format: text

text:
# Scalar chiral ground states of spin ladders with four-spin exchanges

## I Introduction

Recently, four-spin exchange interactions have been attracting interest in spin ladder models and spin-orbital models, because these interactions in fact appear in many systemsKugelK ; RogerHD ; Brehmer ; Matsuda ; Schmidt ; Nunner ; HondaKW ; Coldea  and can induce exotic ground states.NersesyanT ; KolezhukM ; Pati ; YamashitaSU2 ; Azaria ; Azaria2 ; Itoi ; HikiharaMH ; LauchliST  Various types of four-spin interactions appear associated with diverse mechanisms, e.g., cyclic-exchange processes,Takahashi ; SchmidtT ; RogerBBCG  Coulomb repulsion between doubly degenerate orbitals,KugelK  and spin-phonon couplings. Though two-leg antiferromagnetic Heisenberg spin ladders show a rung-singlet ground state and have an energy gap between the ground state and excitations,DagottoR  it was revealed that four-spin exchanges can induce a gapped staggered dimer (or spin-Peierls) phaseNersesyanT ; KolezhukM ; Pati  and a gapless phasePati ; YamashitaSU2 ; Azaria ; Azaria2 ; Itoi  around the SU(4)-symmetric point and that a gapped phase with a dominant vector chirality correlation also appears.HikiharaMH ; LauchliST

Very recently, Läuchli, Schmid, and TroyerLauchliST  numerically found a new scalar chiral phase in the two-leg spin-1/2 ladder with four-spin cyclic exchange. Scalar chiral states, in which both the time-reversal and parity symmetries are broken, had been discussed in the context of anyon superconductivityanyon ; anyon2  and the anomalous Hall effect,AHE ; AHE2  but realization of scalar chiral order in SU(2)-symmetric systems had been difficult and a challenging problem. A scalar chiral order due to the four-spin cyclic exchange was first proposed on the triangular lattice for magnetism of solid 3He films,KuboM ; MomoiKN  though finite-size system analysis could not find evidence for such ordering, instead showing spin-liquid ground states.Misguich1 ; Misguich2  Study of spin ladders with four-spin exchanges is expected to clarify the possibility of exotic magnetism induced by the four-spin interactions.

In this paper, we study the two-leg spin-1/2 ladder with four-spin exchanges, whose Hamiltonian is given in the next subsection, and give a rigorous example of a scalar chiral ground state. In our analysis, the spin-chirality duality transformation we introduced in Ref. HikiharaMH,  plays an important role. A new class of models that have an exact ground state with scalar chiral order are constructed by the means of matrix-product ansatz. The scalar chiral phase has the following nature: (i) the ground states are doubly degenerate, (ii) there is a finite energy gap between ground states and excited states, (iii) the ground states have long-range staggered scalar chiral order and exponentially decaying spin correlations, and (iv) a $`Z_2\times Z_2\times Z_2`$ symmetry is fully broken. It is also found that the phase boundary of the scalar chiral phase touches the SU(4)-symmetric point and the SU(4)-symmetric model is on a multicritical point surrounded by the staggered dimer phase, the staggered scalar chiral phase, and the gapless phase.

This paper is organized as follows. The model Hamiltonian is given in the next subsection. In Sec. II, we summarize the duality transformation and its application to the present model. In Sec. III, it is shown that a scalar chiral state is the exact ground state in a parameter region of the model Hamiltonian. The nature of the scalar chiral phase is discussed. In Sec. IV, we discuss the phase diagram around the SU(4)-symmetric point and find that the SU(4) model is on a multicritical point. Finally in Sec. V we conclude with a discussion. Appendix contains a unitary description of the duality transformation.

### Model Hamiltonian

The Hamiltonian of the two-leg spin-1/2 ladder with extended four-spin exchange interactions is defined as

$``$ $`=`$ $`J_\mathrm{l}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)+J_\mathrm{r}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`J_\mathrm{d}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`J_{\mathrm{rr}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}\right)\left(𝐬_{1,l+1}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`J_{\mathrm{ll}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right)\left(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`J_{\mathrm{dd}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)\left(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right).`$
This Hamiltonian includes a variety of models: (I) Four-spin cyclic-exchange model. When four-spin exchange constants satisfy $`J_{\mathrm{rr}}=J_{\mathrm{ll}}=J_{\mathrm{dd}}`$, the four-spin terms describe the cyclic-exchange interaction.RogerHD  (II) SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) model. When the parameters satisfy $`J_\mathrm{r}=J_\mathrm{d}=J_{\mathrm{rr}}=J_{\mathrm{dd}}=0`$, the Hamiltonian has an SU(2)$`\times `$ SU(2) symmetry. This model was studied extensively as the SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) spin-orbital model. It was revealed that when $`J_{\mathrm{ll}}>0`$ the ground state has a staggered dimer (or spin-Peierls) orderNersesyanT ; KolezhukM  for $`4J_\mathrm{l}>J_{\mathrm{ll}}`$ and is gaplessYamashitaSU2 ; Azaria ; Azaria2 ; Itoi  for $`J_{\mathrm{ll}}4J_\mathrm{l}J_{\mathrm{ll}}`$. (III) SU(4) model. As a special case of model II, the Hamiltonian has an SU(4) symmetryPati ; YamashitaSU  at $`4J_\mathrm{l}=J_{\mathrm{ll}}`$, which was exactly solved by the Bethe ansatz.Sutherland

## II Duality

### II.1 Duality transformation

Let us begin with the spin-chirality duality transformation, which we developed in Ref. HikiharaMH, . We introduced the duality transformation defining new spin-1/2 pseudospin operators

$`𝐒_l`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}+𝐬_{2,l}\right)𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l},`$ (2)
$`𝐓_l`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}+𝐬_{2,l}\right)+𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l},`$ (3)
which obey the commutation relations of spins and satisfy $`(S_l^\alpha )^2=(T_l^\alpha )^2=1/4`$ for $`\alpha =x,y`$ or $`z`$. In the same way, the original spins $`𝐬_{1,l}`$ and $`𝐬_{2,l}`$ are expressed in terms of $`𝐒_l`$ and $`𝐓_l`$ in the forms $`𝐬_{1,l}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐒_l+𝐓_l\right)+𝐒_l\times 𝐓_l`$ and $`𝐬_{2,l}=\frac{1}{2}\left(𝐒_l+𝐓_l\right)𝐒_l\times 𝐓_l`$. In Appendix, we show that this transformation derives from a unitary operator $`U_{\pi /2}`$ in the form $`𝐒_l=U_{\pi /2}𝐬_{1,l}U_{\pi /2}^{}`$ and $`𝐓_l=U_{\pi /2}𝐬_{2,l}U_{\pi /2}^{}`$. Since the following relations hold,

$`𝐬_{1,l}+𝐬_{2,l}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐒_l+𝐓_l,`$
$`𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}`$ $`=`$ $`2𝐒_l\times 𝐓_l,`$
$`2𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l}`$ $`=`$ $`𝐒_l𝐓_l,`$
this transformation exchanges the Néel-type spin and vector chirality degrees of freedom on the same rung. As an example of the duality, one can show that the transformation of the dimer (or spin-Peierls) operator

$$𝒪_\mathrm{D}(l)=𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}$$
(4)
leads to the scalar chiral operator

$`𝒪_{\mathrm{SC}}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐬_{1,l}+𝐬_{2,l})(𝐬_{1,l+1}\times 𝐬_{2,l+1})`$ (5)
$`+(𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l})(𝐬_{1,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l+1}).`$
It is known that a group of two-leg ladders with four-spin interactions shows the staggered dimer order in the ground state.NersesyanT ; KolezhukM ; Pati  The above duality relation hence shows that their dual models have the staggered “scalar chiral” order in the ground state. We will discuss these models in Secs. III and IV.

We now consider the transformation of the spin states on rungs. Since the total spin on each rung is conserved under the transformation, the fully polarized spin state $`|_{1,l}|_{2,l}`$ is transformed to $`|_{S,l}|_{T,l}`$, where $`|\alpha _{\mu ,l}`$ ($`\alpha =,`$ and $`\mu =1,2`$) denotes the spin state operated by $`𝐬_{\mu ,l}`$, and $`|\alpha _{S,l}`$ ($`|\alpha _{T,l}`$) is the pseudospin state operated by $`𝐒_l`$ ($`𝐓_l`$), respectively. By applying $`S_l^{}`$ and $`T_l^{}`$ to $`|_{S,l}|_{T,l}`$, all pseudospin states in dual space can be constructed in the forms

$`|_{S,l}|_{T,l}`$ $`=`$ $`|_{1,l}|_{2,l},`$
$`|_{S,l}|_{T,l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{2}}}(|_{1,l}|_{2,l}+i|_{1,l}|_{2,l}),`$
$`|_{S,l}|_{T,l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\pi /4}}{\sqrt{2}}}(|_{1,l}|_{2,l}i|_{1,l}|_{2,l}),`$
$`|_{S,l}|_{T,l}`$ $`=`$ $`|_{1,l}|_{2,l}.`$ (6)
Using eigenstates for the total spin on each rung, one finds that this transformation corresponds to a gauge transformation of the singlet bond state $`|s_li|s_l`$, while it keeps the triplet states invariant. See also Appendix for further arguments.

