text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , we showed how supersymmetric (SUSY) inflation can be realized in five dimensional (5D) models in which the fifth dimension is compactified on the orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. Orbifold symmetry breaking in higher dimensional grand unified theories (GUTs) have recently attracted a great deal of attention because of the apparent ease with which they can circumvent two particularly pressing problems encountered in four dimensional (4D) SUSY GUTs : namely, the doublet-triplet (DT) splitting problem and the problem caused by dimension five nucleon decay. The apparent reluctance of the proton decay, as shown by the recent lower limits on its lifetime , seems to be in broad disagreement with the predicted rates from dimension five processes in minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$ and $`SO(10)`$ models. The existence of the orbifold dimension makes it possible to implement DT splitting and simultaneously suppress (or even eliminate) dimension five proton decay.

The inflationary scenario described in Ref.  was inspired by the above particle physics considerations and has some novel features. The primordial density (temperature) fluctuations are proportional to $`(M/M_{\mathrm{Planck}})^2`$, along the lines of the 4D model proposed in Ref. . Here $`M`$ refers to the scale of some symmetry breaking that is associated with inflation, and $`M_{\mathrm{Planck}}=1.2\times 10^{19}`$ GeV denotes the Planck scale. In an $`SO(10)`$ model, for example, the orbifold breaking can be used to yield the subgroup $`H=SU(4)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ , so that inflation is associated with the breaking of $`H`$ to the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) gauge group . The anisotropy measurements  can provide a determination of $`M`$ independently of any particle physics considerations. $`M`$ turns out to be quite close (or equal) to the SUSY GUT scale of around $`10^{16}`$ GeV. Last but not least, the scalar spectral index of density fluctuations is very close to unity ($`n=0.980.99`$. The gravitational wave contribution to the quadrupole anisotropy is found to be essentially negligible. In an $`SO(10)`$ model with the subgroup $`H`$ given above, the inflaton decays into the MSSM singlet (right-handed) neutrinos, whose out of equilibrium decay leads to the observed baryon asymmetry via leptogenesis . As we will see, this is also the case even with a different subgroup $`H`$ of $`SO(10)`$. Baryogenesis via leptogenesis appears to be a rather generic feature of 5D $`SO(10)`$ based inflationary models considered here.

Although our considerations are quite general, in this paper we focus on an example based on $`SO(10)`$ with subgroup $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ obtained from $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifolding. The standard $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$ is preserved on one brane, while “flipped” $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ is on the other brane. All massless modes from the chiral component of the 5D vector multiplet can be easily superheavy by introducing Higgs fields in the bulk. Inflation is associated with the breaking of $`U(1)_X`$, followed by its decay into right-handed neutrinos, which subsequently generate a primordial lepton asymmetry. The gravitino constraint on the reheat temperature  imposes important constraints on the masses of the right-handed neutrinos which can be folded together with the information now available from the oscillation experiments .

As emphasized in Ref. , implementation in five dimensions of the inflationary scenario considered in Ref.  requires some care. Note that the five dimensional setup is the appropriate one because of the proximity of the scale of inflation and the comapactification scale (both are of order $`M_{GUT}`$). The inflaton potential must be localized on the orbifold fixed points (branes), since a superpotential in the bulk is not allowed. For a vanishing bulk cosmological constant, a three space inflationary solution triggered by non-zero brane tensions (or vacuum energies) exists . However, 5D Einstein equations often require that the signs of the brane tensions on the two branes are opposite, which is undesirable. As shown in Ref. , this problem can be circumvented by introducing a brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert term in the action. The two brane tensions are both positive during inflation, and they vanish when it ends.

The plan of our paper is as follows. In section 2, we review cosmology in a five dimensional setting, and discuss in particular the transition from an inflationary to the radiation dominated epoch. In section 3, we discuss the orbifold breaking of $`SO(10)`$ to $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$. Section 4 summarizes the salient features of the inflationary scenario and subsequent leptogenesis. Our conclusions are summarized in section 5.

## 2 5D Cosmology

We consider 5D space-time $`x^M=(x^\mu ,y)`$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$, compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold, and the supergravity (SUGRA) action is typically given by

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x_{y_c}^{y_c}𝑑ye\left[\frac{M_5^3}{2}R_5+_B+\underset{i=I,II}{}\frac{\delta (yy_i)}{e_5^5}\left(\frac{M_i^2}{2}\overline{R}_4+_i\right)\right]},`$ (1)
where $`R_5`$ ($`\overline{R}_4`$) stands for the 5 dimensional (4 dimensional) Einstein-Hilbert term, $`_B`$ ($`_I`$, $`_{II}`$) denotes some unspecified bulk (brane) contributions to the full Lagrangian, and $`y_I=0`$, $`y_{II}=y_c`$ indicate the brane positions. The brane scalar curvature term $`\overline{R}_4(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu })`$ is defined through the induced metric, $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }(x)g_{\mu \nu }(x,y=0)`$ ($`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$). The brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert terms333 The importance of the brane-localized 4D Einstein-Hilbert term, especially for generating 4D gravity in a higher dimensional non-compact flat space was first noted in Ref. .  in Eq. (1) are allowed also in SUGRA, but should, of course, be accompanied by brane gravitino kinetic terms as well as other terms, as spelled out in the off-shell SUGRA formalism . Here we assume that the bulk cosmological constant is zero.

For the cosmological solution let us take the following metric ansatz,

$`ds^2=\beta ^2(t,y)\left(dt^2+a^2(t)d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)+dy^2,`$ (2)
which shows that the three dimensional space is homogeneous and isotropic. The non-vanishing components of the 5D Einstein tensor derived from Eq. (1) are

$`G_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\right]`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=I,II}{}}\delta (yy_i){\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2}{M_5^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\right],`$
$`G_i^i`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\right]`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=I,II}{}}\delta (yy_i){\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2}{M_5^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\right],`$
$`G_5^5`$ $`=`$ $`6\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2\right],`$ (5)
$`G_{05}`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^{}\right],`$ (6)
where primes and dots respectively denote derivatives with respect to $`y`$ and $`t`$, and the terms accompanied by delta functions arise from the brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert terms.

Let us first discuss inflation under this setup. Since 5D $`N=1`$ SUSY does not allow a superpotential (and the corresponding $`F`$-term scalar potential) in the bulk, we introduce the inflaton scalar potentials $`V_{I,II}(\varphi )`$ ($`0`$) on the two branes where only 4D $`N=1`$ SUSY is preserved . The energy-momentum tensor during inflation is given by

$`T_0^0=T_i^i`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{V_I}{M_5^3}}\delta (yy_c){\displaystyle \frac{V_{II}}{M_5^3}},`$ (7)
$`T_5^5`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
where $`i=1,2,3`$, and $`V_I`$, $`V_{II}`$ are the scalar potentials on the branes at $`y=0`$ (B1) and $`y=y_c`$ (B2), respectively. They should be suitably chosen to provide a large enough number of e-foldings to resolve the horizon and flatness problems. The end of inflation is marked by the breaking of the “slow roll” conditions, and the inflaton rolls quickly to the true suepersymmetric vacuum with flat 4D space-time. Thus, for the inflationary epoch it is sufficient to consider only scalar potentials in the energy-momentum tensor. We will discuss more general cases later.

The exact inflationary solution is

$`\beta (y)=H_0|y|+c,`$ (9)
$`a(t)=e^{H_0t},`$ (10)
where $`H_0`$ ($`>0`$) is the Hubble constant during inflation. The integration constant $`c`$ in Eq. (9) can be normalized to unity without loss of generality. The introduction of the brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert terms do not affect the bulk solutions, Eqs. (9) and (10), but they modify the boundary conditions. The solution $`\beta (y)`$ should satisfy the following boundary conditions at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_c`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_I}{6M_5^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_I^2}{M_5^3}}H_0^2,`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{II}}{6M_5^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{1+H_0y_c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{II}^2}{M_5^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0^2}{(1+H_0y_c)^2}}.`$ (12)
Thus, $`H_0`$ and $`y_c`$ are determined by $`V_I`$ and $`V_{II}`$. Note that the brane cosmological constants (scalar potentials) $`V_I`$ and $`V_{II}`$ are related to the Hubble constant $`H_0`$. While the non-zero brane cosmological constants are responsible for inflating the 3-space, their subsequent vanishing restores SUSY and guarantees the flat 4D space-time. Since $`V_{II}`$ must be zero when $`V_I=0`$, it is natural that the scalar field controlling the end of inflation is introduced in the bulk. With SUSY broken at low energies, the minima of the inflaton potentials on both branes should be fine-tuned to zero .

