University of Wisconsin Madison

MAD/PH/711

September 1992

Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories: Two Loop

Evolution of Gauge and Yukawa Couplings

arXiv:hep-ph/9209232v1 14 Sep 1992

V. Barger, M. S. Berger, and P. Ohmann

Physics Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA

ABSTRACT

We make a numerical study of gauge and Yukawa unification in super-

symmetric grand unified models and examine the quantitative implications
of fermion mass ansatze at the grand unified scale. Integrating the renor-
malization group equations with 1 (MZ ) and 2 (MZ ) as inputs, we find
3 (MZ ) 0.111(0.122) for MSU SY = mt and 3 (MZ ) 0.106(0.116) for
MSU SY = 1 TeV at one-loop (two-loop) order. Including b and Yukawa
couplings in the evolution, we find an upper limit mt <
200 GeV from Yukawa
unification. For given mt <
175 GeV, there are two solutions for , one with
tan > mt /mb , and one with sin 0.78(mt /150 GeV). Taking a popular
ansatz for the mass matrices at the unified scale, we obtain a lower limit on
the top quark mass of mt >
150(115) GeV for 3 (MZ ) = 0.11(0.12) and an up-
per limit on the supersymmetry parameter tan < 50 if 3 (MZ ) = 0.11. The
evolution of the quark mixing matrix elements is also evaluated.
 I. INTRODUCTION

There is renewed interest in supersymmetric grand unified theories (GUTs) [1] to explain

gauge couplings, fermion masses and quark mixings [29]. Recent measurements of the gauge
couplings at LEP and in other low energy experiments [10,11] are in reasonably good accord
with expectations from minimal supersymmetric GUTs with the scale of supersymmetry
(SUSY) of order 1 TeV or below [2]. Supersymmetric GUTs are also consistent with the non-

observation to date of proton decay [12]. In addition to the unification of gauge couplings
[13], the unification of Yukawa couplings has been considered to predict relations among
quark masses [1416]. With equal b-quark and -lepton Yukawa couplings at the GUT scale,
the mb /m mass ratio is explained by SUSY GUTs [4,15]. With specific ansatze for the
GUT scale mass matrices (e.g. zero elements, mass hierarchy, relations of quark and lepton

elements), other predictions have been obtained from quark masses and mixings that are
consistent with measurements [4,6,7,17,18]. The consideration of fermion mass relationships
has a long history [19,20] and includes single relations and mass matrices (textures) without
evolution [21,22], and single relations and mass matrices with evolution [23].

Our approach is to explore supersymmetric GUTs first with the most general assump-
tions, and then proceed to add additional GUT unification constraints to obtain more pre-
dictions at the electroweak scale. The renormalization group equations (RGEs) used here
are for the supersymmetric GUTs [24,25] with the minimal particle content above the super-

symmetry scale and the standard model RGEs [26] below the supersymmetry scale. In II
we explore the running of the gauge couplings in the supersymmetric model at the two-loop
level and compare the results to those obtained at the one-loop level. Rather than try to
predict the scale of supersymmetry (MSU SY ) which may be sensitive to unknown and model
dependent effects like particle thresholds at the GUT scale, we choose two values of MSU SY

to illustrate the general trends that occur. We also investigate the effects of the Yukawa
couplings on the gauge coupling running which enter at two loops [17] and have often been
neglected in the past. In III we explore the unification of Yukawa coupling constants. First

2
we consider the one-loop analytic solutions which can be obtained by neglecting the bottom
quark and tau Yukawa couplings b and relative to t in the RGEs. This serves as a useful
standard for comparison with the two-loop results for smaller values of tan (<< mt /mb ),

and many of the general features of the solutions to the RGEs are already present at this
stage. We then investigate the two-loop RGE evolution of the Yukawa couplings including
the effects of b , , and t . Analytic solutions are not available for the two-loop evolution,
so we integrate the RGEs numerically. In IV we investigate relations between Cabibbo-

Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements and the ratios of quark masses. We investigate
two popular ansatze [6,7,16] for Yukawa coupling matrices at the GUT scale. Both of these
ansatze agree with all existing experimental data, and this agreement is preserved at the
two-loop level. We also integrate the two-loop evolution equations for certain CKM matrix

elements and quark mass ratios in IV. The two loop RGEs for both the minimal supersym-
metric model and the standard model are given in the appendix.

II. GAUGE COUPLING UNIFICATION

A consistent treatment to two loops in the running of the gauge couplings involves the

gauge couplings gi and the largest Yukawa couplings t , b and . From general expressions
[24,25] that are summarized in the appendix, we obtain the evolution equations

3
dgi gi 2 1 X 2 2
aij gi2 2j ,
X
= bi g i + bij g i g j (1)
dt 16 2 16 2 j=1 j=t,b,

" !
dt t
ci gi2 62t 2b
X
= + +
dt 16 2
1 X
2
 136 2 2
+ 2
c i bi + c i /2 gi4 + g12 g22 + g1 g3 + 8g22 g32
16 45
6 2 2
 
+2t g1 + 6g22 + 16g32 + 2b g12
5 5 !#
n o
224t + 52t 2b + 54b + 2b 2 , (2)

" !
db b
ci gi2 2t 62b 2
X
= + + +
dt 16 2

3
 1 X  8
+ 2
c
i bi + c 2
i /2 gi4 + g12g22 + g12 g32 + 8g22 g32
16 9
4 2 2 6
 
+ 2t g12 + 2b g1 + 6g22 + 16g32 + 2 g12
5 5 5 !#
n o
224b + 52t 2b + 32b 2 + 34 + 54t , (3)

" !
d
ci gi2 32b 42
X
= + +
dt 16 2
1 X  9
+ 2
c
i bi + c 2
i /2 gi4 + g12g22
16 5
2 2 2 6 2
   
2 2 2
+b g1 + 16g3 + g + 6g
5 5 1 !#2
n o
32t 2b + 94b + 92b 2 + 104 , (4)

The various coefficients in the above expressions are also given in the appendix. The variable
is t = ln(/MG ) where is the running mass scale and MG is the GUT unification mass.
The renormalization group equations of dimensionless parameters like the gauge couplings

and Yukawa couplings are independent of the dimensionful soft-supersymmetry breaking

parameters.
We begin with the recent values of em and sin2 W at scale MZ = 91.17 GeV given in
the 1992 Particle Data Book [11,27]

(em )1 = 127.9 0.2 , (5a)

sin2 W = 0.2326 0.0008 , (5b)

where W refers to the weak angle in the modified minimal subtraction MS scheme [28].

These values correspond to electroweak gauge couplings of

1 (MZ )1 = 58.89 0.11 , (6a)

2 (MZ )1 = 29.75 0.11 , (6b)

For simplicity we initially set the supersymmetric scale MSU SY equal to the top quark mass
mt and set all Yukawa contributions in Eq. (1) to zero. Then evolving 1 and 2 from scale
MZ up to scale mt , we have

4
 53
1 (mt )1 = 1 (MZ )1 + ln(MZ /mt ) , (7a)
30
11
2 (mt )1 = 2 (MZ )1 ln(MZ /mt ) , (7b)
6

We use the value MZ = 91.17 GeV, neglecting its experimental uncertainty.

Next, for a grid of G and MG values, we evolve from the GUT scale down to the chosen
mt scale and retain those GUT scale inputs for which Eqs. (6) and (7) are satisfied. We use
the two-loop SUSY GUT unification condition G = 1 (MG ) = 2 (MG ). For the acceptable

GUT inputs we also evolve the strong coupling 3 (MG ) = G down to scale mt and then use
3-loop QCD to further evolve it to scale MZ . The three-loop expression
!1
2 2 b2 2 2
! ! " ! !#
b0 b1 b0 b2
3 () 1
= ln + ln ln 2 2 13 ln ln 2 1 ln 2 , (8)
2 2 b0 b0 b21

with the bi given in Ref. [29], is iteratively solved to find from 3 (mt ). Eq. (8) is then

evaluated for = MZ to obtain 3 (MZ ). The resulting values for for two representative
values of 3 (MZ ) are given in Table 1.

5
 3 (MZ ) (5) (4) (3)

0.11 129.1 188.3 225.0

0.12 233.4 320.2 360.0

Table 1: The QCD parameter (nf ) in MeV,

where nf is the number of active flavors.

We also investigate the effects of taking a supersymmetry scale higher than mt . Be-
low MSU SY , the RGE are similar to the non-supersymmetric standard model. A linear

combination of the Higgs doublets is integrated out of the theory at MSU SY leaving the
orthogonal combination (SM ) = d cos + u sin coupled to the fermions in a way that
depends on tan [4,30,31]; this combination results from the assumption that the three
soft-supersymmetry breaking parameters in the Higgs potential can be equated to MSU SY .

We use the two-loop RGEs [26] for the standard model, matching the couplings at MSU SY .
Taking a single SUSY scale is an idealized situation since in general the supersymmetric
particle spectrum is spread over a range of masses [9]. Without further assumptions we
cannot predict this spectrum. Given that such uncertainties exist, the predicted range for

3 should be taken to be representative only.

1
The ranges of G and MG parameters obtained from the procedure outlined above are
presented in Fig. 1 for one-loop and two-loop evolution with the choices MSU SY = mt and
MSU SY = 1 TeV. The shaded regions denote the allowed GUT parameter space. The two-
loop values obtained for G and MG are higher than the one-loop values and consequently

3 (MZ ) is higher for the two-loop evolution. Note that raising the SUSY scale from mt to 1
TeV lowers MG and G ; hence 3 (MZ ) decreases as well.
Figure 2 shows the corresponding results of the two-loop evolution over the full range of
. We find the ranges for 3 (MZ ) with mt = 150 GeV shown in Table 2.

6
 MSU SY one-loop two-loop

mt = 150 GeV 0.1112 0.0024 0.1224 0.0033

1 TeV 0.1065 0.0024 0.1161 0.0028

Table 2: Ranges obtained for 3 (MZ ) from the

input values em and sin2 W .

The two-loop values of 3 (MZ ) are about 10% larger than the one-loop values. The effect of
the higher SUSY scale is to lower 3 (MZ ) by about 5%.
Inclusion of Yukawa couplings in the two-loop evolution also lowers the value of 3 (MZ )

somewhat. For example setting t = b = = 1 at the GUT scale, we obtain a two-loop

value of 3 (MZ ) = 0.1189 0.0031 for MSU SY = mt .
The effects on the gauge couplings of including the Yukawa couplings in the evolution
are rather small for Yukawa couplings in the perturbative regime, justifying their neglect in

most previous analyses; for large values of tan the changes in the gauge couplings due to
inclusion of Yukawa couplings can be a few percent.
The experimental situation regarding the determination of 3 is presently somewhat
clouded [10], with deep inelastic scattering determinations in the range of the one-loop

calculations in Table 2 and LEP determinations similar to the two-loop results of Table 2.
There are other uncertainties not taken into account here, due to threshold corrections
from the unknown particle content at the heavy scale [3234], which can also change the 3
values obtained above. These corrections are model-dependent so we have not attempted
to include such contributions. However recent analysis have shown that the constraints

from non-observation of proton decay greatly reduce the potential uncertainties from GUT
thresholds [17,35].

7
 III. YUKAWA UNIFICATION

A. One-loop analytic results

The unification of Yukawa couplings first introduced by Chanowitz, Ellis and Gaillard [14]
has been reconsidered recently [4,6,7,17,30]. The GUT scale condition b (MG ) = (MG )
leads to a successful prediction for the mass ratio mb /m provided that a low energy super-
symmetry exists [4]. The b to mass ratio is given by

mb b
= Rb/ (mt ) , (9)
m

where

b (mt ) mb (mt )
Rb/ (mt ) = , (10)
(mt ) m (mt )

is the b to ratio of running masses at scale mt and

mf (mf )
f = if mf > 1GeV , (11)
mf (mt )

mf (1GeV)
f = if mf < 1GeV , (12)
mf (mt )

is a scaling factor including both QCD and QED effects in the running mass below mt . We
have determined the f scaling factors to three-loop order in QCD and one-loop order in
QED. The QCD running of the quark mass is described by
!
0 /b0
h 1 0 b1
mq () = mq (2b0 3 ) 1+ 2 3
b0 b0
!2 !
1 1 0 b1 2 0 b21 b1 1 + b2 0 2 3
i
+ 2 + + 3 3 + O(3 ) , (13)
2 b0 b0 b0 b0 b20

where the anomalous dimensions 0 , 1 and 2 are given in Ref. [36]. The scale-invariant

mass mq cancels in the ratio in Eq. (11). The one-loop QED running from scale to scale
introduces modifications
! QED /bQED
()
0 0

mf () = mf ( ) , (14)
( )

8
where the QED beta function and anomalous dimension are given by [33]

4 X 2 
bQED Q2d + Q2e ,
X X
0 = 3 Qu + 3 (15)
3
0QED = 3Q2f , (16)

and the sums run over the active fermions at the relevant scale. The dependence of the QCD-
QED scaling factors on 3 (MZ ) is shown in Figure 3; these factors increase as 3 (MZ )
increases.

We note that the physical top mass is related to the running mass by [37]

4
 
mphys
t = mt (mt ) 1 + 3 (mt ) + O(32 ) . (17)
3

The effects of the top quark Yukawa t can be studied semi-analytically at one-loop

neglecting the effects of the bottom and tau Yukawa couplings b and in Eqs. (1) and
(2), which is a valid approximation for small to moderate tan (i.e. tan <
10). Following
Ref. [6] we find [38]

mb 1/2 b
=y , (18)
m x

where x(), y(), () defined by

x() = (G /1 ())1/6 (G /2 ())3/2 , (19)

MG
1

Z

y() = exp 2t ( )d ln , (20)
16 2

(G /i ())ci/bi ,
Y
() = (21)
i=1,2,3

are to be evaluated at = mt in Eq. (18). Henceforth x, y, shall be understood as being

evaluated at scale mt when an argument is not explicitly specified. Typical values of these
quantities obtained in Ref. [18] are x = 1.52, y = 0.75 0.81, = 10.3 for a bottom mass
given by the Gasser-Leutwyler (GL) QCD sum rule determination mb = 4.25 0.1 GeV [39]

taken within its 90% confidence range and 3 = 0.111. The quantity y gives the scaling from
MG to mt that arises from a heavy quark, beyond the scaling due to the gauge couplings.

9
The factor y(mt ) is constrained to lie in a narrow range of values by Eq. (18). The integral
in Eq. (20) is crucial in explaining the mb /m ratio. In fact if t is neglected then y = 1 and
the mb /m ratio is found to be too large.

For a given value of mt , there exist two solutions for tan . This fact can be understood
qualitatively by studying the one-loop RGE for Rb/ b / .

dRb/ Rb/  X 2 2 2 2

= d g
i i + t + 3 b 3 . (22)
dt 16 2

For small tan the bottom and tau Yukawas do not play a significant role in the RGE, and
any particular value for mb /m is obtained for a unique value of t (mt ), which corresponds
to a linear relationship between mt and sin ,
s
mt v 2 h i1/2
= t (mt ) = v 1 y 12 , (23)
sin 2 3I

where v = 246 GeV and

M
ZG
I= ()d ln . (24)
mt

The numerical value for I from Ref. [18] is 113.79 for mt = 170 GeV. For large tan , where

the effects of b and on the running Yukawa couplings can be substantial, an increase
in b can be compensated in the RGE by a decrease in t . Hence, for increasing tan , the
correct prediction for mb /m is obtained for decreased values of the top quark Yukawa. Thus
there is a second solution to the RGE for Rb/ with a large value of tan . The inclusion of
the two-loop effects does not alter these observations.

The one-loop RGE for Rs/ s /

dRs/ Rs/  X 2 
= di gi . (25)
dt 16 2

is similar to Eq. (22), except that it receives no contribution from the dominant Yukawa

couplings t , b , and . When the value Rs/ (MG ) = 1/3 is assumed at the GUT scale, the
prediction at the electroweak scale is

ms 1 1/2 s
= . (26)
m 3 x

10
Notice that this equation does not include the scaling parameter y because the top quark
Yukawa does not affect the running of the second generation quarks and leptons. This
relation for ms /m is in good agreement with the experimental values, but it is not as

stringent as the mb /m relation due to the sizable uncertainty in the strange quark mass. The
result ms /m = 1.54 was obtained in Ref. [18], to be compared with the GL determination
[39] ms /m = 1.66 0.52.
A popular strategy is to relate the mixing angles in the CKM matrix to ratios of quark

masses, taking into account the evolution from the GUT scale in non-SUSY [40] or SUSY
q
[41] models. For example, one popular GUT scale ansatz is |Vcb| mc /mt which requires
a GUT boundary condition on Rc/t c /t of
q
Rc/t (MG ) = |Vcb(MG )| , (27)

The one-loop SUSY RGE for Rc/t is

" #
dRc/t Rc/t
= 2
32t + 2b . (28)
dt 16

The corresponding one-loop SUSY RGE for the running CKM matrix element |Vcb | is [41],
" #
d|Vcb| |Vcb | 2
= 2
t + 2b , (29)
dt 16

The pure gauge coupling parts of the RGEs are not present in Eqs. (28) and (29) since Rc/t
and Vcb are ratios of elements from the up quark Yukawa matrix and the down quark Yukawa

matrix.
Neglecting the non-leading effects of b , the one-loop results of Ref. [6] at the electroweak
scale obtained from evolution are

|Vcb(mt )| = |Vcb(MG )|y 1 Rc/t (mt ) = Rc/t (MG )y 3 , (30)

or equivalently using Eq. (27)

s
ymc
|Vcb(mt )| = . (31)
c mt

11
 Since y is already well constrained by the b-mass relation of Eq. (18) (for the one-loop
value of 3 (MZ ) = 0.111), Eq. (31) requires that mt must be large in order that |Vcb | falls
in the experimentally allowed range 0.032 0.054 (and even then |Vcb | is found to be at the

upper limit of its allowed range). If, however, we use a larger value of 3 (MZ ) indicated
by the two-loop equations, say 0.12, then c increases by about 14%, as shown in Figure
3. Furthermore the increased values of the scaling parameters and b require about a 9%
decrease in y to explain the mb /m ratio in Eq. (18). The resulting |Vcb | is reduced by about

12% and is then closer to its central experimental value. Of course, a consistent treatment
at the two-loop level requires the two-loop generalization of Eq. (31) obtained by solving the
full set of RGEs. One of the questions we will address subsequently is for what values of mt
and tan can the |Vcb | and the mb /m constraints be realized simultaneously.

The predictions above are all based upon the assumption that the couplings remain in
the perturbative regime during the evolution from the GUT scale down to the electroweak
scale. Otherwise it is not valid to use the RGEs which are calculated order by order in
perturbation theory. One can impose this perturbative unification condition as a constraint.

For mb at the lower end of the GL QCD sum rule range 4.1 4.4 GeV the top quark Yukawa
coupling at the GUT scale, t (MG ), becomes large, as can be demonstrated from analytic
solutions to the one-loop RGEs in the approximation that b and are neglected compared
to t (valid for small to moderate tan ).
The top quark Yukawa at the GUT scale is given by

4 2 1
" #
2
t (MG ) = 1 . (32)
3I y 12

Taking [18] 3 (MZ ) = 0.111 and mb = 4.25 GeV and mt = 170 GeV gives t (MG ) = 1.5.
Larger values of 3 (MZ ) lead to increased b via Eq. (11) giving smaller y in Eq. (18) and

a correspondingly larger value of t (MG ). The quantity t (MG ) is plotted versus 3 (MZ ) in
Figure 4. Larger values of 3 (MZ ) 0.12 can yield t (MG )>
3 that cast the perturbative
unification in doubt. Keeping the gauge couplings fixed and varying mb , one sees that smaller
values of mb also yield larger values of t (MG ).

12
 The scaling parameter y is manifestly less than one by Eq. (20) since 2t > 0 in the region
mt < < MG . This implies an upper limit on mb in Eq. (18) of
mb 1/2 b
<
, (33)
m x
B. Two-loop numerical results

When the two-loop RGEs are considered, analytic solutions must be abandoned, but
the same qualitative behavior is found in the numerical solutions. Furthermore, there is
now the possibility that the bottom quark Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale becomes
non-perturbative for large values of tan . In our analysis we solve the two-loop RGEs of
Eqs. (1-4) numerically [42], retaining all Yukawa couplings from the third generation.

First we choose a value of 3 (MZ ) that is consistent with experimental determinations

and the preceding one-loop or two-loop evolution of the gauge couplings in the absence of
Yukawa couplings. Specifically we take 3 (MZ ) = 0.11 or 3 (MZ ) = 0.12, to bracket the
indicated 3 (MZ ) range. For each particular 3 (MZ ) we consider a range of values for tan

and mb (mb ). For each choice of 3 (MZ ), tan , mb we choose an input value of mt . The
Yukawa couplings at scale mt are then given by

2mt (mt ) 2mb (mb ) 2m (m )
t (mt ) = , b (mt ) = , (mt ) = , (34)
v sin b v cos v cos
and the i (mt ) are determined by Eqs. (7) and (8) from the central values in Eq. (6) We take
[11] m = 1.784 GeV. The running of the vacuum expectation value v between the fermion
mass scales is negligible for the range of fermion masses considered here [5]. Starting at the

scale mt , we integrate the RGEs to the GUT scale, defined to be the scale at which 1 ()
and 2 () intersect. We then check to see if the equality b (MG ) = (MG ) holds to within
0.01%. If the b and Yukawas satisfy this condition, the solution is accepted. If not, we
choose another value of mt and repeat the integration. Since our primary motivation here

is to study the influence of the 3 (MZ ) value on the Yukawa couplings, we do not enforce
the requirement that 3 (MG ) is equal to 1 (MG ) and 2 (MG ). Nevertheless the equality of
1 , 2 , and 3 at MG is typically violated by <
4% (2%) for 3 (MZ ) = 0.11 (0.12). Such
discrepancies could easily exist from threshold effects at the GUT scale [34,35].

13
 We also explore the effects of taking the SUSY scale above mt . We proceed as described
above, integrating the following two-loop standard model RGEs numerically from the top
mass to the SUSY scale:

3
dgi gi SM 2 1 X SM 2 2
aSM g 2 2 ,
X
= b g + b g g (35)
dt 16 2 i i 16 2 j=1 ij i j j=t,b, ij i j

"
dt t h X SM 2 3 2 3 2 i
= c i g i + + Y 2 (S)
dt 16 2 2 t 2 b
1 1187 4 23 4 9 19
+ 2
g1 g2 108g34 g12 g22 + g12 g32 + 9g22 g32
16 600 4 20 15
223 2 135 2 43 2 9 2
   
2 2
+ g + g + 16g3 t g g + 16g3 2b
2
80 1 16 2 80 1 16 2
5  
+ Y4 (S) 2 32t + 2b
2
3 4 5 2 2 11 4
+ t t b + b
2 4 4 !#
5 2 9 2 3 2
 
+Y2 (S) b t 4 (S) + ,
4 4 2
(36)

"
db b h X SM 2 3 2 3 2 i
= c i g i + + Y 2 (S)
dt 16 2 2 b 2 t
1 127 4 23 4 27 31
+ 2
g1 g2 108g34 g12g22 + g12 g32 + 9g22 g32
16 600 4 20 15
79 2 9 2 187 2 135 2
   
2 2
g1 g2 + 16g3 t + g1 + g2 + 16g3 2b
2
80 16 80 16
5 
2 2

+ Y4 (S) 2 t + 3b
2
3 5 11
+ 4b 2b 2t + 4t
2 4 4 !#
5 2 9 2 3 2
 
+Y2 (S) t b 4 (S) + ,
4 4 2
(37)

"
d h X SM 2 3 2 i
= c i g i + + Y 2 (S)
dt 16 2 2
1 1371 4 23 4 27 2 2
+ g g2 + g1 g2
16 2 200 1 4 20

14
 387 2 135 2 2 5
 
+ g1 + g2 + Y4 (S) 62
80 16 2 !#
3 4 9 2 3 2
+ Y2 (S) 4 (S) + , (38)
2 4 2

"( )
d 1 9 3 4 2 2 2 9 2
   
= g1 + g1 g2 + g24 g + 9g22 + 4Y2(S) 4H(S) + 122
dt 16 2 4 25 5 5 1
1 3 2 73 4 117 2 2 1887 4
   
3 2 2
+ 78 + 18 g + 3g + g + g g + g
16 2 5 1 2
8 2 20 1 2 200 1
305 6 867 2 4 1677 4 2 3411 6
+ g g g g g g
8 2 120 1 2 200 1 2 1000 1
64g32 (4t + 4b )
8 3
g12 (24t 4b + 34 ] g24 Y2 (S) + 10Y4(S)
5  2 
3 2 57 2 3 2
 
2 2
+ g1 g1 + 21g2 t + g1 + 9g2 2b
2
5 10 2
15 2
  
+ g1 + 11g22 2
2
242 Y2 (S) H(S) + 62t 2b
h i
+20 36t + 36b + 6
!#
h i
12 4t 2b + 2t 4b . (39)

Here

Y2 (S) = 32t + 32b + 2 , (40)

1 h X SM 2 2 2 2 SM 2 2
i
cSM
X X
Y4 (S) = 3 ci g i t + 3 i g
i b + c i g i ,
(41)
3

9 2
 
4 (S) = 34t + 34b + 4 2t 2b , (42)
4 3

H(S) = 34t + 34b + 4 , (43)

and the coefficients aSM , bSM and cSM are given in the appendix along with the full matrix
structure.

15
 The initial values for 3 (MZ ), mb and mt are chosen as before; in addition we are required
to specify the initial value of the quartic Higgs coupling at scale mt . The Yukawa couplings
at scale mt are

2mt (mt ) 2mb (mb ) 2m (m )
t (mt ) = , b (mt ) = , t (mt ) = , (44)
v b v v

and the i (mt ) are given by Eqs. (6)-(8). After integrating to the SUSY scale we require

that the matching condition

1 3 2 +
 

(MSU SY ) = g1 (MSU SY ) + g22 (MSU
+ 2
SY ) cos 2 , (45)
4 5

is satisfied to within 0.1%. This condition [4,31] results from integrating out the heavy Higgs

doublet at MSU SY . Below this scale only a Standard Model Higgs remains with its quartic
coupling given by Eq. (45). We also apply the matching conditions

+
gi (MSU SY ) = gi (MSU SY ) , (46)
+
t (MSU SY ) = t (MSU SY ) sin , (47)
+
b (MSU SY ) = b (MSU SY ) cos , (48)
+
(MSU SY ) = (MSU SY ) cos . (49)

If Eq. (45) is not satisfied we choose another input value of (mt ) and repeat the process. We
allow tan to span a wide grid of values. After obtaining a satisfactory value of that meets
the boundary condition above, we integrate the two-loop SUSY RGEs to the GUT scale,

defined by the equality 1 (MG ) = 2 (MG ). At the GUT scale we require b (MG ) = (MG )
to within 0.1%. If this condition is not met, we repeat the entire process, choosing other
initial values for mt and .
The parameter also runs in going from the SUSY scale to the electroweak scale [31].

However this effect is small and we neglect it here.

In Figure 5 the resulting contours of constant mb are given in the mt , tan plane [4,17]
for the choices of 3 (MZ ) = 0.11 and 0.12 and the supersymmetry scales MSU SY = mt and 1
TeV. The contours shown are mb = 4.1, 4.25, 4.4 GeV (corresponding to the central value of

16
mb and its 90% confidence range from the GL QCD sum rule determination) and mb = 5.0
GeV (representing a typical constituent b-quark mass value). For a given mb and mt <
175
GeV, there is a high solution and a low solution for tan as anticipated in IIIa. Thus, once

mt is experimentally known and the choice of mb resolved by other considerations (such as

the CKM matrix elements addressed subsequently), the assumption of Yukawa unification
at the GUT scale will select two possible values for tan . For example for mt = 150 GeV
and mb = 4.25 GeV, the solutions with 3 (MZ ) = 0.11 are

tan = 1.35 or tan = 56 . (50)

For mt <
175 GeV the low solution is well-approximated by

mt
 
sin = 0.78 . (51)
150 GeV

Such knowledge of tan would greatly simplify SUSY Higgs analyses [43]. Without imposing
any other constraints, the top quark mass mt can be arbitrarily small.
The plots rise very steeply for the maximal value of mt . This results because the linear

relation exhibited in Eq. (23) and in the plot in Ref. [18] between mt and sin is mapped
into a vertical line for sufficiently large tan (>
10). The deviation of these contours from
being strictly vertical results from the contributions of b and to the Yukawa coupling
evolution.
An upper limit on mt is determined entirely by the mb /m ratio. We find the mt upper

limits shown in Table 3 for the two choices of 3 (MZ ). It is interesting that the predicted
upper limit for mt coincides with that allowed by electroweak radiative corrections [11].

3 (MZ )
MSU SY 0.11 0.12

mt 187 193

1 TeV 192 199

17
 Table 3: Maximum values of mt (mt ) in GeV consistent with
the 90% confidence levels of the mb (mb ) values of GL.

Our contours of mb /m in Fig. 5 have about a 10% higher mb than those given in Ref. [17]

presumably because they employed the one-loop QCD results for the scaling factors f with
the two-loop expression for 3 rather than the three-loop QCD for both f and 3 that we
use here.
As 3 (MZ ) gets larger, smaller values of y are needed to obtain obtain the correct mb /m

ratio. In turn larger values of t () are needed via Eq. (20). For 3 (MZ )>
0.12 and mb <
4.2
GeV, the value of t () near the GUT scale can be driven into the nonperturbative regime.
In Figure 6 we show the values of t (MG ) and b (MG ) obtained for the solutions in Fig.
5. Fixed points in the quark Yukawa couplings exist at 1, so a Yukawa coupling only
slightly larger than the fixed point at the scale mt can diverge as it is evolved to the GUT

scale. For large values of the Yukawa couplings the two-loop contributions to the RGEs
contribute a fraction x of the one-loop contributions when
s
6(16 2x)
t = 6.5 x , (52)
22
s
7(16 2x)
b = 6.3 x , (53)
28

as can be deduced from Eqs. (2) and (3). When x 1 we are clearly in the nonperturbative

regime. If we adopt the criteria that the two-loop effects always be less than a quarter of
the one-loop effects, then t and b are nonperturbative when they remain below 3.3 and
3.1 respectively all the way to the GUT scale. This is true for all of the curves presented in
Figure 6, except for the mb = 4.1 GeV contours for 3 (MZ ) = 0.12; hence the exact position

of this contour cannot be predicted with accuracy.

In Figure 7 we show the evolution of the Yukawa couplings from the SUSY scale to the
GUT scale. The nonperturbative regime for the case discussed above occurs only near the
GUT scale.

18
 In some SO(10) GUT models the top quark Yukawa coupling t is unified with the b and
at the GUT scale. Imposing this constraint selects a unique value for tan and mt . This
solution is given by the intersection of t (MG ) and b (MG ), which occurs for large tan >
50:
see Fig. 6.
One could also consider the unification of the Yukawa couplings at some scale other than
that at which the gauge couplings unify [4,17]. Since Rb/ increases as it evolves from the
GUT scale to the electroweak scale, Yukawa unification at a scale larger than the gauge

coupling unification scale gives a larger mb /m ratio.

The authors of Ref. [4] predict the light physical Higgs mass rather precisely. However
this prediction is related to their assumption (and the one we use here) that the heavy Higgs
doublet is integrated out at MSU SY . This means that the heavy physical Higgs bosons have

masses MH MA MH MSU SY >> MZ , which requires that the light Higgs mass is
close to its upper limit. The relation of sin to mt then fixes the one-loop corrections to the
light Higgs mass.

IV. FERMION MASS ANSATZ

By assuming an ansatz for Yukawa matrices at the GUT scale and evolving these matrices
down to the electroweak scale, predictions can be obtained for the quark and lepton masses
and the CKM matrix elements [4,6,7,16]. Much work has been done on individual relations
q q
such as |Vud | ms /md and |Vcb| mc /mt which are imposed at the GUT scale as

described in III. Recently interest has been revived in models that involve several such
relations, leading to a number of predictions for quark masses and CKM matrix elements at
the electroweak scale [4,68]. The relations evolve according to RGEs, and the main effects
are determined by the largest couplings. For moderate values of tan (i.e. tan <
10),
these are the gauge couplings gi and the top quark Yukawa coupling t . For large values of

tan ( mt /mb ) the effects of b and can also be significant. Various individual relations
q
at the GUT scale such as |Vcb| mc /mt can be satisfied for certain choices of these Yukawa

19
couplings. The remarkable aspect of these fermion mass ansatze is that many relations can
be made to work at one time. We shall concentrate in this section on two predictive ways
of generating mixing between the second and third generations which put those mixing

contributions entirely in the up quark Yukawa matrix [4,6,16] or entirely in the down quark
Yukawa matrix [7].

20
A. The HRR/DHR Model
Harvey, Ramond and Reiss [16] proposed that the Yukawa matrices at the GUT scale
have the form

i
0 C 0 0 Fe 0


U= C
0 B
D=
Fe i
E 0
, (54)


0 B A 0 0 D

0 F 0


E=
F 3E 0
. (55)


0 0 D

These matrices incorporate both Fritzsch zeros [20] and the Georgi-Jarlskog relation [21]
between down quark and charged lepton matrix elements. This relative factor of three has
been realized in Higgs models with certain vacuum breaking patterns. HRR obtained the
above ansatz using a 10 and three 126 Higgs multiplets in an SO(10) GUT model to obtain

various relationships between CKM matrix elements and quark masses. The GUT ansatz of
Eqs. (??) and (55) is also the basis for the recent RGE analysis by Dimopoulos, Hall and
Raby [6]. Henceforth we shall refer to this ansatz as the HRR/DHR model. It yields the
q
relation |Vcb| = c /t at the GUT scale.
Renormalization group evolution generates non-zero entries in the above Yukawa matrices

and also splits B1 U23 and B2 U32 to give the matrices at the electroweak scale of the
form

i
0 C 0 0 Fe 0


U=
C u B1
D=
Fe i
E d
, (56)


0 B2 A 0 0 D

0 F 0


E=
F 3E 0
. (57)


0 0 D

21
The quantities A, D and D are equivalent to t , b and respectively up to subleading
corrections in the mass matrix diagonalization. The one-loop solutions [6] to leading order
in the hierarchy can be obtained analytically neglecting b and . The one-loop results for

the CKM elements at the scale mt are

" s #1/2
s md c mu s c mu md
|Vus | = + +2 cos , (58)
d ms u mc d u ms mc
s
ymc
|Vcb| = , (59)
c mt
s
 Vub  c mu
 
  = , (60)

Vcb 
u mc
where i (mt ) is defined by Eq. (11) and y(mt ) by Eq. (20). The angle is a priori arbitrary.
The down-type quark masses are related to the corresponding lepton masses by
1/2 d
md = 3me , (61)
x e
1/2 s m
ms = , (62)
x 3
1/2 b
mb = y m . (63)
x
Using the general expressions for the two-loop RGEs given in the appendix and keeping
only terms unsuppressed by the hierarchy, one obtains Eqs. (1)(4) as well as
" !
dB1 B1 t b d
ci gi2 62t
X
= + +
dt 16 2 B1
1 X 2
 136 2 2
+ c i bi + c i /2 gi4 + g12 g22 + g g + 8g22g32
16 2 45 1 3
2 6 2 2 t b d 2
 
2 2
+t g1 + 6g2 + 16g3 + g
5 5 B1 1
( ) !#
t b d
 
224t + 52t 2b + 52b + 2 , (64)
B1
" !
dB2 B2
ci gi2 62t 2b
X
= + +
dt 16 2
1 X
2
 136 2 2
+ 2
c i bi + c i /2 gi4 + g12 g22 + g1 g3 + 8g22g32
16 45
6 2 2
 
+2t g1 + 6g22 + 16g32 + 2b g12
5 5 !#
n o
224t + 52t 2b + 54b + 2b 2 , (65)

22
 " !
du u t B1 B2 b d B2
ci gi2 32t
X
= + +3 +
dt 16 2 u u
1 X
2

4 2 2 136 2 2
+ 2
c i bi + c i /2 g i + g 1 g 2 + g1 g3 + 8g22 g32
16 45
2 4 2 t B1 B2 2 2 2 b d B2 2
   
2 2
+t g1 + 16g3 + g1 + 6g2 + g1
5 u 5 5 u
( ) !#
4 2 2 t B1 B2  2 2
 b d B2  2 2

9t + 3t b + 13t + 2b + 5b + ,
u u
(66)

" !
dd d t b B1
ci gi2 62b 2
X
= + + +
dt 16 2 d
1 X 
4 2 2 8 2 2
+ c
i bi + c 2
i /2 g i + g 1 g 2 + g g + 8g22 g32
16 2 9 1 3
2 2 6 4 t b B1 2
 
+2b g1 + 6g22 + 16g32 + 2 g12 + g1
5 5 5 d
( ) !#
4 2 2 2 2 4 t b B1 2
22b + 5t b + 3b + 3 + 5t . (67)
d

Notice that since 1/B2 dB2 /dt= 1/t dt /dt, the ratio B2 /t is constant over all scales and is
in particular equal to its value at the GUT scale (B2G /t (MG )).
With these RGEs we can include the additional experimental constraints from the charm
mass mc and the CKM matrix element |Vcb| to determine the allowed region of the HRR/DHR

model in the mt , tan plane. An analysis at the one-loop level neglecting b and relative
to t was presented in Ref. [18].
The Yukawa matrices are diagonalized by unitary matrices VuL , VuR , VdL , VdR so that
Udiag = VuL UVuR and Ddiag = VdL DVdR . The CKM matrix is then given by VCKM =

VuL VdL . We define a running CKM matrix by diagonalizing the Yukawa matrices U and
D at any scale t. We find that c /t and |Vcb | are described in terms of the Yukawa matrices
by
!
c B1 B2 u
Rc/t = , (68)
t 2t t

B1 d
|Vcb| = , (69)
t b

23
with

mc
= c Rc/t (mt ) . (70)
mt

To leading order in the mass hierarchy, the ratio Rc/t is given by the ratio of eigenvalues
of the 2 2 submatrix of U in the second and third generations while Vcb is given by the
difference in the rotation angles needed to rotate away the upper right hand entry in the
submatrices of U and D. Given that the mass hierarchies exist, there is a simple iterative

numerical procedure for diagonalizing the mass matrices U and D and obtaining the CKM
matrix. We have checked that the corrections to the above formulas from contributions
subleading in the mass hierarchy are small.
It is straightforward to derive the resulting renormalization group equations from

Eqs. (64)-(67)
"
dRc/t Rc/t  
= 32t + 2b
dt 16 2
#
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 
   
2 4 2 2 4 2 2
+ g + 6g + g 13 + 2 + 5 + , (71)
16 2 t 5 1 2
5 b 1 t t b b b
"
d|Vcb| |Vcb|  
= 2t + 2b
dt 16 2
#
1 4 2 2 2 2 2  4
 
+ t g1 + b g1 5t + 54b + 2b 2 , (72)
16 2 5 5

The corresponding evolution equations in the Standard Model are given by

" 
dRc/t Rc/t 3 2 3 2

=
dt 16 2 2 t 2 b
1 2 223 2 135 2 2 43 2 9 2
   
2 2
+ g + g + 16g g g + 16g
16 2 t 80 1 16 2 3 b
80 1 16 2 3

2(32t + 2b )
 !#
21 4 17 2 2 13 4 9 2 2 5 2 2

+ t b b + t b , (73)
4 t 4 2 4 4
" 
d|Vcb| |Vcb | 3 2 3 2

= +
dt 16 2 2 t 2 b
1 2 79 2 9 2 2 43 2 9 2
   
2 2
+ g g + 16g3 + b g g + 16g3
16 2 t 80 1 16 2 80 1 16 2
+2(2t + 2b )

24
  !#
13 4 11 2 2 13 4 5 2 2 5 2 2

+ t b + b + t + b , (74)
2 t 2 2 4 4
The evolution equations in Eqs. (73)-(74) are obtained from the two-loop RGEs of the
standard model given in Ref [26] and in the appendix.

In the supersymmetric model |Vcb| increases with the running from the GUT scale to the
electroweak scale [41]; this is evident at the two-loop level in Eq.(72). The opposite behavior
occurs in Eq. (74) for the nonsupersymmetric Standard Model where |Vcb | decreases as the
running mass decreases [40]. Fig. 8 shows the running of |Vcb| for the cases MSU SY = mt
and 1 TeV. In contrast to |Vcb| the ratio Rc/t increases monotonically as the running mass

decreases in both the Standard Model and supersymmetric model cases.

We stress that Eqs. (71) and (74) are the correct evolution equations regardless of the
fermion mass ansatz at the GUT scale. Changing the ansatz just changes the boundary
conditions at the GUT scale (terms subleading in the mass hierarchy differ between models,
q
but this is a negligible effect). In a model for which the relationship |Vcb | = c /t holds (as
q
in the HRR/DHR model), this boundary condition is Rc/t (MG ) = |Vcb(MG )|. In Giudices
model, to be described below, the mixing between the second and third generations arises
in the down quark Yukawa matrix alone, and so in his model Rc/t and |Vcb| are unrelated at

the GUT scale.

In our analysis of the CKM constraints we proceed as in the discussion of the calculation
for Figure 5. We numerically solve the two-loop RGEs as given by Eqs. (1)-(4),(71)-(72) for
the case MSU SY = mt . As before, we consider the representative choices 3 (MZ ) = 0.11 and
3 (MZ ) = 0.12. For each 3 (MZ ) choice, we consider a grid of tan values, holding |Vcb(mt )|

and mc fixed. We then choose input values for mt and mb (given 3 (MZ ), tan , |Vcb |, mc )
in terms of which all running parameters are uniquely specified at mt : t (mt ), b (mt ) and
(mt ) are given by Eq. (34), i (mt ) are determined by Eqs. (7) and (8) using the central
values in Eq. (6) Rc/t is given by Eq. (70), and |Vcb | at scale mt is an input. After integrating

the RGEs from mt to MG we check the constraints

b (MG ) = (MG ) , (75a)

25
 q
Rc/t (MG ) = |Vcb (MG )| . (75b)

If either of these conditions is not satisfied to within 0.2%, we choose another input value
for mt and mb and repeat the integration.
We also carry out the RGE calculations with a SUSY scale at 1 TeV. This is done

exactly as described in the previous section. In addition to the other parameters, we choose
an input value for the quartic Higgs coupling at scale mt . We then integrate the two-
loop standard model RGEs to the SUSY scale and require that Eq. (45) hold to within
0.1%. For such solutions we apply the other appropriate boundary conditions (given by

Eqs. (46)-(49)) and integrate the two-loop SUSY RGEs to the GUT scale, where we require
q
that b (MG ) = (MG ) and Rc/t (MG ) = |Vcb(MG )| to within 0.2%. In our calculation we
require that mb , mc and |Vcb | be within the experimentally determined 90% confidence levels
of the quark mass determinations of GL (4.1 < mb < 4.4 GeV, 1.19 < mc < 1.35 GeV) and
the recent Particle Data Book value [11] for |Vcb| (0.032 < |Vcb| < 0.054).

In Fig. 9 the contours of constant |Vcb | are shown in the mt , tan plane for a fixed
mc = 1.27 GeV. In Figs. 10 and 11 we show the contours obtained by applying only
the constraint in Eq. (75a) as in Fig. 5 along with the contours obtained by applying both
Eqs. (75a) and (75b) for fixed mc as in Fig. 9. In Fig. 10 the value of mc is fixed at 1.27 GeV

and contours of |Vcb | are shown. In Fig. 11 |Vcb | is fixed at its maximum allowed experimental
value of |Vcb| = 0.054 (at 90% C.L.) and three values of mc are plotted (corresponding to the
central mc value and the 90% C.L. values from GL).
For large tan the effects of including b and in the RGEs increase |Vcb|. In order

to satisfy |Vcb| < 0.054, the maximum allowed value of tan for 3 (MZ ) = 0.11 is about
50(60) for MSU SY = mt (1TeV); see Fig. 11. For this value of 3 (MZ ) the HRR/DHR model
predicts that |Vcb | still lies at the upper end of its allowed 90% confidence level range when
the effects of b and at large tan are included in the two-loop RGEs; see Fig. 10.
Allowing mb to become larger than the narrow window mb = 4.1 4.4 GeV requires bigger

|Vcb| which is unacceptable. The higher b mass contour mb = 5 GeV is not consistent with

26
the GUT scale ansatz for 3 (MZ ) = 0.11. The largest consistent values of mb are given in
Table 4.

3 (MZ )

MSU SY 0.11 0.12

mt 4.56 5.28

1 TeV 4.70 5.33

Table 4: Maximum values of mb (mb ) in GeV consistent with

the 90% confidence levels of |Vcb | and mc (mc ).

With 3 (MZ ) = 0.12, |Vcb | can be much closer to its central value, enhancing the plausi-
bility of the HRR/DHR model, with the only caveat being that low mb (<
4.2 GeV) values
produce t (MG ) values which are close to being non-perturbative for most values of tan :
see Figs. 6b, 6d. Notice that the dominant effect of taking the larger value of 3 (MZ ) indi-
cated by two-loop evolution is to increase the QCD-QED scaling factor c , thereby allowing
|Vcb| to be smaller and in better agreement with experiment.

Imposing the constraints on mb , mc and |Vcb| also gives the lower limits on the top quark
mass since the |Vcb| contours in the smaller tan region are steeper and eventually cross the
mb /m contours [18]. These lower limits on mt are summarized in Table 5.

3 (MZ )
MSU SY 0.11 0.12

mt 155 (1.45) 118 (0.75)

1 TeV 151 (1.16) 116 (0.64)

Table 5: Minimum values of mt (mt ) (tan ) in GeV consistent with

the 90% confidence levels of mb (mb ), |Vcb| and mc (mc ).

27
The constraints on mb /m , |Vcb| and mc completely determine the allowed region in the
mt , tan plane of the HRR/DHR model. Other constraints such as the parameter for CP
violation in the neutral kaon system, B mixing or the lighter quark masses affect only the

other parameters in the model [18].

If the Yukawa unification is assumed to occur at a scale higher than the gauge couplings,
then the predicted value for |Vcb| will be lower [4] and easier to reconcile with the experimental
data.

B. The Giudice Model

Giudice has proposed a different Yukawa mass ansatz [7] of the form

i
0 0 b 0 fe 0


U=
0 b 0
D=
f ei d nd
, (76)


b 0 a 0 nd c

0 f 0


E=
f 3d nd
(77)


0 nd c

This model uses a geometric mean relation m2c = mu mt at the GUT scale to eliminate one
parameter in the up quark Yukawa matrix. The down quark Yukawa matrix must then

generate the mixing between the second and third generations to get a value for |Vcb| that
agrees with experiment. Giudice sets the parameter n in the above mass matrices to be two.
We see no a priori reason to suppose that this parameter must be an integer and treat it as
a free parameter.

We find the generalized one-loop solutions (neglecting b and in the RGEs)

25 me 4n2 m
!
me
s
|Vus | = 3 1 + , (78)
m 2 m 9 m
me (n2 3) m
!
n m
|Vcb| = 1 + , (79)
3y m m 9 m
y 2 mc
|Vub| = , (80)
c mt

28
 u m2c
mu = y 3 , (81)
c2 mt
1/2 d me 4n2 m
!
md = 3me 1 8 + , (82)
x e m 9 m
1/2 s m 4n2 m
!
me
ms = 1+8 , (83)
x 3 m 9 m
1/2 b
mb = y m . (84)
x

Notice that at one-loop level to leading order in the mass heirarchy the running |Vcb | is
related to the strange and bottom Yukawa couplings by

s ()
|Vcb ()| = nRs/b () n . (85)
b ()

Eqs. (78)-(84) can be compared to Eqs. (58)-(63) for the HRR/DHR model, except that

we have retained the highest non-leading order corrections only for the Giudice model. When
n = 2 the predicted value of |Vcb| agrees well with the experimental value. On the other
hand |Vus | is just at the lower limit of its 90% confidence level. The overall situation can be
improved somewhat by allowing n to be slightly larger than two.

The leading term in Eq. (78) can be recognized as the Oakes relation [19] between the
q
Cabibbo angle and the quark masses, tan c md /ms , supplemented by the Yukawa
unification relation md /ms = 9me /m . Notice that this relation involving the first and
second generations does not run, so the prediction of the Cabibbo angle is insensitive to the
size of the gauge and Yukawa couplings. The two-loop effects for the most part increase

3 and hence the QCD scaling factors q . The influence of two-loop contributions in the
running of the Yukawas is small.
For tan <
10, b and can be neglected in the RGEs; then the relation for mu in
Eq. (81) implies an upper limit on mt [7]. However further solutions for mb /m are possible

with large tan , as can be seen in Figure 5. In the allowed mb /m band at large tan the
predicted value for mu from Eq. (81) is still satisfactory, since mt is in the same range as
found for the small tan solutions.
The CP-violating phase is not very well constrained in the Giudice model since the

29
phase does not enter in the well-measured CKM elements; in fact the phase can assume
almost any non-zero value within its zero to 2 range. Correspondingly CP asymmetries
to be measured in B decays are not very constrained in the model [44]. In contrast, the

CP-violating phase in the HRR/DHR model is almost uniquely determined by |Vus | and the
CP-violating asymmetries are predicted precisely. This remain the case at the two-loop level.
In the HRR/DHR scheme the dependence on 3 (MZ ) cancels out in quark mass ratios, and
since the constraint on the phase arises from the first and second generation mixing angles,

there is no dependence of the phase on t .

V. CONCLUSION

We have investigated unification scenarios in supersymmetric grand unified theories using

the two-loop renormalization group equations. Our primary conclusions are the following:

(1) Given the experimentally determined values for 1 and 2 at MZ , the RGEs pre-
dict 3 0.111(0.122) at one-loop (two-loop) for MSU SY = mt and 3 0.106(0.116) for
MSU SY = 1 TeV. Including the Yukawa couplings in the two-loop evolution of the gauge cou-
plings decreases 3 (MZ ) by only a few percent. Thus the values of 3 (MZ ) 0.12 obtained

experimentally at LEP II are also theoretically preferred if GUT scale thresholds effects or
intermediate scales are not important.
(2) For any fixed value of 3 (MZ ) and mb there are just two allowed solutions for tan
for a given top mass if mt <
180 GeV; the larger solution has tan > mt /mb and the smaller
solution is sin 0.78(mt /150GeV). Allowing for some uncertainty in 3 (MZ ), mb and
MSU SY , these unique solutions for tan at given mt become a narrow range of values. For
mt 180 200 GeV the value of tan changes rapidly with mt .
(3) With b , unification we find an upper limit mt <
200 GeV on the top quark mass by
requiring the successful prediction of the mb /m ratio; we also obtain lower limits mt >
150
GeV (115 GeV) for 3 (MZ ) = 0.11(0.12) from evolution constraints on mb , mc and |Vcb|.
These lower limits are only mildly sensitive to MSU SY .

30
 (4) The effects of raising MSU SY is to decrease both G and MG and to decrease the values
of 3 (MZ ) that yields successful unification. Also the allowed band for the mb /m ratio in
the mt , tan plane is shifted towards slightly higher top masses. This in turn slightly reduces
q
the prediction for |Vcb| in models that utilize the relation c (MG )/t (MG ) = |Vcb (MG )|.
(5) In the HRR/DHR model we find an upper limit on the supersymmetry parameter
tan <
50(60) for MSU SY = mt (1TeV) if 3 (MZ ) 0.11; for 3 (MZ ) = 0.12 the solutions at
large tan extend into the region for which b (MG ) is non-perturbative.

(6) For the value 3 (MZ ) 0.12 indicated by the two-loop RGEs, the agreement of
the |Vcb| prediction of the HRR/DHR ansatz with experiment is improved. In fact for
3 (MZ ) = 0.12 and MSU SY = 1 TeV the central values for |Vcb | and the mass ratio mb /m
almost coincide in the mt , tan plane; see Fig. 10d. This result is more general than the
q
HRR/DHR ansatz, and occurs for any model with the GUT scale relation |Vcb| = c /t .
(7) With 3 (MZ ) 0.12 a large top Yukawa coupling is needed to achieve the correct
mb /m ratio, and the theory is in some jeopardy of having a non-perturbative t (MG ) if mb
is smaller than about 4.2 GeV.

(8) GUT unification of , b and t can be realized for tan >

50.
(9) The predictions for the CP asymmetries in the HRR/DHR model are largely unaf-
fected by our two-loop analysis.
(10) We have found new solutions to the Giudice model for large tan . These results
require the inclusion of b and in the RGEs, and therefore could not be obtained in

Giudices analytic treatment at one-loop.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

One of us (VB) thanks Pierre Ramond for a discussion. One of us (MB) thanks Greg
Anderson for a discussion. We thank Tao Han for his participation in the initial stages of

this project. This research was supported in part by the University of Wisconsin Research
Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, in part by

31
the U.S. Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-76ER00881, and in part by
the Texas National Laboratory Research Commission under grant no. RGFY9173. Further
support was also provided by U.S. Department of Education under Award No. P200A80214.

PO was supported in part by an NSF Graduate Fellowship.

VI. APPENDIX

To consider a specific ansatz for Yukawa matrices at the GUT scale at the two-loop level
requires knowledge of the RGEs. These can be derived from formal expressions that exist

in the literature [25]. For the supersymmetric model with two Higgs doublets, the one- [24]
and two-loop RGEs can be written for general Yukawa matrices as

3
dgi gi 2 1 X
bij gi2 gj2 aij gi2 Tr[Yj Yj ] ,
X
= 2
b g
i i + 2
(86)
dt 16 16 j=1 j=U,D,E

with YU U, etc.
"
dU 1 h X 2
i
= c g
i i + 3UU + DD + Tr[3UU ]
dt 16 2
1 X
2
 136 2 2
+ 2
c i bi + c i /2 gi4 + g12 g22 + g1 g3 + 8g22 g32
16 45
2 2 4
+( g12 + 6g22)UU + g12DD + ( g12 + 16g32 )Tr[UU ]
5 5 5
9Tr[UU UU ] 3Tr[UU DD ] 9UU Tr[UU ]
!#
2 2
DD Tr[3DD + EE ] 4(UU ) 2(DD ) 2UU DD U,

(87)
"
dD 1 h X 2
i
= c g
i i + 3DD + UU + Tr[3DD + EE ]
dt 16 2
1 X  8
+ 2
c
b
i i + c 2
i /2 gi4 + g12 g22 + g12g32 + 8g22 g32
16 9
4 4 2 6
+( g12 + 6g22 )DD + g12UU + ( g12 + 16g32 )Tr[DD ] + g12 Tr[EE ]
5 5 5 5
9Tr[DD DD ] 3Tr[DD UU ] 3Tr[EE EE ] 3UU Tr[UU ]
!#
2 2
3DD Tr[3DD + EE ] 4(DD ) 2(UU ) 2DD UU D,

(88)

32
 "
dE 1 h X 2
i
= c g
i i + 3EE + Tr[3DD + EE ]
dt 16 2
1 X
2

4 9 2 2
+ c i bi + c i /2 g i + g g
16 2 5 1 2
2 6
+6g22EE + ( g12 + 16g32 )Tr[DD ] + g12 Tr[EE ]
5 5
9Tr[DD DD ] 3Tr[DD UU ] 3Tr[EEEE ]
!#
3EE Tr[3DD + EE] 4(EE )2 E, (89)

where

33
bi = ( , 1, 3) , (90)
5
13 16
ci = ( , 3, ) , (91)
15 3
7 16
ci = ( , 3, ) , (92)
15 3
9
ci = ( , 3, 0) , (93)
5
di = ci ci , (94)

199 27 88

25 5 5


bij =

9
5
25 24
, (95)


11
5
9 14

and

26 14 18

5 5 5


aij =
6 6 2
. (96)


4 4 0

These equations agree with those in the last paper in Ref. [25] for the case where the Yukawa

matrices are diagonal, if the following minor corrections are made: (1) b31 should be decreased
(2)
by a factor three; (2) the parenthesis in the second term of H2 should come before the 22 ;
(2)
(3) the first term of should have a factor 12 instead of 22 .
The two-loop RGEs for the standard model are [26]

33

3
dgi gi SM 2 1 X SM 2 2
aSM 2
X
= 2
bi g i + 2
bij g i g j ij gi Tr[Yj Yj ] , (97)
dt 16 16 j=1 j=U,D,E

"
dU 1 h X SM 2 3 3
i
= c i g i + UU DD + Y 2 (S)
dt 16 2 2 2
1 1187 4 23 4 9 19
+ 2
g1 g2 108g34 g12 g22 + g12 g32 + 9g22g32
16 600 4 20 15
223 2 135 2 43 2 9 2
   
2 2
+ g1 + g2 + 16g3 UU g1 g2 + 16g3 DD
80 16 80 16
5  
+ Y4 (S) 2 3UU + DD
2
3 1 11
+ (UU )2 DD UU UU DD + (DD )2
2 4 4!#
5 9 3
 
+Y2 (S) DD UU 4 (S) + 2 U ,
4 4 2
(98)

"
dD 1 h X SM 2 3 3
i
= c i g i + DD UU + Y 2 (S)
dt 16 2 2 2
1 127 4 23 4 4 27 2 2 31 2 2
+ 2
g 1 g 2 108g 3 g1 g2 + g1 g3 + 9g22g32
16 600 4 20 15
79 2 9 2 187 135 2
   
g1 g2 + 16g32 UU + g12 + g2 + 16g32 DD
80 16 80 16
5  
+ Y4 (S) 2 UU + 3DD
2
3 1 11
+ (DD )2 UU DD DD UU + (UU )2
2 4 4!#
5 9 3
 
+Y2 (S) UU DD 4 (S) + 2 D ,
4 4 2
(99)

"
dE 1 h X SM 2 3
i
= c i g i + EE + Y 2 (S)
dt 16 2 2
1 1371 4 23 4 27 2 2
+ g g2 + g1 g2
16 2 200 1 4 20
387 2 135 2 5
 
+ g1 + g2 EE + Y4 (S) 6EE
80 16 2 !#
3 2 9 3 2
+ (EE ) Y2 (S)EE 4 (S) + E, (100)
2 4 2

34
 "( )
d 1 9 3 4 2 2 2 9 2
   
= g1 + g1 g2 + g24 g + 9g22 + 4Y2(S) 4H(S) + 122
dt 16 2 4 25 5 5 1
1 3 2 73 4 117 2 2 1887 4
   
3 2 2
+ 78 + 18 g + 3g + g + g g + g
16 2 5 1 2
8 2 20 1 2 200 1
305 6 867 2 4 1677 4 2 3411 6
+ g g g g g g
8 2 120 1 2 200 1 2 1000 1
64g32 Tr[(UU )2 + (DD )2 ]
8 3
g12 Tr[2(UU )2 (DD )2 + 3(EE)2 ] g24 Y2 (S) + 10Y4 (S)
5  2 
3 2 57 2 3
 
+ g1 g1 + 21g22 Tr[UU ] + g 2 + 9g22 Tr[DD ]
5 10 2 1
15 2
  
2
+ g1 + 11g2 Tr[EE ]
2
242 Y2 (S) H(S) + 6Tr[UU DD ]
h i
+20Tr 3(UU )3 + 3(DD )3 + (EE )3
!#
h i

12Tr UU (UU + DD )DD , (101)

where
41 19
bSM
i =( , , 7) , (102)
10 6
17 9
cSM
i = ( , , 8) , (103)
20 4
1 9
cSM
i = ( , , 8) , (104)
4 4
9 9
cSM
i = ( , , 0) , (105)
4 4

Y2 (S) = Tr[3UU + 3DD + EE ] , (106)

1 h X SM 2 2 SM 2
i
ci gi Tr[UU ] + 3 cSM
X X
Y4 (S) = 3 i g i Tr[DD ] + c i g i Tr[EE ] , (107)
3
9 2
 
4 (S) = Tr 3(UU )2 + 3(DD )2 + (EE)2 UU DD , (108)
4 3

H(S) = Tr[3(UU )2 + 3(DD )2 + (EE )2 ] , (109)

199 27 44

50 10 5

bSM

= 9 35 , (110)
ij

10 6
12



11 9
10 2
26

35
and

17 1 3

10 2 2

aSM

= 3 3 1 . (111)
ij 2 2 2


2 2 0

These renormalization group equations are those given in the classic papers of Machacek and
Vaughn after replacing H U , FD D , FL E , and making the following corrections
to Eq. (101) mentioned in the paper of Ford, Jack and Jones [26]: (1) The g22 term in the

one-loop beta function has a coefficient 9 instead of 1. (2) The g12g22 term in the two-loop
beta function has a coefficient +117/20 instead of 117/20. (3) The g14 in the two-loop
beta function has a coefficient +1887/200 instead of 1119/200.

36
 REFERENCES

[1] For review and references see e.g. R. Mohapatra, Unification and Supersymmetry, 2nd
Edition, Springer-Verlag (1992); G. G. Ross, Grand Unified Theories, Addison-Wesley

(1984).

[2] U. Amaldi, Wim de Boer, and H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. B260, 447 (1991); J. Ellis,

S. Kelley and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B260 131 (1991); P. Langacker and M. Luo,
Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991).

[3] U. Amaldi, et al., Phys. Rev. D36, 1385 (1987); G. Costa, J. Ellis, G. L. Fogli,

D. V. Nanopoulos and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. B297, 244 (1988); J. Ellis, S. Kelley and
D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B249, 442 (1990); S. Kelley, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopou-
los, H. Pois and K. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B273, 423 (1991); F. Anselmo, L. Cifarelli, A. Pe-
termann and A. Zichichi, CERN preprint CERN-PPE-91-123 (1991); J. Ellis, S. Kelley

and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B287, 95 (1992).

[4] H. Arason, D. J. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, E. J. Piard, P. Ramond and

B. D. Wright, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2933 (1991), P. Ramond, University of Florida

preprint UFIFT-92-4; H. Arason, D. J. Castano, E. J. Piard and P. Ramond, University

of Florida preprint UFIFT-92-8.

[5] H. Arason, D. J. Castano, B. Keszthelyi, S. Mikaelian, E. J. Piard, P. Ramond and

B. D. Wright, University of Florida preprint UFIFT-91-33 (1991).

[6] S. Dimopoulos, L. J. Hall and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1984 (1992); Phys. Rev.

D45, 4192 (1992).

[7] G. F. Giudice, University of Texas preprint UTTG-5-92 (1992).

[8] B. R. Greene, K. H. Kirklin, P. J. Miron and G. G. Ross, Nucl. Phys. B292, 606 (1987);
J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B251, 73 (1990); J. A. Casas and
C. Munoz, Nucl. Phys. B322, 189 (1990), F. del Aguila, M. Masip and L. A. C. P. da

37
 Mota, CERN preprint CERN-TH.6233/91 (1991); K. S. Babu and Q. Shafi, Bartol
Research Institute preprint BA-92-27 (1992).

[9] G. G. Ross and R. G. Roberts, Nucl. Phys. B377, 571 (1992); R. Arnowitt and P. Nath,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 725 (1992); S. Kelley, J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos, H. Pois and
K. Yuan, CERN preprint CERN-TH.6498/92 (1992).

[10] See e.g. S. Bethke and S. Catani, CERN-TH.6484/92 (1992); S. Bethke, talk at XXVI
Int. Conf. on HEP, Dallas (1992).

[11] Particle Data Book, Phys. Rev. D45 (1992).

[12] J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopoulos and S. Rudaz, Nucl. Phys. B202, 43 (1982); R. Arnowitt
and P. Nath, Northeastern University preprint NUB-TH-3051-92 (1992); J. L. Lopez,
D. V. Nanopoulos and A. Zichichi, CERN preprint CERN-TH.6554/92 (1992); J. Hisano,
H. Murayama and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1014 (1992); Tohoku University
preprint TU-400 (1992).

[13] H. Georgi and S. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974); H. Georgi, H. Quinn and
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 451 (1974); S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys.

B293, 150 (1981); N. Sakai, Z. Phys. C11, 153 (1981).

[14] M. Chanowitz, J. Ellis and M. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. 128, 506 (1977); A. Buras, J. Ellis,
M. Gaillard and D. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. 135, 66 (1978).

[15] M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. 196, 475 (1982); J. Ellis, D. V. Nanopou-
los and S. Rudaz, Nucl. Phys. 202, 43 (1982).

[16] J. Harvey, P. Ramond and D. B. Reiss, Phys. Lett. B92, 309 (1980); Nucl. Phys. B199,
223 (1982).

[17] S. Kelley, J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B274, 387 (1992); J. Ellis,
S. Kelley, D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B373, 55 (1992).

38
[18] V. Barger, M. S. Berger, T. Han and M. Zralek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3394 (1992).

[19] R. J. Oakes, Phys. Lett. B29, 683 (1969).

[20] H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B70, 436 (1977); Phys. Lett. B73, 317 (1978); Nucl. Phys.

B155, 189 (1979).

[21] H. Georgi and C. Jarlskog, Phys. Lett. B86, 297 (1979).

[22] B. Stech, Phys. Lett. B130, 189 (1983); M. Shin, Phys. Lett. B145 285 (1984);
M. Gronau, R. Johnson and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2176 (1985); H. Fritzsch,
Phys. Lett. B166, 423 (1986); M. Soldate, M. H. Reno and C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett.

B179, 95 (1986); R. Johnson, J. Schechter and M. Gronau,, Phys. Rev. D33, 2641
(1987); M. Tanimoto and A. Takatsu, Phys. Rev. D34, 1474 (1986); F. del Aguila,
G. L. Kane and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B196, 531 (1987); C. H. Albright, C. Jarl-
skog and B. Lindholm, Phys. Lett. B199, 553 (1987); Phys. Rev. D38, 872 (1988);
M. Gronau, R. Johnson and J. Schechter, Phys. Lett. B201, 151 (1988); C. H. Albright,

Phys. Lett. B224, 213 (1989); H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett.
B228, 406 (1989); X. G. He and W. S. Hou, Phys. Rev. D41, 1517 (1990); P. Kaus
and S. Meshkov, Phys. Rev. D42, 1863 (1990); C. H. Albright, Phys. Lett. B246, 451
(1990); D. Ng and Y. J. Ng, Mod. Phys. A6, 2243 (1991); J. L. Rosner and M. Worah,

Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI92-12 (1992).

[23] B. Pendleton and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B98, 291 (1981); N. Cabibbo, L. Maiani,

G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B158, 295 (1979); C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. D24,
691 (1981); E. A. Paschos, Z. Phys. C26, 235 (1984); J. W. Halley, E. A. Paschos and
H. Usler, Phys. Lett. B155, 107 (1985); J. Bagger, S. Dimopoulos and E. Masso, Nucl.
Phys. B253, 397 (1985); M. Tanimoto, T. Hayashi, R. Najima and S. Wakaizumi, Prog.
Theor. Phys. 76, 1098 (1986); K. S. Babu and E. Ma, Europhysics Lett. 3, 437 (1987);

M. Tanimoto, Y. Suetake and K. Seuba, Phys. Rev. D36, 2119 (1987); C. H. Albright
and M. Lindner, Phys. Lett. B213, 347 (1988); Z. Phys. C44, 673 (1989); E. M. Freire,

39
 G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A5, 2453 (1990); G. Cvetic and C. S. Kim,
Dortmund University preprint DO-TH-92-08 (1992).

[24] K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 67, 1889 (1982).

[25] D. R. T. Jones and L. Mezincescu, Phys. Lett. B136, 242 (1984); P. West, Phys. Lett.
B137, 371 (1984); A. Parkes and P. West, Phys. Lett. B138, 99 (1984); D. R. T. Jones
and L. Mezincescu, Phys. Lett. B138, 293 (1984); J. E. Bjorkman and D. R. T. Jones,
Nucl. Phys. B259, 533 (1985).

[26] M. E. Machacek and M. T. Vaughn, Nucl. Phys. B222, 83 (1983); Nucl. Phys. B236,
221 (1984); Nucl. Phys. B249, 70 (1985); M. Fischler and J. Oliensis, Phys. Lett. B119,
385 (1982); Phys. Rev D28, 2027 (1983); I. Jack, J. Phys. A16, 1083 (1983); I. Jack and

H. Osborn, J. Phys. A16, 1101 (1983); I. Jack, Phys. Lett. B147, 405 (1984); I. Jack
and H. Osborn, Nucl. Phys. B249, 472 (1985); C. Ford, I. Jack and D. R. T. Jones,
NSF-ITP-92-21 (1992).

[27] P. Langacker, University of Pennsylvania preprint UPR-0492T (1992).

[28] A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B332, 20 (1990); P. Langacker, Phys. Rep. 72, 185 (1981);

A. Buras, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 199 (1980); G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B61, 455 (1973).

[29] W. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D29, 580 (1984).

[30] A. Giveon, L. J. Hall and U. Sarid, Phys. Lett. B271, 138 (1991).

[31] H. E. Haber and R. Hempfling, Santa Cruz preprint SCIPP-91/33 (1992).

[32] S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B91, 51 (1980).

[33] L. J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B178, 75 (1981).

[34] R. Barbieri and L. J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 752 (1992).

[35] K. Hagiwara and Y. Yamada, KEK-TH-331 (1992); A. E. Faraggi, B. Grinstein and

40
 S. Meshkov, SSCL-Preprint-126 (1992).

[36] O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, Phys. Lett. B93, 429 (1980);
S. G. Gorishny, A. L. Kateav and S. A. Larin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 40, 329 (1984);
S. G. Gorishny et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. A5, 2703 (1990).

[37] R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B183, 384 (1981).

[38] In the notation of Ref. [6] these parameters are y 1 = (t (MG )/t )1/6 1/12 . In the nota-

tion of Ref. [7], y = and x = (D /E )1 1/2 .

[39] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rep. 87, 77 (1982). Referred to as GL in the text.

[40] E. Ma and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Lett. B86, 43 (1979), Phys. Rev. D20, 2899 (1979);
K. Sasaki, Z. Phys. C32, 149 (1986); B. Grzadkowski and M. Lindner, Phys. Lett.
B193, 71 (1987); M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B257, 388 (1991).

[41] K. S. Babu, Z. Phys. C35, 69 (1987); B. Grzadkowski and M. Lindner, Phys. Lett.
B198, 64 (1987); See also the last paper of Ref. [40].

[42] CERN library integration routine DDEQMR based on the algorithm in N. Lance, Nu-
merical Methods for High Speed Computers, Iliffe and Sons, London (1960), 56.

[43] V. Barger, M. S. Berger, A. L. Stange and R. J. N. Phillips, Phys. Rev. D45, 4128
(1992); V. Barger, K. Cheung, A. L. Stange and R. J. N. Phillips, Madison preprints
MAD/PH/696, MAD/PH/704 (1992); H. Baer, M. Bisset, C. Kao and X. Tata, Phys.

Rev. D46, 1067 (1992); J. F. Gunion, R. Bork, H. E. Haber and A. Seiden, Santa Cruz
preprint SCIPP-91-34 (1991); J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber and C. Kao, University of
California-Davis preprint UCD-91-32 (1991); J. F. Gunion and L. H. Orr, University
of California-Davis preprint UCD-91-10 (1991); H. E. Haber, R. Hempfling and Y. Nir,
Santa Cruz preprint SCIPP-91-40 (1992); Z. Kunszt and F. Zwirner, ETH preprint

ETH-TH-91-7 (1991).

41
[44] S. Dimopoulos, L. J. Hall and S. Raby, Lawrence Berkeley Lab preprint LBL-31431
(1992); U. Sarid and Y. Nir, Lawrence Berkeley Lab preprint LBL-32563, (1992).

42
Figures

Fig. 1. Allowed GUT parameter space for mt = 150 GeV with (a) MSU SY = mt (one-
loop RGE) (b) MSU SY = mt (two-loop RGE) (c) MSU SY = 1 TeV (one-loop RGE) (d)

MSU SY = 1 TeV (two-loop RGE) versus the running mass scale . The shaded region
denotes the range of GUT coupling and mass consistent with the 1 ranges of 1 (MZ ) and
2 (MZ ); the curves for 3 () represent extrapolations from the GUT parameters. We have
omitted the contributions from Yukawa effects here which depend on tan .

Fig. 2. Gauge coupling unification with two-loop evolution for (a) MSU SY = mt (b) MSU SY =
1 TeV taking mt = 150 GeV and neglecting Yukawa couplings; is the running mass scale.

Fig. 3. The QCD-QED scaling factors f of Eq. (11) are shown for f = s, c, b versus 3 (MZ ),
assuming running quark masses mf (mf ) of mt = 170 GeV, mb = 4.25 GeV, mc = 1.27 GeV.

Fig. 4. The top Yukawa coupling at the GUT scale determined at the one-loop level is
plotted versus 3 (MZ ) for mt = 170 GeV and mb = 4.25 GeV.

Fig. 5. Contours of constant mb in the mt , tan plane obtained from the RGEs with (a)
MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (b) MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.12; (c) MSU SY = 1 TeV,
3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (d) MSU SY = 1 TeV, 3 (MZ ) = 0.12. The shaded band corresponds to

the 90% confidence level range of mb from Ref. [39] (mb = 4.1 4.4 GeV); the dotted curve
corresponds to mb = 5.0 GeV. The curves shift to higher mt values for increasing 3 (MZ ) or
increasing MSU SY .

43
Fig. 6. The Yukawa couplings t (MG ) and b (MG ) = (MG ) at the GUT scale with (a)
MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (b) MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.12; (c) MSU SY = 1 TeV,
3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (d) MSU SY = 1 TeV, 3 (MZ ) = 0.12. The Yukawa couplings become larger

for higher 3 (MZ ) or higher MSU SY . The perturbative condition <

3.3 from Eq. (52) is
satisfied except for the lowest b mass value mb = 4.1 GeV for 3 (MZ ) = 0.12. The solid dots
denote = b = t unification.

Fig. 7. Two-loop evolution of the Yukawa couplings (a) t () (b) b (), () from low

energies to the GUT scale for the case 3 (MZ ) = 0.12 and MSU SY = 1 TeV. We take tan =
20 and the values of mt = 198, 197, 196, 181 GeV specified by the mb = 4.1, 4.25, 4.4, 5.0
GeV contours in Fig 5d.

Fig. 8. Two-loop evolution of the quark Yukawa ratio Rc/t c /t and the CKM matrix

element |Vcb| for (a) MSU SY = mt and (b) MSU SY = 1 TeV. We have taken 3 = 0.11, tan =
q
5 and have chosen the top and bottom quark masses such that Rc/t (MG ) = |Vcb(MG )| and
mc = 1.27 GeV: (a) |Vcb (mt )| = 0.054, mt = 180 GeV, mb = 4.33 GeV; (b) |Vcb(mt )| = 0.050,
mt = 189 GeV, mb = 4.14 GeV.

Fig. 9. Contours for constant |Vcb | at fixed mc = 1.27 GeV in the mt , tan plane obtained
from the RGEs with (a) MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (b) MSU SY = 1 TeV, 3 (MZ ) = 0.12.

Fig. 10. Comparison of contours for constant |Vcb| and constant mb in the mt , tan plane
from the RGEs, taking mc = 1.27 GeV, for (a) MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (b) MSU SY =
mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.12; (c) MSU SY = 1 TeV, 3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (d) MSU SY = 1 TeV, 3 (MZ ) =

0.12. The shaded band indicates the region where the 90% confidence limit is satisfied for

44
mb . The right-most contours are discontinued when t (MG ) exceeds 6.

Fig. 11. Comparison of contours for constant mc and constant mb in the mt , tan plane from
the RGEs, taking |Vcb | equal to its upper limit 0.54, for (a) MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.11;

(b) MSU SY = mt , 3 (MZ ) = 0.12; (c) MSU SY = 1 TeV, 3 (MZ ) = 0.11; (d) MSU SY = 1
TeV, 3 (MZ ) = 0.12. The shaded band indicates the region where 90% confidence limits
are satisfied for all three constraints: mb , mc and |Vcb |. An X marks the lower limit of this
shaded band and corresponds to the values in Table 5.

45