text:
# Multichoice Minority Game: Dynamics and Global Cooperation

## I Introduction

In the past decade, there is an explosion of research interest in the study of complex adaptive system (CAS). In fact, examples of CAS are ubiquitous in our complex and complicated world. Ecosystems, nervous system, banking industry, organism and economic systems like stock markets are all examples of CAS. The study of CAS allowed us to investigate how rich, complicated pattern structure or behavior emerged from collection of relatively simple components.

So, what are the essential features of a complex adaptive system? According to Levin CAS , CAS must have three essential elements: (i) sustained diversity and individuality of components, (ii) localized interactions among those components and (iii) an autonomous process that selects from among those components, based on the results of local interactions, a subset for replication or enhancement.

In the framework of CAS, econophysicists study the collective behavior of economic system by building up simple model using statistical mechanical and nonlinear physical methods. In particular, minority game (MG) MG1 ; MG2  is a simple model of economic system composed of adaptive and inductive reasoning agents, which successfully captures the minority seeking behavior in a free market economy. This game was proposed by Challet and Zhang under the inspiration of the El Farol bar problem introduced by the theoretical economist Arthur Elf .

MG is a toy model of $`N`$ inductive reasoning players who have to choose one out of two alternatives independently in each turn by their current best working strategies or mental model. Those who end up in the minority side (that is, the choice with the least number of players) win. Although its rules are remarkably simple, MG shows a surprisingly rich self-organized collective behavior MGNu1 ; MGNu2 ; MGNu3 . To explain the dynamics of MG, Hart *et al.* introduced the so-called crowd-anticrowd theory MGCAC1 ; MGCAC2 . Their theory stated that fluctuations arisen in the MG is controlled by the interplay between crowds of like-minded agents and their perfectly anti-correlated partners.

Numerical simulation as well as the crowd-anticrowd theory MGNu1 ; MGNu2 ; MGNu3  showed that the global behavior of MG depends on three parameters: (i) the number of players $`N`$, (ii) the number of strategies $`S`$ each player has and (iii) the number of the most recent minority sides $`M`$ that a strategy depends on. Global cooperation, as indicated by the fact that average number of players winning the game each time is larger than that where all players make their choice randomly, is observed whenever $`2^{M+1}NS`$ MGNu1 ; MGNu2 ; MGNu3 . Is it true that global behavior of MG is determined once $`N`$, $`S`$ and $`M`$ are fixed? Specifically, we ask if it is possible to lock the system in a global cooperative phase for any fixed values of $`N`$, $`S`$ and $`M`$. We can do so by studying the multichoice minority game — a variant of the MG in which players have $`N_c>2`$ choices. In our previous work, we have answered the above question by building up a multichoice minority game model called MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) where $`N_c`$ is the number of player’s choice RMG . In MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$), all strategies are picked from a reduced strategy space consisting of $`N_c^2`$ mutually anti-correlated and uncorrelated strategies only. We found that it is possible to keep (almost) optimal cooperation amongst the players in almost the entire parameter space since the MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) model can be readily extended to MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) model for integer $`k[3,M+1]`$.

On the other hand, it was found that the dynamics of the MG is dominated by a period-$`22^M`$ dynamics whenever $`2^{M+1}NS`$, i. e. in the overcrowding phase MGNu2 ; MGP2D ; MGTimeS . In this phase, the strategy space size is much smaller than the number of strategies at play and thus each strategy is used by a large number of players. It is such an overcrowding effect which leads to the period-$`22^M`$ dynamics in this phase. However, will the periodic dynamics also appear in the overcrowding phase of a multichoice minority game?

In this paper, we would like to continue our previous study by investigating the global cooperation of players in the multichoice minority game model known as MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$). Besides, we also investigate the dynamics in the overcrowding phase of such multichoice minority game model. In Section II, we give a general formalism for constructing the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model. Numerical simulation results on the dynamics and also global cooperation of our model are reported and discussed in Section III. Lastly, we sum up by giving a brief conclusion in Section IV.

## II The Model

In this Section, we would like to show how to construct the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model. It is a generalized MG model where all players have $`N_c2`$ choices and they all pick strategies from the reduced strategy space $`𝕊`$ with size $`|𝕊|=N_c^k`$ for integer $`k[2,M+1]`$. (Note that a reduced strategy space is only consisted of strategies which are significantly different from each other.) Here we assume that $`N_c`$ is a prime power and we label the $`N_c`$ alternatives as the $`N_c`$ elements in the finite field $`GF(N_c)`$.

In this repeated game, there are $`N`$ heterogeneous inductive reasoning players whose aim is to maximize one’s own profit from the game. In every turn, each player has to choose one out of $`N_c`$ alternatives while direct communication with others is not allowed. The minority choice, denoted as $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ at time $`t`$, is simply the choice chosen by the least non-zero number of players in that turn. (In case of a tie, the minority choice is chosen randomly amongst the choices with the least non-zero number of players.) The players of the minority choice will gain one unit of wealth while all the other lose one. The only public information available to all players is the so-called history $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(tM),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }(t1))`$ which is the $`N_c`$-ary string of the minority choice of the last $`M`$ turns. The history can only take on $`LN_c^M`$ different states. We label these states by an index $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},L`$ and denote the history $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(tM),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }(t1))`$ by the index $`\mu (t)`$. In fact, players can only interact indirectly with each other through the history $`\mu (t)`$.

However, how does each player decide his/her own choice in the game using inductive reasoning? He/She does so by employing strategies to predict the next minority choice according to the history where a strategy is a map sending individual history $`\mu `$ to the choice $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},N_c1\}`$. We represent a strategy $`s`$ by a vector $`\stackrel{}{s}(\chi _s^1,\chi _s^2,\mathrm{},\chi _s^L)`$ where $`\chi _s^\mu `$ is the prediction of the minority choice by the strategy $`s`$ for the history $`\mu `$ as illustrated in Table 1.

In MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$), each player is assigned once and for all $`S`$ randomly drawn strategies from the reduced strategy space $`𝕊`$. At each time step, each player uses his/her own best working strategies to guess the next minority choice. But how do players decide which strategy is the best? They use the virtual score, which is the hypothetical profit for a player using a single strategy throughout the game, to evaluate the performance of a strategy. The strategy with the highest virtual score is considered as the best one.

As mentioned before, all the strategies in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) are drawn from the reduced strategy space $`𝕊`$. For $`|𝕊|=N_c^k`$ where integer $`k[2,M+1]`$, $`𝕊`$ is formed by the spanning strategies $`\stackrel{}{v}_a,\stackrel{}{v}_u^1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{v}_u^{k1}`$ as follows:

$$𝕊=\{\lambda _a\stackrel{}{v}_a+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k1}{}}\lambda _u^i\stackrel{}{v}_u^i:\lambda _a,\lambda _u^1,\mathrm{},\lambda _u^{k1}GF(N_c)\}.$$
(1)
Note that all arithmetical operations here are performed in the finite field $`GF(N_c)`$. Since $`N_c`$ is a prime power, $`𝕊`$ must be a linear space. Adapted from Ref. RMG , the spanning strategies must satisfy the following technical conditions:

$$v_{ai}0\text{ for all }i,$$
(2)
where $`v_{ai}`$ is the $`i`$th element of the vector $`\stackrel{}{v}_a`$ and by regarding $`i`$ as a uniform random variable between $`1`$ and $`L`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Pr}(v_{ui}^1=j_2|v_{ai}=j_1)=1/N_c\text{ if Pr}(v_{ai}=j_1)0\text{ for all }j_1,j_2GF(N_c),\\ \text{Pr}(v_{ui}^2=j_3|v_{ui}^1=j_2\text{ and }v_{ai}=j_1)=1/N_c\text{ if Pr}(v_{ui}^1=j_2\text{ and }v_{ai}=j_1)0\text{ for all }j_1,j_2,j_3GF(N_c),\\ \mathrm{}\\ \begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{Pr}(v_{ui}^{k1}=j_k|v_{ui}^{k2}=& j_{k1}\text{ and }\mathrm{}\text{ and }v_{ui}^1=j_2\text{ and }v_{ai}=j_1)=1/N_c\hfill \\ & \text{ if Pr}(v_{ui}^{k2}=j_{k1}\text{ and }\mathrm{}\text{ and }v_{ui}^1=j_2\text{ and }v_{ai}=j_1)0\text{ for all }j_1,\mathrm{},j_kGF(N_c).\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(3)
Under such conditions, we can show that RMG

$`d(\lambda _{a1}\stackrel{}{v}_a+\lambda _{u1}^1\stackrel{}{v}_u^1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{u1}^{k1}\stackrel{}{v}_u^{k1},\lambda _{a2}\stackrel{}{v}_a+\lambda _{u2}^1\stackrel{}{v}_u^1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{u2}^{k1}\stackrel{}{v}_u^{k1}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`d([\lambda _{a1}\lambda _{a2}]\stackrel{}{v}_a,[\lambda _{u2}^1\lambda _{u1}^1]\stackrel{}{v}_u^1+\mathrm{}+[\lambda _{u2}^{k1}\lambda _{u1}^{k1}]\stackrel{}{v}_u^k)`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\lambda _{a1}=\lambda _{a2}\text{ and }\lambda _{u1}^1=\lambda _{u2}^1\text{ and }\mathrm{}\text{ and }\lambda _{u1}^{k1}=\lambda _{u2}^{k1},\hfill \\ L\hfill & \text{if }\lambda _{a1}\lambda _{a2}\text{ and }\lambda _{u1}^1=\lambda _{u2}^1\text{ and }\mathrm{}\text{ and }\lambda _{u1}^{k1}=\lambda _{u2}^{k1},\hfill \\ L(11/N_c)\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
It is easy to show that the reduced strategy space $`𝕊`$ whose size equals $`N_c^k`$ is composed of $`N_c^{k1}`$ distinct mutually anti-correlated strategy ensembles (namely, those with same $`\lambda _u^1,\mathrm{},\lambda _u^{k1}`$); whereas the strategies of each of these ensembles are uncorrelated with each other. Indeed, the reduced strategy space $`𝕊`$ has a very beautiful structure since any two strategies randomly drawn from it are either uncorrelated or anti-correlated with each other RMG . Fig. 1 shows the structure of the reduced strategy space $`𝕊`$ of MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) for $`N_c=5`$.

## III Results

### III.1 Global cooperation of players

We would like to investigate if there is global cooperation of players in the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model. If the global cooperation does exist, we want to compare it with that of the minority game. All the results in this part are taken from 1000 independent runs. In each run, we run 10000 steps starting from initialization before making any measurements. We have checked that it is already enough for the system to attain equilibrium in all the cases reported below. Then we took the average values on 15000 steps after the equilibration.

Let us start by first studying the average attendance

$$A_i(t)\underset{T0}{lim}\frac{1}{T}\underset{t}{}A_i(t)$$
(8)
where the attendance of an alternative $`A_i(t)`$ is just the number of players chosen that alternative. Although the attendance of different alternatives are not the same, their long time averages must be equal since there is no prior bias for any alternative in this game. We observed that the average attendance $`A_i(t)`$ always converges to $`N/N_c`$ in both MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) no matter what $`S`$, $`𝕊`$ and $`M`$ are. It is similar to the case of the MG where the average attendance always converges to $`N/2`$ MG1 .

