text:
# Atomic Bose and Anderson glasses in optical lattices

## Abstract

An ultra cold atomic Bose gas in an optical lattice is shown to provide an ideal system for the controlled analysis of disordered Bose lattice gases. This goal may be easily achieved under the current experimental conditions, by introducing a pseudo-random potential created by a second additional lattice or, alternatively, by placing a speckle pattern on the main lattice. We show that for a non commensurable filling factor, in the strong interaction limit, a controlled growing of the disorder drives a dynamical transition from superfluid to Bose-glass phase. Similarly, in the weak interaction limit, a dynamical transition from superfluid to Anderson-glass phase may be observed. In both regimes, we show that even very low-intensity disorder-inducing lasers cause large modifications of the superfluid fraction of the system.

At zero temperature, the bosonic lattice gases may undergo a quantum phase transition sachdeev  from a superfluid (SF) to an insulator fisher . In the absence of disorder there exist Mott insulator (MI) states, characterized by a fixed (integer) number of bosons per lattice site, a gap in the excitation spectrum, and vanishing superfluid fraction and compressibility. In the presence of disorder, an additional insulating phase, so-called Bose-glass phase (BG), may occur fisher . This phase presents no superfluid fraction, a gapless excitation spectrum, and a finite compressibility. The SF-BG transition has been recently experimentally studied in various physical systems experiment , and attracts a continuous theoretical interest batrouni ; krauth ; kiesker ; lee . In particular, the possibility of a direct MI-SF transition in the presence of disorder remains a controversial issue.

The nature of the disorder-induced insulator phases depends on the interplay between hopping, nonlinear interactions and disorder. In the strong-interaction regime, the cooperation of interactions and disorder leads to the appearance of a BG phase. For weak interactions, the disorder leads to an Anderson-type insulator, or Anderson-glass (AG) batrouni . In the latter case, contrary to the BG phase, the interactions tend to delocalize and therefore compete with the disorder.

The detailed analysis of these properties demands an experimentally accessible system in which the disordered Bose lattice gases could be studied in a controlled way. One of the aims of this paper is to show that this goal can be relatively easily accomplished by using cold Bose gases in optical lattices, for which the development of cooling and trapping techniques allows a large degree of control. Recently, Greiner et al. greiner , following the theoretical suggestion of Jaksch et al. jaksch , have observed the SF to MI quantum phase transition in an optical (non disordered) lattice loaded with 87Rb atoms.

In the case of an optical lattice a pseudo-random potential can be dynamically generated by growing on an already existing (main) optical lattice a second (additional) one with a different wavelength jaksch ; burnett ; diener . Based on this idea, we study in this Letter the dynamical generation of the BG and AG phases in a many-body system under realistic conditions. In addition, we discuss the alternative generation of a truly random potential by superimposing a speckle pattern. In the first part of this Letter, we consider the regime of strong interactions where the filling factor is non-integer, showing that the adiabatic turn-on of the disorder may lead to a dynamical transition into the BG phase. In the last part of the Letter, we analyze the weak interaction regime, and in particular the possibility to achieve a dynamical transition into the AG phase. For both regimes of interactions, the SF fraction lieb  is calculated. We show that under realistic conditions even very low-intensity disorder-inducing lasers lead to a dramatic reduction of the SF fraction, indicating the appearance of BG, or AG phases.

We consider an ultracold Bose gas in a 2D optical lattice. We analyze the case of 23Na, but our results also apply to other species. We assume the atoms as tightly confined in the transversal ($`z`$) direction by a harmonic trap of frequency $`\omega _z/2\pi =6`$kHz, so that the wavefunction in $`z`$ remains the Gaussian ground state. No additional harmonic confinement is assumed in the $`xy`$ plane.

The optical lattice is formed by the main laser beams, whereas additional lasers are responsible for the introduction of (quenched) pseudo-disorder. The optical potential has thus the following form:

$$V(𝐫)=V_l(𝐫)+V_r(𝐫),$$
(1)
where $`𝐫=[x,y]`$, the main lattice is $`V_l(𝐫)=V_0(\mathrm{cos}^2(kx)+\mathrm{cos}^2(ky))`$, and the secondary one is $`V_r(𝐫)=V_1(\mathrm{cos}^2(𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫)+\mathrm{cos}^2(𝐤_\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫))`$. The main (additional) beams intensity and/or detuning controls the value of $`V_0`$ ($`V_1`$). In the following we assume $`k_1=k_2k`$, and the directions $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}[0.5,1]`$ and $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟐}[1,0.5]`$. The pseudo-randomness of the potential is determined by $`q=k_1/k`$, i.e. the ratio between the wavelengths of the main ($`\lambda =2\pi /k`$) and the additional lattices. For commonly used NdYag and TiSapphire lasers $`q=1064/795=1.338`$. We note that a pseudo random lattice can also be achieved by splitting off part of the main laser beams and creating the additional incommensurate lattice by interfering these light beams at an angle.

We assume that the energies involved in the system are much smaller than the energy separation between the first and the second band of the lattice, and consequently we can reduce our analysis to the first band. In that case, the physics of the atomic lattice Bose gas is governed by the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian jaksch :

$$H=\underset{}{}J_{ij}a_i^{}a_j+\frac{U_0}{2}\underset{i}{}n_i(n_i1)+\underset{i}{}W_in_i.$$
(2)
$`J_{ij}=J_0+\delta J_{ij}`$ are the tunneling (hopping) coefficients between nearest neighbors. They slightly differ from $`J_0`$ jaksch  by a correction of the form: $`\delta J_{ij}=d^3rw^{}(𝐫𝐫_𝐢)V_r(𝐫)w(𝐫𝐫_𝐣)`$, where $`w(𝐫𝐫_𝐣)`$ are the Wannier functions for the lowest energy band. Clearly, the contributions of the additional beams to the tunneling, vanish on “average”, $`<\delta J_{ij}>0`$. In the following we consider $`V_0=25E_R`$ and $`V_10.05E_R`$, where $`E_R`$ is the photon recoil energy. In this case we have checked numerically that $`|\delta J_{ij}/J_0|<0.1\%`$, hence the major contribution to $`J_{ij}`$ comes from $`J_0`$, and the model reduces to the ordinary Bose-Hubbard one with constant tunneling batrouni ; krauth ; lee ; kiesker . In the Hamiltonian (2), $`U_0a`$ is the coupling constant jaksch  for the interparticle interactions ($`a`$ is the scattering length), and

$$W_i=d^3rw^{}(𝐫𝐫_𝐢)V_r(𝐫)w(𝐫𝐫_𝐢),$$
(3)
are the pseudo-random on-site energies, which, as discussed below, may introduce significant effects even for very small $`V_1/V_0`$.

The disorder-induced phases are characterized by a vanishing SF fraction, which is determined studying the system sensitivity to changes of boundary conditions. To this aim, we employ the boost method lieb , resulting in substitution in (2): $`J_{ij}J_{ij}e^{i\phi _{ij}}`$. The angles $`\phi _{ij}`$ are defined as follows: if $`i=(x_i,y_i)`$ and $`j=(x_j,y_j)`$, then for $`y_i=y_j`$, $`\phi _{ij}=\mathrm{sign}(x_ix_j)\phi /M`$, and else $`\phi _{ij}=0`$, where $`M`$ is the lattice size in the $`x`$-direction. Physically, this choice of $`\phi _{ij}`$ corresponds to a constant current per lattice, proportional to $`\phi `$, in the positive $`x`$ direction. The SF fraction is then obtained from the corresponding ground-state energy $`E(\phi )`$ as

$$\rho _s=\frac{M^2}{N}\frac{E(\phi )E(0)}{J_0\phi ^2},$$
(4)
where $`N`$ is the number (mean) of atoms. Similar expression can be easily derived for a 1D case. In the following, we denote by $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ the ratio of $`N`$ to the number of lattice sites. The ground state is obtained from the minimization of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}|H\mu N|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}`$, where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. We employ the Gutzwiller ansatz $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}=_i_n^{\mathrm{}}f_n^{(i)}|n_i`$, where $`f_n^{(i)}`$ are the amplitudes of having $`n`$ atoms at a $`i`$-th lattice site. We have observed, that it is numerically easier to calculate the ground state using static methods for a non-disordered and non-twisted case ($`V_1=0`$, $`\phi =0`$), and then adiabatically evolve such a state, first to $`\phi 0`$, and then for a constant $`\phi `$ to $`V_10`$ (first evolving $`V_1`$ and then $`\phi `$ should give the same result). The evolution is performed by means of the dynamical Gutzwiller approach dynam , in which we solve the equations

$`i\dot{f}_n^{(i)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{2}}n(n1)+nW_i\right]f_n^{(i)}+`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}\sqrt{n+1}f_{n+1}^{(i)}+\mathrm{\Phi }_i\sqrt{n}f_{n1}^{(i)},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i=_{<i,j>}J_{ij}e^{i\phi _{ij}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}|a_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}`$.

Another useful quantity characterizing the state of a Bose lattice gas is the condensate fraction, defined as the highest eigenvalue of the one particle density matrix, $`\rho _{ij}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}|a_i^{}a_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_{MF}`$, divided by the number of particles pitaevskii . This quantity is important for experiments, since it determines the phase coherence, and thus the contrast in interference measurements greiner .

In order to study the dynamical transition into the BG phase, it is convenient to prepare the system in the SF phase in the presence of dominating interactions and weak tunneling, when $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is non-integer. Therefore, we consider an initial system deeply in the SF regime, with almost $`100\%`$ of SF fraction and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=0.75`$. Then, the intensity of the main laser is adiabatically increased in $`20`$ms, obtaining a very large $`U_0/J_070`$. Both, the condensate and the SF fraction decrease during this process down to approximately $`30\%`$, being non-zero only due to non-integer value of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ (see inset of Fig. 1). As a next step, the disorder is turned-on adiabatically in about $`0.5`$s, by switching on the additional laser beams. The condensate and also the SF fraction decrease dynamically during this process (Fig. 1). Ultimately, the condensate fraction does not tend to $`0`$, but to a very small value of about $`2\%`$, due to the finite size of the systems and the approximate character of the Gutzwiller approach zwerger ; remark . In contrast, the SF fraction tends to zero faster. Note that the superfluidity is rapidly lost, although at any time the additional lattice is very much weaker than the main one. This fact could at first glance seem surprising, but it is due to the small values of $`J_0`$ and $`U_0`$ ($`10^3E_R`$ and $`7\times 10^2E_R`$, respectively). Thus even for $`V_1`$ being of the order of few percent of $`E_R`$ ($`V_1/V_01`$), the value of $`|W_i|/U_01`$. Together with the low value of $`J_0/U_0`$, this explains why the system enters the BG phase for such a weak additional lattice.

We stress at this point that our calculations do not include an additional inhomogeneous trapping in the $`xy`$ plane, which, for the low $`J_0`$ we consider, may result in the formation of MI domains muramatsu  if the filling factor at the trap center is larger than $`1`$. For sufficiently shallow traps, the central BG region should dominate the physics for a finite disorder. For filling factors lower than 1, the systems is expected to be fully in the BG phase.

It is interesting to compare results obtained with the quasi-disordered perturbation induced by the additional lattice, and those achieved using a purely random optical potential coming from a speckle pattern. We generated speckle pattern in a way described in speckle  and checked that it gives correctly both the autocorrelation function and the probability distribution. The speckle pattern induces a potential $`V_s(\stackrel{}{r})`$, which is characterized by its mean value $`V_2=V_s(\stackrel{}{r})`$, and by the average speckle size $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As above, the disorder-induced corrections to the tunneling are minor, and the most significant contribution of the speckle potential appears in the form of $`W_i`$ coefficients (3), defined in this case by means of the $`V_s(\stackrel{}{r})`$ potential. Not surprisingly, values of $`V_2`$ comparable to those previously considered for $`V_1`$, lead to a transition from the SF to Bose glass phase. We have investigated this issue for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.34`$, $`1.37`$, $`2.75\lambda `$. The obtained results are similar to the ones resulting from quasi-random perturbation generated by additional beams (see Fig. 2).

In the final part of this Letter, we discuss the non-interacting regime, where the adiabatic turn-on of the disorder can lead to a dynamic transition into the AG phase. The weakly interacting regime, and even the non-interacting one, could be achieved by reducing the $`s`$-wave scattering length by means of Feshbach resonances cornell . For simplicity we consider a 1D optical lattice case where the perturbation is either generated by two non-commensurate standing waves, $`V_r(x)=V_1(\mathrm{cos}^2(k_1x)+\mathrm{cos}^2(k_2x))`$ with $`k_1k_2`$, or by a laser speckle potential $`V_s(x)`$ characterized by a mean value $`V_2`$. The Hamiltonian (2) reduces then to the form

$$H=\underset{}{}J_{ij}a_i^{}a_j+\underset{i}{}W_in_i,$$
(6)
which becomes the famous Anderson’s hopping model haake , if the $`W_i`$ coefficients are randomly distributed. Similarly as above $`J_{ij}`$ are almost unchanged by the presence of disorder. The single-particle character of the non-interacting problem greatly simplifies the calculations and allows for an exact treatment. In the absence of interactions, 100% of atoms condense at zero temperature, each in a single particle state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=_nc_na_n^{}|\mathrm{vac}`$. We have analyzed the dynamical evolution of the amplitudes $`c_n`$ during the turn-on of the disorder as well as their ground state distributions—see Fig. 3.

Due to the finite size of the system, which implies discreteness of the excitation spectrum, the application of the boost method in the absence of disorder results in the 100% SF fraction. When the typical energy of disorder becomes comparable to the energy separation between the energy levels in the absence of disorder, the SF fraction is expected to vanish (see Fig. 3) We clearly observe a transition from a delocalized SF state to an Anderson localized one, where the occupation probabilities of neighboring sites decrease exponentially with the distance from the localization centers haake . From the upper plot in Fig. 3 we conclude that in order to drive the system into the AG phase, smaller intensities are needed for the speckle pattern than for the superimposed incommensurable lattice, since as expected the speckle pattern results in a “more disordered” distribution of the $`W_i`$ coefficients notka1  (see middle plot in Fig. 3). It is especially worth to stress that in the case of a superimposed incommensurable lattice the periodicity of the lattice reflects itself in periodically Anderson-localized domains, but the localization phenomena is still present, as shown in Fig. 3. We observed the same quantitative phenomena also for ratios $`k_1/k`$ and $`k_2/k`$ different than the ones listed in the caption of Fig. 3. We have performed also time-dependent simulations based on Eq. (6) to determine the time scale for the adiabatic transition into the AG phase. For a main lattice wavelength $`\lambda =1064`$nm the adiabatic evolution lasts few seconds. This may be shortened using higher frequency lattice beams since evolution time scales as $`\lambda ^2`$.

The experimental observation of the SF to BG (or to AG) transition should be relatively easy to accomplish in a setup as that of Ref. greiner . The BG and AG phases can be detected by observing the interference pattern after removing the lattice for different intensities of the superimposed laser beams. The insulator character of the BG and AG phases will be revealed by the disappearance of the interference fringes. The phases can be additionally characterized by measuring their gapless excitation spectrum, in an experiment similar to that of Ref. greiner .

Summarizing, we have proposed an experimentally feasible and relatively simple method of creating a system whose physics is governed by the disordered Bose Hubbard model. We have shown how the onset of small perturbation of the lattice potential may result in a dynamical transition from a superfluid regime into Bose-glass, or Anderson-localized phases. This transition occurs within experimentally feasible time scales and can be easily controlled, allowing for a detailed analysis of disorder induced transitions. Our proposal stimulates in this sense new interesting experimental possibilities including studies of Anderson localization in 2D systems (which is still a controversial topic), and the investigation of the SF to MI transition in the presence of disorder.

We acknowledge support from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, EU RTN Network ”Cold Quantum Gases”, and ESF PESC Program BEC2000+. Work of B.D. and J.Z. was partially supported by KBN under projects 2 P03B 124 22 and 5 P03B 088 21, respectively. We thank Krzysztof Sacha and Misha Baranov for discussions.


format: text

text:
# Yukawa coupling unification and non-universal gaugino mediation of supersymmetry breaking

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric grand unified theories \[SUSY GUTs\] are well motivated possibilities for physics beyond the standard model \[SM\]. They provide an explanation of charge assignments of quarks and leptons . Furthermore the unification of gauge couplings in the supersymmetric version of the standard model supports the idea of an underlying theory which unifies three seemingly unrelated gauge symmetries at a scale $`M_G2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV .

There is also a possibility that Yukawa couplings of quarks and leptons unify in a similar way . This is certainly not a necessity since GUT symmetry breaking effects can be incorporated into Yukawa matrices at the GUT scale. Furthermore, each of the MSSM Higgs doublets may originate from more than one unified Higgs representation in which case the relations between Yukawa couplings can be basically arbitrary. (Although given by the underlying theory, these relations might be hard to recover from measurements conducted at low energies.) Nevertheless the hope is that the underlying theory is quite elegant and certain simple relations between Yukawa couplings hold. The simplest and the best motivated relation is the third generation Yukawa coupling unification at the GUT scale: $`\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau `$ in SU(5) or $`\lambda _t=\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau `$ in SO(10).

