text:
# TeV scale 5D 𝑆𝑈(3)_𝑊 unification and the fixed point anomaly cancellation with chiral split multiplets

## I Introduction

It is believed that the supersymmetric extension of the standard model predicts a unification of gauge coupling constants with the desert hypothesis. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) three gauge couplings meet within the experimental error bound at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}=2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV with a TeV supersymmetry breaking scale . This scenario involves large logarithms necessary to make the observed $`\alpha _3`$ large and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W0.231`$ at $`M_Z`$ starting from the universal coupling at high energy, around $`\alpha _{3,2,1}1/25`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^0=3/8`$. The wide desert is unavoidable in this scenario and introduces the gauge hierarchy problem.

There are other proposals for the solution of the gauge hierarchy problem. The recent effort with the low energy(TeV scale) fundamental scale with extra dimensions tries to solve it simply by abolishing the large hierarchy. If, the fundamental scale is indeed TeV scale, the TeV scale quantum gravity can occur, which is very interesting by itself. Then the conventional supersymmetric grand unified theory (SUSY GUT) should be modified in this framework. Running of gauge couplings in the extra dimensional model is different from the four dimensional one and reflects several interesting features. With the extra dimension(s), the compactification down to 4 dimensional space-time(4D) is a necessity. Starting with odd space-time dimensions, there does not arise the gauge anomaly problem simply because the spinor representations are real. However, the compactification procedure produce complex fermions. Without some twist of the internal space as in the simple torus compactification, the Kaluza-Klein(KK) levels are left-right symmetric, i.e. the fermion representation is vectorlike and there are no massless fermions in the low energy 4D theory. Thus, to have chiral fermions, we should twist the internal space . If the torus is modded out by a discrete group $`Z_N`$, then there appear some fixed points. The level matching in the bulk is shifted and the fermions in the bulk need not be vectorlike as in the models studied in Refs.. Then, there should be chiral fermions at the fixed points so that there is no anomaly in the effective 4D theory. However, there can be fixed point anomalies. We try to investigate the possibility of TeV scale unification of gauge coupling constants along this line.

Note that the $`SU(5)`$ unification starts from a large $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^0`$ at the unification scale, which needed a wide desert. For a TeV scale unificationin, i.e. in models without desert, therefore, the bare $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^0=1/[1+C^2]`$ must be close to 0.231, where $`C^2`$ defines a properly normalized $`U(1)_Y`$ hypercharge. In $`SU(5)`$, $`C^2=5/3`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^0=\frac{3}{8}`$. If $`C^2=3`$, then $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W^0=\frac{1}{4}`$ which can allow TeV scale unification. This $`U(1)_Y`$ normalization occurs if $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is unified in $`SU(3)_W`$ with the simplest embedding of $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$ into $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of $`SU(3)_W`$. Though leptons and Higgs can be nicely embedded into $`SU(3)_W`$, we encounter a difficulty of explaining $`\mathrm{`}`$fractional’ hypercharges of quarks (in the unit of $`\frac{1}{2}`$). Suppose $`L=(\nu ,e)`$ and $`e^c`$ belong to $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of $`SU(3)_W`$. The hypercharges of $`L`$ and $`e^c`$ are normalized to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`1`$, respectively and satisfies $`TrY=0`$ for the $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of $`SU(3)_W`$. If $`Q=(u,d)`$ and $`d^c`$ come from $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ of $`SU(3)_W`$ , then $`Y_Q=\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`Y_{d^c}=\frac{1}{3}`$ need an extra $`U(1)`$ group beyond $`SU(3)_W`$, in conflict with our motivation for predicting the weak mixing angle from a unified theory.

Recently five dimensional(5D) models for gauge coupling unification showed that incomplete multiplets can be consistently introduced at the fixed point (SM fixed point) where only part of the gauge symmetry survives after the orbifold breaking of the gauge symmetry. Though nonuniversal gauge kinetic terms are introduced in this case, the uncertainty coming from them at the fixed point is suppressed by the large volume factor compared to the universal kinetic term in the bulk. Therefore, we obtain a reasonable unification relation for the low energy gauge coupling constants as long as the volume of the extra dimension is large enough. From the minimally deconstructed point of view, this model can be interpreted as gauge group $`G_{\mathrm{GUT}}\times G_{\mathrm{SM}\mathrm{High}}`$ where $`G_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is the bulk gauge group and $`G_{\mathrm{SM}\mathrm{High}}`$ is the gauge group at the concerned fixed point. Largeness of extra dimension is interpreted as the strong coupling of $`G_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ since low energy gauge coupling after the breaking of the gauge group to its diagonal $`G_{\mathrm{SM}}=\mathrm{diag}.(G_{GUT}G_{\mathrm{SM}\mathrm{High}})`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_i^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{GUT}}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{\mathrm{SM}\mathrm{High},i}^2}}`$ (1)
for the factor group $`G_i`$ of $`G_{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Thus in this setup, the difficulty of obtaining correct $`Y_Q`$ can be easily avoided once we assume that the quark multiplets live at the SM fixed point. Recently there appeared series of papers allowing TeV scale unification of the electroweak sector into $`SU(3)_W`$ .

Now it would be meaningful to search for the possibility of unification in various setups even though there are uncertainties due to the absence of exact spectrum of Higgs and/or superpartners.

It was shown that two gauge coupings meet if the inverse of the extra dimension size is 1 $``$ 2 TeV for the SM matters (with one Higgs doublet) . For supersymmetric case, the size of the extra dimension is given by 3 TeV to 6 TeV , and strong coupling scale in which two couplings meet is two orders higher and is about a few hundred TeV. The supersymmetric model in  has two Higgses in the bulk and matter multiplets on the fixed point. SUSY breaking scale is assumed to vary from $`M_Z`$ to 1 TeV and the result is quite sensitive to the spectrum of superpartners. However, putting the matter fields in the bulk or at the fixed points is in a sense arbitrary.

The arbitrariness of putting the matter fields is a bit regulated if we adopt a $`\mathrm{`}`$naturalness’ scheme: If a GUT group is broken at a fixed point, then put a multiplet at that fixed point allowed by the representation of the fixed point gauge group . This was known in string orbifold compactifications. Mainly the fixed point gauge group determines the configuration of the model. One such example was given in Ref.  in which the $`SU(5)`$ gauge fields propagates in the bulk. The minimal setup for Higgs is to put $`H_d`$ in the bulk. The orbifold compactification leads to a chiral fermion in the bulk. So with this representation the effective 4D theory is anomalous. One can introduce $`H_u`$ also in the bulk. Then the theory is vectorlike and there is no anomaly problem. We call this vectorlike models. On the other hand we can put $`H_u`$ at the fixed point $`A`$. The fixed point $`A`$ has the gauge symmetry $`G_{\mathrm{SM}}SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ representations are allowed at the asymmetric fixed point $`A`$: some chiral fermions and $`H_u`$. This kind of asymmetric embedding of chiral fermions are called chiral models.

Similarly with the spirit of Ref., we study the $`SU(3)_W`$ models along this line in this paper. In Sec. II, we present possible $`SU(3)_W`$ models and calculate the running of the gauge coupling constants. In Sec. III, the proton decay problem is addressed and solved by putting leptons at the symmetric fixed point $`O`$ and quarks at the asymmetric fixed point $`A`$. In Sec. IV, the neutrino masses are discussed. In Sec. V, we show that fermionic anomalies at the fixed points are cured by the Chern-Simons term in the bulk in these asymmetric models. Sec. VI is a conclusion.

## II Models

The natural assignment of the representations at the fixed points allows only the representations of the fixed point gauge group, but not necessarily the full representation of the unbroken gauge group. We define the minimal model in which the fermion representation is put at the fixed point where the gauge group is maximum. Let us consider 5D $`SU(3)_W`$ models.

In the bulk, the gauge fields propagate. In the $`S_1/Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ compactification with the Sherk-Schwarz mechanism, there appear two fixed points

$`O_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ $`:y=0`$ (2)
$`A`$ $`:y={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}R`$ (3)
where $`O`$ is the symmetric fixed point where $`SU(3)_W`$ is not broken, and $`A`$ is the asymmetric fixed point where $`SU(3)`$ is broken down to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. Let us put fermions at the fixed points in the minimal scheme. The leptons $`L`$ and $`e^c`$ can form an $`SU(3)_W`$ triplet 3, and hence we put it at the symmetric fixed point $`O`$. On the other hand, $`Q`$, $`u^c`$ and $`d^c`$ cannot form $`SU(3)_W`$ representations. So they must be put at the asymmetric fixed point $`A`$. The Higgs doublet $`H_d(Y=\frac{1}{2})`$ or $`H_u(Y=\frac{1}{2})`$ can be assigned into $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}_H`$ of $`SU(3)_W`$. Hence, if the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ gives mass to electron, it must be put where $`SU(3)_W`$ is a good symmetry, i.e. in the bulk or at $`O`$. If this $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ also gives mass to quark(s), then it must be put in the bulk. Since it is more economic to have less Higgs fields, the minimal model dictates to put $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ in the bulk. On the other hand, we put the Higgs doublet $`H_u`$ at the asymmetric fixed point $`A`$.

This minimal setup has several merits. First, rapid proton decay can be avoided if the size of the extra dimension is slightly bigger than the fundamental length since quarks and leptons are located at the opposite fixed points and the locality of the extra dimension prevents the contact term giving rapid proton decay. Second, it gives a geometric explanation of $`bt`$ mass ratio.

