text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry is now considered to be the most promising candidate for the solution of the gauge hierarchy problem. Although we have no direct evidence of the supersymmetry still now, the unification shown by the gauge couplings in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) may be considered as its indirect signal. When we consider grand unified models such as SU(5), SO(10) etc. based on this gauge coupling unification, we are often annoyed by the doublet-triplet splitting problem . The reason is that, as stressed in , we cannot easily introduce a suitable symmetry to resolve the doublet-triplet degeneracy in a consistent way with the unified gauge structure. Recently, it has been pointed out that the doublet-triplet splitting problem can be solved by extending the gauge structure such as a deconstruction model  or introducing extra dimensions . Since the doublet-triplet splitting problem is almost general in the grand unified models including the superstring model, it seems to be interesting to find models which can solve this problem and also to investigate the phenomenological features in such models.

In this article we propose a supersymmetry breaking scenario which is naturally introduced in a unified model which can solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem. The model is constructed by extending the deconstruction model given in . The similar structure to the minimal gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking model  is automatically built in the model. In our model gaugino masses seem to be generally non-universal and then have non-universal phases due to the gauge structure which is required to realize the doublet-triplet splitting. The soft scalar masses can also have a different spectrum from the ordinary one keeping the flavor blindness. We study the general feature of the supersymmetry breaking parameters in addition to the structure of the $`CP`$ phases in this model.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we define our model and explain how the doublet-triplet splitting can be realized. In section 3 we derive the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters based on such a feature of the model and give some comments on their phenomenological aspects. Section 4 is devoted to the summary.

## 2 A SUSY model with the doublet-triplet splitting

We consider a model with a direct product gauge structure such as $`𝒢=`$SU(5)$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$SU(5)′′ and a global discrete symmetry $`F`$ which commutes with this gauge symmetry . Under this gauge structure we introduce bifundamental chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟓})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\mathrm{𝟓},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$, an adjoint Higgs chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐𝟒})`$, three sets of chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏})+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{5}}(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟏})`$ which correspond to three generations of quarks and leptons, a set of chiral superfield $`H(\mathrm{𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})+\stackrel{~}{H}(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}})`$ which contains Higgs doublets, and also a set of chiral superfield $`\overline{\chi }(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟏})+\chi (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟓})`$ in order to cancel the gauge anomaly induced by the above contents. We additionally introduce several singlet chiral superfields $`S_\alpha `$. These are summarized in Table 1. In order to induce the symmetry breaking at the high energy scale we introduce a superpotential such as

$$W_1=M_\varphi \mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)+\frac{1}{2}M_\sigma \mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\right)+\lambda \mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3\right)$$
(1)
The scalar potential based on this $`W_1`$ can be easily obtained as

$`V=\mathrm{Tr}|M_\varphi \varphi _1+\lambda \varphi _1\sigma +y|^2+\mathrm{Tr}|M_\varphi \varphi _2+\lambda \sigma \varphi _2+x|^2`$
$`+\mathrm{Tr}|M_\sigma \sigma +\lambda \varphi _1\varphi _2+\sigma ^2+z|^2,`$ (2)
where $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ and $`\sigma `$ are the scalar components of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, respectively. They are traceless and $`x,y`$ and $`z`$ are the Lagrange multipliers for these traceless conditions.

We try to find a non-trivial and physically interesting solution of the minimum of this scalar potential. The conditions for it can be written in such a way as

$`\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\varphi _1,`$ (3)
$`M_\varphi \varphi _1+\lambda \varphi _1\sigma +y=0,`$ (4)
$`M_\sigma \sigma +\lambda \left(\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\varphi _1^2\right)+z=0,`$ (5)
where the Lagrange multipliers $`y`$ and $`z`$ are determined as

$$y=\frac{\lambda }{5}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\varphi _1\sigma \right),z=\frac{\lambda }{5}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\sigma ^2\frac{5x}{\lambda \mathrm{Tr}\left(\varphi _1\sigma \right)}\varphi _1^2\right),$$
(6)
where $`x`$ remains as a free parameter. We restrict ourselves to consider a special direction in the field space such that $`\varphi _1=\kappa \sigma `$ and we also assume that $`M_\sigma =M_\varphi (1+x\kappa ^2/y)`$ is satisfied. Then, along this direction eqs. (4) and (5) become consistent with each other and they are reduced to an interesting equation such as

$$M_\varphi \sigma +\lambda \sigma ^2\frac{\lambda }{5}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\sigma ^2\right)=0.$$
(7)
This equation has the same form as the potential minimum condition for the adjoint Higgs scalar in the ordinary supersymmetric SU(5). It is well-known that there are three supersymmetric degenerate independent solutions in this equation. The most interesting one can be written as

$$\sigma =\stackrel{~}{M}\mathrm{diag}(2,2,2,3,3),$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is defined as $`\stackrel{~}{M}=M_\varphi /\lambda `$. In the present discussion we adopt this solution. Using this $`\sigma `$, other fields can be determined as

$$\varphi _1=\kappa \sigma ,\varphi _2=\frac{1}{\kappa }\left(\frac{M_\sigma }{M_\varphi }1\right)\sigma .$$
(9)
We have an unfixed parameter $`\kappa `$ in this solution. However, if we assume that this model is obtained as a result of a suitable deconstruction, $`\kappa `$ can be determined as discussed below. There is no $`D`$-term contribution to $`V`$ from these vacuum expectation values (VEVs) in eqs. (8) and (9) and then the supersymmetry is conserved at this stage.

It is convenient to use the deconstruction method in order to see what kind of discrete symmetry remains unbroken when these VEVs are induced . We consider the theory space represented by the moose diagram which is composed of the $`n`$ sites $`Q_i`$ placed on the vertices of an $`n`$-polygon and one site on its center $`P`$ of this polygon. We assign SU(5) on the site $`P`$ and SU(5)′′ on each site $`Q_i`$ and also put a bifundamental chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ on each link from $`P`$ to $`Q_i`$. On each link from $`Q_i`$ to $`Q_{i+1}`$ we put the adjoint Higgs chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of SU(5)′′. For the later discussion, we may consider the unitary link variables $`U_i\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _i/\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and $`𝒲\mathrm{exp}(i\sigma /\stackrel{~}{M})`$. Here we introduce an equivalence relation only for the boundary points of the polygon by the $`2\pi /n`$ rotation and we identify this $`Z_n`$ symmetry with the above mentioned discrete symmetry $`F`$. The equivalence relation defined by $`F`$ makes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ independent of $`i`$ or, equivalently, invariant under $`F`$. This makes us consider the reduced theory space composed of only three sites $`P`$, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$, in which the field contents become equivalent to the one given in Table 1. If we use $`𝒲`$ introduced above, this equivalence relation requires that $`𝒲^n=1`$ is satisfied. Thus we can write $`𝒲`$ as

$$𝒲=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2i\rho },e^{2i\rho },e^{2i\rho },e^{3i\rho },e^{3i\rho }),$$
(10)
where $`e^{i\rho }`$ is the $`n`$-th root of unity. If we assume that our model is obtained as a result of the above discussed deconstruction, the condition $`U_i𝒲U_{i+1}^1=1`$ should be satisfied for $`i=1`$, which means that the holonomy around each two-dimensional plaquette is equal to 1.111This corresponds to the energy minimum condition from the viewpoint of the lattice gauge . This requirement is interpreted in our vacuum defined by eqs. (8) and (9) as an additional condition $`\varphi _1+\sigma +\varphi _2=0`$, which can be transformed into a condition for the $`\kappa `$ in $`\kappa ^2\kappa +1M_\sigma /M_\varphi =0`$.

Now we consider the transformation property of this vacuum under the gauge transformation such as

$$U_i^{}=\omega ^{}U_i(\omega ^{\prime \prime })^1,𝒲^{}=\omega ^{\prime \prime }𝒲(\omega ^{\prime \prime })^1,$$
(11)
where $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`\omega ^{\prime \prime }`$ are the group elements of SU(5) and SU(5)′′, respectively. The invariance of $`U_i`$ and $`𝒲`$ shows that the group elements $`\omega `$ of the unbroken gauge group satisfy the condition: $`\omega =\omega ^{}=\omega ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`[\omega ,𝒲]=0`$. Since we take the VEVs of Higgs scalar fields in such a way as eqs. (8) and (9), the unbroken gauge group is $``$=SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) which is a subgroup of the diagonal sum SU(5) of $`𝒢`$. Next we consider a discrete symmetry $`F^{}`$ as a diagonal subgroup of $`F\times G_{\mathrm{U}(1)^{\prime \prime }}`$ where $`G_{\mathrm{U}(1)^{\prime \prime }}`$ is a discrete subgroup of a hypercharge in SU(5)′′. If we write the group elements of $`F`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{U}(1)^{\prime \prime }}`$ as $`f`$ and $`\omega _D`$, the transformation of $`U_i`$ due to $`F^{}`$ can be written as

$$U_i^{}=(fU_i)\omega _D^1=U_{i+1}\omega _D^1.$$
(12)
If we take $`\omega _D`$ as $`𝒲`$, we find that $`U_i`$ is invariant under this transformation due to the relation $`U_i𝒲U_{i+1}^1=1`$ and $`F^{}`$ remains unbroken. The invariance of $`𝒲`$ is also clear. Thus we can conclude that in this model the symmetry $`𝒢\times F`$ breaks down into $`\times F^{}`$ by considering the vacuum defined by eqs. (8) and (9). Since the definition of $`F^{}`$ contains the disctrete subgroup of U(1)′′ in SU(5)′′ as its component, every field which has a nontrivial transformation property with respect to SU(5)′′ can have different charges. We assign the charges of $`F^{}`$ for every field as shown in Table 1.

In order to solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem, only the color triplet Higgs chiral superfields $`H_3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_3`$ except for the ordinary Higgs chiral superfields $`H_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ should become massive when the above discussed symmetry breaking occurs. We should also require the conditions on $`F^{}`$ to satisfy various phenomenological constraints in a consistent way with this realization. We impose the following conditions.
(i) Each term in the superpotential $`W_1`$ should exist and this requirement imposes the conditions:

$$\eta +\sigma +2(c+d)=0,\eta +\sigma 3(c+d)=0.$$
(13)
(ii) The gauge invariant bare mass terms of the fields such as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{5}}H`$, $`H\overline{\chi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}\chi `$ and $`S_\alpha S_\beta `$ should be forbidden. These conditions are summarized as,

$`\beta +\gamma 0,\gamma +\delta 0,\xi +\zeta +2(a+b)0,`$
$`\xi +\zeta 3(a+b)0,2e0,2f0,e+f0.`$ (14)
(iii) To realize the doublet-triplet splitting, Yukawa coupling $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1H_2\stackrel{~}{H}_2`$ should be forbidden although $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1H_3\stackrel{~}{H}_3`$ is allowed. This gives the conditions such as

$$\gamma +\xi 3a+\eta 3c0,\gamma +\xi +2a+\eta +2c=0.$$
(15)
(iv) Yukawa couplings of quarks and leptons, that is, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}H_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{5}}\stackrel{~}{H}_{\overline{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ should exist. This requires

$$2\alpha +\gamma =0,\alpha +\beta +\xi 3a+\eta 3c=0.$$
(16)
(v) The fields $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ should be massless at the $`𝒢`$ breaking scale and play the role of the messenger fields of the supersymmetry breaking which is assumed to occur in the $`S_\alpha `$ sector. These require both the absence of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2\chi \overline{\chi }`$ and the existence of the coupling $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2S_\alpha \chi \overline{\chi }`$. These conditions can be written as

$`\delta +\zeta +2b+\sigma +2d0,\delta +\zeta 3b+\sigma 3d0,`$
$`\delta +\zeta +2b+\sigma +2d+e=0,\delta +\zeta 3b+\sigma 3d+f=0.`$ (17)
(vi) The neutrino should be massive and the proton should be stable. This means that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{5}}^2H_2^2`$ should exist and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{5}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}^3\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{5}}`$ should be forbidden . These require

$$2(\beta +\gamma )=0,\alpha +2\beta 0,3\alpha +\beta 0.$$
(18)
Every equation should be understood up to modulus $`n`$ when we take $`F^{}=Z_n`$.

We can easily find an example of the consistent solution for these constraints. For example, if we take $`F^{}=Z_{20}`$, such an example can be given as

$`\alpha =\delta =\eta =b=e=1,\sigma =\xi =\zeta =a=3,`$
$`\gamma =c=2,d=f=6,\beta =8,`$ (19)
where these charges should be understood up to the modulus $`20`$. We have not taken account of the anomaly of $`F^{}`$. Although this anomaly cancellation seems to require the introduction of new fields and impose the additional constraints on the charges, it does not affect the result of the present phenomenological study of the model. So we do not discuss this problem further here. It should be noted that the existence of the different singlet fields $`S_{1,2}`$ are generally required in order to make $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ play a role of messengers of the supersymmetry breaking. In fact, the $`F^{}`$ charges of $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ satisfy

$$ef=5(b+d)0,(\mathrm{mod}n)$$
(20)
which is derived from eq. (17). This feature is caused by the direct product structure of the gauge group which is motivated to realize the doublet-triplet splitting.

We can now consider the physics at the scale after the symmetry breaking due to the VEVs in eqs. (8) and (9). The massless degrees of freedom are composed of the contents of the MSSM and the fields $`(q,l)`$ and $`(\overline{q},\overline{\mathrm{}})`$ which come from $`\chi (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟓})`$ and $`\overline{\chi }(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}},\mathrm{𝟏})`$. We can expect the successful gauge coupling unification for these field contents in the similar way to the MSSM. Under the discrete symmetry $`F^{}`$, the superpotential for these fields can be written as

$$W_2=h_1\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}H_2+h_2\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}\mathrm{\Psi }_{\overline{5}}\stackrel{~}{H}_2+\lambda _1S_1q\overline{q}+\lambda _2S_2\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{}}.$$
(21)
The last three terms effectively appear through the nonrenormalizable terms as a result of the symmetry breaking due to $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. This feature makes the second term favorable to explain the hierarchy between the masses of the top and bottom quarks . The messenger fields $`q,\overline{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ couple with the different singlet fields $`S_{1,2}`$. If both their scalar components and $`F`$-components get the VEVs, they can play the role of messenger fields for the supersymmetry breaking in the observable sector as in the minimal gauge mediation model . This is discussed in the next section. Although it seems to be difficult to produce a weak scale $`\mu `$-term within the field contents given in Table 1, it may be expected to be generated associated with the supersymmetry breaking by extending the model. We may consider various ways for generating the $`\mu `$-term such as the mechanism of Giudice-Masiero  or the model based on the VEV of the singlet field like the next MSSM . However, we do not discuss its origin here and treat it only as an effective parameter in the following discussion.

## 3 Soft SUSY breaking parameters

In this section we study the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters in the present model. The gauge anomaly cancellation for $`𝒢`$ requires us to introduce a set of vectorlike fields $`\chi `$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ as mentioned above. Using these fields as the messenger fields, fortunately, we can apply the well-known minimal gauge mediation supersymmetry breaking scenario  to our model. If the singlet chiral superfields $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ couple with the hidden sector fields which break down the supersymmetry, $`q,\overline{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ play the role of messenger fields as in the ordinary scenario. The only difference from the ordinary minimal gauge mediation scenario is that $`q,\overline{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ couple with different singlet chiral superfields $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ in the superpotential $`W_2`$ because of the discrete symmetry $`F^{}`$. If we assume that both $`S_\alpha `$ and $`F_{S_\alpha }`$ get the VEVs, the gaugino masses and the soft scalar masses are generated through one-loop and two-loop diagrams, respectively. However, the mass formulas are modified from the usual ones since the messenger fields $`q,\overline{q}`$ and $`\mathrm{},\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ couple with the different singlets.

The massless vector supermultiplet of SU(5) is written as

$$V=V^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta +V^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(22)
where $`V^{}`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ are the vector supermultiplets of SU(5) and SU(5)′′. A mixing angle $`\theta `$ and a new gauge coupling constant $`g`$ of SU(5) are determined as

$$\frac{1}{g^2}=\frac{1}{g^2}+\frac{1}{g^{\prime \prime 2}},\mathrm{tan}\theta =\frac{g^{}}{g^{\prime \prime }},$$
(23)
where $`g^{}`$ and $`g^{\prime \prime }`$ are the gauge coupling constants of SU(5) and SU(5)′′. The same relations are satisfied for each factor group of $``$ at the symmetry breaking scale $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. The gauge coupling constants of $``$ follow the unification relation $`g=g_3=g_2=\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}g_1`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. The information on the direct product gauge structure at the high energy region is included in the mixing angle $`\theta `$. The gauginos become massive due to the mixing between the gauginos of SU(5) and SU(5)′′ through the one-loop diagrams shown in Fig. 1. These mass mixings can be estimated as

$$M_{\lambda _3^{}\lambda _3^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{g_3^{}g_3^{\prime \prime }}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,M_{\lambda _2^{}\lambda _2^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{g_2^{}g_2^{\prime \prime }}{16\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,M_{\lambda _1^{}\lambda _1^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{g_1^{}g_1^{\prime \prime }}{16\pi ^2}\left(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\right),$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha =F_{S_\alpha }/S_\alpha `$. These can be transformed into the masses $`M_r`$ of the gauginos $`\lambda _r`$ of the gauge group $``$ by taking account of eqs. (22) and (23). They can be written in the form as

$$M_3=\frac{\alpha _3}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,M_2=\frac{\alpha _2}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,M_1=\frac{\alpha _1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\right),$$
(25)
where $`\alpha _r=g_r^2/4\pi `$.

These give the same sum rule among gaugino masses as the one of the usual minimal gauge mediation scenario at the supersymmetry breaking scale such as

$$\frac{M_1}{\alpha _1}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{M_3}{\alpha _3}+\frac{M_2}{\alpha _2}.$$
(26)
However, depending on the ratio of the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, each mass ratio can be different from the ordinary ones, that is,

$$\frac{M_2}{M_3}=\frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _3}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1},\frac{M_1}{M_3}=\frac{\alpha _1}{\alpha _3}\left(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\right).$$
(27)
These formulas show that $`M_3`$ can be much smaller than $`M_{1,2}`$ in the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2>\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. If we take account of the evolution effect by the renormalization group, their values at the weak scale $`M_W`$, for example, can be obtained as

$$M_r(M_W)=M_r(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{\alpha _r(M_W)}{\alpha _r(\mathrm{\Lambda })},$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a scale at which the supersymmetry breaking is introduced. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ is generally independent, the phases contained in the gaugino masses are non-universal even in the case of $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|=|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|`$. We cannot remove them completely by using the $`R`$-transformation unlike the universal gaugino mass case. In fact, if we define the phases as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |e^{i\phi _\alpha }`$ and make $`M_2`$ real by the $`R`$-transformation, the phases of $`M_3`$ and $`M_1`$ are written as

$$\mathrm{arg}(M_3)=\phi _1\phi _2,\mathrm{arg}(M_1)=\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|\mathrm{sin}(\phi _1\phi _2)}{3|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|+2|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|\mathrm{cos}(\phi _1\phi _2)}\right).$$
(29)
The scalar masses are induced as the values of $`O(|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha |^2)`$ through the two-loop diagrams as in the ordinary case. Again, only difference comes from the fact that the model has the direct product gauge structure at the high energy region and the messengers $`(q,\mathrm{})`$ and $`(\overline{q},\overline{\mathrm{}})`$ are the representations of the different factor groups. This brings the mixing factor between the vector superfields $`V_r`$ and $`V_r^{}`$, $`V_r^{\prime \prime }`$ as in the gaugino mass case. Taking account of this, their formulas can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_f^2=2\left[C_3\left(\frac{\alpha _3}{4\pi }\right)^2+\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{Y}{2}\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{4\pi }\right)^2\right]|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|^2+2\left[C_2\left(\frac{\alpha _2}{4\pi }\right)^2+\left(\frac{Y}{2}\right)^2\left(\frac{\alpha _1}{4\pi }\right)^2\right]|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|^2,$$
(30)
where $`C_3=4/3`$ and 0 for the SU(3) triplet and singlet fields, and $`C_2=3/4`$ and 0 for the SU(2) doublet and singlet fields, respectively. The hypercharge $`Y`$ is expressed as $`Y=2(QT_3)`$. These formulas can give rather different mass spectrum for the scalar fields depending on the values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$. In fact, if we assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1<\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, for example, the mass difference between the color singlet fields and the colored fields tend to be smaller in comparison with the one in the ordinary scenario. Let us take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=40`$ TeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=100`$ TeV to show a typical spectrum of the superpartners at the supersymmetry breaking scale. Then we can have the following spectrum as

$`M_3=273\mathrm{GeV},M_2=279\mathrm{GeV},M_1=111\mathrm{GeV},\stackrel{~}{m}_Q=562\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_U=455\mathrm{GeV},\stackrel{~}{m}_D=449\mathrm{GeV},\stackrel{~}{m}_L=347\mathrm{GeV},\stackrel{~}{m}_E=130\mathrm{GeV},`$
$`m_1=m_2=347\mathrm{GeV},`$ (31)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are masses of the Higgs scalars that couple with the down and up sectors of quarks and leptons, respectively. These masses are somewhat affected by the renormalization group running effect, although the running region is not so large. For example, the modifications due to this effect can be solved analytically for the masses of sleptons and $`H_1`$, for which Yukawa coupling effects can be neglected, as

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2(M_W)=\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}|M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^2(M_W)}{\alpha _2^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{22}}|M_1(\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^2(M_W)}{\alpha _1^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}1\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_R^2(M_W)=\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_R^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{2}{11}}|M_1(\mathrm{\Lambda })|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^2(M_W)}{\alpha _1^2(\mathrm{\Lambda })}}1\right),`$ (32)
where we do not write the $`D`$-term contribution explicitly. The mass $`m_1^2`$ of the Higgs scalar has the same formula as $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\mathrm{}_L^2`$.

As in the minimal gauge mediation model discussed in , the soft supersymmetry breaking $`A_f`$ and $`B`$ parameters can also be expected to be induced through the radiative correction such as

$`A_fA_f(\mathrm{\Lambda })+M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda })\left(1.85+0.34|h_t|^2\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\mu }}(\mathrm{\Lambda }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A_t(\mathrm{\Lambda })+M_2(\mathrm{\Lambda })\left(0.12+0.17|h_t|^2\right),`$ (33)
where we should omit a term of $`h_t`$ in the expression of $`A_f`$ except for the top sector $`(f=t)`$. In the case of $`A_f(\mathrm{\Lambda })=B(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$ which are expected in many gauge mediation scenario, $`A_f`$ and $`B`$ are proportional to $`M_2`$ and then the $`CP`$ phases in the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters are completely rotated away as far as gaugino masses are universal . However, in the present model this situation is broken even in the case of $`A_f(\mathrm{\Lambda })=B(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$ since the phases in the gaugino masses are not universal. Although the generation of $`B`$ should be considered on the basis of the various mechanisms like the $`\mu `$-term  also in the present model, it is completely model dependent and we do not discuss it further.

Finally we comment on some phenomenological aspects on these soft breaking parameters. At present it seems to be difficult to relate the supersymmetry breaking parameters to the observed values. Only exception might be found in the electroweak symmetry breaking. As is well-known , the minimum condition of the tree level scalar potential in the MSSM can be written as

$$m_Z^2=2\mu ^2+2\frac{m_1^2m_2^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}.$$
(34)
Supersymmetry breaking parameters in the right-hand side can be estimated by using the one-loop renormalization group equations (RGEs). Through the semi-analytic calculation , their weak scale values can be expressed using various soft parameters at the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ whose examples are shown in eq. (32). If we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=100`$ TeV, $`m_{\mathrm{top}}=170`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and use the numerical coefficient obtained through the RGEs in this case , eq. (34) is expressed as222In this expression we do not take account of the difference between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ for the estimation of the numerical coefficients. However, we can expect that there is no substantial difference even if we take account of it.

$$m_Z^2=1.8\mu ^20.2M_2^2+0.4M_3^2+0.2A_t^2+0.4\stackrel{~}{m}_{Q_3}^2+0.4\stackrel{~}{m}_{U_3}^21.7m_2^20.2A_tM_3+\mathrm{},$$
(35)
where the ellipses represent the subdominant contributions. Assuming $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ to be real and substituting soft parameters given by eqs.(25) and (30), we obtain

$$m_Z^2=(115x^2+6.1x13.2)(10^3\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)^21.8\mu ^2,$$
(36)
where $`x=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ and we use eq. (33) with $`A_t(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$. In Fig.2 we plot the values of $`\mu `$ satisfying this relation for various values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$. This shows that $`\mu `$ can take a reasonable value as far as we can set up $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}`$ appropriately. As a general feature we find that the large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ tend to require the large value of $`\mu `$. The sensitivity of $`\mu `$ against $`x`$ seems to be almost independent of the value of $`x`$ in the $`x{}_{}{}^{>}0.5`$ region. In the $`x{}_{}{}^{<}0.5`$ region, we can obtain a small value of $`\mu `$ such as $`\mu 100GeV`$ as the consistent solution. However, it is necessary to tune carefully the value of $`x`$ to be $`0.350.5`$ depending on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ to obtain the smaller value of $`\mu `$. This required tuning is finer for the larger $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ value. Anyway, this feature looks different from the ordinary minimal gauge mediation model in which $`x=1`$ is satisfied and then $`\mu {}_{}{}^{>}300`$ GeV is required for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_240`$ TeV as seen from Fig.2.333The small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ makes $`M_2`$ too small and it will be excluded from the fact that neutralinos and charginos have not been found at LEP.

There is another interesting feature in this case. In the usual minimal gauge mediation scenario the lightest superparticle in the whole spectrum except for the gravitino is the right-handed slepton as far as we do not take account of the radiative effect. However, in the present scenario the photino can be the lightest one in this situation even at the tree level as we can see it in the example given in eq.(31). This feature might be relevant to the event such as $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma +`$ missing $`E_T`$ . Our model might be discriminated from other gauge mediation models by using this aspect.

The gaugino mass universality seems to be a rather general result in various supersymmetry breaking scenarios. However, the present model naturally induces non-universal gaugino masses as a result of intrinsic nature of the model. We generally have physical $`CP`$ phases in the gaugino sector. This may be dangerous since it can give a large contribution to the electric dipole moment of a neutron and an electron. However, they could be within the experimental bound even if the $`CP`$ phases are $`O(1)`$. It is expected that there can be an effective cancellation between the chargino and neutralino contributions to them . We can check this in the present model and the result will be presented elsewhere . In the case that there is no contradiction with the EDM, these large $`CP`$ phases may be important when we consider the electroweak baryogenesis .

## 4 Summary

We investigated the soft supersymmetry breaking masses in the supersymmetric unified model which can solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem. The model is constructed through the deconstruction by extending the gauge structure into the direct product group SU(5)$`{}_{}{}^{}\times `$SU(5)′′. The low energy spectrum is the one of the MSSM with the additional chiral superfields which can play a role of messengers in the gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking. The gauge anomaly cancellation requires to introduce these chiral superfields. The discrete symmetry can be introduced to realize the doublet-triplet splitting because of the the direct product gauge structure. It forces the color triplet and color singlet messengers to couple with the different singlet chiral superfields whose scalar and auxiliary components are assumed to get the VEVs due to the hidden sector dynamics. This can make the different structure of the soft supersymmetry breaking masses from the ones of the ordinary minimal gauge mediation scenario. One of the interesting feature is that the mass difference between the colored fields and the color singlet fields can be smaller in comparison with the ordinary gauge mediation scenario. Another interesting point is that the gaugino masses become non-universal generally and the non-universal phases are introduced in the gaugino masses. The $`CP`$ phases can remain in the gaugino sector as the physical phases after the $`R`$ transformation. This feature may discriminate this model from others since it is rather difficult to construct the well-motivated model with the non-universal gaugino masses. Further phenomenological study of the model seems to be worthy since it is constructed on the basis of the reasonable motivation to solve the doublet-triplet splitting problem in the grand unified model.

This work is supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from Japan Society for Promotion of Science (No. 14540251) and also by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (A) from The Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (No. 14039205).


format: text

text:
# On the geometry of higher-spin gauge fields

## 1 Introduction

This article reviews the results of  on the geometry underlying the free equations for symmetric tensors of arbitrary spin $`s`$ and on its role in corresponding equations for fermionic tensors of spin $`s+1/2`$. It is meant as a contribution to the Conference Proceedings of the Sakharov, Leuven and SIGRAV Meetings, and to the Proceedings of the 2002 Cargese Summer Institute. The SIGRAV contribution was accompanied by a less technical lecture at the companion SIGRAV School, essentially based on , while only one of the three Cargese lectures was actually devoted to this topic. However, since the other two dealt with results reviewed in detail in , it will suffice to confine the attention to this topic. This will also provide an opportunity to supplement the results in  with additional remarks on their role in String Theory and on the issue of gauge fixing 222We are grateful to A. Segal for his stimulating remarks on this issue.. The last two sections, added in this new version, review the results in  and present local compensator forms for the higher-spin bosonic and fermionic equations with the same unconstrained gauge symmetry.

The starting point for our discussion are the elegant equations extracted long ago by Fronsdal  from the massive Singh-Hagen  actions,

$$\mathrm{}\varphi \varphi +^2\varphi ^{}=0,$$
(1)
that for spin one and two reduce to the Maxwell equation for the vector potential $`A_\mu `$ and to the linearized Einstein equation for the metric fluctuation $`h_{\mu \nu }`$. Here, as will often be the case in the following, primes (or bracketed suffixes) denote traces, while all indices carried by the symmetric tensors $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s}`$ and $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ or by derivatives are left implicit. In this shorthand notation, where all terms are meant to be totally symmetrized, one need only get accustomed to a few rules, some notable examples for a $`D`$-dimensional space time being

$`\left(^p\varphi \right)^{}=\mathrm{}^{p2}\varphi +2^{p1}\varphi +^p\varphi {}_{}{}^{},`$ (2)
$`^p^q=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p+q}{p}}\right)^{p+q},`$ (3)
$`\left(^p\varphi \right)=\mathrm{}^{p1}\varphi +^p\varphi ,`$ (4)
$`\eta ^k=\eta ^{k1},`$ (5)
$`\left(\eta ^kT_{(s)}\right)^{}=k\left[D+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(s+k1)\right]\eta ^{k1}T_{(s)}+\eta ^kT_{(s)}^{},`$ (6)
where $`T_{(s)}`$ denotes a symmetric rank-$`s`$ tensor, but the general case can then be dealt with in a rather efficient and compact fashion.

At a closer look, however, for spin $`s>2`$ eq. (1) appears somewhat less natural than its first and most familiar instances,

$`\mathrm{}A_\mu _\mu A=0,`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{}h_{\mu \nu }_\mu h_\nu _\nu h_\mu +_\mu _\nu h^{}=0,`$ (8)
since only these involve all available lower spin constructs built from divergences and traces of the gauge field. This peculiarity has in fact an important consequence: only for spin one and two does the gauge transformation

$$\delta \varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(9)
leave the Fronsdal operator $``$ invariant, while in general

$$\delta =3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},$$
(10)
and as a result for spin $`s3`$ eq. (1) requires a traceless gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This constraint plays a key role in the Fronsdal formulation , together with an additional one, effective from $`s=4`$ onward, on the gauge field, whose double trace $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ is also required to vanish.

We can now review how one can actually forego both constraints, at the price of allowing non-local terms both in the free field equations and in the corresponding Lagrangians, but with the clear advantage of eliciting the geometry that underlies them. This geometry would be naturally expected to play a role in the Vasiliev equations , but to date we have not gone far enough to make definite statements to this effect. However, it is a fact that String Field Theory , in the most symmetric formulation of its free field equations, deduced in  from the BRST analysis of , does not involve trace conditions on the gauge fields or on the corresponding gauge parameters. Rather, as we shall see, it embodies very nicely the higher-spin geometric equations that we are about to review.

Let us therefore begin by tracing the origin of the double trace constraint on the gauge field. To this end, it is important to recall that, already at spin two, the naive linearized Einstein equation

$$R_{\mu \nu }^{(lin)}=0$$
(11)
does not follow directly from the Einstein-Hilbert action principle, whose variation actually gives

$$\delta \delta h_{\mu \nu }\left[R_{\mu \nu }^{(lin)}\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }R^{(lin)}\right].$$
(12)
There is a clear logic behind this result, however, since the linearized Einstein tensor

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{(lin)}=R_{\mu \nu }^{(lin)}\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }R^{(lin)}$$
(13)
has the special virtue of being divergence free, and this ensures that $`\delta L`$ vanishes, up to a total derivative, if $`\delta h^{\mu \nu }`$ corresponds to a gauge transformation. In other words, the gauge invariance of $`L`$ rests on two ingredients: the gauge invariance of the field equation and a suitable Bianchi identity. This pattern extends to all higher-spin symmetric tensors, whose Bianchi identities

$$\frac{1}{2}^{}=\frac{3}{2}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}\varphi ^{^{\prime \prime }},$$
(14)
however, contain a sort of classical anomaly that involves their double traces. As a result, for spin $`>2`$ the Einstein-like tensors

$$𝒢=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{}$$
(15)
can only be compatible with gauge invariant Lagrangians such that

$$\delta \delta \varphi \left[\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{}\right]$$
(16)
if the gauge parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of eq. (9) are traceless and the gauge fields $`\varphi `$ are doubly traceless. Using the combinatoric rules listed above one can indeed show that, up to a total derivative, the gauge transformation (9) turns eq. (16) into

$$\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\frac{1}{2}^{}\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{}\right],$$
(17)
that can only vanish in general if both restrictions are enforced. Notice that the Bianchi identity eliminates the first two terms, while the last does not vanish identically. Rather, via the $`\eta `$ tensors, it places again on the gauge parameter the same restriction that ensures the gauge invariance of the Fronsdal operator $``$. To reiterate, the restriction to traceless gauge parameters is instrumental in the gauge invariance of the Fronsdal equations, while the restriction to doubly traceless fields ensures that the corresponding action principles be compatible with the gauge symmetry.

