# Real CP violation in a simple extension of the standard model

## 1 Introduction

The concept of real CP violation has recently been introduced by Masiero and Yanagida . It stands for spontaneous CP violation (SCPV) which occurs in spite of the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) being real. In a model with real CP violation, complex numbers are present in the Yukawa couplings from the very beginning; however, unless the (real) VEVs break a certain CP symmetry, those complexities cancel among themselves, and the whole theory is CP conserving. As a matter of fact, a model of real CP violation had already been suggested by myself  before Masiero and Yanagida’s paper.

The possibility that CP might be spontaneously broken by real VEVs should not come as a surprise. This may simply happen because the basic Lagrangian (before spontaneous symmetry breaking) is invariant under a non-trivial CP transformation, as I shall now explain with the help of a simple example. Suppose that there are two non-Hermitian scalar fields, $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, which transform under CP into each other’s Hermitian conjugate:

$$S_1\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}S_2^{},S_2\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}S_1^{}.$$
(1)   
If the VEVs of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ have different modulus, then the CP transformation of Eq. (1) is broken. This happens independently of the phases of the VEVs. On the other hand, we may define

$$S_\pm \frac{S_1+S_2\pm i\left(S_1S_2\right)}{2}.$$
(2)   
Then, the CP transformation of Eq. (1) looks like the usual CP transformation:

$$S_+\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}S_+^{},S_{}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}S_{}^{}.$$
(3)   
When the VEVs of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are real and distinct, the VEVs of $`S_\pm `$ are complex. This we would describe as being just the usual form of SCPV.

Thus, the situation which in the basis $`\{S_1,S_2\}`$ would be described as real CP violation, looks in the basis $`\{S_+,S_{}\}`$ like the usual SCPV, with complex VEVs. One may then ask oneself whether the concept of real CP violation is not altogether spurious. But, using $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ as the basic fields, instead of using $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, may be inappropriate, in particular if there is in the theory a symmetry, besides CP, under which $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ transform as singlets, while $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ mix. For instance, there may be an extra symmetry under which

$$S_1e^{2i\pi /3}S_1,S_2e^{2i\pi /3}S_2.$$
(4)   
Clearly, $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ mix under the transformation in Eq. (4). Hence, they form an inadequate basis to study the theory, and it is more fruitful to use the basis $`\{S_1,S_2\}`$. It is then appropriate to say that there is real CP violation. On the other hand, if no symmetry like the one in Eq. (4) exists, then the concept of real CP violation has no distinctive meaning, as it is just as legitimate to study the theory in the basis $`\{S_+,S_{}\}`$ as in the basis $`\{S_1,S_2\}`$.

Alternatively, one may argue that, if a model with real CP violation is able to attain some original and useful achievement, any result which would not in general obtain, then real CP violation is useful and worth taking seriously. In their paper , Masiero and Yanagida have suggested that real CP violation might provide an avenue to solving the strong CP problem; as a matter of fact, a realization of this prophecy had already been provided in my paper . An alternative application of real CP violation, and of the associated non-trivial CP symmetry, might be to constrain the fermion mass matrices, leading to the prediction of some relationships among the fermion masses and mixing angles. This would be analogous to what was done by Ecker and collaborators  in the context of left–right-symmetric models.

Both the models of real CP violation presented by Masiero and Yanagida  and by myself  have many fields beyond the standard-model ones. Besides, those models also include extra non-Abelian symmetry groups. This might lead one to believe that real CP violation is an exotic effect, which can occur or be useful only in the context of complicated models. The main purpose of this paper to show that this is not so. Specifically, I construct here a simple extension of the standard model, with no extra fermions, no extra gauge groups, and no extra non-Abelian symmetries, in which real CP violation occurs.

The second goal of this paper is to call attention to a potential advantage of real CP violation. Namely, one is able to get spontaneous breaking of CP without thereby introducing CP violation in the mixings and self-interactions of the scalar fields. The third aim of this paper is to use that property to attenuate the strong CP problem of the standard model. Indeed, once CP violation is removed from the scalar sector, then the possibility arises of eliminating the generation of an unacceptably large $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ through the one-loop diagram of Fig. 1 .

When scalar–pseudoscalar mixing is absent that diagram does not exist, and a non-zero $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ may arise only at two-loop level, it being then expected to be of order $`10^8`$. This would milden the strong CP problem. Still, I cannot claim that the specific model in the following section does solve that problem.

## 2 The model

The model that I want to put forward in order to materialize my claims has three Higgs doublets. The gauge group is SU(2)$``$U(1) and the fermion spectrum is the usual one. In particular, there are three left-handed-quark doublets $`q_{La}=(p_{La},n_{La})^T`$, three right-handed charge-$`2/3`$ (up-type) quarks $`p_{Ra}`$, and three right-handed charge-$`1/3`$ (down-type) quarks $`n_{Ra}`$. (The index $`a`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`3`$.) There are three scalar doublets

$$\varphi _a=e^{i\theta _a}\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _a^+\\ v_a+\frac{\rho _a+i\eta _a}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(5)   
where $`v_ae^{i\theta _a}`$ are the VEVs, with $`v_a`$ real and positive by definition. The fields $`\rho _a`$ and $`\eta _a`$ are Hermitian. As usual, I denote

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_ai\tau _2\varphi _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}=e^{i\theta _a}\left(\begin{array}{c}v_a+\frac{\rho _ai\eta _a}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \phi _a^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)   
There is in the model a discrete symmetry $`D`$ under which

$$\varphi _1\stackrel{D}{}i\varphi _1,\varphi _2\stackrel{D}{}i\varphi _2,q_{L1}\stackrel{D}{}iq_{L1},q_{L2}\stackrel{D}{}iq_{L2},$$
(7)   
and all other fields remain invariant.

The symmetry CP transforms the right-handed-quark fields in the usual way,

$$p_{Ra}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{p_{Ra}}^T,n_{Ra}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{n_{Ra}}^T,$$
(8)   
but it interchanges the indices $`1`$ and $`2`$ in the transformation of both the scalar doublets and the left-handed-quark doublets:

$$\varphi _1\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},\varphi _2\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},\varphi _3\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\pm \varphi _{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},$$
(9)   
$$q_{L1}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L2}}^T,q_{L2}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L1}}^T,q_{L3}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\pm \gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L3}}^T.$$
(10)   
The fields in the left-hand side of Eqs. (8)–(10) are meant to be at the space–time point $`(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$, while the fields in the right-hand side are at the space–time point $`(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$. The $`\pm `$ sign in Eqs. (9) and (10) means that there are as a matter of fact two different CP symmetries, both of which leave the Lagrangian of the model invariant.

Notice that the transformations $`D`$ and CP commute.

It follows from Eq. (9) that CP will be preserved by the vacuum if

$$v_1e^{i\theta _1}=v_2e^{i\theta _2},v_3e^{i\theta _3}=\pm v_3e^{i\theta _3}.$$
(11)   
The phases $`\theta _a`$ are gauge-dependent, and therefore the conditions in Eq. (11) are not gauge-invariant. The invariant conditions for the absence of SCPV are

$$v_1=v_2,e^{i\left(2\theta _3\theta _1\theta _2\right)}=\pm 1.$$
(12)   
One sees that SCPV may be achieved through $`v_1v_2`$, quite independently of the phases of the VEVs. This situation embodies what I call real CP violation.

As a consequence of the symmetries $`D`$ and CP, the scalar potential $`V`$ has only two terms which “see” the relative phases of the doublets. Indeed, $`V=V_I+V_S`$, where

$`V_I`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1+\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2\right)+\mu _2\varphi _3^{}\varphi _3+\lambda _1\left[\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1\right)^2+\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2\right)^2\right]+\lambda _2\left(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _3\right)^2`$ (13)   
$`+\lambda _3\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1\right)\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2\right)+\lambda _4\left[\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _1\right)+\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _2\right)\right]\left(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _3\right)`$   
$`+\lambda _5\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2\right)\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _1\right)+\lambda _6\left[\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _3\right)\left(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _1\right)+\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _3\right)\left(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _2\right)\right]`$   
and

$`V_S`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _7\left[\left(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _1\right)\left(\varphi _3^{}\varphi _2\right)+\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _3\right)\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _3\right)\right]`$ (14)   
$`+\lambda _8\left[e^{i\chi }\left(\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2\right)^2+e^{i\chi }\left(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _1\right)^2\right].`$   
$`V_I`$ is that part of $`V`$ which is insensitive to the overall phases of the doublets. The coefficients $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$, and $`\lambda _{1\text{}8}`$ are real by Hermiticity. Notice that our particular CP symmetry allows an unconstrained phase $`\chi `$ to appear in the potential. As there are two gauge-invariant phases among the VEVs and two terms in the potential which “see” those phases, no undesirable Goldstone bosons arise, and the phases of the VEVs adjust in such a way that

$$e^{i\left(2\theta _3\theta _1\theta _2\right)}=\left(1\right)^a,e^{i\left(2\theta _22\theta _1+\chi \right)}=\left(1\right)^b,$$
(15)   
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are either $`0`$ or $`1`$, and

$$\lambda _7\left(1\right)^a=\left|\lambda _7\right|,\lambda _8\left(1\right)^b=\left|\lambda _8\right|.$$
(16)   
The first condition in Eq. (15) means that SCPV cannot be achieved through violation of the second relation in Eq. (12). Still, $`v_1v_2`$ is possible because of the presence of the coupling $`\lambda _7`$ in the scalar potential. Indeed, the stability conditions for the VEVs, assuming $`v_1v_2`$, are

$`\mu _1`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda _1\left(v_1^2+v_2^2\right)\left(\lambda _4+\lambda _6\right)v_3^2,`$   
$`\mu _2`$ $`=`$ $`2\lambda _2v_3^2\left(\lambda _4+\lambda _6\right)\left(v_1^2+v_2^2\right)+2\left|\lambda _7\right|v_1v_2,`$ (17)   
$`\left|\lambda _7\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\lambda _1+\lambda _3+\lambda _52\left|\lambda _8\right|\right)v_1v_2/v_3^2.`$   
Thus, in this model CP is spontaneously broken through $`v_1v_2`$. The VEVs are not real, because of the phase $`\chi `$ coming from $`V_S`$, but their phases are immaterial for SCPV, as they merely adjust in order to offset the phases in the scalar potential—see Eqs. (15) and (16). As a remarkable consequence, even when $`v_1v_2`$, CP violation remains absent from the self-interactions of the scalars. In particular, there are two physical charged scalars $`H_1^+`$ and $`H_2^+`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}G^+\\ H_1^+\\ H_2^+\end{array}\right)=T_H\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi _1^+\\ \phi _2^+\\ \phi _3^+\end{array}\right),$$
(18)   
and the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`T_H`$ is orthogonal, i.e., real. The field $`G^+`$ is the Goldstone boson which is absorbed by the longitudinal component of the $`W^+`$. There are two physical neutral pseudoscalars $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}G^0\\ A_1\\ A_2\end{array}\right)=T_A\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\\ \eta _3\end{array}\right),$$
(19)   
where $`G^0`$ is the Goldstone boson which is absorbed by the $`Z^0`$. The first rows of $`T_H`$ and of $`T_A`$ are given by $`(v_1,v_2,v_3)/v`$, where $`v=\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2}=174\mathrm{GeV}`$. Finally, there are three physical neutral scalars $`N_a`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}N_1\\ N_2\\ N_3\end{array}\right)=T_N\left(\begin{array}{c}\rho _1\\ \rho _2\\ \rho _3\end{array}\right).$$
(20)   
The matrices $`T_A`$ and $`T_N`$ are orthogonal. The important point is that the fields $`\rho `$ do not mix with the fields $`\eta `$. This, and the reality of $`T_H`$, are consequences of the CP invariance of the scalar potential, which is retained even after SCPV has been achieved through $`v_1v_2`$.

The Yukawa Lagrangian of the quarks is

$`_\mathrm{Y}^{(\mathrm{q})}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{q_{L1}}\varphi _1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\overline{q_{L2}}\varphi _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}+\overline{q_{L3}}\varphi _3\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)n_R`$ (21)   
$`\left(\overline{q_{L1}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}+\overline{q_{L2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\overline{q_{L3}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2\right)p_R+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}..`$   
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ are $`1\times 3`$ row matrices. Because of CP symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ are real; on the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ are in general complex. The mass matrices of the quarks are of the form

$$M_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1e^{i\theta _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\\ v_2e^{i\theta _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}\\ v_3e^{i\theta _3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\end{array}\right),M_p=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_2e^{i\theta _2}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}\\ v_1e^{i\theta _1}\mathrm{\Delta }_1\\ v_3e^{i\theta _3}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\end{array}\right).$$
(22)   
The matrices $`M_n`$ and $`M_p`$ are bi-diagonalized by unitary matrices $`U_{L,R}^n`$ and $`U_{L,R}^p`$:

$$U_{L}^{n}{}_{}{}^{}M_nU_R^n=M_d=\mathrm{diag}(m_d,m_s,m_b),U_{L}^{p}{}_{}{}^{}M_pU_R^p=M_u=\mathrm{diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t).$$
(23)   
The relationship between the quarks in the weak basis and in the mass basis is

$$n_L=U_L^nd_L,n_R=U_R^nd_R,p_L=U_L^pu_L,p_R=U_R^pu_R.$$
(24)   
The Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix is

$$V=U_{L}^{p}{}_{}{}^{}U_L^n.$$
(25)   
Because of the form of $`M_n`$ and $`M_p`$ in Eqs. (22), and in particular as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ are real, $`V`$ is intrinsically complex—i.e., $`J\mathrm{Im}\left(V_{us}V_{cb}V_{ub}^{}V_{cs}^{}\right)0`$—if and only if $`v_1v_2`$. Indeed, when $`\mathrm{sin}\left(2\theta _3\theta _1\theta _2\right)=0`$ one finds that

$$det\left(M_pM_p^{}M_nM_n^{}M_nM_n^{}M_pM_p^{}\right)v_2^2v_1^2.$$
(26)   
As is well known , $`J`$ is proportional to the determinant in Eq. (26).

Thus, in this model the spontaneous breaking of CP does not lead to CP violation in the scalar sector, but it does lead to a complex CKM matrix. The appearance of CP violation in this model is completely independent of the values of the phases of the VEVs. Indeed, even though $`\theta _2\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _3\theta _1`$ are in general non-zero—because of the arbitrary phase $`\chi `$ in $`V_S`$, see Eqs. (15)—the appearance of CP violation hinges on $`v_1v_2`$, and not on the values of $`\theta _2\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _3\theta _1`$. It is thus appropriate to describe this model as displaying real CP violation, even though the VEVs may have non-zero relative phases.

## 3 Consequences for strong CP violation

As is well known, non-perturbative effects in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) may lead to P and CP violation, characterized by a parameter $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}+\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$, in hadronic processes. The first contribution to $`\theta `$, namely $`\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, characterizes P and CP violation in the vacuum of QCD. This contribution to $`\theta `$ may be assumed to vanish in a model, like the present one, whose Lagrangian conserves CP. On the other hand,

$$\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}=\mathrm{arg}det\left(M_nM_p\right)$$
(27)   
does not in general vanish. This is because the quark mass matrices must be complex—lest the CKM matrix be real—and there is in general no reason why their determinant should be real.

From the experimental upper bound on the electric dipole moment of the neutron one finds that $`\theta <\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{\left(9\text{}10\right)}`$ . The presence of such a small number in QCD constitutes the strong CP problem.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The situation $`\theta =\pi `$ is equivalent to $`\theta =0`$, in that it also corresponds to the absence of P and CP violation by the strong interaction.

In the present model, $`\theta _{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ is zero because CP is a symmetry of the Lagrangian. As for $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$, one gathers from the mass matrices in Eq. (22) that

$`\mathrm{arg}detM_n`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1+\theta _2+\theta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\text{mod}\pi \right),`$   
$`\mathrm{arg}detM_p`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1\theta _2\theta _3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\text{mod}\pi \right),`$ (28)   
and therefore $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}=0`$ at tree level.

A non-zero $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ may however be generated at loop level . Let us denote the loop contributions to the mass matrices of the down-type and up-type quarks, as computed in the basis of the tree-level physical quarks $`d`$ and $`u`$, by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u`$, respectively. Thus, the quark mass Lagrangian at loop level is

$$_{\mathrm{mass}}^{(\mathrm{q})}=\overline{d_L}\left(M_d+\mathrm{\Sigma }_d\right)d_R\overline{u_L}\left(M_u+\mathrm{\Sigma }_u\right)u_R+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(29)   
Then,

$`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}det\left(M_d+\mathrm{\Sigma }_d\right)+\mathrm{arg}det\left(M_u+\mathrm{\Sigma }_u\right)`$ (30)   
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}detM_d+\mathrm{arg}det\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_dM_d^1\right)+\mathrm{arg}detM_u+\mathrm{arg}det\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1\right)`$   
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}det\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_dM_d^1\right)+\mathrm{arg}det\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1\right)`$   
$`=`$ $`\text{Im tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_dM_d^1\right)+\text{Im tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1\right).`$   
I have used the fact that $`M_d`$ and $`M_u`$ are real matrices. The expression in Eq. (30) may be computed with the help of the identity, valid for small $`C`$,

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(1+C\right)=C\frac{C^2}{2}+\frac{C^3}{3}\mathrm{}.$$
(31)   
The dangerous contributions to the one-loop quark self-energies are the ones from diagrams with either charged or neutral scalars in the loop , as in Fig. 1. Let us therefore compute the Yukawa interactions of the model in the physical-quark basis. I first write the unitary matrices $`U_L^n`$ and $`U_L^p`$ as

$$U_L^n=\left(\begin{array}{c}N_1\\ N_2\\ N_3\end{array}\right),U_L^p=\left(\begin{array}{c}P_1\\ P_2\\ P_3\end{array}\right),$$
(32)   
where the $`N_a`$ and the $`P_a`$ are $`1\times 3`$ row matrices. Let us define $`A_aP_a^{}N_a`$. Clearly, the CKM matrix

$$V=U_{L}^{p}{}_{}{}^{}U_L^n=A_1+A_2+A_3.$$
(33)   
The unitarity of $`U_L^n`$ and $`U_L^p`$ implies

$`A_aA_b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}P_a^{}P_a,`$   
$`A_a^{}A_b`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}N_a^{}N_a.`$ (34)   
Moreover,

$$A_1A_1^{}+A_2A_2^{}+A_3A_3^{}=A_1^{}A_1+A_2^{}A_2+A_3^{}A_3=1_{3\times 3}.$$
(35)   
The quark Yukawa Lagrangian in Eq. (21) may, when one takes into account Eqs. (23) and (24), be written as

$`_\mathrm{Y}^{(\mathrm{q})}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{d_L}M_dd_R\overline{u_L}M_uu_R`$ (36)   
$`\overline{d_L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1+i\eta _1}{\sqrt{2}v_1}}A_1^{}A_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2+i\eta _2}{\sqrt{2}v_2}}A_2^{}A_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _3+i\eta _3}{\sqrt{2}v_3}}A_3^{}A_3\right)M_dd_R`$   
$`\overline{u_L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2i\eta _2}{\sqrt{2}v_2}}A_1A_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1i\eta _1}{\sqrt{2}v_1}}A_2A_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _3i\eta _3}{\sqrt{2}v_3}}A_3A_3^{}\right)M_uu_R`$   
$`\overline{u_L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _1^+}{v_1}}A_1+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _2^+}{v_2}}A_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _3^+}{v_3}}A_3\right)M_dd_R`$   
$`+\overline{d_L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi _2^{}}{v_2}}A_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _1^{}}{v_1}}A_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\phi _3^{}}{v_3}}A_3^{}\right)M_uu_R+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}..`$   
One sees from Eqs. (20) and (36) that the scalars $`N_a`$ couple to the quarks with an Hermitian matrix multiplied on the right by the quark mass matrix. The pseudoscalars $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ have similar Yukawa couplings, with the Hermitian matrix substituted by an anti-Hermitian matrix. Under these conditions, the self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u`$ following from the diagram in Fig. 1 satisfy

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_dM_d^1=\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_dM_d^1\right)^{},`$   
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1=\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1\right)^{},`$ (37)   
and do not contribute to $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$.

Now consider the up-quark self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u`$ following from a loop with the charged scalar $`H_1^+`$, depicted in Fig. 2.

Let us write $`H_1^+=_{a=1}^3c_a\phi _a^+`$, where the coefficients $`c_a`$ are real. Then, Fig. 2 yields

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1\left(\frac{c_1}{v_1}A_1+\frac{c_2}{v_2}A_2+\frac{c_3}{v_3}A_3\right)f(M_d^2,m_{H_1}^2)\left(\frac{c_2}{v_2}A_1^{}+\frac{c_1}{v_1}A_2^{}+\frac{c_3}{v_3}A_3^{}\right),$$
(38)   
where $`f`$ is the real function issuing from the loop integration. Using the cyclic property of the trace together with Eq. (34), one finds that $`\text{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_uM_u^1\right)`$ is real, therefore it does not contribute to $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$.

Thus, $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ vanishes at one-loop level. It is important to emphasize the crucial role that real CP violation plays in attenuating the strong CP problem in this model. Indeed, it is this peculiar form of SCPV which allows CP violation to be absent from the scalar mixing, even while it persists in the fermion sector. This means that the $`\rho _a`$ do not mix with the $`\eta _a`$, and also that the physical charged scalars are real linear combinations of the $`\phi _a^+`$. The same thing happened in the previous model of real CP violation that I have put forward .

Unfortunately, in the present model $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ arises at two-loop level, and it is not clear to me that there is any suppression mechanism which can make it small enough. Therefore, I cannot claim that this model completely avoids the strong CP problem. To be fair, however, I must emphasize that there are very few viable models which solve the strong CP problem in the context of extensions of the standard model only with extra scalars; in particular, invisible-axion models , are tightly constrained by experimental tests .

It must also be pointed out that this model has unsuppressed flavour-changing neutral Yukawa interactions, which may give undesirably large contributions to CP violation, $`K^0`$$`\overline{K^0}`$ mixing, $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B_d^0}`$ mixing, and the decay $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$.

## 4 Concluding remarks

Spontaneous CP violation may provide a way of eliminating the strong CP problem of the standard model . In order to reach that goal, however, it is usually important that CP violation remains absent from the scalar mixing. This may be achieved if SCPV does not hinge on the generation of non-trivial phases among the VEVs, but rather on the generation of real (or else with trivial relative phases) VEVs, which however do not satisfy the equalities among themselves implied by the initial CP symmetry. We may call this situation “real CP violation”.

As far as I can see, the simplest model displaying these features involves, for an odd number of fermion generations, three Higgs doublets. However, if there were four (or, more generally, an even number of) generations, two Higgs doublets would be enough. The CP transformation would read

$$\varphi _1\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\varphi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},\varphi _2\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\varphi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{T},$$
(39)   
$$q_{L1}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L3}}^T,q_{L2}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L4}}^T,q_{L3}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L1}}^T,q_{L4}\stackrel{\mathrm{CP}}{}\gamma ^0C\overline{q_{L2}}^T,$$
(40)   
and an extra discrete symmetry would change the signs of $`\varphi _2`$, $`q_{L3}`$, and $`q_{L4}`$. One would thus obtain fermion mass matrices of the form

$$M_n=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1e^{i\theta _1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\\ v_2e^{i\theta _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\end{array}\right),M_p=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1e^{i\theta _1}\mathrm{\Delta }\\ v_2e^{i\theta _2}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(41)   
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being $`2\times 4`$ matrices. CP violation in fermion mixing would be present as long as $`v_1v_2`$, yet $`\theta _{\mathrm{QFD}}`$ would vanish both at tree level and one-loop level.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The scalar potential of such a model would need either soft CP breaking or extra scalar fields in order to produce $`v_1v_2`$.

More generally, I have shown in this paper that real CP violation is a distinct possibility whenever the Lagrangian respects a non-trivial CP symmetry together with some other discrete symmetry. Real CP violation may constitute an useful option for spontaneous CP breaking for other purposes besides solving the strong CP problem; is particular, the non-trivial CP transformation associated with real CP violation may be used to obtain specific relationships among the fermion masses and mixings.