text:
# Is B1422+231 a Golden Lens?

## 1 Introduction

One of the most attractive things about lensed quasars is the possibility of measuring the distance scale without any local calibrators. If the source is variable and the variation is observed in different images with time delays then a formula of the type

$`\text{time delay}`$ $`=`$ $`h^1z_\mathrm{L}(1+z_\mathrm{L})`$
$`\times `$ $`\text{1 month}\times \text{image separation in arcsec}^2`$
$`\times `$ $`\text{lens-profile dependent factor}`$
(where $`z_\mathrm{L}`$ is the lens redshift) applies. This formula depends weakly on the source redshift (the time delay gets somewhat shorter if the source is not very much further than the lens) and on cosmology (for the same $`h`$ an Einstein-de Sitter cosmology gives long time delays, an open universe gives short time delays, with the currently favored flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-cosmology being intermediate); but these dependencies are at the 10% level or less. The troublesome term is the lens-profile dependent factor, which is of order unity but for a given lens can be uncertain by a factor of two or more. So while the basic theory is well established (Refsdal, 1964), measuring $`h`$ from lensing is still problematic. Meanwhile the search for well-constrained lenses continues, and lensed-quasar aficionados speak of them as “golden lenses” (Williams and Schechter, 1997).

In this paper, we study a particularly interesting lens: B1422+231 was discovered in the JVAS survey (Patnaik et al., 1992) and consists of four images of a quasar at $`z_\mathrm{S}=3.62`$ lensed by an elliptical galaxy at $`z_\mathrm{L}=0.334`$ (Impey et al., 1996; Kochanek et al., 1998) with several nearby galaxies at the same redshift (Kundić et al., 1997; Tonry, 1998). It is especially interesting for four reasons. First, while external shear from other group galaxies is important in most four-image lenses, unlike other well-studied quads, B1422 is dominated by external shear. Second, the lensing-galaxy group can be detected directly from its X-ray emission. Third, VLBI imaging of the quasar core (Patnaik et al., 1999) gives information on not just the flux ratios but on the tensor magnification ratios. And fourth, a time delay between two images has been reported (Patnaik & Narasimha, 2001).

## 2 Summary of previous observations

### 2.1 Image configuration

The quad has three images with $`V=16.5`$ to $`17`$ nearly in a straight line, and a fourth image with $`V=20`$ on the other side of the galaxy (see Fig. 1). The maximum image separation is $`1.3^{\prime \prime }`$. Examining the image configuration and following the ideas of Blandford & Narayan (1986) on classification of images, we can work out some basic properties of the system.

First, although time delays are very uncertain, and predictions are model-dependent, the ordering of arrival times is easily inferable from the image positions and is model-independent. Thus the images can be labeled 1,2,3,4, by increasing light-travel time. Figure 1 does so. We will refer to individual images by these time-order labels.

Second, the image configuration is noticeably elongated along NE/SW. Such elongation generically indicates (Williams and Saha, 2000) that the lensing potential is significantly elongated along NW/SE. Since the main lensing galaxy is an elliptical, and cannot generate so much shear by itself, we must immediately suspect a large external shear.

### 2.2 External shear

Apart from qualitative evidence from the morphology, the importance of external shear in this case is further supported by the observations of galaxy group members, and a comparison with the PG1115 group. The two groups are rather similar (see Kundić et al. 1997 for comparison) including number of galaxies in the group, and the distance of the main lensing galaxy from the group’s center, about $`15^{\prime \prime }`$. But the apparent magnitude, and presumably the associated mass of $`G`$ in B1422 compared to magnitudes (and masses) of most of the other group members is small ($`V_G=21.5`$ vs. $`V_{G2}=20.4`$, $`V_{G3}=20.0`$, $`V_{G4}=21.6`$, $`V_{G5}=20.3`$), whereas in PG1115, $`G`$ is comparable in brightness to other group members ($`R_G=20.2`$ vs. $`R_{G1}=19.0`$, $`R_{G2}=20.0`$, $`R_{G3}=20.5`$). We conclude that external shear is more important in B1422 than in PG1115, and most other 4-image cases.

We can roughly estimate the magnitude of the shear. For a group or a cluster, the angular radius of the Einstein ring is

$$\theta _\mathrm{E}2\mathrm{}\times \frac{\sigma _v^2}{\left(300\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\right)^2},$$

where $`\sigma _v^2`$ is the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the cluster. The external shear due to this cluster (modeled as an isothermal sphere) is $`\gamma \theta _E/\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the distance of the group center from the main lensing galaxy. Depending on whether $`G3`$ is included or excluded in the determination of the group’s velocity dispersion, $`\sigma _v`$ is $`550\pm 50`$km s-1 or $`240\pm 60`$km s-1. Folding in the uncertainty in the location of the group’s center, between $`10^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`14^{\prime \prime }`$, the maximum and minimum estimates of the external shear are $`\gamma =0.67`$ and $`0.09`$. Consistent with these bounds, other workers have fitted models that require $`\gamma =0.25`$ (Hogg & Blandford, 1994) and $`\gamma 0.1`$ (Kormann, Schneider & Bartelmann, 1994). Using an elliptical potential model Witt & Mao (1997) derive a lower limit to the external shear of 0.11. Thus, by all accounts, the external shear plays a central role in B1422.

### 2.3 Magnification

The radio fluxes of the images 1,2,3 and 4 are in the ratio 16:30:33:1 at 8.4 GHz and similar at other radio frequencies (Patnaik et al., 1999; Ros et al., 2001), whereas the flux ratios in the optical and near-infrared are 8:13:16:1 (Yee & Bechtold, 1996; Lawrence et al., 1992). Reddening by the lensing galaxy is unlikely because the flux ratios do not change much between different optical wavebands. Microlensing due to stars is also unlikely because the flux ratio of images 2:3 stayed the same while both images changed in brightness (Srianand & Narasimha, private communication). This suggests that millilensing may be taking place, i.e., lensing by substructure of scale intermediate between individual stars and the whole galaxy (Mao & Schneider, 1998). If that is the case then radio fluxes are probing larger structure in the galaxy than the immediate neighborhood of the images.

Previous models,111Some models assume $`z_\mathrm{L}=0.6`$ (based on an earlier, incorrectly measured redshift) rather than the value we use here, namely $`z_\mathrm{L}=0.334`$ (Impey et al., 1996). The correction of the redshift implies only a scale-change for these models. In particular, the time delays predicted by these models must be multiplied by 0.52. while agreeing about the direction of external shear, have been unable to to reproduce the observed flux ratios (Hogg & Blandford, 1994; Kormann, Schneider & Bartelmann, 1994; Keeton, Kochanek & Seljak, 1997; Witt & Mao, 1997).

VLBI maps by Patnaik et al. (1999) show different shapes and sizes for each image of the quasar core. It is tempting to identify the ellipticity and area of the core in each image with the relative tensor magnification; but the quoted area ratios of 1.34:1.47:1.34:1 are very different from the flux ratios, so such an identification would be incorrect. Evidently, the mapped core in image 4 corresponds to a larger area on the source than the mapped cores in images 1–3. Still, we would like to incorporate some information from these remarkable VLBI maps into our mass models. So in this paper we will adopt a compromise: we take the ellipticities of the mapped cores as the ellipticity corresponding to the magnification tensor, but we disregard the areas of the mapped cores and take the fluxes as corresponding to the scalar magnification. (How this works operationally is explained below, with equation 2.) The image and magnification data we use for modeling are collated in Table 1.

We remark that since the unlensed flux is unknown, the absolute magnifications are also unknown. This unknown factor is a manifestation of the mass disk degeneracy—see Saha (2000) and references therein.

## 3 Chandra X-ray observation of the group

Redshifts of six galaxies, including that of the lens, indicate that the lens is a member of a compact group whose line-of-sight velocity dispersion is 550 km/s and median projected radius $`35h^1`$ kpc (Kundić et al., 1997). A Faraday rotation corresponding to a rotation measure of $`280\pm 20`$ rad m-2 (Patnaik et al., 1999) between images 2 and 3 is much larger than expected from an elliptical galaxy and further supports the presence of a group around the lens.

We show here the unambiguous detection of diffuse X-ray emission from hot gas belonging to this group in a Chandra observation. Previously, from a ROSAT HRI observation, Siebert and Brinkmann (1998) had found “no evidence of extended emission” over and above the $`5^{\prime \prime }`$ PSF of the HRI. Figure 2 shows the 28 ks Chandra ACIS-S observation represented as contours superposed on the HST image taken with the NICMOS (H-band) by the CASTLES team (Kochanek et al., 2000), where the four images, and well as the lens galaxy, are distinctly seen. There is clearly an astrometric offset between the HST and Chandra images, which we have made no attempt to correct for. However, we can safely assume that the two peaks in the X-ray distribution correspond to images 2 and 3 (brighter) and 1. The diffuse emission outside the source images is softer, and extends to a scale of about 3 arcsec, which corresponds to about $`9h^1`$ kpc at the lens redshift $`z=0.334`$.

B1422 was observed with the ACIS-S instrument on board the Chandra observatory on 2000 June 1 for 28.8 ks, the data being collected on the back-illuminated S3 CCD. We applied the standard data processing techniques recommended by the Chandra X-Ray Center (CXC), including the recent task ACISABS, to correct for the absorption, predominantly at softer energies, caused by molecular contamination of the ACIS optical blocking filters. Since the exposure time is long enough, we reprocessed the data without randomizing the event positions, which improved the point-spread function. Periods of high background were filtered out, leaving 28.4 ks of usable data.

To separate the spectrum of the source quasar from that of the lensing galaxy group, we isolated circular areas of radius 0.7 arcsec around each of the three QSO images and extracted the spectrum of the quasar. The power-law fit (together with Galactic absorption) to it yielded a power-law of slope 1.41 with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ statistic of 0.9. There was no evidence of extra absorption at the redshift of the quasar. We then fixed the slope of the power law, and fitted a model of thermal bremsstrahlung plasma (Raymond-Smith) plus the quasar power-law spectrum to the rest of the X-ray emission, keeping the normalization of both components free, but fixing elemental abundance to 0.3 solar (reasonable for a group or cluster of galaxies). A fit to the data in the range 0.5-6 keV yielded a temperature of 0.71 keV for the group of galaxies, which translates into a velocity dispersion range of 150-450 km s-1 (Helsdon & Ponman, 2000), consistent with the observed dispersion of 550, or 240km s-1(depending on whether $`G3`$ is included or not). The fits were performed with the CXC software package SHERPA.

The $`MT_X`$ relation (mass vs. x-ray temperature) for virialized isothermal systems of galaxies, for mass within a radius $`0.3R_{\mathrm{virial}}`$, gives a mass of $`3.6\times 10^{12}M_{}`$ for the above temperature (Sanderson et al., 2003). The V-magnitude of the main lensing galaxy is $`m_V=21.5`$ (Kundić et al., 1997), which after correction for colour evolution (Bruzual, 2001) and $`k`$-correction (Frei & Gunn, 1994) yields a luminosity of $`L_B=1.9\times 10^{10}h_{75}^2L_{B,}`$ and a mass-to-light ratio of $`M/L_B=190h_{75}`$, far larger than that of a single galaxy. The bolometric X-ray flux of the diffuse emission is $`L_X=2\times 10^{42}`$ erg s-1, which means $`\mathrm{log}(L_X/L_B)=32`$, also much larger than typical values for galaxies (Helsdon et al., 2001). We therefore conclude that the diffuse emission detected by Chandra belongs to the group of galaxies the lens is a part of.

## 4 A simplified model

Significant external shear combined with the fortuitous positioning of the QSO source along the same line as the group and the center of the main lensing galaxy (this alignment is a robust feature in all models for this system) transforms the case of images 3 and 4 of B1422 into a one-dimensional problem. As we now show this makes the problem much better constrained than a generic 4(+1) image system.

Consider a simplified analytic model of an axisymmetric lens, with the QSO source, lens, group center, and the images all lying on the $`x`$-axis. Let the mass distribution in the main galaxy lens around the image-ring be given by a power law, $`\rho x^\alpha `$. Its contribution to the lensing potential is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{gal}}x^{2\alpha }`$, and the deflection angle is $`d\mathrm{\Phi }/dx=\pm Ax^{1\alpha }`$, where $`+`$ ($``$) stands for the image formed on the positive (negative) $`x`$-axis, and $`A`$ lumps together all the constants. The total lensing potential is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{A}{(2\alpha )}x^{2\alpha }+\frac{\gamma }{2}x^2,$$

where we have discarded terms that are zero on the $`x`$-axis. The lens equation is

$$x_I(\gamma 1)\pm Ax_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{1\alpha }+x_S=0.$$

If we define $`f_1=x_I(\gamma 1)+x_S`$ and $`f_2=Ax_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{1\alpha }`$ and plot them against lens plane coordinate $`x`$, then images are formed at the intersections. The four panels of Fig. 4 show models with four different combinations of ($`\gamma `$, $`\alpha `$): $`(0.075,0.48)`$, $`(0.2,0.96)`$, $`(0.475,1.36)`$, and $`(0.725,1.9)`$. All these models satisfy the locations of images 3 and 4, and the condition that image 4 arrives after 3. The vertical offset of $`f_1`$ is the source location, $`x_S`$, while external shear makes $`f_1`$ shallower. The difference in galacto-centric distances of images 3 and 4 is given by $`|x_3+x_4|`$.

Figure 4 graphically demonstrates that in a system where images are formed at very different galacto-centric distances (like 3 and 4 in B1422) there is a limit to the shallowness of the galaxy’s density profile index, $`\alpha `$. It is clear from the figure that some non-zero $`x_S`$ is needed to produce large $`|x_3+x_4|`$. For shallow density profiles (such as the one in the upper left panel) $`f_2`$ tends to become the diagonal through the II and IV quadrant. This makes it very difficult to have $`f_2`$ intersect $`f_1`$ while keeping $`|x_3+x_4|`$ large. The lower limit on $`\alpha `$ is around $`0.5`$.

The figure also shows that $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ in B1422 are correlated: as profile slopes get steeper, shear must increase as well. For $`\alpha >1`$ (profile steeper than isothermal) $`f_2`$ become hyperbolic, and a substantial flattening of $`f_1`$ (i.e. large external shear) is required to produce large $`|x_3+x_4|`$. Note that large shear is necessary for this; a large $`x_S`$ by itself is not sufficient.

As long as profile is steeper than a minimum $`\alpha `$ value, one-dimensional lensing case does not prefer large $`\gamma `$, large $`\alpha `$ solutions over small $`\gamma `$, small $`\alpha `$: in Fig. 4 $`(\gamma ,\alpha )=(0.075,0.48)`$ is as good a fit as $`(0.725,1.9)`$. However, when we consider two dimensions, images 1 and 2, set an upper limit on the external shear because too large a shear will tend to place images 1, 2 and 3 in a straight line, perpendicular to the direction towards external shear. Since observed images 1,2 and 3 are not in a straight line, the shear is constrained from above. Furthermore, if the tensor magnification information is included in modeling (as is done in Section 5) the relative orientation of these for images 1 and 2 also reduced the amplitude of possible shear.

We can intuitively understand the effect of external shear on the time delays $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ as follows. If the shear source is far from the image region, the shear can be represented by constant external shear, which provides linear deflection angles at the images. It corresponds to tilting the side of the arrival-time surface closest to the source of the shear upwards, which moves the zero points in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ away from the shear source. Images lying on the line through the shear source, QSO source and the main galaxy are most affected by this tilting (images 3 and 4 in B1422), while those lying perpendicular to that line are least affected (1 and 2). Thus images 3 and 4 give a well constrained $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, precisely because they are most sensitive to external shear.

To sum up, the fortuitous geometry of B1422 and large external shear imply a relation between profile slope and shear magnitude, and impose a limit on the shallowness of the profile slope of $`\alpha 0.5`$, or a lower limit on shear of $`\gamma 0.1`$, consistent with the shear estimates based on the physical properties of the group (Section 2.2). In addition, images 1 and 2 impose a limit on the steepness of the profile slope (through an upper limit on shear). As a result, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$ should be well constrained.

## 5 Pixelated models

We now consider more detailed models of galaxy mass distribution in the lens plane.

Given the difficulties caused to previous models of B1422 by the observed flux ratios, and especially since we now need to fit tensor magnifications, it is clear that more general models than those are necessary. Moreover, to properly estimate uncertainties, it is necessary to explore not just a few models but large ensembles of them.222“Aggressively explore all other classes of models” in the words of Blandford & Kundić (1996). The pixelated lens reconstruction method, as developed in Saha & Williams (1997) and Williams and Saha (2000), was designed for this purpose. The idea is to model the lens as a sum of mass tiles or pixels, with two kinds of constraints: the “primary constraints” are that the lensing data should be fitted exactly; “secondary constraints” require the mass distribution to be centrally concentrated, not excessively elongated, and optionally inversion-symmetric. Here we follow the method of generating ensembles of models as detailed in the latter paper, but with two minor modifications necessitated by the type of data.

The first modification is needed because the time delay measurements are currently very uncertain. So instead of including them, we run the reconstruction code with one time delay ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$, say) set to a fiducial value $`d_{\mathrm{fid}}`$. The code then generates an ensemble of models, each model having its own $`h`$ and its own set of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}`$. Because of the scaling properties of the lensing problem, the only dependence of the results on $`d_{\mathrm{fid}}`$ will be that all the model $`h^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}`$ will be proportional to it. Hence $`h\mathrm{\Delta }t_{ij}`$ will be independent of $`d_{\mathrm{fid}}`$.

A second modification is needed to incorporate tensor magnifications. To do this, we first reconstruct the magnification matrix M at each image position from the data in Table 1. We have

$$𝐌=𝐑(\omega )\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{Mr}& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{M/r}\end{array}\right)𝐑(\omega )$$
(2)
where $`M`$ is the scalar magnification (proportional to the flux), $`r`$ is the axis ratio (if we assume the source is circular), $`\omega `$ is the orientation ($`\mathrm{PA}+90^{}`$), and R is a rotation matrix. The signs of the square roots in equation 2 depend on image parity: for minima both roots will be positive; for saddle points one will be negative. Having reconstructed M at the image positions, we write the observed upper and lower bounds on the axis ratio as bounds on the ratio of the diagonal elements of M (see AbdelSalam et al. (1998) for an application of this technique to arclets in cluster lensing). Having constrained the axis ratio, we set the flux ratio by introducing a fictitious quad slightly displaced from the actual one; in particular, fictitious images displaced by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _x\\ \mathrm{\Delta }\theta _y\end{array}\right)=𝐌\left(\begin{array}{c}ϵ\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
correspond to a fictitious source displaced by $`ϵ`$ along the $`x`$-axis of the source plane. The code is not told $`ϵ`$ itself, just the displacements it maps to; in this way the magnification ratios are constrained, but not the absolute magnifications.

We have generated three ensembles of models. Each ensemble contains 100 models sampling the allowed ‘model space’ given a certain set of constraints.

The first ensemble uses the data from Table 1, together with the generic secondary constraints (Williams and Saha, 2000) including inversion symmetry of galaxy-lens. Figure 6 shows the ensemble-average mass map, while Fig. 6 shows the distribution of predicted time delays. (The ‘radial profile index’ in Fig. 6 corresponds approximately to $`\alpha `$ in the previous section.) The qualitative results are just as expected from our preceding discussion: (i) images 1,2,3 are very close in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, with 4 arriving much later; (ii) $`\alpha `$ is nearly confined to a narrow range 0.6–0.8; (iii) while $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$ has a broad peak with median $`7.3h`$ days, it is much better constrained than in models of other well-studied quads (Williams and Saha, 2000).

For the second ensemble we dropped the inversion-symmetry constraint. Figures 8 and 8 show the results. Qualitatively, the results are similar, but the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$ shifts to a higher range (median $`12.4h`$ days). One must keep in mind that observed image properties tightly constrain the position angle of the shear, not its radial location. So non-inversion-symmetric modeling of lens systems with large external shear will produce mass profiles that are artificially elongated towards the source of external shear. This is seen in Fig. 8. The elongation results because the model cannot decide how far away to place the source of the shear. Thus, for systems with non-disturbed galaxy lenses and large external shear the inversion-symmetric models are probably somewhat more trustworthy than non-inversion-symmetric ones.

For the third ensemble we put back the inversion-symmetry constraint, but drop the magnification constraint. Figure 9 shows the time-delay predictions. (The ensemble-average mass map looks similar to Fig. 6 and we have not included it here.) Comparison of Fig. 9 and Fig. 6 shows what magnification information adds to modeling. Basically, magnification measurements put constraints on the mass distribution in the neighborhood of the images. Time delays between nearby images becomes better constrained. Thus Fig. 9 has a much larger spread in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{23}`$ than Fig. 6. Without magnifications, some models’ $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{23}`$ can become zero: magnifications for the images in question can get arbitrarily large, effectively merging those images. Also, the upper bound on $`\alpha `$ that we argue comes from images 1 and 2 is greatly weakened. On the other hand, time delays between distant images is hardly affected: as anticipated in Section 4, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$ in Fig. 9 has a median ($`7.8h`$ days) and range very similar to those in Fig. 6.

## 6 Conclusions

In the Introduction, we mentioned four unusual features that make B1422 a particularly interesting lens. We now summarize what the results of this paper indicate about each of these features.

First, we have the surprising result that being dominated by external shear from group galaxies makes the lens better constrained. The predicted time delays, in particular the longest delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$, though it has a broad range, is narrower than in other comparable systems. The fortuitous alignment of the source displacement and the shear appears to help.

Second, one detail of the group contribution is important. Of two situations: (i) the lensing galaxy has $`180^{}`$-rotation symmetry and the shear comes from relatively distant group members, and (ii) the lensing galaxy is asymmetric and elongated along the group direction, the second case gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$ 50% longer. Optical and X-ray (see Fig. 2) images of the galaxy and group are not conclusive on this point.

Third, tensor magnifications from fluxes and VLBI constrain time delays between nearby images; but remarkably they have no discernible effect on longer time delays, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}`$. The physical reason is not hard to appreciate: magnification is essentially the second derivative of the time delay, hence time delays between widely separated images tend to wash out the sort of local variations of density that cause differences in magnifications.

Fourth, comparison with time-delay measurements is still problematic at present. Patnaik & Narasimha (2001) report $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}=7.6\pm 2.5\mathrm{d}`$, whereas our reconstructions predict $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}0.4h\mathrm{d}`$. The difficulty is that our predicted values would not be expected to show up in the Patnaik & Narasimha data, which sample at $`4\mathrm{d}`$; instead, aliases of our predicted values would show up. Even with closely-sampled data, a $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}0.4h\mathrm{d}`$ is unlikely to be measurable because it would need intrinsic brightness variations on the scale of hours. On the other hand, the predicted $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{34}510\mathrm{d}`$ is a convenient length for measurements; but unfortunately it involves image 4, whose flux is $`30`$ times smaller.

In summary, we conclude that B1422 is a very interesting lens, but probably not the sought-after golden lens.

