1: %last edited by Aaron, 9/9
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{amsmath, amssymb}
5: \usepackage{graphics,graphicx}
6: \usepackage{epsfig,comment}
7:
8: \providecommand*{\ler}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle <}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
9: \providecommand*{\ger}{\stackrel{\scriptstyle >}{\scriptstyle \sim}}
10:
11: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
12: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}
13: \newcommand{\hc}{\text{ h.c. }}
14: \newcommand{\identity}{{\rlap{1} \hskip 1.6pt \hbox{1}}}
15: \newcommand{\lsim}{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
16: \newcommand{\gsim}{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
17: \newcommand{\DD}{\mathcal{D}}
18: \newcommand{\EE}{\mathcal{E}}
19: \newcommand{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}
20: \newcommand{\MM}{\mathcal{M}}
21: \newcommand{\NN}{\mathcal{N}}
22: \newcommand{\OO}{\mathcal{O}}
23: \newcommand{\PP}{\mathcal{P}}
24: \newcommand{\QQ}{\mathcal{Q}}
25: \newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathcal{Z}}
26:
27: \newcommand{\phys}{{\text{phys}}}
28: \newcommand{\LE}{{\text{LE}}}
29: \newcommand{\HE}{{\text{HE}}}
30: \newcommand{\diag}{\text{diag}}
31: \newcommand{\Tr}{\text{ Tr }}
32: \newcommand{\TeV}{\text{ TeV }}
33: \newcommand{\GeV}{\text{ GeV}}
34: \newcommand{\SM}{{\text{SM}}}
35: \newcommand{\eff}{{\text{eff}}}
36: \newcommand{\PGB}{{\text{PGB}}}
37: \newcommand{\MSSM}{{\text{MSSM}}}
38: \newcommand{\GUT}{{\text{GUT}}}
39: \newcommand{\TMZ}{t_{M_Z}}
40: \newcommand{\Qc}{{Q^c}}
41:
42: \def\draftnote#1{{\bf #1}}
43: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5 in}
44: \setlength{\textheight}{8.5 in}
45: \setlength{\headheight}{0.3 in}
46: \setlength{\parindent}{20 pt}
47: \setlength{\headsep}{0 in}
48: \setlength{\topmargin}{0.0 in}
49: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.0 in}
50: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.0 in}
51: %
52:
53: \begin{document}
54:
55: \begin{titlepage}
56: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
57: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
58: \begin{flushright}
59: SLAC-PUB-10701\\
60: %SU--ITP--XX--XX\\
61: hep-ph/0409127\\
62: \end{flushright}
63: \vskip 2cm
64: \begin{center}
65: {\large\bf D-Terms, Unification, and the Higgs Mass}
66: \vskip 1cm
67: {\normalsize
68: Alexander Maloney$^{1,2}$, Aaron Pierce$^{1,2}$\footnote{The work of AM and
69: AP is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC02-76SF00515.},
70: Jay G. Wacker$^{2}$\footnote{JGW is supported by National Science
71: Foundation Grant PHY-9870115 and by the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics.}\\
72: \vskip 0.5cm
73: 1. Theory Group \\
74: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center\\
75: Menlo Park, CA 94025\\
76: \vskip .1in
77: 2. Institute for Theoretical Physics\\
78: Stanford University\\
79: Stanford, CA 94305\\
80: \vskip .1in
81: }
82: \end{center}
83:
84: \vskip .5cm
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87: We study gauge extensions of the MSSM that contain non-decoupling
88: $D$-terms, which contribute to the Higgs boson mass.
89: These models naturally maintain gauge coupling unification and
90: raise the Higgs mass without fine-tuning.
91: Unification constrains the structure of the gauge extensions,
92: limiting the Higgs
93: mass in these models to $m_{h} \lsim \mbox{150 $\GeV$}$.
94: The $D$-terms contribute to the Higgs mass only if the extended
95: gauge symmetry is broken at energies of a few TeV, leading
96: to new heavy gauge bosons in this mass range.
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99: \end{titlepage}
100:
101: \tableofcontents
102:
103: \section{Introduction}
104: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
105: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
106:
107: The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) makes a firm
108: prediction for the mass of the lightest Higgs boson.
109: Supersymmetry (SUSY) relates the quartic
110: coupling of the Higgs boson to the
111: Standard Model (SM) gauge couplings, resulting in a tree-level
112: prediction for the Higgs mass: $m_{h} < M_{Z} = 91 $ GeV.
113: The current Higgs mass bound from LEP II
114: ($m_{h}\ge 114.4 \text{ GeV}$ \cite{Barate:2003sz})
115: can be accommodated, but only if the parameters are somewhat
116: fine-tuned --- proponents
117: of the MSSM would have been more comfortable had the
118: Higgs boson been discovered closer to the tree-level prediction.
119: (See \cite{Kane:2004tk} for a discussion of fine-tuning in the MSSM.)
120: The alternative to fine-tuning is
121: new physics at the TeV scale that contributes to the Higgs mass.
122: For recent attempts, see
123: \cite{DEKPuneet,DEKPuneet2,Harnik:2003rs,Birkedal:2004xi,Polonsky}.
124:
125: There are two hints as to the nature of this new TeV scale physics. The
126: first is the striking unification of the gauge couplings in the
127: MSSM \cite{Savas}.
128: We will demand that any modifications to the Higgs sector
129: maintain unification.
130: Second, the theory be should as natural as possible;
131: some mechanisms raise the Higgs boson mass only by
132: introducing a substantial fine-tuning.
133: As we will discuss in section 2.1, these two
134: criteria lead us to study particular gauge extensions of the MSSM.
135: In these extensions the Higgs mass is increased through
136: non-decoupling $D$-terms \cite{DEKPuneet,LR}.
137: To have a significant effect, the new gauge group under which
138: the Higgs is charged must have a large coupling.
139:
140: Unfortunately, the simplest gauge extensions of the MSSM spoil
141: gauge coupling unification. In these cases, the only recourse
142: is to include additional particles whose sole purpose to restore
143: unification, ``unifons.'' In this paper,
144: using the success of the MSSM as a guide, we will describe two models
145: without these designer particles.
146: In these models, gauge coupling unification constrains the size of the
147: non-decoupling $D$-terms, limiting the potential increase in the Higgs mass.
148: This is easy to see: in our approach, we mix
149: the electroweak $SU(2)\times U(1)$ with additional gauge groups. This
150: increases the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge couplings, which are
151: related to the Higgs quartic coupling by supersymmetry.
152: Unification relates these new electroweak gauge groups
153: to a new colored gauge group, which is in danger of becoming strongly
154: coupled.
155: This puts an upper bound on the size of the
156: $SU(2)\times U(1)$ coupling,
157: and therefore on the $D$-term contribution to the Higgs mass.
158:
159: In Sec. 2 we present two gauge extensions of the MSSM that naturally maintain
160: unification, and can contribute to the Higgs mass without invoking fine tuning.
161: The first model adds an extra copy of a GUT gauge group, which is coupled
162: to the standard model gauge content by bi-fundamentals. We call this
163: approach ``product unification.'' The second model is one of
164: accelerated unification \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr},
165: where the additional gauge content is a copy of the standard model gauge group.
166: In this case unification is maintained, but occurs at a much lower scale.
167: Notably, this model requires the presence of a second pair of Higgs doublets
168: at low energy, which might seem an {\it ad hoc} addition
169: to the model, resurrecting the ``unifon'' specter. On the contrary,
170: we will argue in Sec. \ref{Sec: GUT Scale} that their
171: existence can be related to the observed
172: stability of the proton via a missing-partner mechanism
173: \cite{MissingPartner}.
174:
175: The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 3
176: we discuss in detail non-decoupling $D$-terms, focusing
177: on the specific potential that arises in both of the models described
178: above.
179: In Sec. 4
180: we apply these results to the product unification model
181: and discuss implications for the Higgs mass. We find that in this case
182: the non-decoupling $D$-terms can contribute roughly 10 $\GeV$ to the Higgs
183: mass. In Sec. 5
184: we turn to the minimal accelerated unification model, and conclude that
185: $D$-terms can easily raise the Higgs mass by $30-40$ $\GeV$.
186: We discuss precision unification in both cases.
187: Finally we conclude and present an outlook for these two models.
188:
189: \section{Motivation: The Higgs Mass in Unified Models}
190:
191: In Sec. \ref{Sec: Higgs Mass}, we will begin by outlining
192: various modifications to the MSSM that can raise the Higgs mass.
193: Of these, we will argue that only two -- the NMSSM \cite{NMSSM} and
194: non-decoupling $D$-terms -- can accommodate unification without fine tuning.
195: We will focus on the second of these, and give
196: in Sec. \ref{Sec: Unification} a more
197: detailed description of the restrictions that unification places on
198: this approach.
199: There are two distinct possibilities:
200: the unification scale may be preserved by the new gauge structure, or it may be
201: lowered. In Sec. \ref{Sec: Models} we briefly describe the two simplest
202: implementations of these alternatives. The first involves adding an extra
203: unified gauge group, while the second requires the addition of a
204: copy of the standard model gauge content.
205:
206: \subsection{Increasing the Higgs Mass}
207: \label{Sec: Higgs Mass}
208:
209: We will now discuss various ways of raising the Higgs mass in supersymmetric
210: models, and conclude
211: that gauge extensions and the NMSSM are the two most attractive
212: alternatives.
213:
214: \subsubsection*{SUSY Breaking in the MSSM}
215:
216: The simplest way to increase the Higgs
217: mass requires no new physics; it simply uses the SUSY breaking effects
218: associated with the top squark \cite{MSSMHiggsBound}.
219: In general, a Yukawa interaction between the Higgs and some other particle
220: will contribute both to the (mass)$^{2}$ of the Higgs boson and to its
221: quartic coupling, as
222: %%
223: \begin{eqnarray}
224: \label{eqn:FT}
225: \delta \lambda = \frac{ N_c y^4}{8\pi^2} \left(
226: \log \frac{m_{\text{B}}}{m_{\text{F}}} + a^2\left(1 - \frac{a^2}{12}\right)\right),
227: \hspace{0.5in}
228: \delta m^2 = - \frac{N_c (1+ a^2) y^2}{8 \pi^2} \left( m^2_{\text{B}} -
229: m^2_{\text{F}}\right)
230: \log \Lambda^2
231: .\end{eqnarray}
232: %%
233: Here $N_c$ is the number of colors, $m_B$ and $m_F$ are the boson and
234: fermion masses, and we have included the SUSY violating $A$-term
235: %%
236: \begin{eqnarray}
237: \LL_{\text{soft}} \supset y\,a\, m_B\; h \tilde{f} \tilde{f}^c.
238: \end{eqnarray}
239: %%
240: At loop level, these effects give a logarithmically divergent
241: contribution to the Higgs boson (mass)$^{2}$,
242: but only a finite contribution to the Higgs quartic coupling. The result
243: is fine-tuning, making this mechanism rather unattractive.
244: For example, every 10 GeV increase in the Higgs mass
245: above 115 GeV requires a doubling of the top squark mass.
246:
247: We could use the $A$-term to improve this situation, but such
248: contributions are typically small. The $A$-term contribution
249: is maximized at $a = \sqrt{6}$,
250: a parameter choice that has been dubbed ``maximal mixing.''
251: SUSY breaking scenarios often have much smaller $A$-terms,
252: reducing potential contributions to the Higgs mass\footnote{
253: For example, anomaly mediation and gravity mediation lead to
254: $a \sim \OO(1)$, gaugino mediation to $a\sim \OO(\alpha^\half)$, and
255: gauge mediation to $a\sim \OO(\alpha)$. Dilaton mediation gives the largest
256: value, $a \sim \sqrt{3}$ \cite{Kane:2004tk}.}.
257: For example, as $a$ decreases from $\sqrt{6}$ to $1$ the contribution to $\delta
258: \lambda$
259: decreases by a factor of 3.
260: Moreover, radiative corrections from $A$-terms increase fine tuning in
261: the MSSM.
262: We therefore conclude that $A$-terms are not useful for raising the Higgs mass.
263:
264: \subsubsection*{Additional Matter}
265:
266: It is possible to add Yukawa interactions to new particles, but
267: precision electroweak constraints make this unlikely.
268: Chiral multiplets that get their masses from electroweak symmetry breaking
269: are very strongly constrained. Vector-like matter makes the already
270: modest SUSY-breaking logarithm in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:FT}) even smaller, so is not
271: a useful alternative.
272:
273: \subsubsection*{New $F$-Terms}
274:
275: A more attractive way of raising the Higgs mass is to add new fields
276: that directly couple to $h_u$ or $h_d$ in the superpotential.
277: At the renormalizable level the
278: only possibilities are a gauge singlet, $n$, and an SU(2) triplet, $T$.
279: The possible superpotential terms are
280: %%
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \label{eqn:superpot}
283: W = \left(
284: \begin{array}{cc} h_u & h_d\end{array}\right)
285: \left(\begin{array}{cc} \kappa_+ T_+ & \kappa_n n + \kappa_0 T_0\\
286: \kappa_n n + \kappa_0 T_0 & \kappa_- T_-\end{array}\right)
287: \left( \begin{array}{c} h_u \\h_d\end{array}\right),
288: \end{eqnarray}
289: %%
290: where we have included three different triplets $T_\pm, T_0$
291: with hypercharges $\pm 1$, $0$.
292: These interactions contribute to the quartic coupling of the
293: Higgs bosons at the tree-level, so can raise the Higgs mass without
294: fine-tuning \cite{Espinosa}.
295: However, the triplets will
296: disturb gauge coupling unification unless additional matter is added to
297: fill out an SU(5) multiplet.
298: The smallest such multiplets are the {\bf 24}
299: of SU(5) for $T_{0}$, and the {\bf 15+}$ \mathbf{\overline{15}}$
300: for $T_{\pm}$.
301: Absent an obvious rationale for adding
302: the remainder of the GUT multiplets, we find this possibility somewhat
303: distasteful. Moreover, the addition of so much matter raises the prospect
304: of a Landau pole. Finally,
305: if the triplets acquire a small vacuum expectation value (vev), they can have
306: dangerous contributions to the $T$ parameter. On the other hand,
307: the presence of a singlet $n$ will not affect the unification
308: of couplings at the one-loop level, making it a more promising candidate.
309: This coupling has a positive beta function and will lead to a Landau pole
310: at large coupling.
311: This constrains the size of the $n h_{u} h_{d}$ coupling at the weak scale,
312: thus limiting its contribution to the Higgs mass \cite{KaneKolda}.
