text:
# Hyperbolic Rank of Products

## 1 Introduction

In \[BrFa\] the authors proved that the product $`X:=H^{m_1}\times \mathrm{}\times H^{m_k}`$ of hyperbolic spaces $`H^{m_i}`$ admits an embedding of $`Y:=H^{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_kk+1}`$ in $`X`$ that is quasi-isometric in the sense that the Riemannian distance functions $`d_X`$ and $`d_Y`$ on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are related via

$$d_X|_Yd_Y\alpha d_X|_Y+\beta ,$$

with constants $`\alpha ,\beta ^+`$, $`\alpha >1`$.
In \[Foe\] this was generalized to the case of Riemannian products of certain types of warped products, that were shown to admit bilipschitz embeddings of warped products of negative sectional curvature.
In this paper we further generalize this observation proving the

###### Theorem 1

Let $`(X_i^{m_i},g_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, be Hadamard manifolds of pinched negative sectional curvature $`b_i^2K(X_i^{m_i},g_i)a_i^2`$. Then their Riemannian product $`(X=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^kX_i^{m_i},g_X)`$ admits a bilipschitz embedding of a Hadamard manifold $`(Y^n,g_Y)`$ of pinched negative sectional curvature $`b^2K(Y^n,g_Y)a^2`$ and dimension $`n:=m_1+\mathrm{}+m_kk+1`$.

The existence result of Theorem 1 implies the additivity of the hyperbolic rank for products of Hadamard manifolds with pinched negative curvature (compare \[BuySch\]).
Given a metric space $`X`$ consider all locally compact $`CAT(1)`$ Hadamard spaces $`Y`$ quasi-isometrically embedded into $`X`$ and let

$$rank_hX:=\underset{Y}{sup}dim_{\mathrm{}}Y$$

over all such $`Y`$, where $`dim_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ is the topological dimension of the boundary of $`Y`$. This invariant was introduced by Gromov (\[Gr\]) in a slightly stronger form, where he called it the hyperbolic corank. As explained in \[BuySch\] we will call it the hyperbolic rank.
Combining Theorem 1 with the result of \[BuySch\] we obtain

###### Theorem 2

Let $`X=X_1\times \mathrm{}\times X_k`$ be the product of Hadamard manifolds with pinched negative curvature, then

$$rank_hX=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}rank_hX_i.$$

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1

It is convinient to have the following

###### Definition 1

Let $`(X,g_X)`$ be a Riemannian manifold. A function $`f:X`$ is said to have pinched convex levels, if there are constants $`0<c_1c_2`$ such that for any unit speed geodesic $`c:(\eta ,\eta )Y`$ with $`\dot{c}(0)gradf(c(0))`$:

$$c_1(fc)^{\prime \prime }(0)c_2.$$

We now prove the

###### Lemma 1

Let $`(Y,g_Y)`$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with

$`|K|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$,

such that there exists a function $`f:Y`$ satisfying

$`gradf1`$,

$`f`$ has pinched convex levels and

$`K(\sigma _p)<\delta `$ for all planes $`\sigma _p`$ with $`gradf(p)\sigma _p`$.

Then $`(Y,g_Y)`$ is lipshitz equivalent to a Riemannian manifold of pinched negative sectional curvature.

Proof of Lemma 1:
First note that condition $`2)`$ implies that $`Y`$ splits into a product $`Y=\times N`$ such that

$`\times p`$ is orthogonal to $`N^t:=t\times N`$ for all $`t`$ and $`pN`$ and $``$ lies totally geodesic in $`Y`$, i.e. locally the metric is given by

$$g_Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& \mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\\ 0\end{array}& g_{ij}(t,y^k)\end{array}\right),r$$

Now $`1)`$ and $`3)`$ guarantee that

the Riemannian embedding $`N(Y,g_Y)`$ is strictly convex in the sense, that its second fundamental form tensor is strictly positive definite, i.e. $``$ $`BT_pN`$ with $`B=1`$:

$$II(B,B)>ϵ\text{and}$$

the intrinsic sectional curvature’s absolute value $`|K^N(\mathrm{\Delta })|`$ of any tangent plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that is tangent to $`N`$ is bounded by some real number $`C_1`$:

$$|K^N(\mathrm{\Delta })|<C_1,$$

From $`1)`$ and $`4)`$ it further follows that

the sectional curvature $`K(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of any tangent plane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ spanned by a vector tangent to $`N`$ and the coordinate vector $`\frac{}{t}|_t`$ is bounded by negative constants $`\delta ^{},\delta `$:

$$\delta ^{}<K(\mathrm{\Sigma })<\delta .$$

Finally $`1)`$ can be rewritten as

the norm of the curvature tensor $`R^{g_Y}`$ of $`g_Y`$ being bounded:

$$R:=\underset{A_i1}{sup}\{<R_{A_1A_2}A_3,A_4>\}<C_2.$$

We now stretch the metric into the direction of $`gradf`$ by some factor. Thus consider locally for $`\lambda 0`$ the metric

$$h^\lambda =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r}{\lambda ^2}& \mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\\ 0\end{array}& g_{ij}(t,y^k)\end{array}\right).$$

In the following we indicate all objects coming from the metric $`h^\lambda `$ with an additional subscript $`\lambda `$.
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an arbitrary tangent plane in $`TY`$ spanned by the two $`h^\lambda `$-orthonormal vectors

$$A+B=a\frac{}{t}|_{(t,y^k)}+b^i\frac{}{y^i}|_{(t,y^k)}\text{and}C=c^i\frac{}{y^i}|_{(t,y^k)}.$$

The sectional curvature $`K^\lambda (A+B,C)`$ is given via

$`K^\lambda (A+B,C)`$ $`=`$ $`<R_{AC}^\lambda A,C>_\lambda +\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}<R_{AC}^\lambda B,C>_\lambda `$ (1)
$`+<R_{BC}^\lambda B,C>_\lambda .`$
Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k`$ denote the Christoffel symbols of $`g_Y`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^k`$ those of $`h^\lambda `$. It is obvious that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^k`$ for $`k1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{ij}^1=\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^1`$. Further note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1j}^1=0=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{1j}^1`$. Write $`R_{^i^j}^k=_lR_{ijk}^l^l`$, thus it follows immediately from

$$R_{ijk}^l=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^l}{y^j}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^l}{y^i}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^h\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jh}^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^h\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ih}^l$$

that $`<R_{AC}^\lambda A,C>_\lambda =<R_{AC}A,C>`$ and $`<R_{AC}^\lambda B,C>_\lambda =<R_{AC}B,C>`$. With that, equation (1) turns into

$`K^\lambda (A+B,C)`$ $`=`$ $`K(A,C)\lambda ^2<A,A>_\lambda <C,C>_\lambda `$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\lambda <R_{\frac{A}{\lambda }C}B,C>`$
$`+K^\lambda (B,C)<B,B>_\lambda <C,C>_\lambda .`$
Since $`g_Y|_N=h^\lambda |_N`$ the intrinsic curvature of $`N`$ is independent of the particular choice of $`\lambda `$. The Gauss equation yields with $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\mu B`$, $`<\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{B}>_\lambda =1`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}K^\lambda (\stackrel{~}{B},C)\hfill \\ =K^N(\stackrel{~}{B},C)\left[II^\lambda (\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{B})II^\lambda (C,C)II^\lambda (\stackrel{~}{B},C)II^\lambda (\stackrel{~}{B},C)\right]\hfill \\ =K^N(\stackrel{~}{B},C)\lambda ^2\left[II(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{B})II(C,C)II(\stackrel{~}{B},C)II(\stackrel{~}{B},C)\right]\hfill \\ C_1\lambda ^2ϵ^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the inequality follows from $`b)`$.
Thus equation (2) takes the form

$`K^\lambda (A+B,C)`$ $``$ $`\delta \lambda ^2<A,A>_\lambda <C,C>_\lambda `$ (3)
$`+(C_1\lambda ^2ϵ^2)<B,B>_\lambda <C,C>_\lambda `$
$`+2\lambda C_2`$
$``$ $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{min}\{\delta ,ϵ^2\}+C_1+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\lambda C_2.`$
Hence for $`\lambda \frac{C_2+\sqrt{C_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+C_1\mathrm{min}\{\delta ,ϵ^2\}}}{\mathrm{min}\{\delta ,ϵ^2\}}`$, $`h^\lambda `$ makes $`(Y,h^\lambda )`$ a Riemannian manifold of negative sectional curvature.

$`|K^{(Y,g_Y)}|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the Gauss equation yield an upper bound $`ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ for

$$\left|II(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{B})II(C,C)II(\stackrel{~}{B},C)II(\stackrel{~}{B},C)\right|ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$

and analogue to equation (3) one finds

$$K^\lambda (A+B,C)\lambda ^2\mathrm{max}\{\delta ^{},ϵ_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\}C_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\lambda C_2.$$
(4)
Furthermore it is obvious that $`h^\lambda `$ is Lipschitz equivalent to $`g_Y`$.

q.e.d.

Applying Lemma 1 we can prove the following

###### Proposition 1

Let $`(X_i,g_{X_i})`$, $`i=1,2`$, be Riemannian manifolds satisfying conditions $`1)4)`$ of Lemma 1. Then the natural Riemannian embedding $`(Y,g_Y)`$ of $`Y=\times N_1\times N_2`$ in $`(X,g_X)=(X_1,g_{X_1})\times (X_2,g_{X_2})`$, with

$$\begin{array}{cccc}i:& (t,y^k,\stackrel{~}{y}^k)& & (t,y^k,t,\stackrel{~}{y}^k),\end{array}$$

is Lipschitz equivalent to a Riemannian manifold of pinched negative sectional curvature.

Proof of Proposition 1:
As in the proof of Lemma 1 we first note that conditions $`1)4)`$ imply the following:
$`X_i`$ is a product manifold $`X_i=\times N_i`$ of the real numbers $``$ and a $`n_i`$-dimensional manifold $`N_i`$ and the metric $`g_{X_i}`$ is such that

$`\times p`$ is orthogonal to $`N_i^t:=t\times N_i`$ for all $`t`$ and $`pN_i`$, and $``$ lies totally geodesic in $`X_i`$:

$$g_{X_1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\\ 0\end{array}& g_{ij}(t,y^k)\end{array}\right),g_{X_2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\\ 0\end{array}& \stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}(t,\stackrel{~}{y}^k)\end{array}\right).$$

the Riemannian embeddings $`N_i(X_i,g_{X_i})`$ are strictly convex in the sense, that their second fundamental form tensors $`II^i`$ are strictly positive definite, i.e. $``$ $`A_iT_pN_i`$ with $`A_i_i=1`$:

$$II^i(A_i,A_i)>ϵ_i,$$

the intrinsic sectional curvatures’ absolute values $`|K^{N_i}(\mathrm{\Delta }^i)|`$ of any tangent plane $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i`$ that is tangent to $`N^i`$ is bounded by some real number $`C_1^i`$:

$$|K^{N_i}(\mathrm{\Delta }^i)|<C_1^i,$$

the sectional curvature $`K^{x_i}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^i)`$ of any tangent plane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^i`$ spanned by a vector tangent to $`N_i`$ and the coordinate vector $`\frac{}{t^i}|_{t^i}`$ is bounded by negative constants

$$\delta _{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}<K^{X_i}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^i)<\delta _i,$$

the norms of the curvature tensors $`R^{X_i}`$ of $`g_{X_i}`$ are bounded:

$$R^{X_i}:=\underset{A_j1}{sup}\left\{R_{A_1A_2}^{X_i}A_3A_4\right\}<C_2^i.$$

We now establish that the Riemannian embedding $`(Y,g_Y)`$ of $`Y=\times N_1\times N_2`$ in $`(X,g_X)=(X_1,g_{X_1})\times (X_2,g_{X_2})`$, determined by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}i:& (t,y^k,\stackrel{~}{y}^k)& & (t,y^k,t,\stackrel{~}{y}^k),\end{array}$$

satisfies the requirements a) - e) of Lemma 1:

The pullback metric $`g_Y:=i^{}g_X`$ on $`Y`$ is

$$g_Y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& \mathrm{0\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ \begin{array}{c}0\\ \stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\\ 0\end{array}& g_N(t,y^k,\stackrel{~}{y}^l)\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Let $`V=\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the unique decomposition of an arbitrary vector $`VT_{(p,q)}N`$ into the sum of the lifts $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of vectors $`BT_pN_1`$ and $`CT_qN_2`$ onto $`T_{(p,q)}N`$.
With $`II^1(B,B)=2II^Y(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{B})`$, $`II^2(C,C)=2II^Y(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})`$ and $`II^Y(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{C})=0`$ it follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{II^Y(\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C})}{g_Y(\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{II^Y(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{B})+II^Y(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})}{g_Y(\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C})}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{II^1(B,B)+II^2(C,C)}{g_Y(\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C})}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{min}\{{\displaystyle \frac{II^1(B,B)}{g_{N_1}(B,B)}},{\displaystyle \frac{II^2(C,C)}{g_{N_2}(C,C)}}\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{min}\{ϵ_1,ϵ_2\}=:ϵ.`$
Consider a tangent plane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`TY`$ at $`\{t,p,q\}Y`$ that is tangent to $`N^t`$. But $`N^t`$ is the Riemannian product $`N^t=N_1^t\times N_2^t`$. Therefore it is

$$|K^N(\mathrm{\Gamma })|\mathrm{max}\{C_1^1,C_1^2\}=:C_1.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{C}T_{(t,p,q)}Y`$ be as in b), thus tangent to $`N`$, and such that $`\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has unit length in $`(Y,g_Y)`$ and set $`\stackrel{~}{A}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{}{t}|_{(t,p,q)}`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C}`$ are orthonormal in $`(Y,g_Y)`$. Recall that $`n_i:=dimN_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Coordinates $`(t,y^i)`$ in $`X_1`$ and $`(t,\stackrel{~}{y}^k)`$ in $`X_2`$ naturally induce coordinates in $`X=X_1\times X_2`$ and thus $`1+n_1+n_2`$ coordinate functions $`(t,y^i,\stackrel{~}{y}^k)`$ on $`Y`$. In the following the various indecies are $`i,j\{2,3,\mathrm{},n_1+1\}`$ and $`k,l\{n_1+2,\mathrm{}.,n_1+n_2+1\}`$. With that one calculates

$$R_{11ij}^Y=2R_{11ij}^{X_1},R_{11kl}^Y=2R_{11kl}^{X_2}\text{and}R_{11ik}^Y=0,$$

and therefore

$`K^Y(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C})`$ $`=`$ $`<R_{\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{B}}^Y\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}>_Y+<R_{\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{C}}^Y\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{C}>_Y`$
$`=`$ $`2<R_{A_1B}^{X_1}A_1,B>_{X_1}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}<R_{A_2C}^{X_2}A_2,C>_{X_2}`$
$`\stackrel{()}{=}`$ $`K^{X_1}(A_1,B)<B,B>_{X_1}+K^{X_2}(A_2,C)<C,C>_{X_2}.`$
Note, that in $`()`$ we made use of $`<A_i,A_i>_{X_i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, $`i=1,2`$.
With that we finally achieve

$$\delta ^{}:=\mathrm{min}\{\delta _{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{},\delta _{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\}K^Y(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{B}+\stackrel{~}{C})\mathrm{max}\{\delta _1,\delta _2\}=:\delta .$$

In order to show

$$R^Y:=\underset{A_i1}{sup}\{<R_{A_1A_2}^YA_3,A_4>_Y\}<C_2$$

we emphasize that the sectional curvature’s absolute value $`|K^Y|`$ is bounded:
Let therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an arbitrary tangent plane in $`TY`$ spanned by the two $`g_Y`$-orthonormal vectors

$$A+B=a\frac{}{t}|_{(t,y^k)}+b^i\frac{}{y^i}|_{(t,y^k)}\text{and}C=c^i\frac{}{y^i}|_{(t,y^k)}.$$

For the sectional curvature of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one has

$`K^Y(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{A)}{\underset{}{<R_{AC}^YA,C>_Y}}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\underset{B)}{\underset{}{<R_{AC}^YB,C>_Y}}`$
$`+\underset{C)}{\underset{}{<R_{BC}^YB,C>_Y}}.`$
Thus it sufficies to show that the terms $`A)`$, $`B)`$ and $`C)`$ are bounded:

$`<R_{AC}^YA,C>_Y`$ is bounded due to $`d)`$.

Denote by $`II^{X_1\times X_2}`$ the second fundamental form tensor of $`Y`$ in $`X_1\times X_2`$. With $`II^{X_1\times X_2}(A,B)=0=II^{X_1\times X_2}(A,C)`$ the Gauss equation yields

$$<R_{AC}^YB,C>_Y=<R_{AC}^YB,C>_{X_1\times X_2}=<R_{AC}^{X_1\times X_2}B,C>_{X_1\times X_2}.$$

Thus it follows from condition $`v)`$ that $`B)`$ is also bounded.

From $`|K^{g_{X_i}}|<\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`iii)`$ it follows from the Gauss equation that

$$\left|II^i(v_i,v_i)II^i(w_i,w_i)II^i(v_i,w_i)II^i(v_i,w_i)\right|$$

are bounded by some constants for all $`g_{X_i}`$-orthonormal systems $`\{v_i,w_i\}`$, which together with $`ii)`$ implies the existence of constants $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i`$ such that

$$\frac{II^i(v_i,v_i)}{g_{X_i}(v_i,v_i)}<\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_i.$$

Hence we find as in $`b)`$ $`II^Y(B,B)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ for all $`BTY`$ tangent to $`N`$ of norm $`B_{g_Y}=1`$. From

$$ϵII^Y(B,B)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}$$

for all $`BTY`$ tangent to $`N`$ of norm $`B_{g_Y}=1`$ one achieves

$$ϵ^2II^Y(B,B)II^Y(C,C)II^Y(B,C)II^Y(B,C)\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^2$$

for all $`g_Y`$-orthonormal systems $`\{B,C\}`$.
Therefore it follows from the Gauss equation and condition $`c)`$ that the term $`C)`$ is also bounded.

Now a) - e) ensure that we can apply Lemma 1. Thus the validity of Proposition 1 follows.

q.e.d.

###### Corollary 1

Let $`(X_1,g_{X_1})`$ and $`(X_2,g_{X_2})`$ be two Hadamard manifolds with pinched negative sectional curvature $`b_i^2K^{X_i}a_i^2<0`$, $`a_i,b_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Then their Riemannian product admits a Riemannian hypersurface that is bilipschitz to a Riemannian manifold $`(Y,g_Y^\lambda )`$ of negative sectional curvature bounded by $`b^2K^{g_Y^\lambda }a^2<0`$ for appropriate $`a,b`$.

Proof of Corollary 1:
Write the factors in horospherical coordinates and apply Proposition 1.

q.e.d.

Note that the additional boundary condition ensures that the horospheres’ intrinsic curvature is also bounded (\[BuKa\]). It is for that reason that our method of prove requires this extra condition.

Since $`(Y,g_Y^{\lambda )}`$ is bilipschitz to $`(Y,g_Y)`$ it suffices to prove that the Riemannian embedding $`(Y,g_Y)`$ is bilipschitz to $`(X,g_X)`$.

Denote the Riemannian length function on $`Y`$, that is induced by the metric $`g_Y:=j^{}g_X`$ on $`Y`$, by $`d_Y`$ and that on $`X`$, induced by the Riemannian product metric $`g_X`$, by $`d_X`$. With that we find the inequalities

$$d_X(j(p),j(q))\stackrel{a)}{}d_Y(p,q)\stackrel{b)}{}\left(2\sqrt{2}+2\right)d_X(j(p),j(q))p,qY.$$

While inequality a) merely is a consequence of the fact that $`(Y,g_Y)`$ is a Riemannian submanifold of $`(X,g_X)`$, inequality b) requires more attention. Note that the idea for the following construction is due to Brady and Farb (\[BrFa\]).
We denote the various canonical projections as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _i:XX_i\hfill & & t:X_i\hfill \\ \eta :YN\hfill & & \eta _i:XN_i\hfill \end{array}.$$

Consider an arbitrary differentiable curve $`c:[t_p,t_q]X`$ connecting $`j(p)X`$ with $`j(q)X`$. The idea is to construct a curve $`\stackrel{~}{c}:[\alpha ,\omega ]Y`$ that connects $`pY`$ with $`qY`$, whose Riemannian length $`L_Y(\stackrel{~}{c})`$ in $`(Y,g_Y)`$ is bounded by a constant times the Riemannian length $`L_X(c)`$ of $`c`$ in $`(X,g_X)`$.
Therefore we consider the projections $`c_i:=\pi _ic`$ of $`c`$ to the factors $`X_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, that connect $`p_i:=\pi _i(j(p))`$ with $`q_i:=\pi _i(j(q))`$. The further projections $`t_ic_i`$ are continuous, thus the set $`𝒦:=_{i=1,2}(t_ic_i)([t_p,t_q])`$ is compact and therefore takes its maximum $`(t_{i_0}c_{i_0})(b)`$ for some $`b[t_p,t_q]`$, $`i_0\{1,2\}`$.
The continuous and piecewise differentiable curve $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ in $`Y`$ we are going to follow from $`p`$ to $`q`$ consists of three differentiable segments $`v_1`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`v_2`$ as follows:

* $`v_1`$ has constant projection $`\eta v_1`$ to $`N_1\times N_2`$, that is given through $`\eta v_1(\eta _1(p_1),\eta _2(p_2))`$, while its projection to $``$ is $`tv_1=(t_{i_0}c_{i_0})|_{[t_p,b]}`$.
* $`\gamma `$ is the curve keeping its projection to $``$ constant: $`(t\gamma )(t_{i_0}c_{i_0})(b)`$, while varying along $`N_1\times N_2`$ with $`\eta (\gamma )=(\eta _1(c_1),\eta _2(c_2))`$.
* $`v_2`$ again has constant projection $`\eta v_2`$ to $`N_1\times N_2`$ that is $`\eta v_2(\eta _1(q_1),\eta _2(q_2))`$. Its projection to $``$ is $`tv_2=(t_{i_0}c_{i_0})|_{[b,t_q]}`$.

The length of $`\stackrel{~}{c}:=v_2\gamma v_1`$ is the sum

$$L_Y(\stackrel{~}{c})=L_Y(v_1)+L_Y(\gamma )+L_Y(v_2).$$

From (5) it directly follows, that

$`L_Y(v_m)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}L_{(,dt^2)}((t_{i_0}c_{i_0})|_{I_m})`$ (6)
$``$ $`\sqrt{2}L_{(,dt^2)}(t_{i_0}c_{i_0})`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{2}L_X(c),`$
where $`I_1=[t_p,b]`$ and $`I_2=[b,t_q]`$.

Now we know that the natural diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _i^{tt^{}}:N_i^tN_i^t^{}`$ are length contracting for $`tt^{}`$. With that and the particular choice of $`b`$ it is

$`L_Y(\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t_p}{\overset{t_q}{}}}\sqrt{g_Y(\gamma ^{},\gamma ^{})}𝑑t`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t_p}{\overset{t_q}{}}}\left[g_Y|_{N^{t_0}}((\eta \gamma )^{},(\eta \gamma )^{})\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t_p}{\overset{t_q}{}}}\left[g_Y|_{N_1^{t_0}}((\eta _1c)^{},(\eta _1c)^{})+g_Y|_{N_2^{t_0}}((\eta _2c)^{},(\eta _2c)^{})\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑t`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{t_p}{\overset{t_q}{}}}\left[g_Y|_{N_1^t}((\eta _1c)^{},(\eta _1c)^{})+g_Y|_{N_2^t}((\eta _2c)^{},(\eta _2c)^{})\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑t`$
$``$ $`2L_X(c).`$
where $`t_0:=(t_{i_0}c_{i_0})(b)`$.
Thus with (6) and (7) we can conclude that for an arbitrary curve $`c`$ in $`X`$ connecting two points $`j(p)`$, $`j(q)`$ $`j(Y)X`$ there exists a curve $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ in $`Y`$ connecting $`p`$ and $`q`$ with

$$L_Y(\stackrel{~}{c})\left(2\sqrt{2}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\right)L_X(c).$$

Thus the required inequality b) follows by the definitions of the Riemannian length functions.

Finally note that the generalization to products of finitely many Hadamardmanifolds of pinched negative sectional curvature is straight forward using once again that products of quasi-isometric maps are quasi-isometric.

q.e.d.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 2

Recall the definition of the hyperbolic rank as given in \[BuySch\]:

###### Definition 2

Let $`X`$ be a metric space. Then the hyperbolic rank, $`rank_hX`$, of $`X`$ is defined via

$$rank_hX:=\underset{Y}{sup}dim_{\mathrm{}}Y,$$

where the supremum is taken over all locally compact $`CAT(1)`$ Hadamard spaces $`Y`$ quasi-isometrically embedded into $`X`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ denotes the topological dimension of the boundary of $`Y`$.

In \[BuySch\] the authors proved the subadditivity of this hyperbolic rank with respect to products of Hadamard manifolds of pinched negative sectional curvature. This together with the following Lemma, that states the corresponding superadditivity, yields the proof of Theorem 2.

###### Lemma 2

The hyperbolic rank, $`rank_h`$, is superadditive with respect to Riemannian products of Hadamard manifolds $`(X_i,g_i)`$ of pinched negative sectional curvature, i.e., for the Riemannian product $`(X,g)`$ of the $`(X_i,g_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, one has

$$rank_h(X,g_X)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}rank_h(X_i,g_i).$$

Proof of Lemma 2:
From the Morse’ quasi-isometric lemma it easily follows that $`rank_h(X_i)=dimX_i1`$. From Theorem 2 we further conclude $`rank_hXk+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}dimX_i`$ and thus

$$rank_hXk+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}dimX_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(dimX_i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}rank_h(X_i,g_i).$$

q.e.d.

UNIVERSITÄT ZÜRICH, MATHEMATISCHES INSTITUT, WINTERTHURERSTRASSE 190, CH-8057 ZÜRICH, SWITZERLAND
E-mail addresses: foertsch@math.unizh.ch vschroed@math.unizh.ch


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Almost all currently available experimental data in particle physics are described by the Standard Model with an impressive accuracy. However, it is widely believed that various theoretical puzzles and problems of the Standard Model indicate that the theory in the present form is just the low energy limit of a more fundamental theory. Since their early days  Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) are viewed as one of the most attractive candidates for such a theory. Unification of three gauge couplings within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model  strongly supports the basic GUT idea and low-energy broken supersymmetry.

Construction of realistic GUTs in 4 dimensions (4D), however, faces certain difficulties in understanding some phenomenologically important issues such as proper breaking of GUT gauge symmetry, doublet-triplet hierarchy, proton stability, correct relation between the masses of quarks and leptons, etc. Recently some of the problems of conventional 4D GUTs has been addressed in the context of higher-dimensional field theories with orbifold compactification \[3-13\]. Particularly, GUT symmetry breaking can be realized through the orbifold compactification which could also naturally provide the doublet-triplet splitting and avoid coloured Higgsino (Higgs) mediated proton decay. Moreover, by placing matter fields in the higher-dimensional bulk one automatically obtains the theory with stable (in all orders of perturbation theory) proton  and without SU(5) GUT relations among the masses of the down quarks and charged leptons which are apparently wrong for the two lightest families. Alternatively, restricting the third family of fermions to a SU(5)-invariant orbifold fixed-point, one can keep the celebrated b-$`\tau `$ unification . Other aspects of fermion masses  and the possible origin of the observed structure of fermion families  have been also widely discussed. Summarizing, it turns out that higher-dimensional orbifold GUTs could give a simple intrinsically geometric explanation of various problems of conventional 4D models and provide a phenomenologically more attractive bottom-up approach than the highly restricted top-down approach to the unification in higher-dimensions in the framework of fundamental string theory. Notice, however, that consistency of higher-dimensional field theories and particularly field theories on singular spaces, such as orbifolds, requires some ultraviolate (UV) completion . Such a completion is commonly viewed to be provided by the fundamental string theory.

An unspecified UV physics generally leads to uncertainties in the effective low energy field theories. Namely, from the field theory point of view one can expect appearance of certain operators localized on the orbifold fixed points  which respect symmetries on the orbifold subspaces rather than the symmetries in the bulk. Among them naturally appear the relevant ”renormalizable” operators. Particularly, one can write down kinetic terms of certain orbifold fields on the GUT symmetry breaking fixed point. Since they do not respect GUT symmetry one can worry that such operators could completely destroy higher-dimensional gauge coupling unification. The localized kinetic terms for the gauge fields have been studied in  and . It was pointed out in  that assuming the unification happens in the strong coupling regime one can dilute the UV sensitivity and even improve the apparently wrong prediction for the strong gauge coupling of the 4D supersymmetric SU(5) model. High-precision prediction for the strong gauge coupling constant obtained in  singles out the simple N=1 supersymmetric 5D SU(5) GUT.

In this paper we would like to reconsider the effects of the kinetic terms localized on the orbifold fixed points within the 5D effective field theories. We will show that local kinetic terms modify the KK mode decomposition and as a result the entire phenomenology of low energy orbifold field theories will be affected significantly. As an implication to the orbifold GUT, we have considered the influence of local kinetic terms on the gauge coupling unification. The essential point is that the localized kinetic terms for the Higgs and matter fields can not be constrained to be small by the requirement of strong gauge coupling unification. We have found that uncertainties related with local kinetic terms of Higgs and matter fields are generically large and uncontrollable within the effective field theory approach. In this way the predictions of the model are UV sensitive due to incalculable parameters related with localized kinetic terms. Within these uncertainties in the prediction of strong gauge coupling, one can therefore successfully incorporate different orbifold GUT models as well.

The effects of localized kinetic terms have already been discussed within different models. Importance of such terms for the quasilocalization of higher-dimensional gravity and gauge fields in the infinite volume extra dimensions has been pointed out in  (see also ). The case of large compact extra dimension(s) with single brane has been subsequently studied in . It has been shown in  that local kinetic terms for bulk fields generally appear radiatively even if they are not present in the initial Lagrangian. Some phenomenological consequences have been also studied within the 5D orbifold theories in . Finally, we should point out that some results of the recent papers  and  partially overlap with the results of Section 3 of the present work. Other localized operators have been also discussed in the literature \[21-24\].

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we will briefly remind the basic facts about N=1 supersymmetry in 5D and the orbifold compactification and set-up a simple realistic 5D SU(5) GUT. In Section 3 we discuss Kaluza-Klein (KK) reduction of theory with kinetic terms localized on the orbifold fixed points. In Section 4 we will discuss 1-loop contributions of KK modes to the evolution of gauge couplings and the problem of gauge coupling unification. The final Section 5 will be devoted to summary and conclusions.

## 2 Orbifold compactification and 5D SU(5) GUT

We begin with a brief review of the orbifold compactification in the simplest case of a only one extra dimension. The 5D space-time is a direct product of 4D Minkowski space-time $`M^4`$ and an extra dimension compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/Z_2,`$ with coordinates $`x^M`$, where $`M=0,1,2,3,5`$ ($`x^5y`$). The $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold can be viewed as a circle of radius $`R`$ with opposite points identified by action of $`Z_2`$ orbifold parity: $`Z_2`$: $`yy`$. The actual physical space therefore is the interval $`y[0,\pi R]`$ with two orbifold fixed points at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R`$. Under the $`Z_2`$ symmetry, a generic 5D bulk field $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$ ($`\mu =0,1,2,3`$) has a definite transformation property

$$\varphi (x^\mu ,y)=P\varphi (x^\mu ,y),$$
(1)
where the eigenvalues of $`P`$ must be $`\pm 1`$. Generally the field $`\varphi (x^\mu ,y)`$ also can have $`U(1)`$-twisted transformation under the periodic translation along the fifth coordinate: $`yy+2\pi R`$:

$$\varphi (x^\mu ,y+2\pi R)=U\varphi (x^\mu ,y),$$
(2)
where $`U_\kappa =\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\pi \kappa \right)`$. In fact this is the well-known Hosotani-Scherk-Schwarz boundary condition. The case $`\kappa =\frac{1}{2}`$ is a discrete version of more general case (2). Denoting the field with $`(P,U_{\frac{1}{2}})=(\pm 1,\pm 1)`$ by $`\varphi ^{(\pm ,\pm )}`$, we obtain the following KK mode expansion:

$`\varphi ^{(+,+)}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2^{\delta _{n,0}}a}}}f_n^{(+,+)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ny}{R}}\right),`$
$`\varphi ^{(+,)}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}}f_{n+1}^{(+,)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)y}{R}}\right),`$
$`\varphi ^{(,+)}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}}f_{n+1}^{(,+)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(n+1\right)y}{R}}\right),`$
$`\varphi ^{(,)}(x^\mu ,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}}f_{n+1}^{(,)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)y}{R}}\right),`$ (3)
where $`a=\pi R`$. Upon compactification the 4D fields (KK modes) $`f_n^{(+,+)}(x^\mu ),`$ $`f_{n+1}^{(+,)}(x^\mu ),`$ $`f_{n+1}^{(,+)}(x^\mu ),`$ $`f_{n+1}^{(,)}(x^\mu )`$ acquire masses $`\frac{n}{R},`$ $`\frac{\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{R},`$ $`\frac{\left(n+1\right)}{R},`$ $`\frac{\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)}{R}`$, respectively. Note, that zero mode is contained only in $`\varphi ^{(+,+)}`$ field. We will call (3) the standard KK decomposition. In next Section we will argue that this decomposition is not valid in general.

Now let us describe the simplest N=1 supersymmetric SU(5) model in 5D. In the 5D bulk we have SU(5) gauge supermultiplet, transforming as an adjoint representation $`𝒱^A24`$ $`(A=1,\mathrm{},24)`$ and two Higgs hypermultiplets $``$ and $`\overline{}`$ that transform as $`5`$ and $`\overline{5}`$, respectively. The 5D gauge supermultiplet contains a vector boson $`A_M^A`$, two gauginos, $`\lambda _L^A`$ and $`\lambda _R^A`$, and a real scalar $`\sigma ^A`$, which can be decomposed into a vector supermultiplet $`V^A=(A_\mu ^A,\lambda _L^A)`$, and a chiral supermultiplet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^A=((\sigma ^A+iA_5^A)/\sqrt{2},`$ $`\lambda _R^A)`$ under 4D N=1 supersymmetry. The hypermultiplet $``$ contains two complex scalars, $`h`$ and $`h^c,`$ and two Weyl fermions, $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^c`$. They can be combined into two 4D N=1 chiral supermultiplets $`H=(h,\psi )`$ and $`H^c=(h^c,\psi ^c)`$, which transform as $`5`$ and $`\overline{5}`$ under the SU(5) gauge group (similarly for $`\overline{}`$).

The 5D SU(5) symmetry is broken down to the to the SU(3)$``$SU(2)$``$U(1) Standard Model group by orbifold boundary conditions. This can be achieved in different ways. We will assume that the gauge symmetry breaking occurs because of non-trivial periodic boundary conditions. Namely, we choose: $`U_{\frac{1}{2}}=(1,1,1,+1,+1)`$ and $`P=(+1,+1,+1,+1,+1)`$, where $`U_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`P`$ act on the fundamental representation of SU(5). At the same time we have to assign opposite $`Z_2`$ orbifold parities to the 4D N=2 partners of the bulk fields, in order to keep only N=1 supersymmetry in 4D effective theory. The orbifold symmetries for all components of the vector and Higgs multiplets are shown in Table 1. Here, we split SU(5) index $`A=a,\widehat{a}`$ into the indices, $`a`$ and $`\widehat{a},`$ which correspond to the unbroken and broken SU(5) generators, respectively. The subscripts $`T`$ and $`D`$ denote colour triplet and weak doublet components of the Higgs multiplets, respectively. Since only $`(+,+)`$ fields have zero modes, the massless sector of the model consists of SU(3)$``$SU(2)$``$U(1) N=1 vector multiplet $`V_0^a`$ and Higgs doublet and anti-doublet chiral superfields $`H_D`$ and $`\overline{H}_D`$, colour triplet chiral superfields $`H_T`$ and $`\overline{H}_T,`$ are massive, thus realizing doublet-triplet splitting in a simple geometric way. This also means that Higgsino mediated proton decay is absent in the model. Non-zero modes of at each KK level $`n`$ $`V^a`$ eat corresponding $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a`$ becoming massive and similarly for the X-Y vector multiplets $`V^{\widehat{a}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\widehat{a}}`$. Note also that locally at $`y=0`$ fixed point SU(5) symmetry is exact, while it is broken on the $`y=\pi R`$ fixed point. Thus the two fixed points are not equivalent.

Each generation of matter fields, are placed into hypermultiplets which transform, as usually, as $`\overline{5}`$ and $`10`$ representations of SU(5). There are different ways how to put matter fields in the bulk. They can be localized on one of the fixed points. In order to preserve the successful SU(5) $`b`$-$`\tau `$ unification it is desirable to have third generation matter on the SU(5)-preserving fixed point at $`y=0`$. On the other hand, one can place matter fields in the bulk as well. An important point is that, in such a case one has to double the representation $`\overline{5}+10`$ by introducing $`\overline{5}^{}+10^{}`$ . One can see from Table 1, that zero-mode matter fields, i.e. ordinary quarks and leptons (subscripts $`Q,L,U,D`$ and $`E`$ denote quark doublet, lepton doublet, up-antiquark, down-antiquark and positron components of the corresponding SU(5) representations, respectively), come now from different representations. This means that X-Y gauge boson can not be responsible for the proton decay in case of all three generations being in the bulk. The proton decay will be significantly suppressed if only light generations (or part of them) are residing in the bulk, while third generation is localized on SU(5)-symmetric fixed point .

The model described above is indeed very attractive. One can see, that most of the difficulties of the ordinary 4D SU(5) GUT can be resolved in a very simple way. It remains to see whether one can have in the above picture reliable predictions. But before discussing gauge coupling unification in the above model we would like to come back to the question of KK mode decomposition in orbifold field theories.

## 3 KK decomposition in 5D with orbifold compactification

Once again, we are considering 5D space-time with the fifth extra dimension $`y`$ being an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, i.e. a line of length $`a=\pi R`$ with two fixed points at $`y=0`$ and $`y=a`$. As we have mentioned in the Introduction, generally one is allowed to add to the 5D bulk Lagrangian $`_5`$ Lagrangians $`_0`$ and $`_\pi `$ localized at $`y=0`$ and $`y=a`$ 4D subspaces. So the total Lagrangian is:

$$=_5+\delta (y)_0+\delta (ya)_\pi .$$
(4)
$`_0`$ and $`_\pi `$ could contain various operators which respect the symmetries on the fixed points but not in the full 5D bulk. In certain cases of interest, however, they might be avoided by some symmetries (supersymmetry). In realistic models this is not the case for the kinetic terms. Indeed, the localized kinetic terms for certain 5D bulk fields inevitably appear (unless one is considering phenomenologically unacceptable theory with conformal invariance) as a result of radiative corrections. Contributions to the radiative induced local kinetic terms come not only from the fields localized at the fixed points but from the bulk fields as well . These contributions are logarithmically divergent and consistency of the theory requires introduction of the corresponding local counter-terms. Residual finite parts (after cancellation of divergences) are not calculable within the effective orbifold field theory and thus should be treated as new free parameters. Basically, they can be calculated only within a more general theory which substitutes the low energy effective orbifold theory at some ultraviolet scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus, the free parameters of the local kinetic terms parametrize our ignorance of the fundamental UV physics.

In turn, the local kinetic terms could significantly affect the entire phenomenology of the effective low energy orbifold theories. Namely the KK mode decomposition discussed in Section 2 is not valid anymore. To see this, let us consider the simple case of 5D massless scalar field:

$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`_M\mathrm{\Phi }^+^M\mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`r_0_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^+^\mu \mathrm{\Phi },`$
$`_\pi `$ $`=`$ $`r_\pi _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^+^\mu \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (5)
where $`r_0`$ and $`r_\pi `$ are new scale parameters associated with local kinetic terms at $`y=0`$ and $`y=a`$, respectively. The parameters $`r_0`$ and/or $`r_\pi `$ are vanishing for the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which vanishes at $`y=0`$ and/or $`y=a`$ fixed points. The behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at fixed points in turn is defined by the orbifold symmetries at hand. We consider general case where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is either even or odd under the orbifold parity $`Z_2`$ (1) and it is $`U(1)`$-twisted under the periodic translation (2). The equation of motion followed from (4) and (5) is:

$$\left(\left[1+r_0\delta (y)+r_\pi \delta (ya)\right]_\mu ^\mu _5^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)=0.$$
(6)
It is supplemented by the boundary conditions (1) and (2). Performing the KK decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)=\underset{m_n}{}\varphi _{m_n}(x^\mu )f_{m_n}(y),\text{ }\mathrm{}m_n+\mathrm{}$$
(7)
the Eq. (6) is split into the Klein-Gordon equation

$$\left(_\mu ^\mu +m_n^2\right)\varphi _{m_n}(x^\mu )=0$$
(8)
for the modes $`\varphi _n(x^\mu )`$ with KK masses $`m_n`$ and the equation which determines the $`y`$ dependence of the modes:

$$\left(_5^2+m_n^2\left[1+r_0\delta (y)+r_\pi \delta (ya)\right]\right)f_{m_n}(y)=0.$$
(9)
Eq. (9) can be solved by the method of images. The problem is actually reduced to a simple one-dimensional quantum-mechanical problem of a particle moving in a periodic potential formed by a sequence of Dirac $`\delta `$-functions at $`y=0+2an`$ and $`y=a+2an`$. Since the equation of motion and the boundary conditions are periodic, we can apply Floquet’s theorem and write down a general solution in different regions as:

$$f_{m_n}(y)=\{\begin{array}{c}A_{m_n}e^{im_ny}+B_{m_n}e^{im_ny},\\ \\ C_{m_n}e^{im_ny}+D_{m_n}e^{im_ny},\\ \\ e^{i2a\kappa }\left[A_{m_n}e^{im_ny}+B_{m_n}e^{im_ny}\right],\\ \\ e^{i2a\kappa }\left[C_{m_n}e^{im_ny}+D_{m_n}e^{im_ny}\right],\end{array}\begin{array}{c}0<y<a\\ \\ a<y<2a\\ \\ a<y<0\\ \\ 2a<y<a\end{array},$$
(10)
where $`A_{m_n},B_{m_n},C_{m_n},D_{m_n}`$ are constants to be determined by matching the function $`f_n(y)`$ and its first derivatives at fixed points. Assuming that $`f_n(y)`$ is continuous across the fixed points, we get the following system of homogeneous algebraic equations for $`A_{m_n},B_{m_n},C_{m_n},D_{m_n}`$:

$$\widehat{}_n\left[\begin{array}{c}A_{m_n}\\ B_{m_n}\\ C_{m_n}\\ D_{m_n}\end{array}\right]=0,$$
(11)
where

$$\widehat{}_n=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1,\hfill & 1,\hfill & e^{i2a\left(\kappa +m_n\right)},\hfill & e^{i2a\left(\kappa m_n\right)}\hfill \\ e^{iam_n},\hfill & e^{iam_n},\hfill & e^{iam_n},\hfill & e^{iam_n}\hfill \\ \left(r_0m_n^2+2im_n\right)\hfill & r_0m_n^2\hfill & 2im_ne^{i2a\left(\kappa +m_n\right)},\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \left(r_\pi m_n^22im_n\right)e^{iam_n},\hfill & r_\pi m_n^2e^{iam_n},\hfill & 2im_ne^{iam_n},\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right].$$
(12)
The necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a nontrivial solution of (11),

$$det\widehat{}_n=0,$$
(13)
is actually nothing but the KK mass quantization condition.

Solving the system (11) one determines three out of four constants $`A_{m_n},B_{m_n},C_{m_n},D_{m_n}`$. The remaining one is determined from the normalization of $`f_{m_n}(y)`$. In the presence of local kinetic terms the wave functions $`f_{m_n}(y)`$ are generally not orthogonal, $`_0^a𝑑y`$ $`f_{m_n}^{}(y)^{}f_{m_k}(y)\delta _{m_nm_k}`$. This would imply that in the interactions involving these modes the KK number is not conserved, as it was obviously expected from the beginning, since the translational invariance along the fifth dimension is explicitly broken. In order to get the canonical kinetic terms for the KK modes upon the integration over the extra dimension, we imply the following orthonormality condition:

$$_0^a𝑑y\left[1+r_0\delta (y)+r_\pi \delta (ya)\right]f_{m_n}^{}(y)f_{m_k}(y)=\delta _{m_nm_k}.$$
(14)
Note that the $`\left[1+r_0\delta (y)+r_\pi \delta (ya)\right]`$ acts as a nontrivial volume-factor in the integral over $`y`$. Obviously, if the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)`$ is real, i.e. $`\varphi _{m_n}(x^\mu )=\varphi _{m_n}^+(x^\mu ),`$ $`f_{m_n}^{}(y)=f_{m_n}(y)`$, one can recast the decomposition (7) into the form:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x^\mu ,y)=\underset{m_n0}{}\varphi _{m_n}(x^\mu )\left(f_{m_n}(y)+f_{m_n}(y)\right).\text{ }$$
(15)
Then the normalization constants get multiplied by a factor of 2 relative to the case of complex field.

Now let us consider some particular examples of fields with different orbifold symmetries.

### Z<sub>2</sub>–even, periodic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+,+)}(x^\mu ,y)`$.

Since the Z<sub>2</sub>-even field is nonvanishing at both boundaries, $`r_0`$ and $`r_\pi `$ are in general non-zero. Taking $`\kappa =0`$ (periodic boundary condition), we obtain the following solution of the Eqs. (11):

$$f_{m_n}(y)=A_{m_n}\left(e^{im_ny}+\frac{2im_n+r_0m_n^2}{2im_nr_0m_n^2}e^{im_ny}\right),\text{ }0ya.$$
(16)
Then the KK mass quantization condition (13) becomes:

$$\mathrm{tan}\left(m_na\right)=\frac{m_n\left(r_0+r_\pi \right)}{2\left(1\frac{r_0r_\pi m_n^2}{4}\right)}$$
(17)
and the normalization constants $`A_{m_n}`$ are:

$$A_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\left(2a+r_0+r_\pi \right)}}$$
(18)
for the massless zero mode ($`m_0=0`$) and

$$A_{m_n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2a+\frac{\left(r_0+r_\pi \right)\left(1+\frac{r_0r_\pi m_n^2}{4}\right)}{\left(1+\frac{r_0^2m_n^2}{4}\right)\left(1+\frac{r_\pi ^2m_n^2}{4}\right)}}}$$
(19)
for non-zero modes ($`m_n0`$).

The Eq. (17) for KK masses $`m_n`$ can be solved numerically. Here we consider some analytic approximations assuming first that all $`r`$-factors are positive. If $`r`$-factors are small enough, $`\frac{r_{0,\pi }}{a}1,`$ KK mode decomposition is reduced to the standard one (see (3)) with KK masses $`m_n\frac{n}{R},`$ $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ However, for large $`r`$-factors, $`\frac{r_{0,\pi }}{a}1,`$ KK modes substantially deviate from those discussed in the previous Section. As an extreme case consider $`\frac{r_{0,\pi }}{a}1`$ ($`r_0r_\pi r,`$ $`\xi =\frac{r}{a}`$). Then KK modes at each level $`n2`$ once again approach their standard values

$$m_n\frac{n}{R}\frac{4}{\xi ^2a\pi n},\text{ }n=2,3\mathrm{}$$
(20)
while the first excited mode is extremely light:

$$m_1\frac{2}{a}\sqrt{\frac{1\frac{1}{\xi }}{\xi }}\frac{2}{\pi R\sqrt{\xi }}<<\frac{1}{R}.$$
(21)
The appearance of the light mode in this limit is a peculiar property of the presence of two opaque boundaries . Nothing similar happens if one sets one of the two $`r`$-factors to zero. In the case of graviton (instead of the scalar field) with such sufficiently light mode one could have, e.g., an interesting new bigravity model .

### Z<sub>2</sub>–even, anti-periodic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(+,)}(x^\mu ,y)`$.

In this case the field vanishes on the boundary $`y=a`$. Thus taking $`r_\pi =0`$ and $`\kappa =\frac{1}{2}`$ (anti-periodic boundary condition), we obtain the solution

$$f_{m_n}(y)=A_{m_n}\left(e^{im_ny}e^{im_n\left(y2a\right)}\right),\text{ }0ya,$$
(22)
which is amended by the quantization condition

$$\mathrm{cot}\left(m_na\right)=\frac{r_0m_n}{2}.$$
(23)
The normalization constants in (22) are

$$A_{m_n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2a+\frac{r_0}{1+\frac{r_0^2m_n^2}{4}}}}$$
(24)
Once more one can discuss analytically some limiting approximations. For small $`r_0,\frac{r_0}{a}\xi 1`$ we essentially reproduce the standard KK modes and their masses (3),

$$m_n\frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})}{R\left(1+\frac{\xi }{2}\right)}.$$
(25)
An opposite limit of large $`\xi 1`$ gives KK masses substantially lighter compared to the standard case:

$$m_n\frac{n}{R}+\frac{2}{\xi a\pi n}<\frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})}{R},$$
(26)
for $`n=2,3,\mathrm{}`$ and a lighter first excited mode:

$$m_1\sqrt{\frac{2}{\xi }}\frac{1}{\pi R}<<\frac{1}{2R}.$$
(27)
### Z<sub>2</sub>–odd, anti-periodic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(,)}(x^\mu ,y)`$.

In this case the boundary at $`y=0`$ is transparent for the KK modes. Thus taking $`r_0=0`$ and $`\kappa =\frac{1}{2}`$ we obtain

$$f_{m_n}(y)=A_{m_n}\left(e^{im_ny}+e^{im_n\left(y2a\right)}\right),\text{ }0ya.$$
(28)
Mass quantization condition and normalization constants can be obtained changing $`r_0`$ by $`r_\pi `$ in the corresponding formulas (23) and (24). Thus in the case of equivalent fixed points ($`r_0=r_\pi `$) KK masses of $`(+,)`$ and $`(,)`$ modes are degenerate. The approximations of small and large $`r_\pi `$ are evidently given by the same formulas (25) and (26), (27) (with $`\xi =\frac{r_\pi }{a}`$), respectively.

### Z<sub>2</sub>–odd, periodic field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(,+)}(x^\mu ,y)`$,

is unaffected by the presence of boundaries, since orbifold symmetries force the field to be vanishing at both boundaries. Hence the standard KK mode decomposition discussed in Section 2 remains unchanged in this case.

Before going further, few remarks concerning $`r`$-factors are in order. So far we have assumed that $`r_0`$ and $`r_\pi `$ are positive. Treating them as free parameters one can ask whether both or one of them can be negative. That is to say, whether the local kinetic terms on the fixed points can have wrong sign. An obvious constraint in such cases comes from the appearance of negative norm states. One can see, however, that in certain cases the ghost KK modes can be avoided. Consider for example $`(+,+)`$ modes and assume $`r_0=r_\pi `$. Then, from (17), (18) and (19), it is clear that the KK modes behave as in the standard case without local kinetic terms, whenever $`r`$-factors are large or small. The contributions from the localized kinetic terms are cancelled out and boundaries become transparent for the corresponding modes. For the $`(+,)`$ ($`(,)`$) modes and negative $`r_0`$ ($`r_\pi `$), ghost-free effective theory would imply $`2a\left(1+\frac{r_0^2m_n^2}{4}\right)+r_0>0`$ ($`2a\left(1+\frac{r_\pi ^2m_n^2}{4}\right)+r_\pi >0`$) for all $`n`$. Obviously, the above ghost-free condition can be satisfied, for instance, when $`r_0>2a`$ ($`r_\pi >2a`$). Many other possibilities can be found as well. The overall massage here is that the KK mass spectrum and wave functions crucially depend not only on the size of $`r`$-factors but on their signs as well.

Another important point to stress is that $`r`$-factors (in general case when interactions are included) are actually scale dependent and undergo renormalization. Thus the physical KK masses should be determined using the corresponding renormalization group equations. Note, however, that in certain cases of interest this effects might be negligible.

Having determined the KK masses and wave functions from the free (linearized) theory one can discuss now the interactions. As a representative example let us add to the free Lagrangian (4), (5), a $`\phi ^4`$-potential $`𝒱`$:

$$𝒱=\left[\lambda _5+\lambda _0\delta (y)+\lambda _\pi \delta (ya)\right]\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2,$$
(29)
where $`\lambda _5`$ is a 5D coupling, while $`\lambda _0`$ and $`\lambda _\pi `$ are couplings of the interaction terms localized at boundaries $`y=0`$ and $`y=a`$, respectively. The effective 4D couplings can be derived upon KK mode expansion. They are given as:

$$\lambda _{ijkl}=\lambda _5_0^a𝑑y\left[1+\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _5}\delta (y)+\frac{\lambda _\pi }{\lambda _5}\delta (ya)\right]f_{m_i}^{}f_{m_j}f_{m_k}^{}f_{m_l}.$$
(30)
Note, that the KK number is violated in these interactions in general even if the localized potentials are absent, $`\lambda _0,\lambda _\pi =0`$. Only in the standard case when the local kinetic terms are also absent the KK-number (i.e. the fifth component of the momentum) is conserved.

The effective 4D couplings (30) are determined through the rather complicated integrals of the product of wave functions $`f_{m_n}.`$ However, one can readily say something about interactions involving zero modes. Consider for instance $`\lambda _{00kl}`$. Once again in general KK-number is still not conserved. Suppose now that $`\frac{\lambda _0}{\lambda _5}=r_0`$ and $`\frac{\lambda _\pi }{\lambda _5}=r_\pi `$. Then (30) is considerably simplified and one gets (using orthonormality condition (14)):

$$\lambda _{00kl}=\left|A_0\right|^2\lambda _5\delta _{kl}.$$
(31)
These interactions conserve the KK-number and are universal for all KK modes. The effective 4D coupling is given by:

$$\lambda _4=\frac{\lambda _5}{2\left(2a+r_0+r_\pi \right)}.$$
(32)
This is the familiar relation between 4D and 5D couplings except the fact that the ”volume” of extra space, $`a,`$ is replaced by the effective volume, $`a+r_0/2+r_\pi /2`$. So, if the bulk and localized couplings are aligned with kinetic $`r`$-factors in the way assumed above, the interaction of zero modes with those of non-zero KK modes are universal and given by (32). This is obviously true also when zero modes interact with different bulk fields with different orbifold symmetries, provided, of course, that the interactions respect these symmetries as it is required by the consistency of the theory.

In fact the above situation is exactly what happens in the case of bulk gauge theories. Indeed, consider some non-Abelian gauge field in the bulk with local kinetic terms on the boundaries:

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}^aF^{aMN}\frac{1}{4}\frac{g_5^2}{g_0^2}\delta (y)F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\frac{g_5^2}{g_\pi ^2}\delta (ya)F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{a\mu \nu },$$
(33)
where $`F_{MN}^a=_MA_N^a_NA_M^a+g_5f^{abc}A_M^bA_N^c`$ is the gauge field strength, $`g_5`$ bulk gauge coupling and $`g_0`$ and $`g_\pi `$ couplings for the localized terms. In this case $`r`$-factors are given by $`r_0=\frac{g_5^2}{g_0^2}`$ and $`r_\pi =\frac{g_5^2}{g_\pi ^2}`$. Linearized equations for the wave functions $`f_{m_n}`$ (they are real in this case) have exactly the same form (in the unitary gauge, $`A_5=0`$) as in the case of scalar field discussed above (see Eq. (9)). The massless zero modes of gauge field ($`A_\mu ^a`$ assumed to be Z<sub>2</sub>-even and periodic) have the following self-interactions:

$`g_{0kl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5}{\sqrt{a+\frac{r_0}{2}+\frac{r_\pi }{2}}}}\delta _{kl}g_4,`$
$`g_{00kl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5^2}{a+\frac{r_0}{2}+\frac{r_\pi }{2}}}\delta _{kl}g_4^2.`$ (34)
The zero mode also universally interacts with bulk matter fields irrespective of the $`r`$-factors of the local kinetic terms of the matter fields (which might be different from those for the gauge field) and matter fields localized on the orbifold fixed points. Clearly, all these features are dictated by the gauge invariance. Note, however, that the above statement is not true for the KK modes of the gauge fields. For instance, fields localized on different fixed points would interact with the KK mode of the same gauge boson differently, if the fixed points are not equivalent.

From the above discussion it is clear that the localized kinetic terms will have profound consequences for the entire phenomenology of higher-dimensional theories. Modification of collider phenomenology in some limited cases has been recently studied in . In the following Section we will discuss the effects of localized kinetic terms on the gauge coupling unification in the framework of 5D GUT model described in Section 2.

## 4 Gauge coupling unification in realistic SU(5) orbifold GUT

An important consistency check of any GUT model is its prediction for the standard gauge couplings $`\alpha _1(M_Z),`$ $`\alpha _2(M_Z),`$ $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ at low energies, namely at $`M_Z`$ (Z-boson mass). They are related to the unified gauge coupling $`\alpha _{GUT}(M_{GUT})\alpha _1(M_{GUT})=`$ $`\alpha _2(M_{GUT})=`$ $`\alpha _3(M_{GUT})`$ at the unification scale $`M_{GUT\text{ }}`$through the renormalization group equations. At two-loop level the minimal 4D supersymmetric SU(5) model gives the following predictions for the strong gauge coupling $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$:

$$\alpha _3^{SU(5)}(M_Z)0.130\pm 0.004\pm \mathrm{\Delta }^{SU(5)}$$
(35)
and for the unification scale:

$$M_{GUT}^{SU(5)}210^{16}\text{ GeV,}$$
(36)
where the experimental values for $`\alpha _1(M_Z)`$ and $`\alpha _2(M_Z)`$ couplings are taken as input parameters. The prediction (35) should be compared with the high-precision experimental value ,

$$\alpha _3^{\mathrm{exp}}(M_{GUT})=0.119\pm 0.002.$$
(37)
The main uncertainty in (35), $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{SU(5)}`$, originates from the uncertainties in masses of GUT particles, while the first uncertainty is related to the variations in the mass spectrum of the electroweak Higgs bosons and superparticles at the TeV-scale. In the minimal supersymmetric SU(5), $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{SU(5)}`$ is parametrized through the coloured Higgs (Higgsino) mass $`M_T`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{SU(5)}=\frac{3\alpha _{GUT}}{10\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_T}{M_{GUT}}\right)`$. Thus, large negative contribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{SU(5)}0.01`$ needed to fit the experimental value (35) can be obtained by lowering the mass $`M_T`$, $`M_T0.08M_{GUT}`$. However, this possibility is excluded from the unacceptably fast proton decay induced by a low mass coloured Higgsino<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Several mechanisms to suppress Higgsino mediated proton decay is known (see e.g. ). However, all of them require introduction of new particles and/or interactions, and hence new parameters, beyond the minimal SU(5). This, in turn, significantly reduces the predictive power of such models. . Thus the minimal 4D SU(5) GUT indeed contradicts the data. In more involved GUT models, the GUT threshold corrections depend on a larger number of unknown parameters which can neither be constrained from independent data, nor unambiguously predicted. In this situation we essentially loose the predictivity.

In this respect, the situation in orbifold GUT, where GUT symmetry breaking is achieved by orbifold compactification, seems more promising. Firstly, ignoring for a moment possible operators localized on the orbifold fixed points, the mass spectrum of GUT particles and their KK modes are essentially determined by few parameters, namely in 5D by a single compactification radius $`R`$. Secondly, one can avoid the proton decay constraints by intrinsically geometric mechanism without extension of particle content of the model. Thirdly, although each gauge coupling above the compactification scale receives radiative corrections which depend on a certain power of the cut-off scale, the relative slope of the gauge couplings and thus the low energy predictions will have the usual logarithmic scale dependence. This is because of the underlying bulk GUT symmetry. However, as we have seen in the previous Section the local kinetic terms might substantially disturb the KK mass spectrum and one may worry whether one can actually retain the predictivity power.

In fact the problem appears already at tree level. Consider for definiteness a realistic SU(5) GUT in 5D described in Section 2. Since on the orbifold fixed point $`y=a`$ SU(5) symmetry is broken down to the SU(3)$``$SU(2)$``$U(1), one is allowed to write down only a SU(3)$``$SU(2)$``$U(1)-symmetric (rather than SU(5)-symmetric) gauge kinetic terms with different $`r`$-factors, $`r_\pi ^i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$ correspond to U(1), SU(2) and SU(3), respectively). Then the 4D effective gauge coupling (see Eq. (34)) at some unification scale will be

$$g_4^i(M_{GUT})=\frac{g_5(M_{GUT})}{\sqrt{a+\frac{r_0(M_{GUT})}{2}+\frac{r_\pi ^i(M_{GUT})}{2}}}.$$
(38)
If $`r_\pi ^i(M_{GUT})`$ are large and non-universal, $`r_\pi ^i(M_{GUT})a`$, then the gauge coupling unification is ruined already at the tree level. Some extra assumption beyond the SU(5) framework is evidently needed to suppress the localized gauge kinetic terms at SU(5)-breaking orbifold fixed point, i.e. $`\frac{r_\pi ^i}{a}`$ should be $`<<1`$.

The explanation to why the $`r`$-factors of gauge localized kinetic terms might be small has been proposed by Hall and Nomura . The key assumption is that the theory enters into the strong gauge coupling regime at $`M_{GUT}`$. This could naturally happen because above the compactification scale the asymptotic freedom is lost and couplings grow rapidly due to the power-low running of couplings in higher dimensions. Naive dimensional analysis gives the following estimates for the strong bulk gauge coupling, $`g_5(M_{GUT})\sqrt{\frac{16\pi ^3}{CM_{GUT}}},`$ and for strong gauge couplings for the local kinetic terms one has: $`g_0(M_{GUT})\sqrt{\frac{16\pi ^2}{C}}`$ and $`g_\pi ^i(M_{GUT})\sqrt{\frac{16\pi ^2}{C^i}}`$ (here $`C^{}`$s are group theoretic factors, $`C5`$ for SU(5) and $`C^i(1,2,3)`$) . Within this assumption $`r`$-factors are indeed small, $`\frac{r_0(M_{GUT})}{a}=`$ $`\frac{g_5^2}{ag_0^2}<<1,`$ $`\frac{r_\pi ^i(M_{GUT})}{a}=`$ $`\frac{g_5^2(M_{GUT})}{ag_\pi ^{i2}(M_{GUT})}<<1,`$ providing that extra dimension is large, $`aM_{GUT}>>1`$ ($`a=\pi R`$). Since the low energy values for the effective 4D couplings $`g_4^i`$ are known to be of the order $`0.7,`$ from the above assumption one can estimate the energy gap between the compactification scale $`\frac{1}{R}`$ and strong coupling unification scale $`M_{GUT}`$: $`M_{GUT}R60`$. That is to say, there are approximately $`N_{KK}60`$ KK modes in the energy region between the compactification scale $`\frac{1}{R}`$ and the unification scale $`M_{GUT}`$.

To see how this works, let us calculate the KK mode corrections in the model described in the Section 2 with standard KK masses, see Table 1. One obtains at one loop leading-log approximation:

$$\alpha _3^1(M_Z)=\alpha _3^{1SU(5)}(M_Z)+\frac{6}{7\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{KK}1}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n+1}{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right),$$
(39)
(here $`\alpha _3^{1SU(5)}(M_Z)`$ is the prediction of the 4D supersymmetric SU(5) for (35) without GUT thresholds, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{SU(5)}=0`$) for the strong gauge coupling and

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_c}{M_Z}\right)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_{GUT}^{SU(5)}}{M_Z}\right)+\frac{4}{7}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{KK}1}{}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n+1}{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}N_{KK}.$$
(40)
Note that the KK mode correction to $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ (the last term in Eq. (39)) works in the right direction, lowering $`\alpha _3^{SU(5)}(M_Z)`$ (35). Taking $`N_{KK}=60`$, one obtains correction from KK modes $`\delta \alpha _3^1(M_Z)0.715`$ which to the brings prediction for the strong gauge coupling,

$$\alpha _3(M_Z)0.119\pm 0.004,$$
(41)
in remarkable agreement with the experimental value (37). At the same time, the compactification scale $`M_{c\text{ }}`$is lower,

$$M_{c\text{ }}1.510^{15}\text{ GeV,}$$
(42)
than the typical 4D unification scale (36). This means that the first KK modes of X-Y intermediate vector bosons might induce unacceptably fast decay of proton. This inevitably forces us to put all or part of light generations into the 5D bulk. Then the fast proton decay can be avoided .

Let us now calculate possible corrections to the above result (41), 42) due to the modification of the KK mass spectrum by the local kinetic terms. Consider first gauge vector multiplets $`V^a`$ and $`V^{\widehat{a}}`$. The $`r`$-factors for these superfields are controlled by the strong coupling unification assumption and has been estimated above. Thus, the corresponding leading-log correction can be unambiguously computed. We find:

$`\delta \alpha _3^1(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{KK}}{2\pi }}\times `$ (43)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{72}{7}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{7}{10N_{KK}}}\right)9\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5N_{KK}}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{7}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_{KK}}}\right)\right],`$
where we have used the approximations for the KK masses discussed in the previous Section. With $`N_{KK}=60`$ we have $`\delta \alpha _3^1(M_Z)0.103`$, which is indeed a small correction (as it was expected) and it lies in the range of theoretical uncertainties estimated in .

However, large uncertainties in the prediction of strong gauge coupling $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ might originate from the contributions of the Higgs and matter KK modes. The point is that, unlike gauge fields, their local kinetic terms are not controlled by the strong coupling unification assumption. The corresponding $`r`$-factors are in general arbitrary parameters and thus the KK mode spectrum can not be reliably computed. A general treatment of possible uncertainties is rather difficult since we have not any independent experimental data to constrain the corresponding KK masses and as well we do not know any principle how to estimate possible size of the corresponding $`r`$-factors. Instead, just to stress the importance of possible corrections, we give here some numerical examples assuming certain hierarchies for the $`r`$-factors of different fields.

Consider for example bulk matter fields. Each type of matter fields (with the same orbifold symmetries) at each KK level $`n`$ are arranged in the full SU(5) multiplets, $`\overline{5}+10`$, see Table 1. Thus if their masses are degenerate, they will not give any correction at one loop level as it is the case for the zero modes, i.e. ordinary quarks and leptons in the limit of vanishing masses. This is indeed the case for the standard KK decomposition as well. In the general case, it is clear that $`(,+)`$ KK matter fields as well as $`(+,)`$ KK matter fields also do not give any extra correction. In the case of $`(,+)`$ the KK mass spectrum is standard since for these fields both boundaries at $`y=0`$ and $`y=a`$ are transparent. Also $`(+,)`$ fields feel only $`SU(5)`$-invariant fixed point at $`y=0`$ and thus KK mass spectrum is SU(5)-invariant. However, different KK modes collected in $`(+,+)`$ and $`(,)`$ fields might have SU(5) non-universal masses at each KK level due to the non-universal local kinetic terms at SU(5)-violating fixed point $`y=a`$. Once again, $`r`$-factors for these fields can not be computed within the effective orbifold field theory and should be treated as independent free parameters. As a representative example of possible uncertainties in the calculation of $`\alpha _3(M_Z),`$ consider $`(,)`$ matter fields. Assume that $`r_\pi `$-factors for the SU(2)-doublet fields, $`10_Q^c`$ and $`\overline{5}_L^c`$ are approximately the same and large, $`\frac{r_\pi ^{(10_Q^c,\overline{5}_L^c)}}{a}\xi _11`$, so that the KK masses can be approximated according to (26), (27), while SU(2)-singlet fields have small $`r_\pi `$-factors, $`\frac{r_\pi ^{(10_{U,E}^c,\overline{5}_D^c)}}{a}\xi _2<<1`$, so that their KK masses are given by (25). In this case we obtain the following correction to $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$:

$`\delta \alpha _3^1(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15\eta }{14\pi }}\times `$ (44)
$`\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\pi N_{KK}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _1}{2}}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{KK}1}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+1}{n+\frac{1}{2}}}\right)+N_{KK}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _2}{2}}\right)\right],`$
where $`\eta `$ is the number of matter generations propagating in the bulk. Taking now, for instance, $`\xi _1=\frac{1}{\xi _2}=50`$ and $`N_{KK}=60`$ as before, we obtain a large correction, $`\delta \alpha _3^1(M_Z)1.645\eta `$, which pushes up the strong gauge coupling constant to an unacceptable value:

$`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`0.148,\text{ for }\eta =1,`$
$`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ $``$ $`0.196,\text{ for }\eta =2.`$ (45)
The corresponding correction to the compactification scale $`M_c`$ of (40) is: $`\delta \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{M_c}{M_Z}\right)1,38\eta `$, i.e.

$`M_c`$ $``$ $`610^{15}\text{ GeV for }\eta =1,`$
$`M_c`$ $``$ $`2.410^{16}\text{ GeV for }\eta =2.`$ (46)
If only the $`10`$-plets are residing in the bulk, as it is favoured by some phenomenological considerations , then the correction (44) is reduced by anly a factor 0.7 which is still too large. For example, for $`\eta =2`$ and for the above values of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ one obtains $`\alpha _3(M_Z)0.162`$. Alternatively, assuming that $`\xi _1<<1`$ and $`\xi _2>>1,`$ the rhs of Eq. (44) changes the sign (with $`\xi _1\xi _2`$) and thus $`\alpha _3(M_Z)`$ gets dramatically lowered. We have found large enough corrections for moderate values of $`r`$-factors as well.

Certainly, many different numerical examples can be presented which stress the importance of the correct treatment of KK mass spectrum in the presence of local kinetic terms. We are not aiming here to give a more general analysis of possible uncertainties caused by the $`r`$-factors of different fields. However, already the above representative numerical examples are clearly warning us that uncertainties in the calculation of the strong gauge coupling are actually large and essentially uncontrollable. Strictly speaking, $`r`$-factors (especially for the Higgs and matter fields) can neither be computed or estimated nor can be constrained by the available experimental data. Thus we are lead to the conclusion that one cannot obtain reliable predictions in the framework of orbifold GUTs. Nevertheless, orbifold GUT models could still be viewed as interesting theoretical schemes where many attractive features, such as GUT symmetry breaking, doublet-triplet splitting, suppression of the proton decay etc., could have their counterparts in a more fundamental theory, where, hopefully, the ambiguity related with local kinetic terms can be also resolved. In this respect, it seems that many other GUT models which are excluded in the standard KK decomposition approach might still accommodate the experimental data within large uncertainties expected in general. A particularly interesting question is whether one could have low (intermediate) energy unification in simple orbifold GUTs assuming some particular set of $`r`$-factors, which, in turn, can be verified in high energy experiments.

## 5 Summary and outlook

In this paper we have discussed KK decomposition in higher-dimensional theories with orbifold compactification. We have shown that the standard KK decomposition is not valid due to the presence of kinetic terms localized at the orbifold fixed points. We have also found that the KK mass spectrum and interactions of KK modes are significantly modified and the phenomenology of various orbifold models must be reconsidered. As an illustrative example, we have considered gauge coupling unification in recently proposed realistic 5D orbifold SU(5) GUT. We have shown that large uncertainties in the low-energy predictions of the model appear once the local kinetic terms for Higgs and matter fields are included into consideration and that the predictivity of the model is essentially lost.

Clearly, our analysis of KK decomposition is relevant as well for a wide class of other models extensively discussed in the literature. It will be interesting to see how the supersymmetry and electroweak symmetry breaking as well as collider phenomenology of particular models with large compactification radius  is affected when the correct KK mode decomposition we have presented in this work is adopted.

Although we have discussed here the case of a single flat extra dimension, local kinetic terms are also generally expected when the extra space-time is not flat, for example, in the case of warped geometry. Thus recently discussed unification in AdS<sub>5</sub> , as well as other phenomenological aspects of the scenario in , might be significantly modified as well. Finally, it will be certainly interesting to extend this work to the case of general higher dimensions, where some non-trivial features might emerge.

#### Acknowledgments.

We thank Z. Berezhiani, H.P. Nilles and Z. Tavartkiladze for discussions. A.K. would like also to gratefully acknowledge stimulating research atmosphere at Gran Sasso Summer Institute ”New Dimensions in Astroparticle Physics” where this work was finalized.

This work was done by partial financial support of the Academy of Finland under the Project No. 54023.


text:
# Apparent Clustering of Intermediate-redshift Galaxies as a Probe of Dark Energy

## Abstract

We show the apparent redshift-space clustering of galaxies in redshift range of 0.2–0.4 provides surprisingly useful constraints on dark energy component in the universe, because of the right balance between the density of objects and the survey depth. We apply Fisher matrix analysis to the the Luminous Red Galaxies (LRGs) in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), as a concrete example. Possible degeneracies in the evolution of the equation of state (EOS) and the other cosmological parameters are clarified.

The dark energy, such as the cosmological constant, has now turned out to be a necessary element to understand our universe. There are many indirect suggestions for the dark energy, including the age of the universe, the formation of the large-scale structure, the number count of the galaxies, and so on car92 . More striking evidences stem from the combination of acoustic peaks of temperature fluctuations in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) bal00  and the Hubble diagram of the type Ia supernova rie98 . Natural expectation for the dark energy is arisen from the vacuum fluctuations of quantum fields, although the smallness of its observed value is extremely unnatural wei89 .

Since the energy density of the cosmological constant is constant in time by definition, one needs an extremely suspicious fine-tuning of 120 digits to set a correct value at an initial stage (probably Planck time) so that the energy density of the cosmological constant should be comparable with the matter density today. Alternatively, such stringent fine-tuning should be moderated if the dark energy component consists of some dynamical field such as “quintessence” rat88 ; cal98 . In general, such dynamical dark energy affects cosmological observations through a time-dependent EOS, which is characterized by a parameter $`w(t)=p/\rho `$. If $`w`$ is found to be different from $`1`$, the dark energy is proven to be different from the simple cosmological constant. Current observational data are consistent with the cosmological constant bea02 ; dor02 , although they are still not enough to impose sufficient constraints on the EOS.

Since the dark energy has profound implications on the nature of the universe, it is of great importance to explore the origin of dark energy. Near-future observations will enable us to clarify whether the dark energy is a mere cosmological constant or something else. Cosmological observations, such as the Type Ia supernovae tur97 , CMB fluctuations cal98 ; dor02 ; bac02 , cluster mass function hai01 , weak lensing field hui99 , and so on, are useful tools to probe the nature of the dark energy.

It is shown mat96  that an application of the Alcock-Paczynski (AP) test alc79  to the redshift-space correlation function of the high-redshift objects can be a useful probe of the cosmological constant. In literatures, this method is mainly applied to the Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest hui99a , the Lyman-break galaxies nai99 , and the quasars pop98 , etc.

A drawback of the high-redshift objects is their sparseness. Relatively high shot noise prevents to accurately determine the correlation function. On the other hand, a typical sample of normal galaxies is dense enough to have sufficiently small shot noise, while it is too shallow to apply the AP test. Instead, a sample of intermediate-galaxies, such as the LRGs eis01  in the SDSS has a right balance between density and depth mat01 ; mat02 .

Therefore, a natural expectation is that the clustering of intermediate-galaxies can distinguish various dark energy models quite well. In fact, the AP test around redshift 0.5 is suggested to be promising kuj02 . The purpose of this Letter is to quantitatively investigate what constraints can be imposed on the parameter space of dark energy models from intermediate-redshift galaxies and to clarify possible degeneracies with other cosmological parameters.

The clustering of objects in redshift space is characterized by the correlation function. In linear regime, the full information on the clustering is contained in the two-point correlation function, if the non-Gaussianity of the density field is negligible. In a homogeneous, isotropic space, the two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$ is a function of only a separation $`r`$ of the two-points. However, the redshift-space clustering in reality is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Peculiar velocities, evolutionary effects, and cosmological geometry introduce inhomogeneity and anisotropy in the observed space. Therefore, the two-point correlation function in apparent redshift space is generally expressed as $`\xi (z_1,z_2,\theta )`$, where $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$ are the redshifts of the two-points and $`\theta `$ is the apparent angle between two-points from the observer. The full analytic expression for the apparent correlation function in linear regime is known mat00 .

It is not trivial how one can analyze the three dimensional function $`\xi (z_1,z_2,\theta )`$. Instead of directly evaluate the two-point correlation function, we have been developing a likelihood method for the density field vog96 ; mat00a ; mat01 , which directly analyze the probability of the observed density field given a cosmological model. A fast algorithm to compute the correlation matrix is crucial in this analysis. A detailed description of one of our algorithms is given in mat02 , in which distant-observer approximation is assumed. We generalize this algorithm to the one without this approximation, using the analytic expression of mat00 . Apart from this generalization, and from inclusion of the dark energy degrees of freedom, the algorithm we employ in this Letter is similar to that in mat02 , the details of which will be published elsewhere.

Here we briefly summarize major points of the generalization. In our likelihood analysis of the redshift-space clustering, first we place smoothing cells in redshift space and then count the number of object $`n_i`$ in each cell $`i`$. When the non-Gaussianity of the distribution is negligible, the correlation matrix $`C_{ij}=n_in_j/(n_in_j)1`$ fully characterizes the statistical property of the clustering. The correlation matrix is given by numerical integrations of the analytic form of $`\xi (z_1,z_2,\theta )`$ which is generalized to take into account nontrivial the EOS for dark energy component. Both cosmological distortions and peculiar velocity distortions are taken into account in this analytic form. A spherical cell approximation mat02  greatly simplifies this integration without implementing the numerical integration cell by cell. Then shot noise term is added to the correlation matrix.

Most of the modification of the analytic form of the correlation function is originated from the non-standard time-dependence of the Hubble parameter. When the dark energy has a non-trivial EOS as a function of redshift, $`w(z)`$, the time-dependent Hubble parameter is given by

$`H(z)`$ $`=`$ $`H_0[(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}(1+z)^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}.`$ (1)
$`+\mathrm{exp}\left(3{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{1+w(z)}{1+z}}dz\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}]^{1/2},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$ are the present density parameter of matter and dark energy components, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}1`$ is the present curvature parameter. Evaluation of the analytic form of the apparent correlation function requires the comoving distance $`\chi (z)`$, the growth factor $`D(z)`$, and the logarithmic derivative of the growth factor $`f(z)=d\mathrm{ln}D/d\mathrm{ln}a`$ as functions of redshift. All these quantities are determined by the time-dependent Hubble parameter. The comoving distance is simply given by $`\chi (z)=_0^zH^1(z)𝑑z`$. The growth factor is the growing solution of the differential equation, $`\ddot{D}+2H\dot{D}\frac{3}{2}H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}(1+z)^3D=0`$, where dot represents the differentiation with respect to the time $`t`$. It is useful to rewrite this equation into the following set of equations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}D}{d\mathrm{ln}a}}=f,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{df}{d\mathrm{ln}a}}=f^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+3w}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Q}\right)f+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M},`$ (3)
where $`a=(1+z)^1`$ is the scale factor of the universe, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(z)=H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(1+z)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}/H^2(z)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Q}(z)=H_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{exp}(3_0^z\frac{1+w}{1+z}𝑑z)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}/H^2(z)`$ are the time-dependent density parameters of matter and dark energy, respectively. The Runge-Kutta integration of the set of equations (2), (3) simultaneously gives the growth factor and logarithmic derivative of the growth factor. Equations (2), (3) are valid even when $`w`$ evolves with time.

Once the correlation matrix is evaluated, it is straightforward to obtain expected bounds one can impose on a set of model parameters by a given data set, thanks to the Fisher information matrix. In linear regime, the distribution of the counts $`n_i`$ is multi-variate Gaussian. In this case, the Fisher information matrix has a simple form $`F_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(𝑪^1𝑪_{,\alpha }𝑪^1𝑪_{,\beta })`$ vog96 ; teg97 ; mat02 , where $`𝑪`$ is a theoretical model of the correlation matrix, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are indices to indicate a kind of model parameters and $`𝑪_{,\alpha }`$ is a derivative of the correlation matrix with respect to a model parameter. An inverse of a Fisher matrix gives an estimate of the minimum error variance of a given set of model parameters the92 .

We consider the LRG sample of the SDSS as a specific example. The survey area is assumed to be pi steradian, the redshift range to be 0.2–0.4. The number density of the LRGs is approximately homogeneous and is given by $`10^4h^3\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ eis01 . To reduce the computational cost, we set a sub-region of a $`10^2\pi 314`$ square degree field in a redshift range 0.2–0.4, and fill spherical cells of radius $`15h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ in this region. We assume nonlinear effects of velocity distortions are erased by this choice of smoothing radius. In actual applications, it is important to test the choice of smoothing radius to ensure nonlinear distortions do not bias the result. We use the cubic closed-packed structure which has the maximum spatial filling factor of 0.74 that can be filled with spherical cells without overlapping each other (there are other ways to achieve this maximum factor such as the hexagonal closed-packed structure, etc.). As a result, about 2500 cells are placed in this sub-region. The Fisher information matrix is scaled according to the ratio of the volume of the sub-region to the total volume.

The model parameters for the dark energy are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$ and $`w(z)`$. To characterize an evolutionary effect of EOS, we employ a parameterization $`w(z)=w_0+w_1z`$, which is a good approximation when the evolution of EOS is mild in our interested redshift range of $`z<0.4`$. Therefore, we have three model parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$, $`w_0`$, and $`w_1`$ for the dark energy component. There are other cosmological parameters to compute the model correlation matrix. We assume a cold dark matter (CDM) power spectrum which depends on the shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}h`$, and the normalization $`\sigma _8`$ of mass. The apparent redshift-space correlation function depends on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ and bias parameter $`b`$, as well as dark-energy parameters and the power spectrum. In the following we choose the curvature parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}`$ as an independent parameter instead of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$. Thus we have seven model parameters. In the following analysis, we set fiducial values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}=0.7`$, $`w_0=1`$ (or $`0.5`$), $`w_1=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}=0`$, $`h=0.7`$, $`\sigma _8=1`$, $`b=2`$, and see how one can constrain the parameters around this models.

First, we consider a situation in which only two parameters of the dark energy are constrained, assuming all the other cosmological parameters are fixed. Fig. 1 shows the expected error bounds on two of dark energy parameters are varied.

In $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$-$`w_0`$ and $`w_0`$-$`w_1`$ panels, two cases with fiducial values $`w_0=1,0.5`$ are shown, and in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$-$`w_1`$ panel, only $`w_0=1`$ case is presented. Inner and outer ellipses correspond to expected $`1\sigma `$ bounds of one-parameter distributions, and $`1\sigma `$ bounds of two-parameter joint distributions, respectively. Solid ellipses represent the case in which bias parameter is fixed, as well as other cosmological parameters. Since the bias parameter is the most important uncertainty in analyses of the galaxy clustering, we also plot the expected bounds marginalized over bias parameter (dotted ellipses). This corresponds to the case when bias should be simultaneously constrained together with dark-energy parameters in a same data set.

One may suspect that the constraints on dark energy are imposed mainly from the evolution of the growth factor $`D(z)`$, rather than the AP effect. In which case, the uncertainty in a possible bias evolution could demolish the constraints. To see this is not the case, we run a modified code to calculate the Fisher matrix for an imaginary model in which the growth factor does not evolve at all. The resulting values of Fisher matrix are only 4%, 30%, and 35% smaller than the original values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Q}`$-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{Q}`$, $`w_0`$-$`w_0`$, and $`w_1`$-$`w_1`$ components, respectively. Therefore, the AP effect does mainly constrain the dark energy parameters.

In the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$-$`w_0`$ panel, non-evolved EOS models can be constrained surprisingly well. The bias uncertainty does not significantly demolish the promise of this aspect. In the $`w_0`$-$`w_1`$ panel, the two EOS parameters $`w_0`$ and $`w_1`$ are strongly correlated. This suggests that the redshift range 0.2–0.4 is not large enough to distinguish evolved model and non-evolved model, and that the constraints on $`w`$ mainly depend on an effective value of $`w`$. In fact, the degeneracy is represented by $`w_0+0.13w_1=\mathrm{const}.`$, which means the effective EOS is given by $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}=w(z=0.13)`$. Since the EOS affects the apparent clustering through Eq.(1), it is reasonable that the effective redshift is halfway to the sample volume.

To see how the uncertainty of the EOS evolution affects the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$, $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, we re-parameterize the EOS by $`w(z)=w_{\mathrm{eff}}+(z0.13)w_1`$. In Fig. 2, expected bounds are plotted for the case when one of the dark-energy parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$, $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`w_1`$ are marginalized over.

The error bounds on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are barely affected by $`w_1`$ marginalization. This means that our method is not sensitive to the uncertainty of the EOS evolution, and is only sensitive to the effective value of the EOS.

In the above analyses, the cosmological parameters other than that of the dark-energy component and bias parameter are fixed. These other parameters can be determined from various cosmological observations. In order to estimate the effects of the uncertainties from these other parameters, error bounds between dark-energy parameters and other parameters are plotted in Fig. 3, without any other marginalization.

Each panel in this figure indicates a correlation between each pair of parameters. Correlations with $`\sigma _8`$ are not plotted, but are quite similar to those with bias $`b`$, as naturally expected. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$ is positively correlated with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}`$ and $`h`$. This is because the galaxy clustering accurately constrains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}h=(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{K0}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}})h`$. If we do not use prior knowledge of either the curvature or the Hubble’s constant, the error bound on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$ is enlarged by a factor of 4–5. There are negative correlations between each dark-energy parameter and the bias parameter. This can be understood by noticing that both parameters increase the amplitude of fluctuations when the present amplitude is fixed. The EOS parameters are quite independent on the curvature and Hubble’s constant.

In summary, we predict for the first time expected degree of constraints on dark energy models from intermediate-redshift galaxies such as LRGs, and show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be constrained surprisingly well. The prior input of the curvature and the Hubble’s constant are important to reduce the bounds on the dark energy density, but not so important on the EOS parameters.

We thank A. Pope and D. Eisenstein for discussions, and E. Linder for comments on the draft. TM acknowledges support from grants MEXT 13740150. AS acknowledges support from grants NSF AST-9802 980 and NASA LTSA NAG-53503.


text:
# Superconducting SET with tunable electromagnetic environment

## 1 Introduction

Small-capacitance Josephson junction has been playing an important role in studying the interplay between quantum mechanically conjugate valuables, the Josephson phase and the charge on the island electrode . It is also a promising candidate for solid-state realizations of quantum computing . In this system, coupling to an electromagnetic environment is a key issue. The coupling influences the interplay between the phase and the charge. Moreover, it is a major source of decoherence in quantum bits.

In this work we study the environmental effect on superconducting single-electron transistors (S-SETs), which are building blocks of nano-circuits. The effects of dissipation on S-SETs have been investigated by capacitively coupling a two-dimensional electron gas to an S-SET . We take a different approach as described in the next section.

## 2 Experiment

We have biased S-SETs with one-dimensional (1D) arrays of small-capacitance dc superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDs) as shown in Fig. 1.

With the SQUID configuration, the effective impedance of the arrays can be varied in situ by applying a weak ($`110`$ mT) external magnetic field $`B`$, i.e., the arrays are tunable environment  for the SET. For a scanning electron micrograph of a SQUID array, see Fig. 1 of Ref. . We measured the SET in a four-point configuration, where the bias was applied through one pair of SQUID leads and the potential difference was probed through the other pair of leads. The SQUID arrays could be measured in a two-point configuration on the same side of the SET, and the zero-bias resistance $`R_0^{}`$ obtained in this measurement may characterize the environment .

The samples consist of Al/Al2O3/Al junctions fabricated on a SiO2/Si substrate. The area of each junction in the SET is $`0.1\times 0.1`$ $`\mu `$m2, so that the charging energy of the SET is on the order of 1 K.

## 3 Results and discussion

We show in Fig. 2 low-temperature ($`T=0.02`$ K) current-voltage ($`I`$-$`V`$) curves of an S-SET in different environments, $`R_0^{}=0.2`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`B=0`$) for a and $`R_0^{}=0.3`$ G$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`B=6.8`$ mT) for b.

Here, the temperature is 0.02 K and the gate voltage, $`V_\mathrm{g}`$, is 0. For the sample in Fig. 2, the normal-state resistance of the SET is 0.10 M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, so that the Josephson energy is estimated to be 0.1 K. The parameters of the SET should be the same for the two curves in Fig. 2, because the SET does not have a SQUID configuration and the field applied here is much smaller than the critical field for Al films ($`0.1`$ T). The environment for the SET (the SQUID arrays), however, is strongly varied with $`B`$. The behavior of the SET demonstrated in Fig. 2 does not result from the magnetic-field influencing the $`I`$-$`V`$ curve of the SET, but rather from an environmental effect on the SET. While Coulomb blockade in curve a is rounded, that in curve b is sharp. Furthermore, curve b has a ‘back-bending’ in the low-current part, which is evidence of coherent single-Cooper-pair tunneling . For the difference between curves a and b quasiparticles generated by external noise may be responsible, because no filter has been installed in or at the top of our cryostat. A sufficiently large $`R_0^{}`$ would weaken the coupling to the noise source and suppresses the quasiparticle generation.

We have also examined the dependence on $`V_\mathrm{g}`$ as shown in Fig. 3. We fixed $`V_{\mathrm{bias}}`$ (see Fig. 1) and measured the current $`I`$ as a function of $`V_\mathrm{g}`$. When $`V`$, the the potential difference across the SET is large compared to the voltage drop at the other parts of the circuit, $`V`$ is nearly independent of $`V_\mathrm{g}`$. This is the case for the upper data set in Fig. 3 ($`R_0^{}=0.2`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`B=0`$), and $`V=0.1`$ mV. In the opposite case, $`V`$ also oscillates as a function of $`V_\mathrm{g}`$, which makes the amplitude of the current oscillation small. In the case of the lower data set in Fig. 3 ($`R_0^{}=0.3`$ G$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`B=6.8`$ mT), $`V`$ oscillates between 0.1 and 0.3 mV. Nevertheless, it is still possible to clearly observe the oscillation of $`I`$. In Fig. 3, $`V_\mathrm{g}`$ is normalized by $`e/C_\mathrm{g}`$, where the gate capacitance $`C_\mathrm{g}=6`$ aF is estimated from a similar gate-sweep measurement in a strong enough magnetic field ($`B=0.1`$ T) to drive the sample into the normal state. By tuning the environment, the $`V_\mathrm{g}`$ dependence changes from $`e`$-periodic to $`2e`$-periodic, i.e., the dominant tunneling process changes from quasiparticle tunneling to Cooper-pair tunneling. This observation is consistent with the picture in the end of the preceding paragraph that the quasiparticle generation is suppressed by the SQUID arrays when the arrays have a sufficiently large $`R_0^{}`$.

## 4 Conclusion

We could sharpen Coulomb blockade in the S-SET and change the dependence on the gate voltage from $`e`$-periodic to 2$`e`$-periodic, by tuning the electromagnetic environment composed of small-capacitance SQUID arrays in the immediate vicinity of an S-SET. The SQUID arrays behaved as effective noise filters.

This work was supported in part by Special Postdoctoral Researchers Program and President’s Special Research Grant of RIKEN.