text:
# On the structure of a reversible entanglement generating set for three–partite states

## Abstract

We show that Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm (EPR) and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger–Mermin (GHZ) states can not generate, through local manipulation and in the asymptotic limit, all forms of three–partite pure–state entanglement in a reversible way. The techniques that we use suggest that there may be a connection between this result and the irreversibility that occurs in the asymptotic preparation and distillation of bipartite mixed states.

To identify the fundamentally inequivalent ways quantum systems can be entangled is a major goal of quantum information theory. In the case of systems shared by two parties, Alice and Bob, there is only one type of entanglement, namely that contained in the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm (EPR) state

$$|EPR=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00+|11\right),$$
(1)
in the sense that, in the limit of large $`N`$, Alice and Bob can reversibly transform $`N`$ copies of any other state $`|\psi _{AB}`$ into EPR states by using only local operations and classical communication (LOCC) . This simple picture becomes much richer in systems shared by more than two parties, since also genuine multipartite entanglement exists . In particular, the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger–Mermin (GHZ) state

$$|GHZ=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|000+|111\right)$$
(2)
can not be reversibly generated from EPR states pairwise distributed among Alice, Bob and a third partie Claire . In the terminology of Ref. , this implies that EPR states alone do not form a minimal reversible entanglement generating set (MREGS) for three–partite states.

The results of Ref.  left open the question whether, instead, the set

$$G_3=\{|GHZ,|EPR_{AB},|EPR_{AC},|EPR_{BC}\}$$
(3)
constitutes a MREGS. Denoting by $``$ an asymptotically (i.e. in the large $`N`$ limit) reversible transformation using LOCC, this question amounts to assessing the feasibility of a transformation of the form

$`|\psi _{ABC}^N`$ $`|GHZ^{gN}|EPR_{AB}^{xN}`$ (5)
$`|EPR_{AC}^{yN}|EPR_{BC}^{zN},`$
where $`g,x,y,z0`$, for any three–partite state $`|\psi _{ABC}`$. If this were the case, then entanglement in three–partite systems could be regarded as consisting only of GHZ and EPR correlations.

In the meantime it has been proved that not all four–partite states can be reversibly generated from a distribution of EPR and three– and four–partite GHZ states . However, no evidence has been found contradicting the following conjecture.

Conjecture: $`G_3`$ is a MREGS for three–partite states.

On the contrary, all reversible transformations of three–partite states so far reported, involving Schmidt decomposable states , but also a whole class of more elaborated states , seem to support it.

In this Letter we give examples of three–partite states, denoted by $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta _{ABC}`$, that can not be reversibly generated only with states of the set $`G_3`$, thus disproving the above conjecture. We also show that even a reversible transformation of states of $`G_3`$ into any of these states and states of $`G_3`$ is impossible. That is, we show that there are cases where the transformation of Eq. (5) can not be made reversible even if the coefficients $`g,x,y,z`$ are eventually allowed to be negative . Notice that such a possibility, not previously excluded in four–partite systems, would have allowed for a slightly different description of multipartite entanglement, also based exclusively on EPR and GHZ correlations.

These results, therefore, indicate the need to extend the set $`G_3`$ in order to eventually obtain a MREGS, either in its original formulation or in the extended sense described above. We would like to note, however, that the notion of a non–trivial MREGS implicitly assumes that the manipulation of multipartite pure states can be made reversible. This is, admittedly, an appealing idea, but has not yet been proved. In this sense, our results can be just interpreted as to indicate that a fundamental irreversibility occurs during the process of combining EPR and GHZ entanglements into any of the three–partite pure states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$.

It is natural to inquire into the origin of such an irreversibility, which is somewhat analogous to the one that characterizes the cycle of preparing and distilling bipartite mixed states . Actually, the argument that will lead to disprove the above conjecture would fail if mixed–state entanglement could be reversibly distilled. This fact suggests a connection between the two irreversible processes.

Our strategy consists in showing that a conservation law obeyed in reversible asymptotic entanglement transformations  would be violated if EPR and GHZ states could generate $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ reversibly. Let $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ABC}`$ denote an arbitrary three–partite pure state shared by Alice, Bob and Claire, and let $`\rho _{AB}`$ be the mixed state resulting from tracing out Claire’s subsystem. The relative entropy of entanglement of $`\rho _{AB}`$ ,

$$E_\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho _{AB})\underset{\sigma _{AB}\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{min}}S(\rho _{AB}||\sigma _{AB}),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is some convex set of states (typically, that of separable states) invariant under LOCC and $`S(\rho ||\sigma )`$ tr$`(\rho \mathrm{log}_2\rho \rho \mathrm{log}_2\sigma )`$ is the quantum relative entropy, was originally introduced to quantify the entanglement of bipartite mixed states. Its regularized version,

$$E_\mathrm{\Omega }^{reg}(\rho _{AB})\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{E_\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho _{AB}^N)}{N},$$
(7)
is a lower bound for the entanglement cost $`E_c`$  of $`\rho _{AB}`$, or number of EPR states per copy of $`\rho _{AB}`$ needed to asymptotically prepare copies of $`\rho _{AB}`$. It is also an upper bound for its distillable entanglement $`E_d`$ , or number of EPR states per copy of $`\rho _{AB}`$ that can be asymptotically distilled from copies of $`\rho _{AB}`$. Indeed, $`E_\mathrm{\Omega }^{reg}`$ fulfills the postulates required in  for an entanglement measure and therefore

$$E_c(\rho _{AB})E_\mathrm{\Omega }^{reg}(\rho _{AB})E_d(\rho _{AB}).$$
(8)
Particularly relevant in the context of this work will be the fact that, as showed in , the relative entropy of entanglement of (say) subsystems $`AB`$, $`E_\mathrm{\Omega }(AB)`$ must be conserved during any reversible pure-state transformation of the system $`ABC`$. Applied to transformation (5) this law reads

$$E_\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho _{AB}^N)=E_\mathrm{\Omega }([EPR]_{AB}^{xN}),$$
(9)
$`[EPR]|EPREPR|`$, where we have used that when tracing out part $`C`$, only $`|EPR_{AB}`$ gives a non-separable contribution . Thus, in the large $`N`$ limit we are left with the condition

$$E_\mathrm{\Omega }^{reg}(\rho _{AB})=x,$$
(10)
where $`x`$ is the number of EPR states per copy of $`\rho _{AB}`$ that should be available on the rhs of Eq. (5), and we have used that $`E_\mathrm{\Omega }([EPR]_{AB})=1`$. Similarly, if instead we allow now for states of $`G_3`$ to appear simultaneously on both sides of transformation (5), we obtain

$$E_\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho _{AB}^N[EPR]_{AB}^{x_1N})=E_\mathrm{\Omega }([EPR]_{AB}^{x_2N}),$$
(11)
$`x_1,x_20`$, which implies the condition

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{E_\mathrm{\Omega }(\rho _{AB}^N[EPR]_{AB}^{x_1N})}{N}=x_2.$$
(12)
Now, there are several possible elections of the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Here we will consider only the set $`Sep`$ of separable states, and the set $`PPT`$ of states with positive partial transposition. Each of these choices leads to a different constraint. In particular, Eq. (10) becomes two conditions,

$`E_{Sep}^{reg}(\rho _{AB})=x,`$ (13)
$`E_{PPT}^{reg}(\rho _{AB})=x.`$ (14)
We will next consider pure states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta _{ABC}`$ such that its reduced density matrix for systems $`AB`$, $`\delta `$, is a PPT bound entangled state , and therefore $`E_{PPT}^{reg}(\delta )=0`$. First we will prove that $`E_{Sep}^{reg}(\delta )>0`$, which leads to the contradiction $`0=x>0`$, indicating that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta _{ABC}`$ can not be reversibly generated with states of $`G_3`$ . Notice that when applied to the PPT state $`\delta `$, Eq. (12) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=PPT`$ implies that $`x_1=x_2`$ . We will also prove that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{E_{Sep}(\delta ^N[EPR]^{x_1N})}{N}>x_1,$$
(15)
that by substitution in Eq. (12) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=Sep`$ implies that $`x_2>x_1`$. Therefore, we must have $`x_1=x_2>x_1`$, which is again a contradiction, this time meaning that the states of $`G_3`$ can not reversibly generate the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta `$ and states of $`G_3`$.

