text:
# General elements of an 𝑚-primary ideal on a normal surface singularity

## Introduction

Let $`(S,0)`$ be a germ of normal complex-analytic surface, with local ring $`𝒪_{S,0}`$ corresponding to the germs of holomorphic functions on $`(S,0)`$, and maximal ideal $`m`$, formed by the germs taking the value $`0`$ at $`0`$.

To any couple $`(f,g)`$ of elements of $`m`$, one may associate three related objects : the linear pencil of the curves $`C_{\alpha ,\beta }:\alpha f+\beta g=0`$ with $`(\alpha ,\beta )^2`$, the ideal $`J=(f,g)`$ in $`𝒪_{S,0}`$, and the projection :

$`p:(S,0)(^2,0),`$
$`x(f(x),g(x)).`$
We will always assume that the curves $`f=0`$ and $`g=0`$ share no common component (in other words : the corresponding linear system has no fixed component, the ideal $`J`$ is $`m`$-primary, and the projection $`p`$ is finite).

Denoting by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)(^2,0)`$ the discriminant of the projection $`p`$ (see § 4), one may define a general element of the pencil $`(C_{\alpha ,\beta })`$ as the inverse-image by $`p`$ of any line $`\alpha x+\beta y=0`$ in $`^2`$ which does not lie in the tangent cone of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)`$.

One may in turn define an element $`h=af+bgJ`$ with $`a,b𝒪_{S,0}`$ to be general iff $`a(0)f+b(0)g`$ defines a general element of the pencil $`(C_{\alpha ,\beta })`$.

In fact, we define here, for any $`m`$-primary ideal $`I`$ in $`𝒪_{S,0}`$, a notion of general element which has the following property : take any pair $`(f,g)`$ of elements of $`I`$ such that the ideal $`J=(f,g)`$ is a reduction of $`I`$ (see § 1), then the general elements of $`J`$ (in the “pencil” sense) will be general elements of $`I`$, and conversely any general element of $`I`$ will be obtained as an element of such a reduction.

However, this will not be our first definition of the general elements of $`I`$ since we rather define them purely by their behaviour on the normalized blow-up of $`I`$ (cf. def. 2.1).

In a previous paper, we proved that these elements are characterized by their Milnor number (theorem 2.3). Here, we focus on the applications of this result :

In § 3, we show how it covers both the study of limit of hyperplanes tangent to a normal surface, and the study of linear systems of plane curves, proving on one side a complement to a theorem by J. Snoussi, and on the other side an algebraic $`\mu `$-constant theorem for linear systems of plane curves (also obtained by other means by E. Casas).

In § 4, we prove the relation between our definition of general elements of $`I`$ and the one for pencils as claimed above. As a corollary, for two pencils $`(f,g)`$ and $`(f^{},g^{})`$ defining a reduction of $`I`$, the general elements of both pencils have the same Milnor number, and the discriminants of the corresponding projections have the same multiplicity, which is apparently new.

## 1 Geometry of a theorem by Samuel

In this section only, we consider a germ $`(X,0)`$ of complex analytic space with arbitrary dimension $`d`$. We let $`𝒪:=𝒪_{X,0}`$ be the corresponding local analytic ring. In fact, the content of this section would work with any local noetherian ring with infinite residue field (see e.g. \[Li\] or \[Bo\] Chap. 2.3).

We recall that an element $`f𝒪`$ is said to be integrally dependant on an ideal $`I`$ of $`𝒪`$ if it satisfies an equation :

$$f^n+a_1f^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n=0,$$

with the condition $`a_iI^i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

The theory of integral dependance on ideals was initiated by O. Zariski (see \[S-Z\] Appendix 4) and under the influence of H. Hironaka was developed in the seminar \[LJ-Te\] where several characterizations are given. In the hands of B. Teissier, it became a cornerstone in the theory of equisingularity (see e.g. \[Te-2\] Chap. 1). More recently, the theory was extended to modules under the impulse of T. Gaffney (see the survey \[Ga-Ma\]).

Let us just mention that the set $`\overline{I}`$ of the elements of $`𝒪`$ integrally dependant on $`I`$ is an ideal, called the integral closure of $`I`$ in $`𝒪`$, and that the definition of integral closure finds a natural expression on the blow-up $`X_I`$ of the germ $`(X,0)`$ along $`I`$ (see \[Te-2\]).

For the sake of simplicity, we restrict here to the case of a reduced germ $`(X,0)`$ (cf. \[Bo\] loc. cit. for the general case). Then one may take the normalization $`\overline{X_I}`$ of the blow-up $`X_I`$, and following \[Te-2\] (Chap. 1, (1.3.6) et seq.), one proves that the equality $`\overline{I}=\overline{J}`$ of integral closures of ideals in $`𝒪`$ is equivalent to the equality :

$$I.𝒪_{\overline{X_I}}=J.𝒪_{\overline{X_I}},$$
(1)
for the corresponding sheaves on the normalized blow-up $`\overline{X_I}`$.

We now take $`I`$ to be an $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪`$ i.e. containing a power $`m^s`$ of the maximal ideal of $`𝒪`$.

Denoting by $`\overline{b_I}:\overline{X_I}(X,0)`$ the normalized blow-up, we write $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_s`$ for the irreducible components of the reduced exceptional divisor $`|(\overline{b_I})^1(0)|`$, and $`v_{D_i}`$ for the valuation along $`D_i`$.

Then we define (cf. \[B-L-1\] déf-prop. 1) an element $`fI`$ to be $`v`$-superficial if, and only if,

$$v_{D_i}(f)=v_{D_i}(I):=inf\{v_{D_i}(g),gI\}\text{for all }i=1,\mathrm{},s.$$
(2)
Denoting by $`D_f:=_{i=1}^sv_{D_i}(f)D_i`$, the total transform $`(f)^{}:=(f\overline{b_I})`$ on $`\overline{X_I}`$ may be written as a sum of divisors :

$$(f)^{}=(f)^{}+D_f,$$

with $`(f)^{}`$ the strict transform of $`f`$ on $`\overline{X_I}`$.

The first part of the following proposition is an avatar of a theorem by P. Samuel. The second part is the geometric version announced in the title :

###### Proposition 1.1.

i) Let $`𝒪`$ be a local noetherian ring of dimension $`d`$ with infinite residue field $`𝒪/m`$. Let $`I`$ be an $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪`$. There exist a $`d`$-tuple $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_d)`$ of elements of $`I`$ such that the ideal $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_d)`$ is a reduction of $`I`$, i.e. has the same integral closure as $`I`$.

ii) In our setting, let $`𝒪`$ be the local ring of a reduced analytic germ $`(X,0)`$. The $`d`$-tuple in i) are characterized by the two conditions that first, all the $`f_i`$ are $`v`$-superficial in $`I`$ and secondly, the intersection of their strict transforms $`(f_i)^{}`$ on the exceptional divisor $`𝒟`$ verifies :

$$(f_1)^{}(f_2)^{}\mathrm{}(f_d)^{}𝒟=\mathrm{}.$$

We call such a $`d`$-tuple a good $`d`$-tuple of $`v`$-superficial elements in $`I`$.

We will not give the proof here, but the reader should understand that ii) also easily gives the proof of i) thanks to the characterization on (1) above. In fact, the same “geometric proof” works under the general hypotheses of i) but one has to work on the non normalized blow-up (see \[Bo\] Chap. 2).

The original theorem by Samuel was formulated in terms of multiplicities (cf. \[S-Z\] Chap. VIII thm. 22) so that it seems relevant to mention the following :

###### Proposition 1.2.

Let $`𝒪`$ be analytic local integral domain, and $`I`$ an $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪`$. The multiplicity $`e(I/(f),𝒪/(f))=e(I,𝒪)`$ if, and only if, $`f`$ is $`v`$-superficial.

This result can be deduced from a general formula for $`e(I/(f),𝒪/(f))`$ due to Flenner and Vogel in \[Fl-Vo\] (for any noetherian local ring).

