1: %=======================================================================
2: % This manuscript is in JHEP Style
3: %=======================================================================
4: \documentclass{JHEP3}
5: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,bbm,subfigure}
6: \usepackage{dsfont}
7: \usepackage{wasysym}
8: \usepackage{rotating}
9: \usepackage{cite}
10:
11: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
12: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
13: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
14: \newcommand{\lmat}[2][lllll]{\left( \begin{array}{#1} #2\\ \end{array} \right)}
15: \newcommand{\mat}[2][ccccc]{\left( \begin{array}{#1} #2\\ \end{array} \right)}
16: \newcommand{\rmat}[2][rrrrr]{\left( \begin{array}{#1} #2\\ \end{array} \right)}
17: \newcommand{\lsim}{
18: \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
19: \newcommand{\gsim}{
20: \mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
21:
22:
23: \newcommand{\newc}{\newcommand}
24: \newcommand{\cleqn}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}
25: \newc{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
26: \newc{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
27: \newc{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
28: \newc{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
29: \newc{\bsym}{\boldsymbol}
30:
31:
32: \setlength{\headsep}{10pt}
33: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2.0mm}
34:
35:
36:
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38:
39:
40:
41: \title{Discrete gauge symmetries and proton stability\\in the $\boldsymbol{U(1)'}$-extended MSSM}
42:
43: \author{Hye-Sung Lee\\
44: Institute for Fundamental Theory, University of
45: Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA\\
46: E-mail: \email{hlee@phys.ufl.edu}}
47: \author{Christoph Luhn\\
48: Institute for Fundamental Theory, University of
49: Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA\\
50: E-mail: \email{luhn@phys.ufl.edu}}
51: \author{Konstantin T. Matchev\\
52: Institute for Fundamental Theory, University of
53: Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA\\
54: E-mail: \email{matchev@phys.ufl.edu}}
55:
56:
57:
58: \preprint{UFIFT-HEP-07-19}
59:
60: \abstract{The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with conserved
61: $R$-parity suffers from several fine-tuning problems, e.g. the
62: $\mu$-problem and the problem of proton decay through higher dimension
63: operators. Both of these problems can be avoided by replacing
64: $R$-parity with a non-anomalous $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry
65: which is broken at the TeV scale. The new gauge symmetry
66: does not necessarily forbid {\em all} renormalizable $R$-parity violating
67: interactions among the MSSM fields, and may allow for either lepton
68: number or baryon number violation at the renormalizable level.
69: However, the proton decay problem resurfaces with the introduction of
70: new TeV-scale exotic fields which are required for gauge anomaly cancellations.
71: In this paper we investigate the issue of proton stability in the presence of
72: TeV-scale exotics. We show that there are large classes of models in which
73: TeV exotics do {\em not} destabilize the proton. We classify the viable models
74: according to the residual discrete symmetries after $U(1)'$ and electroweak
75: symmetry breaking. In some of our examples the residual $U(1)'$ discrete
76: gauge symmetry within the MSSM sector alone ensures that the proton is
77: absolutely stable, for {\em any} exotic representations. In other cases the
78: proton can be sufficiently long-lived, depending on the $U(1)'$ and hypercharge
79: discrete charge assignments for the exotic fields. Our analysis outlines
80: a general scheme for ensuring proton stability in the presence of light
81: exotics with baryon and lepton number violating interactions.}
82:
83:
84: \keywords{Discrete and Finite Symmetries, Beyond Standard Model, Supersymmetry Phenomenology}
85:
86:
87: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
88:
89:
90: \begin{document}
91:
92:
93:
94:
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: \section{Introduction}
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: In the Standard Model (SM)
99: lepton number ($\mathcal L$) and baryon number ($\mathcal B$) are conserved
100: at the renormalizable level due to accidental global symmetries.
101: In the supersymmetric SM, with the addition of the superpartners,
102: $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal B$ are not conserved anymore.
103: Therefore, the supersymmetrization of the SM requires an accompanying
104: symmetry or some mechanism for ensuring proton stability.
105: The Minimal version of the Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)
106: with $R$-parity has been the most popular model of low-energy supersymmetry.
107: $R$-parity is a $\mathds Z_2$ symmetry, which has been the
108: prevailing candidate for the companion symmetry of supersymmetry
109: as it protects the proton from decaying through {\em renormalizable}
110: lepton number violating (LV) and baryon number violating (BV) terms.
111:
112: However, $R$-parity alone does not completely cure
113: the fine-tuning problems of the supersymmetric SM.
114: First, $R$-parity still allows the existence of dangerous higher dimension
115: operators (e.g. $QQQL$ and $U^cU^cD^cE^c$ in the superpotential),
116: which violate both $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal B$ and thus endanger
117: proton stability \cite{Weinberg:1981wj,Ellis:1982wr,Ellis:1983qm,Harnik:2004yp}\footnote{See,
118: e.g.~Refs.~\cite{Kurosawa:2001iq,Sayre:2006en,Mohapatra:2007vd}, to see how
119: the problem can be alleviated in grand unified theories.}.
120: This should be considered a serious flaw of the MSSM, given that $R$-parity
121: was introduced to ensure proton stability in the first place.
122: In addition, $R$-parity does not address the $\mu$-problem \cite{Kim:1983dt}
123: of the MSSM, whose solution may require some other mechanism.
124: These shortcomings of the MSSM motivate an alternative supersymmetrization
125: of the SM and/or an alternative companion symmetry, especially since
126: $R$-parity violation (RPV) leads to interesting phenomenology
127: which is in agreement with all current experimental
128: constraints \cite{Barbier:1998fe,Barbier:2004ez,Barger:1989rk,Allanach:2007vi,RPVcollider}.
129:
130: The $U(1)'$-extended MSSM (UMSSM) \cite{UMSSM} is an extension of the
131: MSSM with a new Abelian non-anomalous gauge symmetry $U(1)'$
132: at the TeV scale\footnote{Supersymmetric RPV models
133: with an additional anomaly-free $U(1)$ gauge symmetry
134: have previously been considered in \cite{RPVU1prime}.
135: For anomalous $U(1)$ approaches, see for example
136: Ref.~\cite{Leontaris:1999wf} and references therein.}.
137: In the UMSSM the $\mu$-problem is solved by replacing
138: the original $\mu$ term ($H_2 H_1$) with an effective $\mu$ term ($S H_2 H_1$)
139: in the superpotential. Interestingly,
140: it was recently found that the set of $U(1)'$ charge assignments
141: which solve the $\mu$-problem, {\em automatically} forbid the
142: coexistence of the renormalizable LV terms and BV terms, a phenomenon
143: which was dubbed {\em LV-BV separation} \cite{Lee:2007fw}.
144: Furthermore, the $U(1)'$ symmetry also guarantees the absence of dangerous
145: non-renormalizable proton decay operators constructed out of MSSM fields.
146: Thus the $U(1)'$ symmetry ties up the explanation of the proton
147: longevity to the solution to the $\mu$-problem and provides a solid
148: theoretical framework for RPV phenomenology. We therefore find
149: the $R$-parity violating UMSSM
150: worth investigating as an alternative to the usual $R$-parity conserving MSSM.
151:
152: However, the new gauge symmetry usually requires some exotic fields at
153: the $U(1)'$ breaking scale, in order to cancel the gauge
154: anomalies \cite{CDM,Erler,AokiOshimo,Ma:2002tc}.
155: Such light exotics would reintroduce the proton stability problem,
156: since the exotics themselves may have LV and/or BV interactions, and
157: may correspondingly mediate proton decay at unacceptable rates.
158: Therefore, the argument for proton stability in the UMSSM needs to
159: be extended to include the exotic representations.
160: This discussion was postponed in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw} and we shall complete it here.
161: We shall systematically study the proton decay problem in the UMSSM
162: by identifying the underlying discrete symmetries encoded in the
163: set of phenomenologically viable $U(1)'$ charge assignments.
164: We shall then use the $U(1)'$ discrete symmetry to argue that the
165: proton is sufficiently stable even in the presence of light exotics.
166: For simplicity we shall mostly concentrate on $\mathds Z_3$ symmetries,
167: although we shall consider more general $\mathds Z_N$ examples as well.
168:
169: Our UMSSM setup is reviewed in Section~\ref{framework}, and in
170: Section~\ref{dis} we identify the possible $U(1)'$ discrete
171: gauge symmetries $\mathds Z_N$ among the MSSM fields only.
172: Of special interest to us will be the three $\mathds Z_3$ symmetries
173: denoted as $B_3$, $L_3$ and $M_3$ (see Section~\ref{dis} for their exact definition).
174: In the case of $B_3$, the $U(1)'$ discrete gauge symmetry among the MSSM fields
175: is already sufficient to argue for the {\em absolute} stability of the proton
176: (see Section~\ref{absolute}). In case of $L_3$ and $M_3$,
177: the $U(1)'$ discrete symmetry
178: needs to be extended to include the exotics fields as well
179: (see Section~\ref{disexotics}) and the analysis becomes more involved.
180: Nevertheless, we still find various classes of models in which the proton
181: lifetime is sufficiently long. Our argument is based on the combination of the
182: $U(1)'$ discrete gauge symmetry $\mathds Z_N$ {\em and}
183: the hypercharge discrete gauge symmetry $\mathds Z_N^Y$
184: which is left over after electroweak symmetry breaking. In Section~\ref{good},
185: we identify all such ``good'' classes of models for the case of
186: $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ discrete symmetries. The corresponding
187: results for the $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_6$-type extensions are
188: presented in Appendix~\ref{app-z6}.
189: %
190: Sections~\ref{l3symmetric} and~\ref{z3yzn} provide explicit examples of
191: anomaly-free $U(1)'$ models. These serve the purpose of illustrating the
192: successive steps which are necessary to check that the proton is sufficiently
193: stable within a given model. Section~\ref{l3symmetric} showcases all
194: viable $L_3$ symmetric models with a $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$
195: extended discrete symmetry. The $L_3$ symmetric models of
196: Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw} with a $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_{N>3}$
197: extension are discussed in Section~\ref{z3yzn}, completing the proof of
198: the claim made in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw} that the proton is sufficiently stable
199: in these models. In addition, we also present some examples of
200: $M_3$ symmetric $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_{N>3}$-type charge assignments.
201: Section~\ref{conclusion} summarizes our results.
202:
203:
204:
205: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
206: \section{The Framework of the UMSSM}
207: \label{framework}
208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
209: In this section we briefly review the framework of the $U(1)'$-extended
210: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. We closely follow the conventions
211: in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}. In order to break the $U(1)'$ gauge
212: symmetry spontaneously, we need to introduce a Higgs singlet $S$ in addition to
213: the MSSM fields. $S$ is a singlet under the SM gauge group, but carries non-zero $U(1)'$ charge.
214: To solve the $\mu$-problem, we require the $U(1)'$ charges to be such that
215: the original $\mu$ term is forbidden but an effective $\mu$ term is
216: dynamically generated after $S$ acquires a vacuum expectation value (vev)
217: at the TeV scale. Accordingly, we require the superpotential term
218: \beq
219: W_{\mu} ~ = ~ h S H_2 H_1 \ .\label{eqmu}
220: \eeq
221: With regard to the Yukawa interactions, we assume
222: \beq
223: W_{\mathrm{Yukawa}} ~=~ y^U_{jk} H_2 Q_j U^c_k + y^D_{jk} H_1 Q_j D^c_k
224: + y^E_{jk} H_1 L_j E^c_k + y^N_{jk} \left(\frac{S}{M}\right)^a H_2 L_j N^c_k\ ,
225: \label{eqyuk}
226: \eeq
227: where we apply the standard notation for the MSSM superfields. The indices
228: $j,k$ label the three generations of quarks and leptons.
229: Notice that we have also included
230: Yukawa couplings for the right-handed neutrinos $N^c$.
231: To explain the small neutrino mass in the case of pure Dirac
232: neutrinos \cite{Langacker:1998ut}, we promote the Yukawa coefficient
233: for the last term to have a suppression factor $\left(\frac{S}{M}\right)^a$
234: with a cutoff scale $M$ and a positive-definite integer $a$.\footnote{The
235: exact numerical value of $M$ is not crucial for our discussion below.
236: For example, $M$ could be taken as high as the Planck scale, or as low as
237: $\mathcal O (10^{15}~ \text{GeV})$, as required for pure Dirac
238: neutrino masses for $a=1$ and $y^N \sim \mathcal O (1)$.}
239:
240: Assuming generation independence\footnote{Generation-dependent $U(1)'$
241: charges may explain the discrepancies in rare $B$ decays \cite{Langacker:2000ju,Bpuzzles}.},
242: eqs.~(\ref{eqmu}) and (\ref{eqyuk}) yield five constraints on nine
243: $U(1)'$ charges. Denoting these charges by $z$, we have
244: \beqn
245: Y_S &:& z[S] + z[H_1] + z[H_2] = 0 \ ,\\
246: Y_U &:& z[H_2] + z[Q] + z[U^c] = 0 \ ,\\
247: Y_D &:& z[H_1] + z[Q] + z[D^c] = 0 \ ,\\
248: Y_E &:& z[H_1] + z[L] + z[E^c] = 0 \ ,\\
249: Y_N &:& z[H_2] + z[L] + z[N^c] + a z[S] = 0 \ .
250: \eeqn
251: With the above relations, the $[SU(3)_C]^2-U(1)'$ anomaly $A_{331'}$ cannot
252: vanish unless we introduce additional colored particles. A minimal\footnote{The only
253: other alternative which would make $A_{331'}$ vanish, is an octet under $SU(3)_C$
254: \cite{CDM}. However, the choice of an octet is inconsistent with the remaining
255: anomaly conditions, unless one is willing to unnecessarily complicate the exotic
256: particle spectrum.} and commonly considered extension
257: of the particle spectrum is to assume three generations \cite{Lee:2007fw}
258: of exotic quarks $K_i$, which are triplets under $SU(3)_C$ and singlets
259: under $SU(2)_L$, as well as their right-handed counterpartners $K^c_i$.