313:
314: \subsubsection*{New $D$-Terms}
315:
316: Finally, one can introduce new gauge groups.
317: The associated $D$-terms will then contribute to the Higgs quartic coupling.
318: In the SUSY limit,
319: these new contributions exactly decouple when the gauge groups break
320: down to the MSSM. On the other hand, if the scale of SUSY breaking is
321: close to the scale of the breaking of the gauge groups,
322: there are non-decoupling $D$-terms which can raise the Higgs
323: mass -- essentially, when integrated out
324: these terms introduce hard SUSY breaking into the
325: MSSM \cite{DEKPuneet}.
326:
327: These contributions to the quartic
328: coupling (and hence the physical Higgs boson mass) arise at
329: tree level, while contributions to the (mass)$^{2}$ occur only at loop level.
330: This allows an increase in the Higgs boson mass
331: without significant fine-tuning.
332: However, this new
333: non-supersymmetric quartic coupling generates
334: a quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass, which is cut
335: off at the mass of the new vector bosons.
336: To prevent fine tuning, we therefore require that this contribution not be
337: too large, since
338: %%
339: \begin{eqnarray}
340: \frac{\delta \lambda}{\lambda + \delta \lambda} \frac{ M_V^2}{16\pi^2 v^2}\approx
341: \text{Fine Tuning}^{-1} .
342: \end{eqnarray}
343: %%
344: This constrains the
345: breaking scale to be in the 3 -- 10 TeV range. The lower limit
346: is set by precision electroweak considerations.
347:
348: We have seen that non-decoupling $D$-Terms have the potential to raise the
349: Higgs mass without fine-tuning, but we must still require
350: that the new fields do not upset unification.
351: We will now proceed to outline the two different ways that extended
352: gauge sectors can accomplish this, and present two minimal
353: implementations of this mechanism.
354:
355: \subsection{Unification in the MSSM}
356: \label{Sec: Unification}
357:
358: At one loop, gauge coupling unification can be tested by examining the
359: following relation between the inverse gauge couplings and the one loop
360: beta functions for the gauge groups:
361: %%
362: \begin{eqnarray}
363: \label{eqn:testfn}
364: \frac{\alpha^{-1}_3(M_{Z^{0}}) -\alpha^{-1}_2(M_{Z^{0}})}
365: {\alpha^{-1}_2(M_{Z^{0}})-\alpha^{-1}_1(M_{Z^{0}})}
366: = \frac{b_3 - b_2}{b_2-b_1}\equiv B^{32}_{21},
367: \end{eqnarray}
368: %%
369: where $b_i$ are the one loop beta function
370: coefficients. Using the experimentally measured values of the gauge
371: couplings at the weak scale \cite{PDG},
372: %%
373: \begin{equation}
374: \label{Eqn:Measured}
375: \begin{array}{lll}
376: \alpha_{EM}^{-1}(M_{Z^0}) & =& 127.918 \pm 0.018 \\
377: \sin^{2} \theta_{W} (M_{Z^0}) &=& 0.23120 \pm 0.00015 \\
378: \alpha_{s}(M_{Z^0}) &=& 0.1187 \pm 0.0020
379: \end{array}
380: \end{equation}
381: %%
382: %%
383: the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:testfn}) is $0.719 \pm 0.004$\footnote{
384: We have converted here $\alpha_{Y}$ to the GUT
385: normalized $\alpha_{1} =(5/3) \alpha_{Y}$.}.
386: In the MSSM, we have $(b_{1}, b_{2}, b_{3})=(33/5,1,-3)$, so
387: $B^{32}_{21}=0.714$. This agreement summarizes the success of
388: gauge coupling unification in the MSSM at one-loop.
389:
390: We must now ask what mechanisms allow us to raise the Higgs
391: mass without changing $B^{32}_{21}$.
392: One possibility is to add extra matter only in complete
393: GUT multiplets. Then all the $b_i$ are all shifted by a fixed
394: amount -- in this case the unification scale is unchanged, but the
395: value of the gauge couplings at unification may be altered.
396: The NMSSM is a trivial implementation of this strategy
397: (all $b_{i}$ are unchanged),
398: and, as described above, is effective in raising the Higgs mass.
399: If we wish to consider gauge extensions to the MSSM,
400: we must add a complete unified gauge group to the model.
401: A model of this form, which we refer to as product unification,
402: will be described in the next subsection,
403: and in greater detail in Sec.~\ref{Sec: Product}.
404:
405: The other natural possibility that keeps $B^{23}_{12}$ unchanged is to
406: add matter in such a way that the $b_3-b_2$ is changed, but a
407: proportional change is made in $b_2-b_1$.
408: In this case unification still occurs, but at a lower scale. A specific
409: implementation of this idea is accelerated unification
410: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}, where
411: the unification scale is brought down to the intermediate scale. The
412: extra gauge content is simply another copy of
413: $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$. A model
414: of this form will be described below, and in more detail in
415: Sec.~\ref{Sec: AT}.
416:
417: \subsection{Two Minimal Gauge Extensions of the MSSM}
418: \label{Sec: Models}
419:
420: We will present two minimal models that contain non-decoupling
421: $D$-terms and preserve unification. Product unification adds a full
422: GUT gauge group; accelerated unification adds a second copy of the MSSM
423: gauge group.
424:
425: Both of these are closely related
426: to deconstructed dimensions \cite{Deconstruction}.
427: The first model, product unification,
428: is equivalent to having an extra dimensional GUT
429: with $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
430: gauged on the boundary. The second model is equivalent to a bulk
431: $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$
432: gauge theory with power-law ``unification'' at a low scale.
433: In order to have non-decoupling $D$-terms the effective radius
434: must be 1 -- 10 TeV,
435: meaning that the bulk of the running
436: occurs above the naive five dimensional cut-off.
437: In both examples we will consider the minimally deconstructed theories, which
438: we now describe.
439:
440: \subsubsection{Product Unification}
441: \label{Sec: P Model}
442:
443: In this approach, the high energy gauge group is
444: $G = SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$, augmented by a grand
445: unified gauge group, $G_{GUT}$.
446: Near the TeV scale, the product $G \times G_{GUT}$ is broken down to the
447: standard model gauge group, $G_{SM}$ (See Fig.~\ref{fig:diagonalP}).
448: The matter and Higgs fields
449: of the standard model are charged under $G$. After the breaking, they inherit
450: the usual standard model quantum numbers.
451:
452: \begin{figure}
453: \begin{center}
454: \epsfig{file=diagonalP.eps,height=1.75in}
455: \caption{
456: \label{fig:diagonalP}
457: A minimal model of product unification.
458: The extended gauge group breaks down
459: to the diagonal subgroup (the SM gauge group) at the TeV scale. }
460: \end{center}
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: \begin{figure}
464: \begin{center}
465: \epsfig{file=trinP.eps,width=2.5in}
466: \caption{
467: \label{fig:Pmodel}
468: A theory space diagram of the product unification model discussed in the text.
469: In addition to the usual $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$, there is an
470: $SU(3)^3$ gauge group.
471: The $\Sigma, \Sigma^{c}$ fields are bi-fundamentals connecting these
472: groups. The three generations of matter, denoted $\psi$,
473: and the pair of Higgs doublets, $h$, are charged under
474: $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$. We consider a model where
475: $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$ unifies
476: into the trinified group $SU(3)^3$ at the GUT scale. }
477: \end{center}
478: \end{figure}
479:
480: The breaking to the MSSM occurs when link fields, $\Sigma$
481: and $\Sigma^c$, acquire a vev. These fields transform
482: as bi-fundamentals of the global symmetry associated with the GUT
483: gauge group. The structure of this model
484: is similar to that of minimal deconstructed gaugino
485: mediation \cite{DeconGauge}; however, we will
486: remain agnostic about the exact mechanism of supersymmetry
487: breaking\footnote{
488: Gaugino mediated SUSY breaking, along with a TeV diagonal breaking
489: scale, would give a too light $\tilde{\tau}$, unless we take the
490: gauginos masses to be unnaturally heavy \cite{Transparent}.}.
491:
492: While any GUT representation for the link fields will leave unification
493: undisturbed, here we take the fields to transform under a
494: trinified \cite{Trinified} representation (See Fig.~\ref{fig:Pmodel}).
495: The reasons are two--fold. First, this representation is the
496: smallest possible.
497: In trinification, the $\Sigma$ fields fall into representations
498: of $SU(3)$ that only contribute $\Delta b = 3$ to each beta function.
499: In $SU(5)$ and $SO(10)$ unification,
500: the link fields add 5 and 10 to $\Delta b$,
501: respectively. Thus trinification contributes the least possible
502: amount to the gauge coupling beta functions, which helps keep the theory
503: perturbative.
504: Second, this model is closely related to the
505: minimal accelerated unification model, which we now discuss.
506:
507: \subsubsection{Accelerated Unification}
508: \label{Sec: MAT}
509: In accelerated unification models \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr},
510: the Standard Model gauge group, $G_{\text{SM}}$, is the remnant of
511: an enlarged group, $G_{\text{SM}}^{\NN}$, that
512: breaks to the diagonal subgroup at the TeV scale.
513: The presence of extra matter changes the gauge coupling beta
514: functions, causing the theories to unify at a much lower scale
515: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:diagonalA}).
516:
517: \begin{figure}
518: \begin{center}
519: \epsfig{file=diagonalA.eps,height=1.75in}
520: \caption{
521: \label{fig:diagonalA}
522: The minimal accelerated unification model, with $\NN=2$,
523: where two copies of the MSSM gauge group break down
524: to the diagonal subgroup at the TeV scale. }
525: \end{center}
526: \end{figure}
527:
528: The gauge and matter content of the $\NN=2$ trinified
529: model is summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:model}.
530: There are two copies of the low energy gauge group, which we denote
531: $[SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_{L} \times U(1)_{Y}]_{A,B}$.
532: The matter and Higgs bosons of the MSSM, as well as a new pair of Higgs
533: bosons, are charged
534: under $[SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_{L} \times U(1)_{Y}]_{A}$. Again, a vector-like
535: pair of link fields, $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma^c$,
536: is responsible for breaking the gauge groups down to the diagonal
537: subgroup. These fields should form complete GUT multiplets,
538: so as to not contribute to the relative running of the gauge
539: couplings. A similar situation occurs in
540: theories of gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking, where
541: additional complete multiplets
542: are used so as not to spoil unification. Because these fields make up
543: full GUT multiplets, rather than the minimum necessary for the breaking of the
544: gauge symmetry, some components of the $\Sigma$ fields
545: can become pseudo-Goldstone bosons (PGBs). These particles can have important
546: phenomenological consequences, which we will address in Sec.~5.
547:
548: \begin{figure}
549: \begin{center}
550: \epsfig{file=trin.eps,width=3in}
551: \caption{
552: \label{fig:model}
553: A theory space diagram of Minimal Accelerated Trinification.
554: There are two copies of $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$,
555: labeled by subscripts $A$ and $B$, each of which
556: unifies into $SU(3)^3$.
557: The $\Sigma, \Sigma^{c}$ fields are bi-fundamentals connecting these
558: groups. The three generations of matter, denoted $\psi$,
559: and two pairs of Higgs doublets ($h$, $h'$) are also shown.}
560: \end{center}
561: \end{figure}
562:
563: While accelerated unification can accommodate any GUT representation
564: for the link fields, trinification is particularly elegant.
565: $SU(5)$ and $SO(10)$ models contain gauge boson mediated
566: dimension-six proton decay operators, now dangerous due to the lower
567: GUT scale, which are difficult to remove in 4-$D$ GUT models.
568: Moreover, the dynamics of the breaking
569: $G_{SM}^2 \to G_{SM}$ is simplifier in trinified models, since
570: it is possible to stabilize the potential for $\Sigma$ in the $D$-flat
571: directions by adding renormalizable terms to the superpotential.
572: This is in contrast with the $SU(5)$ case, where there is only
573: a $D$-term potential; no stabilizing superpotential can be
574: added without additional matter \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}. Directions
575: that are not $D$-flat would lead to fine-tuning.
576: In addition, as already described above, trinification has the
577: smallest representation for the $\Sigma$ fields, ameliorating Landau
578: pole issues.
579:
580: We must also choose $\NN$, the
581: number of copies of the MSSM gauge group.
582: In principle we may add as many copies as desired, as long as $2 \NN$
583: Higgs doublets are added at the same time.
584: But the expected threshold corrections to unification
585: grow with $\NN$, so at large $\NN$ unification appears accidental.
586: Moreover, the
587: gauge couplings scale as $\sqrt{\NN} g_{SM}$, so strong coupling problems
588: can arise at large $\NN$. For these reasons we focus on $\NN=2$, where we
589: expect to have the best control over
590: unification\footnote{For $\NN=3$, there is the interesting
591: possibility that the three pairs of Higgs doublets are
592: related to the three families (i.e. Higgs-Matter unification), but we will
593: not explore this model here.}.
594:
595: Finally, the $\NN=2$ trinified model presented here has an elegant
596: mechanism to prevent proton decay. As noted above, this model includes
597: an extra pair of Higgs doublets in addition to the usual pair present in
598: supersymmetric models. We may then couple one pair of Higgs doublets to
599: the leptons and the other to the quarks, which suppresses baryon
600: number violating interactions.
601: We will discuss this mechanism in more detail in Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Decay}.
602:
603: \section{Non-Decoupling D-Terms}
604: \label{Sec: DTerms}
605:
606: \label{Sec: P TeV Scale Breaking}
607: In this section we discuss the breaking of
608: the extended gauge sector down to the SM gauge group.
609: The breaking is essentially identical for the product and accelerated
610: unification models, and will ultimately be the source of the
611: non-decoupling $D$-Terms that raise the Higgs mass.
612:
613: Breaking occurs when the link fields $\Sigma, \Sigma^c$ get a vev.
614: In both of the models described above,
615: the link fields can be organized into global $[SU(3)^3]_{A,B}$ multiplets as
616: %%
617: \begin{eqnarray}
618: \nn
619: &&\Sigma_{C } \sim (\mathbf{3}_{CA},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{CB})
620: \hspace{0.4in}
621: \Sigma_{C}^c \sim (\mathbf{3}_{CB},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{CA})
622: \\
623: \nn
624: &&\Sigma_{L } \sim (\mathbf{3}_{LA},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{LB})
625: \hspace{0.44in}
626: \Sigma_{L}^c \sim (\mathbf{3}_{LB},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{LA})
627: \\
628: &&\Sigma_{R} \sim (\mathbf{3}_{RA},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{RB})
629: \hspace{0.41in}
630: \Sigma_{R}^c \sim (\mathbf{3}_{RB},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{RA}).
