QuLµ) and (QtQt)(QuLµ). This class of decay mode...

View on Pith 1986

Forward citations

Cited by 22 Pith papers

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

From the LZ Event to Grand Unification: Heavy Higgsinos and Proton Decay
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A heavy Higgsino spectrum motivated by the LZ event can preserve gauge coupling unification in minimal supersymmetric SU(5) and put the dimension-five proton decay mode p to K+ nu-bar within reach of Hyper-Kamiokande,...
Inverse-seesaw and inflationary scale relations in a supersymmetric 331 model from an SU(6) GUT model
hep-ph 2026-09 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A supersymmetric SU(6) model with an intermediate 331 symmetry that links the inverse seesaw mechanism, gauge-mediated SUSY breaking, and inflation via common fields and scale relations.
Ultraviolet Completion of a Two-loop Neutrino Mass Model
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A new SU(5) grand unified version of the Zee-Babu model predicts TeV-scale colored scalars, a vector-like down quark, and observable proton decay p→e+π0 at Hyper-Kamiokande.
Proton decay matrix elements on the lattice at physical pion mass
hep-lat 2021-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Proton decay matrix elements computed on the lattice at physical quark masses agree with earlier heavier-mass calculations, removing a proposed quark-mass suppression of proton decay.
Decaying Dark Matter can explain the electron/positron excesses
hep-ph 2008-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Decaying dark matter near 2 TeV with a lifetime near 10^26 seconds can fit the PAMELA and ATIC electron/positron excesses while evading photon bounds, and that mass matches the dark-to-baryon density ratio for an asym...

Show 17 more citing papers

Suppressing Flavor Anarchy
hep-ph 2000-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Coupling the Standard Model to an approximate superconformal sector drives random high-scale Yukawa couplings to a hierarchical pattern in the infrared, reproducing the observed fermion mass and mixing structure witho...
The compressed bino--wino dark matter in the GmSUGRA and the LHC soft-lepton searches
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

GmSUGRA boundary conditions can realize the compressed bino-wino dark matter spectrum, with a 260-266 GeV bino LSP, a 280 GeV wino pair, an 18.5-19.1 GeV splitting, and a Planck-consistent relic density from coannihilation.
Testing Realistic $SO(10)$ SUSY GUTs with Proton Decay and Gravitational Waves
hep-ph 2023-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Split-supersymmetric SO(10) unification puts B-L breaking near the GUT scale, producing metastable cosmic strings whose gravitational wave spectrum can match NANOGrav 15-year data while predicting proton decay within ...
Gravitational waves and proton decay: complementary windows into GUTs
hep-ph 2020-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Proton-decay and cosmic-string gravitational-wave bounds, taken together, favour SO(10) breaking through SU(5)xU(1) or Pati-Salam and disfavour flipped SU(5)xU(1) or plain SU(5), conditional on the NANOGrav signal bei...
Proton decay matrix elements on the lattice
hep-lat 2013-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Lattice QCD with 2+1 dynamical domain-wall fermions yields the twelve proton-decay form factors for nucleon-to-pion and nucleon-to-kaon transitions, each with a full systematic error budget of 20 to 40 percent.
Higgs Boson Mass, Proton Decay, Naturalness and Constraints of LHC and Planck Data
hep-ph 2013-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

In supergravity unified models the 126 GeV Higgs mass implies multi-TeV sfermions, making the p to anti-neutrino K+ lifetime extremely sensitive to the Higgs mass and shifting naturalness arguments toward a several-Te...
Not Even Decoupling Can Save Minimal Supersymmetric SU(5)
hep-ph 2001-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Minimal supersymmetric SU(5) is excluded by Super-Kamiokande proton decay limits, and making the first two generations of superpartners heavy does not rescue it.
Updated analysis of minimal supersymmetric SO(10) with a universal soft spectrum
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Minimal SUSY SO(10) with a universal soft spectrum survives only in a narrow mini-split region m0 ≳ 7.7 TeV and tanβ ≲ 9 under simultaneous proton-decay, Higgs-mass, and unification constraints.
The Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the Generalized Minimal Supergravity (GmSUGRA)
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In GmSUGRA, a light Higgsino-like neutralino dark matter at the Z and Higgs poles survives the LHC and LZ constraints only when the Higgsino mass parameter μ is negative.
Modular $S_3$ invariant flavor model in SU(5) GUT
hep-ph 2019-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