260: These exotic fields acquire their masses at the scale of
261: $U(1)'$ breaking from the superpotential terms
262: \beq
263: W_{\mathrm{exotic}} ~=~ h_{ij} S K_i K^c_j \ ,
264: \label{exmass}
265: \eeq
266: which we assume to have non-vanishing diagonal couplings. Then, the $U(1)_Y \times
267: U(1)'$ charges of the $K^c_i$ are uniquely fixed by those of the $K_i$
268: \beq
269: y[K^c_i] ~=~ - y[K_i]\ , \qquad z[K^c_i] ~=~ - z[K_i] - z[S] \ .
270: \eeq
271: While canceling $A_{331'}$, the exotic quarks introduce six new parameters.
272: However, they do not affect the $[SU(2)_L]^2-U(1)'$ anomaly $A_{221'}$
273: \beq
274: A_{221'} ~:~ 3 (3z[Q] + z[L]) + N_H (z[H_1] + z[H_2]) = 0\ .
275: \label{A221}
276: \eeq
277: Eq.~(\ref{A221}) yields another constraint on the $U(1)'$
278: charges. Setting aside the exotic quarks for the moment,
279: we can express the $U(1)'$ charges of the remaining fields
280: in terms of three free parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$:
281: \beq
282: \left(\begin{array}{l} z[Q] \\ z[U^c] \\ z[D^c] \\ z[L] \\ z[N^c] \\ z[E^c]
283: \\ z[H_1] \\ z[H_2] \\ z[S] \end{array}\right)
284: ~=~ \alpha
285: \left(\begin{array}{r} 1\\-4\\2\\-3\\0\\6\\-3\\3\\0 \end{array}\right)
286: ~+~ \beta
287: \left(\begin{array}{r} 1\\-1\\-1\\-3\\3\\3\\0\\0\\0 \end{array}\right)
288: ~+~ \gamma
289: \left(\begin{array}{r} N_H\\9-N_H\\-N_H\\0\\9(1-a)\\0\\0\\-9\\9 \end{array}\right) \ .\label{master}
290: \eeq
291: The first vector is proportional to the SM hypercharge, and the second
292: corresponds to ${\mathcal B} - {\mathcal L}$. One can therefore
293: use the freedom contained in the second and third vector to allow
294: or forbid SM-invariant operators in the superpotential and the
295: K\"ahler potential.
296:
297: Since we do not a priori assume $R$-parity, the usual $R$-parity violating
298: terms are allowed in general:
299: \beqn
300: W_{\mathrm{LV}} &=& \hat \mu_i L_iH_2
301: ~+~ \hat \lambda_{ijk} L_iL_jE^c_k
302: ~+~ \hat \lambda'_{ijk} L_iQ_jD^c_k \ , \label{WLVfirst}\\
303: W_{\mathrm{BV}} &=& \hat\lambda''_{ijk} U^c_iD^c_jD^c_k \ .\label{WBVfirst}
304: \eeqn
305: Motivated by the relatively tight experimental constraints
306: on the individual RPV couplings $\hat\mu$, $\hat\lambda$, $\hat\lambda'$
307: and $\hat\lambda''$ \cite{Barbier:2004ez},
308: we shall exploit the possibility that they may originate
309: from higher dimension operators, and their values are suppressed by
310: factors of $\left(\frac{\phi}{M}\right)^\ell$ where $\phi$ is a
311: SM singlet combination of fields which acquires a vev, in our case $S$ or
312: $H_2 H_1$. In general, we then have
313: \beq
314: \hat\lambda = \lambda \left( \frac{\left<S\right>}{M} \right)^A
315: \left( \frac{\left<H_2\right> \left<H_1\right>}{M^2} \right)^B \ ,
316: \label{ABsup}
317: \eeq
318: (with positive-definite $A$ and $B$) and similarly for $\hat\mu$,
319: $\hat\lambda'$ and $\hat\lambda''$.
320: For the sake of simplicity, in what follows we shall typically assume that $B=0$,
321: so that all suppression factors are of the type $\left(\frac{\left<S\right>}{M}\right)^A$.
322: This assumption is not crucial to our discussion, and only in
323: Sections~\ref{l3symmetric} and \ref{z3yzn} we shall revisit this issue,
324: allowing for $\left(\frac{\left<H_2\right>\left<H_1\right>}{M^2}\right)^B$
325: type of suppression as well.
326:
327: With those assumptions, the corresponding RPV superpotentials
328: (\ref{WLVfirst}) and (\ref{WBVfirst}) become
329: \beqn
330: W_{\mathrm{LV}} &=& h'_i \left(\frac{S}{M} \right)^n SL_iH_2
331: ~+~ \lambda_{ijk} \left(\frac{S}{M} \right)^{n} L_iL_jE^c_k
332: ~+~ \lambda'_{ijk} \left(\frac{S}{M} \right)^{n} L_iQ_jD^c_k \ , \label{eq:WLV} \\
333: W_{\mathrm{BV}} &=& \lambda''_{ijk} \left(\frac{S}{M}\right)^m U^c_iD^c_jD^c_k \ .
334: \label{eq:WBV}
335: \eeqn
336: Notice that all three LV terms in (\ref{eq:WLV}) have the same power of $1/M$
337: suppression, for which from now on we shall use $n$, while for the
338: corresponding suppression in (\ref{eq:WBV}) we shall use $m$.
339: The integers $n$ and $m$ should be considered among the input parameters
340: of our UMSSM models.
341:
342: Following Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}, we can easily demonstrate the
343: LV-BV separation by taking the linear combination
344: $6Y_D + 3Y_U - 3Y_E + (N_H-3) Y_S - A_{221'}$, resulting in
345: \beq
346: 3z[S^m U^c D^c D^c] - 3z[S^n L L E^c] + (N_H - 3(1+m-n))z[S] = 0 \ . \label{eq:LVBVseparation}
347: \eeq
348: We see that the LV-BV separation observed in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}
349: can now be generalized for any values of $n$ and $m$.
350: As long as the condition $N_H \ne 3 \cdot \mathbb Z$
351: is kept, the third term in eq.~(\ref{eq:LVBVseparation}) does not vanish
352: and must be canceled by one (or the combination) of the first two terms.
353: Notice that the first (second) term in eq.~(\ref{eq:LVBVseparation})
354: is nothing but the $U(1)'$ charge of the BV (LV) operator(s) in
355: eq.~(\ref{eq:WBV}) (eq.~(\ref{eq:WLV})). Therefore, the nonvanishing
356: of the first or second term in eq.~(\ref{eq:LVBVseparation}) implies that
357: the corresponding renormalizable RPV couplings (BV or LV) are absent
358: from the superpotential, as they are forbidden by the $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry.
359: The fact that certain terms are forbidden even at the non-renormalizable level
360: (i.e. with arbitrary suppression factors $(S/M)^\ell$) suggests
361: a certain symmetry. In Section \ref{dis} we shall investigate
362: the nature of the symmetry which is implied by the phenomenon of
363: LV-BV separation. In what follows we shall restrict ourselves to
364: the simplest and most natural case exhibiting LV-BV separation,
365: namely $N_H = 1$.
366:
367: The additional requirement of having either the LV terms
368: $LH_2$, $LLE^c$, $LQD^c$ of eq.~(\ref{eq:WLV}) or the BV terms
369: $U^cD^cD^c$ of eq.~(\ref{eq:WBV}) at the effective level reduces
370: the general solution eq.~(\ref{master}) to a two-parameter solution.
371: \begin{itemize}
372: \item For the LV case, one must demand that
373: \beq
374: z[H_1]~=~z[L]+nz[S]\ ,\label{lvcond}
375: \eeq
376: from eq.~(\ref{eq:WLV}).
377: Eq.~(\ref{lvcond}) relates the parameters $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in eq.~(\ref{master})
378: by the condition $\beta = 3 n \gamma$. The $U(1)'$ charges
379: in the LV case can then be written as
380: \beq
381: \left(\begin{array}{l} z[Q] \\ z[U^c] \\ z[D^c] \\ z[L] \\ z[N^c] \\ z[E^c]
382: \\ z[H_1] \\ z[H_2] \\ z[S] \end{array}\right)
383: ~=~ \left( \alpha+(3n+N_H)\gamma \right)
384: \left(\begin{array}{r} 1\\-4\\2\\-3\\0\\6\\-3\\3\\0 \end{array}\right)
385: ~+~ 3 \gamma
386: \left(\begin{array}{r}
387: 0\\3(1+n)+N_H\\-3n-N_H\\N_H\\3(1-a+n)\\-3n-2N_H\\3n+N_H\\-3(1+n)-N_H\\3
388: \end{array}\right) \ .\label{LVmaster}
389: \eeq
390: \item In the BV case, we must require
391: \beq
392: z[H_1]~=~z[L]+\left(1+m-\frac{N_H}{3}\right)z[S]\ ,\label{bvcond}
393: \eeq
394: from eq.~(\ref{eq:WBV}).
395: $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are now related by $\beta = (3+3m-N_H) \gamma$, and we obtain
396: \beq
397: \left(\begin{array}{l} z[Q] \\ z[U^c] \\ z[D^c] \\ z[L] \\ z[N^c] \\ z[E^c]
398: \\ z[H_1] \\ z[H_2] \\ z[S] \end{array}\right)
399: ~=~ \left( \alpha+3(1+m)\gamma \right)
400: \left(\begin{array}{r} 1\\-4\\2\\-3\\0\\6\\-3\\3\\0 \end{array}\right)
401: ~+~ 3 \gamma
402: \left(\begin{array}{r}
403: 0\\3(2+m)\\-3(1+m)\\N_H\\3(2-a+m)-N_H\\-3(1+m)-N_H\\3(1+m)\\-3(2+m)\\3
404: \end{array}\right) \ .\label{BVmaster}
405: \eeq
406: \end{itemize}
407:
408:
409:
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411: \section{Discrete Symmetries Without Exotics}
412: \label{dis}
413: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
414: Within the framework of the UMSSM, there are the usual MSSM particles, plus the
415: right-handed neutrinos~$N^c_i$, the Higgs singlet $S$ and
416: the exotic quarks~$K_i$, $i=1,2,3$. First, we want to discuss the occurrence of discrete
417: symmetries at the {\it effective level}, where the $K_i$
418: are integrated out. In that case, a general superpotential or K\"ahler
419: potential operator has $n_Q$ quark doublets, $n_{U^c}$ up-type antiquark
420: singlets, etc. If all $n_{...}$ are positive, the corresponding term
421: appears in the superpotential. Negative $n_{...}$ are used for
422: conjugate superfields, thus an operator with some $n_{...}$ being positive
423: and others negative, can only appear in the K\"ahler potential.
424: SM gauge invariance requires a certain relation among the $n_{...}$, see e.g.
425: Refs.~\cite{Dreiner:2003yr,Dreiner:2006xw}. The total $U(1)'$ charge of such a
426: generic operator without exotic quarks is given as
427: \beqn
428: z[\mathrm{op.}]
429: &=& n_Q z[Q] + n_{U^c} z[U^c] + n_{D^c} z[D^c] + n_L z[L] + n_{N^c} z[N^c]
430: + n_{E^c} z[E^c] \nonumber \\
431: && + n_{H_1} z[H_1] + n_{H_2} z[H_2] + n_S z[S] \ . \label{totalz}
432: \eeqn
433: The transition from the continuous $U(1)'$ to its discrete subgroup $\mathds
434: Z_N$ is made by choosing a normalization in which the $U(1)'$ charges are all
435: integers, with
436: \beq
437: |z[S]| \equiv N \ ,
438: \eeq
439: and then defining the discrete charge $q[F] \in [0,N-1]$ of a field $F$ by the
440: mod~$N$ part of the corresponding $U(1)'$ charge
441: \beq
442: z[F] = q[F] + N\cdot \mathbb Z \ .\label{defq}
443: \eeq
444: Plugging this into eq.~(\ref{totalz}), we can define the discrete charge of
445: any superpotential or K\"ahler potential operator by
446: \beqn
447: q[\mathrm{op.}]&\equiv& n_Q q[Q] + n_{U^c} q[U^c] + n_{D^c} q[D^c] + n_L
448: q[L] + n_{N^c} q[N^c] + n_{E^c} q[E^c] \nonumber \\
449: && + n_{H_1} q[H_1] + n_{H_2} q[H_2] \ .
450: \eeqn
451: The $\mathds Z_N$ symmetry forbids any operator whose discrete charge
452: $q[\mathrm{op.}]$ is not a multiple of~$N$. If it is a multiple of~$N$, the
453: operator might or might not exist, depending on the actual $U(1)'$
454: charges. At this stage, we only want to argue from the discrete symmetry
455: viewpoint.
456:
457: The discrete anomaly-free $\mathds Z_N$ symmetries of the MSSM fields with and without right-handed
458: neutrinos $N^c$ are known \cite{Ibanez:1991hv,Ibanez:1991pr,Dreiner:2005rd,Luhn:2007gq}.
459: For $N=3$, for example, all possibilities are shown in Table~\ref{table1}.
460: $B_3$ is the well-known baryon triality, and $L_3$ is correspondingly the lepton triality.
461: $R_3$ is a symmetry related to the right-handed isospin. Finally,
462: we have defined matter triality $M_3 \equiv R^{}_3L^2_3$.
463: We point out that an overall sign flip of the discrete charges
464: leads to exactly the same discrete symmetries. Such a sign
465: change amounts to the exchange $1 \leftrightarrow 2$ in Table~\ref{table1}.