We thank the CASTLES team (Kochanek et al., 1998) for supplying us with the near-IR HST/NICMOS image used in Fig. 2.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The recent SuperKamiokande ,  and KamLAND  data have provided increasingly strong evidence for oscillations between active neutrino flavors. Namely, the atmospheric neutrino deficit is due to (near) maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations with

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2310^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(1)
while the preferred solution for the solar neutrino anomaly is the large mixing angle (LMA) solution with $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ oscillations, such that

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }0.8,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^210^4\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(2)
These developments require a physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). The most popular extension is the introduction of right handed (SM singlet) neutrinos with superheavy Majorana masses, which induce suppressed neutrino masses through the see-saw mechanism . A consistent framework for the solution of the gauge hierarchy problem is provided by supersymmetry which leads one to think that a supersymmetric GUT theories such as $`SO(10)`$  are quite compelling. In building realistic models, in addition to the neutrino data, one should also take into account the charged fermion sector and see how these two sectors blend together. The three quark-lepton families display a clear intergeneration hierarchy. Only the top quark mass \[$`m_t=(174.3\pm 5.1)`$ GeV\] is close to the electro-weak symmetry breaking scale, which means that the top Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _t1`$. Introducing the parameter $`ϵ0.2`$ (close in value to the Cabibbo angle $`V_{us}`$) one can express the hierarchies between the Yukawa couplings as follows:

$$\lambda _t1,\lambda _u:\lambda _c:\lambda _tϵ^8:ϵ^4:1,$$
(3)
$$\lambda _b\lambda _\tau ,\lambda _d:\lambda _s:\lambda _bϵ^4:ϵ^2:1,$$
(4)
$$\lambda _e:\lambda _\mu :\lambda _\tau ϵ^5:ϵ^2:1.$$
(5)
As far as the CKM mixing angles are concerned, they have relatively small values

$$V_{us}ϵ,V_{cb}ϵ^2,V_{ub}ϵ^3.$$
(6)
It is a challenging task to provide a compelling framework for understanding the origin of the small CKM mixing angles in (6) versus the large neutrino mixings. The hierarchies in (3)-(5) also should be adequately understood. Some flavor symmetry is well motivated in this context, and one simple choice is provided by an abelian $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry, which can be successful in building the desired charged fermion ,  and neutrino - sectors. With a $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry, the variety of textures for neutrino mass matrices can be constructed, giving either maximal or large neutrino mixings. This has been pursued within $`\nu `$MSSM , meaning that MSSM is augmented by right handed neutrinos (models such as $`SO(10)`$ , $`G_{422}SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$  etc. automatically introduce right handed neutrinos) and $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry, and in some cases yields interesting predictions. The same approach has been used in realistic GUTs such as $`SU(5)`$ , $`SO(10)`$ , $`G_{422}`$ , flipped $`SU(5)`$ , pseudo-Goldstone $`SU(6)`$  and $`E_6`$ . A $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry was also used within $`SU(6)\times U(1)`$ , $`SU(3)_c\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$  and $`SU(6)\times SU(2)`$ 333These three groups can emerge through $`E_6`$ breaking ,  and have interesting phenomenological implications..

An interesting possibility, different from models relying on specific textures to obtain large neutrino mixings is the so-called democratic approach , , , in which all flavors of left handed lepton doublets $`l_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =1,2,3`$ is a generation index) transform identically under $`𝒰(1)`$. That is, the flavor symmetry does not distinguish neutrino flavors and consequently one naturally expects large mixings between them. At the same time, the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry is still crucial for understanding hierarchies between charged fermion masses and the CKM mixing angles. It was shown in  that within the MSSM, neutrino democracy nicely blends with the charged fermion sector, but within $`SU(5)`$ one encounters difficulties. Namely, with $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry and neutrino democracy, $`SU(5)`$ GUT with minimal matter content gives unacceptably small $`V_{us}`$($`ϵ^31/125`$). The root of this problem is in unified $`SU(5)`$ multiplets where the quark-lepton states come from. Similar difficulty can also be expected in other GUTs with matter states embedded in a single GUT representation. It is possible to avoid this problem either by considering extended GUTs such as flipped $`SU(5)`$  or constructing $`SU(5)`$ GUT in five dimensions . With a minimal matter sector these theories typically yield unsatisfactory Yukawa matrices, such as $`\widehat{M}_d^{(0)}=\widehat{M}_e^{(0)}`$ in $`SU(5)`$, and $`\widehat{M}_u^{(0)}\widehat{M}_d^{(0)}=\widehat{M}_e^{(0)}`$, $`\widehat{V}_{CKM}=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in $`SO(10)`$. This indicates the need for an extended matter sector as one possible way to resolve these problems.

We also note that orbifold constructions - turn out to be very efficient and powerful in resolving GUT problems such as doublet-triplet (DT) splitting, nucleon stability, unwanted asymptotic relations, GUT symmetry breaking etc. For earlier attempt within superstring derived models see for instance ref. . In addition, the five dimensional setting offers an economical way to realize neutrino democracy as well as the desired charged fermion pattern . Within the orbifold construction, different ways for realizing large neutrino mixings in the presence of $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry were considered in , . The scenarios with democratic approach have some peculiar features which can be tested in future experiments. Namely, models with democracy between $`l_\alpha `$ states predict that BR$`(\mu e\gamma )`$BR$`(\tau \mu \gamma )`$BR $`(\tau e\gamma )`$. Also, SUSY GUT democratic scenarios yield nucleon decay with emission of charged leptons $`e,\mu `$ with comparable partial lifetimes $`\tau (pKe)\tau (pK\mu )`$. This would distinguish them from models in which the process $`pK\mu `$ dominates.

In this paper we present a 5D SUSY $`SO(10)`$ GUT augmented with $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry. By orbifold compactification, on one of the fixed points we realize the gauge symmetry $`G_{422}`$ 444Obtaining the $`G_{422}`$ model from higher dimensional $`SU(4)_c\times SU(4)_{L+R}`$ and $`SO(12)`$ GUTs was discussed in , . To implement neutrino democracy and obtain realistic charged fermion masses, some additional matter states play a crucial role. They can be introduced either in the bulk or directly on the fixed point (so, this model differs from a recently suggested scenario , where an abelian flavor symmetry also plays an important role). Once this extension is done, we find that neutrino democracy is an automatic consequence of the model. Due to left-right symmetry at the fixed point, the mass of the lightest right handed neutrino is predicted to be $`610^{10}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ GeV ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is a ratio of VEVs of the MSSM higgs doublets). This scale can be interesting for understanding the observed baryon asymmetry either through thermal or inflationary leptogenesis , , . The question of nucleon decay is also addressed and it is shown that under certain conditions the nucleon can be absolutely stabile. This may be answer to the question of why the search for proton decay has been unsuccessful (at least so far!). In some other schemes that we consider, dimension six proton decay may be accessible in future experiments. We also discuss rare leptonic decays and some other phenomenological consequences.

## 2 5D SUSY $`SO(10)`$ On An $`S^{(1)}/Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ Orbifold

We consider a supersymmetric (SUSY) $`SO(10)`$ gauge theory in five dimensions (5D) compactified on an $`S^{(1)}/Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ orbifold. In terms of 4D superfields, 5D $`N=1`$ SUSY multiplets correspond to 4D $`N=2`$ supermultiplets. The gauge superfield is $`V_{N=2}=(V,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are vector and chiral superfields respectively, transforming in the adjoint of $`SO(10)`$. For bulk matter and higgs superfields, each chiral state $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is accompanied by its mirror $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, so that they constitute an $`N=2`$ supermultiplet $`𝚽_{N=2}=(\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$. By compactification on $`S^{(1)}/Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$, it is possible to break $`SO(10)G_{422}`$ on one of the fixed points. In terms of $`G_{422}`$, an adjoint $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}`$ of $`SO(10)`$ reads

$$\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}=L(1,3,1)+R(1,1,3)+C(15,1,1)+B(6,2,2),$$
(7)
where the transformation properties under $`G_{422}`$ are indicated.

The fifth space-like coordinate $`y`$ of 5D parameterizes a compact circle $`S^{(1)}`$ with radius $`R`$, and the orbifold parities act as follows: $`Z_2:yy`$, $`Z_2^{}:y^{}y^{}`$ ($`y^{}=y+\pi R/2`$). Under $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$, the bulk states have definite parities $`(P,P^{})=(+,+),(+,),(,+),(,)`$. The KK masses of the corresponding states are

$$2n\mu _0,(2n+1)\mu _0,(2n+1)\mu _0,(2n+2)\mu _0,$$
(8)
where $`\mu _0=1/R`$ and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ denotes the quantum number of the KK state in mode expansion. From (8) one observes that only states with $`(+,+)`$ parity contain zero modes, while the remaining states acquire masses $`\mu _0`$.

The various components from $`V(45)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(45)`$ are assigned the following $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parities:

$$(V_C,V_L,V_R)(+,+),V_B(,+),$$

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }_C,\mathrm{\Sigma }_L,\mathrm{\Sigma }_R)(,),\mathrm{\Sigma }_B(+,).$$
(9)
At the fixed point $`y=0`$, we have the residual gauge symmetry $`G_{422}`$, while at the fixed point $`\pi R/2`$ we find a $`SO(10)`$ symmetry. Both at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R/2`$, we also have 4D $`N=1`$ SUSY leftover from the original 5D $`N=1`$ SUSY.

In order to build the fermion sector at $`y=0`$ and arrange for $`G_{422}`$ breaking down to the MSSM, we should introduce matter and higgs superfields. It turns out that by introduction of appropriate states in the bulk, it is possible to obtain the desired zero mode representations of $`G_{422}`$ . For this, one needs to introduce additional states , the so-called ’copies’ (see $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ and $`3^{\mathrm{rd}}`$ in ref. ) in the bulk. Namely, we introduce $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{N=2}^F=(16^F,\overline{16}^F)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{N=2}^{F^c}=(16^{F^c},\overline{16}^{F^c})`$ (for each generation) where, under $`G_{422}`$

$$16^F=F(4,2,1)+F^c^{}(\overline{4},1,2),16^{F^c}=F^{^{}}(4,2,1)+F^c(\overline{4},1,2),$$
(10)
and similarly for $`\overline{16}^F`$, $`\overline{16}^{F^c}`$. With the parity prescriptions

$$(F,F^c)(+,+),(F^{^{}},F^c^{})(,+),$$
(11)
and opposite parities for the corresponding mirrors, taking into account (9), one can verify that $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ is a symmetry of the whole 5D Lagrangian. According to (11), at $`y=0`$ we have the zero modes of $`F`$, $`F^c`$ states, which effectively constitute an anomaly free $`16`$-plet of $`SO(10)`$. As far as the higgs sector is concerned, the breaking of $`G_{422}`$ to MSSM proceeds through the VEVs of $`H^c`$, $`\overline{H}^c`$ states, where the transformation $`H^c`$ under $`G_{422}`$ is indicated in (10). The zero modes of these states are obtained by introducing the supermultiplets $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{N=2}^{H^c}=(16^{H^c},\overline{16}^{H^c})`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{N=2}^{\overline{H}^c}=(16^{\overline{H}^c},\overline{16}^{\overline{H}^c})`$, where

$$16^{H^c}=H+H^c,\overline{16}^{H^c}=\overline{H}+\overline{H}^c^{},16^{\overline{H}^c}=H^{}+H^c^{},\overline{16}^{\overline{H}^c}=\overline{H}^{}+\overline{H}^c.$$
(12)
With the parity assignments

$$(H^c,\overline{H}^c)(+,+),(H,\overline{H}^{})(,+),(H^{},\overline{H})(+,),(H^c^{},\overline{H}^c^{})(,),$$
(13)
the $`H^c`$, $`\overline{H}^c`$ will contain zero modes.

As far as the bi-doublet $`h`$ (containing the MSSM higgs doublets) of $`G_{422}`$ is concerned, it comes from the $`10`$-plet of $`SO(10)`$. In 5D we introduce $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{N=2}^h=(10^h,\overline{10}^h)`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{N=2}^D=(10^D,\overline{10}^D)`$, where in terms of $`G_{422}`$,

$$10^h=h(1,2,2)+D^{}(6,1,1),10^D=h^{}(1,2,2)+D(6,1,1),$$
(14)
while $`\overline{10}^h`$, $`\overline{10}^D`$ have conjugate decompositions. With $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parity assignments

$$(h,D)(+,+),(h^{},D^{})(,+),$$
(15)
and opposite parities for the corresponding mirrors, at the $`y=0`$ brane (fixed point) we find non-vanishing zero modes from the $`h`$, $`D`$ states.

It turns out that the $`G_{422}`$ model with minimal field content encounters difficulties in realizing a realistic fermion sector. To cure this problem, following , we introduce in the bulk three families of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{N=2}^f=(10^f,\overline{10}^f)`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{N=2}^g=(10^g,\overline{10}^g)`$ states where, under the $`G_{422}`$,

$$10^f=f(1,2,2)+g^{}(6,1,1),10^g=f^{}(1,2,2)+g(6,1,1).$$
(16)
With parities

$$(f,g)(+,+),(f^{},g^{})(,+)$$
(17)
and opposite parities for corresponding mirrors, three families of $`f`$ and $`g`$ have zero mode states.

In summary, we have shown how zero modes of desired $`G_{422}`$ representations can be obtained from the bulk supermultiplets. Indeed, one can introduce the needed zero modes directly at the $`y=0`$ fixed point. For building the fermion sector and studying its phenomenology the 4D superpotential terms which we consider below are important. The heavy bulk states do not affect our conclusions which are therefore robust. Finally, the $`G_{422}`$ representations which contain zero modes and with which we will deal below are the matter states:

$$F_\alpha (4,2,1),F_\alpha ^c(\overline{4},1,2),f_\alpha (1,2,2),g_\alpha (6,1,1),$$
(18)
($`\alpha `$ is the family index), and the ’scalar’ supermultiplets:

$$H^c(\overline{4},1,2),\overline{H}^c(4,1,\overline{2}),h(1,2,2),D(6,1,1).$$
(19)
## 3 Model At Fixed Point $`y=0`$

Five dimensional SUSY does not allow Yukawa and higgs superpotential couplings in the bulk. Because of this, we will construct the 4D theory at the fixed point $`y=0`$. We employ the 4D superfield notation after appropriate rescaling from 5D fields.

The breaking of $`G_{422}`$ to $`G_{321}`$ can occur through the $`H^c`$, $`\overline{H}^c`$ states of (19). These states contain the MSSM singlets $`\nu _H^c`$, $`\overline{\nu }_H^c`$, whose non-zero VEVs break the $`G_{422}`$ to the $`G_{321}`$ . In fact, these VEVs break $`SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_R`$ to $`SU(3)_c\times U(1)_Y`$, where $`SU(3)_c`$ is a subgroup of $`SU(4)_c`$, while $`U(1)_Y`$ is a superposition of two $`U(1)`$ factors coming from $`SU(4)_c`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$

$$Y=\sqrt{\frac{2}{5}}Y_{SU(4)_c}+\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}Y_{SU(2)_R},$$
(20)
where $`Y_{SU(4)_c}`$ and $`Y_{SU(2)_R}`$ are generators of $`SU(4)_c`$ and $`SU(2)_R`$ respectively

$$Y_{SU(4)_c}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{24}}\mathrm{Diag}(1,1,1,3),Y_{SU(2)_R}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Diag}(1,1).$$
(21)
In (20), the $`Y`$ hypercharge is given in the ’standard’ $`SU(5)`$ normalization

$$Y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{60}}\mathrm{Diag}(2,2,2,3,3).$$
(22)
Another superposition, orthogonal to (20), is broken by $`\nu _H^c=\overline{\nu }_H^cv`$. In this breaking, nine degrees of freedom from the scalars are genuine Goldstone fields that are absorbed by the appropriate gauge fields. These nine degrees come from $`\stackrel{~}{u}^c`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}^c`$ (tilde indicates scalar components) and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{u}}^c`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{e}}^c`$ states (from $`H^c`$ and $`\overline{H}^c`$ respectively), plus one superposition of singlets $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_H^c`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{\nu }}_H^c`$. Since these states are complex, there remain nine physical scalars which acquire masses through the D-terms of $`SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_R`$. Their fermionic superpartners acquire masses through mixing with appropriate gauginos after $`G_{422}G_{321}`$ breaking. In this way, the supersymmetric higgs mechanism is realized within the $`G_{422}`$ model. As far as the physical colored triplet $`d_H^c`$, $`\overline{d}_H^c`$ states are concerned, through the couplings $`H^cH^cD`$, $`\overline{H}^c\overline{H}^cD`$, taking into account that $`D=(d_D^c,\overline{d}_D^c)`$, and after substituting the $`\nu _H^c`$, $`\overline{\nu }_H^c`$ VEVs, they decouple with $`\overline{d}_D^c`$, $`d_D^c`$ forming massive states $`vd_H^c\overline{d}_D^c`$, $`v\overline{d}_H^cd_D^c`$ .

### 3.1 Charged Fermion Masses And Mixings

The three families of $`F_\alpha `$, $`F_\alpha ^c`$ states in (18) constitute the minimal matter content of $`G_{422}`$. The Yukawa couplings for the quark and lepton masses are $`Y^{\alpha \beta }F_\alpha F_\beta ^ch`$. Recalling that

$$F=(q,l),F^c=(u^c,d^c,e^c,\nu ^c),h=(h_u,h_d),$$
(23)
these couplings lead to phenomenologically unacceptable asymptotic relations $`\widehat{Y}_u^{(0)}=\widehat{Y}_d^{(0)}=\widehat{Y}_e^{(0)}`$, $`\widehat{V}_{CKM}=1`$. To avoid this, we extend the matter sector of $`G_{422}`$ by invoking the states $`(f+g)_\alpha `$ of (18). The content of the latter reads

$$f=(l_f,\overline{l}_f),g=(d_g^c,\overline{d}_g^c).$$
(24)
This extension is important for building the desired charged fermion sector , and is also crucial for the realization of neutrino democracy. We further introduce a $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry for help in realizing the desired hierarchies. To break $`𝒰(1)`$ we introduce an $`SO(10)`$ singlet superfield $`X`$ with charge $`Q_X=1`$. We assume that the scalar component of $`X`$ develops a VEV

$$\frac{X}{M_f}ϵ0.2,$$
(25)
where $`M_f`$ is the cut-off scale of the theory.

In Table 1 we present the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges for the various states, where $`m`$, $`n`$, $`p`$, $`q`$, $`k`$ are some non negative integers, to be specified below. The charges of $`F`$, $`F^c`$ states are fixed from the values of CKM mixing angles and hierarchies between the up-type quark masses.

With these assignments, the couplings responsible for the generation of up-type quark masses are given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}F_1^c& F_2^c& F_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}F_1\\ F_2\\ F_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^8& ϵ^5& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^7& ϵ^4& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)h,& \end{array}$$
(26)
which, upon diagonalization, yield the desirable hierarchies in (3).

Turning to the down quark and charged lepton sector we will need the $`g_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha `$ states. From (24), $`g`$ and $`f`$ contain fields with the quantum numbers of $`d^c`$ and $`l`$. With the $`𝒰(1)`$ charge prescriptions of Table 1, the couplings are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}g_1& g_2& g_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}F_1^c\\ F_2^c\\ F_3^c\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^5& ϵ^5\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^nH^c.& \end{array}$$
(27)
After substitutution of $`H^c`$, this ensures the decoupling of $`d_{F^c}^c`$ with $`\overline{d^c}_g`$, so that the light $`d_\alpha ^c`$ states reside in $`g_\alpha `$. With the couplings

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}g_1& g_2& g_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}F_1\\ F_2\\ F_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\frac{\overline{H}^c}{M_f}h,& \end{array}$$
(28)
the hierarchies in (4) can be realized. Since the left-handed quark doublets $`q_\alpha `$ reside in $`F_\alpha `$, from (26), (28), one can also expect that the desired values in (6) for CKM matrix elements can be realized.

As far as charged leptons are concerned, with the charge assignments in Table 1, the $`F_\alpha f_\beta H^c`$ type couplings have the structure

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}f_1& f_2& f_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}F_1\\ F_2\\ F_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^2& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^mH^c.& \end{array}$$
(29)
Substituting in (29) the VEV $`H^c`$, one can easily verify that the $`l_F`$ states decouple together with $`\overline{l}_f`$. Therefore, the light left-handed lepton doublets $`l_\alpha `$ arise from $`f_\alpha `$. Since the $`f_\alpha `$ have identical transformation properties under $`𝒰(1)`$, we see that democracy between the $`l`$ states is realized! The couplings responsible for charged lepton masses are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}f_1& f_2& f_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}F_1^c\\ F_2^c\\ F_3^c\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^5& ϵ^5\\ ϵ^2& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\frac{\overline{H}^c}{M_f}h.& \end{array}$$
(30)
Diagonalization of (30) leads to the required hierarchies in (5).

Note that the up quark mass matrix (26) selects $`Q[F_1^c]Q[F_3^c]=5`$, $`Q[F_2^c]Q[F_3^c]=2`$, and since hierarchies between the charged lepton masses are $`\frac{m_e}{m_\tau }ϵ^5`$, $`\frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }ϵ^2`$, this dictates the democratic selection $`Q[f_1]=Q[f_2]=Q[f_3]`$. Thus, we have a natural and selfconsistent realization of neutrino democracy.

Summarizing this subsection, with the help of additional $`(f+g)_\alpha `$ states and $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry, we have obtained the desired charged fermion masses and mixings within 5D SUSY $`SO(10)`$ model with $`G_{422}`$ symmetry realized at the fixed point $`y=0`$. Below we discuss details of the neutrino sector.

### 3.2 Democracy For Bi-large Neutrino Mixings

The right handed $`\nu _\alpha ^c`$ states come from $`F_\alpha ^c`$ with the Dirac couplings given by $`\nu ^c\widehat{Y}_D^\nu lh_u`$. The latter arise from (30), which is also responsible for the charged lepton masses. Thus, due to $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry which relates $`\nu ^c`$ with $`e^c`$ and $`h_u`$ with $`h_d`$, we have

$$\widehat{m}_D^\nu =\widehat{m}_e\mathrm{tan}\beta .$$
(31)
This relation allows us to estimate the Majorana mass of the $`\nu _3^c`$ state which, in turn, is responsible for the generation of the atmospheric neutrino scale. The $`\nu _3^c`$ acquires mass through the coupling

$$ϵ^{2k}\frac{\lambda }{M_f}(F_3^c\overline{H}^c)^2,$$
(32)
which gives

$$M_R^{(3)}=\frac{\lambda ϵ^{2k}}{M_f}\overline{H}^c^2.$$
(33)
Taking into account (31), we have

$$m_{\nu _3}=\frac{[(\widehat{m}_D^\nu )_{33}]^2}{M_R^{(3)}}=\frac{m_\tau ^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{M_R^{(3)}}.$$
(34)
With hierarchical masses for neutrinos (which indeed must be the case for a democratic scenario), we have $`m_{\nu _3}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}`$. Thus,

$$M_R^{(3)}=\frac{m_\tau ^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}610^{10}\mathrm{GeV};\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{tan}\beta 1\hfill & \\ 610^{12}\mathrm{GeV};\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{tan}\beta 10\hfill & \\ 210^{14}\mathrm{GeV};\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{tan}\beta 60\hfill & \end{array}.$$
(35)
For low and intermediate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the predicted value of $`M_R^{(3)}`$ is relatively low which opens up an interesting possibility for implementing either inflationary  or thermal  leptogenesis.

Due to $`l`$-democracy, one could naively expect that $`m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _3}`$. This scale for $`\nu _2`$ would be inappropriate for resolving the solar neutrino anomaly. To avoid this, some care should be exercised. One way is to introduce $`SO(10)`$ singlet states $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ with $`𝒰(1)`$ charges $`5k`$ and $`2k`$ respectively. Then, with the couplings $`(F_1^cN_1+F_2^cN_2)\overline{H}^c`$, after substituting the $`\overline{H}^c`$ VEV, $`\nu _1^c`$ and $`\nu _2^c`$ decouple together with $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$. At this stage $`m_{\nu _1}=m_{\nu _2}=0`$, since with the introduction of $`N_{1,2}`$ states, the lepton numbers $`L_e`$, $`L_\mu `$ are conserved. To generate a mass for $`\nu _2`$, we introduce an additional $`SO(10)`$ singlet $`𝒩`$ with charge $`Q(𝒩)=k`$. With couplings

$$(\lambda _1f_1+\lambda _2f_2+\lambda _3f_3)𝒩h+M_fϵ^{2k}𝒩^2,$$
(36)
integration of the $`𝒩`$ state can generate the scale relevant for the solar neutrino anomaly555 These $`SO(10)`$ singlet states can be introduced either directly on the brane or in the bulk. In the bulk case, the accompanying mirrors carry opposite orbifold parities and $`𝒰(1)`$ charges. The presence of mirrors does not affect results obtained through the brane superpotential couplings.. The additional singlet states are necessary for generating appropriate mass scale for solar neutrino and self consistent bi-large neutrino oscillations.

Let us consider the scheme in some detail. From (31), the $`\nu ^cl`$ and $`e^cl`$ couplings are diagonalized simultaneously. Although the introduction of $`N_{1,2}`$ makes $`\nu _{1,2}^c`$ irrelevant, it is still convenient to work with basis in which the matrices in (31) are diagonal. In this case, the lepton mixing matrix will coincide with the unitary matrix which diagonalizes neutrino mass matrix, with non-trivial neutrino mixings coming from the right handed neutrino sector, i.e. from the $`\nu _3^c𝒩`$ mixing term. The $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry allows the coupling $`F_3^c𝒩\overline{H}^cϵ^{2k}`$, which gives a mixing term $`M_{3𝒩}\nu _3^c𝒩`$, with $`M_{3𝒩}\overline{H}^cϵ^{2k}`$. Taking into account all this and also (33), (36), the relevant matrix is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& \begin{array}{ccccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3& \nu _3^c& 𝒩\end{array}& & & \\ \begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\\ \nu _3^c\\ 𝒩\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& 0& \lambda _1h_u\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& 0& \lambda _2h_u\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \lambda _\tau h_u& \lambda _3h_u\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \lambda _\tau h_u& M_R^{(3)}& M_𝒩ϵ^{}\\ \lambda _1h_u& \lambda _2h_u& \lambda _3h_u& M_𝒩ϵ^{}& M_𝒩\end{array}\right),& & & \end{array}$$
(37)
where we have defined $`M_𝒩=M_fϵ^{2k}`$, $`ϵ^{}=\frac{M_{3𝒩}}{M_𝒩}\frac{\overline{H}^c}{M_f}`$.

From (37) one sees that $`\nu _3^c𝒩`$ mixing plays an essential role. Namely, to have large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations, one should have $`\lambda _{2,3}ϵ^{}\lambda _\tau `$. Having in mind that $`ϵ^{}1`$, we also have $`\lambda _\tau 1`$, which means that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not large, but has either a low or an intermediate value. Integrating out $`𝒩`$ and $`\nu _3^c`$ in (37), we obtain the light neutrino mass matrix

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \widehat{m}_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^2& \lambda _1\lambda _2& \lambda _1\overline{\lambda }_3\\ \lambda _1\lambda _2& \lambda _2^2& \lambda _2\overline{\lambda }_3\\ \lambda _1\overline{\lambda }_3& \lambda _2\overline{\lambda }_3& \overline{\lambda }_3^2\end{array}\right)m+& \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^2& \lambda _1\lambda _2& \lambda _1\lambda _3\\ \lambda _1\lambda _2& \lambda _2^2& \lambda _2\lambda _3\\ \lambda _1\lambda _3& \lambda _2\lambda _3& \lambda _3^2\end{array}\right)m^{},& \end{array}$$
(38)
where

$$m=\frac{ϵ^2h_u^2}{M_R^{(3)}},m^{}=\frac{h_u^2}{M_𝒩},\overline{\lambda }_3=\lambda _3\lambda _\tau /ϵ^{}.$$
(39)
The scales $`m`$, $`m^{}`$ correspond to atmospheric and solar neutrino anomalies, so $`mm^{}`$.

For analyzing the neutrino mass matrix, it is convenient to rewrite (38),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \widehat{m}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1^2& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3\\ \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2^2& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3\\ \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3& \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3^2(1+\delta )\end{array}\right)m,& \end{array}$$
(40)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1,2}=\sqrt{1+m^{}/m}\lambda _{1,2},\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3=\frac{1+\lambda _3m^{}/(\overline{\lambda }_3m)}{\sqrt{1+m^{}/m}}\overline{\lambda }_3,\delta =(1\frac{\lambda _3}{\overline{\lambda }_3}+\frac{\lambda _3^2}{\overline{\lambda }_3^2})\frac{m^{}}{m}.$$
(41)
The value of $`\delta `$ is small and is responsible for the non-zero mass of $`\nu _2`$. From (40), assuming $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\tau /ϵ^{}`$ one obtains

$$m_{\nu _1}=0,m_{\nu _2}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2^2)\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3^2}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3^2}\delta m\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\alpha ^2m^{},m_{\nu _3}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3^2)m.$$
(42)
As expected, the neutrino masses are hierarchical, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2m_{\nu _3}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2m_{\nu _2}^2`$. From (39), (42), we see that the relevant scale for the solar neutrino anomaly $`m_{\nu _2}10^2`$ eV is generated for $`M_𝒩(310^{11}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta /ϵ^2)`$ GeV. With $`ϵ^{}0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =160`$, $`M_𝒩(10^{13}310^{16})`$ GeV. For the atmospheric neutrinos, $`m_{\nu _3}510^2`$ eV is generated with the $`M_R^{(3)}`$ scales indicated in (35).

As far as the mixing angles are concerned, from the structure of (40), (38), with $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _\tau /ϵ^{}`$, taking into account (39), (41), one naturally expects large neutrino mixings

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }1,$$
(43)
as intended.

As was emphasized in , , within the democratic approach, one also expects a large value for the $`\theta _{13}`$ mixing angle. On the other hand, the CHOOZ data  requires $`\theta _{13}\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.2(ϵ)`$, so that some cancellation among the parameters is needed. If future measurements turn out to favor a much smaller ($`ϵ`$) $`\theta _{13}`$, some modification of the demoratic approach would be required.

### 3.3 Particle Spectra And Gauge Coupling Unification

Below the symmetry breaking scale of $`G_{422}`$ ($`vM_G`$), the massless gauge fields are just those from the MSSM. However, there are some additional vector like supermultiplets with masses below the GUT scale $`M_G`$. From (27) and (29), it is easy to see that the masses of decoupled color triplets and $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet states respectively are

$$m_{t_1}vϵ^{n+6},m_{t_2}vϵ^{n+2},m_{t_3}vϵ^n,$$

$$m_{d_1}vϵ^{m+3},m_{d_2}vϵ^{m+2},m_{d_3}vϵ^m.$$
(44)
With the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges in Table 1, the superpotential couplings

$$W(H,D)=ϵ^pH^cH^cD+ϵ^q\overline{H}^c\overline{H}^cD,$$
(45)
yield masses

$$m_{T_1}vϵ^p,m_{T_2}vϵ^q,$$
(46)
for the colored triplet states from ’scalar’ supermultiplets.

In the simplest case, one can assume that the compactification scale $`\mu _0`$ and the $`G_{422}`$ breaking scale are close to $`M_G`$($`\mu _0v`$). On the other hand, from (44), (46) we see that with $`m,n,p,q0`$, below the scale $`v`$ there are additional states which contribute, together with the MSSM states, to the renormalization of the gauge couplings. For the strong coupling constant in particular,

$$\alpha _3(M_Z)^1=[\alpha _3(M_Z)^1]_{SU\left(5\right)}^{\mathrm{min}}+\frac{9}{14\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_G^2m_{d_1}m_{d_2}m_{d_3}}{m_{t_1}m_{t_2}m_{t_3}m_{T_1}m_{T_2}},$$
(47)
where the first term on the right hand side corresponds to the value calculated in minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$ \[MSSU(5)\]. In order to preserve the MSSU(5) prediction, one should take $`m_{t_1}m_{t_2}m_{t_3}m_{T_1}m_{T_2}M_G^2m_{d_1}m_{d_2}m_{d_3}`$, which taking into account (44), (46) gives the relation

$$3n+p+q+3=3m.$$
(48)
If in the right hand side of (48), $`3m`$ is replaced by $`3m+c`$ (c=1, 2), one would have the possibility to reduce the somewhat large value of $`\alpha _3(M_z)`$($`0.126`$) predicted by MSSU5 . Thus, a proper selection of the integers $`m,n,p,q`$ can yield successful unification with additional matter states playing a crucial role.

## 4 Proton Stability And Automatic Matter Parity

In this section we discuss the issue of nucleon decay within our scheme. Let us start with dimension five left and right handed operators

$$𝒪_L=qqql,𝒪_R=u^cu^cd^ce^c,$$
(49)
whose presence depends on the details of the model. The $`𝒪_L`$ can emerge through $`qqT`$, $`ql\overline{T}`$ type couplings, while $`𝒪_R`$ can appear through $`e^ce^cT`$, $`u^cd^c\overline{T}`$, once the color triplets $`T`$, $`\overline{T}`$ are integrated out. Consider an $``$ symmetry under which $`We^{2\mathrm{i}\alpha }W`$ and $`\varphi _ie^{\mathrm{i}R_i}\varphi _i`$, where $`2\alpha `$ and $`R_i`$ are the phases of the superpotential $`W`$ and $`\varphi _i`$ superfield respectively. It is easy to check that the transformations

$$(F,F^c,g,f,N_{1,2},𝒩)e^{\mathrm{i}\alpha }(F,F^c,g,f,N_{1,2},𝒩),$$

$$(h,H^c,\overline{H}^c,X)(h,H^c,\overline{H}^c,X),De^{2\mathrm{i}\alpha }D,We^{2\mathrm{i}\alpha }W,$$
(50)
are consistent with the $``$-symmetry. Note that the direct mass terms $`\overline{H}^cH^c`$ and $`D^2`$ in $`W(H,D)`$ of (45) are forbidden to all orders. Therefore, the color triplet mass matrix is given by

$$\widehat{M}_T=\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{cc}\overline{d}_H^c& \overline{d}_D^c\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}d_H^c\\ d_D^c\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& vϵ^p\\ vϵ^q& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
(51)
From (51), the elements of the inverse mass matrix which are relevant for nucleon decay, read

$$\left(\widehat{M}_T^1\right)_{11}=\left(\widehat{M}_T^1\right)_{22}=0,\left(\widehat{M}_T^1\right)_{12}=\frac{1}{vϵ^q},\left(\widehat{M}_T^1\right)_{21}=\frac{1}{vϵ^p}.$$
(52)
Thus, for nucleon stability it is crucial that the triplets from the $`D`$ state do not couple with the matter fields. It is easy to check, using (50), that the couplings

$$FFD,FfD\overline{H}^c,F^cgD\overline{H}^c,F^cF^cD,$$
(53)
are forbidden. Thus, $`d=5`$ operators from the color triplet exchange are absent.

As far as the Planck scale $`d=5`$ operators of (49) are concerned, one can also verify that the couplings

$$FFFf\overline{H}^c,F^cF^cF^cg\overline{H}^c,$$
(54)
from which these operators could emerge, are also forbidden.

In principle, in (51) instead of zeros, entries of the order of SUSY breaking scale $`m_S1`$ TeV can be expected. The latter can come from the Kähler potential after SUSY is broken. By the same reasoning, operators (53), (54), suppressed by $`m_S/M_f`$, may also emerge. However, proton decay is then strongly suppressed and essentially unobservable. We conclude that through a proper $``$-charge selection, dimension five nucleon decay is eliminated.

Turning to dimension six nucleon decay, with all matter supermultiplets introduced in the bulk, the 5D bulk kinetic terms are irrelevant for nucleon decay . This follows since through the exchange of $`V_X`$, $`V_Y`$ bosons, the quark-lepton states are converted into heavy states with masses of order $`1/R`$. A different source for $`d=6`$ nucleon decay can be brane localized operators, which respect $`G_{422}`$ and the orbifold symmetries. This kind of operator has the form

$$\delta (y)\psi _1^+(_5e^{2\widehat{V}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}e^{2\widehat{V}}e^{2\widehat{V}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})\psi _2,$$
(55)
where $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ denote appropriate matter superfields with zero modes, and $`\widehat{V}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are fragments from the coset $`SO(10)/G_{422}`$. In order for these operators to be invariant under $`𝒰(1)`$, either the multiplier $`(X^+)^{Q_1}X^{Q_2}`$ or $`X^{Q_2Q_1}`$ should be present, where $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$ are the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges of $`\psi _1`$, $`\psi _2`$. If either $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$ or $`Q_2Q_1`$ is not an integer, the corresponding operator is not allowed. The operators $`F^+_5V_BF^c`$, $`f^+_5V_Bg`$ carry $`𝒰(1)`$ charge $`(nm)/2`$ and will not be allowed for $`nm=2k^{}+1`$ ($`k^{}`$ is an integer). Thus, with the help of $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry, dimension six nucleon decay can also be avoided  within 5D SUSY $`SO(10)`$ GUT.

Alternatively, if the selection $`nm=2k^{}`$ is made, the appropriate operators will be allowed with a suppression factor $`ϵ^k^{}`$. Together with this, there will appear additional powers of $`ϵ`$, coming from the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges of the light families. The appropriate amplitude has at least an $`ϵ^2`$ suppression. Consequently, the amplitudes are proportional to $`ϵ^{2k^{}+2}`$, which even for $`k^{}=0`$, gives an enhancement factor $`650`$ for the lifetime, in comparision to the estimates in . This is well within the current experimental bounds . It is interesting to note that the operator $`ϵ^{2k^{}+2}q_1l_\alpha u_1^{c+}d_2^{c+}`$, relevant for decay with emmision of charged leptons, would give $`\tau (pKe)\tau (pK\mu )`$. This happens due the fact that the $`l_\alpha `$ states all have the same $`𝒰(1)`$ charge.

To conclude this section, we note that the mass term for the bidoublet $`h`$ is forbidden by $``$-symmetry and therefore at this level the $`\mu `$-term is zero. This gives a good starting point for the resolution of SUSY $`\mu `$ problem, although some mechanism ,  for its generation should be applied. The same $``$-symmetry also forbids all matter parity violating operators otherwise allowed by the symmetry $`G_{422}`$. That is, together with the suppression of $`d=5`$ baryon number violating operators and $`\mu `$-term, the $``$-symmetry also ensures automatic matter parity , .

## 5 Rare $`l_\alpha l_\beta \gamma `$ Decays

In our scenario neutrino masses are generated by the see-saw mechanism and within the SUSY framework, it turns out to be also the dominant source for lepton flavor violating (LFV) rare processes  such as $`l_\alpha l_\beta \gamma `$. Since the masses of the right handed neutrinos are below the GUT scale, they contribute to renormalization so that universality (assumed to hold at high scales) among the soft slepton masses is violated. For non-universal contributions, the relevant scales are those where the corresponding right handed neutrinos decouple. It is convenient to work with a basis in which the right handed neutrino mass matrix is diagonal. The non-universal contributions to the slepton masses are then

$$(\delta m^2)_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}(A+3)m_S^2\underset{k}{}(\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu ^T)_{\alpha k}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_G}{M_R^{(k)}}(\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu )_{\beta k},$$
(56)
where we have assumed universality and proportionality at $`M_G`$. Also, in (56) SUSY breaking occurs through $`N=1`$ SUGRA. The $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu `$ comes from the term $`N_R^{}\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu lh_u`$, and $`N_R^{}`$ denotes the right handed neutrino state in a mass eigenstate basis. From (37),

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1ϵ^{}& \lambda _2ϵ^{}& \lambda _\tau \lambda _3ϵ^{}\\ \lambda _1& \lambda _2& \lambda _3\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
(57)
From (56), (57), taking into account that $`ϵ^{}1`$, one finds

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& (\delta m^2)_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}(A+3)m_S^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^2& \lambda _1\lambda _2& \lambda _1\lambda _3\\ \lambda _1\lambda _2& \lambda _2^2& \lambda _2\lambda _3\\ \lambda _1\lambda _3& \lambda _2\lambda _3& \lambda _3^2\end{array}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_G}{M_𝒩}.& \end{array}$$
(58)
Thus, the $`𝒩`$ state provides the dominant contribution to LFV. Due to democracy, the $`\lambda _\alpha `$ couplings all have similar values, and therefore one can expect

$$\mathrm{BR}(\mu e\gamma )\mathrm{BR}(\tau \mu \gamma )\mathrm{BR}(\tau e\gamma ).$$
(59)
This is a characteristic signature of the democratic scenario.

More precisely, taking into account that $`\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\tau /ϵ^{}`$, eq. (58) and the expressions given in , the branching ratios are

$$\mathrm{BR}(l_\alpha l_\beta \gamma )=\frac{\alpha _{em}^3[(\delta m^2)_{\alpha \beta }]^2}{G_F^2m_S^8}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \frac{\alpha _{em}^3(A+3)^2}{64\pi ^4G_F^2m_S^4}\left(\frac{\lambda _\tau }{ϵ^{}}\right)^4\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \mathrm{ln}^2\frac{M_G}{M_𝒩}.$$
(60)
In order to satisfy the most stringent bound $`\mathrm{BR}(\mu e\gamma )\stackrel{<}{_{}}10^{14}`$ , for $`m_S1`$ TeV, \[and if there is no cancellation in (60)\], one should take $`\lambda _\tau /ϵ^{}510^2`$. With $`ϵ^{}0.2`$ this gives $`\lambda _\tau 10^2`$, indicating a preference for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime, which is also suggested by the charged fermion and neutrino sectors.

In conclusion, let us note that in contrast to previously discussed LFV scenarios , our scheme predicts ’democracy’ in the sector of LFV rare processes which hopefully can be probed in the near future.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a realistic model of charged fermion and neutrino masses and mixings in which a number of key ideas play an essential role. Namely, $`SO(10)`$ grand unification, an extra dimension, orbifold and higgs breaking and an abelian $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry. Some additional states are introduced in order to realize a democratic approach in the neutrino sector, while yielding the CKM mixings in the quark sector. Note that it is possible to replace $`𝒰(1)`$ with a discrete symmetry, or with a vectorlike 5D gauge symmetry . The issue of proton stability is resolved and interesting predictions for rare leptonic decays have been obtained.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of NATO Grant PST.CLG.977666. This work is partially supported by DOE under contract DE-FG02-91ER40626. Z.T. would like to thank the Bartol Research Institute for warm hospitality during his visit there.


text: # Entropy driven formation of Smectic C in system of Zig-zag shaped molecules


text:
# Some Bipartite States Do Not Arise from Channels

## 1 Background

Recently, Matsumoto, Shimono and Winter (MSW)  pointed out an important connection between the channel capacity and of entanglement of formation, which allows one to draw some conclusion about the additivity of the latter from that of the former. There has also been speculation that the additivity of channel capacity and of entanglement of formation, are equivalent. A connection between additivity of entanglement of formation and multiplicativity of the p-norm measure of purity has also been given by Audenaert and Braunstein .

In view of this it is natural to ask if every bipartite state $`\rho _{AB}`$ can be associated with a channel in the sense of MSW. In particular is its reduced density matrix, $`\rho _A`$, the optimal average output of a channel whose capacity is related to the entanglement of formation of $`\rho _{AB}`$ as described in ? We will give a more precise formulation of this statement and show that the answer is negative.

Recall that a state is represented by a density matrix $`\rho `$, i.e., a positive semi-definite operator with $`\mathrm{Tr}\rho =1`$. The von Neumann entropy of $`\rho `$ is $`S(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}\rho `$. By an ensemble $`=\{\pi _i,\rho _i\}`$ we means a set of density matrices, $`\rho _i`$ and associated probabilities $`\pi _i`$. By a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we mean a completely positive, trace-preserving (CPT) map. The Holevo capacity of the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is

$`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{}{sup}\left\{S[\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )]{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\pi _iS[\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _i)]\right\}`$ (1)
where the supremum is taken over all ensembles $`=\{\pi _i,\rho _i\}`$ and $`\rho =_i\pi _i\rho _i`$. The optimal average input is the state $`\rho _{\mathrm{opt}}=_i\pi _i\rho _i`$ associated with the ensemble which attains the supremum in (1). The optimal average output is then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{\mathrm{opt}})`$.

The key to the MSW construction is the following result of Stinespring , which was subsequently used by Lindblad  in his work on relative entropy.

###### Theorem 1

Given a CPT map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`()`$ , one can find an auxiliary space $`_B`$, a density matrix $`\nu _B`$ and a unitary map $`U_{AB}`$ on $`_A_B`$ such that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}_B\left[U_{AB}^{}\rho \nu _BU_{AB}\right]`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}_B`$ denotes the partial trace and we have identified $``$ with $`_A`$.

Although we are interested in the case in which $`\rho `$ is a density matrix, the representation (2) is valid for all operators in $`()`$. When $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=_kA_k^{}\rho A_k`$, it is easy to construct a representation of the form (2), as discussed in section III.D of . In fact, $`U_{AB}^{}\rho \nu _BU_{AB}`$ is the block matrix which has the form $`_{jk}A_j^{}\rho A_k|jk|`$.

Given a bipartite state $`\gamma _{AB}`$ on $`_A_B`$, its entanglement of formation satisfies

$`\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB})=inf\{{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\pi _kS\left(\mathrm{Tr}_B\gamma _k\right):\{\pi _k\gamma _k\}\text{ ensemble with }\gamma _{AB}={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\pi _k\gamma _k\}.`$ (3)
Although it is customary to define the EoF using ensembles for which all $`\gamma _k`$ are pure states, there is no loss of generality in allowing arbitrary states.

###### Theorem 2

(Matsumoto, Shimono and Winter) Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a CPT map with a representation $`_B,\nu _B,U_{AB}`$ as in Theorem 1. The Holevo capacity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies

$`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=sup\{S\left(\mathrm{Tr}_B\gamma _{AB}\right)\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB}):\gamma _{AB}=U_{AB}^{}\rho \nu _BU_{AB}\}`$ (4)
where $`\rho `$ is a density matrix on $`=_A`$. Moreover, the state $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{AB}`$ which attains this supremum satisfies $`\mathrm{Tr}_B\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{AB}=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{\mathrm{opt}})`$ where $`\rho _{\mathrm{opt}}`$ is the optimal input of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

It follows immediately that for the state $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{AB}`$

$`\mathrm{EoF}(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{AB})=S\left[\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{\mathrm{opt}})\right]C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi }).`$ (5)
It is thus natural to ask the following

###### Question 3

Given a bipartite state $`\gamma _{AB}`$ on $`_A_B`$, is there a CPT map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`(_A)`$ such that $`\mathrm{Tr}_B\gamma _{AB}`$ is the optimal average output state of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and

$`\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB})=S\left(\mathrm{Tr}_B\gamma _{AB}\right)C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{?}`$ (6)
We will show that the answer to this question is negative.

Our counter-example is based on a result in  and  which comes from the fact that when $`\rho =_k\pi _k\rho _k`$

$`S(\rho ){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\pi _kS(\rho _k)={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\pi _kH(\rho _k,\rho )`$ (7)
where the relative entropy is defined as

$`H(\omega ,\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\omega \left[\mathrm{log}\omega \mathrm{log}\rho \right].`$ (8)
###### Theorem 4

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a CPT map with optimal average input $`\rho _{\mathrm{opt}}`$. Then

$`C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{\omega }{sup}H[\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ),\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{\mathrm{opt}})].`$ (9)
It follows as an immediate corollary, that if $`=\{\pi _k,\rho _k\}`$ is any optimal ensemble for the channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`H[\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _k),\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{\mathrm{opt}})]=C_{\mathrm{Holv}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is independent of $`k`$, i.e., the optimal average output is “equi-distant” in the sense of relative entropy from all outputs $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _k)`$ in the ensemble.

## 2 Counter-example

An affirmative answer to Question 3 above would imply that if the ensemble $`\{\pi _k,|\psi _k\psi _k|\}`$ is optimal for $`\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB})`$, then $`\{\pi _i,\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|\}`$ would be an optimal output ensemble for the corresponding map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It would then follow from the equi-distance corollary to Theorem 8 that

$`H(\omega _k,\gamma _A)=S(\omega _k)\mathrm{Tr}_A\omega _k\mathrm{log}\gamma _A=C.`$ (10)
where $`\omega _k=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ and $`C`$ is a constant which is independent of $`k`$. (In fact, $`C`$ is the Holevo capacity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ if such a channel exists.) We will present an example of a bipartite qubit state which does not satisfy (10).

It may be that counter-examples to (10) can already be found in the literature on entanglement. However, we will take advantage of a result of Wootters  to construct a rather simple qubit counter-example which does not require extensive numerical computation. In , Wootters obtained an explicit formula for the $`\mathrm{EoF}`$ of a bipartite qubit state using a quantity called the concurrence. Moreover, he showed that the $`\mathrm{EoF}`$ could be achieved using an ensemble of at most four pure states $`|\psi _k\psi _k|`$, for which $`S(\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|)=\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB})`$. Thus, for such an ensemble, (10) holds if and only if

$`\mathrm{Tr}_A[(\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|)\mathrm{log}\gamma _A]`$ (11)
is independent of $`k`$. We can assume without loss of generality that $`\gamma _A`$ is diagonal with eigenvalues $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm x)`$. Then $`\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{log}\gamma _A`$ depends only on the diagonal elements of $`\omega `$ which can be written as $`\frac{1}{2}(1\pm d)`$. In fact,

$`\mathrm{Tr}\omega \mathrm{log}\gamma _A`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1+d}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+x}{2}+\frac{1d}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1x}{2}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}2\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{log}(1x^2)+d\mathrm{log}\frac{1+x}{1x}\right]`$
which depends linearly on $`d`$ for fixed $`x0`$. Thus, when $`\gamma _A\frac{1}{2}I`$, (11) is independent of $`k`$ if and only if all $`\omega _k=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ have the same diagonal elements. However, we also know that $`S(\omega _k)=\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB})`$ is independent of $`k`$, which implies that all $`\omega _k`$ have the same eigenvalues. Thus, all the reduced density matrices $`\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ must have the form $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+d& e^{i\theta _k}t\\ e^{i\theta _k}t& 1d\end{array}\right)`$ for some fixed $`t`$. It is not hard to find an example for which this does not hold.

Let $`|\beta _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00+|11)`$ and $`|\beta _3=(\sigma _zI)|\beta _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|00|11)`$ be the indicated maximally entangled Bell states, and

$`\gamma _{AB}=\frac{5}{8}|\beta _0\beta _0|+\frac{1}{16}|\beta _3\beta _3|+\frac{1}{4}|0101|+\frac{1}{16}|1010|.`$ (13)
The reduced density matrix is $`\gamma _A=\mathrm{Tr}_B\gamma =\frac{1}{2}(I+\frac{3}{16}\sigma _z)\frac{1}{2}I`$. One can show that the optimal $`\mathrm{EoF}`$ decomposition of (13) has the form $`\gamma _{AB}=_{k=1}^4\pi _k|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ with $`|\psi _1=a_0|\beta _0+a_3|\beta _3`$ so that $`\omega _1=\mathrm{Tr}_B(|\psi _1\psi _1|)`$ is diagonal in the basis $`|0,|1`$ (i.e, $`t=0`$ in the matrix above). However, the remaining $`\psi _k`$ are superpositions which contain Bell states $`|\beta _k`$ and the product states $`|01,|10`$ in a form which necessarily yields a reduced density matrix $`\omega _k`$ which is not diagonal. By the discussion above, this implies a negative answer to Question 3.

To actually find the entanglement of formation and optimal decomposition of $`\gamma _{AB}`$, let

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{5}{8}|\beta _0\beta _0|+\frac{1}{16}|\beta _3\beta _3|+\frac{1}{4}|1010|+\frac{1}{16}|0101|`$ (14)
be the density matrix with all spins flipped. The concurrence $`\mu `$ can be expressed in terms of the eigenvalues of $`(\sqrt{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\sqrt{\gamma })^{1/2}`$. Following Wootters , one finds $`\mu =\frac{5}{8}\frac{1}{16}\frac{1}{8}\frac{1}{8}=\frac{5}{16}`$. Let

$`h(x)=\frac{1+x}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1+x}{2}\frac{1x}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{1x}{2}.`$ (15)
Then, proceeding as described in , one finds

$`\mathrm{EoF}(\gamma _{AB})=h(\sqrt{1\mu ^2})=h\left(\frac{\sqrt{231}}{16}\right)0.1689<0.9745h\left(\frac{3}{16}\right)=S(\gamma _A).`$
The optimal ensemble has weights

$`\pi _1=0.1527,\pi _2=\pi _3=\pi _4=0.2824`$
associated with the projections for the following pure states

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`0.8101|\beta _0+0.5863|\beta _3`$
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`0.7870|\beta _0+0.1087|\beta _3+0.5432|01+0.2716|10`$
$`|\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`0.7870|\beta _00.1087|\beta _3+0.5432e^{i\pi /3}|01+0.2716e^{i\pi /3}|10`$
$`|\psi _4`$ $`=`$ $`0.7870|\beta _0+0.1087|\beta _30.5432e^{i\pi /3}|010.2716e^{i\pi /3}|10`$
One can easily verify that the diagonal elements of $`\omega _1=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _1\psi _1|`$ are not equal to those of $`\omega _k=\mathrm{Tr}_B|\psi _k\psi _k|`$ for $`k=2,3,4`$. One can also compute the reduced density matrices $`\omega _k`$ and see that $`\omega _1`$ is diagonal in the basis $`|0,|1`$, but the others are not. Alternatively, one can observe that if a reduced density matrix is diagonal in the basis $`|0,|1`$, then any purification must have the form

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=a|0|\varphi _1+b|1|\varphi _2.`$ (16)
with $`|\varphi _1,|\varphi _2`$ orthogonal. By rewriting

$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`0.4796|000.6333|11+.5432|01+.2716|10`$
$`=`$ $`|0\left(0.4796|0.5432|1\right)+|1\left(.2716|00.6333|1\right),`$
one sees that $`\psi _2`$ does not have the form (16) with orthogonal $`|\varphi _k`$. The actual reduced density matrices have the form $`\omega _1=\frac{1}{2}\left[I+\frac{\sqrt{231}}{16}\sigma _z\right]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0.9750& 0\\ 0& 0.0250\end{array}\right)`$, $`\omega _k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0.5251& e^{i\theta _k}0.4743\\ e^{i\theta _k}0.4743& 0.4749\end{array}\right)`$ with $`\theta _2=\pi ,\theta _3=\frac{\pi }{3},\theta _4=\frac{\pi }{3}`$.

## 3 Remarks on representations

In the canonical method of constructing a representation of the form (2), the reference state $`\nu _B`$ is pure and $`d_B`$ the dimension of $`_B`$ is equal to the number of Kraus operators. Then the lifted state $`\gamma _{AB}=U_{AB}\rho \nu _BU_{AB}^{}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}_B\gamma _{AB}`$ has rank at most $`d=d_A`$, the dimension of the original Hilbert space. This is clearly a very restricted class of bipartite states. Moreover, generically, $`d_B>d`$ since many maps require the maximum number $`d^2`$ of Kraus operators. Thus the canonical representation yields only bipartite states which are far more singular than typical states.

Some maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$ can be represented in the form (2) using a mixed reference state $`\nu _B`$. Indeed, given a mixed bipartite state $`\nu _B`$ and unitary operator $`U_{AB}`$, (2) can be used to define a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Unfortunately, relatively little is known about such mixed state representations. It has been suggested that one might be able to represent a channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the form (2) using a space of dimension $`d_B=d`$ if mixed states are used. However, this is known not to be true in general .

Now suppose that a qubit channel $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be represented (possibly using a mixed reference state $`\nu _B`$) in the form (2) using an auxiliary qubit space $`_B`$ so that $`d_B=2`$. Then the argument given before (11) can be used to show that for the optimal input distribution $`\{\pi _k\rho _k\}`$

$`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _k)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho _{\mathrm{opt}})`$ (17)
must be independent of $`k`$. One can easily check that the 3-state examples given in  do not have this property. Most non-unital qubit maps for which the translation of the image of the Bloch sphere lacks symmetry will also violate (17). This implies that such channels require an auxiliary space with $`d_B>2`$. One expects $`d_B=4`$, consistent with the fact that such maps also require 4 Kraus operators. This gives another, somewhat indirect, proof that some CPT maps require an auxiliary space with $`d_B>d`$.

It would be of some interest to characterize the maps which admit mixed state representations with $`d_B=d`$, as well as the bipartite states corresponding to the optimal average output.

Acknowledgment: It is a pleasure to thank Professor Christopher King for stimulating and helpful discussions.


text:
# Absence of a True Vortex-Glass Phase above the Bragg Glass Transition Line in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ

## 1 Introduction

One of the interesting phenomenon in the vortex system of high temperature superconductors (HTS) is the second-peak (SP) effect, which represents an anomalous increase of critical current with the increase of magnetic field. For the strong layered superconductor Bi-2212, it has already been pointed out that the SP may originate from the phase transition between a quasi-ordered Bragg glass (BG) and a disordered vortex phase. The existence of BG has been supported by neutron scatting experiments, but it is a long standing question about what is the nature of the disordered vortex phase in high field region. Some literatures reported that a 3D vortex glass (VG) exists above the second peak field and the flux dynamics is elastic with a diverging barrier in the small current limit. The vortex glass is assumed to melt into vortex liquid at a temperature $`T_g`$, around which a scaling behavior of E-j curves is given. On the other hand it was predicted from numerical simulation that a plastic deformation will occur via the proliferation of vortex defects in high field region. Similarly vortex dislocations are supposed to exist above the SP field, and Kierfeld et al. concluded that the disordered vortex phase and vortex liquid will be thermodynamically indistinguishable after the critical endpoint of the first-order melting (FOT) line. Experimentally Miu et al. claimed the existence of plastic vortex creep above the second magnetization peak based on the data measured at a single temperature T = 25 K. It remains, however, unclear whether this plastic phase appears in the high field region for all temperatures. In this paper we will show clear evidence that the flux motion above the SP field is dominated by plastic motion with a finite barrier in the small current limit.

## 2 Experimental

Several Bi-2212 single crystals with typical size of $`2\times 2mm^2`$ and thickness of $`20\mu m`$ were used in the experiment. All of them are optimal doped or slightly overdoped with $`T_c=8991K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_c1K`$ determined in resistive measurement. The samples were measured by a vibrating sample magnetometer ( VSM 8T, Oxford 3001 ) and a superconducting quantum interfere device ( SQUID, Quantum Design, MPMS5.5 ). In all measurements the magnetic field H was applied parallel to the c-axis and the magnetization data were collected in the field descending process in order to eliminate the surface barrier. Each sample shows similar results, therefore we will not distinguish them for convenience.

## 3 Results and Discussion

Fig. 1 shows the relationship between the width of the magnetization-hysteresis-loops (MHL) $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ and $`H`$ in double-logarithmic coordinates. An interesting feature is that each curve has a dip, as indicated by the dotted line in Fig. 1.

The dip field decreases with the increase of temperature and finally drops to the valley field associated with the SP at 22 K and keeps stable at higher temperatures. Recently we have pointed out that the SP field reappears and is independent of temperature well below 20 K, thus the dips at low temperatures must have no direct relation with the SP in respect that the dip fields ($`>10^4`$ Oe when $`T<10`$ K) are much higher than the SP field (about 280 Oe for this sample).

In order to find out the underlying physics corresponding to the dip on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(H)`$, we have measured the dynamical relaxation rate defined as $`Q=d(lnj_c)/d(ln(dH/dt))`$ by using different field sweep rates. It has been proved that $`Q`$ determined in the dynamical relaxation process is equivalent to the conventional relaxation rate defined as $`S=dlnM/dlnt`$. The results are given in Fig. 2(a). Just like the dip on each $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(H)`$ curve, each $`Q(H)`$ curve shows a peak. For having a deeper insight to these features, we plot $`Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ vs. $`H`$ at 10 K together in Fig. 2(b). It is found that each $`QH`$ curve can be divided into four parts marked as I, II, III and IV. In region I, both $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ and $`Q`$ are flat, i.e., independent of the magnetic field. In region II, $`Q`$ increases monotonously with the increase of magnetic field, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ begins to drop. While in region III, $`Q`$ decreases with the increase of magnetic field, and the dropping rate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ becomes slower and thus results in the dip in MHLs. Therefore, the dip on MHL is directly related to the peak on the $`QH`$ curve. The inset of Fig. 2(b) gives the $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(H)`$ curves of another sample at 17 K and different field sweep rates. It is clear that the dip field moves to lower value when the field sweep rate decreases (corresponding to smaller current) and finally merges to the valley field of SP. Hence both of the dip on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(H)`$ and the peak on $`Q(H)`$ have dynamical features and should disappear above the SP field in the small current limit in low temperature region. After decreasing in region III, $`Q`$ upturns and increases monotonously with the field up to the irreversibility field $`H_{irr}`$ ($`Q1`$)in region IV. Due to the dynamical feature of the dip and peak mentioned above, it can be expected that the region IV will dominate the whole $`HT`$ phase diagram above the SP field in long time or small current limit. After checking about 10 pieces of Bi-2212 single crystals, it is assured that the dip and peak feature appears in all samples without one exception. In fact, Cohen et al. have observed the same dip and peak phenomena in Bi-2212. They related the peak in $`Q`$ to the penetration field. Since the peak can still be found if we consider only the descending branch of MHLs, which strongly indicates that there is no relation between the peak and the penetration field.

For Bi-2212 single crystals, it was found that the geometrical barrier plays an important role on the magnetization in the field ascending process. The total irreversible magnetic moment of the sample is contributed by both the surface shielding current from the geometrical barrier and the bulk screening current in the field ascending process when the external field is not high. In this case local magnetic measurement using either the tiny Hall probe or magneto-optical technique were suggested. While when the external field is much higher than the second peak field, the contribution from the bulk current is much larger than that from the geometrical barrier and a quasi-Bean critical state model is assumed to be valid. This is essentially true in the field descending process when H is decreased from a high field to a field which is still higher than the second peak field. No superposition of the magnetic moment due to the bulk current and the surface shielding current are expected here. As mentioned before our magnetization relaxation measurement was conducted in the field descending process with the external field above the second peak field. Therefore it is justified for us to derive the bulk screening current density $`j`$ from the magnetization. It has already been pointed out that the $`Ej`$ curve can be obtained by assuming $`Mj`$ and $`dM/dtE`$. Fig. 3(a) shows the $`Ej`$ curves at 1 T based on this method. All the curves above 12 K are obvious concave, suggesting a finite linear resistance. Worthy of noting is that the irreversibility temperature $`T_{irr}`$ at 1 T is about 30 K. This is a strong evidence that the vortex motion in region IV is not elastic. In order to check whether the vortex glass exists below 12 K, a naive idea is to treat 12 K as the vortex glass melting temperature $`T_g`$ and scale the $`Ej`$ curves using 3D or quasi-2D glass theory. The scaled curve looks not good and the critical exponents are unreasonably large, e.g., $`\nu 3.5`$, which is commonly believed to be less than 2. Hence we fit it to the 2D VG theory, which predicts $`T_g=0`$. According to 2D VG theory the correlation length $`\xi _{2D}`$ diverges at $`T=0`$ K, $`\xi _{2D}=a_0(\epsilon _0d/k_BT)^{\nu _{2D}}`$, where $`\nu _{2D}`$ and $`a_0`$ are the 2D VG exponent and the spacing of the vortex lattice respectively; $`\epsilon _0d`$ is the core energy of a vortex segment of length d. The linear resistivity $`\rho _{lin}`$ due to thermal activation is given by $`\rho _{lin}exp((T_0/T)^p)`$, where $`T_0`$ is a characteristic temperature of the same order of magnitude as $`\epsilon _0d`$, and $`p=1+\alpha \nu _{2D}`$. Therefore we can scale the $`Ej`$ data as follows,

$$\frac{E}{j}exp(\frac{T_0}{T})^p=g(\frac{j}{T^{1+\nu _{2D}}})$$
(1)
where g is an universal scaling function. The scaled result with $`T_0=350K`$, $`\nu _{2D}=2`$, $`p=1.2`$ is given in Fig.3(b). It is interesting to note that the values found here are very close to those found for very thin $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ films and $`Tl_2Ba_2CaCu_2O_8`$ thin films at a high magnetic field. Above 12 K, all data collapse onto one branch, while the deviation begins at about 12 K. This deviation accords with the behavior of $`\mu `$ ( shown below ) which turns from negative to positive around 12 K. In fact, we can find the same result if scaling the data based on plastic creep theory. This is not strange if we recall that the plastic creep theory assumes also a correlation length $`\xi `$ diverging at 0 K, $`\xi T^\nu `$, and a linear resistivity when $`j`$ approaches zero, $`\rho |_{j0}=exp(U_{pl}/k_BT)`$, where $`U_{pl}(T_cT)/H^{1/2}`$ is the plastic pinning barrier. Therefore, we conclude that the flux motion in region IV is plastic. This indicates that the vortex glass phase which is characterized by a diverging activation barrier in the small current limit may not exist in region IV. Actually, Miu et al. have also found the plastic vortex creep above SP, but their claim was made for only a single temperature ( T = 25 K ).

An important parameter characterizing the vortex dynamics is the exponent $`\mu `$, which can be derived from the conventional magnetic relaxation measurement. Malozemoff et al. assumed a general pinning barrier $`U=U_0/\mu [(j_{c0}/j)^\mu 1]`$ from which Thompson et al. gave an interpolation formula to obtain $`\mu `$,

$$M(t)^\mu =(M^{})^\mu +Cln(t),$$
(2)
where $`M^{}`$ and $`C`$ can be treated as constants approximately. To obtain $`\mu `$ values we have measured $`M`$ vs. time by SQUID and the calculated results at $`T=12`$K and various fields are given in Fig. 4(a), in which the conventional magnetic relaxation rate $`S=dlnM/dlnt`$ is also given. To avoid the geometrical barrier in the field penetration process, each measurement was done as following: the field is raised to 5.5 T and then lowered to the expected field. It is clear that $`\mu `$ is negative in region IV. A negative $`\mu `$ indicates a finite $`U`$ when $`j`$ approaches to zero, thus conflicts with the vortex glass theory. The $`S(T)`$ and $`\mu (T)`$ curves have very similar feature as $`S(H)`$ and $`\mu (H)`$, as shown in Fig. 4(b) for another sample with $`H_p`$ around 380 Oe. The negative $`\mu `$ values found here corroborate the picture that the vortex motion in region IV is plastic.

Next we try to clarify the origin of a positive $`\mu `$ value and the drop of $`Q`$ with increasing field in region III. Joumard et al. have measured the ac susceptibility of $`(K,Ba)BiO_3`$ and found the elastic (EL) creep in some part of the disordered phase, which is explained as $`R_{}<R_a`$, where $`R_{}`$ is the dimension of the creeping vortex bundle and $`R_a`$ is the mean distance between two dislocations. Therefore, we attribute the vortex motion in region III to the 2D EL too. It was predicted that $`R_a110a_0`$ above the SP field, $`R_{}=a_0(j_{VRH}/j)^{5/8}`$ where $`j_{VRH}`$ is the critical current separating the 2D EL creep and the variable-range-hopping regions (VRH). Assuming $`R_a2a_0`$, taking $`j_{VRH}1.5\times 10^5A/cm^2`$, we have $`R_aR_{}`$ when $`j5\times 10^4A/cm^2`$. It is thus tempting to relate the positive $`\mu `$ value as an evidence of 2D EL creep. These regions are marked on the U(j) curves respecting to different current values in the insert of Fig.3(b). By further lowering T and/or H (increasing j) the optimal hopping distance $`u`$ will be smaller than $`u_{VRH}`$ eventually, and the VRH process will take place, leading to the fast increase of $`S`$ with H and T in region II. It is interesting to mention that in $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ crystals with columnar defects Thompson et al. found the similar peak on S(T) curve and dip on $`j(T)`$ curve, which was also interpreted as the crossover from elastic creep to VRH. It is yet, however, to be understood why the $`\mu `$ values determined in region I and II are negative. There are two possibilities for the negative $`\mu `$ values in regions I and II: (1)The total magnetic moment in the time window we used varies too little for the program to fit and get a valid and physical meaningful $`\mu `$ value ( for region II ); (2)A superposition of the bulk current and the geometrical surface current may occur in region I. Although all these hypotheses about the dynamical processes in regions I, II and III need further clarification, it seems quite certain that the region IV has a feature of plastic creep (PL) and it will become dominant above the SP field throughout whole temperature region in the small current limit ( shown by the inset of Fig.2(b) ). Fig. 5 gives the phase diagram of Bi-2212. EL and VRH region will gradually reduce when $`j`$ decreases, and the whole region ( shown by the shaded area ) above SP field is dominated by plastic creep ultimately with $`j0`$.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, we have found a general dip on $`jH`$ and $`jT`$ curves and peak on $`SH`$ and $`ST`$ curves. They have dynamical features and are explained as the crossovers between different vortex phases. Plastic flux motion is found to be dominant far below the irreversibility line and takes over the whole region above the SP field in the small current limit.

## 5 Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC 19825111, 10274097), the Ministry of Science and Technology of China ( project: NKBRSF-G1999064602 ), the Knowledge Innovation Project of Chinese Academy of Sciences. We are grateful for fruitful discussions with Dr. Sean Ling in Brown University, Rhode Island, and Dr. Thiery Giamarchi in University of Geneva.