631: \end{eqnarray}
632: %%
633: The hypercharge generator is given by
634: %%
635: \begin{eqnarray}
636: Y = -\frac{1}{6} \,T^8_L - \frac{1}{3}\, \tilde{T}^8_R,
637: \end{eqnarray}
638: %%
639: with $T^8_{L} =\diag(1,1,-2)$ and $\tilde{T}^8_R=\diag(-2,1,1)$.
640: These fields come in a complete GUT multiplet and do not disturb
641: unification.
642:
643: \subsection{Decoupling the $D$-Terms}
644:
645: To give the $\Sigma$ fields a vev, we must include a potential $V(\Sigma)$.
646: The most general $SU(3)$ symmetric superpotential is
647: %%
648: \begin{eqnarray}
649: \label{Eq: SymSuperpotential}
650: W_{\Sigma} = \lambda (\det \Sigma + \det \Sigma^c) + \mu \Tr \Sigma \Sigma^c.
651: \end{eqnarray}
652: %%
653: There is one such potential for each of ${\Sigma_C,\Sigma_L,\Sigma_R}$.
654: The Kahler term is
655: %%
656: \begin{eqnarray}
657: K = \Tr e^{g_A V_A} \Sigma e^{-g_B V_B} \Sigma^\dagger
658: + \Tr e^{g_B V_B} \Sigma^c e^{-g_A V_A} \Sigma^c{}^\dagger .
659: \end{eqnarray}
660: %%
661: This potential has two $D$-flat minima at:
662: %%
663: \begin{eqnarray}
664: \label{Eq: VEVs}
665: \langle\Sigma\rangle=\langle\Sigma^c\rangle = 0 \hspace{0.4in}
666: \langle\Sigma\rangle=\langle\Sigma^c\rangle = - \frac{\mu}{\lambda}
667: \identity\equiv f \identity.
668: \end{eqnarray}
669: %%
670: We focus on the second solution, which breaks
671: $SU(3) \times SU(3) \rightarrow SU(3)$. The small
672: fluctuations around the vev can be
673: grouped into four complex fields $S$, $\eta$, $\pi$ and $\phi$:
674: %%
675: \begin{eqnarray}
676: \label{Eq: Decomposition}
677: \nonumber
678: \Sigma & =& e^{\eta/\sqrt{6}f}\exp(c_A\pi /f) \Sigma_0 \exp(c_B \pi/f) \\
679: \Sigma^c &=& e^{-\eta/\sqrt{6}f}\exp(-c_B \pi/ f) \Sigma_0 \exp(-c_A \pi/ f) \\
680: \nonumber \Sigma_0 &\equiv& \Big(f + \frac{S}{\sqrt{6}} \Big) \identity + \phi,
681: \end{eqnarray}
682: %%
683: where $c_{A,B}$ are normalization constants.
684: $S$ is the fluctuation of the vev, while $\eta$ and $\pi$ are
685: the Goldstone boson
686: superfields for the broken global $U(3)$ symmetries. Only a
687: subgroup of this $U(3)$ is gauged. The determinant
688: superpotential breaks the $U(1)$ of this $U(3)$ explicitly, giving
689: $\eta$ a mass. The fields transform under the unbroken $SU(3)$ as
690: %%
691: \begin{eqnarray}
692: S \sim \mathbf{1}, \hspace{0.3in}
693: \phi \sim \mathbf{8}, \hspace{0.3in}
694: \eta \sim \mathbf{1}, \hspace{0.3in}
695: \pi \sim \mathbf{8}.
696: \end{eqnarray}
697: %%
698: Expanding the superpotential around the vev, we find:
699: %%
700: \begin{eqnarray}
701: W = 2 \lambda \cosh \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{\eta}{f} \det \Sigma_0 + \mu \Tr
702: \Sigma_0^2 .
703: \end{eqnarray}
704: %%
705: This yields masses
706: %%
707: \begin{eqnarray}
708: \mu_S = -\mu, \hspace{0.3in}
709: \mu_\phi = 2\mu, \hspace{0.3in}
710: \mu_\eta = -3\mu , \hspace{0.3in}
711: \mu_\pi = 0. \hspace{0.3in}
712: \end{eqnarray}
713: %%
714: The $D$-terms decouple in the supersymmetric
715: limit. To see this, define the vector superfields $V_0$ and $V_H$ by
716: %%
717: \begin{eqnarray}
718: g_A V_A = g_0 V_0 - g_0 \frac{g_A}{g_B} V_H\hspace{0.5in}
719: g_B V_B = g_0 V_0 + g_0 \frac{g_B}{g_A} V_H,
720: \end{eqnarray}
721: %%
722: with $g_0^{-2} = g_A^{-2}+g_B^{-2}$. It follows that $V_H$ acquires a mass
723: while $V_0$ remains massless.
724: Ignoring $V_0$, the Kahler term may be expanded to leading order as
725: %%
726: \begin{eqnarray}
727: K= 2 \Tr \phi^\dagger \phi + \Big|f + \frac{S}{\sqrt{6}}\Big|^2 (6 + \Tr| g_H
728: V_H+(\pi+\pi^\dagger)/f| ^2) + \eta^\dagger \eta
729: + \cdots
730: \end{eqnarray}
731: %%
732: where $g_H^2= g_A^2 + g_B^2$.
733: Using the gauge transformation $V \rightarrow V+ \alpha +\alpha^\dagger$
734: we can go to unitary gauge, with $\pi=0$. Now consider a field, $H$, charged
735: under $G_A$. The Kahler term contains
736: the coupling to $V_H$ (for the moment we suppress the $e^{g_0 V_{0}}$)
737: %%
738: \begin{eqnarray}
739: K= H^\dagger e^{g_A V_A} H = H^\dagger H -\frac{g_0g_A}{g_B} H^\dagger V_H H+
740: \cdots
741: \end{eqnarray}
742: %%
743: The superfield propagator
744: at zero momentum in unitary gauge is given simply by $1/M_V^2$. So,
745: integrating out $V_H$ gives
746: %%
747: \begin{eqnarray}
748: K_\eff=H^\dagger H - \frac{g_0^2 g_A^2}{g_B^2}\frac{1}{g_H^2 f^2}|H^\dagger T^a
749: H|^2 + \cdots
750: \end{eqnarray}
751: %%
752: The second term contains several interactions that
753: provide important constraints on our models,
754: but no scalar potential.
755: The scalar potential comes from restoring the $e^{g_0 V_{0}}$ to
756: the first term.
757: This is the just the standard decoupling
758: of the $D$-terms, automatic in the superspace formalism.
759: In component field language, this decoupling
760: arises after integrating out the
761: $C$-component (i.e. the lowest component) of $V_H$,
762: which corresponds to the lowest component of
763: $\pi + \pi^\dagger$ in unitary gauge.
764:
765: \subsection{Recoupling the $D$-Terms}
766:
767: To avoid decoupling and increase the Higgs mass, we must include SUSY
768: breaking effects. In unitary gauge, this is accomplished by giving
769: the lowest component of $V_H$ a supersymmetry
770: breaking mass.
771: This can be done in the superspace formalism with a $D$-term
772: spurion\footnote{
773: In principle, one could also add $\theta^{2}$ and ${\overline{\theta}}^{2}$ masses.}
774: %%
775: \begin{eqnarray}
776: K= M_V^2(1 + \theta^4 m^2_{\text{soft}}) \Tr V_H^2 ,
777: \end{eqnarray}
778: %%
779: with $M_{V}^{2} =g_{H}^{2} f^{2}$. Integrating out $V_{H}$, we find the
780: effective Kahler potential for $H$
781: %%
782: \begin{eqnarray}
783: \label{eq:keff}
784: K_\eff = H^\dagger e^{g_0 V_0} H - \frac{g_0^2 g_A^2}{g_B^2}\left( \frac{1}{g_H^2
785: f^2}-
786: \frac{ m^2_{\text{soft}} \theta^4}{g_H^2 f^2+ m^2_{\text{soft}}}
787: \right)|H^\dagger T^a H|^2 + \cdots
788: \end{eqnarray}
789: %%
790: where we have used the modified vector superfield propagator
791: %%
792: \begin{eqnarray}
793: \Delta_F(p,\theta,\bar{\theta}) = -\frac{1}{p^2-M_V^2} +
794: \frac{m^2_{\text{soft}}\theta^4}{p^2-(M_V^2 + m^2_{\text{soft}})} + \cdots
795: \end{eqnarray}
796: %%
797: In the limit $m^2_{\text{soft}}\rightarrow \infty$,
798: the supersymmetry breaking coefficient in Eq.~(\ref{eq:keff}) is maximized,
799: and the Higgs quartic coupling becomes
800: (including the supersymmetric $D$-term from the
801: unbroken gauge theory)
802: %%
803: \begin{eqnarray}
804: \label{Eq: Non Decoupling D Term}
805: \lambda_{\text{Higgs}}=g_0^2\Big( 1+ \frac{g_A^2}{g_B^2}\Big)= g_A^2.
806: \end{eqnarray}
807: %%
808: The quartic coupling is equal to the $D$-Term of the unbroken theory.
809:
810: The $D$-term contributions the Higgs mass will be maximized if
811: two conditions are satisfied.
812: First, SUSY breaking must be effectively
813: communicated to the vector boson mass from the soft
814: Lagrangian. Second, the gauge coupling $g_A$ must be large. We
815: will postpone the discussion of $g_{A}$ in specific
816: models to Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Higgs Mass}
817: and~\ref{Sec: A Higgs Mass}, where we will see that unification
818: restricts its size.
819: Here we concentrate on how SUSY
820: breaking is communicated to the vector boson soft mass. First, we write
821: down the most general soft Lagrangian for $\Sigma$ using spurions
822: %%
823: \begin{eqnarray}
824: \label{Eq:spurion}
825: W&=& (1+ a\theta^2) \lambda (\det \Sigma + \det \Sigma^c) + (1+ b\theta^2)\mu \Tr
826: \Sigma\Sigma^c\\
827: K&=& (1+m^2 \theta^4) \left( \Tr e^{g_A V_A} \Sigma e^{-g_B V_B} \Sigma^\dagger
828: + \Tr e^{g_B V_B} \Sigma^c e^{-g_AV_A} \Sigma^c{}^\dagger\right) .
829: \end{eqnarray}
830: %%
831: Rewriting in terms of the physical fields, we have
832: %%
833: \begin{eqnarray}
834: W&=& 2(1+ a \theta^2)\lambda \cosh \sqrt{\frac{3}{2}} \frac{\eta}{f} \det \Sigma_0
835: + (1+ b\theta^2) \mu \Tr \Sigma_0^2\\
836: K&=& (1+ m^2\theta^4)\left(
837: \Tr \phi^\dagger \phi + \Big|f + \frac{S}{\sqrt{6}}\Big|^2 (6 + g_H^2\Tr
838: V_H^2) + \half (\eta^\dagger+ \eta)^2
839: + \cdots
840: \right) .
841: \end{eqnarray}
842: %%
843: The lowest component of $V_H$ has already acquired a mass from $m^2$.
844: In principle, the addition of SUSY breaking can induce a tadpole for $S$.
845: This can be removed by a $\theta$ dependent shift\footnote{
846: This $\theta$ dependent shift would induce a $\theta^2$ soft mass for the vector field, giving an effective $\theta^2 |H|^4$ interaction.}. Such a shift can
847: contribute to the vector mass (see Appendix B). For simplicity, we assume no tadpole is generated,
848: which amounts to enforcing
849: %%
850: \begin{eqnarray}
851: \label{Eq: NoTadpole}
852: m^2 +b\mu -a\mu =0 .
853: \end{eqnarray}
854: %%
855: Relaxing this condition can lead to additional sources of non-decoupling,
856: but this choice is sufficient to demonstrate that a significant
857: non-decoupling is possible.
858: Taking $a=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: NoTadpole}),
859: it follows that the masses of all the fields
860: ($S$, $\phi$, $\eta$) are positive for $m^2 > -\mu^{2}/2$.
861: After integrating out the massive vector superfield the
862: effective action is
863: %%
864: \begin{eqnarray}
865: K_\eff = H^\dagger e^{g_0 V_0} H +\frac{g_0^2g_A^2}{g_B^2} \frac{m^2
866: \theta^4}{\left(\frac{g_H\mu}{\lambda}\right)^2 + m^2} (H^\dagger T^a H)^2
867: + \cdots
868: \end{eqnarray}
869: %%
870: In fact, as long as $\lambda$ is not too small, $m^2\sim \mu^2\sim - b\mu$
871: gives $\OO(1)$ re-coupling without destabilizing any modes.
872:
873: \section{Product Unification}
874: \label{Sec: Product}
875:
876: We now return to a more detailed discussion of the model of
877: Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Model}.
878: We begin with a discussion of one-loop running in this
879: model, and derive the relations between low
880: energy $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ parameters and
881: the high energy $SU(3)^3$ parameters.
882: We then address the
883: central question of the Higgs mass in \ref{Sec: P Higgs Mass}.
884: We close this section with a discussion of unification beyond one-loop.
885:
886: \subsection{One Loop Running}
887: \label{Sec: P Gauge Running}
888:
889: This model unifies at one loop by construction.
890: At one loop, the beta functions are
891: %%
892: \begin{eqnarray}
893: \label{eqn:betafn}
894: \frac{d }{d t} \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_i(t)} = - b_{0,i}.
895: \end{eqnarray}
896: %%\
897: Here $i$ runs over the possible gauge groups,
898: and the energy scale $t$ is defined to be
899: $\log\left(\mu/ 3\text{ TeV} \right)$. The coefficients $b_{0,i}$ are
900: listed in Table \ref{Tab: Beta P}. The trinified gauge group
901: $[SU(3)_{B}]^3$ starts at a unified coupling, and maintains unification under
902: renormalization group (RG) flow. We denote this coupling $g_{B}$.
903:
904: Using the standard MSSM beta functions, we can run the measured gauge
905: couplings in Eq.~(\ref{Eqn:Measured}) up to 3 TeV ($t=0$).
906: There we match on to the extended gauge sector via
907: %%
908: \begin{eqnarray}
909: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,\SM}(0)} = \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,A}(0)} +
910: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{B}(0)} = \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,A}(t)} + b_{i,A} t
911: + \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{B}(t)} + b_{B} t.
912: \end{eqnarray}
913: %%
914: Unification is maintained in this extension because the same
915: quantity (the last two terms in the above equation) is
916: added to each of the SM gauge couplings.
917: In Sec. \ref{Sec: P Precision Unification} we will discuss higher order
918: corrections to unification. Since the relative running of the gauge
919: couplings is unaffected, the unification scale $t_{*}$ is unchanged:
920: $t_{*} =29.5$, corresponding to the usual $E_{GUT} \sim 10^{16} \GeV$.
921:
922: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}
923: \begin{table}
924: \begin{center}
925: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c||c|}
926: \hline
927: &$U(1)_A$& $SU(2)_A$& $SU(3)_A$&$[SU(3)_{B}]^{3}$\\
928: \hline
929: $V$&0&-6&-9&-9\\
930: $\psi$&6&6&6&0\\
931: $H$& $\frac{3}{5}$&1&0&0\\
932: $\Sigma$&3&3&3&3\\
933: \hline\hline
934: $b_0$&$9\frac{3}{5}$&4&0&-6\\
935: \hline
936: \end{tabular}
937: \caption{\label{Tab: Beta P} Beta function coefficients for the different
938: gauge groups. }
939: \end{center}
940: \end{table}
941: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
942:
943: From Table \ref{Tab: Beta P}, we see that the $SU(3)_B$ beta
944: function coefficients are negative, so
945: the corresponding couplings run strong at low energies.
946: The requirement that $SU(3)_B$ remain perturbative above the TeV scale
947: sets a maximum value for $g_{*,B}$, the value of the unified gauge
948: coupling at $t_*$. If we define the low scale coupling
949: $8\pi^2/g^2_{B}(0)=\Delta$, then
950: %%
951: \begin{eqnarray}
952: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{*,B}} =\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{B}(0)} - b_{B} t_*= 177 + \Delta.
953: \end{eqnarray}
954: %%
955: We require $\Delta$ to be reasonably large to ensure that $SU(3)_{B}$ stays
956: weakly coupled.
957:
958: Similarly, $8\pi^2/g^2_{*,A}$ can be obtained by
959: matching the $A,B$ gauge couplings onto the measured gauge couplings
960: at the weak scale,
961: %%
962: \begin{eqnarray}
963: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_3(0)}= 64 = \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{3,A}(0)}+
964: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{B}(0)}=
965: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{*,A}}+ \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{*,B}} - (b_{3,A}+ b_{B}) t_* .
966: \end{eqnarray}
967: %%
968: This implies that $8\pi^2/g^2_{*,A} = 64 - \Delta$.
969: In Fig.~\ref{Fig: P Gauge Running} we plot the one loop
970: running of the gauge couplings\footnote{
971: We could include GUT multiplets
972: charged under the $[SU(3)]^{3}_{B}$ gauge group
973: without spoiling unification. However, once we fix the low energy
974: gauge couplings, these extra multiplets will contribute to low energy
975: observables only at higher order, so may be neglected.% unimportant.
976: }.
977:
978: \begin{figure}
979: \begin{center}
980: \epsfig{file=GaugeRunningP.eps,width=3in}
981: \caption{
982: \label{Fig: P Gauge Running}
983: The running of the gauge couplings, with $\alpha_{A}^{-1}=3$ at the GUT
984: scale.}
985: \end{center}
986: \end{figure}
987:
988: \subsection{The Higgs Mass}
989: \label{Sec: P Higgs Mass}
990: From Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Non Decoupling D Term}) we see that
991: the maximum fractional gain in the quartic depends on the gauge couplings.
992: Making $g_{A}$ as large as possible, we find:
993: %%
994: \begin{eqnarray}
995: \frac{\delta \lambda_{SU(2)}}{\lambda_{SU(2)}}
996: =\frac{ g_{2,A}^2}{ g_{2,\SM}^2} - 1 \lsim \frac{1}{3} ,
997: \hspace{0.5in}
998: \frac{\delta \lambda_{U(1)}}{\lambda_{U(1)}}
999: =\frac{ g_{1,A}^2}{ g_{1,\SM}^2} - 1 \lsim \frac{1}{7} .
1000: \end{eqnarray}
1001: %%
1002: We have used the values of the gauge couplings computed in the
1003: previous section -- higher loop corrections will be considered in
1004: in Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Precision Unification}.
1005: The change in the quartic leads to a Higgs mass bound
1006: %%
1007: \begin{eqnarray}
1008: \label{eq:higgsbp}
1009: m_{h^0}^2 \le \frac{(1.3 g^2 + 1.15 g'{}^2)}{g^2+ g'{}^2} M_{Z^0}^2
1010: =(102 \GeV)^2,
1011: \end{eqnarray}
1012: %%
1013: a modest $11 \GeV$ gain over the MSSM tree-level prediction.
1014: With top squarks of \mbox{400 GeV} the Higgs mass can be lifted to the
1015: LEP II bound of 114 GeV. The fine-tuning of the MSSM may be ameliorated, but
1016: the Higgs cannot be made significantly heavier.
1017:
1018: In this model $D$-term contributions to the Higgs mass
1019: are tightly constrained. This is because
1020: the value of $g_{2,A}(M_{Z^0})$
1021: is bounded by the total amount of relative running between
1022: $SU(3)_C$ and $SU(2)_L$. This conclusion is fairly robust in any model
1023: with a product unification structure. Adding either more gauge groups
1024: or matter charged under $[SU(3)]^3_B$ will not effect the relative running
1025: between $SU(2)_{A}$ and $SU(3)_{A}$.
1026: One could charge some of the
1027: Standard Model matter (such as the first two generations)
1028: under $B$ gauge groups rather than $A$, but this would cause
1029: $SU(3)_{C,A}$ to run asymptotically free, tightening the bounds
1030: on $g_{A}(\Lambda)$.
1031: The only way to increase the Higgs mass bound, Eq.~(\ref{eq:higgsbp}),
1032: is to charge the Higgs doublets under $[SU(3)]^3_B$. In this
1033: case, renormalizable Yukawa couplings are not possible, and some {\it ad hoc}
1034: change must be made to the $A$ sector to recover unification.
1035:
1036:
1037: \subsection{Precision Unification}
1038: \label{Sec: P Precision Unification}
1039:
1040: While unification in this model is guaranteed at the one-loop level,
1041: several effects may alter the accuracy of this prediction, such as
1042: higher loop contributions,
1043: TeV scale supersymmetric threshold corrections, GUT
1044: scale threshold corrections, and SUSY breaking threshold corrections.
1045: The second two are model dependent, depending in detail upon the
1046: GUT scale physics, as well as the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking.
1047: The first two are, however, calculable. We now quantify the
1048: deviation from the one-loop prediction due to these effects.
1049:
1050: Fortunately, the holomorphicity of gauge couplings in supersymmetric
1051: theories simplifies the analysis\footnote{
1052: We stress that the method used here is equivalent to the more
1053: traditional approach of multi-loop running, where gauge
1054: couplings are matched at each mass scale.
1055: This formalism packages the results in an elegant way, but
1056: is only applicable when SUSY breaking effects are small.}.
1057: At first, it might appear that unification is disturbed by
1058: splittings of the $\Sigma$ masses, which are induced by renormalization
1059: group evolution. This could lead to a TeV scale supersymmetric threshold
1060: correction. However, this correction cancels against certain two-loop
1061: contributions. The result is that higher loop effects can be encapsulated
1062: in the change in the anomalous dimensions of the light fields
1063: \cite{NSVZ,NimaHitoshi}.
1064:
1065: Integrating the NSVZ exact beta function, we can derive
1066: an RG invariant matching equation (see Appendix A). We match the
1067: diagonal MSSM gauge coupling at the cutoff, $\Lambda$, and run down to
1068: low energies via
1069: %%
1070: \begin{eqnarray}
1071: \nonumber
1072: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(\mu)} + C_2 \log g^2(\mu) &=&
1073: \frac{8\pi^2}{g_A^2(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g_A^2(\Lambda)
1074: +\frac{8\pi^2}{g_B^2(\Lambda)} + C_2^{B} \log g_B^2(\Lambda)\\
1075: &&\nonumber
1076: - C_2^{B} \log \frac{\Lambda^2}{\langle\Sigma \Sigma^c\rangle}
1077: + b_{\phi} \log \frac{\Lambda}{m_\phi}\\
1078: &&
1079: + b_{0,\text{light}} \log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}- \sum_{a} T_2(a) \log
1080: Z_a(\mu,\Lambda).
1081: \label{Eqn: LowGauge P}
1082: \end{eqnarray}
1083: %%
1084: The sum is over the light fields of the MSSM, $C_{2}$ and
1085: $C_2^B$ are quadratic
1086: Casimirs, $b_{0,\text{light}}$ is the one-loop beta function of the
1087: light fields, and $b_{\phi}=3$ is the contribution of the $\phi$ fields to the
1088: beta function.
1089:
1090: Our goal is to find the multi-loop analog of $B^{32}_{21}$, defined
1091: in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:testfn}).
1092: We start by considering the gauge couplings of
1093: the $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)$ sectors:
1094: %%
1095: \begin{eqnarray}
1096: \label{Eq: P 32 Diff}
1097: \Delta^{32}\equiv \frac{8\pi^2}{g_3^2(\mu)} - \frac{8\pi^2}{g_2^2(\mu)} &=&
1098: \Delta b^{32}_{\text{MSSM}}\log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}
1099: + 3 \log \frac{g^2_A(\Lambda)}{g^2_3(\mu)} - 2 \log \frac{g^2_A(\Lambda)}{g^2_2(\mu)} + \delta
1100: z_{\psi}^{32} + \delta z_{h}^{32},
1101: \end{eqnarray}
1102: %%
1103: where $\Delta b^{32}_{\text{MSSM}}=-4$
1104: is the difference between the one loop beta functions.
1105: The final terms come from the $\log Z$s of the light fields:
1106: %%
1107: \begin{eqnarray}
1108: \delta z_\psi^{32} = \half \log \prod_{f=1}^{3} \frac{ Z_{u^c_f} Z_{d^c_f}}{Z_{q_f}
1109: Z_{l_f}},
1110: \hspace{0.4in}
1111: \delta z_h^{32} = -\half \log Z_{h_u} Z_{h_d},
1112: \end{eqnarray}
1113: %%
1114: all of which are evaluated from $\Lambda$ down to $\mu$.
1115: Similarly, for the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ couplings
1116: %%
1117: \begin{eqnarray}
1118: \label{Eq: P 21 Diff}
1119: \Delta^{21}\equiv \frac{8\pi^2}{g_2^2(\mu)} - \frac{8\pi^2}{g_1^2(\mu)} &=&
1120: \Delta b^{21}_{\text{MSSM}}\log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}
1121: + 2 \log \frac{g^2_A(\Lambda)}{g^2_2(\mu)}
1122: + \delta z_{\psi}^{21} + \delta z_{h}^{21}
1123: \end{eqnarray}
1124: %%
1125: where
1126: $\Delta b^{21}_{\text{MSSM}}=-5\frac{3}{5}$.
1127: The $\log Z$s of the light fields are given by
1128: %%
1129: \begin{eqnarray}
1130: \delta z_\psi^{21} = \frac{1}{5} \log \Pi_f \frac{ Z_{q_f}^7 Z_{l_f}}{Z_{u^c_f}^4
1131: Z_{d^c_f} Z_{e^c}^3},
1132: \hspace{0.4in}
1133: \delta z_h^{21} = \frac{1}{5} \log Z_{h_u} Z_{h_d}.
1134: \end{eqnarray}
1135: %%
1136:
1137: We can now summarize the deviation from MSSM unification.
1138: In the MSSM\footnote{
1139: In this case the numerical values of $\delta z$ change and
1140: Eqs.~(\ref{Eq: P 32 Diff}) and (\ref{Eq: P 21 Diff}) are modified by
1141: the replacement $g_{A} \rightarrow g_{SM}$.}
1142: %%
1143: \begin{eqnarray}
1144: \frac{\Delta^{32}}{\Delta^{21}}&=& \frac{-4 -0.11 }{-\frac{28}{5}-0.05} \simeq
1145: 0.727.
1146: \end{eqnarray}
1147: %%
1148: Here we have evaluated the MSSM expression at moderate $\tan \beta$, where the
1149: top Yukawa, $y_{t} \sim 1$, but other Yukawa couplings are insignificant.
1150: This is to be compared to the experimental
1151: ratio of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:testfn}) (run up to 3 TeV and converted to the $\overline{DR}$ scheme) which yields $0.718$. However, corrections due
1152: to the SUSY breaking spectrum (in particular the
1153: mass splitting between the wino and gluino) can be significant.
1154: In the product unification model, we find
1155: %%
1156: \begin{eqnarray}
1157: \frac{\Delta^{32}}{\Delta^{21}}
1158: &=& \frac{-4 - 0.07}{-\frac{28}{5} -0.03} \simeq 0.722
1159: \end{eqnarray}
1160: %%
1161: for $\alpha_A^{-1} = 3$. While both the numerator and
1162: denominator vary with $\alpha_A^{-1}$ and $\lambda$, the
1163: ratio is fairly insensitive to the choice of parameters.
1164: We conclude that the calculable deviation from the
1165: MSSM prediction is
1166: roughly one $\sigma$. This is not particularly significant,
1167: since the threshold effects from SUSY breaking and GUT scale
1168: physics are likely larger than the above deviation.
1169:
1170: \section{Accelerated Unification}
1171: \label{Sec: AT}
1172:
1173: In this section, we analyze the minimal model of accelerated unification
1174: described in Sec.~\ref{Sec: MAT}.
1175: In Sec.~\ref{Sec: A Gauge Running} we will discuss one-loop running.
1176: We then describe the Higgs mass bounds in this model. In
1177: Sec.~\ref{Sec: GUT Scale}, we discuss some basics of the GUT scale
1178: physics, and conclude that the extra pair of Higgs
1179: doublets can suppress proton decay in this model.
1180: Finally, we analyze unification beyond one-loop.
1181:
1182: \subsection{One Loop Running}
1183: \label{Sec: A Gauge Running}
1184:
1185: Again, one loop unification is incorporated into this model by
1186: construction. The RGEs are given by
1187: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:betafn}), with coefficients $b_{0,i}$ listed in
1188: Table \ref{Tab: A Beta}.
1189:
1190: As before, we use the MSSM beta function to run up to 3 TeV ($t=0$), where
1191: we match on to the extended gauge sector via
1192: %%
1193: \begin{eqnarray}
1194: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,\SM}(0)} = \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,A}(0)} +
1195: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,B}(0)} = \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,A}(t)} + b_{i,A} t +
1196: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{i,B}(t)}
1197: + b_{i,B} t.
1198: \end{eqnarray}
1199: %%
1200: The unification scale is now given by
1201: %%
1202: \begin{eqnarray}
1203: t_* = \frac{\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{\SM,1}(0)} - \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{\SM,2}(0)}}{
1204: \sum_i(b_{1,i} - b_{2,i})}= 15,
1205: \end{eqnarray}
1206: %%
1207: i.e. at energies $E_{GUT} \sim 10^7 \TeV$.
1208: The scale of unification has been lowered to the geometric mean of the
1209: MSSM GUT scale and the TeV scale.
1210:
1211: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25}
1212: \begin{table}
1213: \begin{center}
1214: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c||c|c||c|c|}
1215: \hline
1216: &$U(1)_A$&$U(1)_{B}$&
1217: $SU(2)_A$&$SU(2)_{B}$&
1218: $SU(3)_A$&$SU(3)_{B}$\\
1219: \hline
1220: $V$&0&0&-6&-6&-9&-9\\
1221: $\psi$&6&0&6&0&6&0\\
1222: $H$& $\frac{6}{5}$&0&2&0&0&0\\
1223: $\Sigma$&3&3&3&3&3&3\\
1224: \hline\hline
1225: $b_0$&$10\frac{1}{5}$&$3$&5&-3&0&-6\\
1226: \hline
1227: \end{tabular}
1228: \caption{\label{Tab: A Beta} Beta function coefficients for the different
1229: gauge groups. }
1230: \end{center}
1231: \end{table}
1232: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
1233:
1234: Note that $SU(3)_{C,B}$ has a
1235: negative beta function coefficient, so runs strong at low energies.
1236: The requirement that $SU(3)_{C,B}$ remain weakly coupled above the TeV scale
1237: sets a minimum value for $8\pi^2/g^2_{*,B}$, constraining the value of the
1238: unified gauge coupling at $t_*$. Defining the low scale coupling
1239: $8\pi^2/g^2_{3,B}(0)=\Delta$,
1240: %%
1241: \begin{eqnarray}
1242: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{*,B}} =\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_{3,B}(0)} - b_{3,B} t_*= 90+\Delta.
1243: \end{eqnarray}
1244: %%
1245: Table \ref{Tab: IR GC} shows the various TeV scale gauge couplings as a
1246: function of $\Delta$.
1247: Finally, in Fig.~\ref{Fig: Gauge Running} we plot the one loop
1248: running of the gauge couplings.
1249:
1250: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.3}
1251: \begin{table}
1252: \begin{center}
1253: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|}
1254: \hline
1255: &$\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_A(0)}$&$\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_B(0)}$ \\
1256: \hline\hline
1257: $U(1)$&$206-\Delta $& $142+\Delta $\\
1258: $SU(2)$&$123-\Delta$ &$ 59 +\Delta$\\
1259: $SU(3)$&$64 - \Delta$ &$\Delta$ \\
1260: \hline
1261: \end{tabular}
1262: \caption{\label{Tab: IR GC}
1263: Gauge couplings of the different gauge groups at 3 TeV, where the full gauge
1264: group
1265: $[SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)]^{2}$
1266: breaks to $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$.}
1267: \end{center}
1268: \end{table}
1269: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
1270:
1271: \begin{figure}
1272: \begin{center}
1273: \epsfig{file=GaugeRunning.eps,width=3in}
1274: \caption{
1275: \label{Fig: Gauge Running}
1276: The running of the six gauge couplings, with $\alpha_{A}^{-1}=3$
1277: at the GUT scale.
1278: }
1279: \end{center}
1280: \end{figure}
1281:
1282: \subsection{The Higgs Mass}
1283: \label{Sec: A Higgs Mass}
1284:
1285: Before discussing the Higgs mass bound in this model, we should address
1286: the basic structure of the Higgs sector in the presence
1287: of the extra doublets.
1288: Electroweak symmetry breaking with four Higgs doublets
1289: is complicated, and a detailed discussion lies
1290: beyond the scope of this work. In \cite{Drees:1988fc} the supersymmetric
1291: four Higgs doublet model was studied in some detail.
1292:
1293: The Yukawa couplings for the Higgs are (ignoring neutrinos)
1294: %%
1295: \begin{eqnarray}
1296: W_{\text{Flavor}}= y_u q h_u u^c +y_d q h_d d^c + y_e l h_e e^c .
1297: \end{eqnarray}
1298: %%
1299: We need $h_u$, $h_d$, and $h_e$ to acquire vevs,
1300: which constrains the mass terms of the theory.
1301: We start with a four Higgs doublet model, with superpotential
1302: %%
1303: \begin{eqnarray}
1304: \label{Eq: mu}
1305: W_{\mu} &=& \left(\begin{array}{cc}h_u &h_\nu\end{array}\right)
1306: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1307: \mu_{ud}& \mu_{ue}\\\mu_{\nu d} &\mu_{\nu e}
1308: \end{array}\right)
1309: \left(\begin{array}{c}h_d\\h_e\end{array}\right) .
1310: \end{eqnarray}
1311: %%
1312: In the absence of off-diagonal terms, $\mu_{ue}$ and $\mu_{\nu d}$, the quark
1313: and lepton Higgs sectors are completely isolated.
1314: Thus only $h_u$ and $h_d$ \begin{it}or\end{it} $h_e$ and
1315: $h_{\nu}$ acquire vevs. We therefore need non-zero mixing terms.
1316:
1317: To get a limit on the Higgs mass, consider the case
1318: where one $\mu$ is much larger than the rest. Then the corresponding
1319: pair of Higgs doublets may be integrated out, reducing the Higgs sector
1320: to the standard one with two Higgs doublets. This
1321: procedure does not lead fine tuning.
1322: For the purposes of our discussion, we will give a large mass to
1323: $h_d h_\nu$.
1324: This decoupling limit also has the
1325: effect of suppressing the masses of the down type quarks relative to the
1326: up quarks. Away from this limit many Higgs bosons become light, and
1327: the couplings to the gauge bosons are significantly altered.
1328: In this case, the LEP limit for the Higgs mass may be altered over sizeable
1329: regions of the parameter space -- this question certainly warrants
1330: further investigation, but will not be pursued here.
1331:
1332: For the remainder of this section, we assume the above decoupling limit
1333: applies. The limit on the tree-level Higgs mass bound
1334: in minimal accelerated unification is significantly relaxed compared
1335: to the previous model:
1336: %%
1337: %%
1338: \begin{eqnarray}
1339: \frac{\delta \lambda_{SU(2)}}{\lambda_{SU(2)}}
1340: =\frac{ g_{2,A}^2}{ g_{2,\SM}^2} - 1 \lsim 1 ,
1341: \hspace{0.5in}
1342: \frac{\delta \lambda_{U(1)}}{\lambda_{U(1)}}
1343: =\frac{ g_{1,A}^2}{ g_{1,\SM}^2} - 1 \lsim 1 .
1344: \end{eqnarray}
1345: %%
1346: The new bound on the Higgs mass is
1347: %%
1348: \begin{eqnarray}
1349: m_{h^0}^2 \le 2M_{Z^0}^2=(128 \GeV)^2,
1350: \end{eqnarray}
1351: %%%
1352: so we can easily accommodate the LEP II bound without fine-tuning.
1353: This considerable improvement over the product unification model
1354: is possible because both the $A$ and $B$ gauge couplings split in
1355: accelerated unification.
1356: This means that $SU(3)_B$ remains perturbative for much larger values
1357: of the $SU(2)_A$ coupling, allowing a larger Higgs mass.
1358:
1359: In fact, if we charge the second pair of Higgs doublets under the $B$ groups
1360: rather than $A$ groups, the limit is relaxed even further. However, as
1361: we will see in Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Decay},
1362: if both pairs of Higgs doublets are charged under the $A$ groups
1363: the model has a natural mechanism to suppress proton decay.
1364:
1365: We could also increase the Higgs mass bound by considering
1366: $\NN\ge3$ models. This reduces the
1367: relative running of the Higgs gauge groups, but lowers the GUT scale at the
1368: same time. In addition, as more gauge groups
1369: are added, threshold corrections increase and precision
1370: unification is lost. In Sec. \ref{Sec: A Precision Unification}
1371: we will see that unification
1372: is quite delicate in accelerated unification models, and
1373: becomes more so as $\NN$ is increased.
1374: Thus, there seems to be a tension between increasing
1375: the Higgs mass and ensuring accurate gauge coupling unification.
1376:
1377: \subsection{GUT Scale Physics}
1378: \label{Sec: GUT Scale}
1379:
1380: At the unification scale the gauge groups unify into
1381: $(SU(3)_C \times SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R)_{A,B}$.
1382: The usual MSSM matter and Higgs fields combine with
1383: additional vector-like matter to form a chiral
1384: $\mathbf{27}$ of $[SU(3)]^3$. We will assume that this new exotic matter
1385: acquires a mass at the GUT scale, so is not relevant to our discussion.
1386:
1387: At the unification scale the matter fields, $\Psi$,
1388: and Higgs fields, $\Phi$,
1389: form the chiral $\mathbf{27}$ of $SU(3)^3_A$
1390: %%
1391: \begin{eqnarray}
1392: \Psi_{Q}^\SM, \Phi_Q \sim (\mathbf{3}_{C},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{L})_A,
1393: \hspace{0.4in}
1394: \Psi_{L}^\SM, \Phi_L \sim (\mathbf{3}_{L},\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{R})_A,
1395: \hspace{0.4in}
1396: \Psi_{\Qc}^\SM, \Phi_\Qc \sim (\mathbf{3}_R,\overline{\mathbf{3}}_{C})_A.
1397: \end{eqnarray}
1398: %%
1399: The subscript indicates the transformation properties under the gauge charges.
1400: Throughout this section
1401: capital Greek letters ($\Psi,\Phi,\Sigma$) will denote representations
1402: of the trinified
1403: GUT group. Lower case Latin letters ($q, h_u, h_d$) will denote
1404: fields that transform under $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$.
1405:
1406: \subsubsection{A Trinified NMSSM}
1407: \label{Sec: Trin NMSSM}
1408:
1409: The NMSSM is naturally embedded in trinification. The Higgs multiplets
1410: contain a singlet $\Phi_L$, often dubbed the neutretto.
1411: As discussed further in Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Decay}, the
1412: superpotential $\det \Phi_L$ gives rise to the NMSSM coupling $n h_u h_d$.
1413: The trilinear $n^3$ term does not typically appear. However, a source
1414: term for the scalar can appear after SUSY breaking and cause $n$ to
1415: acquire a weak scale vev \cite{Linear Term}.
1416:
1417: We start with four Higgs bosons and two singlets at the high scale,
1418: and RG flow the superpotential
1419: %%
1420: \begin{eqnarray}
1421: \label{Eq: NMSSM}
1422: W_{\text{NMSSM}} &=& \left(\begin{array}{cc}h_u &h_\nu\end{array}\right)
1423: \left( \begin{array}{cc}(\kappa_q n_q + \half \kappa_q' n_l) &
1424: (\kappa_l' n_l + \kappa_q' n_q)\\
1425: (\kappa_l' n_l + \kappa_q' n_q)& (\kappa_l n_l + \half \kappa_l' n_q)
1426: \end{array}\right)
1427: \left(\begin{array}{c}h_d\\h_e\end{array}\right)
1428: \end{eqnarray}
1429: %%
1430: down to the low scale.
1431: We add soft breaking $A$ terms, soft masses for all the fields, and
1432: linear soft terms for the singlets.
1433:
1434: The analysis of the previous section assumed that the sole new
1435: contribution to the quartic coupling
1436: came from the gauge sector. However, it is quite possible
1437: that an NMSSM-like structure might be a part of the trinified model
1438: presented here. In this case, just as in the NMSSM, there is an additional
1439: contribution to the quartic coupling.
1440: The size of this effect is constrained by the requirement that the coupling
1441: not reach a Landau pole below the GUT scale\footnote{
1442: This condition has recently been reexamined
1443: in \cite{Harnik:2003rs}.}.
1444: In this section we will describe how this bound is
1445: relaxed in models of accelerated unification -- this occurs % primarily
1446: because the unification scale is lower.
1447:
1448: The one loop RGE for the NMSSM--like superpotential
1449: coupling $\kappa_n$ ($W \ni \kappa_{n} n \bar{h} h$) above the TeV scale is
1450: %%
1451: \begin{eqnarray}
1452: \label{eqn:kapparun}
1453: \frac{d}{dt} \kappa_n \sim \frac{\kappa_n}{16\pi^2}\left(4 \kappa_n^2 -
1454: g_{2,A}^2 - \frac{3}{5} g_{1,A}^2 \right).
1455: \end{eqnarray}
1456: %%
1457: We have neglected the contribution of SM Yukawa couplings, which depend on
1458: which $\kappa$ parameter is being studied. This equation is readily solved
1459: in the limit $\kappa_n\gg g$,
1460: %%
1461: \begin{eqnarray}
1462: \kappa_n^2(0) \lsim \frac{2\pi^2}{t_*} \Rightarrow \kappa_n\lsim 1.15.
1463: \end{eqnarray}
1464: %%
1465: This is a modest increase over the standard NMSSM coupling bound.
1466: The lowered GUT scale has relaxed the bound on the quartic contribution.
1467:
1468: A secondary effect is that the NMSSM coupling is supported
1469: by running of the gauge interactions. Accelerated unification
1470: increases the gauge couplings, which changes the bounds on
1471: $\kappa_n$ \cite{DEKPuneet2}.
1472: However, it is not possible to get the maximal benefit described in
1473: \cite{DEKPuneet2} in the more restricted accelerated unification framework.
1474: From Eq.~(\ref{eqn:kapparun}), this would require increasing either the
1475: $SU(2)$ or $U(1)$ gauge couplings. However, the size
1476: of these couplings is restricted by the condition that
1477: $SU(3)_{C\;A,B}$ coupling, which is larger than
1478: the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ couplings, must be small.
1479:
1480: To summarize, the NMSSM couplings can contribute to the Higgs quartic
1481: couplings in accelerated unification models.
1482:
1483: \subsubsection{Proton Decay and the Four Higgs Doublets }
1484: \label{Sec: P Decay}
1485:
1486: In trinified models there is a $\mathbb{Z}_3$ symmetry that relates the three
1487: gauge couplings to each other. This leads to the introduction
1488: of proton decay. This is a model dependent feature -- for instance in
1489: some string inspired models there is no $\mathbb{Z}_3$ symmetry,
1490: and the unified gauge coupling is set by the vev of a dilaton. Here, we
1491: will take the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ symmetry seriously, and consider implications
1492: for proton decay. Proton decay occurs through the exchange of
1493: colored Higgs triplets (see \cite{Tuhin} for a recent study).
1494: These triplets will get a GUT-scale mass which,
1495: depending on the flavor structure of the model, may not be enough
1496: to suppress proton decay via dimension five and six operators, in which
1497: case further model building is necessary. As we will see, the addition of a
1498: second pair of Higgs doublets can easily suppress proton decay in our
1499: accelerated unification model.
1500:
1501: To see how this occurs, we must first discuss the implementation of flavor in
1502: this model. There are two pairs of Higgs doublets in accelerated
1503: unification. We will couple one pair, $\Phi_L^{l}$, to
1504: the leptons and the other pair, $\Phi_L^{q}$, to the
1505: quarks. Assuming that the flavor structure
1506: obeys the $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ symmetry, the MSSM Yukawa interactions
1507: are schematically given by the following superpotential terms
1508: %%
1509: \begin{eqnarray}
1510: \nonumber
1511: W_{\text{flavor}}&=&
1512: y_Q\, (\Psi_Q^\SM \Phi^q_L \Psi_\Qc^\SM
1513: +\Psi_L^\SM \Phi^q_\Qc \Psi_Q^\SM+\Psi_\Qc^\SM \Phi^q_Q \Psi_L^\SM)
1514: \\&&
1515: + y_L\, (\Psi_L^\SM \Psi_L^\SM \Phi^l_L +\Psi_Q^\SM \Psi_Q^\SM \Phi^l_Q
1516: +\Psi_\Qc^\SM \Psi_\Qc^\SM \Phi^l_\Qc) .
1517: \end{eqnarray}
1518: %%
1519: At the level of the superpotential, baryon number symmetry is exact
1520: if we assign $\Phi_Q^q$ and $\Phi_\Qc^q$ baryon number
1521: $\pm \frac{1}{3}$ and assign $\Phi_Q^l$ and $\Phi_\Qc^l$ baryon number
1522: $\mp \frac{2}{3}$.
1523: We have suppressed proton decay through a missing partner mechanism,
1524: as long as the colored triplet Higgs boson does not mix quark and lepton
1525: sectors at the GUT scale.
1526:
1527: However, the $q$ and $l$ Higgs sectors must not be completely decoupled:
1528: if this were the case, then only one Higgs pair
1529: would acquire a vev at the electroweak scale, leaving the second
1530: sector massless. Moreover, we need $\mu$ terms for Higgs fields,
1531: which may be generated by giving a vev to the NMSSM fields
1532: in both Higgs sectors. The trilinear superpotential is
1533: %%
1534: \begin{eqnarray}
1535: \label{Eq: App NMSSM}
1536: W_{\text{NMSSM}} &=& \frac{1}{3}\kappa_{l} (\Phi_L^l)^3 + \frac{1}{3}\kappa_q
1537: (\Phi_L^q)^3 +
1538: \half\kappa'_l (\Phi_L^l)^2 \Phi_L^q +\half \kappa'_q (\Phi_L^q)^2 \Phi_L^l +
1539: \text{ cyclic.} \\
1540: &\supset&
1541: \left(\begin{array}{cc}h_u &h_\nu\end{array}\right)
1542: \left( \begin{array}{cc}(\kappa_q n_q + \half \kappa_q' n_l) &
1543: (\kappa_l' n_l + \kappa_q' n_q)\\
1544: (\kappa_l' n_l + \kappa_q' n_q)& (\kappa_l n_l + \half \kappa_l' n_q)
1545: \end{array}\right)
1546: \left(\begin{array}{c}h_d\\h_e\end{array}\right) .
1547: \end{eqnarray}
1548: %%
1549: The low energy theory is similar to the NMSSM, but without $n^{3}$
1550: terms\footnote{
1551: Normally, the $n^{3}$ terms explicitly break a Peccei-Quinn (PQ)
1552: symmetry, preventing the appearance of massless Goldstone mode. Here, the PQ
1553: symmetry is partially contained within $SU(3)^{3}$, so the
1554: Goldstones are given a mass via a tadpole for $n$.}.
1555: The cyclic permutations of the interactions in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: App NMSSM})
1556: no longer preserve baryon number exactly.
1557: The $\kappa_l$ and $\kappa_q$ interactions give rise to dimension seven
1558: $p\rightarrow e^+ \bar{\nu} \bar{\nu}$ and $n \rightarrow \bar{n}$
1559: oscillations. The $\kappa_q'$ and $\kappa_l'$ interactions lead to
1560: dimension seven proton decay processes of the form $p \rightarrow K^+ \nu$.
1561: All of these come with three powers of Yukawa couplings, and three
1562: powers of the GUT scale in the denominator.
1563:
1564: For example, consider the baryon number violating operator
1565:
1566: %%
1567: \begin{equation}
1568: W_{\not{B}}= \frac{qqq q d^c e^c}{M^{3}} +\cdots,
1569: \end{equation}
1570: %%
1571: which is generated by the diagram
1572: in Fig. 7. The interactions in this diagram
1573: come from the cyclic permutations of the terms in $W_{Y}$ and $W_{\text{NMSSM}}$.
1574: Taking into account the small Yukawa couplings and CKM mixings,
1575: this leads to a proton lifetime
1576: %%
1577: \begin{equation}
1578: \label{eqn:pdecay}
1579: \tau_{p} \sim 10^{70} \text{yrs.} \left( \frac{M_{H_C}}{M_{\text{GUT}}} \right)^{6},
1580: \end{equation}
1581: %%
1582: where $M_{H_{C}}$ is the mass of the colored Higgs triplet
1583: mediating the proton decay.
1584: We can therefore take the mass of the Higgs triplet to be quite low
1585: without leading to unacceptable proton decay, unlike in the MSSM.
1586:
1587: \begin{figure}
1588: \begin{center}
1589: \epsfig{file=dim7.eps,width=2.8in}
1590: \label{fig:Bviolation}
1591: \caption{A leading operator contributing to baryon number violation.}
1592: \end{center}
1593: \end{figure}
1594:
1595: \subsection{Precision Unification}
1596: \label{Sec: A Precision Unification}
1597:
1598: In Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Precision Unification}, we showed that the effects of
1599: higher loop running are encoded in the anomalous dimensions of
1600: the light fields. In accelerated unification models,
1601: we must also include contributions from the new light
1602: fields. In addition to the second pair of Higgs doublets,
1603: there are also pseudo-Goldstone bosons (PGBs),
1604: as we will now discuss. The
1605: mass of these particles is the largest source of
1606: imprecision in the gauge coupling unification prediction.
1607:
1608: The superpotential of Eq.~(\ref{Eq: SymSuperpotential}) has a
1609: global $SU(3)$ symmetry. The breaking
1610: to the diagonal will in general give rise to Goldstone bosons. In the
1611: $SU(3)$ color sector, all such particles get a mass from gauge interactions.
1612: For the $SU(3)_{L}$ and $SU(3)_R$ sectors, this is not the case.
1613: The condition to lift these PGBs is $\det \mu_I \ne 0$.
1614: While renormalization group evolution
1615: splits the $\mu$ parameters, it will not cause the determinant to flow
1616: to a non-zero value, although GUT-scale threshold corrections could make
1617: this determinant non-zero. The mass
1618: of the PGBs will then RG evolve as $\det \mu$ evolves.
1619: If the $SU(3)$ breaking couplings are larger than the
1620: $SU(3)$ preserving superpotential couplings, then $\det \mu$
1621: will flow away from zero. We will not specify the mass of these particles,
1622: but will summarize their possible effect on unification at the end of
1623: this section.
1624:
1625: We now apply the formalism of Appendix A to accelerated unification.
1626: The difference between the $SU(3)$ and $SU(2)$ couplings is
1627: %%
1628: \begin{eqnarray}
1629: \nonumber
1630: \Delta^{32}\equiv \frac{8\pi^2}{g_3^2(\mu)} - \frac{8\pi^2}{g_2^2(\mu)} &=&
1631: \left[\Delta b^{32}_{\text{MSSM}}\log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu} + \Delta
1632: b^{32}_{\text{AU}} \log \frac{\Lambda}{\langle\Sigma\rangle} \right]\\
1633: \nonumber&&
1634: + \delta z_{\psi}^{32} + \delta z_{h}^{32}
1635: + 3 \log \frac{g^2_A(\Lambda) g^2_B(\Lambda)}{g^2_3(\mu)}
1636: - 2 \log \frac{g^2_A(\Lambda) g^2_B(\Lambda)}{g^2_2(\mu)} \\
1637: &&
1638: + \delta b^{32}_h\log\frac{\langle \Sigma\rangle}{\mu_{H}} + \delta
1639: b^{32}_{\PGB_L}\log\frac{\langle \Sigma\rangle}{m_{\PGB_L}},
1640: \label{Eq: PrecisionA32}
1641: \end{eqnarray}
1642: %%
1643: where $\mu_{H}$ is the mass of the second pair of Higgs doublets,
1644: $\Delta b^{32}_{\text{MSSM}}$ is the difference between beta functions
1645: in the MSSM, and
1646: $\Delta b^{32}_{\text{AU}} \equiv \Delta b^{32}_A+ \Delta b^{32}_B - \Delta
1647: b^{32}_{\text{MSSM}}$
1648: is the difference between beta function coefficients
1649: for the additional accelerated unification fields. When $\NN=2$,
1650: \mbox{$\Delta b^{32}_{\text{AU}}=\Delta b^{32}_{\text{MSSM}}= -4$.}
1651: The quantity in brackets reproduces the MSSM one loop prediction.
1652: The $\log Z$'s of the
1653: light fields
1654: %%
1655: \begin{eqnarray}
1656: \delta z_\psi^{32} = \half \log \prod_{f=1}^{3} \frac{ Z_{u^c_f} Z_{d^c_f}}{Z_{q_f}
1657: Z_{l_f}},
1658: \hspace{0.4in}
1659: \delta z_h^{32} = -\half \log Z_{h_u} Z_{h_d}Z_{h_e} Z_{h_\nu},
1660: \end{eqnarray}
1661: %%
1662: are evaluated by integrating the anomalous dimensions from
1663: $\Lambda$ down to $\mu$. The final terms arise from the second
1664: pair of Higgs doublets and the PGBs in the left sector, with
1665: %%
1666: \begin{equation}
1667: \delta b^{32}_{h} =-1 \hspace{0.5in} \delta b^{32}_{\PGB_L}= -1.
1668: \end{equation}
1669: %%
1670: If the masses of these particles were precisely
1671: at the scale of diagonal breaking, they would not contribute
1672: any additional deviation. However, in the model presented here the
1673: masses are essentially free parameters.
1674: The mass of the
1675: extra Higgs multiplet depends sensitively on the values of the various
1676: $\mu$ parameters. A similar calculation
1677: for the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ couplings yields,
1678: %%%
1679: \begin{eqnarray}
1680: \nonumber
1681: \Delta^{21} \equiv \frac{8\pi^2}{g_2^2(\mu)} - \frac{8\pi^2}{g_1^2(\mu)} &=&
1682: \left[\Delta b^{21}_{\text{MSSM}}\log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu} + \Delta
1683: b^{21}_{\text{AU}} \log \frac{\Lambda}{\langle\Sigma\rangle} \right] \\
1684: &+& 2 \log \frac{g^2_A(\Lambda) g^2_B(\Lambda)}{g^2_2(\mu)}
1685: + \delta z_{\psi}^{21} + \delta z_{h}^{21}
1686: + \delta b^{21}_h \log\frac{\langle \Sigma\rangle}{\mu_{H}} \\
1687: &+& \delta b^{21}_{\PGB_L} \log\frac{\langle \Sigma\rangle}{m_{\PGB_L}}
1688: + \delta b^{21}_{\PGB_R} \log\frac{\langle \Sigma\rangle}{m_{\PGB_R}},
1689: \end{eqnarray}
1690: %%
1691: with $\Delta b^{21}_{\text{MSSM}}=\Delta b^{21}_{\text{AU}}=-18/5$.
1692: %%
1693: The $\log Z$s of the light fields are
1694: %%
1695: \begin{eqnarray}
1696: \delta z_\psi^{21} = \frac{1}{5} \log \Pi_f \frac{ Z_{q_f}^7 Z_{l_f}}{Z_{u^c_f}^4
1697: Z_{d^c_f} Z_{e^c}^3},
1698: \hspace{0.4in}
1699: \delta z_h^{21} = \frac{1}{5} \log Z_{h_u} Z_{h_d}Z_{h_e} Z_{h_\nu}.
1700: \end{eqnarray}
1701: %%
1702: Finally, the additional Higgs doublets and the PGBs
1703: contribute to the beta function coefficients
1704: %%
1705: \begin{eqnarray}
1706: \delta b^{21}_h= \frac{2}{5},
1707: \hspace{0.5in}
1708: \delta b^{21}_{\PGB_L}= \frac{2}{5} ,
1709: \hspace{0.5in}
1710: \delta b^{21}_{\PGB_R}= - \frac{12}{5} .
1711: \end{eqnarray}
1712: %%
1713: For the moment, let us assume that these additional light fields
1714: are degenerate with the remainder of the multiplet.
1715: In this case, we find the ratio
1716: %%
1717: \begin{eqnarray}
1718: \frac{\Delta^{32}}{\Delta^{21}} \simeq 0.721.
1719: \end{eqnarray}
1720: %%
1721: This result is insensitive to the choice of ${\alpha_{A}^{-1}}$.
1722: Making the more reasonable choice that the PGBs and the extra Higgs
1723: multiplet are two $e$-folds below
1724: the rest of the multiplet, we find $\Delta^{32}/\Delta^{21} = 0.716$.
1725: Again, we conclude that none of the calculable corrections to unifications
1726: are very large.
1727: However, if the masses deviate too far from the diagonal breaking scale
1728: the corrections from the PGBs can be non-negligible.
1729: Moreover, when $\NN > 2$, there are more PGBs, which can amplify these
1730: effects.
1731:
1732: There are of course additional threshold corrections. As before, there
1733: are the corrections from SUSY breaking. Also, since
1734: there are two copies of $SU(3)^3$
1735: near the GUT scale, the high energy particle content is double that
1736: of the MSSM. So, the naive expectation for GUT scale threshold corrections is
1737: that they should be roughly double those of the MSSM.
1738: An interesting possibility arises in accelerated unification that is
1739: not present in the MSSM. In Sec.~\ref{Sec: P Decay} we showed
1740: that proton decay is suppressed, so it is possible for
1741: the colored Higgs triplets that mediate proton decay to be much lighter
1742: than the GUT scale. This leads to a threshold correction that improves
1743: the unification of the couplings. In the minimal SU(5) GUT, such a
1744: threshold correction would be desirable, but is forbidden by proton decay
1745: \cite{Murayama:2001ur}.
1746:
1747: \section{Conclusions}
1748:
1749: Gauge coupling unification
1750: places a natural constraint on the structure of potential gauge
1751: extensions of the MSSM.
1752: Moreover, it limits the size of the new gauge couplings under which the Higgs
1753: boson may be charged. The result is that the Higgs mass cannot be too heavy,
1754: even in models with extended gauge structure. Accelerated unification
1755: seems to be the best hope for realizing a heavier Higgs mass, but due to
1756: the presence of pseudo-Goldstone bosons, unification becomes somewhat delicate.
1757:
1758: In the models discussed here, a host of new states associated with the
1759: breaking should be found at the 3-10 TeV scale. In the accelerated
1760: unification model, it is likely that the lightest state would be one of
1761: the PGBs. The precise mass of this particle depends on the breaking of
1762: the GUT symmetry. We now discuss precision electroweak constraints, which
1763: set the mass of the new vector bosons.
1764:
1765: \subsection{Constraints}
1766:
1767: Precision electroweak constraints on these models arise from interactions
1768: between the heavy vector bosons and the Standard Model fermions and Higgs.
1769: One might worry that these considerations significantly constrain
1770: the theory; in order to maximize non-decoupling $D$-terms we
1771: need the Standard Model gauge couplings to be as strong as possible, which
1772: means that the heavy vector bosons couple with $\OO(1)$ strength to the
1773: Standard Model fermions. However, because these new vectors are not
1774: responsible for cutting off the gauge quadratic divergences to the Higgs, they
1775: can be quite heavy without fine-tuning.
1776: Instead, the heavy vectors cut off divergent contributions to
1777: the Higgs mass arising from the modified quartic coupling, so
1778: the vectors may comfortably lie in the 3 -- 10 TeV range.
1779:
1780: To see this, it is useful to introduce mixing angles $\theta_i$
1781: for the gauge fields, obeying
1782: %%%
1783: \begin{eqnarray}
1784: \sin^2 \theta_i =\frac{g^2_{i,\SM}}{g^2_{i,A}},
1785: \hspace{0.3in} \cos^2 \theta_i =\frac{g^2_{i,\SM}}{g^2_{i,B}}.
1786: \end{eqnarray}
1787: %%
1788: The heavy vectors, which we denote $A_i$,
1789: couple to the to the MSSM via the interaction
1790: %%
1791: \begin{eqnarray}
1792: \LL_{\eff}= - g_{i,\SM} \cot \theta_i\, A_i^\mu j_{\mu i, \SM} +
1793: \frac{g_{i,SM}^2f^2}{\sin 2\theta_i} (A_i^\mu)^2.
1794: \end{eqnarray}
1795: %%
1796: At low energies
1797: the $A_i$ may be integrated out to give the current-current interaction
1798: %%
1799: \begin{eqnarray}
1800: \LL_{\text{eff}} = \frac{\cos^4\theta_i}{ 2f^2} j^\mu_{i,\SM}
1801: j_{\mu\text{SM}}
1802: .\end{eqnarray}
1803: %%
1804: These terms contribute to the $W,Y,Z$ extended oblique corrections,
1805: which are constrained experimentally, implying a constraint
1806: \cite{Barbieri:2004qk}
1807: %%
1808: \begin{eqnarray}
1809: \frac{f_{L,R}}{\cos^2 \theta_{L,R}} \gsim 3.5 \TeV.
1810: \end{eqnarray}
1811: %%
1812: Thus even for $\cos\theta_{L,R}\sim 1$ the breaking scales can be 3.5 TeV and
1813: vectors will be under 10 TeV.
1814:
1815: \subsection{Future Directions}
1816:
1817: There are several potential directions for future work. As noted in the text,
1818: the theories under consideration are very similar to
1819: deconstructed models of gaugino mediation.
1820: It would be interesting to determine whether the link fields can
1821: communicate SUSY breaking to the MSSM. Once a SUSY breaking scenario is
1822: specified, either this mechanism or another,
1823: it would be possible to discuss spectroscopy
1824: and unification in further detail. It would also be of interest to explore
1825: the supersymmetric four Higgs doublet in more detail. In principle, the experimental limits on the Higgs boson can be modified.
1826:
1827:
1828: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1829: We thank Nima Arkani-Hamed, Puneet Batra, Spencer Chang, Savas Dimopoulos,
1830: Howie Haber, Shamit Kachru, Ami Katz, Michael Peskin, and Eric Poppitz
1831: for useful discussions.
1832:
1833: \appendix
1834: \section{Precision Unification and Holomorphy}
1835: In supersymmetric theories, threshold corrections are constrained by holomorphy.
1836: This technique can be applied to calculate corrections to unification
1837: in any model where holomorphy is a useful constraint (i.e. when there are
1838: large supersymmetric masses).
1839:
1840: Our first result is that threshold effects from mass splittings
1841: cancel against higher loop corrections \cite{NSVZ,NimaHitoshi}. To see
1842: this, consider the exact NSVZ beta function \cite{NSVZ}
1843: %%
1844: \begin{eqnarray}
1845: \beta_g = \frac{g^3}{16\pi^2} \frac{ b_0 - \sum_a T_2(a) \gamma_a}{1 - C_2
1846: \frac{g^2}{8 \pi^2}},
1847: \end{eqnarray}
1848: %%
1849: where $b_0 = -3 C_2 + \sum_a T_2(a)$.
1850: This can be integrated to give
1851: %%
1852: \begin{eqnarray}
1853: \label{Eq: Int NSVZ}
1854: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(\mu)} + C_2 \log g^2(\mu)
1855: = \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g^2(\Lambda)
1856: + b_0 \log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu} - \sum_a T_2(a) \log Z_a(\mu, \Lambda).
1857: \end{eqnarray}
1858: %%
1859: Now consider integrating out a massive matter field (like the link fields, $\Sigma$).
1860: Gauge couplings are matched at the physical mass of the
1861: field, $m_r$, which differs from the
1862: holomorphic mass $m$ (which appears in the superpotential)
1863: by a factor of the wave function renormalization: $m = Z(m_r, \Lambda) m_r$.
1864: Thus, the $\log Z$ that appears in the NSVZ formula can be combined with a
1865: holomorphic mass to recover a running mass. So, it is possible to write a
1866: RG invariant matching equation exclusively in terms of holomorphic quantities:
1867: %%
1868: \begin{eqnarray}
1869: \label{Eq: Holo Match}
1870: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_\LE(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g^2_\LE(\Lambda)=
1871: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2_\HE(\Lambda)}+ C_2 \log g^2_\HE(\Lambda) - \log \frac{\Lambda}{m}.
1872: \end{eqnarray}
1873: %%
1874: Here $g^2_\LE(\Lambda)$ and $g^2_\HE(\Lambda)$ are the low energy
1875: and high energy gauge couplings defined at the cut-off $\Lambda$; they
1876: have one loop beta functions $b_{0,\LE}$ and $b_{0,\HE}$ respectively that
1877: differ by one.
1878: Using the NSVZ beta function, one can verify
1879: that Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Holo Match}) is equivalent the matching
1880: the high energy and low energy gauge couplings at the
1881: physical mass scale.
1882: However, Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Holo Match})
1883: is valid all scales, including at the cut-off,
1884: where there clearly has been no running to split $m$.
1885: Thus, complete GUT multiplets will lead to a small deviation from the
1886: MSSM prediction. The dominant effect is indirect: the gauge
1887: coupling RG trajectories are deflected by the presence of
1888: the $\Sigma$ fields, which in turn contributes to the last term
1889: in Eq.~(\ref{Eq: Int NSVZ}) for the light MSSM fields.
1890:
1891: A second potential source of modifications to unification comes from
1892: the breaking of extended gauge symmetry. We must apply a
1893: matching condition when $G \times G_{GUT} \rightarrow G_{SM}$.
1894: The usual matching conditions
1895: %%
1896: \begin{eqnarray}
1897: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(m_{V,\phys})} =
1898: \frac{8\pi^2}{g_A^2(m_{V,\phys})}
1899: +\frac{8\pi^2}{g_B^2(m_{V,\phys})}, \hspace{0.4in}
1900: \left(\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(m_{X,\phys})}\right)_{-} =
1901: \left(\frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(m_{X,\phys})}\right)_{+},
1902: \end{eqnarray}
1903: are reproduced by the RG invariant matching equation
1904: %%
1905: \begin{eqnarray}
1906: \label{Eq: P RGInv}
1907: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g^2(\Lambda) =
1908: \frac{8\pi^2}{g_A^2(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g_A^2(\Lambda)
1909: +\frac{8\pi^2}{g_B^2(\Lambda)} + C_2^{B} \log g_B^2(\Lambda)
1910: - C_2^{B} \log \frac{\Lambda^2}{\langle\Sigma \Sigma^c\rangle}.
1911: \end{eqnarray}
1912: %%
1913: Here $\langle\Sigma\rangle$ and $\langle\Sigma^c\rangle$ are the vevs of the
1914: fields that break the gauge symmetry, and we have used
1915: $C_{2}^{SM}=C_{2}^{A} \equiv C_{2}$. We have also
1916: used expressions for the renormalized gauge boson masses:
1917: \begin{eqnarray}
1918: M_{V}^{2} &=& Z(M_{V}, \Lambda) \langle\Sigma \Sigma^c\rangle (g_{A}^{2} +
1919: g_{B}^{2})_{M_{V}^{2}} \\
1920: M_{X}^{2} &=& Z(M_{X}, \Lambda) \langle\Sigma \Sigma^c\rangle
1921: (g_{B}^{2})_{M_{V}^{2}} .
1922: \end{eqnarray}
1923: Applying the above RG invariant matching condition gives rise
1924: to Eq.~(\ref{Eq: P 32 Diff}) for product unification.
1925:
1926: For accelerated unification, the RG invariant matching equation is similar.
1927: The analog of Eq.~(\ref{Eq: P RGInv}) is:
1928: \begin{eqnarray}
1929: \nonumber
1930: \frac{8\pi^2}{g^2(\mu)} + C_2 \log g^2(\mu) &=&
1931: \frac{8\pi^2}{g_A^2(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g_A^2(\Lambda)
1932: +\frac{8\pi^2}{g_B^2(\Lambda)} + C_2 \log g_B^2(\Lambda)\\
1933: &&\nonumber
1934: - C_2 \log \frac{\Lambda^2}{\langle\Sigma \Sigma^c\rangle}
1935: + b_{\phi} \log \frac{\Lambda}{m_\phi}\\
1936: &&
1937: + b_{0,\text{light}} \log \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}- \sum_{a} T_2(a) \log
1938: Z_a(\mu,\Lambda).
1939: \end{eqnarray}
1940: We have used $C_{2} =C^{A}_{2} =C^{B}_{2}$, and integrated out the $\phi$ multiplet
1941: at its holomorphic mass. In this case, there
1942: are additional light states in the sum, namely the pseudo-Goldstone bosons
1943: and Higgs
1944: multiplets discussed in the text.
1945:
1946: \section{D-Terms and Tadpoles}
1947: In this appendix, we give general expressions for the masses
1948: of $M_{V_{H}}$, $S$, $\phi$, and $\eta$, taking into account the possibility
1949: of a SUSY breaking induced tadpole for the $S$ field.
1950: After including the supersymmetry breaking, as in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:spurion}),
1951: and restricting attention to the field $S$, there is a linear source term:
1952: %%
1953: \begin{eqnarray}
1954: \nonumber
1955: W&=&
1956: ((a-b)\mu- m^2)\theta^2 \sqrt{6} \frac{\mu}{\lambda} S
1957: - \mu(1 + (2a-b)\theta^2 ) \frac{S^2}{2}
1958: + \frac{\lambda}{3\sqrt{6}}(1+a\theta^2)S^3 \\
1959: K&=& (1+ m^2\theta^4) S^\dagger S .
1960: \end{eqnarray}
1961: %%
1962: We may shift $S$ by a constant to remove this term,
1963: %%
1964: \begin{eqnarray}
1965: S \rightarrow S+ J \hspace{0.5in} J=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{\lambda}(-j_S\mu +
1966: j_F\mu^2\theta^2) .
1967: \end{eqnarray}
1968: %%
1969: Solving for $j_S$ and $j_F$,
1970: %%
1971: \begin{eqnarray}
1972: \label{Eq: Source Eq1}
1973: &&j_F = -j_S - j_S^2\\
1974: &&\frac{ \mu^2 - m^2 + (2a - b)\mu}{\mu^2} j_S
1975: + \Big( 3 + \frac{a}{\mu}\Big) j_S^2
1976: + 2 j_S^3=\frac{(m^2 + (b-a)\mu)}{\mu^2}.
1977: \end{eqnarray}
1978: %%
1979: This shift affects the Kahler term for $V_H$:
1980: %%
1981: \begin{eqnarray}
1982: K= g_H^2\frac{\mu^2}{\lambda^2}\left( 1+ j_S\right)^2
1983: \left(1+ \left(m^2+ \mu^2 \frac{j_F^2}{(1+ j_S)^2}\right)\theta^4\right)
1984: \Tr V_H^2 .
1985: \end{eqnarray}
1986: %%
1987: This expression summarizes how SUSY breaking is communicated to the vector
1988: multiplet.
1989: We must also check that the other scalar masses
1990: %%
1991: \begin{eqnarray}
1992: \nonumber
1993: \frac{m_S^2}{\mu^2} &=& \Big( 1 + 2 j_S\Big)^2 + \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}
1994: \pm \Big( \frac{2a - b}{\mu} -2 \Big( j_F - \frac{a}{\mu} j_S\Big) \Big)\\
1995: \nonumber
1996: \frac{m_\phi^2}{\mu^2} &=& \Big( 2 + j_S\Big)^2 + \frac{m^2}{\mu^2}
1997: \pm \Big( \frac{a+ b}{\mu} - \Big( j_F - \frac{a}{\mu} j_S\Big) \Big)\\
1998: \frac{m_\eta^2}{\mu^2} &=& \left( (3 + 2j_S)^{2} + 2 j_{S}^{2} +\frac{m^{2}}{\mu^{2}} \right) \mp
1999: 3\left[4 j_S^2 -5 j_{S} -\frac{m^{2}}{\mu^{2}} + (1+ j_{S}) \frac{a}{\mu} \right]
2000: \end{eqnarray}
2001: %%
2002: remain positive.
2003: It may be shown that these masses remain positive over large regions of
2004: parameter space.
2005: However, as described in the text, it is sufficient to note that when
2006: $a=0$ and $j_{S} = j_{F} =0$ the masses are positive whenever
2007: $m^{2} > -\mu^{2}/2$.
2008:
2009: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2010:
2011: \bibitem{Barate:2003sz}
2012: R.~Barate {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
2013: %``Search for the standard model Higgs boson at LEP,''
2014: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565}, 61 (2003)
2015: [arXiv:hep-ex/0306033].
2016: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0306033;%%
2017:
2018: %\cite{Kane:2004tk}
2019: \bibitem{Kane:2004tk}
2020: G.~L.~Kane, B.~D.~Nelson, L.~T.~Wang and T.~T.~Wang,
2021: %``Theoretical implications of the LEP Higgs search,''
2022: arXiv:hep-ph/0407001.
2023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407001;%%
2024: %\cite{Batra:2003nj}
2025:
2026: \bibitem{DEKPuneet}
2027: P.~Batra, A.~Delgado, D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
2028: %``The Higgs mass bound in gauge extensions of the minimal supersymmetric
2029: %standard model,''
2030: JHEP {\bf 0402}, 043 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0309149].
2031: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309149;%%
2032:
2033: %\cite{Batra:2004vc}
2034: \bibitem{DEKPuneet2}
2035: P.~Batra, A.~Delgado, D.~E.~Kaplan and T.~M.~P.~Tait,
2036: %``Running into new territory in SUSY parameter space,''
2037: JHEP {\bf 0406}, 032 (2004)
2038: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404251].
2039: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404251;%%
2040:
2041: %\cite{Harnik:2003rs}
2042: \bibitem{Harnik:2003rs}
2043: R.~Harnik, G.~D.~Kribs, D.~T.~Larson and H.~Murayama,
2044: %``The minimal supersymmetric fat Higgs model,''
2045: arXiv:hep-ph/0311349;
2046: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311349;%%
2047: %\cite{Chang:2004db}
2048: %\bibitem{Chang:2004db}
2049: S.~Chang, C.~Kilic and R.~Mahbubani,
2050: %``The new fat Higgs: Slimmer and more attractive,''
2051: arXiv:hep-ph/0405267.
2052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405267;%%
2053:
2054: %\cite{Birkedal:2004xi}
2055: \bibitem{Birkedal:2004xi}
2056: A.~Birkedal, Z.~Chacko and M.~K.~Gaillard,
2057: %``Little supersymmetry and the supersymmetric little hierarchy problem,''
2058: arXiv:hep-ph/0404197.
2059: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404197;%%
2060:
2061: \bibitem{Polonsky}
2062: N.~Polonsky and S.~Su,
2063: %``More corrections to the Higgs mass in supersymmetry,''
2064: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 103 (2001)
2065: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010113];
2066: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010113;%%
2067: P.~Langacker, N.~Polonsky and J.~Wang,
2068: %``A low-energy solution to the mu-problem in gauge mediation,''
2069: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 115005 (1999)
2070: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905252].
2071: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905252;%%
2072:
2073:
2074: %\cite{Dimopoulos:1981zb}
2075: \bibitem{Savas}
2076: S.~Dimopoulos and H.~Georgi,
2077: %``Softly Broken Supersymmetry And SU(5),''
2078: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193}, 150 (1981);
2079: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,150;%%
2080: %\bibitem{SavasRaby}
2081: S.~Dimopoulos, S.~Raby and F.~Wilczek,
2082: %``Supersymmetry And The Scale Of Unification,''
2083: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 1681 (1981).
2084: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,1681;%%
2085:
2086: \bibitem{LR}
2087: L.~Randall. Talk at SUSY 2002.
2088:
2089: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001vr}
2090: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
2091: %``Accelerated unification,''
2092: arXiv:hep-th/0108089.
2093: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0108089;%%
2094:
2095: \bibitem{MissingPartner}
2096: B.~Grinstein,
2097: %``A Supersymmetric SU(5) Gauge Theory With No Gauge Hierarchy Problem,''
2098: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 206}, 387 (1982).
2099: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B206,387;%%
2100: %
2101: %\cite{Masiero:1982fe}
2102: %\bibitem{Masiero:1982fe}
2103: A.~Masiero, D.~V.~Nanopoulos, K.~Tamvakis and T.~Yanagida,
2104: %``Naturally Massless Higgs Doublets In Supersymmetric SU(5),''
2105: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 115}, 380 (1982).
2106: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,380;%%
2107:
2108: \bibitem{NMSSM}
2109: P.~Fayet,
2110: %``Fermi-Bose Hypersymmetry,''
2111: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 113}, 135 (1976);
2112: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B113,135;%%
2113: %\bibitem{Nilles:1982dy}
2114: H.~P.~Nilles, M.~Srednicki and D.~Wyler,
2115: %``Weak Interaction Breakdown Induced By Supergravity,''
2116: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 120}, 346 (1983).
2117: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B120,346;%%
2118: J.~P.~Derendinger and C.~A.~Savoy,
2119: %``Quantum Effects And SU(2) X U(1) Breaking In Supergravity Gauge Theories,''
2120: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 237}, 307 (1984).
2121: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B237,307;%%
2122: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~F.~Gunion, H.~E.~Haber, L.~Roszkowski and F.~Zwirner,
2123: %``Higgs Bosons In A Nonminimal Supersymmetric Model,''
2124: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39}, 844 (1989).
2125: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,844;%%
2126:
2127: \bibitem{MSSMHiggsBound}
2128: J.~R.~Ellis, G.~Ridolfi and F.~Zwirner,
2129: %``Radiative Corrections To The Masses Of Supersymmetric Higgs Bosons,''
2130: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257}, 83 (1991);
2131: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,83;%%
2132: Y.~Okada, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,
2133: %``Upper Bound Of The Lightest Higgs Boson Mass In The Minimal Supersymmetric
2134: %Standard Model,''
2135: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 85}, 1 (1991);
2136: %%CITATION = PTPKA,85,1;%%
2137: H.~E.~Haber and R.~Hempfling,
2138: %``Can The Mass Of The Lightest Higgs Boson Of The Minimal Supersymmetric Model
2139: %Be Larger Than M(Z)?,''
2140: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 66}, 1815 (1991).
2141: %%CITATION = PRLTA,66,1815;%%
2142:
2143: \bibitem{Espinosa}
2144: J.~R.~Espinosa and M.~Quiros,
2145: %``Gauge unification and the supersymmetric light Higgs mass,''
2146: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 516 (1998)
2147: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804235].
2148: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804235;%%
2149:
2150: \bibitem{KaneKolda}
2151: G.~L.~Kane, C.~F.~Kolda and J.~D.~Wells,
2152: %``Calculable upper limit on the mass of the lightest Higgs boson in any
2153: %perturbatively valid supersymmetric theory,''
2154: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70}, 2686 (1993)
2155: [arXiv:hep-ph/9210242].
2156: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9210242;%%
2157:
2158: \bibitem{PDG}
2159: %\bibitem{Eidelman:2004wy}
2160: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
2161: %``Review of particle physics,''
2162: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
2163: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
2164:
2165: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
2166: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
2167: \bibitem{Deconstruction}
2168: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.~G.~Cohen and H.~Georgi,
2169: %``(De)constructing dimensions,''
2170: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 4757 (2001)
2171: [arXiv:hep-th/0104005].
2172: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0104005;%%
2173:
2174: \bibitem{DeconGauge}
2175: C.~Csaki, J.~Erlich, C.~Grojean and G.~D.~Kribs,
2176: %``4D constructions of supersymmetric extra dimensions and gaugino mediation,''
2177: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 015003 (2002)
2178: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106044];
2179: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106044;%%
2180: H.~C.~Cheng, D.~E.~Kaplan, M.~Schmaltz and W.~Skiba,
2181: %``Deconstructing gaugino mediation,''
2182: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515}, 395 (2001)
2183: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106098].
2184: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106098;%%
2185:
2186: \bibitem{Transparent}
2187: D.~E.~Kaplan, G.~D.~Kribs and M.~Schmaltz,
2188: %``Supersymmetry breaking through transparent extra dimensions,''
2189: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 035010 (2000)
2190: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911293].
2191: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911293;%%
2192:
2193: %\cite{Glashow:gc}
2194: \bibitem{Trinified}
2195: S.~L.~Glashow,
2196: %``Trinification Of All Elementary Particle Forces,''
2197: Print-84-0577 (BOSTON);
2198: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=print-84-0577\%2F(boston)}{SPIRES
2199: %entry}
2200: %%\cite{Lazarides:sn}
2201: %\bibitem{Lazarides:sn}
2202: G.~Lazarides, C.~Panagiotakopoulos and Q.~Shafi,
2203: %``Supersymmetric Unification Without Proton Decay,''
2204: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315}, 325 (1993)
2205: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 317}, 661 (1993)]
2206: [arXiv:hep-ph/9306332].
2207: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306332;%%
2208:
2209: %\cite{Drees:1988fc}
2210: \bibitem{Drees:1988fc}
2211: M.~Drees,
2212: %``Supersymmetric Models With Extended Higgs Sector,''
2213: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 4}, 3635 (1989).
2214: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A4,3635;%%
2215:
2216: \bibitem{NSVZ}
2217: %\cite{Shifman:1986zi}
2218: %\bibitem{Shifman:1986zi}
2219: M.~A.~Shifman and A.~I.~Vainshtein,
2220: %``Solution Of The Anomaly Puzzle In Susy Gauge Theories And The Wilson Operator
2221: %Expansion,''
2222: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 277}, 456 (1986)
2223: [Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 64}, 428 (1986\ ZETFA,91,723-744.1986)].
2224: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B277,456;%%
2225: %
2226: %\cite{Novikov:1983uc}
2227: %\bibitem{Novikov:1983uc}
2228: V.~A.~Novikov, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
2229: %``Exact Gell-Mann-Low Function Of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories From
2230: %Instanton Calculus,''
2231: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 229}, 381 (1983).
2232: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B229,381;%%
2233: %
2234: %\cite{Novikov:1985ic}
2235: %\bibitem{Novikov:1985ic}
2236: V.~A.~Novikov, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
2237: %``Supersymmetric Instanton Calculus: Gauge Theories With Matter,''
2238: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 260}, 157 (1985)
2239: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 42}, 1499 (1985)].
2240: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B260,157;%%
2241: %
2242: %\cite{Shifman:1985fi}
2243: %\bibitem{Shifman:1985fi}
2244: M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
2245: %``Exact Gell-Mann-Low Function In Supersymmetric Electrodynamics,''
2246: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 166}, 334 (1986).
2247: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B166,334;%%
2248:
2249: \bibitem{NimaHitoshi}
2250: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997ut}
2251: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1997ut}
2252: N.~Arkani-Hamed and H.~Murayama,
2253: %``Renormalization group invariance of exact results in supersymmetric gauge
2254: %theories,''
2255: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 6638 (1998)
2256: [arXiv:hep-th/9705189].
2257: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9705189;%%
2258: %
2259: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1997mj}
2260: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1997mj}
2261: N.~Arkani-Hamed and H.~Murayama,
2262: %``Holomorphy, rescaling anomalies and exact beta functions in supersymmetric
2263: %gauge theories,''
2264: JHEP {\bf 0006}, 030 (2000)
2265: [arXiv:hep-th/9707133].
2266: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9707133;%%
2267:
2268: \bibitem{Linear Term}
2269: %\cite{Bagger:1993ji}
2270: %\bibitem{Bagger:1993ji}
2271: J.~Bagger and E.~Poppitz,
2272: %``Destabilizing divergences in supergravity coupled supersymmetric theories,''
2273: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 2380 (1993)
2274: [arXiv:hep-ph/9307317].
2275: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307317;%%
2276: %
2277: %\cite{Bagger:1995ay}
2278: %\bibitem{Bagger:1995ay}
2279: J.~Bagger, E.~Poppitz and L.~Randall,
2280: %``Destabilizing divergences in supergravity theories at two loops,''
2281: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 455}, 59 (1995)
2282: [arXiv:hep-ph/9505244].
2283: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9505244;%%
2284: %\cite{Jain:1994tk}
2285: %\bibitem{Jain:1994tk}
2286: V.~Jain,
2287: %``On destabilizing divergencies in supergravity models,''
2288: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 351}, 481 (1995)
2289: [arXiv:hep-ph/9407382].
2290: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407382;%%
2291: %
2292: %\cite{Panagiotakopoulos:1999ah}
2293: %\bibitem{Panagiotakopoulos:1999ah}
2294: C.~Panagiotakopoulos and K.~Tamvakis,
2295: %``New minimal extension of MSSM,''
2296: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 469} (1999) 145
2297: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908351].
2298: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908351;%%
2299: %
2300: %\cite{Panagiotakopoulos:2000wp}
2301: %\bibitem{Panagiotakopoulos:2000wp}
2302: C.~Panagiotakopoulos and A.~Pilaftsis,
2303: %``Higgs scalars in the minimal non-minimal supersymmetric standard model,''
2304: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 055003 (2001)
2305: [arXiv:hep-ph/0008268].
2306: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008268;%%
2307: %
2308: %\cite{Dedes:2000jp}
2309: %\bibitem{Dedes:2000jp}
2310: A.~Dedes, C.~Hugonie, S.~Moretti and K.~Tamvakis,
2311: %``Phenomenology of a new minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard
2312: %model,''
2313: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 055009 (2001)
2314: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009125].
2315: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009125;%%
2316:
2317: \bibitem{Tuhin}
2318: T.~Roy,
2319: %``Unification, Multiplets and Proton Decay,''
2320: arXiv:hep-ph/0408291.
2321: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408291;%%
2322:
2323: \bibitem{Murayama:2001ur}
2324: H.~Murayama and A.~Pierce,
2325: %``Not even decoupling can save minimal supersymmetric SU(5),''
2326: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 055009 (2002)
2327: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108104].
2328: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108104;%%
2329:
2330: %\cite{Barbieri:2004qk}
2331: \bibitem{Barbieri:2004qk}
2332: R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol, R.~Rattazzi and A.~Strumia,
2333: %``Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP1 and LEP2,''
2334: arXiv:hep-ph/0405040.
2335: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405040;%%
2336:
2337: \end{thebibliography}
2338:
2339: \end{document}
2340: