format: text

text:
# Gaps between classes of matrix monotone functions

## 1 Introduction

Almost seventy years have passed since K. Löwner  proposed the notion of operator monotone functions. A real, continuous function $`f:I𝐑`$ defined on an (non trivial) interval $`I`$ is said to be matrix monotone of order $`n`$ if

$$xyf(x)f(y)$$
(1)
for any pair of self-adjoint $`n\times n`$ matrices $`x,y`$ with eigenvalues in $`I`$. We denote by $`P_n(I)`$ the set of such functions. A function $`f:I𝐑`$ is said to be operator monotone if it is matrix monotone of arbitrary orders. We evidently have $`P_{n+1}(I)P_n(I)`$ for each natural number $`n,`$ and

$$P(I)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n(I)$$

is the set of operator monotone functions defined on $`I.`$ If (1) holds for any pair of self-adjoint elements $`x,y`$ in a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ with spectra contained in $`I,`$ then we say that $`f`$ is $`A`$-monotone.

Löwner characterized the set of matrix monotone functions of order $`n`$ in terms of positivity of certain determinants (the so called Löwner determinants and the related Pick determinants) and proved that a function is operator monotone if and only if it allows an analytic continuation to a Pick function, that is an analytic function defined in the complex upper half plane with non-negative imaginary part. Dobsch  continued Löwner’s investigation and gave an alternative characterization of matrix monotonicity which we shall use in this paper.

Forty years after Löwner’s work W. Donoghue published a comprehensive book on the subject in which he refined Dobsch’ necessary and sufficient condition for a function on an interval to be matrix monotone of order $`n`$ \[3, Chapter 7, Theorem VI and Chapter 8, Theorem V\]. Donoghue then asserted \[3, p. 84\] that with this insight one may recognize that the classes $`P_n(I)`$ are all distinct for different values of $`n.`$ We shall denote this as the (asserted) existence of gaps between the different classes of matrix monotone functions.

However, both Löwner’s and Dobsch’ conditions for matrix monotonicity of order $`n`$ are very hard to check even for $`n=3,`$ and explicit examples of functions showing such gaps are given by Donoghue only for $`n=1`$ and $`n=2.`$ Now another almost thirty years have passed after Donoghue’s work and there are still, to our knowledge, no examples in the literature showing the gaps between $`P_n(I)`$ and $`P_{n+1}(I)`$ for arbitrary natural numbers $`n.`$ The purpose of this article is to prove exactly the existence of such gaps for every $`n.`$ We also characterize, for any natural number $`n,`$ the C\*-algebras $`A`$ with the property that any function $`fP_n(I)`$ is $`A`$-monotone. It is interesting to notice that this question is closely connected to the problem of matricial structure of operator algebras with respect to positive linear maps.

## 2 The gap between $`P_n(I)`$ and $`P_{n+1}(I)`$

For a positive integer $`n`$ let $`g_n(t)`$ be the polynomial defined by

$$g_n(t)=t+\frac{1}{3}t^3+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{2n1}t^{2n1}.$$
(2)
Following the notations in  we consider the matrix valued function associated with $`g_n(t)`$ and given by

$$M_n(g_n;t)=\left(\frac{g_n^{(i+j1)}(t)}{(i+j1)!}\right)_{i,j=1}^n.$$

The following lemma is an application of standard arguments from the theory of moment problems for Hankel matrices.

###### Lemma 1

The matrix $`M_n(g_n;0)`$ is positive definite.

Proof. We set

$$b_k=\frac{1}{2}_1^1t^k𝑑t\text{ for }k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\text{.}$$

and calculate

$$b_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}(k+1)^1\hfill & \text{ if }k\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }k\text{ is odd.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, we can write $`g_n`$ as

$$g_n(t)=b_0t+b_1t^2+\mathrm{}+b_{2n2}t^{2n1}$$

and therefore obtain

$$g_n^{(i+j1)}(0)=(i+j1)!b_{i+j2}i,j=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

Consequently

$$M_n(g_n;0)=\left(b_{i+j2}\right)_{i,j=1}^n.$$

Now take a vector $`c=(c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_n)𝐂^n`$ and calculate

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (M_n(g_n;0)cc)& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}b_{i+j2}c_j\overline{c_i}\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}_1^1t^{i+j2}c_j\overline{c_i}𝑑t\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{2}_1^1\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_it^{i1}\right|^2𝑑t.\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows that the matrix $`M_n(g_n;0)`$ is positive semidefinite. Moreover, if $`M_n(g_n;0)c=0`$ we see that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_it^{i1}=0\text{a.e.}$$

Since this is a polynomial, it is identically zero on the interval $`[1,1]`$. All entries of the vector $`c`$ are therefore zero and the matrix $`M_n(g_n;0)`$ is positive definite. QED

With this lemma we can show the existence of a gap between $`P_n(I)`$ and $`P_{n+1}(I)`$ for any positive integer $`n`$ and any nontrivial interval $`I`$ different from the whole real line.

###### Theorem 2

For any natural number $`n`$ there exists a real number $`\alpha _n>0`$ and a function $`g_n:[0,\alpha _n[𝐑`$ such that

* $`g_n`$ is matrix monotone of order $`n`$ on $`[0,\alpha _n[.`$
* $`g_n`$ is not matrix monotone of order $`n+1`$ on $`[0,\alpha _n[,`$ nor is it matrix monotone of order $`n+1`$ on any subinterval.

Proof. Consider the polynomial $`g_n(t)`$ introduced in the proof of Lemma 1. By the continuous dependence of eigenvalues of matrices as a function of their entries, there exists by Lemma 1 a positive number $`\alpha _n`$ such that the matrix function $`M_n(g_n;t)`$ is positive definite for $`t[0,\alpha _n[.`$ Since $`g^{(2n3)}`$ in addition is positive and convex on $`]0,\alpha _n[`$ we conclude, cf. \[3, Chap. 8, Theorem V\], that the function $`g_n`$ is matrix monotone of order $`n`$ on the interval $`[0,\alpha _n[.`$ The last principal matrix of order 3 of the matrix $`M_{n+1}(g_n;t)`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2n3}+(n1)t^2& t& \frac{1}{2n1}\\ t& \frac{1}{2n1}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2n1}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

and this matrix has determinant $`(2n1)^3`$ regardless of the value of $`t.`$ The matrix $`M_{n+1}(g_n;t)`$ is thus not positive semi-definite and the function $`g_n`$ is not matrix monotone of order $`n+1`$ on any subinterval $`J[0,\alpha _n[.`$ This completes the proof. QED

Consider the concrete function $`g_n`$ defined in equation 2. A calculation shows that the largest possible value of $`\alpha _2`$ is $`1.`$ It is exceedingly difficult to calculate the largest possible value for $`n3.`$

###### Proposition 3

Let either $`I=[a,b[`$ or $`I=[a,\mathrm{}[`$ for real numbers $`a<b`$ and take $`\alpha >0.`$ Then there exists a bijection $`h:[0,\alpha [I`$ such that both $`h`$ and the inverse map are operator monotone. Likewise, with $`J=]a,b]`$ or $`J=]\mathrm{},b],`$ there exists a bijection $`g:]0,\alpha ]J`$ such that both $`g`$ and the inverse map are operator monotone.

Proof. An affine map of the form $`tct+d`$ with $`c>0`$ is operator monotone, and so is the inverse map $`tc^1(td).`$ We may therefore assume that $`\alpha =1,`$ $`I=[0,1[`$ or $`I=[0,\mathrm{}[,`$ and $`J=]0,1]`$ or $`J=]\mathrm{},0].`$ The function

$$h(t)=t(1+t)^1\text{with inverse}h^1(t)=t(1t)^1$$

is a bijection of $`[0,\mathrm{}[`$ to $`[0,1[.`$ Likewise is the function

$$g(t)=(1t)^1\text{with inverse}h^1(t)=1t^1$$

a bijection of $`]\mathrm{},0]`$ to $`]0,1].`$ The assertion follows since $`h,`$ $`h^1,`$ $`g,`$ $`g^1`$ are all operator monotone functions, cf. . QED

Notice that we cannot find a bijection $`h:]0,1[𝐑`$ such that both $`h`$ and $`h^1`$ are operator monotone. An operator monotone function defined on the whole real line is necessarily affine, cf. . Its range is therefore either a constant or the whole real line.

###### Corollary 4

Let $`I=[a,b[`$ or $`I=[a,\mathrm{}[`$ for real numbers $`a<b.`$ For any natural number $`n`$ there exists a function $`f_n:I𝐑`$ such that

* $`f_n`$ is matrix monotone of order $`n`$ on $`I.`$
* $`f_n`$ is not matrix monotone of order $`n+1`$ on $`I,`$ nor is it matrix monotone of order $`n+1`$ on any subinterval.

Let $`I`$ be any open real interval and take $`t_0I.`$ Bendat and Sherman proved in \[1, Theorem 3.2\] that a function $`f:I𝐑`$ is matrix convex of order $`n,`$ if and only if the function

$$F(t)=\frac{f(t)f(t_0)}{tt_0}$$

is matrix monotone of order $`n.`$ Notice that $`f,`$ for $`n2,`$ automatically is differentiable and $`F(t_0)=f^{}(t_0).`$ One may set $`F(t_0)=(f(t_0)_++f(t_0)_{})/2`$ for $`n=1.`$ We also have $`f(t)=f(t_0)+F(t)(tt_0).`$

###### Corollary 5

Let $`I=[a,b[`$ or $`I=[a,\mathrm{}[`$ for real numbers $`a<b.`$ For any natural number $`n`$ there exists a function $`f_n:I𝐑`$ such that

* $`f_n`$ is matrix convex of order $`n`$ on $`I.`$
* $`f_n`$ is not matrix convex of order $`n+1`$ on $`I,`$ nor is it matrix convex of order $`n+1`$ on any subinterval.

