text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Ghoshal and Zamolodchikov  formulated the general framework of integrable quantum field theory in the presence of a boundary. 111Earlier related work includes -. Among the examples which they investigated is the boundary version of the sine-Gordon (SG) model . They argued that this model has a two-parameter family of boundary interactions which preserves integrability, and they proposed the corresponding soliton boundary $`S`$ matrix.

Inami et al.  subsequently investigated a boundary version of the supersymmetric sine-Gordon (SSG) model -. They argued that the combined constraints of integrability and supersymmetry do not allow any free parameters in the boundary interaction. The boundary SSG and SShG (supersymmetric sinh-Gordon) models have been studied further in -.

We argue here that, contrary to the claim in , the boundary SSG model has a two-parameter family of boundary interactions which preserves both integrability and supersymmetry. The key point is that the class of boundary interactions considered in  is too restrictive: one must instead introduce a Fermionic boundary degree of freedom, as was done by Ghoshal and Zamolodchikov  in order to describe the Ising model in a boundary magnetic field. The boundary SG model at the free Fermion point  is also formulated with such Fermionic boundary degrees of freedom.

Our result resolves an interesting paradox which arose from our recent work  on the boundary supersymmetric Yang-Lee model, which is defined using the notion of perturbed conformal field theory . Indeed, let us first recall that, just as the bulk Yang-Lee (YL) model  is a restriction  of the bulk SG model, the bulk supersymmetric Yang-Lee (SYL) model  is a restriction  of the bulk SSG model. The same is true for the corresponding boundary versions: the boundary YL  and boundary SYL  models are restrictions of the boundary SG and boundary SSG models, respectively. In  we found strong evidence (both from perturbed conformal field theory and the conjectured boundary $`S`$ matrix) that the boundary SYL model with one free boundary parameter has supersymmetry. This strongly suggests that its “parent”, the boundary SSG model, should also have at least a one-parameter family of boundary interactions which maintains both integrability and supersymmetry.

The outline of this Letter is as follows. In Section 2, we propose the boundary interaction in terms of two unknown functions $`f(\varphi )`$ and $`(\varphi )`$. We determine these functions in Section 3 from the requirements of supersymmetry and integrability. In Section 4 we briefly discuss our results. In particular, we propose the boundary $`S`$ matrix for the first supermultiplet of breathers.

## 2 The boundary SSG model

In order to facilitate comparison with , which hereafter we refer to as I, we adopt the same notations. The Euclidean-space action of the boundary SSG model is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x_0+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y_b,`$ (1)
where the bulk Lagrangian density is given by222We have already performed, following I, the field rescalings $`\varphi \varphi /\beta `$, $`\psi \psi /\beta `$, $`\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }/\beta `$, and we consider the classical limit $`\beta 0`$; moreover, we have set the mass $`m=2`$ (cf. Eq. (I2.1)).

$`_0=2_z\varphi _{\overline{z}}\varphi 2\overline{\psi }_z\overline{\psi }+2\psi _{\overline{z}}\psi 4\mathrm{cos}\varphi 4\overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},`$ (2)
where $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ are the two components of a Majorana Fermion field, and $`z=x+iy`$, $`\overline{z}=xiy`$. We propose the following boundary Lagrangian at $`x=0`$

$`_b=\overline{\psi }\psi +ia_ya2f(\varphi )a(\psi \overline{\psi })+(\varphi ),`$ (3)
where $`a`$ is a Hermitian Fermionic boundary degree of freedom which anticommutes with both $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$. As mentioned in the Introduction, such an approach was first considered by Ghoshal and Zamolodchikov  to describe the Ising model in a boundary magnetic field. Moreover, $`f(\varphi )`$ and $`(\varphi )`$ are potentials (functions of the scalar field $`\varphi `$, but not of its derivatives), which are still to be determined.

Variation of the action gives the classical equations of motion. For the bulk, the equations are (I2.2), (I3.3)

$`_{\overline{z}}_z\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},`$
$`_{\overline{z}}\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},_z\overline{\psi }=\psi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},`$ (4)
and the boundary conditions at $`x=0`$ are

$`\psi +\overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`2fa,`$ (5)
$`i_ya`$ $`=`$ $`f(\psi \overline{\psi }),`$ (6)
$`_x\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}+2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{\varphi }}a(\psi \overline{\psi }).`$ (7)
If we assume that $`f`$ is nonzero, then we can eliminate $`a`$ from Eqs. (5)-(7), and thereby obtain the following boundary conditions at $`x=0`$:

$`_y(\psi +\overline{\psi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}_y\varphi (\psi +\overline{\psi })2if^2(\psi \overline{\psi }),`$ (8)
$`_x\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi }}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\overline{\psi }\psi .`$ (9)
## 3 Integrals of motion

We now proceed to determine the potentials $`f(\varphi )`$ and $`(\varphi )`$ which appear in the boundary action by demanding both supersymmetry and integrability. We recall  that the bulk SSG model has an infinite number of integrals of motion constructed from the densities $`T_{s+1}`$, $`\overline{T}_{s+1}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{s1}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s1}`$, which obey

$`_{\overline{z}}T_{s+1}=_z\mathrm{\Theta }_{s1},_z\overline{T}_{s+1}=_{\overline{z}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s1}.`$ (10)
The $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`s=1`$ densities are given by the supercurrent

$`T_{\frac{3}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`_z\varphi \psi ,\overline{T}_{\frac{3}{2}}=_{\overline{z}}\varphi \overline{\psi },`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{\psi }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\frac{1}{2}}=2\psi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},`$ (11)
and the energy-momentum tensor

$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`(_z\varphi )^2_z\psi \psi ,\overline{T}_2=(_{\overline{z}}\varphi )^2+_{\overline{z}}\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi },`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_0=2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},`$ (12)
respectively. The $`s=3`$ densities are given by

$`T_4`$ $`=`$ $`(_z^2\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_z\varphi )^4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(_z\varphi )^2_z\psi \psi _z^2\psi _z\psi ,`$
$`\overline{T}_4`$ $`=`$ $`(_{\overline{z}}^2\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_{\overline{z}}\varphi )^4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(_{\overline{z}}\varphi )^2_{\overline{z}}\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }+_{\overline{z}}^2\overline{\psi }_{\overline{z}}\overline{\psi },`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$ $`=`$ $`(_z\varphi )^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _z\psi \psi \mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\overline{\psi }_z\psi _z\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\psi }\psi (_z\varphi )^2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}},`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2`$ $`=`$ $`(_{\overline{z}}\varphi )^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi +_{\overline{z}}\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}+\psi _{\overline{z}}\overline{\psi }_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\overline{\psi }\psi (_{\overline{z}}\varphi )^2\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}.`$ (13)
As observed by Ghoshal and Zamolodchikov , it follows from the continuity Eqs. (10) that the boundary model has the integral of motion

$`P_s={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x(T_{s+1}+\overline{T}_{s+1}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{s1}+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s1})i\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(y),`$ (14)
provided that the following condition holds at $`x=0`$

$`T_{s+1}\overline{T}_{s+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{s1}+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s1}=_y\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(y),`$ (15)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s(y)`$ is a (local) boundary term.

