format: text

text:
# THE UNITARITY TRIANGLE: 2002 AND BEYOND

## 1 CKM Matrix and the Unitarity Triangle

The unitary CKM matrix $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ connects the weak eigenstates $`(d^{},s^{},b^{})`$ and the corresponding mass eigenstates $`d,s,b`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}d^{}\\ s^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right)\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{CKM}}\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Many parametrizations of the CKM matrix have been proposed in the literature. The classification of different parametrizations can be found in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. While the so called standard parametrization $`^\mathrm{?}`$ should be recommended $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for any numerical analysis, a generalization of the Wolfenstein parametrization $`^\mathrm{?}`$ as presented in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ is more suitable for my talk. On the one hand it is more transparent than the standard parametrization and on the other hand it satisfies the unitarity of the CKM matrix to higher accuracy than the original parametrization in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Following then the procedure in $`^\mathrm{?}`$ we find

$$V_{ud}=1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4,V_{cs}=1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4(1+4A^2)$$
(2)
$$V_{tb}=1\frac{1}{2}A^2\lambda ^4,V_{cd}=\lambda +\frac{1}{2}A^2\lambda ^5[12(\varrho +i\eta )]$$
(3)
$$V_{us}=\lambda +𝒪(\lambda ^7),V_{ub}=A\lambda ^3(\varrho i\eta ),V_{cb}=A\lambda ^2+𝒪(\lambda ^8)$$
(4)
$$V_{ts}=A\lambda ^2+\frac{1}{2}A\lambda ^4[12(\varrho +i\eta )]V_{td}=A\lambda ^3(1\overline{\varrho }i\overline{\eta })$$
(5)
where

$$\lambda ,A,\varrho ,\eta $$
(6)
are the Wolfenstein parameters with $`\lambda 0.22`$ being an expansion parameter and terms $`𝒪(\lambda ^6)`$ and higher order terms have been neglected. A non-vanishing $`\eta `$ is responsible for CP violation in the SM. It plays the role of $`\delta _{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ in the standard parametrization. Finally, the bared variables in (5) are given by $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\overline{\varrho }=\varrho (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}),\overline{\eta }=\eta (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}).$$
(7)
We emphasize that by definition the expression for $`V_{ub}`$ remains unchanged relative to the original Wolfenstein parametrization and the corrections to $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ appear only at $`𝒪(\lambda ^7)`$ and $`𝒪(\lambda ^8)`$, respectively. The advantage of this generalization of the Wolfenstein parametrization over other generalizations found in the literature is the absence of relevant corrections to $`V_{us}`$, $`V_{cd}`$, $`V_{ub}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ and an elegant change in $`V_{td}`$ which allows a simple generalization of the unitarity triangle to higher orders in $`\lambda `$ as discussed below.

Now, the unitarity of the CKM-matrix implies various relations between its elements. In particular, we have

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0.$$
(8)
Phenomenologically this relation is very interesting as it involves simultaneously the elements $`V_{ub}`$, $`V_{cb}`$ and $`V_{td}`$ which are under extensive discussion at present. The relation (8) can be represented as a “unitarity” triangle in the complex $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. One can construct additional five unitarity triangles $`^\mathrm{?}`$ corresponding to other unitarity relations, but I do not have space to discuss them here.

Noting that to an excellent accuracy $`V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}`$ is real with $`|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|=A\lambda ^3+𝒪(\lambda ^7)`$ and rescaling all terms in (8) by $`A\lambda ^3`$ we indeed find that the relation (8) can be represented as the triangle in the complex $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane as shown in fig. 1. Let us collect useful formulae related to this triangle:

* We can express $`\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi _i`$), $`\varphi _i=\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$, in terms of $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$. In particular:

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=\frac{2\overline{\eta }(1\overline{\varrho })}{(1\overline{\varrho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}.$$
(9)
* The lengths $`CA`$ and $`BA`$ to be denoted by $`R_b`$ and $`R_t`$, respectively, are given by

$$R_b\frac{|V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}|}{|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|}=\sqrt{\overline{\varrho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|,$$
(10)
$$R_t\frac{|V_{td}V_{tb}^{}|}{|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|}=\sqrt{(1\overline{\varrho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}\right|.$$
(11)
* The angles $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma =\delta _{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ of the unitarity triangle are related directly to the complex phases of the CKM-elements $`V_{td}`$ and $`V_{ub}`$, respectively, through

$$V_{td}=|V_{td}|e^{i\beta },V_{ub}=|V_{ub}|e^{i\gamma }.$$
(12)
* The unitarity relation (8) can be rewritten as

$$R_be^{i\gamma }+R_te^{i\beta }=1.$$
(13)
* The angle $`\alpha `$ can be obtained through the relation

$$\alpha +\beta +\gamma =180^{}.$$
(14)

Formula (13) shows transparently that the knowledge of $`(R_t,\beta )`$ allows to determine $`(R_b,\gamma )`$ through

$$R_b=\sqrt{1+R_t^22R_t\mathrm{cos}\beta },\mathrm{cot}\gamma =\frac{1R_t\mathrm{cos}\beta }{R_t\mathrm{sin}\beta }.$$
(15)
Similarly, $`(R_t,\beta )`$ can be expressed through $`(R_b,\gamma )`$:

$$R_t=\sqrt{1+R_b^22R_b\mathrm{cos}\gamma },\mathrm{cot}\beta =\frac{1R_b\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{R_b\mathrm{sin}\gamma }.$$
(16)
These relations are remarkable. They imply that the knowledge of the coupling $`V_{td}`$ between $`t`$ and $`d`$ quarks allows to deduce the strength of the corresponding coupling $`V_{ub}`$ between $`u`$ and $`b`$ quarks and vice versa.

The triangle depicted in fig. 1, $`|V_{us}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ give the full description of the CKM matrix. Looking at the expressions for $`R_b`$ and $`R_t`$, we observe that within the SM the measurements of four CP conserving  decays sensitive to $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{td}|`$ can tell us whether CP violation ($`\overline{\eta }0`$) is predicted in the SM. This fact is often used to determine the angles of the unitarity triangle without the study of CP-violating quantities.

## 2 The Special Role of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

What do we know about the CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle on the basis of tree level decays? Here the semi-leptonic K and B decays play the decisive role. The present situation can be summarized roughly by

$$|V_{us}|=\lambda =0.221\pm 0.002|V_{cb}|=(40.6\pm 0.8)10^3,$$
(17)
$$\frac{|V_{ub}|}{|V_{cb}|}=0.089\pm 0.008,|V_{ub}|=(3.63\pm 0.32)10^3.$$
(18)
implying

$$A=0.83\pm 0.02,R_b=0.39\pm 0.04.$$
(19)
The errors given here look a bit aggressive and should not be considered as giving ranges for the quantities in question. They indicate rather standard deviations. See $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for more details. There is an impressive work done by theorists and experimentalists hidden behind these numbers that are in the ball park of various analyses present in the literature. A very incomplete list of references is given in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. See also the relevant articles in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Detailed discussions of these analyses with possibly updated values should be available soon $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In particular the very recent analysis of $`|V_{us}|`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ gives $`|V_{us}|=0.2241\pm 0.0036.`$

The information given above tells us only that the apex $`A`$ of the unitarity triangle lies in the band shown in fig. 2. While this information appears at first sight to be rather limited, it is very important for the following reason. As $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`|V_{ub}|`$ and consequently $`R_b`$ are determined here from tree level decays, their values given above are to an excellent accuracy independent of any new physics contributions. They are universal fundamental constants valid in any extention of the SM. Therefore their precise determinations are of utmost importance.

In order to answer the question where the apex $`A`$ lies on the “unitarity clock” in fig. 2 we have to look at other decays. Most promising in this respect are the so-called “loop induced” decays and transitions and CP-violating B decays. These decays are sensitive to the angles $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ as well as to the length $`R_t`$ and measuring only one of these three quantities allows to find the unitarity triangle provided the universal $`R_b`$ is known.

Of course any pair among $`(R_t,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is sufficient to construct the UT without any knowledge of $`R_b`$. Yet the special role of $`R_b`$ among these variables lies in its universality whereas the other three variables are generally sensitive functions of possible new physics contributions. This means that assuming three generation unitarity of the CKM matrix and that the SM is a part of a bigger theory, the apex of the unitarity triangle has to be eventually placed on the unitarity clock with the radius $`R_b`$ obtained from tree level decays. That is even if using SM expressions for loop induced processes, $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ would be found outside the unitarity clock, the corresponding expressions of the grander theory must include appropriate new contributions so that the apex of the unitarity triangle is shifted back to the band in fig. 2. In the case of CP asymmetries this could be achieved by realizing that the measured angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are not the true angles of the unitarity triangle but sums of the true angles and new complex phases present in extentions of the SM. The better $`R_b`$ is known, the thiner the band in fig. 2 will be, selecting in this manner efficiently the correct theory. On the other hand as the the branching ratios for rare and CP-violating decays depend sensitively on the parameter $`A`$, the precise knowledge of $`|V_{cb}|`$ is also very important.

## 3 Standard Analysis of the Unitarity Triangle

After these general remarks let us concentrate on the standard analysis of the Unitarity Triangle within the SM. The so-called standard analysis of the UT of fig. 1 involves the values of $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ extracted from tree level decays, the parameter $`\epsilon _K`$ that describes the indirect CP violation in $`K_L\pi \pi `$ decays and the differences of mass eigenstates $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$ in the $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ and $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ systems. Setting $`\lambda =|V_{us}|`$, the analysis proceeds in the following five steps:

Step 1:

From $`bc`$ transition in inclusive and exclusive leading B-meson decays one finds $`|V_{cb}|`$ and consequently the scale of the unitarity triangle:

$$|V_{cb}|\lambda |V_{cb}|=\lambda ^3A.$$
(20)
Step 2:

From $`bu`$ transition in inclusive and exclusive $`B`$ meson decays one finds $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and consequently using (10) the side $`CA=R_b`$ of the unitarity triangle:

$$\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|R_b=\sqrt{\overline{\varrho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=4.41\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|.$$
(21)
Step 3:

From the experimental value of $`\epsilon _K`$ and the standard calculation of box diagrams describing $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing one derives including QCD corrections $`^\mathrm{?}`$ the constraint $`(\lambda =0.221)`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\overline{\eta }\left[(1\overline{\varrho })A^2\eta _2S_0(x_t)+P_c(\epsilon )\right]A^2\widehat{B}_K=0.214,$$
(22)
where

$$P_c(\epsilon )=\left[\eta _3S_0(x_c,x_t)\eta _1x_c\right]\frac{1}{\lambda ^4},x_i=\frac{m_i^2}{M_\mathrm{W}^2}.$$
(23)
$`S_0(x_t)`$ and $`S_0(x_t,x_c)`$ are known functions $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and $`P_c(\epsilon )=0.28\pm 0.05`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ summarizes the contributions of box diagrams with two charm quark exchanges and the mixed charm-top exchanges. $`\widehat{B}_K`$ is a non-perturbative parameter that represents the relevant hadronic matrix element, the main uncertainty in (22). The short-distance QCD effects are described through the correction factors $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$, $`\eta _3`$. The NLO values of $`\eta _i`$ with an updated $`\eta _1`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are given as follows $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$:

$$\eta _1=1.45\pm 0.38,\eta _2=0.57\pm 0.01,\eta _3=0.47\pm 0.04.$$
(24)
As illustrated in fig. 3, equation (22) specifies a hyperbola in the $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. The position of the hyperbola depends on $`m_\mathrm{t}`$, $`|V_{cb}|=A\lambda ^2`$ and $`\widehat{B}_K`$. With decreasing $`m_\mathrm{t}`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`\widehat{B}_K`$ the $`\epsilon _K`$-hyperbola moves away from the origin of the $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane.

Step 4:

From the observed $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ and the standard calculation of box diagrams describing this mixing, the side $`AB=R_t`$ of the unitarity triangle can be determined:

$$R_t=\frac{1}{\lambda }\frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{cb}|}=0.86\left[\frac{|V_{td}|}{7.810^3}\right]\left[\frac{0.041}{|V_{cb}|}\right]$$
(25)
with

$$|V_{td}|=7.810^3\left[\frac{230\mathrm{MeV}}{\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}F_{B_d}}\right]\left[\frac{167GeV}{\overline{m}_\mathrm{t}(m_\mathrm{t})}\right]^{0.76}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_d}{0.50/\mathrm{ps}}\right]^{0.5}\sqrt{\frac{0.55}{\eta _B}}.$$
(26)
Here $`\eta _B=0.55\pm 0.01`$ summarizes the NLO QCD corrections $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and $`F_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}`$ describes the relevant hadronic matrix element. $`\overline{m}_\mathrm{t}(m_\mathrm{t})=(167\pm 5)`$ GeV. Note that $`R_t`$ suffers from additional uncertainty in $`|V_{cb}|`$, which is absent in the determination of $`|V_{td}|`$ this way. The constraint in the $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane coming from this step is illustrated in fig. 3.

Step 5:

The measurement of $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ together with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ allows to determine $`R_t`$ in a different manner:

$$R_t=0.88\left[\frac{\xi }{1.18}\right]\sqrt{\frac{18.0/ps}{\mathrm{\Delta }M_s}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_d}{0.50/ps}},\xi =\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_s}}F_{B_s}}{\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d}}F_{B_d}}.$$
(27)
One should note that $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ dependences have been eliminated this way and that $`\xi `$ should in principle contain much smaller theoretical uncertainties than the hadronic matrix elements in $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ separately.

The main uncertainties in this analysis originate in the theoretical uncertainties in the non-perturbative parameters $`\widehat{B}_K`$ and $`\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}F_{B_d}`$ and to a lesser extent in $`\xi `$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$:

$$\widehat{B}_K=0.86\pm 0.15,\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}F_{B_d}=(235_{41}^{+33})MeV,\xi =1.18_{0.04}^{+0.13}.$$
(28)
The significant uncertainty in $`\xi `$ is disturbing $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and should be clarified. Also the uncertainty due to $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ in step 2 should certainly be decreased. The QCD sum rules results for the parameters in question are similar and can be found in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Finally $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_d=(0.503\pm 0.006)/\mathrm{ps},\mathrm{\Delta }M_s>14.4/\mathrm{ps}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.$$
(29)
## 4 The Angle $`𝜷`$ from $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝝍𝑲_𝑺`$

One of the highlights of the year 2002 were the considerably improved measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by means of the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $`B_d^0(\overline{B}_d^0)\psi K_S`$ decays

$$a_{\psi K_S}(t)a_{\psi K_S}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_dt)=\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }M_dt)$$
(30)
The most recent measurements of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ from the BaBar $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Belle $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Collaborations imply

$$(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )_{\psi K_S}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.741\pm 0.067\text{(stat)}\pm 0.033\text{(syst)}\hfill & \text{(BaBar)}\hfill \\ 0.719\pm 0.074\text{(stat)}\pm 0.035\text{(syst)}\hfill & \text{(Belle).}\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining these results with earlier measurements by CDF $`(0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41})`$, ALEPH $`(0.84_{1.04}^{+0.82}\pm 0.16)`$ and OPAL gives the grand average $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )_{\psi K_S}=0.734\pm 0.054.$$
(31)
This is a mile stone in the field of CP violation and in the tests of the SM as we will see in a moment. Not only violation of this symmetry has been confidently established in the B system, but also its size has been measured very accurately. Moreover in contrast to the constraints of section 3, the determination of the angle $`\beta `$ in this manner does not practically suffer from any hadronic uncertainties.

## 5 Unitarity Triangle 2002

We are now in the position to combine all these constraints in order to construct the unitarity triangle and determine various quantities of interest. In this context the important issue is the error analysis of these formulae, in particular the treatment of theoretical uncertainties. In the literature five different methods are commonly used: Gaussian approach $`^\mathrm{?}`$, Bayesian approach $`^\mathrm{?}`$, frequentist approach $`^\mathrm{?}`$, $`95\%`$ C.L. scan method $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the simple (naive) scanning within one standard deviation as used by myself in the past and a few distinguished colleagues of my generation. For the PDG analysis see $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and Kleinknechts talk. A critical comparision of these methods will appear soon $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Recently I have been converted to the Bayesian approach. Consequently, in fig. 4 the result of an analysis in collaboration with Parodi and Stocchi $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that uses this approch is shown. The allowed region for $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ is the area inside the smaller ellipse. We observe that the region $`\overline{\varrho }<0`$ is disfavoured by the lower bound on $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$. It is clear from this figure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ is a very important ingredient in this analysis and that the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ giving $`R_t`$ through (27) will have a large impact on the plot in fig. 4. Other relatively recent analyses of the UT in the SM can be found in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

The ranges for various quantities that result from this analysis are given in the last column of table 1. The first column will be discussed at the end of my talk. The results in this table follow from five steps of section 3 and the direct measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ in (31). They imply in particular an impressive precision on the angle $`\beta `$:

$$(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )_{\mathrm{tot}}=0.725\pm 0.033,\beta =(23.2\pm 1.4)^{}.$$
(32)
On the other hand $`(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )_{\mathrm{ind}}`$ obtained by using only the five steps of section 3 is found to be $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$(\mathrm{sin}2\beta )_{\mathrm{ind}}=0.715_{0.045}^{+0.055}$$
(33)
demonstrating an excellent agreement (see also fig. 4) between the direct measurement in (31) and the standard analysis of the unitarity triangle within the SM. This gives a strong indication that the CKM matrix is very likely the dominant source of CP violation in flavour violating decays. In order to be sure whether this is indeed the case other theoretically clean quantities have to be measured. In particular the angle $`\gamma `$ that is more sensitive to new physics contributions than $`\beta `$. In this context the measurement of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s/\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$ will play an important role as for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, the extracted value for $`\gamma `$ is a sensitive function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s/\mathrm{\Delta }M_d`$.

## 6 New Set of Fundamental Flavour Variables

During the 1970’s and 1980’s the variables $`\alpha _{QED}`$, the Fermi constant $`G_F`$ and the sine of the Weinberg angle ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$) were the fundamental parameters in terms of which the electroweak tests of the SM have been performed. After the $`Z^0`$ boson has been discovered and its mass precisely measured at LEP-I, $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ has been replaced by $`M_Z`$ and the fundamental set used in the electroweak precision studies in the 1990’s has been $`(\alpha _{QED},G_F,M_Z)`$. It is to be expected that when $`M_W`$ will be measured precisely this set will be changed to $`(\alpha _{QED},M_W,M_Z)`$ or ($`G_F,M_W,M_Z)`$.

One can anticipate an analogous development in this decade in connection with the CKM matrix. While the set (6) has clearly many virtues and has been used extensively in the literature, one should emphasize that presently no direct independent measurements of $`\eta `$ and $`\varrho `$ are available. $`\eta `$ can be measured cleanly in the decay $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$. On the other hand to our knowledge there does not exist any strategy for a clean independent measurement of $`\varrho `$.

Taking into account the experimental feasibility of various measurements and their theoretical cleanness, the most obvious candidate for the fundamental set in the quark flavour physics for the coming years appears to be $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$|V_{us}|,|V_{cb}|,R_t,\beta $$
(34)
with the last two variables measured by means of (27) and (30), respectively. In this context one can investigate, in analogy to the $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane, the $`(R_t,\beta )`$ plane for the exhibition of various constraints on the CKM matrix. We show this in fig. 5. Moreover inserting

$$\overline{\varrho }=1R_t\mathrm{cos}\beta ,\overline{\eta }=R_t\mathrm{sin}\beta $$
(35)
into (2)-(5) and using (13) it is an easy matter to express all elements of the CKM matrix in terms of the variables in (34):

$$V_{ud}=1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4+𝒪(\lambda ^6),V_{ub}=\frac{\lambda }{1\lambda ^2/2}|V_{cb}|\left[1R_te^{i\beta }\right],$$
(36)
$$V_{cd}=\lambda +\frac{1}{2}\lambda |V_{cb}|^2\lambda |V_{cb}|^2\left[1R_te^{i\beta }\right]+𝒪(\lambda ^7),$$
(37)
$$V_{cs}=1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4\frac{1}{2}|V_{cb}|^2+𝒪(\lambda ^6),$$
(38)
$$V_{tb}=1\frac{1}{2}|V_{cb}|^2+𝒪(\lambda ^6),V_{td}=\lambda |V_{cb}|R_te^{i\beta }+𝒪(\lambda ^7),$$
(39)
$$V_{ts}=|V_{cb}|+\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2|V_{cb}|\lambda ^2|V_{cb}|\left[1R_te^{i\beta }\right]+𝒪(\lambda ^6),$$
(40)
where in order to simplify the notation we have used $`\lambda `$ instead of $`|V_{us}|`$ as $`V_{us}=\lambda +𝒪(\lambda ^7)`$.

For the fundamental set of parameters in the quark flavour physics given in (34) we have presently within the SM $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$|V_{us}|=0.221\pm 0.002,|V_{cb}|=(40.4\pm 0.8)10^3,R_t=0.90\pm 0.05,\beta =(23.2\pm 1.4)^{}$$
(41)
where the errors represent one standard deviations and the small shift in $`|V_{cb}|`$ results from the UT fit. The first entry will be soon replaced by $`0.2241\pm 0.0036`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

In the future the situation may change and other sets of fundamental flavour variables could turn out to be more useful than the set (34). As argued in $`^\mathrm{?}`$, replacing $`R_t`$ in (34) by $`\gamma `$ could result in the most useful set of flavour variables provided $`\gamma `$ can be precisely measured. Similarly the pair $`(R_b,\gamma )`$ is very useful as it gives the length of the hand of the unitarity clock in fig. 2 and its position. Other possibilities are discussed in $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 7 Outlook: Shopping List

The coming nine years should be very exciting in the field of flavour and CP violation due to a vast amount of data expected from laboratories in Europe, USA and Japan. One should also hope that theorists will sharpen their tools. There are already many reviews of the methods for the extraction of the sides and angles of the UT $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Therefore I will be very brief here.

1. It is very desirable that the uncertainties in all inputs entering the five steps of the standard analysis of UT are reduced. The elements $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ play here a special role as they are essentially independent of possble new physics contributions. The improved accuracy on $`\xi `$ in (27) together with a precise measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ will give us an accurate value of $`R_t`$ and consequently by means of (15) a prediction for $`\gamma `$. However, the importance of accurate values for $`\widehat{B}_K`$, $`F_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}`$, and $`F_{B_s}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_s}`$ should not be underestimated. These three quantities are easier to calculate than hadronic matrix elements relevant for non-leptonic K and B decays and are equally important. The precise knowledge of $`\widehat{B}_K`$ combined with improved accuracy on $`|V_{cb}|`$ will allow to use the precise value of $`\epsilon _K`$ (step 3) more efficiently. An improved value of $`F_{B_d}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_d}`$ combined with a more accurate value of $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ will give us as seen in (26) a precise value of $`|V_{td}|`$ and consequently $`R_t`$. A precise value of $`F_{B_s}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_s}`$ is important for other reasons. As $`|V_{ts}|`$ is fixed by the CKM unitarity to be very close to $`|V_{cb}|`$, the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ combined with $`F_{B_s}\sqrt{\widehat{B}_s}`$ allows the measurement of the box diagram function $`S_0(x_t)`$:

$$S_0(x_t)=2.32\left[\frac{270\mathrm{MeV}}{\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_s}}F_{B_s}}\right]^2\left[\frac{0.040}{|V_{ts}|}\right]^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_s}{18.0/\mathrm{ps}}\right]\left[\frac{0.55}{\eta _B}\right]$$
(42)
and consequently of $`m_\mathrm{t}`$ that could be compared with its direct measurement. This could teach us about the possible new physics beyond SM. For $`m_t=167\pm 5`$ GeV one has $`S_0(x_t)=2.39\pm 0.12`$.

2. The measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by means of $`a_{\psi K_S}(t)`$ will certainly be improved in the coming years so that the angle $`\beta `$ will be known with an error of $`1^{}`$ ! At this accuracy a closer look at possible theoretical uncertainties will be required. This very precise value for $`\beta `$ will be one day confronted with its value determined by means of clean decays $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. With the accuracy for both branching ratios of $`10\%`$ a measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ with an error $`\pm 0.05`$ becomes possible. In order to do better not only the accuracy on the branching ratios has to improve but also an NNLO QCD-analysis of these decays combined with improved value of $`\overline{m}_c(m_c)`$ is required.

In the meantime the CP asymmetry in $`B_d\varphi K_S`$ that also measures $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ will be one of the important topics. Being dominated by QCD penguin diagrams it is expected to be more sensitive to new physics than $`a_{\psi K_S}(t)`$. The first results from BaBar and Belle indicate a value for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ that differs significantly from (31). The recent excitement about this anomaly could be premature, however, as the experimental errors are still large and the decay is not as theoretically clean as $`B\psi K_S`$. Recent summary is given in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. See also $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

3. Another hot topic is the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ through the CP asymmetry in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ that unfortunately is polluted by QCD penguin diagrams and consequently by hadronic uncertainties. There is a vast literature on this subject and many suggestions have been put forward in order to overcome the hadronic uncertainties with the hope to extract the true angle $`\alpha `$. Unfortunately the BaBar and Belle data on $`a_{CP}(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ disagree with each other with the asymmetry being consistent with zero and large, respectively. Similarly there is no real consensus among theorists. Recent summary is given in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. See also $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The situation reminds us of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ at the beginning of the 1990 s. Yet, I am convinced that here the experimentalists will reach much faster the agreement than was the case of $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$. Moreover, as the theoretical issues appear to be less involved than in $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$, I expect that some consensus will be reached by theorists in the coming years. On the other hand I have some doubts that a precise value of $`\alpha `$ will follow in a foreseable future from this enterprise. However, one should also stress $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that only a moderately precise measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ can be as useful for the UT as a precise measurement of the angle $`\beta `$. This has been recently reemphasized in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. This is clear from table 1 that shows very large uncertainties in the indirect determination of $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$.