An S3 modular flavor model in SU(5) GUT reproduces quark and lepton masses and mixings with a common modulus, but its neutrino-sector predictions span wide ranges because of many free parameters.
SuSpect: a Fortran Code for the Supersymmetric and Higgs Particle Spectrum in the MSSM
hep-ph 2002-11 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper documents SuSpect 2.3, a public Fortran code that computes the MSSM sparticle and Higgs spectrum from high-scale or weak-scale inputs, including two-loop RGE running, radiative electroweak symmetry breaking ...
Light Neutralino Dark Matter in a Supersymmetric Pati-Salam Framework
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

In the supersymmetric Pati-Salam framework, light bino-like neutralino dark matter below 110 GeV survives all constraints in bulk and Z-funnel regions for negative mu, with a right-handed stau next-to-lightest particl...
Searches for Baryon Number Violation in Neutrino Experiments: A White Paper
hep-ex 2022-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Next-generation neutrino detectors (Hyper-K, DUNE, JUNO, THEIA) are projected to improve proton lifetime limits by up to two orders of magnitude, reaching lifetimes predicted by a broad class of Grand Unified Theories.
Underground Neutrino Detectors for Particle and Astroparticle Science: the Giant Liquid Argon Charge Imaging ExpeRiment (GLACIER)
hep-ph 2009-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A 100-kiloton liquid argon detector is technically credible for next-generation neutrino and proton-decay physics, according to this design review, though full-scale performance remains undemonstrated.
Proton stability in grand unified theories, in strings, and in branes
hep-ph 2006-01 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A comprehensive review concludes that proton decay remains a key test of unification and that planned megaton-scale detectors can probe many GUT, extra-dimensional, and string scenarios.
Baryon Number Violation: From Nuclear Matrix Elements to BSM Physics
hep-ph 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

A workshop report that maps the current experimental and theoretical landscape for baryon number violation, from proton decay and neutron-antineutron oscillation searches to the EFT, lattice QCD, and astrophysical con...
Baryon Number Violation
hep-ph 2013-11 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

The report argues that supersymmetric grand unification and TeV-scale baryon-number violation are both within reach of a 560 kt water Cherenkov detector and a dedicated 1 MW slow-neutron beam, and lays out the sensiti...

How the literature uses it

47 arXiv papers cite this in 62 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 46 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper

Let us first adapt the standard computation of the Higgs-mediated proton decay rate [ref] to our case.

Flavour violation in supersymmetric SO(10) unification with a type II seesaw mechanism · Higgs-mediated proton decay · 0.95

Uses its method or tool 9 papers

We implemented the three-loop RGEs for the gauge [ref] , and the one-loop formulas for the Yukawa and Higgs self couplings [ref] and impose that they can be described within perturbation theory up to the Planck scale.

Minimal Supersymmetric SU(5) and Gauge Coupling Unification at Three Loops · Running and decoupling · 1.00
The RG corrections represented by $A_RL$, $A_LL$, $A_R^τt$, $A_L^τ$, $A_L$ are calculated by using 1-loop RG equations [ref] .

Renormalizable $SO(10)$ GUT with Suppressed Dimension-5 Proton Decays · Results · 1.00
Using Eqs. ([ref]) and ([ref]), one can express the combinations of GUT state masses needed for exact 2-loop unification in terms of the superpartner masses [ref] .

Resurrecting the minimal renormalizable supersymmetric SU(5) model · Threshold corrections to gauge couplings · 0.81

Uses its data or values 1 paper

In the SUSY case, we used $A_L = 0.4$ [ref] .