With supersymmetry, there is another possibility for the fixed point gauge symmetry a la the Sherk-Schwarz mechanism as discussed in Sec. IV of . When we compactify 5D on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$, $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ turn out to be equivalent to one orbifolding $`Z`$ for $`yy`$ and one twist $`T`$ for $`yy+\pi R`$. So we conveniently write the boundary conditions of the gauge field $`A_M=(A_\mu ,A_5)`$ $`(\mu =0,1,2,3)`$ in terms of $`Z`$ and $`T`$ :

$`A_\mu (y)`$ $`=`$ $`ZA_\mu (y)Z^1=TA_\mu (y+\pi R)T^1`$ (4)
$`A_5(y)`$ $`=`$ $`ZA_5(y)Z^1=TA_5(y+\pi R)T^1`$ (5)
where $`Z`$, $`T`$ and $`A_M=A_M^aT^a`$ are represented by $`3\times 3`$ matrices. Then there are two independent choices for $`Z,T`$ for breaking $`SU(3)_W`$ into $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$,

$`\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{I}:(Z,T)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1),\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Type}\mathrm{II}:(Z,T)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1),\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)).`$ (7)
For the former case, the $`SU(3)_W`$ symmetry breaks into $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ only at the fixed point $`A`$ while it is fully conserved at the fixed point $`O`$. On the other hand, for the latter case, the $`SU(3)_W`$ symmetry is broken into $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ at both fixed points. However, for Type II, there also appears a massless adjoint scalar of $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, which nonetheless gets a radiative mass of the order of the compactification scale.

Fig. 1. The asymmetric point $`A`$ preserves only the SM gauge group. On the other hand,

the symmetric point $`O`$ can (a) preserve $`SU(3)_W`$, or preserve only

(b) the SM gauge group, which are explicitly shown as $`O_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$

and $`O_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, respectively. In this paper, we consider only $`O_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$.

Furthermore, when we introduce a Higgs triplet $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H=(H_D,H_S)`$ including a doublet with $`Y=1/2`$ and a singlet with $`Y=1`$ in the bulk, only the Higgs doublet remains massless by the boundary conditions with the same $`(Z,T)`$ as for the gauge field :

$$\mathrm{𝟑}_H(y)=Z\mathrm{𝟑}_H(y)=T\mathrm{𝟑}_H(y+\pi R)$$
(8)
But, for Type I, when the lepton triplet resides at the fixed point $`O`$ where $`SU(3)_W`$ is fully operative, it is impossible to have realistic charged lepton masses with a Higgs triplet via $`\mathrm{𝟑}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟑}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$. Thus, in that case, we instead should introduce a Higgs sextet $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H=(H_D,H_T,H_S)`$ including a doublet with $`Y=1/2`$, a triplet with $`Y=1`$ and a singlet with $`Y=2`$ satisfying the boundary conditions as

$$\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H(y)=Z\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H(y)Z^1=T\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H(y+\pi R)T^1.$$
(9)
The fixed point $`O`$ also breaks $`SU(3)_W`$ down to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. We call it $`O_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ in this case.

We distinguish these two cases by

$`TypeI:O_{\mathrm{GUT}}\mathrm{and}A`$ (10)
$`TypeII:O_{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{and}A`$ (11)
Even in Type II models, quarks should be put at $`A`$ since quarks can not fit to the hypercharges of the triplet. Leptons form 3 of $`SU(3)_W`$ and can be located at $`O`$. The schematic behavior of the symmetries at $`O`$ is shown in Fig. 1.

In any case, the minimal model with supersymmetry dictates to put the fields as follows,

$`O(y=0)`$ $`:`$ $`L,e^c`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{B}(\mathrm{ulk})`$ $`:`$ $`A_M,H_d(withsupersymmetry)`$ (13)
$`A(y={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}R)`$ $`:`$ $`Q,u^c,d^c,H_u`$ (14)
For nonsupersymmetric case, one Higgs is enough for the generation of masses in its minimal form and two Higgs doublet (2HD) model involves second Higgs. However, for supersymmetric case, two Higgses are necessary but the necessary positions are different. At $`O`$, we need $`H_d`$ to give masses to charged leptons. At $`A`$, we need $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ to give masses to up type and down type quarks. From this, we can conclude that $`H_u`$ is necessary at $`A`$ and $`H_d`$ is necessary at $`O`$ and $`A`$. Therefore, the minimal setup is to have $`H_u`$ at $`A`$ and $`H_d`$ in the bulk.

In this paper, therefore, we study following models,

Model A: Scherk-Schwarz gauge symmetry breaking without supersymmetry

We consider Type I with $`O_{GUT}`$ and $`A`$ for nonsupersymmetric cases. First, one Higgs model (A-1) is summarized which has been studied already. Two Higgs doublet Standard Model is realized in 5D as a vectorlike model (A-2v) and a chiral model (A-2c).

Model B: Scherk-Schwarz gauge symmetry breaking with supersymmetry

At the scale $`1/R`$, the gauge symmetry is broken but N=1 supersymmetry is unbroken§§§Supersymmetry is assumed to be broken at $`M_Z`$ or 1 TeV at one fixed point and gaugino mediates supersymmetry breaking to the opposite(or SM) fixed point. If leptons are at the fixed point where supersymmetry is broken, flavor changing neutral currects are induced generally. Thus, phenomenologically, all the SM matter fields are required to be at $`A`$ if supersymmetry is broken at $`O`$.. Supersymmetry requires two Higgs doublets. We review vectorlike realization (B-v) and chiral realization (B-c) of MSSM in 5D. In general, the bulk supersymmetry with eight supercharges restricts possible interactions of the theory and the model is highly predictive except the Fayet-Iliopoulos(FI) term allowed at the fixed points. The FI term is

$`_{FI}=\xi _1D\delta (y)+\xi _2D\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$ (15)
If N=1 is unbroken, the integrated FI term ($`(\xi _1+\xi _2)D`$) does not get any radiative correction for $`U(1)_Y`$ since the FI term is generated only for anomalous $`U(1)`$’s. Therefore, $`\xi _1+\xi _2=0`$ is a stable setup from the naturalness argument. For Type I, there is no $`U(1)`$ at $`O_{GUT}`$ and $`\xi _1=0`$. Therefore, combining two facts (unbroken nonabelian gauge group at one fixed point $`O_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ and 4D N=1 supersymmetry) tells us that the absence of FI term at $`A`$ ( $`\xi _2=0`$) is stable against radiative corrections. This is one of the merits which allow the analysis simple. For Type II, quadratically divergent FI terms are generated at both fixed points with opposite sign and this makes the configuration complicated and unpredictableLocalization of bulk fields by the VEV of (parity-odd) adjoint chiral fields  and correction to the gauge coupling running through Chern-Simons term  are two major effects of FI terms. Though the physics related to the Fayet-Iliopoulos term is interesting by itself, it goes beyond the scope of this paper and we consider only Type I in the paper.

Model C: Scherk-Schwarz breaking of both gauge symmetry and supersymmetry

Here, the compactification breaks gauge symmetry and supersymmetry at the same time. If supersymmetry is also broken by Scherk-Schwarz mechanism, the Fayet-Iliopoulos term is generated at $`A`$ even for Type I since the supersymmetric condition $`\xi _1+\xi _2=0`$ for one loop correction disappears and $`\xi _1=0`$ cannot determine the stable value for $`\xi _2`$. This makes the analysis much more complicated and we do not consider Model C in this paper.

Running of gauge couplings is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2(M_Z)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_g}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^{}}{M_Z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_g}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{M_c^{}}}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{}^{^{}}{}_{}{}^{2}(M_Z)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_g^{^{}}}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^{}}{M_Z}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}}{8\pi ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{M_c^{}}}`$ (17)
Here we neglect nonuniversal brane gauge kinetic terms by the strong coupling assumption and the (moderate) largeness of the extra dimension. Strong coupling behavior of 5-D gauge coupling fixes the ratio $`M_s/M_c^{}`$ to be $`𝒪(100)`$ ($`100`$ or $`16\pi ^3500`$).

It is convenient for later uses to define the relevant combination of the beta functions in determining the unification scale.

$`B=b_g{\displaystyle \frac{b_g^{^{}}}{3}},\stackrel{~}{B}=\stackrel{~}{b}_g{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}}{3}}.`$ (18)
Model A-1: Standard Model (SM) with one Higgs doublet

The beta functions below the compactification scale are $`b_g=\frac{19}{6},b_g^{^{}}=\frac{41}{6}`$ and $`B=\frac{49}{9}`$. Above the compactification scale, the beta functions are modified: $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=\frac{1}{4},\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=\frac{27}{4}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=2`$. Useful formula is

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\left[(\stackrel{~}{b}_g{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}}{3}})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{M_c^{}}}+(b_g{\displaystyle \frac{b_g^{^{}}}{3}})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^{}}{M_Z}}\right]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi }}\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}\left[\stackrel{~}{B}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_s}{M_c^{}}}+B\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_c^{}}{M_Z}}\right].`$ (20)
¿From this formula, once we fix $`\frac{M_s}{M_c^{}}100`$ or $`16\pi ^3`$ from naive dimensional analysis, following strong coupling assumption, we can determine $`M_c^{}`$ by putting beta function coefficients for different models. For $`M_s/M_c^{}=100(16\pi ^3)`$, the unification scale is given as $`70(190)`$ TeV which is just two to three orders higher compared to the electroweak scale.

Model A-2v: Two Higgs doublet SM with vectorlike embedding

The beta functions below the compactification scale are $`b_g=3,b_g^{^{}}=\frac{21}{3}`$ and $`B=\frac{16}{3}`$. Above $`1/R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=(23/6,1/6,4)`$ for gauge, Higgs and matters, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=(0,1/6,20/3)`$. Total sum is $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=\frac{1}{3},\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=\frac{41}{6}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\frac{35}{18}`$. Then we can determine the unification scale $`M_s`$ and it is $`80(210)`$ TeV for $`M_s/M_c^{}=100(16\pi ^3)`$.

Model A-2c: Two Higgs doublet SM with chiral embedding

This is the minimal model for Higgs configuration. From the minimality condition, leptons are at $`O_{GUT}`$ and quarks are at $`A`$, then $`H_d`$ should be in the bulk and $`H_u`$ should be at $`A`$ for the two Higgs doublet SM in which both Higgses play roles in giving fermion masses. Below $`1/R`$, the beta function is the same as Model A-2v. Above $`1/R`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=(23/6,1/4,4)`$ for gauge, Higgs and matters, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=(0,1/4,20/3)`$. The sum is $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=\frac{5}{12},\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=\frac{83}{12}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\frac{17}{9}`$. The unification scale is then $`80(220)`$ TeV for $`M_s/M_c^{}=100(16\pi ^3)`$.

Model B-v: MSSM with vectorlike embedding

In this model both $`H_d`$ and $`H_u`$ are put in the bulk. Phenomenological constraint requires $`H_d`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ rather than $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ to give correct charged lepton masses. However, the contribution of $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ to the beta function is the same. The reason is following. The members of the hypermultiplet $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H=\{H_D,H_T,H_S,\widehat{H}_S,\widehat{H}_T,\widehat{H}_D\}`$ are assigned the $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$ parity as $`\{(++),(+),(+),(+),(+),()\}`$. Likewise, for $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H=\{H_D,H_S,\widehat{H}_S,\widehat{H}_D\}`$, the parity assignments are $`\{(++),(+),(+),()\}.`$ Since only the even modes with $`(++)`$ and $`()`$ contribute to the logarithmic running, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}_H`$ give the same contribution to the beta function.

The running interval for the supersymmetric models can be divided into three parts. From $`M_Z`$ to $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, the running is governed by SM. From $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ to $`M_c^{}`$, the running is that of the usual MSSM. From $`M_c^{}`$ to $`M_s`$, we follow the analysis given in . Though $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ can vary from $`M_Z`$ to $`1`$ TeV, we identify $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ with $`M_Z`$ for the simple analysis. Dependence of the unification scale on the detailed sparticle spectrum is quite strong and the result should be understood as a qualitative one with uncertainties from undertermined sparticle spectrum. The beta function coefficients are the following. Below $`1/R`$, $`b_g=1,b_g^{^{}}=11`$ and $`B=\frac{8}{3}`$. Above the compactification scale, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=(4,0,6)`$ for gauge, Higgs and matters, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=(0,0,10)`$. The sum is $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=2,\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=10`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\frac{4}{3}`$. The unification scale is determined to be $`1.9(4.2)\times 10^4`$ TeV for $`M_s/M_c^{}=100(16\pi ^3)`$. This unification scale becomes slightly lower if we change $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ to 1 TeV from $`M_Z`$ but is still highler compared to the nonsupersymmetric models.

Model B-c (minimal model): MSSM with chiral embedding

In this model, $`H_d`$ is put in the bulk and $`H_u`$ is put at the fixed point $`A`$. From the minimality condition, leptons are at $`O_{GUT}`$ and quarks are at $`A`$. $`H_d`$ should couple at both fixed points in order to give mass to charged leptons and down type quarks and $`H_u`$ is necessary only at $`A`$. Therefore, Model B-c realizes the minimal configuration required by the phenomenological constraint. The running below $`1/R`$ is the same as Model B-v. Above the compactification scale, $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=(4,0,13/2)`$ for gauge, Higgs and matters, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=(0,0,21/2)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{b}_g=\frac{5}{2},\stackrel{~}{b}_g^{^{}}=\frac{21}{2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}=1`$. Now the unification scale is a little bit higher than the Model B-v, $`M_s=3.4(9.2)\times 10^4`$ TeV for $`M_s/M_c^{}=100(16\pi ^3)`$.

In the previous analysis, the threshold corrrections are neglected and the possible effects from nonuniversal brane kinetic terms at $`A`$ are assumed to vanish. The suppression of the brane kinetic term is justified by the strong coupling assumption once the size of the extra dimension is larger than the Planck length (or string length $`l_s=1/M_s`$).

## III Proton decay

Longevity of proton at this moment gives strong constraint on the models with low fundamental scale. Extremely many operators consistent with the symmetries of the theory should be forbidden in order to avoid rapid proton decay for low fundamental scale models. Though it is possible to forbid all these unwanted B violating operators by imposing discrete gauge symmetry, the geometric explanation for the suppression of B violating operators  is much simpler and nicer. Once the quarks and leptons are at different positions along the extra dimension, the B violating operators are forbidden by the locality of higher dimensional field theory. Nonlocal B violating terms are generated by nonperturbative or quantum gravitational effects at low energy but in the models considered above it is suppressed by the separated length as $`e^{\frac{M_s}{M_c^{}}}e^{100}10^{44}`$ since quarks and leptons are maximally separated in the extra dimension. Exponential suppression of unwanted B violating operators is easily obtained once we separate quarks and leptons a few tens times the fundamental length scale. The minimality condition of $`SU(3)_W`$ puts quarks at $`A`$ and leptons at $`O_{GUT}`$ and the proton decay is naturally avoided by the minimality condition.More precisely, leptons can be placed in the bulk and can have contact interations at $`A`$ with quarks. Therefore, we should assume that matter chiral fields live only at fixed points. In this case, different locations of leptons and quarks are derived from the minimality condition. The presence of anomalous $`U(1)`$ under which leptons are charged allows leptons to be localized at the fixed point via Fayet-Iliopoulos term. However, in this case the separation of leptons and quarks are not guaranteed.

## IV Neutrino mass

In order to give mass to neutrinos, $`H_u`$ also should act at $`O`$. Thus now we have to consider two bulk Higgses. However,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M_{}}}3_L3_L\overline{3}_{H_u}\overline{3}_{H_u}\delta (y)`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{M_{}}}LLH_uH_u\delta (y)+\mathrm{}`$ (22)
gives too large masses to neutrinos unless $`M_{}`$ is extremely higher than the electroweak scale ($`H_u`$). By giving large kink mass we can make $`H_u`$ almost localize at $`A`$ and this explains the smallness of neutrino masses through the exponential suppresion of $`H_u`$ wave function. The detailed realization for the $`H_u`$ localization needs extra modification of the models. $`U(1)_Y`$ cannot play an asymmetric localization since the hypercharge of $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ is exactly opposite and if $`H_u`$ is localized at one fixed point and then $`H_d`$ is localized at the other fixed point. Therefore, we should introduce anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ under which $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are asymmetrically charged. (For instance, only $`H_u`$ is charged under $`U(1)_A`$.)

## V Fixed point anomaly cancellation

Since we deal with chiral models, it is necessary to justify how the cancellation of the local gauge anomaly at the orbifold fixed point is realized in detail.

Anomaly is an IR(infrared) property of the theory and is determined from the massless sector of the model in 4D. However, there can exist a local gauge anomaly spread along the extra dimension if we spread quarks and leptons at different fixed points even when the integrated anomaly cancels in the effective 4D theory. Therefore, it is necessary to check whether the fixed point gauge anomaly can be cancelled by writing down local counter terms.

Firstly, let us briefly review the result on the abelian gauge anomaly. For a 5D orbifold, the local gauge anomaly appears only at the fixed point and is equally distributed for an abelian gauge group. For $`U(1)`$ gauge group with one unit-charged fermion in the bulk on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, the local gauge anomaly is,

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right]𝒬,`$ (23)
where $`J^M`$ is the five dimensional current and

$`𝒬`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ (24)
is the four dimensional chiral anomaly. Starting from a theory with bulk fermions, we can calculate the contributions of all the Kaluza-Klein modes to the anomaly and the answer is independent of the wave functions. The chiral fermion contribution localized at the fixed point is

$`_\mu J^\mu (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (y)𝒬,`$ (25)
and the Chern-Simons term contribution is

$`_5J^5(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y\pi R)\right]𝒬`$ (26)
from

$`_{\mathrm{CS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^2}}ϵ(y)ϵ_{MNPQR}A^MF^{NP}F^{QR}.`$ (27)
where $`ϵ(y)=\pm 1`$ for $`y>0`$ and $`y<0`$, respectively.

The above calculation can be extended to $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{^{}})`$ . Since the five dimensional Dirac spinor has left– and right– handed spinors, $`\psi _L,\psi _R`$, from the 4D point of view, there are two possibilities for the parity assignment of the fermions,

Case (1) $`\psi _L`$ : $`(+,+)`$ , $`\psi _R`$ : $`(,)`$

Case (2) $`\psi _L`$ : $`(+,)`$ , $`\psi _R`$ : $`(,+)`$

For Case (1) with the parity $`(+,+)`$ and $`(,)`$, the anomaly calculation is the same as the previous result and the local gauge anomaly is

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]𝒬.`$ (28)
For the second case with $`(+,)`$ and $`(,+)`$, the flip of the parity under $`Z_2^{^{}}`$ can be represented by the twisting of the corresponding fields under the translation $`yy+\pi R`$ with $`e^{i\frac{y}{R}}`$ for the corresponding wave functions. Therefore, the answer is

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2i\frac{y}{R}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]𝒬,`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]𝒬.`$ (30)
It is easy to see that this local gauge anomaly can be cancelled exactly by the bulk Chern-Simons term,

$`_{\mathrm{CS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^2}}ϵ(y)ϵ_{MNPQR}A^MF^{NP}F^{QR}.`$ (31)
Now, it is quite straightforward to generalize the above review on the abelian gauge anomaly cancellation to the nonabelian case.