As we shall show below, the requirement that $`P_3`$ be an integral of motion implies that the potential $`(\varphi )`$ is the same as for the (Bosonic) boundary SG model

$`(\varphi )=2\alpha \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi \varphi _0),`$ (16)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi _0`$ are arbitrary real parameters.

The requirement of on-shell supersymmetry is that $`P_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ also be an integral of motion. The constraint (15) for $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ reads

$`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_x\varphi 2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}})(\psi \overline{\psi }){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_y\varphi (\psi +\overline{\psi })=_y\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (17)
We now substitute for $`_x\varphi `$ the boundary condition (9) with the potential $`(\varphi )`$ given by (16); and then we use (5) and (6) to substitute for $`\psi +\overline{\psi }`$ and $`\psi \overline{\psi }`$, respectively. Moreover, we make the following Ansatz for the boundary term

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}g(\varphi )a,`$ (18)
where $`a`$ is the Fermionic boundary degree of freedom appearing in the boundary Lagrangian (3), and $`g(\varphi )`$ is a function of $`\varphi `$ which is yet to be determined. Eq. (17) implies that $`g(\varphi )`$ must satisfy the pair of equations

$`g={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{sin}\frac{1}{2}(\varphi \varphi _0)4\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi }{2}}{f}},{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\varphi }}=2f.`$ (19)
It is not difficult to solve these equations for $`f(\varphi )`$ (and hence, also $`g(\varphi )`$),

$`f(\varphi )=\left[\alpha \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi \varphi _0)4\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha \mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{2}(\varphi \varphi _0)4\mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi }{2}+C}}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (20)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant.

We now turn to the requirement that $`P_3`$ be an integral of motion. The LHS of the constraint (15) for $`s=3`$ is given by (I3.10)

$`T_4\overline{T}_4\mathrm{\Theta }_2+\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_2=`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(4\mathrm{sin}\varphi 2\varphi _{yy}+2\overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}})\varphi _{xy}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}(\varphi _x^2\varphi _y^2)\varphi _x\varphi _y+i\varphi _x\varphi _y\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{16}}(\varphi _x^2\varphi _y^2)(\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }\psi _y\psi )+3i\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}(\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }\psi _y\psi )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\varphi _x(\overline{\psi }_y\psi \psi _y\overline{\psi })`$
$`+i(\overline{\psi }_{yy}\overline{\psi }_y\psi _{yy}\psi _y)+i\overline{\psi }\psi \varphi _x\varphi _y\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\varphi _x\varphi _y(\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }+\psi _y\psi )`$
$`+2_y\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}(\overline{\psi }_y\psi \overline{\psi }\psi _y)+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}(\overline{\psi }\psi _{yy}\overline{\psi }_{yy}\psi ).`$
Our task is to try to write the above expression as $`_y\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$.

We begin by replacing $`\varphi _x`$ by the boundary condition (9), and $`\varphi _{xy}`$ by

$`\varphi _{xy}={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}}\varphi _y+2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi ^2}}\varphi _y\overline{\psi }\psi +2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}(\overline{\psi }_y\psi +\overline{\psi }\psi _y).`$ (22)
Since the pure Bosonic terms in (21) (which evidently do not depend on the potential $`f`$) must by themselves form a total $`y`$-derivative, it is clear that $`(\varphi )`$ must be the same as for the pure Bosonic boundary SG model, as anticipated in Eq. (16) above. (See also I.)

The last two terms in (21) can be re-expressed as

$`3_y\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}(\overline{\psi }_y\psi \overline{\psi }\psi _y)+_y\left[\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}(\overline{\psi }\psi _y\overline{\psi }_y\psi )\right].`$ (23)
Let us now consider the Fermionic term in (21) with three derivatives, $`i(\overline{\psi }_{yy}\overline{\psi }_y\psi _{yy}\psi _y)`$. We can extract a total $`y`$-derivative from this term as follows: first, observe the identity

$`_y(\psi _y\overline{\psi }_y)=\psi _{yy}\overline{\psi }_y+\psi _y\overline{\psi }_{yy}.`$ (24)
Next, differentiate the boundary condition (8),

$`\psi _{yy}+\overline{\psi }_{yy}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi ^2}}\varphi _y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _{yy}\right)(\psi +\overline{\psi })`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _y(\psi _y+\overline{\psi }_y)4if^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _y(\psi \overline{\psi })2if^2(\psi _y\overline{\psi }_y).`$
Solving (25) for $`\psi _{yy}`$ and substituting into (24), and repeating for $`\overline{\psi }_{yy}`$, we obtain the desired result

$`i(\overline{\psi }_{yy}\overline{\psi }_y\psi _{yy}\psi _y)=i_y(\psi _y\overline{\psi }_y)`$ (26)
$`+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi ^2}}\varphi _y^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _{yy}\right)\left[(\psi +\overline{\psi })\overline{\psi }_y+\psi _y(\psi +\overline{\psi })\right]`$
$`+4f^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _y\left[(\psi \overline{\psi })\overline{\psi }_y+\psi _y(\psi \overline{\psi })\right]+2i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _y\psi _y\overline{\psi }_y.`$
Our general strategy now is to use the boundary condition (8) to express $`\psi _y\overline{\psi }`$ in terms of $`\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }`$ (plus terms with $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$); and similarly to express $`\overline{\psi }_y\psi `$ in terms of $`\psi _y\psi `$, and $`\psi _y\overline{\psi }_y`$ in terms of $`\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }`$ and $`\psi _y\psi `$. In this way, all the remaining Fermion bilinears have at most one $`y`$-derivative; and those bilinears with one derivative appear in only two combinations: $`(\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }\psi _y\psi )`$ and $`(\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }+\psi _y\psi )`$. The former combination can be further reduced using the identity

$`\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }\psi _y\psi =_y(\overline{\psi }\psi )2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\varphi _y\overline{\psi }\psi .`$ (27)
However, the latter combination cannot be so reduced, and thus, its coefficient must vanish. After some computation, we find that the total contribution of such terms in (21) is

$`(\overline{\psi }_y\overline{\psi }+\psi _y\psi )\varphi _y\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left[\alpha \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi \varphi _0)4\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}\right]+12f^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\right\}.`$ (28)
Recalling the result (20) for $`f(\varphi )`$, we find that the expression in (28) within braces does vanish, provided that the integration constant $`C`$ is given by 333There is a second (negative) root, which is ruled out by the requirement that $`f`$ be real.