466:
467: \TABLE[t]{
468: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
469: $\phantom{\Big|}$ & $q[Q]$ & $q[U^c]$ & $q[D^c]$ & $q[L]$ & $q[N^c]$ & $q[E^c]$ & $q[H_1]$ & $q[H_2]$ \\ \hline\hline
470: %
471: $B_3$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $2$ & $0$ & $2$ & $2$ & $\phantom{\Big|}1$ \\ \hline
472: %
473: $L_3$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $\phantom{\Big|}0$ \\ \hline
474: %
475: $M_3$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $1$ & $0$ & $2$ & $\phantom{\Big|}1$ \\ \hline
476: %
477: $R_3$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $2$ & $1$ & $2$ & $\phantom{\Big|}1$ \\ \hline
478: \end{tabular}\caption{\label{table1} The discrete anomaly-free $\mathds Z_3$
479: symmetries defined on the MSSM+$N^c$ sector.}
480: }
481:
482: We now extract the discrete symmetries which are encoded in the
483: $U(1)'$ charges of eqs.~(\ref{LVmaster}) and (\ref{BVmaster}), i.e. the
484: discrete symmetries for the LV case and the BV case. First, note that the hypercharge
485: vector is irrelevant for the discussion of the remnant discrete symmetry of
486: the $U(1)'$ since the discrete symmetries are equivalent up to a
487: shift by the hypercharges (normalized to integers).
488: So it suffices to focus on the second vector (proportional to $3 \gamma$) of
489: eqs.~(\ref{LVmaster}) and (\ref{BVmaster}). In both cases,
490: the minimum $N$ is $N=z[S]=3$ with $3 \gamma = 1$.
491: The discrete symmetries should be $\mathds Z_3$ for the LV and the BV cases.
492: More explicitly, we find
493: \beq
494: \left(\begin{array}{l} q[Q] \\ q[U^c] \\ q[D^c] \\ q[L] \\ q[N^c] \\ q[E^c]
495: \\ q[H_1] \\ q[H_2] \end{array}\right)_{\mathrm{LV}}
496: =~~
497: \left(\begin{array}{r}
498: 0\\N_H\\2N_H\\N_H\\0\\N_H\\N_H\\2N_H
499: \end{array}\right) \ ,
500: %
501: \qquad\qquad
502: %
503: \left(\begin{array}{l} q[Q] \\ q[U^c] \\ q[D^c] \\ q[L] \\ q[N^c] \\ q[E^c]
504: \\ q[H_1] \\ q[H_2] \end{array}\right)_{\mathrm{BV}}
505: =~~
506: \left(\begin{array}{r}
507: 0\\0\\0\\N_H\\2N_H\\2N_H\\0\\0
508: \end{array}\right) \ ,
509: \eeq
510: where we have used that $\mp N_H= \pm 2 N_H~\mbox{mod}~3$.
511: Note that these results do not depend on the specific values for
512: $n$ or $m$. Comparing with
513: Table~\ref{table1} shows that, for $N_H \neq 0~\mbox{mod}~3$, the LV case
514: yields baryon triality $B_3$ whereas the BV case gives rise to lepton
515: triality $L_3$. Therefore, the origin of the LV-BV separation
516: exhibited by eq.~(\ref{eq:LVBVseparation}) can now be traced
517: back to the existence of the discrete symmetries $L_3$ and $B_3$.
518:
519: So far, we have investigated the discrete symmetries encoded in the UMSSM
520: which solves the $\mu$-problem. We identified $B_3$
521: in the LV case (where the $LH_2$, $LLE^c$ and
522: $LQD^c$ terms are effectively present),
523: and $L_3$ in the BV case (where the $U^cD^cD^c$ term
524: effectively appears). Of course,
525: one does not have to require any of these lepton or baryon number
526: violating interactions. Then one can end up with other discrete symmetries as
527: well. To see this, we rewrite eq.~(\ref{master}) by constructing a new basis
528: of the three-parameter solution in which the first component of both the
529: second and the third vector is zero.
530: With $\alpha' = \alpha + \beta + N_H \gamma$, $\beta' = 3 \beta$, $\gamma' = 3 \gamma$, we get
531: \beq
532: \left(\begin{array}{l} z[Q] \\ z[U^c] \\ z[D^c] \\ z[L] \\ z[N^c] \\ z[E^c]
533: \\ z[H_1] \\ z[H_2] \\ z[S] \end{array}\right)
534: ~=~ \alpha'
535: \left(\begin{array}{r} 1\\-4\\2\\-3\\0\\6\\-3\\3\\0 \end{array}\right)
536: ~+~ \beta'
537: \left(\begin{array}{r} 0\\1\\-1\\0\\1\\-1\\1\\-1\\0 \end{array}\right)
538: ~+~ \gamma'
539: \left(\begin{array}{r} 0\\3+N_H\\-N_H\\N_H\\3(1-a)\\-2N_H\\N_H\\-3-N_H\\3 \end{array}\right) \ .\label{master'}
540: \eeq
541: Assuming $N_H=1$, we obtain matter triality $M_3$ as the remnant discrete
542: symmetry in models where $\beta'=1\,\mbox{mod}\,3$ and $\gamma'=1$
543: (or $\beta'=-1\,\mbox{mod}\,3$ and $\gamma'=-1$).
544: It is worth pointing out that the charge assignment of $R_3$ has $q[L]=0$,
545: which, due to our previous assumption $N_H \neq 0~\mathrm{mod}~3$,
546: can only be obtained for $\gamma'=0$. This, however, is inconsistent,
547: as the Higgs singlet $S$ would then be neutral under $U(1)'$.
548: For $N_H=1$ there are thus only three $\mathds Z_3$ symmetries
549: which can be generated from eq.~(\ref{master'}):
550: \beq
551: \begin{array}{rll}
552: B_3:~~~~ & \beta'= 0~\mbox{mod}~3 \ ,~~~ & \gamma'= 1 \ , \\ %\\[1mm]
553: M_3:~~~~ & \beta'= 1~\mbox{mod}~3 \ ,~~~ & \gamma'= 1 \ , \\ %\\[1mm]
554: L_3:~~~~ & \beta'= 2~\mbox{mod}~3 \ ,~~~ & \gamma'= 1 \ . \\ %\\[1mm]
555: \end{array}
556: \label{eq:Z3symmetries}
557: \eeq
558: With $\gamma' = -1$, the above $\beta'$ would also have to flip sign in order to yield
559: the same discrete symmetries. Choosing $\gamma' \neq \pm 1$
560: generically leads to $\mathds Z_N$ symmetries with higher $N$.
561: However, notice that the LV case (i.e. with $LLE^c$ etc.)
562: and the BV case ($U^cD^cD^c$) requirement leads only to
563: $B_3$ and $L_3$ or their simple scaling (such as $B_6^2$, $L_6^2$),
564: respectively.
565:
566: The discrete $\mathds Z_N$ symmetries encoded in the $U(1)'$ charges provide
567: a powerful tool to see which $\mathcal L$ and/or $\mathcal B$ violating operators
568: could in principle arise in the theory. All such operators up to dimension five
569: are summarized in Table~\ref{table2} for the three possible $\mathds Z_3$
570: symmetries in eq.~(\ref{eq:Z3symmetries}).
571: \TABLE[t]{
572: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline
573: &\begin{tabular}{c} operators with \\ $\mathcal B$ violation \end{tabular}
574: &\begin{tabular}{c} operators with \\ $\mathcal L$ violation \end{tabular}
575: \\ \hline\hline
576: $B_3$ & none & $\begin{array}{c}
577: N^c; \\
578: LH_2,~ N^cN^c,~ N^cS; \\
579: LQD^c,~ LLE,~ SLH_2,~ N^cH_1H_2,~ LH_1^\dagger,\\
580: N^cN^cN^c,~ N^cN^cS,~ N^cSS,~ N^cS^\dagger;~ \\
581: \mbox{many~dimension~five~terms}
582: \end{array}$ \\ \hline
583: $L_3$ &
584: $\begin{array}{c}
585: U^cD^cD^c; \\
586: QQQH_1,~ SU^cD^cD^c,~ QQ{D^c}^\dagger
587: \end{array}$ &
588: $\begin{array}{c}
589: N^cN^cN^c; \\
590: SN^cN^cN^c
591: \end{array}$ \\ \hline
592: $M_3$ & none &
593: $\begin{array}{c}
594: N^cN^cN^c; \\
595: SN^cN^cN^c
596: \end{array}$ \\ \hline
597: \end{tabular}\caption{\label{table2}$\mathcal B$ and/or $\mathcal L$ violating
598: operators up to dimension five which conserve a $\mathds Z_3$ symmetry and
599: comprise only MSSM particles, right-handed neutrinos $N^c$ and Higgs singlets
600: $S$.}}
601: As Table \ref{table2} demonstrates, $B_3$ allows a number of LV terms
602: but does not allow the BV terms of eq.~(\ref{eq:WBV}), in accord with LV-BV
603: separation. Similarly, $L_3$ allows BV terms but does not allow
604: the LV terms of eq.~(\ref{eq:WLV}).
605: Finally, $M_3$ forbids both the LV terms of eq.~(\ref{eq:WLV}) and
606: the BV terms of eq.~(\ref{eq:WBV}).
607:
608: Since proton decay requires both baryon number violation as well as lepton
609: number violation, the absence of either one of them is sufficient to stabilize the
610: proton. Moreover, any $\mathcal B$ and/or $\mathcal L$ violating interaction which
611: is suppressed by two powers of a high cutoff scale $M$ does not
612: endanger the proton. That is why Table~\ref{table2} lists only
613: superpotential and K\"ahler potential operators up to dimension five.
614: $B_3$ and $M_3$ conserve $\mathcal B$ up to this level, while $L_3$ and $M_3$
615: have $\mathcal L$ violation only through the two operators $N^cN^cN^c$ and
616: $SN^cN^cN^c$, which could be forbidden by a judicious choice of
617: the $U(1)'$ charges $z[N^c]$ and $z[S]$. Table~\ref{table2}
618: reveals that in models exhibiting a $B_3$ or $M_3$ discrete symmetry,
619: the proton cannot be destabilized by {\em any} diagram involving
620: MSSM fields, $N^c$ and $S$. In models with an $L_3$ symmetry,
621: it is simply sufficient that one forbids the $N^cN^cN^c$ and
622: $SN^cN^cN^c$ superpotential terms, and the proton is safe from such diagrams
623: as well.
624:
625: While these statements are true to all orders in perturbation theory,
626: they are of limited use due to an important caveat which we must take into account.
627: So far in this section we have ignored the effect of the exotics.
628: Once we take them into account, the scale which suppresses
629: the non-renormalizable operators in Table~\ref{table2}
630: is by far not guaranteed to be the high scale $M$.
631: In fact, the exotics are relatively light, near the TeV scale,
632: since they get their masses from the $U(1)'$ breaking scale (see eq.~(\ref{exmass})).
633: Thus, depending on their couplings to the MSSM+$N^c$ sector,
634: the exotics could in principle destabilize the proton.
635:
636: Before delving into the details of how to take account of the exotic quarks,
637: we shall take a detour to explain why certain $\mathds Z_N$ symmetries such as
638: baryon triality $B_3$ or proton hexality $P_6$~\cite{Dreiner:2005rd}
639: are actually sufficient to {\em completely} stabilize the
640: proton, independent of the presence of any light exotics or their properties.
641:
642:
643:
644: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
645: \section{The Absolute Stability of the Proton}
646: \label{absolute}
647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
648: We have just emphasized that proton decay requires violation of both $\mathcal B$
649: and $\mathcal L$. However, not any type of
650: $\mathcal B$ violation can lead to a decaying proton. In order to understand
651: this, first observe that the exotic quarks are heavier than the proton
652: (otherwise they would have been produced and seen at colliders). Hence, for
653: kinematic reasons, the proton cannot decay to exotic quarks in the final
654: state, and we can exclude the exotics $K_i$ from the discussion in this section.
655: Since the proton is the lightest particle with non-zero baryon number
656: ($\mathcal B=1$), the final state particles must be non-baryonic. Therefore,
657: {\it proton decay requires an interaction which has $|\Delta \mathcal B| = 1$.}
658: A theory where $\mathcal B$ is only violated by a certain number of units
659: $\eta>1$ (so that {\em any} BV operator in the theory has $|\Delta \mathcal B|=0$ mod $\eta$),
660: automatically has an absolutely stable proton. This was observed in
661: Ref.~\cite{Castano:1994ec} for the specific case of baryon triality $B_3$.
662:
663: Here, we first review the argument for $B_3$, with the sign
664: convention adopted in Table~\ref{table1}. Since it is a $\mathds Z_3$
665: symmetry, the two Higgs doublets have opposite discrete charges
666: $-q[H_1]=q[H_2]=1~\mbox{mod}~3$. It is possible to redefine the $q[F]$ by
667: adding a certain amount (take e.g. $\alpha' =-\frac{1}{3}$) of the hypercharge
668: vector in eq.~(\ref{master'}), so that $q[H_1]=q[H_2]=0~\mbox{mod}~3$.
669: As discrete charges should always be integer, it is necessary to rescale the
670: resulting vector by multiplication of 3.
671: We obtain the $\mathds Z_9$ charge assignment, which is exactly $-3 \mathcal B$,
672: as shown in the first row of Table~\ref{abs-table}.
673: Then the total discrete charge of any operator is
674: \beq
675: q[\mathrm{op.}] = -(n_Q - n_{U^c} - n_{D^c}) = 0 ~\mbox{mod}~9 \ , \label{word}
676: \eeq
677: while for proton decay we need $|\Delta \mathcal B| = 1$, i.e.
678: \beq
679: n_Q-n_{U^c}-n_{D^c} = \pm 3 \ , \label{byone}
680: \eeq
681: which is incompatible with eq.~(\ref{word}).
682: Thus, the proton is absolutely stable if the discrete symmetry is $B_3$.