## 2 General elements of an ideal

From now on, we restrict ourselves to a two-dimensional normal germ $`(S,0)`$.222For the elementary properties of normal surfaces we use here, see \[Sn\] § 2.6, and \[B-L-2\].

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`𝒪`$ be the local ring of a germ of normal surface $`(S,0)`$ and let $`I`$ be an $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪`$. Adapting the notation from section 1, $`\overline{S_I}`$ denotes the normalized blow-up of $`I`$ on $`(S,0)`$. We define an element $`fI`$ to be general if, and only if,

* $`f`$ is $`v`$-superficial in $`I`$ (cf. § 1 (2)),
* the strict transform $`(f)^{}`$ is a smooth curve transversal to the exceptional divisor $`𝒟`$ in $`\overline{S_I}`$, which means that $`(f)^{}`$ does not go through singular points either of $`\overline{S_I}`$ or of $`𝒟`$ and that the intersection is transverse.

Consider any resolution $`r:X\overline{S_I}`$ of the singularities of $`\overline{S_I}`$, good in the sense that, denoting by $`\pi =\overline{b_I}r:X(S,0)`$, the exceptional divisor $`Z=\pi ^1(0)`$ has only normal-crossing singularities.

Denote by $`(f\pi )=(f)^{}+Z_f`$ the decomposition of the total transform of $`(f)`$ on $`X`$ into an exceptional (compact) part $`Z_f`$ and its strict transform denoted again $`(f)^{}`$.

Denoting $`Z_I`$ the divisor defined by $`I.𝒪_X`$ on $`X`$, we easily get the following :

###### Proposition 2.2.

With the notation as above, $`fI`$ is general if, and only if, its total transform on $`X`$ is such that :

* its exceptional part is the generic one for the elements of $`I`$ i.e. $`Z_f=Z_I`$,
* its strict transform is a (multi-germ of) smooth curves transversal to $`Z`$.

As a corollary of this proposition, it is possible (either by a computation of Euler-Poincaré characteristic of covering spaces as indicated in \[B-L-1\] § 4, which followed \[GS\], or by an algebraic derivation from a Riemann-Roch formula as in \[Mo\] 2.1.4) to compute the Milnor number (in the sense of \[Bu-Gr\]) of the complex curve defined by any general element $`fI`$. We then get :

$$\mu (f)=\mu _I:=1(Z_I.(Z_I|Z_I|K)),$$
(3)
on any good resolution as defined before the proposition, where $`|Z_I|`$ (resp. $`K`$) denote the reduced divisor associated to $`Z_I`$ (resp. the numerically canonical cycle) and $`()`$ denotes the intersection product (see \[B-L-1\]).

The main theorem in \[B-L-1\] is the converse implication :

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`(S,0)`$ a germ of normal surface singularity, and $`I`$ an $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪_{S,0}`$. An element $`fI`$ is general in the sense of 2.1 if, and only if, the Milnor number $`\mu (f)`$ has the value $`\mu _I`$ prescribed by formula (3), which is also the minimum Milnor number for the elements of $`I`$.

###### Remark 2.4.

Thanks to the algebraic computation of the Milnor number for general elements which follows from \[Mo\] (see before formula (3)), theorem 2.3 is proved without any topological argument, so that the proof fits to the setting of algebraic geometry over any algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.

## 3 Two special cases

### 3.1 The case when $`(S,0)`$ is arbitrary but $`I=m`$

For a germ $`(S,0)`$ of normal surface, given an embedding $`(S,0)(^N,0)`$ defined by $`N`$ generators of the maximal ideal $`m`$ of $`𝒪_{S,0}`$, we may consider the elements $`fm`$ as hypersurface sections of $`S`$. From this point of view, J. Snoussi studies in \[Sn\] what he called the general hyperplanes with respect to $`(S,0)`$. An hyperplane $`H0`$ in $`^N`$ is said to be general for $`(S,0)`$ if, and only if, it is not the limit of hyperplane tangents to the non singular locus of a small representant of $`(S,0)`$ in $`^N`$ (loc. cit. déf. 2.2). He then proves (loc. cit. thm. 4.2.) :

###### Theorem 3.1 (Snoussi).

If $`(S,0)`$ is a normal surface singularity embedded in $`(^N,0)`$, and if $`H`$ is an hyperplane which does not contain an irreducible component of the tangent cone $`C_{S,0}`$ of $`(S,0)`$, then $`H`$ is general if, and only if, the Milnor number $`\mu (HS,0)`$ is minimum among the Milnor numbers of hyperplane sections of $`(S,0)`$.

From the definition of $`v`$-superficial elements given in § 1 (2), it is clear that the equation of an hyperplane $`H`$ defines a $`v`$-superficial element of the maximal ideal of $`𝒪_{S,0}`$ if, and only if, $`H`$ does not contain an irreducible component of $`C_{S,0}`$. Hence, our theorem 2.3 improves theorem 3.1 as follows (see (ii)) :

###### Corollary 3.2 (of our theorem 2.3).

(i) The equation of a general hyperplane in the sense of Snoussi defines a general element of $`m`$ in the sense of definition 2.1. Conversely, if one takes a general element $`fm`$ and any embedding of $`(S,0)(^N,0)`$ such that $`f`$ is induced by a coordinate function, $`f=0`$ defines a general hyperplane.

(ii) In theorem 3.1, one may remove the hypothesis $`H`$ does not contain an irreducible component of the tangent cone $`C_{S,0}`$ of $`(S,0)`$ since theorem 2.3 proved that elements with $`\mu `$ minimum necessarily have this property.333Note that this is exactly the tricky part of the argument in \[B-L-1\].

### 3.2 The case when $`(S,0)=(^2,0)`$ and $`I`$ is arbitrary

Since the definition of general element of an ideal given in def 2.1 was the same for an ideal $`I`$ and its integral closure $`\overline{I}`$ we consider only integrally closed ideals in the following discussion i.e. ideals such that $`I=\overline{I}`$.

These ideals were first studied by O. Zariski (see \[S-Z\] App. 5, where they are rather called complete) as the algebrization of Enriques’theory of clusters of points. For all this, we refer to the nice survey \[LJ\], and the book \[Ca\] :

A cluster $`K=(0_i,\nu _i)_i`$ is a set of points $`0_i`$ infinitely near $`0`$ i.e. lying above $`0`$ in a sequence of point blow-up starting from $`(^2,0)`$, with ascribed multiplicities $`\nu _i`$. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the integrally closed ideals of $`(^2,0)`$ and the clusters $`(O_i,\nu _i)`$ satisfying the so-called proximity relations of Enriques (see \[LJ\] 5.1), also called consistent clusters in \[Ca\] (p. 124).

For such a cluster $`K=(0_i,\nu _i)_i`$, the corresponding ideal $`I_K`$ is defined as the set of $`f`$ such that virtual multiplicity of the curve defined by $`f`$ at the point $`0_i`$ is at least $`\nu _i`$ (cf. loc. cit.).444In \[Bo\] Chap. 1, we explain how, once $`I_K`$ is known, the virtual multiplicities of the elements of $`I`$ coincide with the multiplicities of their weak transforms (cf. loc. cit. 1.1.6).

Now $`fI_K`$ is said to go sharply through $`K`$ if, and only if, $`f`$ goes through the $`0_i`$ with effective multiplicity equal to the $`\nu _i`$ and has no singular points outside $`K`$ (cf. \[Ca\] p. 127).

###### Remark 3.3.

It is easy to see that two germs going sharply through $`K`$ are equisingular (cf. \[Ca\] p. 127), in the sense of the well-known equisingularity theory of germs of plane curves.

The careful study in \[LJ\], compared to our proposition 2.2, yields :

###### Lemma 3.4.

For an integrally closed $`m`$-primary ideal $`I`$ of $`𝒪_{^2,0}`$, corresponding to a (consistent) cluster $`K`$, an element $`fI`$ is general in the sense of our def. 2.1 if, and only if, $`f`$ goes sharply through $`K`$ in the sense above.

###### Proof.

The proof of (ii)$``$(ii’) in \[LJ\] p. 360-361, gives exactly the equivalence between the fact that $`f`$ goes through the $`O_i`$ with effective multiplicity $`\nu _i`$ and the fact that $`Z_f=Z_I`$ on the minimal resolution of the blow-up of $`(^2,0)`$ along $`I`$ (notation of prop. 2.2).

Now the fact that $`f`$ has no singular points outside $`K`$ gives that the strict transform of $`f`$ on $`S`$ is transversal to the exceptional divisor by the argument of \[LJ\], proof of 6.1. (applied to each branch of $`f`$ corresponding to a simple ideal in the decomposition of $`I`$) . The converse is clear. ∎

With this, we get from our theorem 2.3 and rem. 3.3 the following :

###### Corollary 3.5.

For an integrally closed $`m`$-primary ideal $`I`$ of $`𝒪_{^2,0}`$, all the elements $`fI`$ such that $`\mu (f)`$ has the generic value $`\mu _I`$ are equisingular.

Note that this $`\mu `$-constant result for linear systems of plane curves is obtained without using topology (cf. rem. 2.4). Another algebro-geometric proof of the same result is derived from the theory of clusters in \[Ca\] § 7.3. No such algebraic proof exists for the much more general theorem of Lê (in \[Lê-1\]) on arbitrary (non-linear) family of germs of plane curves (cf. the remark on p. 361 in \[Te-2\]).

## 4 General elements and discriminants

We go back to our general setting i.e. $`(S,0)`$ is any germ of normal surface singularity, $`I`$ any $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪_{S,0}`$ and we take $`(f,g)`$ a good couple of $`v`$-superficial elements in $`I`$ (cf. prop. 1.1) so that $`J=(f,g)`$ is a reduction of $`I`$.

Let $`p:(S,0)(^2,0)`$ be the projection corresponding to $`f,g`$ as in the introduction, whose degree $`\mathrm{deg}(p)`$ is by definition the multiplicity $`e(f,g)=e(I)`$.

Following Teissier (cf. \[Te-1\]), one defines the critical space $`(C_p,0)`$ of $`p`$ by the ideal $`I_{C_p}=F_0(\mathrm{\Omega }_p)`$ in $`𝒪_{(S,0)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ denotes the module of relative differentials, and $`F_0`$ the zeroth Fitting ideal. Then, denoting $`𝒪_{C_p,0}=𝒪_{S,0}/I_{C_p}`$, one constructs the discriminant space $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)`$ as the image of $`(C_p,0)`$ by $`p`$, defined in $`(^2,0)`$ by the ideal :

$$I_{\mathrm{\Delta }_p}:=F_0(p_{}𝒪_{C_p,0}).$$

Now the space $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)`$ may be both non-reduced at a generic point of one of its components, and have an embedded component at $`0`$. We denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{div}`$ the divisorial part of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)`$ i.e. we do not consider the possible embedded component at $`0`$ (the reader will find more detail on all this in \[B-L-2\] § 3).

The following lemma was called Lê-Greuel formula in \[B-L-2\] 3.9 :

###### Lemma 4.1.

With the notation as above, for any line $`L:\alpha x+\beta y=0`$ in $`^2`$, denoting by $`()`$ the intersection number at $`0`$, we have the following equality :

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{div}L)_0=\mu (p^1(L),0)+\mathrm{deg}(p)1,$$
(4)
where $`\mu `$ is the Milnor number in the sense of \[Bu-Gr\].

###### Remark 4.2.

From the definition 2.1 of general elements applied to $`J=(f,g)`$, and Bertini’s theorem, it is easy to see that for generic values of the numbers $`(\alpha ,\beta )^2`$ the element $`\alpha f+\beta g`$ of the linear pencil defined by $`f,g`$ is a general element of the ideal $`J`$ (cf. also \[B-L-1\]).

Now with the formula (4) above, one deduces the following :

###### Corollary 4.3 (of theorem 2.3).

Let $`J=(f,g)`$ be an $`m`$-primary ideal of $`𝒪_{S,0}`$. The elements $`\alpha f+\beta g`$ with $`(\alpha ,\beta )^2`$ which are general elements of $`J`$ (in the sense of def. 2.1) are exactly the inverse-images $`p^1(L)`$ of the lines $`L:\alpha x+\beta y=0`$ transversal to the discriminant in lemma 4.1.

###### Proof.

The formula (4) gives the equivalence between minimal Milnor number in the pencil and minimal intersection number $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{div}L)`$; by remark 4.2 we already know that the minimum Milnor number in $`J`$ is obtained by elements of the pencil, and we conclude by theorem 2.3. ∎

Now, we may also compare two projections $`p=(f,g)`$ and $`p^{}=(f^{},g^{})`$ such that the corresponding ideals $`(f,g)`$ and $`(f^{},g^{})`$ have the same integral closure $`I`$. We then know that $`\mathrm{deg}(p)=\mathrm{deg}(p^{})=e(I)`$ and from the foregoing, the generic Milnor numbers in the two pencils defined by $`(f,g)`$ and $`(f^{},g^{})`$ are both equal to the same number $`\mu _I`$ as defined in formula (3). Then formula (4) yields :

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`(f,g)`$ and $`(f^{},g^{})`$ be two $`m`$-primary ideals on $`𝒪_{S,0}`$ having the same integral closure $`I`$, the multiplicity of the discriminant of the projections $`p`$ defined by $`f,g`$ and $`p^{}`$ defined by $`f^{},g^{}`$ onto $`^2`$ are the same, equal to :

$$e(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)=\mu _I+e(I)1.$$
(5)
In the special case of any projection $`p=(f,g)`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(p)`$ equal to the multiplicity $`e(S,0)`$ of the germ $`(S,0)`$ (which is by definition the multiplicity $`e(m)`$), by a theorem of Rees (cf. \[Te-2\] p. 340), $`(f,g)`$ is a reduction of $`m`$. Hence, for any such projection we have the following formula :

$$e(\mathrm{\Delta }_p,0)=\mu ^2+\mu ^1,$$
(6)
where $`\mu ^2`$ is the generic Milnor number $`\mu _m`$ in $`m`$, and $`\mu ^1=e(S,0)1`$. The notation $`\mu ^i`$ follows Teissier (cf. \[Te-2\] ex. 2.2 p. 423) where the $`\mu ^i(X,0)`$ denote in general the Milnor number of the intersection of a hypersurface $`(X,0)`$ with a “general enough” linear subspace of dimension $`i`$. Here our $`(S,0)`$ is no longer an hypersurface so that the Milnor number is in the sense of \[Bu-Gr\]. Note also that even in the case of an hypersurface of $`^3`$, we obtain our formula (6) for a broader class of projections than the corresponding formula in \[Te-2\] loc. cit.

Acknowledgement The idea of making more explicit the consequences of our previous work \[B-L-1\] partly arose from the conversations I had at the CIRM with several “Franco-Japanese” mathematicians. I would like to thank them for their interest and the organizers for such a nice opportunity.

C.M.I., 39 rue F. Joliot-Curie,
13453 Marseille Cedex 13
France
email : bondil@cmi.univ-mrs.fr


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well-known that the equations of motion for a point particle in Euclidean space moving under the influence of a Minkowski potential possessing at least two degenerate minima, admit finite action solutions which are the instantons. Their existence is responsible for tunnelling processes in the Minkowski space. The symmetries of the action are reflected in the space of instanton solutions. Local deformations of these solutions in the directions determined by the symmetries give rise to zero modes in the semiclassical expansion. To avoid infinities in the path integral due to these zero modes one is forced to introduce collective coordinates .

In the presence of rigid supersymmetry the above solutions are still instantons provided that the fermions vanish . Applying the rigid supersymmetry transformation rules on these instantons one determines a more complete set of instantons where the fermions no longer vanish but instead they depend linearly on Grassmann collective coordinates. The number of Grassmann collective coordinates is equal to the number of the Fermi fields present. Since the new instantons are related to the previous ones by supersymmetry, the classical action remains the same.

It is possible to break supersymmetry through the introduction of a four-Fermi term . The new equations of motion can be solved iteratively starting with the instanton solution in the supersymmetric case. The iterative process terminates due to the nature of Grassmann collective coordinates so in this way it is possible to obtain exact solutions to the new equations of motion. Since there is no symmetry involved in obtaining these solutions the instanton action will change. The correction is the integral of a total derivative term, so it depends only on the boundary values of the fields. It depends also on the Grassmann collective coordinates introduced by supersymmetry. Note that the fermionic fields become infinite as $`\tau \pm \mathrm{}`$ while it is possible to keep the bosonic field finite by appropriate choice of the integration constants. Nevertheless, despite this infinity, the action remains finite.

As an explicit example we consider the quantum mechanical Sine-Gordon potential with a four-Fermi term. The iterative solution of the equations of motion is demonstrated explicitly determining in this way the instantons. The integration constant that renders the bosonic field finite is determined. In this case the instanton action becomes $`S=\frac{8m^3}{\lambda }+ϵ^{ijkl}\xi _i\xi _j\xi _k\xi _l\frac{mg}{12}`$ where $`g,\lambda `$ are coupling constants.

Finally, we solve the equations of motion for a general potential in terms of the bosonic part of the instanton when the Fermi field is zero, which is used as a new variable instead of $`\tau `$. It is interesting that in order to compute the action corrections it is not necessary to solve the nonlinear BPS equation. In fact it is possible to express completely both the instanton and the finite boson integration constant in terms of the new variable.

## 2 The Quantum Mechanical Model

We start by considering the following one dimensional quantum mechanical model in Euclidean space:

$`S_{cl}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[(\dot{x}(\tau ))^2+U^2(x)\right]𝑑\tau .`$ (1)
The potential $`\frac{1}{2}U^2(x)`$ of the equivalent particle is asumed to have a number of degenerate minima.

The equation of motion is

$`\ddot{x}U(x)U^{}(x)=0.`$ (2)
The instanton solution of this equation satisfies the BPS equation

$`\dot{x}_{in}+U(x_{in})=0`$ (3)
subject to the conditions $`x_{in}(\pm \mathrm{})=C_\pm `$ where $`U(C_\pm )=0`$. The action is invariant under time translations which implies that if $`x_{in}(\tau )`$ is a solution to the BPS equation then $`x_{in}(\tau \tau _0)`$ is also a solution. This means that

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_0(\tau \tau _0)=\dot{x}_{in}(\tau \tau _0)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau _0}}x_{in}(\tau \tau _0)`$ (4)
is a zero mode of the operator corresponding to the quadratic variation of the action around $`x_{in}`$. It satisfies the equation

$`\dot{\stackrel{~}{Z}}_0(\tau \tau _0)+U^{}(x_{in})\stackrel{~}{Z}_0(\tau \tau _0)=0.`$ (5)
Note that the normalization of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_0`$ defined as $`\dot{x}_{in}`$ is just the absolute value of the classical action. This is so because

$`S_{cl}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}(\dot{x}_{in})^2𝑑\tau ={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^2𝑑\tau `$ (6)
where we use the BPS equation. So it is reasonable to define the normalised zero mode as follows

$`Z_0=|S_{cl}|^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{Z}_0.`$ (7)
It is possible to introduce fermions into this model by adding the terms

$`S_{2f}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\psi _i^T\dot{\psi }_i+(\psi _i^T\sigma _2\psi _i)U^{}\right]𝑑\tau .`$ (8)
where $`\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\hfill \\ i& 0\hfill \end{array}\right)`$, $`\psi _i`$ are two component Majorana fermions and the fermionic index is a colour index ranging in $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$.

Each fermion is related to a boson through rigid $`N=1`$ supersymmetry realised by the transformations

$`\delta x=ϵ^T\sigma _2\psi ;\delta \psi =\sigma _2\dot{x}ϵUϵ.`$ (9)
The spinor $`ϵ`$ can be expanded in terms of the eigenstates $`\psi _\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \pm i\end{array}\right)`$ of $`\sigma _2`$ as follows

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\xi _+\psi _++\xi _{}\psi _{}\right)`$ (10)
and then it can be proved that if $`ϵ=(\frac{1+\sigma _2}{2})ϵ`$ then

$`\delta x=0;\delta \psi =\xi _+\psi _+Z_0(\tau ).`$ (11)
Starting from the configuration $`x=x_{in}`$, $`\psi =0`$ and integrating over the above supersymmetry transformations we arrive at the instanton given by $`x=x_{in}`$ and

$`\psi _i^{(1)}=\xi _iZ_0(\tau \tau _0)\psi _+.`$ (12)
To each colour index we associate the same bosonic zero mode but different Grasmannian collective coordinates $`\xi _i`$. Following  we add to the action a four Fermi term which breaks supersymmetry

$`S_{4f}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}ϵ_{ijkl}(\psi _i^T\sigma _1\psi _j)(\psi _k^T\sigma _1\psi _l)𝑑\tau `$ (13)
where $`\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\hfill \\ 1& 0\hfill \end{array}\right)`$. The new field equations are now

$`\ddot{x}UU^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\psi _i^T\sigma _2\psi _i)U^{\prime \prime }`$ (14)
$`\dot{\psi }_i+\sigma _2\psi _iU^{}`$ $`=`$ $`gϵ_{ijkl}\sigma _1\psi _j(\psi _k^T\sigma _1\psi _l).`$ (15)
Expanding $`\psi _i`$ w.r.t the GCC one has $`\psi _i=\psi _i^{(1)}+\psi _i^{(3)}`$. Note that all the other terms in the expansion vanish. Making the ansatz

$`\psi _i^{(3)}=\alpha (\tau )ϵ_{ijkl}\xi _j\xi _k\xi _l\psi _{},`$ (16)
and plugging it into the fermionic field equation (15) one gets

$`\dot{\alpha }\alpha U^{}=gZ_0^3.`$ (17)
Since the solution of the homogeneous equation is $`Z_0^1`$ it is natural to set

$`\alpha (\tau )=Z_0^1y(\tau ).`$ (18)
This leads to the equation

$`\dot{y}(\tau )=gZ_0^4.`$ (19)
Similarly we can expand $`x(\tau )=x_{in}(\tau )+x^{(4)}(\tau )`$ and plug this into the bosonic field equation which gives

$`\ddot{x}^{(4)}x^{(4)}(UU^{\prime \prime }+U^2)(x_{in})=ϵ\xi ^4Z_0\alpha (\tau )U^{\prime \prime }(x_{in}).`$ (20)
The solution of the homogeneous equation is $`Z_0(\tau )`$ so it is natural to set $`x^{(4)}=ϵ\xi ^4Z_0(\tau )\beta (\tau )`$ where $`\beta (\tau )`$ satisfies

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(Z_0^2\dot{\beta })=y(\tau )Z_0(\tau )U^{\prime \prime }(x_{in})`$ (21)
and $`ϵ\xi ^4=ϵ_{ijkl}\xi _i\xi _j\xi _k\xi _l`$.

It is interesting to compute the corrections to the classical action due to $`\psi _i^{(3)}`$ and $`x^{(4)}`$. The two Fermi term gives

$`S_{2f}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\psi _i^{T(1)}\dot{\psi }_i^{(3)}+\psi _i^{T(3)}\dot{\psi }_i^{(1)}+(\psi _i^{T(1)}\sigma _2\psi _i^{(3)}+\psi _i^{T(3)}\sigma _2\psi _i^{(1)})U^{}(x_{in})\right]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\psi _i^{T(3)}(\dot{\psi }_i^{(1)}+\sigma _2\psi _i^{(1)}U^{})+\psi _i^{T(1)}(\dot{\psi }_i^{(3)}+\sigma _2\psi _i^{(3)}U^{})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(ϵ\xi ^4\right){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\dot{y}𝑑\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(ϵ\xi ^4\right)\left(y(\mathrm{})y(\mathrm{})\right)`$
and the four Fermi term

$`S_{4f}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}ϵ_{ijkl}(\psi _i^{T(1)}\sigma _1\psi _j^{(1)})(\psi _k^{T(1)}\sigma _1\psi _l^{(1)})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(ϵ\xi ^4\right)\left(y(\mathrm{})y(\mathrm{})\right).`$ (23)
One easily checks that $`S_{4f}=\frac{1}{2}S_{2f}`$.

The bosonic correction gives

$`S_{bc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\dot{x}_{in}\dot{x}^{(4)}+x^{(4)}U(x_{in})U^{}(x_{in})\right]`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}(x^{(4)}\dot{x}_{in})𝑑\tau =ϵ\xi ^4\sqrt{S_{cl}}\left(\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}(Z_0^2(\tau )\beta (\tau ))\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}(Z_0^2(\tau )\beta (\tau ))\right).`$
It is worth noting that if the bosonic field is finite as $`\tau =\pm \mathrm{}`$ then $`lim_\tau \mathrm{}\left(\beta (\tau )Z_0(\tau )\right)`$ is finite and since $`lim_\tau \mathrm{}Z_0(\tau )=0`$ the bosonic correction vanishes.

## 3 The Sine-Gordon model

For the Sine-Gordon model the action is

$`S_{cl}^{SG}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[\dot{x}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^4}{\lambda }}(1\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{m}}x))\right]𝑑\tau .`$ (25)
Here

$`U(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{\sqrt{\lambda }}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{2m}}x).`$ (26)
The BPS equation takes the form

$`\dot{x}_{in}+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{\sqrt{\lambda }}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{2m}}x_{in}=0`$ (27)
and can be easily solved to give

$`x_{in}(\tau )=\pm 4{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\sqrt{\lambda }}}\mathrm{tan}^1e^{m(\tau \tau _0)}.`$ (28)
The minus sign corresponds to the instanton solution and the plus sign to the anti-instanton. In what follows we are going to work with the instanton. The zero mode corresponding to the instanton is

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_0(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{dx_{in}}{d\tau }}=2{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\sqrt{\lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cosh(m(\tau \tau _0))}}`$ (29)
and the classical action becomes

$`S_{cl}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^2𝑑\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{8m^3}{\lambda }}`$ (30)
So

$`Z_0=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cosh(m(\tau \tau _0))}}.`$ (31)
Upon introducing the two and four Fermi terms given in the previous section, we get that the fermionic field is $`\psi _i=\psi _i^{(1)}+\psi _i^{(3)}`$ where $`\psi _i^{(1)}`$ is given by (12) and $`\psi _i^{(3)}`$ is given by (16). The function $`y(\tau )`$ is the solution of the equation

$`\dot{y}(\tau )=gZ_0^4(\tau )=g{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cosh^4(m(\tau \tau _0))}}`$ (32)
This can be solved by setting $`z=tanh(m(\tau \tau _0))`$. With this change of variable the solution is written as

$`y(z)={\displaystyle \frac{gm}{4}}(a+z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}z^3)`$ (33)
and thus

$`\psi _i^{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1z^2}}}(a+z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}z^3)ϵ_{ijkl}\xi _j\xi _k\xi _l\psi _{}.`$ (34)
To determine the form of $`x^{(4)}`$ we solve the bosonic field equation (21). In terms of the new variable z this equation becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{dz}}Z_0^4(\tau )\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2m}}}y(\tau ).`$ (35)
This gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{dz}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{m}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2m}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{(1z^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha z}{(1z^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{2(1z^2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^4}{12(1z^2)^2}}\right).`$ (36)
The solution to this equation is

$`\beta (z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{m}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2m}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{24}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{z}{z^21}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z+1}{1z}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{z^21}}+B\right]`$ (37)
The contribution to the two and four Fermi terms is

$`S_{2f}+S_{4f}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_{2f}=ϵ\xi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{gm}{12}}.`$ (38)
The bosonic correction is

$`S_{bc}=ϵ\xi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}gm\left(A+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{12}}\right).`$ (39)
If the bosonic field is bounded at infinity then $`S_{bc}`$ vanishes and this implies that $`A=\frac{5}{12}`$. In this case the full action is

$`S_{tot}={\displaystyle \frac{8m^3}{\lambda }}+ϵ\xi ^4{\displaystyle \frac{gm}{12}}.`$ (40)
## 4 Generalisation

It is worth mentioning that it is possible to solve exactly the equations (19), (21) if we change variables from $`\tau `$ to $`x_{in}`$. This is so because $`\dot{x}_{in}=\sqrt{|S_{cl}|}Z_0`$. Applying this change of variable to (19) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx_{in}}}={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{|S_{cl}|}}}Z_0^3={\displaystyle \frac{g}{|S_{cl}|^2}}U^3(x_{in})`$ (41)
where $`|S_{cl}|=|_C_{}^{C_+}U(x_{in})𝑑x_{in}|`$. This admits the solution

$`y=gm\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{|S_{cl}|^2}}{\displaystyle U^3(x_{in})𝑑x_{in}}.`$ (42)
The integration constant $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ has been chosen to be dimensionless. Similarly equation (21) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx_{in}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{dx_{in}}}U^3(x_{in})\right)=\sqrt{|S_{cl}|}y(x_{in})U^{\prime \prime }(x_{in}).`$ (43)
Integrating once this equation and using (41) we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{dx_{in}}}=\sqrt{|S_{cl}|}y(x_{in}){\displaystyle \frac{U^{}(x_{in})}{U^3(x_{in})}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}|S_{cl}|^{\frac{3}{2}}U(x_{in})+gm^2\sqrt{|S_{cl}|}\stackrel{~}{A}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^3(x_{in})}}.`$ (44)
Integrating again we get

$`\beta (x_{in})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|S_{cl}|^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^2(x_{in})}}\left(gm|S_{cl}|^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+g{\displaystyle U^3(x_{in})𝑑x_{in}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g|S_{cl}|^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle U(x_{in})𝑑x_{in}}`$ (45)
$`+`$ $`gm^2|S_{cl}|^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^3(x_{in})}𝑑x_{in}}+g|S_{cl}|^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{B}.`$
Recall now that as $`\tau \pm \mathrm{}`$, $`x_{in}C_\pm `$ where $`U(C_\pm )=0`$. Demanding that the bosonic field correction is finite we get that $`lim_{x_{in}C_\pm }\left(\beta (x_{in})U(x_{in})\right)`$ is finite, so $`lim_{x_{in}C_\pm }\left(\beta (x_{in})U^2(x_{in})\right)=0`$. This translates into the conditions

$`gm^2|S_{cl}|^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}\underset{x_{in}C_+}{lim}\left(U^2(x_{in}){\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_{in}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^3(s)}}𝑑s\right){\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}|S_{cl}|^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{C_+}}U^3(s)𝑑s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }gm|S_{cl}|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (46)
$`gm^2|S_{cl}|^{\frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{A}\underset{x_{in}C_{}}{lim}\left(U^2(x_{in}){\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_{in}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U^3(s)}}𝑑s\right){\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}|S_{cl}|^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^C_{}}U^3(s)𝑑s={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }gm|S_{cl}|^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (47)
where the value of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is determined by the choice of $`x_0`$. Subtracting the two equations we arrive at

$`\stackrel{~}{A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^2}}|S_{cl}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{_C_{}^{C_+}U^3(s)𝑑s}{\left(lim_{x_{in}C_+}lim_{x_{in}C_{}}\right)\left(U^2(x_{in})_{x_0}^{x_{in}}\frac{1}{U^3(s)}𝑑s\right)}}.`$ (48)
These formulae have been checked in the cases of the double well and the Sine-Gordon potentials. For the double well potential the results agree with those of  provided that we redefine our integration constants appropriately. In the case of the Sine-Gordon model the results agree with those of the previous section under the following identification of the integration constants

$`\stackrel{~}{A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{4}};\stackrel{~}{\alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4}};\stackrel{~}{B}={\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}.`$ (49)
## 5 Conclusion

We have determined the corrections to the supersymmetric instanton, for a point particle in a general potential that admits at least two degenerate minima, due to the presence of a supesymmetry breaking four-Fermi term. Starting from the instanton solution of the supersymmetric case and applying an iterative procedure we obtain exact solution of the new equations of motion. There is no symmetry involved in obtaining these solutions so the classical action will receive corrections. If we demand that the bosonic field remains finite as $`\tau \pm \mathrm{}`$ then only the two- and four-fermion terms contribute corrections to the classical action. The fermionic fields diverge as $`\tau \pm \mathrm{}`$ nevertheless their corrections to the action remain finite. In the case of the Sine-Gordon potential the classical action gets modified by the contribution $`ϵ^{ijkl}\xi _i\xi _j\xi _k\xi _l\frac{mg}{12}`$ where the $`\xi _i`$ are fermionic collective coordinates. Finally, by a suitable change of variables, we determine the corrections to the classical action for a general potential and we compute the integration constant $`A`$ that makes the bosonic field finite when $`\tau \pm \mathrm{}`$ in terms of the potential only.


text:
# 1 Problems of Simple Models with Horizontal Symmetry

## 1 Problems of Simple Models with Horizontal Symmetry

First of all, we recall the basic features and the problems of non-abelian horizontal symmetry, considering a simple model with a horizontal symmetry $`U(2)_H`$, under which the three generations of quarks and leptons, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=(\mathrm{\Psi }_a,\mathrm{\Psi }_3)`$ ($`a=1,2`$) ($`\mathrm{\Psi }=Q,U,D,L,E,N`$), transform as $`\mathrm{𝟐}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and the Higgs fields $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ are singlets. Such a horizontal symmetry is interesting because only the Yukawa couplings for the third generation are allowed by the horizontal symmetry, that accounts for the large top Yukawa coupling, and because the $`U(2)_H`$ symmetric interaction $`d^4\theta \mathrm{\Psi }^a\mathrm{\Psi }_aZ^{}Z`$, where $`Z`$ has a non-vanishing vacuum expectation value (VEV) given by $`Z\theta ^2\stackrel{~}{m}`$, leads to the equal first and second generation sfermion masses, which may realize suppression of flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC). However, the $`U(2)_H`$ symmetry must be broken to obtain realistic mass hierarchical structure of quarks and leptons. Therefore, we introduce a doublet Higgs $`\overline{F}^a`$ and an anti-symmetric tensor $`A^{ab}`$, whose VEVs $`|\overline{F}^a|=\delta _2^aV`$ and $`A^{ab}=ϵ^{ab}v`$ ($`ϵ^{12}=ϵ^{21}=1`$) break the horizontal symmetry as

$$U(2)_H\underset{V}{}U(1)_H\underset{v}{}\mathrm{nothing}.$$
(1)
The hierarchical structure of the Yukawa couplings is obtained as

$$Y_{u,d,e}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ϵ^{}& 0\\ ϵ^{}& 0& ϵ\\ 0& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`ϵV/\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{}v/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, these $`U(2)_H`$ breaking VEVs lift the degeneracy of the first and second generation sfermion masses as

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_{u,d,e}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1+ϵ^2& ϵ\\ 0& ϵ& O(1)\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
which are calculated from higher dimensional interactions, like $`d^4\theta (\mathrm{\Psi }_a\overline{F}^a)^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_b\overline{F}^bZ^{}Z`$, through a non-vanishing VEV $`\overline{F}`$. These mass matrices lead to the relations

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}_1^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\frac{m_{F2}}{m_{F3}},$$
(4)
where $`m_{Fi}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ are the masses of the $`i`$-th generation fermions and the $`i`$-th generation sfermions, respectively. Unfortunately, these relations of this simple model imply a problematic contribution to the $`ϵ_K`$ parameter in $`K`$ meson mixing and the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process (problem 1). Moreover, this simple model gives the similar hierarchical Yukawa couplings for the up-quark sector, the down-quark sector, and the lepton-sector, which are not consistent with experimental results (problem 2). In many cases of grand unified theories (GUTs), to realize the large neutrino mixing angles that have been reported in several recent experiments, the diagonalizing matrices for $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields of $`SU(5)`$, $`V_l`$ and $`V_{d_R}`$, also have large mixing angles. In the cases, even if the horizontal symmetry $`U(2)_H`$ realizes the degeneracy of the first two generation down squarks such as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_R}^2\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_R}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \alpha \end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`\alpha `$ is a $`O(1)`$ parameter, the mixing matrix defined  by

$$\delta _{d_R}V_{d_R}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{m}_{d_R}^2V_{d_R},\delta _{l_L}V_{l_L}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{m}_{l_L}^2V_{l_L}$$
(6)
have large components $`(\delta _{d_R})_{12}`$ and $`(\delta _{l_L})_{12}`$. It is not so natural to satisfy the constraints from $`ϵ_K`$ in $`K`$ meson mixing

$`\sqrt{|\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{d_L})_{12}(\delta _{d_R})_{12})|}`$ $``$ $`2\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_q}{500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)`$ (7)
$`|\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{d_R})_{12}|`$ $``$ $`1.5\times 10^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_q}{500\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}}\right)`$ (8)
and from $`\mu e\gamma `$ process

$$|(\delta _{l_L})_{12}|4\times 10^3\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_l}{100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}\right)^2,$$
(9)
at the weak scale (problem 3), even though $`(\delta _{d_L})_{12}`$ can become fairly small.

In this talk, we show that anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ gauge symmetry, whose anomaly is cancelled by Green-Schwarz mechanism, provides a natural solution for all these problems. In a series of papers, we have emphasized that in solving various problems in GUT it is important that the VEVs are determined by the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges as

$$O_i\{\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{o_i}& & o_i0\hfill \\ 0& & o_i>0\hfill \end{array},$$
(10)
where the $`O_i`$ are GUT gauge singlet operators with charges $`o_i`$, and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$. Here the Froggatt-Nielsen (FN) field $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has an anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charge of $`1`$. (In this paper we choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV, which results from the natural gauge coupling unification, and $`\lambda 0.22`$.) Throughout this paper, we denote all superfields and chiral operators by uppercase letters and their anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges by the corresponding lowercase letters. When convenient, we use units in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Such a vacuum structure is naturally obtained if we introduce generic interactions even for higher-dimensional operators and if the $`F`$-flatness conditions determine the scale of the VEVs. And this vacuum structure plays an important role in realizing the doublet-triplet splitting and natural gauge coupling unification and in avoiding unrealistic GUT relations between Yukawa matrices. And in this talk, we stress that this vacuum structure plays an critical role also in solving SUSY flavor problem with horizontal gauge symmetry.

## 2 $`SU(5)\times SU(2)_H`$

Let us explain the basic idea of a solution for the problem 1 and 2 with an $`SU(5)`$ GUT model with $`SU(2)_H\times U(1)_A`$, though problem 3 still remains in this model. The field content is given in Table 1.

Table 1, Typical values of anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges. The half integer charges play the same role as R-parity.     $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ $`T_a`$ $`T_3`$ $`N_a`$ $`N_3`$ $`H`$ $`\overline{H}`$ $`F_a`$ $`\overline{F}^a`$ $`S`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$    $`SU\left(5\right)`$ 10 10 $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ 1 1 $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ 1 1 1 1  $`SU\left(2\right)_H`$ 2 1 2 1 2 1 $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ 1 2 $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ 1 1  $`U\left(1\right)_A`$ $`\frac{13}{2}`$ $`\frac{7}{2}`$ $`\frac{13}{2}`$ $`\frac{11}{2}`$ $`\frac{13}{2}`$ $`\frac{7}{2}`$ $`7`$ $`7`$ $`2`$ $`3`$ 5 $`1`$

The VEV relations (10) imply $`\overline{F}F\lambda ^{(f+\overline{f})}`$ which breaks $`SU(2)_H`$. Actually, the $`F`$-flatness condition of $`S`$ with the superpotential $`W_S=\lambda ^sS(1+\lambda ^{f+\overline{f}}\overline{F}F),`$ leads to this VEV. Without loss of generality, we can take

$$|\overline{F}^a|=|F_a|\delta _{a2}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}(f+\overline{f})},$$
(1)
using the $`SU(2)_H`$ gauge symmetry and its $`D`$-flatness condition. Then, because the $`SU(2)_H\times U(1)_A`$ invariant operators become

$$\lambda ^{\psi +\overline{f}}\mathrm{\Psi }_a\overline{F}^a\lambda ^{\psi +\mathrm{\Delta }f}\mathrm{\Psi }_2,\lambda ^{\psi +f}ϵ^{ab}\mathrm{\Psi }_aF^b\lambda ^{\psi \mathrm{\Delta }f}\mathrm{\Psi }_1,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }f\frac{1}{2}(\overline{f}f)`$, it is obvious that with the effective charges defined as $`\stackrel{~}{x}_3x_3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}_2x+\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1x\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ for $`x=\psi ,t,n`$, the Yukawa matrices of the quarks and leptons $`Y_{u,d,e,\nu }`$ and the right-handed neutrino mass matrix $`M_{\nu R}`$ can be obtained as

$`(Y_u)_{ij}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j+h},(Y_d)_{ij}(Y_e^T)_{ij}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i+\stackrel{~}{t}_j+\overline{h}}`$ (2)
$`(Y_\nu )_{ij}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_i+\stackrel{~}{n}_j+h},(M_{\nu R})_{ij}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{n}_i+\stackrel{~}{n}_j}`$ (3)
from the generic interactions $`W_{\mathrm{fermion}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^2\lambda ^hH+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\stackrel{~}{T}\lambda ^{\overline{h}}\overline{H}+\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{N}\lambda ^hH+\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N},`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{X}\lambda ^{x+f}ϵ^{ab}X_aF_b+\lambda ^{x+\overline{f}}X_a\overline{F}^a+\lambda ^{x_3}X_3`$ for $`X=\mathrm{\Psi },T,N`$. Throughout this paper, we omit $`O(1)`$ coefficients for simplicity. Then, the neutrino mass matrix is obtained as

$$(M_\nu )_{ij}=(Y_\nu )(M_{\nu R})^1(Y_\nu ^T)\frac{H^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_i+\stackrel{~}{t}_j+2h}\frac{H^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(4)
Note that the effective charges $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1`$ can be different from $`\stackrel{~}{x}_2`$, though $`x=x_1=x_2`$. When all the Yukawa couplings can be determined by their effective $`U(1)_A`$ charges, it has been understood not to be difficult to assign their charges to obtain realistic quark and lepton mass matrices. Thus the problem 2 can be solved in this scenario. It is an interesting point in theories in which Yukawa couplings are determined by $`U(1)`$ charges as in the above, that the unitary matrices $`V_{y_P}`$ $`(y=u,d,e,\nu `$ and $`P=L,R)`$ that diagonalize these Yukawa and mass matrices as $`V_{y_L}^{}Y_yV_{y_R}=Y_y^{\mathrm{diag}}`$, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix $`V_{CKM}V_{d_L}V_{u_L}^{}`$, and the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix $`V_{MNS}V_{e_L}V_{\nu _L}^{}`$ are roughly approximated by the matrices $`(V_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}})_{ij}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_j}`$ and $`(V_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}})_{ij}\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{t}_i\stackrel{~}{t}_j}`$ as $`V_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}V_{u_L}V_{d_L}V_{u_R}V_{e_R}V_{CKM}`$ and $`V_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}V_{d_R}V_{e_L}V_{\nu _L}V_{MNS}`$.

To see how to solve the problem 1, we examine the sfermion mass-squared matrices

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_y^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{m}_{y_L}^2& A_y^{}\\ A_y& \stackrel{~}{m}_{y_R}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
In this paper, we concentrate on mass mixings through $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{y_P}^2`$, because a reasonable assumption, for example SUSY breaking in the hidden sector, leads to an $`A_y`$ that is proportional to the Yukawa matrix $`Y_y`$. Roughly speaking, the sfermion mass squared matrix is given by $`\stackrel{~}{m}_{y_P}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2\mathrm{diag}(1,1,O(1))`$, and the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{y_P}(\stackrel{~}{m}_{y_P}^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)/(\stackrel{~}{m}_{y_P})^2`$ in the model described by Table I is approximately given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^{3.5}\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^{2.5}\\ \lambda ^{3.5}& \lambda ^{2.5}& R_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^{3.5}\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^{4.5}\\ \lambda ^{3.5}& \lambda ^{4.5}& R_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
for 10 fields and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields. Here $`R_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}O(1)`$. For example, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}})_{12}`$ can be derived using the interaction $`d^4\theta \lambda ^{|f\overline{f}|}(T\overline{F})^{}(TF)Z^{}Z`$. Note that $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_{d2}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{d1}^2)/\stackrel{~}{m}_d^2(m_s/m_b)^2`$. The essential point here is that the hierarchy originated from the VEVs $`|F|=|\overline{F}|\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}(f+\overline{f})}`$ is almost cancelled by the enhancement factors $`\lambda ^f`$ and $`\lambda ^{\overline{f}}`$ in the superpotential, but not in the Kähler potential. Thus, the Yukawa hierarchy in the superpotential becomes milder, that improves the unrealistic relations (4).

Unfortunately, as discussed in the previous section, because the neutrino mixing angles are large and because $`R_{\overline{5}}O(1)`$, the suppression of FCNC processes may not be sufficient (problem 3). The various FCNC processes constrain the mixing matrices defined by $`\delta _{y_P}V_{y_P}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{y_P}V_{y_P}`$. In the model in Table 1, the mixing matrices are approximated as

$$\delta _{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^{3.5}\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^{2.5}\\ \lambda ^{3.5}& \lambda ^{2.5}& R_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\end{array}\right),\delta _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}=R_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^{1.5}\\ \lambda ^2& \lambda & \lambda ^{0.5}\\ \lambda ^{1.5}& \lambda ^{0.5}& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
at the GUT scale. The constraints at the weak scale from $`ϵ_K`$ in $`K`$ meson mixing (8) requires scalar quark masses larger than 1 TeV, because in this model $`\sqrt{|(\delta _{d_L})_{12}(\delta _{d_R})_{12})|}\lambda ^4(\eta _q)^1`$ and $`|(\delta _{d_R})_{12}|\lambda ^2(\eta _q)^1`$, where we take a renormalization factor $`\eta _q6`$.111 The renormalization factor is strongly dependent on the ratio of the gaugino mass to the scalar fermion mass and the model below the GUT scale. If the model is MSSM and the ratio at the GUT scale is 1, then $`\eta _q=67`$. And the constraint from the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process (9) requires scalar lepton masses larger than 300 GeV, because $`|(\delta _{l_L})_{12}|\lambda ^2`$ in this model.

## 3 $`E_6\times SU(2)_H`$

It is obvious that if all the three generation $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ scalar fermions have degenerate masses, the problem 3 can be solved. In this section, we show that in $`E_6`$ GUT, such scalar fermion mass structure can be obtained in a natural way. First, note that under $`E_6SO(10)SU(5)`$, the fundamental representation $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ is divided as

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}[\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟏}]+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}[\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}+\mathrm{𝟓}]+\mathrm{𝟏}[\mathrm{𝟏}].$$
(1)
To break $`E_6`$ into $`SU(5)`$, two pairs of $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}}`$ are introduced. (And an adjoint Higgs $`A(\mathrm{𝟕𝟖})`$ is needed to break $`SU(5)`$ into the standard model gauge group, but here the Higgs does not play an important role and we do not address the Higgs.) The VEVs $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|=|\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}|\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi +\overline{\varphi })}`$ break $`E_6`$ into $`SO(10)`$, which is broken into $`SU(5)`$ by the VEVs $`|C|=|\overline{C}|\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}(c+\overline{c})}`$. And as matter fields, three fundamental representation fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕})`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) are introduced, which include $`3\times \mathrm{𝟓}+6\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ of $`SU(5)`$. Note that only three of the six $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ become massless, which are determined by the $`3\times 6`$ mass matrix obtained from the interactions $`W=\lambda ^{\psi _i+\psi _j+\varphi }\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda ^{\psi _i+\psi _j+c}\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_jC`$. It is essential that because the third generation fields have larger Yukawa couplings than the first and second generation fields ($`\psi _3<\psi _1,\psi _2`$), the third generation fields $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_3`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$ have larger masses in the $`3\times 6`$ mass matrix than the first and second generation fields $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_a`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_{}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}`$ ($`a=1,2`$), respectively. Therefore, it is natural that these three massless $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields come from the first and second generation fields, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, as discussed in Ref. . If the first two multiplets become the doublet $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ under $`SU(2)_H`$ in this $`E_6`$ GUT, then it is obvious that the sfermion masses for these three massless modes $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ are equal at leading order, because the massless modes are originated from a single multiplet $`(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. This sfermion mass structure is nothing but what is required to solve the problem 3.

Of course, the breakings of the $`E_6`$ and the horizontal symmetry $`SU(2)_H`$ lift the degeneracy. To estimate the corrections, we fix a model. If we adopt the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges as $`(f,\overline{f})=(2,3)`$ and $`(\psi ,\psi _3,\varphi ,\overline{\varphi },c,\overline{c})=(5,2,4,2,5,2)`$ (noting that odd R-parity is required for the matter fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$), the massless modes become $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟐},\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}+\lambda ^\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟑})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1\stackrel{~}{\psi }_3+\frac{1}{2}(\varphi \overline{\varphi }c+\overline{c})=2`$. As discussed in Ref. , the massless mode $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}+\lambda ^\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ has Yukawa couplings only through the mixing with $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, because the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}^{}`$ fields have no direct Yukawa couplings with the Higgs fields $`H`$ and $`\overline{H}`$, which are included in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_𝚽`$ of $`SO(10)`$ in many cases. Then the structure of the quark and lepton Yukawa matrices becomes the same as that found in the previous $`SU(5)`$ model. As discussed above, all the sfermion masses for $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ become equal at the leading order in this model. The correction to the sfermion masses $`\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}`$ can be approximated from the higher dimensional interactions as

$$\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^5& \lambda ^6& \lambda ^{5.5}\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^{4.5}\\ \lambda ^{5.5}& \lambda ^{4.5}& \lambda ^2\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
which leads to the same $`\delta _{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}`$ as that in Eq. (7) if we take $`R_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}=\lambda ^2`$. This decreases the lower limit of the scalar quark mass to an acceptable level, 250 GeV. Note that $`R_{\overline{5}}`$ is determined by the $`E_6`$ breaking scale, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^{(\varphi +\overline{\varphi })}`$, because the $`E_6`$ breaking VEVs lift the degeneracy through the interaction $`d^4\theta \mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }Z^{}Z`$. In the model in Table 1, $`R_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}=(\delta \stackrel{~}{m}_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}^2/\stackrel{~}{m}^2)_{33}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda ^{(\varphi +\overline{\varphi })}\lambda ^2`$, but we can make various models with different $`R_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}}`$ by taking various charges $`\varphi +\overline{\varphi }`$.

It is surprising that in $`E_6`$ GUT with anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ symmetry the horizontal gauge group can be extended into $`SU(3)_H`$. In the models, the three generations of quarks and leptons can be unified into a single multiplet, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{𝟐𝟕},\mathrm{𝟑})`$. Supposing that the horizontal gauge symmetry $`SU(3)_H`$ is broken by the VEVs of two pairs of Higgs fields $`F_i(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟑})`$ and $`\overline{F}_i(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ $`(i=2,3)`$ as

$$|F_{ia}|=|\overline{F}_i^a|\delta _i^a\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}(f_i+\overline{f}_i)},$$
(3)
the effective charges can be defined from the relations

$`\lambda ^{\psi +\overline{f}_i}\mathrm{\Psi }_a\overline{F}_i^a\lambda ^{\psi +\frac{1}{2}(\overline{f}_if_i)}\mathrm{\Psi }_i(i=2,3),`$ (4)
$`\lambda ^{\psi +f_2+f_3}ϵ^{abc}\mathrm{\Psi }_aF_{2b}F_{3c}\lambda ^{\psi \frac{1}{2}(\overline{f}_2f_2+\overline{f}_3f_3)}\mathrm{\Psi }_1,`$
as

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_i\psi +\frac{1}{2}(\overline{f}_if_i),\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1\psi \frac{1}{2}(\overline{f}_2f_2+\overline{f}_3f_3).$$
(5)
Note that in order to realize $`O(1)`$ top Yukawa coupling, $`SU(3)_H`$ must be broken at the cutoff scale, namely, $`f_3+\overline{f}_3=0`$. To obtain the same mass matrices of quarks and leptons as in the previous $`E_6\times SU(2)_H`$ model, the effective charges must be taken as $`(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1)=(11/2,9/2,2)`$. For example, a set of charges $`(f_3,\overline{f}_3,f_2,\overline{f}_2)=(2,2,3,2)`$ and $`\psi =4`$ is satisfied with the above conditions. \[The model obtained by choosing $`(f_3,\overline{f}_3,f_2,\overline{f}_2)=(2,3,4,3)`$, $`\psi =13/2`$, and $`(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi },c,\overline{c})=(7,3,8,0)`$ may be more interesting, because mass matrices for quarks and leptons that are essentially the same as those in Ref.  are obtained if we set $`\lambda ^{1.5}=0.22`$. \]

For both models $`E_6\times SU(2)_H`$ and $`E_6\times SU(3)_H`$, if we add a Higgs sector that breaks $`E_6`$ into the gauge group of the standard model, as in Ref. , then we can obtain complete $`E_6\times SU(2)_H`$ and $`E_6\times SU(3)_H`$ GUT, in which the degeneracy of the sfermion masses for $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ fields is naturally obtained. As discussed in Refs. $``$, these models yield not only realistic quark and lepton mass matrices but also doublet-triplet splitting and natural gauge coupling unification.

Because the $`SU(3)_H`$ symmetry must be broken at the cutoff scale to realize $`O(1)`$ top Yukawa coupling, the degeneracy of sfermion masses between the third generation fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and the first and second generation fields $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ $`(a=1,2)`$ is not guaranteed. Therefore, the $`E_6\times SU(3)_H`$ GUT gives the same predictions for the structure of sfermion masses as $`E_6\times SU(2)_H`$ GUT. Roughly speaking, all the sfermion fields have nearly equal masses, except the third generation fields included in 10 of $`SU(5)`$. It must be an interesting subject to study the predictions on FCNC processes (for example, $`B`$-physics) from such a special structure of sfermion masses. More precisely, this degeneracy is lifted by $`D`$-term contributions of $`SU(3)_H`$ and $`E_6`$. Though the contributions are strongly dependent on the concrete models for SUSY breaking and on GUT models and and some of them must be small in order to suppress the FCNC processes, it is important to test these GUT models with precisely measured masses of sfermions, as discussed in Ref. .

N.M. is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.