text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the challenging questions facing supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model is an understanding of $`R`$–parity which is required for the stability of the proton. In the minimal supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), a discrete $`Z_2`$ symmetry is usually assumed. Under this symmetry the Standard Model (SM) particles are taken to be even while their superpartners are odd. The gauge symmetry of MSSM would allow baryon number and lepton number violating Yukawa couplings at the renormalizable level which would result in rapid proton decay. The $`Z_2`$ $`R`$–parity forbids such dangerous couplings.

The assumption of $`R`$–parity has profound implications for supersymmetric particle search at colliders as well as for cosmology. At colliders SUSY particles can only be produced in pairs, and the lightest SUSY particle (LSP), usually a neutralino, will be stable. This stable LSP is a leading candidate for cosmological cold dark matter.

Since $`R`$–parity is not part of the MSSM gauge symmetry, questions can be raised about its potential violation arising from quantum gravitational effects. These effects (associated with worm holes, black holes, etc) are believed to violate all global symmetries . True gauge symmetries are however protected from such violations. When a gauge symmetry breaks spontaneously, often a discrete subgroup is left intact. Such discrete symmetries, called discrete gauge symmetries , are also immune to quantum gravitational effects. Not all discrete symmetries can however be gauge symmetries. For instance, since the original continuous gauge symmetry was free from anomalies, its unbroken discrete subgroup should be free from discrete gauge anomalies . This imposes a non–trivial constraint on the surviving discrete symmetry and/or on the low energy particle content .

It will be of great interest to see if $`R`$–parity of MSSM can be realized as a discrete gauge symmetry, so that one can rest assured that it wont be subject to unknown quantum gravitational violations. This is the main question we wish to address in this paper.

A seemingly unrelated but equally profound problem facing the MSSM is an understanding of the origin of the $`\mu `$–term, the Higgsino mass parameter. The $`\mu `$ parameter is defined through the superpotential term $`W\mu H_uH_d`$, where $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are the two Higgs doublet superfields of MSSM. Since the $`\mu `$–term is SUSY–preserving and is a singlet of the SM gauge symmetry, its natural value would seem to be of order the Planck scale. But $`\mu 10^2`$ GeV is required for consistent phenomenology. It will be desirable, and is often assumed, that the $`\mu `$ term is related to the supersymmetry breaking scale. An attractive scenario which achieves this is the Guidice–Masiero mechanism  wherein a bare $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential is forbidden by some symmetry. It is induced through a higher dimensional Lagrangian term

$$=d^4\theta \frac{H_uH_dZ^{}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}$$
(1)
where $`Z`$ is a spurion field which parametrizes supersymmetry breaking via $`F_Z0`$, with $`F_Z/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}10^2`$ GeV. For this mechanism to work, there must exist a symmetry that forbids a bare $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential. Such a symmetry cannot be a continuous symmetry, consistent with the requirement of non–zero guaginos masses, and therefore must be discrete. It would be desirable to realize this as a discrete gauge symmetry.

The purpose of this paper is show that it is possible to realize $`Z_N`$ symmetries as discrete gauge symmetries which act as $`R`$–parity and which solve simultaneously the $`\mu `$–problem via the Guidice–Masiero mechanism. We make use of a discrete version of the Green–Schwarz mechanism  for anomaly cancellation. Simple realizations of $`R`$–parity as a discrete gauge symmetry are possible which also solve the $`\mu `$–problem, without enlarging the particle content of MSSM. The simplest symmetry group we have found is a $`Z_4`$. Under this $`Z_4`$ all MSSM matter superfields and the gauginos carry equal charge of $`1`$ while the Higgs superfields have zero charge. Such a simple charge assignment is compatible with grand unification. This charge assignment is anomaly–free by virtue of the discrete Green–Schwarz mechanism. Other $`Z_N`$ symmetries with $`N=10,12,18,36,`$ etc are also identified, some realized at higher Kac–Moody level. Either lepton parity or baryon parity can be obtained as a discrete symmetry in this approach, with baryon parity requiring anomaly cancellation at higher Kac–Moody levels. By allowing for a family–dependent structure in $`Z_N`$, we show how it is possible in our framework to explain the observed fermion mass and mixing hierarchy in a simple way.

Attempts have been made in the past to derive $`R`$–parity as a discrete gauge symmetry within MSSM. Early analyses  did not incorporate the seesaw mechanism for neutrino mass or the Guidice–Masiero mechanism for generating the $`\mu `$–term. A recent analysis which includes these features  has found $`Z_9`$ and $`Z_{18}`$ discrete gauge symmetries as possible candidates for $`R`$–parity by demanding these symmetries to be anomaly–free. It turns out that in these models  the Kahler potential violates $`R`$–parity at higher order, leading to cosmologically disfavored lifetime for the neutralino LSP. Furthermore, the discrete charge assignment in these models was not compatible with grand unification with the MSSM spectrum. The main difference in our approach is that we make use of the Green–Schwarz mechanism for discrete anomaly cancellation, which is less restrictive compared to the straightforward methods. The outcome differs in several ways, notably in the realization of simpler symmetries (eg. $`Z_4`$), exact $`R`$–parity without cosmological problems, and compatibility with grand unification. It should be mentioned that enlarging the particle content of MSSM has been proposed as a solution to the $`R`$–parity and $`\mu `$ problems . In contrast to such approaches, in our framework, the low energy spectrum is identical to that of MSSM.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we review briefly the discrete version of Green–Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism. Sec. 3 contains our main results. In 3.1 we write down the constraints arising from the Lagrangian of MSSM and the discrete anomaly cancellation conditions. In Sec. 3.2 we identify possible discrete gauge symmetries at Kac–Moody level 1 which prevent $`R`$–parity violating terms. In Sec. 3.3 we embed these symmetries to a higher $`Z_N`$ to solve the $`\mu `$–problem. Sec. 3.4 is devoted to solutions based on higher Kac–Moody levels. In Sec. 4 we show how a simple discrete gauge symmetry can explain the fermion mass and mixing angle hierarchy. Finally we conclude in Sec. 5.

## 2 Discrete anomaly cancellation via Green–Schwarz mechanism

Let us first recall the essence of the Green–Schwartz (GS) anomaly cancellation mechanism for a $`U(1)`$ guage symmetry. String theory when compactified to four dimensions generically contains an “anomalous $`U(1)_A`$” gauge symmetry. A subset of the gauge anomalies in the axial vector $`U(1)_A`$ current can be cancelled via the GS mechanism in the following way . In four dimensions, the Lagrangian for the gauge boson kinetic energy contains the terms

$$_{\mathrm{kinetic}}=\phi (x)\underset{i}{}k_1F_i^2+i\eta (x)\underset{i}{}k_iF_i\stackrel{~}{F_i}$$
(2)
where $`\phi (x)`$ denotes the string dilaton field and $`\eta (x)`$ is its axionic partner. The sum $`i`$ runs over the different gauge groups in the model, including $`U(1)_A`$. $`k_i`$ are the Kac–Moody levels for the different gauge groups, which must be positive integers for the non–Abelian groups, but may be non–integers for Abelian groups. The GS mechanism makes use of the transformation of the string axion field $`\eta (x)`$ under a $`U(1)_A`$ gauge variation $`V_A^\mu V_A^\mu +_\mu \theta (x)`$,

$$\eta (x)\eta (x)\theta (x)\delta _{GS}$$
(3)
where $`\delta _{GS}`$ is a constant. If the anomaly coefficients involving the $`U(1)_A`$ gauge boson and any other pair of gauge bosons are in the ratio

$$\frac{A_1}{k_1}=\frac{A_2}{k_2}=\frac{A_3}{k_3},\mathrm{}.=\delta _{GS},$$
(4)
these anomalies will be cancelled by gauge variations of the $`U(1)_A`$ field arising from the second term of Eq. (2). $`\delta _{GS}`$ in Eq. (4) is also equal to the mixed gravitational anomaly, $`\delta _{GS}=A_{\mathrm{gravity}}/12`$ . All other crossed anomaly coefficients should vanish, since they cannot be removed by the shift in the string axion field.

Consider the case when the gauge symmetry in four dimensions just below the string scale is $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_A`$. Let $`A_3`$ and $`A_2`$ denote the anomalies associated with $`[SU(3)_C]^2\times U(1)_A`$ and $`[SU(2)_L]^2\times U(1)_A`$ respectively. Then if $`A_3/k_3=A_2/k_2=\delta _{GS}`$ is satisfied, from Eq. (4), it follows that these mixed anomalies will be cancelled. The anomaly in $`[U(1)_Y^2]\times U(1)_A`$ can also be cancelled in a similar way if $`A_1/k_1=\delta _{GS}`$. However, in practice, this last condition is less useful, since $`k_1`$ is not constrained to be an integer as the overall normalization of the hypercharge is arbitrary. If the full high energy theory is specified, there can be constraints on $`A_1`$ as well. For example, if hypercharge is embedded into a simple group such as $`SU(5)`$ or $`SO(10)`$, $`k_1=5/3`$ is fixed since hypercharge is now quantized. $`A_1/k_1=\delta _{GS}`$ will provide a useful constraint in this case. We shall remark on this possibility in our discussions. Note also that cross anomalies such as $`[SU(3)]\times [U(1)_A]^2`$ are automatically zero in the Standard Model, since the trace of $`SU(N)`$ generators is zero. Anomalies of the type $`[U(1)_Y]\times [U(1)_A]^2`$ also suffer from the same aribitrariness from the Abelian levels $`k_1`$ and $`k_A`$. Finally, $`[U(1)_A]^3`$ anomaly can be cancelled by the GS mechanism, or by contributions from fields that are complete singlets of the Standard Model gauge group.

The anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is expected to be broken just below the string scale. This occurs when the Fayet–Iliopoulos term associated with the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is cancelled, so that supersymmetry remains unbroken near the string scale, by shifting the matter superfields that carry $`U(1)_A`$ charges . Although the $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is broken, a $`Z_N`$ subgroup of $`U(1)_A`$ can remain intact. Suppose that we choose a normalization wherein the $`U(1)_A`$ charges of all fields are integers. (This can be done so long as all the charges are relatively rational numbers.) Suppose that the scalar field which acquires a vacuum expectation value (VEV) and breaks $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry has a charge $`N`$ under $`U(1)_A`$ in this normalization. A $`Z_N`$ subgroup is then left unbroken down to low energies. We shall identify $`R`$–parity of MSSM with this unbroken $`Z_N`$ symmetry.

The field that acquires a VEV and breaks $`U(1)_A`$ to $`Z_N`$ can supply large masses of order the string scale to a set of fermions which have Yukawa couplings involving this field. Such fields may include Majorana fermions and Dirac fermions. These heavy fields can carry SM gauge quantum numbers, but they must transform vectorially under the SM. In order that their mass terms be invariant under the unbroken $`Z_N`$, it must be that

$`2q_i`$ $`=`$ $`0modN(\mathrm{Majorana}\mathrm{fermion})`$
$`q_i+\overline{q_i}`$ $`=`$ $`0modN(\mathrm{Dirac}\mathrm{fermion})`$ (5)
where $`q_i`$ are the $`U(1)_A`$ charges of these heavy fermions. The index $`i`$ is a flavor index corresponding to different heavy fields. These heavy fermions, being chiral under the $`U(1)_A`$, contribute to gague anomalies. Their contribution to the $`[SU(3)_C]^2\times U(1)_A`$ gauge anomaly is given by $`A_3=_iq_i\mathrm{}_i=(N/2)_ip_i\mathrm{}_i`$ (Majorana fermion) or $`A_3=_i(q_i+\overline{q_i})\mathrm{}_i=(N)_ip_i\mathrm{}_i`$ (Dirac fermion) where $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is the quadratic index of the relevant fermion under $`SU(3)_C`$ and the $`p_i`$ are integers. We shall adopt the usual normalization of $`\mathrm{}=1/2`$ for fundamental of $`SU(N)`$. Then, for the case of heavy Dirac fermion, one has $`A_3=p(N/2)`$ where $`p`$ is an integer, as the index of the lowest dimensional (fundamental) representations is 1/2 and those of all other representations are integer multiples of 1/2. The same conclusion follows for the case of Majorana fermions for a slightly different reason. All real representations of $`SU(3)_C`$ (such as an octet) have integer values of $`\mathrm{}`$, so that $`_ip_i\mathrm{}_i`$ is an integer. Analogous conclusions follow for the $`[SU(2)_L]^2\times U(1)_A`$ anomaly coefficient.

If the $`Z_N`$ symmetry that survives to low energies was part of $`U(1)_A`$, the $`Z_N`$ charges of the fermions in the low energy theory must satisfy a non–trivial condition: The anomaly coefficients $`A_i`$ for the full theory is given by $`A_i`$ from the low energy sector plus an integer multiple of $`N/2`$. These anomalies should obey Eq. (4), leading to the discrete version of the Green–Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism:

$$\frac{A_3+\frac{p_1N}{2}}{k_3}=\frac{A_2+\frac{p_2N}{2}}{k_2}=\delta _{GS}$$
(6)
with $`p_1,p_2`$ being integers. Since $`\delta _{GS}`$ is an unknown constant (from the effective low energy point of view), the discrete anomaly cancellation conditions of Eq. (6) are less stringent than those arising from conventional anomaly cancellations. If $`\delta _{GS}=0`$ in Eq. (6), the anomaly is cancelled without assistance from the Green–Schwarz mechanism. We shall not explicitly use the condition that $`\delta _{GS}0`$, so our solutions will contain those obtained by demanding $`\delta _{GS}=0`$ in Eq. (6), viz., $`A_3=p_1(N/2)`$, $`A_2=p_2(N/2)`$ with $`p_1,p_2`$ being integers.

In our analysis we shall not explicitly make use of the condition $`A_1/k_1=A_2/k_2`$, since, as mentioned earlier, the overall normalization of hyperhcarge is arbitrary. However, once a solution to the various $`Z_N`$ charges is obtained, we can check for the allowed values $`k_1`$, and in particular, if $`k_1=5/3`$ is part of the allowed solutions. This will be an interesting case for two reasons. If hypercharge is embedded in a simple grand unification group such as $`SU(5)`$, one would expect $`k_1=5/3`$. Even without a GUT embedding $`k_1=5/3`$ is interesting. We recall that unification of gauge couplings is a necessary phenomenon in string theory. Specifically, at tree level, the gauge couplings of the different gauge groups are related to the string coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{st}}`$ which is determined by the VEV of the dilaton field as

$$k_3g_3^2=k_2g_2^2=k_1g_1^2=g_{\mathrm{st}}^2$$
(7)
where $`k_i`$ are the levels of the corresponding Kac–Moody algebra. In particular, if $`k_1:k_2:k_3=5/3:1:1`$, we would have $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=3/8`$ at the string scale, a scenario identical to that of conventional gauge coupling unification with simple group such as $`SU(5)`$. For these reasons, we shall pay special attention to the case $`k_1=5/3`$.

An interesting example of a discrete gauge symmetry in the MSSM (or the SM) with seesaw neutrino masses is the $`Z_6`$ subgroup of $`BL`$. The introduction of the right–handed neutrino for generating small neutrino masses makes $`BL`$ a true gauge symmetry. When the $`\nu ^c`$ fields acquire super-large Majorana masses, $`U(1)_{BL}`$ breaks down to a discrete $`Z_6`$ subgroup. The $`Z_6`$ charges of the MSSM fields arising from $`BL`$ are displayed in Table 1. Here we have used the standard notation for the fermion fields ($`Q`$ and $`L`$ being the left–handed quark and lepton doublets, $`u^c,d^c`$ being the quark singlets, and $`e^c,\nu ^c`$ being the (conjugates of) the right–handed electron and the right–handed neutrino singlets). To obtain the unbroken $`Z_6`$ charge, we first multiply te $`BL`$ charge by 3 so that they become integers, then observe that the $`\nu ^c\nu ^c`$ Majorana mass term carries 6 units of this integer $`BL`$ charge. Thus this $`Z_6`$ subgroup is left unbroken.

It is worth mentioning that the $`Z_6`$ symmetry has a $`Z_2`$ and a $`Z_3`$ subgroups as well. In the analysis that follows in the next section we will be making connections with the $`Z_6`$ subgroup of $`BL`$ and its $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_3`$ subgroups.

Anomalous $`U(1)`$ symmetry has found applications in addressing the fermion mass and mixing hierarchy problem , doublet–triplet splitting problem in GUT , the strong CP problem , the $`\mu `$ problem of SUSY  and for SUSY breaking .

## 3 Discrete gauge symmetries in the MSSM

In this section we turn to the identification of discrete gauge symmetries in the MSSM that can serve as $`R`$–parity and simultaneously explain the origin of the $`\mu `$ term. We stay with the minimal particle content of MSSM, with the inclusion of the right–handed neutrinos needed for generating neutrino masses via the seesaw mechanism . Anomalies associated with the discrete gauge symmetry will be cancelled by the Green–Schwarz mechanism as discussed in Sec. 2.

### 3.1  Constraints from the Lagrangian and discrete anomalies

We have displayed in Table 2 the particle content of MSSM along with their charges under an anomalous $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry. The Grassmanian variable $`\theta `$ also carries a charge (equal to $`\alpha )`$, which allows for the $`U(1)`$ to be identified as an $`R`$ symmetry. $`Z`$ is a spurion superfield that acquires a non–zero $`F`$ component and breaks supersymmetry with $`F_Z/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}10^2`$ GeV. We shall assume family–independent $`U(1)`$ symmetry in this section. Any unbroken discrete symmetry must be family–independent to be consistent with MSSM phenomenology, that is the reason for focusing on such symmetries. In Sec. 4 we shall extend this analysis to flavor–dependent symmetries, even in that case, we will demand that a flavor–independent $`Z_M`$ symmetry is left intact.

The superpotential of the model, including small neutrino masses via the seesaw mechanism is

$$W=Qu^cH_u+Qd^cH_d+Le^cH_d+L\nu ^cH_u+M_R\nu ^c\nu ^c,$$
(8)
where $`M_R`$ is the heavy right–handed neutrino Majorana mass. We have suppressed Yukawa couplings and generation indices, which must be understood.

In order to avoid a supersymmetric $`\mu `$ term in the Lagrangian, $`\mu d^2\theta H_uH_d`$, so that the magnitude of $`\mu `$ may be related to the SUSY breaking scale, we impose the condition

$$h+\overline{h}2\alpha .$$
(9)
A $`\mu `$–parameter of the right order is induced through the Guidice–Masiero mechanism  via the Lagrangian term, $`d^4\theta H_uH_d\frac{Z^{}}{M_{pl}}`$. Invariance of this term under the $`U(1)`$ symmetry requires

$$h+\overline{h}z=0.$$
(10)
The gaugino masses arise through the Lagrangian term

$$d^2\theta W_\alpha W^\alpha \frac{Z}{M_{Pl}}$$
(11)
once $`F_Z0`$ is induced. Combining the invariance of this term with that of the gauge kinetic term $`d^2\theta W_\alpha W^\alpha `$, we see that the spurion field $`Z`$ must have zero charge under the $`U(1)`$.444SUSY breaking scalar masses are invariant under the $`U(1)`$ symmetry and do not provide any constraint. It is clear that the simultaneous presence of the gaugino mass term and the $`\mu `$ term reduces the $`U(1)`$ symmetry to a discrete subgroup $`Z_N`$. Therefore, one has to start with a discrete symmetry $`Z_N`$ with the spurion superfield $`Z`$ having a charge $`0modN`$. Under $`Z_N`$, the conditions Eqs. (9)-(11) become

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`0modN`$
$`h+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`0modN`$
$`h+\overline{h}`$ $``$ $`2\alpha modN`$ (12)
which also implies that $`2\alpha 0modN`$.

Based on the invariance of the Yukawa couplings of Eq. (8) under $`Z_n`$ and the conditions listed in Eq. (3.1), we obtain the following set of constraint equations:

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`m_1N`$
$`h+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`m_2N`$
$`q+u+h`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha +m_3N`$
$`q+d+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha +m_4N`$
$`l+e+\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha +m_5N`$
$`2n`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha +m_6N`$
$`l+n+h`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha +m_7N,`$ (13)
where $`m_i`$ ($`i=17`$) are all integers.

The discrete $`Z_N`$ anomaly coefficients for the $`SU(3)_C`$ and the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge groups are

$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`3\alpha +3q+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}u+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}d,`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`5\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(h+\overline{h}).`$ (14)
Here we note that the fermionic charge of the $`u^c`$ field, for example, relevant for the anomaly coefficient, is $`(u\alpha )`$ since $`\theta `$ carries charge $`\alpha `$. $`A_3`$ and $`A_2`$ include contributions from the gauginos as well. We shall cancel these anomalies by applying the Green–Schwarz mechanism as given in Eq. (6).

Non–zero gauginos masses arise through the VEV $`F_Z0`$ (see Eq. (11)). Let us denote the $`Z_N`$ charge of $`F_Z`$ to be $`M`$. $`F_Z0`$ breaks the original $`Z_N`$ symmetry down to a subgroup $`Z_M`$:

$$Z_NZ_M.$$
(15)
(It must be that $`M>1`$ for an unbroken discrete symmetry to survive after SUSY breaking.) Since $`M=z2\alpha =m_1N2\alpha `$ where $`m_1`$ is an integer, we have

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{2}}M`$ (16)
with $`n_1`$ being an integer. Let $`N=n_0M`$ where $`n_0`$ is an integer. Since invariance of the Yukawa couplings under the $`Z_N`$ symmetry requires invariance under the subgroup $`Z_M`$, we can solve the constraints of Eqs. (13)-(14) along with Eq. (6) to determine the various charges by first confining to the invariance under the smaller group $`Z_M`$. Under this $`Z_M`$, a superpotential term $`\mu H_uH_d`$ will be allowed. Once a solution is found, we can embed the $`Z_M`$ symmetry into a higher $`Z_N`$ symmetry that would forbid the $`\mu `$ term. Making some change of variables, viz., $`n_2=n_0m_2,n_4=n_0m_6,n_5=n_0p_1,n_6=n_0p_2`$, and applying the anomaly cancellation condition of Eq. (6), we obtain the charges of the various fields from Eqs. (13)-(14) as

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`Mn_0`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`3q+M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_2n_6}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7n_1}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{b}}(n_2n_3+{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}n_1)`$
$`\overline{h}`$ $`=`$ $`3q+M\left({\displaystyle \frac{2n_2+n_6}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{b}}(n_2+n_3{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}+n_1)`$
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`4q+M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_2n_6}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{b}}(n_2+n_3{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}+n_1)`$
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`2q+M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_2n_6}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{7n_1}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{b}}(n_2n_3+{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}n_1)`$
$`l`$ $`=`$ $`3q+M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_2n_6}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2n_1}{3}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{b}}(n_2+n_3{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}+n_1)`$
$`e`$ $`=`$ $`6q+M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_2n_6}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5n_1}{6}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{b}}(n_2n_3+{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}n_1)`$
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_4+n_1}{2}}\right)`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`M{\displaystyle \frac{n_1}{2}}.`$ (17)
Here we have defined $`bk_3/k_2`$. The $`n_i`$ in Eq. (17) are all integers. A specific choice of the integers $`n_i`$ will fix the charge assignment explicitly. We note that the terms proportional to $`q`$ in Eq. (17) are proportional to the SM hypercharge $`Y`$. One can remove these terms and set $`q=0`$ in Eq. (17) without loss of generality by making a shift of the $`Z_M`$ charges proportional to $`Y`$. The quark doublet $`Q`$ will then have zero charge under the unbroken $`Z_M`$. It should be kept in mind that to each solution we find, one can add $`Z_M`$ charges proportional to $`Y`$ to obtain equivalent solutions.

Based on Eq. (3.1), one can compute the anomaly coefficients under $`Z_M`$. They are

$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}M(n_1n_2)`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2b}}M(3n_13n_2+bn_6).`$ (18)
Note that from the last of Eq. (17), we have $`2\alpha =0modM`$. So the superpotential is invariant under $`Z_M`$. Also, under $`Z_M`$, one has $`h+\overline{h}=0modM`$, so a $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential is allowed by this symmetry. (Such a term will be forbidden when the $`Z_M`$ symmetry is embedded into a higher $`Z_N`$ symmetry, which we shall do in subsection 3.3.) In order to avoid $`R`$–parity breaking couplings, the total charges of the corresponding superpotential terms should be non–integer multiples of $`M`$, which puts extra constraints on the $`Z_M`$ charges. There are four types of $`R`$–parity violating terms. Their $`Z_M`$ charges are given by

$`u^cd^cd^c`$ $`:`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{5n_1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{2n_2+n_6}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_4}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{b}}(n_2n_3+{\displaystyle \frac{n_5}{3}}n_1)`$
$`LLe^c`$ $`:`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_4}{2}}\right)`$
$`LH_u`$ $`:`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_4}{2}}\right)`$
$`QLd^c`$ $`:`$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{n_1n_4}{2}}\right).`$ (19)
It is easy to show that the largest $`Z_M`$ symmetry is $`Z_{6k_3}`$ from Eq. (17). We shall now find solutions to these sets of equations for various values of the parameter $`b=k_3/k_2`$.

### 3.2 Green–Schwarz anomaly cancellation at Kac–Moody level 1

The simplest possibility for the parameters $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ to take is $`k_3=k_2=1`$, so that $`b=1`$ in Eqs. (17)-(18). This is the case of Kac–Moody algebra realized at level 1. Since the constraint equations depend only on the ratio $`b=k_3/k_2`$, the case of higher levels will coincide with that of level 1 as long as the levels are the same for both $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$. From a theoretical point of view this case is the most attractive, since it allows for both $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$ to emerge from the same gauge group as in a GUT. The charge assignment and possible discrete symmetries for this case $`k_2=k_3`$ are shown explicitly in Table 3 555Among the solutions, we remove those which either are conjugate of the listed solution or can be realized as linear combination of the known solution and hypercharge. For example, in model III and IV, we have chosen $`q=0mod6`$. The charge $`q`$ need not be actually zero. Since there exists an unbroken $`U(1)_Y`$ hypercharge which is anomaly–free, one can always take a linear combination of model III (or IV) with $`U(1)_Y`$ to find equivalent solutions with $`q0modM`$. This comment also applies to the models listed in all the other tables..

The procedure we have followed to obtain Table 3 is as follows. First we set $`b=1`$. Then we choose a set of integers $`n_i`$ in the range $`n_i(05)`$. Any $`n_i`$ larger than or equal to 6 (or any negative $`n_i`$) can be absorbed into the $`modM`$ piece. The highest $`Z_M`$ symmetry is then found to be $`Z_6`$. For every choice of the integer set $`n_i`$ we demand that the $`R`$–parity breaking couplings of Eq. (19) be forbidden. (This requies $`n_1n_4`$ to be an odd integer and that the charge of $`d^c`$ should be non–zero under $`Z_M`$.) Then we solve for the charges of the various fields, setting $`q=0`$ as mentioned above. If the Green–Schwarz anomaly cancellation condition is satisfied we accept the solution. Upto overall conjugation and shifts proportional to hypercharge, the complete set of solutions is as ginven in Table 3. We have also listed the anomaly coefficients $`(A_2,A_3)`$ in Table 3.

Several remarks are in order about the results shown in Table 3.

(i) Models I and II differ only in the value of $`\alpha `$. In the effective low energy Lagrangian, what matters is $`2\alpha `$, which is the same for both models. Although the two models look identical from low energy point of view, their embedding into a high scale theory will not be the same. This is the reason for listing them separately. We shall see that when $`Z_M`$ is embedded into a higher symmetry $`Z_N`$ so as to forbid a large $`\mu `$ term, Models I and II will look different. Similar remarks apply to Models III and IV.

(ii) The $`Z_2`$ symmetries in Table 3 (I and II) are actually subgroups of the $`Z_6`$ symmetry (III and IV). Their embedding into $`Z_N`$ will however lead to different solutions. Note also that the $`Z_3`$ subgroup of $`Z_6`$ does not show up as a solution, since that would allow for lepton number violation.

(iii) The $`Z_6`$ symmetric solutions of Table 3 are actually identical to the $`Z_6`$ subgroup of $`BL`$ shown in Table 1 which can prevent $`R`$–parity violation in MSSM . This can be recognized by taking linear combinations of Models III-IV and hypercharge. Suppose we normalize hypercharge so that all MSSM fields have integer values denoted by $`\widehat{Y}`$ (with $`Q`$ field having $`\widehat{Y}=1`$). Take now the combination $`3(IV)+\widehat{Y}`$ ($`mod6)`$. This redefined charge is identical to the $`Z_6`$ subgroup of $`BL`$ of Table 1. The $`Z_2`$ models are identified as the $`Z_2`$ subgroups of $`BL`$. We conclude from our systematic analysis that even with GS anomaly cancellation, the only allowed discrete symmetries at the $`Z_M`$ level (which admits a superpotential $`\mu `$ term) are the subgroups of $`BL`$. This will however be not the case when $`Z_M`$ is embedded into $`Z_N`$. Note also that the anomaly coefficients $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ in Table 3 are all equal to $`M/2`$, so GS mechanism is not playing a role in anomaly cancellations. This remark will also be different in the $`Z_N`$ embedding.

### 3.3 Embedding $`Z_M`$ into $`Z_N`$ and solving the $`\mu `$–problem

We recall that the original $`Z_N`$ symmetry broke down to a subgroup $`Z_M`$ once the spurion field $`Z`$ acquired a VEV along its $`F`$–component. At the level of $`Z_M`$, a superpotential $`\mu `$–term is allowed. Now we turn to the task of identifying the original $`Z_N`$ symmetry needed for explaining the $`\mu `$ term. We look for the simplest higher symmetry into which the $`Z_M`$ solutions of Table 3 can be embedded. Each of the model in Table 3 has a different embedding into $`Z_N`$.

Consider the embedding of Model I in Table 3 into $`Z_N`$. The smallest $`Z_N`$ group that contains a $`Z_2`$ subgroup is $`Z_4`$. This embedding is shown in Table 4. There are two possible charge assignments indicated as Models Ia and Ib. These models are obtained as follows. First we choose the value of $`\alpha `$ to be either 1 or 3 under $`Z_4`$ (since it must reduce to 1 under $`Z_2`$). These two values correspond to the two models in Table 4. Then we demand that a bare $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential is prevented by the $`Z_4`$ symmetry. That determines the charges $`(h,\overline{h})`$ to be either (1, 3) or (3, 1). It turns out that the charges in the latter case are the conjugates of the former, and so we discard it. Then we set the charge $`n`$ to be either 1 or 3, consistent with it being 1 under $`Z_2`$ subgroup. This fixes the charges of all fields. For each case the anomaly coefficients $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ are computed. If the anomalies are cancelled by the GS mechanism, we accept the solution. Only two solutions are found to survive, as displayed in Table 4.

Note that the discrete $`Z_4`$ anomalies are cancelled by the GS mechanism. Individually $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ are not multiples of $`N/2=2`$, but the two coefficients differ only by $`N/2=2`$. We conclude that this simple solution would not have been possible without GS anomaly cancellation.

The models of Table 4 can be recast in a very simple form by forming the linear combination {Ia $`+\widehat{Y}`$ ($`mod4`$)}, or {Ib $`+\widehat{Y}`$ ($`mod4`$)} with $`\widehat{Y}`$ being the integer values of SM hypercharge. We display in Table 5 Model Ia recast in this form. The charge assignment is very simple, all matter fields of MSSM carry charge 1 under $`Z_4`$, while the Higgs superfields carry charge 0. The gauginos also have charge 1. The contribution to the $`Z_4`$ anomaly from the matter fields are the same for $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ (the number of color triplets is the same as the number of $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets in MSSM). While the gluino contributes an amount equal to 3 to $`A_3`$, the sum of the $`SU(2)_L`$ gaugino (= 2) and the Higgsinos ($`=1`$) add to $`A_2=+1`$. We see that $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ differ by $`N/2=2`$, signaling anomaly cancellation via GS mechanism.

The charge assignment shown in Table 5 is clearly compatible with grand unification. The Kac–Moody level associated with hypercharge will be $`k_1=5/3`$ with a GUT embedding. Gauge coupling unification is then predicted, since $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=3/8`$ near the string scale. This is true even if there were no covering GUT symmetry.

Now we turn to Model II of Table 3. Embedding this $`Z_2`$ into a $`Z_4`$ is not viable, since a large $`\mu `$ term cannot be prevented in that case. The next simplest possibility is $`Z_6`$, which also does not work as the $`Z_6`$ anomalies do not cancel. The simplest embedding is found to be into a $`Z_{10}`$ with the charge assignment as shown in Table 6.

In the models of Table 6, one might consider a $`Z_5`$ subgroup of $`Z_{10}`$. This subgroup is sufficient to forbid the $`\mu `$–term in the superpotential $`W`$, as well as to prevent dangerous $`R`$–parity violating couplings in $`W`$. With invariance only under $`Z_5`$, the term $`u^cd^cd^c`$ will have zero charge. A Lagrangian term arising from the Kahler potential $`d^4\theta (u^cd^cd^cZ^{}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2)`$ will then be allowed. Once $`F_Z`$ acquires a non–zero VEV, this term will lead to a superpotential term $`d^2\theta (M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})u^cd^cd^c`$. Such a term violates $`R`$–parity, although very weakly. Signals of such a weak violation will be unobservable in collider experiments. However, this scenario will not fit well with cosmological constraints. The LSP will decay through this induced $`R`$–parity violating Yukawa coupling $`\lambda ^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ , which has a strength of order $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{15}`$. We can estimate the lifetime of the LSP to be $`\tau [(\lambda ^{^{\prime \prime }})^2M_{LSP}/(8\pi )]^110^4`$ sec. Such a lifetime falls into the cosmologically disfavored range and would be in violation of nucleosynthesis constraints. (This situation is analogous to the gravitino problem of supergravity, but is slightly worse, since the LSP mass is expected to be order 100 GeV, rather than a TeV for the gravitino, making the LSP lifetime somewhat longer than that of the gravitino.) We consider the $`Z_5`$ solution to be unacceptable for this reason. Since $`Z_5`$ symmetry does not contain a $`Z_2`$ subgroup, exact $`R`$–parity could not be defined after SUSY breaking, unlike in the case of $`Z_{10}`$ model.

In Tables 7 and 8 we show the simplest embedding of Models III and IV into $`Z_{12}`$ and $`Z_{18}`$ respectively. The procedure we have adopted is identical to that for Models I and II.

As in the case of the $`Z_{10}`$ model of Table 6, we may consider taking a $`Z_9`$ subgroup of $`Z_{18}`$ in Table 8. However, since $`Z_9`$ does not contain $`Z_2`$ or $`Z_6`$ as subgroups, after SUSY breaking, small $`R`$–parity violating Yukawa couplings of the type $`WLLe^c`$ will be generated from the Kahler potential with coupling constants of order $`10^{15}`$. Such couplings would violate constraints from big bang nucleosynthesis since the lifetime of the LSP will be of order $`10^4`$ sec. We shall not consider the $`Z_9`$ subgroup any further.

### 3.4 Discrete anomaly cancellation at higher Kac–Moody level

Thus far we have assumed the parameter $`bk_3/k_2=1`$. This is the case when the Kac–Moody levels for $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(2)_L`$ are the same, the simplest possibility being $`k_3=k_2=1`$. It is also possible that $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ are not the same. It is not clear to us how easy it is to construct string models with different values for $`k_3`$ and $`k_2`$. Although it might appear less attractive theoretically, it is nevertheless a logical possibility. In this section we analyze discrete anomaly cancellation for values of $`k_3/k_21`$.

From a technical point of view it appears to be difficult to construct models with levels higher than 3 in string theory . Motivated by this observation, we shall confine our discussions to $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ being less than or equal to 3. This allows for the cases when $`bk_3/k_2=1,2,1/2,1/3,2/3`$ and $`3/2`$. The case of $`b=1`$ has already been analyzed in the previous section, so we turn to the other cases.

From the solution Eq. (3.1) which applies to $`Z_M`$ invariance (that allows a bare $`\mu `$ term, but forbids all $`R`$–parity violations), a few simplifications can be found. The case where $`b=1/2`$ and $`b=1/3`$ are identical to the case of $`b=1`$. This is because the $`b`$–dependent terms only contribute to the various charges proportional to $`n_5`$ in Eq. (17). But this $`n_5`$ contribution can be absorbed into the $`n_2`$ term in all equations. No new solutions will then be generated under $`Z_M`$. Similarly, it is easy to see that the cases $`b=2/1`$ and $`b=2/3`$ are equivalent under $`Z_M`$. And the case where $`b=3/1`$ becomes identical to the case of $`b=3/2`$. Among these equivalent cases under $`Z_M`$, we shall only consider one possibility. Although it is possible that when the resulting models are embedded into a higher symmetry $`Z_N`$, new models at higher levels may emerge, we shall not pursue it here.

We shall then focus on the case where $`bk_3/k_2=2`$, and $`b=3`$ for anomaly cancellation at higher Kac–Moody level. Following the same procedure as in the previous section, we obtain the corresponding discrete symmetry and charge assignment. The solutions for the case of $`k_3/k_2=2`$, which is the same for $`k_3/k_2=2/3`$, are shown in Table 9. The discrete $`Z_M`$ symmetry is $`Z_6`$ in this case. Note that the discrete GS mechanism cancels the gauge anomalies of $`Z_6`$. For example, $`A_2=9/2,A_3=6`$ is anomaly free since with $`k_2=1,k_3=2`$, the cancellation condition is that $`2A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ differ by an integer multiple of $`N/2=3`$ (see Eq. (6)).

The two $`Z_6`$ models of Table 9 have been embedded into the simplest possible $`Z_N`$ model in Tables 10 and 11. The $`Z_N`$ symmetries are found to be $`Z_{12}`$ and $`Z_{18}`$. The discrete gauge anomalies are cancelled by GS mechanism, as before. Take Model Vd for example, which has $`A_2=3/2,A_3=9`$ under $`Z_{12}`$. $`2A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ differ by 6, which is an integer multiple of $`N/2=6`$.

The next case is when $`b=k_3/k_2=3`$, which gives at the $`Z_M`$ level the same models as $`b=3/2`$. In Table 12 we list the allowed $`Z_M`$ models, with $`M=18`$. Table 13 has the embedding of Model VII into $`Z_{18}`$ that prevents a large $`\mu `$ term, Table 14 has the embedding of Model VIII, the simplest possibility for which being $`Z_{90}`$. In all cases the discrete anomalies are cancelled by the GS mechanism.

It should be mentioned that at the level of $`Z_M`$, it is easy to realize an $`R`$–parity that allows for lepton number violation, but conserves baryon number. Rapid proton decay will be prevented in this case. Lepton number violating processes and neutrino masses do provide some constraints, but these are much less stringent.

Consider the $`Z_6`$ models of Table 3 (Models III and IV). Suppose we impose invariance only under the $`Z_3`$ subgroup of $`Z_6`$ with the same charge assignment as in Table 3. The lepton number violating couplings $`LH_u,LLe^c,`$ and $`QLd^c`$ all have charge $`3`$ under the $`Z_6`$ symmetry, so with only $`Z_3`$ invariance imposed, these couplings will be allowed in the superpotential. Since the original $`Z_6`$ symmetry is free from discrete gauge anomalies, the subgroup $`Z_3`$ is also free from such anomalies. One cannot however embed this $`Z_3`$ symmetry to any higher $`Z_N`$ in order to explain the $`\mu `$–parameter. Consider the $`LH_u`$ term in the superpotential. $`Z_N`$ invariance of this term would imply $`l+h=2\alpha modN`$. The last two relations of Eq. (13) would imply $`2\alpha =0modN`$, implying that a bare $`\mu `$ term in the superpotential will be allowed. An alternative explanation for the $`\mu `$–term will have to be found in the case of lepton number violating $`R`$–parity.

It is also possible, although somewhat non–trivial, to have baryon number violating $`R`$–parity without dangerous lepton number violation. (Neutrino masses violate lepton number by two units, but that does not result in rapid proton decay.) At the level of $`Z_N`$ we can show that anomalies associated with such an $`R`$–parity will have to be cancelled at higher Kac–Moody levels. If the coupling $`u^cd^cd^c`$ is allowed in the superpotential, we find that the $`Z_N`$ discrete symmetry has anomalies given by $`A_3=3\alpha `$, $`A_2=5/2\alpha (3/4)pN`$ where $`p`$ is an integer. Imposing the anomaly cancellation condition, Eq. (6), we find $`\alpha =(m_1k_2+m_2(k_3/2)p)N/(6k_35k_3)`$ with $`m_1,m_2,p`$ being integers. When $`k_2=k_3=1`$, this relation shows that $`2\alpha =0modN`$, meaning that a bare $`\mu `$–term will be allowed in the superpotential. If we choose $`k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ differently, this problem will not arise. Consider for example, $`k_3=2,k_2=1`$. A consistent $`Z_N`$ charge assignment corresponding to a $`Z_4`$ symmetry is shown in Table 15 for this case. This model allows for the coupling $`u^cd^cd^c`$, while preventing other $`R`$–parity violating couplings. The $`Z_4`$ anomalies are cancelled by GS mechanism, which in this case reads as $`2A_2A_3=m2n`$, with $`m,n`$ being integers.

## 4 Discrete flavor symmetries and the the fermion mass hierarchy

As indicated earlier, there must be an unbroken $`Z_M`$ symmetry which is flavor–independent that survives to low energy scales, to be identified as an $`R`$–parity. We can however introduce flavor dependence in the original symmetry, provided that a subgroup of the flavor group remains unbroken and can be identified as one of the $`Z_M`$ symmetries of Table 3. In this section we embark on this question. Our aim will be to seek an understanding of the observed hierarchy in the fermion masses and mixings without introducing such hierarchy by hand.

Anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry is widely used for the explanation of fermion mass and mixing hierarchy . The general superpotential in this has the following expression:

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`Q_iu_j^cH_u\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^{(h_1)_{ij}}+Q_id_j^cH_d\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^{(h_2)_{ij}}+L_ie_j^cH_d\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^{(h_3)_{ij}}`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`L_i\nu _j^cH_u\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^{(h_4)_{ij}}+\nu ^c\nu ^cS\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}}\right)^{(h_5)_{ij}}`$
where $`S`$ is an MSSM singlet field with a non–trivial anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charge. $`S`$ acquires a VEV near the string scale and disappears from the low energy spectrum. Here $`(h_\alpha )_{ij}`$ is a set of integers for $`\alpha =1,2,3,4,5`$ and $`i,j=1,2,3`$ are the generation indices. We assume that all the Yukawa couplings are of order one. After $`S`$ field develops a VEV, near but somewhat below the string scale, a small parameter $`ϵ=S/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}1/5`$ is generated. This factor appears in various powers with the Yukawa couplings, explaining the observed mass and mixing hierarchy . It is possible to suppress all the MSSM Yukawa couplings to the desired level by choosing appropriate set of $`U(1)`$ charges .

An acceptable flavor texture which gives the correct pattern of fermion masses and mixings is:

$`U_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^5& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^4& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)H_u,D_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)ϵ^pH_d,`$ (27)
$`L_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& 1\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& 1\end{array}\right)ϵ^pH_d,\nu _{ij}^D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)ϵ^{a_1}H_d,`$ (34)
where $`U_{ij}`$, $`D_{ij}`$, $`L_{ij}`$ and $`\nu _{ij}^D`$ correspond to up–quark, down quark, charged lepton and Dirac neutrino Yukawa matrices resulting from the appropriate powers of the $`S`$ field in Eq. (20). The integer $`p`$ can be either 0, 1 or 2, corresponding to large, medium and small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ respectively.

Once the charged lepton sector and Dirac neutrino sector are constructed, we can uniquely define the form of the heavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix. In the present example it is

$$\nu _{ij}^M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right)ϵ^{a_2}.$$
(35)
As mentioned before, the MSSM superpotential does not possess any unbroken $`U(1)`$ symmetry, apart from the gauge symmetry. Therefore we seek solutions of a $`Z_N`$ discrete symmetry that would generate the Yukawa matrices of Eq. (21).

$`Z_N`$ invariance of the Yukawa couplings in Eq. (20) imposes constaints in the up–quark sector given by

$$q_i+u_j+h+ps=2\alpha modN,$$
(36)
where $`p`$ is the power of $`ϵ`$ appearing in the appropriate element of the $`U_{ij}`$ matrix, which is equal to the power in the field $`S`$. $`s`$ denotes the $`U(1)`$ charge of $`S`$ field. Similar conditions apply for the charges of the other SM fermions as well. By construction, the flavor structure of the matrices obey the “determinant rule”, viz., that in any $`2\times 2`$ sub–block, the determinant is a homogeneous function of $`ϵ`$. This means that out of the 18 conditions for the up–quark and the down–quark sector, only 8 will be independent.

We wish to have an unbroken $`Z_M`$ symmetry that is a subgroup of $`Z_N`$ which is flavor–independent. Since the flavon field $`S`$ has a $`Z_N`$ charge of $`s`$, once it acquires a VEV of order the string scale, the $`Z_N`$ will be broken down to $`Z_s`$. We shall attempt to embed the $`Z_M`$ of Table 3 into $`Z_s`$.

To be specific, let us work out an example with the $`Z_2`$ model of Table 3 and embed this $`Z_2`$ into a higher $`Z_N`$ symmetry that allows for the desired flavor structure. The $`Z_N`$ symmetry must be $`Z_{14+2n}`$ for this embedding to be consistent, with $`n`$ being any integer. The smallest such symmetry is then $`Z_{14}`$. The flavon field $`S`$ must carry zero charge under $`Z_2`$ and should transform non–trivially under the $`Z_N`$. The simplest possibility is $`s=2`$. Now, the Yukawa textures of Eq. (21) makes use of $`S^6`$ terms in the superpotential, which should be different from $`S^0`$. This requirement makes the smallest $`Z_N`$ symmetry to be $`Z_{14}`$. If this symmetry were $`Z_{12}`$, for example, $`S^6`$ will be neutral under $`Z_{12}`$, making the (11) and the (33) entries of the up–quark Yukawa matrix of the same order. We can generalize this statement to any low scale discrete symmetry. The corresponding flavor–dependent symmetry must be $`Z_{M(k+1)+n}`$, where $`Z_M`$ is the low scale surviving discrete symmetry, $`k`$ corresponds the highest power of the $`S`$ field in the general superpotential, Eq. (20), and $`n`$ is a positive integer. This choice will guarantee the existence of $`Z_M`$ discrete $`R`$–parity at low energy scales.

Three examples of $`Z_{14}`$ symmetric models are presented in Table 16. We have chosen the charge of $`S`$ to be 2 and fixed the charge of $`\theta `$ to be 7 in these examples. Discrete anomaly cancellation is enforced via GS mechanism at Kac–Moody level 1. We have also imposed the conditions that the $`Z_{14}`$ symmetry forbid all $`R`$–parity violating couplings.

The $`Z_N`$ symmetry group would depend on the highest power of $`ϵ`$ appearing in the fermion Yukawa matrices. If we want to have symmetry smaller than $`Z_{14}`$, we should reduce the power of $`S`$ field in Eq. (20). One way is to re-parameterize the value of $`ϵ`$. For example, if $`ϵ`$ is taken to be of order 1/10, rather than 1/5 as was assumed in Eq. (21), it might suffice to use cubic powers of $`S`$ at most. A $`Z_8`$ discrete symmetry would then suffice to forbid the $`R`$–parity breaking terms. We consider the expansion given in Eq. (21) to be more realistic.

In Table 17 we present three models based on $`Z_{28}`$ symmetry that forbid all $`R`$–parity violating couplings, explain the fermion mass and mixing hierarchy via the texture of Eq. (21) and also solve the $`\mu `$–problem via the Guidice–Masiero mechanism. As before, the discrete gauge anomalies are cancelled by the GS mechanism. We find it remarkable that a single discrete symmetry can do all these jobs. It may be mentioned that $`Z_{28}`$ is not a large symmetry unlikely to be realized in string theory. For example, if the particle spectrum contains fields carrying charges of $`(1,1/4,1/7)`$ under the anomalous $`U(1)`$, and if a scalar field with charge 1 acquires a VEV, the unbroken $`Z_N`$ symmetry will be $`Z_{28}`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have investigated the possibility of realizing $`R`$–parity of MSSM as a discrete gauge symmetry. Simultaneously we have demanded that this discrete symmetry should provide a natural explanation for the $`\mu `$–term, the Higgsino mass parameter in the MSSM superpotential, via the Guidice–Masiero mechanism. We have adopted a discrete version of the Green–Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism in our search for discrete gauge symmetries, which is is less constraining than the conventional methods.

We have found simple examples of $`Z_N`$ symmetries that act as $`R`$–parity and simultaneously solve the $`\mu `$–problem, without extending the particle content of the MSSM. The simplest example is a $`Z_4`$ symmetry with a simple charge assignment that is compatible with grand unification. The Green–Schwarz mechanism plays a crucial role in cancelling the $`Z_4`$ anomalies. Other examples of $`Z_N`$ symmetries are provided with $`N=10,12,18,36`$ etc. In some cases the discrete anomalies are cancelled by the GS mechanism at higher Kac–Moody levels. We have found that it is easy to realize lepton number violating $`R`$–parity as a discrete symmetry, but implementing the Guidice–Masiero mechanism for the $`\mu `$ term is difficult in this case. Baryon number violating $`R`$–parity can be realized, along with a natural explanation of the $`\mu `$ term, but the discrete gauge anomalies are cancelled in this case at higher Kac–Moody level.

It has been shown that a simple $`Z_N`$ symmetry can also explain the observed hierarchical structure of quark and lepton masses and mixings, while preserving the desired $`R`$–parity and the solution to the $`\mu `$–problem. Examples of a $`Z_{28}`$ symmetry doing all these have been presented.

## 6 Acknowledgement

We thank J. Lykken and Ts. Enkhbat for useful discussion. This work is supported in part by DOE Grant # DE-FG03-98ER-41076, a grant from the Research Corporation and by DOE Grant # DE-FG02-01ER-45684.


format: text

text:
# Nucleon–Nucleon Coincidence Spectra in the Non–Mesonic Weak Decay of Λ–Hypernuclei and the Γ_𝑛/Γ_𝑝 Puzzle

## Abstract

The main open problem in the physics of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–hypernuclei is the lack of a sound theoretical interpretation of the large experimental values for the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }nnn)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }pnp)`$. To approach the problem, we have incorporated a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NnN`$ one–meson–exchange model in an intranuclear cascade code for a finite nucleus calculation of the nucleon–nucleon (angular and energy) coincidence distributions in the non–mesonic weak decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ hypernuclei. The two–nucleon induced decay mechanism, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }npnnp`$, has been taken into account by means of the polarization propagator formalism in local density approximation. With respect to single nucleon spectra studies, the treatment of two–nucleon correlations permits a cleaner and more direct determination, from data, of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$. Our results agree with the preliminary coincidence data of KEK–E462 for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$. This allows us to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ should be close to $`0.46`$, the value predicted by our one–meson–exchange model for this hypernucleus. Unfortunately, to disentangle one– and two–body induced decay channels from experimental non–mesonic decay events, three–nucleon coincidences should be measured.

Since many years, a sound theoretical explanation of the large experimental values of the ratio, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$, between the neutron– and proton–induced non–mesonic decay widths, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }nnn)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }pnp)`$, of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–hypernuclei is missing . The calculations underestimate the central data for all considered hypernuclei, although the large experimental error bars do not allow one to reach any definite conclusion. Moreover, in the experiments performed until now it has not been possible to distinguish between nucleons produced by the one–body induced and the (non–negligible) two–body induced decay mechanism, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NNnNN`$. Because of its strong tensor component, the one–pion–exchange (OPE) model with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ isospin rule supplies very small ratios, typically in the interval $`0.05÷0.20`$. On the contrary, the OPE description can reproduce the total non–mesonic decay rates observed for light and medium hypernuclei. Other interaction mechanisms beyond OPE might then be responsible for the overestimation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ and the underestimation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. Those which have been studied extensively in the literature are the following ones: 1) the inclusion in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NnN`$ transition potential of mesons heavier than the pion (also including the exchange of correlated or uncorrelated two–pions) ; 2) the inclusion of interaction terms that explicitly violate the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule ; 3) the inclusion of the two–body induced decay mechanism  and 4) the description of the short range $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NnN`$ transition in terms of quark degrees of freedom , which automatically introduces $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ contributions.

Recent progress has been made on the subject.
(1) On the one hand, a few calculations  with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NnN`$ transition potentials including heavy–meson–exchange and/or direct quark contributions obtained ratios more in agreement with data, without providing, nevertheless, a satisfactory explanation of the puzzle. In particular, these calculations found a reduction of the proton–induced decay width due to the opposite sign of the tensor component of $`K`$–exchange with respect to the one for $`\pi `$–exchange. Moreover, the parity violating $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N(^3S_1)nN(^3P_1)`$ transition, which contributes to both the $`n`$– and $`p`$–induced processes, is considerably enhanced by $`K`$–exchange and direct quark mechanisms and tends to increase $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ .
(2) On the other hand, an error in the computer program employed in Ref.  to evaluate the single nucleon energy spectra from non–mesonic decay has been detected . It consisted in the underestimation, by a factor ten, of the nucleon–nucleon collision probabilities. The correction of such an error leads to quite different spectral shapes and allows one to extract smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ (which is a free parameter in the polarization propagator model of Refs. ) when a comparison with old experimental data for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C  is done.

In the light of these recent developments and of new experiments , it is important to develop different theoretical approaches and strategies for the determination of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio. In this Letter we present a finite nucleus calculation of the nucleon–nucleon coincidence distributions in the non–mesonic weak decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C hypernuclei. The work is motivated by the fact that, unlike the single nucleon spectra, correlation observables permit a cleaner and more direct extraction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ from data . An experiment performed very recently at KEK  has actually measured the angular and energy correlations that we discuss in this paper. Some preliminary results of the experiment can already be compared with our calculations.

The one–meson–exchange (OME) weak transition potential we employ to describe the one–nucleon stimulated decays contains the exchange of $`\rho `$, $`K`$, $`K^{}`$, $`\omega `$ and $`\eta `$ mesons in addition to the pion . The final state interactions acting between the two primary nucleons are taken into account by using a scattering $`NN`$ wave function from the Lippmann–Schwinger ($`T`$–matrix) equation obtained with the NSC97f potential . The OME decay rates predicted by this model are the following ones : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_n+\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=0.32`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=0.46`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.55`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=0.34`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C.

The distributions of primary nucleons emitted in two–nucleon induced decays and the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ has been determined by the polarization propagator method in local density approximation of Ref. : $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.20`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=0.25`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C .

In their way out of the nucleus, the primary nucleons, due to collisions with other nucleons, continuously change energy, direction and charge. As a consequence, secondary nucleons are also emitted. We simulate the nucleon propagation inside the residual nucleus with the Monte Carlo code of Ref. .

In Fig. 1 we show the kinetic energy correlation of $`np`$ coincidence pairs emitted in the non–mesonic decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. The spectra are normalized per non–mesonic weak decay. To facilitate a comparison with experiments, whose kinetic energy threshold for proton (neutron) detection is typically of about $`30`$ ($`10`$) MeV, and to avoid a possible non–realistic behaviour of the intranuclear cascade simulation for low nucleon energies, in all the figures of the paper we required $`T_n`$, $`T_p30`$ MeV. A narrow peak is predicted close to the $`Q`$–value (153 MeV) expected for the proton–induced three–body process $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}^3\mathrm{H}+n+p`$: it is mainly originated by the back–to–back kinematics (cos$`\theta _{np}<0.8`$). A broad peak, predominantly due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }pnp`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }nnn`$ weak transitions followed by the emission of secondary (less energetic) nucleons, has been found around $`140`$ MeV for cos$`\theta _{np}>0.8`$. The kinetic energy correlation for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He $`nn`$ pairs (Fig. 2) shows essentially the same structure of the $`np`$ distribution just discussed.

In Fig. 3, which corresponds to the energy correlation of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ $`np`$ pairs, the narrow peak appearing at $`T_n+T_p155`$ MeV again gets the dominant contribution from back–to–back coincidences. The relevance of the nucleon final state interactions (FSI) in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C relative to $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He can be seen from the second, broader peak appearing in the region around 110 MeV for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ and 140 MeV for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$. This peak is in fact more pronounced for the heavier hypernucleus. Another consequence of the different FSI effects in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C is the different magnitude of the tail of the back–to–back distribution at low energies.

Figs. 4 and 5 show the opening angle correlations of $`nn,np`$ and $`pp`$ pairs emitted in the decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$, respectively. Comparing both figures for $`nn`$ and $`np`$ coincidences, one sees that the back–to–back peaks are more pronounced for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ (less sensitive to FSI than $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$) than for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$, while the (almost uniform) tail of these distributions (feeded by FSI) is more significant in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ than in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$. Since at least one proton of any $`pp`$ coincidence is a secondary particle, the $`pp`$ spectra are quite uniform: actually, due to the relevance of the back–to–back kinematics in the weak decay, these distributions slowly decrease as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{pp}`$ increases. Again as a consequence of FSI, the number of $`pp`$ pairs is considerably larger in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$ than in $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$.

The ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is defined as the ratio between the number of primary weak decay $`nn`$ and $`np`$ pairs, $`N_{nn}^{\mathrm{wd}}`$ and $`N_{np}^{\mathrm{wd}}`$. However, due to nucleon FSI, one expects the inequality:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p}\frac{N_{nn}^{\mathrm{wd}}}{N_{np}^{\mathrm{wd}}}\frac{N_{nn}}{N_{np}}=f[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12},\mathrm{\Delta }(T_1+T_2)]$$
(1)
to be valid in a situation, such as the experimental one, in which particular intervals of variability of pair opening angle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}`$, and sum energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T_1+T_2)`$, are employed in the determination of $`N_{nn}`$ and $`N_{np}`$. Actually, as one can deduce from Figs. 15, not only $`N_{nn}`$ and $`N_{np}`$ but also the ratio $`N_{nn}/N_{np}`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T_1+T_2)`$. The numbers of nucleon pairs $`N_{nn}`$, $`N_{np}`$ and $`N_{pp}`$ discussed up to now are related to the corresponding quantities for the one–nucleon ($`N_{NN}^{1\mathrm{B}}`$) and two–nucleon ($`N_{NN}^{2\mathrm{B}}`$) induced processes \[the former (latter) being normalized per one–body (two–body) stimulated non–mesonic weak decay\] via the following equation:

$$N_{NN}=\frac{N_{NN}^{1\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+N_{NN}^{2\mathrm{B}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}.$$
(2)
Table I shows the dependence of $`N_{nn}`$, $`N_{np}`$ and $`N_{nn}/N_{np}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T_1+T_2)`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}`$. For comparison, the same quantities for the primary weak decay nucleons are listed as well. Without any restriction on $`\theta _{NN}`$ and the nucleon energies, one notes a great increase (by about one order of magnitude) of both the $`nn`$ and $`np`$ numbers when the effect of the FSI is taken into account. Again because of FSI, the use of an energy threshold $`T_N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ of $`30`$ MeV supplies $`N_{nn}`$ and $`N_{np}`$ values considerably reduced with respect to the ones obtained at $`T_N^{\mathrm{th}}=0`$ MeV. On the contrary, the ratio between the number of $`nn`$ and $`np`$ pairs is much less sensitive to FSI effects.

In Table II (III), the ratio $`N_{nn}/N_{np}`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He ($`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C) is given for different combinations of opening angle interval and nucleon energy threshold. In parentheses we also report the predictions obtained when the two–nucleon induced decay channel is neglected. The results of the figures and tables presented in this work are in a form that permits a direct comparison with KEK–E462 data , which are now under analysis. The first preliminary results of KEK–E462 are quoted in Table II. We note that while the central values of the data are more in agreement with the calculation that neglects the effect of the two–body induced decay mechanism, the complete results are compatible with the upper limits of the same data. This could indicate an almost negligible effect of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }npnnp`$ process and/or a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio slightly lower than the one (0.46) predicted by our OME model for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. To clarify this point, on the one hand one has to wait for the final results of KEK–E462. On the other hand, our calculations show that three–nucleon coincidences are required to disentangle the effects of one– and two–body stimulated decay channels from observed decay events. The simplistic picture that the back–to–back kinematics is able to select one–nucleon induced processes is in fact far from being realistic.

In conclusion, our OME weak interaction model supplemented by FSI through an intranuclear cascade simulation provides two–nucleon coincidence observables which reproduce the preliminary KEK–E462 results for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He. This allows us to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ for $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{5}\mathrm{He}`$ should be close to $`0.46`$. Although further (theoretical and experimental) confirmation is needed, in this paper we think we have proved how the study of nucleon coincidence observables can offer a promising possibility to solve the longstanding puzzle on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ ratio.

In a forthcoming (long) paper  we shall discuss the nucleon correlation observables for the (one– and two–nucleon stimulated) non–mesonic decay of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}`$He and $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}`$C in a sistematic way. Single nucleon spectra will be further subject of this work. In addition, one should treat the case of $`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$H, which is of extreme importance in order to test the validity of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ isospin rule in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }NnN`$ weak transition , another key point for the solution of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ puzzle.

This work is partly supported by EURIDICE HPRN–CT–2002–00311, by the DGICYT BFM2002–01868, by the Generalitat de Catalunya SGR2001–64 and by INFN. Discussions with H. Outa are acknowledged.


text:
# The minimum period problem in cataclysmic variables

## 1 Introduction

Cataclysmic variables (CVs) are short-period binaries containing a white dwarf (WD) primary (with mass $`M_1`$) and a low mass main sequence secondary (with mass $`M_2`$). The secondary fills its Roche lobe and transfers mass to the WD through the inner Lagrangian ($`L_1`$) point.

The main features of the orbital period distribution of CVs with hydrogen rich donors are the lack of systems in the 2-3 hr period range (the so-called period gap) and the sharp cut off of the distribution at around 77 minutes, as can be seen in Figure 1 (upper frame; e.g. Ritter & Kolb 1998).

So far theoretical models have been unable to reproduce the precise position of the observed short-period cut-off and observed shape of the CV orbital period distribution near this cut-off. This is summarised in Figure 1. Systems that evolve under the influence of gravitational radiation (GR; Kraft et al. 1962) as the only sink of orbital angular momentum (AM) reach a minimum period at $`P_{min}65`$ minutes (Figure1, middle frame; Paczyński 1971; Kolb & Baraffe 1999).The probability of finding a system within a given period range is proportional to the time taken to evolve through this region. We thus have

$$N(P)\frac{1}{\dot{P}},$$
(1)
for the number $`N(P)`$ of systems found within a given orbital period range around $`P`$, and $`\dot{P}`$ is the secular period derivative at this period. We thus expect an accumulation of systems (a spike) at $`P_{min}`$ where $`\dot{P}=0`$ (Figure 1, lower frame), while no such spike is present in the observed distribution (Figure1, upper frame).

The orbital period evolution reflects the radius evolution of the mass donor, which in turn is governed by two competing effects. Mass transfer perturbs thermal equilibrium and expands the star. Thermal relaxation reestablishes thermal equilibrium and contracts the star back to its equilibrium radius. The minimum period occurs where the two corresponding time scales, the mass transfer time $`t_M`$ and the thermal (Kelvin-Helmholtz) time $`t_{KH}`$ are about equal (e.g. Paczyński 1971; King 1988). If $`t_Mt_{KH}`$ then the star is able to contract in response to mass loss, but if $`t_Mt_{KH}`$ the star will not shrink rapidly enough and will become oversized for its mass. The position of the minimum period is therefore affected by the assumed mass transfer rate, and in particular by the assumed rate of orbital angular momentum (AM) losses. In this paper we investigate ways to increase the period minimum by increasing the mass transfer rate, and investigate ways to “hide” the spike by introducing a spread of $`P_{min}`$ values in the CV population. In particular, we study the effect of a form of consequential AM loss (CAML) where the AM is lost as a consequence of the mass transferred from the secondary, i.e. $`\dot{J}_{CAML}\dot{M}_2`$ (see e.g. Webbink 1985).

In section 2.1 we outline our general model assumptions and introduce the prescription for CAML. In section 2.2 we present detailed calculations of the long-term evolution of CVs, and in section 3 we compare the observed short period CV period distribution with various theoretically synthesized model distributions based on the calculations in section 2.

## 2 Theoretical versus observed minimum period

In this section we investigate possible solutions to the mismatch between the theoretical and observed minimum orbital period in CVs.

### 2.1 CAML description

The orbital AM loss rate $`\dot{J}`$ of a CV can be written as the sum of two terms,

$$\dot{J}=\dot{J}_{sys}+\dot{J}_{CAML},$$
(2)
where $`\dot{J}_{sys}`$ denotes the “systemic” AM loss rate, such as gravitational wave radiation, that is independent of mass transfer, while $`\dot{J}_{CAML}`$ is an explicit function of the mass transfer rate. We have

$$\frac{\dot{J}_{sys}}{\dot{M}_2}=0$$
(3)
and

$$\dot{J}_{CAML}0\text{as}\dot{M}_20$$
(4)
We consider the general case in which the CAML mechanism, along with nova mass ejections, causes a fraction of the transferred mass to leave the system. This fraction may be greater than unity as the primary may lose more mass during a nova outburst than was accreted since the last outburst.

We employ a generic prescription of the effect of a CAML mechanism, thus avoiding the need to specify its physical nature. Possible CAML mechanisms include a magnetic propeller, i.e. a system containing a rapidly spinning magnetic WD where some of the transferred material gains angular momentum from the WD spin by interaction with the WD’s magnetic field (see e.g. Wynn, King & Horne 1997), and an accretion disc wind (see e.g. Livio & Pringle 1994).

Our CAML prescription largely follows the notation of King & Kolb (1995). The AM is assumed to be lost via mass loss that is axis-symmetrical with respect to an axis A fixed at the WD centre but perpendicular to the orbital plane.

We define $`\alpha `$ as the total fraction of mass lost from the secondary that leaves the system. We assume further that a fraction $`\beta `$ ($`0\beta \alpha `$) of the transferred mass leaves the system with some fraction $`f`$ of the angular momentum it had on leaving the $`L_1`$ point.

We also consider mass that is lost from the system via nova mass ejections, which over the long term can be considered as an isotropic wind from the primary (see e.g. Kolb et al. 2001). This material will carry away the specific orbital angular momentum of the primary and will account for the fraction ($`\alpha \beta `$) of the mass loss. We thus obtain

$$\dot{J}_{CAML}=\eta b^2\omega \dot{M}_2+\frac{\alpha M_2J\dot{M}_2}{M_1M},$$
(5)
where we define $`\eta =\beta f`$ as the CAML efficiency. For comparison with King & Kolb (1995) we equate this to

$$\dot{J}_{CAML}=\nu \frac{\dot{M}_2}{M_2}J,\nu >0,$$
(6)
and obtain

$$\nu =\eta (1+q)\left(\frac{b}{a}\right)^2+\frac{\alpha q^2}{(1+q)}.$$
(7)
For our calculations shown below we use the approximation

$$\frac{b}{a}1\phi +\frac{\phi ^2}{3}\frac{5\phi ^4}{12},\text{with}\phi ^3=\frac{q}{3+3q}.$$
(8)
This is an adaptation of the expression given in Kopal (1959) and is accurate to within 1% over the range $`0<q0.4`$.

### 2.2 Results of numerical experiments

In this subsection we present calculations of the long-term evolution of CVs as they approach and evolve beyond the period minimum. For the computations we used the stellar code by Mazzitelli (1989), adapted to CVs by Kolb & Ritter (1992). Some of these evolutionary sequences are the basis for the theoretical CV period distributions we present in section 3 below.

#### 2.2.1 Consequential angular momentum loss

We calculated the evolution of individual systems that are subject to CAML according to equations 6 and 7. We chose $`M_1=0.6M_{}`$ and initial donor mass $`M_2=0.2M_{}`$, with a range of CAML efficiencies $`0\eta 0.95`$ as shown in Figure 2.

The systems initially evolve from longer periods towards the period bounce (right to left) at almost constant mass transfer rate. The minimum period increases with increasing CAML efficiency to a maximum of around 70 min for $`\eta =0.95`$.

Mass transfer stability sets an upper limit on the CAML efficiency. An obvious upper limit is 1, where all the angular momentum of the transferred material is ejected from the system. Although the ejected material may carry more angular momentum than was transferred (as in the case of a propeller system where additional angular momentum is taken from the spin of the WD) this does not affect the net loss of orbital angular momentum.

The maximum CAML efficiency still compatible with mass transfer stability could be smaller than unity. The stability parameter $`D`$ which enters the expression for steady-state mass transfer, equation 9 (e.g. King & Kolb 1995) must be greater than zero; this defines an upper limit on $`\eta `$.

$$\dot{M}_2=M_2\left(\frac{\dot{J}/J}{D}\right)$$
(9)
A plot of $`D`$ against $`q`$ for an initially marginally stable system ($`M_1=0.7M_{}`$, $`M_2(init)=0.2M_{}`$ and $`\eta =1.0`$) is given in Figure 3. The system initially exhibits cycles of high mass transfer rate $`\dot{M}_2>10^9M_{}/yr`$ ($`D`$ close to 0) and very low mass transfer rate $`\dot{M}_20`$. The high states are short lived, on the order of $`2\times 10^6`$ years (see Figure 4). The system finally stabilizes with $`D0.65`$. At around $`P_{min}\text{ }(q0.15)`$ $`D`$ starts to decrease further but always remains positive, settling at a value around $`0.3`$.

#### 2.2.2 Structure of the secondary

The tidal deformation of the secondary may have an effect on the period minimum. Calculations by Renvoizé, Baraffe, Kolb & Ritter (2002), \[see also Kolb 2002\] using 3–dimensional SPH models suggest that the secondary is deformed in the non-spherical Roche lobe such that its volume–equivalent radius is around 1.06 times that of the same star in isolation.

We mimic this effect in our 1-dimensional stellar structure code by multiplying the calculated radius by a deformation factor $`\lambda `$ before the mass transfer rate is determined from the difference between the radius and the Roche lobe radius via

$$\dot{M}_2=\dot{M}_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{R_LR_2}{H_p}\right).$$
(10)
Here $`\dot{M}_010^8M_{}yr^1`$ is the mass transfer rate of a binary in which the secondary just fills its Roche potential and $`H_p`$ is the photospheric pressure scale height of the secondary (see e.g. Ritter 1988).

Figure 5 shows the effect on the minimum period and mass transfer rate for systems with various deformation factors $`\lambda `$, ranging from 1 (no deformation) to 1.24. The mass transfer rate is seen to decrease with increasing deformation. This can be understood from the functional dependence on orbital period and donor mass in the usual quadrupole formula for the AM loss rate due to gravitational radiation (see e.g. Landau & Lifschitz 1958). Although the quadrupole formula is strictly valid only if both components are point masses, Rezzolla, Uryū & Yoshida (2001) found that the GR rate obtained using a full 3-dimensional representation of the donor star differs from the point–mass approximation by less than a few percent.

It can be seen from the figure that with the deformation factor 1.06 the minimum period increases from around 65 min to around 69 min, consistent with Renvoizé et al (2002) for geometrical effects alone. A deformation factor of around 1.18 was required to raise the minimum period to the observed value of $`77`$ min. This is somewhat larger than the intuitive expectation

$$\text{increase in radius}\left(\frac{\text{new period}}{\text{old period}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}=\left(\frac{77}{65}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}=1.12$$
(11)
from Kepler’s law and Roche geometry.

In our calculations we consider the simple case in which only the geometrical deformation effects are taken into account. The inclusion of the thermal effects considered by Renvoizé et al (2002) have the likely effect of reducing $`P_{min}`$, possibly by around 2% compared to the case with purely geometrical effects

One possible physical mechanism that could cause a deformation factor above the value of 1.06 is magnetic pressure inside the star, as suggested by D’Antona (2000).

We note that Patterson (2000) claims to find observational evidence for “bloated” secondaries in short period CVs. On the basis of donor mass estimates from the observed superhump excess period he finds that the donors have $`1530\%`$ larger radii than predicted from 1 dimensional., non–deformed stellar models if gravitational radiation is the only AM sink. Even if true, this observation cannot distinguish between an intrinsic deformation of the donor star or the non-equilibrium caused by orbital AM losses in excess of the GR rate.

## 3 Parent distributions versus observations

To test the statistical significance of the theoretically predicted accumulation of systems near the period minimum (“period spike”) we calculated the period distributions of model populations for various assumptions about evolutionary parameters. For each parameter a series of evolutionary tracks were generated, typically around 20.

As systems evolve after the minimum period a point is reached (typically when $`\dot{M}`$ falls below $`10^{11}(M_{}yr^1)`$) where numerical fluctuations in $`\dot{M}`$ become so large that the Henyey scheme no longer converges. The stellar code uses tables to interpolate/extrapolate the opacities and equation of state for each iteration, and in this region the extrapolations become very uncertain. To extend the tracks we used a semi-analytical method as follows.

The tracks were terminated at a value of $`\mathrm{log}\dot{M}_2=\mathrm{log}\dot{M}_2(\text{Pturn})0.3`$, where $`\dot{M}_2(\text{Pturn})`$ is the mass transfer rate at the minimum period for the track. The radius of the star for the final part of the track is approximated by

$$R_2=R_0M_2^\zeta ,$$
(12)
where $`R_0`$ and $`\zeta `$ are assumed to be constant. The values of $`R_0`$ and $`\zeta `$ were determined from the final few data points for each track. ($`\zeta `$ takes a typical value of around 0.15 for systems beyond the period bounce.) To generate the extension to the track we then calculated $`P`$ from the Roche lobe condition, and $`\dot{M}_2`$ by assuming stationarity as in section 2.2.1 (see Figure 1, middle frame for an example of an extended track).

We weight the chances of observation to the brighter systems by assuming

$$\frac{\dot{M}^\gamma }{\dot{P}},\gamma 1.0.$$
(13)
for the detection probability. We tested the calculated model parent distributions for various values of the free parameter $`\gamma `$ against the observed CV period distribution. A K-S (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) test is insensitive to the differences between the parent distributions. The greatest difference in the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the observed and modelled distributions occur at the boundaries of the CDFs, i.e. in the least sensitive region for the K-S test (Press et al 1992). We thus decided to use the following modified $`\chi ^2`$ test.

### 3.1 The modified $`\chi ^2`$ test

For each parent distribution 10000 model samples each containing 134 systems were generated. 111134 was the number of observed CVs in the range $`77P(min)116`$; Ritter & Kolb 1998, internal update June 2001, as of July 2002 the number of systems in this period range is now 152 though this does alter the values given by the $`\chi ^2`$ test, the trends and hence the results remain unaltered Each sample was tested against the model parent distribution using a $`\chi ^2`$ test, with 1, 2 and 4 minute bins. This range bridges the need for good resolution and significance of the $`\chi ^2`$ test which requires a minimum number of CVs per bin. The observed period distribution was tested against the model parent distribution also, giving the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ value $`\chi _{obs}^2`$. The fraction $`f`$ of generated samples with a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ value less than $`\chi _{obs}^2`$ was used as a measure of the significance level of rejecting the hypothesis that the observed distribution is drawn from the parent distribution. In the following we quote the rejection probability Pr=$`f`$.

### 3.2 Magnetic and non-magnetic CVs

Kolb & Baraffe (1999) noted that the observed distribution of non-magnetic CVs (Figure 6, middle frame), and the observed distribution of magnetic CVs (Figure 6, lower frame) show no significant difference below the period gap. To test and quantify this we compared these distributions for $`P116`$ min, giving a reduced $`\chi ^2`$ probability of 0.1213. Hence we cannot rule out that the distributions are drawn from the same underlying parent distribution. This is borne out by the results of comparing both distributions with a parent distribution that is flat in $`P`$ (see also Table 1, entries F and G) which give similar rejection probabilities (Pr=0.709 and Pr=0.781, respectively). We thus find no significant difference between the two distributions. In the following we therefore test models against the combined magnetic and non-magnetic distribution of observed systems.

The lack of any distinct features in the combined observed period distribution (Figure 6, upper frame) does indeed suggest an essentially flat distribution for the underlying parent distribution. The flat distribution gives Pr = 0.552 (for the 1 minute bin width, see Table 1). We use this value as a benchmark for the models discussed below.

### 3.3 Parent populations

We define a standard set of assumptions for simple parent population models as follows:
(1) The primary mass in all systems is $`0.6M_{}`$. This is the value around which the majority of WDs in CVs are expected to form (see e.g. de Kool 1992).
(2) All systems form as CVs at orbital periods greater than 2 hours. This is consistent with the secondary stars in CVs being somewhat evolved (see Baraffe & Kolb 2000).
(3) The flux of systems through the period gap is constant. That is, sufficient time has elapsed since the formation of the Galaxy for a steady state to have been reached, so that the number of systems arriving at the lower edge of the period gap is just balanced by the number of new systems forming at orbital periods greater than two hours.
(4) The CAML efficiency is set to 0
(5) The systemic AM loss rate is $`\dot{J}_{sys}=3\dot{J}_{GR}`$, and the deformation factor is $`\lambda =1.06`$, so that $`P_{min}`$ equals the observed $`P_{min}=77min`$, thus enabling us to test the statistical significance of the spike.
(6) Brightness selection factor $`\gamma =1.0`$
A model population subject to these standard assumptions can be rejected with the probability $`P_r>110^4`$.

In the following discussion of various population models we just quote any differences of individual models from this standard set of assumptions.

#### 3.3.1 Age limit hypothesis

It has been suggested that the currently observed short-period cut-off is not the true minimum period but purely an age effect (e.g. King & Schenker 2002). This would arise if systems that we currently observe have not had sufficient time to evolve to the true period bounce, as illustrated in Figure 7. Here systems at the currently observed short-period cut-off of around 77 minutes will continue to evolve to shorter periods for around another $`8\times 10^8`$ years before reaching the period bounce (if $`\dot{J}_{sys}=\dot{J}_{GR}`$, $`\lambda =1.0`$). We obtain Pr = 0.659 for the period distribution generated from the single evolutionary track corresponding to Figure 7, cut at 77 minutes, (for a 1 minute binning, table 1, model B), quite close to the value for a flat distribution. In this period region $`\dot{M}const`$ (see Figure 1, middle frame). As $`\dot{P}`$ scales roughly as $`\dot{M}`$, the discovery probability is roughly constant if $`\gamma =1`$.

The same flat distribution would be obtained if some mechanism would cause systems to ’die’ (e.g. become too faint to be detected) before reaching the period bounce. Meyer and Meyer-Hofmeister (1999a) speculate that AM Her stars become propeller systems before the period bounce, and so are no longer observed as CVs as their accretion luminosity would be very low. For non-magnetic disc-accreting CVs Meyer and Meyer-Hofmeister (1999b) speculated that as the secondaries become degenerate, the magnetic activity of the secondary reduces rapidly to zero. The disc would then be fed by non-magnetic material, thus reducing the viscosity of the disc plasma and vastly increasing the recurrence time.

#### 3.3.2 CAML efficiency and primary mass spectrum

We now relax assumption (4) and allow systems to occur with equal probability with any value of the CAML efficiency. This produces the period distribution in Figure 8 (upper frame) for $`\gamma =1`$. A spike is still present, though now broadened, and peaked at around 87 minutes. The probability distribution function (PDF) then falls with increasing period. This parent distribution gives Pr=0.831 (1 minute binning, see Table 1, model C1), somewhat larger than that for the flat distribution.

The result of varying $`\gamma `$ is summarised in Table 2. At $`\gamma =3`$ the rejection probability reaches a minimum value Pr = 0.61. This corresponds to the parent distribution shown in Figure 8 (lower frame). The broadened peak at around 87 minutes is almost the same as for $`\gamma =1`$, but at longer $`P`$ the PDF increases again, i.e. there is a minimum at around 95 min. This is caused by a corresponding minimum of $`\dot{M}`$ along the tracks of Figure 2.

So far we have assumed that all CVs in the population have the same WD mass. Observations (e.g. Ritter and Kolb 1998) and population synthesis (e.g. de Kool 1992) show that a spread of WD masses is likely. To investigate the effect this has on the shape of the PDF near $`P_{min}`$ we relax assumption 1 and adopt the WD mass spectrum calculated by de Kool (1992).

The corresponding full parent distributions for $`\gamma =1`$ and $`\gamma =3`$ give Pr = 0.916 and Pr = 0.691, respectively, for a 1 minute binning (see Table 1 for full results). These values are slightly higher (worse) than for the CAML efficiency spectrum population.

If we combine the effect of the primary mass distribution and the CAML efficiency spectrum, i.e. relax assumptions 4 and 1, we obtain the parent distributions shown in Figure 9. The PDF for $`\gamma =1`$ (upper frame) gives Pr = 0.786 and exhibits a broad peak with a maximum at around 85 minutes, followed by a gradual decrease with increasing period. The PDF for $`\gamma =3`$ Figure 9 (lower frame) gives Pr = 0.580 and also shows a similar, though somewhat sharper, broad peak as for the case with constant WD mass. The values of Pr are lower (better) than either of the previous models alone (see Table 1 for full results). With $`\gamma =3`$ we approach a value similar to that of a flat distribution (0.552).

#### 3.3.3 Deformation factor spectrum

Here we we abandon assumption (5) and assume instead that the secondary stars are subject to various deformation factors $`\lambda `$ (as described previously in section 2.2.2). A minimum value of $`\lambda =1.18`$ is used to set $`P_{min}`$ equal to the observed $`P_{min}=77min`$. Any $`\lambda `$ between 1.18 and a maximum value $`\lambda _{max}`$ has equal weight. The rejection probability for different $`\lambda _{max}`$ are given in Table 3. There is a minimum in rejection probability (Pr=0.887) at $`\lambda _{max}1.35`$. The parent distribution generated for this value of $`\lambda _{max}`$ is shown in Figure 10 and exhibits a gradually increasing PDF with increasing period to a peak at around 90 minutes, and then a gradual decrease.

#### 3.3.4 Initial secondary mass spectrum

We now replace assumption (2) that all systems form with orbital periods greater than 2 hours with the other extreme: all CVs form with orbital periods of less than 2 hours. Specifically, we assume that all CVs form with donor masses in the range $`0.13M_{}M_20.17M_{}`$ (this sets $`P_{max}=116`$ min), and that any $`M_2`$ is equally likely. From this we obtain a parent distribution as in Figure 11. The PDF exhibits a sharp spike at the minimum period (here 78 minutes) and then a gradual decline with increasing period. The corresponding $`\chi ^2`$ test results are given in Table 4. We conclude that if we were to include any secondary mass spectrum in the previous models we would effectively weight the PDF with a ramp function, similar to the one seen on the right of Figure 11. This would only increase the rejection probability.

#### 3.3.5 A contrived weighting?

King, Schenker & Hameury (2002) constructed a (nearly) flat period distribution by superimposing individual idealized PDFs with different bounce periods $`P_b`$ according to a suitably tailored weighting. For the double box-shaped idealised PDFs modelled on the PDF shown in our Figure 1 (lower frame) the required weighting is $`n(P_b)=\text{exp}[0.124(P_bP_0)]`$ ($`P_0`$ is the observed minimum period). This weighting function effectively mirrors the shape of the sharply peaked individual PDFs. King et al. (2002) found that the range $`78P_b93`$ is sufficient to wash out the period spike. It is clear that this procedure involves a certain degree of fine-tuning for $`n(P_b)`$ if the shape of the input PDF is given. Such a fine-tuning must surprise as the two functions involved presumably represent two very different physical effects.

We applied the weighting $`n(P_b)`$ quoted in King et al. (2002) to our non-idealized model PDFs that involve the CAML efficiency and the deformation factor as a means to vary $`P_b`$. The weighting produced a marginally worse fit ($`P_r=0.841`$ versus $`P_r=0.831`$; 1 minute binning) for the CAML PDFs compared to the parent population based on a flat CAML efficiency spectrum we discussed earlier. In part this is due to the fact that the upper limit on $`\eta `$ does not allow a big enough range of $`P_b`$. In the case of the deformation factor PDFs the fit marginally improved ($`P_r=0.837`$ versus $`P_r=0.887`$; 1 minute binning, $`1.18\lambda 1.35`$). It is possible to optimise the fit by adding systems with deformation factors up to 1.42, and by using the weighting $`n(P_b)=\text{exp}[0.07(P_bP_0)]`$, but this still gives the fairly large value $`P_r=0.829`$ (see also Figure 12). However, such a parent population is inconsistent with the observed distribution for longer periods. As can be seen from Figure 5 systems that are subject to larger deformation factors would evolve into the period gap, hence the gap would be populated in this model.

For completeness we show in Figure 13 the result of the superposition suggested by King, Schenker & Hameury (2002) if realistic rather than idealised PDFs are used. This model assumes additional systemic AM losses ($`511\times \dot{J}_{GR}`$; no CAML, no deformation factor, $`\gamma =1`$) as the control parameter for varying $`P_b`$, and the weighting as in King et al. The pronounced feature just above 2 hrs orbital period is the result of the adiabatic reaction of the donor stars at turn-on of mass transfer (see e.g. Ritter & Kolb 1992). Such a feature is absent in the observed distribution. If deformation effects are taken into account the additional AM losses required to wash out the $`P_{min}`$ spike would cover a similar range but at a smaller magnitude. The resulting period distribution would be similar to the one shown in Figure 13

## 4 discussion

We have investigated mechanisms that could increase the bounce period for CVs from the canonical theoretical value $`65`$ min to the observed value $`P_{min}77`$ min, and ways to wash out the theoretically predicted accumulation of systems near the minimum period (the period spike). Unlike King, Schenker & Hameury 2002 we focussed on effects other than increased systemic angular momentum (AM) losses, i.e. we assume that gravitational radiation is the only systemic sink of orbital AM.

We find that even a maximal efficient consequential AM loss (CAML) mechanism cannot increase the bounce period sufficiently. As the real CV population is likely to comprise systems with a range of CAML efficiencies we would in any case expect to have a distribution of systems down to $`65`$ min, rather than the observed sharp cut-off.

We considered donor stars that are “bloated” due to intrinsic effects, such as the tidal deformation found in 3-dim. SPH simulations of Roche-lobe filling stars. An implausibly large deformation factor of around 1.18 is needed to obtain a bounce period of $`77`$ min.

A possible alternative identification of $`P_{min}`$ as an age limit rather than a period bounce (King & Schenker 2002) would limit the donor mass in any CV in a CV population dominated by hydrogen–rich, unevolved systems to $`>0.1M_{}`$. Any system with donor mass much less than this would either have an orbital period less than 78 minutes or would have already evolved beyond the period minimum. There are indeed systems with suspected $`M_2<0.1M_{}`$; good candidates are WZ Sge ($`M_20.058`$; Patterson et al 1998) and OY Car ($`M_20.07M_{}`$; Pratt et al. 1999).

It is also possible that systems ’die’ or fade before reaching the period bounce, and hence become undetectable as CVs. The fact that the very different groups of non-magnetic and magnetic CVs show almost identical values of $`P_{min}`$ (see Figure 6) strongly suggests that the physical cause for the potential fading would have to be rooted in the donor stars or the evolution rather than the accretion physics or emission properties of the systems.

Even if the bounce period problem is ignored we find in all synthesized model populations (except for the age limit model) a pronounced remaining feature due to the accumulation of systems near the bounce. We employ a modified $`\chi ^2`$ test to measure the “goodness” of fit against the observed sample. An F-test (Press et al 1992) was also applied to the majority of $`\gamma =1`$ models and the same general trends observed. None of our synthesised model populations fits as well as the distribution which is simply flat in orbital period (rejection probability $`P_r55\%`$). Only models where brighter systems carry a far greater weight than expected in a simple magnitude–limited sample (selection factor $`\dot{M}^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma 3`$ rather than $`1`$) achieve similar values for $`P_r`$. However, most of our models with $`\gamma =1`$ canot be rejected unambiguously on the basis of this test.

Models designed to “wash out” the period spike by introducing a large spread of the CAML efficiency do generally better than population models based on donor stars that are subject to a large spread of intrinsic deformation factors. For all models the rejection probability decreases if the full WD mass spectrum is taken into account, as this introduces an additional spread in the bounce period. Model populations where all CVs form at long orbital periods (chiefly above the period gap) give a much better fit than models that include newborn CVs with small donor mass. Adding these systems to the population introduces a general increase of the orbital period distribution towards short periods, thus making the period spike more pronounced. This suggests that most CVs must have formed at long periods and evolved through the period gap to become short-period CVs. This is consistent with independent evidence that CV secondary stars are somewhat evolved (Baraffe & Kolb 2000; Schenker et al. 2002; Thorstensen et al 2002).

Recently, King, Schenker & Hameury (2002) constructed a flat orbital period distribution by superimposing idealised PDFs that describe subpopulations of CVs with a fixed initial donor mass and initial WD mass, but different bounce periods. This superposition required a strongly declining number of systems with increasing bounce periods. We repeated this experiment with a realistic PDF, but failed to obtain a markedly improved fit.

In conclusion, we find that the period minimum problem and the period spike problem remain an open issue. It is possible to construct CV model populations where the period spike is washed out sufficiently so that it cannot be ruled out unambiguously on the basis of an objective statisticial test against the observed CV period distribution.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We thank Graham Wynn, Andrew King and Isabelle Baraffe for useful discussions. Andrew Conway and Chris Jones who gave advice on the statistical analysis. We also thank Andrew Norton for a critical reading of the paper and the referee Jean-Marie Hameury for useful comments.