text:
# On L. Schwartz’s Boundedness Condition for Kernels

## 1. Introduction

We analysed in  conditions under which the linearization functor produces a Kreĭn space from a hermitian kernel, in the spirit of Kolmogorov type decompositions, and subsequently in  we generalized this construction to kernels invariant under the action of a semigroup with involution. We also related these constructions with the GNS representations of $``$-algebras, an issue of some recent interest in quantum field theory with indefinite metric (, , , ). The conditions on the kernel turned out to be of a type considered previously by L. Schwartz in  in the related matter of characterizing those hermitian kernels that are in the real linear space generated by positive definite kernels. These boundedness conditions are rather difficult to be verified, see ,, and their nature is quite obscure, see .

The aim of the present note is to find more concrete expressions of the L. Schwartz type conditions. We first note that the invariant Kolmogorov decomposition has a countarpart in the representation theory of semigroups with involution on reproducing kernel Kreĭn spaces. Then, it is explained that the type of invariance that is considered in  can be viewed as a Hankel type condition and we apply this to a Hamburger moment problem for the free semigroup on $`N`$ generators. This is used in order to show how the Schwartz condition is somewhat simplified when it is written for generators of a $``$-algebra.

In Section 4 we first show that the Stinespring dilation of hermitian linear maps fits into the general scheme of invariant Kolmogorov decompositions and we make explicit the connection with completely bounded maps and Wittstock’s Theorem . This opens the possibility of defining a class of non-hermitian decomposable kernels, that may successfully replace the missing class of completely bounded kernels, by using a generalization of Haagerup’s decomposable linear mappings on $`C^{}`$-algebras, cf. . An analog of Paulsen’s Dilation Theorem for decomposable kernels is obtained in Theorem 4.4.

In Section 5 we show that holomorphic kernels in more than one variable have Kolmogorov decompositions and hence, that hermitian holomorphic kernels automatically satisfy L. Schwartz’s boundedness condition. In view of the transcription between Kolmogorov decompositions and reproducing kernel spaces, e.g. see Theorem 2.4, this result is an extension of the result of D. Alpay in  proved for one variable holomorphic hermitian kernels.

## 2. Preliminaries

We briefly review the structure of the Kolmogorov decomposition of invariant hermitian kernels. As it was shown in , the natural framework for studying hermitian kernels is given by Kreĭn spaces and for this reason we briefly discuss the necessary terminology.

### 2.1. Kreĭn Spaces

An indefinite inner product space $`(,[,]_{})`$ is called Kreĭn space provided that there exists a positive inner product $`,`$ turning $`(,,)`$ into a Hilbert space and such that $`[\xi ,\eta ]=J\xi ,\eta `$, $`\xi ,\eta `$, for some symmetry $`J`$ ($`J^{}=J^1=J`$ with respect to the Hilbert space structure) on $``$. Such a symmetry $`J`$ is called a fundamental symmetry and we will frequently indicate by a lower index the space on which it acts. For two Kreĭn spaces $``$ and $`𝒦`$ we denote by $`(,𝒦)`$ the set of linear bounded operators from $``$ to $`𝒦`$. For $`T(,𝒦)`$ we denote by $`T^{\mathrm{}}(𝒦,)`$ the adjoint of $`T`$ with respect to the indefinite inner product $`[,]`$. The Hilbert space adjoint of $`T`$ with respect to the positive inner products $`,`$ is denoted by $`T^{}`$. It is important to note that, if $`J_{}`$ and $`J_𝒦`$ are fundamentaly symmetries on $``$ and, respectively, $`𝒦`$ then

$$T^{\mathrm{}}=J_{}T^{}J_𝒦.$$

We say that $`A()`$ is a selfadjoint operator if $`A^{\mathrm{}}=A`$. For example, in terms of fundamental symmetries, this means $`J_{}A=A^{}J_{}`$. Also, we say that the operator $`U(,𝒦)`$ is unitary if $`UU^{\mathrm{}}=I_𝒦`$ and $`U^{\mathrm{}}U=I_{}`$, where $`I_{}`$ denotes the identity operator on $``$. Equivalently, this means that $`U`$ is boundedly invertible and $`J_{}U^1=U^{}J_𝒦`$. In terms of inner products, this means that $`U`$ is isometric and surjective.

A special situation occurs for a unitary operator $`U`$ with domain and range the same Kreĭn space $``$ if it commutes with some fundamental symmetry $`J_{}`$. Such a unitary operator is called fundamentally reducible and it can be characterized in other different ways. For instance, $`U`$ is fundamentally reducible if and only if it is power bounded.

Most of the difficulties in dealing with operators on Kreĭn spaces are caused by the lack of a well-behaved factorization theory. The concept of induced space turned out to be quite useful in order to deal with this issue. Thus, let $``$ be a Hilbert space and, for a selfadjoint operator $`A`$ in $`()`$, we define a new inner product $`[,]_A`$ on $``$ by the formula

(2.1)
$$[\xi ,\eta ]_A=A\xi ,\eta _{},\xi ,\eta .$$

A pair $`(𝒦,\mathrm{\Pi })`$ consisting of a Kreĭn space $`𝒦`$ and a bounded operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(,𝒦)`$ is called a Kreĭn space induced by $`A`$ provided that $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ has dense range and the relation

(2.2)
$$[\mathrm{\Pi }\xi ,\mathrm{\Pi }\eta ]_𝒦=\xi ,\eta _A$$

holds for all $`\xi ,\eta `$. There are many known examples of induced spaces. A more delicate question is the uniqueness of the induced Kreĭn spaces (see ).

### 2.2. Hermitian Kernels

We can use the concept of induced space in order to describe the Kolmogorov decomposition of a hermitian kernel. Let $`X`$ be an arbitrary set. From now on we assume $``$ is a Hilbert space with inner product denoted by $`,`$. A kernel  on $`X`$ is a mapping $`K`$ defined on $`X\times X`$ with values in $`()`$. The adjoint $`K^{}`$ of $`K`$ is defined by the formula $`K^{}(x,y)=K(y,x)^{}`$. The kernel $`K`$ is called hermitian on $`X`$ if $`K^{}=K`$.

Let $`_0(X,)`$ denote the vector space of all functions on $`X`$ with values in $``$ which vanish except on a finite number of points. We associate to $`K`$ an inner product on $`_0(X,)`$ by the formula:

(2.3)
$$[f,g]_K=\underset{x,yX}{}K(x,y)f(y),g(x),f,g_0(X,).$$

We say that the hermitian kernel $`L:X\times X()`$ is positive definite if the inner product $`[,]_L`$ associated to $`L`$ by the formula (2.3) is positive. One can introduce a natural partial order on the set of hermitian kernels on $`X`$ with values in $`()`$ as follows: if $`A`$, $`B`$ are hermitian kernels, then $`AB`$ means $`[f,f]_A[f,f]_B`$ for all $`f_0(X,)`$.

A Kolmogorov decomposition of the hermitian kernel $`K`$ is a pair $`(V;𝒦)`$ with the following properties:

* $`𝒦`$ is a Kreĭn space with fundamental symmetry $`J`$;
* $`V=\{V(x)\}_{xX}(,𝒦)`$ such that $`K(x,y)=V(x)^{}JV(y)`$ for all $`x,y𝒦`$;
* $`\{V(x)xX\}`$ is total in $`𝒦`$.

The next result, obtained in , settles the question concerning the existence of a Kolmogorov decomposition for a given hermitian kernel.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`K:X\times X()`$ be a hermitian kernel. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) There exists a positive definite kernel $`L:X\times X()`$ such that $`LKL`$.

(2) $`K`$ has a Kolmogorov decomposition.

The condition in assertion (1) of the previous result appeared earlier in the work of L. Schwartz  concerning the structure of hermitian kernels. It is easy to see that (1) is also equivalent to the representation of $`K`$ as a difference of two positive definite kernels. Thus, Theorem 2.1 says that the class of hermitian kernels admitting Kolmogorov decompostions is the same with the class of hermitian kernels in the linear span of the cone of positive definite kernels.

It is convenient for our purpose to review a construction of Kolmogorov decompositions. We assume that there exists a positive definite kernel $`L:X\times X()`$ such that $`LKL`$. Let $`_L`$ be the Hilbert space obtained by the completion of the quotient space $`_0(X,)/𝒩_L`$ with respect to $`[,]_L`$, where $`𝒩_L=\{f_0(X,)[f,f]_L=0\}`$ is the isotropic subspace of the inner product space $`(_0(X,),[,]_L)`$. Since $`(1)`$ in Theorem 2.1 is equivalent to

$$|[f,g]_K|[f,f]_L^{1/2}[g,g]_L^{1/2}$$

for all $`f,g_0(X,)`$ (see Proposition 38, ), it follows that $`𝒩_L`$ is a subset of the isotropic subspace $`𝒩_K`$ of the inner product space $`(_0(X,),[,]_K)`$. Therefore, $`[,]_K`$ uniquely induces an inner product on $`_L`$, still denoted by $`[,]_K`$, such that (2.2) holds for $`f,g_L`$. By the Riesz representation theorem we obtain a selfadjoint contractive operator $`A_L(_L)`$, referred to as the Gram operator of $`K`$ with respect to $`L`$, such that

$$[f,g]_K=[A_Lf,g]_L,f,g_0(X,).$$

Let $`(𝒦,\mathrm{\Pi })`$ be a Kreĭn space induced by $`A_L`$. For $`\xi `$ and $`xX`$, we define the element $`\xi _x=\delta _x\xi _0(X,)`$ (here $`\delta _x`$ is the Kronecker function delta), that is,

(2.4)
$$\xi _x(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi ,\hfill & y=x;\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & yx.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we define

$$V(x)\xi =\mathrm{\Pi }[\xi _x],xX,\xi ,$$

where $`[\xi _x]=\xi _x+𝒩_L`$ denotes the class of $`\xi _x`$ in $`_L`$ and it can be verified that $`(V;𝒦)`$ is a Kolmogorov decomposition of the kernel $`K`$.

We finally review the uniqueness property of the Kolmogorov decomposition. Two Kolmogorov decompositions $`(V_1,𝒦_1)`$ and $`(V_2,𝒦_2)`$ of the same hermitian kernel $`K`$ are unitarily equivalent if there exists a unitary operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒦_1,𝒦_2)`$ such that for all $`xX`$ we have $`V_2(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }V_1(x)`$. The following result was obtained in . We denote by $`\rho (T)`$ the resolvent set of the operator $`T`$.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`K`$ be a hermitian kernel which has Kolmogorov decompositions. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) All Kolmogorov decompositions of $`K`$ are unitarily equivalent.

(2) For each positive definite kernel $`L`$ such that $`LKL`$, there exists $`ϵ>0`$ such that either $`(0,ϵ)\rho (A_L)`$ or $`(ϵ,0)\rho (A_L)`$, where $`A_L`$ is the Gram operator of $`K`$ with respect to $`L`$.

### 2.3. Invariant Hermitian Kernels

We now review some results on the Kolmogorov decomposition of hermitian kernels with additional symmetries. Let $`\varphi `$ be an action of a unital semigroup $`S`$ on $`X`$. Assume that the $`()`$-valued hermitian kernel $`K`$ has a Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V,𝒦)`$. The action $`\varphi `$ is linearized by the following mapping: for any $`aS`$, $`xX`$ and $`\xi `$,

(2.5)
$$U(a)V(x)\xi =V(\varphi (a,x))\xi .$$

We notice that for $`a,bS`$, $`xX`$ and $`\xi `$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U(a)U(b)V(x)\xi & =U(a)V(\varphi (b,x))\xi =V(\varphi (a,\varphi (b,x)))\xi \hfill \\ & =V(\varphi (ab,x))\xi =U(ab)V(x)\xi .\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, the family $`\{U(a)\}_{aS}`$ is a semigroup of linear operators with a common dense domain $`_{xX}V(x)`$ (throughout this paper $``$ denotes the linear space generated by some set, without taking any closure). If $`K`$ is a positive definite kernel then the previous construction is well-known (see, for instance, ). The remaining question, especially in case $`K`$ is not positive definite, is: what additional conditions on the kernel $`K`$ should be imposed in order to ensure the boundedness of the operators $`U(a)`$, $`aS`$? We gave a possible answer in , by considering an additional symmetry of the kernel.

Consider the set $`B=\{\xi _x\xi ,xX\}`$ which is a vector space basis of $`_0(X,)`$. Define for $`aS`$,

(2.6)
$$\psi _a(\xi _x)=\xi _{\varphi (a,x)}$$

and this mapping can be extended by linearity to a linear mapping, also denoted by $`\psi _a`$, from $`_0(X,)`$ into $`_0(X,)`$. We say that a positive definite kernel $`L`$ is $`\varphi `$-bounded provided that for all $`aS`$, $`\psi _a`$ is bounded with respect to the seminorm $`[,]_L^{1/2}`$ induced by $`L`$ on $`_0(X,)`$. We denote by $`_\varphi ^+(X,)`$ the set of positive definite $`\varphi `$-bounded kernels on $`X`$ with values in $`()`$.

From now on we assume that $`S`$ is a unital semigroup with involution, that is, there exists a mapping $`:SS`$ such that $`^2=`$the identity on $`S`$, and $`(ab)=(b)(a)`$ for all $`a,bS`$. The following result was obtained in .

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`\varphi `$ be an action of the unital semigroup $`S`$ with involution $``$ on the set $`X`$ and let $`K`$ be an $`()`$-valued hermitian kernel on $`X`$ with the property that

(2.7)
$$K(x,\varphi (a,y))=K(\varphi ((a),x),y)$$

for all $`x,yX`$ and $`aS`$. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) There exists $`L_\varphi ^+(X,)`$ such that $`LKL`$.

(2) $`K`$ has a Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V;𝒦)`$ with the property that there exists a representation $`U`$ of $`S`$ on $`𝒦`$ such that

(2.8)
$$V(\varphi (a,x))=U(a)V(x)$$

for all $`xX`$, $`aS`$. In addition, $`U((a))=U(a)^{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`aS`$.

(3) $`K=K_1K_2`$ for two positive definite kernels such that $`K_1+K_2_\varphi ^+(X,)`$.

(4) $`K=K_+K_{}`$ for two disjoint positive definite kernels such that $`K_++K_{}_\varphi ^+(X,)`$.

### 2.4. Reproducing kernel spaces

We now describe another construction, closely related to the Kolmogorov decomposition of a hermitian kernel. Let $`K`$ be a hermitian kernel satisfying (2.7) with a Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V;𝒦)`$ as in Theorem 2.3. Define

$$=\{g_f:Xg_f(x)=V^{\mathrm{}}(x)f,f𝒦\}.$$

Then $``$ is a vector subspace of $`(X,)`$, the class of functions defined on $`X`$ with values in $``$. We define a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒦`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }f=g_f,f𝒦.$$

This map is linear and bijective, so that we can define on $``$ the inner product

$$[g_f,g_h]_{}=[f,h]_𝒦,f,h𝒦.$$

One checks that $``$ is a Kreĭn space with respect to this inner product. Also, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a bounded operator between the Kreĭn spaces $`𝒦`$ and $``$, since it is closed and everywhere defined on $`𝒦`$, hence it is unitary. Moreover, $``$ is the closure of the linear space generated by the functions $`g_{V(y)\xi }`$, $`yX`$ and $`\xi `$. These functions are related to the kernel $`K`$ as follows:

$$g_{V(y)\xi }(x)=V^{\mathrm{}}(x)V(y)\xi =K(x,y)\xi ,x,yX,\xi .$$

We will write $`g_{y,\xi }`$ instead of $`g_{V(y)\xi }`$, and since $`g_{y,\xi }(x)=K(x,y)\xi `$, these functions can be defined without using $`V`$. Therefore, the space $``$ has the following reproducing property:

(2.9)
$$[g_f(x),\xi ]_{}=[g_f,g_{x,\xi }]_{},xX,f𝒦,\xi .$$

We also note that property (2.7) of the kernel $`K`$ is reflected into a certain symmetry of the elements of $``$. Thus, we define an operator $`\overline{U}(a)()`$ by

$$\overline{U}(a)=\mathrm{\Phi }U(a)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}},aX,$$

where $`U`$ is the projective representation of $`S`$ given by Theorem 2.3. We have

$$\overline{U}(a)g_f=\mathrm{\Phi }U(a)\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{}}g_f=\mathrm{\Phi }U(a)f=g_{U(a)f},aX,f𝒦.$$

On the other hand, for any $`a,xX`$ and $`f𝒦`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_f(\varphi ((a),x))& =V^{\mathrm{}}(\varphi ((a),x))f=V(x)^{\mathrm{}}U((a))^{\mathrm{}}f\hfill \\ & =g_{U(a)^{\mathrm{}}f}(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

and we deduce that the elements of $``$ satisfy the relation

$$(\overline{U}(a)g_f)(x)=\sigma ((a),a)^1g_f(\varphi ((a),x)).$$

Based on this relation we obtain the following result.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`\varphi `$ be an action of the unital semigroup $`S`$ with involution $``$ on the set $`X`$ and let $`K`$ be an $`()`$-valued hermitian kernel on $`X`$ with the property that

(2.10)
$$K(x,\varphi (a,y))=K(\varphi ((a),x),y)$$

for all $`x,yX`$ and $`aS`$. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) There exists $`L_\varphi ^+(X,)`$ such that $`LKL`$.

(2) $`K`$ has a Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V;𝒦)`$ with the property that there exists a representation $`U`$ of $`S`$ on $`𝒦`$ such that $`V(\varphi (a,x))=U(a)V(x)`$ for all $`xX`$, $`aS`$.

(3) There exists a Kreĭn space $``$ such that

$`(a)(X,).`$

$`(b)`$ The set $`\{g_{x,\xi }xX,\xi \}`$ is total in $``$.

$`(c)[f(x),\xi ]_{}=[f,g_{x,\xi }]_{}`$ for all $`f,\xi ,xX.`$

$`(d)`$ There exists a representation $`\overline{U}`$ of $`S`$ on $``$ such that

$$(\overline{U}(a)f)(x)=f(\varphi ((a),x))$$

for all $`aS`$, $`xX`$ and $`f`$.

###### Proof.

The implication $`(2)(3)`$ was already proved above. In order to prove $`(3)(2)`$ we define the linear mapping $`\overline{V}(x)`$ from $``$ into $``$ by the formula:

$$\overline{V}(x)\xi =g_{x,\xi },xX,\xi .$$

The property $`(c)`$ shows that $`\overline{V}(x)`$ is a closed operator and by the closed graph theorem we deduce that $`\overline{V}(x)(,)`$. From $`(b)`$ and $`(c)`$ we deduce that $`(\overline{V};)`$ is a Kolmogorov decomposition of $`K`$. Finally,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\overline{V}(\varphi (a,x))\xi )(y)& =g_{\varphi (a,x),\xi }(y)=K(y,\varphi (a,x))\xi \hfill \\ & =K(\varphi ((a),y),x)\xi \hfill \\ & =g_{x,\xi }(\varphi ((a),y))\hfill \\ & =(\overline{U}(a)\overline{V}(x)\xi )(y).\hfill \end{array}$$

This completes the proof. ∎

## 3. Hankel type kernels

In this section we interpret the invariance property (2.7) as a Hankel condition. To see this, let $`S=`$ be the additive semigroup of natural numbers (including $`0`$) and the action $`\varphi `$ is given by right translation. If $`K`$ satisfies (2.7), then $`K(n,p+m)=K(p+n,m)`$ for $`m,n,p`$ and $`K`$ is a so-called Hankel kernel. We can extend this example to a noncommutative setting as follows. Let $`S=𝔽_N^+`$ be the unital free semigroup on $`N`$ generators $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_N`$ with lexicograhpic order $``$. The empty word is the identity element and the length of the word $`\sigma `$ is denoted by $`|\sigma |`$. The length of the empty word is $`0`$. There is a natural involution on $`𝔽_N^+`$ given by $`(g_1\mathrm{}g_k)=g_k\mathrm{}g_1`$ as well as a natural action of $`𝔽_N^+`$ on itself by juxtaposition, $`\varphi (\sigma ,\tau )=\sigma \tau `$, $`\sigma ,\tau 𝔽_N^+`$. The condition (2.7) means in this case that

(3.1)
$$K(\sigma ,\beta \tau )=K((\beta )\sigma ,\tau )$$

for $`\beta ,\sigma ,\tau 𝔽_N^+`$. It was noticed in  that kernels as above appear in connection with orthogonal polynomials in $`N`$ indeterminates satisfyting the relations $`Y_k^{}=Y_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

Let $`𝒫_N^0`$ be the algebra of polynomials in $`N`$ non-commuting indeterminates $`Y_1`$,$`\mathrm{}`$,$`Y_N`$ with complex coefficients. For any $`\sigma =g_{j_1}g_{j_2}\mathrm{}g_{j_l}𝔽_N^+`$, where $`j_p\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$ for all $`p=1,\mathrm{},l`$, $`l=|\sigma |`$, we denote $`Y_\sigma =Y_{g_{j_1}}Y_{g_{j_2}}\mathrm{}Y_{g_{j_l}}`$. With this notation, each element $`P𝒫_N^0`$ can be uniquely written as

(3.2)
$$P=\underset{\sigma 𝔽_N^+}{}c_\sigma Y_\sigma ,$$

where $`(c_\sigma )_{\sigma 𝔽_N^+}`$ has finite support.

An involution $``$ on $`𝒫_N^0`$ can be introduced as follows: $`Y_k^{}=Y_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},N`$; on monomials, $`(Y_\sigma )^{}=Y_{(\sigma )}`$; and, in general, if $`P`$ has the representation as in (3.2) then

$$P^{}=\underset{\sigma 𝔽_N^+}{}\overline{c}_\sigma Y_\sigma ^{}.$$

Thus, $`𝒫_N^0`$ is a unital, associative, $``$-algebra over $``$. A linear functional $`Z`$ on $`𝒫_N^0`$ is called hermitian if $`Z(P^{})=\overline{Z(P)}`$ for $`P𝒫_N^0`$.

A convenient subclass of hermitian functionals, called GNS functionals, is given by those functionals admitting GNS data. A triplet $`(\pi ,𝒦,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is called a GNS data associated to $`Z`$ if $`\pi `$ is a hermitian closable representation of $`𝒫_N^0`$ on a Kreĭn space $`𝒦`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒟(\pi )`$, the domain of $`\pi `$, such that $`Z(P)=[\pi (P)\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]_𝒦`$ for $`P𝒫_N^0`$, and $`_{P𝒫_N^0}\pi (P)\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒟(\pi )`$ (see , ). The numbers $`s_\sigma =Z(Y_\sigma )`$, $`\sigma 𝔽_N^+`$, are called the moments of $`Z`$.

Conversely, to any family of complex numbers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(s_\sigma )_{\sigma 𝔽_N^+}`$, we can associate the kernel

(3.3)
$$K_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\sigma ,\tau )=s_{(\sigma )\tau },\sigma ,\tau 𝔽_N^+,$$

and it is easy to see that this kernel satisfies (3.1).

The following is a Hamburger type description of moments.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The complex numbers $`s_\sigma `$, $`\sigma 𝔽_N^+`$, are the moments of a GNS functional on $`𝒫_N^0`$ if and only if there exists a positive definite kernel $`L`$ on $`𝔽_N^+`$ such that $`LKL`$, where $`K(\sigma ,\tau )=s_{(\sigma )\tau }`$, $`\sigma ,\tau 𝔽_N^+`$.

###### Proof.

This result is just another facet of Theorem 2.1. Assume first that the numbers $`s_\sigma `$, $`\sigma 𝔽_N^+`$, are the moments of a GNS functional on $`𝒫_N^0`$. Let $`(\pi ,𝒦,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a GNS data associated to $`Z`$. Define $`V:𝔽_N^+(,𝒦)`$ by the formula:

$$V(\sigma )\lambda =\pi (Y_\sigma )(\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }),\sigma 𝔽_N^+,\lambda .$$

We deduce that for $`\sigma ,\tau 𝔽_N^+`$ and $`\lambda ,\mu ,`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V(\sigma )^{\mathrm{}}V(\tau )\lambda \overline{\nu }& =[V(\tau )\lambda ,V(\sigma )\nu ]_𝒦=[\pi (Y_\tau )(\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }),\pi (Y_\sigma )(\nu \mathrm{\Omega })]_𝒦\hfill \\ & =\lambda \overline{\nu }[\pi (Y_\sigma ^{}Y_\tau )\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]_𝒦=\lambda \overline{\nu }Z(Y_{I(\sigma )\tau })=\lambda \overline{\nu }K(\sigma ,\tau ).\hfill \end{array}$$

Also, the set $`\{V(\sigma )\lambda \sigma 𝔽_N^+,\lambda \}`$ is total in $`𝒦`$, so that $`(V,𝒦)`$ is a Kolmogorov decomposition of $`K`$. By Theorem 2.1, there exists a positive definite kernel $`L`$ on $`𝔽_N^+`$ such that $`LKL`$.

Conversely, let $`(V,𝒦)`$ be a Kolmogorov decomposition of $`K`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Omega }=V(\mathrm{})`$ and

$$\pi (Y_\sigma )\mathrm{\Omega }=V(\sigma ),\sigma 𝔽_N^+.$$

We notice that $`_{P𝒫_N^0}\pi (P)\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\sigma 𝔽_N^+}V(\sigma )`$, we define $`𝒟(\pi )=_{\sigma 𝔽_N^+}V(\sigma )`$, and we can extend $`\pi `$ to $`𝒫_N^0`$ by linearity. Clearly, $`𝒟(\pi )`$ is invariant under $`\pi (P)`$, $`P𝒫_N^0`$, and $`\pi (P)\pi (Q)=\pi (PQ)`$. Also, for $`k,k^{}𝒟(\pi )`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\pi (Y_\sigma )k,k^{}]_𝒦& =[\pi (Y_\sigma )\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_k\pi (Y_{\tau _k})\mathrm{\Omega },\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_j\pi (Y_{\tau _j^{}})\mathrm{\Omega }]_𝒦\hfill \\ & =\underset{k,j=1}{\overset{n,m}{}}c_k\overline{d}_j[\pi (Y_\sigma )\pi (Y_{\tau _k})\mathrm{\Omega },\pi (Y_{\tau _j^{}})\mathrm{\Omega }]_𝒦\hfill \\ & =\underset{k,j=1}{\overset{n,m}{}}c_k\overline{d}_j[V(\sigma \tau _k)1,V(\tau _j^{})1]_𝒦=\underset{k,j=1}{\overset{n,m}{}}c_k\overline{d}_jV(\tau _j^{})^{\mathrm{}}V(\sigma \tau _k)\hfill \\ & =\underset{k,j=1}{\overset{n,m}{}}c_k\overline{d}_jK(\tau _j^{},\sigma \tau _k)=\underset{k,j=1}{\overset{n,m}{}}c_k\overline{d}_jK((\sigma )\tau _j^{},\tau _k)\hfill \\ & =[k,\pi (Y_{(\sigma )})k^{}]_𝒦,\hfill \end{array}$$

which shows that the domain of $`\pi (Y_\sigma )^{\mathrm{}}`$ contains $`𝒟(\pi )`$ and

$$\pi (Y_\sigma )^{\mathrm{}}|𝒟(\pi )=\pi (Y_{(\sigma )})=\pi (Y_\sigma ^{}).$$

We can extend this argument and show that the same is true for any $`P𝒫_N^0`$, so that $`(\pi ,𝒦,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a GNS data for $`Z(P)=[\pi (P)\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]_𝒦`$, $`P𝒫_N^0`$. The moments of $`Z`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z(Y_\sigma )& =[\pi (Y_\sigma )\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]_𝒦=[V(\sigma )1,V(\mathrm{})1]_𝒦\hfill \\ & =V(\mathrm{})^{\mathrm{}}V(\sigma )=K(\mathrm{},\sigma )=s_{I(\mathrm{})\sigma }=s_\sigma .\hfill \end{array}$$

As a consequence of the previous result and Theorem 2.2, we deduce a uniqueness condition for the solvability of the Hamburger moment problem for GNS functionals.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`s_\sigma `$, $`\sigma 𝔽_N^+`$, be the moments of some GNS functional on $`𝒫_N^0`$, and consider the kernel $`K(\sigma ,\tau )=s_{(\sigma )\tau }`$, $`\sigma ,\tau 𝔽_N^+`$. Then, there exists a unique GNS functional on $`𝒫_N^0`$ with moments $`s_\sigma `$, if and only if for each positive definite kernel $`L`$ on $`𝔽_N^+`$ such that $`LKL`$, there exists $`ϵ>0`$ such that either $`(0,ϵ)\rho (A_L)`$ or $`(ϵ,0)\rho (A_L)`$, where $`A_L`$ is the Gram operator of $`K`$ with respect to $`L`$.

## 4. Dilations and decomposition of kernels

In this section we show that Theorem 2.3 provides a general framework for a version of the Stinespring theorem and for decompositions of hermitian linear maps. Let $`𝒜`$ be a unital $``$-algebra, $``$ a Hilbert space, and let $`T:𝒜()`$ be a linear hermitian map. A Stinespring dilation of $`T`$ is, by definition, a triplet $`(\pi ,𝒦,B)`$ such that:

* $`𝒦`$ is a Kreĭn space with a fundamental symmetry $`J`$, and $`B(,𝒦)`$;
* $`\pi :𝒜(𝒦)`$ is a selfadjoint (that is, $`\pi (a^{})=\pi (a)^{\mathrm{}}=J\pi (a)^{}J`$ for all $`a𝒜`$) representation, such that $`T(a)=B^{}J\pi (a)B`$, for all $`a𝒜`$.

If, in addition,

* $`\{\pi (a)Ba𝒜\}`$ is total in $`𝒦`$,

then the Stinespring dilation is called minimal.

We consider the action $`\varphi `$ of $`𝒜`$ on itself defined by

(4.1)
$$\varphi (a,x)=xa^{},x,a𝒜,$$

and a hermitian kernel is associated to $`T`$ by the formula

(4.2)
$$K_T(x,y)=T(xy^{}),x,y𝒜.$$

It readily follows that $`K_T`$ is $`\varphi `$-invariant, that is,

(4.3)
$$K_T(x,\varphi (a,y))=T(xay^{})=K_T(\varphi (a^{},x),y),a,x,y𝒜.$$

###### Proposition 4.1.

Given a minimal Stinespring dilation $`(\pi ,𝒦,B)`$ of the hermitian linear map $`T:𝒜()`$, let

(4.4)
$$V(x)=\pi (x^{})JB,x𝒜,$$

where $`J`$ is a fundamental decomposition of $`𝒦`$. Then $`(V,𝒦)`$ is an invariant Kolmogorov decomposition of the hermitian kernel $`K_T`$.

In addition, (4.4) establishes a bijective correspondence between the set of minimal Stinespring dilations of $`T`$ and the set of invariant Kolmogorov decompositions of $`K_T`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`(\pi ,𝒦,B)`$ be a minimal Stinespring dilation of $`T`$ and define $`(V,𝒦)`$ as in (4.4). Then

$$V(x)^{}JV(y)=B^{}J\pi (x^{})^{}J\pi (y^{})JB=B^{}J\pi (xy^{})JB=T(xy^{})=K_T(x,y),x,y𝒜.$$

Since $`_{a𝒜}\pi (a)B=_{x𝒜}V(x)`$ it follows that $`(V,𝒦)`$ is a Kolmogorov decomposition of $`T`$. Let us note that, by the definition of $`V`$,

$$\pi (a)V(x)=\pi (a)\pi (x^{})JB=\pi (ax^{})JB=V(xa^{})a,x𝒜,$$

and hence, letting $`U=\pi `$, it follows that the Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V,𝒦)`$ is $`\varphi `$-invariant.

Conversely, let $`(V,𝒦)`$ be an invariant Kolmogorov decomposition of the hermitian kernel $`K_T`$, that is, there exists a hermitian representation $`U:𝒜(𝒦)`$ of the multiplicative semigroup $`𝒜`$ with involution $``$, such that

$$U(a)V(x)=V(xa^{}),a,x𝒜.$$

Define $`\pi =U`$ and $`B=JV(1)`$. Since $`T`$ is linear it follows easily that $`\pi `$ is also linear, hence a selfadjoint representation of the $``$-algebra $`𝒜`$ on the Kreĭn space $`𝒦`$. Then, taking into account that $`V(a)=U(a^{})B`$ for all $`a𝒜`$, it follows

$$T(a)=V(a)^{}JV(1)=B^{}U(a^{})^{}JB=B^{}JU(a)B,a𝒜,$$

and since $`_{a𝒜}\pi (a)B=_{x𝒜}V(x)`$ we thus proved that $`(\pi ,𝒦,B)`$ is a minimal Stinespring dilation of $`T`$. One easily check that the mapping defined in (4.4) is the inverse of the mapping associating to each invariant Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V,𝒦)`$ the minimal Stinespring dilation $`(\pi ,𝒦,B)`$ as above.∎

Proposition 4.1 reduces the existence of Stinespring dilations of hermitian maps $`T`$ to the existence of invariant Kolmogorov decompositions for the hermitian kernel $`K_T`$ defined as in (4.2). Now the following result is just an application of Theorem 2.3.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a unital $``$-algebra and let $`T:𝒜()`$ be a linear hermitian map. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) There exists a positive definite kernel $`L_\varphi ^+(𝒜,)`$, $`\varphi `$ given by (4.1), such that $`LK_TL`$.

(2) $`T`$ has a minimal Stinespring dilation.

We show now that Wittstock’s Decomposition Theorem  and Paulsen’s Dilation Theorem  fit into the framework of invariant Kolmogorov decompositions, more precisely, the following result shows that in case $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra, Schwartz’s boundedness condition for hermitian kernels represents an extension of the concept of completely bounded map. We use standard terminology from the theory of operator spaces, e.g. see  and .