### A Nonabelian anomaly from bulk matters : unbroken case

When the gauge symmetry is not broken, the previous formula is valid. For instance, the anomaly for the fermion $`N`$ of $`SU(N)`$ with the parity $`(+,(1)^{h_i})`$ and $`(,(1)^{h_i})`$) is

$`D_MJ^{Ma}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)+(1)^{h_i}\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]𝒬^a,`$ (32)
where

$`𝒬^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}D^{abc}F_{\mu \nu }^b\stackrel{~}{F}^{c\mu \nu },`$ (33)
and

$`D^{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}\left(\{T^a,T^b\}T^c\right).`$ (34)
If the fermion contains massless zero mode ($`h_i=0`$), the anomaly appears at both fixed points with equal sign, and if it does not have massless zero mode ($`h_i=1`$) , the anomaly appears with opposite sign. This is a trivial generalization of the abelian result.

### B Nonabelian anomaly cancellation with Scherk-Schwarz breaking of gauge symmetry

However, the most interesting models involve the breaking of gauge symmetry with the parity. Then the symmetric fixed point $`O_{GUT}`$ and the other fixed point $`A`$ should be distinguised. For the bulk gauge group $`G`$, the $`Z_2^{^{}}`$ parity which does not commute with $`G`$ break the gauge group to $`H=H_1\times H_2\times \mathrm{}\times H_n`$. The anomaly at $`O_{GUT}`$ is expressed $`G`$ invariantly and is the same as the above. At $`A`$, the expression needs more information.

#### 1 Bulk fermion contribution

Bulk fermions belonging to the fundamental representation of $`G`$ is divided into fundamentals under $`H_i`$ and have different parities under $`Z_2^{^{}}`$. Let the parity be $`(+,(1)^{h_i})`$ and $`(,(1)^{h_i})`$ for $`\psi _L`$ and $`\psi _R`$. Then we can calculate the anomaly induced at $`A`$ from the knowledge of abelian gauge anomaly just like the previous section except the fact that now $`𝒬`$ is not the anomaly of entire bulk gauge group but is that of unbroken subgroup. Thus the general expression of the anomaly from the bulk matter is

$`D^MJ_M^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (y)𝒬_O^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1)^{h_i}𝒬_{Ai}^{a_i}\delta _{aa_i},`$ (35)
where

$`𝒬_O^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}D^{abc}F_{\mu \nu }^b\stackrel{~}{F}^{c\mu \nu },`$ (36)
and

$`𝒬_{Ai}^{a_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}D^{a_ib_ic_i}F_{\mu \nu }^{b_i}\stackrel{~}{F}^{c_i\mu \nu }.`$ (37)
Here, $`a`$ is the gauge index for unbroken group $`G`$ and $`a_i`$ is the gauge index of its subgroup $`H_i`$.

#### 2 Chern-Simons contribution

The bulk Chern-Simons term is

$`_{CS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\pi ^2}}ϵ(y)\mathrm{tr}\left(AF^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^3F+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}A^5\right).`$ (38)
The gauge transformation leaves a nonvanishing term at the boundary which can cancel the anomaly from the chiral fermions. The general expression of the anomaly from the Chern-Simons term is

$`D^MJ_M^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (y)𝒬_O^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝒬_{Ai}^{a_i}\delta _{aa_i},`$ (39)
where

$`𝒬_O`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}D^{abc}F_{\mu \nu }^b\stackrel{~}{F}^{c\mu \nu },`$ (40)
and

$`𝒬_{Ai}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\pi ^2}}D^{a_ib_ic_i}F_{\mu \nu }^{b_i}\stackrel{~}{F}^{c_i\mu \nu }.`$ (41)
#### 3 Bulk fermion, Chern-Simons term, and brane fermion contributions

If we add two contributions, the anomaly at $`O_{GUT}`$ cancel with each other perfectly. The anomaly at $`A`$ is

$`D^MJ_M^a`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝒬_{Ai}^{a_i}\delta _{aa_i}\delta _{h_i0}.`$ (42)
The contributions of bulk fermions with $`h_i=1`$ and Chern-Simons term cancel while the contributions of those with $`h_i=0`$ and CS term add up. This is the anomaly that can be cancelled exactly by putting incomplete multiplet associated to the zero mode which is (anti-)fundamental under $`H_i`$ (or carries opposite charges compared to the zero mode from the bulk fermion). This clearly shows the cancellation mechanism of cubic gauge anomaly like YM-YM-YM, $`U(1)`$-YM-YM and $`U(1)^3`$.

### C $`U(1)`$ gauge boson–graviton–graviton anomaly cancellation

In the previous sections, we studied the cubic anomaly cancellation of abelian and nonabelian gauge groups. In this subsection, the mixed anomaly for $`U(1)`$ gauge boson–graviton–graviton is considered. For an abelian gauge group, $`U(1)`$–graviton–graviton anomaly cancellation is done in parallel to $`U(1)^3`$ anomaly cancellation. At each fixed point the anomaly is

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]𝒬_𝒢,`$ (43)
where $`J^M`$ is the five dimensional current and

$`𝒬_𝒢`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi ^2}}R_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{R}^{\mu \nu }`$ (44)
is the gravitational anomaly. The chiral fermion localized at the fixed point gives

$`_\mu J^\mu (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (y)𝒬_{𝒢}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (45)
and the Chern-Simons term gives

$`_5J^5(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]𝒬_𝒢,`$ (46)
where

$`_{\mathrm{CS}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{768\pi ^2}}ϵ(y)ϵ_{MNPQR}A^MR^{NP}R^{QR}.`$ (47)
We obtain a similar conclusion for $`S^1/Z_2\times Z_2^{^{}}`$.

The apparent problem appears when a $`U(1)`$ gauge group survives after the breaking of the bulk nonabelian gauge group. In this case, the gravitational mixed anomaly of $`U(1)`$ is induced only at the fixed point $`A`$ and should be cancelled by localized fields at $`A`$ since the bulk has nonabelian gauge symmetry and does not allow a gravitational Chern-Simons term like $`ARR`$. To see how this works, let us consider the breaking of $`SU(M+N)`$ to $`SU(M)\times SU(N)\times U(1)`$ by Scherk-Schwarz mechanism at $`A`$. If the fundamental $`M+N`$ of $`SU(M+N)`$ is in the bulk has a parity assignment $`(+,)`$ and $`(,+)`$ for $`M_{aN}`$ and $`(+,+)`$ and $`(,)`$ for $`N_{aM}`$, there appears a $`U(1)`$ gravitational mixed anomaly at $`A`$

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(1)M\times aN+N\times (aM)\right]\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})𝒬_𝒢,`$ (48)
where the subscript $`aN`$ and $`aM`$ denote $`U(1)`$ charge and we haven’t fixed the normalization of $`U(1)`$ charge $`a`$. Since the $`U(1)`$ is a subgroup of simple group, the sum of $`U(1)`$ charges should vanish. Therefore the anomaly becomes

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`N\times (aM)\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})𝒬_𝒢,`$ (49)
and is cancelled by the $`U(1)`$–graviton–graviton anomaly induced from $`\overline{N}_{aM}`$ localized at $`A`$. This result is very interesting since we cannot write down YM-gravity-gravity mixed Chern-Simons term $`ARR`$ due to $`\mathrm{Trace}(A)=0`$. The $`U(1)`$ gravitational mixed anomaly should be cancelled without the aid of Chern-Simons term and this is the case indeed.

This is in accord with the absence of the Fayet-Iliopoulos term in the setup. $`N=1`$ supersymmetry relates $`U(1)`$ gravitational mixed anomaly from the fermions to the FI term from the bosons, and the absence of the anomaly guarantees the absence of quadratically divergent FI term at the fixed point. Therefore, the vanishing of FI term is natural and is protected from radiative corrections.

### D $`SU(5)`$

Even though we are studying the $`SU(3)_W`$ model here, it is appropriate to see the cancellation of the anomalies for the chiral model since we presented above the general mechanism for the fixed point anomaly cancellation. In the bulk there exists one $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ with parity $`(,,,+,+)`$ and one doublet $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with opposite hypercharge is locate at $`A`$. $`H_d`$ is the zero mode coming from $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and is $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. $`H_u`$ located at $`A`$ is $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The cubic anomaly of $`SU(5)`$ from $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ appears at $`O`$ and should be cancelled by the Chern-Simons term. Then at $`A`$, the cubic anomaly of the subgroup $`SU(3)_C^3`$ and $`U(1)_Y^3`$ (and also the mixed anomaly $`U(1)_YSU(3)_CSU(3)_C`$ from the triplet of $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and the Chern-Simons term cancel with each other. The cubic anomaly $`SU(2)_L^3`$ and $`U(1)_Y^3`$ (and the mixed anomaly $`U(1)_YSU(2)_LSU(2)_L`$) from the doublet of $`5`$ is added with the one from the Chern-Simons term and is cancelled by the anomaly from the doublet living at $`A`$. The gravitational mixed anomaly of $`U(1)`$ from $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ can appear at $`A`$ as

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`1/2\left[(1)\times 3\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}+2\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right]\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})𝒬_𝒢`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`(1)\delta (y\pi R)𝒬_𝒢,`$ (51)
where the first term is from $`\mathrm{𝟑}_{\frac{1}{3}}`$ and the second is from $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. This is exactly cancelled by $`U(1)_Y`$-gravity-gravity anomaly from $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ living at $`A`$.

### E $`SU(3)_W`$

The anomaly of Higgs sector cancels independently and quark-lepton sector cancels with appropriate Chern-Simons terms. In the previous discussions it was proven that once the 4D gauge anomaly cancel the 5D fixed point gauge anomaly can be cancelled with having appropriate Chern-Simions term for the Scherk-Schwarz breaking setup of gauge symmetry.

Considering $`T_8=Y/\sqrt{3}`$, we find that the fixed point anomalies from leptons $`\mathrm{𝟑}_l`$ appear only at $`O_{GUT}`$ and are cancelled by the 5D Chern-Simons term,

$$_{CS}=\frac{c_l}{128\pi ^2}ϵ(y)\mathrm{tr}(AFF\mathrm{}),$$
(52)
by choosing $`c_l=2`$ ($`3c_l=6`$ for three generations) since the anomaly from the fixed point localized matter is twice of that of bulk matter. This Chern-Simons term at the same time cancel the anomalies at $`A`$ from quarks. Moreover, for the supersymmetric $`SU(3)_W`$ case, the anomaly from the bulk Higgsino $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ is the same as that of $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and appear at $`O_{GUT}`$ and $`A`$. The anomaly at $`O_{GUT}`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ is cancelled by the Chern-Simons term with $`c_H=1`$, and the anomalies at $`A`$ from $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ and the Chern-Simons term are cancelled by the contribution from the Higgs doublet $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{H_u}`$ at $`A`$. Thus, if $`c=3c_l+c_H`$ is chosen to be $`7`$, all the fixed point anomaly from quarks, leptons and Higgsinos disappear. For the model in which both Higgses are in the bulk, $`c=3c_l=6`$ is enough to cancel all the fixed point anomalies.

Gravitational mixed anomaly of $`U(1)_Y`$ appears only at $`A`$. Quarks do not give the anomaly since $`Y_{q_i}=0`$. $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}_H`$ gives the anomaly at $`A`$ as

$`_MJ^M(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`1/2\left[(1)\times 1\times (2)+2\times ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+(1)\times 3\times 1\right]\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})𝒬_𝒢`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`(1)\delta (y\pi R)𝒬_𝒢,`$ (54)
where the first term is from $`\mathrm{𝟏}_2`$ and the second is from $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and the third term is from $`\mathrm{𝟑}_1`$. Notice $`(1)`$ factors for the singlet and the triplet due to the parity assignment. This is just twice of the bulk doublet contribution and is exactly cancelled by $`U(1)_Y`$-gravity-gravity anomaly from $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ living at $`A`$.

## VI Conclusion

In this paper we examined the possibility of unification of electroweak gauge group into $`SU(3)_W`$ with minimality condition. For the simplest setup, the tree level prediction is very close to the observed value and the unification is achieved near TeV. As a specific model, $`\mathrm{`}`$natural’ location of matters are assumed such that leptons are at $`O`$ and quarks are at $`A`$. The minimal configuration requires $`H_d`$ at both fixed points but $`H_u`$ only at one fixed point $`A`$ if we neglect neutrino masses. The setup can avoid proton decay and can explain the bottom-top mass ratio with order one $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as a byproduct of the minimality condition. Neutrino masses are easily incorporated once we put $`H_u`$ also in the bulk. Once kink mass of $`H_u`$ is given, then $`H_u`$ is almost localized at $`A`$ and neutrinos acquire tiny mass even for a very low fundamental scale. The vectorlike and chiral models we considered in this paper are shown to be made free of anomalies even at the fixed points. From this experience, we conjecture that the orbifold compactification can be made sensible even at the fixed points by including an appropriate Chern-Simons term(axion coupling term with Dirac index density) in the bulk for odd(even) dimensions if the effective 4D gauge anomalies from the bulk and fixed points fermions cancel.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Kiwoon Choi for helpful discussions. JEK and HML are supported in part by the BK21 program of Ministry of Education, the KOSEF Sundo Grant, and by the Office of Research Affairs of Seoul National University.


format: text

text:
# Typical performance of low-density parity-check codes over general symmetric channels

## I Introduction

We investigate the typical performance of low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes over a general binary-input output-symmetric (BIOS) memoryless channel. Previous statistical physics based analyses of LDPC codes have discovered some interesting properties, including the fact that they can, in principle, saturate the information-theoretic upper bound (Shannon’s bound defined by the channel coding theorem Shannon48 ) with low connectivity values. Existing statistical mechanical studies on the LDPC codes, however, have been mostly confined to the case of binary symmetric channel (BSC), which fits into the statistical-mechanical framework in a natural way KMS00 ; MKSV00 ; VSK00 ; VSK02 . Notable exceptions are the work by Montanari montanari  that discusses the case of binary-input additive-white-Gaussian-noise channel (BIAWGNC) as well as the BSC case and the study of Sourlas codes Sourlas89 , a simple LDPC code, in which non-BSC channels are addressed Rujan93 ; NW99 ; VSK99 . From the statistical-mechanical point of view, LDPC codes are regarded as random spin systems; it is therefore natural to expect that they will exhibit some sort of universality, just as typical statistical-mechanical systems do, so that general properties of LDPC codes observed in the BSC case will be preserved when different communication channels are considered. In this paper we investigate the properties of LDPC codes in binary-input output-symmetric channels and show that this is generally the case. In particular, we show that the finite connectivity LDPC codes can saturate Shannon’s bound for general BIOS channel.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II we introduce the general framework, notation, codes and the channels that we will focus on. In section III we will briefly describe the calculation for the various channels, while the results obtained will be described in section IV, followed by the conclusions.

## II The general framework

### II.1 Symmetric channels

We consider the general class of binary-input output-symmetric (BIOS) memoryless channel. The input of the channel is binary ($`\pm 1`$), and the output may take any real value. The characteristics of a channel is described by the channel transition probabilities, $`P(y|x=1)`$ and $`P(y|x=1)`$. Let $`p(y)P(y|x=1)`$. A symmetric channel is characterized as a channel whose transition probabilities satisfy $`P(y|x=1)=P(y|x=1)=p(y)`$. Various types of channel models of practical interest fall into the class of BIOS channels, including the binary symmetric channel (BSC)

$$p_{\text{BSC}}(y)=(1p)\delta (y1)+p\delta (y+1),$$
(1)
the binary-input additive-white-Gaussian-noise channel (BIAWGNC)

$$p_{\text{BIAWGNC}}(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}e^{(y1)^2/2\sigma ^2},$$
(2)
and the binary-input Laplace channel (BILC)

$$p_{\text{BILC}}(y)=\frac{1}{\lambda }e^{|y1|/\lambda },$$
(3)
Each of the parameters $`p`$, $`\sigma ^2`$, and $`\lambda `$ represents the degree of degradation induced by the channel noise. We call each of them the noise level and let $`d`$ denotes the generic one.

An apparent technical difficulty in dealing with a general channel of real-valued output is that it is not at all obvious how to define the syndrome from the received signal: The modulo 2 arithmetic involved in computing syndrome in the BSC case is not directly applicable to the cases of real-valued received signal. This difficulty is resolved by using a truncation procedure MacKay99 : We conceptually consider another fictitious binary-input binary-output channel in addition to the channel under study. Let $`r`$ be the (fictitious) output symbol of this fictitious channel. We can assign to $`r`$ either of the values $`\pm 1`$ arbitrarily, and the binary channel noise $`\zeta `$ for the fictitious channel is defined therefrom, via $`r=x\zeta `$. For the sake of making the argument simple, we assign $`r=1`$ without loss of generality. Since the prior probability of $`\zeta `$ (before receiving $`y`$) should be $`P(\zeta =\pm 1)=1/2`$, the joint distribution of $`y`$ and $`\zeta `$ is given by

$$P(y,\zeta )=\frac{p(\zeta y)}{2}$$
(4)
since the truncation procedure used here yields $`x=\zeta `$.

### II.2 Gallager code

LDPC codes have been originally introduced by Gallager in his seminal work from 1963 Gallager62 . Gallager’s original construction Gallager62  is one of the most extensively studied LDPC codes in the information theory literature. It is defined by its parity-check matrix $`A=[C_1|C_2]`$ of dimensionality $`(MN)\times M`$, which is taken to be random and very sparse. The submatrix $`C_2`$, of dimensionality $`(MN)\times (MN)`$, is assumed invertible.

In the encoding step, the encoder computes a codeword from the information vector $`𝝃\{0,1\}^N`$ by employing a generator matrix $`G`$

$$𝒙=G^T𝝃mod2,$$
(5)
where the generator matrix is defined by

$$G=[I|C_2^1C_1]mod2.$$
(6)
This construction ensures $`AG^T=0mod2`$. The information code rate for unbiased messages is $`R=N/M`$.

In regular Gallager codes, the number of non-zero elements per row of $`A`$ is fixed to be $`K`$. We call it the row constraint. Average number of non-zero elements per column is then $`CK(MN)/M`$, whereas we will consider the case in which the number of non-zero elements in each column is forced to be exactly $`C`$, which we term the column constraint. Irregular Gallager codes can be defined by relaxing these constraints. It has been known that making code construction irregular may improve performance significantly RSU01 , but we will not discuss irregular codes in the current paper. We call the resulting regular Gallager code a $`(C,K)`$-Gallager code.

### II.3 MN code

We also discuss a variant of LDPC codes, called the MN code MN95 ; MacKay99 . The generator matrix $`G^T`$ of the MN code is defined by

$$G^T=C_n^1C_smod2,$$
(7)
where $`C_s`$ and $`C_n`$ are sparse matrices of dimensionality $`M\times N`$ and $`M\times M`$, respectively; $`C_n`$ is assumed invertible. The information rate for the code is $`R=N/M`$ for unbiased message.

In regular MN codes the row and column constraints are imposed on both matrices $`C_s`$ and $`C_n`$. The number of non-zero elements per row of $`C_s`$ and $`C_n`$ should be exactly $`K`$ and $`L`$, respectively. Also here, we do not discuss irregular MN codes KS99  in this paper. The number of non-zero elements per column of $`C_s`$ and $`C_n`$ are set to $`C`$ and $`L`$, respectively, where $`C=KM/N`$ holds. We call the resulting code a $`(K,C,L)`$-MN code.

