text:
# Grand Unification in RS1

## 1 Introduction

Grand unification ideas  offer an attractive theoretical framework for physics beyond the standard model (SM). Phenomenologically, unification helps to explain the gauge quantum number assignments of the SM, while correlating the observed gauge couplings. It also seems significant for ultimate gauge-gravity unification that the high unification scale is not too far from the Planck scale. This also helps to suppress baryon decay. As is well known, unification has achieved its most striking success within the scenario of weak scale supersymmetry (SUSY) (for a review, see reference ). SUSY protects the electroweak scale from radiative corrections at the unification and Planck scales, while supplying just the right complement of superpartners to give a fairly precise meeting of gauge couplings as they are run up in energy. Only believably small threshold corrections need to be invoked.

In this paper, we will study unification in quite a different, non-supersymmetric, approach to the hierarchy problem, namely the Randall-Sundrum (RS1) extra-dimensional scenario . Here, the hierarchy problem is solved by having a highly warped compactification with the metric:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2k|y|}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,\pi r_cy\pi r_c,`$ (1.1)
a slice of AdS5 with radius of curvature $`k^1`$. The extra dimension is an orbifolded circle of “radius” $`r_c`$. In the RS1 set-up, the relationship between $`5D`$ mass scales (which are all taken to be of order the $`4D`$ Planck scale, $`M_{Pl}`$) and those in an effective $`4D`$ description depends on the location in the extra dimension:

$$M_{4D}M_{5D}e^{ky}.$$
(1.2)
Thus, the Higgs sector is localized at the “IR brane” ($`y=\pi r_c`$), where it is protected by a low warped-down fundamental scale of order a TeV for a modestly large radius, while $`4D`$ gravity is localized near the “Planck brane” ($`y=0`$) and has a Planckian fundamental scale . If the SM (gauge) fields are on the IR brane as in the original RS1 model , then the effective UV cut-off for the SM is $``$ TeV and hence unification of gauge couplings at Planckian scales cannot be addressed in the effective field theory. If the SM gauge fields are in the bulk (first suggested in reference  and studied in references ), then quantum loops are sensitive to greatly varying, in particular, Planckian scales since the loops span the extra dimension. Hence high scale unification can be studied. We will give realistic models based on having unified $`SU(5)`$ gauge fields and SM fermions propagating in the extra-dimensional “bulk”.

Our models display several attractive features: (i) They help to explain the observed gauge quantum numbers of quarks and leptons by greatly restricting the possibilities. (ii) They correlate the observed gauge couplings by a mechanism of logarithmic gauge coupling unification. The quantitative success is very similar to that of the familiar SM, the calculable one-loop contributions to gauge couplings giving unification to within $`20\%`$. But unlike the SM, there is a natural source of small, but volume-enhanced bulk threshold corrections needed to fit the observed couplings. (iii) The fact that the unification scale is not far from the Planck scale is not an accident, but follows from the RS1 approach to solving the hierarchy problem. (iv) There is a natural solution to the problem of baryon-number violation which puts our models on a very similar footing to the SM. (v) It is a remarkable feature of the RS1 mechanism that it has a purely $`4D`$ dual description, given by the AdS/CFT correspondence , in which the Higgs is a TeV scale composite of a strongly coupled large-$`N`$ conformal field theory. All of the above features of unification have simple $`4D`$ interpretations which clarify their more general applicability for theories of strongly interacting Higgs sectors. Yukawa coupling unification is not studied in this paper.

Beyond its intrinsic interest, we believe that the study of non-supersymmetric unification in the RS1 scenario is of value in coming to a more balanced view of weak scale SUSY. The attractions of supersymmetric grand unified theories (GUTs) and the absence so far of definitive experimental confirmation poses tough questions for particle physicists. How strong a hint is the seamless fit of unification into weak scale SUSY that these ideas are actually realized in Nature? Now qualitatively, RS unification shares many of the features of supersymmetric unification. Quantitatively, RS unification is attractive but does not match the precision of supersymmetric unification, where the calculable contribution to running of gauge couplings gives unification to within $`4\%`$ compared to $`20\%`$ for the SM and our RS1 scenario. In both supersymmetric GUTs and RS GUT, the small discrepancies in unification can naturally be attributed to UV-sensitive, but parametrically small, threshold corrections. We see that the phenomenological support for unification is not an all or nothing pointer towards SUSY. Most of this support is present in the SM, and can be maintained by sensible non-supersymmetric approaches to the hierarchy problem like RS1. It is only the extra precision in the fit of supersymmetric unification that has to be an accident in order for weak scale SUSY to be false, but much less of an accident than if only SUSY could combine unification with a solution to the hierarchy problem.

There are important distinctions between unification in RS1 and unification in unwarped extra dimensions . Reference  proposed high-scale unification with gauge fields propagating in TeV scale extra dimensions, with some of the gauge symmetry and $`N=4`$ SUSY broken by orbifold boundary conditions. The bulk $`N=4`$ SUSY protects logarithmic running above the compactification scale. In both this scenario and in the RS model the non-renormalizable higher-dimensional effective field theory must be UV-completed not far above the TeV scale. In spite of that, in the RS scenario we consider, we are able to controllably study unification at much higher scales within effective field theory. Reference  found low-scale unification by studying supersymmetric extra dimensional models . Gauge coupling unification was not correlated in a simple way with the observed strength of gravity because of the absence of logarithmic running. Reference  studied a toy model of unification in the context of large (gravity-only) extra dimensions. Within specific superstring theory models, unification was achieved by classical logarithmic potential effects which closely resemble effects of $`4D`$ logarithmic running, in particular, gauge coupling unification was correlated with the observed strength of gravity as we will also find. However, whereas in reference , the fact of unification depends entirely on stringy UV details, in the unification scheme we study, the dominant ingredients are calculable in the effective field theory. References  studied high-scale unification, but with compactification scales close to the unification scale. In our models, because of warping, the Kaluza-Klein (KK) mass scale is far lower than the unification scale. However, our mechanism for avoiding excessive proton decay by breaking the GUT symmetry with boundary conditions is similar to mechanisms of references .

Several issues of the RS set-up relevant for our paper already appear in the literature. Unification in an RS setting was first studied in a supersymmetric version in reference  (and recently in reference ), SUSY allowing for a different placement of matter and Higgs fields from ours. Reference  pointed out the basic feature of logarithmic “running” in RS1 above the lightest KK mass, on which our work relies. Reference  first proposed non-supersymmetric coupling unification in the RS solution to the hierarchy problem and studied the requisite logarithmic running. It differs from our work in that it focused more on the case where there is no explicit unified gauge group, in the proposal for baryon number conservation and in the approximations made. Reference  also studied logarithmic running and non-supersymmetric GUTs (including the CFT dual description), but did not discuss quantitative unification and the proton decay problem. References  further studied gauge coupling renormalization in RS1, relevant for unification, from various points of view. In particular, we laid the foundations for our approach to differential running of gauge couplings in reference .

While having SM gauge fields propagate in the RS bulk is good for unification, there have been studies pointing out several unattractive phenomenological features . In particular these studies suggest that unless the warped down fundamental scale is of order $`10`$ TeV or higher, KK gauge bosons would make excessive contributions to electroweak precision and compositeness observables. Such a high fundamental scale would render the Higgs and the weak scale somewhat fine-tuned. Actually, we find the phenomenology of the RS1 scenario with bulk gauge fields very intriguing and subtle and believe that the severe constraints found thus far can be considerably weakened by simple model-building. Interesting as it is from both theoretical and experimental points of view, we will not delve into these topics of weak scale constraints and signals here, but will reserve that for a later paper . For present purposes the reader can take the warped down fundamental scale to be a few TeV, the exact number not being important given the precision in coupling unification we will attain.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In Section 2 we review the standard unification in the minimal SM and in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), so as to lay the foundation for our study of RS unification. In Section 3, we present a minimal module for RS unification, discuss its features and compare it with the more familiar unification scenarios. In Section 4, we discuss SM fermions living in the extra dimensional bulk and give a mechanism that leads to accidental (but, anomalous) baryon-number conservation, very similar to that of the ordinary SM. Thus, our basic module can be completed into realistic models. In Section 5, we give dual CFT interpretations of our models and their features. In section 6, we provide our conclusions.

## 2 Review of $`4D`$ unification

### 2.1 Gauge couplings in a general GUT

The structure of a $`4D`$ GUT at one-loop is

$`\alpha _i^1\left(M_Z\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{GUT}^1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_i,`$ (2.1)
where $`M_{GUT}`$ is the scale at which the GUT symmetry is broken and $`\alpha _{GUT}`$ is the unified gauge coupling at that scale. The running of the gauge couplings in the effective theory below $`M_{GUT}`$ is given by the $`b_i`$ terms, whereas the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$’s are threshold corrections from the GUT and weak scales and the effects of Planck-suppressed higher-dimensional operators.444For simplicity, we assume a “desert”, i.e., no other mass thresholds between $`M_{GUT}`$ and the weak scale.

Assuming unification, we can eliminate $`\alpha _{GUT}`$ and $`M_{GUT}`$ from the above three equations to get

$`\left(\alpha _1^1\left(M_Z\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_1\right)\left(b_2b_3\right)+\left(\alpha _2^1\left(M_Z\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right)\left(b_3b_1\right)+\left(\alpha _3^1\left(M_Z\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_3\right)\left(b_1b_2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
and hence we can solve for the following combination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$’s in terms of the observed gauge couplings and $`b_i`$’s:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1{\displaystyle \frac{b_2b_3}{b_1b_2}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_2{\displaystyle \frac{b_3b_1}{b_1b_2}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ (2.3)
$`=`$ $`\alpha _1^1\left(M_Z\right){\displaystyle \frac{b_2b_3}{b_1b_2}}+\alpha _2^1\left(M_Z\right){\displaystyle \frac{b_3b_1}{b_1b_2}}+\alpha _3^1\left(M_Z\right).`$
We will use $`\alpha _1\left(M_Z\right)0.017`$, $`\alpha _2\left(M_Z\right)0.034`$ and $`\alpha _3\left(M_Z\right)0.117`$ .

### 2.2 SM

We plot the running of gauge couplings in Fig. 1 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=0`$. We see that the three gauge couplings do not quite meet, although they come close to each other at energies of $`O\left(10^{15}\right)`$ GeV. Using $`b_i^{SM}=(41/10,19/6,7)`$ (one-loop contribution of gauge bosons + matter + 1 Higgs doublet) in Eq. (2.3), we get $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SM}5`$ if we impose unification.555We get also a range of $`M_{GUT}10^{13}10^{18}`$ GeV depending on the values of individual $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$’s.

We can compare the required (threshold) correction to the typical size of differential running contribution which is dominated by gauge boson loops. Their contributions are given by $`11/(6\pi )\mathrm{log}\left(M_{GUT}/M_Z\right)\times O(1)`$ group theory factors. We see that requiring $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SM}=5`$ corresponds to $`20\%`$ correction to differential running. Let us see if such $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is reasonable. There are two types of threshold corrections: loops of particles at $`M_{GUT}`$ which contribute $`1/\left(2\pi \right)\times `$ number of particles at $`M_{GUT}`$ (no large logarithms) and Planck-suppressed operators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }F^2/M_{Pl}`$ (where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ breaks the GUT) which contribute $`4\pi \times M_{GUT}/M_{Pl}10^1`$. Assuming no unnaturally large parameters (for example, the number of particles at $`M_{GUT}`$ is not too large), both corrections are much smaller than the required $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Of course, other than this significant problem, the SM does not protect the weak scale from the unification scale. We will see that in RS unification, there is a natural source for the requisite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and protection for large hierarchies.

### 2.3 MSSM

As is well-known, the fit to perturbative unification in MSSM is very good at one-loop and in fact, a two-loop analysis is warranted. The central ingredient in the success of supersymmetric GUTs is the addition of the extra Higgs(inos) and gauginos. The extra differential running due to these particles provides the $`20\%`$ contribution (on top of the SM differential running) required to achieve unification. When the analogous two-loop treatment of Eq. (2.3) is done, one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ (see, for example, reference ). However, unlike the SM, this value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is naturally consistent with the expected size of GUT and weak scale threshold corrections.

## 3 A minimal module for RS1 unification

We first consider a minimal module for RS unification which consists of $`SU(5)`$ unified gauge fields in the bulk, along with scalar fields required for Higgsing the GUT down to the SM gauge group. We will include other matter in the next section. The bulk action is

$`S_{bulk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}\text{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4g_5^2}F_{MN}F^{MN}+|D_M\mathrm{\Sigma }|^2+V_{bulk}(\mathrm{\Sigma })+\frac{a_{bulk}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{MN}F^{MN}\right)}.`$
Here, $`F_{MN}`$ is the $`SU(5)`$ gauge field strength, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a scalar field transforming under $`SU(5)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a Planckian scale where the RS effective field theory becomes strongly coupled. We will take $`A_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be even and $`A_5`$ to be odd under the orbifold symmetry. The potential $`V_{bulk}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ acquires a vev, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }v^{3/2}`$ which breaks $`SU(5)`$ gauge symmetry to the SM gauge symmetry. In addition, we have the brane-localized action:

$`S_{UV(IR)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g_{UV(IR)}}\text{Tr}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\tau _{UV(IR)}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\sigma _{UV(IR)}|D_\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }|^2`$ (3.2)
$`+V_{UV(IR)}(\mathrm{\Sigma })+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{UV(IR)}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }).`$
We assume that brane-localized terms are of order loop processes involving bulk couplings as well as Planck-suppressed effects. They are therefore neglected within one-loop Feynman diagrams.

At one-loop order, the vacuum polarization diagrams are UV divergent and require renormalization of $`1/g_5^2`$ and $`\tau _{UV(IR)}`$. This was first discussed in references . Henceforth, we will work with the renormalized couplings denoted by an extra subscript $`R`$.

Due to the Higgs mechanism, $`12`$ (real) degrees of freedom of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are eaten by the $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons which get a mass of $`M_{GUT}^2g_5^2v^3`$. We will take $`M_{GUT}/k,M_{GUT}/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$. The remaining components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are physical – we will assume that they have a mass, $`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`O\left(M_{GUT}\right)`$. We then calculate the $`4D`$ low energy gauge couplings at one-loop order by a similar reasoning to our earlier analysis of scalar (massless and massive) QED  (also see references ). The massless particles in the loop are the SM gauge bosons, whereas the massive particles are the $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons and the physical components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We get

$`\alpha _i^1(M_Z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r_c}{\alpha _{5R}(k)}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)`$ (3.3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{55}{6\pi }}\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_{GUT}}}+\xi ^{}k\pi r_c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{C(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{12\pi }}\left(\xi k\pi r_c+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_{GUT}}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b_i^{RS}}{2\pi }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^2}{k^2}}\right)_ik\pi r_c`$
$`+a_{ibulk}k\pi r_c{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g_5\sqrt{k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{\sqrt{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}.`$
A brief explanation is as follows (for details, see ). The first term on the RHS of Eq. (3.3) (with $`\alpha _5=g_5^2/\left(4\pi \right)`$) is universal for $`i=1,2,3`$. The second line is a universal (for $`i=1,2,3`$) one-loop contribution – the first term is from gauge bosons and the second term is from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field (assuming that the mass of all components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`M_{GUT}`$), where $`C(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the Dynkin index of the representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\xi `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ are $`O(1)`$ constants. The third line is the remaining, non-universal part of the one-loop contribution – the first term is from gauge bosons, where

$`b_1^{RS}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`b_2^{RS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}},`$
$`b_3^{RS}`$ $`=`$ $`11`$ (3.4)
and the $`O\left[1/\left(2\pi \right)\times \left(M_{GUT}^2/k^2\right)\right]_ik\pi r_c`$ terms are one-loop threshold contributions arising from GUT scale splittings in $`5D`$ masses. We take these splittings to be $`O\left(M_{GUT}\right)`$. These contributions can be precisely computed in any particular $`5D`$ GUT model, but we will only need their basic size here, assuming $`M_\mathrm{\Sigma }O\left(M_{GUT}\right)`$. The $`O\left[1/\left(2\pi \right)\right]`$ terms (on the first line) are effects which are of one-loop order and not enhanced by $`r_c`$ or $`\mathrm{log}\left(M_{GUT}/M_Z\right)`$ or $`\mathrm{log}\left(k/M_{GUT}\right)`$. The $`a_i`$-terms in the last line are the contributions from the higher-dimensional operator: $`a_{ibulk}=\gamma _ia_{bulk}`$, where $`\gamma _i`$’s ($`O(1)`$) depend on the representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Factors of $`k`$ have been inserted for later convenience.

We now come to the central point of our paper by relating RS unification to the structure of $`4D`$ GUTs as given by Eq. (2.1). The significance of separating non-universal pieces in the RHS of Eq. (2.1) is that the $`b_i`$ are calculable from low-energy degrees of freedom, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ depend on details of UV physics at GUT and Planckian scales. Since these details are unknown a priori, Eq. (2.1) is only useful if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are naturally small. Remarkably, neglecting unenhanced $`O\left[1/\left(2\pi \right)\right]`$ terms, Eq. (3.3) can be put in just this form:

$`\alpha _{GUT}^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r_c}{\alpha _{5R}(k)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{55}{6\pi }}\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_{GUT}}}+\xi ^{}k\pi r_c\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{C(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{12\pi }}\left(\xi k\pi r_c+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{M_{GUT}}}\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^2}{k^2}}\right)k\pi r_c`$
$`b_i`$ $`=`$ $`b_i^{RS}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $`=`$ $`a_{ibulk}k\pi r_c{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g_5\sqrt{k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{\sqrt{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^2}{k^2}}\right)_ik\pi r_c.`$ (3.5)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are naturally suppressed if the effective field theory is sufficiently weakly coupled at the GUT scale, i.e., $`M_{GUT}/k,M_{GUT}/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ as we are considering. These are the same qualitative reasons that suppress $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ in the SM and MSSM. Also, note that the contribution with $`b_i^{RS}`$’s (which is roughly the running due to zero-modes of gauge fields) is the same as in the SM as far as differential running goes except for the very small contribution of Higgs scalar (running due to fermions in the SM is universal). In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i0`$, a plot of Eq. (2.1) with $`b_i^{RS}`$ is shown in Fig. 2. Note that this is very close to the SM as far as differential running goes (cf. Fig. 1). Fig. 2 strongly suggests high-scale unification expected within the RS philosophy of no very large fundamental hierarchies.

Although $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are suppressed for small $`M_{GUT}`$, they are enhanced in RS1 by the extra-dimensional volume (i.e., $`k\pi r_c`$) compared to the SM. This is the key distinction with $`4D`$ SM GUTs. While the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of SM GUTs could not naturally account for the even mild discrepancy in unification of Fig. 1, the volume-enhanced $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of Eq. (3.5) can easily do so in Fig. 2 as we now show.

The crucial observation is that $`k\pi r_c\mathrm{log}\left[O\left(M_{Pl}\right)\right]/\text{TeV}`$, required in RS1 to solve the Planck-weak hierarchy problem. According to the RS philosophy of no very large hierarchies, we have $`k\pi r_c,\mathrm{log}\left(k/M_Z\right)\mathrm{log}\left(M_{GUT}/M_Z\right)+O(1)`$. Thus, keeping only the single large logarithm and dropping non-log-enhanced terms, we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}}\left[a_{ibulk}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{g_5\sqrt{k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{\sqrt{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^2}{k^2}}\right)_i\right]`$
$`\alpha _{GUT}^1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k\alpha _{5R}(k)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{55}{6\pi }}\xi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{C(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{2\pi }}\xi +O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\times {\displaystyle \frac{M_{GUT}^2}{k^2}}\right)\right].`$ (3.6)
From Eqs. (2.1) and (3.6), we see that, due to the log-enhancement, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ in RS1 resemble a change in $`\beta `$-function coefficient (i.e., change in running of the gauge coupling)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_Z}\times \left(\frac{\delta b_i}{2\pi }\right),$$
(3.7)
even though their origins are bulk threshold corrections and Planck-suppressed operators. We see that, with modestly small parameters, $`M_{GUT}/k,M_{GUT}/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the RS1 $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be $`20\%`$ compared to the SM differential running – as mentioned earlier, the right size of correction to the SM in order to achieve unification. Note that if the data had supported much lower unification scale with a similar requirement for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then our RS unification would have been falsified since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would have been extremely small (see Eq. (3.6)). We illustrate this phenomenon in Fig. 3, including the effect of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$.

We allow $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ to vary between $`\pm 10\%`$ of the typical differential running contribution in the SM $`11/\left(6\pi \right)\mathrm{log}\left(M_{GUT}/M_Z\right)`$ (cf. section 2.2). Note that all three “cones” in Fig. 3 do overlap consistent with unification. We stress that RS GUT theory does not predict that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ corresponds to a $`10\%`$ effect compared to the calculable running. Rather, the data show in Fig. 3 that $`O(10)\%`$ effect is sufficient for unification. What we have shown is that such (small) effects are naturally present in RS GUTs. Therefore, the near unification of couplings seen in Fig. 2 is not just an accident.

Note that in flat extra dimensions with SM gauge fields, the effect of the higher-dimensional operator is similarly volume-enhanced, but in that case (unlike RS1), $`r_c`$ is not related to the Planck-weak hierarchy.

It is interesting to compare this RS unification to the unification in the MSSM. As mentioned above, MSSM also has modest ($`20\%`$), but important corrections to (differences of) $`\beta `$-function coefficients due to additional Higgs(inos)and gauginos. The crucial difference between MSSM and RS1 is that in the MSSM, the modifications based on minimality are completely fixed, whereas in RS1 (at this stage of its theory), while threshold corrections are parametrically small, they are determined by independent parameters of the effective field theory.

As a concrete illustration of unification in the intersection of the three cones in Fig.3, we consider $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to transform as a $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}`$ under $`SU(5)`$. We have checked that we can get very good unification of gauge couplings in this case for $`M_{GUT},M_\mathrm{\Sigma }10^{16}`$GeV, $`k10^{17}`$GeV, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{18}`$GeV and $`a_{bulk}1`$.

## 4 Bulk matter and proton decay

In any theory with unification there is a potential problem with proton decay mediated by $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons. In the theory we are dealing with the problem is even worse because the lightest such states in the spectrum have masses $``$ TeV. Also, there can be higher-dimensional operators which violate baryon-number which near the IR brane are suppressed by only the TeV scale. In this section, we will show how both these problems can be naturally solved, allowing us to complete our basic module into realistic models.

Before addressing these issues, we must decide where matter fields are located in the extra dimension. In order to solve the hierarchy problem, we will keep the Higgs boson confined to the TeV brane. Reference  studied the issue of baryon-number conservation when fermions are also confined to the TeV brane. However, this situation has some phenomenological problems forcing us to push up the fundamental scale . Instead, we will consider quarks and leptons as free to propagate in the bulk. In a future paper , we will show how this placement can significantly weaken the phenomenological constraints. Proton decay in supersymmetric RS1 scenario was discussed in references , but with a different placement of the Higgs.

$`5D`$ theories are non chiral, chirality being achieved by means of the orbifold. This scenario allows for odd bulk mass terms for fermions of the form $`ck\epsilon (y)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (where $`\epsilon `$ is the sign function) which is compatible with having a massless chiral mode upon compactification. Essentially $`c`$ controls the localization of the wavefunction of the massless mode. In the warped scenario, for $`c>1/2`$ ($`c<1/2`$) the zero mode is localized near the Planck (TeV) brane, whereas for $`c=1/2`$, the wave function is flat. When matter fermions are in the bulk, there is an elegant way of avoiding baryon-number violation mediated by $`X`$, $`Y`$ states using boundary conditions to break $`SU(5)`$  in addition to our bulk breaking by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.666Gauge symmetry breaking by boundary conditions was introduced in string phenomenology in reference . This involves replacing the usual $`_2`$ orbifold by a $`_2\times _2^{}`$ orbifold, where $`_2`$ corresponds to reflection about the Planck brane and $`_2^{}`$ corresponds to reflection about the TeV brane. Under this orbifold, the SM gauge fields are $`(+,+)`$, whereas $`X_\mu `$ and $`Y_\mu `$ can either be $`(+,)`$ (breaking $`SU(5)`$ on the TeV brane) or $`(,+)`$ (breaking $`SU(5)`$ on the Planck brane). When putting fermions in the bulk, one is forced to obtain quarks and lepton zero-modes from different $`SU(5)`$ bulk multiplets . In particular, $`X`$, $`Y`$ exchanges cannot connect SM quark zero-modes to SM lepton zero-modes . For the case of the fermions only the left handed chirality will be discussed since the right chirality is projected out. We have two (left-handed) $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s and two (left-handed) $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s per generation in such a way that:

$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1=𝐋_1+d_1^c\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2=L_2+𝐝_2^c`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1=𝐐_1+e_1^c+u_1^c\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2=Q_2+𝐞_2^c+𝐮_2^c,`$ (4.1)
where the particles in boldface are the ones to have zero modes, i.e. to be $`(+,+)`$. The extra fields needed to complete all representations can either be $`(+,)`$ (if breaking of $`SU(5)`$ is on the TeV brane) or $`(,+)`$ (if breaking is on the Planck brane), i.e., depending on the choice we make for $`X`$ and $`Y`$ bosons, so these extra fermionic fields will not have massless modes upon compactification.

An important consideration in unification is the effect of fermion loops. For the case of $`(+,)`$ ($`SU(5)`$ breaking on the TeV brane), these loops cannot contribute to the large logarithm appearing in the differential running. But, for the $`(,+)`$ case ($`SU(5)`$ breaking on the Planck brane), this is not automatically true (using the results of ). In this case, fermions will only give universal contribution at one-loop if $`c\stackrel{>}{}1/2`$ or if $`c_{5_1}c_{5_2}`$ and $`c_{10_1}c_{10_2}`$. We will study the phenomenology of both cases in a future paper .

In order to control proton decay from higher-dimensional operators suppressed by the TeV scale, one can impose an extra symmetry $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$  under which each field has the following charges777Usual baryon number cannot be used since it does not commute with $`SU(5)`$.:

$$\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1(1)\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2(4)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_1(3)\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2(2)H(1).$$
(4.2)
Here, the Higgs doublet, $`H`$ has $`Y=1/2`$. Since $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{U}(1)}=2Y10B`$ (where proton has $`B=1`$), after electroweak symmetry breaking, $`U(1)_B`$ symmetry remains to protect baryon number.

The $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ symmetry has $`\left[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\right]^3`$, SM$`\times \left[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\right]^2`$ and (SM)$`{}_{}{}^{2}\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ anomalies after compactification. One possibility is to keep such a symmetry global (and anomalous) , but there is a danger that quantum gravity effects do not respect such a symmetry. Instead, here, we will gauge the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ symmetry in the bulk ($`U(1)_B`$ bulk gauge fields in the context of large extra dimensions were introduced in references ), adding brane-localized “spectators” to cancel the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ anomalies. Indeed, only this gauged scenario has a simple dual CFT interpretation as we discuss later. Under $`_2\times _2^{}`$, we will take the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)_\mu `$ gauge boson to be $`(+,+)`$. We will break this gauge symmetry at the Planck scale by giving the gauge field a Planckian mass localized on the Planck brane (for example, due to the condensation of a SM singlet “baryonic” scalar). Thus, any higher-dimensional baryon-number violating operators will be have to be localized on the Planck brane and hence will be suppressed by the Planck scale. So, we have accidental baryon-number conservation as in the SM.

A possible choice of colorless spectators are two doublets of $`SU(2)`$ with $`Y=0`$ and $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{U}(1)}=15`$, two $`SU(2)`$ singlets with $`Y=1/2`$ and $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{U}(1)}=14`$ and two $`SU(2)`$ singlets with $`Y=1/2`$ and $`Q_{\stackrel{~}{U}(1)}=16`$.888A similar set of spectators was used in reference  to cancel anomalies involving baryon-number which is equivalent to canceling $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ anomalies. The spectators are not in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets and so will have to be localized on the $`SU(5)`$-breaking brane. If we break $`SU(5)`$ by orbifolding on the Planck brane then these spectators will be localized there and can get a Planckian mass after $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ is broken (by coupling to the scalar vev which breaks $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$). Without the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge field zero-mode and these spectators, the low-energy theory is not protected by an exact baryon gauge symmetry, but has accidental anomalous global baryon-number (just like the SM) below the Planck scale. If $`SU(5)`$ is broken on the TeV brane, then the spectators have to be localized there too and their mass will be of electroweak origin by Yukawa couplings to the Higgs. Phenomenologically, as long as masses of these spectators are over $`100`$ GeV, there is no problem from present bounds on direct detection . Moreover, the contributions to electroweak observables, such as the $`S`$-parameter, are within errors (see, for example, the review ). Again, without $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge field zero-mode, baryon-number is not an exact symmetry, but is an accidental symmetry (non-anomalous) below the Planck scale.

Finally, we discuss the Higgs doublet-triplet splitting problem. To solve the hierarchy problem using the warp factor, the Higgs doublet will have to be localized on the TeV brane. If we break $`SU(5)`$ on the TeV brane, then we need not add a color triplet partner for the Higgs doublet. In the case of $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the Planck brane, there is a Higgs triplet accompanying the Higgs doublet on the TeV brane. Let us see if this causes phenomenological problems, for example, for proton decay.999Since the Higgs doublet and triplet are localized on the TeV brane, they will contribute to any running of gauge couplings only below the TeV scale. Therefore, large logarithmic running is not affected. We need a TeV brane-localized Yukawa coupling $`L_1e_2^cH_2`$ to give the electron a mass, where $`H_2`$ is the Higgs doublet. By $`SU(5)`$ gauge invariance, there is a coupling $`d_1^cu_2^cH_3`$, where $`H_3`$ is the Higgs triplet. However, $`d_1^c`$ does not have a zero-mode (although $`u_2^c`$ does) so that $`H_3`$ does not couple SM fermions to each other (just as in the case of $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons) and hence the presence of a light Higgs triplet does not lead to proton decay.

Another issue is how to ensure that $`H_3`$ has a positive (mass)2 especially since $`H_2`$ should have a negative (mass)2 to break electroweak symmetry and $`SU(5)`$ symmetry relates the two masses. We can use couplings to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vev (which breaks $`SU(5)`$ symmetry) for this purpose – in the absence of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vev, the two masses will have to be equal at tree-level by $`SU(5)`$ symmetry since $`SU(5)`$ is broken only on the Planck brane in that case. Also, $`4D`$ radiative corrections can split the two masses.

## 5 CFT interpretation

### 5.1 The minimal module

We begin with a dual $`4D`$ CFT interpretation of the minimal module of RS GUTs, i.e., with no SM matter or Higgs doublet and no orbifold breaking of $`SU(5)`$. Earlier discussions of RS bulk gauge fields from the dual point of view appear in references . According to the AdS/CFT correspondence , massless gauge $`SU(5)`$ fields propagating in (infinite) AdS5 is dual to a large-$`N`$ $`4D`$ conformal field theory (CFT) with a conserved $`SU(5)`$ global current, $`J_\mu ^{SU(5)}`$. However, if this GUT symmetry is spontaneously broken (down to the SM symmetry) by a scalar vev, $`v`$, in AdS5, then the dual interpretation is that the CFT matter comes in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets, but the interactions of the CFT conserve only the SM subgroup of the global $`SU(5)`$ symmetry. Thus, $`^\mu J_\mu ^{X,Y}ϵ0`$, where $`X`$, $`Y`$ denote the generators of $`SU(5)`$ not in SM. If $`vk,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the AdS5 theory (as is the case in the bulk of our model), then, in the dual CFT, $`ϵ`$ is small.

Adding a Planck brane (the RS model) corresponds to putting a UV cut-off of $`O\left(M_{Pl}\right)`$ on the CFT and gauging the full $`SU(5)`$ (global) symmetry of the CFT by $`4D`$ vector fields external to the CFT . Note that the fact that $`^\mu J_\mu ^{X,Y}0`$ means that after coupling to $`4D`$ gauge fields, we have broken $`SU(5)`$ gauge invariance down to the SM gauge group. Vacuum polarization effects will then generate masses for the $`4D`$ $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons at the scale $`M_{GUT}`$ which is suppressed compared to the Planck scale by $`ϵ`$. The breaking of gauge invariance looks explicit, but as usual this explicit breaking can be viewed as Higgs effects in unitary gauge. The TeV brane corresponds to a spontaneous breaking of conformal invariance , but not of the $`SU(5)`$ symmetry.

The dual interpretation of the low-energy gauge couplings in Eq. (3.5) (along with Eq. (2.1)) is as follows. Although $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons have a mass $`M_{GUT}`$, the SM gauge bosons are light. The splitting of $`X`$, $`Y`$ at $`M_{GUT}`$ from light SM gauge bosons gives rise to differential running of gauge couplings below $`M_{GUT}`$ with the $`4D`$ $`\beta `$-function coefficients giving the $`b_i/\left(2\pi \right)\mathrm{log}\left(M_{GUT}/q\right)`$ terms in Eq. (2.1). The running due to the CFT charged matter between the Planck scale (the UV cut-off) and the TeV scale is mostly (assuming $`ϵ`$ is small) $`SU(5)`$ symmetric and accounts for the (universal) $`\mathrm{log}\left[O\left(M_4\right)\right]/\text{TeV}`$, i.e., $`k\pi r_c`$ enhanced terms in $`\alpha _{GUT}^1`$, in particular the dominant $`\pi r_c/\alpha _5`$ term.

The $`SU(5)`$ breaking part of the running due to the CFT charged matter (which also has a Planckian logarithm) is suppressed by $`ϵ`$ and corresponds to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ in Eq. (3.5) – in particular, the leading order in large-$`N`$ part of this running corresponds to contribution of the tree-level higher-dimensional operator, whereas, the sub-leading in large-$`N`$ part of this running corresponds to the loop suppressed non-universal contribution.

Finally, various $`O\left[1/\left(2\pi \right)\right]`$, non-log-enhanced terms in Eq. (3.3) correspond to various threshold effects in the CFT interpretation.

### 5.2 $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the TeV brane

The dual interpretation changes when we modify the orbifold boundary conditions of the minimal module so as to break $`SU(5)`$ on the TeV brane (i.e., $`X`$, $`Y`$ vanish on the TeV brane). The interpretation now is that $`SU(5)`$ is spontaneously broken by the CFT at the TeV scale, i.e., the same scale at which conformal invariance is broken , on top of the explicit breaking by the CFT dynamics ($`ϵ0`$). Since (on the RS side) the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{1,2}`$ are $`(+)`$ (i.e., do not vanish) on the Planck brane, we add fundamental fermions in these representations in the dual CFT (these will be denoted by the same symbols) – thus, the fundamental fermions have the same quantum numbers as in the SM, but are twice as many. These fermions (external to the CFT) couple to (fermionic) operators of the CFT (which are in conjugate representations) denoted by $`𝒪_{5_1}`$, $`𝒪_{\overline{10}_1}`$ etc. Since (on the RS side) the quark $`SU(2)`$ singlet from $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1`$ (denoted by $`d_1^c`$) is $`(+,)`$ (i.e., vanishes on the TeV brane) and hence does not have a zero-mode, in the dual CFT, it must be that the $`𝒪_{5_1}`$ operator of the CFT interpolates a massless composite fermion of the CFT which marries (i.e., gets a Dirac mass with) $`d_1^c`$. Whereas, this CFT operator does not interpolate a massless composite to marry the fundamental $`SU(2)`$ doublet lepton from $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_1`$ (denoted by $`L_1`$). The fact that massless composite fermions of the CFT below TeV do not come in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets is consistent because $`SU(5)`$ is broken (spontaneously) by the CFT at that scale. $`L_1`$ can mix with the CFT composites – the resultant massless state corresponds to the SM $`SU(2)`$ doublet lepton (denoted by $`L`$). The degree of this mixing depends on the anomalous dimension of the fermionic CFT operator, $`𝒪_{5_1}`$ which is related on the RS side to the fermion mass parameter $`c`$. A similar analysis can be done for the other SM fermions.

The coupling of fundamental fermions to fermionic CFT operators is essential to generating Yukawa couplings since the Higgs doublet is a composite of the CFT. In this way, the RS scenario with bulk fermions realizes the idea proposed in reference .

The contribution of the fundamental fermions to running of the gauge couplings (above TeV scale) is universal (for $`i=1,2,3`$) since they are in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets (for example, $`L_1`$ and $`d_1^c`$) – the modification of this running due to mixing of these fermions with CFT composites is also universal since $`L_1`$ and $`d_1^c`$ couple to the same CFT operator, $`𝒪_{5_1}`$ and hence the mixing is $`SU(5)`$ symmetric.

#### 5.2.1 Proton decay

The $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons (either the fundamental ones with a mass of $`M_{GUT}`$ or the bound states of the CFT with $`X`$, $`Y`$ quantum numbers and with masses $``$ TeV) do not couple SM fermion $`L`$ to $`d^c`$ since these fermions (which are mixtures of fundamental and CFT fields) have their origin in different $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fundamental fields. So, proton decay from exchange of $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons is absent.

As mentioned earlier, to forbid proton decay from higher-dimensional operators, on the RS side, we introduce a bulk $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge symmetry which is a linear combination of $`U(1)_B`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$. Spectators on TeV brane cancel all $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ anomalies. The $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge symmetry is broken by the Planckian vev of a SM singlet scalar living on the Planck brane. The dual picture is that the CFT and the fundamental fermions coupled to it have an exact $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ symmetry which is gauged by a $`4D`$ vector field. It is not that the $`4D`$ gauging of the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ symmetry is protecting the theory from excessive proton decay – in fact, in the dual picture, the $`4D`$ $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge theory is Higgsed near the Planck scale and at this scale operators violating $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ and $`U(1)_B`$ are allowed. The central point is that all such violations of $`U(1)_B`$ are strongly irrelevant in the IR of the CFT coupled to fundamental fermions and light gauge fields.101010Of course, $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge symmetry is also spontaneously broken by the Higgs vev, but this breaking still preserves baryon-number. Hence higher-dimensional operators, generated by spontaneous breaking of scale invariance at $``$ TeV and suppressed by that scale (which are dual to TeV brane-localized operators on the RS side), will preserve baryon-number even though they might violate $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ after electroweak symmetry breaking. Recall that SM fermions might have an admixture of CFT composites so that these operators can give interactions between SM fermions and so we want them to preserve baryon-number. In other words, at sub-Planckian energies, $`U(1)_B`$ is an accidental, global symmetry very much as in the SM.111111The mild distinction is that, in the SM, baryon-number is an accidental classical symmetry, but is quantum mechanically anomalous leading to non-perturbative violation. This is the dual of the fact that $`U(1)_B`$ is unbroken on the RS side throughout the bulk and on the TeV brane.

In the dual picture, the spectators are composites of the CFT and have Yukawa couplings to the Higgs (which itself is a CFT composite) which give them electroweak scale masses when the Higgs acquires a vev. It is interesting to see how cancellation of anomalies involving $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ works in the UV of the dual theory – in the IR, these anomalies cancel between SM fermions and spectators just as on the RS side. The CFT generates two kinds of massless composite fermions: (a) the spectator fermions and (b) fermions required to marry (the fundamental fermions corresponding to) the $`(+,)`$ states in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s (i.e., $`d_1^c`$, $`L_2`$ etc.) as mentioned above – the SM and $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ quantum numbers of these composites are opposite to those of the states in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s they marry. One can check that these composite fermions do not have SM, (SM)$`{}_{}{}^{2}\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ and SM$`\times \left[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\right]^2`$ anomalies, but do have a non-zero $`\left[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\right]^3`$ anomaly. By the ’t Hooft anomaly matching condition, the anomalies of the CFT by itself in the UV must be the same as that of its massless (fermionic) composites. It can be checked that, in the UV, this $`\left[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\right]^3`$ anomaly of the CFT is canceled by that of the fundamental $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s – the latter also do not have SM, (SM)$`{}_{}{}^{2}\times \stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ and SM$`\times \left[\stackrel{~}{U}(1)\right]^2`$ anomalies. Thus, the CFT and external $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$’s and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s together do not have any anomalies in the UV and hence both $`SU(5)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ can be gauged.

The fact that the Higgs doublet is not part of a complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplet again is consistent with the fact that $`SU(5)`$ is spontaneously broken by the CFT at the TeV scale and the Higgs doublet is a composite produced below that scale.

### 5.3 $`SU(5)`$ breaking on the Planck brane

If $`SU(5)`$ is broken by an orbifold boundary condition at the Planck brane, (i.e., the $`X`$, $`Y`$ vanish on the Planck brane), then the dual interpretation is that only the SM subgroup of the (approximate, up to $`^\mu J_\mu ^{X,Y}=ϵ0`$) $`SU(5)`$ global symmetry of the CFT is gauged . Thus, there are no $`X`$, $`Y`$ gauge bosons with mass $`M_{GUT}`$ (unlike section 5.1) so that the SM gauge bosons cause differential running below the UV cut-off $`O\left(M_{Pl}\right)`$, rather than $`M_{GUT}`$, i.e., $`b_i\mathrm{log}\left(M_{GUT}/M_Z\right)b_i\mathrm{log}\left[O\left(M_{Pl}\right)/M_Z\right]`$ in Eq. (3.3). Since $`M_{GUT}O\left(M_{Pl}\right)`$, the large logarithms are unchanged. It is amusing that on the RS side, the gauge theory is $`SU(5)`$, whereas in the dual CFT it is the SM gauge group. When conformal invariance is broken at $``$ TeV, (global) $`SU(5)`$ is still preserved (up to, of course, $`ϵ`$). Since (on the RS side) $`d_1^c`$ is $`(,+)`$ (i.e., vanishes on the Planck brane), we add a fundamental $`L_1`$ (and not $`d_1^c`$) and couple it to (the $`SU(2)`$ doublet part of) the operator $`𝒪_{5_1}`$. Similarly, we add $`d_2^c`$ and couple it to the (different) operator $`𝒪_{5_2}`$. Since the full $`SU(5)`$ symmetry is not gauged, the fundamental fermions (external to the CFT) do not have to be in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets, but they do have to be parts of $`SU(5)`$ multiplets since they have to couple to CFT operators which are in (complete) $`SU(5)`$ multiplets . Thus, the understanding of quantum numbers of the SM fermions is intact even though we do not have $`SU(5)`$ gauge invariance in the dual CFT theory . Thus, the set of fundamental fermions is the same as the set of SM fermions – in fact, up to mixing with the CFT composites as before (due to their coupling to the corresponding operators), these are the SM quarks and leptons (i.e., they are dual to the fermion zero-modes of RS side). As before, bound states of the CFT with $`X`$, $`Y`$ quantum numbers cannot couple these massless fermions to each other.

If the mixing of fundamental fermions with the CFT composites is small (dual to $`c\stackrel{>}{}1/2`$), then the contribution of these fermions to running of gauge couplings is universal since they can be “assembled” into complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets (for example, $`L_1`$ and $`d_2^c`$). However, this mixing (or dressing by CFT interactions) can be large (dual to $`c\stackrel{<}{}1/2`$) and different for $`L_1`$ and $`d_2^c`$ since they couple to CFT operators, $`𝒪_{5_1}`$ and $`𝒪_{5_2}`$, with different anomalous dimensions. Since the contribution to running is affected by this CFT dressing, it is not universal in this case, even though (as in the case of small mixing) $`L_1`$ and $`d_2^c`$ are equivalent to a complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplet. Of course, if $`𝒪_{5_1}`$ and $`𝒪_{5_2}`$ have similar anomalous dimensions, then running is again universal.

As in section 5.2.1, baryon-number is an accidental, global symmetry of the CFT and fundamental fermions. This symmetry is gauged, but again the gauge symmetry is broken at Planckian scales and offers no protection at low energies. Unlike in section 5.2.1, spectators are fundamental fields external to the CFT which also get Planckian masses at the same time as the $`\stackrel{~}{U}(1)`$ gauge field. Thus, the protective $`U(1)_B`$ accidental symmetry is quantum mechanically anomalous. The anomaly in baryon-number is due to the fundamental fermions, the CFT itself does not contribute to the anomaly since it does not generate any massless composite fermions. Thus, proton decay is suppressed just as in the SM by an accidental global anomalous $`U(1)_B`$ symmetry.

Finally, the dual interpretation of the Higgs triplet on the TeV brane is that such a composite of the CFT is expected from the (approximate) $`SU(5)`$ (global) symmetry of the CFT sector (which survives even after conformal invariance is broken at TeV). The Higgs triplet cannot mediate proton decay because of the accidental baryon-number symmetry mentioned above.

Another issue concerning the Higgs triplet is why it does not acquire a phenomenologically dangerous vev. Indeed, if $`ϵ=0`$ (i.e., the CFT has exact $`SU(5)`$ global symmetry) and we consider the CFT in isolation, then a vev for the Higgs doublet implies a vev for the Higgs triplet (again, both are CFT composites). However, due to the small ($`O(ϵ)`$) explicit breaking of the $`SU(5)`$ (global) symmetry of the CFT, the mass of Higgs triplet can be different than that of the Higgs doublet (this is the dual of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vev splitting the Higgs doublet from the triplet) so that the Higgs triplet need not acquire a vev. Also, the CFT is not isolated, but is coupled to $`SU(5)`$ non-symmetric fundamental fields. So, loop corrections can further split the Higgs triplet from the doublet (just as on the RS side).

## 6 Conclusions

The simplest way to summarize the connection between unification and the RS solution to the hierarchy problem is to adopt the CFT dual viewpoint, in the sense of the AdS/CFT correspondence. From this viewpoint, the RS higher-dimensional effective field theory studied here is a very useful, weakly coupled dual description of a strongly coupled $`4D`$ Higgs sector, KK excitations being dual to some of the strongly bound composites. The Higgs boson is an infrared composite of this sector, so that the hierarchy problem is solved by compositeness, without SUSY. SM gauge bosons and fermions are fundamental fields coupled to the strong Higgs sector. A key to having an extra-dimensional description which is weakly coupled throughout the extra dimension is that the dual $`4D`$ description should be strongly coupled throughout the large Planck-weak hierarchy. This is achieved by having the strongly coupled sector be approximately conformal over the large hierarchy.

Let us now turn to unification. In $`4D`$ supersymmetric GUTs, MSSM two-loop running leads to gauge coupling unification to within $`4\%`$. The discrepancy can naturally be ascribed to threshold corrections (although there is no predictivity at this level, due to free parameters of the GUT). Only slightly less striking is $`4D`$ non-supersymmetric GUTs, where SM running alone leads to gauge coupling unification to within $`20\%`$. However, this discrepancy is now too big to be naturally ascribed to GUT threshold corrections. Of course, we can add new particles below the GUT scale which alter the differential running by the small amount needed to achieve unification. This is what happens when we supersymmetrize the SM in order to solve the hierarchy problem. But if the new particles we are adding to solve the hierarchy problem are strongly coupled over the hierarchy as in the RS scenario, there is a second attractive possibility for unification. We can take the particles of the strong sector to come in complete $`SU(5)`$ multiplets but with interactions which are only approximately $`SU(5)`$ symmetric. The SM subgroup of $`SU(5)`$ is however an exact symmetry of the strong sector and is gauged. Thus the strong sector will naturally make small contributions to differential running because the strong interactions which non-negligibly dress contributions to gauge coupling running are weakly $`SU(5)`$-violating. The small discrepancies in SM unification can be easily ascribed to these small corrections from the strong sector to differential running.

It is interesting that from the dual $`4D`$ viewpoint the small corrections are corrections to running and therefore logarithmically enhanced, while in the $`5D`$ RS viewpoint, the small corrections are threshold type corrections which are volume-enhanced. Either way these corrections needed for unification are not calculable without knowing details of the GUT and Planck scales, which is qualitatively similar to the situation in supersymmetric GUTs. Our central result is that we are able to maintain the SM level of unification in a calculable way in a theory of a composite Higgs and to point out a naturally small source of corrections which “fix” SM running with respect to unification. These are very difficult problems to address within traditional approaches to strongly interacting Higgs sectors.

From the dual $`4D`$ viewpoint, the central object which is unified is the conformal Higgs sector, in that it has an approximate global $`SU(5)`$ symmetry. In order for fundamental SM fermions to get non-negligible Yukawa couplings, they must couple to fermionic operators of the conformal Higgs sector. Since these operators come in $`SU(5)`$ multiplets, in order to preserve SM gauge invariance the SM fermions must have gauge quantum numbers which can be embedded in $`SU(5)`$, providing a partial explanation of the quantum numbers we observe. Excessive proton decay is avoided if the Higgs sector coupled to fundamental fermions has an accidental baryon number symmetry (which might be anomalous upon SM gauging, as in the SM).

The near meeting of gauge couplings at high energies and the pattern of fermion quantum numbers within the SM provide tantalizing hints of unification. This is usually taken as evidence in favor of SUSY where gauge coupling unification is quantitatively improved while solving the hierarchy problem. However, we have shown here that there is an attractive option for unification within the RS scenario for solving the hierarchy problem.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Markus Luty, John March-Russell, Alex Pomarol and Neal Weiner for discussions. The work of K. A. was supported by the Leon Madansky fellowship and by NSF Grant P420D3620414350. The work of A. D. was supported by NSF Grants P420D3620414350 and P420D3620434350. The work of R. S. was supported in part by a DOE Outstanding Junior Investigator Grant P442D3620444350 and by NSF Grant P420D3620434350.


format: text

text:
# Existence and Uniqueness of Tri-tronquée Solutions of the second Painlevé hierarchy

## 1. Introduction

The second Painlevé hierarchy is an infinite sequence of nonlinear ordinary differential equations containing

(1)
$$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}:V^{\prime \prime }=2V^3+xV+\alpha ,V=V(x),\alpha \mathrm{const},$$

as its simplest equation. This hierarchy is a symmetry reduction of the mKdV hierarchy , and for this reason, it is believed that its elements all posses the Painlevé Property, i.e. all the movable singularities of all solutions are poles . We conjecture that, in fact, all solutions of every equation in the hierarchy are meromorphic in the complex $`x`$-plane.

Another remarkable property of the equations belonging to the second Painlevé hierarchy, denoted by $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$, is their irreducibility,. That is, for generic values of the parameter $`\alpha _n`$ in each equation of the hierarchy, there is no transformation, within a certain class described in , that maps any of these equations to a linear equation or to a lower order nonlinear ordinary differential equation. This result has been proved only for the case of $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$ (see ), but we conjecture that it is the case for all the other equations in the hierarchy. In fact, we show evidence that no $`n`$-th order member of the hierarchy can be reduced to a lower-order member of the hierarchy.

The main aim of this paper is the asymptotic study of solutions of each $`n`$-th equation $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ in the second Painlevé hierarchy. Since $`\mathrm{}`$ is a non-Fuchsian singularity for each equation $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$, one expects that the generic solution of $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ possesses asymptotic behaviours that are given by (meromorphic combinations of) hyperelliptic functions (see ). We concentrate here, however, on solutions described by divergent power series as $`x\mathrm{}`$. In particular, we focus on solutions that possess no poles outside a circle of sufficiently large radius in certain sectors of the $`x`$-plane. We show that there exist unique true solutions with such behaviour in certain sectors of the $`x`$-plane. These have not been proved before for $`n2`$.

To be more precise, consider $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$. The asymptotic study of its solutions, in the limit $`x\mathrm{}`$, began with the work of Boutroux . The sectors of validity of its asymptotic behaviours are described by six rays: $`\mathrm{arg}(x)=j\pi /3`$, $`j=0,\mathrm{},5`$. All solutions are meromorphic in the complex $`x`$-plane and the general solution is asymptotic to Jacobian elliptic functions whose modulus varies with $`\mathrm{arg}(x)`$ (see ). Locally, the poles of the solution of $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$ are aligned with the lattice of periodicity of its asymptotic behaviour. However, as $`\mathrm{arg}(x)`$ changes within each sector of validity, this lattice slowly changes. Since the elliptic function has poles in each period parallelogram, so does the solution of $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$. In other words, the general solution has an infinite number of poles within each sector.

However, there also exist two types of one-parameter families of solutions, called tronquée by Boutroux, that possess no poles whatsoever in an annular sector

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_j=\left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,\left|\mathrm{arg}(x)j\pi /3\right|<\pi /3\},j=0,\mathrm{},5,$$

for some $`x_0`$. For a given $`j`$, as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$, $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$, such a tronquée solution either has asymptotic behaviour

(2)
$$y(x)=(\frac{x}{2})^{1/2}\left(1+𝒪(x^{\frac{3}{2}(1ϵ)})\right),$$

for an appropriate choice of branch of the square root, or

(3)
$$y(x)=(\frac{\alpha }{x})\left(1+𝒪(x^{\frac{3}{2}(1ϵ)})\right),$$

for some $`ϵ>0`$. Boutroux characterised each sector $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j`$ by its ray of symmetry $`\mathrm{arg}(x)=j\pi /3`$. He showed that there also exist tri-tronquée solutions that are asymptotically pole-free along three successive such rays. There are six such solutions. In this paper, we prove the existence and uniqueness of the analogous tri-tronquée solutions for all differential equations of the second Painlevé hierarchy.

The hierarchy we consider arises as a symmetry reduction of the KdV (Korteweg-de Vries) hierarchy which is defined by

(4)
$$_{t_n}U+_\xi _n\{U\}=0,n1$$

where

(5a)
$$_\xi _{n+1}\{U\}=\left(_{\xi \xi \xi }+4U_\xi +2U_\xi \right)_n\{U\}$$

(5b)
$$_1\{U\}=U$$

The fact that at each step equation (5a) can be integrated to obtain the differential operator $`_{n+1}`$ was proved in .

After the transformation $`U=W_\xi W^2`$, and reduction $`W(\xi )=V(x)/\left((2n+1)t_{2n+1}\right)^{1/(2n+1)}`$, $`x=\xi /\left((2n+1)t_{2n+1}\right)^{1/(2n+1)}`$ (see  for details), we get the $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$ hierarchy

(6)
$$\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}:(\frac{d}{dx}+2V)_n\{V_xV^2\}=xV+\alpha _n,n1$$

where $`\alpha _n`$ are constants and $`_n`$ is the operator defined by Equation (5a) with $`\xi `$ replaced by $`x`$. We give a more explicit form of (6) in Proposition 2.1 below. For $`n=1`$, Equation (6) is $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$, whereas for $`n=2`$ (noting that $`_2\{U\}=U_{\xi \xi }+3U^2`$) it is

(7)
$$V_{4x}10V^2V_{2x}10VV_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+6V^5=xV+\alpha _2,$$

where we use the notation

$$V_{mx}:=\frac{d^mV}{dx^m}.$$

Below we will also use $`V_mV_{mx}`$.

In this paper, we show that each equation $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ of the hierarchy possesses solutions that are free of poles in sectors of angular width $`2n\pi /(2n+1)`$ as $`|x|\mathrm{}`$ and describe their asymptotic behaviour. Furthermore, there exist unique solutions that are pole-free in sectors of angular width $`4n\pi /(2n+1)`$. We call such solutions tri-tronquée solutions. In the second order case these solutions occur as important solutions of transition phenomena for PDEs such as the modified Korteweg de Vries equation (see ) and for ODEs with slowly changing parameters (see ). We expect that the tri-tronquée solutions of $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ will occur in higher order PDEs with transition phenomena.

Our main result is

###### Theorem 1.1.

For each integer $`n1`$, there exists $`x_0`$, $`|x_0|>1`$, and sectors

$`𝒮_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,|\mathrm{arg}(xx_0)|<n\pi /(2n+1)\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,|\mathrm{arg}(xx_0)|<2n\pi /(2n+1)\}`$
in which the following results hold.

* Equation (6) has formal solutions

(8)
$$V_{f,\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{(1)^nx}{2c_n}\right)^{\frac{1}{2n}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_k^{(n)}\left(\frac{2n}{2n+1}x^{\frac{2n+1}{2n}}\right)^k,a_0^{(n)}=1$$

(9)
$$V_{f,0}=\left(\frac{2\alpha _n}{(2n+1)x}\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_k^{(n)}\left(\frac{2n}{2n+1}x^{\frac{2n+1}{2n}}\right)^k,b_0^{(n)}=1$$

where

$$c_n:=\frac{2^{2n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)}$$

and the coefficients $`a_k^{(n)}`$, $`b_k^{(n)}`$, $`k1`$, are given by substitution.
* In each sector $`𝒮_n`$ there exist true solutions $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`V_0`$ of Equation (6) with asymptotic behaviour

$`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`\underset{\stackrel{x\mathrm{}}{x𝒮_n}}{}V_{f,\mathrm{}}`$
$`V_0`$ $`\underset{\stackrel{x\mathrm{}}{x𝒮_n}}{}V_{f,0}`$
* The true solutions $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`V_0`$ of Equation (6) are unique in proper sub-sectors of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ containing respectively $`2n`$ among the following half-lines

(10)
$$\mathrm{arg}(x)=\frac{2j+1}{2n+1}\pi ,j=0,\mathrm{},2n,$$

or

(11)
$$\mathrm{arg}(x)=\pi +\frac{2j+1}{2n+1}\pi ,j=0,\mathrm{},2n.$$

The theorem above is proved in Section 2.

###### Remark 1.2.

We mention that although the elements of the $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$ hierarchy are integrable (see ), we make no use of this fact in this paper. To our knowledge there is no general result linking integrability to existence of tri-tronquée-type solutions (for example in the case of Painlevé VI equation such solutions have not yet been found).

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1.1

We start the proof by deriving a more explicit expression for the $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$ hierarchy.

###### Proposition 2.1.

The differential equations $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ have the form

(12)
$$V_{2n}=P_{2n1}(V_0,V_1,\mathrm{},V_{2n2})+xV_0+\alpha _n+\beta _nV_0^{2n+1},$$

where $`V_m:=\frac{d^mV}{dx^m}`$, $`P_{2n1}`$ is a polynomial in $`V_0,V_1,\mathrm{},V_{2n2}`$ of degree $`2n1`$, of the form

(13)
$$P_{2n1}=\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n+1}{k_02n1}}{𝚺}b_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}.$$

Here $`k`$ is a multi-index $`k=(k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2})`$, with norm

$$𝐤:=\underset{p=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}(p+1)k_p,$$

$`b_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}`$ are constants (some of which may be zero), and

$$\beta _n=(1)^{n+1}2^{2n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}.$$

###### Proof.

The result (12) can be derived from (6) by proving that

(14)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _n(V_1V_0^2)& =V_{2n1}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n}\hfill \\ & +\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n=\frac{\beta _n}{2}`$, and $`a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}`$ denote constants. Let us derive (12) from (14) first and then prove (14) by induction.

The $`n`$-th equation $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ (see Equation (6)) has the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\frac{}{x}+2V_0)(V_{2n1}& +\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n}+\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}})=\hfill \\ & =xV_0+\alpha _n\hfill \end{array}$$

that is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_{2n}& +2n\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n1}V_1+\hfill \\ & +\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}(k_0V_0^{k_01}V_1^{k_1+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\hfill \\ & +k_1V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_11}V_2^{k_2+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\mathrm{}+\hfill \\ & +k_{2n2}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}1}V_{2n1})+\hfill \\ & +2V_0V_{2n1}+2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n+1}+\hfill \\ & +2\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0+1}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}=\hfill \\ & =xV_0+\alpha _n\hfill \end{array}$$

$``$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_{2n}+2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n+1}& \underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n+1}{k_02n1}}{𝚺}b_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n1}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n1}^{k_{2n1}}=\hfill \\ & =xV_0+\alpha _n\hfill \end{array}$$

for some suitable constants $`b_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n1}}`$. For $`\beta _n=2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n`$ we obtain (12) as desired.

We now want to prove (14) by induction. It is trivially true for $`n=1`$ with $`\beta _1=2`$. Let us assume it true for $`n`$ and prove it for $`n+1`$. Observe that

$$_{n+1}=\frac{^2_n}{x^2}+2(V_1V_0^2)_n+2(V_1V_0^2)\frac{_n}{x}dx,$$

where $`(V_1V_0^2)\frac{_n}{x}\mathrm{d}x`$ is always an exact form (see ). We obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}_{n+1}=\hfill & V_{2n+1}+2n(2n1)\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n2}V_1^2+2n\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n1}V_2+\hfill \\ & +\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}(k_0(k_01)V_0^{k_02}V_1^{k_1+2}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\hfill \\ & +k_0(k_1+1)V_0^{k_01}V_1^{k_1}V_2^{k_2+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\mathrm{}+\hfill \\ & +k_0k_{2n2}V_0^{k_01}V_1^{k_1+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}1}V_{2n1}+\mathrm{}+\hfill \\ & +k_{2n2}k_0V_0^{k_01}V_1^{k_1+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}1}V_{2n1}+\mathrm{}+\hfill \\ & +k_{2n2}(k_{2n2}1)V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}2}V_{2n1}^2+\hfill \\ & +k_{2n2}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}1}V_{2n})+2V_1V_{2n1}+2V_1\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n}+\hfill \\ & +2V_1\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}2V_0^2V_{2n1}\hfill \\ & 2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n+2}2V_0^2\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\hfill \\ & +2(V_1V_0^2)[V_{2n}+2n\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2n1}V_1+\hfill \\ & +\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}a_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}(k_0V_0^{k_01}V_1^{k_1+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\hfill \\ & +k_1V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_11}V_2^{k_2+1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}+\mathrm{}+\hfill \\ & +k_{2n2}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}1}V_{2n1})]\mathrm{d}x.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus

$$\begin{array}{cc}_{n+1}=\hfill & V_{2(n+1)1}2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2(n+1)}\frac{4n}{2n+2}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_nV_0^{2(n+1)}+\hfill \\ & +\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n}{k_02\left(n+1\right)2}}{𝚺}\stackrel{~}{a}_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2(n+1)2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2(n+1)2}^{k_{2(n+1)2}}\hfill \end{array}$$

that has the required form for $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{n+1}=2\stackrel{~}{\beta }_n\frac{2n+1}{n+1}`$, i.e. $`\beta _{n+1}=2\beta _n\frac{2n+1}{n+1}`$. From $`\beta _1=2`$ we obtain the right value of $`\beta _n`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.2.

For each $`n1`$, the change of variables

(15)
$$V(x)=f(x)u(z),z=g(x)$$

where

$$f(x)=x^{1/(2n)},g(x)=\frac{2n}{2n+1}x^{(2n+1)/2n}$$

maps $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}^{(n)}`$ to

(16)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2n}}{\mathrm{d}z^{2n}}u=\hfill & _{l=0}^{2n1}a_{2n,l}z^{l2n}\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)+\frac{2n}{2n+1}u(z)+\beta _nu^{2n+1}+\frac{2n}{2n+1}\frac{\alpha }{z}+\hfill \\ & +z^{2n1}_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}^{2n1}a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)_{l=0}^{2n2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{m_l},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)`$ are polynomials of degree $`2n`$ and $`a_{2n,l}`$ are some constant coefficients and the sum $`_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}^{2n2}`$ is zero for $`n=1`$. Furthermore, equation (16) admits formal series expansions

(17)
$$u_{f,\mathrm{}}=\left(\frac{(1)^n}{2c_n}\right)^{\frac{1}{2n}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_k^{(n)}z^k,a_0^{(n)}=1$$

(18)
$$u_{f,0}=\left(\frac{2\alpha _n}{2nz}\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_k^{(n)}z^k,b_0^{(n)}=1$$

###### Remark 2.3.

For $`\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{II}}`$, Equation (15) leads to

$$f_0g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}z^2}u+\left(2f_1g_1+f_0g_2\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}u+f_2u=2f_0^3u^3+xf_0u+\alpha _1,$$

where we are using the notation above, i.e. $`f_m=\frac{d^mf}{dx^m}`$ and $`g_m=\frac{d^mg}{dx^m}`$. A maximal dominant balance is given by

$`f_0g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=f_0^3=xf_0`$
$``$ $`f_0=x^{1/2},g_1=x^{1/2}.`$
The result:

(19)
$$V(x)=x^{1/2}u(z),z=2x^{3/2}/3$$

leads to

(20)
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}z^2}u=2u^3+u+\frac{1}{z}\left(\frac{2}{3}\alpha _1\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}u\right)+\frac{u}{9z^2}$$

The new variables $`u`$, $`z`$ in (19) were first given by Boutroux .

###### Proof.

Let us first prove the following formula:

(21)
$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^p}{\mathrm{d}x^p}V(x)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{p}{}}\stackrel{~}{a}_{p,l}z^{l+1\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z),$$

for some constants $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{p,l}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{p,p}=\left(\frac{2n+1}{2n}\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2n+1}}`$.

First let us show by induction that

(22)
$$V_p=\underset{l=0}{\overset{p}{}}𝒰_{p,l}(g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_p)\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)$$

where for $`l=1,\mathrm{},p`$,

$$𝒰_{p,l}(g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_p)=\underset{\stackrel{n_1+2n_2+\mathrm{}+pn_p=p+1}{n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_p=l+1}}{𝚺}c_{n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_p}^{k,l}g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}\mathrm{}g_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_p},$$

for some constant coefficients $`c_{n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_p}^{k,l}`$, and

$$𝒰_{p,0}=f_p=g_{p+1},𝒰_{p,p}=f_0(g_1)^p=(g_1)^{p+1}.$$

The formula (22) is obvious for $`p=0`$, with $`𝒰_{0,0}=f_0=g_1`$. Suppose (22) is valid for some $`p1`$ let us prove it for $`p+1`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}V_{p+1}=\hfill & \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}V_p=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}_{l=0}^p𝒰_{p,l}(g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_p)\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)=\hfill \\ & =_{l=0}^p\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\left(𝒰_{p,l}\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)+𝒰_{p,l}g_1\frac{\mathrm{d}^{l+1}}{\mathrm{d}z^{l+1}}u(z)\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

so that we obtain (22) for $`p+1`$ with

$$𝒰_{p+1,l}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}𝒰_{p,l}+g_1𝒰_{p,l1},\text{for}l=1,\mathrm{},p$$

and

$$𝒰_{p+1,0}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}𝒰_{p,0},𝒰_{p+1,p+1}=g_1𝒰_{p,p}$$

Let us express the polynomials $`𝒰_{p,l}`$ as functions of $`z`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_1}\mathrm{}g_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{n_p}\hfill & x^{_{s=1}^p\left(\frac{2n+1}{2n}s\right)n_s}x^{\frac{2n+1}{2n}(n_1+\mathrm{}+n_p)(n1+2n_2+\mathrm{}+pn_p)}\hfill \\ & z^{(l+1)\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)}\hfill \end{array}$$

so that we obtain formula (21), for $`l=1,\mathrm{},p1`$ and

$$𝒰_{p,0}z^{1\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)},𝒰_{p,p}=\left(\frac{2n+1}{2n}z\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2n+1}}.$$

This shows formula (21).

Of course formula (21) gives

$$V_{2n}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{a}_{2n,l}z^{l+12n}\frac{\mathrm{d}^lu}{\mathrm{d}z^l}=\frac{2n+1}{2n}z\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2n}u}{\mathrm{d}z^{2n}}+\underset{l=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}\stackrel{~}{a}_{2n,l}z^{l+12n}\frac{\mathrm{d}^lu}{\mathrm{d}z^l}.$$

Let us now compute the polynomial $`P_{2n1}`$ as a function of $`z`$, $`u`$ and its derivatives. Recall formlula (13):

$$P_{2n1}=\underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n+1}{k_02n1}}{𝚺}b_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}.$$

By (21), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}V_p^{k_p}=\hfill & _{s_0^p+\mathrm{}+s_p^p=k_p}_{l=0}^p\widehat{a}_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_p^p}\left(z^{(l+1)\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p}=\hfill \\ & =z^{k_p\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)k_p}_{s_0^p+\mathrm{}+s_p^p=k_p}\widehat{a}_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_p^p}_{l=0}^p\left(z^l\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p}=\hfill \\ & =z^{k_p\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)k_p}_{s_0^p+\mathrm{}+s_p^p=k_p}z^{_{l=0}^pls_l^p}\widehat{a}_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_p^p}_{l=0}^p\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p}.\hfill \end{array}$$

However, for $`p0`$, $`_{l=0}^pls_l^p<p_{l=0}^ps_l^p=pk_p`$, for $`p1`$ and $`_{l=0}^1ls_l^1k_1`$, we have that

$$V_p^{k_p}=z^{k_p\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)k_p}\underset{s_0^p+\mathrm{}+s_p^p=k_p}{}h_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_p^p}(z)\underset{l=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p}$$

where $`h_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_p^p}(z)`$ are polynomials in $`z`$ of degree $`<pk_p`$ for $`p1`$ and of degree $`k_1`$ for $`p=1`$. Now to compute $`P_{2n1}`$ as a function of $`z`$ let us first observe that

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}z^{k_p\frac{2n}{2n+1}(p+1)k_p}=z^{k_0+\mathrm{}+k_{2n2}2n}.$$

Thus $`V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}z^{2n(k_0+\mathrm{}+k_{2n2})}`$ has the form

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}\underset{s_0^p+\mathrm{}+s_p^p=k_p}{}h_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_p^p}(z)\underset{l=0}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p},$$

where the $`l`$-th derivative of $`u`$, $`\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)`$, appears for every $`p`$ as $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p}`$. Assuming that $`s_l^p=0`$ for all $`l>p`$ we can write

$$\underset{p=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}\underset{s_0^p+\mathrm{}+s_{2n2}^p=k_p}{}h_{s_0^p,\mathrm{},s_{2n2}^p}(z)\underset{l=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{s_l^p},$$

Let us collect together all the derivatives of $`u`$ of the same order, we obtain that the $`l`$-th derivative of $`u`$ appears with the power $`m_l=_{p=0}^{2n2}s_l^p`$. Thus $`_{l=0}^{2n2}m_l=_{l=0}^{2n2}_{p=0}^{2n2}s_l^p=_{p=0}^{2n2}k_p`$. Now the sum $`_{p=0}^{2n2}k_p`$ is maximal for $`k_0=2n1`$, $`k_1=1`$ and $`k_p=0`$ for all $`p0,1`$ because $`_{p=0}^{2n2}(p+1)k_p=2n+1`$ and $`k_02n1`$. As a consequence we have $`0m_l_{p=0}^{2n2}k_p2n`$. We then obtain

$$V_0^{k_0}V_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}V_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}z^{2n_0^{2n2}k_p}=\underset{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{h}_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)\underset{l=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{m_l}$$

for some polynomials $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)`$ of degree $`<_{p=0}^{2n2}pk_p`$. In fact $`V_1^{k_1}`$ contributes with a polynomial of degree $`k_1`$ and for $`p1`$ each $`V_p^{k_p}`$ contributes with a polynomial of degree $`<pk_p`$. Since $`_{p=0}^{2n2}(p+1)k_p=2n+1`$, for $`k_10`$ ($`2k_1`$ is even) at least some other $`k_p`$ must be non-zero giving total degree $`<_{p=0}^{2n2}pk_p`$. Since $`a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z):=z^{k_0+\mathrm{}+k_{2n2}}\stackrel{~}{h}_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)`$ are polynomials of degree $`<_{p=0}^{2n2}(p+1)k_p=2n+1`$, we obtain

$$P_{2n1}=z^{2n}\underset{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}{\overset{2n}{}}a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)\underset{l=0}{\overset{2n2}{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{m_l},$$

where $`a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}`$ have the desired properties. This concludes the proof of (16).

From (16) it is straightforward to compute the leading terms of (17) and (18) for the solutions $`u(z)`$ in the case when $`d^lu/dz^lu`$, for $`|z|1`$. Moreover, rewriting the equation as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2n}{2n+1}u(z)+\hfill & \beta _nu^{2n+1}+\frac{2n}{2n+1}\frac{\alpha }{z}=\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2n}}{\mathrm{d}z^{2n}}u_{l=0}^{2n1}a_{2n,l}z^{l2n}\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)+\hfill \\ & +z^{2n1}_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}^{2n1}a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)_{l=0}^{2n2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}^l}{\mathrm{d}z^l}u(z)\right)^{m_l},\hfill \end{array}$$

and iterating on partial sums of (17) or (18), we are led to formal solutions of the desired form. ∎

We now use Wasow’s Theorem 12.1 of  to show the existence of true solutions on proper sub–sectors of angular width $`<\pi `$. We can write our equation in vector form

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}Y=F(Y,z)$$

where $`Y`$ is a column vector of $`2n`$ components $`y_j=\frac{\mathrm{d}^{j1}}{\mathrm{d}z^{j1}}u(z)`$ and $`F(Y,z)`$ is the vector function of $`2n`$ components $`f_j`$ given by $`f_j=y_{j+1}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},2n1`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}f_{2n}=\hfill & _{l=0}^{2n1}a_{2n,l}z^{l2n}y_{l+1}+y_1+\beta _ny_1^{2n+1}+\frac{\alpha }{z}+\hfill \\ & +z^{2n1}\underset{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}{\overset{2n}{𝚺}}a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)_{l=0}^{2n2}y_{l+1}^{m_l}\hfill \end{array}$$

Such a function is analytic in $`z`$ for $`|z|>z_0`$, for some value $`z_0`$. Let us compute the Jacobian at the point $`Y=0`$. Obviously, for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},2n1`$ we have $`\frac{f_j}{y_i}=0`$ for all $`ij+1`$ and $`\frac{f_j}{y_{j+1}}=1`$. Now let us deal with $`\frac{f_{2n}}{y_i}`$. Observe that the term $`z^{2n1}\underset{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}=0}{\overset{2n}{𝚺}}a_{m_0,\mathrm{},m_{2n2}}(z)_{l=0}^{2n2}y_{l+1}^{m_l}`$ has at least quadratic term in $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{2n}`$ because $`_{l=0}^{2n2}m_l=_{p=0}^{2n2}k_p2`$, thus its contribution to the Jacobian at the point $`Y=0`$ is $`0`$. We obtain then $`\frac{f_{2n}}{y_1}=1`$ and $`\frac{f_{2n}}{y_i}=0`$ for $`i>1`$.

This shows that all hypotheses of Theorem 12.1 in  are fulfilled and thus the existence of true solutions on proper sub–sectors of angular width $`<\pi `$ is proved.

This concludes the prood of the first and second statements of our Theorem 1.1. To prove the third statement we need the following

###### Theorem 2.4.

Consider the linear system

(23)
$$\epsilon ^h\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}Y=A(z,\epsilon )Y,$$

where $`Y`$ is a column vector of $`m`$ components, $`z`$, $`h`$ is a positive integer and $`A(z,\epsilon )`$ is a $`m\times m`$ matrix function admitting asymptotic expansion of the form

(24)
$$A(z,\epsilon )\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_r(z)\epsilon ^r,\epsilon 0,$$

that is uniformly valid for $`\epsilon \mathrm{\Sigma }\{\epsilon |0<\epsilon \epsilon _0\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ being some sector of the $`\epsilon `$-plane, with coefficients $`A_r(z)`$ holomorphic in a ball, $`zB(z_0,a)`$. Denote the eigenvalues of $`A_0(z)`$ by $`\mu _1(z),\mathrm{},\mu _m(z)`$. If $`\mu _1(z_0),\mathrm{},\mu _n(z_0)`$ are pairwise distinct, then the system (23) admits a fundamental solution $`Y(z)`$ of the form

(25)
$$Y(z)=\widehat{Y}(z,\epsilon )\mathrm{exp}(Q(z,\epsilon )),$$

where $`\widehat{Y}(z,\epsilon )`$ admits asymptotic expansion of the form

(26)
$$\widehat{Y}(z,\epsilon )\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{Y}_r(z)\epsilon ^r,\epsilon 0,$$

that is uniformly valid for $`\epsilon \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\{\epsilon |0<\epsilon \widehat{\epsilon }_0\}`$, $`\widehat{\epsilon }_0<\epsilon `$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ being a small enough sub-sector of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ centered around any arbitrary ray $`\mathrm{arg}(\epsilon )=\alpha `$, for any $`\alpha `$ that is not an odd multiple of $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$, with coefficients $`\widehat{Y}_r(z)`$ holomorphic in $`zB(z_0,\widehat{a})B(z_0,a)`$, $`\widehat{a}>a`$, and with $`det\widehat{Y}_0(z)0`$. The matrix $`Q(z,\epsilon )`$ is diagonal of the form

(27)
$$Q(z,\epsilon )=\underset{1}{\overset{h}{}}\widehat{Q}_r(z)\epsilon ^r,$$

where $`Q_h(z)=\mathrm{diag}(_{\mathrm{z}_0}^\mathrm{z}\mu _1(\mathrm{t})\mathrm{dt},\mathrm{},_{\mathrm{z}_0}^\mathrm{z}\mu _\mathrm{m}(\mathrm{t})\mathrm{dt})`$.

###### Proof.

It can be found in .

Let us consider two adjacent sectors $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_n`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_n`$ and two solutions, $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{V}(x)`$ of (12) having the same asymptotic behaviour (8) or (9) in the given sectors $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_n`$ and $`\widehat{𝒮}_n`$ respectively. For every fixed $`j=0,\mathrm{},2n`$, we take, in the case of asymptotic behavior (8), the sectors

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_n& =& \left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,\frac{(2j1)\pi }{2n+1}+ϵ<|\mathrm{arg}(x)|<\frac{(2j+1)\pi }{2n+1}+ϵ\},\\ \widehat{𝒮}_n& =& \left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,\frac{(2j+1)\pi }{2n+1}ϵ<|\mathrm{arg}(x)|<\frac{(2j+3)\pi }{2n+1}ϵ\},\end{array}$$

and in the case of asymptotic behavior (9) we take the sectors

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_n=\left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,\pi +\frac{(2j1)\pi }{2n+1}+ϵ<|\mathrm{arg}(x)|<\pi +\frac{(2j+1)\pi }{2n+1}+ϵ\},\\ \widehat{𝒮}_n=\left\{x\right||x|>|x_0|,\pi +\frac{(2j+1)\pi }{2n+1}ϵ<|\mathrm{arg}(x)|<\pi +\frac{(2j+3)\pi }{2n+1}ϵ\},\end{array}$$

for $`ϵ>0`$ small enough. In both cases these sectors intersect in a small sector $`𝒮_ϵ`$ of opening $`<2ϵ`$ containing in the first case the line

$$\mathrm{arg}(x)=\frac{2j+1}{2n+1}\pi ,$$

and, in the second case, the line

$$\mathrm{arg}(x)=\pi +\frac{2j+1}{2n+1}\pi .$$

We want to show that in this small sector $`𝒮_ϵ`$ the two solutions $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{V}(x)`$ coincide. If this is the case, we can then analytically extend $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ to the sector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_n\widehat{𝒮}_n`$, this extension is unique and the third statement of our Theorem 1.1 is proved.

Suppose by contradiction that the two solutions, $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{V}(x)`$ of (12) having the same asymptotic behaviour (8) or (9) differ in the given sector $`𝒮_ϵ`$. Then their difference $`W(x):=\stackrel{~}{V}(x)\widehat{V}(x)`$ and all its derivatives vanish asymptotically as $`x\mathrm{}`$ in $`𝒮_ϵ`$. Suppose that $`W(x)0`$ for some value $`x`$.

Let us consider the differential equation satisfied by $`W(x)`$

(28)
$$W_{2n}=P_{2n1}(\stackrel{~}{V}_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{V}_{2n2})P_{2n1}(\widehat{V}_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{V}_{2n2})+xW_0+\beta _n(\stackrel{~}{V}_0^{2n+1}\widehat{V}_0^{2n+1}),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_m=\frac{d^m\stackrel{~}{V}}{dx^m}`$, $`\widehat{V}_m=\frac{d^m\widehat{V}}{dx^m}`$ and $`W_m=\frac{d^mW}{dx^m}`$ as above. Now

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_0^{2n+1}\widehat{V}_0^{2n+1}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_0^{2nk}\widehat{V}_0^kW_0$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}P_{2n1}(\stackrel{~}{V}_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{V}_{2n2})P_{2n1}(\widehat{V}_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{V}_{2n2})=\hfill \\ \underset{\stackrel{𝐤=2n+1}{k_02n2}}{𝚺}b_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{V}_0^{k_0}\stackrel{~}{V}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{2n2}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_{2n2}}\widehat{V}_0^{k_0}\widehat{V}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{V}_{2n2}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_{2n2}}\right)\hfill \\ =Q_{2n1}W_0+Q_{2n2}W_1+\mathrm{}Q_1W_{2n2}\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$Q_{2np1}=\stackrel{~}{b}_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}^{(p)}\widehat{V}_0^{k_0}\widehat{V}_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{V}_{p1}^{k_{p1}}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{k_p1}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_p^{k_p1l}\widehat{V}_p^l\right)\stackrel{~}{V}_{p+1}^{k_{p+1}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}},$$

for some constants $`\stackrel{~}{b}_{k_0,\mathrm{},k_{2n2}}^{(p)}`$. So we have

(29)
$$W_{2n}=Q_{2n1}W_0+Q_{2n2}W_1+\mathrm{}+Q_1W_{2n2}+xW_0+\beta _n\underset{k=0}{\overset{2n}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_0^{2nk}\widehat{V}_0^kW_0.$$

We want to study the asymptotic behaviour of the non-zero solutions $`W(x)`$ of this linear differential equation as $`x\mathrm{}`$ in the sector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$.

We first deal with the case (8). Let us perform a variable rescaling $`\epsilon ^{2n}x=z`$, such that $`zB(z_0,a)`$ for some $`a>0`$ and $`\epsilon 0`$, in the sector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. From (8) we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{V}\left(\frac{z}{\epsilon ^{2n}}\right),\widehat{V}\left(\frac{z}{\epsilon ^{2n}}\right)\epsilon ^1a_0z^{\frac{1}{2n}}+𝒪(\epsilon ^{2n})$$

so that the polynomials $`Q_{2np1}`$ are all rescaled as $`Q_{2np1}\epsilon ^{2n+2}q_{2np1}`$, for some polynomials $`q_{2np1}(z)`$. In fact $`V_p^{k_p}ϵ^{k_p(2np1)}\frac{\mathrm{d}^pv}{\mathrm{d}z^p}`$ and since

$$\begin{array}{c}k_0(1)+k_1(2n1)+\mathrm{}+k_{p1}(2n(p1)1)+(k_p1)(2np1)+\hfill \\ +k_{p+1}(2n(p+1)1)+\mathrm{}+k_{2n2}(2n(2n2)1)=\hfill \\ =_{l=0}^{2n2}k_l(2nl1)(2np1)=2n\left(_{l=0}^{2n2}k_llp\right)_{l=0}^{2n2}k_l+1\hfill \\ 2n\left(_{l=0}^{2n2}k_llp\right)2n+22n2,\hfill \end{array}$$

because $`_{l=0}^{2n2}k_ll_{l=0}^{2n2}k_l+1`$, we have

$$\widehat{V}_0^{k_0}\widehat{V}_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{V}_{p1}^{k_{p1}}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{k_p1}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_p^{k_p1l}\widehat{V}_p^l\right)\stackrel{~}{V}_{p+1}^{k_{p+1}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{2n2}^{k_{2n2}}=𝒪\left(\epsilon ^{2(n+1)}\right).$$

Analogously the polynomial $`_{k=0}^{2n}\stackrel{~}{V}^{2nk}\widehat{V}^k`$ can be expanded as $`(2n+1)\frac{a_0^{2n}}{\epsilon ^{2n}}z+𝒪(\epsilon )`$. The differential equation then becomes:

(30)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon ^{4n^2}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2n}}{\mathrm{d}z^{2n}}W=\hfill & \epsilon ^{2n+2}_{k=0}^{2n2}q_{2nk1}(z)\frac{\mathrm{d}^k}{\mathrm{d}z^k}W+\hfill \\ & +\frac{z}{\epsilon ^{2n}}W\frac{2n}{\epsilon ^{2n}}zW+𝒪(\epsilon )W.\hfill \end{array}$$

Such equation can be put into system form by

$$Y_1=W(z),Y_{k+1}=\epsilon ^{2n+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}Y_k,k=1,\mathrm{},2n1.$$

In this way we obtain a system of the form (23) with $`h=2n+1`$ and leading matrix

(31)
$$A_0(z)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\\ f(z)& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$

with $`f(z):=(12n)z`$. The eigenvalues of $`A_0`$ are $`\mu _k(z)=(2n1)^{\frac{1}{2n}}z^{\frac{1}{2n}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{k\pi i}{n})`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},2n`$. Applying Theorem 2.4, we conclude that there exists a fundamental solution $`Y(z)`$ of our system of the form (23) with asymptotic behaviour

$$Y(z)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{Y}_r(z)\epsilon ^r\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon ^h}\mathrm{diag}(\nu _1(z),\mathrm{},\nu _{2n}(z))+𝒪(\epsilon ^{1h})\right)$$

where $`\nu _k(z)=\frac{2n(2n1)^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{1+2n}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\pi k}{n})z^{\frac{1+2n}{2n}}`$ and $`\mathrm{det}(\widehat{Y}_0(z))0`$. Such a fundamental solution $`Y(z)`$ exists for every sub-sector of $`𝒮_ϵ`$ centered around the line (10). In fact such lines are never odd multiples of $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. This shows that in any sub-sector of $`𝒮_ϵ`$ centered around the line (10) each solution $`W(x)`$ of (28) has asymptotic behaviour with leading term

$$W(x)W_0\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2n(2n1)^{\frac{1}{2n}}}{1+2n}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\pi k}{n})x^{\frac{1+2n}{2n}}\right),k=1,\mathrm{},2n)$$

where $`W_0`$ is a nonsingular constant matrix. This leads to a contradiction because the asymptotic behaviour of each solution $`W(x)`$ of (28) or of at least one of its derivatives is oscillatory along those lines, and does not vanish asymptotically as assumed at the beginning.

We now deal with the case (9). Let us perform a variable rescaling $`\tau x=z`$, such that $`zB(z_0,a)`$ and $`\tau 0`$, in the sector $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\widehat{V}`$ are accordingly rescaled to $`\tau \stackrel{~}{v}`$ and $`\tau \widehat{v}`$ respectively. As a consequence

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q_{2np1}W_p\hfill & \tau ^{k_0+\mathrm{}+pk_{p1}+(p+1)(k_p1)+(p+2)k_{p+1}+\mathrm{}+(2n1)k_{2n2}}\tau ^{p+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}^pW}{\mathrm{d}z^p}=\hfill \\ & =\tau ^{𝐤(p+1)}\tau ^{p+1}\frac{\mathrm{d}^pW}{\mathrm{d}}z^p=\tau ^{2n+1}q_{2np1}\frac{\mathrm{d}^pW}{\mathrm{d}z^p}\hfill \end{array}$$

for some polynomial $`q_{2np1}`$. The differential equation then becomes:

(32)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\tau ^{2n}\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2n}}{\mathrm{d}z^{2n}}W=\hfill & Q_{2n}W+\tau Q_{2n1}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}W+\mathrm{}+\tau ^{2n1}Q_1\frac{\mathrm{d}^{2n1}}{\mathrm{d}z^{2n1}}W+\hfill \\ & +\frac{z}{\tau }W+\beta _n\tau ^{2n}(\stackrel{~}{v}^{2n}+\mathrm{}+\widehat{v}^{2n})W.\hfill \end{array}$$

By the rescaling

$$Y_1(z):=W(z),Y_{k+1}:=\epsilon ^h\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z}Y_k(z),k=1,\mathrm{},2n1,$$

where $`\epsilon =\tau ^{\frac{1}{2n}}`$ and $`h=2n+1`$ we obtain again a system of the form (23) with leading matrix $`A_0(z)`$ of the same form (31) with $`f(z)=z`$. The eigenvalues of $`A_0(z)`$ are $`\mu _k(z)=z^{\frac{1}{2n}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ik\pi }{n}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{2n}\right)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},2n`$. Applying Theorem 2.4, we conclude that there exists a fundamental solution $`Y(z)`$ of our system of the form (23) with asymptotic behaviour

$$Y(z)\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{Y}_r(z)\epsilon ^r\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon ^h}\mathrm{diag}(\nu _1(z),\mathrm{},\nu _{2n}(z))\right)$$

where $`\nu _k(z)=\frac{2n}{1+2n}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{2n}\right)\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i\pi k}{n})z^{\frac{1+2n}{2n}}`$ and $`\mathrm{det}(\widehat{Y}_0(z))0`$. Such solution $`Y(z)`$ exists for every sub-sector of $`𝒮_ϵ`$ centered around the line (11). In fact such lines are never odd multiples of $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$. This shows that in any sub-sector of $`𝒮_ϵ`$ centered around the line (11) each solution $`W(x)`$ of (28) has asymptotic behaviour with leading term

$$W(x)W_0\mathrm{diag}\left(\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2n}{1+2n}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi }{2n}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi k}{n}\right)x^{\frac{1+2n}{2n}}\right)k=1,\mathrm{},2n\right)$$

where $`W_0`$ is a non-singular constant matrix. This leads to a contradiction because the asymptotic behaviour of each solution $`W(x)`$ of (28) or of at least one of its derivatives is oscillatory along those lines, and not vanishing asymptotically as assumed at the beginning.