The statement follows by combining Bendat and Sherman’s result with Corollary 4.

## 3 Characterization of $`C^{}`$-algebras in terms of matrix monotone functions

As we have discussed in , we may regard the question of monotonicity of functions as a kind of nonlinear version of the problem of matricial structure of operator algebras. Recall that a positive linear map $`\tau `$ from a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ to a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$ is said to be $`n`$-positive if the map

$$\tau _n:\left(a_{ij}\right)_{i,j=1}^n\left(\tau (a_{ij})\right)_{i,j=1}^n$$

is a positive map from $`M_n(A)`$ to $`M_n(B)`$. If $`\tau `$ is $`n`$-positive for all positive integers, then it is said to be completely positive.

Although the introduction of these notions by Stinespring  is of a much later date than the work of Löwner, they have turned out to be very important notions for the matricial structure of operator algebras i.e. $`C^{}`$-algebras and von Neumann algebras. One may simply recognize this aspect by the recent publication  by Effros and Ruan. Meanwhile examples of $`n`$-positive maps which are not $`(n+1)`$-positive had been investigated, and it had been discussed for which types of $`C^{}`$-algebras $`A`$ every $`n`$-positive map from or to $`A`$ for an another $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$ is also $`(n+1)`$-positive. In this sense, gaps between $`P_{n+1}(I)`$ and $`P_n(I)`$ are nonlinear versions of the above sort of problems. We are thus naturally led to the problem of the characterization of those $`C^{}`$-algebras $`A`$ on which every matrix monotone functions of order $`n`$ is $`A`$-monotone. The following theorem is a generalization of a previous result \[7, Theorem 1\] where the two last authors essentially treated the gap between $`P_1(I)`$ and $`P_2(I)`$. In this investigation we reach the same kind of $`C^{}`$-algebras as in the study of positive linear maps by the third author .

###### Theorem 6

Let $`A`$ be a C\*-algebra, and let $`I`$ be an interval of the form $`I=[a,b[`$ or $`I=[0,\mathrm{}[`$ for real numbers $`a<b.`$ The following assertions are equivalent:

* Every matrix monotone function of order $`n`$ defined on $`I`$ is $`A`$-monotone.
* The dimension of every irreducible representation of $`A`$ is less or equal to $`n.`$
* Every $`n`$-positive linear map from/to $`A`$ for another C\*-algebra $`B`$ is completely positive.

Proof. $`(1)(2)`$: We first notice that we, without loss of generality, may choose the interval $`I=[0,\mathrm{}[.`$ Suppose that $`A`$ had an irreducible representation $`\pi `$ on a Hilbert space $`H`$ whose dimension is greater than $`n`$. Take an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional projecton $`e`$ in $`H`$. We then have $`\pi (A)e=B(H)e`$ by \[10, Theorem 4.18\], hence

$$e\pi (A)e=eB(H)e=B(eH)M_{n+1}.$$

Let $`B`$ be the $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`A`$ defined by setting

$$B=\{aA\pi (a)e=e\pi (a)\}.$$

By the theorem cited above, the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`B`$ is a $``$-homomorphism onto $`eB(H)e`$. We choose a function $`f`$ in $`P_n(I)`$ which is not matrix monotone of order $`n+1,`$ cf. Corollary 4. Let $`c`$ and $`d`$ be arbitrary positive elements in $`eB(H)e`$ with $`cd.`$ It is easily verified that we can find positive elements $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`B`$ such that $`ab`$, $`\pi (a)=c`$ and $`\pi (b)=d.`$ Since $`ab`$ we obtain $`f(a)f(b)`$ by the assumption, whence

$$f(c)=f(\pi (a))=\pi (f(a))\pi (f(b))=f(\pi (b))=f(d).$$

Therefore, $`f`$ is matrix monotone of order $`n+1`$ on $`I,`$ a contradiction.

$`(2)(1):`$ Take a function $`f`$ in $`P_n(I)`$ and let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be self-adjoint elements in $`A`$ with spectra contained in $`I`$ such that $`ab.`$ We consider an irreducible representation $`\pi `$ of $`A.`$ Since also the spectra of $`\pi (a)`$ and $`\pi (b)`$ are contained in $`I,`$ we obtain by the assumptions that

$$\pi (f(a))=f(\pi (a))f(\pi (b))=\pi (f(a)).$$

It follows that $`f(a)f(b),`$ thus $`f`$ is $`A`$-monotone.

$`(2)(3):`$ The assertion is proved in . QED

Frank Hansen (frank.hansen@econ.ku.dk)
Institute of Economics, Copenhagen University, Denmark.
Guoxing Ji (gxji@snnu.edu.cn)
College of Mathematics and Information Science, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, 710062, P.R. China.
Jun Tomiyama (jtomiyama@fc.jwu.ac.jp)
Department of Mathematics and Physics, Japan Women’s University, Mejirodai Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) is an attractive avenue for physics beyond the standard model (SM). The MSSM not only resolves the naturalness problem  regarding the small Higgs scalar mass that SM suffers from, but also improves the scenario of gauge couplings unification  and electroweak symmetry breaking . However, the MSSM has numerous ($`>`$ 100) theoretically undetermined parameters. To understand the origin of many soft supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking parameters in the MSSM simply and consistently, one often invokes the supergravity (SUGRA) models. However, models relying on the conventional gravity-mediated SUSY breaking scenario  generally contain flavor changing processes that are strongly constrained by experiments . Approaches for resolving this notorious problem include gauge-mediated SUSY breaking  and anomaly mediated SUSY breaking . On the other hand the effective supersymmetric theory (ESUSY)  provides an alternative scenario. In ESUSY, the superpartners of the first two generations are required to be sufficiently heavy ($``$ 20 TeV) to suppress flavor changing processes in SUGRA models. (This also could provide a mechanism for suppressing dimension five proton decay operators.) Because of the relatively small Yukawa couplings of the first two generations, the Higgs boson masses are radiatively stable despite these heavy masses. On the other hand, the left- and right-handed top squarks are constrained to be not much heavier than 1 TeV or so to preserve the gauge hierarchy solution because of the relatively large top quark Yukawa coupling . One expects from $`SU(2)`$ symmetry that the left-handed sbottom mass also does not exceed a TeV or so. In addition, the B-ino, W-ino, and also Higgsino, which are coupled to the Higgs scalars with “sizable” gauge couplings, should remain lighter than a TeV or so.333In Ref. , an ESUSY idea is realized by introducing an anomalous $`U(1)_A`$.

However, with only a unique SUSY breaking scale at $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}`$ as in ordinary 4D SUGRA models, such a large hierarchy between the first two and the third generations’ soft masses is not easily derived radiativlely at the electroweak scale, even though the first two generations’ Yukawa couplings are relatively small.444Reference  shows that the 10 TeV–sub-TeV hierarchy between the first two and the third generations soft scalar masses at the electroweak scale can be derived radiatively from 10 TeV soft masses at the GUT scale. Moreover, the first two generations’ heavy soft mass squareds tend to drive the third ones to negative values at low energy through two loop renomalization group equations, so that the third generation squark masses should be raised to several TeV at the grand unified theory (GUT) scale . This makes the scenario perhaps somewhat less attractive.

In this paper we will introduce two (or more) SUSY breaking scales at the GUT or some other fundamental scale within a gravity-mediated SUSY breaking scenario without invoking any flavor symmetry, deploying two (or more) 4 dimensional branes or orbifold fixed points in 5 dimensional spacetime. In 4D gravity-mediated SUGRA models using only hidden sector SUSY breaking, there is no “easy” way to provide several SUSY breaking effects that depend on the flavor; once SUSY breakes down in a hidden sector, the consequences typically spread impartially among particles in the visible sector through direct gravity couplings appearing in the SUGRA Lagrangian. However, if we could somehow couple each visible sector field gravitationally exclusively to a specific hidden sector among several hidden sectors with different SUSY breaking scales, it would be possible to introduce flavor dependent SUSY breaking scales even within the gravity-mediated scenario. This is where the extra dimension and branes can play an important role.

The SUSY breaking soft scalar masses and the “$`A`$” terms are derived from the scalar potential in SUGRA models. In 5D brane world, the scalar potentials as well as the Yukawa interaction terms are usually constructed only on the branes due to supersymmetry. Thus, as shown in  for global SUSY, the scalar potentials are localized by the delta function on the brane and separated from each other at tree level. In this paper we will show that the SUSY breaking effects from the hidden sectors localized on the branes are transmitted to the visible sector fields located on the same brane and bulk gauginos through direct gravitational couplings, but remain shielded at least at tree level from the other brane fields  and bulk scalars. Thus if the SUSY breaking scales are $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ at two separated branes B1 and B2, respectively, the localized chiral multiplets at B1 (B2) could get soft SUSY breaking effects of order $`m_1`$ ($`m_2`$). The mixing terms from one loop contribution among fields from two distinct branes can be sufficiently suppressed if the interval size is sufficiently large compared to the fundamental scale .

Let us assume that the SUSY breaking scales at B1 and B2 are $`m_1`$ (10–20 TeV) $`>`$ $`m_2`$ ($``$ 1 TeV). Then, we can easily make the superpartners of the first two generations sufficiently heavy by locating them on B1. In order to keep the radiative corrections to the Higgs masses under control, the third family resides on B2 (or in the bulk). The two Higgs multiplets should reside in the bulk, so that the first two and the third generations of the quarks and leptons can couple to them at B1 and B2, respectively. Note that matter fields in the bulk are accompanied by bulk gauge fields for the consistency of the gauge theory.

The gaugino mass term can be generated at tree level in some D=5 off-shell SUGRA formalism  if SUSY is spontaneously broken, even when a singlet field does not couple to the gauge kinetic term. Thus heavy gaugino masses from SUSY breaking at B1 could give rise to large radiative corrections to the Higgs mass and spoil the naturalness solution. However, since the bulk gaugino mass is given by $`m_{1/2}m_{3/2}\times (M_{}/M_P)`$, where $`M_{}`$ is a 5D SUGRA fundamental scale and $`M_P`$ is the reduced 4D Planck scale, a not so “large” extra dimension, for example, of order $`10^{16}`$ $`\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ (or $`M_{}10^{17}`$ GeV), suppresses the gaugino masses to 1 TeV scale. Moreover, by introducing an additional set of the localized gauge multiplet at B2 with large coefficient ($``$ 10) (i.e., in addition to the bulk gauge multiplet), the gauginos mass can be more suppressed to the 100 GeV scale as we will see. In such a way, the masses of the various gauginos in the MSSM also could be made non-universal.

## 2 5D off-shell SUGRA and 4D brane matter

In order to couple 5D SUGRA to 4D brane matter it is convenient to employ the 5D off-shell SUGRA formalisms recently developed in . Although we will employ the formalism in , our essential results such as localized SUSY breaking effects and realization of ESUSY should also hold in other formalisms and/or in other spacetime dimensions.

The 5D formalism in  is an extension of the 4D SUGRA off-shell formalism of . The latter contains (16+16) bosonic and fermionic degree of freedoms, namely, $`e_m^a`$ (vierbein), $`\psi _m`$ (gravitino), $`a_m`$ ($`U(1)_R`$ axial gauge vector), $`b_a`$ (axial vector), $`\xi `$ (spinor), $`S`$ (scalar), $`t^1`$ (pseudoscalar), and $`t^2`$ (scalar), where every field is auxiliary except for the vierbein and the gravitino. In 5D, N=2 SUGRA, the familiar N=2 SUGRA on-shell fields, namely the f$`\ddot{\mathrm{u}}`$nfbein ($`e_M^A`$), gravitino ($`\psi _M^j`$) ($`j=1,2`$) and graviphoton ($`A_M`$) are supplemented by the auxiliary fields,

$`\stackrel{}{t},v_{AB},\stackrel{}{V}_M,\zeta ,\mathrm{and}C,`$ (1)
an isotriplet, an antisymmetric tensor, a $`SU(2)_R`$ gauge vector, a spinor, and a scalar, respectively. In the gravitino $`\psi _M^j`$, the index “$`j`$” (=1,2) is a $`SU(2)_R`$ index. Although the closure of SUSY algebra only requires the above (40+40) bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom (“minimal multiplet”), the corresponding action turns out to be unphysical; the equations of motion give rise to $`\mathrm{det}e_M^A=0`$. (This problem is also observed in 4D SUGRA formalism with a single auxiliary fermion .) To resolve it, additional (8+8) auxiliary fields are needed, either from a nonlinear multiplet (version I) , a hypermultiplet (version II) , or a tensor multiplet (versin III) . In this paper we prefer the first choice. The nonlinear multiplet contains the auxiliary fields, $`\varphi _\alpha ^j`$ (scalar), $`\chi `$ (spinor), $`\phi `$ (scalar), and $`V_A`$ (vector), where $`\alpha `$ is the index of an additional $`SU(2)`$ and $`a`$ is the Lorentz index. Closure of the algebra on $`\phi `$ and $`V_A`$ gives rise to the constraint

$`C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\kappa }}R_{AB}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{24}}F_{AB}F^{AB}+5\kappa \stackrel{}{t}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4}}v_{AB}v^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\kappa }}\widehat{𝒟}_M\varphi ^j{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\widehat{𝒟}_{}^{M}\varphi ^\alpha {}_{j}{}^{}+\mathrm{}=0,`$ (2)
where $`\widehat{𝒟}_M`$ is the supercovariant derivative defined in , and “$`\mathrm{}`$” contains the fermionic contributions. The bosonic part of the pure SUGRA action is given by

$`S_{SUG}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x{\displaystyle _L^L}dye_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\kappa ^2}}R(\widehat{\omega })_{AB}{}_{}{}^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}F_{AB}F^{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}F_{AB}v^{AB}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{6\sqrt{3}}}ϵ^{ABCDE}A_AF_{BC}F_{DE}+v_{AB}v^{AB}12\stackrel{}{t}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{}{V}_A\stackrel{}{V}^A`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}}\widehat{𝒟}_M\varphi ^i{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\widehat{𝒟}_{}^{M}\varphi ^\alpha {}_{i}{}^{}+V_AV^A\phi ^2],`$
where the factor $`2L`$ for the size of the extra dimension ensures that the mass dimensions of all fields correspond to their canonical 4D ones, and the induced SUGRA parameter $`\kappa `$ in Eq. (2) and the original 5D SUGRA parameter $`\kappa _{}`$ are defined as

$`\kappa ^2`$ $``$ $`8\pi G{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_P^2}},`$ (4)
$`\kappa _{}^3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_{}^3}}2L\times \kappa ^2={\displaystyle \frac{2L}{M_P^2}},`$ (5)
where $`M_P`$ and $`M_{}`$ are the Planck and the fundamental scale mass parameters, respectively. For future convenience, we define $`\kappa _{}`$ such that it has length dimension unlike the definition in ordinary 5D SUGRA.

With the fifth dimension compactified on a $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, $`Z_2`$ parities assigned to fields in 5D N=2 theory, consistent with SUSY transformation, are given in Table I.

Since only the even parity particles contain massless modes, truncation of the heavy Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes reduces the 5D, N=2 SUGRA to 4D, N=1 SUGRA of . The relations between the auxiliary fields in 4D N=1 SUGRA and those in the “minimal multiplet” of 5D, N=2 SUGRA are given by

$`b_a`$ $`=`$ $`v_{a\dot{5}},`$ (6)
$`a_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(V_m^3{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}\widehat{F}_{m5}e_{\dot{5}}^5+4e_m^av_{a\dot{5}}),`$ (7)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_{\dot{5}}^5(_5t^3\overline{\lambda }\tau ^3\psi _5+V_5^1t^2V_5^2t^1).`$ (8)
The 5D N=2 hypermultiplet  could be extended from the 4D N=2 hypermultiplet . Since there is no field carrying vector indices in the hypermultiplet, the structures of the hypermultiplets in D=4,5,6 are almost the same. The bosonic part of the corresponding 5D N=2 off-shell Lagrangian is

$`_{HYP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}d_\beta ^\alpha [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒟_AA_\alpha ^j𝒟^AA_j^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_\alpha ^jF_j^\beta (1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A_AA^A)`$
$`+A_\alpha ^jA_j^\beta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R(\widehat{\omega })_{AB}{}_{}{}^{AB}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{12}}F_{AB}F^{AB}2\kappa C10\kappa ^2\stackrel{}{t}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}v_{AB}v^{AB})],`$
where $`j(=1,2)`$ is the $`SU(2)_R`$ index as before, and $`\alpha (=1,2,\mathrm{},2r)`$ is a $`USp(p,q)`$ ($`p+q=2r`$) index, and $`A`$, $`B`$ are 5D Lorentz indices. As in the pure SUGRA case, the linear dependence of the Lagrangian on $`C`$ must be resolved using the nonlinear multiplet. Equation (2) eliminates the couplings of $`A_\alpha ^jA_j^\beta `$ with $`\stackrel{}{t}^2`$, $`R_{AB}^{AB}`$, and so on in the Lagrangian (2).

For $`r=1`$, $`USp(2,0)=SU(2)`$, $`d_\beta ^\alpha =ϵ^{\alpha \gamma }ϵ_{\gamma \beta }=\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$. The component fields in the hypermultiplet fulfill the reality constraints . For the scalar field, for instance,

$`A_\alpha ^jA_j^\alpha =ϵ^{jk}\rho _{\alpha \beta }A_k^\beta ,`$ (10)
where $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }`$ is proportional to $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$ and satisfies

$`|\mathrm{det}\rho |^2=1,\mathrm{and}\rho ^{\alpha \beta }=\rho _{\alpha \beta }^{}.`$ (11)
The auxiliary field $`F_\alpha ^i`$ is similarly constrained. The fermion $`\xi ^\alpha `$ satisfies the symplectic Majorana condition,

$`\overline{\xi _\alpha }(\xi ^\alpha )^{}\gamma ^0=\rho _{\alpha \beta }\xi ^{\beta T}C,`$ (12)
where $`C=\mathrm{diag}(i\tau ^2,i\tau ^2)`$.

The hypermultiplet is split under $`Z_2`$ symmetry into two chiral multiplets with even and odd parities, respectively. The (bulk) chiral multiplet with even parity can take part in the superpotential on the 4 dimensional branes. On the other hand, the (bulk) chiral fields with odd parity vanish on the branes and do not possess massless modes. Consequently, they are neglected in the low energy physics. The surviving fields at low energy are $`A_1^1`$ (or $`A_2^2`$), $`\xi _{1L}`$ (or $`\xi _{2R}^{}`$) and $`F_1^1`$ (or $`F_2^2`$).

In the more general case, the Lagrangian could be written as a non-linear sigma model, as shown in the on-shell formalisms of . The kinetic term is then $`_{kin}=h_{uv}(\varphi )_M\varphi ^u^M\varphi ^v`$, where $`h_{uv}(\varphi )`$ ($`u,v=1,2,\mathrm{},4r`$) is a metric on a quaternionic manifold with coordinates $`\varphi ^u`$.

A 4D chiral multiplet consists of scalar and fermion fields with

$`A=(A,B;\psi ;F,G),`$ (13)
where $`A`$, $`B`$ are dynamical real scalars, $`\psi `$ is a chiral fermion, and $`F`$, $`G`$ are real auxiliary fields. Thus bosonic degrees of freedom are the same as those of fermions. In this paper, the first member in a chiral multiplet such as $`A`$ in Eq. (13) will be used, if necessary, to designate the chiral multiplet or superfield to which it belongs. To each chiral multiplet, a weight $`w_i`$ ($`U(1)_R`$ charge) is assigned.

According to the local tensor calculus , the canonical kinetic part of the off-shell Lagrangian for the chiral multiplet is given by the “D-density” of the product, $`[A_i\times A_i]_D/4`$, and its bosonic part is

$`_{4dCHI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\widehat{𝒟}_mA_i\widehat{𝒟}^mA_i+\widehat{𝒟}_mB_i\widehat{𝒟}^mB_i+F_i^2+G_i^2)`$
$`4\kappa t^2(F_iA_iG_iB_i)4\kappa t^1(F_iB_i+G_iA_i)+2\kappa b^m(A_i\widehat{𝒟}_mB_iB_i\widehat{𝒟}_mA_i)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}(A_i^2+B_i^2)(12w_iS{\displaystyle \frac{w_i}{4\kappa }}R_{ab}{}_{}{}^{ab}+48\kappa (w_i1)[(t^1)^2+(t^2)^2]`$
$`6\kappa w_ib_mb^m8S)],`$
where $`i`$ labels chiral multiplets, and $`\widehat{𝒟}_m`$ is the supercovariant derivative, defined as

$`\widehat{𝒟}_mA`$ $``$ $`_mA\overline{\psi }_m\tau ^2\psi wBa_m,`$ (15)
$`\widehat{𝒟}_mB`$ $``$ $`_mB\overline{\psi }_m\tau ^2\gamma ^{\dot{5}}\psi +wAa_m.`$ (16)
We note that in the Lagrangian (2) several weight ($`w_i`$) dependent terms appear. This can be generalized to non-trivial cases, $`[f(A)\times A]_D`$, where $`f`$ is an arbitrary function of $`A`$ . The Lagrangian in Eq. (2) can be written in terms of 5D SUGRA auxiliary fields using Eqs. (6)–(8),

$`_{5dCHI}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,i}{}}\delta (yy_I)[|\varphi _i^I|^2+|_i^I|^24\kappa _{}\varphi _i^I_i^I4\kappa _{}\varphi _i^I_i^I^{}`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{}}{2}}\left(\varphi _i^I^m\varphi _i^I\varphi _i^I^m\varphi _i^I\right)\left(w_iV_m^3{\displaystyle \frac{2w_i}{\sqrt{3}}}F_{m\dot{5}}+4(w_i1)v_{m\dot{5}}\right)`$
$`+\kappa _{}|\varphi _i^I|^2((3w_i2)(2_{\dot{5}}t^3+\kappa _{}𝒱^{}+\kappa _{}^{}𝒱)48\kappa _{}(w_i1)||^2`$
$`12w_iC+8C+{\displaystyle \frac{w_i}{4\kappa _{}}}R_{ab}{}_{}{}^{ab}6\kappa _{}w_iv_{a\dot{5}}v^{a\dot{5}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{}}{4}}w_i^2(V_m^3{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}F_{m\dot{5}}+4v_{m\dot{5}})(V^{m3}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}F^{m\dot{5}}4v^{m\dot{5}})`$
$`+2\kappa _{}w_iv^{m\dot{5}}(w_iV_m^3{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}F_{m\dot{5}}+4v_{m\dot{5}}))],`$
where we complexifed some bosonic degrees for future convenience,

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(A+iB),`$ (18)
$``$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(FiG),`$ (19)
$``$ $``$ $`t^2+it^1,`$ (20)
$`𝒱`$ $``$ $`V_{\dot{5}}^1iV_{\dot{5}}^2.`$ (21)
Note that in Eq. (2), the expansion parameter is not “$`\kappa `$” but “$`\kappa _{}`$” defined in Eq. (5). Since the Lagrangian (2) describes the dynamics of scalar fields localized on the brane, a delta function appears as an overall factor. $`I=1,2`$ indicate the two brane locations at $`y=0`$ and $`y=L`$, respectively.

Next we briefly review how the superpotential is constructed in the 4D SUGRA, which would enable us to derive the relevant scalar potentials. In the local tensor calculus , a product “$``$” is defined such that the product, $`A_3=A_1A_2`$ of two chiral multiplets of weights $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$, respectively, yields another chiral multiplet with weight $`w_3=w_1+w_2`$, and components

$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`A_1A_2B_1B_2,`$ (22)
$`B_3`$ $`=`$ $`A_1B_2+A_2B_1,`$ (23)
$`\psi _3`$ $`=`$ $`(A_1\gamma _5B_1)\psi _2+(A_2\gamma _5B_2)\psi _1,`$ (24)
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`A_1F_2+B_1G_2+F_1A_2+G_1B_2+\overline{\psi }_1\psi _2,`$ (25)
$`G_3`$ $`=`$ $`A_1G_2B_1F_2+G_1A_2F_1B_2\overline{\psi }_1\gamma _5\psi _2.`$ (26)
These product rules are valid in the locally supersymmetric case as well as in global supersymmetry. Using the rules, we can define superpotentials such as $`A_1A_2`$, $`A_1A_2A_3,\mathrm{}`$.

By examining the SUSY transformations of members in a chiral multiplet, one can find a supersymmetric invariant, “F-density,” which is useful for constructing the Lagrangian. A supersymmetric invariant up to total derivative terms in SUGRA is given by

$`[A]_F=F+i\kappa \overline{\psi }_m^2\gamma ^m\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{2}}\overline{\psi }_m\tau ^2\gamma ^{mn}(A+\gamma ^{\dot{5}}B)\psi _n12\kappa t^2A12\kappa t^1B,`$ (27)
with weight equal to 2 . The Pauli matrix $`\tau ^2`$ contracts the $`SU(2)_R`$ indices of the gravitino. The first term in Eq. (27) is present also in the globally supersymmetric case, while the other terms are the SUGRA corrections. In particular, if $`A`$ and/or $`B`$ acquire vacuum expectation values (VEVs), the third term could yield the gravitino mass term by absorbing the chiral fermion’s degree of freedom of the second term. Thus, for a given superpotential $`W(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{})`$, the Yukawa interactions and scalar potentials are read off using Eqs. (22)–(26) and (27), and it can be checked that the bosonic part is given by

$`_{4dYUK}=[{\displaystyle \underset{z}{}}W_z_z12\kappa W+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (28)
where every bosonic field is complexified using Eqs. (18)–(21), $`_z`$ is the auxiliary field involved in $`\varphi _z`$, and

$`W_z{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\varphi _z}}.`$ (29)
## 3 Effective 4D scalar potential

To illustrate the emergence of non-universal soft masses, let us consider a model with a visible ($`V`$) and a hidden ($`H`$) hypermultiplet in the bulk, and two visible and some hidden chiral multiplets localized at each brane. The chiral multiplet from the bulk hypermultiplets with even parity $`\mathrm{\Phi }^V`$ comprises a trilinear superpotential together with two visible chiral multiplets $`\varphi _1^{1V}`$ and $`\varphi _2^{1V}`$, localized at B1, while the hidden sector multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }^H`$ and $`\varphi _x^{1H}`$ ($`x=a,b,\mathrm{}`$) make up another superpotential at B1,

$`W^{1V}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_{12}^{1V}\mathrm{\Phi }^V\varphi _1^{1V}\varphi _2^{1V},W^{1H}=W^{1H}(\mathrm{\Phi }^H,\varphi _a^{1H},\varphi _b^{1H},\mathrm{}).`$ (30)
Similarly, the two (bulk) chiral multiplets, the two localized visible multiplets, $`\varphi _1^{2V},\varphi _2^{2V}`$, and hidden chiral multiplets $`\varphi _a^{2H}`$ ($`x=a,b,\mathrm{}`$) constitute the following superpotentials at B2,

$`W^{2V}`$ $`=`$ $`Y_{12}^{2V}\mathrm{\Phi }^V\varphi _1^{2V}\varphi _2^{2V},W^{2H}=W^{2H}(\mathrm{\Phi }^H,\varphi _a^{2H},\varphi _b^{2H},\mathrm{}).`$ (31)
We assign weights 2, 0, and 2/3 to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^V`$, $`\varphi _i^{IV}`$ ($`I,i=1,2`$), and $`\varphi _x^{IH}`$, respectively, for simplicity of the model. Other weight assignments that do not change our essential conclusions are also possible.

The bosonic part of the locally supersymmetric off-shell Lagrangian for the Yukawa interactions is

$`_{YUK}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,S,z}{}}\delta (yy_I)[W_z^{IS}_z^{IS}12\kappa _{}W^{IS}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (32)
where $`I`$ ($`=1,2`$) denotes the brane locations ($`y_1=0,y_2=L`$), $`S`$ stands for visible or hidden sectors ($`S=V,H`$), $`z=\mathrm{\Phi }^V,1,2`$ for $`S=V`$, and $`z=\mathrm{\Phi }^H,a,b,\mathrm{}`$ for $`S=H`$. To get a scalar potential for the dynamical fields, we replace the auxiliary fields in the Lagrangians (2), (2), (2), and (32), using the equations of motion. The equations of motion for $``$ fields give

$`_i^{IS}`$ $`=`$ $`(W_i^{IS})^{}+4\kappa _{}\varphi _i^{IS}^{},`$ (33)
$`_\mathrm{\Phi }^{IS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}2\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)(W_\mathrm{\Phi }^{IS})^{}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\kappa ^2A_5A^5\right)^1,`$ (34)
where $`i`$ is $`1,2`$ for $`S=V`$, and $`a,b,\mathrm{}`$ for $`S=H`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)L\times \delta (yy_I).`$ (35)
In Eq. (34), we see that the bulk field $`_\mathrm{\Phi }^S`$ gets contributions from both localized brane “sources.” Let us insert the above expressions into the orginal Lagrangian and also eliminate the auxiliary field $``$, whose equation of motion gives

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _{}}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _{}^2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\varphi _i^{IV}|^2\right]^1`$
$`\times \left[\left(W^{IV}+W^{IH}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\varphi _i^{IV}|^2𝒱\right].`$
In Eq. (3), the delta function $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)`$ is present in the denominator as well as the numerator, which seems surprising at first. However, to couple the 5D gravity multiplet supersymmetrically to 4D chiral fields, the delta function couplings are inevitable. In this paper, we will take a pragmatic approach to the delta function; we regard the $`\delta (yy_I)`$ functions as finite walls of height $`M_{}`$ with a small but non-vanishing “thickness” $`1/M_{}`$. (The exact shape of the delta function would be determined by a fundamental theory, but it would not affect the low energy physics.) Despite their thickness, both walls are assumed to be sufficiently far apart from each other, so that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)\times \mathrm{\Delta }(y_J)=0\mathrm{for}IJ.`$ (37)
Due to Eq. (37), $``$ in Eq. (3) is given by the sum of the contributions from the two branes. In a more fundamental theory, the “blow-up” of the delta function could be cured and excitations of localized fields on the branes in the $`y`$ direction would be possible. The apparently divergent operator in the denominator in Eq. (3) is now suppressed,

$$\kappa _{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)|\varphi _i^{IV}|^2\frac{L}{M_{}}|\varphi _i^{IV}|^2,$$
(38)
and we can treat it perturbatively unless $`\varphi _i^{IV}M_{}`$, as in ordinary 4D supergravity. In our case, we take

$`L10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}^1.`$ (39)
For the hidden sector fields and superpotentials we assume the VEVs

$`W^{IH}=m_IM_{}^2,`$ (41)
$`W_z^{IH}=(b_z^I)^{}m_IM_{}.`$
For convenience, we define the following expressions:

$`W^{IV}W^I,W_\mathrm{\Phi }^{IV}W_\mathrm{\Phi }^I,{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|W_i^{IV}|^2|W_i^I|^2,`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|\varphi _i^{IV}|^2|\varphi _i^I|^2,{\displaystyle \underset{z}{}}|b_z^I|^2|b_z^I|^2.`$ (43)
After inserting Eq. (3) and Eqs. (41) and (41) into the original Lagrangian, assembling the results from the auxiliary fields $`_i^{IS}`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eqs. (33) and (34), we obtain the localized F term scalar potentials for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\varphi _i^I`$ in 5D supergravity,

$`V_{5d}(\mathrm{\Phi },\varphi _i^I)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)}{L}}[|W_i^I|^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)|W_\mathrm{\Phi }^I|^2+|b_z^I|^2(m_IM_{})^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\kappa _{}^2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)|W^Im_IM_{}^2|^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa _{}^2}{3}}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)|\varphi _i^I|^2)]+O(\kappa _{}^6),`$
where we retain only terms up to $`O(\kappa ^4)`$ for examining the soft scalar masses and $`A`$ terms. Elimination of $`𝒱`$ gives rise to corrections of order $`O(\kappa ^6)`$ to the potential (3), and from the equations of motion for $`V_m^3`$ and $`v_{m\dot{5}}`$, the derivative interaction terms between $`\varphi _i^I`$s and $`F_{m\dot{5}}`$ are derived. We should note here that in the localized potential, there is no cross term between the two brane contributions due to the delta function property in Eq. (37). Thus the potential at B1 is associated only with bulk scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and B1 brane fields $`\varphi _1^1`$ and $`\varphi _2^1`$, while the potential at B2 contains $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and B2 brane fields $`\varphi _1^2`$ and $`\varphi _2^2`$.

We note the appearance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)`$ dependent couplings in the potential (3). In momentum space,

$`\delta (yy_I)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{i(n\pi /L)(yy_I)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_5=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{ik_5(yy_I)},`$ (45)
which is used in the Feynman rule for the delta function coupling for calculating certain processes . To obtain an effective 4D theory, we truncate the KK modes and introduce the cuttoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\stackrel{<}{}1/L`$ ($`10^{16}`$ GeV). Thus the summation in Eq. (45) should be implemented only for $`k_5=0`$ or $`n=0`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(yy_I)`$ in the potential (3) reduces to $`1/2`$ in low energy physics, independent of regularization schemes for the delta function. Cross interaction terms between fields localized on two different branes could be generated at loop level below $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c1/L`$, while above $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c1/L`$, the effective theory is 5D SUGRA and the “finite” delta function (or the finite wall) properties like Eq. (37) are restored.

Before deriving the effective 4D potential, let us discuss the delta function coupling for a moment. In Ref. , the supersymmetric coupling between 5D bulk super Yang-Mills and charged chiral matter localized on 4 dimensional brane was studied. In this model too, a delta function squared coupling appears after eliminating the auxiliary field $`X^{3a}`$. The 5D gauge multiplet contains a dynamical scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ with odd parity under $`Z_2`$ symmetry, so that $`X^{3a}_5\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ should be identified, from their SUSY transformation properties, with the auxiliary field $`D^a`$ appearing in the 4D gauge multiplet. The delta function coupling is interpreted as a counterterm to divergences arising from the derivative interactions $`_5\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ of an odd parity scalar with other chiral fields. However, such a dynamical odd parity scalar field is not found in the gravity multiplet as seen from Table I. Moreover, even if present, the scalar with odd parity would be decoupled at low energy.555In Ref. , a 5D SUGRA coupled to a 4D super Yang-Mills was considered, where a delta function squared coupling appears also in the 5D Lagrangian. Since a delta function squared coupling in this case has a vector-like interaction involving gauginos, the odd parity vector field (graviphoton) plays the role of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ of Ref. . Here we intend to derive the scalar potential, so the vector field is not relevant.  In Ref. , an additional odd parity scalar included in a hypermultiplet plays the role of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ in Ref. . But SUSY transformations of the 5D SUGRA auxiliary fields do not necessarily require additional fields for proper identification with the 4D auxiliary fields. Most pressing of all, in our model, such a method appears to be unable to control every delta function coupling.666 This results from the fact that in general the Lagrangian of the 4D chiral multiplet contains quadratic terms in $``$, while in previous examples the associated auxiliary fields, namely $`D^a`$ in Ref.  and $`b_m`$ in Ref. , appear in only linear form in the corresponding brane Lagrangian.  Thus we have adopted a different approach to the delta function coupling in which it is regarded as a wall with height $`M_{}`$ and width $`1/M_{}`$. Then, even if the wall of the delta function is as high as the fundamental scale $`M_{}`$ or even the Planck scale, all delta function couplings are in turn small since they are always accompanied by the SUGRA parameter $`\kappa _{}`$. However, in the low energy effective theory, the delta function couplings are not problematic in any case if the introduced cutoff ($`1/L10^{16}`$ GeV) is high enough to suppress any induced non-renormalizable operators.

The effective 4D potential is obtained by integrating $`V_{5d}`$ over the fifth direction $`LyL`$,

$`V_{4d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I=1,2}{}}(m_IM_P)^2\left(|b_z^I|^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\right)+|W_i^I|^2+|W_\mathrm{\Phi }^I|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_I}{3}}(W^I+W^I)+{\displaystyle \frac{8(m_I)^2}{9}}|\varphi _i^I|^2`$
$`+\mathrm{non}\mathrm{renormalizable}\mathrm{interactions}.`$
In Eq. (3) the cosmological constant term and the ordinary F term potential of globally supersymmetric theory appears in the first line, the SUSY breaking $`A`$ terms and soft scalar mass terms are in the second line. The non-renormalizable terms are suppressed by powers of $`1/M_{}`$. As in ordinary 4D supergravity, a vanishing cosmological constant requires fine-tuning. Thus we get a theory with softly broken SUSY but a vanishing cosmological constant through the fine-tuning, which is impossible in globally supersymmetric theory. In contrast to the 4D case, the global SUSY F term potential is divided into two parts that depend on the locations of the associated fields . Note that the potential in Eq. (3) does not allow a non-zero VEV for scalar fields, so the internal symmetry cannot be spontaneously broken at the fundamental scale. With $`_iW_i^I\varphi _i^I=2W^I`$, this can be proved by showing that while the minimum value of the potential always becomes non-zero and positive when a non-zero VEV for any scalar is assumed, it is vanishing for zero VEVs of all of the scalar fields . It is possible that the internal symmetry breaks down radiatively at low energy, as in ordinary 4D SUGRA models.

From the scalar curvature terms in Eqs. (2) and (2), we see that the effective 4D potential in Eq. (3) is not yet in the Einstein frame. However, the canonical normalization of the effective 4D gravity just rescales the Yukawa coeffecients and soft masses in Eq. (3) by a small amount, and adds non-renormalizable interactions.

As seen in Eq. (3), a soft mass term of the bulk scalar is not generated at tree level under the formalism employed in this paper. It is basically because the terms $`\kappa ^2A_\alpha ^jA_j^\beta |\stackrel{}{t}|^2`$ (or $`\kappa ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2||^2`$) and $`A_\alpha ^jA_j^\beta R_{AB}^{AB}`$ (or $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2R_{AB}^{AB}`$) are cancelled out from the Lagrangian (2). If the term $`\kappa ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2||^2`$ exists in the Lagrangian, the bulk scalar could couple to the superpotentials $`W^I`$ on the branes by Eq. (32) when eliminating the auxiliary field $``$. However, a more general formalism might allow the soft mass term of the bulk scalar, $`\kappa ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2|\kappa _{}W^{IH}|^2`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2m_I^2M_{}^2/M_P^2`$) at tree level, since it apparently does not break any symmetry. Moreover, when the term $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2R_{AB}^{AB}`$ is present (generally when the metric on a quaternionic manifold with coordiates $`A_\alpha ^j`$ has a non-trivial form), a soft mass term of the bulk scalar can be also generated through the coupling between the bulk scalar and the F term of a hidden sector superfield like $`\kappa ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2|_z^{IH}|^2`$ ($`|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2m_I^2M_{}^2/M_P^2`$) in the Lagrangian. Such a coupling could be obtained after canonically normalizing the 5D gravity kinetic term. The coupling could be important in phenomenology . Here we will just follow the formalism of Ref. . In this formalism, a soft mass term of the bulk scalar can be generated at one loop. We will discuss it later.

## 4 Non-universal SUSY breaking soft parameters

In the potential (3), we note that the soft mass term of the bulk scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not generated by localized SUSY breaking at tree level. On the other hand, fields localized on the branes $`\varphi _i^I`$ obtain their soft masses only from their associated branes. Since the mass parameters $`m_I`$ are different in general,

$`m_Im_J\mathrm{for}IJ,`$ (47)
$`A`$ terms and soft scalar masses of brane fields are also different at tree level, unless the relevant brane scalar fields live on the same brane. This consequence is definitely different from that of the ordinary 4D SUGRA scenario. The latter corresponds to taking the limit $`L0`$ from the start and neglecting the delta functions in our model. Then, the auxiliary field $``$ does not discern the location of fields, and cross terms between the two brane contributions appear, for example, from $`||^2`$ as well as from $``$. Thus all of the $`A`$ terms and soft scalar masses receive contributions from both $`W^{1H}`$ and $`W^{2H}`$, and universality of SUSY breaking soft parameters is observed.

The different SUSY breaking masses are confirmed by cross-checking the gravitino mass terms. With Eqs. (22)–(26), the third term in Eq. (27) provides the localized gravitino masses,

$`m_{3/2,I}\kappa _{}^2W^{IH}m_I.`$ (48)
Therefore the gravitino acquires mass $`m_1`$ from B1 and $`m_2`$ from B2, so that the SUSY breaking scales are $`O(m_1)`$ and $`O(m_2)`$ at B1 and B2, respectively.

Although the SUSY breaking effects are generated through the direct coupling appearing in SUGRA at tree level and they are localized on the corresponding branes, they can be transmitted through “loops” to the bulk and even to the other branes below the compactification scale . The off-shell Lagrangian of the hypermultiplet contains the interaction term with the gravitino and $`t^2`$ ,

$`_{HYP}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{L}}A^\alpha \tau ^2\overline{\zeta }_\alpha \gamma ^m\psi _mt^2,`$ (49)
which survives under the $`S^1/Z_2`$ compactification. The VEV $`t^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_I\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)m_IM_{}`$ from SUSY breaking at the branes makes a bulk scalar’s soft mass generated at one loop, so that

$`\delta m_\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_IM_{}}{M_P^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}},`$ (50)
where $`1/L`$ is the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. Note that for $`1/L10^{16}`$ GeV, $`M_{}10^{17}`$ GeV, and $`m_110`$ TeV, $`\delta m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is of order a few GeV, which is quite small compared to other SUSY breaking soft masses.

We could exploit these phenomena for resolving the notorious flavor changing problem in SUGRA. We assume that

$``$ the first two MSSM generations reside at B1;

$``$ the third generation is at B2;

$``$ the two Higgs multiplets as well as gravity and gauge multiplets are in the bulk;

$``$ SUSY breakings arise from two hidden sectors localized on branes, and are subsequently transmitted by gravity. The SUSY breaking scale at B1 should be suitably higher than the breaking scale at B2.

Let us now consider gaugino masses. In Ref. , the gaugino can become massive when SUSY is broken in the hidden sector,

$`_{SYM}^{\mathrm{bulk}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{MN}F^{MN}+\mathrm{}2\kappa \overline{\lambda }\stackrel{}{\tau }\lambda \stackrel{}{t}+\mathrm{}\right],`$ (51)
where $`\lambda `$ is the gaugino which satisfies the symplectic Majorana condition. The coupling of the auxiliary field “$`\stackrel{}{t}`$” to $`\overline{\lambda }\stackrel{}{\tau }\lambda `$ means that the visible sector gaugino becomes massive either from the hidden sector gaugino condensates $`\overline{\lambda }^H\stackrel{}{\tau }\lambda ^H0`$, or if the hidden sector superpotential on brane obtains a VEV $`W^H0`$. After orbifolding, only $`t^1`$ and $`t^2`$ (or $`\tau ^1`$ and $`\tau ^2`$) contributions survive at low energy, and yield the 4D Majorana mass term. With $`t^2=_I\mathrm{\Delta }(y_I)m_IM_{}`$ from Eqs. (3) and (41), the gaugino mass at low energy is given

$`m_{1/2}m_1{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_P}}.`$ (52)
Note that the gaugino mass is lighter for a larger extra dimension. With $`m_1=10`$ TeV and $`M_{}=10^{17}`$ GeV (or $`1/L10^{16}`$ GeV), the gaugino mass is of order 1 TeV, which manages to preserve the gauge hierarchy solution. This could be decreased to a few hundred GeV for $`1/L10^{12}`$ GeV.

Let us consider another possibility for lowering the gaugino mass. We can introduce an additional set of the localized gauge multiplet ($`A_m`$, $`\lambda `$, $`D`$) at B2, which respects the same gauge symmetry as the bulk gauge multiplet does. Consider the Lagrangian

$`_{SYM}=\left[_{SYM}^{\mathrm{bulk}}+N\delta (yL)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{mn}F^{mn}+i\overline{\lambda }\gamma ^m𝒟_m\lambda +\mathrm{}\right)\right],`$ (53)
with the same gauge coupling. Below the compactification scale $`1/L`$, the coefficient of the gauge kinetic term is given by $`(1+N)/4`$. Thus canonical normalization of the kinetic term results in the suppressed (bulk) gauge coupling $`g/\sqrt{1+N}`$, as well as a suppressed gaugino mass $`m_{1/2}/(1+N)`$. Hence with $`NO(10)`$ (and strong coupling $`gO(1)`$) and $`1/L10^{16}`$ GeV, a gaugino mass in the 100 GeV range can be achieved. In such a way, the masses of the various gauginos in MSSM also could be made non-universal.

To realize electroweak symmetry breaking in the MSSM, both the $`\mu `$ term and the “$`B`$” term ($`\mu m_{3/2}`$) of the right magnitudes must be present. Hence it is desirable that the $`\mu `$ term is located at B2. From the weight assignments for hypermultiplets, the ordinary bilinear $`\mu `$ term is not allowed in our example, so we should assume that the $`\mu `$ term derives either from some trilinear or from a non-renormalizable interaction between two Higgs and some singlet field localized at B2 which develops a suitable non-zero VEV. We will not pursue this further in this paper.

The electroweak Higgs doublets reside in the bulk, and their soft mass squareds at $`M_{}`$ arise predominantly through loops involving quarks and squarks rather than loops involving fields in the gravity multiplet as in Eq. (50). But their values at $`M_{}`$ are also much smaller than the weak scale. The large top Yukawa coupling and the heavy first two generations’ soft mass squareds will drive this to $`(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\mathrm{TeV})^2`$ at $`M_Z`$ as in the 4D ESUSY. Consequently, an adjustment of TeV scale parameters may be needed to achieve the desired 100 GeV electroweak symmetry breaking scale.

Finally, mixing of the first two generations with the third generation can arise effectively through one loop interactions below the compactification scale by introducing suitable heavy bulk fields belonging to vector-like representations of the SM gauge symmetry that couple to the ordinary MSSM particles on the branes. For neutrino mixings, we could introduce right-handed neutrinos in the bulk. We will not go into detail here.

## 5 Conclusion

In conclusion, through the use of off-shell SUGRA formalism and brane world framework, we have shown that gravity mediated SUSY breaking effects can be non-universal. With SUSY breakings in two hidden sectors localized on distinct branes, the gravity mediated soft masses of the bulk visible sector, gauginos, and the gravitino result from both branes, while SUSY breaking tree level effects in the localized visible sector fields arise only from the hidden sector living at the same brane. The soft masses for the bulk scalars are generated radiatively. This enables us to overcome the SUSY flavor problem geometrically by generating soft scalar masses $``$10–20 TeV for the first two generations, while the third generation masses are of order a TeV. Radiative electroweak breaking can be realized in this approach, with TeV scale quantities conspiring to realize the 100 GeV electroweak scale.

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Riotto and G. Dvali for useful discussions. The work is partially supported by the DOE under contract number DE-FG02-91ER40626.


text:
# Temperature dependence of the collective mode and its influence on the band splitting in bilayer cuprates

## I Introduction

One of the long standing unsolved problems in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprates was the detection of band doubling in bilayer materials. In these compounds one naturally expects a splitting of the quasiparticle (QP) dispersion in an antibonding (AB) and bonding band (BB) due to finite hopping of charge carriers between the two CuO2 planes. Only recently this feature has been measured in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ (Bi2212) FENG ; CHUANG ; DESSAU  above and below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The splitting turns out to be essentially zero along the diagonals $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ and (in the normal state) aquires a value between $`88meV`$ FENG  and $`110meV`$ CHUANG  at the $`(\pi ,0)`$ point of the Brillouin zone (BZ). In addition it seems that the magnitude of the energy splitting is constant over a large range of doping. CHUANG2  Most interestingly it turns out that for the same doping the splitting is only $`22meV`$ below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ FENG  contrary to the expectation that the hopping between planes $`t_{}`$ should be essentially temperature independent.

In this paper we show that the apparent reduction of the bilayer splitting below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ can be explained by the assumption that the charge carriers are coupled to bosons which frequency distribution evolves from a featureless structure well above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ (i.e. approaching that of a marginal Fermi liquid VARMA ) to a sharp, mode-like excitation at small temperatures. As a consequence, low energy QP excitations are essentially confined to energies up to the mode frequency $`\omega _0`$ which thus constitutes an upper limit for the splitting between AB and BB QP peaks (see Fig. 4). Moreover, the damping of excitations for energies larger than $`\omega _0`$ leads to a broad hump which turns out to be mainly determined by the bonding band (cf. Fig. 3c). This scenario is thus in agreement with recent ARPES experiments DESSAU  where this peak-dip hump structure at $`(\pi ,0)`$ has been resolved below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in addition to the bilayer splitting.

Numerous experiments now support the existence of a collective mode in the high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ materials most prominently exemplified by the appearance of a kink in the electron dispersion along $`(0,0)(\pi ,\pi )`$ as seen in ARPES VALLA ; LANZARA  (cf. also Fig. 2). Concerning the origin of the mode the various proposals include a magnetic resonance (see e.g. Ref. CAMP, ), the coupling to phonons LANZARA  or incommensurate charge-density waves (ICDW) GOETZ  as the source of the associated scattering. It has been argued CAMP  that the difference between peak and dip position of the photoemission line shape at $`(\pi ,0)`$ decreases as a function of doping as it is expected for the magnetic resonance frequency. An analagous analysis LANZARA  came to the conclusion that the frequency is essentially constant (if not slightly decreasing) upon doping thus resembling the behavior of a phonon mode. We have recently fitted GOE2  ARPES data taking into account also the feedback of the doping dependent superconducting (SC) gap. The extracted mode frequency is a strongly decreasing function of hole concentration reaching a value of $`\omega 40meV\mathrm{}50meV`$ around optimal doping. This behavior is thus consistent with a quantum critical point (QCP) located near optimal doping where the associated order parameter corresponds to ICDW formation. CAST  In fact, the formation of stripe order is now well established in a large class of cuprate compounds (for an overview see e.g. Ref. PROCEED, ). Most interestingly the coexistence of charge modulations and superconductivity has recently also been reported for the Bi2212 compound using scanning tunneling microscopy. HOFFMAN ; HOWALD  These experiments strongly support our view that ICDW scattering can also be responsible for the mode-like features as seen in ARPES experiments. In the following we substantiate this scenario by a detailed analysis of the temperature dependent collective mode which allows us to fit the experimentally observed bilayer splitting in the superconducting and normal state respectively by simply tuning the broadening of our phenomoneological bosonic spectrum.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we analyze available experimental data in order to elucidate the frequency and temperature dependence of the collective mode in Bi2212 materials. Based on these results the temperature dependent bilayer splitting is investigated within the ICDW mode scenario in Sec. III. We finally conclude our discussion in Sec. IV.

## II Temperature dependence of the collective mode

The coupling of charge carriers to a collective mode is reflected in a drop of the imaginary part of the electronic self-energy Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ below some characteristic mode frequency $`\omega _0`$. In Refs. KAMIN1, ; KAMIN2,  the ARPES line width, which is directly related to Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, has been analyzed for an optimally doped Bi2212 sample ($`T_\mathrm{c}`$=90K) as a function of frequency and temperature. In fact, it was observed that in the SC state Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is strongly reduced below $`70\mathrm{}80meV`$ which compares rather well with the drop of the scattering rate as obtained from infrared reflectivity measurements. PUCHKOV  Moreover, with increasing temperature there is a gradual change of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ towards a linear frequency dependence above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The corresponding marginal Fermi liquid (MFL) structure of the ARPES line shape is also discussed in Ref. VARMA2, .

In order to interpolate between these two limiting self-energies we consider the coupling of charge carriers to the following bosonic spectrum:

$$B(\omega )=\text{tanh}(\omega /(kT))F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )$$
(1)
where $`F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )`$ is a normalized distribution function centered around $`\omega _0`$ with halfwidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Assuming particle-hole symmetry with respect to the chemical potential and neglecting for the moment the influence of the SC gap NOTE , evaluation of the $`T=0`$ self-energy yields

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2N(0){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{min(\omega ,\omega _c)}{}}}𝑑\nu F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\nu )`$ (2)
$`\text{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2N(0){\displaystyle _0^{\omega _c}}𝑑\nu F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\nu )\text{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\nu +\omega }{\nu \omega }}\right|`$ (3)
Here $`\lambda `$ denotes the coupling constant, $`N(0)`$ corresponds to the density of states at the chemical potential and $`\omega _c`$ is an upper cutoff energy for the interaction.

In the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ where $`F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }0}(\omega )=\delta (\omega \omega _0)`$ Eqs. (2,3) describe the self-energy as arising from the coupling to a single oscillator mode. In this case one obtains the well-known step-function behavior ENGEL  of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )=1/2\lambda ^2N(0)\mathrm{\Theta }(|\omega |\omega _0)`$. Let us consider for illustrative purposes at first a rectangular distribution function $`F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )`$ with halfwidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and height $`1/(2\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for which the self-energy can be calculated analytically. As a result for finite but small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\omega _0`$ the step in Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ will evolve into a linear increase between $`\omega _0\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\omega _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Finally for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega _0`$ the MFL limit is reached where Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )\omega `$ for $`0<\omega <\omega _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Furthermore we evaluate the quasiparticle weight $`Z=\left(1(\mathrm{\Sigma }/\omega )_{\omega =0}\right)^1`$ which is given by

$$Z=\left[1+\frac{\lambda ^2N(0)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\text{ln}\frac{\omega _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega _0\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right]^1$$
(4)
and vanishes logarithmically when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approaches the mean mode frequency $`\omega _0`$. This result can be connected with recent ARPES experiments where the quasiparticle weight $`Z`$ as a function of temperature has been extracted from the line shape at $`(\pi ,0)`$. DING  In fact it was found that $`Z`$ drops significantly as temperature approaches $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ with a small but nonzero $`Z`$ also above $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. From Eq. (4) we thus conclude that the bosonic spectrum is governed by a distribution function $`F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )`$ with a strongly temperature dependent halfwidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$.

We have extracted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ by comparing eq. (4) with the experimentally determined quasiparticle weight (Fig. 4b in Ref. DING, ). The result is displayed in the inset of Fig. 1. This plot shows that in the SC state $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ continuously increases and reaches the MFL limit (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega _0`$) for $`TT_c`$.

With the extracted $`\mathrm{tanh}`$like form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ we now evaluate the temperature and frequency dependence of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for parameters which also fit the real part (see below). In Fig.1 we compare our results with ARPES data on an optimally doped Bi2212 sample VALLA  which support a scaling of Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a function of $`\omega /kT`$ characteristic for a MFL. However, from the remarkable agreement of our fit with experiment as shown in Fig. 1 we conclude that the presence of a collective mode in the $`48K`$ data cannot be excluded. We will see below that this is also consistent with the observed temperature dependence of Re $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as required by the Kramers-Kronig transformation. It is worth noting that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ was obtained from a fit to the quasiparticle weight at $`(\pi ,0)`$ whereas the experimental data shown in Fig. 1 are extracted from momentum distribution curves along the nodal direction. For large frequencies Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\lambda ^2N(0)`$ and thus in our scaled representation Fig. 1 the saturation decreases with increasing temperature. Note that this saturation is due to the upper cutoff frequency of our bosonic spectrum at frequency $`\omega _0+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Fig. 2a displays Re $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for parameters appropriate to fit the data extracted from ARPES experiments on an optimally doped Bi2212 sample. JOHN  Note that parameters are the same for both temperatures except the broadening $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which in the normal state is five times the value of that in the SC state. From our fit we thus again conclude that the increase of temperature alone is not sufficient in order to explain the change of Re $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from being significantly peaked at $`T=70K`$ to the much broader structure at $`T=130K`$. Instead the transition from $`T<T_c`$ to $`T>T_c`$ is accompanied by the transformation of the self-energy from mode-like to almost MFL behavior due to the broadening of the underlying bosonic spectrum Eq. (1).

In Figs. 2c-2d we show a contour plot of the spectral function $`A_k(\omega )=1/\pi \text{Im}1/(\omega \epsilon _k\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ))`$ calculated for the two values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as determined in Fig. 2a. The underlying bare dispersion is linearized around the Fermi momentum $`\epsilon _k(kk_F)`$ since experimental data for Re $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in Fig. 2a have been obtained by substracting the measured nodal dispersion from a noninteracting, linearized dispersion. JOHN

In addition Fig. 2b displays the spectral function for a rather narrow boson distribution ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1meV`$) at temperature T=0K. In this case the contour plot (Fig. 2b) reveals the occurence of a break in the dispersion separating a strongly mass enhanced low energy part from a broad dispersive high energy feature. With increasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (Figs. 2c, 2d) this break gradually changes into a kink which in the MFL limit ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega _0`$) reduces to a slight change of slope in the dispersion.

As already discussed in the introduction the kink in the dispersion along the nodal direction is now well established in a large class of cuprates. LANZARA  Moreover ARPES experiments on underdoped Bi2212 materials (cf. Fig. 2c of Ref. LANZARA, ) clearly support the existence of a ’break’ also in the nodal direction corresponding to the situation shown in Fig. 2b. Increasing doping or (and) increasing temperature leads to a decreased change of slope (i.e. less pronounced kink) around a characteristic binding energy (cf. Figs. 1b,e of Ref. LANZARA, ). Comparing with the spectra shown in Fig. 2b-2d all these data suggest that the charge carriers are coupled to a bosonic spectrum which is rather sharply peaked well below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ but gradually broadens with increasing temperature. In addition from the doping dependence of the kink we conclude that the minimum $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is smaller in the underdoped regime.

## III Bilayer splitting

Having analyzed the temperature and frequency behavior of the bosonic spectrum we now proceed by investigating its influence on the experimentally observed bilayer splitting in the SC and normal state of Bi2212 materials, respectively.

### III.1 Formalism

Starting point is the following hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma i}{}}[ϵ_𝐤\mu ]c_{i,\sigma }^{}(𝐤)c_{i,\sigma }(𝐤)+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma ij}{}}t_{}(𝐤)c_{i,\sigma }^{}(𝐤)c_{j,\sigma }(𝐤)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤i}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)[c_{i,}^{}(𝐤)c_{i,}^{}(𝐤)+c_{i,}(𝐤)c_{i,}(𝐤)]`$
where $`,i,j=1,2`$ label the planes of the bilayer system. We restrict on an in-plane d-wave SC gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2)[\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y)]`$ and the interlayer hopping is parametrized as $`t_{}(𝐤)=(t_{}^0/4)[\mathrm{cos}(k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_y)]^2`$ in agreement with LDA LIECHT1  calculations and ARPES experiments. FENG ; CHUANG  The bare energy spectrum $`ϵ_k`$ in each plane is a tight-binding dispersion including up to fifth-neighbor hopping. HOP  A comparison of the corresponding Fermi surface (FS) with ARPES data from Ref. FENG,  is shown in the inset of Fig.3c for an interplane matrix element $`t_{}^0=40meV`$. Diagonalization yields the four eigenvalues $`\pm E_{1,2}(k)=\pm \sqrt{(\epsilon _k\mu \pm t_{}(k))^2+\mathrm{\Delta }(k)^2}`$.

The system Eq. (5) is now coupled to ICDW type fluctuations via the action

$$S=\underset{q}{}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _1_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _2\underset{i,j}{}\rho _q^i(\tau _1)\chi _q^{ij}(\tau _1\tau _2)\rho _q^j(\tau _2)$$
(6)
where the susceptibility matrix contains both intra- ($`\chi _q^{}\chi _q^{i=j}`$) and interlayer ($`\chi _q^{}\chi _q^{ij}`$) contributions. Following the approach in Ref. GOETZ,  we consider an in-plane susceptibility which is factorized into an $`\omega `$\- and q-dependent part, i.e. $`\chi _q^{}(i\omega )=\lambda _{}^2W(i\omega )J(𝐪)`$. Here, $`\lambda _{}`$ denotes the intralayer coupling constant and $`W(i\omega )=𝑑\nu B(\nu )2\nu /(\omega ^2+\nu ^2)`$ is determined by the bosonic spectrum Eq. 1 for which we now consider a lorentzian shaped distribution function $`F_{\omega _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )`$. $`J(𝐪)`$ contains the charge-charge correlations which are enhanced at the four equivalent critical wave vectors $`(\pm q_x^c,\pm q_y^c)`$.

$$J(𝐪)=\frac{𝒩}{4}\underset{\pm q_x^c;\pm q_y^c}{}\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^2+2\mathrm{cos}(q_xq_x^c)\mathrm{cos}(q_yq_y^c)}.$$
(7)
N is a suitable normalization factor introduced to keep the total scattering strenght constant while varying $`\gamma `$. Note that for the chosen sign convention in Eq. (6) this kind of scattering leads to an effective attraction (in the static limit) between holes in the same plane. However, for the interlayer susceptibility the situation is different since the Coulomb repulsion perpendicular to the layers is only weakly screened and it is thus more likely to assume an effective repulsive interaction between holes in adjacent layers. For simplicity we therefore take in the following $`\chi _q^{}=\chi _q^{}`$ with $`\lambda _{}=\lambda _{}\lambda `$ in order to describe the physical situation where charge enhanced regions in one layer correspond to charge depleted areas in the other layer. In this regard the situation is analogous to AF correlated spin fluctuations between the planes LIECHT2  when the spin-exchange potential couples exclusively even and odd electron states. We therefore consider our approach as complementary to models which are based on the magnetic resonance as the relevant collective mode. Preliminary investigations on charge-instabilities in a bilayer Hubbard-Holstein model GOETZ03  also give evidence for the presence of ICDW fluctuations in the odd channel.

The leading order one-loop contributions to the intra- $`(\alpha =)`$ and interlayer $`(\alpha =)`$ self-energies read as

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^\alpha (k,i\omega )=\frac{\lambda ^2}{\beta }\underset{q,ip}{}\chi _q^\alpha (ip)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _zG_0^\alpha }}(kq,i\omega ip)\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _z}}$$
(8)
which in turn allows for the calculation of $`\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ via

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}=\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0}}+\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G}}$$
(9)
where the unperturbed Matsubara Greens function and self-energy are $`4\times 4`$ matrices and are given by

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0}}=(\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0^{}}}& \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0^{}}}\\ \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0^{}}}& \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{G_0^{}}}\end{array});\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}=(\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}& \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}\\ \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}& \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}\end{array}).$$

Finally by inverting the $`4\times 4`$ matrix equation (9) the spectral function can be extracted from $`A_k(\omega )=Im[G_{11}(k,\omega )+G_{33}(k,\omega )]`$.

### III.2 Results and Discussion

In Fig. 3 we present results for energy distribution curves (EDC) $`I(k,\omega )=f(\omega )A(k,\omega )`$ ($`f(\omega )`$ being the Fermi function) in the normal (T=90K) and SC (T=10K) state and wave-vectors are indicated in the inset of Fig. 3c. Parameters (cf. caption to Fig. 3) were chosen in order to reproduce the ARPES line shape features in Ref. FENG, . Consider first the normal state spectra shown in Fig. 3a. Due to the large value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the underlying boson spectrum the bonding band (BB) gives rise to a broad high energy feature in the EDC at $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$. Together with the antibonding band (AB) quasiparticle peak the EDC thus displays a normal state peak-dip hump structure. The coupling to the flat boson spectrum naturally also affects the peak-hump separation at $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$ which therefore is slightly larger ($`90meV`$) than the bare bilayer splitting ($`2t_{}^0=80meV`$). The MFL structure of both AB and BB spectral line shape is resolved in Fig. 3c. Upon scanning from $`(\pi ,0)`$ towards $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ first the AB peak goes through the chemical potential while the BB peak shifts to lower energy and sharpens due to the Im $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega `$ behavior. Finally between n8 and n9 also the BB peak crosses the Fermi energy. The AB and BB peak positions of the EDC curves from Fig. 3a are compared in Fig. 4 with ARPES data from Ref. FENG, .

In the SC state the narrow bosonic distribution ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10meV`$) induces a strong mass enhancement for quasiparticles in the binding energy range up to the mean mode frequency $`\omega _0`$. Both AB and BB line shapes display the standard peak-dip hump structure where the hump is more pronounced for the BB (cf. curve s4 in Fig. 3c). The stronger renormalization of the BB band is due to the fact that (for our choice $`\chi _q^{}=\chi _q^{}`$) the self energies of AB and BB bands

$$\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^{A,B}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2\beta }\{(\chi _q^{}\pm \chi _q^{})\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _zG_0^A\tau _z}}+(\chi _q^{}\chi _q^{})\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\tau _zG_0^B\tau _z}}\}$$
(10)
are determined by fermionic excitations of BB and AB bands, respectively. Since the van-Hove singularity of the BB band is well separated from the chemical potential this results in a small AB self-energy and thus a relatively weak AB hump feature. In contrast the closeness of the AB van-Hove singularity to $`\mu `$ induces large BB self-energy effects and therefore a more pronounced BB hump structure.

The SC low energy ’quasiparticle’ peaks are confined to energies smaller than $`\omega _0`$ and the corresponding quasiparticle weight decreases with increasing binding energy. As a consequence the quasiparticle peak of the bonding band is strongly suppressed at $`𝐤=(\pi ,0)`$ (curve s0 in Fig. 3b) and reemerges when the bare energy of the bonding band approaches $`\omega _0`$ (curve s2 in Fig. 3b). In Fig. 4 where the low energy peak positions are shown as a function of $`k_x`$ the dispersion of the BB therefore seems to be interrupted around $`(\pi ,0)`$ in agreement with the experimental data of Ref. FENG, . Moreover, Fig. 4 displays one of the main results of this paper. Whereas in the normal state the bilayer splitting is around $`90meV`$ the low energy peaks in the SC state are separated by $`20meV`$ only. As already discussed above the decreased bilayer splitting in the SC state is only due to the sharpening of the collective mode at low temperatures and not influenced by any other parameter in our calculation.

## IV Conclusion

To conclude, we have shown that the self-energy as extracted from ARPES experiments can be consistently described within a model where the charge carriers are coupled to a bosonic distribution centered around some mean frequency $`\omega _0`$. The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of this spectrum turns out to be strongly temperature dependent as can be concluded from the temperature dependent quasiparticle weight (cf. inset to Fig. 1), the evolution of the kink along the node (Figs. 2b-2d) and the corresponding change of Re $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in Fig. 2a with temperature. Within the ICDW scenario the associated scattering can account for the experimentally observed DESSAU  appearance of an additional peak-dip hump structure below Tc near the $`(\pi ,0)`$ points of the BZ (curve s4 in Fig. 3c). Moreover, the strong QP mass enhancement below Tc due to the small value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ leads to an apparent reduction of the bilayer splitting and a suppression of BB spectral weight around the $`(\pi ,0)`$ points (Fig. 4).

Note that phonons cannot account for the temperature dependence of the collective mode although their linewidth may undergoe some sharpening upon entering the SC state. For temperatures well below the phonon frequency one can estimate the linewidth ALLEN  from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\pi }{2}N(0)\lambda \omega _0^2`$ which yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<<\omega _0`$ also for large coupling $`\lambda 1\mathrm{}2`$. This is not enough to account for the strong damping as discussed above.

On the other hand the temperature dependent width of the bosonic spectrum can at least be made plausible within the ICDW scenario. At low temperatures the large intensity CDW mode at energy $`\omega _0`$ and wave vecors $`(\pm q_c,\pm q_c)`$ is part of a band of excitations which for $`q0`$ corresponds to the phason mode of the system. It is known GRUENER  that the effective mass of the phason strongly increases with temperature due to the decreasing CDW gap inducing a significant broadening of the bandwidth of charge excitations. In fact, preliminary results obtained for the stripe phase of the Hubbard model VARL  near the CDW transition have already revealed a rather continuous frequency spectrum in the charge susceptibility centered around $`q_c`$ corresponding to the stripe periodicity. However, a more detailed investigation of this temperature dependence remains an interesting issue for future work.

## V Acknowledgments

We would like to thank M. Grilli for helpful comments and a critical reading of the manuscript.