arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 26 Apr 2016

Transcription

1 SUSY SU(5) S 4 GUT Flavor Model for Fermion Masses and Mixings with Adjoint, Large θ PMNS 3 Ya Zhao,, Peng-Fei Zhang, Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui , China. arxiv: v3 [hep-ph] 26 Apr 206 Abstract We propose an S 4 flavor model based on supersymmetric (SUSY) SU(5) GUT. The first and third generations of 0 dimensional representations in SU(5) are all assigned to be of S 4. The second generation of 0is to be 2 of S 4. Right-handed neutrinosof singlet andthree generations of 5 are all assigned to be 3 of S 4. The VEVs of two sets of flavon fields are allowed a moderate hierarchy, that is Φ ν λ c Φ e. Tri-Bimaximal (TBM) mixing can be produced at both leading order (LO) and next to next to leading order (NNLO) in neutrino sector. All the masses of uptype quarks are obtained at LO. We also get the bottom-tau unification m τ = m b and the popular Georgi-Jarlskog relation m µ = 3m s as well as a new mass relation m e = 8 27 m d in which the novel Clebsch-Gordan (CG) factor arises from the adjoint field H 24. The GUT relation leads to a sizable mixing angle θ2 e θ c and the correct quark mixing matrix V CKM can also be realised in the model. The resulting CKM-like mixing matrix of charged leptons modifies the vanishing θ3 ν in TBM mixing to a large θ3 PMNS θ c / 2, in excellent agreement with experimental results. A Dirac CP violation phase φ 2 ±π/2 is required to make the deviation from θ2 ν small. We also present some phenomenological numerical results predicted by the model. Introduction In the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics the charged fermions, quarks and charged leptons, are massive fermions, while neutrinos are massless in SM. However the deficit of the observed neutrinos with respect to the theoretical predicted ones leads to the two famous puzzles in neutrino physics, i.e., the longstanding solar neutrino puzzle [] and the atmospherical neutrino anomaly [2, 3] before 998. The puzzles can be explained through the neutrino oscillation mechanism, which indicate that the neutrinos are also massive and lepton flavors are mixed. The discovery of neutrino oscillations [4,5] convinced people that neutrinos have tiny masses. Meanwhile the seesaw mechanism [6 9] seems to be a graceful solution to answer why neutrino masses are small. Nevertheless, the flavor mixing pattern with the observed mixing angles can not be explained through seesaw mechanism. Solar and atmospherical neutrino oscillation experiments have measured leptonic mixing angles with great accuracy. The resulting lepton mixing Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix U PMNS [0,] can be well compatible address: zhaoya@mail.ustc.edu.cn address: zhpf@ustc.edu.cn

2 with the simple Tri-Bimaximal (TBM) mixing pattern, introduced by Harrison, Perkins and Scott [2]: U TB = which predicts that θ23 ν = π and 4 θν 2 = arcsin 3, but θ3 ν = 0. The two nonzero leptonic mixing angles θ2 ν and θ23 ν are predicted to be rather large by contrast with the quark mixing angles, which are known to be very small [3]. Besides the Tri-Bimaximal mixing pattern ansatz, similar simple mixing patterns with vanishing θ3 ν were proposed, such as Bimaximal (BM) [4 6], Golden-Ratio (GR) [7 2] and Democratic [22] mixing patterns. The simple patterns suggest some kind of underlying non-abelian discrete flavor symmetry G f would exist in the lepton sector at least. Indeed the mixing patterns have been paid a lot of attention in the flavor model buidlding community. For the flavor models based on the typical discrete symmetries, please see Refs. [23 25] for a review. The models based on continuous groups have been proposed [26 32]. By adding higher order corrections, most of the models can give rise to a non-zero reactor angle θ 3 O(λ 2 c), with λ c = sinθ c 0.22 being Wolfenstein parameter [33], where θ c is the Cabibbo angle. The resulting small θ 3 was within the range of global fits [34] before the determinate large θ 3 Daya Bay [35] neutrino experiment measured. The deviations from the TBM values of θ 2 and θ 23 are also at most O(λ 2 c ) when subleading effects are included, which is in agreement at 3σ error range with the experimental data or say global fits. The Daya Bay Collaboration [35] now has confirmed a larger θ 3 with a significance of 7.7 (the first is 5.2) standard deviations from the reactor ν e ν e oscillations. The best-fit result in σ range is sin 2 2θ 3 = 0.089±0.00(stat)±0.005(syst), (2) which is equivalent to θ ±0.8. And the RENO [36] also reported that sin 2 2θ 3 = 0.3±0.03(stat)±0.09(syst). (3) The updated Daya Bay [37] data is measured to remarkable accuracy: sin 2 2θ 3 = ± or θ ±0.2. Even before the Daya Bay result, however, there have emerged direct evidence of large θ 3 from T2K [38], MINOS [39] and Double Chooz [40]. The accurate nonzero reactor angle θ 3 implies Tri-Bimaximal mixing pattern and else would be ruled out. However there still exists the possibility of maintaining the mixing angles θ2 ν = arcsin 3 and θ23 ν = π which TBM predicted as the leading order 4 (LO) result of a model. The phenomenological favored value θ 3 λ c / 2, although now is intension with the updated data, can be derived from some proper corrections. In a general scheme consideration for obtaining the large θ 3 from zero, the most popular and well motivated correction to TBM mixing is the contributions from charged lepton mixing, especially inducing a sizable θ2 e θ c is viable in the Grand Unified Theories (GUT) flavor models, see [4, 42] as example. The gauge symmetry groups are usually chose as SU(5), SO(0) or Pati-Salam context SU(4) C SU(2) L SU(2) R. The simplest GUT gauge symmetry group is SU(5) [43], in which matter fields of standard model are assigned to be 5 and 0 dimensional representations. In a generical GUT scheme the down-type quark and charged lepton Yukawa matrices are the crucial factor to produce GUT relations that connect θ 3 with Cabibbo angle, see [44,45]. We remark that a series of models based on discrete flavor symmetry group together with a GUT gauge group have been proposed, for example the SU(5) A 4 [46 48], SU(5) S 4 [6,49 53] and SU(5) T [54], SO(0) A 4 [55 57], SO(0) S 4 [58 64], SO(0) PSL 2 (7)[65,66]andSO(0) 27 [67]. Most of the GUT flavor models also generically give rise to θ 3 O(λ 2 c ), while only few models based on different ansatz, such as Bimaximal [5,6], or empirical relation such as Quark-Lepton Complementarity (QLC) [62] may lead to sizable θ 3 O(λ c ). The other way to achieve the sizable θ 3 is the introduction of non-singlets such as the SU(5) adjoint fields 24, which split the heavy messenger () 2

3 masses and give rise to new novel GUT Yukawa coupling ratios of quark-lepton. For the realistic GUT flavor models based on the mechanism one can refer to, such as [68 70]. In this paper we propose a SUSY SU(5) GUT flavor model, with S 4 Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2 as flavor symmetry groups. The flavor symmetry S 4 can be spontaneously broken by Vacuum Expectation Values (VEV) of flavon fields in Φ which is divided into Φ e in charged fermion sector and Φ ν in neutrino sector. The assumption we adopted is similar with Ref. [7], of which the VEVs of Φ e and Φ ν allow a moderate hierarchy: Φ ν λ c Φ e. The dynamical tricky assumption makes the θ3 PMNS around O(λ c ) possible. The neutrino masses are simply generated through type-i see-saw mechanism. Tri-Bimaximal mixing pattern is produced exactly at LO, and even still holds exactly at next to next to leading order (NNLO) in neutrino sector, which is a salient feature of our model. The charged fermion mass hierarchies are controlled by spontaneously broken of the flavor symmetry without introducing Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism [72]. Both up- and down-type quarks obtain their masses with proper order of magnitude and the correct quark mixing matrix V CKM can be realised in the model. The masses of charged leptons are similar with those of down-type quarks regardless of the different group-theoretical Clebsch-Gordan (CG) coefficients. Due to the introduction of an adjoint field H 24, the resulting novel CG factors lead to a new mass ratio between electron and down quark, namely m e /m d = 8/27, which is a phenomenological favored result. The famous Georgi-Jarlskog relation m µ = 3m s and bottom-tau unification m τ = m b are also maintained in the model. The mixing angle θ2 e θ c isalsoachievedbythespecificgut-scalerelationbetweentheangleandmassratiom e /m µ [4]. Finally the CKM-like mixing matrix of charged leptons would modify the vanishing θ3 ν in TBM mixing to a large θ3 PMNS θ c / 2, in excellent agreement with experimental determinations. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the basic strategic considerations for obtaining the large θ e 2 λ c, including the desired Yukawa textures, the hierarchy assumption on flavon VEVs and the role of the adjoint H 24. In Section 3 we introduce all matter fields and flavons, and the predictions for the fermions masses and mixings at LO are presented. In Section 4 the vacuum alignment are justified by minimizing the potential. Section 5 is devoted to the subleading corrections to the VEVs of the flavons, the LO masses and mixings of fermions. In Section 6 we show a bit of phenomenology of the model predicted in numerical results. Section 7 is our conclusion. 2 The strategy and assumptions InalargeclassofflavormodelsthatgivearisetoTBMandelsemixingpatternswithorwithoutGUT context, the angle θ 3 is usually about O(λ 2 c) 3 by taking subleading corrections into account. In order to obtain the sizable mixing angle θ 3 O(λ c ), the most popular and well-motivated correctional approach can be provided by the large charged lepton mixing contributions. The fully lepton mixing matrix U PMNS = V l L U ν in which U ν is usually taken TBM, BM or GR as first order approximation, while VL l is not uniquely determined. The general model-independent studies on the deviations from TBM mixing with the contributions of VL l have been proposed, see Refs. [73 78] as examples. One of the aims in the work is to generate a large mixing θ2 e in charged lepton sector. In the context of unified theory the Yukawa matrices of charged leptons and down quarks are unified in single joint operators, which provide apossible approachto generating alarger mixing angleθ2 e λ c. Nevertheless, the resulting mixing angle and masses should satisfy some specific GUT-scale relations in order to fit the realistic phenomenological constrains. However the traditional unified operators which give rise to some GUT-scale mass relations, such as the popular Georgi-Jarlskog (GJ) relations [79] m µ = 3m s and m e m 3 d will lead to θ2 e λ c /3. As consequence the GJ factor of 3 leads to θ 3 λ c /3 2 in a large class of GUT flavor models, which now contradicts with experimental data. For achieving θ 3 λ c / 2 in GUT flavor models, the basic strategic considerations has been suggested in[4,44,45,80]. A different strategy without GUT can be seen in [8]. Note that the Yukawa matrices we mentioned are taken to 3

4 be equivalent to the mass matrices, or say m ij = y ij v with the value of Higgs VEV v being fixed at the electroweak scale Λ EW. Without loss of generality we consider the upper 2 2 part of down quarks Yukawa matrices with a vanishing -entry for simplicity, the desired Yukawa matrices that lead to θ d,e 2 λ c are generically of the form ( ) ( ) T ( ) 0 a 0 c a a 0 c b b Y D = Y e = (4) b c c b b c c c c a a c c c in which parameters a, b and c are suitable complex numbers that can give rational magnitude order of the quark masses m d ab/c and m s c and the desired mixing angle θ2 d b/c λ c, thus the Cabibbo angle can be derived. Similarly the charged lepton masses m e = caac bb c cc and m µ c c c and the mixing angle θ2 e caa, where the CG factors c c cc a,b,c are uniquely determined by SU(5) contractions. The mixing angle θ2 e is, however, constrained by the GUT-scale relation between mixing angle and the mass ratio [4]: θ2 e = cc c b me m µ. The mixing angle θ e θ2 d 2 λ c can be achieved only when the CG ratio cc c b O(2/λ c ) is satisfied since the order of the mass ratio me m µ λ 3 c /2 and θd 2 λ c. For satisfying the ratio the CG factors in the Yukawa matrix Y e should be chose properly such as the novel ones in [4,82]. To be specific the structures of Y e are given as following ( ) ( ) 0 2 Y e b 4 0 or b 9 9 6a 6c a 9c, (5) 2 2 which predict cc c b = 2 or cc c b = 8/8. Both Yukawa textures satisfy the ratio cc c b O(2/λ c ) and also require a/c λ c. The above structures demand the introduction of non-singlet fields, such as adjoint fields 24 in either the numerator (first Y e ) or the denominator (second Y e ) of the effective operators. Only in the methods can we obtain new predictions of Yukawa coupling ratios. For such realistic models one can refer to [68 70]. However we find that there exists another possible structure of Y e which preserves the Georgi-Jarlskog relation and the ratio cc c b = 8/8 still holds. The texture of Y e is the metamorphosis of the second Y e in Eq. (5) Y e ( b 3a 3c ). It is an important goal to obtain above Y e in the model. The CG factor 3 arises from the conventional GJ Higgs H 45, and the novel CG factor 8 is due to the VEV of the adjoint H appears in the denominator of effective operators. The non-singlet fields are essential to make the masses (size around GUT scale) of the components of the messenger split by CG coefficients [82]. Finally the CG factors enter inversely in the desired Yukawa matrix elements and the new predictions arise. Another difficulty in generating the desired Yukawa structures and hence the mixings is the vacuum alignments which arise from the spontaneously broken flavor symmetry. Denoting the general scalar flavon fields with Φ, S 4 can be spontaneously broken by the VEVs of flavons in Φ which is divided into two sets: Φ e = {ϕ,η,χ,σ,ϑ,ξ,ρ} in charged fermion sector and Φ ν = {φ,,ζ} in neutrino sector. We also assume a moderate hierarchy between the VEVs of Φ e and Φ ν : Φ ν λ c Φ e, to induce a/c λ c. For sake of convenience two small expansion parameters ǫ and δ are introduced as Φ e Λ ǫ λ2 c, Φ ν Λ δ λ3 c. (7) The assumption provides a possibility to generate the desired relation between (2) and (22) elements in Eq. (5). In fact the angle θ e 2 λ c in the model is produced by the ratio Φ ν / Φ e λ c. The specific dynamical tricks are in principle allowed by separated scalar potential, which is guaranteed 4 (6)