## III Analysis

### III.1 Gallager code

The basic idea behind the statistical-mechanical treatment of the LDPC codes is the equivalence between the decoding problem and the thermal equilibrium distribution of a dilute Ising spin system. In order to see this in the Gallager code case, one should first note that the decoding problem is to find $`𝝉`$ which is best supported (i.e., most probable) by the received signal $`𝒚`$ among the set of $`𝝉`$ satisfying the parity-check equation ($`A𝜻=A𝝉mod2`$ if we write it in the $`\{0,1\}`$-notation). The set is expressed as

$$\left\{𝝉\right|\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{exp}\left[\gamma \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{MN}{}}\left(J_\mu \underset{j(\mu )}{}\tau _j1\right)\right]=1\},$$
(8)
where

$$(\mu )=\{j|A_{\mu j}=1\}$$
(9)
denotes the set of indices for which the parity-check matrix $`A`$ has 1’s in $`\mu `$-th row, and

$$J_\mu =\underset{j(\mu )}{}\zeta _j$$
(10)
is $`\mu `$-th check. The posterior probability of $`𝝉`$ conditioned on the received signal $`𝒚`$ then acquires the following Gibbs-Boltzmann form:

$$P_\gamma (𝝉|𝒚)=\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _\gamma (𝝉;𝒚,𝑱)\right]$$
(11)
in which we have to take the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and consider it at $`\beta =1`$ (Nishimori’s temperature Rujan93 ; Nishimori93 ; Iba99 ; nishimori\_book ) in order to obtain the true posterior. The Hamiltonian $`_\gamma (𝝉;𝒚,𝑱)`$ is defined as

$`_\gamma (𝝉;𝒚,𝑱)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{MN}{}}}\left(J_\mu {\displaystyle \underset{j(\mu )}{}}\tau _j1\right)`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{log}p(\tau _jy_j),`$
The channel characteristics enters into the Hamiltonian as the term $`\mathrm{log}p(\tau _jy_j)`$ which, by noting that $`\tau _j`$ takes $`\pm 1`$, can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{log}p(\tau _jy_j)=\tau _j\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{p(y_j)}{p(y_j)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}p(y_j)p(y_j).$$
(13)
From this expression it immediately follows that it is the log-likelihood ratio $`h_j(1/2)\mathrm{log}(p(y_j)/p(y_j))`$ of the channel noise $`y_j`$ which serves as the external field acting on site $`j`$, and that the channel characteristics defines the field distribution. Analyzing the effect of having different communication channels on the code properties, therefore reduces to investigating the effect of different field distributions on the physical properties of the system. The field distributions $`p(h)`$ for various channel models are as follows:

* BSC:

$`p_{\text{BSC}}(h)`$ $`=`$ $`(1p)\delta \left(h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1p}{p}}\right)`$ (14)
$`+p\delta \left(h+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1p}{p}}\right)`$
* BIAWGNC:

$$p_{\text{BIAWGNC}}(h)=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma ^2}{2\pi }}e^{(h\sigma ^2)^2/2\sigma ^2}$$
(15)
* BILC:

$`p_{\text{BILC}}(h)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (h\lambda ^1)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\lambda ^1}}{2}}\delta (h+\lambda ^1)`$ (16)
$`+\chi [\lambda ^1<h<\lambda ^1]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{h\lambda ^1},`$
where $`\chi [X]`$ is the indicator function, taking 1 when $`X`$ is true and 0 otherwise.

Sketches of these field distributions are given in Fig. 1.

We assume that the free energy of the system is self-averaging, that is,

$$f=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}M^1\mathrm{log}Z_{A,𝒚},$$
(17)
and evaluate the average $`_{A,𝒚}`$ over the received signal $`𝒚`$ and the randomness of the parity-check matrix $`A`$ using the replica method,

$$f=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n0}{lim}M^1\frac{}{n}\mathrm{log}Z^n_{A,𝒚}.$$
(18)
In calculating the free energy, we perform the gauge transformation $`\tau _j\zeta _j\tau _j`$, $`y_j\zeta _jy_j`$. The average over $`𝒚`$ can be taken with respect to $`_{j=1}^Mp(y_j)`$ after having performed the gauge transformation. We have to introduce a random tensor to take average over $`A`$.

Following basically the same procedure as in MKSV00  and exchanging the order of the two limits, taking the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ first, one obtains

$$f=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{n0}{lim}\frac{}{n}\underset{𝒒,\widehat{𝒒}}{Extr}\left[\frac{C}{K}𝒢_1(𝒒)𝒢_2(𝒒,\widehat{𝒒})+𝒢_3(\widehat{𝒒})\right],$$
(19)
where

$`𝒢_1(𝒒)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}q_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^Kn\mathrm{log}2,`$
$`𝒢_2(𝒒,\widehat{𝒒})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}q_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\widehat{q}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m},`$
$`𝒢_3(\widehat{𝒒})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{log}[{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ^1,\mathrm{},\tau ^n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}p(\tau ^\alpha y)_y`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{C!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}\widehat{q}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\tau ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\tau ^{\alpha _m}\right)^C].`$
To proceed further we adopt the replica-symmetric (RS) ansatz and let

$$q_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}=q_0u^m\pi (u)𝑑u,\widehat{q}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}=\widehat{q}_0\widehat{u}^m\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})𝑑\widehat{u}.$$
(21)
We will use the following simplifying notation.

$$\pi ^K(𝒖)d𝒖\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\pi (u_j)du_j$$
(22)
The replica-symmetric free energy $`f^{\text{RS}}`$ becomes

$`f^{\text{RS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\underset{\pi ,\widehat{\pi }}{Extr}\{{\displaystyle \frac{C}{K}}\mathrm{log}2`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`C{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}(1+u\widehat{u})\pi (u)\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})𝑑u𝑑\widehat{u}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{K}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}u_j\right)\pi ^K(𝒖)𝑑𝒖}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}\left[p(y)\underset{l=1}{\overset{C}{}}(1+\widehat{u}_l)+p(y)\underset{l=1}{\overset{C}{}}(1\widehat{u}_l)\right]_y}`$
$`\times \widehat{\pi }^C(\widehat{𝒖})d\widehat{𝒖}\},`$
in which $`q_0`$ and $`\widehat{q}_0`$ have been eliminated using the extremization condition $`q_0\widehat{q}_0=C`$. Heuristic construction of a sufficient condition to the extremization problem with respect to $`\pi `$ and $`\widehat{\pi }`$ is possible, and it gives the following saddle-point equations.

$`\pi (u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left[u\mathrm{tanh}\left(h(y)+\underset{l=1}{\overset{C1}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\widehat{u}_l\right)\right]_y}`$
$`\times \widehat{\pi }^{C1}(\widehat{𝒖})d\widehat{𝒖}`$
$`\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left(\widehat{u}\underset{j=1}{\overset{K1}{}}u_j\right)\pi ^{K1}(𝒖)𝑑𝒖}`$ (24)
We have let

$$h(y)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{p(y)}{p(y)}.$$
(25)
The performance of the code is quantified by the overlap $`m=M^1_{k=1}^M\zeta _j\tau _j`$, which is given as

$$m=sign(z)P(z)dz,$$
(26)
where

$`P(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left[z\mathrm{tanh}\left(h(y)+\underset{l=1}{\overset{C}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\widehat{u}_l\right)\right]_y}`$ (27)
$`\times \widehat{\pi }^C(\widehat{𝒖})d\widehat{𝒖}.`$
### III.2 MN code

The decoding problem for the MN code is to find $`\mathrm{SS}`$ and $`𝝉`$ which are the best suitable in view of the received signal $`𝒚`$ among the sets of $`\mathrm{SS}`$ and $`𝝉`$ satisfying the parity-check equation ($`C_s\mathrm{SS}+C_n𝝉=C_s𝝃+C_n𝜻mod2`$ if written in the $`\{0,1\}`$-notation). Defining the $`\mu `$th component of the check $`𝑱`$ as

$$J_\mu =\underset{j_s(\mu )}{}\xi _j\underset{l_n(\mu )}{}\zeta _l,$$
(28)
where

$$_s(\mu )=\{j|(C_s)_{\mu j}=1\},_n(\mu )=\{l|(C_n)_{\mu l}=1\},$$
(29)
the posterior probability of $`\mathrm{SS}`$ and $`𝝉`$ conditioned on the received signal $`𝒚`$ and the check $`𝑱`$ is given by

$$P_\gamma (\mathrm{SS},𝝉|𝒚,𝑱)=\frac{1}{Z}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _\gamma (\mathrm{SS},𝝉;𝒚,𝑱)\right],$$
(30)
in the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and at $`\beta =1`$, where the Hamiltonian $`_\gamma (\mathrm{SS},𝝉;𝒚,𝑱)`$ is defined as

$`_\gamma (\mathrm{SS},𝝉;𝒚,𝑱)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{M}{}}}\left(J_\mu {\displaystyle \underset{j_s(\mu )}{}}S_j{\displaystyle \underset{l_n(\mu )}{}}\tau _l1\right)`$ (31)
$`F_s{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_j{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\mathrm{log}p(\tau _ly_l),`$
where $`F_s`$ is a parameter representing the bias of the information vector $`𝝃`$ in such a way that $`P(\xi _j=\pm 1)=(1\pm \mathrm{tanh}F_s)/2`$ holds. The form of Eq. (31) clearly shows that the channel characteristics again acts as random field on $`\{\tau _l\}`$, where the log likelihood ratio gives the actual value of the field.

The replica calculation can be done along the same way as in the case of the Gallager code. We have performed the gauge transformation $`S_j\xi _jS_j`$, $`\tau _j\zeta _j\tau _j`$, and $`y_j\zeta _j\tau _j`$. The free energy $`f`$ becomes

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\underset{n0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{}{n}}\underset{𝒒,\widehat{𝒒},𝒓,\widehat{𝒓}}{Extr}[{\displaystyle \frac{C}{K}}𝒢_1(𝒒,𝒓)`$
$`𝒢_2(𝒒,\widehat{𝒒},𝒓,\widehat{𝒓})+𝒢_3(\widehat{𝒒},\widehat{𝒓})],`$
where

$`𝒢_1(𝒒,𝒓)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}q_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^Kr_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}^L`$
$`n\mathrm{log}2,`$
$`𝒢_2(𝒒,\widehat{𝒒},𝒓,\widehat{𝒓})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}q_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\widehat{q}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}r_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\widehat{r}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m},`$
and

$`𝒢_3(\widehat{𝒒},\widehat{𝒓})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{log}[{\displaystyle \underset{S^1,\mathrm{},S^n}{}}e^{F_s_{\alpha =1}^n\xi S^\alpha }_\xi `$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{C!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}\widehat{q}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}S^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}S^{\alpha _m}\right)^C]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{N}}\mathrm{log}[{\displaystyle \underset{\tau ^1,\mathrm{},\tau ^n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}p(\tau ^\alpha y)_y`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}{}}\widehat{r}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}\tau ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\tau ^{\alpha _m}\right)^L].`$
We adopt the RS ansatz as before, under which we have

$$r_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}=r_0v^m\rho (v)𝑑v,\widehat{r}_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}=\widehat{r}_0\widehat{v}^m\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})𝑑\widehat{v},$$
(35)
in addition to Eq. (21). The replica-symmetric free energy $`f^{\text{RS}}`$ becomes

$`f^{\text{RS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\underset{\pi ,\widehat{\pi },\rho ,\widehat{\rho }}{Extr}\{{\displaystyle \frac{C}{K}}\mathrm{log}2`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`C{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}(1+u\widehat{u})\pi (u)\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})𝑑u𝑑\widehat{u}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{CL}{K}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}(1+v\widehat{v})\rho (v)\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})𝑑v𝑑\widehat{v}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{K}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}\left(1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}u_k\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}v_l\right)}`$
$`\times \pi ^K(𝒖)d𝒖\rho ^L(𝒗)d𝒗`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}\left[\underset{S=\pm 1}{}e^{F_s\xi S}\underset{k=1}{\overset{C}{}}(1+S\widehat{u}_k)\right]_\xi \widehat{\pi }^C(\widehat{𝒖})𝑑\widehat{𝒖}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{K}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}\left[\underset{\tau =\pm 1}{}p(\tau y)\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}(1+\tau \widehat{v}_l)\right]_y}`$
$`\times \widehat{\rho }^L(\widehat{𝒗})d\widehat{𝒗}\},`$
in which $`q_0`$, $`\widehat{q}_0`$, $`r_0`$, and $`\widehat{r}_0`$ have been eliminated using the extremization conditions, $`q_0\widehat{q}_0=C`$ and $`r_0\widehat{r}_0=L`$.

Construction of a heuristic solution to the extremization problem can be done in the same manner, which yields the following saddle-point equations:

$`\pi (u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left[u\mathrm{tanh}\left(F_s\xi +\underset{l=1}{\overset{C1}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\widehat{u}_l\right)\right]_\xi }`$
$`\times \widehat{\pi }^{C1}(\widehat{𝒖})d𝒖`$
$`\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left(\widehat{u}\underset{k=1}{\overset{K1}{}}u_k\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}v_l\right)\pi ^{K1}(𝒖)𝑑𝒖\rho ^L(𝒗)𝑑𝒗}`$
$`\rho (v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left[v\mathrm{tanh}\left(h(y)+\underset{l=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\widehat{v}_l\right)\right]_y}`$
$`\times \widehat{\rho }^{L1}(\widehat{𝒗})d\widehat{𝒗}`$
$`\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left(\widehat{v}\underset{k=1}{\overset{K}{}}u_k\underset{l=1}{\overset{L1}{}}v_l\right)\pi ^K(𝒖)𝑑𝒖\rho ^{L1}(𝒗)𝑑𝒗}`$
The overlap is then evaluated by

$$m=sign(z)P(z)dz,$$
(38)
where

$`P(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta \left[z\mathrm{tanh}\left(F_s\xi +\underset{l=1}{\overset{C}{}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\widehat{u}_l\right)\right]_\xi }`$ (39)
$`\times \widehat{\pi }^C(\widehat{𝒖})d\widehat{𝒖}.`$
It is worthwhile mentioning that, when the message is unbiased ($`F_s=0`$) and $`K`$ is even, saddle-point solutions have the following symmetry: For each solution $`\{\pi (u),\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u}),\rho (v),\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})\}`$ there is another solution $`\{\pi (u),\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u}),\rho (v),\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})\}`$. The latter has the same overlap as that of the former with the opposite sign.

## IV Results

### IV.1 Gallager code

#### IV.1.1 Analytical solutions

Of particular interest is the ferromagnetic state, which corresponds to an error-free communication. One can see that the assertion

$$\pi (u)=\delta (u1),\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})=\delta (\widehat{u}1)$$
(40)
always satisfies the saddle-point equation (III.1) irrespective of the values of $`K`$ and $`C`$ (provided that $`K,C2`$), thereby providing a solution. The overlap and the free energy of the solution at $`\beta =1`$ are $`m_{\text{ferro}}=1`$ and $`f_{\text{ferro}}=\mathrm{log}p(y)_y`$, respectively. One can therefore identify this as the ferromagnetic solution.

Another solution, which can be found in the limit $`K\mathrm{}`$, is the sub-optimal ferromagnetic solution

$$\pi (u)=\delta [u\mathrm{tanh}h(y)]_y,\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})=\delta (\widehat{u}),$$
(41)
for which

$$m_{\text{sf}}=sign\left[p(y)p(y)\right]_y$$
(42)
and

$$f_{\text{sf}}=\frac{C}{K}\mathrm{log}2\mathrm{log}\left[p(y)+p(y)\right]_y.$$
(43)
The difference of the free energy is expressed as

$$f_{\text{sf}}f_{\text{ferro}}=\text{C}R\mathrm{log}2,$$
(44)
where C is the channel capacity of the BIOS channel defined as

$$\text{C}=\mathrm{log}2\mathrm{log}\left[p(y)+p(y)\right]_y+\mathrm{log}p(y)_y.$$
(45)
This proves that the thermodynamic transition between the ferromagnetic and sub-optimal ferromagnetic solutions (no other solution has been identified in this case) occurs at the theoretical limit. This means that the maximum rate $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$, up to which error-free communication is theoretically possible, asymptotically achieves the theoretical limit as $`K\mathrm{}`$. This result has been known for BSC channel VSK00 ; VSK02  in the physics literature and is in agreement with results reported in the information theory literature MacKay99 . The current result is an extension to the case of a general BIOS channel.

#### IV.1.2 Numerical solutions of saddle-point equations

In finite-$`K`$ cases no simple analytical solution exists other than the ferromagnetic one, so one has to solve the saddle-point equations numerically. We have done it for BIAWGNC and BILC. The dependence of the overlap $`m`$ on the noise level $`d`$ ($`\sigma ^2`$ for BIAWGNC, and $`\lambda `$ for BILC) is qualitatively the same as that observed in BSC: For $`K3`$ the ferromagnetic solution is locally stable over the whole range of noise levels. At $`d=d_s`$, another solution with $`m<1`$ appears, which defines the spinodal point. At a higher noise level $`d=d_t>d_s`$ thermodynamic transition takes place, beyond which the ferromagnetic solution with $`m=1`$ becomes metastable (see Fig. 2). Table 1 summarizes the results for the BIAWGNC case, showing the spinodal point $`\sigma _s^2`$ (the value of the variance at which new, non ferromagnetic, solutions emerge), the thermodynamic transition point $`\sigma _t^2`$ (at which the thermodynamic transition occurs), and $`\sigma _0^2`$, the information-theoretic upper bound of the variance allowing error-free communication.

Table 2 summarizes the results for the BILC case, showing the values of the spinodal point $`\lambda _s`$, the thermodynamic transition point $`\lambda _t`$, and the information-theoretic upper bound $`\lambda _0`$.

It should be noted that the results for the spinodal point agree well with the results obtained by the density evolution approach RU01 , as expected, since the saddle-point equations by the replica analysis happen to coincide with the time evolution equations in the density evolution.

### IV.2 MN code

#### IV.2.1 Analytical solutions

In the following we restrict our discussion of the MN code to the unbiased case $`F_s=0`$. The ferromagnetic solution, corresponding to the error-free communication, can be constructed for the MN code with $`L2`$. (In fact, in the case $`L=1`$ the matrix $`C_n`$ reduces to a simple permutation matrix, so that we have to estimate each element of noise separately. This case is not at all interesting and therefore we will not discuss it any more.) It is given by

$`\pi (u)=\delta (u1),\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})=\delta (\widehat{u}1),`$
$`\rho (v)=\delta (v1),\widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})=\delta (\widehat{v}1),`$ (46)
for which $`m_{\text{ferro}}=1`$ and

$$f_{\text{ferro}}=\frac{C}{K}\mathrm{log}p(y)_y.$$
(47)
The MN code has the following paramagnetic solution for $`K2`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\pi (u)=\delta (u),\hfill & \widehat{\pi }(\widehat{u})=\delta (\widehat{u}),\hfill \\ \rho (v)=\delta [v\mathrm{tanh}h(y)]_y,\hfill & \widehat{\rho }(\widehat{v})=\delta (\widehat{v}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
which yields $`m_{\text{para}}=0`$ and

$$f_{\text{para}}=\left(\frac{C}{K}1\right)\mathrm{log}2\frac{C}{K}\mathrm{log}\left[p(y)+p(y)\right]_y.$$
(49)
Again, since

$$f_{\text{para}}f_{\text{ferro}}=\frac{C}{K}(\text{C}R\mathrm{log}2)$$
(50)
holds, we conclude that for the MN code the maximum rate $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$, theoretically allowing error-free communication, achieves the theoretical limit as long as $`K2`$, $`L2`$, provided that there is no locally stable solution other than the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic solutions. This result is an extension of the result reported in KMS00 ; MKSV00  to the case of a general BIOS channel.

It should be noted that the paramagnetic solution (IV.2.1) is also valid in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ for the case $`K=1`$. This means that the above-mentioned result also holds for the case of $`K=1`$ asymptotically in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$.

#### IV.2.2 Numerical solutions of saddle-point equations

In order to explore solutions other than the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic solutions, we have to solve the saddle-point equations numerically. We have done it for the BIAWGNC and BILC cases. We observed qualitatively the same characteristics as those reported in MKSV00 .

The obtained numerical results suggest that the qualitative physical properties are categorized into three types according to the $`K`$ value: cases with $`K=1`$, $`K=2`$ and $`K3`$, whereas it is only affected quantitatively by the values of $`C`$ and $`L`$, as described in the following.

The structure of noise-overlap diagram for the MN code with $`K=1`$ is qualitatively the same as that for Gallager code (see Fig. 2): At very low noise level only the ferromagnetic solution with $`m=1`$ exists. At a certain noise level $`d=d_s`$ another metastable solution with $`m<1`$ appears, and it becomes dominant beyond $`d=d_t>d_s`$. Since the latter solution is obtained only numerically, there is no guarantee that the thermodynamical transition $`d_t`$ is equal to the information-theoretical limit $`d_0`$. Numerical results show that in general $`d_t`$ is smaller than $`d_0`$: However, it is also observed that, for fixed $`C`$, increasing $`L`$ makes $`d_s`$ smaller and $`d_t`$ larger, the latter of which approaches the information-theoretical limit $`d_0`$ as $`L\mathrm{}`$, as discussed at the end of the previous subsection. Even for finite $`L`$ the value of $`d_t`$ may be numerically very close to $`d_0`$, especially when the rate $`R`$ is small. These properties have already been reported for the BSC case MKSV00 , so that our finding implies that they also hold for the BIAWGNC and BILC cases, revealing some sort of universality.

The noise-overlap diagram for the cases with $`K=2`$ has the general structure shown in Fig. 3. The diagram is characterized by three transition points: the spinodal point $`d_s`$, the thermodynamic transition $`d_t`$, and the bifurcation point $`d_b`$. The order of the thermodynamic transition $`d_t`$ and the bifurcation point $`d_b`$ varies with the values of $`C`$ and $`L`$, so that the bifurcation pattern for the cases with $`K=2`$ is further divided into two sub-categories depending on the order of the two transitions: $`d_s<d_b<d_t`$ for the first group, and $`d_s<d_t<d_b`$ for the second group. The noise-overlap diagrams for these groups are illustrated in Fig. 3 (a) and (b), respectively. By the local stability analysis the bifurcation point $`d_b`$ is determined by

$$v\rho (v)𝑑v=(C1)^{1/L},$$
(51)
which allows us to decide the type of bifurcation of a particular case. See the appendix for derivation of Eq. (51). As a result, we found that only a few cases with small values of $`C`$ and $`L`$ fall into the second category. The values of $`C`$ and $`L`$ for which the $`(2,C,L)`$-MN code fall into the second category depend on the channel characteristics; as far as we have observed, only the cases with $`L=2`$ fall into the second group. For the BIAWGNC case, the $`(2,3,2)`$-MN code is the only one instance, whereas for the BILC case, both $`(2,3,2)`$\- and $`(2,4,2)`$-MN codes belong to this group. (For the BSC case, $`(2,3,2)`$-, $`(2,4,2)`$-, and $`(2,5,2)`$-MN codes belong to this group.) All the $`(2,C,L)`$-MN codes but those mentioned above are in the first group. For the cases in the second group, the thermodynamic transition $`d_t`$ must be less than the information-theoretic limit $`d_0`$: However, it turns out numerically that $`d_t`$ is very close to $`d_0`$.

We observed that the noise-overlap diagram for the cases with $`K3`$ is relatively simple for the BIAWGNC and BILC cases, just as in the BSC case (Fig. 4): The ferromagnetic solution with $`m=1`$ (and its mirror image with $`m=1`$ when $`K`$ is even) and the paramagnetic solution are the only stable solutions found, both of which are locally stable over the whole range of the noise level. The system exhibits a first-order transition at the information-theoretic limit $`d_t`$. We did not find any solutions other than the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic solutions.

## V Conclusions

We have analyzed typical performance of LDPC codes over BIOS channel using statistical mechanics. We have shown for the case of LDPC codes that the log-likelihood ratio of the received signal serves as an external random field acting on each site, and that channel characteristics define the distribution of the random field. The Gallager and MN codes are analyzed, to find that the basic properties of these codes remain unchanged regardless of channel characteristics. In particular, it has been shown that these codes potentially saturate Shannon’s limit asymptotically, as $`K\mathrm{}`$, for the Gallager code; and when $`K,L2`$ — with a few exceptions with small $`C`$ and $`L`$ values — and asymptotically as $`L\mathrm{}`$ for $`K=1`$, for the MN code. Saddle-point solutions have also been numerically evaluated extensively for the cases of BIAWGNC and BILC channels, from which noise-overlap diagrams, as well as the transition and bifurcation points, have been characterized.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Yoshiyuki Kabashima for his helpful suggestions, Jort van Mourik for providing computer programs, and Nikos Skantzos for helpful discussions. Support from EPSRC research grant GR/N00562 is acknowledged.

*

## Appendix A Stability of paramagnetic solution for $`K2`$

To probe the stability of paramagnetic solution, which exists for $`K2`$, we analyze the stability with respect to $`𝒒`$ and $`𝒓`$ only, and do not consider stability with respect to $`\widehat{𝒒}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒓}`$; these conjugate variables are subsidiary to their counterparts, $`𝒒`$ and $`𝒓`$, respectively, so that the former should not be considered as independent variables.

Let $`A`$, $`B`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ denote sets of replica indices such as $`\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m`$, $`m1`$. We first evaluate the Hessian of the free energy (III.2) with respect to $`4\times (2^n1)`$ variables $`\{q_A,\widehat{q}_A,r_A,\widehat{r}_A\}`$:

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{cc}H_{𝒒𝒒}& H_{𝒒\widehat{𝒒}}\\ H_{𝒒\widehat{𝒒}}& H_{\widehat{𝒒}\widehat{𝒒}}\end{array}& O\\ O& \begin{array}{cc}O& H_{𝒓\widehat{𝒓}}\\ H_{𝒓\widehat{𝒓}}& H_{\widehat{𝒓}\widehat{𝒓}}\end{array}\end{array}\right),$$
(52)
where

$`\left(H_{𝒒𝒒}\right)_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & (K3)\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{C}{q_0^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_A}{r_0}}\right)^L\delta _{AB}\hfill & (K=2)\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
$`\left(H_{𝒒\widehat{𝒒}}\right)_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{AB}`$
$`\left(H_{\widehat{𝒒}\widehat{𝒒}}\right)_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C(C1)}{\widehat{q}_0^2}}\delta _{AB}`$
$`\left(H_{𝒓\widehat{𝒓}}\right)_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{N}}\delta _{AB}`$
$`\left(H_{\widehat{𝒓}\widehat{𝒓}}\right)_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{L(L1)}{\widehat{r}_0^2}}\delta _{AB}`$ (56)
The block-diagonal structure of the Hessian allows us to decompose the stability problem into two, one with respect to $`𝒒`$, and another with respect to $`𝒓`$.

Following the argument in the appendix of Tanaka-ITpre , one can say that the system is stable with respect to $`𝒒`$ if the matrix $`H_cH_{𝒒𝒒}H_{𝒒\widehat{𝒒}}\left(H_{\widehat{𝒒}\widehat{𝒒}}\right)^1H_{𝒒\widehat{𝒒}}`$ is positive definite. This condition takes into account the fact that $`\widehat{𝒒}`$ depends on $`𝒒`$. A corresponding statement holds for the stability with respect to $`𝒓`$.

The stability with respect to $`𝒓`$ is straightforward, by noting that the matrix $`H_{\widehat{𝒓}\widehat{𝒓}}`$ is negative definite, which means that $`H_c=(M/N)^2\left(H_{\widehat{𝒓}\widehat{𝒓}}\right)^1`$ is positive definite.

We consider the stability with respect to $`𝒒`$. For $`K3`$, we have $`H_c=[\widehat{q}_0^2/C(C1)]I`$, where $`I`$ is the identity matrix, so that the stability immediately follows, irrespective of the noise level of the channel. For $`K=2`$, the matrix $`H_c`$ is diagonal, and its $`A`$-th element is

$$\left(H_c\right)_{AA}=\frac{C}{q_0^2}\left(\frac{r_A}{r_0}\right)^L+\frac{\widehat{q}_0^2}{C(C1)}.$$
(57)
Using the equality which holds under the RS ansatz,

$$\frac{r_A}{r_0}=_1^1v^m\rho (v)𝑑v,$$
(58)
where $`A=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m`$, we have, as the stability condition,

$$E_m_1^1v^m\rho (v)𝑑v<(C1)^{1/L}.$$
(59)
for $`m=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Since it can be shown that $`E_{2m1}=E_{2m}`$ and $`E_{2m}E_{2m+2}`$, the critical condition determining the stability is

$$E_1<(C1)^{1/L}.$$
(60)