We construct the three–partite states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\delta _{ABC}𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}𝒞^{d_C}`$ as purifications of any PPT bound–entangled state $`\delta `$ in $`𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$ with no products vectors in its range, the so-called edge bound entangled states . Examples of these states can be found in Refs. . In order to proceed, we need the following result.

Theorem 1 : Consider a projector $`P`$ onto a subspace $`V`$ of $`𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$ that does not contain any product vector. A positive constant $`\alpha `$ exists such that for all $`N1`$,

$$\underset{|a_Nb_N}{\mathrm{max}}a_Nb_N|P^Na_Nb_N\alpha ^N,$$
(16)
where $`|a_Nb_N𝒞^{d_A^N}𝒞^{d_B^N}`$ denotes a product state.

Proof: $`P`$ fulfills the following properties: ($`i`$) Since there are no product vectors in $`V`$, a positive number $`\alpha _1<1`$ exists such that $`a_1b_1|P|a_1b_1\alpha _1`$ for all product vectors . ($`ii`$) A positive number $`c>0`$ exists such that $`I+cP`$ is separable . Then, the proof proceeds as for the projector $`P_b`$ of Ref.  with $`\alpha (1+\alpha _1c)/(1+c)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following theorem provides us with a bound for the relative entropy of entanglement with respect to the set $`Sep`$ and together with theorem 1 is the key to the main result.

Theorem 2: Let $`P`$ be the projector onto the support of a mixed state $`\rho _{AB}`$ of a bipartite system $`𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$, let $`|ab𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$ denote a product vector and let $`\beta `$ be

$$\beta \underset{|ab}{\mathrm{max}}ab|Pab.$$
(17)
The relative entropy of entanglement with respect to separable states is bounded below by

$$E_{Sep}(\rho _{AB})\mathrm{log}_2\beta .$$
(18)
Proof: Let $`\sigma _{AB}Sep`$ be the separable state such that $`E_{Sep}(\rho _{AB})=S(\rho _{AB}||\sigma _{AB})`$. The quantum relative entropy can only decrease under a trace–preserving completely positive map $``$ . In particular, let us consider

$$(\tau )P\tau P+(IP)\tau (IP).$$
(19)
We find

$`S(\rho _{AB}||\sigma _{AB})S((\rho _{AB})||(\sigma _{AB}))=`$ (20)
$`\text{tr}(\rho _{AB}\mathrm{log}_2\rho _{AB}\rho _{AB}\mathrm{log}_2P\sigma _{AB}P),`$ (21)
where in the last step we have used that $`\rho _{AB}`$ is invariant under $``$ and that we can ignore the contribution $`(IP)\sigma _{AB}(IP)`$ because its support $`IP`$ is orthogonal to $`P`$. Indeed, notice that for positive operators $`N,M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, $`\mathrm{log}(M_1M_2)=\mathrm{log}M_1\mathrm{log}M_2`$, and therefore $`\text{tr}[(N0)\mathrm{log}(M_1M_2)]=\text{tr}(N\mathrm{log}M_1)`$. Define

$`t\text{tr}(P\sigma _{AB}),`$ (22)
$`\sigma _{AB}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}P\sigma _{AB}P.`$ (23)
Then, because $`\sigma _{AB}=_ip_i|a_ib_ia_ib_i|`$ is a separable state, we have that $`t\beta `$. We finally obtain,

$`S(\rho _{AB}||\sigma _{AB})\text{tr}(\rho _{AB}\mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{AB}}{t\sigma _{AB}^{}}})=`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{log}_2t+S(\rho _{AB}||\sigma _{AB}^{})\mathrm{log}_2t\mathrm{log}_2\beta ,`$ (25)
where we have used that for positive operators $`N,M`$ and a positive constant $`k`$, $`\text{tr}(N\mathrm{log}kM)=\text{tr}(N\mathrm{log}M)+(\text{tr}N)\mathrm{log}k`$, and the positivity of the quantum relative entropy . $`\mathrm{}`$

We only need to concatenate theorems 1 and 2 to find that for any edge state $`\delta `$

$$E_{Sep}(\delta ^N)\mathrm{log}_2\alpha ^N,$$
(26)
and therefore

$$E_{Sep}^{reg}(\delta )\mathrm{log}_2\alpha >0,$$
(27)
which disprove the initial conjecture for $`G_3`$.

Notice that we can use this result and the inequalities (8) to extend the irreversibility proved in  to all the edge states. Indeed, we have $`0=E_{PPT}^{reg}(\delta )<E_{Sep}^{reg}(\delta )`$, and both quantities are between the entanglement cost $`E_c`$ and the distillable entanglement $`E_d`$.

Let us move now to prove Eq. (15). We need the following two lemmas.

Lemma 1: Let $`P`$ be a projector onto a subspace $`V`$ of $`𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$, and let $`|ab𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$ be a product state. Then

$$\underset{|ab}{\mathrm{max}}ab|Pab=\underset{|\psi V}{\mathrm{max}}\lambda _1(\psi ),$$
(28)
where $`\lambda _1(\psi )`$ denotes the largest coefficient $`\lambda _i`$ in the Schmidt decomposition of $`|\psi `$, $`|\psi =_i\sqrt{\lambda _i}|u_iv_i`$, $`\lambda _1\lambda _{i+1}`$.

Proof: For any product vector $`|ab`$, let us define the normalized vector $`|\gamma V`$ as $`P|ab/P|ab`$. Then

$$ab|P|ab=|ab|\gamma |^2\lambda _1(\gamma ),$$
(29)
where in the last step we have used lemma 1 of . Let $`|\psi ^{}`$ be the vector for which the maximum in the rhs of Eq. (28) is attained, and let $`_i\sqrt{\lambda _i^{}}|u_i^{}v_i^{}`$, $`\lambda _i^{}\lambda _{i+1}^{}`$, be its Schmidt decomposition. Then

$$\underset{|\psi V}{\mathrm{max}}\lambda _1(\psi )=\lambda _1^{}=u_1^{}v_1^{}|P|u_1^{}v_1^{},$$
(30)
which finishes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 2: Let $`P`$ be a projector onto a subspace $`V`$ of $`𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$ and let $`P_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a projector onto a bipartite pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }𝒞^d^{}𝒞^d^{}`$ with Schmidt decomposition $`_{i=1}^d^{}\sqrt{\lambda _i}|u_i|v_i`$, $`\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}`$. Finally, let $`\alpha _p`$ be

$$\alpha _p\underset{|ab}{\mathrm{max}}ab|Pab,$$
(31)
where $`|ab𝒞^{d_A}𝒞^{d_B}`$ denotes a product state. Then,

$$\underset{|cd}{\mathrm{max}}cd|PP_\mathrm{\Phi }|cd=\alpha _p\lambda _1,$$
(32)
where the maximization is made over product vectors $`|cd𝒞^{d_A+d^{}}𝒞^{d_B+d^{}}`$.

Proof: Notice that $`PP_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ projects onto a subspace spanned by vectors of the form $`|\psi |\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`|\psi V`$, and that the largest coefficient $`\lambda _1`$ in a Schmidt decomposition fulfills $`\lambda _1(\psi \mathrm{\Phi })=\lambda _1(\psi )\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Then Eq. (32) follows from lemma 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

We would like to bound below the relative entropy of entanglement $`E_{Sep}`$ of

$$\delta ^N[EPR]^M.$$
(33)
The projector onto its support is given by $`P_\delta ^N[EPR]^M`$, where $`P_\delta `$ is the projector onto the support of $`\delta `$, and we can use lemma 2 and theorem 1 to obtain

$$\underset{|ab}{\mathrm{max}}ab|P_\delta ^N[EPR]^Mab\frac{\alpha ^N}{2^M},$$
(34)
where $`(1/2)^M`$ corresponds to $`\lambda _1(EPR^M)`$. Then we can apply theorem 2 to obtain

$$E_{Sep}(\delta ^N[EPR]^M)N\mathrm{log}_2\alpha +M,$$
(35)
which implies Eq. (15). This finishes the proof of the fact that it is not possible to reversibly transform states of $`G_3`$ into any purification of a PPT edge state and states of $`G_3`$.

It would be interesting to understand the mechanisms that lead to this irreversibility. Recall that in the asymptotic limit some non-trivial three–partite states can be reversibly generated from EPR and GHZ states . We ignore which conditions determine whether a three–partite pure–state transformation can be performed in a reversible way. The following two facts suggest, however, that there may be a connection between this question and the irreversibility that takes place during the preparation–distillation cycle of bipartite mixed states:

($`i`$) All known three-partite reversible transformations  involve pure states whose bipartite reduced mixed states can be distilled and prepared in a reversible way .

($`ii`$) The proof that $`G_3`$ is not a MREGS relies on the irreversibility that occurs in bipartite mixed–state manipulation. Indeed, suppose that $`E_c`$ and $`E_d`$ would not disagree for edge states. Then, because of Eq. (8), $`E_{PPT}^{reg}`$ and $`E_{Sep}^{reg}`$ would also have been equal, and this would jeopardize our argument.

Finally, a major open question is whether a finite MREGS exists for three-partite states and, if so, which kind of states must include. These are difficult issues that certainly deserve further investigation. We cautiously conclude the present work by noting that the states of an eventual MREGS must have bipartite reduced density matrices able to reproduce the discrepancies between relative entropies displayed by the states $`\delta `$, and must therefore carry themselves the signature of bipartite mixed–state irreversibility.

A. A. thanks J. Preskill and the IQI, Caltech, for hospitality. We thank D. P. DiVincenzo, W. Dür, E. Jané, N. Linden, Ll. Masanes and S. Popescu for discussion. This work was supported by the European project EQUIP (IST-1999-11053), by the ESF, by the Swiss FNRS and OFES, and by the NSF (of USA), Grant. No. EIA-0086038.

Note added: after completion of this work, Y. Shi pointed out the relation between the results proved here and his recent work . We have not been able to follow the line of argumentation in such a work.

Antonio.Acin@physics.unige.ch

vidal@cs.caltech.edu

Ignacio.Cirac@mpq.mpg.de


format: text

text:
# Supersymmetric Pati-Salam Models from Intersecting D-Branes

## I Introduction

One of the most important unsolved questions for superstring theory is to determine the way(s) in which it can be connected to our observable, low energy world. The main obstacles have been well-known since the development of perturbative string theory: (i) the tremendous degeneracy of string vacua and (ii) how to break supersymmetry (SUSY) and stabilize moduli while resolving the hierarchy problem. Recent developments in string theory have not suggested definitive resolutions to either issue, although they have provided new settings in which to investigate such questions.

Given the absence of a dynamical principle for selecting the correct string vacuum, one may argue that the question of how the Standard Model (SM) or some plausible extension such as the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) emerges should be put on hold until string theory dynamics are further understood. We instead suggest that while understanding the dynamics of vacuum selection is indeed the ultimate goal, the answer is not likely to be obtainable solely by studying the formal structure of string theory. It is more likely that progress will follow the historical path, in which low energy data provides invaluable guidance in uncovering the nature of the high energy theory.

In our view it is thus important to consider the phenomenological implications of four-dimensional compactifications of string theory. The Type I string framework has particular interest in that it can provide explicit realizations of the braneworld, both with low fundamental scale of $`O(`$TeV) and higher fundamental scales ranging from intermediate $`O(10^{11}`$ GeV) to GUT values. Many string constructions have been explored, both with supersymmetry  and without . The nonsupersymmetric models have quite realistic features, but their stability is in doubt. The supersymmetric constructions have stable D-brane configurations but generically are not phenomenologically appealing. There has recently been progress in model building which has led to more realistic models .

In this paper, we study supersymmetric Type I string-motivated models in which the SM gauge group is split between different D-brane sectors. The extension we consider is inspired by an explicit string construction, the Shiu-Tye model . This model has two sets of intersecting D-branes which each have a copy of a $`U(1)`$-extended Pati-Salam  gauge group $`U(4)_c\times U(2)_L\times U(2)_R`$. The right-handed neutrinos are present as open string states in a natural way (in the same multiplet as the quark and charged lepton singlets) as expected in Pati-Salam models. As in the Shiu-Tye model, the SM gauge group is embedded in a nontrivial way: the Pati-Salam gauge groups which break to the SM are obtained from a diagonal breaking of the gauge groups of the two D-brane sectors. The origin of the three SM families is connected to the gauge embedding; the third family and the electroweak Higgs doublets are open string states from one set of D-branes, while the first and second generations are open string states with endpoints on each of the D-brane sectors.

Such scenarios are interesting because the Pati-Salam framework (which has been extensively studied in the literature) provides a setting in which to explore many phenomenological issues. Nonsupersymmetric Pati-Salam models motivated from D-brane setups have also been recently investigated . We analyze supersymmetric Pati-Salam models motivated from intersecting D-brane scenarios. In doing so, we assume for definiteness that the string scale is approximately equal to the unification scale $`M_{String}M_U10^{16}`$ GeV (i.e., all compactification radii are small), which is also the Pati-Salam symmetry breaking scale. This high string scale is chosen to make contact with the successes of traditional SUSY GUTs; however, it may not be preferred within generic Type I models.***The presence of antibranes (hence nonsupersymmetric sectors) may be required to satisfy tadpole/anomaly cancellation constraints . The string scale should then be lowered to intermediate values if the SUSY-breaking sector is hidden from the observable brane(s) and lowered to $`O(\mathrm{TeV})`$ if the SUSY-breaking sector has direct couplings to the observable sector. In this case, obtaining proper low energy values of the gauge couplings effectively leads to a “single brane” model. In this limit the soft terms are constrained by a sum rule well known within perturbative heterotic orbifold models. We explore this scenario within a concrete model (“4224”) in which the $`U(2)_{L,R}`$ arise from one set of branes, while $`U(4)_c`$ is obtained from diagonal breaking of the $`U(4)`$ groups from each D-brane sector. While the model has interesting features, there are phenomenological difficulties which will be explained in detail.

## II Theoretical Framework

The superstring-motivated models we consider are based on $`d=4`$, $`N=1`$ orientifold compactifications of Type II superstring theory . In  the general features of this class of models as well as details of the effective action at string tree level of the massless states of the open string sectors are presented.Note this effective action was derived using T duality arguments  valid for models with all D-branes are located at a single fixed point (not models for which subsets of branes are located at different fixed points or with nontrivial backgrounds). We consider scenarios in which the non-Abelian gauge groups of the theory are due to two intersecting (orthogonal) stacks of D five-branes (labeled $`5_1`$ and $`5_2`$) located at a single orbifold fixed point.

The chiral matter fields (from which the MSSM matter fields will be obtained) and gauge bosons arise from the open string sectors, while the dilaton, moduli, and graviton fields are in the closed string sector.Here we shall ignore the presence of other closed string states, the twisted moduli. Such states play interesting roles in the theoretical structure of the model and can lead to distinctive phenomenological signatures (see e.g. ). The open string states are labeled according to the location of the string endpoints on the different D-branes of the theory. These states are classified into two categories; the notation of  is used to label them. The first includes open strings which start and end on the same set of branes $`C_j^{5_{1,2}}`$ (where $`j`$ labels the three complex compact dimensions). These fields are in fundamental or antisymmetric tensor representations of the non-Abelian gauge group of the corresponding set of branes. The second category includes open strings which start and end on different sets of branes $`C^{5_15_2}`$. These fields are bifundamentals with respect to the two non-Abelian gauge groups. Note that within this class of models, non-Abelian gauge singlet fields with Abelian charges are generically absent (for stacks of D-branes with $`U(N)`$ gauge groups).

An example of a three family orientifold model with the SM gauge group is the Shiu-Tye model , a $`Z_6`$ model with background NS-NS field. In this model, the $`5_1`$ sector has gauge group $`U(4)^{(1)}\times U(2)^{(1)}\times U(2)^{(1)}`$ and the $`5_2`$ sector has $`U(4)^{(2)}\times U(2)^{(2)}\times U(2)^{(2)}`$ (the existence of identical gauge groups on each set of branes is guaranteed by T duality). The gauge group on each brane is a U(1)-extended version of the Pati-Salam model ($`SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$). Recall in the Pati-Salam model, the MSSM states lie in the multiplets $`F_a=(4,2,1)`$ and $`\overline{F}_a=(\overline{4},1,2)`$, while the Higgs doublets $`H_{u,d}`$ lie in the bi-doublet $`h=(1,2,2)`$. The Higgs fields which break the Pati-Salam gauge group to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ (in which the hypercharge originates from the breaking of the non-Abelian gauge structure) are a pair of vectorlike states $`H=(4,1,2)`$ and $`\overline{H}=(\overline{4},1,2)`$. The right-handed neutrinos have a natural origin in the theory as components of the $`\overline{F}_a`$ multiplets.

The three families arise in the Shiu-Tye model in an interesting way. The massless spectrum of this model contains one chiral family associated with each of the two D-brane sectors and two families arising from the intersection of the D-brane sectors. Three family scenarios thus require that the SM gauge group be embedded in a nontrivial way within the two D-brane sectors. The desired embedding is that $`U(2)_L`$ and $`U(2)_R`$ each arise from the diagonal breaking of one set of $`U(2)^{(1)}`$ and $`U(2)^{(2)}`$ from the $`5_1`$ and $`5_2`$ sectors. The symmetry breaking is triggered by diagonal vacuum expectation values (VEV’s) of bifundamental fields charged with respect to the $`U(2)`$ groups of each sector. $`SU(3)_c`$ is obtained from (say) the breaking of $`U(4)^{(1)}`$, such that the third family arises from the $`5_1`$ sector.

In the Shiu-Tye model, the doubling of the intersection states is connected with the nonvanishing quantized background NS-NS B field. The presence of the background B field modifies the vertex operators of the intersection states, allowing for a nontrivial multiplicity of states. Such states are not identical from the worldsheet point of view and the selection rules which govern their couplings should be different from those presented for orientifolds without nontrivial background field VEV’s in . Given the class of available results we shall use the effective action which treats these two families identically, but caution the reader that this symmetry is not likely to hold to all orders in the effective action.

## III 4224 Model

Motivated by the Shiu-Tye model, we consider a different embedding of the SM gauge group from intersecting five-branes with Pati-Salam gauge groups. The gauge group of the $`5_1`$ sector is $`U(4)^{(1)}\times U(2)_L\times U(2)_R`$ and the gauge group of the $`5_2`$ sector is $`U(4)^{(2)}`$ (e.g., we assume the $`U(2)`$ gauge groups of the $`5_2`$ sector are broken). In this “4224” model, the third family arises from the $`5_1`$ sector, while the first and second families are intersection states. The particle content is given in Table I.

Let us first discuss the additional $`U(1)`$ factors. A close inspection of Table I shows that all but one linear combination of the $`U(1)`$’s ($`U(1)^{}=Q_4^1+Q_4^2+Q_{2L}+Q_{2R}`$) are anomalous (see also ) and will be broken at the string scale by the 4D Green Schwarz mechanism of Type I .§§§In contrast to the perturbative heterotic models which have at most one anomalous $`U(1)`$ since it is the dilaton which participates in the anomaly cancellation, within Type I models there can be multiple anomalous $`U(1)`$’s which are cancelled by shifts in the twisted moduli fields. In the 4224 model all of the SM fields listed in Table I as well as the Higgs fields $`\{H,\overline{H},\phi _{1,2}\}`$ are neutral under the persisting nonanomalous $`U(1)^{}`$. The only fields charged under this $`U(1)`$ are the $`D_6`$ fields needed to decouple the Higgs triplets after the Pati-Salam gauge symmetry breaking. As these fields must acquire superheavy masses to avoid fast proton decay, this $`U(1)^{}`$ (although it remains unbroken unless additional fields are introduced into the model to break it) does not have an important impact on the low energy phenomenology. However, the presence of the $`U(1)`$ factors at the string scale requires that the effective action respect $`U(N)`$ symmetry rather than $`SU(N)`$; i.e. the $`U(1)`$’s persist as global symmetries. These effective global symmetries have important consequences. For example , within the $`U(1)`$-extended Pati-Salam model one of the surviving global symmetries is $`U(1)_B`$, ensuring the stability of the proton even with low fundamental scales (assuming effects of the colored Higgses are suppressed, which will be shown to be a difficult task in the next subsection).

### A Gauge Symmetry Breaking and Decoupling of Exotic Matter

The gauge symmetry breaking pattern of this model follows the three-family approach of Shiu and Tye . The symmetry breaking takes place in two stages, which are assumed to occur at very similar scales $`M_U`$. In the first stage, $`U(4)^{(1)}\times U(4)^{(2)}`$ are broken to the diagonal $`U(4)`$ subgroup (which is identified as $`U(4)_c`$) by diagonal VEV’s of the bifundamental fields $`\phi _{1,2}`$. The resulting theory is an effective Pati-Salam model (with additional $`U(1)`$’s) which then breaks to the MSSM (and additional $`U(1)`$’s, which we shall ignore) through the Higgs pair of bifundamentals $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$. To preserve supersymmetry, the symmetry breaking should occur along flat directions; D flatness can be spoiled only by terms of the order of the soft supersymmetry breaking masses. Specifically, the symmetry breaking occurs as follows:

$`U(4)^{(1)}\times U(4)^{(2)}\times U(2)_L\times U(2)_R\stackrel{\phi _{1,2}}{}U(4)_c\times U(2)_L\times U(2)_R`$ (1)
$`\stackrel{H,\overline{H}}{}SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)^3.`$ (2)
It is instructive to consider this symmetry breaking pattern in further detail and investigate the decoupling of the exotic matter present in the Higgs representations.

Let us first consider the diagonal breaking step, $`U(4)\times U(4)U(4)_c`$. This is achieved when the bi-fundamental fields $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ acquire diagonal VEV’s

$$(\phi _1)_{\alpha a}=\delta _{\alpha a}v_1;(\phi _2)_{\alpha a}=\delta _{\alpha a}v_2,$$
(3)
in which $`\alpha `$ denotes the $`U(4)^{(1)}`$ gauge index and $`a`$ that of $`U(4)^{(2)}`$. D flatness (particularly for the $`U(1)`$ generators of the $`U(4)`$ gauge groups) requires that $`v_1=v_2`$ ($`M_U`$).The D flatness conditions can be modified if the associated $`U(1)`$’s are anomalous. In this case one can choose to resolve or “blow up” the orbifold singularities by giving VEV’s to the twisted moduli , which induces nonzero Fayet-Iliopoulos D terms. This highly model-dependent option is not considered further in this paper.

