1: \documentclass[superscriptaddress,preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \preprint{BA-03-14}
9:
10: \title{Flipping $SU(5)$ Towards Five Dimensional Unification}
11:
12: \author{I. Dorsner}
13: \email{idorsner@ictp.trieste.it}
14: \affiliation{
15: The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics\\
16: Strada Costiera 11, I-34100 Trieste, Italy} \affiliation{
17: Bartol Research Institute\\
18: University of Delaware\\
19: Newark, DE 19716, USA}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: It is shown that embedding of flipped $SU(5)$ in a
23: five-dimensional $SO(10)$ enables exact unification of the gauge
24: coupling constants. The demand for the unification uniquely
25: determines both the compactification scale and the cutoff scale.
26: These are found to be $M_C \approx 5.5 \times 10^{14}\,{\rm GeV}$
27: and $M_* \approx 1.0 \times 10^{17}\,{\rm GeV}$ respectively. The
28: theory explains the absence of $d=5$ proton-decay operators
29: through the implementation of the missing partner mechanism. On
30: the other hand, the presence of $d=6$ proton-decay operators
31: points towards the bulk localization of the first and the second
32: family of matter fields.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \pacs{11.10.Hi,12.10.Dm,12.10.Kt}
36:
37: \maketitle
38:
39: \newpage
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: \section{Introduction}
43: The main motivation for supersymmetry (SUSY), besides its ability
44: to stabilize the Higgs mass against the radiative corrections, is
45: the way it steers the gauge couplings, within the Minimal
46: Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), towards the unification at a
47: very high energy scale ($M_{\rm GUT}$). Assuming this is not an
48: accident but a signal for a new physics we are prompted not only
49: to embrace the MSSM but to incorporate it into the grand unified
50: theory (GUT) where the gauge unification represents a genuine {\em
51: prediction\/} of the framework. Another genuine {\em prediction\/}
52: of the true GUT is, of course, a proton decay. It turns out,
53: however, that it is very problematic to build both realistic and
54: simple SUSY GUT scheme and still preserve the exact gauge coupling
55: unification. For example, the parameter space of the simplest of
56: all such schemes, the minimal $SU(5)$ SUSY GUT, has been severely
57: constrained by the experimental limits on proton lifetime
58: \cite{Goto:1998qg,Babu:1998ep,Murayama:2001ur,Bajc:2002bv,Bajc:2002pg}.
59:
60: The crux of the problem is that the exact gauge unification requires
61: threshold corrections. But to create these corrections one needs certain
62: fields, responsible for the proton decay, to be too light compared to the
63: existing experimental constraints unless an {\em ad hoc\/}
64: tuning of parameters takes place \cite{Bajc:2002bv,Bajc:2002pg}. This
65: problem was not so serious in the
66: past since the low-energy values of the gauge couplings were not known well
67: enough, leaving a lot of room for maneuvering. The situation has
68: changed after the electroweak precision measurements
69: and the improvements in measurements of the strong coupling constant. The
70: error bars have simply become sufficiently small to prevent the exact
71: unification without the help of the troublesome threshold corrections.
72: So, the question of whether we can achieve the exact gauge unification in
73: accord with the low-energy measurements in a natural manner within
74: SUSY GUTs is something we have to address.
75:
76: Among the fields that can improve on the gauge unification, via
77: threshold corrections, are the familiar colored Higgsinos. These
78: are the fields that are responsible for $d=5$ proton-decay
79: operator. Therefore, one wants them light enough to generate the
80: appropriate corrections but heavy enough to avoid violation of the
81: experimental limits on proton lifetime. This, again, is an
82: extremely difficult task. One can entirely avoid the need of
83: satisfying these conflicting requirements by using a flipped
84: $SU(5)$ group~\cite{DeRujula:1980qc,Georgi:1980pw,Barr:1981qv}
85: which automatically explains the absence of $d=5$ operators
86: through the implementation of the simplest possible form of the
87: missing partner
88: mechanism~\cite{Derendinger:1983aj,Antoniadis:1987dx}. However,
89: flipped $SU(5)$ gives up one of the most attractive features of
90: grand unification, namely unification of gauge couplings, because
91: it is based on the group $SU(5) \times U(1)$. [This is not to say
92: that the exact unification is impossible within the
93: four-dimensional flipped $SU(5)$. For the most recent
94: considerations in this direction see
95: Refs.~\cite{Ellis:2002vk,Nanopoulos:2002qk}.] Embedding the
96: flipped $SU(5)$ within an $SO(10)$ gauge group retrieves the gauge
97: unification but spoils the missing partner mechanism.
98:
99: The way out, as has been recently shown~\cite{Barr:2002fb}, is to embed the
100: flipped $SU(5)$ within an $SO(10)$ group in five dimensions using the
101: extra-dimensional framework {\em \`{a} la\/}
102: Kawamura~\cite{Kawamura:1999nj,Kawamura:2000ev,Kawamura:2000ir}.
103: In this way, at the four-dimensional
104: level, the famous missing partners can still be missing and the doublet-triplet
105: splitting can be achieved without the dangerous Higgsino-mediated
106: proton decay. But, one might expect naively that the exact gauge unification is
107: impossible due to the threshold corrections that originate from the
108: towers of Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes that are inherent to the
109: theories with the compactified extra-dimensions.
110: This naive expectation turns out to be wrong.
111: The five-dimensional theory, being non-renormalizable, {\em must\/}
112: have a cutoff ($M_*$). Therefore, the number of KK modes that
113: contribute is finite. This also makes the threshold corrections finite
114: and calculable so that the exact unification cannot be excluded {\em a priori}.
115:
116: This paper is devoted to the issues pertaining to the gauge
117: coupling unification in the five-dimensional setting. We show,
118: following the footsteps of Kim and Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}, that it
119: is possible to achieve the exact unification using an
120: $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric $SO(10)$ model on an $S^1/(Z_2
121: \times Z_2')$ orbifold. The orbifold has two inequivalent fixed
122: points, $O$ and $O'$, identified by the action of $(Z_2 \times
123: Z_2')$ twisting. On the point (brane) $O$ there will be an
124: $SO(10)$ gauge symmetry while on the point (brane) $O'$ there will
125: be a flipped $SU(5)$ gauge symmetries. Both symmetries will be the
126: leftovers of a bigger, $SO(10)$, bulk symmetry. The bulk contains,
127: besides the vector supermultiplet, a pair of chiral
128: hypermutiplets: ${\bf 10}_{1H}$ and ${\bf 10}_{2H}$. They give the
129: Higgs fields of the MSSM: $\overline{{\bf 2}}$ and ${\bf 2}$. The
130: orbifolding procedure also reduces the amount of the supersymmetry
131: from $\mathcal{N}=1$ in five dimensions to $\mathcal{N}=1$ in four
132: dimensions. To obtain the low-energy phenomenology of the Standard
133: Model (SM) group $\mathcal{H}$ we break flipped $SU(5)$ on the
134: $O'$ brane by implementing the missing partner mechanism. This
135: time, in contrast to the model presented in
136: Ref.~\cite{Barr:2002fb}, we do the breaking with the chiral
137: superfields that reside on the $O'$ brane.
138:
139: There are two models in the literature we are going
140: to compare our results with
141: that provide the exact gauge coupling unification
142: in the five-dimensional $S^1/(Z_2 \times Z_2')$ setting.
143: The common feature for
144: both models is the placement of the multiplets that contain the Higgs
145: fields and the gauge sector of the MSSM in the bulk. We briefly review
146: these models in what follows.
147: \begin{itemize}
148: \item The first one is an $SU(5)$ model of Hall and
149: Nomura~\cite{Hall:2001pg,Hall:2001xb,Hall:2002ci}. In their
150: model~\cite{Hall:2002ci} the orbifolding yields an $SU(5)$ gauge
151: symmetry on one brane and the SM gauge symmetry on the other. In
152: addition, the orbifolding accomplishes the doublet-triplet
153: splitting by assigning the odd parity to the triplet fields. There
154: is no need for any extra Higgs breaking except for the usual
155: electroweak one. For gauge coupling unification not to be spoiled
156: by arbitrary non-universal contributions coming from the brane
157: with the SM gauge symmetry Hall and Nomura have to invoke two
158: requirements: (i) the couplings at the cutoff scale $M_*$ {\em
159: must\/} enter a strong coupling regime; (ii) the dimension(s) of
160: the bulk {\em must\/} be large enough (when expressed in terms of
161: the fundamental scale, i.e.\ cutoff scale, of the theory). We
162: adopt their requirements in our model, too. \item The second model
163: is a variant of an $SO(10)$ model of Derm\' \i \v sek and
164: Mafi~\cite{Dermisek:2001hp}. Here, we just outline the features
165: that are relevant for comparison with our work. Since the breaking
166: of $SO(10)$ down to $\mathcal{H}$ demands the reduction of the
167: group rank \cite{Hebecker:2001jb}, the authors use an extra Higgs
168: breaking. In the original version of Derm\' \i \v sek and
169: Mafi~\cite{Dermisek:2001hp} the breaking of $SO(10)$ down to
170: $SU(5)$ takes place on the $SO(10)$ brane. The low-energy
171: signature of the SM gauge group is then due to the intersection of
172: the Pati-Salam and $SU(5)$. The subsequent analysis of the variant
173: of their model proposed by Kim and Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}
174: demonstrated the feasibility of the gauge unification. The
175: breaking, in Kim and Raby case, takes place on a Pati-Salam brane
176: affecting only the gauge sector of the theory. [The orbifolding
177: has already projected out the triplet partners by assigning them
178: odd parity.] We adopt and extend their method of analysis to
179: demonstrate the successful unification in our case. The reason
180: behind the extension is that, in our case, the extra Higgs
181: breaking affects not only the gauge sector but also the Higgs
182: sector. Namely, the breaking is what makes the triplets heavy via
183: missing partner mechanism. This, as it turns out, has significant
184: consequences on the renormalization group equation (RGE) running
185: of the gauge couplings as we demonstrate later.
186: \end{itemize}
187:
188: In Section~\ref{model} we introduce our model and specify the mass spectrum
189: of all the fields. We then proceed with
190: the discussion on the gauge coupling RGE running in five-dimensional orbifold
191: setting in Section~\ref{KKpart}.
192: This is where our two main results, the relevant beta coefficients and their RGE
193: numerical analysis, are presented. Finally, we briefly conclude in
194: Section~\ref{conclusion}.
195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197: \section{An SO(10) model}
198: \label{model}
199: We present an $SO(10)$ supersymmetric model in five
200: dimensions compactified on an $S^1/(Z_2 \times Z'_2)$ orbifold.
201: The orbifold is created after the fifth dimension, being the circle
202: $S^1$ of radius $R$, gets compactified through the reflection
203: $y \rightarrow -y$ under $Z_2$ and $y' \rightarrow -y'$ under
204: $Z'_2$, where $y'=y+\pi R/2$. There are two fixed points, $O$ and $O'$,
205: that bound the
206: physical space $y \in [0,\pi R/2]$ of the bulk. The point $O$ is
207: referred to as the ``visible brane" while point $O'$ at $y'=0$
208: is referred to as the ``hidden brane".
209:
210: We assume that the bulk contains an $\mathcal{N}=1$ vector supermultiplet,
211: a ${\bf 45}_g$ of $SO(10)$, and two chiral hypermultiplets,
212: ${\bf 10}_{1H}+{\bf 10}_{2H}$. The vector supermultiplet decomposes
213: into a vector multiplet $V$, which contains the gauge bosons $A_\mu$ and corresponding gauginos, and
214: a chiral multiplet $\Sigma$ of $\mathcal{N}= 1$ supersymmetry in four dimensions.
215: Each hypermultiplet splits into two left-handed chiral
216: multiplets $\Phi$ and $\Phi^c$, having opposite gauge quantum numbers.
217: To reduce $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry in
218: five dimensions to $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry in four
219: dimensions we use the parity assignment under $Z_2$. To reduce the gauge
220: symmetry from $SO(10)$ down to flipped
221: $SU(5) \otimes U(1)$ on the hidden brane we use the parity assignment
222: under $Z_2'$. The bulk content of the model is
223: \begin{subequations}
224: \label{parity}
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: {\bf 45}_g & = &
227: V^{++}_{{\bf 24}^0} + V^{++}_{{\bf 1}^0} +
228: V^{+-}_{{\bf 10}^{-4}} + V^{+-}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^4} +
229: \Sigma^{--}_{{\bf 24}^0} + \Sigma^{--}_{{\bf 1}^0} +
230: \Sigma^{-+}_{{\bf 10}^{-4}} + \Sigma^{-+}_{\overline{{\bf 10}}^4}, \\
231: {\bf 10}_{1H} & = &
232: \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}} + \Phi^{+-}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_1^2} +
233: \Phi^{c --}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_1^2} + \Phi^{c-+}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}}, \\
234: {\bf 10}_{2H} & = &
235: \Phi^{+-}_{{\bf 5}_2^{-2}} + \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_2^2} +
236: \Phi^{c -+}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_2^2} + \Phi^{c--}_{{\bf 5}_2^{-2}},
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: \end{subequations}
239: where the first (second) superscript denotes the parity assignment under
240: $Z_2$ ($Z_2'$) transformation.
241: Only the fields with the $++$ parity contain Kaluza-Klein zero mode fields
242: ($n=0$) that have no effective four-dimensional mass. The masses of all
243: other modes become quantized
244: in units of $1/R \equiv M_C$, where $M_C$ is the compactification scale.
245: For example, all $+-$ and $-+$ parity states are actually the
246: KK towers of states with
247: masses $M_C,3M_C,\ldots,(2n+1)M_C,\ldots$, where $n$ is the mode number.
248:
249: We want to have the low-energy phenomenology that is described by
250: the SM group $\mathcal{H}$. But, at this point, the brane $O$
251: feels the $SO(10)$ gauge symmetry while the brane $O'$ feels the
252: flipped $SU(5)$ gauge symmetry. One could introduce a pair of
253: Higgses in the bulk, the ${\bf 16}_H$ and the $\overline{\bf
254: 16}_H$, and use the parity assignment to project out all the
255: states except a pair ${\bf 10}^{1}_H+\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}_H$
256: that is needed for the missing partner mechanism on the visible
257: brane \cite{Barr:2002fb}. Here, however, we pursue slightly
258: different direction. Namely, noting that the minimal set of
259: Higgses that breaks flipped $SU(5)$ down to $\mathcal{H}$ is a
260: pair of Higgs fields, ${\bf 10}^{1}_H+\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}_H$,
261: we posit their existence on the {\em hidden\/} brane. [Similar
262: idea on using the minimal Higgs content within an $SU(5)$ model
263: has been exploited in Ref.~\cite{Hebecker:2001wq}.] With these
264: fields in place we specify the following brane localized entry of
265: the superpotential:
266: \begin{equation}
267: \label{kappa}
268: \kappa \Big[\delta \big(y-\frac{\pi R}{2}\big)+\delta \big(y-\frac{3\pi R}{2}\big) \Big]
269: \Big[\Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}}\,{\bf 10}^{1}_H\,{\bf 10}^{1}_H+
270: \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_2^2}\,\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}_H\,
271: \overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}_H\Big],
272: \end{equation}
273: where $\kappa$ represents the Yukawa coupling with the mass
274: dimension -1/2. Clearly, by giving very large VEVs to the $({\bf
275: 1},{\bf 1},0)$ components of ${\bf 10}^{1}_H$ and $\overline{{\bf
276: 10}}^{-1}_H$, we allow the triplet partners of the doublets in
277: $\Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}}$ and $\Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf
278: 5}}_2^2}$ to get large masses through the mating with the triplets
279: of ${\bf 10}^{1}_H$ and $\overline{{\bf 10}}^{-1}_H$ without
280: disturbing the lightness of the doublets. This can be
281: schematically depicted as \cite{Babu:1993we}
282: \begin{equation}
283: \label{dts}
284: \begin{array}{c@{\!\!\!\!\!}c@{\!\!\!\!\!}c|c@{\!\!\!\!\!}c@{\!\!\!\!\!}c}
285: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}\strut\\ \overline{{\bf 2}}\end{array} \right)
286: & \rule[4.75mm]{16mm}{0.5mm} &
287: \left( \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}\strut\\ {\rm {\bf other}}\end{array} \right) &
288: \left( \begin{array}{c} {\bf 3}\strut\\ \overline{{\rm {\bf other}}}\end{array} \right)
289: & \rule[4.75mm]{16mm}{0.5mm} &
290: \left( \begin{array}{c} \overline{{\bf 3}}\strut\\ {\bf 2}\end{array}
291: \right)\strut\\
292: \parallel & &\parallel & \parallel & &\parallel\strut\\
293: \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}} & & {\bf 10}^{1}_H & \overline{{\bf
294: 10}}^{-1}_H & & \Phi^{++}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_2^2}\end{array}
295: \end{equation}
296: where, for simplicity, $({\bf 3},{\bf 2}, 1/3) + ({\bf 1},{\bf 1},
297: 0) \equiv {\rm {\bf other}}$, and $\overline{{\bf
298: 3}}=(\overline{{\bf 3}},{\bf 1},2/3)$. Moreover, the symmetry
299: breaking makes the states $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0)$, $({\bf 3},{\bf
300: 2},1/3)$, and $(\overline{{\bf 3}},{\bf 2},-1/3)$ from
301: $V^{++}_{{\bf 24}^0}$ and $V^{++}_{{\bf 1}^0}$ of ${\bf 45}_g$
302: absorb the corresponding components of the brane Higgses to become
303: massive, leaving unbroken $\mathcal{H}$ gauge symmetry behind.
304: [See Table~\ref{t:table2} for the decomposition of $SO(10)$ down
305: to $\mathcal{H}$ via flipped $SU(5)$.]
306: \begin{table}
307: \caption{\label{t:table2} The decomposition of the three lowest lying
308: representations of $SO(10)$ under the flipped $SU(5)$ group and
309: the Standard Model gauge group.}
310: \begin{center}
311: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|l|}
312: \hline
313: $SO(10)$ & $SU(5) \otimes U(1)$ & $SU(3)_c \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$\\
314: \hline
315: \hline
316: & ${\bf 24}^0 $ & $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0) \oplus ({\bf 1},{\bf 3},0) \oplus ({\bf 3},{\bf 2},1/3) \oplus
317: (\overline{{\bf 3}},\overline{{\bf 2}},-1/3) \oplus ({\bf 8},{\bf 1},0)$ \\
318: & ${\bf 10}^{-4} $ & $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},-2) \oplus (\overline{{\bf
319: 3}},{\bf 1},-4/3) \oplus
320: ({\bf 3},\overline{{\bf 2}},-5/3)$ \\
321: \raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{${\bf 45}$}& $\overline{{\bf 10}}^4$ & $({\bf
322: 1},{\bf 1},2) \oplus({\bf 3},{\bf 1},4/3) \oplus
323: (\overline{{\bf 3}},{\bf 2},5/3)$ \\
324: & ${\bf 1}^0$ & $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0)$ \\
325: \hline
326: \hline
327: & ${\bf 1}^{5}$ & $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},2)$ \\
328: ${\bf 16}$ & $\overline{{\bf 5}}^{-3}$ & $({\bf 1},\overline{{\bf 2}},-1) \oplus (\overline{{\bf 3}},{\bf 1},-4/3)$ \\
329: & ${\bf 10}^1$ & $({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0) \oplus(\overline{{\bf 3}},{\bf 1},2/3) \oplus
330: ({\bf 3},{\bf 2},1/3)$ \\
331: \hline
332: \hline
333: & ${\bf 5}^{-2}$ & $({\bf 1},\overline{{\bf 2}},-1) \oplus ({\bf 3},{\bf 1},-2/3)$ \\
334: \raisebox{2ex}[0pt]{${\bf 10}$}& $\overline{{\bf 5}}^{2}$ & $({\bf 1},{\bf 2},1) \oplus (\overline{{\bf 3}},{\bf 1},2/3)$ \\
335: \hline
336: \end{tabular}
337: \end{center}
338: \end{table}
339:
340: In the discussion from the previous paragraph, we have glossed over a fact
341: that the bulk fields are KK towers of states. The explicit brane
342: localized breaking terms will disturb every state of
343: that tower due to the change of the boundary conditions. Since we want to do
344: an RGE analysis we need to determine the KK tower position, i.e.\ the mass, of every
345: state after the disturbance has taken place.
346: This is what we do next.
347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
348: \subsection{Mass Spectrum of the Gauge Fields}
349: The five-dimensional theory is non-renormalizable. Therefore, we expect the
350: theory to have a cutoff scale $M_*$ where some new physics comes into
351: play (e.g.\ other dimensions beyond five, strings). We take the VEVs of
352: the symmetry breaking Higgs fields to be of the order of this cutoff:
353: $\langle ({\bf 1},{\bf 1},0) \rangle \equiv M \sim M_*$. Then the
354: Lagrangian involving the gauge fields gets additional contribution
355: \cite{Nomura:2001mf,Kim:2002im}
356: \begin{equation}
357: \mathcal{L} \subset \frac{1}{2}
358: \Big[\delta \big(y-\frac{\pi R}{2}\big)+\delta \big(y-\frac{3\pi R}{2}\big) \Big]
359: g_5^2 M^2 A^{\hat{a}}_{\mu} A^{\hat{a} \mu},
360: \end{equation}
361: where $g_5^2$ represents the gauge coupling of the
362: five-dimensional theory and $\hat{a}$ is an $SO(10)$ group index
363: that goes through all the gauge fields associated with the broken
364: $++$ parity generators we mentioned at the end of
365: Section~\ref{model}. [The five-dimensional gauge coupling $g_5^2$
366: has mass dimension $-1$.] The equations of motion for the
367: ``broken" gauge bosons are \cite{Nomura:2001mf,Kim:2002im}
368: \begin{equation}
369: \label{deltapotential}
370: -\partial_y^2 A^{\hat{a}}_{\mu}(x,y) +
371: \Big[\delta \big(y-\frac{\pi R}{2}\big)+\delta \big(y-\frac{3\pi R}{2}\big) \Big]
372: g_5^2 M^2 A^{\hat{a}}_{\mu} (x,y)= (M^A_n)^2 A^{\hat{a}}_{\mu}(x,y),
373: \end{equation}
374: where $M^A_n$ represents the effective Kaluza-Klein mass in four
375: dimensions of the $n$th mode. It is defined via Klein-Gordon
376: equation $\big[\partial_\nu
377: \partial^\nu+(M^A_n)^2\big]A^{\hat{a}}_{\mu}(x,y)=0$. The second
378: term on the left-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{deltapotential} is
379: responsible for the deviation from the usual mass spectrum of the
380: $++$ parity fields ($M^A_n=0, 2 M_C,\ldots,2 n M_C,\ldots$). It
381: reminds us of the delta function-type potential in ordinary
382: Schr\"{o}dinger's equation. The role of this term is thus to repel
383: the bulk field wave function away from the brane. In the language
384: of the effective four-dimensional theory this means that even the
385: zero mode ($n=0$) of the gauge bosons becomes massive. Taking the
386: following ansatz for the five-dimensional gauge field on the
387: segment $y \in [0,\pi R/2]$:
388: \begin{equation}
389: A^{\hat{a}}_{\mu} (x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}
390: \sum^{\infty}_{n=0} N_n A^{\hat{a}(n)}_\mu (x) \cos M_n^Ay,
391: \end{equation}
392: the eigenvalue equation for the effective mass, due to the nontrivial
393: boundary condition at the hidden brane, takes the form \cite{Nomura:2001mf}
394: \begin{equation}
395: \label{conditionG}
396: \tan \frac{M_n^A \pi R}{2} =\frac{g_5^2 M^2}{2 M_n^A}.
397: \end{equation}
398: The normalization constant for the $++$ parity bulk fields also changes from
399: $1/\sqrt{2^{\delta_{n0}}}$ to $N_n=\big[1+M_C g_5^2 M^2
400: \cos^2 \frac{M_n^A \pi R}{2}/(\pi (M_n^A)^2)\big]^{-1/2}$ \cite{Choi:2003bh}.
401: The plot of the modified wave function profile for $n=1$ is given in Fig.~\ref{deltaKK}.
402: [We excluded the normalization constants for simplicity.]
403: \begin{figure}[htb]
404: \begin{center}
405: \includegraphics[width=5.5in]{deltaKK.eps}
406: \end{center}
407: \caption{\label{deltaKK} A plot of an $n=1$ mode of the bulk field
408: wave function profile in
409: the fifth dimension. The dashed line represents undisturbed profile
410: given by $\cos 2ny$. The solid line
411: represents the profile after the perturbation due to the
412: boundary condition is accounted for. The radius $R$ is taken to be 1.}
413: \end{figure}
414:
415: There are two interesting approximations that we can consider:
416: $g_5^2 M^2 \gg M_n^A$ and $g_5^2 M^2 \ll M_n^A$. The former one
417: generates the following approximate solution of the eigenvalue
418: equation for the mass spectrum
419: \begin{equation}
420: M_n^A \simeq (2n+1) M_C \big[1-\varepsilon+\varepsilon^2\big],
421: \end{equation}
422: while the latter one yields
423: \begin{equation}
424: M_0^A \simeq 2 M_C \sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi^2 \varepsilon}},
425: \;\;\mbox{and}\;\;
426: M_{n \neq 0}^A \simeq 2n M_C \big[1+\frac{1}{\pi^2 \varepsilon n^2}\big],
427: \end{equation}
428: where we define $\varepsilon \equiv (4 M_C)/(\pi g_5^2 M^2)$.
429: The two approximations generate qualitatively different mass spectra. Therefore,
430: it is very important to determine which one is applicable to our scenario.
431: Assuming that all the couplings of the theory enter the strong regime
432: at the cutoff $M_*$ we can use the result of the naive dimensional
433: analysis~\cite{Chacko:1999hg} in higher dimensional theories that suggests
434: $g_5^2 \simeq 24 \pi^3/M_*$ and $M \simeq M_*/(4 \pi)$, which gives
435: $g_5^2 M^2 \simeq 3/2 \pi M_* > M_* \gg M_n^A$.
436: We thus choose the former approximation. Following the work of Kim and
437: Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}, we introduce the parameter $\zeta = 2 N \varepsilon$,
438: where $2N=M_*/M_C$ and $\zeta \simeq 8/(3 \pi^2) \simeq 0.27$, to rewrite
439: the approximate mass spectrum of the broken gauge bosons as
440: \begin{equation}
441: M_n^A \simeq M_C \big(2n+1-\frac{n}{N} \zeta \big).
442: \end{equation}
443:
444: One interesting feature to note is that the boundary condition in
445: Eq.~\eqref{conditionG} is not absolute \cite{Nomura:2001mf}. In
446: our case, the broken $++$ parity field modes start off with the
447: mass spectrum that mimics the spectrum of the $+-$ and $-+$ parity
448: field modes but then gradually merges with the spectrum of
449: undisturbed $++$ and $--$ parity bulk fields as one moves up the
450: Kaluza-Klein tower of states. One should also keep in mind that
451: the supersymmetry ensures the same fate for the chiral partners
452: $\Sigma$ of the vector fields $V$. Namely, the mass spectrum of
453: the fields in $\Sigma^{--}$ are shifted in the same manner as the
454: states in the $V^{++}$ that are made massive through the brane
455: gauge breaking. With that said, we turn to the consideration of
456: the Higgs field mass spectrum.
457: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
458: \subsection{Mass Spectrum of the Higgs Fields}
459: The missing partner mechanism affects {\em only\/} the color
460: triplets of the bulk states with $++$ and $--$ parities. To
461: determine their effective mass spectrum we concentrate on the
462: masses of the color Higgsinos. Supersymmetry then ensures the same
463: mass spectrum for their bosonic partners. Moreover, since there
464: are two separate color triplet sectors, as indicated by the
465: vertical line in Eq.~\eqref{dts}, we treat only one of them. The
466: other sector will have the same mass spectrum as long as both
467: sectors share the {\em same\/} dimensionful coupling $\kappa$. We
468: assume this to be the case. Note that the bulk states with the
469: $+-$ and $-+$ parities, i.e.\ the odd states, do not get affected
470: by the brane breaking.
471:
472: To make the discussion as transparent as possible we adopt the
473: following notation for the triplet Higgsinos: $H_C \in
474: \Phi^{++}_{{\bf 5}_1^{-2}}$, $H_{C}^c \in
475: \Phi^{c--}_{\overline{{\bf 5}}_1^{2}}$, and $H_{\overline{C}_H}
476: \in {\bf 10}^{1}_H$. Their equations of motion, derived from the
477: brane coupling term in Eq.~\eqref{kappa} and the bulk action (see
478: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001tb}), read \cite{Choi:2003bh}
479: \begin{align}
480: &{\rm i}{\bar\sigma}^\mu\partial_\mu H_{\overline{C}_H}-\kappa M \overline{H}_{C}
481: |_{y=(\pi R/2,\,3 \pi R/2)}=0, \\
482: &{\rm i}{\bar\sigma}^\mu\partial_\mu H_{C}-\partial_y \overline{H}^c_{C}
483: -\kappa M \overline{H}_{\overline{C}_H} \big(\delta(y-\pi R/2)+\delta(y-3\pi R/2)\big)=0,\\
484: &{\rm i}{\bar\sigma}^\mu\partial_\mu H^c_{C}
485: +\partial_y \overline{H}_{C}=0.
486: \end{align}
487: These equations are satisfied by the following ansatz for the five-dimensional
488: Higgsino fields on the segment $y \in [0,\pi R/2]$
489: \begin{align}
490: H_{C}(x,y) &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}\sum_n N^{H_C}_n h^{(n)}_1(x) \cos M^{H_C}_n y,\\
491: H^c_{C}(x,y)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}\sum_n N^{H_C}_n h^{(n)}_2(x) \sin M^{H_C}_n y,\\
492: \intertext{and the Higgsino field localized on the hidden brane}
493: H_{\overline{C}_H}(x)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}\sum_n N^{H_C}_n
494: \frac{\kappa M}{M^{H_C}_n} h^{(n)}_2(x) \cos \frac{M^{H_C}_n \pi
495: R}{2}.
496: \end{align}
497: Here, the eigenvalue equation for the effective mass, due to the nontrivial
498: boundary condition at the hidden brane, takes the form \cite{Choi:2003bh}
499: \begin{equation}
500: \label{conditionH}
501: \tan \frac{M_n^{H_C} \pi R}{2} =\frac{\kappa^2 M^2}{2 M_n^{H_C}},
502: \end{equation}
503: where we define the effective KK mass via a pair of Weyl equations:
504: ${\rm i}{\bar\sigma}^\mu\partial_\mu h^{(n)}_1=M^{H_C}_n
505: {\overline h}^{(n)}_2$ and ${\rm i}{\bar\sigma}^\mu\partial_\mu h^{(n)}_2=M^{H_C}_n
506: {\overline h}^{(n)}_1$.
507:
508: The naive dimensional analysis~\cite{Chacko:1999hg} in the strong
509: coupling regime yields $\kappa \simeq (24 \pi^3/M_*)^{1/2}$, which implies
510: that $\kappa^2 M^2 (\simeq g_5^2 M^2) \gg M^{H_C}_n$. In this limit, the mass
511: spectrum of the Higgsino triplets looks, in form, exactly the same as the mass
512: spectrum of the broken gauge fields. Namely, the mass eigenvalues of
513: Eq.~\eqref{conditionH} are
514: \begin{equation}
515: M_n^{H_C} \simeq M_C \big(2n+1-\frac{n}{N} \zeta \big),
516: \end{equation}
517: where we assume that $\kappa^2 M^2 = g_5^2 M^2$ for simplicity.
518: For completeness, the normalization constant $N_n^{H_C}$ is \cite{Choi:2003bh}
519: \begin{equation}
520: N^{H_C}_n=\bigg(1+\frac{M_C \kappa^2 M^2}{\pi(M^{H_C}_n)^2}
521: \cos^2\frac{M^{H_C}_n\pi R}{2}\bigg)^{-1/2}.
522: \end{equation}
523:
524: In the case of the color Higgsinos there is a mixing between the bulk and the
525: brane fields. It is the role of the brane field $H_{\overline{C}_H}$ to give the
526: mass to the zero mode component of $H_C$. As described in Ref.~\cite{Choi:2003bh},
527: the Weyl spinors, $h_1^{(n)}$ and $h_2^{(n)}$, pair up at every Kaluza-Klein level
528: to obtain the Dirac mass. The remaining states in the ${\bf 10}^{1}_H$ of Higgs get
529: absorbed by the broken gauge bosons and completely disappear as far as the
530: running is concerned.
531: We show the mass spectrum of one part of the Higgs sector in Fig.~\ref{higgssector}.
532: The other part looks exactly the same.
533: \begin{figure}[htb]
534: \begin{center}
535: \includegraphics[width=6in]{Higgssector.eps}
536: \end{center}
537: \caption{\label{higgssector} (a) A mass spectrum of the Kaluza-Klein towers of
538: the Higgs sector after the compactification, but before the brane localized breaking. (b)
539: The mass spectrum after the brane localized breaking. The circles represent the doublets
540: and the squares represent the triplets.}
541: \end{figure}
542: Since this concludes the discussion on the mass spectrum of
543: both the gauge and the Higgs fields we turn our attention towards the RGE
544: analysis.
545: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
547: \section{Kaluza-Klein unification}
548: \label{KKpart}
549: The running of the gauge couplings in our model is the same as the running
550: in the usual four-dimensional theory as long as we stay below the compactification
551: scale $M_C$. But, once we venture over $M_C$, the running is affected by the
552: towers of Kaluza-Klein states until we reach the cutoff scale $M_*$, which we
553: define as the scale where effective gauge couplings merge. Since there are
554: numerous states in the KK towers one might expect that the analysis of the
555: threshold effects on the gauge coupling running from $M_C$ to $M_*$ is very
556: difficult even at a one-loop level. This, however, is not the case as we show next.
557:
558: Let us, for concreteness, limit our discussion to the
559: five-dimensional theory that is based on the simple gauge group
560: $\mathcal{F}$. The main simplification originates from the
561: observation that the compactification procedure forces all the
562: states that make up a single representation of $\mathcal{F}$ to
563: appear within the interval $[2nM_C,2(n+1)M_C]$ for every $n \neq
564: 0$. [This statement is true regardless of the type of the
565: additional brane boundary conditions we discussed in the previous
566: two sections.] These states obviously contribute in an
567: $\mathcal{F}$ invariant way to the running of all the gauge
568: coupling constants after we go over $2(n+1)M_C$. Thus, the
569: contribution of the $n$th Kaluza-Klein level that starts to appear
570: at $2nM_C$ drops out of the running of the difference of the gauge
571: couplings after we reach $2(n+1)M_C$. In view of this fact we are
572: motivated to pursue the differential running, i.e.\ the running of
573: the difference of the gauge couplings. The previous observation
574: also implies that the beta coefficients reset themselves to the
575: values of the familiar coefficients of the Standard Model group
576: $\mathcal{H}$ every time we go over another $2(n+1)M_C$ scale.
577:
578: Nontrivial boundary conditions distort the spectrum of Kaluza-Klein masses. In
579: our case, the members of the $n$th mode emerge at
580: $2nM_C$, $(2n+1-\frac{n}{N} \zeta)M_C$, $(2n+1)M_C$, and $(2n+2)M_C$ energy
581: levels.
582: We have already concluded that from $2nM_C$ to $(2n+1-\frac{n}{N} \zeta)M_C$
583: the beta coefficients {\em must\/} be the coefficients of the SM group $\mathcal{H}$.
584: We call this region I.
585: Region II is the region from $(2n+1-\frac{n}{N} \zeta)M_C$ to $(2n+1)M_C$, while
586: region III stretches from $(2n+1)M_C$ to $(2n+2)M_C$ for $n \neq 0$. The notation
587: here and in what follows is exactly the same as the notation of Kim and
588: Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}. Note that we do not mention the matter fields at any
589: point. The reason is that the matter fields of one family contribute equally to
590: the running of the gauge couplings regardless of their origin, i.e.\ whether they
591: are located in the bulk or on the brane.
592:
593: As shown by Kim and Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}, if the
594: compactification breaks $\mathcal{F}$ to $\mathcal{G}$ and, then,
595: the brane breaking reduces $\mathcal{G}$ to the SM group
596: $\mathcal{H}$, the beta coefficients of the gauge sector are:
597: \begin{equation}
598: \label{b:gauge}
599: \begin{split}
600: b^{\rm I}_{\rm gauge} & = b^\mathcal{H}(V); \\
601: b^{\rm II}_{\rm gauge} & = b^\mathcal{H}(V) + b^\mathcal{G/H}(V) + b^\mathcal{G/H}(\Sigma)
602: = b^\mathcal{G}(V) + b^\mathcal{G}(\Sigma) - b^\mathcal{H}(\Sigma);\\
603: b^{\rm III}_{\rm gauge} & = b^\mathcal{H}(V) + b^\mathcal{G/H}(V) + b^\mathcal{G/H}(\Sigma) +
604: b^\mathcal{F/G}(V)+ b^\mathcal{F/G}(\Sigma)
605: = -b^\mathcal{H}(\Sigma).
606: \end{split}
607: \end{equation}
608: [The notation is that $b \equiv(b_1,b_2,b_3)$, where $b_1$, $b_2$,
609: and $b_3$ are the coefficients associated with the gauge couplings
610: of $U(1)_Y$, $SU(2)_L$, and $SU(3)_c$ respectively.] Here, we use
611: the fact that $b^\mathcal{F}(V)\equiv b^\mathcal{H}(V) +
612: b^\mathcal{G/H}(V) + b^\mathcal{F/G}(V)$ is an $\mathcal{F}$
613: invariant coefficient that drops out from the running of the
614: differences of the gauge couplings. The same statement holds for
615: $b^\mathcal{F}(\Sigma)\equiv b^\mathcal{H}(\Sigma) +
616: b^\mathcal{G/H}(\Sigma) + b^\mathcal{F/G}(\Sigma)$ coefficient.
617: $\mathcal{G/H}$ and $\mathcal{F/G}$ represent the appropriate
618: coset-spaces (e.q.\ states that are in $\mathcal{G} \supset
619: \mathcal{H}$ but {\em not\/} in $\mathcal{H}$ belong to
620: $\mathcal{G/H}$). Note that we always have $b(\Sigma)=-b(V)/3$
621: since $\Sigma$ is the chiral superfield and $V$ is the vector
622: superfield. In our case $\mathcal{F}$ corresponds to $SO(10)$ and
623: $\mathcal{G}$ corresponds to the flipped $SU(5)$ group.
624:
625: Before we consider the beta coefficient of the Higgs sector we
626: note the following: the beta coefficients of the {\em two\/}
627: supersymmetric Higgs doublets (triplets) are $b({\bf 2}) \equiv
628: (3/5,1,0)$ ($b({\bf 3}) \equiv (2/5,0,1)$). Therefore, the sum of
629: the contributions of the pair of doublets and the pair of triplets
630: does not affect the differential running and can be freely
631: discarded. Moreover, as far as the differential running is
632: concerned, we can write $b({\bf 2})=-b({\bf 3})=(0,2/5,-3/5)$,
633: where we subtract the overall constant to make $b_1=0$. This we do
634: with all the other beta coefficients in what follows. Recalling
635: that there are two Higgs sectors we can write:
636: \begin{equation}
637: \label{b:Higgs}
638: \begin{split}
639: b^{\rm I}_{\rm Higgs} & = b({\bf 2}); \\
640: b^{\rm II}_{\rm Higgs} & = b({\bf 2})+2 b({\bf 3}) = b({\bf 3});\\
641: b^{\rm III}_{\rm Higgs} & = b({\bf 3})+2 b({\bf 2})+2 b({\bf 3})= b({\bf 3}).
642: \end{split}
643: \end{equation}
644:
645: Finally, we are ready to analyze the running at one-loop level. The relevant
646: RGEs and all the definitions are taken from Kim and Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}. We
647: present them here for completeness of this work. The one-loop RGEs for the gauge
648: couplings in the effective four-dimensional theory are
649: \begin{equation}
650: \label{RGE:5D}
651: \frac{2 \pi}{\alpha_i(\mu)}=\frac{2 \pi}{\alpha(M_*)}+
652: \big[b^{\mathcal{H}}_i(V)+
653: b^{\mathcal{H}}_i({\bf 2})+b^{\mathcal{H}}_{\rm matter}\big] \ln \frac{M_C}{\mu}+
654: \Delta^{\rm Higgs}_i+\Delta^{\rm gauge}_i,
655: \end{equation}
656: where $\Delta$'s describe the appropriate threshold corrections of the
657: Kaluza-Klein modes from $M_C$ to $M_*$. They are given by
658: \begin{equation}
659: \Delta \equiv \ b^{\rm eff} \ln \frac{M_*}{M_C} = b^{\rm I} A_{\rm I}
660: + b^{\rm II} A_{\rm II} + b^{\rm III} A_{\rm III},
661: \end{equation}
662: with
663: \begin{subequations}
664: \begin{eqnarray}
665: A_{\rm I} & = & \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \ln \frac{2n+1 -\frac{n}{N} \zeta}{2n}, \\
666: A_{\rm II} & = & \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \ln \frac{2n+1}{2n+1- \frac{n}{N} \zeta }, \\
667: A_{\rm III} & = & \sum_{n=1}^N \ln \frac{2n}{2n-1}.
668: \end{eqnarray}
669: \end{subequations}
670: Obviously, $A_{\rm I}$, $A_{\rm II}$ and $A_{\rm III}$ allow us to sum over
671: the threshold corrections from the corresponding regions.
672:
673: Taking the large $N$ limit, where $2N = M_*/M_C$, and using the
674: approximation $\ln (1+x) = x + \cdots$, Kim and
675: Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im} give the following expression for the
676: threshold corrections of the gauge and the Higgs sector:
677: \begin{equation}
678: \Delta = \frac{1}{2}(b^{\rm III}+b^I) \ln \frac{M_*}{M_C} + \frac{1}{2}
679: (b^{\rm III} - b^{\rm I}) \ln \frac{\pi}{2} + \frac{1}{2} (b^{\rm II}-b^{\rm I}) \zeta.
680: \end{equation}
681: Looking back at Eqs.~\eqref{b:gauge} and \eqref{b:Higgs} we have
682: for our model
683: \begin{subequations}
684: \begin{eqnarray}
685: \Delta^{\rm gauge} & = & \frac{2}{3} b^{\mathcal{H}}(V)\ln\frac{M_*}{M_C}
686: -\frac{1}{3}b^{\mathcal{H}}(V)\ln\frac{\pi}{2}+
687: \frac{1}{3}\big[b^{\mathcal{G}}(V)-b^{\mathcal{H}}(V)\big] \zeta,\label{gaugecorrection}\\
688: \Delta^{\rm Higgs} & = & -b({\bf 2}) \ln\frac{\pi}{2} - b({\bf 2}) \zeta.\label{Higgscorrection}
689: \end{eqnarray}
690: \end{subequations}
691: Moreover, since $b^{\mathcal{H}}(V)$ represents the beta
692: coefficients of the gauge sector of the MSSM we have
693: $b^{\mathcal{H}}(V)=(0,-6,-9)$. On the other hand,
694: $b^{\mathcal{G}}(V)$ represents the beta coefficients of the gauge
695: sector of the supersymmetric flipped $SU(5)$: ${\bf 24}^0+{\bf
696: 1}^0$. Therefore, $b^{\mathcal{G}}(V)=(-3/5,-15,-15) \equiv
697: (0,-72/5,-72/5)$, where we again subtract the overall constant
698: contribution to make $b_1$ coefficient equal to zero. Using these
699: results we find:
700: \begin{subequations}
701: \begin{eqnarray}
702: \Delta^{\rm gauge} & = & \big(0,-4 \ln\frac{M_*}{M_C}
703: +2 \ln\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{14}{5} \zeta,
704: -6 \ln\frac{M_*}{M_C}
705: +3 \ln\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{9}{5} \zeta\big),\\
706: \Delta^{\rm Higgs} & = & \big(0,-\frac{2}{5} \ln \frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{2}{5} \zeta
707: ,\frac{3}{5} \ln \frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{3}{5} \zeta \big).
708: \end{eqnarray}
709: \end{subequations}
710:
711: Our goal is to find the values of $M_C$ and $M_*$ that allow the
712: exact unification, at least at one-loop level, of the gauge
713: coupling constants at the scale $M_*$. To be able to do that we
714: first recall the situation we have in the usual four-dimensional
715: SUSY GUT. There we define $M_{\rm GUT}$ to be the scale where
716: $\alpha_1(M_{\rm GUT})=\alpha_2(M_{\rm GUT}) \equiv
717: \tilde{\alpha}_{\rm GUT}$ \cite{Kim:2002im} with the running given
718: by
719: \begin{equation}
720: \label{RGE:4D}
721: \frac{2 \pi}{\alpha_i(\mu)}=\frac{2 \pi}{\alpha_i(M_{\rm GUT})}+\big[b^{\mathcal{H}}_i(V)+
722: b^{\mathcal{H}}_i({\bf 2})+b^{\mathcal{H}}_{\rm matter}\big]
723: \ln \frac{M_{\rm GUT}}{\mu}.
724: \end{equation}
725: If we ask how far off from $\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm GUT}$ the coupling
726: $\alpha_3(M_{\rm GUT})$ is, and parameterize the degree of
727: nonunification via $\delta_3=\big(2 \pi/\alpha_3(M_{\rm GUT})-2
728: \pi/\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm GUT}\big)$, we obtain $5 \lesssim \delta_3
729: \lesssim 6$ depending on the exact spectrum of SUSY particles. We
730: show one example of differential running in
731: Fig.~\ref{alphainvdiffplot}. This example takes into the account
732: not only the one-loop but the two-loop effects on the running of
733: the gauge couplings. We also assume that the superpartners have
734: masses of the order of $m_t$, and take the lower experimental
735: limit $\tan \beta=3$ \cite{:2001xx}.
736: \begin{figure}[htb]
737: \begin{center}
738: \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{alphainvdiffplot1.eps}
739: \end{center}
740: \caption{\label{alphainvdiffplot} A plot of the differential running
741: $\delta_i(\mu)=2 \pi (1/\alpha_i(\mu)-1/\alpha_1(\mu))$ versus
742: $\ln (\mu/M_{\rm GUT})$, where $M_{\rm GUT} = 2.37 \times 10^{16}$\,GeV.}
743: \end{figure}
744:
745: In the five-dimensional setting the deviation from the usual
746: running starts at $M_C$ scale. Therefore, at $M_C$, the left-hand
747: sides of Eqs.~\eqref{RGE:5D} and \eqref{RGE:4D} {\em must\/} be
748: the same. Thus, we have that
749: \begin{equation}
750: \begin{split}
751: \label{xxxx}
752: \delta_2(M_C)&=\big[b^{\mathcal{H}}_2(V)+
753: b^{\mathcal{H}}_2({\bf 2})]\ln \frac{M_{\rm GUT}}{M_C}=\Delta^{\rm gauge}_2+\Delta^{\rm Higgs}_2,\\
754: \delta_3(M_C)&= \big(2 \pi/\alpha_3(M_{\rm GUT})-2
755: \pi/\tilde{\alpha}_{\rm GUT}\big)\\
756: &\quad +\big[b^{\mathcal{H}}_3(V)+ b^{\mathcal{H}}_3({\bf 2})]\ln
757: \frac{M_{\rm GUT}}{M_C}=\Delta^{\rm gauge}_3+\Delta^{\rm Higgs}_3.
758: \end{split}
759: \end{equation}
760: Solving these equations yields
761: \begin{equation}
762: M_C \approx 5.5 \times 10^{14}\,{\rm GeV},\,\,\mbox{and}\,\,
763: M_* \approx 1.0 \times 10^{17}\,{\rm GeV},
764: \end{equation}
765: where we use the same value of $\delta_3$ as is used by Kim and
766: Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im} ($\delta_3 \simeq 6$) and we take the
767: corresponding value of $M_{\rm GUT}$ ($M_{\rm GUT}=3 \times
768: 10^{16}$\,GeV). These values imply that $N=90$, justifying the
769: large $N$ approximations. This also ensures that the effect of the
770: non-universal brane kinetic terms, present on the $O'$ brane, on
771: the gauge coupling unification is sufficiently small to be
772: neglected~\cite{Hall:2001pg}.
773:
774: In view of our results
775: the following picture emerges. The effective theory below the compactification scale
776: looks exactly the same as the usual MSSM theory. Then, once we go above $M_C$, there
777: emerge the towers of the Kaluza-Klein states that change the behavior of the gauge
778: running through the set of small but numerous threshold corrections. The theory finally
779: yields the gauge unification at $M_* > M_{\rm GUT}$ where all the couplings of the
780: theory enter the strong regime. At that point the five-dimensional theory must be
781: embedded into more fundamental physical picture.
782:
783: We should note that our result is not very sensitive to the exact
784: value of the small parameter $\zeta$. On the other hand, the
785: values of $M_C$ and $M_*$ depend very strongly on the value of
786: $\delta_3$. We have taken $\delta_3 \simeq 6$ to be able to
787: compare our results with the analysis of Kim and
788: Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}. This value, coming from the RGE
789: propagation of the experimental value of $\alpha_3(m_Z)=0.118 \pm
790: 0.003$ \cite{Hagiwara:fs} from the $m_Z$ scale to the GUT scale,
791: could be reduced in near future. Namely, the new estimate of
792: $\alpha_3$ from $\tau$ lifetime suggests
793: $\alpha_3(m_Z)=0.1221^{+0.0026}_{-0.0023}$
794: \cite{Erler:2002bu,Langacker:2003tv}. This would have a large
795: impact on our result since the corresponding value of $\delta_3$
796: ($\delta_3 \simeq 3$) would imply $N=2$, making the whole KK
797: unification picture questionable. The model of Kim and
798: Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im} for the case of $\delta_3 \simeq 3$ yields
799: $N=27$.
800:
801: This paper is devoted solely to the analysis of the gauge coupling
802: unification. This means that there are many questions left
803: unanswered. For example, one might ask what mechanism breaks
804: four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry. Or, how the Higgs
805: fields responsible for the missing partner mechanism get their
806: VEVs. Our intention was not to answer the questions like these but
807: to demonstrate the possibility of the five-dimensional
808: Kaluza-Klein unification and this we did. But, some of these
809: questions, including the possibility of having a model with the
810: realistic mass patterns, have already been tackled in
811: Ref.~\cite{Barr:2002fb}. [There are, of course, different
812: directions one might take. Namely, a number of five-dimensional
813: $SO(10)$ models with the Pati-Salam signature on one brane and
814: $SO(10)$ signature on the other brane has been studied in the
815: literature
816: \cite{Dermisek:2001hp,Albright:2002pt,Kyae:2002ss,Kim:2002im,Kim:2003vr}.
817: Even the most general scenario of having a model with the
818: five-dimensional $SO(10)$ gauge symmetry that is broken by
819: compactification on both branes has also been investigated
820: recently \cite{Kyae:2003ek}.]
821:
822: Our result for $M_C$ and $M_*$ is very similar to the result
823: obtained by Kim and Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im}. This is due to the
824: fact that the biggest correction to the standard four-dimensional
825: running in both cases comes from the first term in
826: Eq.~\eqref{gaugecorrection}. Since this term involves the beta
827: coefficients of the SM gauge group only, the leading corrections
828: must be the same for all the schemes with the realistic low-energy
829: signature. The main difference between the two models in the gauge
830: sector is generated by the beta coefficients $b^{\mathcal{G}}(V)$
831: of the gauge group on the hidden brane. In our case the hidden
832: brane has the flipped $SU(5)$ group with
833: $b^{\mathcal{G}}(V)=(0,-72/5,-72/5)$, while in the case of Kim and
834: Raby the hidden brane harbors PS gauge group with
835: $b^{\mathcal{G}}(V)=(0,12/5,-18/5)$. The main difference in the
836: Higgs sector stems from the fact that there is no distinction
837: between the region I and region II in Kim and Raby case since the
838: additional boundary conditions do not affect the Higgs sector at
839: all. Therefore, the second term in Eq.~\eqref{Higgscorrection} is
840: absent in their case. It is interesting to note that the
841: difference between the two models is in the terms that are
842: proportional to the small parameter $\zeta$. Therefore, the limit
843: $\zeta \rightarrow 0$ gives the same result in both cases. In that
844: limit we obtain $M_C \approx 3.2 \times 10^{14}\,{\rm GeV}$, and
845: $M_* \approx 2.2 \times 10^{17}\,{\rm GeV}$. Interestingly enough,
846: the same limit reproduces the results of the analysis on the gauge
847: coupling unification of the five-dimensional $SU(5)$ model
848: \cite{Hall:2002ci}. One can even make a more general
849: statement\footnote{We thank Hyung Do Kim for pointing this out to
850: us.} about various models yielding the same result in the limit
851: when the brane breaking is large enough ($\zeta \rightarrow 0$).
852: Namely, one expects the same corrections to the usual
853: four-dimensional running in all models that fulfill the following
854: conditions: i) $\mathcal{F}$ is a unified group; ii) $\mathcal{H}$
855: corresponds to the SM group; iii) Symmetry breaking $\mathcal{G}
856: \rightarrow \mathcal{H}$ is localized at the $\mathcal{G}$ brane;
857: iv) the MSSM Higgses originate from the bulk. Clearly, all of the
858: above conditions are satisfied by the models we consider.
859:
860: Even though the exact unification of the gauge couplings in the
861: four-di\-men\-sional flipped $SU(5)$ cannot be excluded
862: \cite{Ellis:2002vk,Nanopoulos:2002qk}, one can never justify the
863: charge quantization and the hypercharge assignment without
864: embedding it into $SO(10)$. In our case this is not an issue. As
865: long as the matter fields are placed in the bulk or on the visible
866: brane we guarantee the charge quantization. [Of course, if the
867: matter comes from the bulk multiplets we might lose the
868: unification of quarks and leptons of one family.] The exact
869: location of the matter fields is conditioned by the presence of
870: $d=6$ proton-decay operators induced by the exchange of the $X$
871: gauge bosons. Namely, the experimental limit on proton lifetime
872: yields the limit of $M > 2.8 \times 10^{15}\,{\rm GeV}$ on the
873: mass $M$ of the $X$ gauge bosons within the four-dimensional
874: flipped $SU(5)$ \cite{Murayama:2001ur}. Since the mass spectrum of
875: $X$ bosons in our model starts from the compactification scale
876: ($M_C \approx 6 \times 10^{14}\,{\rm GeV}$) it is clear that not
877: all the families of matter fields can be placed on the visible
878: brane. It is necessary for, at least, the first and the second
879: family to come from the bulk multiplets. The idea of localizing
880: the matter fields on the flipped $SU(5)$ brane does not appeal to
881: us on the grounds of charge quantization. But, in that case, the
882: suppression of the gauge field wave function on the flipped
883: $SU(5)$ brane that is visible in Fig.~\ref{deltaKK} is sufficient
884: to make the prediction for the proton decay via $p \rightarrow
885: \pi^0 e^+$ channel very close to the present experimental bound
886: (see for example \cite{Nomura:2001mf,Hebecker:2002rc}). In this
887: aspect the model of Kim and Raby~\cite{Kim:2002im} does better job
888: since the localization of the matter fields on the PS brane, in
889: their case, still justifies the charge quantization. The only {\em
890: ad hoc\/} feature of our model is the existence of the Higgses on
891: the hidden brane. It is difficult to justify their $U(1)$ charges
892: unless they originate from the ${\bf 16}$ and the $\overline{{\bf
893: 16}}$ bulk fields. [This remains an open possibility.] We argue
894: that their $U(1)$ charges are what one expects from the fields of
895: flipped $SU(5)$ and that they provide the anomaly cancellation on
896: the hidden brane. The model can still produce interesting mass
897: matrix patterns $L = D$ and $N = U$ that were discussed in
898: Ref.~\cite{Barr:2002fb} where, in our case, the relation $L = D$
899: holds only for the third family. In addition, it has been shown
900: that this class of models allows for gaugino meditated
901: supersymmetry breaking with the non-universal gaugino
902: masses~\cite{Barr:2002fb} which leads to the realistic
903: supersymmetry mass spectra~\cite{Baer:2002by,Balazs:2003mm}.
904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
906: \section{Conclusion}
907: \label{conclusion}
908: We have presented an $SO(10)$ model in five dimensions. The model
909: has served to demonstrate that the exact unification of the gauge couplings
910: is possible even in the higher dimensional setting. The corrections to the
911: usual four-dimensional running have been due to the Kaluza-Klein towers
912: of states. We have shown that despite the large amount of these states
913: the corrections for the MSSM running can be unambiguously and systematically
914: evaluated. Demanding the exact unification, the compactification scale is deduced
915: to be $M_C \approx 5.5 \times 10^{14}\,{\rm GeV}$ with the cutoff of the theory at
916: $M_* \approx 1.0 \times 10^{17}\,{\rm GeV}$. Therefore, the five-dimensional theory
917: exists in a rather large energy region before one needs to replace it with the more
918: fundamental one.
919:
920: The usual problems of SUSY GUTs, such as the doublet-triplet
921: splitting problem, have been solved in a natural way. For example,
922: the presence of the flipped $SU(5)$ symmetry on the hidden brane
923: has allowed us to implement the missing partner mechanism. At the
924: same time the presence of the $SO(10)$ symmetry on the visible
925: brane still allows one to obtain desirable predictions for the
926: quark and lepton masses such as $m_b = m_{\tau}$. The model yields
927: the low-energy signature of the MSSM. In addition, it allows for
928: the justification of the charge quantization as long as the matter
929: lives on the visible brane or in the bulk. Due to $d=6$
930: proton-decay operators the first and the second family of the
931: matter fields have to originate from the bulk.
932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
933: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
934: \begin{acknowledgments}
935: The author would like to thank Stephen M.\ Barr, Hyung Do Kim, and
936: Stuart Raby for reading this manuscript and for valuable comments.
937: \end{acknowledgments}
938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
939: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
940: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
941:
942: %\cite{Goto:1998qg}
943: \bibitem{Goto:1998qg}
944: T.~Goto and T.~Nihei,
945: %``Effect of RRRR dimension 5 operator on the proton decay in the minimal SU(5) SUGRA GUT model,''
946: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 115009 (1999)
947: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808255].
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808255;%%
949:
950: %\cite{Babu:1998ep}
951: \bibitem{Babu:1998ep}
952: K.~S.~Babu and M.~J.~Strassler,
953: %``A reexamination of proton decay in supersymmetric grand unified theories,''
954: arXiv:hep-ph/9808447.
955: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808447;%%
956:
957: %\cite{Murayama:2001ur}
958: \bibitem{Murayama:2001ur}
959: H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,
960: %``Not even decoupling can save minimal supersymmetric SU(5),''
961: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055009 (2002)
962: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108104].
963: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108104;%%
964:
965: %\cite{Bajc:2002pg}
966: \bibitem{Bajc:2002pg}
967: B.~Bajc, P.~F.~Perez and G.~Senjanovic,
968: %``Minimal supersymmetric SU(5) theory and proton decay: Where do we stand?,''
969: arXiv:hep-ph/0210374.
970: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210374;%%
971:
972: %\cite{Bajc:2002bv}
973: \bibitem{Bajc:2002bv}
974: B.~Bajc, P.~F.~Perez and G.~Senjanovic,
975: %``Proton decay in minimal supersymmetric SU(5),''
976: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 075005 (2002)
977: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204311].
978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204311;%%
979:
980: %\cite{DeRujula:1980qc}
981: \bibitem{DeRujula:1980qc}
982: A.~De Rujula, H.~Georgi and S.~L.~Glashow,
983: %``Flavor Goniometry By Proton Decay,''
984: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 45}, 413 (1980).
985: %%CITATION = PRLTA,45,413;%%
986:
987: %\cite{Georgi:1980pw}
988: \bibitem{Georgi:1980pw}
989: H.~Georgi, S.~L.~Glashow and M.~Machacek,
990: %``Mu+ Polarization In Proton Decay: A Probe Of Flavor Mixing In Unified Models,''
991: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 783 (1981).
992: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,783;%%
993:
994: %\cite{Barr:1981qv}
995: \bibitem{Barr:1981qv}
996: S.~M.~Barr,
997: %``A New Symmetry Breaking Pattern For SO(10) And Proton Decay,''
998: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 112}, 219 (1982).
999: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B112,219;%%
1000:
1001: %\cite{Derendinger:1983aj}
1002: \bibitem{Derendinger:1983aj}
1003: J.~P.~Derendinger, J.~E.~Kim and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1004: %``Anti - SU(5),''
1005: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 139}, 170 (1984).
1006: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B139,170;%%
1007:
1008: %\cite{Antoniadis:1987dx}
1009: \bibitem{Antoniadis:1987dx}
1010: I.~Antoniadis, J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Hagelin and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1011: %``Supersymmetric Flipped SU(5) Revitalized,''
1012: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 194}, 231 (1987).
1013: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B194,231;%%
1014:
1015: %\cite{Ellis:2002vk}
1016: \bibitem{Ellis:2002vk}
1017: J.~R.~Ellis, D.~V.~Nanopoulos and J.~Walker,
1018: %``Flipping SU(5) out of trouble,''
1019: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 550}, 99 (2002)
1020: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205336].
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205336;%%
1022:
1023: %\cite{Nanopoulos:2002qk}
1024: \bibitem{Nanopoulos:2002qk}
1025: D.~V.~Nanopoulos,
1026: %``F-enomenology,''
1027: arXiv:hep-ph/0211128.
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211128;%%
1029:
1030: %\cite{Barr:2002fb}
1031: \bibitem{Barr:2002fb}
1032: S.~M.~Barr and I.~Dorsner,
1033: %``Unifying flipped SU(5) in five dimensions,''
1034: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 065013 (2002)
1035: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205088].
1036: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205088;%%
1037:
1038: %\cite{Kawamura:1999nj}
1039: \bibitem{Kawamura:1999nj}
1040: Y.~Kawamura,
1041: %``Gauge symmetry reduction from the extra space S(1)/Z(2),''
1042: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 103}, 613 (2000)
1043: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902423].
1044: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902423;%%
1045:
1046: %\cite{Kawamura:2000ev}
1047: \bibitem{Kawamura:2000ev}
1048: Y.~Kawamura,
1049: %``Triplet-doublet splitting, proton stability and extra dimension,''
1050: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 105}, 999 (2001)
1051: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012125].
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012125;%%
1053:
1054: %\cite{Kawamura:2000ir}
1055: \bibitem{Kawamura:2000ir}
1056: Y.~Kawamura,
1057: %``Split multiplets, coupling unification and extra dimension,''
1058: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 105}, 691 (2001)
1059: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012352].
1060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012352;%%
1061:
1062: %\cite{Hall:2001pg}
1063: \bibitem{Hall:2001pg}
1064: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,
1065: %``Gauge unification in higher dimensions,''
1066: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 055003 (2001)
1067: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103125].
1068: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103125;%%
1069:
1070: %\cite{Hall:2001xb}
1071: \bibitem{Hall:2001xb}
1072: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,
1073: %``Gauge coupling unification from unified theories in higher dimensions,''
1074: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 125012 (2002)
1075: [arXiv:hep-ph/0111068].
1076: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111068;%%
1077:
1078: %\cite{Hall:2002ci}
1079: \bibitem{Hall:2002ci}
1080: L.~J.~Hall and Y.~Nomura,
1081: %``A complete theory of grand unification in five dimensions,''
1082: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 075004 (2002)
1083: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205067].
1084: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205067;%%
1085:
1086: %\cite{Dermisek:2001hp}
1087: \bibitem{Dermisek:2001hp}
1088: R.~Dermisek and A.~Mafi,
1089: %``SO(10) grand unification in five dimensions: Proton decay and the mu problem,''
1090: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055002 (2002)
1091: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108139].
1092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108139;%%
1093:
1094: %\cite{Hebecker:2001jb}
1095: \bibitem{Hebecker:2001jb}
1096: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell,
1097: %``The structure of GUT breaking by orbifolding,''
1098: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 625}, 128 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0107039].
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107039;%%
1100:
1101: %\cite{Kim:2002im}
1102: \bibitem{Kim:2002im}
1103: H.~D.~Kim and S.~Raby,
1104: %``Unification in 5D SO(10),''
1105: JHEP {\bf 0301}, 056 (2003)
1106: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212348].
1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212348;%%
1108:
1109: %\cite{Hebecker:2001wq}
1110: \bibitem{Hebecker:2001wq}
1111: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell,
1112: %``A minimal S(1)/(Z(2) x Z'(2)) orbifold GUT,''
1113: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 613}, 3 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0106166].
1114: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106166;%%
1115:
1116: %\cite{Babu:1993we}
1117: \bibitem{Babu:1993we}
1118: K.~S.~Babu and S.~M.~Barr,
1119: %``Natural suppression of Higgsino mediated proton decay in supersymmetric SO(10),''
1120: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 5354 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9306242].
1121: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306242;%%
1122:
1123: %\cite{Nomura:2001mf}
1124: \bibitem{Nomura:2001mf}
1125: Y.~Nomura, D.~R.~Smith and N.~Weiner,
1126: %``GUT breaking on the brane,''
1127: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 613}, 147 (2001)
1128: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104041].
1129: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104041;%%
1130:
1131: %\cite{Choi:2003bh}
1132: \bibitem{Choi:2003bh}
1133: K.~Y.~Choi, J.~E.~Kim and H.~M.~Lee,
1134: %``Towards 5D grand unification without SUSY flavor problem,''
1135: JHEP {\bf 0306}, 040 (2003)
1136: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303213].
1137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303213;%%
1138:
1139: %\cite{Chacko:1999hg}
1140: \bibitem{Chacko:1999hg}
1141: Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty and E.~Ponton,
1142: %``Massive higher-dimensional gauge fields as messengers of supersymmetry breaking,''
1143: JHEP {\bf 0007}, 036 (2000)
1144: [arXiv:hep-ph/9909248].
1145: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9909248;%%
1146:
1147: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001tb}
1148: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001tb}
1149: N.~Arkani-Hamed, T.~Gregoire and J.~Wacker,
1150: %``Higher dimensional supersymmetry in 4D superspace,''
1151: arXiv:hep-th/0101233.
1152: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0101233;%%
1153:
1154: %\cite{:2001xx}
1155: \bibitem{:2001xx}
1156: [LEP Higgs Working Group Collaboration],
1157: %``Searches for the neutral Higgs bosons of the MSSM: Preliminary combined results using LEP data collected at energies up to 209-GeV,''
1158: arXiv:hep-ex/0107030.
1159: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107030;%%
1160:
1161: %\cite{Hagiwara:fs}
1162: \bibitem{Hagiwara:fs}
1163: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1164: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
1165: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
1166: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
1167:
1168: %\cite{Erler:2002bu}
1169: \bibitem{Erler:2002bu}
1170: J.~Erler and M.~x.~Luo,
1171: %``Precision determination of heavy quark masses and the strong coupling constant,''
1172: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 558}, 125 (2003)
1173: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207114].
1174: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207114;%%
1175:
1176: %\cite{Langacker:2003tv}
1177: \bibitem{Langacker:2003tv}
1178: P.~Langacker,
1179: %``Electroweak physics,''
1180: arXiv:hep-ph/0308145.
1181: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308145;%%
1182:
1183: %\cite{Albright:2002pt}
1184: \bibitem{Albright:2002pt}
1185: C.~H.~Albright and S.~M.~Barr,
1186: %``Lifting a realistic SO(10) grand unified model to five dimensions,''
1187: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 013002 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0209173].
1188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209173;%%
1189:
1190: %\cite{Kyae:2002ss}
1191: \bibitem{Kyae:2002ss}
1192: B.~Kyae and Q.~Shafi,
1193: %``GUT scale and leptogenesis from 5D inflation,''
1194: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 556}, 97 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211059].
1195: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211059;%%
1196:
1197: %\cite{Kim:2003vr}
1198: \bibitem{Kim:2003vr}
1199: H.~D.~Kim and S.~Raby,
1200: %``Neutrinos in 5D SO(10) unification,''
1201: JHEP {\bf 0307}, 014 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0304104].
1202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304104;%%
1203:
1204: %\cite{Kyae:2003ek}
1205: \bibitem{Kyae:2003ek}
1206: B.~Kyae, C.~A.~Lee and Q.~Shafi,
1207: %``Low energy consequences of five dimensional SO(10),''
1208: arXiv:hep-ph/0309205.
1209: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309205;%%
1210:
1211: %\cite{Hebecker:2002rc}
1212: \bibitem{Hebecker:2002rc}
1213: A.~Hebecker and J.~March-Russell,
1214: %``Proton decay signatures of orbifold GUTs,''
1215: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539}, 119 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204037].
1216: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204037;%%
1217:
1218: %\cite{Baer:2002by}
1219: \bibitem{Baer:2002by}
1220: H.~Baer, C.~Balazs, A.~Belyaev, R.~Dermisek, A.~Mafi and A.~Mustafayev,
1221: %``Viable models with non-universal gaugino mediated supersymmetry breaking,''
1222: JHEP {\bf 0205}, 061 (2002)
1223: [arXiv:hep-ph/0204108].
1224: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204108;%%
1225:
1226: %\cite{Balazs:2003mm}
1227: \bibitem{Balazs:2003mm}
1228: C.~Balazs and R.~Dermisek,
1229: %``Yukawa coupling unification and non-universal gaugino mediation of supersymmetry breaking,''
1230: JHEP {\bf 0306}, 024 (2003)
1231: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303161].
1232: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303161;%%
1233:
1234: \end{thebibliography}
1235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1237: \end{document}
1238: