1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: 

5: \usepackage{multicol} 

6: 

7: \usepackage{color}

8: 

9: %\usepackage{amsmath}

10: 

11: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

12: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}

13: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,0.5,1,0.2}

14: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}

15: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}

16: \definecolor{blucc}{cmyk}{1,0.4,0.2,0}

17: \definecolor{viola}{cmyk}{0,1,0,0.6}

18: \definecolor{viola2}{cmyk}{0,1,0.2,0.6}

19: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}

20: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}

21: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}

22: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 12pt

23: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7

24: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5

25: \newfam\rsfsfam

26: 

27: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs

28: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs

29: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs

30: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}

31: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}

32: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}

33: 

34: 

35: 

36: \def\baselinestretch{1.023}

37: 

38: 

39: 

40: \oddsidemargin -0.6cm  \evensidemargin -0.6cm

41: \topmargin -1.2cm  \textwidth 17.4cm  \textheight 23.4cm

42: %\oddsidemargin 1cm  \evensidemargin 1cm \textwidth 14cm  \usepackage{showkeys}

43: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}

44: \newcommand{\gE}{\gamma_{\rm E}}

45: \newcommand{\mub}{\bar{\mu}}

46: %\renewcommand\&{&}

47: %\renewcommand\_{_}

48: \newcommand{\Ord}{{\cal O}}

49: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~\ref{fig:#1}}

50: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{eq:#1})}}

51: \newcommand{\sys}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{sys:#1})}}

52: \newcommand{\scatola}[1]{\fbox{$\displaystyle #1$}}

53: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}

54: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}

55: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

56: 

57: \newcommand{\bW}{{\bar W}}

58: \newcommand{\bB}{{\bar B}}

59: 

60: 

61: \def\Red  {\special{color cmyk 0 1. 1. 0.5}}

62: \def\Black{\special{color cmyk 0 0 0 1.}}

63: \def\Green{\special{color cmyk 0.92 0 0.59 0.5}} % PANTONE 323

64: \def\Purple{\special{color cmyk 0 0.63 0 0.3}} % PANTONE 218

65: \def\Blue {\special{color cmyk 1. 1. 0.3 0}}

66: \def\Cyan{\special{color cmyk 1. 0 0 0.5}} % PANTONE PROCESS-CYAN

67: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}

68: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

69: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}

70: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}

71: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

72: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

73: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

74: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

75: \newcommand{\diag}{\hbox{diag}\,}

76: 

77: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}

78: \makeatletter

79: 

80: %%%%%Riccardo's definitions

81: 

82: \def \lsim{\mathrel{\vcenter

83:      {\hbox{$<$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

84: \def \gsim{\mathrel{\vcenter

85:      {\hbox{$>$}\nointerlineskip\hbox{$\sim$}}}}

86: 

87: 

88: %

89: % formato bibliografico standard

90: %

91: %\art[hep-ph/0405040]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}

92: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}

93: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #3 \rm #4} {\rm (#6) #5} ({#1})}

94: %\def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #1}}

95: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, #1}}

96: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {\em #2 \rm #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}

97: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }

98: %

99: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM

100: %

101: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]

102: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}

103: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to

104: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}

105: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA

106: \def\eqnsystem#1{

107: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}

108: %

109: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or

110:   \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa

111:   \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi

112: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}

113: %

114: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}

115: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi

116: %

117: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}

118: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation

119: %

120: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr

121: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering

122: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne

123: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep

124: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil

125: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}

126: %

127: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother

128: 

129: 

130: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,\hbox{\rm MeV}}

131: \newcommand{\eV}{\,\hbox{\rm eV}}

132: 

133: 

134: \newcommand{\GF}{G_{\rm F}}

135: 

136: 

137: \newcommand{\sW}{s_{\rm W}}

138: \newcommand{\cW}{c_{\rm W}}

139: 

140: % end of new commands for the SN part

141: 

142: \begin{document}

143: 

144: \thispagestyle{empty}

145: 

146: 

147: 

148: 

149: %hep-ph/0405040\hfill 

150: \begin{flushright}

151: {CERN-PH-TH/2004-075\\

152: IFUP--TH/2004--13\\

153: hep-ph/0405040\\

154: UAB-FT-565

155: }

156: \end{flushright}

157: \vspace{1cm}

158: 

159: \begin{center}

160: {\LARGE \bf \color{rossos}

161: Electroweak symmetry breaking\\[2mm]

162:  after LEP1 and LEP2

163: }\\[1cm]

164: 

165: {

166: {\large\bf Riccardo Barbieri}$^a$,

167: {\large\bf Alex Pomarol}$^b$,\\[2mm]

168:   {\large\bf Riccardo Rattazzi}$^{c}$\footnote{{On leave of absence from INFN, Pisa, Italy.}}, {\large\bf Alessandro Strumia}$^{d}$

169: }  

170: \\[7mm]

171: {\it $^a$ Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, and INFN, Italia } \\[3mm]

172: {\it $^b$ IFAE, Universitat Aut{\`o}noma de Barcelona,

173: 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain }\\[3mm]

174: {\it $^c$ Physics Department, Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}\\[3mm]

175: {\it $^d$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit{\`a} di Pisa

176: and INFN, 

177: Italia}\\[1cm]

178: \vspace{1cm}

179: {\large\bf\color{blus} Abstract}

180: \end{center}

181: \begin{quote}

182: {\large\noindent\color{blus}

183: In a generic ``universal'' theory of electroweak symmetry breaking, simple symmetry considerations and absence of

184:  tuning imply that

185:  heavy new physics affects the low-energy data through four parameters. These include and properly extend the generally insufficient  $S$ and $T$. 

186: Only by adding the LEP2 data to the global electroweak fit,  can all these four form factors 

187: be determined and deviations from the SM be strongly constrained. Several of the recently proposed models (little Higgs,  gauge bosons in extra dimensions or Higgsless models in 5D) are recognized to be ``universal'' in a straightforward way  after a proper definition of the effective vector boson fields. Among various applications, we show that proposed Higgsless models in 5D, when calculable, do not provide a viable description of

188:  electroweak symmetry breaking  in their full range of parameters.

189: }

190: \end{quote}

191: 

192: 

193: 

194: 

195: %\tableofcontents

196: 

197: \newpage

198: 

199: \setcounter{page}{1}

200: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

201: 

202: \section{Introduction and statement of the problem}

203: 

204: The physical mechanism underlying Electroweak Symmetry Breaking (EWSB) remains unknown.

205: Its description in the Standard Model (SM) is not fully satisfactory, with reasons that motivate a modification of the SM at energies close to the Fermi scale. Examples of recent theoretical attempts along these directions include little Higgs models \cite{littleH} and models in 5D with or without a 

206: Higgs \cite{Csaki:2003dt, BPR}.

207: 

208: While waiting for the LHC to provide a thorough experimental exploration of the energy scales relevant to  EWSB, we find it useful to reconsider the problem of describing the 

209: phenomenology of EWSB in a rather model independent way. There is one main reason for doing this.  In the analysis of some models, as we are going to see, the traditional use of 3 parameters, 

210: $S$, $T$ and $U$ \cite{tech,pt,alba}  is determined more by the limited  information provided by the measurements around the $Z$-pole rather than by a satisfactory theoretical background. 

211: It is therefore important  that this information can now be complemented by the one available from LEP2, which requires a suitable extension of the  standard analysis. The comparison of the models mentioned above with current experimental constraints, where the use of the traditional parameters may also be a source of conceptual confusion, provides  clear examples for the usefulness of this extension.

212: 

213: 

214: %% As physically motivated and customary, we shall consider  ``universal'' theories, where the deviations from the SM reside only in the self energies of the vector bosons.  Explicitly we assume that these deviations be accounted for by extra contributions to the transverse vacuum polarization amplitudes $\Delta \Pi_V(q^2)$ where $V=\{W^+W^-, W_3 W_3, BB,W_3 B\}$. Furthermore we assume that, up to LEP2 energies, these amplitudes can be expanded in $q^2$

215: %% \begin{equation}\label{eq:espansione}

216: %%  \Delta \Pi_V(q^2) \simeq \Delta \Pi_V(0) + q^2 \Delta \Pi'_V(0) +\frac{(q^2)^2}{2!} \Delta\Pi''_V(0)  +\cdots\, ,

217: %%  \end{equation}

218: %%  as made plausible by the association with new physics of an energy  scale sensibly higher than $200\GeV$. It is important to realize that the category of ``universal'' models is broader than often thought. In particular it includes the possibility that new heavy vector states exist, as long as they are coupled to the ST fermions via the usual 

219: %%  ${\rm SU}(2)_L\otimes {\rm U}(1)_Y$ currents

220: %% \begin{equation}

221: %% \Lag_{\rm int}=\bar\Psi \gamma^\mu \left (T^a{\bar W}^a_\mu+ Y {\bar B}_\mu \right )\Psi.

222: %% \label{fermions}

223: %% \end{equation}

224: %% Here  ${\bar W}^a$ and $\bar B$ are not necessarily equal to the ``light'' vector bosons of the SM. They are in general a mixture of the light with new heavy vector bosons. The self-energies we refer to in eq.~(\ref{eq:espansione})     are therefore the  self-energies of these interpolating fields, as they are defined by the very eq.~(\ref{fermions}) including their (unconventional) normalization. This will be further illustrated in section~\ref{examples}.

225: 

226: As physically motivated and customary, we shall consider  ``universal'' theories, where the deviations from the SM reside only in the self-energies of the vector

227:  bosons.  Moreover we want to focus on the case in which these deviations are associated with new physics at an energy scale sensibly higher than 

228: the LEP2 energy.  Then it is useful to split the exact vacuum polarizations as the sum of two pieces.

229: The first is a local tree level term, while the second  is purely due to SM loops (this second term

230: is also non-analytic due to the presence of light fermions). 

231: In an effective Lagrangian approach, the effects of new physics can then be fully parametrized by  the first term, corresponding to the

232: tree level 

233: transverse vacuum polarization amplitudes $ \Pi_V(q^2)$ where $V=\{W^+W^-, W_3 W_3, BB,W_3 B\}$. These amplitudes, according to our assumptions, can be expanded 

234: in $q^2$

235: \begin{equation}\label{eq:espansione}

236:  \Pi_V(q^2) \simeq  \Pi_V(0) + q^2  \Pi'_V(0) +\frac{(q^2)^2}{2!} \Pi''_V(0)  +\cdots\, .

237:  \end{equation}

238:  It is important to realize that the category of ``universal'' models is broader than often thought. In particular it includes the possibility that new heavy vector

239:  states exist, as long as they are coupled to the SM fermions via the usual 

240:  ${\rm SU}(2)_L\otimes {\rm U}(1)_Y$ currents. This just means than the only gauge interaction of the light fermions (apart from QCD) is

241: \begin{equation}

242: \Lag_{\rm int}=\bar\Psi \gamma^\mu \left (T^a{\bar W}^a_\mu+ Y {\bar B}_\mu \right )\Psi\, ,

243: \label{fermions}

244: \end{equation}

245: though ${\bar W}^a$ and $\bar B$  do not coincide in general with the ``light'' vector bosons of the SM. Instead they are 

246: a mixture of the light with new heavy vector bosons. The self-energies we refer to in eq.~(\ref{eq:espansione})     are therefore the  self-energies of these interpolating fields, as they are defined by the very eq.~(\ref{fermions}) including their normalization. This will be further illustrated in section~\ref{examples}.

247: 

248: As we shall explain below, in a wide class of models satisfying some reasonable requirements, 

249: it is necessary and sufficient, for a consistent analysis of  the electroweak data,

250: to consider the expansion in eq.\eq{espansione} up to ${\cal O}(q^4)$.  At this order,

251:  given the four self-energies, there is naively a total of 12 coefficients. 

252: Three of them, however, are absorbed in the definition of 

253: \begin{equation}\label{eq:norm}

254: \frac{1}{g^2} =  \Pi'_{W^+W^-}(0),\qquad

255: \frac{1}{g^{\prime 2}} =  \Pi'_{BB}(0),\qquad

256: v^2 = -2  \Pi_{W^+W^-}(0)\approx (174\GeV)^2\, .

257: \end{equation}

258: (notice that we find convenient to choose a non canonical normalization of

259: the vector bosons).

260: Furthermore, requiring the masslessness of the photon, coupled to $Q=T_3+Y$, 

261: implies two relations among the zeroth order coefficients $\Pi_V(0)$. 

262: Altogether this leaves 7 undetermined parameters, $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, \widehat{U}, V, X, Y, W$, defined in 

263: Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW}. 

264: The notation for the 3 residual coefficients up to order $q^2$ makes clear reference to the traditional ones, $S, T, U$~\cite{pt}: the actual relation is  $S= 4s_{\rm W}^2  \widehat{S}/\alpha\approx 119\, \widehat{S}$,

265:   $T= \widehat{T}/\alpha\approx 129\, \widehat{T}$,

266:   $U=-4 s_{\rm W}^2 \widehat{ U}/\alpha$. As a natural extension of this formalism, Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW} also includes an additional form factor in the

267:  QCD sector, which is  not related to EWSB and which we will henceforth neglect.

268: 

269: 

270: 

271: \begin{table}

272: %$$\begin{array}{rclrlcc}

273: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{\hbox{Adimensional form factors}}&

274: %\multicolumn{2}{c}{\hbox{operators}}& \hbox{custodial} & \hbox{SU(2)$_L$}\\ \hline

275: %\widehat{S}\cW/\sW &=& \Pi'_{W_3 B}(0) & {\cal O}_{WB}~=&(H^\dagger \tau^a H) W^a_{\mu\nu} B_{\mu\nu} &+&-\\

276: %M_W^2 \widehat{T} &=& \Pi_{W_3 W_3}(0)-\Pi_{W^+W^-}(0)& {\cal O}_H~=&|H^\dagger D_\mu H|^2&-&-\\

277: %-\widehat{U} &=&\Pi'_{W_3 W_3}(0)-\Pi'_{W^+W^-}(0) &-&&-&-\\

278: %2M_W^{-2}V &=& \Pi''_{W_3 W_3}(0) -\Pi''_{W^+W^-}(0) & -&&-&-\\

279: %2M_W^{-2}X&=&\Pi''_{W_3 B}(0) & -&&+&-\\

280: %2M_W^{-2}Y &=& \Pi''_{BB}(0) &{\cal O}_{BB}~=&\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\rho B_{\mu\nu})^2&+&+\\

281: %2M_W^{-2}W &=& \Pi''_{W_3 W_3}(0) & {\cal O}_{WW} ~=&\frac{1}{2}(D_\rho W^a_{\mu\nu})^2&+&+\\

282: %\hline

283: %2M_W^{-2}Z &=& \Pi''_{GG}(0) & {\cal O}_{GG} ~=&\frac{1}{2}(D_\rho G^A_{\mu\nu})^2&+&+

284: %\end{array}$$

285: $$\hspace{-4mm}

286: \begin{array}{rclrlcc}

287: \multicolumn{3}{c}{\hbox{Adimensional form factors}}&

288: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\hbox{operators}}& \hbox{custodial} & \hbox{SU(2)$_L$}\\ \hline

289: g^{-2}{\color{blus}\widehat{S}} &=& \Pi'_{W_3 B}(0) & {\cal O}_{WB}~=&(H^\dagger \tau^a H) W^a_{\mu\nu} B_{\mu\nu} /gg'\!\!\!&+&-\\[1mm]

290: g^{-2}M_W^2{\color{blus} \widehat{T} }&=& \Pi_{W_3 W_3}(0)-\Pi_{W^+W^-}(0)\!\!\!

291: & {\cal O}_H~=&|H^\dagger D_\mu H|^2&-&-\\[1mm]

292: -g^{-2}{\color{blus} \widehat{U}} &=&\Pi'_{W_3 W_3}(0)-\Pi'_{W^+W^-}(0)\!\!\! &-&&-&-\\[1mm]

293: 2g^{-2}M_W^{-2}{\color{blus} V} &=& \Pi''_{W_3 W_3}(0) -\Pi''_{W^+W^-}(0)\!\!\! & -&&-&-\\[1mm]

294: 2g^{-1} g^{\prime -1}M_W^{-2}{\color{blus} X}&=&\Pi''_{W_3 B}(0) & -&&+&-\\[1mm]

295: 2g^{\prime-2}M_W^{-2}{\color{blus} Y} &=&\Pi''_{BB}(0) &{\cal O}_{BB}~=&(\partial_\rho B_{\mu\nu})^2/2g^{\prime 2}&+&+\\[1mm]

296: 2g^{-2} M_W^{-2}{\color{blus} W} &=& \Pi''_{W_3 W_3}(0) & {\cal O}_{WW} ~=&(D_\rho W^a_{\mu\nu})^2/2g^2&+&+\\[1mm]

297: 2g_{\rm s}^{-2}M_W^{-2}{\color{blus} Z} &=& \Pi''_{GG}(0) & {\cal O}_{GG} ~=&(D_\rho G^A_{\mu\nu})^2/2g_{\rm s}^2&+&+

298: \end{array}$$

299:   \caption{\label{tab:STUVXYW}\em 

300:   The first column defines the adimensional form factors.

301: The second column defines the {\rm SU(2)$_L$}-invariant universal dimension-6 

302: operators,

303:   which contribute to the form-factors on the same row.

304:   We use non canonically normalized fields and $\Pi$, see eq.\eq{norm}.

305:   The $\widehat{S}$, $\widehat{T}$, $\widehat{U}$ are related to the

306:   usual $S,T,U$ parameters~\cite{pt} as:

307:     $S= 4s_{\rm W}^2  \widehat{S}/\alpha\approx 119\, \widehat{S}$,

308:   $T= \widehat{T}/\alpha\approx 129\, \widehat{T}$,

309:   $U=-4 s_{\rm W}^2 \widehat{ U}/\alpha$. 

310:   The last row defines one additional form-factor in the QCD sector.

311:   }

312: \end{table}

313: 

314: \smallskip

315: As we shall now explain, the subset $\widehat S, \widehat T, Y, W$ represents the most general parametrization

316: of new physics effects in Electroweak Precision Tests (EWPT).

317: Notice that we can group the various 

318: form factors in 3 different classes according to their symmetry properties. The first class 

319: is given by $\widehat T$, $\widehat U$ and $V$ as they have the same custodial and

320: weak isospin breaking quantum numbers. The second class is given by 

321: $\widehat S$ and $X$, which

322:  are  custodially symmetric but weak isospin breaking (and odd under the spurionic symmetry  which reverses the sign of 

323: $B_\mu$ and of the hypercharges of matter fields). Finally $W$ and $Y$, which preserve both custodial and weak isospin, make up the third class.

324: By going  to ${\cal O}(q^6)$ and higher there would arise no new class but only higher derivative terms in each of the above 3 classes. It is reasonable 

325: to expect that

326: coefficients with the same symmetry properties will be related to each other up to trivial factors associated to the number of derivatives: in a model where 

327: the new physics  comes in at a scale $\Lambda$ we expect  $\widehat U\sim (M_W/\Lambda)^2 \widehat T$, 

328: $V\sim (M_W/\Lambda)^4 \widehat T$.

329: Similarly we expect $X\sim (M_W/\Lambda)^2 \widehat S$. 

330: On the other hand, $W$ and $Y$ are the lowest in their class.\footnote{The leading term in their class is truly

331: represented by the SM gauge kinetic coefficients $1/g^2$ and $1/g^{\prime 2}$.} As soon as the gap between $M_W$ and $\Lambda$ is big enough, it should be reasonable 

332: to retain only the lowest derivative term in each class: $\widehat S$, $\widehat T$ , $W$ and $Y$. Neglecting $\widehat U, V, X$ when they are parametrically suppressed

333:  also makes sense because the experimental sensitivity on them is not higher than for the other four.

334: Of course one can imagine fine-tuned situations where this reasoning fails. 

335: On the contrary, although $\widehat S$, $\widehat T$

336: and $W$, $Y$ have a different number of derivatives

337:  there is no deep physical reason, in general,

338:  to expect $\widehat T$ to be

339: bigger than $\widehat S$ and in turn $\widehat S$ to be bigger than $W,Y$. 

340: Indeed there are several explicit models where

341: these 4 quantities give comparable effects. Basically we can associate $\widehat S$ and $\widehat T$ to new physics in the

342: electroweak breaking sector (both effects break weak isospin), which is the case of technicolor.

343: On the other hand $W$ and $Y$ are  associated to new structure in the vector channels,

344: like for instance  vector compositeness or new gauge bosons.

345: To conclude, we stress, as is made evident from our discussion, that no additional relevant effects are expected by considering terms

346: with more than 4 powers of momentum.

347: 

348: 

349: 

350: Our conclusions are not entirely new. The same line of reasoning, applied to ordinary technicolor models, rightly selects 

351: just $\widehat S$ and $\widehat T$ as relevant parameters~\cite{tech}.  

352: In addition, keeping the light Higgs field and parametrizing 

353: new physics effects by higher dimensional operators, one

354: finds that the leading effects, associated to dimension 6 operators~\cite{Grinstein},\footnote{In~\cite{NRO}

355:  a complete list  

356:  of the dimension-6 operators 

357: affecting precision electroweak data is given. 

358: In the same list only two of the four operators in Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW} 

359: are present.

360: ${\cal O}_{BB}$ and ${\cal O}_{WW}$ are not included.

361: As shown in~\cite{KK}, these operators are equivalent to proper combinations 

362: of the operators involving fermions and appearing in the list of~\cite{NRO}.

363: Names and normalizations of the operators used here agree with~\cite{NRO,KK},

364: after taking into account that they are here written in terms of non-canonically normalized

365: gauge bosons.

366: Imposing supersymmetry does not reduce the number of independent ``universal''

367: dimension-6 operators~\cite{MaPa}.}

368: \begin{equation}

369: \mathscr{L}=\mathscr{L}_{\rm SM}+ 

370: \frac{1}{v^2}\bigg[  c_{WB} 

371:  {\cal O}_{WB}+

372:  c_{H} {\cal O}_{H}+c_{WW} {\cal O}_{WW}+

373:  c_{BB} {\cal O}_{BB}\bigg]\, ,

374: \label{eq:NRO}

375: \end{equation}

376: correspond precisely to $\widehat S$, $\widehat T$ , $W$ and $Y$:

377: \begin{equation}

378: \widehat{S}=2\frac{\cW}{\sW}c_{WB}\ ,\qquad

379: \widehat{T}=-c_{H}\ , \qquad

380: W = -g^2 c_{WW}\ ,\qquad 

381: Y = - g^2c_{BB}\, .

382: %\widehat{S}=2 g^2 c_{WB}\ ,\qquad

383: %\widehat{T}=- g^2 c_{H}\ , \qquad

384: %W = -g^4 c_{WW}\ ,\qquad 

385: %Y = - g^2 g^{\prime 2} c_{BB}\, .

386: \end{equation}

387: However we find it useful to emphasize that this parametrization is general. Indeed  

388: our simple reasoning did not require the 

389: presence of a Higgs field in the low energy effective theory. Note in particular that

390: we did not require $\langle H\rangle /\Lambda$ to be a small parameter of our expansion. 

391: 

392: \medskip

393: 

394: EWPT listed in Table~\ref{tab:data}

395: (and measured mainly at the $Z$-peak by LEP1 experiments,

396:  but also including the $W$ and top masses and other  measurements)

397: correspond to 3 ``universal'' observables only, usually named $\varepsilon_1,\varepsilon_2,\varepsilon_3$~\cite{alba},

398:  and therefore cannot fix the 4 (or more)  form factors possibly generated by  

399: ``universal'' new physics. 

400: We will show that LEP2 data give 3 additional independent observables, 

401: here named $\varepsilon_{ZZ},\varepsilon_{Z\gamma},\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$,

402: that constrain mostly $Y,W$ (or $X,Y,W$, if $X$ is included) as strongly as EWPT.

403: A combined  analysis is thus needed to properly bound ``universal'' 

404: new physics scenarios.

405: These include a  subset of extra dimensional models,

406:  little Higgs models or Higgsless theories.

407: 

408: 

409: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. 

410: In section~\ref{LEP1} we  express the dependence of the physical 

411: observables at the $Z$-pole  on  the

412:  coefficients of Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW} 

413: and we summarize the experimental constraints. We also give there the

414: dependence of the low-energy precision data on the coefficients of Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW} .

415: Similarly in section~\ref{LEP2} we consider the information available from LEP2. 

416: In section~\ref{fit} 

417: we show the global constraints 

418:  on the 4 parameters

419: $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, Y, W$ including both EWPT and LEP2.

420: In section~\ref{examples} we present examples of ``universal''theories

421: and calculate their  predictions

422: for 

423: $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, Y, W$.

424: %These are theories of 

425: %gauge bosons in extra dimensions with localized fermions, little Higgs models

426: %and Higgsless theories.

427: 

428: 

429: 

430: 

431: 

432: 

433: \begin{table}[t]

434: $$\begin{array}{rclrl}

435: \Gamma_Z &=& (2.4952 \pm 0.0023)\GeV  & -0.3\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{total $Z$ width} \\

436: \sigma_h &=&(41.540 \pm 0.037)\hbox{nb}&  1.6\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$e\bar{e}$ hadronic cross section at $Z$ peak}\\

437: R_h &=& 20.767 \pm 0.025           &  1.1\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$\Gamma(Z\to \hbox{hadrons})/\Gamma(Z\to\mu^+\mu^-)$}\\

438: R_b &=& 0.21644 \pm 0.00065           &  1.1\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$\Gamma(Z\to b \bar b)/\Gamma(Z\to \hbox{hadrons})$}\\

439: R_c &=& 0.1718 \pm 0.0031             & -0.2\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$\Gamma(Z\to c \bar c)/\Gamma(Z\to \hbox{hadrons})$}\\

440: A_{P}^{\tau } &=& 0.1465 \pm  0.0032 &  -0.4\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$\tau$ polarization asymmetry}\\

441: A_{LR}^e &=& 0.1513 \pm 0.0021        &  1.7\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{Left/Right asymmetry in $e\bar{e}$}\\

442: A_{LR}^b &=& 0.922 \pm 0.02           & -0.6\hbox{-}\sigma &

443: \hbox{LR Forward/Backward asymmetry in $e\bar{e}\to b\bar{b}$}\\

444: A_{LR}^c &=& 0.670 \pm 0.026           &  0.1\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{LR

445:  FB asymmetry in $e\bar{e}\to c\bar{c}$}\\

446: A_{FB}^\ell &=& 0.01714 \pm 0.00095    &  0.8\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{Forward/Backward asymmetry in $e\bar{e}\to \ell\bar{\ell}$}\\

447: A_{FB}^b &=& 0.099 \pm 0.0017         & -2.4\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{Forward/Backward asymmetry in $e\bar{e}\to b\bar{b}$}\\

448: A_{FB}^c &=& 0.067 \pm 0.0026        & 0.1\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{Forward/Backward asymmetry in $e\bar{e}\to c\bar{c}$}\\

449: M_Z &=& 91.1875 \GeV&                                       &\hbox{pole $Z$ mass}  \\

450: 

451: \hline

452: 

453: m_h &>& 114\GeV &&\hbox{Higgs mass}\\ 

454: 

455: G_{\rm F} &=& 1.16637~10^{-5}/\GeV^2&                      & \hbox{Fermi constant for $\mu$ decay}\\

456: 

457: m_t  &=& (178.0\pm4.3)\GeV &      0.3\hbox{-}\sigma                         &\hbox{pole top mass}\\

458: M_W &=& (80.426 \pm 0.034)\GeV        &  1.1\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{pole $W$ mass}  \\ 

459: \alpha_{\rm s}(M_Z)  &=& 0.118\pm0.003 &  0.0\hbox{-}\sigma                       &\hbox{strong coupling}\\

460: \alpha_{\rm em}^{-1}(M_Z)  &=& 128.949\pm0.046 &      0.0\hbox{-}\sigma      & \hbox{electromagnetic coupling}\\

461: 

462: \end{array}$$

463: \caption{\em The  high-energy precision data included in our fit~\cite{LEPEWWG}.

464: The second column indicates the discrepancy with respect to the best SM fit.\label{tab:data}}

465: $$\begin{array}{rclrl}

466: g_L^2 &=& 0.3005 \pm 0.0014     \qquad  \quad    & -3.0\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$\nu_\mu$/nucleon scattering}\\

467: g_R^2 &=& 0.0310 \pm 0.0011            &  0.5\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{$\nu_\mu$/nucleon scattering}\\

468: Q_W &=& -72.83 \pm 0.49               &  0.1\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{atomic parity violation in Cs}\\

469: A_{\rm PV} &=& (-160\pm 27)\,10^{-9}&  0.8\hbox{-}\sigma & \hbox{M\o{}ller scattering

470: at $Q^2=0.026\GeV^2$}\qquad\\

471: \end{array}$$

472: \caption{\em The  low-energy precision data~\cite{LEPEWWG}. 

473: We do not include $\nu_\mu$/nucleon scattering data in our global fit.

474: \label{tab:datalow}}

475: \end{table}

476: 

477: %\begin{figure}

478: %$$\includegraphics[width=12cm]{eps}$$

479: %\caption{\label{fig:eps}\em Our approximations for

480: %$\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$ (dashed lines) compared with the full result

481: %(continuous lines).}

482: %\end{figure}

483: 

484: 

485: \section{Electroweak precision observables before LEP2}\label{LEP1}

486: 

487: As mentioned, the effect of ``universal'' theories of EWSB on the 

488: EWPT listed in table~\ref{tab:data} can be

489: encapsulated in 3 dimensionless quantities. Here we stick to the parameters $\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_3$, as defined in~\cite{alba}, which are linearly related to the various observables by universal coefficients only dependent on $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_Z)$ and $\alpha (M_Z)$. 

490: The $\varepsilon$'s are defined in such a way as to account also for the electroweak radiative correction effects. As such, they are not vanishing even in absence of any deviation from  the SM.

491: 

492: From the dependence of the $\varepsilon$'s on the vacuum polarization amplitudes of the vector bosons~\cite{Barbieri:1991qp}, 

493: it is immediate to express their dependence on the parameters of Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW} as 

494: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:eps123}

495: \label{eps123f}

496:  \varepsilon_1 &=&(+6.0-0.86 \ln\frac{m_h}{M_Z})10^{-3}+ \widehat{T }-W + 2X \frac{\sW}{\cW} - Y \frac{\sW^2}{\cW^2}\, ,\\

497: \varepsilon_2 &=&(-7.5+0.17 \ln\frac{m_h}{M_Z})10^{-3} +\widehat{U } -W+2X\frac{\sW}{\cW}-V\, ,\\

498: \varepsilon_3 &=& (+5.2+0.54 \ln\frac{m_h}{M_Z})10^{-3}+\widehat{S} -W+ \frac{X}{\sW\cW}-Y\, .

499: \label{eps123l}

500: \end{eqnsystem}

501: For every $\varepsilon_i$ these equations contain an effective and sufficiently accurate numerical expression for the pure SM contribution.

502:  %, as illustrated in fig.\fig{eps}.

503: Our fit takes into account the dependence on $m_t,\alpha_3, \alpha_{\rm em}$.

504: However in the above equations  we have taken

505: $m_t = 178\GeV$, $\alpha_3(M_Z) = 0.119$, $\alpha_{\rm em}(M_Z) = 1/128.88$ and we

506: exhibit only the dependence on the Higgs mass  $m_h$.

507: %, which corresponds, for $\varepsilon_1$ and for $\varepsilon_3$ where it is more significant, 

508: %to the genuine logarithmic dependence of the one-loop SM corrections in the $m_h\gg M_Z$ limit. 

509: %For $\varepsilon_2$ the  logarithmic dependence on $m_h$ is used to interpolate the exact result.  

510: In models without a Higgs, the Higgs mass  in the above equations should be interpreted 

511: as an ultraviolet cutoff of the SM loops provided by the model itself.\footnote{More technically in such theories one should substitute $m_h$ 

512: with the renormalization scale $\mu$. The resulting explicit $\mu$ dependence of the physical  $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$ is canceled by

513: the implicit $\mu$ dependence of the form factors. Notice however that the coefficients  of  $\ln m_h$ in the numerical

514: approximation of eqs.~(\ref{eps123f})-(\ref{eps123l}) do not exactly correspond

515: to the analytic one-loop result.}

516: These terms correspond to infrared logarithms

517: in the low energy Higgsless theory. 

518: 

519: \medskip

520: 

521: There are 3 experimental parameters $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$ because

522: this is all that EWPT

523: can measure of new physics effects within ``universal'' models. As already mentioned, in some relevant cases the measurement of 

524:  $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$  is used to place bounds on the new physics form 

525: factors $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, \widehat{U}$. 

526: We have argued however that 

527: the subset $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, W,Y$ gives

528: an appropriate parametrization of any ``universal'' new physics when there is a mass gap.

529: %% \footnote{

530: %% Specific models in which only the Higgs feels new physics

531: %% tend to manifest only in $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}$,

532: %% because they are induced by  operators involving $H$.

533: %% This is e.g.\ the case of technicolor models where the Higgs (but not the gauge bosons)

534: %% are composite.

535: %% On the contrary all form factors $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, W,Y$

536: %% are important in various models that recently attracted interest, as we will discuss later.

537: %% }

538: Note that, if there is no sizable gap between $M_W$ and $\Lambda$, then there is no useful expansion in  $q^2$. 

539: Indeed in the SM itself there is no gap, and this is why the SM contributions

540: to all form factors (not just $\widehat S, \widehat T, Y, W$) 

541: %three $\varepsilon$'s 

542: are sizable. 

543: This is also the case  for

544: the most interesting region of the supersymmetric parameter space, where some of the spartners are lighter than 200 GeV. 

545: In any case the data can always be summarized as a measurement of the experimental parameters $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$ which do not make reference 

546: to any expansion of any form factor.

547: The experimental data reported in Table~\ref{tab:data} determine $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$  as

548: \begin{equation}\label{eq:LEP1}

549: \begin{array}{l}

550: \varepsilon_1= +(5.0\pm 1.1)~10^{-3}\\

551:  \varepsilon_{2} = -(8.8\pm 1.2)~10^{-3}\\

552: \varepsilon_{3} =+(4.8\pm 1.0)~10^{-3}

553: \label{eps123v}

554: \end{array}

555: \qquad\hbox{with correlation matrix}\qquad

556: \rho = \pmatrix{1 & 0.66 & 0.88\cr 0.66 & 1 & 0.46\cr 0.88&0.46&1}\, .

557: \end{equation}

558: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:LEP1}

559: %\begin{array}{l}

560: %\varepsilon_1= +(3.6\pm 1.0)~10^{-3}\\

561: % \varepsilon_{2} = -(9.9\pm 1.2)~10^{-3}\\

562: %\varepsilon_{3} =+(3.7\pm 0.9)~10^{-3}

563: %\label{eps123v}

564: %\end{array}

565: %\qquad\hbox{with correlation matrix}\qquad

566: %\rho = \pmatrix{1 & 0.62 & 0.86\cr 0.62 & 1 & 0.40\cr 0.86&0.40&1}\, .

567: %\end{equation}

568: We recall that the mean values $\mu_i$, the errors $\sigma_i$ and the correlation matrix

569: $\rho_{ij}$ determine the $\chi^2$ as

570: $$

571: \chi^2 =\sum_{i,j} (\varepsilon_i - \mu_i) (\sigma^2)^{-1}_{ij}  (\varepsilon_j - \mu_j),\qquad\hbox{where}

572: \qquad (\sigma^2)_{ij} = \sigma_i \rho_{ij} \sigma_j\ .$$

573: 

574: 

575: In general the new physics corrections to the observables in Table~\ref{tab:datalow},

576: measured at energies much below the $Z$-pole,

577: are {\it not} a linear combination of the corrections 

578: to the $\varepsilon$'s. A linear dependence arises only in universal models where the expansion of the vacuum polarization amplitudes in eq.~(\ref{eq:espansione}) can be

579: truncated at order $q^2$. Otherwise, when the $q^4$-terms are important to describe the new physics effects, one has again to use the form factors in Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW}. In this case, 

580: the low-energy effective Lagrangian at tree-level is

581: \begin{eqnarray}\nonumber

582: \Lag_{\rm eff} &=& \Lag_{\rm QED} -4 \sqrt{2} G_{\rm F} ( 1 + \widehat{T}) \sum_{i,j} [ \bar{\psi}_i (T_3 - \sW^2 k Q)

583: \gamma_{\mu} \psi_i] [ \bar{\psi}_j (T_3 - \sW^2 k Q) \gamma^{\mu} \psi_j]+\\

584: &&

585: -2 \sqrt{2}  G_{\rm F} [ \bar{\nu}_L \gamma_{\mu} \bar{\ell}_L ] [ \bar{d}_L \gamma^{\mu} \bar{u}_L ] + \hbox{h.c.}\, ,

586: \end{eqnarray}

587: where the sum runs over light SM fermion doublets and

588: \beq k = 1 + \frac{\widehat{S} - \cW^2(\widehat{T}+W) - \sW^2 Y + 2 \sW\cW X}{\cW^2 -\sW^2} .

589: \eeq

590: This Lagrangian can be immediately used for computing 

591: new-physics corrections to the low-energy observables.

592: To compute their SM values one needs to include also SM higher order effects.

593: %Therefore new physics in $S,T,W,Y$ affects low-energy observables as

594: %$$\begin{array}{rclrcl}

595: %\displaystyle\frac{\delta g_L^2}{g_L^2}&=&-1.07 \widehat{S}+2.82 T + 0.82 W + 0.25 Y \qquad&

596: %\displaystyle\frac{\delta Q_W}{Q_W}&=&1.28 \widehat{S}+0.02\widehat{T}-0.98 W - 0.30 Y \cr

597: %\displaystyle\frac{\delta g_R^2}{g_R^2}&=&3.72 \widehat{S}-0.86 T -2.86 W -0.86 Y &

598: %\displaystyle\frac{\delta A_{\rm PV}}{A_{\rm PV}}&=&

599: %-34 \widehat{S}+27 \widehat{T} +26W +8 Y.

600: %\end{array}

601: %$$

602: Given the present uncertainties on low-energy observables,

603:  their sensitivity to $\widehat S,\widehat T,W,Y$ is about one order of magnitude worse than

604: the sensitivity of the high-energy observables of Table~\ref{tab:data}.

605: 

606: %Their main effect consists in reducing by about $0.5~10^{-3}$

607: %the central value of $\hat{S}$ and of $\hat{T}$: this is 

608: %entirely due to the anomalous NuTeV result.

609: 

610: 

611: Before considering the LEP2 data, let us briefly comment on the robustness of the EWPT fit.

612: When compared with the  SM predictions, as shown in Tables~\ref{tab:data},

613: \ref{tab:datalow}

614: there are two

615: apparently anomalous pieces of data: the NuTeV measurement 

616: of the $\nu_\mu/$nucleon couplings and $A^b_{FB}$.

617: The NuTeV anomaly disappears if one conservatively includes among the

618: uncertainties a possible strange momentum asymmetry

619: or isospin-violation in the nucleon distributions.

620: Therefore we prefer not to include NuTeV in the global fit.

621: Note in any case that the NuTeV results have a minor effect on our best-fit regions.

622: %since the $Z$-pole data provide alternative much more precise

623: %determinations of $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$.

624: %Dropping NuTeV the best fit values of $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon_3$

625: %increase by about $10^{-3}$.

626: Similarly, leaving out from the fit the $A_{FB}^b$ asymmetry, whose consistency with the SM (or with any ``universal'' model)  is borderline,  does not modify the determination of the $\varepsilon_i$ in a significant way.\footnote{If one omits these two apparently anomalous pieces of data

627: the SM gives an excellent fit, with

628: a best-fit Higgs mass $1.0\sigma$ below its direct limit.

629: Our global fits includes all data except NuTeV.}

630: 

631: 

632: 

633: %According to some recent discussions, even omitting

634: %these two `anomalous' results the SM cannot adequately fit data,

635: %because it prefers a  too light Higgs mass.

636: %We do not agree with such a claim:

637: %according to our analysis the best-fit Higgs mass is only $1.0\sigma$ below its direct limit.

638: %\footnote{Even without including 

639: %the most recent value

640: %of the top mass~\cite{mtnew}, the best-fit Higgs mass was only $1.6\sigma$ below its direct limit.

641: %We here employ the most recent set of data, 

642: %using the values and errors

643: %suggested by the experimental collaborations that measured them.

644: %}

645: %Our fit includes all data in table~\ref{tab:data}, even those

646: %presumably affected by significant statistical fluctuations, because

647: %this is the correct statistical procedure.

648: 

649: 

650: \section{Constraints from LEP2 measurements}\label{LEP2}

651: For our purposes, the relevant LEP2 observables are the differential cross sections for $e^{+}e^-\to f \bar f$.

652: Universal new physics modifies them by correcting the transverse part of the $2\times 2$ matrix propagator of the $(Z,\gamma)$ system, which becomes

653: %\beq

654: %{\cal G}=

655: %\pmatrix{\langle Z Z\rangle & \langle Z \gamma\rangle\cr

656: %\langle \gamma Z\rangle & \langle \gamma \gamma\rangle}

657: %\eeq

658: \beq\label{propagator}

659: \bordermatrix { & Z&\gamma\cr

660: Z&G_{ZZ}(s)+\displaystyle\frac{\Delta \varepsilon_1}{s-M_Z^2}-\frac{\varepsilon_{ZZ}}{M_W^2}&G_{Z\gamma}(s)-

661: \displaystyle\frac{\cW^2(\Delta \varepsilon_1-\Delta

662: \varepsilon_2)-\sW^2 \Delta \varepsilon_3}{\sW\cW(s-M_Z^2)}-\frac{\varepsilon_{Z\gamma}}{M_W^2}\cr

663: \gamma&G_{Z\gamma}(s)-\displaystyle\frac{\cW^2(\Delta \varepsilon_1-\Delta

664: \varepsilon_2)-\sW^2 \Delta \varepsilon_3}{\sW\cW(s-M_Z^2)}-\frac{\varepsilon_{Z\gamma}}{M_W^2}& G_{\gamma\gamma}(s) -\displaystyle

665: \frac{\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}}{M_W^2}}\, ,

666: \eeq

667: where $M_Z$ is the pole $Z$ mass and

668: $G_{ZZ}$, $G_{Z\gamma}$ and $G_{\gamma\gamma}$

669: are the SM propagators to 1-loop accuracy in a given scheme 

670: (at tree level $G_{ZZ} = 1/(s-M_Z^2)$, 

671: $G_{\gamma\gamma} = 1/s$ and $G_{Z\gamma}=0$).

672: $\Delta \varepsilon_{1,2,3}$ represent the new physics form factor contributions to $\varepsilon_{1,2,3}$ which we discussed in the

673:  previous section. 

674:  Finally, 

675:  $\varepsilon_{ZZ}, \varepsilon_{Z\gamma}$ and $\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$

676:  are three new observables, measured by LEP2. 

677:  Note that, since they do not depend on $s$,

678:  they are equivalent to a specific set of four-fermion operators.

679:  $\varepsilon_{ZZ}, \varepsilon_{Z\gamma}$ and $\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$

680:  are induced only by the higher-order new-physics form factors in Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW} as

681: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:vattelapesca}

682: {\varepsilon_{ZZ}} &=& \cW^2 W -2 \sW\cW X + \sW^2 Y\, ,\\

683: \varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma} &=&\sW^2 W + 2\sW\cW X + \cW^2 Y\, ,\\

684: \varepsilon_{Z\gamma} &=& (\cW^2-\sW^2)X+\sW\cW(W-Y)\, .

685: \end{eqnsystem}

686: The 1-loop corrected SM propagators will combine with the vertex and box corrections to give the physical SM amplitude.  

687: Concerning the new physics contributions, notice that the $\Delta \varepsilon_{i}$

688: have been measured at the per-mille level by EWPT, and agree with the SM.

689: Moreover at the highest LEP2 energies of $189-207$ GeV these contributions are further suppressed

690: with respect to the contact terms by a factor  $M_Z^2/s\sim1/4$. 

691: Therefore, given the LEP2 accuracy of $\sim 1 \%$, 

692: we can neglect  $\Delta \varepsilon_i$ in eq.~(\ref{propagator})

693: and directly present

694: the LEP2 constraints as measurements of  $X,W,Y$.

695: 

696: \medskip

697: 

698: For our purposes the main LEP2 data are the $e\bar{e}\to e\bar{e}, \mu\bar{\mu}, \tau\bar{\tau}, \sum_q q\bar{q}$

699: cross sections at $\sqrt{q^2} \approx 189,192,196,200,202,205,207\,\GeV$ \cite{LEPEWWG,LEP2}.

700: Note that the 3 observables $\varepsilon_{ZZ},\varepsilon_{Z\gamma},\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$ can be disentangled through the forward/backward asymmetries, since the  initial state contains both $e_L$ and $e_R$,

701: which have different $Z$ couplings. 

702: In the approximation we have described, these data are therefore turned into a direct constraint on $X, Y, W$

703: \begin{equation}

704: \begin{array}{rl}

705: X = \!\!\!&(-2.3\pm 3.5)\,10^{-3}\\

706: Y =\!\!\! &(+4.2\pm 4.9)\,10^{-3}\\

707: W = \!\!\!&(-2.7\pm 2.0)\,10^{-3}

708: \end{array}

709: \qquad\hbox{with correlation matrix}\qquad

710: \rho = \pmatrix{1 & -0.96 & +0.84\cr -0.96 & 1 & -0.92\cr +0.84&-0.92&1}\, .

711: \end{equation}

712: The error on $X,Y,W$ is at a few per-mille level because the contact terms are enhanced with respect to the SM

713: amplitude by a factor $s/M_W^2$.

714: The determinations of the form factors does not improve in a significant way by

715: including {\sc Hera} and {\sc TeVatron}  data.

716: 

717: 

718: 

719: 

720: \section{Global constraints on $\widehat S$, $\widehat T$, $Y$ and $W$}

721: \label{fit}

722: 

723: %

724: 

725: %\begin{table}

726: %$$ \begin{array}{c|cccc}

727: %\hbox{Type of fit} &10^3  \widehat S &  10^3\widehat T &10^3 Y & 10^3W \\ \hline

728: %\hbox{One-by-one (light Higgs)} & -0.1\pm0.6& -0.1\pm0.6& ~0.0\pm0.6& ~0.2\pm0.6 \\

729: %\hbox{One-by-one (heavy Higgs)} & -2.4\pm0.6& \phantom{-}2.4\pm0.6&\hbox{---}&\hbox{---}\\ \hline

730: %\hbox{All together (light Higgs)}& -0.7\pm 1.3 & -0.5 \pm 0.9 & -0.4 \pm 1.2 & ~0.2 \pm 0.8 \\

731: %\hbox{All together (heavy Higgs)} & -1.7\pm 1.3 & \phantom{-}1.4 \pm 1.0&-0.5 \pm 1.2 & ~0.3 \pm 0.8 \\

732: %\end{array}$$

733: %\caption{\label{tab:fit}\em  OLD.}

734: %\end{table}

735: 

736: \begin{table}

737: $$ \begin{array}{c|cccc}

738: \hbox{Type of fit} &10^3  \widehat S &  10^3\widehat T &10^3 Y & 10^3W \\ \hline

739: \hbox{One-by-one (light Higgs)} & \phantom{-}0.0\pm0.5& 0.1\pm0.6& 0.0\pm0.6& -0.3\pm0.6 \\

740: \hbox{One-by-one (heavy Higgs)} & \hbox{---} & 2.7\pm0.6&\hbox{---}&\hbox{---}\\ \hline

741: \hbox{All together (light Higgs)}& \phantom{-}0.0\pm 1.3 & 0.1 \pm 0.9 & 0.1 \pm 1.2 & -0.4 \pm 0.8 \\

742: \hbox{All together (heavy Higgs)} & -0.9\pm 1.3 & 2.0 \pm 1.0&0.0 \pm 1.2 & -0.2\pm 0.8 \\

743: \end{array}$$

744: \caption{\label{tab:fit}\em  Global fit (excluding NuTeV) of dominant form factors

745: including them one-by-one or all together, with a light ($m_h=115 \GeV$) and with a heavy ($m_h=800 \GeV$) Higgs.}

746: \end{table}

747: 

748: %\begin{table}

749: %$$ \begin{array}{c|cccc}

750: %\hbox{Type of fit} &10^3  \widehat S &  10^3\widehat T &10^3 Y & 10^3W \\ \hline

751: %\hbox{One-by-one (light Higgs)} & \phantom{-}0.0\pm0.5& -0.2\pm0.6& 0.0\pm0.6& -0.4\pm0.6 \\

752: %\hbox{One-by-one (heavy Higgs)} & -2.4\pm0.6& \phantom{-}2.4\pm0.6&\hbox{---}&\hbox{---}\\ \hline

753: %\hbox{All together (light Higgs)}& -0.4\pm 1.3 & -0.7 \pm 0.9 & 0.6 \pm 1.2 & -0.9 \pm 0.8 \\

754: %\hbox{All together (heavy Higgs)} & -1.3\pm 1.3 & \phantom{-}1.2 \pm 1.0&0.5 \pm 1.2 & -0.8\pm 0.8 \\

755: %\end{array}$$

756: %\caption{\label{tab:fit}\em  Global fit including NuTeV of dominant form factors

757: %including them one-by-one or all together, with a light ($m_h=115 \GeV$) and with a heavy ($m_h=800 \GeV$) Higgs.}

758: %\end{table}

759: 

760: 

761: 

762: 

763: Adding the LEP2 data to the EWPT

764: allows

765: to determine the 4 new-physics form factors $\widehat{S},  \widehat{T}$, $Y$ and $W$.

766:  The global analysis shows that {\em in a generic ``universal'' model, 

767: no matter what the Higgs mass is, 

768: $\hat{S}$, $\hat{T}$, $W$ and $Y$ must be small, at the $10^{-3}$ level}.  

769: The result of the combined fit (`all together') is shown in Table~\ref{tab:fit}, where we also give the result obtained by adding a single form factor at a time (`one-by-one'), 

770: both with a light ($m_h=115 \GeV$) and with a heavy ($m_h=800 \GeV$) Higgs. 

771: The minimum $\chi^2$, relative to the one of the pure SM fit with a light Higgs, does not change significantly in all the cases listed. It would, on the contrary, greatly increase in correspondence with the entries with a blank in Table~\ref{tab:fit}: 

772: a heavy Higgs can only be compensated by a positive $\widehat{T}$.

773: A negative $\widehat{S}$ can also allow a satisfactory fit, 

774: if NuTeV data are included in the global fit.

775: The correlation matrix relative to the global fits in the last two rows of Table~\ref{tab:fit}, regardless of the Higgs mass, is

776: \begin{equation}\label{eq:LEP12}

777: %\begin{array}{l}

778: %\widehat{S}= -(0.4\pm 0.7)~10^{-3}\\

779: %\widehat{T}= -(0.5\pm 0.9)~10^{-3}\\

780: %Y =-(0.4\pm 1.2)~10^{-3}\\

781: %W = + (0.2\pm 0.8)~10^{-3}

782: %\end{array}

783: %\qquad\hbox{with correlation matrix}\qquad

784: \rho = \pmatrix{1 & 0.68 & 0.65&-0.12\cr 

785: 0.68 & 1 & 0.11 & 0.19\cr 

786: 0.65&0.11&1&-0.59 \cr 

787: -0.12&0.19&-0.59&1}.

788: \end{equation}

789: Some of these correlations are shown in Fig.\fig{STWY}, where we also give the 

790: allowed regions  that would be obtained from the EWPT of Table~\ref{tab:data}, \ref{tab:datalow} alone.

791: Such regions are very elongated ellipses because

792: the precision observables in Table~\ref{tab:data}

793: are not affected by the following combinations of effects:

794: % $c_{WW}=0$, $c_{BB}/c_{WB}=-2 \cW/\sW g_2^2$, $c_H/c_{WB}=-2\sW/\cW$.

795:  $W=0$, $\widehat{S}=Y=\widehat{T}\cW^2/\sW^2$.

796: The degeneracy along this direction is only resolved by

797:  the low energy data of Table~\ref{tab:datalow},

798:  which however have large uncertainties.

799: Fig.\fig{WWBB} shows that LEP2 data, beyond resolving this   degeneracy,

800: provide extra constraints

801: which are also  competitive with EWPT.

802: Here we assume that only $W$ and $Y$ are non-vanishing, a physically relevant case (see below), and we show

803: how the EWPT and LEP2 data separately constrain them.

804: Whenever $W$ or $Y$ play an important r{\^o}le,

805: LEP2 data should therefore be taken into account.

806: 

807: 

808: 

809: 

810: \begin{figure}[t]

811: $$\includegraphics[width=18cm]{STWY}$$

812: \caption{\label{fig:STWY}\em Allowed values at $90,99\%$ C.L.\

813: of $(\widehat{S},\widehat{T})$ (for generic $W,Y$)

814: and of

815: $(W,Y)$ (for generic $\widehat{S},\widehat{T}$) with $m_h = 115$ GeV.

816: The dashed lines show the weaker constraints obtained by  the EWPT alone.

817: }

818: \end{figure}

819: 

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: 

824: 

825: 

826: \section{Examples of  ``universal'' theories of EWSB and their predictions}

827: \label{examples}

828: In this section we  present examples of ``universal'' theories of EWSB

829: and their predictions for $\widehat S,\widehat T,W$ and $Y$.

830: As we already explained, 

831: these are theories in which all new physics effects are contained in the gauge boson

832: vacuum polarization  amplitudes.

833: Equivalently, this corresponds to the situation in which the only

834: interactions of the SM fermions (in addition to Yukawa couplings) 

835: is via the ${\rm SU}(2)_L\otimes {\rm U}(1)_Y$ currents in eq.~(\ref{fermions}).

836: We stress that ${\bar W}^a$ and ${\bar B}$ in general are not mass eigenstates corresponding to the

837: electroweak  gauge bosons.

838: For instance, in the prototypical little Higgs model of~\cite{Perelstein}, 

839: based on  the gauge symmetry ${\rm SU}(2)_1\times {\rm SU}(2)_2\times {\rm U}(1)_Y$, the SM fermions

840: are charged under ${\rm SU}(2)_1$, but the light vectors live in the ``vector'' diagonal subgroup ${\rm SU}(2)_L$ to which

841: ${\rm SU}(2)_1\times {\rm SU}(2)_2$ is broken at the TeV scale. 

842: Other typical examples are extra-dimensional models  with the SM fermions

843: confined on a boundary, of which little Higgs theories are often a ``deconstructed'' version.  

844:  Although the $\bar W$ and the $\bar B$ in eq.~(\ref{fermions})

845:  are not mass eigenstates,

846: when studying physics at the electroweak scale they are perfectly good interpolating fields for the light vector bosons. 

847: By this we mean that the matrix element $\langle W|\bar W|0\rangle$ between the vacuum and the standard bosons is non-zero. Indeed when working at the electroweak

848: scale there is no need to accurately diagonalize the full mass matrix and find all the eigenvectors, be this a finite or an

849:  infinite dimensional (Kaluza-Klein) problem. Instead it is often more efficient to find a convenient set of interpolating fields

850: for the light states and integrate out all the others. 

851:  It should be stressed that the fields we integrate out are also not exact mass eigenstates in general,

852: as they  mix  with the chosen interpolating fields. But this does not matter as long as the mass matrix reduced

853: to the fields we integrate out is non singular. When fermions couple to vector bosons like in eq.~(\ref{fermions}), taking $\bar W,\bar B$ as the low energy fields is the most convenient choice. With this choice, new

854: physics effects are fully parametrized by vector boson vacuum polarizations.  Using the freedom of choosing the appropriate fields one can drastically simplify the computations

855: and focus directly on the relevant quantities. For example one immediately sees the equivalence of the 4-fermion interactions mediated by heavy gauge bosons with a suitable ``universal'' effect.

856:  

857: 

858: 

859: 

860: 

861: \begin{figure}[t]

862: $$\includegraphics[width=8cm]{epsWB}\qquad\includegraphics[width=8cm]{LittleHiggs}$$

863: \parbox{8cm}{\caption{\label{fig:WWBB}\em Constraints on the form factors $Y$ and $W$

864: in models where these are the only new physics effects.

865: We separately show the impact of EWPT and of LEP2.}}\hspace{1cm}\hfill

866: \parbox{8cm}{\caption{\label{fig:LittleHiggs}\em Allowed parameters space

867: of little Higgs models. $M_H$ is the mass of the heavy extra gauge boson,

868: and $\alpha_2$ the fine structure constant of the extra gauge group.}}

869: \end{figure}

870: 

871: 

872: 

873: \subsection{Gauge bosons in 5 dimensions}\label{5d}

874: 

875: As a first example we will

876: consider a model where the SM gauge bosons

877:  propagate in a flat extra dimension

878: assumed to be a  $S^1/Z_2$ orbifold of length $L=\pi R$ ($0\leq y \leq L$).

879: %(we will work in the covering space $0\leq y \leq 2L$?).

880: The SM fermions and the Higgs

881: are assumed to be confined on the same  4 dimensional boundary, 

882: say, at $y=0$. 

883: 

884: \medskip

885: 

886: 

887: 

888: Previous analyses 

889: obtained the following low-energy effective Lagrangian that

890: describes how heavy KK excitations affect

891: the low-energy interactions of the SM fields:

892: %By integrating out the KK excitations of the vector bosons, including the KK gluons, one has

893: \begin{equation}\label{eq:JJ}

894: \Lag_{\rm eff}=\Lag_{\rm SM} - R^2 \frac{\pi^2}{6}( J^a_\mu J^a_\mu +  J^B_\mu J^B_\mu + J^G_\mu J^G_\mu)+{\cal O}(R^4)\, ,

895: \end{equation}

896: where $J$ are the matter currents (fermions plus Higgs) of the three gauge factors of the SM gauge group, normalized as in~\cite{KK}.

897: The various observables can then be computed by combining

898: corrections to gauge boson propagators, to their vertices and to 

899: four-fermion operators.

900: By appropriately using the tree-level equations of motion, it was recognized in~\cite{KK}

901: that these corrections are ``universal'' and can be alternatively described by adding

902: the ``universal'' ${\cal O}_{WW}$ and ${\cal O}_{BB}$ operators of eq.\eq{NRO} with coefficients

903: $$ c_{BB} = c_{WW} =- (v R)^2 \frac{\pi^2}{6},\qquad c_{WB} = c_H = 0.$$

904: Therefore $\widehat{S} = \widehat{T}=0$ whereas 

905: \begin{equation}

906: W=Y = \frac{(g v\pi R)^2}{6}\, .

907: \label{all}

908: \end{equation}

909: These models provide  a concrete example of a source of new physics

910: which affects only the higher-order form factors of Table~\ref{tab:STUVXYW}.

911: 

912: \medskip

913: 

914: It is pedagogically useful to see how the same result can be obtained directly, using

915: the techniques we outlined before.

916: In this case the r{\^o}le of the interpolating fields

917: is played by the boundary value of the 5D vectors: ${\bar W}^a_\mu(x)\equiv W^a_\mu(x,y=0)$,

918: ${\bar B}_\mu(x)\equiv B_\mu(x,y=0)$. The heavy fields are given by the field variables at all other points:

919: $V_\mu^{\rm heavy}(x)=V_\mu(x, y\not=0)$. At tree level the procedure of integrating out the heavy vectors

920: coincides with solving the 5D equations of motion, while keeping fixed the value of the field at the $y=0$ boundary,

921: {\it i.e.} keeping the interpolating fields fixed. The low-energy effective action is just the bulk action calculated

922: on this solution, plus any addition term that may be present at the $y=0$ boundary. The extra dimensional physics

923: manifests itself only via the vector boson Lagrangian. 

924:  This procedure  is common in phenomenological applications of the AdS/CFT correspondence

925:  and was also applied

926: to Higgsless theories in~\cite{BPR}.

927:  Perhaps it helps, in order to get a more concrete picture for our separation between bulk

928: and boundary fields, to consider a discretized (or deconstructed) version of this system \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}. In this approach the  field

929: at the boundary is just the gauge field of one group factor in the chain $G_{\rm SM}\otimes G_{\rm SM}\otimes\dots\otimes G_{\rm SM}$

930: and the bulk fields are the gauge fields of all the other factors.

931: 

932: 

933: 

934: 

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: 

939: Applying the above procedure to this model, and confining ourselves to the electroweak sector, we obtain

940: \begin{equation}

941: \Lag_{\rm eff}= -\frac{1}{2}\bar W^a_\mu \Pi_{WW}(q) \bar W^{a\, \mu}- 

942: \frac{1}{2}\bar B_\mu \Pi_{BB}(q) \bar B^\mu\,+\Lag_0\, ,

943: \label{eff}

944: \end{equation}

945: where 

946: \begin{equation}

947: \Pi_{WW}(q)=M_L q\tan(qL)\ ,\qquad

948: \Pi_{BB}(q)=M_B q\tan(qL)\, ,

949: \label{sigmas}

950: \end{equation}

951: are the transverse part of the self-energy contributions from integrating out the bulk

952: and $\Lag_0$ is the original boundary Lagrangian, involving

953: the fermions and the Higgs field and possibly extra contributions to the gauge kinetic terms.

954: $M_{L,B}$ is the inverse squared of the 5D gauge coupling of $W^a$

955: and $B$ respectively. Notice that, in absence of extra contributions from $\Lag_0$, the $\Pi^{-1}$ are just the boundary to boundary

956: propagators, with KK poles at $q^2=n^2/R^2$ with $n$ integer.

957: %Kinetic terms on the boundaries could be also added to the Lagrangian.

958: %To eq.~(\ref{eff}) we must add possible $y=0$ boundary terms:

959: %\begin{equation}

960: %\Lag_{0}= -\frac{1}{4g^2} \bar W^I_{\mu\nu}\bar W_L^{I\, \mu\nu}

961: %-\frac{1}{4g^{\prime 2}} \bar B_{\mu\nu}\bar B^{\mu\nu}+\bar W^I_\mu J^\mu_I

962: %+\bar B_\mu J_B^\mu

963: %\, .

964: %\label{boundary}

965: %\end{equation}

966: From eqs.~(\ref{eff}) and (\ref{sigmas})

967: we  obtain the predictions of the model for 

968: $\widehat S$,$\widehat T$, $W$ and $Y$.

969: Since  the bulk is   ${\rm SU}(2)_L\otimes{\rm U}(1)_Y$ invariant,

970: only $W$ and $Y$ are nonzero:

971: \begin{equation}

972:  W=\frac{g^2}{2}M^2_W\Pi_{WW}^{\prime\prime}(0)

973: =\frac{g^2}{3} M^2_WM_LL^3\ ,\qquad

974:  Y=\frac{g^{\prime 2}}{2}

975: M^2_W\Pi_{BB}^{\prime\prime}(0)=\frac{g^{\prime\, 2}}{3}

976: M^2_WM_BL^3\, .

977: \end{equation}

978: If no boundary kinetic terms are present in the theory we have 

979: \begin{equation}

980: M_LL=1/g^2\ ,\qquad

981: M_BL=1/g^{\prime\, 2}\, ,

982: \label{gare}

983: \end{equation}

984: %The effective Lagrangian that

985: %describes the low-energy interactions of the SM fields is

986: %obtained by integrating out the KK excitations:

987: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:JJ}

988: %\Lag_{\rm eff}=\Lag_{\rm SM} -\frac{1}{M^2}\frac{\pi^2}{6}( J^a_\mu J^a_\mu +  J^B_\mu J^B_\mu + J^G_\mu J^G_\mu)+{\cal O}(M^{-4})

989: %\end{equation}

990: %where $J$ are the gauge currents of the three gauge factors of the SM gauge group.

991: %As shown in~\cite{KK} this apparently `non-universal' effective Lagrangian can be rewritten in the `universal' form of eq.\eq{NRO} using

992: % the tree-level equatio

993: and the model consists of  only one parameter  $R$ with $W$ and $Y$ as in eq.~(\ref{all}).

994: 

995: 

996: \bigskip

997: 

998: Fitting the  latest electroweak data in Tables~\ref{tab:data},  \ref{tab:datalow}  gives the constraint

999:  $1/R > 4.5\TeV$ at 95\% CL.

1000: If $1/R$ is close to its lower bound, the Higgs can be somewhat heavier than

1001: what allowed by a pure SM fit, because

1002: 5D bulk effects  partially compensate the effects of a heavy Higgs~\cite{newref}.

1003: The bound from LEP2 alone is $1/R> 6.3\TeV$ at 95\% CL, 

1004: and does not depend on the Higgs mass.

1005: The combined bound is $1/R>6.4\TeV$ at 95\% CL (see also~\cite{landsberg}):

1006: the Higgs can no longer be heavier than what allowed by a pure SM fit.

1007: This can be also seen from Fig.\fig{WWBB}, where the diagonal dashed line

1008: corresponds to the parameter space of this model.

1009: Related models where only the SU(2)$_L$ or only the U(1)$_Y$ gauge bosons live in the 5th dimension,

1010: would be represented by vertical and horizontal lines, respectively.

1011: 

1012: 

1013: 

1014: 

1015: 

1016: As an aside remark, we note that similar considerations apply to the QCD sector as well.

1017: Using the same technique we can parametrize the leading effect of the gluon KK modes

1018: by  a $q^4$ correction to the gluon self-energy, $Z$, rather than by the effective 4-fermion operator $J_\mu^G J_\mu^G$.

1019: In the absence of boundary kinetic terms we have $Z=W=Y$, see eq.~(\ref{all}).

1020: %% As in the electroweak sector,

1021: %% rather than adding the four-fermion effective operator $J_\mu^G J_\mu^G$ 

1022: %% in eq.~\eq{JJ},

1023: %% the effects of the KK modes of the gluon

1024: %%  can be  taken into account by modifying the propagator of the gluon

1025: %% including the form factor $Z$, equal to

1026: %% $$Z=W=Y = \frac{(g_2 v\pi R)^2}{6}.$$

1027: We estimate that LHC, in absence of more striking phenomena, should test the $Z,W,Y$ 

1028: form factors with a precision of few $10^{-3}$.

1029: 

1030: 

1031: 

1032: 

1033: 

1034: \medskip

1035: 

1036: In the rest of this paper we will analyze less simple ``universal'' models:

1037: in order to obtain simple and correct results it now becomes really important

1038: to recognize them as ``universal''.

1039: 

1040: 

1041: 

1042: \subsection{Gauge bosons and Higgs in 5 dimensions}

1043: Assuming that  the Higgs, instead of being confined on the boundary,

1044:  also propagates in the 5th dimension,

1045:   the 5D bulk breaks both custodial and isospin symmetries so that all

1046: the 4 parameters are generated: 

1047: \begin{equation}

1048: \widehat S=\frac{2}{3} M^2_WL^2\ ,\qquad

1049: \widehat T=\frac{1}{3g^2}\frac{M^2_WL}{M_B}\ ,\qquad

1050: W=\frac{g^2}{3}M^2_WM_LL^3\ ,\qquad

1051:  Y=\frac{g^{\prime\, 2}}{3}M^2_WM_BL^3\, .

1052: \label{hbo}

1053: \end{equation}

1054: Notice in particular that $\widehat T$ comes out proportional to the 5D hypercharge coupling $1/M_B$.

1055: In the absence of boundary kinetic terms (for both the the gauge bosons and the Higgs)

1056: the use of eq.~(\ref{gare}) shows that all the contributions in eq.~(\ref{hbo})

1057: are comparable.

1058: In this case, the 95\% C.L.\ limit from EWPT alone now gives $1/R>3.8\TeV$, 

1059: while the limit from

1060: LEP2 alone remains, as in the previous case, $1/R>6.3\TeV$.

1061: The combined limit is $1/R>6.1\TeV$ at $95\%$ C.L.

1062: The upper limit on the Higgs mass negligibly varies with respect to the pure SM case.

1063: 

1064: 

1065: 

1066: \subsection{Little Higgs models}

1067: 

1068: Little Higgs models are based on  ``deconstructed''

1069:  extra dimensional models in which the Higgs 

1070: arises as a pseudo-Goldstone boson (PGB).

1071: These models  contain products  of the same gauge group, e.g.

1072: ${\rm SU(2)}_1\otimes {\rm SU(2)}_2 \otimes\cdots$, 

1073: with  the SM fermions (usually)  charged only under one of them.

1074: According to the previous discussion,

1075: also these theories  can  be  categorized as ``universal''.

1076: As an illustrative example 

1077: we will focus on the

1078: ${\rm SU(2)}_1\otimes {\rm SU(2)}_2\otimes {\rm U(1)}_Y$

1079:  model discussed in~\cite{Perelstein},

1080: based on  the  previous little Higgs models of~\cite{littleH}.

1081: Without including LEP2 data, the  EWPT  analysis

1082: for this model was  already carried out in~\cite{Perelstein}.

1083: To illustrate here the simplicity of  our procedure we present the same analysis, 

1084: including at the same time  the LEP2 data.

1085: 

1086: The model has a global symmetry SU(5) of which

1087:  only a subgroup  ${\rm SU(2)}_1\otimes {\rm SU(2)}_2\otimes {\rm U(1)}_Y$

1088: is gauged.

1089: By imposing the symmetry breaking pattern

1090: SU(5)$\rightarrow{\rm SO}(5)$, an SU(2) doublet

1091: of PGB appears in the spectrum corresponding to the 

1092: SM Higgs. Fermions are only charged under  ${\rm SU}(2)_1 \otimes {\rm U}(1)_Y$. 

1093: Integrating out the other vectors we get the effective Lagrangian

1094: for the light fields

1095: \bea\label{efflan}

1096: \Lag&=&-\frac{1}{4g^2_1}  \bW ^a_{\mu\nu}\bW^{a\, \mu\nu}

1097: -\frac{1}{4g^{\prime 2}}  \bB_{\mu\nu} \bB^{\mu\nu}

1098: +\frac{f^2}{4}  \bar W^a_\mu \bar W^{a\mu} 

1099: +\frac{(1-c)f^2}{4}\bB_\mu \bB^{\mu}

1100: +\frac{f^2\zeta}{4}\bW^3_\mu \bW^{3\mu}\\

1101: &&- \frac{f^2}{4}(1-c)\bW^3_\mu \bB^{\mu}

1102: +\frac{g^2_2}{16}\frac{(1+c)^2f^4}{q^2-{g^2_2 f^2}/{2}}

1103: \bW^+_\mu \bW^{-\mu}+

1104:  \frac{g^2_2}{32}\frac{ [ (1+c+2\zeta) \bW^3_\mu

1105: +  (1-c) \bB_\mu]^2  f^4}{q^2-{g^2_2 f^2(1+\zeta)}/{2}}\, ,\ \ \ \ \ 

1106:  \nonumber

1107: \eea

1108: where $g_1$ and $g_2$ are the gauge couplings of SU(2)$_1$ and SU(2)$_2$,

1109: $f$ is the scale at which they are broken into the usual SU(2)$_L$

1110: with coupling $1/g^2 = 1/g_1^2 + 1/g_2^2$,

1111: $c=\cos(\sqrt{2}v/f)$, $\zeta = \sin^4(v/\sqrt{2}f)/2$, $\tan\psi=g_1/g_2$. 

1112: From  eq.~(\ref{efflan}) we  extract, at dominant order in $v/f$,

1113: \beq

1114: \widehat S=\frac{\sin^2\psi}{g^2}\frac{ M^2_W}{f^2},\qquad

1115: \widehat T= {\cal O}(\frac{v}{f})^6%-\frac{1}{4g^6}\frac{ M^6_W}{f^6}\nonumber\, ,\\

1116: ,\qquad

1117: W=\frac{2\sin^4\psi}{g^2}\frac{ M^2_W}{f^2},\qquad

1118: Y={\cal O}(\frac{v}{f})^6\, .

1119: %\frac{2g^{\prime\, 2}\sin^4\psi}{g^8}\frac{ M^6_W}{f^6}\, ,

1120: \label{lh}

1121: \eeq

1122: We see that for for $g_1 \sim g_2 \sim g$ both $S$ and $W$ are relevant,

1123: while for large $g_2$

1124: the dominant effect appears in $\widehat S$

1125: and only depends on the mass

1126: of the heavy charged boson,

1127: $M_H^2  = (g_1^2 + g_2^2) f^2/2$.

1128: The model also involves an isospin triplet PGB, which can generate a potentially relevant, but model dependent,

1129: contribution to $\widehat T$.

1130: Here we  consider both the case of a small $\widehat T$ and the case

1131: of arbitrary $\widehat T$. 

1132: The allowed parameter space is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LittleHiggs} for both cases.

1133: For appropriate values of $\widehat T$ it is possible to fit data with

1134: a Higgs mass heavier than what allowed by a pure SM fit, while

1135: this is not possible for small $\widehat T$.

1136: 

1137: 

1138: \subsection{Higgsless models}\label{higgsless}

1139: 

1140: %When the electroweak symmetry is broken in the absence of a 

1141: %light Higgs scalar in the spectrum, 

1142: %strong interactions set in roughly above a TeV.

1143: %These interactions involve the longitudinally polarized vector bosons, 

1144: %equivalent to the eaten Goldstone bosons,

1145: % and are interpreted as strong dynamics in

1146: %the electroweak breaking sector itself. 

1147: %Technicolor models are an example of this kind. 

1148: %In this situation the right language to

1149: %describe physics at the weak scale is that of chiral Lagrangians. The Higgs doubled is replaced by the matrix of Goldstone bosons

1150: %\beq

1151: %U=e^{iT_A \pi^A}\, ,

1152: %\eeq

1153: %parametrizing the coset space 

1154: %$[{\rm SU}(2)_L\otimes{\rm U}(1)_Y]/{\rm U(1)}_Q$.  Moreover a reasonable principle to estimate the parameters in the derivative expansion

1155: %is provided by naive dimensional analysis \cite{nda}.

1156: %Treating the electroweak gauge bosons as 

1157: % external probes of the strong interacting sector, its effective 

1158: %Lagrangian will have the form

1159: %\beq

1160: %\Lag_{\rm strong}=\frac{\Lambda^4}{16 \pi^2} L\left (U,\frac{D_\mu}{\Lambda}\right)\, ,

1161: %\eeq

1162: %where $D_\mu=\partial_\mu -igT_I W^I_\mu -ig' \frac{Y}{2} B_\mu$ is the gauge covariant derivative. Unless dictated by some approximated global 

1163: %symmetry, the function  $L$ is not  expected to contain small, 

1164: %or large, coefficients.

1165: %Then we have

1166: %\bea

1167: %\Lag_{\rm strong}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}& \Big\{&\Lambda^2 {\rm Tr}(D_\mu U)^\dagger (D^\mu U)+ a_t \Lambda^2 {\rm Tr}(U^\dagger D_\mu U)(U^\dagger D_\mu U)\nonumber

1168: %\\&+&

1169: %a_s({\rm Tr} U^\dagger T_I U T_3)W_{\mu\nu}^I B^{\mu\nu}+\dots\ \Big\}\, ,

1170: %\eea

1171: %from which by reading the SM gauge boson

1172: % masses we have $\Lambda\sim 4\pi v\sim 1$ TeV. 

1173: %In presence of approximate custodial symmetry $a_t$ can be

1174: %suppressed, otherwise $\widehat T\sim {\cal O}(1)$, while the last term suggests the natural expectation $\widehat S\sim 1/16\pi^2$. 

1175: %Operators involving the gauge bosons

1176: %only are not necessarily generated with a relevant size. 

1177: It is well known \cite{tech,pt} that  in the traditional Higgsless scenario, technicolor, $ T$ and $ S$

1178: are the only relevant parameters. 

1179: However one can imagine a more general situation where also $W$ and $Y$ are relevant,

1180: signifying that the gauge bosons themselves are ``composite'' at the TeV scale. 

1181: This situation can be effectively realized in regions of the parameter

1182: space of the recently proposed 5-dimensional Higgsless theories. 

1183: We will now focus on a representative of this class of models \cite{BPR}.

1184: Our conclusions are however very general and apply with minor 

1185: modifications to all the other models, in particular to those on warped spaces

1186: (see~\cite{Csaki:2003dt,higgslessrefs,Cacciapaglia,dhlr}).

1187: Our model \cite{BPR} is based on the gauge group 

1188: ${\rm SU}(2)_L\otimes {\rm SU(2)}_R\otimes {\rm U}(1)_{B-L}$

1189: with a flat compact extra dimension of length $L=\pi R$. 

1190: The condition at the boundary (the SM-boundary)

1191: where the fermions are mostly 

1192: localized breaks the gauge group down to the SM group,

1193: whereas at the other boundary (the EWSB-boundary)

1194: the preserved symmetry   

1195: is ${\rm SU(2)}_{L+R} \otimes {\rm U(1)}_{B-L}$ \cite{Csaki:2003dt, adms}.

1196: The advantage of this set up is that both the 5D bulk 

1197: and the EWSB-boundary  respect a custodial  symmetry. 

1198: %Our conclusions are however very general and apply with minor modifications to similar models, in particular to those based on warped spaces.

1199: 

1200: After integrating out the 5D bulk at tree level,

1201: the effective Lagrangian for the fields at the  SM-boundary is

1202: \bea

1203: \Lag&=&-\frac{1}{4g^2} \bar W^a_{\mu\nu}\bar W^{a\, \mu\nu}

1204: -\frac{1}{4g^{\prime 2}} \bar B_{\mu\nu}\bar B^{\mu\nu}+\nonumber\\

1205: &&- \frac{1}{2}\bar W^a_\mu \Delta\Pi_{WW}(q) \bar W^{a\mu} 

1206: -\bar W^3_\mu  \Delta\Pi_{WB}(q)\bar B^\mu-\frac{1}{2}

1207: \bar B_\mu  \Delta\Pi_{BB}(q)\bar B^\mu\, .

1208: \label{himo}

1209: \eea

1210: The vacuum polarizations $ \Delta\Pi_V$ of eq.~(\ref{himo})

1211: are related to  the corresponding 

1212: $\Sigma_V$ calculated in~\cite{BPR} as

1213: $ \Delta\Pi_{WW}(q)=2 \Sigma_{WW}(iq)$,

1214: $ \Delta\Pi_{BB}(q)=2 \Sigma_{BB}(iq)$,

1215: $ \Delta\Pi_{WB}(q)= \Sigma_{WB}(iq)$.

1216: Moreover in order to keep the same normalization of~\cite{BPR} we work on the double covering of

1217: the orbifold.

1218: The $ \Delta\Pi$'s depend on the 5D gauge coupling $M_{L,R,B}$ and on the 

1219: kinetic  coefficients $Z_{W,B}$ localized at the EWSB-boundary.

1220: %This effective theory is 

1221: %$SU(2)_{L+R}$ 

1222: %symmetric in the $g' \rightarrow 0$ limit.

1223: At leading order,  $M_W$ is given by

1224: %\footnote{The 5D bulk contributions are 1/2 smaller  than that 

1225: %in~\cite{BPR}

1226: %since here we  are working in the interval $0\leq y \leq L$

1227: %instead of the covering space $0\leq y \leq 2L$.}

1228: \beq

1229: M_W^2=\frac{2g^2 M_LM_R}{(M_L+M_R)L}\equiv  2g^2 \frac{M}{L}\, .

1230: \eeq

1231: Working in the limit

1232: $R M_W\ll 1$ (otherwise there would be extra light states),

1233: we can expand in $q^2$ the  $\Pi(q)$'s and   calculate 

1234: the contribution to the $\widehat S,...,Y$ parameters

1235: %At tree level one finds

1236: \begin{eqnsystem}{sys:higgsless}

1237: \widehat S&=&%-g^2\Sigma_{WB}^\prime(0)=

1238: g^2

1239: \frac{4}{3}M L\left [1+\frac{3}{4}z_W\right]\, ,\label{S}\\

1240: \widehat T&=&\widehat U=0\, ,\label{T}\\

1241: X&=&%\frac{gg^\prime}{2}M^2_W \Sigma^{''}_{WB}(0)=

1242: gg^\prime M_W^2ML^3

1243: \left[\frac{28}{45}+z_W+\frac{1}{2}z_W^2\right]\, ,\\

1244: W&=&%g^2M^2_W\Sigma^{\prime\prime}_{L}(0)=

1245: g^2\frac{M_W^2ML^3}{1-y_L}\left[

1246: \frac{28}{45}y_L+ \frac{2}{45}+z_W y_L+

1247: \frac{1}{2}z_W^2y_L\right]\label{W}\, ,\\

1248: Y&=&%g^{\prime\, 2} M^2_W\Sigma^{\prime\prime}_{BB}(0)=

1249: g^{\prime\, 2}\frac{M_W^2ML^3}{1-y_R}\left[

1250: \frac{28}{45}y_R+ \frac{2}{45}+z_W y_R+

1251: \frac{1}{2}z_W^2y_R\right]\nonumber\\

1252: &&+g^{\prime\, 2}M_W^2M_BL^3\left[

1253:  \frac{2}{3}+z_B+

1254:  \frac{1}{2}{z_B^2}\right]\, ,\label{Y}

1255: \end{eqnsystem}

1256: where we have defined 

1257: \bea

1258: &&y_L\equiv \frac{M_L}{M_L+M_R}\ ,\quad\quad y_R\equiv \frac{M_R}{M_L+M_R}=1-y_L\, ,\\

1259: &&z_W\equiv\frac{Z_W}{(M_L+M_R)L}\ ,\quad\quad z_B\equiv\frac{Z_B}{ M_BL}\, .

1260: \eea

1261: For warped backgrounds,  only  the numerical

1262: coefficients are slightly modified (see~\cite{BPR}

1263: for the contribution to $\widehat S$ in different backgrounds).

1264: 

1265: \medskip

1266: 

1267: In~\cite{BPR} the limit 

1268: \beq

1269: M_LL,M_RL, M_BL,Z_{W,B}\ll 1/g^2\, ,

1270: \label{4d}

1271: \eeq

1272: was taken.

1273: In this case, only the contribution to $\widehat S$ is relevant.

1274: Notice that $\widehat S$ grows with the inverse 5D coupling $M$. More precisely parametrizing the 5D

1275: loop expansion parameter as\footnote{By applying naive dimensional analysis~\cite{nda2} the scale at which

1276: the 5D theory becomes strongly coupled is $48\pi^3 M$. 

1277: When $\ell_5\sim 1$ the theory is strongly coupled already

1278: at the energy of the lightest KK mode, 

1279: so that the 5D description is never valid, and predictivity is totally lost

1280: \cite{unita}.

1281: Notice that our definition of $\Lambda$ 

1282: differs by a factor 2 with respect to~\cite{BPR}. This is to

1283: account for the proper normalization of the path integral when working over the doubly covered orbifold, though we are

1284: aware that NDA works only within factors of order 1. A more detailed analysis of perturbativity in these models will be 

1285: presented in~\cite{papucci}.}

1286:   $\ell_5=1/(48 \pi^3 MR)$ we have 

1287: \begin{equation}

1288: {\widehat S}=\frac{g^2}{36\pi^2}\frac{1}{ \ell_5}\, .

1289: \label{Sloop}

1290: \end{equation}

1291: For $\ell_5 \ll 1$ (necessary to have a reliable 5D gauge coupling expansion),

1292: one has $\varepsilon_3\simeq \widehat{S}\gg 10^{-3}$,

1293: indicating that (marginal) agreement with the data can only be obtained in the region where $\widehat S$ is not calculable.

1294: In this respect a Higgsless theory in 5D does not fare better than a generic strongly coupled and incalculable

1295: 4D one. In the warped model of~\cite{Csaki:2003dt}  the 5D coupling is fixed by the 4-dimensional one and by the Planck to Weak

1296: scale ratio in such a way that ${\widehat S}$ is predicted to be $\sim 10^{-2}$~\cite{BPR}, 

1297: which is excluded at many standard deviations.

1298: 

1299: 

1300: 

1301: 

1302: \begin{figure}[t]

1303: $$\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Higgsless}\qquad\includegraphics[width=8cm]{B}$$

1304: \parbox{8cm}{\caption{\label{fig:Higgsless}\em  $\chi^2(\widehat S)$ for $m_h = 115\GeV$ (dotted), $800\GeV$ (dashed).

1305: The $n$-$\sigma$ range for $\widehat S$ corresponds to $\chi^2 < \chi^2_{\rm min} +n^2$.

1306: Higgsless models that predict $\widehat{S}\approx + \hbox{\rm few} \cdot 10^{-3}$

1307: and $X,Y,W>0$ are excluded.

1308: }}\hspace{1cm}\hfill

1309: \parbox{8cm}{\caption{\label{fig:B}\em Constraints on a massive $Z'$ boson

1310: coupled to hypercharge, as function of its mass (in $\GeV$) and of its gauge coupling

1311: (normalized with respect to the coupling of the SM gauge boson).}}

1312: \end{figure}

1313: 

1314: 

1315: One may ask, however,  whether by relaxing eq.~(\ref{4d}), thus extending the model to its full parameter space,  

1316: larger values  of $ \widehat{S}$ 

1317: could be made compatible with the data \cite{Cacciapaglia}. 

1318: For instance, if ${\widehat S}\sim 10^{-2}$ were acceptable,

1319: even at the price of some fine-tuning, then the model would be perturbative and testable in a reasonable range of energies with strikingly new phenomena.

1320: By inspection of eqs.~(\ref{S}-\ref{W}), one can see, as expected,  that only 

1321: $W$ and $Y$ can become sizable  enough to compete with $\widehat S$

1322: and possibly compensate its effects.

1323: In fact, apart from $g,g'$ factors, one has $X\sim \widehat S^2\ll \widehat S$. 

1324: Notice also that one cannot play with $z_W$ as it must

1325: be positive to avoid ghosts. On the other hand, while keeping $\widehat S$ 

1326: and $M_W$ fixed, one can enhance $W$ and $Y$.

1327: In the case of $W$ this occurs for $M_L=M/(1-y_L)\gg M$, while in the case of $Y$ it can occur both with

1328: $M_B\gg M$ or with $z_B\gg 1$. The choices of parameters for which $W,Y$ become relevant correspond to delocalizing 

1329: to the bulk the electroweak gauge bosons. 

1330:  From the point of view of an equivalent purely 4D 

1331: strongly coupled theory this can be interpreted as the gauge bosons being

1332: composites at the electroweak breaking scale $1/R$.

1333: However when this effect is achieved by taking a large $z_B$ the delocalization is associated to the presence of

1334: a new light vector boson localized close to the EWSB-boundary. 

1335: As we will comment below, this possibility is severely

1336: limited by the {\sc TeVatron} data on $Z'$ searches \cite{tevatron}. 

1337: This problem does not arise when $W,Y$ are enhanced by increasing

1338: $M_L$ and $M_B$.

1339:  Notice finally that, throughout the parameter space, $\widehat S$, $W$ and $Y$ 

1340: are all positive. 

1341: 

1342: We are thus lead to consider a possible fit of the data in terms of positive $\widehat {S}, W, Y$. However, even allowing for the presence of an unknown and possibly large one-loop contribution to the parameter $\widehat T$ from custodial-breaking top effects, this cannot make the model acceptable since the parameter $\widehat S$ has to be small in any case (see Table~\ref{tab:fit}). This remains true even for 

1343: generic $\widehat T$, $\widehat U$, $V$ and positive $X, W, Y$, 

1344: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Higgsless}. We stress that the conclusions implied by Fig.~\ref{fig:Higgsless} apply equally well to the warped Higgsless models

1345: \cite{Csaki:2003dt,higgslessrefs,Cacciapaglia,dhlr}. This is because the expression for $\widehat S$ in terms of the 5D loop expansion parameter 

1346: is qualitatively the same as eq.~(\ref{Sloop}) \cite{BPR}, while $W$ and $Y$ remain positive.

1347: 

1348: 

1349: 

1350: 

1351: This conclusion is based on the expansion in eq.~(\ref{eq:espansione}) of the self energies.

1352: This expansion in $q^2$ is a very good approximation when the new states have a mass significantly

1353: higher than LEP2 energies. However for our purposes there

1354: is no need to perform a more dedicated analysis even if the new states have rather low mass,

1355: say around $300$ GeV. Indeed to account more accurately for a relatively light resonance of mass $m$

1356: it is enough to correct the contact interactions in eq.~(\ref{propagator}) to include the pole:

1357: $\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}\to \varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma} m^2/(m^2-q^2)$ and similarly for the others.

1358: Therefore our approximation slightly underestimates the effects that we want to avoid.

1359: Furthermore, {\sc TeVatron} data~\cite{tevatron}

1360: directly constrain such particles~\cite{dhlr}.

1361: Within the present model, for  large $Z_B/M_BL$

1362: one KK state of the $B$-boson becomes light with a mass $M_{B'}^2\simeq  2M_B/(Z_BL)$.

1363: This particle acts approximately like a heavy hypercharge vector boson. However, its coupling

1364: to matter instead of being $g'$ is equal to 

1365: $g_{B'}\simeq {\sqrt Z_B} g^{\prime\, 2}\ll g'$.

1366: Because of this quadratic dependence in $g'$ this vector looks also very similar to a $\rho$-meson

1367: coupling to electrons via vector meson dominance.

1368: The relation $g_{B'}^2/M_{B'}^2=Y g^{\prime\, 2}/M_W^2$ also holds between the coupling, the mass and the parameter $Y$.

1369: As shown in Fig.\fig{B}, at small mass and small coupling Tevatron constraints are even more

1370: significant than the LEP constraints.

1371: 

1372: \medskip

1373: 

1374: In conclusion, 

1375: 5d Higgsless models predict a $\widehat{S}$ not compatible with data.

1376: In order to resurrect such models one could add

1377: some ad-hoc new physics that compensates

1378: the too large correction to $\widehat{S}$.

1379: 

1380: 

1381: 

1382: \section{Conclusions}

1383: Alternative models of EWSB keep being proposed, based on different motivations. It is therefore essential to compare them with experiments in a clean and effective way. Most of the time the models proposed are of ``universal'' type, i.e.\ they modify the SM only in the self-energies of the vector bosons. As we have seen, to recognize that a model is ``universal'' may require an optimized definition of the effective vector bosons themselves. This is the case for several models that recently  received attention.

1384: 

1385: Once this is done, general  ``universal'' models with heavy new physics can be conveniently compared with the low-energy data in terms of four form factors, $\widehat{S}, \widehat{T}, W, Y$. These four parameters are strongly constrained by the combination of the EWPT and of the LEP2 $e\bar{e}\to f\!\bar{f}$

1386: data. In a combined fit with the inclusion of a light Higgs mass, all these form factors are consistent with zero, within $10^{-3}$ uncertainties. 

1387: When all the four form factors are allowed to vary simultaneously, a fit of the data is possible even for a heavy Higgs, with a moderate deviation from zero of $\widehat{S}$ and especially $\widehat{T}$. 

1388: This  relaxation of the usual SM upper bound on the Higgs mass 

1389: however requires some fine-tuning of the new-physics form factors~\cite{NRO}:

1390: in the examples we studied this is the case only in the little Higgs model, 

1391: when $\widehat{T}$ is treated as a free parameter.

1392: It looks to us more important that all the new-physics parameters must remain small in any case, as true in particular for $\widehat{S}$.

1393: 

1394: This analysis can be conveniently applied to several models of recent interest, like little Higgs models, models with gauge bosons in extra dimensions or Higgsless models in 5D. In this way it is straightforward to see the constraints on their respective parameter space. As an explicit application it is in particular possible to explore Higgsless models of EWSB in their full range of parameters. We find that, when calculable, all the proposed models do

1395: not provide a viable description of electroweak symmetry breaking. 

1396: 

1397: 

1398: \paragraph{Acknowledgments}

1399: We thank I. De Bonis, R. Tenchini and P. Wells for providing and explaining

1400: us the results on $e\bar{e}\to e\bar{e}$ data. We also thank C.Cs{\'a}ki and C. Grojean for discussions

1401: and T. Gregoire for discussions and for clarifications on little Higgs models.

1402: The work of AP was  supported  in part by 

1403: the MCyT and FEDER Research Project

1404: FPA2002-00748 and DURSI Research Project 2001-SGR-00188.

1405: The work of RB was  supported  in part by MIUR and by the EU under TMR contract

1406: HPRN-CT-2000-00148.

1407: 

1408: 

1409: 

1410: \frenchspacing\footnotesize\begin{multicols}{2}\begin{thebibliography}{nn}

1411: 

1412: \bibitem{littleH}

1413: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,

1414:  Phys.\ Lett.\ { B513} (2001) 232;

1415:  N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~Cohen and E.~Katz and A.~Nelson,

1416: JHEP { 07} (2002) 034;

1417: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen, E.~Katz, A.~E.~Nelson, T.~Gregoire and J.~G.~Wacker,

1418: JHEP {0208} (2002) 021.

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \bibitem{Csaki:2003dt} C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, H.~Murayama, L.~Pilo and J.~Terning, 

1422: Phys.\ Rev.\  D {69} (2004) 055006;

1423: %``Gauge theories on an interval: Unitarity without a Higgs,'';

1424: %hep-ph/0305237;

1425: C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean, L.~Pilo, J.~Terning,

1426: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {92}  (2004) 101802.

1427: %``Towards a realistic model of Higgsless electroweak symmetry breaking,'' hep-ph/0308038;  

1428: 

1429: 

1430: \bibitem{BPR}

1431: R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol and R.~Rattazzi,

1432: %``Weakly coupled Higgsless theories and precision electroweak tests,''

1433: hep-ph/0310285.

1434: 

1435: 

1436: 

1437: 

1438: 

1439: \bibitem{tech}M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

1440: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {65} (1990) 964;

1441: M.~Golden and L.~Randall,

1442: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {B361} (1990) 3;

1443: B.~Holdom and J.~Terning,

1444: Phys.\ Lett.\ {B247} (1990) 88.

1445: 

1446: \bibitem{pt}

1447: M.~E.~Peskin and T.~Takeuchi,

1448: %``Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections,''

1449: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {46} (1992) 381.

1450: \bibitem{alba}

1451: G.~Altarelli and R.~Barbieri,

1452: %``Vacuum Polarization Effects Of New Physics On Electroweak Processes,''

1453: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B253} (1991) 161;

1454: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B253,161;%%

1455: G.~Altarelli, R.~Barbieri and S.~Jadach,

1456: %``Toward a model independent analysis of electroweak data,''

1457: Nucl.\ Phys.\  {B369} (1992) 3

1458: [Erratum-ibid.\ {B376} (1992) 444].

1459: %\cite{Grinstein:1991cd}

1460: \bibitem{Grinstein}

1461: B.~Grinstein and M.~B.~Wise,

1462: %``Operator analysis for precision electroweak physics,''

1463: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B265} (1991) 326.

1464: 

1465: \bibitem{NRO}

1466: R.~Barbieri and  A.~Strumia,

1467: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B462} (1999) 144.

1468: 

1469: 

1470:  \bibitem{KK} 

1471: A.~Strumia,

1472: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B466} (1999) 107.

1473: 

1474: 

1475: 

1476: \bibitem{MaPa}

1477: G. Marandella, M. Papucci,  hep-ph/0407030.

1478: 

1479: 

1480: 

1481: 

1482: 

1483: \bibitem{LEPEWWG}

1484: \hepart[hep-ex/0312023]{ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL collaborations and

1485: LEP, SLD  electroweak working groups}.

1486: The LEP2 data we fitted are summarized and combined in its chapter 8.

1487: See also, the LEP electroweak working group, 

1488: web page www.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG.

1489: We include the recent average of the top mass from 

1490: the CDF and D0 collaborations and Tevatron electroweak working group, hep-ex/0404010.

1491: The NuTeV collaboration, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {88} (2002) 091802.

1492: M. Kuchiev and V. Flambaum, hep/0305053.

1493: The SLAC E158 collaboration, hep-ex/0312035 and hep-ex/0403010.

1494: 

1495: 

1496: 

1497: 

1498: 

1499: 

1500: %\cite{Barbieri:1991qp}

1501: \bibitem{Barbieri:1991qp}

1502: R.~Barbieri, M.~Frigeni and F.~Caravaglios,

1503: %``Supersymmetry signals in electroweak precision tests at LEP,''

1504: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B279} (1992) 169.

1505: 

1506: \bibitem{LEP2}

1507: For the differential $e\bar{e}\to e\bar{e}$ cross sections

1508: we use instead the most recent results presented in:

1509: \hepart[CERN-EP/2003-053]{OPAL collaboration} and in:

1510: ALEPH collaboration, ``{\em Fermion Pair production in e+e- collisions at 189-209 GeV and Constraints on Physics Beyond the Standard Model}'', paper in preparation.

1511: 

1512: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}

1513: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}

1514: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,

1515: %``(De)constructing dimensions,''

1516: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001); H.~C.~Cheng, C.~T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski and J.~Wang,

1517: %``The standard model in the latticized bulk,''

1518: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 065007 (2001)

1519: %[arXiv:hep-th/0104005].

1520: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104005;%%

1521: 

1522: 

1523: 

1524: \bibitem{newref} 

1525: T.~G.~Rizzo and J.~D.~Wells, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {61} (2000) 016007.

1526: M.~E.~Peskin and J.~D.~Wells, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {64} (2001) 093003.

1527: 

1528:  \bibitem{landsberg} 

1529: K.~Cheung and G.~Landsberg, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {65} (2002) 076003.

1530: A.~Muck, A.~Pilaftsis and R.~Ruckl, hep-ph/0312186.

1531: 

1532: 

1533:  \bibitem{Perelstein}

1534: C.~Csaki, J.~Hubisz, G.~D.~Kribs, P.~Meade and J.~Terning, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {67} (2003) 115002.

1535: M.~Perelstein, M.~E.~Peskin and A.~Pierce, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {69} (2004) 075002.

1536: T.~Gregoire, D.~R.~Smith and J.~G.~Wacker, hep-ph/0305275.

1537: R. Casalbuoni, A. Deandrea and M. Oertel, JHEP 0402 (2004) 032.

1538: W.~Kilian and J.~Reuter, hep-ph/0311095.

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{higgslessrefs}

1541: Y.~Nomura, JHEP {0311} (2003) 050.

1542: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie and T.~G.~Rizzo, hep-ph/0312193.

1543: G.~Burdman and Y.~Nomura, hep-ph/0312247.

1544: 

1545: 

1546: 

1547: 

1548: \bibitem{Cacciapaglia}

1549: G.~Cacciapaglia, C.~Csaki, C.~Grojean and J.~Terning,

1550: %``Oblique corrections from Higgsless models in warped space,''

1551: hep-ph/0401160.

1552: 

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{dhlr}

1555: H.~Davoudiasl, J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie and T.~G.~Rizzo,

1556: %``Warped Higgsless models with IR-brane kinetic terms,''

1557: hep-ph/0403300.

1558: 

1559: 

1560: 

1561: 

1562: \bibitem{adms}

1563: K.~Agashe, A.~Delgado, M.~J.~May and R.~Sundrum,

1564: %``RS1, custodial isospin and precision tests,''

1565: JHEP {0308} (2003) 050.

1566: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308036;%%

1567: 

1568: 

1569: \bibitem{nda2} Z.~Chacko, M.~A.~Luty and E.~Ponton,

1570: %``Massive higher-dimensional gauge fields as messengers of supersymmetry  breaking,''

1571: JHEP {0007} (2000) 036.

1572: 

1573: \bibitem{unita}

1574: R.S. Chivukula, D.A.~Dicus and H.J.~He,

1575: %``Unitarity of compactified five dimensional Yang-Mills theory,''

1576: Phys.\ Lett.\  {B525} (2002) 175.

1577: 

1578: 

1579: \bibitem{papucci}

1580: M.~Papucci, paper in preparation.

1581: 

1582: \bibitem{tevatron}

1583: CDF collaboration,

1584: %``Search for new gauge bosons decaying into dileptons in anti-p p  collisions

1585: %at s**(1/2) = 1.8-TeV,''

1586: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {79} (1997) 2192.

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: \end{thebibliography}

1591: \end{multicols}

1592: \end{document}

1593: 

1594: 

1595: 

1596: 

1597: 

1598: 

1599: 

1600: 

1601: