text:
# Tunneling Spectroscopy of the Underdoped High-𝑇_𝑐 Superconductors

## I Introduction

The suppression of density of states around the Fermi level in the underdoped high-$`T_c`$ superconductors (HTSC) above $`T_c`$ is observed in various normal state experiments such as optical conductivity, dc-resistivity, angle resolved photoemission, NMR, tunneling spectroscopy, neutron scattering, specific heat, Raman spectroscopy etc , and this phenomena is termed as pseudogap (PG). Currently a consensus of the origin and nature of this PG is still lacking and undoubtedly it is a key issue to be resolved to make any progress toward a theory of high Tc superconductivity.

About the origin of the PG state only two possibilities are logically allowed. The first possibility is that the PG is somehow related with the superconducting correlation and it develops into a real superconducting gap below Tc. And the second possibility is that the PG has nothing to do with a superconducting gap but with something else. Along the first line of thinking, preformed pair scenario , pairing fluctuations scenario , etc. are proposed. For the second possibility, antiferromagnetic correlation, charge stripes, etc are considered as the origin of the PG. At present experimental evidences exist both for superconducting origin and for non-superconducting origin. Therefore it is necessary to design an experiment to identify distinct features among the proposed scenarios. Recently we proposed an experimental test using tunneling spectroscopy in the PG state, specifically, for the preformed pair scenario. Namely we claim that there should be an Andreev reflection signal even above Tc but below $`T^{}`$ (PG cross-over temperature) if there exist preformed Cooper pairs without long range phase coherence. Until now there are only one positive  and one negative  experiment reported on the observation of an Andreev signal in the PG region of the underdoped HTSC compounds.

In this paper we examine the second possibility for the PG state, i.e., that the PG is irrelevant from the SC gap. We calculate the tunneling conductance ($`dI/dV`$) at zero temperature when the PG coexists with a SC gap. Specifically we considered two cases: (1) the PG is a simple suppression of density of states of an unknown origin and the SC correlation has no direct interplay with the PG; (2) the PG is caused by an AFM correlation (approximated by SDW) and below Tc the AFM correlation and the SC correlation coexist and interplay with each other. For both cases, we use the BTK theory to calculate the tunneling conductance ($`dI/dV`$). The results show characteristic features of the tunneling density of states in each case and those features can be used to sort out the true origin of the PG in comparison with experiments.

The main results are: (1) for the first case, the basic line shape of the tunneling conductance is a simple superposition of a standard BTK conductance and an assumed PG density of states. When the SC gap size is smaller than the PG size, the SC gap feature shows up as a distinguishable peak inside the PG. However if the size of SC gap is larger than the PG, the PG feature is overwhelmed by the SC gap feature; (2) for the second case, there is an interesting interplay between the AFM and SC correlations. Irrespective of the relative sizes of the PG and SC gap, the tunneling conductance shows only one gap feature at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}`$ ($`=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{PG}^2}`$). However depending on the relative sizes of the PG and SC gap, the line shape of $`dI/dV`$ looks very different. When the SC gap is bigger than the PG, it looks more like a conventional NIS (Normal metal-Insulator-Superconductor) junction. But for the other case the main feature of the $`dI/dV`$ curve is determined by the SDW correlation and shows no diverging density of states approaching the gap energy in contrast to the NIS junction. This difference comes from the fact that the tunneling density of states of the NISDW (Normal metal-Insulator-SDW state) junction obtained by the BTK theory (even at large barrier potential ($`Z`$) limit) is not the same as the actual density of states, which would have been obtained by the tunneling Hamiltonian method. The difference of the tunneling conductance by the BTK theory and by the tunneling Hamiltonian method in the SDW state, which is in contrast to the NIS (Normal metal-Insulator-Superconducor) junction, shows that the description of tunneling process by these two methods are not the same. The important and interesting questions are then which description is more proper description for actual tunneling process and why in the case of NIS junction those two methods seem to give consistent results for a $`Z>>1`$ limit. More details will be discussed in the later section.

## II PG model I: simple suppression of density of states

In this section we consider the case that the PG is a simple suppression of density of states, which has been developed above $`T_c`$ by an unknown origin. An assumption is that the SC gap develops below $`T_c`$ on top of the already developed PG density of states and there is no other correlation between the SC gap and the PG.

The tunneling conductance of NIS junction is calculated by the BTK theory as follows.

$`dI(eV)/dV`$ $`=`$ $`2ev_FA{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{𝑑𝐸}N_{\mathrm{𝑃𝐺}}(E){\displaystyle \frac{f(EV)}{V}}`$ (2)
$`[1+|A(E)|^2|R(E)|^2],`$
where

$$|A|^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}{(E+(1+2Z^2)\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2})^2}\hfill & \text{for }E>\mathrm{\Delta }_S\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}{E^2+(1+2Z^2)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2E^2)}\hfill & \text{for }E<\mathrm{\Delta }_S\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
$$|R|^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4Z^2(E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2)(Z^2+1)}{(E+(1+2Z^2)\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2})^2}\hfill & \text{for }E>\mathrm{\Delta }_S\hfill \\ \frac{4Z^2(Z^2+1)(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2E^2)}{E^2+(1+2Z^2)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2E^2)}\hfill & \text{for }E<\mathrm{\Delta }_S\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
are the coefficients for the Andreev and normal reflections, respectively, and $`Z`$ is the strength of the insulating barrier ($`Z=\frac{mV}{\mathrm{}^2k_F}`$). The above equation is a standard formula for the tunneling conductance by the BTK theory with one modification, i.e., multiplied by the PG density of states $`N_{PG}(E)`$. We simulate $`N_{PG}(E)`$ by Dynes’ formula with the SC gap replaced by the PG ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$).

$$N_{PG}(E)=2\pi N(0)Re\left[\frac{\omega +i\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sqrt{(\omega +i\mathrm{\Gamma })^2\mathrm{\Delta }_P^2}}\right].$$
(5)
The numerical calculation has done for a tunneling into (1,0,0) direction toward the HTSC and assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ has the maximum value at the same direction (1,0,0). To simulate the surface roughness we also present the angle averaged results by simply replacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,P}\mathrm{\Delta }_{S,P}^0\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )`$. All the presented tunneling conductance is normalized by the normal-state resistance $`R_N=(1+Z^2)/(2N(0)e^2v_FA)`$ and the bias voltage is measured in unit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$. Also for all the presented result we chose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.3`$, which determines the shape of the PG density of states $`N_{PG}(E)`$ from Eq(4).

In Fig.1(a) we show the normalized tunneling conductance $`R_NdI/dV`$ at zero temperature with the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ for different barrier potentials (Z=0,0.5, and 1). We also plot $`N_{PG}(E)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.3`$ for comparison. The results can be trivially understood. As well known from the BTK theory, for small value of Z, we see the enhanced conductance below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ due to the Andreev reflection and this effect quickly disappears with increasing Z value. The main difference of our results from the conventional BTK calculation is that we modulate the conventional BTK tunneling conductance by multiplying with $`N_{PG}(E)`$. As a result the enhanced conductance below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and the sharp peak structure at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ appear inside the PG density of states ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_S<\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$). In Fig.1(b) we show the same calculations but angle averaged to simulated the surface roughness in real tunneling experiment. The main features are the same as Fig.1(a) and the line shapes become more rounded off. In particular the result of Z=1 case in Fig.1(b) looks quite similar with the recent tunneling experiment by Krasnov et al.

In Fig.1(c) and Fig.1(d) we show the results of same calculations as Fig.1(a) and Fig.1(b), respectively but with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ has the same value as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ the line shape of the tunneling conductance looks similar to the conventional NIS junction, in particular with a large Z value. The effect of the PG is just to enhance the over-all line shape of the conductance. For smaller Z value the conductance is still enhanced below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ due to the Andreev reflection. However even the enhanced conductance at $`E0`$ limit is far below than 2 (for a conventional NIS junction it approaches 2 for $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ as Z $``$ 0) because of the reduced DOS of PG origin. Again the angle averaged results in Fig.1(d) shows a more rounded off line shapes. The angle averaged PG density of states (PDOS) is shown for comparison in Fig.1(b) and (d).

In Fig2.(a-d), we plot the normalized conductance with varying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S(=`$0.5,1, and 1.5 $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$). When Z=1 (Fig.2(a) and Fig.2(b)) the results are easily understood. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S<\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ the distinct peak structure due to SC appears inside the PG as explained above. And when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S>\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ there is no more distinct peak structure and the SC feature overwhelms the PG structure. When Z=0.1 (Fig.2(c) and Fig.2(d)) the conductance line shapes look more peculiar, but basically it can be understood as an overlap of the Andreev enhanced conductance below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and the PG density of states $`N_{PG}(E)`$. G. Deutscher et al.  reported that there are two energy scales observed in tunneling experiments, and depending on the barrier strength ($`Z`$) only one of the two energy scales dominates the conductance line shape. In Fig2.(c) the line with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=0.5\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ (solid line) shows a similar feature to the experimental data in Fig.2 of Ref..

In view of the experiments of Krasnov et al.  and G. Deutscher et al. , if our calculations have any relevance with underdoped HTSC, it would be the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S<\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ (Fig.1(a)(b) and Fig.2(c)(d)) and it will be interesting if more tunneling experiments with different Z parameters become available in near future.

## III PG model II:SDW

In this section we consider another possibility of the PG, namely, in which the correlation, which induces the PG, coexists with a SC correlation below $`T_c`$ and the PG correlation interplay with the SC correlation. In this case the key difference from the case (I) is that either $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ does not show up as separate features in the tunneling conductance but the total gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_P^2}`$ shows up as a result of the interplay of two gaps. However more detailed line shape of the tunneling conductance reveals the existence of two gaps, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$.

Specifically, we assume the SDW correlation as the origin of PG. The reason for this assumption is of course that there is a strong antiferromagnetic (AFM) correlation in underdoped HTSC compounds. Particularly for the underdoped HTSC compounds there is clear experimental evidence from neutron scattering  for the coexistence of the AFM correlation and superconductivity below $`T_c`$ and also the AFM correlation length becomes much larger than the SC correlation length. This enable us to treat the short range AFM correlation by SDW from the point of view of the SC correlation.

### A tunneling with SDW only

As a prelude we first generalize the BTK theory to the NISDW (Normal metal-Insulator-SDW) junction. For simplicity we consider only a one dimension model and assume a commensurate SDW state with $`Q=k_F=\pi /a`$ ($`a`$ is the lattice distance) and also neglect the Fermi surface mismatch between the normal metal and the SDW state.

The wave functions of the lefthand (normal metal) and the righthand (SDW) sides of the tunneling barrier is written as,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_L(x)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ikx}+Re^{ikx}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(x)`$ $`=`$ $`T[a(k)e^{ikx}+b(k)e^{i(kQ)x}]`$ (7)
where $`a(k)^2=\frac{ϵ+\xi }{2ϵ}`$ and $`b(k)^2=\frac{ϵ\xi }{2ϵ}`$ are the Bogoliubov coefficients of the SDW state, $`ϵ=\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}^2}`$, and $`\xi =\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m\mu `$. By matching the boundary conditions of the wave functions at $`x=0`$, we obtained $`R`$ and $`T`$ as follows.

$`R(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a+b)iZa}{(a+b)iZ+b}}`$ (8)
$`T(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(a+b)iZ+b}}`$ (9)
For $`ϵ^2>\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}^2`$, $`|R|^2`$ is easily calculated, and for $`ϵ^2<\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}^2`$, using $`a^2=\frac{ϵi\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}^2ϵ^2}}{2ϵ}`$ and $`b^2=\frac{ϵ+i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}^2ϵ^2}}{2ϵ}`$, we can show $`|R|^2=1`$.

The tunneling conductance of NISDW junction with different Z (=0,0.3, and 1) are shown in Fig.3(a,b,c) as dash-dot lines ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_S=0`$ case). The tunneling conductance line shape is qualitatively different from the actual density of states $`N_{SDW}(E)`$, which would have been obtained by the tunneling Hamiltonian method. Here we clearly observe that the BTK theory and the tunneling Hamiltonian method give different results for tunneling conductance. And it has been already known that these two methods describe different physical processes for the tunneling phenomena . In particular, the tunneling Hamiltonian method, although physically appealing, has never been justified in regard with the tunneling transfer matrix element $`T`$ (it is always taken as a constant). Then another question may arise: why then for the BCS state does the BTK theory give a qualitatively similar result as the tunneling Hamiltonian methods at least for a large $`Z`$ limit where the Andreev reflection process is suppressed, but not for the SDW state ? The reason is that for the BCS state the quasiparticle is a superposition of a momentum $`k`$ particle and a momentum $`k`$ hole, and all together it carries the flux of the same momentum $`k`$, while for the SDW state the quasiparticle is a superposition of momenta $`k`$ and $`k+Q`$ particles and therefore the quasiparticle in SDW state doesn’t carry a single momentum. For the BTK theory of tunneling the main physics is the flux conservation described by Liouville’s theorem, therefore the BTK theory sensitively traces the correlation of different momentum states in the SC or SDW states, while the tunneling Hamiltonian method is completely blind of the momentum correlation. In the case of SC (BCS) state, we are in a fortune situation as described above, therefore momentum correlation doesn’t play an important role but particle-hole correlation plays an important role in the BTK theory, which provides the main difference between the BTK theory and the tunneling Hamiltonian method through the Andreev scattering. Now for the case of SDW state, the momentum correlation is important but not the particle-hole correlation; therefore it is expected that the two methods will give different results.

An important question is then which theory should be trusted. As described above, the tunneling Hamiltonian method has never been justified, while there is no logical flow in the BTK theory based on the flux conservation. Therefore we think unless the tunneling interface is very rough (of course we need to estimate how much rough is rough) the BTK theory becomes more trustable.

### B tunneling with SDW+SC

Now we will consider the tunneling junction of a normal metal-insulator-SDW+SC (NISDWS). Again for simplicity we consider only a one dimensional model. In reality, as in HTSC, the analysis of tunneling in the two dimensional SDW state is more complicated, in particular when SDW+SC is considered. However our one dimensional model is enough to provide a qualitative understanding of the interplay of SDW and SC correlations in tunneling process.

Once the SDW state is formed, there are two branches of quasiparticles created: $`\alpha _{+,k}=a(k)c_k+b(k)c_{k+Q}`$ and $`\alpha _{,k}=b(k)c_ka(k)c_{k+Q}`$, where $`a(k)`$ and $`b(k)`$ are the Bogoliubov coefficients as defined above. Now we assume that the superconducting pairing occurs between $`\alpha _{+,k}`$ and $`\alpha _{+,k}`$, and also between $`\alpha _{,k}`$ and $`\alpha _{,k}`$, but not between $`\alpha _{+,k}`$ and $`\alpha _{,k}`$, for example. Although this assumption is mainly for simplicity of the analysis, it is known that the pairing interaction between different branches are much weaker in Hubbard model. Also strictly speaking the SDW state with a commensurate wave vector ($`Q=\pi /a`$) is an insulator with a fully developed gap below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}=\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$, in contrast to the PG state in HTSC where residual density of states still remain and the system remains a metal. Therefore it is clear that our SDW state only mimic a state with a short range AFM correlation of the underdoped HTSC and it is justified by the fact that the AFM correlation is effectively long range from the viewpoint of the SC correlation. A main drawback of this assumption is that the effect of the residual density of states below PG in the tunneling conductance is completely missing. In summary, the purpose of this section is to study a tunneling characteristics of a SDW+SC state due to the interplay of two correlations, but not all the details of real materials.

Now for the BTK theory the wave functions of the lefthand (normal metal) and righthand (SDW+SC) sides of the tunneling interface are written as,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_L(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{ikx}+R(E)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)e^{ikx}+A(E)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)e^{ikx},`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_R(E)`$ $`=`$ $`C(E)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)\alpha _+(k)+D(E)\left(\begin{array}{c}v\\ u\end{array}\right)\alpha _{}(k).`$ (21)
where $`E^2=\sqrt{ϵ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}=\sqrt{\xi ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{SDW}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}`$ and $`\xi =\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m\mu `$. All $`kk_F`$ approximation is taken; the error of the approximation is $`O(\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}/E_F)`$. Also a shorthand notation of the wave functions are

$`\alpha _+(k)`$ $`=`$ $`a(ϵ)e^{ikx}+b(ϵ)e^{i(kQ)x},`$ (22)
$`\alpha _{}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`b(ϵ)e^{ikx}a(ϵ)e^{i(kQ)x}.`$ (23)
As usual the SC Bogoliubov coefficients are $`u(E)^2=(E+ϵ)/2E`$ and $`u(E)^2=(Eϵ)/2E`$. By matching boundary conditions, which is a lengthy but straight forward calculation, we obtained the coefficients of $`A(E)`$ and $`R(E)`$ as follows.

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{F}},`$ (24)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(u^2v^2)[Z^2(b^2a^2)+iZ(b^2a^2+2ab)ab]}{F}},`$ (25)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`(u^2v^2)[Z^2(b^2a^2)+iZ2ab]+b^2u^2+a^2v^2.`$ (26)
In order to calculate $`|A|^2`$ and $`|R|^2`$ we need to divide the region of $`E`$ into three regions. For region (I), where $`E>\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}(=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_P^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}`$), $`ϵ=\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}`$ and $`\xi =\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}^2}`$. For region (II), where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S<E<\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}`$, $`ϵ=\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}`$ and $`\xi =i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}^2E^2}`$, and finally for region (III), where $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$, $`ϵ=i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2E^2}`$ and $`\xi =i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}^2E^2}`$. But in the final results of $`|A|`$ and $`|R|`$, $`ϵ`$ factors are all cancelled out, so that the region (II) and (III) are not distinguished. Therefore the tunneling characteristics shows distinct change only across $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}`$ but no change across either $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ or $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$.

The final results of the Andreev ($`A`$) and normal reflection ($`R`$) coefficients are: for region (I),

$`|A|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}{G}},`$ (27)
$`|R|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2Z^2\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_P)^2+4Z^2(\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_P)^2}{G}},`$ (28)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`[(2Z^2+1)\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2}+E]^2+4Z^2\mathrm{\Delta }_P^2;`$ (29)
and for region (II) and (III),

$`|A|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}{H}},`$ (30)
$`|R|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_P+2Z\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2E^2})^2+4Z^2(Z\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2E^2}+\mathrm{\Delta }_P)^2}{H}},`$ (31)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`E^2+[(2Z^2+1)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2E^2}+2Z\mathrm{\Delta }_P]^2.`$ (32)
In Fig.3(a-c) we plot the numerical calculations of the normalized tunneling conductance as a function of bias voltage (in unit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$) with varying size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ (=0,0.5,1, and 2) for different barrier potentials (Z=0, 0.3, and 1). The main features of the tunneling conductance are very different from a pure SC case. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ is much bigger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ (say, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S/\mathrm{\Delta }_P=2`$ in Fig.3) the line shape is similar to the pure SC case. But even in this case the position of a gap in the conductance is determined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_t`$ and the presence of SC gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ only show up through an Andreev scattering coefficient, which enhances the conductance below the total gap. On the other hand when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$, the line shape looks closer to the pure SDW case, which is qualitatively different from a real density of states as explained in the previous section. Again the presence of SC gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ show up only through an Andreev scattering and enhances the conductance below the total gap.

In Fig.4(a)(b) we plot the same calculations in different organization. Here we vary Z values with fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ to see more clearly the effect of varying strength of the tunneling barrier. Main features are already explained above. Both in Fig.4(a) and (b), the normalized conductance below $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}`$ is enhanced by the Andreev reflection and it increases as $`Z0`$. When Z=0, we can have a simple results of $`|A|^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2}`$ and $`|R|^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_P^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}^2}`$ for $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}`$. These expressions of $`|A|^2`$ and $`|R|^2`$ clearly show the contrasting role of the SDW gap (normal reflection) and the SC gap (Andreev reflection); the normalized conductance is given by $`R_NdI/dV(E<\mathrm{\Delta }_t)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_t^2}`$ in this limit. Increasing Z from zero, it continues to suppress the Andreev reflection and enhances the normal reflection.

In view of current tunneling experiments, if our results of the NISDWS junction has any relevance with the underdoped HTSC, only possibility is the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S>\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ at low temperature. In order to realize this possibility starting with a sizable $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ and a zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ above $`T_c`$, we have to imagine that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ gradually decreases and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ gradually increases as temperature is lowered. Because this scenario is quite unlikely from the currently available experiments, we can conclude either that the PG is not caused by an AFM correlation, or that even if the origin of PG is an AFM correlation the AFM correlation is not strong enough to have any significant interplay with a SC correlation.

## IV Conclusion

We considered two phenomenological models of the PG state in underdoped HTSC and studied the characteristics of tunneling conductance at zero temperature by generalizing the BTK theory. In model I, we assumed that the PG is a simple suppression of density of states of a unknown origin and when the system goes to SC state there is no direct interplay between the PG correlation and the SC correlation. In this case the characteristics of tunneling conductance is a simple superposition of a standard tunneling conductance with SC gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and the PG density of states $`N_{PG}(E)`$. Despite the simplicity of the model, the results seem to explain some of the recent tunneling experiments by Krasnov et al. and G. Deutscher , which indicate non-superconducting origin of the PG. In the model II, we assumed that the PG is caused by an AFM correlation and it is simulated by SDW state. Below $`T_c`$ the SDW correlation and SC correlation show an interesting interplay. As a result, the tunneling gap is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{total}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_S^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_P^2}`$ and individual gaps, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$, do not show up explicitly. In particular when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{P,SDW}>\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$, the line shape of the tunneling conductance looks qualitatively different from a conventional NIS junction. In view of available tunneling experiments in underdoped HTSC, the relevance of the model II is possible only when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{P,SDW}<\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ below $`T_c`$, which is quite unlikely at present. To clarify the issue of the PG more experiments on tunneling are essential and our study should serve as a useful benchmark.

We would like to thank H.J. Lee for invaluable discussion of his data and G. Deutscher for sending us their preprint prior to publication, respectively. This work was supported by the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the Center for Strongly Correlated Materials Research (CSCMR) (2000)(YB) and through the Grant No. 1999-2-114-005-5 (YB and HYC).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Two central issues in supersymmetric grand unified theories (SUSY-GUT’s) are a) mechanism of SUSY breaking (including the origin of the SUSY breaking scale) and mediation of SUSY breaking to the SM superpartners and b) mechanism of GUT symmetry breaking (down to the SM gauge group) and the origin of the GUT scale (denoted by $`M_{GUT}`$) $`2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV (the energy scale at which SM gauge couplings unify with the MSSM particle content).

In , we presented a model in which both these symmetries (SUSY and a simple GUT gauge group) are broken by the same modulus field (i.e., by the same scalar potential). A non-zero vev for the $`F`$-component of this field is generated dynamically breaking SUSY. The GUT scale which is the vev of the scalar ($`A`$-)component of the same field (at the minimum of the potential) is determined (dynamically) by an “inverted hierarchy” mechanism. Therefore the GUT scale is naturally both larger than the SUSY breaking scale (which is required for the vev of the scalar component to be calculable in perturbation theory) and smaller than the Planck scale. This is the first example of its kind in the literature. 333In  also, SUSY and a GUT gauge group are broken by the same field. However, in , SUSY breaking is not dynamical so that a very small superpotential coupling is required to explain the smallness of the SUSY breaking scale compared to $`M_{Pl}`$ and also if all superpotential couplings are of the same order, then $`M_{GUT}M_{Pl}`$. In , the GUT gauge group is not simple so that gauge coupling unification is not a prediction of the model and also an assumption about a (non-calculable) Kähler potential is required for the model to work.

In this model, there are two comparable contributions to the MSSM scalar and gaugino masses – one is mediated by supergravity (SUGRA) and the other by gauge interactions. This is crucial to achieving a realistic sfermion mass spectrum since if we neglect the SUGRA contribution, then the (gauge mediated contribution to) the right-handed (RH) slepton (mass)2 (at the weak scale) is negative. However, the SUGRA contribution to sfermion (mass)2 is, in general, arbitrary in flavor space giving unacceptable rates for flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC’s). We will argue that, in general, this “problem” will be present in any model where SUSY and a GUT symmetry are broken by the same field.

In this paper, we show how the above model can be “improved”, i.e., how “flavor-conserving” and positive sfermion (mass)2 can be attained using the recently proposed idea of gaugino mediated SUSY breaking .

## 2 Review of model and the problem

### 2.1 Model

We begin with a brief review of the model of . The gauge group is:

$$SU(6)_{GUT}\times SU(6)_S$$
(1)
and the field content is listed in Table 1.

The core part of the superpotential is:

$$W_1=\lambda _Q\mathrm{\Sigma }Q\overline{Q}+\frac{\lambda _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3.$$
(2)
Along the flat direction parametrized by tr $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$, the vev of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{v}{\sqrt{12}}\text{diag}[1,1,1,1,1,1]$$
(3)
which breaks $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ to $`SU(3)\times SU(3)\times U(1)`$ at the scale $`v`$. We identify one unbroken $`SU(3)`$ with $`SU(3)_{color}`$ and show later how to break the other $`SU(3)\times U(1)`$ to $`SU(2)_{weak}\times U(1)_Y`$ at the same scale ($`v`$). Thus we identify the value of $`v`$ at the minimum of the potential (see later) with the GUT scale (i.e., the scale at which SM gauge couplings meet). The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vev gives mass to $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ so that below the scale $`v`$, the only massless fields are the flat direction $`v`$ (we will denote both the chiral superfield and its scalar component by $`v`$) and the pure gauge theory $`SU(6)_S`$ (the other components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ either get a mass through the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^3`$ term or are eaten by the broken generators of $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$; see  for details).

The pure $`SU(6)_S`$ gauge theory undergoes gaugino condensation and generates the superpotential:

$$W=6\mathrm{\Lambda }_L^3=\sqrt{3}\lambda _Q\mathrm{\Lambda }^2v,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ are the dynamical scales of the high and low energy $`SU(6)_S`$, respectively (they are related by one-loop matching at the scale $`v`$, assuming $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Thus, below the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$, the only massless field is $`v`$ with the above superpotential so that SUSY is broken since $`F_v\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$. But, with the canonical (tree-level) Kähler potential ($`v^{}v`$), the vev of the scalar ($`A`$-)component of $`v`$ (i.e., the GUT scale) is undetermined since the scalar potential is flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$. The dominant corrections to the Kähler potential (and hence the scalar potential) are given by the wavefunction renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (denoted by $`Z`$) so that:

$$V(v)\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{Z(v)}.$$
(5)
Since $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we can compute $`Z(v)`$ using perturbation theory. In renormalization group (RG) evolution, at one-loop, $`Z(v)`$ receives contributions from the Yukawa coupling(s) ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma },Q}`$) and the $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ gauge coupling – the former (latter) tends to decrease (increase) $`Z(v)`$ as $`v`$ increases. Thus, if the gauge coupling dominates at small $`v`$ whereas the Yukawa coupling is larger at high scales (as is natural if $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ is asymptotically free), then the potential can develop a minimum. Furthermore, the minimum can be (naturally) at a value of $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ since $`Z`$ and both couplings depend logarithmically on $`v`$: at the minimum, we require that $`v10^{16}`$ GeV (to obtain the correct GUT scale) whereas $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{10}10^{11}`$ GeV so that MSSM sparticles have masses $`100\text{GeV}1`$ TeV (see later). 444This is only a local minimum since there is a supersymmetric minimum with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Q\overline{Q}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . However since, at the local minimum $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the tunneling rate from the local minimum to the “true” vacuum is very small. Thus, this inverted hierarchy mechanism  can generate a GUT scale, $`M_{GUT}`$, much larger than the SUSY breaking scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (which is also required for the perturbative calculation mentioned above to be valid) 555It should be possible to contruct models based on (say) $`SO(10)`$ along similar lines.. We can also view this as “generating” the GUT scale from the Planck scale ($`M_{Pl}2\times 10^{18}`$ GeV) as follows. We can choose $`Z=1`$ (canonical normalization) at $`M_{Pl}`$ and RG evolve $`Z`$ to lower energies. Since $`Z`$ and the gauge and Yukawa couplings vary logarithmically (“slowly”) with energy, (we can choose $`O(1)`$ couplings at $`M_{Pl}`$ such that) $`Z`$ reaches a maximum at an energy scale $`M_{GUT}`$ which is “much” smaller (i.e., by two orders of magnitude) than $`M_{Pl}`$ .

To break the other $`SU(3)\times U(1)`$ to $`SU(2)_{weak}\times U(1)_Y`$ (and to get the usual light Higgs doublets) we add:

$$W_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}S_i(H_i\overline{H}_i\mathrm{\Sigma }^2),$$
(6)
$$W_3=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}H_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }+X_i)\overline{h}_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\overline{H}_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\overline{X}_i)h_i,$$
(7)
$$W_4=\frac{1}{M}\left(\left(H_1\overline{H}_1\right)\left(H_2\overline{H}_2\right)\left(H_1\overline{H}_2\right)\left(H_2\overline{H}_1\right)\right),$$
(8)
$$W_5=S_3\left(H_1\overline{H}_2H_2\overline{H}_1\right).$$
(9)
The role of these $`W`$’s is as follows (for details, see ). $`W_2`$ forces $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ to acquire vev’s. With $`H=\overline{H}v(1,0,0,0,0,0)`$, $`SU(3)\times U(1)`$ is broken to $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. $`W_3`$ forces $`X`$, $`\overline{X}`$ to acquire vev’s such that only the triplets in $`H`$’s get a mass with those in $`\overline{h}`$’s (this is the “sliding singlet” mechanism). 666Any symmetries which allow the terms $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^3`$, $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ and $`SH\overline{H}`$ (which we need to obtain the desired vev’s), also allow the term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H\overline{H}`$ which spoils the above pattern of vev’s; in addition, there might be higher dimension operators (allowed by the same symmetries) which might spoil the sliding singlet mechanism and/or the pattern of vev’s. Thus, this model is only “technically” natural, i.e., the superpotential is not the most general one allowed by symmetries. A pair of doublets in $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ is eaten in the gauge symmetry breaking while a pair of doublets in $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ gets a mass with doublets in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (due to the $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ vev). This leaves two pairs of doublets massless: the one in $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ acquires mass through $`W_4`$ and the one in $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ is the usual pair of Higgs doublets. $`W_5`$ gives a required constraint between the vev’s of $`H_1`$, $`\overline{H}_1`$ and $`H_2`$, $`\overline{H}_2`$.

To complete the model, the SM quarks and leptons are obtained through:

$`W_6`$ $`=`$ $`N_i(\overline{P}_{1j}\overline{H}_1+\overline{P}_{2j}\overline{H}_2)+N_i(\overline{P}_{1j}\overline{h}_1+\overline{P}_{2j}\overline{h}_2)`$ (10)
$`+N_iN_jY+(X_1+X_2)Y\overline{Y}+\overline{Y}(H_1h_1H_2h_2).`$
For each generation, the vev’s of $`\overline{H}`$’s gives a mass to one combination of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ (under $`SU(5)`$) in $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$ with the $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ (under $`SU(5)`$) of $`N`$ leaving one $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ in $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ in $`N`$ massless – these are the quarks and leptons. The other terms in $`W_6`$ generate their Yukawa couplings.

### 2.2 Problem with sfermion spectrum

The MSSM scalars and gauginos acquire masses $`\left[\alpha _{GUT}/\pi \right]\left[F_v/M_{GUT}\right]10^2\left[F_v/M_{GUT}\right]`$ through gauge mediation (GM) by coupling at one or two-loops to two sources 777The “loop” factor for these masses is $`\alpha _{GUT}/(4\pi )`$, but there is usually an enhancement from group theory and/or large number of messengers which effectively makes the loop factor $`\alpha _{GUT}/\pi 10^2`$ (for $`\alpha _{GUT}0.04`$) – this estimate suffices for comparison to SUGRA mediated masses (see later). The precise expressions for the gauge mediated masses are given in Eqs. (11) and (12). : one is the “matter” messengers – the $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ fields and the heavy components of $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$, $`h`$ and $`\overline{h}`$ fields which as usual have a SUSY breaking mass spectrum due to the coupling to $`v`$. 888With the addition of $`W_{2,3}`$, the flat direction $`v`$ is a combination of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$, $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$. The other source, usually referred to as “gauge” messengers, is the heavy part of the $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ gauge multiplet which also has a SUSY breaking spectrum since the field(s) breaking the GUT gauge group ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$) have a non-zero $`F`$-component.

Using the technique of , the MSSM gaugino masses are given by ($`A`$ denotes the gauge group):

$$M_A(\mu )\frac{\alpha _A(\mu )}{4\pi }\frac{F_v}{v}\left(b_Ab_6\right),$$
(11)
where $`b_A`$’s are the beta functions of the SM gauge groups below the GUT scale and $`b_6`$ is the beta function of the $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ above the GUT scale. The gaugino masses are non-universal since the messengers (both gauge and matter) are not in complete GUT multiplets.

The matter messengers give a positive contribution to the scalar (mass)2 as usual, but the gauge messenger contribution is typically negative (for all scalars) so that most scalars have negative (mass)2 at the GUT scale. Of course, in RG scaling to the weak scale, the sfermion (mass)2 get a positive contribution from the gaugino masses. The gauge mediated MSSM sfermion (other than stop) (mass)2 at the scale $`\mu `$ are given by (again using the technique of ):

$`m_i^2(\mu )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{F_v}{v}}\right)^2\times `$ (12)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2C_A^i}{b_A}}\left(\alpha _A^2(\mu )\left(b_6b_A\right)^2b_6^2\alpha _6^2\right)+2C_6^ib_6\alpha _6^2\right),`$
where $`C_A^i`$ is the quadratic Casimir invariant for the scalar $`i`$ under the gauge group $`A`$, i.e., $`4/3`$, $`3/4`$ for fundamentals of $`SU(3)_c`$, $`SU(2)_L`$ respectively and $`3/5Y^2`$ for $`U(1)_Y`$. $`C_6^i=35/12`$ for fields in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of $`SU(5)`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}`$ of $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$) and $`14/3`$ for fields in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ of $`SU(5)`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ of $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$). The beta function for $`SU(N_c)`$ group is defined as $`3N_cN_{f,eff}`$, where $`N_{eff}`$ is the “effective” number of flavors. $`\alpha _6`$ is the $`SU(6)`$ coupling at the GUT scale. With the particle content in Table 1, we get $`b_6=11`$.

In this model, it turns out that the gauge mediated contribution to RH slepton (mass)2, Eq. (12), is negative at the weak scale, i.e., the positive bino mass contribution (which is not an independent parameter) is not enough to make the RH slepton (mass)2 positive while all other sfermion (mass)2 are positive due to the larger wino/gluino mass contribution.

So far, the SUGRA contribution to MSSM scalar and gaugino masses has been neglected. The SUGRA contribution to MSSM sfermion (mass)2 from the operators:

$$d^4\theta c_1\frac{X^{}X\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_j}{M_{Pl}^2},$$
(13)
where $`X`$ is any SUSY breaking field ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`H_i`$, $`X_i`$ etc.) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a MSSM matter field, is $`\left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^210^4\left[F_v/M_{GUT}\right]^2`$ ( assuming $`c_1O(1)`$ and $`M_{Pl}2\times 10^{18}`$ GeV). Thus, the SUGRA and gauge mediated contributions (to sfermion masses) are comparable so that the combined RH slepton (mass)2 can still be positive (provided the SUGRA contribution is positive and a bit larger than the GM contribution) and a realistic spectrum can be achieved. However, the SUGRA contribution (Eq. (13)) violates flavor – in general, the off-diagonal terms in the sfermion (mass)2 matrices (in flavor space) will be $`O(\left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^2)`$ which clearly result in too large SUSY contributions to FCNC’s. There is also a SUGRA contribution to MSSM gaugino masses ($`F_v/M_{Pl}`$) comparable to the GM contribution (see ($`4D`$ equivalent of) Eq. (14)) which, in turn, contributes to scalar masses in RG scaling to the weak scale; this contribution to sfermion (mass)2 is positive and flavor-conserving.

From the above discussion, it is clear that generic models (i.e., not just the one in ) in which the same field breaks SUSY and a GUT symmetry will have the same problem – at the scale $`M_{GUT}`$, there will be a contribution (which is typically negative) to the scalar (mass)2 from the heavy gauge multiplet so that, at least for the RH slepton, the gauge mediated (mass)2 at the weak scale might be negative. Also, even if the gauge mediation contribution is positive, the SUGRA contribution (Eq. (13)) to the sfermion (mass)2 is comparable which leads to flavor violation, in general. It is clear that the latter is a problem also in models of GM with messenger scale close to the GUT scale (having nothing to do with GUT symmetry breaking), for example the model of .

## 3 Improved model using an extra dimension

We now show how to improve the above model, i.e., how to obtain positive and (at the same time) flavor-conserving sfermion (mass)2 using the framework of gaugino mediated SUSY breaking ($`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB) .

Consider the following embedding of this model in a $`5`$-dimensional ($`5D`$) theory. The MSSM matter fields (i.e., $`N`$ and $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$) are localized on a “$`3`$-brane” (“MSSM matter” brane) whereas the $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ gauge fields and $`Y`$, $`\overline{Y}`$, $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ fields propagate in the extra dimension. SUSY breaking fields, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$, $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$ and $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ are localized on a different $`3`$-brane (“SUSY breaking” brane) which is separated from the MSSM matter brane by a distance $`R3M^1`$ in the extra dimension, where $`M`$ is the “fundamental” ($`5D`$) Planck scale. For simplicity we also assume that $`R`$ is the size of the extra dimension. The $`S_{1,2,3}`$ fields and the $`SU(6)_S`$ gauge fields can either propagate in the bulk or be localized on the SUSY breaking brane.

In the effective $`5D`$ field theory below $`M`$ ($`10^{18}`$ GeV, see later), direct couplings between fields on the matter brane and SUSY breaking brane are forbidden since such couplings are not local . Of course, such operators might be generated by integrating out bulk states with mass $`M`$, but such effects will suppressed by a Yukawa factor $`e^{RM}`$ due to the (position space) propagator of the bulk state . In particular, the coefficient of the operator in Eq. (13) is $`\stackrel{<}{}10^2`$. Thus, the SUGRA contributions to the MSSM squark and slepton (mass)2 from contact Kähler terms are suppressed by this factor relative to other contributions (see later).

The superpotential couplings written in section 2.1 are all allowed, except for the $`N\overline{P}_{1,2}\overline{H}_{1,2}`$ coupling in Eq. (10) ($`N`$, $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ fields are localized on different branes). This coupling in the model of section 2.1 gives an $`O(M_{GUT})`$ mass to $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ (under $`SU(5)`$) of $`N`$ with a $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ (under $`SU(5)`$) in $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$ while the massless $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ in $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ in $`N`$ are the usual quarks and lepton fields. Thus, in the above framework, a $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ (for each generation) is massless in addition to the usual quarks and leptons. The beta-functions of SM gauge group ($`b_A`$’s) and hence the GM contribution to scalar and gaugino masses (in the $`4D`$ theory; see later) depends on whether these addtional fields are light or not. We assume that the extra $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$’s acquire mass $`O(M_{GUT})`$ by some mechanism. 999For example, the extra $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$’s might couple to additional fields or another possibility is that the operator $`d^2\theta \left(N\overline{P}\overline{H}X/M\right)`$ is generated with a coupling $`e^{RM}`$ by exchange of bulk (“string”) states – this operator will gives a mass $`O(e^3M_{GUT}/M)10^{12}`$ GeV to the extra $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$. In the latter case, there is an additonal messenger scale for GM $`10^{12}`$ GeV since the $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ in $`N`$, $`\overline{P}_{1,2}`$ have a non-supersymmetric spectrum due to the coupling to $`\overline{H}`$, $`X`$ – in the $`4D`$ model of section 2.1 these messengers were at the scale $`M_{GUT}`$.

We require the (usual Higgs doublets in) $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ fields to couple to matter fields so that Yukawa couplings can be generated. These Higgs fields should also couple to the GUT symmetry breaking fields (and hence SUSY breaking fields, in this case), which are localized on a different brane, so that the usual Higgs doublet-triplet splitting can be achieved. Thus, Higgs fields $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ have to propagate in the bulk.

The MSSM gauginos get a mass from the following ($`5D`$) SUGRA interactions:

$$d^2\theta \left(c_2\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }W_\alpha W^\alpha }{M^2}+c_3\frac{(X+\overline{X})W_\alpha W^\alpha }{M^2}\right)+h.c.,$$
(14)
where $`W_\alpha `$ is a $`5D`$ gauge field and $`c_{2,3}O(1)`$. The contribution to MSSM gaugino masses from the singlet is universal while that from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is non-universal: $`M_1:M_2:M_3=1:\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}:5`$. When these operators and also the operators $`d^4\theta X^{}X/M^5W_\alpha D^2W^\alpha `$ (which generate a SUSY breaking gaugino wavefunction) are inserted in one-loop diagrams, we get contributions to sfermion (mass)2 $`g_{5D}^2/(4\pi ^2)\left[F_v/M^2\right]^21/R^3`$ and $`g_{(5D)}^2/(4\pi ^2)F_v^2/M^5\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/R^4`$, respectively  ($`g_{(5D)}`$ is the $`5D`$ gauge coupling) which are finite due to the spatial separation of the SUSY breaking and the MSSM matter branes in the $`5D`$ theory. 101010In other words, these contributions to sfermion (mass)2 are the effect of integrating out the extra dimension, i.e., the Kaluza-Klein excitations of the gauge fields.  Using Eqs. (15) and (16) (see below), these one-loop contributions to sfermion (mass)2 are of order $`\alpha _{(4D)}/\pi \left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/(MR)`$ and $`\alpha _{(4D)}/\pi \left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/(MR)^2`$, respectively and thus are negligible compared to GM contribution at $`M_{GUT}`$ and gaugino mass contribution in RG scaling to the weak scale (see below).

When the extra dimension is compactified (i.e., the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of supergravity and other bulk states are integrated out), we get an effective $`4D`$ field theory below the scale $`R^11/3M`$. The $`4D`$ and $`5D`$ Planck scales are related by

$$M_{Pl}^2M^3R3M^2$$
(15)
so that $`MM_{Pl}/\sqrt{3}10^{18}`$ GeV and $`R^1M_{Pl}/54\times 10^{17}`$ GeV. 111111For simplicity, we assume that any other extra dimensions have size $`M^1`$ so that $`M`$ is the fundamental quantum gravity (“string”) scale and the inverted hierarchy mechanism generates the hierarchy between $`M`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$ (à la the hierarchy between $`M_{Pl}`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$ in $`4D`$). It is easy to extend this framework to one with more than one extra dimensions of size slightly larger than the fundamental length scale. However, in that case, the fundamental (say, $`(4+n)D`$) Planck scale, $`M`$, might be smaller than $`10^{18}`$ GeV (since $`M_{Pl}^2M^{n+2}R^n`$ for $`n`$ extra dimensions of size $`R`$) so that the motivation for the inverted hierarchy mechanism (to explain $`M_{GUT}/M`$) is a bit weaker.  In what follows, we assume $`MM_{Pl}`$. It was shown in  that the exchange of supergravity Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations also does not lead to contact Kähler terms of order $`1/M_{Pl}^2`$ (of the form Eq. (13)). The $`4D`$ and $`5D`$ gauge couplings are related by

$$g_{(4D)}^2\frac{g_{(5D)}^2}{R}.$$
(16)
The $`4D`$ (zero-mode) gaugino mass is given by $`c_{2,3}F_v/M^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/Rc_{2,3}F_v/(\sqrt{3}M_{Pl})`$, i.e., $`O(F_v/M_{Pl})`$ .

The anomaly mediated contribution to MSSM scalar and gaugino masses  is
$`F_v/M_{Pl}\alpha /\pi `$ and thus can be neglected in comparison to SUGRA contribution to gaugino masses, GM contributions (at $`M_{GUT}`$) to gaugino and scalar masses and gaugino mass contribution to scalar masses in RG scaling to the weak scale (see below). There is also a contribution to scalar (mass)2 at one-loop $`1/\left(16\pi ^2\right)F_v^2/(R^2M_{Pl}^4)`$ from integrating out SUGRA KK modes ; for $`MR3`$, this is comparable to the anomaly mediated contribution and thus can be neglected. 121212 Both these contributions to sfermion masses and also the one-loop gaugino contribution in the $`5D`$ theory mentioned above are flavor-conserving.

At the scale $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV 131313As before, the GUT scale is determined by the one-loop corrections to the wavefunction ($`Z`$) of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Between the energy scales $`M`$ and $`R^1`$, the $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ gauge coupling (rather $`\alpha _6^1`$) (and similarly $`Z`$, $`\lambda _{Q,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$) “runs” with a power of energy since the gauge theory is $`5D`$ whereas below $`R^14\times 10^{17}`$ GeV, we have the usual ($`4D`$) RG scaling. In any case, the inverted hierarchy mechanism can result in a minimum of the potential at $`v10^{16}`$ GeV $`M`$; most of the RG scaling of $`Z`$, $`g_6`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{\Sigma },Q}`$ from $`M`$ to $`10^{16}`$ GeV is the usual $`4D`$ evolution., the heavy gauge multiplet and the matter messengers are integrated out (as in section 2.2) generating the contributions to the scalar (mass)2 (at two-loops) and gaugino masses (at one-loop), Eqs. (11) and (12). 141414 In computing these “threshold” corrections, the SUGRA contribution $`F_v/M_{Pl}`$ to the SUSY breaking masses of the heavy gauge multiplet and the matter messengers ($`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ etc.) can be neglected in comparison to the contribution $`F_v/M_{GUT}`$ from direct coupling to $`v`$.  There are also contributions to sfermion and gaugino masses obtained by replacing the zero-mode ($`4D`$) gauge fields in the above loop diagrams by KK gauge fields which have masses $`kR^1`$. The one-loop diagrams with KK gauge fields and gauge messengers give (zero-mode) gaugino masses $`_k\alpha /\pi F_vv/\left(kR^1\right)^2`$ (since the $`R`$-symmetry breaking scale is $`v`$) and the two-loop diagrams with KK gauge fields (and either matter or gauge messengers) give sfermion (mass)$`{}_{}{}^{2}_k(\alpha /\pi )^2F_v^2/\left(kR^1\right)^2`$. 151515Strictly speaking, since this is the effect of integrating out the KK gauge fields, these contributions to sfermion and gaugino masses appear at/above the scale $`R^1`$. Since $`_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/k^2`$ is convergent for the case of one extra dimension, we see that these contributions are suppressed by a factor $`1/\left(M_{GUT}R\right)^2O(100)`$ compared to Eqs. (11) and (12). As mentioned earlier, GM contributions to gaugino and scalar masses (at $`M_{GUT}`$) (Eqs. (11) and (12)) and the SUGRA contribution to gaugino mass are all of order $`F_v/M_{Pl}`$. In RG scaling to the weak scale, the gaugino masses give an additional (positive) contribution to the sfermion (mass)2 $`\alpha /\pi \mathrm{ln}\left(M_{GUT}/m_Z\right)\left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^2\left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^2`$.

It is clear that if $`R3M^1`$, then the SUGRA contribution to the sfermion (mass)2 at the high scale from contact Kähler terms (Eq. (13) with a coefficient $`e^{MR}`$) can be neglected in comparison to the GM contribution at $`M_{GUT}`$ and the contribution generated by gaugino masses in RG scaling. This means that sfermion masses conserve flavor, i.e., sfermion with the same gauge quantum numbers are degenerate at the $`O(e^3)`$ percent level. 161616This degeneracy is sufficient to evade limits from $`CP`$-conserving flavor-violating processes, for example, $`\mu e\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K`$ etc. But, if the SUGRA mediated sfermion (mass)2 in Eq. (13) have $`O(1)`$ phases, then we need $`R6M^1`$ to obtain degeneracy at the $`0.1\%`$ level so that SUSY contributions to $`CP`$ and flavor-violating processes are suppressed.

As mentioned earlier, if the SUGRA contribution to sfermion and gaugino masses is neglected, then the (gauge mediated contribution to) RH slepton (mass)2 at the weak scale is negative. However, in this ($`5D`$) framework, while the SUGRA contribution to RH slepton mass at the high scale (Eq. (13)) is suppressed, we have to include the SUGRA contribution ($`F_v/M_{Pl}`$) to the bino mass which, in turn, generates in RG scaling to the weak scale an additional (compared to the pure GM case) positive contribution $`\left[F_v/M_{Pl}\right]^2`$ to the RH slepton (mass)2. This can result in a positive RH slepton (mass)2 at the weak scale, i.e., unlike the pure GM case, due to the SUGRA contribution to the bino mass, the bino mass contribution is (effectively) independent of (and of the same order as) the GM contribution to the RH slepton mass. 171717Thus, the role of the extra dimension here (as in ) is to suppress the (flavor-violating) SUGRA contribution to sfermion masses while allowing SUGRA contribution to gaugino masses (in particular, in this case, bino mass). It is clear that any other framework which provides these boundary conditions also suffices.

It is obvious that the same framework (extra dimension of size $`R3M^1`$) can be used to suppress (flavor-violating) SUGRA contribution to sfermion masses (Eq. (13)) in any model where the GM and SUGRA contributions are comparable, for example, a model of GM with messenger scale close to the GUT scale (where the GM contribution to sfermion (mass)2 is, say, positive) . As mentioned earlier, any model with GUT and SUSY breaking by the same field is likely to have negative GM contribution to sfermion (say, RH slepton) (mass)2; it is clear that (in addition to suppressing the SUGRA contribution to sfermion masses) the above idea (the SUGRA contribution to bino mass) can be used to obtain positive RH slepton (mass)2.

A slightly modified version of the above model is obtained by gauging only the $`SU(5)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ symmetry . The superpotential is given by $`W_1+W^{}`$ with

$$W^{}=h\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\lambda _{24}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{24}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{5}}+\overline{h}\left(\overline{\lambda }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\overline{\lambda }_{24}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{24}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_5,$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_r`$’s refer to components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ transforming as $`𝐫`$ under $`SU(5)_{local}`$ and $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ form a $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ of $`SU(5)_{local}`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ are as usual localized on the SUSY breaking brane with $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ fields in the bulk. In the absence of $`W^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has a pair of massless color triplets which are Nambu-Goldstone fields since the full $`SU(6)_{GUT}`$ is not gauged. $`W^{}`$ gives masses to these triplets with those in $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\text{diag}[1,1,1,1,1]`$ whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{24}\text{diag}[3,3,2,2,2]`$ in $`SU(5)`$ space, we can (fine-)tune the $`\lambda _{1,24}`$ couplings so that the weak doublets in $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ are massless; these will be the usual Higgs doublets.

In this version of the model, doublet-triplet splitting (although “technically natural”) is fine-tuned. Also, there is a global $`SU(6)`$ symmetry on the SUSY breaking brane, i.e., $`W_1`$ is $`SU(6)`$ symmetric, but the couplings of the bulk fields, $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (Eq. (17)) break this to $`SU(5)_{local}`$. The nice feature compared to the earlier model is that quarks and leptons are contained in the usual $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$ of $`SU(5)`$ (localized on the matter brane) and so, unlike the gauged $`SU(6)`$ model, “splitting” of matter superfields is not required. As mentioned earlier, in the gauged $`SU(6)`$ model, quarks and leptons are contained in $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}})`$ of $`SU(6)`$ and a $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟓})`$ (under $`SU(5)`$) are made heavy by coupling to $`\overline{H}`$ in the $`4D`$ model – this coupling is not allowed (at the renormalizable level) in the $`5D`$ model since $`\overline{H}`$ and matter fields are localized on different branes. In the $`SU(5)`$ model, there are SUGRA contributions to MSSM gaugino masses from both singlet $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)`$ and adjoint ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{24}`$) SUSY breaking fields (in addition to the GM contribution). Thus, as in the gauged $`SU(6)`$ model, the MSSM gaugino masses ($`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$) are free parameters (see section 4).

#### Comments on other models:

Some of the models of gauge mediation in the literature () also have gauge messengers and hence negative MSSM scalar (mass)2 at the messenger scale, $`M_{mess}`$ (the SUGRA contribution is much smaller than the GM contribution if $`M_{mess}\stackrel{<}{}10^{15}`$ GeV). As usual, the gaugino masses give a positive contribution in RG scaling to the weak scale; however, at least RH sleptons still have negative (mass)2 . The framework of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB can also be used to “resurrect” these models as follows. 181818 This was partly hinted in . Suppose the SUSY breaking fields are localized on a brane different than the MSSM matter brane in an extra dimension with a compactification scale ($`R^1`$) slightly smaller than $`M_{mess}`$ (with gauge fields in the bulk). 191919As before, we assume that the two branes are maximally separated in the extra dimension. Then the two-loop (negative) gauge mediated contribution to sfermion (mass)2 at $`M_{mess}`$ is suppressed (in the $`5D`$ theory) by a factor $`1/(RM_{mess})^21/25`$ (if $`R5M_{mess}^1`$) relative to the $`4D`$ result, i.e., it is $`1/25\left[\alpha /\pi \right]^2\left[F/M_{mess}\right]^2`$ . The gaugino masses are the same as in $`4D`$  ($`\alpha /\pi F/M_{mess}`$) and, in turn, give a positive $`O(\alpha /\pi F/M_{mess})^2`$ contribution to sfermion (mass)2 in RG scaling to low scales (provided $`M_{mess}m_Z`$, i.e, RG logarithm is large enough). Since the (negative) sfermion (mass)2 at $`M_{mess}`$ is small compared to this RG contribution, the sfermion (including RH slepton) (mass)2 at the weak scale can be positive.

Above the scale $`M_{mess}`$, the theory is $`5D`$ with MSSM matter fields on a brane and gauge fields in bulk. If Higgs fields are also in the bulk, then in this framework gauge coupling unification is (approximately) preserved (with lower unification scale) .

We can use a similar idea to suppress (negative) gauge mediated sfermion (mass)2 (at $`M_{GUT}`$) in the GUT model, i.e, we can invoke an extra dimension slightly larger than (inverse of) the GUT scale (which is $`M_{mess}`$ in this case). This will suppress both the SUGRA and (negative) GM contributions to sfermion (mass)2 at the high scale. But, with (say) $`R5M_{GUT}^1(4\times 10^{15}\text{GeV})^1`$, we get the $`5D`$ Planck scale $`M10M_{GUT}`$ (using $`M_{Pl}^2M^3R`$) so that the motivation for the inverted hierarchy mechanism (to generate $`M_{GUT}`$ smaller than the fundamental Planck scale by a factor of $`100`$ as before) is a bit weaker. 202020An even larger extra dimension (in which only gravity propagates) can be used to lower $`M`$ all the way to $`M_{GUT}`$  so that there is no hierarchy between the fundamental Planck scale and GUT scale – of course, in this case (as in the case with $`R5M_{GUT}^1`$) one has to explain the “hiererchy” between $`R^1`$ and $`M`$. Here (as in ), instead we would like to “explain” $`M_{GUT}10^2M`$ using the inverted hierarchy mechanism. In addition a new “hierarchy”, $`R50M^1`$, would have to be explained. 212121In this model, the RG scaling of SM gauge couplings above the energy scale $`R^14\times 10^{15}`$ GeV is $`5D`$ – unification of SM gauge couplings still occurs (Higgs fields also propagate in $`5D`$) but at a scale lower than the usual $`M_{GUT}`$ by a factor of $`2`$ . For illustrative purposes, we assumed above that the unification scale is still $`M_{GUT}2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. In general, we can choose the compactification scale, $`R^1`$, to be much smaller than $`10^{15}`$ GeV so that unification occurs at a scale, $`M_{GUT}^{}`$, which depends on $`R^1`$ and which is much smaller than the usual $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV . However, in this case, one has to “explain” why the compactification scale, $`R^1`$, is correlated with the GUT scale ($`M_{GUT}^{}`$) which (in the context of the model in this paper), in turn, is determined by a modulus field (i.e, which is not a fundamental scale). Also, if $`RM^1`$, then the $`5D`$ gauge couplings (assuming that $`4D`$ gauge couplings are $`O(1)`$) might become non-perturbative (larger than their strong coupling value) (see Eq. (16)). Of course, one faces a similar issue(s) in trying to “save” the GM models above except that in that case the correlation between $`M_{mess}`$ (which is presumably fixed by a modulus field also) and $`R^1`$ is weaker since we only require $`R\stackrel{>}{}5M_{mess}^1`$. In contrast, in the GUT model with $`R3M^1`$ there is only a “modest” hierarchy between $`R^1`$ and the $`5D`$ Planck scale $`M`$ (which, as mentioned earlier, is assumed to be fundamental).  In any case, in the model with $`R5M_{GUT}^1`$, the SUGRA and GM contributions to gaugino masses will be (roughly) same as in the model with $`R3M^1`$, i.e., $`M_{1,2,3}`$ are free parameters which will generate positive sfermion (mass)2 in RG scaling to the weak scale – the only difference is that in the model with $`R3M^1`$, there is a (negative) GM contribution to scalar (mass)2 at $`M_{GUT}`$. The phenomeonlogy of these two models should be similar (see section 4).

It is also clear from the discussion in section 2.2 that, in general, in models with (dominant) SUSY breaking in a GUT non-singlet (denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), there is a contribution to MSSM gaugino masses at one-loop (and to scalar (mass)2 at two-loop) from the coupling to gauge messengers – to repeat, these are the heavy gauge multiplets (with mass $`M_{GUT}`$) which have a non-supersymmetric spectrum since the SUSY breaking field ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) transforms under the GUT gauge group. The (contributions to) MSSM gaugino masses generated at one-loop by integrating out gauge messengers (at the scale $`M_{GUT}`$) are generically (i.e., barring accidental cancellations) given by $`\alpha /\pi F_\mathrm{\Sigma }M_\overline{)}R/M_{GUT}^2`$, where $`M_\overline{)}R`$ is the $`R`$-symmetry breaking scale – thus the size of this contribution is model-dependent due to $`M_\overline{)}R`$. The point is that if the field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ also breaks the GUT symmetry (down to the SM gauge group), i.e., if the vev of the scalar component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ($`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) is $`O(M_{GUT})`$ (as in our model), then $`M_\overline{)}RM_{GUT}`$. Therefore, in a model with $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$, if $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (or, in general, $`M_\overline{)}R`$) is $`O(M_{GUT})`$, then this gauge messenger contribution to MSSM gaugino masses is comparable to (and independent of) the SUGRA contribution (from the operator $`d^2\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{Pl}W_\alpha W^\alpha +h.c.`$) 222222We assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is in a representation which appears in the symmetric product of two adjoints. $`F_\mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{Pl}`$ (and is also non-universal, in general). 232323There might also be other GM contribution to gaugino (and scalar) masses from, say, “matter” messengers (as in our model). Thus, as in our $`SU(6)`$ GUT model, the MSSM gaugino mass relations are modified from that expected with only SUGRA contribution – in fact the model becomes less predictive (as far as gaugino masses are concerned) since there is an extra parameter corresponding to the gauge messenger contribution.

There have been some recent studies of MSSM gaugino masses in a scenario with SUSY breaking by a GUT non-singlet so that SUGRA contribution to gaugino masses is non-universal  – in these studies, the above gauge messenger contribution has not been mentioned. In the first reference in , it is assumed that $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$, i.e., the SUSY breaking field has a small vev in its scalar component. In this case, it is possible that $`M_\overline{)}RM_{GUT}`$ so that the gauge messenger contribution to MSSM gaugino masses is small compared to the SUGRA contribution. Nonetheless, (in general) in order to be sure that the gauge messenger contribution to MSSM gaugino masses is smaller than the SUGRA contribution, the complete model has to be analysed to check that $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\text{or}M_\overline{)}R)M_{GUT}`$. Also, a contribution to MSSM scalar (mass)$`{}_{}{}^{2}[\alpha /\pi ]^2[F_\mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{GUT}]^2`$ is generated at two-loops by integrating out gauge messengers – there is no suppression due to $`M_\overline{)}R`$ unlike in the case of MSSM gaugino masses (since scalar (mass)2 do not break $`R`$-symmetry). Thus, the gauge messenger contribution to scalar (mass)2 is comparable to (and again, independent of) the SUGRA contribution to scalar (mass)$`{}_{}{}^{2}[F_\mathrm{\Sigma }/M_{Pl}]^2`$ (due to contact Kähler terms) even if $`v_\mathrm{\Sigma }0`$ (i.e., the size of this contribution is model-independent). Furthermore, the gauge messenger contribution depends on gauge quantum numbers and thus it is different for squarks and sleptons (as in our $`SU(6)`$ GUT model), although it is flavor-conserving.

## 4 Sparticle spectrum

We now present briefly a sample sparticle spectrum in the $`5D`$ model.

### 4.1 Parameters of the model

In this model, the MSSM sfermion masses (at $`M_{GUT}`$) and gaugino masses are determined by three parameters – $`F_v/v(vM_{GUT})`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$. The GM contribution (Eqs. (11) and (12)) can be written in terms of $`F_v/v`$ (assuming that the beta-functions 242424As mentioned earlier, even though the $`N\overline{P}\overline{H}`$ coupling is not allowed (at the renormalizable level) in the $`5D`$ model, we assume that the additional $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ in $`N`$, $`\overline{P}`$’s have a mass of $`M_{GUT}`$ and so the values of the beta-functions are the same as in section 2.1 (the $`4D`$ model), i.e., $`b_6=11`$ and $`b_A`$’s are the usual MSSM beta-functions. and gauge couplings are fixed) and the SUGRA contrbution to MSSM gaugino masses, Eq. (14), depends on $`F_v/v`$ and $`c_{2,3}`$ (any uncertainty in the ratio of $`vM_{GUT}`$ and $`M`$ (or $`M_{Pl}`$) can be absorbed into $`c_{2,3}`$). For convenience, we choose the gaugino masses at the GUT scale, $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ (which are combinations of these parameters) to be the free parameters. 252525Note that if only the adjoint field (and not singlets) breaks SUSY, then $`c_3=0`$ in Eq. (14) and one has only two free parameters. Using Eqs. (11) and (14), we get:

$$\frac{1}{36}(5M_1+3M_2+2M_3)=\frac{\alpha _6}{4\pi }\frac{F_v}{v}$$
(18)
which parametrizes the GM contribution. This relation is used to determine the GM contribution to scalar (mass)2 at the GUT scale in terms of $`M_A`$’s using Eq. (12) with $`\mu M_{GUT}`$. The scalar masses are then evolved to the weak scale using the one-loop RG equations.

We note that the SUSY-GUT prediction for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ (in terms of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha _{em}`$) is affected by the operator $`W_\alpha W^\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }/M^2`$ in Eq. (14)  – in this model, this effect (which is at the $`M_{GUT}/M_{Pl}`$, i.e., percent level) is related to SUGRA contribution to gaugino mass. The method used to give mass to extra doublets in $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ (see section 2.1) also affects the prediction for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ – in this case this pair of doublets gets a mass of $`O(M_{GUT}^2/M)<M_{GUT}`$ (from the superpotential $`W_4`$) which shifts the $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ prediction by about a percent. Since we wish to illustrate the main features of the spectrum in this paper, we will neglect these effects (which might cancel each other).

We also neglect RG scaling of sfermion masses (at one-loop due to SUGRA contribution to gaugino masses and at two-loops due to SUGRA contribution ($`F_v/M_{Pl}`$) to $`Q`$, $`\overline{Q}`$ etc. masses) between the ($`5D`$) Planck scale $`M`$ and the GUT scale (sfermion masses are negligible at the scale $`M`$) 262626This contribution is positive and flavor-conserving – thus it makes sfermions with same gauge quantum numbers more degenerate and in particular the RH slepton heavier (see later). – the RG logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}\left(M/M_{GUT}\right)`$ is much smaller than that for RG scaling between GUT and weak scale (of course, the larger group theory factors above $`M_{GUT}`$ might compensate for the smaller RG logarithm as emphasized in the context of extra dimensional models in ). 272727A detailed study of the phenomenology in this GUT model (including the effects of RG scaling between $`M`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$) is in progress. The (SUGRA mediated) gaugino masses also run between $`M`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$; however since $`M_A/\alpha _A`$ is RG-invariant (at one-loop), the ratio of the MSSM gaugino masses remains the same in this RG scaling since the gauge couplings are unified (of course, at $`M_{GUT}`$, the MSSM gauginos get additional contribution to their masses (Eq. (11)).

Since the usual Higgs doublets propagate in the extra dimension, soft SUSY breaking Higgs (mass)2 and also $`B\mu `$ and $`\mu `$ (Giudice-Masiero mechanism ) are generated by the SUGRA interactions:

$``$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4\theta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^3}}h^{}h[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+..]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^3}}\overline{h}\overline{h}^{}[X^{}X+..])+`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle }d^4\theta (h\overline{h}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+X^{}+\overline{X}^{}]+h\overline{h}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^3}}[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }+..]+h.c.),`$
where $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ are $`5D`$ fields. The couplings of zero-modes of $`h`$, $`\overline{h}`$ (which correspond to the light $`4D`$ Higgs fields) are suppressed by a factor of $`\sqrt{R}`$ (to account for the normalization of the zero mode) so that $`m_{H_{u,d},SUGRA}^2F_v^2/M^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/R`$, $`\mu F_v/M^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/R`$ and $`B\mu F_v^2/M^3\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/R`$. Since $`MR3`$ and $`M_{Pl}^2M^3R`$, we see that $`m_{H_{u,d},SUGRA}^2`$, $`\mu ^2`$, $`B\mu `$ are all of order $`\left(F_v/M_{Pl}\right)^2`$, i.e, of the same order as, but independent of, gaugino and sfermion masses (they are also independent of each other). Of course, the Higgs doublets also get soft (mass)2 from GM (Eq. (12), which are related to the other sfermion and gaugino masses. We choose the Higgs soft (mass)2 at the GUT scale (which are the sum of the SUGRA and GM contributions) to be free parameters, denoted by $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$.

In this model, the gauginos of the heavy gauge multiplet have a SUSY breaking mass $`F_v/M_{GUT}`$ since the SUSY breaking field is an adjoint under the GUT gauge group. This generates trilinear (MSSM) scalar terms of $`O(\alpha /\pi F_v/M_{GUT})F_v/M_{Pl}`$ at the GUT scale (when the heavy gauginos are integrated out). The exact expression is :

$`V`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}A_iQ_i_{Q_i}W(Q),`$ (20)
$`A_i(\mu _{RG})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z_{Q_i}(v^{},v,\mu _{RG})}{\mathrm{ln}v}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_v}{v}}.`$
In this case, we have

$`A_i(M_{GUT})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_v}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _6}{4\pi }}\left(2C_6^i2{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}C_A^i\right).`$ (21)
We neglect all Yukawa couplings other than the top quark coupling and so only the coupling $`\lambda _tA_tH_u\stackrel{~}{Q}_3\stackrel{~}{t}^c`$ is non-zero and is given by

$`A_t(M_{GUT})`$ $`=`$ $`15.3{\displaystyle \frac{F_v}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _6}{4\pi }}.`$ (22)
Thus, the $`A`$-term at the GUT scale depends only on $`F_v/v`$ (and gauge couplings), i.e., it is not an independent parameter – in particular, there is no SUGRA contribution to $`A_t`$ since the top squark and the SUSY breaking fields are localized on separate branes. 282828As mentioned earlier, we neglect RG scaling between GUT and Planck scales; this effect does generate (due to non-vanishing gaugino masses) a small $`A_t`$ term at the GUT scale which depends on the SUGRA contribution to gaugino masses, i.e., $`F_v/v`$, $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$.

Thus, the fundamental parameters in this model are: $`F_v/v`$, $`c_{2,3}`$, $`m_{H_{u,d}}^2`$, $`B\mu `$, $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda _t`$ (top quark Yukawa coupling). Two of these parameters are fixed by the observed values of $`m_Z`$ and $`m_t`$ so that the free (i.e., input) parameters can be chosen to be $`M_{1,2,3}`$ (which, as explained earlier are combinations of $`F_v/v`$ and $`c_{2,3}`$), $`m_{H_{u,d}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$; $`\mu `$ and $`B\mu `$ can then be determined in terms of these parameters as usual using the minimization conditions for the Higgs potential.

### 4.2 Sample sparticle spectrum

In Table 2, a sample spectrum is presented for the input parameters $`M_1=M_2=300`$ GeV and $`M_3=150`$ GeV, $`m_{H_u}^2=(150\text{GeV})^2`$, $`m_{H_d}^2=(300\text{GeV})^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$. We have included the electroweak $`D`$-term and Fayet-Illiopoulos (FI) $`D`$-term contributions to scalar (mass)2 which are given by $`m_Z^2\mathrm{cos}2\beta \left(T_3Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w\right)`$ and $`0.053Y\left(m_{H_u}^2m_{H_d}^2\right)`$ 292929The FI $`D`$-term contribution in $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB was emphasized in ., respectively. 303030We assume for simplicity that there is no $`D`$-term contribution from the breaking of the extra $`U(1)`$ (of $`SU(6)`$) at $`M_{GUT}`$. The mixing between the top squarks and the one-loop corrections to the effective Higgs potential (due to top quark and top squark masses only) have been included.

Some of the characteristic features of the spectrum are as follows.

Gaugino masses are non-universal in general since both the GM contribution and a part of the SUGRA contribution (due to the operator $`d^2\theta c_2\mathrm{\Sigma }/M^2W_\alpha W^\alpha `$) are non-universal (the relative GM contributions to gaugino masses (Eq. (11)) are model-dependent due to dependence on $`b_6`$). Models with non-universal gaugino masses (at the GUT/Planck scale) have been studied earlier . In most of these models, sfermion masses are independent parameters whereas in our GUT model the sfermion masses are determined in terms of the gaugino masses ($`M_{1,2,3}`$). 313131In “$`D`$-brane” models , it is possible that $`M_2M_3`$ if $`SU(3)_c`$ and $`SU(2)_w`$ originate from different $`D`$-brane sectors. Since quark doublets transform under all three SM gauge groups, $`U(1)_Y`$ has to orginate in either of these two sectors – this implies that $`M_1=M_2`$ or $`M_1=M_3`$, unlike the GUT model where it is possible that all three gaugino masses are different.

No-scale SUGRA models have vanishing scalar masses at $`M_{Pl}`$ and gaugino masses (which can be non-universal) as usual drive sfermion (mass)2 positive in RG scaling to the weak scale ($`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB with non-universal gaugino masses has similar boundary conditions). However, in the GUT model studied here, there is a GM contribution to scalar masses at the GUT scale and also there are SUGRA contributions to Higgs soft masses (which, in turn, result in a FI $`D`$-term contribution to sfermion masses at the weak scale). Thus, the GUT model can (in principle) be distinguished from no-scale SUGRA models with non-universal gaugino masses by precision sparticle spectroscopy.

The (GM contribution to) RH slepton (mass)2 at the GUT scale is negative (Eq. (12)) and therefore RH slepton (its (mass)2 is driven positive by bino mass) and $`\chi _1^0`$ (which is roughly the bino) are close in mass. 323232In this sample spectrum, the FI $`D`$-term (positive for RH slepton) makes the RH slepton (slightly) heavier than $`\chi _1^0`$ (for one sign of $`\mu `$). For the same reason, the mass splitiing between the left-handed slepton and the RH slepton is large 333333If the GM contribution at $`M_{GUT}`$ is neglected, then we get $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}140`$ GeV while $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}`$ remains about the same. even though we have chosen $`M_1=M_2`$ for the above sample spectrum, i.e., usually we expect $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ to be large only if $`M_2>M_1`$ (due to gaugino mass contributions in RG scaling). As mentioned earlier, if we include RG scaling between $`M`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$, then all sfermions will be heavier leading to a larger mass splitting between RH slepton and $`\chi _1^0`$ (which will be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP)) whereas the large mass splitting between $`\stackrel{~}{e}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_R`$ (which is due to the negative GM contribution to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}^2`$ at $`M_{GUT}`$) will remain about the same.

The lower limit on the RH slepton mass $`90`$ GeV fixes (roughly) a minimum value for $`M_1`$. But since the three gaugino masses are independent parameters, $`M_3`$ can be smaller than $`M_{1,2}`$ so that there is not much of a hierarchy (in masses) between squarks/gluino and sleptons as seen in Table 2. Also, since $`M_3`$ can be smaller than $`M_{1,2}`$ and also (GM mediated) stop (and other squark) (mass)2 are small and negative at the GUT scale, $`|m_{H_u}^2|`$ at the weak scale (as usual the up-type Higgs (mass)2 is driven negative by stop (mass)2 and gluino mass) and hence $`\mu `$ can be small (in this case $`180`$ GeV), thus reducing the fine-tuning in electroweak symmetry breaking – small $`\mu `$ also results in “light” chargino/neutralino. 343434As mentioned earlier, RG scaling between $`M_{GUT}`$ and $`M`$ will give a positive contribution to scalar (mass)2 due to (SUGRA mediated) gaugino masses – this contribution is about the same for all scalars (squarks, sleptons and Higgs) because of the unified gauge symmetry, unlike the case of RG scaling below the GUT scale where, since $`\alpha _3>\alpha _{1,2}`$ the gluino mass contribution (to squark masses) is larger (assuming universal gaugino masses). Thus, the above features, i.e., the “small” hierarchy between squarks and sleptons and small $`\mu `$ will not be affected by the inclusion of this effect.

This should be compared to $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB with universal gaugino mass  where a minimum value for $`M_1`$ fixed by RH slepton mass implies a minimum value for $`M_3`$ (typically $`\stackrel{>}{}200`$ GeV) which results in a larger hierarchy betwen slepton and squark/gluino masses and also larger $`|m_{H_u}^2|`$ and hence fine tuning (due to larger $`\mu `$). In a minimal gauge mediation model also, there is a large hierarchy between squark/gluino masses and slepton masses (since masses are proportional to gauge couplings). In minimal SUGRA mediated SUSY breaking (with universal scalar mass, $`m_0`$, and universal gaugino mass, $`M_{1/2}`$) it is possible to have small hierarchy between sleptons and squarks/gluino. In any case, non-universal gaugino masses distinguishes these models from our model.

Of course, we expect that with extra parameters as compared to a minimal model (especially non-universal gaugino masses) such a spectrum can be attained. However in this model these extra parameters are not ad hoc, but are well-motivated – they are justified by the way SUSY is broken in the model.

## 5 Summary

A model in which the same scalar potential breaks SUSY and a GUT symmetry was presented in  – this model has dynamical origins for both SUSY breaking and GUT scales. In this model, the SUGRA and gauge mediated contributions to scalar and gaugino masses are comparable – this enables a viable spectrum to be attained since the gauge mediated contribution to RH slepton (mass)2 by itself is negative. But, the flip side is that the SUGRA contribution to sfermion masses (from non-renormalizable contact Kähler terms) results in flavor violation.

In this paper, we suggested that this “problem” will be present in any model in which the same field breaks SUSY and a GUT symmetry and demonstrated that, using an extra spatial dimension, positive and (at the same time) flavor-conserving sfermion (mass)2 can be obtained in this model. The model has non-universal gaugino masses and sfermion masses are predicted in terms of gaugino masses. The hierarchy between squark/gluino masses and slepton masses can be small and (typically) a large mass splitting between RH and LH slepton is expected.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Markus Luty and Nir Polonsky for suggestions and Neal Weiner for comments. This work is supported by DOE Grant DE-FG03-96ER40969.