1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %%%%%%%%%
4: %%%%%%%%% Running and Matching from 5 to 4 Dimensions
5: %%%%%%%%%
6: %%%%%%%%%
7: %%%%%%%%%
8:
9: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
10:
11: \usepackage{epsfig}
12: \usepackage{amsmath}
13: \usepackage{multirow}
14:
15: \setlength{\textwidth}{425pt}
16: \setlength{\textheight}{595pt}
17: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{15pt}
18:
19: \newcommand{\al}{A^{{}^L}}
20: \newcommand{\ah}{A^{{}^H}}
21: \newcommand{\ms}{m_{\scriptscriptstyle SUSY}}
22: \newcommand{\bmssm}{b^{\scriptscriptstyle MSSM}}
23: \newcommand{\bsm}{b^{\scriptscriptstyle SM}}
24:
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29:
30: %%%%%%%%%%
31: %%%%%%%%%% title page
32: %%%%%%%%%%
33:
34:
35: \begin{flushright} CERN--TH/2001--216 \end{flushright}
36: \vspace{5mm}
37: \vspace{0.5cm}
38: \begin{center}
39:
40: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
41:
42: {\Large \bf Running and Matching from 5 to 4 Dimensions} \\[1cm]
43: {\large R. Contino$^1$, L. Pilo$^1$, R. Rattazzi$^{2\,}$\footnote{On leave
44: from INFN, Pisa, Italy.}, E. Trincherini$^3$}
45: \\[1.5cm]
46:
47: {\small
48: $^1$\textit{Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa,
49: Italy $\&$ INFN}
50: \\[0.3cm] $^2$\textit{Theory division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
51: \\[0.3cm]
52: $^3$\textit{Physics Department, University of Pisa $\&$ INFN, sez. Pisa,
53: I-56126 Pisa, Italy} }
54:
55: \end{center}
56:
57: \vspace{1cm}
58:
59: \hrule \vspace{0.3cm}
60: {\small \noindent \textbf{Abstract} \\[0.3cm]
61: \noindent
62: We study 5 dimensional grand-unified theories in an orbifold geometry by the method of
63: effective field theory: we match the low and high energy theories by integrating
64: out at \mbox{1-loop} the massive Kaluza-Klein states.
65: In the supersymmetric case the radius dependence of threshold effects
66: is fixed by the rescaling anomalies of the low energy theory.
67: We focus on
68: a recently proposed $SU(5)$ model on $M^4 \times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$.
69: Even though the spectrum of the heavy modes is completely known, there still are
70: corrections to gauge unification originating from boundary couplings.
71: In order to control these effects one has to rely
72: on extra assumptions. We argue that, as far as gauge couplings are concerned,
73: the predictive power of these models is similar to conventional GUTs.}
74: \vspace{0.5cm} \hrule
75:
76: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}
77: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
78:
79:
80: %%%%%%%%%%
81: %%%%%%%%%% main part
82: %%%%%%%%%%
83:
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: Since their early days \cite{GG} grand unified theories (GUT) have attracted a
88: lot of interest and though the paradigm is not flawless it is still an
89: exciting and active research field. Besides aesthetic reasons, a strong
90: evidence in favor of GUTs is that in the minimal supersymmetric standard model
91: (MSSM) the couplings of $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ unify at a scale of
92: order $10^{16}$ GeV \cite{Lan}.
93: Models with extra compact dimensions can add interesting twists to
94: the basic GUT idea. This was first realized in string models
95: where intrinsically higher dimensional mechanisms
96: can solve some of the problems of conventional GUTs. One example is the
97: doublet-triplet splitting problem \cite{witten85}. Recently there has been a revival
98: in extra-dimensional GUT model building, but now taking a ``bottom-up'' approach
99: as opposed to the ``top-down'' approach of string model building.
100: Kawamura has first constructed a non-supersymmetric model on $S^1/Z_2$ \cite{kawa},
101: and has later obtained a realistic supersymmetric spectrum
102: on $S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$ \cite{kawa2}. (The interesting properties of
103: $S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$ for model building where noticed in ref. \cite{BHN}).
104: The model was further studied in \cite{af,HN}.
105: Many papers have since followed \cite{all}-\cite{BHN1}.
106: In this paper we extend the effective field theory (EFT) approach proposed by
107: Weinberg \cite{weinberg} to the case of a grand unified gauge theory in five
108: dimensions. We build the effective field theory
109: valid below the GUT scale by integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom
110: represented here by the massive KK excitations. The form of the low-energy
111: theory is strongly constrained by symmetries and operators' coefficients
112: are expressed in terms of the parameters of the underlying
113: high energy theory. As an explicit example we consider the $SU(5)$ unified
114: theory on $M^4 \times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$ of
115: ref.~\cite{kawa2,HN}. We compute the matching functions relating the SM gauge
116: couplings to the parameters of the 5 dimensional theory.
117: Although the explicit results are given for $SU(5)$, the method presented
118: is general.
119: One important feature of the orbifold geometry is the presence at the boundary of
120: local operators contributing to the vector boson kinetic term. These operators
121: do not respect $SU(5)$ and lead to corrections to gauge unification.
122: Indeed their coefficients follow a logarithmic
123: RG evolution, so that they cannot just be set to zero.
124:
125: The outline of the paper is the following. In section 2 we discuss the
126: conditions under which the gauge symmetry does not conflict with the orbifold
127: projections and the $SU(5)$ model considered is briefly reviewed.
128: Section 3 is devoted to a general discussion of the boundary counterterms
129: induced by quantum corrections at the orbifold fixed points. The construction
130: of the effective 4D low energy theory is presented in section 4, in particular
131: the matching functions are computed at the one loop level.
132: Finally, in section 5, the values of the SM
133: gauge couplings are computed at the weak scale at next to leading order
134: and the phenomenological consequences are discussed.
135:
136:
137: \section{$SU(5)$ on the orbifold}
138:
139: We consider a grand unified 5-dimensional $SU(5)$ theory defined on
140: $M^4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$ \cite{kawa2,HN}, where $S^1/(Z_2\times
141: Z_2^\prime)$ is obtained from a circle with radius $R$ by the following
142: identifications:
143: %
144: \begin{equation}
145: Z_2 : \quad y \sim 2\pi R-y \, , \qquad
146: Z_2^\prime : \quad y \sim \pi R-y \,
147: \qquad y\in [0,2\pi R].
148: \end{equation}
149: %
150: Coordinates in 5D are denoted by $X^M=(x^\mu,y)$,
151: using capital Latin (small Greek) letters for 5D (4D) indices.
152: The points $(0,\pi R)$ and $(\pi R/2, 3 \pi R/2 )$ are fixed under the action
153: of $Z_2$ and $Z_2^\prime$ respectively; moreover $0 \sim \pi R$ and $\pi R/2
154: \sim 3 \pi R/2$.
155:
156: A function $f(x,y)$ with a definite parity under the orbifold projections
157: can be Fourier decomposed according to
158: %
159: \begin{equation}
160: f(x,y) = \sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} f^{(n)}(x) \, \Psi_n(y), \qquad
161: \Psi_n(y) = \begin{cases}
162: a_{2n} \, \cos \displaystyle{\frac{2ny}{R}} & \quad (+,+) \\[0.25cm]
163: a_{2n+1} \, \cos \displaystyle{\frac{(2n+1)y}{R}} & \quad (+,-) \\[0.25cm]
164: a_{2n+1} \, \sin \displaystyle{\frac{(2n+1)y}{R}} & \quad (-,+ ) \\[0.25cm]
165: a_{2n+2} \, \sin \displaystyle{\frac{(2n+2)y}{R}} & \quad (-,-) \end{cases}
166: \end{equation}
167: \begin{equation*}
168: a_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}, \quad a_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}} \quad
169: n\not=0 \, .
170: \end{equation*}
171: %
172: Only a function with parity $(+,+)$ has a zero mode.
173:
174: When a gauge theory is defined in a orbifold one has to satisfy certain
175: consistency conditions in order to avoid that gauge symmetry conflicts
176: with orbifold projections.
177: The $Z_2$ action $P$ on the fields of the theory is defined to be
178: %
179: \begin{equation}
180: \Phi(x,y) \to \Phi(x,-y) = P \, \Phi(x,y) \qquad \qquad P^2 = 1 \; ,
181: \end{equation}
182: %
183: where we have collected all the fields in single vector $\Phi$.
184: Without loss of generality $P$ can be chosen diagonal with eigenvalues
185: $\pm 1$. In particular, for the gauge field $A_M^i T^i$ one has
186: %
187: \begin{equation}
188: \begin{split}
189: A_\mu^i(x,-y) &= \Lambda^{ij} A_\mu^j(x,y) \\
190: A_5^i(x,-y) &= - \Lambda^{ij} A_5^j(x,y)
191: \end{split}
192: \qquad \qquad \Lambda^2 =1 \quad ;
193: \end{equation}
194: %
195: where $T^i$ are the generators of the gauge group $G$ with structure
196: constants $f_{ijk}$. For the Lagrangian to be $Z_2$ invariant,
197: the covariant derivative acting on a matter field $D_M \varphi$ must
198: have a definite transformation property under $Z_2$, thus
199: %
200: \begin{equation}
201: P T^i P = \Lambda^{ij} T^j
202: \end{equation}
203: %
204: In turn this implies that $P$ is an inner automorphism of the Lie algebra
205: ${\cal G}$ of $G$, in other words
206: %
207: \begin{equation} \label{eq:cons}
208: \Lambda_{im} \, \Lambda_{jn} \, \Lambda_{kl} \, f_{mnl} = f_{ijk} \, ,
209: \end{equation}
210: %
211: and $P$ acts as a group conjugation (see \cite{JMR} for a discussion of inner
212: and outer automorphism in the context of orbifold projections).
213: Taking $\Lambda_{ij} = \delta_{ij} \, c_i$ (no summation in $i$),
214: with $c_i = \pm 1$, we can divide the generators in two subsets:
215: ${\cal H} = \{T^a, \, a = 1, \, \cdots n \, : c_a = 1 \; \forall a \}$ and
216: ${\cal V} = \{T^{\hat a}, \, \hat{a} = n+1 , \, \cdots \text{dim}
217: ({\cal G}) \, : c_{\hat{a}} = - 1 \; \forall \hat{a} \}$.
218: From eq.(\ref{eq:cons}) it follows that $[{\cal H}, {\cal H}] = {\cal H}$,
219: $[{\cal H}, {\cal V}] = {\cal V}$ and $[{\cal V}, {\cal V}] = {\cal H}$.
220: Repeating the same argument, with the simplifying hypothesis that also
221: second projection $Z_2^\prime$ acts through $P^\prime$ as a diagonal matrix
222: on the fields, exactly the same result holds~\footnote{For a discussion
223: of the general case see \cite{BHN1}.}.
224: Summarizing, consistency between the gauge symmetry and orbifold projections
225: leads to a $Z_2$ gradation for ${\cal G}$
226: %
227: \begin{equation}
228: \begin{gathered}
229: \, [{\cal H}, {\cal H}] = {\cal H} \,, \quad [{\cal H}, {\cal V}] = {\cal V} \, ,
230: \quad [{\cal V}, {\cal V}] = {\cal H} \quad ; \\
231: \forall \, T^a \in {\cal H} \text{ with parity } (+,+) \quad \text{and }
232: \forall \, T^{\hat{a}} \in {\cal V} \text{ with parity } (-,\cdot \, )
233: \text{ or } (\cdot\, ,-) \quad .
234: \end{gathered}
235: \end{equation}
236: %
237: Finally, the parity of a generic field must be gauge independent,
238: implying that a gauge transformation with parameters $\xi^i(x,y)$
239: commutes with the $Z_2\times Z_2^\prime$ action
240: and as a consequence $\xi^i(x,y)$ must have the same parity of the
241: corresponding $A_\mu^i$.
242:
243: In \cite{kawa2,HN} a realistic supersymmetric $SU(5)$ unified theory in 5 dimensions
244: was constructed with a vector gauge multiplet and two higgs hypermultiplets in
245: the $5$ and $\bar 5$ representation propagating in the bulk.
246: From the 4D point of view the field content is the one of N=2 SUSY.
247: Indeed, the 5D vector multiplet splits into a vector and a chiral
248: N=1 multiplets $V=(A_\mu,\lambda)$, $\Sigma=(\sigma+i A_5,\lambda^\prime)$;
249: in the same way each of the hypermultiplets decomposes into two chiral N=1
250: multiplets, $H,H^c$ and $\bar H,\bar H^c$ respectively.
251:
252: The action of $P$ and $P^\prime$ is chosen to be \cite{kawa}
253: %
254: \begin{equation}
255: \begin{gathered}
256: P=\mathbf{1}_{5\times 5} \qquad
257: P^\prime = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{1}_{3\times 3} & \\ & -\mathbf{1}_{2\times
258: 2}
259: \end{pmatrix} \quad .
260: \end{gathered}
261: \end{equation}
262: %
263: Denoting with $\{T^a, a=1,\dots 12 \}$ the $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
264: generators and with $\{T^{\hat a}, \hat a=13,\dots 24 \}$ the remaining ones,
265: one has a $(+,+)$ parity for $A^a_\mu$ and $(+,-)$ for $A^{\hat a}_\mu$.
266: With this choice, the zero modes gauge fields are the ones of the
267: Standard Model. Notice that, while in the fixed point $O (y=0)$ the
268: $SU(5)$ is still effective,
269: in $O^\prime (y=\pi R/2)$ only $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge
270: transformations are non-vanishing.
271: The parity of the various fields is summarized in table
272: \ref{tab:parity}.
273: %
274: \begin{table}
275: \begin{center}
276: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
277: \hline
278: $(P,P')$ & 4D $N=1$ superfield & mass \\ \hline & & \\[-0.25cm]
279: $(+,+)$ & $V^a$, $H_2$, $\bar H_{2}$ & $2n/R$ \\
280: $(+,-)$ & $V^{\hat{a}}$, $H_3$, $\bar H_{3}$ & $(2n+1)/R$ \\
281: $(-,+)$ & $\Sigma^{\hat{a}}$, $H_3^c$, $\bar H_{3}^c$ & $(2n+1)/R$ \\
282: $(-,-)$ & $\Sigma^a$, $H_2^c$, $\bar H_{2}^c$ & $(2n+2)/R$ \\[0.2cm]
283: \hline
284: \end{tabular}
285: \end{center}
286: \caption{\textit{Parity assignments for the various fields. The subscripts
287: $2,3$ refer to the
288: weak doublet and the colour triplet of Higgs multiplets.}}
289: \label{tab:parity}
290: \end{table}
291: %
292: The choice is such that only the weak doublet components $H_2$, $\bar H_2$ of
293: the higgs multiplets $H$, $\bar H$ have zero modes, while the triplet components $H_3$,
294: $\bar H_3$ and the remaining two multiplets are massive.
295: It is also clear that the zero mode spectrum is N=1 supersymmetric.
296:
297: Finally, the MSSM matter content, organized
298: in $SU(5)$ multiplets, and the Yukawa couplings are localized in the fixed
299: point $O$ where the original gauge symmetry is unrestricted;
300: of course N=1 SUSY must be broken with conventional 4D methods to get an
301: acceptable phenomenology.
302: According to our classification, the other possible choice in
303: which the generators
304: $T^{\hat a}$ are $(-,-)$ would break $SU(5)$ in both fixed points rendering
305: unnatural the organization in $SU(5)$ multiplets of the observed matter.
306:
307:
308:
309: \section{Boundary counterterms} \label{sect:boundary}
310:
311: Before presenting the computation of the matching, it useful to
312: gain some feeling on the general structure of the 1-loop radiative corrections of a
313: gauge theory on an orbifold.
314: The main difference with respect to the standard case is that, besides bulk counterterms,
315: also operators localized at the orbifold fixed points can be induced~\cite{georgi}.
316:
317: We consider the 1-loop corrections to the gauge kinetic term due to a bulk scalar.
318: For simplicity we focus on the diagrams with at least one zero-mode external line; the
319: rainbow-like Feynman graphs involved are shown in fig.(\ref{fig:diagrams}).
320: %
321: \begin{figure}
322: \centering
323: \epsfig{file=fig.ps,width=0.9\linewidth}
324: \caption{\textit{One-loop rainbow diagrams with at least a zero-mode external
325: line which contribute to the gauge kinetic term. Diagram (b) with all scalar, vector
326: and fermionic fields circulating in the loop is relevant for the computation
327: of the matching functions. Diagram (c) is allowed only in the orbifold.}}
328: \label{fig:diagrams}
329: \end{figure}
330: %
331: The contribution from seagull diagrams (with a quartic vertex)
332: reproduces the transverse structure dictated by gauge invariance and
333: will be neglected in our discussion.
334: The analysis can be easily extended to fermions circulating in the loop.
335: Some additional care would be needed in dealing with gauge bosons: the counterterms
336: will be local provided the gauge fixing term is also local in 5D.
337:
338: Let us do some power counting. The gauge kinetic coefficient in 5D has dimension
339: $[{\rm mass}]$. Indicating by $\Lambda$ the UV cut-off, we in general expect for the bulk
340: kinetic term a divergence $\propto \Lambda +m \ln \Lambda$, where $m$ is any lagrangian mass
341: parameter (for instance a fermion mass). In our case there is no massive parameter in the bulk,
342: so we will not have any logarithmic divergence there. Moreover
343: we choose to work with dimensional regularization \footnote{See for instance appendix~D
344: of ref. \cite{gravitons} for details on dimensional regularization
345: in the presence of compact dimensions.}
346: (truly, dimensional reduction
347: to preserve supersymmetry), for which there are also no power divergences
348: \footnote{Dimensional regularization is useful in dealing with effective field
349: theories \cite{weinberg} as it preserves only the logarithmic divergences, i.e. those, and
350: only those, which are saturated in the infrared. Power divergences are totally UV dominated
351: and their effect is equivalent to changing the UV boundary conditions on the already
352: incalculable parameters of the EFT. Note that as far as the logarithmic divergences are
353: concerned
354: our results agree with ref. \cite{ddg}, where gauge coupling evolution in 5 dimensions
355: was studied, but with a different regularization procedure.}.
356: So we expect no divergence whatsoever from the bulk.
357: However our space is not homogeneous, it has fixed points, and it is perfectly fine
358: to have divergences located there. The fixed points are 4D manifolds, so here we
359: will in general have logarithmic renormalization of the gauge kinetic term. Therefore the only
360: divergences are due to the boundaries.
361:
362: Consider for instance the simple case of a scalar on a circle. Since there are no boundaries
363: the sum of diagrams (1a) and (1b) in
364: fig.(\ref{fig:diagrams}) must be finite (diagram (1c) is not allowed on
365: the circle).
366: A scalar on the circle can be decomposed into cosine and sine modes
367: both circulating in the loop of diagram (\ref{fig:diagrams}b).
368: The sum over cosine modes and the sum over the sine modes are equal.
369: Therefore their divergent piece should equal
370: $-1/2$ of the zero mode divergent contribution. This result can be checked by explicit
371: computation. Somehow the KK mode tower acts as a regulator of the UV divergences
372: of the zero mode.
373:
374: Consider next the non trivial case of an orbifold $S^1/Z_2$, with the gauge
375: field taken with positive parity. Because of the orbifold projection, half of
376: the massive scalar modes (say the sines) are eliminated,
377: the above cancellation no longer works and logarithmic divergences appear.
378: The only possible counterterm has the form
379: %
380: \begin{equation}
381: {\cal L}_{ct} = \int d^4x \, dy \, F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} \big[a \,
382: \delta(y)+b \, \delta(y-\pi R)\big] \quad ,
383: \label{ct}
384: \end{equation}
385: %
386: where $a,b$ are constants; group indices have been suppressed for simplicity.
387: After a Fourier decomposition, (\ref{ct}) takes the form
388: %
389: \begin{equation}
390: \begin{split}
391: {\cal L}_{ct} = \int d^4x \, \Big\{
392: & (a+b) \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n^2 F_{\mu\nu}^{(n)} F^{\mu\nu\, (n)} +
393: 2 (a+b) \sum_{\overset{\scriptstyle{n=0}}{k=1}}^\infty a_n \, a_{n+2k} \,
394: F_{\mu\nu}^{(n)} F^{\mu\nu\, (n+2k)} + \\
395: & 2 (a-b) \sum_{\overset{\scriptstyle{n=0}}{k=1}}^\infty a_n \, a_{n+2k+1} \,
396: F_{\mu\nu}^{(n)} F^{\mu\nu\, (n+2k+1)} \Big\} \quad .
397: \end{split}
398: \end{equation}
399: %
400: Momentum along the fifth dimension is conserved up to a sign and only
401: ``transitions'' $k\to (k+2n)$ are allowed requiring $a=b$.
402: We have explicitly checked that all the (logarithmic) divergences in diagrams
403: (1a), (1b) and (1c) correspond to $a=b$ for all parity choices of the
404: scalar. If the gauge field has negative parity, no counterterm localized
405: at the orbifold fixed points is possible and therefore the 1-loop correction
406: to the gauge kinetic term must be finite in dimensional regularization.
407:
408: Finally, we consider an $S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$ orbifold. The most general
409: counterterm localized at the two (inequivalent) fixed points is
410: %
411: \begin{equation}
412: {\cal L}_{ct} = \int d^4x \, dy \, F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} \big[a \,
413: \delta(y)+b \,
414: \delta(y-\pi R/2)\big]
415: \label{ct2}
416: \end{equation}
417: %
418: According to the parity choice for $A_\mu^i$ and for the fields circulating in
419: the loop, we get different values for $a, b$ as shown in the following table.
420: %
421: \vspace{0.5cm}
422: \begin{center}
423: \begin{tabular}{c|cc|c}
424:
425: $ A_\mu^i$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{loop fields} & counterterm \\
426: \hline & & \\[-0.2cm]
427: \multirow{2}{1.cm}{$(+,+)$} & $(\pm, \pm)$ & $(\pm, \pm)$ & $a=b$ \\[0.2cm]
428: & $(\pm, \mp)$ & $(\pm, \mp)$ & $a=-b$ \\[0.2cm]
429: $(+,-)$ & $(\pm, \mp)$ & $(\pm, \pm)$ & $b=0$ \\[0.2cm]
430: $(-,+)$ & $(\mp, \pm)$ & $(\pm, \pm)$ & $a=0$ \\[0.2cm]
431: \end{tabular}
432: \end{center}
433: \vspace{0.5cm}
434: %
435: Notice that $Z_2$ and $Z_2^\prime$ parities are separately conserved in each
436: vertex and when the gauge field is odd (parity $(\pm, \mp)$) the only non
437: vanishing diagrams are the ones with an even
438: (parity ($\pm, \pm$)) and an odd field circulating in the loop.
439: This can happen if the fields in the loop are gauge bosons; for minimally
440: coupled matter the required vertex is forbidden by symmetry considerations.
441: Again, for $A_\mu^i$ with $(-,-)$ parity, no boundary counterterms exist and
442: logarithmic divergences are absent.
443: When $A_\mu^i$ has parity $(+,+)$ and the fields in the loop are both odd,
444: all divergences are canceled for $a=-b$; performing a Fourier decomposition
445: in eq.(\ref{ct2}) only operators corresponding to transitions $2n\to 2n+4k+2$
446: are present. This means that the diagram of fig.(\ref{fig:diagrams}b) with odd
447: modes in the loop and zero mode external lines do not give
448: rise to logarithmic divergences, as one can check by an explicit computation.
449: This explains why in the matching functions (see the following section) all the
450: $\mu$-dependence comes from even modes.
451:
452:
453:
454: \section{The matching equation}
455:
456: Our goal is to relate the $SU(5)$ coupling $g_5$ to the
457: $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
458: couplings measured at the weak scale.
459: In our scenario two different energy scales appear: the weak scale $M_Z$ and
460: $1/R\gg M_Z$ which sets the typical mass for the heavy modes.
461: A useful way to deal with very heavy gauge fields was outlined by Weinberg
462: in \cite{weinberg}. The idea is to construct a low energy effective
463: $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge
464: theory containing only light fields integrating out the heavy particles.
465: The matching consists in relating $g_5$ to the $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
466: couplings $g_i$ at the matching scale $\mu$.
467: The effective action $S_{\text{eff}}$ is defined by
468: %
469: \begin{equation}
470: e^{i S_{\text{eff}}[\varphi]} = \int D\Phi \, e^{i S [\varphi,\Phi] +
471: i S_{\text{GF}}[\varphi,\Phi]} \, .
472: \label{effective}
473: \end{equation}
474: %
475: Here the heavy fields are all the massive KK modes
476: $\Phi=(V^{(n)}, \Sigma^{(n)}, H^{(n)},\bar H^{(n)},H^{(n)}_c,\bar H^{(n)}_c)$
477: and the effective action depends on the zero modes fields
478: $\varphi=(V^{a\, (0)}, H_2^{(0)},\bar H_2^{(0)})$.
479:
480: Once a suitable gauge fixing term $S_{\text{GF}}$ has been added to the
481: action, the integration over the heavy fields is well defined.
482: Splitting the gauge field into
483: a ``light'' $\al$ and an ``heavy'' $\ah$ part, $A_M = \al_M + \ah_M$
484: %
485: \begin{equation} \label{eq:hl}
486: \begin{split}
487: \al_M &= A^{a\, (0)}_M T^a \\
488: \ah_M &= \sum_{n=1}^\infty A^{a\, (n)}_M \, T^{a} \, \cos [2ny/R] +
489: \sum_{n=0}^\infty A^{\hat a\, (n)}_M \, T^{\hat a} \, \cos [(2n+1)y/R] \,,
490: \end{split}
491: \end{equation}
492: %
493: the original action $S$ has the following background symmetry
494: %
495: \begin{equation}
496: \begin{gathered}
497: \delta \al_M = {\cal D}_M \xi^{{}^L} \, , \quad \delta \ah_M = i
498: [ \ah_M, \, \xi^{{}^L} ] \\
499: {\cal D}_M = \partial_M + i[\al_M,\,\cdot\,] \quad ,
500: \end{gathered}
501: \label{back}
502: \end{equation}
503: %
504: which coincides with $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge transformations;
505: ${\cal D}_M$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the background
506: $\al$. It is convenient to choose a gauge fixing for the heavy modes
507: which respects the low energy gauge transformation of eq.(\ref{back}) \cite{weinberg}.
508: This way $S_{eff}$ is gauge invariant and the effective gauge coupling
509: is read just by looking at the vector kinetic term, without further need to look at the
510: three point vertex. The simplest choice is the unitary gauge
511: %
512: \begin{equation}
513: \partial_5 A^5 = 0
514: \label{eq:uni}
515: \end{equation}
516: %
517: in which there are no ghosts. Another possible choice is the following
518: background covariant 't Hooft $\xi$ gauge \cite{weinberg}
519: %
520: \begin{equation}
521: {\cal L}_{\text{GF}} =
522: \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, - \frac{1}{2 \xi} \left( \partial^\mu
523: A_\mu^{(n) i} - \frac{g_5}{\sqrt{2 \pi R}} \, f^{ija} \, A_\mu^{(n) j} \,
524: A_\mu^{(n) a} - \xi \frac{in}{R} \, A_5^{(n)i} \right)^2 \quad ,
525: \label{eq:xig}
526: \end{equation}
527: %
528: where $A_5^{(n)}$ play the role of the Goldstone bosons.
529: The functional integration over the heavy fields gives a matching relation
530: between the running low energy coupling $g_i(\mu)$ and the high energy
531: parameters
532: %
533: \begin{equation}
534: \frac{1}{g^2_i(\mu)} = \frac{2 \pi R}{g^2_5} + \Delta_i( \mu) + \lambda_i(\mu
535: R) \; .
536: \label{match}
537: \end{equation}
538: %
539: In eq.(\ref{match}) the first term is the tree level contribution from
540: the 5-dimensional kinetic term; the second one, $\Delta_i(\mu)$, also
541: originates at tree level and represents the contribution of
542: the 4D gauge kinetic operators localized on the orbifold fixed points;
543: finally, the matching functions
544: $\lambda_i(\mu R)$ encode the radiative contribution from the massive modes
545: \cite{weinberg,hall}. As we already said, in dimensional regularization
546: we only get logarithmic divergences, so that the $\lambda_i$ depend
547: logarithmically on $\mu$.
548: At one loop level, the diagram relevant for the matching
549: function $\lambda_i$ is the one of fig.(\ref{fig:diagrams}b) with all
550: scalar, vector and fermionic massive fields circulating in the loop; it gives
551: in the dimensional reduction scheme with minimal subtraction ($\overline{\text{DR}}$)
552: %
553: \begin{equation}
554: \lambda_i(\mu R) = \frac{1}{96 \pi^2} \left \{ \big[b_i^S - 21 \, b_i^G + 8 \,
555: b_i^F \big]
556: F_{e}(\mu R) + \big[\tilde{b}_i^S - 21 \, \tilde b_i^G + 8 \, \tilde b_i^F
557: \big]
558: F_{o} \right \} \; ,
559: \label{mfuncts}
560: \end{equation}
561: %
562: with
563: %
564: \begin{equation}
565: \begin{gathered}
566: F_{e}(\mu R) = {\cal I} -1 - \log (\pi) - \log (\mu R) \, , \qquad
567: F_{o} = - \log 2 \, , \\[0.3cm]
568: {\cal I} = \frac{1}{2} \int_1^{+ \infty} dt \, \left(t^{-1} + t^{-1/2} \right)
569: \left[\theta_3(it) - 1 \right] \, , \qquad
570: \theta_3(it) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-\pi t n^2} \, .
571: \end{gathered}
572: \end{equation}
573: %
574: We denote with $b_i^{S,G,F}$ the constants $C_i(r)$ defined as
575: $\text{Tr} (T^a T^b) = C_i(r) \, \delta^{ab}$ in a representation $r$ of the SM
576: group $i=SU(3),SU(2),U(1)$ for real scalars (S), vector bosons (G) and Dirac
577: fermions (F) with ``even'' mass $2n/R$. The constants $\tilde b_i^{S,G,F}$ are the same
578: quantities for ``odd'' modes with mass $(2n+1)/R$.
579: A numerical integration gives ${\cal I}\simeq 0.02$.
580: The $\ln \mu$ dependence of the $\lambda_i$'s is due to
581: the even modes only ($F_{e}$), the diagram in fig.(\ref{fig:diagrams}b) with
582: odd modes circulating being finite.
583: As discussed in section \ref{sect:boundary} heavy modes with definite parity
584: lead to a divergent term in diagram (\ref{fig:diagrams}b) which is $-1/2$ the
585: zero mode divergent contribution; as a consequence
586: the coefficient of $\ln \mu$ in our matching functions is
587: $-1/2$ the one in the standard 4D case (see eq.(2) in \cite{hall}).
588: For the specific model considered we get
589: %
590: \begin{equation}
591: \begin{gathered}
592: \frac{1}{g^2_i(\mu)} = \frac{2 \pi R}{g^2_5} + \Delta_i(\mu) +
593: \frac{\beta_i^H}{8 \pi^2} \log (\mu R) + \frac{\beta_i^H}{8 \pi^2}
594: \big[\log \pi + 1 - {\cal I} \big] + \frac{\tilde \beta_i^H}{8 \pi^2} \log 2
595: \\[0.7cm]
596: \beta_i^H = (3,\, 1, \, -3/5) \, ; \qquad \tilde \beta_i^H = (1,\, 3, \, 23/5)
597: \qquad
598: i=SU(3),SU(2),U(1)
599: \label{res}
600: \end{gathered}
601: \end{equation}
602: %
603: We explicitly checked that both choices (\ref{eq:uni}) and (\ref{eq:xig})
604: for the gauge fixing give the same result.
605: One can verify that the coefficient of $\log (\mu R)$ in (\ref{res}) agrees with the result
606: of ref. \cite{HN} after it is written at an arbitrary scale $\mu$.
607:
608: Eq.(\ref{mfuncts}) can be used to perform a next-to-leading order calculation
609: of gauge unification. In this equation the constant terms are specific of our chosen
610: scheme, while the dependence on $\mu R$ is universal. In a supersymmetric theory
611: this dependence can be directly
612: understood in terms of rescaling anomalies of the low energy theory \cite{kaplu}.
613: Considering just one group factor and focusing on the $R$ dependence, eqs.(\ref{match},
614: \ref{mfuncts}) read
615: %
616: \begin{equation}
617: \frac{1}{g^2(\mu)}=\frac{2\pi R}{g_5^2}+\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\left(C(A)-\sum_r C(r)\right)\ln R+
618: \dots
619: \label{holomorphic}
620: \end{equation}
621: %
622: where by $C(A)$ we indicate the Casimir of the adjoint representation, the sum $\sum _r$
623: extends over the bulk matter multiplets which have a zero mode chiral superfield, and by the dots
624: we indicate the $R$ independent terms. The above equation can be interpreted as the
625: relation between the holomorphic (Wilsonian) coupling $g_5^2/2\pi R$ and the physical (1PI)
626: $g^2$. Notice indeed that in the supergravity context the radius $R$ is part
627: of a chiral superfield, whose scalar component is $S=R+i B_5$, where $B_5$ is the
628: 5th component of the graviphoton. By analyticity and by the fact that $B_5$
629: couples derivatively, the holomorphic coupling $1/g_h^2$ can only depend
630: linearly on $S$: $1/g_h^2+i\theta/32\pi^2=2\pi S/g_5^2 +{\rm const}$. Notice also
631: that in the low energy lagrangian the massless matter fields coming from the bulk
632: have a wave function $Z=2\pi R\propto S+S^\dagger$. Then one sees directly that
633: in eq.(\ref{holomorphic}), the term $\propto C(A)$ represents the well known rescaling
634: anomaly of the gauge multiplet wave function \cite{shifman,arkani} while the matter
635: contribution is just the Konishi anomaly \cite{konishi}.
636:
637: Taking the $\mu d/d\mu$ derivative on both sides of eq.(\ref{res}) we get
638: %
639: \begin{equation}
640: \mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\Delta_i= - \frac{\left(\beta_i^H+\bmssm_i\right)}{8\pi^2}
641: \label{runDelta}
642: \end{equation}
643: %
644: where $\bmssm_i=(-3,1,33/5)$ are the $\beta$-function coefficients in the MSSM.
645: The $\Delta_i$'s are free parameters and have in principle an important
646: impact on gauge unification. In order to preserve predictivity we need to be able
647: to control the $\Delta_i$ by reasonable assumptions. By eq.(\ref{runDelta}) it is clear
648: that it would certainly be unnatural to assume that the $\Delta_i$ are
649: smaller than $O(1/8\pi^2)$. However it seems natural to assume $\Delta_i\sim O(1/8\pi^2)$
650: at some given scale $\Lambda$. Around $\Lambda$, the tree and quantum contribution
651: to $\Delta_i$ would be comparable, a sign that some strong dynamics happens at $\Lambda$.
652: Now, our 5D theory is strongly coupled at a scale $\sim 24\pi^3/g_5^2$, so it is natural
653: to assume that this very scale coincides with $\Lambda$. This set of assumptions
654: forms the basis of naive dimensional analysis (NDA) (see for instance \cite{markus}).
655: The resulting NDA estimate of
656: the $\Delta_i$ gives a relative correction $O(g^2/8\pi^2)$ to the gauge couplings at the
657: unification scale. This effect is small and predictivity is preserved.
658: This situation is quite similar to that of ordinary 4D GUTs. In that case the uncertainties
659: come from the GUT spectrum (see for instance \cite{BH}),
660: which in turn depends on the superpotential mass parameters
661: and Yukawa couplings. The usual assumption is that all masses are roughly of the same
662: order and that Yukawas are of order 1. In this way there is no hierarchy in the spectrum,
663: threshold effects are small. Then the theory is predictive and most importantly
664: there is good agreement with the data. Like for the $\Delta_i$'s the standard assumption
665: on GUT masses and couplings is not unnatural. For instance, it is stable under RG flow.
666: But it remains just an assumption: any GUT model by itself could have a large
667: hierarchy of masses, precisely like we are familiar in the SM where the top and electron
668: mass differ by 6 orders of magnitude. Indeed it is more the other way around: the fact
669: that gauge unification works well suggests that the GUT theory is weakly coupled with
670: a fairly non hierarchical spectrum.
671:
672: Indeed, with some more careful thinking, our 5D model supplemented with the NDA
673: assumption seems slightly better on the predictive side. The point is that there
674: is a parametric separation between the strong dynamics scale and the matching scale $1/R$:
675: $\Lambda R\sim 8\pi^2/g_{GUT}^2>> 1$. If we consider eq.(\ref{res}) for $\mu=1/R$,
676: we have that the threshold correction is controlled by
677: %
678: \begin{equation}
679: \Delta_i(1/R)=\Delta_i(\Lambda) -\frac{\left(\beta_i^H+\bmssm_i\right)}{8\pi^2}\ln (\Lambda R)
680: \sim -\frac{\left(\beta_i^H+\bmssm_i\right)}{8\pi^2}\ln (8\pi^2/g_{GUT}^2)
681: \label{nda}
682: \end{equation}
683: %
684: When $\Lambda R$ is very large the second term dominates the bare
685: $\Delta_i(\Lambda)\sim 1/8\pi^2$, and represents a definitely calculable threshold correction
686: to gauge unification. One can then check if this correction improves the agreement
687: with the measured value of $\alpha_s$. Of course, in doing so one should be
688: aware that in the realistic case $\ln 8\pi^2/g_{GUT}^2\sim 5$, which is not much
689: bigger than 1: the unknown
690: contribution $\Delta_i(\Lambda)$ may not be so negligible compared to the effect we
691: are considering.
692: Notice that concentrating on just the $\ln\Lambda R$ term is practically equivalent to what
693: done in ref. \cite{HN}, where it was (implicitly) assumed that the $\Delta_i$
694: unify at the scale $\Lambda$. Our assumption is however justified in a different way.
695:
696:
697:
698: \section{Phenomenology}
699:
700: To compare with experiments we need to go down from the matching scale $\mu
701: \sim 1/R$ to the weak scale $M_Z$ solving the RG group equations at the
702: next to leading order (NLO) with the initial conditions provided by the
703: matching equation. The running from
704: $\mu$ down to $\ms$ is determined by the MSSM spectrum; SUSY thresholds
705: are parameterized in terms of a single scale $\ms$ \cite{Ca}. From $\ms$ down to
706: $M_Z$ the running is the one
707: of the SM. We want to see the consequences on gauge unification of neglecting
708: $\Delta_i(\Lambda)$ in eq.(\ref{nda}). Though, as we argued, this neglect is motivated
709: (by NDA) only when $\Lambda R\sim 8\pi^2/g_{GUT}^2\sim 100$, we will remain general
710: and consider also smaller values of $\Lambda R$.
711: Following \cite{Lan,hall,Jones} one has at~NLO
712: %
713: \begin{equation}
714: \begin{split}
715: \frac{1}{\alpha_i(M_Z^2)} =& \frac{4\pi}{g_{GUT}^2} + \lambda_i(\Lambda R) +
716: \lambda_i^{\text{conv}} + \frac{\bmssm_i}{2 \pi} \log \frac{\Lambda}{M_Z}
717: + \frac{(\bsm_i - \bmssm_i)} {2 \pi} \log \frac{\ms}{M_Z} + \\[0.3cm]
718: & \frac{1}{4 \pi} \sum_j \, \frac{\bmssm_{ij}}{\bmssm_j} \,
719: \log\left[ 1 + \bmssm_j \alpha_G \log (\Lambda /\ms )\right] \quad ;
720: \end{split}
721: \label{run}
722: \end{equation}
723: %
724: $\lambda_i^{\text{conv}}$ is a conversion term from the $\overline{\text{DR}}$
725: scheme in which our computation has been
726: done to the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme in which the SM $\alpha_i$ are defined
727: \cite{Lan}. In practice we have used eq.(\ref{res}) with $\mu=\Lambda$ and imposed
728: $\Delta_i(\Lambda)=0$.
729: In fig.(\ref{assin}) we plot $\sin^2 \theta_W(M_Z)$ as a function of
730: $\alpha_s(M_Z)$, varying $\ms$ in the range $20-10^3$ GeV for $\Lambda R=1,10,100$.
731: %
732: \begin{figure}
733: \centering
734: \epsfig{file=a3vssin2,width=0.7 \linewidth}
735: \caption{{\it \small $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ as a function of $\sin^2 \theta_W(M_Z)$
736: varying $\ms$ in the range $20-10^3$ GeV for $\Lambda R=1,10,100$.
737: The experimental point is shown in green.}}
738: \label{assin}
739: \end{figure}
740: %
741: Increasing the value of $\Lambda R$, the curve goes in the right
742: direction, approaching the experimental values $\alpha_s(M_Z)= 0.1181
743: \pm 0.002$, $\sin^2 \theta_W(M_Z) = 0.23117 \pm 0.00016$
744: ($\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme) \cite{pdf}. Similar considerations apply to the
745: plot in fig.(\ref{asmsusy}) in which $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ and the unification scale $1/R$
746: are extracted using the experimental value of $\sin^2 \theta_W(M_Z)$.
747: %
748: \begin{figure}
749: \centering
750: \epsfig{file=a3vsmsusy,width=0.7 \linewidth}
751: \caption{{\it \small $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ as a function of $\ms$ for $\Lambda R=1,10,100$.
752: The region between lines of the same style represents the uncertainty coming from the
753: experimental error on $\sin^2 \theta_W(M_Z)$.
754: The region between the green vertical lines is the measured value of $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.
755: The predicted values for $1/R$ are shown in the different regions.}}
756: \label{asmsusy}
757: \end{figure}
758: %
759: Indeed for the preferred value $\Lambda R\sim 100$ the band of prediction (fig. 2)
760: sits precisely
761: on top of the measured values, with an interesting improvement over tree level
762: matching. Unfortunately for this value of $\Lambda R$ one gets also $1/R\sim 10^{15}$
763: GeV, which is somewhat smaller that the lower bound from proton decay $1/R> 5 \times 10^{15}$
764: GeV \cite{HN}. Indeed for $\Lambda R> 10$, the right value of $\alpha_S$
765: is obtained only for $1/R<5 \times 10^{15}$ GeV. This is in agreement with what found in
766: ref. \cite{HN}.
767: While the strict NDA assumption does not work
768: too well, we should be aware that we are talking about small effects:
769: $\ln \Lambda R\sim 5$ is not a very big number and the $\Delta_i(\Lambda)$ may play role.
770: In the end, we are forced to conclude that even though the running of boundary
771: couplings gives an effect that goes in the right direction we still need the help
772: of the almost comparable initial value $\Delta_i(\Lambda)$ to agree with the data and satisfy
773: proton decay constraints.
774:
775:
776:
777: \section{Conclusions}
778:
779: We have applied the running and matching technique to study gauge unification
780: with one extra compact dimension. We have used dimensional regularization for which power
781: divergences are absent and which is therefore very convenient for doing
782: effective field theory studies \cite{weinberg}. Moreover dimensional reduction
783: is needed to consistently perform NLO calculations in supersymmetric theories.
784: In orbifold models the radius dependence of the matching function is determined
785: by the mismatch between the RG evolution of the low energy $1/g_i^2$ and the RG
786: evolution of some gauge kinetic terms localized at the fixed points. The bulk gauge
787: coupling does not run, so it is just a spectator in the matching. The main role
788: in determining corrections to gauge unification is played by the boundary kinetic
789: terms: these are free parameters and in general are not unified.
790: Focusing on the $SU(5)$ model on
791: $S_1/(Z_2\times Z_2^\prime)$ of ref. \cite{kawa2,HN}, we have discussed to what extent strong
792: coupling assumptions based on NDA can control these unknown effects and lead to
793: a more predictive set up. Our conclusion is that these models, when supplemented with NDA,
794: stay more or less on the same level as usual GUTs, where threshold effects are controlled
795: by assuming a non hierarchical GUT spectrum. Also in our case, in order to get a
796: better agreement with the measured value of $\alpha_s$, one has to rely on small incalculable
797: effects.
798: \vspace{-0.2cm}
799:
800:
801: \section*{Acknowledgments}
802:
803: We thank R. Barbieri, A. Strumia and F. Zwirner for several useful discussions and suggestions.
804: This work is partially supported by the EC under TMR contract
805: HPRN-CT-2000-00148.
806: \vspace{-0.1cm}
807:
808:
809: \begin{thebibliography}{nn}
810:
811: \bibitem{GG} H. Georgi, S. Glashow, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 32} (1974) 438.
812: %%CITATION = PRLTA,32,438;%%
813: \bibitem{Lan} for a NLO analysis see P. Langacker, N. Polonsky, {\it Phys. Rev.}
814: {\bf D47} (1993) 4028 and references therein.
815: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9210235;%%
816: \bibitem{witten85} E. Witten, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B258} (1985) 75.
817: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B258,75;%%
818: \bibitem{kawa} Y. Kawamura, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 103} (2000) 613.
819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902423;%%
820: \bibitem{kawa2} Y. Kawamura, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 105} (2001) 999.
821: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012125;%%
822: \bibitem{BHN} R. Barbieri, L. Hall and Y. Nomura, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63}
823: (2001) 105007.
824: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011311;%%
825: \bibitem{af} G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B511} (2001) 257.
826: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102301;%%
827: \bibitem{HN} L. Hall and Y. Nomura, \texttt{hep-ph/0103125}.
828: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103125;%%
829: \bibitem{all}
830: A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, \texttt{hep-ph/0106166}; \\
831: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106166;%%
832: R. Barbieri, L. Hall and Y. Nomura, \texttt{hep-ph/0106190}; \\
833: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106190;%%
834: J. Bagger, F. Feruglio and F. Zwirner, \texttt{hep-th/0107128}; \\
835: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107128;%%
836: A. Masiero, C.A. Scrucca, M. Serone and L. Silvestrini, \texttt{hep-ph/0107201}; \\
837: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107201;%%
838: L. Hall, H. Murayama and Y. Nomura, \texttt{hep-th/0107245}; \\
839: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107245;%%
840: L. Hall, Y. Nomura and D. Smith, \texttt{hep-ph/0107331}; \\
841: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107331;%%
842: N. Haba et al., \texttt{hep-ph/0108003}; \\
843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108003;%%
844: I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli and M. Quiros, \texttt{hep-th/0108005}; \\
845: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108005;%%
846: L. Hall, Y. Nomura, T. Okui and D. Smith, \texttt{hep-ph/0108071}.
847: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108071;%%
848: \bibitem{JMR} A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, \texttt{hep-ph/0107039}.
849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107039;%%
850: \bibitem{BHN1} R. Barbieri, L. Hall and Y. Nomura, \texttt{hep-th/0107004}.
851: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107004;%%
852: \bibitem{weinberg} S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B91} (1980) 51.
853: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B91,51;%%
854: \bibitem{georgi} H. Georgi, A.K. Grant, G.Hailu, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B506} (2001) 207.
855: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012379;%
856: \bibitem{gravitons} R. Contino, L. Pilo, R. Rattazzi, A. Strumia, JHEP {\bf 0106} (2001) 005;
857: \texttt{hep-ph/0103104}.
858: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103104;%%
859: \bibitem{ddg} K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta,
860: %``Extra spacetime dimensions and unification,''
861: {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B436}, (1998) 55.
862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803466;%%
863: \bibitem{hall} L. Hall, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B178} (1981) 75.
864: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B178,75;%%
865: \bibitem{kaplu} L.~J.~Dixon, V.~Kaplunovsky and J.~Louis,
866: %``Moduli dependence of string loop corrections to gauge coupling constants,''
867: {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B355} (1991) 649.
868: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B355,649;%%
869: \bibitem{shifman} M. A. Shifman and A. I. Vainshtein, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B277} (1986) 456.
870: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B277,456;%%
871: \bibitem{arkani} N.~Arkani-Hamed and H.~Murayama,
872: %``Holomorphy, rescaling anomalies and exact beta functions in supersymmetric gauge theories,''
873: JHEP {\bf 0006}, (2000) 030; \texttt{hep-th/9707133}.
874: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9707133;%%
875: \bibitem{konishi} K. Konishi and K. Shyzuia, {\it Nuovo Cim.} {\bf A90} (1985) 111.
876: %%CITATION = NUCIA,A90,111;%%
877: \bibitem{markus} Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty and E.~Ponton,
878: %``Massive higher-dimensional gauge fields as messengers of supersymmetry breaking,''
879: JHEP {\bf 0007}, (2000) 036; \texttt{hep-ph/9909248}.
880: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909248;%%
881: \bibitem{BH} R. Barbieri, L. Hall, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 68} (1992) 752;
882: %%CITATION = PRLTA,68,752;%%
883: see also J. Hisano, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 69}
884: (1992) 1014.
885: %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,1014;%%
886: \bibitem{Jones} M.B. Einhorn, D.R.T. Jones, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B196} (1982) 475.
887: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B196,475;%%
888: \bibitem{Ca} M. Carena, S. Pokorski, C. Wagner, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B406}
889: (1993) 59.
890: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303202;%%
891: \bibitem{pdf}
892: Review of Particle Physics, Particle Data Group, {\it Euro. Phys. J.} {\bf C15} (2000)~1.
893: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
894:
895:
896:
897: \end{thebibliography}
898:
899:
900: \end{document}
901:
902:
903: