text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Much attentions have been paid to gauge theories in higher dimensions. Especially, grand unified theories (GUTs) in higher dimensions on orbifolds have been studied by many authors. One of the strongest motivations of the higher dimensional gauge theory is the very attractive idea that the gauge and the Higgs fields can be unified in higher dimensions. Recently, this possibility has been revisited in Ref.. In these scenarios the Higgs fields, which give masses for quarks and leptons, are identified with the components of the gauge fields in higher dimensions. The masses of Higgs fields are forbidden by the higher dimensional gauge invariance, and the supersymmetric non-renormalization theorem protects Higgs fields from getting radiative induced masses. This is the reason why this scenario has light Higgs fields where the gauge group in higher dimensions must be lager than the standard model (SM) gauge group in order to obtain the Higgs doublets from the gauge fields in higher dimensions. The gauge symmetries can be reduced by the orbifolding boundary conditions of extra dimensions.

For the identification of Higgs fields as a part of the gauge super-multiplet, there are two ways. One is considering 6D $`N=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, whose 5th and 6th coordinates are compactified on $`T^2/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold. This theory corresponds to 4D $`N=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, where there are chiral superfields in the gauge super-multiplet which do not contain components of the higher-dimensional gauge bosons, and thus are able to couple with 4D localized matter. Higgs fields are identified as the part of these chiral superfields, which can have gauge invariant Yukawa interactions in the 4D superpotential. Another is considering 5D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory whose 5th coordinate is compactified on $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold. This theory corresponds to 4D $`N=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, where chiral superfields in the gauge super-multiplet transform nonlinearly under the gauge transformation, and thus can not couple with the 4D brane localized matters. However, if we introduce the matter fields in the bulk, and identify Higgs fields as the 5D components of the gauge super-multiplet, there can appear “Yukawa” interactions among the bulk matters and “Higgs” fields. In Ref. they have considered the Higgs doublets are induced as the zero modes of the 5th components of the gauge super-multiplet. However, in order to obtain all Yukawa interactions of quarks and leptons, they must introduce a lot of matter representations in the bulk. Moreover, the charge quantization is not automatic since the fixed 4D wall does not have GUT gauge symmetry, and the anomaly free structure is not simple.

In this paper, we consider the 5D $`E_6`$ and $`E_7`$ supersymmetric GUTs on an orbifold, $`S^1/Z_2`$. We adopt such large gauge groups for respecting the charge quantization and the simple anomaly free content on 4D fixed walls. A small numbers of matter representations are enough for inducing all Yukawa interactions of the SM. By imposing the non-trivial parity and boundary conditions for the gauge fields, the gauge groups are reduced to their subgroups. Furthermore, we show that the suitable Higgs fields can arise from the 5th components of the bulk gauge fields. We introduce matter fields in 5 dimensions so that the Yukawa interactions are induced from the gauge interactions among the 5th component of gauge fields, which will be identified as the Higgs fields, and the hyper-multiplets in the bulk. In $`E_6`$ GUT, we will introduce the adjoint and fundamental matter representations in order to generate all Yukawa interactions of quarks and leptons. We will introduce the additional matter and Higgs fields on the 4D brane with anomaly free contents. The vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of the brane localized Higgs fields make unwanted matter fields heavy as well as generate effective 4D Yukawa interactions. For the realistic fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings, our scenario can induce not only the suitable mass hierarchies and flavor mixings but also the CP violating phase through the brane localized interactions. In case of $`E_7`$ GUT, all Yukawa interactions can be produced by only adjoint representation matter hyper-multiplets in the bulk.

## 2 Gauge-Higgs sector in 5D model

At first let us show the notation of the 5D $`N=1`$ SUSY theory, which corresponds to 4D $`N=2`$ SUSY one. The vector multiplet, $`(V,\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, of the $`N=2`$ SUSY gauge theory is written as

$`V=\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }A_m+i\overline{\theta }^2\theta \lambda i\theta ^2\overline{\theta }\overline{\lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\theta }^2\theta ^2D,`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\sigma +iA_5)+\sqrt{2}\theta \lambda ^{}+\theta ^2F.`$ (2)
In the non-abelian gauge theory, the gauge transformation is given by $`e^Vh^1V\overline{h}^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }h^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\sqrt{2}_y)h`$, where we denote $`VV^aT^a`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^aT^a`$ and $`he^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\overline{h}e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$. Then the action is given by

$`S_{5D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xdy[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4kg^2}}\mathrm{Tr}\{{\displaystyle }d^2\theta W^\alpha W_\alpha +h.c.\}`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle }d^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{kg^2}}\mathrm{Tr}((\sqrt{2}\overline{}_y+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }})e^V(\sqrt{2}_y+\mathrm{\Sigma })e^V+\overline{}e^Ve^V)],`$
where $`\mathrm{Tr}(T^aT^b)=k\delta _{ab}`$. We denote $`y`$ as the 5th dimensional coordinate.

As for the hyper-multiplet, $`(H,H^c)`$, they transform $`HhH`$ and $`H^ch^c{}_{}{}^{1}H_{}^{c}`$ under the gauge transformation, where $`h=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^aT^a}`$ and $`h^c=(h^1)^T=(e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^aT^a})^T`$. The action of them is given by

$`S_{5D}^H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^5xdy[{\displaystyle }d^4\theta (H^ce^V\overline{H}^c+\overline{H}e^VH)+`$ (4)
$`+[{\displaystyle }d^2\theta \left(H^c(m+(_y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{\Sigma }))H\right)+h.c.]].`$
This means that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must change the sign under the $`Z_2`$ projection, $`P:yy`$, and bulk constant mass $`m`$ is forbidden*** When the $`y`$ dependent mass $`m(y)=m(y)`$ is introduced, it makes the zero mode wave-function in the bulk be localized at $`y=0`$.. The field $`H^c`$ is so-called mirror field, which should be the odd eigenstate of $`P`$, since it is the right-handed field. Thus, the parity operator $`P`$ acts on fields as

$`V(y)=PV(y)P^1,\mathrm{\Sigma }(y)=P\mathrm{\Sigma }(y)P^1,`$ (5)
$`H(y)=PH(y),H^c(y)=PH^c(y).`$ (6)
As for the boundary condition, $`T`$, the bulk fields are transform as

$`V(y)=TV(y+2\pi R)T^1,\mathrm{\Sigma }(y)=T\mathrm{\Sigma }(y+2\pi R)T^1,`$ (7)
$`H(y)=TH(y+2\pi R),H^c(y)=TH^c(y+2\pi R).`$ (8)
We will consider the cases where $`P`$ and $`T`$ have the nontrivial eigenvalues in the GUT bases.

We can show that the $`F`$-term interaction in Eq.(4)

$`W_YH^c\mathrm{\Sigma }H,`$ (9)
is permitted under the $`Z_2`$ projection. This interaction connects the chiral and mirror fields through the chirality flip, which seems to be just the Yukawa interaction in the 4D theory. This becomes justified when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has zero modes at the components of the fundamental Higgs fields. We will find $`E_6`$ and $`E_7`$ GUTs where Yukawa interactions are really coming from Eq.(9).

## 3 $`E_6`$ GUT

At first let us consider the $`E_6`$ GUT. The adjoint representation of 78 of $`E_6`$ is divided as,

$`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑},SO(10)\times U(1)_X,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}=(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟐𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐}),SU(6)\times SU(2).`$ (11)
We take the parity $`P`$ in Eqs.(5) and (6) and the boundary condition $`T`$ in Eqs.(7) and (8).

As for vector hyper-multiplets, we take $`P=+1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and $`P=1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ in Eq.(10). On the other hand, we take $`T=+1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, and $`T=1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟐𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in Eq.(11). These $`P`$ and $`T`$ make the $`E_6`$ gauge symmetry reduce to $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$. It is because the vector superfield, $`V_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}`$, is divided into

$`V_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,+)},`$ (12)
under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$. where $`(\pm ,\pm )`$ represents the eigenvalues of $`(P,T)`$. The gauge reduction, $`E_6SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$, can be easily seen by the zero mode elements $`(+,+)`$ of $`V`$. On the other hand, the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}`$ is divided into

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,+)},`$ (13)
under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$. The zero modes, $`(+,+)`$, suggest that there appear the following four Higgs fields,

$$\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇,$$
(14)
in the low energy, since we regard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the Higgs fields as in Eq.(9).

For realizing the suitable gauge reduction, $`E_6SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$, there are two other choices of $`P`$ and $`T`$. One is taking $`P=+1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`P=1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟐𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in Eq.(11), and $`T=+1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`T=1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ in Eq.(10). $`V`$ has zero modes in the components of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has zero modes at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$ in Eq.(13). The other is taking $`P=+1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`P=1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, and $`P^{}=+1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`P^{}=1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟎},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, where $`P^{}TP`$ is the reflection around $`y=\pi R`$. This case suggests the residual gauge symmetry at $`y=0`$ is $`SO(10)\times U(1)_X`$ and that at $`y=\pi R`$ is $`SU(6)\times SU(2)`$. This case has zero mode components at $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$ in $`V`$, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has zero modes at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}`$ in Eq.(13). Since $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$ representations of $`SU(5)`$ can not be the Higgs fields of the SUSY SM, these two cases are not suitable for the phenomenology. Therefore, the choice of $`P`$ and $`T`$ in Eqs.(12) and (13) is the unique one for obtaining the suitable Higgs fields. From now on we take $`P`$ and $`T`$ as Eqs.(12) and (13) in order to regard zero modes fields in Eq.(14) as the Higgs fields.

Next let us discuss the matter field contents. In Fig.1 we show the matter configuration on the orbifold. We introduce three bulk hyper-multiplets, which are two adjoint representations, $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$, and one fundamental representation, $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐜)`$. The bulk has the $`E_6`$ gauge symmetry. There are two fixed 4D walls at $`y=0`$ and $`y=\pi R`$, where gauge symmetries are $`SO(10)\times U(1)_X`$ and $`SO(10)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$, respectively. $`SO(10)^{}\times U(1)_X^{}`$ is contained in $`E_6`$ in the different base from $`SO(10)\times U(1)_X`$. Since we can input the fields with the representations of reduced gauge symmetry on the 4D walls, we introduce chiral superfields, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`2\times (\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ at $`y=0`$, where we are living. We will also introduce vector-like 4D localized Higgs fields, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h`$ at $`y=0`$. We will see the details of the matter contents below.

As for the bulk matter fields, matter hyper-multiplet, $`(H,H^c)`$, can have all combinations of $`(P,T)=(\pm ,\pm )`$ contrary to the gauge super-multiplets. But, we should notice that once the eigenvalues of $`(P,T)`$ of $`H`$ are given, those of $`H^c`$ are automatically determined. As for the adjoint representation matter hyper-multiplets, we introduce $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$, which have all combinations of eigenvalues of $`(P,T)`$ in their components. The $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$ is divided as

$`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,+)}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)},`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,+)}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)},`$ (16)
and $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$ is divided as

$`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{}^{}{}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{}^{}{}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^{}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(+,)}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟓}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(+,+)},`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝐜}=\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}^{}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}^{(,)}`$
$`+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟓}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{(,+)},`$ (18)
under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$. Therefore, from Eqs.(13), (15), (16), (17), and (18), the Yukawa interaction in Eq.(9) becomes

$`W_Y^a\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}78}+\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝐜}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{}}^{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}78}^{}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}`$
$`+[\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}]\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{}+[\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}]\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\mathrm{𝟓}^{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}`$
$`+[\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{}]\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{}+[\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}{}^{}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{}]\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{},`$ (19)
by writing only the zero modes. On the other hand, we introduce the fundamental representation of matter hyper-multiplet, $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟,\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟{}_{}{}^{𝐜})`$, for the Yukawa interactions of the down-sector quarks and the charged leptons The higher order operator, $`\frac{1}{M_{}}[\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}]_D`$, can not induce the Yukawa interactions of the down-sector quarks and the charged leptons, where $`M_{}`$ is the cut-off scale. It is because the Higgs fields are originated in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^𝐇+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}^𝐇`$ representations, and matter fields ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ in $`SU(5)`$) are originated in 45 or 16 under $`SO(10)`$ in this model. Thus, there are no Yukawa interactions of down-quark and charged lepton sectors in this higher order operator, since we can not make singlet by $`\mathbf{16\hspace{0.33em}16}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}`$ nor $`\mathbf{45\hspace{0.33em}16}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}`$. . The fundamental representation is divided into

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐟+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐟+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝐟,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}27}^𝐟{}_{}{}^{𝐜}=\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐟+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐟+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝐟,SO(10)\times U(1)_X,`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟=(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}^𝐟,\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐟)+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}^𝐟,\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐟),\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}27}^𝐟{}_{}{}^{𝐜}=(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}^𝐟,\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐟)+(\mathrm{𝟔}^𝐟,\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐟),SU(6)\times SU(2).`$ (21)
By choosing the eigenvalues of $`P`$ and $`T`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐜)`$ is divided into

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{𝐟(+,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{𝐟(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{𝐟(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^{𝐟(,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^{𝐟(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}^{𝐟(,)},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟{}_{}{}^{𝐜}=\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{𝐟(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{𝐟(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{𝐟(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^{𝐟(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^{𝐟(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}^{𝐟(+,)},`$ (23)
under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$. This suggests that the Yukawa interaction Eq.(9) becomes

$`W_Y^f\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟{}_{}{}^{𝐜}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}^{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}27}^𝐟\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^𝐟\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐟,`$ (24)
in the low energy.

For the brane-localized matter fields, $`2\times (\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}}`$, and brane-localized Higgs fields, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h+\widehat{1}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h`$, there is the superpotential $`W_{4D}^m`$ at $`y=0`$ 4D wall, which is given by

$`W_{4D}^m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}(m_{10_k}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}_\mathrm{𝟑}+m_{10_{}^{c}{}_{k}{}^{}}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}+m_{10_{}^{f}{}_{k}{}^{}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐟)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}(\overline{m}_{10_k}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{m}_{10_{}^{c}{}_{k}{}^{}}\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎})`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}}_\mathrm{𝟐}(m_5^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}+m_{5^f}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝐟)+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}(m_{1^{}^c}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{}+m_1^{}\mathrm{𝟏}^{}{}_{\mathrm{𝟎}}{}^{})`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{m}_5^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}+\overline{m}_{1^{}^c}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{}+m_{24}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}45}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1,2}{}}M_{10_k}\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}+M_5\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}+M_1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}^2+M_{24}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}}^2,`$
where $`k=1,2`$. In Eq.(3), the mass dimension $`M_{}`$ is suppressed. We assume that the mass term $`m_{24}(\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})})`$, which is a part of $`m_{24}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, is forbidden by the underlying theory, while the mass term $`m_{24}(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐯(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})})`$ exists at $`y=0`$ wall.

When the 4D Higgs fields, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h`$, take VEVs,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})}^h,\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})}^h,\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}^h,\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}^h,`$ (26)
in the bases of $`SU(5)\times U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$, the gauge symmetries of $`U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$ are broken, and remaining gauge symmetry becomes $`SU(5)`$. These VEVs of 4D Higgs fields make unwanted fields become heavy through the superpotential $`W_{4D}^m`$ in Eq.(3). Then, only one set of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is remaining in the low energy as the massless field. We should remind that this chiral structure of the matter contents is obtained because $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟,\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐟{}_{}{}^{𝐜})`$ hyper-multiplet matter field generates zero modes of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐟`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^𝐟`$ in Eqs.(22) and (23) and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathbf{0.0})}^{}`$ in the $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{},\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜)`$ hyper-multiplet matter field can not make mass term with $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ in Eq.(3). The four Higgs superfields in Eq.(14) are also remaining as the massless fields. When we denote the massless eigenstates as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, they are written by the linear combinations of

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐟`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _5\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _5\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})}^𝐟,`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^{}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{},`$
with

$`\mathrm{tan}\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h}{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{10_2}m_{10_1^f}m_{10_1}m_{10_2^f}}{m_{10_1^c}m_{10_2^f}m_{10_2^c}m_{10_1^f}}},\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h(m_{10_1}m_{10_2^c}m_{10_2}m_{10_1^c})}{\sqrt{A^2}}}`$
$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _5={\displaystyle \frac{m_5^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h}{m_{5^f}}},\mathrm{tan}\theta _1={\displaystyle \frac{m_{1^c}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h}{m_1^{}}},`$ (28)
where $`A^2=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h^2(m_{10_1}m_{10_2^c}m_{10_2}m_{10_1^c})^2`$ $`+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h^2(m_{10_2}m_{10_1^f}m_{10_1}m_{10_2^f})^2`$ $`+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h^2`$ $`(m_{10_1^c}m_{10_2^f}m_{10_2^c}m_{10_1^f})^2`$. Therefore after breaking $`U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$, the Yukawa interactions of $`SU(5)`$, $`W_YW_Y^a+W_Y^f`$ in Eqs.(19) and (24), become

$$W_Y^{eff}=y_u\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}^𝐇+y_d\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^𝐇+y_\nu \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}^𝐇+y_M\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(29)
where

$`y_u{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi _3,y_dg\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _5,`$
$`y_\nu g\mathrm{sin}\theta _5\mathrm{cos}\theta _1,y_M{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _1.`$ (30)
When $`\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐇`$ takes large VEV, the 4th term of $`W_Y^{eff}`$ in Eq.(29) induces the Majorana mass of right-handed neutrinos.

Above discussions for generating the Yukawa interaction can be generalized to realistic three generation model by introducing a generation index to each bulk and brane field. The introduction of generation index $`i`$ $`(i=13)`$ into Eqs.(19) and (24) can induce the Yukawa interactions of the three generations. As for the fermion mass hierarchies, the suitable magnitudes can be obtained by choosing the generalized angles in Eq.(30). For examples, the 2nd generation angles, $`(\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1)_2\lambda ^4`$ and $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta _5)_2\lambda ^2`$, and the 1st generation angles, $`(\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1)_1\lambda ^8`$ and $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta _5)_1\lambda ^6`$ can induce the suitable fermion mass hierarchiesThe suitable mass squared differences of neutrinos can be also obtained by choosing the generalized angles in Eq.(30) and Majorana mass scales., where $`\lambda `$ stands for the Cabibbo angle $`0.2`$. The order one angles of Eq.(30) suggests that the magnitudes of the Yukawa couplings of the 3rd generation are the same as those of the gauge couplings, which is about $`g0.7`$ around the GUT scale. However, we can not obtain the suitable flavor mixings in the quark and lepton sectors in this extension of introducing the generation index $`i`$. It is because the Yukawa interactions, which are originated in the 5D gauge interactions, with generation index in Eqs.(19) and (24) are flavor diagonal. Thus, in order to obtain the suitable flavor mixings of the quarks and leptons, we should extend the brane fields and their interactions in Eq.(3). We add one more vector-like fields $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for each generation at $`y=0`$, which means the index $`k`$ runs from 1 to 3 in Eq.(3), the superpotential at 4D wall becomes

$`W_{4D}^m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}\right)_i\left(\left(m_{10_k}\right)_{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}\right)_j+\left(m_{10_{}^{c}{}_{k}{}^{}}\right)_{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\left(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_j+\left(m_{10_{}^{f}{}_{k}{}^{}}\right)_{ij}\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{}^{𝐟}{}_{_\mathrm{𝟏}}{}^{}\right)_j\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}\right)_i\left(\left(\overline{m}_{10_k}\right)_{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\left(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}\right)_j+\left(\overline{m}_{10_{}^{c}{}_{k}{}^{}}\right)_{ij}\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\left(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_j\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right)_i\left(\left(m_5^{}\right)_{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_\mathrm{𝟑}\right)_j+\left(m_{5^f}\right)_{ij}\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{}^{𝐟}{}_{\mathrm{𝟐}}{}^{}\right)_j\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_i\left(\left(m_{1^{}^c}\right)_{ij}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{𝟑}}{}^{}\right)_j+\left(m_1^{}\right)_{ij}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{𝟎}}{}^{}\right)_j\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(\overline{m}_5^{}\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right)_i\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\left(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}\right)_j+\left(\overline{m}_{1^{}^c}\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_i\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\left(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟑}^{}\right)_j`$
$`+`$ $`\left(m_{24}\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_i\left(\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_j+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(M_{10_k}\right)_{ij}\left(\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}\right)_i\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{\mathrm{𝟏}_k}\right)_j+\left(M_5\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right)_i\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}\right)_j`$
$`+`$ $`\left(M_1\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_i\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_j+\left(M_{24}\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_i\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_j,`$
where $`i,j`$ stand for the generation indexes. Contrary to the case of Eq.(3), massless 10 representation fields appear mainly from the combinations of brane fields, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$s, when $`(M_{10})_{ij}(m_{10})_{ij},(m_{10^c})_{ij},(m_{10^f})_{ij},(\overline{m}_{10})_{ij}`$. It can be easily shown by considering the vanishing limit of $`(M_{10})_{ij}`$, where massless fields appear only from the combinations of $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}`$s.

Now let us assume that $`(M_{10})_{ij}=(M_{10})_i\delta _{ij}`$, and the 4D Higgs fields can take VEVs of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the superpotential,

$`W_{4D}^h=Y_1(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)+Y_2(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\widehat{1}_\mathrm{𝟒}^h\mathrm{\Lambda }^2),`$ (32)
at $`y=0`$ wall, where $`Y_l`$s $`(l=1,2)`$ are gauge singlet fields. We also assume that $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_{10_k})_{ij})=O(\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_{10_{}^{c}{}_{k}{}^{}})_{ij})=O((m_{10_k^f})_{ij})=O(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{m}_{10_k})_{ij})=O(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{m}_{10_{}^{c}{}_{k}{}^{}})_{ij})m`$. Then, after the breaking of $`U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$, a massless 10 representation field of the $`i`$-th generation can be written by

$`\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}\right)_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(M_{10}\right)_i}{m}}\left(\left(c_1\right)_{ij}\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}\right)_j+\left(c_2\right)_{ij}\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}\right)_j+\left(c_3\right)_{ij}\left(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{}^{𝐟}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}{}^{}\right)_j\right)`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`\left(c_4\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}\right)_j+\left(c_5\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(4,0)}\right)_j+\left(c_6\right)_{ij}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(4,0)}\right)_j,`$
when $`m(M_{10})_i`$, where $`(c_{ij})`$s are O(1) coefficients with no hierarchies. By taking the parameters, $`(M_{10})_1/m\lambda ^4`$, $`(M_{10})_2/m\lambda ^2`$, and $`(M_{10})_3/m1`$, the bulk fields can have the zero mode components as

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})}V\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟎})}V\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{}^{𝐟}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}{}^{}V\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎},`$ (34)
with

$$V\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(35)
in the matrix form where we suppress the $`O(1)`$ coefficients for each component. Then, the Yukawa interactions in Eqs.(19) and (24) with the generation index and Eqs.(31) and (34) suggest the Yukawa interactions

$$W_Y^{eff}=y_u\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}^𝐇+y_d\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^𝐇+y_\nu \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}^𝐇+y_M\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}^\mathrm{𝟎}$$
(36)
in the low energy with the Yukawa couplings,

$$y_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),y_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right),y_\nu ,y_M\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
These mass matrices can be suitable for the phenomenology. They can induce the small (large) flavor mixings in the quark (lepton) sector as well as the suitable fermion mass hierarchies. Moreover, the CP violating phase can arise from the $`O(1)`$ complex coefficients of the Yukawa couplings in Eq.(37). It is because the brane-localized interactions in Eq.(31) have the complex couplings, where the physical CP phase can not be rotated out. Thus, we can obtain the physical CP violating phase in the Yukawa sector, although all Yukawa interactions come from the 5D gauge interactions with no CP phases in origin.

In the mass matrices of Eq.(37), the suitable choices of $`O(1)`$ coefficients are needed for the suitable magnitudes of $`V_{us}`$, $`U_{e3}`$, and down quark and electron masses§§§ If $`O(1)`$ coefficients are not determined by a specific reason (symmetry) in the fundamental theory, it is meaningful to see the most probable hierarchies and mixing angles by considering random $`O(1)`$ coefficients .. So if the fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixing angles should determined from the fundamental theory in order (power of $`\lambda `$) not by tunings of $`O(1)`$ coefficients, we should modify this scenario. But, we can make this modification in a very simple way. We introduce one more vector-like $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ fields for each generation at $`y=0`$. Then, the parameters in Eq.(31) should be changed as $`(m_5^{})_{ij}(m_{5_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}})_{ij}`$, $`(m_{5^f})_{ij}(m_{5_{}^{f}{}_{l}{}^{}})_{ij}`$, $`(\overline{m}_5^{})_{ij}(\overline{m}_{5_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}})_{ij}`$, and $`(M_5)_{ij}(M_{5_l})_{ij}`$ with $`l=1,2`$. Assuming $`O((m_{5_{}^{f}{}_{l}{}^{}})_{ij})=O(\mathrm{\Lambda }(m_{5_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}})_{ij})=O((\overline{m}_{5_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}})_{ij})=m_5`$, $`(M_5)_{ij}=(M_5)_i\delta _{ij}`$, and $`(M_5)_1/(m_5)_1\lambda ^2`$, $`(M_5)_{2,3}/(m_5)_{2,3}1`$, the zero mode field of the 1st generation $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ field accompanies with $`\lambda ^2`$ as, $`\lambda ^2(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^\mathrm{𝟎})_1`$, similar to the case of 10 representations. By this modification, we can obtain the modified mass matrices of quarks and leptons, which can induce the suitable values of $`V_{us}`$, $`U_{e3}`$, and down quark and electron masses (this type of mass matrices is the modification I in Ref.). In the same way, we can obtain mass matrices of the small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case (modification II in Ref.) by choosing the parameters of $`(M_{10})_i/m`$ and $`(M_5)_i/m_5`$.

Our mechanism of generating the fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings is very simple, where we can also obtain the CP violation in the effective 4D Yukawa couplings. In this point our mechanism is different from that of Ref. in which generating Yukawa hierarchies is discussed by the wave function localization.

## 4 $`E_7`$ GUT

Next we will consider $`E_7`$ GUT. The $`E_6`$ GUT discussed in the previous section must have two different representations, the fundamental and adjoint representations, where the opposite parity eigenstate of the adjoint representation is also needed in order to generate all Yukawa interactions of quarks and leptons. However, in $`E_7`$ GUT, this situation is improved, where we can obtain all Yukawa interactions only from an adjoint representation matter hyper-multiplet in the bulk.

The adjoint representation of $`E_7`$ is 133, which is divided as,

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}=(\mathrm{𝟔𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})+(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐}),SO(12)\times SU(2),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}=\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}_\mathrm{𝟏},E_6\times U(1)_Z.`$ (39)
We take parity $`P`$ and boundary conditions $`T`$ as the reductions of $`E_7`$ into $`E_6\times U(1)_Z`$ and $`SO(12)\times SU(2)`$, respectively. As for vector hyper-multiplets, we take $`P=+1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and $`P=1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in Eq.(39). On the other hand, we take $`T=+1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟔𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$, and $`T=1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in Eq.(38). These $`P`$ and $`T`$ make the $`E_7`$ gauge symmetry reduce to $`SO(10)\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$. It is because the vector superfield, $`V_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}}`$, is divided into

$`V_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐳(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,+)}`$ (40)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,)}`$
under $`SO(10)\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$. Here $`(\pm ,\pm )`$ shows the eigenvalues of $`(P,T)`$, and the charges show the quantum numbers of $`SO(10)\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$. The zero modes, $`(+,+)`$ elements, in $`V_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}}`$ show that the gauge symmetry is reduced as $`E_7SO(10)\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$. While the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}}`$ is divided into

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐳(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}`$ (41)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,)}.`$
The zero modes, $`(+,+)`$, suggest that there appear the following four Higgs fields,

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇,\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇,$$
(42)
in the low energy, since we regard $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the Higgs fields as in Eq.(9).

As for the matter fields, we consider the adjoint representation hyper-multiplet, $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^𝐜)`$. In Fig.2 we have shown the matter configuration on the orbifold. We choose the eigenstates of $`P`$ and $`T`$ as,

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐳(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(+,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,)}`$ (43)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(,+)}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^𝐜`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐳(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}^{(,+)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,)}`$ (44)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,)}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}.`$
Then the Yukawa interactions in the low energy Eq.(9) become

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^𝐜\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}133}`$ $``$ $`\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}_{(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$ (45)
$`+\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐇\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$
from Eqs.(41), (43), and (44). This case can not have the chiral matter structure, since we only introduce the adjoint matter field. Of cause we can obtain the chiral matter structure as the $`E_6`$ GUT case if we introduce the fundamental representation matter fields. But here we would suggest another possibility of the scenario. That is, introducing the 4D brane field, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}}`$, at $`y=0`$ wall. Then the field $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ in Eq.(45) becomes heavy through the brane-localized mixing mass with $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$, and can not survive in the low energy. So the 2nd and 4th terms in Eq(45) become irrelevant. However, at the 4D wall $`y=0`$, there exist gauge anomalies related with $`U(1)_Z`$. We assume these anomalies can be canceled out by the Green-Schwarz mechanism on the 4D wallIf we take this assumption in the $`E_6`$ GUT, the matter contents in the previous section can be simple. , which can be available since $`E_6`$ is anomaly free.

As for the breaking of $`U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$, we introduce Higgs fields which transform $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h+\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h`$ under $`E_6\times U(1)_Z`$ on the 4D wall at $`y=0`$. We assume that they take VEVs around the GUT scale as, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^h`$, $`\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏})}^h`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏})}^h`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏})}^h`$. We also introduce 4D brane-localized matter fields, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, at $`y=0`$. Then the superpotential $`W_{4D}^m`$ is given by

$`W_{4D}^m`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}_\mathrm{𝟎}(m_E\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}+m_E^{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}_\mathrm{𝟎})+M_E\widehat{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}_\mathrm{𝟎}^2,`$ (46)
which means that the massless field is given by

$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{16}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{16}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})},`$ (47)
with

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{16}=m_E^{}/(m_E\overline{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^h).`$ (48)
As the consequence, we can obtain the Yukawa interaction of $`SO(10)`$ from Eq.(45) as,

$$W_Y^{eff}y_{10}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}16}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}10}^𝐇,$$
(49)
with $`y_{10}2\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{16}`$ below the energy scale of $`U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$ breaking. It is worth noting that all Yukawa interactions of SUSY SM can be generated by only a single representation of matter hyper-multiplet. This is the significant feature of $`E_7`$ GUT. However, for extending three-generation realistic model, we can not use the same technique of generating the suitable fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings as in the $`E_6`$ case, since the $`SO(10)`$ gauge symmetry is remaining and 10 representation of $`SU(5)`$ can not be treated separately. Besides, we can not obtain the CKM matrix from Eq.(49) because of the absence of another Yukawa coupling, $`y_{10}^{}\mathbf{16\hspace{0.33em}16\hspace{0.33em}10}^𝐇`$, in $`W_Y^{eff}`$. Thus, we should consider other 4D mechanisms of generating fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings below the $`SO(10)`$ gauge breakingThe $`SO(10)`$ can be broken by introducing additional 4D brane-localized Higgs field, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}_\mathrm{𝟎}^h`$ at $`y=0`$., which is nothing to do with the orbifolding.

Before closing this section, we comment on the cases of other choices of $`P`$ and $`T`$ rather than Eqs.(43) and (44). For realizing the suitable gauge reduction, $`E_7SO(10)\times U(1)_X\times U(1)_Z`$, there are two other choices of $`P`$ and $`T`$. One is taking $`P=+1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟔𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`P=1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in Eq.(38), and $`T=+1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, and $`T=1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in Eq.(39). In this case $`V`$ has zero modes in the components of $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐱(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\mathrm{𝟏}_{𝐳(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which becomes Higgs fields, has zero modes at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟎})}`$ in Eq.(41). This case can not produce Yukawa interactions of down-sector and charged lepton by adjoint representation matter fields in the bulk. For the down-quark and charged lepton Yukawa interactions, we should introduce fundamental representation matters in the bulk. The other is taking $`P=+1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}_\mathrm{𝟎}+\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`P=1`$ for $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟏}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and $`P^{}=+1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟔𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`P^{}=1`$ for $`(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, where $`P^{}TP`$. This case suggests the residual gauge symmetry at $`y=0`$ is $`E_6\times U(1)_Z`$ and that at $`y=\pi R`$ is $`SO(12)\times SU(2)`$. The Higgs fields are $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ in this case. This case can not also induce Yukawa interactions of down-sector quarks and charged leptons in Eq.(9) by adjoint representation fields. Thus, no other choices of $`P`$ and $`T`$ except for Eqs.(43) and (44) can induce all Yukawa interactions of quarks and leptons by only single matter representation\**\**\**We do not consider matter representations larger than the adjoint representation. Such higher representations produce a lot of unwanted fields in the low energy, and also induce sudden blow-up of the gauge couplings.. This situation is not changed if we take $`E_7SU(6)\times SU(3)`$ for $`P`$ and $`T`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}=(\mathrm{𝟑𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})+(\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟑})`$. This case also needs both the adjoint and fundamental representations for generating all Yukawa interactions of quarks and leptons in the low energy.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

We have considered 5D $`E_6`$ and $`E_7`$ supersymmetric GUTs on the orbifold. We adopt such large gauge groups in order to respect the charge quantization and the simple anomaly free structure on the 4D fixed wall. A small numbers of matter representations are enough for inducing all Yukawa interactions of the SM. The gauge groups are reduced to their subgroups by imposing the non-trivial parity and boundary conditions for the gauge fields. Moreover, the suitable Higgs fields can arise from the 5th components of the 5D gauge fields. We have introduced bulk matter fields so that the Yukawa interactions are induced from the gauge interactions with the 5th component of gauge fields, which are identified with the Higgs fields. In the $`E_6`$ GUT, we have introduced the adjoint and fundamental representation hyper-multiplets, $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟕𝟖})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})`$, respectively, for the bulk matter fields. The Yukawa interactions for up-sector quarks and Dirac- and Majorana-neutrino masses are induced from the gauge interactions of the $`(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟕𝟖})`$ matter hyper-multiplets, and those for down-sector quarks and charged leptons are induced from the gauge interactions of $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})`$ matter hyper-multiplet. For the phenomenologically acceptable model, we have introduced additional matters and Higgs fields on the 4D brane with anomaly free contents. The vacuum expectation values of the brane-localized Higgs fields have made unwanted matter fields heavy as well as generate effective Yukawa interactions. Thanks for the brane-localized mass terms between the bulk and brane-localized matter fields, the realistic fermion mass hierarchies and flavor mixings can be produced by integrating out heavy fields. As for the $`E_7`$ GUT, all Yukawa interactions can be produced by only single representation of matter hyper-multiplets, $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟑})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}^𝐜,\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖})`$, respectively.

Here let us discuss the origins of the $`\mu `$ term in our scenario. As discussed in Ref., we can consider two mechanisms for generating the $`\mu `$ term. One is the supergravity effects, where the term $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }^2]_D`$, which is induced in 4D Kähler potential from the 5D gauge kinetic term, can lead to $`\mu `$ term. The existence of $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry in the 5 dimension forbids the direct $`\mu `$ term as well as the dangerous dimension 4 and 5 proton decay operators, where the Higgs fields have no $`R`$ charges. The other is orbifolding boundary effect, where the gaugino masses are induced through the SUSY breaking boundary conditions. The $`\mu `$ term can be generated in the same mechanism since the Higgs fields arise from the gauge fields in higher dimensions.

Finally let us comment on the triplet-doublet (TD) splitting in our models. When we consider the Wilson line operator, $`𝒫\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑y)`$, we can consider the brane-localized gauge invariant interactions, where we can adopt the usual 4D solutions of TD splitting problem. Here $`𝒫`$ shows the path ordered product. On the other hand, when we permit the higher representation matter fields, the missing partner mechanism can work in our scenarios. For examples, in $`E_6`$ GUT, we introduce Higgs hyper-multiplets, $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}^c)`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}}^c)`$ in the bulk. The orbifolding in the section 3 shows $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}^c\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}^{(+,+)}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}}^c\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}^{(+,+)}`$, and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}^{(+,+)}`$. Thus, the gauge interactions in Eq.(9), $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}^c`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}}^c`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}}`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟐𝟖}}`$, induce the Yukawa interactions, $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}5}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}^𝐇\overline{\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}_{(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟒})}\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{}^{𝐇}{}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})}{}^{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}50}_{(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})}^𝐜`$, respectively. Below the breaking of $`U(1)_V\times U(1)_X`$, only the triplet can take GUT scale mass, through the GUT scale VEV of $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ component of 75s under $`(SU(3)_c,SU(2)_L)_{U(1)_Y}`$. It is because $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}})`$ contains $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_\mathrm{𝟐}((\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ but not contains $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_\mathrm{𝟑}((\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_\mathrm{𝟑})`$. This is just the usual missing partner mechanism.

## Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Y. Kawamura, Y. Hosotani, K. Inoue, Y. Nomura, N. Maru, N. Yamashita, and T. Ota for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, of Japan (No. 14039207, No. 14046208, No. 14740164).

Note added

The first version of this paper contained the $`E_8`$ GUT, where $`E_6`$ GUT is said to be realized by two $`Z_2`$ transformations. However, we become aware of the paper that studies orbifolding in $`E_8`$, which shows $`E_8E_6\times SU(3)`$ can not be realized by $`Z_2`$ parity. It is because the assignment of $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ to have a negative parity is not consistent, since $`[(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑}),(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})](\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$. To realize the breaking of $`E_8E_6\times SU(3)`$, $`Z_3`$ orbifolding is needed, for examples, in “two” extra dimensional theory.