From Eqs. (11) and (12) we note that in the absence of the brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert term at $`y=0`$, the inflaton potentials (brane cosmological constants) $`V_I`$ and $`V_{II}`$ should have opposite signs. However, a suitably large value of $`M_I/M_5`$  can flip the sign of $`V_I`$ , so that both $`V_I`$ and $`V_{II}`$ are positive. Thus, a brane-localized Einstein-Hilbert term at $`y=0`$ seems essential for successful $`F`$-term inflation in the 5D SUSY framework. Its introduction does not conflict with any symmetry, and in Ref.  a simple model for realizing a large ratio $`M_I/M_5`$ was proposed.

The 4D reduced Planck mass ($`(M_{\mathrm{Planck}}/8\pi )^{1/2}`$) is given by

$`M_P^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_5^3{\displaystyle _{y_c}^{y_c}}𝑑y\beta ^2+M_I^2+M_{II}^2`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`M_5^3y_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H_0^2y_c^2+2H_0y_c+2\right)+M_I^2+M_{II}^2,`$
while the 4D effective cosmological constant is calculated to be

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{y_c}^{y_c}}𝑑y\beta ^4\left[M_5^3\left(4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)+6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2\right)+\delta (y)V_I+\delta (yy_c)V_{II}\right]`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`3H_0^2\left[M_5^3y_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}H_0^2y_c^2+2H_0y_c+2\right)+M_I^2+M_{II}^2\right]`$
$`=`$ $`3H_0^2M_P^2,`$
which vanishes when $`V_I=V_{II}=0`$.

After inflation, the inflaton decays into brane and (subsequently) bulk fields, which reheat the whole 5 dimensional universe. To quantify the inflaton and radiation (or matter) dominated epochs, we use the fluid approximation,

$`T_N^M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\rho & 0& 0& 0& T_5^0\\ 0& p& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& p& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& p& 0\\ & & & & \\ T_0^5& 0& 0& 0& P_5\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
where $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are contributed by bulk and brane matter,

$`\rho `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_c}}\rho _B+{\displaystyle \underset{i=I,II}{}}\delta (yy_i)\rho _i,`$ (21)
$`p`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_c}}p_B+2y_c{\displaystyle \underset{i=I,II}{}}\delta (yy_i)p_i.`$ (22)
Note that in Eq. (20) the non-zero off-diagonal components, $`T_5^0`$ ($`=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}T_{05}`$) and $`T_0^5`$ ($`=T_{05}`$) are considered. In Eqs. (21) and (22), we normalize $`\rho _B`$ and $`p_B`$ with the circumference of the extra dimension, so their components have the same mass dimension as their brane counterparts. With Eqs. (3)–(6) and (20), the 5D “Friedmann-like” equations are readily written,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_cM_5^3}}\rho _B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}H+\left(H^2h^2\right)\right],`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^3}}\rho _I`$ $`=`$ $`\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{M_I^2}{M_5^3}}H^26h\right],`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^3}}\rho _{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_{II}^2}{M_5^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}H+H^2\right)+6{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\beta }}\right]_{y=y_c},`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_cM_5^3}}p_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}H+2\dot{H}+3\left(H^2h^2\right)\right],`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^3}}p_I`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_I^2}{M_5^3}}\left(2\dot{H}+3H^2\right)6h\right],`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_5^3}}p_{II}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_{II}^2}{M_5^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right)^2+4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}H+2\dot{H}+3H^2\right)+6{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\beta }}\right]_{y=y_c},`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_cM_5^3}}P_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\beta ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{\beta }}{\beta }}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}H+\dot{H}+2\left(H^2h^2\right)\right],`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_cM_5^3}}T_{05}`$ $`=`$ $`3\mathrm{sgn}(y)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{h}}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}\right].`$ (30)
Here $`\mathrm{sgn}(y)1(1)`$ for $`y>0(<0)`$, and

$`H(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}},`$ (31)
$`\beta (t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`h(t)|y|+1.`$ (32)
For $`M_I>M_5,M_{II}`$, and $`H>>h`$, the brane matter contribution from B1 is dominant, and Eqs. (23)–(30) reduce to the approximate 4D Friedmann equations,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3M_4^2}}\rho _I,`$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6M_4^2}}\left(\rho _I+3p_I\right).`$ (34)
Eqs. (23)–(30) satisfy the energy-momentum conservation law, $`_MT_N^M=0`$ whose $`N=0`$ and $`N=5`$ components are

$`\dot{\rho }+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}+H\right)(\rho +p)`$ $`=`$ $`T_0^5^{}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}T_0^5`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`2y_cM_5^3\left[G_{05}^{}+4{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}G_{05}\right],`$
$`P_5^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\left(4P_53p+\rho \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{T}_5^0\left(4{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}+3H\right)T_5^0`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`2y_cM_5^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}\left[\dot{G}_{05}+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\beta }}{\beta }}+3H\right)G_{05}\right].`$
The inflaton contributes to the energy momentum tensor, Eq. (20),

$`T_{MN}T_{MN}^{\mathrm{inf}}+T_{MN}^\mathrm{m},`$ (37)
where $`T_{MN}^{\mathrm{inf}}`$ denotes the contributions to the energy momentum tensor from the inflaton $`\varphi (t,y)`$,

$`T_{MN}^{\mathrm{inf}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_c}}_M\varphi _N\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4y_c}}g_{MN}^P\varphi _P\varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=I,II}{}}\delta (yy_i)\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \left[_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\lambda \varphi _\lambda \varphi +V_i(\varphi )\right)\right],`$
and $`T_{MN}^\mathrm{m}`$ is assumed to have the same form as Eq. (20). The conservation law $`^MT_{MN}^{\mathrm{inf}}=0`$ gives rise to the scalar field equation in the presence of both the brane and bulk kinetic terms. If only the inflaton potentials on the branes, $`V_I(\varphi )`$ and $`V_{II}(\varphi )`$ are dominant in Eq. (37), one can check that the solutions reduce to Eqs. (9) and (10), namely, $`H=h=\mathrm{constant}(=H_0)`$. The inflaton decay produces $`T_{MN}^\mathrm{m}`$.

We have tacitly assumed that the interval separating the two branes (orbifold fixed points) remains fixed during inflation. The dynamics of the orbifold fixed points, unlike the D-brane case , is governed only by the $`g_{55}(x,y)`$ component of the metric tensor. The real fields $`e_5^5`$, $`B_5`$, and the chiral fermion $`\psi _{5R}^2`$ in 5D gravity multiplet are assigned even parity under $`Z_2`$ , and they compose an $`N=1`$ chiral multiplet on the branes. The associated superfield can acquire a superheavy mass and its scalar component can develop a vacuum expectation value (VEV) on the brane. With superheavy brane-localized mass terms, the low-lying Kaluza-Klein (KK) mass spectrum is shifted so that even the lightest mode obtains a compactification scale mass . Since this mass is much greater than $`H_0`$ the interval distance is stable even during inflation. This stabilization of the interval distance in turn leads to the stabilization of the warp factor $`\beta (y)`$. This is because the fluctuation $`\delta \beta (y)`$ of the warp factor near the solution in Eq. (9) turns out to be proportional to the interval length variation $`\delta g_{55}`$ from the linearized 5D Einstein equation .

So far we have discussed only $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold compactification. The results can be directly extended to $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. Within the framework discussed in this section, we can accommodate any promising 4D SUSY inflationary model. We consider one particular model below which comes from compactifying $`SO(10)`$ on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$.

## 3 $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(\mathrm{𝟑})_𝐜\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(\mathrm{𝟐})_𝐋\times 𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏})_𝐘\times 𝐔(\mathrm{𝟏})_𝐗`$ Model

We consider the $`N=2`$ (in the 4D sense) SUSY $`SO(10)`$ model in 5D space-time, where the 5th dimension is compactified on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. $`Z_2`$ reflects $`yy`$, and $`Z_2^{}`$ reflects $`y^{}y^{}`$, with $`y^{}=y+y_c/2`$. There are two independent orbifold fixed points (branes) at $`y=0`$ and $`y=y_c/2`$. The $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold compactification is exploited to yield $`N=1`$ SUSY as well as break $`SO(10)`$ to some suitable subgroup.

Under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$, the $`SO(10)`$ generators are split into 444The $`SO(2n)`$ generators are represented as $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}A+C& B+S\\ BS& AC\end{array}\right)`$, where $`A`$,$`B`$, $`C`$ are $`n\times n`$ anti-symmetric matrices and $`S`$ is an $`n\times n`$ symmetric matrix . By a unitary transformation, the generators are given by $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}AiS& C+iB\\ CiB& A+iS\end{array}\right)`$, where $`A`$ and $`S`$ denote $`U(n)`$ generators, and $`C\pm iB`$ transform as $`n(n1)/2`$ and $`\overline{n(n1)/2}`$ under $`SU(n)`$.

$`T_{SO(10)}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0+\mathrm{𝟏}_0& \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4\\ & \\ \overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4& \overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}_0\mathrm{𝟏}_0\end{array}\right]_{10\times 10},`$ (41)
where the subscripts labeling the $`SU(5)`$ representations indicate $`U(1)_X`$ charges, and the subscript “$`10\times 10`$” denotes the matrix dimension. Also, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}`$ ($`=\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}`$) corresponds to $`SU(5)`$ generators while $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{5\times 5},\mathrm{𝟏}_{5\times 5})`$ is the $`U(1)_X`$ generator. The $`5\times 5`$ matrices $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4`$ are further decomposed under $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ as

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0& (\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}\\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0\end{array}\right)_0,`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}& (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}\\ (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1\end{array}\right)_4,`$ (47)
Thus, each representation carries two independent $`U(1)`$ charges. Note that the two $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$s in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4`$ are identified.

Consider the two independent $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_2^{}`$ group elements,

$`P`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{diag}.(I_{3\times 3},I_{2\times 2},I_{3\times 3},I_{2\times 2}),`$ (48)
$`P^{}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{diag}.(I_{3\times 3},I_{2\times 2},I_{3\times 3},I_{2\times 2}),`$ (49)
which satisfy $`P^2=P^2=\mathrm{𝟏}_{5\times 5}`$. Under the operations $`PT_{SO(10)}P^1`$ and $`P^{}T_{SO(10)}P^{}_{}{}^{}1`$, the matrix elements of $`T_{SO(10)}`$ transform as

$`\left[\begin{array}{cccc}(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}& (\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}^+& (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{}& (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}^+\\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}^+& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^{++}& (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}^+& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{}\\ & & & \\ (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{}& (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/6}^+& (\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}& (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}^+\\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/6}^+& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{}& (\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}^+& (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^{++}\end{array}\right]_{10\times 10},`$ (54)
where the superscripts of the matrix elements indicate the eigenvalues of the $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ operations. Here we omitted the two $`U(1)`$ generators ($`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_\mathrm{𝟎}^{++}`$s) to avoid too much clutter. As shown in Eqs. (41) and (44), they should appear in the diagonal part of the matrix (54). The eigenvalues of $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ are the imposed parities (or boundary conditions) of fields in the adjoint representations. The wave function of a field with parity $`(+)`$, for instance, must vanish on the brane at $`y=y_c/2`$, and only fields assigned $`(++)`$ parities contain massless modes in their KK spectrum.

An $`N=2`$ gauge multiplet consists of an $`N=1`$ vector multiplet ($`V^a=(A_\mu ^a,\lambda ^{1a})`$) and an $`N=1`$ chiral multiplet ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^a=((\mathrm{\Phi }^a+iA_5^a)/\sqrt{2},\lambda ^{2a})`$). In order to break $`N=2`$ SUSY to $`N=1`$, opposite parities must be assigned to the vector and the chiral multiplets in the same representation. The parities of $`N=1`$ vector multiplets coincide with the parities of the corresponding $`SO(10)`$ generators in Eq. (54). From the assigned eigenvalues in Eq. (54), only the gauge multiplets associated with $`(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^{++}`$, and two $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}`$, which correspond to the $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ generators, contain massless modes. Therefore, at low energy the theory is effectively described by a $`4D`$ $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theory with $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$.

As seen in Eq. (54), all of the gauge multiplets associated with the diagonal components $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0`$ in Eq. (41) survive at B1. Thus, on B1 $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$ is preserved . On the other hand, in Eq. (54), the elements with $`(++)`$ and $`(+)`$ parities can compose a second (distinct) set of $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ gauge multiplets. In the $`SU(5)`$ generator at B1, $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0`$ ($`=(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^{++}+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}+(\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}^++(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}^+`$), the $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}^+`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}^+`$ are replaced by $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}^+`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/6}^+`$ at B2 which belong in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4`$ respectively of $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$,

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0^{}=(\mathrm{𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0^{++}+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0^{++}+(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}^++(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/6}^+\mathrm{at}\mathrm{B2},`$ (55)
where the assigned hypercharges coincide with those given in “flipped” $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ . The $`U(1)_X^{}`$ generator at B2 is defined as

$`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{𝟏}_{3\times 3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{2\times 2},\mathrm{𝟏}_{3\times 3},\mathrm{𝟏}_{2\times 2}).`$ (56)
Thus, the $`U(1)_X^{}`$ charges of the surviving elements at B2 turn out to be zero, while the other components are assigned $`4`$ or $`4`$. The $`U(1)_X^{}`$ generator and the matrix elements with $`(++)`$, $`(+)`$ parities in Eq. (54) can be block-diagonalized to the form in Eq. (41) through the unitary transformation

$`U=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}I_{3\times 3}& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & \\ 0& 0& 0& I_{2\times 2}\\ 0& 0& I_{3\times 3}& 0\\ 0& I_{2\times 2}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)_{10\times 10}.`$ (61)
We conclude that the gauge multiplets surviving at B2 are associated with a second (“flipped”) $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ embedded in $`SO(10)`$ .

With opposite parities assigned to the chiral multiplets, two vector-like pairs $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{++}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{++}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{++}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{++}}`$ contain massless modes. Although the non-vanishing chiral multiplets at B1 are $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4}`$ ($`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{++}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}^+}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{++}}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4}`$ ($`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{++}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/6}^+}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{++}}`$), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}^+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/6}^+}`$ are replaced by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}^+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}^+}`$ at B2 that are contained in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}_0}`$ at B1. Together with the vector-like pairs containing massless modes, they compose $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4^{}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{\mathrm{𝟒}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$-plets of $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4^{}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{++}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{5/6}^+}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{++}},`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4^{}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}^{++}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟐})_{5/6}^+}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1^{++}}\mathrm{at}\mathrm{B2}.`$ (63)
Now let us discuss the $`N=2`$ (bulk) hypermultiplet $`H`$ $`(=(\varphi ,\psi ))`$, $`H^c`$ ($`=(\varphi ^c,\psi ^c)`$) in the vector representations $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^𝐜`$ ($`=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$) of $`SO(10)`$, where $`H`$ and $`H^c`$ are $`N=1`$ chiral multiplets. Under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$ and $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^𝐜`$ are

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟓}_2\\ \\ \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^+\\ (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}^{++}\\ \\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^+\\ (\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})_{1/2}^{}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^𝐜=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟓}_{}^{𝐜}{}_{2}{}^{}\\ \\ \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}^𝐜}_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{𝟑}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^+\\ (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐜)_{1/2}^{}\\ \\ (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^+\\ (\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝐜)_{1/2}^{++}\end{array}\right),`$ (76)
where the subscripts $`\pm 2`$ are $`U(1)_X`$ charges and the remaining subscripts indicate the hypercharges $`Y`$. The superscripts on the matrix elements denote the eigenvalues of the $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ operations. As in the $`N=2`$ vector multiplet, opposite parities must be assigned for $`H`$ and $`H^c`$ to break $`N=2`$ SUSY to $`N=1`$. The massless modes are contained in the two doublets $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}^{++}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐜})_{1/2}^{++}`$ ($`=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}^{++}`$). While the surviving representations at B1, $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^+`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}^{++}`$ (also $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^+`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝐜)_{1/2}^{++}`$) compose two $`\mathrm{𝟓}_2`$ (or $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{}^{𝐜}{}_{2}{}^{}`$) of $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$, at B2 the non-vanishing representations are two $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^{}`$ of $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$,

$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_2^{}=(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^++(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}^{++}\left(\mathrm{or}(\mathrm{𝟑}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}^++(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝐜)_{1/2}^{++}\right)\mathrm{at}\mathrm{B2}.`$ (77)
In this model, the $`SU(2)`$ $`R`$-symmetry which generally exists in $`N=2`$ supersymmetric theories is explicitly broken to $`U(1)_R`$. Since $`N=1`$ SUSY is present on both branes, $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry should be respected. We note that different $`U(1)_R`$ charges can be assigned to $`H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{}^{𝐜}{}_{4}{}^{}}^c`$ as shown in Table I .

| $`U(1)_R`$ |  | $`V`$$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ |  | $`H`$, $`H^c`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1`$ |  |  |  | $`\varphi ^c`$ |
| $`1/2`$ |  | $`\lambda ^1`$ |  | $`\psi ^c`$ |
| $`0`$ | $`A_\mu `$ |  | $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`A_5`$ | $`\varphi `$ |
| $`1/2`$ |  | $`\lambda ^2`$ |  | $`\psi `$ |

Table I. $`U(1)_R`$ charges of the vector and hypermultiplets.

To construct a realistic model, which includes inflation, based on $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$, we introduce a $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ axion symmetry and “matter” parity $`Z_2^m`$ . For simplicity, let us assume that the MSSM matter superfields as well as the right-handed neutrinos are brane fields residing at B1.555If the first two quark and lepton families reside on B2 where $`SU(5)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ is preserved, undesirable mass relations between the down-type quarks and the charged leptons do not arise. Mixings between the first two and the third families can be generated by introducing bulk superheavy hypermultiplets in the spinor representations of $`SO(10)`$ .  They belong in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_i`$ of $`SU(5)`$, where $`i`$ is the family index. Their assigned $`U(1)_X`$, $`U(1)_R`$ and $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ charges and matter parities appear in Table II.

| Fields | $`S`$ | $`N_H`$ | $`\overline{N}_H`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_B^{(^{})}`$ | $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_B^{(^{})}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}_i`$ | $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_i`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`X^{(^{})}`$ | $`0`$ | $`5`$ | $`5`$ | $`4`$ | $`4`$ | $`5`$ | $`3`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`R`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`1/2`$ |
| $`PQ`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`1/2`$ |
| $`Z_2^m`$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ |
| Fields | $`h_1^{(^{})}`$ | $`h_2^{(^{})}`$ | $`\overline{h}_1^{(^{})}`$ | $`\overline{h}_2^{(^{})}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ | $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ | $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1`$ | $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$ |
| $`X^{(^{})}`$ | $`2`$ | $`2`$ | $`2`$ | $`2`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`R`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`PQ`$ | $`1`$ | $`1`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`1`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`1`$ | $`3/2`$ |
| $`Z_2^m`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ |

Table II. $`U(1)_X^{(^{})}`$, $`U(1)_R`$, $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ charges and matter parities of the superfields.

We introduce two pairs of hypermultiplets $`(H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^𝐜}^c)`$ and $`(H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}},H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^𝐜}^c)`$ ($`=(H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^𝐜}^c)`$) in the bulk. The two $`SU(5)`$ Higgs multiplets $`h_1`$ and $`\overline{h}_1`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$) arise from $`H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ and $`H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}}`$, and their $`U(1)_R`$ charges are chosen to be zero. As discussed above, the $`N=2`$ superpartners $`H_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^c`$ and $`H_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}}^c`$ also provide superfields $`h_2`$ and $`\overline{h}_2`$ with $`\mathrm{𝟓}^{(^{})}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{(^{})}`$ representations at B1 (B2). However, their $`U(1)_R`$ charges are unity unlike $`h_1`$ and $`\overline{h}_1`$. To make them superheavy we can introduce another pair of $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ with zero $`U(1)_R`$ charges and ‘$``$’ matter parities on the brane.

The superpotential at B1, neglecting the superheavy particles’ contributions except for the inflatons, is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa S\left(N_H\overline{N}_HM^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _1}{M_P}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2h_1\overline{h}_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _2}{M_P}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_1\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_2`$
$`+y_{ij}^{(d)}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_jh_1+y_{ij}^{(ul)}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_i\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_j\overline{h}_1+y_{ij}^{(n)}\mathrm{𝟏}_i\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_jh_1+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{ij}^{(m)}}{M_P}}\mathrm{𝟏}_i\mathrm{𝟏}_j\overline{N}_H\overline{N}_H,`$
where $`S`$, $`N_H`$, $`\overline{N}_H`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,2}`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{1,2}`$ are singlet fields. Their assigned quantum numbers appear in Table II. While $`S`$, $`N_H`$, $`\overline{N}_H`$, and $`h_1`$, $`\overline{h}_1`$ are bulk fields, the rest are brane fields residing on B1. $`N_H`$, $`\overline{N}_H`$ should be embedded in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H`$, and the other components in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H`$ could be made heavy by pairing them with proper brane fields. From Eq. (3), it is straightforward to show that the SUSY vacuum corresponds to $`S=0`$, while $`N_H`$ and $`\overline{N}_H`$ develop VEVs of order $`M`$. (After SUSY breaking in the manner of $`N=1`$ SUGRA, $`S`$ acquires a VEV of order $`m_{3/2}`$ (gravitino mass)). They break $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ to the MSSM gauge group, and make the massless modes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_4}`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_B`$) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_4}`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_B`$) superheavy . From the last term in Eq. (3), the VEV of $`\overline{N}_H`$ also provides masses to the right-handed Majorana neutrinos.

Because of the presence of the soft terms, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,2}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{1,2}`$, which carry $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ charges, can obtain intermediate scale VEVs of order $`\sqrt{m_{3/2}M_P}`$. They lead to a $`\mu `$ term of order $`m_{3/2}`$ in MSSM as desired . Of course, the presence of $`U(1)_{PQ}`$ also resolves the strong CP problem .

The Higgs fields $`h_1`$ and $`\overline{h}_1`$ contain color triplets as well as weak doublets. Since the triplets in $`h_1`$ and $`\overline{h}_1`$ are just superheavy KK modes, a small coefficient ($`\mu `$ TeV) accompanying $`h_1\overline{h}_1`$ more than adequately suppresses dimension 5 operators that induce proton decay. Proton decay can still proceed via superheavy gauge bosons with masses $`\pi /y_c`$ and are adequately suppressed ($`\tau _p10^{3436}`$ yr).

## 4 Inflation and Leptogenesis

The first two terms in the superpotential (3) are ideally suited for realizing an inflationary scenario along the lines described in Refs. . We will not provide any details except to note that the breaking of $`U(1)_X`$ takes place near the end of inflation which can lead to the appearance of cosmic strings. Since the symmetry breaking scale of $`U(1)_X`$ is determined from inflation to be close to $`10^{16}`$ GeV , the cosmic strings are superheavy and therefore not so desirable (because of potential conflict with the recent $`\delta T/T`$ measurements.) They can be simply avoided by following the strategy outlined in Ref. , in which suitable non-renormalizable terms are added to Eq. (3), such that $`U(1)_X`$ is broken along the inflationary trajectory and the strings are inflated away. Remarkably, the salient features of the inflationary scenario are not affected by the addition of such higher order terms. For $`\kappa `$ somewhat smaller (larger) than $`10^3`$, $`n`$ varies between 0.98 and 0.99.

The inflationary epoch ends with the decay of the oscillating fields $`S`$, $`N_H`$, $`\overline{N}_H`$ into the MSSM singlet (right-handed) neutrinos, whose subsequent out of equilibrium decays yield the observed baryon asymmetry via leptogenesis . The production of the right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos proceeds via the superpotential couplings $`\nu _i^c\nu _j^c\overline{N}_H\overline{N}_H`$ and $`SN_H\overline{N}_H`$ on B1, where $`\nu _{i,j}^c`$ ($`i,j=1,2,3`$) denote the $`SU(5)`$ singlet (right-handed neutrinos) carrying non-zero $`U(1)_X`$ charges. Taking account of the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation data , and assuming a hierarchical pattern of neutrino masses (both left- and right-handed ones), it turns out that the inflaton decays into the lightest (the first family right handed neutrino) . The discussion proceeds along the lines discussed in Ref. , where it was shown that a baryon asymmetry of the desired magnitude is readily obtained.

The 5D inflationary solution requires positive vacuum energies on both branes B1 and B2 . While inflation could be driven by the first two terms in Eq. (3) at B1, an appropriate scalar potential on B2 is also necessary. Since the boundary conditions in Eqs. (11) and (12) require $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ to simultaneously vanish, it is natural for $`S`$ to be a bulk field. The VEVs of $`S`$ on the two branes can be adjusted such that the boundary conditions are satisfied. As a simple example, consider the following superpotential at B2,

$`W_{B2}=\kappa _2S(Z\overline{Z}M_2^2),`$ (79)
where $`Z`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ are $`SO(10)`$ singlet superfields with opposite $`U(1)_R`$ charges. Thus, only the gauge symmetry $`U(1)_X`$ on B1 is broken during inflation.

## 5 Conclusion

Inspired by recent attempts to construct realistic 5D SUSY GUT models, we have presented a realistic inflationary scenario in this setting, along the lines proposed in Ref. . Inflation is implemented through $`F`$-term scalar potentials on the two branes, which is allowed by 5D Einstein gravity. We have discussed the transition from the inflationary to the radiation dominated phase, and provided a realistic 5D SUSY $`SO(10)`$ model in which the compactification on an $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold leads to the gauge symmetry $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$. Inflation is associated with the breaking of the gauge symmetry $`U(1)_X`$, at a scale very close to $`M_{\mathrm{GUT}}`$. Baryogenesis via leptogenesis is very natural in this approach, and the scalar spectral index $`n=0.980.99`$. The gravitational contribution to the quadrupole anisotropy is found to be tiny ($`\stackrel{<}{}10^4`$).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge helpful discussions with S. M. Barr and Tianjun Li. The work is partially supported by DOE under contract number DE-FG02-91ER40626.


format: text

text:
# Quasicrystals and almost periodicity

## Introduction

From a physical point of view, the diffraction of X rays by a material is a way of investigating its microscopic structure. The interferences of X rays that are diffracted by different atoms are indeed linked to the relative positions of these atoms. If the atoms form a lattice, as in ideal crystals, then the diffraction pattern consists in sharp peaks. Quasicrystals, discovered in $`1982`$ by Shechtman et al. , have the same kind of diffraction pattern, but they are not periodic. That raises the question of understanding which kind of atoms distribution produces a diffraction pattern consisting in sharp peaks.

In Section 1, we recall some results about locally finite sets and uniformly discrete sets, and we define some pseudo-metrics on the space of uniformly discrete sets. Section 2 collects some known results about almost periodicity. In Section 3, we recall the mathematical formalism of diffraction, and we state our characterization of pure point diffraction in terms of almost periodicity. As an application, we treat in Section 4 the example of deformed model sets.

## 1 Locally finite sets and uniformly discrete sets

### 1.1 Locally finite sets

Following , we define a metrics $`d`$ on the set $`_\sigma `$ of locally finite subsets of $`^n`$, by

$$d(S,S^{})=\mathrm{min}\{1/\sqrt{2},infD(S,S^{})\},$$

where

$$D(S,S^{})=\{a>0:SB_{1/a}S^{}+B_a\text{ and }S^{}B_{1/a}S+B_a\}.$$

Note that $`D(S,S^{})`$ is a half line, unbounded to the right, i.e., that $`D(S,S^{})`$ contains $`[a,+\mathrm{}[`$ as soon as $`D(S,S^{})`$ contains $`a`$.

The topology $`𝒯`$ generated by $`d`$ can also be defined as follows, see . If $`K`$ is a compact subset of $`^n`$, define

$$^K=\{S_\sigma :SK=\mathrm{}\}.$$

If $`O`$ is an open subset of $`^n`$, define

$$_O=\{S_\sigma :SO\mathrm{}\}.$$

Then, $`𝒯`$ is also the topology generated by the union of the two families $`^K`$, $`K`$ compact, and $`_O`$, $`O`$ open.

For $`t^n`$ let $`T_t:_\sigma _\sigma `$ denote the translation defined by

$$T_t(S)=St=\{xt:xS\}.$$

Translations are homeomorphisms of $`_\sigma `$. We now define a $`\sigma `$-algebra $`𝒜`$ on $`_\sigma `$. For $`A^n`$, let $`N_A:_\sigma \{\mathrm{}\}`$ denote

$$N_A(S)=\mathrm{card}(AS).$$
(1)
The $`\sigma `$-algebra $`𝒜`$ on $`_\sigma `$ is generated by the family of maps $`N_A`$, for every Borel set$`A`$, or, equivalently, for every compact set $`A`$. Note that $`𝒜`$ is also the Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra of $`(_\sigma ,𝒯)`$.

### 1.2 Uniformly discrete sets

A set $`S_\sigma `$ is uniformly discrete with parameter $`r>0`$ if two different points of $`S`$ are at least at distance $`r`$. The set $`U_r`$ of such $`S_\sigma `$ inherits the metric structure of $`(_\sigma ,d)`$. The space $`(U_r,d)`$ is compact.

We now define a new topology on $`U_r`$, by specifying various uniformly equivalent pseudo-metrics that induce this topology. These pseudo-metrics are connected to Besicovitch pseudo-metrics on spaces of functions defined by formulae of the kind

$$d_B(f,g)=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{|B_R|}(_{B_R}|fg|^p))^{1/p}$$

where $`B_R`$ is the ball of radius $`R`$ of $`^n`$ centered at the origin and $`|B_R|`$ its volume.

If $`S_\sigma `$, its upper density is defined by

$$\overline{\mathrm{dens}}\left(S\right)=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{|B_R|}\mathrm{card}(SB_R).$$

Finally, call a set $`A^n`$ relatively dense if there exists $`M>0`$ such that each ball of $`^n`$ of radius $`M`$ meets $`A`$.

$``$ The pseudo-metrics $`\overline{d}`$. For $`a>0`$ and $`S`$, $`S^{}`$ in $`U_r`$, define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_a(S,S^{})=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_a(S,S^{})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_a(S^{},S),$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_a(S,S^{})=\{xS:(x+B_a)S^{}=\mathrm{}\}.$$

Let $`\overline{D}(S,S^{})`$ be the set of all real $`a>0`$ such that

$$\overline{\mathrm{dens}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_a(S,S^{})\right)a.$$

Note that $`\overline{D}(S,S^{})`$ is a half line, unbounded to the right. Define

$$\overline{d}(S,S^{})=\mathrm{min}\{r/2,inf(\overline{D}(S,S^{}))\}.$$

$``$ The pseudo-metric $`\overline{d}^c`$. For $`S`$, $`S^{}`$ in $`U_r`$, define

$$\overline{d}^c(S,S^{})=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{|B_R|}_{B_R}d(St,S^{}t)𝑑t.$$

$``$ The pseudo-metric $`\overline{d}_f`$. Let $`f:^n`$ be continuous with support in $`B_{r/5}`$. We assume that $`f`$ is not everywhere equal to $`0`$. Notice that the function

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}(U_r,d)\hfill & \hfill \\ S\hfill & \mu _Sf(0),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mu _S=_{xS}\delta _x`$, is continuous, and that, for all $`u^n`$, $`\mu _Sf(u)=\mu _{Su}f(0)`$. For $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ in $`U_r`$, define

$$\overline{d}_f(S,S^{})=\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{|B_R|}_{B_R}|\mu _Sf(u)\mu _S^{}f(u)|𝑑u.$$

We prove the following proposition:

###### Proposition 1.1

The three functions $`\overline{d}`$, $`\overline{d}^c`$ and $`\overline{d}_f`$ define translation invariant pseudo-metrics. These pseudo-metrics are uniformly equivalent. Therefore, they define the same topology and the same Cauchy sequences.

To show the uniform continuity of the identity map from $`(U_r,\overline{d}^c)`$ to $`(U_r,\overline{d}_f)`$, we use and prove the following, stronger, result:

###### Lemma 1.2

Let $`H:(U_r,d)`$ be continuous. Then, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, there exists $`\eta >0`$ such that, for every $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ in $`U_r`$ such that $`\overline{d}^c(S,S^{})\eta `$,

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{|B_R|}_{B_R}|H(St)H(S^{}t)|𝑑t\epsilon .$$

We get the following result:

###### Proposition 1.3

The quotient space of $`U_r`$ by the pseudometric $`\overline{d}`$ is a complete metric space.

## 2 Almost periodicity

Let $`E`$ be a Banach space, and $`f:^nE`$. For $`t^n`$, let $`f_t`$ be defined by $`f_t(x)=f(xt)`$. The function $`f`$ is said to be Bohr almost periodic if, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$P_\epsilon =\{t^n:ff_t_{\mathrm{}}<\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense (see for example ).

The following result is classical and proved in a more general context in .

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`\mu `$ be a finite measure on $`^n`$. Then, the two following assertions are equivalent:

1. The function $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is Bohr almost periodic.
2. The measure $`\mu `$ is purely atomic.

This can be extended to classes of unbounded measures (see for example ). The following result, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 2.1, is sufficient for our purposes:

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`\mu `$ be a positive, tempered and positive definite measure on $`^n`$. Let $`f`$ be a Schwartz function from $`^n`$ to $``$ such that $`\widehat{f}(x)>0`$ for all $`x^n`$. Then, the two following assertions are equivalent:

1. $`\mu f`$ is Bohr almost periodic.
2. $`\widehat{\mu }`$ is purely atomic.

We need the following extension of the definition of almost periodicity. Let $`(X,d_0)`$ be a pseudometric space. We consider an action of $`^n`$ on $`X`$ such that

1. For all $`t^n`$, $`xxt`$ is an isometry.
2. For all $`xE`$, $`txt`$ is continuous.

Say that $`xX`$ is almost periodic if, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:d_0(xt,x)\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense. For $`xE`$, let $`O_x=\{xt,t^n\}`$. Recall that $`AE`$ is totally bounded if, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, $`A`$ can be covered by a finite number of balls of radius $`\epsilon `$ centered at points of $`A`$. Recall that:

###### Theorem 2.3

The point $`x`$ is almost periodic if and only if $`O_x`$ is totally bounded.

## 3 Diffraction

### 3.1 Generalities

We now recall the mathematical formalism of diffraction theory, following Hof . Let $`S_\sigma `$. For a given $`R>0`$, we define the measure $`\gamma _R`$ by

$$\gamma _R:=\frac{1}{|B_R|}\underset{x,ySB_R}{}\delta _{yx}=\frac{1}{|B_R|}\left(\underset{xSB_R}{}\delta _x\right)\left(\underset{xSB_R}{}\delta _x\right).$$
(2)
Thus, $`\gamma _R`$ represents the relative positions of the points of $`SB_R`$. Physically, the Fourier transform of $`\gamma _R`$ corresponds with the diffraction pattern: $`\widehat{\gamma _R}(t)`$ is the luminous intensity diffracted in the direction $`t`$ by a material whose atom centers are the points of $`SB_R`$.

If it exists, the limit $`\gamma `$ in the vague topology as $`R\mathrm{}`$ of the measures $`\gamma _R`$ is called the unique autocorrelation of $`S`$. This measure is tempered and its Fourier transform $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is a positive measure, called the diffraction measure of $`S`$.

We prove the following lemma:

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`\psi :^n`$ be continuous and nonnegative with compact support. Assume that the integral of $`\psi `$ is equal to $`1`$. If $`f:^n`$ is continuous with compact support, let $`H_f:_\sigma `$ be defined by

$$H_f(S)=\underset{x,yS}{}\psi (x)f(yx).$$

Then, the restriction of $`H_f`$ to $`(U_r,d)`$ is continuous. Let $`\gamma `$ be a positive and locally finite measure on $`^n`$. Then, $`\gamma `$ is the unique autocorrelation of $`S_\sigma `$ if and only if, for all $`f:^n`$ continuous with compact support,

$$\frac{1}{|B_R|}_{B_R}H_f(St)𝑑t\gamma (f),R\mathrm{}.$$

Therefore, $`S`$ admits a unique autocorrelation if and only if $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|B_R|}}{\displaystyle _{B_R}}H_f(St)𝑑t`$ converges for all $`f`$ continuous with compact support.

Let $`A_r`$ denote the set of all the elements $`S`$ of $`U_r`$ with a unique autocorrelation. Lemmas 3.1 and 1.2 yield:

###### Proposition 3.2

The set $`A_r`$ is a closed subset of $`(U_r,\overline{d})`$.

### 3.2 Patterson sets

Following , $`SA_r`$ is a Patterson set if its diffraction measure is purely atomic (actually,  also requires $`S`$ to be relatively dense). A Patterson set is a mathematical idealization of a quasicrystal.

Using Theorem 2.2, we prove the following result:

###### Theorem 3.3

Let $`SA_r`$ with unique autocorrelation measure $`\gamma `$. The following assertions are equivalent:

1. $`S`$ is a Patterson set.
2. $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is purely atomic.
3. For all $`R>0`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$, the set $`\{t^n:\gamma (t+B_R)\gamma (0)\epsilon \}`$ is relatively dense.
4. $`S`$ is almost periodic in $`(U_r,\overline{d})`$.
5. For all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set $`\{t^n:\overline{\mathrm{dens}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\epsilon (S,St)\right)\epsilon \}`$ is relatively dense.

Theorem 3.3 and Proposition 3.2 yield

###### Corollary 3.4

The Patterson sets form a closed subset of $`(U_r,\overline{d})`$.

Here is a corollary of Theorem 3.3:

###### Corollary 3.5

Let $`SA_r`$ with unique autocorrelation measure $`\gamma `$.

1. If, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:\gamma (t)\gamma (0)\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense, then $`S`$ is a Patterson set. The converse is true if $`SS`$ is uniformly discrete.
2. If $`S`$ is almost periodic in $`(U_r,\stackrel{~}{d})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ is the pseudo-metric defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{d}(S,S^{})=\overline{\mathrm{dens}}\left(S\mathrm{\Delta }S^{}\right),$$

then $`S`$ is a Patterson set. The converse is true if $`SS`$ is uniformly discrete.

The first point of Corollary 3.5 is proved in . In that paper, the point sets can be weighted subsets of a locally compact Abelian group. The sufficient condition for being a Patterson set given by the second point of Corollary 3.5 is proved in  under unique ergodicity assumptions.

### 3.3 Point processes

A point process  is a measurable map $`\chi `$ from a probability space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },,𝒫)`$ to $`(_\sigma ,𝒜)`$. A point process $`\chi `$ is uniformly discrete if there exists $`r>0`$ such that $`\chi `$ takes its values in $`U_r`$. A point process is (square) integrable if, for every compact set $`A`$, the random variable $`N_A`$ defined by (1) is (square) integrable. A point process is stationary if its law is invariant under the action of the translations $`(T_t)_{t^n}`$. Let $`\chi `$ denote a stationary and integrable point process, and $`\gamma _R`$ denote the random measure associated with $`\chi `$ by (2). The Palm measure of $`\chi `$ is the measure $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ on $`(_\sigma ,𝒜)`$ defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{P}(F):=\frac{1}{|B|}E\left(\underset{x\chi B}{}1_F(\varphi x)\right),$$

for $`F𝒜`$, where $`B`$ is a fixed Borel subset of $`^n`$ whose Lebesgue measure $`|B|`$ is finite and strictly positive, see . This definition does not depend on $`B`$.

Let $`(^n)`$ denote the Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra of $`^n`$. If $`m`$ is a measure on $`(_\sigma ,𝒜)`$, its intensity $`I(m)`$ is the measure on $`(^n,(^n))`$ defined by

$$I(m)(A)=\mathrm{card}(\varphi A)𝑑m(\varphi ),A(^n).$$

The following result is proved in :

###### Theorem 3.6

Let $`\chi `$ be a stationary ergodic and square integrable point process on $`^d`$. Let $`J`$ be the (deterministic) intensity of the Palm measure of $`\chi `$. Then, $`J`$ is locally finite and for each bounded Borel set $`A`$ in $`^n`$,

$$\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}\gamma _R(A)=J(A)a.s.$$

In particular, $`\chi `$ admits a.s. $`J`$ as a unique autocorrelation measure.

Actually, we can prove the following result:

###### Theorem 3.7

Let $`\chi `$ be a stationary and uniformly discrete point process on $`^n`$, and $`J`$ the intensity of its Palm measure. If $`\widehat{J}`$ is purely atomic, then $`\chi `$ is a.s. a Patterson set. The converse is true if $`\chi `$ is ergodic.

Using Theorem 2.2, we prove the following result:

###### Theorem 3.8

Let $`\chi `$ be a uniformly discrete and stationary point process, and $`J`$ the intensity of its Palm measure. The following assertions are equivalent:

1. $`\widehat{J}`$ is purely atomic.
2. For all $`R>0`$ and for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:J(\{0\})J(B_R+t)\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense.
3. For all $`R_0>0`$, there exists $`R`$ in $`]0,R_0[`$ such that, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:P\left(\{\chi B_R\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Delta }\{(\chi t)B_R\mathrm{}\}\right)\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense.
4. There exists $`𝒢`$ a generating subset of $`𝒜`$ such that, for all $`A𝒢`$ and for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:P(A\mathrm{\Delta }(A+t))\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense.
5. For all $`A`$ in $`𝒜`$ and for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:P(A\mathrm{\Delta }(A+t))\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense.
6. For every square integrable $`f`$ on $`_\sigma `$, $`\varphi ^f:tf_t`$ is Bohr almost periodic.
7. The dynamical system $`(_\sigma ,P,(T_t)_t)`$ admits a discrete spectrum.

Related results are proved in  under finite local complexity assumptions. See also .

###### Corollary 3.9

Let $`\chi `$ be a uniformly discrete and stationary point process, and $`J`$ the intensity of its Palm measure. If, for all $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{t^n:J(\{t\})J(\{0\})\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense, then $`\widehat{J}`$ is purely atomic. The converse is true if the support of $`J`$ is uniformly discrete.

## 4 Example: deformed model sets

In this section, we provide an example of application of our results. Deformed model sets are studied in . Let $`E`$ and $`F`$ be two linear subspaces of $`^n`$ such that $`^n=EF`$. If $`x^n`$ we write $`x=x_E+x_F`$ with obvious notations. We denote by $`B_R^E`$ (resp. $`B_R^F`$) the closed ball of $`E`$ (resp. $`F`$) centered at the origin and of radius $`R`$. Let $`||_F`$ denote the canonical Lebesgue measure on $`F`$. We assume that $`E`$ contains a vector $`v`$ whose coordinates are linearly independent over $``$. Let W be a fixed bounded Borel subset of $`F`$. Let $`g:WE`$ be uniformly continuous. Let $`𝕋^n=^n/^n`$ denote the $`n`$ dimensional torus, and $`\varphi :𝕋^n𝒫(E)`$ be defined by

$$\varphi (u)=\psi ((E+W)(u+^n)),$$

where $`\psi :E+WE`$ is defined by

$$\psi (z)=z_E+g(z_F).$$

For all $`tE`$, $`\varphi (ut)=\varphi (u)t.`$ We use the vector space $`E`$ to define $`U_r`$ as in Section 1, and we assume that there exists an $`r>0`$ such that

$$\varphi (𝕋^n)U_r.$$

Then, $`\varphi `$ is measurable from $`𝕋^n`$ endowed with its natural Borel $`\sigma `$-algebra to $`(U_r,𝒜)`$.

### 4.1 Deterministic results

In this subsection, we assume that $`|W|_F=0`$. We prove the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.1

The map $`\varphi :𝕋^n(U_r,d)`$ is continuous on the complementary of a set of vanishing Haar measure.

With that lemma the following results are simple consequences of the uniform ergodicity of $`U_r`$ under the action of the translations $`(T_t)_{tE}`$.

###### Proposition 4.2

For any continuous $`H:(U_r,d)`$ and any $`S\varphi (𝕋^n)`$,

$$\frac{1}{|B_R^E|}_{B_R^E}H(St)𝑑t_{𝕋^n}H(\varphi (u))𝑑u,\text{as}R\mathrm{}.$$

Moreover, the above convergence is uniform with respect to $`S\varphi (𝕋^n)`$.

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`S=\varphi (u)`$ and $`S^{}=\varphi (u^{})`$. Then

$$\overline{d}^c(S,S^{})=_{𝕋^n}d(\varphi (u+t),\varphi (u^{}+t))𝑑t.$$

###### Proposition 4.4

The map $`\varphi `$ is continuous from $`𝕋^n`$ to $`(U_r,\overline{d})`$.

From Proposition 4.2 and Lemma 3.1, all sets $`S\varphi (𝕋^n)`$ admit a unique autocorrelation. From Proposition 4.4, $`\varphi (𝕋^n)`$ is totally bounded in $`(U_r,\overline{d})`$. From Theorem 2.3, every $`S`$ in $`\varphi (𝕋^n)`$ is almost periodic. Using Theorem 3.3, one finally gets:

###### Theorem 4.5

All sets in $`\varphi (𝕋^n)`$ are Patterson sets.

### 4.2 Probabilistic results

We do not assume any more that $`|W|_F=0`$. The function $`\varphi `$ defines a stationary and uniformly discrete point process. For every Borel subset $`A𝕋^n`$ and for every $`\epsilon >0`$, the set

$$\{tE:|A(At)||A|\epsilon \}$$

is relatively dense, where $`||`$ is the Haar measure on $`𝕋^n`$. Hence, $`\varphi `$ fulfills Assertion 5 of Theorem 3.8. Using Theorem 3.7, one finally gets:

###### Theorem 4.6

For almost all $`u𝕋^n`$, $`\varphi (u)`$ is a Patterson set.


text:
# USACH-FM-02/xx Algebra of chiral currents on the physical surface

## 1  <br>Introduction

The Thirring model is a well known model in quantum field theory because it is exactly solvable in (1+1) dimensions . If this model is treated in a Hamiltonian way in terms of currents, with interaction between them, it can be easily solved by performing a Bogoliubov transformation. This is, concerning to find the fermionic correlators using a bosonization procedure .

An extensive investigation of its current algebra has been performed. Dell’ Antonio et. al. , using an exact expansion in bilocal operators products, have solved the model entirely in terms of currents. They defined the so-called Schwinger term as function of a c-number and then determined their form requiring that a spinor transformation law was fulfilled. With a current regularization, Takahashi and Ogura  also obtained a very similar Schwinger term in their formulation of Thirring model.

A particulary interesting description of the current algebra of this model is given by Gomes et. al. . Following a Dirac’s procedure, they are able to calculate the current algebra that lives in the constraint surface. However, the inclusion in that surface of the Hamiltonian which governs the dynamics and participates in the algebra it is not assured in their procedure.

The purpose of this paper was, taking advantage of the special Lagrangian action introduced by Floreanini and Jackiw for self-dual fields  (used also by Gomes et. al. ), we shall to analyze the current algebra in a massless Thirring model where the proposed Lagrangian action for the currents generates a Hamiltonian that is defined also in the constraint surface. In this way, the current algebra obtained by the Dirac’s procedure  entirely lives in the same physical surface.

The plan of this paper is the following. In section 2, we review the known current algebra in the Dirac formalism , and also obtain the corresponding Hamiltonian on the constraint surface, which coincides with the usual form for the free theory. In section 3, we repeat the procedure that was successful in the free case, obtaining a complete interacting current algebra defined on the physical surface. Finally in section 4, we examine a formal extension of this procedure for the case of $`N`$ fermion currents with interactions, and in order to illustrate, we solve the complete algebra for the $`N=2`$ case, which exhibits all the interesting features claimed above.

## 2 Non-interacting Kac-Moody $`U(1)`$ algebra of chiral currents on the physical surface

Based on the treatment of fermion fields in terms of currents explored by Dashen and Sharp , Sugawara  and Sommerfield , let us start with the following Lagrangian for the right ($`J_R`$) an left ($`J_L`$) currents of the model

$$L=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x𝑑y\left[J_R(x)\epsilon (xy)_+J_R(y)J_L(x)\epsilon (xy)_+J_L(y)\right],$$
(1)
where $`J_{R,L}`$ are the right and left currents and $`\epsilon `$ is the Heaviside function ($`\epsilon (0)0`$ is assumed). This Lagrangian is similar to the one used in  and , but here the canonical Hamiltonian is zero. Later a new one will be obtained on the constraint surface, which satisfies the same motion equations.

The constraints for this system are

$`\chi _1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑yJ_R(y)\epsilon (yx)},`$ (2)
$`\chi _2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑yJ_L(y)\epsilon (yx)}.`$ (3)
These are second class constraints which are automatically conserved because the canonical Hamiltonian vanishes.

Following the Dirac’s procedure we calculate the Dirac’s brackets defined as

$$\{A,B\}_D=\{A,B\}𝑑z𝑑\omega \{A,\chi _i(z)\}C_{i,j}^1(z,\omega )\{\chi _j(\omega ),B\},$$

where $`C_{i,j}^1`$ is the constraint Poisson bracket matrix

$$C_{i,j}(z,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)ϵ(z\omega ),$$
(4)
with

$$C_{i,j}^1(z,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\delta ^{}(z\omega ),$$
(5)
and $`\chi _i`$ denotes second class constraints; $`\{,\}`$ sets for usual Poisson’s brackets. After a simple calculation we obtain the algebra of currents in this formalism

$$\{J_L(x),J_L(y)\}_D=\delta ^{}(xy),$$
(6)
$$\{J_R(x),J_R(y)\}_D=\delta ^{}(xy),$$
(7)
$$\{J_L(x),J_R(y)\}_D=0.$$
(8)
This is the result given by Gomes et. al. in . Now we want to obtain a similar Hamiltonian, but assuring by construction , that it entirely lives on the constraint surface, and that it governs the dynamics of currents involved in the algebra (6)-(8)

To obtain the Hamiltonian we introduce the following generalized vector

$$Z^\alpha =\{\mathrm{\Pi }_L;\mathrm{\Pi }_R;J_L;J_R\},$$
(9)
on the constraint surface. As constraints themselves are strong identities, we can parameterize the momenta in terms of currents. Furthermore, in order to retrieve Hamiltonian relations between our new variables, we must define a new Hamiltonian on that surface according to

$$K=H_0+F,$$
(10)
where $`H_0`$ is the initial canonical Hamiltonian and $`F`$ obeys the relationship

$$\frac{\delta F(x)}{\delta u^i}=𝑑w𝑑y\left(\frac{Z^\alpha (x)}{u^i(w)}W_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)\frac{Z^\beta (y)}{w}\right),$$
(11)
where $`W_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is the initial symplectic matrix, $`u^i`$ are $`J_L`$ or $`J_R`$, and $`Z^\alpha `$ is a component of $`Z`$ defined in (9). It looks like

$$W_{\alpha \beta }(xy)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \delta (xy)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \delta (xy)\\ \delta (xy)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \delta (xy)& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
The consistency of this procedure is ensured because $`W`$ is time independent.

In order to obtain $`F`$, we must observe its variations along $`J_L`$ and $`J_R`$

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\delta F(x)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑z(\{F(x),J_L(z)\}\delta J_L(z)+\{F(x),J_R(z)\}\delta J_R(z))}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dxdzdw({\displaystyle \frac{F(x)}{J_L(w)}}\{J_L(w),J_L(z)\}\delta J_L(z)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{F(x)}{J_R(w)}}(z)\{J_R(w),J_R(z)\}\delta J_R)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑z_z\left(\frac{F(x)}{J_R(z)}\delta J_R(z)\frac{F(x)}{J_L(z)}\delta J_L(z)\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(\frac{F(x)}{J_L(z)}\delta J_L(z)\frac{F(x)}{J_R(z)}\delta J_R(z)\right)}.`$
Note that from (10) and (12) is easy to calculate $`F/J_L`$ and $`F/J_R`$, then

$$𝑑x\delta F(x)=2𝑑x[J_L(x)\delta J_L(x)J_R(x)\delta J_R(x)].$$
(14)
Therefore, due to the vanishing of the canonical Hamiltonian, the modified Hamiltonian is

$$K=𝑑x(J_L^2(x)+J_R^2(x)).$$
(15)
Finally,

$$\{K,J_{L,R}(x)\}_D=\pm 2J_{L,R}^{}(x).$$
(16)
The advantage of this procedure is that the Hamiltonian that participates in the Kac-Moody algebra is defined on the constraint surface, i.e. on the physical surface, which guarantees that the solution of motion equations is in complete consistency with the algebra. On the other hand, this is very important because it assures that in the quantization procedure of the theory, only gauge degrees of freedom are counted.

## 3 Chiral current algebra on the physical surface for Thirring model

Now consider the Lagrangian

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }dxdy[(J_R(x)gJ_L(x))\epsilon (xy)_+J_R(y)`$ (17)
$`(J_L(x)+gJ_R(x))\epsilon (xy)_+J_L(y)],`$
$`g`$ being the coupling constant. This one admit the same considerations made in the previous section.

Now, our second-class conserved constraints are

$`\chi _1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y(J_R(y)gJ_L(y))\epsilon (yx)},`$ (18)
$`\chi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y(J_L(y)+gJ_R(y))\epsilon (yx)}.`$ (19)
These are again second class constraints and, as in the non-interacting case, they are conserved (in this sense, it is a closed system).

Now we can follow the Dirac’s procedure and calculate the Dirac’s brackets on the constraint surface. To do this, it is necessary to build $`W`$ (that is, the matrix that resumes the former bracket relations). We have

$$C(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& g\\ g& 1\end{array}\right)\epsilon (z).$$
(20)
Note that this matrix is symmetric. In order to calculate Dirac’s brackets, we first need to calculate the inverse of $`C`$. We obtain

$$C^1(z)=\frac{1}{(1+g^2)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& g\\ g& 1\end{array}\right)_z\delta (z).$$
(21)
The Dirac’s brackets between currents on the constraint surface turn out to be

$$\{J_L(x),J_L(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{(1+g^2)}\delta ^{}(xy),$$
(22)
$$\{J_R(x),J_R(y)\}_D=\frac{1}{(1+g^2)}\delta ^{}(xy),$$
(23)
$$\{J_L(x),J_R(y)\}_D=\frac{g}{(1+g^2)}\delta ^{}(xy),$$
(24)
$$\{J_R(x),J_L(y)\}_D=\frac{g}{(1+g^2)}\delta ^{}(xy).$$
(25)
Now, if we calculate the new Hamiltonian on the physical surface by the same way as before, we arrive to

$$K=𝑑x[J_L^2(x)+J_R^2(x)+2gJ_L(x)J_R(x)].$$
(26)
So,

$$\{K,J_{L,R}(x)\}_D=\pm \frac{2}{(1+g^2)}\left[J_{L,R}^{}(x)+gJ_{R,L}^{}(x)\right].$$
(27)
We have obtained a modification of the Schwinger term as in . It is remarkable that this result involves the last section, which is reached directly vanishing the coupling constant $`g`$.

## 4 An extension of the model

The previous results can be extended straightforwardly to the case of $`N`$ currents with interactions among all them. Let us to consider the following Lagrangian

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[J_i^L(x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{ij}J_j^R(x)\right]\epsilon (xy)_+J_i^L(y)}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑y\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[J_i^R(x)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{ij}J_j^L(x)\right]\epsilon (xy)_+J_i^R(y)},`$
where $`g_{ii}g`$ and $`g_{ij}h`$ $`\left(ij\right)`$. The currents are defined by

$$J_i^{L,R}(x)=\psi _{L,R}^i^{}(x)\psi _{L,R}^i(x).$$
(29)
and the new constraint set is

$$\chi _k^L(z)=\mathrm{\Pi }_k^L(z)\frac{1}{2}𝑑x\left[J_i^L(x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{kj}J_j^R(x)\right]\epsilon (xz),$$
(30)
$$\chi _k^R(z)=\mathrm{\Pi }_k^R(z)+\frac{1}{2}𝑑x\left[J_i^R(x)+\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{kj}J_j^L(x)\right]\epsilon (xz),$$
(31)
where $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are canonical fields, subject to

$$\{J_i^{L,R}(x),\mathrm{\Pi }_k^{L,R}(y)\}=\delta (xy)\delta _{ik}.$$
(32)
For this case, the whole Kac-Moody algebra in Dirac’s formalism is

$$\begin{array}{c}\{J_k^\alpha (x),J_m^\beta (y)\}_D=\{J_k^\alpha (x),J_m^\beta (y)\}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝑑z𝑑\omega \{J_k^\alpha (x),\chi _\mu (z)\}C^{\mu \nu }(z\omega )\{\chi _\nu (\omega ),J_m^\beta (y)\},\end{array}$$
(33)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }=\{\chi _\mu ,\chi _\nu \}`$ and $`𝑑zC_{\mu \tau }(xz)C^{\tau \nu }(zy)=\delta (xy)\delta _\mu ^\nu `$.

The current Hamiltonian on the current surface of this model is

$$H=𝑑x\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\left(J_i^L(x)\right)^2+\left(J_i^R(x)\right)^2\right]+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}g_{ij}J_i^L(x)J_j^R(x)\right\}.$$
(34)
Give a compact expression for the inverse of a ($`N\times N`$) matrix in the more general case is a very complicated task,and it is not very illustrative to our main objective. Thus, we will consider the $`N=2`$ case, which allows to illustrate all desired features of this extension.

In this case we have

$$C_{\alpha \beta }\left(z\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& g& 0& h\\ g& 1& h& 0\\ 0& h& 1& g\\ h& 0& g& 1\end{array}\right)\epsilon \left(z\right),$$
(35)
and, after some calculations, we obtain

$`\{J_k^L(x),J_m^L(y)\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`f\delta ^{}(xy)[(1+g^2+h^2)(\delta _{k1}\delta _{1m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{2m})`$ (36)
$`2gh(\delta _{k1}\delta _{2m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{1m})],`$
$`\{J_k^R(x),J_m^R(y)\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`f\delta ^{}(xy)[(1+g^2+h^2)(\delta _{k1}\delta _{1m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{2m})`$ (37)
$`2gh(\delta _{k1}\delta _{2m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{1m})],`$
$`\{J_k^L(x),J_m^R(y)\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`f\delta ^{}(xy)[(g+g^3gh^2)(\delta _{k1}\delta _{1m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{2m})`$ (38)
$`+(h+h^3g^2h)(\delta _{k1}\delta _{2m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{1m})],`$
$`\{J_k^R(x),J_m^L(y)\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`f\delta ^{}(xy)[(g+g^3gh^2)(\delta _{k1}\delta _{1m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{2m})`$ (39)
$`+(h+h^3g^2h)(\delta _{k1}\delta _{2m}+\delta _{k2}\delta _{1m})],`$
where

$$f=\frac{1}{\left[1+(gh)^2\right]\left[1+(g+h)^2\right]}.$$
(40)
The Hamiltonian on the constraint surface is

$$K=𝑑x\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left[\left(J_i^L(x)\right)^2+\left(J_i^R(x)\right)^2\right]+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}g_{ij}J_i^L(x)J_j^R(x)\right\},$$
(41)
and

$`\{K,J_m^{L,R}(x)\}_D`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2f\{(1+g^2+h^2)[J_1^{L,R}(x)+gJ_1^{R,L}(x)+hJ_2^{R,L}(x)]`$
$`2gh\left[J_2^{L,R}(x)+gJ_2^{R,L}(x)+hJ_1^{R,L}(x)\right]`$
$`(g+g^3gh^2)h\left[J_1^{R,L}(x)+gJ_1^{L,R}(x)+hJ_2^{L,R}(x)\right]`$
$`g(h+h^3g^2h)[J_2^{R,L}(x)+gJ_2^{L,R}(x)+hJ_1^{L,R}(x)]\}\delta _{1m}`$
$`\pm 2f\{(1+g^2+h^2)[J_2^{L,R}(x)+gJ_2^{R,L}(x)+hJ_1^{R,L}(x)]`$
$`2gh\left[J_1^{L,R}(x)+gJ_1^{R,L}(x)+hJ_2^{R,L}(x)\right]`$
$`(g+g^3gh^2)h\left[J_2^{R,L}(x)+gJ_2^{L,R}(x)+hJ_1^{L,R}(x)\right]`$
$`g(h+h^3g^2h)[J_1^{R,L}(x)+gJ_1^{L,R}(x)+hJ_2^{L,R}(x)]\}\delta _{2m}`$
These are all the relationship for current algebra for the $`N=2`$ case. Also, it is direct to obtain the previous results by by sequentially turning off the constants $`h`$ and $`g`$ and setting $`m=1`$ (sections 3 and 2, respectively). So, in this sense, the consistency of this extension is fulfilled.

## 5 Conclusions

In this contribution, a Lagrangian formulation was proposed for the Thirring chiral current model. It allows to give a treatment for the current algebra entirely on the physical surface, and this algebra has the usual features reported by other authors. We also give a first generalization of our results for $`N`$ currents with interaction between them. The remarkable advantage of this procedure is that the Hamiltonian as well as the others elements that participate in the Kac-Moody algebra are defined on the constraint surface. The fact that the Hamiltonian lives on the constraint surface ensures that the equation of motion of the theory has a full consistency with the Kac-Moody algebra that currents satisfy. We consider this result very important because the corresponding quantized theory (” la Dirac”, for instance) is a gauge theory. The complete theory that lives on the physical surface ensures that the gauge symmetry will be warranted.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to J. Saavedra and S. Lepe for his useful observations and comments. A. A. thanks that this work has been partially supported by the MECESUP project No. 9903 from University of Santiago.