format: text

text:
# Security of the Cao-Li Public Key Cryptosystem

## 1. Description of the Cryptosystem

The Cao-Li public key cryptosystem was first proposed in . It encrypts messages using a bilinear form that is chosen to permit easy decryption by the Chinese remainder theorem. Public key cryptosystems that are designed along this line are not uncommon in the Chinese cryptographic literature. However, as most of the original papers were published in Chinese, they remained relatively obscure until a few of them were described in  (in English) recently. Our description below is based on the latter reference.

Let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ be $`n`$ distinct primes where $`p_i3(mod4)`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, define

$$m_i:=\frac{1}{p_i}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_j\right)\text{.}$$

Compute for each $`m_i`$, an integer $`m_i^{}`$ that satisfies $`m_i^{}m_i1(modp_i)`$ and $`0<m_i^{}<p_i`$. We define positive integers

$$\lambda _i:=m_i^{}m_i$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and the diagonal matrix

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:=diag[\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n].$$

Note that

(1)
$$\lambda _i\delta _{ij}(modp_j)$$

where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is $`1`$ if $`i=j`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

We choose another two invertible $`n\times n`$ lower-triangular matrices $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ with non-negative integer entries that are bounded by

(2)
$$\beta :=\underset{1in}{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{\frac{p_i}{i(i+1)d}}$$

where $`d1`$ is a chosen positive integer.

The secret key comprises the two matrices $`P_1,P_2`$ and the primes $`p_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The public key is the $`n\times n`$ symmetric matrix $`B`$ given by

$$B:=P_2^TP_1^T\mathrm{\Lambda }P_1P_2\text{.}$$

Let the message block be $`𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ where $`0x_id`$. The ciphertext $`y`$ is computed as

$$y=𝐱B𝐱^T\text{.}$$

If we let $`𝐳:=𝐱P_2^TP_1^T`$, then

$$y=𝐳\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐳^T=\lambda _1z_1^2+\mathrm{}+\lambda _nz_n^2\text{.}$$

From (1), we have

(3)
$$z_k^2y(modp_k)\text{.}$$

Keeping in mind that $`P_1^T`$ and $`P_2^T`$ are upper-triangular and their entries are non-negative and bounded by $`\beta `$, we have, from (2) and $`0x_id`$, that

(4)
$$0z_k\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=i}{\overset{k}{}}d\beta ^2=d\beta ^2\frac{k(k+1)}{2}<\frac{p_k}{2}\text{.}$$

We can carry out decryption as follows. For each $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, compute the unique $`z_k`$ satisfying (3) and (4). The message can then be recovered by

(5)
$$𝐱=𝐳\left(P_2^TP_1^T\right)^1\text{.}$$

Note that since $`p_k3(mod4)`$, effective algorithms for computing square roots $`(modp_k)`$ exist (see ).

## 2. Key Recovery

We will first recover $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from $`B`$. Let $`P_1P_2=:P=(p_{ij})_{1i,jn}`$. Then $`P`$ is an invertible lower-triangular matrix with non-negative integral entries by the same properties of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. Since $`P`$ is invertible and has non-negative integral entries, we have $`detP=1`$. Moreover, we also have $`detP=p_{11}\times \mathrm{}\times p_{nn}`$ since $`P`$ is triangular. As all the $`p_{ii}`$’s are non-negative, it then follows that $`p_{ii}=1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`P`$ can be recovered from $`B`$ using an algorithm that is very similar to the algorithm for LU-decomposition of a matrix (the difference being that row reduction is done starting from the bottom rows). Denote the $`i`$th row of $`B`$ by $`𝐛_i=(b_{i1},\mathrm{},b_{in})`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We know immediately that $`b_{nn}=\lambda _n`$.

The following shows that Algorithm A indeed yields the required output. Let the $`i`$th row of $`P`$ be $`𝐩_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Since $`p_{ji}=0`$ if $`j<i`$ and $`p_{ii}=1`$, we may write $`𝐛_i=\lambda _i𝐩_i+_{j=i+1}^n\lambda _jp_{ji}𝐩_j`$. For each $`i=n1,n2,\mathrm{},1`$, the inner loop of Step 1 effectively does

$$𝐛_i𝐛_i\underset{j=i+1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{b_{ji}}{b_{jj}}𝐛_j\text{.}$$

We shall show inductively that $`𝐛_i`$ is reduced to $`\lambda _i𝐩_i`$ at stage $`i`$: clearly $`𝐛_n=\lambda _n𝐩_n`$; suppose $`𝐛_i`$ is reduced to $`\lambda _i𝐩_i`$ at stage $`i=n1,\mathrm{},nk`$, then at stage $`nk1`$,

$`𝐛_{nk1}`$ $`𝐛_{nk1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=nk}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{ji}}{b_{jj}}}𝐛_j`$
$`=𝐛_{nk1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=nk}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _jp_{ji}𝐩_j`$
$`=\lambda _{nk1}𝐩_{nk1}\text{.}`$
Hence Step 1 reduces $`B=(𝐛_1,\mathrm{},𝐛_n)^T`$ to $`(\lambda _n𝐩_n,\mathrm{},\lambda _n𝐩_n)^T=\mathrm{\Lambda }P`$. Since the diagonal entries of $`P`$ are all $`1`$’s, the diagonal entries of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }P`$ are the required $`\lambda _i`$’s. Consequently, $`P`$ can be recovered by dividing each row by its corresponding diagonal entry.

We can now recover the moduli $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ from $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$. From (1), we see that for a fixed $`i`$, $`p_i\lambda _j`$ for all $`ji`$ and $`p_i\lambda _i1`$. So

$$p_id_i:=\mathrm{gcd}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{i1},\lambda _i1,\lambda _{i+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _n)\text{.}$$

It could of course happen that $`d_ip_i`$ for some $`i`$. So this process only partially recovers the $`p_i`$’s. However our computer simulations (using C++ with LiDIA) show that instances where $`d_ip_i`$ are rare. We shall give some heuristics to substantiate this claim. For $`d_i=p_i`$, it is sufficient that $`\mathrm{gcd}(m_1^{},\mathrm{},m_{i1}^{},m_{i+1}^{},\mathrm{},m_n^{})=1`$. From , we have

$$\mathrm{\#}\left\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)^k\right|\mathrm{gcd}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)=1,\text{ all }a_iN\}$$

$$=\{\begin{array}{cc}N^k/\zeta (k)+O(N^{k1})\hfill & \text{if }k>2,\hfill \\ 6N^2/\pi ^2+O(N\mathrm{log}N)\hfill & \text{if }k=2.\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\zeta (s)=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}i^s`$ is the Riemann zeta function. Assuming that each $`m_i^{}`$ is randomly distributed in $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ where $`N:=\mathrm{max}\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$, the probability that $`\mathrm{gcd}(m_1^{},\mathrm{},m_{i1}^{},m_{i+1}^{},\mathrm{},m_n^{})=1`$ is then at least $`\zeta (n1)6/\pi ^20.60`$ when $`N`$ is large enough. So we can expect to recover more than half of the $`p_i`$’s. In fact our simulations show that we almost always have $`d_i=p_i`$ and many of the rare exceptions are of the form $`d_i=2p_i`$ where $`p_i`$ can also be recovered easily.

## 3. Conclusion

Note that Algorithm A is essentially LU-decomposition and the $`d_i`$’s can be computed using the Euclidean algorithm. Since these two methods can be carried out efficiently, we can easily recover $`P`$ and most of the $`p_i`$’s. It then follows that the Cao-Li cryptosystem is insecure and thus should not be used.


text:
# References

EXTENDED COHERENT STATES AND MODIFIED PERTURBATION THEORY

G.M.Filippov

Chuvash State University, Cheboksary, Russia

E-mail: gennadiy@chuvsu.ru

## Abstract

An extended coherent state (ECS) for describing a system of two interacting quantum objects is considered. A modified perturbation theory based on using the ECSs is formulated.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Fd, 11.15.Bt, 11.15.Tk

1. Extended coherent states Coherent states were constructed first by Schrödinger  and in the last 40 years of the 20th century were widely used in different problems of quantum physics . There are many modifications of coherent states. Recall, for example, the spin coherent states introduced in . A general algebraic approach in the coherent state theory was developed in . The coherent states for a particle on a sphere were applied in  to describe the rotator time evolution. Here we propose one more generalization of the theory by introducing the extended coherent state (ECS).

Consider a system of an oscillator and a free spinless particle posessing a momentum $`𝐤_0`$. Let $`\widehat{b}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ be the ladder operators for the oscillator. Introduce the creation $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and annihilation $`\widehat{a}`$ operators of Bose type to describe a possible change in the particle’s state (note that the further consideration may be applied just as well to a Fermi particle). Input the operator

$$\widehat{Q}=\underset{𝐪}{}h_𝐪\widehat{\rho }_𝐪,$$
(1)
where

$$\widehat{\rho }_𝐪=\underset{𝐤}{}\widehat{a}_𝐤^{}\widehat{a}_{𝐤+𝐪}$$

is the Fourier component of the density operator and $`h_𝐪`$ \- are coefficients depending on momentum $`𝐪`$. We can construct another linear combination $`\widehat{Q}^{}`$ of operators $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐪`$ with the help of any other set of coefficients $`h_𝐪^{}`$. All these combinations are commutative

$$[\widehat{Q},\widehat{Q}^{}]_{}=0$$

because the commutation rule

$$[\widehat{\rho }_𝐪,\widehat{\rho }_𝐪^{}]_{}=0$$
(2)
is fullfilled for all $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐪^{}`$.

Input a vector of state $`|0,𝐤_0)`$, where the first argument $`(0)`$ denotes a ground state of the oscillator and the second one $`(𝐤_0)`$ describes a state of the particle. Define the vector

$$|h,𝐤_0>=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}\widehat{Q}^{}\widehat{Q})\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\widehat{Q}\widehat{b}^{}\right)^n|0,𝐤_0)$$
(3)
as an ESC (here we briefly denote by $`h`$ the whole set of coefficients $`h_𝐪`$). Obviously, the vector (3) coincides with the ordinary Schrödinger coherent state (SCS), when one replaces all particle’s operators by their classical equivalents. The ECS describes some state of a system of two interacting quantum objects — the particle and the oscillator. By this circumstance the ECS sufficiently differs from the SCS.

We outline the following general properties of the ECS:

(1) The ECS is not the eigenvector for $`\widehat{b}`$, but

$$\widehat{b}|h,𝐤_0>=\widehat{Q}|h,𝐤_\mathrm{𝟎}>.$$
(4)
(2) The operators $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐪`$ only change momenta for all the one-particle states. Hence, the following relations are fullfilled:

$$\widehat{\rho }_𝐪|h,𝐤_0>=|h,𝐤_0𝐪>$$
(5)
$$\widehat{\rho }_𝐪^{}\widehat{\rho }_𝐪|h,𝐤_0>=|h,𝐤_0>.$$
(6)
(3) There is the following representation:

$$|h,𝐤_0>=\mathrm{exp}[\widehat{Q}\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{Q}^{}\widehat{b}]|0,𝐤_0)$$
(7)
which is equivalent to the relevant representation of the SCS.

(4) If $`h_𝐪=g\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐪𝐪_0\right)`$ we easily have

$$|h,𝐤_0>=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left|g\right|^2}{2}\right]\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{g^n}{n!}\left(\widehat{\rho }_{𝐪_0}\widehat{b}^{}\right)^n|0,𝐤_0)$$
(8)
and therefore,

$$<h,𝐤_0|h^{},𝐤_0^{}>=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\left|g\right|^2+\left|g^{}\right|^22g^{}g^{}\right)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }\left(𝐤_0𝐤_0^{}\right).$$
(9)
(5) The total amount of ECS are more than sufficient to define the Hilbert space. Following to Klauder  (see also ) we can introduce the development of the unity operator

$$\widehat{\mathrm{I}}=\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{1}{\pi }d^2z\widehat{Q}|zh,𝐤><zh,𝐤|\widehat{Q}^{}$$
(10)
where $`z`$ \- is the complex variable, $`d^2z=d\left[\mathrm{Re}\left(z\right)\right]d\left[\mathrm{Im}\left(z\right)\right]`$. To prove the last equation one may use the integral

$$d^2z\left(z^{}\right)^nz^m\mathrm{exp}\left[\left|z\right|^2\widehat{Q}^{}\widehat{Q}\right]\widehat{Q}^{m+1}\left(\widehat{Q}^{}\right)^{n+1}=\pi n!\delta _{nm}.$$

(6) There is the following useful sum rule:

$$\underset{𝐤}{}e^{i\mathrm{𝐬𝐤}}\widehat{a}_𝐤|h,𝐤_\mathrm{𝟎}>=e^{i\mathrm{𝐬𝐤}_0}|\alpha )\left|\mathrm{vac}_p\right)$$
(11)
where the right-hand side contains a direct product of the SCS for the oscillator

$$\left|\alpha \right)=\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{2}|\alpha |^2]\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^n}{n!}\left(b^{}\right)^n\left|0\right)$$

and a vacuum state of the particle $`\left|\mathrm{vac}_p\right)`$. Here the quantity $`\alpha `$ is given by the formula

$$\alpha =\underset{𝐪}{}h_𝐪e^{is𝐪}.$$

To prove the property (6) one should keep in mind the relation:

$$\underset{𝐤}{}\widehat{a}_𝐤e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}\widehat{\rho }_{𝐪_1}\widehat{\rho }_{𝐪_2}\mathrm{}|0,𝐤_0)=e^{i𝐤_0𝐱}e^{i𝐪_1𝐱}e^{i𝐪_2𝐱}\mathrm{}\left|0\right)\left|vac_p\right)$$
(12)
where $`\left|0\right)`$ is the vector of the ground state of the oscillator.

2. Modified perturbation theory

ECSs, first introduced in 1983111 Extended coherent states were first denoted as ’double coherent’ states or ’modified coherent’ states. arise, for example, in a problem of interaction between a moving particle and an oscillator. The proper Hamiltonian can be represented in the following general form

$$\widehat{H}_{int}=\widehat{b}^{}\underset{𝐪}{}g_𝐪\widehat{\rho }_𝐪+\widehat{b}\underset{𝐪}{}g_𝐪^{}\widehat{\rho }_𝐪^{}$$
(13)
where $`g_𝐪`$ \- is a coupling function. Since $`\widehat{\rho }_𝐪^{}=\widehat{\rho }_𝐪`$, it should be $`g_𝐪=g_𝐪^{}`$.

In most applications the Hamiltonian (13) within the interaction picture depends on time via the density operators $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$. In these cases we cann’t apply ECS without some modification of the theory. Indeed, instead of relations (2) we have

$$[\widehat{\rho }_𝐪\left(t\right),\widehat{\rho }_𝐪^{}\left(t^{}\right)]_{}=\underset{𝐤}{}\widehat{a}_𝐤^{}\widehat{a}_{𝐤+𝐪+𝐪^{}}[\mathrm{exp}\{i(\epsilon _𝐤t\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐪+𝐪^{}}t^{}i\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐪}(tt^{})\}$$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(\epsilon _𝐤t^{}\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐪+𝐪^{}}t+i\epsilon _{𝐤+𝐪^{}}(tt^{})\}\right].$$

We construct a modified perturbation theory with the help of excluding an integrable part of the interaction. For this purpose we expand the operator $`\widehat{H}_{int}(t)`$ in two parts, $`\widehat{H}_{int}^{(0)}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{H}_{int}^{(1)}(t)`$, where

$$\widehat{H}_{int}^{\left(0\right)}\left(t\right)=\widehat{b}^{}\underset{𝐪}{}g_𝐪\widehat{\rho }_𝐪f_𝐪\left(t\right)+\widehat{b}\underset{𝐪}{}g_𝐪^{}\widehat{\rho }_𝐪^{}f_𝐪^{}\left(t\right)$$

$$\widehat{H}_{int}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)=\widehat{H}_{int}\left(t\right)\widehat{H}_{int}^{\left(0\right)}\left(t\right).$$

Here the function $`f_𝐪(t)`$ must be unimodular to preserve the interaction intensity. Obviously, the operators $`\underset{𝐪}{}g_𝐪\widehat{\rho }_𝐪f_𝐪(t)`$ defined at different times, obey the commutation relations. Then, by virtue of the above consideration, the equation

$$i\frac{d}{dt}\left|t\right)=\widehat{H}_{int}^{\left(0\right)}\left(t\right)\left|t\right)$$

acquires an exact solution

$$\left|t\right)=e^{i\widehat{\chi }\left(t\right)}|h,𝐤_0>$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{Q}`$ has the previous form (1) and

$$h_𝐪=ig_𝐪\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}f_𝐪\left(t^{}\right)e^{i\omega t^{}}$$

$$\widehat{\chi }\left(t\right)=\frac{i}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}\left\{\widehat{\dot{Q}}^{}\left(t^{}\right)\widehat{Q}\left(t^{}\right)\widehat{Q}^{}\left(t^{}\right)\widehat{\dot{Q}}\left(t^{}\right)\right\}𝑑t^{}.$$

The solution (14) can be rewritten as $`|t)=\widehat{U}_0(t)|0,𝐤_0>`$, where we introduce a zero-th order evolution operator

$$\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\widehat{Q}\left(t\right)\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{Q}^{}\left(t\right)\widehat{b}i\widehat{\chi }\left(t\right)\right\}.$$

There are the following useful commutation relations:

$$[\widehat{b},\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)]_{}=\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)\widehat{Q}\left(t\right)[\widehat{b},\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(t\right)]_{}=\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(t\right)\widehat{Q}\left(t\right)$$

$$[\widehat{b}^{},\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)]_{}=\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)\widehat{Q}^{}\left(t\right)[\widehat{b}^{},\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(t\right)]_{}=\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(t\right)\widehat{Q}^{}\left(t\right).$$

Let us introduce a new representation for the vector of state and for operators:

$$|t>=\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(t\right)|t)\stackrel{~}{A}=\widehat{U}_0^{}(t\left)\widehat{A}\widehat{U}_0\right(t).$$

The new vector of state obeys the equation

$$i\frac{d}{dt}|t>=\stackrel{~}{H}_{int}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)|t>$$

which can be solved with the help of a standard technique using the T-exponent

$$|t>=\mathrm{Texp}\{i\underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}dt^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_{int}^{\left(1\right)}\left(t^{}\right)\}|0,𝐤_0).$$
(15)
If the choice of the function $`f_𝐪(t)`$ ensures the rapid convergence to the series (15), formula (14) gives a good approximation for the vector of state. In this case we can evaluate a wide set of physical characteristics with sufficient accuracy. As an example, we calculate the density matrix for the particle, for which the exact expression is given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)=<t\left|\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{}(𝐱,t)\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐱^{},t)\right|t>.$$
(16)
Here the usual wave operators are introduced, namely,

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(𝐱,t)=\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(t\right)\widehat{\psi }(𝐱,t)\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)\widehat{\psi }(𝐱,t)=\underset{𝐤}{}\widehat{a}_𝐤\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}i\epsilon _𝐤t\right\}$$

where $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ \- is an energy of the particle posessing momentum $`𝐤`$. The further consideration will be more convenient if the particle- oscillator interaction began at any incident time $`t_0<0`$ when the oscillator was found in the ground state. Let us define the density matrix at $`t=0`$. In the first approximation we can set $`|t>|0,𝐤_0)`$. In this case

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)(0,𝐤_0\left|\widehat{U}_0^{}\left(0\right)\widehat{\psi }^{}(𝐱,0)\widehat{\psi }(𝐱^{},0)\widehat{U}_0\left(0\right)\right|0,𝐤_0).$$
(17)
Using relation (7) we have $`\widehat{U}_0(0)|0,𝐤_0)=e^{i\widehat{\chi }(0)}|h,𝐤_0>`$, where $`\widehat{Q}`$ is defined as in (1) with

$$h_𝐪=h_𝐪\left(0\right)h_𝐪\left(t\right)=ig_𝐪\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}f_𝐪\left(t^{}\right)e^{i\omega t^{}}𝑑t^{}t>t_0.$$

Now we apply relations (12) to obtain the formula similar to (11):

$$\widehat{\psi }(𝐱^{},0)\widehat{U}_0\left(t\right)|0,𝐤_0)=\mathrm{exp}\{i𝐤_0𝐱^{}i\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐱^{}\right)\}\left|\alpha (𝐱^{},0)\right)\left|vac_p\right)$$
(18)
where

$$\alpha (𝐱,t)=\underset{𝐪}{}h_𝐪\left(t\right)e^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐱}}$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐱\right)=\underset{t_0}{\overset{0}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\dot{\alpha }^{}(𝐱,t^{})\alpha (𝐱,t^{})\right]𝑑t^{}.$$

Substituting (18) into (17) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐱,𝐱^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})e^{i𝐤_0𝐱+i𝐤_0𝐱^{}}\times $$

$$\mathrm{exp}\{i\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐱\right)i\mathrm{\Phi }\left(𝐱^{}\right)\frac{1}{2}[|\alpha (𝐱,0)|^2+|\alpha (𝐱^{},0)|^22\alpha ^{}(𝐱,0)\alpha (𝐱^{},0)]\}.$$
(19)
Note, that in the case $`g_𝐪=g\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐪𝐪_0)`$, the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)=const`$ and formula (19) is simlified.

The work was partly supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant no 97-02-16058).


text:
# Old models for Cygnus X-1 and AGN

Recently, there appeared many papers devoted to the modeling of X-ray properties of Cygnus X-1 and other black hole accretion disk candidates: e.g. J.Poutanen, J.Krolik, F.Ryde, MNRAS 292 (1997) L21; E.Agol, J.Krolik, ApJ 507 (1998) 304; A.Beloborodov, in “High Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes”, ASP Conf. Series, 161, (1999), p.295. The goal of this electronic publication is to draw attention to our old papers where many ideas of recent discussions were anticipated (hot coronae, Comptonization, photon damping of waves, particle acceleration and matter ejection from accretion disks with large scale poloidal magnetic fields, etc.)

A hot corona around a black-hole accretion disk as a model for Cygnus X-1

G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and S. I. Blinnikov

Institute for Space Research, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow

(Submitted April 15, 1976)

Pis’ma Astron. Zh. 2, 489-493 (October 1976)

Sov.Astron.Lett. 2, 191-193 (Sep.-Oct. 1976)

Heat transfer in the region of maximum energy release of an accretion disk will take place mainly by convection, serving to enhance the turbulence and to generate a powerful acoustic flux. The hard X-rays emitted by Cyg X-1 ($`E<200`$ keV) might result from Comptonization of soft photons in a corona formed around the disk through this heating.

PACS numbers: 98.60.Qs, 97.70.Ss

With high probability, the X-rays emitted by the source Cygnus X-1 come from a black hole that is in a regime of disk accretion. The theory of disk accretion has been developed by several authors –. But difficulties arise if one seeks to explain the spectrum of Cyg X-1 on the basis of this theory. The source has a luminosity $`L<10^{38}`$ erg/sec $`0.1L_c`$, where $`L_c=1.310^{38}M/M_{}`$ is the critical Eddington luminosity. For this luminosity the theoretical spectrum should fall off sharply in the energy range $`h\nu 7`$ keV, whereas the observed spectrum extends up to energies as high , as $`200`$ keV, or even beyond .

To overcome this difficulty, models have been proposed  wherein the properties of the radiating regions are essentially determined by the observations. An attempt has been made  to construct a self-consistent model for Cyg X-1 that would account for the hard part of the radiation. This model, which neglects radiation pressure from the very outset, appears to have an internal contradiction in that it implies a disk as thick as its radius and drift velocity comparable to the orbital velocity.

Hard radiation up to 200-keV energy can be present in the spectrum of an accretion disk only in the event that regions with hot $`(T_e10^9`$ K) electrons participate in forming the spectrum; harder photons would require still more energetic particles. In an analysis of accretion disks we have shown  that hot regions or coronae with $`T_e10^9`$ K will form around them.

The standard theory presupposes that radiative heat conduction is responsible for energy transfer in the vertical direction. In the region of maximum energy release, $`PP_rP_g`$, $`\kappa =\kappa _{\mathrm{es}}`$, and the vertical structure can easily be determined analytically. The density in this region is found  to be independent of $`z`$, while the temperature declines toward higher $`z`$. Such a situation will evidently be convectively unstable, since the entropy will decrease in the vertical direction. The onset of convective instability will serve to equalize the entropy. The mean density in the disk will become approximately an order of magnitude higher than the density of the disk in the standard theory.

The convective heat flow $`Q_{\mathrm{conv}}`$, the convection velocity $`v`$, and the excess $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ of the temperature gradient above the adiabatic gradient (we shall take the mixing length $`l`$ to be the half-thickness $`z_0`$ of the disk) are given  by the equations

$$Q_{\mathrm{conv}}=C_p\rho v(z_0/2)\mathrm{\Delta }T,$$
(1)
$$v=\left[\frac{Q_{\mathrm{conv}}(1+4P_r/P_g)}{2\rho C_pT}\frac{GM}{R^3}\right]^{1/3}z_0^{2/3},$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=\left(\frac{4Q_{\mathrm{conv}}}{\rho C_p}\right)^{2/3}\left[\frac{T}{(1+4P_r/Pg)GM}\right]^{1/3}Rz_0^{5/3}.$$
(3)
Hence we readily find that the excess $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ in the temperature gradient amounts to no more than $`20\%`$ of $`T`$, while the convection velocity is $`v=310^8`$ cm/sec for $`r=10r_g`$, a value close to the velocity $`v_s`$ of sound in this region. The heat flow is carried mainly by convection $`(QQ_{\mathrm{conv}})`$; because of the high density the radiative flux is equal to $`20\%`$ of the total flux.

In the convective disk the flow $`Q_{\mathrm{ac}}`$ of acoustic energy in the vertical direction is given  by

$$Q_{\mathrm{ac}}\rho v^3(v/v_s)^510^{2122}\text{erg}\text{sec}^1\text{cm}^2$$
(4)
and is a quantity of the same order as the total energy flux. An amount of order $`(P_g/P_r)Q_{\mathrm{ac}}`$ is expended in heating the outer layers to an optical depth $`\tau <1`$. One other mechanism serves to heat these layers . A particle in a region near the surface of the disk that is transparent to radiation will be subject to the influence of radiation from the whole disk, and not only to the local radiation pressure gradient. The force of the radiation pressures will accelerate particles in the transparent region above the disk. Calculations of the equations of motion for particles subject to radiative, centrifugal, and gravitational forces show that in the region with $`\tau <1`$ the particles (protons and electrons) will acquire vertical velocities corresponding to the temperatures $`(18)10^8`$ K of protons for $`L0.1L_c`$. Turbulent relaxation of the particle motions in the corona will tend to equalize the mean energies of the ions and electrons and to form a quasi-Maxwellian particle velocity distribution. Thus the combined action of the two heating mechanisms we have described will produce around the accretion disk a hot corona with $`T_e10^9`$ K for $`L0.1L_c`$. The existence of an analogous corona has been postulated phenomenologically by Price and Liang .

We now estimate the density $`\rho _{\mathrm{co}}`$ of the corona and the amount of material it contains. Since the gas pressure varies continuously with transition from the photosphere to the corona, we readily find that at the base of the corona

$$\rho _{\mathrm{co}}\rho _sT_s/T_{\mathrm{co}}10^2\rho _s10^5\text{g/cm}^3,$$
(5)
where $`\rho _s`$, $`T_s`$ denote the density and temperature in the photosphere of the disk for the parameters of the source Cyg X-1 in the region of maximum energy release. The surface density of the corona is determined by the condition $`\tau _{\mathrm{es}}1`$ and is $`2\text{g/cm}^2`$, which is more than an order of magnitude lower than the density of the opaque disk.

The hot corona readily affords an explanation of the peculiarities of the Cyg X-1 spectrum. The soft X-rays at $`h\nu <7`$ keV, which comprise $`70\%`$ of the total flux, are formed in the photosphere of the opaque disk. Some of the radiation $`(10\%)`$ will pass through the hot corona, and Comptonization will generate hard radiation up to $`h\nu 3kT_e200`$ keV, which will amount to $`30\%`$ of the total flux. In Cyg X-1 the luminosity varies around $`L=0.1L_c`$. Under these conditions the region of the disk with $`P_rP_g`$, where convective heating is important, will be spatially small and will convert $`10\%`$ of the soft radiation flux, in accord with the requirements that the observations impose on the model.

The changes in the spectrum as the luminosity of Cyg X-1 varies  exhibit the following characteristic behavior. As the total energy flux rises, the radiation in the soft part of the spectrum ($`h\nu <7`$ keV) increases, but in the hard range ($`h\nu >10`$ keV) it remains almost constant, or perhaps may even decrease slightly. We shall assume that the variations in the luminosity are associated with fluctuations in the power of accretion. As the mass flow $`\dot{M}`$ rises in the region with $`P_rP_g`$ the fraction of the acoustic flow (4) expended in heating the corona will decrease:

$$(P_g/P_r)Q_{\mathrm{ac}}\dot{M}^1.$$
(6)
For $`L0.1L_c`$, when acoustic heating predominates, the rise in $`\dot{M}`$ may cause some decrease in the heating of the corona and in the amount of hard radiation. At the same time the flux in the soft range is determined by the radiation of the disk photosphere and will increase with $`\dot{M}`$. It is worth noting that in strong bursts of luminosity, when $`L`$ reaches about $`0.3L_c`$, the heating will begin to be governed by radiation-pressure forces, so the temperature of the corona and thereby also the power of the hard radiation should increase along with the rise in $`\dot{M}`$ and in the total energy flux.

The observational evidence for the spectrum at $`h\nu >150`$ keV is considerably less reliable than for the soft range. For instance, Baker et al.  have measured the radiation to $`h\nu 10`$ MeV, but find an observed signal of only $`1\%`$ of the background (they also report a deficiency of $`\gamma `$-ray photons in the direction of Cyg X-1). In the range up to 600 keV, Haymes and Harnden  find a break in the spectrum at $`h\nu 150`$ keV, and the spectral index $`\alpha `$ changes from $`\alpha =1.9`$ at $`h\nu <124`$ keV to $`\alpha =3.1`$ at $`h\nu >154`$ keV.

Even if a corona with $`T10^9`$ K is present in the disk accretion model, radiation cannot be formed at $`h\nu =2002000`$ keV. Electrons with $`T_e=10^{10}`$ K or fast nonthermal electrons would be needed for that purpose. There are in fact two ways to form such fast electrons. Both would require the presence of a magnetic field in the disk. A magnetic field could exist in the disk either through twisting of the lines of force by differential rotation , or through infall onto the black hole of magnetized material having a small angular momentum . In the latter case a poloidal magnetic field would be generated.

In the binary system containing the source Cyg X-1, some of the material flowing from the giant star is dispersed in space near the system. The attraction of the black hole will not only produce an accretion disk. A small proportion of material having a low angular momentum will fall into the black hole and be decelerated in the disk. If this deceleration takes place at radii of $`(1030)r_g`$ and if a thin collisionless shock wave is formed (as is very likely in the presence of an azimuthal magnetic field) wherein the kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy and $`T_eT_i`$, then hot electrons with $`T=10^{10}10^{12}`$ K will appear. The inverse Compton mechanism of interaction of the disk radiation with these electrons can lead to the generation of hard radiation with $`h\nu 2002000`$ keV or even higher energies.

Another mechanism for producing fast particles is analogous to the pulsar process. If magnetized matter with low angular momentum falls into the black hole (in addition to the disk accretion), a strong poloidal magnetic field will arise . By analogy to pulsars , rotation will generate an electric field of strength $`E(v/c)B`$ in which electrons are accelerated to energies $`\epsilon R(v/c)Be310^4[B/(10^7\text{Gauss})]`$ Mev where $`v/c0.1`$ and $`R10^7`$ cm is the characteristic scale. In a field $`B10^7`$ Gauss, such electrons will generate synchrotron radiation with energies up to $`10^5`$ keV. Just as in pulsars, it would be possible here for $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs to be formed and to participate in the synchrotron radiation.

The authors express their appreciation to Ya.B. Zel’dovich, A. F. Illarionov, and I. S. Shklovskii for helpful discussions and valuable comments.

1. N. I. Shakura, “A disk model for accretion of gas by a relativistic star in a close binary system”, Astron. Zh. 49, 921-929 (1972) \[Sov. Astron.16,756-762 (1973)\].

2. J. E. Pringle and M.J.Rees, “Accretion disk models for compact X-ray sources”, Astron. Astrophys. 21, 1-9 (1972).

3. N. I. Shakura and R. A. Syunyaev, “Black holes in binary systems: observational appearance”, Astron. Astrophys. 24, 337-355 (1973).

4. I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne, “Black-hole astrophysics”, in: Black Holes (Les Houches lectures, Aug. 1972), Gordon and Breach (1973), pp.343-450.

5. F. Frontera and F. Fuligni, “Energy-spectrum variability of Cyg X-1 in hard X-rays”, Astrophys. J. 196, 597-599 (1975).

6. G. F. Carpenter, M. J. Coe, A. R. Engel, and J. J. Quenby, “Ariel 5 hard X-ray measurements of galactic and extragalactic source spectra”, Proc.14th Intl. Cosmic Ray Conf. (Munich) 1, 174-179 (1975).

7. R. C. Haymes and F. L. Harnden, “Low-energy $`y`$ radiation from Cygnus” Astrophys. J. 159, 1111-1114 (1970).

8. K. E. Baker, R. L. Lovett, K. J. Orford, and D. Ramsden, “Gamma rays of 1-10 MeV from the Crab and Cygnus regions”, Nature Phys. Sci. 245, 18-19 (1973).

9. K. S. Thorne and R. H. Price, “Cyg X-1: an interpretation of the spectrum and its variability”, Astrophys. J. 195, L101-L105 (1975).

10. R. H. Price and E. P. Liang, Preprint (1975).

\[published in Astrophys. J., 218, Nov. 15, 1977, 247-252.\]

11. S. L. Shapiro, A. P. Lightman, and D. M. Eardley, “A two-temperature accretion-disk model for Cyg X-l”, Astrophys. J. 204, 187-199 (1976).

12. G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and S. I. Blinnikov, Preprint Inst. Kosmich. Issled. Akad. Nauk SSSR No. 271 (1976); Astron. Astrophys. (in press).

\[published in A&A 1977, 59, 111-125\]

13. M. Schwarzschild, Structure and Evolution of the Stars, Princeton Univ. Press. (1958).

14. L. Biermann and R. Lust. “Nonthermal phenomena in stellar atmospheres”, in: Stellar Atmospheres, Univ. Chicago Press (1960), Chap. 6.

15. D. R. Parsignault, A. Epstein, J. E. Grindlay, E. J. Schreier, H. Schnopper, H. Gursky, Y. Tanaka, A. C. Brinkman, J. Heise, 1. Schrijver, R. Mewe, E. Gronenschild, and A. den Boggende, “ANS observations of Cyg X-1”, Astrophys. Space Sci. 42, 175-184 (1976).

16. S. S. Holt, E. A. Boldt, L. J. Kaluzienski, and P. J. Serlemitsos, “Observations of a new transition in the emission from Cyg X-1”, Nature 256, 108-109 (1975).

17. L. A. Pustil’nik and V. F. Shvartsman, “Possible influence of magnetic fields on the structure of a plasma accretion disk in binary systems”, in: Gravitational Radiation and Gravitational Collapse (IAU Sympos. No. 64), Reidel (1974), p. 213.

18. D. M. Eardley and A. P. Lightman, “Magnetic viscosity in relativistic accretion disks”, Astrophys. J. 200, 187-203 (1975).

19. G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and A. A. Ruzmaikin, “The accretion of matter by a collapsing star in the presence of a magnetic field”, Astrophys. Space Sci. 42, 401-424 (1976).

20. P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, “Pulsar electrodynamics”, Astrophys. J., 157, 869-880 (1969).

Models for the X-ray brightness fluctuations in Cygnus X-1 and active galaxy nuclei

G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and S. I. Blinnikov

Institute for Space Research, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow

(Submitted April 7, 1978)

Pis’ma Astron. Zh. 4, 540-543 (December 1978)

Sov.Astron.Lett. 4, 290-291 (Nov.-Dec. 1978)

The X-ray brightness fluctuations induced in Cyg X-l and active galaxy nuclei by convection and turbulence in the sub-photospheric layers are discussed in terms of the disk-accretion and supermassive-star models. The variability time scales should be comparable with those observed, but in the case of supermassive stars and disks it is difficult to obtain the observed amplitude of the fluctuations.

PACS numbers: 98.70.Qy, 98.50.Rn, 97.10.Cv

1. One noteworthy property of the X-ray source Cygnus X-l is the variability of its flux on time scales ranging from milliseconds to a fraction of a second . This variability is generally attributed to the presence of a turbulent accretion disk in the Cyg X-l system. In particular, the flux variations have been explained by the rotation of a hot spot  or alternatively, by the onset of instability in a zone where radiation pressure predominates .

In this letter we shall consider another model for the variability. We shall outline more fully what properties of the flux variations are to be expected on the accretion disk model as a direct result of the presence of turbulence, and how convective instability should develop in a region of high radiation pressure . Acoustic waves generated in the convection zone will escape into optically thin layers, and will not only induce variable soft X-rays in the photosphere, but will also be responsible for variable heating of the corona. Comptonization of the photospheric radiation by the hot electrons under conditions where both temperature and density are variable will lead to flux variations in the hard range, $`h\nu >`$ 5 keV. This X-ray fluctuation mechanism, involving the emergence of waves into transparent layers, evidently is of the same wave nature as the variability of the ultraviolet excess in stars experiencing intensive convection, such as T Tauri and UV Ceti.

2. The waves escaping into the transparent layers and producing variable radiation in the photosphere and corona will occupy a rather narrow frequency band. Physically, the reason for this circumstance is that media with a high radiation pressure and a nonuniform distribution of plasma along the $`z`$ coordinate (across the disk) will serve as efficient filters, isolating a characteristic frequency range from the broader spectrum generated by convection and turbulence. Waves of low frequency and a wavelength exceeding the scale height of the atmosphere will not escape outside but will induce oscillations of the coronal atmosphere as a whole. On the other hand, under conditions where radiation pressure predominates, high-frequency waves will experience very severe damping because of radiative friction, and their role in heating the corona will be insignificant. High frequencies may, however, appear in the observations either through nonlinear transformation of low-frequency waves or due to inadequate processing of the observational data .

We have examined elsewhere  the propagation of waves through a medium with strong radiation pressure, followed by their escape into the atmosphere. Waves emerging into the transparent layers will have a phase and group velocity equal to the velocity of sound in gas, $`v_g=(\gamma P_g/\rho )^{1/2}=(\gamma T)^{1/2}`$, where $`\gamma =`$5/3 or $`\gamma =`$ 1 according as scattering or absorption predominates, $``$ is the gas constant, and the temperature $`T`$ of the equilibrium atmosphere is approximately equal to the temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ of the photosphere. The characteristic frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ of waves emerging into the atmosphere is given by the expression

$$\omega _\mathrm{c}=\left(\frac{\gamma }{T}\right)^{1/2}g\left(1\frac{H}{H_c}\right)\mathrm{sec}^1.$$
(7)
For the accretion disk model, the gravitational acceleration $`g`$ at radius $`r`$ is equal  to

$$g=\frac{GM}{r^2}\frac{h_0}{r},$$
(8)
where the characteristic thickness is

$$h_0=3\frac{L}{L_c}R_0\left[1\left(\frac{R_0}{r}\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(9)
and $`R_0`$ is the radius of the inner edge of the disk. The quantity $`H/H_\mathrm{c}=\kappa _0H/gc`$ represents the ratio of the radiation pressure force to the gravity; $`\kappa _0`$ is the opacity, including both absorption and scattering . In a spherically symmetric star of luminosity $`L`$ and radius $`R`$ we will have $`g=GM/R^2`$, $`H=L/4\pi R^2`$, and $`H/H_c=L/L_c`$, where $`L_c=4\pi cGM/\kappa _0`$ is the Eddington limiting luminosity.

3. To calculate the characteristic frequencies of the fluctuations for Cyg X-l, we shall adopt the convective accretion-disk models given in a previous paper  and by Shakura et al. . For a black hole of mass $`M=10M_{}`$, we find that in both models as the luminosity rises from $`0.1L_c`$ to $`0.3L_c`$ there is little change in the characteristic frequency $`\omega _c`$ corresponding to the equilibrium temperature, as given by Eq. (1); the values of $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ are confined  to the range 5-40 msec. Note that if a corona with $`T_c10^2T_e`$ is present, waves whose frequency is $`\omega =\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ or even somewhat lower will be able to escape. The frequency range mentioned is in good accord with the observed time-scales of variability. Our mechanism can yield fluctuations weakly correlated in time, and can simulate the white noise derived from observational analysis  of the brightness fluctuations of Cyg X-l.

Despite the good agreement between the theoretical time characteristics and the observations, analysis of small oscillations in our model still does not suffice to explain the amplitudes of the variability we observe, because pulsations should, in general, occur independently in regions whose size is comparable with the velocity of sound multiplied by the pulsation period, or about one-tenth the diameter of the zone of maximum energy production. Small pulsations should accordingly be smoothed out. However, the mechanism we are proposing could operate in a highly nonlinear regime. Strong nonlinearity of the waves would be expected in the light of theoretical estimates , and is essential to the very existence of the corona. The frequencies obtained from linear analysis correspond to the characteristic growth times of strong nonlinear flares. This problem awaits further theoretical treatment. Indeed, we would point out that not even the observational situation is fully clear .

An evaluation of the proportion $`\eta `$ of the acoustic flux that emerges into the corona and produces heating shows  that as the luminosity rises by a factor of 3 from 0.1 $`L_c`$ to 0.3 $`L_c`$, the value of $`\eta `$ will drop by a factor of 5-10. Thus, in accord with our previous suggestion , as the luminosity increases the power of the corona will remain approximately the same, or may even decline somewhat. This situation will prevent the hard X-ray flux ($`h\nu >5`$ keV) of Cyg X-l from changing appreciably as the total luminosity varies, in agreement with the observations .

4. Multicolor photometry of the nuclei of certain galaxies has revealed the presence of comparatively short-period brightness fluctuations in the nucleus of the Seyfert galaxy  NGC 4151 ($``$ 130 days) and in the BL Lacertae object  OJ 287 ($``$ 180 days). There is presently no consensus as to the nature of active galaxy and quasar nuclei. Three models have been explored : a) a dense star cluster; b) a supermassive star; c) disk accretion onto a massive black hole. The variability mechanism proposed here can operate in the two models b and c, for in both cases the subphotospheric layers will be strongly convective, resulting in the formation of a corona with variable heating. Using Eq. (1) to estimate the characteristic period of the fluctuations along with the standard model for a supermassive star  we find that for a mass $`M=10^8M_{}`$ and a radius $`100R_\mathrm{g}`$ ($`R_g=2GM/c^2`$ is the gravitational radius), the period corresponding to $`\omega _c`$ would be $`160`$ days, a value consistent with observation. On the accretion disk model, such a period would prevail in the zone of maximum energy production  for a black hole of $`M=10^8M_{}`$, if the luminosity $`L=0.1L_c`$. In galaxy nuclei the fast component typically exhibits an approximately constant period in conjunction with sharp changes in phase , a behavior which, it would seem, accords with a convective wave origin for such fluctuations.

It is worth emphasizing, however, that both in the supermassive star model and in the model of an accretion disk around a supermassive black hole, the ratio of the radiation pressure to the gas pressure is far higher than in the case of accretion onto a black hole of stellar mass. Acoustic waves will therefore be damped much more strongly. Our calculations indicate  that in this event the emergent acoustic flux will comprise no more than 1$`\%`$ of the flux generated at large optical depth - well below the variability amplitude observed. The supermassive star model would be supported if strictly periodic brightness oscillations of constant phase were detected, associated with the rotation or with pulsations of such a star as a whole, as might be the case  for NGC 4151. But analysis of observations of several variable nuclei does not reveal any strict periodicities . Most likely the observed variability should be modeled by a random process  (see, however, Ozernoi et al. ). The model of a dense star cluster with frequent supernova outbursts offers the best fit, in our opinion, to the irregular variability of galaxy nuclei.

1. E. Boldt, “X-ray signatures: new time scales and spectral features,” in: Eighth Texas Sympos. on Relativistic Astrophysics. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 302, 329-348 (1977).

2. R. A. Syunyaev, “Variability of X-rays from black holes with accretion disks,” Astron.Zh. 49, 1153-57 (1972) \[Sov. Astron. 16, 941-944 (1973)\].

3. A. P. Lightman and D. M. Eardley, “Black holes in binary systems: instability of disk accretion,” Astrophys. J. 187, L1-L3 (1974).

4. N. Shibazaki and R. Hoshi. “Structure and stability of an accretion disk around a black hole,” Progr. Theor. Phys. 54, 706-718 (1975).

5. N. I. Shakura and R. A. Syunyaev, “A theory of the instability of disk accretion onto black holes,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 175, 613-632 (1976).

6. G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and S. I. Blinnikov, “A hot corona around a black-hole accretion disk as a model for Cyg X-l,” Pis’ma Astron. Zh. 2, 489-493 (1976) \[Sov. Astron Lett. 2, 191-193 (1977)\].

7. G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and S. I. Blinnikov, “Disk accretion onto a black hole at subcritical luminosity,” Astron. Astrophys. 59, 111-125 (1977).

8. M. C. Weisskopf and P. G. Sutherland, “On the physical reality of the millisecond bursts in Cyg X-l,” Astrophys. J. 221, 228-233 (1978).

9. G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and S. I. Blinnikov, “Wave propagation in a medium with high radiation pressure” \[in Russian\]. Preprint Inst. Kosmich. Issled. Akad. Nauk SSSR No. 421 (1978).

\[Published in Astrophysics 14, 316-325 (1978); 15, 99-107 (1979).\]

10. N. I. Shakura and R. A. Syunyaev. “Black holes in binary systems: observational appearance,” Astron. Astrophys. 24, 337-355 (1973).

11. N. I. Shakura, R. A. Syunyaev, and S. S. Zilitinkevicn, “Turbulent energy transport in accretion disks,” Astron. Astrophys. 62, 179-187 (1978).

12. J. F. Dolan, C. J. Crannell, B. R. Dennis, K. J. Frost, and L. E. Orwig, “Intensity transitions in Cyg X-l observed at high energies from OSO-8,” Nature 267, 813-815 (1977).

13. V. M. Lyutyi and A. M. Cherepashchuk, “H$`\alpha `$ emission variability in the Seyfert nuclei NGC 4151, 3516, 1068” \[in Russian\], Astron. Tsirk. No. 831. 1-3 (1974).

14. E. T. Belokon’, M. K. Babadzhanyants, and V. M. Lyutyi, “Periodicity of the Seyfert galaxy NGC 4151 in the optical,” Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 31, 383 (1978).

l5. V. M. Lyutyi, “Optical variability of OJ 287” \[in Russian\]. Peremennye Zvezdy 20, 243-249 (1976).

16. V. L. Ginzburg and L. M. Ozernoi, “The nature of quasars and active galaxy nuclei,” Astrophys. Space Sci. 50, 23-41 (1977).

17. M. J. Rees, “Quasar theories,” in: Eighth Texas Sympos. on Relativistic Astrophysics. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 302, 613-636 (1977).

18. Ya. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Relativistic Astrophysics, Vol. 1, Stars and Relativity, Univ. Chicago Press (1971).

19. M. M. Basko and V. M. Lyutyi, “Search for periodic optical variations of the Seyfert nuclei NGC 1275 and 3516,” Pis’ma Astron.Zh. 3, 104-103 (1977) \[Sov. Astron. Lett. 3, 54-56 (1977)\].

20. W. H. Press, “Flicker noises in astronomy and elsewhere,” Comments Astrophys. Space Phys. 7, 103-119 (1978).

21. L. M. Ozernoi, V. E. Chertoprud, and L. I. Gudzenko, “Comments on the light curve of the quasar 3C 273,” Astrophys. J. 216, 237-243 (1977).


text:
# Supersymmetric Extension of the Standard Model with Naturally Stable Proton

## I Introduction

The standard model (SM) well describes particle physics below the electroweak energy scale. However, various theoretical considerations suggest that some extension of the SM be necessary for physics above that energy scale. Various models therefore have been proposed, some of which being studied extensively. Among them extensions with supersymmetry  are considered most plausible. In particular, the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is usually treated as their standard theory around the electroweak energy scale.

The MSSM inherits most of the successful features of the SM, while the extension being minimal. However, this model suffers one serious setback, which has been often passed over. In the SM, the proton is protected from decay naturally by gauge symmetry. On the other hand, in the MSSM, the gauge symmetry allow the interactions of dimension four which do not conserve baryon and/or lepton numbers. Unless there exists some reason to forbid these interactions, the proton decays in an unacceptably short time. Therefore, a discrete symmetry is usually imposed on the MSSM through $`R`$ parity, which is however merely an ad hoc symmetry.

A convincing reason for the proton stability could be provided by an extra gauge symmetry. Although such a symmetry around the electroweak energy scale is subjected to many phenomenological constraints, they still show room to allow a U(1) gauge symmetry. Several supersymmetric models with an extra U(1) symmetry therefore have been discussed , aiming at natural explanation for a long lifetime of the proton. However, these models are accompanied by some arbitrariness in construction, which might reduce reliability of the reasoning for the proton stability.

In this paper, the supersymmetric extension of the SM with an extra U(1) gauge symmetry is studied within the framework of a model coupled to $`N=1`$ supergravity. In addition to the proton lifetime, the MSSM involves problems on the neutrino masses and the linear coupling of Higgs superfields noted later. Requiring a model to solve these problems consistently in a minimal extension, its particle contents and superpotential are determined rather uniquely . In sizable ranges of the model parameters, the scalar potential appropriately gives a vacuum of SU(3)$`\times `$UEM(1) gauge symmetry below the electroweak energy scale. Phenomenological predictions of the model are compatible with experimental results. A typical mass scale of scalar particles is of order 1 TeV, which can account for the smallness of the electric dipole moments (EDMs) of the neutron and the electron, another problem of the MSSM.

The energy dependencies of the model parameters are also discussed by analyzing renormalization group equations (RGEs). Taking the masses-squared of scalar fields all positive at a high energy scale, those for some Higgs fields become sufficiently small at lower energy scales to induce the breakdowns of the extra U(1) and electroweak gauge symmetries. In the model coupled to $`N=1`$ supergravity the masses-squared and the trilinear coupling constants for scalar fields are considered to respectively have universal values at a very high energy scale. This scenario can be realized in this model.

In constructing the model, we take into account the problems of the neutrino masses and the Higgs linear coupling as well as that of the proton stability. The former is raised by non-vanishing masses of the neutrinos suggested from experiments for atmospheric and solar neutrinos, such as at the Super-Kamiokande . The MSSM or the SM can have Yukawa couplings for neutrino Dirac masses, if right-handed neutrinos are naively included. However, these fields are inert for the transformations of the gauge groups and their existence is not prescribed by the model. Furthermore, the extreme lightness of the neutrinos may require some explanation. Although this lightness could be attributed to large Majorana masses of the right-handed neutrinos, their origin is not clarified.

The latter problem is posed by a mass parameter of the $`\mu `$ term, a linear coupling of the Higgs superfields in the superpotential of the MSSM , which is indispensable for correct breaking of electroweak gauge symmetry. This mass parameter $`\mu `$ should have a magnitude of order the electroweak energy scale. The other mass parameters in the model are traced back to supersymmetry-soft-breaking terms of the Lagrangian and thus related to the gravitino mass which may be of order the electroweak energy scale. On the other hand, the $`\mu `$ parameter is contained in the supersymmetric term and its magnitude may be given arbitrarily. It is natural that there is no mass parameter in the superpotential and the role of the $`\mu `$ term is assumed by another effective $`\mu `$ term.

These problems could also be solved by introducing an extra U(1) gauge symmetry. Imposing a new gauge symmetry yields chiral and trace anomalies within the particle contents of the MSSM. For canceling the anomalies, new superfields are necessarily incorporated, among which those for right-handed neutrinos and an SU(2)-singlet Higgs boson may be included. The extra U(1) symmetry could be broken above the electroweak energy scale by a vacuum expectation value (v.e.v.) of this Higgs boson, which may provide a source of Majorana masses for the right-handed neutrinos and the effective $`\mu `$ parameter.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we construct a model, in which the proton is adequately stable, the ordinary neutrinos have non-vanishing but small masses, and the effective $`\mu `$ term is contained. In Sect. 3 the vacuum structure of the model is discussed, paying particular attention to experimental constraints on an extra neutral gauge boson. In Sect. 4 the behavior of the model parameters for different energy scales is analyzed through the RGEs to examine the radiative breaking of gauge symmetry and the supersymmetry breaking by $`N=1`$ supergravity. Conclusions and discussions are given in Sect. 5.

## II Model

Particle contents of the model are constrained by the requirements of proton stability, neutrino masses, and an effective $`\mu `$ term. We also keep the extension of the SM as minimal as possible. The neutrino masses necessitate superfields for right-handed neutrinos, which are denoted by $`N^c`$. For the effective $`\mu `$ term an SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) singlet superfield $`S`$ is included. In addition, new colored superfields $`K`$ and $`K^c`$ are necessary for canceling a chiral anomaly, as shown later. In Table I we list the left-handed chiral superfields contained in the model with their quantum numbers under SU(3), SU(2), U(1), and $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ gauge transformations. The extra U(1) gauge symmetry is denoted by $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$, for which the charges of superfields are expressed as $`Q_Q`$, $`Q_{U^c}`$, etc.. In order not to yield chiral and trace anomalies within the standard gauge symmetries, we assign opposite U(1) charges $`Y_K`$ and $`Y_K`$ to $`K`$ and $`K^c`$. The index $`i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ stands for the generation, while the indices $`j`$ of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, $`k`$ of $`S`$, and $`l`$ of $`K`$ and $`K^c`$ are for possible multiplication to be determined by cancellation of the anomalies.

The superpotential should contain the couplings $`H_1QD^c`$, $`H_2QU^c`$, $`H_1LE^c`$, and $`H_2LN^c`$ to generate masses for quarks and leptons. The $`\mu `$ term can be replaced by the coupling $`SH_1H_2`$, provided that the scalar component of $`S`$ has a non-vanishing v.e.v.. The Dirac masses of the neutrinos may be comparable to those of the charged leptons, unless the Yukawa coupling constants are extremely small. However, the ordinary neutrino masses are suppressed by giving large Majorana masses to the right-handed neutrinos, which can be accomplished, without another new field, by including the coupling $`SN^cN^c`$. These couplings provide constraints on the $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ charges of the superfields:

$`Q_{H_1}+Q_Q+Q_{D^c}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`Q_{H_2}+Q_Q+Q_{U^c}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2)
$`Q_{H_1}+Q_L+Q_{E^c}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
$`Q_{H_2}+Q_L+Q_{N^c}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`Q_S+Q_{H_1}+Q_{H_2}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
$`Q_S+Q_{N^c}+Q_{N^c}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6)
If colored superfields are only those which correspond to the quarks of the SM, the $`[\mathrm{SU}(3)]^2\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ anomaly-free condition with Eqs. (1) and (2) gives the relation $`Q_{H_1}+Q_{H_2}=0`$. The linear coupling $`H_1H_2`$ are not forbidden in the superpotential, and thus the model inevitably has a mass parameter of unknown origin. Therefore, new colored superfields should be included to solve the problem of the $`\mu `$ term. Although there are various candidates for such superfields, according to the ’minimal’ postulate, we incorporate a pair of superfields in the fundamental representations of the SU(3) group, $`K`$ and $`K^c`$. Then, their fermion components should have large masses from a phenomenological viewpoint, which is fulfilled by allowing the coupling $`SKK^c`$. This coupling leads to another constraint

$$Q_S+Q_K+Q_{K^c}=0.$$
(7)
The $`[\mathrm{SU}(3)]^2\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ anomaly-free condition and Eqs. (1), (2), (5), and (7) fix the number $`n_l`$ of pairs for $`K`$ and $`K^c`$ at three, which agrees with the number of the generation for quarks and leptons.

The number $`n_j`$ of pairs for $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ and the number $`n_k`$ for $`S`$ are determined by the freedom from chiral anomalies for $`[\mathrm{SU}(2)]^2\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$, $`[\mathrm{U}(1)]^2\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ and a trace anomaly for U(1) with Eqs. (1)-(5), (7). These constraints are satisfied by either of the three sets of numbers and U(1) charge:

$`(\mathrm{A})`$ $`n_j=4,n_k=5,Y_K=0,`$ (8)
$`(\mathrm{B})`$ $`n_j=3,n_k=3,Y_K=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$ (9)
$`(\mathrm{C})`$ $`n_j=2,n_k=1,Y_K=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}.`$ (10)
However, the solution (A) does not satisfy the $`\mathrm{U}(1)[\mathrm{U}^{}(1)]^2`$ anomaly-free condition with Eq. (6). The solution (C) gives irrational U(1) charges for $`K`$ and $`K^c`$. The solution (B) is free from the $`\mathrm{U}(1)[\mathrm{U}^{}(1)]^2`$ anomaly, and also satisfies the remaining $`[\mathrm{U}^{}(1)]^3`$ anomaly-free condition. Therefore, a plausible solution is uniquely given by the set (B). The numbers $`n_j`$ and $`n_k`$ again become equal to the number of the generation.

A further constraint comes from the stable proton. The allowed value of $`Y_K`$ for the U(1) charges of $`K`$ and $`K^c`$ is now either 1/3 or $`1/3`$. However, the proton stability by gauge symmetry is only achieved for $`Y_K=1/3`$ . For $`Y_K=1/3`$, the particle contents of one generation can be embedded in the fundamental representation of the E6 group. Unless a discrete symmetry is imposed, the baryon and/or lepton numbers are violated by couplings of dimension four, such as $`U^cD^cK^c`$ and $`LQK^c`$, which induce an unacceptably fast decay of the proton. On the other hand, for $`Y_K=1/3`$, allowed couplings of dimension four are only those which have already been taken into account, i.e. $`H_1QD^c`$, $`H_2QU^c`$, $`H_1LE^c`$, $`H_2LN^c`$, $`SH_1H_2`$, $`SN^cN^c`$, and $`SKK^c`$. Baryon number is conserved while lepton number is not, which is sufficient for the proton stability. The lowest dimension couplings of baryon-number violation are given by the D terms of $`QQU^cE^c`$, $`QQD^cN^c`$, and $`QU^cD^cL`$, which are of dimension six.

Under all the anomaly-free conditions and Eqs. (1)-(7), the $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ charges of the superfields are expressed in terms of two independent variables. All the superfields are triplicated, and the anomalies are canceled in each generation. The generators $`Y^{}`$ and $`Y`$ of $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ and U(1), respectively, are required to be orthogonal, $`\mathrm{Tr}[Y^{}Y]=0`$. Then, the $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ charges of the superfields are determined up to a normalization factor. For definiteness, hereafter, the $`\mathrm{U}^{}(1)`$ charges are normalized to the U(1) charges as $`\mathrm{Tr}[Y^2]=\mathrm{Tr}[Y^2]`$, which are shown in Table II.

The superpotential which contains all the couplings consistent with gauge symmetry and renormalizability is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _d^{ijk}H_1^iQ^jD^{ck}+\eta _u^{ijk}H_2^iQ^jU^{ck}+\eta _e^{ijk}H_1^iL^jE^{ck}+\eta _\nu ^{ijk}H_2^iL^jN^{ck}`$ (12)
$`+\lambda _N^{ijk}S^iN^{cj}N^{ck}+\lambda _H^{ijk}S^iH_1^jH_2^k+\lambda _K^{ijk}S^iK^jK^{ck},`$
where $`\eta _d`$, $`\eta _u`$, $`\eta _e`$, $`\eta _\nu `$, $`\lambda _N`$, $`\lambda _H`$, and $`\lambda _K`$ represent dimensionless constants. Contraction of group indices is understood. In the MSSM without the discrete symmetry through $`R`$ parity, the couplings $`D^cD^cU^c`$, $`LQD^c`$, $`LLE^c`$, $`H_1H_1E^c`$, and $`LH_2`$ are allowed, leading to non-conservation of baryon and lepton numbers. Here, these couplings are forbidden by the U(1) gauge symmetry. The proton decay could only occur through the operators of dimension six, being suppressed at least by a huge mass to the second power. As long as this mass scale is not much smaller than the Planck mass, the proton becomes adequately stable. The couplings of the superpotential are all cubic, and there is no mass parameter.

We assume that supersymmetry is broken through the ordinary mechanism based on $`N=1`$ supergravity. Supergravity is spontaneously broken in a hidden sector at the Planck mass scale, and then supersymmetry in an observable sector is broken softly. At lower energy scales, the Lagrangian of the observable sector consists of a supersymmetric part and a supersymmetry-soft-breaking part prescribed by gauge symmetry and superpotential. The soft-breaking part contains mass terms for gauge fermions, and trilinear couplings and mass terms for scalar bosons,

$`_𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{m}_3\overline{\lambda }_3\lambda _3+\stackrel{~}{m}_2\overline{\lambda }_2\lambda _2+\stackrel{~}{m}_1\overline{\lambda }_1\lambda _1+\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\overline{\lambda }_1^{}\lambda _1^{}\right)`$ (17)
$`m_{3/2}(A_d^{ijk}\eta _d^{ijk}H_1^iQ^jD^{ck}+A_u^{ijk}\eta _u^{ijk}H_2^iQ^jU^{ck}+A_e^{ijk}\eta _e^{ijk}H_1^iL^jE^{ck}+A_\nu ^{ijk}\eta _\nu ^{ijk}H_2^iL^jN^{ck}`$
$`+B_N^{ijk}\lambda _N^{ijk}S^iN^{cj}N^{ck}+B_H^{ijk}\lambda _H^{ijk}S^iH_1^jH_2^k+B_K^{ijk}\lambda _K^{ijk}S^iK^jK^{ck})+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`M_{Q^i}^2|Q^i|^2M_{U^{ci}}^2|U^{ci}|^2M_{D^{ci}}^2|D^{ci}|^2M_{L^i}^2|L^i|^2M_{N^{ci}}^2|N^{ci}|^2M_{E^{ci}}^2|E^{ci}|^2`$
$`M_{H_1^i}^2|H_1^i|^2M_{H_2^i}^2|H_2^i|^2M_{S^i}^2|S^i|^2M_{K^i}^2|K^i|^2M_{K^{ci}}^2|K^{ci}|^2.`$
Here $`\lambda _3`$, $`\lambda _2`$, $`\lambda _1`$, and $`\lambda _1^{}`$ represent gauge fermions for SU(3), SU(2), U(1), and U(1), respectively. Scalar bosons are denoted by the same symbols as the corresponding superfields. With $`m_{3/2}`$ being the gravitino mass, the coefficients $`A_d`$, $`A_u`$, $`A_e`$, $`A_\nu `$, $`B_N`$, $`B_H`$, and $`B_K`$ are dimensionless. At high energy scales not much lower than the Planck mass, the masses-squared of scalar fields are all around $`m_{3/2}^2`$ and positive. The trilinear coupling constants for scalar fields are also approximately the same. Around the electroweak energy scale, some of these parameters differ significantly from the high-energy values through large quantum corrections.

## III Vacuum Structure

The Lagrangian of our model has SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry, which must be spontaneously broken down to SU(3)$`\times `$UEM(1) symmetry. This breaking could be achieved by v.e.v.s for the scalar components of $`H_1^i`$, $`H_2^i`$, and $`S^i`$. We discuss the vacuum structure of the model by examining the scalar potential. Hereafter, we adopt the same notation for the superfields and their scalar components.

Although the scalar potential could contain all of $`H_1^i`$, $`H_2^i`$, and $`S^i`$ and thus its general analysis is complicated, it may be simplified under certain assumptions. If the couplings between different generations are not significant, $`H_2^3Q^3U^{c3}`$ of the third generation has a large coefficient related to the mass of the top quark. The mass-squared of $`H_2^3`$ then receives large negative contributions through quantum corrections and becomes small around the electroweak energy scale. As a result, $`H_1^3`$ and $`H_2^3`$ can have non-vanishing v.e.v.s and assume the role of two Higgs doublets in the MSSM. For the first two generations, on the other hand, such couplings for $`H_1^i`$ or $`H_2^i`$ have small coefficients, so that the masses-squared of these scalar fields are kept around $`m_{3/2}^2`$. If the coefficient of $`S^3K^3K^{c3}`$ is large, the mass-squared of $`S^3`$ is also driven small. Although there is no phenomenological information about $`S^iK^iK^{ci}`$, a hierarchy of their coefficients could well exist. Among the three scalar fields $`S^i`$, one scalar field $`S^3`$ alone may have a non-vanishing v.e.v.. We thus assume that only $`H_1^3`$, $`H_2^3`$, and $`S^3`$ can have non-vanishing v.e.v.s. Quantum corrections to the masses-squared of other scalar fields are small, keeping them around $`m_{3/2}^2`$. The masses-squared of $`K^i`$, $`K^{ci}`$, and $`N^{ci}`$ receive non-negligible negative contributions from the D-term of U(1) when the gauge symmetry is broken spontaneously. However, the positive contributions from the supersymmetry-soft-breaking terms in Eq. (17) can dominate over and prevent these scalar fields from getting non-vanishing v.e.v.s.

Assuming the above simplification, the scalar potential is given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_2^2\left(|H_1|^2+|H_2|^2\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_1^2\left(|H_1|^2|H_2|^2\right)^2`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\left(4|H_1|^2+|H_2|^25|S|^2\right)^2`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_2^2|\lambda _H|^2\right)|H_1H_2|^2+|\lambda _H|^2\left(|H_1|^2+|H_2|^2\right)|S|^2`$
$`+(B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}SH_1H_2+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)+M_{H_1}^2|H_1|^2+M_{H_2}^2|H_2|^2+M_S^2|S|^2,`$
where the generation indices are left out. With group indices being expressed, $`H_1H_2`$ is written as $`ϵ_{ab}H_{1a}H_{2b}`$, so that holds an equation $`|H_1H_2|^2=|H_1|^2|H_2|^2|H_1^{}H_2|^2`$ . The gauge coupling constants for SU(2), U(1), and U(1) are denoted by $`g_2`$, $`g_1`$, and $`g_1^{}`$, respectively.

We now discuss the v.e.v.s of the Higgs fields $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`S`$. For any values of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, the complex phase of $`S`$ has a value which gives an equality $`B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}SH_1H_2=|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}SH_1H_2|`$. For given values of $`|H_1|^2`$ and $`|H_2|^2`$, the v.e.v. $`|H_1H_2|^2`$ becomes maximum at $`H_1^{}H_2=0`$. Therefore, a condition $`g_2^2>2|\lambda _H|^2`$ guarantees electric charge conservation. Differently from the MSSM, there is no direction for the v.e.v.s where their quartic terms are absent in the scalar potential. The potential gives a stable vacuum irrespectively of the supersymmetry-soft-breaking terms. Redefining the global phases of the Higgs fields so as to give $`B_H\lambda _H=|B_H\lambda _H|`$, the v.e.v.s $`v_1`$, $`v_2`$, and $`v_s`$ of the neutral components of $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`S`$, respectively, may be taken real and non-negative. If these v.e.v.s are all non-vanishing, extremum conditions are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_2^2+g_1^2)(v_1^2v_2^2)v_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{18}}g_1^2(4v_1^2+v_2^25v_s^2)v_1`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\lambda _H|^2(v_2^2+v_s^2)v_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|v_2v_s+M_{H_1}^2v_1=0,`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(g_2^2+g_1^2)(v_1^2v_2^2)v_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}g_1^2(4v_1^2+v_2^25v_s^2)v_2`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\lambda _H|^2(v_1^2+v_s^2)v_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|v_1v_s+M_{H_2}^2v_2=0,`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{72}}g_1^2(4v_1^2+v_2^25v_s^2)v_s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\lambda _H|^2(v_1^2+v_2^2)v_s`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|v_1v_2+M_S^2v_s=0.`$ (27)
It turns out that the solution of these simultaneous equations is unique, if exists. The true vacuum is either at such a point or at a point where at least one v.e.v. vanishes, being determined by the potential energies of those points.

The v.e.v.s of the Higgs bosons have to satisfy phenomenological constraints coming from experiments for the gauge bosons. The $`W`$-boson mass has been measured precisely. The $`Z`$ boson for SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) and the $`Z^{}`$ boson for U(1) are mixed and their mass-squared matrix is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_Z^2& M_{ZZ^{}}^2\\ M_{ZZ^{}}^2& M_Z^{}^2\end{array}\right),`$ (28)
$`M_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(g_2^2+g_1^2)(v_1^2+v_2^2),`$ (29)
$`M_Z^{}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}g_1^2(16v_1^2+v_2^2+25v_s^2),`$ (30)
$`M_{ZZ^{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_1^{}\sqrt{g_2^2+g_1^2}(4v_1^2v_2^2).`$ (31)
Two massive neutral gauge bosons, which are denoted by $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ ($`M_{Z_1}<M_{Z_2}`$), are predicted. The measured mass for the $`Z`$ boson of the SM should be taken as the mass of $`Z_1`$. The experimental lower bound on the mass of a new neutral gauge boson is about 600 GeV . According to detailed analyses of various experiments for an extra gauge boson , the mixing between $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ is small. Defining a mixing parameter by $`R=(M_{ZZ^{}}^2)^2/M_Z^2M_Z^{}^2`$, a bound $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ is roughly obtained. The v.e.v.s can also be constrained by the lightest Higgs boson mass, whose experimental bound is given by $`M_{H^0}\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}80}`$ GeV . Since its predicted mass by the tree-level potential in Eq. (21) could be altered to become larger by several tens of GeV through one-loop quantum corrections, we conservatively put a constraint $`M_{H^0}>50`$ GeV to the tree-level mass.

The scalar potential is analyzed numerically. For independent coefficients of the potential we choose $`|\lambda _H|`$, $`|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|`$, $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, and $`M_S^2`$. In Fig. 1 we show the regions for $`M_{H_1}^2`$ and $`M_{H_2}^2`$ where the v.e.v.s are compatible with the above constraints. We have also imposed the constraints $`1v_2/v_135`$ and $`M_{Z_2}2000`$ GeV. With $`|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|`$ being 0.1 TeV, $`|\lambda _H|`$ is set for 0.1 and 0.3, which correspond to the upper and lower regions, respectively, For given values of $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, $`|\lambda _H|`$, and $`|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|`$, the remaining parameter $`M_S^2`$ is so determined as to make the $`W`$-boson mass coincident with the measured value. The gauge coupling constant for U(1) is taken for $`g_1^{}=g_1`$. Owing to the constraints from $`M_{Z_2}`$ and $`R`$, in wide regions $`M_{H_1}^2`$ is larger than (1 TeV)2. The value of $`M_{H_2}^2`$ is generally smaller than $`M_{H_1}^2`$ in magnitude. The region for $`|\lambda _H|=0.3`$ with $`M_{H_1}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }<(500`$ GeV)2 corresponds to $`v_2/v_1\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. A rough estimate of Eq. (25) shows that the sign of $`M_{H_2}^2`$ is positive for $`|\lambda _H|^2<(5/36)g_1^2`$ while $`M_{H_2}^2`$ has either sign for larger values of $`|\lambda _H|`$. The value of $`M_S^2`$ is smaller than $`M_{H_2}^2`$ and always negative. As $`|B_H\lambda _Hm_{3/2}|`$ increases, the allowed values for $`M_{H_1}^2`$ become larger, which is seen from Eq. (23). If the upper limit for $`M_{Z_2}`$ is lifted, wider parameter regions become allowed. However, as the scale of the mass-squared parameters increases, more fine-tuning of the parameters becomes inevitable for electroweak symmetry breaking. For having the correct vacuum, large differences among $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, and $`M_S^2`$ are necessary, which could well occur under our assumption for supersymmetry breaking.

In Table III we present four examples for the values of $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, and $`M_S^2`$ in the allowed regions of Fig. 1. Also shown are the resultant values for $`v_2/v_1`$, $`v_s`$, $`M_{Z_2}`$, $`R`$, and the masses of the physical Higgs bosons. These Higgs-boson masses have been calculated, assuming for definiteness that the mass eigenstates are formed by the Higgs fields $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`S`$ without mixing with the other fields of $`H_1^i`$, $`H_2^i`$, and $`S^i`$. Therefore, there are three mass eigenstates for the neutral scalar bosons $`H^0`$, one for the neutral pseudoscalar boson $`A^0`$, and one for the charged scalar boson $`H^\pm `$. One neutral scalar boson is light, whereas the others have large masses. The mixing parameter $`R`$ vanishes for $`v_2/v_1=2`$, as seen from Eq. (31).

The large mass difference between $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ requires in some degree fine-tuning for the parameters in the potential. Since these two masses are different from each other by one order of magnitude, it is generally necessary to adjust the values of the mass-squared parameters $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, $`M_S^2`$ and the coupling constants $`\lambda _H`$, $`B_H`$ within the accuracy of order $`10^2`$. In Fig. 2, for the four examples in Table III, the ratio of a predicted $`W`$-boson mass to the experimental value is depicted as a function of $`M_S^2`$ normalized to its proper value which yields the correct $`W`$-boson mass. If the value of one parameter alone in the potential is deviated by order of $`10^1`$, the resultant v.e.v.s lead to a $`W`$-boson mass different from its experimental value by a factor or more.

The neutrinos have both Dirac and Majorana masses. Neglecting the generation mixing, the mass matrix for the left-handed and right-handed neutrinos becomes

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \eta _\nu v_2/\sqrt{2}\\ \eta _\nu v_2/\sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}\lambda _Nv_s\end{array}\right),$$
(32)
whose lighter mass eigenvalue is approximately given by $`m_{\nu 1}=|\eta _\nu |^2v_2^2/2\sqrt{2}|\lambda _N|v_s`$. With $`|\lambda _N|=0.2`$ and $`v_s=3`$ TeV, $`m_{\nu 1}`$ becomes about 59 eV for $`|\eta _\nu |v_2=10`$ MeV and 0.59 eV for $`|\eta _\nu |v_2=1`$ MeV. Even if the Yukawa coupling constants for the neutrino Dirac masses are of the same order as that for the electron, the observed ordinary neutrinos have tiny masses which could be a reason for the recent experimental results suggesting neutrino oscillations.

The coupling $`SH_1H_2`$ serves as the $`\mu `$ term and an effective $`\mu `$ parameter is given by $`\mu =\lambda _Hv_s/\sqrt{2}`$. For $`|\lambda _H|=0.2`$ and $`v_s=3`$ TeV, $`|\mu |`$ is approximately 420 GeV. The parameter $`\mu `$ can have an appropriate magnitude for the electroweak symmetry breaking. This parameter also affects the masses of the charginos and the neutralinos. Assuming that these particles are formed by the fermion components of $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`S`$, as well as the SU(2), U(1), and U(1) gauge fermions, there exist two mass eigenstates for the charginos and six mass eigenstates for the neutralinos. Provided that the gauge fermions for SU(2), U(1), and U(1) receive masses of order 100 GeV from the supersymmetry-soft-breaking terms in Eq. (17), the masses of the lighter chargino and the lightest neutralino become of order 100 GeV.

This model contains new particles which are not predicted by the MSSM. As already noted, the gauge-Higgs sector involves extra a neutral gauge boson, a neutral Higgs boson, and two neutralinos. For the lepton sector, there appear a heavy neutrino in each generation. Correspondingly the scalar neutrinos are duplicated. The interactions arising from the coupling $`SN^cN^c`$ do not conserve lepton number. In addition, the superfields $`H_1^i`$, $`H_2^i`$, $`S^i`$ with $`i=1,2`$ and $`K^j`$, $`K^{cj}`$ with $`j=1,2,3`$ are newly introduced. The masses of their fermion components are generated by the couplings to $`H_1^3`$, $`H_2^3`$, and $`S^3`$, and become of order $`0.11`$ TeV. The lightest fermion among $`K^j`$ and $`K^{cj}`$ is stable. As well as by collider experiments, such a stable particle may be explored by other methods to search for its relics in the universe, e.g. anomalous nuclei in sea water. However, these methods depend on the relic density, whose theoretical prediction is plagued by various uncertainties for non-perturbative effects, cosmology, and so on. Since the scalar components of $`H_1^i`$ and $`H_2^i`$ couple to quarks and leptons, non-trivial constraints are imposed on their coupling constants from the viewpoint of flavor-changing neutral current. However, these scalar particles are rather heavy, so that the constraints are not so stringent as usually thought. If the couplings $`S^iH_1^3H_2^3`$, $`S^3H_1^iH_2^3`$, or $`S^3H_1^3H_2^i`$ are not neglected, some or all of the scalar or fermion components for $`H_1^i`$, $`H_2^i`$, and $`S^i`$ are mixed with the Higgs bosons, charginos, or neutralinos, leading to an enlargement of the particles belonging to the gauge-Higgs sector.

The MSSM has another problem on the EDMs of the neutron and the electron, which can be explained in this model. If the squark and slepton masses are of order 100 GeV and the $`CP`$-violating phases intrinsic in the model are not suppressed, these EDMs are predicted to be much larger than their experimental upper bounds. However, a typical scale of the squark and slepton masses in this model, which are considered not much different from the mass of $`H_1`$, is larger than 1 TeV. The EDMs then lie within the experimental bounds without fine-tuning the $`CP`$-violating phases to be very small . If these phases are not suppressed, the interactions of the charginos or the neutralinos generally induce sizable $`CP`$ violation in their production or decay processes.

## IV Energy Dependence

The parameter values of the model change according to the relevant energy scale. Analyzing their energy dependencies, we discuss whether gauge symmetry breaking is induced by radiative corrections. We also examine the scenario of universal values for the masses-squared and the trilinear coupling constants of scalar fields at a very high energy scale. For simplicity, the generation mixing of the particle fields are neglected.

The evolution of the parameters concerning the energy-scale change are described by RGEs, which are given in Appendix A. It is seen from those equations that $`M_{H_2}^2`$ increases as the energy scale becomes high, owing to a large Yukawa coupling constant $`\eta _u`$ for the top quark. If the coupling constant $`\lambda _K`$ is around unity, $`M_S^2`$ also increases. Consequently, the mass-squared parameters can all have large positive values at high energy scales, even if they are small at a low energy scale as discussed in the previous section. The SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry is spontaneously broken through radiative corrections. The experimental values of the gauge coupling constants suggest that these constants are not unified at the energy scale for possible grand unification. This gauge unification could be achieved by incorporating one additional pair of SU(2)-doublet chiral superfields. However, such a pair form a gauge-singlet linear coupling and thus ruin the model by necessitating a mass parameter of unknown origin. Although the particle contents are not embedded in the fundamental representation of the E6 group, the masses and the coupling constants evolve similarly to those in the E6 models. Some features of these models  apply to the present model, and vice versa.

We now numerically examine the evolution of the parameters. Taking the masses-squared and the trilinear coupling constants of the scalar fields for common values $`m_{3/2}^2`$ and $`A`$ at a high energy scale $`M_X`$, we evaluate the parameters at a low energy scale $`M`$. For definiteness, we set $`M_X`$ for $`10^{17}`$ GeV and $`M`$ for $`5\times 10^2`$ GeV. Assuming an equality $`g_1=g_1^{}`$, all the gauge coupling constants are determined independently of the parameters. The masses of the gauge fermions are also determined, if their values are given at some energy scale. Since the gauge groups are not unified in our model, these masses at $`M_X`$ are generally different from each other. However, they are considered nevertheless to be of the same order of magnitude. We therefore put their values equal at $`M_X`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_3=\stackrel{~}{m}_2=\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}`$, for simplicity. The Yukawa coupling constants $`\eta _u`$, $`\eta _d`$, $`\eta _\nu `$, $`\eta _e`$, $`\lambda _N`$, $`\lambda _H`$, and $`\lambda _K`$ at $`M_X`$, which are specified by attaching an index ’$`X`$’, are independent of each other.

In Fig. 3 the values of $`\eta _u`$, $`\lambda _N`$, $`\lambda _H`$, and $`\lambda _K`$ at $`M`$ are depicted as functions of $`\eta _u^X`$. We have taken $`\lambda _N^X=\lambda _H^X=\lambda _K^X=0.2`$ and $`\eta _d^X=\eta _\nu ^X=\eta _e^X=0`$. The magnitude of $`\eta _u`$ and $`\lambda _K`$ become large at the low energy scale, while the energy dependencies of $`\lambda _N`$ and $`\lambda _H`$ are not significant. The evolution of each Yukawa coupling constant is not affected much by the other parameters. For generating an appropriate mass for the top quark, $`|\eta _u^X|`$ should be larger than 0.1. The condition $`g_2^2>2|\lambda _H|^2`$ for electric charge conservation at the low energy scale is satisfied for $`|\lambda _H^X|\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}`$.

In Fig. 4 we show the trilinear coupling constant $`B_H`$ as a function of $`A`$ for three sets of $`\eta _u^X`$, $`\lambda _K^X`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{m}/m_{3/2}`$ given in Table IV. For the other non-vanishing input parameters, we take $`\lambda _N^X=\lambda _H^X=0.2`$. The magnitude of $`A`$ is constrained as $`|A|<3`$ in order not to induce incorrect breaking of gauge symmetry. The value of $`B_H`$ is of order unity in wide ranges of $`A`$ except narrow ranges where $`|B_H|`$ is much smaller than unity. The $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ dependence of $`B_H`$ is negligible.

The mass-squared parameters $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, and $`M_S^2`$ are shown, as functions of $`A`$, for the three parameter sets (a), (b), and (c) of Table IV in Figs. 5(a), 5(b), and 5(c), respectively, with $`\lambda _N^X=\lambda _H^X=0.2`$. The gravitino mass is fixed as $`m_{3/2}=2`$ TeV. At the low energy scale, receiving large quantum corrections, $`M_{H_2}^2`$ and $`M_S^2`$ could become much smaller than the universal value $`m_{3/2}^2`$. These corrections strongly depend on $`\eta _u^X`$, $`\lambda _K^X`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, and $`A`$. In Fig. 5(a), $`M_{H_2}^2`$ and $`M_S^2`$ become negative only for $`|A|\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$. However, as $`\eta _u^X`$ and $`\lambda _K^X`$ increase, $`M_{H_2}^2`$ and $`M_S^2`$ decrease, respectively. These masses-squared also become small for larger values of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. In Figs. 5(b) and 5(c), $`M_{H_2}^2`$ and $`M_S^2`$ are negative for any value of $`A`$. If $`\lambda _K^X`$ is larger than $`\eta _u^X`$, an inequality $`M_S^2<M_{H_2}^2`$ holds at the low energy scale. On the other hand, $`M_{H_1}^2`$ is not much different from $`m_{3/2}^2`$.

We see from Figs. 3, 4, and 5 that the gauge symmetry of the vacuum at high energy scales can be spontaneously broken at low energy scales through radiative corrections. Furthermore, certain parameter values at a high energy scale, with the masses-squared and the trilinear coupling constants of scalar fields being universal, lead to the values of $`M_{H_1}^2`$, $`M_{H_2}^2`$, $`M_S^2`$, $`\lambda _H`$, and $`B_H`$ which give a plausible vacuum around the electroweak energy scale. As explicit examples, we show in Table V the parameter values at $`M_X`$ which give low-energy vacua consistent with experimental results. Since there are many input parameters, for simplicity, we have fixed the trilinear coupling constant and the Yukawa coupling constants as $`A=1`$ and $`\eta _u^X=\lambda _N^X=\lambda _K^X=0.2`$. The values of $`m_{3/2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ are set for $`m_{3/2}=1`$, 2 TeV and $`\stackrel{~}{m}=0.3`$, 0.5 TeV. The resultant values of $`v_2/v_1`$, $`v_s`$, $`M_{Z_2}`$, $`R`$, and the Higgs boson masses at $`M`$ are also given together with the masses of the $`W`$ boson $`M_W`$, the top quark $`m_t`$, and the bottom quark $`m_b`$. This model is compatible with the supersymmetry breaking mechanism based on $`N=1`$ supergravity.

## V Conclusions

The MSSM involves the problems on proton lifetime, neutrino masses, and the $`\mu `$ term. These problems may be solved by theories at very high energy scales, which however are mere conjectures and mostly untestable at present. On the contrary, the solutions of the problems may reside in theories around an energy scale of the MSSM or the SM. Then, a new model beyond the MSSM should exists. Such a model is rigidly constructed on solid ground of various experimental results. Its predictions can be examined at experiments in the near future.

To solve the problems of the MSSM without invoking uncertain theories, we have constructed a supersymmetric standard model based on SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)$`\times `$U(1) gauge symmetry and $`N=1`$ supergravity. In this model, the solutions are given consistently within the framework of the model. The interactions of dimension four or five which violate baryon number conservation are not allowed by the gauge symmetry, leading to an adequately long lifetime of the proton. The gauge symmetry also prescribes the existence of right-handed neutrinos and an SU(2)-singlet Higgs boson whose v.e.v. $`v_s`$ induces breaking of the U(1) symmetry. The neutrino masses receive contributions of Dirac type and those of Majorana type generated by the large v.e.v. $`v_s`$. The ordinary neutrinos then have tiny masses. The $`\mu `$ term of the MSSM is replaced by a trilinear coupling of the Higgs superfields, and the effective $`\mu `$ parameter is given by $`v_s`$. A typical mass scale of this model is of order 1 TeV. Some fine-tuning of the parameters is necessary for correct breaking of the electroweak gauge symmetry. On the other hand, the EDMs of the neutron and the electron are predicted within their experimental bounds without fine-tuning much $`CP`$-violating phases.

The constructed model gives predictions different from the MSSM in various phenomenological aspects. An extra neutral gauge boson couples to all the quarks and leptons. There exists a stable fermion which is nontrivially transformed under SU(3) and UEM(1). Lepton number is not conserved in the interactions of the neutrinos or the scalar neutrinos. Some scalar particles mediate flavor-changing neutral current at the tree level. The experimental examination of these predictions could be performed in the near future.

Implications of this model for theories at higher energy scales have also been studied. The gauge symmetry breaking is induced by radiative corrections. The masses-squared and the trilinear coupling constants of scalar fields could be universal at an energy scale not much smaller than the Planck mass, which is consistent with the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking based on $`N=1`$ supergravity. The gauge coupling constants are not unified below the Planck mass scale, unless the particle contents are modified.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank T. Watanabe for his advice on computer calculations. One of us (M.A.) acknowledges the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for financial support. The work of M.A. is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.

## A

The RGEs are listed below. The gauge and Yukawa coupling constants are expressed by $`\alpha g^2/4\pi `$ and $`E\eta ^2/4\pi `$, $`L\lambda ^2/4\pi `$.

The gauge coupling constants and the gauge fermion masses:

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\alpha _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_a}{2\pi }}\alpha _a^2,`$ (33)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}\stackrel{~}{m}_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_a}{2\pi }}\alpha _a\stackrel{~}{m}_a,`$ (34)
where $`b_3=0`$, $`b_2=3`$, $`b_1=15`$, and $`b_1^{}=15`$ for SU(3), SU(2), U(1), and U(1), respectively.

The masses-squared of the scalar fields:

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_Q^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\alpha _1\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (37)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}E_u\left(|A_u|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_2}^2+M_Q^2+M_{U^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}E_d\left(|A_d|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_Q^2+M_{D^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{U^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha _1\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}E_u\left(|A_u|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_2}^2+M_Q^2+M_{U^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{D^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{49}{144}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _1\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}E_d\left(|A_d|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_Q^2+M_{D^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{49}{144}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}E_\nu \left(|A_\nu |^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_2}^2+M_L^2+M_{N^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}E_e\left(|A_e|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_L^2+M_{E^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{N^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{144}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}E_\nu \left(|A_\nu |^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_2}^2+M_L^2+M_{N^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}L_N\left(|B_N|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+2M_{N^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{E^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left(\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left(\alpha _1\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}E_e\left(|A_e|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_L^2+M_{E^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{H_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1\xi {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}E_d\left(|A_d|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_Q^2+M_{D^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}E_e\left(|A_e|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_L^2+M_{E^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}L_H\left(|B_H|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_{H_2}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{H_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _1\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}E_u\left(|A_u|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_2}^2+M_Q^2+M_{U^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}E_\nu \left(|A_\nu |^2m_{3/2}^2+M_{H_2}^2+M_L^2+M_{N^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}L_H\left(|B_H|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_{H_2}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{36}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (61)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}L_N\left(|B_N|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+2M_{N^c}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}L_H\left(|B_H|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+M_{H_1}^2+M_{H_2}^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}L_K\left(|B_K|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+M_K^2+M_{K^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_K^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _1\xi {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (63)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}L_K\left(|B_K|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+M_K^2+M_{K^c}^2\right),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}M_{K^c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha _1\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\alpha _1^{}\xi ^{}\right)`$ (65)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}L_K\left(|B_K|^2m_{3/2}^2+M_S^2+M_K^2+M_{K^c}^2\right),`$
where $`\xi =Y_\varphi M_\varphi ^2`$ and $`\xi ^{}=Q_\varphi M_\varphi ^2`$.

The Yukawa coupling constants:

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}E_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}E_u\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{36}}\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\alpha _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(6E_u+E_d+E_\nu +L_H)\right\},`$ (66)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}E_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}E_d\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{36}}\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{48}}\alpha _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(E_u+6E_d+E_e+L_H)\right\},`$ (67)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}E_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}E_\nu \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{48}}\alpha _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3E_u+4E_\nu +E_e+4L_N+L_H)\right\},`$ (68)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}E_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}E_e\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{48}}\alpha _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3E_d+E_\nu +4E_e+L_H)\right\},`$ (69)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}L_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}L_N\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{25}{48}}\alpha _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(4E_\nu +10L_N+2L_H+3L_K)\right\},`$ (70)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}L_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}L_H\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\alpha _1^{}`$ (72)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3E_u+3E_d+E_\nu +E_e+2L_N+4L_H+3L_K)\},`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}L_K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}L_K\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\alpha _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2L_N+2L_H+5L_K)\right\}.`$ (73)
The trilinear coupling constants:

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}A_u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{36}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (75)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(6A_uE_u+A_dE_d+A_\nu E_\nu +B_HL_H),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}A_d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{36}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{48}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (77)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(A_uE_u+6A_dE_d+A_eE_e+B_HL_H),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}A_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{48}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (79)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(3A_uE_u+4A_\nu E_\nu +A_eE_e+4B_NL_N+B_HL_H),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}A_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{19}{48}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (81)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(3A_dE_d+A_\nu E_\nu +4A_eE_e+B_HL_H),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}B_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{48}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (83)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(4A_\nu E_\nu +10B_NL_N+2B_HL_H+3B_KL_K),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}B_H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha _2\stackrel{~}{m}_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (85)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(3A_uE_u+3A_dE_d+A_\nu E_\nu +A_eE_e+2B_NL_N+4B_HL_H+3B_KL_K),`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mu }}B_K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\alpha _3\stackrel{~}{m}_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha _1\stackrel{~}{m}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}\alpha _1^{}\stackrel{~}{m}_1^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_{3/2}}}`$ (87)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(2B_NL_N+2B_HL_H+5B_KL_K).`$