In order to evaluate the performance of players in our model, we study the mean variance of attendance over all alternatives (or simply the mean variance)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\frac{1}{N_c}\underset{iGF(N_c)}{}[(A_i(t))^2A_i(t)^2].$$
(9)
(We remark that the variance of the attendance of a single alternative was studied for the MG MG1 .) In fact, the sum of the variance of all the attendance represents the total loss of players in the game. The variance $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$, to first order approximation, is a function of the control parameter $`\alpha `$ alone MGNu2 .

Besides, we will compare the mean variance with that in the random choice game (RCG) in order to evaluate the significance of the strategies. The RCG is similar to the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model except that all the players in the RCG make their own decision simply by tossing their own coin. Indeed, we have showed that the variance is equal to $`N(N_c1)/N_c^2`$ for every alternative in the RCG MCMG .

Since the structure of the strategy space $`𝕊`$ matches the assumptions of the crowd-anticrowd theory, we expect the collective behavior of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) should follow the predictions of the theory. Based on our previous work RMG , we found that the crowd-anticrowd theory predicts

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=\frac{1}{N_c^{k1}}\underset{𝕊_\stackrel{}{\xi }}{}\underset{\gamma GF(N_c)}{}\left[\frac{1}{N_c}\underset{\eta \gamma }{}(N_{\stackrel{}{\xi },\gamma }N_{\stackrel{}{\xi },\eta })\right]^2,$$
(10)
where the mutually anti-correlated strategy ensemble $`𝕊_\stackrel{}{\xi }=\{\xi _1\stackrel{}{v}_u^1+\mathrm{}+\xi _{k1}\stackrel{}{v}_u^{k1}+\gamma \stackrel{}{v}_a:\gamma GF(N_c)\}`$ for $`\stackrel{}{\xi }=(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{k1})`$ and $`N_{\stackrel{}{\xi },\gamma }`$ is the number of players making decision according to the strategy ($`\xi _1\stackrel{}{v}_u^1+\mathrm{}+\xi _{k1}\stackrel{}{v}_u^{k1}+\gamma \stackrel{}{v}_a`$). Note that $`_{𝕊_\stackrel{}{\xi }}`$ denotes the sum of the variance over all the mutually anti-correlated strategies ensembles $`𝕊_\stackrel{}{\xi }`$. We should notice that when averaged over both time and initial choice of strategies, variance of attendance of different alternatives must be equal because there is no prior preference for any alternative in our game.

Fig. 2 displays the mean variance of attendance as a function of the control parameter $`\alpha |𝕊|/NS`$, which is the ratio of the strategy space size $`|𝕊|`$ to the number of strategies at play $`NS`$, in the MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) for some typical $`N_c`$. For MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$), the mean variance of attendance, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$, exhibits properties similar to that in the MG irrespective of $`S`$, $`𝕊`$ and $`M`$. In particular, the mean variance $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ is smaller than the so-called coin-tossed value (i. e. the corresponding value in the RCG) whenever $`\alpha 1`$. It shows that players cooperate globally in this parameter range. Moreover, the mean variance predicted by the crowd-anticrowd theory is consistent with our numerical finding as shown in Fig. 2.

In both MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$), we found that there is an indication of a second order phase transition. To check if the phase transition is second order or not, we calculate the order parameter RMG ; MGOrdP

$$\theta =\frac{1}{L}\underset{\mu }{}\left\{\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\left[p(\mathrm{\Omega }|\mu )\frac{1}{N_c}\right]^2\right\}$$
(11)
where $`p(\mathrm{\Omega }|\mu )`$ denotes the conditional time average of the probability for current minority choice $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ given that history $`\mu (t)=\mu `$. In fact, the order parameter measures the bias of player’s decision to any choice for individual history.

Fig. 3 shows that the order parameter always vanishes in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) when the control parameter $`\alpha `$ is smaller than its value corresponding to minimum variance. As a result, we confirm that the phase transition is a second order one in both MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$).

In summary, our numerical results show that both MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) model always exhibit global cooperative behavior similar to that in the original MG. Moreover, all these results agree with the prediction of the crowd-anticrowd theory. Thus it is reasonable for us to believe that the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model has global cooperative behavior which agrees with both the original MG and crowd-anticrowd theory. Therefore, we conclude that we have successfully build up the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model whenever $`N_c`$ is a prime power.

By using the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model, we can always alter the complexity of each strategy in minority game with fixed $`N`$, $`S`$ and $`M`$ while the cooperative behavior still persists. *As a result, we can always keep (almost) optimal cooperation amongst the players in almost the entire parameter space.*

### III.2 Dynamics of the game

In MG, there is periodic dynamics when $`\alpha `$ is small, i. e. in the overcrowding phase MGNu2 ; MGP2D ; MGTimeS . Thus, it is natural for us to ask whether such periodic dynamics also exists in the overcrowding phase of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$).

To investigate the dynamics in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$), we would like to look at the correlation in the times series of the attendance of an alternative. Therefore, we study both the conditional and unconditional autocorrelation functions:

$`C_0(i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_0(ti)A_0(t)A_0(ti)A_0(t)}{[A_0(t)]^2A_0(t)^2}},`$
$`C_0^\mu (i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_0^\mu (ji)𝒜_0^\mu (j)𝒜_0^\mu (ji)𝒜_0^\mu (j)}{[𝒜_0^\mu (j)]^2𝒜_0^\mu (j)^2}},`$
where $`𝒜_0^\mu (j)`$ is the attendance of the room-0 for the $`j`$th occurrence of the history $`\mu `$. Here we calculate the correlation functions for the room-0 only as the correlation should be the same for all the alternatives since there is no prior bias for any alternative in our game.

We observed that both $`C_0(i)`$ and $`C_0^\mu (i)`$ fluctuate greatly in different runs of the game with the same configuration. Such phenomenon is probably due to the incomplete exploration of the history space for particular initial configurations. Since we are only interested in studying the generic properties of the autocorrelation functions, we averaged $`C_0(i)`$ and $`C_0^\mu (i)`$ over 50 independent runs to eliminate the effect of the initial configuration. In each run, we took the average values on $`1000L`$ steps after running $`500L`$ steps for equilibrium starting from initialization.

Before moving further on, let us introduce a concept called the prediction vector. The prediction vector $`\stackrel{}{\pi }(\mu )`$ of a history $`\mu `$ is simply a vector consisted of all the predictions of the minority choice for that history given by each strategies of the (full/reduced) strategy space used in MG or MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$). Specifically, $`\stackrel{}{\pi }(\mu )(\chi _{\tau _0}^\mu ,\mathrm{},\chi _{\tau _{|𝕊|1}}^\mu )`$ in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) where $`\tau _j=(\lambda _a\stackrel{}{v}_a+\lambda _u^1\stackrel{}{v}_u^1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _u^{k1}\stackrel{}{v}_u^{k1})`$ for $`j=(\lambda _u^{k1}N_c^{k1}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _u^1N_c+\lambda _a)`$. Table 2 shows the prediction vectors in the MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) with $`M=2`$ and $`N_c=3`$ for a typical strategy space $`𝕊`$.

There is an interesting relationship between the prediction vector and the history under special circumstances. For some strategy spaces, the prediction vector of each history $`\mu (t)(\mathrm{\Omega }(tM),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }(t1))`$ in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) is uniquely determined by one of the following vectors alone: $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tM)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tM1)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tk+1)`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t)=(\mathrm{\Omega }(t),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }(t+k2))`$. For example, suppose the spanning strategies of the strategy space $`𝕊`$ are $`\stackrel{}{v}_a(1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_u^1(0,0,0,1,1,1,2,2,2)`$ in the MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) with $`M=2`$ and $`N_c=3`$. Then the prediction vector are $`(0,1,2,0,1,2,0,1,2)`$, $`(0,1,2,1,2,0,2,0,1)`$ and $`(0,1,2,2,0,1,1,2,0)`$ for histories in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t2)`$ equals $`0`$, $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively. In this case, the prediction vector of an arbitrary history $`\mu (t)`$ is uniquely determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t2)`$.

We examined the behavior of $`C_0^\mu (i)`$ in the overcrowding phase for MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) with $`2M4`$ and various strategy spaces. We noticed that $`C_0^\mu (i)`$ exhibits periodic features only in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) with $`M=2`$ no matter what strategy space $`𝕊`$ is used. Such observation indicates periodic dynamics of individual history persists in the MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$) game with $`M=2`$. For other studied games, the values of $`C_0^\mu (i>1)`$ are very small and sometimes even $`C_0^\mu (1)`$ is nearly zero. These observations suggest only the dependence between consecutive $`𝒜_0^\mu (j)`$ is non-negligible in these MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) games.

On the contrary, we observed that $`C_0^\mu (i)`$ is a period-2 function of $`i`$ in the overcrowding phase of the 2-choice MG for any history $`\mu `$. It originates from the persistence of a period-2 dynamics for every possible history in this game MGP2D . In the overcrowding phase, there is a high probability for a player to employ similar strategies since the number of strategies at play is much larger than the strategy space size. As a result, for odd occurence of each history, every player has the same probability for choosing any alternative which results in $`A_0(\text{odd }t)N/2`$. Moreover, on the even occurence of each history, every players must choose the alternative which is the minority choice of the last odd occurence of the same history and thus $`A_0(\text{even }t)`$ is either $`N/2`$ or $`N/2`$. If this periodic dynamics can persist, $`C_0^\mu (i)`$ must be a period-2 function of $`i`$ in the overcrowding phase of the 2-choice MG for any history $`\mu `$. In fact, there is a similar period-$`N_c`$ dynamics for each history of the $`N_c`$-choice MG with $`N_c>2`$ in which the full strategy space is used (see fig. 4).

We expect there is period-$`N_c`$ dynamics for every possible history in the overcrowding phase of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) due to its similarity with the MG. However, why the period-$`N_c`$ dynamics cannot always persist in our game? Such phenomenon is resulted from the “interference” of the periodic dynamics of individual history. In MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$), each prediction vector corresponds to more than one history if $`M>(k1)`$ since the prediction vector can only take on $`N_c^{k1}`$ to $`(N_c1)N_c^{k1}`$ different states for $`|𝕊|=N_c^k`$. Moreover, the virtual scores of all player’s strategies must change in the same way for those histories with the same prediction vector. As a result, the periodic dynamics of individual history must “interfere” with those corresponding to the same prediction vector and thus the periodic dynamics cannot persist. In addition, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the prediction vector and history for both the (full/reduced) strategy spaces used in MG and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) with $`M=k1`$. Consequently, the periodic dynamics of individual history always persist in these games since they no longer “interfere” with each other.

On the other hand, is it possible to have any periodic dynamics in the system of MG and MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$)? Zheng and Wang revealed that period-$`22^M`$ multi-peak structure appears in the unconditional autocorrelation function of the logarithm change of the attendance of an alternative in the 2-choice MG when $`\alpha `$ is small MGTimeS . Thus all players must have similar behavior for every $`22^M`$ time steps in such case. In other words, there is always a period-$`22^M`$ dynamics in the overcrowding phase of the 2-choice MG. Fig. 5 showed that a period-$`N_cN_c^M`$ dynamics also exists in the overcrowding phase of the $`N_c`$-choice MG for $`N_c>2`$ although it is weaker than the periodic dynamics in the 2-choice MG.

In order to study the dynamics in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$), we investigated the properties of $`C_0(i)`$ in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) and MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^3`$). Figs. 6 to 12 display $`C_0(i)`$ as a function of $`i`$ for MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) with different parameters. We found that the dynamics of the system in the overcrowding phase of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) is remarkably different from that of MG. First, $`C_0(i)`$ does not always exhibit periodic features in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) with arbitrary strategy space $`𝕊`$ which implies periodic dynamics does not always exist. Moreover, the periodicity of the periodic dynamics in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) (which is equal to the periodicity of $`C_0(i)`$ as a function of $`i`$) is independent of the length of memory $`M`$. In particular, we found that $`C_0(i)`$ is a period-$`N_c^k`$ function of $`i`$ in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) with $`N_c>2`$ and $`2k3`$ whenever the prediction vector of each history is uniquely determined by one of the following vectors alone: $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tM)`$,$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tM1)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tk+1)`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t)=(\mathrm{\Omega }(t),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }(t+k2))`$. Besides, these periodic dynamics is observed to be less and less pronounced for larger $`N_c`$ and $`\kappa `$ if the prediction vector of each history is uniquely determined by $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t\kappa )`$ where the integer $`\kappa [k1,M]`$.

To understand the dynamics in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$), let us start by considering the dynamics of the game for every possible history. As mentioned before, the virtual scores of all player’s strategies must change in the same manner for those histories with the same prediction vector and thus the dynamics of the game for these histories cannot be considered independently. We will consider the dynamics of the game for each possible effective history instead in which those histories with the same prediction vector are considered to be belonged to the same effective history. We should note that there are totally $`N_c^{k1}`$ distinct effective histories in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) if the prediction vector only takes on $`N_c^{k1}`$ different states for $`|𝕊|=N_c^k`$.

In fact, the effective history in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) is analogous to the history in the $`N_c`$-choice MG. Thus there should be a similar period-$`N_c`$ dynamics for each effective history of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) when $`\alpha `$ is small. Our numerical findings validates the existence of such periodic dynamics in MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$). However, do all effective histories have the same probability of occurence in the overcrowding phase of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$)? It is true only if the prediction vector of each history is uniquely determined by one of the following vectors alone: $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tM)`$, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tM1)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(tk+1)`$. Under such circumstances, the current effective history is determined by the corresponding past minority choice(s). In addition, each alternative must have the same probability to be the minority choice in the overcrowding phase under any history because there is no prior bias for any alternative and all alternatives can be picked by some of the players for such case. As a result, all effective histories must have the same probability of occurence for small $`\alpha `$ in these MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) games.

We revealed that there is a period-$`N_c`$ dynamics for all $`N_c^{k1}`$ effective histories in the overcrowding phase of MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) if the prediction vector only takes on $`N_c^{k1}`$ different states. Moreover, we found that all effective histories on average appear once per $`N_c^{k1}`$ time steps as they all have the same probability of occurence if the prediction vector of each history is uniquely determined by $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t\kappa )`$ where the integer $`\kappa [k1,M]`$. Besides, the probability for any transition of effective history must be the same for such case which lead to no “destructive interference” between the dynamics of individual effective history. As a results, there is period-$`N_c^k`$ dynamics in the overcrowding phase of MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) under such circumstances.

However, why the period-$`N_c^k`$ dynamics in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) becomes less significant when $`N_c`$ increases? It is because the total number of possible evolutionary path in the effective history space increases exponentially with $`N_c`$ under the period-$`N_c^k`$ dynamics. Indeed, we have found that the period-$`N_c^k`$ dynamics become more pronounced if we add bias to some of the effective history’s evolutionary path by manipulating the payoff function. On the other hand, we should note that the evolution in the effective history space depends only on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t\kappa ),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }(t1)`$ if the prediction vector of each history is uniquely determined by $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(t\kappa )`$ where the integer $`\kappa [k1,M]`$. Thus the total number of possible evolutionary path in the effective history space also increases exponentially with $`\kappa `$ and the periodic dynamics become less pronounced when $`\kappa `$ increases.

Nevertheless, we found that $`C_0(i)`$ exhibits peculiar behavior in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) with $`N_c=2`$. In particular, $`C_0(i)`$ shows a period-$`N_c^3`$ multi-peak structure whenever the prediction vector of each history is uniquely determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t2\kappa )`$ for any integer $`\kappa [1,M/2]`$. For MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$), the strategy space is $`k`$-dimensional since the strategy space is spanned by $`k`$ independent strategies (see eqn. (1)-(3)). Thus the strategy space is 2-dimensional in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) which give rise to the abnormal properties of $`C_0(i)`$. In addition, there are only 2 choices for $`N_c=2`$ which is remarkably different from those games with more than two choices. It is because if a strategy does not choose room-0, then it must choose room-1 and vice-versa for a 2-choice game. We believe the above two factors lead to the marked difference of the dynamics of the system in MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^2`$) with $`N_c=2`$ compared to other MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) games with $`N_c>2`$.

In summary, we found that the periodic dynamics only exists in the overcrowding phase for particular reduced strategy spaces in the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) game. In contrast, the periodic dynamics always appears in the overcrowding phase for the original MG where all player’s strategies are drawn from the full strategy space.

## IV Conclusion

In conclusion, we have successfully build up the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model whenever $`N_c`$ is a prime power. It is a generalized MG model where each players has $`N_c2`$ choices and all strategies are drawn from the reduced strategy space that is consisted of uncorrelated and anti-correlated strategies only. Although our MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model is not exactly same as the MG, its global cooperative behavior is similar to that of the MG no matter what $`S`$, $`𝕊`$ and $`M`$ are.

However, the dynamics of MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$) model is remarkably different from that of the MG. For the MG($`N_c`$,$`|𝕊|`$), the periodic dynamics only exists in the overcrowding phase for particular reduced strategy spaces; on the contrary, the periodic dynamics always appears in the overcrowding phase for the MG.

Indeed, we have only given explanation of the periodic dynamics in the MG($`N_c`$,$`N_c^k`$) model for some of the reduced strategy spaces in which a periodic dynamics exists. Thus it is instructive for us to find reasonable explanation for the periodic dynamics in other cases.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank K. H. Ho for his useful discussions and comments. One of the author (HFC) is supported in part by the Outstanding Young Researcher Award of the University of Hong Kong.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The unification of seemingly different particles into simplified descriptions remains an important goal in particle physics. Such unification is often attained by symmetries. For instance, unification of quarks and leptons is obtained by assuming non-Abelian gauge symmetries larger than the standard model gauge symmetry . It is also possible to unify fields with different spins if we introduce symmetries relating them. Supersymmetry is an example of such symmetries, although it seems difficult to use it to unify fields in the standard model. Another example is higher dimensional spacetime symmetry. As was shown by Kaluza and Klein, such a symmetry can be used to unify fields which have the same statistics but different spins, such as the graviton and the photon .

In this paper we construct realistic theories unifying the Higgs and gauge fields using a higher dimensional spacetime symmetry. The idea of unifying Higgs and gauge fields in higher dimensions is not new. Starting from pioneering work in the late 1970’s , renewed interest in higher dimensions has resulted in the re-examination of such a possibility . It is, however, not straightforward to construct a completely realistic theory because of the following immediate difficulties:

* It is not trivial to obtain the quartic coupling of the Higgs field, which is required to have successful electroweak symmetry breaking and sufficiently large physical Higgs boson mass.
* It is not easy to obtain Yukawa couplings, since higher dimensional gauge invariance often leads to unwanted massless fields at low energies or vanishing Yukawa couplings.
* Even if we obtain Yukawa couplings, they must have a quite different structure than that of the gauge sector to reproduce the observed quark and lepton masses and mixings. In particular, the Yukawa couplings must have different values for different generations and also intergenerational mixings.

One way of avoiding these problems is to identify the Higgs fields with scalar fields which are superpartners of the higher dimensional gauge fields. In this case, we can construct realistic theories unifying the Higgs and gauge fields without encountering the above problems . However, the problems become more severe if we want to identify the Higgs fields with extra dimensional components of the gauge fields. Although there are several proposals dealing with these problems (for instance the quartic coupling can be obtained from six dimensional gauge kinetic energies  and the Yukawa couplings from non-local operators involving Wilson lines ), a complete theory with a realistic phenomenology seems still missing. In this paper we construct a class of realistic theories in which (a part of) the Higgs fields arise from extra dimensional components of higher dimensional gauge fields, without suffering from the above three problems.

We consider higher dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories, which reduce to the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) below the compactification scale. To obtain the two Higgs doublets from extra dimensional components of the higher dimensional gauge fields, the gauge group in higher dimensions must be larger than the standard model gauge group. This larger gauge group is then broken to the standard model one by compactifying the theory on orbifolds. Such a compactification projects out some of the unwanted fields from low energy theories  and leads to special points in the extra dimensions (which we call branes) where the original gauge group is reduced to its subgroup, and on which we can introduce multiplets and interactions respecting only the reduced gauge symmetry . This structure allows us to construct theories with the desired properties. Specifically, we avoid the above three problems in the following way.

* The theory is reduced to the MSSM below the compactification scale, so that the Higgs quartic couplings arise from the $`D`$-term potential as in the usual MSSM.
* Although higher dimensional gauge invariance forbids brane-localized Yukawa couplings between the Higgs fields and quark/lepton fields, we can obtain Yukawa couplings from the higher dimensional gauge coupling if we introduce quarks and leptons in the bulk. The potentially-present unwanted massless fields can be made heavy by coupling them to fields located on branes.
* Although the Yukawa couplings arise from the higher dimensional gauge interaction, the low energy Yukawa couplings are in general different from mere gauge couplings due to the presence of the wave-function profiles for the matter fields arising from their bulk masses. Intergenerational mixing can arise from the couplings between the matter fields in the bulk and fields located on branes.

We construct a minimal theory in 5D, in which the higher dimensional gauge group is $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$. We also construct a unified version of the theory: 5D $`SU(6)`$ model. Although the group theoretical structures of these theories are similar to those of Ref. , in our theories (a part of) the Higgs fields arise from extra dimensional components of the higher dimensional gauge field, and not from scalar fields that are superpartners of the gauge field. This allows us to consider a five dimensional theory: the theory with the minimal number of extra dimensions. Extensions to higher dimensional cases are straightforward.

We here note that our mechanism for reproducing realistic Yukawa couplings is quite general and can also be applied to non-supersymmetric theories. This implies that, if we generate the quartic coupling from some other source, for instance from gauge kinetic energies by considering 6D theories, we can construct non-supersymmetric models where the Higgs fields arise from extra dimensional components of the gauge field. The construction should employ a similar gauge symmetry structure, and the values for the low-energy gauge couplings must be reproduced by brane-localized gauge couplings depending on the value for $`1/R`$ (see section 2). Such a construction could be used to consider theories in which the quadratic divergence for the Higgs doublet is cut off by the size of the compact extra dimensions, if we choose $`1/R\mathrm{TeV}`$ .

The organization of the paper is the following. In the next section we present a minimal theory with gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$. We discuss how the MSSM Yukawa structure is obtained below the compactification scale $`1/R`$. In section 3 we construct a unified theory based on 5D $`SU(6)`$. This theory yields the successful prediction of the MSSM for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ together with $`1/R10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, provided that the volume of the extra dimension is large. Conclusions and discussion are given in section 4.

## 2 Minimal Theory: 5D $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ Model

In this section we construct a minimal theory in which the MSSM Higgs doublets arise from extra dimensional components of the gauge fields. We consider a 5D supersymmetric $`SU(3)_W`$ gauge theory compactified on an $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold. This $`SU(3)_W`$ contains the standard model electroweak gauge group: $`SU(3)_WSU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. The color $`SU(3)_C`$ interaction can be introduced in a straightforward manner. In subsection 2.1 we illustrate our basic idea, using a single generation model. In subsection 2.2 we generalize it to three generations and discuss how the observed structure of quark and lepton mass matrices is obtained in our model.

### 2.1 Single generation model

We start by considering the gauge-Higgs sector of the model. The orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ is constructed by identifying the coordinate of the fifth dimension, $`y(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$, under two operations $`Z:yy`$ and $`Z^{}:y^{}y^{}`$ where $`y^{}y\pi R`$. The resulting space is a line interval $`y[0,\pi R]`$. Under these two operations, various fields can have non-trivial boundary conditions. Using 4D $`N=1`$ superfield language, in which the gauge degrees of freedom are contained in $`V(A_\mu ,\lambda )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\sigma +iA_5,\lambda ^{})`$, the boundary conditions for the 5D $`SU(3)_W`$ gauge multiplet are given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}V\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }\end{array}\right)(x^\mu ,y)=\left(\begin{array}{c}PVP^1\\ P\mathrm{\Sigma }P^1\end{array}\right)(x^\mu ,y),\left(\begin{array}{c}V\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }\end{array}\right)(x^\mu ,y^{})=\left(\begin{array}{c}P^{}VP^1\\ P^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }P^1\end{array}\right)(x^\mu ,y^{}),$$
(1)
where $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ are $`3\times 3`$ matrices acting on gauge space. We now choose $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ such that $`SU(3)_W`$ is broken down to $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and the two Higgs doublets are obtained from the 5D gauge multiplet. Specifically, we take $`P=P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$, in which case boundary conditions are given by

$$V:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(+,+)& (+,+)& (,)\\ (+,+)& (+,+)& (,)\\ & & \\ (,)& (,)& (+,+)\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Sigma }:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(,)& (,)& (+,+)\\ (,)& (,)& (+,+)\\ & & \\ (+,+)& (+,+)& (,)\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where the first and second signs represent parities under the two reflections $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$, respectively. Since only $`(+,+)`$ components have zero modes, we find that the gauge group is broken to $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ at low energies. We identify this $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ as the standard model electroweak gauge group, $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. We also find that there are two $`SU(2)_L`$ doublet zero-mode fields arising from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which we identify as the two MSSM Higgs doublets, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$. Therefore, at this stage, the low-energy matter content below the compactification scale, $`1/R`$, is the 4D $`N=1`$ $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge multiplet and the two MSSM Higgs doublets. Since the low-energy theory below $`1/R`$ is 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric, the Higgs quartic couplings arise from the $`D`$-term potential as in the usual MSSM.

We next consider the 5D gauge symmetry structure of the theory. Although the gauge symmetry is broken to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ in the low-energy 4D theory, the original 5D theory has a larger gauge symmetry. We find that this gauge symmetry is $`SU(3)_W`$ but with the gauge transformation parameters obeying the same boundary conditions as the corresponding 4D gauge fields. Specifically, the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge parameters have $`(Z,Z^{})=(+,+)`$ parities, while $`SU(3)_W/(SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y)`$ ones have $`(Z,Z^{})=(,)`$. This implies that gauge transformation parameters for $`SU(3)_W/(SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y)`$ always vanish at $`y=0`$ and $`\pi R`$, so that the gauge symmetry on these fixed points (branes) is reduced to $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$; in particular, we can introduce fields and interactions that respect only $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ on these branes . This position-dependent gauge symmetry structure is very important for constructing our theory.

What is the compactification scale $`1/R`$? If the 4D gauge couplings arose entirely from the 5D bulk gauge coupling, there would be a relation between the zero-mode gauge couplings of $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ at the scale of $`1/R`$. Denoting the $`SU(2)_L`$ coupling and the conventionally normalized hypercharge coupling as $`g_2`$ and $`g_Y`$, respectively, this relation is given by $`g_Y=\sqrt{3}g_2`$. Here, we have neglected the difference between the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$ and the compactification scale $`1/R`$, which could slightly affect the relation. Assuming the MSSM matter content below $`1/R`$, this would require $`1/R`$ to be much larger than the Planck scale for low energy data to be reproduced. However, the 4D gauge couplings can also receive contributions from brane-localized gauge kinetic terms, such as $`\delta (y)\lambda _0F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ and $`\delta (y\pi R)\lambda _\pi F_{\mu \nu }^2`$, which can have different coefficients for $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$. If the volume of the extra dimension is not large, these terms are expected to give non-negligible contributions to the 4D gauge couplings. In this case, we do not have any definite relation between $`g_2`$ and $`g_Y`$ at the scale of $`1/R`$, and consequently the value of $`1/R`$ is not constrained by the low-energy gauge couplings. Here we simply choose brane-localized terms such that low energy data for $`g_2`$ and $`g_Y`$ are reproduced, and treat $`1/R`$ as a free parameter. (The situation is quite different in the unified model given in section 3.) From now on, we normalize the generator of $`U(1)_YSU(3)_W`$ to match the conventional definition of hypercharge: $`T_Y=\mathrm{diag}(1/6,1/6,1/3)`$, (so that the Higgs doublets have hypercharges $`\pm 1/2`$).

The color $`SU(3)_C`$ interaction can be added in a straightforward way. We introduce the 5D $`SU(3)_C`$ gauge multiplet in the bulk: $`\{V_C,\mathrm{\Sigma }_C\}`$. The $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ parities are assigned as $`V_C(+,+)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_C(,)`$, giving the 4D $`N=1`$ $`SU(3)_C`$ gauge multiplet below $`1/R`$. Obviously, the Higgs doublets are singlet under $`SU(3)_C`$ as it should be. The gauge symmetry in the bulk is now $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ and that on the two branes is $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$.

Having understood the gauge-Higgs sector, we now consider matter fields. We first note that it is not trivial to write down Yukawa couplings as usual local operators. One might naively think that we can introduce quark and lepton chiral supermultiplets on a brane and couple them to the Higgs fields through brane-localized Yukawa couplings. However, it turns out that this does not work. The source of the difficulty is the gauge transformation property of the Higgs fields. Using the 4D $`N=1`$ superfield language, the gauge transformation of the 5D $`SU(3)_W`$ gauge multiplet is given by

$`e^V`$ $``$ $`e^\mathrm{\Lambda }e^Ve^\mathrm{\Lambda }^{},`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $``$ $`e^\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{2}_y)e^\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a chiral superfield containing a gauge transformation parameter $`\alpha `$ . Since the Higgs fields are identified with components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we find that they transform non-linearly under the 5D gauge transformation. This prevents us to write a Yukawa coupling to the matter fields on the brane. (In component language, $`A_5A_5+_y\alpha +\mathrm{}`$ forbids the Yukawa coupling $`\delta (y)q\overline{q}A_5`$.) Therefore, we choose to introduce quarks and leptons in the bulk, and produce Yukawa couplings from the 5D gauge interaction.

We begin with the down-type quark sector. We consider a hypermultiplet $`\{𝒟,𝒟^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ under both $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(3)_W`$, where $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒟^c`$ represent 4D $`N=1`$ chiral superfields. In our notation, a conjugated field has the opposite transformation property with the non-conjugated field, and we specify the transformation property of a hypermultiplet by that of the non-conjugated chiral superfield; for instance, $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒟^c`$ transform as $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ under $`SU(3)_C`$, respectively. We choose the boundary conditions for this hypermultiplet as follows:

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_Q^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}𝒟_D^{(,)}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3},`$ (5)
$`𝒟^c`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_Q^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}𝒟_D^{c(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3},`$ (6)
where the superscripts denote transformation properties under $`(Z,Z^{})`$, and the numbers with parentheses represent gauge quantum numbers under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ with hypercharges normalized conventionally. Since only $`(Z,Z^{})=(+,+)`$ components have zero modes, we find that there are only two zero modes, which arise from $`𝒟_Q(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$ and $`𝒟_D^c(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}`$.

What is the gauge interaction for this hypermultiplet? Using the 4D $`N=1`$ superfield language, the 5D gauge interaction is written as

$$S=d^4xdy[d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }(𝒟^{}e^V𝒟+𝒟^ce^V𝒟^c)+(d^2\theta 𝒟^c(_y\mathrm{\Sigma })𝒟+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.)].$$
(7)
At low energies, the first two terms give the usual 4D $`N=1`$ gauge interaction for the zero modes of $`𝒟_Q`$ and $`𝒟_D^c`$. On the other hand, the third (superpotential) term gives the interaction among the zero modes of $`𝒟_Q`$, $`𝒟_D^c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta y_d^{}𝒟_D^cH_d𝒟_Q+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(8)
where $`y_d^{}`$ is the coupling constant and $`H_d`$ represents the $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$ component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This has the form of the Yukawa coupling for the down-type quark. Therefore, we are tempted to identify the zero modes of $`𝒟_Q`$ and $`𝒟_D^c`$ as the MSSM quark supermultiplets $`Q`$ and $`D`$. Before making this identification, however, we have to consider the up-type quark sector, where we will learn that the actual identification must be somewhat more subtle.

For the up-type quarks, we introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{𝒰,𝒰^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟑}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ under $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(3)_W`$. The boundary conditions for this hypermultiplet are chosen as

$`𝒰`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰_T^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟑})_{1/3}𝒰_Q^{(,)}(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}𝒰_U^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3},`$ (9)
$`𝒰^c`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰_T^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})_{1/3}𝒰_Q^{c(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}𝒰_U^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}.`$ (10)
Thus, we have zero modes for $`𝒰_T(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟑})_{1/3}`$, $`𝒰_U(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}`$ and $`𝒰_Q^c(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$. As in the case of the $`\{𝒟,𝒟^c\}`$ hypermultiplet, the 5D gauge interaction reproduces, at low energies, the Yukawa couplings among these zero modes and the zero mode of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, of the form

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_u^{}𝒰_Q^cH_u𝒰_U+y_u^{\prime \prime }𝒰_Q^cH_d𝒰_T\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(11)
where $`y_u^{}`$ and $`y_u^{\prime \prime }`$ are coupling constants and $`H_u`$ represents the $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$ component of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The first term appears the up-type Yukawa coupling. However, here we encounter a few problems. First, after canonically normalizing the 4D fields, we find that $`y_u^{}`$ and $`y_d^{}`$ have the same value as the gauge coupling that would arise purely from the 5D bulk gauge coupling: $`y_u^{}=y_d^{}=g`$, where $`g`$ is expected to be similar in size with the $`SU(2)_L`$ and $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge couplings ($`y_u^{\prime \prime }`$ is also equal to $`g`$). This is grossly incompatible with observation, especially for the first generation. Second, the quark doublets, $`𝒰_Q^c`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$, appearing in the up-type and down-type Yukawa couplings are different fields, while the two must be an identical field in the MSSM. Third, we have an unwanted massless field which does not appear in the MSSM: the zero mode of $`𝒰_T(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟑})_{1/3}`$. Below we will address these issues in turn.

The first problem, $`y_u^{}=y_d^{}=g`$, can be solved by introducing bulk masses for the hypermultiplets:

$$S=d^4xdy[d^2\theta (M_u𝒰^c𝒰+M_d𝒟^c𝒟)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(12)
where $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$ are real. (In the covering space, these masses are odd under $`yy`$: they are $`M`$ for $`0<y<\pi R`$ but $`M`$ for $`\pi R<y<0`$.) With these bulk masses, wave-functions for the zero-mode fields have exponential profiles in the extra dimension. As an example, here we choose $`M_u>0`$ and $`M_d<0`$. In this case the wave-functions for the zero modes of $`𝒰_Q^c`$, $`𝒰_U`$, $`𝒟_Q`$, and $`𝒟_D^c`$ have profiles as $`\mathrm{exp}\{|M_u|y\}`$, $`\mathrm{exp}\{|M_u|(y\pi R)\}`$, $`\mathrm{exp}\{|M_d|y\}`$, and $`\mathrm{exp}\{|M_d|(y\pi R)\}`$, respectively. The zero modes for $`𝒰_Q^c`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$ are localized toward the $`y=0`$ brane, while those of $`𝒰_U`$ and $`𝒟_D^c`$ toward the $`y=\pi R`$ brane (the zero mode of $`𝒰_T`$ is localized to the $`y=\pi R`$ brane). Since the 4D “Yukawa couplings”, $`y_u^{}`$ and $`y_d^{}`$, are proportional to the overlap of the zero-mode wave-functions, they now differ from the 4D “gauge coupling”, $`g`$:

yu=πR|Mu|gsinh(πR|Mu|)|Mu|R

>

12πR|Mu|eπR|Mu|g,subscriptsuperscript𝑦𝑢𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑢𝑔𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑢superscript

>

subscript𝑀𝑢𝑅12𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑢superscript𝑒𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑢𝑔\displaystyle y^{\prime}_{u}=\frac{\pi R|M_{u}|g}{\sinh(\pi R|M_{u}|)}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle|M_{u}|R\mathrel{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}1}}{{\longrightarrow}}2\pi R|M_{u}|e^{-\pi R|M_{u}|}g, (13)
yd=πR|Md|gsinh(πR|Md|)|Md|R

>

12πR|Md|eπR|Md|g.subscriptsuperscript𝑦𝑑𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑑𝑔𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑑superscript

>

subscript𝑀𝑑𝑅12𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑑superscript𝑒𝜋𝑅subscript𝑀𝑑𝑔\displaystyle y^{\prime}_{d}=\frac{\pi R|M_{d}|g}{\sinh(\pi R|M_{d}|)}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle|M_{d}|R\mathrel{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\hbox{$>$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}1}}{{\longrightarrow}}2\pi R|M_{d}|e^{-\pi R|M_{d}|}g. (14)
Therefore, we can choose these couplings to be free parameters of the theory (the coupling $`y_d^{\prime \prime }`$ is equal to $`y_d^{}`$). An important point is that they are exponentially suppressed for large bulk masses, and this fact will be used in the next subsection for generating the hierarchy of quark and lepton masses.

We now consider the second and third problems. Regarding the third problem, the unwanted $`𝒰_T`$ field, we introduce a chiral superfield $`\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{T}}(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})_{1/3}`$ on the $`y=\pi R`$ brane, which has the opposite transformation property with $`𝒰_T`$ under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. Remember that only the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry is active on the brane, and we can introduce an arbitrary $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ representation, which does not have to be in a representation of $`SU(3)_W`$.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 This implies that $`U(1)_Y`$ charges of brane matter do not necessarily have to be quantized in units of the bulk non-Abelian gauge group. We do not address this issue of quantization of brane $`U(1)`$ charges in this paper. One possibility of obtaining the desired quantization is to consider higher dimensional theories with a larger gauge group, as discussed in Ref. . Then, by introducing a brane mass term $`\delta (y\pi R)[\kappa _T\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{T}}𝒰_T]_{\theta ^2}`$, we can make the unwanted field, $`𝒰_T`$, heavy (together with the new field, $`\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{T}}`$). The mass of these fields is naturally expected to be $`1/R`$ or higher.

The second problem can be dealt with in a similar way. We introduce a chiral superfield $`\overline{Q}(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$ on the $`y=0`$ brane, together with the superpotential term

$$S=d^4xdy\delta (y)[d^2\theta \overline{Q}(\kappa _{Q,1}𝒰_Q^c+\kappa _{Q,2}𝒟_Q)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(15)
This makes one linear combination of $`𝒰_Q^c`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$ heavy, of mass $`1/R`$ or higher, together with $`\overline{Q}`$. We define this linear combination as $`Q_H\mathrm{cos}\varphi _Q𝒰_Q^c+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _Q𝒟_Q`$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi _Q=\kappa _{Q,2}/\kappa _{Q,1}`$. Then, we find that the orthogonal combination, $`Q\mathrm{sin}\varphi _Q𝒰_Q^c+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _Q𝒟_Q`$, remains massless at low energies. We identify this field as the quark doublet of the MSSM. Therefore, we finally obtain the following field content below $`1/R`$: the 4D $`N=1`$ $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ vector supermultiplets, two Higgs chiral superfields, $`H_u(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$ and $`H_d(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$, and three quark chiral superfields, $`Q(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$, $`U𝒰_U(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{2/3}`$ and $`D𝒟_D^c(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{1/3}`$. They have usual 4D $`N=1`$ gauge interactions as well as the Yukawa couplings

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_uQUH_u+y_dQDH_d\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(16)
where $`y_u=y_u^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _Q`$ and $`y_d=y_d^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _Q`$. This is exactly the quark sector of the MSSM. Thus we find that our theory, in which the Higgs fields arise as an extra dimensional component of the 5D gauge field, reduces to the MSSM at energies below $`1/R`$, as far as the quark sector is concerned.

At this point we make one comment. Since the form of Eqs. (1314) implies $`y_u^{},y_d^{}g`$ and thus $`|y_u|,|y_d|g`$, one may worry that the top quark mass is not reproduced in our theory. However, this is not necessarily the case. First, $`g`$ is not trivially related to the observed gauge coupling values; these relations can involve unknown contributions from brane-localized gauge kinetic terms, so that $`g`$ can be larger than the weak gauge couplings. Second, the expressions for the Yukawa couplings given above apply at the scale of $`1/R`$. In fact, in the unified model given in the next section, $`1/R`$ is around the conventional unified mass scale, i.e. $`1/R10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, and $`g`$ is the unified gauge coupling, $`g0.7`$. In this case our theory requires yt

<

0.7

<

subscript𝑦𝑡0.7y_{t}\mathrel{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}0.7 at $`1/R`$, but this is not in contradiction with the observed value of the top quark mass.

The lepton sector can be worked out similarly. We first consider charged leptons. We introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{,^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ under $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(3)_W`$. The boundary conditions are chosen as

$``$ $`=`$ $`_Q^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})_{1/2}_T^{(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0_L^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}_E^{(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1,`$ (17)
$`^c`$ $`=`$ $`_Q^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})_{1/2}_T^{c(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0_L^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}_E^{c(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1.`$ (18)
The zero-mode fields arise from $`_Q(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟒})_{1/2}`$, $`_L(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$, $`_T^c(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0`$ and $`_E^c(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1`$. Introducing a bulk hypermultiplet mass $`M_e`$, which we assume to be positive for simplicity, the zero modes of $`_Q`$ and $`_L`$ ($`_T^c`$ and $`_E^c`$) are localized toward the $`y=\pi R`$ ($`y=0`$) brane. The 5D gauge interaction yields the Yukawa coupling of the form

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_e^{}_LH_d_E^c+\mathrm{}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(19)
where $`y_e^{}`$ is given as Eq. (13) with $`y_u^{}y_e^{}`$ and $`M_uM_e`$. The unwanted fields, $`_Q`$ and $`_T^c`$, can be made heavy by introducing brane-localized chiral supermultiplets, $`\overline{}_{\overline{Q}}`$ on the $`y=\pi R`$ brane and $`\overline{}_{\overline{T}}^c`$ on the $`y=0`$ brane, together with the brane superpotential terms $`\delta (y\pi R)[_Q\overline{}_{\overline{Q}}]_{\theta ^2}`$ and $`\delta (y)[_T^c\overline{}_{\overline{T}}^c]_{\theta ^2}`$. Then, if we define $`L_L`$ and $`E_E^c`$, we find that the term in Eq. (19) gives the charged-lepton Yukawa coupling in the MSSM (this identification must be slightly modified when we consider neutrino masses, see below).

Small neutrino masses are introduced as follows. To employ the conventional seesaw mechanism , we introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{𝒩,𝒩^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ under $`SU(3)_C`$ and $`SU(3)_W`$, respectively. The boundary conditions are given by

$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_T^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0𝒩_L^{(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}𝒩_H^{(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}𝒩_N^{(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0,`$ (20)
$`𝒩^c`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_T^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0𝒩_L^{c(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}𝒩_H^{c(+,+)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}𝒩_N^{c(,)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0.`$ (21)
The zero modes then arise from $`𝒩_T(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})_0`$, $`𝒩_N(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0`$, $`𝒩_L^c(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$ and $`𝒩_H^c(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$. The bulk hypermultiplet mass $`M_n`$, which we take to be negative, is introduced as before, localizing the zero modes of $`𝒩_T`$ and $`𝒩_N`$ ($`𝒩_L^c`$ and $`𝒩_H^c`$) to the $`y=0`$ ($`y=\pi R`$) brane. At low energies, the 5D gauge interaction yields

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_n^{}𝒩_NH_u𝒩_L^c+\mathrm{}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(22)
where $`y_n^{}`$ is given as Eq. (13) with $`y_u^{}y_n^{}`$ and $`M_uM_n`$.

Now we find that the situation is similar to the quark case. We consider hypermultiplets $`\{,^c\}`$ and $`\{𝒩,𝒩^c\}`$, with the boundary conditions given by Eqs. (17182021). Among the zero modes, $`_Q`$, $`_T^c`$, $`𝒩_T`$ and $`𝒩_H^c`$ fields are made heavy, of mass around $`1/R`$, by introducing appropriate brane fields and superpotentials: $`\delta (y\pi R)[_Q\overline{}_{\overline{Q}}]_{\theta ^2}`$, $`\delta (y)[_T^c\overline{}_{\overline{T}}^c]_{\theta ^2}`$, $`\delta (y)[𝒩_T\overline{𝒩}_{\overline{T}}]_{\theta ^2}`$ and $`\delta (y\pi R)[𝒩_H^c\overline{𝒩}_{\overline{H}}^c]_{\theta ^2}`$. We also introduce a brane chiral superfield $`\overline{L}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}`$ on the $`y=\pi R`$ brane, together with the superpotential

$$S=d^4xdy\delta (y\pi R)[d^2\theta \overline{L}(\kappa _{L,1}_L+\kappa _{L,2}𝒩_L^c)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(23)
This makes one linear combination of $`_L`$ and $`𝒩_L^c`$, $`L_H\mathrm{cos}\varphi _L_L+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _L𝒩_L^c`$, heavy, where $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi _L=\kappa _{L,2}/\kappa _{L,1}`$. Thus, at energies below $`1/R`$, we have three chiral superfields: $`L(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _L_L+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _L𝒩_L^c`$, $`E_E^c(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_1`$ and $`N𝒩_N(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_0`$. Introducing the brane superpotential $`\delta (y)[(\kappa _N/2)𝒩_N^2]_{\theta ^2}`$, we find that these fields have the following superpotential:

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_eLEH_d+y_nLNH_u+\frac{M_R}{2}N^2\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(24)
where $`y_e=y_e^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _L`$, $`y_n=y_n^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _L`$ and $`M_R=2\kappa _N|M_n|/(1e^{2\pi R|M_n|})`$. Since we expect $`M_R`$ to be large, $`M_RM_n1/R`$, this superpotential gives small neutrino masses through the seesaw mechanism, as well as the charged-lepton Yukawa coupling.

Finally, we comment on anomalies. Since the field content of our theory below $`1/R`$ is that of the MSSM (with right-handed neutrino), there are no 4D gauge anomalies. There could still be anomalies in 5D localized on the two branes, which are equal and opposite. However, we can always cancel these anomalies by introducing a bulk Chern-Simons term, recovering the consistency of the theory .

### 2.2 Three generation model

In this subsection, we generalize the above single generation model to a realistic three generation model. The basic idea is the same. We consider the 5D $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, with the boundary conditions for the gauge fields given as in the previous subsection. Below $`1/R`$, this yields the 4D $`N=1`$ $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ vector superfields, together with the two Higgs chiral superfields, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$, arising from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`SU(3)_W`$. The 5D gauge symmetry structure is given as before: the bulk has $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ while the branes have only $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$.

We start with the quark sector. We consider three down-type hypermultiplets, $`\{𝒟_i,𝒟_i^c\}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$, and three up-type hypermultiplets, $`\{𝒰_i,𝒰_i^c\}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟔})`$ under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$. We introduce bulk masses $`M_{u,i}`$ and $`M_{d,i}`$ for each hypermultiplet, which we choose $`M_{u,i}>0`$ and $`M_{d,i}<0`$. These hypermultiplets obey the boundary conditions as in Eqs. (56910). Among the resulting zero modes, those arising from $`𝒰_{T,i}`$ are made heavy by coupling to three brane fields $`\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{T},i}`$ on the $`y=\pi R`$ brane: $`\delta (y\pi R)[\kappa _{T,ij}\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{T},i}𝒰_{T,j}]_{\theta ^2}`$ with $`\mathrm{rank}(\kappa _{T,ij})=3`$. Below we concentrate on the rest of the zero modes, $`𝒟_{Q,i}`$, $`𝒟_{D,i}^c`$, $`𝒰_{U,i}`$ and $`𝒰_{Q,i}^c`$, and see how the observed structure of the quark mass matrices is obtained in our model.

We first consider the superpotential Yukawa terms that arise directly from the 5D gauge interaction. They are given by

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(y_{u,i}^{}𝒰_{Q,i}^c𝒰_{U,i}H_u+y_{d,i}^{}𝒟_{Q,i}𝒟_{D,i}^cH_d\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(25)
where $`y_{u,i}^{}`$ and $`y_{d,i}^{}`$ are given by Eqs. (1314) with $`(y_u^{},M_u)(y_{u,i}^{},M_{u,i})`$ and $`(y_d^{},M_d)(y_{d,i}^{},M_{d,i})`$, which we treat as free parameters of the theory. Since these interactions arise from a part of the 5D gauge interaction, they are diagonal in flavor space. The intergenerational mixing then must come from the brane-localized mass terms required to make the unwanted zero-mode fields heavy.

The brane superpotential making the unwanted zero-mode fields heavy is now given as

$$S=d^4xdy\delta (y)[d^2\theta \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\eta _{ij}𝒰_{Q,i}^c+\lambda _{ij}𝒟_{Q,i})\overline{Q}_j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(26)
where $`\overline{Q}_i(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{1/6}`$ are chiral superfields localized on the $`y=0`$ brane. This yields the superpotential mass term between the zero-mode and the brane-localized fields

$$W_M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒰_Q^c& 𝒟_Q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}M_\eta \\ \\ M_\lambda \end{array}\right)\overline{Q}.$$
(27)
Here, we have used a matrix notation: $`𝒰_Q^c`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$ ($`\overline{Q}`$) represent 3-dimensional row (column) vectors, and $`M_\eta `$ and $`M_\lambda `$ are $`3\times 3`$ matrices. We can diagonalize this mass term by rotating the fields by $`6\times 6`$ and $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrices, $`U_{6\times 6}^Q`$ and $`U_{3\times 3}^{\overline{Q}}`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒰_Q^c& 𝒟_Q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_H& Q\end{array}\right)U_{6\times 6}^Q\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_H& Q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}U_{3\times 3}^{Q(1)}& U_{3\times 3}^{Q(2)}\\ & \\ U_{3\times 3}^{Q(3)}& U_{3\times 3}^{Q(4)}\end{array}\right),\overline{Q}U_{3\times 3}^{\overline{Q}}\overline{Q}^{},$$
(28)
as

$$W_M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_H& Q\end{array}\right)U_{6\times 6}^Q\left(\begin{array}{c}M_\eta \\ \\ M_\lambda \end{array}\right)U_{3\times 3}^{\overline{Q}}\overline{Q}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_H& Q\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}M_{\mathrm{diag}}\\ \\ \mathrm{𝟎}_{3\times 3}\end{array}\right)\overline{Q}^{},$$
(29)
where $`Q_H`$ and $`Q`$ ($`\overline{Q}^{}`$) are 3-dimensional row (column) vectors and $`M_{\mathrm{diag}}`$ is a diagonal $`3\times 3`$ matrix. Therefore, assuming $`\mathrm{rank}(M_{\mathrm{diag}})=3`$, we find that three linear combinations, $`Q_H`$’s, of $`𝒰_{Q,i}^c`$ and $`𝒟_{Q,i}`$ become heavy together with the brane fields $`\overline{Q}_i`$, and only the other three linear combinations, $`Q`$’s, remain massless below $`1/R`$. We identify these modes as the quark-doublet superfields of the MSSM and work out the resulting structure for the Yukawa couplings.

The $`SU(2)_L`$-singlet quark superfields of the MSSM are identified as $`U_i𝒰_{U,i}`$ and $`D_i𝒟_{D,i}^c`$. Then, we find from Eq. (25) that the low-energy 4D Yukawa couplings are given by

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(QU_{3\times 3}^{Q(3)}Y_u^{}UH_u+QU_{3\times 3}^{Q(4)}Y_d^{}DH_d\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(30)
where we have used a matrix notation: $`U`$ and $`D`$ represent 3-dimensional column vectors, $`Y_u^{}\mathrm{diag}(y_{u,1}^{},y_{u,2}^{},y_{u,3}^{})`$, and $`Y_d^{}\mathrm{diag}(y_{d,1}^{},y_{d,2}^{},y_{d,3}^{})`$. We thus find that the MSSM Yukawa matrices, $`Y_u`$ and $`Y_d`$, are given by

$`Y_u`$ $`=`$ $`U_{3\times 3}^{Q(3)}Y_u^{},`$ (31)
$`Y_d`$ $`=`$ $`U_{3\times 3}^{Q(4)}Y_d^{},`$ (32)
in our theory (these Yukawa matrices should be viewed as the running couplings at the scale of $`1/R`$). This structure is sufficiently general to accommodate the observed quark masses and mixings. The quark masses are obtained by diagonalizing the Yukawa matrices as

$`V_{uL}^{}U_{3\times 3}^{Q(3)}Y_u^{}H_uV_{uR}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t),`$ (33)
$`V_{dL}^{}U_{3\times 3}^{Q(4)}Y_d^{}H_dV_{dR}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_d,m_s,m_b),`$ (34)
where $`V_{uL}`$, $`V_{uR}`$, $`V_{dL}`$, and $`V_{dR}`$ are unitary matrices. The CKM matrix is then given by

$$V_{\mathrm{CKM}}=V_{uL}^{}V_{dL}.$$
(35)
It is interesting to note that the elements in the matrices $`Y_u^{}`$ and $`Y_d^{}`$ have exponential sensitivity to the bulk masses of matter hypermultiplets and could naturally be the source of hierarchies for the quark masses. Note that the bulk hypermultiplet masses have also been used to generate fermion mass hierarchies in different contexts .

The lepton sector works quite similarly. We introduce three charged-lepton hypermultiplets, $`\{_i,_i^c\}`$, transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏𝟎})`$ under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$, and three neutrino hypermultiplets, $`\{𝒩_i,𝒩_i^c\}`$, transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟖})`$ under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$. The boundary conditions are given by Eqs. (17182021), and we introduce bulk masses $`M_{e,i}`$ and $`M_{n,i}`$. All the unwanted massless fields are made heavy by introducing appropriate brane fields and brane superpotentials, leaving only three sets of lepton-doublet chiral superfields, $`L_i`$, charged-lepton chiral superfields, $`E_i`$, and right-handed neutrino chiral superfields, $`N_i`$, below $`1/R`$. Introducing brane-localized Majorana mass terms for $`N_i`$’s, we obtain the superpotential in Eq. (24), but now $`y_e`$, $`y_n`$ and $`M_R`$ are all $`3\times 3`$ matrices. The Yukawa matrices, $`y_e`$ and $`y_n`$, take similar forms to those of quarks, Eqs. (3132), while the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix, $`M_R`$, has the most general structure.

## 3 Unified Theory: 5D $`SU(6)`$ Model

In this section we construct a unified version of the previous theory. The basic idea is the same. We consider a 5D supersymmetric gauge theory on $`S^1/Z_2`$, with non-trivial boundary conditions breaking the unified gauge symmetry. The low-energy theory below $`1/R`$ is a 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ (times an extra $`U(1)`$). The MSSM Higgs doublets arise from an extra dimensional component of the gauge field, i.e. the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field. Matter fields are introduced in the bulk, while the Yukawa couplings arise from the 5D gauge interaction. The various Yukawa couplings are controlled by bulk masses for the matter hypermultiplets, and the unwanted zero modes are all made heavy by introducing appropriate brane superfields and superpotentials. Unlike the previous $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ theory, however, this unified theory gives the correct normalization for hypercharges: the $`SU(5)`$ relation for the three MSSM gauge couplings. Therefore, assuming a large volume for the extra dimension, we recover the successful prediction of the MSSM for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$. The compactification scale is then given by the conventional unification scale, $`1/R10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, at the leading order.

We first describe the gauge-Higgs sector of the theory. We consider a 5D supersymmetric $`SU(6)`$ gauge theory on $`S^1/Z_2`$. The boundary conditions for the 5D $`SU(6)`$ gauge multiplet is given as in Eq. (1) but with $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ being $`6\times 6`$ matrices. To break $`SU(6)`$ down to the standard model gauge group (with an extra $`U(1)_X`$ gauge group), we choose $`P=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,11)`$ and $`P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1,1,1)`$. Specifically, the boundary conditions for the 5D gauge multiplet are written as

$`V:\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}(+,+)& (+,+)& (+,)& (+,)& (+,)& (,)\\ (+,+)& (+,+)& (+,)& (+,)& (+,)& (,)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (+,)& (+,)& (+,+)& (+,+)& (+,+)& (,+)\\ (+,)& (+,)& (+,+)& (+,+)& (+,+)& (,+)\\ (+,)& (+,)& (+,+)& (+,+)& (+,+)& (,+)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (,)& (,)& (,+)& (,+)& (,+)& (+,+)\end{array}\right),`$ (42)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }:\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}(,)& (,)& (,+)& (,+)& (,+)& (+,+)\\ (,)& (,)& (,+)& (,+)& (,+)& (+,+)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (,+)& (,+)& (,)& (,)& (,)& (+,)\\ (,+)& (,+)& (,)& (,)& (,)& (+,)\\ (,+)& (,+)& (,)& (,)& (,)& (+,)\\ & & \multicolumn{-1}{c}{}& & & \\ (+,+)& (+,+)& (+,)& (+,)& (+,)& (,)\end{array}\right),`$ (49)
where the first and second signs represent parities under the two reflections $`Z:yy`$ and $`Z^{}:y^{}y^{}`$, respectively. Since only $`(+,+)`$ components have zero modes, we find from Eq. (42) that the 4D gauge symmetry below $`1/R`$ is $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$. Here we take $`U(1)_Y`$ as a $`U(1)`$ generator contained in the upper-left $`5\times 5`$ block of the original $`6\times 6`$ matrix. This implies that the upper-left $`5\times 5`$ block is the conventional Georgi-Glashow $`SU(5)`$, and the standard model gauge group is embedded in it. Therefore, if the three MSSM gauge couplings arise entirely from the 5D bulk gauge coupling, we obtain the standard $`SU(5)`$ relation for them at the scale of $`1/R`$: $`g_3=g_2=(5/3)^{1/2}g_Y`$.

Now we consider gauge coupling unification in our theory in more detail. As we have discussed above, the 5D bulk gauge coupling, $`_5=(1/g^2)F_{MN}^2`$, gives the $`SU(5)`$ relation for the MSSM gauge couplings. In general, however, the zero-mode gauge couplings also receive contributions from the brane-localized gauge kinetic operators, $`\delta (y)\lambda _0F_{\mu \nu }^2`$ and $`\delta (y\pi R)\lambda _\pi F_{\mu \nu }^2`$, which do not necessarily have to respect the $`SU(5)`$ relation (in our case, the operator at $`y=\pi R`$ does not respect it). Specifically, the zero-mode gauge couplings, $`g_0`$, are given by $`1/g_0^2=\pi R/g^2+\lambda _0+\lambda _\pi `$, and thus are not exactly $`SU(5)`$ symmetric. Nevertheless, if the volume of the extra dimension is large compared with the cutoff scale of the theory, we expect that the zero-mode couplings are dominated by the bulk contribution, and the $`SU(5)`$ relation is recovered . In particular, if we assume that the theory is strongly coupled at the cutoff scale, $`M_{}`$, we can reliably estimate the size of various couplings using the naive dimensional analysis: $`1/g^2M_{}/16\pi ^3`$ and $`\lambda _0\lambda _\pi 1/16\pi ^2`$, providing a reliable and predictive framework for gauge coupling unification in higher dimensions . In our case, this leads to the standard $`SU(5)`$ relation for the gauge couplings, $`g_3=g_2=(5/3)^{1/2}g_Y`$, at the compactification scale, neglecting corrections from the logarithmic running of the gauge couplings between $`M_{}`$ and $`1/R`$. This determines the compactification scale to be around the conventional unification scale $`1/R10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, at the leading order in the large logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}(M_ZR)`$.

How about the Higgs fields? From the boundary conditions for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ fields, Eq. (49), we find that the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ field yields zero modes transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,6)}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,6)}`$ under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ (here we have arbitrarily normalized the $`U(1)_X`$ charges). We identify these fields as the two Higgs doublets of the MSSM: $`H_u\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,6)}`$ and $`H_d\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,6)}`$. Since the theory is 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric below $`1/R`$, the Higgs quartic couplings arise from the $`D`$-term gauge potential.

Let us now discuss matter fields. The basic construction of the theory is quite similar to the previous $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ theory. For simplicity, here we discuss the structure of the $`SU(6)`$ theory for a single generation model, but the generalization to three generations is quite straightforward: we just have to introduce three copies of bulk and brane fields with general intergenerational mixings for the brane superpotentials.

We begin with the down-type quark. We introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{𝒟,𝒟^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ of $`SU(6)`$. We choose the boundary conditions for this hypermultiplet as

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_Q^{(+,+)}𝒟_U^{(+,)}𝒟_E^{(+,)}𝒟_{\overline{D}}^{(,)}𝒟_{\overline{L}}^{(,+)},`$ (50)
$`𝒟^c`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_{\overline{Q}}^{c(,)}𝒟_{\overline{U}}^{c(,+)}𝒟_{\overline{E}}^{c(,+)}𝒟_D^{c(+,+)}𝒟_L^{c(+,)},`$ (51)
where the superscripts denote transformation properties under $`(Z,Z^{})`$, and the subscripts represent the transformation properties of the component fields under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ as $`Q:(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/6,2)}`$, $`U:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(2/3,2)}`$, $`D:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1/3,4)}`$, $`L:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,4)}`$, $`E:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1,2)}`$, $`\overline{Q}:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/6,2)}`$, $`\overline{U}:(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(2/3,2)}`$, $`\overline{D}:(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1/3,4)}`$, $`\overline{L}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,4)}`$, and $`\overline{E}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1,2)}`$. We then find that zero modes arise only from $`𝒟_Q`$ and $`𝒟_D^c`$, which have the correct quantum numbers for the MSSM quark doublet, $`Q`$, and the down-type quark singlet, $`D`$, under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$.

For the up-type quark, we introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{𝒰,𝒰^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ of $`SU(6)`$. The boundary conditions are chosen as

$`𝒰`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰_Q^{}^{(+,+)}𝒰_U^{}^{(+,)}𝒰_E^{}^{(+,)}𝒰_{\overline{Q}^{}}^{(,+)}𝒰_{\overline{U}^{}}^{(,)}𝒰_{\overline{E}^{}}^{(,)}`$ (52)
$`𝒰^c`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰_{\overline{Q}^{}}^{c(,)}𝒰_{\overline{U}^{}}^{c(,+)}𝒰_{\overline{E}^{}}^{c(,+)}𝒰_Q^{}^{c(+,)}𝒰_U^{}^{c(+,+)}𝒰_E^{}^{c(+,+)},`$ (53)
where the subscripts represent the transformation properties under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ as $`Q^{}:(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/6,3)}`$, $`U^{}:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(2/3,3)}`$, $`E^{}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1,3)}`$, $`\overline{Q}^{}:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/6,3)}`$, $`\overline{U}^{}:(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(2/3,3)}`$, and $`\overline{E}^{}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1,3)}`$. We find that zero modes arise from $`𝒰_Q^{}`$, $`𝒰_U^{}^c`$ and $`𝒰_E^{}^c`$, of which the first two have the correct $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ quantum numbers for the MSSM quark doublet, $`Q`$, and the up-type quark singlet, $`U`$.

As in the model in the previous section, we introduce bulk masses for the hypermultiplets, $`M_u`$ and $`M_d`$, which we here take $`M_u<0`$ and $`M_d<0`$. Then, we find that the zero modes for $`𝒰_Q^{}`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$ ($`𝒰_U^{}^c`$, $`𝒰_E^{}^c`$ and $`𝒟_D^c`$) are localized toward the $`y=0`$ ($`y=\pi R`$) brane. The 5D $`SU(6)`$ gauge interaction yields the superpotential Yukawa interaction

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_u^{}𝒰_Q^{}𝒰_U^{}^cH_u+y_d^{}𝒟_Q𝒟_D^cH_d+\mathrm{}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(54)
where $`y_u^{}`$ and $`y_d^{}`$ are given by Eqs. (1314). These are still not the quark Yukawa couplings of the MSSM, since the “quark doublets”, $`𝒰_Q^{}`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$, are different fields while they must be an identical field in the MSSM.

To reproduce the MSSM Yukawa couplings, we have to introduce brane-localized superfields and superpotentials at $`y=0`$. Since this brane possesses $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$, these fields and interactions must respect $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$. Defining $`T_𝒟𝒟_Q𝒟_U𝒟_E`$ and $`T_𝒰𝒰_Q^{}𝒰_U^{}𝒰_E^{}`$, which transform as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3`$ under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$ respectively, the required superpotential terms are written as

$$S=d^4xdy\delta (y)[d^2\theta \{\overline{T}(\kappa _{T,1}T_𝒰+\kappa _{T,2}\overline{X}T_𝒟)+Y(X\overline{X}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)\}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(55)
Here, $`\overline{T}`$, $`X`$, $`\overline{X}`$, and $`Y`$ are brane-localized chiral superfields transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_3^{}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_5`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_5`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_0`$ under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$, respectively; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a mass scale which we assume to be $`1/R`$. This superpotential gives vacuum expectation values for the $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$ fields, $`X=\overline{X}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, breaking the $`U(1)_X`$ gauge symmetry. As a consequence, the mixing between $`T_𝒰`$ and $`T_𝒟`$ occurs. In particular, one linear combination of $`𝒰_Q^{}`$ and $`𝒟_Q`$, $`Q_H\mathrm{cos}\varphi _Q𝒰_Q^{}+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _Q𝒟_Q`$, becomes massive together with the $`(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/6,3)}`$ component of $`\overline{T}`$; here $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi _Q=\kappa _{T,2}\overline{X}/\kappa _{T,1}`$. Therefore, at low energies, we have three quark chiral superfields, $`Q\mathrm{sin}\varphi _Q𝒰_Q^{}+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _Q𝒟_Q`$, $`U𝒰_U^{}^c`$ and $`D𝒟_D^c`$, which we identify as the MSSM quark superfields. The low-energy Yukawa couplings are given by

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_uQUH_u+y_dQDH_d\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(56)
where $`y_u=y_u^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _Q`$ and $`y_d=y_d^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _Q`$. The unwanted zero mode from $`𝒰_E^{}^c`$ is made heavy by introducing a brane-localized field $`\overline{C}`$ at $`y=\pi R`$, transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟒}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_3`$ under the brane gauge group $`SU(4)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$, and the superpotential $`\delta (y\pi R)[\overline{C}C_𝒰]_{\theta ^2}`$, where $`C_𝒰𝒰_{\overline{U}^{}}^c𝒰_E^{}^c`$. We thus recover the quark sector of the MSSM below the scale of $`1/R\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The lepton sector can be worked out similarly. For the charged lepton, we introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{,^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ of $`SU(6)`$. The boundary conditions are chosen as

$``$ $`=`$ $`_Q^{(+,)}_U^{(+,+)}_E^{(+,+)}_{\overline{D}}^{(,+)}_{\overline{L}}^{(,)},`$ (57)
$`^c`$ $`=`$ $`_{\overline{Q}}^{c(,+)}_{\overline{U}}^{c(,)}_{\overline{E}}^{c(,)}_D^{c(+,)}_L^{c(+,+)}.`$ (58)
The zero modes arise from $`_U`$, $`_E`$ and $`_L^c`$, of which the last two have the correct quantum numbers for the MSSM charged lepton, $`E`$, and the lepton doublet, $`L`$, under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$. We also introduce a hypermultiplet $`\{𝒩,𝒩^c\}`$ transforming as $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of $`SU(6)`$, with the following boundary conditions:

$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_{\overline{D}^{}}^{(,+)}𝒩_{\overline{L}^{}}^{(,)}𝒩_N^{(+,+)},`$ (59)
$`𝒩^c`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩_D^{}^{c(+,)}𝒩_L^{}^{c(+,+)}𝒩_{\overline{N}}^{c(,)},`$ (60)
where the subscripts represent the transformation properties under $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ as $`D^{}:(\mathrm{𝟑}^{},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1/3,1)}`$, $`L^{}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,1)}`$, $`N:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(0,5)}`$, $`\overline{D}^{}:(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(1/3,1)}`$, $`\overline{L}^{}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,1)}`$, and $`\overline{N}:(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(0,5)}`$. This gives the zero-mode fields from $`𝒩_N`$ and $`𝒩_L^{}^c`$. Introducing bulk hypermultiplet masses with $`M_e,M_n>0`$, the zero-mode fields $`_U`$, $`_E`$ and $`𝒩_N`$ ($`_L^c`$ and $`𝒩_L^{}^c`$) are localized toward the $`y=\pi R`$ ($`y=0`$) brane. The 5D $`SU(6)`$ gauge interaction then leads to the superpotential couplings

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_e^{}_L^c_EH_d+y_n^{}𝒩_L^{}^c𝒩_NH_u\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(61)
where $`y_e^{}`$ ($`y_n^{}`$) is given by Eq. (13) with $`y_u^{}y_e^{}`$ and $`M_uM_e`$ ($`y_u^{}y_n^{}`$ and $`M_uM_n`$).

The brane interactions are given as follows. We first introduce a brane field $`\overline{A}`$ at $`y=\pi R`$, transforming as $`(\mathrm{𝟔},\mathrm{𝟏})_2`$ under the brane gauge group $`SU(4)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)`$, and the superpotential $`\delta (y\pi R)[\overline{A}A_{}]_{\theta ^2}`$, where $`A_{}_U_{\overline{D}}`$. This makes an unwanted zero-mode field from $`_U`$ heavy together with the $`(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})_{(2/3,2)}`$ component of $`\overline{A}`$. We next define $`F_^c_D^c_L^c`$ and $`F_{𝒩^c}𝒩_D^{}^c𝒩_L^{}^c`$, which transform as $`\mathrm{𝟓}_4^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟓}_1^{}`$ under $`SU(5)\times U(1)_X`$, respectively. Introducing a brane-localized field $`\overline{F}`$ at $`y=0`$, which transforms as $`\mathrm{𝟓}_4`$, we write the brane superpotential terms

$$S=d^4xdy\delta (y)[d^2\theta \overline{F}(\kappa _{F,1}F_^c+\kappa _{F,2}XF_{𝒩^c})+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(62)
Then a linear combination of $`_L^c`$ and $`𝒩_L^{}^c`$, $`L_H\mathrm{cos}\varphi _L_L^c+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _L𝒩_L^{}^c`$, becomes massive together with the $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})_{(1/2,4)}`$ component of $`\overline{F}`$; here $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi _L=\kappa _{F,2}X/\kappa _{F,1}`$. Thus, at low energies, we have three lepton chiral superfields, $`L\mathrm{sin}\varphi _L_L^c+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _L𝒩_L^{}^c`$, $`E_E`$ and $`N𝒩_N`$, which we identify as the MSSM lepton superfields and the right-handed neutrino superfield. The Yukawa couplings for them are given by

$$S=d^4xd^2\theta \left(y_eLEH_d+y_nLNH_u\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(63)
where $`y_e=y_e^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _L`$ and $`y_n=y_n^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _L`$.

In the present scenario, there are two possibilities for obtaining small neutrino masses. In the case where $`M_n`$ is sizable, it is difficult to implement the conventional high-scale seesaw mechanism because the wave-function for the right-handed neutrino is exponentially suppressed at the $`y=0`$ brane where $`U(1)_X`$ is broken. In this case, however, we can consider an alternative way of obtaining small neutrino masses. We simply assume that the bulk mass $`M_n`$ is somewhat larger compared with the other bulk masses ($`M_n1/R`$). The neutrino Yukawa coupling, $`y_n`$, is then exponentially suppressed, $`y_n\mathrm{exp}(\pi R|M_n|)`$, and we naturally obtain a small Dirac neutrino mass. Together with the quark sector, we find that the theory below $`1/R`$ reduces to the MSSM with the right-handed neutrino, where small Dirac neutrino masses are obtained by tiny neutrino Yukawa couplings. The second possibility is that $`M_n`$ is small compared with the compactification scale (Mn

<

1/R

<

subscript𝑀𝑛1𝑅M_{n}\mathrel{\lower 2.5pt\vbox{\hbox{$<$}\hbox{$\sim$}}}1/R). This is possible because there is no direct experimental constraint for the neutrino Yukawa couplings so that their size can be similar to that of the gauge couplings. Since the wave-function for the right-handed neutrino is nearly flat in this case, we can give a large Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrino by introducing the superpotential term $`\delta (y)[X^2𝒩_N^2]_{\theta ^2}`$, leading to a small Majorana neutrino mass for the observed left-handed neutrino through the seesaw mechanism. Therefore, the theory below $`1/R`$ is the MSSM with small neutrino masses arising from the conventional seesaw mechanism. It is also interesting to point out that the resulting light neutrino masses are not expected to exhibit a strong hierarchy due to the irrelevance of the bulk mass parameters that could potentially generate it.

Finally, we comment on the $`R`$ symmetry structure of the theory. As stressed in Refs. , higher dimensional theories naturally possess a special $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry which forbids dangerous dimension four and five proton decay operators. The $`U(1)_R`$ charges are given such that the gauge and Higgs fields, $`V`$ and $`H`$, have vanishing charges while the matter fields, $`M`$, have charges of $`+1`$. In our theory, this $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry arises simply as a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(2)_R`$ automorphism group of the 5D supersymmetry algebra. The explicit $`U(1)_R`$ charge assignment is given in Table 1. Requiring the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry for the entire theory, dangerous dimension four and five proton decay operators are completely forbidden. After 4D $`N=1`$ supersymmetry is broken, this $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry will be broken, presumably to the $`Z_2`$ $`R`$-parity subgroup. Since the breaking scale is small, however, it does not reintroduce the problem of proton decay.

## 4 Conclusions and Discussion

We have considered the unification of the Higgs and gauge fields in higher dimensions: the Higgs fields arise from extra dimensional components of higher dimensional gauge fields. To incorporate the Higgs doublets in an adjoint representation, the original higher dimensional gauge group must be larger than the standard model gauge group. This larger gauge symmetry is then broken to the standard model one at low energies by orbifold compactifications. Previous work along this direction had encountered several difficulties. In particular, it is generically difficult to obtain both a sufficiently large quartic coupling for the Higgs fields and a realistic structure for the Yukawa couplings, due to higher dimensional gauge invariance which acts non-linearly on the Higgs fields.

In this paper we have constructed realistic theories in which (a part of) the Higgs fields are identified with extra dimensional components of the gauge field. There are two ways to obtain the quartic coupling in the low-energy Higgs potential: from 6D gauge kinetic energies and from supersymmetric $`D`$-term potential. In this paper we have adopted the latter, which allows us to consider 5D theories. We have constructed both a minimal version (5D $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_W`$ model) and a unified version (5D $`SU(6)`$ model) of the theory. While there is no prediction for the observed gauge couplings and the value of $`1/R`$ in the minimal theory, the unified theory gives the successful MSSM prediction for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$ and $`1/R10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}`$, if the volume of the extra dimension is taken to be large.

The Yukawa couplings are generated from the higher dimensional gauge interaction by introducing matter fields in the bulk. Working out the boundary conditions carefully, we obtain all the MSSM Yukawa couplings at low energies. Although they arise from higher dimensional gauge interactions, the sizes of these Yukawa couplings can be different from the 4D gauge couplings due to the suppression factors coming from wave-function profiles of the matter zero modes determined by bulk mass parameters. Unwanted massless fields are all made heavy by introducing appropriate matter and superpotentials on branes. This bulk-brane mixing is also the source of intergenerational mixings in the low-energy Yukawa matrices. Small neutrino masses are accommodated in the theory either through the conventional seesaw mechanism or through small Dirac neutrino Yukawa couplings arising from exponential wave-function suppressions. It is remarkable that we can obtain a completely realistic Yukawa structure with bulk matter fields without conflicting with higher dimensional gauge invariance; if we put matter on a brane, as is often considered in literature, higher dimensional gauge invariance forbids local Yukawa couplings on a brane.

Below the compactification scale, our theory is reduced almost to the MSSM. We have, however, not specified how we obtain the supersymmetric mass term ($`\mu `$ term) of the Higgs doublets. There are a number of ways to generate the $`\mu `$ term supersymmetrically; for example, we can introduce additional bulk fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ coupled to the Higgs fields and generate a term connecting $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ by integrating out some of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ fields, inducing the $`\mu `$ term by giving the remaining $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ fields vacuum expectation values. However, these are generically quite complicated and not satisfactory. A more interesting possibility is that the $`\mu `$ term arises through supersymmetry breaking. Here we present two simple cases where the $`\mu `$ term is generated naturally. First, we observe that the 4D Kähler potential of the theory contains the term $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }^2]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}[H_uH_d]_{\theta ^2\overline{\theta }^2}`$, which consists of the 5D gauge kinetic term. After supersymmetry is broken, this term leads to a $`\mu `$ term of the order of the gravitino mass $`m_{3/2}`$, through supergravity effects . \[This is due to the fact that the supergravity theory has the symmetry $`(K,W)(Kf,We^{f/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2})`$, where $`K`$ and $`W`$ are the Kähler and superpotentials. Thus, the above term can be transferred to the superpotential as $`We^{H_uH_d/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}`$. Considering $`Wm_{3/2}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2`$ to cancel the cosmological constant, we find that the $`\mu `$ term, $`Wm_{3/2}H_uH_d`$, is generated.\] Therefore, if the gravitino mass is of order the weak scale, as in the supergravity mediation scenario, we naturally obtain the correct size of the $`\mu `$ term. Another scenario where the $`\mu `$ term arises naturally is one in which supersymmetry is broken by boundary conditions imposed on the extra dimension  (or by the $`F`$-term expectation value for the radion superfield ). In this case the gaugino masses arise from the twisting of boundary conditions by $`U(1)SU(2)_R`$ under the orbifold translation $`yy+2\pi R`$. In our theories, however, the Higgsinos are “gauginos” in higher dimensions, so that the Higgsino mass (i.e. $`\mu `$ term) is also generated by this twisting. We also find that the resulting squark and slepton masses are universal, regardless of the presence of the bulk hypermultiplet masses and brane-bulk mixings. Therefore, this scenario can lead to a realistic phenomenology at low energies. In particular, in the case where contributions from brane-localized kinetic operators are negligible, we obtain the prediction $`m_{1/2}\stackrel{~}{m}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{l}}^2=\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$, $`m_{h_u,h_d}^2=\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$, $`\mu =\stackrel{~}{m}`$, $`B=0`$ and $`A=\stackrel{~}{m}`$ at the compactification scale $`1/R`$, where $`m_{1/2}`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{l}}`$, $`m_{h_u,h_d}`$, $`\mu B`$, and $`A`$ are the universal gaugino mass, the universal squark and slepton mass, the Higgs soft mass, the holomorphic supersymmetry-breaking mass for the Higgs doublets, and the trilinear scalar coupling, respectively. Incidentally, the supersymmetric $`CP`$ problem is absent in this scenario, since all supersymmetry breaking parameters can be made real at the compactification scale.

While we have not used the higher dimensional origin of the Higgs to regulate the quadratic divergence of the Higgs boson (it is still regulated by supersymmetry), we think that understanding the origin of the Higgs fields constitutes a significant advance in terms of the unification program. In particular, in our $`SU(6)`$ unified model, all the MSSM gauge fields and the Higgs doublets are unified into a single 5D gauge multiplet; both gauge symmetry breaking and extraction of the Higgs fields are attained by boundary conditions imposed on a single extra dimension. In our framework, the original higher dimensional theory contains only the gauge multiplet and chiral matter fields, and the Higgs fields arise from the gauge multiplet. This sheds light on the famous question: why we have light vector-like Higgs doublets in the MSSM despite the absence of a symmetry protecting their mass? Our answer is: because they are gauge fields. Higher dimensional gauge invariance forbids a mass term for the Higgs fields, and once forbidden it is not generated due to the supersymmetric non-renormalization theorem. The required $`\mu `$ term of the order of the weak scale will be generated through compactification and, possibly, supersymmetry breaking effects. It will be interesting to further explore phenomenological consequences of the models, especially related to the supersymmetry breaking mechanisms discussed in the previous paragraph.

Note added:

While preparing this manuscript, we received Ref.  which considers the Higgs field arising from extra dimensional components of gauge fields in a different context.

## Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. Y.N. thanks the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science for financial support.