text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Understanding the origin of hierarchical fermion masses and mixing angles is one of most important issues in particle physics. The Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism is a famous mechanism to realize hierarchical Yukawa couplings . Recently new ideas related to extra dimensions have also been discussed.

In models with softly-broken supersymmetry (SUSY), a mechanism that generates the hierarchical structure of Yukawa couplings generally affects the sfermion sector; one would have a characteristic pattern of sfermion masses and SUSY-breaking trilinear couplings. For example, the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism with an extra $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry leads to the so-called $`D`$-term contribution to soft scalar masses,*** See Ref.  for $`D`$-term contributions through GUT breaking and Ref.  for anomalous $`U(1)`$ breaking.  which are proportional to the charges under the broken $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Such a pattern could be tested if superpartners will be discovered and sfermion masses as well as trilinear scalar couplings will be measured in future experiments. Even at present, soft SUSY-breaking parameters are constrained rather severely from the exprimental bounds on flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes as well as CP violation. This is the SUSY flavor problem. For instance, the flavor-dependent $`D`$-term contributions are generically dangerous. In general, the SUSY flavor problem can be solved if either of the following three is realized at least for the first two families; 1) diagonal and degenerate sfermion masses, 2) decoupling of heavy sfermions, and 3) the alignment between the fermion and sfermion bases. Much effort has been devoted to realize the first solution by seeking a flavor-blind mediation mechanism of SUSY breaking.

Nelson and Strassler  have recently proposed an interesting mechanism to realize hierarchical Yukawa couplings. The setup is the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), or its extention, coupled to superconformal (SC) sector. The SC sector is strongly coupled and assumed to have an infrared (IR) fixed point . The first and second families of quarks and leptons gain a large and positive anomalous dimensions through the SC dynamics. Then their Yukawa couplings to electroweak Higgs fields are suppressed hierarchically at the scale $`M_C`$ where the SC sector is assumed to decouple from the MSSM sector.

The SC fixed point has more interesting consequences. When pure superconformal field theory (SCFT) is perturbed by soft SUSY-breaking terms, general argument shows that such perturbation is exponentially suppressed toward the SC fixed point . Specifically one expects that a sfermion mass is suppressed at the decoupling scale $`M_C`$ and eventually receives radiative corrections governed by the SM gaugino masses, which are flavor-blind. Hence, we would have degenerate mass spectrum of sfermions like the ‘no-scale’ model (at least for the first two families). This possibility has already been mentioned in Ref. . In this scenario, soft scalar masses are to be controlled by the flavor mechanism that generates hierarchical Yukawa couplings, no matter how SUSY breaking is mediated and no matter what initial conditions of soft SUSY-breaking terms are. This approach, which we shall pursue in this paper, is quite opposite to the usual scenario in which degenerate soft scalar masses are supposed to be derived by a flavor-blind mediation of SUSY breaking.

When the pure SCFT is perturbed by the SM gauge interactions and the SM gaugino masses, each sfermion mass is not completely suppressed, but converges on a flavor-dependent value . The convergent value is one-loop suppressed since the SM gauge couplings are perturbatively small. It is then plausible that sfermion masses at the weak scale may be calculated solely in terms of the SM gauge coupling constants and gaugino masses. In fact, under some assumptions, we can estimate the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ of sfermion masses up to a single model-dependent parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ . It was found that for $`M_C>10^{10}`$ GeV, the degeneracy factor is $`0.0050.01`$ for squarks and $`0.050.1`$ for sleptons. In particular, the right-handed sleptons are not well degenerate in mass. Note that these degeneracy factors are evaluated in the sfermion basis.

In this paper, we first examine the assumptions that are implicit in the estimation of sfermion mass degeneracy in the present SCFT approach. We also discuss to what extent the degeneracy is required in the Nelson-Strassler scenario. To this aim, we take into account the fact that FCNC processes, when correctly evaluated in the fermion basis, have additional suppression since the Nelson-Strassler mechanism leads to hierarchical Yukawa matrices.

It is natural to extend the analysis to grand unified theories (GUTs) and to examine how much degeneracy of sfermion masses is achieved by coupling to SCFTs. That is our second purpose; we explicitly study sfermion mass degeneracy within the framework of GUTs coupled to SC sectors. We take the $`SU(5)`$ and the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ as a prototype of GUT models. We shall show how much degeneracy of sfermion masses is expected in each case. It turns out that a simple extention of the MSSM to the $`SU(5)`$ makes the degeneracy of the right-handed sleptons worse, because each right-handed lepton is embedded into a higher-dimensional representation. The situation is different in the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ case, since the right-handed leptons remain $`SU(5)`$-singlets , and the bino mass $`M_1`$ is determined by a combination of two independent gaugino masses of $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$.

This paper is organized as follows. After a brief review on the Nelson-Strassler mechanism in section 2.1, we outline in subsection 2.2 the results of Ref.  on degeneracy of sfermion masses in the sfermion basis within the framework of the MSSM coupled to SC sectors. We also discuss under what conditions the degeneracy factor can be estimated in a simple mannar. The FCNC constraints are examined in subsection 2.3 by taking into account Yukawa-diagonalizing matrices. In sections 3 and 4, we extend the model to GUTs and investigate generic features. Specifically we argue that the degeneracy of the right-handed sleptons becomes worse in $`SU(5)`$ models than the MSSM. We then show how the degeneracy for the right-handed sleptons can be improved in the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ models. In section 5, we briefly discuss various sorts of threshold effects, which might affect the previous results. This in particular includes $`D`$-term contributions on sfermion masses in the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ models. Section 6 is devoted to conclusion and discussion.

We note that Luty and Sundrum  discuss a scenario of ‘conformal sequestering,’ which is another interesting approach to the SUSY flavor problem based on four-dimensional SCFTs. Although closely related to the present SCFT approach, it is slightly different in that the SCFT couples to messenger fields of SUSY breaking, not to quarks and leptons.

## 2 MSSM coupled to SC sector

### 2.1 Nelson-Strassler mechanism for Yukawa hierarchy

Here we give a brief review on the Nelson-Strassler (NS) mechanism that generates the hierarchical structure of Yukawa couplings . We assume two sectors: One is the SM sector and the other is the SC sector. The SM sector has the gauge group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$, or its extention, and contains three families of quarks and leptons $`\psi _i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ as well as Higgs fields $`H`$. The SC sector has a gauge group $`G_{\mathrm{SC}}`$ and matter fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_r`$. The fields $`\psi _i`$ and $`H`$ are taken to be $`G_{\mathrm{SC}}`$-singlets. The following superpotential is assumed;

$$W=y_{ij}\psi _i\psi _jH+\lambda _{irs}\psi _i\mathrm{\Phi }_r\mathrm{\Phi }_s+\mathrm{},$$
(2.1)
where the first term describes the ordinary Yukawa couplings in the SM sector and the ellipsis denotes terms including only $`\mathrm{\Phi }_r`$. The second term represents the couplings of quarks and leptons $`\psi _i`$ to the SC sector, which we refer to as messenger couplings. For the messenger coupling $`\lambda _{irs}`$ to be allowd by gauge invariance, either of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_r`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ should belong to a nontrivial representation under the SM gauge group.

With sufficiently many matter fields, the $`G_{\mathrm{SC}}`$ gauge theory resides in ‘conformal window’; the SC gauge coupling $`g^{}`$ has an IR fixed point . Suppose that the messenger couplings $`\lambda _{irs}`$ as well as $`g^{}`$ approach IR fixed points. At this new fixed point, the field $`\psi _i`$ gains a large anomalous dimension $`\gamma _i^{}=𝒪\left(0.1\text{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)`$ through superconformal dynamics. As a result, the Yukawa couplings in the SM sector obey the power law and behave roughly like

$$y_{ij}(M_C)y_{ij}(M_0)\left(\frac{M_C}{M_0}\right)^{\gamma _i^{}+\gamma _j^{}}.$$
(2.2)
Here $`M_0`$ is the cut-off scale, at which $`y_{ij}(M_0)=𝒪\left(1\right)`$ is expected. Thus the hierarchical structure of Yukawa couplings can be generated by family-dependent anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _i^{}`$. The resultant Yukawa matrices are similar to the ones obtained by the Froggatt-Nielsen (FN) mechanism; large anomalous dimension in the NS mechanism corresponds to $`U(1)`$ charge in the FN mechanism. As stressed in Ref. , the unitarity of the SCFT guarantees that the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _i^{}`$ at the SC fixed point are always non-negative, whereas the non-negativity of $`U(1)`$ charges is just the assumption in the conventional FN mechanism.

Since the top Yukawa coupling should not be suppressed, the top quark as well as the up-type Higgs field must not couple to the SC sector. Although the bottom quark and tau lepton as well as the down-type Higgs could couple, we will mainly consider, in what follows, the models in which only the first two families couple to the SC sector.

### 2.2 Degeneracy of sfermion masses

Next we outline, following Ref. , how convergent values of soft scalar masses and sfermion mass degeneracy can be esitmated. See also Ref.  for a review. We also discuss some subtleties about such estimation.

The suppression of sfermion masses in the SCFT approach follows from a general property of the renormalization group equations (RGEs) of soft SUSY-breaking parameters . Let us concentrate for a moment on the diagonal elements $`m_i^2`$ of a sfermion mass-squared matrix (in a flavor basis in which fermion Yukawa matrix takes the form (2.2)). Near an IR attractive fixed point of pure SCFT, the RGE of $`m_i^2`$ takes the form

$$\mu \frac{dm_i^2}{d\mu }=_{ij}m_j^2,$$
(2.3)
where the coefficient matrix $`_{ij}`$ encodes full effects of the SC dynamics, and can be calculated by use of the ‘Grassmanian expansion method’ if the anomalous dimension $`\gamma _i`$ is known as a function of coupling constants $`g^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{irs}`$. This matrix is positive-definite (non-negative) since the fixed point is IR attractive. It follows that certain combinations of $`m_i^2`$ are exponentially suppressed. Moreover, each $`m_i^2`$ is suppressed if its anomalous dimension $`\gamma _i^{}`$ is uniquely determined  by fixed point equations $`\beta _g^{}=\beta _\lambda =0`$. We assume that in each model considered below, there exists a proper set of couplings that satisfies this condition.

When we switch on the gauge couplings $`\alpha _a^{}=g_a^2/8\pi ^2`$ and gaugino masses $`M_a`$ in the SM sector ($`a=1,2,3`$), the RGE (2.3) gets modified, at the leading order, into

$$\mu \frac{dm_i^2}{d\mu }=_{ij}m_j^2\underset{a=1,2,3}{}C_{ia}\alpha _a^{}M_a^2,$$
(2.4)
where $`C_{ia}=4C_2(R_{ia})`$ with the quadratic Casimir coefficient $`C_2(R_{ia})`$ of the $`R_{ia}`$ representation, and we have neglected for simplicity a possible contribution from the $`U(1)_Y`$ Fayet-Ilipoulos term $`𝒮\mathrm{Tr}\left(Ym_i^2\right)`$. Eq. (2.4) implies that each sfermion mass eventually converges on one-loop suppressed value of the order $`\alpha _a^{}M_a^2`$. The convergent values generally depend on detailed structure of the SC sector, since the above RGEs are coupled equations for soft scalar masses in the SC sector as well as those of squarks and sleptons.

We are interested in the convergent value of squark and slepton masses at the scale $`M_C`$ where the SC sector decouples. Let $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}`$ denote soft scalar mass of the $`i`$-th family of squark or slepton $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Then the convergent value of $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2`$ at $`M_C`$ can be written in the form

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2,3}{}}C_{fa}\alpha _a^{}\left(M_C\right)M_a^2\left(M_C\right).`$ (2.5)
In this expression, $`C_{fa}`$ is the Casimar factor for $`f=Q,u,d,L,e`$, and the prefactor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^1`$ summarizes the structure of the SC sector. Typically, we find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\gamma _i^{}=𝒪\left(0.1\text{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)`$ for squarks and sleptons. This is not always true for sfermions in SC sector.  If $`\gamma _i^{}`$ and $`\gamma _j^{}`$ are different from each other, the factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}j}`$ are also different. Only the prefactor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^1`$ has flavor-dependency. Consequently, the difference between the first and second families is given by

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}^2(M_C)m_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}^2(M_C)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2,3}{}}C_{fa}\alpha _a^{}\left(M_C\right)M_a^2\left(M_C\right),`$ (2.6)
which is also one-loop suppressed compared with $`M_a^2(M_C)`$.

We have considered only the diagonal elements of sfermion mass-squared matrix. However, as was shown in Ref.  for pure SCFT, off-diagonal elements are also exponentially suppressed. Even when we switch on SM effects, the RGEs of off-diagonal elements, unlike Eq. (2.4), contain no contribution from the SM gaugino masses at the leading order. Thus the off-diagonal elements converge on sufficiently small values, which we can safely neglect.

In Ref. , sfermion mass degeneracy was examined by assuming the MSSM field content below $`M_C`$. Here let us recall some results for later convenience. The sfermion mass receives radiative correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2`$ between $`M_C`$ and $`M_Z`$, which is evaluated to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_CM_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1,2,3}{}}a_{fa}I_a(M_Z,M_C)M_a^2(M_C),`$ (2.7)
$`I_a(M_Z,M_C)`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _a^2(M_Z)}{\alpha _a^2(M_C)}},a_{fa}{\displaystyle \frac{C_{fa}}{2b_a}}.`$ (2.8)
Here $`b_a`$ are the MSSM gauge beta-function coefficients, and the factors $`a_{fa}`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$) are shown in the second, third and fourth columns of Table 1 for each matter field. These radiative corrections are much larger than the convergent value $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_C)`$. It follows that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}^2}}|_{M_Z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}},`$ (2.9)
where we define the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_aC_{\overline{f}a}\alpha _a^{}\left(M_C\right)M_a^2\left(M_C\right)}{_aa_{fa}I_a(M_Z,M_C)M_a^2(M_C)}}.`$ (2.10)
The factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ serves as an estimate of how much degeneracy of sfermion masses is achieved in the present framework. Moreover, it is a calculable quantity independently of detailed structure of the SC sector, especially when the SM gaugino masses satisfy the ‘GUT’ relation, $`M_a/\alpha _a=`$ constant for $`a=1,2,3`$. For example, taking $`M_C=10^{16}`$ GeV gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ $`=`$ $`8\times 10^3,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{u}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{d}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\times 10^3,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ $`=`$ $`5\times 10^2,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\times 10^1.`$ (2.11)
Unfortunately, the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ for the right-handed slepton is rather large. The primary reason is that the radiative correction to the right-handed sleton mass, which involves only $`M_1`$, is smaller than the others. The degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ for the right-handed sleptons can be somewhat reduced  if there is a sizable contribution from the $`U(1)_Y`$ Fayet-Iliopoulos term $`𝒮`$ (with a suitable sign). Note that we generally expect $`𝒮0`$ since soft scalar masses of the third family and Higgs fields are not constrained by SC dynamics.  However, this result does not necessarily imply that the present SCFT approach to Yukawa hierarchy leads to significant lepton flavor-violation, because the actual size of lepton flavor-violating processes depends on an explicit form of lepton Yukawa matrix, as we discuss below.

Some remarks are to be added here. The convergent value (2.5) is determined by the SM one-loop term in the RGE (2.4). In general, higher-loop terms like $`\left(\lambda _{}^2/8\pi ^2\right)^n\times \alpha _a^{}M_a^2`$ are potentially large because the fixed point value of the messenger coupling $`\lambda _{irs}`$ in Eq. (2.1) is not necessarily small. In particular, slepton mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2\left(M_C\right)`$ will be affected by a correction of order $`\alpha _3^{}M_3^2`$ if the right-handed lepton $`e_\mathrm{R}^c`$ couples to colored SC fields through the messenger interactions. Nevertheless, the presence or absence of such corrections depends on the structure of the SC sector; for instance, there is no two-loop term of $`\lambda _e^2\alpha _3^{}M_3^2`$ if both of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ are $`SU(3)`$ singlets in the messenger interaction $`e_\mathrm{R}^c\mathrm{\Phi }_r\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$. In the following analysis, we will assume that such higher-loop terms are negligible or at most comparable to the one-loop term.§§§ In the MSSM case with GUT relation of gaugino masses, we do not expect that the presence of the $`\alpha _3^{}M_3^2`$ term significantly changes the previous estimation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$, unless it is associated with a large group-theoretical factor.  Another remark is that there might arise large threshold effects when the strongly-coupled SC sector decouples. In the expression (2.6), we have implicitly assumed that these are negligible or flavor independent. We shall comment on such effects in section 5.

In passing, we note the sparticle mass spectrum at the weak scale. As far as the first two families of sfermions are concerned, the convergent values at $`M_C`$ are quite small, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^20`$, and the mass spectrum is similar to that in ‘no-scale’ scenario, provided that there is no large correction at the SC threshold. For $`M_C=10^{16}`$ GeV, we have

$$(m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}},m_{\stackrel{~}{L}},m_{\stackrel{~}{e}})=(0.91,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.25},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.13})M_3.$$
(2.12)
The other $`SU(2)`$-singlet squarks have masses similar to $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$. Again we have taken $`𝒮=0`$ for simplicity although nonzero $`𝒮`$ is helpful to avoid charged lightest superparticle (LSP) . On the other hand, the third family, in particular the top quark, as well as Higgs fields do not couple to the SC sector. In general, their soft scalar masses depend on initial values as well as the details of the RG running of gauge and Yukawa couplings. Hence we restrict ourselves to the first and second families of sfermion massses in the following analysis.

### 2.3 Mixing angles and FCNC constraints

The factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ represents a simple estimate of sfermion mass difference in the sfermion basis. To confront the NS scenario with the exprimental bounds on FCNC processes , we still have to evaluate sfermion mass matrices in a basis that diagonalizes fermion Yukawa matrices; specifically we are interested in the mixings $`(\delta _{12})_{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}`$ between the first two families of left-handed, or right-handed sfermions. In this respect, the NS scenario has an advantage that both of fermion and sfermion mass matrices are known if the anomalous dimensions are specified. If the first two families have the same anomalous dimension $`\gamma _{f1}^{}=\gamma _{f2}^{}`$ at the SC fixed point, Yukawa-diagonalizing angle will be of $`𝒪\left(1\right)`$, but at the same time, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}`$ guarantees the complete mass degeneracy of sfermions. On the other hand, if $`\gamma _{f1}^{}>\gamma _{f2}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}>\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}`$, the sfermions have non-degeneracy estimated by $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}2}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}1}^1\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$, but the diagonalizing angle is as small as $`(M_C/M_0)^{\gamma _1^{}\gamma _2^{}}`$, which gives an additional suppression to FCNC processes. In this way, we expect that approximate alignment happens.

For squarks, the degeneracy factors are fairly small already in the sfermion basis. Moreover, if the diagonalizing angles are of the order of the Cabbibo angle, we have $`(\delta _{12}^d)_{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}0.22\times \mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}1\times 10^3`$. Using the constraint from the $`K^0`$$`\overline{K}^0`$ system, i.e.,

$`\left(\delta _{12}^d\right)_{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}<1.2\times 10^3\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{d}}}{500\mathrm{GeV}}}\right),`$ (2.13)
it is required that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{d}}>500`$ GeV, which corresponds to $`M_3>500`$ GeV as well as $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}>50`$ GeV. Thus FCNC constraints will easily be satisfied in squark secor.

On the other hand, the degeneracy factors are not small enough in slepton sector. Then lepton flavor-violating processes such as $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay constrain the slepton masses. Of course, such constrains depend on the texture of lepton Yukawa matrix generated by the NS mechanism. To see this explicitly, let us concentrate on the first two families and denote by $`\theta _\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{R}`$ the mixing angles for left- and right-handed leptons, respectively. First consider the case in which left-handed leptons receive the same anomalous dimension $`\gamma _{L1}=\gamma _{L2}`$ from the SC dynamics. Then the first $`2\times 2`$ lepton Yukawa matrix takes, up to $`𝒪\left(1\right)`$ factors, the ‘lopsided’ form

$`y_{ij}y_{22}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon & 1\\ \epsilon & 1\end{array}\right),\epsilon =\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_C}{M_0}}\right)^{\gamma _{e1}^{}\gamma _{e2}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\times 10^3,`$ (2.14)
where the lepton mass hierarchy originates from the anomalous dimensions of the right-handed leptons. In this case, the left-handed leptons have $`𝒪\left(1\right)`$ mixing and that will be favorable from the viewpoint of neutrino oscillation. Interestingly, the left-handed sleptons are completely degenerate since $`\gamma _{L1}^{}=\gamma _{L2}^{}`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L2}`$. Moreover, the right-handed leptons have the mixing angle of $`\theta _\mathrm{R}=𝒪\left(\epsilon \right)`$, which gives an additional suppression to $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{RR}}`$. Thus we will have no strong constraint.

If mixing angles are larger than $`𝒪\left(10^3\right)`$, the constraint becomes significant. For example, if both of mixing angles for left- and right-handed sectors are of the order

$`\theta _\mathrm{L}\theta _\mathrm{R}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7}\times 10^2,`$ (2.15)
we have $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{LL}}7\times 10^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}3\times 10^3`$ and $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{RR}}7\times 10^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}7\times 10^3`$, and it is required that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}>100`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}>200`$ GeV from the constraint

$`\left(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}}\right)_{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}<2.0\times 10^3\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}}{100\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)^2.`$ (2.16)
The constraint on $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ requires that the gluino and squarks are heavier than $`2\mathrm{TeV}`$, whereas that on $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ corresponds to the gluino and squarks heavier than $`400`$ GeV. In general, the larger mixing angle the right-handed lepton sector has, the heavier sleptons are required from $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay. For example, it is required that $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}>300`$ GeV if $`\theta _\mathrm{R}>0.2`$.

We remark that there are additional constraints coming from $`(\delta _{12})_{\mathrm{LR}}`$, which are related to SUSY-breaking trilinear couplings $`h_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_jH`$. In the present SCFT framework, soft scalar masses are well controlled by the SC dynamics, but the so-called $`A`$-terms $`A_{ij}h_{ij}/y_{ij}`$ are not; the SC dynamics does give a suppression factor to $`h_{ij}`$, which is the same as the suppression factor of the corresponding Yukawa coupling $`y_{ij}`$. Therefore, even if the constraints on $`\left(\delta _{12}\right)_{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}`$ are satisfied, we should still take care of additional contraints on $`(\delta _{12})_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ from FCNC processes . We need another mechanism to suppress $`A`$-terms, or to realize the complete alignment*** One way to achieve this possibility was discussed in Ref. , where the Yukawa couplings $`y_{ij}`$ by themselves are suppossed to have infrared fixed points. In models with extra dimensions, it was also argued  that thanks to power-law behavior due to Kaluza-Klein modes, hierarchical Yukawa couplings can be obtained at the IR fixed points. In this case, however, it seems difficult to realize finite mixing angles.  of $`A_{ij}`$. At any rate, we expect that the constraints coming from $`(\delta _{12})_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ will be less severe than those from $`(\delta _{12})_{\mathrm{LL},\mathrm{RR}}`$, and to examine the latter is the subject of the following sections.

## 3 $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}`$ GUT coupled to SC sector

For $`M_C>10^{16}`$ GeV, we are naturally led to consider the embedding of the MSSM into SUSY GUTs. In this section, we study the Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$ model, which breaks down to the MSSM at the scale $`M_X=2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. We assume $`M_CM_X`$, i.e., the SC sector decouples at a larger scale than the GUT breaking scale.

As in the MSSM case of subsection 2.2, we expect that each sfermion mass converges on

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2\left(M_C\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}}}C_{f5}\alpha _5^{}\left(M_C\right)M_5^2(M_C),`$ (3.1)
where $`\alpha _5(M_C)`$ and $`M_5(M_C)`$ are the $`SU(5)`$ gauge coupling and gaugino mass at the scale $`M_C`$. Representations of quarks and leptons under the $`SU(5)_{\mathrm{GG}}`$ are shown in the fifth column of Table 1. The sixth column shows $`C_{f5}`$ for each matter field. On the other hand, the radiative correction in the ‘GUT regime’ between $`M_C`$ and $`M_X`$ is obtained as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_CM_X)={\displaystyle \frac{C_{f5}}{2b_5}}I_5(M_X,M_C)M_5^2(M_C),`$ (3.2)
where $`b_5`$ is the beta-function coefficient of $`\alpha _5`$, and $`I_5(M_X,M_C)`$ is defined by

$$I_5(M_X,M_C)1\frac{\alpha _5^2(M_X)}{\alpha _5^2(M_C)}.$$
(3.3)
Then the sfermion mass degeneracy may be estimated by the use of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}=\frac{C_{f5}\alpha _5^{}\left(M_C\right)M_5^2(M_C)}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_CM_X)+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_XM_Z)},$$
(3.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_XM_Z)`$ denotes the radiative correction in the MSSM regime, Eq. (2.7) with $`M_C=M_X`$. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ depends on the flow of the gauge couplings, $`\alpha _5`$ and $`\alpha _{a=1,2,3}`$, but not the gaugino masses.

Fig. 1 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ for squarks and Fig. 2 for sleptons. For definiteness, we have taken $`b_5=9/2`$ corresponding to the minimal $`SU(5)`$, while different $`b_5`$ lead to similar results.

Compared with the MSSM case, Eqs. (2.11)–(2.12), the mass spectrum at the weak scale is almost the same, but the degeneracy factors are not. First of all, the degeneracy factors for squarks and left-handed slepton become slightly large. Note also that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{u}}`$ are larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$, since $`Q`$ and $`u`$ belong to the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representation under the $`SU(5)`$ whereas $`d`$ belongs to the     $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ , and the former has a larger convergent value than the latter. There is a small splitting between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{u}}`$ because $`m_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}^2`$ gets slightly larger radiative corrections in the MSSM regime from the wino mass $`M_2`$.

More importantly, the degeneracy for the right-handed slepton becomes drastically worse than before. The reason is very simple; the right-handed lepton is embedded into the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, which has a large Casimir coefficient, so that the convergent value (3.1) is enlarged. Consequently the FCNC constraint for $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ cannot easily be satisfied, requiring heavier sleptons and/or a specific form of lepton Yukawa matrix. It is rather surprising that the simple group-theoretical fact precludes the $`SU(5)`$ extension of the MSSM. At any rate, the embedding into the $`SU(5)`$ discussed here would remove one of most interesting properties of the present SCFT approach, that is, approximate mass degeneracy of sfermions without specifying a mediation mechanism of SUSY breaking.

## 4 Flipped $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ coupled to SC sector

We have observed that within the framework of the ordinary $`SU(5)`$ GUT, the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ is not small enough for the right-handed slepton because of its large Casimir coefficient. From this viewpoint, it is interesting to consider the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ models , where the right-handed lepton is not embedded into a nontrivial $`SU(5)`$ representation, but is an $`SU(5)`$-singlet $`S_i`$.

Let us first recall the basic feature of the minimal flipped $`SU(5)_\mathrm{F}\times U(1)_\mathrm{F}`$ model to fix our notation. The quantum number of matter and Higgs fields is shown in Table 2, and the embedding of each family of matter fields is explicitly given by

$`T=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& d_{\mathrm{R3}}^c& d_{\mathrm{R2}}^c& u_1& d_1\\ & 0& d_{\mathrm{R1}}^c& u_2& d_2\\ & & 0& u_3& d_3\\ & & & 0& \nu _\mathrm{R}^c\\ & & & & 0\end{array}\right),\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ F\hfill \end{array}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{\mathrm{R1}}^c\\ u_{\mathrm{R2}}^c\\ u_{\mathrm{R3}}^c\\ e\\ \nu \end{array}\right),S=e_\mathrm{R}^c,`$ (4.3)
where $`\nu _\mathrm{R}^c`$ is a right-handed neutrino.

If the $`\nu _\mathrm{R}^c`$ components of the $`10`$-dimensional Higgs fields $`H`$ and     $`H`$  develop the vacuum expectation values, the symmetry breaking to the MSSM can be achieved with a simple implimentation of the missing partnar mechanism for doublet-triplet splitting . Through this symmetry breaking, the $`24`$-th generator $`T_\mathrm{F}^{24}\sqrt{3/5}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ of $`SU(5)_\mathrm{F}`$ and the $`U(1)_\mathrm{F}`$ generator $`F\sqrt{40}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ are related to the hypercharge $`Y`$ as well as its orthogonal broken generator $`X`$. One way to describe this relation is to embed the gauge group into $`SO(10)`$ and to represent $`U(1)`$ generators in the $`SO(10)`$ basis. By picking its $`SU(4)_{\mathrm{PS}}\times SU(2)_\mathrm{L}\times SU(2)_\mathrm{R}`$ subgroup, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{X}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}T_{\mathrm{PS}}^{15}+\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}T_\mathrm{R}^3,\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\stackrel{~}{Y}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}T_{\mathrm{PS}}^{15}\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}T_\mathrm{R}^3.`$ (4.4)
Here $`T_\mathrm{R}^3`$ is the third generator of $`SU(2)_\mathrm{R}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{PS}}^{15}=\sqrt{3/8}\left(BL\right)`$ is the $`15`$-th generator of the Pati-Salam $`SU(4)`$, which is proportional to the $`BL`$ charge. Eq. (4.4) is precisely the flipped version of the usual $`SO(10)`$ relation

$`X=\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}T_{\mathrm{PS}}^{15}\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}T_\mathrm{R}^3,\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}Y=\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}T_{\mathrm{PS}}^{15}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}T_\mathrm{R}^3,`$ (4.5)
where $`X`$ is nothing but the $`U(1)`$ generator of $`SO(10)/SU(5)_{\mathrm{GG}}`$, often called $`U(1)_\chi `$. Since these two sets of $`U(1)`$ generators are orthogonally related to each other, we have

$`X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\stackrel{~}{X}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{24}}{5}}T_\mathrm{F}^{24},\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}Y={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{24}}{5}}\stackrel{~}{X}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}T_\mathrm{F}^{24}.`$ (4.6)
For notational simplicity, let $`\alpha _5^{}`$ and $`\alpha _1^{}`$ denote the gauge couplings of $`SU(5)_\mathrm{F}\times U(1)_\mathrm{F}`$. With the normalization of $`U(1)`$ generators as above, the embedding into the $`SO(10)`$ GUT would lead to $`\alpha _1^{}=\alpha _5^{}`$, although we do not assume such a further unification.

We assume that the SC sector decouples at the scale $`M_C`$, below which the model is exactly the same as the minimal flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ model. At the scale $`M_X`$ where $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ breaks to the MSSM gauge group, the hypercharge gauge coupling $`\alpha _Y=\left(3/5\right)\alpha _1`$ is matched with $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ gauge couplings $`\alpha _5^{}`$ and $`\alpha _1^{}`$ according to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{\alpha _Y}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{\alpha _1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _5^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{\alpha _1^{}}}.`$ (4.7)
The measured value of the SM gauge couplings requires $`\alpha _1^{}\left(M_X\right)\alpha _5^{}\left(M_X\right)\left(2\pi \times 24.5\right)^1`$. The matching condition for the corresponding gaugino masses is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{\alpha _1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{25}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_5^{}}{\alpha _5^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24M_1^{}}{\alpha _1^{}}}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+24r}{25}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M_5^{}}{\alpha _5^{}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+24r}{25r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M_1^{}}{\alpha _1^{}}}.`$ (4.8)
Here we have introduced an RG-invariant quantity

$$r\frac{M_1^{}/\alpha _1^{}}{M_5^{}/\alpha _5^{}}\frac{M_1^{}\left(M_X\right)}{M_5^{}\left(M_X\right)},$$
(4.9)
which parametrizes the relative size of two independent gaugino masses of $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$. $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry would require $`r=+1`$, but we treat $`r`$ as a free parameter. The gluino mass $`M_3`$ and the wino mass $`M_2`$ are matched as usual and are independent of $`M_1^{}`$. However, the bino mass $`M_1`$ does depend on $`r`$, and the ratio $`M_1/M_3`$ is given by

$$\frac{M_1}{M_3}=\left(\frac{1+24r}{25}\right)\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _3}=\left(\frac{1+24r}{25}\right)\frac{5\alpha _Y}{3\alpha _3}.$$
(4.10)
We expect that the degeneracy factor for the right-handed sleptons also depend on $`r`$, since their masses will be dominantly governed by the $`U(1)`$ gaugino masses.

It is straighforward to estimate sfermion masses and confirm our expectation. The RGE for soft scalar mass, which includes the leading term of $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ gauge loop, is

$$\mu \frac{dm_i^2}{d\mu }=_{ij}m_j^2\underset{a=5,1}{}C_{ia}^{}\alpha _a^{}M_a^2,$$
(4.11)
where $`C_{ia}^{}`$ denote the Casimir factors under $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$. Under the assumption that higher order corrections to the second term is small, we may estimate the convergent value of each sfermion mass at $`M_C`$ and the degeneracy factor at the weak scale by

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2\left(M_C\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=5,1}{}}C_{fa}^{}\alpha _a^{}\left(M_C\right)M_a^2(M_C),`$ (4.12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{f}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{a=5,1}C_{fa}^{}\alpha _a^{}\left(M_C\right)M_a^2(M_C)}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_CM_X)+\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{f}i}^2(M_XM_Z)}}.`$ (4.13)
The group-theoretical factors are shown in Table 3, and the radiative corrections in $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ regime can be calculated in a manner similar to Eq. (2.7) with $`b_5^{}=5`$ and $`b_1^{}=15/2`$. The results does not strongly depend on $`M_C`$, and we will take $`M_C=M_X`$ for definiteness.

We are especially interested in the expected degree of the degeneracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ for the right-handed sleptons. The point is that the convergent value $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2\left(M_C\right)`$ is governed by the flipped $`U(1)`$ gaugino mass $`M_1^{}`$, whereas the radiative corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2`$ are determined by the bino mass $`M_1`$, which contains as a component the $`SU(5)`$ gaugino mass $`M_5^{}`$ as well as $`M_1^{}`$ according to the matching condition (4.8). Consequently, the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ behaves like

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_1^{}}{M_1}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{25r}{1+24r}}\right)^2.`$ (4.14)
Numerical values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ are shown in Fig. 3 as a function of $`r`$, and we find explicitly

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}6.6\times 10^2\hfill & \text{for}& r=1/8\hfill \\ 1.1\times 10^1\hfill & \text{for}& r=1\hfill \end{array}.`$ (4.17)
Compared with the MSSM case (2.11), a similar value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ is obtained in the $`r=1`$ case, as is expected from the fact that $`r1`$ corresponds to the usual GUT relation of gaugino masses. As we decrease $`r`$ with keeping $`M_5^{}`$ fixed, $`M_1^{}`$ decreases linearly in $`r`$, whereas $`M_1`$ reaches a nonzero value and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ becomes small. In other words, the mass difference of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mathrm{R}^c`$ is determined by a small gaugino mass of the flipped $`U(1)`$ while the $`SU(5)`$ component of the bino mass effectively enhances the averaged slepton mass. In this way, we find that the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ is improved for $`r<0.5`$ compared with the MSSM case. For $`\left|r\right|1`$, the bino mass $`M_1`$ becomes proportional to $`M_1^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ approaches its maximal $`0.12`$.

At first sight, the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ could be arbitrarily small if $`M_1^{}M_5^{}`$. However, this is not true because our estimation based in the RGE (4.11) is no longer reliable for a hierarchically small value of $`\left|r\right|<0.1`$. At two-loop level, for instance, the RGE contains potentially dangeous terms like $`\lambda _e^2\alpha _5^{}M_5^2`$ and $`\alpha _1^{}\alpha _5^{}M_1^{}M_5^{}`$, where $`\lambda _e`$ is the messenger coupling of the $`SU(5)`$-singlet $`e_\mathrm{R}^c`$. As mentioned in subsection 2.2, the former term is absent if we assume that only $`SU(5)`$-singlet fields couple to $`e_\mathrm{R}^c`$ through the messenger interaction. On the other hand, the latter term will give a substantial correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ for such a small value of $`\left|r\right|`$. Even if the latter correction is properly taken into account, the ratio $`M_1/M_3`$ would be unacceptably small from the viewpoint of the naturalness.

The slepton mass at the weak scale is approximately given by

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}=0.93M_1,$$
(4.18)
as long as the radiative correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2`$ dominates over the convergent value. Eq. (4.10) then implies that the ratio $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}/M_3`$ decrease as we decrease $`r`$, as is shown in Fig. 4.

For the other sfermions, the degeneracy factors and mass spectrum are determined dominantly by $`\alpha _a`$ and $`M_a`$ ($`a=2,3`$), and are almost independent of $`r`$ for a moderate range of the parameter $`r<𝒪\left(2.5\right)`$. Explicitly, we obtain for $`r=1/8`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.5\times 10^2,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{L}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.3}\times 10^1,`$ (4.19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{d}}`$ $`=`$ $`1.6\times 10^2,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{u}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.1}\times 10^2,`$ (4.20)
which are almost the same as in the $`SU(5)`$ case, except that $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ are interchanged. The mass spectrum for squarks and left-handed sletpons is almost the same as in Eq. (2.12).

Noted that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$ is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}0.12`$ owing to the embedding into     $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ . As discussed in subsection 2.3, the constraints from lepton flavor violations depend on the lepton mixing angles. For mixing angles (2.15), the contraints from $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{LL}}`$ require $`m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}>200`$ GeV, which should be compared with $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}}>200`$ GeV from $`(\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{RR}}`$ in the MSSM with the same mixing angles. The former corresponds to $`M_3>1`$ TeV, while the latter requires $`M_3>2`$ TeV. Thus the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ model, unlike the $`SU(5)`$ models, is on the level of the MSSM.

## 5 On threshold effects

Up to now, we have smoothly connected RG flows of soft scalar masses at $`M_X`$ as well as $`M_C`$. We reexamine this procedure and briefly discuss possible threshold effects of various sorts.

### 5.1 $`𝑫`$ \- term contributions in flipped models

When the rank of gauge group is reduced, the gauge symmetry breaking induces the $`D`$-term contribution to soft scalar mass-squared, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Dm_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2=q_fD`$, which is proportional to the charge of broken $`U(1)`$ symmetry . Here we consider effects of such additional terms at $`M_X`$ induced by $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ breaking. Of course, the charges under the broken symmetry are the same between different families, and those do not create non-degeneracy. However, such additional contributions change overall magnitude of sfermion masses at the GUT threshold, and also change the mass spectrum and degeneracy factors at the weak scale.

The $`D`$-term contributions induced through the breaking of $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ can be expressed in terms of the broken generators $`F\sqrt{40}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}\sqrt{5/3}T_\mathrm{F}^{24}`$ in Eq. (4.4) as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_Dm_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\left(F_f\alpha _1^2+24\stackrel{~}{Y}_f\alpha _5^2\right)m_D^2.`$ (5.1)
The magnitude of $`m_D^2`$ can be calculated when we explicitly fix the model and its breaking pattern. To be generic, however, let us take $`m_D^2`$ to be a free parameter. With the help of $`\alpha _5^{}\left(M_X\right)\alpha _1^{}\left(M_X\right)`$, the above expression can be rewritten into

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_Dm_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{40}}{5}}\left(\stackrel{~}{X}_f+\sqrt{24}T_{\mathrm{F}f}^{24}\right)\alpha _1^2m_D^2=\sqrt{40}X_fD_\chi ,`$ (5.2)
where $`X`$ is the $`U(1)_\chi `$ generator (4.6) in the $`SO(10)`$ normalization, and $`D_\chi \alpha _5^2m_D^2`$. Using the value of $`U(1)_\chi `$ charges shown in Table 3, we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_Dm_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2=3D_\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta }_Dm_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2=D_\chi ,`$ (5.3)
which give the opposite effect on left- and right-handed slepton masses. Thus it is not possible to improve the degeneracy for both of them at the same time by the $`D`$-term contribution.*** $`D`$-term contribution through the breaking $`E_6SO(10)`$ can be used  to increase the slepton masses, which are originally tachyonic in a scenario of anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking . Such contributions might also be helpful here since the broken $`U(1)`$ charge takes the same sign for all of quarks and leptons.

Eq. (4.18) indicates that the right-handed sleptons tend to be the LSP. Therefore a positive contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Dm_{\stackrel{~}{e}}^2>0`$ is favored to make them heavier, and this slightly improves the degeneracy for the right-handen sleptons. However, the degeneracy for left-handed sleptons becomes worse. For instance, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{L}}=2.1\times 10^1`$ if we take $`D_\chi =0.1M_5^2(M_X)`$.

### 5.2 Note on SC threshold effects

When strongly-coupled SC sector decouples around the scale $`M_C`$, there arises another type of threshold corrections, which we refer to as SC threshold effects. We have little to say about such effects; one could in principle evaluate SC threshold effects once the SC sector is specified, but it requires hard work of understanding strong dynamics. Basically we do not expect that Yukawa hierarchy generated by large anomalous dimensions is modified so much by SC threshold effects, provided that the SC sector decouples quickly . We have assumed that the same is true in our estimation of sfermion masses and degeneracy.

There is a special case in which SC threshold effects are reliably calculated. Consider for definiteness the MSSM coupled to SC sector, whose decoupling is caused by invariant mass terms of the order $`M_C`$. Suppose also that all the soft SUSY-breaking parameters are given purely by anomaly mediation . Even in this special case, one can evaluate as before the ‘convergent value’ of sfermion mass, which is actually the same as anomaly-mediated one calculated by using beta-functions of the MSSM coupled to the SC sector. On the other hand, as was argued in Ref. , the mass parameter $`M_C`$ should be extended to a background (non-dynamical) superfield, and its $`F`$-term will affect soft terms. One then expects that there arise SC threshold effects such that after the decoupling, sfermion masses are precisely anomaly-mediated one calculated in the MSSM framework. Thus the SC threshold effects are calculable in this case, although they are of no interest because of tachyonic sleptons. Note that the latter sfermion masses and the expected convergent values are of the same order of magnitudes, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2=𝒪\left(\alpha _a^{}M_a^2\right)`$.

There is an interesting puzzle here. Originally we are interested in the SCFT approach because it can provide degenerate sfermion spectrum no matter how SUSY is mediated; if we consider RG flows of each sfermion mass corresponding to various initial conditions at the cut-off scale, all the flows converge on a certain value thanks to the SC dynamics. Such RG flows would contain a special flow corresponding to anomaly-mediated spectrum. Now, suppose that SUSY breaking is mediated not purely by anomaly mediation. Nevertheless, the above convergence property of RG flows would imply that the sfermion spectrum at the decoupling scale, and thus SC threshold effects, be almost the same as anomaly-mediated one. Specifically the MSSM coupled to SC sector would always lead to tachyonic sleptons no matter how SUSY is initially mediated.

The resolution of this apparent puzzle is that the convergent value of each sfermion mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2`$ is independent of the initial conditions for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2`$, but does depend on the SM gaugino masses. Therefore sfermion mass spectrum can be different from anomaly-mediated one, provided that the SM gaugino masses are different.

At any rate, a lesson is that SC threshold effects would do affect sfermion masses, but their size would be at most comparable to the convergent values used in the previous sections. Therefore we do not expect that our results would be modified substantially. It is interesting to confirm this expectation by explicit calculations.

## 6 Conclusion and discussion

We have studied sfermion mass degeneracy within the framework of GUTs coupled to SC sectors. In the $`SU(5)`$ model, the degeneracy factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{e}}`$ for the right-handed sleptons becomes worse than in the MSSM. The reason is that the right-handed lepton $`e_\mathrm{R}^c`$ is embedded into $`10`$-dimensional representation and the convergent mass value is enlarged. Models with larger gauge group like $`SO(10)`$ and $`E_6`$ will have the same feature, as long as the SC sector decouples at the scale larger than the GUT breaking scale. One way to keep $`e_\mathrm{R}^c`$ a non-Abelian singlet is the flipped $`SU(5)_\mathrm{F}\times U(1)_\mathrm{F}`$ model. In this model, the degeneracy of the right-handed sleptons can be improved if the $`U(1)_\mathrm{F}`$ gaugino mass $`M_1^{}`$ is smaller than the $`SU(5)_\mathrm{F}`$ one; a small $`M_1^{}`$ reduces the convergent value and the mass difference, while the $`SU(5)_\mathrm{F}`$ component of the bino mass enhances the averaged slepton mass.

In this paper, we have estimated sfermion mass degeneracy without specifying the model for the SC sector. To this end, we have assumed that the convergent value of sfermion masses at the decoupling scale is dominately determined by the SM one-loop terms in the RGEs. This assumption is plausible for the $`SU(5)`$ case, but is crucial especially for the right-handed sleptons in the MSSM and the flipped model. A clever model building will be required when the SC sector is vector-like under the SM-sector gauge group. We have also assumed that our estimation is not substantially modified by SC threshold effects. We expect that the size of such effects will be at most comparable to the estimated convergent value of sfermion masses. It is worth while examining these points by explicit calculations.

Finally let us speculate about possible extensions of the present work. We have neglected effects from the third family of quarks and leptons and their Yukawa couplings. In quark sector, it will be in safe to neglect the third family, since they have only small mixings with the others in many realistic Yukawa matrices. However, the same is not true in lepton sector. In particular, the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ model requires that the tau neutrino Yukawa coupling is as large as the top Yukawa coupling. In general, the large mixings in lepton sector induce a significant flavor violation $`\delta _{12}^{\mathrm{}}`$ through the radiative corrections above the mass scale $`M_\nu `$ of the right-handed neutrinos , and that constrains sfermion mass spectrum and/or requires a specific form of Yukawa matrices. From this viewpoint, an interesting possibility is that a proper coupling to SC sector and subsequent IR convergence property can eliminate such flavor violation as well if $`M_C`$ is taken below $`M_\nu =10^{13}\text{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{15}`$ GeV. We need further study concerning neutrino Yukawa couplings.*** An application of the SC idea to the neutrino as well as Higgs sectors was discussed in Ref. .

In models with a product gauge group like $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$, the degeneracy can be improved if the gaugino masses do not satisfy the usual GUT relation so that the convergent value of sfermion mass is much suppressed compared with the radiative corrections in the MSSM regime. The $`SU(5)\times U(3)_\mathrm{H}`$ models  will have a similar property. We speculate that even with a simple gauge group $`SU(5)`$, such a suppression of the convergent value could be realized if one supposes that the $`SU(5)`$ gauge multiplets live in an extra-dimensional space-times. In this setup, the power-law evolution of gauge coupling and gaugino mass  makes them drastically small above $`M_X`$ (in such a way that $`M_5/\alpha _5`$ is still RG invariant ) provided that the gauge coupling is asymptotically free. Consequently the degeneracy would be improved if $`M_C`$ is taken as the energy scale where $`\alpha _5`$ and $`M_5`$ are very small. To keep our RG calculations reliable in the SC regime, quarks and leptons as well as SC-sector fields are supposed to live in four dimensions. Such a setup could also explain why our gauge coupling $`\alpha _5`$ is smaller than that in the SC sector, thanks to extra-dimensional volume suppression.

The Nelson-Strassler scenario, which we have focused in this paper, assumes that anomalous dimensions of quarks and leptons take flavor-dependent values at the SC fixed point. The difference between $`\gamma _i^{}`$ and $`\gamma _j^{}`$ leads to hierarchical Yukawa matrices, but at the same time, the difference between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ leads to a distinctive non-degeneracy of sfermion masses. In the ‘Yukawa hierarchy transfer’ scenario , the SC dynamics is supposed to be flavor-blind at the fixed point, $`\gamma _i^{}=\gamma _j^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$, ensuring complete degeneracy of sfermion masses. The hierarchy among Yukawa couplings $`y_{ij}`$ is derived by assuming the inverse hierarchy in the messenger couplings $`\lambda _{irs}`$ at the cut-off scale and by transferring the initial hierarchy through the SC dynamics. Moreover, the assumed hierarchy can be derived, e.g., through the FN mechanism in the SC sector without spoiling the sfermion degeneracy by family-dependent $`D`$-term contributions. This new scenario provides an alternative way of realizing degenerate sfermion spectrum and hierarchical Yukawa matrices at the same time.

## Acknowledgments

The authors wold like to thank J. Kubo, N. Maekawa, J. Sato, D. Suematsu, M. Tanimoto and T. Yanagida for useful discussions. We would like to express our thanks to the organizers of Summer Institute 2001, Yamanashi, where a part of the work was done.


format: text

text:
# Precision Test of Quark Mass Textures: A Model Independent Approach

## 1 Introduction

Standard Model predictions have been tested so far with very high accuracy (at the permill level), and the agreement with the experimental measurements is very remarkable. However the Standard Model is unsatisfactory since all fermion masses and mixings are free and unpredictable parameters. Quark masses vary in a range of more than four order of magnitudes and the lack for an explanation is deceiving.
If the Higgs boson is a $`SU(2)`$ doublet, the four real components

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1+\mathrm{i}\varphi _2\\ \varphi _3+\mathrm{i}\varphi _4\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
can be transformed by an $`SO(4)SU(2)_{\mathrm{left}}\times SU(2)_{\mathrm{right}}`$ symmetry. The unique $`SU(2)`$ invariant $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2+\varphi _3^2+\varphi _4^2`$ is also an $`SO(4)`$ invariant. The Higgs potential must be a $`SO(4)`$ invariant, and when the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry is broken into $`U(1)_{em}`$, the $`SO(4)`$ symmetry is broken into $`SU(2)_V=SU(2)_{\mathrm{left}+\mathrm{right}}`$. The Goldstone bosons of the Higgs doublet transform as a triplet under the unbroken $`SU(2)_V`$ and this directly implies a fundamental relation between the mixing angle of the neutral gauge bosons and the charged/neutral boson masses

$$1\frac{M_W^2}{M_Z^2}=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W.$$
(2)
The remarkable experimental success111After the inclusion of some expected and calculable radiative corrections. See  and references therein. of this relation which has been proved by the precision tests at $`LEP`$ and $`SLD`$, makes the above $`SO(4)`$ symmetry unique and unavoidable for any realistic description of the electroweak symmetry breaking. The same success is far from being achieved in the fermion sector, because there are too many models and symmetries which roughly give acceptable predictions (i.e. in terms of order of magnitudes). The large number of fermions and the lack of direct measurements of all the mass matrix entries make particularly hard to unambiguously select the underlying symmetries responsible for fermion mass hierarchies: measuring the CKM matrix elements, one fixes only the product of two unitary matrices, coming from the separate diagonalizations of the up and down $`3\times 3`$ quark mass, and not both of them.
To cope with these ambiguities, one usually assumes a fundamental symmetry and chooses a breaking pattern. The mass matrices obtained are diagonalized. Eigenvalues and eigenvectors are compared with the experimental data, ı.e. the CKM parameters and the quark masses. This procedure can be used to rule out a model or a symmetry if theoretical predictions and experimental data disagree. It is, of course, unable to prove that the assumed symmetry is the one which is preferred by the data.  Ideally one could take a completely model independent approach and prove that a symmetry is among the best ones that can predict the correct mixings and masses spectrum. This goal is probably unachievable, but a step in this direction can be done if one accepts a certain amount of model dependence, selecting a large class of models, and then extracting directly from experimental results the preferred models within that class.

In the following, we explicitly discuss how to approach this goal, introducing model independent parameterizations for the up and down quark mass matrices. The needed number of free parameters will be in general larger than the number of experimental constraints and this will be the main limitation for a direct fit of parameter values222The minimum of the $`\chi ^2`$ would be not a single point but obscure and intricate surfaces in the $`n`$-dimensional space of the $`n`$ parameters.. Instead of minimizing the $`\chi ^2`$ with respect to the full set of free parameters (which is too large to be manageable), we get rid of several unknown parameters, treating them as real theoretical errors, through a Monte Carlo procedure.

To exemplify the proposed method, we will focus on two different parameterizations inspired by two classes of models: those based on Abelian symmetries and those exploiting a horizontal $`U(2)`$ symmetry.

## 2 The experimental constraints

Values of the six quark masses and of the four CKM matrix element parameters, used in the present analysis are given in Tables 1 and 2.

### 2.1 Quark mass determinations

Values of quark masses span a large domain ranging from a few MeV/c2, for $`u`$ and $`d`$ flavours, to more than 100 GeV/c2 for the top quark. Current quark masses, defined in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme have been used and their values have been given at the scale of the W mass. It can be noted that the present analysis depends on quark mass ratios and that these quantities are almost scale independent. The running of quark masses has been evaluated following the work of . The value adopted for the strong coupling constant, at the scale of the $`\mathrm{Z}`$ boson mass is $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.1181\pm 0.0020`$ which corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(5)}=209.5_{22.6}^{+24.4}`$ MeV in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme.

The top-quark mass has been measured from the direct reconstruction of its decay products . It corresponds to the pole mass value:

$$\mathrm{M}_t^{pole}=(174.3\pm 5.1)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(3)
The expression relating $`\overline{m}_t(\mathrm{M}_t^{pole})`$ and $`\mathrm{M}_t^{pole}`$ can be found in .

Lattice determinations of the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quark masses can be found in . The $`b`$-quark mass is obtained using QCD sum rules for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ masses and electronic widths following the work of . Recent evaluations and complete references can be found in  giving:

$$\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=(4.17\pm 0.05)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(4)
A new analysis  of the energy dependence of hadronic production near the threshold for $`b`$-quark production gives a similar value:

$$\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=(4.209\pm 0.050)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(5)
In the following the value $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=(4.19\pm 0.05)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ has been used.

The $`c`$-quark mass was also determined using QCD sum rules applied to the charmonium system, for a recent review see  in which they obtain:

$$\overline{m}_c(\overline{m}_c)=(1.23\pm 0.09)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(6)
The same analysis  which was applied to the $`b`$-quark mass determination was done in the charm threshold region and gives:

$$\overline{m}_c(\overline{m}_c)=(1.304\pm 0.027)\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(7)
This value is compatible with Equation (6) and is more precise; it has been adopted in the following.

The value of the strange quark mass has been obtained   from analyses of $`\tau `$ decays into final states with an odd number of kaons which give, respectively:

$$\overline{m}_s(m_\tau )=(120\pm 11_{exp}\pm 8_{|V_{us}|}\pm 19_{th})\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}^2$$
(8)
and

$$\overline{m}_s(m_\tau )=(130\pm 27_{exp}\pm 8_{|V_{us}|}\pm 9_{th})\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}^2.$$
(9)
The different values quoted for systematic uncertainties of theoretical origin depend on the order of the moments of the spectral function which have been used in the two analyses. In the following the value $`\overline{m}_s(m_\tau )=(125\pm 30)\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}^2`$ has been used. It corresponds to a central value of $`159`$ MeV/c2 when evaluated at the scale of 1 GeV.

Finally values for light quark masses can be obtained from chiral perturbation theory . Recent developments have been included  in the values adopted in the following:

$$\frac{m_u}{m_d}=0.46\pm 0.09;Q^2=\frac{4m_s^2(m_u+m_d)^2}{4(m_d^2m_u^2)}=22.0\pm 0.6$$
(10)
From these values, the ratio between the masses of the $`s`$ and $`d`$ quarks is obtained:$`\frac{m_s}{m_d}=19.5\pm 1.2`$. Using the determination of $`\overline{m}_s(m_W)`$ given in Table 1, values are obtained for light quark masses at the scale of the W mass.

### 2.2 CKM matrix parameters

In the Wolfenstein parametrisation of the CKM matrix , the four parameters are designed, usually, as: $`\lambda `$, $`A`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$. In the following, in place of $`A`$, the quantity, $`\left|\mathrm{V}_{cb}\right|=A\lambda ^2`$ has been used instead to avoid correlations.

Updated determinations of their values, which are given in Table 2, can be found in . The values of $`\rho `$ and $`\eta `$ have been determined within the Standard Model framework using the constraints on these parameters coming from $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{d}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{s}^0`$ oscillations, $`bu`$ semileptonic decays and from CP violation in K and B mesons 333This last constraint, which was not available in  has been included in the present analysis..

### 2.3 Procedure adopted to apply constraints

To apply the constraints related to quark masses and CKM elements we have defined the function

$$\chi ^2(O^{\mathrm{t}h})=\underset{i}{}\left(\frac{O_i^{\mathrm{t}h}O_i^{\mathrm{e}xp}}{\sigma _i^{\mathrm{e}xp}}\right)^2.$$
(11)
where $`O_i^{\mathrm{e}xp}\pm \sigma _i^{\mathrm{e}xp}`$ are the experimental inputs as shown in Tables 1 and 2. The function $`\chi ^2(O^{\mathrm{t}h})`$ will be used afterwards: by means of a weight $`\mathrm{exp}(\chi ^2/2)`$, we will select models with predictions $`O^{\mathrm{t}h}`$, close to the experimental data. Note that for simplicity we have neglected correlations among different experimental data.

## 3 Looking for model independent parameterizations

Low energy fermion masses arise from the Yukawa interaction with the light Higgs bosons:

$$L_{Yuk}=Y_u^{ij}H_u\overline{Q}_iu_j+Y_d^{ij}H_d\overline{Q}_id_j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(12)
In the Standard Model the Higgs bosons $`H_d`$ and $`H_u`$, are the same particle, namely $`H_d=\mathrm{i}\sigma _2H_u^{}`$ but, in general (e.g. in supersymmetry), they are two distinct fields. The Yukawa couplings $`Y^{ij}`$, unconstrained and incalculable in the Standard Model, arise from more fundamental high energy Lagrangians. The Lagrangian given in (12) is an effective Lagrangian, where only light particles appear as physical fields: at such low energy, heavy particles can only appear as virtual internal propagators of Feynman diagrams of the full theory. For example a process with $`n`$ light particles $`\psi `$ that goes into $`k`$ light particles $`\varphi `$ through the virtual exchange of one heavy field $`F`$ (with mass $`m`$) through the interaction $`g_1\psi ^nF+g_2\varphi ^kF`$ can be described by one single operator $`g_1g_2\psi ^n\varphi ^k/M^2`$ containing only the light particles. Similarly, the Yukawa interactions in equation (12) can arise from higher dimensional operators $`H_u\overline{Q}_iu_j\varphi ^k/M^k`$ where the field $`\varphi `$ acquires a vev $`\overline{\varphi }`$ and thus $`Y_u^{ij}=\overline{\varphi }^k/M^k`$. In general the heavy particles content could be very complex, but if the original Lagrangian is invariant under some (flavor) symmetry, the above mentioned low energy operators must obey the same symmetry. Having in mind this physical mechanism, we will show in the next section how some specific symmetries can lead to the observed fermion mass hierarchies.

### 3.1 Abelian symmetries

In the following we will introduce a parameterization for the quark mass matrices which is inspired by models with Abelian symmetries. To exemplify the physical origin of such parameterization we discuss the simplest case of one additional $`U(1)_X`$ at the (very high) scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{new}`$; after we will comment on the more general case.

This extra $`U(1)_X`$ must be broken, and thus we need at least one Higgs boson $`h`$ with $`U(1)_X`$-charge $`q0`$. This field $`h`$ must also be a $`SU(2)_{\mathrm{weak}}\times U(1)`$ singlet, otherwise the electroweak group would be broken at too high energies. In the quark sector we call $`q_{iL}^u`$, $`q_{iR}^u`$, $`q_{iL}^d`$ and $`q_{iR}^d`$ the $`U(1)_X`$-charges of, respectively, the up and down type quarks (left and right) of the $`i`$-th family. Also the light Higgs bosons (responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking) can have non-zero charges $`q^{H_{u,d}}`$ with respect444As already mentioned, in the Standard Model, we have $`q^{H_u}=q^{H_d}`$ because there is only one Higgs field. to the new $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry. At the very high energy scale, the Lagrangian includes some higher order effective operators555Here we have not included operators containing both $`h`$ and charged conjugated fields $`h^{}`$. This is mandatory in supersymmetric theories, in non-supersymmetric models these terms will be considered as subleading.

$$L_{\mathrm{Yukawa}}=g_u^{ij}H_u\overline{Q}_iu_jh^{n_{ij}^u}+g_d^{ij}H_d\overline{Q}_id_jh^{n_{ij}^d}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(13)
The constants $`g^{ij}`$ would be calculable if masses and interactions of the full theory were known, otherwise we can only estimate their order of magnitude by simple dimensional analysis

$$g_{u,d}^{ij}\frac{1}{M^{n_{ij}^{u,d}}}$$
(14)
where $`M`$ is the mass scale of heavy particles and the exponent $`n_{ij}`$ is such that the mass dimension of the Lagrangian (13) is equal to four (the field $`h`$ has mass dimension 1). In equation (13) we have listed all possible operators that are responsible for the generation of quark masses. Since the field $`h`$ is a $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{color}}\times SU(2)_{\mathrm{weak}}\times U(1)`$ singlet, these operators are invariant with respect to the ordinary gauge transformations for any value of ($`n_{ij}^u,n_{ij}^d`$), but if we also require the $`U(1)_X`$ invariance only few values of $`n_{ij}^u,n_{ij}^d`$ are allowed; namely those which satisfy the equations

$`q^{H_u}q_{iL}^u+q_{jR}^u+n_{ij}^uq`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
$`q^{H_d}q_{iL}^d+q_{jR}^d+n_{ij}^dq`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (16)
in order to guarantee that the sum of field charges is zero for each Yukawa interaction in (13). For simplicity, in the following, we will consider only the case in which all solutions of the equations (15,16) correspond to non-negative integers666If $`n_{ij}<0`$ one can build the invariant operator $`\overline{Q}q(\overline{h})^{n_{ij}}`$ where $`\overline{h}`$ is the charge conjugated of $`h`$. However, in supersymmetry this operator is not allowed for the holomorphy of the superpotential; thus, the corresponding entry $`(i,j)`$ in the quark mass matrix would be zero., $`n_{ij}>0`$. Solving equations (15,16), one can build an invariant operator $`\overline{Q}qh^{n_{ij}}`$. In all other cases no invariant exists.

The breaking of the $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry is expected to occur at very high energy, where the field $`h`$ acquires a vacuum expectation value (vev), i.e. $`h=v_XM_W`$ ; while it is at the weak scale that light Higgs(es) take the vev’s $`H_u=v_u`$ , $`H_d=v_d`$ respectively. As a consequence, the Lagrangian (13) and the estimate (14) yield the following masses for the up sector

$$m_{ij}^u=g_u^{ij}v_u\left(v_X\right)^{\frac{q_{iL}^uq_{jR}^u+q_H^u}{q}}v_uϵ^{\frac{q_{iL}^uq_{jR}^u+q_H^u}{q}};\mathrm{with}ϵ=\frac{v_X}{M}$$
(17)
and a similar expression for the down sector. We remind that $`q_{iL}`$ and $`q_{jR}`$ are respectively the left-handed and right-handed fermions $`U(1)_X`$-charges, which are in general different ($`q_{iL}^{u,d}q_{iR}^{u,d}0`$). If $`ϵ=v_X/M1`$, then equation (17) implies a definite hierarchical structure of the entries in the mass matrix, whose orders of magnitude are proportional to the difference between the quark $`U(1)_X`$-charges $`q_{iL}^uq_{jR}^u`$. When all charges are known, applying (17), one predicts the order of magnitude of all masses and mixings. The converse statement is not true: even if all mass matrix entries are known, only some linear combination of the $`q_{iL,R}^u`$ can be derived from (17). It is preferable to replace the $`q_{iL,R}^u`$ by the following parameters

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}u& =& ϵ^{(q_{1L}^uq_{1R}^u+q_{3R}^uq_{3L}^u)/q},& c=& ϵ^{(q_{2L}^uq_{2R}^u+q_{3R}^uq_{3L}^u)/q}\\ \\ t_u& =& \frac{q_{3L}^uq_{1R}^u}{q_{1L}^uq_{1R}^u+q_{3R}^uq_{3L}^u}& k_u=& \frac{q_{3L}^uq_{2R}^u}{q_{2L}^uq_{2R}^u+q_{3R}^uq_{3L}^u}\end{array}.$$
(18)
With these definitions, the up quark mass matrix becomes

$$v_uϵ^{\frac{q_{3L}^uq_{3R}^u+q_H^u}{q}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}a_1^uu& & a_2^uu^{1t_u}c^{k_u}& & a_3^uu^{1t_u}\\ a_4^uu^{t_u}c^{1k_u}& & a_5^uc& & a_6^uc^{1k_u}\\ a_7^uu^{t_u}& & a_8^uc^{k_u}& & a_9^u\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
A similar matrix can be written for the down quarks, with four additional parameters defined from the down quark analogue of equation (18)

$$v_dϵ^{\frac{q_{3L}^dq_{3R}^d+q_H^d}{q}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}a_1^dd& & a_2^dd^{1t_d}s^{k_d}& & a_3^dd^{1t_d}\\ a_4^dd^{t_d}s^{1k_d}& & a_5^ds& & a_6^ds^{1k_d}\\ a_7^dd^{t_d}& & a_8^ds^{k_d}& & a_9^d\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
For each matrix entry in (19,20), a complex coefficient $`a_i^{u,d}`$ with $`|a_i^{u,d}|1`$ has been included to take into account theoretical uncertainties coming from the very heavy particle states (see equation (17), and the discussion above), which are intrinsic of any low energy effective description. The matrix in equation (19) has three different eigenvalues; it is easy to prove that their order of magnitudes are equal to the three diagonal elements in (19). The variables $`u`$ and $`c`$ are consequently constrained to be of the order of the ratios $`m_{up}/m_{top}`$ and $`m_{charm}/m_{top}`$ respectively. The off-diagonal elements in equation (19) cannot be estimated by simple arguments; in fact deriving the exponents $`t_u`$ and $`k_u`$ in equation (19) requires a more complex and rigorous analysis and this will be done in the next section.

The parameterization (19) has been inspired by a model with just one additional $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry and one heavy Higgs $`h`$; its extent of validity is much wider but it does not cover the full set of models based on Abelian symmetries . To simplify our analysis, we will restrict ourselves to the class of models defined by equation (19), which hereafter we will simply call Abelian symmetries. A physically interesting example is provided by the model studied in , with three additional $`U(1)`$ factors and three new Higgses. Two of these $`U(1)`$ can be written as a linear combination of the $`U(1)`$’s in the Cartan sub-algebra of $`E_6SU(5)\times U(1)_1\times U(1)_2`$, and they distinguish families. The third $`U(1)_3`$ is anomalous . The quark matrices that immediately descend from this symmetry choice are

$$M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^7& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
and

$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^3& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda & 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
where $`\lambda `$ is an unknown parameter. One can check that these matrices agree with the parameterizations given in (19,20), once we fix

| $`t_u=5/8,`$ | $`k_u=1/2`$, | $`t_d=1/4`$, | $`k_d=0,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`u=\lambda ^8,`$ | $`c=\lambda ^4,`$ | $`d=\lambda ^4,`$ | $`s=\lambda ^2.`$ |

(23)
Other authors  simply add to the usual SUSY SU(5), a U(1) flavour symmetry that leads to a better gauge coupling unification and neutrino phenomenology. They get

| $`t_u=1/2,`$ | $`k_u=1/2`$, | $`t_d=2/5`$, | $`k_d=0,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`u=\lambda ^6,`$ | $`c=\lambda ^4,`$ | $`d=\lambda ^5,`$ | $`s=\lambda ^2.`$ |

(24)
#### 3.1.1 Fitting the mass hierarchies in the Abelian case

The Method
The goal is to extract the values of $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$ from the experimental measurements. A direct fit of the data is not possible, since the number of free parameters ($`36`$) in (19,20) is much larger than the number of observables, six mass eigenvalues plus four CKM parameters.

The main obstacle comes from the coefficients $`a_i^{u,d}`$, whose phases (and size) are not theoretically known. To cope with them, we will treat this uncertainty as a theoretical systematic error. Namely, we have assigned a flat probability to all the coefficients $`a_i^{u,d}`$ with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}<|a_i^{u,d}|<2,& 0<\mathrm{arg}(a_i^{u,d})<2\pi ,\\ & \\ 0<t<1,& 0<k<1.\end{array}$$
(25)
$`u,c,s`$ and $`d`$ are less than one and we randomly take them with a flat distribution in logarithmic scale. $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$ must satisfy the above constraints since (by definition) we choose the entry (3,3) of the matrices in (19,20) to be the largest one. For any random choice of the coefficients $`a_i^{u,d}`$, of the exponents $`t_{u,d},k_{u,d}`$ and of the variables $`u,c,d,s`$ we get two numerical matrices for, respectively, the up and the down sectors. The diagonalization of these matrices gives six eigenvalues, corresponding to the physical quark masses, and two numerical unitary matrices whose multiplication yields the CKM matrix. We have collected a large statistical sample of events. Each one of these events can be compared with the experimental data (see section 2) through the $`\chi ^2`$: the event is accepted with probability :

$$P(O_i^{\mathrm{t}h})=e^{\frac{1}{2}\chi ^2(O_i^{\mathrm{t}h})}$$
(26)
where the $`\chi ^2`$ is defined in (11). Before applying the experimental constraints, events are homogeneously distributed in the variables $`t_{u,d},k_{u,d}`$, and probability distributions are flat; but after, applying the weight corresponding to eq. (26), only points lying in well defined regions of the space $`t_{u,d},k_{u,d}`$ have a good chance to survive.
Let us better clarify the reason for such not uniform distributions and the physical interpretation of the density of points per unit area in Figures 1-2,4-7. Let us assume two different choices,777We will often use the word “model” to understand a particular and fixed choice of the exponents $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$. of the exponents $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$, that we call model 1 and model 2, lying in two different regions (1 and 2) of the $`k_{u,d}`$ vs $`t_{u,d}`$ plane (fig.1); the Monte Carlo generates two samples of up/down matrices, through equations (19,20). Only a fraction $`p_1`$ (and $`p_2`$) of matrices of the sample 1 (and 2) will pass the experimental constraints (that is eq. (26)): $`p_1`$ ($`p_2`$) is the probability that model 1 (2) predicts masses and mixings in a range compatible with the experiments. Then $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are, respectively, proportional to the density of points in regions 1 and 2. From them we can argued that the model 1 is $`p_1/p_2`$ more (or less, if $`p_1/p_2<1`$ ) likely than model 2. Even if our Monte Carlo approach favours most predictive and accurate models, we also emphasize that one should not mistake these results with true experimental measurements. They only give us “natural” range of values for the exponents $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$.
If $`p_{max}`$ is the density of points at the maximum, we call $`R=p/p_{max}`$ the ratio of the probability with respect to the value at the maximum. By definition $`R<1`$. We will show regions corresponding to different values of R.

The results

Figures 1 and 2 show the density of points in the planes $`k_d`$ vs $`t_d`$ and $`k_u`$ vs $`t_u.`$ Points are blue (black) in regions where $`R>0.1`$ and green (light gray) where $`R<0.05`$.
A large fraction of the $`t`$ and $`k`$ space is essentially forbidden. We can put an upper bound to all the exponents. Namely, $`t_d0.55`$, $`k_d0.4`$ $`t_u0.7`$, $`k_d0.65`$. This is expected since large values for $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$ increase the off-diagonal elements in the CKM matrix, in contrast with the experimental observation. The model previously mentioned , prescribing eq. (23), lives on the border between the highly populated and the empty regions: in the up sector (fig.2) a slightly higher $`t_u`$ would fall in the not populated region. Similar conclusions, but in the down sector (fig. 1), apply for the model , with exponents given in equation (24). In these specific models, a closer study of the evolution of the Yukawa couplings (through the renormalization group equations) from the unification scale down to the weak scale could be desirable if one wishes a more definite conclusion.
One should also note that, even if the experiments put strong bounds on the CKM parameters, the allowed regions for $`t_{u,d}`$ and $`k_{u,d}`$ are quite large; we have verified that a reduction on the errors of the $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ parameters would have a negligible impact on Figures 1 and 2. We conclude that errors coming from the theoretical uncertainties (25) are dominant.

For the moment, a large range of possibilities exists: even a scenario with all exponents set to zero $`t_{u,d}=k_{u,d}=0`$ like in the following mass matrices gives acceptable predictions.

| $`M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u& u& u\\ c& c& c\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |
| --- |
| $`M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d& d& d\\ s& s& s\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |

(27)
### 3.2 U(2) horizontal symmetry

Another class of models is based on a $`U(2)`$ horizontal symmetry. This symmetry acts on the known fermion families as follows. The light quarks transform as doublets $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ under the $`U(2)`$ group

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{𝟐}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_L\\ c_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}u_R^c\\ c_R^c\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}d_L\\ s_L\end{array}\right)& \left(\begin{array}{c}d_R^c\\ s_R^c\end{array}\right)\end{array}.$$
(28)
$`f_L`$ are the lefthanded $`SU(2)_{weak}`$ doublets, while $`f_R^c`$ are the charge conjugated of the righthanded $`SU(2)_{weak}`$ singlets. The light Higgses (responsible for the electroweak breaking) are singlets as well as the quarks of the third generation. The $`U(2)`$ (differently from $`SU(2)`$) includes a $`U(1)`$ phase transformation: the $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ are not equivalent representations; in particular such a $`U(2)`$ forbids Yukawa interactions like

$$g_uH_u\overline{u}_Lu_R+g_cH_u\overline{c}_Lc_R$$
(29)
as well as all possible mass or mixing terms concerning the two lightest generations. On the contrary the top and bottom quarks can have mass since they are singlets under the above $`U(2).`$ To allow the lighter fermions acquiring a mass, we need to break the $`U(2)`$ symmetry in two steps. Firstly, the breaking of $`U(2)U(1)`$ can be induced by a $`U(2)`$-doublet $`\varphi _a`$, the $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and a triplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}`$, the $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Exploiting the $`U(2)`$ symmetry we can always rotate their $`vev`$’s in order to obtain888We label the two lightest families with 1 and 2. $`\varphi _2=v_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}=v_2`$ and $`\varphi _1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{21}=0`$ which implies the following Yukawa couplings

$$gH_u\overline{c}_Lt_R\varphi _2+g^{}H_u\overline{c}_Rt_L\varphi _2^{}+g^{\prime \prime }H_u\overline{c}_Lc_R\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(30)
or in terms of the quark mass matrix

$$M_{up}1/M\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& v_2& v_1\\ 0& v_1& M_u\end{array}\right).$$
(31)
An analogous matrix arises for the down sector. At lower energy also the $`U(1)`$ can be broken by a $`U(2)`$-singlet $`A_{ab}`$, antisymmetric under the exchange of the indices $`a`$ and $`b`$. This changes the matrix (31) into

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& v_3& 0\\ v_3& v_2& v_1\\ 0& v_1& M_u\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
where the scale of the $`U(1)`$ symmetry breaking is much smaller than the $`U(2)`$ symmetry breaking, i.e. $`v_3v_1v_2`$. The zeros in the entries

$$M_{13}=M_{31}=M_{11}=0$$
(33)
are a generic consequence of this class of models999Renormalization group effect from the high energy down to the low energy can modify this texture. A scenario with (1,3) entries slightly different from zero has been discussed by .: we will exploit the conditions (33) to parameterize the quark mass matrices (we make no assumption on the other entries); starting from the texture (33), we will considerably simplify the problem of extracting all mass hierarchies from the data; and at the same time, this will leave us with a reasonably large and assorted selection of models. To be more concrete, after the conditions (33) we are left with 6+6 non-zero entries that can be parametrized by 12 free complex variables as follows (to simplify the notation, we omit the up/down subscript in the exponents)

$$M_{up}=M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a_1^uϵ_1^{1p_u}& 0\\ a_2^uϵ_1^{p_u}& a_3^uϵ_2& a_4^uϵ_2^{r_u}\\ 0& a_5^uϵ_2^{d_u}& a_6^u\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
and

$$M_{down}=M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a_1^dϵ_3^{1p_d}& 0\\ a_2^dϵ_3^{p_d}& a_3^dϵ_4& a_4^dϵ_4^{r_d}\\ 0& a_5^dϵ_4^{d_d}& a_6^d\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
Clearly one could choose a different reasonable parameterization with different parameters: nevertheless the needed 12 parameters would be in one to one correspondence with ours (shown in (34,35)) through well defined equations. Thus we do not loose in generality, choosing the above parameterization, here the only assumption101010However this strict equivalence will become only approximately true, after the implementation of the Monte Carlo procedure in the next section. In fact a different parameterization would correspond to a different (and non-flat) a-priori distribution for the exponents $`p_{u,d},r_{u,d},d_{u,d}`$ (see the beginning of the next section). This ambiguity is the necessary prize to pay for our Bayesian approach. is equation (33). The determinant of (34) gives the product of the three eigenvalues and thus $`m_{up}m_{charm}m_{top}ϵ_1M_u^3.`$ We also observe that $`M_um_{top}`$, and $`ϵ_2m_{charm}/m_{top}`$(if $`r+d1`$), then we also get that $`ϵ_1m_{up}m_{charm}/m_{top}^2.`$ A similar estimate holds for the down sector, where $`ϵ_3`$ and $`ϵ_4`$ are related to the down quark masses. The exponents $`p_{u,d},r_{u,d},d_{u,d}`$ need a more complex analysis that will be done in the next section.

The coefficients $`a_i^{u,d}`$ take into account the intrinsic theoretical uncertainties due to unknown fundamental parameters of the high energy physics. They are expected to be of order one : $`|a_i^{u,d}|1`$ with $`0<\mathrm{arg}(a_i^{u,d})<2\pi `$.

The $`U(2)`$ symmetry breaking, naively discussed above, implies definite values for the exponents

$$\begin{array}{ccc}p_u=1/2,& r_u=1,& d_u=1\\ p_d=1/2,& r_d=1,& d_d=1;\end{array}$$
(36)
however a more sophisticated theoretical study could lead to different scenarios, as for instance if one embeds the above picture into Grand Unified Theories. Our aim is to extract these exponents directly from the experimentally measured quantities, in the same line as shown in section (3.1). Before moving to this determination, we would like to show with an example the importance of the precise determination of the $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ parameters in excluding the above solution (36) for the exponents.

### 3.3 Importance of the precise determination of $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ parameters

In this example we use the values for the exponents that correspond to the U(2) symmetry breaking given in equation (36). This choice implies that  :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}& =& \sqrt{\frac{m_u}{m_c}}\\ \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}& =& \sqrt{\frac{m_d}{m_s}}\end{array}$$
(37)
These relations are not exact due to the presence of the order-1 coefficients. On the other hand, as discussed in , the larger correction is on the first relation in (37) and is of order 10$`\%`$. Equation (37) can be used to define an allowed region in the ($`\overline{\rho }`$-$`\overline{\eta }`$) plane as shown in Figure (3). This region has been obtained by adding an extra 10$`\%`$ random correction to the first equation in (37) to take into account the above-mentioned effect . In this Figure the $`\overline{\rho }`$-$`\overline{\eta }`$ allowed region is compared with the one selected by the measurements of $`\left|\epsilon _K\right|`$, $`\left|\mathrm{V}_{ub}/\mathrm{V}_{cb}\right|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and from the limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$. The two selected regions are far to be compatible (to be more quantitative see next paragraph). The significant improvement in the determination of the $`\overline{\rho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ parameters, obtained recently, allows to draw clear conclusions on the U(2) horizontal symmetries. As it was anticipated in  the high limit on the $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B_s}`$ mixing parameter, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, disfavours the naive U(2) symmetry breaking.

In the next section we extract the exponents of a generic U(2) horizontal symmetry directly from the experimentally measured quantities.

### 3.4 Fitting the mass hierarchies in the horizontal U(2) models

The $`a^{u,d}1`$ coefficients in eq. (34,35) (differently from the Abelian case) are redundant: for example, if $`|a_4^u|1`$, one can reabsorb the norm $`|a_4^u|`$ in eq. (34) into a redefinition of $`r_ur_u+\mathrm{log}|a_4^u|/\mathrm{log}ϵ_2`$ of the exponent $`r_u`$; thus one could set $`|a_i^{u,d}|=1`$ without loosing in generality.

Namely, we have assigned a flat probability to all the coefficients $`a_i^{u,d}`$ with

$$\begin{array}{cc}|a_i^{u,d}|=1,& 0<\mathrm{arg}(a_i^{u,d})<2\pi ,\\ & \\ 0<t_{u,d}<1& 0<d_{u,d},r_{u,d}<5\end{array}$$
(38)
As in the Abelian case, the range of variation of $`t_{u,d}`$ is fixed by the requirement that the entries (1,2) and (2,1) are smaller than the entry (3,3) in matrices (34,35). $`d_{u,d}`$ and $`r_{u,d}`$ could go from zero to infinity, but we have checked (see after) that for values greater than five the corresponding entries were absolutely negligible. In practice, the case $`r_{u,d}>5`$ (or $`d_{u,d}>5`$) is equivalent to $`r_{u,d}=5`$ (or $`d_{u,d}=5`$).

For any random choice of the coefficients $`a_i^{u,d}`$, of the exponents $`p_{u,d},r_{u,d},d_{u,d}`$ and111111Note that $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ in the up sector are independent from $`ϵ_3`$ and $`ϵ_4`$ in the down sector. All of them are randomly chosen, with flat probability distribution in logarithmic scale. the $`vev`$ $`ϵ`$’s we get six physical quark masses and the CKM matrix. The large statistical sample of collected events has been compared with the experimental data (see section 2) and a weight defined for each event, corresponding to the probability distribution (26) . We have found that the overall probability distribution is maximal in regions shown in Table 3, even if it is still high and acceptable in a larger domain.

Table 3: Four regions in the space of the exponents $`p_{u,d},r_{u,d},d_{u,d}`$ that maximize the probability distribution.

The two solutions on top of Table 3, prefer asymmetric quark mass matrices: $`p_u0.33`$ implies that the entry $`(1,2)`$ (in the up sector) is roughly the square of the entry $`(2,1)`$; also $`d_d<r_d`$ gives an entry (3,2) much larger than the (2,3) (in the down sector).

The remaining two solutions (bottom row of Table 3) appears more symmetric: a slight asymmetry is due to the exponents $`p_u=0.52`$ and $`p_d=0.48`$. But these are very close to 1/2, thus giving approximately symmetric matrices.

The six exponents show a significant statistical correlation; unfortunately we can only project the sample of events on two dimensional plots, thus in Figures 4-7, the number of points per unit area tells us the probability distribution as function of each pair of the variables $`p_{u,d},r_{u,d},d_{u,d}`$ (while the remaining four variables are integrated out); In the Figures , points are blue (black) in regions where $`R>0.1`$, red (gray) in regions where $`0.05<R<0.1`$, and green (light gray) where $`R<0.05`$. In Figure 4 we see the points distribution in the plane $`p_d`$ vs $`p_u`$. Note that the allowed region is small, in particular $`p_d`$ is very well determined and $`R>0.05`$ only if $`0.46p_d0.51`$. The exponent in the down sector $`p_d`$ is better measured than the up one, and its value is close to $`1/2`$ which yields the well known relation

$$\sqrt{m_d/m_s}\mathrm{sin}\theta _c.$$
(39)
The parameterization for the up and the down sector are completely equivalent but experimental data prefer to constrain the down sector, while $`p_u`$ can vary from 0.32 to 0.55. With U we have marked the special case of a naive  $`U(2)`$ symmetry as in (36).
In Figure 5 $`r_d`$ and $`r_u`$ are strongly correlated: either $`r_d1`$ or $`r_u0.5.`$ In fact if $`r_d1`$ and $`r_u0.5`$ one would have $`V_{cb}m_s/m_b`$; instead $`r_u0.5`$ and $`r_d1`$ yield $`V_{cb}\sqrt{m_c/m_t}.`$ Both are possible and at least one of them must hold. In Figure 6 ($`d_d`$ vs $`p_d`$) one clearly sees that the point U (referring to the model (36)) is outside the populated region. One can overcome this problem decreasing $`d_d`$ towards the region with maximal density $`d_d0.5.`$ Note, however, that $`r_d1`$ (fig.5) and $`d_d0.5`$ imply  an asymmetric down quark matrix (35). In addition, decreasing $`d_d`$ one also pushes $`p_d`$ very close to 0.5, and (from Figure 4) this solution slightly prefers $`p_u0.4,`$ that is the region with maximal density, as also shown in Table 3. Also Figure 7 put in evidence a similar behavior: $`p_u`$ can easily range from 0.32 to 0.55, for low values of $`d_d`$; instead points with $`d_d0.5`$ live in a much more restricted area with $`0.5p_u0.55.`$ Before concluding this section it is worthwhile to note that our approach can be used to test if a zero entry is favoured or disfavoured by data. For example, in Figure 6 one can see that for $`d_d1`$ the shape of the point distribution no longer depends from $`d_d`$ and remains constant even for $`d_d`$ going to infinity. This clearly indicates that when the entry $`M_{32}=ϵ_4^d`$ becomes negligible (i.e. zero) few acceptable models still survive, thus $`M_{32}^{\mathrm{d}own}=0`$ is not excluded by data (provided that $`p_d`$ is slightly reduced).

## 4  Conclusions

The aim of particle physics is to describe all existing phenomena with the smallest number of free parameters. In fact one usually expects that a deeper understanding of the foundations of the theory automatically implies a reduction of the number of free parameters. For the same reason, but in a different context, we await for grand unification of forces, which replaces three gauge couplings with just one gauge coupling of the embedding (simple) group.

Differently from the electroweak boson masses, in the fermion sector there are several free parameters. Understanding their origin in terms of new broken symmetries is difficult because the number of measurements is much less than the number of such parameters. The consequent ambiguity in extracting the eighteen complex entries of the quark mass matrices makes very difficult to disentangle the true underlying (broken) symmetry of the fermion sector. An approximate analytical approach, like those based on estimates of the observables in terms of powers of the Cabibbo angle, can become inaccurate when several physical observables are involved: if a fine tuning of the coefficients $`a`$’s of order 1/3 is required to get the right $`V_{cb}`$ , one can safely conclude that the model is acceptable; but if this tuning has to be repeated for each observable, the model becomes unacceptable. We have concluded that a global analysis based on a Monte Carlo procedure with model independent parameterizations can give us more clear and trustable conclusions. We have shown how such an approach can be successfully implemented, achieving more information with less theoretical prejudice.  The progress brought by this Bayesian  approach is the fact that we can put some confidence levels to some important parameters which otherwise would be unknown.We can test how precise are the determinations of the different exponents, and this makes clear to model builders which one of the theoretical ingredients is essential and which is not.

In case of Abelian symmetries we have found that the exponents $`t`$ and $`k`$ are poorly constrained. Still, an upper bound can be given to the four exponents: $`t_\mathrm{d}0.55`$, $`k_\mathrm{d}0.4`$ $`t_\mathrm{u}0.7`$, $`k_\mathrm{d}0.65`$. On the contrary, no lower bound arises from our analysis. The models explicitly discussed in the text lie in the highly populated region, even if near its boundary.

In the non Abelian scenario, namely when we (only) assume the (1,1), (1,3) and (3,1) entries to be zero, much stronger constraints can be set; also strong correlations between exponents of the down and up sectors arise. The naive $`U(2)`$ predictions appear ruled out. Instead, two alternative scenarios are suggested by current data: one where $`d_\mathrm{d}`$ is preferably around $`0.25`$. This value contradicts the naive $`U(2)`$ prediction $`d_\mathrm{d}=1`$. At the same time $`r_\mathrm{d}1,`$ and that requires an asymmetric texture $`M_{32}^\mathrm{d}M_{23}^\mathrm{d}`$. This agrees with the analysis  . Such large $`M_{32}^\mathrm{d}`$ , in GUT theories , implies a large (2,3) entry in the neutrino Dirac mass which, in turn, favours a large mixing in the atmospheric neutrinos .

A second scenario allows us to keep the same hierachies as in the naive $`U(2)`$ , but with a slight (left-right) asymmetry in the (1,2) (2,1) entries (both in the up sector and in the down sector). Namely $`|M_{12}^\mathrm{u}|2|M_{21}^\mathrm{u}|`$ and $`|M_{12}^\mathrm{d}|0.7|M_{21}^\mathrm{d}|`$ .

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank P. Binetruy for very helpful discussion. During this work, we have also benefited from very interesting discussions at the GDR workshop.