4. In view of the comments made in the previous section a precise measurement of the angle $`\gamma `$ is of utmost importance. An excellent overview of various strategies for $`\gamma `$ can be found in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The present efforts concentrate around the decays $`B_d^0\pi K`$ and $`B^\pm \pi K`$. On the one hand the data from BaBar and Belle improved considerably this year. On the other hand, there exist several methods like QCDF $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and PQCD $`^\mathrm{?}`$ approaches and more phenomenological approaches: the mixed strategy $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the charged strategy $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the neutral strategy $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and the Wick contraction method $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. While I agree to some extent with the Rome group $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that the issue is more involved than stated sometimes by some authors, one cannot deny a great progress made by theorists during the last three years and I am confident that a combination of all $`B\pi K`$ and $`B\pi \pi `$ channels will offer in due time a useful, if not the most precise, determination of $`\gamma `$.

Another, very interesting line of attack is to use the U-spin symmetry $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ for the determination of $`\gamma `$. In particular the strategies involving the U-spin related decays $`B_{d,s}^0\psi K_S`$ and $`B_{d,s}^0D_{d,s}^+D_{d,s}^{}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and $`B_s^0K^+K^{}`$ and $`B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ appear to be promising for Run II at FNAL and in particular for LHC-B. They are unaffected by FSI and are only limited by U-spin breaking effects.

Yet, there is no doubt that at the end the most precise determinations of $`\gamma `$ will come from the strategies involving $`B_dD^{()\pm }\pi ^{}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and $`B_sD_s^{()\pm }K^{()}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in which all hadronic uncertainties cancel. One should also mention the triangle construction of Gronau and Wyler $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that uses $`B^\pm K^\pm \{D^0,\overline{D}^0,D_\pm ^0\}`$ where $`D_\pm ^0`$ denotes the CP eigenstates of the neutral $`D`$ system. However, this method is problematic because of the small branching ratios of the colour supressed channel $`B^+D^0K^+`$ and its charge conjugate. Variants of this method which could be more promising have been proposed in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

5. Finally a few rare K and B decays should be put on this shopping list. The recent events for $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ are very encouraging $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In particular one can construct the UT exclusively by means of $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. See also $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The accuracy of this construction can compete with the one by means of B decays, provided the branching ratios are precisely measured and the uncertainties in $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_c`$ reduced. Similarly $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ appears to be the best decay to measure the area of the unrescaled unitarity triangle or equivalently $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t`$ in table 1. Finally

$$\frac{Br(BX_d\nu \overline{\nu })}{Br(BX_s\nu \overline{\nu })}=\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2,\frac{Br(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})}{Br(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})}=\frac{\tau _{B_d}}{\tau _{B_s}}\frac{m_{B_d}}{m_{B_s}}\frac{F_{B_d}^2}{F_{B_s}^2}\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2$$
(43)
allow to determine $`|V_{td}|/|V_{ts}|`$ or equivalently $`R_t`$ that can be compared with its determination by means of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d/\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ in (27). As these decays are dominated in the SM by $`Z^0`$-penguin diagrams, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{d,s}`$ are governed by box diagrams, this comparision offers a very good test of the SM.

## 8 Going Beyond the Standard Model

If the SM is the proper description of flavour and CP violation, all branching ratios and CP asymmetries are given just in terms of four flavour variables, such as the sets (6), (34) or the sets considered in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. This necessarily implies relations between various branching ratios and asymmetries that have to be satisfied independently of the values of the flavour parameters in question if the SM is the whole story. Such relations have been extensively studied in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

Now, beyond the SM the amplitude for any decay can be generally written as $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{Decay})=\underset{i}{}B_i\eta _{\mathrm{QCD}}^iV_{\mathrm{CKM}}^i[F_{\mathrm{SM}}^i+F_{\mathrm{New}}^i]+\underset{k}{}B_k^{\mathrm{New}}[\eta _{\mathrm{QCD}}^k]^{\mathrm{New}}V_{\mathrm{New}}^k[G_{\mathrm{New}}^k].$$
(44)
The non-perturbative parameters $`B_i`$ represent the hadronic matrix elements of relevant local operators $`Q_i`$ present in the SM. For instance in the case of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, the matrix element of the operator $`\overline{s}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu (1\gamma _5)d`$ is represented by the parameter $`\widehat{B}_K`$ in (22). There are other non-perturbative parameters in the SM that represent matrix elements of operators $`Q_i`$ with different colour and Dirac structures.

The objects $`\eta _{\mathrm{QCD}}^i`$ are the QCD factors analogous to $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _B`$. Finally, $`F_{\mathrm{SM}}^i`$ stand for the so-called Inami-Lim functions $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that result from the calculations of various box and penguin diagrams. They depend on the top-quark mass. An example is the function $`S_0`$ in (22).

New physics can contribute to our master formula in two ways. First, it can modify the importance of a given operator, that is relevant already in the SM, through the new short distance functions $`F_{\mathrm{New}}^i`$ that depend on the new parameters in the extensions of the SM like the masses of charginos, squarks, charged Higgs particles and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$ in the MSSM. These new particles enter the new box and penguin diagrams. Secondly, in more complicated extensions of the SM new operators (Dirac structures) that are either absent or very strongly suppressed in the SM, can become important. Their contributions are described by the second sum in (44) with $`B_k^{\mathrm{New}},[\eta _{\mathrm{QCD}}^k]^{\mathrm{New}},V_{\mathrm{New}}^k,G_{\mathrm{New}}^k`$ being analogs of the corresponding objects in the first sum of the master formula. The $`V_{\mathrm{New}}^k`$ show explicitly that the second sum describes generally new sources of flavour and CP violation beyond the CKM matrix. This sum may, however, also include contributions governed by the CKM matrix that are strongly suppressed in the SM but become important in some extensions of the SM. A typical example is the enhancement of the operators with Dirac structures $`(VA)(V+A)`$, $`(SP)(S\pm P)`$ and $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }(SP)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(SP)`$ contributing to $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ and $`B_{d,s}^0\overline{B}_{d,s}^0`$ mixings in the MSSM with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and in supersymmetric extensions with new flavour violation. The latter may arise from the misalignement of quark and squark mass matrices.

Now, the new functions $`F_{\mathrm{New}}^i`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{New}}^k`$ as well as the factors $`V_{\mathrm{New}}^k`$ may depend on new CP violating phases complicating considerably phenomenological analysis. On the other hand there exists a class of extensions of the SM in which the second sum in (44) is absent (no new operators) and flavour changing transitions are governed by the CKM matrix. In particular there are no new complex phases beyond the CKM phase. We will call this scenario “Minimal Flavour Violation” (MFV) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ being aware of the fact that for some authors MFV means a more general framework in which also new operators can give significant contributions. See for instance the recent discussions in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. In the MFV models, as defined here, the master formula (44) simplifies to

$$\mathrm{A}(\mathrm{Decay})=\underset{i}{}B_i\eta _{\mathrm{QCD}}^iV_{\mathrm{CKM}}^i[F_{\mathrm{SM}}^i+F_{\mathrm{New}}^i]$$
(45)
with $`F_{\mathrm{SM}}^i`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{New}}^i`$ being real.

Many relations between various quantities valid in the SM are also valid for MFV models or can be straightforwardly generalized to these models. One of the interesting properties of the MFV models is the existence of the universal unitarity triangle (UUT) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that can be constructed from quantities in which all the dependence on new physics cancels out or is negligible like in tree level decays from which $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$ are extracted. The values of $`\overline{\varrho }`$, $`\overline{\eta }`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`R_b`$, and $`R_t`$ resulting from this determination are the “true” values that are universal within the MFV models. Various strategies for the determination of the UUT are discussed in $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The presently available quantities that do not depend on the new physics parameters within the MFV-models and therefore can be used to determine the UUT are $`R_t`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d/\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ by means of (27), $`R_b`$ from $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ by means of (10) and $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ extracted from the CP asymmetry in $`B_d^0\psi K_S`$. Using only these three quantities, we show in figure 4 the allowed universal region for $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ (the larger ellipse) in the MFV models $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The central values, the errors and the $`95\%`$ (and $`99\%`$) C.L. ranges for various quantities of interest related to this UUT are collected in table 1. Similar analysis has been done in $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

It should be stressed that any MFV model that is inconsistent with the broader allowed region in figure 4 and the UUT column in table 1 is ruled out. We observe that there is little room for MFV models that in their predictions differ significantly from the SM. It is also clear that to distinguish the SM from the MFV models considered here on the basis of the analysis of the UT only, will require considerable reduction of theoretical uncertainties.

Such a distinction should be much easier in the MSSM with minimal flavour violation but with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Even if the CKM parameters in this model are expected to be very close to the ones in the SM, the presence of neutral Higgs boson penguin-like diagrams with charginos and stop-quarks in the loop can increase by orders of magnitude the branching ratios of the rare decays $`B_{s,d}^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and to decrease significantly the $`B_s^0`$-$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$ relative to the expectations based on the SM. Most recent discussions, including also more complicated scenarios, can be found in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

## 9 Concluding Remarks

The recent direct measurements of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ by BaBar and Belle opened a new era of the precise tests of the flavour structure of the SM and its extensions. These measurements have shown how important it is to have quantities that are free of theoretical uncertainties. With a single direct and clean measurement of the angle $`\beta `$ it was possible to achieve accuracy comparable with the indirect measurements of $`\beta `$ that involves simultaneously a number of quantities like $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{s,d}`$ and $`\epsilon _K`$ that are all subject to theoretical uncertainties. This lesson makes it clear that one should make all efforts to realize the clean strategies that involve $`B_dD^{()\pm }\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_sD_s^{()\pm }K^{()}`$ for $`\gamma `$, $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ for $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$, $`Im\lambda _t`$ and the UT as well as the rare decays $`BX_{s,d}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ relevant for $`|V_{td}|/|V_{ts}|`$. Similar comments apply to a number of strategies with small uncertainies as $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d/\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ discussed in section 7. However, to this end our theoretical tools have to be improved.

The next years will certainly bring new insight in the flavour structure of the SM and its extensions. In particular it will be important to resolve the issues related to CP asymmetries in $`B_d\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_d\varphi K_S`$ and to measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$. Similarly it will be important to see whether large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ effects predicted in the MSSM in $`B_{s,d}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ are realized in nature. As emphasized by Peccei $`^\mathrm{?}`$ even more important is the search for new complex phases with the hope to find convincing scenarios that would simultaneously explain the the size of CP violation in the low enery processes and the matter-antimatter asymmetry observed in the universe. Another issue is the CP violation in the neutrino sector.

It is conceivable that the physics responsible for the matter-antimatter asymmetry involves only very short distance scales, as the GUT scale or the Planck scale, and the related CP violation is unobservable in the experiments performed by humans. Yet even if such an unfortunate situation is a real possibility, it is unlikely that the single phase in the CKM matrix provides a fully adequate description of CP violation at scales accessible to experiments peformed on our planet in this millennium. On the one hand the KM picture of CP violation is so economical that it is hard to believe that it will pass future experimental tests in spite of its recent successes seen in fig. 4. On the other hand almost any extention of the SM contains additional sources of CP violating effects $`^\mathrm{?}`$. As some kind of new physics is required in order to understand the patterns of quark and lepton masses and mixings and generally to understand the flavour dynamics, it is very likely that this physics will bring new sources of CP violation modifying KM picture considerably. In any case the flavour physics and CP violation will remain to be a very important and exciting field at least for the next 10-15 years.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Fabrizio Parodi and Achille Stocchi for a wonderful collaboration on the matters related to the UT and the organizers for inviting me to such a pleasant conference. I also than the Max-Planck Institute for Physics in Munich for covering my travel expenses. The work presented here has also been supported in part by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung under the contract 05HT1WOA3 and the DFG Project Bu. 706/1-1.

## References


text:
# Realistic construction of split fermion models

## I Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) flavor puzzle is to understand the origin of the smallness and hierarchy of most of the fermion masses and mixing angles. The likely solution of this puzzle requires the existence of a fundamental theory that generates the observed patterns in a natural way, namely without small dimensionless parameters. One such framework is due to Arkani-Hamed and Schmaltz (AS) AS . The idea is to separate the various SM fermion fields inside compact extra dimensions. In that case the four dimensional Yukawa couplings between two fermions are suppressed by the overlap of their zero mode wave functions. Once the widths of the wave functions are smaller than their separation in the extra dimensions, small and hierarchical Yukawa couplings in four dimensions are induced.

Various scenarios based on this idea had been constructed. In some models, only the fermion wave functions have non trivial shapes in the extra dimension AS ; MS ; GGH ; KT ; ASmodels ; Mats ; GP . In other cases, also the Higss field is used to generate the flavor structure KT ; GaussLocH ; LocH . A specific model in five dimensions (5d) that generates the observed fermion masses and mixing angles was found by Mirabelli and Schmaltz (MS) MS . This model, however, cannot accommodate the observed CP violation in the kaon and $`B`$ systems Branco . Experimental tests of the split fermion idea were studied in AS ; AGS .

While the AS framework is very attractive there is no complete realization of it. In AS  a model with one infinite extra dimension, $`x_5`$, was considered where domain wall fermions were used to localize the fermions and to separate them. The basic idea is that there is a scalar, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which develops an $`x_5`$ dependent vacuum expectation value (vev), $`h(x_5)`$. Then, the fermions have $`x_5`$ dependent effective masses $`m_{eff}=\lambda h(x_5)M`$, where $`M`$ is a bare mass term and $`\lambda `$ is the Yukawa coupling between the fermion and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The minimum of the right handed (RH) zero mode and the maximum of the left handed (LH) zero modes is where the effective mass vanishes, namely at $`x_5^m`$ such that $`\lambda h(x_5^m)=M`$. The LH chirality state, with the maximum at $`x_5^m`$ is localized around $`x_5^m`$. The RH mode, however, is localized at infinity, namely it is non-normalizable and it drops out of the spectrum. The separation between the LH modes is achieved by introducing a different $`M`$ for the different fields.

The generalization of this original realization of the split fermions idea to the realistic case of a compact dimension is not trivial. The problem is that in a compact space both LH and RH zero modes are normalizable, and thus the model is not really chiral. Another problem, which is related to the first one, is that in a compact space the domain wall configuration is not stable.

Some ideas toward solving these problems had been proposed by Georgi, Grant and Hailu (GGH) GGH  and by Kaplan and Tait (KT) KT . They considered 5d scenarios with one extra dimension compactified on an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold. The $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry projects out one chiral zero mode, making this a chiral theory in four dimensions (4d). A scalar, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which is odd under the $`Z_2`$ symmetry is also introduced. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is odd, its vev must vanish on the orbifold fixed points. When $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ develops a non zero vev in the bulk, an $`x_5`$ dependent vev is generated. Fermion mass terms of the from $`\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ are allowed while bare mass terms, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$, are forbidden by the $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Therefore, the zero modes are localized around one of the boundaries since these are the only places where their effective masses vanish. The sign of the Yukawa coupling between the fermion and the scalar determines on which boundary the fermion is localized. The idea of split fermions where each fermion is stuck at a different point in the bulk cannot be achieved. The zero modes can be localized only around one of the orbifold fixed points. An additional flavor structure in the Yukawa couplings is needed in order to naturally generate the observed fermion parameters in such two location models KT . More complicated models, using large non renormalizable111More precisely, we refer here to 5d terms which after dimensional reduction produce non renormalizable operators in the 4d effective theory. terms GGH  or boundary terms KT  can localize fermions in the bulk.

The problems of this setup can be traced down to two points. The first is that the scalar vev vanishes only on the boundaries. Thus, the fermions cannot be localized within the bulk. The second is that mass terms are absent. In the original AS model the scalar was used to localize the fermion zero modes, and different constant mass terms were used to split them. In the simple orbifold models, while the scalar can be used to localize the fermions, there is no simple mechanism that splits them.

We are therefore interested in improving upon the models of GGH ; KT . We propose to use two scalar fields that couple to the fermions. This rather minor modification of the GGH and KT scenarios can produce localization in the bulk and at the same time does not affect the appealing features of these models. The advantage that two scalar models have over one scalar models is that the effective mass can vanish in the bulk. Intuitively the picture is as follows. For one scalar the sign of the Yukawa coupling determines the boundary where the fermion is localized GGH . Once a second scalar with opposite sign Yukawa coupling is introduced, the picture is more complicated. The second scalar tends to localize the fermion on the other boundary. In some cases one scalar is dominant and localization is at the boundary determined by the sign of its Yukawa coupling and the second scalar only modifies the shape of the wave function. In other cases, however, the tension between the two scalar results in a compromise: A configuration where the fermion is localized in the bulk.

In section II we introduce the two scalar model and investigate its scalar sector. In section III we study the shapes of the fermion wave functions in various limits of the model and their implications for model building. In section IV we present a two scalar model which accounts naturally for the quark masses, mixing angles and CP violation. We conclude in section V.

## II Two scalar model

We now move to study the features of the scalar sector of our model. We explain how it can generate localization and separation of fermion wave functions in the extra dimension.

The space-time of our model is described by ordinary 4d space-time and an additional space dimension compactified on an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold. The physical region is defined as $`0x_5L`$ and $`x_5=0,L`$ are the orbifold fixed points. The model includes two scalar fields, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$), and a fermion field, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The scalars and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_R`$ are odd while $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ is even under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry. For simplicity, we assume that there is no interaction between the two scalars. We further consider the case where the two scalars develop $`x_5`$ dependent vevs. The conditions for this case to be realized can be found by a straightforward generalization of the single scalar case (see e.g. GP ). Here we only remark that having an $`x_5`$ dependent vev is a generic situation. Then, the action is

$$𝒮=𝑑x_M\left\{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(i\gamma ^M_M+\stackrel{~}{f}_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\stackrel{~}{f}_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }+\underset{i}{}\left[\frac{1}{2}^M\mathrm{\Phi }_i_M\mathrm{\Phi }_i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2\stackrel{~}{v}_i^2\right)^2\right]\right\}.$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i`$ are real with $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i>0`$. (Our notation is such that capital letters run over the five dimensions while Greek letters over the four dimensions.)

It is convenient to use dimensionless parameters. We therefore use rescaled fields

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{\psi }{\sqrt{L}},\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{\phi }{\stackrel{~}{v}},$$
(2)
and introduce the following dimensionless quantities

$$u\frac{x_5}{L},a_i\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i}\stackrel{~}{v}_iL,f_i\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_i}{\sqrt{2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}},X\frac{a_2f_2}{a_1f_1}.$$
(3)
Note that $`0u1`$. We order the two scalars such that $`a_1<a_2`$ and further define $`ff_1`$ and $`aa_1`$. Then, the action can be written as

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx_\mu {\displaystyle _0^1}du\{\left[\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\gamma _5_5{\displaystyle \frac{fa}{L}}(\phi _1X\phi _2))\psi \right]`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}_i^2}{L}}[L^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \phi _i_\mu \phi _i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_5\phi _i_5\phi _i{\displaystyle \frac{a_i^2}{2}}(\phi _i^21)^2]\},`$
where $`_5\frac{}{u}`$.

We move to investigate the functions $`h_i(u)\phi _i(u)`$. For one scalar they were investigated in detail in GGH ; GP . Since we assume that there is no interaction between the scalars we can use the one scalar model results for each of the scalars. Neglecting the Yukawa interactions, and working in the limit where GP

$$a_i1,$$
(5)
we have

$$h_i(u)=\mathrm{tanh}\left[a_iu\right]\mathrm{tanh}\left[a_i(1u)\right].$$
(6)
Since $`h_i(u)`$ is symmetric under $`u1u`$ we consider only the $`0u1/2`$ range. We will make use of the following approximations

$$h_i(u)\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{for }u1/a_i,\hfill \\ a_iu\hfill & \text{for }u1/a_i\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Of particular interest is the following function

$$g(u)=h_1(u)Xh_2(u).$$
(8)
Given the values of $`a_i`$ and recalling that $`a_1<a_2`$, the sign of $`g(u)`$ is determined by $`X`$ as follows:

* $`X>1`$

$`\mathrm{sign}[g(u)]=1.`$ (9)
* $`X<a_1/a_2`$

$`\mathrm{sign}[g(u)]=1.`$ (10)
* $`1>X>a_1/a_2`$

$`\mathrm{sign}\left[g\left(u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2}}\right)\right]=1,\mathrm{sign}\left[g\left(u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right]=1.`$ (11)

Eq. (11) teaches us that when condition (iii) is satisfied $`g(u)`$ vanishes not only on the boundaries. Namely, there exists a point $`0<u_{\mathrm{max}}<1/2`$ such that $`g(u_{\mathrm{max}})=0`$. (Note that since $`h_i(u)`$ is symmetric under $`u1u`$ if $`g(u)`$ crosses zero in the bulk, it crosses it twice, at $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`1u_{\mathrm{max}}`$.)

While we cannot solve analytically for $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in the general case, we can do it in what we denote as the constant mass approximation

$$a_1/a_21.$$
(12)
In this approximation $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is given by

$$u_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\mathrm{arctanh}(\mathrm{X})}{a}=\frac{X}{a}+O(X^3).$$
(13)
Figs. (1b) and (1c) show the function $`g(u)`$ (the thin black curves) in the cases described by eq. (11) for typical values of parameters. The figures demonstrate the main point of this section: The two scalar model yields an effective scalar profile which has several zeros. In particular, one of them is not an orbifold fixed point. Thus, we can construct models in which the fermions are localized at various points in the fifth dimension and not only at the orbifold fixed points.

## III The fermion zero mode

In the following we analyze the functional behavior of the fermion zero mode wave function and, once more fermions are introduced, the overlaps between their zero mode wave functions in the fifth dimension. Though we do it in the context of a two scalar model we shall see that some of our conclusions are rather generic. They apply to other realizations of the split fermions scenario.

Following the standard treatment (see e.g. AS ) we find the differential equation for $`y(u)`$, the fifth dimension wave function of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$:

$$\frac{1}{y(u)}\frac{y(u)}{u}=fag(u),$$
(14)
where $`g(u)`$ is defined in (8). The solution is given by

$$y(u)=N\mathrm{exp}\left[fa_0^ug(w)𝑑w\right],$$
(15)
where $`N`$ is the normalization factor. The local maxima of $`y(u)`$ are at points in which $`g(u)`$ vanishes. Which of these maxima is the global maximum depends on the model parameters, and can be at any of these points.

### III.1 A single scalar model

We begin our analysis by setting $`X`$ to zero in eq. (8) and returning to the single scalar case AS ; KT . Then, the fermion zero mode is given by

$$y(u)N\mathrm{exp}\left\{f\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}(au)\right]\right\}\mathrm{for}u<1/2.$$
(16)
We shall analyze $`y(u)`$ in two limits, large and small $`f`$. We show that these are related to the two scenarios studied by AS AS  and KT KT  respectively. We assume that $`f`$ is positive and thus the maximum of $`y(u)`$ is at $`u=0`$. Then, we have

$`y(u)`$ $``$ $`N\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{fa^2}{2}}u^2\right]\mathrm{for}u1/a;`$ (17)
$`y(u)`$ $``$ $`N\mathrm{exp}\left[f(au\mathrm{ln}2)\right]\mathrm{for}1/a<u<1/2.`$ (18)
When eq. (17) is applicable, the fermion wave function is approximately a Gaussian with a width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{f}}}.`$ (19)
When eq. (18) is applicable, the fermion wave function is approximately an exponential with a width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{af}}.`$ (20)
Substituting $`u=1/a`$ in (17) we learn that when $`f1`$ the exponential part is negligible and then $`y(u)`$ is of a Gaussian shape. Similarly, substituting $`u=1/a`$ in (18) we learn that for $`f<1`$ the Gaussian part is negligible.

### III.2 A two scalar model

We now move to the two scalar scenario. While the integral in (15) can be solved analytically, the result is not very illuminating. We therefore consider $`y(u)`$ in various limits related to the three cases of eqs. (9), (10) and (11).

When $`X>1`$ or $`X<a_1/a_2`$ the function $`g(u)`$ vanishes only on the fixed points and $`y(u)`$ is localized at either $`u=0`$ or $`u=1`$. This case is similar to the single scalar model (with a zero mass) discussed above. The corresponding fermion wave function will be of the form of either Gaussian or exponent as shown in eqs. (17) or (18). In the limit of large $`a_i`$ and with $`f`$ of order unity it reproduces the KT exponential model.

When $`1>X>a_1/a_2`$ the fermions can be localized in the bulk. It is useful to discuss this case in the constant mass approximation \[see eq. (12)\]. In this approximation the second term in $`g(u)`$ can be treated as a constant and then

$$y(u)N\mathrm{exp}\left\{f\left[\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}(au)\right]X\right]\right\}\mathrm{for}u<1/2.$$
(21)
Substituting $`X=ML/af`$ in (21), with $`M`$ being the 5d fermion mass, the model reproduces the constant mass models of AS ; MS . Thus all our following analysis and conclusions apply to these models as well.

We like to approximate $`y(u)`$ near its maxima. The situation in this case is more involved since $`y(u)`$ has two maxima and which is the dominant one depends on the interplay between the values of $`X`$, $`a`$ and $`f`$. Inspecting Eq. (15) we see that this is determined by the relative size of $`I_p`$ and $`I_n`$ defined as

$$I_p=_0^{u_{\mathrm{max}}}g(u)𝑑u,I_n=_{u_{\mathrm{max}}}^{1u_{\mathrm{max}}}g(u)𝑑u.$$
(22)
Once $`I_p>I_n`$ the global maximum is at one of the fixed points, while in the opposite case it is at $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ or $`1u_{\mathrm{max}}`$. We define $`X_b`$ to be the transition point, namely, the point where $`I_p=I_n`$. Using the constant mass approximation \[eq. (21)\] and the linear approximation for $`h_1`$ \[eq. (7)\] we find the following estimate for the transition point:

$$X_b\frac{2a4}{2a3}.$$
(23)
We therefore consider three cases:

* $`X>X_b`$. The global maximum is at one of the orbifold fixed points. This case is similar to the case of a function with only one maximum and does not lead to a new structure.
* $`X<X_b`$. The dominant maximum is in the bulk, $`0<u_{\mathrm{max}}<1`$, and $`y(u)`$ is approximately given by

$$y(u)N\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{fa^2\left(1X^2\right)}{2}\left(uu_{\mathrm{max}}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{for}|uu_{\mathrm{max}}|1/a.$$
(24)
This is a Gaussian with a maximum at $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and a width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{f(1X^2)}}}.`$ (25)
For $`X1`$ the width is independent of $`X`$ \[as in eq. (19)\], and the maximum location is linear in $`X`$. This is the case discussed in AS ; MS  (with the substitution $`X=ML/af`$). The generic situation, however, is that the peak of the wave function is not linear with $`X`$ and that its width grows with the distance of the peak from the origin.
* $`XX_b`$. The two maxima are significant. This case cannot be described analytically but it is a combination of the above two cases. We remark that this transition region between the other two cases considered above becomes sharper as the value of $`f`$ increases. Since we are working with moderate values of $`f`$ it does not require fine tuning of $`X`$ to have a situation where both peaks are important.

In figures (1a) -(1c) we plot the effective two scalar vev, $`g(u)`$, and the corresponding fermion wave function for these three cases.

### III.3 Wave functions overlaps

We extend the model by including the SM fermion fields and one Higgs field. After compactification, the zero modes of these fields consist of the 4d SM fields. In particular, we are interested in how the 4d Yukawa interactions are generated form the 5d theory. Consider, for example, the 5d Yukawa interaction between a quark doublet ($`Q`$), a down type quark singlet ($`D`$) and the Higgs field ($`H`$)

$$=\frac{Y_5}{\sqrt{M_{}}}\overline{Q}HD+h.c.,$$
(26)
where $`M_{}`$ is the natural scale of the 5d theory. After compactification the 4d Yukawa interaction is given by

$$=Y_5K\overline{d}_Lhd_R+h.c.,$$
(27)
where lower case letters represent 4d zero mode fields. The overlap $`K`$ is defined as

$$K_0^1y_D(u)y_Q(u)𝑑u,$$
(28)
where $`y_D`$ ($`y_Q`$) is the fifth dimension wave function of the singlet (doublet) field. We assumed here that the Higgs vev is flat in $`u`$. While this is not generally the case, we assume that its shape is not far from flat, and thus approximating it by a flat profile is reasonable. Assuming $`Y_5O(1)`$ the flavor structure arises from the various overlap integrals AS .

Suppose that we consider a realistic 5d model which accounts for the quark masses and mixing angles by Gaussian like suppressions. (Such overlaps were assumed, for example, in constructing the MS model MS  and in many other papers see e.g. ASmodels ; GaussLocH .) The model is specified by the Yukawa couplings $`f^i`$ and effective masses $`X^i`$ of the nine SM quark fields. We ask what are the ranges of the 5d flavor parameters in order for the above model to yield the correct masses and CKM matrix elements.

In order to obtain Gaussian suppressed overlaps and to reproduce the MS model several conditions are required. First, the significant overlap between any two fermion wave function has to be in the region where both wave functions are, to a good approximation, Gaussian. Second, their maxima have to scale linearly with $`X`$. The first condition is satisfied in the large $`f`$ limit. The second condition requires small $`X`$.

To make our discussion concrete we assume that the most distant fermions have $`X<0.3`$ which implies $`u_{\mathrm{max}}0.3/a`$. Using Eq. (24) we find that the overlap between the Gaussian wave functions, assuming universal couplings $`f`$, is given by $`\mathrm{exp}(fX^2)`$. In MS  it was found that a viable model of quark masses and mixing requires a separation of roughly 18 standard deviations between the two most distant quarks. Then, for $`X<0.3`$ we find

$`f>2\left({\displaystyle \frac{18}{0.3}}\right)^210^4.`$ (29)
Assuming perturbativity, this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i`$ \[introduced in (1)\] must be much smaller than their natural values CML . Note that to a large extent, condition (29) is independent of the fundamental theory parameters such as $`L`$, $`a`$ and $`M_{}`$. Thus, it is generic that models with Gaussian overlaps require very large couplings $`f`$.

While the model of pure Gaussian wave functions seems unnatural, using the analysis of subsection III.2 it is possible to construct models which account naturally for the quark flavor parameters. This is demonstrated in the next section.

## IV Toward a realistic natural model

As already mentioned, several models that produce the observed fermion masses and mixing angles had been constructed. Some of them use Higgs wave functions that are not flat to generate the flavor structure. We do not discuss these models here. Instead we discuss models that assume, similar to our model, that the Higgs vev do not play a significant role in generating the observed flavor patterns. In the Appendix we discuss the GGH model GGH  since our model is not directly related to it. Below we describe the KT model KT  and our improved version of it.

The KT setup is as follows. LH fermions are localized on one of the orbifold fixed points, and RH fermions on the other one. The different fermion wave functions have different widths such that the lighter the fermion is, its LH and RH wave functions are narrower. This induces hierarchical structures for the corresponding mass matrices. Yet, in order to produce the observed quark masses and mixing angles, this structure is not enough and the 5d Yukawa couplings must also have some flavor structure KT .

One reason for that, for example, is related to the large top mass. In order to generate the $`O(1)`$ 4d Yukawa coupling, the overlap between $`y^{Q_3}`$ and $`y^{u_3}`$ has to be large. Since these wave functions are localized on different orbifold fixed points, it implies that at least one of them has to be very broad. Both possibilities, however are problematic. When $`y^{Q_3}`$ is broad, a large mass for the $`b`$ quark is generated, in contrast to observation. When $`y^{u_3}`$ is broad the overlaps between it and the other doublets are large. Then, large CKM mixing angles are generated, in disagreement with the data. Similar problems are encountered when one tries to account for the flavor parameters of the other generations.

The KT model is significantly improved once some of the fields are localized in the bulk. For example, the problem with the third generation is solved once $`y^{Q_3}`$ and $`y^{u_3}`$ are localized near each other far from any of the orbifold fixed points. Then, their overlap is large and large $`m_t`$ is produced. At the same time, the overlaps of $`y^{u_3}`$ with the other quark doublet wave functions are small, thus producing small CKM mixing angles. The $`b`$ quark mass is produced by constructing $`y^{d_3}`$ to have a double peak shape, such that it has moderate overlap with $`y^{Q_3}`$.

Based on these ideas we construct an example of a configuration which roughly reproduces the correct quark masses and mixing angles. We choose the following parameters:

$`a_1=4,`$ $`a_2=12;`$
$`f_1^{Q_{1,2,3}}=30,4,40,`$ $`X^{Q_{1,2,3}}=4,1.9,0.73;`$
$`f_1^{u_{1,2,3}}=1,1,28,`$ $`X^{u_{1,2,3}}=2.3,2.3,0.78;`$
$`f_1^{d_{1,2,3}}=1,1,21,`$ $`X^{d_{1,2,3}}=2,1.4,0.87.`$ (30)
The resultant shapes of the various wave functions are shown in figs. (2a) and (2b) for the up and down type quarks respectively. The mass matrices of the up type and down type quarks are given, up to order one coefficients, by (in MeV units)

$`M^u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.9& 3.110^2& 6.410^2\\ 4.7& 7.210^2& 4.210^3\\ 1.710^2& 3.810^3& 1.610^5\end{array}\right)M^d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}5.3& 4.010^1& 8.8\\ 1.310^1& 9.310^1& 5.310^1\\ 2.410^2& 7.210^2& 3.410^3\end{array}\right).`$ (31)
Their eigenvalues are given by

$`m_u1.9\mathrm{MeV},m_c7.210^2\mathrm{MeV},m_t1.610^5\mathrm{MeV},`$
$`m_d5.3\mathrm{MeV},m_s9.310^1\mathrm{MeV},m_b3.410^3\mathrm{MeV}.`$ (32)
which agree with the known quark masses, calculated at the $`M_Z`$ scale Mass ; PDG . The rotation matrices from the left that diagonalize the mass matrices are given by

$`V_L^u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2\lambda & 0.7\lambda ^3\\ 2\lambda & 1& 0.5\lambda ^2\\ 0.4\lambda ^3& 0.6\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)V_L^d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2\lambda & 0.4\lambda ^3\\ 2\lambda & 1& 0.4\lambda ^2\\ 0.5\lambda ^3& 0.4\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (33)
where $`\lambda =0.22`$. The absolute values of the elements of the CKM matrix, $`V_{CKM}=(V_L^u)^{}V_L^d`$, are given to leading order in powers of $`\lambda `$ by

$`\left|V_{CKM}\right|\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & \lambda ^3\\ \lambda & 1& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (34)
The values of the quark mixing angles agree with the experimental data PDG . Assuming arbitrary phases we find for the Jarlskog measure of CP violation Jcp

$$J10^5,$$
(35)
in agreement with the value obtained from global fit to the available data PDG . We conclude that the above model also reproduces the observed size of CP violation. (The same is true also in the original KT model KT .) This is in contrast to the MS model, where the observed order of magnitude of $`J`$ cannot be accommodated Branco . The reason is that in the MS model there are very small entries due to the strong Gaussian suppressions. Here this is not the case. The matrices $`M^u`$ and $`M^d`$ do not contain such tiny entries. Actually, the generic situation is that split fermion models in five dimensions that produce the correct masses and mixing angles also account for the observed CP violation.

The example above is only a demonstration that the observed fermion masses and mixing angles can be generated. The apparent small deviations from the experimental values are due to the unknown Yukawa couplings. The point we emphasize is that the flavor hierarchy arises only from the overlap between the different wave functions. The unknown $`O(1)`$ Yukawa couplings do not carry any hierarchical flavor structure.

## V Discussion and Conclusion

There are several related issues that we did not study and seem to us worth further investigation. We did not discuss the lepton sector. It is easy to generate a model for the charged lepton masses. The issue of neutrino masses is more complicated and may require additional ingredients. We also did not investigate the Higgs vev shape. While we assumed that it is flat, generally this is not the case. It seems to us that it can be flat enough in order not to upset our general conclusions. However, it is interesting to fully understand the vev shape and its implications.

Our model can be extended, for example, by adding more scalars. Then, the number of the fermion wave functions maxima can be more then two, up to the number of scalars. One of the maxima is an orbifold fixed point, and the others are in the bulk. Having more than one maxima in the bulk can be used to obtain a richer structure. However, this extra flexibility is not needed in order to generate the observed quark masses and mixing angles.

The framework we considered cannot be directly related to the fundamental theory of nature. It must be a low energy limit of a more fundamental theory that should also explain the compactification and stabilization of the orbifold setup. Therefore, in general, non renormalizable terms and terms localized on the orbifold fixed points can be present in the effective theory. Since such terms modify the shape of the fermion wave functions they were used in GGH  and KT  to generate the needed structure. These terms, however, have to be very large in order to have significant effects. In our case, however, we do not need them. Thus, assuming that they are at their natural size, they are not expected to significantly affect the important ingredients of our model: The number of maxima, their widths and their rough locations.

So far we considered only the zero modes. Heavy modes, namely, the Kaluza-Klein tower of the SM fields and heavy SM singlets fields, cannot be ignored since they can significantly contribute to SM rare processes. In particular, proton decay, $`N\overline{N}`$ oscillation, meson mixing and lepton number violating processes. The most severe bound on the properties of the heavy fields is usually obtained form proton decay data. In models where the fundamental scale is low, very small overlap between the leptons and quarks wave functions was proposed as a way to avoid rapid proton decay AS . The required tiny overlap can be achieved in models with Gaussian wave functions. However, as we explained, such models require significant fine tuning. Thus, proton stability can be explained by having a very high fundamental scale or by adding new ingredients to the model. On the other hand, the data on other rare processes can be accommodated in models with a relatively low fundamental scale (see e.g. KT ).

To conclude we summarize our main results. We showed that realistic models of split fermions can be constructed using two scalars in a world with one compact extra dimension compactified on an orbifold. We found that models of split fermions with Gaussian overlaps require large 5d Yukawa couplings, and are therefore unnatural. We construct a realistic two scalar model where the overlap is not purely Gaussian which accounts naturally for the quark flavor parameters.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to acknowledge helpful discussions with David E. Kaplan and Martin Schmaltz. Y.G. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality while this work was started. Y.G. is supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) under Grant No. 237/01, by the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) through Grant No. 2000133, and by the fund for the promotion of research at the Technion.

## Appendix A The GGH model

Here we analyze the GGH mechanism of fermion separation GGH . We show that in this model it is rather unnatural to obtain sharp localization and separation of the fermions at the same time.

With our scaling \[see eqs. (2) and (3)\], the GGH model is described by

$`𝒮_\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx_\mu {\displaystyle _0^1}du\{\overline{\psi }[i\gamma ^\mu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\gamma _5_5{\displaystyle \frac{fa}{L}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{L^2M_{}^2}}(L^2_\mu ^\mu _5^2))\phi ]\psi `$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}^2}{L}}[L^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu \phi _\mu \phi _i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_5\phi _5\phi {\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2}}(\phi ^21)^2]\}.`$
When $`a`$ is large, $`g(u)`$ is approximated by

$`g(u)fa\mathrm{tanh}(au)\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{b^2}}\mathrm{sech}^2(au)\right]\mathrm{for}u<1/2,`$ (37)
with $`bLM_{}/a1`$. The fermion wave function in the fifth dimension is given by \[see eq. (15)\]

$`y(u<1/2)N\mathrm{exp}\left\{f\left[\mathrm{ln}\left[\mathrm{cosh}\left(au\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{ab^2}}\mathrm{sech}^2\left(au\right)\right]\right\}.`$ (38)
The maximum is found at

$`u_{\mathrm{max}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\mathrm{arctanh}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{2\kappa }}},`$ (39)
and the width is given approximately by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{f}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tanh}(au_{\mathrm{max}})}}.`$ (40)
Note few problematic points:

* In order to have a maximum in the bulk, very large coupling is needed, $`\kappa >b^2/2`$ GGH .
* When $`\kappa b^2/2`$, the peak of the wave function is far from the origin. In that case, however, $`u_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{log}(\kappa )`$. Consequently, to separate the fermions in the extra dimension, different flavors must have large hierarchy in their corresponding values of $`\kappa `$.
* When $`u_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is small the width is proportional to $`1/u_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Consequently, a very large $`f`$ is needed in order to get a sharply localized wave functions.

(1a) (1b) (1c)

Fig. 1: The typical shapes of the scalar vevs and the fermion wave functions. The thin black curves correspond to the effective scalars vev, $`g(u)`$ \[eq. (8)\]. The thick gray curves correspond to the fermion wave functions, $`y(u)`$ \[eq. (21)\]. The relevant parameters are $`a_1=5`$, $`a_2=17`$, and $`X=1.15,0.75,0.85`$ for figs. (1a), (1b) and (1c) respectively. In this example $`X_b0.87`$ \[eq. (23)\].

(2a) (2b)

Fig. 2: The configuration of the quark wave functions in the extra dimension. Figs (2a), (2b) are related to overlaps between the up and down type quarks respectively. $`y^{Q_{1,2,3}}`$ are the dotted, dashed, and dashed-dotted curves respectively (shown in both figs). $`y^{u_{1,2,3}}`$ and $`y^{d_{1,2,3}}`$ are the thin black, mid gray and thick light curves of figs. (2a) and (2b) respectively. The relevant parameters are given in \[eq. (IV)\].