### II.2 Duality in the model Hamiltonian

We now apply the transformation to the model (1) and consider the duality relation in parameter space. Under this duality transformation, the total form of the Hamiltonian (1) remains invariant, but the couplings change. The couplings of the dual Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`J_\mathrm{r},\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{rr}}=J_{\mathrm{rr}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mathrm{l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_\mathrm{l}+J_\mathrm{d})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}J_{\mathrm{dd}}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mathrm{d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_\mathrm{l}+J_\mathrm{d}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}J_{\mathrm{dd}}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{ll}}`$ $`=`$ $`2(J_\mathrm{l}J_\mathrm{d})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}+J_{\mathrm{dd}}),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{dd}}`$ $`=`$ $`2(J_\mathrm{l}J_\mathrm{d})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}+J_{\mathrm{dd}}).`$ (7)
To see the mapping in the parameter space, we rewrite the Hamiltonian (1) in the form

$``$ $`=`$ $`J_\mathrm{r}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}+J_{\mathrm{rr}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}\right)\left(𝐬_{1,l+1}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`W{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}+𝐬_{2,l}\right)\left(𝐬_{1,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`X{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\{(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1})(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1})`$
$`+(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l+1})(𝐬_{1,l+1}𝐬_{2,l})\}`$
$`+`$ $`Y{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\{(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l})(𝐬_{1,l+1}𝐬_{2,l+1})`$
$`+4(𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l})(𝐬_{1,l+1}\times 𝐬_{2,l+1})\}`$
$`+`$ $`Z{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\{(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l})(𝐬_{1,l+1}𝐬_{2,l+1})`$
$`4(𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l})(𝐬_{1,l+1}\times 𝐬_{2,l+1})\},`$
where

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_\mathrm{l}+J_\mathrm{d}),X={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}+J_{\mathrm{dd}}),`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}J_{\mathrm{dd}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(J_\mathrm{l}J_\mathrm{d}),`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(J_{\mathrm{ll}}J_{\mathrm{dd}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(J_\mathrm{l}J_\mathrm{d}).`$ (9)
Straightforward calculations show that the duality transformation maps the parameters $`(J_\mathrm{r},J_{\mathrm{rr}},W,X,Y,Z)`$ to $`(J_\mathrm{r},J_{\mathrm{rr}},W,X,Y,Z)`$; the transformation changes only the coupling $`Z`$ of the last term to $`Z`$, but leaves the other terms invariant. The Hamiltonian (1) is, thus, self-dual at the surface defined by $`Z=0`$, i.e.,

$$J_{\mathrm{ll}}J_{\mathrm{dd}}4(J_\mathrm{l}J_\mathrm{d})=0.$$
(10)
The parameter space of the Hamiltonian has six dimensions in total, and the self-dual surface divides the parameter space into two regions $`Z>0`$ and $`Z<0`$. It should be remarked that the SU(4)-symmetric model ($`4J_\mathrm{l}=J_{\mathrm{ll}}`$, $`J_\mathrm{r}=J_\mathrm{d}=J_{\mathrm{rr}}=J_{\mathrm{dd}}=0`$) exists on the self-dual surface. Duality around this specific model will be discussed in Sec. IV.

### II.3 $`U(1)`$ symmetry in the self-dual models

Here we describe a U(1) symmetry in the self-dual models. Consider a continuous transformation with the following unitary operator

$$U_\theta =\underset{l}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\theta \left(𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l}\frac{1}{4}\right)\right].$$

This is a continuous extension of the duality transformation (see Appendix) and it continuously transforms the dimer operator to the scalar chiral one. One can show that the Hamiltonian is invariant under this transformation as $`U_\theta U_\theta ^{}=`$ for arbitrary $`\theta `$ if $`Z=0`$. Thus the self-dual models are isotropic under the continuous rotation with the generator $`_l𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}`$, whereas the $`Z`$-term of the Hamiltonian (8) lowers the symmetry.

## III Models with exact scalar chiral ground states

In this section, we discuss an exact scalar chiral ground state of the Hamiltonian (1) with the periodic boundary condition. To obtain the ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$, we use matrix-product (MP) states. We start from the following ansatz:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)=\mathrm{tr}\{\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_1(u)\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_2(u)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2N1}(u)\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2N}(u)\},$$
(11)
where $`u`$ is a real variable and

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_l(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}iu|s_l+|t_0_l& \sqrt{2}|t_{+1}_l\\ \sqrt{2}|t_1_l& iu|s_l|t_0_l\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{iu\mathrm{𝟏}|s_l\sqrt{2}\sigma ^+|t_{+1}_l+\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{}|t_1_l+\sigma _z|t_0_l\}.`$
Here $`|s_l`$ and $`|t_\mu _l`$ are, respectively, the singlet and triplet states of the $`l`$th rung, $`2N`$ is the total number of rungs, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix, and $`\sigma _\mu `$ are the Pauli matrices. This form of the MP state can be obtained by the duality transformation of the MP state discussed by Kolezhuk and Mikeska,KolezhukM

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{KM}}(u)=\mathrm{tr}\{𝒈_1(u)𝒈_2(u)\mathrm{}𝒈_{2N1}(u)𝒈_{2N}(u)\},$$
(15)
where

$$𝒈_l(u)=\frac{1}{2}\{u\mathrm{𝟏}|s_l\sqrt{2}\sigma ^+|t_{+1}_l+\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{}|t_1_l+\sigma _z|t_0_l\}.$$
(16)
It was shown that for several models this MP state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{KM}}(u)`$ is the exact ground state with a staggered dimer order. At $`u=0`$ and $`u=\mathrm{}`$, the two states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{KM}}(u)`$ are equivalent, which means that each of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\mathrm{})`$ is self-dual. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\mathrm{})`$ are, respectively, an Affleck-Kennedy-Lieb-Tasaki (AKLT) stateAKLT  and a rung-singlet state. For $`0<u<\mathrm{}`$, however, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{KM}}(u)`$ are orthogonal in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{KM}}(u)`$ ($`0<u<\mathrm{}`$) has the staggered dimer order, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$ has the staggered scalar chiral order because of the duality relation. Using the technique developed by Klümper, Schadschneider, and Zittartz,KlumperSZ ; Fannes  one can evaluate the scalar chiral correlation in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$,

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{SC}}(l)𝒪_{\mathrm{SC}}(m)=(1)^{lm}\left[\frac{12u}{(u^2+3)^2}\right]^2,$$
(17)
for $`|lm|>1`$ in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ and show spontaneous breakdown of the chiral symmetry

$$𝒪_{\mathrm{SC}}(l)=(1)^l\frac{12u}{(u^2+3)^2}.$$

One can also evaluate that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$ has no dimer correlation

$$𝒪_\mathrm{D}(l)𝒪_\mathrm{D}(m)=0.$$

In the same way, the spin and vector chiral correlations are obtained as

$`s_{1,l}^\alpha s_{1,m}^\alpha =s_{1,l}^\alpha s_{2,m}^\alpha `$ (18)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(u^2+3)(u^21)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u^21}{u^2+3}}\right)^{|lm|},`$
$`(𝐬_{1,l}\times 𝐬_{2,l})^\alpha (𝐬_{1,m}\times 𝐬_{2,m})^\alpha `$ (19)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{(u^2+3)(u^21)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1u^2}{u^2+3}}\right)^{|lm|},`$
for $`\alpha =x,`$ $`y`$ or $`z`$. The spin and vector chiral correlation lengths are equal and given by $`\xi _\mathrm{s}^1=\xi _{\mathrm{vc}}^1=\mathrm{ln}\{(u^2+3)/|u^21|\}`$, whereas the scalar chiral correlation does not have any exponentially decaying term.

By the duality transformation of the MP-solvable models presented by Kolezhuk and Mikeska,KolezhukM  we find that the MP state (11) is an exact ground state of the following three classes of models. One can prove that the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is a ground state in these models, reducing a local Hamiltonian $`h_{l,l+1}`$ on the $`l`$th and $`l+1`$th rungs to a positive semi-definite form $`(h_{l,l+1}E_0)0`$, where $`=_lh_{l,l+1}`$, and showing that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ has zero eigenenergy in the reduced Hamiltonian as $`(h_{l,l+1}E_0)𝒈_l𝒈_{l+1}`$=0. The reader who is interested in the method of proofs should refer to Ref. KolezhukM, .

(A) Scalar chiral models. For a family of models

$`J_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8J(23y)}{3(43y)}},J_\mathrm{l}={\displaystyle \frac{4J(1y)}{43y}},`$
$`J_\mathrm{d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J(89y)}{3(43y)}},J_{\mathrm{ll}}={\displaystyle \frac{16J}{3(43y)}},`$
$`J_{\mathrm{rr}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,J_{\mathrm{dd}}={\displaystyle \frac{4Jy}{43y}},`$ (20)
with $`0<y<1`$ and $`J>0`$, the ground states are doubly degenerate and given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(1)`$. The ground-state energy per rung is $`E_0=3J/4`$. This model is dual to the “checkerboard-dimer model” given in Ref. KolezhukM, , which has a staggered dimer order, and hence from the duality relation the present model belongs to the scalar chiral phase. Excitations of the staggered dimer phase were studied by variational trial states,KolezhukM  numerical calculations,Pati  and field-theoretical analyses.Azaria ; Azaria2 ; Itoi  These studies concluded that excitations have a finite energy gap. In fact, extending the arguments by Knabe,Knabe ; note  we can prove the finiteness of the energy gap in the checkerboard-dimer model dual to the model (20) with $`y=2/3`$ and in a finite region around this point. From the duality we conclude that, in the scalar chiral phase, there is a finite energy gap between the ground states and excited states. The analysis in the dual modelKolezhukM  indicates that, at $`y=1`$, the present system enters the fully polarized ferromagnetic phase through a first-order transition. Furthermore, we can extend the parameter space which has the exact scalar chiral ground state. For $`y=2/3`$, the dual Hamiltonian has an SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) symmetry and the Hamiltonian is written as a product of projection operators $`(4J/3)_l(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}+3/4)(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}+3/4)`$. Then one can construct the model with the exact scalar chiral ground state by generalization of projection operatorsItoh  and the duality transformation.

(B) Model at a phase boundary between the scalar chiral and staggered dimer phases. At $`y=0`$ of the model (20), i.e.,

$`J_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\mathrm{ll}}={\displaystyle \frac{4J}{3}},J_\mathrm{l}=J,`$
$`J_\mathrm{d}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2J}{3}},J_{\mathrm{rr}}=J_{\mathrm{dd}}=0,`$ (21)
with $`J>0`$, the ground states are given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$ with arbitrary $`u`$ and highly degenerate. Note that this model is equivalent to the “multicritical model” in Ref. KolezhukM,  and self-dual under the duality transformation. The scalar chiral model (20), thus, connects with the checkerboard-dimer model at this special parameter point. At this phase boundary, both one magnon and a pair of scattering solitons have energy gaps in the staggered dimer state, as discussed by Kolezhuk and Mikeska.KolezhukM  However, because of the U(1) symmetry in this model, the generator $`𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}`$ can create gapless collective (Goldstone) modes, which are singlet bound states of two magnons. In fact, one can show that the following trial state becomes gapless at $`p=0`$, $`\pi `$ ($`\zeta =1`$) and $`p=\pi /2`$ ($`\zeta =1`$):

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0(p)_{sb}^\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}e^{2ipl}\mathrm{Tr}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l1}{}}}\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2i1}(1)\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2i}(1)𝒈_l^{sb,\zeta }(1)`$
$`\times `$ $`\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l+2}(1){\displaystyle \underset{i=l+2}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2i1}(1)\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2i}(1)\},`$
$`𝒈_l^{sb,\zeta }(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l1}(1)\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l}(1)\right\}\stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l+1}(1)`$
$`+`$ $`\zeta \stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l1}(1)\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l}(1)\sigma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{𝒈}_{2l+1}(1)\right\}.`$
(C) Model with two second-order phase boundaries. For a family of models

$`J_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`J_{\mathrm{rr}}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{6}}(u^21)(u^2+3),`$
$`J_\mathrm{l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{48}}(3u^2+5)(u^2+3),J_\mathrm{d}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{3}}u^2,`$ (22)
$`J_{\mathrm{ll}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{12}}(5u^2+3)(u^2+3),J_{\mathrm{dd}}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{6}}(u^46u^23),`$
with arbitrary $`u`$, the ground states are $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$, and the ground-state energy per rung is $`E_0=J(7u^4+22u^2+19)/64`$. The model at $`u=1`$ is equivalent to the model (20) at $`y=2/3`$. The arguments for the dual modelKolezhukM  lead to the conclusion that the model (22) undergoes a phase transition to the Haldane phase at $`u=0`$ and to the rung-singlet phase at $`u=\mathrm{}`$. Both of the transitions are of second order and accompanied with vanishing of energy gaps for solitons.

In total, five phases appear in the MP-solvable models discussed above and in Ref. KolezhukM, . Some of the phase transitions between them actually happen in the parameter space of the solvable models. These are summarized in Fig. 1.

The nature of the scalar chiral phase is summarized as follows: (1) the ground states are doubly degenerate, (2) there is a finite energy gap between the ground states and excited states, and (3) the ground states have long-range staggered scalar chiral order and exponentially decaying spin correlations.

It is also easy to show that the string order, which was originally found in the Haldane state,dNijsR ; GirvinA  exists in the scalar chiral state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$. The expectation value is given by

$`(s_{1,j}^\alpha +s_{2,j}^\alpha ){\displaystyle \underset{l=j}{\overset{k1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\{i\pi (s_{1,l}^\alpha +s_{2,l}^\alpha )\}(s_{1,k}^\alpha +s_{2,k}^\alpha )`$
$`=4/(u^2+3)^2`$ (23)
for $`\alpha =x,`$ $`y`$, or $`z`$. We note that the staggered dimer state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{KM}}(u)`$ also has exactly the same expectation value of the string order because the string operator is invariant under the duality transformation. This string order implies that a hidden $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken in the ground state.KennedyT  This hidden symmetry was foundKennedyT ; TakadaW  by applying a nonlocal unitary transformation $`U`$, and one can find that this symmetry exists also in the Hamiltonian (1). It should be noted that this $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ symmetry is independent of the $`Z_2`$ chiral symmetry associated with the scalar chirality, since the scalar chiral operator after the nonlocal unitary transformation $`U𝒪_{\mathrm{SC}}U^1`$ has the corresponding $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ symmetry. In finite systems with open boundary conditions, the scalar chiral MP ground states in fact have eightfold degeneracy associated with boundary spins and chirality. Thus, the hidden $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ symmetry, as well as the $`Z_2`$ chiral symmetry, is spontaneously broken in the scalar chiral phase. Recently, a different useful quantity $`z_{2N}=\mathrm{exp}[(2\pi i/2N)_{l=1}^{2N}l(s_{1,l}^z+s_{2,l}^z)]`$ was proposed,Nakamura  which detects the average number $`n`$ of valence bonds between neighboring rungs as $`lim_N\mathrm{}z_{2N}=(1)^n`$. In $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(u)`$, the expectation value is estimated as $`lim_N\mathrm{}z_{2N}=1`$ for finite $`u`$. This is consistent with the above valence bond picture, because $`z_{2N}`$ is also invariant under the duality transformation, and $`n=1`$ in the staggered dimer state.

## IV Around the SU(4)-symmetric point

Using the duality relation, we discuss the phase diagram around the SU(4)-symmetric point and show that this SU(4)-symmetric point is a multicritical point.

### IV.1 SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) spin ladders

We start from two SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) spin ladders. One SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) spin ladder is model II. Here we consider the case $`J_\mathrm{l}0`$. For $`J_\mathrm{l}/J_{\mathrm{ll}}=1/4`$, this model is SU(4) symmetric and exactly solvable by the Bethe ansatz, and the ground state is gapless critical.Sutherland  For $`J_\mathrm{l}/J_{\mathrm{ll}}>1/4`$, the ground state has a finite gap and a staggered dimer order,KolezhukM ; Pati ; YamashitaSU2  whereas for $`0J_\mathrm{l}/J_{\mathrm{ll}}1/4`$ the ground state is gapless and critical.Pati ; YamashitaSU2 ; Azaria ; Azaria2 ; Itoi  The total Hamiltonian can be divided into the part of the SU(4) model $`_0`$ ($`J_{\mathrm{ll}}=4J_\mathrm{l}`$ with fixed $`J_\mathrm{l}`$) and the perturbation $`𝒱`$ in the form

$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_0+\lambda 𝒱,`$ (24)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`J_\mathrm{l}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\{(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1})`$
$`+4(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1})(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1})\},`$
$`𝒱`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right)\left(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right),`$
where $`\lambda 4J_\mathrm{l}+J_{\mathrm{ll}}`$ and $`J_\mathrm{l}`$ is fixed. Renormalization group analysis concluded that if the parameter $`\lambda `$ is negative, the perturbation $`𝒱`$ is relevant and leads to a generation of a staggered dimer order with a finite spin gap, and if the coupling parameter is positive, this perturbation is irrelevant and keeps the ground state gapless.Azaria ; Azaria2 ; Itoi

Applying the spin-chirality duality transformation to Eq. (24), one obtains the dual Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`_0+\lambda \stackrel{~}{𝒱},`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}+𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right)\left(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left(𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l+1}\right)\left(𝐬_{2,l}𝐬_{1,l+1}\right).`$
Here $`_0`$ is self-dual, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ is the perturbation dual to $`𝒱`$. The couplings of $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$, in total, are given as

$`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{rr}}=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_\mathrm{l}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_\mathrm{l}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}J_{\mathrm{ll}},\stackrel{~}{J}_\mathrm{d}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_\mathrm{l}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}J_{\mathrm{ll}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{ll}}`$ $`=`$ $`2J_\mathrm{l}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{\mathrm{ll}},\stackrel{~}{J}_{\mathrm{dd}}=2J_l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{\mathrm{ll}}.`$ (26)
From this transformation, one finds that the Hamiltonian (25) has a hidden SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) symmetry, where generators are given by $`_lS_l^\alpha `$ and $`_lT_l^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha =x`$, $`y`$, or $`z`$. The duality transformation leads to the case where, if the coupling parameter $`\lambda `$ is negative, the perturbation $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$ is relevant and induces a staggered scalar chiral order with a finite spin gap, and if the coupling parameter is positive, this perturbation is irrelevant and keeps the ground state gapless. When $`\lambda =\frac{8}{3}J_\mathrm{l}`$ (i.e., $`J_{\mathrm{ll}}=\frac{4}{3}J_\mathrm{l}`$), the model $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ equals to the scalar chiral model (20) with $`y=2/3`$ and as we have shown in Sec. III the exact ground state has an energy gap and the scalar chiral order.

### IV.2 Phase diagram around the SU(4) point

We now discuss the phase diagram around the SU(4)-symmetric point, and the two SU(2) $`\times `$ SU(2) models given above, considering the following generalized Hamiltonian:

$$^{\prime \prime }=_0+\lambda _1𝒱+\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{𝒱}.$$
(27)
This Hamiltonian contains two kinds of perturbation to the SU(4)-symmetric model. Because of the duality, phase boundaries are symmetric with the line $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$. The nature of phases in $`\lambda _1>\lambda _2`$ is related to that in $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ by the duality transformation. The above consideration leads to a conclusion that the SU(4)-symmetric point is a multicritical point and surrounded by the staggered dimer phase, the staggered scalar chiral one, and the critical one. If the scalar chiral phase touches with the staggered dimer phase, the phase boundary between two phases must exist exactly on the self-dual line $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$ (see Fig. 2). Because of the U(1) symmetry, a rigorous theoremMomoi  concludes that in general both orders disappear on the self-dual line and hence the transition between the scalar chiral and dimer phases is second order, but, if uniform susceptibility of $`𝐬_{1,l}𝐬_{2,l}`$ diverges, both orders can exist on this line. Note that the latter actually happens in the model (21). One plausible phase diagram is shown in Fig. 2. Recently we have numerically studied this phase diagram and obtained results consistent with the present conclusion.HikiharaNM

## V Discussion

In this paper we have shown a rigorous example of scalar chiral ground states in SU(2) spin ladders with four-spin exchanges. The exact duality relation is the keystone of our theory. Our results demonstrated that four-spin exchanges can actually induce the scalar chiral long-range order. The scalar chiral phase extends to a wide parameter region and touches with the SU(4)-symmetric point. Previously, a scalar chiral phase was numerically found in the four-spin cyclic exchange model on the two-leg ladder.LauchliST  In their phase diagram, the scalar chiral phase appears next to the staggered dimer phase and the phase boundary indeed exists on the self-dual pointHikiharaMH  $`J_4/J=1/2`$. This situation in the vicinity of the self-dual point shows a resemblance to that around the self-dual line ($`\lambda _1=\lambda _2<0`$) in Fig. 2. Our recent numerical study of the Hamiltonian (1) indicates that the scalar chiral phase we found in this paper extends to the four-spin cyclic-exchange case and that two phases belong to the same one.

We have shown that the SU(4)-symmetric model is self-dual under the spin-chirality duality transformation. We here note that this statement holds for the SU(4) spin-orbital models on arbitrary lattices. Recently SU(4) spin-orbital models on two-dimensional latticesLi  and on laddersBossche  have been studied and it was discussed that a plaquette ordering may appear in the ground state. On a four-site plaquette, the SU(4) singlet state is the unique ground state and therefore it must be self-dual under the duality transformation. We hence conclude that plaquette ordering is also self-dual.

Last, we discuss the universality classes of phase transitions. The phase transitions into the scalar chiral phase are naturally in the same universality class as the dual transitions into the staggered dimer phase. For example, since the phase transition between the rung-singlet phase and the staggered dimer phase belongs to the $`c=3/2`$ SU(2)2 criticality,NersesyanT  we conclude that the transition between the scalar chiral phase and the rung-singlet phase also belongs to the same one. Since the two-dimensional Ising model is related to the $`c=1/2`$ criticality, this $`c=3/2`$ criticality can be plausibly regarded as a consequence of the $`Z_2\times Z_2\times Z_2`$ symmetry breaking.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank K. Kubo and H. Tsunetsugu for stimulating discussions and L. Balents for useful comments. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan through Grants-in-Aid Nos. 13740201, 1540362 (T.M.), and No. 14740241 (M.N.). T.M. acknowledges kind hospitality of Yukawa Institute in Kyoto University, where this research was partially performed.

## Appendix: Unitary operator for duality transformation

In this appendix, we show that the duality transformation (2) and (3) corresponds to a unitary transformation of two spins on rungs. The unitary operator is given by

$`U_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\theta P_l(\mathrm{s})\right]`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\theta \left(𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)\right]`$
with $`\theta =\pi /2`$, where $`P_l(\mathrm{s})`$ denotes the projection operator onto the singlet state on the $`l`$th rung. Since the generator is transformed as $`𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l}=(𝒔_{1,l}+𝒔_{2,l})^2/23/4`$, this unitary conserves the total spin on each rung. Note that the generator of this unitary is a summation of SU(4) generators $`s_1^\alpha s_2^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =x,y,z`$) and hence the SU(4)-symmetric model is naturally invariant under this transformation.

Let us demonstrate the unitary transformation of spins. It is convenient to reduce the unitary operator to the form

$`U_\theta ={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\left[1+(1e^{i\theta })\left(𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)\right],`$ (29)
where we have used the relation $`[P_l(\mathrm{s})]^2=P_l(\mathrm{s})`$. Using the following commutation relations

$`[𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l},𝒔_{1,l}+𝒔_{2,l}]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (30)
$`[𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l},𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l}]`$ $`=`$ $`2i𝒔_{1,l}\times 𝒔_{2,l},`$ (31)
$`[𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l},𝒔_{1,l}\times 𝒔_{2,l}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l}),`$ (32)
and the unitary relation $`U_\theta U_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}=1`$, one can perform the unitary transformation of spins in the forms

$`U_\theta (𝒔_{1,l}+𝒔_{2,l})U_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}=𝒔_{1,l}+𝒔_{2,l},`$ (33)
$`U_\theta (𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l})U_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (34)
$`=\mathrm{cos}\theta (𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l})2\mathrm{sin}\theta (𝒔_{1,l}\times 𝒔_{2,l}),`$
$`U_\theta (𝒔_{1,l}\times 𝒔_{2,l})U_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (35)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta (𝒔_{1,l}𝒔_{2,l})+\mathrm{cos}\theta (𝒔_{1,l}\times 𝒔_{2,l}).`$
When $`\theta =\pi /2`$, we obtain the original duality transformation

$`𝑺_l`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\pi /2}𝒔_{1,l}U_{\pi /2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},`$ (36)
$`𝑻_l`$ $`=`$ $`U_{\pi /2}𝒔_{2,l}U_{\pi /2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ (37)
From the form of the unitary operator, it is clear that this unitary corresponds to a gauge transformation of the singlet bond state

$`U_\theta |s_l`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\theta }|s_l,`$ (38)
$`U_\theta |t_m_l`$ $`=`$ $`|t_m_l,(m=1,0,1).`$ (39)
When $`\theta =\pi /2`$, one obtains the relation (6) from

$$|\sigma _{S,l}|\sigma ^{}_{T,l}=U_{\pi /2}|\sigma _{1,l}|\sigma ^{}_{2,l}$$
(40)
for $`\sigma `$ ($`\sigma ^{}`$) $`=,`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since 1984, there has been a lot of work and effort devoted to the string model building or string phenomenology, whose goal is to obtain the Standard Model (SM) or Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) as an effective theory of the string-based models. And these models are mainly built in the weakly coupled heterotic string theory with $`E_8\times E_8`$ gauge group , because it naturally obtains the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) through the elegant $`E_8`$ breaking chain: $`E_8E_6SO(10)SU(5)`$. Even now, this is an interesting subject because of the model buildings in M-theory on $`S^1/Z_2`$ \[3$``$7\].

In recent years, the emergence of M-theory opened up many new avenues for the consistent string model buildings. Especially, we can construct the open string models that are non-perturbative from the dual heterotic string description due to the advent of D-branes . The technique of conformal field theory in describing D-branes and orientifold planes on orbifolds has played a key role in the construction of consistent 4-dimensional supersymmetric $`N=1`$ chiral models on Type II orientifolds. There are two kinds of theories which have chiral fermions from the D-brane constructions: one from D-branes located at orbifold singularities where the chiral fermions appear on the worldvolume of D-branes \[9$``$15\] and the other one from intersecting D-branes on Type II orientifold where the open string spectrum contains chiral fermions localized at the D-brane intersections .

For the second kind of scenarios, a lot of non-supersymmetric three-family Standard-like models and GUT models were explored in the begining \[17$``$30\]. However, there are uncancelled Neveu-Schwarz-Neveu-Schwarz (NSNS) tadpoles and may exist the gauge hierarchy problem. On the other hand, since the first supersymmetric model with intersecting D6-branes on $`T^6/Z_2\times Z_2`$ was constructed in Refs. , the supersymmetric Standard-like models, $`SU(5)`$ and Pati-Salam models have been discussed in detail later , as well as the phenomenology . Moreover, the supersymmetric Pati-Salam models based on $`Z_4`$ and $`Z_4\times Z_2`$ orientifolds with intersecting D6-branes were also constructed . In these models, the left-right symmetric gauge structure was obtained by brane recombinations, so the final models do not have the explicit toroidal orientifold construction, where the conformal field theory can be applied for the calculation of the full spectrum and couplings.

Looking back on these model buildings, we may find that people took such philosophy: directly construct the familiar models, such as Standard-like models, $`SU(5)`$ and Pati-Salam models, etc, from the intersecting D-branes on type II orientifolds since these models have been understood very well from the traditional phenomenological analysis. Unfortunately, no GUT model with gauge coupling unification has been built up due to the strong constraint of RR-tadpole cancellation and supersymmetry (SUSY) preservation. In this paper, we take a completely different philosophy: constructing the “natural” 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ GUT models from the intersecting D6-branes on Type IIA orientifolds where the “natural” means:

(1) Gauge coupling unification;

(2) The Standard Model gauge group is the subgroup of the gauge symmetry at string scale, and three families of quarks and leptons and a pair of the SM Higgs doublets are included in the massless open string spectrum;

(3) The gauge symmetry at string scale can be broken down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry via Higgs mechanism or Wilson line;

(4) RR-tadpole cancellation. And the observable D6-branes preserve the same 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry as the orbifold background.

Adding $`S_3`$ symmetry on the observable D6-branes and complex structure moduli, we obtain three models with above four properties from $`T^6/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ orientifolds with intersecting D6-branes. In these models, three stacks of physical D6-branes, which form the observable sector, preserve the same 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry as the orbifold background. To cancel the RR tadpole, we introduce one stack of auxiliary D6-branes which wraps on the $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ orientifold and has no intersection with three observable D6-branes. However, the auxiliary D6-brane breaks above 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. So, our model is quasi-supersymmetric 333In this paper, the quasi-supersymmetry means that the observable D6-branes preserve the same 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry as the orbifold background, which is broken by the auxiliary D6-brane., and there may exist the uncancelled NSNS tadpoles. Concretely, Model I describes $`U(4)^3`$ gauge theory with odd-family chiral fermion spectrum, and Model II $`U(4)^3`$ gauge theory with even-family chiral fermion spectrum, Model III $`U(8)^3`$ gauge theory with even-family chiral fermion spectrum. In all these models, the Standard Model fermions and Higgs particles are embedded into the bifundamental representations, and the symmetric, anti-symmetric or any other unnecessary massless representations are absent. In particular, we just have three families of fermions and three pairs of Higgs particles for Model I. We show that in model I the $`U(4)^3`$ gauge symmetry can indeed be broken down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry by introducing the light open string states, and similar mechanism works for the Models II and III. Furthermore, we discuss the supersymmetry breaking due to the auxiliary D6-brane, and find that the 1 TeV scale soft masses imply the intermediate string scale around $`10^{11}10^{12}`$ GeV, which is a reasonable unification scale for the Pati-Salam model  and can be realized in large extra dimension scenario . However, the unification gauge coupling ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}`$) is seriously suppressed to $`10^8`$, which implies the fine-tuning in the RGE runnings of the gauge-couplings.

## 2 Supersymmetric Model Buildings from $`T^6/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ Orientifolds with Intersecting D6-Branes

In spite of non-supersymmetric essence of $`G^3`$ GUT models, the 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry are required to be locally preserved in the observable sector in order to solve the gauge hierarchy problem. So, we first review the rules to construct the supersymmetric models from Type IIA orientifolds on $`T^6/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ with D6-branes at generic angles , and to obtain the spectrum of massless open string states . Here, we follow the notation in Ref. .

The starting point is Type IIA string theory compactified on a $`T^6/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ orientifold. We consider $`T^6`$ to be a six-torus factorized as $`T^6=T^2\times T^2\times T^2`$ whose complex coordinates are $`z_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ for each of the 2-torus, respectively. The $`\theta `$ and $`\omega `$ generators for the orbifold group $`Z_2\times Z_2`$, which are associated with their twist vectors $`(1/2,1/2,0)`$ and $`(0,1/2,1/2)`$ respectively, act on the complex coordinates of $`T^6`$ as

$`\theta :`$ $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)(z_1,z_2,z_3),`$ (1)
$`\omega :`$ $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)(z_1,z_2,z_3).`$
The orientifold projection is implemented by gauging the symmetry $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is world-sheet parity, and $`R`$ acts as

$`R:(z_1,z_2,z_3)(\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_2,\overline{z}_3).`$ (2)
So, there are four kinds of orientifold 6-planes (O6-planes) for the actions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }R\omega `$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta \omega `$, respectively. To cancel the RR charges of O6-planes, we introduce some stacks of $`N_a`$ D6-branes, which wrap on the factorized three-cycles. Meanwhile, we have two kinds of complex structures consistent with orientifold projection for a torus – rectangular and tilted . If we denote the homology classes of the three cycles wrapped by the D6-brane stacks as $`n_a^i[a_i]+m_a^i[b_i]`$ and $`n_a^i[a_i^{}]+m_a^i[b_i]`$ with $`[a_i^{}]=[a_i]+\frac{1}{2}[b_i]`$ for the rectangular and tilted tori respectively, following the notation of Ref. , we can label a generic two cycle by $`(n_a^i,l_a^i)`$ in either case, where in terms of the wrapping numbers $`l_a^im_a^i`$ for a rectangular torus and $`l_a^i2\stackrel{~}{m}_a^i=2m_a^i+n_a^i`$ for a tilted torus. Note that for a tilted torus, $`l_a^in_a^i`$ must be even. For a stack of $`N_a`$ D6-branes along the cycle $`(n_a^i,l_a^i)`$, we also need to include their $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ images $`N_a^{}`$ with wrapping numbers $`(n_a^i,l_a^i)`$. For D6-branes on the top of O6-planes, we count the D6-branes and their images independently. So, the homology three-cycles for stack $`a`$ of $`N_a`$ D6-branes and its orientifold image $`a^{}`$ take the form

$$[\mathrm{\Pi }_a]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(n_a^i[a_i]+2^{\beta _i}l_a^i[b_i]\right),\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_a^{}\right]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(n_a^i[a_i]2^{\beta _i}l_a^i[b_i]\right),$$
(3)
where $`\beta _i=0`$ if the $`ith`$ torus is rectangular and $`\beta _i=1`$ if it is tilted. And the homology 3-cycles wrapped by the four O6-planes are

$$\mathrm{\Omega }R:[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R}]=2^3[a_1]\times [a_2]\times [a_3],$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }R\omega :[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R\omega }]=2^{3\beta _2\beta _3}[a_1]\times [b_2]\times [b_3],$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta \omega :[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta \omega }]=2^{3\beta _1\beta _3}[b_1]\times [a_2]\times [b_3],$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta :[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R}]=2^{3\beta _1\beta _2}[b_1]\times [b_2]\times [a_3].$$
(7)
Then, the intersection numbers are

$$I_{ab}=[\mathrm{\Pi }_a][\mathrm{\Pi }_b]=2^k\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(n_a^il_b^in_b^il_a^i),$$
(8)
$$I_{ab^{}}=[\mathrm{\Pi }_a]\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_b^{}\right]=2^k\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(n_a^il_b^i+n_b^il_a^i),$$
(9)
$$I_{aa^{}}=[\mathrm{\Pi }_a]\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_a^{}\right]=2^{3k}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(n_a^il_a^i),$$
(10)
$$I_{aO6}=[\mathrm{\Pi }_a][\mathrm{\Pi }_{O6}]=2^{3k}(l_a^1l_a^2l_a^3+l_a^1n_a^2n_a^3+n_a^1l_a^2n_a^3+n_a^1n_a^2l_a^3),$$
(11)
where $`[\mathrm{\Pi }_{O6}]=[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R}]+[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R\omega }]+[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta \omega }]+[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }R\theta }]`$ is the sum of O6-plane homology three-cycles wrapped by the four O6-planes, and $`k=\beta _1+\beta _2+\beta _3`$ is the total number of tilted tori.

The general spectrum on intersecting D6-branes at generic angles, which is valid for both rectangular and tilted tori, is given in Table 1. And the 4-dimensional chiral supersymmetric (N=1) models from Type IIA Orientifolds with intersecting D6-branes are mainly constrained in two aspects:

I. Tadpole Cancellation Conditions

As sources of RR fields, D6-branes and orientifold 6-planes are required to satisfy the Gauss law in a compact space, i.e., the total RR charges of D6-branes and O6-planes must vanish since the RR field flux lines can’t escape. The RR tadpole cancellation conditions are

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}N_a[\mathrm{\Pi }_a]+{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}N_a\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_a^{}\right]4[\mathrm{\Pi }_{O6}]=0,`$ (12)
where the last contributions come from the O6-planes which have $`4`$ RR charges in the D6-brane charge unit by exchanging RR field while scattering.

Tadpole cancellation directly leads to the $`SU(N)^3`$ cubic non-abelian anomaly cancellation . And the cancellation of U(1) mixed gauge and gravitational anomaly or $`[SU(N)]^2U(1)`$ gauge anomaly can be achieved by Green-Schwarz mechanism mediated by untwisted RR fields .

II. Conditions for 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ Supersymmetric D6-brane

The 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetric models require that 1/4 supercharges from 10-dimensional Type I T-dual be preserved, i.e, they should survive two supersymmetry breaking mechanisms: orientation projection of the intersecting D6-branes, and orbifold projection on the background manifold. Concrete analysis shows that the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry can be preserved only if the rotation angle of any D6-brane with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$-plane is an element of $`SU(3)`$, or in other words, $`\theta _1+\theta _2+\theta _3=0`$, where $`\theta _i`$ is the angle between the $`D6`$-brane and the $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$-plane in the $`ith`$ torus. In Ref. , this condition is rewritten as

$`x_Al_a^1l_a^2l_a^3+x_Bl_a^1n_a^2n_a^3+x_Cn_a^1l_a^2n_a^3+x_Dn_a^1n_a^2l_a^3=0,`$ (13)
$`n_a^1n_a^2n_a^3/x_A+n_a^1l_a^2l_a^3/x_B+l_a^1n_a^2l_a^3/x_C+l_a^1l_a^2n_a^3/x_D<0,`$ (14)
where $`x_A=\lambda ,x_B=\lambda 2^{\beta _2+\beta 3}/\chi _2\chi _3,x_C=\lambda 2^{\beta _1+\beta 3}/\chi _1\chi _3,x_D=\lambda 2^{\beta _1+\beta 2}/\chi _1\chi _2`$, and $`\chi _i=R_2^i/R_1^i`$ are the complex structure moduli where $`R_1^i`$ and $`R_2^i`$ are radii for the $`ith`$ torus due to $`T^2S^1\times S^1`$. $`\lambda `$ is a positive parameter without physical significance.

## 3 Quasi-Supersymmetric $`G^3`$ Unification

Generally speaking, the RR tadpole cancellation conditions and the 4-dimensional supersymmetry preservation conditions are too stringent to find the realistic GUT models, and the existing GUT models always tend to produce extra gauge interactions and extra fermions beyond the SM or MSSM. However, by relaxing the supersymmetry preserving condition for the auxiliary D6-brane which is introduced to cancel the RR tadpole, we can construct the natural GUT models with the four properties emphasized in Introduction.

Let us look at the tadpole cancellation conditions first. If we consider $`N^{(i)}`$ auxiliary D6-branes wrapped along the $`ith`$ orientifold plane whose wrapping numbers are given in Table 2, the tadpole cancellation conditions are modified to

$`2^kN^{(1)}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}N_\sigma n_\sigma ^1n_\sigma ^2n_\sigma ^3=16,`$ (15)
$`2^kN^{(2)}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}N_\sigma n_\sigma ^1l_\sigma ^2l_\sigma ^3=16,`$ (16)
$`2^kN^{(3)}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}N_\sigma l_\sigma ^1n_\sigma ^2l_\sigma ^3=16,`$ (17)
$`2^kN^{(4)}+{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}N_\sigma l_\sigma ^1l_\sigma ^2n_\sigma ^3=16.`$ (18)
Suppose there are three stacks of observable D6-branes, $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$. Adding $`S_3`$ symmetry onto D6-branes configuration and $`T_2\times T_2\times T_2`$ geometry, i.e., $`N^{(2)}=N^{(3)}=N^{(4)}`$, $`N_a=N_b=N_c=2N`$ and $`\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi _3`$, we notice that among Eqs. (16), (17) and (18), only one is independent. Similarly for the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry preserving conditions. If one stack of the observable D6-brane preserves $`N=1`$ supersymmetry, all three stacks of D6-branes will preserve the $`N=1`$ supersymmetry automatically. The simplest case is that $`N^{(2)}=N^{(3)}=N^{(4)}=0`$, and one stack of auxiliary D6-brane wrapped along the $`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$ orientifold plane are needed for RR tadpole cancellation in these models. Then the gauge group of our models is $`G^3`$ where $`G=U(N)`$.

For simplicity, we consider three stacks of observable D6-branes ($`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$) with one zero wrapping number. Without loss of generality, we have two posssibilities

$`n_a^1=n_b^2=n_c^3=0(i);l_a^1=l_b^2=l_c^3=0(ii).`$ (19)
For the first case ($`i`$), the models without symmetric and antisymmetric representations can not be constructed. So, we focus on the second case ($`ii`$).

In addition, we only consider the models with bifundamental representations which the Standard Model fermions and Higgs particles can be embedded into. To avoid the symmetric and anti-symmetric representations, we require that

$`l_a^2n_a^3=n_a^2l_a^3;`$ $`l_b^3n_b^1=n_b^3l_b^1;`$ $`l_c^1n_c^2=n_c^1l_c^2,`$ (20)
which are equivalent to the supersymmetry preserving conditions. Because of the $`S_3`$ symmetry among the three stacks of D6-branes or three 2-tori, Eq. (20) implies

$`l_b^3n_a^3=n_b^3l_a^3;`$ $`l_c^1n_b^1=n_c^1l_b^1;`$ $`l_a^2n_c^2=n_a^2l_c^2,`$ (21)
and vice versa. This means that at massless level, the representations $`(N_a/2,N_b/2,1)`$, $`(1,N_b/2,N_c/2)`$, $`(N_a/2,1,N_c/2)`$ (or their complex conjugations) will appear or disappear together with the symmetric and anti-symmetric representations in the models with $`G^3`$ unification. As for the determination of $`N`$ in $`U(N)^3`$ gauge group, we only have two choices: 4 or 8, which can be figured out from the tadpole cancellation conditions in our setup:

$`N_an_a^1l_a^2l_a^3=16,N_bl_b^1n_b^2l_b^3=16,N_cl_c^1l_c^2n_c^3=16,`$ (22)
$`(N_an_a^1n_a^2n_a^3+N_bn_b^1n_b^2n_b^3+N_cn_c^1n_c^2n_c^3)N_gn_g^1n_g^2n_g^3=16.`$ (23)
where $`N_a=N_b=N_c=2N`$. Obviously, $`N`$ can’t be larger than 8 since the four O6-planes in our setup can only provide $`16`$ RR charges in the D6-brane charge unit, while $`N=2`$ is ruled out from the phenomenological concern. We emphasize that for $`U(4)^3`$ model, the three tori can be tilted, but, for $`U(8)^3`$ model, the three tori can not be tilted since $`n_a^1l_a^1`$ is odd.

There are three typical solutions corresponding to three $`G^3`$ models. The D6-brane configurations for Model I, Model II, and Model III are given in Tables 3, 4, and 5, respectively. We also present the chiral open string spectrum for those models in Table 6. In short, we have $`2p+1`$, $`8p`$ and $`2p`$ generations of bifundamental representations under $`U(N)^3`$ gauge symmetry which include the Standard Model fermions and Higgs particles. In particular, in Model I, we can only have three families of fermions and three pairs of Higgs particles.

One may notice that in Tables 3, 4, and 5, the number of the auxiliary branes ($`N_g`$) is negative if we have at least three family fermions. This means that the auxiliary branes are anti-D6-branes. And then, the 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry, which is preserved by the observable D6-branes and orbifold background, is broken by the auxiliary D6-branes. Therefore, the models are quasi-supersymmetric, and the NSNS tadpoles do not vanish.

## 4 Comments on Phenomenology of $`G^3`$ Models

### 4.1 Gauge Coupling Unification

The gauge couplings have been discussed in Refs. . Since the gauge couplings are associated with different stacks of D6-branes, usually they do not have a conventional gauge coupling unification, although the value of each gauge coupling at the string scale is predicted in terms of the moduli $`\chi _i`$ and the ratio of the Planck scale to string scale. Let us calculate the 4-dimensional gauge coupling in detail, and show that in our models, we do have the gauge coupling unification.

Dp-branes provide us a world where the gauge sectors are localized on $`(p+1)`$-dimensional space-time while gravity propagates in 10-dimensional space-time. Before compactification, the gravitational and gauge interaction on Dp-brane can be generally described by an effective action

$`S_{10}{\displaystyle d^{10}x\frac{M_s^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}}}{(2\pi )^7g_s^2}R_{10d}}+{\displaystyle d^{p+1}x\frac{M_s^{p3}}{(2\pi )^{p2}g_s}F_{p+1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}},`$ (24)
where $`M_s=1/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ is the string scale, and $`g_s`$ is the string coupling. Upon the compactification, the 4-dimensional Planck scale $`M_{Pl}`$ and the gauge coupling $`g_{YM}^\sigma `$ on the D6-brane stack $`\sigma `$ are

$`M_{Pl}^2={\displaystyle \frac{M_s^8V_6}{(2\pi )^7g_s^2}},(g_{YM}^\sigma )^2={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^4g_s}{M_s^3V_3^\sigma }}.`$ (25)
where

$`V_6={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^6}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}R_1^iR_2^i,`$ (26)
is the physical volume of $`T^6`$ and

$`V_3^\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\pi )^3{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sqrt{\left(n_\sigma ^iR_1^i\right)^2+\left(2^{\beta _i}l_\sigma ^iR_2^i\right)^2},`$ (27)
is the physical volume of three-cycle wrapped by the D6-brane stack $`\sigma `$. So, we obtain

$`(g_{YM}^\sigma )^2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{8\pi }M_s}{M_{Pl}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sqrt{\left(n_\sigma ^i\right)^2\chi _i^1+\left(2^{\beta _i}l_\sigma ^i\right)^2\chi _i}}}.`$ (28)
Because in our models, $`\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi _3=\chi `$, we do have the gauge coupling unification. In general, we can expect that $`n_\sigma ^i`$, $`l_\sigma ^i`$ and $`\chi _i`$ are the order one integer or real number. Then the 4-dimensional gauge coupling $`(g_{YM}^\sigma )^2`$ is about $`M_s/M_{Pl}`$. Therefore, for the intersecting D6-brane models with low string scale on the space-time $`M^4\times T^6`$ or $`M^4\times T^6/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$, where the D6-branes wrap on the factorized three cycles of three 2-tori, the gauge couplings are generically very small and may lead to the fine-tuning in the RGE runnings of gauge couplings. However, in the general Calabi-Yau threefolds, one can make the physical volume of the 6-dimensional compact manifold large without affecting the physical volume of the compact three cycles wrapped by the D6-branes , so, the low string scale in D6-brane models does not imply the very small gauge couplings in general.

### 4.2 Gauge Symmetry Breaking

In our models, the $`U(N)^3`$ gauge symmetry can be broken down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry by introducing the light open string states. As an example, we only consider the Model I, and similarly, one can discuss the gauge symmetry breaking in Model II and Model III.

In Model I, we have 3 families by choosing $`p=1`$. The gauge group is $`U(4)\times U(4)\times U(4)`$, which has subgroup $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$, i.e., the Pati-Salam model. The left-handed fermions come from the $`(4,\overline{4},1)`$ representations, the right-handed fermions come from the $`(\overline{4},1,4)`$ representations, and the pair of Higgs doublets come from the $`(1,4,\overline{4})`$ representations. Then, we will have three pairs of Higgs doublets. However, in order to have the D-flat and F-flat directions, we find that there are no Higgs particles at massless state level which can break the $`U(4)\times U(4)\times U(4)`$ gauge symmetry down to the $`SU(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ or Standard Model gauge symmetry. Thus, the GUT breaking Higgs fields must arise from the light open string spectrum.

Indeed, we do have such kind of Higgs fields. The “$`a`$” stack of D6-branes $`a`$ is parallel to the orientifold ($`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$) image $`b^{}`$ of the “$`b`$” stack of D6-branes along the third torus, i.e., the “$`b`$” stack of D6-branes $`b`$ is parallel to the orientifold ($`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$) image $`a^{}`$ of the “$`a`$” stack of D6-branes along the third torus. Then, there are open strings which stretch between the branes $`a`$ and $`b^{}`$ (or say $`a^{}`$ and $`b`$). If the minimal distance squared $`Z_{(ab^{})}^2`$ (in $`\alpha ^{}`$ units) between these two branes on the third torus is small, i.e., the minimal length squared of the stretched string is small, we have the light scalars with masses $`Z_{(ab^{})}^2/(4\pi ^2\alpha ^{})`$ from the NS sector, and the light fermions with the same masses from the R sector . These scalars and fermions form the 4-dimensional $`N=2`$ hypermultiplets. Similarly, the “$`b`$” stack of D6-branes $`b`$ is parallel to the orientifold ($`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$) image $`c^{}`$ of the “$`c`$” stack of D6-branes along the first torus, and the “$`c`$” stack of D6-branes $`c`$ is parallel to the orientifold ($`\mathrm{\Omega }R`$) image $`a^{}`$ of the “$`a`$” stack of D6-branes along the second torus. Thus, we can also have the light hypermultiplets from the open strings which stretch between the branes $`b`$ and $`c^{}`$, and between the branes $`c`$ and $`a^{}`$.

The light open string spectrum is given in Table 7. These light Higgs fields can break the $`U(4)^3`$ down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry. Roughly speaking, the Higgs fields in the $`(1,4,4)`$ and $`(1,\overline{4},\overline{4})`$ representations can break the $`U(4)\times U(4)\times U(4)`$ gauge symmetry down to the $`U(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry, and the Higgs fields in the $`(4,1,4)`$ and $`(\overline{4},1,\overline{4})`$ representations can break the $`U(4)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry. The detail symmetry breaking pattern and phenomenology are under investigation. By the way, we do not need the particles in the $`(4,4,1)`$ and $`(\overline{4},\overline{4},1)`$ representations to be light because we do not need them to break the gauge symmetry.

### 4.3 Supersymmetry Breaking and Possible Problems

In our models, the observable D6-branes preserve the same 4-dimensional $`N=1`$ supersymmetry as the orbifold background does. But, this supersymmetry is broken by the auxiliary D6-brane, which has no interesections with the observable D6-branes. So, the supersymmetry breaking effects can be mediated by the heavy bifundamental messenger fields with string scale masses which are the open strings strectching between the observable D6-brane and auxiliary D6-brane, and by the gravity supermultiplets in the bulk. Of course, the dominant contributions to the scalar masses and gaugino masses are from the gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking.

Similar to the discussions in , the quadratic divergences for scalars (for example Higgs fields) are absent up to one-loop. The supersymmetry breaking soft masses for scalars generated from two-loop diagrams are the same order as the gaugino masses generated from one-loop diagrams. The soft masses-squared for scalars $`\varphi _a`$ typically are

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_a^2[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _i}{4\pi }}]^2M_s^2.`$ (29)
In our models, $`\chi _1=\chi _2=\chi _3=\chi `$. Using Eq. (28), we obtain

$`M_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{\sqrt{8\pi }}}\stackrel{~}{m}_aM_{Pl}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sqrt{\left(n_\sigma ^i\right)^2\chi ^1+\left(2^{\beta _i}l_\sigma ^i\right)^2\chi }.`$ (30)
Considering the Model I with three families and $`\chi =1`$, we obtain that the string scale $`M_s`$ is about $`5.6\times 10^{11}`$ GeV if $`\stackrel{~}{m}_a1`$ TeV. This is a reasonable unification scale for the Pati-Salam model  and can be generated by introducing relatively large extra dimension  or small string coupling $`g_s`$. However, the gauge coupling ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}`$) at string scale is seriously suppressed to $`10^8`$, which implies the fine-tuning in the RGE runnings of gauge coulings. For the RGE runnings of gauge couplings, we should include the additional contributions from the extra adjoint fields and their KK modes, and the KK modes of gauge fields. Whether we can have such small gauge coupling at string scale is a question deserving further detail study. By the way, if $`\chi `$, which is a positive real number, is larger or smaller than 1, we can increase the string scale. However, the unification gauge coupling at string scale is the same.

## 5 Discussions and Conclusions

Adding $`S_3`$ symmetry onto the observable D6-brane configuration and complex structure moduli, we obtain three natural quasi-supersymmetric GUT models with four interesting properties. In Model I and Model II, the gauge group is $`U(4)^3`$, while in Model III the gauge group is $`U(8)^3`$. The three tori of $`T^6`$ are all tilted for Model I, and they are all rectangular for Model II and Model III. The D6-brane configurations and chiral open string spectrum at massless level are given in Tables 3$``$6. In all our three models, the Standard Model fermions and Higgs particles can be embedded into the bifundamental representations, and there is no any other unnecessary massless representations. In particular, we only have three families of fermions and three pairs of Higgs particles for Model I. Moreover, we show that there exists the gauge coupling unification in our models. We consider the gauge symmetry breaking, too. Explicitly, we show that in Model I, the $`U(4)\times U(4)\times U(4)`$ gauge symmetry can indeed be broken down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry by introducing the light open string states, and similar mechanism works for the Models II and III. Furthermore, we find that the 1 TeV scale soft masses imply the intermediate string scale ($`10^{11}10^{12}`$ GeV), which is a reasonable unification scale for the Pati-Salam model. However, the unification gauge coupling at string scale is very small and may lead to the fine-tuning in the RGE runnings of gauge coulings.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Fernando Marchesano and Ioannis Papadimitriou for helpful discussions, and thank Huiyu Albert Li for inspirational conversations. The research of T. Li was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0070928. And the research of T. Liu was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DOE-EY-76-02-3071.


text:
# Exceptional Points of Non-Hermitian Operators

## I Introduction

Exceptional points are branch point singularities of the spectrum and eigenfunctions, which occur generically when a matrix, or for instance a Hamilton operator, is analytically continued in a parameter on which it depends. The term ‘Exceptional Points’ has been introduced by Kato . When a physical problem is formulated by $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ with $`\lambda `$ being a strength parameter, the spectrum and eigenfunctions – $`E_n(\lambda )`$ and $`|\psi _n(\lambda )`$ – are in general analytic functions of $`\lambda `$. At certain points in the complex $`\lambda `$-plane two energy levels coalesce. Such coalescence is not to be confused with a genuine degeneracy, since the eigenspace of the two coalescing levels is not two but only one dimensional; in fact the corresponding eigenvectors also coalesce and there is no two dimensional subspace as is the case for a genuine degeneracy.

If both operators, $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$, are hermitian, these singularities – the exceptional points (EP) – can occur only for complex parameter values $`\lambda `$. As a consequence, at an EP the full problem $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ is no longer hermitian as such, but when dealing with matrices, it is still complex symmetric. These cases have been studied in some detail  and here we quote the major results.

EPs are always found in the vicinity of a level repulsion. Suppose that two levels show avoided level crossing when $`\lambda `$ is varied along the real axis; then the analytic continuation into the complex $`\lambda `$-plane yields a complex conjugate pair of EPs where the two coalescing levels are analytically connected by a square root branch point . The occurrence of EPs is not restricted to repulsions of bound states, a recent paper deals with the repulsion of resonant states . Being singularities in the interaction strength EPs determine the convergence radius of approximation schemes in the theory of effective interactions . Quantum mechanical phase transitions are characterised by a multitude or accumulation points of EPs .

There are a number of phenomena, where the physical effect of an EP has been at least indirectly observed. Laser induced ionisation states of atoms  are a clear manifestation of an EP even though in , it has not been analysed as such. A recent theoretical paper  shows that, for a suitable choice of parameters associated with an EP, the only acoustic modes in an absorptive medium are circular polarized waves with one specific orientation for a given EP. Similarly in optics, experimental observations in absorptive media  reveal the existence of handedness since the stable mode of light propagation is either a left or a right circular polarized wave for appropriately chosen parameters. This has been interpreted in  in terms of EPs. A particular resonant behavior of atom waves in crystals of light  has been interpreted  in terms of EPs. While absorption is essential in all cases, some situations clearly point to a chiral behavior of an EP. In fact, the wave function at the EP has been shown to have definitive chiral character  and this has been experimentally confirmed recently .

In a previous experiment , EPs have been investigated in a flat microwave cavity. Major findings have been the confirmation of a forth order branch point of the coalescing wave functions and – depending on the path in the complex $`\lambda `$-plane – level avoidance associated with width crossing or level crossing with width avoidance. These results are the consequence of the topological structure of Riemann sheets at a branch point . The experiment thus showed that this topology is a physical reality.

In the following we carry the analysis further in that we investigate the EPs of $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ when $`H_0`$ or $`H_1`$ or both are no longer hermitian. As a consequence, even for real values of $`\lambda `$, the problem $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ is no longer hermitian. This lack of hermiticity is different in nature from that discussed above where dissipation – like for instance in the optical model in nuclear physics  – makes $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ non-hermitian for complex $`\lambda `$. There is a great variety of problems in the literature where either the perturbation or the full Hamiltonian is non-hermitian. Boson mapping , effective interactions  and the the random phase approximation (RPA) in many body theory  yield non-hermitian operators. More recently a wider class of non-hermitian Hamiltonians has been proposed to address specific symmetries  or transitional points in specific delocalisation models . These suggestions have led to a further thorough study  of non-hermitian operators.

The present study is motivated by the classical problem of two coupled damped oscillators. It gives rise to non-hermitian matrices in a natural way. The problem is stated in the following section. The ensuing general treatment of section three yields new insights and special features regarding level repulsion. It is shown that the change from a complex to a pure real spectrum of a (real) non-hermitian matrix under variation of the (real) parameter $`\lambda `$ is due to the occurrence of a real EP. As expected, the coalescence at the EP of two complex eigenvalues into one real eigenvalue (which then bifurcates in two real eigenvalues) yields only one eigenfunction in contrast to the usual two for a genuine degeneracy. A typical example is the instability point of the RPA. In addition, the pattern of level repulsion is distinctly different from that of a hermitian problem: the levels approach each other in the form of a cusp and not in a smooth way as is the case for hermitian $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$. These general findings are illustrated in section four where the example of section two is resumed.

We stress that the present paper focusses upon EPs and not on the study of non-hermitian operators as such. A summary and suggestion is given in the last section.

## II Two coupled damped oscillators

As a first illustration we consider a simple classical case of two damped coupled oscillators in one dimension. Denoting by $`p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2`$ the momenta and spatial coordinates of two point particles of equal mass the equations of motion read for the driven system

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}c_1\\ c_2\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)$$
(1)
with

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2g2k_1& 2g& f\omega _1^2& f\\ 2g& 2g2k_2& f& f\omega _2^2\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\omega _jik_j,j=1,2`$ are essentially the damped frequencies without coupling and $`f`$ and $`g`$ are the coupling spring constant and damping of the coupling, respectively. The driving force is assumed to be oscillatory with one single frequency and acting on each particle with amplitude $`c_j`$. Here we are interested only in the stationary solution being the solution of the inhomogeneous equation which reads

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}p_1\\ p_2\\ q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)=(i\omega )^1\left(\begin{array}{c}c_1\\ c_2\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t).$$
(3)
Resonances occur for the real values $`\omega `$ of the complex solutions of the secular equation

$$det|i\omega |=0$$
(4)
and EPs occur for the complex values $`\omega `$ where

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\omega }det|i\omega |=0$$
(5)
is fulfilled simultaneously together with Eq.(4). We choose the parameter $`f`$ as the second variable needed to enforce the simultaneous solution of Eqs.(4) and (5) and keep the other parameters of $``$ fixed, but of course any other preference – like choosing $`g`$ – would be just as good and not alter the essential results. Thus we encounter the problem of finding the EPs of the matrix problem

$$_0+f_1$$
(6)
with

$$_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2g2k_1& 2g& \omega _1^2& 0\\ 2g& 2g2k_2& 0& \omega _2^2\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
and

$$_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Note that $`_0`$ and $`_1`$ are not symmetric. Before we turn to explicit solutions and characteristics of Eqs.(4) and (5) we first address the general problem of EPs of non-hermitian matrices.

## III General non-hermitian case

Like for the hermitian operators the behavior around an EP can be described locally by a $`2\times 2`$ matrix. The reduction of an $`N`$ dimensional to a two dimensional problem is given below. We always consider a situation where the unperturbed problem, denoted by $`H_0`$, or $`h_0`$ for the two dimensional case, is assumed to be diagonal. At first we discuss the two dimensional case and assume that the Jordan decomposition of the non-hermitian perturbation $`h_1`$, i.e. $`h_1=SJS^1`$, yields a diagonal matrix $`J`$. We thus consider

$$h(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_1& 0\\ 0& ϵ_2\end{array}\right)+\lambda S\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega _1& 0\\ 0& \omega _2\end{array}\right)S^1$$
(9)
with

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1& \mathrm{sin}\varphi _2\\ \mathrm{sin}\varphi _1& \mathrm{cos}\varphi _2\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
Note that for $`h_1`$ to be symmetric we would have $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2`$, i.e. $`S`$ would be orthogonal. For convenience we have exploited the freedom to use normalized column vectors in $`S`$. The two eigenvalues of $`h`$ are given by

$$E_{1,2}(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_1+ϵ_2+\lambda (\omega _1+\omega _2)\pm D)$$
(11)
with the discriminant

$`D=((ϵ_1ϵ_2)^2+\lambda ^2(\omega _1\omega _2)^2+`$ (12)
$`2\lambda (ϵ_1ϵ_2)(\omega _1\omega _2)\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\mathrm{sec}(\varphi _1\varphi _2))^{1/2}.`$ (13)
The two levels coalesce when $`D=0`$ that is for

$`\lambda _{EP}^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{\omega _1\omega _2}}(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)`$ (14)
$`\pm i\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _2})`$ $`\mathrm{sec}(\varphi _1\varphi _2).`$ (15)
Note that even when all parameters are real the two EPs can now occur on the real axis. It happens when the signs of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are different. The implication is that the spectrum is no longer real when $`\lambda `$ lies between $`\lambda _{EP}^{}`$ and $`\lambda _{EP}^+`$. In Fig.1 we display a typical case of a spectrum of that nature ***in Fig.1 of  the spectra $`E_k(N)`$ exhibit manifestations of real EPs in the variable $`N`$.. We recall that at the EPs, where the real spectrum ends or begins, only one eigenfunction exists of the two by two matrix problem; its precise form is given below. Here we stress a general property of a matrix at an EP: the Jordan decomposition of $`h(\lambda _{EP})=TJT^1`$ yields a non-diagonal matrix $`J`$ given by the standard form

$$J_{\mathrm{EP}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E(\lambda _{EP})& 1\\ 0& E(\lambda _{EP})\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
whereas for all points $`\lambda \lambda _{EP}`$ the matrix $`J_\lambda `$ is diagonal and reads

$`J_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`T^1h(\lambda )T`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_1(\lambda )& 0\\ 0& E_2(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (18)
We recall that $`T`$ is orthogonal (or unitary) only if $`h(\lambda )`$ is hermitian.

While it is well known that a non-hermitian operator can have a non-real spectrum, the deviation from the hermitian case has, for the real part of the spectrum, distinct consequences for the shape of level repulsions; this is exemplified in the following section where typical results of the two oscillators introduced in the previous section are presented.

Yet the local behavior at the EP is basically the same as for the hermitian case. It is clear from Eqs.(11) and (13) that the two eigenvalues are connected at the square root branch points situated at $`\lambda =\lambda _{EP}^\pm `$ just as in the hermitian case. The difference arises in the eigenfunction at the EP. Recall that the coalescence of two eigenvalues at the EP is not to be confused with a true degeneracy in that there is only one eigenfunction at the EP. At $`\lambda _{EP}^\pm `$ this single and unique eigenfunction (up to a possible common factor) turns now out to be

$$|\psi _{EP}^\pm =\pm i\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{cot}\varphi _1}{\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2}}|1+|2.$$
(19)
We note that, in contrast to the symmetric case, the left hand eigenfunction at the EP (or the eigenfunction of the adjoint problem) is now different and reads

$$\psi _{EP}^\pm |=\pm i\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{tan}\varphi _1}{\mathrm{tan}\varphi _2}}1|+2|.$$
(20)
As a result, the relation

$$\psi _{EP}^+|\psi _{EP}^+=\psi _{EP}^{}|\psi _{EP}^{}=0$$
(21)
still prevails just as in the symmetric case. The basis vectors $`|j,j=1,2`$ refer to the eigenstates of $`h_0`$.

We only mention the special case where either $`\varphi _1`$ or $`\varphi _2`$ assume the value $`0`$ or $`\pi /2`$: in contrast to the hermitian case the confluence of the two EPs does not invoke a true degeneracy with two independent eigenvectors even though it gives rise – for real parameters – to a real level crossing; also Eq.(21) is upheld at such points.

To summarize: for real matrix elements and different signs of the angles, the spectrum is complex between the two real EPs. Regarding the wave function the quotient of the amplitudes of the two coalescing wave functions deviates from that of the hermitian case. The genuinely complex superposition of the eigenfunction at the EP remains, however. For real angles $`\varphi _j`$ (of equal sign), the fixed phase difference of $`\pm \pi /2`$ between the basis states at $`\lambda _{EP}^\pm `$ occurs just as in the symmetric case, but the ratio of the modulus of the amplitudes is in general not equal to unity. In addition, as the angles may be complex, not only the ratio of the modulus but also the phase difference can be different from the hermitian case. The important point is, however, that Eq.(19) describes, up to a common factor, the only possible eigenmode at the EP.

The reduction locally of an $`N`$-dimensional problem to the appropriate effective two-dimensional problem around an EP is, mutatis mutandis, achieved along the same lines as for hermitian operators . Owing to their vanishing norm the two coalescing eigenfunctions dominate the complete set of all $`N`$ normalized eigenfunctions in the immediate vicinity of an EP. The expansion of the $`N`$-dimensional vector

$$|\psi _{EP}^\pm =\beta _k^\pm (\lambda )|\chi _k(\lambda ),$$
(22)
in terms of the complete bi-orthogonal set

$$|\chi _k(\lambda )\chi _k(\lambda )|=1\lambda \lambda _{EP}$$

with $`\beta _k^\pm (\lambda )=\chi _k(\lambda )|\psi _{EP}^\pm `$, contains virtually only two terms for $`\lambda \lambda _{EP}`$. In fact we may write

$$\underset{\lambda \lambda _{EP}}{lim}\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1^\pm \\ \mathrm{}\\ \beta _N^\pm \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{}\\ \pm i\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{cot}\varphi _1}{\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2}}\\ 1\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(23)
up to a common factor; the two non-zero positions are given by the values $`k,k+1`$ for which $`|\chi _k(\lambda )`$ and $`|\chi _{k+1}(\lambda )`$ coalesce. From Eqs.(22,23) the effective two dimensions for any $`|\psi (\lambda )`$ becomes obvious within a small neighbourhood of $`\lambda _{EP}`$.

We do not discuss cases where the Jordan decompositions of $`h_0`$ or $`h_1`$ or both do not yield diagonal but block matrices as this does not affect the local behavior at an EP. This should not be confused with the fact that in all cases an EP of the full problem $`H_0+\lambda H_1`$ (or $`h_0+\lambda h_1`$) is characterized by a non-diagonal matrix $`J`$ (see Eq.(16)) of its Jordan decomposition.

## IV Examples

While there are various physical reasons to consider non-hermitian operators, we here focus on the simple mechanical model introduced in section two. Note that the model can be easily translated into a corresponding electronic setting using two coupled R-L-C circuits. EPs can always be found for some complex values of the pair $`(\omega ,f)`$, but a complex value of the spring constant $`f`$ does not appear physical. This is in contrast to quantum mechanical cases discussed previously  where dissipation is often described by an effective complex interaction. In the classical model we therefore introduce the damping term of the coupling denoting its strength by the real constant $`g`$. For given values of $`\omega _j`$ and $`k_j`$ we determine $`g`$ such that an EP occurs at a real value of $`f`$. The associated two coalescing energies are then complex describing a damped oscillation being sustained by the driving force.

The particular model reduces the resultant of Eqs.(4) and (5) to a polynomial of fifth order in $`f`$ which is readily solved. The symmetry of the model implies that an EP at the pair $`(\omega _{EP},f_{EP})`$ is always associated with an EP at $`(\omega _{EP}^{},f_{EP})`$; we focus our attention on positive $`f`$, i.e. a repulsive spring, and the physical requirement $`\mathrm{}\omega _{EP}<0`$ implying proper damping. Obviously, EPs can occur only if either $`\omega _1\omega _2`$ or $`k_1k_2`$ or both as otherwise a genuine degeneracy is found for $`f=g=0`$.

To get a good understanding for the EPs we first turn our attention to the behavior of the eigenvalues of $`i`$ in Eq.(2) as functions of $`f`$ and $`g`$; the eigenvalues are the solutions of Eq.(4). In Fig.2 the real and imaginary parts of two levels coalescing at an EP very close to the real $`g`$-axis are plotted versus $`g`$ using for $`f`$ a real fixed value chosen such that an EP occurs in the vicinity of $`g=0.00075`$.

The level repulsion of the real parts and the expected crossing  of the imaginary parts are distinctly different in shape from the usual appearance for hermitian matrices. The cusp originates from the plain square root behavior of the singularity, i.e. the difference between the two levels is controlled by $`\sqrt{\lambda \lambda _{EP}}`$ (in Fig.2 $`\lambda g`$); this is in contrast to the two complex conjugate EPs occurring in the hermitian case where this difference is controlled by $`\sqrt{(\lambda \lambda _{EP})(\lambda \lambda _{EP}^{})}=\sqrt{(\lambda \mathrm{}\lambda _{EP})^2+(\mathrm{}\lambda _{EP})^2}`$ and hence produces a smooth approach. For illustration a typical shape of the latter is drawn schematically in the inset. The deviation from a hermitian case is even more dramatic when the two levels are plotted against $`f`$ for a fixed $`g=0.00075`$ as illustrated in Fig.3. Yet, the pattern is understood by the same mechanism being a square root branch cut running along the real $`f`$-axis and having a branch point at $`f1`$.

As we deal with a classical system we now turn to the behavior of the complex amplitudes $`q_1(\omega )`$ and $`q_2(\omega )`$ of Eq.(3). The overall oscillatory time behavior is of no interest, we rather concentrate on the modulus and the phase difference. In general these complex amplitudes depend on the amplitudes $`c_j`$ of the driving force by Eq.(3). However, as discussed in the previous section, at the EP there is only one mode possible given by Eq.(19) up to a global constant factor. In other words, at the EP the ratio of the amplitudes of the two coalescing modes is given by $`i\sqrt{\mathrm{cot}\varphi _1/\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2}`$ which is a function of only $`_0`$ and $`_1`$ and is independent of a driving force, i.e. of the $`c_j`$. At close distance to $`\omega _{EP}`$ the correct value for the ratio must therefore approximately be attained.

This is well demonstrated in Fig.4 where the moduli and phases are plotted against the driving frequency for the same parameters as in the previous figures giving rise to an EP at $`\omega _{EP}=10.050.15i`$. The top drawings are the moduli of the amplitudes with the left one referring to $`c_1=i,c_2=1`$ and the right one to $`c_1=i,c_2=1`$; below are the respective phases. The former choice (left column in Fig.4) is driving the two masses with equal strength but with a leading phase of $`\pi /2`$ for the first mass. From the drawing we see that $`q_1(\omega )/q_2(\omega )+i`$ through the whole resonance. This value is almost equal to the exact value being $`q_1(\omega _{EP})/q_2(\omega _{EP})=0.0049+i\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.000}\mathrm{}`$ (see (26) below). If, however, the ‘incorrect’ input is enforced like the lagging phase (right column), there is more variation in the response. Yet, at the resonance the phase difference still is $`+\pi /2`$, i.e opposite to the driving force and in line with the mode at the EP, even though the ratio of the moduli is quite different from unity. If the driving force is getting closer to $`\omega _{EP}`$, i.e. if a slightly damped excitation is used, the ratio does approach the exact value irrespective of the values $`c_j`$. In fact, after some slightly tedious but straightforward algebra the result

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_1(\omega _{EP})}{q_2(\omega _{EP})}}={\displaystyle \frac{p_1(\omega _{EP})}{p_2(\omega _{EP})}}=`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f_{EP}+\omega _2^22i(g+k_2)\omega _{EP}\omega _{EP}^2}{f_{EP}2ig\omega _{EP}}}`$ (25)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f_{EP}2ig\omega _{EP}}{f_{EP}+\omega _1^22i(g+k_1)\omega _{EP}\omega _{EP}^2}}`$ (26)
is obtained yielding the numerical value indicated above for the parameters considered. While this result is obtainable analytically for the particular case of Eq.(6), in general one has to resort to the two dimensional reduction by numerical means and then use Eqs.(9), (10) and (19) to find the amplitude ratio.

## V Summary

The physical relevance of EPs and their observability has been presented in the introduction. Consideration of a simple mechanical problem leads to non-hermitian matrices and the study of the associated EPs has produced new general insights. The parameters for which a real spectrum switches to complex values is clearly related to the occurrence of EPs on the real axis. The instability point of the RPA is just one case in point. In addition, the specific shape of the spectrum can be quite different from the one encountered for symmetric matrices. On the other hand, the topological structure, i.e. the Riemann sheet structure of the energy surfaces is independent of whether $`H_0`$ and/or $`H_1`$ are hermitian or not. The eigenfunctions at the EP have a structure similar to the symmetric case except for the value of the ratio of the two relevant states. This changes from $`\pm i`$ for the symmetric case to $`\pm i\sqrt{\mathrm{cot}\varphi _1/\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2}`$ for the non-hermitian case. Note also, that this ratio is different for the left hand eigenfunction at the EP.

The universal significance of the EPs is once more underlined by the particular example from classical physics. While the general features of EPs for non-hermitian $`H_0`$ and $`H_1`$ have been presented in section three, we believe that the particular results of section four can be experimentally confirmed, results whose analogues have so far been implemented in sophisticated microwave cavities , optical systems  and atomic spectra .

Acknowledgment The author acknowledges critical comments from Hendrik Geyer at the Department of Physics of the University of Stellenbosch.