A precise analysis of gauge and Yukawa coupling unification requires two loop renormalization group running and one loop weak scale SUSY threshold corrections. While gauge coupling unification is not very sensitive to the exact form of SUSY spectrum, the fate of Yukawa coupling unification crucially depends on SUSY threshold corrections . This is due to the fact that gluino and chargino corrections to the bottom quark mass are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and can naturally be as large as $`50\%`$. Therefore the success of Yukawa coupling unification strongly depends on the SUSY breaking scenario under consideration. Alternatively, looking at it from the other side, requiring Yukawa coupling unification can point to a preferred SUSY breaking scenario or to a region of the parameter space within each scenario.

Similarly $`bs\gamma `$ and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $`a_\mu `$ receive contributions from SUSY loops. The size of SUSY contributions and their signs depend on the SUSY spectrum. Whether SUSY contributions enhance or suppress these observables compared to the standard model predictions mostly depends on relative signs of the gaugino masses $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, $`M_3`$ and the $`\mu `$ term.

For example, in the mSUGRA scenario where all gauginos have the same mass $`M_{1/2}`$ at $`M_{GUT}`$, Yukawa coupling unification can be satisfied with negative SUSY threshold corrections to the bottom quark mass. The gluino–sbottom loop is the dominant contribution and is negative for $`\mu M_3<0`$. On the other hand, the chargino contribution to $`bs\gamma `$ can interfere constructively or destructively with the SM and the charged Higgs contribution. Since the SM and charged Higgs contribution is already somewhat too large, the chargino contribution is expected to lower the branching fraction $`B(bs\gamma )`$. This happens for $`\mu A_t<0`$, where $`A_t`$ is the top trilinear coupling. The low energy value of $`A_t`$ is related to $`M_3`$ due to renormalization group \[RG\] running. Therefore, in order to accommodate the $`bs\gamma `$ data, $`\mu M_3>0`$ is preferred. 111Constructive interference of the chargino contribution with the SM and charged Higgs contribution is not ruled out. However in this case this contribution has to be very small which requires very heavy superpartners. This is especially true when considering Yukawa unification, since chargino contribution is strongly enhanced in large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime. Note however, for the same reason even the case with preferred sign of $`\mu A_t`$ is strongly constrained by $`bs\gamma `$. Finally, the SUSY contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of muon, $`a_\mu `$, is preferred to be positive to comply with the data . The chargino–sneutrino loop is dominant in this case and this contribution is positive for $`\mu M_2>0`$. In conclusion, in the mSUGRA scenario both $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ seem to prefer $`\mu M_{1/2}>0`$ while Yukawa coupling unification strongly prefer $`\mu M_{1/2}<0`$. This discouraging result led to consideration of Yukawa coupling unification within other well motivated frameworks .

In Refs.  SO(10) Yukawa unification was considered together with SO(10) motivated boundary conditions for soft SUSY breaking parameters. It was found that $`tb\tau `$ Yukawa unification can be satisfied with positive $`\mu `$ in a special region where the condition $`A_0^2=4m_{16}^2=2m_{10}^2`$ between universal trilinear coupling ($`A_0`$), universal squark and slepton masses ($`m_{16}`$) and universal Higgs masses ($`m_{10}`$) is approximately satisfied. Additional splitting of Higgs masses ($`m_{H_u}`$, $`m_{H_d}`$) at the level of $`10\%`$ is necessary in order to obtain electroweak symmetry breaking radiatively in large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regime and large $`m_{16}`$ ($`>1`$ TeV). The reason for Yukawa coupling unification to work in this region is that chargino corrections to the bottom quark mass are enhanced and can dominate the gluino correction, leading to small or even negative total SUSY threshold correction to the bottom quark mass . This region also has other very compelling features. The masses of first two generation scalars are large, the order of $`m_{16}`$, which suppresses flavor and CP violation (and also proton decay), while the masses of the third generation squarks and sleptons are below 1 TeV keeping this region natural with respect to electroweak symmetry breaking. Although this looks like a drastic departure from mSUGRA scenario, it actually may originate from it when additional RG running above the GUT scale and GUT scale threshold corrections are properly taken into account .

In anomaly mediation the gaugino masses $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ have opposite signs and so it might be possible to simultaneously achieve negative SUSY threshold correction to the bottom quark mass and positive SUSY contribution to $`a_\mu `$. However in this case the chargino contribution to $`bs\gamma `$ constructively add to the SM and charged Higgs contribution and thus have to be very suppressed. This is possible only if scalar masses are very heavy (at least few TeV), which is problematic with respect to naturalness constraints .

Another approach to accommodate both $`b\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification and constraints from $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ was taken up in Ref.  where non-universalities in gaugino masses in supergravity models were considered. It was found that Yukawa unification can be achieved with an accuracy of a few percent in significant regions of SUSY parameter space. The corresponding sparticle spectrum is relatively light, consistent with naturalness constraints.

Non-universalities in gaugino masses can be very easily obtained (and are quite generic) in higher dimensional GUT models in which GUT symmetry breaking is achieved by orbifold compactification of extra dimensions. The doublet triplet splitting of Higgs fields is also achieved in an elegant way and proton decay due to dimension 5 operators (which is a serious problem in 4-dimensional GUT models ), can be naturally suppressed in these models. The common feature of these models is the existence of a brane or several branes at orbifold fixed points on which the gauge symmetry is restricted to be a subgroup of the GUT symmetry. This results in an effective 4-dimensional theory with gauge symmetry given by an intersection of gauge symmetries on orbifold fixed points .

The existence of a brane with restricted gauge symmetry plays an important role in gaugino mediation. If SUSY is broken on a brane with restricted gauge symmetry, non-universal gaugino masses are generated. For example, if using proper boundary conditions $`SU(5)`$ is broken on a brane down to the SM, non-universal gaugino masses $`M_1,M_2,M_3`$ can be generated on this brane . Even more interesting is the situation for $`SO(10)`$ models in higher dimensions  which can contain branes with gauge symmetries being different subgroups of $`SO(10)`$. Using proper boundary conditions, fixed branes with Pati-Salam $`SU(4)\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$, Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$, or flipped $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetries can be obtained. If gauginos get masses on these branes, the gauge symmetry relates gaugino masses of the MSSM at the compactification scale. In the case of Pati-Salam gauge symmetry, gaugino masses $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ are free parameters while the $`M_1`$ is given by a linear combination of $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ . The case of Georgi-Glashow gauge symmetry leads to universal gaugino masses and finally in the case of flipped $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry, $`M_2=M_3`$ and $`M_1`$ is an independent parameter . If matter fields are localized on a brane with GUT symmetry Yukawa coupling unification is expected as in four dimensional models.

The compactification scale $`M_c`$ in these models is below (but close to) the GUT scale and the boundary conditions with negligible sfermion masses and trilinear couplings are realized at this scale. Scalar masses and trilinear couplings receive large contributions from gaugino masses through the renormalization group (RG) running between $`M_c`$ and the electroweak (EW) scale. These contributions are flavor blind and therefore the resulting soft SUSY breaking terms at the EW scale cause only a modest flavor violation originating from the Yukawa couplings. 222For discussion of other SUSY breaking scenarios in higher dimensional GUT models, see for example Ref. .

In the original works on gaugino mediation , the compactification scale was assumed to be at or above the GUT scale, in order to preserve the success of gauge coupling unification. Therefore all gaugino masses are equal at $`M_c`$. For $`M_c=M_{GUT}`$, however, this scenario predicts the lightest stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), which violates cosmological bounds on the existence of stable charged or colored relics from the Big Bang in models which conserve $`R`$-parity. The situation is different for $`M_c>M_{GUT}`$. In this case additional RG evolution takes place between $`M_c`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$ . This running generates non-vanishing scalar masses and trilinear couplings at the GUT scale. Most importantly, the stau mass receives a positive contribution which eventually can make the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ heavier than the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$. This removes the unpleasant charged LSP feature of the scenario with $`M_c=M_{GUT}`$.

This cure of the stau LSP problem doesn’t apply to the case of non-universal case (in which $`M_c<M_{GUT}`$). However, in this case the non-universal gaugino masses help us to obtain viable SUSY spectra with a neutralino LSP, at least in some regions of model parameter space. A recent study  of the non-universal gaugino mediation scenario delineates the allowed regions of the SUSY parameter space consistent with neutralino LSP and constraints from $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ for various boundary conditions on gaugino masses.

In this paper we study to which extent Yukawa coupling unification can be satisfied together with phenomenological constraints from $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ in the non-universal gaugino mediation scenario. In Sec. 2 we present basic results of non-universal gaugino mediation and obtain approximate formulas for gaugino, squark and slepton masses. In Sec. 3 we study SUSY threshold corrections to the bottom quark mass based on the SUSY spectrum. Understanding of threshold corrections helps us to understand numerical results presented in Sec. 4. The summary of our results and our conclusions are given in Sec. 5.