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra and let $`T:𝒜()`$ be a linear hermitian map. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) $`T`$ is completely bounded.

(2) There exists a completely positive map $`S:𝒜()`$ such that $`STS`$.

(3) There exists a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$ with a symmetry $`J`$, a $``$-representation $`\pi :𝒜(𝒦)`$ commuting with $`J`$, and a bounded operator $`B(,𝒦)`$ such that

$$T(a)=B^{}J\pi (a)B,a𝒜,$$

and $`_{a𝒜}\pi (a)B`$ is dense in $`𝒦`$.

(4) $`T=T_+T_{}`$ for two completely positive maps $`T_+`$ and $`T_{}`$.

###### Proof.

In the following we let $`𝒰(𝒜)`$ be the unitary group of $`𝒜`$. Then $`𝒰(𝒜)`$ has the involution $`(a)=a^1=a^{}`$ and acts on $`𝒜`$ by $`\varphi (a,x)=xa^{}=xa^1`$.

$`(1)(2)`$ We use Paulsen’s off-diagonal technique. Briefly, assume that $`T`$ is completely bounded. By Theorem 7.3 in , there exist completely positive maps $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ such that the map

$$F(\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right])=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1(a)& T(b)\\ T(c^{})^{}& \varphi _2(d)\end{array}\right]$$

is completely positive. Define $`S(a)=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _1(a)+\varphi _2(a))`$, which is a completely positive map. We can check that $`STS`$. First, let $`a0`$, $`a𝒜`$. Then $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& \pm a\\ \pm a& a\end{array}\right]0`$, so that $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1(a)& \pm T(a)\\ \pm T(a)& \varphi _2(a)\end{array}\right]0`$. In particular, for $`\xi `$,

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1(a)& \pm T(a)\\ \pm T(a)& \varphi _2(a)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\xi & \\ \xi & \end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{cc}\xi & \\ \xi & \end{array}\right]0,$$

equivalently, $`(\varphi _1(a)\pm 2T(a)+\varphi _2(a))\xi ,\xi 0`$. Therefore, $`S\pm T`$ are positive maps. The argument can be extended in a straightforward manner (using the so-called canonical shuffle as in ) to show that $`S\pm T`$ are completely positive maps.

$`(2)(3)`$ Since $`S`$ is completely positive, the kernel $`K_S`$ is positive definite and satisfies $`K_SK_TK_S`$. Also,

$$K_S(x,\varphi (a,y))=K_S(\varphi (a^1,x),y),a𝒰(𝒜),x,y𝒜.$$

By Theorem 4.3 in , there exists a Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V,𝒦)`$ of $`K_T`$ and a fundamentally reducible representation $`U`$ of $`𝒰(𝒜)`$ on $`𝒦`$ such that

$$U(a)V(x)=V(xa^1),a𝒰(𝒜),x𝒜.$$

Let $`J`$ be a fundamental symmetry on $`𝒦`$ such that $`U(a)J=JU(a)`$ for all $`a𝒰(𝒜)`$. Then $`U`$ is also a representation of $`𝒰(𝒜)`$ on the Hilbert space $`(𝒦,,_J)`$. Also, for $`a𝒰(𝒜)`$,

$$T(a)=K_T(a,1)=V(a)^{}JV(1)=V(1)^{}JU(a)V(1).$$

Since $`𝒜`$ is the linear span of $`𝒰(𝒜)`$ and $`T`$ is linear, $`U`$ can be extended by linearity to a representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒦`$ commuting with $`J`$ and such that

$$T(a)=V(1)^{}J\pi (a)V(1)$$

holds for all $`a𝒜`$. Also, $`_{a𝒰(𝒜)}U(a)V(1)=_{a𝒰(𝒜)}V(a^1)=_{a𝒰(𝒜)}V(a)`$ and using once again the fact that $`𝒜`$ is the linear span of $`𝒰(𝒜)`$, we deduce that $`_{a𝒜}U(a)V(1)`$ is dense in $`𝒦`$.

(3)$``$(4) We define for $`a𝒜`$,

$$V(a)=\pi (a^{})B.$$

Then $`V(a)`$ is in $`(,𝒦)`$ and $`_{a𝒜}V(a)=_{a𝒜}\pi (a)B`$. $`𝒦`$ becomes a Kreĭn space by setting $`[x,y]_𝒦=Jx,y`$, $`x,y𝒦`$. Also, for $`\xi ,\eta `$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V(x)^{}JV(y)\xi ,\eta =& JV(y)\xi ,V(x)\eta =J\pi (y^{})B\xi ,\pi (x^{})B\eta \hfill \\ & =J\pi (xy^{})B\xi ,B\eta =T(xy^{})\xi ,\eta \hfill \\ & =K_T(x,y)\xi ,\eta ,\hfill \end{array}$$

so that $`(V,𝒦)`$ is a Kolmogorov decomposition of $`K_T`$. Let $`J=J_+J_{}`$ be the Jordan decomposition of $`J`$ and define the hermitian kernels

$$K_\pm (x,y)=V(x)^{}J_\pm V(y).$$

One can check that

$$K_\pm (x,\varphi (a,y))=K_\pm (\varphi (a^1,x),y)$$

for all $`x,y𝒜`$ and $`a𝒰(𝒜)`$. For $`x𝒜`$ define

$$T_\pm (x)=K_\pm (x,1).$$

Then $`T_\pm (x)=B^{}J\pi (x^{})^{}J_\pm V(1)`$ are linear maps on $`𝒜`$ and for $`x𝒜`$, $`y𝒰(𝒜)`$, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K_{T_\pm }(x,y)& =T_\pm (xy^1)=K_\pm (xy^1,1)\hfill \\ & =K_\pm (\varphi (y,x),1)=K_\pm (x,\varphi (y^1,1))\hfill \\ & =K_\pm (x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`K_{T_\pm }`$ and $`K_\pm `$ are antilinear in the second variable and $`𝒜`$ is the linear span of $`𝒰(𝒜)`$, it follows that

$$K_{T_\pm }(x,y)=K_\pm (x,y)$$

for all $`x,y𝒜`$. This implies that $`T_\pm `$ are disjoint completely positive maps such that $`T=T_+T_{}`$. The implication (3)$``$(1) follows from Theorem 2.3. ∎

Theorem 4.3 suggests how to extend the concept of decomposition to arbitrary kernels. In the following we repeatedly use the following observation: if $`L`$ is a positive definite kernel on $`X`$ and with values in $`()`$, and $`T()`$, then the kernel $`T^{}LT^{}`$ is positive definite. Thus, if $`K`$ is a hermitian kernel, $`L`$ is a positive definite kernel, both on a set $`X`$ and with entries in $`()`$, for some Hilbert space $``$, then for any $`x,yX`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]^{}& \left[\begin{array}{cc}L(x,y)& K(x,y)\\ K(x,y)& L(x,y)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =2\left[\begin{array}{cc}L(x,y)+K(x,y)& 0\\ 0& L(x,y)K(x,y)\end{array}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}L& K\\ K& L\end{array}\right]`$ is positive definite if and only if both $`L+K`$ and $`LK`$ are positive definite, that is, if and only if the Schwartz condition $`LKL`$ holds.

Following U. Haagerup , this observation and Theorem 4.3 suggest the following definition: a kernel $`K:X\times X()`$ is called decomposable if there exist two positive definite kernels $`L_1,L_2:X\times X()`$ such that the kernel $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1& K\\ K^{}& L_2\end{array}\right]`$ is positive definite. Clearly, a kernel $`K`$ is decomposable if and only if it is a linear combination of positive definite kernels. Actually, it is easy to see that any decomposable kernel can be written as linear combination of at most four positive definite kernels. The next result can be viewed as an analog of V. Paulsen dilation theorem .

###### Theorem 4.4.

The kernel $`K`$ is decomposable if and only if there is a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, a mapping $`V:X(,𝒦)`$, and a contraction $`U`$ on $`𝒦`$ such that $`K(x,y)=V(x)^{}UV(y)`$ for all $`x,yX`$, and the set $`\{V(x)hxX,h\}`$ is total in $`𝒦`$.

###### Proof.

If $`K(x,y)=V(x)^{}UV(y)`$ for $`x,yX`$ and some contraction $`U`$, then consider the positive definite kernels $`L_1(x,y)=L_2(x,y)=V(x)^{}V(y)`$. We deduce that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1(x,y)& K(x,y)\\ K^{}(x,y)& L_2(x,y)\end{array}\right]& =& \left[\begin{array}{cc}V(x)^{}V(y)& V(x)^{}UV(y)\\ V(x)^{}U^{}V(y)& V(x)^{}V(y)\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \left[\begin{array}{cc}V(x)^{}& 0\\ 0& V(x)^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& U\\ U^{}& I\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}V(y)& 0\\ 0& V(y)\end{array}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`U`$ is a contraction, the matrix $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& U\\ U^{}& I\end{array}\right]`$ is positive. Next, take $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nX`$ and after reshuffling, the matrix

$$\left[\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1(x_i,x_j)& K(x_i,x_j)\\ K^{}(x_i,x_j)& L_2(x_i,x_j)\end{array}\right]\right]_{i,j=1}^n$$

can be written in the form

$$(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(V(x_i)^{}V(x_i)^{})(\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& U\\ U^{}& I\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cccc}I& I& \mathrm{}& I\\ I& I& \mathrm{}& I\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ I& I& & I\end{array}\right])(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(V(x_j)V(x_j)),$$

which shows that the kernel $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1(x,y)& K(x,y)\\ K^{}(x,y)& L_2(x,y)\end{array}\right]`$ is positive definite.

Conversely, assume that $`K`$ is decomposable. We consider the real and imaginary parts of $`K`$,

(4.5)
$$K_1(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(K(x,y)+K^{}(x,y)),$$

(4.6)
$$K_2(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}}(K(x,y)K^{}(x,y)),$$

therefore $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$ are hermitian kernels and $`K=K_1+\mathrm{i}K_2`$. Since $`K`$ is decomposable, there exist positive definite kernels $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ such that the kernel $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1& K\\ K^{}& L_2\end{array}\right]`$ is positive definite. Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]^{}& \left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1& K\\ K^{}& L_2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1+K^{}+K+L_2& L_1+KK^{}L_2\\ L_1+K^{}KL_2& L_1K^{}K+L_2\end{array}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

is also a positive definite kernel, which implies that $`\frac{1}{2}(L_1+L_2)K_1\frac{1}{2}(L_1+L_2)`$. Similarly,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left[\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{i}\\ \mathrm{i}& 1\end{array}\right]^{}& \left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1& K\\ K^{}& L_2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{i}\\ \mathrm{i}& 1\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =\left[\begin{array}{cc}L_1+\mathrm{i}K^{}\mathrm{i}K+L_2& \mathrm{i}L_1K^{}+K+\mathrm{i}L_2\\ \mathrm{i}L_1K+K^{}+\mathrm{i}L_2& L_1\mathrm{i}L_1\mathrm{i}K^{}+\mathrm{i}K+L_2\end{array}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$

is a positive definite kernel, which gives that $`\frac{1}{2}(L_1+L_2)K_2\frac{1}{2}(L_1+L_2)`$. Since $`\frac{1}{2}(L_1+L_2)`$ is a positive definite kernel, we deduce from Theorem 2.1 that both $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ have Kolmogorov decompositions, say

$$K_i(x,y)=V_i(x)^{}J_1V_i(y),i=1,2,$$

where $`V_i:X(,𝒦_i)`$ and $`J_i`$ are fundamental symmetries on $`𝒦_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. It follows that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill K(x,y)& =& V_1(x)^{}J_1V_1(y)+\mathrm{i}V_2(x)^{}J_2V_2(y)\hfill \\ & & \\ & =& \left[\begin{array}{c}V_1(x)\\ V_2(x)\end{array}\right]^{}\left[\begin{array}{cc}J_1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{i}J_2\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}V_1(y)\\ V_2(y)\end{array}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$

Define $`V^{}(x)=\left[\begin{array}{c}V_1(x)\\ V_2(x)\end{array}\right]:𝒦_1𝒦_2`$ and let $`𝒦`$ be the closure in $`𝒦_1𝒦_2`$ of the linear space generated by the elements of the form $`V^{}(x)h`$, $`xX`$ and $`h`$. Finally, define $`V(x)=P_𝒦V^{}(x)`$, where $`P_𝒦`$ denotes the orthogonal projection of $`𝒦_1𝒦_2`$ onto $`𝒦`$. Then the set $`\{V(x)hxX,h\}`$ is total in $`𝒦`$ and $`K(x,y)=V(x)^{}P_𝒦\left[\begin{array}{cc}J_1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{i}J_2\end{array}\right]P_𝒦V(y)`$. The operator $`U=P_𝒦\left[\begin{array}{cc}J_1& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{i}J_2\end{array}\right]P_𝒦`$ is a contraction and the proof is concluded. ∎

## 5. Holomorphic kernels

There are many examples of hermitian kernels which are holomorphic on some domain in the complex plane, see for instance . In all these cases it is known that the kernels are associated with reproducing kernel Kreĭn (Hilbert) spaces, and D. Alpay in  proved a general result in this direction. Our goal is to extend the result in  to the multi-variable case. In view of the transcription between Kolmogorov decompositions and reproducing kernel spaces, e.g. see the invariant version in Theorem 2.4, we actually show that the orginal idea of the proof in , which goes back to , can be adapted to this multi-variable setting.

We first review the well-known example of the Szegö kernel (see ). Let $`𝒢`$ be a Hilbert space and denote by $`B_r(\xi )`$ the open ball of radius $`r`$ and center $`\xi `$, $`B_r(\xi )=\{\eta 𝒢\eta \xi <r\}`$. We write $`B_r`$ instead of $`B_r(0)`$. For $`\xi ,\eta B_1`$, define

(5.1)
$$S(\xi ,\eta )=\frac{1}{1\eta ,\xi },$$

and note that $`S`$ is a positive definite kernel on $`B_1`$. We now describe its Kolmogorov decomposition. Let

$$F(𝒢)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒢^n,$$

be the Fock space associated to $`𝒢`$, where $`𝒢^0=`$ and $`𝒢^n`$ is the $`n`$-fold tensor product of $`𝒢`$ with itself. Let

(5.2)
$$P_n=(n!)^1\underset{\pi S_n}{}\widehat{\pi }$$

be the orthogonal projection of $`𝒢^n`$ onto its symmetric part, where

$$\widehat{\pi }(\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n)=\xi _{\pi ^1(1)}\mathrm{}\xi _{\pi ^1(n)}$$

and $`\pi `$ is an element of the permutation group $`S_n`$ on $`n`$ symbols. The symmetric Fock space is $`F^s(𝒢)=(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n)F(𝒢)`$. For $`\xi B_1`$ set $`\xi ^0=1`$ and let $`\xi ^n`$ denote the $`n`$-fold tensor product $`\xi \mathrm{}\xi `$, $`n1`$. Note that

$$\underset{n0}{}\xi ^n^2=\underset{n0}{}\xi ^n^2=\underset{n0}{}\xi ^{2n}=\frac{1}{1\xi ^2}.$$

Hence $`\underset{n0}{}\xi ^nF^s(𝒢)`$ and we can define the mapping $`V_S`$ from $`B_1`$ into $`F^s(𝒢)`$,

(5.3)
$$V_S(\xi )=\underset{n0}{}\xi ^n,\xi 𝒢.$$

###### Lemma 5.1.

The pair $`(V_S,F^s(𝒢))`$ is the Kolmogorov decomposition of the kernel $`S`$.

###### Proof.

$`V_S(\xi )`$ is also viewed as a bounded linear operator from $``$ into $`F^s(𝒢)`$ by $`V_S(\xi )\lambda =\lambda V_S(\xi )`$, $`\lambda `$, so that, for $`\xi ,\eta B_1`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_S(\xi )^{}V_S(\eta )& =V_S(\eta ),V_S(\xi )\hfill \\ & =\underset{n0}{}\eta ^n,\xi ^n\hfill \\ & =\underset{n0}{}\eta ,\xi ^n=\frac{1}{1\eta ,\xi }=S(\xi ,\eta ).\hfill \end{array}$$

The set $`\{V_S(\xi )\xi B_1\}`$ is total in $`F^s(𝒢)`$ since for $`n1`$ and $`\xi 𝒢`$ we have $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{dt^n}}V(t\xi )|_{t=0}=n!\xi ^n.`$

The reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated to the Szegö kernel $`S`$, see (5.1), is given by the completion of the linear space generated by the functions $`s_\eta =S(,\eta )`$, $`\eta B_1`$, with respect to the inner product defined by

$$s_\eta ,s_\xi =S(\xi ,\eta ).$$

Note that there exists a unitary operator $``$ from the reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated to the Szegö kernel $`S`$ onto $`F^s(𝒢)`$ such that $`s_\xi =V_S(\xi )`$, $`\xi B_1`$.

We now explore the fact that $`S`$ is a holomorphic kernel. We use the terminology and results from ,  for holomorphic functions in infinite dimensions. Thus, we say that a function $`f`$ defined on the open subset $`𝒪`$ of $`𝒢`$ is holomorphic if $`f`$ is continuous on $`𝒪`$ and for all $`\eta 𝒪`$, $`\xi 𝒢`$, the mapping $`\lambda f(\eta +\lambda \xi )`$ is holomorphic on the open set $`\{\lambda \eta +\lambda \xi 𝒪\}`$. One easily check that $`V_S`$ is holomorphic on $`B_1`$, therefore $`S(\xi ,)`$ is holomorphic on $`B_1`$ for each fixed $`\xi B_1`$. We also notice that the reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated to $`S`$ consists of anti-holomorphic functions on $`B_1`$. It is somewhat more convenient to replace this space by a Hilbert space of holomorphic functions on $`B_1`$. Thus, define the holomorphic function $`a_\xi =S(\xi ,)`$ on $`B_1`$ for each $`\xi B_1`$, and let $`H^2(𝒢)`$ denote the completion of the linear space generated by the functions $`a_\xi `$, $`\xi B_1`$, with respect to the inner product defined by

$$a_\xi ,a_\eta =S(\xi ,\eta ),\xi ,\eta B_1.$$

We notice that $`H^2(𝒢)`$ is an anti-unitary copy of the reproducing kernel Hilbert space of $`S`$.

We say that a hermitian kernel $`K`$, defined on an open subset $`𝒪`$ of $`𝒢`$, is holomorphic on $`𝒪`$ if $`K(\xi ,)`$ is holomorphic on $`𝒪`$ for each fixed $`\xi 𝒪`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`K`$ be a holomorphic hermitian kernel on $`B_r`$, with $`r>0`$, and valued in $`(𝒢)`$ for some Hilbert space $`𝒢`$. Then there exists $`0<r^{}r`$ and a Kolmogorov decomposition $`(V;𝒦)`$ of $`K|B_r^{}\times B_r^{}`$, such that $`V:B_r^{}(𝒢,𝒦)`$ is holomorphic.

###### Proof.

Let $`K`$ be a holomorphic kernel on $`B_r`$, $`r>0`$. Since $`K`$ is hermitian, it follows that $`K(,\eta )`$ is anti-holomorphic on $`B_r`$ for each $`\eta B_r`$. It is convenient to reformulate this fact as follows. Let $`\{e_\alpha \}_{\alpha A}`$ be an orthonormal basis for $`𝒢`$. We define the mapping

$$\xi =\underset{\alpha A}{}\xi ,e_\alpha e_\alpha \underset{\alpha A}{}\overline{\xi ,e_\alpha }e_\alpha =\xi ^{},$$

so that the function $`f(\xi ,\eta )=K(\xi ^{},\eta )`$ is separately holomorphic on $`B_r\times B_r`$. By Hartogs’ Theorem (, Theorem 36.8), $`f`$ is holomorphic on $`B_r\times B_r`$. By (, Proposition 8.6), $`f`$ is locally bounded. We first suppose that $`r>1`$. Hence there exist $`1<\rho <r`$ and $`C>0`$ such that:

(5.4)
$$|K(\xi ,\eta )|C\text{for}\xi ,\eta B_\rho $$

and

(5.5)
$$K(\xi ^{},\eta )=\underset{m0}{}p_m(\xi ,\eta )$$

uniformly on $`B_\rho `$, where each $`p_m`$, $`m0`$, is an $`m`$-homogeneous continuous polynomial on $`𝒢\times 𝒢`$. That is (see  or , Chapter 1), there exists a continuous linear mapping $`A_m`$ on $`P_m((𝒢\times 𝒢)^m)`$ such that

(5.6)
$$p_m(\xi ,\eta )=A_m((\xi ,\eta )^m)$$

for all $`\xi ,\eta 𝒢`$.

Using Cauchy Inequalities, , Proposition 3.2, for $`B_\rho `$, we deduce

(5.7)
$$A_mp_mC\frac{1}{\rho ^m},$$

hence

(5.8)
$$\underset{m0}{}A_m^2C\underset{m0}{}\frac{1}{\rho ^{2m}}=C\frac{1}{11/\rho ^2}=C^{}<\mathrm{}.$$

The previous facts are valid with respect to the norm $`(\xi ,\eta )=\mathrm{max}\{\xi ,\eta \}`$. Since this norm is equivalent to the Hilbert norm $`(\xi ,\eta )=\sqrt{\xi ^2+\eta ^2}`$, we deduce that each $`A_m`$ is also continuous with respect to this Hilbert norm on $`𝒢\times 𝒢`$. By Riesz representation theorem, there exist $`a_mP_m(𝒢\times 𝒢)^m`$, $`m0`$, such that

(5.9)
$$A_m((\xi ,\eta )^m)=(\xi ,\eta )^m,a_m$$

and

(5.10)
$$a_m=A_m$$

(with $`a_0=A_0`$). Since $`P_m(𝒢\times 𝒢)^m`$ is isometrically isomorphic to $`(P_m𝒢^m)^{(m+1)}`$, we deduce that there are $`a_m^kP_m𝒢^m`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},m`$, such that

(5.11)
$$(\xi ,\eta )^m,a_m=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}b_m^k(\xi ,\eta ),a_m^k$$

and

(5.12)
$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}a_m^k^2=a_m^2,$$

where $`b_0^0=1`$ and $`b_m^k(\xi ,\eta )=\xi ^{(mk)}\eta ^k`$, $`m1`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},m`$.

We now show that for each fixed $`\xi B_1`$, $`g_\xi (\eta )=K(\xi ,\eta )`$ belongs to $`H^2(𝒢)`$. By (5.5), (5.6), (5.9), and (5.11),

$$K(\xi ,\eta )=\underset{m0}{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}b_m^k(\xi ^{},\eta ),a_m^k,$$

and the series converges absolutely on $`\eta `$ by (5.7). Reordering to $`m`$-homogeneous terms in $`\eta `$,

$$K(\xi ,\eta )=\underset{k0}{}\underset{mk}{}b_m^k(\xi ^{},\eta ),a_m^k.$$

For fixed $`\xi `$ define $`F_k(\eta )=_{mk}b_m^k(\xi ^{},\eta ),a_m^k`$. By Schwarz inequality,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_k(\eta )^2& (\underset{mk}{}b_m^k(\xi ^{},\eta )^2)(\underset{mk}{}a_m^k^2)\hfill \\ & =\eta ^{2k}(\underset{mk}{}\xi ^{2(mk)})(\underset{mk}{}a_m^k^2)\hfill \\ & =\frac{\eta ^{2k}}{1\xi ^2}\underset{mk}{}a_m^k^2,\hfill \end{array}$$

which implies

$$F_k\frac{1}{1\xi ^2}\underset{mk}{}a_m^k^2.$$

Finally,

$$g_\xi _{H^2(𝒢)}^2=\underset{k0}{}F_k^2\frac{1}{1\xi ^2}\underset{k0}{}\underset{mk}{}a_m^k^2.$$

By (5.8), (5.10), and (5.12), we deduce that

$$g_\xi _{H^2(𝒢)}^2\frac{1}{1\xi ^2}\underset{m0}{}A_m^2C^{}\frac{1}{1\xi ^2}.$$

This shows that $`g_\xi H^2(𝒢)`$ and, more than that, the formula

$$𝒫a_\xi =g_\xi $$

gives a bounded linear operator $`𝒫`$ on $`H^2(𝒢)`$, such that

$$K(\xi ,\eta )=g_\xi (\eta )=(𝒫a_\xi )(\eta )=𝒫a_\xi ,a_\eta _{H^2(𝒢)}.$$

This implies that $`𝒫`$ is selfadjoint and let $`𝒫=𝒫_+𝒫_{}`$ be its Jordan decomposition, where $`𝒫_\pm `$ are positive operators on $`H^2(𝒢)`$. Then $`K`$ can be written as the difference of two positive definite kernels. By  and Theorem 2.3, $`K`$ has a Kolmogorov decomposition, and it is easy to see that this Kolmogorov decomposition has the required holomorphy property. In case $`r1`$, a scalling argument as in  concludes the proof. ∎

As mentioned, the above proof is based on the same idea as in , which goes back to . An interesting aspect of this idea is that once again the Szegö kernel $`S`$ has a certain universality property, that is, any holomorphic kernel on $`B_r`$, $`r>1`$, is the image of $`S`$ through a bounded selfadjoint operator on $`H^2(𝒢)`$. A different kind of universality property of $`S`$, related to the solution of the Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation problem, was established in .

Finally we apply Theorem 5.2 to show that non-hermitian holomorphic kernels are decomposable. A kernel $`K:𝒪\times 𝒪(𝒢)`$, where $`𝒪`$ is an open subset of some Hilbert space $`𝒢`$, is holomorphic on $`𝒪`$ if, for any fixed $`\xi 𝒪`$, the function $`K(\xi ,):𝒪(𝒢)`$ is holomorphic and, for any fixed $`\eta 𝒪`$, the function $`K(,\eta ):𝒪(𝒢)`$ is anti-holomorphic.

###### Corollary 5.3.

Let $`K`$ be a holomorphic kernel on $`B_r`$, with $`r>0`$, and valued in $`(𝒢)`$ for some Hilbert space $`𝒢`$. Then there exists $`0<r^{}r`$, a Hilbert space $`𝒦`$, a holomorphic mapping $`V:B_r^{}(𝒢,𝒦)`$, and a contraction $`U`$ on $`𝒦`$, such that $`K(\xi ,\eta )=V(\xi )^{}UV(\eta )`$ for all $`\xi ,\eta B_r^{}`$, and the set $`\{V(\xi )h\xi B_r^{},h𝒢\}`$ is total in $`𝒦`$.

###### Proof.

We consider the real part $`K_1`$ (4.5) and, respectively, the imaginary part $`K_2`$ (4.6) of $`K`$ and note that both are holomorphic hermitian kernels. Then we apply Theorem 5.2 to produce holomorphic Kolmogorov decompositions of $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ on a possibly smaller, but nontrivial, ball $`B_r^{}`$ in $`𝒢`$ and, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 4.4, we obtain the decomposition of $`K`$ as required.∎


format: text

text:
# Finite Theories and the SUSY Flavor Problem

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is broken in nature. It is widely accepted that the effects of supersymmetry breaking appear as soft supersymmetry breaking (SSB) terms . However, if only renormalizability is used to guide the SSB parameters, it is possible to introduce more than 100 new parameters into the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) . The problem is not only this large number of the independent parameters, but also the fact that one has to highly fine tune these parameters so that they do not cause problems with experimental observations on the flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes and CP-violation phenomena . This problem, called the SUSY flavor problem, is not new, but has existed ever since supersymetry found phenomenological applications .

There are several approaches to overcome this problem. The most well-known one  is to simply assume that the SSB parameters have a universal form, independent of the flavor structure of the standard model (SM) at, say, GUT scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. This is the so-called minimal supergravity model. In this model, supersymmetry breaking occurs in a sector that is hidden to the MSSM sector, and supersymmetry breaking is mediated to the MSSM sector by gravity. There exist other ideas of mediation: gauge mediation , anomaly mediation  and gaugino mediation . Their common feature is the assumption that there exists a hidden sector that is separated from the MSSM by cleverly chosen interactions or it is separated in space time (for which one needs extra dimensions There is a problem associated with this approach, the problem of sequestering of branes between the visible sector and the hidden SSB sector .), or both. Another type of idea to overcome the SUSY flavor problem is to use the infrared attractive force of the gauge interactions , in four dimensions  as well as in extra dimensions . In these scenarios, it is not necessary to assume that the supersymmetry is broken in a sector that is separated from the MSSM.

Although it is attractive to find dynamical mechanisms that suppress the dangerous FCNC processes and CP-violating phases, it is also worthwhile to look for other attractive possibilities. In fact, it has been argued  that finiteness See  for earlier references on finite theories.  of softly broken supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories  may play an important role to understand the universality of the SSB parameters. However, it has turned out  that the universality is not a necessary condition for finiteness: It has been found  that more relaxed conditions, sum rules among the soft scalar masses, are sufficient. Clearly, the sum rules do not automatically ensure the degeneracy of the soft scalar masses. In fact, in the unified models of  in which the hierarchical structure of the Yukawa couplings emerges, the sum rules cannot sufficiently constrain the individual soft scalar masses in the first two generations of the squarks and sleptons.

Recently, a class of finite models based on $`SU(5)`$ with certain discrete symmetries has been considered in , and it has been found that some of these models yield a democratic structure of the Yukawa couplings. As we will see, the democratic structure is essential to obtain sum rules of the soft scalar masses from which their degeneracy in generation follows. Therefore, the exact finiteness in the models of  ensures the absence of the SUSY flavor problem.

In Sect. II, we will recapitulate the finiteness conditions in softly broken supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories . The unified model of  based on $`SU(5)\times A_4`$ including the SSB sector is investigated in Sect. III, where $`A_4`$ is the group of even permutations of four objects. As we will see, the model has a strong predictive power, and we will calculate various low-energy parameters such as the top quark mass and the spectrum of the superpartners that are predicted from the model. In Sect. IV we conclude.

## II Softly broken $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Finite Unified Theories

We start by considering a generic form of the superpotential §§§ We follow the notation of .

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}Y^{ijk}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j,`$ (1)
along with the Lagrangian for the SSB terms

$`_{\mathrm{SB}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}h^{ijk}\varphi _i\varphi _j\varphi _k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^{ij}\varphi _i\varphi _j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m^2)_i^j\varphi ^i\varphi _j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\lambda \lambda +\text{H.c.},`$ (2)
where $`\varphi _i`$ is the scalar component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and $`\lambda `$ stands for gaugino. Since we consider only finite theories, we assume that the one-loop $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling $`g`$ vanishes, i.e.,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}T(R_i)3C(G)=0,`$ (3)
where $`T(R_i)`$ is the Dynkin index of the representation $`R_i`$ and $`C(G)`$ is the quadratic Casimir of the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`G`$. We also assume that the gauge group is a simple group, and that the theory is free from the gauge anomaly, of course. According to the finiteness theorem of , the theory is finite to all orders in perturbation theory Finiteness here means only for dimensionless couplings $`g`$ and $`Y^{ijk}`$., if
(i) the reduction equation

$`\beta _Y^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _gdY^{ijk}/dg`$ (4)
admits a unique power series solution

$`Y^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`g{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{}}\rho _{(n)}^{ijk}g^{2n},`$ (5)
where $`\beta _g`$ and $`\beta _Y^{ijk}`$ are the $`\beta `$ functions of $`g`$ and $`Y^{ijk}`$, respectively See  for further references on reduction of couplings., and
(ii) the one-loop anomalous dimensions vanish, that is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}\rho _{ipq(0)}\rho _{(0)}^{jpq}2\delta _i^jC(R_i)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
where $`\rho _{ipq(0)}=\rho _{(0)}^{jpq}`$. We would like to recall that if the condition (ii) is satisfied, the two-loop expansion coefficients in (5), $`\rho _{(1)}^{ijk}`$, vanish , and that if (i) and (ii) are satisfied, the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _i^j`$ vanish to all orders . Field theories that satisfy (i) and (ii) possess the exact scale invariance.

In the presence of the SSB terms, the exact scale invariance is broken by them in a strict sense. However, it is expected that the couplings, masses etc in a unified field theory without gravity are VEV’s of certain fields in a more fundamental theory. Therefore, it would be natural to transform them under the scale transformation, too. Then the scale invariance of a 1PI function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ means:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }[e^tp,e^th,e^t\mu ,e^{2t}B,e^{2t}m^2,Y,g]`$ $`=`$ $`e^{d_\mathrm{\Gamma }t}\mathrm{\Gamma }[p,h,\mu ,B,m^2,Y,g],`$ (7)
where $`p`$ stand for momenta, and $`d_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the canonical dimension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Clearly, (7) is correct, only if the theory is finite. Finiteness in the SSB sector can be achieved by using the relations among the renormalization of the SSB parameters and those of an unbroken supersymmetric gauge theory  \**\**\**In  this matter is reviewed in a transparent way. See also .. Accordingly, the $`\beta `$ functions of the $`M,h`$ and $`m^2`$ parameters can be written as  ††††††We do not consider $`B^{ij}`$ in the following discussions, because they do not enter into the $`\beta `$ functions of the other quantities . Moreover, they are automatically finite if the other quantities are finite .

$`\beta _M`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _g}{g}}\right),`$ (8)
$`\beta _h^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ^i{}_{l}{}^{}h_{}^{ljk}+\gamma ^j{}_{l}{}^{}h_{}^{ilk}+\gamma ^k{}_{l}{}^{}h_{}^{ijl}2\gamma _1^i{}_{l}{}^{}Y_{}^{ljk}2\gamma _1^j{}_{l}{}^{}Y_{}^{ilk}2\gamma _1^k{}_{l}{}^{}Y_{}^{ijl},`$ (9)
$`(\beta _{m^2})^i_j`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{\Delta }+Xg{\displaystyle \frac{}{g}}]\gamma ^i{}_{j}{}^{},`$ (10)
$`𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`\left(Mg^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{g^2}}h^{lmn}{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^{lmn}}}\right),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`2𝒪𝒪^{}+2|M|^2g^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{g^2}}+\stackrel{~}{Y}_{lmn}{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y_{lmn}}}+\stackrel{~}{Y}^{lmn}{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^{lmn}}},`$ (12)
where $`(\gamma _1)^i{}_{j}{}^{}=𝒪\gamma ^i_j`$, $`Y_{lmn}=(Y^{lmn})^{}`$, and

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`(m^2)^i{}_{l}{}^{}Y_{}^{ljk}+(m^2)^j{}_{l}{}^{}Y_{}^{ilk}+(m^2)^k{}_{l}{}^{}Y_{}^{ijl}.`$ (13)
$`X`$ in (10) has been first explicitly calculated in the lowest order , and later its all order form

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|M|^2C(G)+_łm_ł^2T(R_ł)}{C(G)8\pi ^2/g^2}}`$ (14)
has been found in the renormalization scheme of Novikov et al., in which the $`\beta `$ function of the gauge coupling $`g`$ is given by

$`\beta _g^{\mathrm{NSVZ}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_łT(R_ł)(12\gamma _ł)3C(G)}{1g^2C(G)/8\pi ^2}}\right].`$ (15)
The key point in  is the assumption that the differential operators $`𝒪`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ given in (11) and (12) become total derivative operators on the RG invariant surface which is defined by the solution of the reduction equations for the SBB parameters. It has been shown in  that if the trilinear couplings are expressed in terms of $`M`$ and $`g`$ as  ‡‡‡‡‡‡Reduction of massive parameters has been first proposed in .

$`h^{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle \frac{dY^{ijk}(g)}{d\mathrm{ln}g}},`$ (16)
and the soft scalar masses satisfy the sum rules

$`m_i^2+m_j^2+m_k^2`$ $`=`$ $`|M|^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2C(G)/(8\pi ^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}Y^{ijk}}{d\mathrm{ln}g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{ln}Y^{ijk}}{d(\mathrm{ln}g)^2}}\}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ł}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ł^2T(R_ł)}{C(G)8\pi ^2/g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}Y^{ijk}}{d\mathrm{ln}g}},`$ (18)
the differential operators $`𝒪`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ become total derivative with respect to $`g`$:

$`𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}g}},`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }+Xg{\displaystyle \frac{}{g}}`$ $`=`$ $`|M|^2\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2C(G)/(8\pi ^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}g}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d(\mathrm{ln}g)^2}}\}`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ł}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ł^2T(R_ł)}{C(G)8\pi ^2/g^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{ln}g}}.`$ (21)
Note that in the derivations from (16) to (21), it has been assumed that

$`\gamma ^j_i`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _i\delta ^j{}_{i}{}^{},`$ (22)
$`(m^2)^j_i`$ $`=`$ $`m_i^2\delta ^j{}_{i}{}^{},`$ (23)
$`Y^{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^{ijk}}}`$ $`=`$ $`Y^{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{}{Y^{ijk}}}\text{on the space of the RG functions}.`$ (24)
Therefore, if the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma _i`$ vanish to all orders ( which is ensured if (i) and (ii) given in (5) and (6) are satisfied), we have: $`\beta _M=\beta _h^{ijk}=(\beta _{m^2})_j^i=0`$.

We see from (18) that the universal choice

$`m_i^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|M|^2}{3}}`$ (25)
also ensure the finiteness to two-loop order in accord with. Note that $`C(G)=_łT(R_ł)/3`$ and $`d\mathrm{ln}Y^{ijk}/d\mathrm{ln}g=1+0(g^4)`$. Similarly, the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric case ($`T(R_ł)=C(G)`$) with the SSB parameters  can be simply derived from (16) and (18).

To summarize, finiteness in the SSB sector is guaranteed if $`h^{ijk}`$ are expressed according to (16), and the sum rules (18) are satisfied. The trilinear couplings $`h^{ijk}`$, unless they are aligned, contribute to $`\delta _{RL}`$  which are strongly constrained from FCNC processes and dangerous CP-violating phenomena. The explicit form of $`h^{ijk}`$ in finite theories is known to two-loop order :

$`h^{ijk}=MY^{ijk}(g)+O(g^5).`$ (26)
The higher order terms depend on the renormalization scheme. In fact, it is possible  to make vanish all the expansion coefficients $`\rho _{(n)}^{ijk}`$ of (5) except the lowest order one $`\rho _{(0)}^{ijk}`$ by a suitable redefinition of the Yukawa couplings $`Y^{ijk}`$. The redefinition does not modify the form of $`\beta `$ function $`\beta _g^{\mathrm{NSVZ}}`$ (15), because only the anomalous dimensions change in $`\beta _g^{\mathrm{NSVZ}}`$. Therefore, in finite theories, $`h^{ijk}`$ are aligned to all orders, and therefore, $`h^{ijk}`$ introduce no extra CP-violating phases:

$`h^{ijk}=MY^{ijk}(g).`$ (27)
In contrast to this case, the sum rules (18) of the soft scalar masses do not automatically ensure their degeneracy in the space of generation. However, as we will see in a concrete model, the sum rules (18) can yield the degeneracy of the soft scalar masses. The exact finiteness does not automatically yield a solution to the SUSY flavor problem. But a solution to the SUSY flavor problem can result from the quantum scale invariance.

Since superstring theories are scale invariant theories, a solution to the SUSY flavor problem based on the exact scale invariance may be realized. In fact, in a certain class of orbifold models of superstrings, in which the massive string states are organized into $`N=4`$ supermultiplets  (see also ), so that they do not contribute to the quantum modification of the kinetic function, the sum rules

$`m_i^2+m_j^2+m_k^2`$ $`=`$ $`|M|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2C(G)/(8\pi ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{ł}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ł^2T(R_ł)}{C(G)8\pi ^2/g^2}}`$ (28)
along with $`h^{ijk}=MY^{ijk}`$ are satisfied . (See also .) Therefore, the finiteness conditions (27) and (18) coincide with those of the above superstrings models to all orders.

## III Model based on $`SU(5)\times A_4`$

There exist various unified models that are all-order finite at least in the dimensionless sector . In all the models, only such solutions of the reduction equations(4) have been considered that admit the hierarchal structure of the Yukawa couplings. As a result, the sum rules (18) are indeed satisfied, but it cannot strongly constrain the individual soft scalar masses in the first two generations (See ). In contrast to the previous models, the $`SU(5)`$ models (two of three models) proposed in  yield a democratic structure of the Yukawa couplings. As we will see, the democratic structure (which follows as a consequence of certain discrete symmetries) is essential to obtain sum rules of the soft scalar masses from which their degeneracy follows.

Three generations of quarks and leptons are accommodated in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i`$, where $`i`$ runs over the three generations. A $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in 24 is used to break $`SU(5)`$ down to $`SU(3)_\mathrm{C}\times SU(2)_\mathrm{L}\times U(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$, and there are four pairs of Higgs supermultiplets $`H_a`$ and $`\overline{H}_a(a=14)`$. The starting superpotential is

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_{ij}^a\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}10}_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_jH_a+d_{ij}^a\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}10}_i\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_j\overline{H}_a\right)`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\kappa ^{ab}\overline{H}_a\mathrm{\Sigma }H_b+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\mu _H^{ab}\overline{H}_aH_b,`$ (30)
and the SSB Lagrangian is

$`_{\mathrm{SSB}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}[m_{H_a}^2\widehat{H}_a^{}\widehat{H}_a+m_{\overline{H}_a}^2\widehat{\overline{H}}_a^{}\widehat{\overline{H}}_a]+m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[m_{5_i}^2\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}_i^{}\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}_i+m_{10_i}^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_i^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_i]`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\lambda \lambda +B_\mathrm{\Sigma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=1}{\overset{4}{}}}[B_H^{ab}\widehat{\overline{H}}_a\widehat{H}_b+h_f^{ab}\widehat{\overline{H}}_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\widehat{H}_b]`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_\lambda }{3}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^3+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{uij}^a}{2}}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_i\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_j\widehat{H}_a+h_{dij}^a\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_i\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}_j\widehat{\overline{H}}_a)+\text{h.c.}\},`$ (34)
where a hat is used to denote the scalar component of each chiral supermultiplet. The resulting theory has an unbroken R-parity along with the conservation of $`BL`$. Note that we assumed the diagonal soft scalar masses, because non-diagonal soft masses would not satisfy the assumption (6) as well as (22), and hence violates finiteness.

### A The degeneracy of the soft scalar masses from their sum rules

To be specific, we consider the model based on $`SU(5)\times A_4`$ symmetry , where $`A_4`$ is the group of even permutations \**\**\**The $`S_4`$ model  can be treated similarly. We have found that as far as the SSB sector is concerned, it is exactly the same as the $`A_4`$ model.. $`A_4`$ has three irreducible representations $`\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}^{},\mathrm{𝟏}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ , and the matter supermultiplets belong to its representation according to

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i:\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (35)
$`(H_i,H_4)`$ $`:`$ $`\mathrm{𝟑}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{},(\overline{H}_i,\overline{H}_4):\mathrm{𝟑}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Sigma }:\mathrm{𝟏},`$ (36)
where $`i=13`$. Then the cubic part of the superpotential (30) invariant under $`A_4`$ becomes

$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1+\omega \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2+\omega ^2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3)H_4`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`c(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1+\omega ^2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2+\omega \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3)\overline{H}_4`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`b\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2H_3+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1)\overline{H}_3`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`b\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1H_2+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3)\overline{H}_2`$ (40)
$`+`$ $`b\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3H_1+d(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2)\overline{H}_1`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`k(\overline{H}_1H_1+\overline{H}_2H_2+\overline{H}_3H_3)\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3,`$ (42)
where $`w=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi /3)`$ can be removed by field redefinition. The lowest order solution to the reduction equation (4) is :

$`a^2=b^2={\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}g^2,c^2=d^2=e^2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g^2,k^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g^2,\lambda ^2={\displaystyle \frac{15}{7}}g^2.`$ (43)
It can be shown that the power series solution (5) exists uniquely, so that the dimensionless sector can be made finite to any finite order in perturbation theory. At this point we assume that a suitable redefinitions of the Yukawa couplings  has been performed so that the above solution (43) is exact. Note the mass term for the $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ is not invariant under $`A_4`$ for an arbitrary mass matrix $`\mu _H`$. The choice of $`\mu _H`$ is however very important to make the model phenomenologically viable, because the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing of the quarks in this model basically originates from $`\mu _H`$. So, the $`A_4`$ invariance has to be broken by the mass term, already at the GUT scale $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. Therefore, it is natural to assume that the operators with dimension less than four do not have to respect the $`A_4`$ invariance. Since the SSB terms consist of such operators, we should not impose the $`A_4`$ invariance on the SSB Lagrangian (34). We proceed with this remark in mind.

Eq. (27) means

$`h_{uij}^a`$ $`=`$ $`Mu_{ij}^a,h_{dij}^a=Md_{ij}^a.`$ (44)
Further, the right hand side of (18) (which we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$) can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`|M|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1g^2C(G)/(8\pi ^2)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{ł}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_ł^2T(R_ł)}{C(G)8\pi ^2/g^2}}.`$ (45)
Using $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ above, we write down all the sum rules (18):

$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{10_1}^2+m_{H_4}^2=2m_{10_2}^2+m_{H_4}^2=2m_{10_3}^2+m_{H_4}^2,`$ (46)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10_1}^2+m_{10_2}^2+m_{H_1}^2=m_{10_1}^2+m_{10_3}^2+m_{H_2}^2=m_{10_2}^2+m_{10_3}^2+m_{H_3}^2,`$ (47)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10_1}^2+m_{\overline{5}_1}^2+m_{\overline{H}_4}^2=m_{10_2}^2+m_{\overline{5}_2}^2+m_{\overline{H}_4}^2=m_{10_3}^2+m_{\overline{5}_3}^2+m_{\overline{H}_4}^2,`$ (48)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10_1}^2+m_{\overline{5}_2}^2+m_{\overline{H}_1}^2=m_{10_2}^2+m_{\overline{5}_1}^2+m_{\overline{H}_1}^2,`$ (49)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10_1}^2+m_{\overline{5}_3}^2+m_{\overline{H}_2}^2=m_{10_3}^2+m_{\overline{5}_1}^2+m_{\overline{H}_2}^2,`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10_2}^2+m_{\overline{5}_3}^2+m_{\overline{H}_3}^2=m_{10_3}^2+m_{\overline{5}_2}^2+m_{\overline{H}_3}^2,`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{H_1}^2+m_{\overline{H}_1}^2+m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=m_{H_2}^2+m_{\overline{H}_2}^2+m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=m_{H_3}^2+m_{\overline{H}_3}^2+m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2,`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`3m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2.`$ (53)
The sum rules (46) require the degeneracy of $`m_{10_i}^2`$, and the degeneracy of $`m_{\overline{5}_i}^2`$ follows from (48). Similarly, one can easily derive the degeneracy of $`m_{\overline{H}_a}^2`$ as well as that of $`m_{H_a}^2`$:

$`m_{10_i}^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_{10}^2,m_{\overline{5}_i}^2={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\stackrel{~}{M}^23m_{10}^2,`$ (54)
$`m_{H_a}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{M}^22m_{10}^2,m_{\overline{H}_a}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{M}^2+2m_{10}^2,`$ (55)
where $`i=13`$ and $`a=14`$. As we can see from (55), There are only two independent parameters in the SSB sector, $`m_{10}^2`$ and the gaugino mass M for instance as we have indicated in (55). To express $`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ in terms of $`M`$, we have to compute the trace in (45). We find:

$`m_ł^2T(R_ł)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}m_{\overline{5}_i}^2+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(m_{H_a}^2+m_{\overline{H}_a}^2)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}m_{10_i}^2+5m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`C(SU(5))\stackrel{~}{M}^2,`$ (57)
where we have used (46)–(53). Using this, we then obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{M}^2`$ $`=`$ $`|M|^2.`$ (58)
Note that the democratic structure for the quark mass matrices is essential to obtain the set of the sum rules (48) and (49)–(51) that yields the universal soft masses (55). To summarize, finiteness requires that the trilinear couplings have to be aligned (44) and the soft scalar masses have to have the universal form (55). Before the diagonalization of $`\mu _H^{ab}`$, the Yukawa couplings $`u_{ij}`$ and $`d_{ij}`$ are real numbers. Note that there are no restrictions on $`\mu _H^{ab}`$ and $`B_H^{ab}`$ from finiteness. The diagonalization of $`\mu _H^{ab}`$ and an appropriate phase rotation of $`H_a`$ and $`\overline{H}_a`$ will introduce phases into the Yukawa couplings, which yields the ordinary CKM phase. The redefinition of the superfields above does not destroy the alignment of the trilinear couplings (44) and the universality of the soft masses (55). Then only the gaugino mass $`M`$ and $`B_H^{ab}`$ are complex numbers and contain CP-violating phases in this model. They may contribute to the EDM of the neutron, for instance . Nevertheless, the SUSY flavor problem is drastically reduced in this finite unified model.

### B Predictions at low-energy

Since there are four pairs of the Higgs supermultiplets, it is not all automatic that there is only one pair of light Higgs doublets at low energies after a fine tuning at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. Furthermore, the Yukawa couplings are of oder $`O(g)`$, and so we have to worry about the problem of fast proton decay  via dimension five operators . These problems are related to the choice of the supersymmetric Higgs mass matrix $`\mu _H^{ab}`$ in the superpotential (40), which we would like to leave for feature problem. Note that there are no constraints on $`\mu _H^{ab}`$ from finiteness. In what follows, we simply assume that there is one pair of light Higgs doublets and the proton decay can be sufficient suppressed.

The finiteness conditions (43), (44) and (55) do not restrict the renormalization property at low energies, because the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken below $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. This should be contrasted to the case of the anomaly mediated supersymmetry breaking . Therefore, the conditions (43), (44) and (55) are just boundary conditions at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ in our case. By assumption, the evolution of the parameters below $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ is governed by the MSSM . We further assume a unique supersymmetry breaking scale $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, which is identified with $`\sqrt{(m_{t_1}^2+m_{t_2}^2)/2}`$, where $`m_{t_i}^2`$ are two stop masses, so that below $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ the SM is the correct effective theory. We recall that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is usually determined in the Higgs sector. However, in the case at hand, it is convenient to define $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ by using the matching condition at $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$,

$`\alpha _t^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _t\mathrm{sin}^2\beta ,\alpha _b^{\mathrm{SM}}=\alpha _b\mathrm{cos}^2\beta ,\alpha _\tau ^{\mathrm{SM}}=\alpha _\tau \mathrm{cos}^2\beta ,`$ (59)
$`\alpha _\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\alpha _1+\alpha _2)\mathrm{cos}^22\beta ,`$ (60)
where $`\alpha _i^{\mathrm{SM}}(i=t,b,\tau )`$ are the SM Yukawa couplings and $`\alpha _\lambda `$ is the Higgs coupling $`(\alpha _I=g_I^2/4\pi ^2)`$. The matching conditions (60) and the boundary conditions at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ can be satisfied only for a specific value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This is the reason of why it is possible without knowing the details of the scalar sector of the MSSM to predict various parameters such as the top and quark masses .

Since $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is fixed in the dimension-zero sector and the soft scalar masse have to satisfy the boundary conditions (55) at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, it is by no means trivial that the electroweak symmetry is correctly broken at low energies . Fortunately, the supersymmetric mass parameter $`\mu _H`$ for the pair of the light Higgs doublets and the corresponding $`B`$ term are not constrained by the finiteness conditions. Therefore, we use this freedom to fix $`\mu _H`$ and $`B`$ to trigger the electroweak symmetry breaking. To proceed we write down the up-quark mass matrix at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ which can be read off from (40) and (43):

$`M^u`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{15}}}g<H_4>\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1+ϵ_1& 1+ϵ_2\\ 1+ϵ_1& 1& 1+ϵ_3\\ 1+ϵ_2& 1+ϵ_3& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (64)
where

$`ϵ_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<H_i>}{<H_4>}}1\text{with}i=1,2,3.`$ (65)
As we can see also from (40) and (43), the down-type quark mass matrix has the same structure. It has been found  that the above democratic mass matrix with $`ϵ_i<<1`$ agree with experimental data. Therefore, $`H_a`$ have to have almost equal VEV’s, although there is only one pair of light Higgs doublets.

After so much remarks, we are now in position to compute low energy quantities. We use the renormalization group equations of two-loop order for dimensionless parameters and those of one-loop order for dimensional ones . To see the gross nature of the low energy predictions of the present model, we however neglect $`ϵ_i`$ in the mass matrix (64), and the the threshold corrections at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ as well as $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$, while we take into account the SM correction to the physical mass of the top quark $`m_t`$, and $`m_b`$ which is the running bottom mass at $`m_b`$. Under this simplification, the top and bottom Yukawa couplings at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ are given by

$`y_t`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{6/5}g,y_b=\sqrt{9/10}g.`$ (66)
In Table I, we present the predictions for $`\alpha _3(M_Z),\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_t`$ and $`m_b`$ for different choices of the unified gaugino mass $`M`$. Comparing, for instance, the $`m_t`$ prediction above with the most recent experimental value ,

$`m_t=(174.3\pm 5.1)\text{GeV },`$ (67)
and recalling that we have neglected $`ϵ_i`$ in (64), and the the threshold corrections, we see that the prediction can be consistent with the experimental data.

Next we turn to the SSB sector with the finiteness conditions (44) and (55). As we can see from (55), we may treat $`M`$ and $`m_{10}`$ as independent parameters. The nice feature of (55) is that the soft scalar masses of $`H_a`$ and $`\overline{H}_a`$ are degenerate. Therefore, one pair of the light Higgs doublets, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$, which can be obtained after the diagonalization by an appropriate unitary matrix, has exactly the same soft scalar mass. Then we look for the parameter space in the $`m_{10}M`$ plane, in which a successful radiative electroweak symmetry breaking occurs and the lightest neutralino is the LSP. In Fig. 1, we show the result, where the region with dots and open squares leads to a successful radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. In the region with dots, the lightest neutralino is the LSP, while in the region with open squares the LSP is the stau. So the phenomenologically viable parameter space in the $`Mm_{10}`$ plane is very restricted; $`m_{10}`$ has to lie approximately on the straight line given by $`m_{10}=5/8M`$. That is, for a given unified gaugino mass $`M`$, the spectrum of the superpartners is basically fixed. In Table II we present the results for $`M=1`$ TeV and $`1.5`$ TeV in an obvious notation.

The dotted region in Fig. 1 is interesting also from the cosmological viewpoint. In the dotted region, the lightest neutralino $`\chi _1`$ and the light stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ are nearly degenerate in mass, that is, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1}m_{\chi _1}<25`$ GeV, where the light stau $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_1`$ is the next-to-LSP. With this type of spectrum, neutralino-stau co-annihilation can occur and that reduces the relic LSP density . Thus, this parameter region is quite interesting for the LSP dark matter scenario.

## IV Conclusion

Although it was suggested in past  that finiteness of softly broken supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories may play an important role to understand the universality of the SSB parameters, there was so far no finite model based on softly broken $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in which the universality of the SSB parameters follows solely from finiteness. The simple reason is the relaxed finiteness condition, the sum rule (18).

In this paper we considered the finite model of  which is based on the discrete symmetry $`A_4`$ and has the democratic structure of the mass matrices for the quarks and leptons. We included the SSB sector to this model and required that this sector does not destroy finiteness. $`A_4`$ symmetry in the SSB sector was not assumed, because $`A_4`$ symmetry has to be broken at $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$ by operators with dimension less than four. We found that finiteness in this model requires that the trilinear couplings have to be aligned (44) and the soft scalar masse have to have the universal form (55). The democratic structure of the mass matrices played the essential role to obtain the universality of the soft scaler masses. Therefore, this model shows that finiteness can offers a solution to the SUSY flavor problem, and indicates that the SUSY flavor problem is closely related to the exact scale invariance.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to than M. Mondragon for useful discussions. This work is supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) (No. 14540252,13135210, 14540256). The work of KB is supported in part by DOE Grant # DE-FG03-98ER-41076, a grant from the Research Corporation and by DOE Grant \# DE-FG02-01ER-45684. This work was partially conducted by way of a grant awarded by the Government of Mexico in the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs.