Wilson lines and a canonical basis of SU(4) heterotic standard models

The minimal SUSY B − L model: from the unification scale to the LHC

“…As discussed in [30] and throughout this paper, a radiatively induced vacuum expectation value (VEV) for a right-handed sneutrino will spontaneously break the Abelian factors U(1) 3R ×U(1) B−L…”

“…First steps in this direction were taken in [27][28][29], where it was shown -for a restrictive set of initial parameters -that radiative breaking of both of these symmetries can indeed occur. A further study of the Wilson lines, spectra, mass scales and the unification of gauge couplings from the high-energy superstring point of view was presented in [30]. Combining the bottom-up and top-down approaches to the B − L MSSM, various aspects of both LHC and neutrino phenomenology were studied in the special case where a stop or a sbottom sparticle is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) [31,32].…”

“…As discussed in [30], we prefer to work with the Abelian factors U(1) 3R ⊗ U(1) B−L rather than U(1) Y ⊗U(1) B−L -although they are physically equivalent. This is motivated by the fact that the former is the unique choice that does not introduce kinetic mixing between the associated field strengths at any scale in their renormalization group equation (RGE) evolution.…”

“…In this context, our model is the remnant of an SO(10) unified symmetry broken by two Wilson lines. Although the details of the various physical regimes of this theory, and the renormalization group scaling between them, were given in [30], we review them in the next section for completeness.…”

SO(32) heterotic line bundle models

“…For our purpose, it is sufficient to consider the number of chiral modes to derive the particles in the standard-like models. Recall that the Higgs and higgsino fields will be identified with L [41,42]. This U(1) B−L breaking scenario requires a deeper understanding of the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking and the stabilization of moduli fields.…”