683:
684: \TABLE[t]{
685: $
686: \begin{array}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
687: \multicolumn{1}{|c||}{\phantom{\Big|}\mbox{discrete symmetry}\phantom{\Big|}} &
688: q[Q] & q[U^c] & q[D^c] &q[L] &q[N^c] &q[E^c] &q[H_1] &q[H_2] \\ \hline\hline
689: B_3 \rightarrow \mathds Z_9 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 0&0&0&0&\phantom{\Big|}0
690: \\ \hline
691: \mathds Z_T & t_Q&t_{U^c}&t_{D^c}&t_L&t_{N^c}&t_{E^c}&t_{H_1}&t_{H_2} \\ \hline
692: \mathds Z_9 \times \mathds Z_T & -T+9t_Q&T+9t_{U^c}&T+9t_{D^c}&9t_L&9t_{N^c}&9t_{E^c}&9t_{H_1}&9t_{H_2} \\ \hline
693: %P_6 & \rightarrow ~~ \mathds Z_{18} & -1 & 1 & 1 & 9&9&9&0&\phantom{\Big|}0
694: %\\ \hline
695: %R^{}_{12}L^4_{12} & \rightarrow ~~ \mathds Z_{36} & -1 & 1 & 1 & -9~\,\;
696: %&9&9&0&\phantom{\Big|}0 \\ \hline
697: %R^{5}_{12}L^8_{12} & \rightarrow ~~ \mathds Z_{36} & -5 & 5 & 5 & -9~\,\;
698: %&9&9&0&\phantom{\Big|}0 \\ \hline
699: \end{array}
700: $
701: \caption{\label{abs-table}The discrete charges of the $B_3$ equivalent
702: $\mathds Z_9$ and $\mathds Z_9 \times \mathds Z_T$.} }
703: %
704: This argument can be applied to more general cases.
705: If our $U(1)'$ has a discrete symmetry of $B_3 \times \mathds Z_T$
706: (with $T$ coprime to $3$), then the proton is also absolutely
707: stable\footnote{The direct product of two cyclic groups
708: ($\mathds Z_A \times \mathds Z_B$) is a cyclic group $\mathds Z_{AB}$
709: if $A$ and $B$ have greatest common divisor $1$ (i.e. if they are coprime).}.
710: The resultant discrete charge of $\mathds Z_{9T}$ is given
711: by $T q_{Z_9} + 9 q_{Z_T}$ as Table \ref{abs-table} shows.
712:
713: There are examples of this kind in Ref.~\cite{Luhn:2007gq} where all
714: anomaly-free $\mathds Z_{N\leq 14}$ symmetries were identified\footnote{See
715: Ref.~\cite{Ibanez:1991pr} for the definition of the generators $R_N$ and
716: $L_N$ for arbitrary values of $N$.}: $R^{}_6L^4_6$ (proton hexality or
717: $P_6$ \cite{Dreiner:2005rd}), $R^{}_{12}L^4_{12}$ and $R^{5}_{12}L^8_{12}$.
718: These three symmetries are isomorphic to the direct product of $B_3$
719: with some other $\mathds Z_T$ symmetries and provide absolute proton stability
720: \beqn
721: R^{}_6L^4_6 &\cong& B_3 \times R_2 \ , \\
722: R^{}_{12}L^4_{12} &\cong& B_3 \times R_4^3 \ , \\
723: R^{5}_{12}L^8_{12} &\cong& B_3 \times R_4 \ .
724: \eeqn
725:
726:
727:
728: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
729: \section{Discrete Symmetries with Exotic Quarks}
730: \label{disexotics}
731: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
732: In Table~\ref{table2}, we have listed only $\mathcal B$ and/or $\mathcal L$
733: violating operators up to dimension five. This is sufficient to argue for a
734: stable proton only under the assumption that the non-renormalizable
735: interactions between the particles are generated by high scale physics.
736: However, since the exotic quarks were integrated out, the mass suppression of
737: the non-renormalizable terms could in principle be of $\mathcal
738: O(\mbox{TeV})$, the scale where the $U(1)'$ breaks down and gives mass to the
739: $K_i$. In such a case, one should also consider $\mathcal B$ and/or $\mathcal L$
740: violating operators with dimensionality higher than five.
741:
742: Alternatively, one can try to extend the $\mathds Z_N$ symmetries to
743: {\it explicitly include the exotic particles}. Under the
744: assumption that any additional new physics (other than
745: $U(1)'$) occurs only at the high scale, the non-renormalizable
746: interactions involving the MSSM particles, the right-handed neutrinos,
747: the Higgs singlet as well as the exotic quarks are all suppressed by powers of
748: $M$. Thus the advantage of this approach is that we still
749: only need to consider a finite number of operators (up to dimension 5),
750: albeit over an extended set of fields.
751: Similarly to the case without exotic quarks, the obtained
752: {\em discrete} symmetries can be studied with respect to the allowed
753: $\mathcal B$ and/or $\mathcal L$ violating operators, where
754: by definition the exotic quarks and antiquarks do not carry baryon
755: or lepton number.
756:
757: We now have to assign discrete charges to the three exotic quarks~$K_i$.
758: The corresponding antiquarks $K^c_i$ automatically have the opposite
759: discrete charges. Assuming that their original $U(1)'$ charges are integers,
760: we have $27$ different $\mathds Z_3$
761: charge assignments for the exotics $K_i$. However, as their generations
762: have not been defined yet, we need to consider only 10 of these 27
763: possibilities, see Table~\ref{table3}.
764: \TABLE[t]{$~~~~~~~~~~~~
765: \begin{array}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
766: \phantom{\Big|}q[K_1]\phantom{\Big|} &0~&~1~&~2~&~0~&~0~&~0~&~1~&~0~&~1~&~0~
767: \\\hline
768: \phantom{\Big|}q[K_2]\phantom{\Big|} &~0~&~1~&~2~&~0~&~0~&~1~&~1~&~2~&~2~&~1~
769: \\\hline
770: \phantom{\Big|}q[K_3]\phantom{\Big|} &~0~&~1~&~2~&~1~&~2~&~1~&~2~&~2~&~2~&~2~
771: \\\hline
772: \end{array}
773: ~~~~~~~~~~~~$\caption{\label{table3}10 of 27 possible $\mathds Z_3$ charge
774: assignments for the exotic quarks are sufficient since the labeling of the
775: generation for the exotics has not been determined yet.}}
776: %
777: When determining the allowed $\mathcal B$ and/or $\mathcal L$ violating
778: superpotential and K\"ahler potential operators in Section~\ref{dis}, we
779: have required invariance under the $\mathds Z_N$ subgroup of $U(1)'$, but also
780: - tentatively - SM gauge invariance. We do not know the hypercharges of the
781: $K_i$, and in principle there could be infinitely many hypercharge
782: assignments. In order to systematize this issue, we work in a normalization in
783: which $y[Q]=1$ and assume that the hypercharges of the exotic quarks are
784: integers. Now, we can require invariance under any $\mathds Z^Y_N$ subgroup
785: of $U(1)_Y$, with the discrete hypercharges $q^Y$ being defined by the relation
786: \beq
787: y[F]=q^Y[F]+N\cdot \mathbb Z \ .
788: \eeq
789: For simplicity, we choose\footnote{After
790: electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), the choice $N=3$ coincides with the
791: {\it remnant} discrete symmetry of $U(1)_Y$, as opposed to the
792: $\mathds Z^Y_N$ symmetries with arbitrary $N$ which exist before EWSB.}
793: $N=3$, so that we end up with $27$ discrete hypercharge assignments for the
794: exotic quarks.
795:
796: Starting from an $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y \times U(1)'$ gauge
797: theory, we study only its subgroup $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times \mathds
798: Z^Y_3 \times \mathds Z_3$. The discrete charges of the MSSM particles are
799: uniquely defined once we have picked our preferred $\mathds Z_3$ symmetry
800: among the MSSM fields. Due to the different $U(1)_Y \times U(1)'$ charge
801: assignments for the exotic quarks, we have $10\times 27=270$ cases to study.
802: Each scenario is defined by the discrete hypercharges $q^Y[K_i]$ and the
803: discrete $U(1)'$ charges $q[K_i]$. We determine all $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L
804: \times \mathds Z^Y_3 \times \mathds Z_3$ invariant operators up to dimension
805: five and check whether there exists a conserved quantity~$\mathcal Q$ of the
806: form
807: \beq
808: \mathcal Q ~ \equiv ~ b \, \mathcal B + \ell \, \mathcal L + k_1 \,
809: \mathcal K_1+ k_2 \, \mathcal K_2+ k_3 \, \mathcal K_3 \ ,\label{global}
810: \eeq
811: with $b,\ell,k_i$ being integers and $\mathcal K_i$ denoting (individual) exotic quark number,
812: respectively. We stress that $\mathcal Q$ is conserved only among the
813: operators up to dimension five. However, since any operator that is
814: suppressed by two powers of $M$ is not dangerous for proton
815: decay, we loosely speak of ``$\mathcal Q$ conservation'' in the following,
816: mindful of its approximate meaning.
817:
818: Let us illustrate the implications of such a quantity $\mathcal Q$ with two
819: examples. First, assume that the set of allowed operators up to dimension five
820: has $\mathcal Q_1 = \mathcal B$ (e.g. as model (v) of Table \ref{table7}).
821: Then, among these
822: operators, baryon number is conserved and the proton is sufficiently
823: stabilized. Next, we take $\mathcal Q_2 = 3\mathcal L-\mathcal K_1+2\mathcal
824: K_2+2\mathcal K_3$ (e.g. as model (i) of Table \ref{table7}).
825: In this case, both baryon and lepton number are
826: violated. Concerning proton decay, however, the exotic quarks $K_i$ are
827: heavier than the proton and therefore cannot be present among the final state
828: particles. So any diagram that potentially mediates proton decay necessarily
829: has $\mathcal K_i = 0$. Due to the conservation of~$\mathcal Q_2$, lepton
830: number is conserved in all such diagrams, again leading to a stable
831: proton. Although baryon and lepton number are both violated in the second
832: example, the proton does not decay rapidly. We emphasize that this reasoning
833: does not depend on whether one considers a specific model with fixed $U(1)_Y
834: \times U(1)'$ charges or a scenario which imposes only a discrete subgroup
835: $\mathds Z^Y_3 \times \mathds Z_3$.
836:
837: To find $\mathcal Q$, we have to solve a homogeneous set of $J$ linear
838: equations, each equation corresponding to one allowed operator. Denoting the
839: baryon number of operator $j$ by $\mathcal B[j]$ and likewise for the
840: lepton and the exotic quark number, we are looking for coefficients
841: $(b,\ell,k_1,k_2,k_3)$ which satisfy
842: \beq
843: b \, \mathcal B[j] + \ell \, \mathcal L[j] + k_1 \, \mathcal K_1[j]+ k_2
844: \, \mathcal K_2[j]+ k_3 \, \mathcal K_3[j] ~=~0 \ , \label{findingQ}
845: \eeq
846: for all $1 \leq j \leq J$. Having $J$ equations, at most five of them can
847: be linearly independent. The number of linearly independent equations is
848: called the rank $\mathfrak r$ of the set of equations. In the case where
849: $\mathfrak r = 5$, the only solution to eq.~(\ref{findingQ}) is
850: $b=\ell=k_1=k_2=k_3=0$, thus no conserved quantity~$\mathcal Q$ exists. If,
851: however, $\mathfrak r <5$, a non-trivial solution exists and with it a
852: conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$ is guaranteed.
853:
854: In the following section we fix the $\mathds Z_3$ symmetry among the MSSM
855: particles and scan over all 270 possible extensions of $\mathds Z_3^Y \times
856: \mathds Z_3$ which include the exotic quarks. For each case, we determine the
857: allowed operators and calculate the rank $\mathfrak r$, keeping only those
858: cases with $\mathfrak r<5$.
859:
860:
861:
862: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
863: \section{Good $\bsym{\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3}$ Extensions}
864: \label{good}
865: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
866: Here we do not need to consider the case of $B_3$ since it already
867: guarantees absolute proton stability as discussed in Section \ref{absolute}.
868: We will therefore only consider extensions of $M_3$ and $L_3$ in this section.
869:
870: \vspace{5mm}
871: \noindent
872: {\bf $\bsym{M_3}$ Extensions}\\
873: Out of the 270 possible discrete charge assignments, only 20 lead to a reduced
874: rank. Interestingly, it is the discrete hypercharge $\mathds Z_3^Y$ that is
875: responsible for the occurrence of a non-trivial conserved quantity $\mathcal
876: Q$. This arises if
877: \beq
878: q^Y[K_1]~=~q^Y[K_2]~=~q^Y[K_3]~=~q^Y[K]~=~0~\mbox{or}~2 \ ,\label{miracle}
879: \eeq
880: regardless of the charges $q[K_i]$ under $\mathds Z_3$. In these scenarios,
881: $\mathcal Q = \mathcal B$, so baryon number is conserved up to dimension five
882: operators including the exotic quarks. Therefore, the proton is sufficiently
883: stable.
884:
885: It is instructive to figure out the reason for this peculiar
886: result. Under $M_3$, operators composed of only MSSM particles and right-handed
887: neutrinos do not violate baryon number (see Table~\ref{table2}). We will show
888: that the inclusion of exotic quarks does not allow the construction of
889: $\mathcal B$ violating operators up to dimension five which at the same time
890: conserve the generation independent discrete hypercharge $\mathds Z_3^Y$
891: displayed in Table~\ref{table4}.