## 2 SUSY spectrum of non-universal gaugino mediation

Gaugino mediated SUSY breaking is quite economical. In the non-universal scenario this mechanism is parametrized by three soft SUSY breaking gaugino masses at the compactification scale $`M_c`$: $`M_a(M_c)`$, $`a=1,2,3`$. Depending on the localization of the Higgs fields, soft SUSY breaking Higgs masses and the $`\mu `$–term can also be generated. Soft SUSY breaking masses of squarks and sleptons and trilinear couplings are negligible at $`M_c`$. More details on possible models are presented in Ref.  and references therein.

It is an useful exercise to obtain approximate analytic formulas of the SUSY spectrum. These will help us in understanding of SUSY threshold corrections to the bottom quark mass and thus the region of SUSY parameter space where Yukawa coupling unification can be satisfied. The complete set of two loop MSSM RG evolution equations \[RGEs\] can be find in . In this section, we use one loop RGEs for the gauge couplings, the gaugino masses and the scalar masses. We neglect the contribution of scalar masses and trilinear couplings in the running.

From the one loop RGEs for gaugino masses and gauge couplings,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_a}{d\mathrm{log}\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`2C_ag_a^2M_a,C_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}(33/5,1,3),a=1,2,3`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dg_a}{d\mathrm{log}\mu }}`$ $`=`$ $`C_ag_a^3,`$ (2)
we obtain the well known result that gaugino masses scale with the square of gauge couplings:

$$\frac{M_a(\mu )}{g_a^2(\mu )}=const=\frac{M_a(M_c)}{g^2},$$
(3)
where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant at $`M_c`$. Using weak scale values: $`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.118`$, $`\alpha _{em}(M_Z)=1/128`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.22`$, $`\alpha _2=\alpha _{em}/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.035`$, $`\alpha _1=(5/3)\alpha _{em}/cos^2\theta _W0.017`$, and the GUT scale value of the gauge coupling, $`\alpha _G=g^2/4\pi 0.04`$, it is easy to find weak scale values of gaugino masses:

$`M_1(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`0.4M_1,`$ (4)
$`M_2(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`0.9M_2,`$ (5)
$`M_3(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`3.0M_3.`$ (6)
Similarly, one loop RGEs of squarks and sleptons are given by

$$\frac{dm_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2}{d\mathrm{log}\mu }=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\beta _{m_{\stackrel{~}{f}}^2},$$
(7)
with

$`\beta _{m_Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}g_3^2M_3^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}g_2^2M_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}g_1^2M_1^2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\beta _{m_U^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}g_3^2M_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{32}{15}}g_1^2M_1^2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\beta _{m_D^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}g_3^2M_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}g_1^2M_1^2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\beta _{m_L^2}`$ $`=`$ $`6g_2^2M_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2M_1^2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\beta _{m_E^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g_1^2M_1^2+\mathrm{},`$
where dots represent terms which are zero at $`M_c`$, being proportional to scalar masses and trilinear couplings. For comparable values of gaugino masses we can neglect contributions from terms proportional to $`M_1`$ (except in the case of right handed sleptons) since these are suppressed compared to terms proportional to $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ by smaller value of gauge coupling $`g_1`$ and also the group theoretical factors.

In this approximation the solution can be written as:

$`m_Q^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}M_3^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_3(\mu )}{g}}\right)^41\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}M_2^2\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_2(\mu )}{g}}\right)^4\right],`$ (8)
$`m_U^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}M_3^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_3(\mu )}{g}}\right)^41\right],`$ (9)
$`m_D^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}M_3^2\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_3(\mu )}{g}}\right)^41\right],`$ (10)
$`m_L^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}M_2^2\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_2(\mu )}{g}}\right)^4\right],`$ (11)
$`m_E^2(\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{11}}M_1^2\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{g_1(\mu )}{g}}\right)^4\right],`$ (12)
and for the weak scale values we obtain:

$`m_Q(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`2.6M_3\left[1+0.03\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_3}}\right)^2\right],`$ (13)
$`m_U(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`m_D(M_Z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2.6}M_3,`$ (14)
$`m_L(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.6M_2,`$ (15)
$`m_E(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`0.39M_1.`$ (16)
We also need to estimate the top trilinear coupling which enters the chargino contribution to the bottom quark mass. The one loop RGE is given by

$$\frac{dA_t}{d\mathrm{log}\mu }=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\beta _{A_t},$$
(17)
where

$$\beta _{A_t}=\frac{32}{3}g_3^2M_3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}g_2^2M_2+\frac{26}{15}g_1^2M_1+\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
In the same approximation as for the squarks and sleptons, we obtain

$$A_t(\mu )=\frac{16}{9}M_3\left[1\left(\frac{g_3(\mu )}{g}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}M_2\left[1\left(\frac{g_2(\mu )}{g}\right)^2\right],$$
(19)
and the weak scale value is given by

$$A_t(M_Z)=3.5M_30.4M_2.$$
(20)
These results for gaugino, squark and slepton masses should be interpreted with care. However the approximation used is precise enough to point out the main features of the SUSY spectrum in non-universal gaugino mediation. First of all, from Eqs. (4) and (16) we immediately see the well-known problem associated with gaugino mediation, the stau being LSP. Neither the bino nor the right-handed stau are mass eigenstates however. The lightest neutralino is a mixture of gauginos and Higgsinos, and for $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ the D-terms as well as left-right mixing have to be properly taken into account. In result, there is quite significant region of parameter space with neutralino LSP, as illustrated by Fig. 1. The allowed region opens up with increasing $`M_1`$, either because of the large portion of Higgsino in the lightest neutralino (along the line where electroweak symmetry breaking is possible, where the $`\mu `$ term is small) or the large portion of wino in the lightest neutralino (for small values of $`M_2`$ compared to $`M_1`$). On the other hand with increasing $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling also increases and the terms proportional to Yukawa couplings in RG equations become more important. These terms suppress the stau mass and so the allowed region is shrinking. For more results and discussion see Ref. .

The second important observation is that the gluino, stop and sbottom masses are very close to each other and approximately equal to $`3M_3`$. This will be crucial for discussion of SUSY threshold corrections to the bottom quark mass in the following section.

## 3 SUSY threshold corrections to the bottom quark mass

The dominant corrections to the bottom quark mass come from gluino-sbottom and chargino-stop diagrams. Pieces proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be approximated by:

$$\left(\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{g}}\frac{2\alpha _3}{3\pi }\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}}{M_{SUSY}^2}$$
(21)
and

$$\left(\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }\frac{\lambda _t^2}{16\pi ^2}A_t\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{\mu }{M_{SUSY}^2}.$$
(22)
Here $`M_{SUSY}`$ is the typical mass of particles in the corresponding loop. In the previous section we found that

$`M_{SUSY}`$ $``$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\stackrel{~}{b}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}M_3,`$ (23)
$`A_t`$ $``$ $`3.5M_30.4M_2.`$
Taking $`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.118`$ and $`\lambda _t(M_Z)1`$, we can obtain very simple formulas for the SUSY threshold corrections to $`m_b`$:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{100M_3}}\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$ (24)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{500M_3}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{M_3}}\right)\mu \mathrm{tan}\beta .`$ (25)
Comparing the last two expressions we find

$$\left(\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\pm }\frac{1}{5}\left(\frac{\delta m_b}{m_b}\right)^{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(1+\frac{1}{9}\frac{M_2}{M_3}\right).$$
(26)
Clearly, the gluino corrections will dominate unless $`M_240M_3`$. So for positive $`\mu `$, the Yukawa unification can be expected only for negative $`M_3`$, and the dependance on $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$ is not expected to be significant. The results shown in the figures of the next section are in agreement with these findings. Although $`\mu M_3<0`$ is strongly preferred as in the mSUGRA scenario, non-universal gaugino masses can help to satisfy constraints from $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$ in some portion of SUSY parameter space.

## 4 Yukawa coupling unification

In this section, we present results of our numerical analysis. There are several programs readily available for numerically solving the necessary, coupled system of RGEs at the two-loop level. The most popular ones are ISAJET , SoftSUSY , Spheno  and Suspect . Recently, a satisfactory agreement was demonstrated between the latest versions of these codes . To calculate the sparticle spectrum and the Yukawa couplings between $`M_c`$ and the weak scale, we use ISAJET version 7.64. The calculational procedure implemented in ISAJET, with special emphasis on Yukawa couplings and the theoretical uncertainties in their determination, is described in a recent publication . Due to the known theoretical uncertainties, we treat our numerical results with a reasonable flexibility, and conclude that unification takes place when the GUT scale Yukawas agree within a few percent. For the evaluation of the branching fraction $`B(bs\gamma )`$ and the muon anomalous magnetic moment $`a_\mu `$, we use the calculations presented in Refs.  and , respectively.