Testing Realistic $SO(10)$ SUSY GUTs with Proton Decay and Gravitational Waves · Gauge Unification · 0.98

Compares with it 1 paper

Our findings largely agree with previous LQCD calculations that used heavier quark masses [ref] , reinforcing the conclusion that the quark mass dependence of hadron structure does not significantly alter the exclusion of certain simple GUT models [ref] .

Baryon Number Violation: From Nuclear Matrix Elements to BSM Physics · Proton decay matrix element on the lattice · 0.96

Cites it as background 3 papers

Up to date most Renormalization Group (RG) analyses that study gauge coupling unification use two-loop Renormalization Group Equations (RGEs) and one-loop matching at the SUSY and GUT scales [ref] .

Towards a Two-Loop Matching of Gauge Couplings in Grand Unified Theories · Introduction · 0.90
Proton decay mediated via color triplets in dimension five operators in $SU(5)$ models has been discussed frequently in literature [ref] .

The Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Primordial Black Holes in R-Symmetric $SU(5)$ Inflation · Proton decay · 0.99
It is known that the minimal SUSY $SU(5)$ GUT has two phenomenological problems: i) the quark-lepton mass relations [ref] and ii) the proton decay induced by the colored Higgs exchange [ref] [ref] .

Waiting for mu->eg from the MEG experiment · The SUSY $SU(5)$ model with right-handed neutrinos · 0.84

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [8]

P. Nath, A.H. Chamseddine, and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D32, 2348 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[2] [1]

H. Georgi and L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974)

View on Pith 1974

[3] [2]

M.J.G. Veltman, Acta Phys. Pol. B12, 437 (1981); L. Maiani, Gif-sur-Yvette Summer School on Particle Physics , 11th, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 1979 (Inst. Nat. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Particules, Pari s, 1979); S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B192, 353 (1981); E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B188, 513 (1981); M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B189...

View on Pith 1981

[4] [3]

E. Witten, in Ref. [2]; S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D24, 1681 (1981); S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B193, 150 (1981); N. Sakai, Zeit. Phys. C11, 153 (1981)

View on Pith 1981

[5] [4]

P. Langacker and M.-X. Luo, Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991); U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. F¨ urstenau, Phys. Lett. 260B, 447 (1991); W.J. Marciano, Brookhaven preprint, BNL-45999, April 1991

View on Pith 1991

[6] [5]

LEP Collaborations, Phys. Lett. B276, 247 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[7] [6]

N. Sakai and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B197, 533 (1982); S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D26, 287 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[8] [7]

J. Ellis, D.V. Nanopoulos, and S. Rudaz, Nucl. Phys. B202, 43 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[9] [9]

P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D38, 1479 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[10] [10]

J. Hisano, H. Murayama, and T. Yanagida, Tohoku Univers ity preprint, TU-391 (1992), submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. 37

View on Pith 1992

[11] [11]

S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi in Ref. [2]; N. Sakai in Ref. [2]

View on Pith

[12] [12]

J. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard, and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. 88B, 320 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[13] [13]

S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi in Ref. [2]

View on Pith

[14] [14]

W.J. Marciano, Fourth Workshop on Grand Uniﬁcation , Pennsylvania, USA, 1983 (Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1983)

View on Pith 1983

[15] [15]

S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. 112B, 133 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[16] [16]

S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero, and G. Ridolﬁ, Nucl. Phys. B353, 591 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[17] [17]

H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rept. 110, 1 (1984)

View on Pith 1984

[18] [18]

K. Hikasa et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D45, 1 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[19] [19]

M. Claudson, M.B. Wise, and L.J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B195, 297 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[20] [20]

S. Chadha and M. Daniels, Nucl. Phys. B229, 105 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[21] [21]

S.J. Brodsky, J. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, and C. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B238, 561 (1984)

View on Pith 1984

[22] [22]

M.B. Gavela et al. , Nucl.Phys. B312, 269 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[23] [23]

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rept. 87, 77 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[24] [24]

M.B. Einhorn and D.R.T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. 196, 475 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[25] [25]

I. Antoniadis, C. Kounnas, and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. 119B, 377 (1982)

View on Pith 1982

[26] [26]

W. Siegel, Phys. Lett. 94B, 37(1980). 38

View on Pith 1980

[27] [27]

R. Barbieri and L.J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 752 (1992); J. Ellis, S. Kelley, and D.V. Nanopoulos, CERN preprint, CER N-TH-6481-92 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[28] [28]

M. Drees and M. Nojiri, Nucl. Phys. B369, 54 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[29] [29]

A.B. Lahanas and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rept. 145, 1 (1987)

View on Pith 1987

[30] [30]

P. Langacker, Pennsilvania University preprint, UPR- 0492T, (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[31] [31]

I. Antoniadis, C. Kounnas, and R. Lacaze, Nucl. Phys. B221, 377 (1983)

View on Pith 1983

[32] [32]

D. Decamp et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 236B (1990) 86; P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 247B (1990) 157; B. Adeva et al. (L3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 233B (1989) 530; M.Z. Akrawy et al. (OPAL Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 240B (1990) 250

View on Pith 1990

[33] [33]

F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 1825; J. Alitti et al. (UA2 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. 235B (1990) 363

View on Pith 1989

[34] [34]

M.T. Grisaru, W. Siegel, and M. Roˇ cek, Nucl. Phys. B159, 429 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[35] [35]

K. Inoue, M. Kawasaki, M. Yamaguchi, and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D45, 328 (1992); S. Kelley, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos, H. Pois, and K. Yuan, Phys. Lett. 273B, 423 (1991); G. G. Ross and R. G. Roberts, Rutherford preprint, RAL-92-00 5 (1991)

View on Pith 1992

[36] [36]

Y. Totsuka, Proc. of Intern. Symposium on Underground Physics Experime nts, In- stitute for Cosmic Ray Research report, ICRR-227-90-20, p. 129 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[37] [37]

H. Arason, D. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, E. P iard, P. Ramond, and E. Wright, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2933 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[38] [38]

H. Georgi and C. Jarlskog, Phys. Lett. B86, 297 (1979). 39

View on Pith 1979

[39] [39]

J. E. Kim and M. ¨Ozer, Phys. Lett. 134B, 425 (1984); H. Murayama, Y. Okada, and T. Yanagida, Tohoku University pr eprint, TU-383 (1991), to be published in Prog. Theor. Phys. 88 (1992)

View on Pith 1984

[40] [40]

J. Hisano, H. Murayama, and T. Yanagida, Tohoku Univers ity preprint, TU-399 (1992), to be published in Phys. Lett. B

View on Pith 1992

[41] [41]

M. B. Green, L. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory Vol. 1,2 (Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987)

View on Pith 1987

[42] [42]

P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Northeastern University prepr ints, NUB-TH-3041-92 and NUB-TH-3046-92 (1992); R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Northeastern University preprint, NUB-TH-3045-92 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[43] [43]

L.E. Ib´ a˜ nez and F.J. Yndur´ ain,Phys. Lett. 113B, 367 (1982) L.E. Ib´ a˜ nez and C. Mu˜ noz,Nucl. Phys. B245, 425 (1984)

View on Pith 1982

[44] [44]

K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu, and S. Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 68, 927 (1982), erratum ibid. 70, 330 (1983)

View on Pith 1982

[45] [45]

Y. Hara, S. Itoh, Y. Iwasaki, and T. Yoshie, Phys. Rev. D34, 3399 (1986); K.C. Bowler, D. Daniel, T.D. Kieu, D.G. Richards, and C.J. Sc ott, Nucl. Phys. B296, 431 (1988). 40 Table 1 The prediction of the nucleon partial lifetimes for the domi nant decay modes, arising from the dimension-ﬁve operators (QcQc)(QuLµ) and (QtQt)(QuLµ). This class of decay mode...

View on Pith 1986