Massive neutrinos and (heterotic) string theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
String theories in principle address the origin and values of the quark and lepton masses. Perhaps the small values of neutrino masses could be explained generically in string theory even if it is more difficult to calculate individual values, or perhaps some string constructions could be favored by generating small neutrino masses. We examine this issue in the context of the well-known three-family standard-like ${Z}_{3}$ heterotic orbifolds, where the theory is well enough known to construct the corresponding operators allowed by string selection rules, and analyze the D- and F-flatness conditions. Surprisingly, we find that a simple seesaw mechanism does not arise. It is not clear whether this is a property of this construction, or of orbifolds more generally, or of string theory itself. Extended seesaw mechanisms may be allowed; more analysis will be needed to settle that issue. We briefly speculate on their form if allowed and on the possibility of alternatives, such as small Dirac masses and triplet seesaws. The smallness of neutrino masses may be a powerful probe of string constructions in general. We also find further evidence that there are only 20 inequivalent models in this class, which affects the counting of string vacua.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".