892: \TABLE[t]{
893: $\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
894: q^Y[Q] & q^Y[U^c] & q^Y[D^c] & q^Y[L] & q^Y[N^c] & q^Y[E^c] & q^Y[H_1] &
895: q^Y[H_2] & q^Y[K_i] & \phantom{\Big|}q^Y[K^c_i] \\ \hline\hline
896: 1 & -1 & -1 & 0 & 0& 0& 0& 0 & q^Y[K] & -q^Y[K]\phantom{\Big|} \\\hline
897: \end{array}$
898: \caption{\label{table4}The generation independent $\mathds Z_3^Y$
899: charges.}}
900: %
901: Invariance under $\mathds Z_3^Y$ requires
902: \beq
903: n_{Q} - n_{U^c} - n_{D^c} + q^Y[K] (n_{K} - n_{K^c}) ~=~0~\mbox{mod}~3\ .\label{hyper}
904: \eeq
905: On the other hand, $SU(3)_C$ invariance demands
906: \beq
907: n_{Q} - n_{U^c} - n_{D^c} + n_{K} - n_{K^c} ~=~0~\mbox{mod}~3\ .\label{color}
908: \eeq
909: Subtracting eq.~(\ref{color}) from eq.~(\ref{hyper}) yields
910: \beq
911: (q^Y[K]-1) (n_{K} - n_{K^c}) ~=~0~\mbox{mod}~3 \ ,\label{cond1}
912: \eeq
913: which for $q^Y[K]=0~\mbox{or}~2$ can only be satisfied if
914: \beq
915: (n_{K} - n_{K^c}) =
916: 0~\mbox{mod}~3 \ .\label{cond1b}
917: \eeq
918: Then, eq.~(\ref{color}) simplifies to
919: \beq
920: n_{Q} - n_{U^c} - n_{D^c} ~=~0~\mbox{mod}~3\ ,\label{cond2}
921: \eeq
922: showing that baryon number violation requires at least three baryonic
923: fields. Without exotic particles, the symmetry $M_3$ ensures that no baryon
924: number violation occurs up to dimension five. Allowing for the
925: presence of exotic quarks in such an operator, we would need at least two of
926: them because of eq.~(\ref{cond1b}). An operator including three baryons (in
927: order to have baryon number violation) and two exotic quarks is, however,
928: suppressed by at least two powers of $M$. Hence, it is the
929: invariance under $SU(3)_C$ and $\mathds Z_3^Y$ that is responsible for baryon
930: number conservation in $M_3$ extensions with $q^Y[K]=0~\mbox{or}~2$.
931:
932: It turns out that the same holds true for all $\mathds Z_N$ symmetries that
933: have $\mathcal B$ conservation up to dimension five among the MSSM particles
934: and the right-handed neutrinos, for instance the $\mathds Z_6$ symmetries
935: $R_6^{}L_6^2~ (\cong M_3 \times R_2)$, and $R_6^3L_6^2~ (\cong L_3 \times R_2)$
936: \cite{Dreiner:2005rd,Luhn:2007gq} (see also Appendix~\ref{app-z6}).
937:
938: \vspace{5mm}
939: \noindent
940: {\bf $\bsym{L_3}$ Extensions}\\
941: Scanning over the $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ extensions of $L_3$ shows
942: that $\mathfrak r =5$ always. Therefore, with only the discrete symmetry at
943: our disposal, we do not obtain a conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$. However,
944: since $L_3$, to some extent, suggests the conservation of lepton number, one
945: could remove the $L_3$ invariant but lepton number violating operators
946: $N^cN^cN^c$ and $SN^cN^cN^c$ from the set of allowed operators (see Table \ref{table2}), and determine
947: $\mathfrak r$ for the remaining sets. The idea behind this procedure is that
948: one can easily forbid these two interactions with the underlying $U(1)'$ by
949: demanding $z[N^c]\neq 0$ and $z[N^c]\neq -z[S]/3$. Disregarding these
950: operators, we find that the rank is reduced to four in 55 of the 270 possible
951: extensions. The conserved quantity among the remaining operators is always
952: $\widetilde{\mathcal Q} = \mathcal L$. Not all of these discrete charge
953: assignments are compatible with the $[U(1)_Y]^2-U(1)'$ anomaly condition
954: $A_{111'}$, i.e. eq.~(42) in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}. With $N_H=1$ and
955: the normalization where $y[Q]=1$, $A_{111'}$ translates to
956: \beq
957: \sum_{i=1}^3 y[K_i]^2 ~=~36 \ .\label{sumy2}
958: \eeq
959: The only integer solutions are $(0,0,\sigma_3\!\cdot\!6)$ and
960: $(\sigma_1 \!\cdot\! 2,\sigma_2 \!\cdot\! 4,\sigma_3 \!\cdot\! 4)$, with
961: $\sigma_i =\pm 1$, as well as permutations thereof. Translated to the discrete
962: hypercharges, these solutions correspond to $(0,0,0)$ and $(\sigma_1 \!\cdot\!
963: 2,\sigma_2 \!\cdot\! 1,\sigma_3 \!\cdot\! 1)$. With the implicit convention
964: that $-2 = 1$ and $-1 = 2$, all viable discrete hypercharges are therefore of
965: the form
966: \beq
967: \Big(q^Y[K_1],q^Y[K_2],q^Y[K_3]\Big)~=~(0,0,0) ~~ \mbox{or} ~~ (\sigma_1
968: \!\cdot\! 1,\sigma_2 \!\cdot\! 1,\sigma_3 \!\cdot\! 1) \ .\label{disY2}
969: \eeq
970: Out of the 55 $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ extensions of $L_3$ which
971: reduce the rank, only 17 cases comply with eq.~(\ref{disY2}). They are listed
972: in Table~\ref{table5}.
973: \TABLE[t]{
974: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
975: $\!\!\!\!\begin{array}{lr} ~ & \!\mathds Z_3 \\[-2mm]
976: \mathds Z_3^Y\! & ~ \end{array}\!\!\!\!$ &
977: $\!\!(0,0,0)\!\!$ & $\!\!(1,1,1)\!\!$ & $\!\!(2,2,2)\!\!$ &
978: $\!\!(0,0,1)\!\!$ & $\!\!(0,0,2)\!\!$ & $\!\!(0,1,1)\!\!$ &
979: $\!\!(1,1,2)\!\!$ & $\!\!(0,2,2)\!\!$ & $\!\!(1,2,2)\!\!$ &
980: $\!\!(0,1,2)\!\!$ \\ \hline\hline
981:
982: $\!\!(0,0,0)\!\!$ & $\checkmark~\smiley$ & $\checkmark~\smiley$ & $\checkmark~\smiley$ & & & & & & & \\ \hline
983:
984: $\!\!(1,1,1)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
985:
986: $\!\!(2,2,2)\!\!$ & $\checkmark~\smiley$ & $\checkmark~\smiley$ & $\checkmark~\smiley$ & & & & & & & \\ \hline
987:
988: $\!\!(1,1,2)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & $\checkmark$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & \\ \hline
989:
990: $\!\!(1,2,1)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
991:
992: $\!\!(2,1,1)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
993:
994: $\!\!(1,2,2)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & $\checkmark$ & & $\checkmark$ & & \\ \hline
995:
996: $\!\!(2,1,2)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
997:
998: $\!\!(2,2,1)\!\!$ & $\checkmark$ & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
999: \end{tabular}\caption{\label{table5}The $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$
1000: extensions of $L_3$. The discrete hypercharges $q^Y[K_i]$ that satisfy
1001: eq.~(\ref{disY2}) are shown in the rows; the discrete charges $q[K_i]$ of
1002: Table~\ref{table3} are given in the columns. The symbol $\checkmark$
1003: indicates that lepton number is violated only in the
1004: operators $N^cN^cN^c$ and $SN^cN^cN^c$. A smiley $\smiley$ denotes cases
1005: where baryon number is only violated in $U^cD^cD^c$, $SU^cD^cD^c$, $QQQH_1$
1006: and $QQ{D^c}^\dagger$.}
1007: }
1008: The symbol $\checkmark$ indicates the 17 cases in which $\widetilde{\mathcal
1009: Q} = \mathcal L$, i.e. those cases in which lepton number can only be violated
1010: by $N^cN^cN^c$ and $SN^cN^cN^c$. For those 6 symmetries additionally marked
1011: with the symbol $\smiley$, the only baryon number violating operators up to
1012: dimension five are $U^cD^cD^c$, $SU^cD^cD^c$, $QQQH_1$ and $QQ{D^c}^\dagger$,
1013: neither of which involves exotic fields.
1014: \begin{center}
1015: $
1016: \begin{array}{cll}
1017: \checkmark :~ & \mathcal L~\mbox{violation~only~in} & N^cN^cN^c,~SN^cN^cN^c\ .
1018: \\%[3mm]
1019: %
1020: \smiley :~ & \mathcal B~\mbox{violation~only~in} &
1021: U^cD^cD^c,~SU^cD^cD^c,~QQQH_1,~QQ{D^c}^\dagger \ .
1022: \end{array}
1023: $
1024: \end{center}
1025: The remaining $17-6=11$ cases violate baryon number also in many interactions
1026: involving exotic quarks.
1027:
1028: For the symmetries in Table~\ref{table5} indicated by $\checkmark$,
1029: the proton can be stabilized by forbidding the two lepton number violating
1030: operators by the continuous
1031: $U(1)'$. In the cases marked with the symbol $\smiley$, one could
1032: alternatively control the four baryon number violating interactions; if, for
1033: instance, $N^cN^cN^c$ is absent but $SN^cN^cN^c$ is allowed, one just has to
1034: forbid the renormalizable term $U^cD^cD^c$ with the $U(1)'$ in order to make
1035: the proton sufficiently stable.
1036:
1037:
1038:
1039: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1040: \section{$\bsym{L_3}$ Symmetric $\bsym{U(1)'}$ Models}
1041: \label{l3symmetric}
1042: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1043: In this section, we present phenomenologically viable and
1044: anomaly-free $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y \times U(1)'$ models
1045: which have a $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ extension of $L_3$ as
1046: a subgroup. We choose $N_H=1$, $a=1$ and $m=0$ or $m=-1$\footnote{Recall that
1047: up to now we have been assuming $n,m\ge 0$, so that any $1/M$ suppression
1048: in the dimensionless couplings is coming solely from $\frac{S}{M}$ factors.
1049: However, it can be readily seen from eqs.~(\ref{eqmu}) and (\ref{ABsup})
1050: that negative values of $n$ and $m$ are also possible, and could be
1051: interpreted as a corresponding suppression due to $\frac{H_2H_1}{M^2}$ factors instead.}.
1052: Additionally, we showcase two anomaly-free models which are incompatible
1053: with either proton longevity or the measured quark masses.
1054:
1055: Requiring $U(1)_Y \supset \mathds Z_3^Y$ entails integer hypercharges for all
1056: particles, including the exotic quarks. Therefore eq.~(\ref{sumy2}) has only
1057: a finite number of solutions. In our search for concrete models, we choose the
1058: following 8+2 assignments
1059: \beq
1060: (y[K_1],y[K_2],y[K_3]) ~=~ \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
1061: (\sigma_1 \!\cdot\! 2,\sigma_2\!\cdot\! 4,\sigma_3\!\cdot\! 4) \ , \\
1062: (0,0,\sigma_3 \!\cdot\! 6) \ ,
1063: \end{array} \right.
1064: \eeq
1065: with $\sigma_i=\pm 1$. All other possibilities are obtained from these by
1066: relabeling the generations of the exotic quarks.
1067:
1068: With regard to the $U(1)'$ symmetry, eq.~(\ref{BVmaster}) shows that one
1069: particular charge assignment is accompanied by a two-dimensional space of
1070: solutions which allow and forbid exactly the same operators\footnote{Note,
1071: however, that two models with different $U(1)'$ charge assignments have
1072: different couplings to the $Z'$ and $\tilde{Z'}$.}. One dimension is spanned by
1073: adding a certain amount of the hypercharge vector to the original charge
1074: assignment, the other arises due to
1075: the choice of the overall normalization. To be explicit, we keep only those
1076: assignments with $z[Q]=0$ and $|z[S]|=3$; the overall sign is fixed by
1077: demanding compatibility of eq.~(\ref{defq}) with Table~\ref{table1}. In other
1078: words, we take $\alpha + 3(1+m)\gamma = 0$ and $3\gamma = -1$ in eq.~(\ref{BVmaster}). In order
1079: to end up with a $\mathds Z_3$ symmetry after $U(1)'$ breaking, the
1080: charges $z[K_i]$ must be integers. As the cubic anomaly $[U(1)']^3$ is
1081: quadratic in $z[K_i]$, we need to scan only over a finite number
1082: of assignments $(z[K_1],z[K_2],z[K_3])$ to find all anomaly-free models.
1083: The phenomenologically viable models are listed in Table~\ref{table6}.
