text:
# An unconventional supergravity

## Abstract.

We introduce and completely describe the analogues of the Riemann curvature tensor for the curved supergrassmannian of the passing through the origin $`(0|2)`$-dimensional subsupermanifolds in the $`(0|4)`$-dimensional supermanifold with the preserved volume form. The underlying manifold of this supergrassmannian is the conventional Penrose’s complexified and compactified version of the Minkowski space, i.e., the Grassmannian of $`2`$-dimensional subspaces in the $`4`$-dimensional space.

The result provides with yet another counterexample to Coleman–Mandula’s theorem.

We gratefully acknowledge partial financial support of The Swedish Institute and an NFR grant, respectively.

This paper should appear in: S. Duplij and J. Wess (eds.) Noncommutative structures in mathematics and physics, Proc. NATO Advanced Reserch Workshop, Kiev, 2000. Kluwer, 13–30.

1. New supertwistors. Penrose suggested an unusual description of our space-time, namely, to compactify the Minkowski space-time model of the Universe (nontrivially: with a light cone at the infinity) and complexify this compactification. The final result is $`Gr_2^4`$, the Grassmanian of 2-dimensional subspaces in the 4-dimensional (complex) space (of so-called twistors). There are many papers and several monographs on advantages of this interpretation of the space-time in various problems of mathematical physics; we refer the reader to Manin’s book , where an original Witten’s idea to incorporate supervarieties and consider infinitesimal neighborhoods for interpretation of the “usual”, i.e., non-super, Yang-Mills equations is thouroghly investigated together with several ways to superize Minkowski space. Ours is one more, distinct, way.

Observe that the supermanifold of $`(0|2)`$-dimensional subsuperspaces in the $`(0|4)`$-dimensional superspace is identical with $`Gr_2^4`$, only the tautological bundle is different: the fiber is purely odd. In this work we consider not subsuperspaces but subsupermanifolds.

We considered the structure functions — analogs of the Riemann tensor — for the curved supergrassmannian $`𝒞Gr_{0|2}^{0|4}`$ of $`(0|2)`$-dimensional subsupermanifolds in the $`(0|4)`$-dimensional supermanifold. Recall that the “usual” grassmannian consists of linear subspaces of the linear space passing through the origin whereas the curved one consists of submanifolds, in other words, nonlinear embeddings are allowed and the submanifolds do not have to pass through a fixed point. Obviously, the curved Grassmannian is infinite dimensional, but the curved supergrassmannian $`𝒞Gr_{0,k}^{0,n}`$ is of finite superdimension: it is a quotient of the supergroup of superdiffeomorphisms of the linear supermanifold $`𝒞^{0,n}`$ (the Lie superalgebra of this Lie supergroup is $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)=𝔡𝔢𝔯[\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n]`$). For the list of classical superspaces including curved supergrassmannians see .) The underlying manifold of $`𝒞Gr_{0|2}^{0|4}`$ is the conventional $`Gr_2^4`$ but $`𝒞Gr_{0,2}^{0,4}`$ has also odd coordinates.

On $`𝒞Gr_{0|2}^{0|4}`$, we have expanded the curvature supertensor in components with respect to the (complexification of the) Lorentz group and saw that it does not contain the components used for the ordinary Einstein equations (EE), namely, there is no Ricci curvature $`\mathrm{Ric}`$ and no scalar curvature $`\mathrm{Scalar}`$ (in what follows $`R(22)`$ and $`R(00)`$, respectively).

So we decided to amend the initial model and consider the supergrassmanian $`𝒞Gr_{0|2}^{0|4}(0)`$ of subsupermanifolds through the origin. It turns out that this does not help, either: no $`\mathrm{Ric}`$ and $`\mathrm{Scalar}`$.

We decided not to give up, and took for the model of Minkowski superspace the supergrassmannian $`𝒮CGr_{0|2}^{0|4}(0)`$ of subsupermanifolds through the origin with the volume element of the ambient and the subsupermanifolds preserved. On $`𝒮CGr_{0|2}^{0|4}(0)`$, the expansion of the curvature supertensor does contain $`R(22)`$ and $`R(00)`$! There are no analogs of conformal (off shell) structure functions.

Our model and its supergroup of motion — an analogue of the Poincaré group — do not contradict the restrictions of the famous no-go theorems by Haag–Łopuszanski–Sohnius and Coleman–Mandula (for further discussions see ) and provides us with a new, missed so far, version of the Poincaré supergroup. The analogues of Einstein equations we suggest are a totally new version of SUGRA. Equating to zero other conformally non-invariant components we get extra conditions; we do not know how to interprete them.

We do not see any reason for discarding this and similar models. In particular, we suggest to analyze the structurre functions (definition below) on $`𝒞Gr_{0|2}^{0|4}`$ and $`𝒞Gr_{0|2}^{0|4}(0)`$ which we have abandoned above.

The conventional reading of Coleman–Mandula’s theorem (cf. ) assumes that the complexified Lorentz Lie algebra $`𝔏=𝔰𝔩(2)_L𝔰𝔩(2)_R`$ commutes with the Lie algebra of internal symmetries $`𝔦`$ (for us $`𝔦`$ is equal to $`𝔰𝔩(2)_L\xi _1\xi _2`$, see sec. 4).

In our case $`𝔏`$ acts on $`𝔦`$ and forms a semidirect sum with it; the bracket on $`𝔦`$ is identically zero. This possibility does not contradict assumptions of Coleman–Mandula’s theorem but was not considered.

The odd parameters have a correct statistics with respect to the Lorentz Lie algebra.

We represent Einstein’s equations as conditions on conformally noninvariant components of the analog of the Riemann tensor, and represent the Riemann tensor as a section of the bundle on the (locally) Minkowski space whose fiber is certain Lie algebra cohomology. This is a more user-friendly description of the Riemannian tensor than the classical treatment of obstructions to nonflatness in differential geometry. We have in mind Spencer homology, cf. , where the case of any $`G`$-structure, not only $`G=O(n)`$ is considered. Superization of the definitions from  is the routine straightforward application of the Sign Rule.

Remark. It is interesting to test the whole list of curved supergrassmannians with the simple Lie supergroup of motion (see Tables in ) and similarly to the above sacrify the simplicity of the supergroup of motion in order to get EE. Grozman’s package SuperLie (see ) is a useful tool in this research problem: without a computer (and a good code) this task is hardly feasible.

2. Structure functions: recapitulation (). Let $`F(M)`$ be the frame bundle over a manifold $`M`$, i.e., the principal $`GL(n)`$-bundle. Let $`GGL(n)`$ be a Lie group. A $`G`$-structure on $`M`$ is a reduction of the principal $`GL(n)`$-bundle to the principal $`G`$-bundle.

The simplest $`G`$-structure is the flat $`G`$-structure defined as follows. Let $`V`$ be $`^n`$ (or $`^n`$) with a fixed frame. The flat structure is the bundle over $`V`$ whose fiber over $`vV`$ consists of all frames obtained from the fixed one under the $`G`$-action, $`V`$ being identified with $`T_vV`$ by means of the parallel translation by $`v`$.

Examples of flat structures. The classical spaces, e.g., compact Hermitian symmetric spaces, provide us with examples of manifolds with nontrivial topology but flat $`G`$-structure.

In  the obstructions to identification of the $`k`$th infinitesimal neighbourhood of a point $`m`$ on a manifold $`M`$ with $`G`$-structure with the $`k`$th infinitesimal neighbourhood of a point of the flat manifold $`V`$ with the above described flat $`G`$-structure are called structure functions of order $`k`$. In  it is shown further that the tensors that constitute these obstructions are well-defined provided the structure functions of all orders $`<k`$ vanish. (In supergravity the conditions that structure functions of lesser orders vanish are called Wess-Zumino constraints.)

The classical description of the structure functions uses the notion of the Spencer cochain complex. Let us recall it. Let $`S^i`$ denote the operator of the $`i`$-th symmetric power. Set $`𝔤_1=T_mM`$, let $`𝔤_0`$ be the Lie algebra of $`G`$; for $`i>0`$ set:

$`(2.1)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}𝔤_i=\{X\mathrm{Hom}(𝔤_1,𝔤_{i1})X(v_0)(v_1,\mathrm{},v_i)=X(v_1)(v_0,\mathrm{},v_i)\\ \mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_i𝔤_1\}.\end{array}$$

Finally, set $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}=\underset{i1}{}𝔤_i`$. This is the Lie algebra of all transformations that preserve on $`𝔤_1`$ the same structure which is preserved by the linear transformations from $`𝔤_0`$.

Suppose that the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`𝔤_1`$ is faithful, i.e., each nonzero element from $`𝔤_0`$ acts nontrivially. Then, clearly,

$$(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)=𝔡𝔢𝔯[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n],$$

where $`n=dim𝔤_1`$, with

$$𝔤_i=\{X𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)_i:[X,D]𝔤_{i1}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}D𝔤_1\}$$

for $`i1`$. It is easy to check that $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(n)`$.

The Lie algebra $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$ will be called the Cartan’s prolong (the result of Cartan’s prolongation) of the pair $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)`$.

Let $`E^i`$ be the operator of the $`i`$-th exterior power; set (prime denotes dualization)

$$C_{(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)}^{k,s}=𝔤_{ks}E^s(𝔤_1^{}).$$

Define the differential $`_s:C_{(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)}^{k,s}C_{(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)}^{k,s+1}`$ by setting for any $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{s+1}V`$ (as usual, the slot with the hatted variable is to be ignored):

$`(2.2)`$
$$(_sf)(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{s+1})=(1)^i[f(v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v}_{s+1i},\mathrm{},v_{s+1}),v_{s+1i}].$$

As expected, $`_s_{s+1}=0`$, and the homology $`H_{(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)}^{k,s}`$ of the bicomplex $`\underset{k,s}{}C_{(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)}^{k,s}`$ is called the $`(k,s)`$-th Spencer cohomology of $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$. (Observe that we use a grading of the Spencer complex different form that in . Ours is a more natural one.)

Proposition () The structure functions of order $`k`$ constitute the space of the $`(k,2)`$-th Spencer cohomology of the $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$.

3. Spencer cohomology in terms of Lie algebra cohomology. We observe that

$`(3)`$
$$\underset{k}{}H_{(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)}^{k,2}=H^2(𝔤_1;(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}).$$

The advantage of this reformulation: the Lie algebra cohomology (the right hand side of (3)) is easier to compute (e.g., by means of the package SupeLie when the general theory fails, or with the help of various theorem). At the same time the fine grading of Spencer homology is not lost: the $``$-grading of $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$ which induces the grading $`(3)`$ of $`H^2(𝔤_1;(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{})`$ coincides (up to a shift) with the oder of the structure functions.

Analogs of Weyl and Riemann tensors. Suppose $`𝔤_0`$ contains a center (like in the case when a metric is preserved up to a conformal factor). Then the elements of $`H^2(𝔤_1;(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{})`$ are analogs of the Weyl tensor.

Let $`\widehat{𝔤}_0`$ be the semisimple part of $`𝔤_0`$ and let $`\widehat{𝔤}_{}`$ be a shorthand for $`(𝔤_1,\widehat{𝔤}_0)_{}`$. The elements of $`H^2(𝔤_1;\widehat{𝔤}_{})`$ are analogs of the Riemann tensor.

The relation between $`\widehat{H}=H^2(𝔤_1;\widehat{𝔤}_{})`$ and $`H=H^2(𝔤_1;(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{})`$ is more intricate for the general $`\widehat{𝔤}_0`$ than in the Riemannian case ($`\widehat{𝔤}_0=𝔬(n)`$) when $`\widehat{H}`$ strictly contains $`H`$. In general, these spaces have common components (conformally invariant, “on shell” ones) and have other components, analogs of “off shell” components, cf. .

In the Riemann case, there are two “off shell” components: with the highest weights $`(2,2)`$ (the traceless Ricci tensor) and $`(0,0)`$ (the scalar curvature). Here the highest weights are given with respect to the complexification $`𝔏=𝔰𝔩(2)_L𝔰𝔩(2)_R`$ of the $`𝔬(1,3)`$. The Einstein equaton (in vacum) is a vanishing condition of these components. Remarkably, there are no structure functions of lesser order. If they had existed, we would have to impose analogs of Wess-Zumino constraints to be able to define the usual Riemann curvature tensor.

4. The description of $`(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{}`$ for the curved supergrassmannians. For the general curved supergrassmannian of $`(0,k)`$-dimensional subsupermanifolds $`𝒮`$ in the $`(0,n)`$-dimensional supermanifold $`𝒯`$ let $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _k`$ be the coordinates of $`𝒮`$ and $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{nk}`$ the remaining coordinates of $`𝒯`$. Then setting $`\mathrm{deg}xi_i=0`$ for all $`i`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\theta _j=1`$ for all $`j`$ we get a $``$-grading of $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(0|n)`$ of the form

$`(4)`$
$$𝔤_0=(𝔤l(V)[\xi ])\text{+}\text{ }𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱(\xi );𝔤_1=V[\xi ];$$

where $`V=\mathrm{Span}(\frac{}{\theta _1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{\theta _{nk}})`$ is the identity $`𝔤l(V)`$-module, and $`\text{+}\text{ }`$ is the sign of a semidirect sum of algebras: $`𝔞\text{+}\text{ }𝔟`$ with the ideal $`𝔞`$.

For $`n=4`$ we computed $`H^2(𝔤_1;(𝔤_1,𝔤_0)_{})`$ in the following cases:

(a) the general curved supergrassmannians;

(b) the supergrassmannians of subspaces through $`0`$, i.e., we removed from $`𝔳𝔢𝔠𝔱`$ all partial derivatives (since this is not an invariant formulation, it is better to say: we only considered the vector fields that vanish at the origin);

(c) in case (b) we only considered volume-preserving transformations, i.e., we diminished $`𝔤_0`$ as well:

$$𝔤_0=(𝔰𝔩(V)[\xi ])\text{+}\text{ }𝔰𝔩(\mathrm{Span}(\xi ));𝔤_1=V\xi .$$

In particular, since $`𝔤_1`$ is isomorphic to the tangent space at a point of the curved supergrassmannian, we see that its even part in cases (a) – (c) is the same $`Gr_2^4`$ while the tangent space to the whole supermanifold at the “origin” is $`\mathrm{Span}(\xi _i\frac{}{\theta _j}:1i,j2`$). So the number of odd coordinates of our model varies from 4 in case (a) to 2 in cases (b) and (c).

Table. In the first line there are indicated the degrees, i.e., orders, of all nonzero structure functions and the rest of the table lists their the weights (with respect to $`𝔏`$) (superscript denotes the multiplicity of the weight the subscript the degree of the corresponding structure function). The $`𝔤_0`$-action is nontrivial and glues distinct irreducible $`(𝔤_0)_{\overline{0}}`$-modules. (We did not show the action though we have computed it.)

| Odd structure functions | Even structure functions |
| --- | --- |
| $`2`$ $`1`$ $`0`$  $`(11)`$ $`(01)^2`$ $`(11)`$  $`(13)`$ $`(23)`$   $`(03)`$   $`(21)`$ | $`0`$ $`1`$ $`2`$  $`(00)^2`$ $`(10)`$ $`(00)`$  $`(02)`$ $`(12)`$ $`(02)`$  $`(04)^2`$ $`(14)`$ $`(04)`$  $`(22)`$ $`(32)`$ $`(22)`$  $`(24)`$    $`(40)`$ |

The $`(𝔤_0)_{\overline{0}}`$-modules whose highest weights are given in the table are glued into $`𝔤_0`$-modules as follows (an arrow indicates a submodule). The even tensors:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(00)_0^2& & (02)_2;\\ & (12)_1& ;\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}(04)_0& & (04)_2;\\ & (14)_1& ;\end{array}$$

$$(22)_0(14)_1(22)_2;(22)_0(32)_1(22)_2;$$

$$(24)_0(32)_1;(12)_1(04)_2;(40)_0(32)_1;(12)_1(22)_2.$$

The odd tensors:

$$\begin{array}{c}(11)_2(23)_1;(01)_1^2(11)_0;\hfill \\ (13)_2(23)_1.\hfill \end{array}$$

5. The Einstein equations. The conventional EE in vacum are the conditions on the two tensors of degree 2 and weight $`(00)`$ and $`(22)`$, namely,

$`(5)`$
$$R(22)=0\mathrm{and}R(00)=\lambda g,$$

where $`\lambda `$ is interepreted in terms of the cosmological constant and $`g`$ is the metric preserved.

For an analog of the Einstein equations on the curved supergrassmannian we may take the same vanishing conditions of the 2-nd order structure functions of weights $`(00)`$ and $`(22)`$ with respect to $`𝔏`$. However, unlike the Einstein’s case, we have to vanish the constraints, the structure functions of lesser orders, both even and odd. The meaning of these analogs of Wess-Zumino constraints is unclear to us.


format: text

text:
# Universal scaling of the Hall resistivity in MgB2 superconductors

\[

## Abstract

The mixed-state Hall resistivity $`\rho _{xy}`$ and the longitudinal resistivity $`\rho _{xx}`$ in superconducting MgB2 thin films have been investigated as a function of the magnetic field over a wide range of current densities from 102 to 104 A/cm2. We observe a universal Hall scaling behavior with a constant exponent $`\beta `$ of $`2.0\pm 0.1`$ in $`\rho _{xy}=A\rho _{xx}^\beta `$, which is independent of the magnetic field, the temperature, and the current density. This result can be interpreted well within the context of recent theories.

\]

When a type-II superconductor is cooled down from a normal state to a superconducting state, the Hall effect shows very unusual features, which have been a long-standing problem and have remained an unresolved issue for more than three decades. The sign reversal of the Hall effect below Tc is one of the most interesting phenomena in the flux dynamics for high-Tc superconductors (HTS) and has attracted both experimental and theoretical interest. It is now mostly accepted that the mixed-state Hall effect in type-II superconductors is determined by two contributions, quasiparticle and hydrodynamic. The sign of the quasiparticle term remains the same as that in normal state, but the hydrodynamic term can be negative in the mixed state, so sign reversal can take place . Furthermore, a scaling behavior between $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$ has been found in most HTS . The puzzling scaling relation $`\rho _{xy}=A\rho _{xx}^\beta `$ with $`\beta 2`$ has been observed for Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 crystals  and Tl2Ba2Ca2Cu3O10 films . Other similar studies have reported $`\beta =1.52.0`$ for YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO) films , YBCO crystals , and HgBa2CaCu2O6 films . Even $`\beta 1`$ was reported for heavy-ion-irradiated HgBa2CaCu2O6 thin films .

A number of theories have been proposed to explain the scaling behavior between $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$. The first theoretical attempt was presented by Dorsey and Fisher . They showed that near the vortex-glass transition, $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$ could be scaled with an exponent $`\beta =1.7`$, and they explained the experimental results of Luo et al. for YBCO films . A phenomenological model was put forward by Vinokur et al. . They claimed that in the flux-flow region, $`\beta `$ should be 2 and independent of the pinning strength. Their result was consistent with the observed exponent in Bi-, Tl- and Hg-based superconductors only for the Hall data measured in high magnetic fields. Another phenomenological model was proposed by Wang et al. , who claimed that $`\beta `$ could change from 2 to 1.5 as the pinning strength increased, which agreed with the results reported for YBCO crystals  and Hg-1212 films .

The Hall scaling behavior, therfore, is a complicated phenomena, which seems strongly depend on the type of HTS. However, from the experimental Hall data reported in previous papers, one can found a general trend. At higher fields, the scaling range is wide and shows a universal value of $`\beta 2`$, which is independent of the field and the pinning strength. At lower fields, the scaling range is relatively narrow because the contribution from the hydrodynamic term is comparable to that of quasiparticle term; thus, the value of $`\beta `$ does not appear to be constant. Moreover, no Hall scaling has been reported in the field-sweep data, which provides decisive proof for the temperature dependence of the Hall scaling behavior.

The MgB2 superconductor is a very interesting sample for investigating the flux dynamics. Different from HTS, MgB2 shows no Hall sign anomaly in the mixed state and has a rather simple vortex phase diagram. The absence of sign anomaly implies that the hydrodynamic contribution is very small or negligible. Thus, the MgB2 compound is probably the best candidate for probing whether the Hall scaling is universal or not because we need only consider the quasiparticle term of the Hall conductivity, which is consistent with the universal Hall scaling theory .

In this Letter, we report the first demonstration of a universal scaling behavior of the Hall resistivity in MgB2 superconducting thin films, and the results can be well described using recent theories. We confirmed that the scaling exponent $`\beta 2`$ is universal, which is independent of the temperature, the magnetic field, and the pinning strength. In order to test the pinning strength dependence of the scaling behavior, we measured the Hall effect for two orders of magnitude of the current density. Based on our results, we will show that the universal Hall scaling law is also valid for HTS in high fields where the hydrodynamic contribution in the Hall effect is very small compared to the quasiparticle contribution.

The MgB2 thin films were grown on Al2O3 (1 $`\overline{1}`$ 0 2) substrates under a high-vacuum condition of $``$ 10-7 Torr by using pulsed laser deposition and postannealing techniques. The fabrication process and the normal-state transport properties of MgB2 thin films are described in detail elsewhere. The X-ray diffraction patterns indicated highly c-axis-oriented thin films perpendicular to the substrate surface and with a sample purity in excess of 99$`\%`$. The critical current density at 15 K and under a self-field condition was observed to be on the order of 107 A/cm2 . Standard photolithographic techniques were used to produce thin-film Hall bar patterns, which consisted of a rectangular strip (1 mm $`\times `$ 3 mm) of MgB2 film with three pairs of sidearms. The narrow sidearm width of 0.1 mm was patterned so that the sidearms would have an insignificant effect on the equipotential. Using this 6-probe configuration, we were able to measure simultaneously the $`\rho _{xx}`$ and the $`\rho _{xy}`$ at the same temperature. To achieve good ohmic contacts, we coated Au film on the contact pads after cleaning the sample surface by using Ar-ion milling. Fine temperature control was crucial since the Hall signal of MgB2 is very small. The magnetic field was applied perpendicular to the sample surface by using a superconducting magnet system, and the applied current densities were 10$`{}_{}{}^{2}`$ 104 A/cm2. The Hall voltage was found to be linear in both the current and the magnetic field.

Figure 1(a) shows the temperature dependence of $`\rho _{xx}`$ for MgB2 thin films for various magnetic fields up to 5 T and for applied current densities of 103 and 104 A/cm2. At zero field, the onset transition temperature ($`T_c`$) was 39.2 K and had a narrow transition width of $``$ 0.15 K, as judged from the 10 to 90$`\%`$ superconducting transition. As current density was decreased, the large enhancement of Tc was clearly observed. This is similar pinning effect being enhanced by introducing columnar defects in HTS. This result indicates that we can investigate the pinning strength dependence of the Hall scaling behavior by changing the applied current density.

The corresponding $`\rho _{xy}`$ is plotted in Fig. 1(b). The same trend as seen in the $`\rho _{xx}T`$ curves was observed with increasing current density. No sign change was detected for magnetic fields up to 5 T over a wide range of current densities from 103 to 104 A/cm2. This result implies that in the MgB2 superconductor, the hydrodynamic contribution for the mixed-state Hall conductivity is very small or negligible compared to the quasiparticle contribution. Thus, this compound is probably the most suitable sample to prove the Hall scaling behavior. The overall feature of the temperature dependence is quite different from that of HTS , in which a dip structure is observed near Tc due to the negative contribution by the hydrodynamic term. The normal-state $`\rho _{xy}`$ at 5 T decreases linearly with increasing temperature from 30 to 40 K, which is consistent with the temperature dependence of $`\rho _{xy}`$ above Tc.

Figure 2 shows the field dependence of (a) $`\rho _{xx}`$ and (b) $`\rho _{xy}`$ for MgB2 films at various temperatures from 28 to 40 K and current densities of 103 and 104 A/cm2. A very small and positive magnetoresistance was observed at 40 K and 5 T. With decreasing temperature and current density, the superconducting transitions of $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{xy}`$ became broad, showing that a relatively wide vortex-liquid phase had been formed. Similar to the $`\rho _{xx}T`$ behavior, large increases of zero-resistance transition were observed in both the $`\rho _{xx}`$ and the $`\rho _{xy}`$ data when a lower current density was applied, which indicates that the pinning force can be adjusted systematically by changing the applied current density. As the magnetic field was increased, $`\rho _{xy}`$ grew gradually without changing its sign up to an upper critical field (marked by the arrow), which is different from the previous observation in polycrystalline MgB2. In the normal state above upper critical fields, we found a quite linear $`H`$-dependence of $`\rho _{xy}`$. This is clearly different from the HTS case and suggests a relatively simple flux dynamics in MgB2.

The scaling behavior of $`\rho _{xy}`$ between $`\rho _{xx}`$ for the temperature-sweep data (Fig. 1) of MgB2 films is plotted in Fig. 3 for various fields from 1 to 5 T and over a wide range of current densities from 102 to 104 A/cm2. The universal Hall scaling with an exponent of 2.0 $`\pm `$ 0.1 is evident and is independent of the magnetic field and the current density. More strikingly, this universal scaling generally occurs in the regimes of the flux flow, such as the free-flux-flow, the thermally activated flux-flow, and the vortex-glass regions. This result is different from those for HTS where the scaling relation is valid only in the thermally activated flux-flow and vortex-glass regions.

Other supporting data for the universal Hall scaling of the field-sweep data (Fig. 2) can be seen in Fig. 4. We find a universal value of $`\beta `$ = 2.0 $`\pm `$ 0.1, which does not depend on the temperature or on the current density at (a) 104 and (b) 103 A/cm2. This is the first observation using the field-sweep measurements and provides decisive evidence for the temperature independence of the Hall scaling. Thus, we have confirmed that the flux-flow $`\rho _{xy}`$ is determined by $`\rho _{xx}`$ and that the relation is independent of the magnetic field, the temperature, and the current density. This universal behavior of the Hall scaling is our principal finding, and this observation will have serious implications for the physics of mixed-state Hall behavior, as discussed below.

Vinokur et al. proposed a universal Hall scaling theory based on a force balance equation where the Lorentz force $`𝐟_L`$ acting on a vortex is balanced by the usual frictional force $`\eta `$v and the Hall force $`\alpha `$v $`\times `$ n with v being the average velocity of vortices and n being the unit vector along the vortex lines. The coefficient $`\alpha `$ is related to the Hall angle by means of tan$`\mathrm{\Theta }_H=\alpha /\eta `$. If a pinning force of $`\gamma `$v, which renormalizes only the frictional term but does not affect the Hall force term, is included, the equation of vortex motion is given by

$$(\gamma +\eta )𝐯+\alpha 𝐯\times 𝐧=𝐟_L\text{.}$$
(1)
Using this force balance equation, we can easily calculate the relation between $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$:

$$\rho _{xy}=A\rho _{xx}^2\text{,}$$
(2)
where $`A=\alpha /(\mathrm{\Phi }_0B)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ being the flux quantum. Equation (2) gives a universal scaling law with $`\beta =2`$, which is independent of the magnetic field, the temperature, and the pinning strength. Furthermore, this relation can applied to the entire flux-flow region. Our experimental data in Figs. (3) and (4) can be interpreted completely by this simple theory. This excellent consistency between theoretical and experimental results is very important in the field of vortex dynamics since we are able to set up the basic equation of vortex motion, Eq. (1), which should provide a significant direction for future investigations on vortex dynamics. If this theory is to be generally accepted, however, experimental observation of HTS with $`\beta `$ ranging from 1 to 2 should be explained.

Now, we discuss the spread value of $`\beta `$ ($`1<\beta <2`$) reported for HTS. An interesting microscopic approach based on the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory has been proposed in a number of papers . According to this model, the mixed-state Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in type II superconductors is determined by the quasiparticle contribution $`\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}`$ and the hydrodynamic contribution $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ of the vortex cores, $`\sigma _{xy}=\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}+\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$. Since $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ is determined by the energy derivative of the density of states , if that term is negative and dominates over $`\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}`$, a sign anomaly can appear. This theory is consistent with experimental data for HTS . This microscopic theory suggests that Hall scaling can be broken in the case where $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ is comparable to $`\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}`$ because those terms have opposite signs. Indeed, $`\beta `$ was observed to less than $`2`$ at low fields whereas a universal value of $`\beta 2`$ was observed at higher fields where $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ is very small compared to $`\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}`$ (for example, $`\beta `$ $`2`$ was observed in Hg- and Tl-based superconductors for $`H=918`$ T ). For the MgB2 compound, since no sign anomaly was detected, we can say with confidence that $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ is very small or negligible; thus, universal Hall scaling holds over a wide range of fields. One can conclude from these results, that Hall scaling is universal under conditions where the $`\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}`$ term dominates the $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ term; thus we can then explain all the reported data related Hall scaling issues for HTS .

In summary, we have found a universal Hall scaling behavior between $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$ in MgB2 thin films, which is in good agreement with the high-field Hall data from Bi-, Hg- and Tl-based HTS. Our Hall data can be completely explained within the context of the universal Hall scaling theory. We also show that $`\rho _{xy}`$ can scale as $`\rho _{xx}^2`$ in cases where the $`\sigma _{xy}^{(q)}`$ term dominates $`\sigma _{xy}^{(h)}`$ term. With a simple phenomenological theory  and a microscopic theory, we are able to explain the Hall scaling behavior in HTS, which has been debated for a long time. We believe that these results will provide new insight into the future theoretical studies on the vortex dynamics of superconductivity.

This work is supported by the Creative Research Initiatives of the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Grand unified theories (GUTs) are very attractive models in which the three gauge groups are unified at a high energy scale. However, one of the most serious problems to construct a model of GUTs is how to realize the mass splitting between the triplet and the doublet Higgs particles in the Higgs sector. This problem is so-called triplet-doublet (TD) splitting problem. Recently, a new idea for solving the TD splitting problem has been suggested in 5 dimensional (5D) $`SU(5)`$ GUT where the 5th dimensional coordinate is compactified on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold -, where only Higgs and gauge fields can propagate in 5 dimensions. The orbifolding makes the $`SU(5)`$ gauge group reduce to the SM gauge group and realizes the TD splitting since the doublet (triplet) Higgs fields have (not) Kaluza-Klein zero-modes. Following this new idea, a lot of works are made progress in the directions of larger unified gauge symmetry and higher space-time dimensions-. In these models, gauge symmetry and supersymmetry are broken through orbifold projections and/or the Scherk-Schwarz mechanism. Especially, the reduction of $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry and the TD splitting solution are discussed in 6D models in Refs..

Several trials of producing fermion mass hierarchies in the extra dimensional scenario have been done in Refs.. Especially, the model in Ref. can induce the natural fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings, based on an $`N=1`$ SUSY ((1,0)-SUSY) $`SO(10)`$ GUT in 6 dimensions where the 5th and 6th dimensional coordinates are compactified on a $`T^2/Z_2`$ orbifold. The gauge and Higgs fields live in 6 dimensions while ordinal chiral matter fields are localized in 4 dimensions*** $`N=1`$ SUSY ((1,0)-SUSY) in 6 dimensions requires the gauginos to have opposite chirality from the matter fermions which must all share the same chirality . This feature strongly constrains our model when discussing 6D gauge anomaly. . The orbifolding and boundary conditions make the $`SO(10)`$ gauge group be broken to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ and realize the TD splitting. In addition to the three-generation chiral matter fields, extra three sets of vector-like matter fields have been introduced: two sets of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$, and four $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representation fields These $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representation matter fields should have the same 6D chirality as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representation Higgs fields for the 6D irreducible gauge anomaly cancellation. propagate in 6 dimensions, and chiral fields which couple to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ are defined as the 1st generation, and one set of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ propagates in 5 dimensions and chiral fields which couple to them are defined as the 2nd generation. The mixing angles between the chiral fields and extra generations have been determined by the volume suppression factors. In this paper, we suggest two more models as extensions of the model in Ref. by introducing additional vector-like matter multiplets propagate in the bulk. These models have different configurations of additional vector-like fields in extra dimension. The suitable fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings are generated by integrating out these vector-like heavy fields.

## 2 Framework in 6D $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$ SUSY GUT

We discussed the fermion mass hierarchy in the 6D $`N=1`$ SUSY ((1,0)-SUSY) $`SO(10)`$ GUT . The extra dimensions are compactified on a $`T^2/Z_2`$ orbifold, whose coordinates ($`x_5,x_6`$) can be represented by the complex plane, $`zx_5+ix_6`$. The structure of extra 2D spaces are characterized by reflection $`P`$ and translations $`T_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). Under the reflection $`P`$, $`z`$ is transformed into $`z`$, which corresponds to the $`\pi `$ rotation on the complex plane. Under the translation $`T_i`$, $`z`$ is transformed into $`z+2\pi R_5`$ and $`z+i2\pi R_6`$, respectively. $`R_5`$ and $`R_6`$ are the two radii of $`T^2`$. We adopted the translations as $`(T_1,T_2)=(T_{51},T_{5^{}1^{}})`$ where $`T_{51}=\sigma _2I_5`$ and $`T_{5^{}1^{}}=\sigma _2diag.(1,1,1,1,1)`$, which commute the generators of the Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$ and the flipped $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ groups, respectively as in Refs..

When we construct a model on the 6D $`N=1`$ SUSY $`SO(10)`$ GUT, we must pay attentions to following two characteristic features. At first, 6D $`N=1`$ SUSY ((1,0)-SUSY) algebra determines the relation of 6D chiralities between the gauge, Higgs and matter multiplets, automatically. 6D $`N=1`$ SUSY ((1,0)-SUSY) algebra requires the gauginos to have opposite chirality from the matter fermions which must all share the same chirality. Thus, the 6D chiralities of all matter and Higgs fields which we introduced are the same each other, and opposite to those of gauginos. Second, since the 6D theory is the chiral theory, the 6D anomalies must be canceled by only the field propagating in 6 dimensions. We know the 6D irreducible gauge anomaly do cancel between a gauge multiplet and two $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ hypermultiplet or between a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ (or $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$) and a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ hypermultiplet Other reducible anomalies can be canceled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism ..

We consider the set-up that the gauge multiplet and two $`\mathrm{𝟏}0`$ representation Higgs multiplets propagate in the 6D bulk and the ordinal three-generation matter multiplets ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i,i=1,2,3`$) localized on the 4D brane ($`z=0`$). These field contents are free from gauge anomaly in 6 dimensions . Moreover, the reflection(P) and translations($`T_i`$) make the $`SO(10)`$ gauge group be broken to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ and realize the TD splitting since the doublet (triplet) Higgs fields have (not) Kaluza-Klein zero-modes.

For the matter fields, we introduced additional hypermultiplets, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ ($`\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}`$), in the bulk. When the hypermultiplet $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ propagates in the 6D bulk, we can classify $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$s into four types below,

$`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{++}{}^{}`$ $`\text{(zero mode) }=Q,`$
$`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}`$ $`\text{(zero modes)}=\overline{U},\overline{E},`$
$`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}`$ $`\text{(zero modes)}=\overline{D},\overline{N},`$
$`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`\text{(zero mode) }=L,`$ (1)
where the first $`\pm `$ sign represents the $`T_1`$ parity, while the second $`\pm `$ sign represents the $`T_2`$ parity. Equation (1) shows zero-mode fields in each type of 16 representation field. For the cancellation of the irreducible 6D gauge anomaly, we must introduce $`\mathrm{𝟏}0`$ representation hypermultiplets as many as the additional hypermultiplets, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ ($`\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}`$). Similarly, when the hypermultiplet $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ propagates in the 5D bulk ($`x_6=0`$), we can classify $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$s into the two types below,

$`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}`$ $`\text{(zero mode) }=Q,\overline{U},\overline{E},`$
$`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`\text{(zero mode)}=L,\overline{D},\overline{N},`$ (2)
where the $`\pm `$ sign represents the $`T_1`$ parity.

### 2.1 Previous model

Here let us review the previous model in Ref. briefly. In the model we introduced $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{++}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{++}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}`$ and $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{}`$ (we call them the 4th generation fields) which propagate in the 6D bulk and interact with only the 1st generation matter multiplets. For the 6D gauge anomaly cancellation, four 10 representation matter fields should also be introduced in 6D bulk, which are heavy enough to have nothing to do with the fermion mass hierarchies. In 5D bulk ($`x_6=0`$), we introduced $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_5}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}`$, (we call them the 5th generation fields) which interact with only the 2nd generation matter multiplets.

We put Higgs fields, $`H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ and $`H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}`$, on 4D brane ($`z=0`$), which are assumed to take vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of $`O(10^{16})`$ GeV in the directions of $`BL`$. We impose Peccei-Quinn symmetry and its charge on the multiplets: all matter multiplets have its charge $`1`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representation Higgs multiplets have its charge $`2`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ representation Higgs multiplets have its charge $`1`$. The following interactions between the chiral and extra generation fields on 4D brane, $`z=0`$,

$`W_6`$ $`=`$ $`H_{16}H_{\overline{16}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_{44}}{M_{}^3}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{44}^{}}{M_{}^3}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{}\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{14}}{M_{}^2}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_1\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{14}^{}}{M_{}^2}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_1\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{}`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{55}}{M_{}^2}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_5}\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{25}}{M_{}^{3/2}}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}\}\delta (x_5)\delta (x_6),`$
induce the mass terms for the Kaluza-Klein zero-modes of vector-like matter fields§§§ As for 10 representation matter fields in 6D, they have nothing to do with the fermion mass hierarchies due to the PQ-symmetry and the mass terms are generated through the interactions on $`z=0`$, $`W_{\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}}\frac{1}{M_{}^3}H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}}\delta (x_5)\delta (x_6).`$ as,

$`W_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_N^2}{M_{}}}\{ϵ_1^4(Q_4^{(0)}\overline{Q}_4^{(0)}+U_4^{(0)}\overline{U}_4^{(0)}+E_4^{(0)}\overline{E}_4^{(0)})+ϵ_1^2(Q_1\overline{Q}_4^{(0)}+\overline{U_1}U_4^{(0)}+\overline{E_1}E_4^{(0)})`$ (4)
$`+ϵ_2^2(Q_5^{(0)}\overline{Q}_5^{(0)}+U_5^{(0)}\overline{U}_5^{(0)}+E_5^{(0)}\overline{E}_5^{(0)})+ϵ_2(Q_2\overline{Q}_5^{(0)}+\overline{U_2}U_5^{(0)}+\overline{E_2}E_5^{(0)})\},`$
where $`H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}=H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}v_N`$ and $`ϵ_i`$s are the volume suppression factors,

$`ϵ_1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi (R_5R_6)^{1/2}M_{}}}},ϵ_2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R_5M_{}}}}.`$ (5)
Here we assume all Yukawa couplings are of order one. Thus the volume suppression factors $`ϵ_{1,2}`$ play crucial roles for generating the fermion mass matrices in the low energy. After integrating out the heavy fields, the model gives the following mass matrices in the up quark sector, the down quark sector, and the charged lepton sector,

$$m_u^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_2& ϵ_2& ϵ_2\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_e^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},$$
(6)
respectively. $`\overline{v}`$ and $`v`$ are the vacuum expectation values of the weak Higgs doublets in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representation Higgs multiplets. We write the mass matrices in the basis that the left-handed fermions are to the left and the right-handed fermions are to the right. We notice that all elements in the mass matrices have $`O(1)`$ coefficients. When we set $`1/R_5=1/R_6=O(10^{16})`$ GeV, Eq.(5) gives $`ϵ_i0.04`$ . Thus, we can regard $`ϵ_i\lambda ^2`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the Cabibbo angle, $`\lambda 0.2`$. This model induces the fermion mass hierarchies as,

$`m_t:m_c:m_u`$ $``$ $`1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^8,`$ (7)
$`m_b:m_s:m_d`$ $``$ $`m_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^4,`$ (8)
with the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The mass matrix of three light neutrinos $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ through the see-saw mechanism as

$$m_\nu ^{(l)}\frac{m_\nu ^Dm_\nu ^D^T}{M_R}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{v^2}{M_R}.$$
(9)
$`M_R`$ is about $`10^{14}`$ GeV induced from the interaction on $`z=0`$,

$$W_{M_N}=\frac{y_{ij}^N}{M_{}}H_{\overline{16}}H_{\overline{16}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_j\delta (x_5)\delta (x_6),$$
(10)
where $`i,j=13`$ are the generation indices. We can obtain the suitable mass scale ($`O(10^1)`$ eV), for the atmospheric neutrino oscillation experiments, taking account for the $`SO(10)`$ relation of $`y_uy_\nu `$.

As for the flavor mixings, the CKM and the MNS matrices are given by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^2& 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
They give us a natural explanation why the flavor mixing in the quark sector is small while the flavor mixing in the lepton sector is large-. They suggest the suitable flavor mixings roughly in order of magnitudes. However, they show too small Cabibbo angle and too large $`U_{e3}`$. In order to obtain the suitable values of them, we need suitable choice of $`O(1)`$ coefficients in mass matrices. A suitable choice of $`O(1)`$ coefficients in the mass matrix can really derive the suitable flavor mixings consistent with the neutrino oscillation experiments as shown in Ref.. On the other hand, if $`O(1)`$ coefficients are not determined by a specific reason (symmetry) This situation means the case when flavor mixing angles are not very closed to maximals or zeros but just large or small non-specific $`O(1)`$ values. , it is meaningful to see the most probable hierarchy and mixing angles by considering random $`O(1)`$ coefficients. However, if the neutrino mixing angles are very closed to be maximal or zero, it is natural that the mass matrices must be modified to fit the experimental data in order (power of $`\lambda `$) not by tunings of $`O(1)`$ coefficients. We will discuss this trial in the following two sections.

## 3 Model I

For the extension of the model, we consider the situation where the additional vector-like matter multiplets propagate in the bulk. In model I, we introduced the matter multiplets, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{\prime \prime }+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime }`$ (we call them the 4th generation fields) which propagate in the 5D bulk ($`x_6=0`$) and interact with only the 1st generation matter multiplet in addition to the previous model. They have PQ charge $`1`$ as the other matter fields have.

In this case the following terms are added to Eq.(3)

$`W_6`$ $`=`$ $`H_{16}H_{\overline{16}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_{44}^{\prime \prime }}{M_{}^2}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{\prime \prime }\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{24}^{\prime \prime }}{M_{}^{3/2}}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime }\right\}\delta (x_5)\delta (x_6),`$ (12)
then the term

$`W_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_N^2}{M_{}}}\{ϵ_2^2(L_4^{\prime \prime (0)}\overline{L}_4^{\prime \prime (0)}+D_4^{\prime \prime (0)}\overline{D}_4^{\prime \prime (0)}+N_4^{\prime \prime (0)}\overline{N}_4^{\prime \prime (0)})`$ (13)
$`+ϵ_2(L_2\overline{L}_4^{\prime \prime (0)}+\overline{D_2}D_4^{\prime \prime (0)}+\overline{N_2}N_4^{\prime \prime (0)})\},`$
is added to Eq.(4). After integrating out the heavy vector-like fields, the mass matrices of the light eigenstates in the up quark sector, the down quark sector, and the charged lepton sector become

$$m_u^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_e^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},$$
(14)
respectively. The mass matrices of the light eigenstates in the left-handed neutrino sector and the right-handed neutrino sector are given as

$$m_\nu ^D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)M_R.$$
(15)
Then the mass matrix of three light neutrinos $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ through the see-saw mechanism is given by

$$m_\nu ^{(l)}\frac{m_\nu ^Dm_\nu ^D^T}{m_N}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\\ ϵ_2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{v^2}{M_R}.$$
(16)
When we set $`ϵ_1ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=1/R_6=O(10^{16})`$ GeV, we obtain the following fermion mass matrices

$`m_u^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},`$ (23)
$`m_e^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_\nu ^{(l)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{M_R}}.`$ (30)
They induce the more suitable fermion mass hierarchies in the power of $`\lambda `$ for the down quark and the charged lepton sectors,

$`m_t:m_c:m_u`$ $``$ $`1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^8,`$
$`m_b:m_s:m_d`$ $``$ $`m_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^6,`$ (31)
with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In order to obtain the realistic neutrino mass hierarchy pattern which is consistent with neutrino oscillation experiments, the rank of $`2\times 2`$ sub-matrix in the 2nd and the 3rd generations in $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ should be reduced, and the light eigenvalue of this sub-matrix should be smaller than $`O(\lambda ^2)`$. Then we might obtain the hierarchical type of neutrino mass, $`m_1m_2m_3`$.

As for the flavor mixings, the CKM and the MNS matrices are given by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^2& 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \lambda ^2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(32)
where we assume the reduction of rank discussed above in the neutrino mass matrix, $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$, for obtaining this MNS matrix. This type of flavor mixing matrix is so-called bi-maximal one. Without the rank reduction, the mixing between the 1st and the 2nd generations can not be maximal. Since the value of $`U_{e3}`$ is of order $`\lambda ^2`$ in model I, we do not need to choose $`O(1)`$ coefficients as we did in the previous model. The CKM matrix has the same structure as in the previous model. This case shows the relation between the Cabibbo angle and quark masses, $`\lambda ^2\sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$. Needless to say, the suitable choice of O(1) coefficients can reproduce the masses and the mixings of quarks and leptons as in the previous model.

For another choice, when we set $`ϵ_1\lambda ^{3/2}`$ and $`ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=O(10^{16})`$ GeV and $`1/R_6=O(10^{17})`$ GeV, we obtain the following fermion mass matrices,

$`m_u^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^3& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},`$ (39)
$`m_e^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_\nu ^{(l)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{M_R}}.`$ (46)
They suggest the modified fermion mass hierarchies for the quark and the charged lepton sectors,

$`m_t:m_c:m_u`$ $``$ $`1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^6`$
$`m_b:m_s:m_d`$ $``$ $`m_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^5`$ (47)
with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The hierarchical neutrino mass pattern is obtained when the rank of neutrino mass matrix is reduced as in the previous case.

As for the flavor mixings, the MNS matrix is the same as the previous case. However, the CKM matrix is modified as,

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & \lambda ^3\\ \lambda & 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(48)
The hierarchal structure of the above CKM matrix nicely reproduces the experimental data. The Cabibbo angle has the suitable value with the relation of $`\lambda \sqrt{m_d/m_s}`$. Therefore we can conclude that the second choice of radius, $`R_{5,6}`$ is more suitable for the fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings.

## 4 Model II

As the second model, we introduce extra matter multiplets in addition to the previous model: $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime }+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4^{\prime \prime \prime }}`$ and $`\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }`$ (we call them the 4th generation fields) which propagate in the 6D bulk As commented in the previous discussion, four additional 10 matter fields must be introduced for the anomaly cancellation. However, we omit them since they have nothing to do with the fermion mass matrices due to the PQ-symmetry and their heavy masses. and interact with only the 1st generation matter multiplet, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_5}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}^{}`$ (we call them the 5th generation fields) which propagate in the 5D bulk ($`x_6=0`$) and interact with only the 2nd generation matter multiplet, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_6}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_6}`$ (we call them the 6th generation fields) which propagate in the 5D bulk ($`x_6=0`$) and interact with only the 3rd generation matter multiplet. All of them have $`1`$ PQ charges.

In this case, the following terms are added to Eq.(3),

$`W_6`$ $`=`$ $`H_{16}H_{\overline{16}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{y_{44}^{\prime \prime \prime }}{M_{}^3}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime }\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{44}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }}{M_{}^3}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{14}^{\prime \prime \prime }}{M_{}^2}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_1\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{14}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }}{M_{}^2}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_1\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{y_{55}^{}}{M_{}^2}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_5}^{}\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{25}^{}}{M_{}^{3/2}}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_2\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{66}}{M_{}^2}}\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_6}\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_6}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{36}}{M_{}^{3/2}}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_3\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_6}\}\delta (x_5)\delta (x_6),`$
which induce additional terms to Eq.(4) as,

$`W_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_N^2}{M_{}}}\{ϵ_1^4(D_4^{\prime \prime \prime (0)}\overline{D}_4^{\prime \prime \prime (0)}+N_4^{\prime \prime \prime (0)}\overline{N}_4^{\prime \prime \prime (0)}+L_4^{\prime \prime \prime \prime (0)}\overline{L}_4^{\prime \prime \prime \prime (0)})`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_1^2\left(\overline{D}_1D_4^{\prime \prime \prime (0)}+\overline{N_1}N_4^{\prime \prime \prime (0)}+L_1\overline{L_4}^{\prime \prime \prime \prime (0)}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`ϵ_2^2\left(D_5^{(0)}\overline{D}_5^{(0)}+N_5^{(0)}\overline{N}_5^{(0)}+L_5^{(0)}\overline{L}_5^{(0)}\right)+ϵ_2\left(\overline{D}_2D_5^{(0)}+\overline{N_2}N_5^{(0)}+L_2\overline{L}_5^{(0)}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`ϵ_2^2(D_6^{(0)}\overline{D}_6^{(0)}+N_6^{(0)}\overline{N}_6^{(0)}+L_6^{(0)}\overline{L}_6^{(0)})+ϵ_2(\overline{D}_3D_6^{(0)}+\overline{N_3}N_6^{(0)}+L_3\overline{L}_6^{(0)})\}.`$
After integrating out the vector-like heavy fields, the mass matrices of the light eigenstates in the up quark sector, the down quark sector, and the charged lepton sector are given as

$$m_u^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_1^2ϵ_2\\ ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\\ ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2& ϵ_2\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_e^l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2\end{array}\right)\overline{v},$$
(51)
respectively. As the mass matrices of the light eigenstates in the left-handed neutrino sector and the right-handed neutrino sector are given as

$$m_\nu ^D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\end{array}\right)v,m_N\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\end{array}\right)M_R,$$
(52)
respectively, the mass matrix of three light neutrinos $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$ through the see-saw mechanism is given by

$$m_\nu ^{(l)}\frac{m_\nu ^Dm_\nu ^D^T}{m_N}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1^4& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2& ϵ_2ϵ_1^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\\ ϵ_1^2ϵ_2& ϵ_2^2& ϵ_2^2\end{array}\right)\frac{v^2}{M_R}.$$
(53)
When we set $`ϵ_1ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which corresponds to $`1/R_5=1/R_6=O(10^{16})`$ GeV, we obtain the following fermion mass matrices

$`m_u^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\lambda ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},`$ (60)
$`m_e^l`$ $`\lambda ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_\nu ^{(l)}\lambda ^4\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^2& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{M_R}}.`$ (67)
The forms of these mass matrices are the same as those of the first case of Model I except for the overall factors. Thus the suitable fermion mass hierarchies of the quark and the charged lepton sectors are the same as Eq.(3). The flavor mixing matrices, $`V_{CKM}`$ and $`V_{MNS}`$, are also the same as those of the first case of Model I. The different between this model and the first case of Model I exists just in the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This model shows the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta \frac{m_t/m_b}{1/\lambda ^2}1`$. The discussion of neutrino mass hierarchy and the flavor mixings are also the same as the first case of Model I.

For another choice, when we set $`ϵ_1\lambda ^{7/4}`$ and $`ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=O(10^{16})`$ GeV and $`1/R_6=O(10^{17})`$ GeV, we obtain the following fermion mass matrices.

$`m_u^l`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^7& \lambda ^{5\text{-}6}& \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}\\ \lambda ^{5\text{-}6}& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)v,m_d^l\lambda ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}\\ \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},`$ (74)
$`m_e^l`$ $`\lambda ^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}\\ \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)\overline{v},m_\nu ^{(l)}\lambda ^4\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^3& \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}\\ \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{M_R}}.`$ (81)
This case also shows the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. These mass matrices induce the fermion mass hierarchies of the quark and the charged lepton sectors as

$`m_t:m_c:m_u`$ $``$ $`1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^7,`$
$`m_b:m_s:m_d`$ $``$ $`m_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^5.`$ (82)
The flavor mixing matrices are given by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}\\ \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \lambda ^2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$
(83)
Here we assume the reduction of rank in the neutrino mass matrix, $`m_\nu ^{(l)}`$, for obtaining this MNS matrix.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

In this paper, we have shown three models based on the 6D $`N=1`$ SUSY $`SO(10)`$ GUT where the 5th and 6th dimensional coordinates are compactified on a $`T^2/Z_2`$ orbifold. The gauge and Higgs fields live in 6 dimensions while ordinal chiral matter fields are localized in 4 dimensions. At first, we have shown briefly the model in Ref. where in addition to the three-generation chiral matter fields, extra three sets of vector-like matter fields are introduced: $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}`$, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{}`$ and four $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\alpha }`$s propagate in 6 dimensions and chiral fields which couple to $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}`$, $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_4}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_4}^{}`$ are defined as the 1st generation, and $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_5}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_5}`$ propagate in 5 dimensions and chiral fields which couple to them are defined as the 2nd generation. This model shows the fermion mass hierarchies as, $`m_t:m_c:m_u1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^8,m_b:m_s:m_dm_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^4.`$ and flavor mixings as,

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^2& 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$

We suggest two more models as the extensions of this model. The model I has additional $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ matter fields propagating in 5D space, $`x_6=0`$, which couple to the 1st generation chiral fields. When we set $`ϵ_1ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=1/R_6=O(10^{16})`$ GeV, this model shows the mass hierarchies in the quark and the charged lepton sectors as, $`m_t:m_c:m_u1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^8,m_b:m_s:m_dm_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^6.`$ When we assume that the rank is reduced in the neutrino mass matrix, the mass spectra of the neutrino mass eigenvalues becomes hierarchical, and the flavor mixings are given by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^2& 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \lambda ^2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$

For another choice of the sizes of compactification length of the extra dimensions as $`ϵ_1\lambda ^{3/2}`$ and $`ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=O(10^{16})`$ GeV and $`1/R_6=O(10^{17})`$ GeV, this case shows the mass hierarchies of the quark and the charged lepton sectors as, $`m_t:m_c:m_u1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^6,m_b:m_s:m_dm_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^5.`$ The case with the rank reduction of the neutrino mass matrix can give the hierarchical neutrino masses and the flavor mixings as,

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & \lambda ^3\\ \lambda & 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \lambda ^2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$

The too small (large) value of the Cabibbo angle ($`U_{e3}`$) can be avoided by power of $`\lambda `$.

The model II has additional $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{++}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{++}{}^{}`$ and $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}+\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}`$ which propagate in the 6D bulk and interact with only the 1st generation matter multiplets, and $`\psi _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}`$ ($`\psi _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}^{}{}_{+}{}^{}`$), in 5D bulk ($`x_6=0`$) which interact with only the 2nd generation matter multiplets. When we set $`ϵ_1ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=1/R_6=O(10^{16})`$ GeV, the fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings are the same as the first case of Model I. This case, however, suggests small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ contrary to the first case of Model I. For another choice of $`ϵ_1\lambda ^{7/4}`$ and $`ϵ_2\lambda ^2`$, which means $`1/R_5=O(10^{16})`$ GeV and $`1/R_6=O(10^{17})`$ GeV, the fermion mass hierarchies are given by $`m_t:m_c:m_u1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^7,m_b:m_s:m_dm_\tau :m_\mu :m_e1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^5`$ with small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Assuming the rank reduction in the neutrino mass matrix, the flavor mixing matrices are given by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}\\ \lambda ^{1\text{-}2}& 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^{3\text{-}4}& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),V_{MNS}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& \lambda ^2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right).$$

This case can also avoid too small value of the Cabibbo angle.

## Acknowledgment

We would like to thank M. Bando and N. Maekawa for useful discussions at the workshop “post NOON” in YITP on December 2001. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, of Japan (No.12740146, No.13001292).


text:
# Giant infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the neutral-ionic phase transition

## Abstract

We present exact diagonalization results on a modified Peierls-Hubbard model for the neutral-ionic phase transition. The ground state potential energy surface and the infrared intensity of the Peierls mode point to a strong, non-linear electron-phonon coupling, with effects that are dominated by the proximity to the electronic instability rather than by electronic correlations. The huge infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the ferroelectric transition is related to the temperature dependence of the dielectric constant of mixed-stack organic crystals.

The nature of electron-phonon (e-ph) coupling in correlated electron systems is an enduring topic in condensed matter research, currently as experimental indications of strong, anharmonic e-ph coupling have been recognized in high-Tc superconductors based on CuO lanzara  or the novel MgB2 yildirim . The topic itself is old and deeply rooted in the problem of structural deformation in systems close to electronic instabilities, where particularly high sensitivity to e-ph coupling is expected. Low-dimensional systems have a host of electronic instabilities such as Mott, Peierls, and spin-Peierls transitions mazu1  with characteristic vibrational signatures bozio . All these instabilities are accompanied by lattice relaxation representing the extreme consequence of the non-linearity of electronic responses to perturbation by phonons.

The neutral-ionic transition (NIT) in a rigid donor-acceptor (DA) chain is the boundary between a paramagnet and a diamagnet cpl79 , analogous to a Mott metal-insulator transition. Such electronic instability is again accompanied by structural relaxation. NITs were observed in organic charge-transfer (CT) crystals with mixed DA stacks torrance , and, as recognized from the outset ttfca , dimerization accompanies the transition, leading to ferroelectric (FE) behavior tokura  for proper interstack arrangement. Recently NIT models were proposed for FE oxides egami . In this context the anomalous role of dimerization in displacing electronic charge has been underlined, to suggest enhanced e-ph coupling near the NIT. This was confirmed by subsequent calculations rs  without, however, pursuing experimental implications.

In this Letter, we exploit the recent definition resta ; rs  of polarization, $`P`$, in insulators with periodic boundary conditions (PBC) to obtain the infrared (IR) intensity of the dimerization mode. The IR intensity depends sensitively on structure, which we relax fully, and peaks at the FE transition of either correlated or uncorrelated models, clearly implicating the structural instability rather than correlations for the huge intensity. Working with a linear and harmonic model for e-ph coupling, we recognize large non-linearity in the anharmonicity of the ground state (GS) potential energy surface (PES), and within the adiabatic approximation we demonstrate an intimate entanglement of electrons and phonons. Sizeable non-adiabatic effects are expected near the NIT borghi , but the subtle interplay between electrons and phonons we discuss here sets the baseline for identifying non-adiabatic effects.

We describe NIT in terms of a Peierls-Hubbard model with alternating on-site energies ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and one electron per site. As in the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model ssh , linear Peierls coupling to a $`k=0`$ phonon that modulates the transfer integrals is introduced in the following adiabatic Hamiltonian:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(1+(1)^i\delta )(c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,\sigma }+h.c.)`$
$`+`$ $`U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{i,\sigma }^{}n_{i,\sigma ^{}}+\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(1)^ic_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2ϵ_d}}\delta ^2`$
where $`N`$ is the number of sites, $`c_{i,\sigma }^{}`$ creates an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ on site $`i`$, and the last term accounts for the elastic energy. Accounting for alternating charges on molecular cores, $`q_j`$=2, 0 on D, A sites, respectively, we define the ionicity operator as $`\widehat{\rho }=_j(q_j\widehat{n}_j)/N`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ Eq. (Giant infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the neutral-ionic phase transition) reduces to the SSH model ssh  in the $`U=0`$ limit, or to a spin-Peierls model in the $`U>>1`$ limit, and the Peierls instability leads to finite dimerization amplitude, $`\delta `$, in either case. The I phase with one electron per site ($`\rho 1`$) is always dimerized nagaosa ; paigir . With increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, electrons are paired on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sites in the N phase and the GS is a regular chain ($`\delta =0`$). The equilibrium $`\delta `$ decreases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ larger than a critical value that depends on the lattice stiffness, as shown by Rice and Mele for $`U=0`$ mr . The correlated case is a Mott insulator on the I side anu , with an NIT to a band insulator around $`\mathrm{\Delta }U/2`$ in the regular chain. Accordingly, we vary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Delta }U/2`$ in the vicinity of the NIT and solve $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },ϵ_d)`$ exactly in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta },U\mathrm{}`$ for finite chains with up to 12 sites and PBC, as required for the $`P`$ operator resta , using the diagrammatic valence bond (VB) technique vb . The lengthy geometry optimization limits $`N`$, but is compensated by the rapid convergence of GS properties compared to excitation energies anu .

In the rigid lattice ($`ϵ_d=0`$) $`\rho `$ varies smoothly and the N-I crossover, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c=0.668`$ and $`\rho `$ 0.63, is signaled by the unconditional dimerization instability of the I phase anu .

A deformable lattice (finite $`ϵ_d`$) dimerizes on the N side paigir . Fig. 1 depicts the evolution with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the GS PES of a 12-site ring with $`ϵ_d=0.64`$. To focus attention on dimerization, the GS energy for the regular chain is set to zero at each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Far in the N phase (large positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) the regular stack is stable, but with decreasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, dimerization sets in well before $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$, at $`\rho 0.25`$. In the pre-transitional regime the GS PES is clearly anharmonic. The two minima in the I regime correspond to ferroelectrics with opposite polarization.

To calculate the IR intensity of the Peierls mode, proportional to $`(P/\delta )^2`$, we slightly modify the Resta’s twist operator resta , to account for alternating charges on molecular cores, as follows:

$$P=\frac{1}{2\pi }Im(ln\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{i\frac{2\pi }{N}\widehat{M}}|\mathrm{\Psi })=\frac{1}{2\pi }Im(ln(Z))$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the GS wavefunction, and $`\widehat{M}=_jr_j(q_j\widehat{n}_j)`$, with $`r_j`$ locating the $`j`$ site. The $`\widehat{M}`$-operator is diagonal in the VB basis and the calculation of $`P`$ is easily implemented. $`\widehat{M}`$ accounts for the actual geometry of the stack and depends on $`\delta `$ according to:

$$\widehat{M}=\frac{N^2}{2}\underset{j}{}j\widehat{n}_j+\frac{N\delta }{2\alpha }\widehat{\rho }$$
(3)
where the mean intersite distance and the electronic charge are set to 1. The dimensionless e-ph coupling constant, $`\alpha =\sqrt{Kϵ_d}`$, is estimated $``$ 5-10, for typical values of the elastic constant, $`K`$. $`P/\delta `$ can be rigorously decomposed into two contributions, one obtained by allowing $`M`$ to vary with $`\delta `$, at fixed $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the other one by varying $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ at fixed $`M`$. The first contribution describes the IR intensity originating from the displacement of sites carrying a fixed charge, $`\rho `$. Frozen charges account for IR intensity of optical modes in ionic lattices. The second, electronic contribution instead accounts for the charge flux driven by $`\delta `$. It only appears in systems with mobile or delocalized electrons.

For a regular chain, $`\delta =0`$, the reflection mirror residing on each site ensures real $`Z`$ values resta . $`Z`$ is positive in the N regime, negative in the I regime, and $`Z=0`$ locates the NIT of a $`\delta =0`$ ring of any size with PBC rs . The $`\delta `$ derivative of $`P`$ in Eq. (2) then diverges at the NIT, where the GS is metallic anu . In dimerized chains $`Z`$ is complex and the divergence of $`P/\delta `$ is suppressed. Since the GS of Eq. (1) always dimerizes on the N side of the NIT, the IR intensity remains finite for the equilibrium structure. The IR intensity of the regular chain is then an upper bound for the relaxed structure that, depending on $`ϵ_d`$, holds on the N side of the FE transition.

We numerically evaluate $`P/\delta `$ at the equilibrium $`\delta `$ and distinguish between contributions due to fluctuating and frozen charges. The latter is small in the entire range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Large IR intensity is associated with fluctuating charges. Fig. 2 shows $`(P/\delta )_{fl}`$ for 12-site chains. The $`\delta =0`$ curve diverges at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ on both the N and I side.

Giant IR intensity at the NIT is due to finite electronic fluxes generated by infinitesimal lattice distortions. Resta and Sorella reported similar results by finding the total average charge for fixed dimerization rs ; for small $`\delta `$, their quasi-divergent curves are finite-difference approximations to our $`\delta `$-derivatives. We see in Fig. 2 that $`(P/\delta )_{fl}=0`$ near $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$ for both values of $`ϵ_d`$. Dimerization increases the transfer integral $`(1+\delta )`$ and tends to equalize charges on D and A sites then producing charge fluxes of opposite direction on the N and I side. $`(P/\delta )_{fl}=0`$ marks the point where charges are maximally delocalized and locates the N-I crossover in dimerized chains.

Since Mott insulators on the I side are inherently correlated, all NIT features have been viewed in terms of correlations, including the divergence of dynamical charges at the NIT of the regular chain rs . To address this point we investigated the non-interacting case, and found $`P(\mathrm{\Delta },\delta ,U=0)`$ analytically for the infinite chain:

$$P(\mathrm{\Delta },\delta ,U=0)=\frac{\delta \rho }{2\alpha }\frac{4\delta }{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4}}cel(q_c,p,a,b)$$
(4)
where $`cel(q_c,p,a,b)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the third kind recipes , calculated for $`q_c^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\delta ^2)/(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4)`$, $`p=(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+4\delta ^2)/(\mathrm{\Delta }^2)`$, $`a=1`$, and $`b=0`$. For the regular chain the $`\delta `$-derivative of $`\rho `$ and of the elliptic integral above both vanish so that the frozen and the fluctuating charge contributions to $`P/\delta `$ are the coefficients of $`\delta `$ in the first and second term of Eq. (4), respectively. For typical $`\alpha `$ values the frozen charge contribution smoothly increases from 0 to $`0.05`$ as $`\rho `$ increases from 0 to 1. The fluctuating charge contribution is more interesting and is shown in the inset of Fig. 2 for positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0`$ simply reverses the role of D and A). $`(P/\delta )_{fl}`$ diverges as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ 0, much as it does for $`U=\mathrm{}`$ at NIT. Indeed, Eq. (Giant infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the neutral-ionic phase transition) at $`U=\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ describes the half-filled band whose instability Peierls pointed out, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ is the NIT for free electrons. We conclude that divergent IR intensity at the FE transition is not due to electronic correlations, but rather indicates a structural instability that displaces electronic charges. The behavior of chains with finite $`ϵ_d`$ at the equilibrium dimerization (dashed and dotted lines in the inset) in the N phase is similar to the $`U=\mathrm{}`$ case, with $`(P/\delta )_{fl}`$ vanishing at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c`$, respectively.

Fig. 3 shows results for Peierls coupling $`ϵ_d=`$ 0.28 and 0.64 in Eq. (Giant infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the neutral-ionic phase transition) with $`U=\mathrm{}`$. The larger dimerization for $`ϵ_d=`$ 0.64 strongly localizes electrons and reduces finite-size effects: rings of 10 and 12 sites appear superimposed, while they show small differences for $`ϵ_d`$ =0.28. The IR intensity is dominated by fluctuating charges; it is small far in the N regime, peaks sharply at the FE transition, and decreases rapidly to vanish at the N-I crossover.

In fact, since the frozen charge contribution is small, vanishing IR intensity can be taken as an operational definition of the charge crossover. The IR intensity smoothly increases again on the I side due to the increasing frozen charges and reaches typical values for ionic crystals as $`\rho 1`$. The peak in the IR intensity at the FE transition is larger the nearer the transition is to the NIT of the regular chain, where electronic charges are most responsive. IR intensity does not measure the strength of e-ph coupling, nor the dimerization amplitude, rather it is governed by the response of the electronic system and reflects its non-linearity.

The Peierls-Hubbard model in Eq. (Giant infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the neutral-ionic phase transition) contains neither intersite electron-electron interactions nor coupling to molecular (Holstein) modes. Consequently it cannot describe materials such as TTF-CA ttfca  with a discontinuous NIT. But Eq. (Giant infrared intensity of the Peierls mode at the neutral-ionic phase transition) provides a useful starting point for systems with a continuous NIT, or, more precisely, a dimerization transition near a continuous NIT. Several CT salts dimerize in the N regime masino ; dm ; clbr3  with decreasing temperature or increasing pressure; this modulates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ through the crystal’s Madelung energy. Far IR data on these systems are however scanty, the only available results having recently been published on TTF-QBrCl3 clbr3 . This compound has $`\rho 0.3`$ at ambient conditions and dimerizes at T$``$ 68 K. Concomitantly, its ionicity increases from $``$ 0.35 to 0.5 to reach $``$ 0.6 at T $``$ 10K. Reflectivity measured at the lowest frequency (25 cm-1) increases up to 90% at the FE transition, suggesting the proximity to a metallic state there. After dimerization, the reflectivity decreases again. Approaching the FE transition, a progressive displacement of the IR intensity towards lower frequencies can be inferred from data in Ref. clbr3 , and the published IR intensity vs. T closely resembles the $`ϵ_d=`$ 0.28 peak in Fig. 3. Therefore we assign the amplified far IR intensity observed near the FE transition to the soft dimerization mode, and explain its abrupt drop after the transition as due to the vanishing of the fluctuating contribution to the IR intensity at the N-I crossover. This interpretation differs from the one proposed in Ref. clbr3 , where the far-IR absorption is assigned to the dynamics of neutral-ionic domain-walls. Additional experimental and theoretical work is needed to clarify this point.

There are more data on static dielectric constants, $`\epsilon `$ dm ; clbr3 . Systems undergoing dimerization near a continuous NIT show a large peak in $`\epsilon `$ just where long-range dimerization sets in. The similarity between the $`\epsilon `$ peak (see e.g. Fig. 1 in ref. clbr3 ) at the FE transition and the IR intensity of the Peierls mode in Fig. 3 is suggestive. E-ph coupling shifts oscillator strength from electronic states to lattice vibrations, and this displacement to lower energy amplifies the system’s response to a static field.

To the first order in $`ϵ_d`$, the static response can be estimated as the sum of an electronic plus a vibrational contribution: $`\epsilon =1+(\chi _{el}+\chi _{vib})/\epsilon _0`$, with $`\chi _{vib}=2\mu _{IR}^2/\omega ϵ_d(P/\delta )^2`$, defined in terms of the vibrational transition dipole moment and frequency cpl . Analytical expressions of $`\chi _{el}`$ are available for $`U=0`$ caf , and Fig. 4 compares the total (electronic+vibrational) $`\epsilon `$ with the purely electronic term. The lattice parameters, required to fix the absolute value of $`\epsilon `$, are set to representative values for mixed stack crystals from Ref. lecointe .

Whereas the magnitude of the two terms is comparable, the sharp peak at the FE transition is due e-ph coupling. Again our interpretation differs from that in Ref. clbr3 , where the amplification of the dielectric constant at the FE transition was related to the frequency of the far IR mode, via the Lyddane-Sachs-Teller relation. We instead underline the role of the dimerization mode in displacing electronic charges. Consistent with available data dm ; clbr3 , we predict large $`\epsilon `$ peaks at FE transitions occurring at intermediate $`\rho `$, i.e. for systems that, due to either small Peierls coupling or to disorder, undergo dimerization very close to the electronic (NIT) instability. Preliminary $`\epsilon `$ calculations on $`U=\mathrm{}`$ open chains yield similar results, suggesting once more that the physics of FE transitions has more to do with phonons than with electronic correlations.

Experimental evidence is accumulating for strong e-ph coupling in high-Tc superconductors lanzara ; yildirim . The proximity to an electronic instability is a unifying features of exotic superconductivity in cuprates, organics, or MgB2, as well as IR intensity or dielectric responses of CT salts. Using an  adiabatic model for an extended electronic system with an electronic instability, we demonstrate here that, quite irrespective of electronic correlations,  linear e-ph coupling, harmonic phonons and delocalized electrons produce large and non-linear effects originating from a complex interplay of electronic and nuclear degrees of freedom.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Italian MIUR and CNR for supporting work in Parma; partial support from NSF through MRSEC program is acknowledged for work in Princeton.