## 2 Gauge-invariant equations for unconstrained bosons

In order to forego these restrictions, one can follow an iterative procedure that, as in , can be conveniently motivated in the relatively simple spin-3 case, where

$$\delta _{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}=3_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},$$
(18)
since one can find rather simply other non-local constructs of $``$ that vary as in (18), to wit

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\mathrm{}}}[_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mu _3}{}^{}+_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mu _1}{}^{}+_{\mu _3}_{\mu _1}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mu _2}{}^{}],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\mathrm{}}}\left[_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2\mu _3}+_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3\mu _1}+_{\mu _3}_{\mu _1\mu _2}\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ (19)
The first two expressions actually coincide, as can be seen making use of the Bianchi identity (14), and as a result one is led to two apparently distinct forms for a non-local fully gauge invariant field equation:

$`_{\mu _1\mu _3\mu _3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\mathrm{}}}[_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mu _3}{}^{}+_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mu _1}{}^{}+_{\mu _3}_{\mu _1}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mu _2}{}^{}]=0,`$ (20)
$`_{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}_{\mu _1}_{\mu _2}_{\mu _3}{}_{}{}^{}=0.`$ (21)
These can be actually turned into one another, once they are combined with their traces, but the second form is clearly somewhat simpler, since its rests on the addition of the spin-0 construct $`^{}`$.

For all higher spins, one can arrive at the proper analogue of (20) via a sequence of pseudo-differential operators, defined recursively as

$$^{(n+1)}=^{(n)}+\frac{1}{(n+1)(2n+1)}\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}{\mathrm{}}_{}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{1}{n+1}\frac{}{\mathrm{}}^{(n)},$$
(22)
where $`^{(1)}=`$, whose gauge transformations,

$$\delta ^{(n)}=\left(2n+1\right)\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n+1}}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{[n]},$$
(23)
involve by construction higher traces of the gauge parameter. Since the $`n`$-th trace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{[n]}`$ is only available for spins $`s2n+1`$, after a certain number of iterations one is bound to end up with a fully gauge invariant, albeit non-local, kinetic operator.

A similar inductive argument determines the Bianchi identities for the $`^{(n)}`$,

$$^{(n)}\frac{1}{2n}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{}=(1+\frac{1}{2n})\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n+1}}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}\varphi ^{[n+1]},$$
(24)
where the “anomalous” contribution depends on the $`(n+1)`$-th trace $`\varphi ^{[n+1]}`$ of the gauge field, and thus vanishes for all spins $`s<2n+2`$. Summarizing, these results imply that, after a certain number of iterations, one can obtain non-local Lagrangians and field equations whose gauge invariance places no restrictions on the gauge fields or on the corresponding gauge parameters. Eq. (24) also implies similar relations for the higher traces of the $`^{(n)}`$,

$$^{(n)[k]}\frac{1}{2(nk)}^{(n)[k+1]}=0,(kn1)$$
(25)
here written for $`n`$ large enough so that the “anomaly” on the r.h.s. of (24) vanishes identically. Notice that for odd spin $`s=2n1`$ the second term vanishes for the last trace, so that

$$^{(n)[n1]}=0.$$
(26)
These generalized Bianchi identities suffice to define for all spin-$`s`$ fields fully gauge invariant analogues of the Einstein tensor,

$$𝒢^{(n)}=\underset{pn}{}\frac{(1)^p}{2^pp!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{p}\right)}\eta ^p^{(n)[p]},$$
(27)
obtained combining the proper $`^{(n)}`$ with their multiple traces that, for $`n`$ large enough, have vanishing divergences like their spin-2 counterpart. This is attained directly by the subtractions for all even spins, while for odd spins the last term thus generated vanishes on account of (26). From the $`𝒢^{(n)}`$ tensors, integrating

$$\delta \delta \varphi 𝒢^{(n)},$$
(28)
one can then recover the corresponding gauge invariant Lagrangians.

In order to write the fully gauge invariant equations in a compact form, it is convenient to resort to the trick of , contracting the gauge fields $`\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s}`$ with a vector $`\xi `$. It is then simple to show that traces and divergences of the resulting expressions,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\xi )=\frac{1}{s!}\xi ^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\mu _s}\varphi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s},$$
(29)
can be recovered applying the differential operators $`_\xi _\xi `$ and $`_\xi `$, where $`_\xi `$ denotes a derivative with respect to $`\xi `$. Starting from the Fronsdal term

$$\widehat{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\left[\mathrm{}\xi _\xi +(\xi )^2_\xi _\xi \right]\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(30)
the result of the successive iterations can then be written in the compact form

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{(\xi )^2}{(k+1)(2k+1)}\frac{_\xi _\xi }{\mathrm{}}\frac{\xi }{k+1}\frac{_\xi }{\mathrm{}}\right]\widehat{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(31)
where for spin $`s`$ a fully gauge invariant operator is reached after $`\left[\frac{s+1}{2}\right]`$ iterations. Expanding this expression and combining it with its trace it is then possible to show that the field equations can always be reduced to the form

$$=^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}},$$
(32)
that generalizes eq. (21). Under a gauge transformation, by consistency, $`\delta =3\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, and therefore the local forms (30) can be recovered from (31) making use of the traces of the gauge parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to reach the “Fronsdal gauges” $`=0`$. The final gauge fixing to the light cone, however, presents some subtleties, and will be discussed in a later section.

Gauge invariant Lagrangians can be also associated to eq. (32), as can already be seen for spin 3. They differ from those corresponding to the $`^{(n)}`$, and have the virtue of reducing to the local expressions of  in the Fronsdal gauges $`=0`$, but the general expressions for the corresponding Einstein-like tensors are less transparent, and we shall thus refrain from displaying them explicitly.

## 3 Gauge-invariant equations for unconstrained fermions

One can also arrive at similar non-local geometric equations for totally symmetric tensor-spinors $`\psi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _s}`$. In this case the local fermionic equations of

$$𝒮i\left(\overline{)}\psi \overline{)}\psi \right)=0$$
(33)
are gauge invariant under

$$\delta \psi =ϵ$$
(34)
only if the gauge parameters are subject to the constraint

$$\overline{)}ϵ=0.$$
(35)
In addition, the $`𝒮`$ operators satisfy the “anomalous” Bianchi identities

$$𝒮\frac{1}{2}𝒮{}_{}{}^{}\frac{1}{2}\overline{)}\overline{)}𝒮=i^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\overline{)}\psi ^{},$$
(36)
and therefore the gauge variation of the generic Lagrangian

$$\delta \delta \overline{\psi }\left[𝒮\frac{1}{2}\left(\eta 𝒮^{}+\gamma \overline{)}𝒮\right)\right]$$
(37)
can only vanish if eq. (35) is supplemented by

$$\overline{)}\psi ^{}=0,$$
(38)
the fermionic analogue of the double trace condition for boson fields.

It is convenient to notice that the fermionic operators for spin $`s+1/2`$ can be formally related to the bosonic operators for spin $`s`$ according to

$$𝒮_{s+1/2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\mathrm{}}\overline{)}\overline{)}𝒮_{s+1/2}=i\frac{\overline{)}}{\mathrm{}}_s(\psi ).$$
(39)
This amusing link generalizes the obvious one between the Dirac and Klein- Gordon operators and, for the rather familiar $`s=1`$ case, connects the Rarita-Schwinger operator, that when combined with its $`\gamma `$ trace can be reduced to the form (33), to the Maxwell operator, according to

$$𝒮_\mu \frac{1}{2}\frac{_\mu \overline{)}}{\mathrm{}}\overline{)}𝒮=i\frac{\overline{)}}{\mathrm{}}\left[\mathrm{}\eta _{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu \right]A^\nu ,$$
(40)
where we have restored the conventional index notation.

One can also show, by an inductive argument, that similar relations hold between the non-local fully gauge invariant counterparts of eqs. (1) and (33). They link the fermionic kinetic operators $`𝒮^{(n)}`$, defined recursively as

$$𝒮^{(n+1)}=𝒮^{(n)}+\frac{1}{n(2n+1)}\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}{\mathrm{}}𝒮^{(n)^{}}\frac{2}{2n+1}\frac{}{\mathrm{}}𝒮^{(n)},$$
(41)
and such that

$$\delta 𝒮^{(n)}=2in\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n}}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}\overline{)}ϵ^{[n1]},$$
(42)
to the corresponding corrected bosonic operators of the previous section, according to

$$𝒮_{s+1/2}^{(n)}\frac{1}{2n}\frac{}{\mathrm{}}\overline{)}\overline{)}𝒮_{s+1/2}^{(n)}=i\frac{\overline{)}}{\mathrm{}}_s^{(n)}(\psi ).$$
(43)
This relation also determines the “anomalous” Bianchi identities of the $`𝒮^{(n)}`$,

$$𝒮^{(n)}\frac{1}{2n}𝒮^{(n)^{}}\frac{1}{2n}\overline{)}\overline{)}𝒮^{(n)}=i\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}n}}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}\overline{)}\psi ^{[n]},$$
(44)
and therefore, for $`n`$ large enough so that $`S^{(n)}`$ is gauge invariant and eq. (44) is free of the “anomalous” term, the corrected Einstein-like operators

$$𝒢^{(n)}=𝒮^{(n)}+\underset{0<pn}{}\frac{(1)^p}{2^pp!\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{p}\right)}\eta ^{p1}\left[\eta 𝒮^{(n)[p]}+\gamma \overline{)}𝒮^{(n)[p1]}\right],$$
(45)
whose divergences vanish on account of eqs. (44) and of their ($`\gamma `$-) traces, and from which gauge invariant Lagrangians can be recovered. For the sake of brevity, in the following we shall mostly restrict our attention to bosonic higher-spin fields.

## 4 Free-field geometry

Following de Wit and Freedman , one can define generalized connections of various orders in the derivatives for all spin-$`s`$ gauge fields. This can be done by an iterative procedure, so that, in the compact notation of the previous section, for any field of spin $`s`$, after $`m`$ iterations one can define

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m)}=\frac{1}{m+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)}^{mk}^k\phi ,$$
(46)
where we are now using two types of derivatives for two distinct sets of indices, $``$ for the $`m`$ symmetric indices $`(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m)`$ introduced by the derivatives and $``$ for the other $`s`$ symmetric ones $`(\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s)`$ originating from the gauge field. It is simple to show, by an inductive argument, that the gauge transformation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m)}`$ is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m)}=^{m+1}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(47)
so that all $`m`$ indices of the first set are within the gauge parameter. Hence,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s1)}=\frac{1}{s}\underset{k=0}{\overset{s1}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s1}{k}\right)}^{sk1}^k\varphi ,$$
(48)
is the proper analogue of the Christoffel connection for a spin-$`s`$ gauge field, since its gauge transformation contains a single term. That these objects can be defined in general can be also recognized noticing that the $`(s1)`$-th derivatives of the spin-$`s`$ gauge transformations of eq. (9) imply that one can retrieve a composite connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{s1};\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s}`$, such that

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{s1};\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s}=_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}_{\beta _s}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{s1}},$$
(49)
inverting a linear system with $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2s1}{s}\right)`$ unknowns. Moreover, all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s with $`m>s`$ are gauge invariant, and in particular

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}=\frac{1}{s+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{k}\right)}^{sk}^k\varphi $$
(50)
is the proper analogue of the Riemann curvature tensor. This generalized curvature is of the form $`_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s;\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s}`$, and is totally symmetric under the interchange of any pair of indices within each of the two sets. In addition, as shown in ,

$$_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s;\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s}=(1)^s_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s;\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _s},$$
(51)
and a generalized cyclic identity holds. These concepts can be also related to an interesting generalization of the exterior differential, whereby the familiar condition $`d^2=0`$ is replaced by $`d^{s+1}=0`$ .

There is another, perhaps more obvious way, to generate a gauge invariant quantity from a connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s1)}`$ that transforms as in (49), a curl with respect to any of its $`\beta `$ indices. However, the choice of  has the virtue of simplicity, since it results automatically in a tensor with two totally symmetric sets of indices. For instance, the symmetric curvature of  for the spin-2 case is a linear combination of ordinary Riemann tensors, while its trace in the first symmetric set of indices is proportional to the ordinary Ricci tensor. If we now restrict our attention to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m)}`$’s with $`m`$ even, and for the sake of clarity let $`m=2n`$, eq. (47) implies that the total trace of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}`$ over pairs of $`\beta `$ indices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)[n]}`$, is a totally symmetric spin-$`s`$ tensor such that

$$\delta \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)[n]}=\frac{^{2n+1}}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{[n]}.$$
(52)
Up to an overall proportionality constant, this is exactly the gauge transformation of the $`^{(n)}`$, and in particular, if $`s=2n`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)[n]}`$ is the $`n`$-th trace of the spin-$`s`$ analogue of the Riemann tensor defined above. The iterative procedure of the previous section is thus providing a rôle for the higher-spin connections of , so that the geometric gauge-invariant equations for even spin $`s=2n`$ can be written in the form

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^{n1}}^{[n]}{}_{;\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n}}{}^{}=0,$$
(53)
a natural generalization of the linearized Einstein equation.

The odd-spin case $`s=2n+1`$ presents a further minor subtlety, in that the corresponding curvatures $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2n+1}`$ have an odd number of $`\beta `$ indices. The simplest option is then to take a trace over $`n`$ pairs of $`\beta `$ indices in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2n+1}`$ and act with a divergence on the remaining one. The end result for spin $`s=2n+1`$ is then

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}^n}^{[n]}{}_{;\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n+1}}{}^{}=0,$$
(54)
a natural generalization of the Maxwell equation. Notice that the Maxwell and Einstein cases are the only ones when these geometric equations are local. In all cases, however, the Fronsdal operators provide local, albeit partly gauge fixed, forms for them. As anticipated in the previous sections, these are the least singular fully gauge invariant equations, while more singular forms can be obtained combining eqs. (53) and (54) with their traces, as in section 2.

## 5 The issue of gauge fixing

In the previous sections we have seen how the non-local geometric equations for higher-spin bosons can be reduced to the usual local forms using the traces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ of the gauge parameters to reach the “Fronsdal gauges” $`=0`$. The resulting Fronsdal equations, however, present a subtlety, since they involve unconstrained fields $`\varphi `$, whose double traces $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ do not vanish identically. As we shall see, this subtlety requires a slight revision of the standard gauge-fixing procedure and, as a result, the field equations themselves set to zero the double traces on shell, leaving again the right set of modes.

Whereas in the usual local formulation the de Donder gauge condition

$$𝒟\varphi \frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{}=0$$
(55)
is used to reduce the Fronsdal equation to the canonical form

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =0,$$
(56)
the same procedure runs into a difficulty in this case. Indeed, while the gauge variation of $`𝒟`$ under (9) is in general

$$\delta 𝒟=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},$$
(57)
once the trace of the gauge parameter has been used to set $`=0`$, eq. (57) can only be consistent if the de Donder gauge condition is modified in order that it be identically traceless. While not automatic, since in our case $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ does not vanish identically as in , this can be achieved following once more an iterative procedure. Before dealing with the general case, it is perhaps instructive to discuss explicitly this issue for a spin-4 field, the first case where the problem presents itself.

For a spin-4 field in $`D`$ dimensions, one can modify $`𝒟`$ by the addition of a higher trace, to finally impose

$$𝒟+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{2(D+2)}\eta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }=0,$$
(58)
that is identically traceless. When used in the Fronsdal equation, in momentum space this leads to

$`p^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\varphi _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{D+2}}\left[\eta _{\mu \nu }p_\rho p_\sigma +\mathrm{}\right]\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=0,`$ (59)
and this equation can only have non-trivial eigentensors if $`p^2=0`$, since the second term does not contain any dimensionful parameter. With a light-like momentum $`p_+`$, choosing for instance $`(\mu ,\nu ,\rho ,\sigma )`$ equal to $`(+,,+,+)`$, it is then simple to see that eq. (59) sets $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=0`$. At this point, the gauge condition reduces to the usual de Donder form, with a field now constrained as in . The non-local equation thus propagates correctly spin-4 polarizations, despite the fact that a traceless gauge parameter, left over after setting $`=0`$, is originally accompanied by an unconstrained gauge field.

In general, for a spin-$`s`$ field $`\varphi `$ one can define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{k2}{}\left[c_{k,1}\eta ^{k1}\varphi ^{[k]}+c_{k,2}\eta ^k\varphi ^{[k]}\right],$$
(60)
where the coefficients $`c_{k,1}`$, available for $`k\left[\frac{s}{2}\right]`$, and $`c_{k,2}`$, available $`k\left[\frac{s1}{2}\right]`$, can be determined recursively requiring that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}={\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}\{`$ $`\eta ^{k1}`$ $`\varphi ^{[k]}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c_{k,1}+c_{k,2}k\left(D+2(sk2)\right)\right]`$ (61)
$`+`$ $`c_{k,1}(k1)\left(D+2(sk1)\right)\eta ^{k2}\varphi ^{[k]}`$
$`+`$ $`c_{k,1}\eta ^{k1}\varphi ^{[k+1]}+c_{k,2}\eta ^k\varphi ^{[k+1]}\}`$
cancel the trace of the naive de Donder condition $`𝒟`$, i.e. that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=0,$$
(62)
so that

$$𝒟+\mathrm{\Delta }=0$$
(63)
is an allowed gauge condition. This requires that

$$c_{k+1,1}=\frac{c_{k,1}}{k\left[D+2(sk2)\right]},$$
(64)
and therefore

$$c_{k,1}=\frac{(1)^k}{2(k1)!_{2\mathrm{}k}\left[D+2(s\mathrm{}1)\right]}(k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$
(65)
The $`c_{k,2}`$ are then determined by the inhomogeneous difference equation

$$c_{k+1,2}+\frac{c_{k,2}}{(k+1)\left[D+2(sk3)\right]}=g_k,$$
(66)
where

$$g_k=\frac{(1)^k}{2(k+1)!_{2\mathrm{}(k+2)}\left[D+2(s\mathrm{}1)\right]},$$
(67)
whose solution is

$$c_{k,2}=\frac{(1)^{k1}}{2(k1)!_{2\mathrm{}(k+1)}\left[D+2(s\mathrm{}1)\right]}(k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}).$$
(68)
As a result, the field equations reduce in general to

$$\mathrm{}\varphi +\mathrm{\Delta }=0,$$
(69)
while the existence of non-vanishing solutions requires that $`p^2=0`$, the only covariant condition that can emerge from a kinetic operator, invertible as a result of the gauge-fixing procedure, that only involves dimensionless parameters. Eqs. (63) then turn (69) into

$$𝒟=0,$$
(70)
and, with a light-like momentum $`p_+`$, it is easy to convince oneself that these imply

$$𝒟=0,$$
(71)
and therefore, via their traces, $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=0`$.

When combined, as usual, with residual gauge transformations, the de Donder conditions thus retrieved leave only the polarizations corresponding to irreducible, traceless symmetric spin-$`s`$ tensors. Still, the need for these generalized $`(𝒟+\mathrm{\Delta })`$-gauges appears to reflect interesting properties of this formulation at the quantum level, that deserve further investigation.

## 6 Higher-spin geometry and String Theory

We now want to show that the higher-spin geometry discussed in the previous sections plays a clear, albeit indirect, role in String Theory. That this should be the case can be simply anticipated. Following , the free equations of String Field Theory can indeed be written in the form

$$𝒬|\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(72)
where $`𝒬`$ denotes the BRST operator of the first-quantized string, and have the chain of gauge invariances

$$\delta |\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}=𝒬|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n+1)},$$
(73)
with $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ the string gauge field and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(n)}(n>1)`$ the corresponding chain of gauge (per gauge) parameters. It should be appreciated that neither (72) nor (73) involve trace conditions. Whereas they describe massive higher-spin modes, their limit as $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}`$ is thus expected to result in fully gauge invariant free massless higher-spin equations with no trace constraints like those in . This is indeed the case, and for symmetric tensors (say, in the “leading Regge trajectory” generated by the lowest string oscillators $`\alpha _1`$ in the bosonic string), the limit $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}`$ yields the equations

$`\mathrm{}\varphi =C,`$
$`\varphi D=C,`$
$`\mathrm{}D=C,`$ (74)
that link the unconstrained spin-$`s`$ tensors $`\varphi `$, spin-$`(s1)`$ tensors $`C`$ and spin-$`(s2)`$ tensors $`D`$, are invariant under the unconstrained gauge transformations

$`\delta \varphi =\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
$`\delta C=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
$`\delta D=\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (75)
and follow from the Lagrangians

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \varphi CsCD`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}C^2\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{2}}\right)_\mu D^\mu D.`$
On can also eliminate the auxiliary field $`C`$, reducing eqs. (74) to the pair of equations

$`=^2\left(\phi ^{^{}}2D\right),`$
$`\mathrm{}D={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D,`$ (77)
One can also introduce similar fermionic systems,

$`\overline{)}\psi =\chi ,`$
$`\psi \lambda =\overline{)}\chi ,`$
$`\overline{)}\lambda =\chi ,`$ (78)
that link the unconstrained spin-$`(s+1/2)`$ tensor-spinors $`\psi `$, spin-$`(s1/2)`$ tensor-spinors $`\chi `$ and spin-$`(s3/2)`$ tensor-spinors $`\lambda `$, are invariant under the unconstrained gauge transformations

$`\delta \psi =ϵ,`$
$`\delta \chi =\overline{)}ϵ,`$
$`\delta \lambda =ϵ,`$ (79)
and follow from the rather simple Lagrangians

$``$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\psi }\overline{)}\psi i\overline{\psi }\chi +i\overline{\chi }\psi is\overline{\chi }\overline{)}\chi `$ (80)
$`+is\overline{\chi }\lambda is\overline{\lambda }\chi is(s1)\overline{\lambda }\overline{)}\lambda .`$
We recently came to know that actually the system (74), in the slightly different form (77, first emerged from a study of the lower excitations of the bosonic string in the low-tension limit in the work of A. Bengtsson , and played a key in the more recent, interesting BRTS constructions of Pashnev, Tsulaia and others , that we shall comment further upon in the next sections. On the other hand, the fermionic system (78) does not play directly a role in the superstring, where totally symmetric tensor-spinors are eliminated by the GSO projection, but it does enter the spectrum of type-0 strings . Generalizations of these equations to tensors with mixed symmetry can also be obtained as interesting applications of the BRST procedure, as in , but for brevity here we shall confine our attention to the simpler case of fully symmetric tensors.

It is important to notice that eqs. (74) and (78), that we shall henceforth refer to as “triplets”, propagate lower spins as well. This can be foreseen rather simply in the light-cone description of the string states, where, say, the physical polarizations for the system (74) would correspond to states created by products of transverse string oscillators of the type $`\alpha _1^{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _1^{i_s}|0`$, that indeed describe a nested chain of modes of decreasing spins. The simplest non-trivial case of this type, $`\alpha _1^{i_1}\alpha _1^{i_2}|0`$, presents itself at the first massive level of the open bosonic string. In the $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}`$ limit these states become massless, and while the traceless part of this two-tensor describes massless spin-2 modes, its trace describes an independent scalar mode. In general, one thus expects that the local system (74) propagate independent sets of irreducible modes of spins $`s`$, $`s2`$, and so on, down to zero or one according to whether $`s`$ is even or odd.

In order to analyze directly the physical polarizations described by eqs. (74), it is convenient to choose the gauge $`C=0`$, that can be reached solving a wave equation for the gauge parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and reduces the system to a pair of wave equations for $`\varphi `$ and $`D`$, together with the constraint

$$\varphi D=0.$$
(81)
One can now take for $`\varphi `$ and $`D`$ two plane waves characterized by the same light-like momentum $`p_+`$, and the result follows if the constraints of eq. (81) are combined with residual gauge transformations also described by plane waves of momentum $`p_+`$, that as such do not affect the original gauge choice $`C=0`$, obtaining

$`\delta \varphi _{(+)^k(a)^{sk}}=kp_+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(+)^{k1}(a)^{sk}},`$ (82)
$`p_+\varphi _{(+)^k(a)^{s1k}}=kp_+D_{(+)^{k1}(a)^{s1k}},`$ (83)
where $`a`$ stands collectively for any of the other directions, “-” or “i”. Using eq. (82), one can eliminate all components of the gauge field $`\varphi `$ with at least a lower “+” index, and then eq. (83) kills all other components with no lower “+” indices and at least a lower “-” index, while the other choices of $`k`$ in eq. (83) dispose of the whole of $`D`$. In conclusion, one is left with the transverse components $`\varphi _{i_1\mathrm{}i_s}`$, that indeed describe the (traceless) polarizations of a spin $`s`$ field, together will all their traces, that indeed correspond to the chain of spins $`s`$, $`s2`$, and so on, down to zero or one according to whether $`s`$ is even or odd. A similar, if more involved, argument, applies to the fermionic system, and shows that, with a spinor-tensor $`\psi _{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ and its $`\chi `$ and $`\lambda `$ companions, one is actually propagating *all* half-integer lower spins, together with the maximum one.

Confining for simplicity our attention to the bosonic system (74), we can now show how, after a suitable elimination of the $`C`$ and $`D`$ fields, $`\varphi `$ satisfies the non-local equations of . This can be done in two different ways. The first consists in the direct elimination of C from the divergence of the second of eqs. (74), that when combined with the third gives

$$\mathrm{}D+\frac{1}{2}D=\frac{1}{2}\varphi .$$
(84)
Inverting the differential operator in (84) defines a solution for $`D`$ that, by construction, eliminates all lower-spin modes, and substituting it in the second of (74) expresses $`C`$ in terms of $`\varphi `$. Finally, substituting $`C`$ in the first of eqs. (74) yields a non-local fully gauge invariant equation equivalent to (32). This can be seen explicitly for the first few cases, but in general one can find a simpler argument noticing that $`\varphi `$ and $`D`$ define the chain of lower-spin fields $`(n1)`$

$$𝒲_n=\varphi ^{[n]}2nD^{[n1]}$$
(85)
Eqs. (74) and (75) imply that these fields satisfy the chain of inhomogeneous Fronsdal equations

$$\left(𝒲_n\right)=^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}𝒲_{n+1},$$
(86)
and transform under gauge transformations as ordinary fields of spin $`s2n`$, i.e.

$$\delta 𝒲_n=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{[n]}.$$
(87)
One can now look for solutions of eqs. (74) that are free of lower-spin excitations. Naively, this would correspond to eliminating $`𝒲_1`$, but more naturally one can demand that $`𝒲_1`$ be pure gauge, letting

$$𝒲_1=\varphi ^{}2D=\alpha ,$$
(88)
where eq. (74) implies that a gauge transformation affects $`\alpha `$ according to

$$\delta \alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}.$$
(89)
Substituting in eqs. (74) then gives the inhomogeneous Fronsdal equation

$$\left(\varphi \right)=3^3\alpha ,$$
(90)
a local form in terms of the source $`\alpha `$ of the non-local geometric equations of , as advertised. These can be recovered deriving from (90) corresponding equations for the $`^{(n)}`$,

$$^{(n)}=(2n+1)\frac{^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}n+1}}{\mathrm{}^n}\alpha ^{[n]},$$
(91)
where by construction $`\alpha `$ is replaced by its multiple traces, and thus disappears altogether for $`n`$ large enough, so that eventually one retrieves the non-local homogeneous equations of section 2. On the other hand, the direct elimination of $`𝒲_1`$ leads to the usual homogeneous Fronsdal equation with a traceless gauge parameter, but, as is section 5, with an unconstrained gauge potential.

## 7 Local compensator forms of the field equations in flat space

In the previous section we have seen how a single spin-$`s`$ field can be described by a “triplet” whose lower-spin excitations are restricted to be pure gauge by eq. (88), a choice motivated by the fact that $`\phi ^{^{}}2D`$ transforms as a canonical spin-$`(s2)`$ field. This indeed turns the first of eqs. (77) into (90), where $`\alpha `$ is a spin-$`(s3)`$ field that plays the role of the single compensator needed in this formulation, but the second eq. (77) takes an apparently more complicated form, and becomes

$$\mathrm{}\phi ^{^{}}+\frac{1}{2}\phi ^{^{}}\phi =\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}\alpha +^2\alpha .$$
(92)
In terms of the Fronsdal operator, however, this simplifies considerably, since eq. (1) indeed implies that

$$^{^{}}=2\mathrm{}\phi ^{^{}}2\phi +\phi ^{^{}}+^2\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }},$$
(93)
so that (92) is equivalent to

$$^{^{}}^2\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }}=3\mathrm{}\alpha +2^2\alpha .$$
(94)
On the other hand, the trace of eq. (90) is

$$^{^{}}=3\mathrm{}\alpha +6^2\alpha +3^3\alpha ^{^{}},$$
(95)
and thus, by comparison, one obtains

$$^2\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }}=4^2\alpha +^3\alpha ^{^{}}=^2\left(4\alpha +\alpha ^{^{}}\right).$$
(96)
The conclusion is that the “triplet equations” (74) imply a pair of *local* equations for a single massless spin-$`s`$ gauge field $`\phi `$ and a single spin-$`(s3)`$ compensator $`\alpha `$,

$`=3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}\alpha ,`$
$`\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }}=4\alpha +\alpha ^{^{}},`$ (97)
that are invariant under the *unconstrained* gauge transformations

$`\delta \phi =\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (98)
$`\delta \alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},`$ (99)
and clearly reduce to the standard Fronsdal form after a partial gauge fixing using the trace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}`$ of the gauge parameter.

These local equations are nicely consistent, since the second is implied by the first, as can be seen using the Bianchi identity of eq. (14). However, it is important to stress that *these are not Lagrangian equations*, somewhat in the spirit of the Vasiliev form of higher-spin dynamics . A Lagrangian form for the compensator equations can be obtained, as in , at the expense of introducing a number of additional fields, although the resulting procedure is nicely guided by the BRST approach.

One can also repeat the construction of local compensator equations for Fermi fields. Here the story parallels the discussion in subsection 3, since the fermionic Fang-Fronsdal operator (33) varies into a term proportional to the gamma-trace of the gauge parameter,

$$\delta 𝒮=2i^2\overline{)}ϵ,$$
(100)
under the gauge transformation

$$\delta \psi =ϵ.$$
(101)
In addition, $`𝒮`$ satisfies the “anomalous” Bianchi identity (36), and as a result the gauge parameter and the gauge field were constrained in  to satisfy the conditions

$$\overline{)}ϵ=0,\overline{)}\psi ^{}=0.$$
(102)
As for integer-spin fields, one can also eliminate these constraints introducing a single compensator field $`\xi `$. The resulting equations,

$`𝒮=2i^2\xi ,`$
$`\overline{)}\psi ^{^{}}=2\xi +\xi ^{^{}}+\overline{)}\overline{)}\xi ,`$ (103)
are then invariant under the gauge transformations

$`\delta \psi =ϵ,`$
$`\delta \xi =\overline{)}ϵ,`$ (104)
involving an unconstrained gauge parameter, and are nicely consistent, since the first implies the second via the Bianchi identity (36). As in the bosonic case, however, these are not Lagrangian equations. Corresponding Lagrangian equations have not appeared yet, but they are expected to follow from a direct, if tedious, procedure, along the lines of .

## 8 Local compensator forms of the field equations in (A)dS

One can also extend the spin-$`s`$ compensator equations of the previous section to (anti)de Sitter backgrounds, henceforth denoted by (A)dS for brevity. This was done in , and it is worthwhile to review briefly these results, given also the central role of (A)dS backgrounds in the Vasiliev formulation . While  contains also derivations of Lagrangian equations based on the BRST formalism, here we shall simply content ourselves with an account of the direct constructions of .

To this end, one needs only two additional inputs, the commutator of two covariant derivatives on a vector

$$[_\mu ,_\nu ]V_\rho =\frac{1}{L^2}\left(g_{\nu \rho }V_\mu g_{\mu \rho }V_\nu \right),$$
(105)
where $`L`$ determines the AdS curvature and the dS case is recovered formally continuing $`L`$ to imaginary values, and the corresponding commutator on a spinor,

$$[_\mu ,_\nu ]\eta =\frac{1}{2L^2}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\eta ,$$
(106)
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is antisymmetric in $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ and equals the product $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu `$ when $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ are different, since these determine all other cases.

Let us therefore begin by considering the bosonic case, noticing that the gauge transformations for the fields $`\phi `$ and $`\alpha `$ in such a curved background take naturally the form

$`\delta \phi =\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
$`\delta \alpha =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},`$ (107)
where $``$ denotes and (A)dS covariant derivative.

One can then proceed in various ways, for instance starting from the gauge variation of the (A)dS form of the Fronsdal operator

$`\delta _L`$ $``$ $`\delta \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}[(3𝒟s)(2s)s]\phi 2g\phi ^{^{}}\right\}`$ (108)
$`=`$ $`3(^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}}){\displaystyle \frac{4}{L^2}}g\mathrm{\Lambda }^{^{}},`$
so that

$$_L=\frac{1}{L^2}\left\{\left[(3𝒟s)(2s)s\right]\phi +2g\phi ^{^{}}\right\},$$
(109)
and it is then simple to conclude that the compensator form of the higher-spin equations in (A)dS is

$`=3^3\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}\{[(3𝒟s)(2s)s]\phi +2g\phi ^{^{}}\}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{L^2}}g\alpha ,`$
$`\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }}=4\alpha +\alpha ^{^{}}.`$ (110)
These are again nicely consistent, as can be seen making use of the Bianchi identity, that now becomes

$$_L\frac{1}{2}_L^{^{}}=\frac{3}{2}^3\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{2}{L^2}g\phi ^{^{\prime \prime }},$$
(111)
and one can in fact verify that the first of (110) implies the second.

The fermionic compensator equations (103) can be also generalized to (A)dS backgrounds. The gauge transformation for a spin-$`s`$ fermion becomes in this case

$$\delta \psi =ϵ+\frac{1}{2L}\gamma ϵ,$$
(112)
where $``$ denotes again an (A)dS covariant derivative, and in order to proceed, one needs only the commutator of two covariant derivatives on a spin-1/2 field of eq. (106).

For a spin-$`s`$ fermion ($`s=n+\frac{1}{2}`$), where $`n`$ is the number of vector indices carried by the field $`\psi `$, the compensator equations in an (A)dS background are then

$`\left(\overline{)}\psi \overline{)}\psi \right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}\left[𝒟+2(n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})\right]\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}\gamma \overline{)}\psi `$
$`=\{,\}\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\gamma \xi +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2L^2}}g\xi ,`$
$`\overline{)}\psi ^{^{}}=2\xi +\overline{)}\overline{)}\xi +\xi ^{^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}\left[𝒟+2(n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})\right]\overline{)}\xi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}\gamma \xi ^{^{}},`$ (113)
and are invariant under

$`\delta \psi =ϵ,`$
$`\delta \xi =\overline{)}ϵ,`$ (114)
with an unconstrained parameter $`ϵ`$.

Eqs. (113) are again non-Lagrangian, like their flat-space counterparts (103), but are again nicely consistent, on account of the (A)dS deformation of the Bianchi identity (44),

$`𝒮{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒮{}_{}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{)}\overline{)}𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4L}}\gamma S^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4L}}\left[(𝒟\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})\right]\overline{)}𝒮`$ (115)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left[\{,\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{3}{2L^2}}\right]\overline{)}\psi ^{},`$
where now the Fang-Fronsdal operator $`𝒮`$ is also deformed and becomes

$$𝒮=i\left(\overline{)}\psi \overline{)}\psi \right)+\frac{i}{2L}\left[𝒟+2(n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2})\right]\psi +\frac{i}{2L}\gamma \overline{)}\psi .$$
(116)
## 9 Conclusions

It is becoming increasingly clear that a deeper understanding of String Theory cannot forego a closer look at its massive excitations. As a result, Higher Spin Gauge Theory is quickly coming to the forefront of current research, since it appears to provide key examples of dynamical systems whose structural complexity is somehow intermediate between those of String Theory and of ordinary low-spin theories. With this is mind, in  we reconsidered the standard free higher-spin equations, exhibiting a geometric structure that makes them more akin to their low-spin counterparts. This rests on the replacement, for spin greater than two, of the ordinary local kinetic operators of  with non-local ones that guarantee the invariance of the field equations under gauge transformations with unconstrained parameters and the absence in the Bianchi identities of “anomalous” terms depending on the double traces (or triple $`\gamma `$-traces) of the gauge fields. The end result can be linked to the generalized curvatures introduced by de Wit and Freedman , as the local Fronsdal equations were linked in  to the traces of the second-order connections. Suitable compensators can dispose of the non-local terms, while preserving the unconstrained gauge invariance, but only at the price of making the geometry that underlies the equations less transparent, and therefore they were only briefly discussed in .

In  we had also noticed that the geometric equations can always be turned to the local, Fronsdal form after partial gauge fixings involving the traces of the gauge parameters. Here we have supplemented this result, showing that if the usual de Donder gauge conditions are modified in order that they be identically traceless, as demanded by the presence of unconstrained fields, the resulting field equations set to zero their double traces on shell. Once these are removed, the study of on-shell polarizations proceeds as in the standard case, despite the apparent initial presence of more field components together with the same number of traceless gauge parameters.

Finally, we have shown how String Theory makes a full, if indirect, use, of the curvatures of . In the bosonic case, these are embodied in a set of local gauge invariant equations propagating modes of spin $`s`$, $`s2`$, and so on, down to zero or one according to whether $`s`$ is even or odd, that follow from the Stueckelberg-like equations for massive string modes in the limit $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}`$. As we have seen, these reduce to the non-local equations of  once one restricts the attention to fields that are free of lower-spin excitations.

The string-inspired systems of “triplets”, however, are of interest in their own right, can be simply extended  to the mixed-symmetry tensors discussed in , and their ability to describe nested chains of lower spins may well prove valuable in establishing more direct links between String Theory and Higher-Spin Gauge Theory, or in providing level-like truncations for the latter. For the time being, following , we have seen how the “triplet” equations of section 6 provide an interesting route toward simple non-Lagrangian local compensator forms of the field equations for higher-spin bosons and fermions, that we have displayed both for a flat and an (A)dS background, that plays a key role in the Vasiliev formulation . These display the same unconstrained gauge symmetry as the non-local equations of the previous sections, and are also nicely determined by the BRST approach of . More details, together with local Lagrangian forms for the bosonic equations, are discussed at length in .

It will be very interesting to elucidate the possible role of the higher-spin geometry reviewed here in the Vasiliev formulation , or in the conformal higher-spin theory proposed by Segal in , also in view of its relation to String Theory and to the BRST-like systems studied in . We hope to return to some of these issues in the near future.

###### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank M. Bianchi, G. Pradisi and especially A. Segal for stimulating conversations. This work was supported in part by I.N.F.N., by the EC contract HPRN-CT-2000-00122, by the EC contract HPRN-CT-2000-00148, by the INTAS contracts 99-1-590 and 03-51-6346, by the MURST-COFIN contracts 2001-025492 and 2003-023852, and by the NATO Contract PST.CLG.978785. Finally, A.S. would like to thank M. Tsulaia for a stimulating collaboration on the topics reviewed in the last sections.


text:
# Flavor SU(3) breaking effects in the chiral unitary model for meson-baryon scatterings

## Abstract

We examine flavor SU(3) breaking effects on meson-baryon scattering amplitudes in the chiral unitary model. It turns out that the SU(3) breaking, which appears in the leading quark mass term in the chiral expansion, can not explain the channel dependence of the subtraction parameters of the model, which are crucial to reproduce the observed scattering amplitudes and resonance properties.

chiral unitary approach, meson-baryon scatterings, flavor SU(3) breaking

Properties of baryonic excited states are investigated with great interest both theoretically and experimentally. Recently, the chiral unitary model has been successfully applied to this problem, especially to the first excited states of negative parity ($`J^P=1/2^{}`$) such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ and $`N(1535)`$ Kaiser:1995cy ; Krippa:1998us ; Oset:1998it ; Lutz:2001yb ; Oset:2001cn ; Inoue:2001ip ; Ramos:2002xh . In this method, based on the leading order interactions of the chiral Lagrangian and the unitarization of the S-matrix, the baryon resonances are dynamically generated as quasi-bound states of ground state mesons and baryons. It reveals the importance of chiral dynamics not only in the threshold but also in the resonance energy region.

In the chiral unitary model for the meson-baryon scattering, we consider the coupled channel scatterings of the octet mesons and baryons. Imposing the unitarity condition on the scattering amplitudes $`T_{ij}`$ in the $`N/D`$ method, we obtain the scattering equation in the matrix form Refs. Oset:1998it ; Oller:2000fj :

$$T_{ij}=V_{ij}+V_{ik}G_kT_{kj},$$
(1)
where $`V_{ij}`$ denotes the elementary tree level interaction derived from the chiral Lagrangian. This equation can be solved algebraically. The loop integral $`G_i`$ is the fundamental building block in the chiral unitary model and are regularized by the dimensional regularization;

$`G_i(\sqrt{s})=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{2M_i}{(Pq)^2M_i^2+iϵ}\frac{1}{q^2m_i^2+iϵ}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_i}{(4\pi )^2}}[a_i(\mu )+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2M_i^2+s}{2s}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2}{M_i^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}_i}{\sqrt{s}}}(\mathrm{Ln}_++\mathrm{Ln}_{++}\mathrm{Ln}_+\mathrm{Ln}_{})],`$ (2)
with $`\mathrm{Ln}_{\pm \pm }\mathrm{ln}(\pm s\pm (M_i^2m_i^2)+2\sqrt{s}\overline{q}_i))`$, the masses of baryon and meson $`M_i`$ and $`m_i`$, the three-momentum of the meson $`\overline{q}_i`$, the total energy in the center of mass system $`\sqrt{s}`$ and the regularization scale $`\mu `$. In the present calculation, we follow the method shown in refs. Oset:2001cn ; Inoue:2001ip ; Hyodo , and calculate only the $`s`$-wave amplitudes since the contributions from the $`p`$-wave (and higher partial waves) are much less important in energies considered here Jido:2002zk .

In actual calculations, it is necessary to determine the renomalization constants ($`a_i`$’s) in Eq.(2) so as to reproduce experimental data. The constants $`a_i`$ are equivalent to the subtraction constants in the dispersion theory formulation Oller:2000fj  and, in fact, are free parameters of the model. As a consequence, they have depended very strongly on scattering channels, as shown in Table 1.

In this work, we investigate whether such channel dependence of the subtraction constants could be explained by the SU(3) breaking terms of the chiral perturbation theory. By doing this, we expect that the free parameters of $`a_i`$’s could be controlled with suitable physics ground, namely the SU(3) breaking terms, in order to extend this model to various channels with predictive power. Here we keep using just one subtraction constant $`a`$ commonly in all channels to regularize the loop function $`G_i`$.

The use of only one subtraction constant is justified in the SU(3) symmetric limit Hyodo ; Jido:2003cb . Under the flavor SU(3) symmetry, the scattering amplitude should be expressed as a diagonal matrix in the SU(3) basis ($`1,8,\mathrm{}`$), which is transformed from the particle basis ($`\pi N,\eta N,\mathrm{}`$) by a fixed unitary matrix given by the SU(3) Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. Each components of the amplitude $`T(D)`$ separately satisfies the scattering equation like Eq.(2) in each irreducible representation $`D`$. Therefore, on one hand, the function $`G`$ represented in a matrix form becomes a diagonal matrix in the SU(3) basis. On the other hand, since the $`G`$ function is given as a loop integral as shown in Eq. (2), it is also diagonal in the particle basis. Therefore the subtraction constants $`a_i`$’s are components of a diagonal matrix both in the SU(3) and particle bases. Such a matrix for the subtraction constants should be proportional to unity. Hence, it is concluded that there is only one subtraction constant $`a`$ in the SU(3) limit.

Now let us show the Lagrangian with the flavor SU(3) breaking terms, which we use in the present work. The SU(3) breaking appears as the quark mass terms in the chiral expansion:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{SB}=& {\displaystyle \frac{Z_0}{2}}\text{Tr}(d_m\overline{B}\{\xi 𝐦\xi +\xi ^{}𝐦\xi ^{},B\}\hfill \\ & +f_m\overline{B}[\xi 𝐦\xi +\xi ^{}𝐦\xi ^{},B])\hfill \\ & {\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{2}}\text{Tr}(\overline{B}B)\text{Tr}(𝐦U+U^{}𝐦).\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
where $`f_m+d_m=1`$. Here we employ the standard notation Donoghue:1992dd : $`\xi (\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{exp}\{i\mathrm{\Phi }/\sqrt{2}f\}`$ and $`U(\mathrm{\Phi })=\xi ^2`$. The $`3\times 3`$ matrices $`B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ represent the baryon and meson fields. At this stage, we introduce one meson decay constant $`f`$, which is taken as an averaged value $`f=1.15f_\pi `$ with $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV. The quark mass matrix is defined as $`𝐦=\text{diag}(\widehat{m},\widehat{m},m_s)`$ with isospin symmetry, $`m_u=m_d\widehat{m}`$. The parameters $`Z_0,Z_1,f_m/d_m`$ can be determined by the baryon masses and the $`\pi N`$ sigma term, and therefore we have no new free parameters. Here we have $`Z_0=0.528`$, $`Z_1=1.56`$ and $`f_m/d_m=0.31`$ with $`m_s/\widehat{m}=26`$, which are determined in chiral perturbation theory for meson masses. The terms in Eq. (3) are of order $`𝒪(p^2)`$, based on the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation Gell-Mann:1968rz , which implies $`m_qm_\pi ^2`$. There are other chirally symmetric terms of order $`𝒪(p^2)`$. Here we do not take into account these terms, since we concentrate on the effects of the flavor SU(3) breaking.

Let us show the numerical results of the $`\overline{K}N`$ induced scatterings. We use a single subtraction constant $`a`$, and compare the results with and without the SU(3) breaking terms. In each case, the subtraction constant is determined by fitting threshold branching ratios Nowak:1978au ; Tovee:1971ga :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma =& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\pi ^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)}2.36\pm 0.04,\hfill \\ \hfill R_c=& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{charged particles})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{all})}0.664\pm 0.011,\hfill \\ \hfill R_n=& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\pi ^0\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^{}p\text{neutral particles})}0.189\pm 0.015.\hfill \end{array}$$

Without the symmetry breaking terms, we find the optimal value $`a=1.96`$ (A). Now including the symmetry breaking term, the optimal value takes $`a=1.59`$ (B). The calculated threshold values are presented in Table 2. From the table, we see that the agreement with data is improved by including the symmetry breaking effect. Note that this improvement is achieved without new free parameters.

Using these optimal values, we calculate the cross sections of $`K^{}p`$ (various channels) and plot them in Fig. 1. Results of (A) are shown by dotted lines and those of (B) by dash-dotted lines. For (A), the agreement with data is still good, which is the well known result of the chiral unitary model Kaiser:1995cy ; Oset:1998it ; Oller:2000fj . Originally the subtraction constants in the $`S=1`$ channel are not very much dependent on the channels and take values around $`a_i2`$ as shown in Table 1. Now including the symmetry breaking terms (B), we find that agreement with data becomes worse (dash-dotted lines), contrary to our expectation, although the threshold branching ratios are better reproduced.

In Fig. 2 we show the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass distribution, in order to investigate the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance. For (A) we obtained the dotted curve which agrees well with experimental data. If we include the symmetry breaking terms (B), once again, the agreement becomes worse as shown by dash-dotted line. A sharp peak is pronounced around $`\sqrt{s}=1420`$ MeV, in obvious contradiction with the observed spectrum.

We also perform calculations with the inclusion of another source of the SU(3) flavor breaking, that is, the meson decay constants. We use the empirical values of the decay constants: $`f_\pi =93\text{ MeV},f_K=1.22f_\pi ,f_\eta =1.3f_\pi `$. The optimal value of the subtraction constant $`a`$ in this case is $`a=1.68`$ (C) to reproduce the threshold ratios. The results are shown in Figs.1, 2 with the solid lines. While the inclusion of the SU(3) breaking on the meson decay constants does not make drastic improvement in the total cross sections of the $`K^{}p`$ scatterings as shown in Fig.1, the shape of the peak in the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass distribution becomes milder. However, the improvement is not enough to reproduce the experimental spectra.

We perform similar analyses for the $`\pi N`$ scattering for the $`S=0`$ channel. At first we use the common subtraction constant $`a=1.96`$ obtained in the $`S=1`$ channel without the symmetry breaking, since it reproduces the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ property well and we want to check the SU(3) flavor symmetry. Then the attractive force between the mesons and baryons is so strong that an unexpected resonance has been generated at around $`\sqrt{s}1250`$ MeV. Therefore we choose the values of $`a`$ for $`S=0`$ by fitting the $`S_{11}`$ scattering amplitudes of the $`\pi N`$ channel up to the energy $`\sqrt{s}1400`$ MeV. We show the calculated scattering amplitudes of the $`S_{11}`$ $`\pi N`$ channel in Fig. 3 for the following three cases: (A) $`a=0.53`$ without SU(3) breaking, (B) $`a=1.33`$ with SU(3) symmetry breaking and (C) $`a=2.24`$ with physical meson decay constants. In all cases, the scattering amplitudes and cross sections (we do not show the cross sections here) are not well reproduced. The results of (A) seems to have some structure around the $`N(1535)`$ energies, but it is far from the observed amplitude. Reasonable agreement with data is achieved only when channel dependent subtraction constants are introduced as shown in Table 1 Inoue:2001ip .

In this work, motivated by the channel dependence of the parameters and symmetry consideration, we have tried to reproduce the observed cross sections and the resonance properties using a single subtraction constant. In the $`S=1`$ channel, without the symmetry breaking terms, $`a=1.96`$ is determined by the threshold branching ratios of the $`K^{}p`$ scatterings. With this parameter (A), the total cross sections of the $`K^{}p`$ scatterings are reproduced well, as well as the mass distribution for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is. (See Figs.1 and 2.) This value is closed to the $`a2`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=630`$ MeV in the three-momentum cut-off reguralization Oller:2000fj . The elementary interaction of the $`\overline{K}N`$ system is sufficiently attractive, and a resummation of the coupled channel interactions generates the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance at the correct position, by imposing the unitarity condition with the natural value for the cut-off parameter. Hence the wave function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ is largely dominated by the $`\overline{K}N`$ component.

On the other hand, in the $`S=0`$ channel, if one uses the natural value for the subtraction constant as in the $`S=1`$ channel, the attraction of the meson-baryon interaction becomes so strong that an unexpected resonance is generated at around $`\sqrt{s}1250`$ MeV. Therefore, repulsive component is necessary to reproduce the observed $`\pi N`$ scattering. However, with the fitted value $`a0.5`$, the $`N(1535)`$ resonance is not generated.

From the above observation, we see that the unitarized amplitudes are very sensitive to the attractive component of the interaction. Even including the SU(3) breaking terms, the interaction derived from the chiral Lagrangian alone do not describe all scattering amplitudes simultaneously. Both the fundamental interaction and the subtraction constants are important in order to reproduce proper results. For smaller $`a`$, the interaction becomes more attractive, and for larger $`a`$, less attractive. For $`S=0`$, we need to choose $`a0.5`$ in order to suppress the attraction from the $`\pi N`$ interaction in contrast with the natural value $`a2`$ in the $`S=1`$ channel. Therefore, it is not possible to reproduce both the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance properties and the low energy $`\pi N`$ scattering with a common subtraction constant.

At this point, it is useful to discuss slightly in detail the structure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ resonance. Although the properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ has not been reproduced well with the SU(3) breaking terms as shown in the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass distribution (Fig.2), we still have found the two poles for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(1405)`$ in the scattering amplitudes in the second Riemann sheet. The property of the two poles are investigated recently in detail and is related to the SU(3) structure of the meson and baryon states Oller:2000fj ; Jido:2002yz ; Garcia-Recio:2002td ; Jido:2003cb . In the present study, we find $`z_1(B)=1424+1.6i`$ and $`z_2(B)=1389+135i`$ for the parameter (B). The pole $`z_1`$, which is located very close to the real axis, is responsible for the sharp peak. When the SU(3) breaking of the meson decay constants is introduced (C), the poles are $`z_1(C)=1424+2.6i`$ and $`z_2(C)=1363+87i`$, where $`z_1`$ is still close to the real axis, while $`z_2`$ moves significantly.

The shape of the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ mass distribution is strongly influenced by the location of the poles. In this case, the poles $`z_2`$ is sensitive to the pion decay constant. Since the resonance of $`z_2(B)`$ has a strong coupling to the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ channel Jido:2003cb , the resonance properties are very much affected by the $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ interaction. In the chiral Lagrangian, the interaction is attractive as in the Weinberg-Tomozawa term, which contains a coupling strength proportional to the inverse square of the pion decay constant. Therefore, by changing the decay constant from the SU(3) averaged value (107 MeV, case B) to the physical value (93 MeV, case C), the strength of the attractive $`\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ interaction is enhanced by $`30`$ %. This shifts the real part of $`z_2`$ to the lower side. At the same time this reduces the phase space and hence the imaginary part decreases.

To summarize shortly, we have studied the flavor SU(3) symmetry breaking effect in the meson-baryon scatterings in the chiral unitary model. A reasonable prescription from symmetry consideration by including the symmetry breaking mass terms, which appear in the next-to-leading order of the chiral expansion, make theoretical predictions worse. So far, except for the use of channel dependent subtraction constants, we do not know what would resolve this problem. In the present framework, the role of the subtraction constants is very important.

A better understanding may be provided by introducing genuine resonance components. Very naively such states could be quark originated as expected from the success of the quark model for baryon resonances. Full coupled channel studies of meson-baryon and quark degrees of freedom would be useful in order to resolve the problem discussed in the present study. Such an analysis will provide more microscopic understanding for the resonance structure.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Profs. E. Oset, H. -Ch. Kim and W. Weise for useful discussions.