\section{Introduction and Summary}
\label{sec:IntroductionandSummary}

It is a common ritual practice in high-energy physics (HEP) to 
regards our quantum vacuum in the 4-dimensional spacetime (denoted as 4d or 3+1d) governed by one of the candidate $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ Standard Models (SMs) \cite{Glashow1961trPartialSymmetriesofWeakInteractions, Salam1964ryElectromagneticWeakInteractions, Salam1968, Weinberg1967tqSMAModelofLeptons},
while lifting towards one of some Grand Unifications (GUTs) 
\cite{Georgi1974syUnityofAllElementaryParticleForces, Pati1974yyPatiSalamLeptonNumberastheFourthColor,
Fritzsch1974nnMinkowskiUnifiedInteractionsofLeptonsandHadrons} or String Theory at higher energy scales.\footnote{{Throughout our article,
we denote $n$d for $n$-dimensional spacetime, or $n'+1$d as an $n'$-dimensional space and 1-dimensional time. 
We also denote the Lie algebra in the lower case such as $so(10)$, and denote the Lie group in the capital case such as Spin(10).
For example, we follow the convention to call the model \cite{Fritzsch1974nnMinkowskiUnifiedInteractionsofLeptonsandHadrons} as the $so(10)$ GUT, but it requires the Spin(10) gauge group.}} 

In contrast, in our present work, we initiate and introduce an alternative complementary perspective --- we propose that the SM vacuum may be a low energy quantum vacuum 
arising from the quantum competition of various neighbor GUT vacua in an immense quantum phase diagram:\footnote{Here quantum phases mean that we focus on the zero temperature physics where the quantum effect is dominant, see for example an overview \cite{subirsachdev2011book}.}
\begin{itemize}
\item
In general, we propose that the SM may arise {as one adjacent phase} from the vicinity of 
quantum criticality (either critical points or critical regions, see an overview \cite{subirsachdev2011book}) between the competing 
neighbor GUT vacua.
\item In particular, we demonstrate how
the $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ SM  
\cite{Glashow1961trPartialSymmetriesofWeakInteractions, Salam1964ryElectromagneticWeakInteractions, Salam1968, Weinberg1967tqSMAModelofLeptons}
with 16n Weyl fermions (\Fig{fig:SM-GUT-fig}) could emerge near the quantum criticality 
between two neighbor vacua of
Georgi-Glashow $su(5)$ model \cite{Georgi1974syUnityofAllElementaryParticleForces} (\Fig{fig:SU5-GUT-fig})
and Pati-Salam $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$ model \cite{Pati1974yyPatiSalamLeptonNumberastheFourthColor} (\Fig{fig:PS-GUT-fig}), which represents two distinct Higgs phases of the further unified $so(10)$ GUT (with a Spin(10) gauge group). To introduce non-trivial competitions between Georgi-Glashow (GG) and Pati-Salam (PS) phases, we consider a new \emph{mother effective field theory} of
an upgraded $so(10)$ GUT, which includes not only the familiar $so(10)$ GUT \cite{Fritzsch1974nnMinkowskiUnifiedInteractionsofLeptonsandHadrons}
(\Fig{fig:so10-GUT-fig}), but also
a new extra 4d discrete torsion class of Wess-Zumino-Witten-like (WZW) term that saturates a mod-2 class 
nonperturbative global anomaly of mixed gauge-gravitational (i.e., gauge-diffeomorphism) probes,
captured by a 5d invertible topological quantum field theory (TQFT): $(-1)^{\int w_2w_3(TM)}=(-1)^{\int  w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})}$ type.\footnote{The 
$w_j$ is the $j$-th Stiefel-Whitney (SW) characteristic class.
The $w_j(TM)$ is the SW class of spacetime tangent bundle $TM$ of manifold $M$. 
The $w_j(V_{G})$ is the SW class of the principal $G$ bundle.
This mod 2 class $w_2w_3$ global anomaly has been checked to be absent in the $so(10)$ GUT by \Refe{WangWen2018cai1809.11171, WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844}.
This mixed gauge-gravitational anomaly is tightly related to \emph{the new SU(2) anomaly} \cite{WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844} due to the bundle constraint
$w_2w_3(TM) = w_2w_3(V_{G})$ with $G$ can be substituted by ${\rm SO}(3) \subset {\rm SO}(10)$ related to the embedding ${\rm SU}(2) = {\rm Spin}(3) \subset {\rm Spin}(10)$.
However, as we will see, it is natural to introduce a new 4d WZW term (appending to the $so(10)$ GUT)
with this $w_2w_3$ global anomaly in order to realize the SM vacuum as the quantum criticality phenomenon between the neighbor SU(5) GUT and Pati-Salam vacua.\\[2mm]
The $w_2w_3$ global anomaly also occurs on 
a certain $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge theory with fermionic strings \cite{Thorngren1404.4385} 
and all-fermion U(1) electrodynamics \cite{WangPotterSenthil1306.3238, KravecMcGreevySwingle1409.8339} 
which is a pure U(1) gauge theory 
whose electric, magnetic, and dyonic objects are all fermions. For these $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and U(1) gauge theories, they do have the spacetime tangent bundle constraints on $TM$, but do
\emph{not} have the analogous gauge bundle constraints on $V_G$. So this $w_2w_3=w_2w_3(TM)$ anomaly
becomes a pure gravitational anomaly for these $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and U(1) gauge theories.\\[2mm]
We recommend the following references 
\cite{GarciaEtxebarriaMontero2018ajm1808.00009, WanWang2018bns1812.11967, 2019arXiv191011277D, WW2019fxh1910.14668} 
or this seminar video \cite{CMSAJWUltraUnification}
for readers who wish to overview some modern perspectives 
about the anomalies of SM and GUT relevant gauge theories. In particular, we follow closely \Refe{WW2019fxh1910.14668, CMSAJWUltraUnification}. 
In summary, we may address anomalies with different adjectives to characterize their properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item  invertible vs noninvertible: We only focus on the invertible anomalies,
which follow the standard definition of anomalies (also in high-energy physics) 
captured by one higher-dimensional invertible TQFT as the low energy theory of invertible topological phases.
The $d$d invertible anomalies (also the $(d+1)$d invertible TQFTs) are classified by the cobordism group data
$\Omega^{d}_{G} \equiv \mathrm{TP}_d(G)$ defined in Freed-Hopkins 
\cite{Freed2016}.
The partition function ${\bf Z}$ of a $(d+1)$d invertible TQFT satisfies ${\bf Z}(M^{d+1})=1$ on a closed $M^{d+1}$-manifold.\\[1mm]
In contrast, the noninvertible anomalies are non-standard (usually not named as anomalies in high-energy physics), 
characterized by non-invertible topological phases with intrinsic topological orders.
\item perturbative local vs nonperturbative global anomalies: Whether the anomalies are local (or global), is determined by whether the gauge or diffeomorphism transformations 
are infinitesimal (or large) transformations, continuously deformable (or not deformable) to the identity element. The classifications of local vs global anomalies are
the integer $\mathbb{Z}$ vs the finite torsion $\mathbb{Z}_n$ classes respectively. 
\item gauge anomaly vs mixed gauge-gravity anomaly vs gravitational anomaly: 
The adjective, gauge or gravity, refers to the types of couplings or probes that we require to detect them -- whether the probes depends on the internal gauge bundle/connection
or the spacetime geometry. 
\item background fields or dynamical fields: 
Anomalies of global symmetries probed by non-dynamical background fields are known as \emph{'t Hooft anomalies}.
Anomalies coupled to dynamical fields must lead to \emph{anomaly cancellations} to zero for consistency.
\end{itemize}
\label{footnote:w2w3anomaly}
}
The WZW term introduces nonperturbative interaction effects between different GUT-Higgs fields, which causes a substantial deformation of the field theory vacuum that cannot be smoothly connected to the conventional $so(10)$ GUT vacuum.

We propose a schematic quantum phase diagram, shown in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic},  
interpolating between different quantum vacua:
the upgraded $so(10)$ GUT + WZW term, the $su(5)$ GG GUT, 
the $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$ PS model, and 
the $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ SM. 
{In fact, 
this $w_2w_3$ global anomaly (hereafter $w_2w_3$ as a shorthand for the precise bundle constraint $w_2w_3(TM)=w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$) 
does  \emph{not} occur when the internal symmetry is within $su(5)$ (for the GG $su(5)$ GUT), 
\emph{nor} occur within $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$  (for the PS model),
\emph{nor} occur within $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ (for the SM).
This $w_2w_3$ global anomaly 
\emph{only} occurs when the internal symmetry is Spin(10) (for the upgraded $so(10)$ GUT + WZW term) in 
a quantum phase diagram (\Fig{fig:phase-schematic}).
}

\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=.mm, label=\textcolor{blue}{Case (\arabic*)}., ref={Case (\arabic*)}]
\item \label{Case1}
If the internal symmetries were pretended to be global symmetries (or weakly gauged by probe background fields), 
then we are dealing with the quantum criticality between Landau-Ginzburg global symmetry breaking phases in 4d.
Conventionally, the global symmetry breaking pattern can be triggered by the GUT-Higgs fields.
Surprisingly, we discover a 
 \emph{gapless quantum phase transition} 
 as an analogous 4d 
 \emph{deconfined quantum criticality}\footnote{The concept 
 of deconfined quantum criticality was first developed in the condensed matter community\cite{SenthildQCP0311326}, to describe a class of direct continuous transition between two distinct symmetry breaking phases with fractionalized excitations and gauge structures emerging in the low-energy spectrum at and only at the transition. It occurs when a quantum system with global symmetry $G$ has the tendency to spontaneously break the symmetry to its distinct subgroups $G_{\text{sub},1}$ and $G_{\text{sub},2}$, while the low-energy effective field theory has $G$-anomaly but not $G_{\text{sub},1}$- or $G_{\text{sub},2}$-anomalies, in terms of 't Hooft anomalies. 
Then the two symmetry breaking phases cannot share a trivial $G$-symmetric intermediate phase, paving ways for gapless phase transition and fractionalized excitations to emerge.
\\[2mm]
Several recent works explore the possible deconfined quantum criticality in 4d spacetime (see 
\cite{BiSenthil1808.07465, Wan2018djlW2.1812.11955,BiLakeSenthil1910.12856,WangYouZheng1910.14664} and References therein).
A hint toward our construction of 4d deconfined quantum criticality between symmetry breaking phase is the fact that the Spin(10) (treated as global symmetry) can have a 't Hooft anomaly of gauge-gravity anomaly type (due to the aforementioned $w_2w_3$ anomaly);
while the smaller subgroups with Lie algebras $su(5)$  of GG, $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$ of PS , or $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ of SM, 
have no such $w_2w_3$ anomaly. So the \emph{anomalous} spacetime-internal Spin(10) symmetry hints a possible \emph{gapless continuous phase transition} 
as a deconfined quantum criticality.\\[2mm]
A crucial idea of deconfined quantum criticality construction is that {``the 
$G_{\text{PS}}$-\emph{symmetry-breaking} topological defect of the GG GUT-Higgs model traps the fractionalized quantum number of 
\emph{unbroken} GG internal symmetry group;
while vice versa, the $G_{\text{GG}}$-\emph{symmetry-breaking} topological defect of the 
PS GUT-Higgs model traps the quantum number of \emph{unbroken} PS internal symmetry group.''
Here $G_{\text{PS}}$-symmetry-breaking and $G_{\text{GG}}$-symmetry-breaking respectively refer to the internal symmetry groups $G$ (i.e., gauge group) 
of PS and GG models are \emph{partly} broken.}
\\[2mm]
The terminology \emph{gauge enhanced quantum criticality} is introduced in \cite{WangYouZheng1910.14664}.
}
beyond the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson-Fisher critical phenomena. 
Specifically, we propose a 4d mother effective field theory,
where the GUT-Higgs \emph{bosonic} fields
can be fractionalized to new fragmentary \emph{fermionic} excitations, with extra \emph{gauge enhancement}. 
An example of such gauge enhancement introduces a new U(1) gauge sector called {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{emergent}}_{\text{gauge}}$}, 
different from the SM electrodynamics ${\rm U}(1)_{\mathrm{EM}}$.
We name such a new theory as
a {\bf fragmentary GUT-Higgs Liquid model} with emergent new fermions and new gauge fields, \emph{emergent only near the quantum criticality}. 

\item \label{Case2}
If the internal symmetries are dynamically gauged (as they are not global symmetries but indeed are gauged in our quantum vacuum), we show the gauge-enhanced 4d criticality
not merely has the emergent {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{emergent}}_{\text{gauge}}$}, but also has the enhanced Spin(10) gauge group. 
The Spin(10) gauge group and {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{emergent}}_{\text{gauge}}$} forms 
a gauge enhancement of the smaller gauge groups of the SM, GG or PS models, 
only near the quantum criticality, see \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}. 

Because the 5d invertible TQFT has the bundle constraint $w_2w_3(TM)=w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$,
once the internal symmetries (such as the Spin(10)) are dynamically gauged, 
the 5d bulk is \emph{no longer} an invertible TQFT. 
The Spin(10) gauge fields have also to be dynamically gauged in the 5d bulk. 
The Spin(10) gauge fields contribute \emph{deconfined gapless modes} in 5d (in contrast to the \emph{confined} non-abelian gauge fields being \emph{gapped} in 4d).
Remarkably, the Spin(10) gauge fields in 5d turns the previous TQFT $w_2w_3(TM)=w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$ 
into a 5d gapless bulk criticality!







In summary, when the internal symmetries are dynamically gauged (as in our gauged quantum vacuum),
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf  \emph{4d gauge fields}}:
The gauge fields of SM, GG, and PS GUT ($su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$, $su(5)$, and $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$)
are still restricted in 4d in their respective regions of quantum phase diagram (\Fig{fig:phase-schematic}).
There is still some emergent {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{emergent}}_{\text{gauge}}$} gauge field, also restricted in 4d, as 
a 4d boundary deconfined quantum criticality (the same as the previous \ref{Case1} when internal symmetry is not gauged).
\item {\bf  \emph{5d gauge fields}}:
However, when and only when the GUT gauge fields 
are appropriately gauge enhanced (to the Spin(10) gauge fields in our \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}), 
then they can propagate into the extra-dimensional 5d bulk, and they can induce a 5d bulk criticality. 
\end{itemize}

Indeed our proposal manifests additional Beyond-the-Standard-Model (BSM) excitations.
After all, what are these BSM excitations near the quantum criticality in our theory?
\begin{itemize}
\item 
{\bf \emph{Dark Gauge} force sector}: the emergent {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{emergent}}_{\text{gauge}}$} gauge fields correspond to analogous Dark Photon.
However, our {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{emergent}}_{\text{gauge}} 
\equiv [{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{dark}}_{\text{gauge}}$} does not directly interact with the SM gauge forces, nor interact with the SM quarks and leptons.
This Dark Photon sector can be a  {\bf \emph{light Dark Matter}} candidate.
The {$[{\rm U}(1)]^{\text{dark}}_{\text{gauge}}$} only interacts with the 
fractionalized new fragmentary \emph{fermionic} excitations that we name \emph{colorons} and \emph{flavorons}.
\item {\bf Fragmentary fermionic \emph{colorons} and \emph{flavorons}}:
These are  fractionalized excitations as the \emph{fermionic patrons}. We implement the parton construction, 
where two (or multiple) of {patrons} ($\xi_a, \xi_b, \dots$) can combine with emergent gauge fields to form the GUT-Higgs $\Phi$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{ab} \sim \xi_a^\dagger \xi_b.
\end{eqnarray}
The GUT-Higgs $\Phi$ is also the basic degrees of freedom for the 4d WZW term that saturates the $w_2w_3$ anomaly.

To rephrase what we had said, the GUT-Higgs $\Phi$ is split into the 
fractionalized fragmentary \emph{colorons} and \emph{flavorons}.
Just as the GUT-Higgs $\Phi$ can interact with the SM particles and SM gauge forces,
the fragmentary \emph{colorons} and \emph{flavorons} can also  interact with the SM particles and SM gauge forces.
The \emph{colorons} carries the SM's ${\rm SU}(3)_c$ strong gauge charge,
while the  \emph{flavorons} carries the SM's ${\rm SU}(2)_L$ weak gauge charge.
Just like the GUT-Higgs are made to be very heavy,
these \emph{colorons} and \emph{flavorons} are also heavy and
can also be the  {\bf   \emph{heavy Dark Matter}} candidates.
\end{itemize}




 
\end{enumerate}


\item \emph{The number of generations $N_{\text{generation}}$}:
{So far we have not yet specified the role of the number of generations $N_{\text{generation}}$ of quarks and leptons in our theory. It is inspiring to notice that this $\mathbb{Z}_2$ class (or mod 2 class) global anomaly $w_2 w_3$ can play the same nontrivial effect when
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Ngeneration}
N_{\text{generation}} = 1 \mod 2.
\end{eqnarray} 
For the simplicity of discussions, we mostly focus on 
$N_{\text{generation}} = 1$ in this article.
Nonetheless, this \eq{eq:Ngeneration} means that when $N_{\text{generation}} = 3$ as we indeed have three generations of quark and leptons
in our vacuum, our proposal still applies. So perhaps our proposal on the gauge enhanced quantum criticality really happens between our SM quantum vacuum 
and the neighbor GUT vacua.  
}


\end{itemize}



\begin{figure}[h!]
  \centering
  \hspace{-1.9cm}
  \;\includegraphics[width=5.6in]{GEQC-SM-fig.jpeg}
  \caption{{Standard Model (SM).}
  The 15n Weyl fermions of SM contain the representation
 $(\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1})_{\frac{1}{3},L} \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 2})_{-\frac{1}{2},L}  
\oplus
 ({\bf 3},{\bf 2})_{\frac{1}{6},L} \oplus (\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1})_{-\frac{2}{3},L} \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{1,L}$.
 The 16n Weyl fermions of SM add an extra ${({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{0,L}}$.
}
  \label{fig:SM-GUT-fig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
  \centering
  \hspace{-1.9cm}
  \;\includegraphics[width=5.6in]{GEQC-SU5-fig.jpeg}
  \caption{{Georgi-Glashow SU(5) model and the $su(5)$ GUT.
  The 15 Weyl fermions of SM are $ \overline{\bf 5} \oplus {\bf 10}$  of SU(5); namely,
$(\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1},1/3)_L \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 2},-1/2)_L \sim \overline{\bf 5}$
and $({\bf 3},{\bf 2}, 1/6)_L \oplus (\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1}, -2/3)_L \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 1},1)_L  \sim {\bf 10}$  of SU(5).
Also $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0)_L  \sim {\bf 1}$ of SU(5),
so the 16 Weyl fermions of SM are $ \overline{\bf 5} \oplus {\bf 10} \oplus {\bf 1}$  of SU(5).
}}
  \label{fig:SU5-GUT-fig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
  \centering
  \hspace{-1.9cm}
  \;\includegraphics[width=5.6in]{GEQC-Pati-Salam-fig.jpeg}
  \caption{{Pati-Salam (PS) model:
$G_{\text{PS}_{q'}}\equiv \frac{{\rm SU}(4)\times {\rm SU}(2)_L \times {\rm SU}(2)_R}{\mathbb{Z}_{q'}}
\equiv \frac{{\rm Spin}(6)\times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_{q'}}$ with $q'=1,2$.
The 16 Weyl fermions of SM are $ ({\bf 4}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 1}) \oplus (\overline{\bf 4}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2})$ of $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$,
and the ${\bf 16}$ of $so(10)$ (or Spin(10)).
These L and R are \emph{internal} symmetry group indices. They are different from (but correlated with) the \emph{spacetime} symmetry $L$ and $R$. 
So $({\bf 3},{\bf 2}, 1/6)_L \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 2},-1/2)_L\sim ({\bf 4}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 1})_L$, 
and
$(\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1},1/3)_L 
\oplus (\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1}, -2/3)_L \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 1},1)_L \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0)_L 
\sim (\overline{\bf 4}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2})_L$
of PS model.
}}
  \label{fig:PS-GUT-fig}
\end{figure}

\newpage

\begin{figure}[h!]
  \centering
  \hspace{-1.9cm}
  \;\includegraphics[width=5.5in]{GEQC-Spin10-fig.jpeg}
  \caption{{The $so(10)$ GUT model:
The 16 Weyl fermions of Spin(10),
form the ${\bf 16}$-dimensional representation of Spin(10).
}}
  \label{fig:so10-GUT-fig}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.86\textwidth]{GEQCP2d}
\caption{One of our research motif is proposing and investigating
this schematic quantum phase diagram. 
The phase diagram interpolates between different quantum EFT vacua:
the $so(10)$ GUT (Spin(10) group), the $su(5)$ GUT (SU(5) group), 
the $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$ Pati-Salam model (PS), and 
the $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ Standard Model (SM). 
{We will explore the nature of phase transitions later in \Sec{sec:EFTHiggs}.
We propose the whiten region as a possible quantum criticality region, which we explored in \Sec{sec:EFTHiggs} and \Sec{sec:EFTBSMGEQC}.}
Here $r_{\mathbf{R}}$ denotes the coefficient of the effective quadratic potential of $\Phi_{\mathbf{R}}$ field in the representation ${\mathbf{R}}$. 
The corresponding Higgs $\Phi_{\mathbf{R}}$ field will condense in the representation-${\mathbf{R}}$ if $r_{\mathbf{R}}<0$.
Relatively speaking, the infrared (IR) low energy is drawn with the \ccred{red} color (for SM), 
the intermediate neighbor phases are drawn with the \ccgreen{green} or \ccblue{blue} color (for PS or SU(5) models),
while the ultraviolet (UV) higher energy is drawn with the \ccpurple{violet purple} color (for Spin(10)).
These colors are also designed to match the colors of partitions of representations in \Fig{fig:SM-GUT-fig} to \Fig{fig:so10-GUT-fig}.
}
\label{fig:phase-schematic}
\end{figure}
In the remaining part of Section \ref{sec:IntroductionandSummary}, we start from an overview on the basic required ingredients of SM and GUT in \Sec{sec:SM-GUT}.
Then we summarize some additional key results in \Sec{sec:intro-summary}. 
The outline of this article is given in the table of Contents.




\newpage

\subsection{Various Standard Models and Grand Unifications as Effective Field Theories}
\label{sec:SM-GUT}
Unification, as a central theme in the modern fundamental physics, 
is a theoretical framework aiming to embody the ``elementary'' excitations and forces
into a common origin.
Assuming 
without any significant dynamical gravity effect at the subatomic scale
(i.e., we are only limited to probe the underlying quantum theory
by placing the quantum systems on any curved spacetime geometry, but without significant gravity back-reactions), 
the quantum field theory (QFT) provides a suitable framework for such a unification.
Furthermore, assuming that we look at the QFT description valid below a certain energy scale (thus we are ignorant above that energy scale),
we shall also implement the effective field theory (EFT) perspective.


In fact, from the EFT perspective, we should remind ourselves the ``elementary'' excitations are only 
``elementary'' respect to a given EFT quantum vacuum. Moving away from the EFT vacuum (by tuning appropriate physical parameters) to a new quantum vacuum,
we shall see that the ``elementary'' excitations of the new vacuum may be drastically different from the original ``elementary''  excitations of the previous EFT.
So the ``elementary'' excitations reveal the \emph{limitations} of our EFT descriptions of quantum vacua.\footnote{Prominent 
examples occur in various topics concerning the duality and the order/disorder operators. 
Such as in the Ising model and Majorana fermion system in 1+1d.}
Several examples of such 3+1d QFT and EFT paradigms for high energy physics (HEP)
include Standard Model ({SM}) and
Grand Unification (Grand Unified Theory or GUT)
 \cite{Glashow1961trPartialSymmetriesofWeakInteractions, Salam1964ryElectromagneticWeakInteractions, Salam1968, Weinberg1967tqSMAModelofLeptons,
 Georgi1974syUnityofAllElementaryParticleForces, Pati1974yyPatiSalamLeptonNumberastheFourthColor,
Fritzsch1974nnMinkowskiUnifiedInteractionsofLeptonsandHadrons}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \emph{Standard Model} ({SM}) :
Glashow-Salam-Weinberg (GSW) \cite{Glashow1961trPartialSymmetriesofWeakInteractions, Salam1964ryElectromagneticWeakInteractions, Salam1968, Weinberg1967tqSMAModelofLeptons} 
proposed the electroweak theory of the unified electromagnetic and weak forces 
between elementary particles.
The GSW theory together with the strong force \cite{Gross1973id, Politzer1973fx} becomes the Standard Model (SM), 
which is essential to describe the subatomic particle physics. 
The SM gauge group can be 
$$G_{\SM_q} \equiv \frac{{{\rm SU}(3)}_c \times {{\rm SU}(2)}_L \times {\rm U}(1)_{\tilde{Y}}}{\mathbb{Z}_q}$$
with the mod $q=1,2,3,6$ so far undetermined by the current experiments (see an overview \cite{Tong2017oea1705.01853, Wan2019sooWWZHAHSII1912.13504}
on this global structure of SM Lie group issue).
The subscript $c$ is for color, $L$ is for the left-handed Weyl fermion in the standard HEP convention, and ${\tilde{Y}}$ for electroweak hypercharge. 
The ``elementary'' particle excitations of this SM EFT, with 15n or 16n Weyl fermions, is constrained by the representation of $G_{\SM_q}$ as (see \Fig{fig:SM-GUT-fig}):
\begin{eqnarray}
(\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1})_{\frac{1}{3},L} \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 2})_{-\frac{1}{2},L}  
\oplus
 ({\bf 3},{\bf 2})_{\frac{1}{6},L} \oplus (\overline{\bf 3},{\bf 1})_{-\frac{2}{3},L} \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{1,L} \oplus {({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{0,L}}.
\end{eqnarray}
The 16th Weyl fermion ${({\bf 1},{\bf 1})_{0,L}}$ is an extra sterile neutrino, sterile to the SM gauge force, also called the 
right-handed neutrino.
We will focus on the 16n Weyl fermion model in this present work.\footnote{In our present work, we shall focus on the SM or GUT with 16n Weyl fermions.\\
In contrast, 
Ref.~\cite{JW2006.16996, JW2008.06499, JW2012.15860} considers the SM or GUT 
with 15n Weyl fermions and with a discrete variant of baryon minus lepton number ${\bf B}-{\bf L}$ symmetry preserved. 
Ref.~\cite{JW2006.16996, JW2008.06499, JW2012.15860} then suggests the consequences that the missing 16th Weyl fermions can be substituted 
by additional 4d or 5d gapped topological quantum field theories (TQFTs), or by 4d gapless interacting conformal field theories (CFTs) to saturate a certain $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ global anomaly.
On the other hand, our present work does \emph{not} introduce these $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$-class anomalous sectors, 
because we already have implemented 
the 16n Weyl fermion models that already make the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ global anomaly fully cancelled.
\label{footnote:Z16-anomaly}
} In our convention, we write Weyl fermions in the left-handed ($L$) basis which means that each is a 2-component ${\bf 2}_L$ spinor 
of the spacetime symmetry group Spin(1,3).




\item \emph{The $su(5)$ Grand Unification} ({$su(5)$ GUT}):
Georgi-Glashow (GG)
\cite{Georgi1974syUnityofAllElementaryParticleForces}
hypothesized that at a higher energy, 
the three SM gauge interactions 
merged into a single electronuclear force
under a simple Lie algebra $su(5)$, or precisely a Lie group 
$$
G_{\text{GG}}\equiv  {\rm SU}(5)
$$ 
gauge theory. 
The {su(5) GUT} works for 15n Weyl fermions, also for 16n Weyl fermions (i.e., 15 or 16 Weyl fermions per generation).
The ``elementary'' particle excitations of this SU(5) EFT, with 15n or 16n Weyl fermions, is constrained by the representation of SU(5) as (see \Fig{fig:SU5-GUT-fig}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{\bf 5} \oplus {\bf 10} \oplus {\bf 1},
\end{eqnarray}
again written all in the left-handed ($L$) Weyl basis.
The 16th Weyl fermion is an extra sterile neutrino, sterile to the SU(5) gauge force, also called the right-handed neutrino. 
\item \emph{The Pati-Salam model} ({PS model}):
Pati-Salam (PS) \cite{Pati1974yyPatiSalamLeptonNumberastheFourthColor}
hypothesized that the lepton forms the fourth color, extending SU(3) to SU(4). 
The PS also makes the left ${\rm SU}(2)_{\text{L}}$ and a hypothetical right ${\rm SU}(2)_{\text{R}}$ exchange symmetric.
The PS gauge Lie algebra is
$su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$, 
and the PS gauge Lie group is 
$$G_{\text{PS}_{q'}}\equiv\frac{{\rm SU}(4)_c\times({\rm SU}(2)_\text{L}\times {\rm SU}(2)_\text{R})}{\mathbb{Z}_{q'}}
= \frac{{\rm Spin}(6) \times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_{q'}}$$ with the mod $q'=1,2$ depending on the global structure of Lie group.
The ``elementary'' particle excitations of this PS EFT, with 16n Weyl fermions, is constrained by the representation of 
$G_{\text{PS}_{q'}}$as (see \Fig{fig:PS-GUT-fig}):
\begin{eqnarray}
({\bf 4}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 1}) \oplus (\overline{\bf 4}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2}),
\end{eqnarray}
written all in the left-handed ($L$) Weyl basis.\footnote{To be clear, 
we have the Weyl spacetime spinor ${\bf 2}_L$ of Spin(1,3) for $({\bf 4}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 1}) \oplus (\overline{\bf 4}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2})$ of $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$.
In contrast, we can also write the:
$$
\text{{${\bf 2}_L$ of Spin(1,3) for $({\bf 4}, {\bf 2}, {\bf 1})$ of $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$,}\quad\quad 
{${\bf 2}_R$ of Spin(1,3) for $({\bf 4}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 2})$ of $su(4) \times su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$,}}
$$
then the representations of spacetime spinor $L$ (or $R$) would lock exactly with the internal spinor L (or R).\\
Here we use the $L$ and $R$ to specify the left/right-handed spacetime spinor of Spin(1,3).
We use the L and R to specify the left or right internal spinor representation of $su(2)_{\text{L}} \times su(2)_{\text{R}}$.
\label{footnote:LR}
}

\item \emph{The $so(10)$ Grand Unification} ({$so(10)$ GUT}):
Georgi and Fritzsch-Minkowski
\cite{Fritzsch1974nnMinkowskiUnifiedInteractionsofLeptonsandHadrons}
hypothesized that quarks and leptons become the 16-dimensional spinor representation 
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{${\bf 16}^+$ of $G_{so(10)} \equiv {\rm Spin}(10)$ gauge group} 
\end{eqnarray} (with a local Lie algebra $so(10)$). 
Thus, the 16n Weyl fermions can interact via the Spin(10) gauge fields at a higher energy.
In this case, the 16th Weyl fermion, previously a sterile neutrino to the SU(5),
is \emph{no longer sterile} to the Spin(10) gauge fields; it also carries a charge 1, thus not sterile, under the gauged center subgroup $Z({\rm Spin}(10))=\mathbb{Z}_4$.
\end{enumerate}

We relegate several tables of data relevant for SMs and GUTs into Appendix \ref{sec:SM-GUT-table}, for readers' convenience to check 
the quantum numbers of various elementary particles or field quanta of SMs and GUTs.


\newpage
\subsection{Summary on Quantum Criticality 
as ``Morphogenesis'' Beyond the Standard Models}
\label{sec:intro-summary}

In this work,
we investigate the ``morphogenesis'' beyond the SM.
What we mean by morphogenesis is the following: 
\begin{itemize}
\item
Starting from the SM vacuum,
could we tune parameters to explore the neighbor quantum vacua around SM vacuum?
Possible parameters to tune (to explore quantum phases in a phase diagram or phase transitions) 
could be some energy potential term of matter fields (scalar bosons or spinor fermions).
Then, could we develop a mother EFT to explore a wider range of this quantum phase diagram and the phase transitions?

\item What are the nature of quantum phase transitions going away from SM vacuum to other neighbor quantum vacua?
Also quantum phase transitions between neighbor quantum vacua?
 Are the quantum phase transitions discontinuous (e.g., the first order) or continuous (e.g., the second or higher order) transitions?

 
\end{itemize}


Based on our work, the answers to the above questions are  summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item 
First, we can look at the limit when the internal symmetry groups (e.g., SU(5) for the {$su(5)$ GUT} and Spin(10) for the {$so(10)$ GUT})
are not dynamically gauged, but only treated as internal global symmetries (or weakly gauged),
then what we discover is an analog of deconfined quantum criticality \cite{SenthildQCP0311326} of some Ginzburg-Landau symmetry-breaking phases.
\begin{itemize}
\item We will tune microscopic parameters in a mother EFT with the QFT potential to explore different quantum vacuum: from
the SM to the $su(5)$ GUT, to the PS model, and to the $so(10)$ model.
\item We will show a single unified quantum phase diagram structure including subphases of:
$$
\text{the SM, the $su(5)$ GUT, the PS model, and the $so(10)$ model.}
$$
We will show the nature of their quantum phase transitions. In particular,
\begin{itemize}
\item
{The SM appears to be the intersection quantum vacuum phase between the two neighbor quantum vacuum phases of $su(5)$ GUT and the PS model.}
\item {There is a \emph{Gauge-Enhanced Quantum Criticality} (GEQC) 
as a quantum phase transition or an intermediate critical phase
between the $su(5)$ GUT and the PS model. Namely, we uncover a GEQC 
at the quantum critical region, by going to an extended Spin(10) internal symmetry group 
and also by \emph{necessarily} including both 
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\text{(1) the $so(10)$ GUT contents with Spin(10) internal \emph{global symmetry group}, and}\\
\text{(2) an additional discrete (torsion) class of a new type of Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) term,
}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
The WZW term is naturally a 4d term, but extendable to a 5d manifold with a 4d boundary.
In this scenario, the modified 4d GUT plus the 4d WZW theory 
describes the GEQC, and admits a parton construction (i.e. a dual gauge theory description), which includes:
$$
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\text{(1) the emergent gauge structure, and}\\
\text{(2) additional fractionalized excitations,}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
only near the quantum critical region.}
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
In summary, if the internal symmetries (i.e., $G_{\SM_{q}}, G_{\text{GG}}$, or $G_{\text{PS}_{q'}}$)
were treated as global symmetries (or weakly gauged by probe background fields),
we show an analog of deconfined gauge-enhanced quantum criticality in 4d.
\item Second, we can revisit the problem when the internal symmetry groups $G_{\rm{int}}$ are dynamically gauged (as they should be for the SM and GUTs), thus we deal with
the quantum phase transitions between 
dynamical gauge theories of the SM and GUTs.
In this scenario, the GEQC contains not only (1) the emergent gauge structure of the WZW,
(2) the additional fractionalized excitations of WZW, but also 
$$
\text{(3) the emergent gauge-enhanced Spin(10) \emph{gauge group},}
$$
merely near the quantum critical region.\footnote{This emergent gauge group of GEQC is similar to the story explored in the context of an enhanced SU(2) gauge theory emerged 
between the quantum criticality of U(1) gauge theories shown in \Refe{WangYouZheng1910.14664}.}

In summary, if the internal symmetries (i.e., $G_{\SM_{q}}, G_{\text{GG}}$, or $G_{\text{PS}_{q'}}$) 
are dynamically gauged (as they are in our quantum vacuum),
we show that the gauge-enhanced criticality in 4d evolves from a boundary criticality to the case that the GUT gauge fields (Spin(10) gauge fields)
propagating to the 5d bulk criticality.
\end{enumerate}

We will summarize more about various physical discoveries of our mother effective field theory 
for BSM Gauge Enhanced Quantum Criticality 
in the Conclusion, in \Sec{sec:EFTBSMGEQC}.



\newpage
\section{Standard Models from the competing phases of Grand Unifications}
\label{sec:SM-GUT-more}

In \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-more}, we start by enlisting and explaining some group embedding structures from some of relevant GUTs to SM in \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-group-branch}.

\subsection{Spacetime-Internal Symmetry Group embedding of SMs and GUTs, and the $w_2w_3$ anomaly}
\label{sec:SM-GUT-group-branch}

Here we use the \emph{inclusion} notation $G_{\text{large}} \hookleftarrow G_{\text{small}}$ to imply that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $G_{\text{large}} \supset G_{\text{small}}$, namely
the $G_{\text{large}}$ contains $G_{\text{small}}$ as a subgroup, or equivalently $G_{\text{small}}$ can be embedded in $G_{\text{large}}$.
\item $G_{\text{large}}$ can be broken $G_{\text{small}}$ via \emph{symmetry breaking} of Higgs condensation (which we will explore).
\end{itemize}
The \emph{internal symmetry} group embedding structure has been explored, for example summarized in \cite{BaezHuerta0904.1556}:
\begin{eqnarray} 
\xymatrix{
G_{\SM_6} \equiv \frac{{{\rm SU}(3)}_c \times {{\rm SU}(2)}_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y}{\mathbb{Z}_6} \ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] & 
{G}_{\text{GG}} \equiv  {\rm SU}(5) \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\displaystyle
G_{\text{PS}_2} \equiv\frac{{\rm Spin}(6) \times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}  \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & {\rm Spin}(10) \\
}
\end{eqnarray}
We further include both the complete \emph{spacetime-internal symmetry} group embedding structure as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{G} \equiv {{G_{\text{spacetime} }} \times_{{N_{\text{shared}}}}  {{G}_{\text{internal}} } }
\equiv  ({\frac{{G_{\text{spacetime} }} \times  {{G}_{\text{internal}} } }{{N_{\text{shared}}}}}).
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-1}
\xymatrix{
{\bar{G}_{\SM_6} \equiv {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X} \times \frac{{{\rm SU}(3)}_c \times {{\rm SU}(2)}_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y}{\mathbb{Z}_6} }\ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] &  
\bar{G}_{\text{GG}} \equiv {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X} \times{\rm SU}(5) \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\displaystyle
{ \bar{G}_{\text{PS}_2} \equiv{\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \frac{{\rm Spin}(6) \times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}}  \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & 
\bar{G}_{so(10)} \equiv  {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10) \\
}.
\end{eqnarray}
Some comments about \eq{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-1} follow:\\[-10mm]
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item
The ${\rm Spin}$ means the spacetime rotational symmetry group
${\rm Spin} \equiv {\rm Spin}(1,3)$ for 4d Lorentz signature (or ${\rm Spin} \equiv{\rm Spin}(4)$ for 4d Euclidean signature).
The ${\rm Spin}$  contains the fermionic parity $\mathbb{Z}_2^F$ at the center subgroup thus 
${{\rm Spin}}/{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}={\rm SO}$ where the ${\rm SO}$ is the bosonic spacetime (special orthogonal) rotational symmetry group
(similarly, ${\rm SO} \equiv {\rm SO}(1,3)$ for 4d Lorentz signature, or ${\rm SO} \equiv{\rm SO}(4)$ for 4d Euclidean signature).
The notation $G_1 \times_{N_{\text{shared}}} G_2 \equiv \frac{G_1 \times G_2}{{N_{\text{shared}}}}$ means modding out their common normal subgroup 
${N_{\text{shared}}}$. So $ {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} G \equiv \frac{{\rm Spin} \times G}{{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}}$ means modding out their common normal subgroup ${\mathbb{Z}_2^F}$.

\item The $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ has the $X$-symmetry generator such that its square $(X)^2=(-1)^F$ is the fermion parity operator, so 
$\mathbb{Z}_{4,X} \supset \mathbb{Z}_2^F$. 
Wilczek-Zee \cite{Wilczek1979hcZee} 
firstly noticed that the $X \equiv 5({ \mathbf{B}-  \mathbf{L}})-4Y$, with the baryon minus lepton number ${ \mathbf{B}-  \mathbf{L}}$ and the electroweak hypercharge $Y$,
is a good global symmetry respect by SM and the $su(5)$ GUT. 
All known quarks and leptons carry a charge 1 of $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$, in the left-handed Weyl spinor basis.
The center of Spin(10) can be chosen exactly as $Z({\rm Spin}(10))=\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$.
We summarize how $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ can be obtained in 
\Table{table:SMfermion} and \Table{table:PSfermionAll}. 
See more discussions on $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ in
\cite{GarciaEtxebarriaMontero2018ajm1808.00009, WW2019fxh1910.14668,JW2006.16996, JW2008.06499, JW2012.15860}.
\item  The $(X)^2=(-1)^F$ relation is obeyed in the non-supersymmetric SM and GUT models, so it is natural to introduce the ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ structure in \eq{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-1}. However, it is possible to have new fermions, such as in supersymmetric SMs or GUTs, 
which does not necessarily obey $(X)^2=(-1)^F$ relation.
In that case, we can introduce just ${\rm Spin} \times_{} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ structure.
See a footnote for the alternative symmetry embedding with the ${\rm Spin} \times_{} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ structure.\footnote{Another version of the \emph{spacetime-internal symmetry} group embedding (that is more suitable for supersymmetric SMs or GUTs) is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-2}
\xymatrix{
{\bar{G}_{\SM_6} \equiv {\rm Spin} \times_{} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X} \times \frac{{{\rm SU}(3)}_c \times {{\rm SU}(2)}_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y}{\mathbb{Z}_6} }\ar@{^{(}->}[r] \ar@{^{(}->}[d] &  
\bar{G}_{\text{GG}} \equiv {\rm Spin} \times_{} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X} \times{\rm SU}(5) \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\
\displaystyle
{ \bar{G}_{\text{PS}_2} \equiv{\rm Spin} \times_{} \frac{{\rm Spin}(6) \times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}}  \ar@{^{(}->}[r] & 
\bar{G}_{so(10)} \equiv  {\rm Spin} \times_{}{\rm Spin}(10) \\
}.
\end{eqnarray}
}
\item
In this \eq{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-1}, we keep a structure of ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ which is essential to produce a mixed gauge-gravity nonperturbative global anomaly constraint of a $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ class. 
As already mentioned in footnote \ref{footnote:Z16-anomaly}, in this article,
we keep the 16n Weyl fermions in all our SM and GUT models, thus the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ global anomaly is already cancelled by 16n chiral fermions.