In our plots, we present theoretically, phenomenologically and experimentally acceptable models. We discard models with tachyonic particles, no radiative EW symmetry breaking \[REWSB\] or a stau LSP as unacceptable. We further require that the $`Z`$ boson have negligible decay rates to sparticles and also impose the following LEP2 constraints on the weak scale masses of the lightest gauginos ($`\stackrel{~}{Z}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{W}_1`$), sleptons ($`\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1`$,$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$) and Higgs boson :

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_1}>37\mathrm{GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{W}_1}>100\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_1}>92\mathrm{GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}>85\mathrm{GeV},m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}>68\mathrm{GeV},`$ (27)
$`m_h>91\mathrm{GeV}.`$
Models that do not satisfy the above criteria are excluded from our study. Models passing all the above criteria are further analyzed with respect to the indirect experimental constraints from $`B(bs\gamma )`$ and $`a_\mu `$. We impose the following limits:

$`10<a_\mu \times 10^{10}<60,\mathrm{and}2<B(bs\gamma )\times 10^4<5.`$ (28)
These limits correspond to the experimentally allowed regions approximately at 2$`\sigma `$ . In our plots, we color models that do not satisfy this $`B(bs\gamma )`$ (or $`a_\mu `$) constraint by shades of red (or gray). Models that pass all the above requirements are marked by green on our figures.

As discussed earlier, for gaugino mediation only the gaugino and Higgs masses are non-zero at $`M_c`$. In our numerical analysis we assume $`M_c=10^{16}`$ GeV. The rest of the soft breaking parameters, namely all squark and slepton masses and trilinear couplings are assumed to vanish at $`M_c`$. The only other remaining free model parameter is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, since our requirement of the REWSB fixes the rest of the Higgs sector. Since we scan through both positive and negative values of gaugino masses, the sign of $`\mu `$ is not an independent parameter and we present results only for $`\mu >0`$333The MSSM Lagrangian is invariant under the simultaneous sign change of the gaugino masses, the $`A`$ and $`B`$ parameters and $`\mu `$. Thus, the results for $`\mu <0`$ are equivalent to those for $`\mu >0`$ with gaugino masses taken with opposite signs, since the trilinear couplings are zero at $`M_c`$. We thank X. Tata for emphasizing this point. Thus, the parameter space of the non-universal gaugino mediation scenario is spanned by six parameters:

$$M_1(M_c),M_2(M_c),M_3(M_c),M_{H_u}(M_c),M_{H_d}(M_c)\mathrm{and}\mathrm{tan}\beta .$$
(29)
This corresponds to the case when gaugino masses are generated on a brane with SM gauge symmetry. If SUSY breaking happens on a brane with larger gauge symmetry, gaugino masses are further restricted . In the case Pati-Salam symmetry gaugino masses satisfy

$$M_1=\frac{3}{5}M_2+\frac{2}{5}M_3,$$
(30)
and in the case of flipped SU(5)

$$M_2=M_3.$$
(31)
In what follows we present results for $`b\tau `$ and $`tb\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification in the SM scenario and the flipped SU(5) scenario. In both cases we also show results for vanishing Higgs masses, $`M_{H_u}(M_c)=M_{H_d}(M_c)=0`$. Finally, we briefly comment on the Pati-Salam scenario.

### 4.1 Bottom - tau Yukawa unification with independent gaugino masses

To quantify the amount of $`b\tau `$ unification, we use the variable

$$\delta y_{b\tau }=100\left(\frac{y_b}{y_\tau }1\right),$$
(32)
where $`y_b`$ and $`y_\tau `$ are the values of the $`b`$ and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings at the compactification scale. The factor 100 is introduced so that $`\delta y_{b\tau }`$ measures the amount of percentage deviation from perfect unification.

To find the regions with the best Yukawa unification, namely regions with $`\delta y_{b\tau }0`$, we scan the full parameter space as indicated by Eq.(29). Fig. 2 shows the parameter ranges and the result of such a random scan. Here, we plot $`\delta y_{b\tau }`$ versus the free parameters of the model for $`\mu >0`$. We observe two branches of models, differentiated by the sign of $`M_3`$. As expected from the inspection of the SUSY threshold corrections in Sec. 3, the branch with negative $`M_3`$ unifies the $`b`$ and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings while the other does not. Yukawa unification happens in relatively wide parameter ranges. But models that simultaneously comply with unification and the indirect experimental constraints are confined close to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 45`$, $`M_1(M_c)\stackrel{>}{}2`$ TeV, –2 TeV $`M_2(M_c)1`$ TeV, and $`M_3(M_c)1`$ TeV. In contrast, there is no strong preference for particular values of Higgs masses, except perhaps for low $`M_{H_u}`$ values. This latter fact is supported by an independent scan with vanishing Higgs masses $`M_{h_u}(M_c)=M_{h_d}(M_c)=0`$, shown in Fig. 3. For this case $`b\tau `$ unification occurs in similar ranges as for non-zero Higgs masses.

Figs. 2 and 3 point to specific regions of the parameter space where Yukawa unification is achieved and the constraints on $`B(bs\gamma )`$ and $`a_\mu `$ are satisfied simultaneously. To explore this parameter region further, we fix $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =40`$ and scan the $`M_2`$ versus $`M_3`$ planes for fixed values of $`M_1`$. Fig. 4 shows the results of these scans. White areas are theoretically unacceptable and areas colored by shades of red (gray) are excluded by $`B(bs\gamma )`$ ($`a_\mu `$). Green areas are allowed by all the constraints. As expected, in the negative $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ quadrants there are large regions with good Yukawa unification. For $`M_1>2`$ TeV significant parts of these regions are allowed both by $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$. Thus, Fig. 4 clearly demonstrates that, for the case of independent gaugino and vanishing Higgs masses, there exist parts of the parameter space where it is possible to reconcile $`b\tau `$ unification with all the considered constraints.

### 4.2 Top - bottom - tau Yukawa unification with independent gaugino masses

To gauge the amount of $`tb\tau `$ unification, similarly to Eq.(32), we define

$$\delta y_{tb\tau }=100\left(\frac{\mathrm{max}(y_t,y_b,y_\tau )}{\mathrm{min}(y_t,y_b,y_\tau )}1\right),$$
(33)
where $`y_x`$ are the values of the $`t`$, $`b`$ and $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings at $`M_c`$. Notice that unlike $`\delta y_{b\tau }`$, $`\delta y_{tb\tau }`$ never becomes negative. In Fig. 5, we plot $`\delta y_{tb\tau }`$ versus the relevant parameters from a scan for $`\mu >0`$ in the high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region where Yukawa unification is expected. Again, we find models with good unification satisfying all the constraints. The conclusion is similar to that of the $`b\tau `$ unification case. Provided that we allow high enough $`|M_1(M_c)|`$ values, unification is achieved at moderate values of $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$. Since the correlation between $`\delta y_{tb\tau }`$ and the Higgs masses seems to be weak just like in the case of $`\delta y_{b\tau }`$, we conducted a similar scan for $`M_{h_u}(M_c)=M_{h_d}(M_c)=0`$. The results are shown by Fig. 6. In a considerable part of the parameter space, we find well unified models consistent with all other constraints.

Both Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show that Yukawa unification is achieved for two narrow regions of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, namely 45 and 50. These two regions are correlated with the sign of $`M_2`$. The region with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 45`$ corresponds to $`M_2>0`$ while the region with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ corresponds to $`M_2<0`$. This can be seen on Fig. 7, where we present contours of $`tb\tau `$ unification down to 5%. This plot illustrates for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =45`$ that with vanishing Higgs masses and $`M_157`$ TeV there are significant regions of the $`M_2`$-$`M_3`$ parameter plane where $`tb\tau `$ unification takes place. In particular, Yukawas unify for $`M_2>0`$. A similar plot, which we do not include here, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$ reveals $`tb\tau `$ unification for $`M_2<0`$.

In order to illustrate typical sparticle spectra for models with good unification, we show a few parameters for selected models in Table 1. The firs two models have non-vanishing Higgs masses and the third model has zero Higgs masses at the compactification scale. We find that well unified models typically have the lightest gauginos in the few hundred GeV mass range, lightest sleptons and Higgses below 1 TeV, and the lightest squarks in the TeV range. This sort of spectrum may allow the Tevatron to cover a limited part of the parameter space, while the LHC has a chance to produce several types of sparticles. A LC, depending on its center of mass energy and the actual model parameters, may produce only the lightest Higgs boson or additionally the lightest gauginos and sleptons.

As Table 1 illustrates, the lightest neutralino is always almost degenerate with the lightest chargino, that is it always has a strong wino admixture. As a consequence, in this model the neutralino relic abundance is generally much lower than the experimental value of the cold dark matter , as it was pointed out in .

### 4.3 More constrained cases

Results for independent gaugino masses indicate that Yukawa unification happens for a wide range of $`M_2`$, which suggests that it can be achieved also in the case of gaugino masses being restricted by flipped SU(5) symmetry (cf. Eq. (31)). Motivated by this, we re-scan the full parameter space with $`M_2=M_3`$ and find that the results are qualitatively very similar to those of independent gaugino masses, both in the $`b\tau `$ and $`tb\tau `$ cases. For completeness, we present results for $`tb\tau `$ Yukawa unification in Fig. 8. This is a scan with independent Higgs masses although these are not showed in the figure since there is no preference for particular values of Higgs masse just as in previous cases. As expected, only solutions with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$ are found in this case. We also performed a scan with vanishing Higgs masses with similar results. It is interesting to note that even in this case, when the SUSY breaking scenario is characterized by just three soft SUSY breaking parameters: $`M_1,M_2=M_3`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, we find a region with good Yukawa unification as well as $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$. In this case Yukawa unification is achieved at slightly higher values of gaugino masses compared to the scenario with independent gaugino masses: $`M_31.5`$ TeV, $`M_1\stackrel{>}{}6`$ TeV. Typical SUSY spectra from this region are represented by model 4 in Table 1. The spectrum in this case exhibits similar features as spectra for independent gaugino masses.

Finally, in the case with gaugino masses constrained by Pati-Salam symmetry (30), we do not expect Yukawa unification while keeping a relatively light SUSY spectrum. Based on results for independent gaugino masses and the flipped SU(5) case we see that $`|M_1||M_2|`$ is highly preferred. However, this can be only achieved for large values of $`M_3`$. Therefore Yukawa unification in this case might only be satisfied with gluino and squarks not lighter than several TeV which makes this scenario phenomenologically less interesting.

## 5 Summary and conclusions

In this work, we analysed Yukawa unification in models with non-universal gaugino mediation of SUSY breaking. We assumed that all soft SUSY breaking terms vanish at the compactification scale $`M_c`$ (which is set slightly below the usual SUSY GUT scale). The exception being the gaugino and Higgs masses, which were assumed to be non-zero and independent at $`M_c`$. We also considered the cases with vanishing Higgs masses and degenerate $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ values.

We showed that $`b\tau `$, and even $`tb\tau `$, unification can be satisfied simultaneously with experimental constraints on $`bs\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$. This typically happens for $`|M_1||M_2|,|M_3|`$. The large values of $`M_1`$ are needed in order to have a neutralino LSP in a substantial part of the parameter space. This is necessary especially in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region where Yukawa unification can be achieved.

Yukawa unification strongly prefers $`\mu M_3<0`$ just as the mSUGRA scenario or SO(10) motivated models . The advantage of non-universal gaugino mediation is the possibility of achieving Yukawa coupling unification with a relatively light spectrum. This, on the other hand, provides a sizeable SUSY contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment (shown by Table 1), while the SUSY contribution to $`a_\mu `$ in most of other scenarios is negligible . The relic density of neutralinos from resulting region of SUSY parameter space is typically below the expectations from cosmological observations. For recent discussion of neutralino relic density in other frameworks for Yukawa coupling unification, see Refs. .

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H. Baer, S. Raby, K. Tobe, T. Blažek and X. Tata for fruitful discussions. R.D. was supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract DE-FG03-91ER-40674 and the Davis Institute for High Energy Physics. The research of C.B. was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-FG02-97ER41022.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Widespread occurrence of signals exhibiting power spectral density with $`1/f`$ behavior suggests that a general mathematical explanation of such an effect might exist. However, physical models of $`1/f`$ noise in some physical systems are usually very specialized and they do not explain the omnipresence of the processes with $`1/f^\delta `$ spectrum. Mathematical algorithms and models for the generation of the processes with $`1/f`$ noise can not, as a rule, be solved analytically and they do not reveal the origin as well as the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of $`1/f`$ type fluctuations.

History of the progress in different areas of physics indicates to the crucial influence of simple models on the advancement of the understanding of the main points of the new phenomena. We note here only the decisive influence of the Bohr model of hydrogen atom on the development of the quantum theory, the role of the Lorenz model as well as the logistic and standard (Chirikov) maps for understanding of the deterministic chaos and the quantum kicked rotator for the revealing the quantum localization of classical chaos.

Here we present simple models of $`1/f`$ noise which may essentially influence on the understanding of the origin and main properties of the effect. Our models are the result of a search for necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of $`1/f`$ fluctuations in simple systems affected by the random external perturbations, which where initiated in  and originated from the observation of the transition from chaotic to nonchaotic behavior in the ensemble of randomly driven systems .

## 2 Simple model

The simplest version of our model corresponds to one particle moving along some orbit. The period of this motion fluctuates (due to external random perturbations of the system’s parameters) about some average value $`\overline{\tau }`$. So, a sequence of the transit times $`\left\{t_k\right\}`$ when the particle crosses some point of the orbit is described by the iterative equations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}t_k=\hfill & t_{k1}+\tau _k,\hfill \\ \tau _k=\hfill & \tau _{k1}\gamma \left(\tau _{k1}\overline{\tau }\right)+\sigma \epsilon _k.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`\gamma `$ is the coefficient of the relaxation of the period to the average value $`\overline{\tau }`$, $`\left\{\epsilon _k\right\}`$ denotes the sequence of random variables with zero expectation and unit variance and $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the noise. Due to the contribution of a large number of random variables to the transit times, model (1) represents a long-memory random process.

Power spectral density $`S\left(f\right)`$ of the signal or current of the model (1), $`I\left(t\right)=a_k\delta \left(tt_k\right)`$ (with $`a`$ being a contribution to the signal of one pulse or contribution to the current of one particle when it crosses the section of observation), may be calculated according to equation

$$S\left(f\right)=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{2a^2}{T}\left|\underset{k=k_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}e^{i2\pi ft_k}\right|^2$$
$`(2)`$
where $`T`$ is the whole observation time interval, $`k_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ are minimal and maximal values of index $`k`$ in the interval of observation and the brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the averaging over the realizations of the process. Eq. (2) may be rewritten in the form

$$S\left(f\right)=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{2a^2}{T}\underset{k,q}{}e^{i2\pi f\mathrm{\Delta }(k;q)}$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k;q)t_{k+q}t_k`$ is the difference of transit times $`t_{k+q}`$ and $`t_k`$.

At $`k\gamma ^1`$ we have the stationary process : the expectation $`\tau _k=\overline{\tau }`$ and the variance $`\sigma _\tau ^2\tau _k^2\tau _k^2=\sigma ^2/2\gamma `$ of the recurrence time $`\tau _k`$ do not depend on the time while $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k;q)`$ is a normally distributed random variable with the expectation $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }\left(q\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{};q)=q\overline{\tau }`$ and the variance $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(q\right)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{};q)^2\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{};q)^2`$ expressed as

$$\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(q\right)=\left(\frac{\sigma }{\gamma }\right)^2\left[q\frac{\left(1\left(1\gamma \right)^q\right)}{\gamma }\right].$$
$`(4)`$
For the normal distribution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k;q)=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(q\right)`$ Eq. (3) yields

$$S\left(f\right)=2\overline{I}a\underset{q}{}\mathrm{e}^{i2\pi f\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }\left(q\right)2\pi ^2f^2\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(q\right)}$$
$`(5)`$
where $`\overline{I}=\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}a\left(k_{\mathrm{max}}k_{\mathrm{min}}+1\right)/T=a/\overline{\tau }`$ is the average current.

Substitution of the expansions of the variance (4) at $`\left|q\right|\gamma ^1`$ in powers of $`\gamma \left|q\right|`$,

$$\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }^2\left(q\right)=\sigma _\tau ^2q^2,$$

into Eq. (5) yields $`1/f`$-like power spectrum,

$$S\left(f\right)=\overline{I}^2\frac{\alpha _H}{f},$$
$`(6)`$
for sufficiently small parameters $`\sigma `$ and $`\gamma `$ in any desirably wide range of frequencies, $`f_1=\gamma /\pi \sigma _\tau <f<f_2=1/\pi \sigma _\tau `$. Here $`\alpha _H`$ is a dimensionless constant (the Hooge parameter),

$$\alpha _H=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}Ke^{K^2},K=\frac{\overline{\tau }}{\sqrt{2}\sigma _\tau }.$$
$`(7)`$
We see that the power of $`1/f`$ noise except the squared average current $`\overline{I}^2`$ depends strongly on the ratio of the average recurrence time $`\overline{\tau }`$ to the standard deviation of the recurrence time $`\sigma _\tau `$.

Therefore, the process (1) containing only one relaxation time $`\gamma ^1`$ can for sufficiently small damping $`\gamma `$ produce an exact $`1/f`$-like spectrum in wide range of frequency $`(f_1,f_2)`$, with $`f_2/f_1\gamma ^1`$.

The model is free from the unphysical divergency of the spectrum at $`f0`$. So, using for $`f<f_1`$ an expansion of expression (4) at $`\left|q\right|\gamma ^1`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }^2(q)=\left(\sigma /\gamma \right)^2\left(\left|q\right|1/\gamma \right)`$, we obtain from Eq. (5) the Lorentzian power spectrum

$$S\left(f\right)=\overline{I}^2\frac{4\tau _{rel}}{1+\tau _{rel}^2\omega ^2}.$$
$`(8)`$
Here $`\omega =2\pi f`$ and $`\tau _{rel}=D_t=\sigma ^2/2\overline{\tau }\gamma ^2`$ is the ”diffusion” coefficient of the time $`t_k`$. For $`ff_0=\overline{\tau }\gamma ^2/\pi \sigma ^2=1/2\pi \tau _{rel}`$ we have the white noise

$$\begin{array}{c}S(f)=\overline{I}^2\left(2\sigma ^2/\overline{\tau }\gamma ^2\right),\\ f\mathrm{min}\{f_1,f_0=\overline{\tau }\gamma ^2/\pi \sigma ^2\}.\end{array}$$

This is in agreement with the statement  that the power spectrum of any pulse sequence is white at low enough frequencies.

Equations (6)–(8) describe quite well the power spectrum of the random process (1) for perturbation by the Gaussian white noise and even for perturbations by the non-Gaussian sequence of random impacts $`\left\{\epsilon _k\right\}`$ in Eq. (1) (see illustrative examples in Refs.  and ).

## 3 Generalizations and numerical analysis

This simple exactly solvable model can easily be generalized in different directions: for large number of particles moving in similar orbits with coherent (identical for all particles) or independent (uncorrelated for different particles) fluctuations of the periods, for non-Gaussian or continuous perturbations of the systems’ parameters and for spatially extended systems. So, when an ensemble of $`N_c`$ particles moves on closed orbits and the period of each particle fluctuates independently (due to the perturbations by uncorrelated sequences of random variables $`\{\epsilon _k^\upsilon \}`$, different for each particle $`\upsilon `$) the power spectral density of the collective current $`I`$ of all particles can be calculated by the above method  too and it is expressed as the Hooge formula

$$S\left(f\right)=\overline{I}^2\frac{\alpha _H}{N_cf},N_c=Vn_c.$$
$`(6a)`$
This expression with the factor $`1/N_c`$ is in agreement with the Hooge  statements that summation of spectra is only allowed if the processes contributing to the spectrum are isolated from each other and that only isolated traps yield $`1/f`$ spectrum.

It should be noted that in many cases the intensity of signals or currents can be expressed as a sequence of the pulse occurrence times $`\left\{t_k\right\}`$, i.e., as $`I\left(t\right)=a_k\delta \left(tt_k\right)`$. This expression represents exactly the flow of identical point objects: cars, electrons, photons and so on. More generally, instead of the Dirac delta function one should introduce time dependent pulse amplitudes $`A_k\left(tt_k\right)`$. The low frequency power spectral density, however, depends weakly on the shapes of the pulses , while fluctuations of the pulses amplitudes result, as a rule, in white or Lorentzian, but not $`1/f`$, noise. Model (1) in such cases represents fluctuations of the averaged interevent time $`\tau _k`$ between the subsequent occurrence times of the pulses.

The model may also be generalized for the nonlinear relaxation of the interevent time $`\tau _k`$. In such a case Eq. (1) can be written in the form

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}t_k=\hfill & t_{k1}+\tau _k,\hfill \\ \tau _k=\hfill & \tau _{k1}\frac{dV(\tau _{k1})}{d\tau _{k1}}+\sigma \epsilon _k.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(9)`$
Here the function $`V(\tau _k)`$ represents the effective ”potential well” for the Brownian motion of the interevent time $`\tau _k`$. The steady state distribution density of the interevent time $`\tau _k`$ generated by Eq. (9) is of the form

$$\psi _\tau ^{\mathrm{st}}(\tau _k)=C\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2V(\tau _k)}{\sigma ^2}\right]$$
$`(10)`$
where a constant $`C`$ may be obtained from the normalization. For the power-law ”potential well”

$$V(\tau _k)=\frac{1}{2}\gamma \left(\tau _k\overline{\tau }\right)^{2n}$$
$`(11)`$
with integer $`n`$ we have a generalization of Eqs. (1)

$$\begin{array}{c}t_k=t_{k1}+\tau _k,\\ \tau _k=\tau _{k1}\gamma n\left(\tau _{k1}\overline{\tau }\right)^{2n1}+\sigma \epsilon _k.\end{array}$$
$`(12)`$
The steady state distribution density of the interevent time $`\tau _k`$ in such a case is

$$\psi _\tau ^{\mathrm{st}}(\tau _k)=\frac{\left(\gamma /\sigma ^2\right)^{1/2n}\mathrm{exp}[\frac{\gamma \left(\tau _k\overline{\tau }\right)^{2n}}{\sigma ^2}]}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+1/2n\right)}.$$
$`(13)`$
For sufficiently large $`n1`$ Eqs. (12) and (13) represent Brownian motion of the interevent time $`\tau _k`$ in almost rectangle ”potential well” (square-well potential) restricting movement of $`\tau _k`$ mostly in the interval $`(\overline{\tau }h,\overline{\tau }+h)`$ with $`h\left(\sigma ^2/\gamma \right)^{1/2n}`$. At $`h<\overline{\tau }`$ such a restriction prevents from the emergence of the negative interevent times $`\tau _k`$ and, consequently, from the clustering of the particles or of the signal pulses.

We can evaluate the power spectrum of the processes (9) and (12) as well . The power spectral density (3) may be rewritten in the form

$$S\left(f\right)=2\overline{I}a\underset{q}{}e^{i2\pi f\tau _k\left(q\right)q}$$
$`(14)`$
where the occurrence times $`t_{k+q}`$ and $`t_k`$ difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k;q)`$ is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(k;q)t_{k+q}t_k=\underset{l=k+1}{\overset{k+q}{}}\tau _k=\tau _k\left(q\right)q,q0$$

with $`\tau _k\left(q\right)\left(t_{k+q}t_k\right)/q`$ being the average interevent time in the time interval ($`t_k,t_{k+q}`$) and the brackets in Eq. (14) denote averaging over time (index $`k`$) and over realizations of the process. At $`2\pi f\tau _k\left(q\right)1`$ the summation in (14) may be replaced by the integration

$$S\left(f\right)=2\overline{I}a\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i2\pi f\tau _kq}𝑑q.$$

Here the averaging over $`k`$ and over realizations of the process coincides with the averaging over the distribution of the interevent times $`\tau _k`$, i.e.,

$$e^{i2\pi fq\tau }=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}e^{i2\pi fq\tau }\psi _\tau \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau =\chi _\tau \left(2\pi fq\right)$$

where $`\psi _\tau \left(\tau _k\right)`$ is the distribution density of the interevent times $`\tau _k`$ and $`\chi _\tau \left(\vartheta \right)`$ is the characteristic function of this distribution.

Taking into account the property of the characteristic function

$$\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\chi _\tau \left(\vartheta \right)𝑑\vartheta =2\pi \psi _\tau \left(0\right)$$

we obtain the final expression for the power spectrum

$$S\left(f\right)=2\overline{I}^2\overline{\tau }\psi _\tau \left(0\right)/f.$$
$`(15)`$
For Gaussian distribution of the interevent times $`\tau _k`$

$$\psi _\tau \left(0\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{\tau }^2/2\sigma _\tau ^2\right)/\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _\tau $$

and according to Eq. (15) we recover expressions (6) and (7) obtained from the analysis of the dynamical process.

Therefore, according to Eqs. (6), (7) and (15) the dimensionless parameter $`\alpha _H=2\overline{\tau }\psi _\tau \left(0\right)`$ is proportional to the distribution density $`\psi _\tau \left(0\right)`$ of the interevent time $`\tau _k`$ in the point $`\tau _k=0`$, i.e., to the probability of the clustering of the signal pulses. The pulse clustering results in the large variance of the signal – the condition necessary for appearance of stationary $`1/f`$ noise in the wide range of frequency.

It should be noted, however, that Eq. (15) represent an idealized $`1/f`$ noise. The real systems have finite relaxation time and, therefore, expression of the noise intensity in the form (14)–(15) is valid only for $`f>\left(2\pi \tau _{rel}\right)^1`$ with $`\tau _{rel}`$ being the relaxation time of the interevent time’s $`\tau _k`$ fluctuations. On the other hand, due to the deviations from the approximation $`t_{k+q}t_k=\tau _kq`$ at large $`q`$, for sufficiently low frequency we can obtain the finite intensity of $`1/f^\delta `$ ($`\delta 1`$) noise even in the case $`\psi \left(0\right)=0`$ but for the signals with fluctuations resulting in the dense concentrations of the pulse occurrence times $`t_k`$.

We can generate, of course, the stationary time series of the occurrence times $`t_k`$ also for other restrictions for the interevent time $`\tau _k`$, e.g., with the reflecting boundary conditions at some values $`\tau _k=\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\tau _k=\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$. The process like (1) with the reflecting condition for $`\tau _k`$ at $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=\tau _\mathrm{s}`$ may also be generated by the recurrent equations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}t_k=\hfill & t_{k1}+\tau _\mathrm{s}+\tau _k\hfill \\ \tau _k=\hfill & \left|\tau _{k1}\gamma (\tau _{k1}\overline{\tau })+\sigma \epsilon _k\right|.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(16)`$
Numerical analysis of the models like (1), (9), (12) and (16) as well as with other restrictions for the interevent time $`\tau _k`$ shows that power spectrum of the current is $`1/f`$-like in large interval of frequency only when the distribution density of the interevent times $`\tau _k`$ in the point $`\tau _k0`$ is nonzero, i.e., $`\psi _\tau (\tau _k0)0`$. For models with $`\psi _\tau (0)=0`$ or $`\psi _\tau (0)`$ very close to zero we observe in numerical simulations the power spectrum $`S\left(f\right)1/f^{3/2}`$ (see Ref.  and Fig. 1).

## 4 Conclusions

Simple analytically solvable models of $`1/f`$ noise are proposed. The models reveal main features, parameter dependences and possible origin of $`1/f`$ noise, i.e., random increments of the time intervals between the pulses or interevent times of the elementary events of the process. The conclusion that $`1/f^\delta `$ noise with $`\delta 1`$ may result from the clustering of the signal pulses, particles or elementary events can be drawn from the analysis of the simple, exactly solvable models. The mechanism of the clustering depends on the system.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge stimulating discussions with Prof. A. Bastys, Prof. R. Katilius and Prof. A. Matulionis.


text:
# Imperfection effects for multiple applications of the quantum wavelet transform

## I APPENDIX

## II A1

Here we show examples of density plot for the matrix elements $`|U_{n,n^{}}|^2`$ for the model (1) for $`k=1,10,100,1000`$ (Fig.6).

## III A2

The spectral analysis of the model (1) is obtained by a numerical diagonalization of the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}`$. Due to the unitarity of $`\widehat{U}`$, all the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ are on the unitary circle, $`\lambda =e^{i\omega }`$, where $`\omega `$ are the quasi-energies included in the interval $`[0,2\pi )`$. The typical examples for the level spacing statistics $`P(s)`$ for $`\omega `$ are shown in Fig.7. It is remarkable that even for large kick strengths (e.g. $`k=1000`$) the Wigner-Dyson statistics of the random matrix theory is not achieved. We note that for such values of $`k`$ in the sawtooth map all the eigenstates are delocalized and $`P(s)`$ is given by the Wigner-Dyson distribution simone ; simone1 .

## IV A3

Our quantum circuit is based on the scheme described in williams . We implemented the Pyramidal Algorithm (PYA) for the $`D^{(4)}`$ wavelet transform. It is based on repeated applications of the operator $`D_{2^n}^{(4)}`$ (the wavelet kernel) and the permutation operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}`$. Here the kernel $`D_{2^n}^{(4)}`$ is the Daubeschies $`D^{(4)}`$ matrix of size $`2^n\times 2^n`$. The operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}`$ realizes the shuffling step on vectors $`\{v_j\}_{j=1,2^n}`$ of size $`2^n`$. The action of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}`$ can be regarded as a (classical) permutation of the index for the vector $`\{v_j\}_{j=1,2^n}`$. The binary representation of index $`j`$, $`(a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, is mapped into $`(a_{n1},a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n2})`$, where $`a_0`$ is the most significant bit. The classical operator $`D^{(4)}`$ can be written as

$$D^{(4)}=(D_4^{(4)}I_{2^{n_q}4})(\mathrm{\Pi }_8I_{2^{n_q}8})\mathrm{}(D_{2^i}^{(4)}I_{2^{n_q}2^i})(\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^{i+1}}I_{2^{n_q}2^{i+1}})\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^{n_q}}D_{2^{n_q}}^{(4)}$$
(5)
where $`I_M`$ is the identity matrix of size $`M\times M`$ and $``$ is the direct sum of operators (see Fig.8).

In a quantum computation, the action of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}`$ on the element $`|j=|a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}`$ of the computational basis is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}|a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n2},a_{n1}=|a_{n1},a_{n2},\mathrm{},a_1,a_0`$ and it can be implemented via $`n1`$ quantum swaps, each of them built by $`3`$ control-not gates. The direct sums $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}I_{2^{n_q}2^n}`$ and $`D_{2^n}^{(4)}I_{2^{n_q}2^n}`$ correspond to multi-controlled operators with $`n_qn`$ controlling qubits. Both $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2^n}`$ and $`D_{2^n}^{(4)}`$ can be implemented by a polynomial sequence of elementary gates (Toffoli, Control-Not, and one-qubit rotations), therefore the above multi-controlled operators are replaced by the product of multi-controlled elementary gates. Following the procedure proposed in vedral , these multi-controlled gates were implemented through elementary gates with the help of an ancilla qubit. The computational cost of a $`l`$-controlled gate is linear in the number of controlling qubits $`l`$.

The wavelet kernel $`D_{2^n}^{(4)}`$ is decomposed into elementary gates following the factorization proposed in williams  with slight modifications. The kernel can be written as

$$D_{2^n}^{(4)}=(I_{2^{n1}}C_1)P_{2^n}(NI_{2^{n1}})(NI_{2^{n2}}I_{2^{n1}})\mathrm{}(NI_2I_{2^n4})(NI_{2^n2})P_{2^n}(I_{2^{n1}}C_0)$$
(6)
where $`P_{2^n}`$ is the full permutation matrix which action on the binary representation of vector indexes is $`P_{2^n}(a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n2},a_{n1})=(a_{n1},a_{n2},\mathrm{},a_1,a_0)`$ and $`N`$ is the not gate. Here $`C_1`$, $`C_0`$ are $`2\times 2`$ rotation matrices, which can be expressed via the Daubechies coefficients $`c_0,c_1,c_2,c_3`$ by defining

$$\stackrel{~}{C_0}=2\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_2& c_3\\ c_3& c_2\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{C_1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{c_0}{c_3}& 1\\ 1& \frac{c_0}{c_3}\end{array}\right)$$

$`C_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det\stackrel{~}{C_0}}}}\stackrel{~}{C_0}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\theta _0& \mathrm{cos}\theta _0\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _0& \mathrm{sin}\theta _0\end{array}\right)C_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det\stackrel{~}{C_1}}}}\stackrel{~}{C_1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1& \mathrm{cos}\theta _1\\ \mathrm{cos}\theta _1& \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
where $`\theta _0=\frac{\pi }{3}`$ and $`\theta _1=\frac{5}{12}\pi `$. The operator $`P_{2^n}`$ is implemented by $`O(n)`$ swap gates. We note a slight modification in the equation (11), comparing to williams . The quantum circuit corresponding to the wavelet kernel (6) is shown in Fig.9. Fig.10 clarifies the notations used in Figs.8,9. The total number of elementary gates needed to implement the kernel circuit scales as $`O(n^2)`$, thus leading to a $`O(n_q^3)`$ total complexity for the QWT. For our circuit the number of elementary gates was $`n_g=1509,2974,5237,8470,12821,18462,25541`$ for $`n_q=6,7,8,9,10,11,12`$. It is assumed that the elementary gates act between any two qubits.

## V A4

Here we show the probability distribution in the computational basis for a large value of kick strength ($`k=1000`$) at two different moments of time ($`t=1000`$ and $`t=10000`$) (Figs.11,12). We remark two main features: the distributions have pronounced peaked structure and the peaks are spread all over the computational basis. For $`t=1000`$ the effects of noisy errors are weak so that exact and noisy distributions are close (top vs. middle) while the distribution for static imperfections is already strongly modified (top vs. bottom).

## VI A5

We have also considered another model of static imperfections. It is obtained from the model of noisy gates by repeating the same sequence of errors for each application of the evolution operator $`\widehat{U}`$ in (1). As in cat  each noisy gate transformation is obtained by diagonalization of nondiagonal part and then by multiplication of each eigenvalue by a random phase $`\mathrm{exp}(i\eta )`$ with $`ϵ/2<\eta <ϵ/2`$. This pseudo-static imperfections model is intermediate between the two cases considered in the text. The behaviour of fidelity $`f(t)`$ is similar to the one shown in Fig.5a (see Fig.13 (top)). For large and moderate $`ϵ`$ the total number of gates $`N_g`$ is not very large compared to $`n_g`$ and correlations between different map iterations can be neglected. Then the gates look like quasi-random and the scaling is given by the relation (2) with $`C5`$. However, in the limit of small $`ϵ`$ the coherent rotations become dominant and the data give the scaling $`N_g1/ϵ`$ (see Fig.13). This confirms the generic scaling typical of static imperfections.