text:
# Belief revision and rational inference This work was partially supported by the Jean and Helene Alfassa fund for research in Artificial Intelligence

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Belief Revision

Belief revision is the study of the way an agent revises or should revise its beliefs when acquiring new information. A popular framework for this study has been initiated by Alchourón, Makinson and Gärdenfors in , in which a set of rationality postulates for theory revision were put forward. It assumes beliefs are sets of formulas closed under logical consequence (i.e., theories) and that new information is a formula. The present work fits squarely in this framework. An up-to-date description of this very active research area may be found in . The basic assumptions underlying AGM’s viewpoint may be summarized as follows.

* The agent holds beliefs: those beliefs constitute some logical theory. There is no additional structure to the agent’s theory. No beliefs are stronger than others.
* The agent’s knowledge is changing but the world is not. Keller and Winslett  noticed that updating an agent’s knowledge about a changing world is a process that is altogether different from theory revision. Katsuno and Mendelzon  proposed different postulates for belief update.
* When a new piece of information $`\phi `$ is presented to an agent that holds a theory $`K`$ with which $`\phi `$ is inconsistent, the agent will give precedence to the information $`\phi `$, over the theory $`K`$. The theory $`K`$ is considered as less important or less reliable than the new information $`\phi `$ with which it conflicts: the agent revises a weakly held theory with a piece of more reliable information. This policy is obviously not the right one in every situation, but AGM assume the agent must have some good reason to prefer $`\phi `$ to $`K`$. As noticed just above, this reason is not that $`\phi `$ describes some change in a world the previous state of which was described by $`K`$.
* When revising a theory $`K`$ with some formula $`\phi `$, the agent will try keep as much as possible of its previously held beliefs: $`K`$. In particular, if $`\phi `$ is consistent with $`K`$, the agent will keep all of $`K`$ in its new belief set. This assumption will be called the maximal retention assumption.

AGM did not describe any specific method to revise theories that would be the right way of revising under the assumptions above. They thought that there is probably no unique best way of revising. Instead, they proposed a set of rationality postulates they claimed any reasonable method for belief revision should satisfy. The original postulates were extended in . This work accepts, under the assumptions above, the extended AGM postulates. These postulates are meant to express formally the basic assumptions described above. These postulates will be presented now and their adequacy in expressing those basic assumptions will be discussed in section 1.3.

### 1.2 The AGM postulates

The AGM postulates for belief revision are listed below: $`𝒞n`$ denotes logical consequence and, for an arbitrary theory $`K`$ (i.e., $`K`$ is a set of formulas closed under logical consequence), $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$ denotes the result of revising $`K`$ by $`\phi `$. The inconsistent theory, i.e., the full language, is denoted by $`K_{}`$. It is a legal argument for $``$. This paper could have been developed in the more demanding framework, where the first argument of a revision, $`K`$, must be a consistent theory: the results are essentially the same.

For a justification of these postulates, in addition to the papers cited above, the reader may also consider . Since the notion of a revision is considered by philosophers as not being primitive, but derived from that of theory contraction, the justification of the postulates below is generally given by justifying corresponding postulates for contractions and translating back and forth with the help of the Levi and Gardenförs identities. Not all specialists are in complete agreement concerning the philosophical underpinnings of theory revision, the status of the Levi and Gardenförs identities, or of the postulates below. The present work does not attack those deep questions directly, but presents technical results concerning the postulates that, in turn, help understand what are the processes that the postulates may reasonably be thought of as modelling and what are those they do not model satisfactorily. For any theory $`K`$ and formulas $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$:

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟏}K\phi \mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{theory}.$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟐}\phi K\phi .$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟑}K\phi 𝒞n(K,\phi ).$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{If}\neg \phi K,\mathrm{then}𝒞n(K,\phi )K\phi .$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟓}\mathrm{If}K\phi \mathrm{is}\mathrm{inconsistent},\mathrm{then}\phi \mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{logical}\mathrm{contradiction}.$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟔}\mathrm{If}\phi \psi ,\mathrm{then}K\phi =K\psi .$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟕}K(\phi \psi )𝒞n(K\phi ,\psi ).$$

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟖}\mathrm{If}\neg \psi K\phi ,\mathrm{then}𝒞n(K\phi ,\psi )K(\phi \psi )$$

The reader may notice that, in each of the postulates in which the revision symbol ($``$) appears more than once ($`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$), the theory that appears on the left of the different occurrences of the revision symbol is the same. We take this as an indication that those postulates do not say much on the way the revised theory $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$ depends on $`K`$. We shall come back to this point in section 1.3. We shall call a revision $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$ a mild revision, when $`\neg \phi K`$ and a severe revision, if $`\neg \phi K`$.

The AGM postulates have been found to be intimately related to rational consequence relations (see ). The translation is precisely described by the following Theorem.

###### Theorem 1

If $``$ is a revision operation that satisfies the AGM postulates, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$, and $`K`$ is a theory, the relation $`\text{ }^{K,}`$ defined by

$$\alpha \text{ }^{K,}\beta \mathrm{iff}\beta K\mathrm{\alpha }$$
(1)
is rational and consistency-preserving.

Proof: We just remind the reader that consistency preservation is the following property: if $`\alpha \text{ }\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}`$, then $`\alpha `$ is a logical contradiction. The definition of all the other properties mentioned in this proof may be found in . Suppose $`K`$ is a theory and $``$ satisfies the AGM postulates. The consequence relation $`\text{ }^{K,}`$ satisfies Reflexivity by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, Left Logical Equivalence by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$, Right Weakening and And by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, Conditionalization (i.e., (S)) by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$, and Rational Monotonicity by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$. It is consistency-preserving by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$. Any such relation is rational.

Notice that postulates $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ are not used in the proof of Theorem 1. This point will be discussed after we have proved Theorem 2.

One may expect the converse to Theorem 1 to hold: if $`\text{ }`$ is an arbitrary, rational and consistency-preserving relation, then, there is a theory $`K`$ and a revision $``$ satisfying $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ such that $`\alpha `$ $`\text{ }`$$`\beta `$ iff $`\beta K\alpha `$. This result holds. It is not difficult to present a direct proof at this stage. An indirect proof will be preferred and presented in Theorem 4.

### 1.3 Critique of the AGM postulates

The AGM postulates have been discussed in the literature, in particular in ,  and . Some authors reject some of the postulates, in particular $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$, the same and others propose to extend the AGM postulates by additional postulates. The main line of critique of the AGM postulates seems to be that they do not constrain the revisions enough: some revisions allowed by the postulates do not seem reasonable. There are three points, in particular, on which it seems that the postulates do not say enough, or, more precisely, one could feel that additional acceptable postulates may be proposed.

* The postulates do not seem to enforce the principle of maximal retention when the formula $`\phi `$ is inconsistent with the theory $`K`$.
* They do not seem to impose enough constraints on the revision of two different theories by the same formula, or by related formulas.
* They do not seem to enforce enough constraints on iterated revisions, e.g., concerning the relation between $`K`$, $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ and $`(K\phi )`$$``$$`\psi `$.

The proposals to drop some of the AGM postulates seem to stem from the desire to add some other postulates with which they are inconsistent, more than from a direct critique of the postulates in question. The first point raised above has been the reason for the interest in maxichoice contractions manifested by AGM, but no suitable additional postulate has been proposed to deal with it. The second point has been very aptly discussed in . The authors write: “Revision is an operation of two arguments, forming $`Ax`$ out of theory $`A`$ and proposition $`x`$. On the other hand, nonmonotonic inference conceived as an operation $`𝒞(x)`$ defined as $`\{yx\text{ }y\}`$ is a function of only one argument $`x`$. For this reason the logic of theory change is potentially more general than the logic of nonmonotonic inference, in that it allows the possibility of variation in the other argument $`A`$. Potentially, because this possibility has hardly been explored. The postulates for revision presented in  all concern the case where the theory $`A`$ is held constant”. We shall show, in the sequel, that the third point is intimately related to the second one. This paper will present an additional postulate constraining the way one may revise different theories by the same formula. Its main result is that this additional postulate precisely reduces the generality of revisions in a way that makes revision isomorphic to nonmonotonic inference. It will be shown that some of the additional postulates proposed in the literature are incompatible with the AGM axioms and that those that are not, are implied by our postulate.

### 1.4 Plan of this paper

In section 2, the additional postulates that were previously proposed in the literature, by Katsuno and Mendelzon on one hand, and by Darwiche and Pearl on the other hand, are described and discussed. In section 3 the minimal influence postulate, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, is presented and justified on intuitive grounds. Some first consequences of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ that concern iterated revisions are then proven. In section 3.3 and 3.4, its relations with the postulates of sections 2.1 and 2.2, respectively, are analyzed. In section 4.1, we prove the main result of this paper: revisions that satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ stand in one-to-one correspondence with rational, consistency-preserving relations. In section 4.2 a conservative extension result, a model-theoretic description of revision, and the converse to Theorem 1 are proven. We discuss, then, in section 4.3, the meaning of this result for the ontology of theory revision. Section 5 discusses the existence of two conflicting views on iterated revisions, concludes and describes some open questions.

## 2 Additional postulates previously proposed

### 2.1 The Katsuno and Mendelzon postulate

In , Katsuno and Mendelzon considered the following postulate.

$$\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}(KK^{})\phi =(K\phi )(K^{}\phi ).$$

Reasonable as it seems, this postulate is nevertheless inconsistent with the AGM postulates. This is probably the reason why Katsuno and Mendelzon dropped or weakened some of the AGM postulates in the final version of their paper. The postulate that will be proposed in this paper is closely related to $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$, therefore we shall analyze it in some detail. Our first remark is that any revision that satisfies the AGM postulates also satisfies a special case (the mild case) of $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$.

###### Proposition 1

If $``$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, then, for any $`\phi `$ such that $`\neg \phi KK^{}`$, $`(KK^{})\phi =(K\phi )(K^{}\phi )`$.

The proof is obvious. Our second remark is that $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$ may be broken into two halves.

###### Proposition 2

The postulate $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$ is equivalent to the following two properties:

$$\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}\mathrm{If}KK^{},\mathrm{then}K\phi K^{}\phi ,\mathrm{and}$$

$$\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.2}(K\phi )(K^{}\phi )(KK^{})\phi .$$

The proof is obvious. Property $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}`$ has been named the postulate of Addition Monotonicity and considered by Gärdenfors, Makinson and Segerberg in . Despite its intuitive appeal (shouldn’t the revised theory depend monotonically on the revised theory?), it has been shown to be inconsistent with the AGM postulates.

###### Proposition 3

There is no revision operation that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}`$.

Proof: Suppose $``$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}`$. Let $`\phi `$ be an arbitrary formula that is not a logical contradiction. By $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}`$, we have:

$$𝒞n(\phi )\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}K_{}\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}.$$

But, since $`\phi `$ is not a logical contradiction, $`\neg \mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}𝒞n(\phi )`$ and, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, we have $`𝒞n(𝒞n(\phi ),\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞})𝒞n(\phi )\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$. We conclude that $`\phi 𝒞n(\phi )\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$, and, therefore, $`\phi K_{}\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$. But the set of all formulas that are not a logical contradiction is inconsistent and $`K_{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$ is inconsistent, contradicting $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$.

It will be shown in section 3.3 that the additional postulate we propose, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, implies $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.2}`$ and a special case of $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}`$.

### 2.2 The Darwiche and Pearl postulates

In , Darwiche and Pearl proposed four additional postulates. Notice that $`K`$$``$$`\psi `$$``$$`\phi `$ means $`(K\psi )`$$``$$`\phi `$.

$$(\mathrm{C1})\mathrm{If}\phi \psi ,\mathrm{then}K\psi \phi =K\phi .$$

$$(\mathrm{C2})\mathrm{If}\phi \neg \psi ,\mathrm{then}K\psi \phi =K\phi .$$

$$(\mathrm{C3})\mathrm{If}\psi K\phi ,\mathrm{then}\psi K\psi \phi .$$

$$(\mathrm{C4})\mathrm{If}\neg \psi K\phi ,\mathrm{then}\neg \psi K\psi \phi .$$

It will be shown in section 3.4 that the postulates (C1), (C3) and (C4) are implied by our additional postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. The justifications given by Darwiche and Pearl for those postulates are therefore indirect justifications for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. The postulate (C2), contrary to the claims of Darwiche and Pearl, is inconsistent with the AGM axioms.

###### Proposition 4

There is no revision that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and (C2).

Proof: Suppose $``$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and (C2). Let $`\phi `$ be any tautology, say true and $`\psi `$ be any logical contradiction, say false. We have $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}\neg \mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}`$. The postulate (C2) therefore implies that $`K\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}=K\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$. But, for any theory $`K`$, $`K\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}=K_{}`$ by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Therefore, for any $`K`$, $`K\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}=K_{}\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$. But, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, for any consistent theory $`K`$, $`K\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}=K`$. Since $`K_{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}`$ does not depend on $`K`$, we conclude that all consistent theories are equal. A contradiction.

## 3 The minimal influence postulate

### 3.1 The postulate

The postulate we propose to add to the AGM postulates is the following.

$$𝐊\mathrm{𝟗}\mathrm{For}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{theories}K,K^{}\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\neg \phi K,\neg \phi K^{}K\phi =K^{}\phi .$$

The postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is obviously equivalent to: if $`\neg \phi K`$, then $`K\phi =K_{}\phi `$. Its meaning is that, if $`\neg \phi `$ is an element of $`K`$, i.e., the revision of $`K`$ by $`\phi `$ is a severe revision, then the result of revising $`K`$ by $`\phi `$ does not depend on $`K`$. Any revision that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, satisfies:

$$K\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}K_{}\phi \mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Such a revision is therefore determined by its restriction to $`K_{}`$. $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ characterizes those revision systems in which the revision $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$ depends mainly on $`\phi `$ and only minimally on $`K`$ (in the case of a mild revision). Remark also that, for any revision $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, the new postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is equivalent to: $`K\phi =𝒞n(K,\phi )\phi `$.

The postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, at first sight, does not seem to be what one is looking for. First, it seems in danger of being inconsistent with the AGM postulates. This concern will be addressed in full in section 4. But, also, one probably feels that the revisions of $`K`$ should depend on $`K`$ in a major way, even when one considers a severe revision. The feeling that some postulate should be added is widespread and this paper will present formal arguments as to why $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is the right postulate to add. Those reasons will not completely dissipate a first negative reaction to $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. The source of this clash between formal arguments and intuitive reaction probably lies in the philosophical underpinnings of theory revision and the general framework chosen by AGM to study theory revision. This paper claims that, in the framework chosen by AGM, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is the right postulate to be added. The AGM framework does not seem to be the one in which to study iterated revisions.

We shall now present direct justification for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. The postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is a special case of Darwiche and Pearl’s postulate (C2) described in section 2.2, assuming $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Take, there, $`\psi `$ to be a logical contradiction. Since $`K\psi =K_{}`$, one obtains $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. Anybody convinced by their defense of (C2) will endorse $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. Our defense of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ will be presented now. Notice that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is equivalent to the following two properties: they will be justified separately.

$$𝐊\mathbf{9.1}\mathrm{For}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{theory}K\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\neg \phi K,K\phi K_{}\phi $$

$$𝐊\mathbf{9.2}\mathrm{For}\mathrm{any}\mathrm{theory}K\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}\neg \phi K,K_{}\phi K\phi $$

The first, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.1}`$ is relatively easy to justify. It is a special case of $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.1}`$, i.e., the postulate of Addition Monotonicity. This postulate has been favorably considered by many: it is very natural to hope that the more is believed before a revision, the more is believed after. None of the many articles cited above that discuss this postulate rejects it on the grounds its meaning seems unwanted, and the only problem found with it has been that it is inconsistent with the AGM postulates. The special case proposed here, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.1}`$, does not fall prey to this criticism, it is consistent with the AGM postulates, and should be adopted.

The second, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}`$, is more difficult to justify. A formally weaker postulate, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$, will be presented and justified in a direct way. It will then been shown that, in the presence of other AGM postulates, it implies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}`$. The consideration of a similar property was suggested by Isaac Levi.

$$𝐊\mathbf{9.2}^{}\mathrm{If}\psi K\mathrm{and}\psi K_{}\phi ,\mathrm{then}\psi K\phi .$$

Our justification for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$ is the following. If $`\psi K`$, then the principle of maximal retention implies we should try to keep $`\psi `$ in $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$. If $`\psi K_{}\phi `$, we know that $`\psi `$ may be kept in $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$ (in particular $`\psi `$ does not contradict $`\phi `$), $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$ says that, in this case, we should have $`\psi `$ in $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$. It is easy to see that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}`$ implies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$, in the presence of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$. It will now be shown that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$ implies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}`$.

###### Proposition 5

Any revision $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}`$.

Proof: Let $``$ satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$. Suppose $`\neg \phi K`$, and $`\psi K_{}\phi `$. We must show that $`\psi K\phi `$. But, $`\phi \psi K_{}\phi `$ and $`\phi \psi K`$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$, we conclude that $`\phi \psi K\phi `$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, then, $`\psi L\phi `$.

The rest of this paper is devoted to proving consequences of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$: the intuitive appeal of those consequences provides indirect justification for it. In particular, in sections 3.3 and 3.4, it will be shown that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ implies most of the additional postulates that have been previously proposed in the literature. All the arguments in favor of those postulates, in particular those developed in  for (C1), (C3) and (C4), provide indirect support for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. Our representation result, Theorem 2, and the analysis of section 4.3 provide, both, a soundness result that shows that many revisions satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, and an ontology for those revisions. This provides additional indirect justification for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$.

It seems that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ contradicts, in a certain degree, the assumption of maximal retention. If $`\neg \phi KK^{}`$, and $`\psi K`$ but $`\psi K^{}`$, then a revision $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ will have to let go of $`\psi `$ when revising $`K`$ by $`\phi `$ or to let go of $`\neg \psi `$ when revising $`K^{}`$ by $`\phi `$. The meaning of this remark is that one cannot retain maximally always, one must compromise with the assumption of maximal retention in certain cases to be able to apply it in other cases, as, e.g., in the justification of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathbf{9.2}^{}`$.

### 3.2 First consequences: iterated revisions

Our understanding of the AGM framework, in which revisions are operations of two arguments, a theory and a formula, does not require any special mention of iterated revisions: the result of revising $`K`$ first by $`\psi `$ and then by $`\phi `$ is the result of revising by $`\phi `$ the theory that is the result of revising $`K`$ by $`\psi `$. Some authors, for example ,  and , take a different view and prefer to treat revisions as operating on a fixed theory and treat iterated revisions as a special case of varying this theory. This attitude is methodologically at odds with the AGM point of view, and we shall argue, in section 5.1, that it tries to answer a different question. Discussion about this approach and its relations to the present work is postponed to section 5.1.

It is interesting to consider the meaning of our postulate for iterated revisions. There are two fundamental cases to consider: the case where revising by $`\psi `$ and then by $`\phi `$ is equivalent to revising by the conjunction $`\psi \phi `$, and the case where it is equivalent to revising by the second formula alone, $`\phi `$. Our result concerning the first case does not use $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$: if the second revision is mild then the iterated revision is equivalent to the direct revision by the conjunction.

###### Proposition 6

Let $``$ be a revision operation that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$. If $`\neg \phi K\psi `$, then $`(K\psi )\phi =K(\psi \phi )`$.

Proof: Assume $`\neg \phi K\psi `$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$, $`𝒞n(K\psi ,\phi )=K(\psi \phi )`$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, $`𝒞n(K\psi ,\phi )=(K\psi )\phi `$.

For the second case, we have three different results. First, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ alone implies that $`K\psi \phi =K\phi `$ if one has $`\neg \phi K\psi `$ and $`\neg \phi K`$. Secondly, we have the following.

###### Proposition 7

Let $``$ be a revision operation that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. If $`\neg \phi K(\psi \phi )`$, then $`(K\psi )\phi =K\phi `$.

Proof: Suppose $`\neg \phi K(\psi \phi )`$. We are going to show that $`\neg \phi `$ is an element of both $`K`$$``$$`\psi `$ and $`K`$ and we shall conclude by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. To show that $`\neg \phi K\psi `$, we consider two cases. First, if $`\neg \psi K(\psi \phi )`$, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$, we have

$$\neg \phi 𝒞n(K(\psi \phi ),\psi )K((\psi \phi )\psi )=K\psi .$$

Secondly, if $`\neg \psi K(\psi \phi )`$, since $`\neg \phi `$ and $`\psi \phi `$ are also elements of $`K`$$``$$`(\psi \phi )`$ (by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$), we conclude that $`K`$$``$$`(\psi \phi )`$ is inconsistent. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$, $`\psi \phi `$ is a logical contradiction and $`\neg \phi `$ is a tautology and, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, an element of $`K`$$``$$`\psi `$. It is left to us to show that $`\neg \phi K`$. But, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$,

$$\neg \phi K(\psi \phi )𝒞n(K,\psi \phi )𝒞n(K,\phi ).$$

We conclude that $`\neg \phi K`$.

The third result of this family is perhaps the most striking. It generalizes the postulates (C1) and (C3) of Darwiche and Pearl.

###### Proposition 8

Let $``$ be a revision operation that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. If $`\psi K\phi `$, then $`(K\psi )\phi =K\phi `$.

The meaning of Proposition 8 is very natural: if revising $`K`$ by $`\phi `$ would convince the agent that $`\psi `$ is true, then revising $`K`$, first by $`\psi `$, and then by $`\phi `$ amounts to revising, first by $`\psi `$, and then by some information, $`\phi `$, that conditionally implies the first information. This boils down to revising first by some partial information and then by the full information. This is indeed expected to be equivalent to revising directly by the full information.

Proof: Suppose $`\psi K\phi `$. Two cases will be considered. Suppose, first, that $`\neg \phi K\psi `$. By Proposition 6, $`(K\psi )\phi =K(\psi \phi )`$. But $`\psi K\phi `$, and, by Theorem 1 and the properties of rational relations, $`\phi \text{ }^{K,}\psi `$ implies that, for any $`\chi `$, $`\phi \text{ }^{K,}\chi `$ iff $`\phi \psi \text{ }^{K,}\chi `$. Therefore $`K\phi =K(\phi \psi )`$. We conclude that $`(K\psi )\phi =K\phi `$.

Suppose, now, that $`\neg \phi K\psi `$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`\neg \phi 𝒞n(K,\psi )`$ and $`\psi \neg \phi K`$. But $`\psi K\phi `$, and, similarly, $`\phi \psi K`$. We conclude that $`\neg \phi K`$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, then, $`(K\psi )\phi =K\phi `$.

In the next sections, we shall examine in detail the relation between $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and the postulates previously proposed by, both, Katsuno and Mendelzon, and Darwiche and Pearl.

### 3.3 $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$

Our first result is that any revision that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ satisfies a special case of $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$.

###### Proposition 9

Let $``$ be any revision operation that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. If $`\neg \phi KK^{}`$, then $`(K\phi )(K^{}\phi )=(KK^{})\phi `$.

The proof is obvious. Our second result deals with $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.2}`$.

###### Proposition 10

Any revision operation $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}\mathbf{.2}`$.

Proof: For any revision $``$ that satisfies the assumptions, we must show that $`(K\phi )(K^{}\phi )(KK^{})\phi `$. Suppose, first, that $`\neg \phi KK^{}`$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, $`𝒞n(KK^{},\phi )(KK^{})\phi `$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$,

$$(K\phi )(K^{}\phi )𝒞n(K,\phi )𝒞n(K^{},\phi )=𝒞n(KK^{},\phi ).$$

Suppose, now, that $`\neg \phi KK^{}`$. We conclude easily by Proposition 9.

Our conclusion is that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ implies all the cases of $`\mathrm{𝐔𝟖}`$ that are consistent with the AGM postulates, the case that is inconsistent with the AGM postulates being, as shown in Proposition 3, the case in which $`\neg \phi `$ is in $`K`$ but not in $`K^{}`$. In this case the revision of the intersection may be larger than the intersection of the revisions.

### 3.4 $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and the Darwiche and Pearl postulates

Let us, now, consider the postulates proposed by Darwiche and Pearl. We have seen, in Proposition 4, that no revision may satisfy (C2), but the following special case of (C2) is a consequence of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$.

###### Proposition 11

Any revision operation $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ satisfies:

$$(\mathrm{C2}^{})\mathrm{If}\neg \phi K\mathrm{and}\phi \neg \psi ,\mathrm{then}\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\psi }\phi =K\phi .$$

Proof: Suppose $`\neg \phi K`$ and $`\phi \neg \psi `$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, it is enough to prove that $`\neg \phi K\psi `$, but this is the case since $`\psi \neg \phi `$.

We shall now show that the other postulates considered by Darwiche and Pearl are consequences of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$.

###### Proposition 12

Any revision operation $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ satisfies (C1), (C3) and (C4).

Proof: For (C1), suppose $`\phi \psi `$. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`\phi K\phi `$ and, by Propostion 8, we conclude that $`K\psi \phi =K\phi `$.

For (C3), assume that $`\psi K\phi `$. By Propostion 8, $`K\psi \phi =K\phi `$. We conclude that $`\psi K\psi \phi `$.

For (C4), assume that $`\neg \psi K\phi `$. We must show that $`\neg \psi K\psi \phi `$. Assume, first, that $`\neg \phi K\psi `$. In this case, by Proposition 6, $`K\psi \phi =K(\phi \psi )`$. But $`\neg \psi K\phi `$ and therefore, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\phi \vDash ̸\neg \psi `$ and $`\phi \psi `$ is not a logical contradiction. By $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$, then, $`K`$$``$$`(\phi \psi )`$ is consistent and $`\neg \psi K(\phi \psi )`$. We conclude that $`\neg \psi K\psi \phi `$. Assume, then, that $`\neg \phi K\psi `$. By, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`\psi \neg \phi K`$. We shall show that $`\neg \phi K`$ and conclude, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, that $`K\psi \phi =K\phi `$. To show that $`\neg \phi K`$, it is enough, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, to show that $`KK\phi `$. We shall show that $`\psi \neg \phi K\phi `$, i.e., $`\phi \neg \psi K\phi `$. Since $`\phi K\phi `$, it is enough to show that $`\neg \psi K\phi `$, which holds by hypothesis.

As a corollary, we realize that (C1), (C3) and (C4) follow from (C2’).

###### Corollary 1

Any revision operation $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ and (C2’), satisfies (C1), (C3) and (C4).

Proof: We shall show that $``$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and conclude by Proposition 12. Suppose $`\neg \phi K`$. Since, $`\phi \neg \mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}`$, by (C2’), we have $`K\phi =K\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}\phi `$. But, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`K\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}=K_{}`$.

We have brought additional indirect justification for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$: it implies all the postulates proposed by Darwiche an Pearl, except (C2), that has been proved inconsistent. Some special case of (C2) is also implied by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$.

## 4 Representation of revisions by rational relations

### 4.1 Representation result

We shall now prove the main result of this paper: revision operations that satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ may be represented by rational, consistency-preserving relations. There is, even, a bijection between the former and the latter. This result is an improvement on the results of , that described a bijection between AGM revisions of a fixed theory $`L`$ and rational, consistency-presrving relations $`\text{ }`$ such that $`L=\{\alpha \mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}\text{ }\alpha \}`$. This correspondence shows that the postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ is consistent with the AGM postulates: there are revisions that satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, as many as rational, consistency-preserving relations.

###### Theorem 2

There exists a bijection between the set of revisions that satisfy the postulates $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and the set of consistency-preserving, rational relations. This map associates to every such revision $``$ the relation $`\text{ }_{}`$ defined by:

$$\phi \text{ }_{}\psi \mathrm{iff}\psi K_{}\phi .$$
(3)
The inverse map associates to any rational, consistency-preserving relation $`\text{ }`$ the revision $`_{}`$ defined by:

$$K_{}\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}\{\psi \phi \text{ }\psi \}\mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Note that the relation $`\text{ }_{}`$ defined in (3) is none other than the relation $`\text{ }^{K_{},}`$ defined in Theorem 1. Note also that the revision $`_{}`$ defined in (4) from the relation $`\text{ }`$ has a very natural meaning. It says that, in the case of a mild revision, revise as mandated by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, and in the case of a severe revision, disregard $`K`$ (since it is contradicted by the more solid information $`\phi `$) and replace it by $`\phi `$ together with all the formulas that the agent thinks are usually true when $`\phi `$ is.

Proof: Suppose first that $``$ is a revision that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, and let us show that the relation $`\text{ }_{}`$ defined in (3) is rational and consistency-preserving. This follows from Theorem 1 applied to $`K_{}`$ and $``$, since $`\text{ }_{}`$ is $`\text{ }^{K_{},}`$. Note that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ are not used in this part of the proof.

Suppose now that $`\text{ }`$ is a consistency-preserving, rational relation and let us show that the revision $`_{}`$ defined in (4) satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. The cases of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (by right weakening and “and”), $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (by reflexivity), $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (if $`\neg \phi K`$, $`𝒞n(K,\phi )=K_{}`$), $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ (by definition), $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ (by left logical equivalence), and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ (by definition) are easily dealt with. Let us show that $`_{}`$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$. Suppose $`K`$$`_{}`$$`\phi `$ is inconsistent. Then, either $`\phi \text{ }\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}`$ or $`\neg \phi K`$ and $`𝒞n(K,\phi )`$ is inconsistent. The latter is impossible, therefore $`\phi \text{ }\mathrm{𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐞}`$ and we conclude by consistency-preservation. For $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$, we must show that $`K_{}(\phi \psi )𝒞n(K_{}\phi ,\psi )`$. We shall consider two cases. Suppose first that $`\neg \phi K`$. Then $`\neg (\phi \psi )K`$ too. Suppose $`\chi K_{}(\phi \psi )`$. Then, $`\phi \psi \text{ }\chi `$. By conditionalization (i.e., rule S), we have $`\phi \text{ }\psi \chi `$ and, since $`\neg \phi K`$, $`\psi \chi K_{}\phi `$. Therefore, $`\chi 𝒞n(K_{}\phi ,\psi )`$. Suppose now that $`\neg \phi K`$. Then, $`K_{}\phi =𝒞n(K,\phi )`$, and $`𝒞n(K_{}\phi ,\psi )=𝒞n(K,\phi \psi )`$. But we have already shown that $`_{}`$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, therefore

$$K_{}(\phi \psi )𝒞n(K,\phi \psi ).$$

Finally, for $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$, suppose $`\neg \psi K_{}\phi `$. We have to show that

$$𝒞n(K_{}\phi ,\psi )K_{}(\phi \psi ),$$

or, equivalently that if $`\psi \chi K_{}\phi `$, then, $`\chi K_{}(\phi \psi )`$. We consider again two cases. If, first, $`\neg \phi K`$, then $`\phi \text{ }\psi \chi `$ and also $`\phi \text{ }\sim ̸\neg \psi `$, therefore, by rational monotonicity, $`\phi \psi \text{ }\psi \chi `$ and, by “and” and right weakening, $`\phi \psi \text{ }\chi `$. But $`\neg \phi K`$ and therefore $`\neg (\phi \psi )K`$ and we conclude that $`\chi K_{}(\phi \psi )`$. The second case we must consider is: $`\neg \phi K`$. Then $`K_{}\phi =𝒞n(K,\phi )`$ and, by hypothesis, $`\neg \psi `$ is not a member of this set. This implies that $`\neg \phi \neg \psi K`$. Therefore, $`K_{}(\phi \psi )=𝒞n(K,\phi \psi )`$. Therefore $`K_{}\phi =𝒞n(K,\phi )K_{}(\phi \psi )`$.

To complete the proof of the representation theorem, we have to show that the maps $`\text{ }_{}`$ and $`\text{ }_{}`$ are inverse maps, i.e., that $`\text{ }_{_{}}=\text{ }`$ and that $`_{_{}}=`$. For the first equality, we have $`\phi \text{ }_{_{}}\psi `$ iff $`\psi K_{}_{}\phi `$, iff $`\phi \text{ }\psi `$ since $`\neg \phi K_{}`$. For the second equality, we have

$$K_{_{}}\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}\{\psi \phi \text{ }_{}\psi \}\mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore,

$$K_{_{}}\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}K_{}\phi \mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

But, if $`\neg \phi K`$, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, $`K_{}\phi =K\phi `$, and if $`\neg \phi K`$, by $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$, $`𝒞n(K,\phi )=K\phi `$. Notice that the postulates used now, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ are those that were not used in the first part of this proof.

In section 1.2, in the discussion following the proof of Theorem 1, we noticed that any theory $`K`$ and any revision operation $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ to $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ defines a rational, consistency-preserving relation, the relation $`\text{ }^{K,}`$ defined in formula (1). We have shown, in Theorem 2, that any such relation is defined in this way by a specific theory $`K_{}`$ and some revision operation that satisfies not only $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$, but also $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. It does not mean that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ are redundant, i.e., derivable from the other postulates, but only that the mapping $`(K,)\text{ }^{K,}`$ is not injective. In fact, the reader will quickly realize that no postulate is redundant, though $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ may be weakened to $`K\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}K`$ in the presence of $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$. We take this to mean that postulates $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ say nothing about the nonmonotonic inference aspect of revision: they are orthogonal to it.

### 4.2 Consequences of the representation theorem

The first consequence that we shall draw from Theorem 2 is that the postulate $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ does not constrain the ways one may revise a fixed theory $`K`$ more than the AGM postulates already did: it only constrains the ways one may revise different theories by related formulas. If we consider an AGM revision $``$ and a fixed theory $`K`$, there is a revision that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and that revises the theory $`K`$, for any formula $`\phi `$, exactly as does $``$.

###### Theorem 3

Let $``$ a revision that satisfies the AGM postulates $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$. Then, for any theory $`K`$, there exists a revision $`_K`$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ and such that, for any $`\phi `$, $`K\phi =K_K\phi `$.

Proof: Let $``$ a revision that satisfies the AGM postulates $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ and $`K`$ an arbitrary theory. By Theorem 1, the relation $`\text{ }^{K,}`$, defined in equation (1) is rational and consistency-preserving. For simplifying notations, we shall denote $`\text{ }^{K,}`$ by $`\text{ }`$. By Theorem 2, the revision $`_{}`$, defined in equation 3, satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$. But, for any $`\phi `$,

$$K_{}\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}\{\psi \phi \text{ }^{K,}\psi \}\mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, by equation (1),

$$K_{}\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}K\phi \mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

But the right hand-side is equal to $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$.

From the proof above, one sees that the revision $`_K`$ is defined by:

$$L_K\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}K\phi \mathrm{if}\neg \phi L\hfill \\ 𝒞n(L,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
An model-theoretic description of $``$ will be given now. Suppose $``$ satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$, and $`\text{ }_{}`$ is the rational, consistency-preserving relation associated to it by equation (3). Let $`M`$ be any ranked model that defines $`\text{ }_{}`$ (see ). Note, that, since $`\text{ }_{}`$ is consistency-preserving, every propositional model is the label in $`M`$ of some state. For any theory $`K`$, let us define $`M_K`$ as the ranked model obtained from $`M`$ by creating, below the states of lowest rank in $`M`$, a new level containing a state for each propositional model of $`K`$ (and labeled by this model). Note that $`M`$ = $`M_K_{}`$. It is clear that $`M_K`$ is a ranked model. Let $`\text{ }_{M_K}`$ be the rational relation defined by $`M_K`$.

###### Proposition 13

$$\psi K\phi \mathrm{iff}\phi \text{ }_{M_K}\psi $$

Proof: The result follows from equation (2) and the definition of $`\text{ }_{M_K}`$. Note that there is some state at the lowest rank in $`M_K`$ that satisfies $`\phi `$ iff $`\neg \phi K`$. In this case $`\phi \text{ }_{M_K}\psi `$ iff $`\psi 𝒞n(K,\phi )`$.

An important remark, that will be developed in section 5.1, is that, even though $`M`$ (and $`\text{ }_{}`$) may be recuperated back from $`M_K`$ by leaving out the states of lowest rank, there is not enough information in $`\text{ }_{M_K}`$ to determine $`\text{ }_{}`$, or $`\text{ }_{M_L}`$ for $`LK`$. Think that one may be build a model $`M_K^{}`$ from $`M_K`$ by leaving out all the states of $`M_K`$ that satisfy $`K`$ except the states of lowest rank. The model $`M_K^{}`$ defines the same relation as $`M_K`$, but no trace is left in it of the original ranks in $`M`$ of the states that satisfy $`K`$. Our next consequence of the representation theorem is the converse of Theorem 1.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`\text{ }`$ be an arbitrary, rational, consistency-preserving relation. There is a theory $`K`$ and a revision $``$ that satisfies $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$ such that $`\phi \text{ }\psi `$ iff $`\psi K\phi `$.

Proof: Let $`\text{ }`$ be as above. Take $`K\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\{\alpha \mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}\text{ }\alpha \}`$. It is clear that $`K`$ is a theory. Take $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{}`$, defined in equation 4. For any $`\phi `$, we have:

$$K\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}\{\psi \phi \text{ }\psi \}\mathrm{if}\neg \phi K\hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

By the definition of $`K`$:

$$K\phi =\{\begin{array}{c}\{\psi \phi \text{ }\psi \}\mathrm{if}\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}\text{ }\neg \phi \hfill \\ 𝒞n(K,\phi )\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

But $`\text{ }`$ is rational and: $`K\phi =\{\psi \phi \text{ }\psi \}`$.

### 4.3 Revising with a rational, consistency-preserving relation

The definition of the revision $`_{}`$ in equation (4) proposes a certain ontology for theory revision. The agent has a certain rational, consistency-preserving relation in mind. This relation describes, as far as the agent knows, what follows from what by default, or in normal circumstances. When it receives some new information $`\phi `$, the agent revises its current belief set $`K`$ by either adding $`\phi `$ to its current belief set, if $`\phi `$ does not contradict $`K`$, or, if it contradicts $`K`$, by forgetting about $`K`$ altogether and adopting $`\phi `$ and all default assumptions that go with $`\phi `$ as its new belief set. In the latter situation, the agent adopts not only $`\phi `$ but all its usual, normal consequences also. This process seems very reasonable: when learning $`\phi `$ that contradicts its current beliefs $`K`$, the agent should probably not try to throw away as little of possible of $`K`$ to accommodate just $`\phi `$ but should throw away enough of $`K`$ to accommodate also the most plausible consequences of $`\phi `$. Remember that it is a basic assumption of the AGM approach that $`\phi `$ is more reliable than $`K`$, so we are only saying that the default, i.e. normal, consequences of $`\phi `$ should also be considered more secure than $`K`$. If, for example, one’s theory says it should rain in Paris and in Orléans and one learns that there are no clouds in the sky of Paris, one has a choice between two revisions: conclude that it does not rain in Paris but rains in Orléans, or conclude that it rains neither in Paris nor in Orléans. If one holds the default assumption that when the sky is cloudless in Paris it does not rain in Orléans, the second way of revising seems more reasonable: it gives precedence to the default “when there are no clouds in Paris, it does not rain in Orléans” to the proposition “it rains in Orléans” that was in the original theory. Note that this does not contradict the principle of maximal retention, since the original theory contained both “when there are no clouds in Paris, it does not rain in Orléans” and “it rains in Orléans”, and one could not keep both of them in the face of the information that “there are no clouds in Paris”.

In the process of iterated revisions considered here, the agent revises its beliefs with new information, using its knowledge of how things generally, or normally, behave. This knowledge is encoded in a rational, consistency-preserving relation. The agent does not revise its relation, i.e., its default knowledge. There is a lot to be said for this analysis: default assumptions are typically much more stable than beliefs, and so it should be. Consider, for example, the physicist revising his/her theory about the world in light of the results of new experiments. The method used in performing this revision, i.e., deciding what to keep and what to throw away of the old theory, is a matter of meta-principles, a methodological question, not a question of physics. There is no reason to think that the result of this new experiment will change anything in the methodological principles our physicist is using. Nevertheless, there must also be another process at work: the revision (or the creation) of default assumptions. After all, those default assumptions, or these meta-principles come from the observation of evidence. Decision theory seems to be mainly interested in this process of formation or revision of default assumptions in the light of new evidence. It operates on a longer time scale than the revisions considered here and this paper has nothing to say about it. The revisions we consider are revisions of belief sets performed under a fixed set of default assumptions.

## 5 Closing remarks

### 5.1 Two viewpoints on iterated revisions

We have described and developed what we think is the original AGM viewpoint concerning revisions. Revisions have two arguments: a theory to be revised and a formula by which it is revised. Iterated revisions do not deserve any special consideration. Suppose an agent holds $``$ as its revision procedure. If, at some point in time, it has belief set $`K`$ and learns $`\phi `$ it will, then, acquire belief set $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$. If the agent later learns $`\psi `$, it will just use the same revision $``$ to revise its current belief set $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$, by the new information $`\psi `$, thus obtaining $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$$``$$`\psi `$ as its new belief set. In this process, the belief revision process, $``$, does not change. From this point of view, the revision process is fixed: theories are revised but the revision method stays fixed. This is the static viewpoint.

There is a different point of view, that has been illustrated in a number of recent works on iterated revisions, notably ,  and . This point of view seems to be rooted in Bayesian decision theory and to draw on . This alternative, dynamic, point of view has attracted most of the attention recently given to theory revision and can be described as follows. The agent starts with a belief set $`K`$ and a method for revising $`K`$ when some new information will come along, i.e., the agent knows only how to revise $`K`$, its belief set, it does not know how to revise arbitrary theories. If some new information comes along, it will revise $`K`$ with this new information $`\phi `$, following its method and obtain a new belief set $`K^{}`$, but it will also adapt its revision method to be able to revise $`K^{}`$ when new information will eventually come along. From this point of view, the new information $`\phi `$ does not only modify the belief set it also modifies the revision method. This dynamic viewpoint presents a departure from the AGM static framework. It even seems that those two points of view are incompatible. It will be shown, first, that a dynamical viewpoint does not provide a static revision operator, and then, that a static revision operator does not provide a method for dynamically adapting revisions.

Let us take the dynamical viewpoint.

* In the dynamic view the new revision procedure by which $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$ will be revised depends on $`\phi `$, whereas, in the static view it should not.
* It must not be the case that all theories may be obtained starting from $`K`$ by iterated revisions, whereas the static view insists on being capable of revising arbitrary theories.
* It must not be the case that the revision of a theory by a formula is determined by the theory and the formula. It may depend on the sequence of revisions that led to the theory. In other terms, it may happen that $`K`$ is identical with $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$$``$$`\psi `$ without implying that $`K`$$``$$`\chi `$ is identical with $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$$``$$`\psi `$$``$$`\chi `$.

Let us take the static viewpoint, now. The static viewpoint proposes $`K`$$``$$`\psi `$$``$$`\phi `$ for the result of revising K, successively, first by $`\psi `$ and then by $`\phi `$. The dynamic viewpoint says this iterated revision should be the result of revising $`K`$$``$$`\psi `$ by $`\phi `$, using the revision method obtained by adapting the revision $`\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\chi K\chi `$ to the new information $`\psi `$. But, in section 4.2, following Proposition (13), we noticed that $`\mu `$ does not contain enough information to determine $``$. The mapping $`\nu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\phi K\psi \phi `$ is not determined by $`K`$$``$$`\psi `$ and $`\mu `$ alone. The method proposed in this paper for revising with a rational, consistency-preserving relation does not yield any method for adapting revisions, any transmutation in the terms of .

### 5.2 Conclusion and future work

Building on previous work by many researchers, we have completed the analysis of the relation between the extended AGM postulates for theory revision and properties of nonmonotonic inference. It was known that one may associate rational, consistency-preserving relations to any revision that satisfies the AGM postulates. We have shown that any such relation is associated with exactly one revision that satisfies the AGM postulates and an additional one. The open questions on which further work is needed have to do with generalizing the results of this paper to larger classes of revisions and nonmonotonic systems.

One may ask if our results can be generalized to the revisions that satisfy only the postulates: $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$. Those revisions are known to be intimately related to preferential relations . Preferential relations may stand in one-to-one correspondence with the revisions that satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟗}`$.

An orthogonal avenue seems also interesting. We noticed that $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ have no influence on the nonmonotonic aspect of revision. The revisions that satisfy $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$$`𝐊`$$``$$`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ seem an interesting class to study.

We noticed that, in the AGM framework, the theories to be revised were unstructured sets of formulas. One would like to put some more structure on those theories. Such additional structure, on $`K`$, should probably constrain the revisions of the revised theories of the form $`K`$$``$$`\phi `$. The analogy between (unstructured) theory revision and nonmonotonic inference should probably lift to an analogy between generalized theory revision and conditional logic.

## 6 Acknowledgment

During the last stage of the elaboration of this work, Daniel Lehmann held long and fruitful conversations with Isaac Levi. They are gratefully acknowledged. David Makinson’s detailed and knowledgeable comments on a first draft helped us catch up on the history of the field and improve the presentation altogether.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) has confronted the experimental data with amazing success. Nevertheless, it is still considered by many as a low energy limit of a deeper underlying theory. The gauge hierarchy problem and the proliferation of parameters, especially in the fermion masses and mixings, are two of the major reasons for this belief. Various extensions of the SM address different aspects of these problems. Typically these extensions involve higher symmetries. While the number of effective parameters in these models with higher symmetries (e.g. grand unified theories) might be smaller than the SM, because of the necessity to break the higher symmetry, the actual number of parameters are often larger than the SM. Thus it becomes natural to ask whether it is possible to have a theory in which there are fewer number of parameters.

Indeed, there exists a certain class of supersymmetric Yang–Mills theories, where one may achieve this goal. These are the so–called finite theories wherein the $`\beta `$ functions for the gauge coupling and the Yukawa couplings vanish to all orders in perturbation theory. Certain conditions must be satisfied for a SUSY Yang–Mills theory to be finite. One of them is the vanishing of the one–loop gauge $`\beta `$ function. This requirement constrains the spectrum of the theory essentially fixing it (upto discrete possibilities), once the gauge group is specified. A second requirement for finiteness is the vanishing of all the anomalous mass dimensions of the chiral superfields at one–loop. This would fix all the Yukawa couplings in terms of the gauge coupling, at one–loop order. This type of one–loop finiteness also implies that the theory is finite to two loops . For the theory to be finite to all loops, the Yukawa couplings must have unique power series expansions in terms of the gauge coupling . With this condition satisfied, the theory would have only one coupling – the gauge coupling. The Yukawa couplings are unified with the gauge couplings. This “reduction of couplings” is one of the key ingredients of finiteness . Certainly this makes the idea of finiteness an attractive direction to pursue in reducing the number of free parameters. One might hope that these type of theories may arise from superstring theory. Vanishing of the $`\beta `$ functions lead to conformal invariance, which is one of the cornerstones of string theory. Indeed there have been several attempts to derive a grand unified theory from superstring theory as its low energy 4-D limit (for example see ). The approach we adopt in this paper toward finiteness is that of . Different approaches to finite theories can be found, for example, in .

It will be extremely interesting to uncover finite theories that are phenomenologically viable, at least in a broad sense. Attempts have been made along this line with some success. An immediate question any finite theory should address is the consistency with the observed masses and mixings of the quarks. The Yukawa couplings are not arbitrary parameters in finite theories due to the reduction of couplings. The mass of the top–quark has been predicted within finite theories, and shown to be in good agreement with experiments . The masses of the lighter generation quarks have also been consistently accommodated in this context. However, the mixing between all three generations has not been implemented successfully thus far. This is the major point we wish to address in the present paper.

We shall present three models based on finite SUSY $`SU(5)`$ theory which can induce the correct pattern of quark mixing and masses. Additional flavor symmetries are necessary to meet the criterion for finiteness that the power series expansion of the Yukawa couplings in terms of the gauge coupling be unique. We find that non–Abelian discrete symmetries are extremely useful here. Abelian symmetries that we have tried were not sufficient to make the expansion coefficients of the Yukawa couplings unique, non–Abelian continuous symmetries such as $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ are too restrictive to allow the needed Yukawa couplings. One of the examples that we present is based on permutation symmetry, the other is based on the tetrahedral symmetry $`A_4`$. We also present a third example based on $`S_4`$ permutation symmetry in which the Yukawa couplings have a one–parameter family of solutions in terms of the gauge coupling. We anticipate that this arbitrariness may be removable by additional symmetries. If not, the proof of all–loop finiteness will not go through, although the theory will be finite to two–loop order. Such two–loop finite theories have been studied in Ref. . It is not clear if the finiteness of the theory will be maintained by higher order corrections. Although these models with parametric solutions for the Yukawa couplings are more flexible (and thus less predictive) from the phenomenological point of view, we consider the all–loop finite models to be more attractive.

In Section 2, we review briefly the conditions for finiteness, starting from the renormalization group equations (RGE) for a generic supersymmetric theory. From one of the criteria, namely vanishing of the one loop gauge $`\beta `$ function, it is not hard to see that finite models with phenomenologically favorable particle spectrum can be found more easily in $`SU(5)`$ than in other groups . Some general results of practical interest are given for finite $`SU(5)`$ models. In Section 3 we propose three models and analyze them in detail. In all cases we show that realistic quark masses and mixing angles can be generated. This enables us to address more detailed questions such as the decay rate of the proton, which is perhaps one of the thorniest problems faced by SUSY GUTs. Generically finite theories are problematic , we give some plausible resolutions. Our conclusions are given in Section 4.

## 2 Finite Theories: A brief review

The one loop gauge and Yukawa beta functions and the one loop anomalous dimension of the matter fields in a generic SUSY Yang–Mills theory are given by :

$`\beta _g^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{R}{}}T(R)3C_2(G)\right)`$ (1)
$`\gamma _j^{(1)i}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ikl}\lambda _{jkl}2C_2(R)g^2\delta _j^i`$ (2)
$`\beta _{ijk}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[\lambda _{ijp}\gamma _k^p+(ki)+(kj)]`$ (3)
where $`T(R)`$, $`C_2(R)`$ and $`C_2(G)`$ are the Dynkin indices of the matter fields and the quadratic Casimirs of the matter and gauge representations respectively. $`\lambda ^{ijk}`$ and $`\beta _{ijk}^{(1)}`$ are the Yukawa couplings and the one–loop Yukawa $`\beta `$ function of $`\lambda ^{ijk}`$. The criteria of all loop finiteness for $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories can be stated as follows : (i) It should be free from gauge anomaly, (ii) the gauge $`\beta `$-function vanishes at one loop:

$`\beta _g^{(1)}=0,`$ (4)
(iii) there exists solution of the form $`\lambda =\lambda (g)`$ to the conditions of vanishing one-loop anomalous dimensions

$$\gamma _j^{(1)i}=0,$$
(5)
and (iv) the solution is isolated and non-degenerate when considered as a solution of vanishing one-loop Yukawa $`\beta `$-function:

$$\beta _{ijk}^{(1)}=0.$$
(6)
If all four conditions are satisfied, the dimensionless parameters of the theory would depend on a single gauge coupling constant and the $`\beta `$ functions will vanish to all orders.

The first step is to choose the gauge group. From (i), we see that the vanishing of the one loop gauge $`\beta `$ function puts a strong constraint on the particle content, leaving only discrete set of possibilities. It seems hard to find phenomenologically viable models other than in $`SU(5)`$ . For example, if one chooses $`SO(10)`$ to be the gauge group, and tries to build a finite model with necessary particle content in the traditional sense, one quickly “runs” out of the Dynkin indices: according to Eq. (1) the sum of the Dynkin indices over the matter fields should be equal to 24 in this case. On the other hand, field content of the traditional $`SO(10)`$ GUT is $`3\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ of fermions, $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟒}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}`$ of Higgs, if the gauge symmetry is to be broken by renormalizable terms in the superpotential. Then, since the sum of the Dynkin indices of these fields is equal to 32, one ends up exceeding the gauge Dynkin index. Much the same result can be reached for $`SU(6)`$ etc. While it will be of great interest to uncover finite models other than $`SU(5)`$, here we will confine ourselves to the case of finite $`SU(5)`$.

Beginning with the particle content of minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$ theory with three families of fermions belonging to $`3\times (\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$, an adjoint 24 Higgs ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and $`(\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ Higgses one sees that vanishing of the one–loop gauge $`\beta `$ function requires the introduction of additional fields whose Dynkin indices add up to 3. This happens if there are three additional $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ matter fields, which may be either Higgs–like bosonic fields or vector–like fermionic fields. This is in fact the most promising case from phenomenology. There are two other possibilities, viz., adding $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ or adding $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟓}+2\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$. In the first case, realistic quark masses cannot arise, in the second case one would be left with a fourth family of fermions which remains light to the weak scale. For phenomenological reasons we do not pursue these two alternatives, and choose to work with $`3\times \{\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\}`$ plus the minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$ spectrum.

The finiteness criteria require that Eqs. (4)-(6) should give a unique set of solutions to the Yukawa couplings. The equations are linear in the square of the absolute values of the couplings. Hence one expects the solutions to the Yukawa couplings to be either zero or of order the gauge coupling. They are not free parameters anymore. In order to satisfy the hierarchy in masses of the fermions, one can choose the VEVs of the Higgs bosons to be hierarchical. Naively this would need at least three Higgs multiplets coupling to the up–quark sector, and three multiplets coupling to the down–quark sector. It is interesting that finite $`SU(5)`$ spectrum admits the needed Higgs, which can be as many as 4 in each sector. We will be interested in the case where at least three of the $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields are Higgs–like (viz., they develop VEVs of the order the electroweak scale). In fact, we shall see shortly that independent of this phenomenoligical requirement, the vanishing of the one–loop anomalous dimensions necessitates that at least three pairs of $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ have Yukawa couplings to the three families of fermions. We will focus on inducing realistic mixing among the three families of quarks, which has not been achieved in earlier analyses .

To search for a finite model, one has to write down a specific superpotential and try to find a set of solutions satisfying the criteria that all the Yukawa coupling wave function renormalization factors vanish at one–loop. We consider the following superpotential (assuming an unbroken $`R`$–parity):

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{ij}^a\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_jH_a+d_{ij}^a\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_j\overline{H}_a\right)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}k^{ab}H_a\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{H}_b+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+f\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}5}\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}.`$
Here $`i,j=(13)`$ are family indices and $`a`$ and $`b`$ are Higgs indices. $`a`$ and $`b`$ run from 1 to either 3 or 4. If it is up to 4, the last term is absent. $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ denote the $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the adjoint chiral matter field responsible for the GUT symmetry breaking. Note that in order to have a successful doublet–triplet mass splitting, at least one of the couplings $`f`$, $`k^{ab}`$ should be non–vanishing.

From Eq. (7), the anomalous dimensions of Eq. (2) can be written in matrix form as:

$`\gamma _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_j}`$ $`=`$ $`3(u_au_a^{})_{ij}+2(d_ad_a^{})_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}g^2\delta _{ij}`$
$`\gamma _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_j}`$ $`=`$ $`4(d_a^{}d_a)_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2\delta _{ij}`$
$`\gamma _{H_aH_b}`$ $`=`$ $`3Tr(u_a^{}u_b)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}(kk^{})_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2\delta _{ab}`$
$`\gamma _{\overline{H}_a\overline{H}_b}`$ $`=`$ $`4Tr(d_ad_b^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}(k^{}k)_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2\delta _{ab}`$ (8)
$`\gamma _\mathrm{𝟓}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}f^2{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`\gamma _{24}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr(k^{}k)+f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{21}{5}}\lambda ^210g^2.`$
According to the third criteria, Eq. (5), in order to have finite theory, all these anomalous mass dimension have to be zero. Thus, the problem of finding a finite model shifts to the problem of finding a set of solutions, where all the anomalous dimensions in Eq. (2) vanish. Let us introduce a new notations for the matrices:

$`Uu_au_a^{},`$ $`Dd_ad_a^{},`$ $`D^{}d_a^{}d_a,\stackrel{~}{U}_{ab}Tr(u_a^{}u_b),`$ (9)
$`\stackrel{~}{D}_{ab}Tr(d_ad_b^{}),`$ $`Kk^{}k,\stackrel{~}{K}kk^{},`$
where the trace is over the generation indices. From Eq. (8), it follows that the number of $`H`$ fields coupling to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_j`$ should be equal to the number of $`\overline{H}`$ fields coupling to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_j`$ fields. Furthermore, at least 3 $`H`$ fields (and 3 $`\overline{H}`$ fields) must have such couplings. To see this let us take the trace of the matrices of the anomalous dimensions in Eq. (2) over both the fermionic indices and the Higgs indices. One gets:

$`3Tr(U)`$ $`+`$ $`2Tr(D)=3\times {\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}g^2`$
$`4Tr(D^{})`$ $`=`$ $`3\times {\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`3Tr(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}Tr(\stackrel{~}{K})=n_H\times {\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$ (10)
$`4Tr(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}Tr(K)=n_{\overline{H}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2,`$
where $`n_H`$ and $`n_{\overline{H}}`$ are the number of the Higgs fields coupling to the three family of fermions in the up–sector and the down–sector respectively. Subtracting the third equation from the last in Eq. (10), we get

$`4Tr(\stackrel{~}{D})3Tr(\stackrel{~}{U})=(n_{\overline{H}}n_H)\times {\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2.`$
Observing the following relation

$`Tr(U)=Tr(\stackrel{~}{U})Tr(D)=Tr(D^{})=Tr(\stackrel{~}{D}),`$
one finds that

$`n_H=n_{\overline{H}}.`$ (11)
One can also see that the matrices $`K`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ in Eq. (9) vanish if $`n_H=n_{\overline{H}}=3`$. That is, $`k_{ab}=0`$ for all $`(a,b)`$. Doublet–triplet splitting can be achieved in this case since $`f0`$ is allowed. If $`n_H=n_{\overline{H}}2`$, no solution exists for Eq. (10). We conclude that at least three Higgs multiplets must couple to the fermion fields in finite $`SU(5)`$.

Vanishing of the right–hand side of Eq. (8), needed for finiteness, will in general lead to parametric solutions. In order to satisfy the condition for all–loop finiteness, additional symmetries are usually necessary. Under these extra symmetries different Higgs multiplets will have different charges, which would prevent them from coupling to the same set of fermion fields. If two different Higgs multiplets $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ coupled to the same fermion fields, say $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2`$, then $`\gamma _{H_1H_2}`$ will not vanish in general, and so the theory will not be finite. We now present a classification of the Yukawa coupling matrices which ensures in a simple way that the off–diagonal entries of the anomalous dimension matrices are all automatically zero. While this classification is not the most general, it can be applied to a wide class of models. Let us write the superpotential Eq. (7) in the following form:

$`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_𝐢\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_𝐣V_{}^{u}{}_{ij}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_𝐢\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_𝐣V_{}^{d}{}_{ij}{}^{}+...,`$ (12)
where

$`V_{}^{u}{}_{ij}{}^{}=u_{ij}^aH_a,V_{}^{d}{}_{ij}{}^{}=d_{ij}^a\overline{H_a}.`$
The structures of $`V^u`$ matrices which automatically have all off–diagonal anomalous dimensions to be zero is obtained as follows. Consider the case where three pairs of $`(H,\overline{H})`$ couple to the chiral families. There are four distinct forms for the matrix $`V^u`$:

$`V^{(1)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_1& u_{12}H_3& u_{13}H_2\\ u_{12}H_3& u_{22}H_2& u_{23}H_1\\ u_{13}H_2& u_{23}H_1& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right)V^{(2)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_2& u_{12}H_1& 0\\ u_{12}H_1& u_{22}H_3& u_{23}H_2\\ 0& u_{23}H_2& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right)`$
$`V^{(3)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_3& u_{12}H_1& 0\\ u_{12}H_1& u_{22}H_3& u_{23}H_2\\ 0& u_{23}H_2& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right)V^{(4)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_1& 0& 0\\ 0& u_{22}H_3& u_{23}H_2\\ 0& u_{23}H_2& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
The form of $`V^d`$ in this case is identical to Eq. (13), except that $`u_{ij}`$ is replaced by $`d_{ij}`$ and $`H_i`$ by $`\overline{H}_i`$. While $`V^u`$ is a symmetric matrix, $`V^d`$ is asymmetric. Any given Higgs field appears at most once in a given row or column in all the matrices of Eq. (13). This guarantees that all off–diagonal $`\gamma `$ function entries are zero. It can be shown that Eq. (13) is the most general set of matrices that satisfy this constraint (upto relabeling of generation number and Higgs number), provided that there is no cancellation between various terms to generate a zero in the off–diagonal $`\gamma `$ matrix. It is possible that such cancellations occur in the presence of non–Abelian flavor symmetries, but not with Abelian symmetries. Even for the case of non–Abelian symmetries, we have found the classification of Eq. (13) very useful.

If four pairs of $`(H+\overline{H})`$ couple to fermion families, the matrix $`V^u`$ can have the following four structures (upto relabeling of generation and Higgs indices):

$`V^{(1)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_1& u_{12}H_4& u_{13}H_2\\ u_{12}H_4& u_{22}H_2& u_{23}H_1\\ u_{13}H_2& u_{23}H_1& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right)V^{(2)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_2& u_{12}H_1& 0\\ u_{12}H_1& u_{22}H_2& u_{23}H_4\\ 0& u_{23}H_4& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right)`$
$`V^{(3)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_3& u_{12}H_1& u_{13}H_2\\ u_{12}H_1& u_{22}H_2& u_{23}H_4\\ u_{13}H_2& u_{23}H_4& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right)V^{(4)}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_{11}H_3& u_{12}H_1& u_{13}H_2\\ u_{12}H_1& u_{22}H_3& u_{23}H_4\\ u_{13}H_2& u_{23}H_4& u_{33}H_3\end{array}\right).`$ (14)
$`V^d`$ in this case will have similar structure, assuming that its form is similar to $`V^u`$. In all cases, one can easily verify that the off–diagonal contributions to the anomalous dimension matrices are all zero.

## 3 The Quark Mixing in Finite GUT

It is possible to find solutions for the vanishing of the anomalous dimensions of Eq. (8) with the forms of $`V^u`$ and $`V^d`$ given as in Eq. (13)-(14). We have examined all possible cases, including $`V^u`$ taking the form of $`V^{(i)}`$ while $`V^d`$ taking the form of $`V^{(j)}`$ with $`i`$ and $`j`$ not necessarily the same. We found parametric solutions wherein one or (typically) more parameters are not determined. That would forbid a unique expansion of the Yukawa couplings in terms of the gauge coupling, one of the requirements of finiteness. It is possible to remove this arbitrariness by imposing additional flavor symmetries. Three examples of this type are proposed here and analyzed in detail. In the first example, isolated non–degenerate solution to the Yukawa couplings is obtained by imposing a $`(Z_4)^3\times P`$ symmetry, where $`P`$ stands for permutation. The second example is based on the tetrahedral group $`A_4`$. A third example based on $`S_4`$ symmetry is also presented, which actually gives a one parameter family of solutions. If this parameter is chosen to have a specific value (which we believe can be enforced by a symmetry) the solutions will again be isolated and non–degenerate.

### 3.1 $`(Z_4)^3\times P`$ Model

Let us give the transformation properties of the fields under the discrete symmetry we impose. The symmetries are $`(Z_4)^3`$, identified as the $`Z_4`$ subgroup of generation number, and a permutation symmetry acting on both the fermion and the Higgs generations. The fields transform under $`(Z_4)^3`$ as:

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1:(i,1,1),\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_2:(1,i,1),\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_3:(1,1,i),`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1:(i,1,1),\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2:(1,i,1),\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3:(1,1,i),`$
$`(H_1,\overline{H}_1):(1,1,1),(H_2\overline{H}_2):(1,i,i),`$ (15)
$`(H_3,\overline{H}_3):(1,1,1),(H_4,\overline{H}_4):(1,i,i).`$
The action of the permutation symmetry $`P`$ on the fields is as follows:

| $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3`$, | $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3`$, | $`H_1H_3`$, | $`\overline{H}_1\overline{H}_3`$, |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2`$, | $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2`$, | $`H_2H_4`$, | $`\overline{H}_2\overline{H}_4.`$ |

The most general $`SU(5)\times (Z_4)^3\times P`$ invariant superpotential is:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`a(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1H_1+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3H_3)+b(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2H_4+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3H_2)`$
$`+`$ $`c(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1\overline{H}_1+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3\overline{H}_3)+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2\overline{H}_4+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2\overline{H}_2)`$
$`+`$ $`e(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1\overline{H}_4+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3\overline{H}_2)+k(H_1\overline{H}_1\mathrm{\Sigma }+H_3\overline{H}_3\mathrm{\Sigma })+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3.`$
The matrices $`V^u`$ and $`V^d`$ (defined in Eq. (14)) for this model are then:

$`V^u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}aH_1& bH_4& 0\\ bH_4& 0& bH_2\\ 0& bH_2& aH_3\end{array}\right)V^d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c\overline{H}_1& d\overline{H}_4& 0\\ e\overline{H}_4& 0& e\overline{H}_2\\ 0& d\overline{H_2}& c\overline{H}_3\end{array}\right),`$ (17)
and the coupling matrix of the Higgs fields to the adjoint field is given by:

$`K=diag(k,0,k,0).`$
Note that all superpotential couplings can be made real by field redefinitions. One can then take all parameters of Eq. (16) to be real and positive. This is an important point for the solution to be non–degenerate.

The condition (iii) of the criteria for finiteness (vanishing of all the anomalous dimensions) leads to the following simple system of equations:

$`3(a^2+b^2)+2(c^2+d^2)={\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}g^2,`$ $`3(2b^2)+2(2e^2)={\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}g^2,`$
$`c^2+e^2={\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g^2,`$ $`2b^2={\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}g^2,`$ (18)
$`a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}k^2={\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}g^2,`$ $`d^2+e^2={\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g^2,`$
$`2d^2={\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g^2,`$ $`a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}k^2={\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g^2.`$
This gives a unique solution which is isolated and non-degenerate:

$$(a^2,b^2,c^2,d^2,e^2,k^2,\lambda ^2)=(\frac{4}{5}g^2,\frac{4}{5}g^2,\frac{3}{5}g^2,\frac{3}{5}g^2,\frac{3}{5}g^2,\frac{1}{2}g^2,\frac{15}{7}g^2).$$
(19)
There is no sign ambiguity for the Yukawa couplings themselves, since they have all been made real and positive.

Let us now turn to the question of comparing the predictions of Eq. (19) with experiments. First of all, all three families of quarks mix with one another, so realistic CKM mixings become possible, unlike earlier attempts within finite GUTs. Setting the overall factor $`aH_3=1`$, we can write the mass matrix $`M^u`$ for the up–type quarks in the following form:

$`M^u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{11}^uϵ_u^4& c_{12}^uϵ_u^3& 0\\ c_{21}^uϵ_u^3& 0& ϵ_u\\ 0& ϵ_u& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
where $`ϵ_u\frac{H_2}{H_3}`$, $`c_{11}^uϵ_u^4\frac{H_1}{H_3}`$ and $`c_{12}^uϵ_u^3\frac{H_4}{H_3}`$. The mass matrix for the down–type quarks, $`M^d`$, has a similar form, with $`ϵ_u`$ replaced by $`ϵ_d`$ and $`c_{ij}^u`$ replaced by $`c_{ij}^d`$. These matrices are generalizations of the Fritszch form. Note that Eq. (20) is a special case of texture $`V^{(2)}`$ in Eq. (14). The mass eigenvalues are obtained in the approximation $`ϵ_u1,c_{ij}^u1`$ to be:

$`m_u\left(c_{11}^u+\left(c_{12}^u\right)^2\right)ϵ_u^4`$
$`m_cϵ_u^2+\left(1c_{12}^u\right)^2ϵ_u^4`$
$`m_t1+ϵ_u^2ϵ_u^4`$ (21)
in units of $`aH_3`$. Similar expressions hold in the down–type quark sector. The CKM mixing elements are then given by:

$`V_{us}=c_{12}^uϵ_uc_{12}^dϵ_d+O(ϵ^3)`$
$`V_{cb}=ϵ_dϵ_u+O(ϵ^3)`$ (22)
$`V_{ub}=c_{12}^uϵ_uϵ_dc_{12}^uϵ_u^2+O(ϵ^4),`$
where $`ϵ_d`$ and $`c_{12}^d`$ correspond to the down quark sector. (For simplicity, we have assumed all parameters to be real. This assumption is not necessary, realistic CP violation can also arise from Eq. (20).)

Observe that the mass hierarchy between generations can be accommodated in this model by assuming a hierarchy in the VEVs of the Higgs doublets. We have in mind a scenario where only one pair of Higgs doublets survive below the GUT scale, to be identified as $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ of MSSM. These are linear combinations of all four of the original Higgs doublets. That would enable all $`H_i`$ ($`i=14`$) to acquire VEVs. The $`H_u`$ field of MSSM is dominantly $`H_3`$, but has small (of order $`ϵ_u`$) component of $`H_2`$ in it, and even smaller components of $`H_4`$ (of order $`ϵ_u^3`$) and $`H_1`$ (of order $`ϵ_u^4`$) in it. These amounts are dictated by the bilinear terms in the superpotential involving $`H_i`$ and $`\overline{H}_i`$ fields ($`Wm_{ij}H_i\overline{H}_j`$). These bilinear terms are assumed to break the $`(Z_4)^3\times P`$ symmetry softly. We see that the desired mass hierarchy is reproduced in this way.

Since the Yukawa couplings of the third generation quarks are fixed in this model in terms of the gauge coupling, the mass of the top quark and the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are determined. Let us denote the MSSM Yukawa couplings of the top and the bottom quarks to $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ fields to be $`y_t`$ and $`y_b`$ respectively. To a good approximation, $`H_u`$ is $`H_3`$ and $`H_d`$ is $`\overline{H}_3`$. Thus we see from Eq. (19) that $`y_t(\sqrt{4/5})g`$ and $`y_b(\sqrt{3/5})g`$, both of which are fixed in terms of $`\alpha _G1/25`$. We now extrapolate these Yukawa couplings to the weak scale using the MSSM renormalization group equations. The top quark mass and the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ can be predicted using the relations

$`m_t=m_b{\displaystyle \frac{y_t}{y_b}}\sqrt{y_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{m_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}1}y_tv`$
$`\mathrm{tan}\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{m_t}{m_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_b}{y_t}},`$ (23)
where $`v=174`$ GeV. With $`m_b(m_b)`$ taken to be 4.4 GeV and with $`\alpha _3(m_Z)=0.118`$ we find the numerical values to be:

$`m_t=174GeV`$
$`\mathrm{tan}\beta =53.`$ (24)
The predicted value of $`m_t`$ is nicely consistent with the experimentally determined value, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ tends to be large in this class of models.

There is one other non–trivial prediction in this model, because of the zeros present in Eq. (20). We take it to be a prediction for the strange quark mass. From Eqs. (21) and (22) we find $`m_s(1`$ GeV$`)80`$ MeV, if we take $`V_{cb}0.043,m_b(m_b)=4.4`$ GeV, $`m_c(m_c)=1.37`$ GeV, $`V_{us}=0.22`$ and $`V_{ub}=0.004`$. This value of $`m_s`$ is on the low side, but may be consistent with recent lattice evaluations . We also note that since $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is predicted to be large, the finite threshold corrections to $`V_{cb}`$ through chargino–stop exchange is significant . This could modify $`V_{cb}`$ by as much as 30%. With a 30% reduction in $`V_{cb}`$ arising from this diagram, we predict $`m_s(1\mathrm{GeV})100`$ MeV, which is quite acceptable.

### 3.2 $`A_4`$ Model

Now we present a second model that leads to realistic quark mixings and masses. It is based on $`SU(5)\times A_4`$ symmetry. $`A_4`$ is the group of even permutations of four objects. It is the symmetry group of a regular tetrahedron. This group has irreducible representations (denoted by the dimensions) $`1`$, $`1^{}`$, $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`3`$. The $`1^{}`$ and $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ are complex conjugate of each other. The product $`3\times 3`$ decomposes as

$`3\times 3=1+1^{}+1^{\prime \prime }+3+3.`$ (25)
If we denote the components of 3 as (a,b,c), the various terms are given by :

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1a_2+b_1b_2+c_1c_2`$
$`1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a_1a_2+\omega ^2b_1b_2+\omega c_1c_2`$ (26)
$`1^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`a_1a_2+\omega b_1b_2+\omega ^2c_1c_2,`$
where $`\omega =e^{2i\pi /3}`$. (Note that $`1+\omega +\omega ^2=0`$.)

The transformations properties of the fields of $`SU(5)`$ under $`A_4`$ are:

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i`$ $`:`$ $`3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i:3`$ (27)
$`(H_a,H_4)`$ $`:`$ $`3+1^{}(\overline{H}_a,\overline{H}_4):3+1^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }=1,`$
where $`i=1÷3`$ and $`a=1÷3`$. Using the algebra presented in Eq. (3.2), the superpotential invariant under $`SU(5)\times A_4`$ symmetry is:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`a(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1+\omega \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2+\omega ^2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3)H_4`$
$`+`$ $`c(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1+\omega \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2+\omega ^2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3)\overline{H}_4`$
$`+`$ $`b[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1)H_1+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1)H_2+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2)H_3]`$
$`+`$ $`d[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1)\overline{H}_1+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1)\overline{H}_2+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2)\overline{H}_3]`$
$`+`$ $`k(\overline{H}_1H_1+\overline{H}_2H_2+\overline{H}_3H_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3.`$
By field redefinition the $`\omega `$ factors can be removed from $`W`$. Actually, all the coupling constants in Eq. (28) can be made real and positive. The condition of vanishing anomalous dimensions for this model can be written as follows:

$`3(a^2+2b^2)+2(c^2+2d^2)={\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}g^2`$
$`4(c^2+2d^2)={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`3(3a^2)={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$ (28)
$`3(2b^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}k^2={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`4(3c^2)={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`4(2d^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}k^2={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2.`$
This gives the following isolated and non-degenerate solution:

$`a^2=b^2={\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}g^2,c^2=d^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g^2,k^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g^2.`$ (29)
The resulting up–quark mass matrix can be written as:

$`M^u=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}}gH_4\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1+ϵ_1& 1+ϵ_2\\ 1+ϵ_1& 1& 1+ϵ_3\\ 1+ϵ_2& 1+ϵ_3& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (30)
where

$`ϵ_1={\displaystyle \frac{H_1}{H_4}}1,ϵ_2={\displaystyle \frac{H_2}{H_4}}1,ϵ_3={\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{H_4}}1,`$ (31)
with a similar form for the down–type quark matrix. We can accommodate the mass hierarchy by taking $`ϵ_{1,2,3}1`$. This structure has been considered in , where it has been shown to agree well with experimental data.

In the $`A_4`$ model, since all $`H_i`$ have almost equal VEVs, $`H_4H_u/2`$. Furthermore, from Eq. (30), we have $`m_t3\sqrt{8/15}gH_4`$, so that $`y_t=(\sqrt{6/5})g`$ at the GUT scale. Similarly, $`y_b=(\sqrt{9/10})g`$ at the GUT scale. These boundary conditions lead to the predictions

$`m_t`$ $`=`$ $`177\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`53.`$ (32)
As shown in Ref. , all the quark mixing angles can be correctly reproduced in this model.

### 3.3 $`S_4`$ Model

We now present a third example based on $`S_4`$ symmetry. This symmetry alone would lead to a one parameter family of solutions for the Yukawa couplings. Although we have not found a symmetry that will uniquely fix this parameter, we suspect that such a symmetry might actually exist. Keeping this in mind, we proceed to analyze this model. $`S_4`$ is the permutation symmetry operating on four objects. It has the following irreducible representations: $`(1,1^{},2,3,3^{})`$ . We choose the following assignment of the chiral superfields under $`S_4`$:

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i`$ $`:`$ $`3,(H_a,H_4):3+1,\mathrm{\Sigma }:1,`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i`$ $`:`$ $`3,(\overline{H}_a,\overline{H}_4):3+1,`$ (33)
The superpotential invariant under this symmetry is

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`a[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1)H_1+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2)H_2+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2)H_1]`$
$`+`$ $`b(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3)H_4`$
$`+`$ $`c[(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1)\overline{H}_1+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2)\overline{H}_2+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2)\overline{H}_4]`$
$`+`$ $`d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3)\overline{H}_4`$
$`+`$ $`k(H_1\overline{H}_1+H_2\overline{H}_2+H_3\overline{H}_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`+`$ $`k_4H_4\overline{H}_4\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3.`$
The $`V^u`$ and $`V^d`$ matrices that arise from this superpotential are:

$`V^u`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}aH_3+bH_4& 0& aH_1\\ 0& bH_4& aH_2\\ aH_1& aH_2& aH_3+bH_4\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
$`V^d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c\overline{H}_3+d\overline{H}_4& 0& c\overline{H}_1\\ 0& d\overline{H}_4& c\overline{H}_2\\ c\overline{H}_1& c\overline{H}_2& c\overline{H}_3+d\overline{H}_3\end{array}\right).`$ (36)
The coupling matrix $`k`$ connecting the Higgs fields ($`H,\overline{H}`$) and the adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is:

$`k=diag(k,k,k,k_4).`$
The condition for vanishing anomalous mass dimensions is then:

$`3(2a^2+b^2)+2(2c^2+d^2)={\displaystyle \frac{36}{5}}g^2`$
$`4(2c^2+2d^2)={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`4(2d^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}k^2={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`4(3d^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$ (37)
$`3(2a^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}k^2={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`3(2b^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2`$
$`3k^2+k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{21}{5}}\lambda ^2={\displaystyle \frac{24}{5}}g^2.`$
The solution to this set of equations has one free parameter. We choose it be $`k_4`$, in which case the solution is:

$`(a^2,b^2,c^2,d^2)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}g^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}g^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},{\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`(e^2,k^2,\lambda ^2)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}k_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},{\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}g^2).`$ (38)
To eliminate this undetermined parameter $`k_4`$ one needs to introduce an additional symmetry. A $`Z_2`$ symmetry can set $`k_4=0`$, but if this $`Z_2`$ commutes with $`S_4`$, it will also set some other parameters to be zero. We suspect a $`Z_2`$ that does not commute with the $`S_4`$ symmetry might set $`k_4`$ equal to zero, while preserving the solution Eq. (39). We find the model phenomenologically interesting for this case. The mass matrix is for the up–type quarks is:

$`M^u=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}}g\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H_3+H_4& 0& H_1\\ 0& H_4& H_2\\ H_1& H_2& H_3+H_4\end{array}\right),`$ (39)
and a similar form for the down–type quarks.

To explain the mass hierarchy, we first set the $`(1,1)`$ entry of the mass matrices both in the up and the down sectors to be zero by choosing $`H_3`$ and $`H_4`$ as:

$`H_3+H_40,`$ $`\overline{H}_3+\overline{H}_40.`$
Furthermore, we take $`H_1`$ and $`\overline{H}_1`$ to be smaller than $`H_2H_4`$. One immediate observation from the structure is that the rotation between the second and the third generations is large. These large rotations from the up and the down sectors will cancel out. Let us define $`\frac{H_2}{H_4}=\sqrt{2}(1+\delta ^u)`$. In the limit $`ϵ^u\frac{H_1}{H_4}0`$, the rotation in the second and third generations is:

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \sqrt{2}(1+\delta ^u)\\ \sqrt{2}(1+\delta ^u)& 2\end{array}\right).`$ (40)
Form this one finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}\delta ^u,`$ (41)
where $`m_c`$ and $`m_t`$ are the masses of charm and top quarks. The rotation angle is:

$`\mathrm{tan}(2\theta _{23}^u)=2\sqrt{2}(1+\delta ^u).`$ (42)
The large rotation angle will cancel out in $`V_{cb}`$, leaving only the smaller corrections proportional to $`\delta ^{u,d}`$. The large rotation in the 2-3 space will induce an entry equal to $`ϵ^u\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}^uH_4`$ in the (1,3) element. From this, we obtain the following relations for the quark mixing angles:

$`V_{cb}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{m_c}{m_t}}\right|`$
$`V_{us}=\left|\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_u}{m_c}}}\right|`$ (43)
$`V_{ub}=2\sqrt{2}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_dm_s}}{m_b}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m_um_c}}{m_t}}\right|.`$
These are of the right order of magnitude, although in detail, the magnitude of $`V_{cb}`$ is somewhat smaller than what is needed and $`V_{ub}`$ is on the larger side. We consider this general agreement with experiments to be encouraging.

## 4 Concluding remarks

We have presented in this paper several models for quark masses and mixings in the context of finite $`SU(5)`$ GUT. These theories are attractive candidates for an underlying theory, since the $`\beta `$ functions for the gauge and Yukawa couplings vanish to all orders in perturbation theory. The requirements on the theory to be finite also leads to Yukawa–gauge unification, leading to a single coupling constant in the theory.

The models presented are based on non–Abelian discrete symmetry, which seem to be necessary to obtain isolated and non–degenerate solutions to the Yukaw couplings when expressed as power series in terms of the gauge coupling. We find it interesting that realistic quark masses and mixings can be generated in such a framework.

There are several open questions, many of which cannot be addressed until after finding a consistent quark mixing scheme. An important question finite theories should address is how to avoid rapid proton decay. Because all the Yukawa couplings, including those of the light generations, are order of $`g`$, color triplet exchange will generate a large amplitude for proton decay through $`d=5`$ operators . This may simply be a technical problem associated with using $`SU(5)`$ as the gauge group. One can envision other groups without the color triplets, although no realistic model of this type are known to us. Within finite $`SU(5)`$, there are ways to suppress the troublesome proton decay operators. For example, if the SUSY particle spectrum is such that the gauginos are light (of order 100 GeV), while the squarks are very heavy (of order 100 TeV or larger), the $`d=5`$ proton decay problem goes away. Although this choice may not be that attractive from the point of view of solving the gauge hierarchy problem, we emphasize that finiteness of the theory says nothing per se about the scale of SUSY breaking. A third alternative is to suppose that the masses of all the extra color triplets in the theory are much heavier than the GUT scale, even larger than the Planck scale.

In the framework of $`SU(5)`$ finite GUT, the following question arises naturally: Is it possible to generate small neutrino masses? If right–handed neutrinos are introduced as $`SU(5)`$ singlets, they can have no Yukawa couplings with the other fields, due to the demand of finiteness. We mention two possibilities to induce small neutrino masses. One is through bilinear $`R`$\- parity violating terms of order the weak scale . That does not contradict the requirements of finiteness. Another possibility is to make use of Planck suppressed higher dimensional operators, which can be constructed within finite $`SU(5)`$.

As we have shown in Sec. 2, within finite $`SU(5)`$, all four pairs of $`\mathrm{𝟓}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields present in the theory must be Higgs–like. This is needed for achieving doublet–triplet splitting. If one pair were fermionic, the bad mass relations of $`SU(5)`$, viz., $`m_s=m_\mu `$ and $`m_d=m_e`$ could have been corrected by terms such as $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i\mathrm{𝟓}`$ bilinear mass terms along with $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{𝟓}`$ coupling. Since that is not possible, one has rely on either Planck suppressed operators or finite gaugino diagrams to split the masses of leptons versus down type quarks . Both possibilities appear to be viable.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by DOE Grant # DE-FG03-98ER-41076, a grant from the Research Corporation and by DOE Grant # DE-FG02-01ER-45684.