$`C=\sqrt{\alpha ^28\alpha \mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{2}}+16}.`$ (29)
The expression for $`f(\varphi )`$ then takes the simplified form

$`f(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{C}}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\varphi D),\text{where}\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi _0}{2}}{\alpha \mathrm{cos}\frac{\varphi _0}{2}4}}.`$ (30)
After further computation, we find that (21) is given by

$`i\overline{\psi }\psi \{\varphi _y[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\alpha \mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi \varphi _0)6f^2\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}`$ (31)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi \varphi _0)+6\mathrm{cos}\varphi 6\mathrm{cos}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{2}}24f^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}]`$
$`+2\varphi _y^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^3\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi ^3}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\right)^3\right]`$
$`+2\varphi _y\varphi _{yy}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi ^2}}+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}f}{\varphi }}\right)^2]\},`$
up to a total $`y`$-derivative. Remarkably, upon substituting the result (30) for $`f(\varphi )`$, we find that the quantities in each of the square brackets vanish. We conclude that $`P_3`$ is indeed an integral of motion.

Finally, we remark that the boundary model also has the integral of motion

$`P_s^{}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑x(T_{s+1}\overline{T}_{s+1}+\mathrm{\Theta }_{s1}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s1})i\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^{}(y),`$ (32)
provided that the constraint

$`T_{s+1}+\overline{T}_{s+1}\mathrm{\Theta }_{s1}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{s1}=_y\mathrm{\Sigma }_s^{}(y)`$ (33)
is satisfied at $`x=0`$. We expect that the boundary SSG model has (for $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, at least) such integrals of motion if a different set of boundary conditions is imposed, corresponding to a boundary Lagrangian of the form

$`_b^{}=\overline{\psi }\psi +ia_ya2if(\varphi )a(\psi +\overline{\psi })+(\varphi ).`$ (34)
However, we shall not pursue those calculations here.

## 4 Discussion

We have shown that the boundary SSG model with boundary Lagrangian (3), with $`(\varphi )`$ given by (16) and $`f(\varphi )`$ given by (30), has the integrals of motion $`P_s`$ (14) with $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`s=3`$. The fact that $`P_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is an integral of motion means that the model has on-shell supersymmetry. The fact that $`P_3`$ is an integral of motion is strong evidence that the model is integrable. We emphasize that this boundary interaction, just like the one for the (Bosonic) boundary SSG model, has two continuous parameters, $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi _0`$. As mentioned in the Introduction, we were motivated to look for such boundary interactions by our earlier results  on the boundary SYL model.

We conjecture that the boundary SSG model is integrable, and that the corresponding boundary $`S`$ matrix $`𝖲(\theta )`$ for the $`n=1`$ breather supermultiplet is given by

$`𝖲(\theta )=𝖲_{SG}(\theta ;\eta ,\vartheta )𝖲_{SUSY}^{(\epsilon =+1)}(\theta ;\phi ),`$ (35)
where $`𝖲_{SG}(\theta ;\eta ,\vartheta )`$ is the $`n=1`$ breather boundary SG reflection factor , and $`𝖲_{SUSY}^{(\epsilon )}(\theta ;\phi )`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix given in . Indeed, $`𝖲(\theta )`$ satisfies the boundary Yang-Baxter equation, as well as unitarity and boundary cross-unitarity . Moreover, $`𝖲(\theta )`$ commutes with a supersymmetry charge corresponding to the integral of motion $`P_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.444The matrix $`𝖲_{SUSY}^{(\epsilon )}(\theta ;\phi )`$ with $`\epsilon =1`$ commutes with a supersymmetry charge corresponding to $`P_s^{}`$ (32) with $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. The proof is essentially the same as the one given in  for the boundary SYL model. Note that the boundary term $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (18) corresponds (up to a proportionality factor) to $`(1)^F`$, where $`F`$ denotes Fermion number.

Although the $`S`$ matrix (35) involves three boundary parameters $`\eta `$, $`\vartheta `$, $`\phi `$, we expect that there is one relation among these parameters, so that only two parameters are independent, in concordance with the boundary action. Indeed, a parallel situation occurs for the boundary SYL model , whose boundary $`S`$ matrix nominally involves two boundary parameters, but only one of them is independent. For the boundary SSG model, the relation among the parameters can presumably be found in the same manner as for the boundary SYL model : namely, by imposing the constraint  that near a pole $`iv_{0a}^\alpha `$ of the boundary $`S`$ matrix associated with the excited boundary state $`|\alpha _B`$ (which can be interpreted as a boundary bound state of particle $`A_a`$ with the boundary ground state $`|0_B`$), the boundary $`S`$ matrix must have the form

$`𝖲_a^b(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{a0}^\alpha g_\alpha ^{b0}}{\theta iv_{0a}^\alpha }},`$ (36)
where $`g_{a0}^\alpha `$ are boundary-particle couplings. It would be interesting to explicitly work out this relation for the boundary SSG model, and to find the precise relation of the two independent parameters of the boundary $`S`$ matrix to the parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\varphi _0`$ of the boundary action. The latter problem has already been addressed for the case of the (Bosonic) boundary SG model , and we expect that similar techniques can be applied to the supersymmetric case. Moreover, analogous results should also hold for boundary $`S`$ matrices for the SSG higher breathers and solitons.

## Acknowledgments

I thank C. Ahn for his collaboration at an early stage of this work, and O. Alvarez and J. Sánchez-Guillén for a valuable comment. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant PHY-9870101.

Note added:

We have verified that the boundary SSG model with the boundary Lagrangian $`_b^{}`$ (34) indeed has the integrals of motion $`P_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}`$ (32) and $`P_3`$ (14), with the same $`(\varphi )`$ (16), and $`f(\varphi )=\frac{\sqrt{C}}{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{4}(\varphi D)`$ where $`C`$ and $`D`$ are given by (29) and (30) with $`\alpha \alpha `$. In the conformal limit, the boundary Lagrangians (3) and (34) give Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond boundary conditions, respectively.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The group SO(10) is one of the candidates for a theory of grand unification and has come under increasing scrutiny since the early work of Ref. because of its desirable features such as the unification of one generation of quarks and leptons in a single multiplet and a relatively natural way in which the doublet-triplet splitting can be achieved in the model. On the technical side the introduction of the oscillator technique in SO(10) analyses has proven useful. However, SO(10) matter interactions may involve large tensor representations, i.e., 120, $`\overline{126}`$ and 210. Specifically the representations $`120`$ and $`\overline{126}`$ have already surfaced in the analyses of quark, charged lepton and neutrino mass textures. However, a full analysis of the couplings of such large representations such as $`1616120`$ and $`1616\overline{126}`$ does not exist in the literature in any explicit form. We develop here a systematic approach that enables one to carry out a full computation of such couplings with relative ease. We then illustrate our technique by giving a complete analysis of the trilinear superpotential with the 16 plet of matter. Since $`16\times 16=10_s+120_a+126_s`$ we give an explicit computation of the $`161610_s`$, $`1616120_a`$, and $`1616\overline{126}_s`$ couplings.

Our technique is a natural extension of the work of Refs. which introduced the oscillator expansion in the analysis of SO(2N) interactions \[One may also use completely group theoretic methods to compute the couplings as done in $`E_6`$ model building analysis of Ref.. Our technique is field theoretic and more straightforward.\]. We briefly review this analysis first. In the oscillator technique of Refs. one defines a set of N operators $`b_i`$ (i=1,…,N) obeying the anti-commutation rules

$$\{b_i,b_j^{}\}=\delta _{ij};\{b_i,b_j\}=0$$
(1)
and represents the set of 2N operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ ($`\mu =1,2,..,2N`$) by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2i}=(b_i+b_i^{});\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2i1}=i(b_ib_i^{})$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ satisfy a rank 2N Clifford algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. The group SO(2N) has a $`2^N`$ dimensional spinor representation $`\psi `$. This representation can be split into $`2^{N1}`$ dimensional representation under the action of the chirality operator so that

$$\psi _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_0)\psi ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=i^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2N}$$
(3)
where $`\psi _\pm `$ are each $`2^{N1}`$ dimensional. In the analysis of SO(2N) interactions one encounters couplings of the type $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }B\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ..\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \psi \varphi _{\mu ..\sigma }`$ where $`B(=_{\mu =odd}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )`$ is an SO(2N) charge conjugation matrix. We wish to develop here a simple technique for the explicit evaluation of the couplings in terms of the physical degrees of freedom even for the case when the tensor representation that couples has a large dimensionality.

## 2 The Basic Theorem

We begin with the observation that the natural basis for the expansion of the SO(2N) vertex is in terms of a specific set of SU(N) reducible tensors which we define below. We introduce the notation $`\varphi _{c_i}=\varphi _{2i}+i\varphi _{2i1}`$ and $`\varphi _{\overline{c}_i}=\varphi _{2i}i\varphi _{2i1}`$ which can be extended immediately to define the quantity $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k..}`$ with an arbitrary number of unbarred and barred indices where each c index can be expanded out so that $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k..}=\varphi _{2ic_j\overline{c}_k\mathrm{}}+i\varphi _{2i1c_j\overline{c}_k..}`$, $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k..}=\varphi _{c_ic_j2k\mathrm{}}i\varphi _{c_ic_j2k1\mathrm{}}`$,etc. Thus, for example, the quantity $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k\mathrm{}c_N}`$ is a sum of $`2^N`$ terms gotten by expanding all the c indices. $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k\mathrm{}c_n}`$ is completely anti-symmetric in the interchange of its c indices whether unbarred or barred. We now make the observation that the object $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k\mathrm{}c_n}`$ transforms like a reducible representation of SU(N). Thus if we are able to compute the SO(2N) invariant couplings in terms of these reducible tensors of SU(N) then there remains only the further step of decomposing the reducible tensors into their irreducible parts. Finally, one can take the result obtained in terms of the SU(N) irreducible representations and expand out in terms of the particles of the model.

The result essential to our analysis is the theorem that the quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ..\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$ $`\varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda ..\sigma }`$ can be expanded in the following form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ..\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda ..\sigma }=b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}..b_n^{}\varphi _{c_ic_jc_k\mathrm{}c_n}+(b_ib_j^{}b_k^{}..b_n^{}\varphi _{\overline{c}_ic_jc_k\mathrm{}c_n}+perms)`$
$`+(b_ib_jb_k^{}..b_n^{}\varphi _{\overline{c}_i\overline{c}_jc_k..c_n}+perms)+\mathrm{}.+(b_ib_jb_k..b_{n1}b_n^{}\varphi _{\overline{c}_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k..\overline{c}_{n1}c_n}+perms)+`$
$`+b_ib_jb_k\mathrm{}..b_n\varphi _{\overline{c}_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k\mathrm{}\overline{c}_n}`$ (4)
Eq.(4) is the basic result we need in the analysis of the SO(2N) invariant couplings. It is found convenient to arrange the right hand side of Eq.(4) in a normal ordered form by which we mean that all the $`b`$’s are either to the right or to the left and all the $`b^{}`$’s are either to the left or to the right using strictly the anti-commutation relations on the $`b`$’s and $`b^{}`$’s of Eq.(1). When a pair of $`b^{}`$ and b have a summed index such as $`b_n^{}b_n`$ we will move them together either to the left or to the right. After normal ordering one decomposes $`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k..c_n}`$ into its SU(N) irreducible components. The final step consists of carrying out the process of removing all the $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ using the anti-commutation relation Eq.(1) along with the condition $`b_i|0>=0`$ which allows us to compute the couplings in the SU(N) invariant decomposition.

## 3 The 120 plet and the $`\overline{126}`$ plet tensor couplings

The above procedure makes it straightforward to analyze the SO(2N) invariant couplings involving large tensor representations. As an illustration of our technique we give a complete determination of the superpotential at the trilinear level involving two spinor representations which consists of the couplings $`16\times 16\times 10`$, $`16\times 16\times 120`$ and $`16\times 16\times \overline{126}`$. We begin by computing the $`16\times 16\times 10`$ coupling which is given by

$$f_{ab}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_aB\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \psi _b\varphi _\mu $$
(5)
where a, b are the generation indices. Following the procedure of sec.2 we decompose the vertex so that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \varphi _\mu =b_i\varphi _{\overline{c}_i}+b_i^{}\varphi _{c_i}$$
(6)
In Eq.(6) the tensors are already in their irreducible form and one can identify $`\varphi _{c_i}`$ with the 5 plet of Higgs and $`\varphi _{\overline{c}_i}`$ with the $`\overline{5}`$ plet of Higgs. To normalize the tensors we define $`H_{1i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\varphi _{\overline{c}_i}`$, $`H_2^i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\varphi _{c_i}`$, so that the kinetic energy $`_\alpha \varphi _\mu ^\alpha \varphi _\mu ^{}`$ of the tensor $`\varphi _\mu `$ takes the form $`_\alpha H_{1i}^\alpha H_{1i}^{}`$ $`_\alpha H_2^i^\alpha H_2^i`$. For the computation of the superpotential we need to expand the 16 plet spinor representation $`\psi _+`$ in its oscillator modes

$$|\psi _+>=|0>M_0+\frac{1}{2}b_i^{}b_j^{}|0>M^{ij}+\frac{1}{24}ϵ^{ijklm}b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}b_l^{}|0>M_m^{}$$
(7)
so that $`\psi _+`$ contains $`1_M+10_M+\overline{5}_M`$ in its SU(5) decomposition. Using the above we compute the $`161610`$ couplings and find

$`W^{(10)}=(2\sqrt{2}i)f_{ab}^{(+)}(M_a^{ij}M_{ib}^{}H_{1j}M_{0a}M_{ib}^{}H_2^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}ϵ_{ijklm}M_a^{ij}M_b^{kl}H_2^m)`$ (8)
where $`f_{ab}^{(\pm )}`$ are defined by

$$f_{ab}^{(\pm )}=\frac{1}{2}(f_{ab}\pm f_{ba})$$
(9)
and $`f_{ab}^{(\pm )}`$ are symmetric (antisymmetric) under the interchange of generation indices a and b. As expected the 16-16-10 couplings given by Eq.(8) are correctly symmetric in the generation indices. We note that the couplings have the SU(5) invariant structure consisting of $`1_M\overline{5}_M5_H`$, $`10_M\overline{5}_M\overline{5}_H`$ and $`10_M10_M5_H`$.

Next we discuss the 16-16-120 coupling which is given by

$$\frac{1}{3!}f_{ab}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_aB\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda \psi _b\varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda }$$
(10)
We expand the vertex using Eq.(4) and find

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda }=b_ib_jb_k\varphi _{\overline{c}_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k}+b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}\varphi _{c_ic_jc_k}+3(b_i^{}b_jb_k\varphi _{c_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k}+b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k})`$
$`+(3b_i\varphi _{\overline{c}_nc_n\overline{c}_i}+3b_i^{}\varphi _{\overline{c}_nc_nc_i})`$ (11)
The 120 plet of SO(10) has the SU(5) decomposition $`120=5+\overline{5}+10+\overline{10}+45+\overline{45}`$. Eq.(11) can be decomposed in terms of these irreducible SU(5) tensors as explained in the appendix. A straightforward computation using Eq.(11)222The symmetrical arrangement in the first brace of Eq.(11) is necessary for achieving an automatic anti-symmetry in the generation indices for the SU(5) $`10_M10_M45_H`$ coupling. and the normalization of Eq.(23) in the appendix gives

$`W^{(120)}=i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}f_{ab}^{()}(2M_{0a}M_{ib}h^i+M_a^{ij}M_{0b}h_{ij}+M_{ia}M_{jb}h^{ij}`$
$`M_a^{ij}M_{ib}h_j+M_{ia}M_b^{jk}h_{jk}^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ_{ijklm}M_a^{ij}M_b^{mn}h_n^{kl})`$ (12)
The front factor $`f_{ab}^{()}`$ in Eq.(12) exhibits correctly the anti-symmetry in the generation indices. Further, the couplings have the $`1_M\overline{5}_M5_H`$, $`1_M10_M\overline{10}_H`$, $`\overline{5}_M\overline{5}_M10_H`$, $`10_M\overline{5}_M\overline{5}_H`$, $`\overline{5}_M10_M\overline{45}_H`$ and $`10_M10_M45_H`$ SU(5) invariant structures.

We now turn to the most difficult of the three cases, i.e., the $`1616\overline{126}`$ coupling which is given by

$$\frac{1}{5!}f_{ab}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_aB\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \psi _b\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }$$
(13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$ is 252 dimensional and can be decomposed so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$=$`\overline{\varphi }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$\+ $`\varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$, where

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\varphi }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\\ \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{\mu \alpha }\delta _{\nu \beta }\delta _{\rho \gamma }\delta _{\lambda \delta }\delta _{\sigma \theta }\pm \frac{i}{5!}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda \sigma \alpha \beta \gamma \delta \theta })\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \theta }$$
(14)
and where the $`\overline{\varphi }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$ is the $`\overline{126}`$ plet and $`\varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$ is the $`126`$ plet representation. It is only the $`\overline{126}`$ that couples in Eq.(13) with the $`16`$ plet spinors. However, for the reduction of the SO(10) vertex it is more convenient initially to work with the full 252 dimensional tensor and in the final computation only the $`\overline{126}`$ couplings will survive. We begin by expanding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }`$ using Eq.(4) following steps similar to the previous case using normal ordering and further decomposing the tensors into their irreducible components. The $`\overline{126}`$ and the 126 dimensional representations break into the SU(5) irreducible parts as $`\overline{126}=1+5+\overline{10}+15+\overline{45}+50`$ and $`126=1+\overline{5}+10+\overline{15}+45+\overline{50}`$. The details of the decomposition are given in the appendix. Using Eq.(25) in the appendix a straightforward analysis gives

$`W^{(\overline{126})}=if_{ab}^{(+)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{15}}}[\sqrt{2}M_{0a}M_{0b}h\sqrt{3}M_{0a}M_{ib}^{}h^i+M_{0a}M_b^{ij}h_{ij}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{3}}}M_a^{ij}M_b^{kl}h^mϵ_{ijklm}h_S^{ij}M_{ia}^{}M_{jb}^{}+M_a^{ij}M_{bk}^{}h_{ij}^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\sqrt{2}}}ϵ_{ijklm}M_a^{lm}M_b^{rs}h_{rs}^{ijk}]`$ (15)
where we have expressed the result in terms of fields $`h^i,h_{ij}`$ etc with normalizations given by Eq.(27). As in the $`10`$ plet tensor case the couplings are symmetric under the interchange of generation indices. Further, the $`1616\overline{126}`$ coupling has the SU(5) structure consisting of $`1_M1_M1_H`$, $`1_M\overline{5}_M5_H`$, $`1_M10_M\overline{10}_H`$, $`10_M10_M5_H`$, $`\overline{5}_M\overline{5}_M15_H`$, $`10_M\overline{5}_M\overline{45}_H`$ and $`10_M10_M50_M`$. A similar analysis can be carried out for the tensor couplings involving $`\overline{16}16`$ which includes $`\overline{16}1645`$ and $`\overline{16}16210`$ couplings. These will be discussed elsewhere.

## 4 Large representations, textures and proton lifetime

Proton decay is an important signal for grand unification and detailed analyses for the proton lifetime exist in SU(5) models and in SO(10) models. In this section we discuss the possibility that couplings in the superpotential that involve large representations can drastically change the Higgs triplet textures and affect proton decay in a very significant manner. These results are of significance in view of the recent data from SuperKamiokande which has significantly improved the limit on the proton decay mode $`p\nu +K^+`$. Thus the most recent limit from SuperKamiokande gives $`\tau /B(p\overline{\nu }+K^+)>1.9\times 10^{33}`$ yr. At the same time there is a new lattice gauge evaluation of the three quark matrix elements $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the nucleon wave function (where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are defined by $`ϵ_{abc}<0|ϵ_{\alpha \beta }d_{aR}^\alpha u_{bR}^\beta u_{cL}^\gamma |p>`$=$`\alpha u_L^\gamma `$ and $`ϵ_{abc}<0|ϵ_{\alpha \beta }d_{aL}^\alpha u_{bL}^\beta u_{cL}^\gamma |p>`$=$`\beta u_L^\gamma `$). Previous evaluations of these quantities have varied over a wide range from $`\beta =0.003GeV^3`$ to $`\beta =0.03GeV^3`$ while recent p decay analyses have often used the lattice gauge evaluation of Gavela et.al. which gives $`\beta =(5.6\pm 0.5)\times 10^3GeV^3`$. The more recent evaluation of Ref. gives $`\alpha =0.015(1)GeV^3`$ and $`\beta =0.014(1)GeV^3`$ which is a factor of about two and a half times larger than the evaluation of Ref.. The new experimental limit on the proton decay lifetime combined with the new lattice gauge evaluations have begun to constrain the SUSY GUT models prompting some reanalyses. In this context the enhancement of the proton lifetime by textures is of interest. To make this idea more concrete we define textures in the low energy theory in the quark lepton sector of the theory just below the GUT scale as follows

$`W_Y=M_HH_{1t}H_{2t}+(lA^Ee^ch_1+qA^Dd^ch_1+h_2u^cA^Uq)`$
$`+(qB^ElH_{1t}+ϵ_{abc}H_{1ta}d_b^cB^Du_c^c+H_{2ta}u_a^cB^Ue^c+ϵ_{abc}H_{2t}^au_bC^Ud_c)`$ (16)
where $`A^E`$, $`A^D`$ and $`A^U`$ are the textures in the Higgs doublet sector and $`B^E,B^D`$, $`B^U`$ and $`C^U`$ are the textures in the Higgs triplet sector. A classification of the possible textures in the Higgs doublet sector is given in Refs.. For our purpose here we adopt the textures in the Higgs doublet sector in the form

$$A^E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& f& 0\\ f& 3e& 0\\ 0& 0& d\end{array}\right),A^D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& fe^{i\varphi }& 0\\ fe^{i\varphi }& e& 0\\ 0& 0& d\end{array}\right),A^U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& c& 0\\ c& 0& b\\ 0& b& a\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
As is well known the appearance of -3 vs 1 in the 22 element of $`A^E`$ vs $`A^D`$ is one of the important ingredients in achieving the desired quark and lepton mass hierarchy and may provide an insight into the nature of the fundamental coupling. Now the textures in the Higgs triplet sector are generally different than those in the Higgs doublet sector and they are sensitively dependent on the nature of GUT and Planck scale physics. The current experimental constraints on the proton lifetime leads us to conjecture that the Higgs triplet sector contains additional texture zeros over and above the texture zeros that appear in the Higgs doublet sector and the coupling of the $`\overline{126}`$ tensor field plays an important role in this regard. In the following we shall assume CP invariance and set the phases to zero in Eq.(17). Since in this case the textures of Eq.(17) are symmetric it is only the 10 plet and the $`\overline{126}`$ plet of Higgs couplings that enter in the analysis and the 120 plet couplings do not. To exhibit the above phenomenon more concretely we consider on phenomenological grounds a superpotential in the Yukawa sector of the following type

$`W_Y=f_{ij}^{(0)}(Y,M)\psi _i\psi _j\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(0)}+f_{12}^{(d)}(Y,M)\psi _1\psi _2\varphi _{10}^{(1)}+f_{12}^{(u)}(Y,M)\psi _1\psi _2\varphi _{10}^{(2)}`$
$`+f_{22}^{(d)}(Y,M)\psi _2\psi _2\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(1)}+f_{23}^{(u)}(Y,M)\psi _2\psi _3\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(2)}+f_{33}^{(d)}(Y,M)\psi _3\psi _3\varphi _{10}^{(1)}`$
$`+f_{33}^{(u)}(Y,M)\psi _3\psi _3\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(2)}`$ (18)
where $`M`$ is a superheavy scale and $`f_{ij}^{(d)}(Y,M)`$ and $`f_{ij}^{(u)}(Y,M)`$ are functions of a set of scalar fields Y which develop VEVs and the appropriate factors of $`<Y^n\varphi >/M^n`$ generate the right sizes. The model of Eq.(18) is of the generic type discussed in refs.. We do not go into detail here regarding the symmetry breaking mechanism, the doublet-triplet splitting and the mass generation for the pseudo-goldstone bosons. All of these topics have been dealt with at some length in the previous literature. Further, while models with large representations are not asymptotically free and lead rapidly to non-perturbative physics above the unification scale, the effective theories below the unification scale gotten by integration over the heavy modes are nonetheless perfectly normal and thus such theories are acceptable unified theories. For our purpose here we assume a pattern of VEV formation for the neutral components of the Higgs so that $`<\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(0)}>`$ develops a VEV along the SU(5) singlet direction (this corresponds to h in Eq.(15) developing a VEV), $`<\varphi _{10}^{(1)}>`$ develops a VEV in the $`\overline{5}`$ plet of SU(5) direction (this corresponds to $`H_1`$ developing a VEV in Eq.(8)), $`<\varphi _{10}^{(2)}>`$ develops a VEV in the 5 plet direction (this corresponds to $`H_2`$ developing a VEV in Eq.(8)), $`<\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(1)}>`$ develops a VEV in the direction of $`\overline{45}`$ plet of Higgs (this corresponds to $`h_{ij}^k`$ in Eq.(15) developing a VEV), and $`<\varphi _{\overline{126}}^{(2)}>`$ develops a VEV in the direction of 5 plet of Higgs (this correspons to $`h^i`$ in Eq.(15) developing a VEV). It is the VEV of the 45 plet that leads to -3 and 1 factors in $`A^E`$ vs $`A^D`$. The superpotential of Eq.(18) with the above VEV alignments then leads automatically to the textures in the Higgs doublet sector of Eq.(17). One may now compute the textures in the Higgs triplet sector that result from superpotential of Eq.(18). One finds

$$B^E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& f& 0\\ f& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& d\end{array}\right),B^U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& c& 0\\ c& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(19)
and $`B^D=B^E`$ and $`C^U=B^U`$. We note the existence of the additional zeros in $`B^E`$ and $`B^D`$ relative to $`A^E`$ and $`A^D`$ and in $`B^U`$ and $`C^U`$ relative to $`A^U`$. We shall show shortly that the existence of the additional zeros in $`B^E`$, $`B^D`$,$`B^U`$ and $`C^U`$ increases in a very significant manner the proton decay lifetime. Before we discuss this enhancement in greater detail, we wish to discuss the origin of the additional zeros. It is easy to see that a coupling of the matter sector with the $`\overline{126}`$ of Higgs which contributes a non-vanishing element in the Higgs doublet sector produces a vanishing contribution in the lepton and baryon number violating dimension five operator or equivalently generates a corresponding zero in the texture in the Higgs triplet sector. The reason for this is rather straightforward. While one also needs a $`126`$ plet of Higgs to cancel the D term generated by the VEV of the $`\overline{126}`$ of Higgs, the 126 plet of Higgs has no coupling with the ordinary 16 plet of matter. Since the only bilinear with the $`\overline{126}`$ in the superpotential is of the form $`126\times \overline{126}`$ (i.e., one cannot write a $`(126)^2`$ term in the superpotential) one finds that no lepton and baryon number violating dimension five operators arise as a consequence of integrating out the $`126`$ and $`\overline{126}`$ of Higgs which effectively corresponds to a texture zero in the Higgs triplet sector. Of course, the extra zeros in the Higgs triplet sector could also arise from accidental cancellations. However, the group theoretic origin is more appealing.

The extra zeros in the textures in the Higgs triplet sector lead to a substantial enhancement of the proton decay lifetime. To see their effect we begin by integrating out the Higgs triplet field in Eq.(16) which generates lepton and baryon number violating dimension five operators with the chiral structure LLLL and RRRR. Of these the LLLL operator involves the textures $`B^E`$ and $`C^U`$ while the RRRR operator involves the textures $`B^D`$ and $`B^U`$. Since the number of extra zeros in $`B^E`$ and $`B^D`$ are the same and the same holds for $`B^U`$ and $`C^U`$, it suffices to discuss only one of these operators, and in the following we focus on the LLLL dimension five operator. Here the texture zero in the 22 element of $`B^E`$ suppresses the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu K^+`$ decay mode of the proton by a factor $`m_d/m_s`$ making the $`\overline{\nu }_\tau K^+`$ the dominant mode. Since the decay channel $`\overline{\nu }_\mu K^+`$ is highly suppressed (while the decay channel $`\overline{\nu }_eK^+`$ which is normally suppressed remains suppressed) we estimate that there is an over all suppression in all the neutrino decay channels from the extra zero in $`B^E`$ to be about a factor of about 2. The texture zeros in $`C^U`$ lead roughly to a replacement of $`m_c`$ by $`\sqrt{m_um_c}`$ and thus lead to a suppression of the proton decay lifetime roughly by $`m_u/m_c`$. A similar suppression holds for decays via the RRRR dimension five operator. Including the suppression from both $`B^E`$ and $`C^U`$ and using $`m_c=1.35`$ GeV and the up quark mass in the range 1-5 MeV, one finds that the texture zeros can lead to an enhancement of the proton decay lifetime in the $`\overline{\nu }K^+`$ mode by a factor of $`(1.5\pm 1)\times 10^3`$ over the minimal SU(5) model. Such lifetimes fall in the interesting range for the next generation of proton decay experiments. The texture effects are generic and similar effects are expected in other decay modes as well. The superpotential of Eq.(18) also generates a Dirac neutrino mass matrix which is given by

$$M_{\nu LR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& c& 0\\ c& 0& 3b\\ 0& 3b& 3a\end{array}\right)h_2$$
(20)
However, a full analysis of neutrino masses requires a model for the Majorana mass matrix $`M_{Maj}`$ to generate a see-saw mechanism so that $`M_{\nu LL}=M_{\nu LR}^TM_{Maj}^1M_{\nu LR}`$ where the mass scale associated with $`M_{Maj}`$ is much larger than the mass scale that appears in $`M_{\nu LR}`$. $`M_{Maj}`$ depends on $`f_{ij}^{(0)}`$ in Eq.(18) which are in general additional arbitrary parameters. \[For a sample of recent analyses on neutrino masses in SO(10) see Ref. and for a review and a classification of models of neutrino masses see Ref.\]. The appearance of $`M_{Maj}`$ in the analysis of neutrino masses with additional arbitrary parameters and a scale much larger than the mass scale that appears in $`M_{\nu LR}`$ implies that there is not a rigid relationship between proton decay and neutrino masses in SO(10). Nonetheless, it is interesting to investigate the correlation that exists between these two important phenomena in specific models. A more extensive analysis of this topic involving the detailed coupling structure of Eqs.(8), (12) and (15) as well as other texture possibilities in the Higgs doublet sector will be discussed elsewhere.

In conclusion, we have developed a technique which allows the explicit computation of the SO(2N) invariant couplings in terms of SU(N) invariant couplings. The technique is specially useful in the analysis of couplings involving large tensor representations. We have illustrated the technique by carrying out a complete analysis of the SO(10) invariant superpotential at the trilinear level involving interactions of matter with Higgs which consists of the $`16_a16_b10_H`$, $`16_a16_b120_H`$, and the $`16_a16_b\overline{126}_H`$ couplings. The technique can be used with relative ease to compute other couplings involving large tensor representations such as $`\overline{16}16210`$. We note that the decomposition of SO(10) into multiplets of SU(5) is merely a convenient device for expanding the SO(10) interaction in a compact form and does not necessarily imply a preference for the symmetry breaking pattern. Indeed one can compute the SO(10) interactions using the technique used here and then use any symmetry breaking scheme one wishes to get to the low energy theory. We also discussed in this paper the phenomena that the coupling of the $`\overline{126}`$ with matter leads to extra zeros in the Higgs triplet sector and the existence of such zeros can enhance the proton decay lifetime by as much as $`10^3`$. Thus $`\overline{126}`$ couplings might help relieve the constraint on SUSY GUT models because of the recent SuperKamiokande data and improved lattice gauge calculations of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The coupling involving large tensor representation given in sec.3 also have implications for neutrino mass textures. Finally, the technique discussed here is easily extendible to models with SO(2N+1) invariance. \[Note added: The enhancement of the proton lifetime by a factor of $`O(10^3)`$ discussed here may be needed to overcome the light sparticle spectrum (see e.g., U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, hep-ph/01021577) implied by the Brookhaven g-2 experiment, H.N. Brown et.al, hep-ex/0102017.\]

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Pierre Ramond for a discussion. One of us (PN) wishes to thank the Physics Institute at the University of Bonn and the Max Planck Institute, Heidelberg, for hospitality and acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. This research was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-9901057.

Appendix: Details of 120 plet and $`\overline{126}`$ plet couplings and normalizations
We discuss now the details of the 120 plet and $`\overline{126}`$ plet couplings. For the tensors that appears in the 120 plet coupling, can be decomposed in their irreducible forms by the decomposition

$`\varphi _{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k}=f_k^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\delta _k^if^j\delta _k^jf^i),\varphi _{c_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k}=f_{jk}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\delta _j^if_k\delta _k^if_j)`$
$`\varphi _{c_ic_jc_k}=ϵ^{ijklm}f_{lm},\varphi _{\overline{c}_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k}=ϵ_{ijklm}f^{lm},\varphi _{\overline{c}_nc_nc_i}=f^i,\varphi _{\overline{c}_nc_n\overline{c}_i}=f_i`$ (21)
where $`f_k^{ij}`$ and $`f_{jk}^i`$ are traceless and are the 45 plet and the $`\overline{45}`$ plet representations of SU(5). The irreducible tensors $`f^i,f^{ij}`$ etc are not yet properly normalized. To normalize them we make the following redefinition of fields

$`f^i={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}}h^i,f^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}h^{ij},f_k^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}h_k^{ij}`$
$`f_i={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}}h_i,f_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}h_{ij},f_{jk}^i={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}h_{jk}^i`$ (22)
In terms of the redefined fields the kinetic energy term for the 120 multiplet which is given by $`_\alpha \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ $`^\alpha \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda }^{}`$ takes on the form

$`L_{kin}^{(120)}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h^{ij}^\alpha h^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h_{ij}^\alpha h_{ij}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h_k^{ij}^\alpha h_k^{ij}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h_{jk}^i^\alpha h_{jk}^i+_\alpha h^i^\alpha h^i+_\alpha h_i^\alpha h_i^{})`$ (23)
where the factors of 1/2 are to account for (ij) permutations.

Next we discuss details of the $`\overline{126}`$ plet couplings. Here the reducible tensors that enter in the expansion of the vertex are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_ic_jc_kc_l\overline{c}_m}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_ic_jc_k\overline{c}_l\overline{c}_m}`$ etc. These can be decomposed into their irreducible parts as follows

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_ic_jc_kc_l\overline{c}_m}=f_m^{ijkl}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _m^if^{jkl}\delta _m^jf^{ikl}+\delta _m^kf^{ijl}\delta _m^lf^{ijk})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_ic_jc_k\overline{c}_l\overline{c}_m}=f_{lm}^{ijk}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _l^if_m^{jk}\delta _l^jf_m^{ik}+\delta _l^kf_m^{ij}\delta _m^if_l^{jk}+\delta _m^jf_l^{ik}\delta _m^kf_l^{ij})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\delta _l^i\delta _m^jf^k\delta _l^j\delta _m^if^k\delta _l^i\delta _m^kf^j+\delta _l^k\delta _m^if^j+\delta _l^j\delta _m^kf^i\delta _l^k\delta _m^jf^i)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_ic_j\overline{c}_k\overline{c}_l\overline{c}_m}=f_{klm}^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _k^if_{lm}^j\delta _l^if_{km}^j+\delta _m^if_{kl}^j\delta _k^jf_{lm}^i+\delta _l^jf_{km}^i\delta _m^jf_{kl}^i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(\delta _k^i\delta _l^jf_m\delta _k^i\delta _m^jf_l\delta _l^i\delta _k^jf_m+\delta _l^i\delta _m^jf_l+\delta _m^i\delta _k^jf_l\delta _m^i\delta _l^jf_k)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k\overline{c}_l\overline{c}_m}=f_{jklm}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\delta _j^if_{klm}\delta _k^if_{jlm}+\delta _l^if_{jkm}\delta _m^if_{jkl})`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{c_ic_jc_kc_lc_m}=ϵ^{ijklm}f,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{c}_i\overline{c}_j\overline{c}_k\overline{c}_l\overline{c}_m}=ϵ_{ijklm}\overline{f}`$ (24)
In terms of the irreducible tensors the vertex that enters in Eq.(13) can be decomposed as follows

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }=(ϵ_{ijklm}b_ib_jb_kb_lb_mf+ϵ^{ijklm}b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}b_l^{}b_m^{}\overline{f})+`$
$`+(15b_i^{}f^i20b_i^{}b_n^{}b_nf^i+5b_i^{}b_n^{}b_nb_m^{}b_mf^i+15b_if_i20b_n^{}b_nb_if_i+5b_n^{}b_nb_m^{}b_mb_if_i)`$
$`+10(b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}f^{ijk}b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}b_n^{}b_nf^{ijk}+b_ib_jb_kf_{ijk}b_n^{}b_nb_ib_jb_kf_{ijk})`$
$`+(60b_i^{}b_j^{}b_kf_k^{ij}30b_i^{}b_j^{}b_kb_n^{}b_nf_k^{ij}+60b_i^{}b_jb_kf_{jk}^i30b_n^{}b_nb_i^{}b_jb_kf_{jk}^i)`$
$`+(5b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}b_l^{}b_mf_m^{ijkl}+5b_i^{}b_jb_kb_lb_mf_{jklm}^i)+(10b_i^{}b_j^{}b_k^{}b_lb_mf_{lm}^{ijk}+10b_i^{}b_j^{}b_kb_lb_mf_{klm}^{ij})`$ (25)
The fields that appear above are not yet properly normalized. To normalize the fields we carry out a field redefinition so that

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{15}}}h,f^i={\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{5}}}h^i,f^{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{15}}}ϵ^{ijklm}h_{lm}`$
$`f_{jklm}^i={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{15}}}ϵ_{jklmn}h^{(S)ni},f_{jk}^i={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{15}}}h_{jk}^i,f_{lm}^{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{15}}}h_{lm}^{ijk},`$ (26)
The kinetic energy for the $`\overline{126}`$ plet field $`_\alpha \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }^\alpha \varphi _{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }^{}`$ in terms of the normalized fields is then given by

$`L_{kin}^{(\overline{126})}=(_\alpha h^\alpha h^{}+_\alpha h^i^\alpha h^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h_{ij}^\alpha h_{ij}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h^{(S)ij}^\alpha h^{(S)ij}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\alpha h_{jk}^i^\alpha h_{jk}^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!2}}_\alpha h_{lm}^{ijk}^\alpha h_{lm}^{ijk})`$ (27)
where the numerical factors are to account for the permutations.