Setting the effects of the soft supersymmetry breaking to zero for the moment, one can easily understand the resulting pattern of Higgs masses. As the gauge symmetry is broken down to the diagonal subgroup but supersymmetry is preserved, the supersymmetric completion of the Higgs mechanism requires that the resulting fields arrange themselves into supermultiplets. There are 16 broken generators of the gauge group, while the states $`\phi _{1,2}`$ have a total of 32 (complex) degrees of freedom. Of these 32 complex degrees of freedom in the Higgs sector, 16 real degrees of freedom are Goldstone bosons eaten to form the longitudinal components of the massive gauge bosons. 16 additional real degrees of freedom in the Higgs sector also obtain masses via D terms. These fields are degenerate in mass with the gauge bosons and together with the 16 massive fermions (with masses due to gaugino-Higgsino mixing) form a massive vector supermultiplet. Therefore, 16 complex degrees of freedom remain massless; one real degree of freedom corresponds to the flat direction and there is also another Goldstone boson corresponding to the global $`U(1)`$ symmetry which remains from the freedom to perform global phase rotations on the fields $`\phi _{1,2}`$ (the Goldstone boson of the other global $`U(1)`$ is eaten to form one of the massive gauge bosons). The other massless fields organize themselves into an adjoint representation of $`SU(4)_c`$, which consists of a color octet, two color triplets, and one color singlet with respect to $`SU(3)_c`$. If such fields remain massless, the proton is not stable. This would certainly rule out this model and suggests serious difficulties with this intersecting brane approach.

In principle, a potential could be constructed utilizing higher-dimensional operators which could presumably decouple these additional states (as well as stabilize the VEV’s at the scale $`M_U`$). This is beyond the scope of this paper. It is worth noting that if the gauge groups were $`SU(N)`$ rather than $`U(N)`$, D flatness only requires one Higgs field rather than the vectorlike pair (of course anomaly requirements would require additional states in that case). The number of degrees of freedom in the Higgs sector is then halved and there is a desirable matching of the number of Higgs fields to the number of broken generators.This can also be understood using the well-known correspondence between holomorphic gauge invariant polynomials and D flat directions . In the $`SU(N)`$ case the invariant polynomial is given by $`\phi ^N`$, where $`\phi `$ is the bifundamental field with the diagonal VEV. In the $`U(N)`$ case gauge invariance forbids this term and requires the existence of an oppositely charged scalar $`\overline{\phi }`$, such that the holomorphic gauge invariant polynomial is $`\phi \overline{\phi }`$.

In the second stage of symmetry breaking, the additional $`U(1)`$’s do not complicate the D flatness analysis. However, complications arise for decoupling the additional color triplets from $`H,\overline{H}`$ after the Pati-Salam symmetry breaking. The standard mechanism  of utilizing a single $`SU(4)`$ sixplet field $`D_6`$ which couples to $`H,\overline{H}`$ via $`W=D_6HH+D_6\overline{H}\overline{H}`$ naively does not work because the necessary operators (for one of the terms) are forbidden by $`U(4)`$ gauge invariance (due to the $`U(1)`$ charges, as the $`D_6`$ field can either have $`U(1)`$ charge $`\pm 2`$). This problem could be solved via the introduction of non-Abelian singlet fields which are charged under the $`U(1)`$’s and acquire string-scale VEV’s. However, such fields are not expected in orientifold models when the D-branes are all located at a single fixed point. One can introduce both $`D_6^{(+)}`$ and $`D_6^{()}`$, in which case gauge invariance allows $`D_6^{()}HH`$ and $`D_6^{(+)}\overline{H}\overline{H}`$ (although string selection rules still forbid these terms at trilinear order). However, this will not eliminate massless color triplets, as another color triplet pair has been introduced that remains massless barring the presence of additional couplings.

In the 4224 setup, the D-brane assignments of $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ also forbid a trilinear coupling with a $`U(4)`$ sixplet field $`D_6`$ from the $`5_1`$ brane sector (as the only string-allowed coupling is of the form $`C_1^{5_1}C_2^{5_1}C_3^{5_1}`$). This problem could be solved if the fields which break the Pati-Salam gauge groups are chosen to be a pair of $`C^{5_15_2}`$ states $`H^{}=(1,1,\overline{2},4)`$, $`\overline{H}^{}=(1,1,2,\overline{4})`$. In this case the $`D_6^{}=(1,1,1,6)`$ field can be chosen as a $`C_3^{5_2}`$ field, which leads to a string-allowed trilinear coupling $`C_3^{5_2}C^{5_15_2}C^{5_15_2}`$. However, in this case the baryon number violating couplings $`FFD_6`$ and $`\overline{F}\overline{F}D_6`$ would be equally allowed.\**\**\**A global $`R`$ symmetry is typically utilized to forbid such terms . In principle, both sets of Higgs pairs $`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$, $`H^{}`$, $`\overline{H}^{}`$ could be present. In this case, the number of Higgs fields needed to break the same symmetry group has been doubled. This again leads to further massless states (additional color triplets of both the up and down type).

To summarize, it is clear that this model suffers from a major drawback in that it is difficult to decouple the exotic states. As many of these states are charged under $`SU(3)_c`$, they must acquire superheavy masses or they can lead to rapid proton decay. In this setup the additional $`U(1)`$’s are the source of the trouble. This may have implications for such intersecting D-brane setups, since the $`U(N)`$ (rather than $`SU(N)`$) groups are generic to D-branes. The additional $`U(1)`$’s make their presence felt in two ways. First, D flatness conditions necessarily lead to a doubling of the Higgs sector in the diagonal breaking step. Second, $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance (and worldsheet selection rules) can forbid the necessary couplings required to generate masses for the additional states. The issues outlined above for the 4224 model will hold for generic supersymmetric setups with intersecting branes on orbifolds. Similar issues occur within the Shiu-Tye model, although there the exotic states from the diagonal breaking are charged under $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ rather than $`SU(3)_c`$.

Having noted this generic (and problematic) feature, in the rest of the paper we proceed to study the effective action and phenomenology of the MSSM sector of the 4224 model. In other words, we assume that mechanisms exist which decouple the unwanted exotic states at the string scale. We then study the “observable” sector assuming that only the MSSM states are present below the string scale.

### B Effective Action of MSSM Fields

We now discuss the form of the effective action of the MSSM sector of the 4224 model, beginning with the gauge couplings. The symmetry breaking pattern leads to the following relations among the gauge couplings of the SM gauge groups in terms of the gauge couplings $`g_{5_1}`$ and $`g_{5_2}`$ associated with the $`5_1`$ and $`5_2`$ sectors (see also ):

$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{5_1}g_{5_2}}{\sqrt{g_{5_1}^2+g_{5_2}^2}}}=g_4`$ (4)
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{5_1}=g_{2R}`$ (5)
$`g_Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}g_3g_2}{\sqrt{3g_3^2+2g_2^2}}}.`$ (6)
The gauge couplings are not unified when $`g_{5_1}`$ and $`g_{5_2}`$ are unrelated, as discussed below.

We now turn to the structure of the superpotential Yukawa couplings. The gauge and D-brane assignments of the model are designed to allow the $`O(1)`$ Yukawa coupling of the third family $`F_3\overline{F}_3h`$, as $`C_1^{5_1}C_2^{5_1}C_3^{5_1}`$ is allowed by worldsheet symmetries. The model as expected predicts third family Yukawa unification, such that large of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is required to ensure the correct $`m_t/m_b`$ mass ratio. The first and second generations do not have large Yukawa couplings at trilinear order as required by phenomenology. The selection rules presented in  dictate that $`F_{1,2}\overline{F}_{1,2}h`$ is forbidden with our choice of the Higgs D-brane assignment. Gauge invariance also forbids terms of the form $`F_{1,2}\overline{F}_3h`$ and $`F_3\overline{F}_{1,2}h`$.

Therefore, the small Yukawa couplings of the first and second families as well as the Majorana mass terms for the neutrinos must therefore be generated via higher-dimensional operators. In  these entries in the Yukawa matrix were generated by operators of the form $`F_i\overline{F}_jh(H\overline{H})^n`$. In the present model there can be two pairs of heavy Higgs fields $`\{H,\overline{H},H^{},\overline{H}^{}`$}. The operators $`F_{1,2}\overline{F}_3h(H\overline{H}^{})`$ are allowed by gauge invariance. If they are permitted by worldsheet symmetries, the Clebsch structure could allow for a large 23 entry in the neutrino Yukawa matrix and simultaneously small 23 entries in the other Yukawa matrices, allowing for a large 23 neutrino mixing angle . The small 13 mixing angles would suggest that the 13 operators are all suppressed by some additional symmetry which plays the role of the $`U(1)`$ family symmetry in . It is also unclear whether unsuppressed operators such as $`F_{1,2}\overline{F}_{1,2}h(H\overline{H})`$ are permitted. Note that the addition of the two pairs of Higgs fields needed for interesting lepton textures lead to additional color triplet states which remain massless after the symmetry breaking unless additional higher-dimensional operators are introduced to decouple them.

Thus, such intersecting D-brane models potentially have a rich flavor structure, although the details of the higher-dimensional operators required remain speculative. To determine whether any flavor structure is viable will of course depend in detail on these smaller Yukawa couplings (and the associated soft trilinear couplings). Despite these limitations, it is worth elaborating on certain aspects of the flavor structure which might be expected. As stated, the 33 Yukawa entry gets a large tree level contribution while the other entries are only generated by higher order operators. Assuming that the first two generations are governed by the same selection rules at leading order, the Yukawas would take the following approximate form:

$$Y_{ij}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}a& a& b\\ a& a& b\\ c& c& 1\end{array}\right],$$
(7)
where $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are generated by higher-dimensional operators. Given the assumed (near) degeneracy of the first and second generation gauge eigenstates, a hierarchy of fermion masses can naturally be generated within this framework.

At this stage we can write down the soft parameters of the 4224 model, using the phenomenological approach of .††††††Within this approach (with a high string scale $`M_{String}M_U10^{16}`$ GeV), the presence of a hidden (which communicates with the observable sector only gravitationally) or sequestered sector is assumed in which the $`N=1`$ SUSY present at the string scale is broken by some unknown dynamical mechanism (i.e. gaugino condensation) within the effective field theory. We do not attempt to model this sector in this paper. However, if all the branes within the theory are assumed to sit on a single fixed point, there is no truly sequestered sector. It is not known whether potentially realistic orientifold models with $`N=1`$ SUSY can be constructed which have these relevant features (as discussed in ). We use the notation

$`F^S`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}(S+S^{})m_{3/2}X_0e^{i\alpha _S}`$ (8)
$`F^i`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}(T_i+T_i^{})m_{3/2}X_ie^{i\alpha _i},`$ (9)
in which $`m_{3/2}`$ is the gravitino mass and $`X_{0,i=1,2,3}`$ measure the relative contributions of $`S`$ and $`T_i`$ to the supersymmetry breaking (the $`X_i`$ are related to the usual Goldstino angle parameterization  via $`X_0\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`X_i\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{\Theta }_i`$). The $`X_i`$ satisfy the relation $`_iX_i^2=1`$. In general, the $`F`$\- component VEV’s can have arbitrary complex phases $`\alpha _S`$, $`\alpha _i`$. The gaugino masses of the Pati-Salam gauge groups are given by:

$`m_4^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}X_1e^{i\alpha _1}=m_{2L}=m_{2R}`$ (10)
$`m_4^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}X_2e^{i\alpha _2},`$ (11)
such that the MSSM gaugino masses are

$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}}{(T_1+T_1^{})+(T_2+T_2^{})}}[(T_1+T_1^{})X_1e^{i\alpha _1}+(T_2+T_2^{})X_2e^{i\alpha _2}]`$ (12)
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}X_1e^{i\alpha _1}`$ (13)
$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}}{\frac{5}{3}(T_1+T_1^{})+\frac{2}{3}(T_2+T_2^{})}}[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}(T_1+T_1^{})X_1e^{i\alpha _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(T_2+T_2^{})X_2e^{i\alpha _2}].`$ (14)
The soft mass-squared parameters are given by

$`m_h^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_u}^2=m_{H_d}^2=m_{3/2}^2(13X_0^2)`$ (15)
$`m_{F_3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{Q_3}^2=m_{L_3}^2=m_{3/2}^2(13X_3^2)`$ (16)
$`m_{\overline{F}_3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{U_3}^2=m_{D_3}^2=m_{E_3}^2=m_{3/2}^2(13X_2^2)`$ (17)
$`m_{F_{1,2}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{Q_{1,2}}^2=m_{L_{1,2}}^2=m_{3/2}^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(X_0^2+X_3^2))`$ (18)
$`m_{\overline{F}_{1,2}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{U_{1,2}}^2=m_{D_{1,2}}^2=m_{E_{1,2}}^2=m_{3/2}^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(X_0^2+X_3^2)).`$ (19)
The Yukawa coupling of the third family is present in the superpotential at trilinear order and hence there is a prediction for the associated 33 entry of the trilinear coupling $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{33}=\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}X_1e^{i\alpha _1}Y_{33}$$
(20)
In the absence of a complete theory for the smaller Yukawa couplings it is not possible to predict the structure of the associated soft trilinear couplings. However, we can speculate on their form assuming that the smaller Yukawas have been generated at the unification scale and can be treated as effective trilinear superpotential couplings (as in e.g. ).‡‡‡‡‡‡See  for a more complete approach in which the small Yukawas as well as the soft trilinears are determined within perturbative heterotic string models. In this case, the soft trilinear couplings take the form

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}d_4Y_{11}& d_4Y_{12}& d_2Y_{13}\\ d_4Y_{21}& d_4Y_{22}& d_2Y_{23}\\ d_3Y_{31}& d_3Y_{32}& d_1Y_{33}\end{array}\right],$$
(21)
with

$`d_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}X_1e^{i\alpha _1}=M_2`$ (22)
$`d_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_0e^{i\alpha _0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_3e^{i\alpha _3})+d_1`$ (23)
$`d_3`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_0e^{i\alpha _0}X_2e^{i\alpha _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_3e^{i\alpha _3})+d_1`$ (24)
$`d_4`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}(X_0e^{i\alpha _0}X_2e^{i\alpha _2})+d_1.`$ (25)
From Eq. (21), the trilinear soft terms have a form similar to Eq. (7). The pattern of soft trilinear couplings described above is similar to perturbative heterotic orbifold string-motivated models with matter in the twisted sector .

The supersymmetric Higgs mass parameter $`\mu `$ is absent in the string-derived superpotential. In principle, $`\mu `$ and and the associated soft parameter $`b`$ must be generated in the effective theory (e.g. by the Giudice-Masiero mechanism ). As this is model-dependent, we prefer to leave them as free parameters in the phenomenological analysis (their magnitudes will be fixed by the requirement of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking).

## IV Phenomenological Implications

### A Approximate Unification of Gauge Couplings

The gauge couplings of string models are related to the size and shape of the compactification manifold. Thus, the experimental measurements of the gauge couplings provide information about the nature of the compactification of a specific model. It is important to check that the phenomenological requirements on the gauge couplings do not introduce any inconsistencies. Specifically, the mass scales associated with the Kaluza-Klein (KK) and winding states introduce corrections to the running of the gauge couplings. As the 4224 symmetry group breaks at the traditional unification scale $`M_U10^{16}`$ GeV, we choose to identify the lowest scale as $`M_U`$ so that the usual RG running in the $`d=4`$ effective field theory can be applied. The gauge couplings of the five-branes are given by

$$g_{5_i}^2=\frac{4\pi }{ReT_i}=\frac{4\pi \lambda _IM_i^2}{2M_I^2},$$
(26)
where $`M_i1/R_i`$ characterizes the compactification size of the $`i`$th compact complex dimension, $`\lambda _I`$ is the Type I string coupling, and $`M_I`$ is the Type I string scale. Defining $`g_{5_2}=ag_{5_1}`$, we obtain a relation between the compactification size of the two intersecting branes:

$$\frac{M_1}{M_2}=\frac{R_2}{R_1}=\frac{1}{a}.$$
(27)
In the 4224 model, the gauge couplings of the Standard Model gauge group near the unification scale are given by Eq. (6):

$`g_3^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{5_1}^2g_{5_2}^2}{g_{5_1}^2+g_{5_2}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{1+1/a^2}}`$ (28)
$`g_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{5_1}^2`$ (29)
$`g_Y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3g_{5_1}^2g_{5_2}^2}{3g_{5_1}^2+2g_{5_2}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{1+2/5a^2}}.`$ (30)
The gauge couplings are only unified in the $`a\mathrm{}`$ limit such that $`T_2T_1`$ ($`R_2R_1)`$. This corresponds to a “single brane” limit in which the $`5_2`$ gauge sector decouples from the low energy physics, as can be seen from Eq. (12). We can investigate approximate gauge coupling unification by choosing $`a^2`$ rather large. This effective “single brane” scenario will have important phenomenological implications on the low energy spectrum of the model.

Notice that Eq. (26) is valid only at the string scale, while the unification condition should be imposed at the unification scale. For self-consistency, it is necessary that the string and unification scales are very close to each other, such that the RG running does not significantly modify the ratio of the gauge couplings. An additional constraint on the model is the usual requirement that the theory remains in the perturbative region ($`\lambda _I<1`$). As an example, we present a simple self-consistent realization. Consider the case in which all inverse radii except for $`R_21/M_2`$ are equal:

$$M_1=\frac{M_2}{a}=M_3=M_c.$$
(31)
Using the relations between the Planck scale, string scale, and compactification scales in Type I theory , one can obtain  the useful relation $`\alpha _{5_i}M_P/\sqrt{2}=M_I^2M_i/(M_jM_k)`$ $`(ijk)`$. Using this result and Eq. (31), the string scale and compactification scale $`M_c`$ are related by

$$\frac{aM_I^2}{M_c}3.5\times 10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(32)
Now consider the case in which $`M_c<M_I/\sqrt{a}`$. The lowest scale is a winding mode with mass $`M_c`$ and thus we identify $`M_c=M_U=3\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. From Eq. (32), the string scale (for $`a=4`$) is $`M_I=5\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. The theory remains in the perturbative regime, as $`\lambda _I=2\sqrt{2}M_I^4/(aM_c^3M_P)<1`$. Therefore, this approximate unification approach is consistent and could in principle be realized in simple orbifold models.\**\**\**A related analysis with a similar conclusion was performed in .

Let us now investigate the implications of the approximate unification scenario (see  for a more detailed analysis for the nonsupersymmetric Pati-Salam brane models). First, Eq. (28) reduces $`g_3`$ compared to the naive unification, which is the direction required by experiment.\*†\*†\*†Note that in the embedding of the SM gauge group expected within the Shiu-Tye model (with the $`SU(2)_{L,R}`$ split between the two sets of branes), a similar analysis of the gauge couplings leads to a prediction of $`g_3`$ in the opposite direction. More precisely,

$`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _W)(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+1/4a^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (M_Z)}{2\pi }}(b_Y+b_2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (M_Z)}{2\pi }}b_2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _s(M_Z)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+1/a^2}{1+1/4a^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha (M_Z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}(b_Y+b_2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}b_3\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_U}{M_Z}},`$ (34)
in which the MSSM beta functions are $`b_Y=11`$, $`b_2=1`$, $`b_3=3`$. The standard unification picture is reproduced for larger values of $`a`$, but $`a`$ is bounded by the requirement that the gauge coupling of the $`5_2`$ branes remains perturbative.\*‡\*‡\*‡Choosing $`a^2`$ much larger than $`O(10)`$ leads to $`\alpha _{5_2}=g_{5_2}^2/4\pi \stackrel{>}{_{}}O(1)`$ for reasonable ranges of the initial value of $`\alpha _{5_1}=g_{5_1}^2/4\pi `$. Acceptable values of $`a`$ tend to yield $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ slightly smaller than the preferred range. For $`a=4`$, Eq. (33) yields $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _W)=0.23`$ and $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.11`$.

### B Electroweak Symmetry Breaking

We now turn to an investigation of radiative electroweak symmetry breaking within the 4224 model. As this model is a generalized Pati-Salam model, the embedding of the matter content on the branes does not distinguish between quarks and leptons (or between up and down type quarks) of a single generation, as they all reside within a given multiplet. The brane embedding is also such that third generation Yukawa unification is obtained at the string scale (with Yukawa couplings of $`O(1)`$), while the first and second generations get masses via higher-dimensional operators. Therefore, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta H_u/H_dm_t/m_bO(3550)`$ is required to produce the correct spectrum of SM fermions.

Radiative electroweak symmetry breaking in models with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has been discussed extensively in the literature . One can always choose within the bottom-up approach to fix $`\mu `$ and $`b`$ (or equivalently $`B_\mu b/\mu `$) by the electroweak symmetry breaking conditions. In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit, the tree level minimization of the Higgs potential yields

$`b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\beta }}[(m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2)M_Z^2]`$ (35)
$`|\mu |^2m_{H_u}^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_Z^2}{2}}.`$ (36)
The pseudoscalar mass-squared is given by

$$m_A^2=\frac{b}{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }\frac{1}{2}[(m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2)M_Z^2].$$
(37)
If the top and bottom Yukawas are comparable, then $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ will run similarly, so both $`m_{H_u}^2`$ and $`m_{H_d}^2`$ will run to negative values. Requiring the pseudoscalar mass-squared to be positive, we immediately obtain the result that $`m_{H_d}^2=m_{H_u}^2=M_Z^2`$ is not allowed.

Although this seems problematic because the input values of $`m_{H_d}^2`$ and $`m_{H_u}^2`$ are equal within models in which the electroweak Higgs pair resides in a single GUT multiplet, these input values can be split by D term contributions (for a general discussion see ) $`m_{H_d}^2(M_U)m_{H_d}^2(M_U)=4g_2^2D`$. These D term contributions to the soft masses of the electroweak Higgs doublets arise after the breaking of the Pati-Salam group and are proportional to the difference of the VEV’s of the fields $`H,\overline{H}`$ which break the symmetry. As shown for Pati-Salam models , the D terms can be nonzero and of order the soft breaking scale. This analysis utilized a particular superpotential  which is symmetric under the exchange of $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$. This symmetry between $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ is broken by their soft masses, leading to a D term which is proportional to their difference. In the 4224 model, since $`HC_1^{5_1}`$, $`\overline{H}C_2^{5_1}`$, and $`\phi _{1,2}C^{5_15_2}`$, $`Dm_{3/2}^2(X_0^2X_3^2)`$. (The $`\phi _{1,2}`$ fields do not contribute to the D term because their soft masses are identical). Thus, $`m_{H_d}^2(M_Z)m_{H_u}^2(M_Z)m_{3/2}^2M_Z^2`$, consistent with radiative electroweak symmetry breaking.

While large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has certain desirable properties (such as large radiative corrections to the mass of the lightest neutral Higgs boson easily lift the mass to much larger values than the MSSM tree level result $`m_h^0M_Z`$), proper radiative electroweak symmetry breaking requires $`\mu /\mathrm{tan}\beta B_\mu `$, an apparent fine-tuning . Within the top-down approach, this is a significant constraint in model-building. For example, this relation seems unnatural within string-motivated supergravity models, for which $`\mu B_\mu m_{3/2}`$ unless some cancellation or special alignment of Goldstino angles is present.

### C Low Energy Spectrum

In this model, the low energy spectrum of the MSSM states is governed by an important sum rule related to the choice of a high string scale $`10^{16}`$ GeV. In the gauge unification limit, $`m_{3/2}^2(m_3/\sqrt{3}X_1)^2+O(1/a^2)`$ (using Eq. (12)). From the expressions of soft masses and constraint $`_{i=0}^3X_i^2=1`$, the following sum rule at the unification scale can be obtained:

$$m_h^2+m_{\overline{F}_3}^2+m_{F_3}^2=m_3^2+O(1/a^2).$$
(38)
This sum rule is familiar from the form of the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters within perturbative heterotic models. From the expression for the gaugino soft mass parameters, we see that by “decoupling” the effects of the $`5_2`$ brane sector to achieve gauge coupling unification, the gluino and bino masses approach the wino mass value $`\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}X_1e^{i\alpha _1}`$ that they would have if only the $`5_1`$ sector was present. The soft parameters are similar to those from perturbative heterotic models, which resemble “single brane” Type I scenarios.

To study the implications of this sum rule, we must take into account the important requirement that the mass-squared eigenvalues of the sfermions must be positive to avoid charge or color breaking (CCB) minima. Positive input values for the soft superysmmetry breaking mass-squared parameters of the sfermions are also required, which implies that the Goldstino angles $`X_2,X_3<1/\sqrt{3}`$ at the unification scale. The squark mass-squared eigenvalues always satisfy the positivity requirement because their diagonal terms run to larger values at low energies (driven strongly by $`m_3`$). In the slepton sector, given that $`m_{\overline{F}_3}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_R}`$ and $`m_{F_3}^2=m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_L}`$ do not substantially run from $`M_U`$ to $`M_Z`$ and the existence of large off-diagonal mixing for the third generation sfermions, $`m_{\overline{F}_3}^2`$ and $`m_{F_3}^2`$ must be quite large to satisfy the conditions for the absence of CCB minima. It is a generic prediction (from Eq. (38)) that $`m_3(M_U)`$ must be ($`350`$) GeV. This yields a larger gluino mass $`m_3(M_Z)1`$ TeV, disfavored from fine-tuning arguments .

In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ limit, the tree level minimization condition of Higgs potential yields $`|\mu |^2m_{H_u}^2(M_Z)M_Z^2/2`$. The renormalization group running of the soft mass parameters yields the relations $`m_{H_u}^2(M_Z)m_h^2(M_U)4m_3^2(M_U)`$ and $`|\mu |^23m_3^2(M_U)`$. Therefore, proper radiative electroweak symmetry breaking requires $`|\mu |\sqrt{3}m_3(M_U)>600`$ GeV. This relatively large value of $`\mu `$ implies that the lightest two neutralino mass eignestates are bino and wino, with masses $`m_{\chi _1^0}m_3(M_U)/2170`$ GeV and $`m_{\chi _2^0}m_3(M_U)350`$ GeV. The lightest chargino has the same mass as the neutral wino.

The squarks are generally rather heavy, with the lightest state around $`600`$ GeV. $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is generally quite light due to the strong LR mixing. In a significant fraction of the parameter space, the lightest stau can be the lightest supersymmetric particle. It is desirable though that the lightest superpartner is neutral and constitutes the cold dark matter (CDM) of the universe, which yields an additional constraint $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}m_{\chi _1^0}m_3(M_U)/2`$. However, the sum rule Eq. (38) implies $`m_{\overline{F}_3}^2+m_{F_3}^2m_3(M_U)^24m_{\chi _1^0}^2`$. Taking into account that the lightest mass of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is a result of large off-diagonal mixing, it is difficult to make its mass larger than the mass of the lightest neutralino. This constraint forces the condition $`m_h0`$ (i.e. $`X_01/\sqrt{3}`$). A particular choice of high energy parameters $`X_0=0.58`$,$`X_1=0.79`$, $`X_2=0`$, $`m_{3/2}=318`$ GeV, $`\alpha _{1,2}=0`$, $`a=\sqrt{10}`$, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =35`$ yields the result $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}=174`$ GeV and $`m_{\chi _1^0}=171`$ GeV. It is also important that the relic density produced by the LSP is within the range $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^20.5`$. Assuming the LSP mass is below the top threshold, we have checked that the relic density is below the experimental bound. The mass difference between the LSP and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is very small so that coannihilation may become important. This will make the LSP relic density predicted in this model even smaller.

We now comment on the electric dipole moment (EDM) constraints. If phases are large and superpartner masses are small, the EDM’s require cancellations  which are increasingly stringent for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Although the superpartner masses are rather large in this model, they are not large enough to allow $`O(1)`$ phases without cancellations. Assuming that the soft trilinear couplings are given by Eq. (21) and that the phases take the values $`\alpha _0=\alpha _1=\alpha _2=0`$ ($`\alpha _3`$ general), the gaugino masses are all real while only the 13, 23, 31, and 32 elements of the soft trilinear couplings are complex. The EDMs are sensitive to the 11 entry of the LR blocks in the SCKM basis. With this choice of phases (and the phase of $`\mu `$ zero), the 4224 model is almost EDM-free because the 11 entries of the LR blocks are real. The rotation of the soft trilinear matrices to the SCKM basis does not reintroduce large CP violating phases to the 11 entry due to the factorizable structure of the $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ terms .However, it was recently pointed out that this feature does not necessarily hold in generic string models (in conjunction with obtaining a large CKM phase) .

To summarize, the phenomenological pattern of the low energy mass spectrum is related via the sum rule to the following set of theoretical assumptions: (i) the high string and GUT breaking scales and (ii) only the MSSM states are present below the unification scale. As the Type I string scale is flexible, a natural question to ask is what results if the string and symmetry breaking scales are lowered e.g. to intermediate values (recall that semirealistic brane models have been constructed with nonsupersymmetric as well as supersymmetric sectors, for which the string scale naturally should be of order $`10^{11}`$ GeV ). Without a string-derived model, this depends on the assumed details of the symmetry breaking scale and the low energy particle content. In the 4224 model, the string scale cannot be lowered to intermediate scale values with only MSSM matter content. The model predicts $`g_3^2=g_2^2/(1+1/a^2)<g_2`$ at the string scale, a condition violated by the RG running using MSSM beta functions and the low energy values of the gauge couplings. With additional matter there is flexibility to lower the scale while simultaneously lowering $`a`$ to deviate from the sum rule; this may be an interesting avenue for future exploration.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we investigated aspects of the phenomenology of a Type I string-motivated model with two intersecting (orthogonal) stacks of five-branes with Pati-Salam gauge groups. The Pati-Salam $`SU(4)_c`$ is obtained from the diagonal subgroup of the $`U(4)`$ gauge groups from each set of branes, while $`SU(2)_{L,R}`$ are given by the $`U(2)`$’s from one of the brane sectors. The third SM family is given by open string states from the $`5_1`$ sector which have an $`O(1)`$ Yukawa coupling to the electroweak Higgs doublets, while the first and second families are intersection states with zero Yukawa couplings at leading order. This 4224 model is similar to the Shiu-Tye orientifold, but differs in the details of the SM gauge group embedding. The model has interesting features as well as generic problems which are summarized below.

An analysis of the diagonal breaking indicated that ensuring D flatness for the $`U(N)`$ gauge groups of the theory requires a doubling of the usual Higgs sectors needed for $`SU(N)`$ groups and predicts massless exotics at the renormalizable level. Within the 4224 model, this result leads to the presence of exotic colored states which render the proton unstable if they remain massless at higher orders. Decoupling the additional triplet pair in the Pati-Salam symmetry breaking also is more subtle within $`U(N)`$ groups because the usual trilinear operators are forbidden by $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance. These issues signify generic challenges for string models which utilize intersecting D-branes in this manner.

Within the 4224 model, identifying the string scale to be near the usual GUT scale places significant constraints on the parameters of the theory. Obtaining proper low energy gauge couplings requires that one of the branes essentially decouples from the low energy physics (hence there is a hierarchy between the moduli VEVs which give the gauge couplings). In this effective single brane scenario, the soft terms are similar to those derived within perturbative heterotic models and obey a well-known sum rule. The constraints of the sum rule lead to a heavy superpartner spectrum and thus are not favored by fine-tuning arguments, but consistent radiative electroweak symmetry breaking can be achieved using the D term contributions to the soft scalar masses of the Higgs fields. Such constraints may be alleviated if the string scale is lowered, at the price of additional matter content.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank M. Cvetič, G. Shiu, K. Dienes, and D. Chung for helpful discussions. We thank the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality during several stages of this work.