\item In this \eq{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-1}, we also keep a structure of $ {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$
---
the cobordism group
$\Omega^{d}_{G} \equiv \mathrm{TP}_d(G)$  shows \cite{WangWen2018cai1809.11171, WanWang2018bns1812.11967}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Spin10-anomaly}
\text{$\mathrm{TP}_5({\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10))=\mathbb{Z}_2$, \quad
but $\mathrm{TP}_5({\rm Spin} \times_{}{\rm Spin}(10))=0$.}
\end{eqnarray}
This implies only the ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$ structure
offers a possible $\mathbb{Z}_2$ class global anomaly in 4d that is captured by a 5d invertible TQFT 
with a partition function on a 5d manifold $M^5$:\footnote{The invertible TQFT means that the TQFT path integral or partition function
${\bf Z}(M)$ on any closed manifold $M$ has its absolute value $|{\bf Z}(M)|=1$. Thus the dimension of its Hilbert space is always 1 also any closed spatial manifold, there is no topological ground state degeneracy. Here ${\bf Z}(M^5)=(-1)^{\int w_2w_3}=\pm 1$ on any closed $M^5$ thus it is an invertible TQFT, such that when $M^5$ is a Dold manifold $\mathbb{CP}^2 \rtimes S^1$ or
a Wu manifold ${\rm SU}(3)/{\rm SO}(3)$ generating a ${\bf Z}(M^5)=-1$ \cite{WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844, WanWang2018bns1812.11967}.\\
Here the
${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$ structure imposes the spacetime and gauge bundle constraint
\begin{eqnarray}
w_2(TM)=w_2(V_G)
\end{eqnarray} 
with $G={\rm Spin}(10)/{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}={\rm SO}(10)$. Moreover,
the Steenrod square $\mathrm{Sq}^1$ is an operation sending the second cohomology to the third cohomology class: $\operatorname{H}^2$ to $\operatorname{H}^3$,
which we can regard $\mathrm{Sq}^1 = \frac{1}{2} \delta$ with $\delta$ as a coboundary operator (see for example \cite{WanWang2018bns1812.11967}). 
Then, in the case $G={\rm SO}(10)$, we can deduce another bundle constraint:
\begin{eqnarray}
w_3(TM)+w_1(TM) w_2(TM)= \mathrm{Sq}^1 w_2(TM)= \mathrm{Sq}^1 w_2(V_G)= w_3(V_G). 
\end{eqnarray} 
On the orientable spacetime, the first Stiefel-Whitney class $w_1(TM)=0$, so
$$
w_3(TM)=w_3(V_G).
$$
Thus combining the above formulas, on the orientable ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$ structure, 
we derive that $w_2(TM)w_3(TM)=w_2(V_G)w_3(V_G)$ in \eq{eq:w2w3}, shorthand as $w_2w_3=w_2w_3(TM)=w_2w_3(V_G)$.
This derivation also works for other $G={\rm Spin}(n)/{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}={\rm SO}(n)$ for $n \geq 3$.
} 
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:w2w3}
{\bf Z}(M^5)=(-1)^{\int_{M^5} w_2(TM) w_3(TM)}=(-1)^{\int_{M^5}  w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(10)}) w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})}.
\end{eqnarray}
But this mod 2 anomaly is \emph{absent} and \emph{not} allowed on the ${\rm Spin} \times_{}{\rm Spin}(10)$ structure.
The difference between ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$ and ${\rm Spin} \times_{}{\rm Spin}(10)$
is the following: the fermion charge under $(-1)^F$ thus odd under ${\mathbb{Z}_2^F}$
must be in the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ normal subgroup of the center subgroup $Z({\rm Spin}(10))=\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ so $(X)^2=(-1)^F$ in order to 
impose the spacetime-internal ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$ structure.
However, in contrast, the ${\rm Spin} \times_{}{\rm Spin}(10)$ allows other fermions to not obey the $(X)^2=(-1)^F$ relation.

As mentioned in \Refe{WangWen2018cai1809.11171, WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844} and footnote \ref{footnote:w2w3anomaly}, as ${\rm Spin}(10)  \supset {\rm Spin}(3) = {\rm SU}(2)$, so
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10) \supset {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(3) = {\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm SU}(2).
\end{eqnarray}
The ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$-structure is tightly related to the ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm SU}(2)$ also known as the ${\rm Spin}^h$-structure.
We can project the ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$-structure to the ${\rm Spin}^h$-structure. 
Then, in the ${\rm Spin}^h$-structure, 
because the fermionic wavefunction gains a $(-1)$ statistical sign under a $2\pi$ self rotation on a Spin manifold 
is identified with the $(-1)^F$ as the center $Z({\rm SU}(2))=\mathbb{Z}_2^F$,
we can read that imposing the ${\rm Spin}^h$-structure \cite{WangWen2018cai1809.11171, WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844}:\\ 
$\bullet$ the fermions must be in the half-integer isospin representation 1/2, 3/2, $\dots$, etc. of SU(2) 
(namely, the even-dimensional representations ${\bf 2}, {\bf 4}, \dots,$ etc. of SU(2)).\\
$\bullet$  the bosons must be in the integer isospin representation 0, 1, 2, $\dots$, etc. of SU(2) 
(namely, the odd-dimensional representations ${\bf 0}, {\bf 1}, {\bf 3}, \dots,$ etc. of SU(2)).
\item The last but the most important comment above all,
is that in order to realize a possible continuous deconfined quantum phase transition,
we do require to use the $w_2w_3$ anomaly in \eq{eq:w2w3}, such that this anomaly occurs in
the phase transition between the GG and PS models in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}.
So we do aim to impose the ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$-structure 
as in \eq{eq:spacetime-internal-embedding-1} in order to implement the $w_2w_3$ anomaly.  
In short, the readers can ask:%
\begin{multline}
\text{\emph{Why do we need the $w_2w_3$ anomaly near the criticality for establishing}}\cr
\text{\emph{a possible continuous quantum phase transition between the GG and PS models?}}\nonumber
\end{multline}
The answer is that:\\
$\bullet$ The GG and PS models are Landau-Ginzburg symmetry breaking type of phases (when we treat the internal symmetry as global symmetry) or the
gauge-symmetry breaking type of phases (when we treat the internal symmetry group as gauge group). The $w_2w_3$ anomaly is saturated on two sides of
phases by GG and PS models via symmetry breaking. (In fact, no $w_2 w_3$ anomaly is allowed in GG and PS models.)\\
$\bullet$ But the $w_2 w_3$ anomaly can protect a \emph{gapless} quantum phase transition between the GG and PS models 
when we go through the Spin(10) symmetry for their phase transition.
Their phase transition can be protected to be 
Spin(10)-symmetry-preserving gapless due to the $w_2 w_3$ anomaly exists only in the enlarged Spin(10) internal symmetry group.

Because the conventional $so(10)$ GUT is free from the $w_2 w_3$ anomaly \cite{WangWen2018cai1809.11171, WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844},
we will need to derive a new explicit mother EFT including the $so(10)$ GUT but with some new BSM sectors to saturate the $w_2 w_3$ anomaly.

What is the new mother EFT partition function (i.e., QFT path integral)? What are the new BSM sectors within this mother EFT?
To this end, we will start from writing down a GUT-Higgs model, adding this to the $so(10)$ GUT, and then trying to modifying the GUT-Higgs model to
saturate the $w_2 w_3$ anomaly. (That mother EFT will be the main achievement later in \Sec{sec:EFTHiggs}.)

\end{enumerate}


\subsection{Branching Rule of SMs and GUTs, and a GUT-Higgs model}
\label{sec:SM-GUT-branch}

In the following, we motivate the GUT model with GUT-Higgs as the gauge symmetry breaking pattern to go to the lower energy EFT (such as SM).
Most of these  breaking patterns are well-established and overviewed in \cite{georgi2018liebook}. 
The additional new input is that we try to unify several models into a GUT-Higgs model with as minimum amount of GUT-Higgs as possible.
In Appendix \ref{sec:app-Branching-GUT-Higgs}, we try to go through the logic again, 
and carefully examine the consequences and possibilities of the types of required GUT-Higgs. 
Later we will motivate the possible Lagrangian of the GUT-Higgs potential.


Here we summarize what we need from the analysis done in Appendix \ref{sec:app-Branching-GUT-Higgs}:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item 
We can use
a Lorentz scalar boson with a 45-dimensional real representation of $so(10)$ or Spin(10):
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:phi45}
\Phi_{so(10), \bf 45} \equiv
\Phi_{\bf 45}  \in {\mathbb{R}}.
\end{eqnarray}
to break the ${\rm Spin}(10)$ of $so(10)$ GUT to the ${\rm SU}(5)$ of GG model, 
also we can use this same $\Phi_{\bf 45}$ to break 
$G_{\text{PS}_2}\equiv\frac{{\rm Spin}(6) \times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ of PS model to the 
$G_{\SM_6}\equiv \frac{{{\rm SU}(3)}_c \times {{\rm SU}(2)}_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y}{\mathbb{Z}_6}$ of the SM.
\item
We can use
a Lorentz scalar boson with a 54-dimensional real representation of $so(10)$ or Spin(10):
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:phi54}
\Phi_{so(10), \bf 54}\equiv
\Phi_{\bf 54}  \in {\mathbb{R}},
\end{eqnarray}
to break the ${\rm Spin}(10)$ of $so(10)$ GUT to the 
$G_{\text{PS}_2}\equiv\frac{{\rm Spin}(6) \times {\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ of PS model, 
also we can use this same $\Phi_{\bf 54}$ to break 
${\rm SU}(5)$ of GG model to the $G_{\SM_6}\equiv \frac{{{\rm SU}(3)}_c \times {{\rm SU}(2)}_L \times {\rm U}(1)_Y}{\mathbb{Z}_6}$ of the SM.
\item The combinations of the two facts above is summarized in \Fig{fig:GEQCembedGUTHiggs1},
where we can use the $\Phi_{\bf 45}$ and $\Phi_{\bf 54}$ to write the GUT-Higgs model,
that can induce the qualitative phase diagram similar to \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\hspace{-1.24cm}
\includegraphics[width=1.07\textwidth]{GEQC-embed-GUT-Higgs-1.pdf}
\caption{Beware that the direction of the group symmetry breaking ``$\rightarrow$'' is the opposite direction to the group inclusion ``$\hookleftarrow$.''
(These colors are also designed to match the colors in \Fig{fig:SM-GUT-fig} to \Fig{fig:so10-GUT-fig}, and \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}).
}
\label{fig:GEQCembedGUTHiggs1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.72\textwidth]{GEQCP-so10-phase-diagram}
\caption{Schematic quantum phase diagram interpolating between the $so(10)$ GUT (Spin(10) group), the $su(5)$ GUT (SU(5) group), 
the $su(4) \times su(2)_{\mathrm{L}} \times su(2)_{\mathrm{R}}$ Pati-Salam model (PS), and 
the $su(3)\times su(2)\times u(1)$ Standard Model (SM), and the symmetric mass generation (SMG). 
Here the real parameter $r_{\mathbf{R}} \in {\mathbb{R}}$ denotes the coefficient of the effective quadratic potential of $\Phi$ field in the representation ${\mathbf{R}}$. 
The corresponding Higgs $\Phi$ field will condense in the representation-${\mathbf{R}}$ if $r_{\mathbf{R}}<0$.
Relatively speaking, the infrared (IR) low energy is drawn with the \ccred{red} color (for SM), 
the intermediate neighbor phases are drawn with the \ccgreen{green} or \ccblue{blue} color (for PS or SU(5) models),
while the ultraviolet (UV) higher energy is drawn with the \ccpurple{violet purple} color (for Spin(10)).
These colors are also designed to match the colors of partitions of representations in \Fig{fig:SM-GUT-fig} to \Fig{fig:so10-GUT-fig}.
}
\label{fig:phase}
\end{figure}
Given the $so(10)$ GUT, to induce the three other models in \Fig{fig:GEQCembedGUTHiggs1},
we can add the GUT-Higgs potential ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ with $\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}$ of some representation ${\mathbf{R}}$.
The ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ is chosen to have positive $\Phi^4$ coefficients (thus $\lambda_{{\mathbf{45}}}, \lambda_{{\mathbf{54}}} >0$), 
while the $r_{{\mathbf{45}}}$ and $r_{{\mathbf{54}}}$
are real-number tunable parameters shown in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic} and \Fig{fig:phase}:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:UPhiR}
{\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}) =\Big(r_{{\mathbf{45}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{45}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^4\Big)+ 
\Big(r_{{\mathbf{54}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{54}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^4\Big).
\end{eqnarray}
A slice of \Fig{fig:phase} becomes the \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}. (Temporarily now we get rid of the Higgs $\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}$ thus get rid of $r_{{\mathbf{1}}}$ axis in  \Fig{fig:phase}. 
More on this $\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}$ later.)
We can use this ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ potential in \eq{eq:UPhiR}
to induce these interior parts of four phases (the $so(10)$ GUT, the $su(5)$ GUT, the PS model, and the SM).
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{45}}\rangle$ condenses, namely if $r_{{\mathbf{45}}}<0$ so $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{45}}\rangle\neq 0$, 
then the $so(10)$ GUT becomes Higgs down to the $su(5)$ GUT.
\item
If $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{54}}\rangle$ condenses, namely if $r_{{\mathbf{54}}}<0$ so $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{54}}\rangle\neq 0$, 
then the $so(10)$ GUT becomes Higgs down to the PS model.
\item
If $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{45}}\rangle$ and $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{54}}\rangle$ both condense, 
namely if $r_{{\mathbf{54}}}<0$ and $r_{{\mathbf{54}}}<0$ so that 
$\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{45}}\rangle\neq 0$ and $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{54}}\rangle\neq 0$. 
The theory becomes Higgs down to the SM.
\end{itemize}
However, we may be able to add deformations or extra terms to the potential ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$. Then
it is not entirely clear what are the possible types of phase transitions that
can happen between these interior parts of four phases (shown in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic} and \Fig{fig:phase}).

The purpose of the next Section \ref{sec:EFTHiggs} is to design various EFT and to
explore the possible phase structures and phase transitions (of \Fig{fig:phase-schematic} and \Fig{fig:phase}).
In particular, we will write down a mother EFT such that it saturates the $w_2 w_3$ global anomaly
and it realizes an excotic quantum phase transition between the GG $su(5)$ GUT and the PS model. 

\newpage
\section{Mother Effective Field Theory with Competing Higgs fields}
\label{sec:EFTHiggs}


\subsection{Elementary GUT-Higgs model induces SM}
\label{sec:ElementaryHiggs}

In Section \ref{sec:SM-GUT-more} (especially \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-branch}), we write down a GUT-Higgs potential ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ in \eq{eq:UPhiR} appending to the $so(10)$ GUT. Let us write down the full path integral ${\mathbf{Z}}_{\GUT}$ of such $so(10)$ GUT plus ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, in a
Lorentzian signature, evaluated on a 4-manifold $M^4$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Zso10}
{\mathbf{Z}}_{\GUT}\equiv
\int [{\cal D} {\psi_L}] [{\cal D}{\psi_L^\dagger}] [{\cal D} A][{\cal D} \Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} ] \dots
\exp( \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \left. S_{\text{GUT}}[\psi_L, {\psi_L^\dagger}, A, \Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}, \dots ] \right  \rvert_{M^4}).
\end{eqnarray}
The action $S_{\text{GUT}}$ is:
\begin{multline} \label{eq:Sso10}
S_{\text{GUT}}= \int_{M^4} \Big({\mathrm{Tr}}(F_{} \wedge \star F_{})
-\frac{\theta}{8 \pi^2} g^2
 {\mathrm{Tr}}( F_{} \wedge F_{}) \Big) 
+ \int_{M^4} \Big( {\psi}^\dagger_L  (\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} {\bar  \sigma}^\mu {D}_{\mu, A} ) \psi_L
 \\
+ | {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} |^2 -{\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})
 -(  (\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}) ({\psi}^\dagger_L\cdots)({\psi}_L\cdots) +{\rm h.c.} )
 +  \dots
  \Big)\,\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}^4 x.
\end{multline}
The $S_{\text{YM}}=\int {\mathrm{Tr}}(F_{} \wedge \star F_{})$ part is the Yang-Mills gauge theory,
with Lie algebra valued field strength curvature 2-form $F = \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} A - \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} { g} A \wedge A$.
Here $({\psi}^\dagger_L\cdots)$ and $({\psi}_L\cdots)$ imply
indefinite multiple numbers of Weyl fermion fields.
For the $so(10)$ GUT, we have to sum over the Spin(10) gauge bundle,  whose 1-form connection is the spin-1 Lorentz vector and Spin(10) gauge field, 
written as 
\begin{eqnarray}
 A = 
 ( \sum_{\mathrm{a}=1}^{45} {{\rm T}^\mathrm{a}}   A_{{{\rm Spin}(10)},\mu}^\mathrm{a}
)\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} x^\mu.
\end{eqnarray}
There are 45 of such Lie algebra generators, ${{\rm T}^\mathrm{a}}$, with:\\ 
$\bullet$ rank-16 matrix representations that act on the quark-and-lepton matter representation ${\bf 16}^+$ of Spin(10).\\
$\bullet$ rank-45 matrix representations that  act on the $\Phi_{\mathbf{45}}$ as the ${\bf 45}$ of Spin(10).\\
$\bullet$ rank-54 matrix representations that act on the $\Phi_{\mathbf{54}}$ as the ${\bf 54}$ of Spin(10).

Locally the Spin(10) Lie algebra is the same as the $so(10)$ Lie algebra,
but globally we really need to define the principal Spin(10) gauge bundle $P_A$ to sum over.
So more precisely the path integral over the gauge field measure really means 
$\int [{\cal D} A] \dots \equiv \sum_{\text{gauge bundle $P_A$}} \int [{\cal D} \tilde A] \dots$,
where $\tilde A$ are  gauge connections over each specific gauge bundle choice $P_A$.
The $\theta$ term, $\theta {\mathrm{Tr}}( F_{} \wedge F_{})$, can be added or removed depending on the model.
In this work, we shall set $\theta=0$ or close to zero.

The $\psi_L$ is a 2-component spin-1/2 Weyl fermion ${\bf 2}_L$ of Spin(1,3).
The $\dagger$ is the standard complex conjugate transpose.
The $\bar{\sigma}^\mu$ and ${\sigma}^\mu$ are the standard spacetime spinor rotational $su(2)$ Lie algebra generators for $L$ and $R$ Weyl spinors.
The action $S_{\text{GUT}}$ also includes the Weyl spinor kinetic term and GUT-Higgs kinetic term, coupling to gauge fields
via the covariant derivative operator 
${D}_{\mu, A } \equiv \nabla_{\mu} - \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} g  \,  A_\mu $.
The $\nabla_{\mu}$ can contain the curve-spacetime covariant derivative data such as Christoffel symbols or the spinor's spin-connection if needed.
The $\dots$ are possible extra deformation terms to be added later.


This subsection \Sec{sec:ElementaryHiggs} mostly treats the spin-0 Lorentz scalar Higgs field $\Phi_{\bf R}$ with some representation 
${\bf R}$ as the elementary Higgs field.
We will however \emph{fractionalize} this elementary Higgs field $\Phi_{\bf R}$ to other further elementary fermionic fields in the 
later \Sec{sec:CompositeHiggs} and \Sec{sec:FragmentaryHiggs}.


\subsubsection{Without Wess-Zumino-Witten term, and Symmetric Mass Generation}
\label{sec:ElementaryHiggs-noWZW}


Follow the choice in \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-branch} and in \eq{eq:UPhiR}, we can further adjust it to
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:GUTHiggsU}
{\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}) =\Big(r_{{\mathbf{45}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{45}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^4\Big)+ 
\Big(r_{{\mathbf{54}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{54}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^4\Big)+
\Big(r_{{\mathbf{1}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{1}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}})^4\Big).
\end{eqnarray}
The property (whether
 $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{45}}\rangle \neq 0$ or $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{54}}\rangle \neq 0$ condenses, or both condense, 
namely whether $r_{{\mathbf{54}}}<0$ or $r_{{\mathbf{54}}}<0$) still follows \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-branch}.
The theory becomes Higgs down to the $su(5)$ GUT, or the PS model, or the SM, see \Fig{fig:GEQCembedGUTHiggs1}.
Here are some extra comments for adding $\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}$ or other $\Phi_{\mathbf{R}}$ terms to \Fig{fig:phase}:
\begin{itemize}
\item We can introduce
a Lorentz scalar boson with a 1-dimensional trivial but real representation of $so(10)$ or Spin(10):
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:phi1}
\Phi_{so(10), \bf 1} \equiv
\Phi_{\bf 1}  \in {\mathbb{R}}.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}\rangle =0$ does not condense, namely if $r_{{\mathbf{1}}}>0$, the theory remains in the $so(10)$ GUT. 
\item
If $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}\rangle \neq 0$ condenses, namely if $r_{{\mathbf{1}}}<0$, 
for a small $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}\rangle<\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}},c}$, the theory still remains in the $so(10)$ GUT (as $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}\rangle$ is an irrelevant perturbation). 
\item
However, not only $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}\rangle \neq 0$ condenses,
but when $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}\rangle > \Phi_{{\mathbf{1}},c}$ exceeds a critical value, it can drive to the Symmetric Mass Generation (SMG) phase 
and {gap out all fermions} while preserving the $G$-symmetry (if the theory is free from all 't Hooft anomalies in $G$).\footnote{The Symmetric Mass Generation (SMG) mechanism 
is explored in various references, for some selective examples,
by Fidkowski-Kitaev \cite{FidkowskifSPT2} in 0+1d, 
by Wang-Wen \cite{Wang2013ytaJW1307.7480,Wang2018ugfJW1807.05998} for gapping chiral fermions in 1+1d,
You-He-Xu-Vishwanath \cite{YouHeXuVishwanath1705.09313, YouHeVishwanathXu1711.00863} in 2+1d,
and notable examples in 3+1d by Eichten-Preskill \cite{Eichten1985ftPreskill1986},
Wen \cite{Wen2013ppa1305.1045}, 
You-BenTov-Xu \cite{You2014oaaYouBenTovXu1402.4151, YX14124784}, 
BenTov-Zee \cite{BenTov2015graZee1505.04312},
Kikukawa \cite{Kikukawa2017ngf1710.11618}, 
Catterall et al \cite{Catterall2020fep, CatterallTogaButt2101.01026},
Razamat-Tong \cite{RazamatTong2009.05037, Tong2104.03997}, etc.}
 \end{itemize}
 
How do we associate $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}} \rangle > \Phi_{{\mathbf{1}},c}$ with the SMG effect?
First notice that the four of the spinor representation ${\bf 16}^+$ of Spin(10) can produce the tensor product decomposition 
\cite{1912.10969LieART}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:16161616branch}
&&{\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16}
=
({\bf 10}_{} \oplus {\bf 120}_{}  \oplus \overline{\bf 126}_{} ) \otimes ({\bf 10}_{} \oplus {\bf 120}_{}  \oplus \overline{\bf 126}_{} )\cr
&&=({\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 10}) \oplus ({\bf 120} \otimes {\bf 120})  \oplus (\overline{\bf 126} \otimes \overline{\bf 126})
\oplus 2 ({\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 120})  \oplus 2 ({\bf 10} \otimes \overline{\bf 126}) \oplus 2 (  {\bf 120} \otimes \overline{\bf 126})   \cr
&&=({\bf 1}  \oplus {\bf 45} \oplus {\bf 54}) \oplus ({\bf 1}  \oplus {\bf 45} \oplus {\bf 54} \oplus 2 ({\bf 210}) \oplus {\bf 770}  \oplus {\bf 945}
\oplus {\bf 1050} \oplus \overline{\bf 1050} \oplus {\bf 4125} \oplus {\bf 5940}  )\cr
&& \;\quad \oplus ({\bf 54 \oplus 945 \oplus \overline{1050} \oplus \overline{2772} \oplus 4125 \oplus \overline{6930}})
\oplus 2 (   {\bf 45} \oplus {\bf 210} \oplus {\bf 945})
\oplus 2( {\bf 210} \oplus \overline{\bf 1050})\cr
&& \;\quad\oplus 2( {\bf 45} \oplus {\bf 210} \oplus {\bf 945} \oplus \overline{\bf 1050} \oplus {\bf 5940} \oplus \overline{\bf 6930})
\end{eqnarray}
More systematically, with the symmetric (S) or anti-symmetric (A) matrix representation subscript indicated on the right hand side:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} &=& {\bf 10}_{\rm S} \oplus {\bf 120}_{\rm A}  \oplus \overline{\bf 126}_{\rm S}.\cr 
{\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 10} &=& {\bf 1}_{\rm S}  \oplus {\bf 45}_{\rm A} \oplus {\bf 54}_{\rm S}.\cr
{\bf 120} \otimes {\bf 120} &=& {\bf 1}_{\rm S}  \oplus {\bf 45}_{\rm A} \oplus {\bf 54}_{\rm S} 
\oplus  {\bf 210}_{\rm S} \oplus  {\bf 210}_{\rm A} \oplus {\bf 770}_{\rm S}  \oplus {\bf 945}_{\rm A}
\oplus {\bf 1050}_{\rm S} \oplus \overline{\bf 1050}_{\rm S} \oplus {\bf 4125}_{\rm S} \oplus {\bf 5940}_{\rm A}.  \cr
{\bf 126} \otimes {\bf 126} &=& {\bf 54_{\rm S} \oplus 945_{\rm A} \oplus 1050_{\rm S} \oplus 2772_{\rm S} \oplus 4125_{\rm S} \oplus 6930_{\rm A}}. \cr
{\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 120} &=&   {\bf 45} \oplus {\bf 210} \oplus {\bf 945}. \cr
{\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 126} &=&   {\bf 210} \oplus {\bf 1050}. \cr
{\bf 120} \otimes {\bf 126} &=&   {\bf 45} \oplus {\bf 210} \oplus {\bf 945} \oplus {\bf 1050} \oplus {\bf 5940} \oplus {\bf 6930}.
\end{eqnarray}
From \eq{eq:16161616branch}, we learn that four of ${\bf 16}$ can produce a trivial representation ${\bf 1}$ of $so(10)$ or Spin(10).
Therefore, in the mean field level, we can deduce the expectation of the GUT-Higgs $\Phi_{\mathbf{1}}$ from 
some schematic effective four-fermion interactions of $\psi$ in ${\bf 16}$ of Spin(10):\footnote{Here 
fermions are anti-commuting Grassman variables, so this expression $\langle \psi \psi \psi \psi\rangle$ is only schematic.
The precise expression of $\langle \psi \psi \psi \psi\rangle$ includes 
additional spacetime-internal representation 
indices and also includes possible additional spacetime derivatives (for point-splitting the fermions to neighbor sites if writing them on a regularized lattice).}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}} \rangle \simeq \langle \psi \psi \psi \psi\rangle \neq 0.
\end{eqnarray}
But we do not wish to impose the ordinary Anderson-Higgs quadratic mass term induced by $\langle \psi \psi\rangle \neq 0$,
otherwise this $\langle \psi \psi\rangle \neq 0$ will lead to Spin(10) symmetry breaking, instead of the Spin(10) symmetry preserving SMG.
This means that we have to impose $\langle \psi \psi\rangle = 0$, so
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \psi \psi\rangle  \psi \psi =0, \quad \quad \text{no conventional mass due to $\langle \psi \psi\rangle =0$.} 
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the above argument implies that above a critical condensation value
$\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}} \rangle > \Phi_{{\mathbf{1}},c}$ as the interaction strength goes above a critical value, 
we do obtain the SMG effect in \Fig{fig:phase}!

To implement the SMG to gap out the {\bf \emph{16 Weyl fermions}} in ${\bf 16}$, a necessary check is that the fermions are 
{\bf \emph{free from all 't Hooft anomalies}} in the Spin(10),
or more precisely free from  all 't Hooft anomalies in the spacetime-internal
${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$ structure.
This is true based on \eq{eq:Spin10-anomaly}, because there is only a mod 2 class $w_2w_3$ global anomaly,
which the 16 Weyl fermions in ${\bf 16}$ do not carry any $w_2w_3$ global anomaly. So we are able to gap out the 
16 Weyl fermions  while preserving ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$-symmetry.


To strengthen and improve \Refe{Wen2013ppa1305.1045}'s argument, we may regard our 
$\Phi$ as a bivector of two 10-dimensional vector $\phi_{so(10),{\bf 10}}\equiv  \phi_{{\bf 10}} $ in ${\bf 10}$
(or regard $\Phi$ as a bivector of two 120-dimensional vector $\phi_{so(10),{\bf 120}} \equiv \phi_{{\bf 120}} $ in ${\bf 120}$).
Thus, schematically
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}} \rangle \simeq 
\langle \phi_{{\bf 10}} \phi_{{\bf 10}} \rangle
+ \langle \phi_{{\bf 120}} \phi_{{\bf 120}} \rangle
+ \dots \simeq \langle \psi \psi \psi \psi\rangle + \dots \neq 0.
\end{eqnarray}
This $\langle\Phi_{\mathbf{1}} \rangle > \Phi_{{\mathbf{1}},c} \neq 0$ implies that
the bi-linear of vectors (bivector) condese: 
$\langle \phi_{{\bf 10}} \phi_{{\bf 10}} \rangle \neq 0$ and/or $\langle \phi_{{\bf 120}} \phi_{{\bf 120}} \rangle \neq 0$,
but the $\langle \phi_{{\bf 10}} \rangle = \langle \phi_{{\bf 120}} \rangle =0$. So \emph{no} ordinary quadratic fermion mass term is induced, but only the SMG  is induced.
The SMG causes the \emph{symmetry-preserving disordered mass}.

But one of the mother EFTs that we will propose later in \Sec{sec:ElementaryHiggs-WZW}, indeed have {\bf \emph{extra bosonic sectors}}
{\bf \emph{carry the mod 2 class $w_2w_3$ global anomaly}}. The bosonic sectors include the WZW term.
To reiterate, there is no conflict about gapping the 16 Weyl fermions, but having the extra bosonic sectors carry another anomaly.
This simply implies that {\bf \emph{if we demand to preserve ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10)$-symmetry,
although we can gap out the Weyl fermions in ${\bf 16}$,
the extra bosonic sectors will still induce 
additional symmetry-preserving gapless modes.}}

\item In the standard Anderson-Higgs  \emph{electroweak} symmetry breaking mechanism, Higgs coupling $( {\psi}^\dagger_L \Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} ({\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}} \sigma^2 {\psi_L'}^*) +{\rm h.c.} )$ is introduced 
in order to give quadratic masses to Weyl fermions. In this work,we may need to introduce more general Higgs fields $\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}$ with various representations ${\mathbf{R}}$. For a generic representation ${\mathbf{R}}$, the Higgs field may couple to a product of even number (not limited to two) of fermion operators (e.g. $\psi^\dagger\psi^\dagger\psi\psi$ or $\psi\psi\psi\psi$), such that the fermion representation can combine to match the corresponding Higgs field representation. 
(We shall not get distracted to handle the Anderson-Higgs \emph{electroweak} symmetry breaking masses of Weyl fermions in this article, as this effect is well-studied.
But we make some comments in Appendix \ref{sec:app-Branching-GUT-Higgs}.)
\end{itemize}
So taking into account the GUT-Higgs condensation or non-condensation,
we obtain a qualitative phase diagram in \Fig{fig:phase}.


\subsubsection{With Wess-Zumino-Witten term, and Deconfined Quantum Criticality}
\label{sec:ElementaryHiggs-WZW}


Now we propose a new mother EFT path integral by modifying the action $S_{\text{GUT}}$ to $S_{\text{GUT}}^{\text{WZW}}$ via adding the WZW term and other terms,
in a Lorentzian signature path integral:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:Zso10-WZW}
{\mathbf{Z}}_{\GUT}^{\text{WZW}}\equiv
\int [{\cal D} {\psi_L}] [{\cal D}{\psi_L^\dagger}] [{\cal D} A][{\cal D} \Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} ][{\cal D} \Phi^{\rm{bi}} ][{\cal D} \phi ] \dots
\exp( \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \left. S_{\text{GUT}}[\psi_L, {\psi_L^\dagger}, A, \Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}, \Phi^{\rm{bi}}, \phi, \dots ] \right  \rvert_{M^4}).
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{multline} \label{eq:Sso10-WZW}
S_{\text{GUT}}^{\text{WZW}}\equiv \int_{M^4} {\mathrm{Tr}}(F_{} \wedge \star F_{}) 
+ \int_{M^4} \Big( {\psi}^\dagger_L  (\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} {\bar  \sigma}^\mu {D}_{\mu, A} ) \psi_L
+ | {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} |^2 -{\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})\\
+ \frac{1}{2}\phi^\intercal \Phi^{\rm{bi}} \phi
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{5}\big(\psi_L^\intercal\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\sigma^2(\phi_{2a-1}\Gamma_{2a-1}-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\phi_{2a}\Gamma_{2a})\psi_L+\text{h.c.}\big)
  \Big)\,\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}^4 x
+S^\text{WZW}[\Phi^{\rm{bi}}].
\end{multline}
The purpose of the new discrete torsion class 4d WZW-like term (written on a 5d manifold with 4d boundary), 
that we will introduce in details later, is to saturate the $w_2 w_3$ global anomaly.
The mother EFT contains the following detailed ingredients:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item
There are 16n complex Weyl fermions, each $\psi_L$ is the ${\bf 16}$ of Spin(10) minimally coupled to ${\rm Spin}(10)$ gauge field in the covariant derivative. 
Properties of the Spin(10) gauge field $A$ and other familiar terms in $S_{\text{GUT}}$ had been explained in the earlier \Sec{sec:ElementaryHiggs}.

\item {An ${\rm SO}(10)$ real vector field $\phi \in {\mathbb{R}}$ is in ${\bf 10}$ of $so(10)$ also of Spin(10). 
To be explicit, $\phi$ contains one vector index, $\phi_a$ with $a\in \{1,2,\dots,10\}$.}

\item An ${\rm SO}(10)$ real bivector field $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}\in {\mathbb{R}}$  is obtained from the tensor product of the two $\phi$,
in the ${\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 10} = {\bf 1}_{\rm S}  \oplus {\bf 45}_{\rm A} \oplus {\bf 54}_{\rm S}$ of $so(10)$ also of Spin(10). 
To be explicit, $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}$ contains two vector indices, $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ab}$ with $a,b\in \{1,2,\dots,10\}$.
We can arrange $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ab}$ into three different representations ${\mathbf{R}}$ of $\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}$ 
as the three GUT-Higgs fields $\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}}$, $\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}}$ and $\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}}$
(which appeared in \Sec{sec:ElementaryHiggs-noWZW}):
 \begin{eqnarray}\hspace{-2mm} \label{eq:Phi-bi-phi}
\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ab} = \phi_{a}\phi_{b} \text{ includes}\left\{\begin{array}{l}
{\mathrm{Tr}}\Phi^{\rm{bi}}=\sum_{a}\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{aa} \text{ gives $\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}=\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}}$ in ${\bf 1}_{\rm S}$}. \\ 
\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{[a,b]} = \tfrac{1}{2}(\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ab}-\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ba})=\tfrac{1}{2}(\phi_a\phi_b-\phi_b\phi_a)=\tfrac{1}{2}[\phi_a,\phi_b] \text{ gives $\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}=\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}}$ in ${\bf 45}_{\rm A}$} .\\
\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{\{a,b\}} = \tfrac{1}{2}(\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ab}+\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ba})=\tfrac{1}{2}(\phi_a\phi_b+\phi_b\phi_a)=\tfrac{1}{2}\{\phi_a,\phi_b\} \text{ gives $\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}=\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}}$ in ${\bf 54}_{\rm S}$}.
\end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}

\item {\bf \emph{GUT-Higgs field kinetic term and covariant derivative}}: 
The kinetic term for the GUT-Higgs fields is written as 
 $| {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} |^2 \equiv ( {D}_{A}^\mu \Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})^\dagger ( {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$,
with the complex conjugate transpose written as dagger $\dagger$.

Moreover, we can also combine the kinetic terms for $\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}}$, $\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}}$ and $\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}}$
in terms of the kinetic term for the bivector $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{}$. 
This kinetic term becomes ${\mathrm{Tr}} \big((D^{\mu}_{A} \Phi^{\rm{bi}})^\intercal (D_{\mu, A}\Phi^{\rm{bi}}) \big)$,
with the matrix transpose written as $\intercal$,
where the Trace Tr is over the 10-dimensional Lie algebra representation of $so(10)$.
We can write down the explicit form $(D_{\mu, A}\Phi^{\rm{bi} })_{ab} 
\equiv  \nabla_\mu \Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{ab}    - \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} g [A_\mu, \Phi^{\rm{bi} }]_{ab} 
=\nabla_\mu \Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{ab}    - \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} g (A_{\mu,ab} \Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{bc}- \Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{ab}  A_{\mu, bc} )$
with $a,b,c\in \{1,2,\dots,10\}$,\footnote{The reason that
$(D_{\mu, A}\Phi^{\rm{bi} })_{ab} \equiv  \nabla_\mu \Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{ab}   - \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} g [A_\mu, \Phi^{\rm{bi} }]_{ab}$ has 
a matrix commutator $[A_\mu, \Phi^{\rm{bi} }]$ in contrast with the familiar form
${D}_{\mu, A }\phi \equiv \nabla_{\mu} \phi - \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} g  \,  A_\mu \phi$, is due to the following fact:
The Lie group $G$ transformation for some $U \in G$
acts on the gauge field $A$ as $A \mapsto U (A+\frac{\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}}{g} \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}) U^\dagger$ (or $A \mapsto U (A+\frac{\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}}{g} \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}) U^{\intercal}$ when $U$ is real-valued).
However, the Lie group transformation acts on the vector field $\phi$ as $\phi \mapsto U \phi$,
while acts on the rank-10 matrix bivector field $\Phi^{\rm{bi} }$ as $\Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{ab} \mapsto U\Phi^{\rm{bi} }_{ab} U^\intercal$. 
} 
where $A_{\mu,ab} =\sum_{\alpha} A_{\mu}^{\alpha} {\rm T'}^{\alpha}_{ab}$ 
with another 45 pieces of the rank-10 matrix representation ${\rm T'}^{\alpha}$.

In general, the Lie algebra generator ${\rm T}^{\alpha}$ is hermitian.
In the case of the real representation ${\mathbf{10}}$, the ${\rm T'}^{\alpha}$ is not only hermitian, but also an imaginary and anti-symmetric matrix.

In summary, for our purpose, the two expressions of GUT-Higgs kinetic terms are both correct:
 $\sum_{{\mathbf{R}}={\bf 1}, {\bf 45}, {\bf 54}} 
 | {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}} |^2 \equiv 
 ( {D}_{A}^\mu \Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}})^\dagger ( {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}})
 + ( {D}_{A}^\mu \Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^\dagger ( {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})+
  ( {D}_{A}^\mu \Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^\dagger ( {D}_{\mu, A}\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})$,
and the bi-vector field expression: ${\mathrm{Tr}} \big((D^{\mu}_{A} \Phi^{\rm{bi}})^\intercal (D_{\mu, A}\Phi^{\rm{bi}}) \big)$.

All these above GUT-Higgs fields (in the vector or bivector representations) 
also coupled to the $so(10)$ gauge fields in the standard way. 
 
 
\item {\bf \emph{Yukawa-like coupling terms}}:
We also have several Yukawa-like coupling terms, \\
(i) between the GUT-Higgs bivectors $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}$ and the vectors $\phi$, 
 explicitly, $\phi^\intercal \Phi^{\rm{bi}} \phi \equiv \sum_{a,b} \phi_a^\intercal \Phi^{\rm{bi}}_{ab} \phi_b$.

(ii) between the GUT-Higgs  vectors $\phi$ and the Weyl spinor $\psi_L$,
the $\big(\psi_L^\intercal\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\sigma^2(\phi_{2a-1}\Gamma_{2a-1}-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\phi_{2a}\Gamma_{2a})\psi_L+\text{h.c.}\big)$ is apparently a hermitian scalar.
The $\sigma^2$ matrix acts on the 2-component spacetime Weyl spinor $\psi_L$. $\Gamma_a$ (with $a\in \{1,2,\dots,10\}$) are ten rank-16 matrices satisfying $\{\Gamma_{2a-1},\Gamma_{2b-1}\}=2\delta_{ab}, \{\Gamma_{2a},\Gamma_{2b}\}=2\delta_{ab}, [\Gamma_{2a-1},\Gamma_{2b}]=0$.
 


\item {\bf \emph{Mean-field approximation}}: If for a moment, we neglect the gauge field $A$ coupling in the covariant derivative, 
neglect the GUT-Higgs potential ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$,
and neglect the possible WZW term $S^\text{WZW}[\Phi^{\rm{bi}}]$, 
then we only have the quadratic Lagrangian in between 
GUT-Higgs bivectors $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}$, vectors $\phi$, and the Weyl spinor $\psi_L$.
Then this quadratic Lagrangian,
$\frac{1}{2}\phi^\intercal \Phi^{\rm{bi}} \phi
+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{5}\big(\psi_L^\intercal\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\sigma^2(\phi_{2a-1}\Gamma_{2a-1}-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\phi_{2a}\Gamma_{2a})\psi_L+\text{h.c.}\big)$,
at the mean-field level, can be integrated out to impose constraints and relations between the 
bivectors $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}$, vectors $\phi$, and the Weyl spinor $\psi_L$.
In some sense, what is integrated out becomes a Lagrange multiplier to impose a constraint on the remained fields.
In this limit, we only need to regard the Weyl spinor $\psi_L$ as the elementary fields,
the vectors $\phi$ is the ${\bf 10}$ from the tensor product of two $\psi_L$ since
${\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} = ({\bf 10} \oplus {\bf 120}  \oplus \overline{\bf 126} )$.
Then the bivector $\Phi^{\rm{bi}}$ is from the tensor product of two $\phi$ as the ${\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 10}$, out of the quartic $\psi_L$'s
${\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16}$. 

\item {\bf \emph{Wess-Zumino-Witten-like discrete torsion term:}} 
For now, we directly provide our endgame answer to WZW term, later we will backup and derive this WZW term in details from scratch in {\Sec{sec:HomotopyCohomology}}.

The schematic WZW action that we propose to match the mod 2 class $w_2w_3$ global anomaly is:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:BdCdeRham}
S^\text{WZW}[\Phi]=\pi \int_{M^5}B({\Phi})\wedge \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} C({\Phi}),
\end{eqnarray}
in terms of differential form with mod 2 valued forms of $B$ and $C$ fields, in the de Rham cohomology. 
The theory is defined on the 5d manifold ${M^5}$ whose boundary is the 4d space time $M_4=\partial {M^5}$.\footnote{Here we normalize the usual differential form
$B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})/{\pi} \mapsto {B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})}$ and
$C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})/{\pi}  \mapsto C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$,
so the usual differential form partition function
$\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \frac{2}{2\pi}  \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\wedge \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) )$ 
maps to $\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\wedge \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) ) $.
The quantization conditions on the closed cycles, also map from:
$\ointint B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ or $\ointint C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) = n{\pi} \mod 2 \pi \mapsto \ointint {B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})}$ or $\ointint C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})  = n  \mod 2$.\\
It can be verified that this WZW has two properties: 
(1) invertible and trivial as ${\bf Z}(M^5)=1$ on a closed 5-manifold, 
(2) this WZW term really is a 4d theory, having physical impacts only on the 4d $M^4$, as a boundary of the extended $M^5$.
\label{ft:normalization-WZW}
}
The $B$ and $C$ are constructed out of 
some GUT-Higgs field ${\Phi}$ (such as the bivector $\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}$).
More precisely, the WZW term is written in the singular cohomology class of $B$ and $C$ cochain fields: 
\begin{eqnarray}  \label{eq:BdCsingular}
S^\text{WZW}[\Phi]{=\pi \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\smile \delta C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})}
{= 2\pi \int_{M^5} B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\smile \frac{\delta}{2} C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})}
{= 2\pi \int_{M^5} B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\smile \mathrm{Sq}^1 C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})}.\quad
\end{eqnarray}
Here the 2-cochain fields are $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued, they can be chosen as cohomology classes thus 
$B \in {\rm H}^2(M,\mathbb{Z}_2)$ and $C \in {\rm H}^2(M,\mathbb{Z}_2)$.
The $\delta$ is the coboundary operator, 
and the Steenrod square $\mathrm{Sq}^1 \equiv \frac{\delta}{2} \mod 2$ here maps the singular cohomology $\operatorname{H}^2(M,\mathbb{Z}_2) \mapsto \operatorname{H}^3(M,\mathbb{Z}_2)$,
on some triangulable manifold $M$.\footnote{
Generally, given a chain complex $C_{\bullet}$ and a short exact sequence of abelian groups:
$$
0\to A'\to A\to A''\to 0,
$$
we have a short exact sequence of cochain complexes:
$$
0\to\operatorname{Hom}(C_{\bullet},A')\to\operatorname{Hom}(C_{\bullet},A) \to\operatorname{Hom}(C_{\bullet},A'')\to0.
$$
Hence we can obtain a long exact sequence of cohomology groups:
$$
\cdots\to\operatorname{H}^n(C_{\bullet},A')\to\operatorname{H}^n(C_{\bullet},A)\to\operatorname{H}^n(C_{\bullet},A'')
\stackrel{\partial}{\to}\operatorname{H}^{n+1}(C_{\bullet},A')\to\cdots,
$$
the connecting homomorphism $\partial$ is called Bockstein homomorphism.
For instance,
$\beta_{(n,m)}:\operatorname{H}^*(-,\mathbb{Z}_{m})\to\operatorname{H}^{*+1}(-,\mathbb{Z}_{n})$ is the Bockstein homomorphism associated with the extension $\mathbb{Z}_n\stackrel{\cdot m}{\to}\mathbb{Z}_{nm}\to\mathbb{Z}_m$ where $\cdot m$ is the group homomorphism given by multiplication by $m$. 
Specifically, $\beta_{(2,2^n)}=\frac{1}{2^n}\delta\mod 2$, thus the 
Steenrod square obeys $\mathrm{Sq}^1 \equiv \beta_{(2,2)}  \equiv \frac{\delta}{2} \mod 2$.} 
The wedge product $\wedge$ of differential form in \eq{eq:BdCdeRham} becomes the
cup product $\smile$ of cochains or cohomology classes in \eq{eq:BdCsingular}.
Note that the triangulable manifold $M$ is always a smooth differentiable manifold, 
thus we can downgrade the singular cohomology result \eq{eq:BdCsingular} to
reproduce the de Rham cohomology expression \eq{eq:BdCdeRham}.

\item {\bf \emph{GUT-Higgs potential ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, and a relation to non-linear sigma model (NLSM)}}:
Mostly we shall simply choose the GUT-Higgs potential written in \eq{eq:GUTHiggsU},
$$
{\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}}) =\Big(r_{{\mathbf{45}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{45}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}})^4\Big)+ 
\Big(r_{{\mathbf{54}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{54}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}})^4\Big)+
\Big(r_{{\mathbf{1}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}})^2 +\lambda_{{\mathbf{1}}} (\Phi_{{\mathbf{1}}})^4\Big),
$$
which is sufficient for a continuum QFT description.
{Some lattice or condensed matter based theorists may wonder whether there is a non-linear sigma model (NLSM) description at a deeper UV.
One approach is to write down a potential with a NLSM constraint $({\mathrm{Tr}} (\Phi^\intercal\Phi) - \mathrm{R}^2)$ with the norm of GUT-Higgs centered around a radius $\mathrm{R}$,
and introduce a Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$,
such that integrating out $\int [{\cal D} {\lambda}] \dots$ gives the fixed radius constraint at UV. With appropriate deformations, we anticipate a RG flow from UV to IR gives
the GUT-Higgs potential.
One reason to introduce a NLSM is that it is natural to adding the WZW term to NLSM.
However, an NLSM description turns out to be \emph{not necessary} for writing 
our WZW term.
}  


\item {\bf \emph{Deconfined Quantum Criticality (DQC):}} 
The motivation to add this 4d $S^\text{WZW}[\Phi]$ into our 4d mother EFT is to induce the analogous phenomenon called 
the deconfined quantum criticality  \cite{SenthildQCP0311326}.
The original deconfined quantum criticality  \cite{SenthildQCP0311326} is proposed as a continuous quantum phase transition between
two kinds of Landau symmetry breaking orders: N\'eel anti-ferromagnet order and Valence-Bond Solid (VBS) order in 3d (namely, 2+1d).

Here in out gauge theory context in 4d (namely, 3+1d), between the GG  $su(5)$ GUT and the PS ${su(4) \times su(2)  \times su(2)}$ model,
we do not really have the conventional Landau symmetry breaking orders 
as both the $su(5)$ and ${su(4) \times su(2)  \times su(2)}$ are dynamically gauged as gauge theories.
But if we regard the $su(5)$ and ${su(4) \times su(2)  \times su(2)}$ are internal global symmetries that are not yet gauged,
then we are able to seek for a deconfined quantum criticality construction between the GG and PS models, as we will verify in the next \Sec{sec:HomotopyCohomology}.
\end{enumerate}



\subsection{Homotopy and Cohomology group arguments to induce a WZW term}
\label{sec:HomotopyCohomology}

We review the 3d WZW term construction in the familiar deconfined quantum criticality (dQCP) in 3d (namely, 2+1d)  \cite{SenthildQCP0311326},
in Appendix \ref{sec:HomotopyCohomology-NeelVBS}, 
based on more nonperturbative arguments from homotopy and cohomology groups, and anomaly classifications from cobordism. 
Here we proceed with the same logic, to construct the 4d WZW term in the new deconfined quantum criticality (DQC) 
in 4d (namely, 3+1d) to justify what we claimed in \eq{eq:BdCsingular}.

Below we write $G$ as the original larger symmetry group,
while ${G_{\text{sub}}}$ is the remained preserved unbroken symmetry in the corresponding order 
(i.e., N\'eel or VBS orders for 3d dQCP; the GG or PS for the 4d DQC we will propose).
Then we have the following fibration structure:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:fibration}
{G_{\text{sub}}} \lhook\joinrel\xrightarrow{\quad} G \longrightarrow \frac{G}{G_{\text{sub}}},
\end{eqnarray}
where the quotient space $\frac{G}{G_{\text{sub}}}$ is the base manifold (i.e., the orbit) as the \emph{symmetry-breaking order parameter space}.
The $G$ is the total space obtained from the fibration of the ${G_{\text{sub}}}$ fiber (i.e., the stabilizer) over the base $\frac{G}{G_{\text{sub}}}$. 
 
Now we follow the similar logic for the 3d dQCP summarized in Appendix \ref{sec:HomotopyCohomology-NeelVBS}, 
generalizing the idea to deal with our 4d DQC.

\subsubsection{Induce a 4d WZW term between Georgi-Glashow $su(5)$ and Pati-Salam $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$ 
models on a 5d bulk $w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$}
\label{sec:HomotopyCohomology-GGPS}

Follow the principle in Appendix \ref{sec:HomotopyCohomology-NeelVBS}, 
we aim to {induce a 4d WZW term between Georgi-Glashow $su(5)$ and Pati-Salam $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$ 
models on a 5d bulk $w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$}.
First we look at the order-parameter target manifold via the fibration structure \eq{eq:fibration}, formed by the \emph{bosonic} GUT-Higgs fields.
For the bosonic GUT-Higgs fields, we only have the internal SO(10) symmetry not the Spin(10) symmetry,
but we can include the orientation reversal which gives an $\O(10) = {\rm SO}(10) \rtimes \mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry. 
Then the fibration \eq{eq:fibration} becomes:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:fibration-su5}
\text{GG $su(5)$ GUT: } \Big({G_{\text{sub}}}={{\rm U}(5)} \Big) \lhook\joinrel\xrightarrow{\quad} 
\Big(G={\O(10)}\Big) \longrightarrow \Big(\frac{G}{G_{\text{sub}}}=\frac{\O(10)}{{\rm U}(5)}\Big). 
\end{eqnarray}
Here we can keep the larger ${{\rm U}(5)}$ instead of SU(5) as the preserved internal symmetry of the $su(5)$ GUT.
\begin{eqnarray} \hspace{-3mm}
\label{eq:fibration-su5}
\text{PS $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$: }\Big({G_{\text{sub}}}={\O(6)\times\O(4)} \Big) \lhook\joinrel\xrightarrow{\quad} 
\Big(G={\O(10)}\Big) \longrightarrow \Big(\frac{G}{G_{\text{sub}}}=\frac{\O(10)}{\O(6)\times\O(4)}\Big). 
\end{eqnarray}
Recall that $su(4) \times su(2) \times su(2)$ has the same Lie algebra as $so(6) \times so(4)$.
Here we also keep the larger ${\O(6)\times\O(4)}$ instead of ${{\rm SO}(6)\times{\rm SO}(4)}$ 
as the preserved internal symmetry of the PS model.
{Homotopy groups for these target manifolds of GUT-Higgs fields are in the table:}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:HomotopyGGPS}
\begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
\hline
 & $\pi_0$ & $\pi_1$ & $\pi_2$ & $\pi_3$ & $\pi_4$ & $\pi_5$ \\
\hline
GG $\frac{\O(10)}{{\rm U}(5)}$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\hline
PS $\frac{\O(10)}{\O(6)\times\O(4)}$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}^2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2^2$ \\
\hline
$\O(10)$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $0$  \\
$\O(4)$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}^2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2^2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2^2$  \\
$\O(6)$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $0$  \\
\hline
${\rm U}(5)$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$  \\
\hline
${\rm SO}(10)$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $0$  \\
${\rm SO}(4)$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}^2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2^2$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2^2$  \\
${\rm SO}(6)$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $0$  \\
\hline
${\rm SU}(5)$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$ & $0$ & $\mathbb{Z}$  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}.
\end{eqnarray}
Let us comment about the construction of 4d WZW and its 4d 't Hooft anomaly, step by step,
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item Start with the hint from homotopy groups, we need to find {\bf {\emph{topological defects trapped
in the order-parameter target manifold of bosonic GUT-Higgs fields}}}
 in the GG and PS models,\footnote{{\bf{\emph{Caveat}}}: 
We had emphasized again and again that here we are considering 
topological defects in the order-parameter target manifold of \emph{bosonic} GUT-Higgs fields.
We are \emph{not} talking about 
the topological objects of \emph{fermionic} sectors (quarks/leptons) or gauge theory sectors in GUTs or SMs. 
For example, there are 
magnetic monopoles in the GG and PS gauge theories from
$\pi_1(G_{\SM_6})=\pi_2(G_{\text{GG}}/G_{\SM_6})=\pi_2(G_{\text{PS}_2}/G_{\SM_6})=\mathbb{Z}$, also from 
$\pi_1(G_{\SM_3})=\pi_2(G_{\text{PS}_1}/G_{\SM_3})=\mathbb{Z}$ or from any $\pi_1(G_{\SM_q})=\mathbb{Z}$ with $q=1,2,3,6$.
But we are talking about different topological objects in the order-parameter target manifold of 
\emph{bosonic} GUT-Higgs fields.}
classified by
$\pi_{n_{\text{GG}}}(\frac{\O(10)}{{\rm U}(5)})$ and 
$\pi_{n_{\text{PS}}}(\frac{\O(10)}{\O(6)\times\O(4)})$
such that the dimensionality
${n_{\text{GG}}} + {n_{\text{PS}}} = d$ where the $d$ is the total spacetime dimension thus $d=4$ (or one lower dimension compared with the 5d where the WZW is extended to put on).
This suggests that we take
$$
\pi_{2}(\frac{\O(10)}{{\rm U}(5)}) = \mathbb{Z}, \quad \pi_{2}(\frac{\O(10)}{\O(6)\times\O(4)}) = \mathbb{Z}_2, \quad {n_{\text{GG}}} + {n_{\text{PS}}} =2+2=4.
$$
Note that $(\frac{\O(m+n)}{\O(m)\times\O(n)}) \equiv {\rm Gr}(m, m+n)$ is a Grassmannian manifold.
Here we need ${\rm Gr}(6, 10)={\rm Gr}(4, 10)$.
\item We will use the cohomology construction of the WZW term, furnished by the hints of homotopy groups.
Then we need a relation between homotopy group and cohomology group.

In algebraic topology, an Eilenberg-MacLane space $K(G,n)$ is a topological space with a single nontrivial homotopy group, s.t.~$\pi_{n}(K(G,n))\cong G$ and $\pi_m(K(G,n))=0$ if $m\neq n$. It can be regarded as a building block for homotopy theory, 
also it provides a bridge between homotopy and cohomology. Let $X$ be a topological space or a manifold. 
The set $[X,K(G,n)]$ of based homotopy classes of based maps from $X$ to $K(G,n)$ is a natural bijection with the $n$-th singular cohomology group $\operatorname{H}^n(X,G)$. In particular, when $\pi_n(X)\cong G$,
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{H}^n(X,G)=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi_n(X), G)=\mathrm{Hom}(G,G).
\end{equation}
{There is a distinguished element $\omega\in \operatorname{H}^n(X,G)$, 
as the generator of the cohomology group $\operatorname{H}^n(X,G)$, 
corresponding to the identity morphism in $\mathrm{Hom}(G, G)$.} 
The morphism is realized as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\omega:&\pi_n(X)\to G,
\quad\quad\quad
f\in\pi_n(X) \mapsto \int_{x\in S^n}\omega(f(x)) \in G.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\item With the above homotopy group \eq{eq:HomotopyGGPS} in mind, 
we can use the Serre spectral sequence to derive the following:\footnote{We can answer in more general case $\O(2n)/{\rm U}(n)$. 
We will need the Universal Coefficient Theorem (UCT), so that
$\operatorname{H}^2(X,{\rm A})=\operatorname{Hom}(\operatorname{H}_2(X),{\rm A})\oplus {\rm Ext}(\operatorname{H}_1(X),{\rm A}),$ for some topological space $X$ and any abelian group coefficient ${\rm A}$.\\
The space $\O(2n)/{\rm U}(n)$ has two connected components, 
each of which is diffeomorphic to ${\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n)$, so $\operatorname{H}^k(\O(2n)/{\rm U}(n), {\rm A}) = \operatorname{H}^k({\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n), {\rm A})\oplus \operatorname{H}^k({\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n), {\rm A})$.\\
For $n > 1$, the space ${\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n)$ is simply connected with $\pi_2({\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n)) = \mathbb{Z}$, 
so by the Hurewicz Theorem we have $\operatorname{H}_1({\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n), \mathbb{Z}) = 0$ and $\operatorname{H}_2({\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n), \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{Z}$. 
Therefore by UCT,
so we have
$\operatorname{H}^2({\rm SO}(2n)/{\rm U}(n), {\rm A}) = \operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}, {\rm A})\oplus\operatorname{Ext}(0, {\rm A}) = {\rm A}$. 
Thus, $\operatorname{H}^2(\O(2n)/{\rm U}(n), {\rm A}) = {\rm A}^2$.
}
\begin{eqnarray}
\operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/{\rm U}(5), \mathbb{Z}) =\mathbb{Z}^2.\quad\quad\quad
\operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/{\rm U}(5), \mathbb{Z}_2)=\mathbb{Z}_2^2.
\end{eqnarray}
In fact, we just need one of the two components from ${\rm SO}(10)/{\rm U}(5)$, whose cohomology group:
\begin{eqnarray}
\operatorname{H}^2({\rm SO}(10)/{\rm U}(5), \mathbb{Z}) =\mathbb{Z}.\quad\quad\quad
\operatorname{H}^2({\rm SO}(10)/{\rm U}(5), \mathbb{Z}_2)=\mathbb{Z}_2.
\end{eqnarray}
\item We can also derive
\begin{eqnarray}
\operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/(\O(6)\times\O(4)), \mathbb{Z}) =\mathbb{Z}_2.\quad\quad\quad
\operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/(\O(6)\times\O(4)), \mathbb{Z}_2)=\mathbb{Z}_2^2.
\end{eqnarray}
The mod 2 cohomology of real Grassmannian manifold is well-known from the theory of Stiefel-Whitney characteristic classes.
The integral cohomology is trickier but it can be worked out.
\item
We now take a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ cohomology class called $B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ out of
\begin{eqnarray}
B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \in \operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/(\O(6)\times\O(4)), \mathbb{Z}_2),
\end{eqnarray}
and another $\mathbb{Z}_2$ cohomology class called $C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ out of
\begin{eqnarray}
C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \in \operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/{\rm U}(5), \mathbb{Z}_2).
\end{eqnarray}
$\bullet$ The $B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$-field as a second cohomology class, 
can be constructed out of the GUT-Higgs field $\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}}$ in the ${\mathbf{54}}$ representation of $so(10)$.
In particular, we can also write $\Phi_{{\mathbf{54}}}$ as 
a bivector GUT-Higgs field {\bf symmetric} representation, ${\bf 54}_{\rm S}$ out of 
${\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 10}$, called $(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ that we detail in \Sec{sec:CompositeHiggs}.\\
$\bullet$ The $C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$-field as a second cohomology class, 
can be constructed out of the GUT-Higgs field $\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}}$ in the ${\mathbf{45}}$ representation of $so(10)$.
In particular, we can also write $\Phi_{{\mathbf{45}}}$ as 
a bivector GUT-Higgs field {\bf anti-symmetric} representation, ${\bf 45}_{\rm A}$ out of 
${\bf 10} \otimes {\bf 10}$, called $(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ that we detail in \Sec{sec:CompositeHiggs}.

Similar to the familiar 3d dQCP in Appendix \ref{sec:HomotopyCohomology-NeelVBS}, 
we can also provide the physical intuitions on the link invariants between various topological defects:
between the  {\bf {\emph{ charged objects}}} and the  {\bf {\emph{charge operators}}} constructed from homotopy groups and cohomology groups. 
For example,
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2.mm, label=\textcolor{blue}{(\roman*)}., ref={(\roman*)}]
\item  
{\bf {\emph{Georgi-Glashow GUT-Higgs target manifold and topological defects}}}:\\
The $C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \in \operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/{\rm U}(5), \mathbb{Z}_2)$ can be placed on a 2-surface called $\hat\varrho^2$, as a {\bf {\emph{charge operator}}}
$\exp( \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \ointint_{\hat \varrho^2}   C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})) = 
\exp( \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \ointint_{\hat \varrho^2}   c_1(V_{{\rm U}(5)}))$ (i.e., symmetry generator)
measures the charge of a preserved U(5) symmetry in the topological defect 
trapped in the target manifold $\O(10)/{\rm U}(5)$.
The first Chern class $c_1(V_{{\rm U}(5)})$ of the associated vector bundle of U(5) 
 evaluates a magnetic flux mod 2 on this 2-surface ${\hat \varrho^2}$.
There is a topological defect line along a 1d loop called $\varsigma^1_{\text{GG}}$, 
paired up with a 1-connection called $\hat v$ gives a 1d line operator $\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \oint_{\varsigma^1_{\text{GG}}} \hat v )$
as a {\bf {\emph{ charged object}}}.
The {charge operator} 2-surface ${\hat \varrho^2}$ can be linked with a {charged} 1d loop $\varsigma^1_{\text{GG}}$ in the 4d spacetime.
Follow the generalized higher global symmetry language \cite{Gaiotto2014kfa1412.5148},
 this nontrivial linking number Lk implies a measurement of U(5) symmetry on the topological defect.
 Precisely, the linking number Lk, manifested as a statistical Berry phase,
is evaluated via the expectation value of path integral:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \ointint_{\hat \varrho^2} C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) ) \cdot 
\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \oint_{\varsigma^1_{\text{GG}}} \hat v )\rangle = (-1)^{{\rm Lk}(\hat \varrho^2, {\varsigma^1_{\text{GG}}} )} \Big\vert_{M^4}
\end{eqnarray}
\item 
{\bf {\emph{Pati-Salam GUT-Higgs target manifold and topological defects}}}:\\
The $B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \in \operatorname{H}^2(\O(10)/(\O(6)\times\O(4)), \mathbb{Z}_2)$ can be placed on a 2-surface called $\tilde\varrho^2$, as a {\bf {\emph{charge operator}}}
$\exp( \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \ointint_{\tilde \varrho^2}   B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) ) = 
\exp( \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \ointint_{\tilde \varrho^2}   w_2(V_{(\O(6)\times\O(4))}))$\footnote{Note that the second Stiefel-Whitney class of associated vector bundle of
the product of orthogonal groups satisfies $w_2(V_{(\O(n)\times\O(m))})=w_2(V_{\O(n)})+w_2(V_{\O(m)})+w_1(V_{\O(n)})w_1(V_{\O(m)})$.
} 
(i.e., symmetry generator)
measures the charge of a preserved $(\O(6)\times\O(4))$ symmetry in the topological defect 
trapped in the target manifold $\O(10)/(\O(6)\times\O(4))$.
There is a topological defect line along a 1d loop called $\varsigma^1_{\text{PS}}$, 
paired up with a 1-connection called $\tilde v$ gives a 1d line operator $\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \oint_{\varsigma^1_{\text{PS}}} \tilde v )$
as a {\bf {\emph{ charged object}}}.
The {charge operator} 2-surface ${\tilde \varrho^2}$ can be linked with a {charged} 1d loop $\varsigma^1_{\text{PS}}$ in the 4d spacetime.
Follow the generalized higher global symmetry language \cite{Gaiotto2014kfa1412.5148},
 this nontrivial linking number Lk implies a measurement of $(\O(6)\times\O(4))$ symmetry on the topological defect.
 Precisely, the linking number Lk, manifested as a statistical Berry phase,
is evaluated via the expectation value of path integral:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \oint_{\tilde \varrho^2} B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) ) \cdot \exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \oint_{\varsigma^1_{\text{PS}}} \tilde v)\rangle = 
(-1)^{{\rm Lk}(\tilde \varrho^2, {\varsigma^1_{\text{PS}}} )}
\Big\vert_{M^3}
\end{eqnarray}
\item
If we extend the 4d spacetime $t,x,y,z$ to an extra 5th dimension $\varpi$,
the previous 1d loop $\varsigma^1_{\text{GG}}$ trajectory can be a 2d pseudo-worldsheet $\varsigma'^2_{\text{GG}}$ in the 5d $M^5$.
Similarly, the previous 1d loop $\varsigma^1_{\text{PS}}$ trajectory can be a 2d pseudo-worldsheet $\varsigma'^2_{\text{PS}}$ in the 5d $M^5$.
Such two 2d configurations can be linked in 5d, with a linking number:
$$
{{\rm Lk}({\varsigma'^2_{\text{GG}}}, {\varsigma'^2_{\text{PS}}})} \Big\vert_{M^5}.
$$
This describes the link in the extended 5d spacetime of two \emph{charged objects}, 
charged under U(5) and $(\O(6)\times\O(4))$ respectively.\\
\item 
In a parallel story, the \emph{charge operators} (of the above charged objects) are
the 2d
$C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ operator on $\hat\varrho^2$, 
and 2d
$B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})$ surface operator on $\tilde\varrho^2$.
Such two configurations can be linked in 5d, with a linking number:
$$
{{\rm Lk}(C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \text{ on } \hat \varrho^2, B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \text{ on } \tilde\varrho^2)} \Big\vert_{M^5}.
$$
This describes the link in the extended 45 spacetime of two \emph{charge operators}.
\end{enumerate}
We leave more of these picturesque discussions and imaginative figures, in a companion work \cite{WangYouMorphogenesis}.
\item
Based on the above observations about the link invariants,
follow Appendix \ref{sec:HomotopyCohomology-NeelVBS}'s logic,
our 4d DQC construction is valid if we introduce a mod 2 class 4d WZW term,
 defined on a 4d boundary $M^4$ of a 5d manifold $M^5$,
schematically in a differential form or de Rham cohomology,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:BdCdeRham-bi}
\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} S^\text{WZW}[\Phi])=\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\wedge \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) )  \Big\vert_{{M^4=\prt {M^5}}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Recall the footnote \ref{ft:normalization-WZW} about our normalizations of differential forms and cohomology classes.
More precisely, we can improve this to construct WZW in the singular cohomology class:
\begin{eqnarray}  \hspace{-5mm}
\label{eq:BdCsingular-bi}
\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} S^\text{WZW}[\Phi])
{=\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) \smile \delta C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) )  \Big\vert_{{M^4=\prt {M^5}}}}
{=\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}  2\pi \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\smile \mathrm{Sq}^1 C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}}) )  \Big\vert_{{M^4=\prt {M^5}}} }.\;\;\;
\end{eqnarray}
We thus succeed to verify our claims in \eq{eq:BdCdeRham} and \eq{eq:BdCsingular}, while all notations here follow there in \Sec{sec:ElementaryHiggs-WZW}.
\item
Our 4d DQC construction will be supported by a 4d 't Hooft anomaly in the spacetime-internal global symmetry 
$({\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm Spin}(10))$ on a 4-manifold $M^4$, 
captured by a 5d bulk invertible TQFT \cite{WangWen2018cai1809.11171, WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844} living on a 5-manifold $M^5$ with $\prt M^5= M^4$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:w2w3-2}
\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi \int_{M^5} w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})).
\end{eqnarray}
This 4d 't Hooft anomaly is a mod 2 class global anomaly,
mentioned already in \eq{eq:Spin10-anomaly} and \eq{eq:w2w3}. 
We comment more about the cobordism group data on 
{perturbative local and nonperturbative global anomalies}
in various SMs and GUTs in Appendix \ref{app:Anomalies via Cobordism}.
\end{enumerate}
These conclude our derivation of 4d WZW and 't Hooft anomaly for a candidate 4d DQC for GG-PS GUT transition.





 
\subsection{Composite GUT-Higgs model within SM}
\label{sec:CompositeHiggs}

Before analyzing the effect of the 4d WZW term, we will first review how $so(10)$ GUT, GG, PS, and SM can be unified in the same quantum phase diagram by the different condensation pattern of the ${\rm SO}(10)$ bivector GUT-Higgs field. 
Follow \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-branch}, for this discussion, we will first turn off the WZW term, assuming that the theory has no additional $w_2w_3$ anomaly.  Starting from the $so(10)$ GUT phase, which has the highest symmetry, the GUT-Higgs field can be unified as a ${\rm SO}(10)$ bivector field
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{ab}^\text{bi}\sim \phi_{a}\phi_{b} \quad\text{(for $a,b=1,2,\cdots,10$)},
\end{eqnarray}
which can be considered as a composition of two ${\rm SO}(10)$ vector fields $\phi_a$, where the ${\rm SO}(10)$ vector $\phi_a$ can be further considered as a composition of two Weyl fermions $\psi$ 
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_{2a-1}\sim \frac{1}{2}(\psi^\intercal\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\sigma^2\Gamma_{2a-1}\psi+\text{h.c.}),\quad
\phi_{2a}\sim \frac{1}{2\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}}(\psi^\intercal\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\sigma^2\Gamma_{2a}\psi-\text{h.c.}),\quad \text{(for $a=1,2,\cdots,5$).}
\end{eqnarray}
Here when two quantum fields $\Phi_A$ and $\Phi_B$ are linearly coupled with each other in the field theory (as source and original fields), 
we denote them in this notation $\Phi_A\sim \Phi_B$, 
such that they are ``dual'' to each other and share exactly the same symmetry properties. There are $16\times 16$ real symmetric matrices $\Gamma_a$ acting in the fermion flavor space, which are determined by the following algebraic relations (for $a,b=1,2,\cdots,5$):
\begin{eqnarray}
\{\Gamma_{2a-1},\Gamma_{2b-1}\}=2\delta_{ab},\quad \{\Gamma_{2a},\Gamma_{2b}\}=2\delta_{ab},\quad [\Gamma_{2a-1},\Gamma_{2b}]=0.
\end{eqnarray}
In view of  the above composite construction, we refer to the bivector representation $\Phi^\text{bi}$ as the composite GUT-Higgs field. 

The composite Higgs field contains elementary Higgs components of both $\Phi_{\bf 45}$ and $\Phi_{\bf 54}$, since 
$\mathbf{10}\otimes\mathbf{10}=\mathbf{1}\oplus\mathbf{45}\oplus\mathbf{54}$. 
{Follow \eq{eq:Phi-bi-phi},} we introduce the following notations to denote different irreducible representations of the composite Higgs field (in terms of ${\rm SO}(10)$ vector bilinears):
\begin{itemize}
\item ${\mathrm{Tr}}\Phi^\text{bi}\sim\sum_{a}\phi_a\phi_a$ is equivalent to $\Phi_{\bf 1}$ as the ${\bf 1}_{\rm S}$ of ${\rm SO}(10)$.
\item $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}:\Phi^\text{bi}_{[a,b]}\sim\frac{1}{2}[\phi_a,\phi_b]$  is equivalent to $\Phi_{\bf 45}$ as the ${\bf 45}_{\rm A}$ of ${\rm SO}(10)$.
\item $\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}:\Phi^\text{bi}_{\{a,b\}}-\frac{1}{10}{\mathrm{Tr}}\Phi^\text{bi}\delta_{ab}\sim\frac{1}{2}\{\phi_a,\phi_b\}-\frac{1}{10}\sum_{c}\phi_c\phi_c\delta_{ab}$  is equivalent to $\Phi_{\bf 54}$ as the ${\bf 54}_{\rm S}$ of ${\rm SO}(10)$.
\end{itemize}


The competition between $\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ and $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ condensation leads to different GUT or SM phases in the phase diagram. We enumerate all the symmetry breaking patterns (below ``$\to$'' means ``breaking to'')
as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
${\rm Spin}(10)\to\frac{{\rm Spin}(6)\times{\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}=\frac{{\rm SU}(4)\times{\rm SU}(2)_{\rm L}\times{\rm SU}(2)_{\rm R}}{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ by condensing $\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ (the $\mathbf{54}_{\rm S}$ representation) to the following specific configuration
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: 54config}
\langle\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle=\Big(-3 \sum_{a=1}^{4}+2 \sum_{a=5}^{10}\Big)\Phi^\text{bi}_{\{a,a\}}=\phi^\intercal\begin{pmatrix} -3\cdot\mathbf{1}_{2\times 2} & \\  &2\cdot\mathbf{1}_{3\times 3}\end{pmatrix}\otimes \sigma^0\phi\in\frac{\O(10)}{\O(6)\times\O(4)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The Higgs field $\tilde{\Phi}$ discriminates the ${\rm SO}(4)$ vector $(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3,\phi_4)$ from the ${\rm SO}(6)$ vector $(\phi_5,\phi_6,\phi_7,\phi_8,\phi_9,\phi_{10})$, which breaks ${\rm Spin}(10)$ down to $\frac{{\rm Spin}(6)\times{\rm Spin}(4)}{\mathbb{Z}_2}$ realizing the Pati-Salam symmetry $G_{\mathrm{PS}_2}$. The 16 Weyl fermions split as
$\mathbf{16}\sim(\mathbf{4},\mathbf{2},\mathbf{1})_{\rm L} \oplus (\overline{\mathbf{4}},\mathbf{1},\mathbf{2})_{\rm R}$ 
under $\frac{{\rm SU}(4)\times{\rm SU}(2)_{\rm L}\times{\rm SU}(2)_{\rm R}}{\mathbb{Z}_2}$.\footnote{Recall 
in footnote \ref{footnote:LR}, about the left or right spinors, 
the $\rm L$/$\rm R$ notations here are for the internal-symmetry spinors, 
while the $L/R$ notations are for the spacetime-symmetry Weyl spinors.}
The $\rm L$/$\rm R$ sectors are distinguished by the operator 
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: chi}
\chi=\psi^\dagger (\prod_{a=1}^{10}\Gamma_a)\psi=\pm1.
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\rho_{[a,b]}=\frac{1}{2\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}}[\phi_a,\phi_b]$ be the ${\rm SU}(4)$ generators (for $a,b=5,6,\cdots,10$). Using algebraic relations, we can check that in the ${\rm L}$ sector, 
${\rm SU}(4)$ acts as $\psi_{\rm L} \mapsto e^{\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \rho_{[a,b]}}\psi_{\rm L} e^{-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \rho_{[a,b]}}$, matching the $\mathbf{4}$ representation; and in the ${\rm R}$ sector, 
${\rm SU}(4)$ acts as {$\psi_{\rm R}\mapsto  e^{-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \rho_{[a,b]}^*}\psi_{\rm R} e^{\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \rho_{[a,b]}^*}$}, matching the $\overline{\mathbf{4}}$ representation.

\item
${\rm Spin}(10)\to{\rm SU}(5)\times \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ by condensing $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ (the $\mathbf{45}_{\rm A}$ representation) to the following specific configuration
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: 45config}
\langle\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle=\sum_{a=1}^{5}\Phi_{[2a-1,2a]}=-\frac{1}{2}\phi^\intercal\mathbf{1}_{5\times 5}\otimes\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\sigma^2\phi\in\frac{\O(10)}{{\rm U}(5)}.
\end{eqnarray}
If we combine the ${\rm SO}(10)$ vector $\phi_a$ into a 5-component complex vector $\varphi_a=(\phi_{2a-1}+\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\phi_{2a})/\sqrt{2}$ (for $a=1,2,\cdots,5$), $\varphi$ would transform as the $\mathbf{5}_1$ under ${\rm U}(5)=\frac{{\rm SU}(5)\times {\rm U}(1)_X}{\mathbb{Z}_5}$ in ${\rm SO}(10)$. The Higgs field $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}=\sum_{a=1}^{5}\varphi_a^\dagger \varphi_a$ itself defines the generator of the ${\rm U}(1)_X$ group, whose $\mathbb{Z}_4$ subgroup defines $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$. The 16 Weyl fermions split as
$\mathbf{16}\sim \overline{\mathbf{5}}_1\oplus \mathbf{10}_1\oplus \mathbf{1}_1$
under ${\rm SU}(5)\times \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$. The $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ generator in the ${\rm Spin}(10)$ spinor representation is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:q''}
q_X=\sum_{a=1}^{5}\psi^\dagger \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\Gamma_{2a-1}\Gamma_{2a}\psi.
\end{eqnarray}
By diagonalizing $q_X$ operator, we indeed found five-fold eigenvalues of $-3$, ten-fold eigenvalues of $1$ and a one-fold eigenvalue of $5$. After mod 4, they all correspond to charge $1$ under $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$. Further investigate the representation of ${\rm SU}(5)$ generators in each $q_X$-charge sectors, we can confirm that the $q_X=-3$ sector is indeed in the anti-fundamental representation $\overline{\mathbf{5}}$ and so on.

\item ${\rm Spin}(10)\to\frac{{\rm SU}(3)\times{\rm SU}(2)\times{\rm U}(1)_{\tilde{Y}}}{\mathbb{Z}_6}\times\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$ by simultaneously condensing $\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ and $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ 
(both $\mathbf{54}_{\rm S}$ and $\mathbf{45}_{\rm A}$ representations) 
to configurations specified in \Eqn{eq: 54config} and \Eq{eq: 45config}. The unbroken symmetry group is generated by the sub-algebra of $so(10)$ that commute with  both Higgs condensates $\langle\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle$ and $\langle\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle$, which must take the form of
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi^\intercal\begin{pmatrix}\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} {\rm A}_{2\times 2} & \\ & \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} {\rm A}_{3\times 3}\end{pmatrix}\otimes\sigma^0\phi \text{ or }
\phi^\intercal\begin{pmatrix} {\rm S}_{2\times 2} & \\ & {\rm S}_{3\times 3}\end{pmatrix}\otimes\sigma^2\phi,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\rm A}_{n\times n}=-{\rm A}_{n\times n}^\intercal\in{\mathbb{R}}(n)$ are real antisymmetric matrices and 
${\rm S}_{n\times n}={\rm S}_{n\times n}^\intercal\in{\mathbb{R}}(n)$ are real symmetric matrices. They can be combined in the complex representation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^\dagger \begin{pmatrix} {\rm S}_{2\times 2}+\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} {\rm A}_{2\times 2} &\\ & {\rm S}_{3\times 3}+\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} {\rm A}_{3\times 3}\end{pmatrix}\varphi = \varphi^\dagger\begin{pmatrix} {\rm H}_{2\times 2} &\\ & {\rm H}_{3\times 3}\end{pmatrix}\varphi,
\end{eqnarray}
such that ${\rm H}_{n\times n}={\rm H}_{n\times n}^\dagger \in {\mathbb{C}}(n)$ are complex Hermitian matrices. 
There is no traceless condition imposed on ${\rm H}_{3\times 3}$ and ${\rm H}_{2\times 2}$ 
and they act independently in each subspace, 
so they generate the ${\rm U}(3)\times{\rm U}(2)$ subgroup of ${\rm U}(5)$, 
which is further a subgroup of ${\rm SO}(10)$. The two ${\rm U}(1)$ subgroups of ${\rm U}(3)$ and ${\rm U}(2)$ are generated by $\sum_{a=3}^{5}\varphi_a^\dagger \varphi_a$ and  $\sum_{a=1}^{2}\varphi_a^\dagger \varphi_a$ respectively. Since the ${\rm U}(1)_X$ (or $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$) generator has already been identified  as $\sum_{a=1}^{5}\varphi_a^\dagger \varphi_a$, so the ${\rm U}(1)_{\tilde{Y}}$ generator must be given by the remaining ${\rm U}(1)$ generator $(-3\sum_{a=1}^{2}+2\sum_{a=3}^{5})\varphi_a^\dagger \varphi_a$, which is represented in the ${\rm Spin}(10)$ spinor representation as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:q'}
q_{\tilde{Y}}=\frac{1}{2}\Big(-3\sum_{a=1}^{2}+2\sum_{a=3}^{5}\Big)\psi^\dagger \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\Gamma_{2a-1}\Gamma_{2a}\psi.
\end{eqnarray}

By diagonalizing  $\chi$, $q_{\tilde{Y}}$ and $q_{X}$ operators jointly (defined in Eqns.\,\Eq{eq: chi}, \Eq{eq:q'}, \Eq{eq:q''}), 
we can classify the16 Weyl fermions $\psi$ {(actually they are all in the 
left-handed spacetime Weyl spinor $\psi_L$ basis)}
by the quantum numbers as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\hline
{\rm U}(1)_{\tilde{Y}} & {\rm U}(1)_{X} & \text{internal } {\rm L}/{\rm R} & {\rm SU}(2)_{\rm L}^z & {\rm SU}(2)_{\rm R}^z & \psi\\
\hline
2 & -3 & {\rm R} & 0 & 1 & \bar{d}_R\\
-3 & -3 & {\rm L} & 1 & 0 & \nu_L\\
-3 & -3 & {\rm L} & -1 & 0 & e_L\\
1 & 1 & {\rm L} & 1 & 0 & u_L\\
1 & 1 & {\rm L} & -1 & 0 & d_L\\
-4 & 1 & {\rm R} & 0 & -1 & \bar{u}_R\\
6 & 1 & {\rm R} & 0 & 1 & \bar{e}_R\\
0 & 5 & {\rm R} & 0 & -1 & \bar{\nu}_R\\
\hline
\end{array},
\end{eqnarray}
matching all the fermion contents in the SM (see \Table{table:SMfermion}).
\end{enumerate}

{\bf No bilinear mass generation by bivector GUT-Higgs}: Unlike the SM-Higgs that generates a bilinear mass for SM Weyl fermions, the GUT-Higgs 
in {\bf 45} and {\bf 54} do not generate a bilinear mass for SM Weyl fermions. Because the ${\rm SO}(10)$ bivector Higgs field ${\Phi}^\text{bi}$ corresponds to four-fermion operators, which is supposed to be perturbatively irrelevant. Even if it condenses, it is not expected to gap out the Weyl fermions if its vaccum expectation value is small (but it will Higgs down the gauge group), so the theory remains gapless in the fermion sector in all phases. However, sufficiently strong Higgs condensation of ${\mathrm{Tr}}\Phi^\text{bi}$ (or $\Phi_{\bf 1}$ equivalently) can lead to symmetric mass generation (SMG)\cite{FidkowskifSPT2,Wang2013ytaJW1307.7480,Wang2018ugfJW1807.05998,YouHeXuVishwanath1705.09313, YouHeVishwanathXu1711.00863,Eichten1985ftPreskill1986,Wen2013ppa1305.1045,You2014oaaYouBenTovXu1402.4151, YX14124784,BenTov2015graZee1505.04312,Kikukawa2017ngf1710.11618,Catterall2020fep, CatterallTogaButt2101.01026,RazamatTong2009.05037, Tong2104.03997} as discussed previously.


\subsection{Fragmentary
GUT-Higgs Liquid model beyond the SM}
\label{sec:FragmentaryHiggs}

\subsubsection{Low-Energy Descriptions for the WZW theory}

The WZW term and its associated $w_2w_3$ global anomaly can significantly modify  the dynamics in the GUT-Higgs sector. There are several possibilities for the low-energy fate of the WZW theory:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB).} 
The ${\rm SO}(10)$ internal symmetry 
of WZW term (or Spin(10) for the full modified $so(10)$ GUT)
is spontaneously broken by Higgs condensation. Within this scenario, there are a few different symmetry breaking patterns relevant to our discussion (recall \Sec{sec:SM-GUT-branch}):
\begin{itemize}
\item $\langle\Phi_{\bf 45}\rangle\neq 0$, the $so(10)$ GUT is Higgs down to the $su(5)$ GUT.
\item $\langle\Phi_{\bf 54}\rangle\neq 0$, the $so(10)$ GUT is Higgs down to the PS model.
\item $\langle\Phi_{\bf 45}\rangle\neq 0$ and $\langle\Phi_{\bf 54}\rangle\neq 0$, the $so(10)$ GUT is Higgs down to the SM.
\end{itemize}
{In all three cases, the $w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$ anomaly is canceled by symmetry breaking the Spin(10) down to the GG, PS and 
SM groups.\footnote{However, the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ class $w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$ anomaly of SO(10) bundle is split to different kinds of $w_2w_3$ anomalies of SO(6) and SO(4) bundles in
the PS symmetry group: More precisely,
see Appendix \ref{app:Anomalies via Cobordism} in detail,
$w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})
=w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(6)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(6)})
+ w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(4)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(4)}) + 
w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(6)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(4)})
+ w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(4)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(6)})
 \mod 2$, where the crossing term 
 $w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(6)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(4)})
+ w_2(V_{{\rm SO}(4)})w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(6)})$ may or may not survive depending on whether we include additional time-reversal $T$ or $CP$ type of discrete symmetries protection or not.
}}
The resulting vacua is in the same quantum phase as the corresponding vacua in the absence of the WZW term. 

\item The ${\rm SO}(10)$ symmetry remains unbroken, and the $w_2w_3$ anomaly persists to low-energy. The low-energy effective theory must saturate the anomaly requirement, which further leads to several different possibilities:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf WZW conformal field theory (CFT).} The WZW theory flows to a non-trivial CFT fixed point, where the Higgs field $\Phi$ remains gapless and disorder (not condensing), and also do not deconfine into fragmented excitations.
\item {\bf Deconfined quantum criticality (DQC).} The Higgs field $\Phi$ deconfines into fragmented excitations: partons and emergent gauge fields, which are new particles beyond the SM. The low-energy physics will be described by new quantum electrodynamics (QED) or quantum chromodynamics (QCD) sectors. In any case, the total gauge group must be enlarged to include the emergent gauge structure of partons, which is a phenomenon called gauge enhanced quantum criticality (GEQC) \cite{WangYouZheng1910.14664}, which can be viewed as the generalization of the deconfined quantum criticality (DQC)\cite{SenthildQCP0311326,Vishwanath2013Physics,Sandvik2007Evidence,WangSenthildQCP1703.02426} to gauge-Higgs models. Possible field theory descriptions of the DQC can be classified by the parton statistics as:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Fermionic parton} theory, where the fractionalized particles in the emergent matter sector are fermions; [focus of our following work]
\item {\bf Bosonic parton} theory, where the fractionalized particles in the emergent matter sector are bosons.
\end{itemize}
It is possible that two seemly different descriptions (e.g. fermionic  v.s. bosonic parton theories) may be related by dualities, as discussed in\cite{Zou2018Symmetry,WangSenthildQCP1703.02426}. In this scenario, the $w_2w_3$ anomaly should be saturated either by the anomalous fermionic matter or by a non-trivial $\theta$-term of the emergent gauge field.

\item {\bf Topological order with low-energy non-invertible TQFT}: The $w_2w_3$ anomaly could also be saturated by 4d topological order. A simplest possibility is the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological order, which can be considered as a descendent of the DQC when the emergent gauge group is reduced to $\mathbb{Z}_2$ by some further Higgsing.

\end{enumerate}

\end{enumerate}

Among the above possibilities: 1. The SSB scenario in the WZW theory has no substantial difference with our previous discussions without the WZW term, which will not be repeated here. 2.(a) The WZW CFT is a non-trivial possibility, which the authors are not aware of suitable theoretical tools to study it, which will thus be left for future exploration. 2.(b) The DQC scenario will be the focus of the following discussion. In particular, we will consider a {\bf QED$_4$ theory with fermionic partons} as the effective field theory description. The WZW theory could potentially admits dual bosonic parton descriptions as well, but we will also leave this possibility for future study. 2.(c) The topological order scenario could be derived from the DQC scenario, which will also be left for future study.

\subsubsection{QED$_4$ Fermionic Parton Theory}

Here we propose a fermionic parton construction for the WZW term in \Eqn{eq:BdCdeRham}, which can also be viewed as a possible low-energy description of the WZW theory. 
\begin{equation}\label{eq: QED4}
S_\text{QED4}{[\xi,\bar{\xi},a,\Phi]}=\int_{M^4} \bar{\xi}(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^\mu D_\mu-\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^5\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi})\xi \; \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}^4x.
\end{equation}
The theory contains the following ingredients:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There are 10 Dirac fermions $\xi$ forming the $\mathbf{10}$  (vector representation) of ${\rm SO}(10)$. Here $\gamma^\mu$ are the standard $\gamma$ matrices of Dirac fermions with $\gamma^5=\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3$ and  $\bar{\xi}=\xi^\dagger\gamma^0$.

\item The covariant derivative $D_\mu=\nabla_\mu-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} a_\mu-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} g A_\mu$ contains the minimal coupling of the fermionic parton $\xi$ to an emergent dynamical ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge field $a_\mu$, as well as
the minimal coupling to the ${\rm SO}(10)$ gauge field $A_\mu$. We may treat the ${\rm SO}(10)$ gauge field $A_\mu$ as a background  field for now, and discuss how it can be gauged later.

\item The GUT-Higgs field $\Phi$ is written as its $10\times10$ matrix representation $\Phi^\text{bi}$ of the ${\rm SO}(10)$ bivector form. It couples to the fermionic partons by taking its traceless symmetric component $\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ (the ${\bf 54}$ of ${\rm SO}(10)$) as the vector mass of $\xi$ and its antisymmetric component $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ (the ${\bf 45}$ of ${\rm SO}(10)$) as the axial mass of $\xi$. In this way, the ${\rm SO}(10)$ bivector GUT-Higgs boson effectively deconfines into two ${\rm SO}(10)$ vector fermions: $\Phi^\text{bi}_{ab}\sim\xi^\dagger_a\xi_b$.
\end{enumerate}
In the QED$_4$ theory $S_\text{QED4}$, the GUT-Higgs field fractionalizes into gapless fermionic partons with emergent ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge interactions. The situation is similar to the ${\rm U}(1)$ Dirac spin liquid\cite{Zhou2017Quantum,Savary2017Quantum} discussed in the condensed matter physics context, therefore we may also call this QED$_4$ theory as the Fragmentary GUT-Higgs Liquid model.


We first argue that the QED theory in \Eqn{eq: QED4} saturates the same $w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$ anomaly as the WZW term. The starting point is to identify that the spacetime-internal symmetry and gauge group of the fermionic parton is
\begin{equation}
G_\text{QED4}={{{\rm Spin}\times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm U}(1)}\times {\rm SO}(10)} \equiv {\rm Spin}^c \times{\rm SO}(10),
\end{equation}
with fermions in the ${\bf 10}_1$ representation of ${\rm U}(1)\times{\rm SO}(10)$. The ${\rm U}(1)$ group is free of anomaly, which is consistent with the fact that this emergent ${\rm U}(1)$ structure can be gauged. Gauging removes the spin structure of the fermion theory, allowing the gauge theory to be placed on non-spin manifolds. So the resulting theory is a bosonic theory with ${\rm SO}(10)$ symmetry. It is expected that the ${\rm SO}(10)$ group should carry the $w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$ anomaly, and the anomaly could only originate from the fermionic partons in the QED theory without $\theta$-term. 

To check the anomaly in the fermion sector, we first turn off the Higgs coupling (as it does not affect the anomaly analysis), such that the theory becomes as simple as $\int_{M^4}\bar{\xi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu\xi \,\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}^4 x$. Without coupling to the Higgs field, the theory has an enlarged ${\rm SU}(2)$ gauge group, generated by $\xi^\dagger \xi$, $\Re \xi^\intercal\gamma^5\xi$, $\operatorname{Im} \xi^\intercal\gamma^5\xi$, among which $\xi^\dagger \xi$ generates the ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge group as a subgroup of ${\rm SU}(2)$. With the enlarged ${\rm SU}(2)$ gauge group, the fermionic parton theory is promoted from a QED$_4$ theory to a QCD$_4$ theory (without enlarging the fermion content), whose group structure is
\begin{equation}
G_\text{QCD4}={{{\rm Spin}\times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F}{\rm SU}(2)}\times {\rm SO}(10)} \equiv {\rm Spin}^h \times{\rm SO}(10),
\end{equation}
with fermion $\xi$ in the $({\bf 2},{\bf 10})$ representation of ${\rm SU}(2)\times{\rm SO}(10)$. This QED to QCD promotion does not change the anomaly structure, because the ${\rm SU}(2)$ group is still free of anomaly (e.g., Witten SU(2) anomaly \cite{Witten1982fp}), given that there are even number (ten) of ${\rm SU}(2)$ fundamental fermions. So the anomaly is still contained in the ${\rm SO}(10)$ group. To match the $w_2w_3$ anomaly, we make connection to the known new ${\rm SU}(2)$ anomaly\cite{WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844} by the following trick: we first embed ${\rm SU}(2)\times{\rm SO}(10)$ in ${\rm Sp}(10)$ and use a sequence of maximal sub-algebra decomposition ${\rm Sp}(10)\hookleftarrow{\rm Sp}(2)\times{\rm Sp}(8)\hookleftarrow{\rm SU}(2)'\times{\rm Sp}(8)$ to show that a different ${\rm SU}(2)'$ subgroup carries the $w_2w_3$ anomaly. Under the embedding, the representation of the fermionic parton $\xi$ splits as\footnote{{Here we apply the symplectic group notation under 
${\rm Sp}(n)={\rm USp}(2n)={\rm Sp}(2n, {\mathbb{C}}) \cup {\rm U}(2n)$,
such that ${\rm Sp}(1)={\rm USp}(2)={\rm SU}(2)={\rm Spin}(3)$ and 
${\rm Sp}(2)={\rm USp}(4)={\rm Spin}(5)$. 
The $G_1 \hookrightarrow G_2$ means that the inclusion $G_1 \subset G_2$ as a subgroup.
The representations on two sides of $``\sim''$ shows their decomposition relation.}}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:anomaly-decomposition}
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
{\rm U}(1)\times{\rm SO}(10) & \hookrightarrow
&{\rm SU}(2)\times{\rm SO}(10) &  \hookrightarrow
& {\rm Sp}(10) & \hookleftarrow
 & {\rm Sp}(2)\times{\rm Sp}(8) &  \hookleftarrow & {\rm SU}(2)'\times{\rm Sp}(8)\\
{\bf 10}_1 & & ({\bf 2},{\bf 10}) & \sim & {\bf 20} & \sim & ({\bf 4},{\bf 1})+({\bf 1},{\bf 16}) & \sim & ({\bf 4},{\bf 1})+({\bf 1},{\bf 16}).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Some comments on \eq{eq:anomaly-decomposition}:\\[-8mm]
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item
The $({\bf 1},{\bf 16})$ is free of Witten ${\rm SU}(2)'$ anomaly, but $({\bf 4},{\bf 1})$ has the new-${\rm SU}(2)'$ anomaly {$w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(3)'})$} \cite{WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844}. 
\item Since we have argued that $({\bf 2},{\bf 10})$ in ${\rm SU}(2)\times{\rm SO}(10)$ has no Witten ${\rm SU}(2)$ anomaly, so the new-${\rm SU}(2)'$ anomaly must come from ${\rm SO}(10)$, therefore the ${\rm SO}(10)$ symmetry has a 't Hooft anomaly described by $w_2w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})$. Of course, it can also be interpreted as a gravitational anomaly $w_2w_3(TM)$ due to the relation $(-1)^{\int w_2w_3(TM)}=(-1)^{\int w_2 w_3(V_{{\rm SO}(10)})}$ as mentioned before. 
\item The analysis establishes that the proposed QED$_4$ theory in \Eqn{eq: QED4} at least 
has the same 4d global anomaly as the {new proposed 4d WZW term in \eq{eq:BdCsingular}}.
\end{itemize}
To reproduce the WZW term more explicitly, we extend the 4d QED theory to the 5d bulk 
\begin{equation}
S_\text{QED5}[\xi,\bar{\xi},a,\Phi]=\int_{M_5} 
\bar{\xi}(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^\mu D_\mu -m-\gamma^5\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}-\gamma^6\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi})\xi \; \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}^5 x,
\end{equation}
where $\xi$ still forms the ${\bf 10}_1$ under ${\rm U}(1)\times{\rm SO}(10)$. Note that in 5d, each Dirac fermion already defines five gamma matrices $\gamma^0,\gamma^1,\gamma^2,\gamma^3,\gamma^4$, which are $4\times 4$ matrices. By doubling the fermion content, we are able to introduce two more gamma matrices, denoted $\gamma^5$ and $\gamma^6$, such that all seven gamma matrices $\gamma^0,\cdots ,\gamma^6$ are $8\times 8$ matrices satisfying the Clifford algebra relation $\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\}=2\delta^{\mu\nu}$. The bulk fermions are gapped by the mass term $m$. The boundary QED$_4$ theory (with massless fermions) is reduced from the bulk QED$_5$ theory (with massive fermions) as the effective domain wall theory, which lives on the 4d domain wall separating the $m>0$ and $m<0$ phases in 5d.

To show that the QED$_4$ theory is equivalent to the WZW theory,  we only need to show that the bulk QED$_5$ theory 
can reproduce the WZW term \eq{eq:BdCsingular}. 
For this purpose, we introduce two 2-form ${\mathbb{R}}$ gauge fields ${\cal B}={\cal B}_{\mu\nu}\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} x^{\mu}\wedge\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} x^{\nu}$ and ${\cal C}={\cal C}_{\mu\nu}\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} x^{\mu}\wedge\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} x^{\nu}$ that couple to the fermionic parton as
\begin{equation}
S_\text{QED5}[\xi,\bar{\xi},a,\Phi,{\cal B},{\cal C}]=\int_{M_5}\bar{\xi}(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^\mu D_\mu -m-\gamma^5\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}-\gamma^6\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^5\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu {\cal B}_{\mu\nu}-\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}\gamma^6\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu {\cal C}_{\mu\nu})\xi\;\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d}^5 x.
\end{equation}
Integrating out the mass fermion $\xi$, 
we obtain the Chern-Simons 5-form CS${}_5$ term with 2-form ${\cal B}, {\cal C}$ fields:
\begin{equation}
S_{\text{CS}_5}[{\cal B},{\cal C}]=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{M_5} {\cal B}\wedge\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} {\cal C},
\end{equation}
with the constraint that the 2-form gauge fields ${\cal B}$ and ${\cal C}$ are locked to the cohomology classes that measure the topological defects in $\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ and $\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}$ respectively
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BCnormalization}
B(\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi})= \frac{{\cal B}}{\pi}= \frac{{\cal B}(\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi})}{\pi}\in {\rm H}^2(\O(10)/(\O(6)\times\O(4)),\mathbb{Z}_2),\quad
C(\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi})= \frac{{\cal C}}{\pi}= \frac{{\cal C}(\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi})}{\pi}\in {\rm H}^2(\O(10)/{\rm U}(5),\mathbb{Z}_2).
\end{equation}
The emergent ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge field $a$ decouples from the Higgs field $\Phi$ and the 2-form gauge fields ${\cal B},{\cal C}$, which can be integrated out independently. Further integrate out the 2-form gauge fields ${\cal B},{\cal C}$, we obtain an action for $\Phi$ (simply by substituting the constraint),
$
S_\text{WZW}[\Phi]=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{M_5} {\cal B}(\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi})\wedge\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{d} {\cal C}(\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}).
$ 
Recall the footnote \ref{ft:normalization-WZW} about our normalizations of differential forms and cohomology classes.
This leads to the proposed WZW term in \Eqn{eq:BdCsingular} 
\begin{equation}
S_\text{WZW}[\Phi]={\pi}\int_{M_5} B(\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi})\smile \delta C(\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}),
\end{equation}
which is expected to be placed on the 5d manifold $M_5$ whose boundary is the 4d spacetime $M_4=\partial M_5$.

\subsubsection{Color-Flavor Separation and Dark Gauge Sector: Deconfined Quantum Criticality}

The QED$_4$ theory describes the DQC scenario of the WZW theory at low-energy. In this scenario, the GUT-Higgs field deconfines into fragmentary excitations, 
which are new 0d particles beyond the SM:
\begin{itemize}
\item 10 new fermions $\xi$ in the ${\bf 10}_1$ of ${\rm U}(1)\times{\rm SO}(10)$, as {\bf fermionic partons} of the GUT-Higgs field;
\item a new ${\rm U}(1)$ photon $a_\mu$ in the ${\bf 1}_0$ of ${\rm U}(1)\times{\rm SO}(10)$, which mediates a new gauge force that exists between and only between fermionic partons. It does not couple to any particle in the SM sector, hence appears dark to us. Therefore, we will call it the {\bf dark photon}.
\end{itemize}
The GUT-Higgs boson can be considered as the bound state of two fermionic partons (of opposite emergent ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge charges) bind together by the the emergent ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge force mediated by dark photons. From particle physic perspective, the fermionic partons and dark photons are more fundamental constituents of the GUT-Higgs boson. From condensed matter physics perspective, these fragmentary excitations are emergent collective motions of the GUT-Higgs field instead. The two complementary viewpoints are a matter of culture. The readers can take whichever interpretation that is more favorable to their mindset.

Because the QED theory do not confine in 4d, the fragmentary Higgs liquid is expected to be a stable phase in the phase diagram Fig.\,\ref{fig:phase-schematic}.  It covers the quantum critical region (critical in the sense that excitations are gapless), and may possibly extend into the modified $so(10)$ GUT phase (as long as fermionic partons remain deconfined). Starting from the fragmentary Higgs liquid phase, we can access the adjacent phases by Higgs condensation.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\langle\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle\neq 0$, the system enters the PS GUT phase, where fermionic partons are fully gapped by the vector mass.
\item $\langle\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle\neq 0$, the system enters the $su(5)$ GUT phase, where fermionic partons are fully gapped by the axial mass.
\item $\langle\tilde{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle\neq 0$ and $\langle\hat{\Phi}^\text{bi}\rangle\neq 0$, the system enters the SM phase, where fermionic partons are fully gapped by both vector and axial masses.
\end{itemize}
In all phases, the dark photon will remain gapless and decoupled from all the other particles, which provides a new candidate for light dark matter. 


A substantial difference of fermionic partons in the fragmentary Higgs liquid from quarks and leptons in the SM lies in their distinct assignment of quantum numbers. Consider entering the SM phase from the fragmentary Higgs liquid, the fermionic partons, apart from  gap opening, also has its representation split from ${\bf 10}_1$ under 
${\rm U}(1)\times{\rm SO}(10)$ to 
$$({\bf 1},{\bf 2})_{1,3,-2}+({\bf 3},{\bf 1})_{1,-2,-2}+({\bf 1},{\bf 2})_{1,-3,2}+({\bf \bar 3},{\bf 1})_{1,2,2}
\text{ under } {\rm SU}(3)_{c}\times{\rm SU}(2)_L\times {\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}\times{\rm U}(1)_{\tilde Y}\times{\rm U}(1)_X$$ 
of the SM. The weak ${\rm SU}(2)$ flavor and the strong ${\rm SU}(3)$ color quantum numbers separate to different fermions, called \emph{flavoron} and \emph{coloron}, denoted by $a$ and $o$ respectively, as summarized in Tab.\,\ref{tab: parton}. This phenomenon will be called {\bf color-flavor separation}, as it is analogous to the spin-charge separation \cite{Tomonaga1950Remarks,Luttinger1963An-Exactly,Anderson2000Spin-charge} in condensed matter physics.

\begin{table}[htp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccccc}
\hline
 & ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ & ${\rm SU}(3)_{c,\text{color}}$ & ${\rm SU}(2)_{L,\text{flavor}}$ & ${\rm U}(1)_{\tilde Y}$ & ${\rm U}(1)_X$ & ${\rm U}(1)_\text{EM}$ \\
\hline
$a_L$ & $1$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $3$ & $-2$ & $1$ or $0$\\
$o_L$ & $1$ & ${\bf 3}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $-2$ & $-2$ & $-1/3$\\
$\bar{a}_R$ & $1$ & ${\bf 1}$ & ${\bf 2}$ & $-3$ & $2$ & $0$ or $-1$\\
$\bar{o}_R$ & $1$ & ${\bf \bar 3}$ & ${\bf 1}$ & $2$ & $2$ & $1/3$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The fermionic parton $\xi$ contains flavorons $a$ and colorons $o$. Please beware that the
${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ is for the Dark Gauge (dark photon) sector, which is \emph{totally distinct} from the ${\rm U}(1)_\text{EM}$.
The ${\rm U}(1)_\text{EM}$ is from the electroweak Higgs symmetry breaking of the ${\rm SU}(2)_{L,\text{flavor}} \times {\rm U}(1)_{\tilde Y}$ down to a subgroup ${\rm U}(1)_\text{EM}$.
}
\end{center}
\label{tab: parton}
\end{table}

The flavoron can participate weak interaction but not strong interaction. On the contrary, the coloron can participate strong interaction but not electroweak interaction. Many of them also carry electromagnetic charge, such that they can also participate electromagnetic interaction. Beyond the SM interactions, the flavoron and coloron also interact among themselves by the emergent ${\rm U}(1)$ gauge force mediated by the dark photon. Note that there exist a flavoron (in the $a_L$ sector) which do not participate strong and electromagnetic interactions. It only participate weak interaction (like neutrinos) and dark gauge interaction (unlike neutrinos), which makes it a potential candidate for heavy dark matter.





\section{Conclusion: Mother Effective Field Theory for BSM Gauge Enhanced Quantum Criticality}

\label{sec:EFTBSMGEQC}



\subsection{Summary of Main Results:\\
EFT for Internal Spin(10) Global Symmetry or Dynamical Gauge Theory}

To conclude, here we summarize our physical findings on the various quantum vacua of mother effective field theory of the modified 4d $so(10)$ GUT + WZW term 
based on three binary conditions:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2.mm, label=\textcolor{blue}{(\alph*)}.]
\item {\bf Without or with the GUT-Higgs potential ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ of \Eqn{eq:GUTHiggsU}}: (i) Whether we stays in the Spin(10) group of $so(10)$ GUT, or (ii) add
the GUT-Higgs potential to Higgs down the Spin(10) deforming it to $G_{\text{GG}}$, $G_{\text{PS}}$, and $G_{\SM}$.
\item {\bf Without or with the WZW term 
$S^\text{WZW}[\Phi]{=\pi \int_{M^5}B(\tilde{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})\smile \delta C(\hat{\Phi}^{\rm{bi}})}$ 
of \Eqn{eq:BdCsingular}}: Namely 
(i) Whether we stays in the $so(10)$ GUT without the $w_2w_3$ anomaly, or (ii) we consider the modified so(10) GUT + WZW with the $w_2w_3$ anomaly.
\item {\bf Without or with the dynamically gauged internal symmetry group $G=G_{\text{internal}}$}: (i) Whether we keep the $[G_{\text{internal}}]$ symmetry as a global symmetry, 
or (ii) we gauge the $[G_{\text{internal}}]$,\footnote{We use the bracket notation on a group $[G_{\text{internal}}]$ to emphasize that group is dynamically gauged.} 
namely gauging  $[Spin(10)], [G_{\text{GG}}]$, $[G_{\text{PS}}]$, and $[G_{\SM}]$.
\end{enumerate}
The three binary conditions enumerate totally eight possibilities 
(where below we can use 3-bits, ``???'', each bit
labels a ``x'' or ``o'' to specify
without or with that binary condition holds), 
which we enlist their physics interpretations, one by one:
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=2.mm, label=\textcolor{blue}{\arabic*}.]
\item xxx - {\bf Without ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, without WZW, without gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}:\\
We stay in the Landau-Ginzburg phase of the Spin(10) global symmetry.
\item  oxx - {\bf With ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, without WZW, without gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}:\\
We stay in the Landau-Ginzburg phases, but the ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ potentially 
breaks the Spin(10) global symmetry to
other continuous Lie group global symmetries $G_{\text{GG}}$, $G_{\text{PS}}$, and $G_{\SM}$,
via spontaneous global symmetry breaking.
There are 45, 24, 21, and 12 Lie algebra generators for each of these groups.
So there are corresponding numbers of the low energy Nambu-Goldstone modes,
matching the number of the broken Lie algebra generators based on the Goldstone's theorem.

In principle, 
because there is no 't Hooft anomaly for the 16n chiral fermions with these 
$G_{\text{internal}}$ internal global symmetries, 
we can gap out all chiral fermions while preserving $G_{\text{internal}}$
via a \emph{symmetric mass generation} through appropriate interactions.

\item xxo  - {\bf Without ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, without WZW, with gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}:\\
We obtain the familiar $so(10)$ GUT with the $[{\rm Spin}(10)]$ gauged. 
At a deep UV higher energy, there shows the \emph{asymptotic freedom} of 16n Weyl fermions 
(quarks and leptons are liberated with a weaker coupling at a shorter distance for such a non-abelian Lie group gauge force \cite{Gross1973id, Politzer1973fx}).
At an IR lower energy, the Spin(10) gauge fields confine the 16n Weyl fermions,
which is a strongly coupled gauge theory 
with all fermions can gain an energy gap (i.e., ``mass'' due to the confinement).


\item  oxo - {\bf With ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, without WZW, with gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}:\\
Then we are in the dynamical gauge theory phases but with gauge symmetry breaking.
The ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ potentially 
breaks the Spin(10) gauge group to
other continuous Lie gauge group $G_{\text{GG}}$, $G_{\text{PS}}$, and $G_{\SM}$,
via Anderson-Higgs mechanism of \emph{spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking}.
There are 45, 24, 21, and 12 Lie algebra generators for each of these groups.
Recall in the global symmetry story, 
there are corresponding numbers of the low energy Nambu-Goldstone modes,
matching the number of the broken Lie algebra generators based on the Goldstone's theorem.
But now some massless gauge fields can "eats" the degrees of freedom of Goldstone bosons,
so to become the massive gauge field with extra degrees of freedom.

Note that again, 
at a deep UV higher energy, 
there shows the \emph{asymptotic freedom} of Weyl fermions;
while at an IR lower energy, 
the non-abelian Lie gauge forces 
of $G_{\text{GG}}$, $G_{\text{PS}}$, and $G_{\SM}$)
can \emph{confine} some of the Weyl fermions.
In this strongly coupled gauge theory, 
some fermions can gain an energy gap (i.e., ``mass'') due to the confinement.
But we do still have the electroweak-Higgs causing spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking  
$su(2)_L \times u(1)_Y \to u(1)_{\mathrm{EM}}$.
The $u(1)_{\mathrm{EM}}$ stays \emph{deconfined} and propagate the gaplss electromagnetic waves in our vacuum.

Here the fermion mass can come from a combination of mechanism from:
the confinement mass, the Anderson-Higgs (gauge-)symmetry-breaking mass, or
the gauge theory analog of the {symmetric mass generation}.
\item xox - {\bf Without ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, with WZW, without gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}: \label{item:xox}\\
We stay in the Landau-Ginzburg phase of the Spin(10) global symmetry,
but the 4d WZW term causes the 4d \emph{deconfined quantum criticality} (DQC) with
fractionalized fragmentary excitations.

This DQC is also a \emph{gauge-enhanced criticality} (GEQC) because
we have a new gauge force (that we call Dark Gauge force with 
${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ 
Dark Photons) emergent near the criticality. 
The fractionalized fragmentary excitations carry the ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ gauge charge.
If the ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ dark photons stay gapless dynamically at deep IR,
then it is due to the protection of $w_2w_3$ anomaly.
\item oox - {\bf With ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, with WZW, without gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}:\\
We stay in the Landau-Ginzburg phases, but the ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$ potentially 
breaks the Spin(10) global symmetry to
other continuous Lie group global symmetries $G_{\text{GG}}$, $G_{\text{PS}}$, and $G_{\SM}$,
via spontaneous global symmetry breaking.
Other than the low energy Nambu-Goldstone modes
matching the number of the broken Lie algebra generators
in the neighbor phases, we still have the fractionalized fragmentary excitations
that also carries ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ gauge charge,
with ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ Dark Photons.
\item xoo - {\bf Without ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, with WZW, with gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}: \label{item:xoo}\\
We obtain the modified $so(10)$ GUT + WZW with the $[{\rm Spin}(10)]$ gauged. 
At a deep UV higher energy, there shows the \emph{asymptotic freedom} of 16n Weyl fermions.
Other than the DQC and GEQC phenomena described above in the scenario \ref{item:xox}, the theory shows:\\ 
$\bullet$ The Spin(10) gauge bosons can propagate or leak to the 5d bulk.\\
$\bullet$ The 16n Weyl fermions are gappable (because there is no anomaly protection for these 16n fermions).\\
$\bullet$  We have again the 10 fractionalized fragmentary fermions, gauge charged under ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ Dark Photon.
Furthermore, the 10 fractionalized fragmentary fermions carry also the strong SU(3)$_c$ gauge charge,
and the weak SU(2)$_L$ gauge charge, recall from Table \ref{tab: parton}.\\
$\bullet$ Here we are doing the {Fragmentary GUT-Higgs Liquid model beyond the SM} 
(with 10 fractionalized fragmentary fermions coupled to ${\rm U}(1)_{\text{gauge}}^{\text{dark}}$ Dark Photon)
of \Sec{sec:FragmentaryHiggs} that can match the $w_2w_3$ anomaly.
In contrast, we are not thinking of the 10 gauge neutral bosons from {Composite GUT-Higgs model within SM}
of \Sec{sec:CompositeHiggs} that does not have the $w_2w_3$ anomaly.
 
\item ooo - {\bf With ${\rm U}(\Phi_{{\mathbf{R}}})$, with WZW, with gauged $[G_{\text{internal}}]$}:\\
This scenario follows directly from the scenario \ref{item:xoo}, but with a GUT-Higgs potential triggering symmetry-breaking.
All statements in the scenario \ref{item:xoo} follow also here. Moreover,\\
$\bullet$ There is a sequence of various possibilities at various energy scales from the UV to the IR dynamical fates of this QFT.
Here we only enlist the possibilities by $w_2w_3$ anomaly matching based on \emph{kinematics}, 
we do not know the definite answer of quantum \emph{dynamics}. But the anomaly can constrain the 
quantum dynamical fates.
The following dynamics saturate the $w_2w_3$ anomaly can be the quantum dynamics of 
{\bf the modified $so(10)$ GUT or the PS model + 4d WZW term} (with 16n Weyl fermions):\\
i).\,Spin(10) gauge theory is asymptotic free at the deep UV.\\
ii).\,Spin(10) gauge group can be broken down to contain an SU(2) gauge subgroup (which is also asymptotic free) 
such that there is a new SU(2) anomaly $w_2w_3$ \cite{WangWenWitten2018qoy1810.00844}.\\
iii).\,The gauge group can be broken down to contain a U(1) gauge subgroup
which can also have a $w_2w_3$ anomaly if the theory is all-fermion U(1) gauge theory 
\cite{WangPotterSenthil1306.3238, KravecMcGreevySwingle1409.8339}. \\
iv).\,The gauge group can be broken down to contain a  $\mathbb{Z}_2$ gauge subgroup
which can also have a $w_2w_3$ anomaly if the theory has fermionic strings  \cite{Thorngren1404.4385}.
 
\end{enumerate}


{\bf \emph{4d boundary criticality and a 5d bulk bosonic invertible TQFT}}: 
Notice that we can interpret the above 4d criticality as a 
{\bf \emph{ boundary criticality}} with the $w_2w_3$  anomaly on the 5d bulk 
of a mod 2 class invertible TQFT. 
The 4d WZW, that can be built from the bosonic GUT-Higgs fields alone, can saturate 4d $w_2w_3$ anomaly. 
So we only require the bulk as some 5d bosonic symmetry-protected topological states (bosonic SPTs, if we require an onsite Spin(10) symmetry. 
See the overview of modern quantum matter terminology and definitions in \cite{Wen2016ddy1610.03911, Senthil1405.4015})).

{\bf \emph{Bosonic UV completion}}: 
For this 16n Weyl fermion models,
the whole UV completion of the full 4d and 5d system requires only the bosons, as the local onsite Hilbert space with gauge-invariant bosonic operators.


Although above we focus on the 16n-Weyl-fermion SMs or GUTs,
we can consider the 15n-Weyl-fermion models, especially for {\bf the $su(5)$ GUT and the SM + 4d WZW term},
see \Sec{sec:16nvs15nWeylfermions}.  


\subsection{16n  vs 15n Weyl fermions: Give ``mass'' to ``right-handed sterile'' neutrinos, canceling mod 2 and mod 16 anomalies,
and topological quantum criticality}
\label{sec:16nvs15nWeylfermions}

Although we mostly focus on the 16n-Weyl-fermion SMs or GUTs in this work,
here we comment about several ways to obtain the low-energy 15n-Weyl-fermion models 
(since the real-world experiments only observed the 15n-Weyl-fermion so far)
by giving a large mass to the 16th Weyl fermions, 
the so-called ``right-handed sterile'' neutrinos (in any of the 3 generation of leptons).\footnote{Note that the
``right-handed sterile $\nu_R$'' neutrino is just the conventional name used in the HEP phenomenology.
We would mostly write this $\nu_R$ in the left-handed Weyl fermion basis.
Also the $\nu_R$ although is sterile to the $G_{\SM}$ and SU(5), the $\nu_R$ is not sterile to Spin(10) and $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$. }

What are examples of conventional ways \cite{georgi2018liebook}
to give a large (Anderson-Higgs type quadratic) mass to the 16th Weyl fermions?
We can pair Weyl fermion to itself (i.e., Majorana mass) or to another Weyl fermion (e.g., Dirac mass):
\begin{enumerate}
\item Introduce a Higgs $\Phi_{so(10), \bf 126}$ which can be paired with $ \overline{\bf 126}$ out of two Weyl fermions in
${\bf 16} \otimes {\bf 16} = {\bf 10} \oplus {\bf 120} \oplus \overline{\bf 126}$.
\item Introduce a Higgs $\Phi_{so(10), \bf 16}$ and add an extra Weyl fermion (17th Weyl fermion) singlet ${\bf 1}$ under Spin(10).
This works only if some of the following holds: 
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The 17th Weyl fermion is \emph{not} charged under the $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$-symmetry, so we have the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$-anomaly called already by 16n Weyl fermions.
This is likely to be true because this 17th Weyl fermion is singlet ${\bf 1}$ under Spin(10), thus is also not acted by the center $Z({\rm Spin}(10))=\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$.
\item 
If the 17th Weyl fermion is also charged under the $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$-symmetry,
then we require the $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$-symmetry is broken (thus the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$-anomaly is removed), or the $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$-symmetry is preserved but 
$17 \mod 16$-anomaly is cancelled again by additional new sectors with $-1 \mod 16$-anomaly.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
What are other new ways to leave only the observed 15n Weyl fermions at low energy, but the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ global anomaly can still be cancelled in the full quantum system?
To begin with, to characterize the full 4d anomaly of this 15n SMs or GUTs,
we should combine the two types of anomalies:
First, a potential global $\mathbb{Z}_2$ anomaly, $w_2 w_3$ for our 4d WZW term, such as in the {Fragmentary GUT-Higgs Liquid model} in \Sec{sec:FragmentaryHiggs}.
Second, the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ global anomaly captured by a 5d version of Atiyah-Patodi-Singer (APS) eta invariant for the ${\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$-structure
 from $\mathrm{TP}_5({\rm Spin} \times_{\mathbb{Z}_2^F} \mathbb{Z}_{4,X})=\mathbb{Z}_{16}$.
We can write that 5d APS invariant in terms of the 4d APS invariant of $\mathrm{Pin}^+$-structure from $\mathrm{TP}_4(\mathrm{Pin}^+)=\mathbb{Z}_{16}$.
The two combined invertible TQFT, labeled by ${\rm p} \in \mathbb{Z}_2$ and $\upnu\in \mathbb{Z}_{16}$, has a partition function ${\bf Z}$ on $M^5$:
\begin{multline}\hspace{-4mm}
{{\bf Z}_{{\text{$5$d-iTQFT}}}^{({\rm p}, \upnu)} }
\equiv
\exp(\hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt} \pi\cdot {\rm p}\cdot \int_{M^5} w_2 w_3) 
\cdot
\exp(\frac{2\pi \hspace{1pt}\mathrm{i}\hspace{1pt}}{16} \cdot\upnu \cdot \eta(\text{PD}({\cal A}_{{\mathbb{Z}_4}} \mod 2)) \bigg\rvert_{M^5}), \\ 
\text{ with } 
{\rm p} \in \mathbb{Z}_2, \quad
\text{a 4d Atiyah-Patodi-Singer $\eta$ invariant} \equiv \eta_{\text{Pin}^+} \in \mathbb{Z}_{16}, \quad \upnu\in \mathbb{Z}_{16}
.\;
\end{multline}
The ${\cal A}_{{\mathbb{Z}_4}} \in \operatorname{H}^1(M, \mathbb{Z}_{4,X})$ is a cohomology class discrete gauge field of the $\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$-symmetry.

Inspired by highly-entangled interacting quantum matter recent developments (see reviews in \cite{Wen2016ddy1610.03911, Senthil1405.4015}),
\Refe{JW2006.16996, JW2008.06499, JW2012.15860} proposed additional new sectors to cancel the anomalies, for example,
\begin{enumerate} \setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item Symmetry-preserving anomalous gapped 4d TQFT.
\item Symmetric-preserving 5d invertible TQFT in the extra dimension.
\item Symmetry-breaking gapped phase of Landau-Ginzburg kinds.
\item Symmetry-preserving (or breaking) 5d topological gravity theory.
\item Symmetry-preserving or symmetry-breaking gapless phase, 
e.g., extra massless theories, free or interacting conformal field theories (CFTs). 
The interacting CFT can also be related to unparticle physics \cite{Georgi200703260Unparticle} in the high-energy phenomenology community.
\end{enumerate}
The heavy gapped new sectors above can be {\bf   \emph{heavy Dark Matter}} candidates.
The interesting constraints from mod 2 and mod 16 global anomalies on our 4d DQC model are:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item {\bf \emph{$\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ anomaly constraints on the GG and SM of 15n Weyl fermions}}:
On the Georgi-Glashow $su(5)$ GUT and the Standard Model SM${}_{q=6}$ side, we can have 15n Weyl fermions, plus additional new sectors enlisted 
(above and in \cite{JW2006.16996, JW2008.06499, JW2012.15860}) to match the $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$ anomaly.

\item {\bf \emph{$\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ $w_2w_3$ anomaly constraints on the $so(10)$ GUT and PS of 16n Weyl fermions}}:
On the $so(10)$ GUT and the Pati-Salam model sides, there are various types of  $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ class $w_2w_3$ anomalies,
of the ${\rm SO}(10)$, ${\rm SO}(6)$, or ${\rm SO}(4)$  bundles.
The $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ $w_2w_3$ anomaly is meant to be cancelled by our 4d WZW term.

\item At the vicinity of the 4d DQC we have proposed, there can be another interplay between the 15n Weyl fermions (GG and SM) to 16n Weyl fermions (the $so(10)$ GUT and PS),
such that the DQC becomes a  {\bf \emph{topological quantum phase transition}} or  {\bf \emph{topological quantum criticality}}.

\end{itemize}



{\bf \emph{4d boundary criticality to a 5d bulk criticality}}: 
Compare with the phase diagram in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}.
Notice that we can interpret the above 4d criticality as a 
{\bf \emph{boundary criticality}} --- 
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item 
 On the modified $so(10)$ GUT and the PS model + WZW term side with 16n Weyl fermions in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}:
with the $w_2w_3$ $\mathbb{Z}_2$-class anomaly on the 5d bulk  of a mod 2 class invertible TQFT.
\item  
On the modified $su(5)$ GUT and the SM + WZW term side with 15n Weyl fermions  in \Fig{fig:phase-schematic}:
with the $\eta(\text{PD}({\cal A}_{{\mathbb{Z}_4}} \mod 2))$ $\mathbb{Z}_{16}$-class anomaly on the 5d bulk  of a mod 2 class invertible TQFT. 
\end{itemize}
Once the $[{\rm Spin}(10)]$ is dynamically gauged, 
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=.mm]
\item 
The 5d bulk on the modified $so(10)$ GUT and the PS model side (16n Weyl fermions): 
The $[{\rm Spin}(10)]$ dynamical gauge fields can propagate and leak to the 5d bulk are \emph{deconfined and gapless}.
\item The 5d bulk on the modified $su(5)$ GUT and the SM side (15n Weyl fermions): 
Only the $[\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}]$ subgroup ($Z({\rm Spin}(10))=\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}$)
are dynamically gauged in the 5d bulk of the original fermionic invertible TQFT $\eta(\text{PD}({\cal A}_{{\mathbb{Z}_4}} \mod 2))$. 
Gauging $[\mathbb{Z}_{4,X}]$ turns the 5d fermionic bulk to a 5d bosonic bulk TQFT 
(with long-range entanglement, gapped topological order, and described by gauged cohomology, gauged cobordism, or higher category theory).
The 5d bulk can remain to be \emph{gapped}. 
\end{itemize}
Thus there is a phase transition between the {\bf\emph{deconfined and gapless}} 5d bulk to another side of
{\bf\emph{gapped}} 5d bulk. This phase transition can be interpreted as a {\bf \emph{5d bulk topological quantum criticality}}.
 




\section{Acknowledgements} 
JW thanks Pierre Deligne, Lena Funcke, Jun Hou Fung, Chang-Tse Hsieh, Pavel Putrov, Subir Sachdev, Luuk Stehouwer, David Tong, and Zheyan Wan for helpful comments.
YZY thanks John McGreevy for helpful comments.
YZY is supported by a startup fund at UCSD.
This work is supported by 
NSF Grant DMS-1607871 ``Analysis, Geometry and Mathematical Physics'' 
and Center for Mathematical Sciences and Applications at Harvard University.