1084: \TABLE[t]{
1085: $
1086: \begin{array}{|c||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}\hline
1087: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{L_3\mbox{~models~with~} m=0} &
1088: \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{L_3\mbox{~models~with~} m=-1}
1089: \\\hline\hline
1090: %
1091: z[Q] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\phantom{-}0~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{\phantom{-}0~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1092: %
1093: z[U^c] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{-6~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{-3~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1094: %
1095: z[D^c] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\phantom{-}3~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{\phantom{-}0~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1096: %
1097: z[L] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{-1~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{-1~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1098: %
1099: z[N^c] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{-2~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{\phantom{-}1~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1100: %
1101: z[E^c] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\phantom{-}4~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{\phantom{-}1~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1102: %
1103: z[H_1] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{-3~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{\phantom{-}0~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1104: %
1105: z[H_2] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{\phantom{-}6~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{\phantom{-}3~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\%\hline
1106: %
1107: z[S] & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{-3~~} & \multicolumn{9}{|c|}{-3~~} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\\hline
1108: %
1109: %
1110: %
1111: & \mbox{I} & \mbox{~~II} & \mbox{~III} & \mbox{~~IV} & \mbox{V} & \mbox{VI} &
1112: \mbox{VII} & \mbox{VIII} & \mbox{~IX} & \mbox{~~X} & \mbox{~XI} & \mbox{XII} &
1113: \mbox{XIII} & \mbox{XIV} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\\hline
1114: %
1115: %%%%%\mbox{in Ref.}~{\cite{Lee:2007fw}} & \mbox{BV-I} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{BV-IV} &
1116: \mbox{in Ref.}~{[16]} & \mbox{BV-I} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{BV-IV} &
1117: \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} &
1118: \mbox{} & \mbox{} \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\\\hline
1119: %
1120: %
1121: %
1122: z[K_1] & 3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1123: %
1124: z[K_2] & -3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1125: %
1126: z[K_3] & -3 & 8 & -5 & 8 & -5 & 0 & 4 & -1 & 4 & -1 & 4 & -1 & 4 & -1 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\\hline
1127: %
1128: y[K_1] & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1129: %
1130: y[K_2] & -4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1131: %
1132: y[K_3] & -4 & 6 & -6 & 6 & -6 & -4 & 6 & -6 & 6 & -6 & 6 & -6 & 6 & -6 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\\hline\hline
1133: %
1134: %
1135: %
1136: q[K_1] & 0 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1137: %
1138: q[K_2] & 0 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1139: %
1140: q[K_3] & 0 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\\hline
1141: %
1142: q^Y[K_1] & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1143: %
1144: q^Y[K_2] & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\%\hline
1145: %
1146: q^Y[K_3] & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \\\hline
1147: %
1148: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}\mbox{class}&\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\checkmark ~~~\smiley}&
1149: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{-} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\checkmark ~~~ \smiley} &
1150: \multicolumn{6}{|c|}{-} \\\hline
1151: \end{array}
1152: $
1153: \caption{\label{table6}Phenomenologically viable $L_3$ models
1154: with a $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ subgroup. Six of them, indicated by
1155: the symbols $\checkmark$ and $\smiley$, fall into a class where already the
1156: discrete $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ symmetry drastically limits the allowed
1157: $\mathcal B$ and $\mathcal L$ violating operators, see
1158: Table~\ref{table5}.} }
1159: %
1160: Comparing with Table~\ref{table5} shows that models I--III and VI--VIII belong
1161: to the class ``$\checkmark~\smiley$'' with a $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds
1162: Z_3$ symmetry that allows only a few baryon and lepton number operators. Their
1163: absence or presence in the specific model can be checked immediately. We find:
1164: \begin{itemize}
1165: \item {\bf I--III:} Neither $N^cN^cN^c$ nor $SN^cN^cN^c$ is allowed by the
1166: $U(1)'$, so lepton number is conserved up to dimension five. The only baryon
1167: number violating operator is $U^cD^cD^c$. Therefore, the proton is safe in
1168: these models. Up to a hypercharge shift and an overall minus sign, model~I
1169: is identical to the ``BV--I'' case in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}.
1170: \item {\bf VI--VIII:} Here, lepton and baryon number are separately violated, but
1171: only in non-renormalizable operators, namely $SN^cN^cN^c$,
1172: $QQQH_1$ and $QQ{D^c}^\dagger$. Hence, any diagram that makes the proton
1173: decay is necessarily suppressed by at least two powers of
1174: $M$, leading to a sufficiently long proton lifetime. Model~VI
1175: is equivalent to the ``BV--IV'' case in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}.
1176: \end{itemize}
1177: In order to see that the proton does not decay rapidly in the remaining
1178: $14-6=8$ cases of Table~\ref{table6}, we need to construct all allowed
1179: operators up to dimension five and determine the conserved quantity
1180: $\mathcal Q$ for each model individually. We obtain:
1181: \begin{itemize}
1182: \item {\bf IV:} $\mathcal Q=\mathcal L - \mathcal K_3$. Baryon number is
1183: therefore violated (through $U^cD^cD^c$), but lepton number is
1184: conserved in processes where there is no external exotic quark. Thus
1185: the proton is sufficiently stable.
1186: \item {\bf V:} $\mathcal Q=\mathcal L + \mathcal K_3$. Same as for model IV.
1187: \item {\bf IX--XIV:} $\mathcal Q=\mathcal K_3$. In these cases, the existence
1188: of a conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$ does not guarantee a stable proton. We
1189: must resort to the full list of baryon and lepton number violating operators
1190: up to dimension five. It shows that, in all models, the only baryon number
1191: violating operators are $QQQH_1$ and $QQ{D^c}^\dagger$. Lepton number, on the
1192: other hand, is violated through $SN^cN^cN^c$ in all models, and additionally
1193: through
1194: \beqn
1195: &N^cK_1^\dagger K_2 \,,~N^cK^c_1{K^c_2}^\dagger\,,~SN^cK^c_1K_2~
1196: &\quad \mbox{in~XI~and~XII}\ ,\nonumber \\
1197: &N^c{K^c_1}^\dagger K^c_2 \,,~N^cK_1K_2^\dagger\,,~SN^cK_1K^c_2
1198: &\quad \mbox{in~XIII~and~XIV}\ .\nonumber
1199: \eeqn
1200: Since baryon and lepton number are separately violated only at the
1201: non-renormalizable level, the proton is safe in these models.
1202: \end{itemize}
1203:
1204: Having presented phenomenologically viable $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds
1205: Z_3$ models which are symmetric under $L_3$, we now discuss the shortcomings
1206: of two anomaly-free $L_3$ symmetric $U(1)'$ charge assignments which lead to
1207: contradictions with observations. Except for the exotic quarks, the $U(1)'$
1208: charges in both cases are identical to those of models~I--V. The first case
1209: has
1210: $$
1211: \Big(z[K_1],z[K_2],z[K_3] \Big) = (1,2,8) \ , \qquad
1212: \Big(y[K_1],y[K_2],y[K_3] \Big) = (0,0,6) \ ,
1213: $$
1214: leading to no conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$. Up to dimension five,
1215: $U^cD^cD^c$ is the only baryon number violating operator; lepton number is
1216: violated in
1217: $$
1218: E^cK_1K^c_3\,,~N^cK_1K^c_2\,,~N^cN^cK^c_1K_2 \ .
1219: $$ From the latter two terms one can obtain the effective operator
1220: $N^cN^cN^c$ at the loop level by contracting $K_i$ with $K^c_i$,
1221: $i=1,2$. Therefore the diagram leading to proton decay is suppressed by only
1222: one power of $M$ in this case.
1223:
1224: In the second example, the exotic quarks have charges
1225: $$
1226: \Big(z[K_1],z[K_2],z[K_3] \Big) = (3,6,6) \ , \qquad
1227: \Big(y[K_1],y[K_2],y[K_3] \Big) = (2,4,4) \ .
1228: $$
1229: This choice results in the conserved quantity $\mathcal Q = \alpha \mathcal L
1230: + \beta \mathcal K_1$. As lepton number is conserved, one might consider this
1231: a physically acceptable charge assignment. However, the exotic quarks $K_{2}$
1232: and $K_{3}$ mix with the up-type quarks through the superpotential operators
1233: (for the sake of clarity we suppress all generational indices)
1234: \beq
1235: M \, KU^c \ , \qquad \frac{1}{M} \, S H_2 Q K^c \
1236: . \label{mix}
1237: \eeq
1238: After $S$ and $H_2$ acquire their vevs, we obtain the mass terms
1239: \beq
1240: \begin{pmatrix}
1241: U & K
1242: \end{pmatrix}
1243: \cdot
1244: \begin{pmatrix}
1245: c_{11}\, \langle H_2 \rangle
1246: &c_{12}\,\frac{\langle S\rangle \langle H_2 \rangle}{M} \\[2mm]
1247: c_{21}\, M & c_{22}\, \langle S \rangle
1248: \end{pmatrix}
1249: \cdot
1250: \begin{pmatrix}
1251: U^c \\ K^c
1252: \end{pmatrix} ,
1253: \eeq
1254: with eigenvalues of the order
1255: \beq
1256: c_{21}\, M \ , \qquad
1257: \left(\frac{c_{11}c_{22}}{c_{21}} - c_{12}\right) \cdot
1258: \frac{\langle S\rangle \langle H_2 \rangle}{M} \ .
1259: \eeq
1260: Assuming no artificially small value for the coupling coefficient $c_{21}$,
1261: the second mass eigenvalue is way too small to account for the up-type quark masses.
1262: Therefore,
1263: a scenario in which the exotic quarks mix with the observed ones as in
1264: eq.~(\ref{mix}) would be highly unnatural.
1265:
1266:
1267:
1268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1269: \section{Models with $\bsym{\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_{N>3}}$}
1270: \label{z3yzn}
1271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1272: We can now relax
1273: the requirement of integer $U(1)'$ charges for the exotic quarks. After
1274: rescaling the charges, this is tantamount to looking for scenarios where
1275: $U(1)' \rightarrow \mathds Z_{N>3}$. Indeed, we find many such anomaly-free
1276: models. For $B_3$ and $L_3$, some are given in Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}. It is
1277: the purpose of this section to argue for the stability of the proton in the
1278: models of Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}, as well as in some new models featuring the discrete
1279: symmetry~$M_3$. Concerning the $B_3$ models of Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}, we have
1280: already shown in Section~\ref{absolute} that the proton is absolutely
1281: stable. The $U(1)'$ charge assignments which we are going to discuss here are
1282: only the $L_3$ and $M_3$ cases given in Table~\ref{table7}.
1283: The primed models are related to the unprimed
1284: ones by simultaneously changing $y[K_i] \leftrightarrow y[K^c_i]$ and
1285: $z[K_i] \leftrightarrow z[K^c_i]$; the thus obtained charge assignments are
1286: also anomaly-free because the anomaly coefficients do not distinguish between
1287: $SU(3)_C$ triplets and antitriplets (see Ref.~\cite{Lee:2007fw}).
1288:
1289: In order to determine whether a model is consistent with the longevity of the
1290: proton, we take the same approach as in the previous section. First we
1291: filter out the information contained in the $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_N$
1292: subgroup. If the rank $\mathfrak r$ of the set of homogeneous linear equations
1293: derived from the allowed operators, see eq.~(\ref{findingQ}), is less than 5,
1294: we have to find the conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$ for these scenarios. In
1295: some cases, no further effort has to be made because the discrete symmetry
1296: already stabilizes the proton. However, often we have to take a second step
1297: and determine the conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$ of the specific model
1298: (i.e. using the exact $U(1)'$ charges). If that also fails,
1299: we need to investigate explicitly all baryon and lepton number
1300: violating operators up to dimension five.
1301: \TABLE[t]{
1302: {$
1303: \begin{array}{|c||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline
1304: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}& \multicolumn{8}{|c|}{L_3\mbox{~models}}
1305: & \multicolumn{5}{|c|}{M_3\mbox{~models}} \\ \hline\hline
1306: %
1307: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[Q]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 0 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 0 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ 0 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1308:
1309: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{ 0~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 0 ~~~\quad}
1310: \\
1311: %
1312: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[U^c]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ -18 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ -90 ~~\quad}&\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{-9 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1313:
1314: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{6~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{15 ~~~\quad}
1315: \\
1316: %
1317: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[D^c]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 9 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 45 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ 0 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1318:
1319: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{ 3~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-6 ~~~\quad}
1320: \\
1321: %
1322: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[L]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ -3 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ -15 ~~\quad}&\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ -3 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1323:
1324: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{ 3~}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 3 ~~~\quad}
1325: \\
1326: %
1327: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[N^c]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-6 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-30 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ 3 ~ \qquad\qquad} &
1328:
1329: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{-6~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 3~~~\quad}
1330: \\
1331: %
1332: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[E^c]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{12 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{60 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ 3 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1333:
1334: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{ 0~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-9 ~~~\quad}
1335: \\
1336: %
1337: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[H_1]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-9 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-45 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ 0 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1338:
1339: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{-3~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{6~~~\quad}
1340: \\
1341: %
1342: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[H_2]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 18 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 90 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{9 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1343:
1344: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{-6~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-15~~~\quad}
1345: \\
1346: %
1347: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[S]&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-9 ~\quad}& \multicolumn{2}{|r|}{-45 ~~\quad} &\multicolumn{4}{|r|}{ -9 ~\qquad\qquad} &
1348:
1349: \multicolumn{1}{|c}{~}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{ 9~ }&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{~}&\multicolumn{2}{|r|}{ 9 ~~~\quad}
1350: \\\hline
1351: %
1352: %
1353: %
1354: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}& \mbox{(i)} & \mbox{(i')} & \mbox{(ii)} & \mbox{(ii')}& \mbox{(iii)}& \mbox{(iii')}& \mbox{(iv)} & \mbox{(iv')}& \mbox{(v)} & \mbox{(vi)} & \mbox{(vii)} & \mbox{(viii)}& \mbox{(ix)} \\\hline
1355: %
1356: %%%\rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \mbox{in Ref.}~\cite{Lee:2007fw}& \mbox{BV-II} & \mbox{BV-II'} & \mbox{BV-III} & \mbox{BV-III'}& \mbox{BV-V}& \mbox{BV-V'}& \mbox{BV-VI} & \mbox{BV-VI'}& \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{}& \mbox{} \\\hline
1357: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt} \mbox{in Ref.}~{[16]}& \mbox{BV-II} & \mbox{BV-II'} & \mbox{BV-III} & \mbox{BV-III'}& \mbox{BV-V}& \mbox{BV-V'}& \mbox{BV-VI} & \mbox{BV-VI'}& \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{} & \mbox{}& \mbox{} \\\hline
1358: %
1359: %
1360: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[K_1] & 13&-4&47&-2&7&2&5&4&-5&-5&-5&-11&-11 \\
1361: %
1362: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[K_2] & -8&17&-40&85&1&8&-1&10&-5&-2&-2&7&-13 \\
1363: %
1364: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}z[K_3] & -8&17&-49&94&-2&11&-1&10&-8&-2&-7&-13&-16 \\\hline
1365: %
1366: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}y[K_1] & 2 & -2& 2&-2& 2&-2& 2&-2&0& 2&2&2&2 \\
1367: %
1368: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}y[K_2] & -4 & 4 & -4 &4& -4 &4& -4 &4&0& -4& -4& -4& 4 \\
1369: %
1370: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}y[K_3] & -4& 4 & -4 &4& -4 &4& -4 &4&6& -4& 4& 4& 4\\\hline\hline
1371: %
1372: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}q^Y[K_1] & 2&1&2&1&2&1&2&1&0&2&2&2&2 \\
1373: %
1374: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}q^Y[K_2] & 2&1&2&1&2&1&2&1&0&2&2&2&1 \\
1375: %
1376: \rule[-5pt]{0pt}{18pt}q^Y[K_2] & 2&1&2&1&2&1&2&1&0&2&1&1&1 \\\hline
1377: \end{array}
1378: $}
1379: \caption{\label{table7}Some models with $U(1)' \rightarrow \mathds Z_{N>3}$.}
1380: }
1381:
1382: \vspace{5mm}
1383: \noindent{\bf{$\bsym{L_3}$ Models}}\\
1384: With only the discrete symmetry $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_N$ at hand,
1385: the rank $\mathfrak r$ reduces only in cases (ii)/(ii') of
1386: Table~\ref{table7}; we get the conserved quantity $\mathcal Q=\mathcal K_1 -
1387: 2\mathcal K_3$. Even if we disregard the operators $N^cN^cN^c$ and
1388: $SN^cN^cN^c$, $\mathfrak r$ is not reduced in the other six cases. For
1389: (ii)/(ii'), at the level of the discrete symmetry, we obtain
1390: $\widetilde{\mathcal Q}= \alpha (3 \mathcal L \mp \mathcal K_2) + \beta
1391: (\mathcal K_1 - 2 \mathcal K_3)$, where the upper sign holds true for the
1392: unprimed model and the lower for the primed one. We stick to this convention
1393: throughout this section. Since the actual charges of
1394: models (ii)/(ii') allow neither $N^cN^cN^c$ nor $SN^cN^cN^c$, lepton
1395: number is conserved in all processes without external exotic quarks. So models
1396: (ii)/(ii') are phenomenologically acceptable.
1397:
1398: For the remaining six $L_3$ cases, we need to consider the exact $U(1)'$ charge
1399: assignments. The obtained conserved quantities for the models are:
1400:
1401: \begin{center}
1402: $
1403: \begin{array}{rlcl}
1404: & \quad\mbox{including}~ (S)N^cN^cN^c
1405: & ~~~ & \quad\mbox{excluding}~ (S)N^cN^cN^c \\[2mm]
1406: %
1407: \mbox{(i)/(i'):}~~~
1408: & \mathcal Q = 3\mathcal L \mp (\mathcal K_1 -2\mathcal K_2-2\mathcal K_3) \ ,
1409: &&\widetilde{\mathcal Q}=3\mathcal L \mp(\mathcal K_1-2\mathcal K_2-2\mathcal K_3)\ , \\%[1mm]
1410: %
1411: %\mbox{(ii):}~~~
1412: %& \mathcal Q = \mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3 \ ,
1413: %&& \widetilde{\mathcal Q} = \mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3 \ ,
1414: %\\%[1mm]
1415: %
1416: \mbox{(iii)/(iii'):}~~~
1417: & \mathcal Q = \beta \mathcal K_1 + \gamma (\mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3)\ ,
1418: && \widetilde{\mathcal Q} = \alpha (\mathcal L \pm \mathcal K_3) + \beta
1419: \mathcal K_1 + \gamma (\mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3) \ ,
1420: \\%[1mm]
1421: %
1422: \mbox{(iv)/(iv'):}~~~
1423: &\mathcal Q = \mathcal K_1 - 2\mathcal K_2 - 2\mathcal K_3 \ ,
1424: && \widetilde{\mathcal Q} = \alpha \mathcal L + \beta (\mathcal K_1 -
1425: 2\mathcal K_2 - 2\mathcal K_3 ) \ .
1426: \end{array}
1427: $
1428: \end{center}
1429:
1430: In models (i)/(i'), the proton is safe due to $\mathcal L$ conservation in
1431: processes with no external~$K_i$. The other models violate $\mathcal L$.
1432:
1433: However, for models (iv)/(iv') the only lepton number violation occurs in
1434: $SN^cN^cN^c$. We must therefore determine the baryon number violating
1435: operators. It is worth pointing out that already at the level of the discrete
1436: $\mathds Z_3^Y \times Z_N$ symmetry, in all eight $L_3$ cases
1437: the only BV operators are precisely the $\smiley$ operators from Section~\ref{good}:
1438: \beq
1439: U^cD^cD^c \ , \quad SU^cD^cD^c \ , \quad QQQH_1\ , \quad QQ{D^c}^\dagger \ .
1440: \eeq
1441: The specific charges of models (iv)/(iv') forbid the first two terms, so both
1442: $\mathcal L$ and $\mathcal B$ are only violated separately at the
1443: non-renormalizable level. Hence, these models have a sufficiently stable
1444: proton.
1445:
1446: Concerning models (iii)/(iii'), we must additionally determine all lepton
1447: number violating operators up to dimension five:
1448: \begin{center}
1449: $
1450: \begin{array}{rlcl}
1451: & \mathcal B~\mbox{violation} &~~~& \mathcal L~\mbox{violation} \\[2mm]
1452: %\mbox{(ii):}~~~&U^cD^cD^c \ ,
1453: %&& E^cK^c_1K_3\,,\,N^cK^c_2K_3\,,\,N^cN^cK_2K^c_3 \ , \\%[1mm]
1454: \mbox{(iii):}~~~ & QQQH_1\,,\,QQ{D^c}^\dagger\ ,
1455: && N^cK^\dagger_2
1456: K_3\,,\,N^cK^c_2{K^c_3}^\dagger\,,\,SN^cK^c_2K_3\,,\,SN^cN^cN^c\ , \\%[2mm]
1457: \mbox{(iii'):}~~~ & QQQH_1\,,\,QQ{D^c}^\dagger\ ,
1458: && N^c{K^c_2}^\dagger K^c_3\,,\,N^cK_2K_3^\dagger\,,\,SN^cK_2K^c_3\,,\,SN^cN^cN^c\ .
1459: \end{array}
1460: $
1461: \end{center}
1462: We see that in models (iii)/(iii') baryon and lepton number are violated
1463: separately only at the non-renormalizable level. So these are also viable
1464: charge assignments.
1465:
1466: \vspace{5mm}
1467: \noindent{\bf{$\bsym{M_3}$ Models}}\\
1468: The symmetry $M_3$ forbids baryon number violation among the MSSM particles
1469: and the right-handed neutrinos. For models (v) and (vi), the discrete
1470: hypercharges satisfy eq.~(\ref{miracle}), which anticipates that $\mathcal B$
1471: is also conserved at the level of the subgroup $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds
1472: Z_9$ once we add the exotic quarks. For the remaining
1473: three cases (vii)$-$(ix), the discrete symmetry of the models also leads to the
1474: conserved quantity $\mathcal Q=\mathcal B$. Therefore, all five $M_3$ models
1475: given in Table~\ref{table7} have a stable proton.
1476:
1477:
1478:
1479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1480: \section{Summary and Conclusion}
1481: \label{conclusion}
1482: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1483: In this article, we investigated the issue of proton stability in the
1484: general UMSSM with $R$-parity violation. The proton decay problem
1485: may arise due to two reasons. First, in the absence of $R$-parity,
1486: one might expect the usual RPV couplings to destabilize the proton.
1487: However, the LV-BV separation \cite{Lee:2007fw} ensures that
1488: the dangerous LV and BV couplings cannot coexist, so that the
1489: proton is safe from operators involving MSSM fields, even at the
1490: non-renormalizable level. The second, much more severe problem
1491: arises due to the presence of light exotics, which are needed to
1492: render the $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry free of anomalies. The exotics
1493: themselves may have LV and/or BV interactions, posing a serious problem
1494: for the stability of the proton. Nevertheless, we have identified
1495: several classes of models where the exotics are relatively harmless
1496: with respect to the proton decay issue.
1497:
1498: A central element in our analysis was the concept of discrete gauge symmetries.
1499: After the spontaneous breaking of the $U(1)'$ gauge symmetry,
1500: any charge assignment automatically leads to a remnant $\mathds Z_N$ symmetry.
1501: Furthermore, there is an analogous $\mathds Z_N^Y$ discrete symmetry
1502: which is left over after the breaking of the hypercharge gauge group $U(1)_Y$.
1503: We found that the knowledge of these discrete symmetries provides a powerful
1504: tool in arguing for the stability of the proton. Our main results are
1505: pictorially summarized in Fig.~\ref{roadmap}, where we present the main
1506: steps one has to follow in deciding whether a particular UMSSM model is safe with
1507: respect to proton decay or not. We should stress that Fig.~\ref{roadmap}
1508: can be applied only to anomaly-free UMSSM models with a minimal exotic content,
1509: i.e. three generations of $SU(2)_L$-singlet exotic quarks. Our method, however,
1510: can be easily generalized to the case of non-minimal exotic sectors as well.
1511:
1512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1513: \FIGURE{
1514: \includegraphics[width=0.88\textheight,angle=90]{decision.ps}
1515: \caption{A roadmap for RPV UMSSM model building.
1516: \label{roadmap} } }
1517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1518:
1519: In Section~\ref{absolute} we identified four symmetries
1520: ($B_3$, $P_6$, $R^{}_{12}L^4_{12}$, $R^{5}_{12}L^8_{12}$)
1521: which render the proton absolutely stable. Fig.~\ref{roadmap}
1522: confirms that the shortest path to the stable proton outcome
1523: is when the model exhibits a $B_3$ discrete symmetry.
1524: For other discrete symmetries, knowing the couplings of the exotic quarks to
1525: the MSSM particles and the right-handed neutrinos is essential.
1526: For this reason, we have extended the concept of a discrete
1527: symmetry to the exotic sector. Since the hypercharge of the new exotic
1528: particles is also unknown, we introduced the notion of a discrete hypercharge.
1529: Scanning all possible $\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_3$ extensions
1530: of lepton triality~$L_3$ and matter triality~$M_3$, we found many cases in
1531: which the discrete symmetry forbids (most of) the $SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L$
1532: invariant baryon and/or lepton number violating operators up to dimension
1533: five. Their absence for a particular $U(1)'$ charge assignment ensures a
1534: stable proton. This is confirmed by Fig.~\ref{roadmap}, which offers several
1535: alternative paths to the stable proton outcome, which rely primarily on the
1536: extended discrete symmetries encoded in the model.
1537:
1538: Models which do not fall into these ``good'' categories need to be further
1539: scrutinized. A method which we found very useful in classifying the
1540: remaining possibilities is the following. We generate all possible
1541: operators up to dimension five which are invariant under either
1542: $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y \times U(1)'$ or its discrete version
1543: $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times \mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_N $.
1544: We then look for a conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$ among the set of those
1545: operators. As the proton cannot decay into exotic quarks, one can often
1546: argue for a sufficiently stable proton solely on the basis of $\mathcal Q$.
1547: As evidenced from Fig.~\ref{roadmap} and some of our examples in
1548: Secs.~\ref{good}-\ref{z3yzn}, this can be often the case with
1549: $L_3$ and $M_3$ UMSSM models. Only for a few remaining model cases,
1550: it is necessary to explicitly write down all baryon and lepton number
1551: violating operators in order to verify whether the proton is stable.
1552:
1553: Our results show that in spite of the presence of light exotics at the TeV scale,
1554: the anomaly-free RPV UMSSM is a phenomenologically viable
1555: alternative to more conventional versions of low energy supersymmetry.
1556: It is instructive that a consistent model has {\em three} new elements
1557: in comparison to the (N)MSSM:
1558: (1) new $U(1)'$ gauge interactions and the associated
1559: gauge particles and their superpartners; (2) RPV interactions and (3)
1560: new exotic isosinglet quarks and squarks at the TeV scale \cite{Kang:2007ib}.
1561: One should therefore be on the lookout for such signatures
1562: during the upcoming runs at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
1563:
1564: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1565: We thank Graham Ross for stimulating discussions.
1566: HL and KM are supported by the Department of Energy under grant
1567: DE-FG02-97ER41029. The work of CL is supported by the University of
1568: Florida through the Institute for Fundamental Theory.
1569:
1570:
1571:
1572: \appendix
1573:
1574:
1575:
1576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1577: \section{Good $\bsym{\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_6}$ Extensions}
1578: \label{app-z6}
1579: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1580: We have pointed out in Section~\ref{good} that those extensions of the
1581: $\mathds Z_6$ symmetries $R_6^{}L_6^2~ (\cong M_3 \times R_2)$, and $R_6^3L_6^2~(\cong L_3 \times R_2)$
1582: which have the discrete hypercharges of eq.~(\ref{miracle}) conserve baryon
1583: number up to dimension five operators. The complete $\mathds Z_3^Y \times
1584: \mathds Z_6$ scan reveals that no additional good symmetries that comply with
1585: eq.~(\ref{disY2}) are obtained for $R_6^{}L_6^2$.
1586:
1587: The situation changes dramatically when scanning over the extensions of the
1588: symmetry $R_6^3L_6^2$. Out of the $27\times 56 = 1512$ possible discrete charge
1589: assignments\footnote{Concerning the $\mathds Z_6$
1590: sector, there are 6 cases with identical $q[K_i]$, $6\times 5 = 30$ cases
1591: where two $q[K_i]$ are identical, and finally $\frac{6\cdot 5\cdot 4}{3!}=20$
1592: cases with all three discrete charges different from each other. This adds up
1593: to 56 different $\mathds Z_6$ charge assignments for the exotic quarks.},
1594: 1298 have rank
1595: $\mathfrak r$ smaller than 5, leading to a conserved quantity $\mathcal
1596: Q$. Filtering out those cases which satisfy eq.~(\ref{disY2}), we are left
1597: with 415 cases with non-trivial $\mathcal Q$. For illustration, we list those
1598: 16 scenarios in which the rank is reduced to $\mathfrak r =2$, together with
1599: the corresponding conserved quantity $\mathcal Q$, in Table~\ref{tableA1}.
1600: $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ are free real parameters. Therefore, one actually
1601: has three independent conserved quantities in these scenarios.
1602: \TABLE{
1603: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|}\hline
1604: $(q^Y[K_1],q^Y[K_2],q^Y[K_3])$ & $(q[K_1],q[K_2],q[K_3])$
1605: & $\mathcal Q\phantom{\Big|}$ \\\hline\hline
1606:
1607: $\phantom{\Big|}\!(0,0,0)$\,or\,$(2,2,2)\phantom{\Big|}$ &
1608: $(1,1,1)$\,or\,$(3,3,3)$\,or\,$(5,5,5)\!$ &
1609: $\alpha \mathcal B + \beta \mathcal L
1610: + \gamma (\mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3)$ \\\hline
1611:
1612: $\phantom{\Big|}(1,1,2)\phantom{\Big|}$ & $(3,3,3)$\,or\,$(3,3,5)$ &
1613: $\alpha(\mathcal B + \mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_2) + \beta \mathcal L
1614: + \gamma \mathcal K_3$ \\\hline
1615:
1616: $\phantom{\Big|}(1,2,1)\phantom{\Big|}$ & $(3,3,3)$ &
1617: $\alpha(\mathcal B + \mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_3) + \beta \mathcal L
1618: + \gamma \mathcal K_2 $ \\\hline
1619:
1620: $\phantom{\Big|}(2,1,1)\phantom{\Big|}$ & $(3,3,3)$\,or\,$(1,3,3)$ &
1621: $\alpha(\mathcal B + \mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3) + \beta \mathcal L
1622: + \gamma \mathcal K_1 $ \\\hline
1623:
1624: $\phantom{\Big|}(1,2,2)\phantom{\Big|}$ & $(3,3,3)$\,or\,$(3,5,5)$ &
1625: $\alpha (\mathcal B + \mathcal K_1) + \beta \mathcal L
1626: + \gamma (\mathcal K_2 + \mathcal K_3)$ \\\hline
1627:
1628: $\phantom{\Big|}(2,1,2)\phantom{\Big|}$ & $(3,3,3)$ &
1629: $\alpha (\mathcal B + \mathcal K_2) + \beta \mathcal L
1630: + \gamma (\mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_3)$ \\\hline
1631:
1632: $\phantom{\Big|}(2,2,1)\phantom{\Big|}$ & $(3,3,3)$\,or\,$(1,1,3)$ &
1633: $\alpha (\mathcal B + \mathcal K_3) + \beta \mathcal L
1634: + \gamma (\mathcal K_1 + \mathcal K_2)$ \\\hline
1635: \end{tabular}\caption{\label{tableA1}$\mathds Z_3^Y \times \mathds Z_6$
1636: extensions of $R_6^3L_6^2$ which lead to three conserved quantities $\mathcal
1637: Q$.}
1638: }
1639:
1640: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1641: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1643:
1644: \bibitem{Weinberg:1981wj}
1645: S.~Weinberg,
1646: %``Supersymmetry At Ordinary Energies. 1. Masses And Conservation Laws,''
1647: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26}, 287 (1982).
1648: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D26,287;%%
1649:
1650: \bibitem{Ellis:1982wr}
1651: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,
1652: %``Grand Unification In Simple Supergravity,''
1653: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 121}, 123 (1983).
1654: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B121,123;%%
1655:
1656: \bibitem{Ellis:1983qm}
1657: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,
1658: %``Observable Gravitationally Induced Baryon Decay,''
1659: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 124}, 484 (1983).
1660: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B124,484;%%
1661:
1662: \bibitem{Harnik:2004yp}
1663: R.~Harnik, D.~T.~Larson, H.~Murayama and M.~Thormeier,
1664: %``Probing the Planck scale with proton decay,''
1665: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 706}, 372 (2005)
1666: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404260].
1667: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B706,372;%%
1668:
1669: \bibitem{Kurosawa:2001iq}
1670: K.~Kurosawa, N.~Maru and T.~Yanagida,
1671: %``Nonanomalous R-symmetry in supersymmetric unified theories of quarks and
1672: %leptons,''
1673: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 512}, 203 (2001)
1674: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105136].
1675: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B512,203;%%
1676:
1677: \bibitem{Sayre:2006en}
1678: J.~Sayre, S.~Wiesenfeldt and S.~Willenbrock,
1679: %``Dimension-five operators in grand unified theories,''
1680: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75}, 037702 (2007)
1681: [arXiv:hep-ph/0605293].
1682: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,037702;%%
1683:
1684: \bibitem{Mohapatra:2007vd}
1685: R.~N.~Mohapatra and M.~Ratz,
1686: %``Gauged Discrete Symmetries and Proton Stability,''
1687: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 095003 (2007)
1688: [arXiv:0707.4070 [hep-ph]].
1689: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,095003;%%
1690:
1691: \bibitem{Kim:1983dt}
1692: J.~E.~Kim and H.~P.~Nilles,
1693: %``The Mu Problem And The Strong CP Problem,''
1694: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 138}, 150 (1984).
1695: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B138,150;%%
1696:
1697: \bibitem{Barbier:1998fe}
1698: R.~Barbier {\it et al.},
1699: %``Report of the group on the R-parity violation,''
1700: arXiv:hep-ph/9810232.
1701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9810232;%%
1702:
1703: \bibitem{Barbier:2004ez}
1704: R.~Barbier {\it et al.},
1705: %``R-parity violating supersymmetry,''
1706: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 420}, 1 (2005)
1707: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406039].
1708: %%CITATION = PRPLC,420,1;%%
1709:
1710: \bibitem{Barger:1989rk}
1711: V.~D.~Barger, G.~F.~Giudice and T.~Han,
1712: %``Some New Aspects of Supersymmetry R-Parity Violating Interactions,''
1713: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40}, 2987 (1989).
1714: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D40,2987;%%
1715:
1716: \bibitem{Allanach:2007vi}
1717: B.~C.~Allanach, M.~A.~Bernhardt, H.~K.~Dreiner, S.~Grab, C.~H.~Kom and P.~Richardson,
1718: %``R-Parity violating minimal supergravity at the LHC,''
1719: arXiv:0710.2034 [hep-ph].
1720: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.2034;%%
1721:
1722: \bibitem{RPVcollider}
1723: For examples of $R$-parity violating signatures at colliders, see for example,
1724: B.~Allanach {\it et al.} [R parity Working Group Collaboration],
1725: ``Searching for R-parity violation at Run-II of the Tevatron,''
1726: arXiv:hep-ph/9906224,
1727: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/9906224;%%
1728: and references therein.
1729:
1730: \bibitem{UMSSM}
1731: M.~Cveti\v{c}, D.~A.~Demir, J.~R.~Espinosa, L.~L.~Everett and P.~Langacker,
1732: %``Electroweak breaking and the mu problem in supergravity models with an
1733: %additional U(1),''
1734: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56}, 2861 (1997)
1735: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 58}, 119905 (1998)]
1736: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703317];
1737: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,2861;%%
1738: P.~Langacker and J.~Wang,
1739: %``U(1)' symmetry breaking in supersymmetric E(6) models,''
1740: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 115010 (1998)
1741: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804428], and references therein.
1742: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,115010;%%
1743:
1744: \bibitem{RPVU1prime}
1745: T.~G.~Rizzo,
1746: %``Phenomenology Of R-Parity Breaking In E-6 Models,''
1747: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 5102 (1992)
1748: [arXiv:hep-ph/9203224];
1749: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,5102;%%
1750: A.~H.~Chamseddine and H.~K.~Dreiner,
1751: %``Anomaly - free gauged U(1)-prime in local supersymmetry and baryon number
1752: %violation,''
1753: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 447}, 195 (1995)
1754: [arXiv:hep-ph/9503454];
1755: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B447,195;%%
1756: A.~S.~Joshipura, R.~D.~Vaidya and S.~K.~Vempati,
1757: %``U(1) symmetry and R parity violation,''
1758: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 093020 (2000)
1759: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006138];
1760: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,093020;%%
1761: C.~Coriano, A.~E.~Faraggi and M.~Guzzi,
1762: %``A Novel String Derived Z' With Stable Proton, Light-Neutrinos and
1763: %R-parity violation,''
1764: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 53}, 421 (2008)
1765: [arXiv:0704.1256 [hep-ph]].
1766: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C53,421;%%
1767:
1768: \bibitem{Leontaris:1999wf}
1769: G.~K.~Leontaris and J.~Rizos,
1770: %``New fermion mass textures from anomalous U(1) symmetries with baryon and
1771: %lepton number conservation,''
1772: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 567}, 32 (2000)
1773: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909206].
1774: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B567,32;%%
1775:
1776: \bibitem{Lee:2007fw}
1777: H.~S.~Lee, K.~T.~Matchev and T.~T.~Wang,
1778: %``A U(1)' solution to the mu-problem and the proton decay problem in
1779: %supersymmetry without R-parity,''
1780: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 015016 (2008)
1781: [arXiv:0709.0763 [hep-ph]].
1782: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D77,015016;%%
1783:
1784: \bibitem{CDM}
1785: H.~C.~Cheng, B.~A.~Dobrescu and K.~T.~Matchev,
1786: %``A chiral supersymmetric standard model,''
1787: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439}, 301 (1998)
1788: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807246];
1789: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B439,301;%%
1790: H.~C.~Cheng, B.~A.~Dobrescu and K.~T.~Matchev,
1791: %``Generic and chiral extensions of the supersymmetric standard model,''
1792: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 543}, 47 (1999)
1793: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811316].
1794: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B543,47;%%
1795:
1796: \bibitem{Erler}
1797: J.~Erler,
1798: %``Chiral models of weak scale supersymmetry,''
1799: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586}, 73 (2000)
1800: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006051].
1801: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006051;%%
1802:
1803: \bibitem{AokiOshimo}
1804: M.~Aoki and N.~Oshimo,
1805: %``A supersymmetric model with an extra U(1) gauge symmetry,''
1806: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 5269 (2000)
1807: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907481];
1808: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907481;%%
1809: M.~Aoki and N.~Oshimo,
1810: %``Supersymmetric extension of the standard model with naturally stable
1811: %proton,''
1812: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 055013 (2000)
1813: [arXiv:hep-ph/0003286].
1814: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003286;%%
1815:
1816: \bibitem{Ma:2002tc}
1817: E.~Ma,
1818: %``New U(1) gauge extension of the supersymmetric standard model,''
1819: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 041801 (2002)
1820: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201083].
1821: %%CITATION = PRLTA,89,041801;%%
1822:
1823: \bibitem{Langacker:1998ut}
1824: P.~Langacker,
1825: %``A mechanism for ordinary-sterile neutrino mixing,''
1826: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 093017 (1998)
1827: [arXiv:hep-ph/9805281].
1828: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,093017;%%
1829:
1830: \bibitem{Langacker:2000ju}
1831: P.~Langacker and M.~Pl\"umacher,
1832: %``Flavor changing effects in theories with a heavy Z' boson with family
1833: %non-universal couplings,''
1834: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 013006 (2000)
1835: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001204].
1836: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D62,013006;%%
1837:
1838: \bibitem{Bpuzzles}
1839: V.~Barger, C.~W.~Chiang, P.~Langacker and H.~S.~Lee,
1840: %``Z' mediated flavor changing neutral currents in B meson decays,''
1841: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 580}, 186 (2004)
1842: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310073];
1843: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B580,186;%%
1844: V.~Barger, C.~W.~Chiang, P.~Langacker and H.~S.~Lee,
1845: %``Solution to the B --> pi K puzzle in a flavor-changing Z' model,''
1846: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 598}, 218 (2004)
1847: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406126].
1848: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B598,218;%%
1849:
1850: \bibitem{Dreiner:2003yr}
1851: H.~K.~Dreiner, H.~Murayama and M.~Thormeier,
1852: %``Anomalous flavor U(1)X for everything,''
1853: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 729}, 278 (2005)
1854: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312012].
1855: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B729,278;%%
1856:
1857: \bibitem{Dreiner:2006xw}
1858: H.~K.~Dreiner, C.~Luhn, H.~Murayama and M.~Thormeier,
1859: %``Baryon Triality and Neutrino Masses from an Anomalous Flavor U(1),''
1860: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 774}, 127 (2007)
1861: [arXiv:hep-ph/0610026].
1862: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B774,127;%%
1863:
1864: %\cite{Ibanez:1991hv}
1865: \bibitem{Ibanez:1991hv}
1866: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.~G.~Ross,
1867: %``Discrete gauge symmetry anomalies,''
1868: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 291.
1869: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B260,291;%%
1870:
1871: \bibitem{Ibanez:1991pr}
1872: L.~E.~Ib\'a\~nez and G.~G.~Ross,
1873: %``Discrete Gauge Symmetries And The Origin Of Baryon And Lepton Number
1874: %Conservation In Supersymmetric Versions Of The Standard Model,''
1875: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 368}, 3 (1992).
1876: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B368,3;%%
1877:
1878: \bibitem{Dreiner:2005rd}
1879: H.~K.~Dreiner, C.~Luhn and M.~Thormeier,
1880: %``What is the discrete gauge symmetry of the MSSM?,''
1881: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 075007 (2006)
1882: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512163].
1883: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,075007;%%
1884:
1885: \bibitem{Luhn:2007gq}
1886: C.~Luhn and M.~Thormeier,
1887: %``Dirac neutrinos and anomaly-free discrete gauge symmetries,''
1888: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 056002 (2008)
1889: [arXiv:0711.0756 [hep-ph]].
1890: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D77,056002;%%
1891:
1892: \bibitem{Castano:1994ec}
1893: D.~J.~Casta\~no and S.~P.~Martin,
1894: %``Discrete symmetries and isosinglet quarks in low-energy supersymmetry,''
1895: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 340}, 67 (1994)
1896: [arXiv:hep-ph/9408230].
1897: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B340,67;%%
1898:
1899: \bibitem{Kang:2007ib}
1900: J.~Kang, P.~Langacker and B.~D.~Nelson,
1901: %``Theory and Phenomenology of Exotic Isosinglet Quarks and Squarks,''
1902: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77}, 035003 (2008)
1903: [arXiv:0708.2701 [hep-ph]].
1904: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D77,035003;%%
1905:
1906: \end{thebibliography}
1907:
1908:
1909: \end{document}
1910: