1: %\documentstyle[prl,twocolumn,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}

2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}

3: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}

4: %\usepackage{amssymb}

5: %\usepackage{graphicx}

6: %\usepackage{bm}

7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-1in}

8: \addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{30mm}

9: \setlength{\topmargin}{-1in}

10: \setlength{\headheight}{30mm}

11: \setlength{\headsep}{0mm}

12: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.7cm}

13: \setlength{\textwidth}{17cm}

14: \setlength{\topmargin}{-3cm}

15: \setlength{\textheight}{23.5cm}

16: \addtolength{\jot}{9pt}

17: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}

18: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}

19: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

20: %\pagestyle{plain}

21: 

22: % Gudrun definitions

23: \def\llgm{\left\lgroup\matrix}

24: \def\rrgm{\right\rgroup}

25: 

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

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

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

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

30: \def\nnb{\nonumber}

31: \def\rt{\right}

32: \def\dgr{\dagger}

33: \def\lt{\left}

34: \def\Tr{\textrm Tr}

35: \def\ncp{\nu_e + d \to n+p+\nu_e}

36: \def\tY{\tilde Y}

37: \def\tal{\tilde \alpha}

38: \newcommand{\wti}{\widetilde}

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

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

41: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

42: 

43: \begin{document}

44: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname

45: %\begin{flushright}

46: %\baselineskip=12pt

47: %IC/2001/\\

48: %hep-ph/

49: %\end{flushright}

50: %\vskip 0.2cm

51: 

52: \begin{center}

53: \vspace{-3ex}{

54:                       \hfill hep-ph/0304130}\\[2mm]

55: {\Large\bf

56: %\title{

57: Neutrino Bilarge Mixing and Flavor Physics in the Flipped SU(5) Model}

58: 

59: \vspace{0.6cm}

60: %\author{

61: Chao-Shang Huang$^a$, Tianjun Li$^b$ and Wei Liao$^c$ \\

62: \vspace{0.3cm}

63:         $^a$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, P. O. Box 2735, \\

64:              Beijing 100080,  China\\

65:         $^b$ School of Natural Science, Institute for Advanced Study,  \\

66:              Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA\\

67:         $^c$ The Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics,\\

68:               Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy \\

69: %}

70: \end{center}

71: \begin{abstract}

72: %\abstract{

73: We have constructed a specific supersymmetric flipped SU(5) GUT

74: model in which bilarge neutrino mixing is incorporated. Because

75: the up-type and down-type quarks in the model are flipped in the

76: representations ten and five with respect to the usual SU(5), the

77: radiatively generated flavor mixing in squark mass matrices due to

78: the large neutrino mixing has a pattern different from those in

79: the conventional SU(5) and SO(10) supersymmetric GUTs. This leads

80: to phenomenological consequences quite different from SU(5) or

81: SO(10) supersymmetric GUT models. That is, it has almost no impact

82: on B physics. On the contrary, the model has effects in top and

83: charm physics as well as lepton physics. In particular, it gives

84: promising prediction on the mass difference, $\Delta M_D$, of the

85: $D-{\bar D}$ mixing which for some ranges of the parameter space

86: with large $\tan\beta$ can be at the order of $10^9 ~\hbar

87: ~s^{-1}$, one order of magnitude smaller than the experimental

88: upper bound. In some regions of the parameter space $\Delta M_D$

89: can saturate the present bound. For these ranges of parameter

90: space, $t \to u,c+h^0$ can reach $10^{-5}-10^{-6}$ which would be

91: observed at the LHC and future $\gamma-\gamma$ colliders.

92: %}

93: \end{abstract}

94: 

95: %\pagebreak

96: 

97: %\begin{document}

98: 

99: \section{Introduction}\label{sec1}

100: In recent years great progresses have been made on the

101: flavor physics. Atmospheric neutrino~\cite{skatm} and solar neutrino~\cite{sno}

102: experiments together with the reactor neutrino~\cite{kamland,chooz}

103: experiments have established the

104: oscillation solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies

105: ~\cite{shiozawa,phs,also}. The solution tells us that neutrinos have masses

106: and mix with themselves in the propagations, {\it i.e.},

107: they oscillate~\cite{ponte,Maki:1962mu,msw}. The recent result from the

108: super-K collaboration and the combined analysis on the

109: solar neutrino experiment result and the KamLAND experiment result give

110: the best fit points~\cite{shiozawa,phs}

111: \bea

112: & \Delta m^2_{23}=2.5 \times 10^{-3} ~{\textrm eV}^2,

113: ~~ \sin^2 2\theta_{23}=1.0;

114: \nnb \\

115: & \Delta m^2_{12}=7.3 \times 10^{-5} ~{\textrm eV}^2,

116:  ~~ \tan^2\theta_{12}=0.41;

117: \label{sol}

118: \eea

119: where $\Delta m^2_{ij}=m^2_{\nu_i}-m^2_{\nu_j}$

120: is the mass squared differences of the neutrinos in the mass

121: eigenstates (possible signs neglected here), and $\theta_{ij}$ are

122: the two-neutrino mixing angles. $\theta_{12}$ is for the solar

123: neutrino oscillation and $\theta_{23}$ is for the atmospheric

124: neutrino oscillation. Moreover, the CHOOZ experiment made a

125: constraint on the $\theta_{13}$ for the mass differences observed

126: in the atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments~\cite{chooz}

127: \bea

128: \label{chooz} |\sin\theta_{13}| \lsim 0.16.

129: \eea

130: 

131: Understanding these masses and mixings is a challenge. The

132: smallness of the masses can be understood via the see-saw

133: mechanism~\cite{ss}. Namely, the heavy right-handed

134: Majorana neutrinos, whose masses violate the lepton number symmetry,

135: simply decouple in the low energy physics and give very small

136: lepton number violating effects in the low energy phenomena,

137: which are the extremely small Majorana masses of the left-handed

138: neutrinos. The present experiments allow three typical solutions

139: to the neutrino masses: the degenerate case with $m_1 \sim

140: m_2 \sim m_3 \sim 10^{-1}$eV; hierarchy case with $m_1 \ll m_2

141: \approx \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}}$, $m_2 \ll m_3 \approx \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{32}}$;

142: inverse hierarchy case with $m_3 \ll m_1 \sim m_2 \sim

143: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{23}}$.

144: 

145: In view of the beautiful picture raised by

146: Weinberg-Wilczek-Zee-Fritsch (WWZF)~\cite{wwzf} that the small

147: quark mixing in the CKM matrix is related to the large quark mass

148: hierarchy, people feel challenged a lot by the presence of the

149: neutrino bilarge mixing. Some people worried that we should have

150: degenerate mass matrix to understand it. However, in the WWZF

151: scenario only the symmetric mass matrix is used. If allowing

152: asymmetric form for the mass matrix which for example may well be

153: generated by the elegant Froggatt-Nielsen (FN)

154: mechanism~\cite{FN}, we can accomodate the large mass hierarchy

155: with large mixings~\cite{asy}. If one works with an effective

156: theory, {\it e.g.}, the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model

157: together with right-hand neutrinos (MSSM+N), at a low energy scale

158: (say, the electro-weak scale), one can content oneself by using

159: the WWZF scenario to understand the smallness of quark mixing, and

160: the see-saw and FN mechanism to understand the largeness of

161: neutrino mixing. However, if one works with a theory, {\it e.g.},

162: a grand unification theory (GUT), in which quarks and leptons are

163: in a GUT multiplet, one has to answer: can we explain

164: simultaneously the smallness of quark mixing and the largeness of

165: neutrino mixing in the theory? If we can, then what are the

166: phenomenological consequences in the theory? There are several

167: recent works to tackle these problems in SU(5) or SO(10) GUTs

168: ~\cite{bdv,lfv3,cmm,mvv,bsv,hs}.

169: 

170: As known for a long time in the framework of the supersymmetric

171: see-saw mechanism, we are able to predict the lepton flavor

172: violating (LFV) effects~\cite{lfv,lfv2}. The flavor structure in

173: the neutrino Yukawa couplings can be transformed to the soft SUSY

174: breaking masses of the left-handed sleptons which then give

175: implications on the $\mu \to e \gamma$ and $\tau \to \mu,e+\cdots$

176: processes. In the models of the grand unification theory, {\it

177: e.g.}, in $SU(5)$ or $SO(10)$, quark fields are unified with

178: leptons in the representations of GUT gauge group, and from the

179: lepton Yukawa couplings we are able to get the flavor mixings in

180: down-type squark mass matrix~\cite{hkr,bdv,cmm,hs}. These flavor

181: mixings are something beyond those described by the CKM mixing and

182: can give the interesting phenomenological implications for the

183: Kaon and B meson physics. This approach has recently been used in

184: SUSY SU(5) and SO(10) GUTs which incorporate the bilarge neutrino

185: mixing and can give the significant phenomenological predictions

186: if the bilarge neutrino mixing is from the lepton Yukawa

187: couplings~\cite{bdv,cmm,hs}.

188: 

189: In the present paper, we address the problems in the

190: supersymmetric flipped $SU(5)$ model.  As we know, the flipped

191: $SU(5)$ unification model has several advantages: (i) $SU(5)\times

192: U(1)$ is the minimal unified gauge group which provides neutrino

193: masses; (ii) without high dimension Higgs representations; (iii)

194: the natural splitting of the doublet and triplet components of the

195: Higgs pentaplets and consequently the natural avoidance of

196: dangerous dimension-5 proton decay operators; and (iv) the natural

197: appearance of a see-saw mechanism for neutrino masses.

198: Furthermore, in the context of 4-dimensional free fermionic string

199: model-building, at level one ($k=1$) of the Kac-Moody

200: algebras~\cite{eln}, one can only obtain the Standard-like

201: Model~\cite{AFDVN}, the Pati-Salam Model~\cite{IAGLJR} and the

202: flipped $SU(5)$ model~\cite{JLLDVN},

203:  because the dimensions of Higgs fields in the spectra

204: are smaller than that of the adjoint representation. Of these,

205: only flipped $SU(5)$ actually unifies the non-abelian gauge groups

206: of the Standard Model (SM). And a proliferation of $U(1)$ factor

207: is the norm.

208: 

209: We show that the fermion mass hierarchies and the mixings of quarks

210: and leptons can all be well accommodated in the flipped $SU(5)$

211: model. Moreover, because in flipped $SU(5)$ the up-type and down-typ

212:  quarks

213: are flipped in the representations ten and five with respect to

214: the usual SU(5), the one loop radiative corrections to sfermion masses

215: have a pattern different from those in SU(5) or SO(10) and

216: consequently different phenomenological implications. We find that

217: in flipped $SU(5)$ new effects appear in top and charm physics, in

218: addition to lepton physics, and no effects in B physics, which is

219: a novel feature quite different from the usual SU(5) and SO(10)

220: GUTs and can be tested by incoming experiments.

221: 

222: The paper is organized as follows. In section II, after a brief

223: review of the flipped $SU(5)$ model, we construct a specific model

224: in which the bilarge mixing can be accomodated in the Yukawa

225: couplings as well as the fermion mass hierarchy and the quark

226: mixing. We will then discuss the radiatively corrected SUSY

227: breaking soft terms with universal SUSY breaking at the Planck scale.

228: In section III, we discuss the phenomenological consequences of

229: our model. Section IV is devoted to conclusions and discussions.

230: Finally, some conventions in MSSM+N are given in Appendix A, and

231: the renormalization group equations (RGEs) in MSSM+N and flipped

232: SU(5) are given in the Appendices B and C, respectively.

233: Throughout the paper we assume no $CP$ violating phases appearing

234: the leptonic sector to simplify the discussion.

235: 

236: \section{Flipped SU(5) Model and the Flavor Structure}\label{sec2}

237: \subsection{The Flipped $SU(5)$ Model}\label{sec2.1}

238: In this subsection, we would like to briefly review the Flipped

239: $SU(5)$~\cite{smbarr, dimitri} and construct a specific flipped

240: SU(5) model. The gauge group for flipped $SU(5)$ model is

241: $SU(5)\times U(1)_{X}$, which can be embedded in $SO(10)$ model.

242: We can define the generator $U(1)_{Y'}$ in $SU(5)$ as 

243: \bea 

244: T_{\rm U(1)_{Y'}}={\rm diag} \left(-{1\over 3}, -{1\over 3}, -{1\over 3},

245:  {1\over 2},  {1\over 2} \right).

246: \label{u1yp}

247: \eea

248: The hypercharge is given by

249: \bea

250: Q_{Y} = {1\over 5} \left( Q_{X}-Q_{Y'} \right).

251: \label{ycharge}

252: \eea

253: 

254: There are three families of fermions with the following

255: $SU(5)\times U(1)_{X}$ transformation proporties

256: \bea

257: F_i=(10, 1),~ {\bar f}_i=(\bar 5, -3),~l_i^c=(1, 5),

258: \label{smfermions}

259: \eea

260: where $i=1, 2, 3$.

261: As an example, the particle assignments for the first family are

262: \bea

263: F_1=(Q_1, D^c_1, N_1),~{\bar f}_1=(U^c_1, L_1),~l_1^c=E^c_1.

264: \label{smparticles}

265: \eea

266: $Q$ and $L$ are the superfields of the

267: quark and lepton doublets, $U^c$, $D^c$, $E^c$ and $N$ are the

268: $CP$ conjugated superfields for the right-handed up-type quark,

269: down-type quark, lepton and neutrino.

270: 

271: To break the GUT and electroweak symmetries, we introduce two pairs

272: of Higgs representations

273: \bea

274: H=(10, 1),~{\bar H}=({\bar {10}}, -1),~h=(5, -2),~{\bar h}=({\bar {5}}, +2).

275: \label{Higgse1}

276: \eea

277: We label the states in the $H$ multiplet by the same symbols as in

278: the $F$ multiplet, and for $\bar H$ we just add ``bar'' above the fields.

279: Explicitly, the Higgs particles are

280: \bea

281: H=(Q_H, D_H^c, N_H),~{\bar H}= ({\bar {Q}}_{\bar H}, {\bar {D}}_{\bar H}^c, {\bar {N}}_{\bar H}),

282: \label{Higgse2}

283: \eea

284: \bea

285: h=(D_h, D_h, D_h, H_1),~{\bar h}=({\bar {D}}_{\bar h}, {\bar {D}}_{\bar h},

286: {\bar {D}}_{\bar h}, H_2).

287: \label{Higgse3}

288: \eea

289: We also add one singlet $S$.

290: 

291: To break the $SU(5)\times U(1)_{X}$ gauge symmetry down to the SM

292: gauge symmetry, we introduce the GUT superpotential 

293: \bea

294: {\it W}_{\rm GUT}=\lambda_1 H H h + \lambda_2 {\bar H} {\bar H} {\bar

295: h} + S ({\bar H} H-M_{\rm V}^2). 

296: \label{spgut} 

297: \eea 

298: There is only

299: one F-flat and D-flat direction, which can always be rotated along

300: the $N_H$ and ${\bar N}_{\bar H}$ directions. So, we obtain that

301: $<N_H>=<{\bar N}_{\bar H}>=M_{\rm V}$. In addition, the

302: superfields $H$ and $\bar H$ are eaten or acquire large masses via

303: the supersymmetric Higgs mechanism, except for $D_H^c$ and ${\bar

304: D}_{\bar H}^c$. And the superpotential $\lambda_1 H H h$ and

305: $\lambda_2 {\bar H} {\bar H} {\bar h}$ combine the $D_H^c$ and

306: ${\bar D}_{\bar H}^c$ with the $D_h$ and ${\bar {D}}_{\bar h}$,

307: respectively, to form the massive eigenstates with masses

308: $\lambda_1 <N_H>$ and $\lambda_2 <{\bar N}_{\bar H}>$. So, we

309: naturally have the doublet-triplet splitting due to the missing

310: partner mechanism. Because the triplets in $h$ and ${\bar h}$ only have

311: small mixing through the $\mu$ term, the higgsino-exchange mediated

312: proton decay are negligible, {\it i.e.},

313: we do not have dimension-5 proton

314: decay problem. The singlet $S$ can have GUT scale mass and decouple

315: in the low energy theory.

316: 

317: The SM fermion masses are from the following

318: superpotential\footnote{In popular flipped SU(5) models one

319: usually introduces more singlets and constructs a renormalizable

320: superpotential. Here instead we introduce a non-renormalizable

321: term to give the right-hand neutrino masses in order to avoid

322: introducing more fields.}

323: \bea 

324: {\it W}_{\rm Yukawa} = {1\over 8}

325: F_i (Y_{10})_{ij} F_j h + F_i (Y_{\bar 5})_{ij} {\bar f}_j {\bar

326: h}+ l_i^c (Y_1)_{ij} {\bar f}_j h + \mu h {\bar h}

327: +{1\over {2M_*}} F_i (Y_R)_{ij}

328: F_j {\bar H} {\bar H}. \label{potgut}

329: \eea

330: After the $SU(5)\times

331: U(1)_X$ symmetry is broken down to the SM group, the

332: superpotential gives 

333: \bea 

334: {\it W_{SSM}}&=&

335: D^c_i(Y_{10})_{ij}Q_jH_1+U^c_i (Y_{\bar 5})_{ji}Q_j H_2

336: +E^c_i(Y_1)_iL_jH_1+N_i(Y_{\bar 5})_{ij} L_j H_2 \nnb \\

337: && + \mu H_1 H_2+ \frac{1}{2} (M_N)_{ij} N_i N_j

338:  + \cdots (\textrm{decoupled below $M_{GUT}$}). 

339: \label{poten1}

340: \eea

341: Thus, at the $M_{GUT}$ scale we have

342: \bea 

343: Y_U=Y^T_{\bar 5},

344: ~~ Y_D=Y_{10}, ~~ Y_N=Y_{\bar 5},~~ Y_E=Y_1.

345: \label{bound1}

346: \eea

347: The right-handed neutrino mass matrix $M_N$ is given by $Y_R$.

348: 

349: Assuming the right-handed neutrinos are heavy, they decouple at

350: the low energy scale. After we integrate out the right-handed neutrinos,

351: the left-handed neutrino Majorana masses are given by

352: \bea 

353: {\it W}_{\rm m_{\nu_L}} = {{M_*}\over {M_V^2}} (Y^T_{\bar 5} Y_R^{-1}

354: Y_{\bar 5})_{ij} L_i L_j H_2 H_2~.~

355: \label{numajma}

356: \eea

357:  Thus, if

358: $(Y_R)_{33} M_V^2/M_* \sim 10^{14}$ GeV, we obtain the correct

359: $\tau$ neutrino ($\nu_{\tau}$) mass implied by the atmospheric

360: neutrino oscillation experiment because the $\tau$ neutrino

361: ($\nu_{\tau}$) Dirac mass is equal to the top quark mass at the

362: GUT scale due to Eq. (\ref{bound1}). In addition, the left-handed

363: neutrino Majorana mass matrix, which is symmetric, can be taken to

364: be arbitrary because the Majorana mass matrix $Y_R$

365:  for the right-handed

366: neutrinos is arbitrary.

367: 

368: We can see from Eq. (\ref{potgut}) that the up-type quark Yukawa

369: matrix is the transpose of the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix and

370: the down-type quark Yukawa matrix is symmetric. Because in the

371: superpotenyial $W_{SSM}$, the up-type quark mass matrix, the

372: lepton mass matrix and the symmetric left-handed neutrino Majorana

373: mass matrix are arbitrary, we can generate the correct SM fermion

374: mass matrices, the CKM matrix and the neutrino mixing matrix,

375: although the down-type quark mass matrix is symmetric.

376: 

377: To be concrete, we present a realistic sample for the SM fermion

378: mass matrices in the Flipped $SU(5)$ model which accomodates the

379: bilarge neutrino mixing. The discussion will be made without

380: considering the CP violating phases, as noted in Introduction.

381: 

382: The ratios of the masses at the GUT scale

383: \cite{Fusaoka:1998vc}

384: are

385: \begin{eqnarray}

386:  m_u : m_c : m_t \sim \lambda^7 : \lambda^4 : 1 \ ,

387: \label{uptmass}

388: \end{eqnarray}

389: \begin{eqnarray}

390:  m_d : m_s : m_b \sim \lambda^4 : \lambda^2 : 1 \ ,

391: \end{eqnarray}

392: \begin{eqnarray}

393:  m_e : m_\mu : m_\tau \sim \lambda^5 : \lambda^2 : 1 \ .

394: \end{eqnarray}

395: where $\lambda=0.22$.

396: And the CKM matrix is given by

397: \begin{eqnarray}

398:  V_{\rm CKM} \sim \left(

399: \begin{array}{ccc}

400:  1 & \lambda & \lambda^3 \\

401:  -\lambda& 1 & \lambda^2 \\

402:  -\lambda^3& -\lambda^2 & 1\\

403: \end{array}

404: \right)~.~\,

405: \label{ckm}

406: \end{eqnarray}

407: 

408: In the hierarchy case, we can estimate the ratio of

409: the neutrino masses

410: \bea

411:  m_{\nu_2} : m_{\nu_3} \sim

412: \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m^2_{\rm solar}}{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm.}}}

413: \sim \epsilon' : 1\ ,

414: \label{neutrino-ratio}

415: \eea

416: where $\epsilon'$ is about $0.2$ according to Eq. (\ref{sol}).

417: The neutrino mixing matrix

418: can be parametrized in the standard way

419: \bea

420: U &=&

421: \pmatrix{c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13} &  s_{13}e^{-i\delta_{13}} \cr

422:    -s_{12}c_{23} -c_{12}s_{23}s_{13} e^{i\delta_{13}}  &

423:    c_{12}c_{23} - s_{12}s_{23}s_{13} e^{i\delta_{13}} & s_{23} c_{13} \cr

424:    s_{12}s_{23} - c_{12}c_{23} s_{13} e^{i\delta_{13}}  &

425:    -c_{12} s_{23} - s_{12}c_{23} s_{13} e^{i\delta_{13}}& c_{23}c_{13} },

426: \label{stpara}

427: \eea

428: where $c_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$, $s_{ij}=\sin\theta_{ij}$, and

429:  $\delta_{13}$

430: is the $CP$ violating phase which is taken as zero as those

431: Majorana phases in our discussion, as we noted in the

432: Introduction. In view of Eq. (\ref{chooz}), one has $c_{13}\gsim

433: 0.98$, then, to a good approximation, one has

434: \bea

435:  U &=&

436: \pmatrix{c_{12}& s_{12} &  s_{13} \cr

437:    -\frac{s_{12}}{\sqrt{2}}   &

438:    \frac{c_{12}}{\sqrt{2}}  & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}  \cr

439:    \frac{s_{12}}{\sqrt{2}} &

440:    -\frac{c_{12}}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} },

441: \label{stpara1}

442: \eea

443:  where $c_{23}=s_{23}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$,

444: $c_{13}=1$, and $s_{12} < c_{12}$ with $\theta_{12}\sim 33^0$ are

445: globally consistent with all neutrino experiments known so far.

446: 

447: The up-type quark Yukawa and the neutrino Dirac Yukawa couplings can take

448: the following form

449: \begin{eqnarray}

450: Y_U = (Y_{\nu})^T \sim y_t

451: \left(

452: \begin{array}{ccc}

453:  \lambda^7 & \lambda^6 & \lambda^4 \\

454:  \lambda^5 & \lambda^4 & \lambda^2 \\

455:  \lambda^3 & \lambda^2 & 1\\

456: \end{array}

457: \right)\ ,\ \

458: \end{eqnarray}

459: the down-type Yukawa coupling $Y_D$ takes the symmetric form

460: \begin{eqnarray}

461: Y_D \sim y_b

462: \left(

463: \begin{array}{ccc}

464:  \lambda^4 & 0 & 0 \\

465:  0 & \lambda^2 & 0 \\

466:  0 & 0 & 1\\

467: \end{array}

468: \right)\ ,\ \

469: \end{eqnarray}

470: and the lepton Yukawa coupling $Y_E$ can take the form

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: Y_E \sim \frac{y_\tau}{\sqrt{2}}

473: \left(

474: \begin{array}{ccc}

475:  \sqrt{2} a \lambda^5 &  \sqrt{2} b \lambda^5 & \sqrt{2} \epsilon \lambda^5 \\

476: -b \lambda^2 & a \lambda^2 & \lambda^2 \\

477: b & -a & 1 \\

478: \end{array}

479: \right)\ ,\ \

480: \end{eqnarray}

481: where $a^2+b^2=1$, $\epsilon$ is smaller than one.  In the base

482: where the charged leptons are mass eigenstates and assuming that

483: the same unitary matrix $U$ makes both the lepton mass matrix and

484: the left-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix diagonal, we obtain

485: \bea

486: \sin\theta_{13} \approx \epsilon ,~~ \tan\theta_{12} \approx

487: \frac{b}{a}, ~~ \tan\theta_{23} =1.

488: \label{theta}

489: \eea

490: The bilarge

491: neutrino mixing, Eq. (\ref{stpara1}), follows if $\epsilon\lsim

492: 0.16$, $b$ and $a$ are both of the order one and $b < a$. The

493: prediction on $\theta_{13}$ heavily depends on the

494: non-diagonal entries in the left-handed neutrino Majorana mass

495: matrix since we would like to get a small $\theta_{13}$. Because

496: the right-handed neutrino mass matrix is arbitrary, as noted above,

497: an appropriate form of the right-handed neutrino mass matrix can

498: be taken to maintain the relation of $\theta_{13}$ in Eq.

499: (\ref{theta}). The left-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix, Eq.

500: (\ref{numajma}), is given for the flavor fields $\nu_{\alpha}$,

501: $\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$. By the unitary transformation $U$ given in

502: Eq. (\ref{stpara1}), we obtain the left-handed neutrino masses

503: which can have mass hierarchy as

504: \bea

505: m_{\nu_1}:m_{\nu_2}:m_{\nu_3} \sim \epsilon'' : \epsilon' :1,

506: \eea

507: where the mass eigenvalues $m_{\nu_i}$ and consequently

508: $\epsilon''$ and $\epsilon'$ are determined by the matrix

509: ($Y^T_{\bar 5} Y_R^{-1} Y_{\bar 5}$) ( see Eq.(\ref{numajma}) )

510: with $Y^T_{\bar 5}=Y_U$. In order to get $\epsilon'' <

511: \epsilon'\sim \lambda$, the eigenvalues, $M_{N_i}$, of the

512: right-handed neutrino

513: Majorana mass matrix $M_N$ should have a hierarchy as large as

514: \bea

515: M_{N_2} : M_{N_3} \sim \lambda^7 :1

516: \eea

517: which for the

518: $M_{N_3} \sim 10^{14-15}$ GeV gives $M_{N_2} \sim 10^{9-10}$

519: GeV.

520: 

521: In the above discussions, the hierarchies in fermion mass spectra

522: are obtained due to the hierarchies in Yukawa couplings.

523: An elegant mechanism to understand this fermion mass hierarchy problem is

524: the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism~\cite{FN}.

525: However, the $U(1)$ global symmetry is not enough to generate the correct

526: fermion masses, CKM matrix and neutrino mixing matrix.

527:  So, we need to consider the larger global symmetry,

528: for instance, $SU(2)\times U(1)$ family symmetry. This is out of

529: the scope of this paper and we will not consider it here.

530: 

531: Before proceeding, a remark is in place. The presence of the

532: non-renormalizable operators might affect the predictions based on

533: the renormalizable Yukawa couplings in Eq. (\ref{potgut}).

534: In our model, we do not have the dimension-5 non-renormalizable operators

535: which can give the SM fermion masses except the operators which give

536: the right-handed neutrino Majorana masses.

537: There are dimension-6 non-renormalizable operators,

538: for example,

539: \bea

540: {\it W}_{\rm np} =

541: {1\over M_*^2} \lambda^3_{ij} [F_i ({\bar H} h)] F_j H + {1\over

542: M_*^2} \lambda^4_{ij} [F_i {\bar H} ] [ {\bar f}_j (H {\bar h})],

543: \label{nrsp}

544: \eea

545: which can give the down-type

546: quark masses $\lambda^3_{ij} {{v_1 <N_H> <{\bar N}_{\bar

547: H}>}\over\displaystyle M_*^2} {\bar d}_{Rj} d_{Li}$ and the

548: neutrino Dirac masses $\lambda^4_{ij} {{v_2 <N_H>

549: <{\bar N}_{\bar H}>}\over\displaystyle M_*^2} N_i \nu_j$,

550: respectively.

551:  However, the effects from the

552: dimension-6 non-renormalizable operators can be safely neglected

553: if taking the cutoff scale of the theory high enough. For

554: instance, taking $M_*=M_{Pl}$ implies that their effects are

555: suppressed by $M^2_{GUT}/M^2_{Pl} \approx 10^{-4}$. So, the

556: predictions described in Eq. (\ref{theta}) are not affected by

557: these operators~\footnote{ The dimension-5 operators can have

558: larger effects. We have used one to generate the right-handed

559: neutrino masses. More operators, like $(F_i {\bar f}_{\bar h}) F_j

560: H/M_*$ and $(F_i {\bar H}) ({\bar f}_j f_h)/M_*$ can appear if we

561: introduce one pair of Higgs $f_h=(5, 3)$ and ${\bar f}_{\bar h}=

562: (\bar 5, -3)$ under $SU(5)\times U(1)_{X}$. However, one may

563: reintroduce the dimension-5 proton decay operators

564:  via the higgsino exchange. So, we are not

565: going to consider this possibility.}. Although there are also RGE

566: effects on the mixing matrix, as observed for the normal

567: hierarchical case, the RGE effects are mild~\cite{rgeff}. In this

568: paper, we will therefore use the mixing matrices established in

569: the low energy phenomena above the see-saw scale.

570: 

571: We conclude for this subsection that the

572:  bilarge neutrino mixing can be well

573: accomodated in the lepton Yukawa couplings in the flipped SU(5)

574: model. The point is that

575: for flipped $SU(5)$ model, the up-type quark mass matrix and the

576: lepton mass matrix are arbitrary, and the symetric Majorana mass matrix

577: for left-handed neutrino is arbitrary after the right-handed neutrinos decouple.

578: Therefore, although the mass matrix for

579: down-type quark is symmetric, we do have enough degrees of freedoms to

580: produce the correct

581: GUT scale SM fermion masses, CKM matrix and neutrino mixing matrix.

582: 

583: \subsection{One Loop Radiative Corrections of Sfermion Masses}\label{sec2.2}

584: 

585: In order to establish notations and see where the difference of

586: phenomenological consequences between the flipped and conventional

587: SU(5) comes from, let us first illustrate a little on how the

588: flavor changing terms arise in the supersymmetric theories. In

589: this and next subsections, we shall use some useful conventions and

590: definitions in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)

591: plus the right-handed neutrino fields (MSSM+N) given in Appendix

592: A. In MSSM+N, the superpotential can be written as follows

593:  \bea 

594: {\it W}_{SSM} &=& D^c_i(Y_D)_{ij}Q_jH_1+U^c_i

595: (Y_U)_{ij}Q_j H_2 +E^c_i(Y_E)_{ij}L_jH_1 \nnb \\

596: &&+N_i(Y_N)_{ij}L_jH_2 + \mu H_1 H_2 +\frac{1}{2}(M_N)_{ij}N_iN_j.

597: \label{spssm}

598: \eea

599: $H_2$ and $H_1$ are the

600: Higgs doublets which give the Dirac masses to the up-type quark

601: (neutrino) and down-type quark (lepton), respectively. Assuming

602: the universal SUSY breaking at high energy scale, we can get the

603: radiative corrections to the mass of squark doublets, $m^2_{Q}$

604: (see Appendix A for the convention), with the following

605: form~\cite{fla}

606: \bea

607:  \delta m^2_Q &\propto & Y^\dagger_U Y_U

608: +Y^\dagger_D Y_D \nnb.

609: \eea

610: This just tells us that two couplings

611: of $Q$ in the Eq. (\ref{spssm}) both contribute. After the

612: electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking, $m^2_Q$ gives $m^2_{U_L}$ and

613: $m^2_{D_L}$. CKM mixing in the charged current interaction is

614: obtained after diagonalising $Y_U$ and $Y_D$. Typically for the

615: left-handed quark fields, the diagonalization is concerning

616: $Y^\dagger_U Y_U$ and $Y^\dagger_D Y_D$. As can be seen clearly we

617: will have misalignment between the quark and the squark mass

618: matrix. Transforming for example the down-type squark fields

619: simultaneously with the down-type quarks can diagonalise

620: $Y^\dagger_D Y_D$ but can not diagonalise $m^2_Q$. Similarly for

621: the up-type squarks. Thus, we have

622: \bea

623: \delta ({\wti m}^2_{U_L})_{ij}

624: \propto (K y^2_D K^\dagger)_{ij}

625: \approx K_{i3} y^2_b K^*_{j3} \nnb \\

626: \delta ({\wti m}^2_{D_L})_{ij} \propto (K^\dagger y^2_U K)_{ij}

627: \approx K^*_{3i} y^2_t K_{3j}.

628: \label{flamssm}

629: \eea

630: where $y_U$

631: and $y_D$ are the diagonalised Yukawa couplings and $K$ is the CKM

632: matrix. ${\wti m}^2$ is the mass squared written in the super-CKM

633: base in which $Y_{U,D,E}$ are all diagonalised and the sfermion

634: fields are transformed simultaneously with the fermion fields (see

635: Appendix A). In the super-CKM base, we can see directly the

636:  extra flavor structures

637: in the off-diagonal terms of these soft SUSY breaking masses.

638:  One of the main features of these corrections is that

639: they are proportional to the corresponding flavor changing CKM

640: matrix element. Typically $\delta({\wti m}^2_{U_L})_{ij}$ is given

641: by the third column of the CKM matrix and $\delta({\wti

642: m}^2_{D_L})_{ij}$ is given by the third row.

643: 

644: Similar story happens in the flipped $SU(5)$ model. As can be

645: seen in Eqs. (\ref{potgut}) and (\ref{bound1}), $Y_U$ and $Y_E$

646: come seperately from the Yukawa couplings of five representation

647: to the ten representation and of the five to the singlet

648: representation. Since these two couplings both give the SM fermion

649: Yukawa couplings, after transforming to the super-CKM base we can similarly

650: get $\delta({\wti m}^2_{U_R})_{ij}$ and $\delta({\wti m}^2_{E_L})_{ij}$

651: radiatively corrected by the different elements of the same matrix.

652: The story is different with the conventional

653: $SU(5)$ embedding. In the conventional $SU(5)$ theory

654: $10=(Q,U^c,E^c)$, ${\bar 5}=(D^c,L)$ and $1=N$. $Y_D$ and $Y_E$

655: both come from the Yukawa couplings of five representation to the

656: ten representation. We have $\delta({\wti m}^2_{D_R})_{ij}$ and

657: $\delta({\wti m}^2_{E_L})_{ij}$ being radiatively corrected by the

658: coupling of five to the singlet representation which is basically

659: the Yukawa coupling of the right-handed neutrino. Consequently

660: $\delta({\wti m}^2_{D_R})_{ij}$ and $\delta({\wti m}^2_{E_L})_{ij}$

661: have similar dependences on the same matrix. Thus, what happens

662: in the flipped $SU(5)$ is not quite similar to what happens in

663: the conventional $SU(5)$ theory. And we have new phenomena in

664: the charm and top quark physics, which will be discussed in detail

665: in the next subsection and section III.

666: 

667: \subsection{Low Energy Implications}\label{sec2.3}

668: 

669: We can define the SUSY breaking soft terms for the multiplets of

670: the flipped $SU(5)$ model as follows

671: \bea 

672: - \Delta {\cal L} &=&

673: \wti{F}_i^* (m^2_{10})_{ij}\wti{F}_j +{\wti {\bar f}}_i^*

674: (m^2_{\bar 5})_{ij} {\wti {\bar f}}_j +{\tilde l}_i^{c*}

675: (m^2_1)_{ij} {\tilde l}_j^c + m_h^2 {\wti h}^* {\wti h}+m_{\bar

676: h}^2 {\wti {\bar h}^*}

677: {\wti {\bar h}} \nnb \\

678: && +\bigg[\frac{1}{8} \wti{F}_i(Y^A_{10})_{ij}\wti{F}_j {\wti h} +\wti{F}_i

679: (Y^A_{\bar 5})_{ij}\wti{\bar f}_j \wti{\bar h} +{\tilde

680: l}_i^c(Y^A_1)_i{\wti {\bar f}}_j{\wti h} +\mu B{\wti h} \wti{\bar

681: h} \nnb \\

682: && +\frac{1}{2} M_5 \lambda_5 \lambda_5

683: +\frac{1}{2}M_X \lambda_X \lambda_X+h.c.].

684: \label{softgut}

685: \eea

686: $\lambda_5$ and $\lambda_X$ are respectively the gaugino fields of the

687: $SU(5)$ and $U(1)_X$ gauge groups. $M_5$ and $M_X$

688: are the gaugino masses.

689: At $M_{GUT}$ scale, the

690: matching conditions are 

691: \bea 

692: & Y^A_U=(Y^A_{\bar 5})^T, ~~

693: Y^A_D=Y^A_{10},

694: ~~ Y^A_N=Y^A_{\bar 5},~~ Y^A_E=Y^A_1 \nnb \\

695: & m^2_Q=m^2_{10}, ~~ m^2_D=(m^2_{10})^T, ~~ m^2_U=(m^2_{\bar 5})^T,

696: ~~ m^2_L=m^2_{\bar 5}, ~~m^2_E=(m^2_1)^T.

697: \label{bound2}

698: \eea

699: ${\wti h}$ et.al refer the scalar part of the corresponding

700: superfields.

701: 

702: Similar to that in the MSSM, we do have $m^2_{\bar 5}$ corrected

703: by the presence of two Yukawa couplings, $Y_5$ and $Y_1$:

704: \bea

705: \delta m^2_{\bar 5} \propto c_1 Y_{\bar 5}^\dagger Y_{\bar 5}

706: +c_2 Y_1^\dagger Y_1

707: = c_1 (Y_U Y_U^\dagger)^T +c_2 Y_E^\dagger Y_E.

708: \eea

709: $c_{1,2}$ are coefficients.

710: Again similar to what happend in the MSSM, $Y_{\bar 5}$ and $Y_1$ give

711: masses to the different SM fermions, {\it i.e.}, the up-type quarks

712: and leptons. The diagonalisations are concerning $Y_U Y_U^\dagger$

713: for the right-handed up-type quark and $Y_E^\dagger Y_E$

714: for the left-handed lepton fields. The resulting extra

715: flavor structures in the sfermion mass matrices of right-handed

716: up-type squarks and sleptons depend on the different

717: elements of the same matrix. The results are detailed in the

718: Appendix C.  According to them, we can get

719: the mass insertion parameters for the corresponding off-diagonal

720: mass terms. Mass insertion parameter $\delta_{ij}$ is defined

721: as $\delta_{ij}=M^2_{ij}/M^2_{\tilde f}$, where $M^2_{\tilde f}$

722: is the averaged mass squared of the $i$ and $j$ diagonal entries

723: of the mass matrix of ${\tilde f}$.

724: As an example, we have

725: \bea

726: (\delta^U_{RR})_{12} &\approx& -0.01 \frac{3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2}

727: {|M_{1 \over 2}|^2 (1+0.16 m_0^2/|M_{1 \over 2}|^2)}

728: (U_N)_{13}^* y_\tau^2 (U_N)_{23}, \label{flavor5}\\

729: (\delta^E_{LL})_{12} &\approx& -0.25\frac{3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2}

730: {0.6 |M_{1 \over 2}|^2+m_0^2} (U_N)_{31}^* y_t^2 (U_N)_{32}(1+\frac{1}{40}

731: ln\frac{M_{GUT}^2}{M_N^2}). \label{flavor6}

732: \eea

733: In the expression, we have approximated $({\wti m}_{f_{LL,RR}}^2)_{ii}

734: \approx 6 |M_{1 \over 2}|^2 + m_0^2$ ($i=1,2$ and $f=U$)

735: and $({\wti m}_{E_{LL,RR}}^2)_{jj}

736: \approx 0.6 |M_{1 \over 2}|^2+m_0^2$. D-term contributions after

737: the EW symmetry breaking have been neglected in the estimate.

738: We have also taken

739: $ln\frac{M_*^2}{M_{GUT}^2}=10$ for the estimate which means

740: that $M_* \doteq 3 \times 10^{18} \textrm{GeV} \approx M_{Pl}$

741: for $M_{GUT} \doteq 2.0 \times 10^{16}$GeV.

742: For $\delta^E_{LL}$

743: we have included the contributions

744: from the RGE running between the

745: $M_{GUT}$ scale and the $M_N$ scale shown in the Appendix B.

746: We see that the corrections to $\delta^E_{LL}$ can be quite large

747: if the relevant entries in $U_N$ can be of order one.

748: 

749: We can see clearly that

750: typically $\delta^E_{LL}$ probes the third column of the matrix $U_N$,

751: and $\delta^U_{LL}$ probes the third row of $U_N$. Similarly for

752: $\delta^E_{LR}$ and $\delta^U_{LR}$. Notice that to have sizeable

753: effects for the $\delta^U_{RR}$, we need large $\tan\beta$ because

754: it is corrected by the presence of lepton Yukawa couplings.

755: We can classify three typical scenarios by noticing that

756: $U_N=V_{N_L}^\dagger V_{E_L}$:\\

757: \\

758: ~~~(i) Neutrino mixings are all from $U_N$ and we can take

759: $U= U_N^\dagger$ (see Eq. (\ref{neum}) for comparison).

760: \\

761: \\

762: ~~~(ii) Only the atmospheric neutrino mixing comes from $U_N$ and

763: off-diagonal entries of

764: the first row and first column of $U_N$ are all small and negligible;\\

765: \\

766: ~~~(iii) No large off-diagonal entries in $U_N$ and large mixing angles

767: come from $V_{N_R}$ and $M_N$.

768: \\

769: 

770: The first possibility is supported

771: by our discussions in the last subsection which can give the

772: interesting phenomenological predictions. We will concentrate

773: on the first case and comment on the second and the third one in the

774: last section of the paper.

775: 

776: For scenario (i), we have

777: \bea

778: && (\delta^U_{RR})_{ij} \propto U_{3i} U_{3j}^*, ~~~ (\delta^U_{LR})_{3k}

779: \propto U_{33} U_{3k}^*,\\

780: && (\delta^E_{LL})_{ij} \propto U_{i3} U_{j3}^*, ~~~ (\delta^E_{LR})_{k3}

781: \propto U_{k3} U_{33}^*, ~~~~\textrm{$i\neq j$, $k\neq 3$}.

782: \eea

783: As expected, the corrections are concerning the right-handed

784: squark and the left-handed sleptons. As we know, elements

785: in the third row of the matrix $U$ are of the same order

786: because of the bilarge mixing, then we have

787: \bea

788: |(\delta^U_{RR})_{12}| ~\sim~ |(\delta^U_{RR})_{13}|

789: ~\sim~ |(\delta^U_{RR})_{23}|.

790: \label{rela}

791: \eea

792: In addition, in the case of large $\tan\beta$ for which

793: $y_\tau$ and $y_t$ are of comparable magnitudes

794: we have the following features for the moderate

795: vaules of $M_{1 \over 2}$, $m_0$ and $A_0$:\\

796: \\

797: (a)$(\delta^U_{RR})_{ij}$ is of order $10^{-2}$ and

798: $(\delta^E_{LL})_{23}$ is of the order of $10^{-1}$;\\

799: \\

800: (b) $(\delta^E_{LR})_{23}$ is further suppressed by the

801: VEV, $v_1=v \cos\beta$, and is of the order $10^{-2}-10^{-3}$

802: depending on the sfermion mass spectrum and is of

803: the same order as $(\delta^U_{LR})_{3k}$;\\

804: \\

805: (c) $(\delta^E_{LL})_{13,12}$ and $(\delta^E_{LR})_{13}$ are

806: further suppressed by the presence of the small magnitude of

807: $U_{13}$ (or $U_{e3}$).

808: 

809: \section{Phenomenology}

810: \subsection{Lepton Flavor Violation}\label{sec3.1}

811: Satisfying the precision $\mu \to e \gamma$ constraint

812: \bea

813:  Br(\mu \to e \gamma) < 1.2 \times 10^{-11},

814: \eea

815: puts order $10^{-3}$

816: upper bound on $(\delta^E_{LL})_{12}$ and order $10^{-5}$ upper

817: bound on $(\delta^E_{LR})_{12}$~\cite{ggms,mpr}. For moderate

818: values of $M_{1 \over 2}$, $m_0$ and $A_0$, they correspond to

819: having $|U_{e3}| \lsim 10^{-3}$. For the scenario discussed in the

820: section \ref{sec2.1}, they correspond to having $\epsilon \lsim

821: 10^{-3}$. We can simply satisfy this constraint by assuming

822: $U_{e3}=s_{13}=0$ in the matrix $U$. Similar thing happens to

823: $\tau \to e + \cdots$ processes.

824: 

825: Since the $(\delta^E_{LL})_{23}$ is at the order of $10^{-1}$, we

826: are able to get the promising prediction on $\tau \to \mu \gamma$

827: through the $\tan\beta$ enhanced contributions~\cite{lfv3,mvv}. A

828: rough estimate in the mass insertion~\cite{mvv} shows that 

829: \bea

830: Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma) \approx 4. \times 10^{-7} \times \bigg(

831: \frac{1000 ~{\textrm GeV}}{m_{\tilde l}} \bigg)^4 \times

832: \bigg(\frac{\tan\beta}{50} \bigg)^2, 

833: \label{approlep}

834: \eea 

835: for $m_0= |A_0|=2 |M_{1

836: \over 2}|$. The prediction is close to the present $1.1 \times

837: 10^{-6}$ upper bound~\cite{pdg}. In the formulae, $m_{\tilde l}$

838: is the average mass of the $\tau$ and $\mu$ sleptons. And we have

839: used $M_{N_3} = 5.4 \times 10^{14}$ GeV to get $m_{\nu_3}=0.05$

840: eV. If taking for example $|A_0|= 6 |M_{1 \over 2}|$ and $m_0 =2

841: |M_{1 \over 2}|$ (see Eq. (\ref{flavor5})) which are in the region

842: allowed by the constraints from the relic density of cold dark

843: matter as well as $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and $b\rightarrow s

844: \gamma$~\cite{cdm}, the $(\delta^E_{LL})_{23}$ can be at the order

845: of one. This will make Br($\tau \to \mu \gamma$) beyond the

846: experimental upper bound. However, as pointed out in

847: ref.~\cite{hmty}, there are some regions of parameter space where

848: partial cancellation between contributions of Feynman diagrams happens. The

849: cancellation can reduce Br($\tau \to \mu \gamma$) significantly,

850: e.g., by a factor of $10^{-1}-10^{-2}$, depending on sparticle

851: mass spectrum. Therefore, in these regions $(\delta^E_{LL})_{23}$

852: of order one and a low mass spectrum (say, below 1 TeV) are

853: allowed by the upper bound of Br($\tau \to \mu \gamma$).

854: 

855: \subsection{B Physics}\label{sec3.2}

856: B meson physics has been able to put good constraint

857: on $\delta^D_{LL,RR,LR}$ to the

858: order $10^{-2}$~\cite{ggms,mpr}. These flavor changing structures

859: contribute mainly through gluino loops. There are also processes,

860: {\it e.g.}, $b \to s \gamma$, $b \to d(s) l^+ l^-$,

861: $B \to l^+l^-$ and $B_{d,s}-{\bar B}_{d,s}$ mixing

862: for which chargino loops contribute a lot. Let's figure

863: out which entries in $\delta^U$ are relevant to B physics.

864: First of all, $(\delta^U_{RR})_{ij}$

865: ($i\neq j$) are always irrelevant to the processes because the couplings

866: involved with the right-handed up-type squarks are proportional to

867: the Yukawa couplings and their contributions can be neglected

868: because of the small up and charm Yukawa couplings. Due to the

869: same reason for $\delta^U_{LR}$, the relevant entries are

870: $(\delta^U_{LR})_{13,23}$, which refer that the right-handed stop is

871: propogating in the loop and give us large top Yukawa in the vertex.

872: 

873: Since flipped $SU(5)$ gives predictions on

874: $(\delta^U_{LR})_{31,32}$ and $\delta^U_{RR}$, not on

875: $(\delta^U_{LR})_{13,23}$ and $\delta^U_{LL}$, we do not have

876: strong predictions on the B physics. This is a nice feature of the

877: model. If flipped $SU(5)$ could give $10^{-2}$ prediction on

878: $(\delta^U_{LR})_{13}$, the double-penguin contributions to the

879: $B_d-{\bar B}_d$ mixing would easily be as large as the SM

880: prediction~\cite{bcrs}. Without these extra flavor mixing entries,

881: we simply go back to the conclusion made in \cite{bcrs}: the

882: $\Delta M^{DP}_{B_s}/\Delta M^{SM}_{B_s}$ can be of order 1 while

883: $\Delta M^{DP}_{B_d}/\Delta M^{SM}_{B_d} \sim \frac{1}{30} \Delta

884: M^{DP}_{B_s}/\Delta M^{SM}_{B_s}$ and can satisfy the experimental

885: bounds. Here $\Delta M^{DP}$ means the mass difference given by

886: the double-penguin diagram and $\Delta M^{SM}$ is the mass

887: difference given by the SM.

888: 

889: \subsection{$D-{\bar D}$ Mixing}\label{sec3.3}

890: In the SM, the flavor changing transitions involving external

891: up-type quarks, which are due to effective flavor changing neutral

892: current (FCNC) couplings generated at loop level, are much more

893: suppressed than those involving external down-type quarks. The

894: effects for external up-type quarks are derived from the virtual

895: exchanges of down-type quarks in a loop for which GIM

896: mechanism~\cite{gim} is much more effective because the mass

897: splittings among down-type quarks are much less than those among

898: up-type quarks. In the SM model, $D-{\bar D}$ mixing is extremely

899: small and highly GIM suppressed by the factor $m_s^2/m_W^2 (K_{us}

900: K_{cs}^*)^2$(of order $10^{-8}$) which makes the SM

901: prediction of order of $10^6 \hbar s^{-1}$(the contribution from

902: the bottom loop is smaller because of the smaller CKM mixing).

903: 

904: However, the  GIM mechanism is in general not valid in SUSY

905: theories. In the scenarios of the minimal flavor violation for

906: which flavor mixings are described by the CKM mixing, the SUSY

907: contribution is suppressed by the degeneracy of the first and

908: second generation squark masses and is of the same order of the SM

909: contribution. However, with the misalignment of quark and squark

910: mass matrices in a general SUSY theory, a sizeable

911: $(\delta^U_{RR,LR})_{12}$ can have significant effects on the

912: $D-{\bar D}$ mixing through the gluino box diagram. The prediction

913: on the mass difference, $\Delta M_D$, is proportional to

914: $(\delta_{12})^2$ for the $CP$ conserving case. The present upper

915: bound~\cite{pdg} from the CLEO collaboration

916: \bea 

917: \Delta M_D < 7

918: \times 10^{10}~~\textrm{$ \hbar ~s^{-1}$}, ~\textrm{$95\%$ CL}

919: \label{mdb}

920: \eea

921: has been able to put a $10^{-1}-10^{-2}$ constraint on

922: $(\delta^U_{LL,RR,LR})_{12}$~\cite{cckss} depending on the squark

923: and gluino mass scale.

924: 

925: In the framework of the constrained MSSM with for example

926: gravity-mediated SUSY breaking at the high energy scale, we have

927: indeed the radiatively generated misalignment in the quark and

928: squark mass matrices as shown in Eq. (\ref{flamssm}). However, the

929: relevant ${\wti m}^2_{12}$ is too small because it is corrected by

930: the small entries of the CKM matrix (actually for this entry the

931: contribution from the strange quark Yukawa coupling is larger but

932: still too small to be interesting).

933: 

934: In the flipped $SU(5)$ model as we discussed in the subsection \ref{sec2.2},

935: bilarge neutrino mixing can give $10^{-2}$ right-handed

936: up-type squark mixing and from which we can get

937: \bea

938: \Delta M_D \approx 0.7 \times 10^{9}\times

939: \frac{(1000 ~\textrm{GeV})^2}{m_{\tilde q}^2}

940: \times \bigg(\frac{\tan\beta}{50}\bigg)^4 ~\textrm{$\hbar ~s^{-1}$},

941: \eea

942: if assuming $m_0 = |A_0| = 2 |M_{1\over 2}|$ which means

943: $m_{\tilde g}^2/m_{\tilde q}^2 \approx 0.6$. $m_{\tilde q}^2$ in the unit

944: GeV$^2$ is the averaged right-handed up and charm squark mass squared,

945: and $m_{\tilde g}$ is the gluino mass. We have used the data

946: in Eq. (\ref{sol}) as inputs. Typically our prediction is

947: one or two orders of magnitude smaller than the present bound

948: which will be accessible at the CLEO-c and BES-III

949: experiment.

950: 

951: As shown in the subsection \ref{sec3.1}, the prediction on

952: $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ is close to the present bound. Although

953: $\Delta M_D$ has different dependences on the mass spectrum and

954: $\tan\beta$ than $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$, we may expect that the

955: present upper bound on $\Delta M_D$ is hard to be reached in quite

956: a large part of the parameter space. In the Fig. \ref{fig1}, we

957: show the correlation between the $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ and

958: $\Delta M_D$ in the model. We used the mass insertion approxiamted

959: formular~\cite{lfv3} to calculate the $\tan\beta$ enhanced

960: $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$. We used $ 200 ~\textrm{GeV} < m_0,

961: |M_{1 \over 2}|, |A_0| < 1.2 ~\textrm{TeV}$ and $ 10 < \tan\beta

962: <60 $. One can see that $\Delta M_D$ can reach $10^9 ~\hbar

963: s^{-1}$ consistent with the constraint on $Br(\tau \to \mu

964: \gamma)$. There are also some points for which $\Delta

965: M_D$ can reach $10^{10} ~\hbar ~s^{-1}$ and $Br(\tau \to \mu

966: \gamma)$ is smaller than the experimental bound by a factor of

967: $10^{-1}-10^{-2}$, which corresponds to the case of cancellation

968: discussed in subsection 3.1. In the plot, we have included the $2

969: \sigma$ constraints $0.0002<Br(b \to s \gamma)<0.00045$, $\Delta

970: a^{SUSY}_\mu < 32 \times 10^{-10}$, and the $90\% ~CL$ constraint

971: $Br(B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-) < 2.\times 10^{-6}$. Although these

972: observables are also sensitive to large $\tan\beta$, they are

973: actually not quite important for the model under study simply

974: because the strong prediction on $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ in

975: quite a large part of the parameter space has constrained the mass

976: spectrum to be around $1 ~\textrm{TeV}$ and makes other

977: constraints easily satisfied.

978: 

979: \begin{figure}[t]

980: \centerline{\psfig{figure=taudm.eps,height=8cm,width=12cm}}

981: \caption{\small The correlation between the $Br(\tau \to \mu

982: \gamma)$ and $\Delta M_D$ for the parameter space $ 200

983: ~\textrm{GeV} < m_0, |M_{1 \over 2}|, |A_0| < 1.2 ~\textrm{TeV}$,

984: and $ 10 < \tan\beta <60 $. The constraint $Br(\tau \to \mu

985: \gamma) < 1.1 \times 10^{-6}$($90 \% ~CL$) has been put.

986:   }

987: \label{fig1}

988: \end{figure}

989: 

990: \subsection{Top Physics}\label{sec3.4}

991: 

992: In the SM, the $tc$ transition

993: rate is also very much GIM suppressed.

994: The FCNC top quark decays, for example, $t\rightarrow

995: c V\;\; (V=\gamma, Z, g)$ and $t\rightarrow ch^0$, have branching

996: ratios 

997: \bea 

998: Br(t\rightarrow c \gamma)&\sim& 5\times 10^{-13},\\ 

999: Br(t\rightarrow c Z)&\sim& 1\times 10^{-13},\\

1000: Br(t\rightarrow c g)&\sim& 4\times 10^{-13},\\ 

1001: Br(t\rightarrow c h^0)&\lsim& 10^{-13}\; ({\rm depended~ on~ m_{h^0}}), 

1002: \eea 

1003: which are

1004: unobservablly small~\cite{smr1,smr2}.

1005: 

1006: In SUSY theories, GIM mechanism is in general not valid and

1007: sizeable $(\delta^U_{RR,LR})_{23}$ can have significant effects on

1008: the FCNC top to charm transition due to the gluino-mediated

1009: contributions (SUSY-QCD contributions). For $t\rightarrow c V\;\;

1010: (V=\gamma, Z, g)$ and $t\rightarrow ch\;\; (h=h^0, H^0, A^0)$

1011: decays, as pointed out in Ref.~\cite{gs}, by changing

1012: $\delta^U_{23}$ by 3 orders of magnitude the branching ratios

1013: increase by 6 orders of magnitude due to the quadratic dependence

1014: of the branching ratios on the mixing coefficients. Typically for

1015: $\delta^U_{23}\sim 0.4$ and a light sparticle spectrum around 200

1016: GeV, one can get

1017: \bea 

1018: Br(t\rightarrow c h)&\simeq& 10^{-4},\\

1019: Br(t\rightarrow c g)&\lsim& 10^{-5}.

1020:  \eea

1021: 

1022: In the SM $t \to u$ processes are also GIM suppressed and have

1023: negligible predictions. The radiatively induced $t \to u,c$

1024: couplings by the new physics beyond the SM can be probed by the

1025: top decay processes. Among them $t \to u,c+ h^0$ can be probed by

1026: the top decay. $t \to u, c+ g$ couplings can be probed by the

1027: single top production processes at the Tevatron or LHC: 

1028: \bea 

1029: q {\bar q} \to {\bar u},{\bar c}+t , ~~gg \to {\bar u},{\bar c}+t.

1030: \eea 

1031: There are also direct top quark production processes 

1032: \bea 

1033: u g \to t , ~~ c g \to t. 

1034: \eea 

1035: For the $tug$ coupling, LHC can reach

1036: the sensitivity equivalent to branching ratio $Br(t \to u g) \sim

1037: 10^{-6}$. And for the $tcg$ coupling, LHC can reach the

1038: sensitivity equivalent to branching ratio $Br(t \to c g) \sim

1039: 10^{-5}$\cite{am}. For $t \to c,u+h^0$, LHC can reach order

1040: $10^{-5}$ branching ratio at $3 \sigma$~\cite{am}.

1041: 

1042: Our predictions on $\delta^U_{RR,LR}$ are typically of the order

1043: $10^{-2}$ for moderate soft SUSY breaking parameters which is not

1044: large enough to have significant effects and to be observed at the

1045: LHC. In particluar, according to Eq. (\ref{rela}) the present

1046: $D-{\bar D}$ mixing constraint makes $(\delta^U_{RR,LR})_{32,31}$

1047: also constrained in the model under study. However, in some

1048: regions of the parameter space, as pointed out in subsection 3.1,

1049:  we can saturate the $D-{\bar D}$ mixing constraint and

1050: have observable FCNC effects for the top quark physics. In

1051: particular, the $t \to u,c+h^0$ processes are able to reach

1052: $10^{-5}-10^{-6}$ branching ratio which can be observed at LHC for

1053: $100 fb^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity.

1054: 

1055:  $\delta^U_{RR,LR}$ can give rise to new contributions to more

1056:  processes in top physics. For instance, they will have sizeable

1057:  effects on $t \to c,u+ l^+l^-$ processes.

1058:  These top quark FCNC couplings can also be probed in top and charm

1059:  associated productions at linear and $\gamma-\gamma$

1060:  colliders~\cite{cxy}.

1061: 

1062: \section{Conclusions and Discussions}

1063: In summary, we have constructed a specific supersymmetric flipped

1064: SU(5) unification model in which bilarge neutrino mixing is

1065: incorporated in the lepton Yukawa couplings. Non-renormalizable

1066: operators have been introduced in the superpotential at the GUT

1067: scale in order to generate the right-handed neutrino Majorana

1068: masses. The effects of other non-renormalizable terms on the low

1069: energy implications can be safely neglected by taking the

1070: theoretical cutoff scale to be the Planck scale. The universal

1071: supersymmetry breaking is assumed at the Planck scale. Because the

1072: up-type and down-type quarks in the model are flipped in the

1073: representations ten and five with respect to the usual SU(5), the

1074: radiatively generated flavor mixing in the squark mass matrix due

1075: to the large neutrino mixing has a pattern different from those in

1076: the conventional SU(5) or SO(10) supersymmetric GUT. This leads to

1077: the phenomenological consequences quite different from SU(5) or

1078: SO(10) supersymmtric GUT. The left-handed slepton mixing is

1079: induced by the up-type quark Yukawa coupling which is not

1080: suppressed when $\tan\beta$ is small. The experimental bound on

1081: $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$ can be safely satisfied by taking

1082: $\theta_{13}$ small enough. When $\tan\beta$ is large the

1083: branching ratio of the $\tau \to \mu \gamma$ is predicted to reach

1084: the present experimental bound with a mass spectrum around

1085: $1$~TeV. Sizeable radiative corrections happen also to the

1086: right-handed up-type squark mass matrix if $\tan\beta$ is large

1087: ($\gsim 30$). This radiatively generated flavor mixing has almost

1088: no impact on B physics. On the contrary, it has effects in top and

1089: charm physics. Because of the special feature of the flipped

1090: $SU(5)$ model, the flavor mixing involving the first generation

1091: up-type squark is never suppressed by small $\theta_{13}$. In the

1092: conventional $SU(5)$ model satisfying the $\mu \to e\gamma$

1093: constraint makes the SUSY prediction on the $K-{\bar K}$ mixing

1094: negligible. However, similar thing never happens in the flipped

1095: $SU(5)$ model. In particular, we have shown that the radiatively

1096: generated falvor mixing can give a promising prediction on the

1097: $D-{\bar D}$ mixing. That is, for moderate values of the soft SUSY

1098: breaking parameters, $\Delta M_D$ is of one order of magnitude

1099: smaller than the present experimental upper bound. Because

1100: $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ and $\Delta M_D$ have different

1101: dependences on the mass spectrum and $\tan\beta$ they are

1102: basically complementary observables to test the supersymmetric

1103: theory. For the predicted squark flavor mixing, $t \to u,c+h^0$

1104: can reach $10^{-6}-10^{-7}$ branching ratio. In some regions of

1105: the parameter space $\Delta M_D$ can saturate the present bound.

1106: For these ranges of parameter space, $t \to u,c+h^0$ can reach

1107: $10^{-5}-10^{-6}$ which would be observed at the LHC and future

1108: $\gamma-\gamma$ colliders. However a light spectrum is basically

1109: required by having sizeable effects on the top quark FCNC

1110: processes. So the top quark FCNC processes are probably hard to be

1111: found at LHC for the scenario (i) that we have concentrated on in

1112: the paper. A detailed analysis including all the relevant

1113: experimental constraints is needed to make a definite conclusion

1114: on the discovery potential of rare top decays at LHC. Moreover the

1115: model has effects in FCNC D meson decays such as $D\rightarrow

1116: \rho(\pi)\gamma$, which is worth to be examined.

1117: 

1118: For the scenario (ii) in which only the atmospheric neutrino

1119: mixing is accommodated in the Yukawa coupling, we only have

1120: sizeable predictions on the $(\delta^{U,E}_{RR})_{23,32}$,

1121:  $(\delta^U_{LR})_{32}$ and $(\delta^E_{LR})_{23}$.

1122:  In principle $(\delta^U_{RR,LR})_{32}$ can be quite large (even order one) if

1123: we have very large $A_0$. However, as happened for the scenario

1124: (i) the $\tau \to \mu +\gamma$ would limit them to be smaller than

1125: order of $10^{-1}$ in quite a large part of parameter space and

1126: consequently make the rare top FCNC decay hard to be observed at

1127: the LHC. We need detailed calculations to say definitely on the

1128: discovery potential.

1129: 

1130: The scenario (iii) is not interesting for 

1131: $D-{\bar D}$ mixing and Top quark FCNC. However it may still

1132: be interesting for the physics of the lepton flavor violation\cite{mvv}.

1133: The point is that by involving a low mass spectrum

1134: the $1/m^4_{\tilde l}$ dependence

1135: of the branching ratio, as shown in Eq. (\ref{approlep}), can compensate 

1136: part of the suppression given by a small off-diagonal

1137: entry in $U_N$. Typically with an order of $10^{-2}$ off-diagonal

1138: entry and a low mass spectrum as for example $m_{\tilde l} \sim 200$ GeV, 

1139: $Br(\tau \to \mu \gamma)$ can still reach $10^{-8}$ and

1140: be accessible in the near future experiments. 

1141: 

1142: In the paper, we did not consider the possible Majorana phases

1143: in the discussions. These phases, which have no effects in the

1144: neutrino oscillation experiments, can indeed give effects on the

1145: radiative corrections to the squark and slepton mass matrices and

1146: lead to $CP$ violating effects in the low energy phenomena, {\it

1147: e.g.}, the $CP$ violating effects in the lepton physics,

1148: $D-{\bar D}$ mixing and the top quark decay processes. It is

1149: possible that these phases can contribute to the electric dipole

1150: moment of the electron, muon and neutron~\cite{flacp} and are of

1151: much interests.

1152: 

1153: The flipped $SU(5)$ model can be embedded in the $SO(10)$ model

1154: and we would have similar implications on the flavor physics if

1155: $SO(10)$ takes the breaking chain through the flipped $SU(5)$. We

1156: leave this for the future work.

1157: 

1158: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1159: L.W would like to thank Vempati Sudhir and Oscar Vives

1160: for helpful communications on the lepton flavor violation.

1161: The research of C.-S. Huang was supported in part by the Natural Science

1162: Foundation of China. And

1163: the research of T. Li was supported  by the National Science Foundation under

1164:  Grant No.~PHY-0070928.

1165: \\

1166: \appendix{\large \bf Appendix A: Some Conventions in MSSM+N}

1167: \newcounter{num}

1168: \setcounter{num}{1}

1169: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1170: \def\theequation{\Alph{num}.\arabic{equation}}

1171: 

1172: The soft SUSY breaking terms are written as

1173: \bea

1174: -\Delta {\cal L} &=& {\tilde U}^*_i (m^2_U)_{ij} {\tilde U}_j

1175: +{\tilde D}^*_i (m^2_D)_{ij} {\tilde D}_j

1176: +{\tilde Q}^*_i (m^2_Q)_{ij} {\tilde Q}_j

1177: +{\tilde E}^*_i (m^2_E)_{ij} {\tilde E}_j

1178: +{\tilde N}_i^* (m^2_N)_{ij} {\tilde N}_j\nnb \\

1179: && +{\tilde L}^*_i (m^2_L)_{ij} {\tilde L}_j

1180: +m^2_{H_1} {\tilde H}_1^\dagger {\tilde H}_1

1181: +m^2_{H_2} {\tilde H}_2^\dagger {\tilde H}_2

1182: +\bigg[ {\tilde U}^*_i (Y^A_U)_{ij} {\tilde Q}_j {\tilde H}_2 \nnb \\

1183: && +{\tilde D}^*_i (Y^A_D)_{ij} {\tilde Q}_j {\tilde H}_1+

1184: {\tilde E}^*_i (Y^A_E)_{ij} {\tilde L}_j {\tilde H}_1

1185: +{\tilde N}_i (Y^A_N)_{ij} {\tilde L}_j {\tilde H}_2

1186: +B \mu {\tilde H}_1 {\tilde H}_2+ h.c. \bigg] ,

1187: \label{softssm1}

1188: \eea

1189: and the gaugino masses are

1190: \bea

1191: -\Delta {\cal L} &=& \frac{1}{2}(M_1 \lambda_1 \lambda_1

1192: + M_2 \lambda_2 \lambda_2+M_3 \lambda_3 \lambda_3) +h.c.~,

1193: \label{softssm2}

1194: \eea

1195: where ${\tilde Q}$ et.al refer to the scalar parts of the corresponding

1196: superfields. $\lambda_i$($i=1,2,3$) are the gaugino fields for $U(1)_Y$,

1197: $SU(2)_W$ and $SU(3)_C$ groups. In the Appendices B and C, we list the one-loop

1198: RGEs in SUSY model with right-handed neutrinos.

1199: 

1200: We can parametrize the Yukawa couplings in Eq.(\ref{spssm}) as follows

1201: \bea

1202: Y_U=V_{U_R} y_U V^\dagger_{U_L},~Y_D=V_{D_R} y_D V^\dagger_{D_L},

1203: ~Y_E=V_{E_R} y_E V^\dagger_{E_L},~

1204: Y_N=V_{N_R} y_N V^\dagger_{N_L}.

1205: \label{param1}

1206: \eea

1207: $V_{U_R}$ et.al are unitary matrices and $y_U$ et.al are diagonal and

1208: real matrices. After the electroweak symmetry breaking due to the

1209: vacuum expectation values of the $H_1$ and $H_2$ fields

1210: \bea

1211: <H_1> = \pmatrix{0 \cr v_1} ,~~ < H_2 > =\pmatrix{v_2 \cr 0},

1212: \eea

1213: we redefine the

1214: fermion fields to diagonalise the $Y_U$, $Y_D$ and $Y_E$, and

1215: get the Dirac masses of the SM fermions. The CKM matrix is then obtained

1216: in the charged current interactions:

1217: \bea

1218: K=V_{U_L}^\dagger V_{D_L},

1219: \eea

1220: and we define

1221: \bea

1222: U_N=V_{N_L}^{\dagger} V_{E_L}.

1223: \eea

1224: The left-handed neutrino mass matrix in the interaction eigenstate is

1225: \bea

1226: -\Delta{\cal L} &=& \frac{1}{2} {\bar {\nu^c}} M_\nu \nu +h.c. \nnb \\

1227: M_\nu &=& v^2 sin^2\beta V^T_{E_L} Y_N^TM^{-1}_NY_N V_{E_L}

1228: =U^* m_\nu U^\dagger,

1229: \label{neum}

1230: \eea

1231: where $v^2=v_1^2+v_2^2$ and $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$.

1232: Matrix $U$ is the one responsible for the neutrino mixing.

1233: 

1234: To see the extra flavor mixing in the squark mass matrix, we redefine the

1235: sfermion fields in the same way

1236: as the corresponding fermion fields and be in the so-called super-CKM base:

1237: \bea

1238: & ({\tilde U_L}, u_L) \to V_{U_L} ({\tilde U_L}, u_L), ~~~

1239: ({\tilde U_R}, u_R) \to V_{U_R} ({\tilde U_R}, u_R),~~~ \nnb \\

1240: & ({\tilde D_L}, d_L) \to V_{D_L} ({\tilde D_L}, d_L),~~~

1241: ({\tilde D_R}, d_R) \to V_{D_R} ({\tilde D_R}, d_R), ~~~ \nnb \\

1242: & ({\tilde E_L}, e_L) \to V_{E_L} ({\tilde E_L}, e_L), ~~~

1243: ({\tilde E_R}, e_R) \to V_{E_R} ({\tilde E_R}, e_R), ~~~

1244: ({\tilde \nu_L}, \nu_L) \to V_{E_L} ({\tilde \nu_L}, \nu_L).

1245: \eea

1246: Squark and slepton mass squared matrices will be denoted as ${\wti m}^2$

1247: in the super-CKM base. Trilinear terms will be denoted as

1248: $y^A$ (see Eq. (\ref{softsckm}) for definitions).

1249: The six by six squark mass matrices relevant for the low energy

1250: phenomenology are

1251: \bea

1252: {\wti M}_f^2 = \pmatrix{{\wti M}_{f_{LL}}^2 & {\wti M}_{f_{LR}}^2 \cr

1253: {\wti M}_{f_{LR}}^{2 \dagger} & {\wti M}_{f_{RR}}^2 }, ~~\textrm{ $f=U,D,E$.}

1254: \label{scamass}

1255: \eea

1256: Definitions of the relevant extries can be found in the Appendix B in which

1257: there are additional contributions from the $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$

1258: D-terms

1259: after the electroweak symmetry breaking.

1260: 

1261: \appendix{\large \bf Appendix B: RGEs in the MSSM+N }

1262: \setcounter{num}{2}

1263: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1264: 

1265: RGEs are derived as follows

1266: \bea

1267: 2 \frac{d {\tilde Y}_U}{dt} &=& (\frac{16}{3} {\tilde \alpha}_3

1268: +3 {\tilde \alpha}_2+\frac{13}{9} \tal_1) \tY_U

1269: -3 (\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger+tr(\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger))\tY_U \nnb \\

1270: && -\tY_U \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D- tr(\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger) \tY_U, \\

1271: 2 \frac{d \tY_D}{dt} &=& (\frac{16}{3}\tal_3+3 \tal_2+\frac{7}{9} \tal_1)\tY_D

1272: -3 (\tY_D^\dagger \tY_D+tr(\tY_D \tY_D^\dagger)) \tY_D\nnb \\

1273: && - \tY_D \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U- tr(\tY_E \tY_E^\dagger) \tY_D, \\

1274: 2 \frac{d \tY_E}{dt} &=&(3 \tal_2+3\tal_1) \tY_E-3 \tY_E \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E

1275: -tr(\tY_E \tY_E^\dagger) \tY_E

1276: -\tY_E \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N -3 tr(\tY_D \tY_D^\dagger) \tY_E,\\

1277: 2 \frac{d \tY_N}{dt} &=& (3 \tal_2+\tal_1) \tY_N-3 \tY_N \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N

1278: -tr(\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger)\tY_N

1279:  -\tY_N \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E-3 tr(\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger) \tY_N.

1280: \eea

1281: In the above formulae, we have ${\tilde \alpha}=\alpha/4\pi$,

1282: ${\tilde Y}=Y/4\pi$, $t=ln(M^2_{GUT}/Q^2)$.

1283: For the SUSY breaking soft terms, we have

1284: \bea

1285: 2 \frac{d \tY_U^A}{dt} &=& (\frac{16}{3} {\tilde \alpha}_3

1286: +3 {\tilde \alpha}_2+\frac{13}{9} \tal_1) \tY_U^A+

1287: 2 (\frac{16}{3} {\tilde \alpha}_3 M_3+3 {\tilde \alpha}_2 M_2

1288: +\frac{13}{9} \tal_1 M_1) \tY_U \nnb \\

1289: && -4 \tY_U \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U^A-6 tr(\tY_U^A \tY_U^\dagger)\tY_U

1290: - 5 \tY_U^A \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U-3 tr(\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger) \tY_U^A \nnb \\

1291: && -2 \tY_U \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D^A -\tY_U^A \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D

1292: -2 tr(\tY_N^A \tY_N^\dagger) \tY_U-tr(\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger) \tY_U^A,\\

1293: 2 \frac{ d \tY_D^A}{dt} &=& (\frac{16}{3} {\tilde \alpha}_3

1294: +3 {\tilde \alpha}_2+\frac{7}{9} \tal_1) \tY_D^A+

1295: 2 (\frac{16}{3} {\tilde \alpha}_3 M_3+3 {\tilde \alpha}_2 M_2

1296: +\frac{7}{9} \tal_1 M_1) \tY_D \nnb \\

1297: && -4 \tY_D \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D^A-6 tr(\tY_D^A \tY_D^\dagger)\tY_D

1298: - 5 \tY_D^A \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D-3 tr(\tY_D \tY_D^\dagger) \tY_D^A \nnb \\

1299: && -2 \tY_D \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U^A -\tY_D^A \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U

1300: -2 tr(\tY_E^A \tY_E^\dagger) \tY_D-tr(\tY_E \tY_E^\dagger) \tY_D^A,\\

1301: 2 \frac{d \tY_E^A}{dt} &=& (3 \tal_2+3\tal_1) \tY_E^A+

1302: 2 (3 \tal_2 M_2 +3\tal_1 M_1) \tY_E \nnb \\

1303: && -4 \tY_E \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E^A-2 tr(\tY_E^A \tY_E^\dagger) \tY_E

1304: -5 \tY_E^A \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E- tr(\tY_E \tY_E^\dagger) \tY_E^A \nnb \\

1305: && -2 \tY_E \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N^A-\tY_E^A \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N

1306: -6 tr(\tY_D^A \tY_D^\dagger) \tY_E -3 tr(\tY_D \tY_D^\dagger) \tY_E^A,\\

1307: 2 \frac{d \tY_N^A}{dt} &=& (3 \tal_2+\tal_1) \tY_N^A

1308: +2 ( 3\tal_2 M_2 +\tal_1 M_1) \tY_N \nnb \\

1309: && -4 \tY_N \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N^A- 2 tr(\tY_N^A \tY_N^\dagger) \tY_N

1310: -5 \tY_N^A \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N- tr(\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger) \tY_N^A \nnb \\

1311: && -2 \tY_N \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E^A-\tY_N^A \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E

1312: -6 tr(\tY_U^A \tY_U^\dagger) \tY_N -3 tr(\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger) \tY_N^A,\\

1313: \frac{d m^2_U}{dt} &=&(\frac{16}{3} \tal_3 |M_3|^2+\frac{16}{9} \tal_1 |M_1|^2)

1314: -(\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger m_U^2+m_U^2 \tY_U \tY_U^\dagger) \nnb \\

1315: && -2 ( \tY_U m_Q^2 \tY_U^\dagger +\tY_U \tY_U^\dagger m_{H_2}^2

1316: +\tY_U^A \tY_U^{A \dagger}), \\

1317: \frac{d m^2_D}{dt} &=&(\frac{16}{3} \tal_3 |M_3|^2+\frac{4}{9} \tal_1 |M_1|^2)

1318: -(\tY_D \tY_D^\dagger m_D^2+m_D^2 \tY_D \tY_D^\dagger) \nnb \\

1319: && -2 ( \tY_D m_Q^2 \tY_D^\dagger +\tY_D \tY_D^\dagger m_{H_1}^2

1320: +\tY_D^A \tY_D^{A \dagger}), \\

1321: \frac{d m^2_Q}{dt} &=& (\frac{16}{3} \tal_3 |M_3|^2+ 3 \tal_2 |M_2|^2

1322: + \frac{1}{9} \tal_1 |M_1|^2) \nnb \\

1323: && -\frac{1}{2}(\tY_U^\dagger \tY_U m_Q^2+m_Q^2 \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U)

1324: -( \tY_U^\dagger m_U^2 \tY_U+\tY_U^\dagger \tY_U m_{H_2}^2

1325: + \tY_U^{A\dagger} \tY_U^A) \nnb \\

1326: && -\frac{1}{2}(\tY_D^\dagger \tY_D m_Q^2+m_Q^2 \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D)

1327: -( \tY_D^\dagger m_D^2 \tY_D+\tY_D^\dagger \tY_D m_{H_1}^2

1328: + \tY_D^{A\dagger} \tY_D^A) , \\

1329: \frac{d m_N^2}{dt} &=& -\bigg[m_N^2 (\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger)^T

1330: +(\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger)^T m_N^2 \bigg]

1331: -2 (\tY_N m_L^2 \tY_N^\dagger+\tY_N \tY_N^\dagger m_{H_2}^2

1332: +\tY_N^A \tY_N^{A \dagger})^T, \\

1333: \frac{d m_E^2}{dt} &=& 4 \tal_1 |M_1|^2

1334: -(m_E^2 \tY_E \tY_E^\dagger +\tY_E \tY_E^\dagger m_E^2)

1335:  -2 (\tY_E m_L^2 \tY_E^\dagger+\tY_E \tY_E^\dagger m_{H_1}^2

1336: +\tY_E^A \tY_E^{A \dagger}), \\

1337: \frac{d m_L^2}{dt} &=& (3 \tal_2 |M_2|^2+\tal_1 |M_1|^2) \nnb \\

1338: && -\frac{1}{2}(\tY_N^\dagger \tY_N m_L^2+m_L^2 \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N)

1339: -( \tY_N^\dagger (m_N^2)^T \tY_N+\tY_N^\dagger \tY_N m_{H_2}^2

1340: + \tY_U^{A\dagger} \tY_U^A) \nnb \\

1341: && -\frac{1}{2}(\tY_E^\dagger \tY_E m_L^2+m_L^2 \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E)

1342: -( \tY_E^\dagger m_E^2 \tY_E+\tY_E^\dagger \tY_E m_{H_1}^2

1343: + \tY_E^{A\dagger} \tY_E^A) , \\

1344: \frac{d m_{H_2}^2}{dt} &=& (3 \tal_2 |M_2|^2+\tal_1 |M_1|^2) \nnb \\

1345: && -3 tr( \tY_U^\dagger \tY_U m_{H_2}^2+\tY_U^\dagger m_U^2 \tY_U

1346: +\tY_U m_Q^2 \tY_U^\dagger +\tY_U^A \tY_U^{A \dagger}) \nnb \\

1347: && - tr( \tY_N^\dagger \tY_N m_{H_2}^2+\tY_N^\dagger (m_N^2)^T \tY_N

1348: +\tY_N m_L^2 \tY_N^\dagger +\tY_N^A \tY_N^{A \dagger}), \\

1349: \frac{d m_{H_1}^2}{dt} &=& (3 \tal_2 |M_2|^2+\tal_1 |M_1|^2) \nnb \\

1350: && -3 tr( \tY_D^\dagger \tY_D m_{H_1}^2+\tY_D^\dagger m_D^2 \tY_D

1351: +\tY_D m_Q^2 \tY_D^\dagger +\tY_D^A \tY_D^{A \dagger}) \nnb \\

1352: && - tr( \tY_E^\dagger \tY_E m_{H_1}^2+\tY_E^\dagger m_E^2 \tY_E

1353: +\tY_E m_L^2 \tY_E^\dagger +\tY_E^A \tY_E^{A \dagger}).

1354: \eea

1355: 

1356: In the super-CKM base, the Yukawa couplings of the SM fermions are all

1357: diagonalised and generate the SM fermions in the mass eigenstates.

1358: The SUSY breaking soft terms in this base can be

1359: written as

1360: \bea

1361: && {\wti m}^2_{U_L}= V^\dagger_{U_L} m^2_Q V_{U_L}, ~~

1362: {\wti m}^2_{D_L}= V^\dagger_{D_L} m^2_Q V_{D_L}, ~~

1363: {\wti m}^2_{U_R}= V^\dagger_{U_R} m^2_U V_{U_R}, ~~ \nnb \\

1364: && {\wti m}^2_{D_R}= V^\dagger_{D_R} m^2_D V_{D_R}, ~~

1365: {\wti m}^2_{E_L}= {\wti m}^2_{\nu_L}= V^\dagger_{E_L} m^2_L V_{E_L}, ~~

1366: {\wti m}^2_{E_R}= V^\dagger_{E_R} m^2_E V_{E_R},~~ \nnb \\

1367: && y^A_U=V^\dagger_{U_R} Y^A_U V_{U_L}, ~~

1368: y^A_D=V^\dagger_{D_R} Y^A_D V_{D_L}, ~~

1369: y^A_E=V^\dagger_{E_R} Y^A_E V_{E_L}.

1370: \label{softsckm}

1371: \eea

1372: Trilinear terms are transformed similar to the Yukawa couplings.

1373: The left-handed neutrinos in this base are called as interaction

1374: eigenstate neutrinos. Together with the D-term contributions after the

1375: electroweak symmetry breaking, ${\wti m}^2$ and $y^A$ give

1376: the mass matrices of sfermions, Eq. (\ref{scamass}), relevant

1377: to the low energy phenomenology. The entries in Eq. (\ref{scamass}) are

1378: \bea

1379: {\wti M}_{U_{LL}}^2&=&{\wti m}_{U_L}^2+ m^2_U+ M_Z^2 cos2\beta(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{3}

1380: sin^2\theta_W), ~~ \nnb \\

1381: {\wti M}_{U_{RR}}^2 &=& {\wti m}_{U_R}^2+m^2_U+M_Z^2 cos2\beta(\frac{2}{3}

1382: sin^2\theta_W), ~~ \nnb \\

1383: {\wti M}_{U_{LR}}^2 &=& -v_2 (y_U^{A \dagger}+ \mu \cot\beta y_U) ; \\

1384: {\wti M}_{D_{LL}}^2 &=&{\wti m}_{D_L}^2+m^2_D- M_Z^2 cos2\beta(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{3}

1385: sin^2\theta_W), ~~ \nnb \\

1386: {\wti M}_{D_{RR}}^2 &=&{\wti m}_{D_R}^2+m^2_D-M_Z^2 cos2\beta(\frac{1}{3}

1387: sin^2\theta_W), ~~ \nnb \\

1388: {\wti M}_{D_{LR}}^2 &=& -v_1 (y_D^{A \dagger}+ \mu \tan\beta y_D);\\

1389: {\wti M}_{E_{LL}}^2 &=&{\wti m}_{E_L}^2+m^2_E- M_Z^2 cos2\beta(\frac{1}{2}-

1390: sin^2\theta_W), ~~ \nnb \\

1391: {\wti M}_{E_{RR}}^2 &=&{\wti m}_{E_R}^2+m^2_E-M_Z^2 cos2\beta

1392: sin^2\theta_W, ~~ \nnb \\

1393: {\wti M}_{E_{LR}}^2 &=& -v_1 (y_E^{A \dagger}+ \mu \tan\beta y_E).

1394: \eea

1395: $m_U$, $m_D$ and $m_E$ are the diagonal SM fermion mass matrices.

1396: 

1397: Assuming the SUSY breaking is universal at $M_{GUT}$ scale, we

1398: are able to get the radiatively corrected SUSY breaking soft terms.

1399: At the first order, the radiative corrections given by the Yukawa

1400: and trilinear couplings are

1401: \bea

1402: \delta_1 {\wti m}_{U_R}^2 &=& -\frac{2}{16\pi^2} (3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2) y_U^2

1403: \Delta_1 t, \\

1404: \delta_1 {\wti m}_{D_R}^2 &=& -\frac{1}{16\pi^2} (3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2) y_D^2

1405: \Delta_1 t, \\

1406: \delta_1 {\wti m}_{U_L}^2 &=& -\frac{1}{16\pi^2} (3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2)

1407: ( y_U^2 + K y_D^2 K^\dagger) \Delta_1 t,\\

1408: \delta_1 {\wti m}_{D_L}^2 &=& -\frac{1}{16\pi^2} (3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2)

1409: ( K^\dagger y_U^2 K+ y_D^2 ) \Delta_1 t,\\

1410: \delta_1 {\wti m}_{E_R}^2 &=& -\frac{2}{16 \pi^2} (3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2)

1411: y_E^2 \Delta_1 t,\\

1412: \delta_1 {\wti m}_{E_L}^2 &=& -\frac{1}{16\pi^2} (3 m_0^2+|A_0|^2)

1413: ( y_E^2 \Delta_1 t+U_N^\dagger y_N^2 U_N

1414: {\bar \Delta}_1 t)=\delta_1 {\wti m}_{\nu_L}^2, \\

1415: \delta_1 y_U^A &=&-\frac{3}{32 \pi^2} A_0 \bigg[ [3 y_U( y_U^2+tr(y_U^2))

1416: +y_U K y_D^2 K^\dagger ] \Delta_1 t

1417: + y_U tr(y_N^2) {\bar \Delta}_1 t \bigg],\\

1418: \delta_1 y_D^A &=& -\frac{3}{32 \pi^2} A_0 \bigg[ 3 y_D( y_D^2+tr(y_D^2))

1419: +y_D K^\dagger y_U^2 K + y_D tr(y_E^2)] \Delta_1 t,\\

1420: \delta_1 y_E^A &=& -\frac{3}{32 \pi^2} A_0 \bigg[ [y_E^3+ y_E tr(y_E^2)

1421: +3 y_E tr(y_D^2) ] \Delta_1 t

1422: + y_E U_N^\dagger y_N^2 U_N {\bar \Delta}_1 t \bigg],\\

1423: \Delta_1 t &=& ln\frac{M_{GUT}^2}{M_{SUSY}^2}, ~~~

1424: {\bar \Delta}_1 t =ln\frac{M_{GUT}^2}{M_N^2},

1425: \eea

1426: where we assume the right-handed neutrino fields $N_i$ decouple at the

1427: same scale. The above estimates are presented at the first order. A detailed

1428: analysis beyond the first order has been presented in~\cite{ach} for

1429: MSSM. The results are in agreement with the qualitative expectations

1430: based on the first order approximation. In the model with

1431: the right-handed neutrino fields, similar conclusion can be obtained.

1432: \\

1433: 

1434: 

1435: \appendix{\large \bf Appendix C: RGEs in the Flipped $SU(5)$ Model} \nonumber

1436: \setcounter{num}{3}

1437: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1438: 

1439: In the flipped $SU(5)$ model, the RGEs are obtained as follows

1440: \bea

1441: \frac{d {\tilde Y}_{10}}{dt}&=&(2 C_{10}+C_h){\tilde \alpha}_5 {\tilde Y}_{10}

1442: +(2 C^X_{10}+C^X_h) {\tilde \alpha}_X {\tilde Y}_{10}

1443: - 3 {\tilde Y}_{10}{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{10} \nnb \\

1444: && -\bigg[{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{10}+

1445: {\tilde Y}_{10} ({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T \bigg]

1446: -\frac{1}{2} \bigg[3 tr({\tilde Y}_{10}{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger)

1447: +tr({\tilde Y}_1{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger) \bigg] {\tilde Y}_{10}, \\

1448: \frac{d {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}}{dt}&=& (C_{10}+C_5+C_h){\tilde \alpha}_5

1449: {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}+(C^X_{10}+C^X_5+C^X_h) {\tilde \alpha}_X {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1450: \nnb \\

1451: &&-\frac{3}{2}{\tilde Y}_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1452: -3 {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1453: -\frac{1}{2}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1

1454: -2 tr({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5},\\

1455: \frac{d {\tilde Y}_1}{dt}&=& (C_5+C_h) {\tilde \alpha}_5{\tilde Y}_1

1456: +(C^X_5+C^X_h+C^X_1) {\tilde \alpha}_X {\tilde Y}_1 \nnb \\

1457: && -3{\tilde Y}_1{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1

1458:  -2{\tilde Y}_1{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1459: -\frac{1}{2}\bigg[ tr({\tilde Y}_1{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger)

1460: +3 tr({\tilde Y}_{10}{\tilde Y}_{10}) \bigg] {\tilde Y}_1.

1461: \eea

1462: Here we have $t=ln\frac{M^2_*}{Q^2}$ and the following

1463: Casimir operators:

1464: \bea

1465: C_{10}=\frac{18}{5}, ~~C_h=C_5=\frac{12}{5},~~C^X_{10}=\frac{1}{40},~~

1466: C^X_5=\frac{9}{40},~~C^X_1=\frac{5}{8},~~C^X_h=\frac{1}{10}.

1467: \label{casimirop}

1468: \eea

1469: $\alpha_5$ and $\alpha_X$ are the gauge couplings of

1470: $SU(5)$ and $U(1)_X$ gauge groups, respectively.

1471: For the SUSY breaking soft terms,

1472: we have

1473: \bea

1474: \frac{d {\tilde Y}^A_{10}}{dt}&=&(2 C_{10}+C_h) {\tilde \alpha}_5

1475: ({\tilde Y}^A_{10} +2  M_5 {\tilde Y}_{10})

1476: +(2 C^X_{10}+C^X_h){\tilde \alpha}_X ({\tilde Y}^A_{10} +2 M_X {\tilde Y}_{10})

1477: \nnb \\

1478: && -\frac{9}{2}({\tilde Y}_{10}^A{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{10}

1479: +{\tilde Y}_{10}{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{10}^A)

1480: -2\bigg[{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{10}

1481: +{\tilde Y}_{10}({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T \bigg]

1482: -\bigg[{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{10}^A

1483: +{\tilde Y}_{10}^A({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T \bigg]

1484: \nnb \\

1485: && -\frac{3}{2}\bigg[2 tr({\tilde Y}_{10}^A{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger)

1486: {\tilde Y}_{10}

1487: +tr({\tilde Y}_{10}{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger){\tilde Y}_{10}^A \bigg]

1488: -\frac{1}{2} \bigg[ 2 tr({\tilde Y}_1^A{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger){\tilde Y}_{10}

1489: +tr({\tilde Y}_1{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger){\tilde Y}_{10}^A \bigg], \\

1490: \frac{d {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A}{dt} &=&(C_{10}+C_5+C_h){\tilde \alpha}_5

1491: ({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A+2 M_5 {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5})+ (C_{10}^X+C_5^X+C_h^X)

1492: {\tilde \alpha}_X( {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A +2 M_X {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}) \nnb \\

1493: && -\frac{3}{2}{\tilde Y}_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A

1494: -3 {\tilde Y}_{10}^A {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1495: -4 {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1496: -5 {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A \nnb \\

1497: && -\frac{1}{2} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1

1498: - {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1^A

1499: -2 tr({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A

1500: -4 tr({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} \\

1501: \frac{d {\tilde Y}_1^A}{dt}& =& (C_5+C_h) {\tilde \alpha}_5 ({\tilde Y}_1^A

1502: +2 M_5 {\tilde Y}_1)+(C_5^X+C^X_h+C^X_1) {\tilde \alpha}_X

1503: ({\tilde Y}_1^A+2 M_X {\tilde Y}_1)  \nnb \\

1504: && -\frac{7}{2} {\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1^A

1505: -\frac{11}{2} {\tilde Y}_1^A {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1

1506: -2 {\tilde Y}_1^A {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1507: -4 {\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A \nnb \\

1508: && -\frac{1}{2}\bigg[ tr({\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_1^A

1509: +2 tr({\tilde Y}_1^A {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_1 \bigg]

1510: -\frac{3}{2} \bigg[ tr({\tilde Y}_{10}{\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_1^A

1511: +2 tr({\tilde Y}_{10}^A {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger) {\tilde Y}_1\bigg], \\

1512: \frac{d m^2_{10}}{dt} &=& 4 C_{10} {\tilde \alpha}_5 |M_5|^2

1513: +4 C^X_{10} {\tilde \alpha}_X |M_X|^2 -\frac{3}{2}\bigg[ m^2_{10}

1514: ({\tilde Y}_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger)^T

1515: +{\tilde Y}_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger m^2_{10} \bigg] \nnb \\

1516: && -\bigg[ m^2_{10} ({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T

1517: +({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T m^2_{10} \bigg]

1518: -3 ( {\tilde Y}_{10}^A {\tilde Y}_{10}^{A \dagger}

1519: +{\tilde Y}_{10} m^2_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger)^T \nnb \\

1520: && -2 ({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^{A \dagger}+

1521: {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} m^2_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T

1522: -3 ({\tilde Y}_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger)^T m^2_h

1523: -2 ({\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger)^T m^2_{\bar h} \\

1524: \frac{d m^2_{\bar 5}}{dt} &=& 4 C_5 {\tilde \alpha}_5|M_5|^2

1525: +4 C^X_5 {\tilde \alpha}_X |M_X|^2

1526: -2 ( m^2_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1527: +{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} m^2_{\bar 5})

1528: -\frac{1}{2} (m^2_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1+

1529: {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1 m^2_{\bar 5}) \nnb \\

1530: && -4 ( {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger (m^2_{10})^T {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1531: +{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^{A \dagger} {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A)

1532: -({\tilde Y}_1^\dagger (m^2_1)^T {\tilde Y}_1

1533: +{\tilde Y}_1^{A \dagger} {\tilde Y}_1^A)

1534: -4 {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} m^2_{\bar h}

1535: -{\tilde Y}_1^\dagger {\tilde Y}_1 m^2_h, \\

1536: \frac{d m^2_1}{dt} &=& 4 {\tilde \alpha}_X C_1^X |M_X|^2

1537: -\frac{5}{2}( ({\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger)^T m^2_1+

1538: m^2_1 ({\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger)^T) \nnb \\

1539: && -5 ({\tilde Y}_1 m^2_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger+

1540: {\tilde Y}_1^A {\tilde Y}_1^{A \dagger})^T

1541: -5 ({\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger)^T m^2_h, \\

1542: \frac{d m^2_h}{dt} &=& 4 C_h {\tilde \alpha}_5 |M_5|^2

1543: +4 C^X_h {\tilde \alpha}_X |M_X|^2 -3 tr[{\tilde Y}_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger

1544: m^2_h +2 {\tilde Y}_{10} m^2_{10} {\tilde Y}_{10}^\dagger

1545: +{\tilde Y}_{10}^A {\tilde Y}_{10}^{A \dagger}] \nnb \\

1546: && - tr[ {\tilde Y}_1 {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger m^2_h

1547: + {\tilde Y}_1 m^2_{\bar 5} {\tilde Y}_1^\dagger

1548: +{\tilde Y}_1^T m^2_1 {\tilde Y}_1^*+{\tilde Y}_1^A {\tilde Y}_1^{A \dagger}]\\

1549: \frac{d m^2_{\bar h}}{dt} &=& 4 C_h {\tilde \alpha}_5 |M_5|^2

1550: +4 C^X_h{\tilde \alpha}_X |M_X|^2 -4 tr[{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}

1551: {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} ^\dagger m^2_{\bar h}+{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5} m^2_{\bar 5}

1552: {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^\dagger +{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^T m^2_{10}

1553: {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^*+{\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^A {\tilde Y}_{\bar 5}^{A \dagger}].

1554: \eea

1555: 

1556: According to the above RGEs, we can estimate the first order

1557: radiative corrections to the SUSY breaking soft terms. Using

1558: Eqs. (\ref{softsckm}),

1559: (\ref{bound1}) and (\ref{bound2}), we can write them in the super-CKM

1560: base and see clearly the extra flavor structure. Assuming the universal

1561: SUSY breaking soft terms, $m_0$ for scalars, $M_{1 \over 2}$ for gauginos

1562: and $Y^A = A_0 Y$ at the $M_*$ scale, we get the following corrections

1563: given by the Yukawa and trilinear couplings

1564: \bea

1565: \delta_2 {\wti m}^2_{D_L} &=&-\frac{1}{16 \pi^2}\bigg[3(3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) y_D^2

1566: +2 (3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) K^\dagger y_U^2 K \bigg] \Delta_2 t, \\

1567: \delta_2 {\wti m}^2_{U_L} &=& -\frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \bigg[3(3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2)

1568: K y_D^2 K^\dagger+2 (3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2)y_U^2 \bigg] \Delta_2 t, \\

1569: \delta_2 {\wti m}^2_{U_R} &=&-\frac{1}{16 \pi^2}\bigg[4(3m^2_0+|A_0|^2) y_U^2

1570: +(3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) U^*_N y_E^2 U^T_N \bigg] \Delta_2 t,\\

1571: \delta_2 {\wti m}^2_{D_R} &=&-\frac{1}{16 \pi^2}\bigg[3(3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2)y_D^2

1572: +2 (3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) K^T y_U^2 K^*) \bigg] \Delta_2 t,\\

1573: \delta_2 {\wti m}^2_{E_L}&=&-\frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \bigg[(3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) y_E^2

1574: + 4 (3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) U^\dagger_N y_U^2 U_N \bigg]\Delta_2 t,\\

1575: \delta_2 {\wti m}^2_{E_R} &=& -\frac{1}{16 \pi^2} 5(3 m^2_0+|A_0|^2) y_E^2

1576: \Delta_2 t, ~~~\delta m^2_{\nu_L}=\delta m^2_{E_L}, \\

1577: \delta_2 y^A_U &=& -\frac{A_0}{16 \pi^2}\bigg[\frac{9}{2} y_U K y_D^2 K^\dagger

1578: +9 y_U^3 +\frac{3}{2} U_N^* y_E^2 U_N^T y_U+6 tr(y_U^2) y_U \bigg]\Delta_2 t,\\

1579: \delta_2 y^A_D &=& -\frac{A_0}{16 \pi^2}\bigg[9 y_D^3 +3 (y_D K^\dagger y_U^2 K

1580: +K^T y_U^2 K^* y_D) +\frac{3}{2}(tr(y_E^2)+3 tr(y_D^2)) y_D \bigg] \Delta_2 t,\\

1581: \delta_2 y^A_E &=& -\frac{A_0}{16 \pi^2}\bigg[ 9 y_E^3+ 5 y_E U_N^\dagger

1582: y_U^2 U_N+\frac{3}{2}(tr(y_E^2)+3 tr(y_D^2)) y_E \bigg] \Delta_2 t,\\

1583: && \Delta_2 t=ln\frac{M^2_*}{M^2_{GUT}}.

1584: \eea

1585: 

1586: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1587: \bibitem{skatm}

1588: Y. Fukuda et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

1589: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}(1998)1562.

1590: \bibitem{sno}

1591: Q.R. Ahmad et al.  [SNO Collaboration],

1592: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}(2002)011301;

1593: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}(2002)011302.

1594: \bibitem{kamland}

1595: K. Eguchi et al. [KamLAND Collaboration],

1596: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}(2003)021802.

1597: \bibitem{chooz} M. Apollonio et al.[CHOOZ Collaboration],

1598: Phys.Lett.B{\bf 466}(1999)415.

1599: \bibitem{shiozawa}M. Shiozawa, talk given at the ICHEP2002 for the

1600: Super-K collaboration;

1601: \bibitem{phs} P.C. de Holanda and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0212270.

1602: \bibitem{also} see also M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. Tortola,

1603: J.W.F. Valle,  Phys. Rev. D{\bf 67}(2003)013011[hep-ph/0207227];

1604: S. Pakvasa, J. W. F. Valle, hep-ph/0301061.

1605: \bibitem{ponte} B. Pontecorva, Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 6}(1958)429.

1606: \bibitem{Maki:1962mu}

1607: Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 28}, 870 (1962).

1608: \bibitem{msw} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 17}(1978)2369;

1609: S.P. Mikheev and A.Yu. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 42}(1985)913

1610: , Yad. Fiz. {\bf 42}(1985)1441.

1611: \bibitem{ss}

1612: T.~Yanagida, in {\it Proc. of the Workshop on the

1613:     Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe}, ed. O.~Sawada

1614:   and A.~Sugamoto

1615:   (KEK report 79-18, 1979), p. 95; \\

1616:   M.~Gell-Mann, P.~Ramond and R.~Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, ed.

1617:   P.~van Nieuwenhuizen and D.Z.~Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam,

1618:   1979), p. 315; E.~Witten,

1619: %``Neutrino Masses In The Minimal O(10) Theory,''

1620: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 91}, 81 (1980);

1621: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

1622: %``Neutrino Mass And Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,''

1623: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 44}, 912 (1980);\\

1624: T.~Yanagida,

1625: %``Horizontal Gauge Symmetry And Masses Of Neutrinos,''

1626: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\  {\bf 64}, 1103 (1980).

1627: \bibitem{wwzf} S. Weinberg, Trans.N.Y.Acad.Sci.{\bf 38}(1977)185;

1628: F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 70}(1977)418;

1629: H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 70}(1977)436.

1630: \bibitem{FN}

1631: C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B}147 (1979) 277.

1632: \bibitem{asy} K.S. Babu and S.M. Barr, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 381}(1996) 202;

1633:          C.H. Albright, K.S. Babu, and S.M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1634:          {\bf 81}(1998)1167; J. Sato and T. Yanagida,

1635:          Phys. Lett. B {\bf 430}(1998)127; N. Irges, S. Lavignac,

1636:          and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}1998)035003.

1637: \bibitem{bdv}W. Buchmuller, D. ~Delepine and F. ~Vissani, Phys. Lett.

1638: {\bf B459} 171 (1999); W. Buchmuller, D. Delepine and L. T.

1639: Handoko, Nucl. Phys.\ {\bf B576} 445 (2000); J. Ellis, M. E.

1640: Gomez, G. K. Leontaris, S. Lola and D. V. Nanopoulos, Eur. Phys.

1641: J. {\bf C14} 319 (2000); J. Hisano and K. Tobe, Phys. Lett. {\bf

1642: B510} 197 (2001); J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra, arXiv:hep-ph/0103065;

1643: D. F. Carvalho, J. Ellis, M. E. Gomez and S. Lola,

1644: arXiv:hep-ph/0103256; T. Blazek and S. F. King,

1645: arXiv:hep-ph/0105005; J. Sato, K. Tobe and T. Yanagida, Phys.

1646: Lett. {\bf B498} 189 (2001); J. Sato and K. Tobe, Phys. Rev. {\bf

1647: D63} 116010 (2001); S. Lavignac, I. Masina and C. A. Savoy,

1648: arXiv:hep-ph/0106245; T.\ Moroi, JHEP.\ {\bf 0003} 019 (2000),

1649:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0002208];  N.\ Akama, Y.\ Kiyo, S.\ Komine and T.\ Moroi,

1650: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D64} 095012 (2001)

1651:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0104263];

1652: T.\ Moroi, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B493}, 366 (2000) [arXiv:

1653: hep-ph/0007328].

1654: \bibitem{lfv3} J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe and M. Yamaguchi,

1655: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53}(1996)2442[hep-ph/9510309]; J. Hisano and D. Nomura,

1656: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 59}(1999)116005[hep-ph/9810479].

1657: \bibitem{cmm}D. Chang, A. Masiero and H. Murayama, hep-ph/0205111.

1658: \bibitem{mvv} A. Masiero, S. K. Vempati and O. Vives,

1659: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 649}(2003)189[hep-ph/0209303].

1660: \bibitem{bsv}B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi$\acute{c}$ and F. Vissani,

1661: hep-ph/0210207; H.S. Goh, R.N. Mohapatra and S.-P. Ng,

1662: hep-ph/0303055.

1663: \bibitem{hs}J. Hisano and Y. Shimizu, hep-ph/0303071.

1664: \bibitem{lfv} F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

1665: 57}(1986)961.

1666: \bibitem{lfv2} R. Barbieri and L.J. Hall, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 338}(1994)212;

1667: R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 445}(1995)219.

1668: \bibitem{hkr} L.J. Hall, V.A. Kostelecky and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 267}

1669: (1986)415.

1670: \bibitem{eln}J. Ellis, J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett.

1671: {\bf B245} (1990) 375; A. Font, L. Ib$\acute{a}\grave{n}$ez and F.

1672: Quevedo, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B345} (1990) 389.

1673: \bibitem{AFDVN}

1674: A.~E.~Faraggi, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~j.~Yuan,

1675: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 335}, 347 (1990);

1676: A.~E.~Faraggi, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 387}, 239 (1992),

1677: and references therein.

1678: \bibitem{IAGLJR}

1679: I.~Antoniadis, G.~K.~Leontaris and J.~Rizos,

1680: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 245}, 161 (1990).

1681: \bibitem{JLLDVN}

1682: I.~Antoniadis, J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1683: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 231}, 65 (1989);

1684: J.~L.~Lopez, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and K.~j.~Yuan,

1685: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 399}, 654 (1993), and

1686:  references therein.

1687: \bibitem{fla}

1688: M. Duncan, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 221}(1983)285;

1689: J. Donoghue, H. Nilles and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 128}(1983)55;

1690: A. Bouquet, J. Kaplan and C. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 148}(1984)69.

1691: \bibitem{smbarr} S. M. Barr,

1692: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 112}, 219 (1982);

1693: see also

1694: A.~De Rujula, H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 45}, 413 (1980).

1695: \bibitem{dimitri}

1696: J.~P.~Derendinger, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1697: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 139}, 170 (1984);

1698: I.~Antoniadis, J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

1699: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 194}, 231 (1987).

1700: \bibitem{Fusaoka:1998vc}

1701: H.~Fusaoka and Y.~Koide, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 3986 (1998).

1702: \bibitem{rgeff}

1703:  P.H. Chankowski , W. Krolikowski and S. Pokorski,

1704: Phys.Lett. B{\bf 473}(2000)109[hep-ph/9910231] and references therein.

1705: \bibitem{ggms} F. Gabbiani, E. Garieli, A. Masiero and L. Silvestrini,

1706: Nucl.Phys. B477(1996)321[hep-ph/9604387].

1707: \bibitem{mpr} M. Misiak, S. Pokorski and J. Rosiek,

1708: in Heavy Flavours II, eds. A.J. Buras and M. Lindner,

1709: Advanced Series on Directions in High Energy Physics,

1710: World Scientific 1997[hep-ph/9703442].

1711: \bibitem{bcrs} A.J. Buras, P.H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek

1712: and L. Slawianowska, hep-ph/0210145.

1713: \bibitem{gim}S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani,

1714: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 2}(1970)1285.

1715: \bibitem{pdg} K. Hagiwara et.al, Review of the Particle Physics,

1716: Phys.RevD{\bf 66}(2002)010001.

1717: \bibitem{cckss} D. Chang, W-F. Chang, W-Y. Keung, N. Sinha and R. Sinha,

1718: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 65}(2002)055010[hep-ph/0109151].

1719: \bibitem{cdm}J. Edsj$\ddot{o}$, hep-ph/0301106; H. Baer and C. Balazs,

1720: hep-ph/0303114; A.B. Lahanas and D.V. Nanopoulos, hep-ph/0303130.

1721: \bibitem{hmty}J. Hisano, T. Moroi, K. Tobe and M. Yamaguchi,

1722: Phys.Lett. B{\bf 391}(1997)341[hep-ph/9605296]; (E)ibid. B{\bf 397}(1997)357.

1723: \bibitem{smr1}B. Mele, S. Petrarca and A. Soddu, Phys. Lett. {\bf

1724: B435} (1998) 401; G. Eilam, J.L. Hewett and A. Soni, Phys. Rev.

1725: {\bf D44} (1991) 1473, Erratum: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1998)

1726: 039901.

1727: \bibitem{smr2}W.S. Hou, Phys. Lett. {\bf B296} (1992) 179; K. Agashe

1728: and M. Grzaesser, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54} (1996) 4445; M. Hosch, K.

1729: Whisnant and B.L. Young, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 5725.

1730: \bibitem{gs}J. Guasch and J. Sol$\acute{a}$, hep-ph/9906268. For

1731: earier liturature, C.S. Li, R.J. Oakes, J.M. Yang, Phys. Rev. {\bf

1732: D49} (1994) 293, Erratum: ibid. {\bf D56} (1997) 3156; J.M. Yang

1733: and C.S. Li, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 3412; G. Couture, C.

1734: Hamzaoui, H. K$\ddot{o}$nig, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52} (1995) 1713; G.

1735: Couture, M. Frank, H. K$\ddot{o}$nig, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997)

1736: 4213; J.L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos, R. Rangarajan, Phys. Rev. {\bf

1737: D56} (1997) 3100; G.M. de Divitiis, R. Petronzio, L. Silverstini,

1738: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B504} (1997) 45; J.M. Yang, B. Young and X. Zhang,

1739: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} (1998) 055001; G. Eilam et al., Phys. Lett.

1740: {\bf B510} (2001) 227.

1741: \bibitem{am} Proceedings of the Workshop on Standard Model

1742: Physics (and More) at the LHC, ed. G. Altarelli and M.L. Mangono,

1743: CERN 2000-004.

1744: \bibitem{cxy}J. Cao, Z. Xiong and J.-M. Yang, hep-ph/0208035;

1745: C.-S. Huang, X.-H. Wu and S.-H. Zhu, Phys. Lett. {\bf B452} (1999)

1746: 143; T. Han, J. Hewett, hep-ph/9811237; U. Mahanta, A. Ghosal,

1747: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 1735; Y. Koide, hep-ph/9701261; D.

1748: Atwood, L. Reina, A. Soni, Phys. Rev. {\bf D53} (1996) 1199. For

1749: the earier liturature, see, for example, the references in Phys.

1750: Lett. {\bf B452} (1999) 143 and hep-ph/0208035.

1751: \bibitem{flacp} S. Dimopoulos, L.J. Hall, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 344}(1995)185;

1752: R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and A. Strumia,

1753: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 449}(1995)437; Phys. Lett. B{\bf 369}(1996)283.

1754: \bibitem{ach} N. Arkani-Hamed, Hsin-Chia Cheng and L.J. Hall,

1755: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 53}(1996)413.

1756: %\bibitem{mass}J.L. Lopez and D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. {\bf B}

1757: %(1991) [CTP-TAMU-27/91].

1758: %\bibitem{emb}S. Ranfone and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Lett. {\bf B386} (1996) 151.

1759: \end{thebibliography}

1760: 

1761: \end{document}

1762: