1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{cite,graphicx}

3: 

4: \newcommand{\newc}{\newcommand}

5: \newc{\gsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}

6: \newc{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}

7: \newc{\gev}{\,{\rm GeV}}

8: \newc{\mev}{\,{\rm MeV}}

9: \newc{\ev}{\,{\rm eV}}

10: \newc{\kev}{\,{\rm keV}}

11: \newc{\tev}{\,{\rm TeV}}

12: \def\ln{\mathop{\rm ln}}

13: \def\tr{\mathop{\rm tr}}

14: \def\Tr{\mathop{\rm Tr}}

15: \def\Im{\mathop{\rm Im}}

16: \def\Re{\mathop{\rm Re}}

17: \def\bR{\mathop{\bf R}}

18: \def\bC{\mathop{\bf C}}

19: \def\lie{\mathop{\hbox{\it\$}}} %pound sterling

20: \newc{\mz}{M_Z}

21: \newc{\mpl}{M_*}

22: \newc{\mw}{m_{\rm weak}}

23: \renewcommand{\epsilon}{\varepsilon}

24: %

25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% latex eqn abrev's %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

26: %

27: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

28: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

29: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

30: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

31: %

32: %

33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% common abrev's %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

34: %

35: %

36: \newc{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}          \newc{\etal}{{\it et al.}}

37: \newc{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}          \newc{\etc}{{\it etc.}}

38: \newc{\cf}{{\it c.f.}}

39: %

40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% various symbol abbreviations, vev's etc %%%%%%%%%%%

41: %

42: %

43: \def\bar#1{\overline{#1}}

44: \def\vev#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

45: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}

46: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}

47: \def\abs#1{\left| #1\right|}

48: \def\vector#1{{\vec{#1}}}

49: \def\inv{^{\raise.15ex\hbox{${\scriptscriptstyle -}$}\kern-.05em 1}}

50: \def\pr#1{#1^\prime}  %prime

51: \def\lbar{{\lower.35ex\hbox{$\mathchar'26$}\mkern-10mu\lambda}} %lambda bar

52: \def\e#1{{\rm e}^{^{\textstyle#1}}}

53: \def\ee#1{\times 10^{#1} }

54: \def\om#1#2{\omega^{#1}{}_{#2}}

55: \def\imp{~\Rightarrow}

56: \def\to{\rightarrow}

57: \def\coker{\mathop{\rm coker}}

58: \let\p=\partial

59: \let\<=\langle

60: \let\>=\rangle

61: \let\ad=\dagger

62: \let\txt=\textstyle

63: \let\h=\hbox

64: \let\+=\uparrow

65: %\let\-=\downarrow

66: %\def\dot{\!\cdot\!}

67: \def\vfilll{\vskip 0pt plus 1filll}

68: %

69: %

70: \let\al=\alpha

71: \let\be=\beta

72: \let\ga=\gamma

73: \let\Ga=\Gamma

74: \let\de=\delta

75: \let\De=\Delta

76: \let\ep=\varepsilon

77: \let\ze=\zeta

78: \let\ka=\kappa

79: \let\la=\lambda

80: \let\La=\Lambda

81: \let\del=\nabla

82: \let\si=\sigma

83: \let\Si=\Sigma

84: \let\th=\theta

85: \let\Up=\Upsilon

86: \let\om=\omega

87: \let\Om=\Omega

88: 

89: \addtolength\topmargin{-60pt}

90: \addtolength\textheight{115pt}

91: \addtolength\textwidth{60pt}

92: \addtolength\oddsidemargin{-38pt}

93: \setlength{\parindent}{20pt}

94: \setlength{\parskip}{6pt}

95: \frenchspacing

96: \sloppy

97: 

98: \begin{document}

99: \thispagestyle{empty}

100: \vspace*{.5cm}

101: \noindent

102: \hspace*{\fill}{CERN-TH/2002-101}\\

103: \vspace*{2.5cm}

104: 

105: \begin{center}

106: {\Large\bf The Flavour Hierarchy and See-Saw Neutrinos\\[.3cm] 

107: from Bulk Masses in 5d Orbifold GUTs}

108: \\[2.5cm]

109: {\large Arthur Hebecker and John March-Russell}\\[.5cm]

110: {\it Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}

111: \\[.2cm]

112: (May 14, 2002)

113: \\[1.1cm]

114: 

115: 

116: 

117: {\bf Abstract}\end{center}

118: \noindent

119: In supersymmetric grand unified theories (GUTs) based on

120: $S^1/(Z_2\times Z'_2)$ orbifold constructions in 5 dimensions, Standard

121: Model (SM) matter and Higgs fields can be realized in terms of 5d

122: hypermultiplets.  These hypermultiplets can naturally have

123: large bulk masses, leading to a localization of the zero modes at one of

124: the two branes or to an exponential suppression of the mass of the

125: lowest-lying non-zero mode.  We demonstrate that these dynamical features

126: allow for the construction of an elegant 3-generation SU(5) model in

127: 5 dimensions that explains all the hierarchies between fermion masses and

128: CKM matrix elements in geometrical terms.  Moreover, if U(1)$_\chi$ (where

129: SU(5)$\times$U(1)$_\chi \subset$~SO(10)) is gauged in the bulk, but broken

130: by the orbifold action at the SM brane, the right-handed neutrino mass

131: scale is naturally suppressed relative to $M_{\rm GUT}$.  Together with our

132: construction in the charged fermion sector this leads, via the usual

133: see-saw mechanism, to a realistic light neutrino mass scale and large

134: neutrino mixing angles.

135:  

136: \newpage

137: 

138: \setcounter{page}{1}

139: 

140: \section{Introduction}

141: 

142: Supersymmetric (SUSY) grand unification provides an elegant explanation of 

143: the fermion quantum numbers and of the relative strength of the three gauge

144: couplings of the standard model (SM).  However, conventional 4d GUTs

145: possess less attractive features such as a complicated GUT-scale Higgs sector,

146: unsuccessful first and second generation analogues of the $m_b/m_\tau$

147: mass prediction, and dangerous dimension-5 proton decay operators

148: arising from Higgsino exchange. 

149: 

150: Recently, an elegant solution to these problems has been proposed in the 

151: context of SU(5)~\cite{kaw,AF,HN,HMR,HMR2,su5} and SO(10)~\cite{so10} 

152: unification. The GUT gauge symmetry is now realized in 5 or more space-time 

153: dimensions and broken to the SM group by compactification on an orbifold, 

154: utilizing boundary conditions that violate the GUT-symmetry. In the most 

155: studied case of 5 dimensions both the GUT group and 5d supersymmetry are 

156: broken by compactification on $S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2')$, leading to an N=1 SUSY

157: model with SM gauge group.  This construction provides elegant solutions to

158: the problems of conventional GUTs with Higgs breaking, including 

159: doublet-triplet splitting, dimension-5 proton decay, and Yukawa 

160: unification in the first two generations, while maintaining, at least at 

161: leading order, the desired gauge coupling unification~\cite{HN,HMR,CPRT}.

162: 

163: Although the hierarchy between the strong coupling scale $M$ of the 5d gauge 

164: theory and the compactification scale $1/R$ $(MR\sim 10^2\cdots 10^3)$ can be 

165: used to generate a fermion mass hierarchy~\cite{HMROS,hns}, the construction 

166: of a realistic three-generation model in 5 dimensions proves difficult (see 

167: also~\cite{orbf} and, in particular,~\cite{hn2}, where problems very similar 

168: to the present investigation have been attacked with different tools). 

169: Furthermore, the slight discrepancy between the unification scale and the 

170: phenomenologically preferred right-handed (rhd) neutrino mass scale in see-saw 

171: models is generically enhanced in orbifold GUTs.  In this letter, we

172: demonstrate that 5d bulk masses, which are naturally present in the theories

173: under consideration, allow for the construction of realistic models with the 

174: correct fermion mass hierarchy and rhd neutrino scale.  The main ingredients 

175: we employ are the bulk-mass-driven localization of the zero mode and, in 

176: the absence of a zero-mode, the exponential suppression of the effective 

177: 4d mass in the limit where the bulk mass term becomes large.

178: 

179: 

180: \section{Bulk masses in 5d SUSY}

181: 

182: Recall first that the Lagrangian for a 5d hypermultiplet (written in terms 

183: of two 4d chiral superfields $H$ and $H^c$~\cite{agw}) is

184: \beq

185: {\cal L}=\int_{\theta^2\bar{\theta}^2}\left(H^\dagger H+H^cH^{c\dagger}

186: \right)+\left(\int_{\theta^2}H^c\partial_5H+\mbox{h.c.}\right)\, .

187: \eeq

188: In the general case of a 5d orbifold, the fundamental region in the 

189: direction of $x^5=y$ is an interval, bounded by two inequivalent fixed 

190: points at $y=0$ and $y=l$ (where $l=\pi R/2$ in the case of $S^1/(Z_2\times 

191: Z_2')$). Each of the fixed points is invariant under a $Z_2$ reflection of 

192: the original 5d theory. The two superfields ($H,H^c$) of a singlet 

193: hypermultiplet in the bulk necessarily have opposite parities under each

194: of the $Z_2$'s.  

195: The above Lagrangian can be supplemented by the 5d Lorentz invariant

196: mass terms

197: \beq

198: {\cal L}_{\rm mass}=m_o\left(\int_{\theta^2}H^cH+\mbox{h.c.}\right)

199: +\frac{1}{2}m_e\left(\int_{\theta^2}\left\{H^2+(H^c)^2\right\}+\mbox{h.c.}

200: \right)\,,

201: \eeq

202: which are respectively odd and even under parity.  We will mainly be 

203: interested in the case of gauged hypermultiplets, where the even mass term 

204: is forbidden ($m_e=0$, $m_o=m$). Furthermore, we will not be concerned with

205: the dynamical realization of the odd mass term (see, e.g.,~\cite{fi}), but

206: simply include it into our effective field theory Lagrangian as a leading 

207: operator consistent with all the symmetries of the model. 

208: 

209: The localization of fermionic zero modes in the presence of $y$-dependent 

210: mass terms is a familiar phenomenon~\cite{jr} which has been used in the 

211: context of model building in extra dimensions by many authors (see, 

212: e.g.,~\cite{as,bm}). Thus, we can content ourselves here with recalling the 

213: basic features relevant for 5d orbifold constructions.~\footnote{

214: We would like to emphasize that, in contrast to~\cite{as} and many related 

215: papers, we do not place Gaussian zero modes at various points in the bulk 

216: but restrict ourselves to mass terms that are constant between $y=0$ and $l$

217: and only allow for a peaking of the modes at either boundary.}

218: 

219: The equation for the

220: $y$-dependent profile $H(y)$ in the presence of the odd mass $m$ is 

221: \beq

222: \biggl( \p_y^2 - m^2 + m_4^2 + 

223: 2m\left( \de(y) - \de(y-l)\right) \biggr) H(y) =0\,,

224: \eeq

225: where $m_4$ is the effective mass of the mode in 4d, and the $\delta$ 

226: function terms arise from the discontinuity of the odd mass function at the 

227: fixed points. (A similar equation holds for $H^c(y)$.) 

228: 

229: The superfields $H$ and $H^c$ can have either the same or opposite parities 

230: at $y=0,l$. To discuss the first case, assume that $H$ and $H^c$ have the 

231: parities $(+,+)$ and $(-,-)$ at the two boundaries.  A simple analysis of 

232: the equation in this case shows that $H$ has a zero-mode with bulk profile 

233: \beq

234: H(y) =  e^{-ym} 

235: \label{zm}

236: \eeq

237: while all other KK masses, including those of $H^c$, are ${\cal O}(m)$

238: or larger. (Since $m$ is naturally of the order of the UV scale $M$, we 

239: assume $m\gg 1/R$ in our analysis.)  Thus, depending on the sign of $m$, 

240: the zero mode is exponentially localized at the left ($m>0$) or right 

241: ($m<0$) boundary of the orbifold. 

242: 

243: In the second case, we choose $H$ and $H^c$ to have the parities $(+,-)$ 

244: and $(-,+)$ at the two boundaries.  Although now no zero-mode exists, two 

245: 4d superfield excitations are found to have a mass much smaller than $m$

246: (for $m>0$). They can be characterised as an $H$ and an $H^c$ mode with bulk 

247: profiles 

248: \beq

249: H(y)\simeq \left( e^{-ym}-e^{(y-2l)m} \right)~~\mbox{and}~~

250: H^c(y)\simeq \left( e^{(y-l)m}-e^{-(y+l)m} \right)\,,

251: \label{bp}

252: \eeq

253: which are linked by a 4d Dirac-type mass 

254: \beq

255: m_4 \simeq 2 m e^{-ml} \, .

256: \label{m4}

257: \eeq

258: (for canonical 4d superfield normalization of the kinetic term).  As

259: can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{bp}), the $H$ and $H^c$ mode are

260: exponentially localized at the two opposite boundaries of the orbifold. 

261: 

262: 

263: 

264: 

265: \section{Bulk masses in orbifold GUTs}\label{orbbm}

266: 

267: We begin by recalling the basic structure of the Kawamura

268: model~\cite{kaw}, which is based on a 5d super Yang-Mills theory on 

269: $I\!\!R^4\times S^1$, where the $S^1$ is parameterised by $y\in[0,2\pi R)$. 

270: The field space is then restricted by imposing the two discrete $Z_2$ 

271: symmetries, $y\to -y$ and $y'\to -y'$ (with $y'=y-\pi R/2$). The action of 

272: the $Z_2$'s in field space is specified by the two gauge twists $P$ and 

273: $P'$. If the original gauge group is SU(5) and the gauge twists are chosen 

274: as $P=1$ and $P'=$ diag$(1,1,1,-1,-1)$, the full SU(5) gauge symmetry exists

275: in the bulk and on the SU(5) brane at $y=0$, while at $y=l$ only the SM gauge

276: symmetry exists.  As a result, the effective low energy theory is invariant

277: under only the SM gauge symmetry.

278: 

279: To be specific, in this letter we take the compactification scale to be 

280: $M_c=1/R \sim 10^{15}$ GeV, slightly lower than the usual GUT scale 

281: $M_{\rm GUT}\sim 10^{16}$ GeV, while the UV or cutoff scale $M \sim 

282: 10^{17}$ GeV is slightly higher. This situation is generic for the following 

283: reasons. On the one hand, the mild separation between $M_c$ and $M$ ensures 

284: that corrections to gauge coupling unification from brane-localized 

285: operators are under control. At the same time, this allows for a certain 

286: validity range of the 5d field theory. On the other hand, the `differential 

287: running' of gauge couplings between $M_c$ and $M$ is somewhat slower than 

288: the MSSM running below $M_c$~\cite{HN,HMR,nsw,CPRT}, implying 

289: $M>M_{\rm GUT}$. Moreover, $M$ should not be larger than the scale at which

290: the 5d gauge theory becomes non-perturbative, $M\lsim (12\pi/\alpha_{\rm 

291: GUT})M_c$~\cite{HN,HMR}. As we will see in Sect.~\ref{fla}, our flavour 

292: scenario favours a value $Ml\simeq 300$, which is comfortably within the 

293: range set by the above restrictions. 

294: 

295: The up- and down-type Higgs fields can be introduced as two hypermultiplets

296: $(H_u,H_u^c)$ and $(H_d,H_d^c)$ in the bulk, transforming

297: as a $({\bf 5},\bf{\bar{5}})$ and $({\bf \bar{5}},{\bf 5})$.

298: After appropriate parity assignment, two doublet zero modes 

299: emerge. This is the celebrated solution of the doublet-triplet splitting 

300: problem~\cite{kaw}. Alternatively, the two required doublets can directly 

301: be introduced on the SM brane, where full SU(5) multiplets are not 

302: required~\cite{HMR}. In this context, bulk masses can have important 

303: effects. Firstly, they allow for an exponential localization of the doublet 

304: zero modes at either the SU(5) or SM brane. Since the 5d SUSY forbids bulk

305: Yukawa interactions, the SM Yukawa couplings are always brane operators.

306: This implies that localization can be used for the generation of large fermion

307: mass hierarchies while keeping the dimensionless coefficients of all 

308: relevant operators ${\cal O}(1)$.  Secondly, bulk masses allow for the 

309: interpretation of doublets living on the SM brane as the zero modes of

310: bulk fields with a large mass. 

311: 

312: Fermion fields can be introduced on the SU(5) brane~\cite{kaw,AF,HN}, on 

313: the SM brane~\cite{HMR}, or in the bulk~\cite{HN,HMR}. Again, bulk masses 

314: allow for an interpretation of the brane-localized states as 

315: limiting cases of the model with bulk fields.  To see this in more detail,

316: recall that to realize a full ${\bf\bar{5}}$ of SU(5) in the bulk, one 

317: starts with two hypermultiplets $(\bar{F},\bar{F}^c)$ and $(\bar{F}', 

318: \bar{F}'^c)$ and chooses parities such that, say, the ${\bf\bar{3}}$ from 

319: $\bar{F}$ and the ${\bf\bar{2}}$ from $\bar{F}'$ have a zero-mode. Clearly, 

320: introducing appropriate bulk masses for the two original hypermultiplets, 

321: these zero modes can now be localized at either of the two branes. 

322: Similarly, two $\bf 10$ hypermultiplets $(T,T^c)$ and $(T',T'^c)$ in the 

323: bulk realize the particle content of a full $\bf 10$ as zero modes, which 

324: can then be localized at either brane. 

325: 

326: The above two paragraphs call for a number of further comments.  Firstly, it 

327: is now apparent that the `minimal model' of~\cite{HMR}, i.e., a model with

328: only the gauge sector in the bulk and all other fields on the SM brane, 

329: can be viewed as a large-bulk-mass limit of a model with bulk fields 

330: only. In particular, this allows for an understanding of the quantum 

331: numbers of SM brane fermions in terms of SU(5) representations - an 

332: important GUT prediction that was previously missing in the minimal model 

333: of~\cite{HMR}. Thus, the introduction of bulk masses puts the minimal

334: model, which is phenomenologically attractive because of its simplicity and

335: its ability to accommodate gaugino mediated SUSY breaking, on a firmer 

336: conceptual ground. 

337: 

338: Secondly, given the above discussion, it is possible to localise a SM

339: field, e.g. a $\bf 2$ zero mode from an $(H,H^c)$ hypermultiplet, at the 

340: SU(5) brane. Should we be worried by this somewhat counterintuitive 

341: possibility? The answer is no since, in the limit of large bulk mass,

342: the lowest-lying mode of the $\bf 3$ (which is also localized at the 

343: SU(5) brane) becomes massless (cf.~Eq.~(\ref{m4})), so that a full $\bf 5$

344: emerges.

345: 

346: 

347: 

348: \section{A three-generation flavour model}\label{fla}

349: 

350: Let us now proceed by using the above tools to construct a 5d SU(5) model

351: with three generations and see-saw neutrinos which explains all the mass

352: and mixing hierarchies of the standard model. 

353: 

354: As input we assume a small separation between the scale of the bulk masses

355: and $M$ (e.g., $m/M\sim 0.1$). This is justified since, on the one hand,

356: $M$ is the fundamental 

357: scale of the bulk theory and, on the other hand, $m\sim M$ would imply the 

358: localization of zero modes on length scales $\sim 1/M$ -- a situation 

359: outside the realm of our effective field theory approach. Given the 

360: hierarchy between $M_c$ and $M$, this implies that $ml$ is large (e.g., 

361: $ml\sim 10$). Such a situation is phenomenologically attractive since

362: the localization of zero modes is sufficiently strong to 

363: produce a large fermion mass hierarchy. 

364: 

365: We define the SU(5) gauge sector of our model as explained at the beginning 

366: of Sect.~\ref{orbbm} and introduce two Higgs doublets $(H_u,H_u^c)$, 

367: $(H_d,H_d^c)$ as well as three $\bf\bar{5}$'s 

368: $(\bar{F}_i,\bar{F}_i^c)$ as hypermultiplets in the bulk. Furthermore, we 

369: distribute the three $\bf 10$'s of the SM at the three distinct locations 

370: of our model, namely, $T_3$ at the SU(5) brane, $T_2$ in the bulk,

371: and $T_1$ at the SM brane.  More precisely~\cite{HN,HMR}, for $T_2$ we

372: have to introduce $(T_2,T_2^c)$ and $(T_2',T_2'^c)$ choosing opposite

373: $P'$ action between the two, so that a full $\bf 10$ of zero modes

374: emerges.  For $T_1$ we mean that states with quantum numbers of a full

375: ${\bf 10}$ are located on the SM brane.  (As discussed above the correct

376: quantum numbers for $T_1$ automatically follow if these states

377: are understood as localized bulk fields.  $T_3$ can also be

378: thought of as the limit of a bulk field.) 

379: The location of fields is shown in Fig.~1.

380: 

381: We allow all Yukawa couplings consistent with gauge symmetry and R parity 

382: (see, e.g.,~\cite{HN}) at both branes with ${\cal O}(1)$ dimensionless

383: coefficients. The hierarchical structure of the effective 4d Yukawas will

384: be entirely due to the different normalization of bulk vs. brane fields and 

385: to the bulk-mass-driven localization. To begin, let us denote a Yukawa 

386: coupling between 3 brane superfields by $\lambda$. If one of the three 

387: fields is replaced by a bulk field with $y$-independent zero mode, the 

388: effective 4d Yukawa coupling is rescaled according to $\lambda\to\lambda/ 

389: \sqrt{Ml}$ (following~\cite{AHDDMR} and~\cite{HMROS,hns}). Here the factor 

390: $M^{-1/2}$ arises because of the mass dimension of the coefficient of the 

391: original brane-bulk interaction of the 5d theory (the natural scale being 

392: $M$) and the factor $l^{-1/2}$ comes from the different normalization of the 

393: kinetic term for brane and bulk fields. If the bulk field has a mass term 

394: $m$, so that the zero mode is localized as in Eq.~(\ref{zm}), the 

395: corresponding rescaling reads

396: \beq

397: \lambda\to \frac{\lambda}{c(-ml)\sqrt{Ml}}\qquad\mbox{or}\qquad

398: \lambda\to \frac{\lambda}{c(ml)\sqrt{Ml}}\,

399: \eeq

400: depending on whether the original 5d interaction is localized at the SU(5) or 

401: the SM brane. Here the coefficient function

402: \beq

403: c(ml)=\sqrt{\frac{e^{2ml}-1}{2ml}}

404: \eeq

405: takes into account the proper normalization of the 5d vs. 4d kinetic terms

406: and the value of the zero mode at the respective branes. 

407: 

408: Taking $\lambda\sim 1$ for all interactions, introducing bulk masses $m_u$ 

409: and $m_d$ for the two Higgs hypermultiplets (with $m_ul,\,\,m_dl\gg 1$), 

410: and keeping all other bulk masses zero for simplicity, we arrive at the 

411: following Yukawa matrix structure for the two effective 4d interactions 

412: $H_uT^T\lambda_{TT}T$ and $H_dT^T\lambda_{TF}\bar{F}$:

413: \beq

414: \lambda_{TT}=\lambda_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}

415: \delta_u & \epsilon\delta_u & 0\\

416: \epsilon\delta_u & \epsilon^2 & \epsilon\\

417: 0 & \epsilon & 1 

418: \end{array}\right)\,\,,\qquad\lambda_{TF}=\lambda_b\left(\begin{array}{ccc}

419: \delta_d & \delta_d & \delta_d\\

420: \epsilon & \epsilon & \epsilon\\

421: 1 & 1 & 1 

422: \end{array}\right)\,\,.

423: \eeq

424: Here we have used the definitions

425: \beq

426: \lambda_t=\sqrt{\frac{2m_u}{M}}\,,\quad

427: \lambda_b=\frac{1}{\sqrt{Ml}}\sqrt{\frac{2m_d}{M}}\,,\quad

428: \epsilon=\frac{1}{\sqrt{Ml}}\,,\quad

429: \delta_u=e^{-m_ul}\,,\quad \delta_d=e^{-m_dl}\,.\label{ma}

430: \eeq

431: We recall that we are only attempting to generate the correct hierarchical 

432: Yukawa structure and that unknown ${\cal O}(1)$ coefficients (including 

433: complex phases) multiply each of the entries of the above matrices. 

434: 

435: \begin{figure}

436: \begin{center}

437: \includegraphics[width=4in]{flav5d.eps}

438: \end{center}

439: \caption{The location of the ${\bf 5}$ and ${\bar {\bf 5}}$ Higgs

440: and 3 generations of matter.  The dotted lines

441: schematically illustrate the bulk profile of the massless doublet-Higgs

442: $H_u$ and $H_d$ states.  The $N_i$ are three SM singlet rhd neutrino

443: states as discussed in Sect.~5.}

444: \label{fig:flav5d}

445: \end{figure}

446: 

447: The eigenvalues of the matrices multiplying $\lambda_t$ and $\lambda_b$ in 

448: Eq.~(\ref{ma}) are $(1,\epsilon^2,\delta_u)$ and $(1,\epsilon,\delta_d)$. 

449: Successful phenomenology requires the GUT scale relations (see, 

450: e.g.,~\cite{fk}) $\lambda_t\sim 0.6$, $(\lambda_t\tan\beta)/\lambda_b\sim 

451: 110$, $m_t/m_c\sim\epsilon^{-2}\sim 300$, $m_b/m_s\sim\epsilon^{-1}\sim 30$, 

452: $m_t/m_u\sim\delta_u^{-1}\sim 10^5$ and $m_b/m_d\sim\delta_d^{-1}\sim 10^3$.

453: For a moderate value of $\tan\beta\simeq 5$, and up to ${\cal O}(1)$ factors

454: that depend on the precise brane Yukawa couplings, this set of

455: flavour hierarchies is realized by taking

456: \beq 

457: Ml\simeq 300\,,\qquad m_ul\simeq 11.5\,,\qquad m_dl\simeq 6.9\, .

458: \label{values}

459: \eeq

460: These values are within the favoured parameter range for $Ml$ and for the 

461: ratio of bulk and brane masses (see~Sect.~\ref{orbbm} and the beginning of 

462: this section). An illustration of the essential features of our complete 

463: setup is given in Fig.~1. 

464: 

465: Note that a very similar model is obtained by interchanging the positions 

466: of SU(5) and SM brane in the setup of Fig.~1. This configuration, where the 

467: Higgs fields are now peaked at the SM brane, has the advantage that the 

468: effective 4d Higgs triplet masses do not fall below $M_c$ in the limit of a 

469: large bulk mass term. Thus, their effect on the precision gauge coupling

470: unification is guaranteed to remain small.

471: 

472: To derive the resulting structure of the CKM matrix, recall that

473: $\lambda_{TT}$ and $\lambda_{TF}$ are diagonalized by the bi-unitary

474: transformations $\lambda_{TT}^{\rm diag}=L^\dagger_T\lambda_{TT}R_{T}$ and

475: $\lambda_{TF}^{\rm diag}=L^\dagger_F\lambda_{TF}R_F$. (Note that, in our

476: approach, SU(5) breaking effects in the Yukawa couplings arise only from

477: unknown ${\cal O}(1)$ coefficients.) Using the fact that, in our model, we

478: approximately have $\delta_u\sim\delta_d^2\sim\epsilon^4$, the following

479: structure results:

480: \beq

481: V_{\rm CKM}=L^\dagger_TL_F\sim\left(\begin{array}{ccc}

482: 1 & \epsilon & \epsilon^2\\

483: \epsilon & 1 & \epsilon\\

484: \epsilon^2 & \epsilon & 1

485: \end{array}\right)\,.

486: \eeq

487: With our choice of $\ep=1/\sqrt{M l}\simeq 1/17$, this compares favourably

488: with the data as far as 2-3 and 1-3 mixings are concerned.  However, we

489: underestimate 1-2 mixing by a factor $\sim 4$.  Although we have to admit

490: that this is arguably the weakest point of our model, we would like to

491: emphasize that a very modest enhancement of one of the

492: off-diagonal entries in $\lambda_{TF}$ is sufficient to explain the

493: large observed Cabibbo angle.  

494: 

495: 

496: \section{Neutrino masses and mixings}

497: 

498: An important aspect of flavour physics in orbifold GUTs is the generation 

499: of large neutrino mixing angles and the overall neutrino mass scale. In a 

500: straightforward approach, one could introduce 3 rhd neutrino singlets $N_i$ 

501: with ${\cal O}(1)$ Yukawa couplings and Majorana masses $\sim M$ on the SU(5) 

502: brane. However, given that $M$ tends to be larger than $10^{16}$ GeV and 

503: the effective 4d Yukawas are suppressed because $H_u$ is a bulk field, the 

504: resulting light neutrino masses generated by the see-saw mechanism come out

505: too small. In the following, we discuss two possibilities for obtaining a 

506: realistic neutrino mass scale in 5d orbifold GUTs, both of which make 

507: essential use of bulk mass terms.\footnote{The use of bulk singlet states

508: as rhd neutrinos was previously analysed for large extra dimensions

509: \cite{AHDDMR}, and mentioned in Ref.\cite{HMROS} in the context

510: of orbifold GUTs. Our analysis differs from these previous discussions.}

511: 

512: In our first scenario, we introduce three bulk hypermultiplets $(N_i,N^c_i)$, 

513: which are singlets under SU(5), with parity assignments $(+,+)$ and $(-,-)$ 

514: for the chiral components $N$ and $N^c$, respectively. In addition, we gauge 

515: U(1)$_{\chi}$ (named following~\cite{pdg}) in the bulk, where 

516: ${\rm SU}(5)\times {\rm U}(1)_{\chi} 

517: \subset {\rm SO}(10)$, with orbifold boundary conditions that break 

518: U(1)$_{\chi}$ at the SM brane. (Specifically this is achieved by $(+,-)$ 

519: and $(-,+)$ parities for $A_\mu^{\chi}$ and $A_5^{\chi}$, and opposite 

520: assignments for the gaugino partners. This leaves no U(1)$_{\chi}$ zero 

521: modes. Note that these assignments require the U(1)$_{\chi}$ gauge coupling 

522: to be odd under orbifolding.)  Under the bulk U(1)$_{\chi}$, the charges of 

523: the various states 

524: are $\chi(T_i) =-1$, $\chi(\bar{F_i}) = 3$, $\chi(H_{u,d})=\pm 2$,

525: and $\chi(N_i)=-5$, and opposite 

526: for the conjugate chiral superfield in each hypermultiplet.\footnote{To 

527: ensure anomaly freedom and the absence Fayet-Iliopoulos terms,

528: the sum of the charges

529: of the brane localized fields plus half the sum of the 

530: charges of bulk fields with even boundary conditions at that brane have to 

531: vanish~\cite{fi}. Given the $T_i$, $T_i'$, $\bar{F}_i$ and $\bar{F}_i'$ 

532: of Sect.~4 and the anomaly freedom of SO(10), this is easily 

533: realized by adding partner hypermultiplets $N_i'$. They will not interfere 

534: with the neutrino mass generation described below if they are peaked at the 

535: SM brane.}

536: 

537: At leading order the most general 5d superpotential for the $N_i$'s

538: consistent with the above symmetries takes the form

539: (where $L_i$ are the lepton doublets contained in $\bar{F}_i$)

540: \beq

541: N^{cT}(\p_5 + m_{N}) N +

542: H_u L^T \la  N \de(yM) + H_u L^T  \la'  N \de([y-l]M) +

543: M N^T \kappa  N \de([y-l]M) \,.

544: \eeq

545: Here $\la,\la',m_{N}$ and $\kappa$ are $3\times3$ matrices in generation

546: space.  Note that the $N^c_i$ can not have a similar Majorana mass term 

547: since they vanish at the SM brane.  Because the $H_u$ Higgs is highly peaked 

548: towards the SU(5) brane, the $\la'$-term can be neglected. 

549: 

550: Appealing to a complete flavour symmetry of the 5d bulk which acts on 

551: the ${\bar F}_i$ and $N_i$, we take the matrix $m_N$ to be of the form

552: $m_N{\bf 1}_3$, where $m_N>0$. In the 

553: absence of the Majorana mass term, one would find 3 zero modes of the 

554: superfields $N_i$ with bulk profile $\exp(-m_Ny)$. The Majorana mass couples 

555: these zero modes and, given the exponential suppression of the bulk profile

556: at the SM brane and properly normalising the effective 4d kinetic term,

557: leads to the effective 4d rhd neutrino mass matrix

558: \beq

559: M_R \simeq 4 \kappa m_N e^{-2m_{N}l}\,.

560: \eeq

561: It is a simple exercise to check that this result also follows from first 

562: deriving the exact solution of the equations of motion, including the

563: $N^T \kappa N \de(y-l)$ interaction, and then expanding the expression for 

564: the light-mode mass-matrix to leading order in $e^{-2m_{N}l}$. 

565: For moderate values of $m_{N}l$, the mass eigenvalues in $M_R$ are still 

566: super-heavy, but they are parametrically lighter than $M$. 

567: Integrating out these modes, the usual see-saw mechanism now generates the 

568: light Majorana neutrino mass matrix. The relevant term in the low-energy 4d 

569: superpotential is

570: \beq

571: {(\la^T M_R^{-1} \la)_{ij}\over 2(Ml)^3 c(-m_u l)^2 c(-m_N l)^2}

572: (L_i H_u) (L_j H_u)\,.

573: \eeq

574:  

575: 

576: 

577: Because all $N_i$ and $\bar{F}_i$ are treated on an equal footing, the 

578: resulting form of the light neutrino mass matrix in generation space is 

579: non-hierarchical,

580: \beq

581: {\vev{H_u}^2 (\la^T M_R^{-1} \la)\over (Ml)^3 c(-m_u l)^2 c(-m_N l)^2} \simeq

582: {m_u l\, v^2\, e^{2m_N l}\over 2M (Ml)^2}

583: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

584: 1 & 1 & 1 \\

585: 1 & 1 & 1 \\

586: 1 & 1 & 1 

587: \end{array}\right) ,

588: \label{nutex}

589: \eeq

590: where, of course, unknown ${\cal O}(1)$ factors multiply the different 

591: entries, and $v=246\gev$.  As a result the neutrino mixing angles

592: are naturally large, and 

593: the super-light neutrino mass-differences are not strongly hierarchical. 

594: One may in principle be worried about the CHOOZ constraint

595: $\th_{e3} < 0.16$, but an analysis of the same texture structure

596: in ``neutrino mass anarchy'' models shows that no particular fine tuning

597: is necessary for there to be one accidentally small mixing

598: angle~\cite{anarchy} (see, however,~\cite{wy} for a recent 6d orbifold 

599: model addressing this issue). Taking the parameters of Eq.(\ref{values})

600: and assuming $M\simeq 10^{17}\gev$, we find that a reasonable value of 

601: $m_N l\simeq 6.8$ leads to a phenomenologically viable light neutrino mass 

602: scale of $m_\nu \sim 0.03\ev$.

603: 

604: A second scenario is even simpler.  We again have $N_i$ and $N_i^c$

605: chiral superfields, but choose the orbifold action to be $(+,-)$ and

606: $(-,+)$ respectively.  We further take the superpotential to be of the

607: form

608: \beq

609: N^{cT}(\p_5 + m_{N}) N + H_u L^T \la  N \de(yM) +

610: H_u L^T \la' N^c \de([y-l]M) \, .

611: \eeq

612: Note that this superpotential is not the most general that can written, as 

613: possible brane-localized masses $M_NNN\de(yM)$ and $M_N'N^c N^c\de([y-l]M)$ 

614: have been set to zero. (This is technically natural due to supersymmetry.) 

615: If one is willing to accept this, then the odd bulk mass $m_{N}$ leads to an

616: exponential suppression of the 4d mass connecting $N$ and $N^c$. Integrating

617: out this mode then gives an $(LH_u)^2$ operator with a coefficient that can 

618: easily accommodate the correct light neutrino mass scale. The required 

619: value of $m_N$ is larger than in our first scenario since the resulting 

620: exponential factor has to compensate for the weak coupling of the $H_u$ zero

621: mode at the SM brane. Once again, because of the symmetrical treatment of 

622: the $N_i$ and $\bar{F}_i$ bulk modes, which is only broken by brane Yukawa 

623: interactions, large neutrino mixing angles are natural.

624: 

625: 

626: \section{Conclusions}

627: 

628: In this letter we have argued that there exists, in the context of a

629: 5-dimensional orbifold SU(5)-GUT model, an appealing explanation of

630: the observed hierarchical structure of the quark and lepton masses and

631: mixing angles.  Our model uses only ingredients intrinsic to orbifold

632: GUT constructions.  These are the existence of branes fixed by the

633: orbifold action on which gauge and other symmetries can be violated,

634: and the presence of bulk mass terms for the bulk hypermultiplets.

635: Our model has the attractive feature that it does not invoke high-scale

636: Higgs breaking.  Flavour hierarchies arise from two effects: first,

637: the geometrical suppression of the couplings of bulk fields, as

638: compared to the couplings of brane fields;  second,

639: bulk masses leading to partial localization, or 4d mass scale suppression.

640: Our model provides a simple and concrete demonstration that the

641: observed flavour hierarchies (dimensionless ratios $\gsim 4$ or larger)

642: can be explained in geometrical terms within the elegant framework of a

643: 5d orbifold GUT.

644: 

645: Concerning neutrinos, we have shown that there are two attractive

646: higher-dimen\-sional variations of the traditional see-saw mechanism.

647: Both take the rhd neutrino states to be modes of SU(5)-singlet bulk

648: hypermultiplets, $N_i$.

649: The first involves the gauging of an additional U(1)$_\chi$ in the bulk

650: which is broken on the SM brane by the orbifold action.  The allowed

651: masses for the rhd neutrino states are then a large Majorana mass on the 

652: SM brane and a bulk $NN^c$ mass. The latter leads to a suppression

653: of the effective 4d Majorana masses of the lightest 4d rhd states and thus

654: to a suitably enhanced coefficient of the $(LH_u)^2$ operator compared to 

655: the naive $1/M\simeq (10^{17}\gev)^{-1}$. 

656: The second model does not involve any additional bulk gauge symmetry or 

657: brane-localized Majorana mass, but flips the sign of the orbifold action 

658: to forbid zero modes of $N$ and $N^c$. In this case the bulk mass

659: suppresses the 4d mass of the lightest KK modes. Both mechanisms naturally

660: lead to large mixing angles as the bulk structure of the ${\bar F}_i$'s

661: and $N_i$'s is independent of generation, with this symmetry being only

662: weakly broken by brane interactions.

663: 

664: \noindent

665: {\bf Acknowledgements}:

666: We are grateful to Yasunori Nomura and, particularly, Riccardo Rattazzi 

667: and for helpful conversations.

668: 

669: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

670: 

671: \bibitem{kaw}

672: Y.~Kawamura,

673: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 105} (2001) 999

674: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012125].

675: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012125;%%

676: 

677: \bibitem{AF}

678: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511} (2001) 257

679: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102301].

680: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102301;%%

681: 

682: \bibitem{HN}

683: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 055003

684: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103125].

685: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103125;%%

686: 

687: \bibitem{HMR}  

688: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 613} (2001) 3\\{}

689: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106166].

690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106166;%%

691: 

692: \bibitem{HMR2} 

693: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 625} (2002) 128\\{}

694: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107039].

695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107039;%%

696: 

697: \bibitem{su5}

698: A.~B.~Kobakhidze, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514} (2001) 131 

699: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102323];\\

700: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102323;%%

701: R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 624} (2002) 63\\{}

702: [arXiv:hep-th/0107004];\\

703: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107004;%%

704: J.~A.~Bagger, F.~Feruglio and F.~Zwirner, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88} 

705: (2002) 101601 [arXiv:hep-th/0107128];\\

706: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107128;%%

707: T.~j.~Li, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520} (2001) 377 [arXiv:hep-th/0107136].

708: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0107136;%%

709: 

710: \bibitem{so10}

711: T.~Asaka, W.~Buchm\"uller and L.~Covi, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 523} (2001) 

712: 199\\{} [arXiv:hep-ph/0108021]

713: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108021;%%

714: and arXiv:hep-ph/0204358;\\

715: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204358;%%

716: L.~J.~Hall \etal, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 035008

717: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108071];\\

718: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108071;%%

719: R.~Dermisek and A.~Mafi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 055002 

720: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108139].

721: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108139;%%

722: 

723: \bibitem{CPRT}

724: R.~Contino, \etal, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 622} (2002) 227

725: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108102];\\

726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108102;%%

727: Y.~Nomura, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 085036 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108170].

728: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108170;%%

729: 

730: \bibitem{HMROS}

731: L.~Hall, J.~March-Russell, T.~Okui and D.~R.~Smith, arXiv:hep-ph/0108161.

732: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108161;%%

733: 

734: \bibitem{hns}

735: L.~J.~Hall, Y.~Nomura and D.~R.~Smith, arXiv:hep-ph/0107331.

736: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107331;%%

737: 

738: \bibitem{orbf}

739: N.~Haba \etal, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 107} (2002) 151 

740: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107190];\\

741: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107190;%%

742: H.~D.~Kim, J.~E.~Kim and H.~M.~Lee, arXiv:hep-ph/0112094.

743: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112094;%%

744: 

745: \bibitem{hn2} L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura, arXiv:hep-ph/0205067.

746: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205067;%%

747: 

748: \bibitem{agw}  

749: N.~Arkani-Hamed, T.~Gregoire and J.~Wacker, JHEP {\bf 0203} (2002) 055\\{}

750: [arXiv:hep-th/0101233];\\

751: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101233;%%

752: D.~Marti and A.~Pomarol, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 105025

753: [arXiv:hep-th/0106256];\\

754: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0106256;%%

755: A.~Hebecker, arXiv:hep-ph/0112230, to appear in Nucl. Phys. B.

756: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112230;%%

757: 

758: \bibitem{fi}

759: R.~Barbieri \etal, arXiv:hep-th/0203039;\\

760: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203039;%%

761: S.~Groot Nibbelink, H.~P.~Nilles and M.~Olechowski, arXiv:hep-th/0205012;\\

762: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0205012;%%

763: D.~Marti and A.~Pomarol, arXiv:hep-ph/0205034.

764: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205034;%%

765: 

766: \bibitem{jr}   

767: R.~Jackiw and C.~Rebbi, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13} (1976) 3398;\\

768: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,3398;%%

769: D.~B.~Kaplan, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 288} (1992) 342 [arXiv:hep-lat/9206013].

770: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9206013;%%

771: 

772: \bibitem{as}   

773: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.~Schmaltz, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 033005 \\{} 

774: [arXiv:hep-ph/9903417].

775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903417;%%

776: 

777: \bibitem{bm}   

778: H.~Georgi, A.~K.~Grant and G.~Hailu, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 064027

779: \\{} [arXiv:hep-ph/0007350];\\

780: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007350;%%

781: D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~Tait, JHEP {\bf 0111} (2001) 051 

782: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110126];\\

783: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110126;%%

784: N.~Maru, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 522} (2001) 117 [arXiv:hep-ph/0108002];\\

785: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108002;%%

786: N.~Haba and N.~Maru, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 532} (2002) 93

787: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201216];\\

788: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201216;%%

789: M.~Kakizaki and M.~Yamaguchi, arXiv:hep-ph/0110266.

790: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110266;%%

791: 

792: \bibitem{nsw}  

793: Y.~Nomura, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 613} (2001) 

794: 147\\{} [arXiv:hep-ph/0104041].

795: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104041;%%

796: 

797: \bibitem{AHDDMR}

798: N.~Arkani-Hamed \etal, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 024032

799: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811448];

800: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811448;%%

801: N.~Arkani-Hamed and S.~Dimopoulos, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 052003\\{}

802: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811353];\\

803: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811353%%

804: S.~Dimopoulos \etal, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441} (1998) 96

805: [arXiv:hep-th/9808138];\\

806: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9808138;%%

807: K.~R.~Dienes, E.~Dudas and T.~Gherghetta, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 557} (1999) 

808: 25\\{} [arXiv:hep-ph/9811428].

809: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811428;%%

810: 

811: \bibitem{fk}   

812: H.~Fusaoka and Y.~Koide, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 3986 

813: [arXiv:hep-ph/9712201].

814: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712201;%%

815: 

816: \bibitem{pdg}

817: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

818: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15} (2000)~1 (see p. 290).

819: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%

820: 

821: \bibitem{anarchy}

822: L.~J.~Hall, H.~Murayama and N.~Weiner, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84} (2000) 

823: 2572\\{} [arXiv:hep-ph/9911341].

824: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911341;%%

825: 

826: \bibitem{wy} T.~Watari and T.~Yanagida, arXiv:hep-ph/0205090.

827: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205090;%%

828: 

829: \end{thebibliography}

830: \end{document}

831: