# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that MSSU(5)  provides no explanation of the charged fermion mass hierarchies and mixings, predicts the undesirable asymptotic relations $`m_s=m_\mu `$, $`\frac{m_d}{m_s}=\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }`$, and cannot simultaneously account for the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. In addition, taking account of supersymmetric and heavy threshold corrections, the MSSU(5) value for the strong coupling is $`0.126`$ , to be compared with the world average value of $`0.117\pm 0.005`$ 

In a recent paper  we considered an $`SU(5)`$ model supplemented by two key ingredients. One is a $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry , suitably implemented for explaining the charged fermion mass hierarchies and mixings, and consistent with a variety of neutrino oscillation scenarios. For instance, it was shown how bi-maximal neutrino mixings could be realized for explaining the atmospheric and solar neutrino data. A second key ingredient is the introduction of two pairs of vector-like ‘matter’ superfields belonging to the $`\overline{15}+15`$ representations of $`SU(5)`$. They play an essential role in avoiding the undesirable asymptotic mass relations mentioned above <sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4The extended ‘matter’ sector of $`SU(5)`$, with additional $`\overline{15}+15`$ supermultiplets, leads to a scenario quite different from the case which includes scalar $`45`$-plets ..

The purpose of this paper is to explore some key phenomenological consequences of such an extended $`SU(5)`$ scheme. In particular, it turns out that the $`\overline{15}+15`$ superfields play an essential role in reducing the predicted strong coupling to $`0.115`$, which is in excellent agreement with experiments. Furthermore, they also have an impact, albeit a modest one, on the proton lifetime. It turns out to be about five times longer than the MSSU(5) value.

For obtaining a natural understanding of the charged fermion mass hierarchies and magnitudes of the CKM matrix elements, we supplement the $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry with a $`Z_2`$ $``$-symmetry. The latter helps in the generation of desired mass scales. The resolution of the atmospheric and solar neutrino puzzles necessitates in this approach the introduction of a sterile neutrino state $`\nu _s`$ which, thanks to the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry, can be kept light. Maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations resolve the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, while the small mixing angle $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ MSW oscillations can explain the solar neutrino data. It turns out that the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry also implies an automatic $`Z_2`$ ‘matter’ parity (including higher order terms).

## 2 Extended Supersymmetric $`SU(5)`$: <br>Charged Fermion Masses and Mixings

The scalar sector of $`SU(5)`$, which we consider here, in addition to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(24)`$, $`\overline{H}(\overline{5})`$, $`H(5)`$ multiplets, also contains $`S`$ and $`X`$ singlets. We introduce the symmetry $`Z_2\times 𝒰(1)`$, where $`Z_2`$ is an $``$-symmetry. Under $`Z_2`$,

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{H},H,S)(\mathrm{\Sigma },\overline{H},H,S),$$

$$XX,WW.$$
(1)   
As will be discussed in more detail below, the anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry is crucial for obtaining the hierarchies among fermion masses and mixings. The $`𝒰(1)`$ charges of the ‘scalars’ are:

$$Q_X=1,Q_{\overline{H}}=Q_H=2r,$$

$$Q_\mathrm{\Sigma }=Q_S=0,$$
(2)   
($`r`$ is undetermined for the time being).

The most general renormalizable scalar superpotential allowed under the symmetries reads:

$$W_S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2S+\frac{\lambda }{3}S^3+\frac{h}{2}S\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\frac{\sigma }{3}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Sigma }^3+$$

$$\overline{H}(\lambda _1S+\lambda _2\mathrm{\Sigma })H,$$
(3)   
where $`\lambda `$, $`h`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ are dimensionless couplings, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a mass scale of order $`M_{GUT}M_G`$. From (3), with supersymmetry unbroken, one obtains a non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (and also $`S`$) in the desirable direction

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{Diag}(2,2,2,3,3)V,$$
(4)   
with

$$V=\frac{h\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(15h^3+\lambda \sigma ^2)^{1/2}},S=\frac{\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }}{(15h^3+\lambda \sigma ^2)^{1/2}}.$$
(5)   
From (5), assuming that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{16}`$ GeV, with all coupling constants of order unity, we have

$$\frac{V}{M_P}\frac{S}{M_P}ϵ_G10^2.$$
(6)   
As for the flavor $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry, it is natural to consider it as an anomalous gauge symmetry. It is well known that anomalous $`U(1)`$ factors can appear in effective field theories from strings. The cancellation of its anomalies occurs through the Green-Schwarz mechanism . Due to the anomaly, the Fayet-Iliopoulos term

$$\xi d^4\theta V_A$$
(7)   
is always generated , where, in string theory, $`\xi `$ is given by 

$$\xi =\frac{g_A^2M_P^2}{192\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}Q.$$
(8)   
The $`D_A`$-term will have the form

$$\frac{g_A^2}{8}D_A^2=\frac{g_A^2}{8}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }Q_a|\phi _a|^2+\xi \right)^2,$$
(9)   
where $`Q_a`$ is the ‘anomalous’ charge of $`\phi _a`$ superfield.

In ref.  the anomalous $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry was considered as a mediator of SUSY breaking, while in ref. , the anomalous Abelian symmetries were exploited as flavor symmetries for a natural understanding of hierarchies of fermion masses and mixings.

In our $`SU(5)`$ model, assuming $`\mathrm{Tr}Q<0`$ ($`\xi <0`$) and taking into account (2), we can ensure that the cancellation of (9) fixes the VEV of $`X`$ field as:

$$X=\sqrt{\xi }.$$
(10)   
Further, we will assume that

$$\frac{X}{M_P}ϵ0.2.$$
(11)   
The parameter $`ϵ`$ is an important expansion parameter for understanding the magnitudes of fermion masses and mixings.

Together with the $`(10+\overline{5})_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$ is a family index) matter multiplets, we consider two pairs $`(\overline{15}+15)_{1,2}`$ of ‘matter’, which will play an important role for obtaining acceptable pattern of fermion masses. The transformation properties of ‘matter’ superfields under $`𝒰(1)`$ are given in Table (1). The relevant couplings will be<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5We assume that $`Z_2`$ $``$ symmetry does not act on the matter superfields.:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\overline{5}_1& \overline{5}_2& \overline{5}_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}10_1\\ 10_2\\ 10_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\overline{H}ϵ^a,& \end{array}$$
(12)   
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}10_1& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}10_1\\ 10_2\\ 10_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& ϵ\\ ϵ^3& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)H,& \end{array}$$
(13)   
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\overline{5}_1& \overline{5}_2& \overline{5}_3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}15_1\\ 15_2\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\end{array}\right)\overline{H}ϵ^a,\end{array}$$
(14)   
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}10_1& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\overline{15}_1\\ \overline{15}_2\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Sigma },\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{cc}15_1& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}15}_2\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\overline{15}_1\\ \overline{15}_2\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \\ ϵ^2& ϵ& \end{array}\right)(\mathrm{\Sigma }+S).\end{array}$$
(15)   
Noting that in terms of $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_W`$, $`15=(3,2)+(6,1)+(1,3)`$, we may conclude that the couplings involving $`15,\overline{15}`$ do not affect $`e^c`$ and $`l`$ states from $`10`$ and $`\overline{5}`$ respectively (they can only affect the $`q`$ states). The lepton mass matrix will coincide with (12), from which we have:

$$\lambda _\tau ϵ^a,\lambda _e:\lambda _\mu :\lambda _\tau ϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(16)   
where $`a=0,1,2`$ determines the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$($`\frac{m_t}{m_b}ϵ^a`$).

Turning to the quark sector, from (15) we see that $`10_3`$-plet also is not affected, while $`q_{10_1},q_{10_2}`$ will be mixed with $`q_{15_1},q_{15_2}`$. Analyzing (15), one can easily verify that for the ‘light’ $`q_i`$ states we will have:

$$(10_1,15_1)\stackrel{}{_{}}q_1,15_2q_2,$$

$$10_2\stackrel{}{_{}}ϵq_2,10_3q_3.$$
(17)   
From (17), (12) and (14), we find the down quark mass matrix to be

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}d_1^c& d_2^c& d_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^ah_d,& \end{array}$$
(18)   
from which

$$\lambda _bϵ^a,\lambda _d:\lambda _s:\lambda _bϵ^5:ϵ^3:1.$$
(19)   
From (12), (16), (18), (19), and taking into account (17), we obtain

$$\lambda _b=\lambda _\tau \left(1+𝒪(ϵ^2)\right)ϵ^a,$$
(20)   
while, for Yukawas of the second generation,

$$\lambda _sϵ\lambda _\mu \frac{1}{5}\lambda _\mu .$$
(21)   
Assuming that $`\lambda _d2\lambda _e`$, from (16) (19) and (21) we will have

$$\frac{\lambda _s}{\lambda _d}\frac{1}{10}\frac{\lambda _\mu }{\lambda _e}20.$$
(22)   
For up-type quarks, from (13), taking into account (17), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}u_1^c& u_2^c& u_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)h_u,& \end{array}$$
(23)   
from which we obtained the desired Yukawa couplings

$$\lambda _t1,\lambda _u:\lambda _c:\lambda _tϵ^6:ϵ^3:1.$$
(24)   
From (18) and (23), for the CKM matrix elements we find

$$V_{us}ϵ,V_{cb}ϵ^2,V_{ub}ϵ^3,$$
(25)   
in good agreement with observations.

To conclude, we see that with the help of $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry and $`\overline{15}+15`$-plets, in addition to the desirable hierarchies of charged fermion masses and CKM mixing angles, we can also get reasonable \[(20), (21), (22)\] asymptotic relations.

## 3 Value of $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$

By analyzing the spectra of decoupled heavy states, from (15) we can verify that the masses of the states $`(\overline{6},1)+(1,\overline{3})+(6,1)+(1,3)`$ (from $`\overline{15}_2+15_2`$ respectively) are below the GUT scale and equal to $`M_SM_Gϵ`$. Indeed, these states will change the running of the gauge couplings above the $`M_S`$ scale and, as we will see, this opens up the possibility to obtain a reduced value for $`\alpha _s(M_Z)`$ <sup>6</sup><sup>6</sup>6For alternative mechanisms of achieving this see ..

The solutions of the three renormalization-group (RG) equations are 

$$\alpha _G^1=\alpha _a^1\frac{b_a}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_G}{M_Z}\frac{b_a^{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_G}{M_S}+\mathrm{\Delta }_a+\delta _a,$$
(26)   
where $`\alpha _G`$ is the gauge coupling at the GUT scale, $`\alpha _a`$ denote the gauge couplings at $`M_Z`$ scale ($`\alpha _{1,2,3}`$ are the gauge couplings of $`U(1)_Y`$, $`SU(2)_W`$ and $`SU(3)_c`$ respectively), while $`b_a`$, $`b_a^{}`$ are given by

$$(b_1,b_2,b_3)=(\frac{33}{5},1,3),(b_1^{},b_2^{},b_3^{})=(\frac{34}{5},4,5).$$
(27)   
The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ include all possible SUSY and heavy threshold corrections, and contributions from the two loop effects of MSSU(5). $`\delta _a`$ denote the difference of gauge coupling running between MSSU(5) and present model from $`M_S`$ up to $`M_G`$ in two loop approximation,

$$\delta _a=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left(\frac{b_{ab}+b_{ab}^{}}{b_b+b_b^{}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha _b(M_S)}{\alpha _G}\frac{b_{ab}}{b_b}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\alpha _b(M_S)}{\alpha _G^0}\right),$$
(28)   
where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & b_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{199}{25}& \frac{27}{5}& \frac{88}{5}\\ \frac{9}{5}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}25}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}24}\\ \frac{11}{5}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}9}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}14}\end{array}\right),& \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & b_{ab}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{904}{75}& \frac{144}{5}& \frac{128}{3}\\ \frac{144}{15}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}24}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \frac{16}{3}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \frac{128}{3}\end{array}\right)& \end{array}$$
(29)   
and the appropriate couplings in (28) are calculated in one loop approximation. $`\alpha _G^0`$ is the gauge coupling at $`M_G`$ in MSSU(5).

From (26), taking into account (27), one finds

$$\alpha _s^1=\left(\alpha _s^1\right)^0+\frac{3}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_G}{M_S}+\delta ,$$
(30)   
where $`\left(\alpha _s^1\right)^0=\frac{1}{7}\left(12\alpha _w^15\alpha _Y^1\right)+\frac{1}{7}\left(12\mathrm{\Delta }_25\mathrm{\Delta }_17\mathrm{\Delta }_3\right)`$ corresponds to the value of $`\alpha _s`$ obtained in MSSU(5) case, and $`\delta =\frac{1}{7}(12\delta _25\delta _17\delta _3)`$. Using the result $`\left(\alpha _s^1\right)^0=1/0.126`$ , and taking $`M_S/M_Gϵ0.2`$, (neglecting $`\delta `$ for the time being), we obtain $`\alpha _s0.115`$, in good agreement with experimental data . Taking into account (26) and (29), from (28) we obtain $`\delta =0.015`$, thus leaving the value of $`\alpha _s`$ unchanged as expected.

## 4 Proton Decay

From (12) and (14), taking into account (17), we see that $`ql\overline{T}`$ type couplings in the family space have the same hierarchical structure as the down quark mass matrix (18). As far as $`qqT`$ operators are concerned, from (13), (17) one obtains,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}q_1& q_2& q_3\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^5& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^4& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)T,& \end{array}$$
(31)   
from which we see that the appropriate couplings are suppressed by a factor $`ϵ(1/5)`$ compared to the up type quark mass matrix (23). From (26), we find that $`M_G=\left(\frac{M_S}{M_G}\right)^{1/2}M_G^0M_G^0/\sqrt{5}`$, where $`M_G^0`$ is the GUT scale in MSSU(5). From all this we may conclude that the proton life time in our model will be $`\tau _p5\tau _p^0`$ (that is, a factor $`5`$ larger than in MSSU(5)). For further suppression of nucleon decay, the mass scale $`M_S`$ should be reduced. However, this would ruin the gauge coupling unification unless some additional mechanism (for retaining unification) is applied. Such a program can be successfully realized in extended $`SU(5+N)`$ GUTs .

## 5 Neutrino Oscillations

Turning to the neutrino sector, for accommodating the recent solar and atmospheric Superkamiokande data (see ,  respectively), we will invoke the mechanism suggested in refs. . The atmospheric anomaly is explained through maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixings which is achieved through quasi-degenerate massive $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ states. Since these states are too heavy to explain the solar neutrino data, we are led introduce a sterile neutrino state $`\nu _s`$. The solar neutrino anomaly is resolved via the small angle $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ MSW oscillations.

Together with $`\nu _s`$ state we introduce two heavy right handed states $`𝒩_{2,3}`$. Choosing the $`𝒰(1)`$ charges of these states to be

$$Q_{𝒩_2}=\frac{1}{2},Q_{𝒩_3}=\frac{1}{2},Q_{\nu _s}=\frac{41}{2},$$
(32)   
and in Table (1) taking

$$r=\frac{a}{5}\frac{1}{10},$$
(33)   
the relevant couplings are (these singlet states do not transform under the $`Z_2`$ $``$ symmetry):

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{cc}𝒩_2& 𝒩_3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\overline{5}_1\\ \overline{5}_2\\ \overline{5}_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& \\ ϵ& 1& \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}& 0& \end{array}\right)H\end{array},\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{cc}𝒩_2& 𝒩_3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}𝒩_2\\ 𝒩_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}& \end{array}\right)\rho S\end{array},$$
(34)   
$$W_{\nu s}=ϵ^{20}\left(\overline{5}_3+ϵ\overline{5}_2+ϵ^2\overline{5}_1\right)\nu _sH+Sϵ^{41}\nu _s^2,$$
(35)   
where $`\rho `$ is a dimensionless coupling. Integration of $`𝒩_{2,3}`$ states leads to the mass matrix for the ‘light’ neutrinos:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \begin{array}{cccc}\nu _s& \nu _e& \nu _\mu & \nu _\tau \end{array}& & \\ m_\nu =\begin{array}{c}\nu _s\\ \nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_{\nu _s}& m^{}ϵ^2& m^{}ϵ& m^{}\\ m^{}ϵ^2& mϵ^3& mϵ^2& m\\ m^{}ϵ& mϵ^2& mϵ& m\\ m^{}& mϵ& m& 0\end{array}\right),& & \end{array}$$
(36)   
where we have defined:

$$m\frac{h_u^2}{\rho M_Pϵ_G},m^{}ϵ^{20}h_u,m_{\nu _s}M_Pϵ_Gϵ^{41}.$$
(37)   
Taking $`\rho 210^2`$, $`ϵ=0.20.22`$, from (37) we have

$$m6.310^2\mathrm{eV},$$

$$m_{\nu _s}=(510^4310^2)\mathrm{eV},$$

$$m^{}=(1.810^31.210^2)\mathrm{eV}.$$
(38)   
Note that the sterile neutrino is kept light (see (35), (38)) by the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry . Taking

$$m=6.310^2\mathrm{eV},m^{}=1.810^3\mathrm{eV},m_{\nu _s}=210^3\mathrm{eV}$$
(39)   
from (39) and (36), we have for the atmospheric neutrino oscillation parameters

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=2m^2ϵ210^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }=1𝒪(ϵ^2).$$
(40)   
The solar neutrino oscillation parameters are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\nu _e\nu _s}^2m_{\nu _s}^2410^6\mathrm{eV}^2,$$

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{es}4\left(\frac{m^{}ϵ^2}{m_{\nu _s}}\right)^2510^3.$$
(41)   
We see that the $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry helps provide a natural explanation of the solar and atmospheric experimental data. Note that $`a`$ is still undetermined, and therefore the magnitude of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not fixed in our model.

## 6 Automatic Matter Parity

Let us conclude by considering all possible ‘matter’ parity violating operators:

$$\overline{5}_iH,10_i\overline{H}(\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{H}),(\mathrm{\Sigma }+S)15_i\overline{H}\overline{H},$$

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }+S)\overline{15}_iHH,(\mathrm{\Sigma }+S)10_i\overline{5}_j\overline{5}_k,10_i10_j10_k\overline{H},$$

$$(\mathrm{\Sigma }+S)15_i\overline{5}_j\overline{5}_k,\mathrm{\Sigma }^215_i15_j15_k\overline{H},\mathrm{}$$
(42)   
From Table (1), taking into account (33), we observe that the terms in (42) all have non-integer $`𝒰(1)`$ charges, and consequently are forbidden to ‘all orders’ in powers of $`X`$. Therefore, thanks to $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry, the model has automatic matter parity.

## 7 Conclusion

In conclusion, we note that the mechanisms discussed here for resolving the various puzzles in $`SU(5)`$ can be successfully generalized to $`SU(5+N)`$ GUTs . In this paper we have not addressed the gauge hierarchy problem whose resolution in $`SU(5)`$ requires additional ’scalar’ multiplets belonging to $`50+\overline{50}+75`$. In such a scenario the Higgs doublets remain ’massless’, while the color triplets obtain masses by mixing with the triplets in $`50,\overline{50}`$. On the other hand, in order to retain perturbative gauge couplings up to $`M_P`$, the masses of $`50,\overline{50}`$ states should exceed $`M_G`$, which means that the ordinary color triplets (from $`H,\overline{H}`$) will lie below $`M_G`$. This would further destabilize the proton, and possibly disrupt unification of the gauge couplings. To avoid this, one could either consider more complicated $`SU(5)`$ scenarios  with extended scalar sector, or extended $`SU(5+N)`$ GUTs . In the latter case, for instance, a $`SU(6)`$ model has been discussed in which the MSSM Higgs doublets are pseudo-Goldstone bosons, the proton lifetime is $`10^2\tau _p^{SU(5)}`$, and neutrino oscillations involve bi-maximal mixings.