5 by the auxiliary Abelian flavor symmetry G A. The G A separates the scalar potential of the flavons in Φ e and Φ ν generically as follows V(Φ e,φ ν ) = V ν (Φ ν ) LO +V e (Φ e ) LO +V(Φ ν,φ e ) sub (8) where V(Φ ν,φ e ) sub is the subleading scalar potential, at least at NLO, and is usually called partially separated. At LO the two sectors are naturally separated, but it is not the case for subleading corrections at NLO and/or NNLO. The scalar potential is fully separated while V(Φ ν,φ e ) sub = V(Φ e ) sub or V(Φ ν,φ e ) sub = V(Φ ν ) sub, which makes a hierarchy between Φ e and Φ ν possible, see Lin s work in Ref. [7]. In our model the auxiliary flavor group is chosen as G A = Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2. However in the present GUT flavor model the fully separated scalar potential is not exactly the same as that in Lin s proposal. The subleading scalar potential is separated as V(Φ ν,φ e ) sub = V(Φ ν ) NNLO +V(Φ e,φ ν ) NLO + (9) where the dots stand for higher order subleading terms. The scalar potential of Φ ν is separated at both LO and NNLO, thus the magnitude of Φ ν /Λ is not necessarily the same as that of Φ e /Λ. Actually it is feasible to build a model for TBM based on the S 4 symmetry with the allowed hierarchy in Eq. (7). The hierarchy assumption not only gives arise to the large θ e 2 λ c, but also produces the correct up quark mass at NLO. The mass hierarchies of up-type quarks are roughly as m u : m c : m t = λ 8 c : λ4 c :, we note that λ 8 c can be not only given by ǫ 4, but also by ǫδ 2. Indeed the mass of up quark is given by the flavon combinations of order ǫδ 2 at leading order operators. To a certain extent the hierarchical VEVs of Φ e and Φ ν are even necessary in the present model. 3 The Construction of the Model In this section we introduce the SUSY SU(5) S 4 GUT flavor model with the auxiliary Abelian Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2 shaping symmetries. The flavor symmetry group S 4 is the permutation group of four objects, as well as the invariance group of octahedron and cube. It has 24 elements, which can be generated by two basic permutations S and T as the generators : S 4 = T 3 = (ST 2 ) 2 = (0) In group theory the generic permutation can be expressed by (,2,3,4) (n,n 2,n 3,n 4 ) (n n 2 n 3 n 4 ). The two basic permutations S = (234) and T = (234) is used to generate the elements of S 4. The group has five inequivalent irreducible representations: two three-dimensional representations 3 and 3 2, one 2-dimensional 2, and two one-dimensional and 2 representations. The multiplication rules are presented as follows: r = r = r, 2 2 =, 2 2 = 2, 2 3 = 3 2, = 3, 2 2 = 2 2, 2 3 = 3 3 2, = 3 3 2, 3 3 = = , = () The detailed irreducible representation matrices and the matrices of generators S, T are presented in APPENDIX A. In the model matter fields, Higgs and flavon fields are assigned to be different representations of gauge group SU(5). All matter fields in SU(5) are unified into 5 and 0 dimensional representations, denoted by F and T,2,3, respectively. The Higgs fields include the SU(5) 5, 5, 45 and 45-dimensional representations. The only oneadjoint 24-dimensional field, H 24, is thekey to obtainthe desired CG factors. The right handed neutrinos N c and all flavon fields in Φ are SU(5) gauge singlets. 5

6 All the fields are also assigned to be different representations of the flavor symmetry group S 4 and the auxiliary shaping symmetries Z N. The first and third generations of 0 dimensional representations T and T 3 are all assigned to be of S 4 singlet. The second generation of 0 dimensional representation T 2 is assigned to be 2 of S 4. Right-handed neutrinos N c and three generations of 5 F are all assigned to be 3 of S 4. The Higgs H 5, 5,45 and the adjoint H 24 are all assigned to be of S 4, while H 45 is to be 2 of S 4. The flavon fields in Φ, which include all possible S 4 representations, are introduced to break the S 4 flavor symmetry spontaneously. To be specific, the left-handed down-type quarks in three colors and doublet leptons are collected in SU(5) representation 5 as F = (d c R d c B d c G e ν) (2) whereas the representation 0 contains SU(2) L doublet quarks as well as up-type quark singlet and charged leptons 0 u c G u c B u R d R T i = u c G 0 u c R u B d B 2 u c B u c R 0 u G d G (3) u R u B u G 0 e c d R d B d G e c 0 where i =,2,3 indicates the fermions family indices of standard model (SM), and R,B,G stand for the color indices. The matter fields and Higgs in the SU(5) S 4 Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2 model, with their transformation properties under the flavor symmetry group, are listed in Table. The flavon fields and the additional gauge singlets Φ 0, the driving fields ϕ 0, η 0, χ 0, σ 0, ξ 0 and φ 0, 0, ζ 0, are listed in Table 2. We also introduce a global U() R continuous symmetry which meant a R-parity discrete subgroup. The driving fields carry +2 U() R charge, which made them linearly appear in the superpotential. Matter fields and heavy right-handed neutrinos are charged with + U() R charge, while all Higgs fields and flavons are uncharged. i Table : Transformation properties of the matter fields and Higgs fields in the model, where ω = e iπ/3 for Z 6 group and ω = e i2π/5 for Z 5 group. Field T 3 T 2 T F N c H 5 H 5 H 45 H 45 H 24 SU(5) S Z 4 i i Z 6 ω ω ω 2 ω ω ω ω 2 ω Z 5 ω ω 2 ω 4 ω 3 Z 2 U() R In the following we shall present the model in detail. The masses and mixings of fermions arise from the spontaneously flavor symmetry breaking by the flavon fields acquiring the VEVs. The alignment directions of the vacua are crucial to generate the observed mass hierarchies and mixings. For the time being the VEVs of the scalar components of the flavon fields are justified as the natural solutions of the scalar potential in Section 4, which indicate the structures as following 0 ( ) 0 0 ϕ = v ϕ, η = v η, χ = v χ 0 0, ξ = v ξ ρ = v ρ, σ = v σ, ϑ = v ϑ, (4) 6 0 0,

7 Table 2: Transformation properties of flavons and driving fields in the model Field ϕ η χ σ ϑ ξ ρ φ ζ ϕ 0 η 0 χ 0 σ 0 ξ 0 φ 0 0 ζ 0 S Z 4 i i i i Z 6 ω 2 ω 2 ω ω ω ω 2 ω 2 ω 2 ω Z 5 ω ω ω 2 ω 4 ω 4 ω ω ω 3 ω 3 ω 3 ω 2 ω 3 Z 2 U() R for flavons in Φ e sector and ( φ = v φ, = v ), ζ = v ζ (5) for flavons in Φ ν sector. The VEVs of ϕ, η, χ and ξ break S 4 completely, since acting on the vacua with T or T 2 the directions of them are invariant except an overall phase, while those of φ and are invariant under the four elements, S 2, TST and TSTS 2. Moreover the order of magnitude for the VEVs Φ e and Φ ν are taken as λ 2 c Λ and λ3 cλ, respectively. The reason for the constrains on the order of the VEVs is that they should be responsible for the strong mass hierarchies of charged fermions. The small expansion parameters ǫ = Φe and δ = Φν are used in the following discussions. Λ Λ 3. Neutrino The right-handed neutrinos are SU(5) singlet in the model, thus the light neutrino masses are only generated through type-i seesaw mechanism m ν = m T D M M m D where the m D and M M are Dirac and Majorana mass matrices respectively. The two matrices are derived from the superpotential invariant under the flavor symmetry. Concretely the superpotential in neutrino sector is as follows w ν = y ν Λ (FNc ) 3 φh 5 + y ν 2 Λ (FNc ) 2 H MNc N c (7) The first two terms contribute to Dirac masses and the last one is Majorana righted-handed neutrinos mass. The Tri-Bimaximal mixing is reproduced by the vacuum alignments of scalar fields φ and, see Eq. (77). Note that φ and are invariant by acting the elements, S 2, TST and TSTS 2 on them, hence the flavor symmetry is broken down to the Klein four subgroup. After Electroweak and flavor symmetry breaking as Higgs field and flavons developing their VEVs, neutrinos will gain their masses. For Dirac neutrino mass matrix at LO we have m D = y 2 ν v φ v y 0 ν 2 v v 5 0 (8) Λ Λ 2 0 and Majorana mass matrix is M 0 0 M M = 0 0 M 0 M 0 7 (6) (9)

8 The eigenvalues of Majorana mass matrix M M can be diagonalized by unitary transformation 0 0 UR T M MU R = diag(m,m,m), U R = 0 e iα / 2 ie iα / 2 (20) 0 e iα / 2 ie iα / 2 where α is a phase parameter. All three right-handed neutrinos are degenerate with mass equal to M, the unitary transformation cannot be solely determined. Using Eq. (6), the derived light neutrino mass matrix can be diagonalized by the transformation m diag ν = U T ν m νu ν = Diag(m,m 2,m 3 ) (2) where the light neutrino masses m,m 2,m 3 are m = (3a b)2 v2 5 M Λ 2, m 2 = 4b2 v2 5 M Λ 2, m 3 = (3a+b)2 v2 5 (22) M Λ 2 in which a = y ν v φ, b = y ν2 v. While the unitary matrix U ν in Eq. (2) is given by e iϑ /2 0 0 U ν = U TB P ν = e iϑ 2/ e iϑ 3/ (23) Thus the famous TBM mixing matrix is obtained at LO exactly. The phases ϑ i,i =,2,3 can be easily obtained as following ) ) ( ) ϑ = arg ( (3a b)2 v5 2, ϑ M Λ 2 2 = arg ( 4b2 v5 2 (3a+b) 2 v5 2, ϑ M Λ 2 3 = arg (24) M Λ 2 Note that the lepton PMNS mixing matrix is often parameterized by the standard PDG form as c 2 c 3 s 2 c 3 s 3 e iδ 3 e iα U l = s 2 c 23 c 2 s 23 s 3 e iδ 3 c 2 c 23 s 2 s 23 s 3 e iδ 3 s 23 c 3 0 e iα (25) s 2 s 23 c 2 c 23 s 3 e iδ 3 c 2 s 23 s 2 c 23 s 3 e iδ 3 c 23 c where c ij = cosθ ij, s ij = sinθ ij with θ ij [0,π/2]. The Dirac CP violating phase δ 3, the two Majorana CP violating phases α and α 2 are all permitted to vary in the period of 0 2π. In the following we shall identify the two Majorana phases as α i = ϑ 3 ϑ i and express them in terms of the lightest neutrino mass. Here let us leave the angles and phases for a moment and estimate the scale of M and the range of lightest neutrino mass in both hierarchies. The mass square differences have been determined to high precision in several global neutrino data fits, such as [84] m 2 sol = ev 2, { m 2 atm = ev 2 (NH) m 2 atm = ev 2 (IH) where NH (IH) stands for normal (inverted) hierarchy of mass spectrum. Despite of the discrepancy of specific values and their accuracy, another works of global fit data can be seen in Ref. [85 88]. The magnitude of masses m i can be roughly estimated around 0 2 ev - 0 ev, and v 5 is electroweak sclale 0 2 GeV, then generally the scale of M will be (26) M 0 2 GeV. (27) 8

9 The parameters a and b are assumed to be of order λ 3 c, we can define the ratio as a b = ReiΘ. then we can express the real parameters R and Θ in terms of the light neutrino masses in Eq. (22) as R = 3 ( m3 2 + m ), cosθ = m 2 m 2 ( 2 m 3 m 2 m m 2 m 3 m 2 + m (28). (29) m 2 ) Taking into account the experimental values of two mass differences, cf. Eq. (26), we have only one free parameter left, which can be chosen to be the lightest neutrino mass (m in NH or m 3 in IH) for convenient. Imposing the constraint cos Θ, one could obtain the limits for the lightest neutrino masses as m 0.0eV, NH m eV, IH (30) where only the best fit values are used in the estimation. The Majorana phases in the PDG standard parameterization are naively defined as α = ϑ 3 ϑ, α 2 = ϑ 3 ϑ 2, (3) inserting the expressions of ϑ i, R and Θ, cf. Eq. (24) and Eq. (29), respectively, yield sinα = 2R( 9R 2 )sinθ (+9R 2 ) 2 36R 2 cos 2 Θ, cosα = ( 9R2 ) 2 36R 2 sin 2 Θ (+9R 2 ) 2 36R 2 cos 2 Θ sinα 2 = 6RsinΘ(+3RcosΘ) +9R 2 +6RcosΘ, cosα 2 = +9R2 cos2θ+6rcosθ. (32) +9R 2 +6RcosΘ ThetwoMajoranaphasesα andα 2 cantaketwodifferentsetsofvaluesinprinciplewhichcorresponding to sinθ > 0 and sinθ < 0, respectively. The reason is that the neutrino mass order which can be either NH or IH determines the sigh of cosθ. The Dirac CP phase δ 3 is undetermined for the vanishing θ 3 in TBM mixing. Besides the operators in Eq. (7), it is worth to consider effective operators, i.e., the higher dimensional Weinberg operators [9] would also contribute to neutrino masses. In this model the effective operators for both Dirac and Majorana mass terms are W eff ν = y Λ W FFH 5 H i= 3 i= y ( ) i FFH Λ 3 5 H 5 O i + W 2 i= y (2) i FFH Λ 3 5 H 5 O (2) i W y (3 ) i FFH Λ 3 5 H 5 O (3 ) i + y 2 FFH W Λ 4 45 H 45 (φ ) 32 ζ, (33) W where the operators O i represent the following specific S 4 contractions of flavons in Φ ν O i = {(φφ),( ),ζζ}, O 2 i = {(φφ) 2,( ) 2 }, O 3 i = {(φφ) 3,(φ ) 3 } (34) The operators FFH 5 H 5 and FFH 45 H 45 represent (F i ) α (F j ) β H5 αhβ 5 and (F i) α (F j ) β (H 45 ) γα δ (H 45) δβ γ respectively, where the Greek indices denote the SU(5) tensor contractions, the Latin indices are the fermion generations or say contractions in S 4 space. 9

10 With the VEVs of Higgs fields, the operators generate the neutrino mass terms, in unit of follows m W = y ( ) 0 0 +y (2) 0 +y (3 ) 2 in which the coefficients are v 2 5 Λ W as (35) y ( ) = y +3y ( ) v 2 φ Λ 2 W +2y ( ) 2 v 2 Λ 2 W +y ( ) 3 v 2 ζ Λ 2 W, y (2) = 3y (2) v 2 φ Λ 2 W + v2 Λ 2 W, y (3 ) = 2y (3 ) 2 v φ v (36) Λ 2 W One can realize the structure of m W is exactly the same as that of m D in Eq. (8) and of M M in Eq. (9) combined, hence it can be exactly diagonalized by TBM mixing matrix m diag W = UT TBm W U TB = Diag(m W,m W2,m W3 ), (37) where the light effective neutrino masses m W, m W2 and m W3 come from the Weinberg operators, they are given by m W = y ( ) y (2) +3y (3 ), m W2 = y ( ) +2y (2), m W3 = y ( ) +y (2) +3y (3 ) (38) Obviously we can compare the relative magnitude between m diag ν and m diag W that all couplings, y ν,2, and y c, are of order one, then the ratio could be m Wi m i MΛ2 Λ W v 2 φ with the assumption 0 4 M Λ W Λ GUT Λ W (39) The contribution to neutrino mass would be larger than the seesaw one if the Weinberg operator has cutoff Λ W Λ GUT. In order to avoid the problem we will require Λ W Λ GUT, such that Λ W Λ Planck, then the 5-dimensional effective operator can be neglected. 3.2 Up-type quarks Themasses ofup-typequarksaregeneratedbys 4 symmetry breaking intheinvariantsuperpotential at LO. The enormous mass hierarchies among up-type quarks should be guaranteed by the VEVs of scalar flavons. At LO the invariant superpotential under the whole symmetry groups is simply as 2 w U = y t T 3 T 3 H 5 + y c Λ 2T 2T 2 σϑh 5 + y ct Λ T 2T 3 σh 45 + y u Λ 3T T H 5 η ζ i= where the operators read O U i y ti Λ 2T 3T 3 H 5 O U i + i= y cti Λ 3 T 2T 3 H 45 O U2 i (40) = {ζζ,,φφ}, O U2 i = {σζζ, σ, σφφ} (4) 2 The product T i T j H 5 denotes ε αβγρσ T αβ i T γρ j H5 σ, and T it j H 45 denotes ε αβγρσ T αβ i T ζγ j (H 45 ) ρσ ζ, where the Greek indices indicates the SU(5) tensor contractions and, Latin indices i,j =,2,3, are family indices. Here we don t write the S 4 contractions because all contractions in S 4 space should be first reduced to that in SU(5) space. The SU(5) tensor contractions are more fundamental ones for the calculations, the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in Eq. (42) are mainly determined by those SU(5) tensor contractions. 0

11 Then after the scalar fields develop their VEVs in Eqs. (66) and (69) and gauge symmetry breaking, the mass matrix of up-type quarks can be written as M U = v 8y ηv v ζ u v Λ v 8y σv ϑ c v Λ 2 5 v 8y σλ ct v 45 0 v 8y σλ ct v 45 8y t v 5 Then mass matrix can be diagonalized by the bi-unitary transformation y ct ǫδ2 v 45 0 y ctǫδ 2 v 45 y tδ 2 v 5 (42) m U = U R M UU L = Diag(m u,m c,m t ) (43) in which the mass eigenvalues are m u = v η v v ζ, v σ v ϑ 8y u v Λ 3 5 mc = 8y c Λ v y2 ct vσ 2 v 2 45, mt = 8y y t Λ 2 t v 5 (44) v 5 where the small contributions from the second matrix in Eq. (42) is safely dropped or say reabsorbed into the redefinition of the couplings y t and y ct. In fact all the correctional contributions to the (33) element can be reabsorbed into the y t whose order of magnitude is not changed. We can summarize that all the masses of up-type quarks are obtained at LO, particularly the top quark mass is produced at tree level. The mass hierarchy between charm and top quark is obtained given that the v σ and v ϑ of order λ 2 cλ. The up quark is also produced the correct order by means of v η λ 2 cλ and v,ζ λ 3 cλ. The mass hierarchies are obtained as usual: m u : m c : m t = λ 8 c : λ4 c :. Due to the quantity λ8 c is only comprised of the combination ǫδ 2 rather than ǫ 4, we can conclude that the hierarchical VEVs of Φ e and Φ ν are essential in the model, as declared in section 2. After diagonalize the mass matrix (42), one can note that the mixing of up-type quarks only exists between charm quark and top quark, which is an experimental acceptable feature of our model. Thus the form of the resulting mixing matrix U L is rather simple U L = with the mixing angles S u 23 0 S u 23 (45) S u 2 = S u 3 = 0, S23 u = ( y ctv σ v 45 ), (46) y t Λ v 5 where Sij u is the sine of mixing angles and Cu ij is assumed. In the following chapter we may aware of the (23) and (32) elements of CKM mixing matrix are totally determined by S23. u 3.3 Down-type quarks and charged leptons The matter fields appeared in the superpotential w U in Eq. (40) which gives rise to the masses of up-type quarks only include the SU(5) 0-dimension representational T i (i =,2,3), while down-type quarks and charged leptons are not the case. The down-type quark fields (and charged lepton fields) and their conjugate fields are assigned to be 0 and 5 representations of SU(5), respectively. Consequently the superpotential of down-type quarks and charged leptons is comprised of T i and F together with the down-type Higgs fields H 5,45 and the flavons. In addition the adjoint field H 24 plays a important role to gain the novel CG factors that can lead to a desired GUT relation between masses and mixing

12 angle, as elucidated in section 2. To be specific the LO superpotential which gives rise to the masses of down-type quarks and charged leptons is 3 w D = y b Λ T 3FϕH i= 2 i= f di H 24 3T FO D2 i H 5 + y si Λ 2T 2FO D i H 45 + y bd Λ 2T FϕσH 45 + y s Λ 3T 2F(ϕη) 32 σh 45 3 i= g di Λ 2 H 24 T 2FO D3 i H 5 + where dots stand for higher order operators, and the operators O D are Oi D Oi D3 = {χσ,ξζ}, O D2 i = {χξρ,χξξ}, 6 i= h di Λ 3T 3FO D4 i H 5 + (47) = {φφφ,φφ,φ }, O D4 i = {ϕφφ, ϕφ, ϕ, ϕζζ, ηφφ, η φ}. (48) The operators involved O D in Eq. (47) should include all possible independent S 4 contractions. The down-type quarks and charged leptons in the superpotential Eq. (47) would obtain their masses as the Higgs fields and flavon fields developing their VEVs after the symmetries are broken. Note that the operators involved Oi D3 have vanishing contribution to the entries of Yukawa matrix. With the VEVs of the flavons and Higgses, the mass matrix of down-type quarks is immediately derived as follows M D = 0 y2 d ǫδv 45 y3 d ǫδ2 v 5 y2ǫ d 3 v 5 (y22 d +y22ǫ)ǫ d v 45 y23ǫδ d 2 v 5 y3 d ǫ2 v 45 0 y33 d ǫv 5 +y33 d v 5 (49) where the coefficients yij d (i,j=, 2, 3) and those with primes are linear combinations of LO coefficients. The (2) element implies v Φ e/ H 24 ǫ, or equivalently H 24 Λ 4 which is an essential condition to obtain the proper order of magnitude for the masses of down quark and electron, and hence for the hierarchies of all the masses. Similarly the mass matrix of charged leptons which is equivalent to the transposed M D is given as yd 2ǫ 3 v 5 3y3ǫ d 2 v 45 M l = 3y2 d ǫδv 45 3(y22 d +yd 22 ǫ)ǫ2 v 45 0 (50) y3ǫδ d 2 v 5 y23ǫδ d 2 v 5 y33ǫv 5 d +y33ǫδ d 2 v 5 The CG coefficients which manifest in the entries of the mass matrices are determined by the way of the tensors contracted in SU(5) space. The two mass matrices M D and M l can be diagonalized by the similar bi-unitary transformations as in up quark sector V D R M DD L = diag(m d,m s,m b ), V l R M lv l L = diag(m e,m µ,m τ ). (5) The mass eigenvalues of down type quarks are m d yd 2 yd 2 ǫ 2 y22 d δv 5, m s (y d 22 +yd 22 ǫ)ǫ2 v 45 + yd 2 yd 2 y d 22 ǫ 2 δv 5, m b y33 d ǫv 45 (52) 3 Similarly it is easy to write the basic contractions of these operators in SU(5) space: T i F j H 5 = T αβ i (F j ) α (H 5) β and, T i F j H 45 = T αβ i (F j ) γ (H 45 ) γ αβ. The index structures of the contractions can be found, e.g., in [92]. 4 2 The adjoint field H 24 has the VEV along the direction H 24 = 5 v 24diag(,,, 3 2, 3 2 ), which is responsible for the broken of SU(5) GUT symmetry down to the standard model symmetry SU(3) c SU(2) L U() Y. 2

13 and those of charged leptons are m e 8 27 y d 2 yd 2 y d 22 ǫ 2 δv 5, m µ 3(y22 d +y22ǫ)ǫ d 2 v 45 8yd 2 yd 2 27y d 22 ǫ 2 δv 5, m τ y33ǫv 5 d (53) From the mass expressions in Eq. (52) and Eq. (53), one can easily find that bottom quark and tau lepton have the same mass, and the mass of muon is three times of that of strange quark, and the mass of electron is 8 of that of down quark 27 m τ m b, m µ 3m s, m e 8 27 m d, (54) The bottom-tau unification and Georgi-Jarlskog relation [79] are produced in the model, and a new novel mass ratio me m d which is favored in phenomenology is obtained. The above mass relations between down-type quarks and charged leptons give rise to the combined relation mµ m d m s m e 0., which is well within the σ range discussed in [93], i.e., the double ratio of Yukawa couplings at the scale M GUT y µ y s y d y e 0.7± (55) In contrast, the double ratio in the distinguished original George-Jarlskog relation [79], which implies y µ y d y s y e = 9, deviates from the phenomenological favored result more than 2σ. The unitary transformation matrices D L and VL l are approximately as ( yd 2 v 5 ǫ) ( yd 3v 45 ǫ) y22 d v 45 y d 33 v 5 D L = yd 2 v 5 ǫ 0 y22 d v 45 yd 3 v 45 ǫ ( yd 2 y3 d ) ǫ 2 y33 d v 5 y22 d y33 d VL l = ( yd 2δ y22 d ǫ ) 0 δ 0 ǫ 0 0 yd 2 y22 d The complete quark mixing matrix V CKM is composed of mixing matrices of both up-type quark and down-type quark sector (56) (57) V CKM = U L D L (58) then we can directly get all elements of CKM matrix V ud V cs V tb, Vus V cd yd 2 v 5 ǫ, y22 d v 45 V ub yd 3 y d 33 v 45 v 5 ǫ V td yd 3 y d 33 v 45 v 5 ǫ yd 2 v 5 y ct v σ v 45 ǫ, y22 d v 45 y t Λ v 5 Vcb V ts y ctv σ v 45 (59) y t Λ v 5 It is an experimental constrains that V us and V cd are Cabibbo angle λ c, V ub and V td are of order λ 3 c, which all demands a fine tuning between v 45 and v 5: v 45 λ c v 5. Adding this condition, we can easily check that the quark CKM mixing matrix is produced correctly. The Cabibbo angle are determined 3

14 by the mixing between the first and second family down-type quarks, the parameters y d 2 and y d 22 are of order one was assumed. V cb and V ts are determined by mixing between second and third generation left-handed up quarks. Similarly the resulting lepton mixing matrix U PMNS is written as U PMNS = V l L U ν, U ν = U TB P ν (60) The desired CKM-like mixing matrix VL l in Eq. (57) implies a large mixing angle between the first and the second generation of charged leptons, and it will remarkably change the lepton mixing, although the TBM mixing is exactly produced in neutrino sector. After simple straight calculation, we arrive at the three leptonic mixing angles θij PMNS at LO as following sin 2 θ2 PMNS = (U PMNS) e2 2 (U PMNS ) e3 2 = 3 2 ( y d 3 Re 2 δ ) + y22 d yd 2δ ǫ 2 y22 d 2 yd 2δ ǫ 3 y22 d 2 ( y d Re 2 δ ) ǫ y22 d ǫ sin 2 θ23 PMNS = (U PMNS) µ3 2 (U PMNS ) e3 = ( + yd 2δ y22 d 2) ǫ sinθ3 PMNS = (U PMNS ) e3 = y2 d δ 2 y22 d (6) ǫ As elucidated in Section 2, the ratio of CG coefficients cc c b O(2/λ c ) is required to obtain the large angle θ2 e λ c in the GUT relation with the phenomenological mass ratio me m µ and θ2. d In the present model the value of the ratio cc c b is 8, which satisfies the requirement of order O(2/λ 8 c). Then we can conclude that themixing matrixvl l is accurate enoughto hold θe 2 λ c and hence the empirical relation θ3 PMNS λ c / 2 is obtained. The large θ3 PMNS arises from the contribution of charged lepton sector, and θ2 PMNS prominent deviates from its TBM value in the case. Since the reactor experiments have showed that lepton mixing angle θ PMNS 3 are about λ c / 2, which meant yd 2 angles from their TBM values are roughly estimated as follows sinθ PMNS 3 λ c 2, y d 22 sin 2 θ2 PMNS λ c, δ ǫ λ c, then the deviations of three leptonic mixing sin 2 θ23 PMNS λ2 c 2 4 The relations are compatible with leptonic mixing sum rules [73]. Recall that the experimental value of θ2 PMNS [84] is very close to TBM value, the large departure is seemingly unsuitable. Setting the expansion parameters ǫ and δ to be positive real numbers for simplicity, the problem could be settled bytakinginto account ofadiraccpviolatingphase, whichisinfactthecomplexphase, denotedbyφ 2, of the ratio y2 d /yd 22. We remind the readers that φ 2 is in fact determined by arg(y2 d δ/yd 22ǫ), since the expansion parameters δ = Φ ν /Λ and ǫ = Φ e /Λ are in general complex numbers as yij d s. The phases of δ and ǫ, however, can be incorporated by the phases of yijs. d Ignoring the higher order deviations, the deviation of angle θ2 PMNS from the TBM prediction is approximately expressed as following sin 2 θ2 PMNS cosφ2 (U PMNS ) e3, φ 2 = arg( yd 2 ) (63) 3 The correlation has been given in [73] as mentioned before, and similar result with minus sign difference (because of different diagonalization conventions of fermion mass matrix) has been obtained in Ref. [42]. 4 y d 22 (62)

15 In order to be consistent with the TBM value, the phase φ 2 should be around π/2 or π/2 so that the sizable departure vanishes, or at least decreases to be of order λ 2 c. The detailed study about the link between CP violation and charged lepton corrections to mixing angles is beyond the scope of the present work, one may refer [89] for example. 4 Vacuum alignment The vacuum alignment would be discussed as the natural solution of the scalar potential. The problem can be solved by so-called supersymmetric driving field method introduced by Altarelli and Feruglio in Ref. [83]. At LO, the superpotential of driving fields, which is invariant under the flavor symmetry S 4 Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2, is given by w d = w e d (ϕ 0,χ 0,η 0,σ 0,ξ 0 )+w ν d (φ 0, 0,ζ 0 ) where w d = g ϕ 0 ϕϕ+g 2 (ϕ 0 ϕ) 2 η +h η 0 (ϕϕ) +h 2 η 0 (ηη) +g 3 M χ χ 0 χ+g 4 χ 0 (ϕη) 32 +q σ 0 σσ +q 2 σ 0 ϑϑ+r ξ 0 ξξ +r 2 ξ 0 ξρ +f φ 0 (φ ) 32 +f 2 0 (φφ) 2 +f 3 0 +f 4 ζ 0 ζζ +f 5 ζ 0 (φφ) +f 6 ζ 0 ( ). (64) The vacuum alignments of all flavons in Φ e and Φ ν are determined by deriving w d with respect to each component of the driving fields Φ 0 in SUSY limit. After minimized the derivative equations and solved each unknown component of all flavons, the VEVs structures of the flavons can be obtained. Usually the solutions are not uniquely determined, we should choose one set by taking into account some constrained conditions. The detailed minimization equations of flavons ϕ, η and χ w d ϕ 0 = 2g (ϕ 2 ϕ 2 ϕ 3 )+g 2 (η ϕ 2 +η 2 ϕ 3 ) = 0 w d ϕ 02 = 2g (ϕ 2 2 ϕ ϕ 3 )+g 2 (η ϕ +η 2 ϕ 2 ) = 0 w d ϕ 03 = 2g (ϕ 2 3 ϕ ϕ 2 )+g 2 (η ϕ 3 +η 2 ϕ ) = 0 w d χ 0 = g 3 M χ χ +g 4 (ϕ 3 η 2 ϕ 2 η ) = 0 w d χ 02 = g 3 M χ χ 3 +g 4 (ϕ 2 η 2 ϕ η ) = 0 w d χ 03 = g 3 M χ χ 2 +g 4 (ϕ η 2 ϕ 3 η ) = 0 w d η 0 = h (ϕ 2 +2ϕ 2ϕ 3 )+2h 2 η η 2 = 0 (65) There are two un-equivalent solutions for the equations, one solution gives 0 ( ) 0 0 ϕ = v ϕ, η = v η, χ = v χ 0 (66) 0 with v ϕ = g 2 2g v η, v χ = g 2g 4 2g g 3 M χ v 2 η, v η undetermined (67) 5

16 another solution of the form v ϕ = (,,) T v ϕ, χ = (,,) T v χ, η = (, ) T v η is forbidden by the last term in Eq. (65). The minimum equation of the two singlets σ and ϑ is simply given as w d σ 0 = q σ 2 +q 2 ϑ 2 = 0 (68) The equation in (68) lead to the following non-trivial solution σ = v σ, ϑ = v ϑ, (69) with v 2 σ = q 2 q v 2 ϑ, v ϑ undetermined (70) The VEVs of the above flavon fields in Φ e will mainly determine the diagonal elements of mass matrices of charged fermions at LO, while the other two flavons ξ and ρ in Φ e appear in off-diagonal entries at LO. Their vacuum configurations are easily obtained by the minimization equations w d ξ 0 = 2r (ξ 2 ξ 2ξ 3 )+r 2 ξ ρ = 0 w d ξ 02 = 2r (ξ 2 2 ξ ξ 3 )+r 2 ξ 3 ρ = 0 w d ξ 03 = 2r (ξ 2 3 ξ ξ 2 )+r 2 ξ 2 ρ = 0 (7) The equations in (7) lead to three sets of un-equivalent solutions. The first set is ξ = v ξ 0 0, ρ = v ρ, (72) with v ξ = r 2 2r v ρ, v ρ undetermined (73) The second non-trivial solution is 0 ξ = v ξ 0, ρ = v ρ, 0 with v ρ undetermined. The third solution is ξ = v ξ, ρ = 0, (74) (75) with v ξ undetermined. The first solution in Eq. (72) is chosen as the valid solution in our model. As elucidated in [52], the vacuum configurations of Eqs. (66), (69), (72) and (77) are not the unique 6

17 solutions of respective minimization equations. The other minima of the scalar potential can be derived by acting the original VEVs Eqs. (66), (69), (72) and (77) with the elements of the flavor group S 4. Nevertheless, the new minima which are equivalent to the original ones can not lead to different physical results, i.e., the resulting fermion masses and mixing parameters are exactly the same as the original minima did. Hence without of generality the original vacuum alignments are chosed in the model, and the other scenarios with different phases only are related by the field redefinitions. Besides the non-trivial solutions, the trivial solutions with vanishing flavon VEVs cannot be excluded in principle, either. The problem could be solved by the introduction of the soft mass terms with the form m 2 ξ ξ 2 +m 2 ρ ρ 2 + m 2 ξ ξ2 + m 2 ρρ 2 for ξ and ρ. By taking the mass parameters m 2 ξ,ρ and m2 ξ,ρ to be negative values, one can check that only the configurations in Eqs. (66), (69), (72) and (77) can be the lowest minimum of scalar potential and more stable than the vanishing ones. The minimization equations for vacuum configurations of φ, and ζ are given as following w d φ 0 = f ( φ 2 2 φ 3 ) = 0 w d φ 02 = f ( φ 2 φ 2 ) = 0 w d φ 03 = f ( φ 3 2 φ ) = 0 w d 0 = f 2 (φ φ φ 2 )+f 3 2 = 0 w d 02 = f 2 (φ φ φ 3 )+f = 0 w d ζ 0 = f 4 ζζ +f 5 (φ 2 +2φ 2 φ 3 )+2f 6 2 = 0 (76) The solutions for above equations are listed as below ( ) φ = v φ, = v, ζ = v ζ, (77) with the conditions v 2 φ = f 3 3f 2 v 2, v2 = f 2 f 4 f 3 f 5 2f 2 f 6 v 2 ζ, v ζ undetermined (78) The solution (77) is used to produce the Tri-Bimaximal mixing pattern in the following sections. The LO results in previous sections imply that the order of magnitude for Φ e and Φ ν scaled by the cutoff Λ are not common. To be specific the order of VEVs are restricted as follows v ϕ Λ v η Λ v χ Λ v σ Λ v ϑ Λ v ξ Λ v ρ Λ λ2 c, v φ Λ v Λ v ζ Λ λ3 c (79) It is natural to require the subleading corrections to Φ e should be smaller than m µ /m τ O(λ 2 c ), or even more strictly smaller than m e /m τ O(λ 3 c). Because of the constrain of the auxiliary Abelian shaping symmetries Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2, the subleading corrections to superpotential wd e and wν d are suppressed by /Λ and /Λ 2, respectively, see APPENDIX B for detail. Next we shall briefly discuss the SU(5) GUT breaking scenario in the present scheme. The Higgs sector is composed of H 5, H 5, H 45, H 45, and the gauge group is broken by the VEV of the adjoint field 7

18 H 24. The LO invariant interactions between the Higgs superfields and the adjoint field under the flavor symmetries are given by w H = f H Λ H 24H 24 σρ+ 5 i= f Hi Λ 3 H 24H 24 O H i + g H Λ 4 H 5H 5 H 24 (χχ) 2 (χφ) 2 + g H2 Λ 4 H 5H 5 H 24 (χχ) 3 (χφ) 3 + g H3 Λ 4 H 5H 5 H 24 (χχ) 3 (χ ) 3, (80) in which the operators Oi H include the following contractions of S 4 Oi H = {σρζζ,σρ( ),σρ(φφ),σξ(φφ) 3,σξ(φ ) 3 } (8) Plugging the VEVs of the flavons appear in the above equation, we can obtain the following w H = f H H 24 H 24 +g H H 5H 5 H 24, (82) with the coefficients f H = (f H +f H v 2 ζ Λ 2 +2f H 2 v 2 Λ 2 +3f H 3 v 2 φ Λ 2)v σv ρ Λ +2f H 5 v σ v ξ v φ v Λ 3, g H = (g H 2g H2 ) v3 χv φ Λ 4 (83) The superpotential in equation (80) breaks U() R due to all the fields involved carrying 0 unit U() R charge. Even taking into account the operators with the driving fields, Higgs fields and flavon fields combined together, the vanishing VEVs of the driving fields signify the operators have no contributions to the scalar potential. In order to completely understand the GUT symmetry breaking, one may consider the ultraviolet (UV) completion of the effective model. By adding the fields with non-zero unit U() R charge, a U() R conserving superpotential can give rise to the terms in Eq. (80). For the examples of the ultraviolet completion in realistic flavor models, please see Refs. [69, 70]. 5 Corrections The subleading corrections to superpotentials above arise from the higher dimensional operators which are suppressed by at least one power of /Λ and constrained by the symmetries. In this work the modified superpotential of driving fields w d would give rise to the shifts of LO VEVs in Φ e and Φ ν. Fermions correctional masses and mixing matrices are obtained by adding the higher order operators and the shifted vacua of flavon fields. The combinations φφ, φ, and ζζ are invariant under the auxiliary G A = Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2, hence it is always viable to add these combinations with any power on the top of each LO terms. It is expected that the subleading corrections are not impossible to destroy the LO predictions. Even though the expectation maybe correct, we would also like to present the detailed analysis of the subleading corrections. 5. Corrections to Vacuum Alignment Here we just present the final results of shifted VEVs. The detailed calculation procedure is presented in APPENDIX B. The modified VEVs of all flavons in Φ e are of the form as follows δv ϕ ( ) δv χ v ξ +δv ξ δv η ϕ = v ϕ +δv ϕ2, η =, χ = δv χ2, ξ = δv ξ2, δv ϕ3 v η v χ +δv χ3 ρ = v ρ, σ = v σ +δv σ, ϑ = v ϑ, (84) 8 δv ξ3

19 with v η, v ϑ and v ρ undetermined. We remark that the correctional results of each component of the flavons in Φ e are different. Similarly the shifted vacua of the scalars in Φ ν read φ = v φ +δv φ v φ +δv φ2 v φ +δv φ3, = ( v +δv v +δv 2 ), ζ = v ζ, (85) where v ζ is still undetermined. We also remark that in fact the correctional results of each components of the flavons in Φ ν are exactly the same, it is an important feature of the model which makes the Tri- Bimaximal mixing pattern still holds at subleading corrections in neutrino sector. Take into account the hierarchical VEVs Φ e /Λ λ 2 c and Φν /Λ λ 3 c, and the subleading operators linear in driving fields are suppressed by different power of /Λ, the shifts also have different order of magnitude δv ϕi v ϕ δv η v η δv χ i v χ λ 4 c, δv σ v σ λ 3 c, δv ξ,2 v ξ = 0, δv ξ3 v ξ λ 2 c, δv φi v φ δv i v λ 6 c (86) 5.2 Corrections to neutrino Due to the auxiliary symmetry Z 4 Z 6 Z 5 Z 2, the subleading corrections to neutrino Majorana mass matrix only appear at next to next to leading order (NNLO). The higher dimensional operators arising from inserting bilinear invariant combinations of φ, and ζ into the superfield N c N c in all possible ways, the corresponding terms are expressed explicitly as follows: z c Λ Nc N c (φφ) + z c2 Λ Nc N c (φφ) 2 + z c3 Λ Nc N c (φφ) 3 + z c4 Λ Nc N c (φ ) 3 + z c5 Λ Nc N c ( ) + z c6 Λ Nc N c ( ) 2 + z c7 Λ Nc N c ζζ (87) Inserting the LO VEVs of the flavons in Φ ν, the NNLO corrections to Majorana mass matrix will be δm M = z cv 2 φ +2z c5v 2 +z c7v 2 ζ Λ z c4v φ v Λ z c2v 2 φ +z c6v 2 Λ We can note the form of δm M is still compatible with TBM mixing. Denote the three terms that following the matrices as S,S 2,S 3 respectively, the eigenvalues of the subleading correctional Majorana masses are easily obtained as follows dm = S S 2 +3S 3, dm 2 = S +2S 2, dm 3 = S +S 2 +3S 3 (89) The possible content that spoils the TBM mixing only arising from Dirac mass terms, whose corresponding subleading superpotential is comprised of the shifted VEVs at LO and higher dimensional operators as following (88) δw D = 2 i= y νi Λ FNc δφ ν i H i= y ν i Λ 3(FNc ) ci (Φ ν Φ ν Φ ν ) ci H 5 (90) 9